,.^.. % IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I li^|2| |2.5 i Hi 110 Hii& 1 1.25 1 1.4 |||||i/s ^ 6" ► % ^ f v: '/ ^5. Photographic Sdaices Corporation m v iV •^ ^ ^ .v> O^ <^ ^J^ 33 WIST MAIN SfRKT WHSTIR.N.Y. I45S0 (716) S73-4S03 •% CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHIVI/ICIVIH Collection de mi Canadian Instituta for Historical IVIicroraproductiona Institut Canadian da microraproductions historiquat 1980 Tachnical and Bibliographic Notos/Notas tachniquas at bibliographiquaa Th to Tha Inttituta has attamptad to obtain tha bast original copy availabia for filming. Faaturas of this copy which may ba bibliographicaiiy uniqua, which may altar any of tha imagas in tha raproduction, or which may aignif icantly changa tha usual mathod of filming, ara chaclcad balow. n D □ D El Colourad covars/ Couvartura da coulaur I I Covars damagad/ Couvartura andommagia Covars rastorad and/or laminatad/ Couvartura rastaurAa at/ou palliculAa I I Covar titia missing/ La titra da couvartura manqua |~~1 Colourad maps/ Cartas gAographlquas an coulaur Colourad ink (i.a. othar than blua or blacic)/ Encra da coulaur (i.a. autra qua blaua ou noira) I I Colourad platas and/or illustrations/ Planchas et/ou illustrations an coulaur Bound with othar matarial/ RaliA avac d'autras documants Tight binding may causa shadows or distortion along intarior margin/ La reiiure sarrde paut causar da I'ombra ou da la distortion la long da la marga int6riaura Blank laavas addad during rastoration may appaar within ths taxt. Whanavar possibia, thase hava baan omittad from filming/ II sa paut qua cartainas pagas blanchas ajoutAas lors d'una rastauration apparaissant dans la taxta, mais, lorsqua cala Atait possibia. cas pagas n'ont pas At* film6as. L'Instltut a microfilm* la maillaur axamplaira qu'il lui a *t* possibia da sa procurar. Las details da cat axamplaira qui sont paut-Atra uniquas du point da vua bibliographiqua, qui pauvant modifiar una imaga raproduita, ou qui pauvant axigar una modification dans la mAthoda normala da filmaga sont indiquto ci-dassous. I I Colourad pagas/ Pagas da coulaur Pagas damagad/ Pagas andommagAas □ Pagas rastorad and/or laminatad/ Pagas rastaurAas at/ou palliculAas I ~i Pagas discolourad. stainad or \xiiXBA/ UlI Pagas dAcoiorAas, tachetAes ou piquAes Pagas datached/ Pages d6tach6es \~\y Showthrough/ \—l1 Transparance □ Quality of print varias/ Qualit* inigale da rimpression □ Includes supplementary material/ Comprend du material supplAmentaire n Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalemeni ou partiellement obscurcies par un fauiilet d'errata. une pelure. etc.. ont h\h filmAes A nouveau de fa9on h obtenir la meilleure imaga possible. Th po of fil Or be th( sU ot fir sic or Th sh Til wl Ml dif en bei rig rec ma Additional comments:/ Paging as follows: i-iv; iva-ivz; ivaa-ivnn; Commentairas supplAmentairas: v-Ixxxii; Ixxxila-lxxxllz; Ixxxiiaa-lxxxUss: lxxxiii-cxv;ri-iii]-vi; [11-1359. This item is filmed at tha reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film* au taux da reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X 4 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X Th« copy filmed hare hat been reproduced thanka to the generoaity of: National Library of Canada L'exemplaire fiimA fut reproduit grAce A la gAnAroaitA de: BibliothAque nationale du Canada The imagea appearing here are the beat quality poaaible conaidering the condition end legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Original copiea in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover end ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or iiluatrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — »• (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol y (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Les images suivantes ont At* reproduites avec ie plua grand soin, compte tenu de la condition at de la nettet* de l'exemplaire f ilm«. et en conformity avec ies conditions du contrat de filmege. Lea exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en pepier est ImprimAe sont filmte en commenpant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernlAre pege qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'iilustration. soit par le second piet, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires origineux sont fiimAs en commenpant par la premiere page qui comporte une empreinte d'impreasion ou d'iilustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaftra sur la derniAre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbols -^ signifie "A SUIVRE ", ie symbols 7 signifie "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre filmAs A des taux de reduction diffArents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atre reproduit en un seui clich6, ii est film* A partir de Tangle supArieur gauche, de gauche A droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant ie nombre d'images nAcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mAthode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 1/ I ^'1 I APPENDIX TO THE TWENTY-FIFTH VOLUME OF THE JOURNALS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS DOMINION OF CANADA From the 29th April, 1891, to the 30th September, 1891, both days inclQsive '!{ SESSION isyi I OTTAWA PRINTED BY S. E. DAWSON, PRINTER TO THE QUEEN'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY 18?1 VOLUME XXV. iwn^^-'^w^im _,-.«^^jfcJ i • ( APPENDIX-VOL. I. LIST OF APPENDICES-1891. No. 1. — Reports of the Select Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections relative to certain statements and charges made in connection with the tenders and contracts respecting the Quebec Harbour Works and the Esquimalt Graving Dock ; also relative to the Resignation of Hon. Thomas McGreevy, with minutes of proceedings and evidence attached. Printed lierein. No. 2. — Reports of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts, with evidence given during the various enquiries by said Committee. Printed in Vol. II. No. 3. — Third Report of the Select Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills in re Bill No. 30, for the relief of Jay Spencer Corbin. Xot printed. No. 4. — Report, proceedings and evidence of the Select Committee appointed to enquire into certain charges preferred against the Member for East Northumberland (Mr. Cochrane). Printed in Vol. II. No. 5. — Report of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture and Colonization. Printed in Vol. II. '// r •^r^mm^'^^mmmmm / 54 Victurio. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 REPORTS or TiiK SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS KKI^TIVK T-Com?nittoo appointed to draft a Jluport on the cIuii'^ch (M)ntuincMl in tlie Onlor of Rofer- onco of lltli May, 18!tl Ixxxii to Ixxxiis^ OinlorH of Roforcncc v to xi Analysis of Cbargort xii to xxiii Minutes of Proceedinj^M xxiv to Ixxxi Synopsis of Kxbibits Ixxxiii to exv Hrrata cxviii List of Witnesses cxix Minutes of Kvidence ... 1 to 119.'i Appendix No. 1, Sub-Coniinitteo lieports and Kviduncu 1197 " 1270 Appendix No. 2, Accounts' ]le|)oits — No. 1, on the Books of Larll cei'tuiii statonieiits nutdu in coimuutiop with the tuiulei'N und contracts i'L.-.|)uctin^ tiie pruaent as their First Report, the followinf^ ilcport of their Sub-Committee to which they have unanimously n>freed, viz. : Uei'ort ok Suh-Committee, IIoL'sE OF Commons, 5th June, 18!tl. The Sub-Committee on Privile^^es and Klections have unanimously a^ieed to the annexed Draft Report on the rclerence to them in tlie case of Michael Connolly, a witness rofusinji to produce certain books required by the Committee; and they recommend it to tiie Committee for adoption as the lieport to be submitted to the Jlouse. D. (IIROUAJtD, Chainmn. .INO. S. I). TlIOMl'SON, J. A.CHAPJiKAlJ, DAVID MILLS, ¥. LANCrKLIKK, Draft Kei'okt Submitted uv the Suu-(.'ommittee. The Select Standing Committee on rnvileges and Elections, have the honour to Jleport that in pursuance of tlio reference made to the Committee by the House on tlie eleventh day of May lust, several witnesses h.-ive been in part cxamii\ed, and a iar^e number of documents have been j)roduced. One of the witnesses so examined in part was Michael Connolly, a member of the firm of Larkin, Connolly & Company, mentioned in the reference. The said Michael Connolly's summons required him to produce a number of documents and books of account. The witness having attended with documents and books of account containing entries relating to the matters under enquiry, and being under examination, was re- quired to produce the books and place them under the control of the Committee. 1 — A V-J""! VsLivi«iit)Mld«aia,.: 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 This demand he distinctly refused to comply with. He was likewise required to hand certain of these books to a member of the Committee who expressed a desire to look ut them in order to put certain questions to the witness relating to certain matters of account which wore supposeil to be entered therein. This was also re fused hy the witness. The proceedings of the Committee, and the testimony of the witness will appear more in detail by referring to the Minutes of the Proceedings of the Committee of the 3id and 4lh days of June, 1891, and the Minutes of Evidence at pages 75' and 83. Alexander Ferguson, Esquire, Q.C., referred to in the Exhibits, was Counsel for the witness and for another member of the firm of Lurkin, Connolly & Company. Your Committee, being of the opinion that the discharge of the duties of the Committee, impo>ed on them b}' the House, requires that the books should be placed under the control and in the possession of your Committee, and that the books be ])la«.ed in the bands of members of your Committee for the purpose of interrogating the witnesses, report the refusal of ^lichael Connolly to obey the orders of your Committee in these particulars, and request the action of the House thereon. All which is respectfully submitted. D. GIROUAIJD, Chairman, SECOND REPORT. House of Commons, 9th July, 1891, The Select Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, to which was re- feiied certain statements made in connection with the tenders and contracts respect- ing the Quebec Harbour Works, etc., with instructions to enquire full}' into the said allegations, and especially, but without limiting the scope of such enquiry, to investi- gate all circumstances connected therewith and the payments and otiier matters mentioned In the said statements, beg leave to present as their Second Report the following Resolution, which was unanimously adopted at their meeting this day : Resolved, That leave of the House be obtained for the Committee on Privileges and Elections to sit during the time in which the House is in session. All of which is respectfully submitted. D. GIROUARD, Chairman. k THIRD REPORT. House ok Commons, KJlb July, 1891. The Select Standing Committee on Privileges and Klections, to which was re- ferred certain statements made in connecticm with the tenders and contracts respect- ing the Quebec Harbour Works, etc., with instructions l^) enquire fully into the said alk'g:'lions, and especially, but without limiting the scope of such enquiry, to investi- gate all eircumstancos connected therewith and the payments and other matters mentioned in the said statements, Log leave to present the following as their Third Report: \'our Committee recommend that thiir quorum be leduced from twenty-two to eleven members. All of which is respectfully submitted. ii i). GIROUARD, Chairman. 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 re- I'Ct- [esti- jters Ihird io to FOURTH REPORT. House of Commons, 12th August, 18IU . The Select Slundiiig Committee on Privileges and Klections, to which was re- ferred certain statements made in connection with the tenders and contracts i-espect- ing the Quebec Harbour Woriis, etc., with instructions to enquire fully into the said allegations, and especially, hut without limiting the scope of such enquiiy, to inves- tigate all circumstances connected therewith and the payments and other matters mentioned in the said statements, bog leave to present the following as their Fourth lieport : That in the course of the enquiry now pending before your Committee, the Hon- ourable Thomas McGreevy, member for the Electoral District of Quebec West, named in the Order of Reference to your Committee of the 11th May last, olfeied to be examined and in fact was examined under oath. During his examination, the witness was repeatedly asked to whom he paiCommittoe of the Select Standing Committee on Privileges and Elec- tions, to which wa.s referred the matters contained in the Order of Reference from the House of the 19th August, with instructions to search for precedents, and to report the result of their deliberations, beg leave to report as follows: That the election of the Hon, Thomas McGreevy was lawfully contested on the 15lh day of April last past, and that the said contestation was pending at the time that ho tendered his resignation to Mr. Speaker, That under the circumstances, your Sub-Coinmitteo recommends that the said resignation be not acted upon by Mr. Speaker, and that his warrant for the issue of a now writ be recalled. Your Sub-Committee is also of the opinion that, under the present state of the law, the Speaker, when not aware of the contestation of the election of a member, may properly act upon the resignation of such member, anil issue his wariant ac- tonlingiy; and, should Clause 7 of Chapter 13 of the Revised Statutes be continued, they beg to recommend that this want in the Statute be remedied by providing that, in the future, the Prothonotary or Clerk of the Court where an Election Petition is tiled and pending, shall forthwith notify the Speaker of such Election Petition. Your Sub-Committee finally, without e.Kpressing any opinion thereon, recom- mends the advisability of The House considering whether the said Clause seven (7) of Chapter thirteen (i3) of the Revised Statutes of Canada should not be repealed. All which is respectlully submitted. D, GIROUARD, Chairman. IV 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 seve:n^th repoht. House op Commons, KJlh September, 1891. The Select Standing Committee on Privileges and Klections to which wiis referred curtain statements made in connection with the tenders and contracts respecting the Quebec Harbour Works, the Esquiraalt Graving Dock, etc., with in- structions to enquire fully into the said allegations, and especially, but without limiting the scope of such enquiry, to investigate all circumstani-es connected there- with and the payments and other matters mentioned in the said statements, beg leave lo present as their Seventh Ileport, the annexed draft Report (marked " A ") prepared bj' their Sub-Committee, and adopted by your Committee at a meeting held this day. All which is respectfully submitted. D. (rlROUARD, Cliairman. kcom- ha) led. ^A" DRAFT Rp]PORT OF SUB COMMITTEE AS SUBMITTED BY SIR JOHN THO.MPSON AND MESSRS. GIROUARD AND ADAMS. The Select Standing Committee on Privileges and Klections beg leave to report that under the Order of Reference made on the 11th day of May last, they have in- vestigated the charges contained in the said Order: ""hat in jso doing thev have receiv- ed and examined a large number of documents, havo heard tholestimo'iiy of seventy one witnesses and have held for the purpose seventy-one sittings, extending over fifty- five days, in addition to twenty-nine >ittings of Sub-Committees. They submit herewith the Minutes of their Proceedings and the Evidence taken in the course uf the enquiry, and at tfie same time beg to state the conclusions at which they have arrived. 1— A* iva 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 The time referred to in the first charjre was 1882. Before that j'ear, by a series ■of Statutes beginning in 1873,variou8 sums of money had been authorized to be loaned by the Government of Canada to the Quebec Ilarbour Commi8^ionerH for the impro- vements of the Harbour, including the construction of Harbour Works and the jM>intment of the (iovernnient of Canada, the firm of L.trkin, Cinniolly & Co., with the knowledge of tiie said Thomas Mctireevy, t(M)k as a (Mirtner Kobttrt H. McCin-evy, his l)i-oth»'r, giving him an interest of iV) [ler cent, in the firm. 4. That the said Thomas Mc(treevy consented ti> his brother liecoming a memlier of the firm, and stated that he had first consulte. Iiy Idi" liii lie 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 (■(. Tliiit ill ordfr to lit-lii Larkiii, Connolly & Co. to Hetnri- the Haid dreHging contriift, tlie siiid Hon. TlioniaM Mc<«i'e»'vy iigrw^l to give, luiil did give in an undue manner liin help us HhiUiim' ConiniiHHioner to Lnrkin, Connolly & Co. 7. Tliat the miitl contract wiw iijii>roveiewiid MesHrs. Kiin'iiple and MorriH, of Ij^ Mr. Woodford I'ilkington. !l. That in concert with I^arkin, Connolly * Co. the naid ThoniaH Mc(tre«'vy uudertiH)k to sfcuiv tlie removal of Messrs. Kinipple, ^torris and Pilkingtou from their [lositions, and that they were in fact so removed in IHKS, and re|ilace3 s •S -c -r -r -r -r v^3 5'^^ I *?? i# " .•_' •* .» -1" Vi M '* •' •- .J p5 .* ^i Vl fi .? ?, Sfi !A ^ U: ?, f ai: ^r - I- r. .— St y. H i.tpii. M, J" .MI|IUU >C is S ?o 1 ^ % Jj-^ 1 1 . d»i«MHa*i:«ifc.. }91 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Tlio tender of Benucagc was, according to agiooment between Laikin, Connolly \ Co. and Robert McGreevy, put in by tho latter. He obtained and used the name of Beaiicairo for that ))urp()se. The engineer of ihe Harbour Works having reported that the tender of Frade t i*c Miller was apparently irnpraelieable, the Board of Harbour Commirtsioners passed u rcholution awarding the contract to the lowest tendererson condition that security should at once bu given by a casli deposit of 810,000, on or before a day named, and the Secretary of the Boai-d, on the 10th of July, wrote Messrs. Fradot & Miller accordingly.' Their reply was received b}- the Harbour Commissioners on the 12th, and in it they state their inability to comply, within the time limited, with the condition as to security; and it may be mentioned here that it appears that the financial standing of the firm was poor. The Beaucage tender, which was lower than that of Lurkin, Connolly & Co., was withdrawn by letter of the 12'A\ Jul^-. On the same date, the Secretary of the Har- bour Commissioner-! wrote to Askwith, informing him that the Commissioners were prepared to give him the contract on security being given by a cash deposit of 810,000. on or before the following Wednesday at 3 p.m., and provided the work be eommeneed by the tirst of August and completed on or before the first of November. On the ISth Askwith replied by letter, enclosing an accepted cheque for the amount named as security, but wishing to have it understood that he was to be given two weeks from the ratification of the contract by the Honourable Minister of Public Works, in which to get his plant upon the ground. To this letter there was a postscript, stating that since writing the letter he was informed that lake dredges could not be changed so as to be available for use in tidal waters, and asking a week in which to examine and satisfy himself, and to determine whether to bind himself or not. On (he 20th the Secretary acknowledged the receipt of Askwith's letter, and informed him that the Commissioners could not allow him any further time to cf>n- sider the acceptance or refusal of the contract, and required an answer within 24 houi's. On the 24th Askwith telegraphed to the Secretary withdrawing his tender. The contract wa-*, thereupon, awarded to Larkin, Connolly & Co., they complying with the same provision as to security. In connection with the action of the Board of Harbour Commissioners upon these tenders there is no evidence of interference, or of the exercise of influence, by Thomas McGreevy in favour of Larkin, Connoll}' & Co. As lo Kinippio & Morris, it appears by the evidence of Owen E. Murphy, that the contractors objected to them, ])artly because those engineers, as he said, kept them strictly to their contract — the Graving Dock contract. He states also that, with a view to their removal, ho had conversations with Thomas McGreevy, both before and after the time when Robert McGreevy became a member of the firm. It is sutHcient, so far as this branch of the case is concerned, to state that Messrs. Kini])ple & Morris were dismissed b}- the Harbour Commissioners in June, 1883. One of the grounds for the dismissal was that the superintendence of the works was unsatisfactorily performed by reason of the absence from this countrj' of those engi- neers. Furtlier grounds wore that alterations in the works were required, and that their absence caused dela}8 and extra (diarges by the contractors, which resulted in disputed accounts ; that there were defects in the plans and specifications of the Graving Dock, which necessitated the abandonment of the plan as originallj' designed, and the placing of the Dock gates a long distance back from the jiosition originally provided for; and finally, the refusal of these engineers to comply with the request of the Com vissioners to come to Quebec to settle disputed accounts with the ('ontiactoi's, such refusal causing groat delay and expense. m we 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 CHARGE No. 2. CRi»8s-WAiiL Contract, 26th May, I8S3. '■(/. That in tho year 1883 Lni-kin, ConiioUv & Ci).,anv»ti<^st others, tonderoJ for the Cro8h-wall in connection with the (^uehec Harbour Work-', and that before ten- dering, and in oi'dcr to secure the influence of tho said Thon-.aw MrCfreevy, the^' took into partnership with them Robert H. McGieevy, a biother of tho Haid Thomas MoGreevy, giving him a 30 per cent, interest in the work, and that this was done with tho knowledge and consent of the said Tliomas McGieevy. "6. That among the parties tendering woroacontriiclor named (reorge Beaucage and one John ftailaghor. That Beaucage's tender was made at the instance of the said Thomas Mctireevy, and that with the knowledge of the said Thomas* Mc( J reovy, the tenders of Larkin, Connolly & Co., of Beaucage and of Gallagher were prepared by members of the firm of Larkin, Connolly Si Co. " c. That while the tenders wore being examined and quantities applied in tiie Department of Public Works tho said Thomas .NLcCi-roevy olitained fi-om the Depart- ment and from officers thereof, information in relation to said tenders which he ottered to communicate, and did conimunicate, to Larkin, Connolly & Co. before tho result was officially known. " d. That to the knowledge of the said Thomas McGrcevy the tenders of Gallagher and Heaucago were lower than that of Luikin, Connolly A: Co., but in consideration of the promise of $2.5,0t)(» the said Thomas MH J roe vy agrectl to secure the acceptance of the tender of Larkin, Connolly &. Co. That to this end he suggested to members of that film to so ariango and manipulate matters with Gallagher and Beaucage as to render tho tenders of those two parties higher than that of tho said firm. That certain arrangements and manipulations were carried out as so suggested, and were participated in by the s lid Thomas McG:eevy, and in consequence the said contract was awarded to the said Larkin, Connolly & Co. That shortly thereafter 825,000 was paid to the said Thomas ilcGreevy in fulfilment of tho corrupt arrangement above stated, and about tho same time a sum of $1,000 was paid by Larkin, Connollj' t*c Co. towards " The Langevin Testimonial Fund." "e. That in the course of the carrying out of the works the said Thomas Mctireevy caused changes, against the public interest, to be nuide in tho said contract." 10. Thiit ill tlif «!iin»' year 1SS.S tt'iidt'iK wtre (.-iilltKi fur a ('rows-wiill ami look in coiiiiM- tiiiii with tlif- liarlHiiii workn at tjuclxf, in arcordancr with iilans and s|i»-fificatii>nK pn'pan'd in tin* I >t'|Kirtiiient of I'lililic Works iindiT tht- diri-ctioii of Henry K. IVrh-y, Ks<|. 11. That several tenders were niiule, and amongst others who teiiderM I were Messrs. I.arkin, T'onnollv it Co. 1-. That iH'fore tendering, and in order to swnre the intliienee of the Hon. Th |ier cent, intei-est in tlii' firm, and this with the knowledge and consent of the saul Hon. Thomas Mctireevy. a contractor named ( leorge lieaucage, an. Thiit witii tiie knowlwlge of the said Thomas Mctiit^vy, the three tenders of Larkin, Connolly & Co., of ISeancage, and of (iallagher, were prejiared liy the niemliers of the firm of Larkin, Connolly & Co., lieaiicagi lieiiig throiiglioiit fhfeiveii l»y the said Hon. Tiiomas .Mctireevy as to his jKwilion in the matter, as hi' alleges in an action recently entered hy him against the said Thomas Me(ireevy in relation to the said c-ontract, in the H\i|ierior Court of >[oiitr(al. l(i. Tliat tlie said tenders were transmitted to the Department of Piil)lic Works of Canada for examination and extension. 1". That while all the tenders were iM'iiig examined and the tpiantities applied influx l)e|iartment of Pulilic Works of Caniula, the said Hon. Tlioinas MclJreevy, then and now a memlier of the Parliament of Canada, and a menilier of tiieC^iieljec Harbour Commission by aplKiintment of the ( Jovernment, promised to obtain and did obtain from the Department of I'liblic Works of Canada, and from otticials of that Depiirtnieiit, in relation to the said tenders, to figures in connection therewitii. and to tiie amounts thereof, information which he offered to communicate iR-forc the result was otticially known, and which lie xnid arranKcnicnt aiifl inani|i(ilations, whcri'ln tlif >ald ThoniKM .Mciirc^-vy dirwtly itarticiiMitwl, the contract for the Cross- wall and lock In conmr- ti.iii with tlic OiicIm'c HarlNmr Works, was awanlwl to Larkin, Connolly Ik Co., on a Kc|M)rt to Council niatlc l>y the Hon. .Minister of Public Works, un,i)(il) was, in f\ilfilnient of the lornipt arrangement alHive stattKl, (mid to the said Thomas .McUreevy in promissory notes sl)fned liy the firm of Larkin, Connolly it Co., which said notes were didy paid. •Jl. That almut the same date, namely, the 4th June, 1S8.S, a sum of >it,t:uction of the Cro.ss-wall uiid cntruneo to tlie ])topo.sod Wet Basin of the Quebec Harbour Works were prejMired under the direction of the Chief Knjjineer of Public Works and were approved b}- the Goveino!- in Council on the tilh April, 1883, Thereupon tenders were called for by the Harbour (!omniis- sioiiers and were received and opened by them in Quebec on the second da}' of May. The tenders asked for in the notice to contractors weie for an item contract for labour, material-*, tools, vessels, plant and machinery which mii^ht be reiiuired to complete the projected works according to plans and specitications exhibited, but no quantities were given. The teiidevers were John Gallagher, Gcovgo Bcaucage, Larkin, Connolly & Co., Perers & Moore and J. & A. Samson. Three of these tenders, namely, those of Galbgher, Beaucage and Larkin, Connolly & Co., were prepared by members of that firm. Before these three tenders were prepared it was agreed that IJobert McGreevy (who had been a partner with them in the dredging contract of 1SS2), should be also associated with them in the Cross-wall contract if thej* should obtain it. While there is some contradiction between Beaucage and Robert Mctrreevy as to the origin of Boaucage's tender, it seems to be clear that it was controlled by Robert McGreevy for the benefit and advantage of himself and his partners in the firm of Larkin, Connolly & Co. John Gallagher was a foreman in the employ of Larkin, Connolly k Co. The design, in putting in the three tenders, was explained bj* Robert McGreevy, and he says that Ixjfore they were sent in they were carefully compared so that they should be consecutive, in order that " if one tender did not suit, the other would." There was a so-called "error ' common to all of those three tenders. The schedule attached to the blank form of temler called tor prices of sheet-piling of varj'ing thickness per lineal foot in line of work. The blanks for those items were tilled up at prices which, it was cleai', did not represent the value of the items as provided for in the schedule, the prices being so low that it seems to have been assumed by the pjngineer that they were intended to have reference to lineal foot of pile instead of lineal foot of completed work. The Beaucage tender had a further peculiarity. In giving a price for the item " pile-driving to any depth not exceeding 20 feet," they added the words " for labour onl}-," notwithstanding the fact that clause 80 of the specification provided that the rates and prices named in the schedule bhould be held to include the cost of all materials as well as labour. According to Murphy's evidence all these so-called errors were purposely nijide. Murphy and Robert McGreevy state that Thomas McGreevy knew of his brother's interest in the Cross-wall work from the first, and that he was aware of the fact that the tenders in the names of Gallagher, Beaucage and Larkin, Connolly & Co., were all in the inter^.-^;t. of that firm and controlled by them. After being ivg 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A 1891 opened by the Harbour CommiHHioners at Quebec, as already mentioned, all the tenders were truntiniitted to the I>epurtment o(* Public Worku, ut Ottawa, where, it appears, thuy arrived on the 4th of May. Thomas McGreevy arrived in Ottawa from Quebec on the Name duv. On the 5lh he wrote to his brother as follows: — * * * ♦ "The tontlers for Cross-wall only arrivecen made by you, and if ho, that you will name a price per lineal foot in the line of work, tr> enable me to compare your tender with others, who have given prices a-* per the roquirumunts of the tender. " I have to call your attention to the price you have placed in your tender, ' for pile-driving to any depth not exceeding twenty feel,' and the note that you have ))laced that this price is fo/ ' labour only'. It is cle.irly stated in clause 80 of the s|iccitication that all prices named in the schedule shall be held to cover not only the co^t of lali')ur, but of all the machinery, plant, tVc. " I am, .Sir, j'our obedient -^irvant, "1IEXI5V 1\ PKiJLKY, ( ilxhi hi t " T 2 ") " Chief Engineer ." On the ^) iim inotitiiii^ toot liiiuul of pilu. Tlii», I must say, i' II HcriouH error on my pait. My mio for iIiIh work aa now cxpluiiu'd [>y you would be $!!• poi- foot foi- Khcotnilini;, 8" tliick diivoii fiom (5 to 8 ftwt, white pint*; do (i invhus thick, 817; do 4 iiichvH, 81,^ per f(M)t; do G iiu-liuH thick of any tihii>cr m* pi*r tdauoH 18 of HpuciticutionH, SI'>.7'>, all por lineal foot in lino of work, and I doMire my lohdur to liu ho amended. I think, undur thu cireumstancoM, this addition Hhoiild bu iillowt'd to my tender, Hoeinji; it Ih evidently nn error, eauned by a miMundoiMtand- mix of the termH of the sehciiule. With i'e;^iird to the f*ef«)nd question in ^'our letter ou the item ' pile-drivini^ to any ilepth not exceeding M feet,' where you nay I have put the word ' labour only ' thiH ha!4 aino been an error, but as clause 8il of the fpeeitication you invoke is clear on the subject, I would strike out the words • labour only' whicii I put. " lIopiiijL? these e.\plainkti(nis are clear and satisfactory, " I I'cmaiii, your obedient servent, (Exhibit " \V2.") " fJKOKGK BKAUCAfiE." Larkin, Connolly & Co. sent a reply as follows : " Larkin. Connoi.i-y A: Co., •' CoNTR.\CToii8, (rRAViNO [>ocK, Livis, P. Q., IfUh May, 1S!^3. " IIenrv F. I'erlky, " Chief Knjjfineer, Public Works. " Dear Sir, — Your favour ot 17th May it) received, and in reply would say that in tenderinjij for the Harbour Works at Quebec, our interpretation of the >' i- tication was as we tendered, |»er lineal toot for eacli pile driven. Notwithstai nj^ the error we have made, we hold ourhclves ready to enter into contract ai lie jirices submitted in our tender, providofi the work in awarded us. " We have the honour to be, " Your obedient servantu, (Exhibit " U2.') " LAKivIN, CONNOLLY & Co." John (rallaglier replied as follows: " Montreal, 19th May, 1S8:1 '^ Henry F. Perley, Ksq., C. R, "Chief Engineer, Public Works, Ottawa. "Sir, — Since I wrote you my withdrawal of tender tor Quay-wall, Quebec Harbour Works, I received your letter of I7th instant, asking me certain ([uestions as to my intentions ou the sheet-piling, &c. I wish to say in reply, that my prices were 25c.. 20c., and 18c. per foot B. M. respectively, for these four' items. " I remuin. Sir, very respectfully yoursi, (Exhibit •' V2.") '• .JOHN GALLAGHER." On the receipt of these replies the rates for sheet-piling were amemled, in the case of Beuiicage, in compliance with his letter, and the position of the tenders was accordingly changed as follows : Gallagher 8552,25.5 00 Larkin, Connolly & Co t)34,340 00 Beaucago 040,808 57 Peters & Moore 043,071 10 Samson & Samson 804,181 00 Gallagher having been allowed to withdraw his tender, the contiact was awarded to Larkin, Connolly & Co. As to the portion of the charge which sets out a ., from Com- mittee Jtoport as follows : iv; 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 \ That such an a^reeinont did exiHt is Hworn to by Murphy, Imt hin evidonev on on thin point, in itnoif. and indopendontly of the question of tho valuo of his evideiKO f^oniTrtlly, is ungaiiHfactory. Thin part of tho ehftrjjo dvpends, to a laijio oxtunt, on hin evidonto nlono. ex- cept in HO far uh Robert MHTieovy toHtitios to moreor Ioxh bnid or vai;no iidmi-isions by Thos. Mdrreovy to hiinnelf of the existence of improper aifrecmeiits. An addi- tional difticulty of the acceptance of Murphy's Htatomunts in this repird, is that, having regard to ThomaM Mctrroovy's intimate and contidontial n lations with his brother, it Huems iniprohablu that ho woufd not havo dualt with him in thoso deli- cate tranmietioiiH, instead of doing so exclusively with Murphy. There was ample object, without such an agreement, in his biothcr's jiariner- ship in tho firm of Larkin, Connolly iV: Co. (his brolier being very laricely his debtor), to explain tho interest which Thomas Mctrroevy took in the*e tenders, and the part he played in aiding Larkin, (.'onnolly\ Co. as lie th Nov., 1883, note No. 3 (fo. 147 of Exhibit "E3") 5,000 O. K. Murphy, cheque 4lh Dec, 1883, note No. 4 (fo. lt!4 of Exhibit " i'!3 ") o.OoO N. K. Coni:olIy, cheque 4th Feb.. 1S84, note No. 5 (fo. 181 of E.vhibit " E3 ") 5.000 It will bo seen that the cheque of 14th M-'y, 1883. is signeil by the tirm of Larkin, Connolly & Co. per O. E. Murphy, and en(!')rsed by M. Connolly, and was ilrawn in cash. The cheque of 1st June, 1883, is signed for tho firm by U. K. Murphy and is endorsed by N, K. Connolly, and was drawn in cash, fift}- 8100 bills. On the Ulth May, 1883, there was deposited to the credit of R. H. McGreevy 83,500, and on 1st June, I8t3, 84,0o0, the latter deposit, as ehown by deposit slip tiled, l>eing made by forty one hundred dollar bills. Robert McGreevy was asked to explain the source from which these nioneys came, and did so by sa^'ing that he leceived at that time some money on account of the Intercolonial Railway, St. Charles Branch, but A. P. Bradley, Secretar}- of the Department of Railways and Canals, was called imd proved ivk i ift ■^WH— 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 that no ni'iiiey hud boen paid dmiiig May or .lune, 1883, on account of that work. Tho Committee, theiet'ore, consider it to bo fairly proved that at least the 84,000 deposited on 1st June, 1883, came out of the amount paid on Larkin, Connolly &Co.'8 cheque of IhI June, 1883. It appears that, as regards this $10,000, it did not reach the hands of Thomas McGreevy, but in some way was appropriateil by Murphy and Robert Mc(rrcevy. It is pioved that in April, 1885, when 'he auditors wore auditing the books of the tirm, they declined to pass the ohargo for $25,000 unless vouchers were produced. Murphy was the cashier at the time and he produced the three notes admitted to have been appropriated to Thomas McGreevy and the two demand notes. These two latter were made and endorsed "Larkin, Connolly & Co., per O. E. M." and apparently were never in a bank or in the hands of any other party than Murphy himself. On the other hand it is admitted by Thomas Mdircevy that about $15,000, paid by the tirm in ccmnoetion with the Cross-wall contract, went towards paying thes judgment against him, and the Committee cannot accept his statement that he was ignorant of the source of these funds, nor can thoy find tliat his alleged contribution of a similar iiimu;:t towards the purchase of Le Moude newspaper, aftects the present question. The conclusions of the Committee as to the charges against Thomas McGreevy, in connection with this contract, are, therefoie: (1.) That in the year 1883, Larkin, Connolly & Co., amongst others, tendered for the Cross-wall, and that before tendering, and in order to secure the influence of Thomas McGreevy, they agreed to take into partnership with them Eobort H. McGreevy, brother of Thomas, giving him thirty (30°7o; P®'" cent, interest in the work and that this was done with the knowledge of Thomas McGreevy. (2.) That among the parties tendering wore George Beaucage and John Gal- lagher. That with the knowledge of Thomas McGreevy the tenders of Larkin, Connolly & Co.. of Beaucage, and Gallagher were prepared by members of the firm of Larkin, Connelly \- Co. (3.) That while the tenders were being examine 1 and quantities applied in the Department of Public Works, Thomas McGreevy obtained from the late John E. Boyd, an Engineer in the Department of Public Works, information in rehition to said tenders which he communicated to Larkin, Connolly & Co., before the result of the application of quantities to the tenders was officially known. (■4.) That to the knowledge of Thomas McGreevy, the tenders of Gallagher and Beaucage were lower than those of Larkin, Connolly & Co., but that Thomas McGreevy co-ojierated with O. E. Murphy and Robert McGreevy to secure the acceptance of the tender of Larkin, Connolly & Co. (5,) That in Jul}-, 1883, Thomas McGreevy received from the proceeds of certain notes for live thousand dollars each, made bj' the firm of Larkin, Connolly & Co., and endoi'sed by Patrick Larkin and Owen E. Murphy and N. K. Connolly respec- tivelv. the sum of $14.341. "(l. CHARGE No. 3. C0NTR.\rT KOR THE CoMl'I.E'ION OK THE LfiVIS GRAVING DoCK, 23RI) JuNE, 1884. "That in the year 1884 the said Thomas McGreevy agreed with members of the firm of Lurkin, Connolly & Co.. to secure for them a contract for the completion of the (iraviiig Dock at Ldvis. on condition that he should receive from them any excess ovor the s.nn of $30,000 of the conti-act price, ana that, accordingly, the said Thomas Mctireevy afterwards received from the said firm the sum of $22,000." ■_';<. 'I'liiit ill 1SS4. Tliitmas Mctiivcvy, then aiid now a mt'iiilwr of the Parliaiiifiit of Ciitiada, uii(i a iiLeniU'r nf the <^\icl)cc Hai'lwmr Coiiiiiiissioii l>y apiKiintmeiit of the (iov- "•nimciit, ajfi'ci'il w i ' the firm of Larkin, Connolly it Co., and certain nienvlier.t tliereof individually, to seeiu'e for iheui a contract for the completion of the (!ra'. iu^ Dock of Levi«, one of the conditions of the agreement liein({ that he, Thomas McOreevy, should receive anv excess over the sinn of .?iMl,00(> in the contract price. (f ■r.r:- 1891 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 and 1884. of tho tion of excess ,'homas Iv Illctlt of (tOV- tliereof if Lt'-vis, ri'Ct'ivL' 24. That to the (letriiiiKiit of public interent, u contract wan Ni^iifd in or altout tlie month ..f .IiUH', 18K4. for the iierforniance of the «ai(l workf, and that subse<|\H'ntly th*" itaid TlioniaK MtlJreevy received tne price xtipulated in the comij>t arrangement alH)Ve men- titmed, namely, .^22,000. As to this contract, Murphy testifies that an agreement was come to between Thomas McCJreevj- and himself which provided that in the event of a " lump sum " contract for the completion of the dock being awarded to Larkin, ConnoUj- & Co., they would give all over $50,000, of the amount of that contract, to Thomns McGreevy. The amount of tho contract was aflerwaidK settled at 874,000, and Murphy says there was a dispute betxreen himself and Thomas McGiaevy as to 82,000, after the contract was awarded, and that tinally the matter was settled by notes being given for §22,000, instead of $24,000, the whole amount of the excess over 8.V).000. Eobert McGieevy's evidence does not agree with the above account. He says he learned fiom his brother that the amount was $14,000. He says that notes for $22,000 were miule, that he gave his brother notes to the amount of $14,000, and that he paid him the balance in ones or twos (one thousan'' or two thousand dollars), as occasion offered afterwards. Thomas McGreevy denies the agreement testifieii to by Murphy. He admits receiving $10,000 from Robert McGreevy in thf fall of 18r^4. which, ho saj's, he applied towards the payment of the purchase money for Le Monde newspaper. The evidence is, therefore, in the opinion of the Committee inconclusive as >o whether there was an agreement made for a definite amount to be paid to Thomas McGreevy, although the notes for $22,000 were made after the contract was executed. That this amount was agreed upon rests entirely on thestatementofMurphy.inasmuch as Eobert McGreevy states that the amount admitted by his brother to have been airanged for was $14,000. As to how much was nctually paid to Thomas McGreevy, the Committee can only state that, in their opinion, there was an understanding between Thomas ^IcGreevy on the one hand, and Murphy on the other, that the former was to receive a sum or sums of money from the firm of Larkin, Connolly «St Co., in connection with this conttact, and that accordingly he did receive from that firm a sum or sums of money, the amount of which eunnot satisfactorily be determined. CHARGE No. 4. Contract for the Comitftion of the Esqulmalt Dock, 8th X(»ve.mhek, 1884. " a. That before Larkin, Connolly & Co. tendered for the com|tletioM oi the Graving Dock at Esquininit, the said Thomas McGreevy agreed to help, and diil help them, in divers ways, amongst others, by obtaining from the Department of Public Works information, figures and calculations in respect of the projtoscd work and communicating the same to them. "6. That with the knowledgoand consentof the said Thomas McGreevy, Larkin, Connolly & Co. took into partnership with them his bro.her, Robert II. .Metneevy. for the purpose of secur'ing tho influence of the .said Thomas McGreevy, the .said Robert H. McGreevy taking a 20 per cent, interest in the work. " c. That during the execution of the contract the said Thomas ^IcGreev}- acted as u paid agent of Larkin, Connolly k Co. in dealing with the Department of Public Works and that he obtained for them at their request important aUeratioh> in the works and more f'avouiable conditions, which enabled them to realize very lari^'e piofits. " (1. That laige sums were paid by Larkin. Connolly & Co. to the said Thomas McGreev}' tor his services in dealing with the Minister of Public Works, the otticers of the Department, and generally for \\v^ infiuence as a member of Parlian\ent, and that in consideration of these sums the said Thomas McGreevy fui'iiished a great deal of information, and procured to be made, by the Department and the Minister of Public Works, alterations in the plans and in the works, which alterations have cost large sums of money to the public. ivm .it' 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 " e. Thut in con.sideration of offers of large sums of money by members of the firm of Laikin, Connolly & Co., the said Thomas McGreevy took steps to induce certain members of Parliament to assist him to obtain alterations and additional works, and at his sujrgestion, nrnmbei-s of Parliament were appioached to this end by members of the saiil firm. *'/. That the said Thomas McGreevy did, at the request of Larkin, Conjiolly & Co., corruptly endeavour to procure the dismissal from otfice of certain public officers employed in connection with the works in order to have them replaced bj' others who would suit Luikin, Connolly & Co., the former being objectionable to Larkin, Connolly iV Co., because they compelled them to carry out the works and accept estimate-' tberetbr according to the terms of the contract." 'J5. 'I'liat ill IHSS and 1SS4, tenders were asked for l)y the ttovernnjent of Canada for the CDiiipletion of tlie (iravintf Dock of Kscininialt, B.C. •_'(>. 'I'hat the firm of Larkin, Connolly & Co. were ainrinfif tliose who tendered and that tlie eoiitract was awarded to them in imrsuance of a Ke|)ort to Council, dated 24tli OctoUer, 1SS4, and sijfned liy the Hon. Minister of Public Works. 27. That iM'fore tendering, the said Larkin, Connolly & Co. had with Thomas Mc- (ireevy, then and now a memlier of the Parliament of Canada, communications and inter- X iews wherein they secured his services to a:»sist them in dealing with the DeiNvrtuient of I'lililic Works in order to secure the said contract. 2iS. That he agreed to help them, and that he did in fact hel|) them in divers ways, and, aiiinngst others, liy olitaining from the Deparoment of Public Works inforniatiun, figures, and calculations which he communicated to them. 211. That to the knowlerc(ireevy for his services in dealing with the Minister of Public Works, witii the officers of the Department, and generally for his influence us a member of the Par- liament of Canada. 33. That in consideration of the sums of nixney so received In' him and of the promises to him made, the sairl Thomas McC.ieevy furnished to Larkin, Connolly & Co. a gn iit deal of information ; stnive to i)rocure and did piiicure to be made by the Department and the Hon. Minister of Public Works, in the plans of the (Graving Dock and the execution of tlie works, alterations which have cost hii'^e sums of money to the pulilic treasury. 34. That he himself tcntk stejis to induce certain niemljers of the Parliament (jf Canada to assist him, the said Thomas MctJreevy, in his efforts, in conceit with Larkin, Connolly & Co., to obtain alterations and additional works, for which larj .^ sums of money were offered to him l>y the members of the firm. .35. That on his suggestion inemlH'i-s of the Parliament of Cauda were approached by members of the firm of Larkin, Connolly 4 Co. 3t). That certain memU'i's of the said firm have declp.ied that the .said meniliers of the Caiiadian Parliament, on being .so approached, had asked for a certain sum of money for exerting their influence in favour of Larkiu.^ConnoUy & Co., with the Minister of Public Works, and that Larkin, Connolly & Co. had agived to give them money for that pur|Ki.se. 37. That Thomas McCireevy, acting in concert with Larkin, Connolly & Co., did, lit their request, corriijitly endeavour to priKiire the dismis.siil from office of certain public officers employed in connection with the works of the (iraving Dock at Ksquinialt, in order to have them replaced by othei-s who would suit Larkin, Connolly & Co., the former having for a time incurred the ill-will of Larkin, Counolly & Co., iH-cause they then com|>elled them to carry out the works in conformity with the s])ecifications and contract and lutspared their estimates according to the tern.s of the said contract. Before the contract was awarded, and also during the period covered by the e.Kecution of the work, Thomas McGreevy manifested an active interest in the affairs of the firm of Larkin, Connolly & Co., in connection with this work. The tenders were receivable on the 20th of Septembei-, 1884. and its appears that the Chief Engineer received a private note from Thomas McGreevy, dated the 0th of that month, asking for certain information in respect of the proposed work, to which he replied, giving scmie of the information asked for. and stating that he could i\nt give the rates as he had never determined them. This information was communicated l»y Thomas McGreevy lo his brother and was used, for what it was worth, by Larkin, Connolly & Co. in determining on their tender. ivn 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 )f thf b" fi>r 1*1111110 r|M)se. 1(1, lit public l>ir itho bars Itho ►rk, l*ti vaa Other letters of Thomas McGioevy. addressed to his brother, go to show that he interested himself for Lurkin, Connolly & Co. as to mutters connected with this contrnct and in relation to the Department of Public Works. Hiese letters contain references to interviews with the Chief Enjfincer, to the estimate^ involving the measurement of stone, to delay in the forwarding of esti- mates, to advance on drawback, the dismissal of Bennett, the Resident Rngineer, and to the matter of the ap|)ointment ol a successor to Mr. Bennett. We tind also that the letteis support the statement of Robert McGreevy that Thomas McGreevy was aware, Iroin the tirst, of his interest in the work, as a member of the firm of Larkin. Connolly & Co. Considerations, corresponding to iho.-e mentioned in determining upon the question of the object of the other members of the firm of Larkin, Coimolly «S: Cn. in associating Robert McGreevy with them in the previous contracts, have here induced a similar conclusion, namely, that Kobert Mcfireevy vvas taken in us a partner with the object of securing the influence of Tliomat McGreevy. The charge does not state any specific sums as having been paid to Thomas McGreevy. The Committee do not consider the evidence on this brunch of the charge, anil referred to as above, to be of the ehiraeter or as coming from a source which would justify a conclusion that any specific amount or amounts of money wt^e paid to Thomas McGreevy as and for remuneration to him for the services alleged in the charge to have been performed by him for the firm of Larkin, Connolly & Co., but the Committee rind it to be established that he did. in fact, receive moneys the amounts «f which cannot definitely be tietermined, but which were charged to exj)ense account in connecti(ui with this work. The Committee have had no evidence to su])port the charge that Thomas McGreevy took steps to induce certain members of Parliament to assist him to obtain alteraiions and additional wotks, and that at his suggestion members of Parliament were approached to this end i»y members of said firm, or that any mem- ber of Parliament asked for money for exerting their influence in favour of the firm; or that the firm hud agreed to give them money for that purpose. As to the concluding jxirtion of this charge, wherein it is stated that at the lequest of Larkin, Connolly & Co., Thomas McGreevy corruptly endeavouied to procure thedismissal of public officers employed in connection with the works, the only evidence tending to establish it is to the etlect, as shown in part by his letters to Robeil McGreevy and by the admission of Thomas McGreev}', that he did endeavour, in interviews witii the Minister of Public Works ai d with the Chief Engineei'. to bring about the dismissal of Bennett, the Resident Engineer at Ksqui- malt. This may have been induced by the fact alleged that Mr. Bennett unduly kept back the estimates. Mr. Bennett was not dismissed, but was employed by the Department until the completion of the work. CHARGE No. 5. 23 rd Co.NTftACT FOR DREDaiNU OF WeT B.\SIN AT THIRTY-FIVE CENTS P JB YARD, May, 1887. " a. That in the winter of l8St!-87, the j-aid Thomas McGreevy proposed to, and made with Larkin, Connolly «& Co., arrangements whereby the firm undertook to ])ay him §25,000, on condition that he would obtain for them the sum of thirty-five cents per yard tor the dredging of 800,000 cubic yards in the Wet Basin of the even cents per yard and for even less in tiio same works. •• b. That the said Thonias McGreevy used his influence, us a member of Parlia- ment, with the Departinenr of Public Works, and in particular with Henry P. Perley, to rnduce him to report to the Quebec Harbour Commission in favour of the ivo ■ i: ! 1 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 payment of the said sum of thirty-five cents per yard, and that before the Quebec Harbour Commibsione'-s were consuUed a written correspondence on this subject between Henry F. Perley and Larler cubic yard for the dreht cubic yard, and even less, in the same works. 40. That the said Thcmias Mc(ireevy used his influence, a» a member of this House, with the DeiMvrtment of Public Works, and, in particular, with Henry F. Perley, Kk(i., to induce Inm to re|H>rt to the (Quebec Hartxjiu- Commission in favour of the payment of the said sum of 35 cents (K-r cubic yard. 41. That the corresixmdence on this subject lietween Henry F. Perley and Larkin, Connolly & Co., l)efore the (^uelxtc Harlwur Conunissioners were consulted, took place at the suggestion of the said Thoina.s Mctiieevy, and wivs conducted with his knowledge and participation in such a manner as to conceal fnnn the eyes of Parliament and of the pul>lic the corrupt character of the contract, in connection with which he had received the sum of .'«27,aifl Thomas Mctireevy to the House of Commons at the general election of 18S7, ill the hands of one of the members of the firm, who finding that sum insufficient, had to add thereto the sum of S!2,000. 43. That on the 23nl of May, 1887, in fulfilnient of the arrangement alH>ve mentioned, and through tlie effort, the influence and the intervention of the said Thomas Mclireevy and without any public tender having Iteen callein» retiuest a the House < if f the tinn, mentioned, (Ireevy and the (Quebec redging and ng of tlie riim and conversa- iiid for at tood that us years, bic yard. le firm of Thomas )ut of the ,forpoli- Joniiolly, O'onnolly so. ■in g such yonnolly Murphy testifies that ho gave 810,000 to Robert McfJreevy for Thomas; that ho ;,'ave another sum of $10,000 to Thomas McGieevy himself, and that he oxpeiiilcd, in a manner directed by Thomas McGreevj', not only this §5,000 but $2,000 addi tional. This sttitement was accepted by the other members of the firm and, aocoi'd- ingly, $27,000 was charged to "expense account "in the books of the firm. The Committee do not consider it important to deteimine whetlier the evidence of Murphy as to those details is true or not, but his statements as to the disposition of jiart of the sums of $5,000 and $2,000 are positively contrailicted by the evidence of some of tiie persons to whom he claims ho made payments. The document marked lixhibit "M5," written by Michael Connolly, sliows that as tar back as Janunrj' a rate of 35 cents per yard for the new dredging had been dis- cussed and arrived at as the price which was to be obtained tor that work if possible. Your Committee are of opinion that this document was prepared for the purjiose of Ijcing shown to Thomas ^IcGreevy. On the 16th and 2Gth April, respectively, Thomas McGreevy wrote to ids brother Kobert, letters of wliich the material parts are as follows: (Exhibit " K2".) '• 16th April. " I have just seen Perley aitout dredging. 1 have arranged to meet him on Monday to discuss hisdredging report before he sends it to Ifarbour Commissioners, also other matter about (xraving Dock, iVc. ^= * =■- '' As Curran's motion is coming up on Monday, I thought bettor to remain here, also to see Periey and arrange matters with him. When I am wanted below you will let me know." (Exhibit "F2".) "26th April. "I have just seen Periey on dredging. I think he will report on 35 cents and put some conditions which will amount to nothing, lie will report when I will be tiiere." =i= * * The allegation that Thomas McGreevy knew that dredging of the same kind, and even more difficult, had, before that time, been executed for 27 cents ])er ytird and even less, in tiie same work, involves the necessity of a reference to evidence introduced for the purpose of showing the lelation, in this respect, of the- contract under discussion to the dreilging contract of 1882 and that matter will be in, Quebec llarboui- Works, a porii jii of which i is deisirablc should he romoved diiriiiic the ensuiiifj; suninier, and tlio projuioty of proceeding; tlierewith I desire to to hriiii; to the notice of the Commissioners. Jieforc 1 can do this I wish to obtain tlie pi'ice i)er cubic yard, measured in the same manner as was the dredging previously done by you, at wliidi you will do what is required. " i want only one price, which must cover the dredging to any depths required whicli may not e.\cee(.l tiltecn feet below low-water spring tides, and the convej'ance to a i)lace of deposit, whether on the embankment or in the river. An early answer will oblige, '' Yours obediently, (Exhibit '• Yl ".) ••■ IIJONUY F. I'KRLKY. '• Chief Engineer." " Quebec, 2Sth April, 1887. " IIknuy F. Perley, Esq., " Chief Kngineer, Ottawa. " Sir, — Your favour of the 27th inst. is at hand. In rejjly we would beg to say that we aie ])repared to do what dredging is required, as mentioned in your letter, for the average jjrice of our pievious dredging, viz.. tiiirty-tive (;].")) cents, although the difficulties are greater than we have had to contend with during the pi..f:,iess of our ])revious dredging, inasmuch as the jiassage is narrow, the currents stronger, and the distance to the place of deposit further. We are. Sir, " Your obedient -ervants, (Ivxhibit " Yl •'.) " LARIvIN, COXNOLIA' & CO." It appears that this correspondence took place before the liarbour Commis- sioners were consulted. The matter was brought to their notice by the following letter : " JIarbour Work.s, " Enoixeer's Ofkioe, " Quebec, (Jth May, 1887. " Sir, — As a large qiuintity of dredging remains to be done to complete the area of the Wet Basin tears as a subsidy to Mr to the ivr )4 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 le arcH that a add res- asking to bo place Mcf-srs. yard. •eqiiCfil Hteaniei- "Admiral " for plying between Palhousie and Tfaspt^, and that the said Mihwidy has sinco been paid accordingly, but that the saiil .liilien Chabot was merely a screen for the lienefit of the said Thoman Mctireev}-, who was then and continued lor a long time thereafter the real owner of the said steamer, in whole or in great part, and that previous to the said 10th May, 1888, to wit, since 1883 or 18S4, the said amount of subsidy was \-early paid for the said steamer, the title thereto being held b}' ])ersons for the bencHt of the said Thomas Mcdreevy, and that the said Thomas McGreevy received altogether from such subsi, ti'iidt'i-s were askrd for l)y tlic (,|uclitc H:iilHi\ir ! 'cpiiiiuirtsiulicls for tin; cDiistnictidii (if ii wiirk called tlif " South Wall " or " Ki'tainiiij; Wall.'' 51. That Afr. MrCirci'vy procured from f)ul>lic officials the teiid'Ts received, Biid showed tliein to .Messrs. < ). K. Miiiphy, CJoniioUy i'lid K. H. McCireevy, for whom he was actiiif,', in order to ^rive them an undue advantajje over their coiu|ietitors. r)2. Tluvt they had the said tenders in their possession during several liours, after wliich iiey were returned to Heuiy V. I'erley, then in OueU'c, hy the .said Thomas .Mcdreevy. ")H. That the contract w;vs awarded to one .lohn ( iallagher, a nieie ti)jur<- head for tliH .i.iid Murphy, Connolly and R. H. MctJreevy, who did the work for their own profit and .ulvantap'. iti. That changes detrimental to the pulilic interest, hut of a nature to secure great profits to the contractors were made in till' plans and the carrying out of the works anil in the conditions and securities set out in the contract, through the iuHuence and intervention of the said Thomas Mc( treevy. Murphy's evidence as to the first part of this charge, is to the effect that on the evening of the day on whicli the tenders for this work wei-o opened in Quebec, the tenders were in the possession of Thomas McGieevy at his house, and that Murphy and Eobert McGreovy tnere had access to these documents for an hour and a-half or more, und examined them during that time, and that afterwards they were enclosed in an envelope and carried by Charles McGreevy, a son of Eobert, to Mr. Perley, who was then in Quebec, at the St. Louis Hotel. Eobert McGreevy's evidence as to this is substantially to the same effect, as is also that of Charles McGreevy. It appears by the letter, a "opy of which is below, that Eobert McGreevy loft Quebec foi- Ottawa that evening. The statements as to the meeting and as to his seoing the tenders after they hud been received by Mr. Perley, aie denied by Thomas McGieevy. The Minutes of the Harbour Commissioners sliow that the tenders, after being opened at a meeting of the Board on the da}^ in (juestion, were handed to Mr. Perley. The letter from Eobert McGreevy to Murphy, above leferred to, is as follows : (Exhibit " D13") " Eussell House, Ottawa, 22nd December, 188G, " My Dear Mr. Murphy, — I had expected to have seen you last night at train, to give you copy of the extension of the three tenders. It was 9.40 before we got through with them or I would have left you a copy. I now enclose it. You will see that Gallsigher is lowest, no matter what interpretation is put on McCarron & Cameron's. Of course tliej^ should not be asked to explain at all, but if the parties in power decide to do so, 1 would say do it at once, before asking Gallagher, and then we will see. Youi-s is a decent tender, and no doubt you would be prepared to do something, while on Gallagher's nothing can be done. 1 hope Perley won't do anything towards writing them until he comes up here. I telj you we have had a close shave on Gallagher, and if you are obliged to accept it, it will bo hard work to make ends meet. 1 will be home on Friday morning." ivt 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. I.) A. 1891 -vy loft u-y hud being Perley. ows : 8(}. train, wo got oil will rron & patties jr, and ared to )n't do had a ork to The contents of thif< letter are obviousl}- inconsistent with the evidence of Mur- ph}', Jlobert .Mcdreevy and Charles Mcdreevy in re>i)ect of the alleged meeting at the house of Thomas MfCiieevy. Jf Muri)hy was present with llobert McGreevy when these tenders were being examined and memoranda made from them, and the tenders were then taken by Chai-les MfrTree%'y and handed to M". Perley, it is diffi- cult to understand why i{oi)ort Mctrreevy should think it necessary to state the time at which he and whoever was working with him " got through,'" and why he should have to send the result of the comparisons from Ottawa, and why ho sliould express regret at not having met him " last night" to give him " the extension of the three tenders." This is one of the subjects upon which Mr. Perley was not examined, and the (/Ommittee, finding the difficulty above indicated in the way of accepting the evi- dence of the meeting, feel Ixuind to conclude that the charge is not satisfactorily established in this particular. As to the charge that, through the intervention and influence of Thomas Mc- Geevy, changes were made in the plans of the works and in the conditions and .'•ecuritios, detrimental to the public interest, the changes made in the plans and works wore two : the raising ol" tha level of the >ewer adjoining the wall on the south side, and the substitution of stone for concrete and brick in the construction of the sewer. The necessity for this sewer was incidental to the constiuction of the South-wall, which cut off the drains leading from the city of Quebec to the part of the Harbour along which this South-wall ran, consequently it was necessary for the Harbour Commission to provide a sewer leailing along the land side to a point out- side. The level of this sewer was a metter as to which the Harbour Commissioners were not concerned and the level did not affect the works in any way, but was a matter to be dealt with by the city engineer of Quebec. The city engineer approved (jf the substituted level. This change was advantageous to the contractors, inasmuch as their work was thereby less affected by the tide. As to the other charge, namely, the subtitution of stone for concrete and brick, in the construction of this sewer, the evidence shows that the contractors proposed the change, showing a plan of the woi-k propo>ed to be substituted, and stating that, according to calculations made by them, the cost would be about the same as the cost of e.Kecuting the original design. Mr. Boswell, Assistant Engineer, thereupon made an approximate estimate of the dift'erence between the Iwo designs, with the result that, according to the contract prices (the contract being an item contract), the work proposed to be substituted would involve an additional cost of 813,<>2S, «nd he reported to the Chief Engineer accordingly. The Chief Engineer replied that ho could not agree that the cost of the work should be incieased and he lefused to consent to the change, except on condition that no additional cost should be allowed for. The contractors then agreed to do the work proposed by them without additional cost, and it was executed accordingly. The superior quality of the work as executed, to the work as designed, is proved and does not appear to have beetj questioned at any time. As regards an alleged change in respect of securit}-. the evidence shows a disa- greement between A. H. Yorrot, Secretaiy of the Quebec Harbour Commissioners, and Thomas McGreevy as to the wording of a letter written by the latter to the former, and tiled by Verret, as authority for giving up to Murphy a certificate of deposit of the Union Bank for 825,000 (twenty-five thousand dollars), held as .security for the performance of the contract, and taking in place of it an unaccepted cheque of Murphy endorsed by X. K, Connolly for ihe same amount. The letter which was produced by James Woods, wlTo succeeded Verret as Secretary to the Board, roads as follows: ivw ifc ft'- (i : 54 Victoria. Appendu (^o. 1.) A. 1891 il W i " Private." •• Quebec, 27th October, 1887. " Dear Mb. Verret, — I soe objection toyour taUiiiy Mr. O. K. Murphy's che»iuo eiulorsei] by Mr. Connolly, for the one you now hoM on deposit. ■' Your trnlj', (Kxhibit " L." ) " THOMAS MrGRKEVY." Verret testiried positively that the letter on which he acted read as follows : '• Priviite." •• QrEiJEC, 27t!i Octolier, 1887. " Dear Mr. Verret. — I isee no objection to your takinj^ Mr. O. K. Murphy's cheque endorsed by N. Connolly, for the one you now hold on deposit." " Your truly, " f JIO.MA.S McdRKEVY." The suggestion is, that the original letter was abstracted, and the one pioduced betore the Cominitteo substituted. Such a conclusion would seem to rest exclusively on Verret's reading of the letter when handed to him. The Committee incline to the opinion that the letter pro exchange of the security and did not observe that the word " no" not being there, it was not such authority. They are further of opinion that Thomas Mctrreevy, in writing the letter intended to state thiit he had no objection, but that ho inadverteiiily left out the word " no." It may be mentioned hero that in giving his evidence on this matter Thomas McGreevy stilted that there was no reason why the Boai'd should not have authorized the change. No injury resulted from the relinquishment of the security and none was very likely to result. CHARGE No. 8. General; as to AGENcr, and moneys received fr^m Lahkin, Connolly & Co. AND Robert H. McGreevy. "That from the years 1883 to 1890, both inclusive, the said Thomas McGreevy received from Larkin, Connolh' iV Co. and from his brother. Robert H. McGreevy, for the considerations above indicated, a sum of about 8200,000, and that during the period aforesaid he was the agent and paid representative of Larkin, Connolly & Co. on the Quebec Harbour Board of Commissioners, in Parliament, and in connection with the Department of Public Works." 'tii. Tliat fn>iii tlic yci'.r 1SH3 to tSlH), l)oth inclusive, tin- said Thomas MclJrt'cvy received from Larkin, Connolly it Co., and from his brotlier, R. H. Mc(ireevy,for the considerations aliove indii'atj'd, ii sum of alnrnt .SSOO.CWK). 5(1. That <1iirin^ thei)eri45 was paid to Thomas McGreevy by Robert McGreevy out of his share of the latter in the profits arising irom the contracts in question. ivi; A. 1891 54 Victoria. AppenOix (No. 1.) A. 1S91 1887. y's che([ue ■:vy." follows : 1887. Murphy's JVY." » produced xclusively incline to leudinif it e security iiuthority. ' intended " no." It McGreevy le clutnge. was very Y A: Co. On the 14tli January, 1881), Robert McGreevy wrote to Thomas McGreevy, en- closing a Btatement of account and claiming credit f'or8.'>7,545 (received by Thomas), as having been paid by the former, and it appears by this letter that the source of this amount was the share of profits received b}' Robert McGreevy from the firm of Larkin, Connolly & Co. The letter does not however indicate that Robert McGreevy ti-eated these profits as a matter in which Thomas McGreevy was interested. On the contrary, he charges them as accounts to be credited by Thomas McGreevj' to him and it appears by the letter of Thomas McGreevy to Robert, dated 24th Januaiy, 1889, that they were so ci'edited. ft appears, however, by a statement produced b}' him, that Robeit McGreevy claims that, in all, he paid to Thomas McGreevy the sum of 870,800 as Thomas McGreevy's share of the profits drawn by Robert McGreevy from the various con- tracts in question. This your Committee cannot accept as true, so faras it sets up the allegation that these sums were paid us a share of profits in which Thomas McGreevy had a direct interest, because they find that, in part, in his letter above referred to, and in an account filed by him in the case of McGreevy against McGreevy (Exhibits " PIS " and "Q13'') he claims these payments as credits to which he is entitled in his accounting with his brother; a position obviously inconsistent with the contention that they were paid as his bi-other's share of the pi'ofits drawn by Robert McGreevy from the firm of Larkin. Connolly & Co. The preceding portions of this report show that your Committee cannot deter- mine with any accuracy what amounts have been received by Thomas McGreevy from the firm of Larkin, Connolly & Co. As regards the balance of the two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000), mentioned in the above charge, and not dealt with, the Committee can only report that the evidence is contradictory and irreconciliable and that they have not been able to arrive at any definite conclusion. As to the charge that during the period mentioned, Thomas .McGreevy was the agent and paid lepresentative of Larkin, Connolly & Co. on the Quebec Harbour Commission in Parliament and in connection with the Department of Public Works, your Committee find that he did, in fact, act in the interest of the firm throughout. lIcGreevy cGreevy, ring the lly & Co. nnection V received Isideratiims ()f Liiikin, liitl ill coll- illowini; piomas larising CHARGE No. 9. Receipt op Money oct of Baie des Chaleurs Railway Subsidies. " That the .said Thomas McGreevy exacted and receiveil out of the subsidies voted by Parliament for the construction of the Buie des Chaleurs Railway a sum of over «40,000." 57. Tiiat tlie said Tlioiiias McOreevy exiu-'ted and received out of tlie siilisidies voted liy Parliament for the coiiKtructioii of the Baie des Chaleurs RailwAy a sum of over .*?40,0evy became the holder of one thousand, and Robert McGreevy the holder of five hundred shares in the Baie des Chalcui's Railway Company. Nothing was paid for the stock by Thomas McGreev}*. In the Spring of 1886, an agreement was made between C. N. Armstrong anil Robert and Thomas McGreevy, whereby the McGreevys agreed to transfer to Arm- strong their fifteen hundred shares, the nominal value of which was $75,000 for $50,000 cash, and $25,000 in bonds of the company. This agreement was not pro- duced; it was said to have been lost and the witnesses do not agree as to what were its terms. Robert McGreevy states that tlie terms as to pa3'ment of the $50,000 were that $10,000 was to be paid in cash and the balance in five payments of $8,000 each out of the Dominion subsidy as earned by the construction of the first 20 miles of the railroad. L. J. Riopel, who was the Managing Director of the Company and a party to the agreement by way of guarantee, states that there was nothing in the agree-, ment as to any part of the amount being paid out of the subsidies. The evidence of C. N. Armstrong is not clear upon the point. In answer to the question : '' How was iVM,' i,ti ;. till: -J ; v- ■■(■ ^ (I :' I' '.' H fir" 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 the 8.'>0,000 tf) bo paid ? " ho snid : " 810,000 in cnHh and tlvo pnymcntB of 8ft.()(»0 each." LiUi;r ill tho i^xuiiiinatidh ho ir. a«koil: " Thoso tour |iayiiioiitM ol 8H,O0(l each woro takoii out of thoCrovorninoiit siib»idius as they bucamo iesent Session tile a.iid Thomas McOreevy has always lived in the same house as the Hon. Minister of ''\i' iic Works, and that lie seems to have done so in order to put in the mind of Larkin. (.''.■■.i;i.)llv & Co. the impression that he had over said Hon. Minister an ahsolute control am! tliat lie was acting as his rei>re«entative in his corrupt transactions with them. (il. That in fact on nianv occasions he used tlie name of the Hon. Minister of Pnlilic Works in his dealings with tliem, undertaking to olitain his coo|)erati(m or declaring that he had secured it. As to this charge, your Committee find that the name of tho Minister of Public Works was made use of by Thomas McGreevy in his dealings with Larkin, Connolly & Co., and that this was done in such a way as to give tlie impression that he had iniiucnce with the Minister. They do not find that sums of money were corruptly demanded by Thomas McGreevy from Larkin, Connolly & Co., nor do they find that he used the Minister's name improperly before the Harbour Commissioners. It appears that during the time that Thomas McGreevy attended the sessions of Par- liament, since the year 1882 to the beginning of the present session, he lived in the ivx 1891 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.; A. 1891 Hjitno liouHo with the Minister, but the Cominitteo uro iiiiiiMo to timi any ovidenoi' tliiit iio liicruby gave the impression to Liirivin, OomiDliy \- Co. that he hail control over the .Nfinisler, or tliat lie was the .Miiiister'.s represeiitative in any of tiie Irans- aclinns referrod to. iiciiiey. lived ' (Uine (1 ovt'V ill liis ublic nolly had iptly that It Par- 1 the (MIAI{(ii:s AGAlN.Vr THK J)i:i'AHTMKXT OF PT'HLIC WOKKS. CHARGE No. 1. " CkoSS-WAM, " Co.MRACT, 2e|iartiiieMt of I'lililii' Wcii'ks nf ('aiiadit, the said llmi, 'rfininiis .Medreevy, then and nuw a iiieiiilH'i' iif the I'arliaiiieiit iif Canada, and a luenilH-r nf the •^iielHC MarlHiur ('iiiiiniisMii>ii li.v appiiintnient of the (idvernnient, |>i'iiiiiiieil til olitain, and did (ilitain, from the l)e|iart- nient (if I'nlijie Works of Canada, anil from otliiials of that l)e|iaitnient, in telaticm to the said . •' dels, to tin'ires in conneetioii therewith, and to the anamnts thereof, infcniiiation wlii<'li he offered to eoniinuiiicate liefore the residt was olticially known, and which he did C'onininnicate tothe tirin of Livrkin, Connolly tt Co., and to certain ineinli«>rs of tiie said firm individually. IS. Tliat to the knowledge of the said Thomas Mcdreevy, the tenders of Messrs. (lal- hiffher an- improper object. As to the branch of this charge under which it has been contended that impro- per quantities were wilfully applied to the tenders in the interest of Larkin, C >!i- noUy ct Co., we incorporate herein portions of the report of Messrs. Jennings ana Macdougall, the Engineers appointed b}- the Committee, which have reference to this jiart of the inquiry. vti at.) I A ssw 54 Victona. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 In the inBtructions to these Enj^ineers, one of the matters i-equired of them was to compare the quantities shown by the plans and profiles with the quantities applied to ; Lo several tenners for the works. On this branch of their work they report as follows : •' The p'ans laid before us, and said to be the originals oxamine2,812 00 "And this comparison carried out by the addition thereto of the items in schedule of quantities used in above comparisons and not obtainable from ])lans and specifications, we find the position of tiie tenders to be: (Se,.81.e^t 'T" S. Peters & Moore $ 730,243 50 for,i,.tail..) Liirkin, Connollv ,^ Co 753,371 70 J.Gallagher ". 7*12,378 32 G. Beaucage 705.510 50 Samson iV:. Samson 1,032,011 20 ivc 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 As to the plans, the evidence of Mr. Coste, Assistant Engineer of the Depart- ment of Public Works, who was called as a witness after the report, of Arhich the above is an extract, was put in, goes to justify the doubts of Messrs. Jennings and Macdougall, as to whether they had the proper data upon which to determine whether the quantities applied to the tenders before the tenders were awarded were or were not justitied by the material from which the quantities were taken out. It ap])ears that the quantities ascertained from the Engineers' i-eport are the result of measurements from the working plans, either prepared or altered at a date subsequent to the letting of the contract, and, for the reasons which appear in that report, jour Committee are unable to conclude, with any degree of certainty, that there was a wilful application of improper quantities. cross various at the incil in )ability late clear, im to snis in ns and CHARGE No. 2. Contract for the completion op the Esquimalt Dock, 8tii November, 1884. '" That after lenders were asked for by theCrovernmentfor the completion of the Esquimalt Dock and before Larkin, Connolly & Co. tendered for that work, Thomas Mcdreevj' obtained from the Department of Public Works, information, figui-es and calculations whijh he communicated to Larkin, Connolly & Co., and that duiiiig the execution of thd contract, the said Thomas McGreevy, acting as agent of Larkin, Connolly & Co., obtained from the Department important alterations in the plans and woi'ks and more favourable conditions enabling the Contractors to realize, to the detriment of the public interest, vciy large sums of money." •27. That iH'fore tfiiilfriiig the said Larkiti, Ccuiioll.v& Cii. Iiad \yitli Thomas MdJm-vy, then aiul now a iut'iiil)er of tlie I'arliaiiH'nt of Canada, ciimiiiiinioatiDiis and iiiUTviews whfrein they Nccured I'.is strvioes to assist tlieni in dealing witli the Depai'tnient of Public Works in order to seeure the saifl eoiitraet. 2S. That he agreed to help them, and tliat he did in fact lielii them in divers ways, and, amongst others, by obtaining from tlie Department of I'nblie Works information, figures, and calcnlations which he conun\micated to them. 30. That during the execution of the said contract, the said Thomas McGreevy was the agent or one of the agents in the pay of Larkin, Connolly & Co., in dealing with the Depart- ment of f'tiblic Works ; that he enrteavoured to obtain, and did obtain for them, at their re(iuest, in:|x)rtant alterations in the works and more favonral>ie conditions. .S3. Tliat in consideration of the s\nns ot money so received by him and of the promises to him made, the said Thomas Mctireevy f\irnislied to Larkin Connolly a Co.. a great deal of inforuiation . strove to procure and did procure to '.:- mad" by the Department and the lion. Minist.T of l'ubli<' Works, in the plan.' of tin (iravnig D(x;k and the execution of the works, alterations which h.ve cost large s\ims i;f ni( ney to the public treasury. The notice for tenders fWr this contract called for prices for the vario.is cli "(»8 between the cost as estimated, at tho time of the letting of the contract, and the acti'ul cost of the work as finished. The amount of Larkin, Connolly iV Co.'s tender, applying the schedule of rates to Bennett's estimate of quantities, was 8374,55!>. ivrtrt 'n iil mmim 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Of this tiifterence we find, by the Engineers' second report, that 853,897 in referable to changes in the plans and in the execution of the work, the details of which aro given by them as follows : " The alteration in the drip of the dock floor details at mouth of culvert and outer invert amount to ...8 f>01 " The cost of the circular head as measured from the jilans, amounts to S 39,5S2 " Deduct the value ot the works included in the invert and caisson berth, side walls, &c., as shown on contract plans 22,507 17,025 8 17,<)2(i " The cost of altars, ashlar and dock walls, as con- structed and taken from fiial estimate §180,070 "Deduct value of these items as measure I on con- tract plans and value of cement concrete dis- placed by the increased size of stone 103,191 32,879 "The difference in cost of the caisson chamber as constructed in stone instead of brick « Caisson chamber as built in stone 8 33,149 do do do urick 29,757 3.392 "Total increase 8 53,897 The total amount of extras according to Mr. Perloy was 823,015. Adding these two items of 853,897, and 823,015 and then deducting this876,iil2 from the above 8206,968, we have remaining 8130,076, as a balance to bo accounted for. As to Bennett's final estimates no evidence was ottered as to their being incrorrect. On the other hand it is to be remarked that his estimate of the work still remaining to be done al the date of the assumption of the undertaking by the Government of the Dominion appears to have been very inaccurate. Sir Hector Langevin thus explains the difference: — Tiierefore, I say this, that the estimated amount of the tender, as Mr. Tarte said, is 8374,550.33. The amount of the final estimate was 8581,527.80. The difference between the final estimate and the amount of the tender is 8206,968.4:7. Now, to make this difference of 8206,968.47 l)etween the final estimate and the amount tendered there are these figures : Extra work not in tender 8 47.584 95 Keel blocks, special agreement 2,469 00 Then the allowance on plant 19,927 13 These three items form a sum of 86!>.981.08, reducing the ditterenco to 8136,987.39. This extra amount is made up as follows : Kxtra ruth and rock excavation 8 14.400 00 Recour-ing of stone 41,200 00 Substitute of Stone for brick 5.800 00 That is the sum that was mentioned as being six thousand dollars. Kxtra (|uimalt, B.C., and have to ropoi-l that I found the work to be well advanced and of most excellent quality, and, barring extraordinary accidents, I see no reason wh}' the contractors should not have completed the same at the date stipulated in the contract. " There are, however, two or three matters connected with this dock which I desire to bring forward for consideration by tiie Hon. the Minister. " According to the original plans and speciticalions tor this dock and under which it was commenced and cai-ried on by the Provincial (rovernment of British Colundiia up to 1883, when the work was assumed by the Dominion, and also in ac- coidance with the plans and specifications prepared by myself for the completion of the duck, it was shown that the masonry siiould be built in courses of a certain thickness, such thickness having been determined b^- the prevailing idea that stone of a greater thickness could not be obtained. '• After Messrs. Larkin and Connolly arrived at Victoria they made a dilligent search for a quarry from which to obtain tiie quality of stone demanded by the spe- cification and they obtained one on Salt Spring Island, fiom which stone of any size and of excellent quality could be obtained. Such being the case, they submitted a proposal to re-course the work in the dock whereby one stone took the place of two in deptli. This pioposal was assented to, and having seen the work done prior to 1881], and compared it with that done by tlie present contractors, T have no hesita- tion in saying that tiie change made to the larger stone has increased the strerigth and durability of tlie dock. " According to the specification, the stone work is backed by conci'ete, each Ijeing ))aid for at a ditferent price. By the substitution of larger courses of stone, the quantity of stone used has been increased beyond the quantity originally specified and the quantity of concrete backing proportionately lessened, and the change thus made will increase the cost on 'he dock about 835,000. " I may here mention thp' originally the masonry in theCxravingDock at L^vis, Quebec, was intendea to be in comparatively shallow courses, but, it having been lound possible to obtain a very much heavier class of stone, the courses were doubled in thickness, to the material advantage of thai work. "The stone used at Esquimalt is a sandstone, not differing much in harilness and texture from sandstone generally and not so well adapted for wear and tear as limestone, granite or hard stone of that class, and in view of the great amount of wear and tear to which a dock of this nature is subjected, it is in my opinion a most fortunate thing that the contractors were able to obtain so large a class of stone as they have used, and, as a direct benefit has been conferred, I have to recommend that they be paid full measurement for all the stone they have placed in the dock, due care being taken to reduce the quantity of backing. " I have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient servant, "HEXRY F. PERLKY, •' Chief Engineer, " A. GoHiEL, Esq.. "Secretary, Public Works Department." ivee i " 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 The recomm(mclation was tipproved b}* the Minister, the approval was commu- nicated by an official lettei- of the 28tli Januarj' and payments were made accord- ingly. The contract for this work contained a piovision by which the contractors agreed to take over, at a valuation of §50,000, and as pait of the consideratio.i or the cuniract, a certain quantity of ])lant taken over by the Dominion Government from the CTOvernnient of British Columbia. A (daim for a reduction on thi '■ " ' ■ ])lant was made by the contractors in the spring of 1885, when the matter was referred to Mr. Bennett, who repoited a sliortage <>l 810.45, based on tlie inventory. The claim then maile by the contractors was for an allowance of 612,500. In a report of the 18th January. Mr. Perley makes the followir.g statement: — * * ■:- " Whilst at Esquimau I made a carelul examination of the plant, materials, &c., mentioned in the schedule attached to the contract to be taken over by the contractors, and witli reference thereto I can oidy state that it is to be regretted that a very large jiortion of it was accepted at any price from the Provincial (iovernment. It is old, unserviceable, of no use, and of but very little value, and in my opinion the prices which were affixed to many of the articles are very much in excess of their value i but could they have been made use of they might have prove2. 'fliat tliey had tlie said tenders in their iMii'session d\uinjf several lionrs, after whioli they were retnrned to Henry 1''. I'erley, then in Qnelieu, hy the said Thomas AfcCirei'vy. ")H. That the contract was awai(h'il to one .lohn (ialhitrlier, a mere tij{\n-e-liead for tliiT said Murphy, Connolly and K. H. Mcliretvy, who did the work for thew own profit and advantatJe. .')4. That changes detrnnental to the pnltlic interest, Imt of a ni.ture to .secnre great profits to the c'liitraetors, were made in tlie |,lans, and the canying o\it of the works, anil in the conditions and secmities set out in the co;)tract, through the influence and intervention of the said Thomas Mcdreevy, ixff j-aiwaOiV? 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 " I ; rd, ,111 1 111' will* •r wliicli ■I'VV. for till? 'otit mill • Ki'i'.at anil ill •vintii)ii The branch of this report which deals with the charges against Thomas McGreovy, in connection with this contract, expresses all that need bo said as to this charge, in so far as it relates to the Department. The only changes made in the execution of the work were properly allowed and they involved no additional cost above that provided for by the contract. CHARGE No. 4. Contract fob Dredqino Wet Basin at 35 Cents per Yard, 23rd May, 1887. " (a.) That the Honourable Thomas McGreevy, having made a corrupt arrange- ment with Larkin, Connolly & Co., providing for a contract for the dredging of 800,000 cubic yards in the Wet Basin of the Quebec Harbour Works, used his influence as a Member of Parliament with the Department of Public Works, and in particular yith Henry F. Perley, and induced him to report to the Quebec Harbour Commission m favour of the payment of the eaid sum of thirty-five cents per yard ; and that a correspondence on this subject between Henry F. Perley and Larkin, Connolly & Co. took place at the suggestion of the said Thomas McGreovy before the Quebec Har- bour Commissioners were consulted, and was conducted in such a manner as to conceal the corrupt character of the contract. " (i.) That through the intervention, effort and influence of the said Thomas McGreovy, and without any public tender having boon calletl for, a contract was made between the Quebec Harbour Commissioners and Larkin, Connolly & Co. for the above-mentioned work. •' (c.) That in the execution of the works of the above contract extensive frauds were perpetrated to the detriment of the public treasury, and sums of money wore paid corruptly to officers under the control and tlirection of Honry F. Perley and appointed by the Quebec Harbour Commission." 40. That tlie Mi.id Thomas McCirwvy used his infliu'iifc as a MciiiUt of this Housn with th <'I)ei>artnieiit of Public WorkH, and in partiinilar with Hfiiry K. IVrlry, P'.sq., to induce him to rejiort to the Quoliec Harliour Coiiuiiission in favour of the paynu'ut of tlio said sum of 35 cents |)er cubic yard. 41. That the corre8|iondence on this subject iMitwemi Henry V. Perley and Larkin, Connolly & Co., Iteforo the (Quebec Harbour Commissioners were consulted, took place at the suggestion of the said Thomas Mcttreevy, and was conductefl with his knowledge and |iarticip»tion in such a manner as to conceal from the eyes of ParliiuiK^nt and of the public ' the corrupt character of the contract, in connection with which he had received •^27,ur CommisHioners and Larkin, Connolly & Co., for all the nec»;ssary drwlging and removal of material in the Wet Itasin of the t^uebec HarlKiur works. 44. That in the execution of the works of thiscoiitraetexteiisivefraiids were iieriH'trated, to the detriment of the public.treasury, and sums of money were paid corruptly to ottieials uiuh-r the control and direction of Henry F. Perley and aiipointed by the tiueU'c Harlxiur Commission. The principal facts relating to the making and carrying out of this contract aro sot out and commented on in the part of this report which ileals with the charges affecting Thomas McGreevy. It appears that the Department of Public Works hail nothing to do with the awai-ding of the contract or with the execution of the work undei" it. By the authority of Statute the contract was awarded to carry out plans which had pre- viously been approved by the Governor in Council, and umier which the dredging was done under the contract of 1882. Accordingly the matter did not come before tho Department and Mr. Perley's connection with it was exclusively in his capacity as engineer of the Harbour Commissioners. The following considerations aro material : Tho contract was for dredging to a depth not exceeding 15 foot below low water. The price for that kind of dredging in tho contract of 1882, was 27 cents. Large profits had been made by tho conUactors under that contract, but there is nothing to show that Mr. Perley was aware of that fact. 1— c* tlii; :i ; 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 ! No tondoi'B wei'o cullod for. As to this thero wiis no Htatutory obligation upon the CommiHsionorB to call for teiuleiB. The only Act relating to the Harbour Board which required tenders was that of 1882, in reference to the Cross-wall, It is questionable whether under the circumstances existing at the time, it would have been advantageous to call for tenders. The cost of the work was limited to $100,000, Larkin, Connolly & Co. owned the only plant in the country suitable for the woi'k, and it would seem improbable (hat any other contractor would build, or bring to Quebec, the neceesarj' plant to do a limited amount of dredging like this. Larkin, Connolly & Co., having the plant on the ground, would apparently control the situation in case of tenders being called for. While these considerations may justify the course of Mr. Perley in not calling for tenders, the fact still remains that the same kind of dredging had been done under the previous contract by the same contractoi's at 27 cents, and that no effort was made to reduce the figure named in the contractors' offer at 85 cents; and Mr. Perley's coui-se in connection with the recommendation of the offer of the contractors to the Harbour Commissioners, cannot, in the opinion of the Committee, be justified. As to the alleged frauds in the execution of the work and corrupt i>aymontH to officers, the inspectors appointed by the Harbour Commissioners, namely, Messrs. Brnneile, Pelletier and Germain were paid by Larkin, Connolly &Co. nearly $(i,000, to induce them to make false returns of the amounts of dredging done from time to time, and this, in connection with evidence as to the capacity of the dredges emplo3'ed and the work done by the same dredges in previous years, leaves no room for doubt as to the correctness of this part of the charge. While the contract was limited to an expenditure of 8100,000, which would pay for about 286,000 yards, the dredging done was returned at 731,000 yards and this quantity was paid for during the seasons of 1887, 1888 and 1889. A large portion of this dredging appears to have been done to a dej)th exceeiling that provided for in the contract, which was all that was i-equiied for the Wet Basin. No satisfactory explanation of this latter fact has been given. The profits of this dredging contract are greatly augmented by the fact that Larkin, Connolly & Co. were allowed, under another contract, a liberal price per yard for depositin ■ the dredged material in the wall. Before leaviIl^ this branch of the reference, your Committee feel themselves obliged to mention two other matters which appeared in evidence, although they perhaps do not come under any specific charge. One of those was the fact, admitted by Mr. Perley, that ho received a present, in jewellery and silverware, to the value of about $1,885, from Owen E. Murphy, on behalf of the firm of Larkin, Connolly & Co., on or about the 26th di.y of January, 1887. Of this present Murphy took care to remind the Chief Engineera few months after it bad been made. The other matter relates to (he allowances which were made to the contractors in respect of the L^vis Graving Dock, and the consequent large oxcese of the cost of the work over the contract price. Most of the information on this subject was put in at the latter part of the investigation — near its close, in fact, audit is appai'cnt that all the evidence regarding the matter was not furnished to your Committee, ])robably because the allowances above i-eferred to are not mentioned specifically in the charges referred to the Committee. In the absence of further evidence your Committee can only say that extra allowances were made to the contractors on ^^his work which appears not to have been warranted by such facts as were presented during the investigation. ivhh ^/»UUM»i.iJi»8 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 CHARGES AGAINST TlIK HONOURABLE SIR HECTOR LANGEVIN CHARGE No. 1. Payments of Money by Larkin, Connolly & Co. "That mombers of the firm of Laikiii, Connoll}' & Co. paid and caused to bo paid to the Honourable the Minifitor of Public Worlds, out of the piocccdH of the various contractH in question, hirge sums of money." (i.S. Tliivt certain iiicinlicrM nf tlio firm of Larkin, Connolly & Co. l>aio ])aid lar(;e minis of money to tlie Hon. Minister of Public Works out of the proceeds of tlio said contracts, and that entries of the said sums were made in tiie IxKiks of that firm. that per ctors cost was irent tteo, in your this sntcd CHARGE No. 2. " Cross-wali, " Contract, 2Ctii May, 188.^. "That by improper manipulations and by information improperly obtained from officers of the Department of Public Works, the contract for the Cross-wall was, on a report to Council made by the Honourable the ^linister of Public Works on the 2»»th May, 1883, awarded to Larkin, Connolly & Co., who, about the same date, to wit, 4th .iuno, 1883, paid the sum of $1,000 to the " Langcvin Testimonial Fund," for the use of Sir Hector Langevin, then Minister." 19. That in conse: !' 1 64 Victoria. Apponilix (No. 1.) A. 1891 " Q. Ono of those two years? — A, I think so. " Q. Wo get down ho fur I see. Now, here is 1887 not very many pages you know, and here is 188(5. Now, you see it is simply a little Joh. — A. (After looking through the books) I don't see anything in the books. * * * "Q. J)o not get off the track. I want to know if there is any entry there for the $10,000. Do you find any entry ?— A. No. " Q. ])o you find in the book entries of donations which would bo perhaps poli- tical payments. You have already mentioned some as you wont along? — A. Yes. " Q. So while you find ontrios of $2,000, $100, $200 and $250, there is no entry as to $10,000?— A. No. " Q. Either in 1886 or 1887 ?— A. No. " Q. But you selected those two years ? — A. Yes. " (J. Now you have entered in that diary from time to time your various special transactions — your settlements with Robert McGreevy — and you entered in those diaries items down as low as $3 ? — A. Yes. "(J. And I notice that hero and there your games of draw poker are noticed ? — A. Certainly. "Q. Both your losings and your winnings are entered ? — A. Yes. v * * " Q. We have the scope of these diaries, showing all your entries ? We have these diaries showing li-om time to time your settlements with Robert McGreevy ? — A. Yes. " Q. Wo have these diaries from time to time showingyourpayments to Thomas McGreevy, but we have no entry with reference to $10,000 you have sworn to." Sir Hector Langevin's statement is as follows : " In answer to the charge made by Mr. O. E. Murphy, that he gave me in my house in Quebec, on two different occasions, the sum of $5,000, making in all $10,000, I have to say that O. K, Murphy was only once in my house, when he came to com- plain that one of the Assistant Engineers of the Quebec Harbour Commission was too hard with the contractors for the work. My answer was that those officers not being Government officers, the complaint of the contractors should be made to the Quebec Harbour Board and not to me. I add that Mr. O. E. Murphy did not speak to me about money, gift or loan ; that he did not offer, loan or pay me any sum of mon«y ; and I swear positively that he never paid me the above mentioned two sums of five thousand dollars each, and I never asked him for money." Another sum of $10,000 supposed to have been paid by N. K. Connolly, is thus testified to. It is sworn by Murphy that Nicholas Connolly told him, first that he paid Laforce Langevin $5,000 on a letter from Sir Hector and then that he paid another $5,000 to Sir Hector Langevin himself. Murphy's evidence was as follows: " I called at Mr. Thomas McGreevy's house and lie asked for $5,000. His brother was present, and there was quite a disagrcemontas t<» which works it should be charged to. Robert objected to it being charged to the Cross-wall or British Columbia and said it ought to be charged to the Graving Dock, L^vis. I stated that my partnei's would not utand thtit, as I made a bargain that whatever came to tlie Ldvis Graving Dock nothing should be paid out of it. I went round to Mr. Nicholas Connolly and stated tbo case — that there was $5,000 asked for — and he refused, and we both got a little excited over the matter, and he there admitted that he had already paid $10,000. I then came around and reported the fact to Mr. Thomas McGreevy in the presence of his brother Robeit, and he asked if Mr. Connolly had stated to whom he paid it. I stated the case in the presence of hia brother, and ho got in a great passion to think that anyone else was getting money but himself. We then — Robert in company with my-oelf — went down to the books and examined them, and found that there was $10,000 chai-god to the. Cross-wall. It was there we dis- covered also where the inspectors were paid. We then came back to Mr. McGreevy's house and reported, and he himself found a great deal of fault with the way things wore done — and that is how I came to discovei" this money, Mr. Connolly made this statement to me that ho got a letter from Sir Hector iv;; 64 Victoria, Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 omaH y had d ho We hem, dis- evy'8 liings this "Mr. OsiiER objoctod. " Witness continued : — "I ask him how ho camo to givo ihis money and he stated that a letter was brought to him by Laforco Langovin. \la said ho gave the money tho first time to liaforce. I asked him how ho gave the second and he (oUI mo he gave tho second direct to himself." Jiobert McGreovy's evidence substantially agrees with that of ^rurphy. N. K. Connolly denies ever having made suoh a payment, or having told Murphy or Robert McGreevy that he had done so. Sir lloctor Langevin's statement is as follows : 2nd. " In answer to the statement made by the saidO. K. Murpliy, that Nicholas K. Connolly told him that ho had given "^n my son for me and also to mo personally each time $5,000, making in all $10,000, 1 swear positively that the said Nicholas K. Connolly did not pay me, diiectly or indirectly, any sum of money, and especially tho said above-mentioned two sums of $5,000 and ho did not pay to my son any sum of money, as far as my knowledge goes."- Laforce Langevin denies the receipt of the $5,000, and the carrying of any letter from Sir Hector to Nicholas Connolly. Thomas McGreevy denies having ever asked or received tho alleged payment. In a declaration matle by Owen I']. Murphy in April, 1800, lie says : 5. "On the 3rd of August, 1887, the Hon. Thomas McGreevy came to m« and staled that Sir Hector Langovin was going away that evening and wanted money — ($5,000), I gave him $1,000, and on tho 8th of the same month he received $4,000 from N. K. Connolly, this sum was chaiged to the tirm in the books, as appears by the Accountant's statement, suspense account." R. H. McGreevy at tho same time m.ade a declaration commencing as follows (Exhibits " L14 " and " M14 ") : "I have read over the statement of O. E. Murphy, Esq., one of tho tirm o: Larkin, Connolly & Co , for tho various c(»ntracts of the (Quebec Harbour Imjjrove- ments and the Graving Dock in British Columi)ia. 1 have a knowledge that all the statements are correct." Sir Hector Langevin's evidence is this : " Q. Do you remember on the 21st .Tuly having niet Mr. Thomas McGreevy, and to have slated lo him that you wanted $">, 000? — A. Mo. Not only 1 do not remember, but I did not say so — at any period. " Q. Did not Mr. McGreevy come back aftei- a certain time, and in tho evening bring only $1,000 ?— A. No ; not $1, $1,000, or any amount. "Q. On tho 8th of August following, diil you not return lo Quebec from Rimouski, and did not .Mr. Thomas McGreevy ])ay to 3'ou, or hand to you an addi- tional amount of $4,000? — A. No; ii is not so. i stated so in my examimiti<»n-in- chiof, or my statement. "Q. If Mr. Thomas McGreevy made such a request, either to Murphy or Nicholas Connolly, was he authorized to do so? — No. "Q. Was Thomas McGreevy ever authorizecl at any time to mA: money on ycuir behalf of Larkin, Connolly & Co., or any member of that lirm ?- A !;^^o." Robert McGreevy, it has been observed, states that he met Thomas McGreevy on Dalhousie street about 4 o'clock in the afternoon of the 21st of .luly, and that ho lold him ho had received $1,000 from Miivpliy. The publislioil Htatement from Murphy, corroborated by Robert M<'Greov_y's statement, published at the same time, declares that this alleged payment was made on Hrd August. There was likewise an allegation that a payment of $5,0((0 was made to Thomas Mctxreovy for the Minister. O. E. Murphy's evidence on that point is as follows: — " Q. Refer again to ' H5 ' and say whether you find some of tho items there that wore paid at the request of Thomas McGreov}'? — A. There is an item, August 7th, 1887, but that date is not right. Mr. McGreevy came to mo and wanted $r),000. These dates, I think, are all wrong; most of them. Tho book-keeper or the auditor probably can account for that. None of my partners that I know were in Quebec, and we wore short of money. Mr. .McGreevy stated that he wanted to tiy and get ivA;A; % Ii m ] 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 81,000 boforo Sir Hector wan to louve Quobuc. I wont to thob!ink,(lrow tho choqiio inyHcIf, ami drew tlio money and tuuulod it myHolf to ThomnH McGrocvy in tho office. 124 I)«nn)UHioHtrcot. "Q. What explanation can you j^ivo to tho Committee as to the item of $4,000 foilowinaymentH to Thomas McCrrcovy by the witness 'f — A. Only one, and it came in tiiix way: Mr. Alctrri'evy appeared to como in u hurry i>nd 1 drew my cheque. iJe came tor $5,000. I iiad not the money, and I do not, know whetbor the company haJ it. I simply tlrew my cheque ami went to tho bank and <;fave it to him. I made ibat entry, so that there would bo $4,000 more due. " By Mr, Geotfrion : "Q. What is tho entry ?— A. $1,000. "Q. It was paid on ii'call for $.'».000?— A. That entry on that date would not bo made unless I wanted to got tho choquo back from tho company." R. H. McGreovv s.-iys : " Q. Did you o.Nphiin the items of $1,000 and $4,000 on Autcust tho Srd ami Sth ? — A. Yes. Members ot 1 ho tirm that I spoke to on that said they gave thom to Thomas McGicovy. " Q. Wbi'jh members of tho firm ? — A. Mr. Murphy and Mr. Connolly. " Q. Did they say what it was asked for or given for ? — A. Yes ; they said- Mr. Murphy told mo — that Thomas MctTrcevy camo to him and said Sir floctor L gevin was about leaving and this money was necessary, " (J. And the $4,0(»0 ?— A. The same for the $4,000. •' Jii/ Mr Geoffrion : " Q. You say that you are aware that tho $4,000 wore paid by Nicholas Con- nolly ? — A. Yes. '■ What informntion did you locc'.vo from Nicholas Connolly as to tho $4,000 ? — A. The only further evidence 1 can otter on part of that $5,000 is that I met Tbomai McGreevy in Dalhoiisie street about four o'clock on that afternoon of 2lst July, f nd be told me ho had ro"eived $1,(K»0 from Mr. Murphy. About the $4,000, I do not know any more than I have said. " Q. Do j'ou remember wbolber .Sir Hector fjungevin was in Quebec at that time ? — A. 1 do not. " Hi/ Mr. Osier .• "(tivothoycar?-A. IS.St. N. K. Connolly s.-iys : "InKxbibit ' 155, 'to bo found at page 105, being a statement of alleged pay- ment in connection with Quebec Harbour Improvements, there is an item of $1,000 and another item of $4,0()t( in August. Mr. Murphy was asked what explanation bo could give to the Committee as to tho item nf $4,000 ; and at page 188 tho answer is : ' Mr. Connolly told nw ho had paid the $4,000 '. ?— A. Who is that ? " Q. To Sir Hector Langevin ? — A. 1 novor told him anything of tho kind. " (^. Did you over tell Mr. Murpli}' you bad paid $4,000 to Sir Hector Lange- vin ? — A. No ; I never did. " Q. Did you make such a pa^'mont ? — A. Sir Hector never spoke to mo about money and I never spoke to him. " Q. Did you over state to binj you had ever paid such a sum to Mi". Thomas McGreevoy ? — A. No ; I novor did. \vll 54 Victoria. Apiifiidix (No. 1.) A. 1891 " Q. Wore you mailo iiwiiro of iho liict, or toll th« iiiict l(» Mv. Murphy, at, flml tiino or iiftorwiinlM, (Imt tlioso two piiyrnonU of $1,0(10 and $1,00(1 wore ma,000 which he had previously embezzled, made up the sum of 850,000 for which ho became a defaulter. He never returned to New York ant! ii no of the money has boon refunded. Arriving at St. Catharines, Ont., lie mot his cuusin. Nicholas K. Connolly, and en- trusted him with the management of some buisiness affairs in Now York giving him for collection a cheque on some funds stilt standing to his credit as Excise Com- missioner for an additional sum of 810,000. This chciinc, however, Nicholas K. Con- nolly did not succeed in converting into cash. Until he arrived in Quebec Murphy does not appear to have remained long in any one place. After a short stay at St. Catharines he went to Ireland and England and thence to South America, where he remained about a year, coming back to St. Catharines and, tinally, to Quebec in Juno, 1880, as above stato'l. Ho was. by his own admission,, an active parlicij)ator in every transaction by which the tirm or any of its members attempted to defraud the (Jovernmont or to corrupt or over-reach the officials. Robert McCJroevy had been for years in business connection with his brother Thomas and likewise in his personal confidence. Those relations were succeeded within the last two years b}' terms of the greatest hostility and by a course of litiga- tion, both civil and criminal, in the Courts of Quebec. His credibility is likewise affected by his admissions that he may have made, during his brother's election con- test in 1887, a solemn tieclaration or affidavit that his brother was not interested in a railway contract with him, which was contrary to the fact. , Your Committee, for the reasons above given, report that the accusation of per- sonal corruption which is mado in charge No. 1, above ^et forth, has not been sustained, but ^^as been disaproved. As to the second of these charges, relating to the contract for tho Cross-wall and Lock, tho Committee report that no evidence was submitted to show thsit Sir Hector Langevin was connected with " improper manipulations," or the giving of informa- tion improperly. If is proved that f ho firm of Larkin, Connolly ^:^ 'i ^ ivmm w^ \ ! 54 Victoria. Appendiv (No. 1.) A. 1891 CONCLUDING OBSKRVATIONS. Y»»ur Committee liavo the followinj^ genoral observations to mal- trict of Montmorency in this House, having declared from his seat in the House that he is credibly informed, and that he believes, that he is abl" to establish bj- satisfactory evidence that : 1. In 1882 the sum of 8;iV5,000 having been voted by the Parliame;u (iiKiiKr of Canada to carry out the works of the Harbour of (Quebec, the Quebec M.\ni«'in Harbour Commissioners called for tenilers for dredging in connecdon "'"••"'"^"''• w It li the said works. 2. That Messrs. Larkin, Connolly & Co. tendered and were awarded Lmikin. «:iin- the contract for the said dredging.' noi.i.y & Co. " ° CONTH.MT. I 'II ft 1 I I' I'f II 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 H. II. Me (illKKVV, A rAli'l'SKIl. WdllK CON- •IIM Kll .VKTKH KXI'IIIAI'ICIN dl'' TIMK. Mkssks. Kin- lI'l'l.K AMI MlUilllS AMI W. I'll KIN» ION. ("ho^s-Wai I. ASH Lock. H. II. Ml (illKKVV, A I'Alil'NKH. (iKO. r.KAl- CAi.K. .lolIN (iAI.I.AliilKli. TUMlKliS I'UK I'AllKH HV l.AHKIN \ Cl'. .'!. Tlial in order to sociiro tho intluencoof the lion. TljoinasMcUrecvy, then iind now a mombor of the Parliament ot'Canuda, and a nionibor ot' llic Qiioiu'c Harbour CommiMsion by appointment of the Government of Canada, the tirni of Larl to the year 1SS;{ afoiesaiil Messrs. Iviniitple and Morris, of liondon, Mngland, had acted as Engineers to the {juebec Harbour Commission, and that their liesident Knginoer forcariying out of the works was Mr. Woodford IMlkingtoii. 0. That in concert with Lnrkin, t'onnoll}- & (^). the said Tiiomas Mc- Greevy undertook to secure the removal ot Messrs. lvinipi)lo, Morris and Pilkington IV )m their ))ositions, and that they were in fact so remo- ved in 18S,'>, and replaced by Mr. Henry V. Perley and .lolin Kdward Hoyd, with the consent of the Hon. Minis'er of Public Works. 10. That in the same year, 1SS3, tenders wore called tor a Cross-wall and lock in connection with the harbour works at (iuobec in accordance with plans and specifications prepared in the Department of Public Works under the directiim of Henry F. Perley, Hsq. 11. That several teiidei's were made, and amongst others who tcndereil were Messrs. Larkin, Connolly & Co. 12. That before tendering, and in order to secure the influence. of the Hon. Thomas .MctJrcevy, then and now a member of the Parliament of Canada and a member of the Quebec Harbour Board by app()intm3nt (d' the (iovernment. Larkin, Connolly & (^o. took into partnership with themselves Kobert H. Mctireevy, a brother of the said Hon. Tliom.-is ^IcGreevy, giving him a 30 per cent, interest in the tirm, and this with the knowledge and consent of" the said Hon. Thomas McCireevy. 13. That among the parties tendering were a conti-actor named (ieorgo Reaucage, and one .b)hn (iallagher. 14. That it was on the suggestion of the said Hon. Thoinas Mclireevy that Beaucagc con>ented to nwdvc a tender. 15. That with the knowledge of the said Thomas McCrreevy, the three tenders of Larkin, Connolly & Co., of Heaucage, and of Gallagher, were prepared by the members of the tirm of Larkin, Connolh* & Co., lieau- cage being throughout deceived by the saiil lion. Thomas McGreovy as to his position in the matter, as he alleges in an action recently entere., which said notes wore duly paid. 2L That aliout tho same dato, namely, tho fth June, \^^H, a sum of l$l,000 was jiaid by the lirm of Larkin, Connolly it Co. loward- "tho Langovin Tostimonial Fund " — a fund destined to bo given to Sir Ifoctor Langovin. 22. That in thocoursoof the carrying out of the works, tiio said Tli'imas McGreevy caused cliangoH contrary to tho public intere.it to be made in the conditions of the saiil contract. 2;{. That in 1H84, Thomas Mctrieevy, then and now a member of the Parliament of Canada, and a member of tho Quebec Jlarbour ('omraission b}' appointment of theCovernmont, agreed with the firm of Larkin, ('on- nolly & Co., and cortain members thereof individually, to secure for them a contract for tho completion of tho (rraving Dock of L^vis, one of the conditions of the agreement being that ho, Thomas Mctireevy, should lecoive any excess over the sum of S5(),t»00 in the contract price. 24. That to tlie detriment of public interest, a contract was signed in or about tho month of Juno, 1884, for the performance of the said works, and that subsequently tho said Thomas Mctrreovy received the price stipulated in the corrupt arrangement above mentioned, namely, §22,000. 25. That in 188;! and 1884, toiiders wore asked for by tho (rovernment of Canada for tho completion of tho Craving Dock of Esquimalt, B.C. 2(». That the firm of Larkin, Connolly iS: Co. wore among those who tendered and that the contract was awarded to them in pursuance of a Report to Council, dated 24tli October, 1884, and signed by the Hon. Minister of Public Works. 27. That before tendering, the saitl Larkin. Connolly & Co. had with Thomas Mcttreevy, then and now a member of the Parliament of Canada, vii Hon. T. Mo- (illKKVV TO IIIIT.MN ISKDIl- MATION rHOM |)Kr.\HT> KNT. \l> DUTAIV AC- <'KI"IAN<'K III' fiAHKIN, (!l)N- N T'J OIITAIX [.VfOli- MATIOS. K. H. Mf- Ghekvv a I'AKTXEH. Al.lKUATlOXS. KlMS I'AII) I'O Hon. T. Mc- (JltKKVV. IXtOiniATION FCIlSI.SHKl).:i t Al/rKllATH>N« To INDICK M. P. '« TO ASSIST. Mkmukhs A1'- rUOAt'HKIi. 1)|SMISSA1. OK t'KUTAIN OhhI- CKliSSEl'LHKO. M'kt'Hasix. DuKitiiiNi;, ir communicatious and interviews whei-oin they secured his sei'viccs to assist them in deftling with the Department of Public "Works in order to secure tlie said contract. 28. Tliat he agreed to help thorn, and that he did in fact help them in divei's ways, and, amongs*^^ others, by obtaining from the Department of Public \V-)rks information, figures, and calculations which he communi- cated to them. 29. That to the knowledge and with the consent of the said Thomas McGreevy, and for the puipose of securing for themselves his influence, Larkin, Connolly & Co. took into partner,-ihip with themselves his brother, Robert H. McGreevy, giving liim a 20 per cent, interest in their firm. 30. That during the execution of the said contract, the said Thomas Mc- Greevy was the agent or one of the agents in the pay of Ltirkin, Connolly & Co. in dealing with the Department of Public Works ; that he endea- voured to obtain, and did obtain for them, at their request, important alterations in the works and more favourable conditions. 31. That the said more favourable conditions and the said alterations enabled them to realize, to the detriment of the public interests, veiy lai'ge profits. 32. That during the execution of the works large sums were paid by Larkin, Connolly & Co., to Thomas McGi-eevy for his services in dealing with the Ministerof Public Works, with theofficers of the Department, and geneially for his influence as a member of the Pai-liament of Canada. 33. That in consideration of the sums of money so received by him and of the promises to him made, the said Thomas McGreevy furnished to Larkin, Connolly & Co., a great deal of information ; strove to procure and did procure to be made by the Department and the Hon. Minister of Public Works, in the plans of the Graving Dock and. the excutionof the wiM'ks, alterations which have cost large sums of money to the public treasury. 34. Thathe himself took stops to induce certain members of the Parlia- ment of Canada to assist him, the said Thomas McGreevy, in his efforts, in concert with Larkin, Connolly & Co., to obtain alterations and addi- tional works, for which large sums of money were offered to him by the members of the firm. 35. That on his suggestion members of the Parliament of Canada were approached by members of the firm of Larkin, Connoll}' cS: Co. 36. That certain members of the said tirm have declared that the .said members of the Canadian Parliament on being so approached had asked for a certain sum of money for exerting their influence in favour of Larkin, Connolly & Co., with the Ministerof Public Works, and that Larkin, Connolly & Co., had agreed to give them mone,y for that purpose. 37. That Thomas McGreevy, acting in concert with Larkin, Connolly & Co., did at their request corruptly endeavour to procure tlie dismissal from office, of certain public officers employed in connection with the works of the Graving Dock at Esquimalt inorder to have them replaced by othei's who would suit Larkin, Connolly & Co., the former having for a time incurred the ill-will of Larkin, Connolly & Co., because they then compelled them to carry out the works in conformity with the specifica- tions and contract and prepared their estimates according to the terms of the said contract. 38. Tliatdui'inglhe winter of 1886-87 the said Thomas McGreevy pro- posed to and made with the firm of Larkin, Connolly iV Co., through certain members of the said firm, an arrangement whereby the said firm undertook to pay to him the sum of 825,000 on condition that he wouM obtain for the firm the sum of 35 cents per cubic yanl for the dreJging viii 1891 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 cla wuro le ^said asked our of nd that irposo. nully & smissal ith the jplaced iny for !y then ecitica- terms vy pro- iroUii;li (1 linn would jjging of 800,000 cubic j'ards in area of the Wet Basin in the Harbour of Quebec. ;^9. That dredging of the same kind, and even more difficult, had pre- viously and iij) to that time, and to the knowledge of the said Thomas McGri'cvy, been executed for the sum of 2" cents per cubic yard, and even less, in the same works. 40. That the said Thomas McGroev^- used his influence as a member of this Hou^e with the Department of Public Works, and in particular with llcniy V. Perley, E^q., to induce him to repoit to the Quebec Harbour Commission in favour of the payment of the said sum of 35 cents per cubic yard. 41. That the correspondence on this subject between Henry F. Perley and Larkin, Connolly & Co., before the Quebec Harbour Commissioners were consulted, took place at the suggestion of the said Thomas McUreevy, and was conducted with bin knowledge and participation in such a manner as to conceal from the eyes of Parliament and of the Public the corrupt character of the contract, in connection with Avhich he had received §27,000. 42. That Larkin. Connolly & Co. paid in money to the said Thomas McGreevy the sum of §20,000 in fulfilment of the arrangement above mentioned, and that at his own request a sum of §5,000 was left, to secure the election of the said Thomas McGreevy to the House of Com- mons at the general election of 1887. in the hands of one of the members of the firm, who finding that sum insufficient, had to add thereto the sum of §2,000. 43. That on the 23rd May, 1887, in fulfilment of the arrangement above mentioned, and through the effort, the influence and the intervention of the said Thomas McGreev}' and without any public tender having been called for, a contract was made between the Quebec Harbour Commis- sioners and Laikin, Connolly &. Co., for all the necessary dredging and removal of material in the Wet Basin of the Quebec Harbour works, 44. That in the execution of the works of this contiact extensive frauds were perpetrated, to the detriment of the public treasury, and sums of money were paid corruptly to officials under the control and direc- tion of Heniy K. Perley and appointeil by the Quebec Harbour Com- mission. 45. That by an Order in Council dated 10th May, 1888, the Government < if Canada decided to pay a sum of §12,500 yearly during five years to Mr. Julien Chabot, on the condition of his causing the Steamer '• Ad- miral" to ply between Dalhousio and Gasp^, forming a connection with the Intercolonial llailway. 4(!. That the said sum of twelve thousand five hundred dollars (§12,500) has since been paid in the manner prescribed in the Order in Council and the contract made thereunder. 47. That the said .Tulien Chabot was ^icrely a screen for the benefit of the said Thomas McGreevy. who then was and continued to be for a long time thereafter, the proprietor of the " Admiral " in whole, or at least in I'MCK or DllKIKMS'li. Mil. M( (iliKKVV l.N- n.lKN. That the said Thomas McCireevy received in that connection a sum of about §120,000. while being a member of the Parliament of Canada. 50. That in 188G, tenders were asked for by the Quebec Harbour Com- missioners for the construction of a work called the '• South-wall " or I li PI" SolTH WaI.I, mis " JJetaining-wall.' ix I- 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Tkn'dehh. SoiTii Wai.i.. CON'I'HACT AW.MIDEI) TO .l.(i.VI.I.A(lHKH Cha\<;km MADK. Mv- llox. 'i (illKKVY IIKCKIVKS AIIOIT &'0«),00(J. AllKXT OK L., C. & Co. Haik dks ('llAl.Kl HS Hamavay. Mil. Mc- • illKKVV ISKll NAMK OK Mix- ISTKH, &C. Lahkix & Co, I'Alll MONKY TO MiNISTKU. 51. That Mr. Thomas McGreevy procured from public officials the ten- ders received, and showed them to Messrs. O. E. Murphy, Connollj' and R. H. McGreevy, for whom he was acting, in order to give them an undue advantage over their competitors. 52. That they had tlie said tenders in their possession during several hours, after which they were returned to Henry P. Perley, then in Quebec, by the said Thomas McGreev}'. 53. That the conti'act was awarded to one John Gallagher, a mere figure head for the said Murphy, Connolly and R. H. McGreevy, who did the work for their own profit and advantage. 54. That changes detrimental to the public interest, but of a nature to secure great profits to the contractors were made in the plans and the carrying out of the worke and in the conditions and securities set oat in the contract, through the influence and intervention of the said Thomas McGreev}'. 5.'». That from the year 1883 to 1800 both inclusive, the saitl Thomas McGreevy received from Larkin, Connolly & Co. and from his brother, R. II. McGreevy, for the considerations aljove indicat'^ ' a sum of about $200,000. 50. That during the period aforesaid he was tiie agent and paid repre- sentative of Larkin, Connolly it Co. on the Quebec Harbour Board of Commissioners, in Parliament, and in connection with the Department of Public Works. 57. That the said Thomas McGreevy exacted and received out of the sub- sidies voted by Parliament for the construction of the Baie dcs Chaleurs Railway, a sum of over 840,000. 58. That the moneys expended in connection with the works mentioned in the present motion are moneys voted by the Parliament of Canada, and amount to about $5,000,000. 50. That the said Thomas McG reevy on several occasions demanded in the name of the Hon. Minister of Public Works and received from Larkin. Connolly k Co. sums of mone}'. •10. That from 1882 to the present Session the said Thomas McGreevy has always lived in the same house as the Hon. Minister of Public Works, and that ho seems to have done so in order to put in the mind of Larkin, Connolly & Co. the impression that he had over said Hon. -Minister an absolute control and that he was acting as his representative in his corrupt transactions with them. ()1. That in fact on many occasions he used the name of the Hon. Min- ister of Public Works in his dealings with them, undertaking to obtain his co-operation or declaring that he had secured it. G2. That before the Board of Quebec Harbour Commissioners he often also used the name of the said Minister. G3. That certain membersof the firmofLarkin,Connoll3'&Co. paidand caused to bo paid large sums of money to the Hon. Minister of Publico Works out of the proceeds of the said contracts, and that entries of the said sums were made in the books of that firm. Attest. J. (J. BOURINOT. Clerk of the House. Friday, 15th May, 1891. Ordered, That the said Committee obtain leave U. employ a short-haml writer, to take down such evidence as the Committee may deem necessary. X 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. I.) A. 1891 Ordered, Th:;' all the proceedings of, aiul the evidence taken before, the Select Standing Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections be printed from day to d.ay for the use of the members of the Committee, and that Rule 94 be suspended in relation thereto. Attest. .T. Gl BOURINOT, Clerk of the House. Monday, 18th May, 1891. Ordered, That Mr. Dal}' be substituted for Mr. Ross (Lisgar), and that Mr. Choquette be substituted for Mr. Pr^fontaine on the said Committee. Attest. J. U. BOURINOT, Clerk of the House. Thursday, 2nd July, 1891. Ordered, That Messrs. Desjardins (L' Islet) and Masson be substituted for Sir Hector Lungevin and the late Sir John Macdonald on the said Committee. Attest. J. G. BOURINOT. < 'lerk of the House. TiiuBSDAY, 9th July, 1891. Ordered. That the said Committee have leave to sit during the time that the House is in session. Attest. J. G. BOURINOT, Clerk of the House. TiuRSDAY, lOtl) July, 1891. Ordered, That the (Hiorum of the said Committee be reduced fiom twenty-two to eleven members. Attest. .I.G. BOURINOT. Clerk of the House. Wednesday, 19th August, 1891. Ordered, That whereas Mr. Speaker did this diiy inform the House that he had received from the Honourable Thomas McGreevy, the member foi' Quebec West, a tender of his resignation as a member of this Hoise, and that on the 'eoeipt of such resignation he, Mr. Speaker, had issued his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery for tlie issue of a Writ for th»j election of a new Member in the ])lace of the said Honourable Thomas ^IcGreevy ; and v,-| ereas, upon such information being given to the House, the Honourable Member foi' Bellev.hasso did from his place in the House state that the election of the said Honourai 'o Thomas McGreevy is now being lawfully contested, this House doth empower ;i" t direct the Committee on Privileges and Elections to enquire and report to th" House \khether the election the said Honourable Thomas McGreevy was being lawfully contested at the time he tendered to Mr. Speaker his lesignation as aforesaid, and if suc.i fact is found in the affirma- tive, whether tlie Warrant of Mr. Speaker should hu"e issued for the issue of a new Wiit and what practice should be adopted with itteronco to similar resignations tendered to ,Mr. Speaker in the future b}- Members of this House. Attest. J. G. BOURINOT, Clerk of the House. XI I' B m I J. 54 Victona. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 w lil\G [010 ANALYSIS OF CHARGES Against the Honourable Thomas McGreevy, the Honourable Sir Hector Langevin and the Department of Public Works, as sub- mitted to the Committee. (Bv Messhs. Osler, Q.C. and IIenrt, Q.C.) The Statementsi referred to the Committee are contained in sixty-three paragraphs, which, analysed, resolve themselves inco sixteen distinct charges, now re-cast fo" convenience, as below. Of these sixteen charges, the first ten are against the Honourable Tliomas McGreevy, the next two are against the Honourable Sir Hector Langevin, and the last four are against the Department of Public Works. Under each of the charges, as now re-cast, the original paragraphs of the Order of Reference, from which the charge is drawn, are printed in small type. In the paragraphs of the Order of Reference which set out the charges against the Honourable Thomas McGreevy, there are statements involving the Honourable Sir Hector Langevin and the Department of Public Works. The paragraphs containing such statements are therefore printed in this analysis, not only under the charges against the Honourable Thomas McGreevy, but also under those against Sir Hector Langevin, or those against the Department of Public Works, or under both, as the case may be. CHARGES AGAIXST THE HONOURABLE THOMAS McGREEVY. 1. Dredging Coxtract, 25th Septemher, 1882. 375,000 having iH'eii voted by tlif I'iirliiiiuent of Canada to carry cnit tilt" Works of the Harlxmr of (^ucIk'C, tlic l^uelH'c: Harbour CiminiiMsioners called for tcndcr.i in (Iredffinjf in connection with the said works. 2. That Messrs. Larkin, Connolly & Co. tendered and were awarde. Tliat in vy undertiMik to secure the removal of Messrs. Kiuipph', Nlorris and I'ilkington from their ixpsitions, and that they were in fact so removed in IHH'.i, and re|>laced by .\ir. Henry F. Perley and -lohn Kdward lioytl, with the consent of the Hon. Minister of f'ublic Works. Cross-wall Contract, 26tii May, 1883. ((. That in the year 1883 Larkin, Connolly & Co., amongst other;?, tend- ered for the Cross-wall in connection with the Quebec Harbour Works, and that before tendering, and in order to secure the influence of the said Thomas McGreevy, they took into partnership with them Robert H.McG reevy, a brother of the said Thomas McGreevy, giving him a 30 per cent, iirercst in the work, and that this was done with the knowledge and consent oi' the said Thomas McGreevy. b. That among the parties tendering were a contractor named George Beiiucage and one John Gallagher. That Beaucage's tender was made at the instance of the said Thomas McGreevy, and that with the knowledge of the said Thomas McGreevy, the tenders of Larkin, Connolly & Co., of Beaucage and of Gallagher were prepared by members of the firm of Larkin, Connolly & Co. c. That while the tenders were being examined and quantities applied in the Department of Public "Works the said Thomas McGree ry obtained from the Department and from oflicers thereof, information in relation to said tenders which he offered to communicate, and did communicate to Larkin, Connolly & Co. before the result was officially known. (L That to the kLowledge ot the said Thomas McGreevy the tenders of Gallagher and Beaucage were lower than that of Larkin, Connolly & Co., but in consideration of tiie promise of §25,000 the said Thomas McGreevy agreed to secure the acceptance of the tender of Larkin, Connolly k Co. That to this end he suggested to members of that firm to so arrange and manipulate matters .xiii m ■it I Iff 54 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 I- f with Gallagher and Heaucage as to render the tenders of these two parties higher than that of the said lirni. Tiiat i-ertain arrangements and manipulations were carried out as so suggested, and were participated in by the said Thomas McGi-eevy, and in consequence the said contract was awarded to the said Larkin, Connolly & Co. That shortly thereafter $25,000 was paid to the said Thomas McGrecvy in fulfilment of the corrupt arrangement above stated, and about the same time a sum of $1,000 was paid by Larkin, Connolly & Co. towards " The Langevin Testimonial Fund." (e.) That in the course of the carrying out of the works the said Thomas McGreevy caused changes, against the public interest, to be made in the said contract. 10. That ill the saiii;- veiir, ISS;}, teiirli-rs wei-t- cnllcd for ii Cvohs-wivII and lock in coiiiu-c- tiim with the liarlnmr works at * Jiiel«'c, in acconhiiicf with jilans and H|(ccifit'ationK prtiiarcd in thf Di'partmtiit of Piililic Works niidfr tlie direction of Henry K. I'erh'.v, Ksc|. 11. That several tenders were made, and aiiHinjfst others who tendered were Messrs. Larkin, Connolly it Co. 12. That before tendering, and in order to secure the influence of the Hon. Thomas Mclireevv, then and now a iiiemU'r of the Parliament of Canada, and a menilierof the (^iieliei llarlKinr Hoard hy a|ii)ointment of the (iovernment, Larkin, Connolly it Co. tiHik into |)artnershi)) with themselves Kolwrt H. Mc(ireevy, a lirotherof the said Hon. Tliomas Mc(Jreevy, giviiiff liini a .SO (n-r cent, interest in the firm, and this with tlie knowledge and consent of the said Hon. Tlioinas McOreevy. 1.3. That anionic the jiartieH tendering were a contractor named (ieorge Heaucnge, and one John Gallagher. 14. That it was on the suggestion of the said Hon. Thomas Mctireevy that IJeaiicage consented to make a tender. 1"). Tliat with the knowledge of the said Thomas McCireevy, the three temlers of Larkin, Connolly & Co., of Ueaueage, and of (iallagher, were prepared liy tlie members of tlie firm of Larkin, Connolly it Co., Beaucage iH'ing tlirouwhout deceived liy the said Hon. Thomas Mctireevy as to his |K)sition in the matter, as lie alleges in an action recently entered by him against the said Thonia.s Mc(Jreevy in relation to tlie said contract, in tlie Superior Court of Montreal. 10. That tlie said tenders were transmitted to the Department of Piililic Works of Canada for examination and extension. 17. Tiiat wliile all tlie tenders were lieing examined and the (luantities aiiplied in the Department of Public Works of Canada, the said Hon. Thomas .Mctxieevy, then and now a member of the Parliament of Canada, and a nieinlxT of the <^uel)ec Harlxnir Commission by appointment of the (iovernment, promised to obtain and did obtain from the Depart- ment of Public Works of Caii»d;;, and from oHicials of that Department, in relation to tin- said tenders, to tigur'.s in connection iherewith, and to the amounts thereof, information which he offered to communicate liefore the result was tiflicially known, and which he did cominunicate to the tiriii of Larkin, Conn >lly & C<>., and to certain memlx'rs of the said firm individually. IX. That to the knowledge of the said Thomas McUreevy, the tenders of Messrs. (iallagher and Heaucage were lower than those of Larkin, Connolly & Co., but that in con- sideration of the ])roniise of the sum of .S25,(MX) to be to him jiaid, he, the snid Thomas Mc- (jreevy agreed to secure the acceptance of the tenders of Larkin, Connolly it Co., i,nd that he suggested to th r firm and to cert"in niemlHTs thereof individually, to make arrange- ments in connection with the said (iallagher and Peaucage and to so manipulate matters as to render the tenders of those two parties higher than those of the said firm, or at all events to secure the contract for Larkin, Ccninolly it Co., and that said arrangements and manipu- lations svere carried out ivs suggested by him. I'.l. That in coiise(|ueiice of the said arrangement and niani]>iilations, wherein the said Thomas Mc(;reevy directly participated, the contract for the Cross-wall and lock in connec- tion with the t^iiebec Hi'l'lMiur Works, was awarded to Larkin, (JonnoUy it Co., on a Ueport to Council made by the Hon. Minister of Public Works, under date 2(itli May, 1S8.3. 20. That a few days thereafter the sum of 82.5,000 was, in fulfilment of the corrupt arrangement above stated, |iaid to the said Thomas Mc(ireevy in promissory notes signed by the firm of Larkin, Connolly it Co., which said notes were duly ]mid. 21. That alxnit the same date, namely, the 4tli .Tune, 188S, a sum of 81, (MM) was paid by the firm of Larkin, Connolly it Co. towards "the Langevin Testimonial Fund "- a fund destined to be given to Sir Hector Langevin. 22. That in the course of the carrying out of the works, the said Thomas Mc(ireevy caused changes, contrary to the public interest, to be made in the conditions of the said contract. xiv A. 1891 rties higher uipulations lid Thomas o the said to the said stated, and lolly & Co. id Thomas ido in the lock in coiinec- itioiis impaivd Ksq. wcrr Alt's.si'M. lion. Thomas iiieiiilMT of the y it Co. tiKik Hon. Tlionias mowlwl^f and lieaiicn^i', and that IJeaucage •I'c U-ndei-s of le nienibcrs of the said Hon. c'tion recently ntiact, in the )lie Works of applied in the ttien and now Coinniission the liepart- hvtion to the nforniation which lie did the said firm IS of Messrs. that in con- Thonias Mc- t.nd that ake arrange- niatters as at all events ind nianipii- rein the said ^k in eoiniec- on a Ke|Hirt the corrupt lotes signed was paid hy " '■" a finid -s Mc(ireevy of the said 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 3. CONTB.VCT FOK THE COMPLETION OF THE LeVIS GRAVING DoCK. 2;ird Juno, 1884. That in the year 1884 the said Tliomas McGreevy agreed with memherss of tlie firm of Larkin, Connolly & Co. to secure for them a contract for the completion of the Graving Dock at Levis, on condition that he should receive from them any excess over the sum of ^50.000 of the con- tniit price, and that accordingly the said Thomas McGreevy afterwards re- ceived from the said firm the sum of ^22,000. 2H. That in ISHl, Thomas McCireevy, then and now a memU'rof the Parliament of Canada, and a memlier of the l^nelx'C llarlKMu- Connnission liy apiHiintment of the(iov- eninient, agrei-d with the firm of Larkin, Connolly it Co., and certain meinhers then'of individually, to secin'e for them a contract for the completion of the ( iraving DiK'k of Levis, one of the conditions of the agreement U'lng that he. Thomas .Mf(ireevy, should receive any excess over the sum of .*riO,(MMI in tlie contract price. 24. That to the detriment of iinlilic interest, a contract was signed in, or about the month of .lune, 1SH4, for the performance of the said works, and that snhsecpiently the said Thomas AIc(!reevy received the price .stipulated in the corrupt arrangement al Hive mentioned, namely, .«!22,(XHI, 4. Contract for the Completion of the Esquimalt Dock, 8th November, 1884. a. That hefore Larkin, Connolly & Co. tendered for the completion of the Graving Dock at Esquimalt, the said Thomas McGreevy agreed to help, and did help them, in divers ways, amongst others, l)y obtaining from the Depart- ment ot Public Works information, figures and calculations in respect of the proposed work and communicating the same to them. b. That with the knowledge and consent of the said Thomas McGreevy, Larkin, Connolly & Co., took into partnership with them his brother Robert II. McGreevy for the purpose of securing the influence of the said Thomas McGreevy, the said Robert H. McGreevy taking a 20 per cent, interest in the work. e. That during the execution of the contract the said Thomas McGreevy acted as a paid agent of Larkin, Connolly & Co. in dealing with the Depart- ment of Public AVorks and that he obtained for them at their request important alterations in the works and rrfore favourable conditions, which enabled them to realize very large j^rofits. d. That large sums were paid by Larkin, Connolly & Co., to the said Thomas McGreevy for his services in dealing with the Minister of Public Works, the officers of the Department, and generally for his influence as a member of Parliament, and that in consideration of these sums the said Thomas McGreevy furnished a great deal of information, and procured to be made, by the Department and the Minister of Publii! Works, alterations in the plars and in the works, which alterations have cost large sums of money to the public. c. That in consideration of otters of large sums of money by members of the firm of Larkin, Connolly & Co., the said Thomas McGreevy took steps to induce certain members of Parliament to assist him to obtain alterations and additional works, and at his suggestion, members of Parliament were approached to this end by members of the said firm. /. That the said Thomas McGreevy, did, at the request of Larkin, Con- nolly & Co., corruptly endeavour to procure the dismissal from oflSce of certain XV \'M 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 in ■ public officers employed in connection with the works in order to have them replaced by others wIjo would suit Lurkin, Connolly &, Co., thu former being objectionable to Larkin, Connolly & Co., because they (•om[)elled them to carry out the works and accept estimates tlieretbr accordiif? to the terms of the contract. 25. That ill \HKi anil 1HH4, tciidiTu wcri' iiHkfil for Ity the (JovcriDiH'iit of Caiiiida for tln' c'oili|iI<'ti. 'I'liiit till' Kriii of barkiii, Connolly Ik (.'o. witi' anions tlioMi' who ti'iiili'i'i'il anil that till' contract was awardi'd to thi'iii in iHirHiianccof a Ki'iHirtto Council, datrd "24111 Octolmr, 1HM4, and Hitfiicd hy the Hon. .Minintcr of I'lililic WorkM. 1*7. 'I'liat Imfoii' ti'iidcriiiif, tlif said Larkin, Coiiiiiilly it Co. had with ThoniiiH Me- (trii'iy. tl'i'ii and now a iiii'iiiiH'r of thi' I'arliaiiii'iit of Canada. connniiiiicationH and intrr- vii'WN wliiT in tlicy siciiri'd IiIn Mcrvici'H to iiMMiNt thi'iii in dcalin^r with the |)i'|iartini'Mt of I'lililic Workn in order to wciiri' the said contract. ■JX. That he agreed to lielji them, and that he did in fact help tlieni in divers ways, and, ainonL'st others, by olitainin^ from the |)e|iartment of I'lililic Works information, titfiires, ami calcnlatioiis vliicli he communicated to them. L"!!. That to the knowled({e and with the consent of the said Thomas McOreevy, and for the piiriMise of HeiwriiiK fi'r themselves his influence, Larkin, Connolly it Co. tiHik into |iartnerslii|) with themselves his lirother, Kolierl IL -Mctireevy, jfiviiiK liim a "JK per cent, interest in their tirni. HO. That ihirintf the execution of the said contract, the said Thomas .Nfctireevv was the ais'eiit or one of the Ht^ents in the pay of Ijiukin, Connolly & Ci>. in dealiiijf witli the l)e- partment of I'ulilic W'orks ; that he endeavoured to olitaiii, and did olitain for them, at their ri'(|iii'st, im|Mirtant alterations in the works and more favouralile conditionH. 'M. That the said favouralile conditions and the said alterations enalileil them to reali/e, to the detriment of the pnlilic interests, very lartje ]iroHts. ;t2. That (luriiiK the execution of the works larjje sums were paid liy Larkin, Connolly tt Co. to Thomas AlcCireevy for his services in dealinj,' with the .Nlinister of I'ulilic Works, with the otticers of the iJepartnieiit, and t?eiierally for his iiiHiience as a memlier of the I'ar- liiinieiit of (.'anada. 33. That in consideration of tie. sums of monev so re eived by iiini and of the proiniseH to him made, the said Thomas Mctircevy furnisheit to liarkiii, Connolly it Co. a ffleat deal of information ; strove to procure and did procure to lie made by the Department and tlit' Hon. Minister of Public Woiks, in the plans of the (iravinj; l)ock and the execution of the works, alterations which have cost lariife sums of money to th' public treasury. 3t. Tiiat he himself look steps to induce certain members of the Parliament of Canada to assist him, the said Thomas Mctircevy, in his efforts, in concert with Larkin, Connolly it Co., to obtain alterations and additional woiks, for which larK'' sums of money were ottered to him by the memliers of the firm. t."i. That on his suKgestion members of tho Parliament of (,'aiiada were approached by members of the hrm o: ;<(!. That I ertaiii i)f Lark in, Connolly & Ci ibers of the said firm hi declared that the said inemlM'is of tin Canadian Parliament, on U'lii^; so apjiroached, had asked for a certain sum of money for eitiiiLT their inlluence in favour of Larkin, Connolly it C'o., with the Minister of Public Works d that Larkin, Connolly it (!o. a^^reed to a'wr them money for that purpose. 37. 'J'liat Thomas .\lc(ireevy, actinjf in concert with Larkin, Connolly it Co., did, at their reipiest. corruptly endeavour to priHure the dismissal from ottid' of certain public otticers employed in connection with the works of the (iraving Dock at Esijuimalt, in order to have them replaced by others who would suit Larkin, Connolly it Co., the former having for a tinii' incurred the ill-will of l^arkin, Connolly Hi Co., because they then compcHed them to carry out the works in conformity with the specifications and contract and prepared their estimates according to the terms of the .said contract. m (It f> 5. Co>;tiiact i"or Dhkdging of Wet Basin at tiiiuty-five cents per yard, 23rd May, 1887. a. That in the winter of 1886-87, the said Thomas McGreevy proposed to, and made with Larkin, Connolly & Co., arrangements whereby the firm undertook to pay him Jf25,000, on condition that he would obtain for them the sum of thirty-five cents per yjyd for the dredging of 800,000 cubic yards in the Wet Basin of the Quebec Ilarbour Works, the said Thomas McGreevy knowing that dredging of the same kind and even more diflScult dredging, had up to that time been executed for twenty-seven cents per yard and for even less in the same works. xvi 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 I). That the rtuid Thomas MoC^^reevy used his influence, as a member ot" Parliament, with the Department of Pultlic Works, and in particular with Henry F. I'erloy, to indut;e him to report to the Quebec IIarl)our Commission in favour of the payment of tiie said sum of thirty -five cents per yard, and that before the Quebec Harbor Commissioners were consulted a written cor- respondence on this subject between Henry F. Perley and Larkin, Connolly & Co. took place at the suggestion af the said Thomas McGreevy, and with his knowledge and participation, was conducted in such a manner as to conceal from l^arllament and the public the corrupt nature of the contract. '■. That Larkin, Connolly & Co. paid to the said Thomas McGreevy !*2(),0n(t on account of this arrangement and at his request $5,000 was 'eft in tlie hands of one of the tirm to be used in the then approaching Dominion Election at which the said Thomas McGreevy was a candidate. (d.) That in pursuance of the arrangement above set out, and through the intervention, effort and iniluence of the said Thomas McGreevy, and with- out any public tender being called for, a contract was made between the (Quebec Harbour (Jonmiissioners and Larkin, Connolly & Co. for all the neces- sary di edging and removal of material^ in the Wet Basin at the rate of 35 cents per cubic yard. SS, Tliiit (l\iriii« the winter of \HH{\ 87 tlif said Tliimias MiOrccvy |ir()|i(isiil tn, imil niiidc with the tiriii iif Larkin, CoiiiKilly & Co., through ci'ttiiin niciiilxTs of tlie .siiid tinn, an iirniniJfinfnt wlieri'liy the siiid Hiin undertook to |ia.v to him the sum of SlT'.'MIO on con- dition that lie woidd obtain for the tinn the sum of X> cents |M'r cu'iic yard for the ihed^'itijf of H(M),0(H> cnhie yards in area of the Wet Uasin in the Harbour of (^ueliee. 3!>. Tliat artmeiit of Public Works, and, in particular, with Henry V. Perley, Ks(|., to induce liiiii to report to the QucIm-c Harbour Commission in favour of the |iaymeiit of thti said sum of ."lo cents per cubic yard. 41. That the coirespondence on this subject lietweeii Henry V. I'erley and Larkin, Connolly & Co., before the (^ueliec Harbour Cominissioiiers were consulted, took place at the suggestion of the said Thomas .McCireevy, and was conducted with his knowledge and participation in such a manner as to conceal from thi' eyes of Parliament and of the Pnl)lic the corrupt clmractur of the contract, in connection with which lie had receivi'd the sum of .Sl'7,000. 42. That Larkin, Connolly & Co. paid in money to tlie said Thomas Mcdreevy the sum of .*i2(),(IOO ill fulHlliieiit of the arrangement above mentioned, and that at his own ie(|iiest a Slim of .s>."),0(K) was left, to secure the election of the said Thomas .Mclireevy to tlii' Hou.se of Coliimons at the general election of 1887, in the hands of (Jiie of the iiiemU'i's of the firm, who, finding that sum iiisntticient, had to add thereto the sum of •'?2,IMI(I. 4y. That on the 2'epartment of Public Works. 55. That from the year 18S3 to 1890 l)oth inclusive, the said Thomas MctJreevy rtoeived from Larkin, Connolly & Co., and fi-uni his brother, R. H. McGreevy, foi the considerations alwve indicated, e sum of about .S200,(X)0. 5(i. That during the jH-riod aforesaid he was tlu' agent and paid re])re»(entative of Larkin, ComioUy & Co. on the (jueliec Harbour Hoard of Comuiissioners, m Parliament, and in connection with the l)fci'..i-tment of Public Works. 9. Receipt of Money out of Baie des Chaleurs Railway Subsidies. That the said Thomas McGreevy exacted and received out of the subeidien voted by Parliament for the construction of the Baie des Chaleurs Railway ?, sum of over $40,000. , !)". That the said Thomas McCreevy exacted and received out of the subsidies voted by Parlia'uent for the construction of the Baie des Chaleurs Railway, a sum of over 840, 'HX). 10. Use op Name of the Honourable Minister of Pui$lic Works. That the name of the Honourable Minister of Public Works was made use of by the said Thomas McGreevy in his dealings wirb Larkin, Connolly & Co. so as to give the impression that he had control over him ; the said Thomas McGreevy undertaking to obtain his co-operation, or declaring he had secured it, and that in the name of the Minister of Public Works, large sums of money were corruptly demanded by the said Thomas McGreevy from Larkin, Connelly & Co. That he used the Minister's name before the Harbour Commis- sioners, and that from 1882 to the present Session of Parliament he lived in the same liouse as the Minister, thereby giving the impression to Larkin, Connolly & Co., that he had absolute control over him and that he was acting as the Minister's representative in his corrupt i ransactions with them. .")!t. That the said Thomas Mc(jreevy on st'veral occasions demanded in the name of tlie Hon. Minister of Pul)lic Works andrecei\e(l from Larkin, Connolly it Co. sums of money. (iO. That from l>StS2 to the preseUD Sessifin the .said Thomas Mc(rreevy has always lived in tlie .same li4)use as the Hon. Minister of Public Works, and that he seems to have done ,so in order to i>ut in the mind of Larkin, Connolly & Co. the imiiression that he had over said Hon. Minister iin absoiuti' control and that he was actini;? as his rejiresentative in his corrupt transactions with them. i'"nfil. That in fact on many occasions lie used the name of lie Hon. Minister of Piililie Works 111 his (hidings with tiiem, undertakiiiK to obtain his co-operation or declaring tiia lie had secured it. ,1, -4 1— Bi XIX r U ;ii 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 CHARGES AGAINST TTIE HONOURABLE THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. 1. PAYMENTS OP MONEY BY LARKIN, CONNOLLY & CO. That members of the firm of Larkin, Connolly & Co. paid and caused to be paid to the Honourable the Minister of Public "Works, out of the proceeds of the various contracts in question, large sums of money. f>3. That certain iiieinbers of the firm of Larkin, Connolly & Co. paid and laiised to be paid larjre .s\niis of money to the Hon. Minister of Public Works out of the proceeds of the said contnvct.s, and that entries of tlie said sums were made in the books of that firm. t 'i 2. "Ceoss-wall" Contract, 26th May, 1883. That by improper manipulations and by information improperly obtained from officers of the Department of Public Works, the contract for the Cross- wall was, on a report to Council made by the Honourable the Minister of Public Works on 26th May, 1883, awarded to Larkin, Connolly & Co., who, about the same date, to wit, 4th June, 1883, paid the sum of §1,000 to the "Lange- vin Testimonial Fund," for the use of Sir Hector Langevin, then Minister. 1!>. Tiiat in consequence of the said arrangement and niani))ulations wherein the said 'I'honuis MeGreevv directly participated, ,tlie contract for the Cross-wall and lock in connec- tion with the (hietu'c Harbour Works was awarded to Larkin, Connolly it Co., on a Kei)ort to Council macle by the Hon. Minister of I'ublic Wi s, under date 2titli May, IHHli, 21, That alunit the same date, namely, the 4th -Pune, 18H3, a sum of .Sl,'hM) was paid by the firm of Larkin, Connolly & Co. towards "Langevin Testimonial Fund " — a fund destined to be given to Sir Hector Langevin. I' XX 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 CHARGES AGAIN'ST THE DEPARTMEXT OF PUBLIC WORKS. 1. "Cross-wall" Coxtract, 26th Mav, 1883. That while the tenchu'a for the Cross-wall were being examined and the quantities applied in the Department of Public Works, the said Tliomas McGreevy obtained from the Department, and from officicials of the Depart- ment, information as to figures and amounts and in other respects as to the said tenders, and in consequence of such information, and by improper mani- pulations in connection with the said tenders, the contract was awarded to Larkin, Connolly & Co. 17. That wliile all the teiuU'rs were Ijeiiip exaiuinetl and the (luantitiesaplilied in the Depart- ment of Public Works of Canad' the said Hon. Thomas MclJreevy, then and now a nienilHT of the Parliament of Canada, and a nieml)er of the (.^ui'hec Harbour Commission by apiKjintment of the (io\ernnient, promised to obtain, and did obtain, from the Department of Public Works of Cana,(MH) to l)e to him paid, he, the said Thomas Mclireevv, agreed to .secure the acceptance of the tenders of Larkin, Connolly & Co., and that he suggested to that Hrni and to certain members thereof individually, to make arrangements in connection with the said (Jall.igher and Beauc?ge, and to so manipulate matters as to render the tenders of those two p.irties higher than tliose of the said firm, or, at all events, to secure the contract for Larkin, Connolly He Co., and that said arrangements and manip\Uations were carried out as suggested by him. li(. That in conse(pience of the said arrangement and manipulations, wherein the said Thomas McOreevy directly participate(l, the contract for the Cross wall and lock in connection with the (Quebec llarlxnu' Works was awarded to Larkin, Connolly & Co. on a report to Council made bv tlie Hon. Minister of Public Works, imder date lilitli M-.vy, l.SS;t. 2. Contract for the completion ok the Esqulmalt Dock, 8tii Nove.mber, 188-4. That after tenders were asked for bv the Government for the completion of the Esquimau, Dock and before Larkin, Connolly & Co. tendeivd for that work, Thomas MoGroevy obtained tVc.a the Department of rul)lic Works, in- formation, figures and calculations wliich he communioated to Larkin, Connolly & Co., and that during the execution of the contract, the said Thomas McGreevy, acting as agent of Larkin, Connolly & Co., obtained from the Department important alterations in the plans and works and more favour able conditions onabling the Contractors to realize to the detriment of the public interest very large sums of money. 27. Tliat liefore tendering, the said Larkin, CounoUy iV Co. had with Tlionios McCreevy, then and now a member of the Parliauunt of Canada, commmiicatioiis and iuter\iews wherein they secured his sei vices to assist them in dealing with the Department of I'uMic Works In order to secuie tlie saiii contract. x.xi Hi i m f r" : t 1 t Ifii 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 28. That he agreod to help them, and that he did in fact help tlieni in divtu's ways, and, amongst others, by obtaining fn>ni the Department of Public Works information, fignres, and calculations which he conmiiniicated to them. 30. That during the execution of the said contract, the said Thomas McCJreevy was the agent or •»• of the agents in the pay f)f Larkin, Connolly & Co. in dealing with the Depart- ment of Public Works ; that he eiufeavoured to obtain, and did obtain for them, at their reciuest, im|K>rtant alterations in the works and more favoiu'able conditions. 33. That in consideration of the sums of money so received by him and of the promises to him made, the said Thomas Mcdreevy furnished to Larkin, Connolly & Co., a great deal of information ; strove to procure and did jn-ocvire to Ije made by the Department and tlip Hon. Minister of Public Works, in the plans of the (rraving Dock and the <'xecution of the Works, alterations which have cost large smns of ni<>n«>y ti> the public treasury. 3. " South-wall " Contract, 16th February, 1887. titors. 52. That tliey had the said tenders in their |K)ssession during several lioiirs, after which they were returned to Henry V. I'erley, then in (Quebec, by the said Thomas Mctireevy. 53. That the contract was awarded to one John (iallagher, a mere tigiu'e-head fur tiie said Murphy, Connolly and R. H. MctJreevy, who did the work for their own profit and advantage. 54. Tliat changes detrimental to the public interiwt, but of a nature to secure great profits to the contractors, were made in the plans, and the carrying o\it of tlx wor'.• ''lec Harlwiu' Connnission in favour of thepaynient of ttie said sum of 35 cents i)er cuV.' '. ■11. That the c.p ;esiK)ndcnce on this subject between Henry V. Perley and Larkin. Connolly it Co., before the (^ueljec Fi.arlH)ur Connnissioners were constdted, took place at tlie suggestion of the said Thomas McGreevy, and was contlucted with his knowledge and particii)ation in such a manner as to conceal from the eyes of Parliament and of the public the corrupt character of the contract, in connection with whicli he hiul received .'*27,'MJ(>. 43. 'I hat on the 2.Srd May, IH87, in fulfilment of the arrangement above mentioiutl, and through the effort, the influence and the interventiim of tlie said Tliomas McCireevy and without any public tender having been called for a contract was made between the <^uel)e i 1 1 : 1 j 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Tuesday, 26th May, 1891. The Committee met at 10.30. Adams, Barron, Chapleau, Costigan, Davies, Desaulniers, Dickey, Present: Messieurs Edgar, Flint, German, Kirkpatrick, Langevin (Sir Hector), Laurier, McDonald ( Victoria), McLeod, Mills (Bothwell), Mulock, Tarte, Thompson (Sir John) Tupper. — 20. At 11 o'clock, a quorum not yot being present, Sir John Thompson suggested that the examination of witnesses and production of papers might oe proceeded with, with consent. — Which was agreed to. The Chairman not being present, Sir John Thompson moved that Mr. Kirkpat- rick take the chair. — Motion agreed to. Sir John Thompson moved that the following gentlemen be heard before tiie Committee as Counsel : Mr. II. McD. Henry, Q.C., for the Public Works Depart- ment; Mr. G. G. Stuart, Q.C., and Mr. C. Fitzpatrick, for Hon. Thomas McGreevy ; and Mr. Hector Cameron, Q.C. for Mr. Patrick Larkin. — Motion agreed to. The Chairman stated that in accordance with the understanding ariived at, at the last meeting of the Committee, Mr. Tarte had handed in the following names of persons whom ho desired to have summoned to give evidence before the Committee, and to whom summonses were issued accordingly, viz.: Messrs. Owen E. Murphj', Quebec; Robert H. McGreevy, Quebec ; Martin P. Connolly, Quebec ; Nicolas K. Connolly, Quebec ; Michael Connolly, Kingston ; and Patrick Larkin, St. Catharines ; all of whom were requii'od to bring with them all the books, contracts, vouchers, letters, receipts and other documents in their possession, belonging to them or to the rirm ot Larkin, Connolly cnt at the next meeting of the Com- mittee, with such books as might be in his possession. Mr. Martin P. Connolly being .•ailed, made default. The Chairman stated that Mr. Martin P, Connolly had been subpicned by registered mail on 20th May, also by telegram the same day, the receipt for the telegram being signed by himself at 3.30 p.m. the same day. That on the 2(ith May a second summons was sent him by telegraph, which wflS» delivered at his office at 4.1.5 p.m. of the same day and signed for by P. Kelly. Ordered, That a new summons (in duplicate) in the terms of the one sent to him on the 20th May (adding the words "or under your contiol ' .n the proper place) he issued for the attendance of Martin P. Connolly before the Committee on Tuesdiiy next, the second day of June, and that an officer of the House be sent to Quebec and one to Kingston, Ontario, with instructions to serve the summons upon I'lO saiil Martin P. Connolly personally wherever he may be found. Ordered, That a new summons, in the terms of the one sent to him on the20th M.-iy (adding the words " or under your control " in the proper place ) be issued for the attendance of Nicholas K. Connolly, before the Committee on Tuesday next the 2Md day of .Tune, and that the same be served upon him personally, in the City ot Kingston, liy an officer of this House. Ordered, That the clerk do comnmnicate with the Postmaster at Quebec with a view of pi'ocuring jjroof of delivery of the summons sent to Martin P. Connolly, by registered mail on the 20th Ma}'. Mr, O, E, Murphy, of Quebec, was sworn and examined. During his examination ii schedule and four letters weie read and tiled as Exhibits ''S2" to " W2" inclusive. The Committee then adjourned until Tuesday next at 10,30 a.m. Attest. WALTER TODD, Clerk of the Committee. xxix w I 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 TuKHUAY, 2Da June, 1891. The Committtiu met at 10.30 a.m. Present Messieurs Girouai-d, Chairman. Adame), Daly, McDonald ( Victoria), Amyot, Dickey, McLeod, Bakor, Edgar, Mills (Bothwell), Barron, Flint, Moncriett', Bcausoleil, Fraser, Mulock, Biirdett, German, Ouimet, Cameron (Huron). Ives, Tarte, CoutBWorth. LuDgelier, Thompson (Sir John), Co.stiyan, Laurior, Tupper, Ctirran, Lavergue, Weldon, Choquette, Lister, Wood (BrockviUe).—'^!J Davies, The Minutes of the last meeting were read and confirmed. Mr. Daly moved that Mr. Alex. Ferguson, Q.C., have audience before the Com- luitteo as Counsel for Messrs. Michael Connolly and Nicholas K. Connolly. — Motion Ui^reed to. Mr. Ferguson, Q.C., Counsel for Mr. Michael Connolly, stated that the books and ))apers which the Committe had, at its last sitting, ordered Mr. Connolly to produce, would arrive in the city by express at 1 o'clock this day and bo laid before the Committee at its next session. Mr. Martin P. Connolly being called, made default for the third time. The clerk I'eported that .f. B. Geoi-ge Samson and Alexander Sharpe, the mes- sengers sent to Quebec and Kingston, respectively, to serve a summons upon 3Ir. Martin P. Connolly had both returned, and that neither of them had succeeded in serving Mr. Connolly, or ascertaining anj-thmg as to his whereabouts. The clerk reported that Mr. Nicholas K. Connolly had been personally served with a summons in Kingston on Saturday, the 30th .May, by the messenger, Alex- ander .Sharpe. Mr. Nicholas K. Connolly being called, was present. J. B. G. Samson and A/ Sharpe were then both sworn and examined. Mr. Michael Connolly was recalled and further examined. Mr. Nicholas K. Connolly was sworn and examined. Mr. Edgar moved that further steps be taken, either by telegram, letter or by employment of a detective or detectives, to serve a summons upon Mr. Martin P. Connolly. — Motion agreed to. The Committee then adjourned till to-morrow at 10.30 a.m. Attest. WALTER TODD, Clerk of the Committee. XXX 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Wkdnksday, 3rd June, 1891. Thu C'oinmittoo mot at 10.30 ii.in. ■> Present : Messieurs (riroiuird, Chairman, Diivios, Li«tor, DoHiiulniers, McDonald ( Victoria), Adiims, Amyot. Bilker, Boausoleil, Burdt'tt, (Jatneioii {Huron), Chnpleaii, Coutswortli, Cohligiiii, Curnin. (!lioqiU'tte, Daly, McLcod, MillH {Bothwell), Moncreitt", Mulock, Ouiinet, Tarto, Thoinprton (Sir John), Tuppor, Weldon— 3(J. Dickey, Kdgar, Flint, Fruser, (rorman, Ives, Kirkpatrick, Jjanjifelier, ' Laurier, Lavergno, Tiie MinuteH of the last meeting were I'ead and confirmed. Mr. Michael Connolly was recalled, and in answer to the Chairman, stated that iiie books and papers which he had been ordoi-ed to bring Avith him had arrived, imd ho now produced them. Mr, Ferguson, Q,C,, stated, on behalf of the Messrs. Connolly^ that thoy wished it to be understood that these books and ])apers wore not produced before the ("om- niitieo in the ordinary sense of the term. Tnere was a great deal in the books which h;id no relevancy whatever with the subject under investigation, and the Messrs. ( 'oiinolly (lid not think that their private books should bo thrown open to the public, !i- the}- would be more or less, were they produced in the ordinary way. They wiru (juite prepared to submit them to an expert accountant appointed by the Com- mittee, or to search the books themselves and give any information required by the I'oinniittee, but they could not give up possession of (he books. Tills not being considered satisfactory, it was move of the last met ui.g were read, amended, and confirmed as amended. Mr. JM rguson, Q.C., stated, in regard to the books helonging to tlie firm of Larkin, Connolly & Co., that, alter the adjournment of yesteiilay's sitting, they luid been ])utj in a box in the next room (No. 50) under lock aiui key, the key being in the possession of Mr. Connolly, that they were still there, and that the} were at the disposal of the Committee in the same way that they wore yesterday. Mr. Michael Connolly, being x'e-callwl, was ordiMod to prochwe l.he cash booki- in connectio.i with the Ldvis Graving Dock contract. llavii g brought the books, and being requested bv a member of the Committee to hand tiiem to him that he might have an oDportunily of examining their contents, Mr. Connolly refused to allow t'ly books to pass out of his possession. On motion of Sit" John Thom])son, it was Jienolceil, That a suli-committee be ajipoinlod to draft a Report to the JIoubc setting t'orth the facts which have transpired in relation to the booi^s of tlie tirm of Larkin. Connoll}- it Co., from the minutes and stenographei''s notes, and that sucii sub-committee consist of the Chairman, Messrs. Mills (JiotlnceU), Langelier, Cliap- leau, and tiie mover. Mr. A. Gobcil, Deputy Minister of Public Works, was sworn and examined. During his e:-'iminalion certain letters and jiapers were read and tiled, and marked as. Ivxh.liits "H3" to"Q-l," both inclusive. The Committee then adj(mrne. .>lurph3' be required to bring witii iiiniand produce at the next meeting of the Oomnii tee the following papers, viz.: 1. Origir.al statement or dLclai'ation signed O. !•'. Murphy, as published in [^e CanaiUen, ■'>()\\\ April, 1 -''0. -. All bank books, cneque book's, cheques, letter bonks, broker's statements, and all othiM- liooks, j)apers or documents showing the tiiiunciul transactions of sai<10. K. .Mirphy from 1st May, 18S3, u]) till Isl March, ISSt, and from 1st June, 18S-1, till Isl February, 18S5, and from Ist.hily, ISSf,, till 1st April, 1888. Mr. A, (robeil, Dejjuty Minister of Public Works, was re-calieil and further examined. iJuring his examination certain letters and papers were produced ami tiled, and inarkt'il as Fxliibits " R \" to '' / 4" inidnsive. Mr. Owen !•]. .Murphy was re-called and further examined. I)ui'ing his examination certain p.apeis were tiled, and nuii'ked as I'^xhibits • A ."» '■ to " i) .■) " inclusive. The room having been cleared and the iloors closed, the Subcommitleeapiiointed ai y«'sterday's sitting to rejiorl to the House the facts which have transpired in rela- tion to the books of the ti''m of Ijarkin, Connoks shall, subject to the further order of the Committee, be made in presence, or by order, of the Sub-Committee. xxxv I— cj ;i t. 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 "That the Sub-Committee shall decide all questions of relevancy, &c., arising on the examination of the books. "That Ml*. Taite and his counsel, and the other counsel admitted to be heard before the Committee, be hcai'd before the Sub-Committee, and such other persons as the Sub-Committee may decide to hear. " That the Sui)-(vonimittee have authority to examine witnesses under oath, and to employ accountants and short-hand writers, and to report to this Committee from time to time." The Committee then adjourned till Monday next at 10.30 a.m. Attest. WALTER TODD, Clerk of the Committee. Monday, 22nd .Tune, ISOl. 10.30 a.:n. The ioUovving members were convened, viz. : Messieurs Kirkpatrick, Langelier, Lavergne, Lister, McDonald ( Victoria), A Quorum not being present, no business was transacted. Attest. WALTER TODD, Clerk of the Committee. Adams, Choquette, Davies, Edgar, German, McLeod, Thompson (Sir John), Tupper, and Weldon.— 14. 1 ■ 1 t j Tuesday, 23rd .hme, ISHI. Tiie Committee met at 10.30 a.m. Presk.nt: Messieurs Girouard, Chairman. Laurier, ' Adams, Aniyot, 13arron. Beausoleii, Eurdett, Cameron (Huron), Choquette, Coatsworth, Costigitn. Curran, Daly, Davios, Dosaulniers, Die key, Jvlg:ir, Flint, Fi-aser, ( Je:'ni;iii, Kirkpatrick. Langelier. Lavergne, McJ)()nald ^Victoria), McLeoil, Mills {Botha-ell), 3Iiii()ck, Tar to, Thompson (Sir John.), Tupjicr, Wood {lirockrillc).—'.',\. Tiie Minutes of l-'riday, ll'th .lune, and .MuJiday, 22nd .luiie, were I'oad and confirmed. Mr. A. (iobeil, Deputy Minister of Public Works, was recalled iind further examined. m 1 . ''ing his examination certain letters and telegrams were read and'filed, and [irked as Exhibits "05" to " NO," butb inclusive. XXXVl 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Ordered, That all papers necessary to enable Mr. Goboil to prepa.-e a statement respectihii the $50,000 to be paid for plant by the contractors for the Esquimalt Graving Dock be sent to the Secretary of the Public Works Department, the said papers to be returned to the custody of the Clerk of this Committee as soon as the said statement is compiled. Mr. Henry F. Perley, Chief Engineer Public Works Department, was sworn and examinetl. During his examination two letters from Mr. Perley to Larkin, Coimolly & Co. were read and filed, and marked as "Exhibits "0 6" and " P(I," re-^i>l. The Comraifteo met at 10.30 a.m. Adams, Ainyot, Baker, Beansiileil, Cameron {Hmron), ( 'iirran, Uavies. l>esaulnior>. Dickey, I'llESENT : Messieurs Girouard. Chairmon. Edgar, Flint, Fraser. Kiik|iati'ick, Laiigolier, Lavorgne, Lisier. 3U-Donald (Victoria). ^fcLeod, Mills {Bothwell), Mulock. Pelletier, Tarte, Tli-)m])son (Sir .rohn), Tnp))er, Wood {Broc/a-ille).—-H:. Minnies of yeslei'day's meeting were re.-id and ciintirmed. xxxvii / I 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Sif .Tohn Thompson moved that Mr. B. B. 08lor,Q,C., bo heard before the Com- mittee as Counsel with Mr. Henry, Q.C., for the Public Work* Department. — Motion agreed to. Mr. Perley, Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, was re-called and further examined. During his examination certain letters and telegrams were read and filed, and marked as'l^xhibits " Q6 " to "ZG," inclusive. Ordered, That Mr. Richard Kimmitt, accountant, have access to any of the books and papers in the custody of the Committee, on behalf of Mr. Tartc and his Counsel. The Committee then adjourned till to-morrow at 10., 'JO • ,m. Atted. WALTER TODD. Clerk of the Comvuttee. TnuRsnAY. 25th .Tinnc, 1891. The Committee met at 10..iO a.m. Present : Alessieurs (Tii-onard, Chairman, Adams, .Vmyot. Baker. Cameron (Huron), ('hoquette, Curran, Davies. Desaulniers, Dickev, !"]dgar, Flint, Eraser, Gorman, Kirkpatrick, Langelier, Lavergne, Lister. .McDonald ( Victoria), McLooil, trills (Bofhuell), Mulock, Pellctier, Taite. Thom}ison (Sir John), ami Tapper. — 2G. The Jlinutesoftheiast nieeling were read and aineniled, and (■ontiniied as amended. In re]ily to the Chairman, Mr. Jliehael Connolly stated that tlie kej's of ihe tin boxes containing vouchers, &c., had lieen telegraphed tor, but liad not yet been received. Ordered. That, to prevent unnecessary tlolay in the proceedings of the (.\>m- mittec. the locks of the said boxes be opened by a locksmith. Mr. Henry K. Perley was recalled and fur'tber exaniiiieil by Mr. GeottVion ; lie was also cross-examined by Mr. Osier and ^Ir. Stuart. During bis examination, eer'tain letieis and papers wei'e lead and tiled, and marked as Exhibits " A 7 " lo " E 7 " inclusive. Mr. O. E. Murphy was recalled and further examined. Mr. Murphy stated that be desired to make a correction to the answer given to the second (piestion, on page :i9, of the Kvidence, by striking out the word " yes," and intierting " I gave the noies to R. 11. Mctrreevy." The Committee then adjourned till to-morrow at 10.30. Attest. WALTER TODD; Clerix of the Committee xxxviii 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 FRrPAY, 2(]tli June, 1891. The Committee met at 10.:j(l ii.m. Present : Messieurs Cxirouurd, Chairman, Ad.imsi, Desiinlnieris, ^MeLeod, Amynt^ Kdgar, Mills (Bofhicell), Beauisoleil, Flint, MulofU, Unrdett, Fraser, Tarte, t'oatswortii, Kirlcpatrick. Thompson (Sir John), Curran, Langelier, Tiipper Davies, Listei , AVeldon. — 2-1. iJaly, McDonald ( Victoria), The Minutes of last meeting wore read and amended, andconrirmod as amended. Mr. 0. K. Miii'phy was recalled and further examined. Durinijf his examinat'on certain letters were read and tiled, and marked as Exhibits "F 1 " to " M 1 " inclusive. The Sub-Committee a])pointed to examine the books of account handed in by Mr. yi, Connolly in obeilienco to the Order of the House, presented their First Eepoi't, reporting the desi'e of Mr, Tarte and his Counsel to have Mr. O. K. Murphy pi'osent during the examination of the books of account, and the objection thereto (if tlio Counsel for Mr. MctJreevy and the Messrs. Connolly; also submitting all >rinulos of Kvidence taken by the Sub-Committee up to date. (For lleport and l"",videiico. See Appendix Xo. 1 to the bividence). Resolved, That the '|ueslion of the propriety of Mr. Murphy being present during the examination of the book's of account be left to the decision of the Sub- Committee. Ordered, Tiiat all Reports of, and Minutes of J<^vidence taken by, the Sub-Com- mittee be printed as Appendix No. 1. to the Evidence of the Standing Committee. Mr. Michael Connolly was recalled and examined as to certain vouchers, notes, cheques and papers which had not yet been produced by him in accordance with the order of the Committee. Mr. Edgar moved": That i[r. Patrick Kell}'. clerk in the (Quebec office of the Messrs. Connolly, be summoned to attend before the Committee at its next sitting, and to l)ring witli liini and jtroduce all che([Ues, notes, stubs, bills-payable books and ]iapers in his jiussession, or under liis control, belonging to the tirni of Larkin, Connolly i*c Co. — Motion agreed to. .Mr. Edgai' moved : That Mr, Charles Fitzpatriek, M. [',!'.. Quebec, and Mr. Nicholas J\, ConiiMlly. KingstcMi, be 'irdered to attend iietoi'o the Committee at its next sitting \\ ith all ebeques, notes, cheque-stubs, liills-payable book>, and papers in their possession, or iindei' their control, belonging id thetirmtil'Tjarkin, Connolly i^i; Co. — Motion agi-eed to. Ordered. Tiiat all pa])ers, vouchers, \c,, in the custody of the Committee, be- longing to the firm of Lurkin, Connolly iV Co. (excepting the books of account refer- red to the Sub-Committee) be accessible to members of the Standing Committee. On motion of Sir .fobn Thompson, it was Jiesolred. That when the Committee adjourns this day, it do stand adjourned until such day next week as the ITouse nm' re-assemlde, ani' thereafter to tueet on every day in which there is a sitting of the House. The C(,)inmittee tiien adjourned. Attest. ■■t m WALTER TOPD. Clerk of the Committee. XXXIX 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 TuESKAY, aOth .lime, ISid. Tho following momboi's were convened, viz. : Messieurs Adams, Edsjjar, Cumeron (Huron), Flint, Curi'an, Fraser, Davies, Lister, Dickey, 'McDonald (Victoria), There being no Quorum present no business was transacted. Attest. WALTEH TODD, Clerk of the Committee. ilcLeod, Mills (Bothwell), Thompson (Sir John), Woldon.— 14. The Committee mot at 10 a.m. Wednesday, 1st July, 1891. Present : Messieurs Fraser, German, Kirkpatrick, Langelier, Lister, ilcDonald ( Victoria), McLeod, 31 ills (Bothwell), 3Ionci'eiff, 3Iulock, Tarte, Thompson (Sir John), Tup])er, and Wcldon.— 22. Adams, Amyot, Baker, Coatsworth, Davies, Dickey, Edgar. Flint, The Chairman being absent, Mr. Baker (on motion of Sir John Thompson), took the Chair. The Minutes of Frida}^ 2(Jth instant, and of Tuesday, the 30th instant, were read and confirmed. The Clerk reported that, in obedience to the Order of tho Committee of Friday last, he had issued, by telegraph, a summons duces tecum to C. Fitzpatrick, .M.P.P. ; X. K. Connolly and Patrick Ivelly ; that the summons requii'ed their attendance for Thursday next, the 2nd instant; that subsequent!)' he had telegraphed to C, Fitz- patrick and N. K. Connolly, requii'ing their attendance on Tuesday, the HOth June, instead of Thursday, 2nd .July. Mr. Osier, Q.C., stated that Mr. Fitzpatrick was unable to leave Queliec in time to be here fur to-day's sitting, but that he would be here to-morrow with all papers requiretl. Messrs. X. K. Connolly and P. Kelly not being present, it was movetl by Mr. Miilock, •' That a summons dui'cs tecum be issued to the said N. K. Connolly and P. Kelly, requii'ing their attendence before the Committee on Friday next, and that the said summons be sent to the Sheriff of (Quebec, with instructions to serve tlio same." — Motion agreed to. Mr. A. Gobeil was recalled and further exaniiued. During his examination, certain letters and papers were read and tiled, and marked asFxhibits "XT" to " V 7 " inclusive. At the suggestion of ^Ir. Geotfrion, it was Resolved, That papers relating to Progress Fstimates for Ksquimalt Gi-iving Dock, be put in en bloc, to be examined b^' Counsel and marked as Exhibits by the Clerk, .'ifter the adjournment of the Committee. The Committee then adjourned till 10 o'clock to morrow. Attest. WALTER TODD, Clerk of the Committee. 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 TiiLBSDAY, 211(1 July, 1891. Tho Committee met at 10 a.m. Adams, Amyot, Bakoi-, Barron, Cameron (Huron). Choqiietto, CoatHworth, CiirniM, Daly, Da vies. Present : Ilessieurs Desaiiliiiers, DicUoy, I'klgar, Flint, Fraser, Kirkpatrit'k, Langelier, McDonald (Victoria), McLeod, Mills (Bothiuell), ^loncreitl', ]\[ulotk, Pelletier, Tarte, Thompson (Hir John), Tapper, Weldon, AVood (Brockville) .—28. The Chairman not being present, Mr. Baker moved that Mr. Kirkpatrick take the Chair — Motion agreoil to. ^[r. Kirkpatrick having taken the Chair, the Minutes of the last mootinu- were read and contirmed. Messrs. N. K. Connully and P. Kelly being called, were present. Mr. Kelly was sworn and examined as to the cheque-stubs, vouchers, kc, which he had been ordered to produce. Mr. C. Fitzpatrick produced certain cheques, notes, voucliers, &q,, belonging to the tirm ot'Larkin, Connolly & Co., which were in his possession as Counsel in the conspiracy case against O. F. Murphy and R. H. McGi-eevy. These papers were tiled, and marked as Exhibits ''XT'' to " D 8," inclusive. Mr. Martin P. Connolly was recalled, and produced cheque books with stubs, and bill book of tirm of Larkin, Connolly it Co., which were tiled, and marked as l^lxhibits " F 8 " and " F 8," respectively. Ordered, That all papers placed in the custodj' of the Committee by Mr. Kelly be put in en bloc, to be examined subsequently b}' Counsel, and marked as J']xhibit.s by the Clerk (if deemed necessary) after the adjournment of the Committee. Mr, O. E. ^[urphy was recalled and further examined. During his examination 27 letters were read and tiled, and marked as Exhibits "G8" to -'GO," inclusive. At the request of 'Mr. Stuart it was Ordered, That a summons duces tecum be sent to Mr. James MacNidei-, Quebec, to attend and give evidence before the Committee on Saturday next. At the request of Mr. Geotfrion it was Ordered, That a summons duces tecum be issued to Mr. I'.dward Moore, Portiaml, Maine, to attend and give evidence before the Committee. The Committee then adjourned till to-morrow, at 10 a.m. Attest. WALTER TODD. ivi 1 m Clerk of the Cowmittee. » 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Friday, :}i'd July, 1891. Tho Cominittce mot at 10 a.m. Present Messieurs Gii-ouard, Chairman, Alia ins, Amyot, Baker, ("hoquotte, Coalsworth, Curi'an, Duly, Dcsaulnicrs, I)o8jai'clins (L' Islet), ' >ickey, J'^dirar, Flint, Frasur, German, Ives, Kirkpatrick, Lan^folior, Luvergno, Masson, j\[c Donald ( Victoria) McLeod, Mills (BothtreU), Moncrictt", Mulock, Oiiimet, Pelletier, Tui'te, Thompson (Sir John), Tapper, Woldon, Wood (Brockville).—:',2. Tho Minutes of yesterday's mooting were read and eontirmed. At tho request of Mi-, (ieoft'rion, Q.C, it was Ordered, That summonses be issued to .N[r. Simon Peters, (Quebec, and to Mr-. Charles ^IcGreevy, Quebec, to attend and give evidence before the Committee, the former to bring with iiim and produce ail papei-s under his control having reference to tho Quebec Harbour Improvements since 1882. Mr. (Jeottrion stated that upon examining the papers and vouchers produced yesterday, by the witness Kelly, he had been unable to find the bank pass-book, stubs of cheques on Union Bank of Canada prior to 1887, cheques, iVc, the pro- duction of which ho considered necessary to prove his case. ^[essrs. John Hyde, Mai'tin P. Connolly and X. K. Connolly were sworn and examined as to the said jiass-book and stubs, &c. Ordered, That Mr. Martin P. Connolly be sent to Quebec to get the said liank pass-book and all cheques, stubs of cheques, letter books and books of accmintof tho tirm of Larkin, Connolly & Co., since it.^ formation on 17th August, 1878, and not yet proiluceil ; also Mr. O. E. Murphy's bank pass-book prior to 188(). Mr. O. K. ^lurphy was recalled and further examined by Mr. Geoffrioi Durintr his examination two cheques dated 2nd November, 1887 — ^ — — ^..., — .^ — — .„„ _.^, — , — . — _. November 1887, were produced and marked as Exhibit " II 9," and another cho(i dated 20th March, 188(J, marked Exhibit " I 9." Mr. Murphy's cross-examination was then begui\ by ]\[r. Osier, Q.C. The Committee then adjourned till to-morrow at 10 a.m. Attest. WALTER TOBI), Clerk of the Committee. 21st ue xlii ^4 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Saturday, -Ith July, 1891. "'J ^1 -i I ■I 1 i The Committee met at 1(» a. in. rR?;SENT : 3Iessieiirs Giroiiard, Chairman, Ailams, Amyo!, Baker, Clioquctte, Curraii, Daly, Davies, JJosaulniors, DeHJanliiiK (L'Islet), Dickey, McLeod, Mills (Bothu-eU), 3Ionc'reirt', Muloek, Pelleticr, Tarte. Thompson (Sir John), Tu])j)er, Weldon'.— :iO. Jvlgai-, Flint, Fraser, (Jerman, Ives, Kirkpatrick, Langelier, Lavoi'grio, .MassoM, McDonald (Victoria), The .\[inuteH of last mooting were read and confirmed. The oross-examination of Mr. O. V). Murphy by A[r. Osier, Q.C., was resumed. During his cross-examination lie produced twelve diaries for the years 1S80 to 180U, wh'.ch were tiled and marked as Kxhibits " Iv9 " to " V9 " ; also a cheque, a bank paiw-book and three notes, marked as Exhibits " W'J," "XO" and " Y9," respectively. The Sub-Committee appointed to examine the books of account handed in ii}' .Mr. Michael Connolly in obedience to the Order of the House, presented theirSecond Jieport, submitting additional eviiience, taken by them on the second and third days of Jul}'. (For Eeport and Kvidence, see Appendix No. 1, to the Evidence.) Mr. William Brown, chief accountant of the Quebec Bank, was sworn, and produced a statement of B. II. ilcGreevy's account with the Quebec IJank from 2nd January, 1883, to 14tii December, 1887, which was tiled and marked Exhibit "Z'J." Statement of Larkin, Connolly & Co.'s account with the (Quebec Bank from 23rd January, 188-1, to 20th June,"^ 1885, marked Exhibit ''AUI." And requisiMon for a draft on New York for 81,000 in favour of Henry Clews ».*c Co., signed O E. 3[urphy, marked Exhibit "BIO." !Mi'. James .MacNider, brokoi-, Quebec, was sworn, and ))roduced ii statement of O. E. Murphy's account with James MacNider i*i: Co., from Uth .lanuary, 1883, to 17th October, 1883, marked Exhibit "ClO." ifr. Ludovich Brunet, Clerk of the Peace, Quebec, was sworn, and produced promissory note for 8400,000 to the order of O. E. .NFurphv, and signed by ^fichael Connolly, marked Exhibit " DlO." The Committee adjourned at 2 o'clock p.m. till Monday, at 10.30 a.m. Attest. WALTER TODD, f^lerk of the Committee. 'l'-; M mi IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) %o 1.0 11.25 II M- 11^ = ■"" IIIIIM 1.4 mil 1.6 o>- V] .'^;.^^ (? 7 / ^, Photographic Sciences Coiporation '^'^ <> 23 WIST MAIN STfcKT WnSTIR.N.Y. MSSO (716)S72-4»03 •S},'- T ir in; li 1i :| 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Tho Committee met at 10.30 a.m. Mo.NDAY, 0th July, 1891. PUESE.NT : Meifsieitrs Aduins, Amyot, Barron, Cameron {Huroii), Choquotte, Costiynn, Daly, Davies, DoMJardins (L'Islet), Edgar, Flint, I'Vaser, Gorman, Ives, KirUpatrick, Laiirier. Lavergne, ^IcLood, Mills (liothwell), ^loncriotl', Muioi'k, I'ellotier, Tarte. Thompson (Sir John), Tiipper, Weldon.— 26. The Chairman heing absent, Mr. Kirkpatrick was moved into the Chair. The Minutes of Saturday's meeting wore read, amended, and ountirmed as amended. .Mr. Tarto moved that .Mr. Biadley, Secretary of the Department of llailways and Canals, be summoned to appear and pnxluce all Onlers in Council, correspondence and papers in the Dejjartment relating to the steamer Admiral. — .Motion agreed to. A discussion having arisen as to who should, i>r should not, have right of access to the books of acfount handed in by Mr. .Michael Connoll}' in obedience to the Order of the House, it was Resolved, That the saiil question bo referred for decision to the Sub-Committee appointed to examine the saiil books. Ordered, That Uie letters and papers contained in the bag belonging to Mr. O. E. Murphy bo examined by Counsel on both sides, in Mr. Murphy's presence, for the purpose of selecting such papers as are relevant to this inquiry, tho papers ho selected to bo laid before the Committee at is next meeting ; in the event of any ditt'erence of opinion arising as to the relevancy ot any paper, the question of rele- vancy to be settled by the Sub-Committee appointed to examine the books of account. Attention having been drawn to the irregular manner in which certain witnesses liad been summed (viz.. by order of the Chairmain. at the request of Counsel), it was Resolved, That in future all summonses to witnesses shall issue upon the order of the Committee only. Ordered, That Exhibit " Zlt, ' being a statement of the account of Mr. J{. H. McGroevy with the (Quebec Bank, iVc, shall not bo open to inspection by any person until further orders. The Clerk reported that tho nians for the (^ross-wall in the Harbour of Quebec, wei-e not in tho Department of Public Works, but were in the possession ot the Quebec ITarbour (.'ommission, and that he had telegra])hed to the Secretaiy of the Harbour JJoard to send them uj» by tia-st express ; he had also telegraphed for the progress and final estimates for the same work. The Committee then adjourned till to-morrow, at 10 a.m. Attest WAI.TEB TODD, Clerk of the Committee. xiiv 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 )-C()mmittoe n the order Aiiiyot, Boiiusolcil, Cainerun (Huron), ('liiKjuette, Coiitf-wortli, ( '((stiifun, Ciirrun, J»aly, Muvio.s, Desjartlins (L'Islet), Tuesday, 7th July, 18ointed l<) examine the hooks of aecount, suhmittini^ a Resolution authorizing certain persons to have access to the said hooks of account. (For Jieport, see Ai'PENdix No. 1 to the i^vidence.) Ml'. Martin I*. Connolly was recalled, and placed in the custody of the Committee "•eilain hooks and pa|)ers which he had brought with him from Quebec in obedience lo the Order of the (Committee of Friday last, the 3rd instant. Ordered, That said books and papers be open to inspection in the same manner as the other books and pa])ersof the firm already in custody of the Committee. Wv. A. I'. Hradle}', Secretary of the Department of iJailways and Caiuils, was called and sworn, and produceil an Order in Council and an agreement with Julien t'lialiot r('s]tcctinir the Steamer ' Admiral," which were tiled and marked as Kxliibils •K 10 " and ■• F 10," respectively. The cross-i'xamination otMr. O. F. ^[urphy was then resumed. At the re(iuo.4 of Mr. Stuart, Q.C., it was Ordered, That Mr. U. il. McUreevy be rc([uired to jtrodnce before the Committee the following jiapers, viz. : 1. Original statement oi- ilcclaration signed li. II. Mc(;reevv. a> published m Le Oaiuhllen, ."toih .\|)ril, ISHO. -. All bank bonks, clietpio Imoks, chetjues, letter books, brokers, statements, and all other bonks, papers or (locllment^ showing the tinancial transactions ot the said |{. II. Mctrroevy from 1st .lanuary, 18S3, to 1st .lanuary, 1S8S; also, slalcment ot all (ransactions between ]{. II, Nutireevy and O. K. Murphy during the said )ieriod. ."!. Original of transfer from (ieorge Heaueage to Larkin, Connolly A; (Jo., or:iny MUMubors ot said Hrm. At the reiiuest of Mr. Stuart, Q,C;,, il was. Ordi-red, Ihat an order do issue on the I'rothonotary of the Superior Court lor the District of Quebec to produce the original recftrd in re Thomas Mctlreevy vs. U. ll, McGreevy, action of assumpsit. xlv 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 At the requoHt of Mr. Geoffrion, Q.C., it was Ordered, That Mr. G. Sanccr, Accountant, have access to any of the books and papers in the custody of the Committee on behalf of Mr. Tarto and his Counsel. The Committee then adjourned till to-morrow at 10 a.m. Attest. WALTER TODD. Clerk of the Committee. The Committee met at 10 a.m. Wednesday, 8th July 1891, Present : Messieurs Girouard, Chairman, Adams, Dickej-, Amy(/t, Kdgar, Baker, Flint, Bcausoleil, Fraser, Choquette. German, Coatsworth, Ives, Costigan, Kirkpatrick, Curran, Langelier, Daly, Lavergne, Davies, Lister, McDonald (Victoria), McLeod, A[ills (Bothwell), Ouimet, Pellotier, Tarte, Thompson (Sir John), Tupper, Weldon, Wood (Brockvine).—3-S. Desatilniers, Masson, The Minutes of yesterday's meeting were road and contirraed. The Chiurman read a telegram signed by lion. Charles Langelier and Mr. £. Pacaud, (Quebec, to the effect that certain iiewspaj)ers had stated that proof had been adtluced befoie the Committee that the firm of Larkin, Connolly & Co. had paid a note of $700 for them, and asking tiiat they be heard before the Committee on oath in refutation of the charge. Mi. Fitzpatrick, on behalf of the Messrs. Connolly, stated that the note alluded to liad come before the Committee by the merest acci- dent, and further, that the note liad never been paid by the firm of Larkin, Con- nolly tS; Co., but by the maker and endorser, etc. (See page 300 of the Evidence.) Ordered. That I lie said statement be communicated to Messrs. Langelier and I'acaud by the Clerk. At the reqiiest of Mr. Osier, Q.C., it was ' Resolved, That Mr. Tarte, M.P., bo requested to prmlucc before the Committee all original statements signed by O. E. Mur|»liy and It. II. McGreevy, lespectivoly, and jiublished in Le Canadien. At the rcijuost of Mr. Geoflfrion, (J.C, it was Resolved, That lion. Thomas McGreevy, 31.1*., lie requested to lay before the t'ommillee ail his bank books, letters received by him from Kobert li. McGreevy, Larkin, Connolly & Co., or any members of said firm, and Ilenr)' F. Perley, between 1883 and 1800; also, the accounts, correspondence and vouchers between him and Julicii Chabot, of Lt^is, in connection with the steamer " Admiral." At the roquost of Mr. Geottrion, Q. C, it was Ordered, That summonses be issued to Mr. .loseph Lossard rtnd Mr. Fabien Vanasse to attend before the Committee and bring with them a statoment of all moneys paid or advanced by Hon. Thos. Mctrreevy oi' Sir Hector Langevin to " La Compagnie d'Imprimerie du Monde," since 1S83; also, a statement of the shares held by the said Hon. Thos. McGreevy and Sir Hector Langevin in the capital stock of the saiil company. At the re(juest of Mr. GeoflVion, (J.C., it was Ordered, Ihat 3lr. Nicholas K, Connolly bo required toprmluce betore the Coitv- mittee his private bank accounts between 1883 and 1890, inclusive xlvi 64 Victoria. AppendJx (No. 1.) A. 1891 Mr. Tiu-te produced Htatemont (in typewriting) of Mr. O. E. Murphy, whicii wiiH riled and marUed Exhibit " GIO." Mr. O. Vj. Murpiiy wa« further cross-examinod by Mr. O.-iler and Mr. Stuart. This cf)noluded Mr. Murphy's crotts-oxamiiiation for the present. During: his cross-examination two letters and a cheque were produced, and marked Exhibits " HIO," " 110 " and " JIO." Mr. ^[urpliy was ordered to l)e in attendance on Tuesday next, the 14th instant. Mr. Nicholas K. Connolly was recalled and examined by Mr. Goott'rion, Q.(.'. On motion of Sir John Thompson, it was Ordered, That a summons duces tecum do issue to Henry Birks, Jeweller, Montreal, to be in atondance before the Committee on Tuesday next, the 14th instant, and that he be required to produce all booksof account showing his sales during the month of Januar}-, 1887; aLso, to the Ottawa agent of the Canadian Express Company, requiring him to produce on the same date all receipts for goods received for, ami delivered to, Mr. or Mrs. Henry F. Perley in the month of January, 1887. The Committee then iidjournod till to-morrow, at 10 a.m. Attest. The Committee met ut 10 a.m. Pkesbnt : Messieurs (lirouard, Chairman, WALTER TODD, Clerk of the Committee. TnuKSDAY, 0th July, 18Jtl. Adams, Amyot, Baker, Barron. Bunlott, Cameron {Huron), Choquctte, Coatsworth, Costigan, Curran, Daly, Havies, Desaulniers, lOdgar, Flint, Eraser, German, Ives, Kirkpatrick, Langelier, Lister, McDonald {Victoria), McLeod, Mills (Bothirell), Moncriett', Mulock, Ouimet, Tarlo, Thomjjson (Sir John), Tupper, Weldon.— 33. Masson, The Minutes of Wednesday's meeting were road and continued. Mr. Henry E. I'erley was recalled and examined as to the statement made coa- cerning him by Mr. O. E. i[urphy at yesterday's sitting, Mr. Nicholas K. Connolly's exaiiiinatiun was resunuMJ by Mr. (ieotfrion, Q.C. On motion of Sii' .Fohn Thompson, it was liesolved, That leave of the House lie obtained for this Committee to sit diJring the time in which the House is in session. On motion of Sir John Thompson, it was Itesoh-ed, That the order of yesterday requiring the attendance before th(! Com- mittee on Tuesday next, of Henry Mirks, Montreal, and the Agent of the Canadian Express Company, Ottawa, be rescinded. At the recjuest of Mi-. Stuart, Q.C., it was Ordered, That a summons be issued to 3Ii'. L. C. Mareoux, Secretary-Treasuier of La Caisse d' Economic de Xotre-Dame do Qudbec. to attend and produce betbrv the Committee a statement of the account of .Mr. J{. H. MclJreevy with that institu- tion from 1st January, 1883, to 1st January, 1890. On motion of Mr. 'i'arte, it was xlvii hV l/ 0l\ . m 11 "I 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Ordered, That a summons duces fecum bo ixniicd to Mr. St. froorgo Boswoll, Jiesidont lOngineor, Quebec llarltour, to attend belbre this Committee, and produce all roporfH of inspector» of drudging from 18H;{ to 18811, progress estimates of drudg- ing for same period, progress estimates in connection with the Cross-wall, and all papers and correspondence in connection with the same n'orks. Ordered, That the Third Ileport of the Sub-Cummittee appointed to examine the books of account be referred back for further consideration. The Committee then adjourned till to-morrow, at 10 a.m. Attest. WALTKIl TODD. Clerk of the Committee. FiuDAY, 10th July, 1891. The Committee met at 10 a.m. Present : Messieurs (iirouard. Chairman, Adams, Amyot, Baker, HarrcM, Beausolcil, Cameron (Huron), Coatsworth, Costigan, Curran, Daly, Uavies, Dickey, Kdyar, Flint, (ierman, Ives, lvirk|>atric Langelier, Lister, Masson, McDonald ( Victoria), McLeod, Mills (Bothuell), Moncreitt", Ouimet, Polletier, Tartc. Thom)t.c|)ert Accountants be appointed b}' the Conunittee, whose duty sliall bo to examine, and tci)ort upon oath to the t'oinmittee, upon the dealings of Larkin, Connolly iV Co.. Owen K. Murphy ihe Hon. Thomas McUreevy and Kobert Mctireevy as appearing in the Sooks of account, vouchers and exhibits produced and to bo produced with reference to the charges and emiuiries before the Committee. 2. That further evidence with reference to the said books, accounts and vouchers may from time to time be given, at the instance of any of the parties or of any mcmbc of the Committee or at the request of the Accountants, before the sub- committee. xlviii 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 ?i. Thiit Jill tlio books of account, oxhibitM and vouchers now l)ct'ore the Coin- iniltoe shall bo al tlio disposal of the said \ccountant8 for tlie purposes aforesaid. 4. 11 is ordered that the Hon. Thomas Mcfrreovy, Robert Mcftreevv, Charles MfCirt'evy, Xichoias K. (Connolly, Michael Connolly and P. Larkin forthwith produce iiM oath bot'ore the suli-conunittec all their books of accounts, bank books. chc(|ue stubs, notes, drafts and all other documents and ])apers bearini; upon the question under eiKjuiry and that when so produced the same shalL be jdaced at the disposal of the said accountants for the purposes aforesaid. .">. That at their own moticm or at the re(|uestofthe(/ommitteo the said Account- ants may from time to time make interim ro|)orts to tlio('omniittee. Mr. Mcholas Iv. Connolly's examination was continueil by Mr. (rcoffrion, Q.C, and si'vc:al members of the (Jommitteo. During his examination a statement of liritish Columbia Gravinif J)(>ck, Quebec Harbour Improvements and profits of |{. li. McGreovy's accounts, was filed ami marked as Kxhibit "L 10," also five letters written by N. K. Comiolly to O. K. Murphy, marked as Kxhibits "M 10" to "QIO" inclusive. The Committee then adjourned till to-morrow at 10 a.m. Attest. WALTKR TODD, Clerk of the Committee. SATrRiiAY, 11th .luly, 18!)1. The Committee mot at 10 a.m. Present: Messieurs Adams, Ainyot, (,'iiincron (^Huroii), Coslij^an, Diisjanlins (L'lstet), Flint, Fraser, Lister, Mfts^on, McDonald ( Victoria), McLeod, Mills (Bothwelt), ^loncreirt', Tarto. Thompson (Sir ./o/tn), Tu|iper, Weldon— 17. The ('hairman not being present, on motion of Sir John Thompson, Mr. Masson I'loli the Chair. The Minutes of Friday's sitting were read and confirmed. Mr. Nicholas K. Connolly's examination wi*8 continue(i by Mr. Tarte atul other inombers of the Committee; he was also cross-examined by Mr. Fil/patrick and others. During his exiimination three letters were tiled, one from N. K. Connolly to O. i;. .Mur|»hy, marked Kxhibit "lilO," one from M. Connolly to his brother, marked Kxhibit ".SIO," and copy of letter from Larkin, Connolly & Co. to Mr. Trut(h, marked Kxhibit " TIO," also Transfer O. K. Murphy to N. I\. and M. Connolly, 11th May, IS?!i, marked Kxhibit " UIO." The Cominittee then adjournetl till Tuesday, the 14th instant, at 10 a.m. Attest. xHx WALTKR TODD. Clerk of the Covimittee. I— I. 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 The Committeo met at ll> n.in. Tuesday, 14th July 18yi. Present : Mensieiirs (rirouar examine and report on such further matters as may bo referred to them by the Committee from time to lime. At the request of Mr. Gootl'rion, t^.C, it was Ordered, Tliat a summons be issued to Mr. J{obort H, Mctrieevy, jun., (Quebec, to attend and j^ive evidence before the Committee. Engineer's final estimate on Cross-wall was filed and marked Exhibit " V 10." Mr. II. V. Noel, ^Eanager (Juebec Bank, Ottawa, was sworn and examined as to Bale des Chaleurs Railway and the Langevin Testimonial Fund. During his examination Mr. Noel ))roduced a statement of amounts paid into Quebec JJank on account of Bale des Chaleurs Railway, marked Exhibit " W 10 ; " also .seven letters marked as Exhibits " X 10 " to " I) 11," inclu.sive; also statement of payments made by the D«)miniou (jovernment to the (Quebec Baink im power of .\ttorney from Haie des Chaleurs Railway Company, marked i'ixhibit '' K II." .Mr. Noel was ordered to produce at the next meeting of the Comniittee a copy of the account of the Langevin Testimonial Fund as contained in the books of the Quebec Bank. Mr. Simon Peters, Quebec, was sworn examined, and cross-examined. During his examination .Mr. Peters produced a letter from himself to Deputy Minister of Public Works, respecting his tender for the construction of the Cross- wall and the reply of the Deputy Minister to the same, marked as Kxhibits " G 11 " and " H 11," respectively; also original notes (in pencil) comparing his tender foi the same work with that of Larkin, Connolly & Co., marked Exhibit " 1 11," and a summary statement (in ink) based upon the said notes marked Exhibit "J 11." 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Mr. PotorB was oriJerejar(iiiis (T/Met), Didvey, Kdniif. Flint, Eraser, German, Ives, Kirkpatriok, Ltingolior, Lister, Masson, McDonald ( Victoria). McLeod, Mills ^Hotlncell), .Mttiicreitf, Muloek, Ouimet, Taite, Tht)mp>on (Sir John), Tu|»i)er, Weld-.n, Wood (Jiroclif i lie). —3:i. Adams, Aniyot. liakor, liaiToii, Beausoieil. Cliapioau, Choiiuetto. Coatsworth. Custigan, Curian, Davies, Desaulniers, The Minutes of Tuesday were read and contirmod. Ordered, That the sub-committee appointed to examine the books of account, do meet at 3 o'clock, p.m., this day, and that the Hon. Thomas Mcdreevy, IJohert McGreevy, Charles AlcGreevy, Nicholas Iv. Coiinoll}', Michael Connoll}' and P. Larkin forthwith produce on oath before the sub-committee all their bot)ks of account, bank books, cheque stubs, notes, drafts and all other documents and papers bearing upon the (luestion under enquiry. Mr. H. V. Xoel was further examined as to Langovin Testimonial J'und Account :it the (Quebec Bank. He submitted a statement of account showing a partial list of subscribers to the Fund, which was inclosed in a sealed envelope until further orders. Mr. F. C. Lightfoot of the Public Works Department was sworn and examined as to the sum of 6100 given him by O. K. Murphy. The Chairman staled that .Mr. Jennings, C.E., of Toronto, was present and had consented to act as one of the Engineers to be appointed under the resolution adopted at yesterday's meeting, but that Mr. Walter Shanly, C.E., who had been asked to act with Mr. Jennings had expressed his inability to undertake the work, owing \o pressing engagements. Ordered, That Mr. Jennings be directed to begin forthwith the work requireil under the lesoliition, and that another Engineer be selecteil later. li 1-nJ M: ii'k 11 r 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 The uroHM-exnmination of Mr. Simon PetorM wuHthen rtisuinoil anil concliiiled for the preMoiit ; Mr. PotorM wuh thon diHchatged ttultject to recall. Ordered, That Exhibit " V," Tabular Statumont of Tundoi-8 roct'ived by the Qiieboc lIarl)our CominissioiiurH tor certain drud^ini; and timbur work, bo printed. At the Huijj^estion of Mr. Osier, Q.C, it was Ordered, That the clerk communicate with Mrn. IJoyd, widow of the late Mr. J. 10. Boyd, with a view of obtaining fnjm her any copies of papers, notes or plans bclonj^inj; to her late husbaml. and referring to the (Quebec Harbour Works, which may be in hor posHcssion at the present time. Ml'. Nicholas K. Connolly was recallcil and furthef examined. At the sujr.i?ostioii of Mr. Osier, Q.C., it was Jiesolved, That Kxhibit "Z!i," statement of account of R. II. McGreevy wilh the (Quebec Bank (which was enclosed in a sealed envelope by onler of the Com- mittee) lie referred to the sub-committee wilh instructions to report upim what action should be taken thereon. On motion of Mr. Kdj^ar, it was Ordered, 'I\m\ a summons be issued to Mr. E. K. Webb, Cashier of the Union Baid< of Caiuida, Quebec, lequirinfi him to attend before the Committee on Friday next, and to ])ioduce the piivate bank accounts of Messrs. Thomas McGreevy, X. K. Connolly, Michael Connolly and O. K. Murphy from 1st January, 1882, to 1st January, 188!»; and the bank account of Larkin, Connolly & Co. from 1st Jaimary to :{rd June, 188!». On motion of Mr. German it was Jtesolved, That the House be asked to reduce the (luorum of the Committee from 22 to 11 members. The Committee then adjourned till to-morrow at 10 a.m. Attest. WALTKR TODD, Clerk of the Committee. f S The Committee met at 10 a.m. Thursday, ICth July, 1891. Present : Messieurs Girouard, Chairman. Amyot, Baker, Beausoleil, Chaploau, Choquette, Costigan, Cur ran, Davies, Desjardins (^L'lslet), Dickey, Edgar, Flint, Fraser, German, Kir|>atiick, Langelier, Lavergne, Lister, Masson, Macdonald ( Victoria), McLeod. Mills (Bothwell), The Minutes of Wednesday were read and confirmed Moncreift', Mulock, Ouimet, Pelletier, Tarte, Thompson (Sir John), Tapper, Weldon. Wood (^Brockville).— 32. The Clerk reported that he had communicated with a brother of Mrs. Boyd with u view of ascertaining her present address, and had been informed that Mrs. Boyd Hi 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 was at present in England, and that ho believed that any private notes or pap«"i's which Mr. Boyf J. iienson Williiims, of Quoiioc ; (r. M. Hurland. of Ottawa; Charles N. Ann- strong, of Montreal, and Honourable T. KobitailU', Senator. 7^««o/j;ed, That the Chairman do move in the House that a message be sent tt> tilt' Senate, requesting that their Jlonours will be pleaseii to grant leave to the Jlonourable Theodore Jlobitailie, one of their members, to appear before this Com- mittee and give evidence. Mr. Nicholas K. (yonnoUy was recalled and his fl.xamination before the Standing Committee concluded. Mr. A. Hector Verret, late Secretary Treasuier of the (Quebec Harbour Com- missioners, was sworn, examined and cross-examined. Mr, Verret was discharged from further attendance before tlie Standing Committee, but ordered to be in attend- ance before the Sub-Committee this afternoon. The Chairman presented the Kourth Report of the Sul)-Committee appointed to examine the books of account, which was read. (For Report and Kvidence referred to therein See Appendix No. 1 to the Evidence.) Mr. Robert H.McfJreevy. sen., was called and examineti re production of books and papers mentioned in the order of the Committee of Tuesday, the 7th instant. Atter some discussion, it was decided that Mr. R. H. Mctxreevy's books be open to the inspection of Mr. Osier, Q.C., Mr. (ieoffrion, Q.C., and the Accountants, Messrs. Cross !»nd Laing, in the presence of Mr. R. ILMcfireevy. The Committee then adjourned till to-morrow at 10 a.tn. Attest. WALTER TODD, Clerk of the Committer, Friday, 17th July, 1S91. The Committee mot at 10 a.m. J'resent : Messieurs (riiouard, Chairman. Adams, Amj-ot. Baker, Barron, Boausoleil, < 'hoquette, (/ostigan, Curran, l);ivies, Desjardins (L' Islet) , The Minutes of Thursday's meeting were read and confirmed. Resolved, That tho Chairman do move in the House for a message to the Senate, requesting that one of their Committee looms may be placei>ENnix No. 1 to the Fvidence.) At the suggestion of Mr. Osier, Q.C., it was Resolved, That it be referred to the Engineers to ascertain and report on the Fsquimalt (iraving Dock as follows: 1. As to the changes made in the plans for the said works. '1. As to the changes made in the execution of the works, and .'{. As to the cost of the several changes made. On moticm of Mr. Kdgar, it was Ontered, That a summons be issued requiring the attendance before this Com- mittee of JI. Laforce Langevin, Quebec. At the suggestion of Mr. Osier, Q.C., it was Ordered, That a summons be issued requiring the attendance before this Com- mittee of E. J. Milne, St. Joseph, L^vis. Mr. Clement Vincelette was sworn and examined, and subsequently discharged from further attendance. The examination of .Mr. Robert If. McGreevj', sen., was then resumed, during which four letters were filod, and marked as Kxhibits " A13"to " Dl'.i," inclusive. The Committee then adjourned till to-morrow at 10 a.m. ' Atteaf. WALTKR TODD, Clerk of the Commiltee, IVIII 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 The Cominitteo met at 10 a.m. Fkii»ay, 24tli July, IHIU. Present: Messieurs Giroiiard, Chairman, FraMcr, German, Kirkpatrick, Langclicr, Lavergne, MasHoii, McDonald ( Victoria), McLeod, MillH (Bothwell), M one re iff, Miilock, < )uimet, Pellotier, Tarle, Thompson (Sir John), Tiipper, Weldon. Wood ihi-ockviUe).—2d. of George K. Perley, .\myot, Meausoleil, Cameron (Huron), Choqiiette, C'oatsworth, i)avie8. Dcsaiilniers, DoMJardinis {L' Islet), Kdgar, Flint, Tlio .Minutew ol'ye.slerday were rend and confirme I. At the request of Mr. Osier, -Committee for their inspection. At 1 o'clock the Committee took rece.-s. 3.30 o'clock P.M. The cross-examination of .Mr. McGreevy was resumed. A copy of the judgment nt the Superior ('oui t in the case of Thomas Mctneevy vs. Fiobert H. Mctireovy was Hied and marked Kxhibit " W13." Mr. J. H. Williams, C.K., (Quebec, was sworn and examined as to the alleged pro- position, maiie in 1885, to appoint him liesident Engineer at Ksquimalt. Mr. Williams was then discharged from further attendance. Resolved, That Mr. Alan MacDougall, C.K., of Toronto, be appointed as asso- ciate Kngineerwith Mr. Jennings, C.K., in the work referred to him by this Committee. Ordered, That the Clerk do telegraph to the General Managers of the Quebec Hank, ami of La Banijue Rationale, requiring them to pre))are for the use of the Committee a statement of the account of Hon. Thonuis Mc(Jreevy at tlicr rcdpoctive banks from 1882 to date. The Committee then adjourned till Tuesday next at 10 a.m. Attest walt;:r todd, Clerk of the Committee. lix M'i J':l ■I'l n 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Tuesday, 28ih July, IsiM. The Committee mot at 10 a.m. Present : Messieurs Giiouard. Chairman, Amyot, Beaiisoleil, Cliapleau. Choquettc, Coatwwortli. Curran, DavicH, Desaiilnicrs, DeHJardinH {L' Islet), IvJgnr, Flint, Fruser, (rorman, lvirl{|)atriek, Langolier, Lister, Massoii, McDonald ( Victoria), Mills (liothH-ell), MoMcreitt", Oiiimet, Taite, Thompson (Sir John), Tuppcr, Wel.lon. Wood (Brockville).—2-t. The MinuteH ofiFrlday last wore read and confirmed. Mr. Kdgar moved that Sir Hector Langevin be requested to produce hefore the Committee the letter signed and given to him by I*. V. Valin at the last general elections, as stated by Mr. Valin in his evidence, given on the Hth instant. — Motion agreed to. At the reqiiCHt of Mr. GeotlVion, Q.C., it was Resolved, That Sir Hector Langevin be requested to produce before this Com- mittee copies of telegrams sent by him to the representatives of Victoria, B.C., in the House of Commons, as mentioned in Exhibit " 1)7," page 172 of the Evidence ; also copy of telegram sent by him to Hon. Thomas McGroovy, about January, 1S85; also telegram received by him from Hon. Thomas McCfreevy about the same date. On motion of ^>rr. Tarte, it was Ordered, That Mr. Simon Peters be recalled and require()ii (Sir John), AVfldoii, Wur Wcji-Ich, himI iilsurt plmi of tli«> KM(|uiiiinlt (iraviii^ Dock, l)e printed as part of Ap|MMulix No. .') to the Evidence. Mr. Edniond (Jiroux, Chairnmn of the Doai-d of t^uelHsc Harlxtur ConiniiMNioners, WHS sworn, examined and cross-exaniined, and discliarged from further attendance. During liis examination tliree lettei-H and a notarial copy tif dredging contmct l)etweei (.^uel)ec HarlM>ur ConnuiHsionei-s and Messrs. Liukin, Connolly k Co., IfOSo, were filed and marked as Exhibits " HU) " to " K16 " inclusive. Mr. William Rae, memlier of the H(Mird of Harhour Commissionei's, Quebec, was sworn, examined and discharged from further attendance. Mr. J. Bell Foi"sytli, member of the Board of Harliour Commissioners, Quebec, was sworn, examined and discharged from further attendance. Mr. II. H. Smith, member of the Board of Harljour Conunissionei's, Quebec, was discharged without l)eing examined. Mr. Michael Flynn, Quebec, was sworn and examined by Mr. Stuart, Q.C. The further examination of this witness was {}ostponed till to-morrow. Onli-rcd, That Mr. Augustin Gaboury, Quebec, dejmsit with the Clerk copies of Minutes of the St. Lawrence Steam Navigation Company of 'jth March and 9th April, liSS;?, and that he be discharged from fuither attendance. The Connnittee then adjourned till to-morr rv at 10.30 a.m. Attest. WALTER TODD, Chrk of the. Committee. Friday, 7th August, 1891. The Connnittee met at 10.30 a.m. PHK.SKXT : Menftienrs Girouard, Chainnnn, Dickey, McDonald ( Victoria) Flint, McLe(Kl, Fraser, Mills {liothweU), German, Mulock, Girouard, Ouimet, Lfingelier, Tarte, Lavergne, Tupper, Lister, Weldon, Masson, WikmI {limckville). — 28. The Minutes of yesterday were read and coiuirmed. Onhred, That Mr. Telesphoi-e Normand be discharged from further attendance. Aniyot. lU-ausiileil, Chiipleau, ClnM|uette, Ciistigan, Cunvm, Daly, Davies, Di'sjardins (L'lx/et), Hon. John Hearn, Quebec, was sworn and exaniined and discharged rrom further attendance. The cros.s-examination of Hon. Thomas McCireevy was resumetl. At 1 o'clock the Committee took recess. 3.30 oclock P.M. The cross-examination of Hon. Thomas McGreevy was resumed. Mr. Geoffrion, Q.C, filed special answer of plaintiff to first plea in case of Thomas McGreevy versus R. H. McGreevy, which was marked as Exhibit "L16." Ixix m / I': I i l 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Mr. McGreevy having refused to answer several (|iiestion8 put to liini by niembei-s of the Committee in the course of liis cross-examination and l)eiii<{ ordered by the Chair- man to answer, and still refusing; to do so for the reasons set fortli in the printed Evi- dence (pajje 1017.) I Mr. Davies moved, that the fact of Mr. Mc(ireevy's refu.^al to reply to the several questions put to him be reported to the House ; and the ([uestion beinj; put it was aju;ree[r. Abui Maeilou^iill, C.E., were .swcirn, and tefstitied to tlif t'liiTeutiiess of their First and Second Reports. RfKiiJvril, That the said Enfrineers, Messrs, Jennin;;sand Macdouyall, be discharged fr'ini t'ui'tlier atte .nice, subject to recall at any time by telegram. Tlic accounts of the Engineers wei-e then i-ead and ap[>roved. An apiiliciition being made by Mr. N. K. Connolly, for the return to him of certain ]iri\atc l)u(iks and papers deposited witli the Clerk of tiie Committee, and having no relevancy to tlic KM(|uiry befoi'e the Committee, and a letter tVom the Accountants in reference thereto being read, it was Orili-rii/, That the said application and letter be i-eferred to the Sub-Committee apjjointed to examine the books of account. Mr. .John H cnev. Otti iwa, was sworn, e.\amine( d discharged t'l'On further attendance. dered since Mr. H..I. Cliai , Quel jec, was sworn and exannned : he was recii'.'s I'.h sted t( pivpi a certain statement from the books produced i)v Hon. Thomas McOreevv, and to pi'oduce 1(1 tl le same at the ii< 'Xt meetin"' of the Connnittee ; during hi*; examinati< tn _ memoranda rere tiled and marked as Exhibits "MHr' and "N16. Mr. A. P. Iiiadley. Secretary, Department of liailways and Canals, was re-called and examined as to crili-work on the St. Charles Hranch of the Intercolonial Railway. Ho was then dischai'ged. Mr. C. Raillairge. (Quebec, was sworn, examined and discharged from further attendance. Mr. (Icofl'rion, Ij.C, tiled original writ in case of (ieorge Reaucage rt'i'xii/t Hon. Thomas McCieevy, which was marki'd Exliii)it " PIO." liy permission of the Com- mittee a cei-tilied copy was substituted foi' the ori>^inal, and the latter retuitied to Mr. (leottVion. Ml'. George Reaucage, St. Alban, P.t^., was swoi'ii and examined, and ordei'ed to l)e in attendance on Tuesday next ; during his e.\aimnation two letters from .T. L. Archam- bault, Q.C., to witness, were read and tiled iis Inhibits "QIC) " and "• RlCt."' Mr. Charles Mc(Jreevy was re-called and .'.\amined. Three jjapers showing ijuanti- ties and items of Cro.ss-wall work were tiled and marked as Exhibits "SUi," "Tl<) " and "UIG." On motion of Mr. Tarte. it was Orili'i-fd, That a sunnnons l)e i.ssued for the attendance of Mr. .J. L. Archambault, (iKC, of Montreal, on Tuesday next. At the reipiest of Mr. Stuart, Q.C , it was OrdiTfd, That a summons do i.ssim for the attendance of Dr. .J. A. Rodier, ^lon- Ireai, for Tuesday next. Ofdi'ri'tf, That Mr. Martin P. Connolly be discharged from further attendance. Ml'. Martin P. Connolly having sulimitted a claim for remuneration for work jier- formed for the Connnittee, it was Ordiffff, That the .said application be I'eferred to the SubConnnittee aiipoiiited to examine the books of account. The Connnittee then adjourned till Tuesday next, at 10.."{0 a.m Attest. Ixxi WALTER TODD, C'fi'i'k' iif ihi' C'>iiiiiti/ffn, I i I I iM ■' •It % [ t ) 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Tuesday, 11th August, 1891. Tiic Committee met at 10.30 a.m. Present : Messieurs Girouard, Chairman. Adams, Amyot, Beausoleil, Chapleau, Choquette, Coatsworth, Costigan, Ciirran, Dftvies. Dcsaulnieiv, Desjardins (^L'Tslet), Dickey, Flint, German, Ives, Kirkpatrick, Lavorgno, Masson, McDonald ( Victoria), McLeod, Mills (Bothtvell), Moncrieff, Mulock, Ouiraet, Tarte, Thompson (Sir John), Weldon, Wood (Brockville).—29. The Minutes of Saturday were read and confirmed. Sir Hector L. Ijangevin was sworn and read a statement to the Committee. His cross-examination was postponed till to-morrow. Extract from Le Canadien of 16th February ,1891, entitled " Warning to Sir Hector," was filed and marked Exhibit " V 1«" ; also letter signed by P. Y. Valin, in reply thereto, marked Exhibit " WIG." On motion of Mr. Mulock, it was Ordered, That a summons be issued for the attendance to-morrow of Mr. Michael Starrs, Ottawa. Mr. St. George Boswell was re-called and examined as to South-wall contract ; one letter was filed an'd marked Exhibit " X 16. " The Chairman read a draft Eeport to the House in the matter of the refusal of Hon. Thomas McGreevy to answer certain questions put to him during us cross- examination, which was adopted. At 1 o'clock the Committee took recess. 4 o'clock, P.M Mr. H. J. Chaloner was re-called and submitted statement shewing how sum of 884,000 was expended by Hon. Thomas McGreevy, from 8th May to 30 June, 1884, which was filed and marked Exhibit " Y 16. " Mr. Louis Coste, acting Chief Engineer Public Works Department, was sworn and examined ; a letter from F. H. Ennis to A. H. Yerret was filed and marked as Exhibit " Z 16. " Ordered, That Dr. A. Prieur be discharged from further attendance. On motion of Mr. Tarte, it was Ordered, That all the Minute books of the Harbour Commissioners of Quebec now in the custody of the Committee, form part of the record in this case. Resolved, That the Honourable Theodore Robitaille being unable through illness to attend before the Committee and having expressed his willingness to be e.xamined Ixxii 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 in his room, Sir .Tohn Thompson and Messieurs Girouard, Tarte, Geoffrion, Stuart and Henry, with the Clerk and a Stenogiapher, do proceed to the rooms of Mr. Eobitaillo and take his evidence under oath. The Committee then adjourned till to-morrow at 10..30 a.m. Attist WALTER TODD, Clerk of the Committee. Wkdxksoay, 12th August, 1S91. The Connnittep met at 10..30 a. m. Prk SKXT Aflfinis, Aiiivot, Mesxieiirs Girouard, Cfinirninii, Desaulniers, er, Hak Beausdleil, C: (If I, anuM'oii (/iiiniii), Ch<)(|uette, Coatsworth, Cdstigan, Curi'an, Daly, Davies, Di'sjardins {L'lxli't), Dickey, Flint, (Jeniian, Ives, Kirkpatrick, Laverjfne, Lister, Masson, McDonald ( Victoria), McLeod, :Miiis(/y<nii)son (Sir John), Tupper, Weklon, Wood {/irork-rUh-).—-Mi. The Minutes of yesterday were read and contirnied. The chairman informed the Connnittee that in accordance with the Iiesoluti(m adopted at yesterday's sittiiiij lie had, in company with Messrs. Tarte, Ge<.HVi<.n and Stuart, gone to the Hon. :Mr. liohitaille'.s room in" the Senate and taken his evidence luider oath. Mr. Robitaille's evidence having been i-ead, it was Ordered, That the .said evidence do form part of the record in this case. Mr. Stuart, Q.C., Hied six letters, which were marked as Exhibits "A17" to "F17," inclusive, and ordered to l)e printed with the evidence. Sir Hector Ljingevin asked permission to amend the statement read bv him at yesterday's sitting, which was agreed to. ( For amendment, .sw page 1 100 of the Evidence). The cross-examination of Sir liector Langevin was then begun l)v Mi'. Geort'rion, <,».L'. Two letters were read and tiled, and marked Exliibits "tJlT " and " HIT." At 1 o'clock the Committee took recess. :;.. SO o'clock P.M. The crossH>xamination of Sir Hector Langevin was resumed. Statement prepared l)y .Air. L. Coste re Graving Dock at Escpiinialt, I5.C. was tiled, and marked as Exhil)it The Connnittee then adjourned till to-morrow at 10.:{0 a.m. Attest. Ixxiii WALTER TODD. Clerk of Connnittee, ! < i' ,1 I III 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 TiiuRSOAY, 13tli August, 1891. The Coiniiiittee met at 10.30 a.m. PUESEXT : Mr,ss!i'i(rx (lirouiu'd, Chtdriiiiin. Adams, Amyot, IJaker, l>eaus()h>il, Cliapleau ClitK|uetti', Coatswortli, Costigan, Curran, Daly, Davif's, Desaulniers, Dosjardins {L'lslrt), Dickev, Flint,' Fi-aser, (iermaii, Ives, Kirkpatrick, Laxergiie, Massou, McDonald ( Vu'torln), ^fcLeod, Mills (liolhwdl), Monei-ieff, Mulock, Ouiniet, Tarte, Thompson {Sir .fn/ni), Tupper, Weldon. -3:2 The Minutes of Wednesday were read and confirmed. The Chairman presented the EiglitJi IJejiort of the Suh-Committee ai>pointe(l to examine the hooks of account, itc, i'econnnendin<; tliat the sum of .SlOO be given to Martin P. Connolly, and SlU to H. J. Chaloner f(»r services i-endered to the Connnittee, which was read. Mr. Tarte made a statement respecting tlie chai-ge against the Ministei' of Public Works as ^'ontained in paragraph (1.3 of theOrderof Hefei-ence. (For statement, .vw page 1134 of tile Evidence). The cross-e.xamination of Sir Hector Langevin was resumed and concluded, he was then discharged from further attendance, subject to recall if reipiired. Mr. CJjaloner having objected to the sum reconnnended by the 8ub-Coinmittee to be paid him foi- his services, as being insuflicient, it was Moved by Mr. Amyot, That the Report of the Sub-Connnittee be amended by in- creasing the amount to be i»iu\ to Mr. Clialoner to.*'.'.'!, and that the Report, as amended, be adoi)ted. Motion agreed to. Ordi-nd, That Mr. Chaloner and Mr. St. (ieorge Hoswell be discharged from further attendance. Mr. lloswell having made a claim for remuneration for services rendei'etl, it was Ondnt/, That tiie claim of Mr. Roswell for remuneration be ivferred to the Sul)- Connnittee. Mr. L. J. Ai'chand)ault, Q.C., Montreal, was sworn and examiiu'd, and discharged from furthei' attendance. Di'. .1. .\. Rodiei', Montreal, was swoi-n and examineil, and discharged from fuither attendance. Connnittee then adjourned till to-moirow at 10.30 a.m. Atf'xt. Ixxiv WALTER TODD, C'A'/'A' iif' Coiiiiiilffi'i'. 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 UouiinittiM' to ItVoni t'urtlier Friday, Utli Augiif-t, 1891. The Committee met ut 10.30 a.m. Present : Messieurs Girouard, Chairman, Amyot, Desjai'dins (L'lslet), McLeod, Baker, Beausoleil, (Joatsworth, Costigan, Ciirian, Davies, Dickev, Flint,' Fraser, Kirlipatrick, Lavergne, ^[assoM, Mills (Bothicell), Muloek, Ouimet, Tarte, Thompson (Sir John), Tupper. — 22. The Minutes of yostorday were road and confirmed. Mr. A. Gobeil was recalled, and produced a number ot papers respecting the Cross-wall in the Harbour of Q«ebec. Mr. James Woods was recalled, and produced a number of statements and letters respecting tlie Quebec Harbour Improvoments, which were tiled, and marked as Exhibits '" K17 " to " Y18," inclusive. Ordered, That Mi-. AV'oods be now discliarged from further attendance, and that he be allowed to take witli him the Ledger, Journal and Cash-book of the (^ui'bec Harbour Commissioners for the present year. On motion of Mr. Tarte, the propriety of granting remuneration to Mr. Woods for services rendered to the Committee was made a reference to the h'ub-Committee. Mr. Micliael Starrs, Ottawa, was sworn, examined, and discliarged from further attendance. • Mr. Fitzpatrick, Counsel for the Hon.ThomasMcGreevy, stated that the ca>efor the defence was closed. Mr. R. H. McGreevy, senior, was recalled, and produced a statement showing expenditure of (lie sum of 8G050, which was filed, and marked K.xhibit 'JIT" ; also a Blotter from 23rd August, 1882, to 7th October, 1885. He was then dischargeCommitteo appointed to draft a ilejiort to tlie House on tho matters contained in the Order of Keference of the 11th May, which is as follows : Wednesdav, KJth Sejminittees and have examined ' vent^'-one witnesses and a large number of official dncimonts bearing upon the enquiry. The matter involving questions of a professional and technical charactci', your Committee found it necessary to engage the services of two Civil Engineers, Messrs. Jennings and Macdougall, ami two Accountants, Messrs. Cross and Laing, whose reports upon tho matters referred to them your Committee annex with the evidence taken. In order that tho findings of your Committee may bo clearlj' understood, it is necessary, first of all, to state the powers conferred and the duties and responsibilities imposed by Parliament upon tho Ministers of the Crown, ;ind other public officials, or bodies, under whom tho public works referred to in Mr. Tarte's charges, were let and constructed. Those public works and undertakings embrace tho construction of a Graving Dock at L^vis, a Tidal and Wot Basin or Dock, and other Harbour Improvements at Queboo. anu a Graving Dock at Esquimalt, British Columbia. Ixxxii 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Tlio I)f)cks:mil IIiirlnnir finprnvi'inoiits iit Quol)ec ami L«5viM \vori> carried out iukIlm' ilio aiitlioriis' (»t' tlio (^uolioc llarltour Commissioners and the. MiniHtcr of Public Works. \W the Htatutt's of 1873, tlio QuoIk'c llarlioiir (.'ommiHsioiiois wcro^ivcii control ol Qiu'Im'c llarlioiir, and c]iaij,'od witli tho ken. such improvements boinj,' tirst sanctioned by iho (lovernor in ('oiineii, on the Joint report of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and the Minister of Public Works. Vov the piiri)')se, aj)parently, of^ivinf; tho Govern- ment a controllinuf inlluence in the Board of the (Quebec Harbour Commissioners, tho Af ')t 1S7.'» reeonstitued tin; same and vested the power of appointing five of its • lembers in the (iovernor in Council. In tho same year, 1875, the (iovernor in Council was authorized to raise 8500,- 000 tor the completion of the (iravin:j; Dock at Levis. The location of theproposed contract and the dimensions, ])lans and specifications were to be approved by tho Governor in Council, on the Joint recommendation of tho Ministers of Marine and fisheries and Public Works, but tho expenditure of tho moneys was to be under the control and u))on the responsibilit}' of the Minister of Public Works alone. Tho words of the Act in this jtarticular are very clear, and are as follows: — And any moneys to bo horeunder paid to tho tjuebec Harbour Commissioners, shall be so ))aid from time to time as tho work ])roceeds, upon the report of tho .Minister of Public Works that such progress is satisfactory. We are particular in calling special attention to this important safeguard in- serted by Parliament in the Act, because the Brief of Counsel for tho Department of Public Works submitted to your Committee is silent respecting it. [n 1880 another Act was passed authorizing the Governor in Council to raisic §250.000, to bo advanced to tho Harbour Commissioners to enable them to complete tho Tidal Dock at Quebec, begun under authority of the Act of 187ii. In 1882 an Act was ])assed authorizing tho ( iovernor in Council to raise a further sum of 837."),000, to bo advanced to the Harbour Commissioners, to enable them to construct the important work known as tho Cross-wall and Lock of the Quebec Harbour improvements. This Act ])rovidod that the plans of the proposed work should be prepared by the engineers of the Department of Public Works, and that they should be subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, and that public tenders should be called for, and tho contract awarded by tho Governor in Council. The Quebec Harbour Commissioners, therefore, had no power or responsibility with regard either to tho plans or the lotting of tho contract, these being entirely vested in the Minister f)f Public Works and the Governoi- in Council. In 1883-84 and 1880 Acts were passed authorizing the Governor in Council to advance further sums of money to tho Quebec Harbour Commissioners to enable them to complete the Graving Dock at Levis, and the Wet and Tidal Docks at Quebec, amounting in all to $1,3.50,000. And in 1887 tho Governor in Council was further authorized to raise 8160,000 to bo advanced to the Hai-bour Com- missioners to enable them to complete the (rraving Dock at L(5vis, and 81,100,000 to enable them to complete the other works, but it was specially provided in this statute that these largo sums of money were to bo advanced in tho same way and on the siime terms and conditions as wore enacted by tho Act of 187.5 with respect to moneys thereby authorized to be advanced. It woulit, theiefore, seem beyond con- troversy that the responsibility for the expenditure of these inonoys was specially charged by Parliament upon the ilinister of Public Works. The Graving Dock at Esquimalt was originally begun by the Government of British Columbia. In 1884, as part of an argreement then made between tho Pro- vince and Canada, this Dock was taken over by the latter, and an Act of Parliament ])assed that year authorized the Dominion Government to purchase and complete that Work. Ixxxiia 1-Fj i; V m lU.( ]l "r mm 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 The Department of Public Worlcs nocessarily iissumed the respontsibility of completing the conHlrietioii of the work, and tenders were lot by it, and the work carried to completion under the iaimediato supervision of the Minister and his engi- neer and other officials. The relations which the several parties implicated in the charges ref ^ red tc us stood to each other and to the Government of Canada and to the Quebec Harbour Commissioners, aro important to an intelligent understanding of the ovjilonco submitted. '-^-^ "—^ The members of the tirm of Larkin, Connolly & Company, during the time thfci our investigation covered, consisted of Patrick Larkin. Nicholas Connolh*, Michiwi Connolly and Owen E. Murphy. Robert H. McCrreevy had an interest givea him in the profits of the firm in all the contracts taken by them at Quebec ami British Columbia, excepting that relating to the Graving Dock at LtSvis. Mr. Robert H. McGreevy was a brother of the lion. Thomas McGreevy. aud for very manj' years had been his trusted and confidential agent, and the manager of his private aft'aiis. The intercourse between the two brothers appears to have been harmonious and unbroken until the beginning of the yeai* 1889. A largejpart of the correspondence which passed between them during this period, and which appeal's to have been very voluminous, could not be obtained by your Committee, as it was alleged to have been lost or stolen, but a number of letters written from Thomas McGreevy' to his brother were produced and put in evidence, and as they contained statements made contemporaneously with the facts to which they lelate, and on which the charges bore, they were of great assistance to your Committee in arriving at conclusions upon points with respect to which the memories of the wit- nesses were at fault or varied from each other. The relations existing between the Hon. Thomas McGieevy and Sir Hector Langevin have for the past twenty years, and more, been of the closest and most intimate kind. As far back as 187(j Mr. McGreevy ajjpears to have advanootl for Sir Hector a large sum of money (810,000) to pay his election expenses, ami Iiavo taken his notes of hand therefor. These notes have been renewed every three or four months since then, and are still outstanding. The interest appears to have been paid by 3Ir. McGreev^', and Sir Heel or s;iys that he understood Mr. McGreevy was to look after and protect the principal sum also. When Sir Hector became Minister, in 1878, he invited Mr. McGreevy to make his iiouse in Ottawa his homo, ilr. McGreevy did so, and ever since then had his own room in Sir Hector's house, and resided there .luring the Sessions of I'arliament. He also had access to and a seat in Sir Hector's private room in the Parliament Buildings and kept there all his papers. Eacii of theni had contributed largely towards the support of Le Monde newspaper, Mr. McGreevy's contribution at one timoamounting to S-5,(t00. The amounts paid by Sir Hector he (Sir Hector) could not recollect, i)ut it was of such amount, and given, as he himself said, in such way, as to enable him to control the paper if and when necessary. The J Ton. Thomas Mctrrcevy further appears to have been, during the whole period under investigation, the treasurer of the political funds of the Conservative party i!i the District of Quebec, and during the same period Sir Hector Liingevin was the recognized political head or chief of the party in that district, and in many instances personally directed the api)lication, for party jiurposes, of the moneys in Thomas McGreevy's hands. The laigo sums which wore received by Thomas Mctireevy from those con- tractors went to form a part of this political fund, and his refusal to give inform- ation to the Committee as to his disposition of these sums leaves it impossible to state definitely to what extent Sir Hector Langevin received the benefit of them politically or otherwise. Tie relations between Sir Hector Langevin, in his official capacity as Minister of Public Works, and Mr. Thomas McGreevy as agent of Lwrkin, Connolly & Company, will fully appear hereinafter, when in this report we coasidor the effect of the evidence as it bears upon the different charges under ia',jstigation, and the circumstances connected with fuose charges. Ixxxii^ 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Both Sii- Hector and Mr. ilcGrcevy appear to have known por«onally the ditforcnt nieniberH of the firm of Larkin, Connolly & Company. As lietweeii themselves the partners appear to have had every confidence in each other duriiii; the years ihoy carried on operations together, and, although it is iiDW lieiiied by some membei's of the firm, the letters put in evidence disclose that Murpli}' was a trusted confidant of the other members of the firm, and selected by them t() carry out with llobert McGreovy many questionable and improper negotiations with the Honourable Thomas McGreev}', and through him with the Department of rul.lic Works. The operations of this firm of Larkin, Connolly iSi Company appear by ihe report of the skilled Accountants, to whom we referred their books, to have been on a scale truly colossal. Helween the years 1878, and 1891, inclusive, ihoy received from the Harbour Commissioners at Quebec and the Department of Public Works at Ottawa 8;^,138,- 2;j4..i8; of this only 88;>,7n().;}6 have been paid during the past two years, viz: — S73. 42 ^>735.001 72 T?Mbert H. JFcGreevy. who received as profits die above sums of 8187,800.42, Clint riliuled no capital to the firm, and so far from giving any portion of iiis time or talciiis ill legitmalely assisting the firm to carry out its nndertakings, frankh' !i(lii-.:tted that he rarely if ever appeared near t)ie works, but that or the coii- trnrv ho and his partners dii" all they could to conceal from the public the fact of his being interested, and '.lat the solo consideration for the profits ho received was tlie iiifiuence he use.' v. h his brother to obtain contracts in the first instimce tiir the firm from the Department of I'ublic Works and the Harbour Commissioiieis, ainl >er.indly modifications and alterations of tlieso contracts in the interest of the firiii. The books of the fi'Mii appear b}- the Accountant's ro])ort to have ijeen carefully adjusted on the oist of May, 1889, and the profits struck and divided amongst th" four reiiuiining partners. Larkin having retired on the 31si ^March, 188S. On th tmiiu'r dale. 31st May, 1889, Mur^ihy and McGreevy sold out their interest to th two Connolly brothers, recoi\ing 870,000 thorofor. Ixxxiic 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 The book-keeper of the firm, M. P. Connolly, when under oxainination ailinittecl tliat ho had, einco the charges were tirst made public, erased t^onu' of the entries showing amounts which wore \)iU'\ illegitimately in bribery and otherwise, and also the names of the parties who received the money's. Ilis niemoi-y Avas at fault with respect to many of tho erasures, and he could not tell wiiat lie had eraseil. The efforts of your Committee, therefore, to trace the destination of those payments, ha%'e been to that extent frustrated. The Honouiable Thomas McGrcevy having, whilst under examination, refused to disclose the names of the parties to whom he hail ])aid tho moneys he admittedly had received from Larkin, Connolly «S; Company, and tlisbursed for election purposes, we reported h's conduct to the House, but as the step taken by your honourable body to enfore his attendance at your Bar to answer for his contempt have hitherto been unsuccessful, we aro unablo to rcpoi-t the disposition made of these moneys. In order that the House may clearly understand our findings on the several matters referred to us; we propose to give a short statement of the facts as they appear to us to have been proved, in so far as they relate to the construction of each of the great public works with respect to which Mr. Tarte's charges apply. No. 1. BREDOING CONTRACT OP 1882, IN THE AVET AND TIDAL DOCKS AT QUEBEC. Mr. Tarte's allegations lospecting tho contract aro contained in paragrajdis one to nine, inclusive, of tho statement made by him in tho House and referred to us. They substantially chai'go, as stated by Counsel for the Department : (a.) " That the Honorable Thomas Mctireevy, being a member of the Parliamentof Canada, and a member of the Quebec Harboui- Commis- sion, entered into ar agreement with Larkin, Connoilj' «.t Co., after they had tendered for the dredging contract of 1882, by which, in consideration of their taking his brother, Kobert H. McGreevy, into partnership with them, and giving him an interest to thooxtent of 30per cent, in the work tendered for, he agreed to give and did give them in an undue manner his help and influence in order to secure to them the said conti'act. (b.) "'That to this end he, the said Thomas McCtroevy, undertook to secure the dismissal of Messrs. ivinipple, Mori-is and Pilkington from their positions, and that they were so dismissed and replaced by Henrv F. Perley and John E. Boyd." The charges of Mr. Tarle aro: 1. In ISS'J the siiiii of !*,S7"i,0(IO ImviiiglHi'ii vnti'il l)v tlii' I'arlianitiit of Ciiiiuda tu ciury out the works of tln' Hiirlumr of tjlui'licc, tlic <^liii'licc titidciH in (Ircilffing in coiinrction witli tlic said woiks. 2. Tliat Messrs. Larkin, Connolly it ( "o. ti-ni tlic said dredging'. 3. That in order to sciinc tlie inHiifnir of the lion. Tlionias Mt( Incvy then and now a nicinlicr of tlic PailiainiMit of Canada, and a niiMnlitr of tlic (^Mulicc Harlxiur Coinnussion liy a|)i)oiiitincnt of the (iovernnicnt of Canaila, the tirni of liarkin, Connolly it Co.. with the knowledge of the said 'I'lionins Mctireevy, took as a |iartner Itoliert H. Meliiievy, his l)t'other, 1,'ivinf; him an intcicst of 80 per cent, in the firm. 4. 'I'liiit the said 'riionias Met irccvy consented to ilis lirothcr licconiinK a inenilicrof the tirni, and stated that he had tiist considtcd the Hon. Minister of I'nlilic Works. Sir Hector L. Lanp'vin, and see red his consent. " "). That the sail! contract si(;neil on the 2.")th of Septenilier, 1S.S1!, stipulated tliiit tlie works tlH'rcundei were to lie Hnished liy the 1st of Noveuilier, 1SS4, l*ut that the said Larkin. Connolly it (Jo. continued to perforin the work of died(,'int,' under the scde of prices therein mentioned up t " Harliour Comniissionern called for ercd and were awarded the contract for the close of the season of ISSIi. ((. That in order to help Larkin. Connolly it Co. to secure the said dredfjinK contract, the Hononralile Thomas .McCreevy agreed to ^'ive, and did give in an nndiic manner, his help as Harliour Cottiinissioner to Larkin, Connolly it Co. " 7. That the said contract was apiiroved and ratified liy an Order in Council liasi d on a report of the Honouralile Minister of I'ulilic Works. "H. That up to the ye.u- lSS;i aforesaid, Kinipple and Morris, of London, Kiiglaiid, hatl acted as engineers to the (,lneliec Hailionr Commission, and that their resident I'ligiiieer for carrying out the works was Mr. Woodford I'ilkington. "!l. That in concert with Larkin, Connolly it t 'o. the said Thomas McCieevy ulidertook to secure the removal of Me ,s. Kirippli', Morris and I'ilkington from their ]Hisitions, and that they were in fact so removed in 1SS3, and replaced liy leiiry K. I'eiley and .lohii Edward Hoyd, with the consent of the Honourable Minister 'li I'nlilic Works." lxxxii(i ^.d^^ 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 tu (■ill'l'V iII.mI fdV ltl':H-t fol' ;ili(l now niiii'^sidn 1.. uitli ■vy, his If nf till' 1 lie till- lllUt till' till' sail! sc:lli' cif piitnict, \u> lltl|l ml, liail iii'i r fur iliitiHik lis, and .liilin The first tenders for this work were invited by tlie Harbour Commissioners in May, 1882. L:ir".8,450; then came that of Askwith, figuring out 8128,860; the tiiird one in order was that of Beaucage, which was really a tender of Larkin, Connolly .V Co., prepared by Mr. IJobcrt McGrcevy, and figured out 81.'>l,2li7; Larkin, Connolly & Cu.'s tender under their own name figured out §138,845, being ten thousand dollars higher than that of Askwith. On the 10th of Jul}' the Harbour Commissioners required of Fradet & Milier a deposit of 810,000, to be made before three o'clock on the 12th of the same month. These contractors were also notified that they would have to begin the work on the 1st of Au^■u^! >lien ne.xt, and finish it by the 1st of November, 1S83. Fradet & Miller piv.'t t'^l against this new condition and the short time given them — about 24 ti< urs- -!U!- .d to give u]i the undertaking. '.'., He^iaont Engineer, Pilkington, reported to the Harbour Commissioners that their tonder ^vas too low, and that as a matter of prudence and expediency it should be rejected. On the 12th of July Beaucage withdrew his tender. On the ISth of July Askwith made his deposit of 810,000, and asked to be given two weeks after ratifi- cation of the contract to got the necessary plant on ground. In a postscript to this letter he also asked for a delay of a week before binding himself, that is, before sign- ing the contract, as he had just been informed that the lake dredges could not be adjusted for the tidal work. On 20th July the Commissioners answered that they gave liim 24 hours to decide, and that if they received no answer within that time they would return his cheque. Being unable lo get all his plant for the first of the month Askwith withdrew his tender on the 24th of Jul}'. All lower tenders thus being dif^poseil of, that of Larkin, Connlly & Co. was accepted, and the contract for this work was entered into with them on 25th Septeipbor, lb82. As a matter of fact, they had no dredges or plant with which to beg'n "-or!-, nor were they required to begin until the spring of the following year, TJu- condiiions as to time which were exacted from Askwith were relaxed as to theti;. >;, 27th July the Harbour Commisi?ioners transmitted the tenders and thei: a( ( epiiuvo of that of Larkin, Connolly & Co. to the Minister of Tublic Works for apj rov.-.l -M' the (rovcrnor in Council, and on the 31st of that month the ^.linister personally v jme th'- .Secretary of the Commissioners, desiring to know whether they "bad reason tv I neve that "the tenders leceived, which were lower than the one the}* preferred had been made in good faith, and that there had not been any collusion with re pect to their withdrawal," to which the Commissioners re]ilied ''that they did ii.it consider it necessary to defend themselves against .-i sus- jiicion of a knowledge on their part of collusion between the tenderers." Finally, on the 2]st of Augu-'. the contract was ratified by thedovernor in(^ouncilon the advice nf the Minister. This contract, which was to terminate on the 1st day of November, I8S4 was nevertheless continued until theend of the seasnn of 1S8(I.' The quantitii's mentioned in the cntract to bo excavated amounted to 42;>,5(I0 yards; the cen- tral tors have been . . ! for 1,877,85i> yards. In the summei >,!' !o85 the money voted by Parliament boinu- exhausted tlio HarbK'ir ContmissionM.-. i.otiiied the contractors and tho .Minister of Public Works iif that fact, and on ir.^j 2lst of August (i)age !174) the Minister nf rnblic Works wrote to the t'ommissioners that an understanding had been arrived a' between Mr. Thomas McGreevy and himself, and that he consented to the expenditure of 850,000 u, ■ondition that the contractors did not call for ])ayment until J'arlianient voted il'e money. The work was, after this letter, continued at the rates and on the condi- 1 .OU.S .f the contract of 1882, Ixxxiie ; t m ii M 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 ! ^wi Tlio work done dining those years under the contract appears to liavo lioon remunerative. Tho trial bahmce (Kxliibit "1)5") signed by the Auditors and approved liy liie partners, shows that up to the end of the season ot 188-i tlie receipts ainouiiied to ^115,l!t;>.()0, while the expenditure reached 877,000, leaving a balance of profits of $38,l!»;i(;o. The profits for the year 1885 do not appear, but in 1880 it was proved that the receipts for that }-ear were 887,293 and the expenses SiiS.Sll, leaving a balance of profits of 818.737. '' wh sliou In addition to these profits there must bo added u further sum of about 81(),107. icli, oil the lltii of Marcli, 1887, Perley reported to the Harbour Comniissioneis, „..v)uld be paid to Larkin, Connolly & Co., being for 322,140 cubic yards «' j. sited by them in the river, instead of being put on the embankment, and for w'.ich Boyd re- tained 5 cents per cubic yard, as in his opinion afair deduction for tb.' same having been dumped in the river. No evidence was ottered to show that the 5 cents de luc- tion was not a reasonable one, or wh}' the 81(i,10 7 should have been paid to Larkin, Connolly & Co,, beyond the mere opinion of Porlo; . The evidence conclusively shows that Larkin, C ;y & Co, gave Robert Mc- Greevy a 30 per cent, interest in the contract, solely . obtain his influence with his brother, Thomas McGreevy, to procure them the contract in the first instance, and his influence afterwards on the Harbour Cominissionero' Board, while the con- tract was being carried out. It appears to us that Thomas MclTreevy knew all about the arrangement made between his brother Ilobcrl and Larkin, Connolly & Co., anil that he used all his influence accordingly in favour of this rirm. The ad- vantages conceded to Larkin, Connolly & Co., which were denied to Askwith, a lower tenderer, the permission given to Beaucage to with the ])apers the contractors coul I control — &ome of the articles being written by the contractors themselves. They ■- 1^ •• ",' ■••" ^ "• ^..^., '■••-J esolved to get ritl of him. The good will of Mr. Thomas .McGreevy was secured, nd Messrs. Kinipple and Morris were replaced by engineers cho.ven by Mr. McGreevy re and Ixxxiif 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 himself and who wore under the control of the Department of Public Works. The contractors wanted changes in the contracts, and unfortunately they appear to have been able after the change of the engineers, toobtain anything they desired. It would sceni that their ])rincipal oli;joct was to have tlieso engineers out of t,hc way in works to come. The Cross-wall was siiortly to he comjiotcil tor. Mr. Yalin swears in the clearest terms that Mr. McGrecvy told h'ut\ that it was necessary that Kinipp'o and Morris \w rcmo%-ed ; that the .Minister ot Public Work- dd to the Harbour O jf Mr. Peril that it Id lussioners the services cost less, &c. Messrs. Perloy and Boyd, br»th engineers in the Public Works Department, rcj)liiced Kinipjile, Morris and i'ilkington, whom the Cominissio?iers paid in settie- niont of accounts a sum of $15,()0(( while retaining theii- services as consulting engi- neers for three years at a salary of $1,000 jior jear. Messrs. Kinippio and 3Iorri3 received the tull payment for their jilans for the Cross-wall, although the work had noi oven been commenced, namely, 85,195.8;{ (])age llTl). Since the removal of Kinippic, Morris and Pilkinglon the following sums were ])aid: To H. l'\ Perloy : S T,250 00 John E.Boyd (i,l'25 00 St. George Boswell 18.;^74 00 $ai,749 00 These sums do not cover the salaries of Charles McGreevy and Laforce Langevin, appointed assistant engineers, the former for the Cross-wall and the latter for the South-wall. However, the question of salaries is of a minor importance. For tlie true reason of the removal of Kinniple, Morris and Pilkington one must look at its resuils in the contracts for the Cross-wall in 188;}, for the Graving Dock at Levis in 1884, for the dredging in 1887, and for the Graving Dock at Ksquimalt. Boyd, a former employt? of ]Mr. McGreev}', was recommended t'or the ])osition of engineer to the Harbour Commissioners by Perley on the 28th of .lime, 1888. a few weeks after the jiassiu^ of the Cross-wall contract and the fraudulent mameuvres which preceded it. Betbre forming any juilgmcnt on the removal of Kinippic and ^lorris, it is necessary to read the exjiianations of the Harbour Commissioners with respect to their action, together with the reply of Kinniple and Morris to the notification of uu of 27 cents ])er cubic yard, and even less i;i the same works. 40. That the said Tlinnias MctJreevy used his inH\ience as a mendier of this House with ■ ')e|)artmi'nt of I'ublic Works, and in particular with Henry V. Perley, Kscj., to ind\ie('> hi.il to report to the (Quebec Harbour Commissioners in favour of the liayinent of the said sum of 3.') cents per cubic yard. 41. That the correspondence on tliis subject between Heniy F. I'erley and I,;u'kin, Connolly & Co., before tlieublic tender having been called for, a contract was made between the ijuebec Harbour Conuni.ssioners ami Larkin, Connolly & Co., for all the necessary dredging and removal of material in the Wet Hasin of the (Quebec Harbour works. Your Committee have had no difliculfy in reaching the conclusion that thes>e charges have all been substantially ])roved. Fron> the evidence it is established that in December, 188(J, or January, 188", Thomas McGreevy, wanting money for the Dominion elections, then about to take place, agreed with Muipliy, rejiresenting Larkin, Connolij' & Co., that if the firm would pay him S'.J5,000 fur the electinns he would procure then a new dredging contiact of 800,000 yards in the Wot Ba>iii of Quebec Harbour works, at a price of 35 cents a yard. Tiiis agi cement Avas after- wards communicated to the firm, and at Bobert McGrcovy's request Michael Con- nolly, one of the firm, in the jire.-;ST. he writes, (Exhibit " E2 ") : " My Dear Robeut, — 1 have just seen Perley about dredging. I have arranged to meet liim on Monday to discuss his dredging I'eport before he sends it to the Harbour Commissioners, also other matters about Graving Dock, ;.M.,t ',!■ : 1 11 64 Vict^rin. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 \ On the 2()th of April, 1887, he writes :— " My Dear Eobert, — I have just seen Perloy on dredging. I think lio will report on 35 cents and put in .•y private conversation with Mr. Mcd-reevy, whether siieh wjs really tho case. Then, I Maid certain things to Sir Jlcctor, whieh wore afterwards ropoated tonic, paitieularly the latst wordn that I havojiint to5*d : ' that if the CommisHion did not do well ho would dissolve tho Commission.' These wortructions that came from Ottawa ? — A. Yes through the medium of Mr. McGieevy, who spoke in tho name of Mr. Langevin, and I believe I spoke about this to the Minister, as I said when I was examinetl before. " t^. You said that the contract for dredging at 35 cents was given by the orders and directions given by Mr. McGreevy, as reprosenting Sir Hector Lingevin at tho Harb';:v Commission? — A. I said that I saw b}' that, after having been informed by M' . McGreevy that it was all correct, that tho matter had been tlccided by all the Ct mmission as it is entered in the minutes. " X Is it not true that this contract for 35 cents, of which j'ou have just spoken as having boon given because Mr. McGreevy had requested that it should be so done ill the name of the J)epartment, was given at a meeting of tho Commission hold on tho 10th of May, 1S87, and tliaf. this was on the authority of a letter written by Mr. Perlc}^ ? — A. I do not tell you that a letter did not come from Mr. Porley ; I am not speaking to you about that at ad ; but I toll you that I had the idea from Mr. McGieevy telling me that it must bo done, that it was the best thing to do and that we must do it." In the evidence of Sir Hector Langevin, and which was presented in the form of a carefully-prepurod written statement. Sir Hector makes no allusion to Mr. Dobell's stalomont above given nor docs he question the accuraey of Mr. Valin's statements with respect to this and other contrails of the Quebec Harbour Commis- sion, excepting one. Sir Hector says : Ixxxiin 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 "Mr. Yalin states in his evidence that I told him to follow nlwaj's Mr. Thomas McCri-eovy at the Quebec llarliour Board, and that he always did so, convinced as ho was that it was my wisli and desire. This I must positively deny. Mr. Valin evidently is quit" mistaken." The' entire statement made by Sir Hector on this contract is as follows: "Contract 5— 188fi-87. " Dredging of the Wet Dock. "Mr. Tarlo contends that bv the influence which Mr. Thomas McGreevy had in the Department of Public Works the Chief Engineer made a report for the purpose of obtaining for Messrs. Larkin, Connolly & Co, the dredging at exorbitant prices. I had nothing to do with the contract of this work. The Commissioners have them- selves given the contract, as the Statute authorii'.ed to do, without being bound to obtain the approval of the Government to their draft contract or the dredging work. I had no other duty but to recdinmend the payments at the request of the Commis- sioners, backed by the advice of the Chief Engineer of my Department. " I have never attempted to influence the Harbour Commissioners, and I have not been subjected to any undue intliienco in connection with the payments which I have reiommondod in their favour." As the evidence of Mr. Valin and Mr. Dobell had been, for a long time, in Sir Hector's hands before he made his statement, and as he has neither denied nor explained them except as above, we feel bound to accept thorn as true. Findings. T' betwe whicl. ♦ind that Mr. Tarte's i-hargos with respect to this contract are proven. he letting of the contract was the result of a corrupt bargain made ^reevy and members of tbe firm of Larkin, Connolly k Co., by virtue of ,>yi)0 were paid to and foi' McGreevy for his influence. That McGreevy successfully used his influence to procui-o the contract for them without calling for any lenders. That under the contract enormous sums of public moneys were pai 'in IP TT. 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 ':> Ml , iil 1889. Sept. 25. — Paid balance of Graving Dock funds in the hands of Com- missioners 3,466 88 July, 1. — To balance due L. C. & Co. this (''ite, and for which a letter of recognizance has been given, bearing interest at ti per cent, per annum 8,528 71 8726,901 65 (Pencil figures in margin.) 857,000 00 . 3,466 88 8,528 71 868,995 59 3,095 59 (less interest). 865,900 00 Cr. By total amount of main and Supplementary contracts claimed at 8841,241.98 and settled at 8706,303 40 By accounts not included in this settlement 17,502 66 Interest on final certificate of 830,900 from 24th Jan., 1887 2,579 03 Hy 9 months' interest on 811,479.03, balance due, Oct., 1888, to July, 1889, at 6 per cent 516 56 872 0,001 65 (Signed) " J. A. S. WOODS, " Acting Sec.-Treas." When it is considered that the original contract was 8330,000, and that the Dock as then contracted lor was 55 feet longer than the one actually built, some idea can be formed of the amounts improperly paid those contractors. Before January, 1887, Larkin, Cow.iolly & Co. had rendered their account of 8814,241.98, to bo found at page 1171 of the Evidence. On this they had been paid, as appears by Perley's estimate, 8562,516.22, leaving a sum of 8251,726 claimed by them ai due. This account and the balance claimed by them serves to explain the meaning of the memo, drawn up by Micheal Connolly, and to be found at page 114, in which the firm agreed to give all over 8200,000 due on LdvisDock to their friends by way of donation. Findings. We find that Mr. Tarte's charges with respect to this work were true, and that Thomas McGreevy did agree with the members of the firm of Larkin, Connolly &Co. to secure for them a contract for the completion of the Graving Dock at Livis on condition that he should i-eceive from them any excess over the sum of 850,000 of the contract piice, and that he was successful in procuring such contract for them, and did receive from them, in pursuance of the corrupt agreement, the sum of 822,000. The Accountants' report to us, and wo find according!}' that the firm of Larkin, Connolly & Co. realized as profits out of this contract the sum of 880,895.96. We also fintl that, in addition to these profits, there was corruptly paid by Larkin, Connolly & Co., out of the receipts from this contract, the sum of 845,035.28, of which Thomas McGreevy received 822,000. We find that the supplementary contract for 874,000, except that part which related to the building of the caisson for 810,000, was entered into without any Ixxxii^ 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 justification, and that the contractors received this monej' without giving any consideration therefor, being bounvn' works at t^uebec, in ivccordance with j)lans and HiH-oiHeationHpreimred in the Department of Public Works under tlie diri'ction of Henry F. Perley, Khcj. ixxxiiu mr 54 Victoria. Appendix (No 1.) A. 1891 11. That Neveral tenders were made, and nniongst others who tendered were Messrs. Larkin, Connolly & Co. 12. Tiiat liefore tendering, and in order to secure the influence of the Hon. Thomas McCireevy, then and now a member of the Parliament of Canada, and a menilier oi the Quebec Harbour Board by apiK>intment of the Government, Larkin, Connolly & Co. took into partnershi]) witii themselves, Robert H. McGreevy, a brother of the said Hon. Thomas McCJreevy, giving him a 30 per cent, interest in the finn, and this with the knowledge and consent of the said Hon. Thomas Mc(Jreevy. 13. That among the parties tendering were a contractor named George Beaucage, and one .John Gallagher. "■ 14. That it was on tiie suggestion of the said Hon. Thomas McGreevy that Beaucage consented to make a tender. 15. That with the knowledge of the said Thomas McGreevy, the three tenders of Larkin, Connolly & Co., of Beaucage, and of Gallagher, were prepared by the nieinbers of the firm of Larkin, Connolly & Co., Beaucage lieing throughout deceived by the said Hon. Thomas McfJieevy tv< to his jx)sitioii in the matter, as he alleges in an action recently entered by him against the said Thomas McCireevy in relation to the said contract, in the Superior Court of Montreal. 1(>. That the said tenders were transmitted to the Department of Public Works of Canada fur examination and extension. 17. That while all the tenders were being examined and the quantities apjilied in the Department of Public Works of Canada, the said Hon. Thomas i\lc(Jreevy, then and now a iiienil)er of the Parliament of Canada, and a member of the Quel)ec Harbour Commission by apimintment of the Government, promised to obtain and did obtain from the Depart- ment of Public Works of Canada, and from officials of that Department, in relation to the said tenders, to figures in connection therewith, and to the amounts thereof, information wiiich he offered to communicate before the result was officially known, and which he did communicate to the firm of Larkin, Connolly & Co., and to certain members of the said firm individually. 18. That to the knowledge of the said Thomas McGreevey, the tendei-s of Messrs. (ial- lagher and Beaucage were lower than those of Larkin, Connolly & Co., but that in consider- ation of the i»roinise of the sum of .'?25,000 to be to him paid, he, the said Thomas McGreevy agreed to secure the acceptance of the tenders of Larkin, Connolly &. Co., and that he sug- gested to that firm and to certain members thereof individually, to make arrangements in connection with the said (iallagher and Beaucage and to so manipulate matters a.s to render the tenders of those two parties higher than those of the said firm, or at all events to secure the contract for Jerkin, Connolly & Co., and that said arrangements and manipulations were carriearticipated, the contract for the Cross-wall and lock in con- nection with the Quebec Harbour VVorks, was awarded to Larkin, Connolly & Co., on a ReiKjrt to Council made by the Hon. Minister of Public VVorks, under date of 2Gth May, 1883. 20. That a few days thereafter the sum of .925,000 was, in fulfilment of the corrupt arrangement above stated, paid to the said Thomas McGreevy in i)roinis8ory notes signed by the firm of Larkin, Connolly & Co., which said notes were duly paid. 21. That about the same date, namely, the 4th June, 1883, a sum of $1,OOU was paid by the firm of Larkin, Connolly & Co. towards " the Langevin Testimonial Fund '" — a fund destined to be given to Sir Hector Langevin. 22. That in the course of the carrying out of the works, the said Thoma.s McGreevy caused changes, contrary to the public interest, to be made in the condititms of the said contract. The work done under the contract of 26th May, 1883, for the construction of the Cross-wall in the Quebec Harbour cost the country $832,448.44. It was thus, by far, the largest work done undei- any of the contracts included in this investigation. Eobort H. McGieevy had already, in September, 1882, been taken into partner- ship with Larkin, Connolly & Co., in a dredging contract at Quebec, and he was also admitted to a 30 per cent, share in the profits of the Cross-wall contract. His brother, Thomas McGreevy, was, at the time, fully aware of these interests, and subsequently received large sums out of Robert's share in the profits of that firm. Elsewhere the dismissal of Messrs. Kinipple & Morris, the original engineers of the Harbour Works, is referred to at length, but its significance is increased when it is found to have been almost contemporaneous with the letting of the Cross-wivll con- tract, and when their position was filled by Messrs. Perlcy and Boyd, whoso connec- tion with that contract will be pointed out herein, Perley was recommended to his position by the Minister of Public Works, and Boyd was recommended as assistant engineer by Perley, The statute of 1882 (43 Vic, o. 17) provides for the construction of the Cross- wall, and, by its enactments, places this work under the special control of the Dom- Ixxxiiv 54 Victoria. Appendix (No 1.) A. 1891 inion Government. The plans are to be prepared by the Department, tenders are to be called for by the Department, and the contract is to bo awarded by the Depart- ment. Cross-wall. The plans for the Cross-wall were duly prepared by the Engineer of the Public Works Department, and, on the report of the Minister of Public Works, were ap- proved by the Governor in Council. For some unexplained reason, the Minister of Public Works ignoi-ed the Statute of 1882, and did not call for tenders through his Department, but arranged for this important step to be taken by the Harbour Commissioners. The advertisement calling for tenders for the Cross-wall was dated the 16th of April, and requires the tenders to bo in by the 2nd of May, or in a period of two weeks. It was not inserted in any newspaper outside of the. cities of Quebec and Mon- treal. On the 2nd of May five tenders were received and opened by the Harboui- Com- missioners, and forwarded by them, the same day, to the Public Works Department, at Ottawa, where they were received on the 3rd or 4th of May. The tenderers were : John Gallagher, Larkin, Connolly & Co., George Beaucage, Petei's & Moore, J. & A. Samson. In the advertised notice to contx'actors, it is particularly stated that the *' signa- tures of persons' tendering must be in their respective handswriling." This was not complied with by Larkin, Connolly & Co., whose only signature was "Larkin, Con- nolly & Co., per O.E.M." No objection seems to have been made on this point by the Department. Of these five tendero it is proved that three were put in by, or in the interest of, the firm of Larkin, Connolly & Co., in order that they might so manipulate them as to make sure of the contract. The order as to prices of these three tenders was, when first sent in, as follows : Gallagher, — lov est, Beaucage, — next, Larkin, Connolly & Co., — highest. The contractors were prepared to have done the work at the lowest tender if necessary, and by reference to the schedule Hto the Engineer's report, it will appear that Gallagher's original prices would have brought the work, as completed, $133,673 below the prices paid to Larkin, Connolly & Co. Ml'. Thomas McGreevy, as a member of the Harbour Commission, had oppor- tunity to ascertain the prices of the different tenderers on the 2nct of Maj-, and that Peters & Moore's prices Avould bring them below Larkin, Connolly & (vo's. The importance of getting a fo' mal assignment from Beauciigo, whoso tender was lower than Larkin, Connolly & Co.'s, at once ofcurrert to tivim This they obtained on the 4lh of May for a proposed consideration of $5,000, io 'e paid if the contract was awarded him. Mr. Thomas McGreevy leached Ottawa about the same time . That certain memlM'rs of the saul firm have declared that the said memliers of the Canadian Parliament, on being so approached, liiul asked for a certain sum of money for exercising their influence in favour of Larkin, CcmnoUy & C< p. with the Minister of Public Works, and that Larkin, Connolly it Co. had agreed to give them money for that iiMr|K)se. .'ir. That Thomas Mclireevy, acting in concert with Larkin, Connolly it Co., did, at their request, corruptly endeavour to procure the dismissal from office of certain public officers empUiyi'd in connection with the works of the (iraving Dock at Ks<|iiimalt, in order to have them replaced by others who would suit Larkin, Connolly it Co., the former having for u time incurred the ill-\\illof Larkin, Connolly it Co., because they then compelled them to carry out the works in conformity with tliespeciticationsand contract, aii'«; Esquiniult '• F. II. ENNIS, " Secretary." Starrs went to the Department, as lequested, and there met Sir Hector. He saj's that Sir IIicl' ; told him that his tender was loo low, and ho called in Perk\v and the matter 'as i I'lved over. Ho further saitl that Sir Hector told him that he (Starrs) knew hini A\ that there was 850,000 to pay for plant, that he could expect no extras, that it was straight sailing, and that there would not bo ennugh left to complete tho work ; to which Starrs saj's he replied : "Sir llectoi", I believe our tigures aio enough to do llu' work, but I see that you do not fool inclinotl to give me the work, and. conso(iuciitly, I will withdraw." (P. 11(50.) Mr. Starrs was subsequently recalled and questioned more fully as to this con- versation. He repeated the substance of his testimony already given, stated that he handed Sir Hector a cbeiiue for $9,450, and added, as his reason for withdrawing from the tender, that Sir Hector threw so many obstacles in his way, showing him the lownessofhis tenderand theditficulties that his tirm bad to contend with, no extras, and 850,000 to bo paid for plant, that he asked Sir Hector what he was to do to get his deposit cheque back. The Minister leplied : " Write a letter to the Department, officially to me, and I will get j-our cheque returned." He said that Sir Hector told him he could write a letter stating that he had made a mistake in his tender, and that it was too low ; and ho further said ihat it was the hostility of the Minister that induced him to withdraw. After he had agreed to withdraw Starrs swoais that the Minister handed him back tho cheque for $9,450 and said : " Th:uik (rod ; vou have relieved yourself of a great burden." (P. 1191.) Immediatelj' after this conversation Starrs it O'Hanley wrote iheir letter of withdrawid of 24th Octolier and received back their dopo.'^it cheque of $7,500. On tho same day, 24th October, the Minister reported to Council this letter of Staris & O'Hanly, and recommended that they bo permitted to withdraw, and that the contract be awarded the next lowest tenderers, Larkin, Connolly & Co., whose otter was $374,559..53. After the call foi- tendois had been issued Mr. Thomas McGrepvy wi-ote a private note to Perley with respect to the estimates, rates and quantities of the British Columbia Dock. This letter is not forthcoming, but on tho 11th September Perley replied as follows : \\\. Ixxxiicc 64 Victoria. Appendix (No 1.) A. 1891 " Chief Engineer's Office (Exhibit " EG.") " Department op Public Works " Ottawa, 11th September, 1884. " ^Private.) "My DuAR Mr. McGreevy, — Your private note of the 9th to hand, and in reply I send you herew'th a copy of the specification of the Graving Dock, Bri^'sh Colum- bia, two copies of tender, and sheets showing the quantities of work to be done to complete the work, these quantities having been computed by the Kesidont Engineer in British Colnmbia. I cannot s,end the rates supplied by mj'self, as I have never det'^^mined them. My estimate of the proluiido cost to finish was arrived at en bloc, and amounted to S390,000, or, deducting the 850,000 lor plant and materials (see specification), 8340.000 net. I send u photograph of the work «« it stands, which may be of assistance to you, but an examination of the plans on exhibition here is desirable. I am told the best and most suitable quarry is 80 miles from Victoria, at or near Nanaimo. You will see by the lists of plant, &c., that cement cost the Department $25 per ton landed, but to this must be charged the expense of unload- ing, cartage to works, storing, &c. I expect to be in Quebec on Monday-, and could see you between two and four, as I want to leave at five iind be back here on Tues- day at mid-day. " Y''our8 faithfully, " HENEY F. PEELEY. " Hon. Thomas McGreevi, " Quebec." This letter and the enclosures showing the quantities of work to be done ami Perley's estimate of probable cost of the work was passed on by McGreevy to Mur- phy, wtio swears that he had that letter and the enclosures in his jjossession several da^'s and used the information contained in them in preparing his tender. (P. 171.) Before Larkin, Connolly & Co. signed the contract it was clear that they made ef^oi ts to get a clause introduced into it relieving theui from the condition on which their tender was accepted, requiring them to take over the Government plant, materials, &('., at the price of $50,0(0. Patrick Larkin, in his evidence, . t page 798, says that he went to Sir Hector Langevin's office, and drew his attention to the amount of materials that they were culled on .o take over and pay $50,000 .or, ai:d told him that one half of the stuff was of no use to them ; that in reading it over any man accustomed to contracts could see at a glance that the stuff represented there waj good for nothing at all. That Sir Hector sent for Perle}-, who camo in, and had sumo sharp words with the witness. That he, witness, wanteil a clause added to the contract, that the contractors should only pay for what material they shoidd use, but that Perley would not consent to any such clause, and that Sir Hector said he would look into the matter. He further slated that the rea.'^on ho signed the contract was that he relied on Sir Hector's assurance that he would have the matter looked into, and that he took it for granted a reduction would be matle, though Sir Hector did not say to. The following letter, written by Eobert H. McGreevy just before the contract was signed, was also put in evidence (p. 211.) : " QuEUEC, Sunday, 2 p.m. (Exhibit "VS.") " (Private.) " Mr Dear Sir, — The memo, of yesterday re British Columbia Dock is with tho Minister. He says that those conditions cannot be embodied in the contract, as it will be the same one as submitted to O'llanley & Starrs, and it would not do to make it ditterent ; but he says ''.at all what's asked is so fair that there will be no trouble in obtaining them, especially the $50,000 material one — however, you are to urge them just as if nothing had transpired ; of course, it's for you and partners to say if Ixxxiiu'tf 54 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 you will Kiyn without tliera l)ein<; embodied. Politics chan<;us ; so does Ministers. I will bo back Tuesday. My address will be St. Lawrence Hall, Montreal. " I remain yours, " E. H-. McGEEEVY. " O. E. Mtjrphy, Esq." From this letter it appears chere had been a niemo. made out respecting certain conditions the contractors desired in the contract, and that this memo, had been handed to the Minister. It i^, clear from this letter that one of the conditions relates to a rebate of part of the 850,000 to be paid for plant materials, itc, and that the writer, at least, had been informed thei e would be no trouble, especially in obtaining that condition. Subsequent events showed clearly how accurate Robert McCrreevy's information was. The memo, in question was not produced, and wo have no further evidence of its contents than the above letter, written at the time, and the following extract from a letter written by N. K. Connolly to Patrick Larkin : (-Exhibit "GIG.") " Point Lf vis, 29th October, 1884. " (^Private and confidential.) " Dear Sir, — You will see bj* the enclosed message that we are ottered the Esquimau Graving Dock. I cared nothing about tendering for the Dock and scarcely expected to get it, but now we arc ottered it, and under the circumstances, I think it would be best to accept it, with the proviso that ihe changes Ave suggest are made and have been partially agreed between parties. Thoj' say there will be no security (cash) required by us. Our friends propose to arrange this ; moreover, there is no money paid for securing contract." (P. llOu.) The amounts improperly paid by way of donations and otherwise out of the " Esquimault Graving Dock" outside of the 848,000 paid to R. H. McGroevy amounted to about 8-^5,000. A statencnt was produced (Exhibit " E7") showing the items, which had been made up and signed by M. P. Connolly, tlie book-keeper of Larkin Connollj' & Co. It is as follows : (Exhibit " R7.") " Esquimalt Dock. August, 1885 8 i,000 February, 1880 a,000 April, 1880 ■ 1,000 Juno, 188(j 3,000 March, 1887 17,000 do Throe Rivers 5,000 March, 1888 2,000 s;j5,oo() " Certified ooriect. " M. P. CONNOLLY, "2Gth April, 1S8!I." . '• Cierk. The Accountants' report on this subject is as follows (P. 1380) : "Eaquimalt Books. " Espense Account.. " This account amounts lo 88!',!l4(i.2I), divisible into throe parts, vi/,. : — Jiusincss expenses $ 6,tifi5 48 Payments to R, Jf. Mctfroevj- of a one-fifth interest in the profits treated in the balance sheet as 48,105 81 Donations and extraordinary ])ayments 35,085 00 lx.\xiiee 1— n , ii \ , : I lii^j r 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 The Accountants further report respecting these donations us follows (p. 1282) : The donations and other extraordinary payuients apjiearing in the Esquimault expense account are as follows: Year. 1H85. August . . . lH8(i. Feb .. . March 1 . do April . . Amount. June., 1S8-. April 30 .. do 18. do 30. Tliree dnifts of X.K.C., *1,000, .sl.OOO and ■SL',0()0. . U. Coniiolly froni (J.H.I Gratuity to 1). Higgius do" J.W do do (Recurring items in following niontlirs, eacli .*I50, are entered as " i)etty ca.sh ") (Kecurnng iteii From (i. H.I.. Donation to Colonist . .f. do Titnvii Gratuity , do • ■ Subscription to suffers by c(jliery e.xplosion at Xaiiaimo mine. 1887. January 24 Cheque to order of O.E.M., S3, 000 one-'Jiird to be charged to himself Che<)ue on I'. 15., 20th Mar., 188(), charged to (J. H.I. , e.\pense now charged; ! to Esfjuimalt Dock March 28 Allowi-d to X K.C., for a sinn disbursed from ]irivate funds t^.B. cheque Xo. 148, dated 3rd Jan., charged Levis Graving Dock, now transferred as agreed 1888. March 8.. For amount agreed to be expended by firm paid l)y X'.K.C from private fluids » cts. 4,000 00 3,000 (Mt oOO 00 50 (Ht 50 00 3,000 00 ir.0 00 1,50 IKI S5 00 50 00 100 00 2,0(X) 00 5,(XH) (M) .5,000 00 5,000 00 2,(XK) 00 The apparent discrepancy between this $30,085.00 and the §35, 085.00 shown under the memo, expense account abov!) may bo accounted for in the tact that the payments lO R. II. McCrreovy amount to just $5,000 more than his fifth share of the profits divided. The $17,000 ch.. ;•; jd in March, 1887, in the book-keepers statement, were ex- plained by R. H. Mc(-.ieo\fy in his evidence (jiajfo 026) to comprise 85,000 paid by him to Thomas McGreevy in the pi'evious .lanuaiy, $10,000 which witness and Murphy both swore Niciiolas Connolly told tliem ho had paid towards Sir Hector Langevin's election at Three Rivers, and $2,000 disbursed by Murphy for Porley's jewellery. The $10,000 were oi'iginally paid out bj' Xichoias K. Connolly by cheque and charged to Q.H.I., but on Robert McUreevy, who had a 30 per cent, interest in these contracts, objecting, it was transferred to the Esquimalt (iraving Dock, in which he had only a 20 per cent, interest. In this connection we may say (hat Sii- Hector Langevin denied having any knowledge of this $10,000 expenditure, and Latbrce Langevin, through whose hands a }»art of it was alleged to have passed, also denied having handled any of it. This donation account also included three drafts of Nicholas K. Connolly in Au- gust, 1885. for $1,000, $1,000 and $2,000 respectively, a sum of $5,000 allowed Nicholas K. Connolly on 28th March, 1887, for a sum disbursed from his private funds, a Ixxxii/' 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 further sum of 82.000, on 8th March, 1888, for .amount agreed to be expended by the firm ;;nd paid bj' Xichohis K. Connollly from private funds, and a sum of 83,000, alleged to bo paid bj- il. Connolly in Fobi-uary, 188(J. Nicholas K. Connolly, Avhen examined, was found to have a mind quite blank on these, as on all other questionable payments. He could give no information respecting any of them, and when pressed, declared on oath he did not remember. With regard to tliis witness we may hei-e record our conviction that he had resolved to disclose nothing that would reflect injuriously upon himself or those whose secrets he believed it to be his interests to conceal. The same remarks may fairly appi}' to Michael Connolly. As .: onsequence, no sure information could be obtained as to the destination of these special amounts paid by them, but Robert McGreevy swore ( p, (j32 ) that the item of $4,000 charged in August, 1885, was represented by Nichohis K. Connolly as having been paid by him to Thomas McCrreevy. CHANGES IN THE CONTEACT. In May, 1885, the contractors desired to hav^o certain changes made in their contract, and amongst them, to get the entrance at the head of the Dock changed to a circular head. They continued to urge this change even after Perley and the Minister had recommended it, and on the 18th May, 1885, Michael Connolly writes from British Columbia to Murphy : " As soon as this reaches you make no delay in seeing the proper parties and get the double entrance at the head of the Dock clianged tu a circular head, the same as the dock at Levis." On the 21st .January Perley reported in favour of this change, stating the addi- tional expense would amount lo 835,000. The Minister reported to Council, adopting Peiieys report 20th .January, and the change was carried out. (3n the 18th January, 1885, Pei'ley reported that the caisson chamber had been liuilt of stone instead of brick, at a difference of cost of 8(J,000, which he recom- mended sliould be paid, and of this the Minister approved. Shortly after the contract was enteretl into the contractors desiretl to have a change made from sandstone to granite in the stone lining of the Dock. On the 12tli of December, 1884, Nicholas K. Connolly writes from British Columbia to Murphy. (P. 3G9) : " Dear Fhiknd Mcri'Hy, — I think Mr. T. would like to have the Dock builte of grannet and bee said that it would not cost much over sixty thousand in adishin to our in'ise for sandstone and I also think that the folkes beer would lik to mak it a hundred feet longer. If corse thoos thinges are for our trend two work on JJut for the substutin of grannet would bee worth one hundred thousand moeur and the lengthing prepoi'son if course Mr. T. would have two bee seen in the avent of aney cliiiingas bee is the Dominion agent heor and all pourfull as well as our folkes there. We will want changes mad in the siso of the stone and ])aid foi' all the stone we put ill that is we want to incrase the thickens and the weth of bed and bee aiouded for it at our prise and in that way \vc will make a good thing. The best way would bee til jiave them order hever corses as by thai it would give us a chance of an extra as well as giving us our prise. You can tell our friend Eut I will ."rite you more fully ill a day or two." On IDth December he again writes Mui']ihy. — " There is a very strong feeling heiM' that the dock must be built of grannet and a hundred feet longer or a hundred and tifty which you to advocat for you now that when the Canadian Pacific Railway C(iia|ilcied and the}' get the line to China and .Japan you now it would be a very Hiitditiinate thing two have the dock too short or built of perishable material like sunlsloiu' when good granet can be had at very little more expence, of course we don't want anything more than the additional expence of cutting and other tilings. _Mr. Trutch sent foi- mo to-day and asked mo in a very freiidley manner alioiil tho stuf that I was objecting too aiul after a long conversation and at which I luiiilc some good pointes bee .Mr. Trutch said hee would bee glad if the Dominion • iiivirnment would take my vow of it and he said that hee would lay tho case befour im.. ■ ViAi,HousrE St.. 2{3th February, 1885. "P. Larkin, Esq. " Dear Sir, — Your letter just arrived, and in reply would saj* that our friends here aie greatly disappointed in the way we have treated them both here and at Ottawa; after everything was done lo suit us, then it has to be undone again. I cannot understand Nicholas; as you knovs', Mr. Trutch stated there would be a letter in Quebec giving a detailed statement of wiiat v:'' v «iited in the way of changes and proposed costs of the same. However, there c. .. ;ione. Of course, when Michael's letter came to mo I had our friend send despat,'h to Ottawa stopping the substitu- tion of granite. You see the position this places our friends in there before the Council." On the 23ril ofMarch, after having heard from ^Murphy, Michael again writes from British Columbia, as follows. (P. 208) : (Exhibit "08." '' EsQUiMAur.T, B.C., 23rd March, 1885. " Friend OwEV, — Yours of the 10th just received to-day '•= '■'' * "■'■ '-^ I agree with you ; things were badly mixed up and too mucii confused in reference to the granite. This was owing to not getting proper data on which to base figures when writing or tendering to the Department of Public Works. Nick at first thought, and indeed so did I, that we could substitute granite forsandstone at a very moderate advance on the price of sandstone. I should be veiy sorry to have our friends think that the matter was done intentionally or with any view to placing them in a false position. The first letters were written without giving the matter due consideration, which, I am leady to admit, was our fault, but after due exami- nation we came to the conclusion that it could noc be done for the price; therefore, we are grateful to our friends for having our proposition rejected. 1 am sorr^- to hear our friends are anno3'^ed " * •*• * .i; * In view of the facts contained in these letters. Sir Hector, in his sworn state- ment, says : •' I have only to say a word on the projected substitution of granite for sand- stone. When Mr. Perlej', who was favouraole to that change, consulted me, I was inclined to assent to it. For prudence sake I spoke of it to Council. Council was of opini(m not to accept the change, and I informed Mr. Perlcy accordingly." In our opinion, this explanation is quite irreconcilable with the conclusion which must be drawn from the above extracts from the letters of Nicholas K. Connolly, Michael Connolly, Owen K. :>[urphy and Kobert McGreev^-. RE-COUJlSIN(r. With respect to the change made intiie re-coursing of the Dock walls, we find that the contractors in December, 1884, wrote from British Columbia to their ])art- ners, urging that thej' be allowed to substitute larger stone than those provided \ty the contract, and that they should be paid for tiiem. (-)n the 24th of February, 188.'), Perley wrote to Trutcli, Dominion Agent in liritish Columbia, that he approved of the suggestion that the masonry in the Dock be built in heavier courses than called for b}' specification, provided it would not entail any extra expense on the Crown. In April, 18S5, Trutch telegraphed Perley that those alterations would increase cost of work by additional price of di'essing stone, resulting from necessarily increased width of bed proportionate to increased depth of courses, to which Perley replied on the 20th April as follows : Ixxxii/j {n "U , v\ f] 'ill • Up* Wi 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 (Exhibit "T5.") Copy — X&. 13428, Esquimalt Graving Dock. " 20th April, 1885. " Sir, — I write in confirmation of the following telegram sent you to-tlay : " ' As the alterations in depth of courses was requested by the contractors for their own convenience, anil not ordered by the Department, there will not be any extra amount of dressed stone allowed beyond the scheduled quantities, which will be adhered to in making estimates.' " What 1 wish to convey in the above is that as the contractors suggested the change in the dimensions of the stone, and were not ordered by the Department to make the change, thej' (the contractors) have no right to be paid for any extra stone supplied. " If they are permitted to place two courses of stone instead of three, it follows that they save the dressing of the beds, ihe setting of one course and the saving of cement, besides tiie saving in handling a fewer number of stones. " Again, the use of the thicker stones does not increase the thickness of the walls; therefore, there must a saving in backing, and if an allowance for a greater quantity of face stone were made a reduction in the quantity of backing would follow. " Your obedient servant, "HJtlNRY F. PKRLEY, " Chief Engineer. " Hon. J. W. " Dominion Al Trutcii, C.M.G., i-ent, Victoria, E.G. On the 4th of May, in reply to .^ telegram of the 2nd from Mr. Trutch, Perley writes that the conti'actors had informally applied in Ottawa for permission to change the courses of stoi>e and that it had been granted them, and 'hat no oxti-a payment would be made to them on account of the change. In his evidence (page 145) Perley explained that this application Avas made to the Minister ])ersonally and not to him. On the 18th of May Mr. Trulch informed contractors that the Minister had decided to permit them to use stone of increased size, on the express condition that no extra payment should bo made therefor. Notwithstanding these reiterated statements that no extra payment was to be made, and in contradiction of his reasons for not allowing anything extra contained in his letter of the 20th of April, Perley on his return from a visit to British Columbia recommends that they be paid extra, and the Minister adopth his recommendation, and on the 28th of ^[ay, 1S86, ordered that the contractors should be paid full mea- surement lor all the stone the have placed in the Dock and that this order >h uld specially apply to the increase in the size of the stones rendered necessarj* by the change made in recoursing the work, and that all special stones should be measured fairly and libe"'dly, and heir sizes were not to be affected by i\ny nosing check or groove. RHBATE ON TlIK 850,000 PAYMENT FOR PLANT. It will be remembered, with reference to this $50,000, that the spocitication on which the tenders were made expi'essly provided that the contractor should ])ay the Government §50,000 for the plant and materials at the Dock. The contract when executed contained a similar provision. Mr. Starrs swears th;it when Sir Hector was pressing him to abandon the contract, which had been awarded him by Council, Sir Hector urged that thc*50.000 had to be paid in wny event. J\Jr. Larkin swears that when the contract was offered to Larkin, Connolly & Co. he refused for a time to sign it, unless he had assurances that a rebate would he made on the 850,000, and that he eventually signed on the statement of Sir Hector that he would look into it. Ixxxii;; 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Eobert McGreevv's letter, on page 211, seems to show clearly that the contrac- tors had secret assurances from the Minister hefore signing the contract that a iel>ate would be made on the §50,000, though no such provision was to be embodied in the contract. On the IGth of April. 18S5, Bennett reported that the contractors took over, witli- out demur, the plant and material to the value of 838,038.28, but expressed themselves reluctant to receive the balance. On tlie same day Trutch writes to Sir Hector Lnni'cvin that the contractors, Larkin, Connolly & Co., were unwilling to take over the articles of plant to the aggregate value of 812,403.09, as per schedule, as they did not find them suitable tor their purposes. On the 12th of May, 1885, Perley writes to Trutch; "I am directed by the Honourable the Minister ol" Public Works to state that the specification is very clear, and that there is no option on the part of the contractors to take what plant, &c. they please, and to refuse -what they do not want, and that they will have to take over all that is named in schedule. " In January, 188(!, after paying a visit to British Columbia, Perley reported to the Department that he presumed the value of the plant, materials, i*cc., would become a question at a future date between the Department and the contractors. No further evidence appears on the question of this rebate until 1887, when, in January of that year, Peiley submitted his final estimates, and allowed the contractors a rebate of §19,873 on the plant, being about $fi,000 more than they had a,sked to be allowed in April, 1885, when they accepted the plant. Mr. Perley stated in his evidence that he took the responsibility for this de- duction, without reference to the Minister, although this statement he subsequently modified b^' saying that it was probable his report on the subject was discussed with the Minister. Sir Hector Ijangevin, in his evidence, denied that he had been consulted by Perley before he made this reduction. ' PROPOSED CHANGE TO LENGTHEN DOCK 100 FEET. At page 177 of the Evidence Murphy states that he was instructed by his jtartncrs to try and get the Dock lengthened 100 feot, and that he offered Thomas McGreevy 850,000 to have it done, and that Robert McGreevy was made aware of their desire to obtain that change. The letters written to Murphy from the partners in British Columbia fully ^or- roborate his statement of their strong desire to lengthen the Dock and their willing- ness to pay bribery money to obtain the change. Michael Connolly writes under date of 15th of February, 1885, to Murphy: " If the two hundred and fifty thousand pass in the Budget we of course will have some work to tear down, c^'c, but if you can get a contract for extending at 8250,000, we can give 850,000." And again on the 25th February : " I told you in a letter, lately, that if 8250,000 were granted for extending the Dock we woiild give fift}- of it for some charitable purpose," Thomas McGreevy appears to have used his influence to effect this change, and in a letter to his brother of 1st of March, ISSC, saj-s that he thought it would bo done, and that Sir Hector was going to put an 8150,000 in the Estimates for it. His belief was well founded, because we find that on the 18th Xovember, 1889, Sir Hector reported to Council, advising that the Dock should be lengthened 100 teet, at a cost of, at least 8100,000, and that an Imperial contribution should be ap])lied for. This recommendation was concurred in by Council on 2l8t November, and an application was made accordingly to the Imperial Govei'nment, who, however, declined incurring further expense in the matter, as the existing Dock wa.s, in their opinion, large enough for all naval requirements. No Imperial aid being therefore forthcoming, the extension was not carried .)Ut. Ixxxii/iA' '* ! H 1 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1831 BENNETT'S DISMISSAL. We find abundant evidence of the truth of the charge with reference to the corrupt oiKloavourn niiido by Thomaa McGreev}', at the request of Lai kin, Connolly & Co., to procure the dismissal of Bennett, the engineer. The contractoi's complained of his action towards them, and desired his removid, and Thomas McGreevy was requested to have that done. As one result of his in- fluence, wo find Perlcy, in his letter of 10th of April, 18H5, complaining of Mr. Benntt's " too literal adherence to the plans, even where the contractors show him that the changes are for the benefit of the Dock." This accusation Trutch resented, and in his reply to Perley's letter said he had not observed any indication of such a spirit on Bennett's part. On the 2nd of May, 1885, Thomas Mcdreevy writes to his brother liobert : " It is now understood that Bennett, the engineer at British Columbia, will not suit ; so the Minister and Perley are prepared to change him. lie asked if 1 could recommend one. Could you think of one that would suit, and I would have the Minister appoint him." And again in May: " Perley went to see Page this morning to try and get an engineer to send out at once and dismiss Bennett. Ho thatgoes out Avill got his instructions before going out." An engineer named Williams was ottered the appointment by Perley, but in his examination he stated that after considering the matter he decided to decline, and that he both wrote to Sir Hector and saw him on the subject, and that Sir Hector approved of his reasons for refusing the appointment. No other engineer was obtained, and Bennett remained until the work was com- pleted. The Dock appears to have been finished somewhere about the end of the year 1887, and the Accountants' report shows the cost to have been $581,841.43, being $207,168,27 more than the amount of their tender. Our Accountants in their I'eport state that the profits realized by the contractors out of this contract amounted to the sum of $240,979.05, in addition to $27,085 paid in " donations," &c. This would leave the actual cost of the works at 8313,777.38. If from this is deducted the $53,897 reported b^' the Accountants' as paid to the contractors for extras, we find the actual cost of the works as originally contracted for to have been $259,880.38, or in round figures $50,000 more than the amount at which Starrs & O'Hanly tendered for the contract, and which the Chief Engineer reported was " too small for the completion of the work in a satisfactory manner." FiNDi.vas. In concluding this branch of the inquiry, we find that all of Mr. Tartc's charges respecting the letting and construction of the Esquimalt Dock have been proved, excepting the one charging that Thomas McGreevy took steps to induce certain members of Parliament to assist him in obtaining alterations and additional works, and that members of Parliament were approached to this end by members of the firm. That Thomas McGreevy corruptly agreed with Larkin, Connolly & Co., in consi- deration of large sums of money to be paid him bj' them, to use his influence with the Minister of Public Works, and the Department in the rirst instance, tu obtain for them the contract for this Dock, and afterwards to procure changes and altera- tions in the contract for the intei-est of the contractors. That said Thomas McGreevy successfully used his influence for these ])urposos, and received large sums of money from the contractois, pursuant to this corrupt agreement. That other large sums of money were paid out of the moneys received by the contractors for the construction of this Dock for coirupt puiposes, but 3'our Committee are unable, owing to the conflicting and uncertain evidence, to arrive at any definite conclusion as to the destination of these money's. That before the contract was entered into Sir Hector Langevin had secretly assented to changes and modifications of the contract which were to be afterwards lasxnll 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 mnde in the interests of the contractors, amongst which Avas a rebate of part of the $50,000 to be paid for phmt. Tliat the change made in the re-coursing of the Dock was applied for by tlie contractors in their own interest, they having discovered a quarry within accessible distance, which furnished suitable stone for the proposed diange, and was assented to by the Minister on the distinct undei'standing that it should not increase the cost of the work to the Crown ; nor does it appear why it should have done so, inasmuch as Jvigineer Perloy pointed out at the time the cost of the work to the contractors, in the use of the larger stone, would bo lessened. That notwithstanding these facts, the Minister subsequently improperly paid to the contractors for this change the sum of at least g32,8;J9. That the firm of Larkin, Connolly & Co., and Thomas McUreovy, also attempted corrupt 1}' to procure a change in the character of the stone from sandstone to gra- nite, at an enormously increased cost, and that both Perloy and the Minister were induced to assent and lecommend this change to the Governor in Council. That at or about the time this change was being submitted to the Governoi- in Council, the contractors again changed theii- minds, and desired to i-etain the sand- stone, and wore able, through the improper influence of Thomas ^rcGreevy, used with the Minister, to induce him to have the change which the ilinister and his engineer had sti-ongly reported in favour of, abandoned. That the contractors being desirous of increasing the length of the Dock 100 feet, corruptly proposed to pay a large sum of mone\-, if the change could be secured. That the Minister consented to the proposed extension, and both he and his engineer officially reported in its favour. In recommending this extension to Council, the Minister reported that the Imperial Government should bo asked to share in the additional cost involved. His report was adopted by Council, but on the matter being submitted to the Imperial Government tho}^ declined assuming any j)art of the expense, and the proposed change was abandoned. i I' ' ! i: ' '■;!■ rds No. 6. USR OF NAME OF THE HONOUIIABLE MINISTER OP PUBLIC WORKS. " That the name of the Honourable Minister of Public Woi'ks was made use of by the said Thomas McGreevy in his dealings with Larkin, Connolly & Co., so as to give the imjiression that ho had control over him ; the said Thomas McGreevy undertaking to obtain his co-operation, oi- de- claring ho had secured it, and that in the name of the Minister of Public Works large sums of money wore corruptiy demanded bj- the said Thomas McGreevy from Larkin, Connolly iV Co. That he used the 3Iinister'8 name before tho Harbour Commissioners, and that from 1882 to the present Session of ParliamonL ho lived in the same" house as the Minister, thereby giving the impression to Larkin, Connolly I'^c Co. that he hud absolute control over him and that he was acting as the -Minister's representative in his corrupt transactions with them. Tilt. That the Niifl Tliiiiiiiw Mc(ii'i'tvy on several uccasioiis (leiiiiiurleil in the name of the lion. Minister of l^nblic Works and received fi-oni Larkin, C'ounnlly & Co. sums of money. tiU. That fidin 1SS2 to the [iresent Session tlie said Thomas MeCiieevy has always lived in the same ho\ise as the Hon. AfinistiT of I'niilic Works, and lie seems to have done so in order to put in the mind of Larkin, Coiniolly & Co. the impression that he hail over said Hon. Minister an absolute control, and that he was acting as his representative in his corrupt transactions with them. til. That in fact on many occasions lie used the name of the Hon. Minister of I'lililic Works in his dealing's with them, inidertakin^f to obtain his co-operation or declaring' that he had secin-ed it. VYe Knd this charge substantially pioved. v^ 1 'I- IxxxiiwiHi 1 1 i ; . 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1801 No. 7. GENERAL: AS TO AGENCY, AND MONEYS RECEIVED FROM LARKIN, CONNOIJjY & Co., AND ROBERT H. McGREKVY. "That from the years 1883 to 1890, both inclusive, the said Tliomas ^McGreovy rocoived from Larkin, Connolly & Co., and from his brother, Robert II. McGreevy, for the considerations above indicated, a sum of ai tout $200,000, and that during the period aforesaid he was the agent and paid representative of Larkin, Connolly & Co. on the Quebec Ilarbour lioard of Commissioners, in I?arliament, and in connection with the Department of Public Works." .V). 'riii't from tlie yi'iir 1SS;{ to IS'.KI, IkiSIi iiii'lusivi-, the miid 'riiomius Mcliri'i-vy ivcfivcd from Larkin, Cniinolly it Co.. iiiul from his brotlu-r, K. H. Mi'drci'vy, for the considfriitioim .•i1h)Vi. iiiflicatMl, 11 sum of alnrnt J^'JOO.IMK). i*i. That (hiriiijf the |icricwl aforesaid he was the as,'ciit and jiaid rt'iircscntatiM'nf Larkin, Connolly & Co. on the tjueliic HarlxHU' HoarrI of Commis.momrs, in I'arliami'nt, nnd in ronncction with the Department of J'nhlic Works. We find with respect to these charges that Thomas McGreevy, from the years 1883 to 1889, inclusive,corruptly received from Larkin, Connolly to, but it was sworn to be over $500,000. In addition to the Dominion subsidies, the comjKiny inid secured subsiilios fi'om the Local (lovernment of (Quebec, and bonuses securing a free right of way from the municipalities through which ti>e road ran. These, with the right to bond the road and sd raise money, constituted the only financial basis th(^ compiiny had for carrj'iiiir on tho ^\ork. In the 3'oar 188li Thomas and Robert McUreevy agreed with one C. X. ^ m- strong, who repi-csented a syndicate, which had bought out tho charter of the com- pany, to tranjifer to hi?n their stock and all their interest in the company for $7r),000. Sr)0,0o0 to be paitl in cash and §25,000 in b(jnds, Robitaille and Riopel becoming parties to the agreement to guarantee its being carried out. §10,000 was paid in cash and the balance, 840,000, was agreed to be paid in tivo paj'ments of $8,000 each out of the Dominion subsidies as the}' wore received. Four of the instalments of $8,000 were subsccpiently paid out of this subsidy, making, with the original cash payment, $42,000, ami all of it Robert McGreevy swears was paid to or for Thomas McGreevj*. FiNOI.NlfS. AVo find therefore that Mr. Tarte's charge in this re.sjiect has been proved, and That the said Thomas Mct^reevy, while a member of Parliament, did exact, and receive out the subsidies voted by Parliament for the construction of this railway, the sum of $42,000, and that ho never paid any moneys whatever tor his stock or other interest in such road. No. 9. CONTRACT FOR SOUTH-WALL, IGTH FP^BRUARY, 1887. ' ' ft " (a.) That in the year 188G tho said Thomas McGieevy procured from public officers the tenders sent in to thoQuebec Harbour Commissioners for the constructifci of the work called the 'South-Wall, ' and showed them to Messrs. O. E. Murphy, Connolly, and Robert II. Mctfreev}-, in order to give them an undue advantage over their competitors, and the said Murphy, Connoll}^, and Robert H. McGreovy had .said tenders in their possession tlnring several hours, after which they were delivered to Henry F. Perley, who was then in Quebec, anlic oftii-ials, the tiMidfis iccfived andsiiowt-d tilt 111 to Mcssix. (). K. Mur])liy, ComioUy.and K. H. Mcliiccv y, for whom he wa.- actiiij?, in order to i^ivc them .111 uiidue adwaiitatfi' over tlicir comiK-titors. ."i2. That thiy had the said tfiidirs in tlifir iMisscssioii dminj,' sfvi-ral hmirf, afti-r « liiili they wi'iv ri'tiiriicd to Henry K. Perley. then in tJuelH'c, Uy the said Thomas MctM-eevy. ."iH. That the contract was* awar led to one .lohn (iallapher, a iiieie ti|iiiieliead for tlie said Murphy, Conn. illy, and R. H. McCireevy, who did the work for their own iirotit and advantap'. 54. That ehanjfes detrimental to the pnlilic interest, Imt of a nature to secure great in-otils to the contractoiti, were made in the plans and the earryiiiK out of the works and in the conditions and securities set out in the coiitrnct, tlirongh tlie inftuenee and intervention of tile said Thomas Mc( ireevy. Ixxxiioo h ;.■■. 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 FrNniNfl8. Wo find, with ropect to this contnict, that Tlioinun ^MciTioevy did prociiro troiu I'orlcy tlio teiidors tor the Soiith-wuU contract and did show them to O. I' Murphy and J{. II. .Mc'tJrcovy, in order to givo Lariiin, Connolly &, Co. an undno advantage over their eonipelitors, and that tiioso parties had tliese tenders in liieir possession (Thomas McGroevy heing present) tor sevoial hours, after which they were handed back to Porley, and that the contract was awarded to Ualhvgher, a mere tigurehend for Larliin, Connolly A: Co., who did tiie woilv for their own profit. Wo do not find that the changes made in tiio plans and works of tliis contract were detrimental to the pul)lic interest, tiiough they douhtlesn added to the profits of the contractors. No. 10. SUBSIDIES TO STEAMER " ADMIKAU" " That on the 10th of May, 1888, the Government of Canada decided to pay to Mr. Julien Chabot, as owner, a sum of 812,500 yearly for five years as u subsidy to the steamer " Admiral " for plying between Dalhousio and Gasp6, and that the said subsidy has since been paid accordingly; but that the said Julien Chabot was merely a screen tor the benefit of the said Thomas McCrreevy, who was then and continueil for a long time thereafter the real owner of the said steamer, in whole or in great part, and that previous to the said 10th May, 1888, to wit, since 1883 or 1884, the said amount of subsidy was yearly paid for the said steamer, the title thereto being held by persons lor the benefit of the said Thomas McGreevy, and that the said Thomas McGreevy received altogethei from such subsidies about 81-0,000." ■lit. That liy iiii Order in f'ouncil, du'cil lOtli May, ISSS, tlic (iovfi'iiiiifiit (pf Ciiiiiiila decided to j)ay a nmu of .'<(12,")(Ml yearly duriii(f five years to Mr. tliilieii Clial)ot, on tlie eon- dition of Ills eansing the steamer ''Admiral ' to ply between Dnlhonsie and (iaspe, forming •onnection with tlie Intercolonial Kailway. 4fi. That the said snm of twelve thousand five hundre/(«), Tujjper and Wood {BrO':kti'.[e). — 17. .\nd the (luestion licing put on tho muiri motion, it was agreed to on the same division recersed. Eesolred, 'Hhni the >aid Dral't IJeport marked '• A " bo the ileport of the Com- mittee, and that the same be ])reseiitcd to the House with tho minutes of proceedings ami evidence attached thereto. Attest, WALT KR TODD. Olcrl; of the Conunittee, IXXXi.iS ^ft. n 4 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 1891. 8ELECT STAXDING COMMITTEE PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS SYNOPSIS OF EXHIBITS. Datv X Subject. A .\ug. 17, 78. " '"" '"■ "■■'"""::f«»S=£,Sr;K;'s;i=»?;giK-""- *-™ ■■'•■ (See Page n of tho Kvidcnc... ) ■'''^'^■'■^'■"'''•^"'iitiiii'iiitr foivgfiiiiff Kxhilijt "H." (S..f I'a;,'.. .-) ,,f the Kvidcui't'.) IJ l).'<'. 21, \S(!..;TK.NhKU„fMicluu.lO,„muIl.v for the same work ; (SeoPiige.- of the Kvirleiioe.) ' ' ^.vvKl.oi'K coutaiiiintf foregoing; Kxhihit " J) " I (Sefl'age.Jof the Kvidence.) F Deo. 21, -m. . |Tkm,k„ of O. E. ^run,hy for the .„„„ work. (See l'at;er),)f the Kvi.leiiee.) E.NVh:i.oi'Keoiit:uiiiiif,' foregoing Kxhiliit "E " (See Page 5 (if the K\ ideiKV.) " T '"■ "^f ■'"™-'" Sl4^'^Js-Ki;,««-"i-".v.™„, .,„.,.,. , , l^-NVKLOi'K eoiitaiimig aeeept,.,! tender for South-wall I (See I'agefiof the KvKh'iice.) •T oet. 2o,'s7.;cHK.n-.ofo. ••:-M-|^;y^o.-i;...f X. ICC .oiu- f„r s.^,,,.. (^ee I age (> of the I'lvideliee Iv (let. ,il, ■87.. I ■) K'KCKil-r from (). ]•;. Mmoh- to S,.,.'>- f ii .-. cH^[,aM,ouut'Mg';,;si;,;,i;;7;iY. "'"'• ^""'- f"-' "•••ti«^'^^te of ,ie,,os,i x,, (Printed on Pag.MloVthe Kviih.nce.) (Pruitedon P.ige7of the Kvideiice.) i.s.Hion, re.s|,eetiMg M :-l'-^'\'K'-"l'K containing foregoing K.vliihit "L (See Page 7 of the Kvidenee.) ^' Miir. Ui 'ill.. NmrntfroniO. K. Mur|,l I I 1-vh cheque tor«:u«Ki;'''''''' ^" ^^'■''"*^ Secretary I larhour Connnis«ion, ,y return of (Printed on Pag,. 7 of the Kvi.lence.) ,- ' Ix.xxiii ' m 64 Victoria. Appendix (Fo, 1.) A. 1891 SYNOPSIS OF EXHIBITS. '■"If Sulijct't. Lki'TKH fidiii Laikiii, CiiMimlly & Co., n return uf .security uln'tines fur diHVrfUt ci ii- tracts - (tiffure.s in niarf^in). (Printed on Paffe 8 of tlie Kvidence. ) S .Inly - '82. T July -- '82. U July 7, '82.. V Jiily 10, "82 W I, Julv 11, '82 X July 12, '82.. Y July 12, '82.. Z Julv 14, '82.. I ' I Al July 14, '82.. Bl 'July 17, '82 , i CI Liuly 17, '82. Dl July 17, '82. LnriKK from Acting; Secretary Harlnnn' Coinnii.ssion to U. K. ^[u^|llly, >■< return of ; security clie(|ue for So\itli-\vall. I (Printed on Page 8 of the Evidence.) IvKPOliT of JSjiecial Connnittee of Harbour ]3oard, /r settlement of accoiint> with Messrs. Kini|)i)le it MKl'lKU from Secy Har. Com. to Pou|ion' & Charlton, acknowledging 'etter of 12th inst. /•< deposit of 8.'l,(K)o, and informing, them tiiat their recpiest camiot lie complied with. El [July 21, '82. . Tki.Ki.u.vM from .Sec'y liar. Com. to Larkiu, Connolly it Co., rei|iiesi lug to be informed whether tliey are piepaiei! to make cash deposit of .Sbl.uoo in the iveiit of contract for dredging lieing awarded them. Ixxxiv 1 -T 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 SYNOPSIS OF EXHIBITS. iJatc. Subject. Fl .My 22, '82.. (Jl .Inly IS, ■M. . Oli July 2(1. "82.. HI •July 24, ■S2.. 11 .Tuly - 'S2 . . .Jl Sfpt. 25, '82.. Kl 1S83 Lkttki; froin Lail oily iS: Oi. to Sic'y H.ir. Com., tninsinittiiifr ccrtitii'd liniik L'lif(|Ui' for .■truction in the Kiver St. Charles, &( TKNIiKKof .fohn Oallajrher for the construction of at^Hiay -wall Wet-dock, .and other works in connection therewith ■ith. entraiKc to the LI |May 2, •«!. Ml j do 2, '83. Nl I 1883 OI Max 28, '83. TKNhHli of (ieo. HeaucaKe for work aliove described. iTkniiKII of Peters it .Moore for won; aliovi' descrilied. 'I'kndkii of San it Samson for work aliove described. OnuKU IN' Coi'Ni'll. (Certified Copy of) awarding contract to Larkiii. Connolly it Co. 1 for the construction of the iiroposed Cross-wall. i ri .May .30, '83. . Lki'TKH from Secretary I'liblic Works Dept. to Scc"y Har. Com., transmitting foregoing copy of Order in Ci/Uiicil (Kxiiiliit " OI "). C'oNTli.vcT, itc, between l^ue. Har. Com. and f.arkin, Connolly & Co. for thi-construc- tioiiof a <2uay-"'iillii"d entrance for tin Wet-dock in the Harlmur of 'Quebec. 1 Ql i.Inne U, '83. 1 HI .luue (I, '83. ;■>] .lune '.t, '83, X(viAiii.\i. notification from i,)ue. Har. Com. U.> Messrs. Kiiiipiile it M. ilig with their services. Lkitki! from Secy Vublic Works J)ept. to S.c'y Har. Ct irris, dis]]i allaglt all. Ilefple fol .'?",."l(MI W'llill I accoini)anu his Tl .lune 13, '83. . LiiTTKli from Wm. .Moriis ( Kinii)|ile it .Morris) to Sec'y Har. Com receipt of notarial notiliialion iiifoiiuing him that Com I disiiensed with the scr\ ici's of his liini. •etnrning .lohn ider for Cross- ckuowledging ini-sioiicrs ha\e jI'I VI .Tune l!t. '.s;i. . .Nd'iiiicATiii.N mil olist Will, liae /.v. i^lue. liar. Com., cr dismissal of Kinipple it is. Kngineers of tlleljuelicc I lai'bour Works. VI ,Aug. 15, '81, Wl Mav 21, '81. .VoKKKMKN'r .llld Hi . I lucl.l l (arbour Coini: issioners ami Kinipphit Mi Lkitkii from ('hief Kugiiiccr, \>uclicc Harbour Coinii to .See'v Har. fmii. transmitting (■opy orrcsponileiici tractors of the Uraving Dock n offer f lAchanged lietween himself and ilction of I )ock th and recoinmi'iid.N acceptance of their oHFer. XI May 24. -^ l.rirKlt from Chief Kngii r -f i^u.-Uv llarln ur Commission to Sec'y Hiir. Com., recommending that m onler to I'lisure eilicicney and future usefulness of j Craving |)ock tlih entrance works be shifted .i further di.itance of 25 feet. Tl May «, -s: Lk'ITKU from Chiei F-'gineer ij>iieUi H;irbour ( 'omiuission In Sec'y Har. ( 'om. transmitting copy ol . oirv~|«iiidence c\chaii,geil between liimself and con- , tractor- "l.arkin. Coniiollv it Co.. " in vlutioii to tiie dredging to be done in the Wet dock, a portion of whiili it i- desirable should be done during the ensuing summer. l.X.K.KV 54 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 « SYNOPSIS OF EXHIBITS. '/A .\[ay 2H, W. A2 Fcl.. 23, ill . Al'.l May 2(i, •'.11 . C2 Ei F2 H2 12 .12 May r., 'SS. .May 7, Sa. May IV, 'S()(?) •Viiril Hi, 'S7 April 2(!. ^ I May 2, '85. May I, 'S,-). Mar. 17, '.SO. .^ral•. I. Sli L2 Mar. 11. SC. Mn.y 13, ■«:>. CoxTK.vcT, itc, betwcf-ii Que. Har. Com. and Larkiii, Cdiiiuilly & Co. for Itrcdiiiiig and removing niatfrials from Wct-ba.sin Lktikh from Acting Sfc'y Har. Com. to (). K. Murpliy, ri retnni of . Docks and Levis (iraviuj;; l)nik con- tracts to 1st .Xngu.^-t, 18H.S. (I'rinted on J'afje 13 of the Kvidence.) Lkitkh 'loni Hon. T. Mc(;reHvy to K. H. Mc'.Jreevy, n'specting sittii - of Intir- iiplonial Comniissioiu-rs and tenders for Cro-s-,vall. Larkin intormed that JJeailcatre's teudei nnist he adliered to. (I'riuted on I'a^'e Id of the Kvidence.) IiK'ITKH from Hon. T. .Mc(;reevy to H. H. Mc(tre<'vy, ves|iectiiitr Tnterculonial matters ; result of Cross-wall tenders ; < l'I',rii'n'> work e:iniaKe over tliat of Ti., C. A: Co. Sir C. Tupper agreed to h.\ a day for Kvidence.) LKTCKIt from Hon. T. Metireevy to |{. H. .McCreevy: iiefers to LortieV contract for lexelling and grading aiouud t)ii' Hall. \\A-n long interview with Perli'y on Harlicim- Works anil ( Iraving I )oek. I'ritish Coluniliia. Will In shown Fleming's repin't as soon as signed. W'U have interview with Minister as to futiu'e. (rraving Dock at British Columhia to he lengthened- ."eaii. Kerrigan iV Co. rei'cive iihimliing contraet for Marine Hospital. Stanley, Smith .V- Lindsay to he ji.iid .xliUli. H, Ridley says he -ent to I,,. C. & Co. what they asked for. Kiopel to make hegimiing on Piai. ties Chaieui- Ky. (Printed on Page 21 if the Kvidence.l Ixx.wi 64 Victcria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 SYNOPSIS OF EXHIBITS. M2 !K"li. 20, \S(i. M2 ()2 02k P2 'i2 R2 S2 'J'2 U2 V2 W2 X2 Miir. 3, si;. Mar. S, >;(! Miiy i;i, "Sd Mai. II, 'Sil. SllbJL'C't. Tiini' IS, 'S,). Mar. Ill, Sd IjK'ITKH fnmi H(iii. T. McCJrccvy to l{. II. Mcliiirvy : Kent Hcmsc to lie pivcii to Mrs. I'duiiiicr. -Minister would lie fjlad to ncdiimifiid Murpliy {or llidifa.v (ira\inK llocl;. .Slicarrr to [nit liiattfr.-- liglit. ("apt. Howie says Hobitaille has contracted for liaie dcs Clialenrs Kailway with jiartner of Isliester. .Aritistrongs unable to put up tlie money tiny pr(JUiised. (I'rintfd on Tagc 21 of tlie Kvidence. ) Lkitkii from Hon. T. ^^l• signed. (Printed 'ii Page 24 of the Kviileuce.) Mav 17. S.'^. Mav 111, ".sS. .Mav I'.i. SS. May 21, s;*, Nov. S, ■,S4 8<'HKi>( i.K of rates. Cross-wall teiidi>rs Nos 1, 2 and H. (See Page 3.-) of the Kvidence. ) Lki'IKU from Chief I'jigineer Vulilic Works Dept. to tenderers for construction of Cro.ss-wall, diawing attention to error in price for" sheet-piling " and for pile-driving in tlie temiers. I Prilllc ll oil P;li:e ;',!) of the Kviclence.) F-KT'i'Kii fr.iiM Larkiu. Couiiollv .t Co. to Chief Kngincer Pulib' Works llept. acknow- ledging receipt of forej-'oiiiL' ( K\liil>ir ••'r2">. .■ind stating that they will accept contract, if awarcled tlieni. ai the figures mentioned in their fender. (Printe.l on l\ige 1-1 .,f tin Kvidem-e. i I-Kl'TKii from .lohii dallagher to Chief Kn:.'-iiieei' Pulilic- Work- Kept., stating prices for " sli.4t piling, itc." (Printed on Page U of the Kvideiice.l I.K'ITKli from (li'oige Heaucage to Chief Kiigin>*-r I'ulilic Works 1»nce.) <■ (iNrilACT betw n Larkiu. Connolly ,V- (',,. .md Dept. of Public Wiii, fortheconi- |iletioii of draviiig Dock at IOs(|uimalt. B.C. i (See Page SO of the Kvidence. ) Ixxxvii 1 i 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 SYNOPSIS OF EXHIBITS. li I Y2 7.1 A3 B3 C3 D3 E3 F.S (J3 H3 13 ,n K.S L3 ]M3 N3 03 r3 Q3 R3 S3 T3 Vi W3 Sept. 2.-), •^•1.. S.'pt. 2.'., ■S2.. rune (i, 'S3.. May 23, '87., fVuj?. 7, '7S. CoXTU.vcT Itetwfen HarlMiui' Cimmii>ock. iLkHOKI'. (Xo. 1) do do j do (Xo. 2) do do JOIKSAL (Xo. 2) do do do (Xo. 3) do do C.\sii-l{iK]k (X'o. 1) in ;•( t^ueliee Harlxiur Tniprovements do (Xo. 2) do do Lkiioku do do JoiHXAt. do do, Lkdoku in n South wall. JoiliXAI. do ! iLkduku (Xo. 1) in ;•( Ks(|uimalt (Iraving Dock. .roiliXAL (Xo. 1) do do ! do (Xo. 2) do do do (Xo. 3) do do Lkiioku (Xo. 2) d(j do I (F'r Kxliibits " E3 " to " 1'3," s-e Page SI iif the Kvidenee.) Lkttku from .b)hn (lallagher to .Sec'y. Dept. Pul>lie Works withdrawing his tender for Cross-w:dl, (Quebec Harliour, on condition tliat lu's deposit security Ix' returned. (Printed on Page S4 of tile Kvidenee. ) Lkiteh from Sec'y. Dept. I'ul lie Works to Seey. Harliour Connni.ssion, retinning I che(ple foi -^7, ''00 deposited as secm'ity by dolin (lallaglier. I (Printed on Page S.") of the Kvidenee. ) Ixxwiii 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) SYNOPSIS OF EXHIBITS. A. 1891 s :s Date. .2 ■y. K X3 Sulvii'Ct. ScMKini.K iif tiM 111 I 'IS for HarlMiiir Winks at <^iiilii'c (sliowiii^' (luaiititics apiilifil liv I .1. K. liuv'l). r I (Sci- I'aKfs S.") ami ISlSof tlic Kviilfiici'.) V:', May "JS, 'SS, . Kki'OHT of Chief Kiitfiiii'tT, Dcpt. I'lililic Works, mi tciiiUis for Cross-wall for- •(li"l to tile Departiiiciit liv Hiulimir Ciminiissioiicrs in tlii-ir letter of 2ui\ instant ; als osi s fiiie(?oinK Kxliiliit " XH. (See l'aj.'e S.") of the Kviilence. Z:i May 17. "S;t.. Lk'ITKK from Chief Knfjineer, Dept. I'ulilie Works, to Larkin, Connolly & Co, j ! reipiestin^f to lie informed as to whether an error has heep. made in tliei I tenilir for the Cross-wall. ! ' (See Pajje S,") of the Kvidenee.) D4 A4 .May 17, 'X'A.. LhriTKlt fiom Chief Kntrineer, I'nlilie Works Dept., to John < iailagher, siniihir to fore- I f,'iiii'f,' (Exhibit "Z3.'") I (See I'ajfc S.">of the K\iilenee.) BJ i[ay 17, Xi. . Lki TKit from Chief Knjjineer I'nlilie Works I)ept., to (!eii. lieanta^te, similar to fore- I t-'o'iiK ( Kxhiliit " /.S.") (See Pa^fe H") of the KviileiK-e. ) C4 May '.M\ 'X'.i. . Oudkh i\ Coixcii. (Certified Copy of) granting authority to allow .lohn ( iallajjlier to ithdraw his tender for Cross-wall and to retnrn to therewith nnn enecpie enclose I Printed on I'aire Sli of the K\ idence.) May ;!(•, "HI^.. LKTTKii from See'y. Pnblie Works Dejit. to See'y. Harbour Commission, trans- ndttin),' copy of Order in Conneil, awarding? coiitraL't for Cros.s-wall to I Larkin, Connolly it T'o. I ( Printed on Page , "84 . . (iraving Dock at Ks(|nimalt, li.C ' (See Page 87 of the Kviilence.) H4 May S, "84 14 -NLay !t, 'S4. J4 K4 . Ti;i.Ki;it.\M from Sec'y- Public Works Department to Larkin, Connolly vc Co. n I Esipiimalt (iruving Dock contract. I ( Printed on I'age 88 of the Evidence.) . LktTK.ii fromUaskervilleit Co. to .Minister Public Works, in reference to their tender ri completion of K.si|uinialt (iraving Dock. (Printed on Page 88 of tlie hhidence.) . IvEroilT uf Chief Engineer Public Works /•. proposal of liaskerville it Co. to complete (iraving Dock at Esiiuimalt, B.C., for -silli per .\aiil. I Printed on rage 811 of tlie Evidence.) May 21), '84.. Lkttku from P. Hasker\ille, .M.P.P., to .Minister I'lililic Woiks. recommending 1 acceptance of liaskerville it Co. 's tender for completion of Esipiimalt ( irav- I ing l)ock. ' (Pi'intedon Page 110 of Evidence. ) Oct. 7, '84. .|Li:ttkh from Sec'y. Public' Works Dept. to Starrs it O'Hanly .n reference to their I tender for coinpletiou of (Iraving Dock at Esipiiinalt. I I (Printed on I'age !(1 of the IsN idence. ) L4 I let. 10, '84.. Lkttku from Starrs it O'Hanly to Sec'y. Public Works Dept.. declining to olitain the assistance of another contractoi for construction of Esmiimalt (iraving Doc k. (Printed on I'age ill of the Evidence.) I.Kxxi.x 1 Ml .«• lil ■^}l : I 't( ! . Feb. 21, '85.. .Tan. 21, '85.. April l(i, '85.. April l(i, '85. . X4 yUiy 12, "So. Y4 Miiv 111. 'iid Z4 Xov. 21, 'S!l, Ao .Tuiif (!. ■.8.'?. Lk'ITKU from Src'y. I'ublir Wiirks Dept. to Mioliacl Starrs, a.'tkintf him to call at Dcpartiiii'iit rcs|icctiiiK Kucpiimalt (iniv iii^f l)(K'k. (I'riiitiMl on I'agr ill of tlic I'Mdcncc) Mkmo. of Chief Knijinecr I'ublic Works |)c]it., on tenders received for tin- coni- ph'tion of Ks(|nimalt (iravinff Dock. (Printed on I'ajje !t2 of tlie Kvidince.) Ohdkk in f'oiNcir. (Certified (-opy of) awarding contract for Ksquinialt (iraxinpf Dock to Starrs H O'Hanl.v. (I'rinted on I'age i)2 of tlie Kvideiice.) Okdkh in CfUNCll. (Certified Copy of) allowing withdrawal of tender of Starrs & O'llanly for comiiletion of Ks(piinialt tiraving Dock, andawarding contract to Larkin, Connolly it Co. (Printed on Page !I3 of the Kvidence.) SenKiili.K of tenders received for completion of the (iraving Dock at Ksipiimalt. (Printed on Page !M of the Kvidence.) OiMiKU IN CdrNcil, (Certified Copy of) authorizing that the in verts and cais,-*oii recess, I JCscpiimalt (iraving Dock, Ihj not constructed and that the Dock buttoin lie carried out. I (Printed on i)age !)5 of the f^idence.) I LETTKli from Hon. .1. \\'. 'I'lutcli to Minister Public Works, respecting changes authorized in the (Iraving Dock at {■".s<|uiMialt, and recommending Use of granite instead of sandstone in certain portions of the work. (Printed on PagelMlof the Kvidence.) Rl-il'dHT of Chief Kngineer Public Works Dejit. on sub.stitution of granite for sand- I Blone, Es(piiuialt (iraving Dock. (Printed on Page '.17 of the Kvidence.) Mk.moii.vniu'M of Chief Kngineer Dept. Public Works fia' the Minister ri proposed j additional length Ksqnimalt Graving Dock. (Printed on Page !)7 of the Evidence.) LK'lTKUfiom Hon. .1. W. 'rrntch to Sir Hector Langevin n transfer of material and plant, Ksipiimalt (iraving Dock, to Larkin, Connolly & Co. (Printed on Page i)8 of the Kvidence.) Lkttkii from W. Hennett, Kesident Kngineer, Ks'iuinialt, to Hon. .1. W. Trutch, ] respeciiiig transfer of material and plant, Ksipiimalt (Iraving Dock, to Larkin, Connolly & Co. (Printed on Pagellilof the Kvidence.) LK'lTKit from Sec'y. Dejit. Public Works to Hon. .1. W. Trutch, stating that contractors for Ksipiimalt ( ir.iving Dock must take ovi'r all plant ; also, that deduction is not to lie made friiiii first progress estimate. (Printed on Page llHIof the Kvidence.) I'l.vcKINo of letter from Secy, of State foi Colonies, respecting ImiM-rial loiitri- , bution towards enlaru'emeut of Ksi[uimalt (iraving Dock (letter not lieing enclosed). I (See I'age KM) of the Kvidence.) OmiKU IN CoiN.iii. (Certified Cojiy of) authorizing application to Imperial (iovern- nient for a further contribution towards increasing length of Ksiinimalt (iraving Dock liy KH" feet. (Printed on J'age IDI of the Kvidence.) .Vhtii'I.ks ok Cor.vHTNi-.Hsun' between V. Larkin, X. K. Connolly, O. K. Murphy and K. H. -\Ic(iree\y, for construction of Cross-wall, (,!uebec HarlMiur. (Printed ..n'Page lOHof the Kvidence.) XC 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 SYNOrSIS OF EXHIBITS. H") April LT), 'S!I . Statkmknt fioiu IhmiUs of LniUiii, ("(iiiiidlly it CVi., |iii'|iiiit(l liy lMi<)k-k(v|Mi-. C5 iTuuf 2, S.'). D5 .luiif '.>,■«-)., i t \'.:, May 4, 'Sd. Fr> ^[iir. 2!), 'ST. (.!5 Feb. 27, 'W. li:> F.l>. 27, ss. 15 Mar. 2, 'SH. .To I Ko May 111, •«4. (Printed oii J'agc lo'xif the KvidfiRc. ) CKuriKicATK, itc, f)f AiiditiirM' Trial Halaiicc Sheet, Larkin, (.'iiimully & Co., fop Levis ( iraviii),' Doek. (Printed (ju page lOdof the Kvidence.) Ckiitii'I('.\ti; of .Viiditors' Cash Trial Halance, Larkin, Connolly & Co., for (/iieliec- llarlioiir Iniprovenients. (Printed on Page lOlnif the Kvidence.) TuiAl. Hananck, l^hieliec llarliour Improvements, from 1st May, 1H8,"), to 1st .Vpril, IMSti. (See Page 107 of the Mvidenee.) TiiiAi, Bai.anck AM) .Statkmknt, t^hielx-e Harliour Improvements, from 1st ,\)iril, iHXn, to 1st .\pril. 1.SS7. (See Patre 107 of the Evidence.) TuiAi. Palanck AM) STArKMKXT of < Jnehee Harhonr Improvements, from 1st April, I 1S,S7, to February, IHHS. ] (See Piif,'e 107 of tile Kvidence.) TiiiAi. Paf.anck ami STATKMKsr of ( iravinjf 1 )iKk, Levis, from 1st .\pril, 1M.S7, to 1st Februarv. 18SS. (.Seel'age 107 of the Kvidence.) TiiiAr. P.Ai.ANcK AM) SiATKMKNT of Ksiinimalt (having Dock contract, from com- meneement up to 1st March, 1HSH. (See I'm^v 107 of the Kvidence.) iSt.VPKSIKNT prepared by Larkin, Connolly \- Co.'s I'lnj^ineer of estimated cost for the completion of Li'vis (iravin^r Dock. , (See Paj,-e 111 of the Kvidence.) Coi'iKs OK Lkttkh (2) from Larkin, Connolly & Co. to Chief Engineer iiepartment Pn))lii Works n comjiletion of ( iraving Dock, Levis ; al.sostateiiii nt .-.'lowms; cash ol re(|nir( 1 acco\int contract work anueliec Harbour Works, Ks(|uimalt tiraving Dock, itc. i (See Page Ilo of the Kvidence.) Lkttku from Loril Knutsforrl to Lord Staidey respecting extensifin of the Craving Dock, I'^sipiimall. (Printed on Page 122 of the Kvidence.) iTKl.KiiltAM from Chief Kugineer, Dejiartment of Public Works, t(i Hon. .1. W. Trut ch, I'espectuig tlie recoursin^ (Printed on Page 122 of the Kvidence.) itc, of (iraving Dock, Ks(iuimalt Qo April l(i, S.) .Lkttku from Chief Kngineer. De|Kirtmcnt of Public Works, to lion. J. W. Tnitch, I I in conHrmation of foregonig telegram (Kxhibit "Po.'') ' ' (Printed on Page 122 of the Evidence,) M ■i<> ! :!^ XCl % ->. ^ ^^3^ ^>i^ a %^^ W-^ IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) // % <" 1.0 If' I.I 21 121 C ||2£ 1.8 |l.25 1 1.4 1.6 « 6" ► Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WiST MAIN STREIT WEBSTER, N.Y. MSSO (716) a72-4S03 % %^ ^ 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 SYNOPSIS OF EXHIBITS. M M l;1. 11 m Sulijcet. R5 April 18, '85 S5 T5 April 20, "85. April 20, '85. U5 lApril Jit, '85. Tklkckam from Hon. .1. W. Tnitclitu Cliicf Kii^iiiccr, Department of I'ulilic Works HttttiuK timt "ile.tiifn furni»he(l ISennett liy contructorB for ifcoursing will Ije carried out, and ulterationH will intivaKe cost of work." (Printed on I'iijfe l'£,i of the Kvidence. ) Tklkdham from Chii'f Kntfineer, Deiiartment of I'ublic Works, to }Ion. .1. W. Trutfii, Htatinjf that tliere will not Ik- any extra anioinit of dresw^l Ntone allowed Ix'yond schednle (pmntities, wliicii will Ih- adhereartment of Public Works, referring to alterations of details in construction of Esipiiiiialt (iraving Dock. I (I'rinted on Page 12l> of the Evidence.) LKlTKlt from Hon. .1. W. Trutcli to Larkin, Connolly & Co., instructing them hi ri alterations of details, itc. (I'rinted on Page 12ti of the Evidence.) DC. .fan. 28, '8«. Tki.KCHAM from Chief Engineer, Department of Public Works, to Hon, .1. W. Trutcli, stating that Minister directs that contractors U' paid for full (juantity of stone in Dm'k, itc. (I'rinted on Page 127 of the Evidence.) Lkitkh from Chief Engineer, Department of I'ublic Works, to Hon. ■(. W. Trutcli. conKrming foregoing telegram (Exhibit " CO.") (Printes include MU Nt! CXJ m lit; R« so Dntc. Feb. 15, '86., May 2, X-i. . May 4, Ho. Miiv 1!», K) May 1, Su. Miiv I. SA Subject. Lkitkk from Him. .1. W. Tiiitcli to Cliicf Kiiffiueer, l)e|Mirtiiieiit «if Public Works, Htiitin^ that tiaiiuary t'stiiiinte wa» iiiaile out in accunlnnue witli iiistructioim for Mifasurenieiit of niaxonry. (I'riiited on Vnftv l^Hof tlie Kvidence.) LK'n'KH from Chief Engineer, Dcpartiiieut of Public WorkH, to Hon. .1. W. Trutcli, continuing tele|;raiu dated 'Jnii May, li^tCi, /t deduction for phmt from first l)ix)«reKs estimiite. (I'rinted on Pam- IJ'.I of the Kvidenee. ) Lktteu from Cliief Kn^'ineer, l)e|>nrtnu'ut of PuliUc Works, to lion. .f. W. Trutch, 1 K'vin^ atlditional e.xiihmntion relative to advances on materials delivered. (Printeil on Page l'£t of the Kvidenee.) 'liK'iTKH from Hon. .1. W. Trutch to Chief Ku^fini'er. I>e|>artment of I'ublic Work«, I referriuj,' to deductions to Im' made from amount of |iro>;res.s estimate. (Printed on Page l;«»of the Kvidenee.) ,TKl.K(Mi.\.M from Hon. -1. W. 'j'nitch to Chief Knjfinier, Department of Public Worke, [ statinj; that lieMuett is measurinjf for estimates. I (Printed on Page IMOof the Kvidenee.) ,'l'i;i.Ki:lt.v.ii fi-om Hon. .1. W. Trutch to Chief Kn(,'iiu-<'r, |)e|iartnient of Public Works, stating that Heimett has not eompleted estimates. (Printed on Page VM of tlie Kvidenee.) Tki.K(M!.\m from lloii. .1. W. Trutch to Chief KuKinoer, department of Public Works, stating that he proposes giving iirogress estirnute on 1st pi-oximo. (Printed on Page i'M of tlie Kvideme.) Apiil Hi, (■«.->). April V>, X"). . 'Tki.Ki.i:.\M from Hon. .1. W. Trutch to Chief Kngineer. I >epartment of Public Works, May H, So. ri(|Uestinir to be informed wIhu plan of circular head for l)oi-k will be sent. Printed on Pagi' \'M of the Kvidenee. LkITKH from Hon. .1. W. Trutch to Chief Kugiueer, l)e|iiU'tment of Public WoiUs, I acknowli'dgiug receipt of letter anil plans showing alter:. tions to be nuide at hea Kvidenee.) April 7, "i^l. ILKlTKlt from Chief Kugiueer, Department of Public Works, to Larkin, Coiuiolly it Co., ;•( tlieir otfer to eouiplete l.iA is < Iravillg Dink. (Printed oil Page l.'U of t\,f Kvidenee.) -Vug. S, ■«4 . TKI.KiMt.\M from Secii'tary. Department of Public Woiks. to H4. May 2!), '84. RkwhT of Chi<'f KukIik^t, DeiHirtuit'iit of I'uhlic Workti, on Hon. Mr. Trutch's letter reMiiectintf plant and niaterialH to Ihj taken over by eontractort of work done tin Ks(|uimalt (Jraving Dock, up to 30th ,Fune last. (Printed on Page 149 of the Kvidence.) Lkttkr from Chief Kngineer, Deliartment of Public Works, to Hon. J. W. Trutch, informing him that two tenders, which were receiveartnient of Pidilic Works, to Hon. J. W, Tnitch, reine 3, '84. Subject. LuiTKH from Michiiel CiiuiidIIv to <). K. Murpliv, re«iuestin>r liiiu to endeavour tosifureliy private tender tontriict for work to Im- clone in conneetion with the ent'tion of fortH in Hiitish Ciihnnbin ; uIho refer> to extennion of Dock. (Print«? to O. K. Murphy, i-oiueNtintr liini to wee autlioritien with a view of having the double entrance- at tlie heaecting the substitution of granite for sand stone. (Printed on Page IIK) of the Evidence.) Lkttkk fii>ni R. H. McCJreevy tot). K. Murphy, informing him that second entrance of Es<|uimalt Dock has been done away with, and circular he:«l substituted in lien thereof, and that the granite substitution was just alsiut lieingsent to CiMuicil, but that his letter was receive1 of the Evidence.) St.U'KJIKNT showing amount dedu<>ted from estimates for value of plant, hi n Larkin, Connolly & Co.'s contract for completion of Ks<)uinialt Ciraving Dock. (Printed on Page 1!I3 of the Evidence.) Rki'okt of Chief Engineer, Department of Public Works, to Minister of Public Works, recounuending that W. IJennett, Resident Engineer at Es<|uimalt, l)e notified that his services will not 1m' reipiire, ;y statement of claims on account for contract for coin))Ietion of Siraviiig Dock at Esijui- malt, and infortMing them that matter h.is \wf\\ n^ferred to Cliief Engineer for ri'iK)rt. (Printed on Page liHiof the Evidence.) LK'rPKK from Se<;retary, Department of Public Works, to .1. S. Nond, infonning him that no infonnation can Is. given as to the (piantity of cement wliicli will Ih' reiKk iit KHi|iiiiii»lt, ami of Knuiiu'cr's iviily. totft-thcr \>illico]>y of rt'iMjit mmi the KiiKiii<'<'r« Kini|i|ili' li .Morrin on tlii' iil)<)v«' Ivock. (Sec PiitCf I'.l" of tho Kvidfinf.) Lkitkii from Sccretiirv, Drpiirtiiifiit of I'ulilic Works, to Hon. .[. W. Tnitcli, r»'«iii'Ctiii(f claim of McNaiuff & Co., to U- paid for plant funiixhed li.v them in connection with the workH of KMipiiinalt (iravin^ Dock, and reiiiieHting to be snpplie.v (iovernment, Ac. (Printed on Pagi' lit" of the Kvidence.) Pkojii.ihoky Xotkw (5), dated (iiielM-c, 1st Ma.v, 1883, for ^"^OOO each, all signed Larkin, Connollv & ('<>., ix'r O. K. M. (See Pajre 2(H) of the Kvidence.) Pliojlissonv NoTK.H (.">), dated (^\iel>ec, -'nd .lune, 1884, all signed Larkin, Connolly tt Co., ii«'r (). K. M., and nuwle pavabh' to memlH-rs of the firm. (.See Page 2(M» of the Kvidl'lice.) Pkominsohv Notk, dated <^\ielH'c, 28tli No\eml)er, 1884, signed Larkin. Connolly it Co.. jH'r O. K. .M.. to order of Michael Connolly ; also Voucher foi' ."sI.ihhj, n (^MieU'C llarlHinr Improvements. (.S'e Page 2. I.Sce I'age 2n';ot the Kvidence.) CuKyLKS (2M), together with a receipt from I!. II. Mc(ireevy, dated 25tli .lanuary, l.'t87, for A1.'».(K)0. (See Page 2, '85, Jan. l(i, '85. 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 SYNOPSIS OF EXHIBITS. •s Date. S\ll,j.'L't. J8 Mar. 28, "85.. Leitkk from Micline] rnnnnlly to < >. K. .Murphy, aeknowliKlginf,' Ictti-r of IHtli Man-li, tr.inHiiiittint; c'Iimiuc ifor >*r>,l1K>. (I'rinte.. LKrrKli from Mii'liiicl Connolly to (>. K. Miirnliv. informing him of intcrvifw hml with Cliii'f Knttineer, l)f|iartnient of I'liKliu Workn, after tht> liitter'M rcturit from BritiHh Coliniibiii. (Printed on Page 2(K> of the Kviilence.) L« ■Tan. o '85.. Lkttkk from P. Larkin to O. F. Mvirphy, Mtatihg that he hu|ies getting Bunk of Toronto to put \ip security deiHwit. (PrintfHl on Page 2(M> of tlie Kvidcnce.) M8 Jan. 17, "8."). . Lkitkh from P. Larkin to (). K. Murotiy, reHj>eeting Nulwtituticm "f necurity deiHwited in conneL'tioii with KH(|uinialt (Jrnvni^j |)oi-k contract. (Printed on I'iige 2*1" of the Kvidenw. ) N8 Feb. 12, •8.5. . Lkttkk from Michael Connolly to C). K. Murpliy, acknowledging receipt of letter, dated 2nd Feliruary, n extension of (iraving DiK'k, and urging that steps lie tiken to have 'lie pinnp niiu-hinery and it.i numagement turned over to the firm. (Printed on I'age 2 of the Kvidenee.) B» Feb. 1, 85.. Lkiter from Michael Connolly to (). K. Murphy, informing him that (Jallagher has a force of men wf)rking at the cpiarry. (Printed on Page 210 of the Kvidenee.) S8 Feb. O ■"1 •S(i . Lcttkk from M. Cimnolly toO. K. Murphy, stating that Sir Hector wired instruc- tions to Trutcli to measure all stone in the Dock full as built. (Printed on Page 210 of the Kvidenct-.) T8 •Ian. 21, '81! . LnTKK from Michael Connolly toO.Ei Murphy, informing him of interview had with British Columbia NL P's., res|s'iting extension of (iraving iJock at KiMpiimalt. (Printwl on Page 210 of the Kvich'iice.) U8 .Mar. Hi, •W).. Lkitkh fi'oni .Michael Connolly toO. K. Murphy, n's|»'cting deductions iniuh' by \V. Bennett, Resident Kngineer, Kscpiimalt, on monthly estimates for plant. (Printeee Harlxiur Improvements. (l*riiit<(l on Page 215 of the Kvidence.) m Jan. 8. '82.. Lkttkh from Michael Coimolly to O. K. >ruri)hy, r( Cross-wall Contract. (I'rinte< (2) one for !?.5,(J(»(), dated , dated, t^uebec, ■ 2(>tli March, 188(>, on luion Hank, payable to order of "Omselves." (.See Page 2;W of the Kvidence.) III Chkulk for .«G,00<), dated l^iel)ec, 2l8t NovemU-r, 1887, on Bank of British North America, and made jiayable to the order of N. K. Connolly. (Sei'Page 231 of the Kvidence.) J9 Auk. 19, '84.. Lkttkh fron> Hon. .f. W. Trutch's Secretary to .Seci-etary, Department of Public Works, enclosing copy of advertisement re Ksquinuilt Graving Dock, amended lier telegram of 8tli .\ugust inst. (Printed on Page 242 of the Kvidence.) K!) . • . Dl.vHV of 0. K. Murphy for year 1881). Lit DiAKY of O. K. Muri)hy for year 1S80 Di.vHV of O. K. Murphy for year 1881. DiAHV of O. K. Murphy for year 1882. Dl.\HV of (). K. Murphy for year 1883. Dl.\uv of O. K. Muri>liy for year 1884. M9 N9 09 P9 . , , , ■ • • • • • Q9 ... Djahy of O. K. Murphy for year 1885. xcvm 64 Victoria Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 SYNOPSIS OF EXHIBITS. Subject. \V9 X!» Y« Z« AlO BIO CIO DIO ElO FIG GIO HIO 110 DiAiiv . K. Mui|ili.v for yvM- ISNtl. DiAKV of O. K. Murphy for year 18M7. DiAKY of (). K. Muipliy for y3 of the Kvidence. ) Bank PAss-iifM)K of O. K. Murphv, in aceount witli I'nion llaiik of I/iwer Canada, from iHt June. l«S(i. to »>tli Mav. isss. (See I'lifii- •_'.■>■» of tlie Kviileiie.-. ) PllOMissoHY NoTKs iH) for !>H.«,fNtt) iind -ST-'itt, . K. .Murphy's account with .las. M.-xcXider * Co., from 11th January, 1SS;|, to 17th ( IctoU'r of the same viar. (See Page 271 of the Kvidence.) Promissouv Notk for .'j«ltHI,(KH», signed .Michael fonnolly, and niiide payahli' to onler of K. Murphy, and endorsed on Kick " Pay to the order of U. II. .M{t;ree\y ; K. Murphv: without recourse." (.See Page 272 of the Kvidence.) May 28, '83.. Ohdkh in Coincii, (Certified Copy of) authorizing Department of Railways and Canals to enter into contract with >'r. .lulieu ChalHit, for a term of five v»'ars, for the ser\ ices of the vessel " .Vdmiral. ' (Printed on Page 287 of tli.' Kvid.-nce.) Xov. 7, '8;i. . CoNTltA(T Wtwtin .lulien Clialmt and Minister of Hallways and Canals to nui IiIh I Hteamer " Admiral ' on Bale des (^haleurs, lietween Camphellton and (iasjie, i in conuet tiou with the Intercolonial Railway, for five years. I (Printed on Page 28S of the Kvi.lence.) . . !St.\TKMKXT of t). K. Mm-phy, as p\ililislnil in the newspaiH-r " LeCanadien.' ( Printed on Page IMH'i of the Kvideiu-e.) June 3, '8."). . Lk'itku from P.MacKwan to Larkin, Connolly i\: Co., stating that all chetpies drawn uiKm Union Bank of l^)wer C.tnada will retpiin' to lie HigntHi bv one menilx-r of the firm, and coimtersigned by another. (Printed on Page .lOO of the Kvidenci-.) CllKylK, dated (Quebec, l,"ith SeoteinU-r, 1881, on Kxchange Bank, Olean, X.V., for 82,;i"><», to order of K. Murphy, signe, '84. Feb. 10, '84., Dec. 12, '84. Dec. 25, '84. Sept. 11, '85. LirrTKU fniiii .Ktiretary, D<'partiiient of Railways itiid CanalM, to <). K. .Miiipliy & K. H. Mt'lireevy, n-tiiriiiiiK ileinmit n^'i-ipt for ^..">0(>, wIiilIi nci'tiiiiiukiriHl tlii'ir ti-mlt'i', for work in connection with the u|i|K-r and lower entranci' of tlie Sault !Ste. Marie Canal. (l'rintee|>artnient of Public Workn. (««• Vuge Xn i>f the Kviiienc.-. ) Statkmkst in connection with British Columbia Dock, (^ueliec HarUmr Iniprove- nientH, and Protitu of K. H. Mc(Jn'evv'» account. (Printe8 of the Kvidence.) LktTKK fi-om X. K. Connolly to (). K. Murphy, referring to the lengthening of the British Columbia (iraving I)8 of the Evidence. ) Final Estimate (Xo. 37) of value of work done and materials delivered by Larkin, Connolly &, Co. up to 30th DtH:ember, 188'J, under contract for construction of Cross-walls. .June 24, '91. , Lkiter from M. (!. Dickieson to H. V. Xoel, griving amounts |>aid to Quebec Bank on account of Bale des Chalmrs Railway Com|iany. (Printetl on Page 405 of the Evidence. ) C 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 SYNOPSIS OF EXHIBITS. Ill re Lviiiff liis ting, Ikiii, Itiun ank 5 s Xio YIO Zio All Hll Cll mi Kll Kll enwm whom Hon. T. Koliitaille may . direct. (Printed oii Page 40(1 of the Kvidence.) LriTKit fnim Hon. T. Kol>itaiIle to H. V. Ni*!, rtKiiiewting him to jiay to R. H. Me- (;re«'vy the chHiue nent him liy (J. H. Biirland. ( Printed on Page ■l(Xt (")f the Kvidence. ) I ■LhTTKii from R. H. MclJreevy to H. V. Xoel, Htating tliat he liax an order on him I for !?S,(KIO, and nnjuenting to lie informed whether he iH to wnd the 8ame to him or whether he will have to ^o to Ottawa to draw the amount. (Printwl on Page 400 of tiie Kvidence.) ILkttkk from Hon. T. Roliitaille to H. V. N«)el, r«(|ueRting that cheque gent him by I (;. B. IJnrland for #8,000 be iwiid over to R. H. McCretvy. : (Printetl tm Page 407 of the Kvidenw.) Lettkk from a. H. liurland to H. V. Xoel, encloxing cheque for #8,000, which/uni is to be i>aid over to any jteraon whom Hon. T. Robitaille may direct. (Printed , 83. May 10, '83. .\pril 5, "no. Lll 'May 25, '88. (Printed on Page 407 of the Kvidence.) ititaille may direct. ST.\TEJlKXTof imymentH made by the Dominion (Jovernment to Quebec Bank on lK)Wer of attorney from the Baie den Clialeurs Railway Co. (Printed on Page 408 of the Kvidence.) Rbceiit for #1,000, iH'ing nniount contributed by Larkin, Connolly & Co., towards Langevin Tentimonial Fund. (PrintHl on Page 40!lof the Kvidence.) Letter from Simon Peters to Deputy Minister Public Works, calling attention to his tender for tlie construction of Cnws-wall, and stating that same will, u|>on examination, Im ftli May rr his tender for construction of Cross-w.ill has been communicated to the Ciiief KngintH-r, and tliat scliedule of tenders iia.s bt\-n handed to llie Mini.ster. (Printed .m Page 417 of the Kvidence.) ORUiiXAl. notes of Simon Peters in comparing his tender with that of Larkin, Connolly & Co. for construction of Cross-wall. (See Page 423 of the Kvidence.) CoMIWRATIVE statement of Larkin, Coimolly & Co.'s tender with that of Peters (t (il in connection with the cimstruction of Cross-wall. (See Page 423 of the Kvidence.) ST.\TEMEN"r of amounts paid to Contractors, Harlxmr Improvements, from Ist Mareh, 18S!i, to 5th April, 18!K). (Printed on Page 482 of the Evidence.) Letter from Secretary De|^iartnient of Railways an! Canals to .Tulien ChaVxjt enclosing for execution draft contract in iluplicate re Rteanier " Admiral." (Printed on Page 500 of the Kvidence.) ci ■ 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 SYNOPSIS OF EXHIBITS. Mil Nil OH Pll • ill * RU Mil TU UU VU Wll xn Yll zu A12 B12 C12 Sulywt. May 17. '.HI. Fpb. 2, 'MS. X(iv. 2K, ■*». F«li. 25, Vl. Mivy 10, '88. I May 20, '01. June 3, '.n . July IS, "'Jl. July 20, '01. July 20, "01. Nov. 22, '83. May 1, '83. Lkttku frfiiii St'cn-tiiry !>i'|Mirtiiu'iit Kiiilways ikiul CaunlH U> Julit-n Clinlxit calliiiK hJH attciiticiii to til)' fad tliiit tlif Hirrccinciit n ntcaiiK-r "Admiral" scut to liiiu for «>x)'<'Utioii liaN not Iwcn ri'turiiid. (Printed on I'agi- "Hitl of tln' Kvidi-nuc.) BiM, OK Hale of Hti-aun-r " Admiral " by .luli«-n CliaUit to K. H. Mc(trec\y. (Mil- I'aKi' ."lOT of the Kvidenw. ) MoKTifAiiK taken liy .1. (i. Hoh» on Htcanicr " Admiral "' un ntHin'ity on monpy liiftliefl by liim to Julit'ii C'iialMit. (See l'a(f<- r)(IH of the Evidt-nef.) \«.^I(:nmknt by Hon. Tlionia.-i Mi-tirccvy to Nicli(>la.s K. Connolly of Htfamcr "Admiral." (Sw J'agu .MM* of the Evidi-ncf.) Ohdek in f'ofNcil. (Certifiefl Ct^iy of) a\itlu>rixing Dciiartmcnt Kail\vay« and CannU to t-ntfr into coiitrac-t with Julifn CliaUit for a tfrni of five yearn for tlit) wrvit'ex of tlie " Admiral." Draft contract annexed. (I'rinted on I'age ,"il3 of the l')vith .Si'iitemU r, 1SK8, inclusive. {Sif I'age ."(Hi of -h,' Kvidence. ) Statkmknt of \. K. Connolly's ctount with I'nion Bank of Caniula, from 23rd January, 18K0, toOth'Jime, 1S80. inclusive. (See I'a^fe oltl of tlie Kvidence.) Statkmknt of Larkin, Connolly * Co.'s aecmuit with I'nion Bank of Canada, from 30th Ufcenilier, 1888, to 30th .lune, 18W>, inclusive. (Sec Page ."illi of the Kvidence.) Tkleoka.m from \. K. Coiniolly to Martin I'. Connolly requestinf? him to come to Ottawa to tfive evidence. (I'rinted on I'agi' .">23 of the Kvidence.) TKi.K(iltAM from N. K. ("oimoUy to Martin 1'. Connolly re(i\ieflting him to return to Kingston without delay. (I'rinted on I'agt! .">23 of the Kvi. r. ■fw. 112 .... ... .112 lull. 2H, "Ht;. . LtrrrEH from lion. TIum. MclirtN'vy to .liilicn f'lmliot iicknowli'difintt iiiorttfa(;t' (fivrii to. I. (i. UoHK on HtiiinitT " .Vdniinil." (I'riiitc*! on I'li^r "iiiJI of tlic Kvidi'MCf. ) . Lk';'I'ku from •liifi. y. .MHirovy to 'l'<'vy of striitncr " Adniiral." I (I'rinti'd on I'uK'' •"''' I if ilu' K\iilcni'i'. ) MK>fi>. slK'wiuK final divi»ion of iiroHls in KKiinimalt (iraviuK |)(k1< contract. i (I'rinti'd on I'ui^c ."i(i!i of tl'" Kvidino'. I . NoTAlllAI. I'roti'Kt liy Hon. 'rims. .Mdirri'vy to Hon. 'I'll. ... Kiiljit4iill<- iii n Hiii' di-M I Cliali'urM Hail, ay Co. (I'rinti'd on I';it{i'."i7!l of till' I'vidi'iici'.) I-' K12 ].Mar. ICi. 'ill . I'HfM'ks-VKltliAT, of si(fnitiiation liy \. K. Connolly to .Inlii'n Clialmt in of Sail' of Hti'amcr " .Vdiniral." (Printed on Pa^e '>>^7 of iliv Kvidence.) 1) 1 L12 isi'pt. '20, 'SL'. M12 N12 ()12 PI 2 Q12 R12 812 .VUTlci.Ks of Co-|)artni'r.slii|i .-i^fned liy tin' minilii'is <.f tlie tirii' of Larkiii, ( 'onnolly \- Co. fur till' |)ur|io.--i' of lurrying; on tlii' contraeti* for tlic I'ri'ilKiiiK' of tlie , llarlxiin' of i jneU'e and Kxtenition of I'rince.s.s Loiiim' Kmlianknirnt. (.See I'ajfe ."I'.M of tlie Kvidence. ) Mkmo. prepari'd liy |{. H. .McOreevv (*lir"iii;; the ditferenoe in |iriei'.s a.-ked liy the several tenderers to do the ilredtfinK' riiinired in the HarUnn' of \>nelH'i'. J (I'rinti'd on l'a^?e .V.l."> of the Kvidenee. l Mkmo. shewiiijf cost of dred>rin(f dnrin^ Heawiii of 1S,SI>. (I'rinted on I'ajfe .Ml" of the Kvidence.) MkMo. )ireiiari'd liy l{. H. Me< ireevy in n dred^'inK' Harlmur of < Jnelx'c. (I'rinti'd ou I'a^fi' "I'.t.s uf the Kvidence.) May 4, 'Ki. . AiiKKKMKXT entered into hy (ii'o. HeancaRi' with Larkiii, Connolly & Co.. surrender- ini; his rights in tender sent liy him to llarlmnr Commi-^ionei-s for construc- tion of Cross-wall. (I'rinted on IV'e Cld of the Kvidence.) May 8, 'US. . LKrrKii from Hon. 'Hios. Me* ireevy to IJ. H. .\lc(ireevy statinjf tliat .\Ir. Iloyd ha.s not coni|ilited the plans for Cross-wall. (rrintedon I'age tlOL' of the Kvidence.) I'mmiiillAl'll Copy • ' Memo, shewintf dilTerence of tenders for sheet- pi lin^r. (.See I'.'tfe («)•_' of the Kvidence.) Leiteu from |{. If. Mc< ireevy ti- (' V, Murphy, rcijnestintf him to have Mr. Ci nolly write Mr. I'erley in reply to the hitters letter to Heaueanre. informi him of error in prices in liis tender for sheet-piling and pile driving'. (I'linted on Tage li04 of the Kvidence.) m- T12 ■•hii). 17, "Mil. . liKITKlt from K. H. Mctireevy to <». K. Murphy, statin),' that he has Ut-n informed ij liy Hon. Thus. .Mc(in'evy that tenders forl,|ueU'C llarlKair Works will Ix.' culled for immediatelv. I (I'rinted on I'ajfe liO" of tile Kvidi-uce.) cm 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) SYNOPSIS OF EXHIBITS. Subject. A. 1891 i ' ^ 4 I ; ?{; "'0 U12 Mar. 13, '84. . Lettrk from R. H. McOreevy to (>. E. Murpliy, stating that lii^ will get his brother to interview the Chief Kngineer, Department Pnhlic Works, and Mr. Valin, I in reference to the (Jraviiicf Dock at t^uelM c. (See Page (ilO of tne KviJence.) V12 W12 X12 Y12 1884 1887 . .'LkttkK from R. H. \[c'.;reevy to O. E. Mtirphy, connnunicating result of interview had betwei'U his brother, Hon. Thos. McCJreevy, and the Chief Kngnieer, Department Public Works, resi)ecting completion of Graving Dock. (Printed on Page tilO of the Evidence.) PROGKE.SM EsTlM.\TE« of value of work done by Larkin, Connolly & Co., in con- nection with the second contract for dredging liuelxic Harbour. (!See Page 012 of the Evidence.) April 23, "89. . Letteii from R. H. McGreevy, addressefl to the members of the firm of Larkin, I Connolly & Co., protesting iigainst the payment of his share of 925,000 ex- I i)ended W them without his knowledge for contracts, &c. (Printed on Page (118 of the Evidence. ) Dec. — , 84. Z12 ;Sept. 22, '8S. A13 jMar. 1, '88. B13 Mnr. 8, '88. C13 D13 E13 ri3 Jan. 22, '8J. Dec. 22, '80., Jan. 27, — . May 4, '87. 013 Jan. 14, '8".». H13 June 27, '8l». Aktr'les of co-partnership signed by the members of the firm of Larkin, Connolly & Co. for the puritose of carrying on the ct)ntract for the construction of (Jraving Dock at Esmiimalt. (Printed on Page Glit of the Evidence.) . RE(;Ein' fi-oni C. Vincelette for S.500, being anio\mt contributed by O. E. Murphy towards a Catholic enterprise. (Printed on Page 022 of the Evidence.) .\(iliEKMENT signed by menil)er« of the firm of Larkin, Connolly & Co. re sale to R. ! H. MctJreevy of Stone, Buildings and Plant on Works at Esquinialt, P<.C. j (See Page (>2!t of the Evidence.) .! Letter from Hon. Thos, McClieevy to R. H. MctJroevy, requesting him to inform O. E. Murpliy that he has seen Chief Engineer, Department Public Works, who will reiM)rt to the Arbitrators on the amount of claim to be submitted to them. (Printed on Page 034 of the Evidence.) Letteu from R. H. Mclireevy to O. E. Murpliy, stating that his brother wired to- day retpiestiiig Chief Engineer, Department Public Works, to send at once it'ixirt re drawback. (Printed on Page 035 of the Evidence.) Letter from R. H. Mc(ireevy to O. E. Murphy, enclosing copy of the extension of three tenders for South Wall. (Printetl on Page (137 of the Evidence.) Leti'EK from R. H. McGreevy to O. K. Murnliy informing him that the Chief Engineer of the Department of Public Works was seen in reference to his report on claim in connection with the St. .To.seph Dock. (Printed on Page 03!t of the Evidence.) Letter from Hon Thos. Mc(Jreevy stating that the Chief Engineer, Department Pulilic Works, is delaying sending in his rejicrt in re draw-back until Harljour affairs liefore the House have been settled. (See Page 0311 of the Evidence.) Letteu (Copy) fnmi R. H. McCireevy to Hon. Thos. MctJn^evy eiicUwiiig account ainounting to .':i'57.545, (Printed on Page 044 of the Evidence.) Declah.\tiox, being copy of original exhibit from the records of the Sujierior Court, Quebec, in the case of Hon. Thos. McGi-eevy f«. R. H. McGree\y. 113 Jan. 11, '!tO. , Dei'EXH.vnt's Plea in the same case as foregoing (Kxhibit " H13.") civ 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 SYNOPSIS OF EXHIBITS. J 13 I Dec. 12, '8!t K13 Nov. 5, '(H). L13 iXov. 12, '!X) M13 Nov. 12, 'iK). . N13 Jan. 21, '!K). . U13 l)w. 17, '8U . ns leiiieiitiiry Dt-niaiul in the «anie case as furegoing (Exhibit " U13.") A14 D14 Intrkiiooatios's of the parties to the Plaintiff in the oaine case as foregoing (Kxhibit "H13.") 1'laistifk'« answers in the same case .is foregoing (Exhibit " H13.") I'laintikk's (le|X>sition8 in the same case as foregoing (Exhibit " H13.") Plaintiff's s|)ecial answer to the incidental proceeding in the game case as fore- going (Exiiibit " H13.'") DefkN'DAXt's amended plea in tlie same case as fon-going (Exhibit " HI.''.") Corv of Defonihuit's Bill of Particulars tiled with his Plea in tlie same case as foregoing (Exhibit "H13.") Plaintiff's Exhihit at trial, In-ing copy of acco\nit referred to in the same case as foregoing ( Kxhibit " H13. ') (For Exhililts " H13 " to "t^US," see Page (J45 of the Evidence.) Hl.o'lTKK of R. H. Mc({reevy. I/sK Shkkt of Bi.otteh, from lOtli .Iiine to 23rd .Tuly, 188". LoosK Shkkt of Hlottkr, from 7th January, 1887, to 2nd May, 188!). JouBXAL of R. H. McUreevy. ILkihjkh of R. H. McGreevv, I (For Exhii)its " llVi " to " V13," see Page 052 of tlie Evidence.) iCoi'y OF .lliHiMKNT rendered by the Su|ierior Court, (iuebec, in rt Hon. Thomas Mc(ireevy r«. R. H. AlclJreevy. Okdek in Council (Certified Copy of) aiithurixing the Harlxmr Connnissioners of ijueln-c to refiuul to the conti.ictiirs for the (iravin^ Dock at Levis, the sum of ^oO.IXMt de|N)sited by then lis stcurity. (I'rinted on I'age (i!l4 of the Evidence.) iLktTKH from Ciiief Kngineer, Department of Public Works, to Hen. .F. W. Trutch, respecting tlie substitution of griiiiite for sandstone in iiortionsof Es(iuinialt IJraving Dock. (I'rinted on Page (ii)4 of tlie Evidence.) iLettku from W. Bennett, Hesideiit Kn^'ini'er at Estpiiiiialt, to Hon. J. W. Trutch, i enclosing Progress lOstimate No. 10 of work cNccuted by Larkin, Connolly I & Co. in connection witli tlie ];.-(|iiiiiialt (iiaving Dock. I (Printed on Page I)!I4 ol tlie Kvideiice.) Lettkh from Chit'f Engineer, Departniwit of Public Works, to Hon. J. W. Trutch, enclosing copy of the cuntiait entered into between the Department and Larkiii. ('oiiiiolly & Vi<., for tlii' ( niiipletion of Ksciuiiiialt (jraving Dock. (Printed (111 Page (I!).") of the Evidence.) Final Estimate of work done and materials delivered up to tlie 31st tFuly, 18S7, at I Es(|uinialt (iraving Dock by Larkin, Connolly & Co. .Mar. 3, ■8(). .'Kki'OIIT of tlie Cliief Engineer, Department of Public Works, in ir application of Larkin, Connolly it f'o. to be paid drawback in connection with their contract for the completion of Ksiiuimalt < iraving Dock. (I'rinted on I'age OlK'i of the Eviileiice.) n ;. 30, '80. ,'LkITKH from Larkin, Connolly it Co. to Secretarv, Departiueiit of PuVilie Works, reipiesting the return of the cheipie deposited by them as security in connec- tion with their contract for Esijuimalt (iraving Dock. Printed on Page 0117 of the Evidence.) Feb. 24, 'm. Z13 Feb. 15, '80. Nov. 24, '84. B14 Nov. 8, 'S4. C14 (I fage CV ■ 't ,1 m 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 t I U:S SYNOPSIS OF EXHIBITS. 8lll)jtHt. Jan. 3, 's:,. E14 F14 G14 H14 114 .114 .ruly 27, '.11 , KU .luuc 24, X'). L14 IFeb., — "iK). J[14 'ApriM."), IHJ. X14 Ftl). 20, IK). 014 Mar. !l, S.j. I I P14 .Tiiiif 1, 'sa. tJ14 .tuly !t, 'S."). R14 S14 T14 Lk'ITKH from W. IV'iiiictt, Kfsidcnt Kiigiiu'cr at Ksiiuiinalt, to Hon. .T. \V. Trutoli, «uliniittinjr a comparative Htatcmcnt slu'wing the clitfcreno*' U-twi-en his t'stimatiMif the cost of compU'tinjf Kisipiinialt (iraving Dock, and Larkin, Connolly & f'o.'s tcndrr for the same. (Printed on Page (i!).S of tiie Evidence.) Estimate of tlu- cost of completing Es(|uinialt (iraving Dock, prepared by Kinipple & Mon-is. (See Page (i'(!l of tlif Evidence.) StatEJIKNT shewing actual time during which the dredges " .Sir Hector '' and "St. .lose|iir' were working; also the ipiantity of material dredged in (^uel)ec Harliour, during the month of -luly, 1H.S7. (S..e Page VlH) of the Evidence. ) Sr.UKMKNT shewing ailiial time d\n-ing which the dredges "Sir Hector" and "St. .loseph " were working ; also the <|uantity of material dredged in t^ueliec Harliour, duiiug tlu' month of .Vugust, 1H87. (See Page 71HJ of the Evidenc<-.) jSTATKMKNTof Hon. Thos. Met ireevy'.iaccount with "LaBan<]neNationale"fronilS!S2. Lk'ITEK fi-om the InsjH'ctor of the (^ueljec Bank to the Clerk of the Committee on J'rivileges and Klections stating that Hon. Thos. McOreevy has had no regular or deposit account with that liank prior to or since the year 1S,S2. Lettkh from .F. I',. Boyd treevy to Hon. Thos. McGreevy, ri settlement of liis claim in connection with Bale des Chaleurs Kaihvay Co. (See Page 72li of the Evidence.) DeI'OMIT Slip showing amount deiKisited by Clias. Mc(ireevy with the (Quebec Bank. (.See Page 742 of the Kvidence. ) LKTTKlt from .1. v.. P.oyd to Secretary HailKiur Connuission, stating that the dredging of the Tidal basin to a deptli of 2.") feiit at low water, over an ari'a siitlic ient to ajmit of the entrance of a large ocean steamer, will require the removal of alwiut liMI,(MM( cubic yards more at a cost of .SliXlHIO. (.See I'age 7.'>1 of the Kvideuce.) Statkmkxt pre[iared by Martin P. Connolly showing l{. H. Mdireevy's share of the profits received from contracts. (See I'age 7o" of the Evidence.) LKrrKli-UooK of Henry V. Perley, containing i orrespondence, rejKirts, iVc, in con- nection with i,lM(bec Harbour Improvements. (Se( Pi 7t> of the Evidence.) iLEITEK-BodK of Henry E. Perley, containing private correspondence. 1 (See Page 777 of the Kvidcnce. ) I'll .Tune 17, '.''2, . Lkttkk from .Sir Hector Langevin to Simon Peters, rerpn^sting him to send, as I promiseil, sonietliing for elections. I (Printeil on Pag.' 7«2 of the Evidence.) ovi 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) SYNOPSIS OF EXHIBITS. A. 1891 Uiitf. V14 IMay 7, '83. W14 X14 YH Z14 A15 B16 CIS May !», 83 Sulij.ct. Le'ITKk from Sir llfctor Latigfvin ti> Siiiidii I'l'tcrs, statins, in ifply to liis letter of the "ilitli iiist., that it will be iiii|Hissil>le for him to ti\ a day for the desired interview. (Printed on l'aK<" "8- of the Kvidinee.) Lkttku from Simon Peters to Sir Hector Lanjievin, reiiuestinjf that his tender for C'l'oss-wall will receive his consideration. (Printed on Pa^'e 7!^'.' of the Kvidence.) 1880-1883 8t.\tkjiext of account with Qiiehcc Bank in n Lan^evin Tt-stimonial Fund. (See Page 783 of the Kvidence. ) iSyN'op.si.s of the three tenders |iut in for the construction of the Cross-wall. Feb. 1, -87. Feb. 2(!, '85. (See Pa-fe 784 of the Kvidence.) onmussioner •s' IveiKirt for IS'.M), showing Plan taken from the (Quebec Harboi I'rincess Louise Kmbankinent and 1 locks. (See Page 78.") of the K\ idence. ) Mkmo. of meeting of the members of the Hrni of Larkin, Connolly & Co.. at which they agreed to i)ay SL'a.nuf), provided contract for dredging (^iieliec HarKiur was awarded to them. (I'rinted on P.age 8(l4 (^f the Kvidence.) LKrrKU from (). K. Mnr|>hy to P. Karkiu, stating, in ri'ply to his lettir. that frieni the sulistilution of granite fi e disappointed at the way they are U'iiijf tri'ated in respect Istone for the Ksipunialt (iraving l)ock. to (Printed on Page 81(i of the Kvidenct D15 |.Tan. 14, '8."). . Lkttku from ]'. Larkin to (). K. Murpliv, retpiestiiig him. in the event of having an interview with the Minister of Pul>lic Works, not to make anv definite arrangi luents initil after Nicholas Connollv's return. (1^ rinted on Page 817 of the K\ideuee. ) E16 F15 Dec. 18, '80.. Lkitku from P. Larkin to Micli.ael CoinioUy. counnimicating couversatioTi had with Mr. Toudinson in n (Jraviug l>oek, .lud eiapiiring whether Mr. .Shanly has leeu appoin diate acti t. d ; al: iO re(piestiug him to tu-gi ' vour frien Is " to t IKe nuuie- l of the Kvidence.) Feb. 24. "85. . LK'lTKlt from P. I.arkin to (). K. Muri>liv. statnig tliat if, after cousider.itio)i. it is lie b touuci that as nnicli can !«• made liy using either sandstone or granite, it would be as well to adheii' to the Use of the former. (See Page 8L',-. of thi' Kvidence.) IjKITKH from P. Larkin to (>. K. Mui pliy, ciimmunicatiut, contents of letter received by him from Michael Ci>iinolly in refiieiice to the substitution of granite for sandstone, .iiiil to the leiigtheuiugof the I'lscpiimidt (iraving Dock, and re- (|uestiug him to see " our friends " in this m.-itter. (Printed on Page 82.") of the Kvidi'uce. ) ■Lkttkk from P. Larkin to (). K. >Fuipliy. stating that he has not heanl of what is being doiic' at < )ttawa ill »■' lv--c|uiiiiall ( iraving I )oek niattir. j (See Page 821) of the Kvidence.) Lkitku fiom P. Larkin to Michael r^uiiolly, stating lu'hopisth.it Sii Hector will not recede from what he said alniut furnishing the funds for work controlli'd by Kiuipple ,t Morris. (Printed on Pagi' 828 of the I'lvidince.) Jl."> .lau. 27, '85. Lkitku from ( >. K. .Murphy to P. Larkin. iuformiug him of thi' receipt from < >ttawa of eertitieate of deposit, aud stating that he li.is not In aril anything from the Chief Kugiueer, Department Pulilie Works, in refereuci' to the Ksipiiiualt (iraving Dock, about which Hon. 'I'hos. Mc(irei>vy will napiire w hen in Ottawa. (IVinteil oil Page 811 of tlu' Kviih-nce.) cvii (il5 Feb. 18, ',85. I H15 Feb. 17, 85. I 115 .Iiini' IC, '81. I '1 I 'I > 51 i. (U T 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 SYNOPSIS OF EXHIBITS. IH I! ' ) I :'! I! .'[ K15 LIS M15 N15 015 P15 Jan. 19, '85. Feb. 1, '85. Ai)r. 28, '81. Apr. 5, '88. May 23, '87 Dec. lit, '85. Q15 R15 S15 T16 U16 Subject. Oct. 14, '87. May !t, '88. Mar. 8, '88. July 31, '82. . Aug. S, "82. Lkttich from O. K. Muriihy tu P. Larkiii, iiifoniiing him that ui)ou intiiiiatum received from the UarlM)ur Coiiimifwioners an well as the asHurance given him by " Friend Thomas " that they would see that they were jMiid for levelling balance of sand, he had in view of the above started the men at that work. (.See Page 842 of the Evidence.) Lkitkr from O. K. Murphy to P. Larkin, stating that he was leaving for Montreal to .sf»- Hon. Thos. Sicdreevy relative to the profiosed changes in the Esqui- mau (iraving Dock. (.See Page 842 of the Evidence.) Lettkk from P. Larkin to Michael Connolly, stating that he saw Mr. Page, and asked him whether he would consent to ins|>ect the works at (^uelx-c in the event of his being called uiKin to do so by the Government ; also refers to Mr. Simard, one of the Dominion Official Arbitrators, who promised him his good offices with Sir Hector. (Printetl on Page 842 of the Evidence.) Ammionmk.nt by P. Larkii\ to Nicholas K. Connolly of all his right, title and inter- est in the firm of Larkin, Connolly & Co., in the contracts for the con- struction of Cross-wall and dredging required in the Harbour of (iuel>ec. (Si'e Page 845 of the Evidence.) Mkmo. of (|uautity of materials di-edged by Larkin, Connolly & Co., under their contract with the (^neln^c Harliour Conunis-sioners, dated 23rd May, 1887, and sul)se. K. Murphy, reciuesting him to meet him in Montreal for the pur|s)se of arranging matters U'fore the meeting of Directors of the Kichelieu and Ontario Navigation Company takes place. (Printed on Page 910 of the Kvidence.) Leitku from the Minister Public Works to Hon. Thos. MciJreevy, stating that the contractors for the Levis (Iraving Dock should apply to the Harlxnu' Com- mission for a settlement of their account. (Printed on Page 947 of the Kvidence.) Leitkh from ITon. Thos. Mc(ireevy to R. H. Mclireevy, informing him that helian receivefl the pais-rs put in by the Baie des Chaleurs Railway Co., copies of which he will send him. (Printed on Pivge 9.'>2 of the Kvidence,) Lkttkr from Hon. Thos. Mc(!reevy to K. H. McClreevy, re(|uesting him to send money to pay the Hudson Bay Comiuvny. (Printed on Page 9.")9 of the Kvidence.) Lk'ITKK from Hon. Thos. Mc(ireevy to R. H. Metireevy, acknowle'lging recei))t of liis letter ri' Fly Bank, and inforuiing him that it is a matter to lie dealt with by the HarlKmr Connidssion. (Printed on Page lliV.t of the Kvidence.) Letteh from Hon. Thos. Me(!reevy to H. H. M(( Jreevy, informing him that he will be in <^uel)ec on .Sunday nioniing and remain over till Tuesday, anil reciuest- ing him to advise " our frit^nds " in case they sliould have anything to l)ring iH'fore Harlxnir Commissicm, to have everything reatiy. (See Page 9(i.") of the Kvidence.) Letter from Secretary De|mrtment Public Works to Secretary Harbour Commission, informing him that the Minister Public Works consents to the resump- tion of the dredging of the Tidal basin, jirovided the sum to l)« e\|iended d(H'» not exceed !?,')0,(«K), and that Connnissioni-rs so arrange with tHmtractors that tliey will not call for payment until Parliament fms authorized the (Ji>veniment to advance that sum to Oi\i'b»'c Harlxjur Counnissioners, (Printed on Page 974 of the Kvidence.) cix '5r T l;:ii m^ u I ll ■ . I' ' ii 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 SYNOPSIS OF EXHIBITS. 116 |Au(f. 12, '85. J16 Klti LKi MKi NKJ OlO PIO ilV, R16 810 TIG UIO VIO WKi XIC Sept. 3, '85. i Aug. 21, '85. Dec. 23, '8!t. 1S84 1«84 July (I, "HH. Feb. 2, '91. Jan. 7, 'ill . Fel). 3, '(II. Subject. Lkttkk fii)iii Lnrkin, Connolly it C'li. to Secretiiry Harlxnir ConnninMion, inform- ing him tliey accept conditions iiniMtHeil by MiniHter I'ublic Works in refer- ence to the resum|ition of the dreilg-ing re(|uire(l in Tidal liaNin, provided Engineer's certificate of amount due them is issue Mar. 23. '83. A17 June 29, '86. B17 C17 D17 El? ri7 rfi)art'r sujruestions for the consideration of tlie Commissioners with reference to the completion of the Harlxmr Works. (Printed on Page 10'.17 of the Kvidence.) Letteu from .1. K. Hoyd to Secretary Harliour Connnissioii, transmittiiiif a plan showing the exact condition of the liottom of Tidal basin. (Printed on Page W.\H of the Kvidence.) Extract from the Minutes of the Harlmur Commissioners res|H'cting suggestions contained in the foregoing Kxhiiiits " .\]7 " and " 1U7." (I'rinted on J'age UHt.s nf the Kvidence.) Leiter from .Secretary Harbour Commission to .T. E. Poyd, acknowledging receipt of his letter of the Uril .July, enclosing a plan showing tlie exact condition of the bottom of the Tidal basin and informing him that ('onimis.sioiiers have concluded an agreeiiient with the contractors, who have undertaken to dredge to a uniform depth of at least I'.'i feet, etc. (Printed on Page UHtS of the Evidence.) LKrrEli from Secretary IlarlHiur Commission to .f. E. Boyd instructing him to order the contractors to proceed witli the dredging, provided they consent to do the work at the prices iientioiied in their contract dated i"ith Sept., 1.SS2. ^PriIlte(l on Page 10!t!t of the Kvidence.) E.\TU.\cT from the Minutes of the Karboiu- Commission res-iecting the handling and levelling of the dredged material. (Printed on Page lO'.l'.t of the Kvidence.) Letter from >i'icl;ola.s K. Connolly to P. L.arkin, resi»'ctiiig award to them of con- tract for the completion of Ksipiimalt (iraviug Dock. (Printed on Page lid.") of the Kvidence.) Leiter from Sir Hector Langcvin to 1{. H. ^^c(II•eevy, requi'.sting to be informed of what is intended to lie ared by the .Vcting Chief Engineer of the Department of Public Works, showing difference between the estimated cost and tlie amount of the final estimate in the construction of Ksciuimalt (iraving Dock. (See I'age llLMiof the Kvidence.) May 18, '89. . Statement rcsiiecting the payment by R. H. McCreevy of .SH.u.'iOfor lands purchased by him from Hon. Tr.os. MeCireevv. (Sei' I'age 111)2 of the Kvidence.) Dec 23, '80. Le'ITEU from Chief Kngi^ieer HarlH)ur Commission to Secretary Harbour Commission, stating that owing to the death of . I. K. lioyd, it has iH'coiiie necessary to effect changes in tlie engineering staff, and recommenrls tliat Mr. .St. < 'eorge Boswell be api^x)inted Kesident Engineer, and C. McGreevy and Laforce Langcvin, Assistant Engineers. (Printed on Page ]1()3 of the Kvidence.) cxi July 3, '»!. July .">, '8(!. July 8, 'S(!. July 13, 'm. Oct. 5, '8inder their contract, dated 2.')th Hept., 1882. (Printed on Page IKU of the Evidence.) Repobt of Chief Engineer Harlxmr Commission on the ?110,000 claimed by Larkin, Connolly it Co., for damages siistaine8 of the Kvidence.) Letter from Larkin, Connolly & Co. to Secretary Harlxmr Commission, informing him that tliey have named Mr. .Tohn J. ^Iacdonald as their arbitrator in re settlement of their claim i» n (iraving Dock at Levis. (Printwl on Page 1168 of the Kvidence.) Letter frfim Secretary Harlxmr Commission to Larkin, Connolly it Co., infonning them, in reply to foregoing E.\hibit "R17,"' that the Cfonnnissioners h.-vve accepted the ap|K)intnient they have made. (Printed on Page IKiSof the Evidence.) Letter frfun Chief Engineer Harlxmr Commission to Secretary Harlxmr Commission, stating that Larkin, Connolly & Co. having reqtiested that a settlement of their claim shall l)e made by arbitration, and as the amo\nit asked for is involved in such claim, he advises that jmyment Ix not made unless Contrac- tors agree to accept the sum of .*3O,0i()O in full settlement of their claim, viz.: gillO,(K)0. (Printed on Page llfiO of the Evidence.) Letter from Chief Engineer Harbour Commission to Secretary Harlxmr Commission, conveying his opinion on the subject of the offer by Larkin, Ccmnolly it Co. to accept simi of .?35,00O with interest, in addition to the sum of .*i3(t,!i0(l offered by the Commissioners in full settlement of their claim in connection with the (iraving Dock. (Printed on Page 1169 of the Evidence.) Letter from Larkin, Connolly k Co. to Secretary Harbour Commission, stating that they will accept the i)roiK)8ition containetl in his letter of the flth inst. for the final settlement of their claim in connection with their contract for Graving Dock. (Printed on Page 1169 of the Evidence.) Statement of account of Larkin, Connolly & Co., in connection with Levis Graving Dock. (Printed on Page 1170 of the Evidence.) cxii 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 SYNOPSIS OF EXHIBITS. July 1, '8i(. 1880 1883 8fi Jan. 24, '87. 1884-8t> Aug. 4, '91. Aug. 5, '!)1. 1883-18!(1.... xir Y17 Z17 A18 B18 C18 1)18 E18 F18 Jan. 24, '87 018 Sept. 26, '83., HubJMt. H18 118 J18 KIS L18 Dec. (i, '84., Dec. !>, '84. Feb. 27, '80.. Lrttkr fnini Liirkin, Connolly A Co. to St-cTi-tary HarlKiiir CunmiiHHion, rwiunHting the puynient of l)alanc<- dtit' tliein on tlicir < ontract fur the (Graving Duck. (Printf I on I'age 1170 of the Kviilence.) Htatkmknt of paynientH niiule to Kinipple & Morris in connection with the prepara- tion of drawings, &u. (l'rintert. (Printed on Page 1171 of the Evidence.) [Statkmknt of imyments ninde to Henry F. Perliy, Chief Kngineer Harbour Com- mission, from I'lth .lanuiiry, 188-1, to 8th Januarj-, 188!(. (PrintiMl on Page 1172 of the Kvidence.) Statement of Revenue and Kx|)enditurt' of the t^uebec Harbour Commission from 1870 to 18!H». (Printed on Page 1172 of the Evidence.) Statkmknt xhowing intere.st paid .inil due by (.^ueljec Harliour Commission on De- l)eutures, up to the .")th August, 18!tl. (Printed on Page 1172 of the Evidence.) St.VTKMKNT of payments made to St. ( Jeorge IJoswell, Kesident Engineer, from 1883 to 18i(l. (Printed on Page 1172 of the Evidence.) Fl.NAI, EsTIMATK of work done and materials supplied, &c., l>y Larkin, Connolly & Co. in connectiifli witli the construction ami conipletion of the tiraving Dock. (Printed on i'age 1173 of tlie Evidence.) Lkttek flom Larkin Connolly & Co. to l^ueU-c HarlHiur Commissioners, reepiesting to !«• allowed to construct ston-house on the Louise Embankment under certain conditions mentioned therein. (See Page H74 of the Evidence.) NoTAKlAi. protest Quebec HarlMtur Commissioners la. Larkin, CoimoUy & Co., for noil completion of Dock. (See Page 1174 of the Evidence.) Lkttkk fiinu Larkin, Connolly * Co. to Quelx-c Harbour Commissioners, in reply to foregoing E.vliibit "H18." (See Page 11^4 of the Evidence.) Joint Kkpout (Copy of), Messrs. H. F. Perley and Sandford Fleming on their examination of the HarlH>ur Works at 'Quebec. (See I'age 1174 of the Evidence.) Aug. 18, '86. .IRkpoht (Copy) of Chief Engineer Harbour Conunission, in reference to the wotka proiKjsed for the completion of the IJuels'C Harbtjur Works. (See Page 1174 of the Evidence.) Aug. 25, '80. . Letteu from Sectretary Department of Public Works toSeiTetary Harbour Commis- sion, transmitting copy of a re|Kirt and i)lan made by the Chief Engineer of the Department with reference to the various proiH)Nals made for the com- pletion of the t^uelx'C Harlxiur Works. (See Pago 1174 of the Evidence.) cxiii 1— H ft' 11 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 SYNOPSIS OF EXHIBITS. M h i: 11 ■Jli I i M18 Date. Subject. Sept. 24, 'm. N18 W78 1886.. 018 ;Feb. 8, '87. P18 !Aug. 18, '87, Q18 R18 S18 Sept. 10, '87. Aug. 27, '88. Aug. 27,' 88. T18 Oct. 14, '89. U18 V18 WIS X18 Y18 LhriTKR fniiu Chief KiiKim-^r llarlntur C(iiiiiniH8iwith hint waited, and riKiuestft, thcicfoii-, tliat I,. ri,an>;evin U' tnvn.-ifrm'd tti tho Harlxmr Work.i, and tliat the Mervieen of InM|iectr dredging hiis lieen violatem dumping in the River. I (See Page 1174 of the Evidence.) . Letteh from L.aforc(i Laiige\iii to Secretary Harlxmr Commission, calling attention I to the want of protection against tire on the Louise Eiul)imkment. I (See I'age 1174 of the Evidence.) July l!t, '00. 1887 Mar. 15, '83. SuxDKV Accounts of Larkin, CtmnoUy & Co. for work performed by them in con- nection with tlie Harlx)ur Improvements. (See Page 1174 of the Evidence.) Lkttek from V. Hiuet to Secretary Harbour Commis-tion, explaining loss of S25 stolen from iiis desk. (See Page 1174 of the Evidence.) E.VTll ACT taken from the Annual Re|iorts of the Harlxmr Commissioners of >Ion- I treal for the year 1887, showing |)rices iMiid for dnilging. ' (Printed on Page 1184 of the Evidence.) Letteh from Chief Engineer Dejuvrtment Public Works to Secn-tary DejMirtment Public Works, submitting for approval of the (Jovernor in Ctmncil the plans, 8ix(cifications, &c., for the construction of a Cross-wall and Dock. (Printed (m Page 1187 of the Evidence.) June 28, '83. . I Letter f Him Chief Engineer Department Public Works to Secretary Department Public Works, recomniending the apjxiintment of J. E. Boyd as Engineer 218 Mar. 19, '84.. in Charge of the (^uelx^c Harlxiur Improvements. (Printed on Page 1187 of the Evidence.) Extract taken from Chief Engineer's Report, dated litth March, 1884, and addressed to Secretary Department Public Works, stating that the plans of the Cross- wall were prepared under his direction. (Printed on Pasre 1188 of the Evidence.) oxiy 64 Victona. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 SYNOPSIS OF EXHIBITS. ( Al'J jDec. 22, "85. B19 C19 Jan. 11, 'm. Jan. 2S, 'm. Hiibjuct. D19 Sept. 15, 'm. El!» May 13, '87. Fl!» Mar. 19, '«4. G19 April 14, '84. I H19 |oct. 24, '84. 119 , Oct. 24, '84.. Lkfteh f«)m Chief Knfrin<>cr Dt'imrtnu-nt Pul)Iii' WorkM to Liirkin, Cdiinolly * Co., rtM|u<'Mtiii)f them to note, on one of tlie ciipieH therein eneloM<r Department I'lililic Works to Larkin, Connolly it Co., re«'n directed to give full meaNuremeiit on all Htone in Dock. (Printed on Page 1188 of the Kvidence.) LetI'KII from Chief Kngineer Department Public Works to Hon. .1. W. Trutch, stating that the Minister desires to Ut furnislunl with .i Knal estimate of the work done bv liurkin, Connolly it V.tt. on the (iraving DtK'k at Ks(iuiuialt. (Printed on l»age 1188 of the K\idence.) Lkitkh from Chief Kngineer HarUuir Commission to St. (!eo. IVwwell, re<|Mesting him to prepari- and give to Secretary Harli')ur Conunission plan showing IKjsition of sewer l)etween the ea.st i nil of iiiadenhall Street ami its outfall. (Printed on Page IISII of th.' Kvi^lenc-*'.) LkitkR from Starrs & O'Hanly to Secretary DeiMirtment Public Work.s, stating that they have discovered errors in their tender for the completion of the (iraving Dock at KM<|uimalt, and lisk to Ih- alloweock on account of error in prices given, and that their security deisislt be returned. (Printed on Page 11!I3 of the Kvidence.) Rktokt of Chief Kngineer Department of Public Works jv request of Starrs & O'Hanly, to Ih' alliiucd to withdraw their tender for completion of Kscpii- malt (iraving lJ(Kk and stating that the firm has made a serious mistake In the prices given by them. (Printed on Page UO.'i of the Kvidence.) cxv 56 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 TH i£. SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS ORDER OF REFERENCE AND MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. 1891. ,t if OrrAWA : PRINTED BY BROWN CHAM BERLIN, PRINTER TO THE (QUEEN'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY. . 1891. M / KRRA.TA^. Page 134 Page 140, Page 172 Page 210, Page 577. Page 580. Page 582. Pago 583.—; Page 584.- Page 593.- Page 1055. P.ige 1 105. Page 118£. Page 1329. -Exhibit "Pe," instead of "April. 1886," read, "April, 1884." -Seventh lino from the bottom, inste.ad of " Page 104," read, " Page 100 " -Exhibit "D7," instead of "June, 1889," read, "June, 1884" -Exhibit "88," instead of "February, 1885," read, "February, 1886." -Fifth line from top, instead of "service," read, "surveys." -Second question from bottom should read as part of the previous answer -F.fth question from top, instead of "asked if you had claims," read "Bstedifhe had claims." Seventh question from top, instead of "with at their request," read "without their request." ' -Ninth question from bottom, instead of " $300,000," read, - $30,000 " Fourth line from top, instead of " or take," read, " to meet." ^ -Third lino from bottom, instead of "cap. 67," read, "cap. 56." -Instead of Exhibit "G16," read. Exhibit "G17." It' of CoE r'r' f- " !''' S«Pt-ber," remi, " 15th September." [/^"^ aissBBgiBt m If iU 55 Victoria. Appendix (No 1.) A. 1891 WITNESSES. Brown, William 275 Brunet, Ludovic 276 Bradley, A. P. - " 291 Connolly, Michael ;31 do (ro-called) 51 do do 83 do do - - 195 Connolly, Nicholas K. 71 do ' (re-culled) .-,-.-.- 206 do do 230 do do 328 do do 338 do do ----- - 455 Connolly, Martin P. 206 do (re-cailed) 228 do do 289 do do 327 do do ...... 331 Fit/, PATRICK, Charles - - 204 GoBEiL, A. 88 do (re-called) 125 do do 197 Hyde, John 225 Kelly, Pathick . . - 202 Larkin, Patrick - - - 29 do (ro-ealled) - 138 Lightpoot, F. C. 442 Murphy, Owen E. 35 do (re-called) 107 do do 173 do do ....... 207 do do 231 do do - - ' 277 do do 293 do do 312 do do 440 McGreevy, R. H. 20 McNiDER, James 275 Noel, H. V. 421 do (re-called) - - 440 Pebley, Henry F. 136 ideiice on Page.s to - 293 - 34 do (re-callcd) 335 - - 71 - 88 - 82 - 331 - 419 - 464 - 230 - 291 - 328 - 335 - 206 - 107 - 136 - 201 - 228 - 204 - 31 - 139 - 443 - 50 - 124 - 195 - 224 - 275 - 288 - 309 - 328 - 28 428 442 173 338 iji ii > m W u ii fii, ! iS:i ].'* 11 *1 55 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 WITIHESSES— Concluded. Evidence on Pages Peters, Simon 428 - 440 do (re-called) 443-455 Roy, E. F. E. 19-20 Samson, J. B. Georoe 51 do (re-called) 81 Sharpe, Alex 51 Woods, James , • • 5-19 IV If r:i ^■'i: is 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 - 19 mTNESSES-Contimed. McGbeevy, Chas. ^o (rc-callod) do do McCrKEEVY, R. rl., Son. (ro-called) do do do do do do do do do (I'e-callod) do do do do do do do do do do do McGbeevy, E. H., Jr. McGreevy, Thos. do do ^OEL, H. V. do (re-called) O'IIanly, J. L. P. do (ro-called) Pebley, Henry P. do (lo-callod) do do - Pebley, Geo. E. Petebs, Simon do (rc-callod) - do do Bae, Wm. - . . . RiOPEL, L. J. do RoBiTAiLLE, Hon. T. RoDIEB, J. A. Roy, E. F. E. Samson, J. B. Geoboe do (ro-callod) SuABPE, Alex - . . Starrs, Michael - - . . do (lo-callod - Stewart, IIuqh - - . . Taillon, a. a. - Tabte, J, I, TlIIB.iULT, O. - - . . Valin, p. v. - . . . (ro-called) Evidence on Pajfes. ■ 783 to 789 - 790 - 1047 16 - 24 - 475 - 576 - 586 - 594 - 605 - 606 - 621 - 623 - 663 - 667 - 669 - 716 - 758 • 900 - 902 1161 - 1163 1185 1163 880 - - 899 902 - - 965 986 - - 1020 405 - - 412 424 - ■ 426 1189 1194 132 - 168 330 - 333 776 - 781 714 412 - 424 427 - 439 781 - 783 977 - 981 575 587 - 594 1091 - 1097 1157 15 - 16 47 77 47 1158 - 1161 1190 - 1194 1020 715 1163 685 - 687 477 - 505 M;" ill •I r 6^ I 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 WIT JiESSES— Concluded. Evidence on Pages. Vereet, A. H. 464 to 475 ViNCELETTE, C. - - ' 621-623 Williams, J. B. 663 - 666 Woods, James 1-15 do (re-called) 867-811 do do - - . • 899 do do 1158 t '4< ' I 'i if • ■ •. ■ vi A. 1891 64 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 Evidence on Page 4. 464 to 475 621 - 623 663 - 666 1 - 15 867 - 871 899 1158 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. House op Commons, Tuesdat, 26(;h May, 1891. The Committee met, Mr. Kirkpatrick in the Chair. Mr. James Woods swora : By the Chairman: Q. AVhat is your name? — A. James Woods, Acting Seerotaiy-Treasurer of tho Quebec Harbour Commissioners, Btj Mr. Geoffrion : Q. Since how long are you in the employ ot' the Quebec Harbour C )ramissioners ? —A. Since 1876. Q. You are now the Acting Secretary? — A. Yes; Acting Secretary-Treasurer. Q. There is no Secretary-Treasurer? — A. No; there is no Secretary-Treasurer. Q. Who was Secretary-Treasurer before the vacancy ? — A. A. H. Verret. Q. When did he cease to be Secretary-Treasurer? — A. In February, 1890. Q. Since then you have been in that office and you are the custodian of the papers of the Commission ? — A. Yes, Sir. Q. In compliance with the subpcjena that was served upon you, did you bring all the papers that you found in the Harbour Commissioners' office in connection with the contracts mentioned in the order? — A. All that I could see. Q. Can you tell whether amongst those papers there are the tenders which were called for the Graving Dock at L^vis some time in 1878 ? — A. Only a portion of them. Q. Plans and specifications would also be there? — A. The plans of the Graving Dock, I believe the Public Works Department has them. 1 arrangei! with the Engineer to forward all plans of the Louise Docks and Graving Dock, but I believe the Graving Dock plans have already been sent to the Department of Public Works. Q. Have j'ou also in connection with those papers the notices calling for tenders ? — A. No, Sir ; they are in a scrap-book in the office. I could send for tiiem. Q. No doubt they woukl be annexed to the contracts ? — A. Yes, Q. Do you remember also whether there was a supplementary contract in con- nection with rhose works — tjie L<5vis Dock ? — A. Yes. Q. Have you brought with you the correspondence and other papers in connec- tion with that supplementary contract? — A. I think so. (I. Can you now file them? — A. It would take mo a little while to go through them. Q. They are not classified ? — A. No. They are placed in bundles yearly. Tho work had to bo done in a very groat hurry in obedience to the oi'der of the Commit- tee, and there was no time to nuike a synopsis. If the time is given to mo I can deposit them, (I. You could at loust put your hand at once upon the supplementary contract that was passed in 18S4. if I am not mistaken ? — A. Yes, Sir; I think so. Q. Where are those papers — in the other room? — A. In tlie other room ; yes. (I. You had better go and get them ? — A. This is tho original contract for 1.S78, and the supplementary contract bound in one volume. Q. The correspondence is not in that volame? — A. No, Sir. Q, It would reiiuire a difierent search for you to find the cori'cspondence ? — A. Yes, Sir. 1 nuiy say it would take some time to collect that correspondence 1—1 IK i i V,\ I 1 M m. \\ 1 '■' I'r i 1 |) ' < 64 Victoria. Ai>penclix (No, 1.) A. 1891 Q. Are you in possession, also, of the tenders which were asked for in 1882 for ■dredffinjr the harbour at Quebec ? — A. Yes. (J. Was thero only one set of tenders? — A. I cannot remember exactly. Q. I mean was there not only one set, but were there two tenders called for in 1882 ? Get your minute book for 1882, Q, It was some time in May, 1882 ? — A, There was only a set of tenders to the best of my knowledge, Mr. Tarte — You are mistaken. On the 31st of May I think 3'ou will find it? — A. There are two sets of tenders, one is for dredging, and the other is for closing the opening at the gas wharf. By Mr. Geoffrion: Q. What date were those tenders?— A. 5th July, 1882. That is the date the tendeis were opened. (^. What is the date the tenders were called for? Mr. Tarte — 1 tliink it is some time in the month of May, A. This is the date — 31st May. Tenders to be called lor the dredging of the dock basin. By Mr. Geoffrion : il. Do you find in a minute book a resolution ordering the calling of tenders for the diedging of the dock basin ? — A. Yes. Q. Will you read the resolution ? — A, " Resolved, That tendoi's be called for the di-edging of our ilock basin according to a schedule to bo prepared by Mr. Pilking- ton, ihe Resident Engineer to this Commission." Q. Have you these schedules in your papers ? — A. I am not sure, Sir. i^. Well take in all schedules. — A. On the 7th June, 1882, tenders were invited for the v/ork of enclosing the Princess Louise Embankment, Q. Will j-ou read that resolution ? — A. " Resolved. That tenders be invited for the work of enclosing the end of the Princess Louise Embankment at the head ot the wet dock, bj- close-piling, in accordance with the plan, specification and bill of quan- tities ]M'epared by the Ecsident Engineer to this Commission and approved of at this meeting." Q. Do you find any resolution in the minutes, showing that the first tenders were accepted or acted upon in any way? — A. On page 35" of the minutes of 10th July. 1882, I fi'id " Resolved, That — -■." Mr. Tarte — I tl ink you are mistaken. I think that was on the 21st of .June. Q. I think you will find a motion made by Mr. Mctrreevy to the ett'ect that these tenders should not be opened — the first set of tendeis. Mr. Stuart — So far we have only got one sot. Mr. Geoffuion — If we prove that, you will find that there is a second set, AViTNEss — I find the resolution here at page 350 of minute book No. 4 ; — " Moved by Hon. Mr. McOreevy, seconded by William Rae, Esq., and Resolved, That inasmuch as it appears on the recommendation of the Ilarlioiir Master to be advisable that a depth of water in basin and docks, new hai'bour works, be increased from 2-i feet at low water to 26 feet, it be decided upon not to open the tenders for excavation, <\:c., on the 2-4-foot basis, but to advertize for tenders on the 2(> feet line, and Ihey bo required to be sent in by noon on Tuesday, 4th July prox." By Mr. Tarte : Q. Have you got the recommendation fr-om the Harbour Master? — A. There is here a letter, iSfo. 3G5. On the 21st June, 1882, page 349 of minute book No. 4, this appears: "Read a letter from Mr. F, Gourdeau, Harbour Master, recommending that the Commissioners take the opportunitj- of the new contract they are giving to add two feet to the depth of both tidal and wet docks." Q. Have you the letter itself? — A. I do not know until I look. Q. Please look for it later? — A, Will you take a note of the number ; it is No. 365 of the year 1882. 64 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1S91 By Mr. Geoffrion : Q. Aro you able to explain now to the Committee whether these first tenders were opened or not? — A. 1 cannot tell you, Sir, I was not Secretary at the time and I do not know anything about it. Q. Have you ascertained whether you have these tenders which were then before the IJoard of Harbour Commissioners among the ])apers which you have brought up? — A. The onl^' tenders I have seen are those which I iiuve brought with me. I have uot been able to examine them closely. They are there, so far as I can identify them. Q. You say you have not seen the other sot of tenders? — A. I have seen only one set of tenders, Q. Which you have brought here ? — A. Yes ; but I do not know whether they are the first oi- the second set. Q. Have you any entries in yoiu- minutes, or in any papers in your possession that would show where those tenders would be now ? — A. Not that I have seen. Q. You have not soon any? — A. There is nothing in the minutes, or anything on record that I have gone through. Q. You were not acting Secretary-Treasurer then ? — A. No Sir. Q. You have not seen any record or entry in the minutes to explain where the}' lire? — \. No. It might be possible for it to be there and I might not know it. The examination which 1 made was pretty cck filed as Exhibit A.) By Jlr. Geoffrion : Q. Will you ascertain whether any tenders were called for that contract in 188"? — A. There wore no tenders called. I would prefer to get the minute book and then I could reail the oiUiy. Q. What entry do you find in connection with that contract in the minutes? — A. 1 find the following in the minute of lOth May, 1887: " Koad a letter from Mr. Henry F. Perley, Chief Engineer of the Quebec Harboui' Works, tiansmitling a cojiy of a correspondence exchanged between himself and the contractors, Larkin, Connolly & Co., in relation to the dredging to be done in the wet dock, hai'bour works, a portion of which ho states it is desirable should be ilone during the ensuing summer, and recommending that the offer of Messrs. Larkin, Connolly & Co. to do the work at thirty-five cents per yard be accepted, as he considers their price to be fair antl reasonable, and suggesting that the expenditure in dredging during the year be limited to 8100,000," At the same meeting the following minute was made: " Eesolvrd, That a contract bo signed with Messrs. Larkin, Connolly & Co., agreeably with their tender, for dredging the basin of the new harbour works ; provided, first, that the dredged material be placed and levelled on the Louise Embankment or on such other locality belonging to the Harbour Commissioners or that may hereafter be acquired by tlleCommi^si()ners ; second, that the actual contract be confined to work this suniiner limited to an expenditure of §100,000; third, that after the conclusion of this season the Harbour Commissioners are to have the power to cancel this contract without claim for damages of any kind or compensation whatevei", the price in tender for dredging being thirty -five cents per cubic yard." Q. I see the resolution of the board was that this work at o5 cents was to be ■continued that summer? — A. Yes. 3 i m . ! i '?! 54 Victoria. Appi'iulix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 U'.i Q. Do you know wliether the work was continued during the following year ? — A. I believe it was, at the same rate and conditions, Q. Do you know if there are any minutes ordering the continuation of these works ? — There are leferences to it through the minutes. Q. It would require a long search ? — A. Yes. Q. Then take u note of it. Will you make a search to see if any such entries are made ? — A. I will. Q. My question would apply also to 1889. Do you know whether the same work was continued in 1889 ? — A. I cannot answer for that. Q, Could you ascertain by your books whether the woik was continued in 1889?— A. Possibly I could. Q. It you could not from the books you have brought with you. are you in n position to ascertain it at your office in Quebec ? — A. I have all the Engineer's cer- tificates here, thej' will show it. Q. Do you know whether any tenders were asked for and received in connec- tion with the cross wall contract in 1883 ? — A. A minute of the 2nd May, 1888, reads as follows : " The tenders received for the constiiiciion of a cross wall in connection with the harbour impiovemi-nts are then placed on the table and opened, the said tenders being signed by the following named parties respectively: 1st. Larkin, Connolly & Murphy, L^vis. 2nd. J. Samson & A. Samson, Quebec. 3rd. John Gallagher, Montreal. -ith. George Beaucage, Quebec. 5th. Simon Peters and Edward Moore, Quebec. "Each of the said tenders enclosing an accepted bank cheque for the sum of 87,500 made to the order of the Honourable the Minister of Public Works, is then examined separately, and the whole having been found prepared in confoiniity with the stipulation of the advertisement published, the Secretary is thereupon directed to forward by mail the said tenders, with their cheques, to the Hon. the Minister of Public Works al Ottawa. Q. So that tenders were opened in Quebec ? — A. Yes. Q. So from this the tenders would be in the Public Works Department here? — A. They were in the Department. Q. You do not find any record that they were returned? — A. They were returned ; yes, Sii'. Q. Are they among the papei's you brought here ? — A. They aie. Sir. Q. All these tenders mentioned ? — A. All the original tenders except the tender of Larkin, Connoll}' iV: Co., which was in the possession of the notary. Q. Which was annexed to the contract? — A. Yes. ders are here. Q. Will you bo kind enough to say whether the whole board was present when thctendeis were opened, and give the names of the persons present? — A. There was one absent. Those present were : P. Y. Yalin, Chairman, Hon. Thomas McGreevy, Ferdinand Hamel, William Rae, Julien Chabot, John Sharpies, L. Bell Forsythe and E. E. Dobell. Q. The Mr. McGreevy you mention is Thomas McGreevy, is it not ? — A. Yes. Sir. Q. Have you any letter from Mr. Perloy calling the attention of the Commis- sioners to errors or informalities in the tenders in question — in the cross wall tenders? — A. Yes. I do not recollect anj' authorized report. The only thing I recollect is a minute of the 4th June, 1883, on page 508 of minute book Xo. 4. Letter numberetl 156 from F. H. Ennis. Secretary of the Public Works Department, Ottawa, transmitting a copy of the Order in Council, dated 28th May last, accepting the tender of Messrs. Larkin, Connolly iS: Co., for the construction of a projiosed cross wall, in connection with the harbour improvements at the mouth of the Eiver All the other original ten- 54 Victoria. Apiicndix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 St. Charles, also enclosing a form of contract and of security of ngreenient used l>y lii> Department for works of about tlio same nature, which torms the ironouralile Minister suggests maj' be used in the ])resent instance l)\- the Commissioners and stating that if used it will not be necessary to submit the draft contract to Iiis iJepartment, but that should any change be made from the conditions of the siiid forms tiien thedraft ot the proposed contract will require to be sent to his Department for the approval of the Honourablo the Minister." Then there is a resolution accei)ting it : " Moved by .lulien Chabot, seconded by Ferdinand Ilamol, that, this meet- ing authorize the Chairman and Secretary to sign the contract with Messrs. Larkin, Connolly \- Co.. for the building of the cross wall in accordance with Order in Council just read at the meeting b^- the Chairman, and that Messrs. Mctfivevy, Forsytho and Dobell bo appointed to assist in considering the various items in con- nection with said contract. ' *}. The cheques accompanying these tenders were kept in Quebec, were they not ? — A. I could not saj*. tj. The minutes would show? — A. I do not think they show, Sir. Q. Xevor mind, I withdraw the question. What you tind by the minutes is that the tenders wore oi»ened ii\ Quebec and immediately sent on to Ottawa, without taking any action on them, anil then the Order in Council and the resolution you refer to, to sign the contract, followed ? — A. Yos. tj. J)o you tind in your ])apers any return or letter from Mr. Perloy allowing Mr. Gallagher to withilraw, and roLurn him his cheque through the Quebec Harbour Commissioners? — A. There is something in the minutes about it, Sir; but 1 do not know how he got it. There is something in the minutes, I think, allowing his cheque to be returned. Q. Would it take much time to tind that out — have you the other volume? About the 2lith of Maj- would be the date of the letter. — A. 1 do not find anything. 1 will make further search for the letter. Q. You can make further search later, llavo you with you the tenders that were asked tor in connection with the contract for the south wall?— A. Yes, Sir. Q. llow man}' are there? — A. I have three tenders, but there are four envelopes here. ii. Who were the tenderers? — A. I will hav3 to turn to the minutes to ascertain that. Q. Well, we can ascertain that from the tenders themselves. The CuAiKMAx — Do you put these tendeis in ? Mr. (teofkrion — Yes. They are as follows : (Exhibit " B.") Tender of Charles McCarron and John D. Cameron. Envelope enclosing the foregoing tender. Tender of Michael Connolly. Envelope enclosing Connolly's tender. Tender of O. E. Murphy. Envelope enclosing Murphy's tender. Bi/ Mr. Geofrion : Q. I ask 3'ou to tile the contract itself. That contract was awarded toOallagher and Murphy ?— A. Yes, Sir. (Contract tiled ami marked Exhibit '• II.") Q. This contract is in notarial form? — A. Yes, Sir. (^. And you cannot tile Gallagher's tender because it was aune.xeii to the Minutes of that notarial deed ? — A. So I understand it. Q. You cannot file the original ? — A. No, Six*. Q. What we rile here is a copy ? — A. Yes, Sir. Mr. Geoffru>x — I may state that in (Quebec, it is a practice to attach the con- tract itself to the notarial form. Now here we have the envelope which contained Gallagher's tender, the original of which is at the otfice of Mr. Cliarlebois, the notary. Mr. Stu.\rt — That is the way it is marked, but as a matter of fact 1 think there is a mistake there. (Exhibit "C") (Exhibit "D.") (Exhibit "E.") (Exhibit "F.") (Exhibit "G.") M m if mi ifi-'i 54 Victoria. Aitiiondix (No. 1.) A. 1891 i')i ( ;* m i\ 1 Mr. CiiAinM.VN — T\w, tlion, is tlio cnvulojio which in niurUod as having conlainecl the tender which waH ncccptcd. (Envelope tiled, and marked Exhibit " I.") By Mr. Geoffrion : Q. Aecordiiifjf to your coiulitionH pulilished in tlie notieoH caiiinj^ for feiidersi, what waH the amount of isecurity thai was required to bo deposited ? — A. I do not recollect. Sir. It is not mentioned in the minutes, and I do not remember seeini^ it anj'whero else. Q. Could you ascertain also whether there was any security to be deposited in the cross wall contract ? — A. The last part of the minute reads : " I']ach of the said tenders enclosint,' an accepted bank cheque for 87,r)00, accord!' , (o the order of tlio Honourable the Minister of Public Works." That is a* ^o 4!>3 of minute book No. 4. By Jfr. Stuart: Q. Is that for the south wall contract ? — A. No, the cross wall. By Mr. Geoffrion : Q, You say 87,')00 according to the resolution of the board ? — A. This was when the tenders weie received. Q. Is there anything to show what became of the deposit when the contract was awarded ? — A. Not that I am aware of Q. The minutes do not show ? — A. The minutes will show, but I have not seen anything to that effect. (}. By referring to Exhibit "H " filed by you, I see that the amount deposited by the contractor for the south wall was 82.").000. Do you know how that deposit was made ? — k. I do not. Sir. Q. Have you any money or cheque amongst the papers of the Commission repre- senting that deposit? — A. 1 have. Q. Will you file it, if it is not money. Is this the cheque? — A. That is the cheque. It is dated 29fh October, 1887. (Cheque filed and narked Exhibit "J." ) Q. I asked you whether it was money or a cheque. It is only a cheque? — A. Yes. Q. An accepted cheque? — A. An unaccepted cheque. Q. Signed by ? — A. By O. E. Murphy, and payable to the order of N. K. Connolly. Q. It is not certified ?'— A. No. Q. I sec this cheque boars date 29th October, 1887, and the contract filed by you as Exhibit "H " was passed before Charlebois, Notary, on the lOth February, 1887. Will you see whether you had another guarantee before that cheque. 1 mean not 3'ou but the Commissioi ? — A. There was another guarantee. (I. Have you any paj>oi .s tc show it ? — A. I have. This is a receipt : (Exhibit "K.") " Harboub Commissioners' Office, "Quebec, 31st October, 1887. " Rof'eived from the Secretary-Treasurer of the Quebec Harbour Commission certificate of deposit No. 0481, amounting to §25,627.17, delivered by the Union Bank of Canada on the 30th August, 1886, to Mr. N. K. Connolly, said certificate having boon surrendered against a cheque for 825,000, signed by me to the order of the said N. K. Connolly ami endorsed by him, which said cheque is substituted for sai> ere at Quebec, 30U brought them h.erc? — A. I brought all the jiapers beaiing on the south wall conti'act, as far as possible. Q. Who were ihe Commissioners present at that meeting .!M the iUli March ? — A. Mr. r. V. Valin, Hon. Thomas Mctiroevy, Jlr. Ferdinand ilamel. .Mr. Kdmond Gironx. Mr. Julion Chabot. Mr. William Eao, Mr. K. II. Smith. Mi-. R R. Doboll, and Mr. J. Bell Forsythe— the full Board. Q. You are aware that until 1883. the chief engineers of t'lo Board were Messi's. Kinipple and Morris ? — A. To about that tinie ; I am not exactly sure. Q. Have you with you their engagement as such ; it goes back as far as 1875? ■A. The papers I brrught do not go back to that year, but I have bi-ouyht up the .ily thing I couM tind ; the letter referring to their discharge — 1 have that with me now. Q. Will you refer to the minutes and see when it was resolved to discharge them. It was sometime in June, 1883 — either the first days of Juno or the end of May? — A. Page 1.") of minute l)ook. No. 5, has the following resolution : — " Moved by Mr. McGreevy, seconded by Mr. Edmond Gironx. Mr. Bao dissen'ing, and Resolved, that the Secretary-Treasurer be directed to inform the Ilonourabu the Minister of Public Works that this Commission have dispensed with the services of their 9 li > ,26(i ; fourth, Messrs. Kinipple and Morris to be i-etained as consulting engineers at a salary' of 81,000 per annum tor three years. They hud received a total of S4t>, UiS.ll, leaving a balance. Witness. — What has been paid to Peters, Moore and Wright would establish one part of it, and there is still an acknowledgment of about $.50,000 due to them. We have i)aid the contractors 8G75,70!>.15. Nobody had anything to do with the Peters, Moore & Wright contract except Kinipple and Morris. This would establish what their percentage was for the Louise Docks. Mr. Geoffrion. — I would just ask you this question : — Whether j-ou could ])reparc a statement according to tho book of what was paid up to the date of their dismissal? — A. 1 will make it. Sir. Hon. Mr'. Laurier. — A statement of the claim that Kinipple ami Morris have made out, and the statement of tho payments made to them up to date? — A. I can- not make a statement of their claim, but 1 can make a statement from my books of the amount paid to the different contr-actors on account of harbour improvements, and show what they ought to have got 5 per cent. on. Mr. .Stuart. — They were paid according to agreement, 5 per cent, commis- bion on tho value of the work. Tho Committee then adjournei 12 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1801 IIousF OP Commons, Wednesday, 27th May, 1891. The Committee met at 10.30 a.m., Mr. Girouard in the Chair. Investigation into certain circumstances and statements made in connection with the tenders and contracts respecting the Quebec Harbour Works, &c., resumed. Mr. AVooDS lecalled and his examination continued : By Mr. Geoffrion : Q. Did you prepare the statement that was aslted for yesterday, in connection with the account of Kinipple and Morris when they were dismissed ? — A. Yes, Sir ; here it is : (Exhibit "A2i.") Ottawa, 26th May, 1891. Statement of amounts paid on account of Louise Docks and Gravinj; Dock contracts, to the 1st of August, 1888: Louise Docks: Peters, Moore & Wright, 8018,000.96; Graving Dock: Larkin, Connolly & Co., 83-45,502.3.'> ; Wiiigham, Richardson & Co., $29,331.45 ; Carrier, Laine & Co., S19,070 ; Total, Graving Dock, §393,969.80; Grand Total, 81,011,970.76. Q. This statement does not show whether Messrs. Kinipple and Morris were paid anything for the cross wall contract? — A. No, sir. That statement only shows the actual amount paid to the contractors. There was no work done on the cross wall. They were paid for the cross-wall plans at the rate of 2i per cent. Q. Upon an estimate of how much ?— A. It is in the report. I forget the exact figures. Q. Will you state when it appeai-s by the books that Larkin, Connolly & Co. received their last payment for dredging on the basis of their contract of 1882? A. On 4th April, 1887. g. How much?— A. 817.056.27. Q. This entry does not show when the work was done? — A. No, Sir. D. is simply an entiy of the amount paid to them of that date. Q. Are you aware of your own personal knowledge when the last Avork was done for which settlemen' was made by this payment. — A. I am not. Sir. It must have been done in the previous season. Q. But was it, from your own personal knowledge, done in the summer season of 1886? — A. Not to my own personal knowledge, but it must have been done then, be- cause you cannot do dredging in April. Q. I would like you to answer more precisely, did the tirm work in 188(j at dredging? — A. Oh yes. Sir. Q. Do you know whether there was any dredging donO by Larkin, Connolly & Co. in 1888 and 1889? — A. The contract for what wo call the new dredging work was signed in 1887. ii. And when was the tirst payment made? — A. The tirst pa\'ment under the new contract for dredging was nuide on the 25th June. 1S87. Q. And when was the last payment made? — A. The last payment was made on the 7th July, 1890. Q. But that was a payment for work done in 1889. What would be the amount of the last payment for work done in 1887 ? — A. 827,250.58. Q. Are you aware that i[r. Perley was replaced in the course of 1890? — A. I am aware that he was iej)laced. I am not aware that Mr. Bosweil was appointed by ' the Board as Chief Engineer in 1890. 13 ii) ,1: li {*' ililf ] V 1 , i ii ■ •', It i i ; ■ 1 1?. ( if « 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Got your minuto book for IS'JO and give me the date, please? — A. I have it here in minutt book No. 7, pai^e 2;^2. It was on the 8th .September, 1800. " Resolved, unanimously, that 3Ii'. St. George Boswell, the i)resent resident Engineer is hereby named and appointed Phigineer in chief of'tho Harbour Commission at a oaiury of 83,000 per annum." Q. Is there apything in the minutes to show why and how Mr. Boswell was appointed Chief Engineer when Mr. Perley does not appear to have been dismissed? — A. Nothing further than I have read to you now. Q. Do you know whether any written notice had been given to Mr. Perley that the Commission intended to dispense with his services? — A. None was given to him. Q. Is there anything in the minute hook showing when Mr. Perley ceased to be ■Chief Kngineor of the (/ommission ? — A. Yes, Sir. In 1891 his resignation was received and accepted. I read it yesterday. Q I know — read it again? — A. The date is 9th February, 1891. The minute roads — "The order of the day having been called, the letter of Mr. Henry F. Porlej', dated the IHth ult., tendering his resignation as Chief Engineer to this Commission was taken into consideration, and said resignation accepted, when it was unanimously resolved," then follows resolution of thanks to Mi-. Perley. " That in accepting the resignation of the Chief Engineer, Mr. Henry l'\ Perley, this Hoard desires to place on record their sense of the valuable services which ho has rendered this comni sion, and the skill and ability displayed in his superintendence of the harbour im])rove- monts, which has greatly assisted the Commissioners in bringing those works to a successful termination." Q. Do you know whether at the same sitting the Board appointed an assistant •Chief Engineer? — A. At the same sitting that Mr. Boswell was appointed the Board also appoinieci an assistant engineer. Q. Will yoa road the minuto ? — A. " Resolved unanimously that Mr. II. LaForco Langevin is hereby named and appointed assistant Engineer of the Harbour Com- mission at a yearly salary of $1,800. Q. Do you know whether this Mr. Langevin is related to the Minister of Public Works?— A. Yes, Sir. Q. What is his relation to the Minister? — A. He is his son. By Mr. Lister. Q. Is the Mr. Langevin who was appointed assistant Engineer, an engineer by profession? — A. I could not answer thai; 1 do not know. Bij Mr. Geoff rion. Q. Are there any outstanding certificates or claims against the Harl)our Com- missioners in favour of the contractors? — A. At present? Q. Yes? — A. Yes; there is a shop account for, 1 suppose, about $2,000; an jiccount for levelling sand, about S5.0U0, not quite as much as that, $4,(>95, if my memory serves me. There is also an amount due to them on account of the Graving Dock of $8,000. with considerable interest by «his time. It was $8,000, at the time the accounts were settled up. I should estimate that there is :>.bout $9,000 due on account of Graving Dock now. Those are all the accounts before the Commission. Q. Can you, without taking up much time, say when the last payment was made to the contractors? — A. There are quite a number of contracts; 1 could not do it readily, t^. I will waive that question for the moment then. Did you find out anything to explain those pencil figures that were found yesterday in the corner of the letter asking for the cheque? — A. Yes, Sir. I examined the minutes last night. I find that we returned to Larkin, Conn-illy, & Company the cheque for dredging and the cheque for the cross-wall. The amounts of the cheques are not in the bookf*, but I liave telegraphed to get the receipt which I took when I surrendered the cheques. Speaking from recollection, I think one wiis for $12,500, and Ithinlc the other was for ^23,500. I would not be positive, however, as lo the amount ; but as I said I have 14 64 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 telegraphed to Quebec to get the receipts, and that will give the precise amounts. I conl(l not connect the matter yesterihxy when the question was asked of me. Q. Were they certified ? — A. No, Sir. Q. They were uncertified ? — A. Uncertified. Q. Tiie same as the one you filed yesterday ? — A. Yes, Sir. Q. Had thosecheques been originally de'posited willi contracts orsubsequently? — A. I really could not remember. I am simply the custodian of the cheques. It was all before my time. I would simply get them from Mr. Verret; I could not remember' what they replaced or did not leplace. Q, Will you be kind enough to look at the Quebec Chronicle of ITtli June, 1882, at the foot of the (ith column of the ih'd page, and say whether the notice for tenders therein published on behalf of the Harbour Commissioners of Quebec relates to the tenders which it was decided not to open on the 21st of June, 1882 ? If such a notice refers to the said tenders, will you be kind enough to produce a copy of it ? — A. I am very sure that I will not bo able to tell. I am almost powlive, for I really know nothing about those contracts, except what I have learned from the records before me. Q. Vou must be able to find that there were not two tenders calling for dredging for the same place, and if the number of feet, quantities, &c., is there? — A. By com- paring the minutes, perhaps, I might get at it. ilr. Geoffhion. — 1 have finished with Mr. Woods for the present. Mr, E. F. E. EoY, Secretary, Public Works Department, sworn : By Mr. Geoffrion. Q. You are at ]iresent the Seci'etary of the Department of Public Works ? — A. Yes, Sir. Q. And custodian of the papers connected with that Department? — A. Yes, Sir. o haiidwritinsr ? — A. The body of the lotLer and tiio signature are in the hand\vritini( of Tiionias MeCrieevy. Q. And addressed to whom ? — A. To me. By Mr. Ed(jar: Q. Upon what paper is it written ? — A. It is addressed from the House of Com- mons, Canada. " House op Commons, Canada. (Exhibit " C 2.") Tth May. "My dear Eobert, — Tliare is nothing new in the intercolonial mutter since I wrote you Saturday. I am quite sure now that tliere will bo nothing flone for e?timates for any of the claims this session, that nothing will be put in untill all are finished. Of course, this will meet the requirement for the moment. AH the Supplementary Estimates will be finished in Council to-day, and laid before the House to-morrow. That is the last of them. I hope to let you know to-nu)ri'ow about the result of cross-wall tenders, have your arrangements right with Beau- cage before result is known. I will give you timely notice. I think the House will close about the 15th. Inquire how O'Brien is doing, or what is his intentions about work on examining wharehousc. I think if he was promised to be re-imbursed he might give it uj), and if Charlebois got out of the way, it might reach IJoaucage'a tender, but you must not do it. It must be done by some one else. Murphy might approach O'Brien about the matter, but he would have to promise to get Charlebois away. All the others might be passed over. lam told that he has done nothing yet. What are you doing about water pipes to Lorette. I wish you would send rae the conditions that the work is to be done on. I do not think it will be necessary for you to come here this week. I think I will go to Quebec by the end of this week, and before going fix a day to come back and meet the old fellow on your inter- colonial matter and have it settled. He has promised to sit down with Clark and settle the matter after the session. I will ask him before leaving to iix a day and him to have Clark here to finish report. I will have his answer before I leave. " Yours trul3-, "THOMAS McGEEEVY." Q. What would be the year ?— A. That would be 1883. Q. Ileie is another letter. — A. This letter is dated 17th May, from the House of Commons. The body of the letter is in my brother's handwriting as also the signa- ture. Do you wish me to read it ? Q. Yes ? (Exhibit " U 2.") " IIocsE of Commons, Canada, 17th May. "My Dear IloBEBT,— I received your lettjr about Morris coming back here. What can he do in the face of all the blunders he has made ? As I told you yester- day to try and get a good plan and as quick as possible in answer to letters that Gallagher and Beaucage will receive about their tenders to bring them over L. & C. so as their tender will be the lowest. The contract will be awarded from Ottawa direct. I think I will go down Saturday to be in Quebec Sunday morning. The house, I thiiUv will prorogue about the 23rd or 25lh. I hat! a conversation with Sir Charles Tapper about the Intercol to-day antl he agreed to fix a day immediately alter the session, to have a conference with Sir John and agree on a bass for your claim on equity and have it done at once, so as they might dispose of it within a few days afterwards. I think you were wrong in tendering without a cheque accepted by such a paii- of cut-throats, " Yours truly, "THOMAS McGREEVY." S if, iii ill fvii . 11,; u 't;i .]'/ i li 1—2 It 54 Victoria. (Appendix No. 1.) A. 1891 M' i ^1 IM I' m ! : " I have received your second about water works. I am sure that the I^angelier ring will curry it for thomHelves. T. M." Q. What is the date of that letter? — A. It is the same year 1886. Q. And this letter isalso written and signed by your brother, Thomas McGroevy ? —A. Yes, Sir. Q. And was received by you ? — A. Yes. Q. Here is another document? A. This is a letterof the IGth Api-il, written and signed by my brother. By Mr. Edgar : Q. From where ? A. It does not say. Q. What is the heading? A. House of Commons, Canada. By Mr. Geoffrion : Q. Please read it? (Exhibit " E 2.") " House op Commons, Canada, 16th April. " Mt Dear Robert, — I have just seen Perley about di-edging. I have arranged to meet him on Monday to discuss his dredging report before he sends it to Harbour Commissioners, also other mutters about Graving i)ock, &c. I have arranged with Fuller to have office in Quebec opened as Public Works office and put Lepme in charge and let Pechey be archetect. I want you to get O'Doniiell to write a letter to Fuller us inclosed, so as they may get another month's pay. They may not get the balance of their pay until the money is voted. As Curran's motion is coming up on Monday, 1 thought better to remain here, also to see Perley and arrange matters with him. When I am wanted below you will let me know. "Yours. "THOMAS." " P.S. — I have seen Ferguson and he tells me he is waiting for the proper judge, as each judge only takes one case at a time. T.M." Q. In what year was this letter received by you? — A. From the subject it would be in 1887. Q. Here is another letter? — A. This is written and signed by Thomas McGreevy. Q. And addressed to you ? — A. Addressed to me. Q. What is the date ?— A. 26th April. Q. Read it? (Exhibit " F 2.") " House op Commons, Canada, 26th April. "My dear Robert, — I have just seen Perley on dredging. I think ho will report on 35 cents, and put some conditions which will amount to nothing. He will report when I will be there. I have had a conversation with Shakespeare on the lengthening of the B.C. Dock. I told him to unite with the others and push it. He is prepared to do so. I told him to write and get the length of steamers chartered by the Canadian Pacific Railway from Cunard Company. He has promised to do so. Connoll}' had better wait until next week to come up. When I come down we will talk the matter over. I intend leaving here on Thursday evening, if 3'ou don't telegraph not to come. Vote will be taken on Home Rui^ to-night. '• Yours, "THOMAS McGREEVY." Q. Please identify also this letter? — A. This is a private letter. Q. They are all private letters, you are bound to answer. (Exhibit "G 2.") (Private.) "Ottawa, 2nd May, 1885. "My Dear Robert, — As I telegraphed you this morning about estimate for Graving Dock at B.C., Perley has telegraphed 18 Trutch to send amount of , ■ 64 Victoria. (Appendix No. 1.) A. 1891 estimate to-day vrithout fuil and to make no deduction on account of meterial this month, 80 the whole will be allowed in the estimate this time and only 12^ on future estimates and all new meterial the value to be allowed less 10 per cent., so the matter is now settled. On Monday morning I will have the Department of Public Works notify the Bank of British North America here the amount of estimate which will bo paid them, and got them to telegraph amount to their bank at Quebec. If this arrange- ment does not suit Mr. Murphy, telegraph me what he wants done and I will have it done for him. It is now understood that Bennett, the Engineer at B. C. will not suit, so the Minister and Perley are prepared to change him. He asked if I could recommend one. Could you think of one that would suit, and I would have the Minister appoint him. Try and get the 872 for Chaloner for Mon- day for interest, Quebec Bank note. I will send the money next week. We have been sitting since Thursday at 3 p.m., and will not adjourn until midnight to-night. It is teri'ible to stand it. We can get nothing done by Ministers. Evei-ything is upset. The North Shore question is settled. The Pacific is to have it to them- selves absolutely for 81,500,000 in cash to build another within 30 days after the session. The Pacific is to build the new line themselves, failing to obtain the North Shore within that time. " Yours, "THOMAS." By Mr. Ed(jar : Q. Is that in your brother's handwriting ? — A. Yes. Q. And signed by him ? — A. It is signed "Thomas." By Mr. Geoffrion : Q. I understand this letter also is written by him to you ? — A. It is written to me. Q. Please read it? (Exhibit " II 2.") " Ottawa, 4th May. "Dear Eobert, — As I telegraphed you this morning, no estimate has been tele- graphed. Everything and every order has been sent to them that was possible to make them understand. But still thare was a dispatch from them to-day which cost 615, which they had in writing for over a month out there. Perley wont to see Page this morning to try and got another enginer to send out at once and dismiss Bennett. He that goes out will get his instructions before going out. " Yours truly, "THOMAS." Q. What year is that ? — A. It does not say. Q. What year would it be? — A. I have endorsed upon it 4th May, 1885. By the Chairman : Q. When did you make that endorsation — at the time? — A. No. Q. When did you make it? — A. When I was filing the letters away. Q. How long after was that ? — A. Her.) is another endorsation upon it ; that would be within a few days after I received them. Q. What is the year mentioned in the second endorsation ? — A. 1885. Q. Y'^ou have no doubt it was 1885? A. No doubt. By Mr. Geoffrion : Q. Do you identify this letter ?— A. This letter is dated Ottawa, 17th March, 1886; written by Thomas McGreevy in his handwriting and signed by him. Q. Addressed to you ? — A. Yes. Q. What is the heading on the paper? A. It is Department of Public Works, Canada. 1-2J 19 Ici m ill rTTT 1 , ,( 54 Victoria. 1 (Appendix No, 1.) A. 18!»1 i I lit m\ 1 !. !i M ' (i. Was it rocoivod by you? — A. Yi;s. U. Uml it? (^Ilxhiliii "I 2.") " Dei'autmknt »)P I'liiii.ic WiniKs, ('avai>.\, Ottawa, 17lli .MuitIi, |SS(;. " My Pkak Umiikrt, — LarKiii luul Miirpliy aro Iumo. I.aikiii lias Icaiiu'il a^ood (loal i)t wlial IwiM 1)0011 dono. Tlio OHiiniato lor l<\)lii'iiary is lliroui^li atiil ainoiiiils to ovor twoiity-llvo HioumuiuI dollars, (5525, (((10), dial inakos noarly sovoiiiy-livo tlioiisaiKt dollars t;i»iio out witliiii a moi\tli. Tlioy oii;^ht to I.- Iliisli out tiioic now. I soiit you to-day liio \i>tis and I'roooodiim;s about wliat I'ldfrarasks about liai** dos (Mialours l{. \V . l'o|io st'u; for luo to ask wbal answer bo would i^ivo. I agreed Ibat bo sliould i;iv(> Ibo r«<(i'iirod iidorinatioii, but will stato tliat I liavo iiotiliod biiii of my witbdrawal troin tlio diroction and sovoroil my coiiiioolioii witli tlio ('oiiipaiiy. Otboi' (piostioiis will follow. I'opo told uw tbat iboy bavo put in somoanswor wbicli bo lias sont to tbo Minister of .lustico. I will jjo and oxamino tbom to soo wiiat tboy bavo put in. Your letter rooeived ; I will attend to wbat you ask. " Yours truly. ' "'THOMAS MotiJtKKVY." " Murpby will not leavo before to-morrow evenini^. — T. M." t^. I'loaso iilentity tiiis letter also? — A. It is in tlie bandwrilinii; of Tbomas Mo(Jrt.evy and signed by itiiii. (i. And addressed to you ? — A. Yes. Q. Wbat is the beading? — A. "Ottawa, Ist Marcb, 188G, Dopurtment Public Works, Cana.la." (i. Kead? (Kxbibit "J 2.") " Department Puih^to Wohko, Oanaua, " Ottawa, 1st Marcb, 188(J. " Hear IJohert, — Notbing new since 1 wroto you last. I bojm lortio will receive bis letter authorizing biin to go on wltb bis grading around tbo Hall. Tbo total amount is §7,800, lovelling and grading. The matter is all settled, but be will bavo to wait until the nione}* is voted for i)aynu)nl. 1 bavo bad a long interview witb Perley on Harbour Works and (riaving Doek at li.C. Fleming was to bavo signed bis report to-day on Harbour works. It will bo sbown to mo as soon as signed. I will see it to-morrow and Sir Hector and mysolt will tieoide wbat is to bo done for future. He will adopt my views. 1 will see you and Muiphy about it befi re doing anytbing. It is a big thing for the future. I think the light will eoin- mence on iiiel question on Wednesday next. Jilake and the (irits will vote straight against the Government with the Freiudi for hanging of Hie i. If that is tbo case, the Cfovornmeitt majority will be about tbirty-tive in place of sevonty-four, a more healthy stato of affairs. I cannot tell yet whether I will be able to go down this week or not, beeauso I think the debate on tbo JJiel qv.citlon will last for a week. 1 think the Graving Dock at B.C. will be lengthened, they are now making estimates of. 1 think be is going to put another §150,000 in estimates for it. Weather very ^'old. " Yours truly, " THOMAS McGEEEVY." Q. Do you identify this? — A. This is a letter in the handwriting of Thomas AIcGreevy and is signed by him. Q. What is the date?— A. 11th March, 1886. Q. Ecail ? (E-'ihibit " K 2.") " Department Public Works, Canada. Ottawa, 11th March, 188G. " My dear Robert, — I enclose you the amount of estimates for December and January', The January one includes the new system of measurement. The advance 20 o4 Victoria. (Appendix No. 1.) A. 1891 8'J(I,(K»0 on ilriiwlmck Iiiis \iw\\ pUHWcd ami will l»u Hcnf. at nnct^ Id 15 aiiKiiiiil "I rHlimiilo lor I'Vlniiary lias not hccii U'lc^rrapliinl yot. I will know wlion il ((iruf s. " Voiirs truly, "THOMAS M.dKKKVV il. IMoast) identity lliis U^llor?— A. This is a letter datt-d Ottawa, i: No yoar. It in in llio liandwritin:;; of 'I'lioinas MdJruovy, and is hIl";!!!'!! •^ And addross»*d to whom ? — A. Mo. <}. And r('(',oiv(Ml Ityyou? — A. Yos. il Ifcad y ('. The let \'ou till .May. Iiy him. (Exhil.it " Ji2.") "Ottawa l.'Jth May. " My itKAa KoHKiiT, — I oneloMO you letter from llou«seau. You oi.cht to well him the Ktone cheap — we don't want it. Tole;^rapli him to .Montreal on rc<() for a week, hy cheque or olherwise, to pay S.'JdO to Staidey iSmith ami Jjindsey at once. They have both written for it. I am afraid they will insist on the capital. T'ada. " Utt.mv'A, 8th March, 1886. " yy Dear IJohert, — The Senate will adjourn from .o-morrow until the 16th, so you will have Koliitaille in Quoliec, as his jm* will bo going on. I am told that IsLicsto/' will not have anytliing to do with Baio des Chaleuis contract until llicy are in a legal position. I have received no proposition from them yet. Sir Hector wants nie to make one, or state what I want them to do. I was at Montreal from a.m on Saturday until last night, when 1 leturnetl hero. Irvine arrivoil here at noon to-day, I did not see him. There will be Judgment in Berlinguel case today. I do not think the Riel tliscussion will come up this, in that case I will go to Quebec betbie the end oi'Mie week. Th.e Govcnment will lose '11 of their supporters on the Riol hanging on Landry's motion. They won't have more than twenty-live majority on that vote. Weather very mild here. " Yours truly, •'THOMAS." Q. Will you state to the Committee whose letter this is? — A. It is dated 13th May from the House of Commons. It is written in the handwriting of Thomas McGreevy and is signed by him, is addressed to me and I received it. (Olijection taken by Mr. Mctlreevv's Coui\sel to the reailing of this letter, as irrelevant. Decision reserved. Committee subsequently decided that letter bo read and filed.) 22 1 --t J 1891 itll, so ("i thiit ey are lector from 1010 ill lodiiy. on 1 1)0 Mjority 54 Victoria. (Appendix No. 1.) A. 1891 The letter is as follows : (Exhibit " O 2*.") " House op Commons, Canada, Ottawa, 13th May, 1880, " My Dear Eobert. — Your letter received. Will be home on Saturday morning. The tenders for Cape Tormentine work, were opened to-day by Sir Hector. The lowest is an Ottiwa man. He is 8131,000. His name is Perkins. The next after him is another Ottawa man. Perley says the estimate of the work is §170,000. You know what the tenders were that you were interested in. It is u great pity that tine job like that should go so low. Give enclosed to Mr. Chaloner. " Yours truly, " THOMAS McGREEVY." "1 have seen ask any delaj'. Ferguson. Ho is going to push on the suit. " Yours, " The estimate for April for B.C. was passed on Monday last. 830,000 net. Government won't "T. M." The amount was ■ T. M. Bi/ Mr. Geoffrion : Q. "Will you please lixamine the letter now put in your possession and see if you can identify the document? Mr. .Stuart. — This is a letter marked private and the postscript has no relevancy to tho ftubject-matter of the investigatior. (Question of I'olcvancy of postsfrij)t reserved. Committee subsequently decided that postscript was irrelevant and should not bo put in as evidence). Thk Ciiaihman ordered that tho letter be r'>ad with tlie exception of the postscript. Witness. — Tlie letter is written on House of Commons note paper b}' Thomas 3IcGreevy and signed by him. It is addressed i:o, and was received b3-mo, and reads as follows : (Exhibit " r 2.") House of Commons, Canada, Oth ^larcb, 1S8(!. "My dear Korert, — I send you a letter from Marine I)e])artnient. Vou will read it to Fradet and tell him that contract will be sent in a few days. If lie wants to copy letter let him do so. Will write you again this afternoon. I had a meeting this afternoon with Sir Hectoi" ai.d Sir Adolj)he on Bale des Clialeurs. Sir Hector insisted on an underslaiiding being come to. 1 refused to do so, and told him at last to let Eobitaillc make a jiroposition lunisolf; tliat I was not guing to make brains for him forever and let bini take advantage of it. They proposed (not Caron, Sir Hector) to give me control of roa - V , ,!•). ■(, 'A ' I' ■i- i- m fi mi Liil J I 54 Victoria. (Appendix Ko. 1.) A. 1891 Ml i ■; \\\ ti t i I, ( ci'odit of Commisfjion on 15th June that includes 850,000 asked for and has been sent from here on 16th Inst., in all $220,000. It now remains at $170,000, after paying the $50,000, the estimate for $23,000 comes out of the fifty sent down, so after that estimate paid there remains about $200,000 for the season for Harbour works alone. There is about $100,000 for Dock yet, so accoi-ding to your estimate and mine made here the other day only $190,000 would be required for the summei' and the $23,000 included in that. " Yours truly, "THOMAS McGEEEVY." Witness. — This is a memorandum in my handwriting on the fly sheet, Q. It is not part of the letter? — A. Xo; except that he refers to it. It is in my handwriting. Q. Identify this letter.— A. This is a letter dated 19th March, 1886, House of Commons. It is in the handwriting of somebody else — his clerk or -iomebody else. It is signed by Thomas McGreevy. The body of the letter is not in his handwriting. Q. liead it ? (Exhibit "E 2.") "House of Commons, Canada, 19th March, 1886. " My Dear Eobert, — I enclose you a letter from Stephen Eyan in Champlain Street. I hope j'ou can do something for him as I believe he is in want. Larkin and Murph}' have been here. Larkin left yesterday at nooi.. I have not seen Mur- phy and do not know whether he has loft or not. I have not seen him since yesterday afternoon. Both seem pleased with their visit here. As you will see b^' the Haiisaid Pope answered Edgar's enquiry as respects the Baie des Chaleurs Eaiiwaj' and agreement and contract. He asked me not to have him to state that he had received a letter from me withdrawing from the Company. He asked me to let that remain ;ill later on. I have no answer from Caron yet about balance of works in the Oitadol. I expect to to-morrow as he has his speech through. He made a good jpecch and floored Amyot completely, as you will see by Hansard. As I telegra])hcd you this morning the following " Sign lease Kent house on conditions mentioned in j'our letter." I don't wish to break up the arrangement as the house has been so long idle and if she does give it up in a year or to it will not much matter as the Court House is there and it would not be fair to Poumier to have a restaurant next to her. We must try and make it into oflfices. I don't think this debate will close at the earliest until wext Tuesday perhaps not until the end of the week. I think the Government will have a majority of fitty or ove:-. I will not la able to go down this week, not until the end of next week. "I remain, yours very truly, " THOMAS McGEhEYY. " Do you expect to come up soon ? Let me know. "T. M." 24 54 Victoria. (Appendix No. 1.) A. 1891 House op Commons, Friday, 29th May, 1891. The Committee met at 10.30 am. ; Mr. Giroxiard in the chair. Investigation into certain circumstances and statements made in connection with the tenders and contracts respecting the Quebec Harbour Works &c., resumed. Mr. Patrick Laricin sworn : By Mr. Tarte : Q. You have been, I think, a member of the firm of Larkin, Connolly & Co.? — A. I have. Q. Since how long? — A. Since its formation in 1878; but I am not now a mem- ber nor have I been f()r the last three years and over three years. Q. Have j'ou witiiyou or ebewhero the books of the firm? — A. I have not, nor never had them. I have not seen them for years. Q. Have you any other papers in connection with the business of the firm ? — A. Nothing except a few letters from the firm. Q. You have not the books of the firm ? — A. No, I have not. Q. Do you know where those books are? — A. Well, the last I saw of tiiem they were in the office at Quebec. That is over three years ago. Q. That is tli- last time you saw them ? — A. Yes; 1 did not look at them then. I saw the outside ( f them. By Mr. Edgar : Q. Who had tlie books when you last saw them? — A. They were in the charge of the firm there. The bookkeeper had thorn. They were in the otfice. Q. Did the firm continue after you left ? — A. Yes. Q. Under the same name? — A. Yes; aii 1 they continued until very recentlj-. Q. Under the name of Larkin, Connollj' \ Co.? — A. Yt'>. Q. You as a partner went out and the books all reniMinod in the custody of the continuing members of the partnership? — A. Yes. Q. Who were they ? — A. The members of the firm of Tjarkin, Con i^Uy & Co. were Nicholas Connolly, O. E. Murphy and myself. That was all the members of the firm. Q. Al'ter you left? — A. At any time. Q. Are those all who were interested? — A. No; there were two others, but they were not members of the firm. They had an interest in the profits of the works. Q. Who were the^-?— A. Miehaol Connolly and Kobert MeGreevy. (I. Where tlioi'e any arrangements when you left as to which'of these other members of the firm should keep control of the books ? — A. No; it was never men- tioned. Q. They were left in the oftiee ?— A. I sold out to Mr. Nicholas i\. Connolly. I luivc the tertns of sale with me. Q. He took your place ? — A. Yes. Q. Who was the bookkeeper of the firm? — A. Martin P. Connolly. He is no relation to the members of the firm. Q. Had he been there long? — A. Yes; he was there I think since the latter liart of 1884. Q. Do you know whether he was there continuously? — A. Yes; 1 think so. By Mr. Tarte : Q. Were there not articles of partnership between yourselves? — A. Yes; I think they wore registered on the Point Ldvis side, beeause we commenced work there. 25 « , 1 \ i' 1 1; 1 . ■:, 1 : lli i 1, i 1:T Jl i' 64 Victoria. (Appendix No. 1.) A. 1891 • it !■ -■'I ■i'A I ; IJ i Q. Is it a fact that Michael Connolly and Robert McGreevy signed these articles of partnership ? - A. I do not know. There was an agreement as to interest. Q. Have you those articles of partnership ? — A, I have not Q. I havo them, and they have signed them as a matter of fact ? — A. I have not seen them intely. By Mr. Lister : Q. When was this partnership formed ? — A. In 1878. Q. What time in 1878? — A. September or October, I do not know which. Q. Were the articles in writing ? — A. Yes ; they were drawn up by a notary of Quebec. Q. Who was the notary ? — A. I do not know. It is a long time ago. Q. Were they drawn up or prepared before or subsequent to the co-partnership being formed? — A, After, of course. Q. And these articles were between you tliree? — A. No; not between us three. There was a man named Nihan and Nicholas Connolly and myself. Q. Was it a general partnership or related to a single piece of work? — A. Only to the graving dock, Quebec. Q. How long was that partnership to continue? — A. I forget. I suppose until the work was completed. Q. Then there were four partners? — A. No; only three, Nihan myself and Ni- cholas Connolly. (■l. Then you say two othei's became interested? — A. A good while after. (I. How long after? — A. Nihan sold out to Nicholas Connoll}' in 1880. Q. Who wore the partneis then? — A. Nicholas Connolly sold an interest to Murphy. Q. Wiien ?— A. In 1880. Q. When did Robert McGreevy become interested? — A. In 1882 or the begin- ning of 1883. I think it was 1888. There were no articles signed until 188:5. Q. Who else beside McGrcovy was interested ? — A. No one else, except Michael Connolly. Q. lie too was taken in, in 1882 or 1883 ?— A. Yes. Q. Not as a member of the partnership ? — A. No; but having an interest in the work. Q. You are positive he was not taken in as a partner? — A. I never considered it as such. Q. Ho was to bo paid how much? — A. Thirty per cent, of the profits of the worl:. Q. Was ho to contribute towards the losses? — A. Yos. Q. Then ho was a partner? — A. Ho was to contiibuto to the losses an'l also an amount ot'money to furnish plant. Q. Was that in writing? — A. Yes. Q. Where was it drawn ? — A. In (iuobec. Q. Whore is it now? — A. I snpposo it is tliero. I had a copy of it some time ago and I looked in my safe boforo 1 came away and I could not tiiul it. Q. How long ago is it since you saw j-onr copy? — A. In Januaiy last. Q. What did you do with it then ? — A. I put it in the sate I piosuino, but I iiad to gather my papers up in such a hurry that I could not find it. I believe 1 might find it if 1 had time. Q. Robeit McGreevy continued how long? — A. He was there whor\ I loft. Q. Hid Robert McGreevy take an interest in the other contracts ? — A. Ves, in the British Columbia contract. ii. Any other ? — A. There was no other that I was intoro>ted in. t^. The only two contracts you were interested in he had an interest in ? — A. Yes. Q. What was his interest in the British Columbia contrai't ? — A. One-fifth. Q. Did you know Robert McGreevy boforo you entered into that agreement with him?— A. Very little. Q. Wheie did your partners come from ? — A. From the west. 26 54 Victoria. (Appendix No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. You were strangers in the city of Quebec? — A. Yes. Q. Why did you take Eobert McGreevy in? — A. We commenced work in 1878 and worked according to the plans and specifications given by Kinipple and Morris under the supervision of Mr. Pilkington. These plans Mr. Cameron objected to the further examination of witness at present time as extending beyond the limits suggested by Mi*. Tarte. Objection sustained. Mr. Michael Connolly sworn : By Mr. Tarte : Q. You have been a member of the firm of Larkin, Connolly &Co. ? — A. I have an interest in some of the works, as Captain Larkin has told you. (}. Wliat works ? — A. The Graving Dock at Point Ldvis ; the Cross- Wall and the Dredging contracts. Q. At (iuehec.you mean ? — A. Yes,Sir, and the Graving Dock in British Columbia. Q. In all, four or five? — A. In five or six; I was interested in everything ihey had in hand. Q. Have you got with yon, or if not with jou here, have you in your possession the books and papers in connection with the works and transactions of your firm? — A. No ; I have not. Q. Can 3-ou tell us where they are ? — A. No; I cannot from where I stand. Q. Do yuu not know? — A. Possibly they may be in Quebec. They were in Quebec the last I saw of thom. Q. When did you see them the last tinie? — A. I do not recollect having seen thom for two or three years. Q. You have not seen any of the books of the firm since that time? — A. I may have seen tiio books that Larkin, Connolly & Co. kept in connection with the Graving Dock at Point Ldvis. I do not think I have seen them since. Q. The (Traving Dock has been finished a long time ? — .V. Yes ; several years. Q. You have just stated that you have an interest in several contracts of the firm since that time? — A. Yes. Q. The last one was the dredging in Quebec Hai'bour and the Dock in British Columbia ? They were in progress at the same time ? — A. No ; one was finished bo- fore the other. Q. You kept books at the time these works were in progress? — A. Our firm kept books, but I never paid any attention to them. Q. You have seen them? — A. I have seen them, but 1 never bothered with the books. Q. What was the last time you saw the books ? — A. I cannot say what was the last time that 1 saw the Graving Dock books. Q. I am not speaking of the Graving Dock books; lam referring to all the books of the firm ? — X. I have soon the books of the firm during the progress of the dirt'erent works. The last time L was in Quebec, I saw them Ij'ing on the desk in the office. Q. When wore you in Quebec last? — A. Five or six weeks ago. Q. You saw the books of the firm then? — A. 1 saw some lying on the desk ; I did not examine them. (}. Did you receive a subp(ena to bring all the books ot the firm here? — A. I received a notice at Kingston. I brought everything I had there. (I. But you have not brought the books of the firm with you? — A. No; because I had not them there. (I. In whose custod}' are they? — A. I cannot answer that. They are probably in the ortico at (Quebec. Q. In whose custody? — A. I suppose they are in the custody of the firm. Q. You are a member nf the firm and still you say you have not got thom. In whoso special custody will they be? — A. Martin P. Connolly's. 27 IK' i 1 ? .If r f ' 1; ii^ i ■ 54 Victoria. (Appendix No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Do I understand you then, that the books are in the custody of Martin P. Connolly? — A. They were the last time I saw them. Q. You are a member of the firm ? — A. Yes. Q. Can you tell us whether, as a memboi- of the firm, we can get the books by summoning 5lartin P. Connolly here ? — A. The books are in his possession. I ])re- sume if he comes here he will bring them. By Mr. Lister : Q. How long has Martin Connolly been j'our bookkeeper? — A. For several years. Q. For how many years ? — A. Seven or eight. Q. When was he first engaged by you ? — A. I think in 1884. Q. He has then been bookkeepei- from 1884 to the present time ? — A. Yes, Sir. Q. During all the time these works were in progress ? — A. Yes, Sir. Q. And the firm consisted of whom during that period ? Since 1884, I mean ? — A. Patrick Larkin, Nicholas Connolly and O. E. Murphy. Q. This Martin Connolly has been your bookkeer ■ ever since? — A. Yes, I think he has. Q. You have an office in Quebec ? — A. We have. Q. And the books are there ? — A. I do not know whether thej' are there now ; they were there when 1 saw them. Q. Is Connoll}' still your book-keeper ? — A. He was. Q. 1 ask you is ho still your bookkeeper? — A. I cannot answer that; he may, or may not be. By Mr. Laurier : Q. Who would have tho discharging of him ? — A. My brother or myself Q. Have you dischai-ged him ? — A. No. Q. Have you any reason to believe that he is not your bookkeeper at present ? — A. He may or may not bo ; I cannot swear that he is our book-keeper now. By Mr. Lister : Q. Where is your brother ? — A. He was in Kingston when last I saw him. Q. Did be intend remaining in Kingston ? — A, He did not tell me. Q. Did he tell you where he was going? — A. No. Q. Have you any reason to believe that he is leaving Canada ? — A. I have not. Q. Do you know if he received a subpoena to attend here ? — A. I cannot say. Q. Did he tell you anything about a subpccna ? — A. He did not. Q. Had he any conversation with you on this matter? — A. No. Q. But you have sjioken to him iibout it ? — A. We may have talked about it from time to time, Q. Did you tell him you were subpoenaed ? — A. I did. Q. Did he say anything to you about his having been subpoenaed? — A. He did not. Q. Did you say anything to him about his getting out of the wtxy? — A. No. Q. And no conversation took place betweiMi you and your brother i-especting this investigation ? — A. I could not say that, except he will come here whenever he is wanted. Q. You do not know whether the bookkeeper is there or not ? — A. I do not. Q. Nor where he has the books ? — A. I do not. Q. You do not know where they are ? — A. I do not. Q. Is Martin Connolly at Quel'jc still ? — He was in Kingston a few days ago. By Mr. German : Q. You have no objection to produce the books hero? — A. I cannot say that without consulting counsel. 1 want to have some legal advice before producing them here. 28 54 Victoria. (Appendix No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Have you got counsei ? — Not yet. Mb. Mulociv. — I tliink the vvitnesH uhould be ordered to produce these books. He is a member of the tirin and cannot escape responsibility. Witness. — We are willing to submit the books to any acci'edited auditor, which this Committee may name. By the Chairman : Q. Do you kcej) a separate set of books for each contract ? — A. Wo do. Q. And the books in Quebec rehite to the Quebec contract? — A. They do. Bij Mr. Edgar : Q. And Esqui malt also? — A. Yes. By Mr. Burdett: Q. You say you are willing to submit the books to an auditor. Then you have control of them ? — A. Ho far as 1 am aware, we have control of them. By Mr. Lister : Q. Who is your book-keeper ? — A. Martin P. Connolly. Q. Is he a connection of an}^ of tiie counsel engaged in the case ? — A. I do not know 1 am sure. Mb. Fitzpatbick — If the honourable gentleman is anxious to know anything about it — I am not ashamed to say — Mr. M. P. Connolly is my cousin. By Mr. Davies : Q. Will you produce your subpoena and let us hear it read? — A. I have not got the subpaMia here. It must be in my other coat pocket. By the Chairman : Q. I think I must say to Mr. Connolly that he must bring the books hero unless they are here now. What about the books in relation to the British Columbia con- tract? — A. The last I saw of them they were in Quebec. Q. Will you produce the books on Tuesday next? — A. J will not promise the Committee to do that until I have the advice of counsel. The Chairman — The witness is ordered to produce the books at the next meeting of this Committee. By Mr. Edgar : Q. You received a copy of that subpoena (the subpoena being lead) ? — A. I did. I received it at Kingston by rtgisterod letter. The Chairman. — The exaiiination of this witness stands adjourned until Tuesday next. Mr. Nicholas K. Conno^^.y being called did not answer. Mr. Stuart. — Mr, Micdidcl J'jnnolly tells mo that Mr. Nicholas K. Connolly is in Kingston and will come. Mr. M. Connolly. — >'.. Nichola^ K. Connolly informed me that ho would ho here at any time he is notified to bo iiere. The Chairman. — Do yoii undertake that Mr. Nicholas K. Connolly will be here at the next meeting ? Mb. M. Connolly. — I do, Sir. Mr, Martin P. Connolly, Bookkeeper of the firm of Larkin, Connolly &Co., called, and makes default. 'Til [ ^1 1 tv^kij m 1 f "l*.t! f ■;■ w f;ll f, ! 1', u_. - ,^ *' 1!J 1; i 'i- \ 1; I i ;i i'-ii sa 64 Victoria. (Appendix No. 1.) A. 1891 Mr. Michael Connolly (re-called.) By the Chairman : Q. Do you know anything about Martin P. Connolly? — A. I do not know anything about him, I saw him in Kingston last Monday or Tuesday. By Mr. Edgar : Q. Do you know whether he was served ? — A. Ho told me that he had not been. By Mr. Mulock Q. I would like to ask Mr. Connolly when he saw Mr. Martin. P. Connolly in Kingston ? — A. Last Sunday. Q. That was after he received this telegram? (Telegram having been read by the clerk). — A. I do not know. Q. lie received it on the 20th May and you saw him in Jvjngston on the 24th of May. Do you know when he left Quebec ? — A. I do not know. It was some daj's bofoie. Q. What did he come to Kingston for ? — j.^. He came there because he had no further work to do in Quebec. Q. Did he go there to see you ? — A. Ho came there to attend to our business. Q. Did ho receive any orders to go tiiere ? — A. 1 didn't ask him anything about it. Q. Did ho tell you he had icceived a telegram ? — A. I wouldn't swear one way or the other. Q. Did he mention having received a subpd'na? — A. He did not. Q. Did he mention that ho was called upon to appear before this Committee? — A. I do not remember that he did. Q, Did he not mention to you that he had been notified to appear before this Committee? — A. I do not remember that ho told me anything of the kind. 1 had vorj' little conversation with him. Q. Where did you meet ? — A. In our office. Q. (Jn Sunday ? — A. I saw him on Sunday. Q. Whore? — A. Somewhere about Kingston. Q. Where about? — A. It might have been on the site of the graving dock we are building there. Q. Was that before Sunday ? — A. Icannotsay whether it was Saturdaj' or Frida}-. Q. How many times did you see him when he was in Kingston ? — A. Every day ho was there. Q. What was the next day that you saw him? — A. The last day I saw him was the day I left. Q. What day was that ? — A. Monday. Q. Did j-ou know what his movements wore to be? Did he say? — A. No. I gave him instruction to look after oar account and see that the men wore paid. Q. What is payday?— A. The 15th of the month. Q. So under your instructions ho is to remain in Kingston until the 15th of the month ? The 15th of June ? — A. Unless my instructions are changed or counter- manded by my I rother. Q. So far as your instructions were concerned he would remain there until the 15th of June? — A. He would remain there as long as we wanted him. Q. You say that for all the time that you saw him in Kingston he never men- tioned about receiving a subpoena to attend before this Committee ? — A. I would not swear. 30 54 Victoria. (Appendix No. 1.) A. 1891 By Mr. Amyot : Q. In the absence of Mr. Martin P. Connolly, who is in charge of the Quebec office? — A. I cannot answei- that question. There are two or three watchmen there. Q. Name one of them ? — A. There are one or two there whose names I do not know. By Mr. Lister. Q, What had they to watch ? — A. They have a good many things to watch. Mb. Owen E. Murphy sworn : By Mr. Tarte : Q. You have been, I think, a member of the firm of Larkin, Connolly & Co. ? — A. Yes, Sir. Q. When did you become a member of that firm? — A. In 1880. Q. In connection with wliat work did you become a member of that firm ? — A. In connection with the Graving Dock at Ldvis. Q. Who were tlie members of the firm at that time? — A. Patrick Larkin, Nichohis K. Connolly and myself. Q. How lony: have you been a member of the firm since 1880 ? — A. Until I sold out in 1880 or 1890. I do not recollect the date. Q. At any rate until you sold out ? — A. Yes. I think it was in 1880 Q. What was the first work for which your firm made a tender after the Graving Dock work ? — A. Dredging in Quebec Harbour. (J. Do you romember what yeyr that was ? — A. In 1882, I believe. I am not positive, but I tiiink that was the year. Q. Who were the members ot the firm then ? — A. They were the same members of the fii'm, il. Did the members of the firm make up their minds to take with the*"., sunio one else at that time ? — A. Yes. Q. Whom?— A. Eobertll. McGroevy. Mr. Stuart — I would submit, Mr. Chairman, that what the membei-s of the firm nuulo up their minds to do is hardly relevant io the inquiry. Mr. Tarte. — Well, I want to be fair with my questions. (To witness). You have slated that Mr. Ii(d)ert McGreevy was aiin:ittcd with you as a member of the firm at that time? — A. Yes. Q. Will you tell us, if he was taken into the firm with the consent and know- ledge of the Hon. Thomas McGreevy? — A. Yes. Q. Did you discuss the matter yourself with the Hon. Thomas Mcfrreev}' ? Jlr. FiTZi'ATRicK objected to the question. Q. Did you discuss the position that Mr. llobert McGreevy was going to have in your firm, with anybody? — A. 1 discussed it with members of "the firm— Mr. Larkin and with Mr. Thomas McGreevy. Q. Then Mr. Thomas McGreevy knew full well that you were to take with you Mr. Robert McGreevy?— A. Yes. Q. Have you an^- recollection that tenders were iU'ked twice? — A. Yes; this (referring to a paper in his hand) is the first dredging contract. Q. Did 3'ou ])Ut in a tender the first time? — A. No. Q. Why ? — A. I had it made out and was going to the Harbour Coriimissioners to put it, in Avhen I met Mr. Thomas McGroevy who told me not to put t in ; that they would not be opened ; that the Commissioners intended that the concract would bo re-advertised. The consequence was I did not put it in. Q. - )id he give you any reason why you should not put in a tender ? — A. There were considerable reasons, but I have no remembrance of any other one than thai 81 m ifli^ 1^ Iti I il :f 1 ■I : i . i i ■ 54 Victoria. (Appendix No. 1.) A. 1891 ho said thoy would le-ndvertise to show Monro & Wright that we were not going to tentler and that wo would have an advantage in the next tender put in. Q. Who wore Moore & Wright ? — A. The former contractors in the Quebec Harbour. They wanted Mooro & Wright to bolievo that wo were not going to tender and that would give us an advantage for the next tender put in. Q. Then you did not put in a tentler? — A. No. Q. Then the tenders were prepared by you and you were just going to j^ut in your tender ? — A. Yes. Q. Then I understand that there were second tenders called for? — A. The con- tract was re-advei'tised and new tenders asketl for. Q. Do you remember if you were the only party to put in a tender, or if there were some other paities who tendered as you did ? — A. There were several tenders. I cannot luvnie them all at present. This was the second time. Q. Have you got any recollection of the respective positions of tlio pai'tics tendering at tho time? — A. No. Q. Were you informed at tho time that j'our tender was not tho lowest? — A.— Yes. Q. By whom were you informed ? — A. It was a public matter ; everybody knew it. The minute the tenders were opened everybody knew it. Q. 1 do not mean that. At any rate, let us take your answer as"* it is now. Then you were not the lowest as you say ? — A. No. Q. Have you any recollection of what took place after that ? Do you remember if there was a man Askwith, in Ottawa, who tendered at the time ? — A. Yes. Q. Do you remember Fiadot «& Millei-, from Quebec, putting a tender in? — A. I remember tliey did tender. Q. When the tenders were opened did you receive some letters from the Harbour Commissioners asking for new conditions for a deposit of money. — A. I believe we did. Q. Were you assured then, though you were not tho lowest, that you would get the contract? Mr. Henry — I object to that. Q. What assurance had you at tho time? — A. We had pretty strong assurances that the otiicr tondei-s wore low and irregular, and unable to put up the proper security and the contract would come to us. Q. Do you know vvhother thoy had the proper securities or not? As a matter of fact yours was not the lowest tender ? — A. No. Q. And you got the contract? — A. Yes. Q. How did "you get it then? — A. We got it, that is all I know. As tho con- tract was awariled us, wo put the security at the proper time under the conditions asked for. : i ■ Q. Have you any recollection that you put up additional security and that the same additional security had been asked from other parties? — A. I believe we were called upon to put up 810,000 in 2-4 hours, additional, in the certified cheque, and we put up the requii ed securities. Q. You have suggested that you were informed that other parties would not be able to put up proper security. As a matter of fact, did you know that they had not put up proper security ? — A. I was told that they had not. By Mr. Lister : Q. Who by ? — A. Several parties. By Mr. Tarte : Q. Can you name me a party ? — A. I would rather not answer that question now. (v. By Mr. Lister : By any official ? 32 54 Victoria. Appendix (So. 1.) A. 1891 The Chairman — You will have to answer that quostion. Witness. — 1 believe it was Mr. Mc(rrcevy lumself. Q. Which one? — A. Thomas. I am not positive, but to the best of my recollec- tion it was him. Q, Anybody else? — A. Unless his brother.. No other jmblii- official. Bij Mr. Tarte : Q. You have said Mr. Robert McGreevy became interested with you in this contract ? — A. Yes. (}. AVhy did you take Mr. Eobort McGieovy with you at the time? — A. To jjet the influence of his brother and help us along as best he could to make moiie^', and — Q. Did you not want to secure any other influence but that of Mr. Thomas Mtrireevy. Mr. .Stuart objected to the question as irrelevant. .Mr. Tarte — I want to know what the witness was going to say after the word • and". He has just stated that they took Mr. Robert McGreevy into the tirm to secure .Mr. Thomas McGreevy's influence and another influence. What is that other influence you were going to speak of? (A discussion took place as to the manner in which the question should be 2)ut to the witness and eventually the examination was proceeded with.) By Mr. Amy of : Q. You stated that you wanted to secure Mr. McGreevy's influence. I iisked you with whom ? — A. With the Minister of Public Works. (Mr. Henry pressed the objection that llio motives of these men were immaterial and was not evidence on the subject-matter of the investigation.) By Mr. Tarte : Q. At the same time that you arranged to have Mr, Robert McGreevy with you in connection with the dredging contract in 1882, did you make some other arrange- ment for future work ? — A. Robert McGreevy was to have the same inteiest in all contracts in the harbour of Quebec. He had the same in the Cross-wall. After the south wall conti-act, I impressed upon him to provide that Michael Connolly should get an equal quarter. It was agreed among ourselves that Mr. Larkin should be left out. Then we each had a quarter. The agreement that was originally entered into for the dredging was to carry also the same percentage in the Cross-v ail. By Mr. Edgar : Q. What was the percentage? — A. Thii-ty per cent. By Mr. Tarte : Q. Did the Hon. Thomas McGi-eevy at that time know, or rather did you discuss with him, the position that his brother Robert was going to have in the Cross-wall contract? — A. Yes. He Knew all about it. Q. All about the two contracts? — A. Yes. Q. Did you discuss the question with him? — A. Yes; on several occasions. By Mr. Mills {Bothoell) : il. What was the discussion ? — A. About the percentage that his brother had and ihe interest. I wanted originally to get out of the firm and let Robert McGreevy take my one-third interest. That they would not listen to, and finally it was agreed that Mr, Larkin was to have 20 per cent., Robert McGreevy 80 per cent., and Nicholas K. Connolly and myself 50 per cent. Afterwards K. Nicholas Connolly and myself divided that 50 per cent, with Michael Connolly into thirds. By Mr. Edgar : Q. In which contract was that ? — A. In the dredging, and the Cross-wall also. Afterwards with Mr. Larkin, instead of his having 20 per cent, we divided into four equal parts. 1—3 i;:.t»-: 33 iM. \\ m n\ II mil j- 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 ; ii By Air. Davies : Q. Was Mr. Thomus MctJroovy awnro of tho rospoctivo iiitorosts you had in these contrac'tN ? — A. Yen. Q. From convorMalionrt you had with him? — A. Yos. Q. Did you have convorsatioiis directly with him as to tho interest his brother was to have? — A. Yes ; directly with Thomas McUreovy himself, Q. Before his brother was taken in ho knew directly what interest Ilobort McGreevy was to have? — A. Y'cs. Q. From conversations with you ?-rA. Yes. By Mr. Mills {Bothwell) : Q. Who began tho conversations? — A. Thomas McGreevy himself. He told mo his brother had enough and he did not want mo to bo out of the firm. He said 30 per cent, was enough. He told me further that he told Captain Larkin that, coming down on the cars. By Mr. Lister : Q. Before Kobert McGreevy was taken into the Hrra did you have conversations with Thomas McGreevy ? — A. Yes. Q. About these contracts? — A. Y'es. Q. In what regard? About what? — A. About the removal of Kinipplo and Morris, the engineers. Q. They were the engineers on the work? — A. Yes; they were the engineers on the work of the L^vis Graving Dock at that time for tlie Harbour Commission. Q. You wanted them removed ? — A. Y^os. Q. Robert McGreevy was not then a partner ? — A. He became a jtvrtner, I think, in 1882, but I had several conversations with Thomus McGreev/ prcv'^us to that. Q. Previous to Kobert becoming a partner ? — A. Y'es. Q. Did you want these men removed before, or after Robert McGreevy became a partner ? — A. Before and after. Q. Then you had convejsations with Thomas McGreevy as to the removal of these engineers ? — A. Yes. Q. When was that ? — A. Along in 1881 most of the time, and partly in 1882. Q. Robert was a partner then ? — A. lie was in 1882. Q. What did you tell him about your wish as to having the engineers removed ? — A. They were very severe on us in keeping us to the letter of the contract, and it was a question whether we would have to give up the contract or the engineers be dismissed ? Q. It was a question as to whether you should live up to the contract or the eiiginers be dismissed? Sir John Thompson — He did not say " live up to the contract," he said "give up the contract." Witness. — Yes ; give up the contract. Q. Why would you have to give it up ? — A. Because we could not complete it at tho prices given ; and the way they were forcing us to do the work, Q. So that you would have to give it up ? — A. Yes. Q, In other words you oould not live up to it? — A, No. Q. So you thought you should get rid of the engineers ? — A, If possible. Q, You spoke to Thomas McGreevy about that? — A. Y'es. Q. What did you say to him? — A. There were s«veral conversations, I cannot remember them all. Q, You cannot recollect tho details ? — A, No. By the Chairman : Q. When was the first conversation? — A. We had so many, it is impossible for me to recollect. 34 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 By Mr. Curran ; Q. Whs it in tho early part, of 1881 ?— A. All thiou^'h 1881. By Mr. Tart e: Q. About tho removal of Messrn, Kinipploanil Morris, did you wish to have them rcmt)ved only biv uise as you said thoy kept you to your contract on the Graving Dock, oi- had you in viow at tho time any future work ? Mk. Stuart objocted to tho ipnistion. AVtTNEss — Wo know tho Cross-wall work was about being advertized and wo wanted, if possible, to have other engineers instead of Messrs. Kinipple and Morris control the contract. By Sir John Thompson : Q. Was anything said about that to Thomas McGreevy? — A. Yes. Q. When? — A. During 1881, on several occasions. By Mr. Curran : Q Previous to his brother being taken into the firm ? — A. Yes. By Mr. Tarte : Q. Ah a matter of fact 3-011 discussed over and over again the question of their removal with Thomas M'-Greevy ?— A. Yes. Q. Have you any recollection of tho fact that they had been removed? — A. Yes. Q. In what 3'ear wore they removed? — A. I forgot tho year, but I know they were removed. By Mr. Curran : Q. How long after these conversations? — A. I cannot recollect the ilay. Of coui'se the minutes of the Board of Harbour Commissioners will show that. By Mr. Tarte : Q. Do 3'ou romeinbor whether thoy weio removed previous to the Cross-wall contracts being awarded ? — A. They wore removed previously. Q. Did you tender for the Cross-wall work? — A. The firm of Larkin, Connolly &Co.? Yes. Q. In what year was that?— A. In 1S8;J. Q. You have stated that Mr. Eobert McGreevy was interested in the Cross-wall to tho : amo extent as he was in tho dredging contract ? — A. To the same extent — the same percentage. Q. While the tendoi-s were being prepared did you have any conversations or communications with Mr. Thomas AkGreevy ? — A. Yes. Q. Do you remember who wore tho parties who prepared the tenders in con- nection with that work — the Cross-wall ? — A. The firm of Larkin, Connolly & Co. Q. Who were the tenderers who put in tenders at the time ? — A. John Gallagher, Beauoage, and Larkin, Connolly & Co. Q. Do you know who proj>ared tho tenders of these three men ? — A. The firm of Larkin, Connolly & Co. By\ Mr. Lister : Q. They prepared the three tenders ? — A. Y'es. By Mr. Tarte : Q. Can you idontifj' this paper ? — A. Yes. It is tho schedule of rates. Begin- ning from the beginning. No. 1 is supposed to be John Gallagher's ; No. 2 is Beau- cage's ; and No. 3 Larkin, Connolly & Co.'s. (Paper filed and marked Exhibit " S2.") Q. In this paper, there is a schedule of rates of Nos. 1, 2 and 3 ? — A. Yes. 1-3J 35 Wi ,iV- Jiill 'Wt''- iii' ! f !tl It M' ■ 3 1 ^ i ii 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Who is No. 1 ?— A. John Gallagher. Q. No. 2 ? — A. Beaucage. Q. No. :j ? — A. Larkin, Connolly & Co. Q. Who was the lowest of these three tenders ? — A. John Gallagher. (i. And the second lowest ? — A. Bcuucage. Q. And the last one? — A. Larkin, Oonnoily & Co. Q. oan you toll lis in whose handwriting these figures are? To the i)est of your knowled'fo? — A. No. 1, is Michael Connolly's; No. 2, I believe is Eobert McGreevy's, and No. 3, is that of Peter Hume, our engineer. Q. These three tenders where put in ? — A. Yes, Q. Who is that man John Gallagher? What was ho at that time? — A. He was our foreman at the quarries at St. Vincent de Paul — quarrying stone for Quebec Harbour. Q. How long had he been foreman for you? — A. For a number of years. IIo had been in Connolly's employ before I became a partner with them. Q. Has he been employed since that? — A. Yes. Q. And by you? — A. Yes. By Mr. Amyot : Q. Is he a man of some pecuniary means? — A. 1 would rather that some one else would answer that question. By Mr. Curran : Q. Do you know personally what he is worth ? — A. He was working with us on salary. I presume he was worth a few thousands at the time. Did 3"ou know what his means were at the time? — A. This I know, that he really had no means of any account. By Mr. Tarte ; Q. At any rate he was foreman for you? — A. Yes. Q. You made the figures for his tender ? — A. Yes ; they were made in the office. By Mr. Burdett : Q. In whose interests were they made ? — A. The firm of Larkin, Connolly &Co. By Mr. ^Hector Cameron : Q. Was Captain Larkin present when they were prepared ? — A. I will not say that he was. We had very little business with Captain Larkin. By Mr. Tarte : Q. These tendds were then sent in ? To make a long story short — will you tell us what took place after that ? All these tenders were the firm's tenders as a matter of fact ? — A. Yes. Q. Wliat took place? — A. After, I sent in the tender of Larkin, Connolly & Co. to the Harbour Commissioners myself. They were all put in a^ far as I know in a regular way. Gallagher put in his tender and BeaiiCago or some other man for him put in his. They were then sent to Ottawa where they were opened. We got information during the time they weie at Ottawa, about the relative amounts. Of course we knew the amount of the three tenders before we sent them in. This information came from Mr. Thomas McGreevy who directed us to have Gallagher's tender withdrawn immediately. So a letter to that effect was prepared and Galla- gher withdrew his tender. By Sir John Thompson : Q. Was the information from Thomas McGreevy by letter ? — A. Verbally and, both. 86 m 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. At what time? — A. While the tenders were at Ottawa, to Ottawa for the calculations to bo made. Thoy were brought By the Chairman : (•l. AVero they opened at Ottawa ?-:— A. They were opened here I understood. By Sir John Thompson : Q. They were received at Quebec ? — A. Yes ; by the Harbour Commissioners. Q. Were they not opened there? — A. That I could not te'' you ; I understood not. By Mr. Tarte : Q. At. the time do you remember having read tiiree letters signed by Hon. Thomas McQreevy sent for your information in the Cross-wall affair ? — A. His brother Robert showed me every letter sent by Thomas McClreevy iti reference to this affair. By Mr. Burdett : Q. Who put up the money for the three tenders? — A. Mr. Thomas McGreevy told me that he did on the Beaucage tender, and he complained that the Union Bank charged him 9 per cent., I think it was, but it may be a cheque was put up. Q. Who put up the cheque for the others? — A. For Gallagher? Q. Yes? — A. I would not be positive, but I think it was Nicholas K. Connolly. Q. But it was the firm that did it? — A. I suppose so. It was Mr. Nicholas K. Connolly to the best of my knowledge. , By Mr. Tarte: Q. At any rate it was ]>ut in in the interest of the lirm with your knowledge? — A. Yes. Q. Look at this letter (Exhibit "B 2,") dated 5th May — have you seen it before? — A. 1 recollect i-eading that letter. Q. Now this one (Exhibit "C 2.") dated 7th May?— A. Yes. I recollect reading that. Q. Look at this one (Exhibit 'D2.") ? — A. I was also shown that. It has x*efer- enoe to Kinipplo and Morris. 1 :ecolloct it. I may state here, gentlemen, that Mr. Robert McGreevy has shown me all those letters that came from his brother Thomas in reference to all these works. Q. To all the works?— A. Yes. Q. You stated a minute ago that Mr. Thomas McGreevy said to you that he had put up the deposit tor Beaucage ? — A, Yes. By Mr. Lister : Q. You say that those letters handed to you by Mr-. Tarte were shown to you ? —A. Yes. Q. Are they in the haiKlwiiting of Thomas McGreevy? — A. Yes. Q. Is the signature Thomas Mc(iroovy's? — A. Yes. By Mr. Edgar : Q. Look at the totter of the 5th May (Hxhihlt "B 2.") and road from the portion commencing, " the tenders for Cross-wall, Ac." ? — A. ''The tenders tor Cross-wall only arrived hero j'osterday and are locked u]) until Monday, when lie will commence his calculations. 1 will write you Tuesday and lot you know the result. Larkin was hor'o yesterday. I told him that it would bo useless to get ."otors out of the way, as it would bo tantamount to giving the contract tn the highesi tondoior, that you would have to stick to Boancage's lender as it was fair." Q. Now the second letter (Kxhibit "C 2 "), dated 7th May. ^^lyad, commencing from the words " 1 hope"? — A. " I hope to let you know to-morrow about the result ".r<| I , ■ \\l ! '. I i 1' 37 I ; 54 "Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Ml ■; 1 H 1.1 i : Hii ill 111 of Cross-wall tenders. Have your ai-rangements right with Beaucage before result is known. I will give you timely notice." Q. Now the one dated 17th May (Exhibit " D 2 ") ?— A. " As I told you yester- day to try and get a good plan, and as quick as possible, in answer to' the letter that Gallagher and Beaucage will receive about their tenders to bring them over L. & C, so as their contract will be the lowest. The contract will be awarded from Ottawa direct. 1 think I will go down Saturday." I was shown that at the time. By Mr. Tarte : Q. Now, that you have read the letters, will you tell the story as it is ? Four tenders wentin in all, Peters', Gallager's, Larkin, Connolly & Co.'s and Beaucage's ?— A. What story do you want? Q. How did you get that work ? — A. We were instructed to have Gallaijher ask for the withdrawal of his cheque or tender — to send a letter to Ottawa to tl at offoct, and it was done. I met Mr. Thomas McGreevy in Dalhousie Street, Quebec, and he told me that he had promised Beaucage, after Robert McGreevy had got the assignment of the contract to him, that he would give him (Beaucage) 85,000, and he wanted Larkin, Connolly & Co. to give it to Beaucage or else that he should get it from them to give to Beaucage. 1 then proposed that I would give $25,000 if Larkin, Connolly & Co. got the contract. By Mr. Edgar : Q. Proposed to whom? — A. To Thomas McGreevy. Q. Well ? — A. Well, the result was we got the contract. By Mr. Davies : Q. You proposed to Mr. Thomas McGreevy to give $25,000 to some one ? To whom was that ? — A. We proposed that we would give $25,000 for it. It was to Thomas McGreevy I was talking. By Mr. Amyot : Q. If I understand you properly, Mr. Murphy, you had got Gallagher yourself to withdraw his tender. There then remained between your tender of Larkin, Connolly & Co.'s that of Beaucage's ? — A. Yes. Q. It was lower than yc /s ? — A. Yes. Q. Then Mr. McGreevy told you he had bought, or something to that effect, Beaucage's interest under a promise of $5,000 ? — A. No. By Mr. Edgar : Q. Will you please repeat what ho did say ? — A. We knew at the time that Gal- lagher was the lowest, that Beaucage was the next and that we were the highest. But directions came to let us make some error.-;, if you please. When we got the result we found that Beaucage was over us and Larkin, Connolly & Co.'s tender was lower. By Mr. Amyot : Q. I want to understand what those $5,000 promised by Mr. McGreevy to Beau- f"age wero for ? — A. To get Beaucage to give up the contract and to assign it to Larkin, Connolly & Co. By Mr. Burdett : Q. Was it done ?— A. The assignment was m:ide. By Mr. Amyot : Q. Then you told Mr. McGreevy that instead of giving $5,000 to Beaucage, if ho could manage things so that your tender would be accepted and the conti'act given to you that you would give him $25,000 ? — A. Yes. 38 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Larkin Connolly & Co. he was pencil and then it was that I By Mr. Mulock : Q. You promised 825,000 to Mi-. Thomas McGreevy ?— A. Yes. Q. Did you give it to him ? — A. Yes. By Mr. Amyot : Q. This is outside the interest of Robert M(?Gi-eevy as a pai-tner ? — A. Yes. We got information at the time to show that Gallagher was the lowest, Boaucago next and Larkin, Connolly & Co. highest. By Mr. Tarte : Q. What about Peters ? — A. Peters was under noxt to Beaucage. The figures were shown me in made the proposition to give $25,000. By Mr. Mills (Bothweli) : Q, Who showed you the figures ? — A. Thomas McGreevy. By Mr. Bavies : Q. In the letter j'ou read (Exhibit " D 2 ") he says " try and get a good plan, and as quick as possible in answer to the letter that Gallagher and Beaucage will receive about their tenders to bring them over L. & C, so as their tender will be the lowest." Was there any agreement made, or did you adopt any plai^ to accomplish this sug- gestion ? — A. Yes. Q. What plan was it? — A. There was doubt about the sheet piling on the back of the cribs and we intended originally to lay that out as a blind — as doubtful prices in figuring. And the letter came to us and one of the things was to change that sheet piling from so many dollars per running foot to so many cents. And it was made cents instead of dollars. Q. In the letter ? — A. In the letter that went from Quebec to Ottawa. Q. You say that in the tender which you submitted to Ottawa you had tendered for sheet piling? — A. We sent a schedule of rates. Q. So much per foot? — A. So much per lineal foot on the face of the work. Q. You had sent it in cents? — A. It was to be left as evasive as possible. Q. What is the tender ? — A. Twenty-five cents. Q. In each of the three tenders or only in Larkin, Connolh' & Co's? — A. They were put in one of them at twenty cents, and in Beaucage's twenty-six cents and we put in at twentj'-fivo cents. Q. All in the same form? — A. Nearly the same. Q. You received information from Ottawa with respect to that item. Have you any letters? — A. Yes; I will read the following: (Kxhibit"T2.") No. 65)05. " Departjient of Public Works, Canad.^, " Chief Kngineer's Office, Ottawa, 17th May, 1883. Quebec Harbour Works. "Sir, — In your tender for thf construction of the Cross wall harlioui' works, Quebec, there is an evident error in the prices. You have given for " shoet piling," 8", ()" and 4" lliick white pine, anrico per lineal foot in line of work, to enable mo to compare your tender with others who have given prices as per the requirements of the tender. 31) r " * ; I 1 ' 'I I' 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 U 'I if 'i : t J ;' t \ rl ■iv •. ! ( I I have to call your attention to the price you have placed in youi- tender "for pile driving to any depth not exceeding twenty feet," and the note that you have pla 'H that this price is for " labour only." It is clearly stated in clause 80 of the specification that all prices named in the schedule shall be held to cover not only the cost of labour, but of all the machinery, plant, &c. " I am. Sir, your obedient servant, " HENRY F. PERLEY, ''Chief Engineer" Q. He speaks of that as a plain, palpable error. Was that made purposely ? — A. I believe so. Q. When you got that letter from Mr. Perley asking you to correct it, what course did you take with reference to each of these tenders ? What did you do with Gallagher's ? — A. It was withdrawn. Q. What did you do with Beaucago's ? — A, Made it dollars. 820 per foot instead of twenty cents. Q. What did you do with your own ? A. Let it remain as it was. Q. By altering Boaucage's you put his tender above youi'S? — A. Not me. Q. Larkin, Connolly & Co. ? — A. That is for somebody else to answer. Q, By altering Boaucage's tender it made it higher than Larkin, Connolly & Co's ? — We were told that was the way it was done. By Mr. German : Q. Who told you ? — A. Thomas McGreevy. Ey 8ir John 'f^ompson : Q. Would you just road the item of the tender referring to the piling so that we may t*ee how the mistake occurred ? — A. That (referring to the document in his hand, Exhibit "S 2 ") was only the draft we made our tender from. Q. Who was the person who actually prepared these tenders ? Who attended to that business in the tirm ? — A. We all did. There was no particular person. Q. You all knew what was being done ? — A. Yes. Q. Was the same mistake made in Gallagher's and Beaucige's ? — A. Yes; in the same way but with ditt'eront prices. Q. They were all put in by measurement along the top of the work ? — A. In the length of the pile. Q. That did not include materials? — A. So Mr. Perley tays. Q. Do you know? — A. I do not. I have not read it simjc. Q. Did you know at the time these tenders were being put in that this error was being made purposely' ? — A. They were made all three alike at the time and we know it would include all labour in connection with these piles. We knew very well that it included all labo . Q, What did ?— A. These piles. Q. Do you mean that the specification Civlling for the tender covered the labour and material or bcHh ; or was that your tender ?-A. The specification and tender both. Q. Did your tender include both? — A. Certainly. Q. Then where was the mistake ? — A, It was purposely done. Q. In th.it respect you departed from the specification ? — A. We were told that it was a mistake in the letters from Ottawa. Q, Did you know that it was done at the time? — A. Yes. Q. In all three tenders? — A. I did not sue Beaucage's go in. Q Did you know that that departure was made in all three ? — A. We discussed those tenders all together. Q. Did you know that that change was being made in the other two tenders as well as your own ? That is, in Boaucage's, (rallagher's and Larkin, Connolly & Co.s? — A. 1 want to answer the question, but I want it to be put so 1 can understand it. Q. The specification called, in the section Mr. Perley has referred to, for a tender for labour and material both. Von knew that? — A. Yes. 40 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. You knew you did not tender in Larkiii, Connolly & Co.s tender for labour and material both, but tendered only for o/ie ? — A. The tender was for labour and material both. Q. In Larkin, Connolly & Co.s tender ? — A. In the whole three of them. Q. Then there was no mistake made and no change from the specification? — A. It was not a mistake. You understand one thing and I another. Q. But you said a few minutes ago that there was a mistake made in these ten- ders ? —A. There was evidently a mistake. Q. What was the mistake? — A. It is for him to say. Q. What was the mistake? — A. That we had not price enough for the sheet piling in line of work and if we intended that for dollars or cents. Q. H, •'• ' you enough? — A. We thought we had enough, but it was for other people to It K different. Q. What I want to know is, that you said a few minutes ago that there was a mistake made about it ; but now you say there was none, so far as you know? —A. No, Q. iN'ot in Larkin, Connolly & Go's tender? — A. I am speaking of Larkin, Con- nolly & Co. Q. Was there any made in Gallagher's or Beaucage's? — A. The prices were (he same only a little elaboi-ation, as it was the same parties. Q. VVill you say there was no mistake made intentionally in this? — A. I think not. By Mr. Edgar : Q. Was there any correction made intentionally? — A. Those are things that it is hardly fair to put to me now. It is a long time ago, Q. The tender was so many cents in each case per lineal foot. You have read a letter from Mr. Perley drawing attention to what he calls an evident error in that. He said it was an evident error in his letter? — A. Yes. Q. Do you know whether Gallagher and Beaucage received similar letters from Mr. Perley? — A. Gallagher's tender was withdrawn. At this time it was not neces- sary. Q. Larkin, Connolly & Co. received a similar letter? — A. Yes. Q. In answer to that letter, did Larkin, Connolly & Co. make any correction of what Mr. Perley called an error? — A. No. Q. What did they do? — A. We dictated a letter something like this : "Notwith- standing." Q. You made no correction? — A. No; as near as I can recollect we dictated a letter like this : " Notwithstanding that there is an error in this thing we will, if the contract is awarded still adhere to the tender." Q. As to the Beaucage tender what was done in reply to Mr. Perley's letter ? Was it allowed to stand as it was? — A. It was changed from twenty cents to dollars. It was made dollars instead of cents in the Beaucage tender in the letter to Ottawa. Q. With what object and ivith what etloct was that change made? — A. We were infcn-med that that would bring it over Larkin, Connolly & Co. and give us the contract. Q. Who informed you that ? — A. Thomas McGreevy. Q. I sec these letters wore dated Ottawa. Did he go to Quebec to see you? — A. Quebec. Yes. Q. Dill you see him in Quebec ? — A. Yob, Q. Did \"ou get that information from him there ? — A. [ got it fii-st from Robert and from himself afterwards. Q. Was it before or after you got that information that you sent in answers to Perley's letter ?— A. After. (J. And the effect, what was it? — A. We got the contract. (J. It put Beaucage higher than you and you got the contract ? — A. We got the contract. 41 i '1. ■ ( f* 1 ■[ fi 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 § m F'it;! SNi Hi:? !■ I 'fi( : I * i 5y il/;-. Curran : Q. Ah I understand you, you had made those three tenders yourself? — A. Yes. Q. You knew what was in these tenders? — A. Yes. Q. You knew what would be your relative positions. If you changed the Benucage tendei- from cents to dollars and left your own as it stood what need had you to get information from Thomas McGreevy ? — A. ^Ve got the information to do that. Q. How? — A. From Thomas McGreevy. Q. You said that you found out, as I understood you, that if this wei'e done it would alter the rnatter ? — A. It would bring Beaucage's tender over Larkin, Con- nolly & Go's. Q. What necessity was thei-e for Mr. McGreevy telling you that? — A. I think I explained that so plain that everj'body could understand it. When we put in the tenders John Gallagher was the lowest by a large amount. That was the tender we would do the work for. Wo thought it was fair prices and we were willing to do the work for them. Beaucage's was put in as a catch. Larkin, Connolly & Co, was away above that. Then, when we found that there was no one between Gallagher and Beaucage we were ordered to withdraw Gallagher's tender, which was done. And then we were only anxious to get Beaucage's. Thus it came that Mr. McGreevy and I made the bargain for $25,000, Q. We have all that down ? — A. Then when I made the proposal, when 1 was asked for the $5,000, I said I will give, or the firm (I was acting for the firm) will give 825,000 if the contract is awarded to us. Or in other words, to what was known as number three. £y Mr. Edgar : Q. Was it large enough to allov/ that margin ? — A. Yes ; more. By Sir John Thompson : Q. Who prepared the answer to Perley from Beaucage ? — A. It was prepared, I think, by Eobert McGreevy. I thiuk the letter was drafted in the form we should send it in. Q. Robert McGreevy prepared the reply for Beaucage about the supposed mis- take? — A. Yes; and also prepared the draft of a reply Larkin, Connolly & Co. was to send in. Q. The firm knew what was going on ? — A. Yes. £y Mr. Curran : Q. What was the need of getting any information from anybody that the tender of Beaucage would be higher than the tender of _,arkin, Connolly & Co., since you knew yourselves all the figures ? — A. I will answer that satisfactorily. We know the figures in Quebec and the measurements wo had taken, but then it was a ques- tion how they were figured up at Ottawa and the quantities multiplied, if you please, and why they wore. Q. After that ari'angement had been made by which these cents were changed into dollars, the firm of Larkin, Connolly & Co. came in next to Beaucage. Is that so ? — A. Peters would be next — if any alterations wore made — if any changes were made from the tenders as they left Quebec, so we understood. Q. I say, after that alteration had been made fiom dollars to cents — or, rather, cents to dollars — I understand you to say that Larkin, Connollj' & Co.'s tender came next. Is that so? — A. The information T got was that that would put Beaucage over Larkin, Connolly & Co. Q, Antl Larkin, Connolly & Co. would bo next to Boaucago ? You said some- thing about Peters? — A. I will explain that, as [ explained about the three tenders. Wo wore over Peters as the infoi-mation came. Then I proposed myself to try and get Peters out by giving him $10,000, previous to making this otf'or of $25,000, and there came a letter of instruction to me not to go near Peters. I believe there is a 42 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 letter there to that etTect. this offer of 825,000. Consequently 1 did not go near Peters. Then I made By Mr. Amyot : Q, From whom did that information come not to mind Peters ? — A. There is a letter from Thomas McGreevy to his brother Eobert. By Sir John Thompson : Q. I want to ask you if you let Beaucage know when that letter was prepared for him to sign ? — A. The McGrcevys did that. Q. They did that with your knowledge? Did they or did you let Beaucage know that you intended to stick to your tender ? — A. The McGreevys were dealing with him altogether. Q. Did anybody let him know? — A. That I do not know. By Mr. Davies : Q. The tenders as they went in to the Department would not show to an out- sider which was the lowest? They would have to be tabulated ; the pi'ices would have to be tabulated ? — A. The amount or quantities. Q. That is a pietty ticklish job ? — A. It is very simple. Q. It was not done by the parties tendering? — A. No. By Mr. Kirkpatrick : Q. How was Peters' tender got rid of? — A. That is for somebody else to answer beside myself. By Mr. Tarte : Q. Were you told? — A. We were told he was figured over Larkin, Connolly &Co. Q. Who told you that? — A. Thomas McGreevy. In other words, the answer was given to me that instead of being figured down they were figured up. Q. In Peteis' case ? — A. In all cases. By Mr. Amyot : Q. What was the consequence about the prices ; did it make Peters' higher or lower than yourselves ? — A. Higher, of course. By Mr. Edgar : Q. Here is a document produced by the Deputy Minister of Public Works from the Public Works Department, which is annexed to a report of Mr. Perley, and contains a great deal, in fact, most of the information in connection with this Cross- wall tender. It contains a tabulation in detail of all the different tenders added up and showing, as it does here in red ink, the changes in Beaucage's tender, which apparently raises it from $592,4G3, which is in pencil, up to $(i40,808 ; and Larkin, Connolly & Co.'s is put down as $()34,340. In connection with these reports there are some of those letters which Mr. Murphy has been speaking about. There is a letter here from Larkin, Connolly & Co. to Mr. Perley, dated 19th of May, on the subject of these tenders. There is another letter on the subject of these tenders from John Gallagher. I do not know whether the witness knows the handwriting or signature. Here is anothei- letter on the subject of these tenders from George Boaucage. Perhaps the witness can tell us about these. Do you know the hand- writing ? — A. Tiio first letter is from Larkin, Connolly & Co. The handwriting is that of Peter Hume, the engineer who is in our employ. 43 m Ml 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 fi- n iM \i II li }/ H^ m Q. Eead it ? " Larkin, Connolly & Co., (Exhibit " U 2.") " Contkactors Graving Dock, » llENRV F. Perley, " Lfvis, P.Q., 19th May, 1883. " Chief Engineer, Public Works. . " Dear Sir, — Your favour of 17th May is received, and in reply would say that in tendering for the Harbour Works at Quebec, our interpretation of the specitication was as we tendered, per lineal foot for each pile driven. Notwithstanding the error we have naade, we hold ourselves ready to enter into contract at the prices submitted in our tender, provided the work is awarded us. "We have the hor. .ur to be, " Your obedient servants, " LAEKIN, CONNOLLY & CO." Q. Here is a letter from Gallagher. Do you know that writing ? — A. That is Michael Connolly's writing : (Exhibit " Y 2.") " Montreal, 19th May, 1883. "Henry F. Perley, Esq., C.E., " Chief Engineer Public Works, Ottawa. " Sir, — Since I wrote you my withdrawal of tender for Quay wall, Quebec Harbour Works, I received your letter of 17th inst. asking me certain questions as to my intentions on the sheet piling, &c. I wish to say in reply, that my prices "were 25c. 20c. 15c. and 18e. per toot b.m. respectively, for these four items. " I remain. Sir, very respectfully yours, " JOHN GALLAGHEE." Do you know "Quebec, 2l8t May, 1883. Q. There is a letter apparently signed by George Beaucage. the writing? — A. I do not know that writing: (Exhibit " W 2.") *' Henry F. Perley, Esq., Chief Engineer, Department of Public Works, Ottawa. " Sir, — I have received your letter of 17th inst., No. 6905, relative to items in my tender for Cross-wall which demand an explanation. Having examined, on receipt of your letter, my memo, of details of calculations for this work in harbour of Quebec I find that my rates or prices, as is evident on the face of it, are based oti foot lineal of pile, and the width of these piles are assumed at 9" to 10" wide each, and I so read those items as meaning foot lineal of pile. This, I must say, is a serious error on my part. My rate for this work as now explained by you would bo $19 per foot for sheet piling, 8" thick driven from 6 to 8 feet, white pine ; do 6 inches thick, $17 ; do 4 inches, $15 per foot; do 6 inches thick of any timber as per clause 18 of specifications. $15.75, all per lineal foot in lino of work, and I desire my tender to be so amended. I think, under the circumstances, this addition should be allowed to my tender, seeing it is evidently an error, caused by a misunderstanding of the terms of the schedule. With regard to the second question in your letter on the item " pile driving to any depth not exceeding 20 feet," where you say I have put the words ' labour only,' this has also been an error, but as clause 80 of the specitica- tion you invoke is clear on the subject, I would strike out the words '' labour only " which I put. Hoping those explanations are clear and satisfactory, " I remain, your obedient servant, " GEOEGE BEA UCAGE." 44 ! 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 By Mr. Lister : Q. You say you iit^reed to pay 325,000 to get the contract awarded to Larkin, Connolly & Co. \yus the contract awarded to you? — A. Yes. Q. "Did you pay the $25,000?— A. Yes. Q. Who to? — A. If there is no objection I will explain : As I made the propof. tS.l' tl . 'i m hW 4. h Iff •'■'ii m ;i 1! 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 could not Hud anytliiiig about Martin P. Connolly at all. No jK»rsoii knew him, in fact. Thoy all know Mr. Mirhaol Connolly and NicholaH K, Connolly, but no person in Kingston Mcemcd to know Martin. Q. Bid you know Martin, yourself? — A. No, Sir; 1 did not. H. Did you go to tlio otlico of the tirm to make inquirios? — A. Yen, Sir. Q. And whom did j'ou address yourself to? — A. To Mr. Michael Connolly and Mr. Nicholas K. Connolly. Tlioy wore hoth in the office. Q. And what answer did you got? — A. Thoy told mo Martin P. Connolly was not with them. (^. Did thoy toll you where ho was? — A. No, Sir. il. Did you ask them ? — A. Yes, I asked them. Q. What did they say ? — A. They said ho was not with them now, (I. Did you ask them if they knew where he was now, and do you remember what answer they gave? — A. 1 do not exactly remember. I know they did not tell mo where ho was, anyway. Q. So you could not servo a subpa'na? — A. No, Sir. By Mr. Edgar : Q. Did either of the Messrs. Connoll}' say when ho had been in Kingston ? — A. No; they did not tell me when ho had been in Kingston. Q. Did they toll you how long since he left their employ? — A. They just told me that he was not with them now. By Mr. Lister : Q, Did you tell them to tell him what you wanted him tOr? — A. No; I simply asked them if ho was there, and if they know where ho was. By the Chairman : (I. You say you saw Mr. Nicholas Connolly in the office in Kingston ? — A. Yes; those two gentlemen were there. Mr. Michael Connolly recalled. By Mr. Edgar : Q. Mr. Connolly, do you know where Martin P. Connolly could be found since last Saturday ? — A. I do not, Sir. Q. Do you know whether he was in Kingston ? — A. I do not. Q. Did yo>i know at the time where he was ? — A. No, Sir. Q. When did you see him last? — A. The day before leaving for Ottawa. Q. What date was that ? — A. I think it was the L'5th of last month. (i. Where did you see him ? — A. At the depot of the Kingston and Pembroke Railway, in Kingston. Q. AVhere was he going then ? — A. 1 do not know that he was going any place in particular. Q. Did you have any conversation with him at that time ? — A. Yes; he came down. I think, to see me otf. Q. Did you give him any instructions, or did ho tell you anything about going away anywhere ? — A. No, Sir. Q. Do you know as a fact whether he has loft Kingston or not ? — A. Nothing, except what my brother said to me. Q. Did you have any conversation as to his going away ? — A. No, Sir. Q. Did he tell you anything about it? — A. No, Sir. Q. Do you know to-day where he is ? — A. I do not. Sir. Q. Is he still in your employ? — A. My brother says not. Q. When was he discharged ? — A. I cannot say. Q. When did he get his last pay ? — A. I do not know even that. Q. Do you know whether he got any money to go away with from your firm ? — A. I do not know, Sir. I presume ray brother can tell that. 48 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 B\) Mr. Lister : Q. Tho last ilay you wore horo you stated ho was sent up to Kingston tor the purpose of proparin^ your estimates? — A. Well, I said »o «ent up there, not t'or the purpose of preparin^j the estimates, but of lookinj^ after the *i'.i8iness. Q. Then on tho 25th of last month ho was in your employ " — A. lie was at tho depot. Q. He was in your employ ? — A. Yes ; as fai- as I know. Q. What momli(M' of the tirm was at Kingston., besides yourself? — A. My brother was there. Q. Had you any convoi-sation with your bi other, about discharging him? — A. None whatever. Q. There was no intention to dismiss hini (" — A. Well [ do not know. Q. I am speaking of your own knowlod/jo. Do you know of any intention at that time of dismissing him ? — A. I do not know that I did. (i. Do you know that he has been dismissed? — A. Not of my own knowledge, except what my brother told mo. Q. What did your brother tell you? — A. Th:it ho had nothing further for him to do, and he told him to go. Q. What time was that? — A. He did not tell mo what time. Q. It would be after the 25th of May ? — A. It must be, of eourse. Q. You do not require a book-keeper there at all? — A. We have not had ono. Wo have had a time-keeper to do all that sort of business up to the present; Martin used to conio up occasionally to pioparo the balance choiiuos. Q. Why did you bring him up? — A. To look after the accounts, Q. Was that all ?— A. That is all, as far as I know. (i. You had no intention at all of keeping him on? — A. Well, I cannot answer that whether we intended to keep him on or dismiss him. Q. How had he been hired and how was he paid? — A. Ho was paid whenever he applied for money Q. How much a year ? — A. Well, I do not know that, Q. You do not know what his salary was ? — A, I think something like 81,' JO. It might not bo that much or it might he more. Q. Is that your recollection? — A, I do not know that. Q. Is that your recollection? — A. I cannot say exactly what tho amount as, Q. When did his year begin ? — A. I do not know, Q. How long had ho been working for you ? — A, I told you since 1884, Q. Is the work you were engaged on in Kingston very large work? — I.. Not very large. Q. How many hundred thousand ? — A. I cannot tell until it is tinished. Q. Can you tell us what your contract is? — A. No. (-1. You do not know what tho contract is ? — A. I do not know exactly ; it depends altogether upon the amount of material put in. Q. What is your judgment as to the price ? — A. I do not know that I ever looked into it. Q. You never considered it at all? — A. No. Q. And you do not know when this man commenced to work for your firm?— A. I told you it was 1884. Q. You do not know what time of the year? — A. Some time in the winter think. Q. Then, being a yearly servant he would have entered upon a year? — A. suppose so. Q. And he simply left without making any claim for dismissal, or that sort? A. I do not know of any claim. By Mr. Edgar : Q. There are no other members of the firm, besides yourself and brother, who is here?— A. That is all. -11) 1—4 Mi '.',' U\ .1 fe-U m w *> :: 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 m ii i if ■ i 11 it!! Ii ■'' Q. Tliere is no other partner, nor anyone else interested? — A. None. Q. Whore docs Martin P. Connolly live? — A. His home has been in Quebec. (j. You said you do not Iwiow the amount of your contract ? — A. Xo. Q. Well, you knew the amount that was estimated when you got the contract, did you not ? — A. No ; 1 ('id not. (^. Bid you not know ^he gross amount estimated by the Department ? Mb. Lister. — He cannot come within 6100,000 of it. Q. Do you not know whether your tender was highest or lowest ? — A. I know we were sim))ly awarded the contra<'t, and sij^ned for it. Q. Was there any talk of dismissing Martin P. Connolly before you were here last meeting? — A. T do not know that there was. W^e have very little work to do; our v.ork is drawini:, to a close, and we do not have any use for him as a book-keeper. Q. You have |)ay -sheets? — A. Y'^es. Q. According to my recollection /ou said you would be hero to-day with your pay-sheets? — A. We looked after the business and not aftoi the books. Q. You know you told us he prepared your pa v sheets? — A. That would bo his duty, if he were there. ' Q. That would bo on the 15th of June? — A. Yes, that would be the 15th June. Q. You would not prepare them two weeks ahead of the 15th June? — A. He would prcjiare them immediately after the fiist. Q. Are they prepared ? — A. I do not know. Q. On what day was it your brother told you he was dismissed ? — A. He did not tell me. By Mr. Lister : Q. When did your brother tell 3'nu he was dismissed? — A. This morning. By Mr. Edgar : Q. You had not soon him before? — A. Yes; 1 saw him on Saturdaj' in Kings- ton. Q. Had your brother told you when he loft your employ? — A. Xc. By Mr. Lister - Q. He only told you this morning that ho had left your emjjloy V — A. He oidy told me this morning. By Mr. Edy<'.. ; Q. Did ho give you any idea .vheio he was to bo found? — A. Xo. Q. Did you ;isk him? — A. I did not. Q' Why was he (liNiMis>od ? — A. T cannot toll any further than our work for contiiu't was to close thee, and I iliil not ,■^oo wo hud much use for a oook-k'oo]ior. Jh/ Mr. Aniyut : Q. Dill your lirother slate that reason to you this morning? — A. 1 do not remomitcr that ho gave any reason. (^. You do not I omcmlior what occurred this inoiningon that point ?— A. lie said he hail left our employ. That was all ho told me this morning. By Mr. Tartc : books, this inquiry and I'vorything ? — A. I ilid not know it was necessary to explain auylliing. [ tolil iiini what occuricd. Q. You positively swear you never nientioneil Martin P. ("onnnlly's iiiune in Kingston when you wore talking with your brother on Saturday ? — A. J luiiy have nieutioned his name, but as 1 told you beforo my brother toM nic lie was out of our ein|iloy. ^). Vriiat time (lid your brollicr tell you that? — A. In the morning, the very time this luessonger of Ibe House of Coiiinions came to serve a subjiK'nu. I iisked biiii in the ])rescnce of (hat gontleman where be was. (J. Ami what did be answer? — A. lie said be did not know. He Wiis out of our employ. (J. What lime of day on Saturil.'iy wouM thai be? — A. 1 think aiioul !• or 1(( o'clock. (}. What else — what was the suiiject of your conversation ? — A. That was all. H. This man coining in to serve the siibpiena was what gave rise to the conver- sation — do you mean to say you and your brotbei- never discussed Martin P. Con- nolly's name or whereal)outs. without talking about those books he was in charge of so many ^'ears ? — A. I do. (l You do?— A. 1 do. 51 . 1—U . ' \\ d4 Victoria. Appendix {No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Bo you happen to know you distinctly told this Committee positivily and repeatedly, over and over ai^ain, that you never heard about his dismissal or his leaving your emj^lov until this morning ? — A. I told them aothing of the kin.; I said my brother told me of it again this morning. Q. He told you of iiis dismissal this morning after he had discharged him? — A. Tie told me he had left our eir.ploy of his own accord ; that was all I understood him to say. By Mr. Lister : Q. You are a witness here simply. Ycertaining that these were all the books that had been left by Martin Connollv ?— A. No. I could not tell them if I did. Q. Y( u ilid not lake any nu'ans to entjuirt V 'V There was nobolv tlier e WHO could tell you ? — A. Nobody could tell me. i knew probably more al»out the books than any d\' else who was there. b'i h i 54 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 Q. But !Mai-tin Connolly was tho ono who know moro about the bunks than any- body else, was bo not ? — A. lie ought to know. Q. Does anybody else know anything about these books than Martin Connolly? — A. I would know them. Q, Do yon know nuich then ? — A. I know a good deal. <^. Could \-oii explain the vouchors in tiiiscase? — A. No. Cl. Well, who can ? — A. \ do not believe an\'body can. Q. Not even Martin P. Connolly. Who m ide tho entries in tho book? — A. lie may not have made all tho entries. Wo had other biok-koepers besides Martin P. Connolly time 11711 > . (^ During tiie same time as Martin P. Connolly? — .V. No; not at the same time. (^. \Vell, some of tho entries in tho books — did you make all tho entries in the b')ok yonrsoli ? — A. No. Q Since 1884 have you had any book-keeper making any entries in these books but Martin P. Connolly ?"—i\ . No. (J. Who audited lliese books? — A. Martin was one of the auditors. Q. Who was the other of the auditors? — A. Mr. Hume. Q His tirst name, please ? — A. Peter. Bij Mr. .Lister : Q. Where docs he live ? — A. In Kingston. By Mr. Ed (jar : Q. [s ho one of your employes? — A. lie is. t^. Were they tho only two auditors? — A. There was another auditor who audited tho books in tiie interest of ^fr. L:irkin. Q. Who is he? — \. His name is ivimmitt. Q. Where does he live?— A. St. Catharines. Q. Wore those audits niado regularly? — A. Well, I do not know, \ was not there when a groat many of the audits wore made. Q. Well, 3'ou received .-i statement irom the auditors, did yon not, like the other jiartnors ? — A. Ye> ; sometimes I did. Q. And who would those be signed by? — A. They were generally signed by tho auditors, I think. Q. Were they trial balance sheets or what ? — A. Yes ; trial balance sheets? Q. And signed by the auditors? — A. Yes. Q, And flid the tirm aign them usually? — A. I thiid< someiiinos they did. But wo never coidd get Mr. Bob. Mefxreevy to sign them. Q. Did you ever lind fault with those trial balance sheets ? — A. Yos; many times — not with the trial Ijalanco sheets, but the way in whicdi tho moiu'y was sqiuuidered. Q, I am talking about the trial iialaneo sheets being made up by these auditors? — A. It was too late to tind fatdt with them then. Q. Have you any of those trial balance sheets 3'ourself as a memboi-of the tirm ? — A. I thiidc perhaps I have. Q. (Jan you produce any of them? — A. 1 do not know that I have any of them with mo, Q. You were told to bring with you everything relating to this case? — A. i have not seen any ^ince I was in British Columbia — L tlo not know whether 1 have any now. Q. Will you swear that you hiive not got any? — A. I nui}- have in Kingston, ii- my trunk. Q. I want you to produce them ? — A. I will i)ro luce them, or anything else I have in my jiossession. Q. You have notbi'ought any of tiiem ? — \. I did not think tliey were reiiuin"' Q. Well, we will rei[uiro them in this matter. Vou will prodiue them at tho next meeting? — A, If you want all tho (h)cumeiUs, it will make fully a carload. 53 k i a- 11: ' 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 lot of thorn up witli the books in If there are any otliers you want Q. Well, we will have a special train and stay here for three j'ears if necessary. We want all the evidence you know. How is it there are so many documents, that it will till a carload ? — A. All our business was kept by vouchers, you see. Q. J'^xplain, Mi". Connoll}*, how there comes to bo so very manj' papers, books and documents connected witli this case — you have not thought of bringing them with you ? — A. Well, over^' bill we got from anybody, and a separate voucher, as far as I know was made out for these bills and tiled and put away. Each voucher could be found on referring to the book. Q. Have you all of those? — A. I think so. Q. Wheie are they? — A. There may be a Quebec. Q. When ai'e they coming up ? — A. To-daj'. theie may be some in Quebec and Kingston, and wo will send for them. Q. l[(nv many books did you pack up? — A. One box. (/. That is not a caiload ? — A. There are a lot of vouchors not included in those at all. Q. Did you not think of bringing tncm? — A. If yra want thei.-., you can have them. Q. You have not produced them ; aie they there? — A. They are there Q. There was a lot of correspondence connected with this matter, was there not? — A. Well, there was correspondence — yes, Q. Whore is that correspondence ? — A. What correspondence do you refer to? Q. Any correspondence connected with this matter ? — A. To the Public Works Department ? Q. Well, sa}' to the Public Woi-ks Department as you suggested it — was there any ? — A. Yes ; there was. Q. And you have brought them up, I suppose? — A. Xo; I did not think the lettei'-books were sent in the box of books. Q. Do you mean to say the letters received are not in any of those sent? — A. I do not think so. Q. The files of these were not sent? — A. I do not know whore I could find the files of lettois. I fancy all those contained written by the firm are kept in somo of the letter-books. Q. You have not brought those ? — A. If you want them I w ill telegraph for them and get them. The CiiAiaM.\N — Here is the order of the Committee : " Y'ou are required to bring with you all the books, contracts, vouchers, letters received and other documents in your possession belonging to the firm of Larkin, Connoll}' & Co." in connecti';;i with this investigation. A. About those contracts — tho originals are here in the Public Works Department. Of course we have tho copies. Q, You are asked to produce all tho copies? — A. I had all tho copies in my possession when we left. £u Mr. Edgar : • Q. Aic' you in the habit of keeping or destroying your business corrc'-iinndenco yourself? — A. I never kept a copj' of any letters I wrote to iu>y ini'inboi'ot' the linn myself I do not tiiink I did, I am not in the habit of doing so. Q, You have the originals of lettoi's received from other members of the firm I suppose ? — A. I do not think so; I have only a verj' few, Q. How man}' do you suppose yon have? — A. 1 do not know really ln-w many. (}. Wliero are they? — A. I presume they are here. Q. Wbere? — A. in Ottawa, I have brought whalevor I had with me, Q. Have you got them in the room hero? — A. I ilid not think 1 would be i ailed upon this morning to produce them, but I can get tlu ol them? — A. Xo. .* ml 54 Victoria. Appendix {No. 1.) A. 1891 more than one or two letters to Robert McGreevy. I never liked the man and never cared to have anj' correspondence with him. Q. You only wrote to men whom you liked? You wrote to Mr. Murphy? — A. Yes ; t'oi- a time, until I found out his true character. Q. Did you keep up correspondence with Mr. Larkiu? — A. Yes; we were very friendly. Anything that I wrote derogatory to Larkin was brought out by the lies told to me by Murphy. Q. Did you keep copies of your letters to Mr, Larkin ?• — A. No. Q. Have you any of his letters sent to you? — A. I think 1 have. (I. Are the}- hero ? — A. No ; I do not think I have any of Larkin's letters here. I won't swear I have any of his letters loft. Q. Where would they bo if they were not here? — A. In Kingston. Q. Then you did not bring any with you which related to this matter? — A. I tliink 1 did. I searched wherever I could, except a trunk. There were some letters in that. It is a trunk that 1 have not opened much, or used since I came back fi'om British Columliia. Q. Vou have not searched that for papers? — A. Not when I was coming away. Q. At any lime lately? — A. I do not think I searched it for any considerable time. Q. For how long a time? — A. Perhups six months. Q. You made a coiisitleral>lo search in it then? — A. Yes ; I believe I did. (^. What were you looking for? — A, I could hardly tell; whatever papers I might tind. Q. This business was already in the newspapers? — A. I might have been look- ing for some summer or winter underclothing. Q. Yes ; but underclothing is not documents, altliough your name may be on it. Were you looking in the trunk for papers at all? — A. Yes; I may have been looking for papers. (). I aslced yon wore you looking for papei'S? — A. The chances are that I was looking i'oi- them. Ar(> not the chances this — that this matter between Mr. Tarteand McGreevy Q. was much spoken of in the newspapers about that time. You read about it in the papers did you not? — A. Ves. I road about it in the Globe at the time. Q. Were you looking in the trunk for papers in connection with this matter? — A. No ; I was looking for some notes that were duo me. Q. ('onnecled with these matters? — A. No. Q. Did yon see many of the papers in the box then ? — A. No ; not many. Q. It was not underclothing then that you were looking for ; it was notes? — A. It might have been. I was looking for underclothing at one time. Q. And now, that underclothing is out of the box. and the pajKMs are tlieic? — A. Some of them are there yet. By Mr. Tarte .• Q. Did you bring witii you know that I had to. all the notes paid by the tirm? — A. No; I did not Jiy Mr. Lister : (i. Did you bring any of tliem? — A. 1 cannot ^a}- that 1 did. By Mr. Amyot : Q. Where are they? — A. 1 cannot say. By Mr. Tarte : ' Q. You do not mean to say that ycm do not know that notes have been paid by the firm ? — A. I know it too well. (I. But you cannot tell us whether you liave any of these notes now? — A. No. Q. Where are thev ? — A. I cannot teil. 5t) 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Do you know anyone who can tell ? — A. I do not know. Q. Did you wee these notes lately — some of the notes paid by the tiim ? — A. I may have seen notes paid by the firm. Q. When ? — A. 1 do not know when. What notes do you refer to ? Q. 1 would like to have all the notes paid by the rirm since 1S84? The Chairman — T do not think that is a coiTct question; it is not lejfal. Vou do not want any of the notes with other parties, that have no connection with this case. Witness — Tiiere is a note for $400,000 that I gave to Mr. Murphy. It is in the Court House at Quebec. Mr. Tarte — That has nothing to do with this case. Witness — I th.ought, perhaps, that was one of the notes you wanted. Mr. Tarte — I do not know what that note is, as a matter of fact, and I do not wish to know. By Mr. Lister : Q. Have you any of the notes given by the firm and which Eobert McGrcovy got? — A. I cannot say that Eobert McGrcevy over got any notes from the firm. Q, Did you endorse a note to Kobert McGreevy for 85,000? — A. 1 do not know that 1 did. Q. Will you swear you did not? — A. I cannot swear that I did. Q. Do you know anything about those notes given to Eobert ^McGreevj'^ — a note payable to you made by the firm and endorsed by you?— A. There may iiave been such a note. Q. I ask you whether you ever endorsed such a note; I am not asking whether there may or may not have been such a note? — A. And 1 tell you I have enil(jrsed several notes. Q. Did you endorse one note made by the firm payable to yourself endorsed by you and handed to Eobert McGreevj^? — A. I never handed any note to Eoljert McGreevy. Q. The charge is that §25,000 was paid to Thomas McGreevy in promissory notes, signed by the firm of Larkin, Connolly & Co., which notes were given to Eobert McGieevy and that they wore signed in j-our office in (iiiobec? — A. I say I know nothing about that. Q. Did j'ou over sign such a note? — A. A note for 825,0(10? l^ Xo. S25,(HIacked them up. Q. When was that done? — A. When wo closed the works. q. When was that?— A. In 1887. Q. You havo told us that you have seen from time to time references to those charges in the newspapers, and have been a cai-eful reader of the Globe? — A. Yos ; I siiw many of the statements in the Globe; perhaps one or two escaped me. Q. Bid it ever strike you that you might be a witness in this case? — A. Cer- tainly it did. Q. You felt satisfied you wouiil ho called as a witness? — A. Certainly. Q. And did it strike you it was necessaiy to brush up a little as to tlie facts? — ^.. What do you mean? Q. Did it occur to you that it would bo necessaiy to refresh ^-our mind? — A. I do not know that my mind needed refro-ihing. Q. I should thiidf it to be necessary from your answers fo-day. Did it occur to you that your mind I'equircd refreshing ? — A. I remember everything that occurred. Q. You did not think it was necessary to look and examine what pajjors you might have in ^-our pi:)ssession ? — A. I tell you I brought everything I had. Q. I ask you that question and I want an answer — did you consider it was ne- cessary for you or subsequently, to examine the papers in your possession connected with these charges? — A. I ilo not think that my mind required any refreshing. Q. Then you say j-ou did not do it? — A. I cannot answer that. Q. Do you swoar you cannot tell ? — Did you or did you not? — A. I may have looked at some of the papers; I do not know whether 1 did or not. Q. That is your answer ? — A. Yes. yes. Q. Within a year — you cannot say whether you did or did not? — A. Not par- ticularly, I do not think that I did. Q. Yon sa}- not particularly, and you cannot remember? — A. No. Q. I understand that you had no business in British Columbia after 1887 ? — A. Certainly we have interest there yet. Q. But your business is all closed up there ? — A. We have plant there yet. Q. You were paid for your work ? — A. No. Q. Was thei-e anything to take you out to British Columbia? — A. Y'es; the cars. Q. It is not necessary for you to bo impertinent, Sir. Was there any business to take you out there recently? — A. Yes. Q. When were you there last ? — A. I was there in March. Q. March past? — A. Yes; thi& past March. Q. That was long after the charges had appeared in the Globe newspaper? — A. Yes. Q. Was it after Parliament had met? — A. No; it was before Parliament had met. Q. Yo I knew at that time that Mr. Tarte intended preferring charges against iV member of Parliament? — A. Yes ; he stated that in the public print. Q. You knew it and you wont to British Columbia ? — A. I did. To gather up your plant ? — A. To dispose of it if I could. How long did you remain there? — A. About a week. Did you dispose of the plant? — A. I did not. You only waited a week in British Columbia? — A. That is all the time I could spare. Q. Did you look for any papers while you were out there ? — A. There are none of our papers there tb»t I know of. §8 Q. Q. Q. Q. \-k 54 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 Q. A woiil or two about Martin P. ('onnolly, this book-keeper of yours, lie remained in cliiirfrc of your office after you liail left Quebec and cominenci'd work- ing in Kin o'clock, the office was open ; 1 prer^ume Kelly had the key. m rm 54 Victoria. Appendix (I^o. 1.) A. 1891 m I ! i-i' Q. Had you seen Kelly befoio that Monday morninfj? — A. I had. Q. When had you Heon him before ? — A. On Sunday. (I. Forenoon or aftoi'noon? — A. Forenoon and afternoon, hotii. (I. You told him what you wanted ? — A. Yes. Q. You told him you had come for the papers ? — A. I did, Q. What is Kelly's particular work ? — A. To exerciise suporvi.sion over the plant and workmen in charge. Q. Was ho a practical workman ? — A. lie was time-koeper and exercised Huporvision. Q. You saw him on Sunday morning and afternoon and then on Mondaj' morn- ing? — A. Yfs. Q. What was ho doing on the Monday morning when you got there ? — A. Packing up the hooks. Q. Did you tell him what yaw had come ibr ? — A. I did. (-i. Were the hooks pretty well packed up when j'ou got there ? — A. Yes; a great man}' had been packed. Q. Had not Martin P. Connolly been in Quebec between the time you saw him on Saturday' and the day he saw you ott' on the train and your arrival in Quebec on Sunday?— A. llow could I tell ? Q. I am asking you ? — A. I cannot tell. il. Did anyone tell j'ou that ho had been there ? — A. Xo. il. Did you enquire? — A. Yes; I encpiired of Kelly if he had been there. Q. So, although he was no longer in your employ, you wont to Quebec and saw Kelly and asked him if .M. P. Connolly had been there? — A. Yes. Q. Did you?— A. I did. Q. What did you do that for ? — A. I wanted to know if he had been down — if Kelly had seen him. Q. Did you expect him to be there? — A. I do not know whether I expected him or not. If he were no longer in our employ he would naturally go home. 1 knew ho was in Kingston when 1 left. Q. How did you expect him to be there ? — A. Ho might have gone homo to see his mother or father. ii. Von expected him to be there? — A. Did I? Q. Did you ? — A. I do not know whether 1 did or not. Q. Why did you enquire for him, if you did not expect him to be there? — A. Because that was his ])lace. Q. You expected him to be there ? — A. I do not know that I did. lie maj' iiavo been theie. He is liable to be there. I cannot tell you whether he was. Q. But you enquired for him ? — A. 1 asked Kelly if he had seen him round. Q. Kelly told you tl\at he had not? — A. Kelly said he had not seen him. Q. Did you enquire of anybody else ? — A. I may have ; I do not think I did. Q. Will you swear you ilid not? — A. I cannot say. Q. This is not a long while ago. it was only on Sunday? — A. Y'es; but agrcat many things may happen in a couple of days. Q. Did 3'ou enquire from anjbody else? — A. I do not remember, i may have inquired but I will not swear whether I did or did not. Q. Were you not told that Martin Connolly had been there? — A. I was not. Q. You say j-ou won't swear? Was ho not in the city, as a matter of fact? — A; I know nothing of that. Q. You were not told it ? — A. He may have been there. He may bo there now for all I know. Q. Ana you know nothing about it ? — A. No; nothing whatever. Bij Mr. Jjungelier : Q. You stated at the commencement of your examination that on the 25th of May, you mot Martin P. Connolly at Kingston ? — A. Yes, Q. Did you speak with him on that occasion and tell him that he would be wanted here as a witness? — A. No; I did not, «0 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Wore ynii iiwaro ho would lie wanted uh a witnowH ? — A. There wiw very ?i Why dill he go little convorwution between us. It was at the station when I was coming away, that he was talUing about was this man Murpiiy. Q. What Murphy /—A. Owen Muri)hy. Q. What (lid he say to you about Murphy ? — A. What did he say ? He :iaid a great many things. Q. Was it something in eonnection with this invoBtigation? — A. ITe said fur one thing that he was a great scoundrel. Q. How did he come to sj)ealv about Murphy? Was there anj' conversation between you and him in relation lo this investigation? — A. I asUed him it' he thought that ^lurphy would be in Ottawa, or something like that. 1 thiidc he told me that he did not believe ilurphy would ever have the eheeic to a])pear here. Bi/ Mr. Mulock : Q. llow did Martin P. Connolly come to go to Kingston ? there ? — A. I suppose he came up to attend to our business. Q. Did he como up of his own accord ? — A. I cannot tell you that. Q. Did not you send for him to come up to Kingston on the occasion of his going there about the 21sl of May ? — A. I think I telegra])hed to him some time ago to come u]) as soon as ho got through. Q. Did you telegraph that you wanted him? — A. I think I sent for him to come up as soon as ho got the dredge ready to leave Quebec. Q. When did you communicate with him to come up? — A. I do not recollect. Q. Was i' by telegram or by letter? — A. I think it vvas by telegram. Q. From Kingston? — A. No; 1 thiidc it was ti-om Montreal. Q. Where did you hand in thedes))atch ? AVhich line of telegraph diil you send it by ? — A. I do not know exactly. I think it was that line in the Granil Trunk olHco, Q. When wore ycni in Montreal? — A. I am in Montreal very frequently — every week or two. Q. What was the date when you were in Montreal when you telegraphed to Martin J^. Connolly ? — A. I do not know; I cannot say. Q. What month was it ? — A. I presume it was in the month of May. Q. IIow many times in the month of May, 1891, wore you in Montreal ? — A. I cannot tell you. (I. Were you there more than once ? — A. I may have been there several times. My business calls me to ilontreal about twice a month or probably more. Q. I am s])eaking of what happened in May, 1891. IIow many separate trips did you make to ^lontrealin May, 1891? — A. I mtiy have made one or two, or I may have made more. I cannot tell. Q. Was it more than two? — A. I cannot say. Q. You do not know? — A. It may have been more than two; it may not have been that many. Q. Will you swear you were not in Montreal more than twice in May, 1891? — A. Tt) the best of my knowledge and belief, I may have been in Montreal from one to three times. Q. The best of your knowledge and belief is what? — A. I may have been from one to three times in Montreal; 1 maj' have been more than that. Q. So then the best of your knowleiige and belief is that you do not know any- thing about it? — A. I know that i have been there. Q. You swear you cannot say whether it was once, twice, three times, or moi-e se])urate occasions ? — A. I say I may have been there from one to three times, per- haps more. Q. So that you do not know how many times you were in Montreal in May hist?— A Xo. Q. On which occasion was it that you telegraphed to Mr. Martin P. Connolly to come to Kingston ? — A. Some time during the month. (I. Which time during the month ? — A. I do not know which occasion it was; it was some time during the month of Mav. Ul -■IS \^m .<."■ \ .'V^ ■.%. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) A /^ J^ 1.0 !?> I.I 28 1^ 1^ m m ^ {||20 1.8 1.25 1.4 III'-* ^ 6" — 1^ Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, NY. 14580 (716) S73-4S03 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1801 :!' ■1 Q. That is quite clear from wlmtyou have Htuted. Did you get any anHwer from Martin P. Connolly ?— A. No. Q. What did you say in your telegram to him ? — A. I told liim to come to Kingston, I think. Q. Did you meet him in Kingston ? — A. Yes; I believe I was in Kingston the da^- ho arrived. Q. The tirst day he arrived there, you saw him? — A. Yes. Q. How long was that after you telegraphed him ? — A. I do not know exactly. Q. What time elapsed between your telegraphing him and meeting him at Kingston ? — A. I cannot tell exactly. Q. llow many days ? — A. 1 could not tell. (}. A week ? — A. I could not tell. Q. How near could you tell '/ — A. I know that he came some time afler receiv- ing the message. Q. I presume it wa-* not before the message was sent. How long afler ? — A. Only a few days. Anyway ho came up as soon as ho got the business in shape to leave it. Q. So he came to Kingston from Quebec in answer to your telegram ? — A. 1 do not know that it was in iinswer to mj' telegram. Q. In consequence of your telegram ? — A. Jlecould better answer that (juestion. Q. You swore in answer to Mr. Lister that he came theie because you called him to Kingston ? — A. I asked him to come to Kingston, I said. Q. And yo" waid he came because ''we" called him — meaning Larkin, Connolly & Co. ? — A. Yes. Q. You were a member of the tirm that eallod him to Kingston ? — A. Yes. Q. You saw him in Kingston the day he arrived in answer to ^our telegram ? —A. I think I saw him the ver_, day he arrived. Q. He arrived in Kingston, you said, on the 21st May ? — A. Did I tell you he urrivod on the 21st .May ? Q. You did. You saiil you saw him that da}' ? — A. I said I saw him. Jiy Mr. Choquette : Q. When did you meet your brother in Mayablc or che(iue book in thcfitlice? — A. J told this man Kelly to \m\ u|> everything. 1 was ^o \<\\>y I could not give my |iersiiiuil attention to it. Q. You did not examine the books? — A. I told him to send evoi-ything that had relation to the matters in this case. I hud a special appointment with Mr. I'oiipore with resj)ect to a plant he was buying from us, I wanted to do that business and gel back lioio to attend the meeting of this Cummitiee. By Mr. Tarte: Q. Where is Martin 1'. ("unnolly? — A. I tf»ld you before I do not know anytliiug about it. Q. Mut you have strong suspicions? — A. Yimi may have strung suspicions. Q. Did you tMKpiiie of his niotlier? — A. No; I do not know bis moilu-r. (I. 1 very much suspect you could tell us? — A. You may suspect what yon like. By Mr. M'mcriefi' : (i. Dill you give him any special instructions — that is Kelly? — .\. I told him to )tut any of the books relating to the harbour works, the South wall, ami the graving dock in the box. By Mr. Tarte: Q. Did you tell him to nut in all the papers? — A. I did not sup])ose that the Committee would want all tlie voiu-hers. I told him to let them remain until we found out what was wanted ami then we could send for them. 1 concluded you woidd not want all the jjapeis after having copies of many of them here in Ottawa. ti'y '^M yl'V 1 1- • r' Mm i ill ! ii 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 4 m Jn' Q. Did you look in the safe? — A. The Hafe was open when I went in. Q. I Hoe? — A. I do not think I have the combination of the safe myself. Q. Dill you have it? — A. I do not believe 1 could open it. Q. Who could open it? — A. I suppose this man Kelly could, Ilomust certainly bo able to open it, because it was opeti when I wont into the office. Q. You found the safe open ? — A. Yos. By the Chairman : Q. Was anyone in charge of the office at the time? — A. This man Kelly. Q. Did this man Kelly open the safe? — A. Yes. Q. Was this Martin P. Connolly a relative of yours? — A. No relation whatevef that 1 know of. Q. You wore present when Mr. Murphy gave his evidence. Did yo«i hear him speak of notes being given to Robert Mcdrecvy at the request of Thomas Mel rreevy ? —A. Yes. Q. And that it was with the knowledge of every member of the firm ? — A. That IS not true. By Mr. Tarte : Q, You swore a minute ago that you did not know anything about this mattor? — A. I do not know anything about that. (i. How can you say it is not true? — A. it is not true as far as I know. il. It you do nor know anything about it you cannot be well informed? — A. To the best of my knowledge and belief I swear. By Mr. Edgar : Q. After these long yeare of faithful service by Mr. Martin P. Connolly I sup- pose you gave him a certificate of character and ail that? — A. 1 do not know what was i.'iven him. I do not know that he askod for it. Q. You never heard ? — A. No. Q. Do you know when he is to go buck to your employ? — Any arrangement made about that? — A. None tliat I know of. Q. Did your brother tell 3'ou all about it? — A. I did not ask him. Q. He told you of the event without you asking him? — A. No. Q. Did he toil you that he had been asked for a certificate of character by Martin Connolly? — A. No Q. Didn't it strike you as strange that this man after faithful service should bo dismissed without a certificate of character ? — A. I take very little regard for cer- tificates of character. The worst men we ever had, came to us with the best certifi- cates of character. Q. lie was a faithful servant ? — A. Yes ; as far as I know he was. Q. A good, honest man? — A. So far as I know. ii. And was trustworthy? — A. I believe so. Q. And truthful as far as you know? — A. As far as I know. By Mr. Lister; Q. You told us that this Martin P. Connolly came to Kingston on the strength of a tel»gram sent by you from Montreal? — A. No; he came subsequently to receiv ing that telcgnim. Tliat was some time in the month of May. (i. You said "we " called him to Kingston, that is true? — A. There is no doubt about that. Q. Had ho ever been to Kingston on the works before? — A. Many times. Q. Was he alwaj's sent for by telegram? — A. Generally by telegram. i^. When you wantes8iblo that . you can Imj related ? — A. That is it. Q. What relation is ho to you? — A. I wouiil not swoar he was any relation of mine. Q. What relation by reputation ? — A. A cousin, I believe ; but I am not sure. Bif Mr. Tarte : Q. You are not rturo at all that he is a cousin? — A. How could I be sum. i^. T did not ask that. Do ^-ou swear that he is not your cousin? — A. No; of couiso I do not swear that. Why sliould I swear that? lean only swear what I i:ii')\v of my own knowleilge. You have to take other people's word for that. By Mr. Ami/ot : Q. Did you rocoi^nizo him as your cousin ? — A. When. ? Q. In letters or in speaking? — A. In svriting to him, I think my usual mode ol" address was " Friend Owen.'* By Mr. Tarte : (I. So dishonest a man, •' Friend Owen " ? — A. At the lime I had a gooil opinion of him. By Mr. Amyot : Q. When did that good opinion finish ? When did you tind out that he was ;i scoundrel "i^ — A. When he commenciHl attacking us in the papers after we had paid him a large sum of money lor his good will and interest in the business — nearly twice as much as we asked for a similar interest. By Mr. Tarte : Q. Will you swear that in 1883 five notes of 8'>.<>II0 ouch were not given? — A. I will not swear. They may have been given. Wo had a great many trans- actions that it is impossible for me to keep track of. Q. Will you swear that these notes were not subsequently paid by the firm'/ — A. I supiKise that if any notes were issued by the firm they were paid. Q. Ihen you cannot say. You do not remember, 1 suppose, that these five notes of §;'),( »00 each were paid by the firm'/ — A. D' the notes were issued by the firm I am pretty* well satisfied they were paid. Q. But you do not remomlicr that they wore issued ? — A. I do not remember the time they were issued. There were a groat many notes issue*! by the tirm and it is impossirple for me to recollect the notes that were signed and issued by the firm. Q. Were 3'ou genei ally present when the auditing ol" accounts took place'/ — A. I was generally consulted about the items that wore objected to. Q. J)o you remember having found in one of the audits ol the firm the amount of 825,000, representing these five notes that I speak of now? — A. 1 have no recollection. Q. Did you generally sign the audits of the firm'/ — A. I genorally signed them if they were presented to me. Q. Then you do n()t remember if the audits in 1883, 1884 and 1885 have been piosented to you? — A. I tlo not know; I would not swear that they had or had not. Q. You ilo not lomember? — A. I do not. Q. Did you ' )ok to see if these audits wore in your possession? — A. Not recently. Q. When did you look for thorn last? — A. I do not remember that I ever looked for thorn. Q. When you receivoil the order to bring up heie all the papers you bad you ' i 66 r \ 1—5 if pi' III ^4 Victoria. (Appendix No. 1.) A. 1891 did I ot think proper 'o look ifyou had these paj)ers? — A. No; I did not think t lore were any ot my personal ])aper8, except life in»urance policies there. 'Q. Vou did not enquire or look if those audits were in your own possession? — A. I did not. Q. Do I understand you to say tliat all the notes paid by the tirni — given and paid by the tirni — \veredestroycnce with me all that time. (J. I will say more than that. Is it a fact that you hav«' recommen led lion. Mr. McfJreevy to him? Is it a fact that you wr.ne such letters? — A. It is cjuite possible. By the Chairman : Q. Do you recollect either having signed or endorsed any note intended tor the Hon. Thomiis McGreevy in relation to these works? — A. I do not recollect having >igned a note for the lion. Thomas McGreevy in my life. Q. Nor coming from your firm ? — A. Xo. Q. Are you sure about that? — A. I am jjretty sure about it. •Mr. Nicholas K. Connolly sworn. By the Chairman : (J. What is your first name ? — A. Nicholas. Q. When did you see Mr. Martin I'. Connolly last? — A. Last week. ^i. What day last week ? — A. I think it was on Wednesday last. *l. Did you know then that 1.0 knew a siibpo'na had been issued for him to appear before this Committee ? — A. I do not know that lie did. ^i. On what occasion did you see him and wfiere ? — A. I saw him in Kingston, iiiul in our office there. Q. Why did he go there ? Was he living in Kingston or somewhere else ? — A. He was living in Quebec, Q. For what reason did he go to Kingston ? — A. To settle up, I think and see about our books. (J. Who sent f jr him ?— A. I did. (I. Hy telegram or letter ? — A. By telegram, I think. 67 l-5i 11 t t'l"' r '' h ' 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. What (lid you say in your teloj^rram ? — A. That 1 wanted l>im in KingHton. Q. For what reaHoii '{ — A. To boo al)i>ut llio ImioIcs. (I, Wa» it in rohitioii to this investigation ? — A. No. (j. Did you mention anj'thing about tliiH investigation after ho arrivoookkeeper. Q. Would any expert give you the circumstances under which the entries are made ? — A. I think the ontries were made in the regular way. I do not know any- thing to the contrary. By Mr. Davits : Q. How long was Martin P. Connolly in your emploj-? — A. About five or six years. Q. Under what terms was he employed? — A. IIo was paid so much a month. Q. How much ? — A. I think it was 850 a month. (i. At the beginning of each month ? — A. Yes. Q. Ho had been a faithful employi^ ? — A. Very good. Q. When you sent for him to come up from Quebec, did you give him anj' inti- mation that you were going to discharge him ? — A. He has been doing little or nothing for the last two years. Q. Did you give him any intimation in the telegram that you iolonded to dis- chaige him ? — A. No. Q. When ho came there what did he come for ; for what work ? — A. Some settlement or to do some things with regard to the books. He was balancing the accounts. Q. Have you many men employed ? — A. Yes; a good many. 68 54 Victoria. Appendix (No, 1.) A. 1891 any Q. How many ?— A. About t5 or 100. Q. Somoltodv has to neo them paid and proparo the pay lints? — A. Ycs. Q. What work did you put him at when no camo tnoro ? — A. I did not put him at any juirticular work. Ho at oneo took hold of tho work himsolC. It wass not nocoHHary to toll him anything. Q. Ho wont to work preparing tho pay lists? — A. No; ho was halancing tho accounts, I think. Q. Did he pay the men while ho was theru? — A. No; not as a gunora! thing. Q. I say this time? — A. No. ii. Did ho proparo tho pay lists? — A. No. Q. Did ho get any instruction from your brother to do that? — A. Not that I know. Q. Would it bo curious if your brother had given insti-uction to him to see if the men wore paid ? — A. I do not tliink it would bo curious. Ho used to do that when he was there constiU' ly. Q. When he wont over tho books, wha». did ho do ? — A. He Krst wont over the books and made out vou''hors for bills that had boon paid. Q. That is what he came there for? — A. Yes. Q. How many daj's was ho doing that? — A. I think two f)r three dnys. Q. Then how many was it before that that he had been making up the books before he came?— A. Ho had' boon in Kingston, throe or four different times since wo commenced that work. Q. How many days elapsed since the previous visit? — A. I think about two or three months. Q. So that there wore two or three months of books to go over? — A. Yes. Q. Did lie make up a balance sheet ? — A. I do not know. Q. Did you ask him to ? — A. Yes. Ho said there was little or nothing to do more. Q. Did you ask him if he had made up a balance sheet? — A. No; I think not. Q Then your books were not balanced up by him when he came there the last time? — A. No. Q. I undei-stood you to tell me that ho was not to pay tho men or make up a balance shoot, but to go at tho books and make them up? — A. He did goat the books. Q. That was what you sent for him for? — A. Yes; that was his business. Q. When he camo there he went at it? — A. Yes. Q. Hut ho did not finish it? — A. No; we are not done tho work and he could not finish tho woik. Q. And he did not make up your books for you? — A. No. ■ \-m * ) 64 Victoria. (Appendix No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. What (lid you say to him ? — A. That I would bo glad to seo him do bolter. (l \\m that iho end of it ? — A. Voh, Q. Was anything moro than that miid ? — A. Nothing moro than that ho wanted what money wuh coming to him. I gave him a cheque for what was coming. Q. How much was that?- -A. 8150, I think. Q. You made an eutry of that at the time in the books ? — A. No ; I do not touch tho books. Q. Was tlieio an entry mad« in tho books? — A. Not unless ho made it. Q. What bunk did you give him a cheque on ? — A, The Union Bank. Q. Of Kingston ? — A. No ; there is no Union Jiank of Kingston. Q. What Union Bank was it ? — A. Of Montreal or Lower Canada. Q. Which was it, Union Bank at Montreal or Lower Caimda? — A. It is tho Union Hank of Canatla. Q. Where was the cheque cashed? — A. It might be cashed in Kingston or Montreal (j. On whom was tho chcnue drawn and on which of tho Uidon Banks of Canada ? — A. It is tho Montreal Bank where wo do our business. Q. This man who had been in your employ seven years and came there to balance up your books, suddenly said : " I would like to do bettor," and you at onco signed a c-hoquo for $150 ; then there was nothing more said or nothing done about his leaving. At this time when you gave him this cheque and discharged him had you received tho subpii-na to attend before this Committee? — A. I had not. Q. Had your brother roooived a subpcvna? — A. I believe ho had. Q. Did you discuss that fact with your brother? — A. No. Q. Did you receive tho information from your brother that ho had received a subpii'na? — A. I receipted a letter for my brother with tho subpiena in it. Q. Was there any conversation between you and Martin P. Connolly alx)Ut this investigation ? — A. Not at that time. Q. At any time? — A. Yes; there might have been, Q. What time was it? — A. As soon as this Committee was first ostablishor certain notes that were drawn for tho sum of $25,000 in notoB of 85,000 each endoi-sed by tho individual members of tho tirm in tho City of Quebec? — A. I have no reeoUection of it. Q. Do you remember, did you not endorse a nolo for $5,000 signoil and drawn by Larkin, Cid you ask him if he had the keys of the box coniaiiiiiig the books? — A. Q. Nothingat all?— A. No, Q. Only you sont him away because you had :iothing more to do with him ? Was that tho reason you sent him the telegram requesting his presence at Kingston a few days previous? — A. There was some work to be done there, some vouchers to bo made out that he had been working ut before, and he had nothing to do in (Quebec. Q. How niany daj'M afterwards was it that you dismissed him? — A. Three or four days. By Mr. Davies: Q. You stated that you endorsed a note for $.5,000, and you believed tho otboi members of tho firm did so also? Will you tell me where you endorsed that note? — A. 1 think it was in our oftico in (Quebec, Q. Who were present at tho time? — A. I do not remember who was present. Q. You were not alone of course? — A. No, (^ Can you recollect anyone who was there? — A. 1 think tho book-keei)er may liave been there. Q, Anybtxl}- else? — A. I do not know of anybody* else; I do not remember. ii. Tho book-keeiwr was Martin P. Connolly ? — A. Yes, (i. You think you and Martin Connolly were there alone? — A. No; I say there may have been somebody else, Q. What other people would likely be there? — A. When any notes of kind were endorsed Mr. Murphy was generally pi-csent. <) you know tlie office of Mr. McGreevy in Quebec ? How many offices has he ? Ho lias an office for example with the Eichelieu Navigation Compan}' ? — A. I did not know tliat Mr. McGreevy has any office of his own in Quebec. I generally found him at the Richelieu office. Q. You have been sneaking of certain notes of $5,000 each that were given bj' 3'our firm and endorsed by the individual members of the lirm. Do you know Mi'. Murphy was a witness here for the last few days ? — A. I saw by the papers he was here. Q. Is that Mr. Murphy a partner in your firm ? — A. He used to be a partner of our firm. Q. Are you aware that Mr. Murphy at any time took you and your ]>artners into one of Mr. McGroevy's offices and there caused you to endorse notes for $5,000 each, prepared by him in the name of the firm, which were to be given to Mr. McGreevy as payment forhis influence in connection with these contracts, and amounting in the aggregate to $25,000 ? — A. No ; there never was such a transaction. Q. Do you remember liaviiig been at any time in any office, over which Mr. Thomas McGreevy has control, and passing down through a trap door into another office below, and such a transaction being carried out there? — A. No; there was never any such thing. Q. On your oath, as a member of that firm, I ask you to swear positively whether on any occasion there was a sum of $25,000, or any sum of money whatso- ever, paid by your firm to Mr. Thomas McGreevy for his influence in connection with any of these contracts? — A. Not a dollar, to my knov, ledge. By Mr. Tarte : Q. Have you any recollection of having written letters to Mr. Owen Murphj- asking him to secure the influence of the Honorable Thomas McGreevy? Did you write any letters of that kind? — A. I maj- have. Q. Did you write such letters or not ? — A. I may have done so. Q. Do you i-emember having written such letters about the Cross-wall in Quebec ? (Objection taken that the question should not be put. unless the letters were produced.) Q. Did you write any such letters ? — A. I may have dono so, concerning his influence. By the Chairman : Q. You said something about $5,000 notes being signed ? Were any of those notes intended for Mr. Thomas McGreevy? — A. Not to my knowledge. Q. What do you mean by that? — A. I mean that if Mr. Thomas McGreevy was to get any of that mone}' I did not so understand it. By Mr. Amyot : Q. Who was to have them? — A. That I could not toll you. Q. Why cannot you tell? — A. 1 could not say who was to get them. By the Chairman : Q. Uocause you have no knowledge of them? — A. Yes. (}. Do you undertake to swear that Thomas McGreevj* directly or indirettl}' did not receive the produce of any of your notes or of any of your firm? — A. Not a dollar to my knowledge. By Mr. Edgar : Q. You stated that you had audited statements from the firm delivered to you ? — A. Yes. 76 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Ilavo you {rot them now? — A. No; they are in the office with the other papers. I did not i/ the Chairman : Q. Did you make any enquiry about the i-eceipt of the registered letter ? — A. I enquired of Mr. Keil^', who was in charge of the office. He told mo the registered letter was in the office. Q. Who received the registered letter ? — A. It must have been Mr. Kelly. Q. Did he tell you ? — A. I did not enquire of him. Q. Did you see the letter? — A. No; 1 did not see the letter, but he told mo it was in the office. By Mr. Curran : Q. Did you enquire of the Connolly's family in Quebec ? — A. No, Sii". Q. You see they were the only persons who could have given you any informa- tion ? — A. I was instructed by Mr. Murphy and Mr. Eobart McUreevy who were the most intei'osted in the question that they were sure M. P. Connolly was not in Que- bec. They made .-ill the enquiries in company with me. I went to the place where he used to board and made all the enquiries I could but could not tind him. By Mr. Amyot : Q. You did not go to his mother ? — A. No. I went to the place where Connolly used to take his lunch every day — the Blanchard Hotel — and he had not been there for a couple of weeks. Mr. Nicholas K. Connoi.i-y re-called. By Mr. Edgar : Q, Perhaps the witness could tell us if he heard by what train M. P. Connolly loft by and wliere he went ? — A. I cannot tell you any more of his de|)arture from Kingston. Q. He asked you for a pass to Toronto? Y'ou did not object to his going there or to (Juebec or to anywhere at all ? — A. I do not know which way he went. Q. You swear you have not the faintest knowledge? — A. I swear to the best ot my knowledge he went to Toronto, and that was the reason I gave for his asking nie for a pass. Q. Did he tell you he was going to see about employment at Toronto? — A. No; he did not tell. Mr. FiTZi'ATiuCK. — I think it only right to state that I have not soon Martin <"onnolly since ho left Quebec, if I recollect right, about a fortnight ago. Since that time I have neither seen nor heard of him, and I am prepared now to submit myself to a cross-examination under oath. Mr. Davies. — Nobody suggests that you have. Mr. FiTZPATRicK. — I am not so sure about that. Howevei-, I have to say further that if Connolly is not produced, it will be a nmtter for me to consider seriously how lar 1 can be further connected with this case. I now submit I am prepared to answer any question under cross-examination. 77 u^tm I i III 64 Victoria. (Appendix No. 1.) A. 1891 III Mr. NicuoiiAS K. Connolly i-e-called and further examined. By Mr. Mulock : Q You telegraphed Martin P. Connolly — by what line ? — A. I think it was by the Canadian Pacific Railway. Q. Well, I would like to have that teletrrara produced. Perhaps it can be pro- duced at less expense than by bringing up the officer who has custody of it? At any rate I would like to have the telegram here. And I presume the examination ol both the Connollys is to be continued. Mr. Faaser. — If Mr. Connolly would agree the Canadian Pacific Railway Co. would have no objections to sending a certified copy. The Chairman. — Do you agree to that Mr. Connolly? — A. I have no objection to that. The Committee then adjourned. ii 1 • ' 78 54 Victoria. (Appendix No. 1.) A. 1891 House ok Commons, Wednesday, 3ixl Juno, 1891. The Committee met at 10.30 a.m., Mr. Girouai-d in the Chair. Investifration into certain circumstances and statements made in connection with the tenders and contracts respecting the Quebec Harbour Works, &c., resumed. Mr. Michael Connolly re-called. V 'iTNESs. — I wish to state, Mr. Chairman, that all the books we have in our pos- session are here in the building and wo are ready hero to submit them to inspection, but I do not think we ought to have them open to the public. If there is any par- ticular entry wanted I am ready to read it. By Mr. Tarte : Q. Will you produce on the table of this Committee all the bookh, contracts, vouchers, letters, receipts, cheques and other documents in your possession or under your control in connection with : first, the dredging of the Harbour of (Juebcc since 1882; second, the Cross-wall in connection with the same work; lliinl, the dredging of the wet basin in the same harbour; fourth, the South-wall or retaining wall in the same harbour ; fifth, the graving dock at L^vis ; si.xth, the graving dock at Esqui- malt, as ordered by a subpur Improvements — two cash books, one ledger and one journal. South wall — ledger antl journal. Ksqui- malt dock — two ledgers, three journals and one cash book. By Mr. Amyot : Q. These books now belong to the Committee ? — A. No ; they do not belong to the Committee. Mr. Fergu —The statement I have to make on behalf of Messrs. Mich.'jel and Nicholas K. Connolly is that they are ready and willing to attend before this Committee and to exhibit the books from time to time tor the jiurpose of showing any particular entries therein, as to which witnesses may be examined pertaining to the charges referral for investigation in this matter. We take the position that these books contain a large number of accounts and transactions in no way pertaining to the subject of investigation betbi'o this Committee. There are a large number of unsettleil accounts by the fiim of Larkin, Connolly \ Ct>., tor which Nicholas K. Connolly and Michael Connolly are alone liable, and they submit that they should not be called ujion to submit these books lor general exploratory inspectioii but that they should be trailed upon to produce them and point out entries and accounts from time to time as they are required for the purposes of the Committee, and that they should not be given up for general inspection and general discovery. They should remain in their own custmly. The ])oint I make is that in the general meaning of the word ^)ro(/«c?«o« they are not prmluced. The witness is altemling here under a subpoena duces tecum but they are not produced in the ordinary sense in which docu- ments would bo produced in a suit, lie is here as a witness producing then\ from time to time, tho books remaining in his custody. 71» ■i.rfi'"a*?l ^•» ii ii ! I ! I fi ' 'i 1 i i ! ! I ■ i 1 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 By Mr. Tarte : Q. You have hiimied to this Committee a list of the books which we have now in our poHsession ? — A. A list of the books 1 have here yet, Q. But you have produceil here a list of books ? — A. Yes. Q. Have you got any other papers, vouchers, receipts, cheques or notes belonij- ing to you, or under your control, bearing on the works that are the subject of this enquiry ? — A. All the papers I have are here. There is another list not enumerated in that list, but they are here. This is the list: — 1. Trial balance-sheet, p]squimalt graving dock. 2. Contracts — (a) Graving dock, Esquimalt ; (6) Closing of opening of Louise embankment; (c) Graving dock. Point L^vis ; (d) Contract for dredging Quebec Harbour; (e) Cross-wall ; (/) (Quebec Harbour dredging ; (^) Letter, H. F. Perley to Larkin, Connolly & Co., May 17, 1883. Q. Is there a trial balance-sheet ? — A. Yes. Q. Will you produce it ? — A. With plejisurc. Here is the contract for the Esquimau graving dock (Exhibit " X2"), Q. You say you have brought the contracts here ? — A. All the contracts enu- merated in that list are here. Q. What are they? — A. For the closing of the opening in the Louise embank- ment (Exhibit " Y2 ") ; Contract for dreilging the Quebec Harbour works (Exhibit " Z2 ") ; Contract for the construction of the Quay-wall ; an entrance for the Wet-dock, Quebec, between the (Quebec Harbour Commissioners and Messrs. Larkin, Connolly & Co., dated Quebec, 6th June. 1883 (Kxhibit " A3 ") ; Contract for dredging and re- moving material from Wet-basin, Quebec Harbour Commissioners and Larkin, Connolly & Co., No. 3790 (Exhibit " B3 ") ; Graving Dock contract, Point L^vis (Kx- hibit " C3 "). This is a trial balance-sheet of the hsquimalt Graving Dock (Exhibit •' D3 "). By Mr. Edfjar : Q. Is that the final one ? — A. I cannot tell. Q. Look at it? — A. It saj-s: '"Trial balance ol Esquimalt Graving Dock up to date." Q. What date ? — A. I do not see any date on it. By Mr. Tarte : Q. In the list of the books I see " Levis Graving Dock — two cash-books." Will j-ou produce them? — A. They are all here, and I am ready to produce any item you want. Q, Will you produce them ? — A. I must decline to give them up. Q. Will you please put those two books ou the table of this Committee? — A. The books aie on the table. I am willing to point out any particular item in the the books and read it to the Committee, and willing to remain here from day to day and be examined on any item. By the Chairman : Q. You are ordered to lay those two books on the table and leave them under the control of the Committee? — A. I am quite willing to leave them on the table and open the books and read any portion that the Committee may desire, but to turn them over to the custody of the Committee I must decline. By Mr. Dacies : Q. I ask you to produce those two books and have them identified ? (No answer.) The Chairman. — Let the Clerk take the books. Witness. — I decline to allow the Clerk to touch those books. By the Chairman : Q. You are ordered to la}' on the table the above two cash books for the purpose of being marked and identified ? — A, I am quite willing to do that, but I do not know 80 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 exactly what that monim. If it tnenns turning tiio books over to the custody of th{ Committee I must dec-line ; but if it does not mean that, if it is intended for th purpose of invostif^ation, T am quite willing to do that. Q. Are you (|uite willing to lay the books on the table for the purpose of boin^ marked and identified ? — A. Yes. Q. Give us those two cash books in order that a letter may be put on each oi them? — A. I may state, if you will allow me, that we have made every otlbri since yesterday to ascertain the address of our bookkeeper. It possible we will have him here. lie can identify everything in these books. We have nothing to hide or conceal. The following Kxhibits wore tiled : Levis Graving Dock. (Exhibit "E 3.")— Cash book. (Kxhibit " F :•{.")— First journal. (Exhibit "G H.")— First ledger. rKxhibit "113.")— Second ledger (private journal of X. K. C.) (Exhibit " I :!.")— Second journal. (Exhibit " J 3.")— Third journal. Quebec Harbour Improvements. (Exhibit "K 3.")— First cash book. (Kxhibit "L 3.")— Second cash book. (Kxhibit " M 3.")— Ledger. (Kxhibit "X 3.")— .Fournal. (Kxhibit " O 3.")— Lodger. (Exhibit "P 3.")— Journal. South Wall. ESQUIMALT Dock. (Exhibit " Q3.")— First ledger. fKxhibif'R 3.")— First journal. (Exhibit "S 3.")— Second journal. (Kxhil)it "T 3.")— Third journal. (Kxhibit " U 3.")— Second ledger. The Chairman — I understand, Mr. Ferguson, that you undertake to produce the books here to-morrow. Mr. Ferouson — Yes. ilR. MuLocK — We do not want any undertaking. Mr. Ferouson — Then I withdraw my undertaking. By Mr. Tarte : Q. Mr. Connolly can you point out in any one of the bfioks any entry for expense, for notes of 8:i5,000 in 188."), I think? — A. I suppose I could. It would take me a good while to tind it though. Q. WiTl you try— from 1883 lo 1885?— A. What book is the entry in? Q. The Cross-wall.— A. What date? Q. 1 cannot give you the date? — A. You see I will have to hunt through the whole book. Q. You will hunt then ? — A. What year was the entry you speak of? Q. I did not make the entry myself. Did you make the entry about the notes ? — A. I did not. Q. Who did ? — A. I think that all the entries in these books wore made by Martin P. Connolly. Q. Is it to your knowledge that some ^mtry was made about $25,000 notes, given in 1883, in connection with the Cross-wall ? — A. I cannot say tluit Ihero was. 81 1-0 t i ■ ' 1 i t i I I 54 Victoria. (Appendix No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Did you over see jiny entry in the books about those nofo^? — A. I never cxuniincd the books; my time was fully occupied on the works directinijf tlio operation of the men and that sort of thinjj. Q. Then you are not in a iwsition to say when that entry was made, if made? — A. Xo, Sir, I am not. Q. You cannot point out to us tiie books, or the book, in which such entry should iiave been mado or lias been made ? — A. Xo ; all ! can do is to biinj; the books hero and hunt up any item you toll me, which, of course, I am quite willing to do. Q. Can you tell us if to your knowledi^e any entry of about §22,000 notes in 1884 was entered in the books? — A. Those books? Those books are the books of the ijuebec Harbour Iniprovemonts. Q. Have you the books in connection with thedravinjf I)ookatL(5vis ? — A. I have. <;. And the supplementary contracts? — A. I have them here. i}. Are 3'ou in a jjosition to i)oint out to mo in what book that entry of about S22,(»00 notes was made? — A. I am not. Q. Did you make the entry yourself? — A. No. Q. You never saw such an entry before? — A. I never examined the books nor audited them. By Mr. Davies : Q. Did you see it ? — A. I may have soon that or I may not. As I said before my time was fully occupied. il. Did you see the entry or did you not? — A. I wcm'tswear that I did, ordid not. By Mr. Tarte : Q. Did you ever see an}' of tlie cheque books of the firm? A. Yes; I have seen many cheque books. ii. Have you some of those che'iiliht'il to (^uel)cc yesterday afternoon when you gave an order for the books, and I think all the cheque books, letter books and vouchers will be here to day. Q. Are you pre]Kirey the Messrs. Conn<»lly into the other room and put in a bo.x which they iiad there tor that purpose, and which thiv had hrouijht from Quebec, and h)cked them up umler lock and key, the key liciii!.' ill possession of Mr. Connolly, and they are there yet. TiiK ('ii.MRMAN. — Are the hooks now at tiie disposal of the Committee? •Mil. Feikjison. — In the same way as yesterday. They will be proilucod iiero when called for as yesterday. Mil. l>AViEs. — Mr. Kerguson claims control and will not give them to the Com- mittee. Mil. Feiuhisox. — K.xactly. .Mr. Kdoau. — Are the books here for the Committee to examine? Mil. Keikiu.son. — No. Mil. KiRKi'ATRicK. — Are they o])en for examination by any member of tlie Com- mittoc on any item connected with this empiiiy? Mr. FEiuiUsoN, — Yes. Mr. MniiAEL Connolly re-called. Jiy the Chairman : *i. \Villyou bring those two cash books jilease? — A. Yes Sir; here are the two li books. By Mr. Choquette : (i. liCt tne see the two cash books. Will you hand those books to me that T iiKiy look into them? — A. No, Sir; 1 must decline to let the books pass out of my |lil>>0>sio|l. Bi/ Mr. Moncrieff : Q. I would ask. Mr. Connolly, whether you would have any objection to let any iiit'iiiber of the Commillee look at any ])agc of the book while you stand by and have ]i(is>cssion of the book? — A. Not the slighlost. ^l. You are perfectly willing that 1 should gi> there and turn over every jiageof the book? — A. No; not every Jiage. I wish them to s|iecity what particular page tliov want. Q. Of every account belonging to this investigation? — A. Y'es; every account Iroiu start to linish. t^. At the same time keeping control ot y(jur books? — A. Yes. By Mr. Kirhpatrkk : Q. Why didn't you allow Mr. Choquette to look at your book? — A. Because ne 'lid not specify the account. By Mr. Daly: Q. I would like to know if Mr, Connolly has any specific reason for not wishing to produce the books in the manner required by Mr. Choquette ? — A. I have, Sir. 83 1—6* 11. it. r 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 There are a ^leat many unsettled claims in tliose l)ooks and a yreat many otiior mattui'H not pertaining to this enquiry that 1 do not want other people to prowl through. Q. Can you give us tiie names of those people? — A. There area great many contractors here that I do not want to have see our hooks. Q. And there maybe friends of the contractors on the Committee? — A, Just so. By Mr, Amijot : Q. Would you kindly stale the names of some parties who have claims against Larkin, Connolly & Co. in 1S8;S? — A. 1 must decline to state that. Q. Do you give the same answer to 18S4, 1885, 188(i and following years? — A. I must decline to give the name of any of our creditors. (^. Would you give us an idea of the amount of claims there are? — A. They are not the suliject of eniiuiry before this Committee. A. II. Ill ^ -A. I was SecreUiry of the Mr. A. GouEiL, Deputy Minister of Public Works, sworn. By Air. Geoff riun : (-1. In what capacity are you now employed in the Public Works Department ? — A. As Deputy Minister. Q. Since when? — A. Since the 1st of .January last. (2. Piior to that date what was your emi)loymont ?-■ Department of Public Works. Q. Fur how many years? — A. I was appointed Secretary in January, 1885. i}. Who was your predecessor? — A. Mr. Knnis ; he is now dead. i]. Will you be kind enough, if you tind it amongst the papers of the Public Works Department, to tile before this Committee a letter from Mr. John B.Gallagher to the Department, dated the Kith of May, 1S8:{, giving the number? — A. The num- ber of the paper as tiled in our Department is ;J4(i2i». (^. In whose handwriting is the body of the letter ? Do you know whose it is? — A. I cannot tell. Q. To whom is it addressed? — A. It is addressed to the Secretary of the Department of I'ublic Works, Ottawa. Q. J{ead it. (Kxhibit"V:{.") "To the Secretary. " Department Public Works, '• Ottawa. "MoXTUEAL, U)th May, 1883. "Sir, — Since my proposal for the 'Cross Wall,' Quebec, which I learn from the Secretary of the Harbour Works has been sent to your Department, I find, owing to the length of time that has passed since my tender went in and the time it may take to decitle, and from the fact of fearing further delay, J have taken another con- tract and wish to withdraw my tender for the said work on condition of my deposit cheque being returned to me, " Very respectfullj', &c,, " JOHN GALLAGHER." Q. Will you file, if it is there, a letter dated 0th June, 1883, from Mr. Ennis addressed to Mr. Verret, Secretary of the Harbour Commission of Quebec, in con- nection with that letter of Mr. Gallagher's ? — A. Yes. Q. What is the number of the letter? — A. The number of the letter sent is 18801. Q. Will you read it please ? 84 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 A. (Kxliil.it "W.-l.") No. ISSOI 12 '• DePAIITMENT OK I'lHI.K' WiiUKS. :nr,2d, :t4!tl l, 35(i;{4. •• (Jttawa, J»tli Jmu-, 1SS3. 'SiK. — All <^nler in Council hsivinir issued to allow Mr. Joliii ter of Public Works, dated St. Catharines, April H(Mh. 1.SS3 and signed .lolm (iailaiiher. C^. Will you see wliethor you can find a copy of a lettei- from Mr. Peiloy li> Mr. (iallai,'lier ailowiiiii him to withdraw his tender? — A. I think it has already lieeii lileil a few days iimo. Q. Can you tile all the tenders that were put in for the Cross-wall at (iiiehec ? — A. No, Sir. i()n of the Department. 1 understand they were tirst of all received liy the Hariiour Commissioners, then sent by them to the Department ot' I'ldilic Work* and aficr the contract had been awarded they woie returned to the Harbour Commis. sioiiei's. Q. Have you the e.K'ensions of those tenders? — .V. Yes. Sir. It i* the same liiihdle of papers that were produce 1 before, at least 1 expect it is. By Mr. Fit ~j>at rick : Q. Let us verify that fact? — A. The extensions of the tenders are here. Bi/ Mr. Geofrion : Q. Will you Hie them?— A. Yes. (Kxteiision of Tenders tiled and markeil Kxhibit '" .\ ;>.") Q. Now the report of Mr. Peiley on the tenders ? — A. Ifcre it is. (Report tiled and marked iilxhibit " Y ;}".) The ne.xt paper is the copy of a letter from Mr. Pcrlev to Messrs. Larkin, Cuii- iK'lly it Co.. li' m 64 Victoria. (Appendix No. 1.) A. 1891 \l I h. ' ■ I I Then then* is tlio reply from Hcmicaijo. oii(li'nfO hetweeii .Mr. IVrley ai)(l (lie Ilarhoiir CoininissirtneiH al)Oiit (ralla^lier witiuirawinij^ his teii'ler? — \, I cannot tiny Mr. .lohn ter represents that an evident error was made in -nch tender, I Mr. (lail.iyhcr was communicated with and that he adhered to his prices. Imt h:t ^ in the meantime taken another contrat.. accepting the tender of .Messrs. Larkin, Connolly I'c Company for the construction of the proposed Cross-wall in connection with the works ot harbour impiovements at the mouth of the Kiver St. Charles. •' I also enclose the form of contract and of security agreement u.seil by this Department for works of about the same nature, wh'ch form the Honourable the Minister suggests might bo tised in the present instance by the Board of Harbour Commissioners. D" used, it will not bo necessary to submit the draft contract to this Department. " Should anj- change be made from the conditions of the enclosed form, then the draft of the proposed contract will require to be sent here for the approval of the Honourable tho Minister, the Department of Justice having given its opinion that such should be done. " I return herewith tho tenders forwardetl with your letter of the 2nd inst., and the cheques encloseti with those otters, with the e.Kception of that submitted by Sti A. 54 Victoria. (Appendix Xo. 1.) A. IbiJl Mr. (iiilliiijlioi', wliic-li in i-uiainuil ituiuliii^' tliu taking of the iiuccHMiry 8top8 for itM |iro|HM- (tiNpoMtl. " I litivu tliu hotiDiir to lie, Sir, " Your uliodioiit Horviint, "K. II. KNNIS. ■• licvretartj. " A. II. Veuhet, Ks(|., " .Soirt'iary llarlMnir Cr>inmiM»iioiiers, "(iUl'llOC." Q. Will yon Hit- a tolo^'nim dutoil tho 2;{ril of March, 188:i, mltlri'ssod hy .Sir Hector Laniroviii to iiis I)uputy from Qiicboc? — A. Ye.'*. (K.\liibit " K 1.") (N'o. 4!>, l)y ti'lci^raph from Quebec.) ■' Ott.wva, 2;{i(l March, 188:5. "Tot;. F. HAII.t.AIKOfi. •"Semi to Queltcf Harbour Comrniswioners |ihiii ami !<|)ecitic'ations about t'ross- wall, with ieltor askiii,;^ tiiem their opinion thereon. Do that inuuoiliately. " HKC.L. LAX(JKVI\." Q. Will you ascertain whether between the 2ock contracts prior to the awarding oi- signing of the contract 'i* — A. I cannot find any trace of such a memorandum. Of course there i' the usual correspondence boiween the contractors before the awarding of the contract, and after the tender has been decided upon — tho correspondence uskiiig them if they are prepared to enter into u contract, ami their answer thereto, saying whether they will or not. This is tho usual correspondence. Outside of that I cannot fiml any other. I have a telegiam to Larkin. Connolly & Co. of tho 28th October, asking them if they are prepared to enter into a contract for tho Ksquimalt Graving Dock. Then tlieio is an answer and at'ter that a telegram to Larkin asking if he got the message ix'peated from Quebec. By Mr. Edijar : Q. Have you got 28590 there?— A. Yc-^. 87 w ,(l 1 \ In ' m u iti: II f '1 f' ! 1 : r i 54 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 Q. That is a tele<;ram to Larkiii, Connolly & Co. in form in.; thorn that the con- tract for tho Esqiiimalt Graving Dock would lie ready fov siij;iiatiire on Friday and that a further sum would be required on deposit from tlieui. That is a synopsis of the document. Q. I?ead the whole of it please, and tile ? — A. (Exhibit " (r 4.") "Copy of telegram sent No. 28590. " Dei'ARTMENT of PuKLrr Works, " Ottaw.v. 5th Xovember, 18S4. " L.-VRKix, Connolly & Co., Indian Cove, Quebec. "Contract for H. C. (Traving Dock will be ready for your signature Friday next. A further sum of §11,200 will bo required in addition to your cheque for ST. 500 to complete 5 per cent, security. Please have it in readiness on Friday; when Sir Hector desires j'ou to be here to sign the contract. " F. 11. EXXIS." By Mr. Cleofrion : Q. Will you see whether you can find a letter from Thomas McGreevy to Mr. Perley, dated 0th September, 188-4?— A. It is not here. Q. Will you try anil Hnd a letter from Mr. McGreevy to ^Fr. Perley any time during the month of September? — A. I have been looking through the letters for the whole of that month. I had only four letters in that month, and cannot tind what you want. Q. You have none from McGreev}- to Perley? — A. X'^o, Sii-. Q. Is there an answer by Mr. Perley to Thomas McGreevy dated the 11th September, ISSl ? — A. Xo, Sir; 1 have none. Q. The list j-on have is that of all the letters and papers on tile in the Depart- ment '! — A. Yes. Sir; in so far as a very careful search has enabled me to tind o\\\. It has been done very carefully. Q. Will you tind a letter of Sth May, 1884. iVom Mr, Haskerville to the Depart- ment, and file it? — A. It is here. " Ottawa, Sth May, 1884. ^^ (Exhibit "H 4.'") " The Honourable Sir Hector Lanuevix, '• Minister of Public Works, Ottawa, " Dear .Sir, — \Vo have some time since submitted a tender for the completion of a (iraving Dock at Esquimalt, li,C, ''If you will agiee to the sul>stitution of eoliii masonry and dispense with the use of concrete and brick backing, we will consent to build the same for .SKJ per square J'ard, which will reduce the bulk sum about fifty three thousand dollars (85;{,OOU). Hoping that this will meet with j'fiur approval, " We remain, your obedient servants, "BASKERVILI.E \- CO." Btj Mr. Tarte ; Q. Do you know the handwriting? — A. I do not. By Mr. Geoffn'on : Q. Will von now tile Mr. Perlev's ri'port, dated the !tth Mav, 1884, So. 47040? —A. Yes. ' S8 54 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 (Exhibit " • 4.") " Department of Puhi.ic Works, "Chief Exoineer's Office, Ottawa, [itii May, 1SS4. "No. 10319. " Siibj., E.-q. Graving Dock. ''Sir, — With roference to the communication from Messrs. Haskervillo \ Co., containiiiij; an otl'er in moiiitication of their leniler for the construction of tiie i^iavini,' doclc at Esquimait, B.C., 1 have to leport as foliows: — "In I'^hruary hist, teiulers were culled for llio completion of this dock and only two weie received, one from Messrs. Baskervillc & Co., and the ' ther from Messrs. Stuns i^ O'llanly. "Usini,' the quantities supplied by Mr. Bennett, the Kosi'^ent Engineer, through the Honourable Mr. Trutch. ihcse tenders moniod out as follows : Baskervillc & Co 846r),:5()!t.r)4 Starrs & O'llanly 31J,240.58 "As from each of these tenders the sum of §.')((, 2SS.(!n for plant, tools, materials, kc. on the works have to be deducted, their net amounts become respectivelv .^415.- 02S.8.J and S2(;4,051.S0. "In my estimate of the cost of thi:< 'graving doek, I plaeedthe cost ofeompleling the dock work proper at §:i40,0ider the matter Avas finally settled to your Honour's satisfaction, until I was informed on Saturday last by Mr. Bryson, M.P., that ho hoard it was to be tendered for over again. I, therefore, made several attempts to-day to see you, but as I did not siicceetl and having heart! that you were going away, I tiioiight I would write you :igain. "As 1 always try to be guarded and not place your (Tovernment in any ('al>o position, before moving in this matter, and as they were both Irish Catholic firms that were in for the worU, and being aware that collusion is very ot'tcM practised in tendering for contracts, I asUed my brother if he iiad been aw; re of Starrs i^ O'llanly's tender before tiiey were opened, and both he and the ) est of the mem- bers ot his firm informed me that iliey did not, and were all willing to make affidavit to that effect if necessary. The}- further state^l ihat although they expected a good deal of competititm there were no parties more surprised tlian they were to find competition from that quarter. " Therefore, feeling satisfied that their tender was a bom\ fide one, I thought it my duty to ask your honour to accept it, and am willing to hold myself responsible for their actions. • "Mr. Stewart, one of tho members of tho firm, had an interview with Mr. Perk'}' respecting the work and prices tendered for, since my last inteiview with j-our honour; therefore Mr. Perley can inform you as to Mr. Stewart being out to view the situation, and his knowledge of the work. Not hearing fron\ your honour since my last interview with yon. yet I trust the result will be favourable to my friends, notwithstanding the rumours I have heard to tho conti'ary. If it should not. it will place me in an awkward position with my friends in the dirt'erent con- stituencies around here, and if it should be favourable to them I will alwiiys look on it as a personal favour to myself, and I have no doubt everything will be car.-ied out to your satisfaction. '• As your honour remarUcd to me to have this matter kept quief, my brother and I did so. He still holds the cheques in his posso-sioii as he expected he would get the work and would require to return them to you. Trusting that you will excuse mo for troubling you so much anil let nie know the result tf your decision as soon as convenient. " I remain youi- humble servnni. ' P. BASKERVILLE." 54 Victoria. (Appendix No. 1.) A. 18!>t By Mr. Tarte ; Q. There is something written by the Ministor on the letter, please read it? — A, " Memo. — Iiitorm Mr. Baskerville that new plans and specitications have been ordered and that now tenders will be called for. — II. L. L. " By Mr. Edgar : Q. Whose handwriting is that in ? — A. In Sir Hector Langevin's handwriting. By Mr. Geoffrion : Q. Please tile copy of a letter addi-essed by the Public Works Department to Starrs &, O'llanly, dated 7th October 1884 ?— A. (Exhibit "K 4.)" " Copy of letter sent No. 28, 140. " Department op PirBLic Works, '• Ottawa, 7th October, 1884. " Gentle.men, — Having reference to yo'.ir tender, dated the JOth till, for the completion of th>? graving dock at Esqnimalt li. C, I am directed b}- the Honourable the Minister of Public Works to inform you that ho allows you until Satuiday no\t the llth inst.. at 11 o'clock a. m. to strengthen yourselves financially by asso- ciating with y>n\ some man financially strong. '■ At the time mentioned he, the Minister, will expect to bo informed of the name of such associate, if any ; and whether he and you will be prepared to sign then a contract for the execution of the work. " 1 have the honour to be, gentlemen, '' Your obedient servant, ^'F. II. EXXIS. •' Secretary." " Messrs. Stakks k OIIanly, "Contractors, Ottawa. Q. Do you find an answer to this letter dated the 10th October, 1884? — A. Yes. (Exhibit " L 4.) " " Ottawa, 10th October. 1884. " F. II. Enxi?, I':sq., "Secretary Department of Public Works, Ottawa. •'Sir, — We nave the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 7th inst., ciiiivoylMg the wish of the Honourable the Miiiistei' of Public Works, re our tender tor the completion of the Es(iuimalt (ri'aving Dock, British Columbia. '• In reply we lieg to inform you that after considering the suggestion made of associating another contractor with us, we are of oj)iniou that as we have the neces- sary means ourselves we will be better able to perform the contract to the satisfac- tion of the (rovornment, without the assistance of another contractor, •• We will be ready to sign the contract Monday and make the nel■es^al•y deposit. " \Ve have the honour to be. S r, '• Your obedient servant, "STARRS i^ O'lIANLY." Q. Please file a letter dated the 21st of October, 18S4, addressed by th'» Depart- ment to Starrs iN: O'Hatily? (Exhibit "M 4.)" '• Copy of letter sent No. 2S;{7<5. " Dei'artme.nt ok Public Works, " Ottawa, 21st October, 18S4. •Michael Starrs, Esq., "Clarence Street, Ottawa. "Will you be good enough to call to this Department at once, re Esquimalt, Graving Dock. •' V. II. ENNIS, " Secretary." >i < tl l.'i ■;i »' 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 m By Mr. Edijar : Q. Willj'ou now proiiuce Mr. Perley's report dated the 29th September, 188-4? (Exhibit "X 4.'") "Ciiiek Engineer's Office, " Departjiest of Public Works, " Otiawa, 21}th September, 188J. No. 11728, Subj., Esq. Graving Dock. {Memoramhim.) "Eight tenders have been received for the completion of the graving dock at Esquinialt, British Columbia, under the terms and conditions stated in an advertise- ment dated Ottawa, 8th August, 1884, which have been marked lespectively A to H. " On applying the quantities to the prices staled in these tenders it is found that tender 'A,' atnounting to §338,945. 1'.i, is the lowest. " With reference to the lowest tender, I am of the opinion that, after deducting the amount to bo paid for plant as per specification, namely, 850,288.(J9, the balance remaining, namel}', 8288,65(5.40, is too small for the completion of the work in a Hatisfactoiy manner. "The tender next in order, letter ' C,' that of Messrs. Larkm, Connolij' «!i Co., for 8374.5."j9..53, gross, or, deducting the amount to be paid for plant, &c., $324,270.84, net. is one for which the works can, in my opinion, be completed. This firm is now engaged in the construction of the graving dock at Quebec and possesses not only the requisite ])lant, but also special knowledge and experience in connection with the manner in whicii graving docks are built. " IIEXRY E. PEKLEY. '• Chief En'jimer." Q. Is there nothing to show what was done with that report ; whether it was api)r()ved or not? — A. There is nothing on the ])aper. Q. Now we want the Order in Council of the lUth October, 1884, awaiding the contract to Starrs A; O'llanly ? — A. It is numbered 52845. (Exhibit " O 4.") "Certified Cm'Y of a Report of a Commiltee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by His Excellen'ci/ the Governor General in Council on the hith of October, 1884. "On a Memorandum dated 13th October, 1884, from the Minister of Public Works submitting, that in answer to public advertisement, eight tenders for the completion of a graving dock at Esquimalt, British Columbia, were received and that the tenders were made at schedule rates, and with the prices applied to ap])ioximate quantities were found to i-ange from 8338,945. 19 to §540,454,35, if concrete be used for backing, and from 8375.238.49 to 85l!3,264.85, if rubble be used for backing. "The Minister represents that the lowest 8338,945.19 is from Messrs. Starrs & O'llanly of this cit}-, who have, as required by advertisement, deposited with their tender an accepted security cheque for 87.5(tO, and that upon the submission ot Messrs. Starr's \- O'llanl^-'s tender, the chief engineer reports expressing opinion that after deducting the amount, 850,288.09, to be paid for plant as per speuifieation, the lialance which would remain to the lowest bidders, namely, 8288,565. 10, is too small for the completion of the work in a satisfactory manner. "The >[inisler further rop;esen!s that Messrs. Starrs & O'llanly were communi- cated with under date 7lh October, inst., requesting them to strengthen themselves financially by associating with them some man financially strong, and informing them that they would be allowed until Saturday last the llth, at 11 a.m., to do so, when they would be expected to give an answer stating the name of such associate, if any, and whether they wouki then be prepared to sign the contract, and that a reply dated the 10th inst. has this day been received in which Messrs. Starrs & O'llanly state that in their opinion thej' have the necessary means themselves, without the assistance of another contractor, and that they are read}' to sign the contract and make the necessary deposit, it being 5 per cent, of the amount of the tender, or say 817,000. 92 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 " The Minister in view of all the circumstanceB ami considering the large amount of 817,000 which will bo held by the,Government as seturity for the fultilnient of the contract docs not consider that the lowe.-^t bidder should bo pusscd over and recommends that upon Messrs. Starrs and O'llanly depositing to the credit of the Hon. the Receiver (Jeneral, the sum of 89,500, rc4uiied to complete the i-ecurity for the amount of their tender, the contract for the completion of the dock bo awarded to them. "The Committee sub nit the same for your Excellency's approval. " JOHN J. McCJEE, " Clerk, Privy Council. " To the Honourable •' The Minister of Public Works." Q. Please file copy of the Order in Council of the 25th October, 1884 ? (Exhibit "P 4.") 2055. " Certified Copy of a Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, apjvoved by His Excellency the Governor General in Council on the 25th October, 1884. "On a Memorandum dated 24th October, 1884, from the Minister of Public Works, submitting that Messrs. Starrs c*c O'llanl^' whose tender for the completion of the Esquiraalt graving-dock was accepted by Order in Council of the l(!th October instant, have to-day by letter signified that they made mistakes in some items of their tender, and tind that their prices are generally too low, submitting that it would not therefore be prudent for them to take the contract and requesting to be allowed to withdraw their tender and have their deposit cheque returned to them. "The Minister states that the chief engineer of his Department n. ports to tlio effect that their tender was too low and that the wcrk could not be done for the prices nameil ; that the figures for masonry and concrete, the two principal items, are so low that they barely cover the cost of the stone to bo quari-ied, leaving nothing for cement and labour and cutting and settling the stone in the work, and that it is evident that Messrs. Starrs & O'llanly have made serious mistakes in their tender as regaids these items. "The Minister in view of these circumstances, recommends that Messrs. Starrs Uii«i. John McKeniia J Ottawf No clie(iiie eiiclo.sed. "Engineer's estimate, .S340,(KJ0 net, after allowiiif; fur deduction for |(laiit. '• Summary. No. Xaiue. Letter. .Aiucmilt with Ooiurete liackiiif,' .Vmoimt with litililile Hacking'. 1 »> 3 4 Starrs & ( )'Haiilv Larkiii, Ouiiiolly it Co Haskerville it .Stewart .Inlin McMulliii A C 1) E ••^ ets. iaX.'Mr, 111 374,.Vi!» Xi 4(il,:i(17 3."' 4(1! 1,4 211 3(> 4 2! 1,2! IS 02 ."ii'.S,4."iS l.'i .•)12.!MI4 .■)2 .")4(l,4.-)4 .-C) cts. 375,2:is 4!l 4o;{.3:.'< 113 4!IS,:C)7 .Vi ri21,!ll>!l 20 5 H. F. Keefer ."in."i.42."i .-)2 (! 7 8 MitelielKt .McKeniia CiHike, .roiie.i it limes W'm. Davis it Sons ."),s,,\l!) 4it r.!n.73ii 17 .■•)(i3.2(i4 S.-) "Report to Council iccomnu'nding the acceptance of the lowcfst tender, namely, tliat of Messi'.s. Stari-8 i^ O'llaniy. "IlECTOJ} L. LANGEVIX." "Ottaw.v, 13th Oct.jher, 1884." Q. lluve 3'(»ii in your l>e)iartment the tenders ))Ut in hy BasUerville, Starrs it O'llaniy, and Lai kin, Connolly ..S: Co.? — A. There are eleven tenders altogether. Q. I refer mote esjiecially to those of Haskerviile, Siarrs & U'JIanly, and Lar- kip. ' ' )nnolly & Co.?— A. Xo. :y.'>VM> is that <.l Stans iV O'llaniy. ',. How is it signed ? — A. It is >igiiod M. Starrs, Contractor, Ottawa ; J. L. P. O'ji :i\ly. Civil Engineer, Ottawa. ',;. Now Baskerville's — how is it signed? — A. W.J. Baskerville, Contracto.-, Ottawa ; James O'Connor, Contiai'tor, Ottawa; L^itrick Cassidy, Contractor, Ottawa ; Hugh Stewart, Contractor, Montreal. "Q. What is the number 'i'— A. Xo. 53401. Q. Now Larkin, Connolly & Co.'s — how is it signed ? — A. Larkin, Connolly eV Co. l)er O.l'^.M., Contractors, 124 Dalhousie Street, tiuebec. ByMr.Tarte: Q. Do you know the handwriting? — A. I could not tell. The Committee adjourned. 94 54 Victoria. (Appendix No. 1.) A. 1891 House op Commons, Friday. 5th June, 1801. The Committee mot at 10,30 a.m.; Mr. (4iroiiard in the chair. Investigation into certain circiimstancos and statements made in connection ■with the tenders and contracts respecting the Quebec Harbour Worivs, etc., resumed. Mr. A. GoBEiL, Deputy Minister of Public Woi-ks, recalled. By Mr. Geoffrion : Q. Will you tile a copj* of the Order in Council passed ;:{rd February, ISS.'), in connection with the Ksquimalt contract? — A. The document is here. Q. Will you please read the ondorsation ? — A. " Order in Council authorizes that the inverts and caisson recess shown in plans for Ksquimalt (rraving Dock bo not constructed, and that the dock bottom be carried out in order to obtain an addi- tional length of 50 feet at the further cost of 835,000." "ToMr. Perley. Yes. H.L.L." "Mr. Trutch has been furnished with a f'opy of this account and instructed to have its provisions carried out. H. F. Perley." 17 I 2 I 85 The document was filed and is as follows : (Kxhibit"l{4.") Certified Copy of a Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved bij Ilis Excellency the Governor General in Council on the'iird February, 1S85. " On a Memorandum dated 2Gth .January, 18S5, from the Ministei'of Public Works, submitting that it has been represented that the (Iraving Deck at Ksquitnalt, Ji.C, tho woi'ks for the completion of which are now under contract, will, if constructed in accordance with the ])reseiit design, prove to be too short — not tor the vessels emplo^-ed in the present trallic, but for those likely to be engaged in that of tho futui'O, the tendency' being to increase the size of vessels as trattic increases. " That according to the contract plans, the available length of the dock will be 3S0 feet, the width at the bottom or tioor (15 feet, and at the top or ground level HO feet ; the width at the entrance (15 feet, with, say, 25 feet on the sill at ordinary high water. " That the steamers now plying between Europe and the Atlantic jtorts, range from 3(j(t to 46(1 feet in length, ai>d it may be assumed that steamers of a similar ilass will plj" to and from the I'acitic side of the J)onunion. '■ That therefore the ([uestion has been luot'tod whetht'r it is not desiralile now, whilst opportunity oilers, to construct the dock ot a sutticical length to accoinnio- ilate such a class of vessels. ■' The Minister of Public WorUs rejiresents that the Chief Kngineer of his Department reports that so far as he has been able to ascertain, no increase in tho length ot the dock is, he thinks, reijuired for Her Majesty's ships. He states that the "Minotaur," "Agincourt " and " Xortliumberlantimate and that Mr. Trulch be notified of the above at once," Q. Can you now give us Mr. Gobeil's letter of the 12th May, 1885 ? — A. It is hero. Q. Will you read it ? l-7i 99 ■I , H' I! '! ^■i;! i 1 ,s K u '■ H: ! I ! E'Ui' '■ ■>*;■ ■ ■(■;. 1i I ! 1 i li inii 54 Victoria. (Appendix No. 1.) A. 1891 .<0 1)11 (Exhibit "X 4.") (Copy of letter sent, No. J 191(5.) " Departmknt ov Pi'BLir Works. •Ottawa, 12th Mny, 188:». "Sib, — Having; leierenco to your letter of the Itith ult., t*tutin;r fiiat tlie con- tractors for the compioiion of the K>(|uin)alt ftravin^ Dociv are uiiwillini,' to accept coi-tain ])hiiit to tlic value of i?12,40:{.(lD, included in the inventory attacheil to the contract, and which, b}' ihe terms of such contract, they ajjfreed to take over at the prices stated in that inventory, and that they lequesi no deduction to be made on account of plant, fionj the first proj^ress estimate in tTieir favour; 1 am directed by the Hon. the Minister of Public Wo: ks to state that the specification is very clear and that tliere is no o])tion on the jiart of the contractors to lake what plant. <■' they please and to refuse wliat they do not want; and that they will have • over ail that is named in the schedule. "The Honourable the ^[inistcr ai^rees, however, that the first deductioi account of the plant shall bo made ojdy on the second progress estimate. " I have the honour to be, Sir, " Your obedient servant, (Signed) "A. GOHKIL, " Secretary." "Hon. .T. W. TuiTcii.C.M.G., '• liesident Agent lor the Dominion, ' Victoria, B.C." By Mr. Edyar : Q. Will you turn up file Xo. 108.">38 please? — A. That i.i a very late jiaper. It is here. Q. What document is that? — A. I could not find the paper, but .-o as to .satisty the Ctmimittee that I was doing my best to get eveiy paper, and to bring every paper in my Department. I got the backing of the paper. As I coidd not find the paper, to show I was jtroducing as much as possible under the circumstances, I copied the endorsation and produced the back. Q. Read the backing.— A. (E.xhibit " Y 4.") " Graving Dock, Ksquimalt. Clerk- Privy C(mncil. Transfer co]>y of a despatch from the Secretary of State for the Colonics, conveying information to the etiect that the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty are unable to incur any expenditure from naval funds for the purpose of extending the trraving Dock, as the present dock is considered to be large enough for all naval requirements." Q. Where would the original be in your office? — .V, It ought to bo in the Department of Public Wori:{7<)5.) ' Cbiitikied Coi'Y i)f a Uejiort of a Commitfefi of the Ilotiourable the Privy Counnl, upproved bij His Excelleiicij the Governor (fenentl in Council on the '^^st Aovemher, 1S8!». " On a Bfpoit, diilod 18th Xovotnbor, 1880. from llioMinisler of Pul/.lc Work xT hiilimittin^ thai the Hccrotiiry of thi' raniuliaii I'liiiHi- Flailwuy Coin|)Uiiy ryprosciit *'•' to liini that the c impaiiy has uii'orod into oontnictw for the eoiistniction of tli''*^*' >toainors for sorvico across the I'aciric Oeoaii, whicli ai'o to ho lieliveroil in 14, 1.") a"^l ItJ iiMntlis, ami that thu.so vossoU will luoasiiro al))Ut 4Si( feot in lon^lii, and a'"^' built under an a;'raii,iConiont witli the Inipo/ial unthoiitios by wiiich tlio\- may bo u-od a-t cruise's in timo of war, and a^ tlio K-Ki'iimalt (Jravin:; f^ *'"'* '"* <>'>ly 4:»4 feet in loiiijth, the company asks that its loni^ih bj imrcasol by lOi) fccf. •' Tlio Ministor states thai tliero a:'o at p:'L!icnt throo i^iMvini^ docks on the North Pacific Coast, bosido-i iho one .at Hsiiuimalt. Thoy arc all situated at San Franci-ci; one ownol by the United States (rovornmont, bcini^ 4 feet looi^cr than the Ksquimalt l).)clv, and the other two ownol by private companies, bein;^ some- what larixer ami al)lo to acommoilate vc-sols of about ti.OOU tons. Siiould the ien:^lh of the Ksquimalt Dojk bo increased by lOt) feet, it would be by far the finest dock on the Pacific ('oast. '•The Minister in view of the representation of the Canadian Pacific iJailway Company, and of the construction tt> its present size, the fact of the enlargement requirod by the size of tlio Canadian Pacitic Jiailway Company's steamers bo communicated to iler Majesty's (loverninent with a view of a further contribution to the e.\tent of ten thousand ])ounds sterling. ■The Committee concurring advise that Your Excellcncj- be moved to forward :i copy of this Minute to the J{ight Honourable the Secretary' of State for the Colonies. " All of which is respectfully submitted for Your Excellency's approval. (Signed) " JOHN J. McfrHK, •• To the Honourable " Clerk Privy Council." •' The .Minister of Public Works." By Mr. Geoff rion: Q. I read at page 573 of the Sessional Papers, Volume 21. No. 2 of 1S88, the following entr}' under the head of Exjuimalt (rraving Dock: — '•Plant taken by con- tractors." 850,288. (!7 ; less rendered useless, 81!>,873. 18. Paid in 1884 S5, §34,480; jiaiii in 1885-8(5, 8325,720. Amount retained a.s di'awback, 8127,41," Can you find any report oi- Order in Council authoi-izing that redaction after the report of Mr. Jicnnett that only §10 was to bo deducted ? — A. That is a question of account and I am afraid that I will not be able to explain it. Q. Is there any Orderin Council allowing the reduction ? What I want is letters, icporis or telegrams, and that would justify tliis entry with the reports riled up to this minute ; that there was no reduction contemplated except 810? — A. I cannot find anj- just now. Q. Will j-ou then take u note of it and endeavour to search for it ? Any public officer ought to be able to find out how thi:, was done? — A. 1 will look it up. Q. Will you now look at page 235 of the Sessional Pajjers, volume 10, No. 10, ISSG, being the Public Works Report, or the report from Joseph W. Truicli to the Department of Public Works, j.nd included in the Departnient oi Public Works 101 :( I 1 '■■I f ' 1; I ; : , ) m H^mn^mk T7"!P i V<> i m. I ijit i ' .* ^ i i : 1 ! k i 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Ecporf, iind say whether you have found the following tele produce are correspondence which jiassed between the C!hief Kngineer anil Mr. Trutch. There is a kint. of unwritten rule in the Department that all correspon- dence which only refers to routine mat ers between the Chief of that branch and his assistants outside, is not riled in the Department. I expect that every one of those 102 54 nol 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 letters is an authority for the expenditure of money or some detail of work which it is not necessary to tile in the Department and keep there. I think I can u;et them. I do not say that I will not produce the papers, but I will try to obtain them. That is the explanation I have to give in case I should not produce them. By Mr. Edgar : Q. There may be others of the same kind? — A, There may be, but I do not know. Of course as I say in matters of detail of that sort, Mr. Tarte (interrupting) — They do not bear at all on details ? Witness. — That is the question. I will look for them and i)roducc as many as I can get. Mr. Owen E. Miri'hy recalled. By Mr. O'eoffrion: Q. You have already stated that you are a member of the firm of Lurkin, Con- nolly & Co. ?— A. Yes, .Sir. Q. Will you look at this document now shown to you and say whether it is the articles of partnership between you and j-our co-partners? To make the question more precise, I mean the p irtnershi]) in connection with the Cross-wall contract ? — A. Yes, that is the contract mukinii: Hubert McGreevy a partner. Q iiobcrt Mcirreevy a partner in the Cross-wall contract? — A. Yes. i}. That is to say there was a partnership for genei-al business by Lai-kin, Con- nolly i^ Co., and this document shows that Robert McCxroevy became interested with Larkin, Connolly ik Co. in the Cross-wall work ? — A. Yes. Q. By whom is it signed ? — A. It is signed by Pati icii Larkin, Nicholas K. Connoll}', myself, and Robert II. Mcdrreevy, Q. l\\ whose handwriting is the body of the document ? — A. Michael ConnoUv's. Q. Is it dated ?— A. Yes, (Uh Juno, 1883. (Exhibit "A5"). Article of co-jiartnership made this C>th day of June, 1883, by and between Patrick Larkin, of the City of St. Catharines and X. K. Connolly and 0. E. Murplty and Robert H. McGreevy of the city of Quebec. " The said parties hereby agree to form and do form a co-partneraliip for the purpose of carrying on the contract f)r the Ci'oss-wall in the hr.rbuiir of Quebec, and all work connected therewith, on the follov. ing terms and articles of agreement, to the faithful performance of which they mutually engage and l/uid themselves. "The style and name of the tirm ir co-partnershi;i shall bo Larkin, Connolly & Co. and shall begin this day. Each of the said parties agrees to contribute to tii<) funds of the co-partnt-rshi]) when called up'.ii, and at any lime in the following prc- portions: — R. II. MctJreevy, thirty one Inindrcdlhs, und the remaining niembois their proportion ';f the balance nt' the funds required for carrying on the above mentioned contract, and the said parties shall lie owners of the joint contract in the same prell and Mr, gave him ITi per cent. i:iterest in the Cross- wall contract. 103 Larkin, ,f •> I \ i« «i \ ^1 II' •! U I I ij '? .'It m i t It 64 Victoria. (Appendix No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. You did not alter the proportion of Eobert McGreevy by taking this new partner? — A. No. Q. This 17j per cent, was taken from your three shaics? — A. There was 70 per cent, divided equally amongst the four of us. Q. You have already stated that you have negotiated with Mr. Thomas Mc- Greevy, and had seen him frequently abmit the ditfcrent contracts you had obtained. When 3'ou so acted, was it with the knowledge and authorization of your partners? — A. Yes. Q. Have you any correspondence from thorn latifying or suggesting that you should go on with those negotiations ? — A. I believe there are letters to that etfect. Q. Have you any letters from Nicholas Connolly ? — A. I think so. Q. Will you take communication of the letter which is now shown to you and saj' whether it is one of the letters that you rocoivod from Nicholas Connolly in con- nection with the Cross-wall woik and TiiomasMcG:eevy. Mr. FiTZPATRicK — I object to the production of this letter on the ground that it is not the best evidence. — A. It is in the handwriting of Nicholas Connolly and received by me. By Mr. Geoffi-ion : Q. And signed by him ? — A, Yes. Q. Did you receive it about the date it bears? — A. The usiuil time. A few days after. It is written from St. Catharines and took a couple of days to come down. Q. In the usual course? — A. Yes; (letter identified), Q. I will now ask to be allowed to have the letter read. (Counsel objected — Objection sustained.) By Mr. Geofrion : Q. You have staled that money had been paid hj- the firm of Larkin, Connolly & Co., in connection with these contracts, and espeeially so far, with the ('ross wall contract? — A. Yes. Q. JJid j'ou have any entries m.tde in your books about those payments? Did you instruct that entries should be made? — A. The ditt'erent members of the firm discussed that question. I ciused none myself. Q. Do you know as a matter of fact whether those payments were entered in the books? — A. I believe so. Q. What are your grounds of belief that these were entered in the books? — A, I asked the bookkeper to give me a statement of the moneAs paid, and he gave them, and in my piesence certified to it as a correct statement of the jiayments fVom the books chargeable to the several contracts. Q. Were the books of the firm audited ? — A. Yes. Q. Wore copies of the results of the audit handed to 3'ou ? — A. Yes. Q. Did those audits show that such entries had been nnulo? -A. Yes; the}" showed the general amount. Q, The total amount? — A. Yes; the total amount. Q. Will yo.i look at the document now shown to you and say whether Miis is a statement which was prepared by the book-keeper at your request and handed to you ? — A. This is a statement that Martin P. Connolly gave to me and certified to,' Q, Is Martin P, Connolly the book-keeper you mention ? — A. Yes. Q. Is it in his handwriting? — A. Yes, Q. And certified bv him? — A. Yes. Q. Is it dated ?— A. ' es, it is dated April 2r)th, 188!1. Q. Do you find in this statement any entry in connection with a payment of $25,000 ? Mb. FiTZi'.VTKicK— I think the whole of the document should be read. 104 char- 64 Victoria. (Appendix No. 1.) A. 1891 Witness — The books were nearly two years without being audited. There was no audit in 1881, and there was nothing in 1883. We had a good deal of trouble. We had not a proper book-keeper until Mr. Martin P. Connolly came. B 1/ Mr. Daly: Q. Is he here in the room? — A. I do not see him. He was the book-keeper in charge of the books when 1 left. The first item is that of the notes for 825,000. (j. To whom ? — A. I believe Mr. Metrroevy got that. Seveuai. Members — Let the Chairman read the document. The Chairman, reading: (Exhibit "B 5"). " Q. II. I. April — , 1885 825,000 November, — , 1885 .500 Dcecmbcr 3 188.5 100 Valin. muary 8,1886 100 do March 20, 188() .5,000 April. 188b* 500 Sharpies. May 8, 18SG .50 August 28, lS8(i 100 Vincellette. September 30, 1>8() 5,000 October 2, ISSC 130 Valin. October 13, 1S8G 3,000 do December 20, 18SiJ 250 Febiuary 15. 1887 20o March 18, 1887 275 P. Y. March 2i!. 1887 100 Ciirdinal's reception. March 28, 1887 27,000 May 28.1887... 40 August 3^ 1887 1,000 August 8,1887.. 4,000 Septem'^;.■ (!, 1887 lOO Exhibition. Decimix-r 2*3, 1887 ., 25(» .Taiiintry ".i, 1888 150 J, E. Prince. M:i, ' :i.'. 1888 50 Jacques Cariio!' Monument. Dcccml. i- n, 1888 250 per O. E. M. Decembrr U, iF^'S 250 per M. C. December.,' 088 3.000 per N. K. C. Pelletier — Season 1^87 82,120 50 do 18S8 1,515 00 (I'M main — Season 1887 3!13 00 do 1888 50 00 Brunellc— Seii -n 1887 710 00 do 1888 0.50 00 "Corrtc; - 'i-ir from book«, 25th April 1881). " M. P. CONNOLEY." The Chaiuman — There is something in pencil on this document which I have not read. By Mr. Geoff rion : Q. I Kce that there is no name or mention of anything opposite the first item of Ajiril, 1885, 825,0'.iy l&t, 1885, anti nnd the above trial balance of cash to be correct. " RICHARD KIMMITT, | ^^,.^^^^ " P. hump:. Quebec, 2nd June, 1885." Q. Read what there is in the margin ? — A. •' Quebec, 2nd June, 1885. Quebec. We appiove of the audit of our books, accounts and vouchers as made by Messrs. Kimmitt and lEume as shown by this trial balance. " P. LARKIX, " Witness : " X. CONNOLLY; " Richard Kimmitt, " O. E. MURPHY." " P. Hume. Q. Does this audit refer to the Cross-wall or to the Ldvis Graving Bock? — A. The Graving Dock. il. That is another contract ? — A. Yes ; the first contract. (^. Now look at this document and please say whether it is an audit of your books, to what contract it applies, and for what year was it? — A. It is from 1st March, 1883, to 1st May, 1885. Q. Applying to what works? — A. "Cash trial balance, Q.II.I.. from 1st March, 1883, to 1st May, 1885. Quebec, 2nd Juno, 1885. Wo have examined and audited the receipts, and disbursements of the firm of Larkin, Connolly & Co., from 1st March, 1883, to 1st May, 1885, and find the above trial balance of cash to bo correct. "RICHARD KIMMITT, Auditor." " Quebec, 2nd June, 1885." It is only signed by one of the auditors. The marginal note reads : " Wo approve of the audit of our books, accounts and vouchers as matlo by Messrs. Kimmitt and Humo as shown by this trial balance, errors and omissions excepted. " Quebec, 2nd June, 1885." " P. LARKIN, " Witness: " N. K. CONNOLLY, Richard Kimmitt " O. K. MURPHY, " P. Hume. " ROB. H. McGRKKVY." (Exhibit " D 5."j Q. Do you find in that tiial balance sheet (Exhibit " D 5") any entries refer- ring to, or including the item of 825,000, wliicli 3'ou mentioi; as having been paid to Mr. Thomas MeGreevy ? Mr. Fitzpatrick. — The witness has never stated that it was paid to Thomas MeGreevy. Mr. Geokfrion, — I will put my question in a ditferent way, and will say : paid by way of proini>sory notesof $5,000 each, which you mentioned as having been paid bv you in connection with the Cross-wall contract? — A. It is in the item of expense 82!t,2(t2.77 The Committee then adjourned. 100 64 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 House of Commons, Friday, 19th Juno, 1801. The Committee mel at 10.30 a.m., Mr. Girouard in the Chair. Investigations into certain circumstances and statements made in connection with the tenders and contracts respecting the Quebec Harbour Works, etc., resumed. Mr. Owen E. Murphy recalled, and examination continued. Bu Mr. Geoffrion : Q. At the last adjournment of the examination of witnesses, I was handing in trial balance sheets in connection with the firm of Larkin, Connolly & Co., two of them were tiled and we are now going to hand in others. Will you take a note of these three trial balances and state to the Committee what they arc and to what works they apply? Give the dates, please? — A. The first one is from May Isl, 1S85, to April ht, 188(J (Exhibit "E 5"). The next is from April 1st, 188(!, to April 1st, 1887, for the same works (Exhibit "F5"). The next is from April 1st, 1887, to Fcbruarj-, 1888, for the same works (Exhibit " G 5"). Q. By whom is Exhibit "E .'i " certified?— A. By Eichard Kimmitt and Peter Hume. C^. And they both feigned the certificate? — A. Yes, Sir, and it is approved by Patrick Larkin. Q. The onlv signature you find of members of the firm on Exhibit " E 5?' — A. Yes. Q. Is Exhibit " F .5 " also signed by the same auditors? — A. Yes. The rest are signed by the same auditors and approved by Patrick Larkin, Nicholas K. Connolly, Owen E. Murphy and M. Connolly. Q. And Hxhibit '"G 5," how is that certified ? — A. By the same auditors. (•i. Will you explain the nature of the item "expense S7,^593.14r, in Exhibit "E 5"? — A. That is money that has been paid during that j^oar to those donations, if you please, or subscriptions Q. What is 'he nature of the item §3.5,000 suspense, in Exhibit '•¥') 9". A. For the same purpose, 1 believe, most of it. I paid most of it myself; I had the cheques there. Q. And about 85,000 expense in "G a " ? — A. That was for the same purpose- Bi/ the Chairman : Q. In cheques? — A. Xo, cash. il. 1 thought you said cheques. Did } xi not say a moment ago you paid some amounts in cheques? — A. 1 drew cash. Q. Look at those trial balances. Tliisi'; about the liuvis dock; to what work did it api)ly ? — A. It is a trial balance siatcniont of the graving ilock at Edvis, from April 1st, 1887, to February 1st. 1888, signed by Hichard Ivimmitt and Peter Iliime, and ai)provcd by P. Larkin, Nicholas Iv. Connolly, myselt and M. Connolly. (Kxhibit "H.x") Q. Will you explain the nature of the item 810.243.04 exj)ensc, in that state- ment? — A. This 810,243.04 has been given, I suppose, for the same i)urposo. Q. But you are aware of 810,000?— A. Yes. Q. Will you identify this trial balance statement and state it to the Committee (Hxhibit "I ,V') ? — A. It is trial l)alanco statement of the Ks(iuimalt Dock contract, from the commencement up to March 1st, 1888, signed by Patrick Larkin, X. K. Connolly, m\'self and Robert McGreevy. Q. What is the nature of the item 841,750.48 expense, in that trial baknu'e? — A. It is money that has been paid out for the same purpose as the other one. Q. Will you explain the nature of the five amounts of 84S,1!>5.S1 written at the tontof this document, besiilo the nameof the five partners? — A. That was the profits of the work which each member of the firm icceived. 107 id! n 1. j, I' T-!^ m m !l i 64 Victoria. (Appendix No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. After lifiving paid that oxpense of 841,000? — A. Yes. Q. Each of the five partners received the amount of $48,195? — A. Yes. Q. Profits?— A. Yes, Sir. Q. Would any of the items just mentioned by you as being suspense or expense be included in the statement filed b}' you the other day as Exhibit "B 5 " and printed on page 109 of the evidence? — A. 1 don't know what statement has been filed. No, there is none. That has reference to the (Quebec Harbour Improvements. Q. Then you do not understand m}' question. Your answer applies only to Esquimau ? — A. Now. Q. [ have just examined you and made you file five statements, some applying to the Quebec Harbour Improvements. That is why I ask you whether some of these statements would bo included in Exhibit " B 5 "? — A. All this is in the statement of the Quebec Harbour Improvement works filed. Q. So the items included in theexhibitsapplyingto the Quebec Harbour improve- ments would be included in this statement, Exhibit " B 5" ? — A. Yes. (I. Is the L^vis Graving Dock in that statement? — A. No. Q. Nor the Esquimalt ? — A. No. Q. Which of the items in Exhibit "B5," psige lOD, are menti(mod in those trial balance >heets ? — A. Each order would be enlered up of itself according as the books were audited, and as this amount was paid it would be in the next audit, Q. Do you find any of the amounts mentioned in the trial balance sheet for Quebec Harbour Improvements mentioned in the statement filed? — A. The first item, April 1885. 825,000, 8500, SlOO, would be in the first, when the books were audited up from April, 1883 to 1885, and so on it goes according as the books were audited. (I. Will you refer to the item of §27.000 of 1887. and say if it would be included in the audit of Quebec Harbour Improvements? — A. Yes. Q. To what work would this §27,000 apply ?— A. To the dredging. Q. Now you said that these items were composed, almost in the whole, of dona- tions. Will you explain to the Committee what you mean by donations, and to whom were the donations made? — A. The small amounts we gave as donations to the ) irties named. Mr. McGreevy would come and ask for a certain amount for a certain purpose, say §5.000, and so on. I would i}ay it after consultation with one of my other partners. Q. What McGreevy was that ? — A. Mr. Thomas McGreevy. Some of them were bargains made and moneys asked for. Q. In the statement. Exhibit '• B 5," which was handed to you, as you stated by the book-keeper, there is an item dated 13th October, 1880, of §3,000, with a word " ditto " written opposite under the word " Valin " — was this amount of §3,000 paid to A'alin ? — A. It went to Thomas McGreevy. Q. It is an error in the statement? — A. It is an error. Mr, Valin never asked for it and never got it. i-i. He never asked for it? — A. No. Thomas McGreevy would ask for the money and liobert would come and get it. Q. And you say Valin never a>ked for it and never got it? — A. Yes. Q. It was asked for by Thomas McG;eevy and got by liobert McGreev)'? — A. I believe I handed it to Robert McGreevy. Q. You have already >poken of 825,000 paid at the request of Thomas McGreevy to Robert McGreevy. This applied to the Crost,- wall contract? — A. Yes. Q. You stated that that amount was paid by notes ? — A. Yes. Q. Do you remember when tho-e notes weie made? — A. They were given in June, 1883, and I ante-dated them so that they could not be traced. 1 think they were all dated 1st of May, 1883, so that the notes coulil not be traced and it become known that they were for that work. Q. The day when they wore made and signed was in June? — A. Some time in June. t^ In June, 1883 ?— A. Yes. Ii8 64 Victoria. (Appendix No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. At that date had LarUin, Connolly & Company an office in Quebec ? — A. No, Q. Whore was it? — A. At St. Joseph, where the graving dock was. Q. That is L.5vis?— A. Yes. Q. Were the notes prepaied and signed at Quebec ? — A. Yes, at Quebec. Q. Where? — A. In the office under Mr. Mctlreevy's, It was in tlic same building, hut on the ymund floor; a building in which he occupied an office upstairs. Q- Which Ml-. McOreevy do you mean ? — A. Thomas McGreevy. Q. How could you get into tiie ground floor office ? Were tliere two exits ? — A. The way [ went in, and most ot the members, was through Mr. McGreevy'a office on the second floor, through u trap door andtlown a stair, leading down stairs. Theio was a counter, pen and ink, paper from Mr. McGreevy's office upstairs brought down. I m, o the notes down stairs I filled them in. Q. You jjrovided the notes? — A. Yos, Sir. Q. You signed them for the firm? — A. I tilled tlicm in and signed Larkin, Con- nolly & Company. Q. IIow many were there ? — A. Five. Q. To the order of whom? — A. The different members of the firm — Nicholas Connolly, Michael Connolly, Patrick Larkin, iind myself. Q. That is only four of you? — A. Yes, but one of us signed twice. Q. Were the notes then and thei-e endorsed ? — A. Yes. Q. By the ditterent partners? — A. Yes. Thej- were made for diflerent dates. I recollect making my own note for 12 months, but it was afterwards changed for a shorter time, as Mr. McGreevy's brother came to mo and said Thomas wanted it for a shorter period, as it would be more convenient, and I did «o. Q. You say it was made for 12 months? — A. Yes. Q. And subsequently, for the convenience of Thomas McGreev}-, the duration of the note was altered? — A. Yes. Q. Where were the Cross-wall tenders prepared? — A. They were prepared in the same office, to the best of my knowledge and belief. Q. But they were not prepared at your office in Ldvis ? — A. Oh, no. We may have (lone some figuring there, but they were afterwards prepared in the same office, as far as [ can recollect. Q. If not in the same apartment, in the same building? — A. Yes, in the same building. By Mr. Henry: Q. On the same floor? — A. I do not know whether it was on the same floor, but it was in the same building. By Mr. Geoffrion : Q. Will you take cognizance of Exhibit " V^ 3," and say in whose handwrit- ing this letter is? — A. I believe it is in Michael Connolly's. Q. Have you any doubt that it is not his handwriting? — A. To the best of my knowledge and belief^ it is his handwriting. (^. You do not recognize the handwriting as that of Gallagher? — 4- O'' io, it is not Gallagher's. Q. You are sure it is not Gallagher's ? — A. I am positive. (}. I l)elicve you were not the original contractor for the L^vis Graving Dock W(irks? — A. No. (i. Bid you join the firm during the execution of the first contract? — A. Mr. Connolly bought out Mr. Nihan, one of the firm, for $33,500 and sold out to me for 84,000 and I got a third interest in that way. Q. When did you become interested in ihche works? — A. In 1880. Q. Were the works completed in 1884?— A. No. Q. You were aware that a BUj)plementary contract was signed in l?8-i? — A. Yu-<. 108 iM iM M i m M tei '.■■'.; i Si' ' ";; 1'!" 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Who were the parties interested in that? — A. Patrick Larkin, Nicholas Connolly, myself and Michael Connolly. Q. Robert McGreevy had no interest in the Ij^vis works ':* — A. No. Q. That supplementary contiact or agreement was to build the works for a lump sum ? — A. Yes. I may explain that that lump sum did not interfere with our schedule of rates for the former contract, anyway. It was an addition. Q. So much to complete the works ? — A. Yes. Q. Had you been doing by the day's work any part of these supplementary works until it became obvious that you were to finish it for a lump sum ? — A. We were doing it by the da3''s work and charging the Government for material in the same way, such as cement and labour and all kinds of timber, horses and nads. Q. There was not much profit in such gradual work ? — A. We had some profit. Q. Who proposed it tirst to have a contract for finishing the work for a lump sum? — A. I believe it was Mr. Thomas McCrreevy. Q. You are not positive? — A. No. Q. Had Mr. Thomas McGreevy anything to do in the negotiations to come to these supplementary contracts? — A. Yes. Q. ilad you anvthing to do with that contract? — A. I had. Q. Personally ■?— A. Yes. Q. Please explain to the Committee how you came to tender and under what circumstances? — A. We had a great deal of trouble with the engineers and Harbour Commissioners generally, and under a lump sum contract we could make donations to parties, if you please, and for other pui-poses. Q. Was there any talk of it before the tender was maile, about i'uture donations ? — A. Y'es; Mr. McGreevy made this statement: That Sir Hector's paper was not paying. Q. Which Mr. McGreevy? — A. Thomas. He said if some lump sum could be made so as some of his friends could be pleased, they could make something out of it. After several conversai )ns, carried on chiefly by myself and Thomas ^IcGreevy, they figured u]) to us wual it would come to, and I tinall^- came to the agreement with Mr. McGreevy that all ovei' $50,000 himself and his friends could take, and we submitted a |)lan or estimate in pencil, maile by our engineer, that amounted to some §43,000 ; and on the shoitening up of the dock — it was to be shortened a certain number of feet — the increase would show §G4,000 ; ami then thei-e was to be 810.000 allowed for building the caisson, which maile it §74,000; and after we agreed on that and got the contract there was some misunderstandiUj, between Mr. McGreevy and myself about 82,000. It was a trifling data, and that is how the notes lor 822,000 came to be given instead of 824,000. Q. Y'ou saia that your engineer, Mi-. Hume, figured up in the neighbourhood of 843,000 or 844,000 ?— A. Yes. Q. What was the bona fide or actual tender which you made foi- that suj^ple- mentary woi'k in a lump sum on the basis of these tigures? — A. 8l>4,000. Q. Though you were willing to accept 843,000? — A. Wo were to accept about 840,000 or even less. Q. What did you ask ?— A. We asked 850,000. All above 850,000 our friends could take. il The tender was put in 864,000 ?— A. Y'es. Q. Making a total of 874,000 to complete the work ? — A. Yes. Q. Which was the tender to the Government as agreed on ? — A. \'es. Q. Out of that how much was the firm to gel? — A. 850,000. (^. All above that was to go to whom ? — A. Thomas McGreevy. Q. Will you look at this slip of paper and say whether it is the pencil figuring you have referred to as having been prepared by your clerk or engineer? — A. These figures made out in pencil mark are by our engineer, Mr. Hume. This is the statement of what it would cost, in pencil made out by our engineer, as a guide, and which I showed Mr. McGreevy at the time. 110 5 4 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 IS 111 Ilunie's handwriting ? (Exhibit "J 5.")— A. In Hume's hand- Q. This writing. Q. And the total is 843,980 ?— A. Yen. Q. After iiaving shown tiiat to Mr. Tiionias McGreevy you wore authorized by your tirm to accept $50,000 for the work ? — A. Yes. Q. liesides these calculations prepared by your engineer, had you received anj' information from the Public Works J)cpartnient here, or purporting to come fi'om that Department, as to the nature of the work required? — A. I believe there was, but wo had so much conversation about the matter at the time that it is almost im- possible for me to I'ocoUect it. (2. Do you have no positive recollection of what iiifoi'mation you may have re- ceived from Ottawa? — A. No. Q. Do you remember receiving any letters from Ottawa? — A. I believe there came letters asking for a bulk sum. The firm must have them. Q. Do you remember where, and in the presence of whom the tender for that supplementary work for L^vis Dock was prepared? — A. I got a letter from Mr. Thomas McGreevy's house. It was handed to mj'self. JJoth of them were there instructing me — (Counsel objected.) Q. Were you called to some place? — A. I was invited to Thomas ^IcGreevy's house at Quebec and there got a letter of instructions how to write our letter in answer to the one from the Public Works. Q. Did you go to Thomas McGreevy's? — A. Y'es. Q. And whom did you meet there beside Thomas McGreevy ? — A. His brother Eobert. Q. Xobody else? — A. No, unless myself. Q. Was the draft of the tender then and there prepared ? — A. I was handed it there ; I don't know whether they pre])iired it. Q. But you were handed thereat Thomas McGreevy's house a draft of a letter a cojiy of which was to be sent to the Department of Public Works ? — A. Yes. t^. Will you look at this and see if it is thedraft sent byyoii — (Counsel ol>Jocted.) Q. Would 3'ou look at these pajjors and see whether you will find there the (haft of the tender or letter which you had sent in the name of the Hrm. (Exhibit " K 5.")— A. This letter is dated 19th May, 1884. It is in the handwriting of Piobert Mcfireevy, I believe, I received it from Thomas Mc(hcevy, and Thom. s made some erasures and gave me instructions that our tirm should send in as somi as we could a copy of this to the Department of Public Works. The other writings are in the handwriting of the same. I took the letter to my partners, and the other is in the handwriting of Mr. Peter Ilunie, our engineer. Q. But the two other documents are in the handwriting of Mr. Ilume? — A. Yes. Q, But this document? (Exhibit " K 5.") — A. I received it in Mr. Thomas McGi'oevy's house. Q. From Thomas? — A. Y'es. Q. And it was the one in which Mr. Thonias McGroovy himself had made the erasures and alterations ? — A. Yes. draft. By Mr. Kirkpatrick : Q. What is the date of that letter ?- -A. Quebec, May 19th, 1884. This is the No Q. The draft of the letter stating that they would take the sheet piling ? — A. not the sheet piling, but the supplementary work. By the Chairman : Q. Mr. Murphy, can you point out the erasure made by Mr. Thomas McGreevy in that first letter ? — A. I believe, to the best of my knowledge and belief, it was this. Q. The two alterations on the first page? — A. Y^es. Q. And the other erasures, what were thej' ? — A. Some of these were not made ill iny presence, but this was made when I was sitting at the table with him. Ill I f n 1 'I '4' ! m II ' 1! 1 ■ ii 1 1! Ill I 1 'i! 1 1 iy li 1' : m m r m f ' 111 III ;i 54 Victoria. (Appendix Xo. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Aro you positive as to that ? — I am c[iiite positive he made the oiasures. Q. These two erasures? — A. Yes, to the best of my opinion. By Mr. Geoffrion : Q. You mentioned donations, and that there was some difficulty about §2,000. What was the amount of the donations jou tiiuiliy had to mai ; wo partly agreed on the liasisfor that, I told him we would make it an even $25,000. I added $1,000. Thomas McGreevy asked me if my partners would concur or were satistieil. I said, yes. lie said, " You had belter see." I went and saw my partners and consulted with them and they agreed to it, Q, Y^ou reported to your partners? — A, Yes; the two Connollys. Mr. Larkin was absent, 113 1—8 »1 1 \1 , 1 1 I 1 atii. F i!il -L( 1 ;■ I'* I l-ifi!f I :i5 64 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 Q. You lull] a Kchc'dulo of prices for this (Ircdgin;^ at the time, uiui I uiuleiHtuiul Iho witneHM to say a now contract was entered into for larger prices? — A. Yes. Q. AVho made the statement about it being just as easy to gel thirty-Hve cents? — A. Mr. Thomas McGreevy. By Mr. Mulock : Q. Did you get thirty-five cents ? — A. We did. B\j Mr. Geoffrion : Q. After this interview with Thomas McGreevy you went and consulted with all your ]>artners who were then in Quebec? — A. Yes. Q. Did you explain to them the nature of the proposition ? — A. I did. Q. Did they agree ?~A. They did. Q. To pay the 825,000 provided they would get eight hundred thousand cubic yards of d'redging at thi'.ty-rive cents? — A. They did. Q. Did the firm sign a docuiiient showing the'r agreement to that ? — A. They did, Q. Was that document shown to and handed to Mr. Thomas McGreevy ? — A. It was. Q. Will you look at this paper and say in whose handwriting it is and by whom it is signed for the firm ? — A. It is in the handwriting of Michael Co.inoUy. Q. He signed in the name of the firm and with your consent ? — A. Yes. Q. I will read il. It bears no date. (Exhibit "M 5.") '' If contract is enteretl into with Harbor Com., and approved of by the Minister of Pub. Works, for 800,000 yai'ds of dredging at 35c., to be dumped in river, or if in more difficult place, to be paid extra, wo give 25,000.00. All over 200,000 at Ldvis dock. Extras B.C. about 73,000 of which we give 23,000. "LARKIN, CONNOLLY & CO." Q. Whfc e was this document written and prepared ? — A. In the Company's office on the . iouise Embankment. Q. You \rxd then an office on the Quebec side? — A. It is what they call the Louise Embankment. We had an otnce there and also an office on the Quebec side. Q. As the document bears no date, are you able to inform the Committee about what date it was dratted and signed ? — A. I think it was early in Januaiy, 1887. The oiiginal negotiations were in the latter end of December, 1886. Q. You referred to elections. I think you referred to provincial elections? — A. No ; general elections. Q. Do you know who was present when the document was prepared and signed by Michael Connolly? — A. Eobert McGreevy and Nicholas Connolly and my:;cif, and I think Martin P. Connolly was in the room.* I do not think he saw the docu- ment, but he was in the office. Q. After it was completed, to whom was it handed by Michael Connolly? — A. I am not aware whether he handed it to Robert McGreevy or myself, but we both read it. It was to one of the two. We brought it up to Thomas McGreevy's house and handed it to him. Q. Did you both go to Thomas McGreevy's house? — A. Yes. Q. And what did you do with the document? — A. It was handed to Mr. Thomas McGreevy, and he said that was satisfactory. Q. Did he keep the document? — A. One of them kept it. Q. It was not handed back to you ? — A. No. (-1. You left the document there?— A. Yes. Q. Were you informed or instructed by anybody how to tender for that altera- tion or was there any correspondence in connection with tiiat altei'ation in the jirice ? — A. There was some correspondence but I have not got it with the Depart- 114 54 Victoria. Appentlix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 meiit of Piihlic Works unci the contractors, or botweon the Enginoor of tho Depart- ment and tho contractors. Q. Did you send a tender or a letter of any kirid offering to do the work for 35 cents or did you receive the contract without tendering? — A. Whether we did as we wore contracting ? t^. Whether j-ou wrote a letter? — A. I believe the chief engineer wrote a letter to the contractors asking for prices instead of having the different prices all made into one price. Q. Weie you shown a letter which was filed as Exhibit " E 2," on page 18, and which reads as follows : "House of Commons, IGth April. " Mv Dear Kobert, — I have Just seen Perley about dredging. I have arranged to meet him on Monday to discuss this dredging report before he sends it to Har- bour Commissioners, also other matters about ( Jraving Dock &c. "I have arranged with Fuller to have office in (Quebec o|)ened as Public Works office and put Lei)ine in charge and let Perley be architect. I want you to get O'Donnell to write a letter to Fuller as enclosed, so as they nuiy get another month's pa}' until the money is voted. As Curran's motion is coming up on Monday, I thought better to remain here, also, to see Perley and arrange matters with him. When I am wanted below you will let mo know. •' Yours, " THOMAS." Q. Were you shown that letter by Robert ? — A. I was. Q. Were you shown another letter by Robert, dated 26th April, marked Exhibit " F 2 " on the same page 18, reading : "House of Commons, 26th April. " Mv Dear Robert, — I have just seen Perley on dredging. I think ho will report on 35 cents, and put in some conditions which will amount to nothing. He will report when I will be there. "I have had a conversation with Shakespeare on the lengthening of the British Columbia dock. I told him to unite with tho others and push it. He is prepared to do so. I told him to wi'ito and get the length of steamers chartered by the Can- adian Pacific Railway Company from the Cunard Company. He has promised to do so. Connolly had better wait until next week to come up. When I come down we will talk the matter over. I intend leaving here on Thursday' evening, if you do not telegiaph not to come. Vote will be taken on Home Rule to night. "Yours, " THOiMAS McGREEVY." A. I was. Q. On the following day did you receive a letter, which is printed on page the Blue Book, (Exhibit " N 5 ") in connection with these Quebec Harbour W< 19 of orks ? as follows: 188 <. " Ottawa, 27th April, "Gentlemen, — There remains a very large quantity of materials in the Wet Basin, Quebec Harbour Works, a portion of which it is desirable should be removed during the ensuing summer, and the propriety of 'jroceeding therewith I desire to liring to the notice of the Commissioners. Before I can do this I wish to obtain tho jirice per cubic yard, measured in the same manner as was the dredging previously do by you, at which you will do what is required. "I want only one price, which must cover the dredging to any depths required, which may not exceed fifteen feet below low-water spiing tides, and the conveyance 115 1—84 'tUf' i %r '. .1 I P ■ I m MM* m •i\ M VilL'-i.ii 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 ^i f^iwll %i' t \ U ■! |. to a place of deposit, whether on the embankment or in the river, ah early answer will oblige. " Yours obediently, "HENRY F. PERLEY, " Chief Engineer." Q. Did the firm receive such a letter ? — A. It did. Q. When you received that letter from Mi-. Perley asking yon for a price, had you received the letter dated the previous dav from Mr. Thomas McGrocvy, stating he had seen Perley, and he would report for 35 cents ? — A. These letters Mr. Thos. McGroevy sent his brother were all shewn to me. Of oourso 1 would have to see the letters now to identify them agaui. By Mr. Tarte ; Q. Let us have the letters then ? By Mr. Geoffrion : Q. You have already stated the letters from Thomas McGreevy were shown you. The point I wish to make is this : Whether when you receivea that letter from Mr. Peiloy you had then seen a letter from Mr. Thomas McGreevy informing you that j?> cents was the price fixed by Pefley ? — A. Yes. Q Now we find in the Blue liook (Exhibit "N 5"\ a letter signed Larkin, Connolly t& Co., Quebec, 28th April, 1887. It is on page 19, and reads: " SiK, — Your favour of the 27th irst. is at hand. In reply we would beg to say that we ai'e prej.-ired to do what dredging is required, as mentioned in your letter, for the average price of our previous dredging, viz.: thirty-five (85^ cents, although the difliculties are greater than we have had to contend with during the progress of our previous dredging, inasmuch as the passage is narrow, the currents stronger, and the distance to the place of deposit further. By Mr. Geoffrion : Q. Under whose instructions did you write the letter dated 28th April, 1887, just read to you in answer to Mr. Perley's asking you for a tender ? — A. I wc.ild have to see the letter before I ^.ould answer that question. Q. Were you satisfied an ai swer was given to Mi. Perley ? — A, Yes. Q. By whose instructions did you give the answer to Mr. Perle3''8 request for a tender ? — A. The balance of the firm. If they were absent, I acted myself for the firm. Q. Did you consult with any members of the firm before writing that letter? — A. Yes. Q. Was any suggestion made to you, either by your engineer or otherwise, as to the difficulties suggested at the end of your letter, ■' inasinuch as the passage is narrow, the current sti'onger, and the distance to the placi of ileposit further." Were any suggestions made to you as to these difficulties ? — A. These things wore put into the letter to show that the work would bo more difficult and so on. Q. Was there any suggestion made to you that it would bo bet^ter to point out difiicultios like that? — A. 1 think it was Michael Connolly's suggestion to the best of my recollection. I understand you are asking me if any members of the firm knew about these things. Q. Vou have answered that. I am now going further, and I want to know if the difficulties mentioned in the letter were suggested to you either by your "ngineer or anj'one else ? — A. As tiir as I can recollect the answer and the way the letter should be prepared was prepared by Robert McGreevy by instruction of Thomas McGreevy, I believe. Q. Were you present when Mr. Thomas McGroevy instructed, as you believe, his brother Robert ? - A. I was present in Mr. McGreevy's house so much that it is im !? 54 Victoria. Appendix {No. 1.) A. 1891 almost impossil)le to recollect all the conversations in reference to this dredging mutter. Q. As a matter of fact, were there any of the difficnlties pointed out in this letter, or wei-e they imaginarj- ? — A. They were all imaginary ; they were considered imaginary. Q. For instance, what about the narrow passage? Explain that ? — A. I would have to get a map of the ijasin in order to explain it properly to the Committee. I was in charge of the dredging for two years, and under the supplementary con- tract we dumped it nearly all in the river. It was less expense and trouble to dump it in the river than on the bank. By Mr. Tarte : Q. Whj'? — A. Becaiisi) any man who knows anything about dredging knows that it is much eitsier and cheajier to dump it into the r .'cr. There is less handling to be done, if you please. Q. How is that ? — A. It is less expense ; it is cheaper. In the previous contract we had to throw all the dredging material over the 'vall of the Louse Embankment and lift it up with tugs, and it cost two or three handlings and in that way was so much more expensive. The supplementary contract for dredging was nearly ail dumped into the river. It was simplj'^ taken up by the dredge, dumped into dump scows and then dumped into the x-iver. There was a llttie more towing, but it did not amount to much. Q. As a matter of fact under j'our previous contract was thnie a difference of price made in your settlement for the material dumped in the river and the material dumped on the embankment? — A. When Mr. Boyd was in charge of the woi'ks, for the material which was dumped into the river, he deducted 5 cents per yard. By Mr. Tarte. Q. Out of the 27 cents? — A. Out of the 27 or 29 cents, whatever we were being- paid. We had various prices. I had considerable trouble with Mr. Boyd to try and indnc(i him not to deduct the 5 cents, if you please, and tinally lie said we might get it allowed afterwards. We did get it allowed by the Commissioners at the close of the season, but at the time the engineer deducted 5 cents. Q, lie was ot opinion that the vvork was worth less?— A. Yes. Q. When you wrote that letter of the 28lh April, 1887, were you aware that there was very little dumping required on the embankment? — A. There was little required. t^. It was well known the bank was full? — A. Yes. Q. I see that in the request fir a tender contained in the letter wli'ch was sent to you by Mr. I'erley on April 27th, 1887, and which appears at page 1.' of the Blue Book (Exhibit " N o'") it is stated, " I want only one price, which nviKt cover the dredging to any depth required, which ma}' not exceed I.t feet bc!'^' vater, spring tides." In j'our contract printed at jiago 14 of the book, I see you luive agieeil to do the work "to any depth which shall not exceed 15 feet below low water spring tides." Can you explain the dill'erence between the price asked for and the agree- ment of the contrac'.;? Was there any s'greemont or discussion about that change in the request? — A, Discussion with whom? (I. Between either Mr. Perlej- or the authorities at Ottawa or the Commission- ers? — A. I do not tliink tiiei-e was an}' discussion as far as I can recollect. I made this with Tlioinas McGreevy verbally as to bow it was to be done. They carrieil out their part and we carried out ours. There were a few details which I cannot rememlior. Q. Anj'how, you binding yourselves to dredge to a depth not to exceed fifteen feet was loss onerous than to any depth whatever? — A. The depth increased ihc expense. I i.ay say here that with the class of dredges we have there tii's depth w.'is very little more expense for five or ten feet. We had dredges that would dredge in very deep water. Thei'e is a classes of dredges that cannot dreilge in shallow 117 I'll J I !il ; : ' 1 . , • ; id ■ \ "" l\ \iff M- ;# ^^1 : VU':^ 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 water. For instance the two dredges we had could not dredge in any less than 15 feet of water. (J. In your schedule of prices under the former contract you had made, was not the depth an item of increase? Was it not a fact that the scale of prices was based upon the depth ? — A. We were called upon to lender for a certain depth of dredging. For instance, 15, 18 and 30 feet, and we tendered according to depth. Q. At page 2 of the blue book (Exhibit " N 5 ") I read that your schedule of prices was as follows: "To 15 feet at low water, 27c.; from 15 to 20 feet at low water, 29c.," and so on. Does that not bear me out in saying that under your former contract the dcjilh was taken into consideration in your prices? — A. Certainly. Q. According to j-our former contract the same work, not exceeding 15 feet, ought to have been done for 27c. ? — A. Yes. Q. And were you bound also by that contract to throw the stuff into the em- ba.ikment? — A. C)ver the wall. Q. So b\- your contract of 1887 you took no more onerous contract than the contract of 1882 ? — A. Xot as much. Q. On account of the dumping having to be done in the river in larger quan- tities ? — A. Yes. Q. Wore you losing money on your contract of 1SS2 ? — A. Xo. Q. Were you making money? — A. The Company thought so. Q. You wore quite prepared and w^illing to go on at the same prices ? — A. Yes. Q. Did you ask for an increase ? — A. No. Q. Not until it was suggested at the end of 18S(i?— A. No. Q. Your contract says that your work was to close in 188-4? — A. The contract was to be ended. Q. What I want to know is whether your fii-sl contract was not at an end and whether you did not continue to voluntarily work under it? — A, We continued as long as we could got paid for it. Q. You had no objection to taking higher prices? — A. Certainly not. Q. You stated a minute ago that they fultilled their part and you fulfilled yours. First of all you had to execute the woik? — A. First of all we had to pay the money. Q. Even before you hail begun the work? A. Yes. Q. How much money had you to pay before beginning work? — A. 827,000. Q. How much did you pay first? What was the first payment of that amount ? —A. The first payment was 810,000. Q. When? — A. I would have to get the cheque here. I signed the cheque myacif. I have not the date of it. Q. Was it early in the winter of 1887? — A. It was previous to the elections. ^Ir. Thonuis McUreevy told me he wanteil to put §10,000 into the general fund. Q. You paid §10,000 to Mr. Thomas McGreevy you say ? — A. I will explain to you hi)W it was paid if you will allow me. Mr. Thomas Mcfrreovy came to me and told me they wanted to pay in 810,000 to the general fund and that his brother WDuld come for it. I gave that first 810,000 to Robert Mc(rrcevy by order of Thomas. The next 810,000 Eobert came to me and told me his brother wanted. 1 signed the cheque myself to the order of Nicholas Connoll}-, drew the monej'', and brought it myself and gave it to Thonias Mcdreevy personally in his own house. The other 85,000 Thomas told ino to keep it for the elections. I kept it and spent it for his election, and found it necessaiy to use mine, about 82,000, so that 827,000 was charged instead of 825,000. Q, So he left in your hand 85,000 which ought to have been money coming to him by agreement ? — A. Yes. Q. Instructing you to use it for the election ? — A. Yes, for the election Q. And finding the 85.000 not too much you wont 8*^,000 bettor ?— A. To be accurate about it I spent 81,500 for Mr. Thomas Medreovy's election and gave it to the paities 1 was ordered to. 8250 went to Montmorency election for Mr. Valin and 8250 to the Levis election. That is how the other 8500 was spent, so it was 820,000. 118 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. But this cash $5,000 which was spent willingly by you explains the entry in j'our books $25,000 ?— A. Yes. Q. Though the amount agreed was $25,000 ? — A. Yes. • Q. Is this amount of $27,000 the one referred to in Exhibit " B 5 " dated March 28th 1887 at page 109 ? — A. Yes, but the money was paid previous to this. Q. And it was entered in the books afterwards ? — A. Yes. Q. Have you any remembrance of the amount? — A. I remember the amount; there was some difficully about this $2,000. I spent the $2,000 on my own account, and 1 had some difficulty with my partners about it. Mr. Larkin, if you please, and Nicholas Connolly found some fault, but after a consultation they agreed to let it go that wa}', and it was entered in the books. Q. In that statement ? — A. Yes. Q. I come back to Exhibit "M 5," being this pencilled paper signed by Larkin, Connolly & Co., and written by M. Connolly. Will you explain what is meant by the figures " 25,000 " in that document? — A. I have explained that. Q. I don't think you have explained it? — A. That is for dredging. Q. But what is it — francs, coppers or cents? — A. Dollars. (^. Now, can you explain to the Committee the meaning of the words "all over 200,000 at Levis dock." — A. I cannot recollect ; it was a verbal phrase used by Mr. McGreevy and myself, but I cannot go into details. By 3fr; Tarte: Q. State what it means? — A. It means we would give so much money — all over that — to Mr. McGieevy or his friends. By Mr. Geoffrion : Q. It means all amounts got from the Government over $200,000 on the L^vis works would go in donations ? — A. Yes. Q. What is the class of donations that you mention — the sani ila-s? — A. Yes. Q. Now, what is the meaning of the word " Extras B.C. about T.'),000, of which we give 28,000"'?— A. That was the claim the Company had at the British Col- umbia works. They had a dispute sent in for $73,000, and I proposed mys» If that we would give all over 850,000. Q. That is the meaning of it ? — A. Yes. (I. This was also hinted in this obscure way? — A. Agreed. By Mr. Mulock : Q. You meant you would give all over $50,000 you recovered fi'om that claim ? —A. Yes. Q. To whom? — A. Mr. Thomas McGreevy By Mr. Geoffrion : Q. B.C. means British Columbia, does it not? — A. Yes; British Columbia. Q. How much did you get from the flovernment ? — A. I really do not know. I believe we got the most of it. By Mr. Ouimet : Q. Who wrote these words which appear to bo written in ink at the bottom of tlu' writing: "In my presence"? — A. I think it was myself. Sir. Q. You think. Cannot you recognize your writing and swear to it? — A. It wiis myself. (J, It was yourself? — A. Yes. By Mr. Fitzpatrick : Q. Who rubbed it out?— A. Myself. 1?l! 1 ua 1 119 .1 I-' \^: rn^ 1 ^% 1 i' '1 ! 1 ■ ..; J: : || 1 : li ' 1 ', :i 1 64 Victoria. Appendix (ISo. 1.) A. 1891 By the Chairman : Q. At the time?— A. Yes. Q. I now come back again to Exhibit " B 5," and would ask j'ou to explain to the Committee the meaning of the six last items, reading as follows : Pelletier — Season, 188T 2,120 50 do 1888 1,515 00 Germain — Season, 1887 395 00 do 1888 50 00 Brunelle-^ Season, 1887 710 00 do 1888 950 00 — A. These items I know nothing about more than I paid my share; they %vere charged to me, 1 suppose, in the books and Mr. N. Connolly admitted paj'ing them, I cannot explain any more than they were charged to me and I had to pay my share of them. I had not charge of the dredging in 1887 or 1888. By Mr. Ouimet : Q. These were not paid by you ? — A. No. By Mr. Geoff rion : Q. When your partner wanted to make or made that charge did he explain why he paid those amounts ? Counsel objected. Q. Did he tell you why it was to be charged ? — A. The notes were made and the payments without my knowledge. If the Committee would allow me, I would state what occurred at the time ? 1 did not know these charges were made ; I knew nothing about them. Q. When you discovered the entries in the books did j'ou ask for explanations ? —A. I did. Q. From whom did j^ou receive explanations ? — A. From Nicholr sK. iJonnolly. By Mr. Ouimet : Q, Do you know who those gentlemen, Pelletier, Germain and Brunelle were? — A. They were inspectors on the works. Q. Officers of the Department of Public Works ? — A. They were hired by the Harbour Commissioners, 1 believe. By Mr. Tarte : Q. Was any one of them in your employ ? — A. I would rather that Mr. Con- nolly answered (hat question. Q. Were they in your employ or not ? — A. They were in the employ of the Harbour Commissioners. The further examination of this witness was postponed. The Committee then adjourned. 120 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Hot'SE OF CojiMONS, TUESDAY, 23rd June, 1891. The Committee met at 10.30 a.m.; Mr. Girouard in the chair. Investigation into certain circumstances and statements made in connection with the tenders and contracts respecting the Quebec Harbour Works, &c., resumed. Mr. A. GoBEiL re-called. By Mr. Geoff rion : Q. Have you here all the correspondence which took place between the Dcpart- r'.ont and Larkin, Connolly & Co., or any other interested parties, in connection with this supplementary contract at the Ldvis Graving Dock? — A. I have produced all the correspondence in the Department, and I could find no reference to the Ldvis Graving Dock. I do not know what supplementary contract means — what woidd be the date of that? I have produced an Order in Council of 7th June, 1884, approving of the action of the Harbour Commissioners, and an intimation to the Department that they had awarded the contract for the completion of the Graving Dock to the present contractors. The contract was entered into with the contrac- tors i)y the llai'bour Commissioners ; therefore wc have no record of it. Q. I asked for the correspondence ? — A. I have a letter of the 24th June. That is the letter in which they say the}- have awarded the contract to the present con- tractors. Then there is the Oi der in Council to which I referred, approving of the contract. Q. Have you any letters from Mr. Perlcy ? — A. There may be some letters that escaped my attention, and I will take a note of it. Yes, there was an application from the Harbour Commissioners on the 16th February, 1884, for a giant of money to complete the Graving Dock, and then the report of Mr. Perley of the 4th March, 1884. Of course, it must be observed that Mr. Perley was acting in the two capa- cities. By Mr, Davies : Q. What two capacities? — A. Chief Elnginecr for the Quebec Harbour Com- missioners and Chief Engineer for the Department of Public Works. We would have correspondence as Chief Engineer of the Department of Public Works, but the correspondence for the Haibour Commissioners Avould not be in the Department at ail. That is the reason I could not produce it. By Mr. Geoffrion : Q. Could you find the letter signed Larkin, Connolly & Co., and addresed to Mi'. Pe'Iey or the Department, dated 31st March, 1885? — A. No, sir; I have no such lutler". Q. Was there such a letter? — A. If it is a correspondence with Mr. Perley as Chief Engineer of the Harbour Commissioners we could not have it. Q. Can vou find a letter signed by .Mr. Perley to the firm of Larkin Connolly & Co., dated 7t'h April, 1884?— A. Is that about the Graving Dock ? Q. Yes? — A. No; we would not have it in the Department. The details of the work wore not carried on in the Department. Mr. Perley would then be acting as Chief Kiigineer of the Harl>our works. (J. Did you make a seaich for a letter frotn Mr. Thomas McGreevy to Mr. Perlej', dated !lth September, 1884? — A. No; It cannot be found. Q. Do j-ou find traces of an answer to such a letter, dated the 11th of the same month? — A. No, sir. Q. My ([uestion was, whether j'ou had made a search for them ? — A. I asked my clerk to make a search for them, and he told mo that he could not find them. I 121 |*t 'ill all m n I'. Ill Lit 1. li m 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 M ;i J if : ^ 'I I.S i i t i 4 a ' < if have a paper here wliich I was asked to pnxluce on the 2iul day of mj' examination. I got a copy from the Clerk of the Privy Council. It is the letter of the Admiralty, as follows : (Exhibit "0 5.") "Cop3' — Canada. No. (51. "Lord Knufsford to Lord Stanley of Preston. " Downing Street, 16th April, 1890. " My Lord, — I have the honour to acquaint yon, for the information of yonr Government, that I caused your dispatch. No. 2-lii of the 25th of November, and its enclo>ures, to be duly Jaid before the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, and that their Lordships have informed me, in reply, that after lull consideration they regret that they are unable to incur any expenditure from na\al funds for the pur- pose of extending the Graving Dock at Esquimalt, as the present dock '.. >.onsidered to be large enough for all naval requirements. " I have, &c., (Signed) " KNUTSFORD." Q. Did you find anj- instructions that were sent to the engincei's on the works at Esquimalt — Mr. Trutch and Mr. Bennett — about the deduction to be made from the $50,000 that were chai'ged to the contractors on the plant ? — A. Yes. Q. Will you read it ?— A. It is a telegram of the 2nd May, 1885. Q. I do not mean that. It is some time in 1880 ? — A. This has reference to how much was to be paid back by the contractois on their estimates ; that is not what you want ? Q. No ; what I want to know is, how it happened that from $50,000 it was retluoed to about 830,000, and what were those insti-uctions ? — A. I could not find any correspondence about that. Q. Will you look again, because there was some correspondence. There were instructions sent out there, and you will find them ? — A. I have here all corres- pondence between Mr. Perley and Mr. Trutch, from December, 1885, to December. 188(3, and it is not there. It is not in these papers which I have tiled ; but I will make further seai-ch. Q. I am about sure it is there. Will you file a telegram, dated 1 0th April, 1885, sent by Mr. Perley to Mr. Trutch ? — A. I have it. Q. Will you read it ? — It reads as follows: (Exhibit "P .5.") • " lOth April, 1885. No. 13,415. Esquimalt Graving Dock. " Hon. J. W. Trltch, Victoria, B.C. "Contractors' engineer has submitted his design for re-coursing Graving Dock. and also for alteration in the course for inclination or drip in bottom, and informs me that he furnished Bennett with copies of changes proposed. You are authorised to permit contractors to make these changes ; plan circular head will be forwarded. "HEXEY F. PERLKY, "CItief Engineer. "dig. D. P. W." Q. Have you ;. letter of the same date addressed by Mr. Perley to Mr. Trutch? —A. Yes. (Exhibit "Q 5.") No. 13416— Esquimalt Graving Dock. " 16th April, 1885, " SrR, — I write in confirmation of the following telegram sent you this day: "Contractors' engineer has submitted his design for rc-coursing Graving Dock, and also for alteration in the course for inclination or drip in bottom, and mforms 122 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 me that he furnished Bennett with copies of changes proposed. You are authorized to permit contractors to make these changes. Plan circuhir head will be for- warded.' ''The contractors have called my attention to the fact that no provision is made in the plans for thoroughly draining the caisson chamber, supposing it to be neces- sary to place stoplogs and pump the chamber out for icpairs to the caisson or otherwise. " Please instruct Mr. Bennett to see that provision be made for this. It is made in the Quebec Dock, and is necespiry. " There would appear to be an intention on the part of Mr. Bennett to adhere liteially to the plans for this dock, even where it has been shown to him that a change is necessary for the benefit of the tlock. " This ought not to be so, for there is no doubt that before the dock is finished many occasions will arise when deparlui-es must be made from the plans, and Mi*. Bennett should exercise his judgment in such cases. " The plans furnished to the conti-actorsaie those received from yourself, and no changes or alterations were made in them in my office up to the present date. " I have obtained from Mr. Hume the information necessary to enable me to prepare a plan of the alteration at the head of the dock, a copy of which will be sent you in a day or two. " Yours obediently, (Signed) "HEXRY F. PERLEY, " Chief Emjineer. '• lion. J. W. Trutch, C.M.U., " Victoria, B.C." Q. Do you know who is the Mr. Hume referred to there? — A. By common report, I hear he was the engineer of the conlraclurs. Q. Uo was not in the employ of theGoveriiment ? — A. Xo; not that I know of. Q. Do you find now a telegram from Mr. Trutch to Mr. Perley, dated 18th April, 1SS5 ? — A. Yes : (E.xhibit " R 5.") " Victoria, B.C., via Sumas, 18th April, 1885. " To Henry F. Perlev. "Design furnished Bennett by contractors for re-coursing will be carried out as authorized by your teleg:am sixteenth inst.; alterations appear unobjectionable, but their adoption will increase cost of work by additional price of dressed stone resulting from necessarily increased width of bed pioportionate to increased depth of courses. "JOS. W. TRUTCir." Q. Will you file another, dated 28ih April, 18S5, f.-on. Mr. Perley to Mr. Trutch? -A. Yes. Q. Read it ? (Hxhibif'SS.") ••No. 1342.5. • Ksfj. Grav. Dock. " 20th April, 1885. •' Hon. J. W. Trutch, Victoria, B.C. '•As the alteration in depth of courses was requested by the contractors for tlieii' own convenience, and not ordered by the Department, there will not be any extra amount of dressed stone allowed beyond the schedule quantities, which will bo mlhered to in making estimates. •■ Cl.g. D.P.W. " HEXRY F. PERLEY." II' nr:. f ' 'r. W 111' 1* :' 1^; i 123 1 1; J « ! 1 1 i ! 1 ! 1 ! 1 11 ■': ! !'■ i m ' !!i ■ 4 i III ll 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Was thoro any letter of the same date from Mr. Perley ? — A. Yes. (Exhibit " T 5".) "Copy— No. 13428. EHquimalt Graving Dock. "20th Aj-ril, 1885. " Sir, — I write in confirmation of the following telegram sent you to-day : " As the alteration in depth of courses was requested by the contractors for their own convenience, and not ordered by the Department, there will not be any extra amount of dressed stone allowed beyond the schedule quantities, which will be adhered to in making c«timates. "What I wish to convey in the above is that as the contractors suggested the change in the dimensions of the stone, and were not ordered by the Department to make the change, they (the contractors) have no right to be paid for any exti-a stone supplied. " If they are permitted to place two courses of stone instead of three, it follows that they save the dressing of two beds, the setting of one course and the saving the cement, besides a saving in handling a fewer number of stones. " Again — the use of the thicker stonesdoes not increase the thickness of the wall, therefore there must be a saving in backing, and if an allowance for a greater quan- tity of face stone were made a reduction in the quantity of backing would follow. " Yours obediently, (Signed.) "HENRY F. PERLEY, " Chief Engineer. " Hon. J. W. Trutcii, C.M.G.. " Dominion Agent, Victoria, B.C." Q. Now look for a telegram of the 29th April from Mr. Perley to Mr. Trutch ? —A. Yes. (Exhibit " U 5.") "No. 13496. "Esquimau Graving Dock. " Hon. J. W. Trutch, " Victoria, B.C. " 29th April, 1885, " Have you received my telegram and letter of seventeenth, in which allowance to contractors is referred to. Thej' complain that resident engineer has only allowed them fifty per cent, on materials delivered, and have applied for increased advances, which I think can properly be made. "HENRY F. PERLEY, " Chg. D.P.W." " Chief Engineer." Q. Please find 1st May, telegram from Mr. Perley to Mr. Trutch and read it? — A. It reads as follows : (Exhibit " V 5.") •'No. 13511— Esq. Dock. " Hon. J. W. Trutch, " Victoria, B.C. '• 1st May, 1885. "Contractors Graving Dock pressing for money; can you telegraph amount which can be paid — Reply. " HENRY F. PERLEY, " Chief Engineer. "Chg. D.P.W." Q. Read another one of the same date ? — A. It reads as follows : (Exhibit " W 5.") " No. 13582— Graving Dock, B.C. " Hon. .1. W. Trutch, Victoria, B.C. " 1st May, 1885. "Contractors have stated that up to nineteenth their representative had not been advised that larger courses could be used. I wired you sixteenth to authorize this 124 . Hon. 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 being done, as Bonnet t had been supplied with the necessary information. Has poi-- mission been given ? — Eeply. " HENBY F. PERLEY. " Chief Engineer. "Chg. D.P.W." Q. Can you find a letter or telegram from 3Ir. Trutch to Mr. Periey on the 2nd Maj-- y — A. Ye'*. (Exhibit "X 5.") '•Esq. trraving Dock. " Victoria, via Sumas, B.C., 2nd May, 1885. " H. P. Peeley. " A month ago I appraised Mr.Connolly that substitution of larger courses would not be objected to, and that on his written application to bo allowed to substitute any larger courses without increased cost of work to Government I would return him written sanction. No such written application has, however, been received, and conse([uently no written sanction has been given by me. Contractors submitted to Bennett, twentieth March, plans of proposed changes in mode of construction which he leferred to me on my return ; these charges appeared both to Bennett and myself unobjectionable, except as regards question of cost as I wired you eighteenth ult., and I understand work is proceeding in accordance therewith, but without letter from contractors to above effect. I hesitate to give written sanction or to formally approve plans as specitications request least complication as to cost should result. Of course, however, I will do so if Minister so directs. Please answer. "JOSEPH W.TEUTCH." Q. Do you find a letter dated -ith May, 1885 ? — A. There is both a letter and a telegi-am. Q. Read the telegram first? — A. It reads: (Exhibit "Y 5.") " No. 13533— Esq. Grav. Dock. " 4th May, 1885. " Hon. J. W. Trutch, " Victoria, B. C. " Telegram received. Minister authorises you to permit contractors to build work with stone of increased sizes, as pi'oposed by themsehos ; they to be made aware that this permission is merely acceding to their requ<;st ar) 1 not order- ing them to make the change. " HENRY F. PKRLEY, " Chg. D. P. W." " Chief Engineer. Q. Will you read the letter confirming this telegram of the same date? — A. It reads as follows : (Exhibit "Z 5") " No. 13537— Esq. Grav. Dock. " {Copy.) " 4th May, 1885. " Sir, — I write in confirmation of the following message sent to you to-d,iy. : " Telegram received. Minister authorizes you to permit contractors t j Luild work with stone of increased sizes as proposed by themselves, they to be ma-! .'. ii I W m^ s ■ -I- I m m I'll! i W-^ r n^^n :• ! !i m iiis ! li HI 54 Victoria. Appendix (N^o. 1.) A. 1891 (Exhibit " D 6.") " Copy— No. 15712. " Esquimau Dock. " 28lh January, 1886. " SiK, — I wrto in contirination of the following telegram &ent you to-day : " ' MiniMtcr directs conti-actorB i^hall bo piiid for lull quantity* of t^tone in dock and caisHon recetis and full meanurenient on all Htonos. Letter by mail.' " I have to inform you that the Miniistor has directed that the contxaclorH, Mo88r>. Larkin, Connolly & Co., shall be paid full meaHurement tor all stone they have placed in the Dock at Eoquimalt, tno»e directions specially appl^'ing to the increase in the sizes of the stones needed by tlie contractors and rendered necessary by the change made in re-coursing th3 work, ijnd they will also apply to the full size ot altar coping as it exists in the work. All special stones are to bo measured fairly and liborally, and their sizes are not to be atit'ected by an arris, a nosing, a check or groove, &C. " I have also to inform you that the substitution of stone in lieu of brick in the caisson recess has been approved, and the contractors are to bo paid their masonry prices therefor. This will also apply to the masonry about the ])ump wells. " Ot course, this increase in the measurement of the stone will decrease the quantity of concrete. . " Yours obediently, " (Signed.) HENRY F. PERLEY, " Chief Engineer. " Hon. J. W. Trutch, C.M.G., " Dominion Government Agent, " Victoria, B.C." Q. Do you find anj* letters or telegrams from Mr. Trutch or Mr. Bennett recom- mending these changes in the measurement and other modes of settlement with the contractors? — A. No. Q. Will you produce a telegram dated 13th February, 188G, from Mr. Perley to Mr. Trutch, and read it? y " 15th February, 188G. (Exhibit " D 6A.") 15831— Graving Dock, B. C. " Hon. J. W. Trutch. " Victoria, B. C. " Minister wishes to know if you have included in January estimate Graving Dock payment for increased sizes of stone, as ordered by telegram of 28th ultimo. Answer prompt. "HENRY F. PERLEY, Chg. D.P.W. < " Chief Engineer." Q. Do you find a message from Mr. Trutch of the same date in reference to this matter ? — A. There is a letter. Q. Jloail it ? (Exhibit " K G.") " Dominion Government Agent's Office, " Victoria, British Colu.mbia, 15th Feby., 1880. " Dear Sir, — Your letter of 28th ultimo, regarding the measurement of the masonry in the Esquimalt Dock, was received on the 5th instant, and the Honourable Minister's directioub thereby conveyed to me were at once communicated to Mr. Bennett, the lesident engineer of the works. " To-day I have received from Mr. Bennett the progress estimate to the end of January under Messrs. Laikin, Connolly and Co.'s contract for the completion of the Dock, with a covering letter from Mr. Bennett, in which he states that the measure- ments for this estimate have been made by him in accordance with the Minister's said 128 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 " 2iitl May, 1885. directions, and that the num of 823,841.1.'$ liuh conHoquently boon added to tlii;* Estimate. " I have to-day aH usual tolof^fraphcd the amount of this estimate to the Minister, and have transmitted to him the details tliereof by mail. " Yours faithfi lly, "JOSKPII W. TRUTCII. " II. V. Perley, Esq., " Chief Enf^inoer, Public Works Department, "Ottawa, Canada." Q. Do you find Mr. Bennett's letter referred to in the letter just read ? — A. No; it is not attached to that paper. Q. Would it be tiled here? — A. I think not. J[e does not say ho includes it. Probaldy he woidil have kept it. Q. Mr. Trutcii has not sent all his |)apers here. When he ceased to act for Government he should have sent them all in ? — A. Well, he was Dominion Govern- mont A{,'ent. I do not know whether he has sent papers or not. Q. Thtsy are not in your Department ? — A. Not as far as \ know. Q. Will you look for a letter of 2nd May, 1885, No. 1352-t, Irom Mr. I'orloy to Mr. Trutch, and read it '{ (Exhibit "K(5.") " Copy— No. 13,524. " Esq. Dock. " Sir, — I wiile in contirmation of the following teIo,ter having been made aware that the contractors, since they signed their contract in November last, hiive had a large outlay in starting the work on the Graving Dock, has waived iho stipulation in the contract providing for the pa^'unMit of the first instalment on the plant with the tirst estimate given, and directed that the tirst instalment shoidd bo mtide a deduction from the second estimate, and so on. " As an allowance of 50 per cent, on materials delivered would only partially recoup the contractors, you have been roquestod to make iidvances of !>0 per cent, gross. This, with the 1(» per cent, drawback, will leave 81 per cent, payable to the contractors, which will about cover their outlay. " 1 have the honour to bo. Sir, " Your oltediciit servant, " (Signed.) irENIlY F. PKRLEY, " Chief Eiujineer. " Hon. .1. W. TiiUTCii, C.M.G., " Dominion Agent, Victoria, B.C." Q. It is staled in this thai tho Minister " being made aware that contractors iic. ; " are you able to say how he was made aware ? — A. No. Q. Tiiere is no corres])ondonco to show that? — A. No; none that I can remember now. Q. Well, you can look for a letter of tho 4th May, 1885, from Mr. Porloy to Mr. Trutch, and read it?— A. Y''os. This is it. (E.xhibit " G <;.") " Copy. "4th May, 1885. • No. ia53t)— Esq. G. Dock. "Sir, — I have re-read my letter to you of the 2nd, relative to advances on materials delivereu, etc., by the contractors for the Graving Dock, and finl that I did not convoj' to you exactly what I wanted to convey. 129 1—9 ■ , ,; fi ■' rH':!'! 11 ■ 1 .]l ill II 1 ,>* I' 1' ■! V: ■^1 ;t ;:'J w 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 ■3^ " What the contractors wish is, that they shall be paid the schedule prices for materials delivered — loss a certain sum for placing or building tb«m into the work — what I wished to convey to you ..us, that the advances to bo made should be 90 per ( ont. of the schedule prices — and this percentage being subject to a further deduction of 10 ]jer cent, would make the advances on materials equal tr 81 per cent., thus : "A cubic foot of cut stone is priced at $1 delivered on the work — the contractors should receive 90 cents, less 10 per cent., equal to 81 cents per cubic foot. " I am, Sir, " Your obedieni servant. " Hon. J. W. Trl'tcii, C.M.G. " Victoria, B.C." (Signed) " HENEY F. PERLEY, " Chief Engineer. Q. Now, on the 19th May, 1885, you will llnd another letter from Mr. Trutch to Mr. Perlej'. (Exhibit '• n C") " Victoria, B.C., 19th May, 1885. '• SiK, — With reference to your ietter.s of 2nd and 4th instant, relative to (1) the deductions lo be made from progress estimates of Esquimalt Dock works on account of jilanl handed over to the contractor, and (2) the rate of allowance to be returned in theso estimates on account of material delivered on the works but not placed — I have the honour to state that tlie llonourabie Alinisters di.octions con- veyed in your said letter will bo duly carried out, to the offect that the tiivt instal- ment of one-twelfth of schedule price of the gross amount of j^lant handed over to the contractor will be deducted Irom the next progress estimate to be given at the end of the current month, and i'l'.rther instalments of like amount from each monthly t)r()grcss estimate, until the whole amount of the schedule price of this material has )een so deiluctod ; and that the stone and othei- material delivered on the works, but not set in ])iace, will bo allowed for in the progress estimates at the rate of 90 per. cent, of the schedule pricu of such materials placed in the work I'ospectively subject to the deiuclion of 10 per. cent, applicable to the gro.ss amount of such estimate generally. "1 understand that these directions as to an allowance of 90 per. cent, on materials are to apply only to stone cut and dressed a;;d to such other materials ready to be placeil in position and not to i ')ugh materials. " i have the honour to be, Sir, " Y^our obedient soi'vant, "JOSEPH W. TIJUTCII, " Dom. (iui-f. Aijmt in B. C. " II. F. i'EKLEY, Es(i.. Chief Engineer. ■• Dept. ol Public WorJvs, Ottawa." Q. Have you a letter from Mr. Fletcher addressed to yourself, and dated 22nd May, 1885? 1 think he was Mr. Trutch's secretary? — A. 1 believe it is bore, hut 1 cannot find it. F will look tor it. Q. I will therefore susjiend my question and now asic 3'(iii for two telegrams of Isl and 4tli May fron\ Mr. Trutch \o Mr. I'erley? " Victoria, Isi May, 1885. (Exhibit '• 1 t;.") " To 11. E. i-JiULEY, Chief I'^ngineer, Ottawa. " Bennett measuring to-day for estimates. Will wiio ' isult soon as completed. ".lOSFi'II. W, THUTCII. • 130 54 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 The other is as follows : (Exhibit " J 6.") '• Victoria, B.C., 4th May, 1S85. " To IT. F. Perf-kt, " Chief Engineer^ Ottawa. '' Bennett has not tompleted estimate. ?'9t amount will be telegraphed to-morrow respecting material. Wo propose allowing full value which we estimate for stone at seventy ])er cent, of schedule prices of stone placed in wall and for iron bollards at ninety per cent, of schedule price of bollard in place. I understand that of course no allowence can be made on material taken over by contracts from Government and not j'et paid for until placed in work, when it will be returned at schedule lates. " JOS. W. TRUTCil. " Q. Could you pre))are for us a statement of the different amounts which wei'e kept i)ack monthly to cover the amount of 850,000 to be paid bj"^ the contractors for the plant and material on the works at Esquimalt? — A. The secretary of the Com- mittee would have to return all the estimates that I have sent here, because tigures woidd have to be taken out from those estimates. 1 sent all Larkin, Connolly iS: Co.'s estimates here. Q. Will you look for a telegram ilated UUli April, 1885, from Mr. Trutch to Mr. Parley, and read it? (Exhibit " K 0."^ " Victoria. B.C., 16th April. " ir. F. Peri.ey. " Propose giving progress estimate Esquimalt Dock on 1st prox. Contractor asks advances bo included in estimate on stone and brick delivor<.Ml at works, lint not ])laceil in the work, i consider half schedule price of material may >ai'ely be allowed. Is this approved ? " JOS. W. TliUTCH. " Q. The telegram is tiled as having been received in 1&S5, but is undiited. Are you satisfied that it was in 1S8.') ? — A. Yes. Q. Will you also find another, tlatcd 15lh April, 1S85, and read it, please ? (Kxbibit -'LO.") '■ Victoria, B.C., 15th April, 1885. " To II. F. Peuley. "When shall I receive plan of circular heatl for dock excavation for extension commenced ? " JOS. W. TItUTCII." q. Now tile a letter dated 1 Hb May, 1885, from Mr. Trutch to Mr. Perley. Head it, please '! (Fxhibit"M(l.") " Dominion (Jovern'Mknt Agent's Oi'FrcE, " VicToiiiA. B.C., 141 b May, 1>8."). "8iK, — 1 have the honour to aclcnowK'dge the receipt of your letter, No. ];1538, of the 4tb instant, enclosing jilaiis showing tlie alterations to be ntade at the head of the Esiiuinialt (iraving Dock, toobtain a total length of 4.'!0 feet. " 1 hiive the honour to be, Sir, " Your obedient servant, " Henry F. Peui.ey, Ksq., " JOSEPH W. TIIUTCH, " Dominion Government Agent. " Chief Engineer, Ottawa." 131 1-n i' M If*- 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 II! 'it ■Vii •i!f ; Hi P' m§ IP 13^ i \ I p III 1 1* u If III Q. Will you be kind enough to find the plans referred to in the letter just read, and send ihem to the clerk ? — A. Yes. Q. Now. there is another letter from Mr. Trutch to Mr. Porley, dated 22nd May, 1885 V— A. Yes. (Exhibit " N (J.") " Victoria, B.C., 22nd May, 1885. " Sir, — I bejj^ to state that I have, in fulfilment of the provisions of section 182 of the specifioations — EsquimaltDock contract — signed the drawings sent to me with your letter No. 13538 of 4th inst;int, showing alterations to be made at head of the dock lo obtain a further length of 50 feet, and that I have forwarded a copy thereof to the contractors, with directions to them by letter of this day's date that the work is to be carried out in accordance with these plans. " I have also handed to the Resident Kngineer a copy of my letter to the con- tractors and copy of the plan therein referred to. " I have the honour to be, Sir, " Your obedient servant, "JOSEPH W. TRUTCII, "Bom. Govt. Agent in British Columbia. 'II. F. Perl EY, Esq., " Chief Engineer, Public Woi'ks Department, Ottawii." Q. Do you believe yon could find out and tell us where Mr. Trutch's papers, if they were returned here, can be found ? — A. I have taken a note of that. Q. Will you file the final estimate in connection with this work at Esquimault? — A. 1 will have to look it up. Mr. IIenry F. Perley, Chief Engineer of the Public Works Department, sworn: By Mr. Geoffrion : Q. Have you here in Ottawa all or any of the correspondence which took place whilst you were acting as Chief Engineer of the Harbour Commissioners at Quebec ' ■" " As regards the works in Quebec I and also (luring the works at Esijuimalt? — A. have nothing. Q. Voui' letters would not be here? — A. I left everything behind me in the Engineer's otlice. Q. In the possession of your successor? — A. I do not know wiio my successor is. 1 left them in tiie hands of Mr. Eoswell, the iiesident Engineer, A it h •' ^ — - — ■ ^^ — ) — ' — — <-,...vvN-. . Q. Even the letters that were addressed to you at Ottawa were left there? — I left e 'erylbing there. Nothing was kept in the Public Works Department as lau Munir.g to do with the Harbour Works. Therefore, 1 left everything there. (}. llave you here any b'tleis — private letti'rs or even ])ublic letters — that were addresse|iartment and one as Chief Engineer of the llaibdur Commissioners of (Quebec. Vnu must ask me in which of tiieso ca|iacities. (I. 1 am e.vamining you as Chief Engineer for the Harbour Commissiono. Did you keep coj)ies of your letters? — A. Yes. (i. Were they kept in a bool. It seems to me the Dejiartinent had oecasionally some correspondence with the (Commissioners in connection with tlio>e woi'ks? — -A. Yes; hut 1 had nothing to do with that. Q. Jf you have any letters you will bring them? — A. I will liringyouall 1 have in connection with the Quebec 11 arbour Works. Q. 1 mean also your letter buoUs. — A. I will fetch the letter book'. 1 understand. Q. Whilst you are also making a search for papers will you be kind enough to ascertain whether you can find in your jiapors !;ere a copy of instructions which were sent by you to Mr. 'rrulcli, or the engineer at J'>si|nimalt, as to the mode you intended to settle with the contractors in cunneclion with the ])lanl there — tin' result "t which was a deduction of some 81!t,.">(), Odil stijiulated in the contract? — A. 1 think you have copies of all correspondence which 1 have given to iln' Dei)Uty -Minister between Mr. Trutch ami myself. Q. We liave just (|Ueslioned ^fr. (tobeil .'ind he cannot tind it. As it is possible that these inslriU!tious may not have been a Ictti-rbut an enclosure. I would iik-c you to ascertain whether those instructions arc inchuled in what might be called eorres- ]iondence? — A. D' there is such a thing ycm shall iiave it. . Will you take notice of a letter now exhibited to you and say whetlier it was written and signed by you ? — A. I wrote that letter. Q. Will yiin read it lo the Committee? — A. It rcad> ; 1:3:5 f'':l VXi I ':im .,1 ■' *^:; ' . • In?''; \\ I I , 1: ;■ lllii 54 Victoria. Appendix {No. 1.) A. 1891 ' i i "li ■ I^U I .;:; |( ■; ■ ' »■ u 1) \} I (Exhibit "O G".) "Chief Enqineer's Office, " Ottawa, 29th Dec, 1886. Xo. 18707. SubJ. Graving Dock Esq. "Gentlemen, — I have to ask that you will be kind enough to let me have a copy of the explanations, your Mr. Michael Connolly had heie yesterday, relative to the items in dispute, a ditterencc in the final measurement. " Yours obediently, " HENRY F. PERLEY, " Chief Enijineer. " Messrs. Lakkin, Connolly & Co., " Contractors, Quebec." Q. Do you remember what was the nature of these explanations ? — A. I do not remember. Q. Was this letter also written b^' yju ? — A. Yes, tliis was a letter written by me on behalf of tlie Haibour Commissioners of Quel)ec on the 7th April, 1S8G. (}. Read it, please? — A. It is as tollows: (Hxhibit " Ptj.") " Ottawa, 7th April, 188(). "Gentlemen, — 1 have to acknowledge the receijit of your offer, dated 31st March ult., of the sum in addition to your coiitract price, i^c, for which you will complete the works of the Graving Dock at L^vis, and in reply have to inform you that I am not prepared to prese-t, it to tbe Commissioneis. " I hope to visit Quebec soon, peihaps next week, when I will consi'ler this offer with 3'ou respecting its being re-cast, but in the meantime I have to state that it is not my intention tc change the character of this work as s])ecitied, and that the sulistiliition of rubble for concrete bai-king will not hereafter bo considered, as the sum you have placed therefor in your offer has effectually disposed of that question. '■ I am, gentlemen, "Your obedient servant, " iXKNRY F. PERLEY, " Emjineer in Chariie. " Messrs. Larkin, Connolly i\: Co., " Contractors Harbour Works, Quebec." Q. The letter to which it refers wmiM be in Quebec, I suppose ? — A. Yes; in Quebec. Ml', Patr[cic Larkin, recalled and further ex- mined. By Mr. Geofrion : (^. Mr. Larkin, have you in your ])ossession any letters signed by Mr. Thomas Mctireevy in connection with tlie works j'ou had at Quebec and Es([uimalt? — A, I have not, and never had. Q. Have you any signed by Mr. Perley ? — .\. I never had. (i. Have you in your possession lettei's addressed by you or by any of ^-our ]iartnei's in connection with this work ? — A. I have had but very few in relation to the (Quebec work. Q. Well, then, in connection with the Ksquimalt work ? — A. 1 liave had letters in connection with the l']s(|uimalt wor'k, but they were just private letters and con- taineil nothing in particular, Q, Do you know where they are ? — A. Well, 1 am in the habit of destroying letters at the enii \m 813 tf i I a r» 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 ; " -!■ House of Commcins, Wednesday, 24tli June, 1891. The Coramittee met at 10.30 u. m. ; Mr. Girouard in the Chair. Investigation into certain circuni'itanceB and statements made in t'onnection with the tendei's and fontracts resperting the Quebec Harbour Works, kc, resumed. 3Ir. IIenrv F. Perley re-called and further examined. By Mr. Geoffrion : Q. I understand there were two sets of tenders called and put in, for the Ksqui- malt works, were there not ? — A. Tenders were asked on two separate occasions for that work. Q Were tenders received on each occasion? — A. On each occasion tenders were received. Q. On the liist occasion, how man}' tenders were put in? — A. To my recollec- tion — two. (■l. To help your memory, will you look at page 89 of the printed Evidence, and say whether the report orinted there refers to those tenders? — A. It does. Q. The tendereis wore Baskerville & Co., and Starr:* & O'Haidy ? — A. Those were the names. (I. None of those tenders were accepted or acted upon ? — A. The}- were not. Q. When wore new tenders called ? — A. They were called some time in October, 1884. or September. I see that from page M of the Blue Book (Exhibit "N5") which ((tntiiins a coj)y of the Order in Council referring to the second set. Q. Will you lie kind enough to refer to page 92 of the printed Hvidcnce, and see wiiether you cannot make sure it was at least in September ? — A. I said Septem- ber or Oftober. Q. 1 want to make it more precise. Is il not September ? — A. I cannot speak from recollection. Q. IJead on page 92, where 1 think you will find that your report was dated Sei)tembor?— A. Yes; 29lh September, 18S4. Q. li}- tliat report were not the tenders called on the 8th August, 1884? — A. That is the advert iscment, dated August 1SS4. Q. The advertisement meant was issued, dated August, 1884, calliui^ for those tenuei'.s? — A. Yes. Q. Can you ascertain when these tenders were to be put in ? — A. Not unless I liad a copy of the advertisements. Q. Will you see whethei' you have amongst j'our pajiers a telegram from Mr. Ennis to Mr. Truteh, dated 8th August, 1884? — A. That is a departmental document with wliicb I have nothing to do. I have no control over it, and perhajjs I never saw it. Therefore, you are asking me for a paper which I have nothing to do with. If it is in the bundle here, doubtless it will be put before you, but whether it exists or not 1 do not know. Q. Will you read this dispatch ? (Exhibit " Q U.") "Copy of letter sent. No. 27181. '' DePABTME.NT op I'uBMC WoKKS. •' Ottawa, 8th August, 1884. " Teleyram. "Hon. J. W. Trutcii, Victoria, B.C. " Please publish in same papers as previously in British Columl)ia ^ame advertisement as appeared in November last inviting tenders for Graving Dock, but 136 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 changiiiiinlates as follows : Date for receiving tender here to be Saturday, twentieth (20th) Sopteraher, eighty-four (S4), and date for .-seeing plans and wpecitication, Monday, first (1st) Septombei-, and date of advertisements to bo eighth (8th) August, eighty-four (84). "(Signed) F. H. P]NNIS." Q. ill-. I'jinis wa.s Secretary of the Department ? — A. He was. Mr. Ennis, of course you are aware, is dead. Q. Will you take cognizance of Exhibit '' F 4," being the contract with Larkin, Connolly iV Co. for the said Esquimalt works, and also for the tender attached thereto, and sa}' to the Committee what is the date of the tender ? — A. This tender does not appeal- to be dated at all. Q. Are there any marks showing when it was received ? — A. There does not -ippear to be any. so fai- as 1 can see. 1 might almost say that that is a paper I have never had in my hand Itef'ore. It is only a copy of the tender, you must remember ; it is not the original tender. That would have no mark on it. Q. JIave you anj' doubt that this tender was put in prior to or on the 2()th Sep- tember, 1884? — A. I would not like to .say that that tender was. I wouUl like to .see the schedule of the tenders received or the tender itself. Q. The reason 1 asked this question is, because the public notice said, on or jjrior to the 20th Septembei? — A. Then it was received on or prior to that date. Q. Have you made search for the letter referred to yesterday, and which we claim to have been written to you by Mr. Thomas Mcdreevj' on the 9th September, 1884? — A. 1 heard of that letter some time last December, but cannot find it. Q. Have you looked into the copy ol" your lettei-s to see whether you have the answer to that letter? — A. I have no answer. So far as I understand, it was a pri- vate letter, and I kept no answer to it. Q. Did you answer that letter? — A. 1 wrote ilr. McUreevy, but whether in answer to the letter referred to or not 1 cannot sny. t^. Can you remember the contents of the letter of the Hlh September, 1884, from Mr .Mc(rreevy? — A. 1 do not know anything about the letter ot the iUh Sep- tember. I oidy know that Mr. Tarte in his papei-])ublisiiod a letter ])Ur|)ortiiig to be from myself to Mi-. McGreevy. J ])resume that is the one yon are reterring to. Will you be kind enough to say if that is it ? Q. Yes; it was tiie letter of tiie 9th Se|>tember ? — A. It was because 1 heai'd of that letter thai J asked you. I did not read the letter that was published, but I instituted a search to see if I wrote a letter of the 9th Se])temb(a', anti I had it not. If it were a private letter, like all my private letters, it would be torn u]). (^. Will you take cognizance of this document, and .say whether it was written by you and addressed to Mr. Thomas Mctrreevy? — A. This letter was written by me and addressed to Mr. Thomas Mc(ircevy. Q. Will you read it ? — A. As it is marked "])rivate" 1 will have to ask .Mr. MctJreevy's consent. The CiiAiK.MAN. — Read it, Mr. I'erley. Q. The Chairman instructs j-ou to r-ead it ? (Exhibit " R G ") "Chief Enoineer's Okfuje, " Department OK Pihlic Works, •'Ottawa, 11th Soptemi)er, 18S4. " (Prirate.) " My Dear Mr. .McfiREEVY, — Your private note of the !Uh to inuul, and in reply \ semi you herewith a copy of the specification of the Craving Dock. 13. C, two copies of tender and sheets showing the quantities of work to be done to complete the work, these quantities iniving been coin|)Uted by the Resident Kngineer ill B. C. I cannot send the rates supplied b}' myself, as i have never deter- minod them. My estimate of the ])rol)able cost to finish was arrived at en bloc, and amounted to 8890,000. or, deilucting the 850.000 for plant and materials 137^ iK' i 1 i I ! |i si p ^1 „> ' ! ' ! i •! !■ ^^ '- [ ' ■ ■ ? 1 1 i 1 i ] 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 (see specificiition), 8340,000 net. I send a photogi-aph of the woik as it stands, which ma}' be of assistance to you, but an examination of the plans on exhibition here is desirable, I am told the best and most suitable quarry is 80 miles from Victoria, at or near Nanaimo. You will see by the list of plant, &c., that cement cost the Department $25 per ton landed, but to this must be charj^ed the expense of unloading, cartage to works, storing, duty, &c. I expect to be in Quebec on Monday, and could see you between 2 and 4, as I want to leave at 5 and be back here on Tues- day at mid-tlay. " Yours faithfully, "HENEY F. PERLL/. " lion. Tiios. McGreevy, M.P. '' Quebec." Q. What was the amount of the tender subsequently put in by Larkin, Con- nolly iS: Co. for the same works ? It will help you if you look at page 98 of the pro- ceedings of this Committee? — A. Their tender amounted to 0374,559 with concrete backing, and $403,373 with rubble backing. Q. In your letter to Mr. McGreevy I see that you do not make a distinction between the concrete backing and the rubble backing. To which ot the two kinds of woi'ks would your estimate a])ply ill that letter? — A. That was to an indefinite use of either, as nothing was settled, and it was left in the specification, if my memory is right, that either could be used. Q. Well, did I understand you to say it was indift'erent when you made your calculation? — A. To me it was inditfcrent, because I considered at that time that rubble backing could be put into it cheaper or for the same price as conciete back- ing. You will see that in the letter of Baskerville's. Q. Of course, this amount of S374,;)59..'J3, the tender upon Avhich the contract was gianted, includes $50,000, which was to be charged for the plant? — A. Yes; there is no deduction. Q. You are aware that a deduction was made on this $50,000 ? — A. I am per- fectly aware. Q. Do you remember what was the amount deducted ? — A. $19,000, if my memory serves me right. ' Q. In round figures ? — A. I bog your pardon ; the deduction maile from the con- tract was about $31,000, or nearly $32,000, showing a difference of $19,000 between the $50,000. That is what I mean. Q. That is to say, the contractoi's, instead of being charged $50,000, were charged $31,000?— A. We will sav $32,000 in round figures. Q. Bringing down, therefore, their tenderof $374,000 by $19,000 less?— A. Xo ; by $32,000 less. Q. I asked you yesterday whether 3'ou could find any instructions sent to Esquimau as to the way to arrive at this reduction? Have you found them? — A. No instructions were sent. Q. To make it clear, out of the contract price Larkin, Connolly & Co. were obliged to pay, or rather agreed to p ty, $50,000 to the Government for the whole of the plant, and instead of that they had to pay in round figures $31,000 ? — A. Exactly. Q. And you say there were no instructions sent? — A. There were no instruc- tions sent. Q. Do I undei'stand your answer to mean you find none, or that there were none sent? — A. There were none sent, therefore I could not find them. Q. Had 3'ou any correspondence with the Resident Engineers upon that reduc- tion, and where you informed how the Department came to that conclusion ? — A. You will find first a letter, 1 think, from Mr. Trutch to the Department, in which he speaks of a claim — that the contractors refused to take all this stuff, that it could not be delivered to them, that it was worthless, and I think there was an amount of $12,000 mentioned. I think there is such a letter. Then, again, if you look at a 138 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 lettof of mine to the Department in Januaiy, 1886, you will tind that I roferretl to tliis very mutter — that is, the matter likely tor sottlemont. ii. Hud 3'ou anteriorily and at the ot-igin of the contract made a report that the contract was cl(>ar on that point, and that the contractors were obliged fo take the plant at ^50,000?— A. Yes. Q. Well, what [ want to find out from you now is, how it is that notwiths* mding the Resident Engineer's report, notwithstanding your report, notwithstanding the contract, that this I'eduction was allowed? — A. I have told you how it commenced. You will find it in the papers, and now I will tell the Committee that I am responsible for this, and I must be peimitted to make an explanation. In the fall of 1885 J visited British Columbia pui'posely with rogaid to the works in that Province. Whilst at Esquimalt my attention was called to this plant specified in the list attached to the contract. .My attention was called thereto by the contractors. A complaint was made that they were asked to pay for material that could not be found, for material that was al)solutely worthless, for material that was of no service to them, and r s])ent much time in going over that material, and I have no hesitation in informing this Committee that it was as pointed out to me by the contractors ; that had J known the ti'ue value of the materials and articles mentioned in that list valued at 850,000 before the tenders were asked for I would have struck the major part of them out of it, and never asked any man to ])ay the price set down or to take the articles enumerated therein. These articles were taken from the (rovernment of British Columbia undei- the agreement of 188;j made by Sir Alexander Campbell, and formed part of the claim made by the i'l'ovince of British Colnniliia on the (Tovcrnment of Canada with regard to the Esquimalt Dock, for which they received 8250,000. They were charged to the trovernment. They had lain there for some years; they were rusty, old and worn out, and 1 may say the Government of Canada paid a verjHarge bill and took a very dead horse when thc^-paid it ; and in attaching it to this contract it was merely a transfer, so far as I was able to learn, to the contractor of the>o articles at the price at which they had moneyed it, and trans- ferred hy the British Columbia (lovernment to the Government of CanaiUi. This is what 1 understood at the time of my visit, and 1 give it to you as what I was toUl. 1 examined those artieles, and when \ reported on the woi-k in Janiuiry, after my return from British Columbia — I thiidv my report is dated January, 188(i — 1 referred therein to this ver}' matter, and stated that the claim would come up when the final estimate was made. I had obtained a statement showing the articles that were worthless, and the like of that, and I struck 819.000 otf it. The contractors, had these articles been good and of value, could have taken them and used them in tboir work, liut as they could not be furnished, as thej' were worthless, they had to bu3- other articles to take their jjlace, and therefore 1 considered it was only fair and Just not to tail on them to pay it. That is my explanation of it. Mr. Trutch had notiiing to do with it, r had all to do with it, and in my position as Chief Engineer I took that course. Q. Yousaj' that you reported on the 18th January, 1880? — It was in January, 18SG; [ do not remember the exact date. (J. I understand from you that you made a rej^ort to the department of what .you have just stated to the Committee? — A. There is a report to the Department. I think if you will refer to the papei's you will find what I said. I cannot remember exacth'. There is a letter of January, 1886. Q. If there is such a report I have asked for it ? — A. This is the letter which I referred to. Q. It is dated 18th Januaiy, 188(». Will j'ou read it please ? (KXIIIBFT " S6.") '• Xo. 15(!36. " Chief Engineer's Office, "Subject — Esquimalt Dock. " Ottaw.\, 18th January, 1886. •' Sir, — According to the plans, a rather free use of brick in connection with the Esquimalt Dock was specified, and notably the caisson recess was designed to be built of that material. 139 !i ■M' m 1- 1,1 ■'t f:|. ' i ' . , j,-: -fl 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 54 w S!^ Mi " Prior to lotting the work it was proposoil to Huhsfitiito riiWilo l)iicking in the plac-o ot'c'DiuTotc baciting, and altornativo plans were prepared, and the plan of tlie caisson recess showed the abandonment of'liricii and tiie snbslitution nf" masonry. '■ Tiiis idea of a change in tiio baciting was not carried out, but tli • contractors have built the caisson rocesH in stone, and I must say, after a careful examination, that it is well for the work that they diil so, and my onl^- regiot is that any bricks iiave been used in connection with this dock. " i have to recommend that the contractors be paid for this work at their schedule price for stone. iiislenkod o produce boforo this CommtittiH" ii letter from you, dated 2!)th April, 1 <), and eould noi find it. Can you produce a cop^'of said letter? —A. I can. It will have to be copied out of the press-book. Q. Is the synopsis as ]»rinted at pai^e !ti» of the i>roc<;oilings correct? It is to wit: — "The Chief Knf,'ineer reports on 5SH-47, and sintes that the above [liant, i^c, shoidd be accepted l)y the contractors at prices named in the inv.-ntory attached to specifications, and also recommends that the tir.^t deduction on ■ rount of same bo made from second estimate and Air. Ti'Utch be notified of the ali'»ve at once? " — A. So far as 1 am aware, that would bo right. 1 presume it was prepared trom the synopsis. Q. Uo you ktiow whether, at the date oi' your report of 18th .Tanuary, I'^SlJ, the contractors had lieen payinii; the 8I.(»iio monthly in deduction of this S,')(),0()() ? — A. I cannot sjjoak from recollection. 1 did not maki up the proi^ress estimates. They came fiom British Columbia, and would have come or been sent to the i)e[)art- ment. I have no copies. I know nothinij. Q. Do you knnw whether, subs(!qui'iit to you report, the monthly dedi:ctir)ns of 84,l*0t) in ])aymeMt of §50,000 was continued? — A. I may now say I have here the letter you arc asking for. It reads as follows : (Exhibit " T (;.") •' No. 18-i;i5. "Subj.— Esq. Gr. Dk. " Ref No. .J8H47. "Chief ENotNEEii's Oii'icE, " Ottawa, 2!)th April, ISSo. " Sir, — With reference to the communication of the lion. Mr. Trutch (No. 58817) relative: •' 1st. To the plant and materials to betaken over by the contractors of tiie GraA'inn' Dock at hsciuimalt, B.C., under the terms of their contract ; and '• 2nd. To a request of the contractors that the tirst deduction on account of this plant bo not made until the 2nd pron'rcss estimate: 1 have to I'eport as follows : " It is clearly stated in the s])ecitication for this work that the contractors would have to talce over and jiay for all the plant, etc., mentioned iii an invi'utory atiaclii'd to the specification, and at the prices named therein — .suliject, however, to a deiluction for any articles tiiat might not be forthcoming at the lime the contrac- tors took deliveiy. " It now appears from Mr. Trutch's letter that tiio contractors desire to accept ])iaMt, etc., to the value of 8'j8,000 only, and do not wish to pay for the balance, amounting to §12.100, bet'ause they ^ay they have no use for it. '' The specification is very clear on tins point, and there is no option on llii' part of the contractors to take what they please ami to refuse what they do not w:int. •'As the contractors have re(iuested thai the first deduction on account of' this jilanl, etc. — being ,'., of §.")(). -100 — be not made from the Hrst estim;ite, but from the second, as their expenses have lieen very be;ivy, I have to recommend tiiat their iijiplicalion be granted and that Mr. Trutch be notified at once. '• 1 am. Sir, " Your obedient servant, " II KNliY F. PEULi:Y. " Chief EnjlhtLr. " A. rjoHEIL, Rsq., " Secretary, Public Works Department." (I- Can you tell the Committee when, subsequent to your report of the 18th January, 188(i, it was decided that a reduction of $111,000 should be made? — A. It was not decided by myself until the receipt of the final estimate. . Will you tile the final estimate ? — A. What I have here is tho amondcd final estimate. 141 .1 r ;1i i,l m n!; ' ^ i ■ vli 4 % II Pfp ! i- E fi:' ■I I ^.• • I'': I H m ' f;;! ill i ? ■ ; 1 m !?1 P5 1$ :\ I.i- 1^' 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. What 18 the date of it ? — A. February 21fst. It is wlial is called an anioiided final estimate. The final estimate was given some time in .fuly, and thoio were somn minor works 81,727.8(» j^ross, for work done and material supplied by -Messrs. Larkin, Connolly i*c C'li. for the construction of the Gravini; Dock at Esquimalt, B. C, uj) to i^lst December, 1887. " I am. Sir. •'Your obeilient servant, (Signed) '-IIFNEY T. FHiJLKY, "A. GoiiEri,, K-«q., " C/iief EiKjineer "Secretary, Public Works Department. Q. Head the endorr-ation on the document — the written \M\rt. " Xo. 84S74. "21st Feliruur}-. 1888, Public Works. Sub. No. 15, (rraving Dock, Ksquimalt, B.C. — Chief Hn"0, tor work done, iVc, at JOs(iuimalt (rraving Dock. ".Ml-. Perle}' telU me the Minister has agreed that the final estimate is to be paid witliout the signature of the usual Q. " Final receij)t?" — A. F-i-a-1, I presume it is meant for "final" receipt. t^. Will you explain to the Committee under what circumstances the Minister told yon what is therein stated in the endorsaticjn ? — A. I cannot tlo so, as I do not reniemlifi'. Q. Do you know the handwriting of that endorsatioii ? — A. 1 think it is the handwriting of Mr. (robeil, the .Secretary. il. Did you read the name " M. Dionne" in the cornei' ? — A. Mr. Dionne is the Accountant. Q. The Accountant of the Public Works Department? — A. Ves. Q. You say that the amount was deducted only at the time of the final estimate? — A. Ye.-; llnit is the amended final estimate. Q. Do you refer to the prior final estimate or the amended one? — A. I want the prioi- final estimate; I want to refer to it. There must he an estimate beliiml this, dated l,")th of January, 1887. (^. The document yon now hold in your hand is dated — when? — A. 21st Septem- ber, 1887. Q. Anil you find no reference to that reduction ot §19,000? — A. Not in this. Q. Nor any reterence to that reduction in the final amended estimate ? — A. No. i}. Do }'ou know whether it was with the sanction of the Minister that the amount to be deducted was finally arrived at? — A. I told theCommittee that I took that on myself — that I was responsible for it, without any reference to the Minister ? Q. Kven to the determining of the amount ? — A. Yes. 142 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Tn .Tanuary, 1886, you had made your report that such n reduction oui^ht to bo made? — A. Ye^^. Q. Did tlie Minidter inqiiiic, hef'oro passirif^ the tinal estimate, whetlier you had acted in accordance with your report ofJaiiuury, 1886? — A. I do not remember. Q. Did you ever have any talk, oi- conversation, or discuBsion with him subse- quent to your report of January, 1886? — A. To the host of my recollection — no. Q. Prior to your report of .January, 18S6, and your trip to Ksquimalt, had you any conversation with tuo Minister as to that reduction? — A. Not prior. t^. At the tinio of your departure did you have any conversation or iuHtruc- tions? — A. 1 had no instructions or no conversation. Q. Had you been maile aware b}' the Minister that the contiactors were press- in;^ and askiri)^ for such a reduction, and were you instructed to take advantage of your trip to Ksquimalt or make inquiries as to that reduction? — A. I havf no recol- lection of any such conversation or instruction. (J. Did you have any conversation of the surne nature with Mr. Thomas McGroevy? — A. I did not. (i. Neither i)rior nor after your rej)ort of 1880? — A. Neither prior nor after. ^i- So you kept that aito^relher to yourself? — A. Except the report 1 made in Jaiuiary, 1886, after my return. Q. And nobody in the Department ever had any conversation with you in con- neition with that imiiortant report? — A. No. Q. Your report of .January, 1886, was made to the Minister? — A. Certainly. Q. Do you think the Minister was nuale aware of the total amount of your final e.'^limate? — A. I am not awaie of that. Q. Were there suflBcient papers in the Department to enable him to learn olthat final estimate if he required to know it ? — A. There were. Q. Js the Jlinister in the habit of readinu; your reports and discussini!; them with you ? — A. Generally — yes. (I. Are there manj' exceptions ? — A. Ver^', very few. Q. Is this not the oidy one ?— A. Of .January, 1886 ? il. Ves ? — A. I do not know ; I would like to see my I'cport. (,». J want to know if this is not the only exception to such a repoi't of that importance that 3-ou did not discuss it with the Minist^r ? — A. 1 will not sa}- it was not discussed; I have no recollection of it. Q. As a rule, lie <;enerally discusses them with you ? — I mean, reports of all works done ? — A. Will you allow me to inform you Q. ] want all the information possible? — A. Will you allow me to inform you and the Committee that 1 generally have from a hundred to two luindrcil and fifty works under my charge every year, ami it is simply impo.ssibie for me to rememher every little det.iil that happens with re^^ard to those work.s. I did not charge my memory, and no man's memory can carry the little incidentals that happen to cause you to recollect, possibly, this conversation or that conversation resjiectinu; it. I am willing to slate to the Committee ex:iclly what hapi)ened within the limits of my recollection. Q. That is, Mr. Perley, just exactly what I thought. You have no reason to state there w.as an exception to the rule made in this case more than another ? — A. None. Q. Am 1 to understand from you that the rule is, when the report is im]K>rtant that it is discu.ssed with the Minister ? — A. Yes. (I. And if'yt)u have no recollection, it is not because you are ready to swear there was no such discussion, but bocau.se of the large number of reports you have to make ? — A. That is true. • ^ Seeing the prior letters written on behalf of the Minister objecting to such a deihiction, is it probahle that such v rejiort was passed without being discussed ? — A. To what do you refer? Q. The report of .Janmuy, 1886. Seeing tliat, prior, as I said, you had already reported and the Minister had instructed his Secretary to write that it should be done, kc, is it probable it might have been discussed ? — A. It is not probable. 143 \M Itl ;!■:! 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 im ' \i ^r i--'. t:.;: \ ■ n v\ i By Mr. Mulock : Q. With the Minister ? — A. Of course — I iiiKlerstutici. By Mr. Geoffrlun : Q. Xow, by the final estimate the total amoiuiL reported by you ami paid was $581,5li7.80, was it not ? — A. It' my mcni'^:/ serves me rij^ht, there was a slight clerical error in the additions or multiplications which made it somewhat different from that, in round fii^ui'es. Q. In ?-()und fii;ures :t woulil be 8580,000 ?— A. I thirk a little more— .Sr)S2,000. (^. The clerical error u'ould make it a little largv"?— A. A little larger, but not much. Q. Kcferring to the Blue Book (Kxhibit '• X 5' ) at page H(), you will tind, to help your memory — the contract price — it was S;57'i,55f^.3;J, was it not? — A. It was. Q. In the same book, from page -il to page 5;}, arc the total extras reported liy you in 18'.M) ? They were ip2;!,01.-).7;{?— A. They were. Q. At ]iage 41 of the same book appear extras again, through the change from the double enli'.-mce to the circular head the sum is $3."),000? — A. Tiuit was what it might be it carried out. It is only thc^ estimate. Q. It shows what, yon expected it to cost ? — A. That is all. (\. Are you able to .:ay to the Committee what it actually rices on which the amounts were arrived iit, as mentioned on piige lit), was maile by ajiplying the ])riei's named in the tenders to certain .amounts of the ditl'erent ehi'^sos ot work that were to be done, these amounts being detei'inined by calculations from the j)iaiis, but the tiiiantities in the final estimates are those actually measure 1. and I miglil almost say, as ! 'ide in these cases, they exceed the(]uaniili(^s estimated from the plans. Q, Vou referred yc-terday to the fact that .-i letter was road showing the extra cost to have resulted from a new mode of measurement. Is it not a fact that the lai'gest ])art of lids increas(> from 84;i0,C0(l to .S."t80.000 was due to that new mode ol' measurement ? — A, I atn not prejiared to say, I thirds not, but I am not jirepared to say it was not. I thiidviiot. 1 might also add in here the cost of tlu' ciicular head wall. 0. 1 nut it in? — A. Of course, that was merely an estimate you |.ut in. Q. If you will look at page 50 of the Blue Book (l-Ixhibif "N5") you will see a reference to pum|)? — A. That vas oidy the job oi' connecting the jiiini)). This is for the biulding of the centrifugal iiump itself, Wo found tluMower for jiumping was not 144 ,,1 '^ 54 Victorin. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 sufficiont and we had to put in thispump to clean out the dock in bufRciont time. The cost of buildini;- it and the well is included as exti'a. Q. As to the new mi»le of measurement, was it adopted by the Resident Kni^incer over there or was he instructed b\- you to adopt this new mode of measurement? — A. He was instructed by me. He was authorized by the Department. Q. This order or these instructions were given by you with the sanction of the ^linister ? — A. Tiie\- were. (i. In u letter of yours printed at page 39 of the Blue Book (Exhibit " N 5 ") you stale that the contractors have informally applieil here at Ottawa for permission to change the courses. Will you explain by wliom such informu' application was made ? — A. I think that was all exjdained yesterdaj*. There were leuci's put in whichshowed how this came up. Telegrams were read and papers put in ohowing that that appli- cation came from the contractors. Q. Letters from Esquimalt and despafches would not, accoiding to me, meet the words " informally applied here." Letters from Esquimalt would be formal applica t ions from there. Now who applied here? — A. See Mr. Trutch's letter. You will find a letter from Mr. Trutch showing that they had applied to him, and had given 'yiv. Trutch plans or Mr. Bennett plans. Q. That is not hero ? — A. There must be a letter here from them. (J. Jiut a letter written in Esquimalt could not be an application here ? — A, I cannot give you an explanation. Your question, 1 take it, refers to the words " have been informallj"- a])plied here." I cannot give you an answer to that. Q. Notwithstanding the objections that were made from there, it was granted here? — A. 1 do not understand that. 'i. Was it not a fact that Mr. Bennett and Mr. Trutch objected to them apply- ing for it over there, but notwithstanding their oiijection this letter was dated from her?, telling them they had to do it ? — A. That is so, according to my letter. Q. Now, you cannot say who made this application to you? — A. It was not made lo me. If it had been made to me you would have had it in writing. (2. J)\ whom Wire you informed that such an ai)plication had been made here? A. I want to see if there is any letter of mine or any letter to me. This letter roads: — " Ministc autiiori/.es you to peiinit contractors to build work with stone of increased sizes, as pioposed by tir asclves, they to be made aware that this per- mission is merely acceding to t'uii r .quest, and not ordering them to make the change." (i- Is it not a fact that U was to the Minister that this informal applicati(jn wis made? -A. 1 assume so, from the tenor of the letter. Q. Was that letter wiitlen under instruction of the Minister ? — A. This letter is oidy in conlirmation of a telegram and I would not have used the words " Minister authorizes you." Q. What was written beside the telegram must have been written under instruction of the ilinister ? — A. Yes; because it goes on to say " Your long message of tiie 2nd ] laid iiefore Sir Hec(or." Q. Who were the parties acting for the contractors lieie in Ottawa generallv ? —A. In Ottawa? Q. Yo^. — A. Nobody that I am aware of. Q. Y^oii never saw anyboily interesting themselves for the contractors? — A. No. (i. You only saw tiie contractors themselves ? — A. That is all I ever had lo do with llie contractors themselves. (J. narcGreevy ? " i did not. Q. .My (jucstion was I'ather loi\g. Vou have omitted to e.xjilain to the Com- mittee whether the reference in these words "it is now understood that Bennett, the I'lngineer at B. C. will not suit, so the Minister and Perley are jji-epared to change him?" — A. That is a ditl'erent (piestion. [ c )vered the first part I'clative to — 1 nuiy say that 1 have 'Mile recollection of this. There was a complaiitt made. 1 thinic, thai Bennett was hard. You will find a letter of mine to Mr Trulch, i thiidv it was road 1-K! 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 yesioi'diiy. and .Air. Trutcli's reply. That was the beiiinniiig and onciinij; of the matter. There was no successor a])pointed. Mr. Bennett was not askeii to retii'e or resign, he was never dismissed from thesei'viueand only left there when his woi'lc was done, and ho went away. Q. .So thai if there was something more decided in the Department you are not aware of it? — A. "Bennett the Engineer at B.C. will not suit." I know nothing about it. Q. Were you prepared to change him ? — A. 1 was prepared to change him if he did not suit. Q. Did you decide that ho was to be changed ? Was it ever decided that he was to be changed '■'— V. Xo. Q. 'lad you any conversation with Mr. McGreevy in I'eference to Bennett? A. Not to my reroUection. Q. Had you any conversations or communications with any mombei- of the tirm ofLai'iiin, vJor.nolIyA: Co., tlie contractors, in reference to this engineer, Bennett? — A. [ miil.t have had when 1 was at Quebec on one of my visits. They might have spoken to me I'clarive to Mr. Bennett being very hard on them. They miglit have spoken to me, and I have an idea that they ditl, but it was like all strangers coming together, contractors and engineer's, betbre understanding each other, and there might bo that feeling (jn the ]iart of the contractors as against Mr. Bennett, because hv ^ IS a totally new man with totally new ideas of work, and they did not tit in toi-'Cihor. I had sumo conversation relative to that, but it seemed to me it was laoiv a matter of friction than anything else. Q. Please read the letter dated 4th ^lay, which appears as Exhiliit "112," on page 1!) of the printed evidence, signed " Thomas," and addressed to "Dear Eobert," and say whether yon communicated any ol the information in connection with that long dispatch which cost §15 ? — A. 1 have said " No " to that. Q. After seeing that letter, you do notalteryoui- first answer? — A. No; because I gave you that answer in the letter on page i]!) of the Blue Book. Q. Is the statement contained in tho letter that you wont to see Page : " Perley went to see Page this morning to trya?id got another engineer to soml out at once and dismiss Bennett, lie that goes out will get his instructions before I'oing out." Is this statement cori'ect ? — A. 1 have a I'ocollection ofgoingtoMr. Page and asking him for a man, if ho had anybody ho could recommend, in the event of any ti'oublo in British Columbia with ilr. Bennett. I got no one from him ; he gave me no name, and thei'o the matter dropped. Q. Did you do that at the request of Mr. McGreevy, or the contractors, or the Minister ? — A. It would be at the request of the Minister, not oi Mr. McGreevy or the contractors. Q. Did you do it at the request of the Minister if you did it ? — A. Yes. (}. AVill you tile a letter signed by ^Ir. Trutch and addressed to somebody in the Public Works J)epartinent, dated li2nd .luly, lSS-1, in connection with the Ksquimalt (iraving Dock. The No. is 4t»'J01 ? (K.xhibit "V6.") " Victoria, B.C., 22nd July, 1884. "Sir, — I have the honoui- lo enclose herewith tracings (.'!) of ])lans and socfions showing moditicalions in the construction of the Esquimall Gi'aving Dock, antl ])ar- liciihirly of the caisson recess, logelhor with copy of spocitications and form ol" ton- dor, amended in accordance therewith, so as to provide for the substitution of rubble ina.soiu'v for concrete in the bulk of tlie work. "Those alterations of the dock |)lans have boon made by Mr. Bonnott, Ilosident J''nginoor, under my diiection. and ai'o now submitted foi' your considi'ration, pur- suant to your instructions to me by letters from the Chief iMigineer of the 2t)th and 2!lth May last. f '^ W^m B^l E pilS 1— uu 147 'U Isl . fJr 64 "Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 " A copy of a letter to me from Mr. Bennett on the subject of the alterations proposed in these plans and specifications is ulso enclosed herewith. " I have the honour to be, Sir, " Your obedient servant, "JOSEPH W. TIIUTCII. " The Ilonoui-able "Sir Hector Langevin, C.B., K.C.M.Cr., Minister of Public Works. '• Ottawa." Q. Please ^vad Mr. Bennett's letter, referred to in Mr. Trutch's communication ? (Exhibit " W 6.") " (Cofiii.) " Engineer's Office, " EsQUiMALT, 27th July, 1884. "Sir, — Acting under your instructions, I have the honour to send you hoiewiili three tracinj^s showing pro])()sed alterations in the construction of the c:ii son ri'cess, and a copy of the specifications and form of tender altered so that rubble iiiasoary be substituted generally throughout the work fur concrete backing or hearting to side walls, quay walls and floor of dock. "1 would respectfully suggest the desirability of completing the partially constructed brick work in outer and inner inverts in the entrance works up to the level of bed of springer stones of side walls, as originally intended, as well iis all brick work in connection with pump walls, culvert and engine-house foundaiions, and further, that the brick invert under caisson berth, which is already constructed as far as 1-i feet, to the west of the centre line of the dock, be extended as far as the stop groove at entrance to caisson recess. "Should it be deemed desirable, the lirick work hearting of circular pier heads, which are faced with ashlar, and hearting to side walls of entrance, can be changed to rubble masoniy hearting. The change will not, however, ensure a better or more water-tight job. nor will the proposed alteiations of materials to be used in construc- tion in any way, in my opinion, tend to decrease the ultimate cost of the doelv. " I have, &c., " (Signed) W. BEXNi-'.TT, " Hon. J. W. Trutcii, C.M.G., Resident Eni»<;rf.) " (Copy.) "Engineer's Office. Esquimalt, B.C., 28th July, 1885. " SiH, — T have the himnur to submit the following progress report of the work on the Ksii^uimult G ruv injj Dock to 30tii June last ; i> w li'l m 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 III', i^ ii { " Under terms of the Settlement Bill the incompleted work, materials, plant, &c., were, on the 24th August, 18S3, formally transferred by the Hon. Wni. Smithe, Chief Commissioner of Lands and Works for the Province of British Columbia, to and taken possession of by you, as Agent of the Dominion of Canada, and under your instructions 1 continued in professional, and took general, charge of the works and properties temporarily, and until the directions of the 3Iiiiister of Public Works had been received by you, and at your reipiest I supplied you with an inventory of all properties on the works or belonging thereto, with an estimate of their value and a plan of the dock lands, showing the position of the several works and Iniildings thereon. "On the 7th of Deeembcr, 1883, you informed me by letter of that date that under the provisions of an Order of His Excellency the Governor General in Council the works of the Esquimalt Graving Dock were placed under your general super- vision, and that you were empowered to appoint me Resident Engineer on i)eiialf of the Department of Public Works. My acceptance of this appointment was conveyed to you by letter of 8th Dci-eniber. 1883. " The few hands engaged driving sheeting piles around the ?ulvort to the pump wells, and otherwise, at the time when the duck was transferred, were kept on till the Kith St'ptember, 1883, when they were discharged, and no one was employed but a night watchman and the engineer in chai'ge of the pumping machinery which keeps the dock site free of water. " On the 28th September, 1883. the Barque Mane Sprott ' arrived from England, with 293 tons of Portland cement, which had been ordered and paid for by the Gov- ernment of British Colur.-.bia. This cement ,':vs stored in the warehouse on the works built for this purpose. " During the year 1881 the works remained in statu quo, the pump being worked as otten as was necessarv to keep the tioor ot the dock dry. " Tenders for the completion of the Avorkwere called for on the 12th November, \fi-r'., returnable on 8th February, 18S4. but ihc contract was not then awarded. On the 8th August, 1S8-1, tenders were a .^ain advertised for, returnable on 20th .''optember, and the contract wa- upon these bius awaiiled to Messrs. Larkin, ('onnolly % i I' i. i^ f ii I iii I « p ■ V t:i '-■ l' I iy ■■ *1 64 Victoria. Appendix (N'o. 1.) A. 1891 Ist Juno last, but up to tho present diito I boliovo no official notification lias boon received here that the contract for this worli has been awarded. " I have the honour to be, Sir, " Your obedient servant, " (Signed) W. BENNETT, M. Inst. C.E. " Resident Engineer. " The Honourable " J. W. Trutch, C. M. G,, " Agent of the Dominion Government, " Victoria, B, C." By the Chairman : Q. About this informatiom contained in these two letters of Mr. Thomas Mc- Greevy, pages 18 and 19 of the proceedings, you say you never gave that information to Mr. McGreovy. Cculd it have been furnished by an^' parties in j'our department, or^thc Department of Public Works ? — A. That is a very broad question, and I am not prepared to answer. Q. Was that infoi-mation accessible to many parties in the Department — clerks, secretaries and other employes ? — A. Yes ; all piipors are open to a certain number of employes. Q. A large number or a small number ? — A. I cannot tell you. There are the clerks that have tho recording of documents that como in. Q. Are there many of them? — A. I cannot tell you the number. It is in the Secretary's branch, and I know no more about it than if it was another department. By Mr. Mills {BothweW) : Q. What source of information is stated in tho letter itself ? — A, Myself. That is all my reply was to — myself. The Committee then adjourned. 162 !sf f 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 House of Commons, Thursday, 25th June, 1891. The Committee met at 10. 'JO a.m. ; Mr. Girouanl in the chair. Investigation into certain circumstances und statements made in connection with the tenders and contracts respecting the Quebec Harbour Works, &c., resumed. Mr. Henry F. Perlev re-called. Witness — I was asked yesterda}' to furnish copies of letters of the 2(3th and 29th May, 1884. These are the copies : The Chairman — The clerk will read them. (Exhibit "A 7.") " No. 10475. '• Esquimau Graving Dock. "26th May, 188-4. "Sir, — I have to inform you that tenders — two in number — which were received for the completion of the Graving Dock at Esquiriialt, were not entertained by the Minister and nothing therefore has been done towards recommencing worlj. " With I'espect to these tenders, 1 may inform you that one was consiilerably below the value of the work to bo done as per your estimate, and the other largely in excess. " With the view of the completion of the dock within the amount estimated by you it has been decided to change the character of the work to bo done in the wing- walls caisson chamber and body of the dock by dispensing with the concrete backing and brickwork in connection therewith, and substituting rubble masoni'y therefor, and I am directed by the TTon. the Minister to request you to have the plans of the dock moditicd to suit this alteration, and that the specification be re-written to meet the changes which arc to be made. " You will note that the caisson chamber walls are recessed — the recesses having cui'ved backs and circular iieads. "There does not appear to be any necessity for other than a plain straight wall — the more so as the Graving Dock at Quebec, which was designed l)y Messrs. Kinipple it Morris, has walls of such character — and I must say that the plans of the Graving Dock at Queljec show a much simpler mode of construction than those of the tlock at Esquimalt. "It is the wish of the Minister that these plans should be so simplified that whilst the work to be built should possess the maximum of strength such as can be obtained by the use of the rubble masonry backing, the ultimate cost of completion can be reduced to the amount named by yourself. "Our Canadian contractors have had many years' expericnje in the construction on the canal system of Canada of heavier works than are to be executed at Esquimalt, and the experience gained in the use of concrete backing as specified by Kinipple & Morris for the harbour works at Quebec has proved that it would be cheaper and more satistactoiy to use rubble backing. "The Minister desires thei'el'ore that you will place Mr. Bennett at work as soon as possible on the alterations to be matle to the plans, specification, form of tender, &c., and send them here for his approval. " Yours obediently, (Signed) "HKNRYF. PERLEY'. " C/iii;/ Eiujineer. "Hon. J. W. Trutch, " Dominion Anent. " Victoria, B.C." 153 !'!:. I'i! I'll J' tm'4 '■'ly : IT: 'i;U 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 (Hxhiljit " B7.") " ^opy. " No. 10"r)25. " Grnviiig Dock, B.C. " Quebec 2!)tli May, 1884. " Sir, — I hiivo been requested bj- the hon. the MiniNtor of I'lililic Works to say to you tluit after the revision of the plans, spccifiealions and form of tender for the (iraviui^ J)oek at Esquimait have been made, in accordance with the directions con- tained in my letter of the2<>th, you will have copies of the same made and forwarded to him, to permit the issue of advertisements, &c., and that you arc to keep the originals for exhibition at your office. " I am, Sir, " Your obedient servant, (Signed) " HENEY F. PERLEY. " Chief Engineer. " Hon. J. W. Trutcii, C. M. G., " Dominion Agent, Victoria, B. C." Q. Mr. Perley, I understood you to state yesterday that you could not remember in particular any conversations or communications that you had with the con- tractors, Larkin, Connolly & Co., or any of them aboutthe Ebquimalt Gi-aving Dock. "Within a week prior to the 19th Febiuary, 1886, can yourem(!mber Avhetherj'ou had an interview with Mr. Patrick Larkin, one of the said contractors and had with him a long conversation in connection with the works at Esquimait ? — A. No, T cannot remember. Q. If ,Mr. Larkin has made such a statement in a letter bearing date 10th Februar}', 188(), wouUl you doubt that such an interview took place ? — A. I would not doubt it in the slightest, Q. If ho so stated ? — A. If ^tr. Larkin stated it I would not doubt it. (J. If Mr. Larkin, also stated that you then assured him that the dock would not be lengthened before its completion as Sir Hector was bound to have it completed by the time sjiccitied in the contract, even if it had to be lengthened immediately afterwards, would you believe that statement to be correct ? — A. I would believe it to be coi'rect. Q. If he also stated that you read him a telegram which you had sent to Mr. Trutch, and a letter confirming the same in wl.ich he instructed the said Trutch to allow them, the contractors, full measurement on the masonry all ovop, and for masonry in the caisson chamber where they had put it, and for which Mr. Trutch had only allowed a price for a 17-inch back wall, would you believe that statement to be true ? — A. I would believe it to bo true. Do you not think it would be fair to myself to have this letter read to me? So far as it concerns myself, you are not reading a letter, you are merely dotting here and there and asking me questions. I woidd ask Mr. Osier's opinion. Mr. OsLER. — There is no doubt the way the questions are being asking, is irre- gular. We are not objecting to the metliod, but technically speaking I think it is wrong. Mr. Geoffrion. — I am quite willing to have the letter put in the hands of the witness, so that he may vei'ity whether mj' questions are correct or not? Witness. — 1 might state that in speaking to Jlr. Larkin about measure- ments and of anything of that kind, that I was within the limit of m)' duty. I had a right as engineer to talk to a contractor about his work and tell him what was going on. It would be for that reason that I think I would remember, — not remember, but still as Mr. Larkin might say the conversation took place, it is from that stantlpoint I answer. Mr. Geoffrion. I am txying to find somebody else in fault, not you, Mr. Perley. I do not blame you. Witness. — I am not afraid of being blamed; I only want to lot it be known that what 1 have done has been from my own standpoint, regular That is all I want. 154 telegra like 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Now can you remember the factH referred to by Mr. Lavkin ? — A. I cannot remember. Q. You cannol remember ? — A. I cannot, that is an impossibility. Q. If Mr. Larivin also states in that letter on that Ai I \ 'H i;l Q. Thero is no other officer of the Dopnrtmciit intervening between you nnd the MiniMter as an intermudiury other than tlio MtniHter'H Hccretury? — A. Nut the Minister'^ Bccretnry, the secretary of the Departniont. By Mr. Langelier : Q. Could the Hccretaiy of the Department give you orders other than from the Minister? — A. You mu8t ask him. Jiy Mr. Geoff rion: Q. But he must transmit an oi-der? — A. Oh, certainly; he is the medium of communication, and when I write a letter in which I state " 1 am directed," I am merely a medium of communication. I do not give the order, Q. When you say " 1 am instructed by the Minister," are you satisfied that y(»u have directions from the Minister? — A. Yes, either personally or through the medium of a letter from the Secretary. Q. You are satisfied as to the genuineness of your instructions ? — A. I am. Q. When you sav you are directed l)y the Minister ? — A. That would lead to the supposition that I have been in the habit of writing letters without instructions. 1 have told you that I have either been instructed by the Minister personally or by letter through the mediuni of the Secretary of the Department ; not of my own free will. Q. At all events you are satisfied that your instructions were from the Minister ? — A. I am perfectly satisfied. Q. I will refer you to page 39 of the proceedings, where a letter dated the 17th May, 188;{, is piinted? Will you state in reference to this particular case, by whom and how you were directed to call attCi'lon to the errors mentioned in that letter? — A. May I ask, do you wish me to give an explanation, because it will need an explanation. Q. I would like to have an answer, and then give the cxplanatiott? — A. This is a matter that does not refer to the Ksquiinall (xraving Dock. It is a matter that rtffers to the tenders for the Cross-wall of the harbour works at Quebec. It will need an explanation on my part, an explanation which I deem due to myself on this matter. Under the Act of Parliament, 1882, the Harbour Commissioner!* were entitled to obtain from the Government of Canada a further amount towards the construction of the works which they had undertaken at Quebec. In that Act it was stipulated that the plans for the Cross-wall, so called, should be i)roi)ared by the Chief Kngincer of the Department of Public Works. As the Chief hngmeer of that Department it became my duty to pro|>are those i)lan8, and 1 did so — 1 prepared the Idans and specifications and the data connected with it. They were submitted to the *rivy Council and received approval. They were then sent to the Harbour Commis- sioners of Quebec, who advertised for and received certain tenders lor the construc- tion ofthat wall. Those tenders were ojjcned in Quebec, as appears by the evidence already given before this Committee. The tenders were forwardoti to the Depart- ment of Public Works at Ottawa, and received there. Why those tenders were placed in my hands, as they wore schedules of prices and tenders to which quantities had to bo applied, whether they wore placed in my hands for that ])urpose or not I do not remember. The plans wei-o piepared by the late Mr. Boyd, an assistant of the Department, who took out all the quantities required for the preparatio?'. of the schedule. I am aware that those tenders M'ere placed in his hands, that he prepared tho schedule, and ho discovered the errors in three of the tenders, marking those errors on the margin of the schedule sheet. I believe it is in evidence ; he called my attention thereto and as it was my duty to rlo so, I laid thatachodule sheet before the Minister of Public Works and discussed with him the errors that had been detected and that unless those errois were cleared up in some way it was impossible to make a comparison between tho three tenders which wore incomplete and the two tenders that wore com]>lete. 166 54 Victoria, Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 I At that ilisiu'SHion I liave no (loiibt no (iirectinn whh roquiri-tl, l>ut as it i« tho courw) I have alwayw pur»iicHl in canos of titndorM, and as I liavo doiio in many inntanccB wincf,— 1 won't say by diicction of tlio Minister, but with tbo iallnghei-. Two of the letters were exactly »lil). stated they iidbored to tbo prices they i)Ul in. Mr. Geoff rion : Q. All this is not evidence, Mr. Perloy. — A. I know that, but I am speaking a little in justitication of myself, because I have been attacked in this matter preKy plainly. These letters, with my copies, went into the Minister, and I altered in red, on the schedule sheet, the Beaucago tender. All tlie columns were adde not. H. You aro not aware it has been done ? — A. No, Sir, I am not aware. Jijj Mr. Kirkpatrick : Q. Do you believe it was done ? Mr. (jKoFfiiioN, — He says it was not done to bis knowledge. Q. Will you examine K.\l)ibit " H" and look at item 5<> and see whether in this document which is the tender of Charles McCarron and John D. Cameron in connec- tion with the Harbour Improvements at Quebec, there is not alsoaneviilcnt clerical error? — A. I never saw tbs paper before. I never saw it in the De|)artment of Public Works. It is a harbour works matter and has nothing to do with tito Depart- ment any more than a plain sheet of paper. I should have to examine and got something else to make a comparison with to find u clerical error. 167 i| 'P 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 JIJi Q. Wore vou not in Novombor, 188(>, Gliiof Enginoer of the Quobec Harbour Woiku ? — A. I waM, Q. Whilst y«m woco in such u capHcity were not tomlorM called by the Commis- wionorrt rolbired to you ? — A. They wore not. I never saw them. I had nothing to do with the (enderH reotMved for that work. Q. You had tiie quantities to make ? If I remember right they wore opened by tlio ('ommisBioners. and referred to you to money thom out ? — A. Ycn. I will withdraw ull 1 said except that it has nothing to do with the Department of Public Works, Now I remember. Tiie story is hero in my book nnd I can road you the whole of it. Q. How many tenders were there ? — A. Five or seven, I remember now there was one tender where the tender was put in at $1,500 for something and when I moneyed it out I found it would have made $3,1^5,000 for that item. Q. That is what 1 want, — A. There is a clerical item here which I will read : " Item 5ok at K.Khibit " F" of the same item and see what is the charge made in the same tender ? — A. At item 56 I read : " I^epairing and making good streotH as per clause 84 of the spocitication, including materials, tools and labour, measured in place, per sup. yaixl, $1.15." Q. And the other one, signed by Michael Connolly ? — A. It is : " Item 5G — Re- pairing and making gooo found in the final estimate or was it progressive as the work went on ? Did the progress estimates show it was a gradual increase? — A. As far as my recollection goes the progress estimates showed a gradual increase. Q. The increase of cost was not a matter ap|>earing substantially for the first time in the final estimate ? — A. No. Q. Then had tlio Department hoie made an}- survey or valuation of the plant taken over from tho British Columbia (Jovernment ? — A. No; none. Q. Was tho value of $50,UII0 tho sum fixetl between the Provincial Gevernment and the Dominion (tovornment in taking over the work? — A, That I cannot say. I only know that was the sum that was sent to us. Q. You do not know of any detailed valuation being made by the Department ; but you io\l us that you examined the plant ai.d came to the conclusion that a fair sum was 81!',0(»0 less? — A. I have told you that. Q. Was that after a casual or particular examination? — A. A particular exam- ination ; not casual. Q. Where is Mr. Bennett now? Is ho a procunible witness? — A. I do not know. He left us in December, 1887, or January, 1888. He passed through here on his way to I'^ngland. Ho was paid up to the 31st, but I think ho was in Ottawa in January. Q. He ceased then to have any connection with the Department ? — A. It ceased on the 31st Docomber. (J. His only work you know of in Canada was his work in connection with this graving dock ? — A. That is all. (j. He was sent out by Kinipple & Morris and when that woi-k was finished bo left tho country and you do not know where he is ? — A. I do not know where he is. Q. You gave an answer this morning with reference to tho method by which tenders weie accepted by the Department. Do you make any recommendation with regard to tenders? Is that any part of 3'our duty? Is there any recommenda- tion by tho Chief Engineer before they go to the Minister with reference to the acceptance or rejection of any particular tender? — A. As a rule I make no I'eports ItiO 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 on feiiilor!*. PorliapH T might dos tIIk* tho procoss of ojKjnitig 1ent. ToiiiU'r« two iccvivoti l>3' till' Societary h:><1 thoy iiro huiulod, uftor tlio day tor their ret'eption, to tho Ik'puty Alinihtor, wliocailK on the oflioor of the hranch for which thoho tondcrs wi-rc rt'coived — wo will ^ay tho Kiif^inoerV lirancli — to assist in opening these ti'Miiors. The Oeputy, as a rule, doort the nioehanieal part of opening the tenders; that is the opetung of the envelope — with myself or other ottit-ers, I taking a printed M'heduie. Tlio I)epiit3* takes tiie tender, ho pins thereto the envelope and che<|iie it eontains, and he will lake his tiist one and lahol everything with the letter •' A " — tliJ tender, envelope and cheque. He pins them together und would hand them to i;;o. I thon write my schedule "A," from John Smith, ]>ost (ttlice address and .■mount. I then examine thoclicque to see if it is in accordance with the specification or the advertisement, tliat it Ih a chetjue made payalile to the ordei- of the Minister, nut limited as to time of payment ami ha.n been accepted hy the hank. I nolo it in a column. So all tenders are opened in that way and sclicdiilcd. Then, when tender " A " has licen opened — f am speaking now of n hulk sum— it is folded and on the hack is put llio '.etter " A " and I write as well on the hack of it, '• opened hy Deputy Minister and II, F. Perley" ami date it. Al^er the schedule has heen prepared tho Deputy takes tho schedule and 1 take the tender und read them, and check the schedule to see if any errors have been made. Tho deputy then puts his name across tho hack of tho tender and they are then taken hy the Dei>uly to the .Minister. Q. Onlinarily without any recommendation ? — A. Without. Then they are discussed with the Minister and if I have anythiiig to say about a tender — for I have often pleaded not to give the work to a man because I knew ho could not do it foi- the money. But as a rule temlers are awarded to the lowest tenderer in spito of my advice That is the course wo pursue and that is as far as my recommendation goes. Witli these temlers for the Cross-wall there was a letter of mine in which I merely recommended — I won't say recommended — I reported for the consider at ion of tho Minister on tlu tender of Larkin, Connolly & t'o. Ik>eause no recommendation from me after the acceptance of u tender would have the slightest weight with tho Minister. il. We have a letter from you to Mr. Thomas Mcttreovy *»f tho 11th September, put in yesterday. Can you rocolloct Ijow often you Ijeanl from Mr. Thomas JlcGreevy during the course of the yoais yon were cof:inu' of that lettor of tho llfh? — A. It wuf* n private lotter. I keep |trivate letters only a vcar, aiui tliuii ^o tliroiii;li llit>ni and put tlii'Mi in thotiru. And, if I had thoui;ht it wan otficial, it would havo been on Hie. My letter to Mr. McCireevy Itci^ins : — " In reply to your private note." Btj Sir John Thompson : ii. I understand from what you nay, that you knew Charles McGreevy's hand writing, butdi. as contrac- tors that their equal is not to be bu found in Canada. Theyhavedone the l>est work that I ever saw and it compares favourably with any work I ever siiw on the other side of the .Vtlantic and I have seen much. And one has only to bNjk at the Har- bour works at (^uebtM- and see what is the quality of the work that these gentlemen do — work done pcrlectly, without the slightest desire, wish or intention of skimping, using iMior materials or doing poor work; using the best material, the best plant, and liest witrkmanship; sparing no pains or labour; and I am very glad you have given me an opportunity' <)f speaking thus for Larkin, Ccuinolly \- Co. — not picking out any individual memlHir of the tirm, but speaking of them as a whole. Q. When you were out in British Columbia did you have occasianie, ami the above telej^ram was Neiit to you at Win retiue«t." Wat* not tliis letter ami thin telegram, referred to in {\i'\n letter, >onl in annwer to this leie;;raii) of the 2iid May. IHH.'i, from Mr. Trulch to you?— A. This is the letter of the 4lh of Miy. There was aUo a tolo^ram of the 4th Ma^'. Q. I Just read it ? — A. This letter ot the Hii May was written in eontirmation of the tt'K'f^ram I was in the liabit of writin;^ in c-ontirmation of my telegrams. This letter was written in contirmation of my telegram of the same dale. (^ What I mean toaskyou is, is it not a fact that this lettorof the 4lh of May, (■ontirming u telegram of the same date Huntin answer to the tolegrum of the '2nd uf May, 1885, reading a^ follows: "Victoria, via Simas, H. C, 2nd May, 1885. " JI. F. Peri.ey. "A month ago [ apprise*! Mr. Connoli}' that suhstitutiun of larger courses would not be ohjeetcd to, and that on his written ap])lication t(» bo allowed to Milistitule any larger courses without increased cost of work to (Jovernment, I would return him written sanction. No such written application has, however, been received, and. conse<|iU'ntly, no written sanction has been given by me. Contractors Mibmitted to Bennett, 2()th March, ])lans ot proposed cintnges in mode of construction which he relerred t(j me on my return ; those changes a))pcariHi both to IJeniiett and myself uiiobjectionabK'. except as regards (pjostion of cost, as I wired you eighteenth ult. and 1 understand work is proceeding in accordance thei'o- with, but without letter from contractors to above ellect. I hesitate to give written sanction or to formally appiove plans as specitications request lest complication us to cost should result. Of course, however, 1 will do so if Minister so directs. Please answer. " JOSEI'II W. TllUTCII." My question is. is your telegnim of the 4tii May, 1885, not in answer to that telegram ? — A. Yes. Q. Wore you not warneil by this telegram that recoursing wouUl increase the cost of the work if the contractors did not pledge themselves not to ask an increase about it ? — A. Certainly. t^. Did the contractors ever ploilge themselves not to ask any more for that recoursing ? — A. Not that I am aware of. t^. This order that was given by you as you say, at the request of the Minister, was given in 1S85 ? — A. That i> the date. (i. Is it a fact or not tliat.in the course of the j'ear ISH(», you gave orders to Mr. Trutch and to Mr. Bennett to measure the stone all over the masonry ? — A. I stated that either yestenlay or the ilay before. (^. Then j-ou admit that you have given that order? — A. Yes. (•i. At the request of the Minister ? — A. It is so stated in the order. Q. Would you state that such an order for increased measurement for all the masonry all over did not int-rease the amounts paiti to the contractors ? — A. No; I did nol say that. I could not have stated that, because 1 would have stated an untruth. (i. I am very glad that I understand you fully. Is it not a fact that these oixlers to increase the measurement all over the masonry have increased largely the cost of the work ? — A. Certainly. Mr. Trutch stated it addetl 823,1)00 to one month's esti- mates. Q. Then if, I understand rightly the position, it is this: The contractors t(K»k their contract with a certain course ot stone, let us say a foot square. Is it so or not ? — A. Yes ; for the sake of argument say a foot. 1U3 1-lIi »,, I fil :.if, I'M i If i yi 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 at Q. Ami thu hacking wiih goin^ to Lo conciotc ? — A. Kithur concroto or rubble, tliu option of thv (■nginvor. Q. Tho UoHidont Kiiginoor ? — A. The Itosidunt Knginocr. Q. Ih it not a faot thattlio lii^nidont Knginuor tliuro anil Mr. Trutcli oixloroJ tliu work with conerelc backing until you gave tliiH order ot llio 4tli of May?— A. I i-annot tell. il. What would have been the hhc of thi« order of the 4th of May if it waH not BO ? On the 4lh of May you gave permiMhion to Larkin, Connolly & Co. to incroaMe the hize of the htone — to change the cournen of the utone? — A. Yes. Q. Until then it in perfectly clear that there waM a concrete backing? — A. 1 do not know that any iiacking had been built up to that time. Q. Then let uh explain. Until that time the hIzo of the Htone waH at one f oit hquare? — A. One foot deep. Q. And had been changed to hu-gor conrweH? — A. The only otTect that would have, would be to reduce the quantity of backing, but whether that backing watt put in concrete backing or rubble, I do not know to tJiiH day. (j. What I want to elicit from you iHthiH: Had concrete backing tieen UHe that had only been measured according to the thin courses. When the order came for thick coursoH, a remeasuremcnt ' .j made and it naturally followed there would be an increase. By Mr. Mills {Bothwell) : Q. Is your measurement ot stone superficial or solid ? — A. It was solid. They were paid by the cubic foot. By Mr. Tarte : Q. Would you be in a position to toll us what has been the increase resulting from that oider to measure all over the masonry? — A. I never knew it, and I am not in a position to state it. I have no measurement. Q. Is it not a fact that every estimate is sent to you? — A, Every estimate is sent to me, but no measurements are sent. Q. Is (here Jinyone in the office who can give the information ? — A. There is no one in Canada who can give the intbrmations. Q. Could Mr. Bennett give the information ? — A. Mr, Bennett is the oidy man. Q, Who could do so ? — A. lie is the only man, Q, You have no doubt w^hatever it has largely increased the cost of the work ? — A. There is no doubt of it. Q. Do you think it may have increased the cost of the work by $100,000? — A. No. 164 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. nut you Hiiy that in oiio Hin^le ontiinato it hns incrouHed tho coat of the vrnvk liy82:{.OU(l? — A. \viH\ Imttliiit roproMontM work that haH boon done from May, 1885, up to tho (lute of tho inoamiromont. (i. I do not think you iiro right ? — A. Tho way you put it, Mr. Tarte, i« that 8:i.'l,0<)0 was uddod to that oHtimato. I look at thin 823,000 as thoditfofonco botwoun tho old way of meaHuromont and tho now way of muaHuromont. By Mr. Curran: q. Up to that dato?— A. Up to that date. By Mr. Tarte : Q. You beliuvo it in ho? — A. I Iwliovo it is so. (j. Ato you Huro it Ih ho? — A. I would not lio hui'o, butHtillatirra haHknowloJgo of till* work that it han donu. Tho contractorn can tell that. il. JIavo you any knowledge of any corrospondonco that has passed between 3Ii-. Ti'iitch and the contractors or tho Department about that new mode of moasuro- ment? — A. No. Q. llavo you got any knowledge that the Hon. Thom:is MeGreevy ever inter- fered with tho J)epartment to obtain an order for that new mode of measurement? — A. I have no knowledge. Q. If I am not mistaken you made a trip to British Columbia? — A. I made two. Q. When was the first one? — A. Tho first one was in Outobor, 1885, tho last one in September, 1887, that tho work was completed. Q. Were there any complaints about Mr. Bennett from Mr. Trutch himself? — A. Never, liy Mr. Geoffrion : Q. On that lino of questions, I see in your letter of tho 4th May, 1885, that you slate at the end of tho letter j-eforring to' the request of the contractors to change tho courses, "it has been granted to them, and I will inform thorn here of this decision of the Minister, and that no extra payment will be made to them on account of this change." Did you give that infoi-mation to tho contractors anj'where, that no extra payment would bo given to them on account of these changes? — A. If I informed them it would not bo in writing, because I do not find anything on record. It would be verbally, I presume on one of my trips to Quebec. Q. So, notwithstanding the suggestion of Mr. Trutch that a written declaration from them should be taken, you have not taken such a declaration, and the Depart- ment to your knowledge has not int'ormed them in writing that no extra payment would be allowed ? — A. No. Q. Aie you aware that the alteration by which it w.a8 decided that a circular ! j:i't should bo substituted was made at tho suggestion and request of the ontractors ? — A, No. It was made at my own suggestion. Witness cross-examined : By Mr Osier : Q. You state all the measurements wore made by Mr. Bennett? — A. Yes. Q. You found no fault with those measurements ? — A. No. Q. Those measurements were mailc according to tho orders receivei! from the Department of Public Works? — A. Through Mr. Trutch. Mr. Bennett was never known in our Department. Q. Anyhow instructions were sent to Mr. Trutch from tho Department of Public Works as to the mode of measurement? — A. Only in one instance, and that was 1886 when full moasuremont was allowed. Q. That is to say up to that date, Mr. Bennett was making his measurement according to the specifications ? — A. He was. 165 l ? 1 ij; PI 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1801 Q. Ami wlion Mr. Triitch icceivcxl thone iiiHtiuctioiiN tVnin Ottawii, tliu now modo of inoiiMiremcnt wax thou followed liy Mr. lU'iinett? — A. It waw. Q. TliiM oharii*' i>t g.iO.iMK) which Ih made in the contiaiM with Larkin, Connolly & Co. for thi> |)lant, was to bo mado to any other tunilorer who might have olitainod the contract ? — A. Yos. (j. It was HO mentioned in the notice calling for tender^^? — A. It wuh, an plant tor which notice wan given that 850,000 would be c! arged could be seen at KHi|uinialt and tlu-re checked and verified :* — A. Certainly. Q. And when the lendererr* |)iit in their tenders, each of them had hud t ho oppor- tunity of Hcoing that itlant? — A. They had the opportunity- of seeing it, iftheyclioso to take advantage of it. By Mr. MUh (Bothwell) : Q. If llioy came to the conduHion that the plant, apparatus, kc, wa.^ not worth inOjUOO, what ert'ect would that have on the temlers jiut in? Suppose, for iimtance, the Government had asked 8200,000 for it and it was not worth that amount — what ett'uet would that have on the tendcrw put in? — A. I do not think I can give an anHwer to that question. It is a suppositious one; it would only make me give a BupposilioUH answer. Q. J)o you think they would tender for a smallorsum ? — A. If they thought they were going to get a reiluction made? Q. No, if the (lovernmont asked a certain sum for the plant which was to bo taken by the contractors. If they discovereil from experience that it was not worth what they would bo obliged to pay for it, what etfect would that have on the amount of their tender? — A. That i» Hpeakiug for another man. By Mr. Lanr/elier: Q. Su])posing the Government aHked $50,000, for mat rial worth only 850 would the contractor increase his tender by 8*S',M0? — A. I .«ppo8o ho would. By Mr. Mills (Bothwell) : Q. Then all these things would bo taken into consideration at the time of tender? — A. They would be. provided the man had seen this plant, but if ho ilid not Hco it it would be like taking a pig in a poke. Q. Would he bo likely to tender without seeing it? — A. It is very often done. By Mr. Curran: Q. Are not your references in regard to the value of anything to bo used for public works based upon ])rotty accurate estimates as a rule? — A. Thej' are. Q. Such as to lead the contractors to believe that they are getting the value you represent is there? — A. Yes. By Mr. LatKjelier . Q. What was the change in the mode of measurement ? — A. Accor*. Q. The tomiers of J^arkin, Connolly- iV Co. lor concrete backinj; were $374,000 in round tijiui 08? — A. Ye^*. if. T:ikin<; oil", from your own estimate the j^.lOjOOO of the phint, your tij^urfK remain at $:{40.000?— A. Ve-. Q. Laikiii, Connolly \ Co. have paid in all only 830,MOO — I >pcak aiwayn in rfHiml tii^uiei* — makinfr 8370,000. Theii tender, as I Miid, was* 8'{74.0liO. dots i( lollow— sir. that they have taken the prieeH and tijrurch that you sent Mr. .M<«trecvy un the base ot their ealeulations ? Counsel ohjeetetl. By Mr. Tarte : Q, Now, Mr. I'erley, is it not a fact that when all thetcndi , \rere in the Pul!ic Works l»cpart]nent that a memo, on hehalf of Ljirkin. Conno _ i^ Co. was nut into the hands of the offici;.;* alwjut that 850,O(Mt worth of plant? — A. I e.innot answer that question. I ..c . ; saw or heard of such a memo. / \fr. Kirkpatrick: ii. Your memo, was put in the hands of the Public Works Departr-<"nt ? Mr. Tarte. — My own information is this — That a memo, in re B.C. wjis ]>lacod in the hands of the Minister and that a pledge was then given tu Ljirkin, Connolly a Co. abf»ut tlie 82O,0((0 that were to come buck to them? WiT.NEss. — I never heard anything of the kind. By Mr. Oder: Q. Is there a diti'erencc, Mr. Perie}-, ordinarily speaking, in contnict work for stone, where you are calling for large and for small courses — is there a dill'erence per foot? — A. Well that depends in a great measure upon the quarry — the distance of the quarry and the cost of cutting the stone, Q. I am s]K'aking ordinarily? — A. There should be liut very little, there would be aditlereiice in the co>t per cubic fimt between the thin coui-sesand the large courses Ix'cause there are heaver weights to handle. »;. Which is the better for this work — large or small? — A. The largo courses. Q. Much Ijetfcr? — .V. So much was 1 struck with the work that was done with the large courses in Quebec that I was very glad to give a recommendation increas- ing the size of the cour>es in Ksquinialt, and when it fell to me as Chief Kngineer of Public Works to design the graving dock at Kingston, I did not put ,uiy courses in it less than 2 feet 8 inches, except one. I used tlie big heavy cour^e> purposely because I was struck with them. You get stronger work, better work, and lasting work by using the heavier stone. (J. Then the larger stone wa-« paid for at tlie tenmaller stone?— A. That is it. Q. And the larger stone involved neces-sarilv 'he reduction in the backing ? — A, It did. Q. Was that advantageous to the work? — A. Certainlj*. bcis great dock with a heavy bulk of stone in front, because the pressure in a graving dock is outward against the walls, because when a vessel is in dock it is supported by shores from these altars or steps, and they have got to take all the wear and tear of docking vessels. Q. Then this 82.'!,0O0 increase would be the increase up to the time that the stone furnishiHl was measured as stone and not as backing? — A. That is my reading of the statement made bj' Mr. Tarte, 107 ih' I)) it : i; 64 Victoria. Appendix (So. i.) A. 1891 Q. Then the public hiive not paid for any more stone than they got, ami paid for it at the prices contracted? — A. Whatever stone wa-* in the woi-k was paiil for at the pricea contracted for. That is a general term. I mean at> agreed upon. The public has a better job than was contracted By Mr. Curran : Q. The job was improved, for?— A. In my opinion, yes. By Mr. Tarte : Q. Was Mr. Trutch indicated in the speci^cation as the authori»ed man to order changes? — A. Yes. Q. Was Mr. Trutch a man in whom yourilepatment had confidence? — A. Yes. Q. Did he himself order these changes ? — A. As regai-ds measurement? ii. All the changes? — A. No; he ordered them by orders from the department. Q. Have you not received a report from Mr. Bennett, who was the Resident Engineer there, in which in' says the changes of the courses of the stone would increase the cost of the woi k. and will not increase the quality of the work ? — A. I stated that the department never received any re|)ort from Mr. Bennett. il. You know what I moan. A report transmitted through Mr. Trutch? — A. I would like to see it before 1, say what Mr. Bennett has said. Q. If Mr. Bennett, who is there as the Besident Engineer under Mr. Trutch's direction, believed that the work that was going on witii theconcreto backing was good work, would it have been true or not? — A. It would have been so. Q. Was it a fact or not? — A. I do not know whether it was a fact or not. It would be BO. In the telegram that has been read Mr. Trutch says: "Mr. Bennett and I say it would be unobjectionable." Q. As far as the quality would be concerneideration was 8100. Q. The considoration was 8100, but ho got nothing? — A. Yes. Q. Wiis he acting for someboily ; did ho represent some other interest ? — A. Ho roprosentoil the interest of the Connollys and myself. Q. Was it a nominal price agreed upon — 8100? — A. Yes. Q. The same Jis a person might pay 81 ? — A. Yes. Q. You were left apparently alone in that business? — A. f was, Q. Was there an^^body interested in the South-wall contract but you? — A. When I got the contract, it was verbally agreod I'or some time that Robert McGreevy Hilt • il Ill 1 : -'l iv !!: ^'i-i j. !! ^l ■'^ -i if 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 should havo 25 per cent., ^[iehael Connolly 25 por cent., and Nicholas Connolly 25 per cent. We tour divided it up into equal parts. Q. Was this proportion kept all the time or was it alterted later? — A. It was kept all the time. Q. So Mr. Lurkin had no interest in that contract? — A. No. il. What security had you to give to the (rovernnient with your contract? — A. I pul lip the security required at the time of the teiuler. Q. fJo ynn leineinher how much? — A. f think it was 87,500. Q. At the time of the filinj;; of the tender? — A. Ves. Q. But how much at the time of the signing of the contract? — A. I think it was $25,000. Q. How did you put in the security? — A. It was left there for a time. Q. Vou made a deposit of some kind, was it money? — A. It was a certificate of deposit on the hank, and then afterwards when the contract was signeil ami every- thing satisfactory, they took my private cheque without being certified. My private cheque was drawn to the order of Nicholas Connolly and he endorsed it. it remains there yet, I Itelieve. (i. This cheque to the order of Nicholas Connolly which was uncertified replaced the certiticate of deposit and which was put in by you at the time of the signing of the contract? — A. Ves. Q. From whom it tilit'd out and a few Co.— A 111 lie I signi'd two, oiiO lioliirt McGreevy came here chanircs maile. t^. However, you signed one Larkin made out in (Jnebec and one I left blank. (J. Will jdu stale whether you had received any McGivevy as to prices? — A, I got that letter troni Mr. Perley bills lit quantities. (I. Will j-ou look at K.vliibit '' I{ 0" and say whether it is the letter you refer to? — A. Yes, I had that letter in my possession several days. 't*. Whilst you were working at your prices? — A. Yes, 171 information from 'I'bomas md all the pricesand mi > ti 1 »■ •I i. 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 HI: i : I ii Q. Who lianded you that letter? — A. I think it was Robert McGroevy who brouffht that letter to me. Q. You Bay you did not go to Ottawa, but finally, after having so signed the tender, ym got the conti-act? — A. Yes. Q. VVill j'ou explain why this tender that is signed by the firm's name only is not signed as the other tenders ought to be signed and as requested by the Department? — A. Both Mr. Larkin and Mr. Nicholas Connolly were absent and I made the tender out myself and signed the firm's name and sent it to Ottawa. Q. You know that as a rule when a firm is tendering, the name of each partner is to be signed ? — A. I believe so. Q. You had done so previously ? — A. Yes. Q. No objection was made to your signing the firm's name only. It passed ? — A. Yes. Q, Had you any time to consult your absent partners between the day that you saw Mr. McGreevy and the day required to file the tender ? — A. I think not. Q. Where were tliey ? — A. St Catharines, Ontario, Mr. Larkin was there ; but I do not know where Mr. Nicholas Connolly was. Q. Was there any more talk a^^out that question of giving a quarter interest in that contract after Larkin, Connolly & Co. obtained it ? — A. Not until after we had obtained the contract. Q. With whom did you have further talk about it ? — A. With Thomas McGreevy and Robert McGreovj'. Q. Did you come to any understanding about that ? How did you arrange it ? — A. Robert was to have 25 per cent, and no money paid, and I was very anxious to give Michael Connolly a fifth. I talked the matter over with both Mr. Tiiomas McGreevy and Robert, and showed what an interest I had taken in Mr. Michael Connolly. 1 told him that if he would take one-fifth instead of a quarter I would make it up in money in some other way, and they both agreed to it being done in some other way. That is how Robert came to have one-fifth instead of twent^'-fivo per cent. Q. They both agreed to that ?— A. Yes. Q. Had you occasion to make it up later ? — A. Yes, At this stage, the following letter which had been asked for, was filed : (Exhibit "D7") "Government House, " Victoria, 23rd June, 1884. "Sir, — I have the honour to forward a copy of a Minute of my Executive Council approved by me on the 20th June on the subject of the completion of the Graving Dock at Esquimalt. " I have the honor to be. Sir, " Your obedient seivant, (Signed), " CLEMENT F. CORNWALL, " Lieutenant Governor. "The Honorable "The Secretary of State, Ottawa." (Exhibit "D 7," Continued.) " Copt of a Eeport of a Committee of the Honourable the Executive Council, approved by His Honour the Lieutenant Oovernor, the 20th day of June, 1889. "On a Memorandum from the Honourable Chief Commissicmor of Lands and Works reporting, that under the settlement arraiigomonl between the Dominion Government and the Province tlio Dominion Government umlortook to complete the Graving Dock at Esquimalt with all ounvenient speed. "That on the 1st September, 1883, the Dock was formally taken possession of by the Public Works Department of Canada in jiuisuance of the agreement. "That ten months have elapsed since that time and no work has been done with a view of carrying out the agreement. 172 64 Victoria, Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 "Tliat tolejLjratni* from tho Minister of Public Works to the repiesoiitatlvi's of the city of Victoiia in the House of Commons, published in to-day's newspajiers, show thai it is not only inlemied to continue the delay for so loiii; a jtoriod that the working season ot tlie present year will be enlirelv wasted, but that it is also inten- ded to modify the plans and specilieations of the Dock with the object of cheapeninij; the work, and, as would natuially follow, degrading its character. "That the graving dock at Ks(|uimalt was originally undertaken on a scale large enough, and of a character sutticient, for the requirements of Jler Majesty's largest ron clad war vessels. " That the ])lans and specifications were submitted to the Lords Commissioners of tiie Admiralty and approved of, and upon that ap|»roval was based the agreement of the Imperial (Tovernment to contribute towards the work the sum of .'lO.OOO pounds sterling. "That the Provincial Government under the settlement transferred to the Dominion Government the right to receive upon the completion of the J)oi'k the 50,000 pounds of Imperial subsidy, but it was distinctly understood at the time, and must continue so to be, that the Dock was to be completed in strict accordance with the plans and specifications appiovear as I can state he said that it would be done. Q. That would he the result of what you rememlwr of that converscition — that he would try to have it done ? — A. Yes ; ho said he would try to have it done. (j. Did anything come to your knowledge that enables you to state that Mr. McCrreevy made some attempts for that purpose, or in that direction ? — A. Yes, there were complaints, and I believe it was ordered here in Ottawa to have it done, and 1 imme[r, Robert 3IcGreevy the letters you received from British Columbia ? — A. Mr. The uiuis McGreevy was in Ottawa. Robert came here and had the granite cancelled. Q. As a matter of fact, you know the change did not take place ? — Xo. Q. It wjis stopped in time ? — A. Y''e8. By Mr. Curran : Q. The change was never mailo ? — A. No. By Mr. Geoffrion: Q. Did you have any conversation with Thomas McGreevy after that demand for a ehungc was revoked by your partners ? — A. I had. Q. What was that conversation ? — A, Mr. McGreevy complained that it made a great muss, if you please, in Ottawa, and trouble, and he was very much displeased with the transaction. Of course, 1 cannot give the details; but I immediately wrote to my partners about it, asking for an explanation, which I got. Q. Did you say you wrote about these complaints of Mr. Thomas McGreevy? — A. Yes. Q. Did you receive letters in answer to these letters? — A. I did. il. You have these letters ? — A. I have. I can produce them. il. You said you received answers. Did you communicate the substance of these answers to Mr. Thomas McGreevy, or did you inform him what your partners had an>weied to your letters? — A. I did. Q. What statement did you make to Mr. McGreevy? — A. I stated that, of course, that they found ihat the quarrying was nearer to the works, and that larger stone would be more aoi-tion. Q. And you allowed the charge against the firm ? — A. I did. 178 •:! 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Bfi Mr. Curran : If Q. When did >•<>» discover thut entry in the books ? Ifiiv; lonj^ after ? — A the Committuo will allow mo I will give an explanation in my own way. (Mr. Henry objected.) ^l. Wben did you discover that entry ?— A. At the close of the houhod of 1888, Bij Mr. Jieausoleil : Q. How did yon come to make that discovery ? — A. I w mid have to ask the permission of the Committeo to make the e.vplanation. H. (loon? — A. 1 called at Mr. Thomas McGreovy's house, and he asked for ?.'),f)0(J. His lirotliei" was present, and there was quite a disairreement as to which works it should be ciiaritcd to. Ilobert objecteh Columbia. and said it oUi^ht to be charged to the (Jraviiif^ Dock, L(Svis. I stated that my partners would not stand that, as I made a bar^'ain thai whatever came t(» the Fa^'Is (rraviriii; Doidi nothing should be paid out of it. f went round to 3Ir. Xicholas (!oiinolly and stated the case — that there was 85,((0U asked f(»r— and ho refused, and we both i^ot a little excited over the mattei-, and he tlu^re admitted that ho had already paid SIO.OOO. I then came around and reported the fad to .Mr. Thomas ^Ictireevy in the prescm-e of his brother llolnfrt, and he asked it Mi". Connolly had slated to whom he paid it. 1 stated the case in the presence of his brotjier, and he ifot in a i^re.it passion to think that anyone else was ^ettini^ money but himself. We then — Jioiiert in company with inysulf — went down to the books and examined them, and found that there was 810.000 charujed to the Cross-wall. It was there we discovered also where the insjjcctors were paid. We then came back to Mr. ^IcGreevy's liouse and reported, and he himself found a i^reat deal of fault with the way thini^s weredono — and that is how I came to discover this money. Mr. (Jonnolly made this statement to me that he got a letter from Sir Hector Mr. Osier objected. Witness continued : — I ask him how he camo to !, then ? — \, I -iipposi> >o. Q. Where 'lii| the ilii*cusKion take jdaee ? — A. In the oftice at (^iiohee, <;. In the tiinV otliee at Qiiehee ? — A. In the firm'!* otKee at (^iiehee. U. Was Mr. Larkiii a partner ihen / — .\. Jle was. lit/ Mr. Geofi'rion : Q Were these items ifeiieraily entereil on the very * U .1 f'"^ 54 Victoria. Appendix (So. 1.) A. 1891 5^ Mr, Curran: Q. There were two paymonts of S.'ijOOO ? — A. Yes. t.^. And you paiil them liolh, where? — A. IiiQueljec. Q. At the ho^l^e of Sir Heetor ? — A. Yes. Q. Can you remember the month it was in? — A. Xo; they were atditterent dates. I may say iieie, I paid them l)y the order of Nicholas. By Mr. Coasticcrth : Q. What time of the j'ear was it? — A. Oh. I forget. Q. In the summer or winter? — A. I do not recollect. Jiy Mr. O'eoffrion : Q. You cannot remember anything about it? — A. No. il. Do you remember the year? — A. Well, I know the year. It the Committee will allow me, 1 would like to state I don't make entries of these things. Of course, I tried to hide this as much as it was possible to do, and I was .satistied it would leatl to trouble. Q. Can you tell us the year it was made? — A. My cheques would show. Q. 1 have not got the cheques. You cannot &uy the year? — A. No; I cannot say the year. Jiy Mr. Curran : Q. What did you mean to say when y>>n stated this matter was to be kept secret ? I understood you to say that nobody but yourself knew you were giving this moiie}' to Sirllectoi? — A. No; I stated it w:ls to be kejit secret from the McCireevys, both liobert and Thomas. Q. To the other members of the tirm it i\'v\ not make any matter ? — A. No. Q. Was there a conference between the partners with reference to this matter before the charge was made in the book>? — A. 1 believe so. liy Mr. Laivjelier : Q. I understand you got out the money on two che<[ues signed T,arkin, Connolly & C(). to the order of Nicholas Connolly, and endo.sed by him? — A. Yes. Q. Did N'oii got the money i'nmediatly after tlie date mentioned on the cheques? — A. The same day. Q. And did you pay the money immediatly after you got it from the bank? — A. Idid. By Mr. Daly : Q. Did Nicholas Connolly know what this money was for ? — A. It was by his order I paid it. By Mr. Mulock : Q. Paid in bills, was it? — A. Yes; paid in bills. By Mr. Laiujelier : Q. You say the date on the cheque would be exactly the dale of the payment ? — A. Yes. Bi/ Mr. Daly : . Q. After you had paid this money to Sir Hector, as you say, did you inform Nicholas Connolly that 3-ou had paic! it ? — A. I did. By Mr. Coasttvorth : Q. Was it paid in bills or gold ? — A. In bills. i}. Do you know on what baidt thev were? — A. To the best of my opinion, they were on the Bank of British North America. 182 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 (J. Large bill^?— A. f asked for one huniired dollar bills, and they did not have them convoiilent, and I think I gottifties and twenties. Q, Yc!' said it was the desire of the partners to keep that from the knowledge of the two .loj;.ted, if you please, and did not deal with him tiiirly — did not give him his share. (}. Did you investigate, either by the books or otherwise, to see whether this com]Maiiit was well-founded? — A. I did. 1 have tried everything that a Tuan po>~ibly couUl do to make peace between the two brothers. 1 never tried so hard in my life, and I took Jiobert McGieevy to task, as to whether he had dealt fairly with him, and bo showed me the books anil his accounts, where be showed me he h:u» paid his brother 8177,000. I then was satisfied in my own mind. Counsel objected. ii. You were satisfied Mr. Thomas Mcdroevy had received has share. Did j'ou go to see J[r. Thomas Mctireevy after this investigation? — .\. I did. i}. Did he deny having received the amount you mentioned, or any part of it ? Mr. Stuart — Ask him what he got. By ^^r. Geoffrion : Q. What did Mv. Mcdreevj' say when you ftdkcd to him again on that subject? —A. What subject? Q. On this difticulty with his brotlier Kobert — about the claim that he had been cheateil iy his brother Robert? — A. lie tulked so and accused his brother, amongst other things, of being a thief, if ,,ou ))lo:ise, and so many other things it is imi)Ossible for me to recollect it now. B;/ Mr. LiUiijelier : ^i. Did j-ou tell him his brother pretended he had paid him 8177,000? — A. Xo ; 1 »aid nothing about this thing. Hi/ Mr. Geoff'rion : Q. Were you aske I money for Sir llectoi' Langevin by anybody? — A. When -Mr. Thomas .Mctireevy would coino to mo for money it was alwa^-s for Sir Hector — oh all oecMsions. Q. l'i"?— A, He^isked 83,000 to pay off a debt that was on Sir Hector's son-in-law's pa])er in (iiieboc ; and I refused, and went over to consult with Nicholas Connolly, and he made some trouble about it ; but I told him there was nothing to do but i>ay it, and Nicholas Connolly told mo he had [)lU(' tho money. That was it initialed there. *i. You sa}- his son-in-law is proprietor of a newspaper in Quebec ? — A. Yes. % Mr. Edijar : Q. There are two items of 83,000 in this account? — A. It is tho one initialed •'X. K. C 18a ■ I I \ i V \4 1 141 i' i« I ! 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 1: i:^:ii By Mr. Geoffrion : Q. I asked you whether he was proprietor or eilitor. What is the newspaper? — A. I do not know. Q. What is the name of the editor? — A. It is a Fiench name — it is Chapais. It was asked for him. Q. You do not know the name of the newspaper? — .\. Xo. Q. Vou did not make the payment yoursolf ? — A. Xo, Q. But it is mi'.rked as having been paid by X. K. Connolly in the statement given to you? — A. Yes. Q. And you were chari^cd your share, and paid your share ? — A. Yes. Q. Did Mr. Thomas Mcdreevy ask you for money for other |)urposes tiian these newspapers for Sir Hector Lany;evin? — A. Yes; the 85,000. I mentioned that was to be charged to (> raving Dock, Levis ; but we never paiil it. Q. IJefer again to Exhibit " B 5,'" and say whether you fimi some of the items there that were paid at the request of Thomas McUreov^^ ? — A. Tiiero is an item, August 7th, 1887 — but tl)at date is not right. Mr. McUi-eev}' came to me and wanted §5,000. Those dates, 1 think, ai"e all wrong — most of them. The book-keeper or the auditor propably can account for that. Xone of my partners, that 1 know, were in Quebec, and we were short of mone^'. Mr. Mctxi'ecvy stated that lie wanted to try and get §1,000 before Sir IIectt)r was to leave Quebec. 1 went to the bank, drew the cheque myself, and drew the money and handed it myself to Thomas McGreevyin tiie office, 124 Dalhoiisie street. Q. What e.xplanation can you give to the Committee as to the item of 84,000 following this? — A. Mr. Connolly told me he paid the 84,000. I have not drawn the cheque, and 1 only take his word for it that he has paid the money, and the charge is made in the books. Q. This would be the balance of the 85,000 asked f(ii-?— A. Yes. Q. You said that these ditteront payments were discussed between the partners in the otfice of the firm. Do you Ivuow whether llieie were also references to, and discussions of those |)a3'mcnts made in letters exchanged between yourselves — between the piirlners? — A. The payments for the British Columbia Dock there is an exchange of letters; but the payments on the Quebec Harbour Works or Levis iraving dock, I dc not believe there would be any letters. Q. From whom would be these letters on the British Columbia Graving Dock? — A. I received letters from all the partners — Mr. Larkin, Mr. Nicholas Connolly, Michaid Connolly and Robert McGreevy. Mr. Geiffiuo.n — T desire to have the unsigned letter of the 19lh Fobruaiy, 1886, from Larkin to Murphy, filed with the Coinmiltee, now read. Witness, reading: " (Exhibit "F 7".) " Priv.vte "St. Catu.\R[nes. 19th February, 1886. " O. E. .Murphy, Esq. Q.ioltec. "^[y Dear Sir, — I have just got j-our letter of the 17th inst. Our friends' call for another 85,000, on account of B. C, is not in accordance with the agreement we had when the 850,000 was divided — that was, that there was to be no more calls or divisions to be made until the indebteilness of the B. C. D)ck anil Q. IL 1. works to the Quebec Dock was paid, that was distinctly stated by me and agreed to by ii. 11. ; otheiwi?e, I would not have agreed to the division of the 850,(t00. You did quite right to refuse — stick to it ; should we get an order to lengthen the dock 100 feet or even 75 feet I would be quite willing that 85,000should be given at once. Bear in mind, mydear fellow, that there is a large amount due you, Connolly and myself, and that if we continue donating as we have been doing there will be nothing left to pay us, except old plunt. Keep tlie eleventh commandment in view— that is, look out for yoursell, 184 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 " I was in Ottawa on Tuesday last and had a long interview with Mr. Perley, he assures me that the Dock will not be lengthened before completion, as Sir II. is hound to have it completed by the time specified in the contract, even if it has to be lengthened immediately afterwards; he also read me the telegram ho sent Trutch and the letter confirming it, to allow us full measurement on the masonry all over, and f(ir masonry in the caisson chamber where we had put it, and for which Trutch only allowed a price for a 17 inch brick wall. So far so good. I spoke to Perley about the 18,500 security; he advised not to ask for it now, that Sir II. did not like to return security until the work was completed, as it would be establishing a presi- dent which he did not want to do. Perley added that he would give us a portion of the percentage if we wished. 1 saiil that we would let that stand for the present, and the security, until such time as he chose to gi%'e it to us. I think leaving the security the bettci' wa}'; it does not cost much, and wo can apply for the percentage any time, I do not think, however, that it wouM be advisable to do so for some time, as we are getting paid for the increased masonry, and it would be asking too much at one time. If Trutch was removed we could get along with Bennett all right, but as long as he is undei" Trutch's intiuence we cannot. I have just received a letter from Mike; he says that Trutch is very much annoyed because he was not consulted liefore theorder was given to measure the iiicieased masoniy. If anything turns up that you would want to see me, I could meet you at Montreal." <^ What about the remainder of the letter ? — A. I may state that I threw these letters in a box, and I have no knowleilge where or how the imlance of this letter has been niissing. . Q. Although this letter is not signed, in who.se handwriting is it ? — A. It is the handwriting of Patrick Larkin. By Mr. Mulock ■ Q. Did you receive it in course of post ? — A. I received it by mail. Bi/ Mr. Hector Cameron : Q. Can you get the balance of the letter ? — A. Xo ; I cannot. (^. Will you explain what has become of it ? — A. If there are no objections, 1 will explain it. I have thrown all these letters in the box; I never filed tlicm away. I dill not know I would have any use for them, but when I was ariested by ^Ir. Mctii'eivy tor criminal libel and for a fifty thousand dollar suit I went to look for some letters bearing on the case. Mr. Tarte was in company with me, and 1 picked out this letter amongst a number of others. The balance of the letter 1 do not know where it is. I have no recollection whatever, Bii Mr. Geoffrion : (lid not suppress it, however. Will you explain who was meant by the ir friends,' at the beginning of the letter ? — A. The meaning was Q. You words '■ oui Mr. Thomas McGrecvy and Sir Hector. I suppose that is the construction ; that is what I understood. Q. I also read here that "it was distinctly stated by me and agreed to by P. II. ? — A. That means Pobert McGreevy. Q. Did 3'ou always communicate directly with those whom you unilorstoo!(! '• Friend Owen, — Yours of the Uh inst. is just to hand. I am glad to hear that you are all well. Now as regards the forts, if it can be managed at all, by all means get llietn by private contract. True, wo may get them by public contract ; but in that case we will have every little scrub contractor in the Ea^t and West bidding against us; some will bid in good faith, while others will bid without any intention of doing the woi'k, but in the hopes of the contract being awarded them so thai they can sell out to some one else; therefore if it is at all possiole to have an Order in Council ]):i.->>cd giving us ilu' work at our pi'ices, by all means have it that wa;.. In making out a lentler you will have to be guided solely by our prices at the Dock here, wliicli are not a whit too high, but if there is to be any 14 to 1 concrete in the new work it should not be less than §5.00 per yard. It is a ditticuH matter for mo to toll you what price for earth or roek excavation as I do not know where the fort- t arc to ho locateii.so in making out a tender you will have to U'-e your own juilgtnen and be sure you don't go too low. Ordinary earth excavation should not be less than 50c. per A'ard with a fiee haul of not over 100 feet, and a graduated ps'ice for every additional bund reiuiicd liv him. Q. ("iive the date?— A. 18th January, 1885. Q. It was received in the usual way ?— A. Yes. (i>. Read it please ? (Hxhibit "17.") "The Driai., " YicToRiA, B.C., 18tli Janiiar}-, 1885. '• Friend O. E. iluKPiiv, — I wrote you several letters since mj- arrival here, bun perhaps forgot to tell you how we got along on the road. Well, we found the Craiid 187 %1 ill ii W Pi'' .»< I ! 1: . m I Ill 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Trunk people very altontive, kind and obliginr. and did ove ytliing in their power to render tn 3 journey of the men piea.sunt and agreeable. The car the Grand Trunk furnished f(jr the men was far superior to the one sent by llie North Pacific, as the water tanko of the hitter leaked so badly that the floor was covered with water all the wa}' from St. Paul to New Ticoma ; beside-i, the Nortlj Pacific car was most wretch- edly ventilated, and on the whole it could not ho compared with the Grand Trunk. " The men behaved splendidly- all the way through, and when parting with the Grand Trunk car at St. Paul, they passed a vote of thanks to Mr. Cliipman and the Grand Trunk, and reijuested me to have you conve}' the same to Mr. Chipman. The freight has not arrived yet but we expect it every dny. I find we ])aid 80 cents a hundred too much for the fieight, as different parties here got their freight through from Montreal tor .SI. 75 per KK) pounds. We found a vor}' good quarry, and left Gallagher and a few men there to jret the buildings really for the men and intend sending the balance of the men up Wednesilay next. As soon as this reaches you make no delay in seeing the pi-oper parties and get the double entrance at the head of this Dock changed to a circular head, the same as the Dock at L($vis. You can use as an argument the tact that there is quite a large hill behind this one and to build a dock in the rear of this one will cost more than to put in another cofferdam and build an entirely new dock alongside of this one. This is veiy important and should be attended to at once. Mr. Perley will see the absurdity of this double entrance business. I am going to take up m}- quarters permanently at Ksquimalt to-morrow, so please addre>s all letters tliere hereafter. I enclose you a clipping from the Times of this city which will speak for itself. I think there is nothing further worth speaking of at present. Nick and Ilume will probably leave for Quebec some time next month. " Very tiuly j'ours. "M. CO^■^'OLLY, "Esquimau, B, C." Q. Was this extract from a newspaper attached to the letter? — A. Yes. Mil. Stiart. — 1 would like the extract from the newspaper lead. The Clerk then read the extract as follows: (Clipping from paper attached to Exhibit " I 7.' ) "THE GKAVIXG DOCK." "The Toronto Globe's Ottawa correspondent telegraphs that journal: 'The Government organs are urging that ihe British Columl)ia Graving Dock should be enlarged in order to accommodate large steamsliips. Thedock, if built, according to present specification, will be large enough to take in any vessel p'ying on the Pacific Ocean, and it is suspected that the p'0|)osed eidargement is for the purpose of enabling the Government to make a new contract with the contractors, whoso tender is said to be very low,' We hope there are more newspapeis than those recognized as 'Government organs' advocating the enlargement of the f^squimalt Dock. It would indicate an intire lack of foresight or a deplorable ignorance of the I'oquirements of the future commerce of this co:ist, on the part of other than 'Govtvnmeiit organs,' if they should fail to join in the demand that the dock be onl; r od. The reason assigned by the correspondent is a very absurd one, and is pur'i-.hed solely to .servo party ends. The contractors, we have reason to know, are onti 0; satisfied with the terms of their contract, and do not ask for any change in the pLin.i or price. They have already commenced operations, and in a manner that indicates their intention to complete the work at the earliest possible date. The question of enlargement has been raisetl by the i)ress of this Province, which, in doing so, simply gave expression of public opinion. The British Columbia Govern- ment recognizing the force of the arguments adduced, has already recommended to the Dominion Govei-nment the propriety of increasing the size ' to the capacity of taking in the largest ships which mav possibly repair to these waters; ))rovidod it 188 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 'Ihc he Ui^ to the ■pose hose hose imalt )f the than Ije nd is ai'e e in ^that The ;h, ill vern- eJ to ty of ed it can be done without dehijMng the wori{,' Neither the Dominion Government nor the contractors iiave had anything to do rvith the matter." By the Chairman : Q. Do you know the date of this article — from the Globe yoii say ? — A. I ivnow notliing about the article, simply that it was sent to mo with the letter. By Mr. Geoffrion : Q. Will you identify this letter you now have in your hand? — A. It is written and signed by Michael Connolly. Q. Before you go any further — I have seen frequent refeiences to a part}' indi- cated by the name of " Nick." Who would that be ? — A. Nicholas iv. Connolly. Q. Go on and read the letter ? (" PLxhibit " J 7." ) " The Driad, " Redon & Habtnagel, Propbietors, •' Victoria, B.C., 12th January, 1885. " j?BiEND MuBPHY, — We arrived here about 2 p.m. Saturday, and found Nick ready ;)n the wharf to meet us. They have not located the quarries yet, as certain parties here aie anxious to have the stone changed to granite throughout. As soon as you get this you had best send Dan out here as we can commei;ce building at once, and send also a couple of thousantl feet of best cast steel wii-e f in. diameter. Nearly all kinds of mechanics get 85 per day here, and white labourers about 82.75, so 30U see wo didn't make much of a mistake in bringing out the fifty men. Nick had to go off on the Government steamer ' Douglas ' Saturday evenii.g to get quar- ries and won't return until perhaps Wednesilay, There will bo no possibility of overdrawing our bank account here, as the banks charge from 12 to 15 per cent, t'or the u.-e of money, so y )u see we can't stand that, Nick only accepted about four thousand dollars worth of the plant that was on the dock site. 1 have had but a very short time to talk to Nick since my arrival here, therefore can't give you much information as to certain prospects. 'I he lion. Mr. Trutch has gone to Ottawa — started this morning — to back up a ])etition got up by the people hero to have granite substituted for sandstone throughout the works, and asking that the dock lie lengthened 100 feet. If you have u chance, see Mr. McGreevy and have him arrange to have the second entrance at head done away with and a circulai' head, .sinie as at Point Ldvis substituted. There is a party here who has been attending to the pumps since they were started, and who is a story carrier, &c. Nowaccord- in'.C to the contract we can't intoif'ore with this party and can't control him in any wa}- and ^-et we have to pay him. I need not go into details, for you know how disagreeable such a party can make himself if he wishes — burn coal, use oil, light pipes, \c. Now, the long and short of it is, we want this |>arty and niacerlained that the sandstone at contract prices would ])ay as well owing to the quarries being working well and the facilitiesof getting the stone to the dock would expedite the building and shorten the time materially. 1 am not pre- pared to say that the granite would not pay, but I am satisfied to leave the whole matter with Nicholas, Mike and Ilumo; thej- are on the spot and have fully investigated the whole affair, and are better judges of wh.it will pay l*est than we are or could possibly bo at this distance from the scene of .nction. " I received a loiter from Mike to-ilay stating that they had got passes from the Northern Pacific for Nick and Hume from YictoiiU to St. Paul, and were waiting for the passes from St. Paul to Quebec that they telegraphed you for. I hope j'ou have succeeded in obtaining them, it will make the expense light — there is nothing new here or worth relating ; we have a thaw to-day, and the sleighing is going fast, Are have had it now five weeks steadily and good. Yours truly, P. LARKIN." Q. Now, read this letter? — A. This letter is received from Robt. McGreevy and addresseti to me. Q. What date?— A. 24th February, no year. (Exhibit " L 7. ") •' (Private.) " Ottawa, 24th February. " Dear Murphy, — The 2nd entrance has been done away with, and circular head substituted at an increase of 835,000. The granite substitution was just about being sent to Council, but happily', my letter came in time to put it back to sand- stone, where it is now, high courses and beds will be put — the additional length will be hereafter settled. 1 think this is what you want, but it was a close shave. The 81 foot was to be given. " I remain yours, &(:., ""ROBT. H. McGREEVY." Q. By the contents of the letter just road, what would be the year it was written in ?— A. It would be in 1885, I think sandstone to granite. 190 It has reference to the changes from (Kxl terdi from do Pi and to p to li: but I la rgi may is no for 8 suiiti for c< is k( 54 Victoria. Appeii'^lix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Now this letter ? — A. This letter is written and signed by Michael Connolly. (Exhibit " M 7. ") " Victoria, B.C., February 8th, 1885. " The Driad, " I{edon & Hartnaoel, Proprietors. "Friend Owen, — " Your two letters of the 27th and 30th iilt. reached me yes- terday. We ii'o all glad to hear of yoiu'seif and family being well. Nick returned fVoni the quarry last night and sa^'s the stone is much hardei- than that of St. Vincent do Paul, but thinks it may turn out bettor after a time. We had to buy n little tug and two scows yesterday to liaul sand and gravel to the Dock. We paid or will have to pay four thousand dollars for the tug ami two scows; it is a big j»rice but we hud Id liavo something to work with, and theie was nothing we could get to eturt with but these. Nick. Dan, Neville and Porterarrived here last Friday. I fear it is a poor bargain sending Porter out here, as I fear he will be drunk all the time. Still he may ubliHhe(l in to^layM ncwHpaperH, hIiow that it \h not only intendoU to continue the delay for ho lon;^ a nurioil that tho working Hcason of tho present your will 'te entirely wasted " ? — A. I have not those telegrams. Q. Well, take a note and search for tiiein ? — A. If they are telegrams l»y the Minister direct, 1 do not know that 1 could lind thom. So fur as I know the .Ministvr does not keep u copy of his telegrams. Q. If they woiv sent by his secretary do you know whether his secretary would have copies of those telegrams ? — A. I do not believe there is u copy of tho Minister's coiTespondence kept in the Dopurtmont, That is what I call his private correspon- dence. If thoy are telegrams sent by his order by any otticei of the Department they would be there of course, but if they are telegrams seat in some private way by the Minister himself, copies wimld not bo kept. Q. You will make a search then for them ? — A. Yes I have taken a note i-i. (!an you inform the Committee whether it will be possible for you to bring before thom the letter-books, correspondence, and othoi- papers which were found in Mr. Trutch's office when he ceased to be employed by tho (Tovernment ? — A. well, I have telegraphed to our agent in Victoria who succeeded Mr. Trutch, to send me what he has in connection with the works under !Mr. Trutch's charge. I have hail no replj' yet. Q. Will you also look and see whether you have copies of a letter from Mr, Trutch to Mr. I'erloy dated 14th June, 1884? — A. I have produced all the corres- pondence that can be found in Mr. Perloy's office from about the beginning of 1884 lo tlie end of 1885 or 1886, and if it is not there I will make search again. Q. To helj) you in your search, will you refer to page 148 of the Minutes of Evidence and see whether you ever saw such a letter as that referred to by Mr. Trutch in a telegram to Mr. Perley reading " AYhat about caisson chamber wall re- cesses ? Do not think they can be dispensed with. See letter 14th ult." — A. Y'es that is of 13t.h June 1884. I will take a note of it; it does not appear to be in my papers. Q. In the papers produced by you, Mr. Gobeil, do you find an envelope endoised No, 73060 dated 9th iNovember 1886, and which is empty ? Have you any idea where the document referred to in that envelope is? — A. I think I have already explained to the committee in a previous examination that wherever I could not find the originals or tho jmpers themselves, I got a copy taken from the book of the endorsation to show tne Committee exactly what the paper was. Of course they may have been mixed with another tile, or put away carefully where they cannot be found at present. 1 may find this paper perhaps to-morrow, or in a week, or a month when we are looking up some other papers. In tuking a file of thousands of papers some are apt to get astray. I found one in this way lasi; week, Q. Could you tile in tho hands of Mr. Todd, bocretai-v of this Committee, all the estimates in connection with the Esquimau works? — A. I believe they are all in uie bundle produced. Q. Are they all here? — A. Y'es, sir; I believe so. Q. If they are not all here, will you undertake to send them ? — A. I have sent all that could bo found in tho accountant s office. If there is one missing, I will get the Accountant to look over thom again. 1 think they are all here. Q. Will you look for a copy of an Order in Council of October 28, 1883, No. 38,t»8(! ?— A. It is bore. Q. Have you any papers which will show when Mr. Bennett was discharged from tho emjiloyment of the Government? — A. I think, 1 have. I know the papers are here. The first paper is No. 81,012. It is a report from the Chief Engineer to the Minister of Public Works, dated 21st September, 1887. It reads as follows: (Exhibit " O 7.") " Chief Engineer's Office, " Ottawa, 21st September, 1887. " (No. 20,992.)— Subject— Esquimau Graving Dock, " Dear Sik, — In view of the completion of the Graving Dock at Esquimalt, and the f>;ct that ». Superintendent has been appointed, the necessity for retaining the ser- 194 ^1 54 Victoria. !r8 to nd er- Appeudix (No. 1.) A. 1891 vicoH of Mr. W. Bunnett, Hetehedule of plant and materials accepted by the Hon, Mr. Trutch, on beh-ilf of the Dominion, there appears to be a l.-vgo quantity (^f plant and tools ot al! 'lescriptions required in connection with the construction wfthe dock which his evidently been su]q(lieiiall lie taHen and paid for by the con- tractor who underta'ies to complete this dock in accordance with tenders lately received therefor, pr(/\'ision having boon made for the payni'-nt of all plant, tools and materials enumerated in the schedule attached to the specification in twelve monthly imyments. '•Whilst I am ^/le opinion that Messrs. ^IcXamee & Co. should be paid for their plant, I am Ui,..jie to state either its i. mount or value, and 1 have to suggest that the Hon. Mr. Trutch shall furnish a st.itemoiit showing exactly what was sup- plied by 3Iessrs. F. B. McNamee i^ Co. in connection with their works, imd taken possession of by him, and their value at the time their possession was assumed. " 1 have the honour to be. Sir, " Your obedient servant, ^'HEXKY F. PEKLEY, • F. II. Ennis, Es(i., " Chief Emjineer:' ■'Secretary Public Works Department." i i 'It \ II' ( I ' ) I I I : V i' I I * t' ■* The Committee then a'ljourneil. 107 l! U 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 H!' .ij'. I*: Is::; ;*i House of Commons, Thursday, 2nd July, 1891. The Committee mot at 10 a.m., Mr. Kirkpatrick in the Chair. Investigation into certain circumstances and statements made in connection with the tenders and contracts respecting the Quebec Harbour Works, &c., resumed. Mr. Patrick Kelly, sworn. By Mr. Geoffrion : Q. Mr. Kelly, have you brought with you any books, vouchers or papers, ns ordered ? — A. Yes, sir Q. Where are they? A. They are here, sir, in these two boxes. Q. Are these all you found in Larkin, Connolly &Co's. office in Quebec? — A. Yes, sir ; that is all I found. Q. They were in Quebec? — Yes, sir. Q. Where were they? — A. In the office. Q. Can you explain why they were not sent with the other papers ? — A. I had not been told to send them, Q. You had not been told ? — A. No, sir. Q. Were you not told to send all the papers ? — A. I sent all the vouchers that £ had. Q. And the cheques and notes, you were not told they were vouchers ? — A. No, sir. Q. Did you forget any ? — A. No, sir ; I did not. Q. You left none? — A. There may be other books, but I don't know what they are. Q. Are they cheques and notes ? — A. I don't think so. Q. Did you make a thorough search ? — A. Yes, sir ; I did. Q. Did you pack the first boxes that were sent ? — A. No, sir ; they were already packed, Q. They were already packed — by whom ? — A. I do not know, sir. Q. You were not there when they were packed ? — A. No, sir. Q. When were they packed ? — A. I don't know. I packed the first lot into wooden boxes, but I don't know their contents. Q. Who gave you all these papers to pack ? — A. They were already packed in boxes. I put them into wooden boxes ; that is all the packing I did. Q. You do not know their contents ? — A. No, sir. Q. You do not know who filled these tin boxes ? — A. No, sir; I do not. Q. On whose order did you send this first lot? — A. Mr. Connolly's order. Q. Mr. Michael Connolly ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Where did you find the contents of these two boxes ? — A. In the office. Q. In the safe ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Is it a very large safe ? — A. Yes ; a great size. Q. It was very easy to see the papers in the safe, I suppose ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Have they been in the safe all the time since this first lot was sent hove? — A. Yes, sir. Q. They were not removed from the safe when the first lot was sent ? — A. I connot say, but I got them there. Q. And had you seen them a long time before ? — A. No, sir. Q. Had you the combination of tne safe?— A. Yes. Q. Had you access o the safe every day? — A. After Mr. Connolly went to Kingston, Q. After Martin Connolly left Quebec to go to Kingston you were left in charge of the cafe ? — A. Yes, sir. 198 not. I thi 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. And these papers were not removed from the safe " While you imd posses- sion they were always there ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. No other clerks beside you had access to that safe? — A. No, sir. Q. You were the only man knowing the combination? — A. Yes, sir. Q. I)o the partners know the combination, too ? — A. I really don't know, sir. Q, Did you ever see any other man besides j'ourself have access to that safe after Martin P. Connolly left Quebec ? — A. No, sir. Q. In whose employ are you ? — A. In Larkin, Connolly & Co.'s. Q. And you live with Nicholas Connolly, I believe in Quebec ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. When did you first receive orders to send these papers? — A. I think it was on the 25th ; I don't really know. ^[r. Connolly gave me orders to send all the papers I had. Q. Did you send them at once ? — A. Yes, sir; as quick as I could. Q. Is it not a fact you did not send them until the 30th? — A. On the following day I was ordered to send them I got a summons to take them along for the 2nd — to coniT .Tlong with them myself so then I kept them, instead of sending them on the .2t;th i-l. S\ ' ■■■& they packed in these boxes in the safe ? — A. No, sir ; they were in the tTttVj. ar.d I packed them myself. Q. i'ou packed them as soon as you received the message on the 25th '' — A. Yes, sir. Q. To whom did you address the boxes? — A. To Michael Connolly. Q. Were? — A. In Ottawa — here. Q. Addressed to Michael Connolly, Ottawa ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Did yon send them by express? — A. By express. Q. Addressed " To Michael Connolly, Bodega Chambers, Ottawa " ? — A. Yes, sir. By Mr. Edgar : Q. Mr. Kelly, did you make a list of these papers when you packed them into the box? — A. No, sir; I did not. Q. Can you tell us what kind of papers they are, or what they consist of? — A. Yes, sir; there arc stub cheques, and I think a bill-book in one of the boxes, and in the other are vouchers. Q. What abnvi not^s returned — promissory notes ? — A. There are bank notes and cheques. Q. Are the iiote" iiken ap and paid by the firm there? — A. I don't know any- thing about t e iitiio bu-iiness. I nm the caretaker. Q. Did yv/ii isa 1 Uje-io boxes yourself ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you k.i< V wl^ther the boxes are in the same condition as when you shipped them? — A. r '• 'arently the first one is. Q. Were there I'.iy other books or papers left in the vault or safe? — A. Oh, yes, sir; there are mor*- books and papers, sir. There are quite a number of stone-books and time-books. Q. Wor*' '.here others besides the stone-books and time-books? Were there any others le'Y there ? — A. I suppose there may be. Q. Are theio many? — A Yes; there maj' be a few. Q. Where arc they — in the safe? — A. There are some in the safe. Q. Lar;T" books or small books? — A. Eeally, I don't know the nature vif them. Q. Yet' I. ■ e seen them, have you ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Ai '':*■■'; like ledgers? — ^you know what a ledger is? — A. No; I don't think thoy aiv- Q. Are th(y little books or big books? — A. Little books. A. Any large books there? — A. Some large books. Q. You don't know what they are or what they are about? — A. No, sir; I do not. Q. Have 30U got the telegram Michael Connolly sent you the other day? — A. I think I have, sir — yes, here it is. 199 1'^ ■fv msi\ I ; pi M '] i 1- •if Ml m t J.s ill? i,, t m li j 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 in -^ Q, What does it say? — A. "Please send all cheque books, vouchers, and -liequoH to me here by first express," Q. When did you get that? — A. On the 2Jth, sir. Q. When you got that did you go to the safe and pick out these ditforent docu- ments here referred to? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Now, are you sure you left none of these documents in the safe? — A. Not that 1 know. Q. Where you very careful? — A. Yes. Q. And brought them all? — A. Yes, sir. Q. And put them into these boxes? — A. Yes, sir. Q. You don't know anything about any others in Quebec, Isuppo' j? — A. No, sir. CiiARi.ES FiTZPATRicK, Esquire, counsel for Hon. Thomas Mfireevy, was called, for the purpose of producing certain chequ's, notes, &c., belonging to the Hrm of Larkin, Connolly & Co., and in his possession " mih lel for the tirm in the criminal libel suit against O. E. Xurphy and R. H. .Met i By the Chairman : Q. Have j'ou the papers in connection with this case that were in yoar hands in the conspiracy case in Quebec ? — A. I have in my possession a certain number of cheques, which I produce, on the Bank of British North America in British Columbia, dated Victoria, 1885 (Exhibit " C 8.") I have also in my possession trial balance, Quebec Harbour Improvements, from 1st May, 1885, to May, 188(> ; trial balance and statement ofQuebec Harbour Improvements from February, 1887, to February, 1888; trial balance and statement Esquimalt Dock up to ilarch, 1888 ; trial balance of Graving Dock 1st May, 1885, to 1st April, 188G ; trial balance and statement Quebec Harbour Improvements from April, 188ti, to 1st April, 1887. I have also tive pro- missoiy notes (Exhibit " W 7 ") dated Quebec, Ist May, 1883, for $5,000 each, all signed bj- Lurkin, Connolly k Co. Two are made payable on demand, one at six months from date ; another at seven months fioni date, and another at nine months from date. Five promissory notes (Exiiibit " X 7 "), dated 2nd June, 1884, all signed Larkin, Conolly i*iCo. ; one for 82,000 at two months, to the order of Michael Connolly ; one for $5,000 for three months, jiayable to the order of (). K. Murphy ; another for $5,000, five months after tiate, and ]Ki3'ablo to the order of Nicholas K. Connolly; another for $-1,000, payable to the oi'der of Michael Connolly, and one for $0,000, at six months, payable to the order of Patrick Larkin. I iiave also four promissory notes, one for 83,000 (J^xliibit '• Y 7'')i dated Quebec, 28th November, 1884, by Larkin, Connoll}' \: Co., at six months, to the onler of Michael Connolly. Annexed to that is a voucher for $3,000, Quebec Harbour Improvements dated 30th May, 1885. 1 have also three notes, (Kxliibil " Z 7"), dated 3rd .June, 1885, and one for $2,000, made by Larkin, Connolly i*c Co., and pay- able to the order of N. K. Connolly four months after date ; another for $1,000 made by Larkin, Connolly & Co., and payable to the order of N. K. Connolly two months afterdate: another made b}' Larkin, Connolly i\: Co. to the order of Nicholas K. Connolly, jiayable three months after date, for $1,000. I have also got a bundle of twent^'-three cheques and a receipt from R. 11. .McGrecvy for $13,000 ^Exhibit "D 8"), as follows: one dated Quebec, 14th Maj', 1883, $5,000— the cheques are all made to Lurkin, Connolly & Co., on the Union Bank of Lower Canada — one of 1st Juno, 1883, payable to the order of Nicholas K, Connolly, for $5,000, one of 4th December, 1883, for $5,000 ; and one 4th Kebruary, 1884, for $5,000. Bi/ Mr. Edgar ; Q. Are these pavable in blank ? — A. I will make a statement about then later: 4th August, 1884, to Uie order of James ^IcNider, $2,000; 4th September, 1884, O. E. Murphy or bearer, $5,000; 24th yeptomber. 1884, Nicholas K. Connolly or order, $5,000; 5th November, 1884, Nicholas K. Connolly or order, $4,000; the next is on the Bank of British North America, 1st May, 1885, $3,000; 200 ?<.):; 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 ono on the Bank of British North America, 25th January, 188", Nicholas Jv. Connolly or order, $10,000; 24th January, 1S87, O. E. Murphv or order. $•{,000; 8rd January. 1887, Nicholas K. Connolly, 8o,000; 20th March, 188«, payable to the order of ourselves, $5,000. The three last are on the Union Bank. Another on the Bank of British North America, May 30th 1885, $3,000 ; Union Bank of Lower Canada, July 28th, 1885, O. E, Murphy or order, 82,000 ; September 8th, O. E. Murphy or order, $1,000; August (ith, Quebec Bank or order, $1,000; the three last are on the Union Bank of Lower Canada ; anothei- of the Union Bank of Lower Canada, Nicholas K. Connolly, $5,000 P'ebruary, 4th, 1887 ; one of the Bank of British North America, February 4th, 1887, $5,000; the same bank, Februarv 14th, 1887, $5,000 ; February 17th, one to the order of O. K. ilui-phy. $5,000; and another to Nicholas K. Connolly, February 17th, 1887, $5,000; Union Bank of Lower Can- ada, O. E. Murphy or order, $5,000 ; December 30th, 1888, Nicholas K. Connolly or order $3,050 ; February 17th, 1887, Bank of British North Amei-ica, by N. K. Con- nolly, $5,000, is paj'ablo to the order of Larkin, Connolly & Co. I have here a receiiit for $13,000, signed by Robert H. McGreevy, which I know, has nothing to do with this case ; but if you want it, it is here — dated January 25th, 1887. My instructions were to produce everything, and I have done so. I have also some other papers which I produce, but which 1 also know have nothing whatever to do with this matter. They are connected with the conspiracy case. [ will state to the Com- mittee what I have : There are three cheques and three notes (Exhibit "A 8"), as follows : A cheque, dated Quebec, August 14th, 1^89, signed Larkin, Connolly & Co., for $20,260.30. Annexed to that is a note, dated Quebec,' May 11th, 1881», for $20,000, payable to the order of Michael Connolly, and signed Nicholas K. Connoll}' ; a cheque daled Quebec, November 14th, 1889, Larkin, Connolly & Co., for 625,640.40, and a note, dated May 11th, 1889, $25,000, to the order of ^[ichael Connolly, signed by Nicholas K. Connolly; another cheque, Quebec 14th. Februarj-. 1890. Larkin, Connolly & Co., $25,955.50 ; and a note, 11th May, 1889, $25,000, pay- able to the order of Michael Connolly, and signed by Nicliolas K, Connoll}'. These were given in consideration of advances made b}' Michael Connolly to the firm. I have also got a cheque with two notes attached (Exhibit "B8"); the cheque is dated 27th June, 1887, Bank of British North America, to the Older of 0. E. Murphy, $52,500, signed Larkin, Connolly & Co. ; the two notes annexed are for $52,500 each, one dated Quebec 27th .lune, 18s7, payable fifteen days after date, to the order of ourselves, signed Larkin, Connolly it Co.; the oiher dated 30th July, 1887. payable ten days after date, J?52,500, Larkin, Connolly & Co. Those notes also have nothing whatever to do with this case, and they are for loans maile to the firm liy O. li Murphy. I have also got a document here bearing date Lau/,on, Ldvis Co., 31st Augu-^t. 1885. It is an acknowledgment of the interest which Michael Connolly has in the firm of Jjar- kin, Connolly & Co. It is of importance to my client, but at the same lime I |)ro- liiice it. Also another document, bearing date 8th .lane, ISS.-i, showiDg the interest ot .Michael CoimolK' in some other contract — the Cross-wall. Those simply show his interest in the firm. 1 have, in addition to that, copies of agreements between Uobert II. McGreevy and Larkin, Connolly it (,^o.; but you have tlie originals already pro- duced, showing his interest in the ilifi'ei-ent contracts. T' ese are simply otlice copio- iiiade for my use. These are all the papers I have got. By Mr, Edijar : Q. Or have had ? I mean to ask if there are other papers you had formerly and returned? — A. Since the date I became connected with these matters arising out of I lie conspiracy or libel case, 1 am absolutel}' certain I produce all the papers I have had. Q. You did not return any to the firm? — A. They may have left my ])Ossession ai ditl'cront times. They have been in the possession of Mr. Hyde and .Mi'. Connolly; liiU they have been under my control. There are some of these documents which 1 have produced here that, in my judgment, are absolutely necessary for the cross- 201 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 I'/ m % #;■»■ p examination of two witnesses, both of whom have been produced here — Mr. Murphy and Eobert H. McGJreevy. I think, in the interest of the gentleman I represent, these documents should be kept in possession of the Committee and not shown to the witnesses until we have had an opportunity of cross-examining them. You will see the importance of explaining some of the statements which have been made here, and we think we are in a position to do it by the aid of these documents if the ordinary opportunity given to counsel is aiforded to us. Mr. Geoffrion objected to any such restriction. Mr. Amyot. — Do you specify the papers ? Mr. FiTZPATBicK. — I object to the witnesses, McGreevy and Murphy, having access to the notes dated Ist May, 1883, and the notes dated 2nd June, 1884, which they pretend corroborate the evidence respecting payments to Mr. McGreevy. I will put them in the possession of the Committee, but until we have had an opportunity of cross examining these two men we should be able to keep these notes back. Mr. Martin P. Connolly re-called, for the purpose of identifying the books produced in bulk by Mr. Patrick Kelly. By Mr. Edgar : Q. Does this book contain the stubs of cheques issued on the British Columbia contract ? — A. Yes ; as far as I know, it does. (Cheque book filed and marked Exhibit " E 8.") By Mr. Geoffrion : Q. "Will you file the bill-book ?— A. Yes. (Bill-book filed and marked Exhibit "F 8,") Q. Is that the only one ? — A. Yes ; that is the only one. Q. Is this a bundle of cheques ? — A. Yes ; it is a bundle of cheques correspond- ing to the stubs in the Esquimalt cheque bck. This, with what Mr. Fitzpatrick produced this morning, and that small bundle of cheques, I found in the tin box on r !', 3 small scows 2 boilers 2 carts Harness AVa/^gon Horses 1 Blake pump Diving suit, helmet and pump Balance due at audit March 7th, 1883, §32.225.33.... Less security returned July 8th, 1884, 812,000.00.. 2year8 and 2 months interest on $20,225.33 atTp.c 1 year and 4 months interest on $12,000.00 at 7 p. c, 2 years tug interest on $6,000.00 at 7 p. c 1 year's interest on $73,82(i..55 at 7 p. c , Or. B}' Esquimau Dock account 8 33,566 74 " Balance being amount due G.D 142.403 58 90 00 850 00 40 00 80 00 75 00 365 00 90 00 244 00 20.225 33 3.067 52 1,141 00 840 00 5,167 85 8176,060 32 8176,0 60 32 Quebec, June 5th, 1885. Approved, errors and omissions excepted. " AVitness. '• KiCHARD KIM.METT, " P. Hume. "P. LARK IN, '^ X. K. CONXOLLY, "O.K MURPHY, '* ROBERT H. McGREEVY." Q. Is this the statement referred to in thecertilicate? — A. This is the statement referred to: "Quebec, approved, E. & O. excepted, June, 1885, signed Patrick Larkin.'' This would be in reference to the Harbour of Quebec; the other was in reference to all the works. Q. Would it include the L^i'is works also? — A. It would include both accounts. Q. It would not include the Esquimalt Graving Dock ? — A. Xo. Q. Will you take communication of this letter, and say by whom it is written and to whom it is addressed ? — A. The signature is Michael Connollys. Q. And dated ?— A. Victoria, B. C, 6th January, 1885. Q. Addressed to whom ? — A. Addressed to me. Q. And received by j'ou ? — A. Yes ; received by me in the usual way. Q. Read it ? " The Driad, "Redin & Hautnaoel. Proprietors, " Victoria, B.C., January 16th, 1835. "Friend Owen, — Your two letters of the 2nd .lanuary, and the one of the 6th came to hand yesterda}' and to day. I hope Mr. Perley has made the proper report on the retention, and that you have the funds ere this. We have just got the quarries located and are starting men to work there to-morrow. I have written you four or five letters since myari'ival here, and several on the way — one from Chicago, another from Helena, Montana, and another from Portland, Oregon, besides several postal cards. I don't think it will be necessary to go into the papers here in onler to get the dock lengthened, as the whole people are quite unanimous in their sentiments on that score. The Lieutenant Governor, in his sjjeech from the Throne at the 204 (Exhibit " I 8.") 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 openinjLf of the lot-al Parliament, referred to the matter, and said ho had made tho proper representations to the Dominion (lovernment in relation to tho lengthening ol'the dock, &c'., i\:c. Besides this, Mr. Trutch started nearly a week ago f'orOttawa, to (1 think) press the nialter on the attention of tho proper officials in Ottawa. The people here are al.so very anxious to have granite substituted for sandstone in tho dock, and I think Mr. Trutch will also bring this matter to the attention of tho Hon. Minister of Public Works. It there is a change made we cannot afford to make tlio substitution for loss than 875,000, in addition to tho present sum, and if it was a hundred thousand it would be all the better, and wo can then afford to devote more to charitable purposes. As I told j'ou in a former letter, there will bo no possibility of overdrawing our account in the bank here, as they charge all the way from 12 to 20 per* cent, and pay no interest on deposits. '' Place all the funds you have to spare at the disposal of this work until we get something in, and then it will probably carry itself. " I did not see Wilson at all, and of course now would not touch him with a ton foot pole, ilr. Bennett, the resident engineer here, is a real jolly good fellow, and loves his whisky dearly; i know you would be just at home with him. We had tho local member for New Westminster at our table this evening for supper; he knows the hon. Thomas McGreevy very well, and speaks in tho highest terms of him ; he says Mr. McCt, helped him to drink a bottle of good old Irish whiskey at the Hanlan races. I spoke to you in a former letter to have tho Hon, the Minister of Public Works to turn over the pumping machinery and tho men who are running it to us, so that wo can control it, as we have to pay the men and can't say a word to them at present. W Sir Hector can't consistently do this, have tho big steam pump that we got from Toronto thoroughly repaired and send it out hero, and then we will dispense with the (Tovernment pumps entirely. Bill will know what to do to it, so let him fix it. I ihink all it wants is a new air chamber. Supplies of every kind are about the same pricB as east, with the freight added, or in other words nearly H cents a pound added. " Nick has written ^-ou several letters, but thoj' were all stuck in the snow blockade. Our train was the first through in nearly four weeks. If Sir Hector will turn this man and machinery over to us telegraph us at onco so that we will know how to act. If not, send the pump, as I suggest. I will keep you thoroughly well posted throughout, " Very ti-uly yours, " M. CONNOLLY, " Esquimau, B. C," Q. Read this letter ? — A. It is written and signed by Michael Connolly, and addresseil to me, and received by me. It reads as follows : (Exhibit "J 8.") " Larkin Connolly & Co., Contractors, " EsQUiMALT Graving Dock, 28th March, 1885. " FuiExr> OwEX, — I just received your letter of tho 18th instant, with cheque lor five thousand (§5,000) dollars, which I will deposit to morrow morning. I am sorry to have to draw so much from Quebec, but I hope now with ordinary care to be able to manage here without further drafts on Quebec. We all know McKwon pretlj' well ; I hope soon after the season opens up wo will be able to get clear of him entirely. The big barge is now at the quarry on Salt Spring Island for the first loud of stone, .so we expect her here to-morrow night, then wo hope to start building in eainest. Mr. Trutch will be here next Saturday or perhaps a little sooner, " I novel- mot him j'ot, but I suppose Bennett, tho resident engineer, will introduce me. This fellow Bennett is just like all tho English engineers I over saw. They will take all you will give them and do nothing for you, and indeed this fellow is no exception to the general rule, " I know ho got a communication from Ottawa the other day, but what was in it I cannot say, and he never intimated that he got any orders about stone or any- 205 i !Mi:: 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 m thing elHO concerning the docic. A week ago to-day I sent Capt. Lurkin a sketch or copy of one of the plans Mr. Hume prepared, showing the manner in which we intend building the stone work, thinking that it would roach there about the same time as Hume and Nick, and that tliey could see the proper parties in Ottawa on their way to Quebec and have the thing approved of. The reason I did that was, Bennett objected to us building as the sketch showed, so I thought the best thing to do was to send to Ottawa and have the thing settled at once. I think Bennett will object to us putting large stone in the concrete. We put some large stone in yesterday to test the matter, but Bennett didn't come here; he will be down to-morrow, and if ho objects I will write at once and let you know. He is exacting every petty foolish things the specitications speak of, all of which we will of course comply' with until we get orders from headquarters. " I know ho got woi'd from Ottawa about the beds of the stone, but he never said a word about it to me. I am glad to hear that mother is so well. I hope she will live for many years yet. Trusting you'r all well, I remain, " Yours truly, " M. CONNOLLY." Q. What letter is this? — A. It is in the handwriting of Michael Connolly, and signed by Michael Connolly. It is addressed to me and received in the usual way. It reads: (Exhibit " K8.") " The Russell, Ottawa, December 17th, 1885. "FaiEND Owen, — When we entered Mr. Perley's office this morning we found that gentleman standing at his post after returning from British Columbia. He said he was not prepared to find so much work done on the dock there as he found, and said the people there were clamouring for the extension of the dock. I judged from the tone of hia remarks that he is in favour of lengthening it, but as he has not yet seen it reported to the Minister, of course he can't say what will be done. " I did not ask him anything about Bennett, but from the drift of his conversa- tion I conclude that Bennett will be allowed to finish the dock, and then no doubt his services will be dispensed with. Captain Larkin has gone over now to make a social call on Sir Hector and Sir Adolphe, and as I am not acquainted with Sir Hector I remained behind. I leave here this evening. With kindest regards to Mrs. Murphy and yourself, I remain very truly. "Yours, " M. CONNOLLY. " P. S. — I would write more but this is a very bad pen." Q. liottd this letter. — A. This was written by P. Larkin, and is signed by him. " St. Catharines, 2nd January, 1885. (Exhibit "L 8.") " O. E. Murphy, Esq., Quebec. " My Dear Sir, — * * * * * I hope that Uncle Thomas will succeed in getting the percentage. I am in hopes of getting the Bank of Toronto to put up the security; the cashier promised mo to look into the matter next week. I*' I succeed, and we get the percentage, wo will at once leave the Union Bank; but keep that quiet for the present. I have had Dunn write to liis newspaper friend in British Columbia to agitate the lengthening the dock 100 feet, to meet the growing i-equire- nionts of the shipping trade on that coast. It will not take much agitation to accomplish it. Kind regards to Mrs. M. and family, wishing yourself a Ila^jpy Now Year. " Yours truly, " P. LARKIN. " Keep mo posted on the action taken about the percentage." Q. Who is indicated by " Uncle Thomas " ?— A. Mr. Thos. McGreevy. 206 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Bead this letter? — A. This letter was written by Capt. Larkin, and i-ccoived by nio. " The Kussell, Ottawa, 17th January, 1H85. (Exhibit " M 8.") " 0. K. MuHPHY, Esq. Quebec. " My Dear Sir — I arrived hero yesterday morning at 10 o'clock. I went to the P. W. Department and had an interview with Sir H. and give him the Bank of Toronto certificate to lake the place of the Union Bank one ; ho at once sent for the person who has charge of such matters for the P. W. Department and told him to got and give me the U. B. certiticatc. It had been placed in the Finance Department and there are two parties who have a key each to the vault, and it cannot be opened unless both are present. One of the persons is at home >ick, and the document could not be got out oefoi'e Monday. I told the acting secretary that Monday would answer, and as soon as he got it to mail it to the tirm, 124 Dal- lioiisio street, Quebec. You will have it on Tuesday or Wednesday at farthest; you can then hand it over to the bank and take up the note given for it and stop interest, as both certificates are bearing interest now. 1 have not time to go to Quebec now, as 1 have to return home and pi-epare for the examinaticjn of Arthur II. Murphy in the McMahon suit. The examination takes place in Toronto Wednesday next. Sir H. is not going to do anything in the B. C, Dock matter until Trntch arrives; then I think all the ch.inges we look for will be made; that is the inference to be drawn from what Sir H. and Mr. Perley says. Poor J'^nnis, the late Secretary of the Public AVorks, died here very suddenly on Tuesday night last and was buried this morning. I attended the funeral. Sir 11. and all the employes of his Department, as well also the employes of the Bailways and Canals, attended in full force. It was the largest funeral that I have seen foi- a long time and the weather was exti-emely cold and stormy. " Do not overlook the percentage matter. Have Uncle Thomas work it up; we must have it some way. Write on receipt. " Yours truly, "P. LARKIN" Q. Bead this letter ? — A. This is written by Michael Connolly and signed by him. (Hxhibit "N 8.") " Larkin, Connoi-ly & Co., Contractors Esquimalt Graving Dock, 12th Fehruaiy, 1885. " Friend Owen, — Yours of the Ist and 2nd instant is just received. I am glad to hear that mother and all the folks are well, and delighted to hear that they have determined to extend the dock, as you say, a 100 feet. If it was loO feet it would be all the better. I didn't care so much about the change of sandstone for granite, as the granite here is terribij'^ hard, and will take a tremendous time to cut •: Nick thought at first if we got it changed to gi'anite it would be a good ideir ..n I ihere woukl be money in it. Now we have the sandstone quarries open and coninuinica- tiim established with them, so that it is no trouble to run up or down to them, and besides, if we have to put in granite we will have to go about forty miles further uy him, work or play. Then, in that event we want to be able to appl}' the proper I'liuody. I would, therefore, strongly advise that the pump machinery and its 207 i ;!.< 6 is'* m i;5| il If 64 Victoria. Appt'iulix (No. 1.) A. 1891 tn inii^onieiit be turned over to us, an soon as it can bo conveniently done. I tliiidv V. e have pretty well succeeded in f^ainin^ tlie confidence of the jiooplo hero, and now it only remainH to keep it. The weather has been very wet lately, so much so that wo have been kept back greatly by it in preparinj^ the building plant, otherwise we would bo building before this. I think, though, in about a week or so we will com- mence building, and once we begin we must continue it with as little interruption as possible. I think we will want about 82.5,000 to get this work on a paying basis, as there will bo nearly that much in cut stone bi'fore we can draw anything of an c.-»tii- mate. In sending moi,.^y, place it to the creoit of L. C. k Co., and that will save any further transfer hero. The 85,000 camo in ♦he nick of time. Capt. Larkin is hero yet, and getsu letter from Kimmott occasionally, one of which ho read to me, or rather a part of it, a day or two ago, from which I learned that Nick has been telling Kimmott it would be a good time for Larkin and himself to sell out, and Dick advises Larkin to tho same ettect. Ihd it is no use in talking ; you have formed a coriect estimate of Larkin, for I firmly believe one could not drive him out, as you say, with a club, for ho entirely disapproves of the ad"ico Dick sends him. " There is no way of getting rid of Larkin, except to leave him out in any work that is to bo taken. " If there is a possibility of getting tho Halifax Dock, g^ for it by all means, and lose no time, for Larkin is going to Halifax to see what ho can do about securing tho contract ; so, if it is possil^le to secure it, do so and leave him out. "liUrkin has got a bonus of 84.000 a mile, or, for the entire railroad, 8200,000, but is not going to start it yet, as he intends applying to the Do- minion Parliament for the bonus or subsidy for five or six thousand dollars a mile, and if ho succeeds ho and associates will then issue debentures or bonds and build tho load on their money, and indeed [ can't envy him, but wish with all my heart he may succeed. Ho intends seeing Caron about the forts when he returns to Ottawa. " I wi>h you would let me know as soon as possible if there is a reasonable possibility of" the dock hero being extended, and if not, I will sell out everything here and finis!; up, and if we hear of no further work here I will return to Quebec at once. "I think I have told you everything worth relating, so will bid you good night. " Trusting yourself and famil}' arc well and with jiindest I'ogards to yourself and Mrs. Murphy, I remain very truly, " fours, " M. CONNOLLY." By Mr. Tarte : Q. Read that letter ? — A. This was written and signed by Michael Connolly. By Mr. Edgar : Q. Received by you — sent to you ?. — A. Yes. (Exhibit "08 ".) " Esquim.vlt, B.C., 2;^id March, 1885. " Friend Owen, — Yours of the 10th just received to-day ^' * **;;;¥ " I agree with you, things were badly mixed up and too much confused, in reference to the granite. This was owing to not getting proper data on which to base figures when writing or tendering to the Department of Public Woiks. Nick at first thought, and indeed so did I, that wo could substitute granite for sandstone at a very moderate advance on tho price of sandstone. I should be very sorry to have our friends think that the matter was done intentionally or with any view to placing them in a false position. The first letters were written without giving the matter due consideration, which I am ready to admit was our fault, but after due examination wo came to the conclusion that it could not be done for the piice ; therefore we are grateful to our friends for having our proposition rejected. I am sorry to hear that our friends are annoyed over the 208 11 iiis hii 54 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 rk inattiT. fur i«iir*'ly '*■* liettor not to i;et the Mibititiition than tf> have it at losinj^ tii,'iiro>. Tlioic aro many ways, liowevcr, in which tliey can make up for this inuttei-, •ty increasiiii; the beds of the stone, \c.. and by ailat«! for the losis in the granite substitution. I was not awuro ami I ad been ignored or thai there had been any overtures made except tlirough you to them. If there were I certainly iiad no hand in it. and I do not think Nick had either. '• Xow. as regards the Mctrreevj- boys, I think I had u^cd them first-ciasM, far bolter than 1 was used in such a position ; still, 1 am glad to say James, the bo}' wiio came out with me, is a splendid fePow and well worth all begets, but the oilier fellow. Robert, is — well I have no tin e to tell you al! about him; but I nnderstand he has bf-en writing home, saying we sent him up on the desert island, where he had (o 'limb pei'pendicula!' rocks, Ac, and that he had n<» place to >leep but in a dug-out, la-.. \c. Well, the facts are, he has as good a bed ami house to sleep in as 1 have, .mil much less to do. 1 should have brought him here, but the fact is ho is too lumiliar with a certain , and used to tell herself and nu»ther a little too much about his uncle's influence with the Minister of I'ublic Works, &c., and that his father would never allow his uncle to represent Quebec West agtiin if the the regulation number in, and if not, how can we face the Chief Kngiiieer, after allowing the work to be built so much at variance with the speciticalions. * * * * • M. CONNOLLY." Q. This is part of a letter. Identify it, please"? — A. This was written and signed by Michael Connolly. It is part of a letter. No doubt, it was addressed to nu'. (i. Y'ou are satisfied you received the whole of the letter, and this part you found among your papers? — A. Yes. (Kxliibit '-QS.") * * :;; :|; - \g ^^y ^\^^, ^rjinite, I am verj- sorry that any such mistakes should hiive occurred: but of course that's all over now and cannot be recalled. Of course, 1—14 I 209 ir 'I m H4 ill tr M 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. T.) A. 1891 \'i t ■^ I if ?::?4 if the Govornmont Iiiul accopteii tho oiler we would have hud to stand by it. I think tho way that. Larkin came to <;iv<3 t lie price to Perloy for gmnito waw this: When Larkin -.vm in Quebec willi I'erley nud Trutch. as we supjioned, some one tele- f^raphedjsayinj^ tlu' Depiirlinoiit wanted a pri«e per foot for j^ranite, and sif^ned tho mossaije L. (?. & Co., and said to answer to Ottawa. We did so at the time, nf»t thinking this would engender any ill-feelings, as wo thought you wore all work- ing in harmony. If ])ossible send out the Toronto pump and a couple of .smallcr- aized ones, as tiiey are the handiest things we can have here. Wo have not boon «ble to get a regular cargo of stone iiere yet, though there are a good many cut at the quarry. We are under a very heavy expense, and cannot do much until wo get stone wherewith to build. ■-!«*** "Very truly yours, "M. CONNOLLY." ii. When do you think you received that part of a letter? — A. About the time the changes were being made from sandstone to granite. Q. It must have been after tho change was rejected? — A. Yes. lii/ Mr. Tarte : Q. Identify this letter? — A. This letter was written and signed by Michael Connolly and received by me in the usual way. " The Driad, " Victoria, B.C., 1st February, 1885. h..s quite a force of men working in the quarry. They will have a derrick, however, in a few days go better, I (Um't think a hundred thousaml dollars ■would any more fhan yiay tor the difference of cost of substituting granite for sand- stone, as it is a vciy costl}' and teilious job to cut anil prepaio granite for this work. Now, the main thing is, got more ready to start hero, for we will nt id considerable before we got an estimate here, and for goodness sake don't let us got short of funds unt'i we get unuer way at least. * * * * '• Yours, " M. CONNOLLY, " Esquimalt." Q. Will you identity this letter ? — A. This was written and signed by Mich vl Conuoll}' and sent to nie. (Kxhibif'SS.") "LARK.y, Connolly & Co.. •• Contractors Ksquimalt Guavino Dock, EsyuiMALT, B.C., 2nd February, 1885. " Friend OWKN,— * •'' * * Sir II. has telegraphed instructions to Trutch to measure .ill the stone in the dock full as built, but there has not been anything done about the old plant yet. :i« * * * " Very truly jours, " I.^ CONNOLLY." Q. Will you kindly identify this one also? — A. This was written and signed by Michael Connolly and sent to me. (Exhibit "E 8.") "Friend Owen, — Gallagher bnt they have no derricks up yet. and after a little time things will (Exhibit " T 8.") "Larivin, Connolly & Co,, " Contractors Esqulmalt Gravinu Docic, " 21st January, 188(1. "Friend Owen. — As you will see by the papers I have sent you, we have been getting up all the exitement about the dock, its extension, &c., that we could. Nick a.:d I saw the two ^I. P.'s, Shakespeare and Baker, and I tell you they arc a bx'ace of pirates. They thought they ought to have about rive thousand dollars foi- their influence with the Minister of Public Works, but we told them it made very littledift'erence to us 210 ti 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 wlu'tlu'i- the (lock wjis extended or not, but tluit having the ]tliint, &c., in position it would prolialiiy be a niatteroffour or periiups five thousiind dollars to us. Before part- ing wit litlicni, however, wo agreed to give them five hunilred dollars if they succeode I in their etVorts with the Minister. The editor of the Coion/js^ is thedeeontest man wo have met with here; ho has given tis the use of his columns and never askod a cent. Wo inic d to give him something, though. Baker and Shakespeare wore to telegraph .Sir Hector and Sir .John yesterday and impress upon them in the most forcible manner possible the importance of extending the dock. We have agreed to pay lor the telegrams and all other o.vpeiiHos they incur in the matter. Wo sent to Mr, Perlcy at his request recently a list of the materials the Government turned over to lis which we decline taking, and oui- reasons therefor. I think the amount of the rejected materials will reach about S20,000, so you see it's worth looking after. We have had a week's very sevore weather, with about six inches of snow, and have nr)t been able to work in consequence. The weather is much more severe than it was last year, but there is not so much rain. This severe spoil of weather will knock the bottom out of the estimate for this month. * * * * " Yerv truly yours, "M. COXNOLLY." Q. Will you identify- this letter? — A. This was written and signed by Michael Connolly and received by me. (Exhibit " U 8.") " Larkin, Connolly & Co., "CuNXRACTORS EsQUtMALT GBAVrNQ DorK, "EsQUiMALT, 10th Ma.-ch, 188(5. " Friend Owen, — I thought you said some time ago that the Government only intended to charge us thirty-soven thousand dollars for the plant they had on the ground here. Mr. Perley sent out a request and a list to mark and note what quan- tit}' of the plant we used or could use in connection with the work here, so we ina"ked the ditt'erent items we accc])tod. and their value, which in the siggregate amounted to thii'ty-one thousand dollars. Yet these ))oople here, TriUch and Bennett, keep detiucting the amount monthly prescribed by the speciticatiuns, viz., 84,0()0 a month, so that we have already jjaid on the old stuff forty-two thousand dollars. If Mr. Perley recommends that wo bo not charged with this worthless stuff ai.d Sir Hector acts on his recommendation, Trutch and Bennett ought to bo instructed in relerence to tho matter. Trutch sent mo a plan of the keel blocks, and asked us to -end him a price at which we would furnish and place thorn in position, which we did. when we learned he then sent our bid to Ottawa, since which we have not hoard aiiytliing from it. '•• * * " Yours truly, "M. CONNOLLY." Q. Will you identify this letter ? — A. This is written and signed by ik ijert H. -McGreevy. It bears no date. (^Kxhibit" Y8."; Prirafe. " Quebec, Sunday, 3 p.m. •' My Dear Sir, — The memo of yesterda}- re B. C. Bock is with the ALinister. He say^ that those conditions cannot be emhudied in the contract, as it will bo tho -lime one as suiimittod to O'JIanly iV Starrs, and it would not do to make it different; bill he says that all what's asked is so fair that there will bo no trouble in obtaining Uieni. especially tho §50,000 m.iterial one — however, you are to urtre them just as if iioiliing had trj;iihj>ired ; of course it's for you and partners to say if you will sign wiihiiut them be^ng embodied. Politics changes; so does Ministers. I will be back fue.-day. My add.-ess will be St. Lawrence Hall, ^tontreal. " 1 remain yours " a. II. McGl?KEYV • < ». K. MuRPHT, Esq." !■ , II !'^ ! It ■] r m w 1—14* 211 iir" i: f 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 M'V By Mr. Geoffrion : (i. \iy mattor roCiMrotl U» in tliis lotlor will you bo iihK) lo delorinino an iioiir iih possililo ilio timo it was writtoii ? — A. It wuh wiitloii previous to sii^ninu; olcontract ibr iJritish Coliiini'ia Dock. Q. Long previous? — A. A. tow duyH or a wook. //(/ Mr. Tartc. : Q. Will \t)U idoiitity IhisU'ttor? — A. Tliis lottor was written and signed by ^Michael Connolly and addressoil lo nie. (Exhibit " \V8.") "San Antonio, Texah, ;{lst Deeember, 1882. "KuiKNhOwKN, — '■'<^ ■'= * * i think if you manage your atl'airs propeily tlior" is not a doubt but you will get the Cross-wall. By all means keep in wiili friend Thomas, and be guided by him in oveiything that you do, and as youiselvi > and Moore and Wright aie tlieonly ones in the Dominion who have proper plant, lor doing sutdi work, I think there is not a doubt but you will get it; for lliey cannot give it to Moore and Wright, as they are at loggerheads with the Board, Then you will be the only jiarty who are in hainiony with the Harbour (commission, arul have the necessary plant lo ilo the work ; thorcibro, you will gel it, for friend Thomas can work it in niiiny a way. Foi- instance, ho can have the enginoei's in charge make out a report in your favor, which will justiiy the commission or Minister of Public Works in giving you the work, even though you are not the lowest. If you gel the work and want me back of course 1 will come back; but if you do not get it I think there are enough of you there now to attend to what you have in hand. :(; :(; * * " V^ery truly yours " iM . CONNOLLY." Q. Will you identify this one? — A. This was written and signed by Michael Connolly and received by me. (Hxhibil " X S.") "San Antonio, Tkxas, 27lh February 1883. " Fill KNO Owen, — Yours of tlu^ 15111 and 18th inst. came duly to hand. I am really very glad to hear that you have everything in such good sliajie. I think, as you say, there will be no ditlicuity about your getting the Cross-wall. Kvon if the Minister has to strain a point you will lind the work will be awai'ded to you, for he is not overscrupulous when his friends need assistance. The next thing to consider is the prices you should ]>ut in. You know there will be a good deal lo diviile out of the proceeds, and therefore you must want to have a good |)rice in your tender. You will know how to arrange that mallei', though, ami it's no use my suggestions. (I " 3[. CONNOLLY." This was writon and sijined bv Michael Please identity this letter?— A. Connolly and received by me. (Kxhibit " Y 8.') '• San Antonio, Texas, 12th October, 1882. " TRlENlt Owen, — Yours of the 2nd inst., was here in .San Antonio before I arrived. 1 am glad to hear that you have got along so well with the work the i)ast season. You do right in keeping in with Hon. Thos., as just at present he has the whole thing in the hollow of his hand. You tell me you have the contract signed for the harbour work, but I think you have given Bob mt)re than he is entitled to. especially as he is not iurnishing any capital. But of course you, who are on the ground, ought to know best, and it would be bettor lo make a hiindreil tlMmsniid dollars with him in, than titty thousand dollars with him out; so I suppose you have done the best you could under the circumstances. I see there has not neen any interest xvscrved for mo. Well, perhaps they all thought that I had made suiHcient 212 1 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 h 8 in ToxiiH. Well, it would Iks o:isy comilini^ all T mudo lu'io yet. 1 am, however, croii)!;- to liy my luck ai;aiti, luil lliis time in Mexico, and if the tlrm can do without me, I think 1 can do without the tirni. ='= ^- * * * " M. CONNOLLY." Q. Identify tiiis hitler V — A. This letter was written and signed by Miclmel Connolly and received hy me in the usual way. (K-xhibit " Z H.") " Section 2;}1, M. k P. Ilv., 2r)th August, 1882. " FiiiENn OwE.N, — ^= * * I am glad to hear that you have ousted I'oters, Moore and Wright out of the linrhour works. Stick to Tom, and I think he will work matters all right ; anyway, I have great contidence in lim. If Larkin won't get out I would give him the whole thing foi- lu; is a diag chain to carry with the j)rosont Administration ; so, if he don't get out I would have it with him at a valuation, * * "M. (CONNOLLY." Q. Identify this one please '!- Connolly and received by me. -A. This was written and signed by Michael (Exhibit "A !).") "Del Jlio, 4th October, 1882. ''FuiEND Owen, — As I have not heard from you in a long time, ho I will write 3'ou a few lines to let you know how we have got along her(\ "Connors is the worst case I ever came acioss; 1 have tried in every possible wa}' to propitiate him and get an honest settlement out of him, but all to no pur- ])()se. Of course 1 have tried to save what 1 could from the wreck, and 1 toll you it has ke])t me busy. " I have been making a great , I hope to have everything in such condition that we will bo awai-ded judgment tor a considerable amount. As I told j-ou in a former letter, 1 was op' nd re- measured the work, but I have not had the notes cubed up yet, but when the}' are 1 think we will be able to show that we were terribly swindled by old Connors and the engineers under him. " I think wo will get judgment for at least twenty thousand dollars, and then after we get through, the party who purchased the plant from us, and from whom the company tot»k it and had it sold by the sheriff, will begin suit against Connors for sixty thousand dollars, being the value ol the plant, and foi- the damage he sus- tained by reason of being deprived of the m«ans he had of making a living. But of course we have nothing to do with this matter and are not interested in it at all. " Before Connors could get an order fromlho court to sell the plant, he had to give a bond to the couit in double the amount of the value of the plant and then after the plant was sold all of which of course the company bought in — they had to pay the purchase money of the same into the sheriffs office here. The plant brought at sheriffs sale, about ten thousand dollars. The court here is now engaged on the murder trials of De Wit County, which have been before the courts of this State for the past six years. If a man steals a couple of old Spanish ponies or an old cow, he is invariably sent to penitentiar}' ; but if he kills a man in cold blood oven without provocation ten chances to one but ho will go scott free. I think there is nothing further to relate. Give my love to mother and all the folks. " Very truly yours, " M. CONNOLLY." " Box 431, San Antonio, Tex." Q. Identify this letter. — A. This was written and signed by Michael Connolly and received by me in the usual way. (E.xhibit "E 9.") " San A.ntonio, Nov. 16th, 1882. " Friend Owen, — I arrived here j'osterday morning and recei\ed your letter of the 5th inst. " We were through a good ileal of Mexico, but did not go as far as we expected for the reason that wo could not get a convej-ance without paying an exorbitant price and besides we met a good many Americans wlio told us that it was a tlifticult matter to got a good title from a private individual in Mexico, but wo learned that the Mexican Government is having a survey made of very valuable grazing lands which will be thiovvn on the market in Januar}- or February and then if a person is ready to buy, the title ho would obtain from the (lOvoriiMient oi' course would be unqu((8tionablo. Good land can be bought in Mexico tor from 'i cents to thirt^'-five cents an acre; but Mexico — at least this part of it — will never bo an agricultural counliy. Tell Nick, to lot mo know at once if he wants the money thoro and if so I will send it and if not I will invest in something horo for I am tired doing nothing. The weather here is like tluit of June or July in Quoboc. 216 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 I am sorry to hear that j'oii have '^ •!* " I will send you another letter in a few days. " Very truly yours, "M. CONNOLLY." Sy Mr. Geoffrion : Q. There are letters filed in which reference is made to Mr. Bennett, the en- gineer, and complaints against him. Do you know whether any steps were taken to have him removed ? — A. I do. Q. Did you yourself take part in these attempts ? — A. I did. Q. In what way? — A. I have offered Thomas McGreevy §5,000 to get him removed. Q. What did Mr. McGreevy saj- ? — A. He said he wouUl try and have it done. Q. Are you aware whether he made any attempt to have him removed? — A. I believe he did. Mr. Osier objected to the answer. Q. What are your grounds of belief? — A. I know myself that they were looking for an engineer to take his place, and it was suggested to me, as I was acting on behalf of the firm, that we should select a suitable person ; but I stated that if some- thing turned out wrong we did not want to take it upon ourselves and be held accountable for it. Q. To whom did you make this statement? A. — Mr. McGreevy. I declined to have any action taken by ourselves, as they were responsible for it. Q. You sa}' someone suggested to you. Who suggested? — A. Mr. Thomas ^leGreevj-. Q. Do you know whether some engineer or parties were approached with a view to ascertaining whether thej^ were willing to take the place? — A. I only know from his brother Robert that a man was named. Q. You do not know from Thomas McGreevj* that any man was seen about it ? —A. No. Q. Have you seen letters from Thomas McGreevy. wherein he referred to that matter of Bennett? — A. I believe there was a letter to that effect, but I cannot recollect the date of it. Q. Will you look at page 18 of the proceedings and say whether at the time this letter was written and received you were aware of that letter? — A. It reads: " It is now understood that Bennett, the engineer at B. C, will not suit, so the Minister and Perley are prepared to change him. He a.sked if I could recom- mend one. Could you think of one that would suit, and I would have the Minister appoint him." Q. Was this letter, so written by Thomas McGreevy to his brother Robert, seen by you ? — A. I had the original in mj' hand. Q. And Robert showed you the letter when he leceivetl it ? — A. Yes. 218 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Had you any consultation about that question of Bennett between Robert and youi'self when you received it ? — A. Yes ; 1 had. Q. I suppose you have also seen another letter, written by Thomas to his brother Robert, referring to the same matter, and appearing on the same page, dated 4th May ?— A. I saw that letter. Q, Notwithstanding these letters, I understand Bennett was not removed ? — A. No. Q. Did you make known to youi- partners the offer of $5,000 that you had made to Thomas McGreevy for the removal of Bennett? — A. It was by their direc- tion I did it. Q. Whose direction ? — A. Nicholas Connolly for one ; Larkin for another. Q. It was by their direction yon attempted the removal. But ditl you inform them you had offered this amount ? — A. Yes. Q. Was Robert McGreevy also made aware of it? — A. The instruction was given to me at the funei-al of Nicholas Connolly's wife, and Robert McGreevy wsis not present. It was when 1 came back that I discussed the matter with Robert McGreevy. Q. Instructions were given you to approach Thomas, but Robert was not present? — A. Instruction was given near Niagara Falls and in Buffalo; also, it was talked over while we were at dinner, between Mr, Larkin, Mr. Connolly and myself. Nothing could be done there. The question was the removal of 3Ir. Bennett, and 1 was instructed to give this amount, provided Bennett could be removed and a suit- able party sent out in his place. Q. Are yf>uawaie that Mr. Perley went to British Columbia in connection with that matter of Bennett ? — A. I am, Q. How wei'e j-ou made aware of it ? — A. When the proper man could not be found to take charge of these works, the question was discussed between Mr. Thomas McGreevy and myself to get the Minister to send Mr. Perley out to British Columbia and have a talk with Mr. Bennett and see what could be done. Q. Seeing that you could not find a proper person to replace him, it was decided to send ^Ir. Perley to see Bennett ? — A. Yes. Q. Y'ou are aware that Mr. Perley went ?— A. Yes. Q. Are you aware that certain changes were made in the South-wal. contract? — A. In Quebec ? Q. Yes?— A. Yes. Q, Had you anything to do with those changes? — A. The cont^-act v as in my name, and, of course, I signed the application to make those changes. Q. Did you discuss with anybody before making the application ? — A. Yes. Q. Who?— A. My partner and Mr. McGreevy, Q. Mr, Robert McGreevy ? — A. Both Robert and Thomas. Q. Did Mr, Thomas McGreevy agree to your demand or applicaticn ? — A. Y'^es. Q. And you invited him to help you in that demand? — A. I did. Q. And are you aware whether Mr. Thomas McGreevy intciosted himself in those changes? — A. He helped us all he could. I believe, to get the changes made, Q. Are you aware whether hedid anything? What are your grounds of belief? — A. That the changes were made that we wanted, Q. Had you any conversation with Thomas McGreevy about what he had done in the matter? — A. I had so much conversation in ihe matter that I really do not recollect these things now, Q. But you are satisfied he interested himself in the mattei- ? — A, Oh, yes. Q, Robert McGreevy was intf rested in that South-wall ? — A. A quarter. Q. What were these changes ? — A. The change from brick to stone, and from certain stratum of the level of the sewer in the wall. Q. Was the result an increase of the amount of money you received for the contract ? — A, That I cannot tell. I sold out, or was driven out, if you please, before the contract was finished. 21» >tl i .; : ii. M l\\i '¥.. 5 . 1, ■!;■::! n 44 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. So you are unablo to say what amount was realized by these changes ? — A. I cannot tell about that. Q, What was the object of asking these changes ? — A. What changes ? Q. In the South-wall? — A. One of these changes at the bottom of the sewer raised it up nearly three feet high, and there was a great saving. Q. For the Government or contractors ? — A. The contractors. Q. Was there any diminution in the contract price on account of that change ? — A. I do not know. Q. What was the object of asking that change from brick to stone ?-r-A. Wo had a good deal of cut stone on hand, and it was a good deal easier to work — as it was tidal work — in stone than brick. It would make better work, certainly. If we liad courses of stone cut on our hands the time saved in building would bo of great advantage to the contractors. Q. Was anything extra paid for that? — A. I do not know anything about that. The Committee then adjourned. ^f!'^ p! 'M ■ i I'M Wb 0, M ''tw i^n '-iM \{m m yM \ sMsm Cil ta J20 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 House op Commons, Friday, 3rd July, 18D1. The Commitloo mot at 10 a.m.; ACr. Girouard in the Chair. Investigation into certain circumstances and statements made in connection with the teiuiors and contracts respecting the Quebec Harbour Works, &C., resumed. Mb, John Hyde sworn. By Mr. Edijar : Q. Mr. Hyde, you have investigated, as an accountant, the cheques and vouchers of Larliin, Connolly & Co., have you not? — A. Certain clio(iuos and voucher'*. Q. Well, have you got copies of any ? — A. I liavo got copies of some cheques. Q. Arc the originals produced, do you know ? — A. The originals are produced of all I have got. Q. Have you the copies there? — A. I have the copies. Q. Will you just run over them, there may bo a mistake? — A. These arc my private papers. By the Chairman : Q. I think you should produce those copies, Mr. Hyde. By Mr. Edgar : Q. Will you let the Chairman see the date of them, so that they can bo taken tlown ? — A. They are private memorandums. Q. We want to get the copies. I don't want you to read to the Committee private memorandums. I think the Chairman is entitled to see the cheques. — A. I have no objection. By the Chairman ; Q. From this memorandum cannot you give to the Committee copies of those cheques ? Mr FiTzi'ATUicK, — He says the originals aj-e produced. Mr. Edgar. — That is what we want to find out. Would you be kind enough to take the cheques and call out the names of the banks, the date, the amount, and so forth. Mr. Geoffrion. — Give the full description. — A. I will read them. .May 14th, 1883.— Union Baidc ])er O. E. M., Larkin, Connolly & Co. S'j.OOQ in favour of M. Connolly, endoi-setl by M. ('onnoily. June 1st, 188;{.— Larkin, Connolly & Co., per O. E. M. $5,000 to order of N. K, Connolly, endorsed N. K. Connolly. — Union Bank. December 4th, 1883. — Larkin, Connolly & Co., per O. E. M. Quebec Bank for note of $,5,000 ; no endorsement. No. 550, 4th February, 1884,— Larkin, Connolly & Co., per O. EM. §5,000; no endorsement. No. 645, August 4th, 1884. — Larkin, Connolly iS: Co., per O. E. M. James Mac- nider, $2,000. Endorsed James Macnider. James Macnider& Co., for credit Quebec J5ank. J. Stevenson, cashier. No. OGt), September 4th, 1884.— Larkin, Connolly & Co., per O. E. M., to O. E. Murphy, $5,000, endorsed "for credit Quebec Bank; J. Stevenson, cashier." September 24th, 1884.— Larkin, Connolly & Co., per O. E. M. N. K. Connolly, $5,000. Endorsed N. K. Connolly, per O. E.'M, No number. 221 s ?• I. f! ■)i '■' '1 i: i n'-\. ;i|| i'. :x- 1 r !, ■ V I \-f: 1, 1 !'"* '-,1V M' nil i riif ni r Pii 'ii] ■11 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 No. Vil, Novombor 5th, 1884.— Larkin, Connolly & Co., to M. Connolly, #4,000. Endoi-Hud M. Connolly, ptT (). K. M. Bank of BritiHh N'orth Anieriia, No. 2t>!>88, May Ist. 1885.— Larkin, Connolly A: Co., to oiilor ol cuiHoives, 83,000. Endorsed Larkin, Connolly & Co., for credit Ciiieboc Bank ; .1. St ivenj^on, (la-nliior. Bank of Britiwh .North America. No. 78720, May 30th, 1885.— Larkin, Connolly & Co., Quebec Bank, ^3,000. Endorsed "for credit of (Juebec Bank; J.Stevenson, cashier." July 2Sth, 1885.— Union Bank, Larkin, Connolly^ Co., to O. E. Murphy, $2,000. Endorsed O. K. Murphy. No number. August fJth, 1885. — Larkin, Connolly k Co., to Quebec Bank, 81,000. Endorsed Thomas II. Powis, pev cashier. No nunber. September »th, 1885.— Larkin, Connolly iS: Co., to O. E. Murphy, 81,000. Endorsed O. E. Murphy, No number. November Oth, 1885. — Larkin, Connolly & Co., to O. E. Murphy, $500. Endorsed O. E. Murphy. No number. Bank of British North America, No. 78739, November 17th, 1885. — Larkin, Connolly & Co., to O. E. Murphy, 85,000. Endorsed " to O. E. Murphy, Eobt. H. McGieevy." Bank of Biitish North America, No. 78741, December 15th, 1885. — Larkin, Connolly & Co., to O. E. Murphy, 84,000. Endorsed " O. E. Murphy, Robt. H. McCrreevy." ^larch 20th, 1880. — Union Bank, signed Larkin, ConnoU}' & Co., to ourselves, $5,^00. Endorsed Laikin, Connolly & Co. No number. October Ut, 188G. — Larkin, Connolly & Co., to O. E. Murphy, 85,000. Endorsed O. E. Murphy. No number. October 13th, 188G.— Larkin, Connolly & Co., to O. E. Murphy, 82,000. Endorsed O. E. Murphy. No number. October 13th, 188(i.— Larkin, Connolly & Co., to O. E. Murphy, $1,000. Endorsed O. E. Murphy. No number. January 3rd, 1887.— Larkin Connolly & Co., to N. K. Connolly, 85,000. Endor- sed N. K. Connolly per O. E. Murphy — N. K. Connolly, then the name of some bank clerk on it I cannot make out. No number. January 24th, 1887.— Larkin, Connolly &, Co., to O. E. Murphy, 83,000. Endor- sed O. E. Murphy. No number. Bank of British North America, No. 86151, January 25th, 1887. — Larkin, Con- nolly & Co., to N. K. Connolly. 810,000. Endorsed N. K. Connolly. Bank British North America, February 14th, 1887, No. 86159. — Larkin, Con- nolly & Co., to O. E. Murphy, $5,000, Endorsed O. E. Murphy. No. 156, Union Bank, February 14th, 1887. — Larkin, Connolly & Co,, to N. K. ■Connolly, 85,000. Endorsed N. K. Connolly. Bank of British North America, No. 86157, February 4th, 1887. — Larkin, Con- nolly &, Co., to N. K. Connolly, 85,000. Endorsed N. K. Connolly, Union Bank, February 17th, 1887. — Larkin, Connolly & Co., to O. E. Murphy, 85,000. Endorsed O. E. Murphy. No number. Bank of British North America, No. 86161, February 17th 1887.— N. K. Con- nolly, endorsed to the order of Larkin. Connolly & Co., 85,000. Union Bank, No. 290, August 3r(l, 1887. — Larkin, Connolly & Co., order of N. K. Connolly and endorsed by N. K. Connolly, $1,000. August 8th, 1887, No. 305.— Larkin, Connolly & Co., to N. K. Connolly, $4,000. Endorsed N. K. Connolly. No.446,November 2nd, 1887.— Larkin, Connolly & Co., to N. K. Connolly, §5,000. Endorsed N. K. Connolly. Bank of Bi-itish North America, No. 86230, November 2l8t, 1887.— Larkin, Con- nolly & Co., to N. K. Connolly, 85,000. Endorsed N. K. Connolly, December 30th, 1888. — Larkin, Connolly & Co., to N. K, Connolly, 83,050, En- dorsed N. K. Connolly. No number, 222 54 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 By Mr. Edijar : Q. llavo you any more copies of clicqiu .» ;" — A. X'), sli'. Q. Did yoii make those I'opie^ yoiii^elf from tlie original? — A. Yos, from the originals. Q. You think they are correct? — A. Yes. Q. 1 think there were some ot tliose ciioiiue^ ihat were not ])ro(luce(i j'esterday. You dill not see the oi-iginals of them? — \. I think they were i)roducod hcio ycstcr- ilaj' after loon. I checked them oil' as they were calieil. I ran over them as the}' were produced in the sub-commitlee. Q. You liave no copies now of any other cheques of Lark in, Connolly & Co. ? Did you have at any other time copies of any chequea of Larkin, Connolly \' Co.? — A. None whatever. (i. Did you examine the stubs and the cheque books? — A. I examined both stubs !in' liiiel. t^. You were not looking for this case? — A. Xo. Q. What particular cheques can you tell me you found stubs for? — A. I cannot tell now. Q. Do you know the ones that were important ? — A. I know some that were impoitanl. Q. You cannot tell me which ones ? You looked for some stubs and found some ? — A. Yes. Q. What were the ones you found the stubs for? — A. There are some stub books here. Q. Very few? — A. I think there are nearly half a dozen books of stubs. Q. 1 am told by Mr. Tarte that tlie stubs for 188ti are missing. Are any pro- duced for 188G and for the early part of 1.S87 ? 1 might ask if in your investigations among the papers of the firm j'ou saw stuii books or old cheque books for the year 1886? — A. I cannot say now what years I saw at that time. There are about half a dozen books of stubs here now. Q. Were there any missing ? Did you look for stubs that you could not find ? — A. I did not look to have them continuous. I merely a.-ked foi- certain stubs for cer- tain cheques. Q. Did you find all you required? — A. Xo, some were missing. Some of the >tubs were missing ; but I cannot remember now which ones. Q, Did you have occasion to look at the bank books of the firm ? — A. 1 looked at one or two with respect to the charging of notes. Q. Were the bank pass books of the firm there ? — A. I saw one bank book there. Q. Is that all ?— A. It was all I asked for. Q. What year would that be ? — A. There was no chetiue for what I wanted and I referred to the bank book to see if it was charged. By Mr. Geoffrion : Q. Did you see any other bank pass books besides the one you refer to ? — A. were ley brough by -keepei 223 ! .!■ il i! J ' ■ i \n I ] h\' .V i I 'H 54 "Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 Q. They weie brought to you when j-ou asked for them ? — A. I only wanted some particular Looks. I could not get some stubs, however. Q. You got a pass book of the ba- '- ? — A. Yes ; it was the pass book of the Union Bank and the note was of the 6lh November, 1883. ::'mined th»m yesterday". Q. Did you look for stubs or cheques ? — A. I did, sir. Q. J)id you find them complete? — A. No ; some of the years were missing. Q. Whr.' years ?— A. J think 1885, 18S(> and 1884. Q. Not of 1887 ? — A. My attention was drawn to the fact that up to the begin- ning of '87, Januarj' and February of 1887 were missing. Q. Are these all the stubs that you found in the books or are these the Union Bank only ? — A. These aio all Union Bank stubs. The Bank of British North America stubs arc there too, for 1885, 1886 and 1887. Q. What is missing there as far as you can make out? — A. The stubs here are from August 1st, l':87, to Januarv 23id, 1888, Union Bank. From January 24th, 1888, to October 2rtth, 1888; October :JOth. 1888. to December 15th, 1888; De- cember lltth, 1888, to April 10th. 188l> : April 13th, 1889, to October 26th, 1889; October 26th, 1889, to November 11th. 1890. Q. Is that all the stubs you find of the Union Bank ? — A. Apparently that is all that is in thetfc books. Q. Did you look carefully through them to rintl any more ? — A. I do not re- member what I saw yesterday, bu^ I do not think thcie are any more than were ])roduced. Q. You found no more than those produced? — A. No more of the Union Bank. Q. Were theie stubs fo' the cheques in the Union Bank prior to August, 1887 ? A. There may !iot have been, because Mr. ^[urphy, to the best of my recollection, when he was hnu-lling the cash for the firm generally did not write on the stubs, but would let the stub stay bhi 'k and it was generally destroj'cd. Q. You told us yesterday that when you rilled out the body of the cheque you geneially rilled out the blank. (i». The stubs are there since Augu^t, lf-87, out you said Mr. Murphy had nothing to do witli it since that t'ltv.e. I am talking now ot thestubsof the (diequcs of the rii'm issued on Union Baidv betore Augu., there 'vouid be one or more cheque books ? — A. Yes. q. And 188.5 ?— A. Yes. Q. And you cannot account for their being missing at ail ? — A. No. In 188.') and in 188(5, as I said, we (}. I am talking about the cheque books and stubs; it is stubs I am after? — A. If there wore an}- stub books left blank, they were not kept of course, thoy wore thrown in the waste paper basket. Q. But was there any cheque book in which all the stubs were left blank? — A. Yes. Sir, I saw some stubs loft blank. <^. The whole ot a stub book ? — A. 1 do not remoinber whether it was the whole ■ if it but there had only been one or two cheques in it. When they were one of no importance I did not keep it. Q. Well, would that apply to all those befoie that date ? — A. It would ajiply to .•i good many-, not to all. It would apj)!}'' to those that were not written in the oilico by myself. il. Well, now, of course you wi'oto most of them yourself, did you not? You rilled out most of the cheques, did you not? — A. I did not from the ben'iiuiingof the voar 18^7. q. Nut from 1881) ?— A. Xo, Sii-. Q. You had the regular baidc pass books, of course. Do you ti:id those bank pass I'Oiiks here? — A. No. *i. Y. Was there a book every year or how was it? — A. There were four or live ' 'ntiiiiiodon. . Sir, tluy were not. (^. They were left in the sai'e ?— .V. Yes, tlioj' were loft in the safe. By the Chairman : Q. Do 3-ou know whore thoy can begot, Mr. Connolly ? — A. Well, they were in tiio safe wlien I loft theni in May last. t^. Would Kelly know anything about those pass books? — A. No, he woidil ip)i. Bu Mr. Edgar .- Q. Here is a stub book of the Hank of British North America running from Xovoinbor. 1885, to November. 1887, about two years. Now is that the only clie([ue ii'iok that you had of that bank?— A. No, Sir, there was a stub of another onu tilOIV. 'm. M'iw i ; 1 : i 'V; '■ 11 i. .'!■ 226 t'l: 1—15 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 ■ -W "^ V I !£• f?'J Q. Are those two the only one."^ that there wei'e upon the British Xorth Amer- ica Bank — cheque books of the firm ? — A. Yes, Sir. Q. There were no other ? — A. No, there were no others in Victoria ; we had stubs of the British North America Bank in Quebec. Q. Those both rehite to Esquimalt ? — A. Yes. Q. Do you find in these boxes any cheque books at all of the Bank of British North America relatiu<^ to the Quebec business ? — A. No, Sir. Q. Well, the tirm had an account with the Bank of British North America in connection with their Quebec business, had they not ? — A. Yes. Q, How long had they, during the time you were in their employ ? — A. During the time I was there, they Dud an account with the British North America Bank for a short period. (I. What period would that cover? — A. I do not remember exactly. Q. Cannot you tell the year ? — A. I think in 1887. (^. Would that be before August? — A. Yes. Q, In 1887 ? Had they in 188t) also ?— A. I do not think so. Q. AVhen did you last see the stub book of that account with the British North America Bank for the Quebec business of Larkin, Connolly & Co. ? — A. The last time 1 saw that would be the last time I saw the others. Q. Were they with the others in the safe ? — A. Yes. Q. In May last? — A. I think they must have been there in May last. I paid no attention to it, however. Q. There was the pass book between the tirm and the Bank of British North America. — A. Yes. Q. Did you find that here ? — A. No, sir. Q. Where did you see that last; in the safe? — A. I do not remember, but it was most likely in the safe. Q. Y"ou kept it with the othei- books? — A. Yes. Q. Do you remember specially seeing it lately? — A. No. Mr. Nicholas K. Connolly re-called. By Mr, Edgar : Q. You heard the questions I hav<> been asking the two last witnesses about the stubs of cheques on the Union Bank of the tirm of Larkin, Connolly <.\: Co. ? — A. Yes. Q. Where are they ? — A. I do not know. (I. You do not know ? — A. I do not know anything about them. i.}. You, J understand, were in charge of the financial business of the firm ot Larkin, (Jonn .II3' i^ Co. from sometime in August, 1887, were you not? — A. Yes. Q. At ^v„;u time? — A. A portion of that time. 1 do not remember the date exactly. Q. In 1887?— A. I think so. Q. Wiiia there cheque books and stubs before that date ? — A. Yes. Q. AVlicn did you soo them last? — A. See what? i}. Th(jso stubs of the cheque books? — A. 1 only saw the stubs when the cheques were made out by Martin (Junnoll}'. ' Q. Did you give any orders about having the papers bi'ought here before the Commiitee? — A. No. No particular orders. My brother went down to Quebec t(i get all the papcr.s Kelly has been ordered to send up any further papers that were in the ollicc. Q. Have you been to Quebec at all, lately? — A. Yes. i}. When were ^-ou there last? — A. 1 was down there hist Sunday. Q. Have you been there on any other occasion since this inquiry began? — A. I have been there once since. Q. Were you in the office where the books and papers were kept, since the inquiry began ? — A. Yes. 22G 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Dili you look in the vault ? — A. We have no vault. Q. Well, in the wife? — A. I have not got the combinatioi of the safe. Q. Well, when j-ou were there, was it opened by anybodjr? Did j-ou see inio it? — A. Yes; it was open. Q. You did not look lor the cheque books? — A. Xo, Sir. Q. Were there bank books kept? — A. Yes. Q. Bank pass books, I mean ? — A. Yes. Q. Where are tb^y ? A. I do not know. Q. You do not c.re, I suppose, either? — A. 1 have no further use for them. i-l. But this Committee has further use. — A. If I knew where thoy wore, I Avould be very ylad to produce them for this Committee. I have no intention to keep anything from this Committee. Q. Well, it is a most extraordinary thing that they are not jjroduced; some- liodj' has got them. — A. I do not know anything about them. I did not have chai'ge of the cheques or pass books or the stubs. Q. Your emploj'es had them? — A. Y'es. Q. Thoy were Martin P. Connolly? — A. Yes. q. Who else?— A. Several others. Q. Who? — A. The bookkeepers in our emplo}' previous to Mai'tin P. Connolly. Martin has had charge of the papers and books up to the time he left. Q. He swore that they were thei-e in May last — the stubs and bank pass-books? — A. Well, I do not know anything about them. Q. Did you give any orders at all about anj' of those books to anj'body? — A. I told Jvelly when in Quebec last, to see that everything that was in the oflice in the way of books and papers of all kinds in connection with the work at Quebec, to send them hero. Q. Did ho toll you he had left anything liehind? — A. Ho told ine he had packed up everything he could find. Q. Has he gone away again ? — A. Yes. q. Where to ?— A. to Quebec. The CiiAiaMAN— lie was discharged by Mr. Geoffrion, yesterday. Bu Mr. Geoffrion : Q. Were any pajiers sent from Quebec to Kingston .since this investigation has lieen going on ? — A. Not to my knowledge. ilr. O. ]•]. Mlbi'IIv I'O-called. By Mr. Gcoff'rion : Q. Mr. .Murphy, had you an^'thing to do with the entries that were made in the books ?— A. No. Q. You gave instruclions to the book-keeper, but had nothing to do with the wa}- tiny were made ? — A. 1 had nothing to do with the boo''>or the entries in the books. (i. 1 tind that in the year 18S7 you discontinued to be the cashier, if I may say >o. of (lie tirin, and Nicholas K. Connolly replaced you ? — A. Yes. (i. This did not suspend your power to sign the name of the tirm on cheques ? -A. No. Q. He had special charge of the cash; that is all ? — A. Yes. q. The statement which you asked and obtained from Marlin P. Connolly showing ilio disliiirsemants tor the ditlereiit work in connection with what is called, "expense " 111" suspense" were asked by you so as to be iti formed in a compact way of the ditl'orcMt ainoiints paid, both during your time and the time of your successor, Mr. N. K. Cniiniilly. I suppose? — A. Yes. y Larkin, Connolly i^ Co. i^. To the order of the firm and endorsed by the firm ? — A. To the order of Larkin, Connolly' & Co., and endoi'std by me. Q. Iteferring to the notes printed in yesterday's proceedings and marked Exhibit " W 7," how are they dated? — A. 1 will read them ; the (ii'st is : 85,000. Queukc. May 1st, 1S88. On demand after date we promise to pay to flu; order of ourselves at the office of the (i raving Dock, Ldvis, tive thousand dollars for value received. This is endorsed Larkin, Connolly & Co. and initialled by myself. The next is ; 85,000, QuEiiKi', May 1st, 188;i. On demand afterdate we promise to pay to the order of ourselves at Office, Graving Dock, L. I asked you what were those tirst notes? — A. They were given for the sup- ])lementary contract for the shortening of the Graving Dock at Ldvis. The contract I entereil into with Mr. Thomas McGreev^-. Q. Do they refer to the same amount as mentioned in Kxhibit "L 5," which is printed at page 112 ? — A. They aie. Q. Will you refer to two cheques, one on the Union Bank of Lower Canada dated 2nd Novembei', 1887, for §5,000 to the order of N. K. Connolly, signed Larkin, Con- nolly iV Co., and the other dated Quebec, 21st Noveniber. 1887, on theBaidc of British North America, N. K. ConnoU}', also for §5,000, and suy what cheques these are ? — A. They are drawn to the order of Nicholas K. Connolly and both the signature of Larkin, Connolly \- Co. and the endorsation is made by N. K. Connolly. I know nothing about it. The next cheque is signed Larkin, Connolly i*c Co., to the order of N. K. Connolly and endorsed N. K. Connolly. I know nothing about it. 230 . '.». Q. Q. Q. Q. York. Q. Q. Q. , *"!• 1 nil! ij 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q, In whose liandwritinu; is it ? — A. Nicholas Connolly. Q. Both the siifnatuio of the firm and the endorsalion ? — A. Yes. (Che(iuc tiled and marked Exhibit " li !».") By Mr. Curran : Q. In whose hundwritin.!^ is the body of the cheque? — A. I believe it is Martin P. Connolly's — both cheques. Bij Mr. Geoifrion : Q. AVill you take communication of a cheque dated 20lh March, 188(!, on the Uni(m Bank of Lower Canada, signed Larkin, Connoll}' k Co., for §5,000, and say in whose handwriting is that cheque? — A. The cheque is in my handwriting and en- dorsed by mj'self. Q. And is signed in j^our handwriting? — A. Yes. Q. Have you any means of stating what this cheque was given for ? — A. I have not, otherwise than where I ilraw cheques to my own order in this way. It is diawn to my order ami it would be some money we would pay out ; but 1 cannot tell at the ])resent time. For cheques endorsed by myself and in the firm's name, it would be for the use of the company. Q. This one was made the order of? — A. Larkin, Connolly & Co. This (•he(iue I believe is in my handwriting but it is a new cheque. It looks very much like my handwriting; but it also looks very much like paper that hns not been handled, Q. And you cannot explain to the Committee what tiiis cheque was for ? — A. Xo. By Mr. Ives : Q. Does it bear a number? That would be a more positive identification? — A. There is no number on it. By Mr. Geoff rion : Q. Yon say you cannot say what it is for. Had you occasion to sign many cheques whilst you were acting as cashier of the firm '? — A. I iiad. • ^ Hundreds? — A. Yes. I have very much doubt about that cheque (referring to Exhibit "I !)"). By the Chairman : Q. That it is genuine ? — A. Yes. <^. You are nfit sure it is in j'our handwi'iting? — A. Xo. Q. You had better look at it again and say whether you have any doubt ? — A. It is a new cheque. It looks a good deal like my handwriting, but I won't swear positively it is mine. Cros&-e.vamined by 31r. Osier : Q. When did you come to Canada. .Mr. Murphj' ? — A. In '78 or '77. I believe. Q. '78 or 77, which?— A. '77. Q. Can't you remember more accurately? — A. I think it was Decemlier, '77. Q. You know it was Decemboi-, '77. Where did you come from':'— .\. New Yut j-ou stayed here ? — A. Yes. (^. Having come to Canada under these ciivimistances, you left j-our property in New York, personal and real, in the condition you have stated? — A. Yes. (^. llow hmg did you remain in St. Catharines ? — A. 1 fbi-get. Q. About how long? — A. I'robabiy about two months. Q. And where then did you go ? — A. I came to Montreal. From there i went to Portland, Maine State. I stayed there for a few days in Portland, .Maine, and trom there went to Halifax, and from Halifax I went to I'Jigland — sailed, L believe, on the steamer Moravian. Capt, Jackson. (I. You went from I'ortland, Maine, to Halifax, and Halifax to J-'ngland and from J'^ngland? — A. 1 should say Ireland first and then to England, and from Hng- iand 1 went — stojiping at several ports — to the Amazon and Uiazil. (^>. Staying there how long? — A. I went u]i the Amazon. (I. What i asked you was how long ? — A. 1 went up the Amazon and visited nearly all the cities along the Atlantic coast. . From St. Catharines where did you go? — A. To Pennsylvania, on business for Mr, Connolly, several times. (I. Ami from there where did you go ? — A. I got into this contract at Lt^vis. (^. You went tinally to Quebec? — A. Yes. (^ When did you reach Quebec? — A. I think ii was in .lime, ISSO. Q. So you were unsettled from December. 1877, until .Juno, 1880? — A. 1>*S0. (^. When you located ? — A. Located in St. .loseph, (Quebec. Q. And you have remained there ever since ? — A. l']ver since. Q Your name in New York — what was your official name there ? — A. I was called Owen and Kugene. (i*. Hut you were known as ? — A. Owen Murphy. ^l. When you came to Canada you were known at first as Eugene ? — A. No. sir. . You signeil a document under that name, if I am not misinformed ? — A. I do not recollect it. V>. Dropping the '■ O " ?— A. I do not recollect that I did. Q. Will you swear that you did not ? — A. No. I was always addressed as Owen, and sometimes as Eugene, and many times I got a letter endorsed by one. 283 " ! in .%'\ i I ill I' : I ' .'v iilhii ill' lip >:,-.;> lilt i; 111 I ! > I! '• u 'M ■^^i> i'li 54 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Ih Kiigono your name ?— A. It is part of my iiaino. Il is my middle niimo. Q. It is a namo you roceived, and nut a name that you adopted in iatoi' lif'o. Did you adopt it for convenience or was it given to you in earlier days? — A. I beliovo it was given to me in earlier days, but 1 never kept it up. I was instructed by my lawyer — one is Recorder Smyth, of Now York — as a very importani thing every time [ would make a transfer of real estate to have a middle name. There wn another Owen Murphy in Quebec, and my letters were often opened In* him. Q. I am asking you whether it was an original name, or as a matter of con- venience did you take the middle name ? — A. Xo. Q. But your whole olRcial record in New York appears to bo under the name of Owen Murphy? — A. Yes. Q. That is the way you drew the cheque ? — A. Yes. Q. When you came to St. Catharines, if I have a document signed E. Murphy and Eugene Mur])hy, would that be the name you went by ? — A. f might have gone l>y that name. Q. But you were known as Owen E. Murphy in Quebec ? — A. Yes. Q. There being another Owen Murjjiiy? — A. Not always known as Owen E, Murphy ; sometimes as Owen. (i. That was the signature you adoptetl on going to Quobcc, and that woukl bo convenient, there being another Owen Murphy tliero — an 5l.P.P. ? — A. Yes. CJ. With whom 1 believe j'ou were sometimes confused? — A. I would state that the official document notifying me to a])poar here as a witness wont to the other Murphy, ami I had to go to the post office to have a return made of it. Q. Then in .lune, 18S((, when you came to (Juobec, you had, atall events, known Michael Connolly? — A. I did. lie lived with me in New York. Q. And he travelled with you when you went to South America? — A. Yes; 1 paid all his oxjicnses there and return. (i. lie was then a young man, who had not been in the business for himself? — A. No. Q. And I believe that to some extent you availed yourself of his services in winding up your business in New York and Brooklyn? — A. I had no business in Brooklyn. Q. In New York ? — A. Yes. (}. Michael Connolly was the one who went down from St. Catliarinos to follow your instructions in realizing upon your property ? — A. Part of it — also Nicholas. Q. And j'ou came down to Quebec to join them in a largo contract ? — A. i was partly forced into that contract. (i. Which contract? — A. The . Vou iliil not Uiuiw liiin at tliiit time. TIrmi, in regard to your Mcond contract, hail lie Joined you before you entered tliat ? ] lad 3'oii become aequainled willi Kobort or liad j'ou had any business dealin^^s with him in relorenco to the tirst iDnlract before you i^ot tiio seconil contract ' — A. I had no business dealings witli Jiobert McGreevy up to tiio tim • we ;^()t the dredgini,' contract. Q. Had you come to know iiim prior to getting the dredging contract ? — A. Very little. Q. lie was but a casual acquaintance';* — A. Tluit is all. Q. Can you remember under what circumstances you first met bin? — A. I can. H. Can you shortly tell them ? — A. f met him at the Graving DocK at. St. .foseph. Q. On business? — A. He ca.iio there in connection with piiiliMg ni a tender for the St. Charles iiranch. (^. To SCO if you would put in a tender in connection with him? — A. In con- nection with him. Q. It was his inti'oduction to you on that occasion which was the first business >uggi'stion there was between you? — A. 1 liclieve that was the first, as far as 1 can recollect. I am speaking now from recollection. Q. Can you say when that was? — A. [ forget whether it was in ISSl or 1SS2; I am not ))Ositive. t^. When had you the tirst business dealings with him ? — A. The tirst business dealing, as far as [ can recollect, was when tenders were about being asked for the dredging at (Quebec. <^. Then you had some business conversations with him, perhaps ? — .V. What kind ? Q. I onl}' wanted to know whether you had any business conversations with him prior to that? — A. Business transactions. Q. I am not asking about business transactions just now. 1 aske i you if you any business conversations with him ? — A. I do not know as 1 had. (i. He came to be your partner, did he not ? — A. lie came to see if <.». lie ultimately came to be your partner, did he not? — A. Yes. When was that? — A. [ believe it was in lS8li. What month in 1882? — A. I do not recollect now. You do not remember? — A. No. He l)ecamc your partner under a written agreement which has lieen pro- had Q. Q. Q. Q. iluced here — Mr. Nicholas Connolly being associated with you ? — A. Yes. <^. Anntract with lioberl Mcfrreevy outside those connected with the firm of Larkin, Connolly k Co. <^. You have had no business transactions or dealings with liobert McGreevy 'lutside of Larkin, Connolly iV^ Co.'s transactions? — A. I had. Q. Have you had many transactions in whicii you wei'c jointly concerned ? — A. We liuilt a block or wareliousc in Quebec which he was interested in. Q. I am not asking for details. I am merely asking if yon bail many transac- liiiMs. Had you several transactions? — A. 1 am giving you the details. Q. I do not want the details just now. What number of transactions iiad ynu with Mr. Itobert McGreevy? — A. I bought some Richelieu stock for his account along with his brother Thomas. (l with him in Jlichelieu stock? — A. Also his brother Thomas. Q. I am not askinj^ you that, unless Thomas was jointly interested with you tl)ree ? — A. Yes, he was. tj. J)iil you l)U3' separately ? Had you separale transactions with Robert Me- Grcevy ? — A. I had. (/". In Richelieu?— A. Yes. Q. Will you tell me tiie years in wliich you wgw^ operating, the tiiree of you. and the years in which the two of you were operatinj^? Wiien you were operatini.' with Thomas and Uoljert, and when you were operatinj^ with IJobert only?— A. I really cannot tell the years now. 1 think it was in 1887 and 1888, as near as I can recollect. q. With Robert?— A. Yes. Q And before that with Thomas and Robert ? — A. I boucfjit 2.')0 shares for Thomas. Q. Before that?— A. Yes; 1 think it was before that. (I. To what extent had you transactions with Robert in Richelieu ? — A. 1 have held SOO shares in my name tor his account, and we were jointly interested in other stocks, that he paid me tlvi ilitference in the pvice, and I iiad to keej} the stock. Q. In other blocks ot Richelieu ? — A. Yes. Q. Takinn' the S()(l shares to which you have referred and addiiiir the others to them, would you have a thousand ^ hares in wliies ? — A. Yes, with good management. Q. Ifow did j'ou buy this stock ? Did you go into the market to buy and paid for it, or were you carrying it on margin ? — A. Some 1 cari'ied on margin ; some I paid for as it suited me best. Q. .lust as funds were ? — A. Yes, just as it suited mo best. (J. Who was your broker or j'our banker ? — A. Several banks had the stoidvaml held it on mai'gin. Several brokers, Messrs. Meredith cV O'Brien, Messrs. M<)\vat \' Co.. Mr. .MacXider, in Quebec. Q. Anybody else ? — A. Mr. P. A. Sh.iw bought some bank stock. (I. These were the people who were carrying the stock ? Anyone else ? — A. That is all I think of (I. Well then, the period over which the speculations with Robert in Richelieu, coveied about — when did you commence? — A. We commenced when we had a large block of the stock thrown on our hands — the Connolly's and myself — and we wei'e verj' much interested in making Thomas McGreevy, President. 2^6 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 ..I kept no Q, Well we don't want these little matters; they are of no consoqiiciice to llie Committee. At what date diil you i-ommenee? — A. I cannot f,'ive j'oii tlie exact date. It was over a jJiTicKl of seveial years. il. Over what number of years were there sjteculations ? — A. I cannot tell at present. Q. Did thev cominonco as early as 1882? — A. No. Q. l.Ss;jy_A. 1 thiidv not. Q. Will you swear there was nothinjjj in 1883? — A. 1 will not >wear. (}. I mean, not merely J'ichelieu, hut any slock sjieculations (jr involmi'Uts with liohert ,\Ic(ireevy, were there any in lSS;j? — A. I think not. (i. 1S84?— A. 1 think not. (^ 1HS5?— A. I won't answer 1885. Q. You arc in douht about 1885? — A. To the best of my opinion I believe 1 liid not. <^. Then, did they commence in 188<; ? — A. I think to the best of my knowleilije it was in 1SS7. (-1. Well, in 1887. You had then to the best of your knowlodi^e no joint trans- actions with either iJobcrt or Thomas Mcdreevy prior to that date. Is thai what I understand you to sa\- ? — A. Not in slocks. (I. Well had you any other transactions apart from Larkiii, Connolly & Co., with K'obert Mctircevy prior to 1887? — A. Yes. (^. What were llicy? — A. The^- came to me and borrowed my ]ierM)iia! notes anil liot me to discount a liraft for Mv. Seiit'cal. I believe, and I had a LCood deal of trouble with them and I had Senecal's ame as usual. (I. When you had money j'ou lent it to him and rice cersa? — A. I did, <^. There was perfect freedom between you in financial transactions. — A. Y'es. (l. Ahtl perliaps ^-ou speculated more with him as your associate than with arry- bo(lv ol.^e ? — A. Xo, outside ol the Richelieu I don't know 1 bad any speculation ; he sold his bank stock and he took his ]irofits. Q. But 1 aril asking you whether there was anybody with whom you had more tr'an.«.actions than with Robert MctJreevy ?— A. I had Iransictioris with both the Connollys with this llichelieu business as well as Mr-. Mc(hvevy. I bought stock and held it in my own name. Q. What I am trying to get at is who wa> your most intimate financial associate, the num with whom you had most association. Was it not Robert Mciireevy ? — A. It might be. (I. Did 3-ou operate at all on the Chicago or New York markets :•' — A. Yes. *}. With res])ect to your transactions in New York and Chicago had you any ruar'gin transactions in the stocks that are ordinarily dealt with in those cities 'f — A. 1 bought some pork in connection with Colonel Rice. We talked over it in .Montreal. (^. It is unnecessary to bring in anybody else's name unless the Committee desires it. -A. I felt it was necessary to remember- it. ^l. What I desire to avoid is bringing in the name of anybody who is not here to ilefend himself or who is not corrcerned in the inquiry. Sometimes people tlo not like to see their names in print. Y'ou had transactions in Chicago in pork':' — A. Y'^es. 237 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A'. 1891 i !-i r'M Q. ^furgin triinsuctioii.i. What year? — A. 1 forget the year. Q. About what year ?— A. 1 bought 2,000 ba'-iela of pork. Q. J am not asking 3'ou about llie poi-k, but about the 3'ear ? — A. I think it was about two years ago. (I. Wliat otiier inai'gin transactions had you? — A. J got quite a lot of stoelv in New York at the present time. Q. Carrying on margin? — A. Sotne of it is paid and some on margin. Q. How long liave you been carrying sinks in New York? When did you commence ? — A. 1 bought stock and paid lor ii in 1881 I think. Q. Go on ; you kept buying in 1SS3 ? — A. Xo; 1 dropped ott'for some time. Q. You drc|)pcd ott'for som time : soM and bought again .' — A. Exactly. Q. And you kcj)t doing so during thor-e j-ears ? — A. Yts. Q. Pretty much on margin ? — A. Sometimes. Q. Mostly on margin ? — A. AIo>tly, yes. Q. And the volume ol those :ransaclions would be very considerable ? — A. They would. Q. Was Eobert interested with you in those transactions ? — A. No, it was my own. Q. And in Chicago he had no interest whatever ? It was onl\- an isolated trans- action in Cnicago ? — A. Just what I mentioneii. Q. What yeai" was the pork in ? — .*_. I think it was about two years ago. (J. Well, to what extent can you tell mo in lS8o were 3'our stock transactions in New York ? — A. 1 bought sixty-scvon shares of the New York Central and jiaid for t'>em. V>. 1 don't want the details, I want abouc the extent ? — A. That was the ex- tent. Q. Sixty-seven shares in the New York Central. You j)aiil for them and did !iot carry on margin ? — A. Yes. Bij Mr, Jlenrij .• Q. What year v as that ? — A. I think it was in 1881. I correct myself. 1 had $10,000 idle in the Union Bank for a year and got no intei'est, and I wanted to buy something that woiilu pay me. Mr. McNlder bought the stock. By Mr. Osier : Q. That transaction was through Mr MacNider ? — A. Yes. (^. And yoii held that stock how long ? — A. I held it too long for my own good. <^. That does not answer the question. — A. I cannot tell the year I sold it. I hy])iUliecaled the stock to the Union Hank and loanctl tiie money to the Connollys and J could not get a release. .U was at the time Mr. .Mfj^wan was manager. (^. Sto]), I (Jidy want to know how long vou carried stock ? — A. I stated it was in lSs;t or 1884. Q. Three or four years '.■* — A. Two ur three years, I uni not positive, but to the best iif my Icnowledgv'. f liarkin, Cunnolly iV ('o. I had a jiocket in the safe and 1 believe my b.ink bi)c)l< i> in tin; ollice ot I.arkin, Conmilly \ ('o. 'i', ^'iiu lielieve your earlier baid< li mk is in the ollice of Lai'kin, dmnollv i\: C". '.'--A, i think so. 'i. Is i; in a locivcd drawt'r? — A. I had a hn'ked ilrawer IWr my petty <'a-
  • . ^lMl have no b;ink book earlier than ISSO, Have you bank checpies? — A, 1 have everv clu'. 'i'he indictment is for (•(uispiracy ? — A. 1 liclieve so. (^. 111 connection with the S4tM),UII0 note? — A. 1 believe .so. (2. And it is because there is an indictment pending against you in the criminal court at (Quebec? — .V. 1 ilecline to answer any further questions in connection with that. 1 am sueil crimini.lly. and I might give testimony here tiiat would cri:ninate me. 1 do not think it is lair for coun-cl to ask me these questions. t^. Vou have certain rights witii respect to that — rights which I hope not to infringe. Vou had in your possession a 8H)U,000 note. Now, whenever you come to a (juestion that you do not wish to answer, you may say that you tlo so because you believe it may tend to crimiiutte you. — A. 1 decline to answer anything in con- nection will) that note. Q. That is not siillicient, unless you say that it tends to crinvinate you. There is apparently no rule in an enquiry like this and I may have to ask the vhoin ? — A. That 1 do''lino to answer for tho same leason. Q. Was an action brought upon that note by Koberl McCreevy ?— .\. I dec line to answer, and for the same reason. (^. Was thai action subsequently abandoned? — A. I di'cline to answei' that question for the same reason. (^,. Were you, :.y reason ot that action on a note ol §100.000, arrested? — A. 1 believe 1 was. m 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. AViis there :i true l)ill found ngainsl you by llic (fi-iiMil Jury ?— A. I decline to iinswei- lliat. .^^EM»KllS OK THE COMMITTEE — Oil. oh. WiT.NK.Sfi — If the Coniinittce wants it — yos. Q. To that indiclni jut you have jilcaded and yiven .bail ?— A. Vcs. Q. It utanils for trial? — A. Yes. Q. And on the motion of your counsel that trial has been put otf twice? — A. I believe so. Q. On the motion of youreounsel as toabsent witnoHses ; is notthat so ? — .V. Yes. Q. I am askiui;' if it was not on account of absent witnesses. Is not that the reason it was put .>tt'? — A. Yes; absent witnesses. (}. Who are still ab-ent ? (Xo answer.) (J. The witnesses are still absent? — A. Certainly; they cannot . o here. *). The Committee might be told whether tlii'V are out on the Pacific Coast? — A. Some of them are in Texas. Q. And the matter stands now for trial for the October term ? — A. I believe so. Q. Was Robert ilcGreevy indicted with you at the same time ? — A. 1 believe so. (}. < 'an you leniember the date of your arrest? — A. No; it was sometime in October. tl Last October?— A. Yes. Q. When did you first see Mr. Tarle with reference to the matter we are now inquiring into '' — A. It is over a year ago. Q. Cui you give me the occasion? — A. 1 have stated it as near as f can. Q. Wii',i':i' giving reasons tell me as neai' as you can the date that you and Mi'. Tarte met first? — A. I cannot. t^. Can you give me the month ? — A. No. Q. ('an you give me the year ? — A. 1 think it was in ISOO. Q. What month do you think it was ? — A. I do not recollect. (i. Was it in the fall or spring ? — A. In the spring, I thiid\. <>. Did you go to him,ordid he seek you ? — A. .^[r. McGreevy and myself wont to Mr. Tarte together. Q. Without invitation ? — A. Without invitation. <^». ^Liid you lliink it was tlu^ spring of IS'JO ? — .\. I do. (^. What was the occasion of your gm? — A. No. C}. You had got you/ money? — A. Y^es. (I When did you sell out?— A. In 188(1. Cl The latter part of 1881) ?— A. I think it was in May, 1889. ii. In May, 1889. you had sold out? — A. Yes. il. Were you anxious to go on? Were there any contracts they tendered lor in which they did not include you, such as, for instance, the Sault Canal ? — A. ! ilou't know that they tiMidered for the Sault Caiuil. (i. Had you anything to do with Ihem alter you s(^ld out ? — A. No. tj. Or any negotiations with them as to Joint contracting? — A. No. <2. Tiien you were entirely clear of them and had got your money ? — A. Yes. . And building J".: ;'y with him ? — A. No. sir. t^ When vvas if lu- 1' .1 bve-election took ])laee in Quebec West? — A. I cannot tell. 'i It is >aid to have btvu December, 1«89. Would that agree with your recollec- 'i'ln? — \. I take it tor granted it is; I have no recollei-tion of it. (^ Well. Robert McGreevy was a eamlidato on one side, and Owen Murphy oti ilio III her side ? — A. I believe so. V. The other Owen was the candidate on the other side? — A. J believe so. 1— l(i.l^ U3 54 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Tlion, ilo you know wlio M:-. Tiirto ^uiiiiorli'd — liis jtaper I iiu'uii ? — A. 1 ilo not. Q. You hiivo no idea. — A. Xo, >ir. Q. i)o yon know wlio 3[r. Tliomas ^IcGrecvy was supposeil to be hupportiiiijf ? — A. I do not know '.ny-self. I heard it from hearsay that he supported Owen .Mur|)hy. <^). And yon hoard that at that election Thomas Mctrieevy siii)ported Owen Murpliy against liis brother? — A. Yes. 0. And who, as a nnittor of I'act, woidd Mr. Tarte siij)port — naturally? — A. I cannot tell. Q. Yuu cannot tell ; yon do not know? — A. 1 presume ho was a Conservative, and as lioberi Mcdreevy I'an in the Conservative interest, that he supported iiiin ; but of that 1 have no kn' wledgo. (J. Did you spend any money in that election? — A. None of my own money. Q. Well, did you sjiend any money? — A. I believe I did. Q. You believe yoa did. In aid of which candidate — Robert .McGreevy? — A. Eobert McGreevy. H. Spend any considerable sum ? — A. There was considerable monej' spent. Q. IIow much, for instance, passed througii yoi.r iiands? — A. About three thou- sand dollars. Q. It was not your own? — A. Xo. Q. Tlien, what did you do at tirst, when you lieard you weio to get no more contracts? — A. 1 did notliing. Q. Did you see Thomas ^rcGreovy? — A. He met me in the Q. Did you see Thomas >[c(ireevy about tlie m.-itter, not merely meeting him? — A. I met him on the street and complained of the way 1 was treated, and lie got in a ])asston, and said I must not attempt to get any more contracts from the Public Works Department; he would see F would got none — that I might not tender; and I niadii this answer : that when the Department of Public Works woukl get my cheque rigaii' 1 would get the contract. Q;. When was that interview ? — A. After the Jvingston Dock was awarded. Q. Did you tender for the Jviiig: ton Dock? — A. I did. Q. Alone or with others? — A. With a man '.lamed ^[acfarlane. Q. Yoii tendered for the Kingston Deck, and you tlid not get it? — A. X'o. Q. Did you speak to Thomas .Mctlrecvy tirst? — A. I believe 1 did. (i. 'Shortly altei- you found you did luu get that contract? — A. Yes. Q. Was that the on!}' interview j-ou had with Thomas? — A. 1 had several interviews. Q. After he got in a passion, had you more interviews with him ? — A. That was the last, I thinlc. Q. After yon were indicted for conspiracy with reference to the ^iOO OUO note, did you see him ? — A. Ves. Q. Did yon go to his house ? — A. I was invited there. Q. Did you go to his house ? — A. Yes. Q. Aiul had you an interview with him? — A. Yes. Q. What mo-ith was Hurt ? — A. October. (i, October last?— A. Y.-s. Q. That was about when yoii were coining to be tried, or was it after the trial was put ever? — A. it was before. Q. Had you an interview with him at his house? — A. Yes. Q. Did you send anyone to him ? — A. Xo. ' Q. J)o you know a Sir. Davis ? — A. I do. Q. What i^ his tirst name? — A. ("harles G.Davis. Q. What docs he do ? — A. 1 <.lo not know what he does now. Q. Ho lives ill Quebec? — A. No. Q. Where does he live? — A. I cannot tell. The last timt I heard lie wr.s in Detroit. Q. You know the man ? — A. Yes. 244 v^m 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Did yon over have iiny interview with Davis about the matter with Thomas Mclireovv ? — A. Yes. ' Q. Wlic'ii Wiis thiit — .sliortly Ijeforo tlie conspiracy case was sent lor trial? — A. I think it was the Sunday before ; 1 mot him on the street. Q. And }'ou iiad an interview with him with reference to the sul)ject ? — A. Ho stoppeil me on the street and sp(jlce to me about the trouble, and asketl if lie could be any means of settling, and if I would give him permission to see ^Ir. ilctheevy. I said I hail no (objection . Q. And did he report to you? — A. lie came back after several interviews and wanted me to go to Mr. McClreevy. Q. He went backwards and forwards ? — A. Yes. Q. Have you got the instrument of ilissolution between youi'sclf and the Con- nolly's? — A. I have not. Q. It is in writing I presume? — A. Xo; I do not know. Q. Is there not a notarial deed? — A. Yes. Q. Can you give mo the month that that was executed ? — A. i think in Ma}', 1SS9. Q. ''.Vhat amount were vou paid ori its execution ? — A. §70,000 in notes. Q. Their notes ?— A. Yes. Q. In May, 1889 — ll at is, you received your §70,000 in their jiromissory notes, payable over a pei'iod ? — A. I believe so, Q. The contracts not being yet fully completed ? — A. Xo. Q. Then was the dissolution atlvertiscd ? — A. I have no knowledge of it. Q. I want to see how far you have obeyed the oi'der of the Committee with refer- ence to your productions, and how far you are able to do that. You know the order that was made by the Committee ? — A. Yes. Q. 1 want you to produce the original statement or declaration, signed by you, as ])ublished in Le Canadien of the iJOth April, 181)0 ? — A. I have no original for that Q. What have you representing your ]U'od actions ? — A. Xothing. Cl. What (lid you do with it ? — A. I had none. Mr. Tarte got one, and he has ]iublished thai without >n\' authoiity at all. 1 had no oi'igiiud. (I. How did it come into lieing? — A. 1 signed a i)aper for Jlr. Tarte, and he ]iromised strictly' that it should not be publisheil, and I know nothing more about it. Q. You signed a papei', then, on the j)roniise tliat it should not bo published Whore o.il you make your signature ? — A. I i)elieve Mr. Tarle has it. Q. Wiio wiote tlial document ? — A. 1 cannot tell. Q. To whom tiid you give the inibrmation for the wrilting of it? — A. I bolieve ibcrt 3Ic'rreevy and Mr. T;irtc were present. Q. You three sat down? Mr. Taktk — I was not tbei'c. A. Jlr. Iiidicii Mitii'oevy and m}selfwore t!iore (i. AVhere did you iiiccl ? — A. I think it was iiere in Ottawa. (}. Who was with you? — A. Jioberl. (l- Who besides? — A. No person. Q. When you met in Ottawa there was nodocunn'nt? — A. Yes. Q. I am trying to got at the origin of this document? — A. Mr. MctTreevy had the document, but I believe there was an item ''Bale dcsChaleurs "" liailway that he uaiilod to strike out. Q. You lirst .saw the charge in writing in Mr. Robert McGreevy's bands '■' — A. ? li our (^. You hail not been a party to it ?-^A. X(jt 1ii«' oi'iginal. ^i. When di(l you become a ])arty to any st;itomeiit tiiat was :.;iven over siuiiature? — A. When 1 saw a statement of the amount of moneys I bad paid 1 was asked if it was correct. I said, vos ; but as far as 1 know the dales were wi'ong. 245 , 111. in I ir jp i • 5 t It i;i :■ ff i 11- 'l[S i. ^1 . s'l' Ml til; 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Then where was it you gave your signature ? — A. There was a signature in Quebec ami a signature hero at Ott;iwa. Q. A signature to a similar tiocument, or was tliere a ditlerence? — A. TiieBaio des Clialeurs Jtailway, of some 840,000, was sti-uck nut. t^. Of which document ? — A. The tirsi document in Quebec. Q. The first document was signed in Quebec ? — A. Yes. Q. But tiiat contained an item as to tiie Bale des Chaleurs Eaiiway, which was subsequently struck out and did not appear in tiie document you signed in Ottawa? — A. The Baie des Chaleurs Eaiiway 1 knew nothing about, and it was struck out of this document. Q. Had you signed it with the Baie des Chaleurs Railway in ? — A. Xo. Q. I am asking you what document you first signed ami who prepared it? — A. A statement of the amount of moneys that was paid by the lirm to the two McGreevy's. Q. To whom did you give that document — the document you first signed ? — A. I do not recollect. Q. It was not the sort of document you would let lie around loose. You must remember the circumstances under which it was prepared and to whom 3'ou gave it? — A. I have no recollection to whom I gave it. Q. Who asked you to sign it ? — A. Robert Mc( rreevy asked me if it was a correct statement as near as I could recollect, and 1 said j-es. He asked me to sign it and I said : '' Oh yes. What do you want to do with it ? " lie said ho wanted to show it to Sir John Macdonald. Q. The first document you siicned was presented to j'ou by Robert McGi'eevy, and when he told you what he \\ anted it for you signed it ? — A. Y'es. Q. Now, can you tell me when that was? — A. I think it was about March. Q. Of ?— A. ' 90. Q. Had you seen jMi-. Tarte before that ? — A. Xo. Q. You had no communication with him? — A. Xo. <^. Was that the time that Robert ^[eCrreevy was a candidate at the local bj-e- election ? — A. It was after, I believe. Q. Xow, ui> to that time j'ou had not seen Mr. Tarte at all? — A. Xo. Q. That is not exactly as you jjut it first. You told me j-ourself and ]iobcrt McGreevy met together, but seemingly your memory is getting better as we proceed. When did you sign the next document? — A. I think it was nearh' a month after. Q. At whose request ? — A. At ilr. Robert 3Ic(Treevy's. Q. Had 3Ir. Tarte anything to do with that? — A. Xo; not when I signed that. Q. AVhat were the circumstances under which hecametoget j-ou to sign that? — A. To show it to Sir John A. Macdonald, to let him see the way his brother treated iiim. Q. He said he wanted to show it. But what were the immediate circumstances? AVhere was it, for instance, and why did he want the second document? — A. That is more than I can tell. Q. Was the second document identical with the first, with the exception of the Baie des Chaleurs Railway ? — A. There were some changes. Q. Changes of dates or figures ?— A. I think as to the amount of money. Q. Then you had signed a document at first which was not correct ? — A. I cannot say it vjvs not correct. Q. If thej'^ did not agree as to ilates and figures the first must be wrong ? — A. As far as tb( amounts of monej'S were, and asmy knowledge of affairs, tlietirst was right. Q. Did 3'ou sign the second with different dates and with not know whoso. Tlien up to this time you had not come in communication witii ^[r.Tarte ? — Q. Q. Q. A. No. Q. Then, wliat was tiie next stej)? — A. I believe ^[r.^rcdreov}' came to Ottawa to show this j)aper. Q. r do not want what you believe. What was the next step in which you took part? — A. With reference to this? Q. Willi reterence to tiiese sii,'natures. We have spoken of the two documents which 3'ou signed; we only wished you had them ? — A. ^Fr. MeGreevj- then, with myself, went to Mr. Tarte. knowini^ him. to bo a friend of the party and a friend of Sir John A. Macdonald's ? Q. After the second document j-ou went to Mr. Tarte? — A. Yes. Q. Did you show him the document? — A. Wo showed him the document. Q. Wliat did you do with the document? — A. AVo nave it to 3[r. Tarte. Q. Both documents? — A. 1 believe so ; no, the last document. Q. The first you told us was destroyed? — A. I believe so. ''i. You f^ave the last document to Mr. Tai'te. Was there a declaration or state- ment on the part of Mr. Robert McGreevy as well as yourself? — A. I believe so. Q. They were both left with Mr. Tarte?— A. 1 believe so. Q. Were those documents in hanilwriting or were they type-written? — A. 1 think they were type-written, but I am not positive ; 1 think so. Q. Y'on cannot recollect that? — A. I am not positive. Q. Then vou had a consultation with Mr. Tarte as to what should be done ? —A. Yes. Q. And did you arrive at a decision at the liist meeting? — A. I believe wo did. Q. And the decision was? — A. That these papers should lie shown to Sii" John A. ^Lacdonald. Q. But thoy had already been shown? — A. Not that I linow of. i-i. 1 thought you iiad said so? — A. You slopped me short. These pa]iers were to he shown to Sir .lohn A. ^[acdonald to defend Robert !^[c^il■eevy from charges his brother was making against him, and that ^Ir. Tarte, knowing him to be a friend of the Conserv.'itivo party lie promised to do so. Afterwards M.v. Tarte asked the privilege of me, as we liad pledged him to secrecy and not to .show them to an}' other ])erson ; he asked me if he might show them to one more. I asked him who it was ; he told me Sir Adolphe Caron, and I gave him that permission. Q. You handed the documents to Mr. Tarto with permission to show them to two?— A. Yes. Q. Was this occasion on whieh they were to be shown to Sir .Fohn ^iacdonald after yourself and Robert McGreevy knew that you could not get anymore public contracts? — A. I believe so. Q. And the idea was to remove the ban? (No answer.) Q. You wanted to Justify yourself? — A. Yes. il- That was the object? — A. I suppose so. Q. The object was j-our personal gain or ^Iv. Robert McGi-eevy's personal gain ? — A. As tar as' I was concerned,! wanted no personal gain, but I wanted to vindicate ^fr. Robert :>[eGreevy. (^ You had no personal gain in view? — A. I did not care for any more ten- dering Q. When did you give Mr. Tarte permission to publish? — A. lie never had jU'rinission. Q. Nor ever has had permission? — A. No, sir; I knew nothing about his puMishing; it was a violation of eontidenee, I might say. Q. When was it publislied ?— A. I cannot tell the date, 247 I 'ti w lit! ^* : rr i - ii .!)• i:M !|; HM 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1801 Q. How long after leavo was given ti) mIiow it to Sir AJolplio Caron? — A. T do not ixnow, Q. Now, can you identify tiio docunuMit 1 put in j-our hands as tiio document that was |)uL(lisiied y You will si'o, Mr Murphy, that there are paragraphs sup- pressed. There were two ])ublieations. Une is us it was published, and tlu' other lias the suppressed j»aragrapiis. Can you idt-ntify that statement? Ml'. (rEoKFitioN objected to the witness being asivcd to identify the documents on the ground tliat the origiiuils should be produced. WiTNKss — ] cannot tell anything about it fur the present. The original documents weie in French, and I knew part that was signed was not all published. (}. It was ])ublished tirst with some paragraphs suppressed? — A. Jl was translated to me. Q. it was I'rench, I i)eiieve, tirst. Do you understaml Frencli ? — A. No, sir. (i. The document you signed was in l'"rencii ? — A. No. Q. The document you signed was in Kngiish, then? — .\, in J'jnglish, Q. And you lead it before you signed it? — A. i diil. Q. Then, when it was published, did you notice it had been published correctly ? — A It was not. Q. AVas there any error in it, except that two or three paragraphs were sup- pressed, or not given? — A. It was publisliod in French, and 1 was unable to read it. and 1 was very much surprised to see it, and I did not know what was ])ubiisiied for some time atter. Q. Well, go on. Did y(m take means to inform yourself whether the i)ublic'ation as made, whether in Frcncdi or Fnglish, was this tiie statement substantially that you had left with .ilr. Tarte ? — A. No ; I paitl no attention to it after. i-i. You did not see whetbei- it M'as correct or not ? — A. The statement was not all published. Q. That I iiave already stated — the statement was not all ])idilished? — A. No. Q. You noticed that? — A. Yes. (i. Did you notice any other eiiors, or anything that you had not slated in the publication ? — A. I do not recollect. Q. If there had been any ei'rors pi'obably j'ou woidd liave noticed it? — A. No. Q. I am told that the tact is, it was published in the two languages? — A. 1 believe afterwards. Q. Is it; it was, I am told? — A. Yes. Q. It was ]iiiblished in tiie two languages? — A. Yes. (}. Well, then, did you read it in the Kngiish? — A. Sometimes I read it and others not. Q. Well, you have read it? — A. 1 have ivad part of his papers. Q. AYell, iiave you read the statement of Mi-. O. E. Murphy? Now it was matter with display t^'pe, a matter tliat creiited puiilic attention and aitracted public attention to a great extent. You do not want to tell me that you did not read it? — A. 1 got Mr. Tarle's jjuper once in a while, when I saw the statements. Q. 1 am speaking of the publication of this statement as it tirst apjjcared. Did you read it? — A. 1 ilid; I think it was ])ublished tirst in French, as lar as I recolleci. Q. Yes, and afterwards ? — A, D was published part of it in Kngiish. Q. Well, now, could you tell me, apart from the ]iaiagraphs that were sup- pressed, wiietliei- the statement that was jiuMished was subslantialh^ the statement that you had made ? — A. The tirst statement j)ublisheil — I think not. Q. It had been altered ? — A. I think Mr. Tarte, 1 am not positive Q. It had been altered? — A. 1 think he supjiressed .something. ara Q. AVell, I am accepting the suppressed paragraphs. Apart i'rom the suppressed grap] s, was it as given ? — A. 1 tliink not. A. Yes. Q. In what particular did it vary ? — A. I cannot recollect, Q. Because, remember, it purported to be jiublished above your signature? — US 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1801 i}. Now, was tliorc iiiiy matorial (lisrrci)ancy ? — A. I caimot recolloet tho par- ticulars MOW. Q. Wore any dates wron^ ? — A. I don't r'ocoUeet. ^ (^. Were any amounts wronj,'? — A. That I do not recollect. (j. Vou see, that was a chariie thai went to the world ahove your si^^natuie. It is a matter you surely would ])ay some attention to? — A. Without my authority. •7. Without 3'our authority; theret'oie the more attention. Now, did you take upon yourself to see whether that was eorreet oi' not ? — A. Nn. Q. Did you nudvo any corrections to Mr'. Tarte? — A. No. Q. You treated it with inditlerence? — A. With indillerence. i}. It was a matter of no concern to you? — A. Not after it was puhiished. Q. Did you complain ol'this ])idjlication ? — A. I did, 1 believe. Q. When and to whom ? — A. .Mi'. Tarte, 1 thinlc. Q. Well you would surely remember that. JJid you make any comi)laint — say to wiiom and when? — A. 1 think I complained to ^Ir. Tarte. as near as i can recollect, over the publication, and tiiat ho told me lie was resjwuisible. and that ho took the responsibility himself in the ])ublie interesl. 1 believe that was llu' answer 1 got. Q. That was the answer you f;ol ? — A. To the best of ni}' recollection. Q. Vou did not try to have it corrected at all ? — A. Xo. Q. Then did you notice it was j)ublished from time to time and at iliU'erent times in the paper? — A. J did. Q. Did you ol)iect?— A. Xo. Q. Did you see ^[r. Tarte on the intervals between jiublication ? — A. Oh, I met him severa' times. Q. You mot him several times, but did not ask him to stop the publication ? — A. Xo. Q, Did you see Mr. Robert McGroevy ?— A. I did. Q. Then, this document which was j)ublishod was the ultimate document, the residt of your meeting with ^1 r. Tarte, or was the document comiilete before you saw Mr. Tarte? — A. 1 think it was complete. (^. You think it was complete. You started to tell mo that there nevei' was any origiiud and that you ami 3lr. Tarte and 3lr. llobert McClreevy met together. AVhat do you mean by that? — A. That was a mistake on my jiart. Q. Then that was the way in which this came out; and now lot us ask for tlie rest of the documents. "2nd. All bank books, cheque books, cheques, letter books, brokers' statements, and all other books, pajjers o!' documents showing the financial transactions of said O. 10. Murjihy from the l.st 3Iay, 1SS:J, up fill 1st March, 188-i, and from 1st of June, 1884, till ist of February, 1885, and from 1st July, 188,"), till 1st April, 1888," Xow you i)roduced us yesterday a box with papers. Are tlioso ])apers, in so far as they are your return cheques from the bank, complete ? — A, They are. Q. You i.ssued no other cheques that you know of? — A. Xone that 1 know of, Q, And to the best of your belief you have cai'ofully preserved all ynnv claMpies, and you have produced them all? — A, I think I have. Q. Did you keej) the stub? — A. Xo 1 have never had stubs. Q. X(jr enter in stubs? — A. Xo, (}. Have you no other bank account than that shown b\- the cheques produced? —A, Xo, Q, That is, cheques on the Union Baidi chiefly? iJuring that time? Jt was of the Union Bank and no other bank? — A. Xo other bank. Q. Your bank books you sjioke of? — A. Yes. (J, And 3-ou have nothing to add to what you stated yesterday ? — A. Xo, sir. t^. All the baidv books for the earlier years were left in Larkin, Connolly i Co.'s safe ? — A. I believe they were, Q. Xow, what lettei' liooks have you got ? — A. Xone. , ■^vV^. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) f/. % 1.0 i:^|28 |2.5 •^' lii 1 2.2 1.1 ^.'^ I 2.0 1^ 1 ^ 1 '-^ ' * < 6" ^ ► %• /J V F '/ Photographic Sciences Corporation 33 WIST MAIN STRHT WHSTER.NY. I4SM (716) •73-4S03 4^"^ > ^ 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 i;! M M Q. Yen ? — A. No; not unless tlic}- came to tlio firm. *i. Yoii never tlionglit of copying any special letter you were writing ? — A. N'.'t that I recollect. <^. You lot it go without record ? — A. Yes. Q. That was j'our hai)it throughout ? — A. Yes. H. Then the progress statements? — A. [ have brought all I have. Q. They are not coinnlctc. however? — A. Well then, they may have been (Icstroj'ed. as the amounts have been settled up from time to time. I have not destroyed anything with any intention. (^. I am net asking that : 1 am asking whether it is not apparent from the books that there are other progress statements to produce which nro not hero? — A. I have nothing that 1 did not jjfoduce here. (}. Did you keep a cash book ? — A. Xo. Q. Did you keep any ledger? — A. No. t^. Did you keep any account with Robert ^FcGreevy ? — A. No; unless a memorandum in my diary. Q. Now you have a series of diai-ios ? — A. Yes. Q. These are not produced ? — A. 1 have them here. Q. In this box wo had yesterday ? — A. Some were in this bag. Q. In a little bag wo have not hoon ? — A. Y'es; I have petty cash books with the firm. Q. Belonging to the tirm ? — A. Belonging to me personally. (^. And some diaries ? — A. Y'es. Q. Those you have, which were not produced yesterday ? — A. They were not asked for. Q. Now produce them when the}' are asked tor ? — A. I will. Q. You are willing they should be examined ? — A. I am. Q. Would those diaries contain entries with reference to your transactions with Robert ? — A. All money transactions. Q. They are entered in the diary ? — A. Yes. Q. Will you just lot mo see how they are Kept? Take the diary for 1887 ? — A. There is part of it. Q. Lut us see how man}- books there are hero ? — A. There is one that goes back to 1885. (i. [ would like something in ISSI] or 1884 ?— A. Here is 1883. *i. This book Is pretty bailly broken up in 188:J ? — A. Yes. (}. Some pages gone ? — A. Not that I know of Q. Let ussee: uidess you took a holiwn order would be accounted for here. ii. You will tind this complete? — A. Yos; with reforonco to money paid out by me. een>s to be, troni a casual look at it, a mere record of petty cash ? — A. I do not believe [ had any private transactions with Robert .Mc'troovy during this timo. Q. Would you have any ? — A. I ilo not think so. If I drew some money I would charge it up there, the same as against other parties. 25n 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. T notice, for iiistimco, at the end of tliis booU, a pn^o with lar^'or transactionK notfii. Had you any otlicr Itooic in whicli yon noted iarjjor transactions '! — A. No bonk wlialever of any kind Imt this, unk'sw of deaiinj; with the lirm in tiie office. (I. I.ct lis SCO liow many of tiiesc nerios of Itooks there aio, i)oennse we will have to ])Ut a .Snh-Corninilleo on tiiein. Are tliese ail ? — A. Tiieseare all. (j». We commenced with ISSO — twoof them for that year. Sec if I am ri^dit, .-ih we i^o throiifili the series. Tliere are two o| IHSd, one of ISSl, one of 1SH2. one of 18s;{. one of 1S84, one 1885, one 188(i, one 1887. one 188it. one of 18!t0 ; ]8SS seems to he missing;. Will you see where it is ? — A. I do not know wliere it is. Q. Well, satisfy yourself if it is not amoni^st these ? — A. It is not there, I believe, I believed it was theie until you drew my attention to it. Q. Where would it be ? — A. It may be at the office in Quebec ; it may bo in my house. Perhaps it is in my tin box here. Q. I'lease examine tiio box ? — A. (After searching'.) Hero is the diary for 1S8S. Do 3-ou want ibe ]iape!s inside ? Q. We may as well take them all. Perhaps the}' have somelhini^ to do with tlio ease. Ami this is your diar}' for 1888? — A. What little 1 kept. Q. I think in your later diaries you used them more for liiri,'er entries. You ceased to keep the |ietty cash an[ii. Osi.Eii — What are the other ]taj)crs in the little bag ? — A. You can have them. Q. What are they geneially, Mr. .Murphy ? Are the}- papers you brought hero in consecjucnce of your sulipieiia or the order of tlu'Cominitteo ? — A. There miglit be some (if them useful to me. Some of them have reference t(» private trarrsactions lietween the (,'onnollys and myself — notes an. Having gone through them, you selected them from the other pajjors and liioughl them u]i hei'o ? — .\. Yes. Q Are they all your papers ? — A. They are all ni)- papci-s; I have no objection to the Committee trdxing tlieni all. Q. You told me yeslerilay (hat you hail a tew sircculations. and looking over-j'our clieiiires will per-hajis enable you to enlarge your views as to the vrdire of your busi- ness. Who is H. C. Hosst? ? Is he a broker? — A. He is a bi-other of .ludgo Bosse's. (^. I di'l not ask for his griindmother oi" his son. Is he a broker? — He is u broker ; I believe so, i}. Did you have any stock transact io!is with him, Through him. lie was youi' .iLrent — .Messi-s. .Mowat i*c Co. You had stock transactions thr'ougii them Mr. P. A. Shaw?— A. Yes. Mr. MucNi.ler?— A. Yes. Oswald Mros. ?— A. Yes. licary ? — A. Yes. (I. .Meretlilh and Monk, and .Mei-edith and O'Hrien ? — A. Yes. i:. Charles Met J reevy did some business for Mr. NicholtiH Conirolly and iiivself. 25 1 OI' through him Q. Iso?— A. Yc A. Yes. als( W ' !< 'i mi hi 11 54 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.1 A. 1801 Q. Tlironj^h Ilnnrahan & Co.? — A. I l)eIiovo so. Q. And I lie flioijiu's to Charles Mdireovy tor ilaiiralitiii — you knew wliero tlioy wore >;oi iif^ ? — A. Ves. Q. For in.ttnnc'O, ^vo yet n clioi|iic of 7th May, 1^87, tor ?250 to llanialian? — A. VoM. Q. On Cth July, 80.000 to llanrahan ?— A. Yes; I believe so; I take it for ^rantet'. I L'ave (!harles .Mt(rrecvy some cheipies. Q. 30th, .1 uly $7}'') '} — A. I would have to see (ho chocjuos ; I gave several cheriues. Bij Mr. Geoffrion : Q. But you arc satisfied there are such cheques ? — A. Yes. By Mr. Oder : Q. There i> another for 84,000 to llanrahan? — A. I believe I gave that ehequo. Q. And llanrahan was just a liuckot-sliop nian, was he not ? — A. I dnn't know what you call him. <^. You know the meaning of buckut-shop? — A. I considered it afteiwards a bucket-shiip. <^. The bucket never returned ? — A. Sometimes; 1 never wont in their place but once in <^ueliec, so I know nothing about the transaction. Q. Hut still you wore willing to take u (ly at his special wire? — A. With my friend Connolly. Then Mr Shaw — you had large dealings with him ? — A. Not verv Ian H I'ge, Q. Take a look over this list and say generally whether it is corivct. and yt m can correct it afterwards if it is merely a detail. You see we have put the payment of tlie checjue at tlie to|) of the column and the ilate, ane, and see if it appeals to be generally correct, and we will not go to the trouble of checking it over ? — A. I take it for granted it is. (^. Look at all the sheets, jdease ? — A. 1 woiiKl have to see the cbeijues to com- pare with each. Mu. (iKoKKiiioN objected to witness being asked to sweai' to the correctness of a Hlutcment he had not had an o])p:>rtunily of examining. (i. See whether the general volume is correct. Ij)()k over this list and >ay whether the general volume of the transactions i.i corivct, subject to coi'rectioM in any individual item ? — A. I have said 1 would take it for gi'anteil it is correct. Q. I ant y ou to loidv at it first ? — A. I am lookinn' at it. Mu .Mi'i.ocK — H3' whom is it prepared ? Mh. Osi.Kii — i{y Mr. llj'do. It was prepared by him yesterday from the cheques, and it was done to save time. Mil. (it'iOFKRioN — (To witness). Don't take it for granted ; if yon do not undcr- sfantl the books leave the responsibility on the man who prei)arcd it. — A. 1 shall. Jiy Mr. Oder : Q. Now, 1 see n great many cheques here to Charles McfJreevy — 82r)0, S.'tOO, 8.')(i(), $100, 82,000 — apart from tho>e given to him which were marked llanrahan. What whore those given for ? — A. I would state his father, it was possible, would send a note to me to borrow money, and I gave it to Charles in order to trace it — all these choqiu's signed for llanrahan. Q. I am saying they are not for llanrahan. 1 find others far as I can say. 252 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 *i. 'I'll Cluirlos 111' [{olioit ? — A. Ti) Charles itr for lloluTt, I cannot toll wliich ; llial is as near as I can ivcolloct. il. Takt' your pass-hook of li.'nh April. 1K87, and toll nie if that cIicmhio is (.'iitori'd ? — A. I should think not. hut I will look. The nio.st in my diary would have reference to Larkin. ('onnolly iV <'o. <^. The later diaiies seem to earry tin* larj^o transuetions. oi- some of Iheni. Ih there any entiy in that IHS" diaiy as to what that S'i.'jd is ior? — A. Xo: I have an entry here of 'J.'iO shares of Uiclu-lieii. (I. That is ■"hare^, not dollars, Look at the 141 h .Tuly, 1887, and see what entry you have of the transaetion there? — A. There is none. (J. Look at a ilay liefore or a day or two after? — A. There is none, out on the 21st there is an entrj* lieie of 81,000 ai,'ain>t Thomas .MeOreevy. (l [iook at that (dieipie for §2,0((0 on the Utli .Fuly. 1887, and say what that is tor. Have you anylhinjf to aid ^'our memory ? — A. Notliini^ iiui my pass-liook. I was in the liahil of ehanirini,'ehe(jues with .^^r. MefJreev}', and this may have been an exehamxed clie(|ue. (^. Vou see this is a cheque to the order of yourself, with '"<'. II .Mi-." marked on it. It is endorsed by j'ou ? — A. 1 am in the habit of e.xehanging cliecjues. When it wa> paid it would bi' eancelleil. <^. Have you anythinfj to show it was an ex(diango of ehe([ues? — A. Xo. (l. (iive me your baid< pass-book of .lul}'. 1887. I want to iijet at your system of book-keepini;, if system there be. You see there is a ehe<(ue for .82,000 eharj^ed, iiut theie is no depo>it of 82,000 there? — A. It is eharj^od ('. II. MetJreevy, as the elu'ipie reads. (}. Hut there is no creilit on the other side to show it would be an exchange? — A. The ex( han<,'cd ehe(|ue I would simply put in my poeket until sueh time as they were re.idy to pay it. (I. Hut you see no such deposit for a long time? — A. Sometimes I would got the eash and use it. il I see an entry here of 21st .luly. 1887, to T. MeGreevy. That is a little off the line of the nresent examination, but is that a record of money you jtaiil toThomas .Mctiieevy on that day ? — A. Yes. Q. What does that entry mean ? — A. Money I gave to Thomas Meiireevy on beiialf of the tirm. Q. You have that in your memory clear? — A. Yes. il. There i.s nothing in the entry to show what it was given for? — A. F got u clieipie back from the tirm for the amount. Q. Was the entry made at the time ? — A. It was. Q. And you got a che(pio back from the tirm for that amount? — \. \ checjuo, or a credit on the books of the tirm. Q. Which was it ? Your bank-book does not show any cheipie from the tirm ? — A. The book-keeper will probably explain that. : •: I 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Mb. Osi.ek— I put in tho hank book from 1886 to 1888 (Kxhihit "X9"), ami rotor to till) )m;;o covorinji? iho .hily account. Witnows iilentiticw the pencil entry of 2l8t .Inly, "rtolf Lurkin (/onnoliy iV ('om|)any " in pencil, opposite u dehit of 91.*'00, as the entry having reference to that checjue. Jle ideiitilie« the entry in Iuh diary of the 2lHt of .July, 1887, (Kxhihit "SU ") as tho entry witli roleronce to tliat $I,U(>I). Q. .Still speaking; of your j)roductions, 1 Hnd in your papers throe promissory notes made hy ^-ourself to IJohort Mcirrocvy. The tirst March, 188I(, for g4,0OU, and interest at 5 per cent ? — A. That is correct. tj. Then we have the IStli December, lS8i», g.'J.OOO; l!Hh Fehruary, 18itl, 8750, at 15 days. Were those accommoilation notes? — A. Some of them were and some not. Q. Which of them?— A. The 84.000. I believe 1 owed Mr. McCrcevy that nmount of money, as near as I recollect. (^ That one, then, is for value. Now the otiiors? — A. 1 think tho other is about the same, as near as I recollect? Q. That you owed liim? — A. Yes. Q. You owed him this money, and yavo him these promissory notes ? — A. Until I gave him the cash. Q. And then you took up the notes? — A. Yes. ('Ihe three notes weio tiled and marked K.\hil)it " Y !> ".) Q. Now, refer to your pass hook of 4th .Iiine, lS8ti, where you find a deposit to your credit in the hank for 87,500, and toll me where that money came from, if you can ? Have you any means of knowing? — A. I do not know that I liavo any moans of knowing. When 1 got a cheijue I deposited it to my credit. Q. I propose to show, and it is apparent — at least, I make that statement after veritication, not by myself — that theie is no such money coming from the Connolly firm ; — that you did not receive it from tho Connolly firm. Can you toll me where you received it? — A. I would receive it from one of my hi-okers. Q. From one of your brokers ? — A. 1 suppose so. Q. Now, on 5th .lanuary, 1887, there is another round sum of 810,000. Appa- rently from Larkin. Coniinlly &, Co.'s books that does not come to you from the firm ? Where would it come from ? — A. I think it would come from Mr. Clewos in New York. The Union Bank wanted some money, I think, and I drew on Now York. Q. On ;ird March following, in tho samo year, there is 85,280, not received by you from tlie tiim. Where would that come from ? — A. I suppose the same way. Q. I may come back to this in another light presently, and I want you to give me your best judgment. — A. 1 have no other knowledge. Q. And there would be no other source. Uemember tliis may appear to be immaterial now, but it may come to be material ; and I do not want you thon to have any back door. — A. 1 have no other knowledge. (J. Tell me where it comes from, or say you do not know ? — A. I do not know. (J. Where would it j)robably come from? — A. Une of my brokers, I suppose. ii. Wouhl there be any other source? — A. No; unless I got it from Kobort Mc< rreevy. Q. Did it come from there ? — A. It is ])08sible. Q. Now, 1st Ai)ril, 83,000. Would your answer bo tliosamo? — A. Is that tho samo year? ii. The same j'oar. — A. I have no knowledge. (■i. Would your answer be the same as to the 85,280? — A. Tho same. (i. It might come from two possible sources — always supposing 1 am right that it does not coiuo from tiio firm — it would either come from your brokers or from liobert McGreevy? — A. Yes. (i. Then there is anotlier ilom— 17th Juno, 1HS7, 8.J,000. AVould that bo the same ? — A. I sup|)08e it woulil. Q. Is that your host recollection ? — A. It is my best recolloction. 254 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 (I. Ynii know of iiM otlior .-ourco ': — A. No; I'itlier my lnoUois oi- JJobert ;Mc(irwvv. (/. r»ih Aui;u>t. 82,400. Tliu mtniu miswor ? — A. It' it is tlio (.jime year it would be the sanu; aii-wer. il. L'lth Aii^'ii>t. 82.000? — A. It would lio the sumo answer. (^. Yiiu nuitc undorslmid tlu.t tlioso aiiHWors may in'como ol ? — A. Thirty, 1 believe. Q. Well, I have it the tlio HtattMiioiit, and I Ittiliuvu thuio is no cliari^o at all with roforeiice to tho tiiMt con> tract. That is tho contractor 1878? — A. I do not know anytiiitijjf about tho contract at all. ii. You Hharcd in that, but you have not mado any char^o with rotVronco to it ? — A. [ know nothing about that. (^. Wcro you tlio ono that tii-Ht propoHod tho payment of money to Thomas .\|((Jr«'ovy y Were you the one who oriirinated the idea? I jud^o ho from tho evidence you have j^ivon ? — A. Thonuis Mctireovy himMolt Hrst asked 85,000 for iJeaucago. (■l. Hut the ori;,'inal inception of anythini,' whicli in irregular or improper was your proposal — That is to pay g-'i.OOO? — A. It was. Q. The sugf^est ion <'anie from 3'ou? — A. It did. (^. And was made by you to Mr. ThomaH McCrreevy of your own notion — your own i. How lon;^? — A. I tbiidi, may bo u week or two. t^. A week or two before liie contract was awarded? — A. I think it might bo tiiat lime. t^. What was tiie i)osition of affairs at the time you ^iigijestr'd that 825,000? If we can gel that, we can gel at the date in that way ? — A. That is a <|Ue8tion 1 cannot answer. . i Ihink you must make an etfort ? — A. .\o. i}. What was the position of alVairs ? — A. Tho tenders weio here at Ottawa. Q. Meing worked out ? — A. Yes. (}. And the working out had not been accomplished? — A. I do not know about that. i-l. AVhat is your recollection ? — A. 1 have no knowledge of that. I was in t^iieiiee when tho tenders were here. Q. Now, there would be some object in making tho otl'er. What was the con- diliitn of all'airs? You did not know at that time, apparently, whether one of tho three tenders you controlled would not be accepteil? — A. We got orders at tho time to withdraw (iailagher's tender and we would got Hcaucago's, aixl Mr. Medreevy told me he wanted to promise Heaucage 85,tMI0; and I then thought if we coiilil got that (lone it was possible to get tho Larkin. Connolly \ Co. tender accepted; and I made the pi'oposilion and tounii you cnmo to hand ovurtlic82r>,0tU) in notes ? — A. Wo ^<»t tlio (•r)ntruct. and I oxpuctcd wo would pay tlio money a» wo ^ot it out of tlio works, and Ijoltcrt Mdiroovy cnmo to mo, and aftor oonHuiting with my jtarlnoiH Iht- notos wimv uivi-n. (/. Thon yi»u knew Boaii<-a;;e had withdrawn liiu tonder ? — A. No. Q. Had aniendod it — (ialhigher hud withdrawn? — A. Yon. Q. What day wan it tho 82r),l»0() in notes wan dolivored ? — A. I cannot tell that. (I. Was it after the contract was executed ? — A. I Ixjliovo so. Q. Will you say so? — A. To tho host of my Judirnient. Q. I want lo ;^et a niore cloar H*alenit>nt from you of tho parties who woro pre- sent when tlie notes were handed over. Who was |)rosei)t when you handed over tho $2.').(MM)? — A. To the l)ertt of my recollection they woro all present. (^. Who wore all ? — A. Mr. Larkin, Mv. Nicholas Connolly and I heliovo Michael Connolly. Q. And who else? — A. Itohcrt .Mcdreovy. q. Anil?— A. Myself. Q. And ? — A. I think Thomas .Mctireovy came down stairs for u while. (I. Do you say whotlicr ho was there or not at tho time the notes woro handed to ]{ol)ert ? — A. Of that 1 have no lecolloction, hutto the host of myopinion he was not. <^. Vou handed them to IJohert without Thomas heinj^ there ? — A. That is my recollection. il. Has that always heen your recollection ? — A. It was, I think. if. Then that is clearly an error in your ovidomo at tho top of page .'511 : '•ii. You promised 825,0(»() to Mr. thunias MctJreovy? — A. Yes, "(J. Did you give it to him?— A, Yes." You say at page 1(I!( that is incorrect ? — A. Ye.s ; I corrected tluit. (^. At page Ki'.t witness says this: " There is a (piestion here 1 would like to havo corrected. It is at )>age ."{9 of the printed evidence, and is as follows ( read> evidence). What 1 stated in reply to tho (juestion 'Did you give it to him?' was, 'that I gave these no:es to Ins hrothor l{ohert.' That is what 1 answered at the time." Q. Now, do you think .Mr. Thomas MctJreevy was present ? You say j'ou think not when tho notes we;') handed over? — A. I cannot tell. To the host of my know- ledge I do not think he was. Q. That is your Judgment ? — A. Yes. il. This is what you sai as i nomas .Hc'ireovy present ? — A. I am not clear on th.^, point where he stood. We all wcr.t out to Dalhousie street. 1 think Mr. Mctrreevy was present, but I am not clear on that. 1 would not like to swear |)ositively." Mr. Mii,i,8 (Bothwell) — Kead on turther. At the hottom of tho page he says : '^ By the Chairmiin : t^. Was Thomas McOreevy present when the notes were delivered to his hrolher I{()l)ert? — A. I ,000 each. <^ That is not what 1 am asking you. 1 am asking you whetlier those two of live thousand were substituted for the original notes? — A. I believe they were substituted, to the best of my knowledge and belief. tj. Then substituted by you and given by you'/ — A. Yes. Q. To whom ? — A. Jiobert Mctrreevy. H. The dealing was with him, was it 'f — A. After I gave a note the dealings all were with him. Q. And these two notes you think were probably the substituted notes. They are in your handwriting throughout including both the making and endorsing. Look at them 'i — A. Yes. (I. And apparentlj- they have never been through any bank ; there is no bank mark on either of them ? — A. No ; I was notified :rui i 259 1-lTi f ■f?:i Hi- ; 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 I .' Q. AiiNWortheiiuuAtioii, ploithc. Tlioro are no liaiik iimi-kHnppiiri'ntly on tlioni? —A. N... (I, You wiy you paid tliOKO iioU'h ? — A. I did. (I. Wiit'ii did y(Mi nay tliem? — A. Ah wo would have inoiiey. (^, Altoiit when did you pay lliem'.'' — A. I eariiiot leli. Q, Have you any entry in those hooiis rthuwing wlioii you paid tliein ? — A. No, the l)ook-i\efper known. 1^. Tiiey would appear in Larkin, Connolly iV: Co.'h hooks? — A. Yes. Q. Were the demand notes paid het'ore or alter the time notes? — A. That 1 cannot toll. Q. What is your belief'? — A. I heliove, wiien the company would have money (^. What is your helirf, not wlivn the company would have money? — A. I have no recollection whether the demand notes or lime notes were paid tirsl. (J. You cannot say ? — A. No. (}, One way or another. Wlieio did you pay those demand notes ant about that in 3'oiir own mind — you were the liiumcial manai^cr at that time? — A. Yes. if. You would he the one ? — A. Yes. {}. You drew money jind you paid tho notes? — A. I did. il. And you retained them? — A. I returned them to tho otHce of Larkin, Con- nolly iS; Co. (.1. You returned them to the otlice of J^arkin, Connolly & Co. When ? — A. As Hoon as ! paid tlu-ni and took tlicm up. i}. Now, did you not retain thost- notes yourself until the audit? /ere they not in your possession until the next audit ? — A. They may liave been, I liave no recollect if tn. (^. You know there was a j^ood deal of trouble about the audit? — A. Yes. . Now, sir, at pa^e 45 you were askeil : M^. Did you pay the notes subse- quently? — A. I did. (^. Who to?- A. Dill'orent ]>aitie.s. (^. You took up the notes. Where were they? — A. Different ])laces. One was paid in .lames J{oss' otlice. I always diew the money out of tho bank and j)aid them without ^ivini^ clieques. <^. ^Vere the entries oftliese ))ayments duly maile in tho book of the company ? — A. The books of the com|>any were not auditeil up in time. Then^vasa goiKliloal of trouble about them after." 1^. Is that true, there was a j.;ood deal of trouble about them? Of what kinec to go down to tho otHco and these notes wore all on top, if you |)lease, and 1 turned tho notes all over, and I said, " there are the notes." Q. Then 3'ou produced the notes to tho auditor ? — A. Xo,8ir. Q. They were in the office, they had never been entered up ? — A. That I can- not tell. Q. x'ou said before: " There was a good deal of trouble about tijom." Wore the entries of tho notes in the books? — A. No. Q. Will you explain tho naturo of tho item? Y'ou produced these as vouchors for Mr. Kimmitt to enter up? — A. Tho clerk always had charge of these. Q. You produced them ? — A. No, sir ; they wore on his desk when I got down. 260 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 (^. Willis*' l^e^k ? — A. Till' c'lurk's and aiuiitor'H (K-skH. (j. Who liail lianiiod tlioiii in to tliu otHeo? — A. I liaiiii tlioiii in when I paid or tlioni. ii And wlii'io would thoy be kopl? — A. In Iho salt'. (^ Tlit-n, will you tull nu- what wan the iroiihle alioiit tlu'in at tho audit 'f — A. The auditors — Mr. Kininictt on ludiall of Mr. liarkin — did not know what ihry iiioant and a propor c.xplatuition had to Im> j^ivon — what tlii-y wt>ri> tor and what account they would lie ciiaiircd lo. *l. Tlii» was, ot cour.-c, in the audit that took place nearly two year?, afterward? —A. The audit of ISSa. <^. And from tho ilay thoy were paid in IHHIJ until IS**.'! they di (luestion came up hclore the audit you would lie tlir pei-xui (o produce them ? — A. They were under the control of tho ( leik. (.1. You were tho tinancial maiuij^er ? — A. Yes. (J. There had been choipies given which would represent these notes — cheijues for cash? — A. Yes. '^. Will you tell me when these (hei|Ues wen- made ? Look at this (dit([ue of the 4th December, 188.'{, and ttdl me whelherthis cheipieis to retire oneot the notes? — A. I believe it is. . (J. A cliei|iie of the Hh l)ecend)er, IXS.'!. for a note that would be apparently a time note. Can you identify the notes by their due dates, and tell me which . Have you looked over Larkin, Connolly & Co.'s cheques to seo when they were paid? — A. I have not. t^ Were ilioy paid by Larkin, Connolly i*c Co.'s cheques drawn by j'ou ? — A. I ii'lu'vo so. t^. Could they have boon paid in any other way? — A. They might have been, iinctimos Larkin, Connolly & Co. had not the money and I usetl my own, 261 'J: ■ '■ ! 'I' '■ \i '-I :\\ I "'iii|i, ml rU •, I u !, 1 > hf ;t,vl| 64 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 HI •■* *.}. Look at these ehoques. This is a cheque ot' the 14th May, 1S83, ami the other the 1st of June, 1883. Woro they t.i retire the>e tiemaiui iioteH? — A. It miglit have been these. (J. How can j'ou retire a demand note made months afterwards by cheques at the lieginiunir of Juno and May? — A. The notes were made 1st of May, and conse- quently would he paid. Q. Bui 3'ou Bee these baidv cheques were paid about the dates they bear. Xow, sir. these are the only cheques in Larkin. t'unnolly \- Co.s account which will eor- respond with or pay these tirst two notes. Tlie UH»ks will show it. Will you explain yourself, if explanation yrui have, how it wa- that thcM- chccjues were issued prior to the making of the contract, prior to the date you say the notes were made — the original notes — and these cheques are drawn by yourself? — A. They are made to the order of N. K. Connolly. Q. What did you draw thetn for? — A. Mr. Connolly can explain that. q. What for?— A. To his onler. {}. Take that one dated the 14th May. l"*s.'{. and which is paid by the bank on or about that date. What was that for? — A. Mr. Connolly- will have to explain it. Q. You cannot? — A. No. Q. Can you explain this ol the 1st June? — A. Mr. Connolly will have to ox- plain it. <^ You cannot ? — A. No. (}. Can j'ou tind me .'iny other cherjues or any other vouchers for that part of the §2.').0(Ml, except tiiese two cheques ? — A. The book-keejior will have to find that ; I do not know anything about it. Q. What explanation is there, supposing there are none ? How do you recon- cile your evidence ? — A. The evidence is. t<> the best of my recollection, how the transaction occurred. (J. How do you reconcile J'our evidenoses of the firm — tor instance, the pay rolls. Mr. OsLER (to witness). The question I put is a hypothetical question. If there are no other vouchers for these notes, how dposing. then, if these were ])roperly chargeable to the pay-rolls, there are no vouchers for the remainder of the 5*2.">.nOii ? — A. ^H' these amounts, one is to Nicholas Connolly and the other to Michael Connolly; they must account for them. Q. I tell 3'ou. and I assume what I tell y<»n is correct, it these cheques arc appli- cable to the pay-roll the firm has not paid t he Si.'j.ooo ? — A. They have. Let .Mr. Connolly — both of them — account for the chei|Ues. Q. The cheques arc drawn by you ? — A. Ye>. Q. The}- were drawn before the \ve;ir they are not ? — A. I am swearinir now, I think. Q, 1 do not want any qualiticatioiis. Will you swear tliej- are not? — A. Mr. iJobt-rt Mctireevy will give his statement as to how the notes were painl them? — A. I do not think so. (}. Iy.«.k and see?— A. What is the dale? V- 14th May, 188;^. J>o you tind an}- eiUr\'? — .\. 1 cannot tind any. (I. Now, you say the tigures on those cheques indicated pay roli>— tlo they? You mildly suggoted that Just now. Look at them again. — A; I do nut know whoso ligure^ they are, uidess they are the teller's. t^. Ywled<'e and belief this has not been for the notes. f^. Theyareclearly not tor the nay-rolls? — \. When I had any for the pay-roll Q. They are not t»)r the pay-rolls. Answer the question ? — A. I tlo ni»t think so. t;. Now. >ir, do you know that it was the absence of vouchers tor that ten tliou.sand that ilelayed Mr. Ivimmitt in his nudit until the 2nd of .lune, ISS.j ? — A. No. .-ir ; he had these notes befoi-e him. «^. You say he had the notes before him ? — A. Yes. *l. Why do you know ? Was it the cause of .N[r. Ivimmitt signing as lute as the 2nd .lune. ls8.") ? — A. >[r. Ivimmitt can inform you better than I can. ^l. Well, answer me a little better as to the troul)le you speak of on page 45 ? • Then.' was a good deal of trouble about that after." — A. I have explained that already. t^. Do it over again ; perhaps you have got more light since. — A. They did not know the account, and they did not have the notes although the}* had them on their tiles before them. «;. They did not have the notes,although they had them on the tiles before llicm. but on top. and you opened them out?- -A. In presence (»f .Mr. Connolly. <^. Yes: you always want company. I[ow many meetings were there in reference to that audit ? — .V. Only one with mc. Q. How long was it delayed ? — A. That is more than f can tell. The auditors and the b«M»k-kee|)er were very slow, and I had discharged the pievioiis book-keeper, and a new U»ok-keejH'r, Mr. .^^artin Connolly, came to the tirm. and he founil a great many erroi-s in the books, and he lined them with a pencil mark, ami a new man tt)ok charge that did not understand the books. '^ Did you see Robert Mctxroevy about the time that these cheques were drawn? — A. I cannot answer. • /. iJut you had a little tniancial dealing with him at th;it lime? — A. Yes. (i. On the 14th of May I see one cheque is drawn, and then, on that day I tind Mr. Ridn-rf Mco you know of j-our own knowledge whether there was any figuring up or figuring down? — A. Not to m^' own knowledge. Q. Do 3'ou know from anything that has come to your knowledge with refer- ence to the figures that they have been honestly, extended or otherwise? — A. I believe Q. Not 3-our belief — 3-onr knowledge. I am told that they figured out eoi'rectl3' and p;operl3'. Have 3-0 u an3' knovvledgo to the contraiy? — A. I ma3- here state that they would not. Q. What would not? — A. The tenders as they went in. i}. Would not figure out as what? — A. As reported. Q. By Mr. Perley ?— A. Yes. (^ Have you tested that 3-ourself ?— A. I know it to be a fact. Q. in what particular is there an error? — A. Concrete, for instance. 264 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. You know it is not ti^iireil out ])ropoi'Iy ? — A. For anyliody else who knows as well an me, tlie ilifi'erenco liotwotMi tho amount that was paiil and tlio amount tliat was tiiiurcd. l}. I want you to put your tinijcr on tlio error. I want you to tell mespcciticall}- wliat errors tliere woiv in these tenders. You have sworn there was tiifiirini; up and tinurini^ down. You say you have some knowleilge. State it / — A. I have asked Mi-. McGreevy how it was done. i^. I am not a> the best of my UiiDwIedgo there wcuild be 35.0(10 yards used; probably it would be nearer 4i),0(IO. Jii/ Mr. Edgar : i}. Do you mean, supposing there were .'{5,000 yards of comont required, would 2(i5 t u< iWs 1 M ■ - 5 ^ n 1 M :■ II I. !i I I' 1:1 i| 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 that liavu altered the Htanding of the tender if put there, iiiHtcad of 15,000? — A. Certainly. Mr. Osi.ER — He Hays at j)age 43, and there is also a refercnfc at page 42: "Q. How was I'eters' tender got rid of ? — A. That is for somolto ly else to answer b«(si(les myself. Q. VV^ere you told ? — .\. We were told he was tiguied over Larkin Connolly & Co. Q. Who told you that? — .\. Thomas MeGreevy. In other words, the answer was given to ine that instead of being tiirured down they weie being figured up." That being on the record, my (juestion has referent-e entireh- to the transactions prior to the signing of the contract. Jill Mr. Kirkpdfrii'k : Q. .Vrethc estimated quantities given in each tender? — ;V. As put in originally ? Q. Ves?— A. No. Q. Was not (he estimated amount of conciote, 1.5,000 yards', in each tender? — A. The item I was looking at was $1 instead of 88. Q. You have no knowledge, to come back to tlie original question, of any improper extcMMon ? — A. Personal knowledge? Q. Ves?— A. No. Bi/ Mr. Edgar : Q. There were no (|uantities put in witli the tenid the department give infornuition as to the ((uantilies you were to make np ? — A. It was for tiie contractor to look at the plans. Q. And he figures out himself? — .\. Yes. (}. And he makes his own calculations? — A. What the cost of each article won III be. Q. Take one article of cement you mentioned. Is that a (luantity given in the plan or specification, or form of tender or advertisement, or any other docunu'iii issued liy the Department? — A. No. Q. Then, if you come to estimate upon it you make up the ([uantity in 3'our()\vii mind — is that it ? — A. Yes. Q. Then you might make it ten thousand dollars astray? — A. Yes; it might W. Q. So that if you tendered below another man the quantity the engineer wouM put in would determine whether you were a higher tender or he was higher tcinl erer? — A. The cost is estimated on the quantity per yard. By Mr. Laiujelier : Q. Would the plans as e.xltibitod to the tenderers show .'{.'JiOOO yards or 15,(lii0 yards, or what quantity would thev show as being the probable quantity that woiil'l 26ti 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 ! 1 be necessary? — A. Well. I am of opinion it woulil show more than this, but I have no authority on that point. By Mr. Geoff rion : Q. Would it show more than the amount the enifineer gave ? — A. You could L'ot the iimount the Government paid for ditJ'eront items, and tiien add them up. Bij Mr Osier : Q. Now, with reference to Contract No 1. When you came in tiio ciiicineer was Mr. ]iol)ert Pilkington, was he not? — A. The Graving Doclv? Q. No; the first cimtract. — A. I don't know h\-< first name — it \va> I'ilkiiigton. t^. Was that a schedule of rates, or was that a bulk sum at that time ? — A. I lie- lieve it was a scliedule of rates. (^. So you were paid for what yon ilid ? — A. Yes. Q. Then Messrs. Kinipple and Morris were at that time the Eiigineers-in-Chief? A. They were. Q. That was when you came in? — A. Yes. Q. When and where did you see Mr. Kinipple or Mr. Morris at work, or diil you deal entirely with Mr. Kinijiple? — A. Mr. Morris was there several times,! believe. Q. What year? — A. I think it was in 1881 ; he may have been in 1882. Q. AVhat were your specific complaints in reference to that contract, confining yourself to that contract, and having regard to the ccmduct of the Engineers. Messrs. Jvinnipple and Morns? What was the ti ible? — A. It was about getting estimates. Q. Who did you get estimates from — Pilkington, or Kinipple and Morris ? — A. Pilkington. Q. Well, then, was your complaint against I'ilkington — was tliat the trouble? — A. The trouble was against both Pilkington and Kinipple and Morris. Q. But they only acted through Pilkington, 1 understand ? — A. I nnilerstgre>s estimate? — A. No. Q. Pilkington had to act on his own judgment? — A. Yes. Q. What else was there against Kinipple and Monis beside^ delay in the e>ti- inates — I mean, from the contractors' view? — A. We wanted to get iliein removed. Q. What was ngainst them? — A. They would s.ot give the contractors what tlicv wanted. C^. What was it you wanted they would not sr've ? — A. C'hanges. (^. What changes? — A We wanted to get stone backin. Who did not?— A. Pilkington. •^ Now, wo have two items — stone backing and temporary colfenlani. What next ? — .\. We could not get paiil for extras as wo wanted them. 'i. What extras ? — A. Different items. 2G7 1 1. ' ' lli.i I 1. I sl m ' ■ til 4 J r i I'] m ■: I , . i ', illi 'I i'. 'i, 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. What extras did you claim? Let in <^ot down to the siiecific. What extras did Mr. Pilkinj^ton disallow or Iviniiiplc and -M<»rris disallow? — A. Tiio tein- poraiy i-otfer-dam. (}. Wo liavo |)assed tliat, and the stone Ijackinfr. — A. Tliero was ^^onoral com- plaint. t^. I do not want ffoneralitios. Wo want details. Como right down to tho items, |)lenso. — A. I prctlT not to go intodetails. (I. Hill I want you to. I do not want this t'roni a gi'm-ral statement. I want to analyse thorn, and sco what is in them. 1 want ti> see what tlieieis to meet. Now goon: tem|)()rary ('ot!or-dam and stone hacking. Wliiit was tho next item of com- jdainl against either the Kngineers or the llesidcnt Knginoei' '.■' — A. That we could not get our progress estimates as we wanted, and alan? — A. Yes. Q. Did it occur to you that that would be sufficient cause to got another engineer? — A. It did. (i. Was it not a sufficient cause for the removal of the engineer? — A. I think so. (^. Then, when Mr. I'erle}' came in, was the matter changed and the tlitliciilty cured? — A. Afier some time it was. il. But how did .Mr. I'erley's plan compare Avith the original ]tlan ? — A. Xo changes, except the shortening up of the dock. Q. I5ut you got a po •manont work, after which, under the former plan, there was very great difficuliy? — A. Yes. Q. And appaiently an impossibility? — A. Yes. Q. An im])Ossibility within any reasonable expenditure to cany it out? — A. Yes. Q. Thou you did not, of course, know when tho (|ucstion was asked as to their removal who was t<» succeed ? — A. Well, wo wore pretty well posted on that; but, of course, I have no knowledge of that personally. t^. You expected it to go into the Department of Public Works? — A. Yes. Q. When did you first know that? — A. By the removal of Kinipple and Morris. Q. After they huil been removed? — A. Yes. Q. 3[cssrs. Ivini|iple and Morris were engineeis residing in London or Glasgow, on the other side of the water? — A. London, I believe. Q. Ami they acted in tliis country < hiefly by the youiiju, man whom they sent out ?— A. Yes. Q. And Mr. Morris occasionally visited tliis country ? — A. Yes. Q. Do you know that Mr. Pilkington was not well during a good ])art of this time, suffering from an unfortunate infirmity? — A. That is about the time ho left or was dismissed. 268 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. For some time before tliat? — A. I do not think he was Hufl'erin^ much. (^. Do you know theie was complaint in iho public nowsjuipei-s with lospect to liini ? — A. We were writing; most ot those tilings ourselves. Q. Were they with reference to his stale of healtli ? — A. I think not. t^. \\ lien you make that statement, do you make it >oiioii>ly, tliat these com- plaints were bein^ made?- A. I believe Michael Connolly done most of it. Q. Vou did not do an\ '.'' — A. I brouj^ht some to the newspapers. {.I. What newspapers? — A. The Quebec Tekijraph. (}. Any other |)apcr? — A. No; we chiefly used that. (^. Now. speakini; of Kxhibits " K .") " and " G 5, " you wore asked to explain the nature ot the item, " Expense, 87.H!I3.14. That is in Hxhibit " K,"»," mentioned at j)a||(|L ; *!.. .»l I . .»i\^\iicv.% y iiii_l;iii \«(tiii .'^#iin yn ii, tiii>i iwi i| . iivi Ulll (J. Is that all money that was improperly applied ; not iisin:^ " impropeiiy " ii lie sense that you understand it, but as it is oidinarily understood? — A. I bdiev t it waf. l^, The whide ofthat? — A. 1 thiidc so, \V, I 11^ »»H»'IV »'l III II l^ . * ».. ■ I 111 1 I IV .^» ». (}. TluMi you were asked. •What is the natuie of the item, 8'5;'\(l(>i) 'suspense' ill KNliiliit • F .')■?■■ And you leplied "' j-'or th(^ same purpose, I believe, most of it. [ iiaid most of it myselt ; I had the che(|Ues there." " »^. And about S.'i.tiiiu ' cx]]" ' ill "ti .'»"? — A. That was for the .same piir|)oso. Take F.xhibit •' K ."> " tirst ai 1 •'._____ . . i' * . .r*"* (Ilk*! If ... " . _ . o t '111 A laid most ot It mvselt ; 1 had the clie(|Ues there. " »,». And ahout s.>,tl(iu 'expense . - II - - .md see now far you are correct ii reference to 87, 3!l."> "expense" account? — A. That amount 1 l.'ciieve. some of it. has been juiid out to donations as such; elections. The book- keeper coiilil ex|dain it. \>. Vou sweai- to this as correct ? — A. 1 do not swear means. to its correctness by any (^. Here is :i copv of the ledirer, referring; to this 87,olt.'!. I see : subscriiitions, St. Catharines •/oi/r/i«/, Montreal Post; Cummin's account for hoi>e-slioeiny; ; eiassi- tlratjoii of pay-roll ; vinegar for Hie horses. iVe. Do you see tlu' small items for expei'se, "viiie;^ar for horses rrv, sl(i.4L' ; half auditor' \\a^ tor these donations and thiiiijs. r horses. 17) cents ; whiskey (i>r men. 8-.r)0 ; Ivcepinij horses at i|iiarrv, sl(i.42 ; half auditor's allowance, 8-**<(." This is the aceoui>l which you said \\a^ tor these donations and thiiiijs. It seems to be a ^.eneral expense account for liiat y(!ar ? — A. Theie is a donation here, 81<*(i. It is tor the bm. Q. Tlioii, Mr. Murpiiy, on the other expemlitiire of yours, I may uh well ask you now: you said that in reference to ihe supplementary contract for cfredijinji; that you retaineil 8.>,000 ami spent 87,000 in Mr. Mc(ireevy's election, that was the election wiiicli took place on tho 22n(l of Vobruary, 188". Now. how did you pay out that 87,000 ? Did it eventually come from cheques drawn on your banking account y — A. 1 drew one cheque of 85,000 and another of 8-,00((. Q, On whose account ? — A. Larkin, Connolly \ Co. i}. That came throuay any from j'our own banking account ? — A. I don't think I did. Il may be possible I drew that 82,(MM». ii. It may be possible you drew that 82,000 from your own account, and it would be refunded? — A. Yes. i.i. Hut you had the nioney in bills, and you either got that money from the tirm anil refunded it, or you got it from your own banking account, and that wa> refunded after the election? — A. Yes. i}. Then, about when did you draw that first moiiev'? — A. The ten thousand dollars? 'Q. You drew 810,000, you sa v. I mean with relerence to this 87,000 ?— A. I drew 85.000. i.}. In one cheque? — A. One cheqtie. (^. Your own order ? — A. I think so. Q. And got the money from tho bank? — A. One was my own order. I think it was one of my partners who was there. I got the money myself from the bank. Q' And put it in your pocket ? It became a wad ? — A. Yes. <^. And you kept it in the wail form until it was called for ":* — A. Yes. (^. In what size bills ? What size did you want for a Quebec election '{ — A. I was in the habit of tlrawing generally fives, but 1 think these were tens. Q. So you carried about with you for the jiurpose of that election 85,000, in ton dollar bills, and distributed them as thoy were called for ':* — A. 1 did not carry them long. 1 have the names of the parties iiere wlio got them. Q. Did you draw at all from your own account '/ — A. I have an8were '). (}. The bank was also reijuiivd to produce a statement of any iliatt d;awn by Kubert II. Mctireevy on New York. Jlave you i^ot such a statement ? — A. No; we have none liy Robert H. Mctrreevy. I will i^ivc you a statement of all the tii^ures uhiidi havt' uone throui^h the haidc. I ])roiluce a statement ot' the iliscounis of Larkin, Connolly \ Co. for a certain jH'riod (Kxhibit '• AlO ") ; and a cojiy of the rec|iiisition for a draft niade by O. K. Murphy on llenrv Clews A: (.'o., of New York, f..r.S1.000, dated !>th February 188-1 (Kxhibit " H 1(1.")"^ Q. You were also required to produce the depo>it slips? — A. All the deposit sli]is licloni^ini; to Robert Mctrrcevy t'rom onwards are here, with the exception of one for 84,100. which 1 cannot trace. I have evidently left it behind. liy the Chairman : Q. Will you unilertake to send it by a letter? — A. I will. Mr. .Iames MacNiukh, stock broker, t^uebec, sworn. Bij Mr. Stuart : t^. What is your business or profession ? — A. I am a broker. t^. You were >ummoned to produce a statement of the business done by you witii Mr. (). H. Murphy for a certain period. Do you proiluco it? — A. This is the l.aper. (Kxhibit "C 10.") (^. Have you a statement of IJoberl II. McUreovy's account? — A. He had no ncciiiint with me tor the dates named. (^. Have you a statement of any iiftes you discounted tor O. K. Mur|>liy or l! by Robert II. Mcdroevy. Then theie was another received on llJth .lune, ISS,'), h.ukin, Connolly \ Co., dutetl :>rd June, ])ayable to the order of N. K. Connolly at two months ; dut' (ilh August, 81,<(00. ^i. And discounted by Robert H. Mctireevy? — A. Yes ; that is all, I think. Bi/ Mr. Daly. . What year is that? — A. 1885. I see by the newspapers that there was a • liiipie for 85,000 wanted, but we kept no record of that because it was u cash transaction. 271 I'i' 'n ■ M m 'I ii ; •.,M| III I i' M ! t' i I 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Bi/ Mr. Stuart : Q. You (lid Ipiisinc88 aw a inonoy broker, also, ami cuHiiod cheques ? — A. Yes. Hi/ Mr. Fit:pending in (Quebec. I cannot part detinitely with it. Note i)roduced and marked (H.xhibit "J) 10.") Q. On whose charge wei e Kobert il. McGrcevy and Murphy arrested ? — A. On ^[ichael Connolly's. H. His was the onl}' deposition that was made ? — A. Yes. The Committee then adjourned. n i 272 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 MorsK uv Commons, Munk.vy, Utli July, lS!tl. Tlio Comiiiitleo mot at lO.oU ji.m. ; 3Ir. KirkputricU in tlio (Jliuir. [iivo.stipitidii into certain circiiin->(aiicos ami statonu-nts lui'le in connection with tlie tcnritish Xoriii America. I immeli- ately teleLria])iied for it, ami the Chaiirnan can read I he leio^ram. TiiK Cii.MitMAN — This is a tele^nam from O. K. .Nrnrpliy, i-onl to Peter Miir]>hy, si I'NpJanade. (Quebec : ''Search for Hritisii Nortii American Mank-hook. If not in tiie hoiis(; call at the Imnlc; it mi^ht lie there. Send any other haidv-book you can liml, alM> account hooks (). K. .Murphy," dated "tlli July, iS'.tl. WiXNKSs — There was another mutter, with respect to the money for the South- wall contract, that jjrobahly is necessary to mention, and duriii:^ the discussion ahout the item of concrete, [ described it as inir. a letter t'rom Charles (i. Davies, oxpliiinina; how I was brouj^iit to .Mr. McCreevy's houso. Tiiat i> a very important one to me. (^>. Is the bau; otherwise as you left it ? — A. \ cannot tell. (i>. Have you taken anytliing out of it ? — A. No; unless somethiuij of no avail. I ]iiil liiem all there. Q. What do you tind missinj,'? — A. There was one letter from ('harlestr. Davies. (i'. To whom? — A. 'I'o me, e.xplaininy liow he brought me to Mr. MotJreevy's liMii.se. . Wa-^ it in thebai;' when you delivered it to. Mr. Todd? — A. To tiie best of my ojiinion — yes. (I. When did you see the letter liefore? — A. When 1 put these books into thebaic Jill Mr. Mulock : • i'. Mr. Todd, who has had access to the baiJ^? — A. No person to m^- knowledu'e. I put it into a cupboard with a safety lock, and it has been there evei' since, till Mr. Mm phy j^ot it this niornim;'. 'i'. Then the bag was delivered out by you this morninii;? — A. Not by mc, but I'V .Mr. Pallet, my assistant. Mr. Jlurphy asked me to take care of the bai^ for liim. lie did not ])ut it in my possession as (,'lerk of the Committee. l)ut merely foi- his 'iwii convenience, nnd I put it in the cupboard to take care of it. Bij Mr. MilU (BofhiceU) : Q. At what time? — A. After the ail journment of the Committee. Jiij Mr. Mulock : '^ How is it the ilocument is mihsing- ? — A. 1 do not Ivnow. 273 1—18 0^ m W A ill I 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 n;/ Mr. Osier: (^. Tlio liiin|» Miin roniract, Mr. Murpliy, Cm- tho (^iiaviiii; Dock, which y<>uspi)kc of at |ia;xcs llo aii."!,9H((y A. Oh. no. (}. Hut they aiiiecd to leiliice it to 8')rt,00(» ?— A. They a^fceil to take 850,000. (}. Ami the 8.')0,000 then inclmieii the ton?— A. Yes; so j iimleislaiid it. {}. That in the way you unilerstooii it 'f — A. Yes. il. Well then, the tif'ty thousand, including' the ten, twentj'-two tliousand you wiy was jiaid inipioperly. Is that as I undt'istand ^'oiir evidence 'f it does not apjiear voi'y clear as j^ivcn ? — A. f aijreed to j^ive all over Hfty thousand. (i. You aj.':recd to j^ive all over titty thousanil ? Well you see the titcures do not fit. The teiiiler was sixty- four thousanil, the pa\'inent, if you are correct, was twenty- two thousand, which would leave forty-two thousand as tho amount to he received liy the contractors, when Hume's statement showed the cost to he g.VJ.iKSO. Now, have you any oxi)lanalion for that? — A. No; I cannot give the details of those things ; I am simply giving you the bulk sums. (^. Hut you see there is a discrepancy. You see that the contiactors should have got on Hume's estinnitc 35;{,0H0 ; whereas, if your accountant is correct, the contractors only got 842,000 ':' — A. I cannot go int() details of these things, (}. Hut you have gone into details in ciiief, you know, and I want to hring the ctlect of your dct.-iils heforo 3'oii, to see if you Inivo any explanation. — A. No. <}. l)oos it not ajjpear on these liguios that, if your stor}- is true, the Urni in which you were interested got only 842,000, lor that for wliich they should have got 85!5,OSO'.'' — A. That was all understood at tho time; I cannot give any more expla- nation. t^. Do you concur in what I state, that ai)parently the contractors were getting a great deal less than ^Ir. Hume's estimate of the cost? — A. Wv did not follow Hume's estimate strictly. (}. Hut you based it on Ilunje's estinuite. Hunu's estimate was got for the purj)ose of showing you what you should temler for '? — A. 1 cannot give any other explanation except what I have given. (^. You see, an explanation is wanted. You started on a fair basis of work with Mr. Hume's estimate. — A. 1 would not say it was a fair basis. (l. J{ut that is what you said, i'ou asked llumo to tigmo it. At page 11(1 you said: — " These figures made out in pencil, mark aie by our Krigineer, .Mr. Hume. This is ihe statement of what it would (H)st, in pencil made out by our Knginccr, as a guide, and which I showeil .Mr. Mcdreevyat the time. ' You were asked if that was Mr. Jlunie's handwriting, and you said it was, and '• the total is 84:^, 983." Then, you iiuthori/.ed Thomas .MclTreevy to accept 850.000 for the work, and that was indepeiiflent of tho 810,000? — A. 1 cannot give any other answer than what I have ifiven. C^. Then, apparently, if' you paiil out tho 822,000, and if Hume's figures were fair, you were making a loss of the diU'eronce ? That is ajtparent, isn't it? — A. That may be. (}. These are the notes. Look over them, and see whether they arc the notes that covered the 822,00(1 in question'/ — A. I believe the}- are. {}. You know they are. don't ycm'/" — 1 believe they are. (^. Now, will you look ovoi' these notes, and tell me whether they have appar- ently been discounted or put through any bank? — A. Thai I do not know. 1 jiaid them at rf*»'i| l.y Mifliiiol, the omlnr-Htioii Ihuiii; >!»ic) "ii out in inl ink. U lliat tin* clu'([ia' ? — A. Tlio^o aiv tin- Isf ol May iiottH ymi aro liaiiiliiiij inc. <^. No; it in the cIumiho of Aii^unt Ith. from llio buiitUo. K.xliibit " DiS'"'.' — A. I many elu'<|iiOH it is inii>i»fif*ilii« to toll. H. liOoU at tin- ilali'"/ — A. I sfc it. <^. And ihf amount aixl llu* ]>ii>on to whom it is piiyahlo. anil toll mo whctlK-r von licruvc tjijit to 1k' thr clu'ciiii'? \Vt' tunl no otlu-r clH'iiUf, — .V. I taniiot tfll. (^. In who>e haiKlvvritini;- is iho boily of tlio tlR'tiui' '! — A. It i-< mmlo out \>y (J. Isn't that IkohiTt .Mi:(iirovy's liiiiuiwriliMi,' in the Inxly, and the sij^natiire yours '.' — A. I think not. (^. You think it is all your own iiunilwritini,' ? — A. To tho best of my Unow- lediie and belief, it is not Robert .Metireovy's. H. Is it yours? — A. I think ii is. (}. Have you any doubt about it ? — A. To tin- liest ot my knowled:,'e, it is. <^>. The ( he(|U(' is made payable lo James .MacXiilor or oi-do.-. and endorsed by James .MaeXidor \ ('o. tor ei'edit at (Juebec Hank. That is liie eheto— Ihe two months r.ote oflindJune? — A. 1 think it is all in mv writing;. (^1. The due date. I mean ?— A. That I eaniiot tell. {}. Who is .Mr. .MacN'^ider ? — A. lie is u broker in Peter street, (Juebee. (^. A stockbroker or banker ? — A. He does a irenerul bankini,' business. {}. hill you do :i ^ stoekbrokini; with him ? — A. Yes. i}. You liouifht -loeks ■/ — A. Yes. (^. .Vnd cold stocks through him? — A. Yes. (^. l>o you know wiiet'ier liobert MdJreovv did so also ? — A. 1 have no know- ledire it my own. •i- J*'d you know it fron>,I{obort Metireovy ? — A. No. ii. Xow, look at the second of this seiies of notes, beinjj; one of K.x'hibit '• XT," dated the 2nd June, three months for 85,000. You see that is made by yourself and eudorseil bv vouiself ? — A. Yes. ii>. And marked ''paid" by yourself ? — A. Yes. • ^ There is no other ))er.son apjjarently who had to do with that notes, except yourself? — A. That is one of the notes I described. t^. Answer the question, please. Is there any other name or any other hand- writim: on that note except your own ? — A. No. there is a banker'.s mat k at the bott om li'iU I'l y . No banker's marks ? — A. V ^1. The due date ?— A. Yes. • i*. The duo date appears in some other person's haiidwritini;? — A. Yes. t^. You do ?ii)t know whether it is Mr. .MacX'iders or not ? — A. No. i}. Mow was that note ])aid ? — A. My cash, I believe. . C'a-li. How drawn? — A. I cannot .'mswer these ipu-stions. This (^. liook at the checpie I now place in your hands. One .>f the cheiiues, Kxhibit \^^.'' dated 4th Se])lember, and paid liv the baidc on the 5th September — the due of ■ ......».- . . ... ... ■ I's. daieil 4th ^e])tem()er, ana paiu iiy the lianlc on the oth oeptemiier — tlie ilue liiile ot' the note — and tell me if tliat is not the cheiiuc which ajiparentl}- paid that -A. That 1 cannot tell (^. l)i)es it look like it ? — A. I do not know; you will have to got the dates of the llolt <«>. That is the date. Paid on tho same date, drawn bv yourself, is it not? — A. Ni till: Q. X'ot drawn by yourself? — A. It is drawn by myself or bearer, and 1 state (J. It is drawn by yourself or bearer, signed Larkin. Connolh- iS: Co., per O.E.M., and endorsed for credit at the Quebec Bank, is it not ? Paid b}' the Union Banlc. on tliu 5th ; is not that ri^ht? — A. It looks so. 1—18* 27' :i ! ■* I' '|A1 "1::" i r 'i m t * ii : ! 1, , ! mi r' % "!!i iMltCil r If ^ (If 111 I ( ' ' I ) I t ii Hi 54 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1801 >[r. .Mif,r,s (liofhurll.) — Is that the >ecun <>t' notes nir.iiiiiii' 2, H, 4, 5 an.l tj moiitlis. 1 am speakiiii; now of the secomi note of tlie series, and slicwinj^ how it was jiaiil. (To witness): Von see that as far asthat transaetion isconoerned, presnininir that clioqnc to be tlie one that ol»t:iine«l ilie funds to pay tlie iKJte, you are tlie only party concerned in the diawinij of tlie n»(»ney? — A. Ves. (After a jianse.) I answered yes, but theie are (h)uhts I may liave given it t<< M»nie person wiio came lor tlie money. I correct my answer. t^. You do not suififcst who came for the money? — A. Xo. ij. if a ])erson had prohaldy cmne for the money \-ou would have drawn a cheque to th'jir order? — A. Ves; on the return ol tlie note. il. But haudwritinii' on the hack of the note marked "puiil' is in your hand- writing? — A. 1 holieve so. il. And the cheque, if this l^e the clieqiie, is entirely in your handwriting. (No answer.) (}. Xow the third note of the >e:i'es. wlii<-h is one at tour numtlis — it is made by you and endorsed? — A. By Nicholas Iv. Connolly. Q,. And marked " |)aid ' in your itandwriting. is it not ? — A. Ves. (}. That, is for 8-1,000, is it not ?— A. Xo; e^.nOd. (^. And it is in the same handwritimr. with the e.xctpti)n of the duo date, October 5'ch, which is in another liandwi-iting? — A. 1 cannot -ay whose handwriting that is. (^. Xow, had you a power of attorney from Xiciiolas K.Connolly to make paper for him — to endorse che(iues, to make chenues. iVc? — A. We (i. Had you any |)ower of attorney from Xicholas K.Connolly ? Answer my ijuostion specifically ? — A. That reiiuire-^ il. .Vnswer me — yea or nay? — A. Xoneof us had powers of attorney. Xicholas Connolly hail none; .Michael Connolly had none; I had none; but there was an agreement between us. ii. JIad 3'ou power to use his name? — A. A- long a-; I put my initials under ;t, and he did so with mine. (^. Look at that chef[ue, which is one of Exhibit " D s," dated 24th September. You see how it is drawn? — A. Yes. jiaiently be«-n tlirough the baid<, and it is marked " paid " in your handwiiting. That is the transaction, evidently? — A. The note wa- endorsed liy Nicholas i\. Connolly in bis own iiandwriting ; no doubt he has been absent from t^ueiiec when it was drawn. (I. You ciuinol say ho was absent? — A. To the best of my knowleilgo and belief, he was. (i'. Well then, sir, if he was absent, where did you draw the (dieqiie, the note not being yet due? Have you any explanation to oHer : the r.ote is not duo until the 5th of October, yet the cheipie is drawn on tiic 24th of September? — A. I have some e.xplaiuilion. ^fr. Mctrreevy who would come to me when mono}- was wanted, when he knew we \vould have it, and the money was in tiie baidi. and I would give it to him and JJobert, you know. (^ \'ou spoke of Mr. Kobert or 3[r. Thomas? — A. Mr. 'iobert, who would come when his brotlier wanted it. 27U • 54 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 ! i 'm-\ *}. Well, that is tlu' way in which the third of that series is paid. The tinirth is ;i note fur St.UOti at tivo months, tiu' same c i}. I- tiiat in your handwriting — that i> the first finest ion ? — ,'.. Ves. 'i'. That i> all in your handwi itinn'. Tlu'ii the emlor-ement. as follows, cash 82.000. one note S2.00l» four months, one note 82.000 live months, that is the way in which it wa-i paid ? — A. Yes. Q. Then was this ea>h. 82.000, paiil tl>.roni;h vou or hv voti ? — A. 'I'hut I cannot tell. Q. Xow. I .-im told that ini|uiry into tlie ImioK-s doo not show that the note wa> paid in that way. Have you any recollections apart from your endorsement as to how it was ]iaid ? — A. No; unless makint; two note<. *l. l)Ut have you any memory of how it was paid ? — A. I think hy renewal of two note>. I'Ut I an. not positive; that is as near as I can come to it. t}. The endorsement is in whoso handwriting' ? — A. The note is endorsed hy Patrick L:irkiii. *i. Yes; the note is endorsed l«\- Patritd; Larkin. endorseil hyflic payee, and il h:i> this iiote on it as to the way in wiiicli il .v-is set tied. Now. in whose handwritin;f i- the makimr an^ " were apjdied ? — .V. I cannoi tell unles- I had the lilolter here. *}. Well, can you irive an}* informati )ii with reference to the a))plieation of liial cliefpie? — A. That chenue may i!.o to pay ilelits ot the company, may iro to ]iay the li.-iy-r-'lls. :ni. Have j-ou any oiitiy in your diary witii reference to an}' of tiieso notes? — A. I have tosee the bh>tter before I can go into details about the notes. Q. Have you any entry in your diary ? -A. I do not icnow. . ilow then? — A. On account ot the company, . You say you woidd draw a large sum, pay it out and give the entry to pro- tect yoursi'If. Would you make the payment yourself by cheque .' — A. I cannot account for these tiiiiiiis now. At this time I think otir (, t)inpaiiy was very ■ihort I money, and 1 may have had money myself and p;iiil it out on liehaif of the Company. (^1. D looks like it, doesn't it '/ — A. 1 would then turn it in to tin. book-kee|ier and would account for it afierwaid. Q. Is that entitled to lie received as anything more than a suggestion'.' — A. I am not positive of these things. Q. Is it ])roliable you jiaid it yourself'.'' — A. I do not want probabilities, 1 want this lil( would Ir' tiio return you made lo tlie bookdceejier ? — A. Yes. I would tlien commence a new iiook. (}. Now, Mr. Mur))liy, we IkhI some little inquiry fin Saturday with reference to this ST.ttOO that you .said you jiaid out ot'the 82r),(IOO, or rather, you paid out 85,000 of the S'J.^.OOO which has reference to the dredirin^ of the wet hasin, and that you added 82,000 of 3-our own. I want to know about tlial 87,000 a little more ? — A. (iive me the statement. (}. Never mind the statement. Von told us on Saturday, I thi nlv. wl lere jfot the money. — A. I want to see mv statement. (>. T ly It aicam without the statement. Use vi )ur memory, ^\• e wu ,'ou it^ iiiit ayreeins'. Just make a venture as to where you i^'ol thai 1 noney, A. 1 risi' am not lositive. Ls near as I can tell I li'ol it in t| le usual wav . No, no. You told us the hank and you said how you ^-ot it. — A. I mu>t have the chcfjue put in my hands ai^ain. <^. 1 want to test your memory. A man whi> cannot tiust his memoiy for a (lay eaimol he trusted for a week or a year. — A. This is tour years ugo. <^. What was your rejtly as to where you uot that money '! — A. in the liank. (^. What hank? — A. J cannot say. q. It has fiom you ? — A. Doin much husine>s, 1 liuxot. Q. Come down to the point anil say where you got the money or not ? — A. I do not want yon to put words into my mouth. q. I am not doini( so. I would lie very sorry to ])Ut words into yoni' mouth. Where diil \du net tiie mone\'? — A. At either the Union Hank' or the Haid< ot British Xortli America. Q. Wl ncn liaul< k do you say it was A. I annot nny positivel nU", (i. Wlii(di hank do you thinic it was? — A. I have no i'ii;-ht to ihi '^. Where did you i^et the money, speakin;.;" i^enerally? Wiial source diil you di'aw t'lom at the haidc ? Did you ilraw immediately from your own account oi' triim lliat of tlie tirm ? — A. 1 eanntit say just now. Q. Have you no idea? — A. No. <^. Your own aetount shows no cliei|ue?— A. That 1 cannot tell. ti>. AYell, the cheques are here, anil I would like you to look throuuh them and tell ni"' whether the (dieque of tliiit date is here. I wish you would look at these cheques, Mr. 31urpliy, commencin;;' in .January and i^oinii; through i-'ehruary, and toll mewlie'hei you drew an}' of that money from your own account? ft won't take you lonj^. There ivre only six cheques in .Fanuary an', did any part of that 87,0(10. which you state went lor election o ivn(>'.v what r want t imriKises, come oui of youi' fiwn bank account ? — A. 1 cannot tel <^. Can you tind a cheiiue ; you -a\' you have pioduced them all? — A. My bank liodk Would shovt'. 'i. Well, here is the hank book; lool< at that, and see where tlic missing cheque! is?— A. What is the date? (i. The election was on tlie'22nd February, and you know when you cummcnced to pay out the money. Look in .lanuary and l''ebruary; I presume that the pay- ments w. What df lat date, please? — A. Ft has got no date, that would be 188S, I lielieve. 'i'. We are at 18H7, don't let us go ahead. Now look at your cheques and tell iiic whether there are any cheques which cover this large expenditure dui'ing cicction time of your own? — A. I do not see any. •i'. JIad you any other banking account but that of the Union Hank at that liiiu? — A. 1 cannot answer — the che(ums will show. 1 sent 279 my '■■t II ' i "V '■■' \\ ! J i ti i . ■( > \^V I ii S^llli'i ii ': \ '■ 54 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 i I North Ametica bonk wliidi was mislaid somewhere. I lelograjjhod for it and I suppose I will liave it hero to-morrow. (I. A])paienlly you have no ontrj', subject to correction, when you ycl your otlier Dock, to-morrow, which will account for the paj'nient of that §7,000, out of your own funds? — A. 1 do not know. You have been tishinu; over my cheques and 1 do not know what is here. . ii. AVell tish over them youi'self and ^et them, sir, and answer mo. There are iiriti.-h clieiiues hei'C. Thoy are I am told in secpience. There is no entry in the pass book (if your Britisli i$ank cheques, are there? — A. Tlio>.e aie Union Hank cheques. (I. JIavc you any cherpies on the British or Union — o-ivo them? — A. I have produced the Jiritish cheipios here. Q. If you look at your British Bank cheques I Hunk youAvill find your account with that Bank did not open, until after this ? — A. That J cannot tell. (}. But ! w:int you to tell. I do not want any doubt aiiout the poinl. — A. You want to do iuipossibililies. I cannot do anythinin" until my bank book conies here. il. When did you commence your account witli the Bank of British North AmericH ? — A. That ] cannot tell. Q. Have j'ou not commenced it within the last year? — A. Xo. J closeil rny account there (jvcr a year ago. (2. And you cannot tell until you get your British Bank cheques ? — A. And book'. Q. Whet bei' you paid it out or not ? — A. No. (I. And your JJritish Jiank book when will it be here ? — A. I suppose it will lie here to-morrow. Here is a telegram I sent for it. t used all cai'o to get it. Q. Xow do you rememiier when you diew the money from the British Hank ? — A. 1 cannot tell at present. (}. ilow did you get that 87.000. JIaveyou any memory ? — A. 1 really cannot cxjihiin that without going into tietails. <^ l>id you get it from the firm ? — A. My impression is. I did. i]. That you g(jt checjues of the firm ? — A. Cheques or moiicy — I do not know- how it is. <^. Your im])ression is you got it in that way ? — A. ^^■s. \ver my (luestiuii, — A. I . Your answe:- is satisfactory. The hook is before yon. — A. This is nothing logo by. Q. 1 ])ropose now to leave further eiKjuiry on this jtoint until wa gel the books. I am merely testing j-our memory. I shall resume when you got the material. — A. 1 may state here that my ]):irtners all understood the whole ti'ansaction and were llu'rc when this82, 000 additional was addcil, and my books and account was audited and il was satisfactory. <(>. The |iosition is this, as I am instructed : Tiiat you ol)laincd sim]dy a credit from I he tirm as for 87.000, ])aiil out by you. That being my insti'iiction, I am jiressing you. if }-ou presented this as something to be creditecl to you, then mani- festly you did not get the firm's che(|ues y — A. Tiie money ilid not come from \\v. Mctrceevy. that is certain. *}. i)o you know one Folej*, the tailoi' ? — A. Yes. (i. i see that of this $7,000. that you claim to have paid out, you claim to have paid him 81,150. I.s that true? Is jour diary entry correct? — A. Yes, but this thing is going to get me into trouble and I refuse to answer that. 1 have no (•(iunxd here to ])rotcct me. Mh. Dai.v — Vou have a dozen here. WiT.NKsis — 1 would like to have you as one. Q. Answer the fpiestion. Do you know Folej' ? — A. I . Where antl when ? — A. I cannot go into these deiails. . Where did you pay it ? — A. (Quebec. *j. What did vou ))av it in ? — A. I'.ills. <,». What sizo'bills?— A. That 1 cannot tell. <^. Where about did you jiay it ? — A. \ believe as far as I can recollect he canu' to 121 J)alhousie Street— the ollice. (^. And got the money there? — A. ^'es. . (). What were the amounts of tlio two sums? — A. 1 would have to gel my liook. (^. Look at your diary of 1^87 in February. — A. That is the general I'csult. I may give you another little book. 'i'. Is this a book the Committee have not had yet ? — A. [I > 1 I'l! 5 1 'i, 54 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 It appears 81)70. Mr. (i. Tlio piisla-i's. — A. Yes, as ymi may oall tlietn, ■.lio Ir-oIits. 'J .mtc is one item of STi')!) (^ Tlic (juostion I am nsking yon is tlio luimbor of payments made to Foley ? — A. Tlu'io is the way it was. 1 want tiuit paper liack for my own protection. (i. Yon made tlie jjaymcnts to Foley in two snms of §750 and 8400 ? — A. As directed. <^>. diaries MacXamara — how mnch did yon pay him and when ? — A liere 8(]50. <^>. 1 have 8<>70 in one ol' yonr acconnts. Is that right? — A. Yes; !MacXamaia retnrned me 8'55 not used. *i. \Vhere did yon n'iye him the money? — A. I niaj- say that heaiways retnrned all that was left after an election day. lie is the most honest worker I ever came across. Q. Whei'e did y;)n give il to him? — A. 124 Dalhousie .Street. But this is a question I want to ask if I am acconntahle for, if they shonM sue. I do not know what I am answeriny here. I will answer no moi'e until I take counsel. TiiK CiiAiKMAN — It may not he fair to hriniiin names in thealoenceof these men. Mr. Oslek. — These absentees will he here and we will show that these moneys were not paid. \ t^. Do 3-(m know Mr. Flynn ? — A. I do. (^>. I'ay him any montiy ? — A. 1 ,i;'ave him 8-.')0 to send lonr men to Chicago at the time Mr. Carbray was ariested for bribing yoters. I met Mr-. Flynn, I may saj' (I. i)id you give him 8-'>0 wit reference to this election? — A. I wont say on the election: but when my account was balanced up with IJobert MctJreevy. I woulil not say I gave this money foi' the elections. t^. AVhen did you give him the inonc}'? — A. The night the men had to leave for- Chicago, r had to borrow some of this money. I ran around the St. Louis Hotel and raised it .-is best 1 could. He wanted 8 !••'». • i*. AVhen did you give it ? — A. The night the men had to leave for Chicago. 1 had to borrow some of this money. I went round to the St. Lonis Hotel and raised it the be it I conkl (I, I want lo know whore you jiaid him and when ? — A. In my house. Q. In what monlh. about ? — A. I cannot tell; the records will show that. (i. AVhat records? — A. The records in the criminal ])roceedings. Tlie men barely had time to catch the 10 o'clock train. (i. That is ver\' interesting, but quite uncalled for. Your account of the trans- action, 1 think, for the 87,000, which is jiart of the eighth contract — the dredging of the ^Vet ba>in and what is given at pages 113-11-1 — isthat there was an agreement to ]»ay 8-5,()0(t on the dredging contract, at .'{5 cents for about st)0,000 yards? — I believe so. Q. That was the agreement ? — A. \'es. (}. Can you tell me how yon came to pay not only the 825,000 but the 827,000, when the contract given was limited to the expenditure of 8100.000 in money ? — A. It was only limited tor tiiat year. Q. And that was the only contract they got ? — A. Oh! no. Q. It was the only contract tlie Hepartnient would enter into. The contract for dred;' ' ■; for that season was limited to 8100,000 ? — A. For that year. Q. \ . liont any warranl for you to go on? — A. We were satislied it would go. ti. All ' ^ou were willing to pay yonr money on the risk? — A. Ye>. Q. A-: i o although the bargain had not been completed j-on paid the money? — A. We were paid the money, Eobert's interest in the work. We were satisfied we hail ^jood security for it in Q. Yon say you made a bargain with Thomas Mcfrreevy after this? — A. 1 did. Q. Whore? — A. lu his own house. Q. AVlien? — A. It commenced in December and the conversation- Q. Where did you make it first? — A. I am trying to tell y on. It you will only avo patience. ledge. 282 5-i Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 Tiiobiiigiiiii was inmlo, L • j>. 1 am ti'3'iriLr: oiiu needs to liavo patioiiee. — A. In liis own liou.se in tlio month of Ueeenilper we eoniMieiifeil negotiations wliieli were eairied tiirougli until .>ueli time as we iiad tlie matter finished ii)). <^. Wiiat 1 ask you, and what I want you to answer, is when tiie bargain was made. I am not asking you about any negotiations. I asked \-ou when the liargain was concdiiiled ? — A. Tiuit I cannot tell. I had no knowledge ot' the ilay it was I'oiiciuded. t^. Wiiat day witli rel'erenco to the exeention of the contract — the contract was executed on the 2.'trd of Ma}', 1887? — A. I do not know. <^. llow long before the contract was entered into? — A. Timt 1 cannot tell. 1^. Xot within a month? — A. ] cannot tell. >}. Within a year? — A. Oh I yes, within a year. (}. Well, get at it within a month and a year? — A. it is for you to get at it. (^. Xo, you are giving evidence? — A. I iiavc no month or year. (^. I ]jut you in mind of the fact that the contract was entered into on the 2."»rd of May, 18S7. I want you to treat the matter not flippantly, but to get riglit down and tliirdc ii out. IIow long before that was the bargain made? — A. I W(.)uld have to see the written document. . Tiic bargain ; that is what I am asking you about ? — A. Oh. jes. (^. You cannot lell me whether the interview you had with .^[r. Thomas Mc- (ireev}- was a month or a week prior? — A. The iiitorviow about what? i^t. The interviev,- at which the bargain was made? — A think if 1 can ])lace that i iglit. in .laiiuary. 1 am not positive \>. The bargain was made in January of 1SS7','' — A. As near as j eaa recollect. i}. What brings that to your mind? — A. They had commencetl the elections. . ("an you say tiie same to the second cheque of Kebruary -Ith, and do you know whether that iiad to do with that transaction? — A, 1 cannot tell from the che- 'I'li's. I may state now tiie counsel told me a minute ago he had no cheques of the IJaiik (if Briti-h Xorth America — now he has plenty of them. ti. OfN-ours — you are mistaken about that. Those are the firm's cheques. It w:i> your own cheques I was referring to. Do not go off at half-cock like that. — A. Tlii- I cannot tell, but most likely it may be. 283 \ :, 1 « 11;^ »(';' I I 1 ' ii 54 Victoria. Appeinlix (No. 1.) A. 1891 ! I Q. You Hoe tliiit both of these cho(iucs ot'the 17th Fobruary, 188", are endorseil by you. — A. Yes, I suppose I i^ot tlio mouoy. Q. You Muppose you ;iot the money. Well, then, I am to umleiNtaud that the wlioh- of this money was paid i)eforo any arianiremeiit whatever had been made liy the J)epaitmenl or by the <'ommissioners witli i-eference lo tlie dredging? — A. Yes, I boiievo it is. . Your statement is tliat on Iho agicomcnt witli A[r. Thomas .NfcfTfeovy the money was lianded out depending, as far as you were coneerned — u]»on tlie future? — A. I believe so. (I. Where did 3'ou obtain exhibit " M .') " page 114 — where did you gei tliat ? — A. Quebee. Q. Who from?— A. Mr. Connolly. (i. Whieh Mr. Connolly? — A. I believe both were there, as near as I j-ecolleet. (^. Trom whose possession did you get it ? — A. That is more than I ean answer. We were in the ottiee together. I do not know which of them handed it to me. (I. What did you do with it? — A. 1 handed it to .\[r. McGreevy. (}. Ml'. Jiobert MeCJreevy? — A. J believe so. (^1. And whom did j'ou get it from for production hei'e ? — A. From IJobert Mc- Greevy. (J. When? — A. I do not know. Q. How is it produced here and put in your hands? — A. I believe it was "Sir. Robeit, but that i am not positive. It was from Kohert MctJreevy I got it. Q. And about when did you got it from Robert McGreevy ? — A. That 1 cannot tell. id you return with any of them? — A. 1 did. i}. Will you produce them? — A. Yes. By Mr. Geoff rion : *.}. Are tiiese all the pajjcra you found in connection with tlie work? — A. All in connection with the on(|Uiry. 1^. When you say all the papers in connection with this work, did you exorcise youi' own Judn'inenl as t(.> wliethei- there were any other jiapers that referred to an^' works in (Quebec Harbour? — A. Yes. Q. Is that all the jiapers? — A. There weio other papers that referred to the work, but from your statement, when 1 went down 1 did not briui;' up tho^e books. They were the stone books. ])ay-roll books, and so forth. (}. Ho you left behind the pay-roll? — A. The stone books, time bcudcs, and such tiunji's as that. i}. What boidvs do you tile? — A. A petty cash book or blotter. I found that in the sale and thought it miii'ht ])robably lie wanted. I also produce another cash book and another ledger. ii>. J)id you find any bank \)n»i books? — A. J ilid. Jiy the Chairman : ii. Where are they — .V. There were some tiiViO books amoniist those i broui-ht. 'i. Wheie were they? — A. In the safe, intiic same batch with the bank books. (^). Jn the same batch. You saw them wlien they were in t lie safe? — A. Yes; I also produce a bank book of the tirm r>arkin, (Jonncdly & Co., from .luly, 187!l, to Si'ptembei', lS8t. By Mr. Edyar : Q. What bank?- A. The Union liank, sir. Also a bank book from October, l"^"^!. uj) to April, 1SS7, inclusive. (I. Uni'in bank ? — A. Yes, I'luon Hank. I also produce a bank book from May, 1>67, to January, ISSH. Also another from May, 18SII, up to 181)1. By Mr. Geoftrion : Q. And (hm't you tind one from January to May, 1881)? — A. This must be here, bill I hey may not have any entries. By the Chairman : Q. .lust look and see. — A. 1 find there are a few months missing. I also pro- iliire 11 Bank of liritish Xorth America book from April, 1885, up to March, 18S8, with regard to the Quebec work ; a Ui-itish North America bank book from January, .:%i inm. m M '; ii'i: : m 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 ! •! 1885, up to November, 1887, with reference to the British Columliia Gravinijf Dock work. Q. Any nioio hooks oi' Htiibs ? — A, I prothice a Hank of British North America Htuh hook; also a stiih hook of tlie Union Hank, I think, hut I am not positive, tVom 11th Novemher, 187!*, up to Novemijer, 1884; also, two Union Hank still) books, with some stiilis marked and some of them not; also a number of notes issued and paid, trom March, 188.'!, to 1st of May, 1885; also draft and acceptances paid jirior to that time; also five parcels of Union Uank cheques; also another hatch of cash books. Bi/ Mr. E,hjar : Q. Those cheques— what period do they cover ?— A. 1878, 1871», 1880, 1881, 1882. That is all. Q. What is tiiat other book? — A. Another ))etty cash book, that is 'of no interest. Tiio date runs from 1871) ami 1880 to ISS:!." Bif the Chairman : Q. Can you tell the Committee wliethcr you left any ])apers that may he of interest ludiind ? — A. No, sir; I did not. (i. There is none V — A. Not to my knowledi^e. Q. Y')U took everything ? — A. i']verything. By Mr. Edgar : Q. You look what you found, but was there aiiytliinn" missiny which ought to be there ?--A. Tiiero were some British North America IJank stub books. Q. Were missing ? — A. Yes. Q. Are the cheques for that period here ? — A. The cheques are here. By Mr. (ieoffrion : Q. Have you all the pass books of tiie British North America Bank ? — A. Yt.>; there is onl}- one. Q. Would that covei- tlio whole period of the business transacted with that ban!: '( — A. Yes. By Mr. Edgar : Q. What about "the blotters or pass liooks"? — A. There are no blotters. The only blotter 1 know of or ever had is this book here — the |)etty cash book produced. (J. Is that the only blotter ? — A. The only blotter I ever used. By Ike Chairmui : ii. Those stubs and books of tiie British North America Bank that are missing — what |)eriod do they cover ? — A. 1887. Q. And yon say that you have got the cheques for that period ? — A. Y'es, sir. Q. And the bank book, too, for tii.it period ? — A. Yes, sir, the bank book, too. By Mr. Osier : Q. Did you ever know of tiie existence of an}' blotter or book that would be called a lilotter by Mr. ^[ur|tliy, except those now produced ? — A. No, sir, I did not. Q. l>id you look foi- bank books or papers of Mr. Murphy ? — A. 1 did, sir. i}. Wore there any ? — A. None in the office. Q. J)o you ever remember having seen .Mr. Murphy's bank book in the office of Larkiii, ("onnolly iV Co ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. In later years ? — A. While he was a member of the firm. (■}. Did it remain afier he ceased to be a member of the firm ? — A. It did not, sir. Q. Do you know that positively ?- -A. Well, 1 am as positive as 1 can be. Q. He took eveiy paper? — A. Y'es, sir. 286 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. 1>() you ioim'inl>or tlio occasion of liis takiiii^ tlio itapors? J)iil you liolp to sort thorn out at all? — A. Xo, >ir; wo movodour olHco I tliiiik that spring, from the Kmbankinoiit to \o. 120 Dalliousio street, and lie liad a lot ot ])a)>eis ami hooks and lliiii,ii;s ill the KtuhaMknient ottico which ho moved next door to Mr. (iolden's room. i saw them there. Q. Then, in this olHco whore you >^ot those papers and books, do you reniomher ever havin.ic seen Mr. Murphy's bank book or any of his pa]>ers? — A. I saw somo of his papers; 1 don't lecollect seeinj;' the bank book. Q. But you wore satistied they were all removed and he got them 'f — A. I remem- bei" him takint^ all the papers he had in his drawer in the safe. I was in the ollice at the time. By the Chairman : *i. You were asked to i^o to tlio Union Bank ':* — A. Yes; and ask for Mr. Murphy's jmss book ovei- the eai'lier period — his j)a.-mitting that the arrangements made last year for the maintenance of the .Steam Service between Campbellton and (la>pe, having terminated with the close of the sea.son of navigation, it has become neces- sary to enter into fresh contract therefor. " The .Ministers rejiresent that an oll'er has been received from Mr. .Tiilien Chabot, toiinerly manager of the St. Lawrence Steam Xaviitation Compaii}', dated lUth -March, 188;{, by which he undertakes to perform the service, in accordance with the rei|uirenieiits of last j'ear, for the sum of 812, .^)00 a year for a period of tive years, jjlacing on the route the side-wheel steamer " Admiral ; " that the steamer in question has been duly examined by the Dominion Inspector of Hulls, who rejjorts, under date iMsl of .Miarch last, that sho is tit to carry passengers and freight to and from the ditlerent |)oi'ts on the JJaie ties Chaleurs route. •'The Ministers recommend that authority be given for entering into contract with Mr. Chabot for the services of tlu' vessel named ; such contract to be for a term nf tive years, at the rate of 812,500 a year, the sum ])aid last year, it beingstipulaled lliul the vessel shall commence I'unning immeiliately upon the oi)ening of navigation rigulai'ly to its close, failure arising from any cause other than stress of weather to niako her trips regul:irly to entail a penalty of say 8220 foi'cach rouml trip (Jinitted, and a peiuilly of 8110 for each half trip omitted : further, that in addition to the I'lirts of Campbellton and (iasptj, the said vessel shall call at such iiUerineiliale ports a> may be indicated by the Minister of Ilailways and Canals. •• 'J'iie Committee concur in the foroijoin.y recommendations and submit the same for Your Kxcellency's approval. The Honourable (Signed) JOHN J. McUKE The Minister of Eailways and Canals.' 287 illill ! W 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 11 Q. Was tlion- any contract, or was it acted on iindtM- the Order in Coinicil ? — A. Thert' was a lontiait. Q. Where is it?— A. It is liero. This is it : (Kxiiil.il " F 10.") An AdiiKK.MKXT made and I'liicied into tliis sevcntii day of Novcinbor, in the year of our fioid one tiiousand eiiclit himdrod aiitl oif^iity-thiue ; •' iJotWfi'n Ilor Majosty (iuoen Victoria, iTpresented in this helialtby tlioHonour- alilo liio ncliiiir Minister ot' {{aiiways and Canals for Canada, ol tlie one part, and -Mr. .Iidii'ii Cliaiiot, of the town of Levis, in the I'rovinee of (^iiehec, steamboat owner-, of tlic other part. " This ai(reeiuent provi(h's as follows : First. — The said . I alien Chahot atcrees to place his steamer the "Admiral" cv ' route lietween Camphellton and (laspe, to run in connection with the Intercolonial Uailwuy tor the jieriod ol live years commcncin!; at the earliest openini; of naviy;atioii 4n till- year of IMS.'! and in each ot' the four followiny' years, and (/ontinuini:; the svdiolo season in each of saiil years, without interruption and until navii^.-ition is actually closed in each yt-ar, respectively hy the freezing over the river at ('amphellton. Seconil. — The said .lulien Chahot ai;rees that the said side-wheel stoamer "Admiral " aforesaid shall lpcprovidc(i with a proper and sutHcicnt ercwund with sut- ticient boats .iiid life-savinj^ apparatus, and that she will in all ropects conform to all the legal rc(|uireiuents. She will also be maintained during the whole term of this contract in tlu' same slate of cllicii'ncy. Third. — The steamer shall make two round trips per week leaving cither end at hiicli day and hour as may from time to time bo tixed by the .said Minister of Hallways and ('anals or Ills successors in otHce, and she shall call at the following places, viz. : Dalhousie. Carleton, Xew IJichmond, Paspebiac, Port Daidel, Newport, Little I'abos and I'ercd, and >uch other |)iacc or ])laces on the north side of tlu! Male lies Clialeurs as tlu' said .Minister or Ids successors in olBce may from time to time direct. Fourth. — The steamer shall carry all mails and the oHieer in charge of them free of charge, landing ami receiving the mails on the shore by her boats at such places as (o of transferritiir tlu mails and j)assengers and baggage between the Campbcllton jiassenger station and the Hallway whart. and the vehicles used for these purposes will be subject to the apjiroval of the said Minister or his successors in otlice. Eighth. — The rates for passengers and lor freight shall be subject to the approval of the said Minister or his successors in otHce and in the case of through rates the divisions Khail bo such as may be settled bj' the said ^[irdster or his successors in olttoe. Xinth. — The said .Tulien Chabot shall provide at his own expense the ncces.sary agents at the different points on the route. Tenth. — The said .lulien Chabot shall bo responsible forall railway freight, back charges and other expenses due upon any freight or baggage transferred to the steamer antl the full amount shall be paid over to the Railway without deiluction or abatement of anv kind. 288 54 Victorin. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Eleventh. — Tho accountw betwot'n the llailway ami tlio steanuT shall he HcttK'd every week and tho balaneo duo paid over in cash. Twelfth. — The said Jiilion (Jhahot Hhull Mottio in a just and e((uitaldo maiinor any claim which may arise on account of injury to ])a«8ennorH or of \t^»n of, or of damage or delay to freight while in transit by the stoanior or in tho hands of hisaf^enis. Thirteenth. — 'f coal or other stores or labour is furnished to the steamei by tho railway, tho charu s for tho same must he paid weoUly. Fourteenth. — Tho said .fulion Chabot shall pay ono-half the costs of advorlisiiiij tilt route. Fifteenth. — In consideration of the forej^oinK and provided tho said Julien Chabot jH'rform the n-quiromonts of this contract. Her AFajosty will pay to tho said .lulien CliaJpot for each of the seasons ot 18SH, 1884, 1885, 188iiand 188", the annual subsidy (!'• sum of twelve thousand five hundred dollars. Hut Her Majosly shall not he hound to pay any portion of tho said subsidy, unless the service for tlie pericnl then expired has been jtorformod to tho satisfacrtion of tho said Minister or bis successors in ottico. SL'teenth. — Tho (lovornmont shall have tho right to deduct from thosaiil sub- sidy any balance duo to tho itailway for froight or back charges or for coal or other stones or tor hil>our furnished or for daiiuiges to passengers or animals or goods while in transit in tho steamer. Seventeenth, — The said .lulien '^'habot shall conform to such orders and regula- tion> as may be made from time to tinio by tho said Minister of liailways and ( 'anals or his successors in office. E'ujhteenth. — Should tho steamer fail at anytime during the term of this contract to meet all or any of the foregoing requirements or should tho said .lulien Chabot tail to perform all the stipulations herein contained or any of thorn, tho said Minister or his successors in otHco, shall have tho right to terminate tho contract, and all tho subsidy then due shall ho forfeited, and the said Minister of Kuilways and Canals or liis successors in office, shall bo tho solo and final jiulgo of the ])erforman( »• or non- performance by the said .lulien Chabot, of the stipulations, conditions and agroo- ineuts herein contained. //( icitness whereof tho said Julien Chabot hath hereto sot his hand and seal and these presents liave been signed and sealed by tho said .Minister and countersigned by the Secretary of tho r)epartment of Kailways and Canals, on behalf of Her iiiijesty. Sinned, sealed and doliveroil in the presence of John V. Woolsev. Sii;iie(l :ind sealed by the said Minister and Secretary of Railways and Canals, in tiie ])i'esenco of li. A. FiSSIAULT. ! .lULIEX CIIAHOT. (Seal.) 3. II. POI'I], Aetiu'j Minister of Jiailuays and ('anals. A. P. BKADLHV, (Seal.) Secretary. 'I -A. X -Ml S7, more than sending it for signature. . U. K. MuKi'HY recalled, and his cross-examination continued. By Mr. Osier: I was asking you questions yesterday with respect to the payment of that There was only ono ]).iyment to Flynn of 8250 ? — A. That I cannot tell. Do you know of any other than the one? — A. I made so many payments in ion with that case that it is impossible for me to recollect. Was there an}' more than ono $2.50 paid to Flynn in reference to that elec- A. 3Iy impression is there wore. 289 11! Ill' \.:t ii n- 1—19 if i jMlil' n J lis B 11 ill r it '■* i;! ;: Ji..„.::Ul ;. s 54 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 Q. "Where did you get the list which you entered in your book? "Where did you get that from ? — A. That is a little memorandum I had after the election — after I wettied iij). Q. And the memoranda you had were destroyed ? — A. There was little >li])s. Q. Did you ever enter otf the slips ? — A. Xo. Q. Why did you pick the one and exclude the other? — A. They wore sim])ly destro3-ed after I settled up with Mr. McGreev}-. Q, You did pay Flynn 8250. and that is properly chargeable to the S7,(IOt»? — A. That 1 cannot recollect. Q. That we have in your liook. Is your book taken as correct? — A. Presuma- bl\- the amount is. Take, for instance, the first. This gentleman would take a man with him. Q. Take the specitic item of the pa\-ment to Flynn, entered in your handwriting. Is that correct ? Have you any doubt about 3-our own entry ? — A. These were made long after. Q. Are they correct ? — A. I cannot recollect. Q. You cannot tell me whetlier your book is correct or not ? — A. It is election money. (if. It is the entry of the election money ? — A. That is my answer. Q. Is that entry coricct ? — A. Thai is my answer. Q. Is it crorrect as written in your book, or do you throw a doubt on your own book ? — A. There is a doubt. I cannot i^e helu accountable for these things. Q. Can you be held accountable for this entry? — A. I paid large amounts that are not in that book at all. Q. But are the entries of specitic items in this book to be taken as correct? — A. As far as I know, they aie. Q. And they are correctly chargeable to that S7,000 ? — A. (Xo answer.) C^. Will you answer that? Why do you hesitate? — A. To tlio best of my ojii- nion they are. I am not positive. Q. You are not positive ? — A. Xo. Q. Then I understand you that everything in that account about how the ST.OOii was paid jou are not positive about? — A. It is there. Q. But is this the way you accounted for the 87.000 ? — A. Xo; I am accounting for 82,000. Q. Xo ; you are accounting tor 87.000 there. — A. This is so long after. Q. Well, yesterday you looked at another little slip thai you had in your pocket book. Look at that again? — A. That is a private matter, and I lefuse to give it up. Q. Look at it. — A. I refuse to b)ok at it. C^. But it helped you yesterday? — A. Yes ; it did. Q. Why did you look at it — to help you? — A. Yes. <^. Look at it again. — A. It helped my memorj' in reference to Mr. Foley. Q. See if it helps your memory witli reference to Mr. Flynn. — A. I gave ^Fr. Foley $7.'»0 tj. Xever mind that. We are on Flynn. according to that statement? — A. (Relierring How much did you jiay Flynn to the slip in his pocket book, i According to this statement he would have 8300. Q. A 8250 item and— ?— A. Yes : and a $50. Q. Is that 8250 chargeable to this 87,000 ?— A. I believe it is. Q. Now look at the entry in your diary of 1887, Exhibit "S 9," and tell nie whether the entry on 2nd of March is not in your handwriting ? — A. Yes. Q. And the cross entry there ? — A. Yes. Q. Is that the same Flynn referred to? — A. Let me see that again. Q. You have no doubt about that, have you? Is it the same tlynn? — A. There are several Flynns, Q Can you suggest another? — A. Flynn of Bnttina. Q. Can you suggest another Flynn to whom you paid 6300? — A. Xot to my recollection. fiOO )Jil- ■lyini book. I I'll me ITIk'I'' k.0 my 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. This is tlie etitiy :— " Wednesday, 2nd March, Flynn, 1887, Eobert McGrecvy, S250. October 10, paid bets, 8110. March 3, MePherson, 836. Total, 8396. Added, 832— S42S.'" Across the tiice of that is markeil : " Paid, 12th March, 1887." Now ^ir. on your oath, is not that the same 8250 you are carrying into this 67,000 account? — A. Tiiat 1 ini not positive. Q. Can you suggest that it is anything else ? — A. That I do not know. Q. You see manifestly the 8250 that you paid Flynn, which you are b?inging into thi> amount, making up youi- 87,000, you charge to Robert McGreevy, and have IxtMi paid for it? — A. It is a long time ago Q. It is not so long ago. I want you to test your memory. A great many thing> are depending on it. — A. The Macpherson thing is on my memory. ii. Never mind the Macpherson thing. We are talking about Flynn. Will you >\vear that this 8250 was not carried into the 87,000 and charged to Robert Mc'ireew. and which has been paid ? — A. I do not know. Q. Will j-ou tell me what it is ? — A. As far as I recollect — I wont be positive but 1 think, it is to send the men to Chicago. Q. You told us yesterday about the men going to Chicago. Here is Flynn's entry for 8250 and 850, and hero j'ou have that entry marked otf as " ]iaid." On your oath, have you not brought that $250 into the debit on account of that 87.000 ? — A. I believe not. Q. Why not ? — A. That is rny answer to it, Q. Why do you believe ? Did you pay Flynn 8250 ? — A. Previous to this? Q. I»uring the elections ? — A. I think so. <;, You think you paid Flynn 8250 twice? — A. I believe so. ii. The same Flynn? — A. I believe so. «J. That is your way out of it? — A. That is my way — that is r.iy answer. ii. And you think Robert McClreev^' paid you back the one 8250, and you charge<:l the other 8250 into the election account ? — A. I think that is the way of it, Q. I want to see that private memorandum which you produced j-esterday from your pocket book, to see it it will throw any more light on this ? (Witness protluces paper.) H. Do you find a second 8250 to Flynn on that private memorandum ? — A. 1 do. Q. I want to see it (witness hands it over). I see it sa^'s "Flynn 850: Flynn 8250. ' Where do you find the other 8250? — A. It is not on that slip. >i. Oh, I see. There is only one Flynn 8250 there. I askeil you whether there were two entries against Flynn? — A. This would be paid on election duy — tiiat slip. t^. That will do. Now on the iriatter of the Esquimalt >v(>rk!i, I want to ask you a few ijuestions. Where was it you saw Sir Hector first? — A, In his house at • ^leljec. ii. What month ? — A. During the summer, I think. Q. What year?— A. 1884, I believe. *i. Well, do you know ? — A. That is my recollection. lace ? — A. In his office or parlor in Quel>ec, ^i. You calle c iinuny bargaining; that Robert should get 20 per cent., you bargaining for t: o ■. !.r,iK ,y. agreed he should got 25 per cent., and that is how you i)ut it before you wuui! make up the difiorence. Do I understand, that while you hiirgained for that, yoi. \i»'! t!>e company make up the difference ? — A. I think the agree men to are made Q. Don't go that w \n agreement by which they were to divide in fifths. Did you personally agree to make that 25 per cent. ? Have }ou any answer or explana- tion to make? At jjago 172 I find : "Q. Did you come to any understanding about that? How did you arrange it ? — A. Robert was to have 25 per cent., and no money paid, and I was very anxious ' give Michael Connolly a fifth. I talked the matter over with both Mr. Thomas M-Greovy and Robert, and showed what an intere.st I had taken in Mr. Michael 293 ■ M ■I V 1 1 1 1 J J ;|ii ! 4'l 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Connolly. I told him that if he would take one-fifth instead of a quarter I would make it up in money in some other way, and they both agreed to it being done in some other way. That is how Eobert came to have one-fifth instead of 25 per cent. Q. They both agreed to that ?— A. Yes." A. That is correct. Q. You also said: — "Q. Had you occasion to make it up later? — A. Yes." My question is, did you ever make it up to Eobert? — A. I was talking then to Thomas McGreevy. Q. Did you ever make it up to Robert? — A. I was talking the-- to Thomas McGreevy, with whom I made this arrangement. Q. You said : " 1 talked the matter over with both Mr. Thon aS McGreevy and Eobert." Now, did you ever make it up to Robert ? Can you answer the question ? — A. It was made up to Thomas and not Roll wi Q. When ? — A. Immediately after we sigi < ontract, I think.* There was These it is impossible for me to $5,000 paid, but we" did not keep a run. remember, as it was a verbal agreement. Q. You say it was made up to Thomas immediately after the contract, and that you paid him immediately after the contract 85,000. Did you pay it or did the firm ? — A. The firm. I am speaking now on behalf of the firm. Q. It does not appear, as far as my information goes, that there is any such charge about the date of the contract. Can you take the books — we have the blotter now — and point out where that $5,000, was paid? — A. I have not looked over it; but my impression Q. Never mind your impression. Wo have the blotter now. Let us have the bank book and cheque^. Now point out to me that ?j,000 — A. We had no money for the company. We were short, and my impression is of my having paid part of it in money and part in note ; but the details I would be hardly able to get into, as I was dealing with Robert. I think the money was paid in that way, but I am not positive. Q. Who was it paid to? — A. That I do not recollect. Q. But you swear that the money was paid ? — A. — I consider a note given as money paid. Q. Certainly, when the note is paid. But I am putting you in mind of the fact that you have sworn specifically to a $5,000 payment at the time the contract was executed. Granted that it may be in the shape of a note, I 'vant you to put your finger on that payment. You were managing the finances of the firm at that time. Where was that $5,000 paid ; for as far as our search of the books is concernetl there does not appear to have been any such payment made ? — A. I think it will be found after a proper examination. Q. W^here would it be found ? — A. That is for the book-keeper to say. Q. Where did you get the money ? — A. In the bank, and gave the note. I think it was part note and part money. Q. How much money and hr.w much note? — A. I do not think you would know if 3'ou had been there at the time. Q. You are answering. I do not think I would have had anything to do with the transaction. I hope not. Q. How much note do you think? — A. I cannot tell. Q. How much cash? — A. I cannot tell. Q. Where would the note be payable — because we do not find any note and wo do not find any cheque ? — A. The notes given in that class of work would bo made payable at the office to bearer, and not at any bank. Q. Would you have given your private cheque at all in that matter ? — A. I would, if the company had not the money. Q. How soon alter the execution of the contract would the $5,000 have been paid ? — A. That I cannot recollect. Q. About how soon ? — A. That I cannot tell. Q. Have no idea ? — A. No. 294 A. 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 1 < Q. The conti-act is dated 8th November, 1884. Why I am asking is, youf recollection is that there does not appear to be any written record, and itthere is no written record it depends entirely on your memory that there was a payment. I do not find any cheques of your own, nor do I find any notes of the fii-m or cheques of the firm. That is the importance of your giving details. — A. Those who received the money ought to be better able to answer it than me. Q. Who did you pay the money to? — A. I cannot tell now whether it was Thomas or Robert. Q. You cannot tell whether it was a note or whether it was cash? — A. My best recollection is that ii was both part cash and part note. Q. So there ought to be a cheque to show the cash and the note, and should be forthcoming somewhere ? — A. Sometimes.when I paid cash theie would be no cheque. I ahva\-8 kept quite a large amount of cash in the safe for use every day. I would have to have cash on hand. Q. You have mentioned that with reference to Esquimalt the total payment was, how much? — A. That I cannot answer now. The book-keeper should. Q. How much did you say in your examination-in-chief? — A. What do you mean ? Q. How much did you say? — A. I said nothing. What is the amount? Q. You do not know, apart from the memorandum, how much was paid ? — A. Do you ask me how much T received as a private member? Q. No, no. How much was paid in an irregular way with reference to that Esquimalt contract? — A. That is impossible for me to say, as Mr. Connolly paid some of it in British Columbia. Q. It has been referred to ; it has been sworn to, I think, by you (Mr. GeottVion will correct me if I am wrong) at $35,000, being the amount of the audit ? — A. The audit sheet tat Quebec Q. Here it is at page 17-4 of the evidence. Exhibit " E 7." You produced that memorandum? — A. I am not accountable for that memorandum. Q. You are not accountable for that memorandum, but you produced it here. That is part of your case and this is the document which you say was given you. Mr. Geopfkion — I think ray learned friend makes a mistake. 1 produced it, Q. That is the document which you produced ? — A. It was the document handed to me by the book-keeper. Q. At your request? — A. I am not accountable for its correctness. Q. Was this document handed to you? — A. I have asked Mr. Connolly for a statement of all the moneys paid to both the McGreevys and friends, and he gave mc this amongst others. Q. Will you read it? — A. It reads as follows: Esquimalt Dock, August. 1885, 84,(1(10; February, 188«, $3,000; April. 1886, $1,000; June, 188(1, $3,000, March, 1887, 817,000; March, 1887, Three Rivers, e.'S.OOO; March 1888, $2,000— Total 835,000. Q. That memorandum is produced by you, and that is the memorandum on which one of the audit was based was it not? — A. That is for the auditors to say. Q. Now, do you know anything of that payment of the $35,000, or any items iif it yourself? — A. I cannot recollect at this time ; I cannot give the details. Q. Did you make any of these payments ? — A. I may have. Q. Can you say whether you did or did not? — A. I think I did. Q. To what extent did you make the payments? — A. I cannot state at the present time. Q. Have j'ou any means of tolling? — A. No. Q. You have nothing in your diaries — will the blotter tell you? — A. That is tor the book-keeper to say. Q. You said yesterday the blotter would help you. Will it help you to say, when I produce it here ? — A. I would have to get an export book-keeper to look over it tor me. 295 <'f\ r ,■ ('■ i ' ! ii 1 ii I:! ii i i 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 -Hi.i . nil i I'M it Q. Books and figures are no use. I want you to depend on your memoiy altogether? — A. I depend on the book-keeper— on the correctness of the auditors. Q. Well, then, are you able to sa}' speciticail}' as to the payment of any sum to any person forming part of that $35,000? — A. I would be, it 1 had the dates. Q. Are you now able to swear — not to qualify yourself by examination and then swear — are you now able to swear to the specific payment of any sum which is in- cluded in that $35,000? — A. Thei-e are some there that Mr. Larkin'g letter referred to, but I cannot tell you the date. Q. I am speaking of payment by yourself. — A. That would be by youx'self. Q. Mr. Lai-kin's letter would put you in mind of the sum ? — A. Yes. Q. And enable you to recollect the transaction, supposing Mr. Lurkin's letter was correct? Is there anything else that you can swear to? — A. To give precise dates and amounts, I cannot mention them. Q. Can you swear that you paid any person an}' part of that $35,000, as a matter of your memory ? — A. I cannot go into details. Q. I am not asking for details. Can you swear to any single payment connected with that $35,000 ? — A. I cannot give dates. Q. You cannot give dates; you cannot give amounts; you cannot mention persons ? — A. Oh yes. I paid part of it to both McGreevys. Q. How much ? — A. I cannot toll, but I paid to both of them. Q. Can you swear to any specific payment to Thomas ? — A. To the best of my recollection the $5,000, as stated, wo sent here. We were asked for money by Thomas, but wo refused. We met in this Parliament building, I believe in Sir Hector's ofl[iee, and wo came av.ay. I had no money in the company at that time : that is how it was not paid here, but I cannot tell from present recollection. Q. You cannot say where it was paid, when it was paid or how it was paid ? — A. I may have sent it here direct, or I may have given it to Robert to bring here, or — it was paid to him, l)ut I cannot recollect. Q. You have just a floating idea that the money was paid and that is all ? — A. I only want to keep a floating idea of all such i. counts. Q. I daie say. That is all you can tell, about the Esquimalt payments ? Have yrv. any vouchers for any payments ? — A. I never kept any vouchers or receipts for ^ji" inents of that kind. Q. Did you make any entries in your little books ? — A. There may be some, but I do not recollect. Q. Have you anj- entries in your little books showing payments to Thomas McGreevy ? — A. I believe there is an entiy there. Q. One entry for $1,000 ? — A. There may be more for aught I know. Q. There is one entry for $1,000, and there is one entry of " Paid Thomas for Robert, $5,000"? — A. I do not think you will get at it that way. I would like to see them. Q. Wo will show them to j-ou right in the little books, " July 2 1st, Thomas* McGieevy, $1,000." We had that entry already. Mr. Davies — What year is that ? Mr. OsLER — 1887. (To witness). On the 2(>th January, 1889, is the only other place that we find Thomas McGreevy's name, " Gave $5,000 to Thomas McGreevy for Robert in one hundred dollar bills ; O. E. M." Do you find that ?— A. That is coricct. Q, Now, Mr. Murphy, these books have been gone thi-ough and I am informed that there is not any other entry showing the payment to Thomas McGreevy in them except those two. Now, I want you to say whether that is so or not ? — A. I do not know that there is. Q. You do not know that there is ? — A. I have no objection ; I may toll you that came Q. Well, I am asking whether that is so or not ? — A. This is correct, I will read it and explain the whole thing. " Received from L. C. «& Co. ten thousand in Banquo du Peuplo bills, gave five thousand to Thomas McGreevv for Robert in 20(3 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 las one hundred dollar bill and fifties O. E. M." 1 got the money this way : Mr. Martin Connolly went to the bank, I suppose the Union Bank, and drew the ten thousand. Five of it I was ordered by Robert to give to his brother and the other five to pay a note in the Bank Nationale. 1 was to keep the other five thousand niys^eif till the note came due and pay the note. There was a wrangle between the two brothers and Mr. Thomas tried to get that five thousand fiom me and 1 refused. 1 agreed with Robert to keep it and pay the note which I did. By Mr. Kirkpatrick : Q. What date was that ?— A. January 26th, 1887. That is the e.KpIanation for that ten thousand. By Mr. Osier : Q. AVell, '^.en, ire you satisfied in a general way looking through these books, subject to you right to go over and correct it afterwards that thoro are no other entries charging 'J'homas ? — A. 1 do not know that there is. (^. You do not know there is. You can of cour.-e go over these books and correct that answer if you want to, afterwards ? — A. That is there, only under the conditions on which I received it. Q. Did you get the cheque represented by that $5,000 ? — A. What five thousand ? Q. The cheque representing five thousand dollars. What was it a ten thousand cheque? — A. I just read? Q. Yes. — A. 1 received it in cash. Q. On a ten thousand che<[ue ? — A. I do not know what the cheque was, I did not see the cheque at all. ii. Nor did you have a cheque book account? — A. That I don't know I never received it. Q. Xow you have no entry in these books showing :in}' p.-iyment lo Thomas subject to that correction ? Have you any entry in the books showing the payment to, for instance. Sir Hector Langevin that you have sworn to? — A. Entries in the books about Sir Hector ? Q. Yes. — A. I do not think there is. Q. Will you swear there is not? — A. No. Q. Will you look ?— A. That is I have Q. I want you to look over that. — A. What book would I look in ? Q. Don't you know when you paid it ? — A. No. Q. Have you not any idea where you ought to look ? — No. Q. You don't know the diary or year when you ought to look for it, do you ? — A. 1. don't recollect when I paid Sir Hector. I wanted Q. No, l»ut try and i-ecollect the year. — A. Give me the amounts and the year. 1 will look for it. (i. Oh, but the amount is given there, you ought to know about it. — A. It will take lue a long time to go over these things. Q. It is an important item ; I don't care how long it takes. Go to work, sir, and search and tell me. — A. I will require at least a couple or' days. Q. Oh no, you won't. — A. Oh yes. Q. Oh no, let me help 3'ou by undoing the bund. Now, then, take out your Itook. — A. I coitainly must get time. Q. Now which ymiv will you search first ; just consider ? — A. That I will have tuask the Committee to give mo time, Q. But consider the j'oar. If you will take the year we will help you. — A. Tlie year would be 188G or 1887. I cannot recollect. *i. One of those two years ? — A. I think so. '^ Wo get down so far, I see. Now^, here is 1887 not, vovy many pages you liiiow. and here is 1886. Now you see it is simpl}' a little job. — .\. (After looking through the books) I don't see anything in the books. (J. Try 1886. — A. There is a donation here. It is marked ''donation". It would Ivin October. It would be between the 26th and 28th, a donation of $;{,000. If voii look on the blotter it will give you an explanation of that. I have marked it 297 LM! ,!• I : ;! i: !' li • i ■' 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 donation. On October 2nd there is 05,000 to Robert H. McGreevy. Whether that is for himself or not I cannot tell. He has drawn, I believe on the same day, $2,000 ; bnt no notice of what it is for or anythins; alse. There is on the same page and marked "P. Valin, donation $150". That is giver, to charities. There is a donation on November 2nd of $50. Piobably this is what counsel want : I bought some colli wine and we divided it among the members and one small cask went to Sir Hector's house. Q. Do not get otf the tx'ack. I want to know if there is any entry there for the 810,000. Do you find any entry ?— A. No. Q. Do you tind in the book entries of donations which would be perhaps politi- cal payments. You have already mentioned some as you wont along. — A. Yes. Q. So while you tind entries of $2,000, $100, $200 and $250 there is no entry as to $10,000?— A. No. Q. Either in 1886 or 1887 ?— A. No. Q. But you selected those two years ? — A. Yes. Q. Now you have entered in that diary from time to time your various special transactions — your settlements with Eobert McGreevy — and you entered in these diaries items down as low as $3 ? — A. Yes. Q. And I notice that here and there your games of draw poker are noticed? — A. Certainly. Q. Both your losings and winnings are entered ? — A. Yes. Q. You made entries like that just about the time you were getting up the document: "April 20th — Visited Mr. Tarte at house and in evening played draw pokor at my house and won $3 from Eobert McGreevy ?" — A. I generally got my milk from Mr. Tarte. That may account for it. Q. We have (he scope of these diaries, showing all 3'our entries. We have these diaries showing from time to time your settlements with Robert McGreevy? — A. Yes. Q. We have these diaries fmm time to time showing your payments to Thomas McGreevy, but we have noentr with reference to $10,000 you have sworn to ; nor have we entries of other sums paid to Thomas McGreevy. Now, tell me, how many payments did you make to Thomas McGreevy altogether, personally? — A. I made several small paj-ments for elections. Q. How many payments did you make pei'sonally to Thomas McGreevy? — A. That is beyond my recollection just at present. Q. How many can you swear to now? Take your time and think. — A. There are those two that I could swear to. Q. Those two that are entered. Can you swear to any others ? — A. Not with- out looking over some of the other books. Q. Presuming, subject to your correction, that there are no other entries show- ing payments to Thomas McGreevy, can you swear to any others ? — A. In the elec- tion ot 1882 he asked me for $500, which I was going into his office to give him when I met his man outside, who said "I know what you are coming for; I will take it." Q. Any more sums you could swear to ? — A. I gave him on one occasion $250 in his house. Q. For election purposes ? — A. I believe so. Q. Go on. When wa>* that? — A. I cannot tell. Q. What year? — A. It is in one of those books. Q. What year would it be in about?— A. I cannot tell now. Q. Can you give mo any thing more? — A. That $10,000 that I gave him on the dredging contract. There is no entry in my book about that. Q. Which dredging contract was that? — A. The contract for thirty-five cents per yard. Q. The contract of 1887. Where did you pay that ? — A. In his house. Q. Any voucher ? — A. No. Q. Any entry ? — A. No. 298 Q. Q. Q. present Q. 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. About what diite? — A. Previous to the election of 1887. Q. Any oiher payments to Thomas McGreevy ? Was that lust one in cash or by cheque? — A. Cash. Q. Where did you get the cash? — A. In the bank. Q. Was it all in one payment ? — A. To my recollecticn it was all in one pay- ment ; but I would not be positive about that. I made so many payments- it is im- possible for me to recollect. Q. Do not go into generalities, we have had enough of those in chief. About what time would that be ? What election was it for ? — .\. I do not know it was for any election. It was previous to the election of 1887. (I. Shortlj- previous to the election of 1887 ? — A. I think it was. Q. Have you any entry in the firm's books about it? — A. That I do not think there is, unless I see the papers I could not say. Q. Then the payments stand on your unaided word ? — A. No. Q. On what else ? — A. Mr. Connolly was there. He either drew tho cheque or endorsed it. Q. I am speaking of the payment to Thomas McGroevy — the act of payment ? —A. The 810,000. ? ' Q. Does it stand on your unaided word ? — A. No. Q. What else ? — A. Mr. Robert McGreevy came and told me his brother wanted 810,000, and I went to see Mr. Connolly and either one of us drew the cheque or cheques. I was going to give the money to Robert and he asked me to give it to his brother. Q. So still the act of payment stan^Is on your unaided word ? — A. My impres- sion is that Robert was in tho house when I paid him, but I will not bo positive. That is the recollection I have. Q. Was he present when the payment was made ; did he see it done? — A. To the best of my recollection he was, bu I wont swear positive. It was simplv this way. The money was in an envelope and I made a remark, handing it to Mr. Mc- Greevy, and we commenced a conversation about something else. Q. Then what other moneys have you paid to Thomas McGreevy ? — A. I can- not recollect all these things, Q. Can vou recollect the payment of any other sum ? We have 8500, 8250, 810,000. We have an entry of 81,000, and an entry of 85,000 ?— A. I do not think there is a man in the room could answer that. Q. I am not asking any other man in the room. I want to know were there any other payments to Thomas McGreevy? — A. I am giving an answer to the best of my recollection. , Q. Were there any other payments to Thomas McGi-eov^'? — A. That is all I can tell. Q. Were there any other payments ? — A. You must not ask impossibilities. Q. Answer my question. Can you tell me whether there were any other pay- ments ? — A. I cannot. Q. You say you paid Sir Hector 810,000 — in his house ? — A. Yes. Q. Can you remember the season of the year ? — A. 2^o. Q. You do not know whether it was midsummer or midwinter ? — A. I have no recollection. Q. The occasion has gone from you ? You cannot bring the circumstances to mind to enable you to fix the date ? — A. No. Q. It is gone from you altogether? Well, where did you get the money ? A. In the bank. Q. What bank? — A. We were dealing this Q. What bank? — A. I cannot tell which of the two banks it was. Q. You have no idea which of the two banks ? — A. I do not recollect ul tho present time. I have Q. Do you or do you not recollect ? : i 1 ' V ' ! \0 i .*{ I Us /ill 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 i! 1;^: «j \R Mr. Laverone — Why should not tho witnoss bo aUowod to finish his answer? Counsel stops him short. Mr. OsLER — I want n direct answer to my question. A. I gave tho answer to the best of my recollection and knowledge. I have no recollection. It was cither the Bank of British North America or tho Union Bank. Q. You do not know which ? — A, You have my answer. (i. Have you any idea which — which would you think ? — A. 1 cannot toll from my prejient lecollection. Q. It would be impossible to tell ? Have j'ou any opinion on the subject? — A. I cannot stato exactly. Q. Have you any opinion on the subject ? — No. Q. At page 182 of the printed evidence, question at the bottom of the page — " Do you know on what bank they were ? — A. To the best of my opinion they were on tho Bank of British North America." Was your recollection better the other day than it is to-day ? — A. No. Q. Now, what time of day was it, or night? — A. As far as I can recollect that, I think it was the day time — I think on both occasions. Q. Did you pay it twice ? — A. Yes. (}. There were two occasions when you paid it, were there ? — Yes. Q. Now, sir, what cheques would help you ? Was it your own cheque or the firm's cheque ? — A. That I cannot tell. Q. You cannot tell whether it was your own account or tho firm's account ? — A. It was on the firm's account that I paid it. Q. But which account did you draw from ? From your bank account or the firm's bank account for the immediate money ? — A. I think it would bo tho firm's bank account. Q. Did you draw tho cheques ? — A. That I cannot tell. Q. What is your view; what is your opinion? — A. It is impossible — there were so many cheques ; I may or may not have drawn it. Q. You cannot aid mo in tho date by a reference to the cheques at all ? — A. No; I do ni>t think I can at present. Q. To whose order were those cheques drawn ? — Can you tell that ? . Is it all gone from you ? — A. That I do not know. We have been in tho habit of drawing cheques. Q. I want tlio answer to the specific question. Do you know to whose order those cheques were drawn ? — A. Sometimes I would draw cheques to Mr. Connolly's ordoi'. Q. That is not the answer ? — A . That is my answer. Q. I asked you do you know to whose orders those chfeques wore drawn ? 1 want a specific answer ? — A. I do not recollect ; it may be to mine. It might, but it may be to ^Mr. Connolly "s. There were so many cheques drawn ; so many transac- tions of this kind, it is impossible to say. Q. At page 181, two-thirds down, we read : — " You drew those two amounts by cheques (o tho order of Nicholas Connolly ? — A. Yes, I signed the name of Larkin Connolly & Co. to the cheques, and I believe Nicholas Connolly endorsed each of them." A. I thought so, I drew the money and paid it. Q. What sized bills were they ? — A, To the best of my recollection they were hundred dollar bills. Sometimes I asked for bills and tho bank would not hi..'e them. Q. But on this specific occasion do you remember? Canyon distinguish between this time and another as to what sized bills you got? — A. 1 was drawing a cheque for one of those parties and I asked for hundred dollar bills in the bank. Q. On this occasion? — A. I wont say on this. I got twenties and fifties. Tho same thing occurred with mo in ditteront banks. Q. I am asking you to answer a specific question. Can you recollect the trans- action of getting billson this occasion from tho bank, and if so the sizes of the bills ? — A. I cannot tell. Q. Is it gone from you ? — A. Yes. 300 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Any Q. Yoii cannot distinguish between that and any other transaction? — A. other transactions of that kind. Q. On pajie 183 j'ou are asked the question "Large bills ?" — A. I nsUeil for one hundred dollar bills and they did not have them conveniout and I think I got fifties and twenties. Is that correct? — A. I am not positive. Q. You are not positive. It is a pity you were positive the last tin.e that is all. l)o you know whether that item comes in the audit and can you put your linger on it ? — A. I don't know. I never looked over the bortks to see. (I, You never looked over the books to see. You don't know where it comes in in any memorandum that you have? — A. No, unless what was handed to mo by >Iarlin Connolly. Q. Can you identify the payment at all in the statement ? Can you pick it out in the statement that ilartin 1'. Connolly gave you ? — A. When the money was onlercd it was to be charged to the Graving Dock at Levis ? (I. Yes ? — A. I presume that is the item it is charged to. Q. If we could find then an item charged to the (rraving Dock in which the dioiiue was drawn by you and endorsed by Nicholas Connolly in 188(; or 1887 that would bo the item would it not? — A. I don't say whether the cheques was drawn by me or Nicholas. I have no recollection how it was drawn. Q. You said so one day and you don't say so to-day. You answered before 'yes ; I signed the name <»fLarkin,Connoll3't!t Co. to the cheque and I believe Nicholas Connolly endorsed each of them" — ^^A. I have no recollection of it now. Q. Can you point out at all where that ton thousand comes in, in the books in any waj'? — A. I nave no recollection beyond the leport I received and instructions (^ Look at K.vhibit II 9 ? Have you evei- seen that cheque before? — A. (Look- ing at cheque) I may. Q. Do you know anything about that cheque, or the cheque of November 21st. — A. I handled so many of these, it is impossible for me to recognize them. (^ You cannot recognize them at all ? Now these are cheques in Martin Connol- ly's handwriting who signs for the firm? — A. That appears in Nicholas Connolly's signature. Q. And who signed for the firm in the one of the British North America Bank ot 21st of November ? — A. That is also the same signature. Q. Are you able to state whether this ten thousand appears ? — A. No. (I. In any accounts or vouchers ? — A. Other than the places it was agreed to be put at that time I never looked at the books to see. By Mr. Davies : Q. Agreed by whom ? — A. Mr. Nicholas Connolly and myself. By Mr. Osier : Q. You of course were interested in seeing that ten thousand came properly in to the audit were you ? — A. No I took it for granted, every thing was correct. t^. And did not make any enquiry ? — A. No enquiry. Q. As to these two cheques your former answer was " I know nothing about them " and that is substantially your answer now. You know nothing about them you say even if these cheques were put in your hand ? — A. I have no recollection of lliem. Q. Y'ou would be unable to turn to any document here, and trace me out this ten thousand dollars? — A. I am unable to I know. It has been a blank in my mind and I wanted it to remain so. I drew the money out of the bank and paid it. Q. And you wanted it to remain so? — A. Yes. Q. And you would never be able to trace or put your finger on a place in the firm's books where that ten thousand came in? — A. I iiave no recollection, I never looked at the books to see. 301 r\\ I'liM = :'^ 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 1 ^fl! !i . •} i*'t M !» S Ml if i iif Hkm liii mi . \ sS«- : 6 Q. You woulj not lio ablo by roforring to any book orraomoramlum? — A. Thore has buon ho many clian^'os. Q. Are you able to point out any mumorundum or aid tho Committoo in any wji}' al)out that ton thoii.sand? — A. I havo no recollection myself whoro or how it has been entered on tho books. Q. Was it in any memoranda? — A. No, I have no memoranda or never kept any. Q. You could not point it out in any memorandum you tfot from the book- keeper? — A. Other than it was supposed to he in the Graving; Dock. Q. Are you sure that item in the (iraving l)L.".k memoranda is this ten thouaand? —A. No ii. You would not make that statement at ail "' — A. I don't know where they charged it or how they transferred it, Q. Or anything else? — A. Yes. t^. There is a question on p'lge 180 a little below the middle " Will you look at exhibit L 5 " printed at page LV2 and explain to the Committee tho tea thousand dollars " ? You answered " the item of 810.000 I gave to Sir Hector myself?" — A. That is correct so far as I gave the money. Let me see that item please, excuse me ? (Looks at tho item) This is astatenjent that is marked ton thousand, and whore I drew money and paid it, it was to bo charged to this account. I drew the amount on two occasions and paid it but wiiother the book-keeper has crodited it to this Graving Dock or any othoi- account or made any transfers I have no knowledge. I agreed with 3Ir, Connolly. Q. You wore asked before in chief: "Can you tell me tho year the payment was made ? — A. ^ly cheques would show." Do you have your cheques here ? Sup- plement that answer by pointing out the cheques. You have the cheques. Ml'. (ieoflVion objected to the question. Q. Tho question on page 122 was: "Can you tell us the year it was made? — A. My cheques would sho'v. (^. I have not got the cheques. You cannot say the year? — A. Xo I cannot say tho year." You produced those cheques afterward and my learned tiiend suggests j'ou ma}- not have all your cheques here. Y'ou have already told us you believe you had all your cheques here. That is true. — A. As far as I know. Q. And you have your bank book here to sliow whether any cheques are miss- ing? — A. I do ni/t think there are any cheques missing. Q. Then, sir, I ask you to make good your answer : " I havo my cheques here ; the cheques will show." That was a specific statement to the Committee that there were cheques you knew of that would identify this transaction. 1 want you to pro- duce the cheques. — A. I cannot identify tho cheques. It is impossible. I have so many transactions of the kind, it is impossible. Q. Can you make this answer good ? Can you fulfil your ofler to the Committee that the cheques would show ? — A. It is impossible for me now to recognize cheques so long given. Q. Is this answer correct as you made it : " My cheques would show. Q. I have not got the cheques. Y'ou cannot say tho year?— A. No; I cannot say the year." You swore afterward that they wore the cheques of the firm ; but there you say tho cheques would show. — A. 1 stated this to tho best of my recollection and belief. I have no reason to change my opinion. Q. Thore are no firm cheques which will correspond to that payment. Now I make that statement, and suppose it is correct, would it be your own cheques ? — A. I do not know which cheques it would be. I went to the bank, and drew the money and paid it. Q. AVould it be your cheques if it was not the firm's cheques? — A. I think it is the firm's cheques. Q. You are not sure; if not, then would it be yours. Is that so? — A. I believe the raonej' was drawn by the firm's cheques. 302 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. I.) A. 1891 Q. If nobmly uun HnU Hiich uii item in the tirm ufcouiitM, would it bo your cheques? — A. There must be an uccount of'it in the books, [t wus perfectly umler- «too(l between Mr. Livrkin imd Q. I am asking you, Nupponin^ we oaimot rind and we are not able to satisfy the Committee that there ix any mucIi payment in the firm's book;*. Assuming that, would you say you were mistaken in the payment or you got the money on your own cheques? — A. The payment was niade and there must be an entiy on the books some place. Q. And it must l)e made by the Hrm ? — A. Ves ; or the book-keeper. The audi- tors went through the whole thing and had an examination, and stated ^vliere and how they would place it. it is a matter that was thoroughly talked about and an explanation given. Q. It was u matter of discussion ? — A. At the time of the audit, I believe. H. A matter of objection ? — A. No objeclion. Q. Why discussion? — A. To say what account it should be charged to. ii. Now passing to another subject in the meantime. Do you remember the sewer in the South-wall contract? — A. Yes. Q. There Avore some changes connected with the works there ? — A. Yes. Q. And you told us that Mr. Thomas McClroevy interested himself in getting those chan:;es made? — A. I believe so. Q. Had you conversations with him about the changes? — A. I had. Q. Did you urge the changes? — Were they beneticial to the Hrm? Did you urge them ? Answer please. — A. I think so. Q. Are you doubtful about it? — A. I think the tirm urged the changes. (2. Did you urge the changes; did you take part in it? — A. I believe so. Q. And did you go to Mr. Mcdreevy in the matter (no answer). Q. You can answer me surely? — A. I think so. Q. And you invited him to help you in the matter? At page 210, 1 read ; — " And you invited him to help you in that demand? A. I did," Is that correct? — A. I believe so. (J. Well did you go to Mr. McGreovy with reference to the change in the datum line from which the sewer was to be built or the level of the sewer in the wall? — A. I am not positive whether it was Kobert or myself, (I, Well I want you to swear to details or take back what you have said already about that transaction? — A. What is the question. (^. Did you see Thomas McGreevy in reference to the change in the sewer ? — A. I believe 1 did. Q. What was that change ? To identify it? — A. It was a lift from the bottom in the datum. Q. How much ? — A, Near three feet Q. Two feet nine ? — A, Somewheie about there or three feet. Q. Was the change beneficial to the contractors? — A. Yes. Q. And you believe you went to Thomas Mctrreevy about it to get that cliange made ? — A. I think so, Q. Will you swear so ? — A. To the best of my knowledge. Q. You knew it was being done and it was beneficial to the firm that it t-hould be done ? — A. Yes. Q. There was only one change I think in the level? — A. And from brick to stone. Q. There were other changes, but I am speaking of the change in the level of the sewer ? Were there any other changes in the sewer or was there just the one ? — A. I think there was two. Q. What were the two? — A. The change from tho bottom, raising it three feet, and using stone instead of brick. Q. Yes, but the change from the bottom of 3 feet, is what you have spoken of as having seen Mr. McGreevy about ? — A. Yes. I talked to him about the stone also. 303 til M lii«i 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 • i! !fl Q. Just so. Is that your entry on thi- last paire in your diary of 1889 (handint; book to witness). Is that in your handwiitin^? — A. 1 Q, Is that ih your haniUvritinir? — A. Tiiat is that. Q. Is that in your handwi iting? Answer the nuestion, man. — A. I won't answer A. 1 Q. Answer that question straight? Have j'ou any doubt about it?- Q. No exphmation now, is that your hantlwriting? — A. I Q. Answer the question. Look at it again, is it j'our handwriting 'I Talce your eye-glat!S to it. — \. It may be. il. Jsit? — A. It may. Q. A.nswer the question. Is this your handwriting? — .\. Yes. Q. Now 1 will read it. On the last page in your diary for 1889. this entry appears in your handwriting, " .S>uth-Widl sewer has been raised from tlie original plans and spei-itications. without my permission. '1 feet 9 inches." Kxplain it as you like, sir. — A. The e.xplanation is tliis — That I went to see Mr. Mctireevy about this thing and the sewer was raised. I was ordeied to s'gn a bill, and although I was ordered to sign a paper I was not ock. (i. Apparently that settlement would bo some nione}- he owed you '.■' — A. 1 might j>ay lor the stock, I dont think he wou'd owe me any other way. I think this is a stock transaction. Q. You think this is a stock transaction making two even chciiues forSo.OOO ? — A. I believe so. Q. Stoi-k trj'iisactions do not generally work out even money. That is your best explanation ? — A. Yes. ii. You quite see that they do n>t refer to your settlcnent. that you spoke of tir>t ? — A. The notes? *}. These two cheques ? — A. They may, as I would not yiiiy him the money witijout the notescame due. It may refer to that. . Hut 3-our payments to him were of cheques of 2ist May and of 2;{rd June. Lo<'k at your diary ? — A. It is the only exi>lanation I can give. 1 believe it was a :«tock transaction. *i. You give it for what it may be worth ? — A. Yes. 'i'. Now V"» look in vour tli.'.r'' of ISS,') on 28th Ajtril yon find an entrv. " N. K.<'..nnolly."lJ. ('. .Sl.OOO?' fto vou?— A. Yes. *}. 28th July, Hobert II. Mc('u-oevy, 82,00(1 do ^-ou tind that all right ?— A. Yes. *}. sth .September, Robert Mc(ueevy, §1.000 ?— A. Yes. *}. tith Xovember? — A. This is moneys — i*. Wait a minute. Now, Idth Xovetiliber, §10,000 do you see that there .-' — A. Yes. 1;. Hobert Met Jreevy, §10,000 ■-■'—A. Yes. e all in your handwriting? — A. I believe so. . And tliey are all entries in ynir diary? — A. The dates may vary about these. -.U *i. They aie records of transactions in your book whatever they ma\fbe. '• 2nd Oct'.ber. IS81!, Iiobert Mc(Jreevy §5,000," and again on the same day ••"§2.000"? — A. Ye^. 'i». And on 20th October, you see u donation of 8:5,000 ? At this point the witness fainted, and the Committee subsequently atljourned. i r H i;M I ,( i ! ! il 1—20 806 Ml 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 hif I ; House of Commons, Wednesday, Sth July, 1891. Tlie Cominitteo met at 10 a.m.; Mr. Girouard in the Chair. Investigation into certain circumstances and btatements made in connection with the tenders and contracts respecting the Quebec Harboui- Woi'ks. etc., j'esumed. The Cliairman read a telegram (signed by Chas. Langelier and Ernest Pacaiid, Quebec, to the ett'ect that certain newspapers had stated that proof had been adduced V;efore the Committee that the firm of Larkin, Connolly & Co, had paid a note of §700 for them, and asking that tliey be heard before the Committee on oath in refu- tation oi tlie charge. Mr. FrrzPATRicK. — 1 ani requested by Mi', Connollj^ to make a statement tiiat this note came here !)}' the merest possible accident. It was in the bill book brought 11]) by Kelly. This book was put on the table, and the note happened to be inside. It Mas a mere accident that tlie note came here and it has not been tiled. ] am fur- ther lequested to state that the note was not paid by Mr. Connolly but by the maker and endorser, and lias nothing whatever to do with this enquiry. It did not come to Mr. Connolly irom either the maker or endorser, but it came indirectly, and I am authoiized to state that the note will be given back to Mr. Pacaud. The Secretary was directed to communicate tiie foregoing statement to Mr. Pa- caud and !Mr. Langeliei'. Mr. Tarte. — I have just received from my lawyer the statement of Mr. Murphy asked for by Mr. Osier, ami of course I take it for granteil that the document, which is of ver}' great importance to me. will be given back to me. (Exhibit "G 10") " Statement of Jlr. Ouen E. 2Iuri>/t>/. " I have been a meml)cr ot the tirm of Larkin. Connolly k Co. since our first work, being the (rraving DockatSt. .loseph, Levis, a contract made with the Harbour Commissioners, (Quebec. "In 1882 our tirm made another contract for ilredging in connection witii the Harbour Improvements with the Harbour Commissioners. "It was with this contract that I tirst became acquainted with I?obcrt II. McGreevy. of Quebec, (brother of the ITon. Thomas .Mctrreevy, a member of the Harbour CDmmission, and a member of the House of Commons ofCanada), and who became a jiartner with us (Larkin, Connolly i^ Co.) for the contract of dredi^in 1 ■ " iccomi aw ng interested to the extent of ;5U ])er cc nt riie Hon. Thomas .McGreevy \va> are of his brother's interest in this work; an agreement in wiiting v/as made by liai'kin t'oanolly i*c Co. setting forth his interest. " 1. In the s])ring ot 1883, we (Larkin, Connolly* & Co.) tendered for tlie con- st ruction, ot the Cross-wall in connection with the Harbour lm]irovement.s, Mr.liobert Mctireevy beccjming interested to the extent of lilt ])er cent, by a written agreement signed by us all. The lion. Thomas McGi'eevy was aware of this before the tenders went in. AV^e (Larkin, Connolly A: Co.) became aware of the ])osition wo held, as tentlerers, before being iid'ormed (dticialiy. and governed ourselves accordingly, by the withdrawal of John (iailagher's and (ieorge lieaticage's tenders; and in consi- deration of S^.'i.OOO ])aid to li. H. McGreevy, in presence ot the Hon. Thomas 3Ic- (ii'cevy, we obtained the contract. This ])ayment of §25,000 was made in June. 18S;!. by jiromissory notes made l)y one member of the tirm and endorsed by another, which notes wore subsequently retired by the tirm at maturity', and charged !'> exjiense acrcount, '•2. On or about the 2;}i'd June, 18SI, Larkin, Connolly A: Co. siunc.'. a supplementar}* contract for certain works for completion of the tiraving Dock at 306 1 I -' 54 Victoria, Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 St. Joseph. Levis, and erection of the caisson, with the Harljour Commissioners, for the obtiiining of whicli contract Lirlcin, Connolly k Co. paid tlie Messrs. Mc(rreevy the sum of §22,000 in promissory notes of one member of the tirm to anolliei", which notes were subsequently paid. ''3. On or about Xovember, 1884, Messr.s. Larkin, Connolly & Co. signed a cniitract with tiie Department of Public Works of Caiuida for the erection and completion of the Clraviiii;: Dock at Hsquimalt, in British Columbia, ]\[r. R. II. Mcirreevy beinj;-. with his brother's (tlie lion. Tiiomas 3Lc(rteevy) knowledge, a partner in the said contract. That immediately after the signing of the said con- tract I ])aid the sum of 85,000 in promissory note.'* of liarkin, Connolly i*c Co. tor i)btaining said contract and for his services to be givjn to have (dianges made for the benefit of the tii-m of Larkin, Connoll}' \' Co., and later on and to the end 5 cents ])er yard for dredging in Harbour Works to the extent of ■^(•0,000 cubic yards, or thei'eabouts, instead of 27 cents, our contract avei'age ])rice. The monej' was pai >re(ireevy came to me and stated that Sir- Hector Langevin was going away thai evening and wanted money \85.0(l0) ; I gave him 81,000. and on the 8tii of the same month lie received §4.000 from X. Iv. Conn(ili^-; this sum was charged to the firm in the books, as jipjiears by the Accountant's statement, siisjiense account. "(i. That large sums of money were paid to the lEon, Thomas Med ■ <'vy. in •hid- ing special ones above set forth, betAVeen 1883 and 188',t. amounting toowr Sliio.diii). '• 7. r also paid to two sums of §5,000 eacli for these work-. and my share of §10,000 ])aid by Nicholas K. Connoll}^ to Sir Hector Laiigevm. a> >o -tated by Connolly, which was jiaid out ot' the Graving Dock, L(5vis ; ail of whiih ;i]i]iear in the Accountant's statement. ''8. There were paid to the Hon. Thomas Mctii'cevy. tiirough Xicholas K. C'liiiiolly, §3,0110 on the 21lth of December, 18.s;i, or thereabouts, ciiaiged to the Jirilish Columbia Dock. "!l. I i)aiil,onor about .\rareh, 18S(i, to the Hon. Thomas Mctireevy, §5,000; on tliis 1 have letters of I'. Larkin tlealing with that sum. '• In. The statement ol'the Aecoiimant shows §3,(140 jiaid to one insjiector on tlie Ibirliiiiir Worksdredges, §l,t)ti(f to another, and §445 ,o a third; all the jiartners had Id loiiiribute their jiro])ortion to these iiayments. '• I have a statement signed by tlie Accountant of the tirm, setting forth all the lM\iiients, and others, as above. " O. K. >[uiti'iiv.' -Mii. O. I'"i. .MiiiU'iiv recalled, and his cro.-s-examination resumed. Jiij Mr. Osier .- t^. Is iliat your signature, Mr, .Murphy (showing foregoing statement) ? — A 1. iirlii've it is. ti'. is that till' only ])aper you signed ? — A. I may have signed another. • i*. What is your recollection ? — A, ^[y recollection is that I have. . Was tlie other paper identical in its terms, or wa> there a variation ? — A, Tliat I cannot tell at iiresent. 307 l—20h ¥' IfM > 11. m\ 54 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 .^I'V S '' i ' ' I ', J- : i! you refuse to louk at it, to soo whether you cau identify it or not ? I wiiuM like you to look at that, aiul see if you can state whether or not you ever saw it before on any occasion ? — A. I may liavo seen it, but I am not positive. Q. You are not able to state from your recollection if ever that letter was ivceived by the firm of Larkin, Connolly & Co. ? — A. I cannot tell. It may have been ivceived 1)}' myself, but I am not positive. Q. Will you state, then, how it came to be found in the bag pro luced byyou, and piitporting to contain your private papers ? — A. There are a number of papers in my bag not i-eceived by me — papers of Xicholas and ilichael Connolly, both. Q. How did this paper come into your possession ? — A. That is more than I can tell. Q. Will you look at the endorsation on this letter, ami state whose handwriting it is in ?— A.^That I cannot tell. Q. The letter reads as follows : (Exhibit " ir 10.") " Union Banic of T.ower Canada, '• Ql'EIJKo, 3rd June, 1SS5. " Messrs. Larkin c*^ Co., " Conti-aetors, Quebec. " Dear Sirs, — As desired by j-ou I beg to inform you tliat from this date all clicques drawn upon this bank by your firm will requii'C to be signed by one member of the lirm and countersigne I by another. This applies also t(t promissory notes. Kindly call and leave specimens of the two signatures to be used. " Yours truly, " E. MacKWAX. " Caihier." Yi.'U cannot account for this paper being along with the private papers produced by you betore the Committee? — A. I cannot tell. By Mr, Kirkpat.n'ch : Q. In whose handwriting is the endorsation ? — A. I cannot tell. Jiy Mr. Stuart : Q. Q. Q. Is that not the handwriting of your son ? — A. No. You have no idea m whose handwriting that is ? — A. Xot at all. Xot the taintest ? — A. Xot the faintest. (I. Have you over seen the handwriting befoi'e? — A. 1 cannot recollect. (}. Tiiat was the bank you carrieil on your business at? — A. Yes : at the time. <^ Was the suggestion given in the letter acted on liy the tirm ? — A. It w.as for ii while, and it was found inconvenient, and that we ^ould notget along that way, and a letter was posted with Union Bank to the ett'ect that [ was to draw the cheques, or either ;jne of us — either ni3\--tate whether vou recognize the signature and endorsation on the back <■■ it " I-:. .Murphy" ?— A. That [ cannot tell. ^■l. D) 1 understand j-ou to say you cannot tell whether that is your signature < r not? — A. 1 am not positive. Ft may be or it may not. Q. Whose else is it if it is not y )urs ? — A. I do n )t know. «i. Do vou recollect the circumstance-* connected with this note? — A. Xo ; I do !.o 809 ''.:'ihyf ; 1 !; *f vM- u J 1'^ In iiiiii :M|' . It 'i ^ ; 1 i 1 1 W i. i 1 il i 54 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 (}. The signature which the witness is asked to identify is the signature on a cheque in these words: " Quebec, Canada, 15th September, 1881, (Exhibit "110.") Kxciiancje Bank, Glean, X. Y. Please pay E. ALurphv or order Twcnty-tliree hundred and titty dollnrs — (82,350.00.) '• X. K. & M.CONNOLLY." Q. Did you get any money upon that bill? — A. I do not know whether I did or not. There is a lot ot'lhese bills and receipts and notes, and other matters connected with this oil business. This maj- be one or it maj- not. The\- are all in mj- bag, Q. IIow did you come possessed of it? — A. The same as other documents in my bag that you looked over and picked out. Q. How did they come into your possession? — A, They might be directed to me and put in my care, (}. But were the}'? — A. They were all in the bag, and you looked over tliom yourself. Q. But were they ? — A. The}' might be, Q, Surelj' you can answer and be a little more positive ? — A. I believe they wore. Q. Bywhom?^-A. By the Connollys. Q. This was an order on the bank where you were doing business down there ? — A. I havedone some business there for the Connollys — sold some oil wells for tliom. Q. In Olean, New York? — A. At Kiiapp's Creek. Q. is that the place where you were doing the banking business in connection with this transaction? — A. It was. Q. As a matter of fact, this is your signature? — A. It may be. you know Q. any I A. [t is ])retty lianl to identify papers and signatures that have been so long out 'it my possession. Q. How loi lias Ibel it been oiitof your possessidn? — A. You took it out yesterday. leve. Q. You cannot identity a paper that only left your pos>es.>.ion yesteiday ? — A. I am going to identity nothing unless you take all the ]iaper in cdniiection with it. Q. Oh, that is the objection. Well, you see we don't want the other papers in connection with it. The only question is, as to that beingyoursignature. — A. They are very important to me. Q. Not for my jairpose; I don't want them. I want you to say if that is \'our signature Q. Cii ?— A. I am not positive. .•ou sujrg est anj- person whoso it may be? — A. No. (i. Please look at a note proiluced here Exhibit ''.DIO." which roads in tlieso words : " On demand I promise to pay to >[r. K. Murphy or order 84(10,000 for value received without defalcation or discount — Michael Connolly. Endorsed to the order li. il. Mclrreevy, E. irurph}- without recourse." And state whether the endorst.Ml name, E. Miirpln-, on the back of that note, is your signature? — A. I believe it is. Q. I find among the papers proiluced by you yesterday a letter from the Dey.art- nient of Eailwaysand Canals. Will you state thatletter which isdated 28th December. 1888, addressed to Messrs. O. E. .AEurphy and Ifoiiert ;Mc(>roevy care of O. E. M iir- phy, Esq., contractor, Quebec, was received by y believe it wi ou '!! o rdinaiy course ? — A. Mr. Edoar. — What letter is it ? 3lr. Stuakt. — It is merely a letter returi Iiig a deposit receipt . Did any of ihut monej- liolonijj to the school trust ? — Xo. *i>. To whom (lid the money you drew upon actually belong? — A. It belonged as much to myself as anybody. 1 may state it was money 1 carried the liquor dealers on b3' receipts over the \'car, and the question came up by the temperance men, excitement and suits commenced, and \ wont to pay the money to the comp- troller, and he refused to take it, the difficulties and excitement was >o gieat. I ^■avo him S10i»,000 about thirtj' days or so pievious, on which were granted licenses, :inil the balance was in litigation. He refused to receive the money, as he had no iiieaiis of paj'ing it back if he received it. Jiy the Chairman : This excise board — was it a Government or municipal office? — A. >[unicipai. It was a municipal institution ? — A. Yes. You wero treasurer of that boaid? — A. Yes Did you t.ike an oath of otfice ? — A. Xot that I recollect. Are you sure about it? — A. I am not positive. Of course, an oath of otfice would be that you would taithfully ilie duties ot' your office. You understand what an oath of office is ? — A. i^i. You don't recollect whether you took such an oath or not? — A rociilloct. Hi/ Mr. (feofrion : . Were Xicholas and ^[icliael Connolly awan; ol tli- circumstances uiuler which you left Xew York? — A. They were. '}. Did thev interest themselves in your affairs i.i Xe v York after your coming toCaiiad.-i?— a". They did. <-i. In wliai m.mner? — A. They acted tor me. I boug'* soiiie property in their nanifs, each of them, and I gave them some money to g( -ack and \)ny come debts, which was butcher and grocer bills, and different things. One man they paid five tliijiisan. Had you been also a member of the State Legislature? — A. I was. Were you when you left Xew York? — A. Xo; I was a member in 18. disehargo Yes. 1 ilo not 1-';:. () ' t : i , q Hit* ;il' : i I 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 '[ ) i m It "I' I' m P M ill I k I \ I^Ji i>M ii. For liow long liave they been known in tlio city of Quebec? Were they known generally in the city of Quebec? — A. What years? Q. Ever since you have arrived there ? — A. They were known over in St. Jofieph and Ldvis. The ConnoUvs knew it. Q. I am not talking of the Connoll3^s. Were your antecedents generally known in Quebec after your arrival? — A. It was all published in the newspapei's. Q. When was it published in the newspapers — about the time you arrived? — A. I believe so. Q. Do you know whether ^Ir. Tarte was aware of these antecedents? — A. I do not know. I never s])oke to him about them. Q. Were these antecedents mentioned in all the newspapers of Quebec? — A, That I do not know. Q. Can you mention any one of the newspapers in which they were mentioned? —A. Xo. By Mr. Geoft'rion : Q. The New York press wrote many articles aliout you when you left ?— A. I believe so. 1 do not know of any Canadian papers. t^. When you spoke of ncwspajiers you meant newspapers in Xew York?- -A. Yes. (i. You have filed diaries before this Committee covering several years. Did yon read them jecentlyor examine them in any way before tiling them ? — A. I have not. Q. How long ago did you take communication of them? — A. At the time I soitl out to the Connollys I simply picked them out of the safe and put them in a bo.\. and I do not know as I ever looked at them since. Q. If you looked at memo, it was for a special jjurpose. You did not read them all through ?— A. Xo. Q. 3[any entries in those diai-ies refer to donations and many other matters, but did you enter in these diaries ail the payments, either by way of donations or otherwise, that j'ou made for the tirm of Larkin, Connolly & Co.? — A. Xo ; I would state that any donations of Ei)bert McGreevy, wherever his name is mentioned, it would be money chargeable to his own account and not given as donation-*. Q. If 1 understand you rightly, these diai-ies were not regular books ; they were memoranda ? — A. That is all. Q. In which you did not enter all your transactions? — A. Xo. Q. You have already stated that you did not make any entries in the books of Larkin. Connolly iS; Co. ? — A. No. Q. Tliat you onl}- instructed the book-keei)er to do it? — A. Y'es. By Mr. JJaries: Q. Do these books contain any alleged jiayments to Tiiomas McGireevy by the witness? — A. Only one, and it came in this way: Mr. JMctiieevy appeared to come in a hurry and 1 drew my cheque. He came for 8o,000. I hail not the mone\' and I do not know whether the company had it. I simply drew my cheque and went to the bank and gave it to him. J made that entry sa that there would be 84 000 more due. By Mr. Geoff rion : Q. W^hat is the entry?— A. 81,000. (^. It was paid on a call for $5,000 ? — A. That entry on that ilate would not be made unless I wanted to get that cheq.ieback from the'company. By Mr. Da vies : Q. Is that the only entry in j'our book that has leference to these alleged pay- ments to Thomas XcClreovy'?— A. That is all. By Mr. Geoff'rion : Q. That is all you find? — A. This other account was simjdy between flu- brothers. 1 gave 85,000 to Thomas and 85,000 was retained to ])ay the note in the Bauque Xationale, and iiad nothing whatever to do with this 810.000. 312 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. It was Imsiiifcss between the two brothers? — A. Yes. (}. Although you did not make any entry in the books, are you a book-keeper? Do you understand book-keeping? — A. No. i Q. You relied upon the book-keeper for the way entries were made? — A. I did. Q. Giving him only the material ? — A. I did. Q. When the cei-titied copies of audits were handed to you. did you take the trouble to verify any <>f the general items contained in them : or did you rely upon them ? — X. 1 relied upon them as lianded to me. (}. Have you kept any document or puper which you know is in existence in connection with your private atfairs or your coiniection wii,h Larkin, Connolly \ Co ? — A-. I have not. unless what was in the bag and returned to me here. Q. You iiave mentioned that you were ajiproached by a ^[r. Davis offering his good services to try a settlement of j-our ditficulties with Thomas MctJreevy and that you also stated that he had several communications with yon ? — A. I was. Q. In these communications did he make you any reports about liis interviews with Thomas MctTiecvy ? — A. lie did. (Counsel objected.) Q. As a result of these reports had vou an interview with Mr. Thomas Mc- (ireevy ?— A. I Iiad, Q. What was the result of tliat interview ? — A. Xothing. Q. You could not agree to anything ? — A. Mr. McCrreev}' wanted me to sign u pa]ier slating that he received no moiiey from me or that he did not know his brother Robert was a partner — something to show to Parliament to cover himself— and he then made several suggestions. One amongst them was to withdraw the Miit from his brother. I. told him as far as I was concerned 1 had nothing to do with it and would not sign anj* panei-s. There was a good deal of talk about dif- ferent things. He sent me a p:iper by Mr. Davis to sign, stating he wanted ti> send it out to the country and I refused. t^. Inj-ourcross-examiiuUion you v.-erc referred to pugo 110 of the Evidence, au'l asked what had been the amount of your tender for the final contract — the lump sum contract — for the Ldvis Dock. Will you look again at the hanie page? 3r.R. Osi.EU. — ^That is leading him. Q. Will you look agriin at the same page, and say what was the amount of that tender ? — A. The sujiplementary contract ? Q. What you call the supplementary contract? — A. The bulk sum was 8i54,00(» ami ten thousand to be added which do not a])pear in the contract, to be added after- wards the caisson which would make §74,000. i}. And as a matter of fact was the caisson built ? — A. Yes. Q. And you were paid 810,000 for that work?— A. Yes. (j. Will you refer again to the little diary for the year 1889, at the last entry ill tlie book, and explain what you mean by what j'ou liave written there ? — A. That i> correct as far as I know. Jh) Mr. Ed'jar : Q. AVill you read it? — A. "The South-wall sower has been raised from the ori- u'inai plans and specitications without my permission two feet nine inches or tiiere- aiiouts." By Mr. Geoffrlon : ^i. Explain what it means from your knowledu'c ? — A. Di 1887 T had charge of tlu work and after my interview with Thomas McGreevy for the substitution of •■^tcine for brick I sent a communication to thell rbour Commissioners stating that it would he no extra cost either per running foot or yard when finished, and letters and agreements had passed between the Commissioners and myself accepting the pro- p'sil. I tried to get the datum of th* sewer raised a foot but nothing came out of it. Dv na letters passed between the Harbour Commissioners and myself in 18SS, and when Michael Connolly I might say took forcible i)ossession. or took charge of the ^\"rk-. my interviews ceased and I knew nothing about it. No letters passed from Wo In the Harbour Commissioners or from them to myself giving the promise or 313 ) I': ^m \ I- lj 54 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 uc'knowledgini^ it wuh i^oini; to bo done either from the Kngineer in Charge or the Harbour CommisBioners. So both statements of mine arc correct. By Mr. Lamjelier : Q. I do not understand exactly ^-our answer. I would like to understand exactly what chani^e you wanted and what change was eventually made? — A. I tried to get it raised up a foot in 1887 and I failed. Nothing cameot it and nothing was done. In 1888 Mr. Connolly had more influence than I had anil how he got it done was a mystery to me. I know nothing farther about it. By Mr. Elac^^ to look over any of the books. (2. You had no books to keep? — A. Not myself, as far as mj' treasurership went. The chief clerk kept all the books, and his assistant received the money. Q. So there was no necessity of any knowledge of book-keeping in that office / — A. We hail a very extensive start' of first-class book-keepers and clerks. Q. But as treasurer there was no necessity for a knowledge ot book-keeping f — A. I simply received the money in a bulk sum from the chief clerk. It would be deposited in the baid< by him, or one of his assistants, to my credit. Bij Mr. E I gave Sir Hector. Q. Did you tell 3[r. Tarte to whom you gave it then? — A. Xo. Q. Have you now, or have j'ou ever had, any ill-feeling toward^ ."sir Hector Langi'vin ? — A. No. 'i>. Any cause for it ? — A. No other than what I stated. 1 have always thought 1 have not been treated fairly in the Kingston dock, but [ want no malice against tlicm or anyone else — even Mr. McGieev\'. 1 never had anj- malice or intention to Mate this. ' (I. I want to bo clear. Did you draw the 810,000, which you told us you paid ^ii' Hector Langevin from the firm before you paid it to him ? — A. I drew the money. "ii the (lay that the money was drawn, J )(ly else in reference to the payment of this money to Sir Hector Itetore il was paid ? ilow camo j'ou to go to Sir Hector to give liim money ? — A. By direction ot Kicliolas Connolly. tj. Wiial eoiiversation led to that? — A. He had tallced over the matter with Sir Hector. He was not yetting his share with the McGreevys dividing equally and did not know whether he was getting any an 1 he wanted me to give this amount in secret. That is all I have got of the transaction. Bij Mr. Bavies : <^. In reference to that 810,000. Your statement is there must be chenues of Larkin, Connolly A: Co.. which will represent the sum drawn by 3'ou and if liiose cheques are not fortiicoming it will look bad? — A. I cannot tell. Q. They must be there, if your statement is true ? — A. Yes. By Mr. Tartc : ii. If the books were clearly examined do you believe ? (Counsel objecteil.) By Mr. Geoffrion : Q. Have you any recollection of the manner in wiiich the money was paid or was it ))aid hand in hand or any other way? — A. l>o you mean how I paid the money ? Q. Yes, did you count the mone^' ? — A. 1 have been in a habit of getting all rive thousancs in a bunidi tied nii in ditlerent l)anks. Tliey put thotn up so. It was handed to me and I had a largo envelope and put it into my pocket. 1 went and put it on the ilesk and said '' ilere is a little present," and after some talk Sir Hector pulleil out ids drawer and shoved it in. That is all about it. Q. Then there was no corrupt agreement at all ? — A. Oh, no. I state hero that Sir Hector never asked mo for a tlollar for himself or any election purposes. The monej' was given sin\ply as a gift. J wanted to make that statement at the time 1 did, but Mr. Curran put me some questions and there g<»t up a wrangle, I think, over the matter and it ilropi)ed from m^* memory. What I mean as a wrangle was there was live or six gentlemen talking together. By Mr. Edgar : Q. I want to ask you a straight question now. Have you any knowledge of any payment or any gitt being made by or on behalf of the rirm by yourself to Mr. Perloy or his family ? You have to answer, you knw.v. From what I have heard I want in know ? — A. Yes. Q. What was it, or when was it ? — A. Mr. Michael Connolly told me (Counsel objected.) Q. 1 am not asking what you iiave been told, but what you know yourself. Mr. Oslkr. — Only your own knowledge. (I. Come now, j'ou must tell me if you know it '! — A. I was sent here to give Mr. Perley, or see if he would take it, §2,000, and lie refused; but said he wouM take a little present, naming what it was, and I returned to Montreal and purcha-e 1 very nearly the amount in jewellery and other things, and sent them to his wile. Afterwards! met him and heariuij about the amount I sent he rebuked me fordoiii;;' so. 316 f G4 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Whnt did lio say ? — A. Ho snid I done wronj; and sent too much. He meant :i rinir <»' Kri'iiHt pin or M)n>etliin;; of tliat nutiir and stated I sent too much. < J. Was any of it sent hacU to you ? — A. So, liij Mr. Tarte : f}. What wasthoamount ? — A, I think it was iJl.^S.'), the total eoft, as near I can recollect and the other hundieil [ . What did ho call to see you about ? Business or to talk .^ — A. No; 1 mot liini accidontly either in the bar room or office of the Windsor Jlotel. It was an aicidentid meetiiit;. Q. What year was that? — A. I think it is January-, 1SS7. Q. Will 3'ou bo able to recall his name to your memory or has it escaped your iiK 111(11 y for the moment? — A. For the moment. Q. Can you get his name? — A. I think so. Jiij the Chairman : Q. Did you know at the time he was in the office of Mr. Perley, or was it told to you at the time? — A. 1 knew at the time. The young man who was with me was from (Quebec, but he did not know the amount of the bill. Q. W!-.ere does the entry appear of this §100 and of jiayments for jewellery ? — A. 1 see by tho cheque entered here it was Januaiy the 2-ith, 1 think. (}. You are referring to the cheque? You drew the mone}' on a cheque and hnuight it ahmg in a pile, as you spoke of it at the Windsor? F want to know where the entry apjiears of these jiayments ? — A. That is for the book-keeper to tell, as there was to be SI, 000 charged to one work and $1,000 to another. I cannot explain any further. <^ They were to bo charged in tho books of Larkin, Connolly & Co.? — A. To the (liti'eront works. 'i>. A thousand to what work? — A. As far as I recollect S1,000 to the British Columbia work and $1,000 to the Quebec works. Q. To what account was it to be charged? — A. That 1 cannot tell. There «"ould he only one account, which was an open account. Whether it was the dredg- ing or Cioss-wall I do not know. :}17 ' :M'i ! i i > 1 '1' ' •M' i 'IL ii m !^s ^i i'i . (■£ '- ■ It - 54 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 ! ^ii Q. Do you know whetlier it was expense account or not? — A. I suppose that would bo the account. Q. What members of the tirni iviiew of this payment? — A. 1 believe the two Cona >llys. tj. Y'ou loft it then to them and the Ixiok-keoijer to make the -roper entries? — A. Yes. i}. Did Ihe book-keeper know how the money had been applied ? — A. The con- versation w;is ijeneral and they had directions given. I think he iloes. 1 am only tiilkini>-fri)iii niemoiy. Q. \oii liuve no entry in yuur own little books of these atfairs? — A. Xo. ]iy Mr. Geoff ri'iii : Q. Whore did you buy that jewellery ? — A. In Henry Birks', St. James Street, 3Iontreal. ]h/ ,Sir John Thompson : O. What lapse of time occurred between the pa^'ment of the hundred dollars and the purchase of the jewellery ? — A. I left Quebec and jj;ol here the next day, and it was the followinii,- eveuiiiir that I met this clerk. It was the next day. Q. How loiiii; .fter wa^ the jewellery bought? — A. I returned to .Montreal that night and expressed it liere next day. Jiij Mr. Eihjar : Q. Do you know to whom it wa> expre»ed ? — A. Mih. I'erioy. I sent iio name in it. So she did not k'low whe:e<>i- tr far as I know. (^. Have you the bill of it? — A. I had. i}. Have you it luAv ? — A. X.- {}. Did you ge*. tiie bill in ycuir own name? — A. Xo. (J. How did you get it? — A. Mr. Hirks asked me the name and I did not like to have it traced, and so I tolyl him Ji>ne> or some name like that. 1 tbiid< 1 re- collect it was Jones. Q. At any rate, wa i it all one order given the same day? — A. Yes; and shipped the same evening. Q. You gave shipping insiructions ".■' — A. I shipjied it myself. i}. You got it away from the ilealer, bad it sent to ycju and onlered it slii])i)ed ? — A. He put it in a l)ox. I tol I him to liive it jiut in a box and that 1 would call tor it at a certjiin time at night. !t was sleiirhing. I got it in the sleigh, as I tlid not want Mr. JJirks to have any address— J >r. ]{ussell came in the house anil 1 did not want him to Ivtiow I was buyin:.' »<• large an amount — and I took the box in the sleigh and went down .St. l-'ranyois Xavier Steeet and expressed it. 7)'/y Sir. John Thompson : *). Who |)Ul the address on the I'ox ? — .V. The clerk. There was no name on it in Hirks place. 1 had that ilone in the expres> ollice. By Mr. Eihjar : t^>. As to this payment . Has he paiil it back? — A. Xi> : I never expect it. By rite Chairman : t^. Did vou mention to Mr. IVrlev ihe price of your gill? — A. I do not think Tdid. t^. Then how did he come to mention to you that he . ver expected it would cost so much, or something like that ? — A. 1 met him soon -.fter 31.S 54 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 «^>. Hiiw sfKjii at'tei? — A. I cannot tell, ami lie hail one ul' tlie riiiy.'s on his titiirer anil a pin. (i. A diamond ring? — A. Yes. Q. And a r these i^'itts? — A. Not that I know of. • By Mr. Dickey : «^>. Will the witness describe what the gifts vvere? — A. ChieHy diamonds. ii. What were the articles? — ,\. Kings and broaches. (y. How many ring>: ? — A. That I cannot tell. J would have to see the bill. ii. Were the i-ings all diamonds ? — A. All diamond rings. i*. You do not know how manj'? — A. 1 vannot tell that. . AVhat ? — A. I ilescribed a breast pin and diamo'id ring. i}. The re>t was ladies' jewellery ? — A. Chiclly. . What was there of gentleman's jewellery except the breast pin and one ring ? — A. 1 do not recollect. By Mr. Curran : \>. I>id you enter that in your diaiy? — A. Xo. . Where is it ? — .V. That 1 do not know. \». I~ there anything in your book with relerence to it ? — .^. There is nutiiing iti m_\" liook. By Mr. Ttirte : *i. i'o you know Mr. I'erley's son whf> is, I believe, l-",ngineei ot the Kingston i'ock? — A. 1 would not know him if 1 met him. 1 have met him once 1 believe, ill- was introduccil to me, but 1 would not know the man if I met biin. CrvSa-exan.iited bv Mr. Ode •r : *i. From whom diil yfni ])iircliasc — was it .Mr. J]irks, or a clerk oi anybiidy else ill the >iore? — A. It was .Mr. Mirks himself. <^. Vnd the day you think was about the li-lth .lanuary ? — A. 1 left (Quebec ou rlir L'4tli .lanuarv. 1 think. 'i'. ^'ou came here on the S.lth, and you would buyon llie2i>th ? — A. 1 think so. *i. And ship Oh that ilay? — A. Shij) on thai day. ^i. You do not remember the Express otHce? — A. 1 believe there is only one on :i;ut street. 1 do not know but there may lie n\ore. Jl'i Mr. iieofi'rioH : >*. Is it the otlice nearest Xotre-J)anie ? — A. Yes. 1 thinlc it is the Cttnadian Kxpres-. By Mr. Osier : . You had in your possession when you left .Monticai the invoice or bill of the ' Irll ds?— A. 1 had. il'.t 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 •A. It was in thci m ■v\ m (i. What have you done witli that? — A. I forget now. Q. Why should it not be amonn'st 3-our papers produced ?- otlicc tor some time in Quehec, ami I ma}' have taken it out. Q. But, at all eventts, you are unable to find it? — A. Yes. Q. And you say you dealt directly with Mr. Birks? And the amount you paid him you remember to be exactly- 81,885? — \. That is my best recollection — somewhere about tl.at. It was less than Sl,90l). <,►. You came up with the 82,0U0 in order to give it to Mr. Perley ? — A. I did. ? — A. I paid him aotiiing myself except a note after his death that became due. He bori'owed a note of the Company for 8250, and alter his death I believe his wile was unable to pay it, and we took it up, and I have the note in my bag. :i20 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 m im ot aii- la'a Q. As a matter of fact, is it not true you collected the note from the widow ? — A. It is not true. Q. Is it not ti'ue you went to collect it, and your partners said j'ou had better not do so ? — A. It is not true. Q. This f^entleman was a Harbour Commissioner at the time you got your first contract in 1878 ? — A. That I do not know. Q. He was not a Harbour Commissioner at the time you lent him money, was he ? — A, I myself personallj' have lent him nothing. Q. Well, at tb ; -me the note was given to him, of which you have spoken ? — A. I was a member of the firm then, I oelieve. Q. That is not the question I asked you — I asked you whether he was a member of the ll.a'bour Commission at that time? — A. No; not to my recollection. Q. Now, as a matter of fact, is it not the case he was a member of the Hai-bour Commission in 1878, and that he ceased to be so shortly after ? — A. That 1 do not kno\\\ Q. You have spoken of an interview you had with Mr. Thomas Mc(rreevy and Mr. IJavis ; had you an interview with any other persons on the subjeit of this pro- poficd settlement of these troubles?- — A. Several parties came to me to see it 1 would not sign a document, as I have stated, which I refused, it is impossible to name all these. (l. Did you go yourself to the Honourable Mr. Irvine's office in Quebec and propose to settle this matter? — A. Mr. Irvine has been my lawyer, and when I got into trouble, knowing he was the lawyer against nie, I had still confidence in him, and met him and would be willing to make any sacrifice to see it settled if it were possible for me to get out with honour. Q. Did you go to his house and speak to him there about the proposed settle- ment of this matter ? — A. I met him on the street. Q. Bid you go to his house? — A. I met liim at the St. Louis Hotel, on the side- walk. i^. Did you speak to him either in his office or house with reference to the settlement of this matter? — A. I have no recollection of any other ]jlace only the interview I told you about. Q. Do you recollect moi-o than one interview? — A. 1 do not. (i. Will you say there was no more than one interview? — A. No. Q, Will you say you did not go of your own motion to his house or office and try and settle this matter ? — A. When 1 went it was on my own motion as he was my counsel in all this transaction, and then Mr. ^IcCxreevy had him hired. I was still satisfied to irust Mr. Irvine with anything that could be done with honour. Q. Can you try and recollect whether yon went to see him at his ollioe with a view to having this matter settled? — A. I do not think 1 ditl. I do not know as I I'vcr had an interview with him except as I described on the street. Q. Will you swear that you did not go to his house antl ask him to tiy and have this matter settled ? — A. 1 have no recollection. (I. Will you swear you did not? — A. No. (i. Will you swear you diil not on another occasion go to his imluce him to settle this nuitter? — A. I may have gone there, collection. (}. Were not these interviews about the time the indictment against you for house and try to but I have no re- ninspiracy was coming to trial ? — A. It was about that time, and Mr. Irvine wan fijiiiisel against me. Q. That was in November, 1890? — A. October or November. Q. The conspiracy trial went over to the ne.xt term on that occasion ? — A. The Mttrreevy suit? Q. No, your trial for conspiracy. As u matter of tact the trial was postponed on your application, as you said you had witnesses alwent? — A. It was postponed. Q. Until the next term? — A. Yes. (i. The next term was last April ? — A. Yes. 321 1— lil 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 iw \ l>. 'i' IV :^i {;• Q. Then when this trial %\ " about coming on, is it not true that you again went to 3Ir. Irvine and tried to see if you could not get it settled? — A. I don't think Tdid. Q. Will you sweai- you did not ? — A. No. To the best of my recollection I did not. Q. Had you any interviews with Mr. Irvine with a view to having this matter settled in the presence of anybody else ? — A. No. Q. You did not go on either occasion you saw Mr. Irvine accompanied by Robert McGieevy? — A. I have no recollection of it. To the best of my recollection and belief such an interview has never taken place. Q. You have no recollection of any interview between yourself, Mr. Irvine and Mr. Robert McGreevy with a view to having thiii matter settled? — A. No; I have no recollection of anything of the kind. Q. Will you swear none took place? — A. Mr. McClreevy may have come in with me on some other business. I do not think he did. To the best of my knowledge and belief no such meeting ever took place as far as I can recollect. By Mr. OsUr : Q. I find, Mr. Murphy, that on the 24lh of January, 1887, a cheque is drawn by Larkin, Connolly & Co. to your oider for $3,000, and that it is the only cheque of that date which would at all correspond. It is endorsed by you, and the signature seems to be in Nicholas Connolly's handwriting. Can you tell mo whether that is the cheque on which the $2,000 was procured, and if so, what became of the other $1,000 ? — A. That you will have to look to the book-keeper, to see what account it is charged to, whether uj^ainst me or some of thf> other works. Q. l>o you think th it is the checiue? — A. To the best of my opinion, I am not positive, but I think it is. Q. It has been paid in cash by the Union Bank on your endorsement ? — A. Yes. (^. Have you memory enough to tell what was done with the other thousand ? — A. No; it might be cliarged to my account, but as to how the book-keeper has classified this Q. What did you want with $3,000?— A. I may have put $1,000 to my own credit; if you see my own bank book you may see whether I have or not; if not, I paid it out for the Company I'or some other purpose. Q. Have you any deposit there ? — A. I want to see if I paid it out; see what is charged in the books of the firm. Q. There is nothing to show that you got rid of it in your diary? — A. No. Q. We have the cheque for $3,000, and I think it will Ite found to be the . Treasurer? — A. I think so. Q, It was not plainly his name? — A. I think it was Treasurer. Q. Did you go to New York with the cheque or send it for collection ? — A. I left it in the bank for collection. They said they would send it on for collection. Q. It was not honoured or paid ? — A. No. -K' :Jj:|g|l| 1 ii ^ \.\ ' m \^^ mi !'|. !f ■ \ ■:' n ' i; 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 ri' M If H! I Q. Where was your office in Quebec at that time? — A. I do not know, from the date of those notes, whether we had an office in Quebec or not'/ Q. Try to remember whether you had an office in Quebec or not at that time? — A. My recollection is we had no office at that date. Q. Your recollection a minute ago was you signed in an office, your recollection now is, you had no office in Quebec? — A. Not at the tlate of those notes. Those notes may have been signed in the bank. Q. ]Jut leaving the bank aside, you stated your recollection was, they were signed in your office ? Do you abandon that theory now ? Ma. Stuart — He said that was where they were usuallj' signed. ^[r. Geoffrion — He may correct himself — what is your recollection now -was it signed in your office or elsewheie ? — A. .My recollection is this — that all our business was either done in the office or the bank with regard to notes or cheques. Q. Where was tho office of the firm in the year 1883? — A. E do not rememl>er whether we had an office in Quebec at that time or not. Q. Where was the office of tho tirm in June 1883 ? — A. I could not tell you. I think we had an office in Quebec at tlie time, but I am not sure. By Mr. Curran : Q. If you had one in (Quebec, where was it? — A. It was on Dalhousie street. Q. As soon as j'on moved to Quebec the tirm kept its office on Dalhousie street? — A. Or on the Embankment, portions of the time we had two offices, one on the Embankment, one on Dalhousie street. By 2Ir. Geoffrion : Q. When did the tirm begin to have an office on the Louise Embankment ? — A, I do not remember the date. Q. When did you close that office on the Louise i-hnbankment ? — A. 1 do not know that either. Q. And you cannot give to the Committee the date when you opened the office on Dalhousie street ? — A. No. Q. Can you give the year? — A. No, I do not know as I can. Q. Do you remember the circumstances where five promissory notes of 85,000 were signed by the firm? — A. No; I tlo not. (I. If not exactly together ? — A. No, I do not. (^. Do you know, whether those notes have ever been paid ? — A. Yes, I think thej' have been paid ; all our notes have been paid. I think they seem to be our notes. Q. How many promissory notes altogether, for any amount whatever, did you sign or did the firm sign to your knowledge ? — A. I could not tell you. Q. A large amount ? — A. I coukl not tell you the number. Q. Did you keep a bill-book ? — A. There was a bill-book, I think, in the office, at least a portion of the time. Q. But the only one that was ever kept is the one that was brought in by your book-keeper to your knowledge ? — A. To my knowledge, yes. Q. 3Ir. Martin P. Cimnolly will 'ou get the book that will show the payment of three promissory notes ? The cash-book of the 3rd November, 1883 ; and there are also stub books. Now witness will you look at page 126 of book "E3 " and see whether you tiiul any entry there showing that one of these notes was ]jaid on that date ? — A. I see a note of P. Larkin for §5,000, which seems to have been paid on that date. At least il is marked here. Q. Is not that the same date as the due date written on that note and endorsed by Patrick Larkin ? — A. Yes, this seems to be on the same date as tho due date on the note. Q. The note of $5,000, Exhibit - W 7," endorsed \\ Larkin at six months ?— A. Yes. I see that note for 85,000 is not on the 3rd. Besant for §500 is on the 3rd, and 326 4\ 54 Victoria. Appendix {No. 1.) A. 1891 the next is the note of P. Lnrkin, no date; but the next cliite is the titli. It is marked 85,000. Q. Does that not mean the same date ? — A. I think not. Q. Look at the promissory note endorsed P. Larkin, marked due 4th November and see it' it is not marked us beinj,' charged «t the bank? — A. I do not know whether it is paid by cheque or not. Q. See it' it does not appear to have been charijed at the bank? — A. T do not understand that. I see that the note is marked certified. Q. Do you nor read on the face of the note : '• Dr., L. C. iV Co."' and initialed by till' ieviger keeper ? — A. I understood you to ask me lor tiie bank maik on it. (i. '"Dr., ]j. C. it Co." and initialled by the ledger keeper of the bank. Read that.— A. J see '= Dr., L. C. & Co." Q. Is that not the gencial entry by the bank when a note is ciuirged '.'' — A. I cannot tell. Q. Look at s our bank book and see whether j-ou will tind a charge made against tiie tirm under date 3rd November '? — A. Yes, I see on the 3rd November tiiere is P. Ls note for S.o.OOO, (i. What would P. L. mean '? — A. Patrick Larkin, I think. Q. Now, will you see what number is given to tlie note in tlie corner '^ — A. No. 3. <^. Look at page 1G3, Exhibit "E3" — cash book — at the end of the month of December. Look at the entries and state whether you see an entry referring to the payment of a promissory note for 85,000, duo by the firm '!* — A. I see here at tlie foot of the page 163, " 6. E. Murphy, note, 85,000." Q. What is the number of the note ? — A. The number of the note is No. 4. Q. Now, look at the cheque forming part of Exibit " D8 " and dated 4th Decem- ber, 1883, and say whethei- this would be the cheque that was given for payment of that note ? — A. I cannot tell you. I see there is no number on this cheque. The number on the cheque docs not seem to correspond. Q. Does it appear to have been a cheque for the note '.•' — A. " Quebec btink for note" r see marked on it here, "$5,000, Lurkin, Connolly & Co., per O.H..M." It is without any endorsation. Q. It is payable to bearer ? — A. Quebec Bank, without any l)earer. Q. Look at the pass boolc under date of 4th December, 1883, Union Bank, and see whether you tind that cheque repeated or charged ':' — A. I see here on the 4th there is "O.I":.M. note" and right under it •'85,000;" Q. Tlie next one in the order of date would be a note at nine months payable to ymir order, and endorsed by you, falling due on 4th February 1884. Will you look at the same cash book Exhibit "E 3," page 181, and see whetiier at the end of the month of February there is not an entrv corresponding to that note? — A. There is an entry " N. K. Connolly ditto No. 5 85,000." Q. Would this be the cheque corresponding with that entry (cheque produced) ? —A. This is February 4th, 1884, " to pay note oi 85.000, Larkin Connolly. A; Co. per <). E. M. " without an\' endorsation. Q. On the face of the note endorsed by you a number is given. What is that number? — A. No. 2. (^ Can you explain the entry which is made at page 9 of the book lOxhibit " N 3," reading as follows "Cash to N. K. Connolly for three 85,000 notes charged for inci- dental expenses from above 825,000"':* — A. I don't know anything about it, but I >ee it is charged as you read here. Q. You know it is entered in the book? — A, I know it is entered in the book. I don't know anything about the particulars of it. ii. Doj'ou know in whoso handwriting is the entry? — A. I do not know. Thatl would think to be ^lartin Connolly's. I am not sure. Q. Do you know the handwriting of ^lartin P. Connolly? — A. Yes, pretty well. Q. Can j'ou explain also in connection with the entry preceding which I have ,iu^t read, the other at page 174 " Expense to Graving Dock for incidental notes 1.-825,000 " '.'—A. No I cannot Q. 327 cph < ) '•;l!! .;! i ' i' i'.irt I' !l'!'' m ; f I I 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 :i Jflii m r;l' Q. In whose hainiwritiny is the entry made ? — A. It is in the same hand- writing. Q. You cannot exphiin it at all ? — A. Xo. Q. Then have you any exphtnation to give as to the following entry, page 104 : "cash to O. K. Murphy 8i0,000 for two 85,000 notes charged to incidental expenses from above — 825,(»00" ? — A. No, I cannot explain anything about that. Q. Could any entries be made in the book unle.ss 3'ou were aware of them? — A. Yes, entries might bo made, I never superintcndef the-e notes until the end of the .season probably. Q. But even at the end of the season 825,000 would bo worth enquiring after ? — A. I might know from the book-keeper, but if I have, I have foigolten. (J. Of whom did you i-nquire ? — A. I don't know I enquired of anybody. We met at the ond of the year as a general thing, and had our audit, and there was a general discussion about the cash at that time, and especially the notes and money.< that was paid out. Q. I suppose you asked the book-keepers for information before signing the audits, as you appear to have signed thom? — A. [ was there but never aske 1 much information about it. I read it over and signed it as the others did. (}. Without putting any questions ? — A. No. Q. So 3'()u are unable to give information as to the value received for this 825,000 paid bj- the tirm ? — A. I am unable to say. Q. Try whether you have a suspicion what it was for? — A. 1 have a susi)icioii of course, but I don't know whether it is testimony. (^. Let us try. From the conversation you had, what wei'e these notes given for y — A. That I do not know Mr. ^Murphy had the handling of these notes. Q. 1 understand you did not lake the notes themselves after they were signed, but at the time of signing them and before seeing $25,000 notes being given to Mr. Murphy did you require explanation or did he give you aii}- ? — A. I do not know as he has. Q. He asked vou pure and simple to sign 825,000 notes? — A. I did not sign 825,000 notes. Q. You were aware of 825,000 notes being signed that day ? — A. 1 .-igned $5,000 that day and I see other members of the tirm did. Q. Do you not believe that they told you that they did? Did not Mr. Larkiii tell j-ou about his signing? — A. IIo may have, but I do not remember that he did. Q. As far as the ideas or suspicions that you have as to what it was for, where did }'ou get those suspicions from? — A. From the amount of money paid out by .Mr. Murphy without proper vouchers. i^. Having signed those notes, did you not considei- that they wore Vi)uchers when they were ])aid ? — A. Yes. Q. This would not be a proper explanation. These 825,000 were paid and the vouchers as notes were Just exhibited to you. — A. But there seems to be nothing else attached to the notes as to where they went or for what pupose. That is what I mean. Q. But they were entered in your books? — A. Yes. Q. That is precisely what I am asking you. Seeing you hud seen there a large amount of money, did you not enquire what it was for ? I did not ask you whether you know where the money went. I only ask if j'ou enquire what the notes were for? — A. I may have enquired but I do not recollect. Q If you enquired what was the answer you recoivoJ ? — A. I cannot tell you that. 328 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Ai'C()r(lin. Wiioni?— A. :Sh: Murphy. Q. Did ho not tell you ? — A. My recollection is that he told me it was either acconimoLlation for him.self or J?obort Mctxroevy. Bij Mr. Geoft'rion : Q. FTaving been informed that these notes were accommodation, when they were ])aid by the tirm you allowed them to bo charged to the tirm and not against him ? — A. 1 do not know that I was consulted. (^. The audits wore certiried by you ? — A. The notes were entered in the book pievious to tho audit. *i. So largo an amount as this could not have escaped your memory and when the audit was made you must have enciuired when the notes were ])aid ? — A. There i^ no doubt I took l,}. Especially when §15,000 of thc-o were charged to you. Did you submit to a I'hargo of 815,000 for accommodation given to Jkobi'rt Mctrreevyor (). K. ilurpiiy? —A. I think it was customary at that time to charge me with the cash and give me credit for what was paid out. lam not suie, bull think that was tho way it was then. <^ That would not be a good explanation. O. H. Murphy was charged with Slo.ooO, and you with 815,000. Try another explanation ; that one won't work. You cannot find another? — A. No. Q. You stale that at that time it was customary to charge the cash against you. I(s it not a tiict that Murphy was the cashier of the firm ? — .\. I do not know tiiai. I say it was customar}' at times whoever was handling Ihe cash to charge • itsh against me and then give me ci'odit for what was paid out. Q. They did not charge you, because you were not handling the cash. You only bciran to be cashier in 1887 ? — A. That m;iy be. ^i. Did you not become cashier ot tlio firm only in 1887, and in 188;'. is it not a fact that it was Murphy who was handling the cash? — A. Murphy handled most ot tlio cash. 32t> till \\ ". . M 1 !1 l. ibl:;] 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. How then wouhl yon lie chnri,'eil with cash when you did nothundlo it ''' — A. 1 cannot toll ynu that, Q. You Hay it was either accommodation for Murphy or liobcit McGieovy ? — A. That is my impression. <^. Not your lerollection but your impression ? — A. My impression, Q. Was there anv charge made af^ainstRohort McGreevy for this? — A. I cannot tell. Q. Weiv there any otiior charncs romovini,'81.5 000 from yoiirname and 810,000 from Murphy's name and carryinu; it to .Met rreevy's name? — A. I do not Unow that. <^. Is it not a ftict that this was carried afferwaid ti» the item of expense in the audit of the same year? — A. I cannot say that fiom any itnowledge of my own, The Committee tiien adjourned. i i i m House ok Commons, Tiursu.vy, !Uh .Inly, IS!tl. The Committee met at 10 a.m ; Mr. Girouard in the Ciiair, Investigation into certain circumstances ami statements made in connection witli the tendeis and (contracts resj)ecting the (Quebec Harbour Works, i^c, resumed. Sir Joiix Tiio.mi'80n. — Mr, Connolly was under direct examination when tlie Committee adjourned yesterday. In consequence of the unusual method b\' which the evidence was elicited yesterday from Mr. Murphy, regarding Mr. Perle}', I thiniv it proper to ask tiie Committee to depart a little from the regular course and to submit Mr. Perley to examination lliis morning. It will be remembered that the direct cross-examination by counsel of Mr. Murphy had been closed before that statement was elicited. I suppose, if it had come out in the usual way, in course of direct examination, tiie Committee might iuive exjtected that other testimony would havo been called on the same point, and we would have been expected to wait until the case for the prosecution was finished ; but, coming out as it diil, I assume it has to stand i)y itself as regards that particular charge, and I think it only right, not only to Mr. Perley himself, but the ])ublic service, that he should be submitted to examin- ation as regards that branch of the case immediately. I have intimated my inten- tion of making this application to Mr. Geoffrion and Mr. Tartc, and I understand it will not seriously interfere with their arrangement of the case. Ml', Henry F, Peri.ey recalled and sworn. By Mr. Osier : y mv nIviII aii«l liv my ability I had iiiU'lo it a kiiccoi^h. ami that I had liiioii tho meaii^, hy what I liacl doiiu lor iho Cominissi<>Mor> and foe thi- wmlv-., of really putting' tlioiu mm thoir tcct as rc/^tardK a vory had Jol); that he wisiiod — tho tiiiii wished — to kIiow hoiuo mark ot' their — what NJiall I eall it ? Mr. KiMiAli— What did he call it ? \ViTNK8s. — I !im HiieaUin^ from memory, and my iiiemoiy isveiy miicii impaired from my hite illness. Tiieir aiipreeiatioii of what 1 had done. lie to(dc a parcel trom his pocUot — I did not know what it contained — and ottered it to me. I asked what it was. IIo saiil it was a dt'iccur. I declined to ri'coive it. He |ire>sed me. I declined. I tidd him I coidd not take it. Jlo even went so far as to u'o ovci' to ni}' piano and lift the music on top of the |)iano and sho\e the money under the iimsic, I told him he must take it away, that I could not take it. He was persistent, so per- sistent in his determination to yive me sometiiinij that I, to try and ^et riti of him, said he mi<,'lit give me some little thing for my wife — some little thing and let it g.). He asked what 1 would like. I said, i will wear a ring for ,\diir sake, and give my wife something, lie spoke somotliing, and then wentaway. Allerwanl, there lame, while I was away, a hox adressed to my wife, and when 1 came home I tound the l}ox han with the Pul)lic Works Department yet been made? — A. They had not been nunle. except what appeared in the liittv"r part of the House. <^. Bui I mean the disclosures made by Larkin. Connolly iV Co., or some member of the firm. Had the}' come to your knowledge at ihe time you made the payment? — A. X'olhing had come to my knowledire at the time I made the payment, excejiting the matter that was a:>ked for in the House, and forms the subject of a blue-bfwk. ' ). Last session ? — A. Yes. % Mr. Mulock : (i. What was the exact ilav of vour receivim; this monev? — A. I think it was in September. 1890. (). And it was tv o yi>ars Ix'foi'e you ^repaid it, befoi'e j'ou had come to the con- clusion that you had done wrong? — A. Yes. (i. Then for two years you had not heen of tiiat opinion ? — A. 1 think, ^ir, F have alwa.vs been of that opiinon. Q. I sup])0^e you have had the articles th;;t were presented to your familv under 3'our control ever since?-— A. Evei' >ince. // Mr. Geotfrlon : (}. You have stated to the Mini-ti-r of Ju>tiee that being a man with a salary you could not fi'id the means of i)ayinir back that amount before Sejjtember, 18!HI. Wdl yon lie kind enough to >i;ite whetlvr. at tliat >late. the payment was made in cash or in notes ? — A. It was nuide in an obligation, ;«2 ':yi ■'■\\ • ■!< 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 if. There was no cash given on that day? — A. Xo cash irivcn on thai da Q. What kind ot obligation — a pronii.ssoiy note ? — A. An obligation to the 31st August, 1891. By the Chairman : Q. Did you give any mortgage? — A. No. (^. Your personal promise? — A. Mv personal promise. Q. Your note ?— A. My I. O. U. liy Mr. Geoffrion : s3, and the completion of tlie woik in December. 18SII, was it not? — A. Yes. Q. Was the work carried on and completed according to the plans that were made at the Public Works De])ar'tinent tor the purpose ? — A. So far as I am aware, there was no tleviation from tlie Cross-wall plans, with one exception, and that we put a stf)ne mitre sill under the gates instead of a wooden one. Q. Th;«t was all the deviali()n? — A. Yes. By Mr. Osier : (i>. I)id thai involve any other change ? — A. Not any other change. (^>. That had no etfect upon the contract as to (piantity .' — A. Xo. Jly »bVr John Thompson : 'i'. Do I understand you to say the obliicalion you gave was for the wlioK' ~uin ? — A. For the whole sum. By Mr. Edijar • Q. Why did you not give it l. Mr. Murphy? — A. I have n..( -een )>\y. .Muj'pliy f'lr nearly two yeai"s. 1 have not Ijeen in (^biebec .since October. IsSH. s;;. Are y>>u aware tliat there are also iwo otlier promissory notes of siiniiur amount liiat were signed on the same ilate as the one that w; c" doise. You canntit tell whether thev were endorsed by aiivbodv oi' not? — A. No. 54 Victoria. Appendix (^o. 1.) A. 1891 54 Vic li'-|: Q, Voii don't know wliether lln^se notes were ])ai(l oi- not, or when they weio paid? — A. J Unow that they were paiil, tVom tlie fact that we have them in our jj(j:-.^ession. hut 1 don't i. Vou don't ajjijear to understand my question. The three you had yestei'day and iilentitieii, hut tiie two now |)ro(hieed, I want to know if you iuive seen them? — A. r niay have seen tiiem, but I have no leeolleetion. (^). Do you know whether Miciuu'l Connolly endorsed any of tliese five j)romisBory notes? — A. 1 do not know of my own icnowledgc. I see his signature, hut he did not endorse in my presence. (}. Did you endorse more tluin one of these five notes? Tii.'.'', is only one made to your or one made to my order. <^i. Will you look at a clie(iue otthe Union Bank hearing the number iJO-l and dated 14th .May, 1S83, and read the entry under that nund)er and date in the stuii book? — A. I see an entry on Utli .\[ay, 1888, " M. Connolly. 8."),U0(», ])rivate use." Q. And wh;;t is written in the muririu? — A. "To pav note M. C. of 14th -May, 1883." Q. Is that margined note in your handwriting? — A, I don't must be in Martin (.'onnolly's. Q. And the entry that is also there, "0. K.jniid"? — A. Ves. Q. I again put before you these two promissoiy notes, dated l^t 3Iay. each pay- able on demand, and ask j-ou to say whether this cheque could have been paid by one of these notes? — .V. 1 may as well stale here to the ('(jmmittee, before going any further, 1 know little or nothing about these cheques or notes. Yesterday I saw more of our books here than I ever saw before. 1 am not an eilticatod man or a man that is capable of book-kee|)ing or looking after acciumts, aiul for that rea.son I never want to do it and never lid do it. Q. Vou are a business man now? — .\. 1 am mure of a mechanic and worker on the works than anything else. . -V re you not a director of the largest inland navigation company of the Dominion? — A. I am one of a number of directoi's. Q. And you feel qualiried to act in that capacity? — A. I may have nu'chanical kn.irt'ledge to w.irrant my position on the Board of that company. (}. You do not cxjject toact as a director, but as a mechanic ? — A. -More s(j than anything else. Q. Well, if you iiad so little knowledge ot' Itusiness, why did you consent U) nvA us cashier of the tirm in place of Mr. Murphy- in 1887? — A. I only acteil then when Mr. Larkin insisted on my handling the cash. (}. Though yi>u iuive not much book-keeping knowledge? I ask you again know. 1 think it whcilier this entr}' showing that this was to pay a note by Michael Connolly, datcil 14th May. 1883, can be taken i r the payment of a note sigiUMl by Larkin, Connolly & Co. to the order of the tirm ? — .v. I would consider it was. but I don't know. Q. You would? — A. Yes. Q. is it not a fact these notes areilatcd 1st -May? — A. Yes; I see that it is dated the 1st .May. Q. !{iit is it not entered here that it was to pay a note of the 14th of May? — A. I see that. Q. li cannot be for tiie sauie notes? — A. 1 do not know about that. Q. On the face of the entries, it caimot be that, unless some e.x])lanations are given? — A. I see the note was dated 1st .May, and the entrv in the stub-book is 14tli Mav. (i. Xow, lo(jk in anic 'b-book, uuiler No. .'J8(J. under date of 1st June, 1883, where there is an entry in connection with a iu)te, and read it ? — A. 1st .June, 1883:— X. K. Connolly, 8r).(i(IO to cover note, aw Q. . Q. you was the payi —A. I .1 ever saw Q. ^- 4th Fenr Q. 'J il \ Q. I '■(Quebec Iv. ( 'oMIU (i. J I Q. h 1883, to J -V. K. G/i special ki iu'ver cxan Q. X( ^^ere. by tj I'tiid by' I ho i" the bant As tor m_\' ( (I. Wil under date ■\- On |Piig(. ll'Jtc.^, §1>1',I) they were made and signed ;ii)d endorsed ? — A. 1 cannot recall to my mind anything about the circunislunces of the giving of tiiese notes. I know that Mr. Murphy and Mr. Koberl Mctireevy were ninstantly re(|uiring assistance, arid \ know we gave Murphy notes, and some of them, to the best of my kiuiwledge and belief, were for Jvobert McGreevy's accom- iiKjdation; but as to whether these are the notes or not I cannot say — as to dates. i-l. The only cxplanatiouyou can give is, that according toyour recollection they Were for Uobert 3Ic( Jieevy's accommodation? — A. Or Mr. Murphy's. t^. Are you aware that these notes were ])idd by the linn ? — A. It seems so from the notes. 1^, Also from the books of the tirm it woiUd seem that they were paid ? — A. I never examined the books to see. Q. Xow. it would save ihe tinu' ot'the Committee if you would say whether you weie. by the audit or by your book-keejier, aware that these notes for §22,UU0 were paid by the tirm ? — A. 1 know notiiing about the payment, more than seeing them ill the iiands of the Committee now. I know they were paid by them; that is all. .\- tor my own knowledge, 1 know nothing of it. (^. \Villyou loi)kat i)age2'.lO ot Kxhibit "F3,'' being]thej(nirnal of the Levis !>o(dc iiider date Ijitth April, 1885, and read to the Committee the entry you find there? — A. On page 2IU) 1 see an entry made '" To cash for incidental expenses. Paid for l.nle>. $!22,0(i(J." *}. Y«ui don't read the entry well. The tirstentry \^ ■' Expense. lJ22,(IO(l ; " then 'lir entry you read follows. Turn to Jiago IIMJ of " G ii," being a ledger ol the Lt^vis l''ck. under date of 2()th April. 1n8."(. and read the last item l)ut one of the entries? — A. 1 tind "Xole No. 2!»(l— e22,'HM)." 335 !!''■ It' I" I J. II i !^ i 1 1 h Ig 1 m i t 'illi' 54 Victoriia. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Having seen tlicse entries, have you any doubt now that these 822,(M)0 were paid by the lirni? — A. 1 believe the}' were paid by tiie firm. Q. Are you aware whether thehe S!i2,0(H) were ever ciiarged, eitlier to Murphy or to l{(>l)ert Mctireevy ? — A. I could not tell you that. (}. You never gave inistructions, ho lar as you were concerned, to recover these amounts from IJobert .McGreevy or Murphy? — A. I know there was a dispute when the audit took ]>la('c with regard to Murphy's vouchers and to his casii account, iiut further tiiau that I don't know anything aliout the books. (I. But those charges of S2"r),00()" and S22,0m> were discussed ?— A. I don't remember whether they were discussed or not. They may have been discussed amongst the otli'"'.-. Q. Hut you have signetl the audits? — A. Yes; I have signed the audits. (^. You are satisfied you signed them? — A. Yes; I saw them here signed by me. (i. And do you know whether these two amounts of §22,000 and 825,(100 were included in the audits? — A. I could iiot tell that. (.1. Hvcn if j-ou had the document you could not tell ? — A. I could read it and see it it was the document, (}. 1 asked you yesterday whether you had any recolh^ction of the natureot'tiio transaction in conncclion with this §2,"), 000. ^'ou appeared to have very little recol- lection yesterday. Would you slate whether you had a bettei' recollection. ;ind what was such a recollection, when in your previous examination at i)age74. Jlad you an ofhceon the Jjouistvl'lmbankment in ISSo? — A. Ithinkso; that is my recollection. (^). Is it there you claim these notes were signed? — A. I could not say whether we signed in the otlice at tiuebee or Levis, or at the bank. I could not tell y thintr about that. ou anv- Q. Were fhev all signed in ihe J^ouise Kn\baidvment ollice ? — A. 1 could not tell that either. Q. What did you mean when you answered Mr. Davies : " There was something of that kind ? ' — A. There must have been from the notes. J see they were datetl nn the same day — still, they may not have been signeoi them in the office. (}. When had you seen them last before answeritig your first examination? — A, I (ion'l rerMcmber the time. t^. Mail}' months before? — A. ft must be a good while ago. (}. llow man}' months was it? — A. 1 do not know. i{. Do you know where they were? — A. Xo. i^t. When you saw Ihcm, where were th.'y ? — A. On the desk in the office, <^>. Was it two or three \'ears ago? — A. 1 think it must be. i}. Was it not at the audit in 18S5 ? — A. Jt may have been in the audit. Q. When you saw them in the audit of ISS."), what was the discussion al th ese notes A. I do not know what the discussion was, but I know a di>ci .11 ml 'Oil generally look place with regard to Mur[)liv's cash 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Who were present at tliis diseiissioM ? — -A. Mr. Larkiii, and dm dim- oeeiision wlion -Mr. Fiarlviii was absent Mr. Jviiniaitt liai! a jiowcr i>\' attnrnoy for Mr. JjarUin Id iran>aet liis tjiisiru'ss. (.}. XolwitlistaniliMi;' the disoiis^ioiis whieli there were aluiiil the cash ut' .Mi'. 3[iii'))hy. you siii'ned tlie deehtratinii wiiltenmi ilial tiial balaiiee, ivxhihit "(_'")"? — A. Ves. \>. What is tliat i, aecounts and Noiieiiers, as made by Messrs, Ivinnnitt and Hume, as shnwn liy this trial bahmce.'' /;-/ Mr. MdoHi : I). Wiio >inns'.''— A. I'atriek Laikin, X. K. Connolly and O. ll. .NLuipiiy. (^. Wilh llieir own siixnature ? — A. Ves. (^). Wiiat is the dale of tiiat >innin^- ? — A. 'i'iie tiial balance is IVoiii \^i .Maich, 188;r to 1st May, 1Hn5. Q. So tiiat'was signed after Isl May, IS.S") ? — A. Yes. il U this not dated " (^uoiioe, 2nd iluue, 1885 " y — A. Ves. />'// J//', (ii'olfrion : {}. b'e;id also tiie certilieate on ilxhibit " D .")," which appear^ lo iiave been siuneil by the imunhers of the lirni ? — A. " Wo .ajiprove of the amlit nebec, 2nd .luno, 188,")." (I. Uy whom is tliat signed? — A. liy tlio tirm, as the others were: i'atriek Larkin, .\. K. Connol'y, O. K. .'Lvirpliy and iiobert Medreevy. Q. Iv\hiiiit "(' ;") " would be for tlie (iraving J)ock, meaning the fjevis (iraving Dock' ? — A. ^'es ; it so says. 1,1. That was the (.iraving ])ock to whieii thi> refers ? — A. Ves; trial l.alaiiee (Iraving lK)ck, fiom 1st March, l«s;j, to 1st May, 188.}. (.1. But what ] want to know is, whether the (iraving Dock nu'iilioned llieie was flio Ldvis (iraving Dock? — A. Ves; Levis (iiaving Dock Tlu^re was no other tiiaving i>oek. (},. in 188;5, you liad no gi'aving dock ;il i'",-(iuimall ? — A. Xo. (l. " (i. II. 1." means (Quebec liarljour Improvements ?-— A. Ves. (}. Vou romembiT, I suppose, the now conti'acts whici'. Lai'kin, Connolly \ Co. made wiili the (iovernmont, oi' the (Jiudjec lEarbour Commi -.--ioneis, for ilu' chedging of the liarbour ? — A. ^'^'s ; 1 have a recolle<'tion of it. • i*. in tlie contract tlie jirice was o,") cents poi' cubic yard ? — A. Ves. 'i How ilid you come to j)roeurt' that contract iVom tjie 'iovernincnt ? — A. We had been dredging previous to that to ditle-ciit dt'pths. Wo had a i'.r.ade of pi i^-es. 1 think 27 cents, ii") cents, -1.") cents and .">,") cent.s — so that it made it dillicull to look after, and 1 think either tiie llarlionr Commi>si()nors or the (Jliief Knginoer wrote us a letter, telling us that iheri' was a certain amount of dredging ro he hould bo forall deptiis. W'iiat- ever tliey wanted they wanted at one price. That is the way we came to eiUio' into 'his coniiact tor 85 cents. (I. What I want to know is, was tlie lirmlhe lirst to ■.iig^'e>t tlie change, or wlio ■^iggesied U '! — A. M' .ecollcetioii is, it was either the Conimi-isioneis or the Chief Knj^iiiier tiu-it wroit- lo «» lirst. Thai is m\- reiolloclion. \>. U" yon rwmembor a letter dated 2Tlh April, l^^iST, irom Ottawa, >igiieil !i. !•'. I'orU'v, at pagi' 115. Is it not the tirst o'Hcial letter the tirri leceived in ccn- iiection wj;ii thai eontntct ? — A. I think ihat is the letter that was referred to. (I. I'r.ir to i-eeeiving this letter from .Mr. I'l-rloy. had the members ot' ihe iirni, or >oii\e ol ihem, any interviews with .Mr. Thomas .Mcti-reevy, in coanec'ioii with what ihev intended to do ? — A. Xot to mv knowlediio. 337 1 •>•> ■ •i ! 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 1*1 '. > ';■■ ; :)!': : i: :1. ii (^. Will 3'on look at Kxhiliit '■ M 5," piii^c 114, ami swear whose hiindwritingit is, and wlnMlior voii saw tins dociiinont IjofWro 'f — A. This is my brothoi-'s liaiidwriting. (I. Did you sci' the ilociiniont Ijet'ore ? — A. Not (o my knowlcdg'o. (^. Were you aware that .-ueli a iloctinient iiad iieeu written \>y your brotlier? — A. Only from seei;ieus.^ that i;ew eontrai t V— A. W e m iiv 1 lave di>eusscil it al our office. 1 nevei' remendicr dis cu.'^'sin^' it in the Iiouse. (I. Did you discuss it in tlie oltice ? — A. No doubt we discussed it, but 1 have no recollection of it. We always discuss when there is a contract to be let or when we are ,i;"oin:L; to tender — discuss the fact of tenderin<^ on it and the probability ol geltm;;' i' — what it is worth, and so forth. • J. And to the best ot'vour recollection, that discussion was when you ri'ce 'cd Mr. J'erlev's letter, askinnyoii whether you were ready to make a tender? — A. That is ni}- recollection. We liad beendredgiiii:' |)revious to that, and M'e may have talked it over, but 1 know that was the first intimation they wanted a continuation of the dredging. Our w'irk for dredging, I think, e\])'red previou.^ to that. 'That is my recollect ion. i}. Voii swear that die tirst intimaticjii you had was when ^JV. Perley's letter readied the tirni ? — A. To the best ot my knowledge. i). Did you receive no intimation jjrior to that from Thomas .Mc(ircevy? —A. .\o. i Were you not -liown, oi' iid'ormed by Mr. Robert Mcdreevy, tliat he hail ioceived a letter from his lirotiier ir, coniie'j'ion with that intended contract? — A. No ; iberc was none. Q.. 1 >ee that 31r. I'orley's letter is dated I'Tth April. Have you any means of ascertaining when you received it? — A. I have not. (^. Vour letter in answer to tiie same, and mentioning tiie juices, is dali'd .'intli Al )ril, at \>iieljee. Is that thetlate upon which it wa> .sent? — A. I thinkso. I tl iinl I remember dictating that letter or talking with (}. l-'ioni what vou sav, there must have been a long discussion over that tender ? —A. No, (). The price of the work was jiretty fair, 1 sujipose ? — A. No; no more than wc W(M'e getling jirevious to tiiat— d don't think' as much. (^. How much time did tliej' occupy in discus>ing that matter belore coming in .'iij cents ? — A. I think' Mr. Hume, our Mngineor, and 1 was in I he office, and mat le about a tiiii' avei'age. We thought that wa^ a liur average, but rather (ni the low side tliaii what wo had been doing before. (J. Wei'e your jiartncrs there, too? — A. J don't remember whether }i\v. Larkin was tlier(> or not. (.1. Js it tl le eiisiiun lo make tenders without eon.siiltimj; eacdi otiier ? — A. \\ > had got the plant on the ground, and as this was like the cmitiniial ion ot the jireviou- coniract we did nol call a meeting or bring all the partners together. *}. 'J'hen you cnnsidtueil it a continuation of a form or contract ? — A. Agoi'l ileal 'hat way — ye-. Q. Any way, you were salistied no ab-ent partnei's wouid complain al .'!.') cinl- .' — A. No. I think it was rather low, but iii:,>miich as we had all I he |)hint there I tlioiii^iii we had better do the work'. <^. Why did you not continue your former contract if it w;.r- lower ? — A. Xo ; i: was not lower, but the woi'k was rather difficult. !■- HUM ( 'J 'J iliU' ill There W;i> M Mlieie will,! W;i|,w aloiiM- llii- n;i 'inie il i~ a till lllCI-f i; \\liicli lii'ltoiii bull,, II '"•!'"!',) 54 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 "Q. Ami liaviiiii' con.siiloi'oil the difiiculty of the worU iiml tlie teniloririf; for that \V(>il\', \sition ? — A. i After 1 exainmuiu; ilocumen t). J(b in't know an\thiny: aliout that (•iiiuent ynu liavi' Just haiuled to jne, and don't know anything about the circum- stances, or where it was written, oi- wliv, (,). Have voii anv douijt this refoi to th is (Ireilicing wo rk' )uld not tell \i. ]5ut you had no other contract for '.'>b cents ]ier cubic yanl V — A. 1 think tliat \\as the :)iilv contract for i-J'» cent> un t^i. That you hail witli the Harbour r()mmi>>ioMer>? — A. Ye>, That iforiii jirice; we had contraets jirevious to that at a O. 15iit at a inifoiin ])rice? — A. That is the only one. Bi/ Mr. Tarte: Q. Did you do any ilrediiini;- in the Wet basin in 18^0? — A. I think we did tlredginii in the Wet basin in lSS(i ; I am not positive, though our accouuts will iiow It. l^. What was }'our price for dredging from 1.') to 20 teet in voiir contract in 1>!S2? — A. I think it was 27 cents, 1 am not positive, but this is my recollecti on. A. I think we had a Q. Voii are sure of that? — A. That is my recollection. 1 \\\\\y be mistaken, but I think it was 27 cents. Q. At 1.5 feet below low water what was the jirice .-cale of ])rices. My recollection is that it was 27 cents. (i». Then you say that for dredging at 1.") feet below low water your price under your contract of 1HS2 wa> 27 cents? — A. Yes; that is my recollection. (I. Was the material thrown then into the river or upon the Kmbankment '? — \. That is the last contract? (I. l>o ; the first ? — A. A portion of it in the river and some on the ICmbankiiieiit. t^. Is it more diiliciilt to throw it intothe river or into the Mnibankmeni ? — A. It i- iiuire dillicult to throw it into the Ivnbankment. 1^. Do you swear to that ? — A. Ye? (I. In the most jiosilis e man nei? — A. .Most jiosilive maniie (^. How is it. then, undci- tiie st.'coiid contract you got ;;o cent- for drcilg- iiig at I.j feet below low water, the material lo be thrown into the river? — A. There was the Crosswalk When we were dre- wall. That is w liete the gales now are. Previous to that W(^ could go out in any ])ortion of t lie lia-iii, either at the side next (Quebec or the side next the IiOlli^e I'liubankment, wiihoiit having to turn round to get out in this naiinw opening. Resiiles, ;ii high water all the I'latt- ihat come to the city of (Quebec, or merchants in the Wet ba-iii along J)alh'>iisie street or Drum's property along the gas works, had to go in tiiroiigh tloN n;iri-<>w opening, and it was almo.-t impossible for us to get sels were ill. We were paitly sto|)ped on that a<*>-i Mint. Then there Inu i^ tiirllier ex]iiaiiat ion : nortion went on the J. se fiinbankniei''^ as well. Then lliere IS a >till liirlbor ex|ilaiiation Tlier e was a at de;il of that l.ott onung u|t, li rendered it a great deal more ditHciill than the other. It was tiiii.-,hing the l"'ioin. Dredging liail been done before, and we had to u'o over it and tini-h the 1.^ oin. which made it diHicult and exjieiisive, I— 22J :«',i m 1 i 1 i ' ' ■, 1 I ■1 1 1 I " mm i : i i\l 54 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 (i. \» that your explanation ? — A. That is my explaiiatioii. . We will come to that, anil see if there is a bottom to it. I would liho to ask you, recollecting that you had all the circumstances of that dredging under your chaige, if it is not a fact that when drcdgiui;- in the basin of (Quebec you threw the materials into the St. Jjiiwrence, and that Mr. Boyd, the then Engineer in charge, took from you ;") cents a yard on accoiuit of the fact that you wore throwing the material into the Si. Lawi-ence ? — A. I ilo not remcmbei- about him taking 5 cents. Q. if it was ti'ue? — A. It may be so, but 1 am not positive. Jiy Mr. Muloeh : (I. Would 5 cents i)er yard Ik; a reasonable reduction for throwing everything into the river instead of over the wall? — A. I think it would be a large reduction. Q. What woulaying that these veiy (u)nditions would not amount to anything, what would you answer to that? — A. I do not know an vthinii' about what Mr. ^Lc(ii'eev\''s views of the matter were. (>. Ih e may liave iicen misialvcn A. He mav have. (.}. You ))ersis1 in ^wea^ing thai (hedging at 1") feet below low water and throwing all I he materials, or nearly all of them, into the river. IS a more expensive work than the one you had done |)revi )usly ? — A. I jjcrsist in swearing that aficr the Cros.s-wall was built, even after the cribs wore put in, it was more dilUeull to do dredging in the '.nner basin Ihan jneviou.sly, (}. Is il not a lacl that when you had tin nu'iil \'i'M h live had to handle it several tii own all Ihe malerial-- into I he JMubaiik- ne> ? — A. We hud lo hamlle it twice. i^. I';x]jlain that, .so we shall undersland. — The oflenei' it is handled the moie expensivt; it is. i^. Then, when you did not handle it at all — when you put it in the scow and threw it into the river — was it less expensive? — A. Ijcss ex]tensive. Q. How is that done? — A. Tin; scows aro mailo with an o|Pcning in the botioiii — trapdoors — and when they get out to tlio dumping place there is a roUei' thai :540 *i^^ ■«' 54 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 wiiiils them uji tin'ht, ami a do^ to lioli] llint in position. 'Wlion tlioy yTt out to tiio iliniipini; place tlic ilog is Unockod out, and the material drop})('d out. TIhto is less ox]iense in liandlin^". il Iht you know that hy your conti'act of 1887 3"ou were oblii^od to dredne only 15 foot below low water? — A. Vos. Q, Do j'ou Unow that you threw the i^reatost part of the material into the St. liawrcnee? — A. Yes; we tlirew a )):irt of it into the St. J/iwrence. (I. The i^Teatest ])ai't ? — A. 1 thiid< so. i). is it not a fact that in 1SS7 the Cross-wail was nearly tilled in? — A. Yes; it was nearly tilled in. Q. In ISSd" was if not nearly tilled ?— A. It was pretty well tilled. <^i. You state that the ii,reatest ])art of the material was thrown in the St. T.awrence ? — A. That is m}' recollection, of course. The returns would show that. I think. <}. And you say ai^ain that it was a j^reat deal less I'xpensive Job than to throw it into the JMulianknient ? — A. It was a less expensive job. /)'// Jfr. Latujelier: Q. You have just explained one of the reasons why it was more exjiensive that when your last contract was taken, the Cross-wall had been built, and was interfcrini^ with your taking scows intc) the river St. Lawrence? — A. Thai was one of the reasons. (^). Is it not a fact that befoi'o that lime yo>i had to pass through a small opening:- that has been in existence for more than twenty years between the wharf on the Custom-house side? — A. Ves. Q. You had alwa^'s to pass through that bmall opening ? — A. That opening, tlmugh, is nearly three times the width of the smaller opening. (}. But still two cratt cannot ]iass sometimes without dangei' ? — A. Two craft can always jiass in the larger opening. Q. Ami many more craft, if I am not mistaken, were in the habit of pas.sing from ilie Hiver St. Lawrence iido the lidal basin than into the \Vel basin, access through which is gained through the opening between the breakwater and the othci' wharf wlii'U open to navigation, and it was used by ships at that time? — A. Yes. (}. And the inner basin was not used? — A. A portion of it was used i\ years — the amount, 1 mean? — A. 1 C(Uild not fell you that. Q. Answer my . Is it possible that you have done less? — A. It may be. <,>, Is it possible also that you may have done more? — A. It may be. 'i>. Assuming that you have done more, what would be your explanation uhi'ii V'Mi state that the W(U'k' is more difficult ? — A, Well, I do not know, unles' our tugs Wire better bandied and our dredges. (}, It was at the time you were handling the ilredgcs yourself, — A. I cun say tiiis. that when 1 handled the dredges myself they did better than when Mr. .^Iurplly liandled them, \i. That is your explanati(Ui? — A, Yes, I do not remcmlicr, but that is what I liavf liecn told by the booic-keeper, I have not examined the book- myself to see, I'll! I was told when 1 attended the dreilges and tugs lliey worked to better adv.aii- than when .Mr, .Murphr was attendinu' to them, 341 ■f . ■ lit- ; ii!i ; I la^ 54 Victoria. Apponilix (No. 1.) A. 1891 f • 1 . ■^' *i. Villi woru' ill cbiuiir (it'ilic (livdging work Vdiiibolt'? — A. I was in fliiirgeot'all tlie work. i.>. 1 aiiiulo e>peciiillv to tiial worlc. Wi-i'c vmi in ciuirno i>\ (ho ilri'difjiiii' in 1887?— A. Vi Q. J)o you know all aKout il? — A. 1 ilo ni>t know tlial 1 know all about, it. . I am ri,'([iiosiiiii;' you to li-ll luc it'you wt-ie in cliarift'ot' tin' worl ami lioin an able UH'chanic, it'you liavc done moio work during!; tlic season of ISSU I ban was jnx'viously done V — A. .My answer to iliat is, tliat I was in ebar;:;(' ol' tlu- work- and tliat I do not know wliieh yi'ai" wo did tbe most work, unless 1 euiild let'er to liie books. Till' book' kee|ier will be able to tell you tliat in a tow minutes. . 'I'lie bookd;c of tbe otber. <■}. Wbo supervised tbe work for j-oii — not tbe captains^ — A. 'I'he captains supervised tbo conduetinii' and tbe lenMilalini;; of tlie dre(li;-es. f}. 'Vn wiiom dio tbey make llieir reports? — A. To tbe ollico. <,>. Towbom in tbe idliee /— A. To Mr. Connolly I tbink. ».•. Vou never ascertained wiiat was tbi' amount of work doneeacli montb ? — .V. I l< Ivod every day, i^>. lOaeb montb? — A. Yos ; probably cacb day f may bave looked, but f bave on recollection of the i|uantity. I remember one or two days tbe\'dredii"ed 2,liO() yard-. il, \nu bad twodied<^es, I tbink? — A. Ves. Q. What was tbe capacity of tbe twodrediios? — .\. It depended on tbe material. \i. But tbo average capacity ?— A. 1 could not tell tbe averajie speaking- from memory. 1 know tboy did take out as biiib as 2,2(IU yards on one or two days. I tbink tbat is the biu'bost we bave ever ilone but ot' course tbe averaye was below thai. (}. I do not ipiite understand you. Wben I asked you to wliom tbe eajita ins rejiorted, was tliere not some one wbo sii ■rvised tbe work ? — A. .Mr. Clonev wi tinied. AVill you kindly tell me in what year the erilis on the side ot'the south entraii were put in jjlace? — A. I tbink it was in 18»2-8:{. Q. You ilo not understand my iiuestion. I s))eak of the cribs on the south of the entrance to the Cross-wall? — A. I think it was in 1882 or 188;-{. On tbesouil .pic SU le? Q. Yes.— A. 1 tbink tbat was in 188:5. Q. The cribs that were going to be the ends of the entrance walls — tbe Cross- wall? — A. That is mv recollection. It mav have been 188;i nv 18S4. but 1 think ii was in 1883. Q. You are not sure? — A. I am not ]iositive. .% 2Ir. Muloek : |H'all tll()^o workiim- on this drotlgiiii^? — A. Tho laru'cst bcows aro of 200 yaids I jipai'ity, or in that noiyhboiirliooil. Tlic >mall('r oiii's nio ei.iilily yanln. (■I. Tlic lar^iT oiii's Used on tliis contract of tlie 800. 00(» ciibii' yanL. foiilrait liad a <.'a])acity of 200 yai'ds and tlio >nialloi' ones of so yards? — A. ! tliinlc small I think ahoui that time. -COW: :'— A. (}. And a little lonii'er for the large ones? — A. Yes; it dejionded a j:;ooil deal on the tides. If the tides were runnini:; stroni,' against them when they were goinL" out it would make tluun a little longei'. <,>. The 200-yard scow would of my recollection. littl e over an nm irto load? — A. I'o thehest -A, r ti- Take about an hour or a little ovi'r for the 200-yard scow to make the triji' sup))ose so. (^. That gives iin idea of the number of trips ]ier day ? — A. Yes; exce|)i when we would come across boulders, and it would take us a or two hours to u'et rid of a larye boulder n hour or an liour and a half made by .Afr. Murphy and endoi'.-ed b_\' me. Q. Hy Murphy, you say ? — A. Yes Q. I you? — A. Y Q. A see it is to j'our order, and signed per (). E. .Murphy, but it was endorsed es. nd am ?— A. It mus t be. Q. To whom was it (diarged ? — A. ! )t know that. Q. Wluit dill you do with that note after you got it? — A. I do not know as ever got it. (^. Whose signature is that on the back ? — A, Mine. Q. Y( <\i endorsed the ])aper ? — A. Yes i}. Do you know whether it is charged to you in the books ? — A. F do not. (^. Supposing it is ciiarged in the books, is it aeciirately idiarged ? — A. 1 do not enow that. es. Q. You liad an audit in 1885 ?— A. Y Q. And the note fell due in 188-t?— A. Yes. Q. It was for 85,000? — A. Yes ; 1 suppose so. . Did you or did you not sanction this particular note? — A. I do not know that that particular note was pointed out to mo. Q. Are you aware that is charged to yiui? — A. No. "343 ti 'I ( i"'' ilii ,.^a. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) // ^ .5^\ 1.0 1.1 u: fii 12.2 1.25 iu 1^1 1.6 A" W HiotogFa[M; Sciences Corporation 23 WIST MAIN STRieT WIBSTIR.N.Y. t4SM (7l6)t72-4S03 i 64 Victoria. Appendix (So. 1.) A. 1891 Q. You hnd «n auditor there? — A. Yes. Q. SuppoHinj; that n<»Jo is ciiarge>i to you, ia it correctly ohurj^ed to you? — A. I citnnot tull. Q. Yi»u cannot toil wlietlier a note of $5,000. is corroctly oliarj^cd to your account or not? — A. Xo ; without having an entry to show what became ot the money. ii. Althuiigh fifteen nionthn afterward you ai»i»rovo. A. Do j'ou (|ualify four or rive and .sjiy several ? — A. It might be more and it might be less. I would say it wouM pn»bably be more. <;. Viiu think these were ti / theaeeoinmi>dation of .Mr. Murphy or .Mr. Mcfiree- vy? — .\. 1 know that many of them were. ii. Was that one?— A. I canno; tell. i}. Wlieie do you remember endorping the-e note>? — A. tJenerally in theoffice: 1 know of no other place. *). Vou do not remember any other plai-e? — \. No. i}. Will you swear you never endorse! any outside of the ofHce ? — A. Not to my knowic li;e. t}. Is yourmemiiry good ? — .\. I do not pose as having a great memory. il. Is your memory defective? — .\. .\> f<» dates and figures. (I. Would you remember if a n'.:in robbed you of J8.'»,0(tO ? — \. 1 think I would ; it would depend on the circumstances a gooses for which that note wa- Bigned ? — A. Xo more than what I have stateo you know whether this first note was for anybody's accommodation ? — A. J cannot tell you that. Q. Do you remember anything at all in connection with this note? — A. I du not. 344 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. You do not rometnbor either tlio fact of your li'griirig it or ondorsiiig? — A. 2>i> nine tlmn Keeinj; my .sigiuiliiro. *i. Yon do not lenu'niber whore yoii endoi-Hcd it ? — A. Not now. (}. You do not lorncmber whether you j^ottho money on it or not V — A. I know I liavi- not got the money on it. (^. You do not know whetiier you sanctioned it being charged to you, althougli voii did not got the money ? — A. That was entirely with the book-keeper. ((. You do not know whether it ha« boon Mnce paid by anybody ? — A. It must liavo been paid i>y tlio Hrm, aH it iri in tiie ]ioHhession of the firm, or was before it tamo lioro. t^. You gave it to Mr. Fitzpatrick, or your tirm did ? — A. I do not knuw. <^. It was found in the cuf*tody of tho firm ? — A. 1 suppose t>o. {}. It was paid by 'the firm and ehai-ged t(» you and you cannot remember any- thing whatever al'out it ? — A. That is it. t^. Tlnro is another one of tho same kind. Ilavo you tho same story to tell about tliis other one, dated 2nd Juno, 1884, and which is due 5 tb October, 1884. That 1 bc- liovo is also ondor.sod by yi)u ? That is your name on the back of it ? — A. Yes. <^. I am told that is charged in tho books to you ? — A. Yes; that is my name. ^^ That is for 85,(MIO ?— A. Yes. i}. And you remember nothing about endorsing that note ? — A. Not any more tliaii that Mr. Murphy would come in ami would want a note or a cheque. (^. Does that prinoiple apply to this particular note? — A. No mttro than to any of tho othors. (}. Have you any rooollootion of endorsing this S5,0U0 note ? — A. No more than the nihor. (^. Iiiiyou remember why you signed it? — A. I ilo not know why I signed it. . Do you remoml)er the fact of your endorsing this particular note? — A. No. il. Therctore you d(i not remomboi- where you endorsed it 'f — A No. <^. ho you romembor what you did with tlie paper atter endorsing it? — A. It niii>t havt; lioen banded to -Mr. Mur])h3'. . Do you romembor handing It to Mr. Murphy? — A. I do not. . Do you romembor what Iteoame of it after ondoising it ? — A. i do not. . Do you lemonilier why you enilorsed it ? — A. 1 ilo not romembor arything niuro than I told you. . You do not know why 3'ou endorsed it ?— A, I omlorsod it at Mr. Murphy's soiioiialion. i^. Your memory is brightening up. You remenibor endorsing it at Mr. .Mtir- |iii\ V >olioitation ? — A. 1 know that wcdi. Vou do not know what became if it when it tell due ? — A. .No more than that il loll into the hands of the company. 'i|. Having fallen into the hands of tiio Company what does that prove? — A, Thai it is paid by tlie compun}' — tho maker, *i .\\\i\ after it is paid by the company it is eliargod to you. Are you awaro that although it. fell duo on the" '}{\\ of Oct>bor that on the 2'nd of .June" afterward V'lU signed a document confirming tho charging of that note to your account? — A. Tiiat is the auilit ? (J. Yos. — A. I believe I ditl. *i You don't know wliethor you paid it ? — A. I signed it because it wascortitiod CI. I reel hy the auditor and the bookkeeper. • ^. So you have no knowledge at all ; your memory is gone on that point? — A. .N"l allogothor. *i. I am not able to got it out of you ; it requires more dredging than I can do, Ym romein!)er ijuiie well the letter of the 27th of April, 188T, to you, coming from 345 Ifl ■:i ; ■< '. 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 iiiii! h\ thi- Public Works Department at OttBwa? — A. 1 don't leniemlier the date; I remem- l>er such a letter. Q. ('<»niingto tlio office? — A. Yes. Q. Who handed it to you ? — A. I don't know. Q Yoti were in Quebec at the time? — A. Ve!<. Q. Who else of the firm were in Quebec? — A. Mr. MoGreevy and Mr. Murjjhy must have been there at that time. I could not say positively. if. Wiiom »lid ,>ou contiult befiore you answered that letter? — A. I must have connulted Mr. Larkin if he was there. He w<)uld be the first I would consult. Q. Wt-re you in Quebec, ^Iv. Larkin, on 28tli A|iril, 188", with your firm? — A. No. I was in british Columbia. *i. Well, he was not there. Who was iliere? — A. Mr. Murphy, probably, and Mr. Mc(>reevy. but I have no recollection oftheir being present. Q. lio you recollect consultinj^ any person? — A. No more tlian our Kni^inci'r with reirard to the (luestimi. Q.Tbat is Hume?--A. Mr. Hume. Q. The only person who can remember is Mr. Hume? How long did il take you to aiiswerthe letter?- -A. I don't think it took long. {}. You took a day, or bow long did you take? — A. It may have been aiiswercil the very next day. Q. The letter came toyou on the 28th, did it not? — A. I could not tell. Q. It wasdated in Ottawa. 27th, and would reach you before the 28lli, would it not? — A. Xo ; I think not. Q. And you sent an answer ou the 28th? — A. Xo ; 1 clon'tknow, Q. The letter produced is dated 28th April, 1887, and is signed by your tirni? — A. That woulil be the answer. (I. So that the same day you received the letter from Ottawa you sent the re- ply? — A. Yes. (^. What was the amount of monyy invidved in your answer — 800,000 cubic 3'ards at '.'>'} cents per yard ? — .V. I do not think there was any such amount. Mr. .Stlart. — The contract is not 8()0.0tj0 yards. Y'ou are mistaken in that, .Mr. Mulock. Witness. — My recollection ot that is that there was a certain amount of money to be exjtended. Jiy Mr. Mutock: Q. The contract was this, was it not: that you were to put in an oifer to do 800.000 yanls of dredging at 35 cents a yard, but that you weie only entitled to do work to'tbe extent of 81nO,0(Mt worth in that ^'ear? — A" 1 think it was 3100,000. I do not remember the wording of the contru't. Q. This letter you received reads as follows; "Ottawa. 27th April. 1887. 'mJexti-kmex, — There remains n largo quantity of material in the Wet basin, Quebec Harbour Works, a portion of which it isdesirable should bo removcil during the ensuing suinmer, and the projiriety of proceeding therewith I desire to bring to till' notice of tlie Commissioners. Before I can do ibis I wishtoobtain the pri( c per cubic yard, measured in the same manner as was the dredging previously done by you, at which you will do what is required " and so cm. I>iat down tojrcther. Q. llo fifjjuriMl it on paper? — A. Yes ; I think so, «^. Xow, wiierc is liis tij^iiring? — A. I do not know. il. Have 3-on ;;ot his tigurinjf here? — A. Xo. ii. Have yon looked for it? — A. J think his tiguringwas done on a slip of paper wiiiih was not kept afterwards. (;. So that you do not romombor what (luantity was involved — what annMint of inonry would iic involved hy j'oiir acceptance of this oH'er? — A. Xot exactU'; not any more than what he lold me at the time. Q. What did he tell you ?— A. I do Jiot remeniher that, (i. You sent the answer to that letter? — A. We sent the answer. (^. How much did yrked — A. I think we received the full amount of money stated in Mr. I'erley's letter, tlioeason that we Hrst got it and part of the next season, *i. That was all ? — A. That is my recollection. <). Do not you remember that nmch ? — A. Yes ; that was it. i). You swear you onlj' worked during the season of 1S87 and part of the season of ISSS? — A. Wv may have worked a little in 18S!». Q. What was tin> total amount of. money you collected from the (iovernment for drediring under this contiacl? — A. 1 cannot tell you that. <^ Was it to be 81(M»,(HI() ?— A. 1 cannot tell you, ij. Would it be (b)uble that? — .\. I caimot tell you that. (^, Hi>w many yards were done? — A. I cannot tell you that. <^>. You had no idea as to h()W many yards were ril, ISS", an invitation from the Hopartment of I'ublic Works to otter for the W(»rk, and that on the same day, with- out having hae. There was dreilging to be done there, but when it would i)e done, or how it was lo lie done, and by who done tliey had ^iven you to understand they would Ijc willini; to agree to it ? — A. T do not r«»moniiK'r any such conversations. Q. And that is all you remember about how you came to enter into that eon- tract '! — A. Yes. By Mr. Tarte : Q. You .Ireilured until IS86 by your ctmtracl of 1882?— A. I do not know that from memory ; I would have to refer to the contract. Q. You have just stated to me that you made dredijing in 188(5 in the Wet basin ? — A. Tiiat is my recolleetion. Q. Dill you reeeive any notice that tiiat contract of 1882 had been put an end to? — A. Yes; I think wc had notice. Q. Front whom? — A. From the Harbour Commissioners. Q. Will 3-011 kindly pnxlueo the notice? — A. F do not know where it is. (I. Could you tell us what quantity of dredging remained to be done in the Wit basin in 18S7? — A. 1 could not. Q. (Jiin 3'ou tell us what quantity remains to be done? — A. I cannot. t^. In any round tisrures? — A. No. <^. Can we suppose that there remains about 400,000 yards? — A. I cannot tell. Cl. J)() you know that there remained 300,000 or 40t tell you that. (J. No idea whatever? — A. It is such a large area as to quantitj' that I cannot tell. t^. You sa^' it is a large area. How large ? — A. I cannot give j'ou the dimen- sions. Q. Eighteen acres or twentj' acres? — A. Trobably more or less; probablv more. Q. You cannot tell us what ([Uantity of dredging you have made in 188", 1883 and 18SJ»y— A. No. Q. Any idea? — A. No idea. I would have to refer to the books for it. t^. You have supervised tliese worics and were in charge all through ? — A. Ye«. (^. And yet you have no idea ? — A. No. Q. If it be near 8.'{00.(*00 out of that dredging affair, would you l>e surprised? — A. I know we received only as we contracted. Q. If )-ou rei-eived about g^iOO.OOO would it be a surprise to 3-011? — A. If I received that much moiie3- I done the work for it. il. \\' 3'ou received f)nl\' 850,000 would it bo a surprise ? — A. Not when I know we got ]iaid accordimr to what we had ilone. q. You do not know whether you received 850,000 or 8:{00,000 ?— A. Not from ni3- own knowledge. Q. As a member of the firm do vou not reoollect an\-thing about it ? — A. I do not know an3-tliing about books or figures or liates. That is something that passed from ilay to dav-, and passed out of m3- memor3-. Q. You were dred;;cing there for three \-ears. and 3-ou sav 3-011 do not know whether yimjeceiviHl 8r>0.000 or 8300,000 ? liij Mr. Dttries: Q. Mr. Connolly, one ouestion. Mr. fJeotfrion place,000 and another for an amount of 822,000. an0 went? — A. I have no personal kiiowled-^o of whi-re it went. <^. I don't awk your personal knowledge. Do I understand you to swear to tlio ('iimnuttee that in the two years from March, 1883, to May, 1885 — iwo years and two moiitlis — i8t7,OO0 wore paid out, and that yiKi signed the trial balances acknowledging it was paid out correctly ? You had signed one of the notes in each hatch, and do 1 understand you to swear you don't know where that money went? — A. I don't know where it wont. Mr. Larkin signed the trial balances lirst and 1 signed iilterwarils. 1^. Or for what purpose it was paid? — A. No. liil Mr. Lister : Q, Dill nobody over tell you ? — A. No. Jijl Mr EiUjar : (I. If you do not know yourself whore that money went, could you tell the Com- inittci! who does know? — A. I think Mr. Murpiiy or Mr. McCtreevy must have handled that money. il. They would know about it, would they? — A. Thoy would be the only ones L think. Hi/ Mr. Amijot : (I. You have no idea alwut that? — A. I have no idea inysoll". (^, Will you tell us how many years elapsed between the licgiiining of the work ;ih. And yoi' iiever iniiiiired where it hail gone? — A. Only what .Mr. Murphy iiKiy have said. H. What did he say ? — A. Ife said, when he would get notes antl che([ues, and wo wniild call him to account at the eml of the vear, he would give souio kind of a liiilf i^. What ilid ho tell yon ? — A. lie said, 'you have got paid fop it, or you have ,:;ot tiio value ot it, or it will c(jme back some time." . What did you understand from that? — A. I did not understand. 'i'. Uh. yes. you did. What did you understand from il ? — Did you iiivler- >i:iMd it had gone somcwliere and would bring back more money? — A. That is his Vc|■^ion. t,). You were satisfied with bis version? — A. I was nevei' satisded with his Version. . Did he tell you whore he had applied it, where he had planted il ? — A. Ho iKvcr told me whether he had planted it. 3-49 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. A lid you never asked him — you hnd no nuspicion ? — A. I may huvo hatl a HU»picion. Q. What was your suspicion ? — A. I liad some suspicion that some of thiH money went for notitical purposen. Q. That was your suspicion, was it? Where did it go for ])olitii'Hl pnrp(ise>'/ What suspji-ion had you in rcferenee to that? — A. 1 supposed ]K>litii'ians, Q. To Thomas MclJrocvy ? — A. No; ho never told mo. Q. Didn't you knovv it was f^oing to Thomas? — A. No. (},. You swoar that ?- -A. Yes. Q. AVho were the politicians you suspected it was going to? — A. ^len tiiatwerc running the jtarty theio. There was a committee, I think, in Quebec, and I would HUj)posu it Would go to thcin. Q. What committee? — A. I don't know the name of tlie committee. (^. You were a j)oiitician down there, were you not ? — A. No. Q. Never iiandlee aitle to tell you liettor tlian I can. t^. Was it the party Mr. Murphy lielonged to? — A, Mr. .Murphy belonged \i> both jiarties. Q. If this nn)ney was to go to a political party to help yon in any of the work-. which party would it go to? — A. The Conservative j)arty was in ]»ower at Ottawa. (^. And they were the ones to help you? — A. Tlie I'ioform pai-ty wore in power in llie I'rovincc of tjuebec. Q. J)id they give the works? — A. No; but Mr. Murphy was always friendly wit-i them. In fact, I never took any part in jmlitics at all. (J. Was Ml'. Murphj' a mend)er of this committee ■:" — A. Which committee? t^. This political party to wliich you suppo-sed the money went ? — A. Not to my knowledge. Q. lie never had an^'thing to do with it? — A. Not to my knowledge; I never attended a meeting. t^. Who were the leading men of the ('onsorvativo party in Quebec':' — A. .Sir Adolphe Caron, Sir Hector, T. Chase (Jasgrain and Mr. Mcilrecvy — several others. Q. These were the people then you suspected this money went to? Sir .loii.N Tilo.Ml'soN objected to the question. -Mr. Lister — I will change the form of the <|ue8tion. Are these the people that you referr»!d to as tht leading politicians in Quebec ? — A. Yes; of the Conservative party. Q. And are these the people to whom you referred as liaving a suspicion that they got a pi>rtion of the money ? — A. No; I think if money was paid it would be paid to the association and distributed as they thought tit. Q. Do you know anything about the otficers of the association? — A. No, 1 do not. Q. Do you know who they were ? — A. No. (^. You have no iilea':' — A. 1 liave met them, but I could not tell the names. 1 would not know theni if I were to meet them now. Q. You do not know their names'/ — A. No. t^. Not one of them. — A. No. (^. Do you know whether .Mr. Mc(treevy had anything to do with them ? — A. 1 do not know. I never attended one of the meetings. Q. You did not know at all wlio t.hey were? You had never any talk with Mr. McGreevy? — A. With Mr. Thomas Met rroevy? On what subject? Q. On political matters ? — A. No. Q. All tho dealings took place with your brother Michael and Murphy? — A. Yes. Q. Murphy had tho expending of this money ':• — A. lie was alway's anxious to liandle the cash. I was very anxiouij that anybody should handle it but me. 350 Q. Q. 'c in d 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. When you HpoUo to him about it (li"? — A, [ do nut know it wai» tlio rcaHoii. (^. But it wuM cIiar;joay — 1 think he gave an an excuse one time that Mr. Mc*ireevy has ;;ot some and it was accommodation that would come back, .\nything that was paid out he would say it would come back. JSi/ the Chairman : Q. Which Mr, McGieevy ?— A. Mr. JJobert Mc( J reevy. Jii/ Mr. Lister: (^ You consenteil then to hav<* it charged up to exjien.ses ? — A. Yes. i}. That is not the same statement you made a few moments ago? — A. It nuiy I'o in ditlerent words but it is the same. 351 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. There is nothing about politicul piirpocs tlioro? — A. When wo would have thuMo roWH iiroviouM to lUii audit, or at tlvo time, wo would diHpulo with him and Uhk hiin whiM-o tiiiH nioiicy wont and what became of it and ho ^aid " It is not tor you to know. It liaH irono and you will got it back and it will liuall rii^ht " orHoniethin^ to that otlect. Q. You then, upon that Htatomont, signed the audit? — A. On that Htatetneiii Hignod the audit, soonor than disHolve. Q. And hud it cdiargod tooxponfCrt? — A. Yoh. il. Had l^)bo^•t Mctrieovy his sharo of tho rovonuos bosidos these nionoys you were paying him you say? You consented to pay your share of the 82.'»,(K)0, taking that uA iin instance. One of the ){5,00() notes was paid by you, or (diargod against you in tho liooks, and beside that Mr. Uobert Mo(ireovy had his share in the profits? — A. Yort. (I. Hid 3'ou over soo this letter to O. K. Murphy (Kxhibit " I''",") which a|)pears on page ISt of tho Kvidenoo, one paragraph of which reads as follows: " Mv Dear .Sir, — I have Just got your letter of the 17th inst. Our friends call for another 9.'>,UU0, on account of liritisli Columbia, ih not in accordance with the agrooment wo hail when the $.')0,00(> w:is divided — that was, that there was to Ik- no moro calls or divisions to be made until the indebteia J)ock and (iueboc HarlMMir works to the (Quebec Dock was|>aid. That was distiiiotly stated by nie and a!ireci'ever saw it. A. No. Your brother never >howed it to you 'f Muijdiy never showed it ? A. No. Did anybody have any conversation about tlmt letter? A. I heard of it. How long after it had arrived ? A. I ;ot your letter of the 17th inst. Our frietiiics not the last sentence refer to the tive iliou>and? — A. It may. Q. What did he mean — " If wo continue donating; ? — A. I could not e\])lain that to you. (/. You know iiothiMjr alxnit it? — A. I know there has been a ijreiit deal of iiiiiiiey spent, and where it went I could never fell. 1^. Was it in donating? — A. It must have been in donating, tor we uever if>H anythinS\ ,;i 1.1; T^ 64 Victoria. A|>pcn(lix (No. 1.) A. 1891 if. W<>ru ttiOMO . ut llu- time. (^ Tlu'ii tlu'v were lor »oiiu' |tiiriMmt' ? — A. Tliey inimt have l>eeii for nuiiie piir- |Hme. ii. Vou think tlioy wore lor M>ine |»iir|MJM' ? — A. Yt-. *i, Yoii liavf lieon told xn'f — A. Vch. {]. My wlioiM '( — A. Miirpliy. *iind ? — A. Yen, loni; ajrti. (j. And the explanation he ^iive you ? — A. I think that the live thousand \\a« in leleifiice to aceoininodation I'obert MHiieev}* wanted, Inil I am not po>itive jiboiit that. (/. Your mind is a hlank / — A. Not quite. y/// Ml. Dahj : ^i. A short limo aj;o vou said soniethinjj alntut your suM]»icion« tis to wliop- flii-' $4U.<</ Mr. Edijar : !S!t. (}. That Mr. liarUin wentoiit ? — A. Yes. (j. And, when ditl .Muiphy ^'o out ? — A. In I.SKO, I thiid<. Jhj Mr. Tarte : i}. hid 3'ou iifjree with your brother to put Mr, Larkin out of thelirm f—A. Did I aj;ree with my lirotju-r ? <^ Ves. — A. No; 1 never a/j;roed to put .Mr. Larkin out. (}. Do you know that your hrotiier \iv. >[iehael Connolly asked that Mr. Larkin Ih> put out of the tirm '.' — A. No; I know this, that Mr. Owen .Muiphy wanted me to have .Mi'. Larkin squeezed out many years before he went out. Sayinj.; he was no ^oud, and thiit he would have to i;o, and that he was a burden, and many other tliinii*. anil that he was no use to tho concern, and I told Murphy, 'hat as lonj^ a> 1 was in the concern, Mr. Larkin would be treated the same as anybody else, and liiat when 1 went out, they cnuhl treat Mr. Larkin as they pleased. <.}. Do vou not know your brother asked several times that }ily. Larkin be put out?— A. NN)-. 1 don't. (^. Do you lemember havine ? — A. The (iraviug Dock, at Levis. 354 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 1^, Knr no other woiU ? — A. Ni» oilier work. ;i letter in wliitli you say to him to employ .Mr, Tliomas .MctJreevy with the .Minister <•' I'ulilie Wi.rks?— A. Not to my Unowledjic. <^. !>id you write or not / — A. I may l.ave written a let er tellini^ him if I.e was ill Mtiawa, and we were tendering, or were ahout tcnderinj; or alMHil ireltiiif; e«liiiiale — if the estimates were iiehiiid — I would naturally tell liini to see Thomas Mctireovy and ask him to see the .Minister in this way. Thomas .Nfcttreevy, hein^ llarliiiur Comnus^ioner, knew what was reiiuired there, and hein^ a practical man lie knew what we re<|aired. • i'. Then we have the (dear admission — I do not want to take you hy surprise — do vuii admit on oath havin;; written letters to Mr. Miirjdiy — I will ;,'o further and say, letters in which you tell him or a-k him to employ Mr. Thomas .M< (iieevy^ iiitliience with the Minister? — \. I never wrote a letter tollini,' him to oinpluy riiiiinas .Mctireevy's inlluence. //// .!//•, Amyot : *i. Not in thai sense? — A. Not jn that sense; I may have told him to see the .Minister for such a thinir or such a thiiiir. which i.> very prope;'. I miixhl tell liiiii ill :i Idler or letters to ask Mr. Thomas Mc(rieevy. he hcin^ here in tUtawa, to >ee ilie Minister about such a thiiij^ or such a tiling. Jil/ Mr. Miilock : >l Which Minister?— A. Sir Hector was the .Mini>t.'r of I'uMie Works. Ill/ Mr. (it'(t{}rion : '^. Ynii elated that you dissolved |)ar(ner^hip with .Mr. F-aiUiii ; have y.ui :iUo lissnjved partnership with .Mr. Muipliy ? — A. I hoii^lit > •. Larkin out. ami I also l'i'iii:lii Mr. Miiiphy out ? '^ You alone or your hrothei? — A. My hioiher ami I. ',*. It is stated liy Mr. I'erley this inoiiiin;; that ho had agreed tu loiiiiliiirse the -um of Sl.SH.'i. which had lieon paid hy the linn of Larkin. Connolly i\: Co. Were V'U aware that such a voucher existed in the papers ol the present tirm ? — A. I was ii"l awaie that such a voucher existed. 'v*. Were you aware that buch an atmmnt was agreed to be charged to the tirm? — A. Yes. 1— i:;.JL 865 In ; Ml 1 •» ;i vM m ! I 64 Victoria. Apponci K (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Who arc the present members of the firm? — A. MichaelCoiiiiolly and m}>eli. Q. Mr. Perley said that he had occasion to hand you hack — to settle with Mr. Michael Conn<»lly, because lie had more occasion to see Mr. .Michael Connolly in connection with the Kingston Gravintj Dock Works. Whoare the present partners^ in connection with those works ? — A. Michael Connolly and mysell". ii. Are you the only partners? — A. Ye*. . Q. Von were the only members of the tirm in that month ? — A. Yes. Q. -\t the lime of the signing of the contract were you the only two partners ? — A. 1 do not know much about the transaction. With regard to the contract that i» something I do not know. (). Hut you signed the contract ? — A. Yes. Q. How many signed the contract ? Mr. .Sti:.*bt objected to the question as being irrelevant to the iiujuiry. Objec- tion sustained. ii. Was the >ntract signed by a firm of which you were a member, and wli> were the member^ certain who were the members of the firm at tiic time -Mr. Piiliv undertook to refund the money, you may jiut the question. Jiy Mr. Mulock: (/. This I.O.TJ. is said to have been handed to Mr. Michael t'oiinolly for tlio benefit of someUnly. It was calleers? — A. There is no such ririn as Larkin, Connolly iV Co. It is N. K. and M. Connolly, who are successors of the firm ot Larkin, Connolly \' Co. t^. Who were the members of the firm who coiitracteil for the Kingston works? — A. X. K. and M. Connolly. • /. Were there ever any other members there? — A. No. (^. You are the onlj* ones who ever were there? — A. Yes. H. Xo one else had any interest ? — A. Xo. By Mr. Geoff rion : Q. You have explaineay whether the sigiuiture of the tirin is j'our handwriting? — A. Yes, the cheipie is made out to O. K. Murphy, signed by mo and endorsed to O. K. ^[urjiliy. ii. Arc you aware that on that day <>r the next following day O. K. .Murphy lift Quehec for Ottawa? — \, No, 1 am not. ii. Taking with him two out of those three thousand dollars? — A. No. I am nut. *i. You onnnot by memory say for what purpose that choipio was signed by yt>ii and given to .Mr. Miirph}' ? — A. No. «J. Hero is another chequo dated January 25th, 1889, signeil Larkin, Connolly \ ('".. order of N. K. Connolly, 8l0.0t)(l. Will you .say in whoso handwriting is the !i:inie of the rtrm? — A. That is my handwriting and endorsed by me. (J. You cannot say for what purpose this amount was drawn? — .V. I cannot, The Committee 'hen adjourned. ;r)7 54 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 IIOISE OK COMMON'S, 10th JuU". 18i»l. Tlio Committee met at 10 a.m., Mr. Giroiiaril in the Chair. Investigation into certain circumstances antl btatenionts made in connection with the tender.s antl contracts respecting the Queliec Harbour Works, iVc, resumf.1, Mr. Nicholas K. C;ixxji.ly recalled, and his examination resumed. By Mr. Geo fir ion : Q. You stated yesterda}' 3"ou liegan to take, tlie management of the cash in 1"^~7. and wo Hntl in your hooks that in the coarse of February, ISS", you signed chei[iii..s to tile amount ot S25,000. Can you explain to the Committee what those chofjue- weie for ? — A. I couiil not tell you what the\- were for. ii. Look at Exhibit " N :i,' folio 282. and say whether you find there an entry showing that you have signed five cheques of §5,000 in the course of the montli m Februar}', 1887 ? — A. I see here that there is an entry, '• Quebec, 28th March, ISsT— to suspense account Ks<|uinialt l)ock — S2r».00O.'' Q. 1 want to see if y»u have signed some cheques by tJie book ? — A. I sujij) )fe thope are the cliei|ues that I have &igne<'.. Q. Vou find that in the month of Februar}-, from entries in your books whi^ li were kept under your control, an entry showing you to have signed five cheque> it §5,000 each and entered to suspense account ? — A. I sc §25,000 here. i}. But look at the detail of it. please? — A. The:e is an entrv, 4th Feb.iiarv. §5,(100; 14lh, §5,000: ITth. 8.5.UU0. and 2Sth. §5.000. Q. That makes §25,000. You have also been shown a che(|ue signed b}- y.ni, dated ll^tii .lanuary, 1887. for §5.000. charged to dock. Can you s.iy also what iliut cheque was foi- ?^A. 1 dont lemeniber. Q. is it not a fact that at page 12t) uf E.Khibit '• li3,'' under date of ovd January. 1887, the following entry is found — ' .lanuary :{, Union Ikiidc cheque, ordtr ui X. K. C, to be charged to diick — five thousand ? " — A. Yes. Q. We find the lollowingentry at page l.'Sl of the same book — ■ iJraving J'^nk cheque, dated 8rd .lanuaiy, to o;-iler of N. K. C. to be charged to (i. D. a> agieed — five thousand ? " — A. I see an entry of that kind thei e. Q. Can you explain what was agreef the cash ? — A. I was manager at that time. <^. And 3'ou signeil cheques ? — A. I did not handle the cash. I signed cheqius more than I did cash. A great deal of cheques I signeil 1 did not handle the oa?li. ii. You managed the cash, but the cash was handled by the bank ? — A. J{y the baidv, the book keeper and Mr. Murphy. Q. Then, upon your oath. you state to the Committee you signed thatcheque. n^t knowing what it was tor / — A. That is my recollection of it. (^. I examined you yesterday aixmt a chetjue. dated 2-lth .lanuary, for 83.'""'. which was shown to ^-ou. L >ok at the same book. Kxhibit " L 15," folio I2t!, and ^ • whether vou don't find the following entry: ••24th .laiiuarv. cheque to order oi i ) E. M.. §3,000 ? "—A. Yes. Q. Tnen, at page 120, see whether you do not find also the following entry : '• Graving Dock, one-tliird to U. F. .M.. to be charged (t. D., Levis one thousand ; "i third of clieqne of O. F. M. to be charged to B. Cone thousand ; one-third or bahtn- of cheque to be charged to iny>elf.'' I)o you find that entry? — A. Yes; 1 -ee :.- you read. 358 54 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 Q. At pa<,'e 222 of " L3," do you read tlio following' entry : " 8th August, 1887, fhoque to X. K. Connolly for (blank) " and then •'84,000."'^ The blank is in that part of the page where the use of the cheque ought to be written ? — A. I do not know about that. Q. At page 227 of the same book, do you read the following entry : '• 8th Sep- tember, 1887, Muspense, cheque No. 305, to order N. K, C, 84,000." That would be the «anie cheque ? — A. I do not know. Q. If you examine that you will .see there are no other cheques of that date? — A. I have not examined. Q. I want to know if this is the same cheque ? — A. 1 cannot tell. Q. Can 3'ou explain to the Committee what that rlieque was for '/ — A. I cannot. h. I ha 1 too much to do on the work to enquire where the money went. (J. Seeing .Mr. Larkin asked you to keep an eje upon the cash, do you remember asking what this was for? — A. It is my recollection that I would always ask Mr. Murjihy what he wanted tl)e money f<.r. (J. Anil after he told you what it was for you signed ? — A. Yes. t^. And you cannot remember in a single case what reasons he gave? — A. gave me veiy little satisfaction. . You gave him a great deal of money for the little satisfaction you Inul. Hi Is it not a tact that this 84,000 of the 8th of August, 1887, was not given to .Mr. Miirjiliy at all ? — A. I cannot say that. »i. Have you any voucher to show it was given to Murphy? — A. Ni>. Q. Was tiie cheque to your order or tt) Murphy's ? — A. 1 think it is to my order ; 1 do not remember. <^. Is it not a fact that you received the cash yourself? — A. 1 may have done so. (}. Is it not a fact that you yourself drew mone\" from the bank and handed it to I'homas Mctrreevy?— A. No. (}. You did not? — A. No; I never handed Thomas Mc(treevy any money to my knowledge. Q. Did you hand it to anybody else to hand to Thomas Mctireevy? — A. No. Q. What did you do with this"$4,000?— A. 1 do not know. <}. You got it ? — A. I may. O. AYas it charged to yourself? — A. The book-keepei- could tell. As I tuM you yesterday I know nothing about the books or the way they are kept. Q. Hut if it is not charged to you, but to suspense, as you paid the money please state to the Committee to whom you paid that 84,(in. I cannot teil you that. \>. If it was charged in expense all your partners jiail their share ? — A. ^'es ; that is natural. *.}. You have Just sworn that you never gave any cash or cheque to Thomas Met Iieev}-? — A. Not for political purposes Q. But for expense? — A, No. Q. For what purpose did you give him money ?- ti) niv knowledge, unless for little personal matters. 869 ■X. I never gave him money ■ i 11 I,. < ■ ''If •'■■m t !( i:: It) )■■> n ; : ; m I H' ^ 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Privatii IjUftiiicss between \'ou and him? — A. Xo. He has a little i)rivato bushK's.--. I will tell you what the private business was, so you will all know. We, on one or two occasions, went out in the countiy to have an afternoon dinner or lunch when we were not busy on our works, and ho brouglit out the supplies — that is the tood — and I paid him for that. Q. You paid him? — A. On one or two occasions. Q. It was not charged to the tirm? — A. Xo. Q. Do you undertake to swear that you never gave him any money for elec- tions ? — A. Xever gave him an}* money for elections. (^. You swear that no money was given to liim for elections? — A. Xct to my knowiediTt'. Q. You swear that ? — A. Yes; that is tj. That is what? — A. Xot to my knowledge. tj. You mean you were not actually present when the money was handed to him? — A. Xo; nor 1 never gave any orders to have money handed to him. Q. Do you know that money was paid for elections out of the tirm's funds ? — A. I do not t^. In the months of Januaiy and February is it not a fact that j-ou wore aware these payments were tor the \'ction fund ? — A. They maj- have i>een paid for the election fund, but I do not know anything about it, who it was paid to or where, or anything about it. i}. But it was slatoil it was for that purpose? — \. It was not stated to me at the time that it was for that purpose. Q. When was it stated to you ? — A. At the time the cheque was made out I have no recollection of it being stated it was f«»r election purposes. ii. Is it not possible you were then requested to sign these cheques for political subscriptions ? — A. I "?"— A. Yes; I see that. ii. Well, now, at this time you saw in the books if was for a donation ? — A. I see it is marked so there. Q. And it iippears you paid tlie money? — A. I did not pay the money, (;. Is it the first time you saw that entry'/ — A. I have no doubt I have seen all these cheques, but as for handling the money I did not do it. By Mr. Tarte : ii. But you gave the money to be paid '/ — A. Xo. (^. X'ever '} — A. Xever. Q. You swear to it ? — A. I sweai', not to my knowledge. By Mr. Geoffrion : Q. This entry in the book then is fal-e ? — A. I don't say it is false ; that is the first time I ever saw that entry. Bij Mr. Tarte : Q. Did you keep this mone}- ? — A. Xo 1 never did. 360 64 Victoria. Api:iendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 lit) Mr. Geiiftrion : Q. r>id yon keep anyjnonoy you hiul ehargcl tt» dtMiation-!? Diil you steal from your partners ? — A. No, 1 nevortliJ tluit. (}. You swell r to tliut ? — A. I ilo. *]. Wliatovcr charifo is made, it is true the payment hail been made? — A. To the liest of my knowledi^e, yes. (^ An honest man conld remember if he stole five dollar!*. Did you eliavge ujone}- yipu 'lad not paid ? — A. I never stole ti\e dollars from any man. v^. Not in a moment of weakness? — A. My weaknesses don't run that way. Q. You are sure of ihat ? — A. Quite sure of it. (^. That is the oidy fact since you have been a witn.sss ywx were positive of? — A. 1 never stole money or anythin<; else. (i. At patre 340 of the same book, Kxliibit "L3," under date of Sth March, ISsS. we aJM) find the following entry : " X. K. Connolly tor amount of his private cheque, for donation re British Columbia as agreetl 82,000 " ? — A. I sec there is an entry id that kind. (^. Where is that private cheque? — A. I don't know. Q. You wore ordered to bring all your books here? — A. It may be among my cheques? \». Where is that j)rivate cheque? — A. I cannot bring my private cheques and be here as a witness. You will have to let mo go and bring my private cheques. I am (juite willing to proiluce my privato cheques, but I cannot do it and be hero as a witness. Q. You have luid no time t" get your cheques ? — A. Not since I am here as a witness. t^. You will undertake to find your rrivatu che(|ues? — A. Yes, every private cheque 1 have got. Q. You are unable to say whether this private che}. Uf course you gave the money to the party to whom you maile the dona- lion. You gave him your cheque? — A. I never made a donation in my lite. (^ To wi did you give your private cheque ? — A. I ilon't know that. Q. Tr}' to recollect? — A. The cheques will show when it is brought here. (}. Did you ask for credit in the books of the firm and was it agreed you were to bo charged with it a* a donation, or was there an agreement? — ,V. 1 don't Know. (i'. Before making a donation was there any agreement you wore to make it? — A. 1 ilon't remember any. (^ By what agreement did you make that donation? — A. 1 did not make any n'SVi oment. Q. Well, what is the "agreed " referred to iii the book ? — A. That must be an agreement charged in that way, probably. ^i. Or agreed it would be charged in that way? — A. There must be something ini'vious to it that it shoid n i 1. Hit, it i'l I'M ii, i i ■ If ■ IN 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. You tofjk it tir»t upon yourself to make a donation, you roportoU the dona- tion, then you were croditeil with the amount by the firm? — A. I don't know any- thing ahout that. Q. What do you know about it ? — .\. I don't remombcr. Q. Yon don't know anj-thing about it? — A. Some. (^. I would like to know? — A. I am trj'ing to tell vou. (^. You are trying verj- hard. Now at folio .")07 of Kxhibit "L 3' under dateiilst December, 1H88, 1 re:id the following entry : ''Huspen-se donation — 83,000 '. Do ^-ou see it ? — A. Yex. Q. Can you explain that donation? — A. I cannot. ii. You had the management of the easli at the time ? — A. Yes ; T suppose [ had. Q. That money was given or handed to somebrjdy ? — A. It may have been. (^. Yon cannot remember ? — A. No. <^. And it is a donation or charge in the books, and this entry could not be made except by 3'our order ? — A. ' never remomlier giving an order ti. Q. By whose order could it have been made ? — A. It must have been made by the order of Mr. Murphy. Q. It was always Mr. Murphy. But Mr. Murphy was no more in ciiaige ot'the cash ; you must remember that, lie had to get the cash from ^-ou ? — A. He ot'teii came and asked me to sign a cliei|ue or note foi- him. (i. Is it not a fact that this 83.000 was a donation to the " Cotiriicr du Catiada.' a I'Vench newspaper in Quebec ? — A. I do not know anything about it. (i. liiit you heard there was such a paper ? — A. No ; I take your woi-d for it. <^ Are yon aware that this newspaper belongs to Mr. Chapais ? — .V. I do not know. ii. Have you ever met .Mr. Chapais ? — A, Yes : I have met him. Q. Y(»u know he is the son-in-law of Sir Hector Langevin ? — A. Yes. <} Do j-ou kncnv whether Mr. Chapais has anylhinu" todo with that news]ia]>er? — A. 1 have heard lately, but 1 did tiot know aiiyiliing about it at the time 1 wa» ilown there. Q. 1 did not ask you whether a donation was male by you direct to the ncvs ]>.iper, but I want to know whether the amount was not asked and obtaineil tVom 3-ou through the representation that it was to be paid to the " Courrier du Canada.' this French newspaper in (Quebec '.■' — A. No. Q. Did you ever give a ciieque or send a donation to be made to that new*- papor '.' — A. Not to my knowledge. i-i. Did you ever heir ot a donation being made to that newspaper"/ — A. Nothing but what I have heard here. (■i. And what you have seen in the books. 1 am trying to tirid out to wliniii this donation was made ? — A. I cannot tell you. (}. .Inst to refresh your memory, do you not remember that Mr. Thomas .\b- (rreevy himself asked you for a contribution to that newspaper? — A. I do not re- member -Mr. Thomas MeGreevy asking ine for a dollar. Q. But you remember that .Murphy asked you for money ? — A. Yes ; he a"«ki"l me so many times and for such large amounts. Q. Would yon be surprised to know that Mr. Thomas Mciireevy admits haviiiii rf'ceived money from you ? — A. Fi'om me ? .Moneys in the wa^' 1 spoke of is tli'* oniy nunieys I remember. (.}. No transactions or donatiouH for pidilical purposes ? — A. Kroni ni>' ? Q. Yes?— A. No. Q. Krom the Connollys? — A. Not to my kiiowleilge. Q. Michael never told you he had been asked for money'? — A. Xo. ii. How many Coniudlys were there in the Krm? — A. Two. Q. Nick and Mick ?—.\. Yes. 302 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Now, have you not mado statements to your partners to the effect of explaining these entries for donations? — A. Not to my knowledge. I could not make es planations to my partners if I paid no money. Q. But the money was paid. You had control of the cash. You had been put specially in chaige by Mr. Larkin. I suppose Mr. Larkin must have been inquisi- tive and inquire(( what these donations wore for. Did he enquire ? — A. He may have. Q. Is it not natural he should have enquired of you to whom he had entrusted the cash of the tirm ? — A. I would have referred him to the book-keeper or some- body else. Q. That is the way you kept your trust of the cash. Now us j-ou have stated so far that whenever these donations are entered the money must have been given to Miiiphy. Were you also asked for explanations by Robert Mcfrreevy as to these entries? — A. I have no recollection. (i. He was u partner and was interested ? — A. Yes. Q. If he asked any explanation, dio you remember what disbursement this was? — A. 1 d(» not. (}. Vou cannot give any explanation as to that ? — .\. No. i], Jn a statement ])repared by .Martin Connolly this ituin of ^.i.OOO. to bo found iiiulcr date of March, 18i^7. in Kxhibit • K 7" at page 174ofthe Kvidencc, is t'oHowe 1 by the words " Three Rivers." Can you explain the presence of those words there ? — A. No ; I cannot. '.y You could not connect this sum of $.*),000 si)ent bv vou from private fumls with this item of 8."».t!00 for "Three Rivers"?— A. No. ^i. And }()U cannot give more particidars about this item than the others, as to the use of your private fumls? — A. No. (^. At page 105 of the Kvidence in Kxhibit " 15 5," being a statement of the expenses conneete. Was it ])rior to 1SS7? — .V. 1 think it was, I am not po-itive. . And you cannot say whether during 1887 and 188S they were? — A. I think tiuv were, but I am not posi live. Q. 1 find under the name of Pellotier in the season of 1887, 82,12n..*»o being an ■N]ienso. or a sum paid to this man. Can you explain that ? — \. I cannot. '■l. In the season of 18S8, 81,515. Can vou explain that ? — A. 1 cannot. ii i i i 111 I Hilt 1 n i il I ! 111*? m -64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 CJ. lie was not in your employ then for the yearn 1886. 188" and 1888?— A. IIo may have been a portion of the time but I do not recollect. My recollection ot Mr. Pelletier is. ho worked for us or for the firm in winter, but I am not sure. (}. Did he work in the summer? — A. Xot that I know. (}. If these people were in your employ their account would appear in the books for salary would it not ? — A. Yes ; I think so. Q. And do you know whether there are any such entries connected with their salary ? — A. I do not. Q. What was their salary with you ? — A. I do not remember. Q. How mucn would it be ? — A. I suppose 81.50 a day or something like that. Q. At the most it would be $2 ? — A. Yes. il. So Pelletier could not easily earn on $2 a day the sum of $2,120.50 in 188" ? That was a long year to work : he must have been working night and day. — A. Xo, I think not. Q. In winter the days were short and the salary was big. "Would your salary be the same for I88S — that he may have worked for you in winter ? — A. lie may have worked, but I am not positive. Q. Then Germain, during the season of 1887, appears to have received from the lirm S;{95. Do you know what it was for? — A. No. Q, He was not in your empio}-? — A. I don't remember that Germain was in our employ. He may have worked for us during the winter, but not in the summer. Q. And if he worked for you his salary would be entered in the book ? — A. Yes. Q. For the season of 1888 Germain also received 850.00. You don't know any- thing about it? — A. No. Q. liruneile, season of 1887, received 8710. Do you know what it was for'/ — A. 1 don't. Q. Was he in your employ ? — A, Brunolle worked for us a while in the winter, but not in the summer. Q. He may have worked for you in the winter and t ae summor ? — A. My re- collection is he was timekeeper in the summor too. Q. Was that in 1887 ?— I don't know. Q. He could not be in your employ at the same time that he was inspector on your works ? — A. lie may have worked as foreman. Q. At the same time that he was inspector of works for the Government ho acted as foreman'? — A. When there was but little work doing he may have acted as foreman. Q. And if ho acted as foreman his salary would be entered in the books? — A. I think so. Q. In 1888 Brunello is credited with receiving 8050. Your answer is the same as to all the others — you don't know what it is for ? — A. I don't know. Q. And if he worked foi- you it would be only occasionally'/ — A. Yes. il. Have you any knowledge of the entries that were made in the books as expenses or amount paid to these three men'/ — A. I have not. Q. Could any expenses be paid except through you, j'ou hiiving t ho manage- ment of the cash ? — A. Yes, expenses could be paid. Q. But you had to draw ;;heqnes to pay these expenses, and if these payments weie made it would bo from cheques drawn by j-ou '! — A. Yes. Q. And 3-ou did not ask any explanation but drew the cheque ? — A. Mr. Martin Connolly vvould come to me ami want a cheque for the office use, and prol)ably I would sign the cheque. If Mr. Murphy wanted a cheque I would do the same. By Mr. Tarte : (^. Did 3-ou ever see this piece of paper? — A. •before. (I. Do you know the handwriting? — A. I think it is Martin Connolly's hand- I do not remember over seeing it ^vriting. 3U4 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. As II niiittorof fact are you sure it is Martin Connolly 'h handwriting ? — A. I would not Hwear to it. (}, It roads as follows: (Kxliil.it "L 10.") B. C. Aug., 8.') 4,0«0 00 Feb., S(! a.OMO 00 .Tune, St; :J.0(I0 00 Nov.. 80 . ... 1,000 (to Nov., 87 n.tlOO (to Nov., 87..- 5,000 00 V. n. 1. Apr., 8.1 2"»,000 00 Mar. 20, 80 5.000 00 Sept. ;{0. 80 5.000 00 Oct. 13. 80 ;{,000 00 Feb.. 87 27,000 00 AufT. 3, 87 1,0(»0 00 Aug. 8, 87 4,000 00 Dec. 31st, 1888 3.000 00 33,000 00 frraving Dock. Apr., 8.-1 22,000 00 .Fan. 3nl, 87 5.000 00 .Fan. 24th, 87 1,000 00 Nov. 2nd, 87 ."i.OOO 00 Nov. 21st, 87 .%000 00 73.000 00 11. II. Apr. 7th, 87 24,000 00 Mar. 31st, 88 30.00(» 00 Dei-. 31st, 88 .•iO,000 00 838,000 00 Mcdreovy— H. C, 848,500. S4,000 00 Xow, sir, you swear j'ou never saw this paper before? 1 want you to swear (o tliis? — A. Not to my knowledge. (^. Answer me and try to have a knowledge of your own. Do ^'ou swear you never saw this paper before ? — A. I may have seen it, but I do not lemeniber. Q. Do you swear that you have not handed this piece of paper yourself to suuu' one ? — A. Not to m}' knowledge. Q. Look at it again with caie. I do not want to take you by surprise; but I know what I am saying. Will j'ou swear you never handed this piece of paper to anyone'.'' If y(»u did not handle that piece of paper you should know it? — A. I do iiitt remember it. I may have; but I do not know. To the best of my belief I never saw it beft)re. Q. Hut still you may have? — A. Yes. (I. Will you kindly look at this letter and see if 3*ou have handled this before? — A. That is my writing. Q. Will 5«'i read it ? — A. It reawered the tresurs leter inasmuch as I am afraid that his fait may bee the same un tiie mice. I havent yet been to lock Poeurt owing to the foreman of the consurn ln'iiig absent in New York I expect to get a telagram from him tonight and in that ijise I will goe over tomorow. if the cross wall is adverti.-ed I will lie reddey aney time to gow down. I lie slaying is verey good heer. this is about all I think you had best see T — and have him recommend the re- late ot the tifiey thousand that wee may bee in a position to tender properely on the 366 I I 1 1', I i'l \ '.: f ifS' % ») ^ Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 ci-o)«8 wall & sqiiuto of tliiii^^eH ^oniieraly it irt a Mertiticatu of (iepoxaU' that the hold and if tlie rola^o it 3*011 can Mend it heor and wou will gut tlio money at onMe and square evereything u|» give n»y re!<|)octs to ail the fbikes, " You res iV • X. CONNOLLY." Q. Will you kindly toll us what that "T" means ?— A. I think it would he Mr. Thoman MiGreevv, that would he nij* interpretation. *i. That woufd he your recolleclioii ? — A. Yes. H. Will you look at thin letter and tell us if it is your handwriting'/ — A. Yes, this is the same. i}. Tiie letter is dated St. CatharineN, Deoemher tlio 1.5th, 1882, and as there are some things in it which have no hearing on the ease I will read only an extrat't from it wliieh is as follows : (Exhibit •• .V lo.") St. (Jatiiakixes, Deeember l.')th, ')s2. ;j: :|: * ^ :;: :;: ;i; * ;|s * ;;: ;!; Frikm) Mr. Miiki'iiv, I>ear Sir. — ■' I am glad the Minester reecmimonded the re- lace oi oursecurety it is aserliHcaleofdeposato an all hohastodow is to right a relate on the Iiack of it or give it to you without it or have him send it to heer. I am anoes to get it and get thinges straitened up nus wer have to pay three tliousand dollars heer on the matdieenery the first of themonth it would save the interest. "The (rovernmenl is asking f<»r lenders for the brittish Columbia doch a gane vou had best see one of j'our onkles about it." * '■'• -•• '■''- '■'• ■'" "X. (X)N NOLLY." A. This is a private letter from me to Mv. .\furphy. H. Will you kindly tell us what you mean by " Your onkle " in this letter .■' — A. Well, I doni know as I can ex|)liiin lliat to you so as it will lie satisfactory to the Committee, but Thomas .Mctireevy, was called by Mr. .Murphy and the firm at that time Uncle Tom, and I suppose it wouhi be to see him to gel a s|)eciticatioM and so forth for them it we were going to tender in it. I thiid< that is the interpretation of that letter. (/. Hut, Sir, it seems to us that you had at the time two uncles (»r more? — A. I dont know as it says so. t^. Jiead it y()urself. It is exactly stated ''one for your uncles" pretty plainly? Mr. OsLKR. That is .Murphy's uncle. A. Murphy claimed to havest-veral uncles. (I. Who were they? — A. He used to call I'ncle Tom.aiu; Uncle .Vdolphe. ;ii;il nearly every other Minister was his uncle. (}. You were wiy lucky to have so many uncles in high ]tlaces. — A. Not me; 1 never claimed any such notoriety. Q. Is it \our answer? — A. That is my recollcttion. yes. Q. You stated yesleiilay thai -Mr. .McCireevy beini; a mechanical man of great practical ex])erience, you sometimes wanted him to prepare your estimates or heij) you in that work? — A. No, I never siiid .s(». (^. Well, what did you saj- ? — A. I said that he being a member of the Harbour Commissioners when our estimates were ui'k eoinpletod ? — A. I don't rt'intMulM-r. i], Uut, you i*\voio it wan noarly oonipletoil? — A. I tliinU it wu.x, tliat its my n collection. (^. Is it not a fact, you liaJ a suppicnienlary contract in 18S4,anil tlic DocU wa-* r.ot tlien completeil? — A. At the time the supplementary coiitiaci was let, 1 consid- ered our security should have heoii released then. (^. I'ieusc answer my (lueHtion. it in very clear. In 1S84, was tiie tiiavini,' Mock comjilcted? — A. No. • i'. In 1S82, it was not com|)leted eitlicr? — A. Xo. i], I)id y(Hi work in 18S.'], al the (Jiavini,' l>ock, Levis? — A. 1 think I did. *J. Then, in 1S82, it was not completed ot course? — A. No. (}. Then, you asked lor your security heloie the work was completed ? — A. Yes. (i>. And. you wuntetl Mr. T — one ot your uncdes — to have that husiness >ettled'/ A. I did not say so. (^. I>idyou not read some letters in which .Mi. Thoman McGrcevy was called •'our friend "? — A. I ma}' have. Yes; I may have. C^. l>id you read some letters in which 30U have said " our friends ' ? — A. I may have done that too. not know who it would refer to. I was always friendly with everyhody. 1^. Will you kindl}' look at this letter? — A. It is my writing. 1^. The letter reads as follows: (Kxhihit '-O l(t."j '• Thk I)hiaki), VicToKfA, B.C., l»eccm. the 1!', Is^t. •• 1>K.\R Kheno Mk. Mlrpiiv, — We have hecn ingaujedfor the last throe or foear daycs takcing uplhcmateriland |)lant on the ground and chaii::ed two iis in the --ccdcul of )iri-es and amounting in the ngntgute two tiftey thousand dolars (§.')U OUO). • Well ther is but verey litiel of the stuf that will sute us or that wee can u>e iiliill. aiict'dule of rait, if corse wee can get, a long with the sand stone ami build veiey Will wiih it but ther is maney cole vainis in it and hard laires of iron that is verey lad and it scales otf with the wether and the other kind that is heer is hard and full 367 lii ■I I il ivi i'ti, ! ift !,;;!■ ji j 'hi' 5, ! If :i m i I H I I 64 Victorifl. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 of iron nnd iliHrolon* vcrey miu-h this in the kind the mint it« built of in SanfVuncisco But it' wcu have two u^t* Hun(iMt4»ne wee will ^et it ubout 40 miioH from lioer and Hotter tliiih what the UMod tor tlu- mint th« quarry that tlio got the Mtontt for tlio mint out of im at)out n liumlicd milvn from ht-er ther Ih not aney ott'i-H for uh on the wori{ ami Avel haw two huild antl at onhe and all the dtTickN are now ^oed and tiie height was increased. (^. Do you remember ifyou had to paj' the whole of tho i8r>0,0(lO tor the old jdant? — .\. No, I think there was a deduction inatlo. (I. Did you at the time instruct Mr. .Murphy by letter to see the lion. Thonias Mc(ireevy»or Sir Hector Lungevin about it? — A. t^uile likely. I'roni the readini,' ot that letter 1 woulil infer that F inust have written probably to him again wiili regard to that matter. Q. Will you look at this paper (K.xhibit " 1' 10,") and tell mo if it is in your haiul- writing ? — A. Ves. (^ What is tho date?— A. It is dated .St. Catharines, February 16th, 1S84. ii. I will point only to the part I want road, " About the prise for throwing ihc malcril back and leveling I think you are about right, and I think that Mr. Perley or Mr. Hoyd would recomenil it with very litel perswasan, if our triend would lay it betoeur them in the proper li.it>tier» '.'' Woiilil il not have to lie hroiiirht beloiv the Ilarlioiir ('oiniiii>fion«rB'.'' — A. Yi-h, think It IS in A. This liiit I wuiiteooii an possible, that wuK my iilca alioiit it. Hi/ Mr. Tarti' : ii. 1 have liero a very iin|iortaiit li-ttiT. I>iit it is very ditHciilt to roail. two piet'OH, but in the name haii'iwritiii;ur. Will you identity tliis letter '.'- i> my hand writ iiitr. (Kxhibit "Q 10.") 'The I>riahi)." "Vktokia IM'., ll'lh December. l«i>it. "l)E.\ii I'hin'I). .Mk. Mukpiiy. — I ^epo«e yoii are aiioe«ly waitim.' lor my repoart (III the work heer, and on the peejtel and the eiiiilcrey ;^oiiereley and w* to the later I Illll^t ftay the climate is splendid tlier is a lilel j^ray t'rest every nij^ht but now iie nil the water, the are Ih a littel c ari' in tor about 2 thirds ot it oh length and a lilel eoncraitinir dun on the sides for a short di.sl uncos at the lore end id one of the wiiiiies i^ al'oiil half biiillo and the j^rannot is on tjio ground but the -Miidstone that is on the irround is only about one foot thick aiit two feet lon^ and a foot width or about what two men could lift we will coiiionee lako- ihj,'theni up to-morr, after which time I will bee the bettor able to jud^jje Ihees nien all thaw 1 must say hat 1 was received verey kindely by them ail and I lliiiik that .Mr. Triitch is a fair man. I think that .Mr. T. would like to have the dock builto of yraniiet and bee said that it would not cost much over sixty thousand in adishin to our prise for sandHtone and I also think that 'ho folkes heer would lik to niak it a hiiiidrod feet lonj^er. If corse t hoes thin^esare for our trend two work on IJiit for the siibstiitin of jjfrannet would bee worth one hundred thousand moeiirand the leiii;- tldiiir l)reporson if corse Mr. T. would have two bee seen in the avent of aney chaiiii,' as bee is the Dominion agent hoe;- and all poiirfull a-i woll as our folkes there. \Vc will want changes maock ? — A. Yes. (^. Is it a fact or not that you have worked yourself for that second entrance to be done away with i;nd replaced with a circular head, as at Levis'?- -A. I think we mentioned that tV»r this i-ea-son : It would not have been of any use to the Gov- ernment. Q. 1 do not ask the reason — was it done away with / — A. Yes. Q. Was it replacfetl with a ciirular head, as at Ldvis ? — A. It was nearly like tiie one at Levis. ^i. Did not that change lengthen the Douk about 50 feet ? — A. The entrance t^. Answer my question, please? — A. It made it suitable for longer vessels. (J. lias the Dock been lengthened ? — A. I believe it gave the Dock more sjjaco. but do not know. It gave more material there. By the Chairman : Q. Was it lengthened 50 feet, as Mi'. Tarte says ? — A. I did not understand it that way. Jiy Mr. Tarte : Q. Is it a fact or not that the change lengthened the J)(>ck? — A. I believe that it did lengthen the Dock, but I am not positive. (^. Hnt at any rate, it did not take an}' more material ? — A. Yes; I think it took more material. I will tell you whj-. A circular head, of conr.-e, took a circle to lie built around it. My recollection is that it was in the shape of a vessel — not exactly a circle. . Was that second entrance pretty difficult work? — A. Xo ; it was merely to ])Ut in granite (Quoins in place ot" sandstone. I don't remember which was laid down on the .-peciticaiions or plans. (J. Was \-our brother. Mr. Michael Connoll}', on the spot there? — A. I don't remember whelfter he was there a^ the time or not. (J. If he had written letters in which he said that the second entrance was very diffiiult work would you believe him? — A. Yes; 1 would believe him. I believe myselt" that where the gate-* tit against is difficult work, but the other work is iu^t :iN ditticult. for the circle has got to be made round in the stone, to give a round head, ami (.very stone has to be cut dimension stone. (}. Your brother was there all the time? — A. Not all the time, but nearly ail the time. Q. Was he longer there than you were yourself 'r — A. I went out there tirsl to locate the quarries and organize the work t^. ^"ou worked together when you were there '(" — A. Yes ; when we were there. Q. Promoting the interest'- of the firm ? — A. Yes ; that was our interest there. Bf/ Mr. Lister : Q. Yon suggesterothcr's letters will show. Q. Don't you remember? — A. 1 lemember there was some talk about it: I . Were you paid for more stone-work ? — A. Wo were paid for Just what wi' I'lit ill, 'i'. Were you paid for more stone-work on account oi that entrance than 3-011 WDuM h;ivo been if the contract had been carried out? — A. I think we were. Jl iiuuli' iimro stone-work than with a second entrance. 'i*. Was it easier work? — A. 1 do not know that it was. '}. Will you swear that it was not ? — A. It was harder work. If there was moie >toiU' ii was more ditKcult to cut. It was all circular stone, and there was great li"*s. AVhen you take out a square stone and make a circle of it you have more lost >'|||ie than if you used it squtsre. 1- a7i t: i •■-M I m ''m fl • W: ^k\ ■■% 'f ' ;S ' !' ' ; ^■1 i'-X- lull i A% ■ i 1 » ; W : , ^^ ''' \ 'A m lii ,i lii; 54 Victoria. Appemlix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Would it cost lees for stone than it wonld have done had you luidt accordiiu' to contract? — A. 1 think it would have co>t less to put in a i. You think it was 810.000 more? — A. It maj- have been more or less. Q, Probably nmre? — A. It might be. Q. You cannot tell much about it. Your nund is a blank about that? — A. I ■'. < not know as it is. Q. Did you not talk with your brother about how much more you could uvt il it was done as j-ou wanted it ? — A. I do not know. Q. Don't you know it was -S;55,0OO extra ? — A. Xow you have mentioned it I believe that was the tigures. Q. §H5,000 in the pockets of the contractors? — A. It cost that iiukIi more ti.; i it. Q. You mean that much more to the country? — A. I think the count ly got :i great benefit fnmi it, if it made the Dock that much longer. Q. Answer my question. Did it cost that much more to the country? -I uoii't tare whether they got the benefit or not. — A. If the Dock was made that much ioiiucr and iinpioved materially, it was a benefit. Q How nauh ionirer.wa.^ it made? — X. I do not know. Q. You t(dd us a little while ago it was not longer. — ^ . It was longer it in->k more material. 1^. It cost the countr\- S35.01MI more than the contract you then bad and it ;lio contract had been carried out in that ])articular? — A. I do not know that. Q. You staled a moment ago it w.is S;j.'),O whether the lengthening which resulted from the circular head Leing put in is tluu which is referred to in that letter of 100 feet more? — A. Xo. Q. Was that lengthening of 100 leet ever di>ne? Jij/ Mr. Tarte : Q. What were the profits of the firm on account of the B. C. atlair? — A. I ; not lemember, speaking from memory. 54 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 Q. But we have tliem here in the trial l>alance sheet which is signed by you and wliich states that eaeh of the partiieis ijot 848,000 profit? — A. If that is in the trial lialaiK-e, it is so. Q. Do you reinenil)er it of yourself? — A. I do not. (^. Yesterday we had a little talk about the dredging contract at (iueboc. In tlie letter of your firm of the 28ilj April. 1S87, it is stuted that the passage is nar- rower, the eurrents are stronger aiid so on. Yesterday you told us that this was true? — A. Yes. (j. Will you kind!}- tell me when you began the Cros-^-wall? — A. I think it was ill 1S82— in fss2 or 1883. Q. Can j-ou tell me when the coflor dam was built? — A. I do not remember the I'.tilf of the building of the cofl'er dam. t^. About? — A. 1884 or 1885, I think. That is my recollection. . Can you teil us when the c."ib work was begun? — A. The crib work was omnienred immediately after getting the contract for the work. <^>. Will you tell us when this crib work was finished ? — A. I could not tell you tli;it. Wo kept on working at them, and sinking them a?^ lapidly as possible. (i. When did j-ou begin the masonrj- ? — A. I do not remeniber the date of it. <^. You do not. remember the date at all ? — A. I do not remember the date of our oniniencing the masonry. t^. Can you tell us when the cotter dam was removed; you must know some- thing aiiout that? — A. I do not remember the date of the lemoval of the cotter dam, i-itlier. (^. Was it removed in 188G? — A, It may have been in 188(J. {}. Has it been removed in 188(3? — A. 1 think it was, but I am not clear on tlKit point. • ^. Then, of course, if the cotter dam had been removed then, j-ou would have had t'> jiass through the entrance where the currents would have been stronger? — A. Ves. *}. Is that what you mean? — A. That is what I mean. »^. You meant yesterday that the cotter dam having been removed you were iliiiged to pass through the entrance and then the currents were stronger? — A. Yes. Q. Would you be very much sur))rised if that cotter dam had only been removed in l->'8, at the end of the season? — A. No. I said I did not know the time, but I tiiiiiU it was in 1S8(). » «^. Then yuu are greatly mistaken in what you stated j-esterday? — A. I spoke 'iitli\vard entrance? — A. Yes. *}. What was the width of that entrance? — A. I think about 150 feet. *}. It was 170 feet? — A. 1 am speaking from memory. \'. What isthe entrance of the Dock now? — .V. I thiidc it is 70 feet. (}. Then you were greatly mistaken yesterday. There were no stronger cur- roiii« at all; you luid an entrance nearly three times larger than the one you have ii'w; twice at any rate? — A. Eoth of these entrances were difltciilt to get in and < !1' to. '7. Hut you jiassed all the time by the larger entrance? — A. Yes. (i. Now, tell me is it not a fact that the cotter dam was removed only in 188S? —A. It may have been in 188"), 188tJ, 1887 <>r 1888. 'X Can vou swear that the last W()rk done in reference to the removal of the votior dam Wii tluit. not done until the rtist of October, 1888? — A. I could not tell vou Q. Will you tell n»e now what was the ilopth of dredging that you dredged for tiie Cnos-wall in 1885? — A. I think it was 45 feet if I remember aright, 'i. Do you remember the priee you reeeived for the dredging of 24 feet below -vutor? — A. I think it was 2tt cents. I mav be mistaken though. 373 ; I m ■ '' 1^^ l!« 'S I 1 w fm'^' ^'h\^ ', '' r- ^l' . , ..i'V;:;.,' :l^ 4," n [ Hi II t', ii ! ( I. ' i I i IP ^i !■ m r. 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Do yoH remember now if the Cross-wall was completely finishetl when you wrote this letter of 1887 ? — A. No. I do not think the Cross-wiill was completed. Q. There was still a parton the south that was not then made? — A. Yes. That must not have been done until such time as the cotter dam was removed. It could not iiave been built until then. Q. You were paid 35 cents per j-ard for j-our dredging after 1887? — A. Yes. Q. Did you throw some of this material into the Cioss-wall embankment? — A. I think we did. Q. Did you throw some of it? — A. I think so. The Cross-wall was not finished and of course wo would lie tilling in the Cross-wall until such time as it was rilled in. (^. Is it a fact or not that besides the 35 cents you receiveil for dredging voa received 45 cents e.\tia for eveiy yard of dredging you put into the embankment.' — A. I do not know the exact amount, but we did receive an additional amount tur filling in material tliere. tl. Will you swear you did not receive 45 cents for each \'ard you ]tut in 'hut embankment? — A. I think that was the price we would receive for that embank- ment. Q. Then you received 80 cents for filling in ? — A. It had to be handled twice. (^. It is a great deal more difficult to handle material twice than to throw it into the river? — A. I think so, everything else being equal. <^. Did 3Ir. Perlej- come often to Quebec at that time? — A. Not often. Q. How many times a year? — A. Thiee, four, five, si.K and eight. Q. Ho was the Chief Engineer there? — A. He was the Chief Engineer. Q. You met hira often on the work?— A, Whenever he came to Quebec he visiteJ the works as fur as I know. Q. And he knew perfectly well that this part of the wall was not filled ? L'mill he see it ? — A. Certainly he could see it. Q. Can \'ou remember what qimntity of dredging you made in the years l'^S7 and 1H88?— A. I cannot tell 3'ou. t^. Can you remember the quantity maile by your two dredge-< by tlie month in 1S">5? — A. I cannot tell you that either, Q. Il Mr. R >yd li;id reported that your two dredges had male fjrty tliou-an I yards a month would 3-011 believe him? — A. Yes. Q. You would believe him? — A. Yes. Q Q. Q season Q. You made dredging in 188G? — A. 1 think we did ? d roan' 11! J- I know In the tiilal and the Wet basin ? — A. I think so. Can you remember what were the ju'oriis of the firm out • f that of .88()? — A. 1 don't know, J could not tell you from memory. At any rate 30U remember that you made pretty large profits ? — .\. the first dredging contract we had there was no money made, that is my recollec- tion. Q. If it was shown to ^-ou that the firm made out of that dredging sca^ni 83S,(UI0 would j-ou lielieve it ? — A. Yes; if the books showed it. Q. How man}- dredges had yon in 18s5 and ISSfi ? — A. I think we had three. Q. And in 1887, 1888, 1S8!) ?— A. I think we had three. Q. Were the}' the same dredges? — A. The s;ime dredges; the onl}- dredges we had. Q. Can j-ou tell us what was the depth of water that you had dredged in lSs'4? — A. I don't recollect fr(un memory. We were dredging foi- the cribs fur tiie foundation of the Cro.ss-wall, and my recollection is it was fort3'-five feet in depth Im- the foundation of the cribs to settle. Q. Did j-ou dump in the seasons of 1887, 1888 and 1889, the materials on the same spot in the St. Lawrence as ^-mi had done before .' — A. I do not know that. I think there was a change made, that we had to go further with the material. (^. Did you get an order to go further ?— A. I think so. 374 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Are you sure ? — A. That is my recollection. I am not quite clear, but my recollection is that the Commissioners ordered us, or the P^ngmeer ordered us, to go further away with the material. By Mr. Mills (^Bothwell) : Q. What was the greatest and least distance you took the matter that was dumped in the river? — A. I think there would he a mile and a-half or two miles of ditfeience between the shorter and the longer haul. Q. What was the lergth of each ? — A. I do not know that. By Mr. Edgar : Q. What was the shortest? — A. Speaking from memory, two or three miles. Q. What was the longest ? — A. Three or four miles, more or less, I do not give that as exact. By Mr. Tarte : Q. When you were working on the Esquimalt Dock with your brother you were on good terms together; you agreed together? — A. Yes. Q. We have here a letter that had been produced, (Exhibit "T8)," which reads as follows : " Victoria, January 21st, 1886. '• Friend Owe;«, — As you will see by the papers I have sent you, we have been getting u|» all the excitement about the dock, its extension, kc, that we could. Nic iiiul I saw the two M.Ps., Shakespeare and Baker, and I tell you they are a brace of pirates. They thought they ought to have about 8.'i,000 for their influence with the .Minister of Public Works, but we told them it made very little ditference to us whether the dock was extended or not." Q. Did 3'our brother tell the truth when he wrote that? — A. He did not tell the truth when bo wrote that. I remember myself going with him to see Mr. Shake- spoare and Mr. Baker. .Vt that time Mr. Trutch had a notion to have the Dock lengthentid and the papers were agitating for it. We w^ent to see Mr. Shakespeaic and ^r. Baker about it. (^). Did you go alone? — A. My brother was with me, and there never was any such iimount of money as is mentioned in that letter mentioned in tiie presence of Messrs. Shakespeare and Baker. <^. You tell me that there was no such amount of money ? — A. No. . But the letter goes on : " We agreed to give them 8500." — A. There was a conversation took place with these men. They were anxious to have the Dock Icngtheneil and they said they might have to come to Ottawa to soeabout it. If they d\d come tliey wanted us to pay their expenses. I said if the Dock was lengthened I did not mind paying their expenses, which would amount to about 8500. As far as the bnice of pirates is concerned there is no truth in it. Q. Then your brother did not tell tlui truth? — A. There is no foundation for that story of the brace of pirates. 1 have always found them perfect gentlemen. (^. Are you sure your brother was tolliig an untruth? — A. I aiu sure he is mistaken about it. Q. Is it possible a man of his experience might be mistaken between 85.000and i?.")(iO? — A. These men never asked more than their telegraph expenses and the e.\iionses of coming to Ottawa. I think Mr. Shakespeare was the one who mentioned it. and 1 am sure Mr. Baker never mentioned it. He said if Mr. Baker and he had to go we would have to pay their expenses. Q. Was any money given to them ? — A. Not to my knowledge. Q. Never? — A. Not to my knowledge. (} Did you have any conversation with Mr. Perley about the work you were engaged in? — A. In British Columbia? Q. Yes ? — A. With regard to what ? 375 ;i 1 fi: , I r^'i 1' ^ m '\ i Mm 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 . Wi'h regard to any kind of business yoii had th jre ? — A. I do not know as I Ivid. Q. How many times ili look at the work. Probably once or twice during the summer, more or less. Bj/ Mr. Lister: Q. You stated that no money was paid to Messrs. Baker and Shakesj)eare to your knowledge? — A. Not that I know of. Q. l>id your brother tell you that he jjaid money to them ? — A. Not that I know of. Q. Do you swear he did not tell you so ? — A. He never toM me he paid money to them. Q. What did he tell j'ou then? Q. You have no knowledge you say that 3Iessrs. Shakespeare or Baker ever received an\- money from your firm ? — A. No. ii. No personal knowledge ? — A. No personal knowieilge. Q. Did you ever have any conversation with your brother about paying bo.. , or one ot these gentlemen any money ? — A. Not more than what I have just stated, that in case they should have to go to Ottawa and it would cost 8500 for their expenses, or something like that. Q. Thev stated that? — A. That is my recollection. Q. They stated it would cost 8500 to come to Ottawa?— A. Yes. Q. Is that the only conversation you ever had with those gentlemen, or either of them, respecting their proposed visit to Ottawa? — A. In regard to the lengthen- ing of the Es(|uimalt Dock? Q. Yes. A. Thai is the only conversation I ever had to the best of my recol- lection. Q. You swear there wore no more coinniunications with them? — A. I may have gone in on other business to see Mr. Baker and he broui^ht it up, but I never did. Q. Did lie bring it up ? — A. Not lo niv knowledge. liy Sir John Thomj'son : Q. B"onglit up what? — A. The question of the lengthening of the r>ock. By Mr. Lister : Q. And what else ?— A. This is all. *}. And ;.'..iing to (Jitawa ? — A. I do not think there was anvthing mentioned ai>out going to Ottawa. Q. What did he say when he brought it up? — A. I think he had sent some telegrams to Ottawa, that is all I know about it. Q. \Va- that to you ? — A. No. i. Did he ti'll you he bad >ent them ? — A. I have an indistinct recollection of h''> ^ ? — .V. Not to my knowledge. (^. Did the Coinpaii}- pay for the telegrams ? — A. 1 do not know that. Q. J)iil not the '."ompany pay 814 for one telegram ? — A. I do not know that. Q, Did you ever have any conversation with your brother Michael about the matter before coining to Ottawa ? — A. My brother Michael was with me at thetime we went to see Mr. Baker and Mr. Shakespeare. 37ti 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) (^. Di> yon know, or did ho ever tell you, thut ho had an interview with them aftei' you went awaj* ? — A. lie may have. Q. Will you swear that lie did not tell you he ha 1 an interview with him ? — A. T won't nwear that ; he may or may not. t^. Then the only conversation you had about the Ienf;thenini:j of the Dock was when youi- brother was present with you ? — A. Yes. q! Whore did this lake place ? — A. In Mr. Baker's oftico. (^. You are pretty sure (»f that ? — A. I am pretty sure of that. Ij. That is the only conversation you had on this matter ? — A. The only con- versation. Q. How much did you pay the newspapers for writing uji the agitaiion ? — A. I paid nothing. Q. How much did you promise to pay ? — A. I promised to jiay nothing. (J. Jiut your brother did ? — A. I think not. (}. Were the new.-.paper articles not inspired by the firm? — A. Probably they wei l)y my brotbei', or the people ot A'ictoria. They were very anxious to have the lV)ck lengthened. *}. And you were anxious for the work ? — A. We were always anxious for work ; Ave were ready fov it. tj*. I)id your brother evei- tell you that he had paid any money to either of tjiose iftiillemen, 5le>srs. Baker or Shakespeare ? — A. Not to my knowledge (^. Will you swear he never told you so? — A. He may have paid them ; I do not kiKiw. Q, Did he not tell you he paid them money ? — A. He may have done so, but I do not remember. Q. You swear you do not remember ? — A, Yes. \i. You swear you do not remember that your bi'other ever toM you he paid Mc-^srs. Baker and Sliakesjieare money ? — A. Yes. (i. lie may have done so ? — A. He may have done so. 1^ You cannot remember the circumstances ? — A. 1 cr.nnot remember the circumstances. My opinion is that he never paid them any money unless it be for a telegram or s(tmething like that. If there was any expense of that kind, of course he paid it. By Sir John Thompson : Q. Did Messrs. Baker anil Shakespeare come to Ottawa? — A. Xo, I think nc.'t. By Mr. Daries: Q. With leference to the plant valued at SSO.OUO which was taken from the old contractor, and which j'ou had to take. You were complaining about the value of llial and its condition, a good deal ? — A. Yes. (}. Did you look into it carefull}- when you went there? — A. Yes. • i'. What do you think it was worth? — A. Oh. ver}- little. in-uitod tor such a work. (^ Kitty thousand dollars was the price paid for the plant by this (rovernment to the J'rovincial authorities who had taken it from Mr. McNameo the previous cniitractor. I want to know what value there was for that ^50,00<» ? — A. I ilo not rciiu'inber now. Whatever there was was yjutdown piece bv piece according to their sclioilule at the time. The material on the schedule I lomemoer a greatdeal f)f that. Fur instance there was a hand lamp with a globe broken and a piece of wire tor the handle. Then the engine and boiler we took over was leaking, owing to the fact that it had remained unused for so many years? (i. Never mind that. We take it for granted that you examined it carefully sokI as a practical man, understanding the value of plant, I want you on your oath to uive nio as ncarlv as vou can the value of that plant as 377 I! if f^ 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 $50,000 ? — A. As near as I couUl recollect it was worth probably to us $20,000 ; not more ; probably not that. Q. Would it be worth more than that to anybody else? — A. I do not know that it would ; not for that kind of business. Q. Was it not worth more to you than to anybody else? — A. It was worth moro to U8 on that work. Q. You think $20,000 would be a fair price? — A. I think it was. Of course it was worth more to us there than to anybody else. Q. We have heard a great deal from you about these mysterious sums, which 1 hope some one will explain satisfactorily that you knew about having been paid each year. I want to know if you had any conversation with any of your partncis about the details of these at any time? — A. Wu may have had conversations about the time the audit took place. Q. How many now with you mn)- you have had? — A. Mr. Larkin and .Mr. Murphy. Q. Robert McGreevy at all? — A. Robert McGreevy may have been there, but it was generally Mr. Larkin and I, Q. You have suggested that Mr. Larkin knew something about this expendi- ture. Do you think that Mr. Larkin was awaie, from his personal knowledge, nf the nature of any of these expenditures? — A. I don't think he was aware any more than I was. Q. What was then the gooii of talking to him? — A. It was wlien the audit was taking place; the fact of Mr. Murphy being behind and not giving vouchers such as we considered was proper. There was a conversation i-aised about it then. Q. Mr. Larkin was not giving you information about it, \^as he? — A. Xo. Q. Wore you giving him any information? — A. No. Q. You were both complaining about Mr. Murph}' not having vouchers ? — A. Ves. q. After 1887 ?— A. I moan each audi.. Q. Something probably* occurred aflor Mr. Larkin was there? — A. Yes. Q. Well, after these complaints did Mr. Larkin and you br.ice yourselves up and determine to ask Mr. Murphy at any time what it was for? — A. Yes; I think so. I think Mr. Larkin piessed him very hard. q. At any rate he satistiod you whether he gave the information or not? — A. He never satisfied us, to my knowledge. Q. But 3'ou signed the audit? — A. Yes. ii. Went on making the payments year after yeai- — after 1888 was it not? — A. Tntil we dissolved. We made up our minds that wo would quit tendering with Mr. 3Iurphy owing to that. Q. Hut you quit with Mr. Larkin before Mr. Murphy? — A. It was because Mr. liarkin was anxious to go and I wanted him to go before I did. The3' were always to get at Mr. Larkin — to " squeeze him out " as they called it. Q. Tell me vvhy he was anxious? — A. I do not know. q. Did he tell you why? — A. Ho ^aid he was useless and he wanted to gel him out ; that there was no use in our giving him a large share and us doing all the work. Q. What did you think about it ? — A. I thought it was wrong. I said Larkin was the oldest member of the firm and as long as I was in it Mr. Larkin should !'<' properly treated. Q. Wh}' did 3-ou put him out? — .\. I did not put him out. The Committee then adjourned. 378 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 House ok Commons, Saturday, 11th July, 1801. The Committee met at 10 a.m.; Mr. Mnsson in the Chair, Investigation into certain circumstances and statements made in connection with the tenders and conti-acts resipoetinj.; the Quebec Harbour Wori per day, which Trutch, after some hesitation, allowed, and this time wo had K)me few days for steam derrick charged, when Mr. Trutch in his wisdom saw fit to cut the rate down to S12..">0 per day, and other itimized charges were cut down to suit the ideas of " Sir " Joseph Trutch. We are building the caisson recess of rock-faced ashlar, as per plans prepared by Mr, Porley. but Jlessrs. Trutch and Bennett think they know more about the construction of engineering works than either the Minister of Public Works or the Chief Engineer. Instead of Trutch complj'ing with the request of Sir Hector that we should receive every possible indulgence and encouragement, he is do everything he can in an underhand way to embarrass us, and Bennett is his tool all through. I want to tell you that we are building the caisson chamber as per plans prepared by Mr. Per- ley, in rock-faced coursed ashlar with wall at foundation, as per plan, 8' 0" thick, with buttiessos 5' 0" x4' !•". Now, Messrs Trutch & Bennett step in and say that jilan from Ottawa is null and void, and we will only pay you for the brick wall, as shown on Kinipple iS; Morris' plans. If the Department of Public Works is going to allow Trutch \' Bennett to dictate to us in this manner we might as well and bettei- stop at once, for we cannot stand this sort of humbugging any longer. I am doing everything I can to push the woik along, but it seems those follows are determined to obstruct us and letjird its progress as much as they can by witholding the estimates as they become due. '' If we were gettinif enough on our progress estimates to meet our current expenses I would not grumble, fori know that the Department at Ottawa would do us justice. We have about fully fifty thousand dollars invested here, besides the value of the ])lant we brought from Quebec, so that I feel it is time the work here was self-sustaining. I wish as soon as this letter comes to hand yn» would go to Ottawa and see Sir Hector and explain the matter to him, who, 1 believe, when the situation is explained to him, will apply the necessary remedy. I have very little more to add at present. Of course. I will do everything ])ossibleto push the work until I hoar from you, but it is very discouraging to be working hard day and night and then come out behind four or rive thousand dollars at the end of the month. This is what discourages me. " Ver}' truly yours. " M. CONNOLLY. " P. S. — I herewith enclose copies of correspondence with Mr. Trutch. " M.C." 380 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 \». Dill you go to Ottawa after having recoived tliis letter? — A. No; Idon'tlluiik I did. ii, ])id you eiinrge Mr. Murphy to go? — A. Not to iny knowledge. Q. Did you see the Hon.Thoma» McGreevy about this letter? — A. No; T did not. t^. Did you charge Mr. O. K. ^Eurphy to see .Nfr. ^IcfJreevv ? — A. Not to my knowledge. Q. The letter which was enclosed is as fid lows: (Copy.) (Exhibit " TIO.") " Ksqii-makt, B.C., 9th September, 1885 " Hon. J. W. Tritcii, C.M.G., " Agent Dominion Ciovernniont, Victoria, B.C. '• De.\r Sik, — Your favour of the 8th inst. just to hand, and in reply we bog leave to state that, in making application to the lion, the Minister r)f Public Works for permission to recourse the musonry of the Esquimalt Graving J>nck we had no intention of asking further conipeii.satiun than we are entitled to for the cubical con- tents of the masonry, as proposed, in accordance with the schedule of pi icesannexed to the contract ; but wo never expected, and now most earnestly protest, against the piaclice pursued, of ))aying foi' the extra dimensions of st«jne, as ^o nuicb conciete. Heretofore we were under the imjjression that the Hon. the Minister of I'ublic Works objected to paying anything over the schedule prices provided by the contract, for the masonry as we proposed building it, and consequently made no objection , but, certainly we cannot bo expected to build, as you are aware, a very superior class ot mas(uiry for the price of ordinary concrete. '• \Ve are strongly inclined to the belief that when the Hon. the Minister of Public Works sent the letter to which you refer the matter was not clearly represented to him. We therefoie respectfully request that you forward our letter of the lird inst. addressed to >[r. Bennett, the resident engineer, together with this one, in hopes that the Hon, the Minister of Public Works will recognize the justice of our claim. " We have the honour to be, clear Sir, " Your ver}' obedient servants. (Signed) "LAKKIN, CONNOLLY & CO." (i. Do you know if the new mr^de of measurement docribed in this letter was adopti-d later on ? — A. I do not recollect how it was moasuied. Q. You do not know anything about it? — A. Not about the measurement. ii. You do not know that an order was sent from headquarters here at Ottawa to the Hngineer there, and communicated t0 3'ou, by which this mode of measurement was adopted? — A. I do not know, it might be. Q. You have no recollection that until the month of Februar}-, 188G, you received, lifter this new mode of mea»iuiement was adopted, 82;{,000 more for that estimate ? — A. No ; I have no recollection of it. I do not think I was in British C. H.nv many cubic feet are tliero in a yard of stone? — A. Twenty->even. *^. Jf you are paid a dollar per foot for a yard of stone you are being jjaid §27 for that yard? — A. Yes. Q. And if, instead of that yard of stone, you have been paid for a yard of con- crete, you would have been paid onl^- 87? — A. We would have been ]iaid concrete jirico. (^, What was coi.crete price? — A. I do not remember, (i>. You know what it is ? — A. I do not know what it is, not from memory. (i>. Do you know what is the price for a yard of concrete? — A. 80 or S7 is iea>oiiable. or $10 is the utinost price. 4uinialt Dock? — • A. Yes. Q. Did you build a j^reat deal of stonework? — A. I did not tlo any myself; the stonework was built there. Q. You cannot tell us how many feet? — .V. I cannot toll you how many feet. (^ No idea ? — A. No idea. (}. Xot the sli^rhtest?— A. No. H. Will you kindly tell me what is the width of the St. Lawrence at Quebec? — A. 1 should think about three-quarters of a mile, or pr>>bably more. Q. Can you loll us what it? the distance from the itreakwater to the Graviii!; Dock at Ldvis ? — A. I think by water it will be three or four miles ; I do not knrtw. though. Q. Do you say that there are three miles? — A. I should think there was three or four miles — probably more; it mi.ijht be less. Q. Yesterday you told us that from the spot of your dredging; in 188!, 188" and 188!*, to the dumping place, there was about four miles and a-halt Did you say that yesterday ? — A. I do not remember; I wont between the two churches. That is on a lino with the church on (/. I want to know from you, in the clearest possible way, the distance between your dreil^ing spot and the dumping place? — A. Three miles or three miles and ahall^ — jiroliably more; it might be four miles. Q. If it was only a mile and a-half, would you be surprised ? — A. 1 would be. <^. As a matter of fact, did you alwaysdiimp in tlio same place? — A. Not always. ii. Did you get orders not to dump in the same place? — A. I think we did. (j. If you did not get any orders, what would be tiio reason of not dumping in the same place? — A. I ki ow we were either ordered verbally or by letter to take the material further. (^ iiywhom?— A. Mr. Boyd. Q. lie is dead now ? — A. I am very sorry for that. Q. I am very sorry, too; for I am very much afraid ho would not say what you are saying now. Did you ever receive a written order about that? — A. I cannot say. Q. Is it a fact that you have dumped in two spots where you were never ordered to dump ? — A. I cannot tell. I did not go out with the dumping scows. Those were the dumping places designated b^' the Jlarbour Commissioners and engineers. (J. Do you know that you have not been ordered to dump only on one spot ? — A. I think there was a change. 1^. Ordeied by Mr. Bo^-d, who is dead? — A. It would be Mr, Boyd or somebody else. In ]8S(i it might be Mr. Boswell. Q. In 1886 where were you dumping? — A. I su))pose ii tl j river in the neigh- bourhooi' af the same jdace. Q. At the remotest sj)ot ? — A. The deepest portion of the river between Point L«5vis and Quebec. (J. Is this dumping place outside of the Graving Dock ? — A. I think it is. (i. Then there is only three miles or three and a half to go to the Graving Dock and there are four miles or four and a-half logo to the dumping place? — A. No, I don't understand it that wav? Q. You told us so. Will you tell me, can you remember what was the amount you received for your dredging in 188(!? — A. I cannot. Q. Can you remember the amount your dredging cost you in 1886 ? — A. No. Q Yesteiday, in putting to you a question I made a mistake, and I would like you to help me to correct it. I asked you yesterday if it was not a fact that you had made $38,000 of profits from your dredging in 1886. What was the answer, do you remember? — A. I think it was, but I don't know. Q. Do you iMnk that that sum of 838,000 about represented your profits in that jear? — A. I could not tell you that. 382 54 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 c^. Will you »\V('ur tlint ymi weir not hIiowii a Htntt'ini-iit propuroil l)y Mr. Ilumo, your own Knj^inoer, to this utt'oct — that in the year 188ti tor your dredjjinjj opoia- tiriii* you n.H'1'ivi'ii aliout 81(l''i,000, that your expensew lor drcd^^injf won- 8;{H,00(>, ami tiiat your protitt* wore 8(!7,0((0 ? Did you ever hoo Huch a docun>ent ? — A. 1 may havi' Hcen it, hut I have no recoilei-tion. (^, Vou may 'lave seen it ? — A. Yes. i}. If you weio whown such a document in 31 r. Hume's hamlwritinj^f you woi'M ailnilt it i.H tiie same document I suppose '.■' — A. I would know .Mr, Hume's hand- wiitim.', 1 think. By Mr. Lister : (^ Will you state to the Committee whether the gates of the <'ross-wall were iiirliiiied ill the original contract made by the (iovernment with Laikiii, CoiuioUv \ Cn.?— A. The gates? \i. Yes? — A. .My recollection is they were not. I J. Was that a necessary portion of the wor^c for the completion of the proper lihiiis? — A. Yes. *i. Then they wore riot asked for in the tenders that were puMishod ":' — \. For tlic Cross-wall? (^. Yes"? — .v. 1 think not. (^, Was the contract for the gates let to your firm? — A. I think they were lot to me; that is my recollection of it. . They wore let to you individually? — A. 1 think so. <^. Was that before or after the dissolution of partnership with Larkin? — A. Tliiit was, I think, just before the dissolution of partnershij); that is my recollection lif it. i), .lust before tho dissolution of partnership? — A. That is my recollection. <^. r want 3'ou to speak dotinitcly? — A. I am doing so. i}. Tho contract for the gates was let just before the dissolution of ])aitnership of Larkin. Connolly A: Co.? — \. That is my recollection of it — the year previous to it, I think. tjt. Whi.t year was it in ? — A. 1 think it was in 188(5. i}. And you dissolved partnership at what time? — X. I think I bought ^fr. l.iiikiii out in tho fall of 188G, but I don't remember the date. <^. Then, this contract was let in the s])ring of 1886, and you bought Mr. Larkin I'Ul ill the fall of lS8(i ? — A. That is my recollection. 'i'. Wore lenders invited by tho Dejnrtment for the construction of these gates? — A. i don't know ; I think not; that is my recollection. ii>. .Vnil tho contract was let by the Department to you individually? — A. That is inv recollection of it. . Was it in writing? — A. I think there was a letter passed, or two, between .Ml. IViicy and me. so I came here to Ottawa to see Mr. Porley about it. \'. You came to Ottawa? —A. I think so. 1.1. And vour recollection is that a letter passed between vou and Mr. I'erlev ? -A. Yes. ' 1 .) . *i. And that was all the contract ? — A. F think so. V'. There was no formal contract drawn up? — \. There was a letter signed and >ent liy nie to Mr. Perlcy — either tr) Mr. Perloy or the Department. . You cannot tell anything about that? — A. I cannot tell the particulars about it. Q. You cannot tell us an3'thing ? — A. 1 can tell you 1 got it, and my partners shared the same benefit as I did. You wrote him a letter ? — A. Yes. Do j-ou remember the contents of the letter ? — A. I do not. Q. Q. Were your partners piesent when you wrote that letter were. i}. Was Larkin there ? — A. I think Larkin was absent. '—A. 1 tliiuk tiiey Mr. Murpiiy aiui lioliert McGreevv was piesent. Q. Was it written by vou ?— A. No. Q. Who by?— A. .Nir.'Hume. i}. And the letter ottered to do this particular piece of work ? — A. It was wril- tcn by either .Mr. Hume or Connolly, our book-keeper. (i- That letter j»rovideil that you would do the work ? — A. Yes, *}. AVere there any specifications? — A. Yes ; I think there was. . Will you tell mo how much you were to receive for (hat work? — A. I do not remember that. It was so much a foot. (^. How nuuh did it amount to — §35,000? — A. Fully that oi' more. (J. Was it not 845,000 ?— A. 1 think it was. (^. So this little contract was let to you, Nicholas Connolly', a member of this tirm, for the benefit of thetirm, without tender? — A. Nothing more than the letter. (\. Von say you divided up with your partners? — A. Yos; they got the full bcnotit of the work. 1^. You bought Larkin out ? — A. Yos. roduced hero by ^Ir. Tai'te from your brother in Jiritish Columbia to you? — K . 1 saw a letter here. Do you mean the one ho pro- duced this morning? (i. Yes? — A. i see that is written by my brother. Q. And addressed to you ? — A. Y'es. i}. 1 understood from you that on the roceijjt of that letter you took no stops whatever for the ])urpose of carrying out the suggestions contained in that letter? — A. Not that I remember. *}. Not a thing? You did not seo your (dd friend Thomas ^Icdroevy? — A. Not to my ivMowIeilge. (}. The man you relied upon on account of hirf knowletlge ? — A. Not to my knowledge. *). You swear you did not ? — A. Not to my knowledge. (^t. You have no recollection ? — A. i may state this witf. i'eg;;r.l to my brother's letter t'r<>m there : I considered the I'lngineers were oyei'-cauiious. t^. They were too cautious for y(Ui, of course. \'ou sw^'ar' you have no recol- lection of having seen Thomas Mctiieevy? — A. No rocolloction. i). Will you swear you di. Did you not think so? Y'ou wore running behind §4,000 a month, according to tlic progn^ss esiimate? — A. That was during oui- startini' of the work. We hiil not gill building then. 1—25 886 I im iMf ■ii ihn I m\ l^i^* I ii:i''.' r '■■ \ ii !8ti ii 1 \ W ?' 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Did you not think that letter was a letter of considerable importance — did you or did you not? — A. I tliou.:j;ht it was important. Q. You »uy, in the face of that, j'ou never, to your recollection showeil that letter to anyone or consulted with an}' official regarding its contents? — A. Not to my knowledge. Q. Can you recollect shuwing it to any one of your partners? — A. It must have been in the office. Q. Have you any recollection of showing it to any one? — A. I have not. Q. Then you pleu sweai- to that ? — A. To the best of n.y recollection. Q. That is your recollection. Where dii you vote in the United States *or municipal offices ? 3SC 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 (Joiinsol objected on the ground that a prosecution had been instituted against tlio witness for perjuiy. Bi/ Mr. Lister : Q. Were you naturalized in the States? Did you become an American citizen? Mk. Fekguson (to the witness) : Vou need not answer that. — A. 1 refuse to answer that. 1 don't think it is in the enquii-y. Q. You have taken part in Canadian elections ? — A. Very little. Q. Voted ? — A. Sometimes. Q. AVere you sworn ? — A. Yes, f tiiink 1 was sworn. Q. Whether 3-ou were a British subject? — A. I took whatever oath was the vustomary oath, 1 suppose. Q. But you remember being sworn ? — A. Y'es. By Mr. Amijot : ').. Vou were sworn at what election, please — the last general election ? — A. Yes. In the election of Quebec West ? — A. It was in the Centre or tlie West. Q. Was it not in both ? — A. I think it was. Q. And do you swear you have not been naturalized in the States? Counsel again objected. (^. J)o ye to j"- ,v:t the following question, to wit, whether ^-ou were or were not natu- nilized in U.u StxSvj ? Do you refuse to answer that because you are afraid to incri- niinateyi irM'ii' ?--:!. I refuse to answer. Mr. IrmiAVRioFC — It is not i)ertinent to this inquiry whether he is a British stiliject or a pri;i"idizc i citizen of the United States. Whether he is a naturjilized subject of the Ui,; '. , States cannot artect his credibility. Mr, Amyot.--! would like an answer to my (juestion ? Will you state to this Connnittee whv you refu.se to answer the question if you have ever been naturalized in liic Unite'. States ? .^^r. Flrouson. — \ will tell the witness he need not state. Mr. A.MY.iT. — What is your answer '! Is it because you are afraid to incriminate ymirsi'lf ? 'I'lie ("iiAiiiMAN. — If that is your reason, .state it. The ^ViT.wEss. — I refuse to answer that (juestion. The t ': AtUM.VN. — Why do you decline to answer ? M." ' ■fUtt'soN, — lie has answered t lie (luestion already. lie states he was not natiindi/.'M Mr. AM\i)r.— Will you state wiiy you refuse to answer the question ? — A. You have accused me of being on trial for perjury, and I want to state to this Committee 1 never was on trial for perjury or anything else in this country or any other iitry. I hope you will be kind enough to ajtologise for that to the Committee as i-oii ivt'il as to mvse If. Mr. Amvot. — A I— 2,-)Jf nswer my question, please ? •t! : h- i.'1 I. 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 The Witness. — I ask the Chairman to make iiim apologise for that, because I consider it an injustice to me, Mr. Amyot. — Answer my question, ])lease? Witness. — You ayjologise for tliat, and afterwards I will answer. The CiiAiBMAN. — ]?lease answer tlie question or give ^-our reasons ? The WiT.vEss. — I appeal to the C'liairman to asU this gentleman to apologise. Mr. Amyot. — Have you been naturalized in the States ? — A. I refuse to answer that question. Q. Will you kindly state why you decline to answer that question? — A. It would require a statement. ^fr. FiTzi'.\TKiciv. — Make your statement. Witness — When I came to the United States with m father I was underage, and my father naturally got his naturalization papers in the United States ; and, as I understand it, according to that his U.ldren tliat were under age would iiave the privilege to vote after they came of , ; Q. That is the only naturalizatior ^ .'er had in the States? — A. 1 don't say anything about that. Q. Had you nuy naturalization in the States, other than the one you speak of? — A. Only that my father was naturalized — that is the only naturalization papers I know of. Mr. Amyot. — With regard to the indictment 1 spoke of, there was an indictment but it was thrown out. That is all 1 said — nothing more. * The Witness, — I hope you will be kiml enough to apologise to the Committee and me as well. I ask it from the Chairman and this Committee; I think it is nothing more than jus\ Mr. Amyot, — I don't want any misuiide.stamling. The Witness. — I don't want any misunderstanding, Col. Amyot, outside the build- ing; 1 want it to be settled here, ^Fr. Amyot, — Your threats do not influence me. Understand I said it was an indictment. 1 even signed the indictment myself against you for perjury, but it went before the (Irand Jury and it was thrown out. That is what I said. The Witness, — "That is scarcely an apology, Mr. Amyot. — Take it as you like ; these are the facts. Jij/ Mr. Lister : (i. When was it you say you sent the letter to T'Ir. Perlc}- undertaking to do the job of constructing the gates of the Cross-wall ? — A. i do not remember the date. Q. Do you remember the year? — A. To the best of my recollection, it was in 1886. Q. Do you swear it was lS8(i ? — A. I will not swear. • Q. Was it not in 1887?— A. I tliiidv it was 188(>. Q. Was it in the spring or autumn ? — A. I think it was in the autumn of 188(!. Cross-examined by Mr. Fitzpatrich : (■l. These gates for the Cross-wall, of which you have just spoken, are referred (o in the contract wliicii was made for the construction ot the Cross-wall ? — A. Tlioy may have been referred to in the contract tor the Cross-wall, but they were not lot under that contract. Q. That contract is to lie found at page 2t and following pages of the Blue Book (Exhibit " X.f) " which has been produced here? — A. I luivo not seen it. Q. Clause 4 of that contract reads as follosvs: — "The (Jommissioners reserve to themselves the right to change the mode of closing the entr.Mice to the Wet Dock from that by the caisson to that by gates, and to make any ulterations in the width of the entrance or the shape of the side walls which such a change might render necessary." Was there such a reservation in the original contract? — A. Yes; and not only that, but 1 remember that ivinipplo & Morris' plan instead of a set of gates, 388 showed a caisson 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 tlie 111 lo llOV odlv rvo iVot tho rill Q. Then it was under the reservation in piiragniph 4 that the other contract, or siipplemontury contract, for the j^ates was awardcil to you? — A. Yes. Q. Do you remember whether you consulted any of your partners with refer- ence to tiio tender wiiich you made for the gates in the autumn of 1S8G? — A. I :il way-* consulted my partners on the ground, and Mr. Laricin had sufficient con- hdenco in mo to Icnow I wouhl carrj' on tlie work as I thought best. i}. Do you know whether any ofj'our partners objected to joining you, or stated tliat they did not want to be partners in tliat contract? — A. 1 tliink Mr. Ilobert McGreevy and Mr. ilurphy objected to joining me. Q. That is the way you came to put ii\ tho tender in your individual name? — A. Yes ; although I onl}' received tho share of my other partners. <^. 'J'hese letters that were produced hero, that were written to you by your brother, will you explain if it was you who handed these letters to >[r. Tarte or his counsel ? — A. I never handed a letter to Mr. Tarte. Q. Did the letters roach Mr. Tarte with your consent? — A. No. Q. How could they have reached Mr. Tarte or his counsel? — A. They must Imve t)oon taken out of mj' office or house. Q. And if tho}' have been taken out of your office or house, was it with your consent? — A. Xo. Q. VV^ho could have taken these papers? — A. Mr. iLurphy. (I. Did you over consent to Mr. .Murphy taking those papers? — A. Xo. (I. You tirst became connected with tho work in question here in August, 1S78? — A. Yes ; or thcieabouts. (^. Vou were at that time doing some work in connection with Patrick Larkin, on the Welland Canal ?— A. Yes. C^. You were sent for by the Minister of PublicWorks with Captain Larkin, and iisked to make a tender for this work? — A. I do not remember if it was thelEinister of Public Works. (i>. Who was Mr. Mackenzie? — A. He was Premier, and 1 believe acting Minister of Public Works at the time tlio contract was given foi- the (rraving Dock at L(5vis. (J. It was in connection with those works tljal you and Captain Larkin ami ^[r. JS'iluni tirst became acquainted with the works in ([uestion hero? — A. Yos. i^. It was at Mr. .>[uckenzie's jtositivo suggestion through Captain Larkin that yiMi wore brought in? — A. I cannot remember anything about that. (>. Did not La; kin inform you of tho fact at the time? — A. Yes; but I did not l-.iui'.v it of my own knowledge. Q. You wore working on the Welland Canal? You were a stone mason ? — A. Yos. (i. You were a man of no education? — A. Not much. (]. Your correspondence would show that. Y'ou are a relative of Uwon H. -Miirpby. who was examined hero ? — A. Yos ; J i.m sorry to say so. ii. He is your cousin ? — A. Yes. Q. IIo came to you in the winter of 187S? — A. I think it was 187T. Q. After he came, ho has stated here that ho gave you a cheque tor 810,000 whioli vou sent on to Xew York for collodion. Will vou state to the Comniitteo 1 • *■' ' tlio cn'c'umstances under which you bocamo ])ossossed of this obeiiuo an 1 if vou know iuiytiiing of the career of Mv. ^iurpiiy when you took the clioque? — A. His career with regard to Xew Y'ork? I knew nothing of it at tho time. \'. Did j'ou ask him to give you this cboque, or did he give it to you voluntarily? —A. Ho said he had so much monoj- in Xew York — ho said §20,000 and more — in ilill'erent banks, as near as I can recollect. (J. It was he who gave you the cheiiue, and you knew nothing of tho ciicutn- stanccs under which he had left Xew Y'ork when you got il? — A. I knew nothing of lilt' ])!irlioulais. Q. At that time, had there been any publicity given to his doings in Xew York ? — A. I did not see anv for some dnys after. :i80 •;i' I It i.i I '.W: I 1 i: li 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 31 I hi J* Q. Mr. ^[iirpliy admits to liavini; startetl on a voyage of discoveiy around tho uiiiver.-ie, after lie came to St. Catharines, with your brother Michael? — A. The first place lie went to wan Q. Never mind tlie details, lie started for .South America and then came back to St. Catharines ? — A. Yes. Q. While he was away did you purchase Nihan's interest in tho contract? — A. Yes. Q. How much did you pay for it ? — A. 84,000. Q. How much did you sell that interest tor to Murphy? — A. I think it was 84,150. It was 81.50 more, I think, than I paid for it. If you will allow me to ex))lain. Nihan was handling the cash at that time, and he was 8500 or 8000 short, and that shortage was charged to my account. Q. Then 3[uiphy came into the firm in Nihan's place, and assumed the position which Nihan held in the office ? — A. Yes. Q. And paid to you the same amount you had paid Nihan for his interest? — A. Yes; wiih the exception of some small amount. Q. Nihan was taking care of the casii, and Murphy came in to do exactly what Nihan had been doing? — A. Yes; he took charge of the cash at that time. [ think he did. Q. Where was Larkin during all this time ? — A. In .St. Catharines, but visiteh and you did the work outside ? — A. Yes. Q. That is the way the business was managed ? — A. Yes. Q. Things went on in that way until ^S82, when you made a tender for thedredij- ing and the closing of the Louise Embankment? — A. W's; in 1882 I think it was. Q. In 1S82 did Robert Mctrreevy appear on the scene ? — A. First — yes. Q. Hafl you any difficulties with your cash up to the time Robert Mctrreevy first apj)eared, or had any " suspense ' or " expense " entered in your book ? — A. No ; not to my knowledge. Q. Under what circumsances did he appear ? Was it you who brought hiiu into the firm or was it ]Mr. ilurphy? — A. It was Mr. ^ALuiph^-. Q. He was brought in in connection with the dredging contract and the contract lor opening and closing tho Louise Kmbankmeiit? — A. Yes. (^. To cany on 3-our dredging contract was it necessary to have largo and expen- sive plant ? — A. Y'es. Q. What I'eason did Mr. Murphy give you to induce you to take Robert ^IcGicevy in? — A. As near as I can recollect, we had a large outlay to make in the way of building plant, such as dredges, scows, tug boat, »Vc . and he said t'.jat he would be of great assistance to us and save us payinir in so much money — we were short at tho time — and that he would pay in money and help us. Q. He was to have 30 per cent, interest in tho contract, and to contribute iiO per cent, of tho capital ? — A. Y'es. <^. Required chiefly for making those steam dredges? — A. Y'es. i^. Do you know whether or not at that time anything was done by Robert Mctfieevy to enable you to get the contiact through any influence he nwiy have hu'l, or protessed to have, over his brother Thomas McClroevy? — A. Not to my know- ledge. Q. Can you remember ever h.aving hoard it suggested by any one, that Robert McGreevy's influence with his brother would be useful in enabling you to get the contract? — A. I don't remember ever having heard any one say so. 390 ^ ' m ■vy iiO 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Would you recollect it if such were the case? — A. Yes. Q. You said positively that Rohert McGreevy was taken into the firm at thiit time simply to contribute iiO percent, of the capital required? — A. That is the expla- nation given to me, not only by ilur-phy but by Eobert Mcdreevy himself. Q. Did you call upon Muiphy and Eobert McGreevy to have that 80 percent, of the capital made good? — A. Yes. Q. At different times? — A. At different times, to Murphy. Q. Was there ever a positive refusal to contribute the amount or was it ever said to you he had not expected to contribute anything? — A, He never said to me he had not expected it. As it was, there v.as always excuses made. Q. That he would give the money at some future time which never arrived ? — A. 1 understood there Avas large amounts of money coming to him from the Govern- ment. Q ^ii connection with these tenders of 1882, 1 understand your tender was not the lowest. There weie two below 3'ou, were there not for the dreilging contract of 18S2 ? — A. I think there was two or three below us. t^. Do you remember having heard ofFradot and Miller? Were they lower? — A. My recollection is they were. Q. Do you not know as a matter of fact that the Harbour Commissioners offered to Frudet & Miller to take the contract? — A. 1 don't know that. Q. Did you not hear at the time ? — A. I heard something of that. Q. And they refused to take it because thej'^ could not comply with the conditions? — A. M3' recollection is the}- could not comply with the conditions. . !:J;i^ m Q. It appears to you to be in the handwriting of Charles McGrocvy ? — A. It seems HO, but I would not swoar. T have often seen Charles McGreevy write, and I have seen hini change his hand, so that I could not toll his handwriting. Q. He used to change his handwriting ? — A. He had a faculty of changing it. I saw ditforent handwritings of his that I could not recognize. Q. The tenders for the Cross-wall were opened by the Harbour Commissioners? — A. Yes. Q. When the tenders were opened in Quebec in 1883, the contents of the tenders would bo known to each one of the eight Harbour Commissionoi-s who may have been present at that time? — A. Yes. Q. And after they had boon ()])ened in Quebec before the Harbour Comniis- sionei's. they were then sent up to Ottawa to be extended ? — A. That is what I understand. Q. In a tender of that sort would it be oasj' for any person having experience to know the relative positions of the persons tendering by looking over the larger items y — A. It would be a very easy thing to tell winch would be the highest or lowest by looking at two or three of the largest items. Q. With reference to the quantities to be applied to these items, how did you ascertain the quantities? — A. From the plan. Q. Was that easy enough to ascertain by personal experience? — A. Our Engi- neers would scale the plan and make up the quantities. Q. That is, the Engineer would base his estimate on the scale of the plan which he had ]>repared himself beforehand ? — A. The plan was piepared by the Department. Q. He would, from the plan, prepare his schedule of prices? — A, Yes. l^. You took an active part in preparing that teniler? — A. Yes. Q. No tender of that kind could be made without taking your practical expe- rience into iiccount? — A. Mr. Larkin would not admit of any tender going in with- out me having a voice in it. Q. Not only weie you a practical man in connection with the work, Imt you were also one of those who woi-o most largely interested financially? — A. I think I was. Q. l)o you remember iliat j'oii must have had, and that you had a particular knowledge of the tenders that Avere put in for this Cross-wall contract. You must have been considted with respect to everything that was done at the time? — A. Everything . Now talking of that sum of 825,000, do you remember being a party tn any agreement with reference to tho payment of such an amount in any way, either by promissory notes or any other manner, to Thomas McGreevy to obtain his influence to enable 3'ou to get that contract? — A. No; I never had such an agreement. Q. If such an agreement, by which you were to pay 825.000 to corrupt a meni- lier of the Harbour Commission Board and a member of Parliament bad been maiie. you would be likely to remenibcr it? — A. I would certainly remember the thing. Q. Do you remember at that time or at any otbei' time having any conference Willi your other ^lartners. Mr. Larkin and O. K. Murphy at which it was decided to give ;i Slim of 825,000 to Thomas McGreevy, in any Avay, to secure his influence in coiuieetion with that contact? — A. No, or any other asri'oemont. (J. If such an agreement bad been made would you remember it? — A \'os. (}. Do you know where Thomas McGreevy occupies his ofHce in the City of Quebec, over the St. Lnwrenco Steam Navigation Company's offices? — A. My recol- lection is he has no office. He makes his bead quarters in the Richelieu Company's iitlices. (). But 3-ears before he was the President of the Richelieu Company had ho an otfice in the St. Lawi'once Steam Navigation Company's Building? — A. Yes. Q. Do you remember going to his office ami going down through a trap door of tl:e cellar into an office beneath, and being a part}- to tho making of 825,ti00 worth of notes — five notes of five thou^and dollars each — or being a party to llio making of ii note under such circumstances as these? — A. Not to my knowledge and 1 must stute r know that office very well. I have been in nearly all the rooms in the building ami I know of no trap-door to this daj' in that building. (I. If such a bargain had been made as that or notes signed under such circum- stances as far back as 1883, would vou be likelv to remere>ber it? — A. I think sb 393 V ':^,p. :?' 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Do you remember any such meetinji: of that sort? — A. I would certainly remember micI» a thiny if all iliu mciiibers wore present, but there was never such a meeting. (^. You had on the 23rd .lune, 1884. obtained the supplementary contract for the (rraving Dock at Levis which was the lirst? — A. Yes. Q. When you got the contract for the Crraving Dock at Levis had you then been di)ing the work for some time? — A. Yes. 'I. Were you making large profits? — A. Yes, we were making a big protit on it by ilay work . (^. Was it more beneticial to _you to carry on the woik under the system under which 3'ou were then carrying it on, than to change, and obtain this new contract of 188-4? — A. I dont know as I ever looked over the difference, but we were making a very nice ])rotit on our jjlant from day's work. <^. And were you willing, so tar as you were concerned, to carry on the work under the system under which you were then carrying it on ? — A. Yes. t^. J)i) you consider it would be moio beneticial to cany it on in that waj" ? — A. I knew we could not possibly lose anything in that way. Q. Ami the other contract was suggested by the Public Works Department or the Ilai'bour Commissioners, as being a moie business-like contract for the trovorii- ment? — \. J think so. Q. They considered it a more business-like work to have it done for a certain sum than for a day's woik ? — A. Yes. C^. So long as you carried oi. the woi'k by day's work you assumed no responsi- bility for the work you were doing? — A. No responsibility whatever. Q. Under the contract imposed upon you by the Harbour Commissioners anil the Government you assumed the risk of the work V — A. We assumed the ri>l< of the work of the collerdam and everything in connection with it. Q. Had ycm previously had great difficulty in connection with this work, in consequence of the water breaking through it, and the difficulty in the soil and foundation ? — A. Yes. Q. This contract work had been completed twice over, and when you came to pump out the Dock the water would Ineak in ? — A. The water would break in and it was impossible to complete the work owing to the position of the corterdam. Q. So you then took this work at a lump sum, guaranteeing against all tlie difficulties, the existence of which \-ou had already ascertained? — A. Yes. Q. And it was in connection with that, that the estimate of Hume was prepared, that has been referred to here ? — A. Yes. il. You have heard that estimate read here ? — A. Yes. t^. Was that estimate prepared to your knowlcilge at the time ? Do 3'ou know it was prepared ? — A. Yes. Q. Did you at that time, when that estimate was prepared, ascertain what the figures that were jiut in that estimate represented ? — A. That was, us near as I can recollect, the net cost of the work. Q. There was nothing there, in so far as your legitimate protit was conceriioij, or nothing to secure you for the guarantee you were giving for the completion of the work ?— A. No. Q. After you began that work, did you, as a matter of fact, have considerable difficulty about the execution of it ? — A. Yes. (^. Did you meet with some of the same difficulties you had to contend against in the original contract, as to the foundation giving way at the entrance ? — A. Yes, the cort'er-dam gave way. Q. Therefore, one of the difficulties against which you guaranteed the Crovermenl and the Harbour Commissioners, presented itself to you during the execution of tiie w(jrk ? — A. A. Yes. Q. In connection with that work, do you remember giving Thomas McGiecvy, or giving to any person to give to Thomas McCTreev}-, any sum of money whatever to enable you to get that contract ? — A. Not a cent. 394 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Do you remember, as ii matter ot' tact, if at that time any liarj^ain was mailo liy wliieli any sum ot money was to l>e paiil to any person to enable von to i,'et tbat contract? — A. No. There never was any bargain made to pay any money for any eontract we ever got. Q. Under this new contract which you had for the completion of the Graving I>(ick — the supplementary contract for ti raving [)ock at Levis, were you engaged for a consideralde period of time in completing the work? — A. Yes. (•i. IIow many years did it take you to tinisli it ? — A. It took us five or six years to finish it. ii. deferring to the Esquimalt Dock contract — did you ever go to Esiiuimalt before yon tendered for the work ? — A. No. Q. Di(i yo" ever see the plant which you were supposed to take over before you assumed the contiact ? — A. No. Q. Did any members of the firm examine tiiat plant before it was taken over? — A. No. Q. Vou took as accurate, the figures furnisheil to you by the Department as to ilie value ot tliat plant? — A. Yes. Q. Cotning to tlie dredging contract of 18S2 again — that contract was to bo com- pleted in i»art by the tirst of November, ISSiJ ? — A. Yes. Q. Anil in part by the Hrst November, 18S4? — A. I tliink so. i]. Had you an estimate prepared for the protils made on the contract of 1SS2? — A. I know nothing of it excej)t what I saw here. I saw wliat My. Tarte exhibited to the Committee. Q. Did you not. your.self, havepre|)ared at the end ot the season of 1S.'^4, an esti- mate of tiie profits that you made on tliat work — the dredging contract of 1882? — .V. 1 tjiink there was an estimate made, and 1 think our first contract showed a loss. Q. Is it not a fact that in connection with tiie contract for dredging given in 1SS2, the result to the firm was a loss of 8-i,45() ? — A. I thiidi there was a loss, but 1 coulil not tell you the exact amount, (^•. I5ut as far as you now recollect tiiere was a loss. — A. There was a loss. C^. Was that contract continued oi; after 1884? — 1\.. I thiidc it was. t^>. Think again and say? — A. 1 thinic tliere was a letter or something. I iim not clear about it, but my recollection is that it was continued, I may be mistaken though, Q. Is it not a fact that the contract was completed at tlie end of the season of 1884. and you begait dredging again in .luly, 18S5, under a new contract ? — A. I could not tell that speaking from memor}'! Q. Do you not recollect that on the 11th July, 1885, you were awarded tlie con- tiact for extra dredging, 100,t)t)0 yards at ;5,") cents a yard on the report of .Mr. Boyd the Resident Kngineer? — A. I do not recollect, it may lie. Q. Try and recollect that? — A. 1 remember our second contract, but I do not lemember the details. ^i. In 1885, you did no dredging at all from the early spring up to the llth Julv ? — A. We Were most of the season idle. (i>. Is it not a fact that on the llth .Inly a new contract was given, and on the I'^lh it was cancelled, and you only worked seven days ? — A. I do not remember the exact time we svorked, but I know it was a very short time ? ii- Did you not on the 12th August write a letter to the Harbour Commissioners ihieat(*ning them with legal proceeilings. because they would not allow you to con- tinue to work under the contract of the llth .luly ? — A. I remember such a letter wa> written. Q Do you not remember that no work was done in 188,"), under that contract, except what was done after the lUth August, and a voiy small portion at that ? — A. 1 kiiiiw that in 1885, and I think in 1884, we were bothered a good deal, and did not get a chance to go on with the work. <^ Then in 1886, do you remember that Mr. Perley and Mr. Fleming were rdiuired by the Harbour Commissioners to make a report as to the dredging ? — A. 395 '■'",' i ■ \. ■■^ ' ''^'< r1 vlf^jl, : ■ ft jy ; ; if!;:! J mi i I ■'I I f I i H :!ti ^ii '': V '■ It i^*. :■ ^ ii^ii! i: il : i |i llisii In H R ill ■ ..-iV'i If I, :i,' 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 I know there was u report made, but I do not Unow what eiii,^iiioer was with Mr. Perloy. Q. Do you not romondior that fVoin thf ITith .Jul}'. 18H<), you wito allowed to pi'OPi'cd witli the additiitnal dredi^in;;, and that that was allowed to he duni' uridoi' the joi.it report of Mr. I'orley and Mr. Kleinin^' ? — A. I know it wa.s done under the report of the Kni,'ineers, hut I do not know whether it waH Mr. Kleniiriijf wiio was with Mr. I'erloy, or who it was. il. On the2:irii May, 1887, you made a now contract for the cents ? — A. Yes. t^. You sail! yesfordav. if I mistake not, tliat ♦he increased price was i^iven for this dredi^dnt; hecauso of tiio increased ditHculties connected with the t Tor 822,000, and J think we ])aid iiim after tliat §70,uO0 odd. Q. You i.'ave !:im for i7 pi'f cent, interest 870,000 when you were willinu' to tfllve 850.000 from him for 52A per cent, interest? — A. Yes. Q. Is that the deed of disfhari^e and transfer (document produced)? — A. Yes, that is the deed of dischari^e ami transfer. (J. Up to that time had Tiiomas .McGreevy to your knowledge — I thiidc that Roliert was a member of the tiim of Larkin. Oonnolly I't Co. — any connection with these particular contiacts to which you have referred, or had Thomas MctJreevy id anything occur to explain that to you? — A. Yes, there was something Dccuried in the office of our companj*. <^'. Kxplain what occurred. When was >his? — .V. 1 do not remember tlie. That woultl be 18Sl)?-^A. ^i'es. 1 happened to go into the office one morning and ^[r. Robert Mc(rreevy and O. K. .Arurj)hyaiid mj' lirotherwere in the back office. There were? two offices, a front ami a back. In the bacK' office 1 heard some loud talking by Robert Mt'Greevy, which was rather unusual on his ])ai't, and 1 asked ■\»'liat was the matter. Robert tokl me that lu}' brother hail said something that lu' ought not to say; that he had Leon telling some of the Commissioners something lie ou"ht not to say. I asked himwnat it was, and I said I was verj' sorry if my brother had said anything that would cause trouble between him aiul his brotluM- ; and 1 walked out I cume in later and ho wanted my biother (J. Who .van ted ? — A. Mr. Robert Mcllreevy, to go back and apologize to Thomas McGieevj' and tell him it was iu)t so. Q. What was not 8.t was it he had told him ? — A. I understood afterward from my brother 3Ir. (ieollVion objected. Q. What dill you understand from the conversation which t(M)k ])lace at the time? — A. I understoo angiy about it. Q. You understood tha. Thonas .McGreevy had found out at that time, (hrough something Michael had s.dii to him, that Ilobert had an interest in these ditVereiii contracts, and that in coii.-eiiuence Robert McGreevy wanted IMichael to go to Tl 10m a^ and tell him thid was not true ? — A. Yes. (I. This occurred in the same spring of 1S8!I that you bought out Robert McGreev%- ? — Yes. Q. Jp to that time, do you know if Mr. Perloy knew that Mr. Robert McGreevy had any interest ? — A. No ; I liLlieve he did not know. (J. Nor did Thomas McGreevy ? — A. No. Q. This was the first intimation that you had of any difficulty about these tran>actions of Rol)eit so far as his brother was concerned ? — A. Yes. t}. Up to that time had it ever been intimated to you that Robert was useful to the hrm s'' far as his brother was concerned, in obtaining his influence or otiierwise? —A. No. Q. Who were present in the (>ffice in the spring of 1S8!I, when this difficulty took i)lace between Robert and your brother about what your brother had hoeii telling Thomas .MctJreevy? — A. Mr. Murphy and my brother and Robert Mcfireevy. I forget whether Mr. Martin Cimno'ly was in the outer office or not. i}. Will you look at the notes marked Kxhiliit "XV." Those notes all puri)orl to be sii^ned Larkin, Connolly & Co., per O.KM. They are dated Quebec, June 2nd, 3!I8 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 1884. Aro tliev not? — A. Yes; Juno liiul, 1884, siicin'il Larkin. ("dimoUv & Co., IHM'OE.M. Q. Thoy arc in 3Ir. Murplij-'s haiiilwritini; ho far as the taco of tin' ii(»to is coticornod ? — A. Yes. i^. You said that you were in the liabit of working out on tlie Knibankniont ; you were doing outside work all the time? — A. Yes. (l- When you were asked to sign a note or a ehoiiue what would lie done — who would eonic to you ? — A, Mr. Murphy generally, or else Martin Connolly would send out tor nie, Q. You would conio in from tiie work, and >ign or ondoiso as the ease might he?— A. Yes. i^. Did you ask any questions as to what jmrjiose lie intended to ai)])ly t' e jii'oceeds of the notes or chenues? — A. I gen"rall}- asked what it was tor, and I tliiidv .Mr'. Murphy would say he would aeeount later. < (i. And would you consider tiiata sutlieient jnstitit .ition forsigning or endorsing the note? — A. Yes. have all the notes and ehecpies of the firm endorsed hy the lirm ? — A. Yos. . What waH the jtractice, or was there anv pi'aetice re(|uivod hy the hank at wliicli you were doing husiness, and hy the nienihers of the tirni as to the cour>e to lie adopted in reference to the making, and endorsing of notes and ciieciues ? — A. .My lecoliection is thai a letl"r ]';is>ed from the hank to f>ur ti"ni asking that two nienibcrs of the tlrm should -ign cheques. J could not get two meinhoi's of the firm lip sign the cheques, so 1 had a letter written lo the hank giving .Mui'pliy power to sign cheques for the use of the tirm. . When did you see that ondor 1st hiive been when the audit took ti. Dill you see it then? — A. I think so. 'i>. When did you see that endorsution foi- the first lime','' — A, 'i'he lirst time iinist hiive been wlien the audit took place? i^ ^'^■K; ; ;i »' ■'!' I .i' ! Mi ! nf 1 1" !, Hi: 1 l. ^9 i |i«i ! 54 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 Q. When the audit took jtlace Murphy would be culled upou to account i'ov what had been paid out b}' c!ie([ues, cash oi- notes ? — A. Yes. Q. Would they be ehaii^'ed to liim personally from the time of the last audit ai]d he be asked to account? — A. Yes. Q. Therefore, at the audit of 1885 Murphy would be chari;ed personally' with the amount of these notes, PLxhibit "XT'" ? — A. That is if the audit took place then. He must have been charged with the an ount of these notes or there would be some understanding about it. 1 do not know what. Q. lie would he charged in the tir>t instance with the amount of the notes? — A. Tlie book keeper would know more about that than I woukl, Q. Then Murphy would aecount for the amount he would receive on these note- by producing the notes as bis vouchers ? — A. Yos ; that is it, I suppose. (J. Do you remember anything about ehanging the security or certificate in connection with tiieSouth-wall eontract? Did vou ever apply to get the certificate? —A. Yes. Q. What are the facts connected with that ? — A. Mr. Murphy wrote a letter to the Harbour Commissioners asking to have his cheque changed, and I put uj) a certiticale of deposit for him instead of the cheque. The certificate of deposit was drawing interest, and of coui>e I received the interest as long as it was in the hand^ of the Commissioner's as security. Q. At tlie time that was done, do you remember if you had a considerable jjortion of the work doire, and if there was eonsiilerable plant on the work? — A. My recoilectit)!! is that there was a considerable portion of the lower poi'lion of the sewer- done, and a little dreilgiiig We had two or three steam derricks there. Q. What was the value of the jilant at that time, approximately? — A. I shoirld think it would be uborrt 82,000, probably. Q. How much work had you done — what proportion? — A. It was a small jiro- portion of the work. Q. AnKjng the exhibits ps'oduced here is a cheque mar'ked "March, 1SS7, 65,000," and opposite to it the wonls •' Three Jlivers." Do j'oii I'cmember hearing about that? — A. Xo; onl\' what I have heard hei-e. Q. Did you (sver give a cheque, or have you any knowledge of a cheque being given in March, 18^7, tor 85.000. which went to Three Rivers or to any person con- nected with Three Rivers? — A. Xot that 1 know of. Q. Will you look at the chequj produced, dated 20th March, ISSU, and s'giied by ^lurpby in the name of Larkin, Connolly \- Co., endorsed by bim in the same name tor 85,000, ami sa\- whether that is the cheque reteri-ed to in Exhibit " 1] 7" as "March, 1887, 85.000, Three Rivers'? — A. 1 do not know whether- this is the cheque r-eferi'inir to it or not, but I see that it is the date of the cheque. Q. March, ISSO ?— A. Yes ; March, 188G. Q. You do not know whether that is the cheque for that particular item or- not? — A. [ k-now it is Mr. Mnri)hy"s signatui-e and bis oudoi-sing. Q. You know the cheque was paid or char-ged to the lirrn ? — A. I believe it wa-. Q. Jiut you do not know airything about that partieular cheque? — A. I do nut. Q, You do not remember having signed it? — A. I can see I did not sign it. Q. You do not know anything as to the distribution of the proceeds of that cheque? — A. Xo. Q. You were not consulted about that ? — A. Xo, Q. Can you swear positively that you have no knowledge of the giving of tlmt cheque, or the. proceeds of tliat che(iue, to any })erson ? — A. Xo, Jiy Mr. Henri/ : Q. At page 17tt of the evidence of Mr. O. E. Murphy there is a statement in respect to the alleged discovery of a payment said to have been made by you to Laforco Langevin and to Sir Hector Langevin of 85.000 cash. What have you to say wiiii regard to that statement ? — A. I never gave Sir Hector a dollar, neiHier his son, Laforce Langevin. 400 54 Victciria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 I V .til lllilt tlint Q. Or to anyone for them ? — A. No; to no one for them, either directly or indi- rectly. Q. Is there any truth in the statement of Mr. O. E. Murphy Avith regai-d to your liaving told him you had done so ? — A. There is no truth in that statement. Q. At page 182 there is a statement to the eft'ect that you were told by Owen E, Murphy he had made two payments of $5,000 each to Sir Hector Langevin? Is it true that he made that statement to you ? — A, He never made a statemenl. I never could get him to tell me how he paid the money. Q. Did he ever tell you he had made payments of 85,000 each to Sir Hector Langevin? — A. No ; he never told me such a thing. Q. As detailed at page 182 of the Evidence ?--A. No; he never told me such a thing. (J. You say he never told you he had paid money at such a time to Sir Hector ? —A. No. Q. At page 183 there is u statement of an alleged payment to a son-in-law of Sir Hector Langevin's, the proprietor of a paper called Le Courrier du Canada of 83,000, in December, 1887? Did you ever make any such payment? — A. I never diil. Q. Did you ever tell Murphy that you had ever made such a payment? — A. No. Q. You never did? — A. >io; I did not know this gentleman at that time. Q. Which gentleman ? — A. This Chapais, a son-in-law of Sir Hector's. Q. In Exhibit "B 5," to be found at page 105, being a statement of alleged payment ii. connection with Quebec Harbour Improvements, there is an item of 81,000 and another item of 84,000 in August. Mr. Murphy was asked what explanation he could irive to the Committee as to the item of 84,000 ; and at page 184 the answer is : " Mr. Connolly told me ho had paid the 84,000 " ?— A . Who is that ? Q. To Sir Hector Langevin? — A. I never told him anything of the kind. Q. Did you ever tell Mr. Murphy you had paid 84,000 to Sii- Hector Langevin? — A. No ; I never did. Q. Did you make such a payment ? — A. Sir Hector never loke to me about money and 1 never spoke to him. Q. Did you ever state to him you had ever paid such a sum to Mr. Tliomas McGreevy ? — A. No ; I never did. Q. Were you made aware of the fact, or toll the fact to 3Ir. Murphy, at that time 1)1' artei'wards, that these two paymeiits of 81,000 and 84,000 were made as lie stales tlu-y wore made in his evidence to Thomas .McGreevy ? — A. No. Q. You never were made aware ? — A. No ; I never was aware ? Q. I have to ask you a few questions with regard to dredging done under the sL'cond dredging contract of 1887. What was the value of the jiiant used by j-ou in ilio execution of that contract? — A. I cannot tell you the exact amount, but as iiiar as I can, the plant that was used for the dredging, for conveying the material, and lugs, and so forth, together with the steam derricks for hoisting it on bank, is about tVom 8175,000 to 8200,000. Q. That would cover the value of the plant used in execution of the dretlging i.oiilract in 188" ? — A. Yes ; that is the amount of the plant we had on the ground. Q. And what you were using? — A. We were not using all of that, probably. (i>. You might not use it all the same time ? — A. Occasionally we would use it ami at others not. Q. What would be the cost per day cf using that plant for the purpose of executing tlu' « oiitract, tiio average cost per day ? — A, I don't know ; I could not give you that. ii. Vou must have some idea — wages, repairs, fuel and soon ? — A. I cannot give you that anywhere correct. The books would be able to show that. Q. Would you not, in making up your tenders, take this question into consider ation ? — A. Yes ; but I have not those matters fixed in my mind. •v*. It might bo an approximate estimate ? — A. As near as I can recollect, it would be about 82.50 a day. \>. That wouhl be the cost of using the plant? — A. It would be fully that — probably more. 401 1— 2G fM li ii.i !:^l:. r I 1 t • :',;/ M lil-;, I !i 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. I tliink you said you had three dredges then ? — A. Part of tlie time we hail th ree. Q. That would cover the average cost of work ? — A. 1 do not protend to say that is accurate ; but as near as I can tell that would be the average. It might be more ; it might bo less. (i. Can you stiite the average number of yards per day throughout the season of, say 1887?— A. I cannot. Q. Have you any idea'/ — A. I have no idea. It would Ije more or less irregular. Q. Depending on various causes ? — A. Yes. Q. I think you stated early in the investigation the maximum amount of cubic yaiHJs which a drod^'^ would remove in a daj' and deposit in thisdumping ground ? — A. With one or two of the dredges we have taken as high as 2,200 yards in a day, I think that is the highest, Q. That would be the maximum ? — A. It might be a little more or a little less. Q. Were two of the dredges of similar capacity ? — A. Yes; and the other was smaller. The machinery was the same size, but the hull was smaller. Q. Can you state the date at which you would be able to begin woik of this kind and the date at which j'ou would have to close on account of the weather ? — A. We could not start in the spring much earlier tlian the 1st of June. Q. That would be the average time of starting ? — A. Sometimes it wouM be late in ,lune. Q. And the time of ending ? — A. About the loth of November. We might have worked latei'. Q. Can you tell us approximately the aggregate number of days you would have lor work in the season ? — A. No. Q. To what extent did the weather interfere with the cai-rying on of that work ? — A. The weather did not interfere with our dredging very much. We worked at the dredging unless the wind happened to be very high, and then we could not go out in the river nor work our derricks to advantage. Q. Then with the e.xception of the days when there was a high wind, you could work every ' i !l '! I 1 Hi ' , I' ' i; ,, r i i, l: ! , i ■i ■ 1 ■ il i ' " 1 ' . !!!' 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 1:1 Q. Coming back to the Cross-wall contract, did it provide lor gates or contem- plate gates, or did it provide for or contemplate a caisson ? — A. The first plans pre- pared by Kinipple & Morris were intended for the use of a caisson. Q. That is, the entrance should be by means of a caisson ? — A. Yes. Q. And then it was afterwards determined that instead of a caisson that gates should be used on the principle of dock gates? — Yes, on the principle of dock gates. Q. Would the schedule of prices in the Cross-wall contract cover the nature of the work and the materials to be used in gates ? — A. No, the gates were not men- tioned. Q. So that under the Cross-wall contract you had no provision made for the payment of such Avork provided gates were substituted ? — A. No. RS. , WM I 'if The Committee then adjourned. ■ l: 404 64 "Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 House of Commons, Tdesdat, 14th July, 1891. The Committee met at 10 a.m. ; Me, Grirouard in the Chair. Investigation into certain circumstances and statements made in connection with the tenders and contracts respecting the Quebec Harbour works, &c., resumed. 3Ir. H. V. Noel, Manager of the Quebec Bank, Ottawa, sworn. By the Chairman : Q. What is your name, Mr. Noel ? — A. Helier Vavasour Noel. By Mr. Geofrion : Q. You are the Manager of the Quebec Bank in Ottawa ? — A. I am, sir. Q. You have been for several years past ? — A. Yes ; I have to say I am quite prepared to give evidence in this matter without concealing anything, but accord- ing to the by-laws of our bank I cannot divulge anything or give information with- out the consent of the directors, unless I am compelled to do so. The Chairman. — You will have to answer, Mr. Noel. Q. .Have you been connected with Baie des Chaleurs Eailway Company ? — A. Slightly. I collected some money for some banks. Q, Did you act as trustee for the bondholders ? — A. No ; the creditors gen- erally. Q. Onl}^ bank creditors ? — A. I had a power of attorney to draw certain monej's from tlie Government. Q. That is to say, you were authorised by certain debtors of the company entitled to subsidies from the Government to collect from them '( — A. 1 had a power of attorney from the President of the company to draw certain subsidies. Here is a statement I got from the office the other day. By the Chairman : Q. That is your power of attorney ? — A. It is a statement I got from the Department the other day. Q. Read it? (Exhibit " WIO.") '• 8180,000 was paid to Mr. Bui-land. " Department of Finance, "Ottawa, 24th June, 1801. "Dear Mr. Noel, — The amounts ])aid to the Qujbec Bank on account of Baie •los (.'hiileui's Hallway Company were as follows : 1887, Feb. 4th S 40,000 1887 do .)th ;50,000 1887, Aug. nth 20,000 1887, Dec. 2nth , 30,300 1888 do 4th 00,000 1880, March let 15,200 1889, Aug. .'ith ; 94,350 1889, Oct. 23rd .')4;i25 _3jl4^75 " Yours faithfully, " M. G. DICKIKSOX, ''11. V. XoEL, Esq., "Accountant. 'Manager Quebec Bank. Ottawa." 405 !!! 1 I 1:1 ' , i ! ;■ .Ul ii; >?: rrr -i: ■ ii i Si ^ ' ' ; in ii ^: ; I 1 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 By Mr. Geoffrion : Q, You said this was received from the Government by virtue of powers of attorney which were given to you ? — A. Yes. Q. Who were the parties upon whose behalf you received that money? — A. It was paid over to some banks in Montreal and Ontario, and the Bank of Halifax. Three banks got the whole of it. Q. On whose behalf did you draw that money ? — A. For the company. Q. Who was the President of the company then ? — A. I think it was the Hon. Mr. Robitaille. Q. Do you remember who were the directors at that time ? — A. I do not. Q. You can only tell who was the President at the time the power of attorney was signed by him ? — A. That is all. Q. And all these amounts were paid to the different banks j'ou had mentioned ? — A. They were. Q. What about that note at the top of the letter: "$180,000 was paid to Mr. Burland " ? — A. T suppose ho had an account for that ; I merely wanted to know what had been drawn altogether, and they said so much had been paid to Mr. Burland — $180,000. I had nothing to do with it at all. Q. You had nothing to do with Mr. Robert McGreevy in connection with the collection of that money ? — A. Nothing at all. I think Mr. Burlind sent me three cheques of $8,000, and I was to pay them over, according to the directions of the Pre- sident of the company, Mr. Robitaille. I was to pay it to Robert McGreevy when I got Mr. Robitaille's letter. Q. Three cheques for $8,000 each?— A. Yes; that was in 1886, I think, Q. And j'ou were instructed by the President to pay these amounts to Robert McGreevy ? — A. I was. Q. Have j^ou these letters from the President ? — A. I have some letters here. The Chairman, — These are some letters addressed to the witness, three by G. B. Burland, three by Theodore Robitaille and the seventh sent by Robert H. MctTreevj', to the witness. Witness. — The letter from Robert McGreevy is a private one, merely asking me to get the money. The others are as follows : (Exhibit " XIO.") " Montreal, Ist October, 1886. " H. XoEL, Esq., "0':awa. " Dear Sir, — As trustee of the Bale des Chaleurs Railway, I am instructed to send you cheque for $8,000, which suni you will be good enough to pay over to any person whom Hon. T. Robitaille, the president of the company, may direct. " I remain, yours trulv, " G. B. BURLAND." (Exhibit " YIO.") ' Ottawa, 4th October, 188G. " H. V. Noel, Esq., " Ottawa. "Dear Sir, — You will please pay ovei- the cheque sent you by G. B. Burland, Esq., for eight thousand dollai's for the Bale des Chaleurs Railway, to R. H. McGreevy, Esq., of Quebec. "THEODORE ROBITAILLE, " President." " Quebec, 12th November. (Exhibit " ZIO.") " H. V. Noel, Esq., " Ottawa. " Dear Sir, — I have an order on you, from Hon. T. Robitaille, President Baie des Chaleurs Railway Company, for $8,000. Will you send it down or will I mail yon the order. 406 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 " If by any means j'ou have not the cheque, and cannot send it by return of mail, better keep it till I go up on Wednesday next. " I remain, yours, A:c., "ROBERT II. McGREEVY." "The Saint Louis Hotel, (Exhibit "All.") "Quebec, 12th November, 1886. '• H. V. Noel, Esq., " Ottawa. " Dear Sir, — You will please pay over the cheque sent you by (1. B. Burland, Esq., for eiftht thousand dollars for the Bale des Chaleurs Railway, to R. H. Mcflreevy, Esq., of Quebec. ' THEODORE ROBITAILLE, " President." (Exhibit " Bll.') " Montreal, 13th November, 1880. •• II. V. Noel, Esq., "Ottawa. "Pear Sir, — As trustee of the Bale des Chaleurs Railway, I am instructed to send you a cheque for eight thousand dollars (88.000), which sum you will be good enough to pay over to any person whom the Hon. T. Robitaille, the president of the company, may diiect. " I remain. " Yours truly, "G. B. BURLAND. J. H. B. (Exhibit " Cll.") " Quebec, 9th December, 1886, "H.Noel, Esq., " Ottawa. "Dear Sir, — You will please pay over the cheque sent you by (t B, Burland, Hsi]., for eiijjht thousand dollars for the Baie des Chaleurs Railway, io R. H. ^leUreevy, Esq., of Quebec. "THEODORE ROBITAILLE, " President." m. i! ' (l^xhibit "DU.") "Montreal, 17th December, 188G. ' II. V. Noel, Esq., " Ottawa. "Dear Sir, — As trustee of the Ba'e des Cha'.eurs Railway, I am instructec io fiend you a cheque for eight thousand dollars (88,000). which sum you will be good enough to pay over to any person whom the Hon. T. Robitaille, the president of the i-Dmpany, may direct. " I remain, "Yours truly, " G. B. BURLAND, "J. H. B." Mr. Geofprion. — The witness also files a statement showing the proportions paid to each bank for which he wasactingasattornej', and which reads as follows: 407 i.;i'. < ir 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 m \ (Exhibit "Ell,") 'Statement of Payment made by the Dominion Government to Quebec Bank ON P. A. FROM THE BaIE DES CkALEURS RAILWAY COMPANY. Section tu 20 — Transferred to Bank of Toronto, Montreal — 1889. Up to Aprils 8 99,0(10 Aug. 5 ; 18,950 Oct. 24 1,850 119,800 Section 21 to 30— Transferred to Halifax Banking Co.— 1889. Up to April .3 8 53,600 Aug. 5 1,700 Oct. 24 325 55,625 Section 31 to 40— Up to April 3 $ 39,000 Transferred to Ontario Bank, Montreal — 1889. Aug. 5 16,500 Oct. 23 1,650 57,150 Section 41 to 50— Up to April 3 $ 3,900 Aug. 5 57,200 Oct. 24 800 61,900 Section 51 to 60— Oct. 24 8 49,700 8 344,175 Q. By this statement I see that the total amount paid by you to the Bank of Toronto, the Halitax Banking Company and the Ontario Bank at Montreal, is 8344,175. Did this amount include the 824,000 mentioned in the letters just read ? — A. No, sir. According to the statement put in from the Finance Department you will see what was paid in by Mr. Burland at the time. What I received is contained in that last statement. Q. So that the amount you received as attorney was $344,175 ? — A. Yes. Q. And you also were ordered b^- Mr. Burland to pay three cheques of 88,000 each ? — A. Three cheques of 88,000 each that he sent me. (■l. Those cheques were not received '"rom the Department ? — A. No ; they were from Mr. Burland — his own cheques. Q. Are you aware for what purpose these cheques were sent to you ? — A. Xo. Q. Were there any other letters than those accompanying the transmission of the cheques to you by Mr. Burland? — A. There were no others. These are all the letters 1 have. Q. And you have no verbal explanation as to the use to bo made of the money ? —A. Xo. (^ You wei'o a dumb servant, if I may say so ; the money was handed to you and you paid it according to j'our instructions ? — A. That is all I had to do with it. Q. Is this all the money in connection with the Bale des Chaleurs Eailway that passed through your hands ? — A. Thai is all — 8344,000. Q. And the three cheques? — A. Yes. Q. I think you also acted as treasurer of the Langevin testimonial fund, Mr. Noel ? — A, Yes, I did; in 1880. There was a list opened in that year, but 1 could not give you much information a' out it. I never saw the list, and the receipt book haf been out of my possession for six or eight years. That is all I know about it. 408 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. How lonj^ was the list open witli you ? — A. I think from 1880 to the Bumnier of 1883. Q. Could you give us in round figures the total amount received by you for that fund ? — A, About $22,000. The money is still in the bank, so, of course, I ought to know. Q. You had receipt books ? — A. I said that I gave the i-eceipt book, which would show the names, to the secretary or collector to compare it wiih the amount in the bank. This was si.x or eight years ago. I have not seen it at all since. Q. Who are the parties to whom you handed these books? — A. I could not •swear, but I am under the impression it was to the secretary, Mr. Carriire. Q. He was secretary of the fund ? — A. Y'es. Q. He was the manager of the Banque Nationale ? — A. Yes. (^. As far as you recollect, it would be to him that the papers you had in your possession went? — A. I could not sa}'. 1 wanted to got rid of tliom ; I was anxious to get rid of them. I wanted the parties who had jjossession of the list to compare with the amount I had in the bank. Since then I have not seen them. <^. Are there any other parties whom you can renioniber as being connected with that fund ? — A. Two or three. There was a .Mr. Moi-gan — I do not know liim — and there was^Mr. Gouin. Q. Who is Mr. Morgan? — A. I do not know ; he is in one of the Departments. Q. And Mr, (-iouin is postmaster here? — A. Yes, Q. Will you look at this document, and say whether this is a receipt signed and given by you ? -A . That is my signature. (Hxhibit "Fll.") ' Oso. 112. " L.\.N(iEViN Testimonial Fund, "Ottawa, 4th June, 1883. "Received from Messrs. Larkin «& Connolly the sum of one thousand dollars on account of above fund . "H. V. NOEL, " Treasurer." The Chairman. — In this receipt the following words are printed : — " Langevin lV^.limonial Fund," " Ottawa, 188 ," " Received from" " the sum of" " dollars, on account of above fund." " Treasurer " ? — A. Yes. By Mr. Geoffrion ; (J. This receipt also appears to have been detached from a stub? — A. Yes; I think ihis is one of the last. Q. So this stub-book would be amongst the papers that you handed some of tlu'so gentlemen whom you have just mentioned ? — A. Yes. (I. You are satisfied you have not that stub-book ? — A. I am. Q. Are you sure it is one ot those three persons whom you have mentioned ? — A. Mr. Morgan had nothing to do with these things. I either gave it to the s-oLieliu V of the fund, or I may have sent it to Sir Hector Langevin. It is now eiu;lit years ago since the fund was closed. Q For the information of the Committee, could you name the persons to whom the ])apers went ? — A. 1 could not. (^ Vonru. Q. Ilavo y(m no record, or do you iM.O0O yards. We then had a supplementary contract for dredging, the con- tract having been passed at the same time a* the other. That was to (ieepen the tidal harbour by ihodging it to 24 feet below low water, and place the material on the Embankment (or 25 cents. That is 24 feet below low-water. We had another price then : wi' had a price in connection with this las". 250,000 yards, when it was to bo put in scows and dumped in the river. Our price for that was 17 cents. Q. Was that dredging to the ^amo depth ? — A, ?4 feet deep. Q. What voar was this work done in? — A. In the ?ar 1878. 1879 and 1880. 112 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. At what distaiico did you dump the materia! in the river? — A. At that lime the balhist ground — that is, where all the ships dumped their baihist — might liave been probably between two and three miles f'lom our works. Q. Are you aware where ;he dumping was done since 1886? — A. Yes; I have noticed it several times. It was done over a supposed hole, opposite where the Indians used to e.icamp at Point L^> Is. Q. What would be the distance from the works carried on by Lurkin, Connolly & Co. to that dumping giound? — A. Speaking roughly, about lialt' the distance we would have to take ours to the balla:.t ground; but that makes very little difference when once it is in the scow. Q. What is the ^average wear and tear of dredginc plant, or sinking fund that ought to be allowed for wear and tear of plant for the year? — A. From about 15 to 20 per cent. Q. Would that be including or excluding running repairs? — A. Including running repairs. ?— A. That Our hoisting material was a Q. In that sinking fund, what would you put for running repaii would depend upon the character of the machinery heavy chain. 1 believe there were heavier lunning repairs in the subsequent dredges, because they subtituted steel wire ropes U)r the chain. Q. Had you seen Larkin, Connolly iS: Co. doing the dredging during the course of 1882 ? — A. I merely noticed it en passant in 1884, 18H.') and 188(i. Q. Well, since 1886 have you seen them dredging? — A. I saw them en passant, just as I passed. Q. Bo you know the place where they were working very well? — A. I know it very well. Q. Have you a clear idea of the facility of access to the river or to the dumping ground in the river at the time of the work ? — A. Yes; I think 1 have. Q. By what you have seen, will you state to the Committee whether the difHcul- ties of dredging wer" increased in 188G? — A. No; they were less, because they had less water. They only dredged in 15 feet of water in the Wot Lock; that was all they had to dredge. Q. But independently of the depth of the work, as far as the disposing of the material was concerned, were the difficulties increased ? — A. None whatsoever, because the ))as8age left for the passing of materials at the Cross-wall was larger than the outlet to the St. Lawrence from the tidal harbour by several luet. The tidal harbour outlet was 187 feet 1886? — A. No; I was not. Q. Fiom the knowledge you have, fi om the nature of the work to be done and the dumping that was done, what price do you think you would have charged for such a work if you had been calle of the liliteltook, ("Exhibit N5,") and say if such an application had been made to you what irico you would haveaskeil for it? — A. Inanswer to that letter, 1 should have said .Mr. Davies. — Read the letter; wo do not understand the quostiun? — A. The letter roads as follows : " Ottawa, 27th April, 1887. " CtEntlemkn, — There remains a large quantity of material in the Wet basin, 'iuubec Harbour works, a portion of which it is desirable should be removed during Uio ensuing summer and tlie propriety of proceeding therewith I desire to bring to tlic notice of the Commissioners. Before I can do this, I wish to obtain the price j)t'r cubic yard, moasureil in the saiue manner as was the dredging previously done by you, at which you will do what is required. 1 want only one price, which must • over the dredging to any depths required, which may not exceed fifteen leet below 413 uebec Harbour works sent in on Wednesday last, you will find my tender. From information obtained siiKo that day from the other tenderers, we have reason to believe that when the quanti- ties are worked out the tender that bears my signature will be found to be the lowest; although one tender is below us on the lump sum for collerdam andunwater- ing, this ditl'erence will be more than made up on the crib-work, stone filling, niii- sonry backed with concrete, and earth filling, \'c. f would ask you for old acquain- tance sake to take a personal interest in looking into this matter for nie. I have not the pleasure of knowing your Mr. Perley, or I would have written to him. We havo all the jilant and experience for this work. " Believe me, yours faithfullv, (Signed) "SIMOXPI tr. F. HAIM.AlRUfe, Esq., "Deputy Minister Public Works, OHawa." •IIU •:Ti"]Efe 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 liive the veil r vrntf iseiit siiue iiuUi- tlu' vater- mii- ^imiii- ve uiit have (Exhibit "Hll.") " Ottawa, 16th May, 1883. " Dkar Sir, — I duly received your letter of the 5th inst., on the subject of the tender submitted by you for the construction of the proposed Cross-wall in connec- tion with the Quebec Harbour Works — and have communicated it to the Chief Engineer of the Department, Mr. Perley. " The schedule of lenders has been handed to the Honourable the Minister. " I am, dear Sii', yours very truly, •' G. P. BAILLAlIiGE. " Simon Peters, Esq., Quebec." Jiy Mr. Geoffrion : Q. Have you a letter with you from Sir Hector Langevin, dated the 7th Maj' ? — A. 1 have some letters here; it may be in it. I have some letters in my bag,which I did not bring up. Q. I see that you wrote to Mr. Baillairg^, after the tenders were opened, stating that you were satisfied your tender was the lowest ? — A. Yes. Q. On what statement did you base your letter ? — A. On the prices I had heard the others had put in in schedule compared vvith my prices. Taking the four principal items in the work, which consisted of crib work, stone filling, earth tilling and concrete, Q. You say you heard those figures. Had you occasion to see them ? — A. Since then 1 have. I have had communication of the original contract at the notary's. Q. Did you find that statement correct ? — A. It was less than correct. They nave the crib-work prices as $2.20 a yard, and b}^ looking at the original contract of Larkin, Connolly & Co. 1 saw that their figure was $2.25 per yard, as compared to •Sl.oS^— my price. Q. Tell us about the crib-work ? — A. Q'hat is a very large item. As regards the oril)-work, I have got what is called the assumed quantities, but 1 think it would be increased by the final estimate. The assumed quantity was 32,250 yards. By Mr. Davies : Q. In each tender ? — A. I am comparing them now. For that work Larkin it Ciinni)lly's price was $2.25, as compared with mine of $1.33i\^ cents, which would irivo S2'J,()70 in that one item. Then there was a quantity of stone filling to bo done tor liolding the cribs down. The assumed quantity of that was 20,000 cubic yards. Larkin, Connolly & Co.'s price for that was $1.50 per j'ard. My price 65 cents, a (liltcri'nce of85 cents per cubic yard, amounting to $17,000. Q. What about the earth filling? — A. There is a peculiar circumstance connected witii the earth filling. In my tender we considered we would have to procure the earth filling, and we put in the value of dredging it >wv,l putting it in at 25 cents a yard. Larkin &. Connolly's price was 45 cents fof die same thing, which makes a dillurence of $28,000 on that item. JJy Mr. Osier: Q. You did not give the total numbei* of yanis — how many yards were there? —A. About 140,000. By Mr. Ouimet : Q. What is your price for earth filling ? — A. 25 cents against their price of 4.'), Iiut I have been told since, 1 do not know whether it is true or not, that they got 45 cents and the dredging price of 35 cents besides. By Mr Davies : (i. Your price was for dredging and filling in ? — A. Yes. The next item, which is the fourth of any magnitude is the concreting under water. The quantity found 417 1-27 illi I , 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 II Jlliil m !!' 1 to be put in there will be found to be at leawt 30,000 cubic yards. Larkin, Connolly & Co'« price for that was 88 ; mine was $6, so that that gave an item of 860,000. Summing up those lour items, my tender was lower than that of Larkin, Connolly & Co, to the amount of 8134,070. The next large item, coffer dams and unwatering, they were below me. Their price for that was 862,500 and mine was 890,000, which made a ditterence of 827,500 reducing (o that extent on the four items, but leaving my surplus 8107,170. Jii/ Mr. Dr.vies : Q. Which you claim to have been lower than theirs '! — A. Yes. By Mr. Edgar : Q. Have you compared the whole of the contract ? — A. For the information of the Committee, I may state that in a few minor matters they were lower than me, but it was mostly in small quantities, as for instance the entrances to the gate, u few stones here and there, they put at a lower price than mine. Q. But you have examined the four large items, and you estimate upon them that you were 8107,170 below them ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Have yor. completed the comparison of your tender ? — A. No, sir. [ have not had the timo to do hO yet. Out of 83 items altogether, in regard to ihirty-odd, they are a trifle Ijelow me, but these are items of very small magnitude. liy Sir John Thompson : Q. What quantities are you applying to those figures? — A. I have applied all through the appioximate quantities made at the time ? Q. Are they the quantities shown by the plans and specifications ? — A. No. They are as near as we can make them out at the time. By the Chairman : Q. From what ? — A. From the plans and sjiecifications. By Mr. Edgar : Q. Did you examine the plans and profiles? — To make the tenders we did. Q. And you consider your quantities correct? — A. I could not call them abso- lutely correct. Q. Where did you get them ? — A. From having seen the plans and specifica- tions at the time. By Sir John Thompson : Q. To make that clearer I would ask you are the quantities you are using now for the purpose of that calculation, the quantities the plan will show? — A. The plans will show more. We were within the mark. By Mr. Kirkpatrick : Q. What quantity of concrete did you estimate? — A. The concrete I took f rum the final estimate — about 30,000 yards. (J. You had no figures showing what was the estimated quantity to be done when you put in the tender? — A. No, sir; because in making a tender there was no bulk sum. It was only afterwards that we worked this out. Having ascertainuil the price I made a rough estimate to find out how much it came to. Q. Are all your figui-es copied from the final estimate? — A. .No, sir. By Mr. Edgar : Q. How about the crib work ? — A. That is not from the final estimate. Q. You made that from the plans at the time? — A. Yes. 418 /, 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. And before the rinal estimate was in existence ? — A. Yes, with the exception of the concreting. Q. Had you not made an estimate of the concreting at the time ? — A. We could not arrive at that svflSciently close then. By Mr. Wood {Brockville) : Q. You wrote a letter to Mr. Perley stating that you had heard that according to the quantities you were the lowest tenderer. What did you mean by " quantities" ? — A. The four estimates I gave you. 1 think, however, I said "price." Q. The letter distinctly states " quantities." Now what did you mean by "quantities" there in that letter? — A. The quantities in the different items. Q. But you must have made a calculation to be able to say in your tendei-, that on the whole you were the lowest? What did you base it on? — A. I based it on what I have stated. By Jlr. Edgar : Q. Will you tell us if, when you wi'ote that letter, you had made a calcuhition us to the crib work ? — A. Yes. If the Committee will allow me I will explain how this was. In looking over the plans, they were useful to the tenderers, not so much as a whole, but as to how the work was to be done, and we regulated our prices per cubic yard on that basis. We had the length of the cribs in the specification and the (lata to work out these approximate quantities from. By Mr. Curran : Q. Your first figures were supposititious ? — A. They could not be exact. Q. They had to be supposititious ? — A. They were approximate. I want to correct myself about the concrete. By Mr. McLeod : (.1. Did you know the amount of concrete at that time ? — A. The amount of our estimate was 14,000 yards. It is now nearly 30,000. The crib work is a thing you can calculate in a short time. There were 830 feet of such a height and such a width. The amount I have hex'e for crib work is 32,250 cubic yards. That is one of the items upon which I based my letter to the Department. By Mr. Davies : Q. Give us the other two items ? — A. The stone filling at 20,000 cubic yards That is the quantity I based my letter to the Department upon. Q. And the earth filling ?— A. 140,000 cubic yards. Q. Those are the same figures you had at the time you wrote to the Depart- ment ? — A. Yes. tj. It was upon those figures you stated to tlie Department your tender was lowest ? — A. Yes. By Mr. German ; Q. How would your figures compare on the basis of 14,000 feet of concrete ? — It would still make us below. i}. IIow much below ? — A. Upon these four items it would make us $50,000, It would make my difference 685,170. By Mr. Kirkpatrick : (2. Is thai the original document you had at the time of tendering ? — A. There was no bulk sum given in the tender. These are original figures made up by me :itti.r 1 ascertained the prices of some of the other tenders. A liolow, Q. And from the estimated quantities you made ?- iiKide. Xobod^- made any. 419 l-27i -A. No sir ; there was none m ' h' 1 If: w i; :■< i< 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Where did you get those quantities ? — A. Knowing the work. Q. When did you get them ? — A. Immediately afler getting this inlbrraation after some of the other tenders. Q. And stone filling the same ? — A. Everything. Q. And you figured it up to the total amount of your contract ? — A. No sir ; I never did that; it was an itemized contract. By Mr. Wood (Brockville) : Q. That does not include all the items. You say that making allowance for the additional quantity of concrete you would still be $81,000 lower than Larkin, Con- nolly & Co. ?— A. I should have said 875,000. Q. That does not include all the items ? — A. That statement is correct as far an those four items go. By Mr. Mills (Bothwell) : Q. You mentioned that there were a gr^at many small items upon which Larkin, Connolly k Co.'s tender was lower than yours. Do you know what the sum total of all those items taken together is ? — A. 1 did not make them up. To make those up one would require to have the plans. But I beg to say that I could make them up as well as anj' engineer in the Dominion. By Mr. Curran : Q. What would be the result? — A. It would still be found I would be the lowest tenderer by u large amount of money. If the Committee will put me in possession of the plans, I will guarantee to do it with as much accuracy as any engineer in the Dominion of Canada. By Mr. Mulock : Q. Would you tell me again what your tender was lor the crib work in the Cross-wall ? — A. 81..Sa^ per cubic j'ard to $2.25 by Larkin, Connolly & Co. Q. Was youi's a fair price? — A. Yes. I built the crib work for the Louise Embankment. Q. The reason I asked you the question was, some person here in the room told me that after the contract was let to Larkin, Connolly & Co. you had offered to do their crib work at the price you had tendered to the Department. Is that correct? —A. Yes; I did. Q. Did they accept your offer ? — A. No, sir. Mr. Murphy gave me his reason. He said that some of them were willing, but they had come to the conclusion thiil they might not be ready to receive the cribs because the dredging might be behind, and I might have claims for damages against them. Q. Is it a fact that you offered to do that crib work at $1.33 per yard ? — A. I offered to do it at my tender. By Mr. Tarte : Q. What is your price for sheet piling? — A. "Eight inches thick driven from six to eight feet, of white pine, per f lot lineal in lino of work." This schedule asked for sheet piling measui'ed on the line of woik — so the whole value was to be put down in a gross sum. Q. Was the specification clear on that? — A. Clear as possible. Q. Explain that again about sheet piling? — A. "Sheet piling, eight inches thick, driven six to eight feet, per lineal foot in line of work." After the pile is driven you measure on the line of work. By Mr. Weldon : Q. How long were the piles ? — A. It does not give the length. It gives the length driven into the sand. They varied from twenty to thirty feet. ^ly piice was $10. and Larkin, Connolly & Co's price was twenty-rive cents. 420 'iiif - . -f 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q Q Q. widtli. Q By Mr. Tarte : Q. Would twenty-tivo cent.s be a reasonable price ? — A. Xo. This sheet piliiiic was i^iven by me at 80., four inches $3, and six inches $8. They L'ave twenty-tive cents. That was a catch. I have been fifty years a contractor and this was the first time in my experience when a tenderer was asked if he had made a mistake. A ten- der like that is generally thrown in the waste paper basket. By Mr. Amyot : What is your age? — A. I am 76 years old. By Mr, Weldon : What was the diameter of the pile? — A. They are not round. Would it be eight inches? — A. They would be eight inches or G inches in You see they are flat. So it would bo per pile then ?— -A. Yes, per pile. Cross-examined by Mr. Osier : Q. What was your department in carrying out the contracts that you had ? — A. Which work ? Q. The contract you had prior to your tender foi- the Cross-wall ? — A. That contract was awarded to mo individually and I took and gave a share to 3Ioore and Wright. Thoy were to be my sub-contrac(or.s. Q. And you sepai-ated the work? — A. Yes. Q. What work did you have? — A. I had all the wood, iron and cut stone. They had the dredging and the concrete. (^. And you wore at the cost and receipt of the profit on the one; they were at the cost and receipt of the profit on the other? — A. Decidedly. Q. So t'oat while it was the firm of Peters, Moore & Wright your works were di- vided ? And that was well understood by the Harbour Commissioners? — A. We had a contract between ourselves. Q. You had an agreement between yourselves and your estimates were in that way ? — A. Yes. Q. Then j'our own experience in the Quebec Harbour works was that confined to general observation, or were you ever interested persinally in the execution of any dredging contract ? — A. No. (^. You were not interested personally in any dredging contract ? — A. No. (}. Then you speak from the general information you would have as a con- tractor, and not from the particular result of any work you were interested in? — A. Xo. Q, Then can you tell me about what the value of dredging plant would be to execute such a work as this ? — A. Well, the dredging plant that we had was built in my yard. Q. About what would be the value ? — A. The dredge we had there cost about S15,000. Q. I am told, but I don't know whether ii is correct or not, that it appears from Larkin, Connolly & Co's books that their dredging plant which they had at the time of the 1887 contract or perhaps in 1885, stood them in 8100,000. How would the dredging plant on the contract that your firm e.\ecuted compare with that ?— A. The dredging plant wo had would have cost between 828,000 and 830.000. Q. Had you more than one ? — A. We had a dipper dredge, and what is called a cliim shell dredge. Q. And are you able to compare the capacity of your plant with the capacity of Larkin, Connoll}' & Co's plant ? — A. I think our Quebec dredge was fully equal to it. if not better. Q. It would give just as good results ? — A. Just as good i-esults. I would like to state that, because in four seasons we performed about 850,000 yards of dredging. 421 •:\v i i , .' ; 1 m 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. You were in a better position because you had loss expensive plant ? — A. Yes. Q. And produced just as much results in the season ? — A. Yes. Q. So they were perhaps not so fortunate as you were in the seK'Ction of their more expensive and less efficient plant ? — A. I don't believe the company knew as much about it as my firm. Q. What would be the cost of the dredging plant per day, including running repairs ? Have you gone into that at all ? — A. I have not. Q. You could not inform the Committee as to that ? — A. No. Q, That is an important element in getting at your cost per yard. First you get how many days in the season, how many days the dredge will Avork during thai season, what your per diem running expenses will be, how much your sinking fund should bo and then how much your gross yards, these are tho elements which go to show tho cost per yard. Can you give mo any of tho elements personally ? — A. No, I cannot. But I tan state that after that dredge of mine had performed she was considei'od to be just as gootl as ever. <^ That may be the result of it having been built in your yard? — A. No, No. Q. What the Committee want to get at is on what basis you make these esti- mates? It is one thing to make a theoretical estimate, and another to make it from actual lesult? — A. I could estimate fiom the tender from the Louise Embankment. {}. Well that will be ligui-ed out by Mr. Wright perhaps not bj' youi- self? — A. No. Q. So, that you were giving to us the information you got from them? — A. I got it from our books. By Mr. Mulock ; Q. Have you got your money for the dredging? — A. We are tr^'ing to get our money yet. Jiy Mr. Osier : Q. Do you know as one of the firm tendering for the Cross-wall whether you obtained from the Department of Public Works any information as to the quantities under the various heads on which you were to put prices? — A. No. Q. No such schedule or approximate estimate was given to you? — A. All that was given was the specification and those schedules. Q. When you were called upon to tender for your earlier works, the Louise Embankment, you had an approximate schedule of quantities? — A. We had the quantities made up. Q. Approximately? Was there any such corresponding document in the Cross wall papers? — A. The only thing that would applygives the length of the Cross-wall. Q. Then the only things from which you could get at the quantities were in the first set of the specifications, giving the length of the Cross-wall and the width of the entrance, and you had of course plans to scale? — A. Yes. Q. Of course there was no dredging work under the Cross-wall contract. Did you as a matter for your own information before tendering work out the quantities? — A. Not before tendering. Q. You did not work out the quantities at all. For instance you were tender- ing $(J a yard for concrete. Did you ascertain how many yards there were to be? — A. I ma}' mention that tendering for concrete those were Col. Moore's prices we were tendering. Q. He is an expert on concrete ? — A. Yes ; those are the prices. Q. You state that before you sent in your tender you did not figure up the quantity in concrete? Did you figure out any of these principal items you have been speaking of before sending in youi* tenders ? — A. No. Q. Then, had you put an Engineer on for instance to measure out tho quantities? — A. No; I measured them my seL. 422 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. You measured them yourself and you moaKured them after you heard the reisult of the tenders? — A. Yes; not after the result, after I lieard from Bonie of the oilier tenderers of their prices on those particular thint^s. Q. But you had heard from H)me other tenderers what their prices had been on the leading item ? Yon then applied your prices to your estimate of quantities? — A, Yes. Q. And concluded you were lower on the whole? — A. Yes. Q. Have you got your calculations in their original fortn ? — A. It is in a very crude state. Q. No doubt it would be, this is your original calculation that y< u made at the time when you heard the otht. From the way the business appears in your books? — A. Yes. By Mr. Geoffrion : Q. Then the 4th June, the date of the receipt, was the date, the return of the draft of 81,800, came here? — A. I could not say that positively-. It is about that time. 425 'II ! Hi .111 h. I ll! ''I 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 1 Q. Have you no idea when the draft was drawn ? — A. Ye;j ; I said the 2nd of June. Q. And it wati returned on the 4th / — A. I could not .say; it appears in our journal; I think it is the 4th. Q. Does not your journal in the bank show the 4th June as the return of the draft? — A. Yes; I suppose it must, as I sent down the receipt. Q. You cannot say by whom tiie other S800 was subscribed ? — A. No. By Mr. Davies : Q. You told us yesterday that jlr. Carriere, the serretary of the fund, had paid the §1.000? — A. Oh, no. It was he who drew the draft. He paid me sums at different times, and I g.tve him a receipt for the parties from whom he got the money. By the Chairman: Q. You state that the name of Mr. McGreevy does not appear jn that list. "Will you look at the list aga.n? — A. It appears there as $1,800 collected by Mr, Thomas McGreevj-. Q. That is the only way his name appears? — A. That is all. By J/r. Lister : Q. Your impression is that Larkin & Connolly's subscription was included in that draft ? — A. T should sa^- so from the date of the receipt. We got the return from the head officv.- on the 4th June, and it is very likely that I then sent down the receipt for it, or else I gave it to the secretary to send down. By {he Chairman : Q. Did you ever show that list to Sir Hector ? — A. No. Q. You never did ? — A. No ; as I stated yesterday, 1 made out a complete list of all the names in the receipt book, and sent it with the receipt book, either to Sir Hector or the secretary. I am positivd I have not got the receipt book. B)- Mr. Lister : Q. So that Sir Hector or his secretary knew who the subsc? ibers wer« ? — V. No; not his secretary — the secrotar,) of the fund. Q. Do you know^ if some of tho^e subscriptions were made by cheque payable to Sir Hector himself? — A. No ; not one. Q, Was not the Goodwin subscription pa, .ible to Sir Hector himself? — A. No, sir ; Mr. Goodwin paid me that subscription in my office. Q. In cash ? — A. In cash. By Mr. Mulock: Q. Are you sure it was cash ?— A. It must have been a cheque to cash. Q. Are you sure it was paid to you in cash ? — A. Perhaps it would be a cheque; but I am certain I did not get it from Sir Hector. I never got any money fi'om him. I maj- state, however, that there is in that list an entry of $1,000, paid by one " Lan- gevin," but I could not say who he was. It is put down there as paid by " Langevin." but I could not say who paid it. By tie Chairman : Q. Was it Sir Hector? — A. I could not tell. T think by the stem "of the receijit the monej- was received in my absence. Mr. F. C. LiGHTFooT, sworn. By Sir John Thompson : Q. You arc an officer in the Public Works Department, are you not ? — A. 1 iim, Q. What position do you hold in that Department ? — A. I am a fi-sl-class clerk. Q. In what branch of it ? — A. In the Chief Engineer's branch. 426 Bir. it 54 Victoria, Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. And you havo been so for some years? — A. Since 1874. Q. I want to call your attention to some evidence given by O. E. Murphy, a few (lays ago, before this Committee, and which he has since staled applies to yourself. (See page 318 of printed evidence.) Subsequently Mr. Murphy stated that you were the clerk to whom he referred. Afterwards, on the same day, he said that the clerk to whom he had referred asked him for a loan of 850, &c. Have you any state- ment to make to the Committee on that subject? — A. Nothing further than to say that what Mr. Murphy states is substantially as it transpired. It was not, how- over, in the Windsor House. It was on Metcalfe street, at the corner of Spai'ks, when Mr. Murphy loaned me that amount. I said to Mr. Murphy at the time: '■ When yon want it. will you draw on me and the draft w-'ll be paid." Q. He has not drawn ? — A. He has not drawn. Q. AVas it at the time he stated ? — A. I do not rememinr the time at all. Q. Can you give anj' explanation as to wliy you applied to Mr. Mur-phy for a loan of $50? — A. That attcrnoon I ovei'took Mr. Murphy on ni}- wsiy up 'tfetcalfe street, I had some bills to pay that day, and I was going to a person from whom I had borrowed money before, and Mr. Murphy, who said he was about going down to tui. Eussell House, said: "Will you come with me." I said; "No; lam in a hurry to get this business done " He said : "You need not go ; I will lend you this amount. " I then asked him to draw on me when he required it. Q. Then you did not apply to him in the first instance ? — A. No. Q. Had you any acquaintance with Mr. Murphy, otherwise than when connec- ted with the business of the office ? — A. I never had any business to do with Mr. ilurphy connected with the ofiSce. (I. Were you acquainted with him ? — A. I had been introduced to him. Q. You had no contact wich him in the office ? — A. None whatever. Bij the Chairman : . You knew he was a public contractor, under contract at the time? — A. I did not know it, except by hearsay. Q. You knew it by hearsay ? — A. Yes. *i'. Had you not seen by the papers in your office that he was a membei of the firm of Larkin, Connolly iV Co. ? — A. No. Q. It was only by hearsaj' that you knew of it? — A. It was only by hearsay thill I knew he was a contractoi- at ;i ' lii/ Jfr. Geoffrion : Q Hove you anything' fo do with the extending or monoying out of tenders ? — A. Never. Q. Never had ? — A. No, sir. Q, You had no occasion to help Mr. Boyd in doing that work? — A. No. By Mr. Tarte : \». Nor 3Ir. Perloy ?— A. No. t^. You are quite positive about that? — A. Quite jiositive. By the Chairman : (i>. Are you in the habit of doing that kind of work ? — A. Very seldom ; latterly I have helped Mr. Perley. •Mr. SiJioN 1'kters, re-called. Bif Mr. Stuart : 'v'. Yesterday you gave us certain prices for dredging. Will you kindly repoiil tlipiii now for the Committee 7 What were the prices that, according to you, the tii'st work was done for, and what were the pri .'s that you would have been pre- parnl to do the work for in 1887 ? Those were the figures vou gave j-esterday. 427 ,i|M 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 54 ill ii|)i — A. For dredging in 20 feet of water and depositing material on the embaL'kment. tlie price under the contract for the Louise Embankment was 3;5 cents. I have copied these from the contract. Q. This was the contract that has been produced? — A. Yes. For dredging in trench, in 24 and 15 feet below low water, and depositing material on embankment. 25 cents; drediring 10 feet below low water and depositing material on embankment, 20 cents. Then, for sn])plementary dredging, 250,000 yards, that is, in 24 feet of water, and depositing the material on the embankment, 25 cents. The same dredging, if conveyed into the harbour, 17 cents — that is, if dumped in the harbour. By Mr. Stuart : Q. These last two prices given iiy you, are they the prices in the old contract, or the prices which occur to you, you would have been willing to do the dredging;- for ia 1SS7 ? — A. They are the prices of the old contract. Q. But which you were willing to do the vf(>r'< for in 1887 ? — A. Willing to do the 1887 work for. Q. Do you know what dredging was done under the contract of '78 ; without giving it in detail ? — A. Onh" from hearsay. Q. In general terms, then, it was part of your contract ? — A. Oh, yes. Q. Ill 1887 you knew in a general way what was done ? — A. Ves. O. You also knew in a general way what was necessary to do in 1887; you saw the dredges at work ? — A. Certainly. Q. Do you know the amount of dredging that was done in 1882 by Larkin. Connolly w ^ 1 ;* '^ J. ^ u 1 (-■ r^ r-T ^ S v: -5 -5- S .z, ;5 >-. u ■■tj I— 1* -t^ H 1 ■^ ^ i • * 'if- 1 H- H 'tp 1 1 ,• S i? S S S i " ,=2 !j ^ i .5 ? e 1? 9 2 5 X S 1 - 5 5 R 5 1 ! 5 X ?i -/. S i: T rt -H r- M -H "H <^ «' ?• ^ i ii 3; -f ^ •^ 1-2 ^ i; ^ (N g hi:) ?8 •» --J* "-H ^ 55 ?5 1 p ?1 ^ ;^ !^ ;^! r ^ ; '^' :|' '1 ■^' ■ ^ & 1^ ::^ •J X ! 'f- ' ' X <^ .^ ' ?- "^ A- ■" :~ « c„ f' " O S? 3? '•? K §? S u ^ 'J •-' ':3 i^ ■'■ 1 - - - .- ^■^ uT • • • • ■ •Z i'. ^11 jc -r -5 ^ - ^ - " ^ s x -1" t ! S "^~ 1^ o ^ ■/. 1 : ■ * * « *i ^ C "^ u s" : - . - - I |24 gg -f Vj -6 -= -= -6 ■■: : ' : ; : : 1—1 „'* C1.-5 sS" "^ ~. -^ l-S' 3 3 D : >-> IJ ,- i .^?- ' " " "^ ^ — ) -^ C-t " S'ls j?» >J T-l 0" --■ ' TT ?■ 'P. 12 S g c > _ CO , 3 - . ^ I- "^ 1- -^ 1-; = ••.* 6 CO - ir a c\ a f? *S? :; s ;* »1 -2 -- - * S Vl i\ 'i fy 5 ^ , - .. .- ?i S' ^ U S 2 1° H •'T' 1; • ! ■ ^ ^ - « 1 ^ '7 J ^^^^^ s 2 W U^ 2 5 - - "" tU ^ '^ w - - w ^' z ^ ;^ c 5- ;i 5. &1 i ."-s :^ e. hi i— < H H i 1 ; ; •'^ ; ; '. \ I- ^ w a! III •^ so : .r; S 3 r ■« T _•■ -• -r ^ =« 5 CO c « ^^1 ■3 .ij-i 1 .2 1 1- Ci-3 W U. P3 .-1 C-i CO -r ir. tc -.wpu^x .-< 4^W 1> Li !£ ^*-' JO .LKJUIU)^ ttl ll 429 lilf'^ 64 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Will you kindly look at this schedule and state what the prices were that Larkin, Connolly & Co. got for the >ianie dredging for which Col. Moore tendered? — A. About the same. Q, According to this jschedule, Larkin, Connolly & Co. got 27 cents, where Edward Moore asked 47 ; 20 cents where Kdward Moore asked 50 ; 35 cents where Edward Moore asked 5(5 ; 45 cents where Moore asked 56; and 55 cents where Moore asks C3 — is not that so ? — A. Yes. By Mr. Kirkpatrick : Q. Had you a tender in, Mr. Peters? — A. Oh, no. Q. Was Colonel Moore's your tender"' — A. No ; T did not tender at all. By Mr. McLeod : Q, Colonel Moore is your partner? — A. He was in the first contract; he owned the plant. Ry Mr. Ouimet : Q. Was that tender of Mr. Moore's which you have read for the same work for which Larkin, Connolly & Company got 35 cents ? — A. Xo ; that was a suhsu- quent work — a new contract altogether. By Mr. Curran : Q. But at the same place ? — A. Exactly. By Mr. Stuart : Q. You have already told us that the conditions of dredging in 1887 were more diflScult than the conditions of dredging in 1882. Is it not a fact that in 1882 Colonel Moore wanted 47 cents for 15 feet dredging, whereas all that Larkin, Connolly A: Company got in 1887 was 35 cents ? — A. Yes. Q. You have already told us that after the dredging contract of 1878 was com- pleted that Colonel Moore i-emovod his dreoniething, and you told us it was the pi'c- tiuiH investigulioT) ot 'lie plan? — A. Yes ; the previous investigation. '^ Your iiieniKfy, then, was that the plan showed 14,000 feet? — A. N(»; it was merily an assumed thing without any data. *i. Yu that Mr. Thomas McCrreevy did not behave well to you ? — A. Yes. By Mr. Tarte : Q. Still you voted for him? — A. At the last election I voted for him. lie accused me of having taken an active part against him, but nevertheless I voted for him. I told him I voted for him for the sake of the party, but I would Just as soon have voted for the devil. By Mr. Edgar : Q. Y'ou say you saw that sheet (Txhibit " X3") yesteitlay for the first time? — A. Yes, sir. (2. That sheet, as I lecollect it, purports to show a complete statement of the ditierent items of the tender? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Is it u complete statoiuent ? — A. No, sir. It is a garbled statement, a state- ment to deceive . Q. Does it show all the items ? — A. It shows not all the items. (^. It purports to show a comparative statement of all the items with regard to the lenders tor the Cross-wall, and now you say that it does not include all the items. 1 .see the items are taken hero apparentlj' from the specifications? — A. Yes. Q. Show us, please, what has been omitted here ? — A. I have the statement in my hand (^f what has been omitted. This is the schedule which is described as "day work." For instance, "dredging, including machinei-y. wages and dej)0siting spoil, whi re ordereil," our tentler was $12.5(1 per day, while Larkin, Connolly iS: Co.s wa. §20 per day. fiy Mr. Kirkpatrick : Q. What items weio omitted. Kead them? — A. I am about to do so. There is " muMon or stonecutter, masons' labourer, blacksmiths, blacksmiths' helper, carpenter, painter, machiinst, machinist's assistant, engine diiver, foreman, diver, including all apparatus, driver's iissistants, foreman of labourers, labinirttr. horse anddriver, hirse, eart and vlriver, p\nnping during erection ; tilting and fixlmi ol'iair^^on nr gates, iiiekid- ing use of niuehinery, fuel and wages; nud li^stly, dl'uiiglig, Including machinery, wages anil depositing s[ioil where ordered." 4:12 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 III o.'s all I'M', ByMr.Edijar: (i. Is that all ?— A. That is all. Q. You tendered on all those items ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. And you have examined the tender of Larkin, Connolly it Co. on all those items? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Were they lower or higher than you 1 — A. Higher. For instance, on the blacksmith's helper I charged 15 cents and the}- charged IS. (I. Are you higher than they in an\'item? — A. Xot one. In some instances they are double the price that I am. For instance, I ottered to supply a diver, including all apparatus, for 50 cents an hour, and they charge a dollar. Q. And the whole of those were left out ? — A. Yes. Bjl Sir John Thompson : Q. Can 3'ou te'.l us what they would money out? — A. The tinal estimate would tell that. Q. Could you money out the difference? — A. It is not very easy, because it would depend on the number of hours they were emplo3'ed. lii/ J£r. Kirkpatrick : urenicnt of iuiy of the items of those ipiautilies from the plans? — A. Yos, sir. uiic way as it making a bulic sum tender. 1 tind that there were t7.ti72 yarils of ciili-work. Liirkin, Connolly \ (Jd.'s price lor that was S2.2.'), and mine Sl.''>3.\, which gives aditt'erence ol .^l^JJUO. The next large item is the stone tilling. I might say, perhaps, as 1 go ahuig, that 1 have the Engineer's estimate for the crib-work, as this tiling was eventually rigiired down for a purpose, and I find that this estimate was 311, Ud yards, inslcail of 47,*>7- yards, as the plans show. 'i'. licpeat that again ? — A. From the plans, I see that there were -IT, •i72 yards of crib-work tr) bo done, and the Fiigineer's estimate in this is ."{Ojl-Ut yards. The money ditlcrenec of that item between Larkin & Connollj-'s tender aiul my own aiiinmits to 64."i,700 in my favour. That is according to the plans. Stone tilling is the next item. I tiiid l(i,07ll yards. '^ I want to ask with reference to this question, ami iheu you will un-ierstand the others. If the quantities you found on these |)lans had l>e-.'n put in li is pajier here hy the Fingineer this estimate at the time would nave shown the roalditle- iviicc belwec'ii the two tenders? — A. Yes. • i'. l!ow much ditt'erence? — A. It would have made the other tenders 8Tii»>,<»05. 433 1—28 ^ i mm liv 'Yi ■41 54 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 Q. This one item, T mean, what tlifterence would it have made? — A. The othei* tender was 8034,03-i. Q. Taice that item of crib-woric. How much higher would it have made Lar- kin, Connolly \- Co.'s than yours if it had been put in correctly? — A. That item would have made their tender read 8fi78,040. Q. How much more is that than it was? — A. I told you the ditt'erence — 843.- 700 added to their tender of 8(534,034. Q. Now waif. That would iiave added so much more to youi' tender. Allowing for that, what is the dirt'erence ? — A. On 40,(570 yards of crib-woric at 82.25 cents it comes to 8107.262; and at 81,33.V it comes to 8(>4,3()2 — making a difl'erence of 843,700. Q. Hut it would have raised your tender also if the figures had been correct ? — A. It would have raised mine also: I have estimated the quantities in the same waj-. Q. You are right as to the totals, but in this tender Larkin, Connolly \- Co. was §27,000 higher than you on this thing; they were 8(57,800 and you were 840,000. The difference was 827,000, which you have to take off the total difference to find what the ciuinge would have been ? — A. I think if you take the total of 47.672 yards the difference between the two quantities will be found to be $43,700. Q. Go on with your statement ? — A. The next is stone filling. I find by the plans that it took 16.073 yards. At 81.50 that amounts to 824,109..50 ; but at my price of 65 cents it would be $10,447, which makes a difference of 813,662,. ")0 on that item. Q. In j-our favour? — A. That should have been added to Larkin, Connolly \' Co.'s tender. The next thing is earth filling. That is a large item. By Mr. Edgar : Q. I see earth filling in this estimate is 80,000 cubic yards? — A. I find by the measured plan it is 191,!>01 yards — more than double. Q. What wore your prices? — A. Their price 45 cents, mine 25 cents. At their price it would come to 886,355.45, and at my price it would come to 847,1)75 — a dif- ference of 838,380.20 in my favour. The next item we come to is concrete. As 1 said yestei'day, the rough estin)iite I had was quite out. Measuring the plan, I find 21:I,!I4'J cubic yards of concrete, and the schedule shows 15,500, This, at 88 per yard, would make Larkin, Connolly i'»c Co's total 8230,592 : and at my price of S(i the total would be 8179,694 — a difference in favour of my tender of 859,898 on ti'ur item. So the total difference amounted to 8155,640.70. Ihi Mr. Kirkpatrick : Q. What jilans were those you examined ? — A. They weie the plans prejiared for the execution of the work ; they were the plans shown at the time. (^. Were they the finished plans ? — A. Yes ; they were finished piaii^-. Q. Wece these the plans after alterations had been made, or were they the iiiaiis which you saw at the time you tendered ? — A. At the time we tendered. By Sir John 2'hompson ■■ (^. How do j-ou account for the difference ? You figured for j-our toiider ;it 14,00(J yards ? — A. It was afterwards when the ([uantities had been made u)> thai 1 saw I was ^J. per yanl less. 1 took these figures, but it was mere guo.'^s work, it was not from actual measurement. By Mr. Weldon : Q. The Committee cannot follow your figures on earth filling. How much was the amount named in Mr. Perley's list ? — A. "Mr. Pci'ley's list was 80.00(t yards ; hut I say it is 191,901. Q. The difference would l)e 111,000 yards, and your ]M'ice M-a< 20 ceiit> lower ? — A, Yes. 434 >^;^2,;i> 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Twenty cents on 111.000 yards would be $22,000 ?— A. I am taking the ditl'eroncr on .the gross quantity — 1 "J 1,901 yards of earth tilling, at 4-i cents comes to 38(3,355.45. Q. But yiiu said you lost on that item ? — A. I was mi!uy that 3'ou consider the change in the document prejudiced you, or that the difler- eiue in the two tenders was §38,000? — A. The difference in the two tenders. Q. How much would you be prejudiced by the false entry in the extension slicct :' — A. I would have to take a little time to ascertain that. Bu Jlr. Ohapleau ; Q. You say that the quantity put in the schedule is 80,000 yards? — A. Y'es, sir. ii. And you were 20 cents lower than thev ? — A. Yes, sir. (\. xVnd 80,000 yards at 20 cents makes §i(i,000 ?— A. Yes, sir (I. What was the dilferenco in quantity you have ascertained from the plans? — A. r.il.lXU yards. *^>. And the difference between the two quantities was therefore 110,000 yards? — A. Vcs. <^ Which, at 20 cents, makes §22,000 increase?— A. Yes. Cl. And therefore this §22,000 and the §16,000 gives the total of §38,000 which you have mentioned ? — A. Yes; the total amount of those foui- items which should I'o mldcd to Larkin, Connolly & Co.'s tender is §l.J5,t!40.70. Xow there is the credit ^iile. Deduct for difference on cotf'erciam, in which they are lower than I was, §27, 5UU; deduct ;dso in favour of sheet pile trick, §24.875, which makes a total of §52,375. /.'// Mr. Edgar: Q. That is, of credit to them? — A. Yes; credits to them. Xow if you deduct ■^."):i,:{S.") from §155,(i40.70 it leaves the sum of §103,265 70, or in other words, their tender would be thai much higher than mine. Their tender as figured up by the Ki\uiiieor was §034,340, and adding to that §103,265 . 70 leaves a totalOf §737,till leave Larkin, Oonnolly \- Co.'s tender §711,385.70, instead of §(i34,340, the amount at which it is given. Ihj Mr. Kirkpairick : 'i'. What was the total amount paid them? — A. I could not say; I have not ■■eeu the final estimate. 435 1— 2Si ii ' ! 1 ( L , <1 ■I I'l •ii ! mA 64 Victona. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 Villi ; ,(■ 1rop()sc'd to do the same work for 35 cents a yani. That is what you said ? — A. That is what I understood from the ])aper he read, Q. In the lender at 47 cunts a yard, was it a tender for dredging earth or to Le dumped into the river? — A. I was not a ))arty to that tender at all. Mr. Moore nuide his tender altogether independent of mo. Q. And you do not know? — A. I do not know. By Mr. Geoffrion : Q. Are you aware that besides the 35 cents which was paid under the contract of 18.S7, another amount of 45 cents was allowed for dumping in the embankment? — A. 1 only know it from hearsay ; but the final esitimate will show ttat. By Mr. Ouimet : Q. When the contract i'ov dredging was awarded in 1882 to Messrs. Connolly & Co., instead of beiUir continued with Moore A: Wright, had Larkin, Connolly \ Co, a ilreilging plant ut the time ? — A. Xo ; none whatever. (^. You knew they had no dredging plant ? — A. We knew it ; Col. Moore knew it. »^. Had you any reason to suppose yon were alone in the tender? — A. I think he must have felt that ; but I was not interested in it. By Mr. Lanyelier : Q. You have spoken of your first contract on the tender of Peters, Moore i*c Wright. Did you lose money on that dredging? — A. The dredging appertained entirely to Moore iV Wright; but I do not thiidc they lost. I could not s:iy whether they did or not. It was not a firm. We signed jointly before the Harbour Commissioners, but we had private papers which separated us. By Mr. Ed withdraw his tender for dredging in cimnectioii with the Harbour Works in course I'f construction and for closing the opening of the inside end of the Princess Louise Einliankment. Bequest granted." Also, on the same date, i;]th .luly, 1882 : "Kead a letter from Messrs. Fradet iV Miller, contractors, complaining, in reply to the letter of the 10th instant, of the conditions imposed to them of depositing ten tlmusand dollars in cash for the acceptance of their tender for dredging and stating tliiit they will adhere to the conditions of the advertisement." Again on Kith .luly, 1882:— " iMossrs. Fradet & Miller, and Messrs. Poupore & Charlton, having failed to comply with the condition imposed at the meeting held the 10th instant for the iaceptance of their respective tenders it is thereupon Jiesolved, That Mr. .lohn E. Askwith bo informed that the Commissioners are prepared to accept his tender for I'.roiigiiig, provided he makes a cash deposit often thousand dr liars (810,000) on or I'cioiv Wednesday next, at i> o'clock p.m., for the due performance of the work he ha-i tt.iiilored for, and provided also that if the contract is awarded to him he will undertake to commence the work on or before the 1st August next, and that he will ili'liver tlie whole on the 1st November, ISSIJ, it being, however, understood that the award ot the o tho IDLli .Iiily, 1H82, wo rind the tbllowiiij,' : •' Read u letter from Mr. John E. Askwitli, contnu'tor, transmittini; n chel:ed for is refused, is thereupon dictated, tcith instructions to the secretary to submtt if to the legal advisers to the Commission and to make all changes they may recommend." Again, on the 26th July, 1882, the record continues : " Head a telegram from Mr. John E. Askwith, dated Ottawa, 24th inst., statinj: that he regrets that the plant is not suitable, and that he withdraws his tender tni- dredging." On the 26th July, 1882, with tho following members present: — William I'su', Ferdinard Uamel, John Sharpies, Julien Chabot anil J. Jiell Korsyth — you will sco that Mr. McGreovy was not present when the minutes were read : " Read a letter from Messrs. Larkin, Connolly & Co., transmitting certiticd bank che<^ue for ten thousand dollars (810,000) as security for the performance of the dredgmg work they have tendered for, and stating that they h
    i son of Robert McGreevy ? — A. Yes. Ho assisted mo in tho checking. Jiy Mr. Curran : Q. In answer to ^fr. Tarte you stated that at tho last election you voted for tlie Hon. Thomas McGreevy ? — A. Ves. (^ And after having voted lor him, you told him you w«)uld just as soon vote for the devil f—A. Yes. (J. Was that bocauso'you had been badly treated by the Harliour t'ominis- sioners? — A. It was on account of the provoking way he had spoken to me for not having worked at tho elections. (i. That was j-oiir reason '/ — A. Yes. (}. You had known .Mr. McGreevy a great many years? — .\. Yes. (J. And lived in Quebec all the time? — A. Yoj*. il. You also knew Mr. Tarte? — A. Yes. H. And you knew he hud been publishintf certain statements? — A. That lial nothing to do with the matter. I knew Mr. McGreevy for years had been sniilii;,jr before my face and then stabbing me Itehind my back. I knew that for ten yeais. fiy Mr. Langelier : Q. I understand that the result of your calculatitins of the actual quantities, from tho plans which tho tenders were made, is that your tender was 8103,00t> 438 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 bflow thiit of Lnrkin, (Jonnolly iV Co.'ti tuiuler. In that what I uiulerstuiul yoii to mean ? — A. Voh. }i;j Mr. ChiijiUiiH : (}. TImt is, it would hiivo been ? — A. Yen; woiiM have l»een. Tlioro U an item lit' stonework where Larirtiinity for one man to be |iiilled down and theirs Khoved up. Thatamoiinte, 1 believe, when the situation is explained to him. will apply the necessary remedy." \Vould you not, upon such n recommendation as that from your brother, either go to Ottawa or send one of your piirtners? — A. 1 lio not know;* I may have gone to Ottawa ; I have no recollection. (J. You swear you had not gone to Ottawa tosee Sir Hector ? — A. I had no recol- li'ction. Q. You had no recollection the other da}' that you came to see Sir Hector ? — A. That is my recollection. • ^ Is'it not ti fact that you sentsome of your partners ? — A. I do not know as I iiave. (J. Is it possible you did ? — A, I won't swear to it. Q. You did not think this letter important enough for your partners to attend to ! — A. I do not think it was of sufficient importance. It was complaining of things nt that time which I thought unnecessary. <^. It was complaining of progress estimates. You found your brother was oiiiijilaining without any reason ? — A. The estimates were small. altered ? — .V. I think there was a letter referring to the re-coursing. • ^ Was it not after this rc-coursing hati U-en suggested by your brother that yui.. or some niember of the tirni, acted upon it ? — A, I nave no recollection of having acted upon it. (^ You stated that Mr. McGreevy was taken into the partnership because you wanted more capital. Did you state so? — A. I think so. *^. It is about two or three days ago you said that. Is it a fact you took in IJiibert Mc(treevy because you wanted capital? — A. I know that wo complained atiout his large interest, and .Mr. Murphy saul he would have to put up in proportion to his interest. <^ You swear that Mr. Murphy had been taken in for the purpose of increasing your capital ? — A. I believe that was the purport of mj' testimony. t^. You sai«l positively that .Mr. McCrrecvy was taken into the firm at that time dimply to contribute 30 per cent, of the capital required. Your answer to the 488 ! i!€'i i-.If M m-'A 'i! '" 'm II ! i 1 1 as. 54 "Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 f question was: "That is thooxnlnimtion given to mo, nntonlyl>j'Miirpliy, but Robert MofTreevy liimsolf. " Now, did j-ku take him for iiis capital? — A. Yes! (}. IIow much money diil be put in ? — A. I do not think he put any money in; he put in sonio timber later. ii. How much was ho to put in ? — A. Thirtj* per cent. {}. Of what amount? — A. Of his interest. *}. An interest in a contract amounts to nothing? — A. He had M per cent, intoicst, and he was to contribute 'M i)or cent, of the capital to carry on the work. if. Contribute ',\0 per cent, of the expenses? — A. He only contributed what 1 am tryinj; to tell you — only timber to the amountof $3,(HJ0 or 84,000. That is the oidy ihinir I remember him contributing. Q. To the value of three or tour thousand dollars? — A. Yos ; something in that neighbourhood. ii. What he contributed would a])pear in the books? — A. I think so. «^'. Is it not a fact that Mr. McGreevy was not to put in ca])ital, but it was under- stood that ho was only to receive an interest in the contract, without contributing anything to the expenses ? — A. I never heard of an^' such agreement. The agreement was Itoti) with Mr. Larkin and 1. NVhy, he said himself that he hud a large interest, and that .Mr. Larkin and I objected to giving him a large interest: that if he got a larger interest be would have to ])ut in a larger amount of nmney. (^. Was your brother .Michael in Q'exas tlien? — A. I think he was in Texas. Q. At the time it was agreetl that Mr. Mctlreevy should put in capital, was lie in Texas? — A. I think he was in Texas when Mr. .Murphy brought Mr. .Mcffreevy to our (ttlice. {}. When Mr. Mctlreevy tirst became interested in your c(»ntracts was your brother in Texas or (Quebec? — .\. I think he was in Texas. ii. If he was aware of anything it would be from corresjiondence with you ? — A. Not with me. (^. l>i(i you correspond with your brother? — A. Not with regard to that. Me was about coming home, and Idonot remember corresponding with him with regard to it. i}. Are you aware of a letter written by your brother to O. E. Murphy, dated 12th October, I8S2, (Kxhibit Y S) printed at )mge211, and in which we read tiic Col- lowing: — " Yours of the 2nd instant was here in San Antonia before I arrived. 1 am glad to hear you have got along so well with the work the |)ast season. You dn right in keeping in with lion. Tlios., as just at present he has the whole tiling in the hollow of his hand. Y'ou tell me you have the contract signed for the Harbour work ; but I think you have given i^ob more than he is entitled to, especially as lie is not fuiiii>hing any cajiital. But, )f course, you, who are on the ground, ought to know best, and it would be belter to make a hundred thousand dollars with him ii\ than tiftv thousand dollars with him out." Canycm explain that letter? — A. 1 never saw tliat letter old}' here. I knew nothing of ir. t>es my brother speak the truth do you mean? (J. Was he speaking the truth when he wrote? — A. I do not know what Mt. Murj)liy may have written to my brother. t^. Your brother writes that Bob was putting no inonoy into the concern ? — A. He did imt write that letter to mo. ii. Would it have been true if he hait " Wl',' was in the handwriting of sonioboijy else than Beaucago? — .\. I do not know Beaiicago's handwriting. HO 5-t Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 (}. Ill wlioHu liuivlwi-iting is the letter? — A. I do not know. It looks like riiarles MrCTreevv's — Robert McGreevv's son. I inuy be inistakoii, I would not fwear tn it. • ^ Mill you not swear positively that it wa-* in tlie liaiiilwritinijf of Charles Me- •^ireovy? — A. i think not; I do not think I sW( ire positively to it. I uni not an expert in haivlwriting. ii. At paye 3U1 you wi-re asked by Mr. Fitzpatrick the followini; question: (reads from the evidenee). Having; sworn so much alremly. aroyou prepared to say llii- li'tter was in the handwriting of Charle> Metiroevy? — A. I would not swear; it might be i>r it might not be. (j>. Were you present when the tenders wervi pre))are. <»». How many tenders were prepared when you were'so jiresent? — A. Only one tnidiT that I really took part in ])re]taring. (/. Hut in the same room was not (iailagher's tender proi)ared ? — A. It is my ivcollection that (rallagher s tender was |)i-e|)ared in the outer room and ours in the inner. t^. Where was Beaucage's tender prepared? — A. I do not know anything about l!iaiifai.'e's tender. <.». Vou have not seen that letter written bv Charles .Mc(;reevv? — A. I did not *(■(• it. *i. Wixti Charles Mc(iii'evy in the room, or in oneofthootlici's. when both tenders Were prejtared — that is, (iailagher's and Larkin, Connolly \ Co.'s? — A. No. . lie wa" not present? — \. Xot that 1 saw. (]. Are 3'ou sure he was not there? — A. He was not there in the room that I \\;i- in. <^. Are you not sure he wa> not helping in jirepariag the tenders? — A. N'o. \». Where were tliose teixiers prepared ? — A. Uur tender was prepared in the ii.liei' olliee. \i. In what hou>e? — A. In Quebec or in Levis. I do not re, lember which it was. • J. If you can remenilier that it was either the irnier or the outer room, cannot \i u riiiiember which room it wa»? — A. My recollection is that it was in (Quebec. V>. In what house in (Quebec? — .\. In ballwHisie street. * ii. At the ottice of the tiiin? The same ottice that you had up to the end of your cr'iitraet ? — A. We had two offices; one on the Louise Kmbankment ami one on l>alliou>ie Street. *i. And you say it was in Dalhousie street? — .\. Tiiat is my recollection of it ; I niiiy be mistaken. <^. And one tender was prepared in one room and the other tender in another v>"(reet. \>uebec? —A. I dill not understand that it wa> in l'-^'^^. , at Levis while the work wa« iii progre-s. •i'. Then the tenders were prejjareil in tw.. ditVerent rooms? — A. Vo. *i. There was only one room in the otHco on the Louise Embaidxinent ? — A. TluMc wa^ only one room there. 7. So you were sure the tenders would not be prepared in the otiice on the I."ni»e Kmbankment ? — A. They may have been. I tell you it is simply my recol- K'ltiiin. '^. You stated that the tenders were prej)ared in two ditferent moms? — A. I 'iaiel there was only .Mr. Hume, the Kngineer, and myself in the room, when the tcinler of Larkin. Connolly \ Co., was being juej)ared. *J. And in the other room where (iailagher's tender was beiiu; prepared ? — A. I *:»'. 1 the other tender was prepared for iTaliagher in the other room. 441 ill hi. I } . I' ■ ■ rrr §4 Victoria. Ap{)endix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 ' ! i Q. Who was prop»rini; teixierN wcro pi'upnrud in (litt'ereiit PHunH, are you sure it wuH not on the Louine Kmltankment ? — A. It may not ho at thu Mime time. H. But why then (.o. ii- And (ialiagher'B ehe«|Ue wa« made g(KHl by the ftrm'i* money? — A. tiallai;- lier'n tender was aecompanietl by a cheque either of mine or Mr. LarkinV. Q. In it not a fact that it was a cheque on the Imperial Bank ot'St. (.'atherines? — A. 1 think it waii, but 1 do not remember. Q. In it not a fact that cheque of 87,500, whicli wa.s put in by (ralla^her is credited and charge*! in the bk8 att being from the money of Mr. Larkin '.' — A. I think it wna. Q. And it wan upon his funds in St. Catharines '.'* — A. I think that is the way it was. It was either Captain Larkin's or mine. Q. And do you remember when the che(|Ues were returneil, Mr. Perley would not return (iailagher's cheed t'> prepare the tender of T^arkin. Connolly & Co. Q. You made it out in your name? — A. Yes. y. You did not help Gallagher with his tender? — A. No. Q. Who was working at that ? — A. I do not remember, but I think my I'rother had most to do with it. Probably Mr. Murphy helped him, but I am not sure about that. (J. Your brother was in tlie habit of preparing tenders for others like that ? — A. I think that wa.s his first. ii. lias he done it since? — A. That I do not know. *i. This man. Hume, is he still in 5-our employ? — A. Yes. ^l. Where is he now ? — A. lie is at Kingston at present. (/. Ill what »-apa«-ity is he in your employ? — A. lie is our Engineer. 3-i's.' Or did somebody else with the payments; he may have had. ii. It was not his o<-cupation ; not his charge? — A. No. (/. He had nothing todo with the iwymonts ? — A. When I said he had Motliiii;: to do with the payments I meant nothing regular. He may have paid both at <,'iic- liec and at the quarries, in the absence of one of the members of the tirm, Mr. Murphy, myself or my brother. *}. But when he was taking the place of a member ot the tirm. or in anv*I'i'''':'' circumstance like that, he would rejMirt to some member of the firm ?--A. What you mean ? *i. He had no |x»wer to give an order to the i)ayiiiaster or the book-keepi*r t'l pay ? — A. No; he wjis not a memlier of the tirm. Q. An<|, I NuppoNe. (j. \oii !«tatt'i| alMt that Mr. Miir|ihy had rm i>\|M)i'ivncu in that claMM of woi k '/ — A. Yo8. *i. Yoti >ai; I knew him. rtions of it. H. You stated that 3'ou h)aned money out of your |H3rsonal funds to .Mr. .Murphy. |)id lie recipro<.-ute and loan j-ou some money oocaHionail}' '.' — A. 1 do not remember him ever hmnin;; me any. (^. Would you be surpriseil to find in the books many entries of money chariJCi'd in your favour? — A. To tlie f'ompnny he may have. tj. No, money loaned to you and reimbursed out of the funds of the Company? — A. [t wan ffenerally the other way. (i. Then, if these loans were made it was probably for the purpose of making (JonalionH? — A. To me ? ii. Yes, and then ro-imbursetl by the lirm? — A. 1 do r.ot know anything about Mr. -Murphy's matters. H. \ou Huid he was in the habit of speculating. Did you not do some of it too? — A. Yes, very often with his advice. (^. lie temptetl you ? — \. Yes, two or three times, pittbably twice. i}. Can you name some of the stocks you specuintccl in with Mr. .Murphy? — .\. He induced me to buy 8omo gas stock. I think it was Manhattan gun, (}. Anything else? — \. 1 think he was instrumental in taking me int » the Kicheliou. (}. It was a good H])oculatiori. You Itecamo director of that Company? — \. It was not a good speculation to me. It was good for .Mr. .Murphy, I think. (i. Then, you said you never paid a dollar in connection with your contractn foi- corrupt |)racticos. Did you pay any money or subscribe any "loney for political imrpimes? — A. At what time? ii. Since you are a public cont motor, from 1882 to 1880; start from 1871'? — A. I subscribed one little amount that I know of to a gentleman in Montreal at the last election. <^. Was that for ])olitical purposes? — A. It was friendship towards him. <^. Was that the only amount yn» paid for political purposes? — \. That is the only amount. I am speaking of my personal money. '^ Now I am asking you of the tirni's money. Did the tirm of Larkin, Connolly \ Co.. to your knowledge and with your consent, ever pay or disburse any money lor political purposes during the same period ? — A. Not to my knowle»lge. (J. Were you intormeil by any members of the Hrm thai such disbursement or >ul)scription had l)een maiiticai Hubscriptioiu .' — A. He never huid »o. By Mr. Davies : *i. Dill lie say t«> wliom tliey were paid or any of them ? — A. No: never to nu-. liy Mr. Anujot : Q. Had you no idea whatever what these amounts were li>r then V — A. I iii;iy have liad an iilea, l>ut I do not know as tliat would Ije evidence. (;. Can you not irive us that idea now? — A. My idea was that most of it went into his own poeivet and Holtort Mces. The b::lancc you say may have gone to me? — A. I am not singling you out, any more than any one else. Q. Your idea then was that to some special order or ])urpose the balance of flic mone}- that he did not keep tor his own use was devote>t the gentlemen tnat formed the comnjittee. I would not know them if I met them. Q. You understoml the executive committee was the (Quebec executive. fi<>ni what .Mr. Murphj' told you ? — A. I do not know that .Mr. .Murpiiy ever told im- anything about the committee. i}. At all events, whether he told you or not, you said you thought there was .in executive committee, and the bttlance of the money he did not keep for his own ii-t- Avent there ? — A. That is my own idea. 1 supposeil that if he gave any for politiial purposes it would go there. t^. Would that apply to every amount mentioned as 'donations " in the books of the Hrm or in the letters fileil l>etore this (Committee? J)oes that answer apply t>> every one of them? — A. Yes; that answer would apply to every one. <^ Can you tell us the poportion iK'tween the amount 5!urphy kept and flu- amount he subscribed fo the " Kxecutive committee" at (Quebec ? — A. 1 could iint tell j'ou anything about the amount he gave to anything. I could not find it ouf. It you could find it out, you could do more than i can. Q. Will you kindly tell us from what party that e.vecutive committee was. Wa- it the party that gave the contract ? — A. I supposed, of course, if he gave any money to the executive committee there it would Ijc to the Ci>nservative party. Hut that i- only my own imagination. I am not giving that as te.-Jtimony. Q. Is it not a fact that every time Mr. Murphy came in with these account-. 85,000 — 825,000 — these large amounts, he pretendetl, whether rightly or wrongly. that these amounts had l)een usc tellini^you all the time it was my imajfination. Y^ou askeil me and I told 3'ou. <;. Are there not facts which tended to hring your ima;;;ination to that ? — A. N'l facts. <^. The explanation then that the charity or donations which are found in the |hh>1<> or letters of the Hrm — the oidy ex|)lanation of them is, that they werecharitj* til Mr. Murphy? — A. It is charituhio in that way. Murphy handled the cash, and (Ills I suppose is his " .planation of it What it was I never could tell. if. When you your-elt handled the cash, and wlien the same word "donation ' WH' useil. what was your understanding al>out it ? — A. I never nave any orders to tiiar^e any money in that way. When I was handling; the cash I often sij^ned a (•lii'>|uo and endorsed it, and either yave it to the book-keejier or Mr. Murpliy. no! kiiiiwin^ what it was jfoiiii^ lor. Not only that, hut I often signed a cheque in blunl. and left it to be tilled out. t^ Were you in the habit of lookingat the books when they wore beinij audited ? -A. No. il'oie theC'ommitlootheotherday thatthere wasan indictment ai^ainst Mr. Connolly wiiich had ^oiio before thetirand .lury and had been thrown out. I was ri^ht as to tlic indictment, but not that it was put before the id you not yoursell, on the I7th February, 188", deliver to yonni^ JJobert Mifireevy tiie sum of 85,O0tl, to be taken to his uncle, Thomas Mctireevy? — A. No, 1 never did, unless it was a sum sent for by his father. There may have been a sum ?eiit for by his father. The book-keeper would know about that. I roinemb','r . loitliiiiir about it. \>. I>oyou remember the naked fact that «orne time in Febiuary, 1887, haviiii^ -lilt younjj; IJobeit Mctireev^- with §r),(l(»0 to be delivere. During the month td' November — the first half of November, 18S7 — did not V'lii airain send the same 3'oung man, Robert Mctireevy, with S.^OUO, to be taken t" lii> uncle Tliomus McGreevy ? — A. I have no recollection of it. <,*. Is it possible that you should have given 8.'>,(KK> to this young man J{obert M<(iioevy during the tirst half of the month of November, 1887, to be taken to his uncle. Thomas McGreevy ? — A. If ordered by his father, 1 may have done so ; not "tlierwisi. 445 [ : ;i' il .' '1', it m5 :!' ■' m ri;* ( i , r.i f= 54 Victoria. 1 Appendix (Xa 1.) A. 1891 (i. Vou appear to remember now that sometime!* money wa« to your knowlever- tain it v<>iii*ent any money by youii^; |{ol)ert Mcfireevy at the time mentionebert MHJreevy urdcrol it ho to Ikj sent I have no doubt it was sent accordiiii; to his unler. if. Why should 3'ou ^ive the onler. if it was Robert MoGri-evy wh<> ^ive the order? — A. l[e •jave me the order, but Robert MeGreevy may have j;iven the onier and I signed the ohci|ue. (^. My question is positive, and I ask you a^ain — did not you you rta-lf hand the money toyounj; J{obert .McGreevy for that purpose? — A. Not to my knowled-re. (}, Vou do not undertake to swear yi>n did not do it? — A. If Robert Meiireevy Kent for money tome i have no doubt I ;;ave it to the son. (/. Then it is possible you gave money to the i»on to take to RidxTt or Thomas ? — A. To take to Robert. Q. Not to Thomas ?— A. No. Q. You swear you did not nay to tbey. Q. .Supposing Robert wrote you a letter, or met you on Dalhousie street, and said : '• CoimoHy, I will sentl you my son for 8.'>,«M)0 to take to Thomas Me< Jreevy " — if VffU had leceived ^uch a message would you have haiHlek ])lace ? — A. .Such a thing may have takt-n place, but it is very improbable. I have no rccolleetion of it. Q. In September, 188(>, did not Mr. Thomas or Rolx-rt Mctireevy come to you. and in the presence of O. E. Murphy ask you for 88,O0t> for the elections that wer«- about to come otf in the Province ? — A. No. Q. You swear that a sum of 88,000 was not with your cons«'nt a.ske«l for and ilelivered to Robert II. Mctireevy for the local elections in .Septeml>er, 18Si! ? — A. No. i}. Did Thomas make similar re^juest and get the money ? — A. No ; he never made a request for money. t). For elections ? — A. For anything. il. Whenever be wanted money for elections be sent bis brotlu-r Robert ? — A. I do not know what dealings were between him and his brother Rolicrt. i. Whenever he wanted money for elections be sent his brother Robert — that is. money from your tirni ? — A. Not to my knowledge. (j>. If Mr. Tbonuis Mc. Imt for political ]iur|M)st'H, from the tiriii of Ijarkin. Connolly \ Co., rt-piofiitod \>y Win brotlivr Jioliert, and if thi'^t* amoiint>i are found chargiti in the JHHtk-ol the tiriii, Would yoii now helievethat the amount wax paid "' — A. I would not. I will explain that. I would not believe what itoltert Metiroevy mi<;ht nuy n\mu\ it. It Thomas MHircevy would say that I would lielieve they had deaiinus together, and the money may have come from the eompany witli the understanding that it would he chargod to KohertH share. n>, Mr. Mul>jck . *^. You e.xpected there waH something ooming liaelv from these donations? — A. Mr. Murphy Miid t*o at times. H. That kepi you from protostinnted to the settlement ? — A. Ves. Jh/ J/r. Vurran : i}. lici-ause you did not want the firm broken up at that time'/ — A. Yes. Jiy Mr.' Flint . *}. I»id Mr. Larkin agree witii you in your suspicions? — A. Ye«. Bi/ Mr. Geojfrion : ^i. When did Martin Conneen given ? — A. Yes. . '^. That is. the tirm's name was signetl by one member and endor-ed by another? — A. TIh'Ic may have been some, but as \oii .say we found it was ineonvenient, for tlii- re:iM)n: I would Ix' on the work and other members would be away. *i. Once or twice Mr. Murphy, wanted mone}' for thi^ linn, and all the members • ■eimr away, he had to sign for you — that is, lie signed your name '/ — ^A. I sup|M>se.so. t^. Having found it inconvenient, you decideil that all cheques should U- made "lit by a single meml>er of the tirm':* — A. There never was any understanding aixuit tliat. Mr. Mur]diy took thnt upef'')ie tlu-y wimM ^ivt> Mr. Murpliy any nioiv money lor (livooni- pan}*, wo wioto them and 1 thi^ — tliut mon«'V« ro«jiiired for the ui*o ot tiu- tirm, Miirpliy's niijnatmr would un«wor. (j{, Sulmfoiiently to that letter .Murphy be^an to sign chetiues .' — A. I think he wtu« Hiirning all the time and at that time. (-1. In 1SM7 did n(»t you hogin \n i*igii cheques iimteail ot" Murphy .' — A. Ye«. i}. 1m it not a fact that the elio«{UeM were alwayn signed without lx>in:; made to the onler of any partner o.xcopt in pe«'uliar cireumstances — the rule wa?.. that they Hhould lie made |)ayable to the order of the firm or to the parties to whom the money was line? — \. 1 never nmde out the body ot" any of the ehetpies. I think. I only signed the chei|UOM after they had been made out by .Murphy or the lM(.ik-kee|>er. il. What would 1^ the object of making out some of thoxo eh<*<|ues payalile t» you — that it was necessary to pass them at the Imnk '.'' — A. I do not know the o|ijc4.-t. t^. Was it not to identify the cheque on account of the peculiar pur|H»»e- tor which if was requiretl'.'' — A. No; 1 (h> not know that it was. (}. Was it not when the money was paid tor the usual piirpo-.es of the partner- ship, then ■/ — A. I think the book-keeper, when the «'hot(Ue was made out. charged it to me uiitil such time iis Murphy explained it. Murphy might take the che<|ue. ;;ei the money, and use it, and then tell the bookkeeper how to charge it. That is my recollection. <^. 8o, ovon cheques for charters wouM be charged to you ".' — A. I think m>. t->r the time being. (I. You would make an entry when the chei(ue would lK'cluirgetalement printed at page 17!'. The statement is to lie effect that .Mr. .Murphy claimed To have paid to you two amounts of $.').()o I understand you to swear that no ...uch charge ot^lo.otm. paid to Sir Hector Laiigevin, wiiH ever made ill the books to your knowleok-? il. Yes'/ — \. I d«> not remomber he over gave me any explanation about iha:. Hi/ Mr. Daciva: il. What do you mean by ''it was never explained in that way ' '/ — A. He ireii- erally explained in his usual way. It was not for me to a»k, or he knew it, and that was enough, or it would come back. il. Mr. (leoffrion asked you about two cheques for 8.").0(tt> each. allegoy " not in that way"'/ — A. I said that that was in regard to .Murphy> explanatiim. He never gave me any explanation of those chequo-* or of any of the moneys paid out. only a* I tell you. ii. You said •' No, not in that wiij-.'' What do you mean by " not in that way :' " — A. That is Mr. .Murphy's general explanation I am referring to. I wils givin^r that as my answer. I thought Mr. (reotfrion had reference at the time ti> the eiitrie- in the books. Jiy Mr. Mulock : il. For what purpose would those sums be paid to Sir Hector, if tlwy were paid at ail"/ — A. I never knew that any money was paid to Sir Hector. The Committee then adjourned. 448 ^ 64 Victoria. Ai'peiKlix (No. 1.) A. 1891 IlMr..Ertaiii circiim«Uiiicciia(i(ihtatt*moiitK inmlu in connection with tiui tenders uixl contracts re-iieviing thf (^uoboc Harbour Works, itc, restiineii. Mr. Xiriiui,.\s K. ('oj«?«»i.lt re-oallo«l : Itfl Mr . (ieop'rion : Q. In tlio coiiisc ot" the yo:ir I^^T aftiT you (n which tt" ."i.'i.OOO each which were in the U*»k* l.y your order iin Kolieri Mcn- fmm y<er any •lisinw.ion ? — A. Xc il. Was there in the course oi'ihe year H8T any discussion ahout chaii^t'^ made ly you and ft)r wliich there were no v<»iichers? — .\. I don't ii-mcinlier of any. (}. Xo explanation tri>m you as t«» certain fliarj^cs tor vhicli you had no voiiclicrH'/ — A. I don't ki\ovv as I oniereke>l fr<>m yii ;i!M.iit <'ertain ontiies which tliey p;e- iciidcd they ha and t<»r wiiich there were no voucliers "/ — A. Nut to my knowlod;;e. (^. They never askeer having tuiid to the Iwiok-kcejier. or caUcil liiin in, ti» i:ivc ii-rtain explanations wlii«h you c»»uld not give ytiurself alpout the e!U|uirie» they were making? — A. .Xo. I don't renieml>er<>f anything of the kind (i. Whi'n I speak of the Ixwk-ke^-iier 1 mean .Martin P. Connolly ? — A. Yes; bit 1 'li> not lemember. . You do not rememl>er having seen Mr. .Martin I'. Connolly ami .Mr. .Murphy "1 .Mr. JlobtMt .^[c(rreevy alH>ut i'ems they wantdl explained ? — A. No. "i>. Then you did not call in Mr. Martin I*. Connolly. i)Ut you rofbrred them lo liiiii iis the one who would give iheni the explanations? — A. Not to my knowle«lge. t^. Xot to your knowledge? — A- Xo. (}. Arc you ready to >wear that y.»u did not refer them to .Martin IV Connolly t r iiifoinialion about the explanaliun they were requiring? — .V. I have no recollec- 'i'Hi '•!' lelerring them to .Martin C«»nnns lor explanations, bocauso he did nearly all till' charging an explain it to them. 'i>. Of course they would not ask you ai»out charges made by otiiers ? My 'liiesiioM is about charges made in the l-i-.k by youi ( rder. — \. By m}' order? I 'III not remember of telling them t«» charge anything in the books. \>. Do you mean to say you never onJere}. Do you undertake to r.wear you did not have entries maw, is it not a fact that on the occasion when such explanations were asked from soil, you told to both Murphy Mid to JJohert Mc(irecvy that you had paid 85,000 t- Laforce Laiifjevin, and the other 3"),00() was han .. / Q. Do you swear that Lafoice Lanj^evin did not come to your ortice asking for $5,000 on behalf of somebody?— A. No'. ii,. He nevei- came? — A. Not to my knowleilge. il. Will you .swear that he iHil ;i!,t come to your office with !i messane. eilliei verbal or written, askinjj; for $5,000, ;;nil beiny then accompanied by one of his friend> .' — A. No. never Jo my knowledge. (.}. M}' (|Ucstion is very direct. He spoke to you, addressed himself to you. and handed you a written document, a letter or somethinij: like that, askinjj; you for an amount of money, and as a con.sequencedid you hand him a parcel containing So.OOit ? — A. I did not. Q. You are quite sure of that ? — A. Quite sure. ii. Or any other sum of money? — A. Oi- any other sum of money. i}. You swear positively you never entrusted any money to Laforce Lan<,'eviii to be taken to sotiiobody else? — A. No. ii. Well now, if 3'ou did not hand the money yourself, did you order your book- keeper to hand the money to Laforce Langevin? — A. No; [ did not. Q. You swear that you did not ask Martin Connolly to i^ive that money to Laforce Lan^cvin? — A. No. ii. You swear you did not? — A. T swear 1 did not instruct the bookkeeper to fjive money of that kind to anyone. The one 1 told Mr. Martin Connolly to give money to was cither to O. 10. Murphy or Robert Mcdreevy. Q. And you stick to that : that all the tnonc}' you instructed the bookkeeper to pay would bo to O. K. Murphy or Robert Mctrreevy? — A. Y'es. Q. Would you have wages paid by Murphy? — A. Very often. Q. Did ho always jiay the wages? — A. (lenorally when he was around he paid the wage.s. Q. And when he was not there? — A. I paid them, or Mr. Hume or my brother. Q. So you did not always order Martin P. Connolly to hand the money t' Murph}'? There were cases in wh'ch someone handed money to ^Iiirjihy. — A. •Martin Connolly often went to the bank and drew money and either handed it t^ Murphy or Robert Mctrieevy, or used it for the work. Q. 13ut when he handed money to Robert .McGreevy or O. K. Murphy, what wa^ it for? — A. I cannot tell. Sometimes it might bo for one thing and sometimes it might be for another — for themselves or for the works. Q. Or tho money would behandeil to Michael Connolly?— A. I do not remend)ei Michael ever handling any money, 450 54 iny Ic A. < ( |-. W! i> i i iiieni I ( 54 Viijtoria, Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Did Tloliort ^[cfJroevy ever make any payments for the firm? — A. Not to my Uiio\vlt'i my knowit'iifie. <^. When yon say you <^avo nioni'y to IJohert MtGrcevy. wiiat was it for? — A I'nr a loan or for iiin own uso. That is if nionoy was duo iiim from tho tirm it \\a> irivon to him, or if ho wanted it for a loan. Q. How muoh money did you pay him liko that as a loan? — A. I ilo not re- iiiciniHT. t^. Did ho roturii those loans? — A. f thirdi so. t^. Did ho roeeivo money which lie never returned ? — A. 1 eannol toll any more th.iM wiiat ray suppositions are. Q. Since you have ha>t to my knowledge. Q. Is it possible he may have done so and you not remember it? — A. It might lit' possible. Q. At the audits, you say that Mr. Murphy would giv" the explaiuition to the iiiiijitdrs and to the partners. Which was it, to the partners or the auditors? — A. • u'licraily to the auditors Hrst, I think, and then from the auditors it would come to llif partners. 1^. Did the discussions take ])lace in the presence of the audifois or with the |i;irtnci's alone? — A. \ think in a separate room. Mr. Larkin and I woidd generally ui'l together and try to tind out whore this money went or what wo could about it. Q. You were .satisfied at tho c\|»lanation and your questions were not to bo iiiard by the auditors ? — A. I lT."i,(l(lO to $200,000. Do those amounts appear in your books? — A. That is the Kiiiiiiuvi's estimat," of our ]»lant at that time. (}, Tho whole plant? — A. The jilant that was on the Ifarbour Works. Q. The Harbour Works generally ? — A. Yes. tj. iiut there was other plant besides the dredging plant? — A. It was dredging I'hini or plant in connection with dredging. 1-29^ 461 Siti J I ■ i Mi' '%' 1 m\ II Jl i! 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 \li\ ill ill Q. l)no8 the cost of that plant appear in your books? — A. I cannot say positi- vel}', liiit a portion niii>t appciir in the iiooks, and I do not kiiow but all of it. <^. You had two tIredm'S ? — A. Three. (}. There was one your own piopert}*, but the firm owned two? — A. It was on the ground as well. Q. But it was not required. It was what they called the " White Klcphant"? — A. It was working there. Q. Was it what they called the "White Klephant " ?— A. 1 never heard it called so. Q. It was your properly ? — A. Yes. Q. Is it a tact you never worked more than two dredges at a time ? — A. We worked three at a time. Q. How often ? — A. I do not remember. (.1. One of the dredges belonging to the firm was nameil " Sir Hector " ? — A. Yes. Q. How much did it cost you ? — A. I do not remember the exact cost. (J. 83(),00(» ?— A. Yes; it cost between 850,000 and 8,000. and that it was built at Quebec, and cost brand new $35,000 ? — A. I may be mistaken, but I think the cost of thai is in the books. Q. You also had another drotlge called "St. .loseph?" How much did tiiai cost? — A. I (bi not remember. ii. Is it not a fact that it cost 'iJ28,000? — A. Is that the wlude machinery? Ci. The whole thing. — A. It cost more than that. These things may be in the books. Q. Is it not a fact that these two cost 803,000, and nut that one cost that ? — A. My ojiinion is that they cost a gond deal more than that. Q. Would you swear? — A. I have kept no account of it, but of course, I lliink that is all in the books. Q. Was the "St. .Jose|di " built at QuelxM'?— A. Yes. Q. Who built it ?— A. The firm. Q. Who were the buildeis? — A. Carrieie, liaim? \' (V). Q. Who built the hull ? — A. Wo employed men by the dav and built the luill. q. When was it built?— A. In 1883 ()r"l884. Q. Was it not built in 18H,'{ and running m 1884? — A. I think may be it was. (}. Is it not a fact that you ran the "St. .loseph " duiing the years isst, 1SS5, 188C, 1887 and 18S8, and that vou cold it in 188i»?— A. I bought it. il You know that it was sold. When?— A. In 1S81». Q. For how much ? — A. I think it was billetl to me for something over 820,000. (}. Was it not 822,000? — A. Something in that neighbourhooil. Q. You bought it yourself ? — A. Yes. Q. It had been five years in use, it cost 828,000. and \'ou paid five years atiei- ward 822,000? — A. I think I i)aid somewheie in thai neighbourhood. Q. So, as a matter of sinking fund there would be 80,000 in five years. TIrmo was a l(tss of 80.tlOO for Wvg years use ? — A. There was a b)ss. Q. The firm paid 828.000 and you paid 822.000 ?— A. 1 do not know the cost ; but I know that when I paid for it it was something over 820,(JOO I paid. (^ You cannot toll how much it cost ? — A. No, I cannot tell. Q. Not an approximate figure ? — A. No. Q. Is it still in existence ? — A. Yes. (^ Are you still working it? — A. I ilo not know as it is working at presint. It is at Kingston. Q. Can it bo worked for several yeai-s yet ? — A. That depends entirely on tlic amount of money that is laid out on it for repairs. Q. What is the usual life of a dredge kept in good repair ?— A. The huh? 452 voirs lleclo (J since Q were (, was 2. 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 i»' n Q. The whole of il? — A. If llic hull is built of wood, I should think aluiut ton veils would 1)0 the life of the hull. Wo had to take the front out of tho "Sir llecior " in tivo or nix years and put a new front in her. Q. Were not those repairw charf^od in the ex|»ensos? — A. Xol the last. It was sineo we bought Mr. Murphy and Mr. Mctxreovy out. Q. During the tive years the firm was running "Sir Hector" and '" St. Joseph " wore not tho repairs charged to expenses? — A. I think they wore. Q. You stated rather hastil}- the other day that the average work of a dredge was 2,2(10 yanls a day? — A. No ; I did not. Q. That was not the average ? — A. \o. Q. You sa}' on a special day it can be done? — A. 1 think that was tho most tiiey ever did in one day, I said that was the most. l^. And that da}', was it a day of iwenty-four hours or did you not work night and da^'? — A. That is for twelve hours. Q. For a day of twelve hours? — A. It was twelve hours or eleven hours — whatever we were working then. Q. Where was the work then going on ? — A. In the inner basin. (^. Where were you dumping? — A. 1 do not remember whether wo were dumping all in the river. We wore certainly dumping a portion of it in the river. i}. You say also that j'ou overheard a discussion betwe»Mi Kobort McGreevy and ynur brother Michael, wherein Kobort Met rroevy complained that certain disclosures Mirhael had made to ins brother Thomas. When was that? — A. It was just the .•>prii;g we bought Mr. McGreevy and Murphy out , Q Was it before or after they were paid out ? — A. It was before. Long belbre? — A. No; I think it would bo aliout a month, probably. At any rate a few weeks? — A. A few weeks before. You understood from that discussion that Robert McGreevy did not like his being made aware of his interest in your tirm? — A. That is what I under- hioilior >io()d. Q- Until then, y(m state, you firmly believe that Mr. Thomas Mctireevy was imt aware that his brother bad an interest with you? — A. No. From what R'tbeit McGrcevj- said at that time, I would consider he did not. Q. No; not from what Robert McGreevy said, but what you know yourself, lluvo you any reasons for i)elieving that Thomas >IcGreevy did not know that liiboi'l had any interest in j'our firm? — A. I have no reason to believe, except from what I have just stated ; that I heard a conversation and that Robert Mctiroovy said Ml ilio time ho was sorry Michael had talked in that way and that be ought not to It'll tlio truth at all times. It was something like that. l^. lie was telling your brother to tell the truth ? — A. No ; that the truth was Mill to bo told at all times. (}. Would not tho discussion be about tho |)roportion of JJobort Mctircevy's iiiiorost in the firm, and not about the general fact that ho was interested in the tiiiu? — A. I think it was tho fiu^t of his being interested in tho firm ; that is, from Mi . Mctrreevy's conversation. CJ. And you wore not surprised at this ilisch)sure that Mr. Thomas McGreevj- Mils unaware of his brother's interest in the tirm? — A. I do not know anything siImiui it. t^. Had you not been always undoi- tho inipnv-iNion that ho was aware llobort li;id an interest in the firm? — A. No. I knew that l{oi)orl McJiroovj- was atiaid that hi- lirother would find out ho was a inomlter of tho firm. (^. There is a letter written by Thomas MctJreovy to bis brollior which i> liiiiitcd at page 10 of the Kvidenco, in which ho says, "the tenders for ('ross- wiiil only arriveil here yesterday ami are locked up until Monday, when bo will inminonce his calculations? I will write j-ou Tuesday and lot j'ou know the result. Larkin was here yesterday. I told him that it would bo useless to get I'elers out <>l tiic way as it wouM bo tantamount to giving the contract to the highest tender; tliat vou would have to stick to Beaucago's tender as it was fair." How do you II, ': \i 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 ;Ji reconcile fliat letter of Thomas McCrrcev}''s witli the fact hv was unaware liis lirotlivr had an inteiest in tiicso contracts ? — A. I suppose the onl}- way to reconcile that is that Robert Mctiroevy wrote to his brother while ho was in Otiawn, to get information for the tirm of Larkin. Connolly & Co. Q. IJut then he would have said, " thei/ would have to stick to Beaiicago's teniler " and not '• You would have to stick to Heaucago's temler." Robert was only asking him for information for the tirm, of which he was sujjjioscd not to bo a inembtT. — A. I do not know bow he may have written to bim. Q. At the time the notes for 820.000, in connection witli the Cross-wail wi lo signed and given to Robert McGrecvy. is it not a fact that the tirm, and es)M"ciallyyoii, required from Robert McGrcevy a note for 87,500. as representing hi> .Id |)erct'nl. interest in that amount as a guarantee Ibr his share? — A. I do not renH-mlicr any- thing of the kind. Q. Do you remember a note for 87,500, that was made and signed by Roljoit II. McGreevy, if not on the same day on the same occasion, ami kept in the safe of ibo tirm? — A. I know that I had a note of Roln-rt H. .Mcflreevy's but I do not remember the exact amount. It was an accommodation note; nothing of that which you have stated. Q, Was tboro not a note for 87,500 kept in the tirms safe and not used ? — A. Not to my knowledge. Q. Do you say you never saw a note for 87,5o0, given by Robert II. Mc. Was it not Mr. Shea? — A. I think that was about the time Martin ('(innnily came on. Q. When that loan was made in 188(5 or '87, was it in the summer or tiio win- ter? — A. I think it was in the fall; I am not positive as to that. Q. Did you use the note with your bank? — A. I could not tell you that eitlni-. Q. You cannot toll whether you kept it in the safe or vault. I want it tn In' understood, when I use the worci>Ilect the name. Q. But he was only there for a short time 'f — A. [ think so. Q. Did he act as bookdteeper? — A. I do not remember him at all. (^. You cannot remembei- him as book-kee]ier or as clerk ot works? — A. Wo had oidy three, preceiling >[artin Connolly. Shoa was one. Carroll was our first liook-keeper. By Mr. Tarte : Q. In the evidence taken i>eforetlio Sub-Committee, on "JtMli .iiitie (Appendix No. l)"page2S2. Ks(piimalt Docdv Di-. to Sundries ; total to lie 'livided. ST-.HIMI ; iessdis- iiursed. SlT.tMin." Do you know if out of that 817,000 you got a Mini of .?.">,(Mt(l re- imbursed for other disbursements ^-ou bail made out of ymir private fun i>, a- Martiii P. Connolly, in his examination before the Sub-Coininittee states'!* — A. I do not iaiow about that; 1 do not remember. (i>. You do not remember anything about tliat ? — A. I do not icmeinlier any- thing about that. \t. Do you remember having disbursed the sum of §.'».000 — I put lhe<[ue>tion again— and being reimbursed that sum out of the 81",erilK'd in the evidence taken on liOth .lime liefore tlu^ Sub-Committee (App ndi.\ .N'o. 1 ), wei'e you reimburse I the >um of •*.">. (IIMI that you had paid out o\' you;- private fund-, as recorded in Martin 1'. C^n- iiiliy's evidence and in the books of the firm ? — A. If 1 paid anything out fir the tirm I was reimbursed, I su|ipose. 1 could not tell you 1 was reimbursed at all. (^. If ^^M'tin P. Connolly has so stated would you believe him? — .\. ^'es ; 1 Would. Q. J)o you remember that a statement was prepared in l>>><7 for the information I'l' members of the drin, and that on that occasion you stated thiit you had paid to Sir Hector Langevin 8r),000, and that that amount was then (diarged at your own ii'i|iiest agiiinst the members of your tirm? — \. 1 never i)aid any sutdi money imr I iKMi' made any such reipiost. (I. You never stated before any person tha» you had paid .S10,000 to Sir Hector Langevin. or to his son, or to anybidy else for him ? — A. No. (I. You never stated that to any one? — A. No. (i>. You never ciused that c hiirge ol' 810,(100 to be entered in tiie books ot the linn against a member ot the linn? — A. 1 never ordered sucdi a «diarge to be miide. (I. Mr. Martin P. Connolly has sworn that a che([Ue for .S2,0(Mt was sent by you, riiior.-ed by you. and he has given us this tuitry in the books, wdiich is as follows : " N' K. (,'onnolly, for the amount of his private cheque for donation /v B. C. as iiu reed— 82, (too." [t appears that those 82,000 have been jiaid by y(Uir private iliei|ue. Can you toll tis what useyoumaile of those 82,000 ? — A. I don't know; the ' lieipie probably would show what Use was made of it. 456 li'i' ! ! ;■ 1 I H, 54 Victoria. Appeiulix (No. 1.) A. 1891 «" > I ;: i). But we cannot find the cheque — it is your |»iivato cheque? — A. My private ))UfK'i> will eoniain it, I >u|)jn>«o, anil when they conio ^luiphy can satisty you. if. I Would like to be satistiele to explain. Q. Hut if th..'re is nothing on the cheque? — A. It there is nothing on the cheque I could nor tell you anytliing ahoul it. (^. An alwolute hiank ytuir moniory is, is it? — A. With regard to that, yes. By Mr. Turte : (i. Have you any recollection that j-ou agreed to paj- those 82,000 to got information from «ome of the officials of the I'uhlic Works Department ? Mr. A. Febuus'in. — 1 must tell the witness he must use his discretion as t" whether the rule laid down liy the Comjnittee obliges him to answer that questini; or not. The Chaikmax. — lie must answer the question. A. I never agreeay? — A. I j)aid a great ileal more than I agreed to. Q. You say you never agreed to pay for information from any officials of tin- I'ublic Works I>cpartment. Did you ever pay for sucii information? — A. Not to ni}" knowledge : not to myself. Q. Well, who paid it? — A. Nobody to mj- knowledge unle.ss the witne-s ymi have heard heie, Mr. Murphy. Q. Did Mr. Murphy cents a yard for dredging in 1S80 ? — A. I do not remember. I think we done some dredging in the outer i>asin, the priic for which was 51' cents, but I am not sure. I know we had iia cents for dredg-ng the inner basin, and there was another contract lor tilling the Cross -wall which we did at 45 cents. It was a ilitferent contract. Q. On the 3nl of August, 1887. I find that you gave your cheque tor 81,000 in reimburse a similar cheque ot 81,000 given b}- Mr. Murpliy on the 21st July. I»" you remember if Mr. Murphy then gave you some explanation about the use of tin' money ? — A. I do not. (). You have no recolloclion ? — A. No explanation. Q. On the 8th August, 1887, you gave y(nir cheque for 84,000 to youi- own order, which is enterwi in the books as "donation. ' Can vou remember the use yi.u m:id<' of that money ? — A. I don't remember anything about it, no more than Mr. Mui]>liv ma}" have got the cheque and handed it over to me. (i. Mr. Murphy did not get a cheque of yours. Where, or liow < ouM he give ;i cheque of your own order ? — A. I may have given it to Mailin Connolly, or may have ilrawn it my.self and handed it over to Mr. Murjdiy. Q. IJut vou have n(» recollection. — A. No. 450 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 m Q. Yi)U don't know what uwoyoii nimlc of tliu money ? — A. No. (}. Then it iippem-H to u^. from tlic day lliat 3'ou took cliaitii' of the I'asli you Nii^netl checjiies for ilonations amounting in round tif^ures, I holies'e, toiioaily 850,(>0t». and you !iave no iiiea of the uso that was made of the money ? — A. I have no idea more than what Mr. Murphy told me. .Mr. Murph}' would come and want a ( liequi- o;- want a note, and I wouhl Hif^n it. Q. Kven after he was discharijed from the care of the cash, because you sayyoii had lost confidence in him. you yet retained enoujjii confidence in the man to roceeds of those cheques, and do you want us lo liclieve you didn't know at all where tlie money was to go? — A. I knew nothing more than he told me about it. Q. What did he tell you ? — A. The same as he told mo about all other moneys lie had handled. Q. And you went on giving very large sums of money up to thousands of thousands of pounds, or dollars, retaining enough confidence in the man to give him such large amounts of money ? — A. Yes; I always gave him the cheques just as he wanted them. When he wanted a cheque I always gave it to him. Q. You signed them without obtaining any intbrmation'i' — A. 1 told you I asked information, but the information was never satisfactory to me. t^. But still you kept on giving him money and wasting the money of thetirni. What did \ou mean by that ? — A. He was a member of the firm, and as a member (if the firm I gave Idm those checpies of my own. Q. I believe you understand me well . You say the man was discharged because the int'iiiber of the firm had no more confidence in him'/ — A. 1 don't thii»'v I ever .-aid that ho was discharged. I said I was always on the work, and when it wa> cmivonient for him to sign cheques ho always done so, either before or after he was lii^chargetl. Q. But you have just said he had n )t signed many cheques? — A. Xot to my kiidwlcdge; ho may have, but the cheque will show that. 0,000 yourself for donations, and Villi cannot tell us about one solitary it tiuc or not ? — A. Oidy as Murpiiy explained. Q. And when Mr. Murphy explains here you don't believe a word of what lu- siv>. aithdugh at that time you believed him all thr()ugh '.' — A. At that time ho \va> an interested party ; he had a share in the liusiness and was a j)artnei'. y .Mr. Martin I'. Connolly, your book-keeper, tliat on Hrd January ISS", there was a Union Hank eheq.ie made out to your onler for 85.00t(, to bo eharf^cd to dock. (Jan you tell nu- the pur|)ose for whieii that cheque was drawn ? — A. No. I cannot. <^. On the 4th of February, 1SS7, there were two cheques. The first was i.n the Union Bank to your order, B. C division, S5.UIK>. The other was British North America Bank checpie to your order, B. ('. division, 85,0(10. Can 5'ou tell me what those cheques were for? — A. No, I cannot. (i. On theSnl of .March there was a cheque to your order for S.jjliHO. Cunyou tell me what that was for ? — A. I cannot. Q. On the Hrd of August, 1887, there was also a chetpie to N. X. C. tor 81,000. The book-keejH'r remarket! : " The blank is there, because I did not hav.- any explanation for what the mone}- was for." Can you give an explanation ? — A. I cannot. Q. Oh the 8lh of August there is a cheque to N. K. Coimolly tor 84.000. Can you give any explanation about that ? — A. 1 cannot. .My private cheques nia}* show someihing about that. Q. 1 am asUc 1 by a member of the Committee to ask you if you could give any explanation of the letters "K.W." which appear in the evi jiaidfor? — A I do not. By Mr. German : Q. Who is ( leorgo Beaucage ? — A. He is a contractor; ho lives down near Quebec. Q. What was he doing in 18S;^ ? — A. I do not know. Q. Did you know him personally ? — .V. I had a slight aciiuaintance with liiin. t^. He was not working for you ? — A. (reorge Beaucage ? Do you mean the contractor ? Q. 1 mean Beaucage the contractor ? — A. He never worked t'oi' me. Q. You knew him ? — A. I had a sligiit ac(|uaintance. Q. Do you know when the ten«leis were being prepaied for the Cross-wall. tl:a' his tender was being made out and put in ? — A. No. Q. Hut you had prepared tiallaghers tender? — A. Not me. Q. Your brother? — A. Yes. Q. You knew it was being pre|)ared in your interest ? — A. I suppose so. Q. Why were you sending in tJallagher's lender as well as your own ? — A. Thai was. I suppose, to get the work. Q. You were ])reparcd to do the work at (rallagher's tender? — .V. I think so. Q. If no other tender interveneil between (Jallagher's tender and yours vmU could ilrop (rallagher's tender and take your own. That was the object ? — A. I think so. 458 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 ; \'^m Q. Von have to send in a certitii'd clienuo with each tontlur, according to tlio ruli'» of tlie Deimrttncnt ? — A. Yes. *i. Tliero was u certified cheque sent in witii (Jalhigher's ? — A. 1 thiniv so. Q, Whoso clu'(|iic was it? — A. I do not remeniher wiielher it was Mr. Larkin's or mine. I tiiinii it was Mr. LaiUin's. (^ Signed by himself? — A. Yes ; I tliink so. (^ Payable to the order of the Minister of Pulilic Worlds? — A. I do not reniem- licr seeing tlie cheque. Q. You knew it was the rule of the Department that if a contractor refused to accej)! the contract on his tender his chei|iie would be forfeited'/ — A. Yes; that is tlui rule. Q. Mid ynu expect this cheque to be forfeited? — A. Certainly, if the contract was not fulfilled. Q. Did 3'ou get any information that if Gallagher's tender was tlropped you would get your che(|ue back? — A. J got no information. <^. Did you hear it from any member of the firm? — A. 1 may have, but 1 do not remember. Q. Did you? You must remember it. It was talked over between j'ou? — A. It may have been talked ovei-. ' Q. Was it talked over? — A. It was talked ovcr.and it was in the papers a> well. (i. You knew that if (iallagher's temler was dropped 3'ou were liable to lose your ilej)osit. Was it not talked over that if this tender was dropped your cheque would come back to you ? Was there not a conversation between the members of the tirm that your cheque would be returned? — A. I do not remember the conversation ; but of coui'>e that would be the lesult. Q. That was the understantling? — A. Of course there must have been an under- standing that if (iallagher's tender was forfeited that the cheque would be forfeited. Q. Did you not undersl.ind between yourselves that if (iallagher's tender was linppi'd the cheque would be returned to you '.•' — A. Xo ; I had no understanding of '.hat kind. Q. Was it not talked over among you '.■' — A. I do not remember it being talked of. Q. Would you say it was not? — A. Not to my knowledge. l^. As a matter of fact, was it returned ? — A. 1 ihiidc it was. By Mr. Henry : Q. With reference to the Ksquimalt Dock and the alleged ilissatisfaction on the part of your firm with Mr. Bennett, Mr. (). K. Murphy states that he was instructed iy you and by Mr. Lurkin to otl'er to Mr. Thomas McGreevy the sum of §5,0(10. for !lie purjuK-e of getting Mr. Hv'unett removed; and Mr. Murphy states these instruc- Mon> were received by him at or near Niagara Falls, ami the matter was talked over m Muti'alo at dinner on the same ihi}', being about the time of the funeral of your wife'.' — .\. it never was talked over and there never was such a meeting. (4*. Was there such a discussion '! — A. No. (^>. hid you get any such instructions?. — A. No; nor I did not give any such iii'tiuctions. I ,say that I always fouml Mr. Bennett to be a tiiii'. boiiest, good man, ;ind a good practical engineer. But I may say this: That there was a little triction luiwi-en himself and my brother at the commencement owing to ihe fact of him not .'ivifig the estimate as large as we had earned or as large as what we thought my I'lotber had earned. I think ho was Justitied in that matter when I think of the li;u'tit'> he had to . You den}' there was any such instruction? — A.— Yes — intact I was always pli-ased with Mr. Bennett. <^>. Was there any such intention in your mind or was it discussed ? — A. It was inver discus&ed there to my knowledge or anvwhero else. 459 " m ill!!l: T 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. I.) A. 1891 S'"'!': "H h - H By Mr. Mulnrk: Q. Did I unlei'dtiirxl you to fiuy theio was no Mieii ineetiii:;? — A. Xo such iiipct- iim us hi' iiiuiitioiis, where thin was . Uutfnlu or Niagara Falls? — A. -\t neither place no such dirtcu.ssion took place. Q. Did you, Mr. Larkin, Mr. Murphy, and otherrt. meet either at Niagara Falls or Butlalo on the occasion of your wife's funeral ? — A. We met. Q. Then there was rtuch a meeting? — A. But no such meeting where sucli a discussion took place. By Mr. Edgar : Q, Did you meet Mr. Murphy at Butfalo? — A. No; Mr. Murphy went to Indiana on that occasion and came through with the funeral from Indiana, tj. lie met j'ou in Indiaiia? — A. Yes. By Mr. Miilock : Q. Are you sure he did not meet you in Buffalo? — A. He came on with the funeral to Buffalo. Q. J)id he not remain in Buffalo with you for a few hours? — A. I think wc had to rttop over a train. Q. Mr, Murph}' was there then? — A. Mr. L-irkin was not there. Q. But Mr. Murphy wai at Buffalo with you at this time? — A. He was for pro- bably an hour, more or less. By Mr. Langelier : Q, Who was in charge of the work at the British Columbia Dock in 18s') — the spring of the year ? — A. My brother. Q. Were you not there yourself ? — A. I think I was there daring ihewintei. and the early spring. ])robably. Q. But at the commencement of May, 18S5, were you there ? — A. 1 think I lelt about the Ist of May, and my brother was there alone. I am not positive about that though. I went out at first in the fall and locate<85 ? — A. That is the best of my recollection. I was there in the winter of 1884. I think to organize the work. Q. Was it not understood before you left British Columbia that Mr. Bennett would not suit? — A. No. 1 always liked Mr. Bennett. i}. Did 3'our brother not like him ? — A Just sis I tell you with regard to these fir-', few estimates. 4t50 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 , [H Q. Tliobe are not the eHtiniatt's wo are iliNfiisHirifr, Wo are talking of 18S5. ami r a^koil was that friction of which you art- bpoakini; then in e^i^te^«e helween your brother and Bennett ? — A. f rather think not. I think alout tliut time we connnencetl io liiiild, and Mr. Ilciinctt I think wan Hatistied we were p>in^ on with tlie work and likely to tinish it. (J. Therefore you foe no foundation wliatever in that statement of Thomas Metireevys tliat " Honnett the Kntjinoer ;»t British Columhia will not suit"? — A. IJobert Mcer his expressing any dissatisfaction with Bennett at the time. Q. Your Judgment is that ho was not dis.satistied with Bennett? — A. That is !iiy recollection. Q. And you were satisfied with Bennett? — A. I was satistieii with him in this way; I was satisfied that while he was holding back a larger portion of our estimate than he had a right to according lo the contract. I was ioti in, tliut your l>rothi>r gavu tliat impre-xion to Ttioinn« MHtiecvv pii'viously ? — A. Mo may Imvn j;iv«'ii it to Murphy <»r to Kt>rt Mf- Giocvy, liiit I <|o not I'cniiMiilK'r liiin liaviu^ tloiiu so. *). Hut from his convcrHalioriH you juili^t'ii ilmt \n> tliwiiv |)ri-viou-ly \va> to hiivo IJi'riiiitl cliaiiici'd, anil suli.sf(|Uontly it wan not liis ilcsiii' '.■' — A. \<>; Itliitik not. Q. Af'Ifr you canii' away wan your lirollior tairly well saliMtuti witli Ik'nnott ? A. I think HO. lit- may havo lioon coiii|)laininir ; no doulit he lii'l t-omplain to nie a gruat many times aliout Itoiuiott'H ostimalos. Tliat was tlu- only tault he haal ot any hcnelit to tho work, Q. 1h it not a fad that all thown siatomontM by youraelf art- diroctly contrary to tho record liuf'ore us. Is it not a fact that lUi the lllh Septcnjher your luothfr wrote you a U'tter in which he complaiiiecl liilleriy ot Hennett and Mr. Trulch ? — A. 1 do not recoiU'cl. Q. In the following Soptomher, — 1 have been speaking; to you aljout May. the time Mr. Thomas Mctiroevy wrote to his brother that Mennett would not suit, and that it would be noeessary to have tho Department i hange him — is it not a fact that in tho Seplomber following 188.'), a letter was written by your hrxflitT in British (^olumbia in direct contradiction to thai which you had just been say ,. It appeals at page ',\1*J, ot the printed evidence?— A. Hi' may have written «u a letter. Q. ^[ay ? Heio it is in tho printed evidence. — A. My rccollecti . was that the friction was done with at the time. H. I will read it. " Bennett tiniwhed the estimate and tk it up to the • Great .Mogul,' Trutch, and between both they cut it down pretty tine, so much >o that it won't meet our running exitenHos by 94,1100. To give you an idea of the way they are handling us, I can state that the tiist time I charged tho tiovernmetit for the use of a steam derrick I put it in at $25 per day. which Trutch. at'ter some hesitation, allowed, and this time we had some few days for steam derrick ehari;e liis tool all through? — A. That is Just what 1 said. He was keepiny; the estimateij back, and that is all the friction there was between Bennett and my brother. By Mr. Tarte : Q. Is it a fact or not that Bennett refused to approve of the plan;* preimri"! by your Engineer, Mr. Hume, about the recoursing of the Dock ? — A. I do nt>t know. 1 do not think Mr. Bennett had power to sanction plans witht>ut Mr. Truteh. I think ^fr. Trutch was the proper man. Bi/ Mr. Dai-ies : Q. I will read the remainder of that letter; •' I must tell j'ou that we are buil- ding the caisson chamber as per plans prejiared by ^Ir. Perley. in rock-faced coursed ashlar with wall at foundation, as per plan, 8' (>" thick,with buttresses 5'0".k 4' 0". Now. Messrs. Trutch and Bennett slip in and sav that plan from Ottawa is null ami void, and way 462 1 ' I 64 Victorio. Afpc'iidix (No. 1.) A. 1891 c wo will only pav y<>ii ti>r the Itrick wull, um ?>Ii'iwii mi uinippU- iiiiil .MoiiIm' plans, h I III' I)ip!ii irinht .if F'lil'iii- \V..rk»i* :r<»iii;r l"itll<'w Tiulcli iiml Moniii'll tiKliciai*- i.i it m llli^ inaiitifr wr rhi;;lit a« well aiii<>\< at uiicc, tin wc caniKit htainl ihir >iit;;;iii:; any l<>n::er.'° In tlu* tact* ot IImh letter yoii perni^t in HtatwiLr tliat iiei.in'il wax ijuinir eveivihiii;; i»;itii»t":H*lurily anliiiialcs a- 1 tell 3011; tiiat i-. all. Tliar is a lliimr whieh woiil.l .-..nu- ri:rlit lal«T. (^. Voiir lirotliei- "^ly^ that IU>nnett umi Trutcli areciiclaliiii; to llie I'liMie W.irk- liepartnieiit, an i* allowel to ;;o on, you ini^lit Just as well ntop work at oiiee. Mr. IIknkv — I'e.-Kl the rcniniivier of the letter, Mr. Davies ? — Vou will see a reference to pro^ire*-- ••stin»au~». Mr. J).\viK.s — I will •!<• XI. •' I am iloini: everythinir I '"•» '•• push the work iilorii,', hut it Heeui.s those fellow« ,ii'e ileterniiuecl to ohstrue! 11?. nii\" IIS justice. We have alxiiii fully rilty thoiisaiul dollars invested luTe, lic'-.ides the \aiuc of the plan' we hroii;;lil I'roni t^iieU'c, so that I feel it time the work here wa- self-siisiainiiij;. I wi>h a:» r^—n as thi- letter comes to you you W(Uild i;o to Ottawa and see Sir Hector and explain the mailer to him. who, I lielieve, when the situation is o.xplained to him. will apply the rtn-e-sjir^- remedy. I have very little new to add at pri'seiit. Of course. I will urairin;; to Ik- workiii.^ hard ilav iind night and then cniiie out liehind tour or tive thousand dollars at the end of the month. This i> what discoiiriii^eM me." (^. Is it a tact <.r not. Sir. that on the itii ol May. the very day on which .Mr. ThoinaH Mc'ireevy went to »ee IVrley to try and iret another eniiineer sent and Keiiiiett dismissed, an order was sent or ^iven from the Department here tor the recoursing of the Do( k ? — A. I don't know that. (j. Is it a fact or not that Mr. Ik-nnett oiiiecteil all through to the reduction on ilie plant, and that he mad«' re|M»rtji to that etlect? — .\. The jilant we purchased".' q. Yes?— A. I think he did. >.}. In it a tact or not that Mr. liennetl olijccted to your being paid for the niasuiiiy all over, and that he wanteur? — A. I think it was in 188:1 By Mr. Fitzpatrick : Q. What was the year your wife die>».*>. .Mit. KnoAK. — I Would like to ask if any news has been received about TJiotnas Metirecvy or his hooks. Mr. .STt;.\RT. — In answer to a tolegnim 1 pent yesterday after the Committee had adjourneil. eiiijuiriiig of Mr. Me(ireevy if ho were able to find his l>ooks. I received the following telegram: "(^UEHEC, l.")th July, l«!tl. " Hankrt writing up pa.-s lk.». hunting uj) other documents, will forwant when complete, cannot leave my room for some days yet. "THOMAS McGRKKVV.' The Ciiairm.\n. — I>id he senJ you a certiticate from the doctor ? Mr. Stuart. — No. sir; I tli»l not ask for it. 403 111 II ' ' I- !! ;i' 64 Victoila. Appendix {No. 1.) A. 1891 I ji' M' <■ 't! 6111 for Mr. A, H. Verret sworn. By the Chairman : Q. Your name, ^Ir. Verrot ? — A. Hector Verret. Q. Of the cityof (iuel.ec ?— A. Yes. Q. .Secictary of the Iliirliour Commission ? — A. No; Auditor for the Province of Quebec. By Mr. Geoffrion : Q. Have you been in the employ of the Harbour Commissioners ? — A. Yes, Sir; i;{ years less 2 months. Q. In what capac-ily ? — A. As Secretu'y -Treasurer. Q. As such were you custodian of the papers ? — A. Yes, Sir, of the papers. Q. And the casli also ? — I was Treasurer, and tliereforo custodian of thecasli. ? Q. Are you acquainted with the members of tlie firm of Lnrkin, Connolly iS: Co. — A. I am, sir. Q. i>o you know whether Mr. O. E. Murphy was a member of the firm ? — A. — Yes. sir. Q. Whilst you were there ? — A. Yes, Sir. i.\. You are also aware that this firm was under contract tor certain works in the Quebec Harbour ? — A Yes ; the Cross-wall, Graving Dock and dred-fiiii; ; but the South-wall was .given to (tallagher i.; Miirpiiy, although the work appeared to bo done by Larkin, Connolly i\: Co., as far as I could see myself. (i. The South-wall was given to Gallagher i*l- Murphy? — A. Yes, Sir. Q. Though the work appeared to have been exocutoil by the tiim of Larkin, Connolly «fc Co. ? — A. Well, it looked like it. I saw the plans, and the same men there working. It was just opi)osite mjj window, so I could see them at work. Q, In connection with the South-wall contract, do you remember whether the contractors were required to deposit a certain security with the (Jommis^ion ? — A. Yes; the amount was 82r),000. Q. Do you remember what was the nature of that security? — A. It was a ccr- titicate of deposit on the Union Bunk. (I. Issued by the Union Bank? — A. Y'es, Sir. (\. Dill yt»u retain this certificate of deposit during the whole time of the con- tract ? — A. I did not, sir. Q. Can you by memory say when it was deposited with you ? — A. The dato the contract was signed; I tiiink it was in ISSfi. (i. Can }-ou remember when the works were finishoil ? — A. The work, I think, a little after I had left tiio Harbour Commission — that was in ISMO ; I resigned in February, 1890. I think the South-wall was not entirely completed at the time. Ii was completed next season — but I am not sure of that; but it was all compleicl before 1 left. Q. Are yo\i satisfied that before you left it was altogether completed? — A. 1 believe it was not altogether completed ; I am satisfied of that. (^. Vou stated that you did not keep that deposit receiptduring the whole time of that contract? — A. I did not, sir. Q. Will you explain to the Committee what change took place in the security ? — A. Yes; some time after the contract had been awarded and the works were in progress — I may say, probably one .year, or nine ov ten months after the work had commenced — Mr. Murphy called on me and asked me to surrender that dei)osit. that they were wanting the money, and that he would give me in return a ciiequc o\' the firm not accepted. I told him that 1 could not do so under any consideniiion. I advised him to apph' to the Board. He said ; " I cannot do that." So he re|ieatedly asked me, and he called .»n me to do him tliat favour — it was considered a favour- so I said :" I cannot do that; but in order that I may not bean obstruciiouist in your '>«-:.y of securing tliat amount, I will do that if you will bring mo a lOtter <>r a recommendation from the Hon. Mr. McGreevy, who is the President of the Finance Committee, and also the lending member." I cnsidered him a leading member 464 Mi '- *^ 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 of the Commission. I said besides this: " The Chairman must be a party to the transaction — he must know it ; he must be aware of it." By Mr. Edgar : Q. Who was the Chairman ? — A. Mr. Valin. Well, he said : ''J will bring yoti a letter from the Honourable Mr. Mcdreevy," and he came back — I don't know whethei- it was one day or two days afterwards or this same day — with a letter from Mr. McGreevy addressed to me, and I opened the letter fron. Mr. McGreevy, stating lie had no objection to the surrender. It read : " I see no objection to the surrender.' ' So I said I am satisfied, and immediately drafted a letter, by which Mr. Murphy recognized he hail received that deposit, and that it had been replaced by a cheque, and when 'Sir. .Murphy had signed that document 1 gave him that receipt and took the ciieque to put into the cash box. I went down to the vault and gave it to the cashier, Mr. Woods. Mr. Wotxis used to keep the cash, an 1 I would not keep it in my otRce, foi- we had too many visitoi's there. I j,< vor heard any more of it until thirteen months after I had left the Commission, when I was auditor of the Province of Quebec, and the ex-Chairman, Mr. Valin, called on me and he tohl me. Ho said: " Do you remember that letter that was given to yf)U by Mr. McGreevy about that transaction ho referred to ?" Well, he said : " That letter does not mean at all what you told me ; the word ' No ' is no more on that letter." I had left the Commission, but 1 told Mr. Valin : " I am very much surprised — I am astonished, but, however, you will tell the Commissioners I am ready to call on them U) be present at any time ; they have only to telephone me, and I will call on them at any of their meetings and explain the whole matter." Since this investigation has taken place the Commission has never called on me to exj)lain that matter, and since the investigation has taken place the 'etter was ohown to me, and I read in it : "'I see dlijection." I am positive the letter given to me by Mr. Murphy, written by Mr. McGreevy and signed by him, contained the word "No," but I have not been the i,niardian of the letter, and I have left the Commission now lifleeu months, so 1 am not alilo to vouch about it — if there has been a substitution. Q. If I understood you right, you saiu you put the letter and the cheque together ill the same envelope? — A. Yes ; and in.modiately I made a note of the whole trans- action. 1 went in my office and nade a note of the whole transaction ami jiut it in my box, and when I left the Commission, that is three years after, I forgot to take the document with me, and I asked Mr. Valin to try and find that document. It has not been found ; but the who' ) explanation I put in my books in order to refresh my memory in case the Commissioners would ask me to account for that substitution. Q. You have a memorandum ? — A. Yes ; quite sure of it. Q. V/as it put in your box ? — A. In my private box as secretaiy, ami I left the box with the keys to uiy successor, (i. Will j'ou examine this letter, Exhibit " L," and say whether you recognize tlu> letter as being tiie one that was put in the box by you with the cheque ? — A. I C'Miiii',)t say, I see it was written by the same hand, signeil by the same man, ami that the word "no" is no more in the letter, as it was in the letter that was given Ut nic. Q. Is it the same kind of ])a|)cr ? — A. I cannot say. Q. Read the whole of it ?— A. ••(Private.) "QrEiiEc, 2tth October, 1SS8. •' Dear Mil Verret, — I see objection to your taking Mr. O. \1. Murphy's cheque vmlofsod by X. Connolly for one you now hold on deposit, "Yours truly, "THOMAS McGllLEVY." ^Ir, KiTZP.\TUicK. — Keatl that last line again. Witness reads the lust line as follows : — " For the one you now hold on deposit." Mr. FiTZPATRicK. — You did not read the word " the " the first lime. You may have jjassed over " no " in the same way. ' 465 1—30 1-. I ' * I i, I ; ' 1 ; ' 1 i i i iH ! iU 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Did you under thcso cireumstancos ijeuenilly act with the consent of Mr. Valin? — A. I Avould not do anj-thinii; without Mr. Valin's consent. Q. liosido the letter ti-oni Mr. McGreevy, in his capacity as Chairman of the- Finance Committee, you felt that the assurance of tiie Chairman of the Committto would he ample ? — A. Certainly, it was my instructions to do nothing? without ilic Chairman's consent. Tiie Chairman used to como every day into my office, and I would give him information as lo any of the transactions that might be done of any imjjortance. Q. Did you show the letter which Mr. McGreevy had sent you at that time to Mr. Yaiin ? — A. T have no doubt \ did show it. He may have come the next day or the day after. Mr. Valin, when he was in town, came every day, and tiiere is no doubt [ showed him the letter immediately after J saw him. He may iiave been there the same day. Bi/ J/r. Tarte : Q. Messrs. Kinipple & Morris prepared plans for the Cross-wall? — A. Yes. (}. J)o you remember the settlement which took place when the services of Messrs. Kinipple & Morris were dispense pared for the Crcjss-wall a " ' ' ' have been paid. which they prepared for the Crcjss-wall and which were not used ? — A. Yes ; they Q. In the settlement itself, which was, I suppose, a written agreemotit, that pay- ment could be ascertained? — A. I believe so. Q. Then, sir, these plans, you think, have been paid for, although they have not been used? — A. Yes. Q. You cannot remember the amount that was paid for those plans? — A. f tlo not remember. It is marked in the agreement: "Specii'od there." Q. Do you remember the tenders that were called fc the Cross-wall ? — A. I do. Q. Do you remember if they liad been opened in Quebec by the Harbour Com- missioners? — A. They were opened in Quebec. Q. Can you tell us if Mr. Perley was down in Quebec on the very day they wore opened? — A. I am not able from m}' memory to tell you; but you could ascertain that by the Minutes in the books j'ou have here in your possession. There is no doubt if he was there it is indicated in the minutes. Q. Had you any knowledge that differences of opinion existed often between Messrs. Larkin, Connolly & Co. and ^Eessrs. Kinipple & Morris? — A. I know tl'.cy used to complain of the plans and say: "We are not able to work on those plans." That was especially for the Graving l)ock. They never worked under Kinipple iV Mori'is at (Juebec. Q. Did it ever como to your knowledge that Larkin, Connolly & Co. tried to procure the dismissal of Kinipple & Morris? — A. It appeared to me so; but I have no proof of that fact. Q. What do you know from your knowledge? — A. From my knowJedge tiny Used to complain of Kinipple & Morris continually. Q. From your knowledge of the business of the Harbour Commissioners an! from the intercourse you hany in Quebec ; I sa}' amongst the Commissioners. Q. Will you state to the Committee whether to your knowledge this influenced (he Comniissioners when Mr. ^[cGreevy used the name ot the Minister of Public M'orks ? — A. I believe it did. Q. Have 3-ou any reasons to give the Committee why you have that belief? — A. Hcause on many occasions he was requested to see the .Minister himself and was coming to Ottawa, and was asked " If ho would be kind enough to see the Minister anil when you return be kind enough to bring us the answer" when there was some important business to transact. Bij Mr. Tarte ; Q. Have you got any recollection of any difficulty or ditference of opinion that tnok place between Mr. Boyd and Larkin, Connolly &Co. about a reduction on Jivdgiiig for materials thrown into the St. Lawrence? — A. Yes; [ heard of it, but my recollection is that it was repaid to them. That is all I know about it. it may Hot lie true. Q. You have no personal recollection or knowledge? — A. I have no personal knowledge. Bu Mr. Osier: Q. You were custodian of the plans. Mr. Vorret? — A. No, Sir. The plans goncraily were sent to the Engineer's office, alter they were signed. Q. Who had the contract plan of the Cross-wall ? — A. Thecontract plans of the Cros«-\vall were signed by the contractors, the chairman, myself and the notary, 4«7 1-30^ ! ;' k« iliil i; 'i' If. If 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 and afterwards sent back to me and I used to send tho plans to the Engineer's office. They were left there. Q. Speakinii; particularly as to the Cross-wall, were there signed plans signed by tho officials ot'tho Harbour Commissioners and by the contractors? — A. Are you referring to tho Kinipplo and Morris plans ? Q. The plans ou which the work* was executed ? — A. Certainly. il. They were signed plans ? — A. They were signed plans. Q. And those signed plans were handed over to the Engineer's office ? — A. Yes. Q. Who would be tho custodian of them? — A. It was generally the Resident Engineer. For a long time Mr. Boyd and then, when he died, Mr. Boswell. Q. It would then be in Mr. Boswell's custody that the signed plan would be ? — A. No doubt. Q. They were out of your Department after tho contract was made? — A. Ye.<, Sir. Q. Did yon have a personal knowledge that the plans on which the work was exe- cuted wore signed ? — A . They were signed . Q. And produced betbro tho notary when tho contract was made ? — A. Yes, Sir, and signed by tho notary himself. Q. Then, there was a change. Was an entirely new plan prepared by Mr. Perley or Mr. Boyd for tho Cross-wall, or did they alter or vary the Kinipple and Morris plans? — A. No, Sir, it was a new plan. Q. When you discharged Messrs. Kinipplo and Morris from being the Cliii't' Engineers, did you retain them as Consulling Engineers? — A. Yes, Sir, for three 3'ears. It may have been only two, but I am not sure. I think it is three. Q. Terminating when? — A. I think in 1881) I believe so. C^. Did you have occasion to consult them, or wore not their functions oxerciscii at all ? — A. They were not consulted. Q. And you paid them $1,000 as a retaining fee, which was dropped after that had gone on tor two or three years? — A. Y^s. Q. Having no occasion to consult them ? — A. No occasion to consult them. Q. Theio had been a good deal of difficulty before thoy wore discharged as t) the work executed, or attempted to be executed, under their plans? — A. There was. Q. And thoir plans had been the occasion of great trouble to the commissioners? —A. Yes. Q. In regard to that, was there reasonable ground for changing the Chief Engineer? — A. I am not prepared to give my opinion on that' subject. There may have been ground or not. Q. You do not desire to express an opinion as to that? — A. I do not desire to express my opinion on that. Q. I will not piess you further. Now, with regard to the tenders for the Cro-s- wall, were the tenders you spoke of as having boon opened, openeil in Quebec? — A. Yes, Sir. Q. What was done with them after they wore opened ? Do you remenibei' — does the correspondence in your office show? — A. Everything is in the minute books, Generally they were sent to the Chief Engineer to report, but you will see by the minute book what was done, as everything is there. il. Was there sufficient information on the opening of the tenders to ascertain from them which was probably highest or tho lowest? Did you get a general iiha? — A. We used to read the tenders. It was a printed form and tilled up by the ten- derers. I used to i-ead only that part and everything was then referred to tiie Engineer. Q. But was there sufficient knowledge in tho tenders, sufficient figuring I nKiiii, to show who was the highest or the lowest ? — A . There was. Q. Thoi'O was a general idea as to how the tenders stood?— -A. Oh, yes; llieiv was a lump sum at tho bottom. (I. There was a general idea, as you have stated, at the time the tenders were opened in Quebec ? — A. Yes. 468 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. You spoke of Mr. McGreovj' ais being a loading member of the Commission. Do you know of anything connected with his association with Sir Hector, boj'ond the mere reference of matters to him as the most convenient member of the Board to get information ? — A. Xo, sir; nothing, Q. Nothing more? — A, Nothing more. (}. He would be going to Ottawa and the other menibors of the Board not, and it would bo referred to him to get any particular information from Sir Hector? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Nothing more than that? — A. Nothing more than that, that I know, Bi/ Mr. Langelier : ii. The chairman of the Harbour Commission was also in the habit of coming to Ottawa ? — A. He was a member of I'arliament for at least six years. Q. Until 1887 ?— A, Yes. Q. He had therefore as much business to come to Ottawa as !^^r. McGroevy ? To your knowledge, Mr. McGreovyhad no other business calling him to Ottawa than his duties as member of Parliament ? — A. That is what I believe, sir, Bi/ Mr, Fitzpairicli : Q. When were you first appointed Secretary-Treasurer of the Board of Harbour Commissioners of Quebec ? — A. In 1877. Q. And you remained in that capacity until 1800? — A. Yes; February, ISOO. Q, You were then appointed Auditor of the Provincial (Jovernmont at Quebec ? — A, Yes, Sir, Q. And you now occupy that position ? — A. Yes, Sir. Q. Do j'ou remember when the contract for the South-wall was let ? — A. I do not remember that, Q. You remember the date ? — A. No ; \ do not remember that. Q. It was on the 18th January, 1887, was it not? — A. I do not remember. Q. The minutes will show that? — A. The minutes will show that. Q. Do you remember if any work had been done under the contract of October, 18S7, hy Gallagher? — A. I think there was some work done, but I do not believe tiiero was much. Q. Do you think there was any plant of any sort there on the ground for tlio jiurposes of the work? — A. I am not sure, sir. I think there was, butl am not sure. Q. Was there much? — A. I cannot say ; I was not in the habit of examining or inspecting the works. It is not my business. Q. The question of the amount of work done and ihe material on the work wouKl not bo considereil an element in your calculation as to whether or not the security should be returned ? — A. Sometimes it might. It was always a considera- tion that if more work had been done and more drawback held back that you had a bettor security. Q. Do you remember that the last time you were here having a conversation with Mr. Stuart in reference to the amount of the woi'k done and the plant on the uround ? — A, I believe so, Q. Do you remember stating to him that there was a large amount of work ? — A. Yes; but I was alluding to the other works. At that time the y you ; I call for the protection of the Committee. Mr. Laverone. — Don't insult the witness. 470 54 niitte upon word is no tor, 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Mr. FiTZPATRicK. — 1 was not insulting the witneais. Hon. Ml'. TuiM'ER. — He has a |)erto(t rii^ht to ask the question. Mr. FiTZPATRicK. — I am quite willing to take hack the expression, if the Com- mittee think it ought to be done. I ask ^-ou. Mr. Witness, to say whether or not upon an examination of this document you can state to the Committee tliat the word " no " was ever there or not ? — .\. I am not able to state that. You see this is a letter of 1887, and it was put in a box, and I never saw it again until when 1 was first called us a witness, and 1 was surprised and astonished when that letter was handed to me by Mr. Woods. I said :" This is a mystery to mc; the word "no" is gone, or it has been effaced.'" (^. Does the a]ipearance of the document indicate to you wiiether or not the word " no " has over been effaced bj' any means whatever ? — A . As it appears, there is no indication whatever that the word " no'' has been eti'aced that one couM vouch lor. If you want to know that, I am ready to state it. Q. in so far as this document is concerned, it does not appear to you that the word '• no" was ever in it. Is that what you say? — A. You ask mo if it has been ollaced ? Q. Was it evei- in it, as far as the appearance of the document is concerned ? — .V. No; there is a space there where the word '• no " could be placetl small enough if j-ou crowded it in. The word " no " could be put in if it was crowded in. Q. Well, if it was effaced, how did it di.sappear? — A. I don't know, sir; I am unable to answer that myself. *i. \'ou handed this document, I think you said, to Mr. Woods? — A. With all the documents which were in the envelope. Q. At all events, you handed the cheque and the documcnl you received from Mr. Murph}' purporting to come from Mr. McGreevy, and that document remained in the custody of Mr. Woods from that time up to the time he produced it here ? — A. I never saw it since. Q. So, if thete was anv substitution of documents ii must have been when it was ill tiie custody of Mr. Woods ? — A. 1 think so. By Mr. Davies: Q. Do I understantl you to say you examined the document at the time you Ininded it to Mr. Woods? — A. No; before. When I received it I was in my own private office; Mr. Woods had another office, and when I I'eceived the document I read it and I prepared the receijit which Mr. .Murphy signed and gave me the other ciieque. 1 wont down to the office of Mr. Woods, opened the cash box and took the deposit receipt out. All the documents were enclosed in an envelope with the deposit receipt. Q. The three documents, Kxhibits -'H" "J " and "K," were all handed to Mr. Woods, with the exception of Exhibit "L"? — A. Yes. (^. Y^ou read that document. Exhibit " L," carefully, of course, when 3-ou got it frmn 3Ir. ^lurphy? — A. Yes; Idid. Q. And when it was put in your hands before the Committee a moment ago you road it carefully also? — A. I did. Q. And when you read that document you read it with as much care as when it was given to you by Mr. Murphy? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Let the stenographer read the document as he lead it before this Com- mitiee? The stenographer than read from his notes — as transcribed on page 405 of tiie Evidence — the letter as read by the witness and the remarks of Mr. Fitzpatrick at the time. <^. When you read this document you passed over the word "the "did you not ? — A. I am not prepared to sa\- I did, but according to that I did. Q. But you believe you did not ? — A. I believe 1 did not. Q. And you are just about as certain you did not pass the word "the" as you Were the word " no." It is just about the same is it not? — A. Yes, about the same. 471 1 Wli fill n !l! : ■* ' f 1 1 :1 «i 1 ' 1 i.„i i 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Xow, when that documetit was handed to you by Mr. Murphy, Mr. Murphy told 3'ou this, that Mr. McGreevy saw no objections to the document being handed over — to the security being changed? — A. Ho did not say it then, it was before. He came repeatedly to me and tu>ked me. He said : Mr. McGreevy was perfectly satinfied I should make the change and I said I wont accept anything but a written document from Mr. McCrreevy. Q. That was your impression that Murphy had led you to believe, previous to seeing this document, that Mr. McGreevy had no objection whatever to the c hange being made ? — A. Yes. Q. Therefore, when you got this document from Murphy, your impression then was it would bear out what Murphy had already said that there was no objection to the change ? — X. There was no objection to recommending a substitution or some- thing to tlujt cttect. Q. You said a moment ago that the plans for Uross-wali wore made by Kinipple & Morris? — A. Yes. sir. Q. Did you say they were changed? — A. They were abandonc — the plans made by the Harbour Commissioners and some others I think. Do you know whether these were the plans that were made for the new contract ? A. I I'o- lieveso, sir. If they are signed by the chairman and the contractors they are the plan-. Q. They are not signed by the Department? A. It may have been changeil afterwards. Q. Do you know whether there were plans annexed to that particular contract or not ? A. No doubt they were not. Q. There are some drawings here between Larkin, Connolly & Co. and the Har- bour Commissioners. There arc copies of some of them here in which there are tracings annexed. Xow ihe copy of the contract which wo have here which came up from (Quebec has no tracings annexed to it. Do you know whether the original had it or not? A. I believe the original must have had the plans; the tracing may bave been only for the information of the Harbour Commissioners. 1 don't remeiii- ber these things. Q. The original contract is with Charlebois the notary? A. Yes; for tlio Cross-wall. Q. Do you know of any other plans besides those sent up here that were mailo by the Public Works Department? A. No, sir, I do not. By Mr. German : Q. There is something to my mind a little mysterious on this Blue Book. Here IS the form of tender which was prepared for the contractors : 472 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Ist. A Quay-wall for the Wet dock, about 880 feet in length. 2nd. A Quuy-wall tor the tidal harbour, about 8.50 feet in length. 3rd. A facing to the present wharves, about 500 feet in length. An entrance to the Wet-dock of the dimensions shown on the plans, two coft'er dams and other works. I want to know if the Quay-wall for the tidal harbour, and the facing for the present wharves come into the Cross-wall contract ? — A. Yes. Q. What is the South-wall, please ? — A. It is for a sewer. By the Chairman : Q. When Mr. Murphy loft to go to Mr. McGreevy to get his consent to the f;ub*litution of security did you expect to see a letter from Mr. McGrecv}- with the words '' there would be objection ? " — A. Not at all. I said "get, a written document 01' a recommendation from Mr. McCxreevy." ii. That is not my question. When .Mr. Murphy loft to go to Mr. MclJreevy did you expect to receive a letter from Mr. McGreevy stating there would be no objection ? — A. He told me that he would bring a letter, and I expected that be would. Q. That is what you expected ? — A. Yes. Q. When Mr. Murph}- came back from Mr. ^LcGrecvy were j'ou under thesame expectation ? — A. Yes, because he told me : This is not tne document at all. Q. What would be the object for changing the letter and t iking out the word 'no." You say yourself you could see no objection to the substitution ? — A. 1 do not know. Q. Mr. Langelier has asked you whether Mr. Valin, Chairman of the IJoun' was not a member of Parliament. You said " Yes. " Was he, in 1887 ? — A. No. Q. But he was before ? — A. Before. Q. Is it known that Mr. Valin was a practical man in relation to public works? — A. Yes. Q. Was he a contractor? — A. Yes. By Mr. Avxyot : Q. Did you read that letter hastily, or read and re-read it so as to bo perfectly certain of its contents ? — A. Perfectly certain that the word "no " was on the letter liar.ded to me. By Mr. Mills (Bothicell) : Q. Did you ever have a conversation with Thomas McGreevy on the subject of this letter? — A. It is possible, but I cannot remember it. Mr. McGreevy came very ut'ten to m}' oflBce, and it is possible. By Mr, Curran : Q. Do I understand you to say that at the time this substitution of securities was niiulo that there was ample money in the hands of the Commission to warrant tiiiMu in making this substitution ? — A. Quito satisfieil. Q. There was no earthly oliject in any subterfuge. Did you know of any 'ibject? — A. Because it was irregular to ilo the thing without the consent of tiio llurliour Commissioners. Q. Would there be any object in Mr. McGreevy using subterfuge in writing a letter of that kind ? — A. I do not know. Q. In view of the fact that you held ample security ? — A. It was irregular to surrender the security and 1 was wanting a voucher. By the Chairman : Q. Was it irregular for Mr. McGreevy to surrender that securitj- ? — A. I believe it was, and if I had been in his place I would not have done so. 473 ;■■ I I 64 Victoiln. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 « t Bij Sir John Thompson : Q. You, howov«r, rofcrred Mr. Murphy to him to get this done? — A. I told Mr. Murphy, " I will do it if Mr. Mctrreevv will. I do not like to be an obstruction. You say the firm wants it for your own works and if Mr. McGrecvy recommends it I will do it." Q. Was the substitution of the cheque made known to the Boanl or discus.seJ by the Board ? — A. Never. Q. Did you ever mention it to any other member of the Board? — A. Never. il. Are you aware whether any other member rif the Board knew it ? — A. No. Q. Wlicnj'ou stated to Mr. Murphy to apply to the Boani for the substitution of securities, what was the objection of .Mr. Murphy ? — A. He did not like to do it. Q. Did ho state an}' reason ? — \. I do not think he did. I believe he maj' have told me that there would be objection and ho did not like to do it. Q. You stated that when the tender.-? for the Cross-wall were received and opened by the Harbour Commissionners — I do not know by whom — you said you had an idea of the relative positions of those tenders ? — A. On account of the additions. Q. Who made the additions ? — A. Each tenderer. (^. How could they make the addition ? It wa.-? inly a schedule tender ? — A. They could make additions. Q. There was no quantities in the tenders. There were only prices per cubic yard ? — A. The tenders are here and they can speak by themselves. Q. You said that you had means of knowinij the relative positions of these tenders, that they were opened by the ILarbour Commissioneis before the}- were sent in to the Chief Engineer. Who was the Chief Engineer then ? — A. At the time it was Mr. Perle^'. Q. But it was before they were sent in to the Department of Public \Vorks ? — A. ^[r. Perley was Chief Engineer of the Harbour Commissioners at that time too. Q. Can you state if you have had any information while li.e tenders were in Quebec and before they were sent to the Department of Public Works of the relative positions of the tenderers? — A. I had none myself. Q. Then how did you come to state that to the Committee? — A. The Commis- sioners could have done so. The tenders were l)efore them for hours. Q. You do not remember what kind of information you had to warrant you in stating what 3'ou have stated ? — A. I do not rememljer if there was a lump sum. Some of them were lump sums, and there were additions. It would be necessary, there were so many contracts, to examine which were lump sums. Q. That statement you made is not quite correct? — A. I think I am correct. It may be that there was no lump sum for that contract, and that it was schedule prices. By Mr. Geoff rion : Q. You say there was a drawback for a large amount to the credit of Larkin, Connolly & Co. at the time of this surrender ? — A. Yes. (I. Who were the contractors for the South-wall? — A. Grtdlagher \- Murphy. Q. This guarantee of $25,000 was the property of Gallagher i*t JIurphy ? — A. Y'es. Q. And the drawback for other works was the property of Larkin, Connolly i^ Co. — A. They were all the same firm doing the work. The security was Mr. Connolly's security. Q. The cheque that was substituted was the cheque of O. E. Murphy endorsed by Nicholas Connolly, not the firm's name? — A. Not the firm's name. Q. Was it customary to make such surrender before the work was finished '! — A. No, sir. Q. Was that the only time ? — A. I think it had been done once, and that the drawback had been reimbursed. Q. In this case the drawback did not belong to the same contractors ? — A. That is true. 474 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. In readinfr the letter which was put in your hamls. the stonoirraphic- notes show you did not pronounce the word "the." In readini; it did you see the word? — A. I am sure of that. By Mr. Curran : (J. You JuMt said a moment ago, in the examination in chief, that altlioui;h the worii was being done by Gallagher & Murphy you had no douiit the Kinio tirm of I^irkin, Connolly iV Co. were doing the work ? — A. I am sure of that. Btj Mr. Osier : Q. Look at these six sheets, evidently of the same series, and one <»f aditVcient -eries, and say if you recognize these plans at all. I may say these are the jtlans •ient up to us as the plans of the Cross-wall. They are ni>t signed, and there is nothing to show by whom they were preparetence, and the real plans are signed by me and the chairman and the contractors. They may have been surrendered to the contractors, and they may l>e working plans. They generally gave them working plans, but I cannot remember. Mr. XicHoLAs K. Connolly recalled. By Mr. Edgar : Q. Mr. Verret thinks the contractors had the plan for the Cross-wall ; had they? — A. They had plans during the construction of the work. Q. Had they any given to them at the time of the (.ontract ? — A. Immediately after the contract being signed. Q. They got them immediately after the contract was signed. \Vere they tracings? — A. They were tracings; we had working drawings given to us from time to time. Q. AVhom dill you get them from ? — A. Mr. Boyd, 1 think, and Mr. Boswell. Q. At the time of tendering for the Cross-wall, had you any plans to refer to or have you seen anj' plans? — A. Yes; I think these were the ])lans, although there were no plans signed for the Cross-wall. That is my recollection. Q. You think these were the plans you saw when you were tendering? — A. Tiiat is my recollection of it ; Mr. Boswell could say. Q. Where are the plans you had from time to time ? — A. I think they are in the box returneo as not to bother Mr. Boswell. That is working plans. (^ You are sure you haven't any of them? — A. I do not think we have any of them. Q. AVhen did you return them ? — A. As the work wns being tinished. (}. As each portion was being tinished ? — A. That is my recollection. Mr. Hume always had charge of our plans. By Mr. Davies : Q. AYas Mr. Larkin a partner in the South-wall contract ? Mr. R<»BERT H. McGreevy recalled. By the Chairman : Q. Do you still persist in your refusal to produce jjapei-s, as you stated before " ~ " For the reasons I gave there, I do. 475 the Sub-Committee?— A. if! '^-n I i ii^:' ! i' '1 1 1 M >Yi\ ll lit! .; . , 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 i» f- *''i$i; 1 » ( I 1 ^1% ' I' r [ ■ i^'l ! * . V >H !fi 11 ?• rii f.!jj fu S|| 1 Q. Your rouMonM nro the »amo ns yestordny ? — A. Yos. Bi/ Mr. Edgar : Q. Ifave you any objection to this Committee having ncce*<« to anyof j-onr books for tlio purj)o»io of thin enquiry? — A. Xo ; I bavo ni>t. Q. Wbnt is the reason tiiat you ol)Ject to tbo pnxluction of any of your books ? — A. My objection to the production of books of account uro that they contain tr.im- nctions with several partieH in business in Quebec, ami that they contaip nothins,' tliat I know of witli Larkin, Connolly & Co, Tiicy contnin an a»c-i' itctwecn myself ami Thomas McUreevy which subsequently has lieen settle"} .jurt. Q. What court ? — A. The Superior Court of Quebec. Q. What case ? — A. In the case ofMcGreevy vs. MoOf- . The abstract oftiio account has been sent to the court in my pleading, and thoretoro his account in that book would be nothing. It is before the court. Then as to the other accounts, I have objections because the Counsel for Mr. Thomas Mctireevy — Mr. Filzpatrick and Mr. Stuart — are acting on behalf of Thomas Mc(!reevy in those cases which are now i)onding, and the examination of these books would give them an insight into certain things, as I think should not be made known here until such time as tiio case comes on, Mr. Stuart. — There is no case pondin]^ between Thomas and Robert Mc Groevy in the court of first instance. There is a case before the Court of Appeal, and there is no information which we could get from those lH>oks that we could use there — or it is very improbable that we could. By the Chairman : Q, Will you show your books to the two Accountants ? — A. I will do that. I have no objection to going further than that — that in addition to the experts, Mr. Osier and Mr, Geotfrion should have access to them. The Committee then adjourned. House op Commons, Friday. iTth July, 1801, The Committee met at 10 a. m,; Mr. Girouard in the Chair. Investigation into certain circtinistinees and statements m.ide in connection with the tenders and contracts respc-licg the Quebec Harbour Work*, &c.. rosuiiicil. Mr. St. George Boswell, s\\' la commis- la biiiique Uni Q. Un hi! Q. Avez-^ nioi-nieme dan Q. Etait-c meilleur de m Q. Votre ban(|uo (jiait e\ Q. Savez- l;j commi.s.sion ^. (■i. For what years* ? — A. For the whole poriotl during which the dretlging wan carried on. Q. Tlieso entiinateH naturalK' would show th«* totaU t'v>^ •.voro paid? — A. Cer- tainly. Q. Will you tile them? — A. We cannot tilo them; they are the original!*. We can give you eertitiol copies', or anything like that. Q. Are they very bulky ? — .\ . No. (■i. I'loase protlnce them to the Comniiltoe? (While witness was procuring the documents, the ne.x' witness w:w calkil.) M. r. V. Valis a&sermoDt^: Par M. GeofrioR : Q. Vous rsi ? — H. Oui, monsieur. ♦/. Quand avez-vou> ^t^ repr^sentant pour lu I'uissanco? — J!. Jai et^ t'lu la |jri'miere lois en 1S7"5. i attach^ ik la commission du huvre do Quebec ? — R. Oui, pendant ii pcu pr^s douze ani>. Q. En quelle quality ? Avez-vous ^t^ uimplemont membre ou avez-vous oxercd queUiuo fonction ? — R. J'^tais president de la commission. Q. Pendant le.> douze ann^s ? — R. Oui, k pen priis tout le temps. Q. Quand avez-vous ce5«>^ d'etre pi^sident ? — R. J'ai ces5^ apris les derni^re^ elections led^rales de cette ann^. Q. Etes-vous encore e«>nunir>sjiire ? — A. Oui, monsieur. Q. Avez-vous eu connais-^ance du contrat qui a dtd donn^ pour la con?tructiun ilu South-wall ? — R. Oui. mon>ieur, jai signd moi-memo Ic contrat. (^. Vous rap|Hdez-vuus quels ^taient les contracteurs ? — R. Oui, monsieur. Q. (^ui ^taient-ils ? — R. C^tait messieurs Gallagher et Murphy. Q. Vous rappelez-vous M. accompagnant le contrat ou apies la signature du contrat. une garantie a ettf exigee des contracteurs par voie de d^pot entro les mains ill' lu comndssion du havre ? — R. Oui, monsieur, un billot de 82.5,000 a <$t^ donne >ur lii biinque Union. (I. L'n billet, dites-vous ? — R. Un cheque accepts par la banque Union. Q. Avez-vous vu vou#-merae ce cheque ? — R. Oui, monsieur, jo I'ai e.Kaminc- nioi-niC'ine ilans mes mains. Q. Etait-co un cheque ou un certiticat '! — E. Je crois que c'^tait un cheque, au ineilleur de ma connaiseance . Q. Votre impression c e>t que cost un cheque ? — R. Oui, et I'acceptation de la liiini|Uo ^'tail ^vidente. Je men rappellerais mieux fi on me monlrait le cheque. Q. Savez-vons si cette garantie, dans tons les cas, est reside entre les mains de iii commission du havre pendant toute la dur(5e de re.x^cution des travaux ? — R. Xon, monsieur. Un jour, je suis arrive au bureau, et monsieur Verret m'a dit que -M. Murphy lui avait fail la dcmande de changer cette sflret^ et de prcr^dre un cheque de la compttgnie. Q. Qui vous a parl^ corame cola? — R. M. Verret. II m'a demands mon opinion l4-de8sus. comrae president de la commission. Je lui ai dit que je no croyais pits que nous avions le droit de faire telle chose sans le soumettro bk la commission, a line as.^embI^e des commissairee. M. Verret m'a dit: J'ai recommandt? iM. Murphy 'I'lScrire une lettre anx commissaires sur le sujet, mais M. Murphy m'a dit qu'il ne voulait pas que cela parai^*edevantle8 commissaires. M. Verret a ajout<5 : J'ai con- 477 (' 'I r, ]irfjy I.' M , » 1 I >. ■'"ir m\ ti ! I nil I- ]. r? f 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 tni'"e de I'art, avoz-vous donn^ votro propre opinion sur ce;i contrats-la, '.■'-— R. VouIcz-njus dire au ministre? Q. Oui? — R. Jo ne m'cn rappoUe pas. <■}. Vous rappelez-vous s'il y a eu quelque chose de change relativtment au niveau ce I't-'gout (|ui fait partio du South-wall? — R. D'aprd's lo conlral que i'ai sigm^ !1 dovait roster intact suivant le contrit, ot on nous a Jamais inforniti, a la ( ommission. qu'il y avait un chaiigomont. .lo n'ai jamais <5tt5 inform^, ni la coni- niis>ion n'a 'amais 6i4 inform^e de cela, ill ma coniiaissancc. Co n'a t^ttS que tout dor- nioiomo"' uo J'ai appris la chof.e. J'en ai fait la remarque a I'ingiJniour actucl, ot -M, Jlos,. .a commenctS par nu dire qu'il n'en connaissait rien, J'ai insists, et alors il m'a dit que oui, il en connaissait (piolquo chose, mais que ce n'tjtait pas son att'aire ;'i lui do lo dire, parce qu'il titait employ^ sous M. rerley. ct que c'etait ii lui, M. Por- ley, do lo dire. Q. Avez-vous eu des conversations avec Thomas McGreevy aiissi a propos de l.arkin, ConnoU}- et Cie. ? — R. J'en ai ou plusieurs. ^l Voulez-vous dire sur ([iiellos matitiros roulaiont Cfs conversations'/ — R. La ( iMivorsation a roul^ quelquos fois sur les contractours, surtout en 188". ,)o lui ai • Icniando si les contracteurs lui avaient donn^ de I'argont pour aider ik faire los olcc- tiniis. 11 m'a dit qu'il etait tros content ; qu'ils avaient <5ietr tration des aH'aires du havre de (iu(5bec ? — R. Oui. Au temps des diections dornioiv • lo ministro des Travaux Publics m'a dit un matin qu'il avaitvu dans los journaux ua certain morccau signd : ■' Avertissemont a Sir Hector et trahi par les siens." ou quoi(iue chose dans ce sens-14. Alors, il m'a fait monter choz lui, ot il y avait quelques ^Kc- teurs ; il m'a prdsentd I'article en question. Je ne I'avais pas vu. II m'a demande' si I'article dtait viai. .le lui ai dit qu'il dtait faux. Je lui ai dit : II ost faux ]);irie qu'il conti it un article disant que j'ai M voir un M. Fortier chez lui,otjen'ai janmis (5td liY ; il dit au: i quo j'ai <5td chez M. Tarte. J'y suis a\\6 ilson invitation, ayvdt^ mi il m'eftt envoy,l u ,1 ' ! Ci Uii' ^ '1. iiii 1" 11 ;• .Il III' t'( IMU '%^ >rivici'<-"' liUlX I'll OS ^K'<-'- cinaiuW- i jaini'i" iv.um ii-'' 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 privies dans lo temps actuel. C'est sur cela qae le ministro m'a domantld si je lui signerais une lettre iiiant cela. J'ai dit : Je signei'ai un d^niment de cet article \L II m'a donn^ uno lettre liii-m§mc dont je n'ai pas trop compris le contonu ; j'ai cni que c'^tait un calmant dans un temps d'^lection qui taisait plaisir au ministre plutot qu'autre chose, parco quo je savais bien que le ministre savait quo nous avions eudes conversations ensomblo concernant la dite question. Je dois ajouter que j'ai 416 par- faitement pris par surprise, n'ayant pas en le temps de r^tl^chir. J'ai cru quo je dounais cela pour faire plaisir au ministre. Q. Eh bien ! M. Valin, vous avez parl^de souscriptions politiques ou autres faites par Larkin, Connolly et Cie. En avez-vous re9U vous aussi des souscriptions d'eux ? — K. J'ai re9U des souscriptions, et je vais vous en donner la nature si le comit(; veut bien nie le permottrc. Un jour, un homme r^sidant dans lo comt^ que je roprdsen- tais, le comt^ do Montmorency, a pass^ au feu, ot cet homme s'est recommand«5 ii, moi ; 11 ii'avait pas d'asstiranco, et il avait tout brfll^ sa maison, son mdnage, et ses bati- ments. II s'est adrossd ii moi commo d^put^ du comt^, j'dtais d^put(5 dans le temps, jtour lui avoir uno souscription. No connaissant pas ti-op si j'aurais uno souscriplion (lu ces messieurs, jo roncontrai M. Murphy ot jo lui a! demands : onvoyez-moi done. cent piastres pour ce pauvre hommo-lil. II m'a dit : Oui, quandvoulez-vous I'avoir '? J'ai dit • Aujourd'hui. II mo I'a envoy^ sous enveloppo sans lyttre ni commentaire. Bans le temps de I'dlection do 1880, I'^lection locale, it m'a envoyd des souscriptions pour rnrxnt los Elections de 1887, vous etes-vous mel<) deselections au'isi ? — R. Oui, ru'^n-'var. (,* ,5\<; -vous ou dos rapports avoc M. McGreevy relativoment i\ cos elections ? — il. Oi.i in jiisi :ur, j'etais sur les rangs il cette eioction-la, ot jo lour ai dit que j'avais il(5penso 1 s soMioes assez rondos dans lo passd pour faire un grand nombro tl'eloc- tions, et (^u jjo voulais qu'on m'aiddt lY cotto election-ci. II m'a dit qu'il m'aiderait. (i. (J li vous a dit cola? — R. M. McGreevy. Alors il m'a dit qu'il m'aidorait et qu'il ,110 donnerait do I'argent. Alors je mosuis adressd il M. McGreevy deux ou trills '.ois; il m'a donnd, jo crois, au meillour do ma memoiro, je crois ((Ue cost trois t'"is (ju'il m'a doiine de I'argent, et .M. McGreevy, chaquo fois a jU'ls un royu. Je mo me rappelle pas le montant. Mes agents d'eiection, tl la ilornitire heure, m'lint fait t'liiiuiitre ([uo si nos amis no donnaiont pas j>lus d'argent nous etions en i'is. .M. McGreevy vous u-t-il nomme d'autros comtes il j)art ceux quo vous venoz 'le imnimer (|ui cofttaient cher ? — R. II m'a nomme specialomont lo eomte doQuebec p'lu;- k' local et lo federal. II a dit : Caron est toujourS apres moi, et il a dit : •'e lie ])uis suflire il lui donner do I'argent ; il a dit : On a sir Iloctor a, Trois-lliviires, el puis d'autros comtes. Wml I H 1 *^i 1 f 4\ !|;l !ii' it! 4:.l ; '|i K' 1— ;n 481 ' ■: !T i> M ! 13 ( 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Avoz-vous eu des conversations avec sir Hector Langevin i^endant les Elec- tions de 1887 aussi ? — 1{. Oiii, monsieur. Un jour jo me rappelle que jo lui ai parle d'argent quo j'avais bot-oin co joni-iii, et il a dit : J'ai vu M. McGreevy co matin ; allez le trouver chez lui ; c'osl lui qui est charge de distribuer I'argent du comitd. Q. Youlez-vous prendre communication de I'Etat qui est maintcnant exhibe maiquE "Kll"etnous dire si cot dtat a (5t<5 prdpard i votre connaissaneo? — K. Oui, monsieur, c"ost moi-mCme qui I'ai lait preparer par le Acting-Secretary. Le document se lit commo suit : (Exhibit "K 11.") . QuEHEC, April 5th, 1890. Statements of amounts paid to Contractors Harbour Improvements, from the 1st March. 1881», to date, Larkin, Connolly \ '> , Cross-Wall 40,729,79 do edging 84,453.3-4 do 1 trance Gates 11,561.32 do iy Bank 7,041.69 du Sundries 3,000.00 Gallagher c^ Muiphy, South Wall 136,397.69 F. X. Diolot, Sluice Valves 2,925.00 Dominion Bridge Co., Draw Bridge 13,000.00 255,108.«3 Certificate unpaid, for which Messrs Larkin, Connolly & Co, hold our letter of recognizancro, §33,461.68. Transquestionne i)ar 31, Fitzpatrick : (J, M. Yalin, vous avoz commence li, 6tre president de la commission du Havre on queilo annexe, vous on rappelloz-vous ? — R. En 1879. Q. Et vous avez toujours occupy cetto position-li, jusqu'apros los Elections dor- niore», n'ost-ce pas ? — Y\. Oui. t^. Vous avez, durant cetto pEriode, eu connaissancenEcossairement, commo prd- sident de la commission, do tout co qui s'est fait ? — R. J'ai cu connaissanco doco qui s'est fait en face du bureau, oxcopttS durant six mois quo j'ai Ett5 absent en Hurt)po. Q. Voulezvous nous indiquer quels sont les travaux sur lo'squeio la commission du havro avail controlo pendant voire prdndonce ? Quels sont les ditt'Erents Imssiiis par oxemplo? — R. Nous avons eu attairo h tons les bassins k pen pr6s. Q. Quels sont les bassins? Voukz-vous nomnier les bassins? — R. Le ba>siu Louise. Nous avions les deux; on appelait cela gEnEralemont le bassin Loui.-o. Nous avions la tinission du contrat. Q. Par finission du contrat que voulez-vous dire? — R, lis (Staiont apr^s monter le niur dans le bassin Louise. Q. Dans lous les cas, la premitire chose dont vous avez eu connaissanco, d'apic's ce que vous nous avoz dit, et co qui aattird votreatlonliond'uno maniero piirticuiii ro. c'cst CO changement do cautionnement qui a Ete donnd ])ar rapport au South-wall ? — R. Jo no dis pas qu'il n'y a pas eu autre chose. Q. S'il y a eu autre chose, voulez-vous vous i-appeler maintenant ce quoc'ost?— R. Je no me rappelle pas dans le moment. Q. Eh bien; jusqu'au moment ou vous avez vu >I. Verrot ou M, ^[cGreevy au sujet du changement dans le cautionnement pour le South-wall, pouvez-vous nous indiquer quelque chose qui vous a paru un pen louche, ou qui n'Etait pas tout il-fail selon ce que vous croyiez correct? Je parle do ce qui s'est passd pendant quo vous Etioz president? — R. Non, je n'ai jamais rien vu de direct par moi-memo, p'uro i\\h' tout CO qui a EtE fait a 6\.4 soumis au bureau, ot j'ai tout soumiscomme affaire dircLif, Q. Maintenant voulezvous nous dire si, dans co qui a 6t6 fait devant la comniis- sion du havre ou ce dont vous avoz eu connaissanco personnellomont qui adit' fait «m dehoi's do la commission du havre, il y a eu quelque chose qui dtait irrdgulior ? — II. D'aprtis CO que j'ai vu, et ce que j'ai dit dans mon examon en chef 482 J? 1^ 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. D'apriirt ce ((uo vous connaiwsez porsonnollomeiit ? — E. C'dtait uno choso bien oonmie du board. C'<5tait le chaiigoment des mossieurs Kinipple ot Morris auxquols j'ai fait allusion qui est venu apres lo oomniencement des choses. (^, Alors, d. part I'att'aire do Kiiiipplo et Morris, il n'y a rien eu jusqu'au chaiige- mont de cautionnement par rapport au South-wall? — R. Eh bien! je mo rappollo maintenant, qu'un jour, je crois avant quo ce f at venu h la connaissance do tous cola, je crois qu'on m'a apportd des documents qui montraiont d'uno manitire i pou pros exacte, un certain document au moins, qui «jtait uno copio do ce qui a 6t6 remis k sir John. Q. Un document comportant avoir 6t6 signd par M. McGreevy ot par M. Mur- phy?— R. Oui. Q. Mais ^ part de cola, comme president de la commission du havro, avoz-vous cu connaissance, dans los transactions do hi commission du havre, do quelquo chuse qui vous paraissait oxtraoidinaii'o? — R. Pas quo jo sache. {}. Quand I'attairo de Kinipple ot Morris est venue dovant la commission du havro voustStiez president et vous 6tiez present i Tassemblde, n'est-co piis ? — R. Oui, monsieur. Q. Avez-vous protestd contre lour renvoi ? — R. Jo n'ai pas proteste contro leur renvoi ; c'est-i-dire j'ai objects au renvoi jusqu'i un certain point, et avant do donner men vote sur la dite question, j'ai (Ste consulter MM. Stewart, Andrews et Cie. On a ajourn^ I'assombltJe pour une demi-heuro jiour mo donner lo temps d'aller consulter ces messieurs, et j'ai agi IWessus. Nous dtions i discuter I'atl'airo en comit(5. Les commissairos h, part moi ^talent a pen pres egalement divises, et je leur ai demand^, comme il paraissait y avoir un jjoint do loi, jo lour ai demands de suspendro la stance pour une demi-heure pour me donner lo temps d'allor consulter nos avocats qui etaient la soci^t^ dont M. Stewart fait partie. Je no mo lappello pas si c'ost M. Stewart ou M, Andrews qui m'a rdpondu, mais j'ai agi au meilleur de ma connaissance ])Our donner mon vote. Je no veux pas quo M. Stewart jjrenne objection ii ce quo je (lis. Je sais que M. Andrews 6tait lii dans le temps, ot c'est M. Andrews qui venait le plus souvont chez nous. Q. Maintenant, vous avez dit que la commission du havre dtait 4 pou pres dgale- meiit divis^e sur ootte question ? — I*. Oui. Q. N'est-il pas vrai qu'il n'y avait que M. Rao et M. Dobell qui demandaieut que MM. Kinipple ot Morris no fussent pas renvoydssur toute la commission du havre? — II. Je sais quo M. Dobell et M. Rae «5taient fortement oppos«5s li cela, mais si jo mo rappelle bien, je ne sais pas s'ils dtaient tous presents i I'assemblde ; je ne mo rap- ]ielle pas de cela. lis pouvaient y etre tous, mais je sais qu'on a suspondu la 8(5anco ])aree qu'il pouri-ait peut-etre y avoir un point do droit qui sorait soulov(5 par rapport ;\ la mise i, la retraite do cos messieurs, ot c'est pour cela qu'on m'a donnd le temps I'aller consulter los avocats. Je ne me rappelle pas du nombre ; je puis me tromper, mais je croie qu'on dtait tous presents. Q. Atin de mettre cette question hors do doute, n'est-il pas vrai qu'i rassemblde du 4 juin 1883, il a 6t6 unanimemont rdsolu on votro presence, sans que vous ayioz dit un mot de protet, que Kinipple ot Morris dcvaient Stre ronvoyds, ot que los seuls ijui unt object«5 sont M. Rao et M. Dobell ? — R. Cela pout so faire. C'ost si loin passe <|Uu ie n'ai pas les minutes dans ma t^to, mais cntin j'ai eu ti consultoi. les avocats sur los at^aires Idgales qui pourraient so presenter. Je uo mo suis pas prononcd avant d'avoir cotto opinion. Q. N'ost-il pas vrai quo le 31 juillet 1883, vous avez 6t6 partie ill un rapport qui a Lte fait par un comitd special rdglant unanimemont la question du renvoi de Ivinipple et Morris tel qu'il appert par lo document maintenant produit, exhibit •■{y ? — [{, Jo 110 nie rappelle pas du tout de la chose, mais 5a pout etro le cas pour li s raisons qui m'ont 6i6 donndes quo nous avions un ingdnieur pour rien ot quo c'i;tait sauver les linancos de la commission, ot par ce que j'ai dit dans mon examen on chef. Q. Maintenant, pour revenir ii I'autre question, lorsqu'il s'ost agi du changcment que vous avez parl^ de cette substitution, avez-vous era, dans ce temps- li^, que c'^tait contraire aux int^i ets de la commission du havre dc faire la substitution proposde ? — A. Cost pour cela que je prenais des renseignements, et M. McGreevy m'a dit : non, vous ne pouvez pas avoir de doute, parce que vous avez dans vos mains le premier certiticat que I'ing^nieur va ^mettre, et, s'il y a quelque chose qui va mal, vous pourrez retenir ce certiticat-la, vous faire remeltre le certiticat, et vous aurez encore le jiercenlage et vous pourrez encore vous rembourser li-dessus. (J. Alors, la lettre que M. McGreovy vous adonn^edans le temps ^tait sufRs rite ?iour vous? A'ous croyiez qu'il n'y avait aucun danger h faire le changement? — R. Ion intention »5tait, en lui faisant tlonner cette lettre-li, de lui faire porter la respon- sabilit^ corame president du comity des tinances, et pour que je n'ale pas cette responsabilitque vous aviez besoin de souscriptions dlectoralos, vous vous adressioz i\ eu.K nuturellcment comme contractcurs publics, dans lo temps? — R. Je ne m'adrossais pas ii eux comme contractcurs mais comme amis. II y a des amis qui out souscrit lie I'argent dans mes Elections qui no sont pas dos contractcurs. Do 'ait, avant cola, j'ai rcq\i des souscriptions sous enveloppe de gens quo Je ne connaissais pas, ou doa petits montants quelquefois, mais je sais bien que §a ne venait pas de cetle source-li. .I'ai su depuis de qui cela venait. Q. Quand vous avez eu une entrevueavec sir Hector Langevin, pendant les dlec- tiiiiis gendrales dernidres, vous rappclez-vous quels dtaient les deux dlecteurs qui ^talent presents lii? — R. Je me rappelle seulement du noni de M. Edouard Cauchon, I'fuitre, Je nem'en rappolle pas. Q. C'dtait un homme de votre comtd, du comtd de Montmorency ? — R. Oi'.i, Je no nie pas cela. J'ai donnd la lettre. J'ai dtd lil. 'I • Pi' M m IM 'T .J "ii 't';„ 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Vuus uvoz tlit, il y u uii instant, quo c'tStait sons I'intluciu-c de M. MeGreevy ? — R. J'lii (lit quo c'- du contrat. Par M. Lamjelier ; Q. M. Valin, quand vous (Jtiez membre du parlen.ent.a Ottawa, vou. .oyiez tres- souvont M. McGreevy et sir Hectoi- Langevin ? — R. Oui. t res-sou vent. v^. Savez-vous s'il y avait entre eux dcs rapports intimes, trdijuents ? — R. Oui, parfaitement. Q. Savez-vous ou ils domeuraient tons les deux, ici, a Ottawa ? — R. Oui ; j'ai i\6 invito par sir Hector che:-, lui, et j'ai did invite dgaienient par M. McCireevy ii prendre iin verro de vin, ici, et dans la rdsidonue de M. Langevin, ou dt jit M. McGreevy. II m'a dit tr6.s-souvent qu'il restait la; que c'dtait sa maison ; qu'il so considdi'ait comme ehez lui ; ils vivaicnt ensemble. Q. M. Laforce Langovin dont vous avez parld tantOt, qui a did nommd (?ous-ingd- nieur des commissaires du havre, est-ce un jeune homme d'une grande rdputatioii comme ingdnieur ? Est-ce qu'il passait pour t res-capable ? — R. Nou, il atoujoui> dte considdrd comme n'dtant pus ties-capable. J'ai vu notie ingdnieur nous donner plusiours doutes li-dessus sans trop s'expriraer. Par M. Curran : Q. Avez-vou9 pris note des conversations que vous avez eues avec sir Hector Langevin? — R. J'en ai pris quelquot'ois qui maintenant "iont ddtruites. J'ai eu beau- coup de conversations dans le temps quo j'dtais ddputd. J'ai did le voir souvent en rapport avec cos travaux-li. J'ai did voir M. Perley et dautres porsonnes. Q. Je vous demando cette question parce que vous neparaissez pas avoir de doute sur la nature de ces couversations-lji? Vous vous rappelez parfaitement de la nature de ces conversations-lib? — R, Parfaitement. J'en ai eu chaque fois que j'ai ren- contrd sir Hector, t-oit in Qudbec, ou ici, ou ailieurs. l^. M. Valin, c'est subsdquemmentii, ces conversations avec sir Hector Langevin que vous avez obtenu de M. McGreevy ce.s trois montants pour lesdlections ':• — R. 11 dtait compi'is que je serais candidal, et j'ai dit ik sir Hector Langevin que je devrais gtre assistd. Je no me rappelle peut-6tre pas tout, mais je me rappelle une circons- tanco sur les deux ou trois que j'ai eues. Q. Vous avez donnd trois re§u8 ii M. McGreevy ? — R. Oui, j'ai dound deux ou trois re^us suivant les montants que j'ai re9us de lui. 4U0 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1«91 (J. Voulez-voHS me dire comment il so fait quo voiie vous rn|)pe!e?'. des c<»iivcr- sations <[uv vous avt-z eues avec sir Hector ot cjue vous ne vous ra|)peli'z pa> ileu homines que vou- avez revues / Mr. Geofrf'on : You reside at <^aebe<* ? — A. Yes, sir. You have been a memlier of the Dominion Parliament ? — A And of the Provincial also? — A. Yes, sir. When were you a member of the Dominion Parliament ? — A. for the Hrst time in 187S. Q. Until when did you sit? — A. Until the elections of 1887. t^. Have you been also attuclad to the Harbour Commission at (^ueber Yes, for about twelve years. Q. In what capacitj-? Were j'ou merely a member, or did you occupy official position? — A. I was Chairman of the Commission. (^. During the twelve years? — A Yes, pretty nearly al! the time. Q. When did you cease to be Chiurman? — A. I ceased after the last Dominion elections of this year. Q. Are yon still a Commissioner ? — A. Y'es, sir. (^. Did you know of the contract <^iven for the construction of the ^vJuth-waU? — A. Ye.", sir, I signed the contract myself Q. Can you remember who were the contractors ? — A. Y'es, sir. i}. Who were they? — A. They were Messrs. Gallagher and Murphy. (^. Can you remember whether, accompanyinif the contract, or alter the sii^nature of the contract, secuiiiy was required fi-om the contractors l«y nu-ans of a deposit in the hands of the Harbour Commissioners ? — A. Yes, sir. A note for 825,000 was sriven u|X)n the Union Bank. (i. A note, did you «iy ? — A. A cheque accepted by the Union Bank. (I. Did you see this cheque yourself? — A. Yes, sir; I examined it myself in m^- liands. Q. Was it a cheque or a deposit certificate ? — A. I believe that it was a cheque, to the best of my knowledge. t^. Your impression is that it is a cheque? — A. Yes, and the acceptance of the Bank was clear. I could remember better if the cheque were showed to me. Q. Do you know whether this secuiity, in any case, remained in the hands of the llarbour Commissioners during all the tirae of the execution of the works? — A. No, sir. One day I came to the office, and Mr. Verret told me that Mi-. Muri)h\- had made a re^juest to him to change this security and to take a cheque I'roni the company. Q. Who spoke to you like that ? — A. Mr. Verret. Ho asked me my opinion about it, as Chairman of the Commission. I told him that I did not Itelieve that we had any right to do such a thing without submitting it to the Commission, at a meeting of the Commissioners. Mr. Verret told me : 1 recommended Mr. Murphy to write a letter to the Commissioners upon the subject, but Mr. Murphy toM me that he did not want it to come before the Commissioners. Mr. Verret adde 1 : I advised Mr. Murphy to give me a letter from Mr. McGreevy as being Chairman of the Finance Committee of the Board, and that he should advise me to ilo it. Q. Do I understand that !tlr. Verret said that he recommended the thing ? — A. Mr. Verret told me that if he had a letter from Mr. McGreevy, he believed thai we might do the thing. I told Mr. Verret that I forbade him to do this thing unless lie should have a letter from Mr. McGreevy, satisfactory upon this point. 491 M I : ;, .li 54 Victoria. V^'M IHU h W l^ii li Appendix (!No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Yon ave sp8ukin<^ of Thomas McGreevy ? — A. Yes. I told him that 1 would see Mr. McGroevy upon the subject myself. Subsequently, I saw Mr. Mctxreevy, and I spoke to him of the matter. I told Mr. McGreevy that [ did not think that we should do such a thin;r without submitting it to a meeting of the Commissioners. He said : (^h ! j-ou ought to agree to that, because they are good fellows, and we ought to help them us much as possible. But I said to him: How can that be arranged with i-eferenco to the Government, for it is a security which concerns the Government. He replied: 1 will see that it is all right. There the mutter rested for some time. I do not know how many days had passed, but one tine morning I went to the office, and Mr. Vorrct came and said to me: 1 am a littlo late; I have come from the Union Bank, and I have exchanged the security. Then I said to him : Have you had Mr. McGreevy's letter, and is it sufficient; is it satisfactory ? He said: Ves. in every respect. I said to him : Show me tb 3 document you received in return, and the letter. Ho then took the document in question ; he placed it in my hands, together with the letter. I then put my bund into my waistcoat pocket to take out my spectacles, and I sav^- that my spectacles were not thei-e that morning. It was a waistcoat that I was not in the habit of wearing, and my spectacles were not there. Then J opened t!ie letter, and Mr. Verret said : 1 will rend it to you. I said : All right, reail it to mci; and I held the document in my hand at the same time that ho read the letter to me. Q. Well, without requiring that you shou' 1 repeat the ver}' words of the letter. what was the purport of the letter, according as it was read to yon ? — A. Well, the letter said this : T sf^e no objection to accepting so and so. I might remember bv seeing the letter, be.auso Mr. McGreevy himself told mo that ho had no objection whatever, and that he would give the required document to Mr. Verret. Q. What did you do? You say that you bad the document in your hands. What did you do with it ? It was the cheque or note that Mr. Murph}- had given you as a substitute for the certificate ? Did you return the whole to Mr. Veiret? — A. Yes ; ar 1 1 told him to take groat care thereof, to make proper note, and be very careful of tho>[r. McGreovy in the Commission ? — A. Yes, sir; I had several interviews with Sir IFector on this subject. Q. Will you relate or explain to the Committee what the nature of those inter- views was? — A. I told Sir Hector that Mr. McGroevy took this attitude in ovorv- thing. and that ho had told me be was in comi.iunication with tho Minister. I asked him what his views were rogaraing that qucstim, upon certain votes wo iiad to give in tho Commission — for instance, with reference to the South-wall. I t' :d the Min- ister that the names of Gallagher and ^[urphy might cause trouble with tho firm ot' Larkin, Connolly iS: Co., because ho was one of its members, and that it did not, from that, seem to mo to l)o a ditforent firm, and that it might cause trouble. He said: " J have s]ioken to Mr. ^ffGreevy about that ; vote for that and follow Mr. McGroevy, and I toll you everything will bo all right." Ho said to me, finally : " Whoiiovcr you come across anything like that, just itbllow Mr. McGreevy. You know that we meet frequently and that we consult together." Therefore, I have always consideri'd that I bad the opinion of Mr, Langevin in the chair occupied by Mr, McGreevy beside mo, and whenever an important vote was to be given I have always consulted Mr. McGreevy, because I believed such were tho views of Mr. Langevin. 492 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Thi8 was after all the conversations that you held ? — A. It wil^ very nearly always the same tiling lepeated. I had several conversations with th;) Minister. Iwory time anything important came up 1 consulted him, and always had very nearly the same answer, Q. Well, you say you consulted him. Did you consult him specially abou* the South-wall contract? — A. Yes, sir ; because I believed that that would entail diflS- culties such as I have just now told you of; because I saw that one of the tirm had separated himself from the others, and then he told me not to bo tioublod about the matter, for everything was all right. (}. Did yo'i consult him on other matters besides that of the South- wall? — A. Yes, sir; I consalled him on other matters very often. Q. Had you occasion to consult him, to confer with the Minister, with reference to the contract for dredging in 1887? — A. Yes, sir; 1 spoke to him about that. He told me that from information that he had received he believetl the change was desirable, and that he liad spoken of it, he said, to Mr. McGroevy, and that he believed that it was the best thing to do. By the Chairman: Q. You said that you had consulted the Minister about the dredging? — A. Yos; I explained the matter of the dredging to him. Q. Did you give him your advice? — A. Yes; I guvo him my opinion. t^. But there was !• difforonce of opinion between you and Mr. McGroevy? — A. Well, it, was merely v.ith reference to the eight of giving information. L wanted to speak to the Minister to know whether he aj^proved of the matter. Q. Did you give any information contrary lo Mr. McGreevy's ? — A. Xo. I wanted to know whether it was his advice, because 1 would not do anything until the Com- mission were 'nformed, because it was money voted by Parliament. Jiij Jlr. Geofrion : Q. But you yourself, did you explain your views, or rfitlier, not being a man of llie craft, did you give your own opinion upon the said contracts ? — A. Did I tell the Minister? (2. Yes? — A. I do not remember. Q. Can you remember whether there was any change made with regard to the level of the sewer which forms ])art of the Soutii-wall? — A. Accoi'ding to the con- tract which 1 signed it should remain intact according to the contract, and wo were lu'ver informed at the Commission, that any change had been made in it. I was never informed, nor was the Commission ever informou ot such change tn my knowledge. It is only quite recently that I learned the fact. I remarked it to the U'.'tir.ii- engineoi', and Mr. Boswell began by telling me he knew nothing about it. I persisted, and then he said to me yes, he ditl know .something about it; but that it was not any business of his to toll of it, because he was employed under Mr. Perloy, ;uul it was tor him, Mr. i'orley, to speak of it. Q. Had you also any conversations with Thomas UoGreevy with regard to Liirkin, Connolly & Co.? — A. 1 had several. (l. Will you say on what subjects said conversationi turned? — A. The conver- siiiion sometimes turned o]\ the contractois, particularly in IS8T, I asked him wiiotiior the contractors had given him any money to h')ip in the oloctions. He tiilil ine that he was vei_> well satisfied; that they had been very generous; and tlu'U that they were excellent fellows, that they ought to be taken care of; and that tliey iiad subscribed largely, and that Sir Hector was very well pleaseil with them. I li!id other conversations when we appointed xMr. Boswell, Chief Kngineei'. 1 then ii-ia'd him: Why appoint Mr. Boswell Chief Engineer., before Mr. Pel ley had sent in his resignation? 1 said to him: How will Sir Hector like that? Then he said: I'orley IS cracked, and besides it does not signify, JJoswoU must bo appointed, and .Sir lloctor is aware of it. Then he thought that 1 was myselt going lo request the iqilii'intment of Mr. Boswoll, and Mr. Chabot, one of the membors of the Commission 41»3 ! ! ■■ffT \m i 4 t 1 , 1 ^ •> 3 i ^' ( ' 1 i h m 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 asked mo whether 1 intended doing so. He said that If I would not do it, he would do it himself. I then said : Do it, because, as chairman, it is not my place to make any proposiitions of that t^ort: and at the following meeting Mr. Chabot did, I believe, propose the appointment of Mr. Boswell as well as that of Mr. Langevin. However, the minutes are there, and will prove the same. Q. Is Mr, Chabot general manager of the Richelieu Company ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. And who is this Mr. Li iigevin of whom you speak, and who was appointed at the same time as Mr, Boswell? — A, He is Sir Hector's son. (^. Is it Lafoi'ce Langevin ? — A, Yes, Laforce and something else. I do not exactly know. I had other conversations also with Mr. McGreovy at the time when he dismissed the Engineers, Kinipple and Morris, and I believe also, I do not very well recollect this occasion, but I believe also that I consulted Sir Hector at the time, and Mr. McGreevy told me that it was necessary that Kinipple and Morris should go, as it was understood that Sir Hector would give us Mr. Perley, who was ChiefEngineer of Public Works, and heguvemoasarojujon that the English Engineers were very expensive, and that wo should have the Government Engineer who would do the work for nothing. I liad had a number of other conversations, which 1 cannot recollect very well, but I consulted him very often. Q. When Mr. McGreevy told you that the contractoi's subscribed largely for the elections,' did ho give you the names of any of the contractors? — A. No; he spoke of contractoi-s in a general way. Q. He did not give you any names? — A. No, I understood him to mean all contractors. Q. But when you say "The contractors" do you mean Larkin Connolly & Co or all contractors in general? — A. No, Larkin Connolly &, Co. I always understood that when wo had anything to refer to the Company we always addressed ourselves to Mr. Murphy ; Mr. Murphy was the man who acted at the time on behalf of the Company with our office. It was to him that we made all payments on behalf of the tirm of Larkin, Connolly it Co. and 0 has been placed opposite mj* name. 1 must declare to this Committee that I have never received the sum of 83.000, that I have never received one cent for myself, and that explanations were given to Mr. Murphy for all the sums that I received, and I will take Mr. Murphy's oath for the truth of what he will say on that point. Q. Xow, you have spoken to us of the elections of 188i] ? — A. Yes. Q. During the elections of 1887, did you al.so take part in the elections? — A. Yes, sir. (^ Had you any relaiions with Mr. McGreevy in connection with tho,se elections ? — A. Yes, sir; I stood at that election and I told them that 1 had .spent a great deal of monej' previously for a great many elections, and that 1 wanted to be hel])ed with that election. He told me that he would help me. Q. Who told 3'ou that? — A. Mr. MeGreevy. Tlifii be told mo that he would hel]) me and would give me money. I applied to Mr ic(iroevy two or three times; ho gave me, I believe as well as 1 can remember, I Im Ijovo ho gave me money three times, ai'.d each time Mr. McGreevy took a receipt. 1 do not romomlKM- the amount, ^ly election agents at the last hour informed mo that if our frioml- did not give us more money we were in danger of losing the election. I applitii again to Mr. Mc- (iroevy and to Mr. Murphy. Mr. Murphy told me: " \Ve have ])la(iil all that is necessary in Mr. McGreevy's hands, and we have advised him to help you espociaiiy , apply to him and you will got some." Then having applied to Mr. Mctireovy. he said to mo : " The elections in the County of Quebec are costing heavily ; thr elec- tions in Quebec are costing heavily; the Ministers are costing us very heavilv . and 1 have no more money to give you. " Q. Did Mr. McGreevy mentioii any other counties besides those that you have named that were expensive? — A. lie mentioned particularly the County of Quebec lor the Local and Dominion Parliaments. He said : Caion is always after me; ami lie said : 1 cannot satisfy him with money. He said: We have Sir Hector at Three Rivers; and besides, other counties. Q. Had you any conversations with Sir Hector Langevin also, during the election ol 1887 ? — A. Yes, sir. I lemembor that one day 1 spoke to him about some money that I wanted that same di.y, and he said : 1 have seen Mr. McGreevy this morning ; go to his house and see him. He has charge of the distribution of the money for tiio Committee. Q. Will you take a look at the statement now produced marked Exhibit " Kll " and tell us whether such statement was prepared with your knowledge? — A. Yes, sir, I myself caused it to bo prepared by the Acting Secretary. The docu- ment read as follows . 495 \'.t'r i I My \\\\\ 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 (Exhibit " Kll ") Quebec, April 5, 1890. Statements of amounts paid to contractors, Harbour Improvements, from the 1st March; 1889, to date. Larkin, Connolly & Co., Cross Wall $ 46,729 79 do Dredging 34,453 34 do Entrance (rates 11,56132 do Flj' Bank 7,04169 do Sundries 3,000 00 Gallagher cS: Murphy. South Wall 136,397 69 F. X.^Drolet, Sluice Valves 2,925 00 l)'-:iinion Bridge Co., Draw Bridge 13,000 00 255,108 83 Certificate unpaid, for whi^ih Messrs. Larkin, Connolly & Co. hold our letter of recognizance, §33,461.68. Cross-examined by Mr. Fitzpatrick : Q. Mr. Valin, you began to be Chairman of the Harbour Commission in what year, can you remember? — A. In 1879. Q. And you always occupied that position until after the last elections, is it not so ? — A. Yes. Q. During that period, you necessarily had cognizance as Chaiiman of the Commission of all that was done? — A. I had cognizance of all that was done before the Board excepting during six months that I was absent in Europe. Q. Will you inform us what works were under the control of the Harbour Commission during your presidency ? For instance, what are the different Basins? — A. We had something to do with nearly all the Basins. Q. Basins. Which Basins? Will you name the Basins ? — A. The Louise Basin. We had to do with both ; they wore generally called the Louise Basin. We had the finishing of the contract. Q. What do you moan by the finishing of the contract? — A. They were putting up the wall in the Louise Basin. Q. In any case, the first thing of which you had cognizance, according to what you have told .s, and to which your attention Wiis especially directed, was the change of security given in reference to the South-wall ? — A. I did not say thattheie was nothing else. • Q. If there was anythiiig else, will you now remember what it is? — A. I cannot remember just now. Q. Well, until the time when you saw Mr. Verret or Mr. McGreevy on the subject of the change of security given for the South-wall, can you inform us of any- thing that appeared to you a little crooked, or which was not altogolhor what you consider correct? I speak of what happened while you were chairman? — A. JNo ; I never saw anything directly myself, because everything that was done was sub- mitted to the Board, and I submitted eveiything as regular business. Q. ^ow, will you tell us whether, in what was done before the Harbour Com- mission, or in what you had personal knowledge which war. done outside of the Jlar- bour Commission, there was any irregularity ? — A. From what I saw, and what I said in my examination-in-ehief Q. From what you have personal knowledge of? — A. It was a thing well known to the Board. It was thedismissnl of Messrs. Kinipple and Morris, to which I have alluded, which happened after the beginning of things. Q. Then, apart from the affair of Kinipple and Morris, thcio was nothing until the exchange of the security with regard to the South-wall? — A. Well, I remember now, that one day, I think, before all this came to my knowledge, that some docu- ments were brought to me which showed pretty correctly — a certain document, at least, which was a copy of what was transmitted to Sir John. Q. A document purporting to have been signed by Mr. McGreevy and Mr Murphy ? — A. Yes. 496 54 Victona. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. But apart from this, as Chairman of the Harbour Commission, had you any knowledge, in the transactions of the Harbour Commission, of anything that appeared to you extraordinary ? — A. Not that I Icnow of. Q. When tlie matter of Kinipplo and Morris came before the Harbour Com- mission, you were chairman, and you were i)resent at the meeting, were you not ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you object to their dismissal ? — A. I did not protest against their dis- missal, that is to say, up to a certain point I protested against tlieir dismissal, and Ijelbre giving my vote upon the said question, 1 consulted Messrs. Stuart, Andrews & Caron. The meeting was adjourned for half an hour in order to give me time to go and consult these gentlemen, and [ acted upon it. We were discussing the matter in committee. The Commissioners excepting myself were about equally divided, and I asked them, as it appeared to be a point in law, — I asked them to adjourn the meet- ing for half-anhour to give me time to go and consult our lawyefs who were the tirin of which M'r. Stuart is a member, I do not remember whether it was Mr. Stuait or Mr. Andrews who gave me lu}'' answer, but I acted to the best of my knowledge about giving my vote. 1 do not want Mr. Stuart to take objection to ^^'llat 1 am saying. I know that Mr. Andrews was there at the time, and it was Mr. Andrews who came the oftenest to us. Q. Now, you have said that the Harbour Commission was pretty equally divided upon this question ? — A. Yes. Q. Is it not true that of all the Harbour Commission only Mr. Rae and Mr. Dobell requested that Messrs. Kinipple and Morris should not be dismis.'>ed ? — A. I know that Mr. Dobell and Mr. Rue were strongly opjjosed to it, liut if I romomber rightly, I do not know whether they were all present at the meeting. I (.'aniiot re- nioniber that. They may all have been there; but I know that the meeting was iuljourned because there might probably have been a point of law which might have been laised with regard to the retirement of these gentlemen, and it was on that account that I was given time to go and consult the lawyers. I do not remember the number : I may be mistaken but 1 think that all were present. Q. Ill order to place this question beyond a doubt, is it not true that at the meeting held on the 4th June, 1883, it was unanimously resolved in your presence, without 3-our having said a word of protest, that Kinipple and Morris should be dismissed, and that the only ones who made any objection were Mr. Rae and ilr. Dobell? — A. It may have been so. It is so long ago, that I have not the minute> in my ln-ad, but, in short, I had to consult the lawyers upon any legal business which might turn up. I did not decide before having had said opinion. i^i. Is it not true that on 31st July, 18S3, you were party to a report which was iiKifle by a special committee, unanimously settling the question of the dismissal of Kinipple anil Morris, as is proved by the document now produced. Exhibit "Q"? — A. 1 (lo not remember the matter at all ; but it may have been the case for the rea- .-on which was given me, that we had an engineer who would cost nothing, and that it would be a saving of the finances ♦: the Commission ; and by what I stated in my cxainiiiiition in chief. (^. Now, to return to the other question, when this change of the security given by tiallagher and Murphy was spoken ot, did Mr. Murphy speak to you on the sub- let? — A. I do not remember that Murphy .spoke to me about it. . Will you tell us what the ditt'erent points Avere upu cc^nsulted Sir lloctor. and with respect to which you considered that the Commission was imi doing its duly; in other words, did you ever complain to .Sir Hector Langevin that Mr. McGieevy was doing something in the Harliour Commission that h'l ought not to have done? — A. I never complained particularly by .>iaying that some one was doing wrong in the Commission, I simply said what I have told in my examinatioii- in-chief. namely, that Mr. .McCrreevy had the air of taking the control of matters, and alwa\-s made use of Sir Hector's name, and I wanted to assure myself, by j)rivate conversation with .Sir Hector, as well as by private conversjition with Mr. Mc(ireevy. whether such was really the case. Then I said certain things to Sir Hector, which were afterwanfs repeated to me, particulaily the last words that I have Just loid: " that if the Commis>ion did not do well he would dis-olve the Commission." TIk^c words were repeated and reported to me by 3Ir. ^NlciJreevy. and that proved liial commuiucations were made between Mr. McGre ny and Sir Hector. I complained to Sir Hector ed to give ii to you ? — A. I must reply to this by saying that I had tiie same promi>e of being made a Senator as you hail of being made a Minister in the Local Government. By the Chairman: Q" And you both met with the same success ? — A. Yes. By Jlr. Fifzpatn'ck: Q. Now, in reply to that, as I have never had an^- promise from any one what- ever of being made a Minister, can you tell me as much about your position of Senator? — A. I cannot say as much as that; but I will toll you that Sir Adolplie Caron came to my house and made that promise to me in 1870 or 1880, in the presence of my late wife, and I had not asked it of him, please observe. He came and ottered it to me to obtain a favour from me, namely, to ask me not to stand at that time, because in IS"!' I had been contested, and I had then made some arrangements — a compromise — witl< Mr. Langlois, that if I presented myself again I should give a cheque for S1,00(» as a lorteit. Then he came to give me as a reason, Mr. Caron came to speak in Sir Hector's and the late Sir John's names, saying that if I did not present myself as a candidate for the county I should have the place of Senator because they wantetl to get our Lieutenant Governor, Mr. Angers, elected. This is why they wanted me to step aside, and this is the reason why the place of a Senator was otfeied to me, and why the Senatorship had since been cast up to me. I did not give up for that; I only gave up after I had an interview with Sir Hector, who impressed upon me that it was necessary for the party that Mr. Augers should be allowed to run. 500 l»ef( i appointed the chairman? — A. Yes. Sir. Q. Had you cognizance whether a contrjict was matle for thirty-tivc cents a yard for the deepening of the Basin? — A. There were two contracts. Q. The second contract ? — A. Yes, Sir. Q. You only ratified the instructions which came from Ottawa? — A. Yes. through the medium of Mr. McGreevy who spoke in the name of Mr. Langevin, and I believe I spoko about this to the Minister, as I said when I was examined befbie. Q. Had you knowledge of some change being made in the construction of a wall of the Basin, a diminution or an enlargement? — A. Do you mean the South- wall? Q. What was the depth of the change made ? — A. It was a change which was made without my knowledge, because if a change of that nature had been brought to ni}' knowledge, I should have laid it before the Commission, but it was dune without my knowledge; that is to suy, for the elevation of the base. Q. If I understJind you rightly, the majority of the Commission received, through the intervention of Mr. Mcevy, the wishes of the Minister and acted accordingly ? — A. I will tell j-ou. For instance, when we wanted monej', it was Mr. McGreevy who acted for the Minister and vho always said : •' The Minister told me you would ask for money because he is going away during the vacation. theref(»re ask fur money." Then when money was asked lor, it was delayed and Mr. Mc(rreevy said : " Push on. I have come from Ottawa and I know that it has passed the Council." We knew our instructions from Mr. McGreevy rather than from the Department. By Mr. Fitzjiafrick : Q. You said that the contract for dredging at 35 cents was given by the orders and directions given by Mr. McGreevy. as representing Sir Hectur Langevin at the Harbour Commission? — A. I said that I saw by that after having been informed by Mr. 31cGreevy that it w.is all correct, that the matter had been decided by all the Commission as it is entered in the minutes. Q. Is it not true that this contract for 35 cents, of which you have just spoken as having been given because Mr. McGreevy had requested that it should be so done in the name of the Department, was given at a meeting of the Commission held on the 10th May, 1887, and that this was on the authority of a letter written by Mr. Perley ? — A. I do not tell you that a letterdid not come from Mr. Perley. I am not speaking to you about that at all ; but I tell you that I had the idea from Mr. McGreev}' telling me that it must be done that it was the best thing to do, and that Wfc must do it. Q Is it not true that in the minutes of the Harbour Commission it is stated at page 116 of volume 6, number 182, that on 10th May, 1887, the following letter was received : 502 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 "Received ii letter from Henry F. Perley, Chief En^fincer to the Quebec llnr- liour Commission, transmitting a copy of a corre?.pontience exolianged between himself and the c.ontractoi-s, Larkiii, Connolly \- Co., in relation to the dredging to be done in the Wet Dock, Harbour works, a portion of which, ho states, it is desir- able should bo done during the ensuing summer, and recommending that the oti'or of Messrs. Larkin, Connolly & Co. to do the work at thirty-tivo (;^5) cents por yard be accepted, as he considers their price to be fair and reasonalde, and suggesting that the expenditure in dredging during the year Ijo limited to 8100,000." Q. By whom is the letter signed ? By whoever j-ou wish ? — A. 1 have not the minutes. Q. Then the minute is correct? — A. I think that it is correct. Q. Is it not true that at the same meeting of the Harbour Commission it was resolved as follows, a» appeals on page 117 of volume C : '• JkOsolved, that a contract bo signed with Messi-s. Larkin, I'onnolly & Co. agreeablv with their tender for dredging the basin of the new Harbour works, provided: First. That the dredged material be placed and levelled in the Louise Embankment, or on such other locality belonging to the Harbour Commissioners, or tiiat may hereafter be acquired by the Harbour Commissioners ; Second. That tho actual contract be contined to work this summer, limited to an expenditure of one hundred thousand dollars (8100,000); Third. That alter conclusion of this season the Harbour Commissioncis are to have the power of cancelling this coiitrait with- out claim for damages of any kind, or coinpensation whatever. Tho price in tender tor dredging being Ho cents per cubic yanl. "The following named pay-lists and accounts are examined, approved and ordered to bo paid : Dockmaster's pay-list for work ended 7th instant S 38 35 Nadeau's pay-list for work ended (Jth instant lii 25 Engineer's pay-list for work endetl 7th instant, by Dr.. 24 10 An account from Larkin. Connolly & Co 7S>!l 20 CO do " 147 30 do C. Riiel 4 05 do G. Lemieux 2 40 do S. Arel 12 00 do J. Hamel&Co 235 18 do J. B. Dutil 24 00 do Jo.>». Samj-on 17 50 do J. Hamel fr^res 17*o receipt!*? — A. I tlo not remember whether it was ^i'tO or 8500 at a time, hut the receipts will show. 1 am not fully clear on that, but the receipts will prove. The Committee then adjourned till 3 p.m. id Frjd.w, 17th July. 3 o'clock p.m. Mr. JcLiEX Cu.\BOT. sworn. Bi/ the Chairman : Q. Yon live in Quebec? — A. I live at Ldvis. Q. Near Quebec? — A. Yos. By Mr. Geoffrion : Q. You are the manager of the Richoliou and Ontario Xavigation Companj*? — A. I am. Q. Since how long?— A. Since 1889. Q. Are you also a member of the Harbour Commission at Quebec? — A. Yes. Q. Since how long? — A. Since 1870, I think it is. Q. By whom were you appointed? — A. By the Government and by the Board olTr.ide, Q. Yon know the steamer •* Admiral " ? — A. I do. Where is that >teamer running ? — A. From Dalhousie to Gasp^. How long have you known that ship ? — A. Since I8S3. Had you uu interest in that ship ? — A. 1 have no interest. Was your name connected with the ship ? — A. I was the owner of the Q Q. Q Q. vessel. Q. Q The registered owner? — A. The registered owner. Where you owning the shij) on your own account or on somebody else's jiccount ? — A. It was on s^jmebody else's account. Q. You were running it in your name in the interest of a third party? — A. I was authorize*^ by the President of the St. Lawrence Steam Navigation Company at the time, the Hon. Thomas McGreevy, to look out for a steamer for the Bale des ('lialeui-s route, and I had that jiart of the transaction — to look out for a steamer — and .Mr. McGreevy, the President, had the financial part of the transaction. Q. The steamer was bought in your own name? — A. The steamer was bought ill m}- name. (J. Was it paid for with your money ? — A. No. Q. AVith whose money was it paid ? — A. Mr. McGreevy told me to buy a boat. I olijeeted then, because the company had no money. Wei!, he saj-s. • I will ailvanoe you the money, by advancing $2,000, and then we will get the balance sometime aflerwai-ds. " Try to secure the boat, " because the boat is exactly the ]ii()portion we want." Mr. McGreevy advanced the money §2,000, and by his ilirection I bought the Ijoat in my own name, because he advanced the money himself. Q. How much did you paj- for the boat; what was the agreed price? — A. sic,ooo. Q How much was paid in cash ? — A. 82,000. Q. And the ship was registered in your name ? — A. In my name. 505 U aa^.^. Vim m I* iUi ■ i; %f. i 1 1 If 1 I I 1 ' f 'I 1 ' f iiii i:i ^■i 1 > j 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. How was the balance paid ? — A. The balance was paid about three weeks after, and the money was piovidcd by Mr. McCTreevy. Q. So you put no money of your own into that ship ? — A. No, with the exception of some disburse 3nts that was reimbursed. Q. They wore considered advanced ? — A. Yes. Q. And after each season did you account for the result of the season ? — A. Certainly. Q. To whom did you account ? — A. To Mr. McGreevy. Q. And whatever had been realized would it be paid to Mr. Thomas McGreevy ? — A. Yes ; to Thomas ^McGreevy. Q. Amongst the moneys received by you on account of the running of that ship wus a subsidy from the Federal Government, was there not ? — A. There was. Q. Will you take communicalion of Exhibit " F 10 " and say whether these are the articles of agreement? — A. They were. It was the contract which I signed for five years for $12,500. Q These articles are between yourself as apparent owner on the one side, and the Government of Tier Majesty on the other ? — A. Yes. Q. And in these articles of agreement it was stipulated that you should receive for certain services rendered in connection with the postal service, $12,500 a year? — A. Exactly. Q. And this agi-eenient was made for five years ? — A. For five years, Q. And was it executed between both parties for that period ? — A. Certainly. Q. And the money was paid to you ? — A. Exactly. Q. And being leceived by you from Her Majesty's Government was accounted for and the money was paid to Mr. McGreevy? — A. Exactly. Q. At the expiry of this agreement, dated 7th November, 188H, and marked Ex- hibit "F 10," was it renewed with the Government? — A. Yes; I did aijcreement in 1883. not sign any Q. Was iu renewed ? — A. Y'es ; it was renewed. "Department of Eailways and Canals, '•' Ottawa, 25th May, 1888. Q. You received a letter ? — A. I received a letter which I did not sign. Q, Will j'ou take communication of a letter dated May 25th, 1888, being a copj' of a letter sent by A. P. Bradley, Secietary of the Department of Eailways and Canals, jjirporting to be addressed to you, and say whether you have received a letter similar to that? — A. I received such a letter. It read as follows : (Exhibit "Lll."j 31372. Subject 064, Eegistered. " Sir, — I am instructerl to enclose to you herewith a draft of contract in dupli- cate for the running of your steamer ' Admiral ' between Dalhousie and Gaspd, for the period of five yeai's, dating from the opening of navigation in 1888 in connection with the Intercolonial Eailway. "Will you pler.se fill in t'^e date of your signature and hr.ve it ^j-operly wit- nessed, returning both the documents here for the Minister's e.>:ecution. " I am, Sir, your obedient ser' ant, (Signed) "A. P. BEADLEY, " JuiiiEN Chabot, Esq., Secretary. " L^vis, Province of Quebec. "Enclosed agreement in duplicate No, 9331." Q. Will you also look at another document, dated 17th May, 1890, being a copy of a letter signed by Mr. Bradley and aildressed to you, and saj' whetiie.' you received such a letter? — A. Yes; that is it. I know it was in 1890. It reads as follows : (Exhibit "Mil.") " Department of Eailways and Canals, "Ottawa, 17th May, 1890, " Sir,— On the 25th May, 1888, a d vft of agrtement respecting the terms by which the steamer ' Admiral ' was to recei.e a subsidy for plying between Dalhousie 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 and the Biiie ties Chaleurs and Gasp^ Poi-ts was sent to you for s*ignature, but has not been received in the Department. I am instructed to draw \our attention to this, and to ask that the agreement be executed and retuineil licro at as early a date as possible. " I am, Sir, your t)bcdient servant, (Signed) "A. P. BliADLEY, "J. Chabot, Esq., " Secretary. "L<;vie, P.Q." Q. This letter also refers to the same steamer " Admiral " ? — A. Yes. Q. I see by this letter of the 17th May, 1890, reference is made to a letter pre- viously mentioned anu addressed to you on the 25th May, 1888, witl» enclosure, and your attention is called to the fact that you have not signed the agreement therein contained. What did you answer to this letter? — A, At the time 1 could not tind it out, but sJnce, in looking over my ])aper8 I find it out. 1 know the reason. It mentioned "hat I. was the owner of the "Admiral " in 18S8, and I was not. That was the reason I did not sign it thcsn. Q. Who was the owner in 1888? — A. Mr. Hobert McGreevj'. (i. When did you transfer your apparent ownership in the ship to Mr. Robert McGrecvy? — A. It was some time in 1888. Q. Will you take communication of the document now shown to you and say whether it is not the transfer of your apparent right in tlie property of the ship — a bill of sale yon would call it. Did you sign in favour '">f Mr. Eobert McGreevy V A.— Yes. (I It is dated 2nd February, 1888, and will bo marked Kxhihit " X-11." Since that date you have had nothing to do with the "Admiral?" — A. Since last yenv. Q. When did you become owner again? — A. Sometime last year, under the mortgage. il. W'.K) was the moi-tgagee? — A. Nicholas Connolly. Q. For what consideration did he re-transfer yea the ship? Did you pay him his mortgage? — A. No. Q. Did anybody pay him his mortgage? — A. No. ii. Is the mortgage still due him? — A. J had to give him the mortgage. ITe transferred the boat in my name and I gave nim the moi'tgage. Q. He still remained the mortgagee? — A, I became the owner. Q. You became the apparent debtor and mortgagor ? — A, Yes. Q. How much is that mortgage? — A. S25,000. Q. Is the amount still due? — A. Still due. Q. What rate of interest is paid on it ? — A. Six per cent, Q. Is it your debt?— A. No. Q. Whose ?--A. Mr. McGreevj's. (^ Which Mr. McGreevy ? — A. The Hon. Thomas McGrecvy. Q. The amount is really due by the Hon. Th()inas McGreevy? — A. The boat was transferred to me and I gave a mortgage foi' 82r),000. Q. As a mortgage is only a guarantee of debt 1 want to kncAv who owes 'ho (leiit? — A. 1 owe the debt and the boat is responsible for it, <^ Suppose the ship would be lost woul I ! i i <>ii r^^i '^'ik I ■ f .y 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Whatever may be profits made durinij the present season on that ship, to whom will you account? — A, Hon. Thomas McGreevy. Q. You are now keepinj? your books with a view of accounting at the end of the season to the lion. Thomas McGreevy? — A. Exactly. Q. Whilst you were owner for the first time of the ship, did you not mortgage the ship in favour of James G. Ross? — A. Yes. Q. Will you look at this document (which will be marked P^xhibit " Oil,") and say whether this would not be the mortgage you signed ? — A. That is my signature. Q. At whose request did you sign it? — A. Hon. Thomas McGreevy. Q. And when the mortgage was settled who paid it? — A. Mr. Thomas McGroevj' borrowed the money from Mr. Connolly. The transaction was made by Mr. Thomas McGrocvy. When the boat was transfei-red by Mr. Connolly ho was the mortgagee. (i,. Did you receive the Federal subsidy last year as usual ? — A. I did. Q And are you now under articles of agreement as in the previous years for the same amount of Federal subsidy of 812,500? — A. The same subsidy was paid last year. Q. But the present year ? — A. No. Everything was transferred by Mr. Thomas McGreevy to Nicholas Connolly. Q. The subsidy was transferred? — A. AH his interest in the ship is transferred. Q. Have you any papers to show that? — A. I have got the notarial document. Q. That you can file ? — A. Yes, but I have not got it with me. By the Chairvmn : Q. It is a pity you did not bring it with j'ou. — A. I asked Mr. Geoffrion if I would be I'cquiied to-day, and he told me he would not require me this afternoon. Mr. Geoffrion — I acknowledge it is my fault. To witness : You just men- tioned that Thomas McGreevy transferred his interest to Nicholas K. Connolly. When was that? — A. I could not exactly say. It was in the month of February, but I could not exactly say what date. Q. At any rate the paper would tell? — A. Yes. Q. Notwithstanding the paper Hied with you, is it not a fact that you are to account for the proceeds of the season's receipts to Tliomas ^IcGrecvy ? — A. No, to Nicholas K. Connolly. All the interests in regard to the vote I am to account to Nicholas K. Connolly. Q. And you have nothing more to do with Thomas McGreevy? — A. I havj nothing more to do with Thomas ^IcGreev}-. By the Chairman : Q. Who is the owner of the ship to-day? — A. I am. Q. In name? — A. Yes. Q. On whose behalf do j^ou hold the ship? — A. Nicholas Connolly. Q. What is the position of Nicholas Connolly in regard to that ship — I am talk- ing of this year, not of any other year? — A. He owns the whole interest in the ship now. Q. He has the mortgage ? — A. He has the mortgage. Q. Is Thomas McGreevy rosjionsible for the amount of the mf>itgage? — A. Not at all. Q. He has no more responsibility ? — A. Exactly, because everj'thing was trans- ferred to Nicholas Connolly. tj. Hut the private understanding I mean — Is Thomas McGreevy to leniiiiii responsible to Mr. Connolly? — A. I cannot tell. Q. Hut from what Mr. McGreevy told you? — A. He did not tell mo. All ho did say was that his interest hud been tranf>fen*cd. I have not had a word with him about the " Admiral " since. Q. So you are no longer responsible to Thomas McGreevy?— A. No. Q. Is Thomas McGreov}' responsible in anyway for the vcvsel now? — Il de- pends entirely on ih? signing of that document whether he is or not. 50H 64 Victoila. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. When was that document sijjned ? — A. Last Februaiy. Q. Before that time was Thomas McGreevy responsible for the mortgage? — A. — He was; but since I do not know. Q. That contract with the Government is in whose name? — A. In my name. By Mr. Da vies : Q. All these proceedings were colourable, I suppose. You were not the bond fide contractor then or since ; you simply held in trust for Mr. McGroc\y ? — A. That ii-. u I suppose. Q. You do not know whether N. K. Connolly holds in trust for Mr. McGreevy or ]iot, so far as you are concerned ? — A. No. By Mr. Edgar , Q. Q. -A. Exactly. Did you account evciy yeai- to Thomas ^[cGreevy ?- For the whole of the working period ? — A. Yes. And transferred to him any balance remaining? — A. Certainly. You did this every year until this year? — A. Until the month of February. Q. And when liobert had the vessel he did the same? — A. Eobort made the traiister to Thomas McGreevy. Q. And to whom did you render your accounts ? — A. To Robert McGreevy, until ho made a transfer of his interest to Thomas. By Mr. Fitzpatrick : Q. When did you purchase the " Admiral "?— A. In 1883. il. At that time you were the ^lanagor, and Mr. McGreevy was the President (■t'tlie St. Lawrence Steam Navigation Company ? — A. Exactly. . Then you remained pi'ojirietor nominallj' alter Connolly became the niort- giigi'i' up to Fehruary last ? — A. No; since February last. • i*. V]) to that time Mr. Mctrieevy had an interest in the boat ? — A. Exiictly. t^. And since February last j\Ir. Connolly is ])ractically in possession and you aw iiDiiiinally the registered owner ? — A. That is it. 'i>. The agreement or assignment bv Tlionuis McGreevy lo Nicholas K. Connolly was executed before Mr. Meredith in (^tiebcc on the 25th Feiiruary, ISDI '{ — A. Yes. ^i. Look at the document now producv^d and say whether it is a coj)y (jf the iissinnment or not ? — A. Of course to be certain I would require to compare it with till' ilocument 1 have. I'miy of assignment tiled as Exhibit "' Pll." Q. Have 3'ou any doubt that it is a notarial copy ? — A. I have no doubt. (^ That assignment by Thomas McGreevy to Nichohw K. Connolly was duly cer- tilifci by you ? — A. Exactly. Q. Since that assignment was made have you any reason to believe that Thomas McGreevy has any interest whatever dii-ect or indirect in the "Admiral"? — A. I ilo not know anything about it. 509 ^ m .',>; , 1 1 I ' ! V: H Hi 3 PI it!) llir i.3^:'ii|ii| H,: wall"- >s( -li i? 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. li. ■ 9 you any reason to believe that anythin,<;j of the sort exists — that Thomas McGreevy has any interest in the boat now ? — A. I do not believe he has. Q. Is the boat still running? — A. She is running now on the Bale dcs Chaleurs. Q. Did Thomas McGreevy exercise any control over her now ? — A. Xot in the least. Since the transfer was made I have had no conversation with him about the "Admiral "at all, Q. No conversation with Thomas McGrricvy? — A. Yes. Q. You have ceased to deal with Thomas McGreevy as an interested party in the "Admiral"?— A. Yes. Q. And you deal now only with Nicholas Connolly? — A. Yes. Q. When is the subsidy from the Government payable? — A. At the end of the season. Q. And the end of the season is when ? — A. About the 30th November. By Mr. McLeod: Q. Do I understand you that when you went to New York to buy the boat it was the intention to buy it foi- the St. Lawi'ence Steam Navigation Company? — A. Yes. AVhcn Mr. McGreevy told me to buy the "Admiral" I objected because I knew the Company had not the money to yixy the purchase price. lie said 1 was to buy it in my name, and that he would advance §2,000 to secure the boat, and that I was tn make an arrangement to pay the balance in HO days. I did so and he furnished the money. By 2Ir. Mulock : Q. Thomas McGreevy furnished the money to pay it ? — A. Exactly. By Mr. Geojfrion : Q. You have a contra letter from Mr. Nicholas K. Connolly? — A. I got one. By Mr. Gurran : Q. Upon your oath now as an honest man, have you any doubts in your miml. who is the actual ])ropriotor of that lioat, since the transfer to Nicholas K. Coni;-aid contractor should be called upon so to do, the said steamer may be required by the caid Miii- i^ter to perform this service in part only between Dalhousie and Gasp^ with an equal iniioage on another route. " 2. The said Julien Chabot agrees that the said side-wheel steamer " A'imiral " at'oiesaid, shall be provided with a proper and sufficient crew, and with sutlicient 5 la 1—33 If! i.'fii ■iji ll M. ■\.\\ li i I . 'I ^a )^ 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 boats and life-saving apparatus, ami that she will in all respects conform to all the legal requirements. She will also be niaintuined during the whole term of this con- tract in the same state of efficiency. •'3. The steamer shall make two round trips per week, leaving either end at such day and hour as may, from time to time, be tixed by the said Minister of Railways and Canals, or his successors in office, and she shall call at the following places, viz. : Dalhousie, Carleton, Xew Ilichmond, Paspebiac, Port Daniel, Newport, Lillle Pabos and Percd, and at such other place or places on the north side of the Baie dos Chaleurs as the said Minister or his successors in office may from time to time direct. "4. The steamer shall carry all mails and the officer -n charge of them free of charge, landing and receiving the mails on the shore by her boats at such places as she cannot come alongside a wharf, or where there is no wharf. ".*j. The steamer shall have free of charge the use of the railway wharf at Dal- liousie, but the Kailway Department reserves the right to charge wharfage and storage on all local freight landed and embarked at the said railway wharf. " 6 The railway will deliver and receive all freight at the railway wharf. Dal- housie, in cars. The said Julien Chabot, must at his own expense, provide all the labour necessary at the wharf, and must unload the freight from the cars into the Htore on the wharf and load it on board the steamer and must also unload the freight from the steamer ami put it into the store and into the cars. " 7. The said Julien Chabot shall i)e at the expense of transferring the mails and passengers, and baggage between the Dalhousie passenger station and the railway wharf, and the vehicles used for these i)urposes will be subject to the appioval of the said Minister or his successors in office . " S. The 1 ates for j)as8engers and for freight shall be subject to the approval of tlie said Minister or his successors in office, and in the case of through rates, the divi- sions shall be such as may be settled by the said Minister or his successors in offioe. '• !). The said .1 alien Chabot shall provide at his own expense the necessary agents at the ditferent points on the route. " 10. The said Julien Chabot shall be responsible tor all railway freight, bacU charges and other expenses due upon any freight or baggage transferred to the steamer, and the full amount shall be paid over to the railway without deduction or abatement of any kind . "11. The accounts between the railway and the steamer shall be settled every week and the balance due paid over in cash . "12. The said Julien Chabot shall settle in a just and equitable manner any claim which may arise on account of injury to passengers or of loss of, or of damage delay to fieight while in transit by the steamer or in the hands of his agents. '• 13. It coal or other stoies or labour is furnished to the steamer b3^ the railway. the charges for the same must be paid weeklv. " 14. The said Julien Chabot shall pay one-half the cost of advertising the route. " 15. In consideration of the foregoing and provided that said Julien Cliabt't pei - form the lequiicnients of this contract. Her Majesty will ])av to the saiil .hiiicii Chabot for each of the seasons of 1888, 1889, 1890, 18!)1 and 1892, the annual sabsidy or sum of twelve thousand live hundred dollars, but Her Majesty shall not be bound to pay any portion of the said subsidy uidess the service for the j)eriod then expired has been performed to the satisfaction of the said Miiuster or his successors in office. " !♦>. The Government shall have the right to deduct from the sjild subsidy any balance tlue to the railway, for freight or back charges, or for coal or other stores <>r labour furnished, or for damages to passengers or animals or goods while in transit in the steamer. " 17. The said Julien Chabot shall conform to such orders and regulations as may be made from time to time by the saiil Minister of Railways and Canals, or iii- successors in office. "18. Should the steamer fail at any time during the term of this contract to meet all or any of the f<»i'egoipg requirements, or should ihesaid Julien Chabot fail to jior- form all the sti|)ulations herein contained or any of tliem, the said Minister or liis 514 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 fuecessors in office shall havotlie right to terminate the contnict, and all the subsidy tlien diieHhall be tbifeiled, and the said Minister of Hallways and Canals, or his suc- cessors in office, shall be the sole and final judge of the porf'(»rmaneo or non-peifor- luanee by the said Julien Chabot of the stipulations, conditions, and agrcenioiits herein contained. '' In witness whereof the said .Tulien Chabot hath hereto set his hand and seal, and these piesonts have been signed and sealed by the said Minister, and counter- signed by the Secretary of the Department of IJailways and C iiiuls on behalf of Her Majesty. Siuned, sealed and delivered by ) •lulien Chabot in presence of J .Signed and sealed by the said Minister '\ and the Secretary of JJaihvays and > Canals in piesence of j Jlinister of huilways and ("anils. " Secretary," Ml. l.:l )i^ !,■.! rerv Mr. G. B. BuRLANij sworn. By Mr. Geoff rion : Q. Will j'ou take communication of Exhibit " XIO "' and say whe' hor this letter i.> signed by you? — A. It is signed by me. Q. In whose handwriting is the bod^-of thedocume'nt V — A. That I cannot say. Q. Is it in the handwriting of any of your clerks? — A. I think not. (I. Was not the document prepared beforehand and handed to you for signa- ture ? — A. I should say this one was. Q. [ will put you the same question with regard to Exhibit " BIl." Is this :tl>o signed by you? — A. It is signed by my son. Q. Your son .Tetfrey liurland. You notice that the body of the document is in tla' same handwriting as theliody of the other letter I showed you ? — A. I think not. (I. Will you compare? — A. The first one 1 do not recognize at present. The tucoiid is my son's. Q. The body of the document also? — A, Yes. (l- The first one is dated 1st October, 1886, and the second is dated 13th Novem- iier, 1S8(J. Do you notice that the letters are exactly in the same terms? — A. It is till.' same meaning, but the words are not the same. . I think there is a third one. Will you look at another letter, being Exhibit " DU", dated iTth December, and say whom it is siirned by? — A. These letters are signed by mj' son and I think \vhile I was in bed with a broken leg. (^. The handwi'iting in the body you do not recognize? — A. No. (I. Mr. Noel is manager of the Quebec Bank in this city? — A. Yes. Q. You say in that letter, "As trustee of the Bale des Chaleurs Railway, I am instructed to send you a cheque for 88,000, which sum vou will be good enough to p:iy over to any person whom the Hoii.T. Robitaille, President of the company, may diiect," That is siarned by ^-ourself, '' (r. B. Burland." Will you say by whom you wtMv so instructed ? — A. Perhaps, to make the transaction clear, I should make an (.•x|ilunation. The letter says 1 am trustee for the Baie des Chaleurs IJailway. 1 am, pri'lierly speaking, trustee for the sub-contractors. I have nothing to do with the railway. I assi-ted the sub-contractors and the subsidies were transferred to me to imy them and secure myself. There were instalments to be paid from time to time liy the (tovernment as the work ))rogrossed and there was a surplus over what the MilKDiitractors ought to get and that money was to be handed to the bank. I am 515 /111 ! ill^lil ;l!in ii M : i! 1— 3:u f'^^l 54 Victona. Appendix (So. 1.) A. 1891 , ') t i I ' Eretty Hure it was Mr. Armstronir, the contractDC, who iiistructeil me that the alance of the money was to i;o in tJiis way. Q. So far as yon can remember n<»vv. you were ho instructtnl by Mr. C. N. Arm- Btronj; ? — A. I think fo; I never wiw Mr. Robitaillo or Mr. Ikiupel. Q. Nor Eobert 11. McUreevy ? — A. I do not know the gentleman. Q. The only partiett you saw were Armstrong and O'Brien ? — A. Yes . I aspistcd O'Brien to take the work and the money was paid to me as the estimates were eomiiiif ill and I paid it out to O'Brien as he rene else l-}- the ortler of Mr. Armstrong and Mr. O'Brien? — A. I paid $8,000 lo Mr. Armstrong and three payments out of three instalments from the Government to Mr. Noel. There were also other payments due by the sub-contracloi-s, that is, liabilitic-i, but I d(» not remember the names just now. There were, however, liabilities to other parties which were paid on behalf of the sulx-ontractors. Q. Did you pay anything to Mr. Kiopel ? — A . No. Q. And the only amounts you did not pay to the contractors or to j-ourself were the four amounts of $H,000 each ? — A. The only cash paid to Mr. Armstrong on his account was the first 88,000. I handed that to Mr. C.N. Armstrong himself, and then there were the three other instalments at the three ditterent periods paid ti> Mr. Noel. (I. That is the three cheques referred to in those letters? — A, Yes; 1 have the dates ot them. Q. Give the dates, please ? — A. The tirst instalment I received from the Govern- ment was 8(50,000; the tirst payment was 30th September, to Mr, Armstrong. Q. Jiy Mr. Amyot : What year?— A. 1S86. 15th November, 88.000 to Mr. Noe Then on 1st October I paid 88.000 to Mr. Noel 8th November, $8,000 to Mr. Noel. Thes . ot moneys received, aj>art from the su" n- are the four items of money I paid out tractors. By Mr. Mulock : Q, Directly out of the Government subsidies ? — A. The money that 1 received —yes. Q. From the Government? — A. \es. (I. When you say 3'ou paid these sums to .Mr. Noel they were ]>aid to him to dispose of as Mr. Hobitaille directed? — A. This is the authority for Mr. Noel. Oi course I had lo get a receipt. Mr. John G. Billet, sworn. By Mr. Fitzpatrick : Q. What position do you occupj'? — A. I am local manager of the Union Hank, Quebec. By Mr. Geoffrion: (I. What do j-ou produce? — A. I pnxluce a copy of the current account of the Honourable Thomsis McGreevy with the Union Bank, from 1st .Fanuary, 1882, to the 1st January, 1889 (Exhibit "Jill.") £ produce a copy of O. E. Murphys account: for the same period (Exhibit "SU.") I have also N. K. Connollys from 2iird January, 1889. to 6th June of the same year (E-xhibit " Til.") By Mr. Geoffrion : (I. The account was only opened then? — A. Yes. I produce also copy of Larkin, Connolly & Co.'s account from 30th December, 1888 to 30th June, 1889, (Exhibit "Ull.") The Comuiittee then adjourned. 516 m 54 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 House ok Ci»mm »xs, Tuesday, 21st July. 1891, Tiie ('oinmittee mot at 10 a.m. . Mr. Grirou;ii"J in the Chair. Inves^ii^atioii into certain ciroiinistances • i statements made in connection with the tenders and contracts respecting the QuoLicc Ilarl'our Works. Jkv., resumed. Mr. C X. Armstrono sworn. Jiy the Chairman : Q. What is j'our name? — A. Charles X. Armstrong. By Mr. Geoff rion : Q. You were contractor for the building of part of the Baie • a promoter? — A. No, sir. Q. Who wore the President and I)ircctorreevy? — A. No; 1 had not, sir. 617 a party to that And Mr. Riopel, . There was none. \ !.■ I 1 !l 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 ■r ( i r\ i,ij . i ili^f I 1 Q. Have ynu an idea of what it was worth? — A. From what Mr. Robert M^- Greevy told mo it wiih worth coiiMderably more ihan it turned out to be. Q. How much did it turn out to be worth ?— A. Probably 810,0(10. {.}. Can you give us any information where that memorandum can bt t'ound if it still exists? — A. I have not the slightest idea. (i. JTow were the 850,(»00 to be paid ?— A. 810.000 in cash and five payments ot $8,000 each. Q. Upon the receipt of five different jtaymons and subsidies from the Dominion Government. How much of that money was paiil? — A. 842.000. (I. Were the 810,000 cash paid ? — A. It wa.s paid in 83.000 cash, and in notes for 87,000, which was afterwards paid. Q. And how many of the 8H,0O0 payments were made? — A. Four. (^ These tour payments of 8H,000 each were taken out of the Government subsidies as they became due, on account of the progress of the work ? — .\. Indirect- ly they were. Q. But as a matter of fact tiiey were ail taken out of Government subsiilies; there was no otlier source lor payini;; it e.xcept the Government subsidies ? — A. Tiiere was another source, but that was the agreement. Q. As earned by you (»n the contract ? — A. As earnetl by me on tlie contract. Q. The subsidies were Dominion Government subsidies? — A. Yes, from the Dominion Government. Q. There was a sub-contractor by the name of O'Brien, I believe, who hail a sub-contract? — A. The firm of O'Brien & Go. Q. Vou remember Mr. G. B. Burland who acted for or represented these sub- contractors? — A. Mr. Burland acted as trustee between the subcontractors and myself, receiving the subsidies and paying them their proportion as they liecanie entitled to it, and accounting to me for the balance. Q. Will you look at the letter markeil Exhibit " XIO," and say whether yon have seen this document before? — A. Yes; it is in my handwriting. Q. And signed by G. B. Burland, is it not'/ — A. Yes; signed by G. B. Burland. Q. Has this any reference to the first 8B.0OO paid out of the subsidies? — A. I: refers to one of the payments. Q. Is it not the first one? — A. I cannot say from mcmor}- whether it is tlie first one or not. il. At the subsequent payments similar letters were given to Mr. Burland, wore theie not, all of the same terms ?— A . The letter produced refers to another payment of $8,000. Q. Also signed by 3Ir. Burland, or somebody fur him '? — A. I don't know the .signature, it is not his. Q. And the letter marked Exhibit "Dll '' is also one of those letters referriii::: to one of those payments? — \. That refers to another payment. Q. Will you explain why, in Mr. Barland's letter. Exhibit "Xlo," in your hanl- writing, the person to whom the mone^' is to be paid is not indicated '.■' — A. T'lero was no reason why ,Mr. Burland shouhl know who was the person indicated at all. He had no interest in the matter at all. He was simply acting as tiustee for ine. and had to pay that money to whichever were directed by me. Q. That is \-our reason why Mr. Burland's letters would not indicate the person to whom the money was to be paid? — A. It did not affect him at all. Q. And this reason applies to the three letters in reference to the three payments of 88,000 each ? — A. They have apparentl}' used the same form that I used for the first payment. Q. Do you remember how the fourth payment of S3,0o0 was made? Was it made through Mr. Burland or directly by you 'f — A. I don't remember making any payment directi}' at all. Q. Do 3'ou remember when this memorandum in writing about the purcha.»e ii It would be probably a few davs before the contract wu-- 518 the shares was signed ? — A 1, i 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 entore«i into liv the company — somewhere probubly about tho l>t June, 188»i, |ii>>>ibly the end <><••. (}. Thi!« purchafc of Roborl >rcGroevy's shares would lmvi> taken phice t'lrly in June, or at the end of -May? — \. A few days or a week or two b«'tore. '/. There appears liy youi- statement a balance ihie on the purchase. Was there .my iirn-ement alyuit that? — A. It is not payable yet. The conditions have not been carrio«l out. (}. What were the conditions? — A. That upon the pryment of each sum of .SCit.tMju by the Dominion trovernment. The last paj'ment lias not been received yet. *i. A- all the -ub^idies have not been paid this amoutv is not settled? — .\. No. V. That would be h()w much ?— A. 88,000. *i. But the bonds were given? — A. Not to my knowledge. *i. Can you tell us what was tho exact value of the shares of this Company at the time you Uiui^ht them. That is to say, at the end of .\[ay or the lu-ginning of June? — .\. That is impossible. There was no market quotation for them. I con- sidered them worth what I paid for them. V- If you had iKiught the shares alone, without beini; a contractor, what would you have iriven for them? — A. I would not have bought them at all. • /. Is it not a fact that this bargain was accessory to another one? — A. Not at all. I flid not get the contract from .Mcdreevy at all. *}. But from the Comjiany. Was it not understood that the contract was to bo given to you as a eonseqnenco of that purchase of the shares you made ? — A. No. I refusetl to take the contract unless .Mr. Mefireevy sold out all his interest. *i. What was the reason why? — A. Kecaiise I did not want to have anything to do with Mciireevy in the matter. <;. Vou wantetl to have the controlling interest? — A. Certainly, *}. Did you buy anj' other shares? — A. No. id you see the doeument since ? — A. No. Q. As tar as you were concerned you did not take it from the hands of Mr. Rio- I'cl? — A. No. I have no recollection of seeing the document since it was signed. i: ■\kf :.; k ul B'l Mr. Stuart : '}. What waji the value put by Robert McGreev}' upon the working plant at the liuu- of the aiireement ? — A. I do not think there was anv special amount named. 619 f :! iiijl 64 A^ctoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. FiOm the ten )i- of the conversation, what were you k-il to suppose was the value of each of them ?— A. Fiu.n 820,000 to 825,000. Q. From represeit itions mado ? — A. Only general re|»resentatioiis. There were no details given. Q. T understand you had nothing whatever to do with Thomas McGreevy in this matter?— A, Xo. ii. All your dealings wore v/ith R )bert ? — .V. With Robert. By Jlr. Davies : Q. I understood you to say that in your own mind you did not put much value in the work V — A. No. 1 drove over it ' nt T could not see uN the work. Mr. Mak IN P. Connolly sworn. Bji Mr. Geoff rion: Q. When did you first come to he in the employment of Larkin, Connolly &. Cii. V — A. 2nd January', 1SS,5. Q. You live in Quebec? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Yni have abva^s lived there? — A. Always had my home there. I have been absent occasionally. Q. Were you hired bj' the year or by the nio:ith? — A. The first year 1 was hire 1 by the ^ear at an allowance of so much per month. Q. Was there afterward any change? — A. The ne.xt year Mr. Connolly told nie he would raise my salary to $800 a year. The first year it was 8")00. Q. That was a change in the salaiy. You were hired by the jea ? — A. I unde-stood 1 was hired bj- the year. (^t. Were y()u still in their employjuent on t'le 2nd of January, IS'JO? — A. Yes sir. with the new firm. Kl. I n the 2nd of Janua.y, 18!)1, were j-ou still in their employ? — A. I was in the emjiloy of the new firm .4' N. K. & M. Connolly. Q. Was there any increase of salary? — A. It was increased to 81.(iOO a ycai' afterward and it remained at that afterward over since. Q. On the 2nd of Jaiiuarv vou \.~.iQ continued at the sr.me salary of gl.OUO? — A. Yes. Q. You began on the 2nd of /anuarv, ISlll, your second year witii the Mew firm?— A. Yes! with N. K. A: M. Connolly."^ Q. And you will not finish this second engagement until January, 1802? — A. 1 did not hold them liable for my salary. 1 considered them liable to discharge nie any time they liked. Q. Hecause ymi had not liehaved youi'seit pro))erly? — A. Xo. Q. Was there any breach of yi'Ur contrac* to entitle them to discharge 3'oii in the middle of the year? — A. No. Q. Dill yon ever give them cause to discharge you ? — A. Not willingly. (\. V, hy dmi't you hold them ri sponsible foi- your salaiy? — A. When aiix'liDily wishes ti) dis])ense with me I am willinir to go. lj>. You are ready to be engaged for ayear one ilay and discharged the next diiy. Did they want you any more? — A. I do not know I am sure. Q. Was thee ni> moi'o works going on? — A. They have a little work at Kin,'-- ton, but I understand it is about finisiieil. Q. Is it finished ? — A. I really cannot nay. Q. YdU do not know it it woi..d take many months before it would be tiiiislio! ? —A. 1 I'eally cannot say. Q. Have they anv other book-keeper besides yon? — A. >i.>t during my time. (\. JIave they anv book-keeper in Kingston ? — A. Yes. Q. Who is he?— A. Mr. Claxton. r)20 ctlii 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. .Since the Connoll\-s liave had work at Kinu'^ton, have j-ou been occasionally callofl to o the}- do any more drediring there ? — A. Xot this year. {}. In (^ue!)ec weie you in tin habit of keejiinj;; the private Ijnoks ofXicholas K. (onnoiiy ? — A. I started a set of private ijoo'.s for him. (^. Yi)U hail a gon t deal to do in (Quebec fo/ Nicholas li. Connolly — is he well ott? — A. I ibi not know that. il- I)n you not know that he is running a ship on the Bale des Clialeurs? — A. I di< n(Jt know that. Q. Did yon make any entry of leturns about a shij) oi- otherwise in his books ? — A . Xo, sii'. Q. Hm e you any entries made in Nicholas K. Connolly's books about a steam- J'oat on the Haiedes Clialeurs ? — A. No. sir. (^. No private entries ? — A. No, sir. I bi'ought all the books up and I could tin 1 such entries if they were there. (i. Had you an}- work for Michael Connolly in (Quebec, too? — A . Not privately. Q. You absented yourself from (Quebec sometime in May? — A. Yes, sir,; 1 went U> Kingston. . i-'or what purpose did he want you there ? — A. lie had been expecting me tn '^t> up tor some time. ' ii. \Vliat for?— A. To do the gener;ii ottice work. '}. So there was work to be done there ? — A. Certainly. t^. You were there how many days, do ycm say ?— A. Kour or five days : pio- lably a week. (^. OutofwhMi Mi(. "c was the (Queen's Birthday? You did not wo:k on that day '! — A. I do rot think we celebrated the (^hieen's Birthday ; it was on a Sunday imyw.My. 1.^. But tU',' next day was proclninied a holiday, vou did not see that ]irochuv,a- ti"n ?— A. No. (^. You left Kingston after that \reek. you >ay ? — A. Yes. I think it was the -aine week. (}. Did you leave on business? — A. Partly. '}. And paitly on pleasure? — A. Partly on piea>nre. Q. What is liie ]iart of business in y.>ur trip? — A. Mr, Connolly came into the otlice one morning and told me he had no further u-e of my services, so 1 wanted to ^'•f if I coulil get anything to do elsewiiere. Q. lie did not give you any further time to decide?— A. No. . lie told you he did not want you any ino.'c?— A. Ye->. Q. And you were in receipt of a salary of 81,0(H> a year? — Ye-. iti he pay you we!!? — A F> paid me at the rate of Sl.diM) a year. , 'i. Just your rciiular salaiv? — A. .Inst mv salarv, 531 ■ hW Sll m^'-^'i I i! 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 18<>1 Q. Did you niiike any entry in the books? — A. I did not stiiy to make any entiy. J icave him u voucher. Q. Did yon tjo away on the same day ? — A. Ves, sir. <»>. What train did you take ? — A. I went that afternoon to Toronto. (}. What lioiir? — A. \ think it was '.\.iH), or somethinir like that. (j. Then Iiow loui:; did you stay in Toronto ? — A. All night. Q. And then ? — A. I went over to Butt'ak). . JJid you go tiiere alone ? — A. Xo. (^. Who was wit!) you ? — A. 1 teieuraphed to St. Catliarinos to Mr. Cloney to meet me. • ^ Where did he go to meet you ? — A. He met meat St . Catharines. Tasked him it lie was doing anytiiing anil lie said no; [ then saiil to iiim. come over to Bul- t'ald. We had promised each otliei to :nake a trip to buffalo together a good many years before and he decided to go with ni* . Q. Who is Mr. Cloney ? — A. lie was the time-keeper on the works at ^Miehec. (I. You thought you would go to Jiutt'alo foi'a little pic-nic V — A. Yes; foralittle pic-nic. days (^. How long did j-ou remain in Buffalo? — A. I remained in Buffalo tour or five s. Q. Did you stay at any hotel there? — A. Yes, sir. ^^ \Vhat hotel ?-A. The .Staff. u-d (louse, Q. Did you register when you went there? — A. I did. Q. Under your own name ? — A. Under my name. *i. Did .Mr. Cloney register under his name, too? — A. I guess so. Q. \'ou say 3'ou stayed a' the Stafford House first ? Who. e did von stav after- wards?— A. The Carlton House. . Did you register there? — A. I registered there, too. Q. Under your name ? — A. Under my name. Q. And you thitd< Cloney did the same? — A. I think so. . Did you look fo!- employment there, or did you sini[)ly <'nioy yourself in Bulf :ilo . A. I lo -l. Can you name a place where you applied for employment? — A. 1 1 lao a letter of introduction to a gentleman luimed Day Q. Mr. Day would not take you?— A. He would. Q. What is his occupation? — \. I think lie is manager tor W. !-. Scott, a coal man. . Who had given 3'oii the Ictfei' of introduction ? — V. Mr. Hume. {}. Who is Hume? — A. He is Kngineer on the works. <^. Did you dose any engagement there? — A. No sii-. <^. He Would not give 3'ou a sutHcienl salary? — A. I w;is al" " ' .o make an engagement when I gi;t a telegram fiom Mr. Connolly-, asking me ' > Mtiie to Ottawa and give evidence before the Committee on 1^'ivileges and Klectioii: <^. Had you givi n informatnui to < 'onnolly whei-e you were gone? — A. I had iioi. Q. Hud j-ou wiitlen to your family to say where yti\i had g one -A. I liiid written a letter but I had not time to jiost it. As a niatfei- of fact I bi'ouiiiit it lack with ine in my jiocket . <^. Your father and mother did not know where you had gone? — .V. I do not think they did. Q. Then how did Connolly find out your addie-s? — A. I left my address beliiiid nic at J\ingst*)n. so thai if any mail (anio for me it could be forwarded. (^. With whom did you leave your address? — A. With .Mr. Hume. Q. And Connolly di(l not know your acUlress ? — A. I think not. (}. I'nlcss Hume told him he did not? — A. I think not. (^1. \Vhi< h of the ' 'onnollys telegraphed you ? — A. Mr. Nicholas. Q. Have you the telegi'am v.ith you''' — A. Yes. 54 Tictona. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 (Exhibit '-Yll.") '•To M. P. Connolly, Ottaava, Ont., (i-:>-'.tI. toe. '• Ploiel Ciirlton— Biirtiiio. " If posijiblc would like you to eoiiic here ml yive evidence before the Commit- "N. K. CONNOLLY." <^>. ILive you ulso liie tologTuvu tiiat cislved you to come from Quebec to Kintrs- ton?— A. Think I have. (i-:xhibit" Wll.") " From KiNQSTON, Ont., 20ih May. 1801. To '.!. P. CoNNOM.Y. 124 Dalhousio St., (Quebec. •• Am A-aitii)'' for vou here. Leave at once. X. K. CONNOLLY." Q. Until 18S7, as liook-keepor at Quebec, _yon were under the general order.s of (). K. .ilnrpliy, were you not ? — A. (ionerally. }-e.«. Q. He was manager of the cash '! And it was generally' he who gave insti-uc- lions to you to make entries in the boi>k> ? — A. Yes. sir. Q. Do you remember that a change took place in reference to ttie management in ISSTV — A. [ remember that Mr. Murjihy said he woultl have nothing more to do with the cash. (^. Not only did lie saj' so, but a new arrangement took jihiee? — A. Ves ; Mr. I'onnoll.y took chai'ge of it. Q. Mr. Nicholas K. Connolly took the management of the cash? — A. Yes ; or rather, he signed tlie checiues. That is all he did. (\. ]5y wii()>e orders would you niak'o entries in the li()t)ks ? — A. I do not know as [ was ordeieo es|)eeially. Q. Vou must have authority. By whose authority would you make entries in llie books, when not to your own knowledge ? — A. An}' one of the tirrn. Q. When a member of the Hi ni signed a cheque or haage 10.") ot the lOvidenco and sec whether you can give any explanation about the items which were charged subsequent to the first January, 1S87— for instance, $27,000 under date of 2Stli .Slarch, 1887?— A.— I have no o.^idana- tidu oiher than was given liefore the Sul>(\)mmittee. '^ In the evidence given beloie theSiib-Commitlee on 20th June there is a refer- eiK'e lo a chai'ge of 82r),6oO. 1 thiidc 3-ou have stated that this 825,000 would renre- >ciit the five promissory notes ? — A. No, Sir; it would rei)i'esent four che<[Ues of ^r),00O each, and another §.'»,U0O, I believe, hail been expended by ^Ir. Mnri»hy, I dnn't kimw how many idieques he took at all. 'i>. Well, did you not ascertain that all these idic(iues were nuide and signed in llie name of the firm itv Nicholas (-onnollv and made pavable to his order? — A. No, sH'; not all of tiiem. \i. Well, point out those that were. — .V. I think the first four. 'i'. tret the cheques and the books. — \. There are three (dicipies, according to llie hooks, charged to the order of N. K. Coiuiolly. />'(/ .\fr. '/'arte : \>. Signed bv wJuun? — \. Signed in his name 5:id •^ 1 ( 1 s. You started to say just now " I understood." What did you undersiaiid .■' — A. i understood that was the sum that hud been agreed to be divided. Bi/ Mr. Lister : *}. Divided how? — A. I do not know. •i>. Wi)at (lid you put the word tiiere at all for? — A. i'robal>ly if I iiad to do ic a::;iiii I would not put it there. 1^ Was it divitled amongst the jiartners ? — A. No. 'i'. What did you put the wonl there for ai all? If it had to be divided you >iMiiilil have divided it ? A. I had iMthiMg to tlo with the dividing. /.'// Mr. Mills (Hothcdl) : <^, As a gain or a charge? — A. I knew it diil not go to any member of the ti^'iu ••i i«l iiiiirse was not charged lo an\ momt)er ot the tirm Hil Mr. Li.-e so. y^. \'oiir opinion was thai it was ;i donation ? — A. Yes. 525 ■' ! *:■ '1. ! Hi 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 fi)j Mr. Geofirion: Q. I was just askinu: you wiiy it had been traii>feiTe tiist charged U> Ksquimalt Dock? — A. Becau>e I believed there was a large estimate the firm hat at that time from British (.'olumbia. (.}. Some 872,000 ? — A. In round numbers. Q. 871,800— al)oiit that date it came?— .A. Yes. V. Ill the hast-e of the moment this 825,000, |)lus 82.(mhi, were cluuged to that first ? — A. Not in haste. I think, to the bosi of my knowledge, we did not have any sum of S25.000 to be crediteil to the rirm on Queltec work.-. Q. And Quebec works had to be borrowed from I']squimalt works? — A. !t was all the same thing. It was talcen out of the British Columbia estimates when they came .some time prior. Jiy J/r, Lister : Q. I[ow did you come to make the»e entries to Esquimalt Dock? — A. Because the money was tak'en from that funil. Q. Who told you to make the entiy against suspense account ? — A. I do not re mem her. Q. It is now SU: ipense account under >[arch ? — A. Yes. <^. Who told you to charge it to .-dispense account the members of the firm. -A. It was a'creed amoni. (^. Which Miefnber-? — A. All the members who were there at the lime. Q. Xame them. — A. Mr. O. E. Murj)hy. .Mr. Robert McGreevy ami Mv. Nicholas Oll- Conm iisnenseaci ouiil -A. Yes. The iec(i||ection I have aliiMit the mattei' was that the mf)ney was taken from this t'nnd, and at the time it was taken it was appose li i> charii'ed to tlic (Quebec Harbour Improvement woiks. 1 do not rememher being told by any licr of the tirm to chalice it to susiiense. but 1 1 want lo k low wli y 3'ou did not do it. if that was the undcrst;inding? — \. 1 do not remember why we did not do it. \>. Do you remember why you charged it lo I-lsquimaU? — A. Certaiidy : becaii- the cheiiues were from that i'm\d. <,» Who told you to (.die il fnnu ihul tuiid ? — A. 1 d(. not know. <4>. Nick < 'oniioily ? — A. 1 do no| kni w, i}. He signed the clu'que ? — \. He siuned some of the m. o2i» 54 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 Q. And you swear you charued tliere. It is cliarnod oil 28tii March 1887. (I. A year after? — A. Xo, the fnllowiny' month. Q. And you do not remember who told you to do that ? — A. Xo. By Mr. Gcoffrion ; (I. Was there not another item of 810,000, taken out of that large estimate paid 1(1 the British Cohimbia works? — A. I do not think so. (^ Is there not another item of 810.000 paid to Mr. Kohert Mctireevy? — A. mentioned as liein!>- ]iart of the .i?25.0OO. Two cheques. jheqi idy t^. In Exhibit " E7 " printed at page 174 of the Evidence, and which is in your hiMidwriting, you indicate an item under date March, lhS7, 8.'),000, witii the words 'Tiiree Kivers." When you weie examined before the Sulj-Commitfoe you stated as follows .^ — •• (l. How did 3'ou put it there tlien?— A. To the best of my recollection I pi.t it from a conversation I overheard." Will you state to the Committee what was the conversation you overheard ? — A. It is very luird for me to state exiictly what was the conversation I overheard, but I tinderstootl at the time, wlicn I put the words '• Three Eivers," there, that the 8'),000 had been sent to Three l?ivers. (,>. The purport of the conversation which you overheard, and b}- which you felt justified in making the entry, was that the money had been been sent to Three i livers , A. V sir, Q. Though the entry is made in that Kxhibit " E7 " under tiie lieading March, 1887. does it mean that the money had been paid or sent to Three Kivers during -March, or does it nietm oidy the date of the entiy ? — A. I could not siiy tiuit. 1 do not remember. (I. It is very important to find out when that 85,000 was sent to Three Ilivers — can you find it by tiie books ? — A. It was impossible for me to tell yon. (^. Because for those payments the books do not always show the dates when the ])ayments weie made? — A. No, sir. (,>. And you liave not the chetiues for that amount? — A. I ilo not know, sir. I IkuI tiie cheques <,>. But it is not here. Is it not a fact that all tln' (dieques from April, 188(), t( April. 1.SS7, on the I'liion Bank, are lost? — A. It is a fact thiu when you asked me the oilwr day to look for them that I could not find them, but 1 was under the iin lay ire«M'iii until the other day that they were put in tiie box. <^ Hut without ])utting the responsibility on any one for tlieii' bavin g gone. they cannot be found now? — A. I do not think so. I. And therefore you are unable to say whether this .•miniint of 85,000 wi(> are missiiiii' at iiiiidc by ji clieijue or not, seeing the cheques for the I nioii Haiik llial lime ? A. Yes, sir. /)'// Mr. Daries : Noll have searched thoroughly fo" thoe chc'iues .' — A. I have. Have you satisfied \oiirself that Ihey are not liere now? — A. I have. And you are thoroughly satisfied in y payment without being consulted by them or at theiv request. Q. Were thei-f not occasions where Nicholas Connolly had to make payments and then giv^ them the information ? — A. Not to my knowletlge. (^. Between whom was the conversation held, which you overheard, and I'V which you felt authorized to charge this 85,000 to Three Rivers? — A. 1 did n)'. charge it to Three Riveis. T'nderstand that. I overheard some conversation tViua which I gathered that the sum of 85,000 had been expended on the election at Thit'' Rivers, ami I marked -'Three Rivers" opposite an item of 85.000, so as to enable in.' to recollect the sum. /iy Mr. Davies ; Q. A kind of ear niark? — A. Yes. • Bi/ Mr. (rcofrion : (-i. Between whom was that conversation held? — A. I have already told yiu I think between the members of the Hrm. 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. So now you remember that, tliis conversation wan to the effect that the money had been spent in tlie election at Tiiree Rivers? — A. Something,' to tliat effect. Q. In your hooks wo find two entries in blar'c as to the destination of the money, namely, on the iJrd of Auijust, 1887, and the 8th August, 1887. You have already stated that you left that blank, when the entry was made, because you iiad not then any instructions? ( Vide report of proceedings, j). 105). Have you since making the entiy ascertained what those two payments were for ? — A. No, sir. Q, Who told you to make the entries with those blanks? — A. Nobody. I guess T matlo them myself, and left the blanks for the explanation to bo put in, if ever I should get it. I do not believe I got it. Q. is it not the fact that these two pa^Muents were made by cheques of the tirm signed by Nicholas K. Connolly, and ])ayable to the order of Nicholas K. Ci)nnolly? — A. T could tell you that by turning up the cash book. (After referring to book) : Yes ; they are both to the order of Mr. Nicholas K. Connolly. Q. And it is in blaidc? — A. Y'es, sir. Q. Was not this entry made at the request of Mr. Connolly? — A. It must have been at his re(iuest? Q. You did not get the money yi>urself? — A. I may have. Q. And if you hail you should have been able to rill the blank, unless you pocketed it. — A. Oh no. Q. And you, who wei-e the book-keeper, say you do not know what you did with the money ? — A. Certainly. [ may have got the cheque, gone to the liank and handed the money over to Mr. Connolly. Q. And would it not then be charged to Nicholas Connolly-? — A. Certainly not. The cheque was made payable to Nicholas K. Connolly, but I might have handed the money to any member of the rirm,and it would not thoi'eforo bo charged t(j Nicholas Connolly. ii. As a matter of fact, to whom did you give the money ? — A. I may have given to 3[r. Jlobort McGreevy or Mr. O. E. Murphy, Q. You say ])Ositivoly you cannot state to whom you gave the mcjney and leaving those blank entries? — A. It is imtiossible for me to remember tl.;i.!. Q. Is it not a fact that the 81,0(»0 chetiue, dated iJrd August, was to re-imburse Owen .^[urphy for a similar sum which he had paid on the 21st July to Thomas Mcdreevy? — A. Not to my knowledge. Q. Was the money given to O. K. 3Iurphy to re-imburse him for disbursements iiuulo by him under " donations " ? — A. 1 don't know. Q. Is it not a fact that the cheque, dated 8th August, for 84,000, was the balance of the amount of 6"),000 he paid to Mr. ^IcGroevy — that is to sa\-, SI. 000 by O. R. iliirphy on the 25th JulJ^ and tho balance of 84,000 on the 8th August by .M. X. Coimolly ? — A. It is impossible for me to answer that. (I. And ^ou cannot remember whethei' you went for the money yourself to the bank ? — A. No, sir. (i. Or who received the money ? — A. No, sir. Q. Your memory would not supplement what is missing in the book? — A. Not in that particular instance. Q. And these two amounts were charged to " Expense " and "Donations"? — A. 1 think so. They are marked so here. Jiy Mr. Tarte : Q. Can you give any information about the cheque entered in Exhibit " L3 " unil mentioned in the evidence taken before the Sub-Committee on July 3rd " 8th March, 1888. N. K. Connolly, for amount of his private cheque for Donation re B. C. as agreed, 82,000 " ?— A. Nothing further than what 1 gave before the Sub- committee. '}. Is this entry the only one j'ou rind in the books about that? — A. No ; this would be journalized and posted in the ledger. 520 1—34 ™ ^^it I' i 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 ; \iiM,M f Mi It ■■ ii-' m. i pmm ■! Q. Reuil it. — A. On page 346 of Exhibit " L3 " is to be found the entry reaJinir : *' March 8th, 1.S8S, tit X. Iv. Connolly, tor amount of his jtrivate cherjue for donation re B. C. as ai,'reed, 82,0(J0." Q. You cannot tell us what that means at all ? — A. Xo, sir ; I cannot. Q. You have no knowledge of what the agreement was that is mentioned there? A. None whatever. Q. But is it not a fact that all the members of the tirm agreed to that payment of $2.(»flO ? — A. I judge so fn^m reading the entry. Q. And you have no idea (if the use that was made of the §2,000 mentioned here ? — A. Xot the slightest. Q. You told us that in 188" you got a large estimate of 872,000 from the British Columbia Dock? — A. Yes, sir. The tirra got a large estimate of §71,800. Q. I believe that sum of money w^s divided between the members of the firm? —A. Yes. Q. Can you shew us when that amount was tinally divided, and how it was divided ? — A. An entty showing it was tinallv divided was made on 28th March, 1887. Q. Read it, if you please? — A. "Esquimau Dock Dr. to sundries §20,560 To R. 11. Mcfireevy 3,000 " N. iv. Connolly 6,640 " r. Larkin 1.640 " O. E. Murphy 1.640 " Michael Connolly 1.640 " Graving Dock 6,000" " This entry is made to square a division of §71,800 received on account of tinal on B. C. Amount received $71,800 fromQ.II.1 200 Total to be divide^l 872,000 Less disbursed 17,000 To be divided by five §.55,000 Making for each member 11,000 Of which r. L. ri<-eive.3(i0 " 1.640 " R. H. Mc. " 8,00(1 '• 3.000 "And X. K. C, who received from the 817,000 for sums disbursed of private fuii'l- 85,000, and the two amounts charged to (1. D., journal folios 264-6, of 86,000 chaiixo'l B.C. in the 817,000. Q. Then you say that out of the 817.000 that were charged to expenses, the :-uiii of §5,000 was re-inibursed to Mr. X. K. Connolly for a similar sum he had paid out "t his private funds ?•— A. Yes. sir. Q. Would not this 85.000 be the 85.000 sent to Three Rivers?— A. Thev miirht be. Q. You do not believe they are? — A. I do not know. Q. There is a sum of 82,000 that I cannot explain very well. You say that §5,000 were reimbursed to Mr. X. K. Connolly? — A. Yes. Q. There is another sum of §5,000. Can you tell us where it went? — A. There is no other sum that I know of. Q. You have §17.,0(»0 is now charged to British Columbia. It is for the cheque dated 'JOth March, 1886, and was then charge «^' ''b Lfi V O^ 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 il ' ■i : i ^- Q. Was it entered in the books? — A. I king you if j'ou remember? — A. No, sir. Q. You have no recollection at all? — A. No, sir. Q. You knew that Connolly was subpfcnaed ? — A. Yes, sir, he was here at the time. (J. You knew what bis business was here? — A. Yes. Q. And you had an idea what you were being brought hero for ? — A. \'es, I think [ bad an idea. Q. To give evidence in this case ? — A. Yes. (^. You had seen Mr. Nicholas K. C'onnolly? — A. Jjiftcv I arrived. Q. You never said anything to him about being subpenaod ? — A. I don't remember. Q- Hy your oath j'ou are obliged to toll the whole truth. Do you sity you have no recollection of having spoken to him at all ? — A. I got a telegram from .Mi'. Tot the firm ?— A. This is as I understand it. Q. You were present when that division took place between them ? — A. No I may not have been. Q. llow did you know how to make it ? — A. They probably came to me ami told me how to make it. Q. The difierent members of the firm came to you ? — A. i^ot all of them. Mr. Murphy or Mr. Connolly — that would be sutficient. Q. At any rate, the division you made was afterward approved of by the dift'ereut members ? — A. Yes. Q. There was no questiim about that ? — A. None that I know of. By Mr. Geoff rion : Q. ^Vill you take Kxhibit " L 3 " and look at folio 173. That is with respect to the amount paid to inspectors. Do you find an entry there " P, dredging, $50 " ? — A. Yes. Q. What is meant by " P " ? — A. I suppose it is probably the initial of the party who received the money. Q. Was it a regular entry to put only the iittitial ? Can you. explain why you made that mysterious entry ? — A. No ; I have no explanation to make. (}. Was this entry made by the order of somebody ? — A. No doubt it was. Q. Ey whose order ? — A. I cannot remember now. q. It was in 18S7, was it not ?— A. Yes, 1887. Q. It was at the time Mr. Nicholas Connolly had charge of the cash ? — A. I believe so. Q. Is it not a fact that this " P" stands for Pelletier, one of the Government inspectors on the works — or the Harbour Commissioners' Inspectors ? — A. I do not think I ought to answer that question. The Chairman — You .ire obliged to answer. y. What is your answer? — A. I think I will reftiso to answer. The Chaiuman — 1 think you had better not. Wo will have to report you to the House. Witness — I do not see why these men should be brought in. The Chairman — Do you persist in your refusal ? Sir .loHN Thompson — This is an entry of your own in your own book and we have the right to know it. You are not in any way accountable to Mr. Pelletier or anybody else for your answer; but we are bound to have an answer and the House is bound to have it. Witness — My answer is yes. Q. What is the entry just above it? "March 18th, donation, P. V., $275?" who do those initials represent ? — A. P. Valin. Q. Then on folio 167, on the 12th May. do you find another; "P. do (that is dredging) |10." Do you find such an entry? — A. Yes. Q. Woidd that sum be for Pelletier? — A. I do not know any other. Q. That is to whom the money would have gone ? — A. No. Q. Was there any other Inspector on the works whose name began by P ? — A. Not that J know of 536 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. In the stuteinent prepared by you, Exhibit B 5, j'ou give the names of Poile- tior, (iormain and Brunei. Do y ( n know of any other inrtpoctorH? — A. No. Q. Then "P." there meant Pelletior ?— A. Yes. Q. At folio 117: ".Tuno 2nd, paid donation, drodginj? 81S0." Explain that entry ? — A. It whh u donation on account of dredging. Q. To whom would that donation be made? — A. I do not remember. Q, D(» 3'ou mean to say that was to Ih) charged to dredging? — A. Yen; it is charged to dredging. Q, Is that entry in your handwriting ? — A. Yes. " 188", June 2nd, dredging, paid donation $180.'^' By Mr. Lister : Q. That would bo the amount paid to men who were inspectors, or outside donations? — A. It might be either. 1 do not remember. Jiy Mr. Geofi'rion : Q. Turn to page 209 and read the entry on July ICth?— A. "July 16th, dreilg- ing, H., 815, P., 8100; total, 8115." Q. Who is meant by '• B." ?— A. Brunei. Q. B. and P. were for Brunei and Pclletier? — A. Yos. Q. Page 215, " July 25th, donation 8100, dredging." Can you explain that ? — A. 8100 to Brunei, 1 guess. Q. Page 22!>, August 13th, donation, H. A. P., 810. Who is that?— A. The same man . Q. That would be Pclletier; those are his initials? — A. Yes. t^. Now, ])age 2:17, August -0th, donation, II. A. P., 837.50. Is that the same man? — A, It is only "dredging, donation, ' 837.50. Q. And you cannot explain that item? — A. No, sir. Q. Pago 230, August 23rd, do you see a donation entered there, 8100? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Can you explain the donation? — A. No, sir. Q. Page 275, October l((th, do vou see any entries about dredging there, " dredging, donations," G., 8105; B., 8154, total, 82.')(). Who is "G."; is ii not Germain ? — A. I believe so, Q. And " B." would be Brunei? — A. Yes, I believe so. Q. Now, page 279, October 14th. Do you see any entries corresponding to Ihese?— A. Yes, 8240. Q. To whom? — A. It does not say. (i. Do 3'ou not read initials H. A. P.?— A. Yes, H. A. P. Q. At page 291, November 2nu, "P." 816. Is that Pclletier ?— A. Yes, sir. Q. A payment of the same nature, is it not? — A. I do not know what the nature of it is. Q. An amount of 81'J appears to have been given to Pellctier? — A. Yes. Q. Is it entered as a donation ? — A. It is entered as a donation. Q. Now, page 293. November 4th. What entries have you got there? — A. " Dredging, donations" ; H., 8345, G., 8200 ; total, 8545. u|>)>ose'iirch 18th to the close of the season ? — A. Oh yes ; they tnust have been there at mat time. Q. And when you paid thcr. . money yourself it must have been on the order of some member of the firm? Was it? — A. It may not have been ontheordef of a member ot the firm. H. If you gave cash for services of which you have no knowledge, who told you they were entitled to that money ? — A. I don't remember now. Q. Then did you remember ? — A. It may have been one of the time-keepers, I could not mention the names now, but the men who had the supei intending of the wiirk. By Mr. Lister: Q. Who told you to pay the money ? — A. Yes. By Mr. Geoffrion : Q. Mr. Cloney was one of them j ou say ? — A. Yes. By Mr. Mills (Bothicell) ■ Q. Where would these sums be tirst charged ? — A. That is where it is first charged (indicating book). H. Were they not charged in the blotter? — A. No, I did not keep a blotter. By Mr. Lister : *i. The\' gave no certiticate.s? — A. I don't know. Q. You'don't ktiow they were giving certificates for this money? — A. I don't know. '/• I>o 3'ou swear you had no idea of what it was for? — A. I thiid< I had. Hy Mr. Geoffrion : Q. What was the duty of those Inspectoi-s? Hail thoy to miiko certain reports about the quantity of work done? — A. To make returns of that kind. (/. And to whom did they make these returns? — A. To the Harbour Commis- sionei's I guess. Q. Or the Engineer? — A. Yes. (■I. Their returns were to be the basis of the following estimates to bo made for Lurkin, Connolly & Co., were they ? — A. I suppose so. By Mr. Lister : •. Geoffrion : Q. When you wanted the cash to pay these people Nicholas Connolly had to give 3'ou a cheque ? — A. Yes. liy Mr. Mills {Botlmell) : Q. He knew at the time what it was for ? — A. Y'es, I understood he knew. By Mr. Lister : Q. Were these payments made by cheques ? — A. No, they wore made by cash. Ile^would sign a cheque and draw the money. Q. And were they made payable to you oi- to Connolly ? — A. To Mr. Connolly's order. Q. He would endorse it, draw the money and hand it over to you ? — A. Yos. Q. Sometimes you would take a receipt ? — A. Yes. Q. What would you do that for ? — A. I don't know. Q. Where arc the receipts? — A. 1 guess they are torn up. Q. You did not tear up receipts on your own responsibility did you ? — A. Some- times. Q. Are those receipts torn up ? — A. Thej' may be. Q. Are they ? Have you taken the trouble to satisfy yourself whether they «ro here or not ? — A. No. sir, I have not. Q. Will you do that? — A. If I am ordered by the Committee. 540 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. But if they nro not horo whnt han become of tlioin ? — A. It is impossible for mo to say. Q. Can you remember any of them beinfj torn up? — A. Yes, sir, I reinemU;r. (J. Did you tear them up yourself? — A. Some 1 did. ty Who told you t<. do It?— A, Xobody ? Q. Did you see i.ny torn up by any person else? — A. No, sir. H. Hut you have torn up Homo ot them ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you tear up all of them? — A. Probably I did. Q. When was it you tore them up ? — A. I don't remember when it was. Q, A Hhort time before you were subpienaed ? — A. It may have been then. Q. I thou;j;ht »o, that would have been before the 20th >[ay last, ? — A. Yes, it was before that. Q. A few days before? — A. It may have been sometime. (^. Would it be a month ? — A. Probably it was, (i. Probably a month before the 20th May you destroyed those papers? — A. I nuiy have destroye'J some during last summer. _. ^ (2. This was after the publication in the nowspa|)er ? — A. Yes. ■ . (I. And after you saw it in the newspapers you nuiy have destroyed some ? — A. Yes. Q. And you are sure you destroyed some about a month before the 'JOth May?— A. Some time, I don't remember what time. Q. Who told you to do it ? — A. Nobody. Q. ' 'n j-ourown responsibility you desti'oycd most of the vouchers ? — A. Yes, sir. il. Without any authority at all? — A. Without any authority, Q. How many cheques did you destroy? — A. None. Q. Where were those receipts? — A. I think they wore in the drawer. Q. Amonf^styour paj)ers? — A. Probably they wore. Q. They woulil be amongst your cheques andother vouchors, would thoy not ? — A. The cheques in the safe. Q. And where were tho.se? — A. In the office, Q. What place ? — A. In the j)igeon holes. Q. Where were the rest? — A. I think there was one or two I found in the drawer. '^. Did you hunt around the office for thorn? — A. Yes. Q. For the purpose of destroying them? — A. For the purpose of destroying them. Q. F'or the purpose of destroying them without any authority? — A. Yes. Q. Why did you destroy them; would they hurl anybody? — A. They would iiurt these men who would sign the receipts. Q. You were atraid it wouln theno brihis wore paid wore Xichola-* Connolly and Michael ? — A. No. Q. Who were tho two men who had actual charge of the work? — A. Mr. O. K. Murphy and Mr. Nicholas Connolly. Q. Whore was Michael? — A. In British Columbia, I think. (j. Kefresh your memory. Look at tho dates. — A. lie was in British Columbiii up to the fall of 1887. Q. But {torn tho fall of 1887 on, ho wiis down at these works? — A. Yes. Q. Wore not many of these payments made after tho fall of 1887? — A. Some of them were. Q. And the man who gave you the cheques to make these payments was Mr. Nicholas Connolly? — A. I brought the cheques to him and he signed them. Q. Some of thorn were as high as $600 ? — A. Yes. Q. As high as $800?— A. Yes. ( j. Do you mean to say he signed theso cheques to enable you to got that money, and that he did not know what the money was tor ? — A. I did not say that. I sup- posed bo knew. Q. You understood he did know ? — A. Yes. Q. Had any complaints boon made Sy any members of tho firm with respect to payments for this purpose? — A. I do not remember. Q. Do you swear you do not? — A. Except in one instance, when Jiobort McGroevy came over to examine the cash, I remember him saying that he did not want to be in tho power of those men. For what reason I do not know. (I. He saw these entries? — A. He saw them all alor . Q. Ho told you he did not want to be in tho power c those mon ? — A. I I'omeni- bor him saying that once. Q. Was any objection made by Nicholas Connolly after that objection by Mr. McGrcevy? — A. I do not remember. Q. Did you hear Nicholas Connolly making any reference to getting a quid jiro quo for his money t — A. No. H. That is, getting a return or something back? — A. No, sir; I do not remem- ber him saying anything about it. Q. Ho just signed tlio cheque.**, and you say he knew what they wore for ? — A. I understood he did. By Mr. Muloek : Q. You said tho chctiues of the firm on the Union Bank for the year April, 18S(), to April. 1887, are not forthcoming? — A. I believe they are not. Q. Why (Jo you think they are not forthcoming ? — A. 1 Uo not know, I am sure. I understood they wore here in the box, Q. When did you last see these cheques? — A, I saw them in May last, ail of them, in the safe in Quebec, Q. In May, 1887 ?— A, No; May, 1801. Q. Were they shipped to Ottawa? — A. I undei-stood they wore. Q. Wore they at Quel)ec when you left Quebec ? — A. I left Quebec in May. Q. And you have not been in Quebec since May? — A. Yes; I have been in Quebec since then. Q. When wore you last in tho office at Quebec ? — A. I was in the office in Que- bec on Saturday last, wh«n I went to get Mr. Nicholas Connolly's private papers. 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1S91 Q. Wore the clictiucM there then ? — A. No, sir. Q. Are you nblo to nny that they iirc iimon^ t lie jmperrt i*rootriioti, unci that wnn the Hrst intimation I had that they were niiMiinK. Q. You think the cheques in que»tioii arrive. did you continue them ? — A. No; I think not. There wore no irregular payments in 188'.>. Q. Are you the one responsible for this erasure on page 270 of the booicyou are looking at? — A. I am. Q. When was that made? — A. Somelimo ago. (j. It seems to be the erasure of the initials of the person to whom the donation was made? — A. Yes. y Q. What is the date of the erasure ? — A. I cannot give that. Q. The entry is October 13th, 1887, ^240, dredging. Is there an erasure hero on page 307 ? — A. Yes. Q. Whose doing is that? — A. Mine. (i. Tiien on November 24th, " dredging.'" When did you make these two erasures and otiiers tlirougiiout the books? — A. Sometime ago. Q. Wiien, I ask you ? — A. It corresponds to the time that I tore up some of those receipts. Q. Vou went tliiDUgh tlio books and papers, tore up the receipts ami made tiiose alterations. When was that? — A. During the course of liist summer. Q. What provoked you to do that; who instructed you? — A. I did not get any instructions from anyone. I took it upon myself to do that. ■ ..Tr— ; Q. I'Veling tliat the}- weiu the records of improper transactions and with a view to destroying the evidence? — A. Yes. It being one o'clock, the Committee took recess. ■r 'i.]f 't Tuesday, 21st July, 1891, 3.30 o'clock p.m. Mr. Louis Cyrile Marcoux sworn. /{)j Mr. Stuart : Q. You are the Secretary-Treasurer of " La Caisse d'Kconomie de Xotre-Dame de Quebec?"— A. Yes, sir. "riTf[ (^. Did you receive asubpccnu requiring 30U to produce before thia Committee copies of the accounts between the bank and R. II. Mctrreevy ? — A. I received a telegram . Q. Have you with you the accounts that were asked for ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Will you state what the}- are, and produce them? — A. We have a small cur- rent account, opened in the name of Mr. Robert II. Mctrreevy in trust, lieglnnlngon the 17tli November, 1885, and still open, a copy of which I now produce. (Kx'hiliit "Xll") There is no account in his personal name, only his account in trust for a small amount. Q. The account now produced is the only account of Robert H. McGrcevy that you have? — A. The only deposit account in the books of the bank. Q. Have you any other account ? — A. Mr. McGj-eev}', for a great number ot years, has been in the habit of borrowing on collatoial securities. 1 now produce a copy of this account, whicli is dosed. (lOxhibit "Yll') Q. Are these the only accounts between Robert McGrcevy and the'bunk that you are ac»iuaintcd with ? — A. Y»(s. Mr. W. T. Jennings, C.E., called. By Mr. Osier : Q. You are familiar witii the resolution appointingj'ou and detining your duties. Will you state to the Committee what amount of work you find to do, how long it is 544 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 lit too rod ii cur- lier,, n :liil>it fov 11 tliat that likely to take, wJiiit nssistanco you think you oufjjht to have, how far you can got on with an associate oiigiiioor, and how far an assoi-iato engineer is necossarv ? Kxplaiu liio situation in your own way to the Committee, and afterwai'ils answer anv (|Ues- tions that may be put to you? — A. I have taken the spocifieations annexed lo the contract for tlio Cross-wall at Quel)ec, and co.iipared it, as iar as jxHsiMe, with the pUms phicod in my hands, a» being tiie originalB on wiiicli the contractors tendered. I tind a gopear to be two tenders very do-e in total, those of Simon Peters and the LarkinOonnollys, it would facili- tate operations if the other three wi'ro drojiped, but that is for you to ilecinrv in tho main walls — these items I can die -k fairly well, but nol the minor items. We will have to bulk up a number of small items, such as shpet piling here anil there, and pieces of timber used for general pui- ]ioses. (^. The main items you can do? — A. Ye-^, the larger iltMus, which have a special lie.iriiig (»n the case ; the smaller ones do not amount to an appreciable sum of niunev. n>/ Mr. Osier : (^. Would the aggregate smaller items all'ect the result in any way '! — A. From wiiat I have learne the final quantities. Q. That is only u matter of arithmetic? — A. It is principally clerical work, but it is alread}' partly done. % the Chairman : Q. Will you be able to satisfy the wants of the Committee, as cxpresseil in that resolution under which you wen^ ai)|)ointed, without the aid of any other engineer Ipoing a|)i)ointe(l? — A. 1 should like to have some one to assist me. <^. Will you be able to gel an assistant for that ])ur|tose? You do not want anothor ennneiit engineer? — A. If you will allow me to get another assistant, in addition to the two clerks I now have, 1 think 1 can manage. By Mr. Tarte: Q. Don't you thiidc it would bo just as well to take a man who knows the place? — A. During two days of hHt week I had ^Ir. .St. George 15oswell, whit is engineer of tli(( (inobec Harbour Commission, and who was on the works after Mr. Hoyd's ileatli. If you will allow me to got him in with me to answer questions, 1 would be obliged. .Mr. Mills (liothwell). — I think Mr. Hoswell is a very objectionable man. Wedo not know at what moment a eharg(^ may.be made against him. WiT.NESs. — In asking for .Mr. Boswell's s(;rvices 1 do not moan as an expert with myself, but just to enable me to find out \.'liat bad been done, as be is the only engineer 1 know of who can really toll us what was done — that is, as to final work. I may say that there are \w plans in m}' jiossession showing the manner in which the work was completed. There should be such plans, but I have not obtained them. The original crib work ))lans have not been adhered to. On the Wet Dock side the cribs have been sunk some 8 feet further than the original pl.ins show. There are many features of that kind which we will have t.> enquire into. Items requiring the turning over of the details page b}- page and entailing a gieat deal of work. By Mr. Muloek : on Q, Could you not do the measuri water, and can only be done at an enormous expense 1-35J 547 the spot ? — A. It is nearly all under cpei i i ,il ':l:i. 54 Victoria. Appendix (So. 1.) A. 1891 w By Mr. Tarte : Q. What are the moHt important items in your estimation ? — A. The crib work, eaithworlv tilling, the masonry in tlie wallt*. stone ballast and concrete which aro much the heaviest ilemh. Q. Have you made any tigiires on any of these items ? — A. I have made figures on the earth work, crib work and concrete. Q. What are your tiguies on the concrete? — A. I would much rather delay in answoring that (|uestion as my report will show all in det.dl. Mr. Martin P. Connollt recalled. By Mr. Osier ; Q. You were asked at the adjournmeni to show where the tirm had jiaid tlio S7,rurphy from the tirm hetwoen the nth and 22nd Febiuary, lb87, to the amount otSo. Q. Do you recollect whose cheques they were ? — A. Mr. O. K. Murj)hy'f. Q. Drawn by him in the luime of the tirm ? — A. They must have been. Q. And endorseil by him ? — A. Yes. Q. No other name ap])earing on the cheque ? — A. Yes. Mr. OsLKR. — I iu)w tile this memoiandum. (Exhibit " A12.") (i. With refeience to the 825,000 charged to the Cross-wall, have you oxamincd the books '! — A. I have. Mr. l)AviEs. — Before you pass to that matter, Mr. Osier, I want to call ailentioM to the fact that this entry the witness speaks of does i'<>t relate to O. E. Murphy exclusively, and I want it explained. Part is toO. E. Murphy, "doiuiiion,'' and part to N. K. Connolly, " private use," and B.C. division. I would like that exjilaiued. Jiy Mr. Osier : (}. Mr. Davies wants to know what these other items are? Uead the whole entry. — A. •' Eebruary 17th, 1887, cash Ih-. to Union Bank cheijue O.E M., donation, 8250; February 17th, cheque to X.K.(\, 8100; February 17th, cheque t<> N.K.C., private use. 8200; February 17th, cheque to O.E.M., for B.C. division, 85,000; Febnniry 18th, cheque to O.E.M., for B.C. division, 82,000 ; February 21st, cheque to O.K.M.. 82.500; February 22nd, checiue to O.K.M..81,000; l-ebruaiy 21st, cheque to O.E.M., 8500 ; February 21st, cheque to O.E.M., 8500. Mr. Davies. — What is the total amount ? Mr. Usr.ER. — 80,750 to O.E.M. and 8;50O to Nicholas Connolly. 548 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Mr. Da VIES. — But these nmount8 added together give more than 8G,750 Witness.— The $5,000 was included in the #20,000 to O.EM. Me. Davies. — ^The 8300 toN. K. Connolly on the same page is omitted from the statement that the witness Hies. Witness. — $200 was for his own private use. Q. And charged to him personally? — A. Yes. Q. And you did not put that in ? — A. Xo ; because Mr. Murphy, I understood, J»ad given a memorandum stating that he had expended 87,000 in addition, and it was with rcgai'il to that I was requested to furnish a ?itatement. By Mr. Osier : Q. You did not tind anything else in the books that will account for the 87,000, unless it is accounted for b}^ this entry? — A. There is no other. By Mr. Ouimet : Q. How were these dittorent items dispose 1 of when they were posted ? — A- They weie charged in one sum. Q. To what account? — A. To the Esquimalt Dock, and then credited and charged to "suspense" in 1^.11.1. By Mr. Osier: Q. They fall then into the item of 827,000?— A. Yes. (^. Then, as to the first 825,000, it is sworn by Mr. .Mui-phy that the notes wei-e made in .Fime. presumably on or after the (Uh of .fune, and that on that (Iate82."),(t00 in notes were given, and that cheques were given subsequently to retire them. ho you know of any other notes than thenotesl now|)ut in your bands representing that 825,000 (K.xhibit " W7 ')> '*"•' "'"^^ there any other cheques representing that 825.000 than the cheijues j)roduced (Exhibit " J)S')? — A. There are none other than those, that ] know of. Q. We have then two cheques of that 825,000 that were apparently made and raid before the Gth June, namely, tho.se dated the I4th May and the last of June? — A. Theie are none others that I know of. By Mr. Davies : Q. Have 3'ou any reason to know or believe that the cheques to which v'ou refer have anj- connection with that 825,000 ? — A. Except from the fact that 1 was helping the auditors to write up the bo )ks. The books IkkI not been written up in 1S"^;5 and part of !8S4, ami they were audited in the spring of 1SS5. The vouchers pro'lueed here are the ones. By M. '>»'■'/• ; Q. Then there is the sum of 825,000 chargoil, and if these are not the voiudiers for that, are there any other vouchers ? — A. No others, that 1 know of. By Mr. Davies : Q. 1 understand ynii that those two i)articuiar cheques formed ])art of the 825. (MtO? — A. To the best ot my recollection we picked out the notes and cheques. If these are the notes and cheques proiuced by Mr. lutzpatrick they are the cheques. By Mr. Mulock : Q. Is that your answer ? — Yes, sir. By Mr. Osier : Q. In whose handwriting is the endorsement on the paper I now hand to you ? — A. 1 don't know positivel}' whose handwriting it is. Q. Whose does it look like? — A. 1 think it is Mr. Charles Mctireevy's. 540 1 1 i 1 ■ ?Hi| ■ m ^? ■' Mlf ('„;■ 'i ■p 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1R91 f. t; ! t : \r> ■ I; 1(1 ^ 1^' ¥.■ ' . Q. Look at these papers attached and tell mo whether you have ever seen thoin before? — A. 1 never saw them before, to my recollection. Q. Do vou know any of these signatures ? — A. I know the signature of the first. Q. Who is it?— A. E. J. Milne. (I. Who was he? — A. One of the Inspectors on the works. Q. Of what was he Inspector? — A. I think he was on the concrete. Q. Then j-ou recognize K. J. Milne's signature ? — A. Yes. Q. That is the signature of a man who was inspector of works ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Do 3'ou know Joseph IJichard ? Is that his signature (showing document ) ? — A. That is his signature. Q. What position did llichard occupy? — A. He was Inspector of works. Q. What branch?— A. On tiie cribbing, I think. I>o you know the signature on the thiid document? — A. I don't know. You don't know that at all ? — A. [ Mon't know it sir. 7 'ose b}" pinning down the document. The witness does not prove it, but to leave it attached. The first two attached are proved, and they aie as Q. Q. I want follows (Exhibit "B12.") " Rec'd 22nd November, 1883, from Mr. O. E. Murphy, the sum of thirteen hundred dollars in cash 8 1,300 And previous cash and sundries 300 8 1,600 " " E. J. :milne." Is that his handwriting throughout — the endorsement and receipt ? — A. Xo; just the name. Q. Whose handwriting is the receipt? — A. Mr. O. E. Murphy's. Q. And the endorsement on the back showing a memorandum, by whicl), apparently, the §300 was made up, is in Mr. Murphy's handwriting? — A. Yes, sir. Q. The Richard account (Exhibit " 012 ') contains items of cash up to 1st Mav, including S7a, 87, 825, 833, 835, 825, 840, 845. 840, 835, 840, 830, 812, 835, 815, the last item of 8200 being on derrick lumber and sundries, making a total of 8740. There is written across the face in inl: '• Received payment, Joseph Richard." In whose handwriting is the pencil ? — A. Mr. O. E. Murphy's. Q. Were these men at all in the employ of the contractors, oi- what was their j)osilion ? — A. I think their positions were those of Inspectors, but they were. I understood, occasionally employed by the contractors. Q. Their position was salarieil Inspectors of the Quebec Harbour Commissioners ? —A. Yes. Q. You were asked to go to Quebec and bring up Nicholas K.Connolly's private papers and books. Have you done so ? — A. Yes. Q. Where are the}-, and what have you found? — A. I found a letter book, a pri- vate letlger, all his jirivate cheques, except one, and I think that one is filed his bank book, a lot of progress statements, and other papers such as deeds, insurance policies and things like that. Q. Do you find an\' other papers of Larkin, Connolly & Co. that were missing? — A. Yes; 1 found a bank book covering the missing dates. Q. Did you Hnd anything else ? — A. I found another small cash book with refer- ence to British Columbia. Q. A.iythingelse? — A. No; I don't think there was anything el.se. Q. These two men, Richard and Milne, you saj' they were in the employ of the contractors? — A. I could not tell you. I understc, I Richard bought some timber when the}' were building tlie bridge. Q. Had he bought some timber ? — A. I think so. Q. You have heard (hat ? — A. Yes, sir. 550 54 Victoria, Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1391 Q. Can yon turn up any uecoiint with Richard in the book, or can you find his nanio on the company's puy rolls? — A. Xo; I don't remomber of soeiiijjf it. Q. Whore \voulince my time. Q. Are any of these j)ayment8 entered in the books? — A. Any that have been made since I went there. Q. Can you turn them up ? — A. It would take some time. By Mr. Osier : Q. I find in the books of tlie firm prior to your time an alteration — a scratching out of one word and the writinjr of "gratuity" over it. Whose work is that? — A Mine. Q. That item is on page 130 of the book Exhibit " F3," the fifth item on the paije. Is that (pointing to the ledger) the posting of it ? — A. Y'es. 661 ^ 1 ( If . i ' ' , kli ' f I : i: ':■ I 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 54 r Q. tions. Q. Who made the alteration — that ia, the posting of it at page 402 of book "G3." The heading is " Point Irfvis, 1880, " and the ontrj' is "C. B., folios 125, 129, 143 and 145." Then follow theitcmH: " Expens^e, P. Hume, excavation gratuity, 8700." That "gratuity" is written over a word that has been .scratched out. I turn to the ledger, page 402, where that i.s posted, and I find at the heading ot that ledger has been obliterated and the word "gratuity" written over it. That work is whose? — A. It is mine. Q. When was that done? — A. I do not remember now. (i. Do you remember the word that has been obliterated ? — A. I do not. Q. Has it been done within a year? — A. I think it is a longer period than that. ii. Two years? — A. It might have been. (}. Give me your best recollection as to when that was done? — A. I cannot tell you when that wa.s done. By Mr. Mulock : Why was thatdone? Under whose instruction ? — A. Under nobody's instruc- There must have been some man's name there, I suppose. Bij Mr. Osier : Q. And you scratched that name out of your own idea ? — A. Yes. (^. Why? Whv not scratch this next man's name out — liichard Hughes? — A. If it was a manV name. I cannot tell you anything al)out that, Q. Could you tell me why you did it ? What was the motive ? — A. The motive was evidently to shield some one — to conceal the jiaymeni to a certain extent. Q. To jirevcnt its being known as to whom thai $700 was paid ? — A. That i> the sole motive. Q. Why did you select that name and now forget it ? — A. Yos; I forget it. By Mr. Mulock .- Q. I guess he does not forget it? — A. Yes; I am on my oath here. By Mr. Osier; Q. The same instinct that brought you to scratch it out should bring it to your mind. It is not a very laige transaction. — A. 1 do not remember anything about it, because 1 did not keep these books; but in other books that 1 did keep any scratch- ing out I would remember. Q, Would you not remember more? Would you go back to the book of ISSo. go back pcrha])s nine years, to alter an entry in the book? What brought you back into the books of ISSO ? — A. I went over the whole books. Q. With a knife in one hand? — A. Probably. Q. Who told you to do so ? — A. Nobody. (J. Wlien was it you took this job and went over the whole books ? — A. I do not remember. Q. What was the occasion? What brought it to your mind to do it? Hero you are a book keeper in the firm, bound to keep their books correctly, and you want to lell us that without instruction from anybod}-, of your own motion, you went through the whole of the books of the firm, including those kept by your predeces- sors, and altered according to your discretion. Is that the position, or did you get instructions, and what instructions did you get? — A. That is the position. Q. Ofyiuirown notion? — A. Of my own notion. Q. What started you doing this? — A. The fact, 1 suppose, of the publication regarding the works. * Q. The publication in reference to tlio works rendered it a work of necessity — was that it ? — A. It was a work of necessity that I took upon myself. By the Chairman : Q. Was it Jiot suggested to you by the man whose name was written in the books? — A. It was not, sir. 552 54 Victoriji. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 By Mr. Osier: Q. On page 309 (Exhibit "L3 ") "suspense" account, there is an erasure with a knife: 11th July, 1888, " suspense " account, loan to (then there is the erasure), S20. Who was that loaned to ? — A. J tlo not remember. Q. Did yon do that erasing? — A. Yes, sir. Q. At the time you went through the books ? — A. Yes. It may have been after- wards, but I do not remember. Q. Now, on page 493, the same way: December 1st, 1888, N. K. Connolly, " private use," 8600. You see how that entry has been altered ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. It is written over an erasure. Where is that posted? — A. It is journalized and then posted into the ledger. Q. Where is it carried into the ledger ? — A. I would have to get the journal and the ledger to see. Q. This is the cash book that we are looking at. Why did j'ou make that change ? — A. There must be Q. As a matter of fact, there was something to conceal ? — A. Yes. Q. In whose interest were you making the change? — A. In the interest of the tirm. Q. It was the interest of the tirm to conceal that which originally appeared there ? — A. It may have been — and to the interest of the man to whom it had been ])aid. Mr. OsLER. — Tlio journal into which that would be carried is missing. Mr. Mui.ocK. — Will that item of 8600 help you to try and remember the date of the loan to Laforce Lungevin? — A. I will try and give you that. The date is the 15tb November, 1887. By Mr. Tarte: Q. §600?— A. Yes. By Mr. Oiler : Q. See whether this item in Exhibit " M3," page 376, posted under the head of "dredging, December 1st. cash 8600," whetlier it is the altered item charged to X. K. Connolly, for " private use " ? — A. I think it is. Q. Why should you charge dredging account to X. K. Connolly for private u-^e ? — A. Mr. Connolly had a dredge ot his own down there. Q. Is that the reason why you need scratch out the book? — A. No. (I. If that is the reason, give it. Is it not apparently an improj)er payment wliiih you are seeking to conceal, and looking at the lodger account under dredging, an im)>roper paynient in reference to your dredging contract? — A. I may have thought so. \l. And it was because j'ou thought so that you made the alterations? — A. Yes. (I. And that would bo the oaly reason — that it was improper ? — Yes ; the only leason. By Mr. Davies : ^i. But why would you charge it to N. K. Connolly's ])rivatf use when it was u^ed by Murithy or Patrick Larkin. unless you had some knowledge it was used by N. K.' Connolly personally ? — A. No ; I had no knowledge it was used by X. K. Connolly ))ersonally. tj. 'Why do 3-0U know more of X. K. Connolly's account than any other pri- vate member of the lirm ? — A. Mr. Connolly's private account was more in detail than anybody else's. By Mr. Mulock : Q . Was that re-paid by ^Ir. X. K. Connolly, or was it charged to him as j):u'ment by the firm to him '? — A. 1 would have to follow up the entries from the journal to tell vou. 553 f I sp > pp¥Tr i ■!• II ii ;'. if* ': ' 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 By Mr. Osier : Q. It would not be posted here and posted n^ainHt liifn at the satne time. Perliaps this next item will help you. On page fiO.5 of Exhibit "L 3," under daio of24tli December there in an entry " N. K. Connolly, private use, $1,200." The private use has been written in over ^*ome other words obliterated. Did you do that ? — A. Yes, wir. Q. Did you do it for the same reasons you have suggested with regard to the hix hundred ? — A.I don't know I am sure. Q. Well, look atit.and tell mewhydidyou do it '! Wh}- did you make the altera- tion — was it to conceal ? — A. It must have been. Q. It must have been an alteration of an entry which you made, as you thought, in the interests of the tirm, to conceal a transaction which ought not to appear. Is that it ? — A. T can come to no other conclusion. Q. Is that altered item of 81,200, dated 24tli December, posted also to dredging account at page ii'M\ of " ,M 3 " ? — A. Yes .there is an item of $1,200 posted. Q. Look and see whether yctu can Hnd any other item, if that is not the item ? If we lind in this book only one item, dated 24th December, of $1,200, and it we tind an item hereunder of $1,2(1(1, it must be the same thing 'f W it is duplicate there should be two items there ? — A. In posting from the journal to the ledger those $1,200 might constitute several items. Q. That is quite true. This is the missing journiil, is it not ? — A. Yes, sir. (^. Have you any doubt that is the same ? — A. No; I think it is the same. (^. It is not charged up to Nicholas Connolly's account ?— A. That is what I wanted to look for. Q. Well, look and see. — A. (After examining the book). There is no item of $1,200, but there are other items far exceeding that. Q. Oh, yes; lint you see Connolly's items follow in succession. Just look and sa- tisfj' yourself — you can tell them at once. You see it is not in iff — A. No, it is not. Q. So that it is almost absolutely certain that the 81,200 in the ledger that 1 pointed out, and the 8l,2((0 we tind here, are the same? — .V. I think so. Q. And that the larger item to N. K. Connolly's private use has been posted to disbursements on dredging account ? — A. It seems so. By Mr. Dacies ; Q. Would the words you took out have shown to you to whom it was paid? — A. The only account there was " donation " or "donations." By Mr. Osier : Q. Did you, looking at page 53(1 of the same book, scratch out the word there ? — A. Yes. sir. Q. The entry is " Union Bank cheipio to the order of N. K.C, private use," and then a word or letters scratched out " Dated May the 4lh, 18S9, $1,000. ' Then there is a contra entry, " N. K. Connolly, cheque to his order for private use " blank, "$6,000." Did you scratch that out ?— A. Yes, sir. Q. For the purpose of concealing ? — A. At the time I thought so. (i. And you think so still, do you '/ — A. No; I understand that item was a legi- timate transaction Mr. Connolly had. <■}. The knite should not have been used ? — A. No. Q. But your suspicions being aroused, feeling there was a duty upon you, you exercised the knife in the wrong place there. Are both errors ? — A. Yes, sir ; both are errois. Q. Then that is an erroneous excision. Where is that posted to, and where did you tind that is right ? Did it remain posted to the Connollys' account? — A. Yes, sir. Q. What is the alteration that has taken place at page 543. The entry reads as follows : — " May, 1889 " — then on the contra side — " Cash credited to N. K. Connolly for cheques for $600 and $500 disbursed as follows :—J'orwarded to P. O'E. $1,000, 554 54 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 refreHhments 850, X.K.C, kept balance 8r>0, but exteiuled 81050." Now tho worth '•N. K, Connolly " are written over an cniHuro, and tho words ' Forwarded to." und there IH an erasure below tho letters " P. O'll. " Did you make that alteration ? — A. Yes, sir. Q, What for?— A. I do not know. (i. Yoii »eo that Ih entered in 188tl. Tho original ontr}* is very litlo more than two yearn old. Now, what was the change mado, and bring your recoilectioM to boar upon what that was — where that was made, and what the original entry was: whose name was there in the first*placo in the plnco which Connolly's name now occupies? A. I do not remember; but I think Q. Was that in your Judgment an improper payment? Can you give mo tho name that was there first? Bettor tell us. I should say, from your manner, you know. — A. I do not know that there was an}' name there first. Q. What word ? You ought to remember that. — A. " Kxpense" was there. Q. Where •' N. K. Connolly" is, the word was ' expense '' ? — A. Yes. (-i. Then follow that along. The original entry was: — " Kx])cnse tor eheijues for 8tiOO and 85()(( disburserwarded" is written over "donation," scratcheil out? — A. Yes. Q. Is the entry to P. O'R. original ?— A. No. i-l. What was there? — A. I do not think there was anything there. (i. There is apparently no erasure there? What is P. O'H. ? — A. Mr. Connolly was in the habit f)f sending money occasionall}' to a gentleman nan)ed U'l'eilly. Q. Who was O'Keillj' and where did ho live? — A. Ho was in tireenville,' Penn- sylvania. Q. Was that an heen 850 ;oin^ •(» tho l»oiiks ? — A. I'roltably. i Am 'f — A. No. (}. Noitlifi- hot'orw nor af'lor ? — A. No. (^. Tho lirm do not know you wont through tho hookn, nor any nionibor of tho firm y — .\. I do not think thoy tlo, (i. You did not consult with the hrni as to what yon siiould do?— A. Xo. (;. Will you tract' mo tiiat entry <»ut wlioro it goos ? Who is '• M. C" thoro ? Michael Connolly? — A. Yes; I think so. liy Mr. Mil lock : Q. Tho entry roads "amount forwanled to M. C, Ottawa." Then comes the word Mnitched out. There is ahout an inch of scratched surface. What was in that place where tho erasure took place ? — A. I really cannot say. "Donation"! tliink. Jiy Mr. Osier : i}. " To Ottawa donation " won't do. j)o ynn remember any money l)eing for- warded to Ottawa? — A. Yes. ii. Who forwarded it ? — A. Kithor Mr. Ilume or Mr. Contiolly. i}. When? — A. About that time, I'oisibly not that very day; a little prior to it, it might he. Q. That is only a short time ago. Do you know any pernon in Ottawa to wl n money was forwarded ? — A. I do not. Do you know the name of any person in Ottawa who received mone\- fnun those jioople ? — A. I Montri-al Tele^jraph wtock that .Mr. Milcln'l! hail hoii^ht in connoetion with Mr. Connoll}'. lU-. advanced him 81,U()0 ax a portion of hi^ pi'otit on the stock. Q. Who .11.1 ?— A. Mr. ronnolly. Q. Mr. ('onnolly a.lvanccd .Mr. .Milcholl a th.nHand .lollars an his share of the j)rotit on the ntock ? — A. Ves. Ihj Mr. Davits: Q. Then there was nothing to lonceul l)y that transaction at nil. Ihj Mr. Osier: Q. K.xhiliit " T:5, " pa^c (15: did j'oii make the alteration which appears in the (!th lino ? The entry is this, on the contia side of the cash hook: '" lOxjuiisc for (lonation, sundry expenses incurred. 817.<»(»() an.! 85,00(1 ; extended §;2L',000." The 85,000 hits cvi.lenlly Ix-cn alteied and tlie 82l',h hooU, tell me the reason why it was made ■;■ — A. It must have been some other sum. (I. The (dianj^e is made in the "5." which is one of the factors makiiiLT up tho '' 22." In the ledjjer we have nothing' to .io except with the " 22,000." The " 3 " has hcen alt' .d an.l the "'2" has heen altere.l in the cash hook, and the last "2" altered in the ledi,'er ? — A. I have no other explan:ilion than that it has been a cleri.-al error and altere.l acconlin^rl}'. (^. When did you alter it? — A. About the time it was written in the bo.)k — that is, to the best ot'my knowle'lye. It may liavo been a day or two afterwar.ls. (I. Did you alter them both at the same time? — A. I may have poste.l it first and then discovore.l the mistake, the chancre in the ledger. Q. There is 85,000 there in that sum tliat cannot be trace.l. It is the missimf 85,000 gone to somebody, and we cannot follow it up. The date is November, 1SS7. What is your ability t.» accoutit for that entry? It would be (luite reasonable to sli.iw that there had been an alteration if we had tho v.)uchers to sustain it, but I am iid'ormed by the accountants that there i.s a missing $5,000 there. If you can find the foundation tor that entr}*, then you will Justity your alteration? — A. Wo wore about to 'ook that U|> before the Committee met. Wo did not have time. Mr. Osi.KU. — Then it is only fair to give you an oj)portunit3- of looking it up. You had better explain to the accountant, ami if you cannot do that they will ie[)ort it t.) us. By Mr. Da vies : Q. I want to ask the witness if he made any or all of these alterations alone, or whether he had the assistance or dit a tact that these cheques were to draw money? — A. I ]3ersist in my statement. I thought probably that they had been for the pay-rolls, but they could not be that. as they weie marked on the back 30 x 100 and 28 x 50. the denominations of the bills, n'laking 85,000 in all. The other is .')(» x 100. or 85,000 in all. Q. Will you look and see wlielhor this cheque dated the l-4tli May, 1883. is not entered in the books as given in jtayment of a note endorsed to the order of M. Connolly? — A. 14lh .May, is " Union Bank cheque, M. Connolly, 85,000." Q. Now, look at the entry 30th June, about the paj-ment of a note? — A. The only entry in June is " Union Bank cheijue in favour of N. K. Connolly, 85,000.'' Q. l»o you tind an}- other entries at both dates for the 14tli May ami 1st .lurie for 85.000? — A. Tlicre is no other on the 14th May. At the end of Jui.e there is " cheque for note No. 2. 85,000, N. K. Connolly." ' (^ That is for the note of X. K. Connolly? — A. Ye>. Q, Is not that note before vou of N. K. Connollv's. dated on the 4th Febiuary, 1884?— A. It says the 4th February, 1884. Q. And the note is made payable on that date? — X. It is made payable nine months after date. Q. Then, how can you swear that this cheque, given in June, 1883. is to pay a note due in February. 1884? — A. These cheques correspond with the 822,000 and the 825.000. (^. They do not correspond at all. How can the cheque given in June be to pay u note payable in February, 1884? — A. 1 do not know. I never could fathom that, anyway. Q. Then, why did you swear positively it was for the same note. Is it not a fact to pay another note altogether, since this one was due only the following year? — A. I do not know anything about that. (}. Look at the stub of the cheque of the 14th May, 1883 ?— A. The stub of the cheque reads as follows :— Xo. 364, May 14lh, 1883, M. Connolly, 85,000, piivate use. 502 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 By Mr. Stuart: Q. In whose handwriting is that? — A. Mr. O. E Murpliy. By Mr. Geoff rion : Q. Will vou look in the margin and say wliat is written opposite that entry ? — A. "To pay note, M. Connolly, Uth May, 1883." Q. In whose handwriting is that? — A. Mr. Hume's I think. t^. Are there any of these tive notes endorsed by Michael Connolly? — A. Xo. Q. Do 3'ou swear now that this cheque was to pay one of these tive notes since ^Michael Connolly's name is on none of them? — A. I do not know. It may lie a mistake on the stub of the cheque. Q. Can you swear now that that payment was given to pay for one of those five notes or that it was given to pay a note of Michael Connolly's? — A. Michael Con- nolly's name is not on one of those. By Mr. Midock : Q. Where was Michael Connolly on the 1-tth May, 1S>3? Can you tell'.' — A. Xo, sir; I cannot. The Committee then adjourned. i House of Commons, Wednesuav. 22nd July, 1891. The Committee met at 10 a.m. ; Mr. Girouard in the Chair. Investigation into certain circumstances and statements made in connection with the tenders and contracts respecting the Quebec Harbour Works, etc.. resumed. Mr. Geoffriox — On .Saturday last Mr. Cliabot said he had brougiit, for the purpose of tiling before this Committee, certain contra letters which he held with res])ectto the "Admiral :" they were, however, at his hotel. He subsequently handed them to Mr. Todd, and 1 now ask that they may lie read aiul tiled and printed. The Clerk of the Comniittee read the letters as follows : (K-vhibit "D12.") " Qceuec, 28th Xovember, 1884. •'.llLIEX CllAHOT, Esq. "StR, — 1 hereby admit that the mortgage granted by you this day in favour of .lames G. Ross, Esq., of the City of Quebec, Merchant, for thirty thousand dollars nil the SS. "Admiral." was so done un my behalf and at my special instance and lequost ; also, the transfer of the rive policies of insurance — the Imperial §5,000, Xnith British 810,000, Queen 85,000, and Lancashire 85,000, be made to James G. I'oss as collateral securitj- — also at mv request. "THUS. J{. McGEEEVY." On the back is endorsed the following : " Quebec, 2Sth Xovember, 1SS4. "IJeceiveil from Mr. Julien Chabot policies on the steamer "Admiral," with receipts, Premiums for 88,-115.85. Xorth British SlO,(tOO Queen 5.000 Imperial Fire Insurance Co 5.000 Lancashire Insurance Co 5.000 §25,000 EOSS CO., • "p. James Geggie." 1— 3Ci I i ■ I i m I i: II j' II ! i (1 ' i il" ! 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 (Exhibit "E12.") " Quebec 28th November, 188-4. '' JcMEN Chabot, Esq. " Dear Sir, — I hereby acknowledge that the mortgage given lo me for the sum of thirty thousand dollars this day upon the steamer "Admiral" by you as holding the said steamer for the Hon, Thomas McGreevy. was partly in consideration of my becoming security for him in appeal in a case of Eussell against him, and that I will not in any way hold you oi" your heirs personally or otherwise lesponsible for the said amount should I ever at any time be called upon to pay the same, but will confine and bind myself solely to the said boat; and I further undertake that I will not in any way prevent you from selling or transferring the said boat, or any portion thereof, when and as you may wish, subject, however, to the mortgage. "JAS. G. ROSS." (Exhibit "F12.") " Quebec, 2nd February, 1888. " JuLiE.N Chabot, Esq. "Dear Sir, — I desire you to sell the steamer " Admiral " to my brother Robert Henry McGreev}-, Esq., for the sum of twentj'-five thousand dollars, which he will pay me after the sale and transfer is made by you, accordingly you will bo relieved of the said amount, and the said sale is made on my behalf and at my special instance and request. 1 will fui-ther hold you harmless for any claim against you while pro- prietor of the said steamer " Admiral." " THOS. R. McGREEVY." (Exhibit "G12.") " Quebec, 8th July, 1889. " JuLiEN Cuabot, Esq. " Dear Sir, — I hereby acknowledge that the mortgage given to me for the sum of twenty-five thousand dollars this day on the steamer " Admiral " is for the Hon. Thomas Mc(ireevy accommodation, and I also recognize that you liold the Register of the said steamer " Admiral " for his account. I will not in anj' way hold you or your heirs personally or otherwise responsible for the said amount, should 3'ou ever at any time be called upon to pay the same, but wi'' confine and bind myself solely to the said boat ; and I further undertake that I will not in any way prevent you from selling or transferring the said boat, or any portion thereof, when and as you may wish, subject, however, to the mortgage. "N. K. CONNOLLY." (Exhibit " H12." ) "I, Robert Henry McGreevy, the solo registered owner of the steamboat "Admiral," do hereby divest myself of the control and management of the said boat in favour of the Honourable Thomas McGreevy, of the city of Quebec, contractor, hereby fully empowering and authorizing him or any person he may authorize to act in his place, to make for me as said owner of said boat all contracts foi- freight, for carrying of passengers, for the engagement of master and crew, the fitting out and running of said steamer, as well as for the provisions, stores and other things necessary for her navigation for and during the term of five years from this date, as well as to collect all sums of money which may be earned by said steamer by way of freight, convoying of passengers or otherwise and to enter into all contracts and engage- ments necessary and lequisite for the running and navigation of a steamer such as the " Admiral" in navigating the St. Lawrence and ports of the Lower Piovinces, id for any other purposes of the said vessel in connection with her employment ; luid further, to enter into any engagements or contracts to repair said boat or any portion thereof should same become necessary, and genemll}' all and singular the artairs and concerns of me, the said Robert Heniy McGreevj', to manage, control and tran>act, adjust, settle and contract as fully and effectually to all intents ami puiposes for controlling and managing said steamer " Admiral " as I might or could do if i^ersonally present, and withoutany further authority being necessary or requisite 564 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 than these prosonts, and I do further empower the said Honourable Thomas 3IcGreevy to substitute and appoint for all and everv the objects and purposes of the present writing in his place any person he may choose. I hereby agreeing to ratify and confirm all and whatsoever the said Honourable Thomas McGreevy causes to be done in virtue of tiiis document. " ROBKRT H. Mc(tPvEKVY. '^Quebec, 7th February, 1888." " I. the Honourable Thomas McGreevj', under and in virtue of the foregoing power granted me by Robert Henry McGrreevy, do herol>y name, appoint and sub- stitute in my place Julicn Chabot, Esquire, of L^vis, hereby transferring to him all the powers vested in me in connection with the steamboat ''Admiral " by the said foregoing writing. "THOS. R. McGRKEVY." "QuEHEC, 8th February, 1888." "On the twenty-fifth iiay of February, in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety-one : Before me, Edward Graves Meredith, tiie undersigned Notary Public, dul}- commissioned and sworn, in and for the Province of Quebec, residing in the City of Quebec, in the said Province, personally came and appeai-ed : " The Honourable Thomas McGroev^-, of the said City of Quebec, of the one part ; and Nicholas K. Connolly, of the said Citj* of Quebec, Contractor, of the otiier part. " Which said Honourable Thomas McGreevy, for divers good causes and consider- ations, and for and in consideration of the sum of tliirty-ono thousand six hundred and sixtj'-seven dollars and Bevent3'-six cents, current money of the Province afore- suitl, to him, at and before the execution hereof by the said Nicholas K. Connolly', well and trul^' paid, the receipt whereof the said Honourable Tlion)as McGreevy doth iiereby acknowletlge, did and \)y these j)resents doth grant, bargain and sell, assign, transfer, and set over to tiie said Nicholas K. Connolly, hereof accepting as follows, that is to >ay: — " Istly. All or any sum or sums of money which now is or hereafter may be due, owing and payable to him tiie said Honoural)le Thomas Mctrreevy by Julien Chabot, • if the Town of Levis, Manager, as and for moneys lent and advanced by him the Miid Honourable Thomas McGreevy to the said .lulieu Chabot to enable the latter to inuchase and acquire the steamer called the "Admiral," or lent and advanced by the said Honourable Thomas MctJreevy to the said Julien Chabot, for the purpose of enabling the said .lulien Chabot to fit up and run the said steamer "Admiral," together with all interest now due or which may hereafter become due and payable on all or any of the said sums uf money, without an}- exception. " 2ndly. All and every the rights, title, interest, claims and demands which he the said Honourable Thomas McGreevy lias or might pretend to have in, to or upoi the said steamer "Admiral," her machinery, furniture, fixtures, boats, tackle or app, rel, by reason of his having advanced all or any of the aforecited, and hereby sold and assigned sum or sums of money to the said .lulien Chabot for tiie purpose of acquir- ing, fitting out or running the said steamer "Admiral," or otherwise howsoever, without any reserve or exception. " To have and to hold the said sum and sums of money hereby sold and assigned a-i aforesaid, with all interest to accrue and grow due upon the same and the rights, title, interest and claims of the said Honourable Tiiomas Mclrreevy in. to and upon the said steamer "Admiral," also hereby sold and assigned unto the said Nicholas K. Connolly, his heirs, executors, curators and administrators, and assigns, to the only proper use and behoof of the said Nicholas K. Connolly, his heirs, executors, curators, administrators and assigns, henceforth and forever. And for the eftect of the present assignment the said Honourable Thomas McGreevy doth liereby put, substitute and subrogate the said Nicholas K. Connolly in the place and stead of hi m 565 UV \'- \m ,>. ■ ■! ,■ !■' ) - 'll ;l! 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 the said Honourable Thomas McGrcevy, and in all hig light, title, claim, interest and demand, privileges and hypothecs for and respective the premises, and did and doth hereby constitute and appoint the said Nicholas K. Connolly to bo his true and lawful attorney, irrevocable, with full power and authority for and in the name of him the said llonourable Thomas McGrecvy or of him the said Nicholas K. Connolly, but to and for the pi-oper use and behoof of the said Nicholas K. Connolly, his huirs, and assigns, to ask, demand, sue for, recover and receive the p-.-emisos hereby assigned, and to transact, compound, acquit, release and discharge, for and respec- tive the same, and generally all the matters and things whatsoever necessary fur effecting the premises or dependent thereon, to do and perform as fully and amply to all intents and purposes as he the said Honourable Thomas McGreevy might orcouM do if personally present, hereby latifj'ing, allowing and confirming, and promisinix and enggaing to ratify, allow and confirm, all and whatsoever the said Nicholas K. Connolly shall lawfully do or cause to be done in and about the premises by virtuu hereof. "Thus done and passed at the said citj' of Quebec, on the day and year first above written, under the number four thousand two hundred and fort}' of the minutes ot the said Notary, the said parties liaving to these presents first duly read accordin',' to law, set their hands and subscribed their signatures in the presence of me the said Notary, also hereunto subscribed, in faith and testimony of the premises, (Signed) " THOS. MctJREEVY. "N, K, CONNOLLY. " " E. G, MEREDITH " N.P.' " A true copy of the original remaining of record in my office. " E. G. MEREDITH, N.P." : M i 4 Mr. Martin P. Connolly, recalled and his examination continued. By Mr. Geoffnon : Q. Since the adjournment last night, have you gone thiough the books and ascertained how many payments have been made to Inspectois during the jear 1888 ?— A. I did not. Q. Would it take up much time to do? — A. Oh, yes; it would, I should think >o. I did a pretty good days work yesterdaj' and could not do any more. Q, You will have to do it. Had j-ou no time to do it last night? — A, I was here until 6 o'clock last night ; I came up about 8 o'clock and the room was closed. Q, Will 3'ou give us the names of the Inspectors that were in charge during" the year 1888 ? — A. I don't know that I can give you all the names. I think there was Brunei, Pclletier, Germain, and Milne, I think, was one. Q, In 1889 also?— A, In 1888, Q, Also Labb^?— A. I don't know. Q. When r(*ferring to the book, did you ascertain whether Labb^ was in your ac- count also, for certain work? — A, I don't think so, Q. Was Milne in your accounts in 1888 ? — A. I don't think so, Q. You mentioned in your Exhibit "B5" that in 1888 there were only Pclle- tier, Germain and Brunei? — A. Yes. Q. You are satisfied that the others did not receive anything, if there were others? — A, If there were others I am almost satisfied they did not receive any- thing in that year, and that $50 mentioned in the Exhibit as paid to Germain was loaned to him by Mr, Hume, and he did not pay it back, and I did not want to charge it to Hume's private account, because I thought he could npi afford to lose it, Q, The loan was never paid back ? — A. I don't think so. Q. Did Samuels receive any money also in 1887? — A. Ho may have in 1SS7, but I could not tell j'ou. 566 54 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Daring the year 1)^88 how dill you outer tho naiiiosi of thcso peoplu? Did you enter tiieir nanas individually, their initials, or telegraph letters? — A. As was explained yesterday, sometimes probably only the initials or telcj,'raph signs. Q. Their entries \^oHld be made in the same wav in 1888 as during the vear 18S7?— A. Yes. <;. Who were the captains of .the dredges?— A. Captain Manly and Captain Fielding. Q. Where are those gentlemen now ? — A. I think Captain Manly is em])loyed by the firm of N. K. and Af. Connollj- at Kingston, and the other man met with an accident and he was killetl at tho embankment, I think in the fall of 1888. Q. Who replaced him ? — A. It was Manly. Wo only had one dredge I think working at Quebec at that time. The other dredge was at Kingston, and Manly came down fiom Kingston and replaced him. Q. llow many dredges were working at the same time during the years 1887 anil 1888 ? — A. Two most of the time, and sometimes three. Q. Only occasionally three? — A. Onlj' occasionally throe. (}. Is it to the captains that the returns of those Inspectors were given ? — A. The returns by the inspectors were given to the Ilesident Engineer, I think. Q. Not to these captains ? — A. No, sir. Q. Would the captains also keep accounts or "tallies" of what thoy were doing? —A. Yes. Q. And their duty was to make returns to your office ? — A. Yes, sir. (^. Did you compiire any of these returns made by the captains with those by the Inspectors? — A. I compared the returns made by the ca])tains N^ith the estimates that were allowed. Q. You made these comparisons when you found out you had to pa}* extias to these Inspectors? — A. No; I alwa^'s made a comparison and checked the amount of work done. Q. From the returns by the captains? — A. Yes, sir. ii. Did you compare them with the returns from the Inspector ? — A. No, sir; I did not . Q. Would these returns by the captains still be amongst the papers of the firm ? — A. No ; I guess not . t^. Were they destroyed ? — A. Some of them were, I know. Q. AVho destroj-ed them ? — A. The returns from the captains and a little memorandimi book he would keep, I would destroy them, because they came in full of dust and dirt. Q. They were not destroyed at the same time as the receipts of the Inspectors? —A. No. As long as I was satisfied the amount of the estimates was as much as the returns by the captains, there was no question about it. Sometimes it would bo less, and we had to investigate. Q. And when you found out the returns from the Inspectors exceeded those of the captain you did not complain? — A. I made no complaint. Q. Eeferring to those receipts, were the}- destroyed about the same lime that you made these erasures in the books ? — A. They may have been, some of then\ pi'obabh". Q. It was the same job, was it, destroj'ing the receipts and erasing entries in tho books, and done at leisure? — A. Yes; it was something like that. I took upon m3>elf to do it. By Mr. Lister: Q. You said you destroyed some of tho receipts about a month before 2()th Ma}', 1891, .'.fter you knew this investigation was going on . What do you say about that? — A. If I said that, it must be correct. Q. Well, did j-ou? Is that so? That is only two or three months ago, rememlier. Yesterday you said it happened, according toj-our i-ecollection, two or three mouths ago? — A. 1 think I did destroy one receipt. 567 :' m i ' I n 'I I* .1 i 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Only one? — A. Yos, sir. (i. You swoar it was only ono? — A. Yvs, sir. (-1. What one was that ? — A. It was u receipt I found in the office from some of the Inspectors. Q. That was ono that had hoon loft from the former dostrudion ? — A. Yes. Q. You said Drunel, (Jermain and IVdlotier were the Inspectors. Do 3-011 know whelhor Mr. Pollcticr is the relative of any public man in Canada? — A. I uiuloi'- staml ho is. (). Who? — A. I understand he is a nephew of Sir Adolpho Caron. Q- I'" yt»'i know who Mr. (lormain is? — A. No ; oilier tlian 1 know him on the works. (^ You don't know anything about him? — A. No. i}. You don't know whether ho is a connection of any public man? — A. No. (}. Nor Mr. Brunei, you don't know about him ? — A. >io, sir, I don't know nny- thinj; about him. i}. Whose receipt was it you dostro^'od two months ago? — A. I could not toll you. I think it was ono of Mr. Pellotier's. Q. Do you romembor how much it was for? — A. 80.'), I thiiiK-. Jiy Mr. GeojfrioH : Q. Since )'ou wore in charge of the books dill you see in ilie possession of the firm — in the sate or vault — a note for $7,r»((0, signed by Itobert II. Mctiroovy ? — A. No; 1 do not romoniber seeing that. Q. You only became book-koei)er in 18S5? — A. In 188.'). (}. Do 3'ou roniomber when the last estimate for the Ksrjuimalt works was received and distributed between the partners? — A. I do not. (). Take the books of 1888 and tind it? — A. (At^or referring to book.) It was Febrnarv 28;h, 1888. il What was the amount?— A. §31,077.89. Ci». IIow was the tlivision made? — A. The last division on the B. C. woik I tind in K.xhibit "N;j," page 4(i7. "Quebec. .March 1st, 1888. K8quimaltDock,8;{2,(jVl>.0r). Dr. to cash for same amount. For the following cheques paid to each meinlier amount in full, due him on H. (-. division — No. 86248, 155,105.81. O. H. Murphy. 87. 1!)').81. r. Larkin, 8.-),89.').81. N.K. Connolly, 87,105.81. M.Connolly, 87,105.81." Q. These require explanations, as it would ap])ear thatj-ou have distributed more, than 3'ou received ? — A. Thoie may be a balance to the credit of the works. Q. Is it not a fact that some of the members of the firm are indebted and have been charged with it there ? — A. It may have been there. This is the iinal balance after the estimate was received. There is a little ditl'orenco between the estimate received and the amount divided here. Q. What is the tirst number, without a name? — A, That is a number of a cheque. Q. Who is the party who got it? — A. 1 think it was ^Ir. iiobort ^McGieevy. Q. Is there any telegraphic or cabalistic sign there? — A. No. •u think Mr. Eoberl ]\IcGi Q- y got cphi "T3," page 71. March 1st, 1888 : "Expense, cheque to E.W., in full of B.C. divi sion, 85,105.81." Q. Is there any scratching on the paper there? — A. I do not think so. ByMr.Tarte: Q. What is E.W. ?— A. East wind. 5(58 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Itij Mr. Geojfrion : Q. Was it not Kohort McOroovy'HsIiaro of tlic! divirtion loss $2,000 for stono and lilaril that ho has hou;;ht? — A. I soo horo an entry January l.st, 1888 : " Kxpunso for iimotiiit of sale of plant and Btono at W.C, K.W. 82.000." Q. K.W. is Mr.KolK(rt McGroovy ? — A, Vcs; that was a synonym we had for him (in the works. (^ And he was char^'od 82,000?— A. Yes. Q. Heeaiiso ho had ljoii;^ht the plant '.■' — A. Yes. (J. Wliat would have hoon his cluHiue if lie had not hou^lit tlio plant '.' — A. Ilis clicquo, I sujtpose, would have been $7, !!•'). 81. Q. This is not a HUtisfactory ex|)lanatioii yet. You refcivod 8"M,07!>.8!t, and you ajipear also to have had in cash 82,000, lieini^ the |)ri(!0 of the plant bou^^ht by K. II. Mc(ireevy ? This would make 8'i'{,0"7.8!t ? — A. There ma}- have Ikoii some other indebtediiesH incurreilon llu; l']s(|uimalt Duck accouni that wo had to pay from the other works. The tiial balance is ]»ro SI RH. Mcfr.— Ck 5,1'J5 81 Stone and plant." 2,000 00 87,i;t5 81 Q. This is the part which you have read, which is in your handwriting? — A. Ye.<. 569 i '■•■•!;Jli 't;:. ■} ' I i M ■ • w 1 ■ I 1:1 f :■ ■ J 1 f. '^ t i' 1 i 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1,) A. 1891 Q. Wore 8400 not tnkon oft", na whown b}* the books, fVom Tlobort Mctiroevy's .-limv? — A. TliiTu iH tt ditlori'iu'o of 8400 »ont U|) nml tliis motnoniniliim. Q. It wiii-i in ISHK. You are of a^o, and urn an intt'llij,'ont man. Ploaso speak, and try to roniomltcr with these Hgures in your eyes. Try to romemher whether you can j^i.e some exphiiiation before the Committee ? — A. I can yive no exphina- tion whatever. There wuh adoeument made out in my handwiitinj;. liy Mr. Lister : Q. There was 8400 kent otT eacli nuui ? — A. Seomiiifjly. (J. J)o not the hooks Hnow you? 1 want to know whether flie 8400 was deducted from eiioii partner at the time tliis settlement was mat any members of the firm, one or more, as to this 82,000 which gave you a suspicion where it wont ? — A. Xo. Q. Xever heard them mention it ? — A. Xo. Q. Good, bad or inditTerent ? — A. Xo. Q. You swear you never heard an}- member of the Hrm speak about that 82,000 as to what expense it was to be applied for? — A. As to what payment it went for I know nothing about it. Q. Did you ever hear any statement or an\- conversation iiy any member ot' the firm indicating where that 82.000 was to go or had gone ? — \. No. if. They never spoke about it in your presence? — A. Xot as to where it had gone. Q. Did they ever speak of it? — A. They must have, in order that F could make the charges. Q. You have never been told since what was done with it? — A. Xo. Q. Xever heard of it?— A. Xo. Q. Vou have no suspicion? — A, Xot the slightest. By Mr. Osier : Q. Are these all you brought ? — A. All Xicholas Connolly's private cheques, except one that Mr. Fitzpatrick tiled. Q. There are no cheques for 1888? — A. I cannot help it. 1 checked them in the bank book, and came to the conclusion they were all here, except the one Mr. Fitz- patrick filed. Q. Are there no cheques of 1888? This won't do. There is no bank book or banking account of XichoLis Connollj-'s for 1888. — A. He did not have any. It shows a balance of S64.(i0 to his credit in the Bank of British Xorth America. By Mr. Geoffrion : Q. He must hiive opened accounts in some other bank ? — A. That is the only account in Quebec. 671 P^li ' , H !;i !. {H pt' . s ".' I H> n 1 f t 1 J ^ ^1 t. <^ 1, i iimm ^1 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. A man who paid 833,000 to Mr. Thomas McGreevy on the 25th February last has no bank account ! — A. A man who did that must have had a banking account, probably; but Mr Nicholas Connolly has none other than this. By Mr. Osier : Q. You say Mi-. Nivhoias Connolly received from the firm in March, ISsS, $7,195. Has he had that in his pocket ever since? — A. No; probably he got a deposit icceipt for it. Q. That indicates a banking account ? — A. He would not have a bank account if he got a deposit receipt. By Mr. Tarte : Q. There is something wrong about it. He has been paid 82,000, Where did he get the money? — A. I don't know that he paid money. If ho jiaid money he must have got it. (}. You have made that entrj' there yourself, that he paid the money ? — A. It would not necessarily follow. 1 knew whe:e he got the money. If he paid it in, I made an entry he paid 82,000. I must have been told, but don't know myself. By Mr. Daiies : Q. Do I undei'stand from you that there is an entry made by you showing that money was paid by Nicholas? — A. Yes. Q. Bead it?— A. "Quebec, March Sth, 1888: Esquimalt Dock Dr, 82,000; to N. K. Connolly, 82,000 for amount paid by N. K. C, from liis private fund on account of B. C, Doek as agreed, 82,000." By Mr. Mills (Bothicell) : Q. As agreed with whom ? — A. The members of the firm. By Mr. Geoffrioii: Q. Had Xicholiis Connollj' any account intheSavings Bank Department of this Bank — the Bank of British North America? — A. This is the only account Mr. Nicholas Connolly had in (Quebec, with the exception of that in the Bank of British North America on account of the firm's ousiness in probably 1839 or ISltO. By Mr. Osier : Q. Y'ou are wrong in saving all the cheques ai'o hero. See if you can tind any cheques for 1888? (iet me the cheque for instance of March Sth, 1888, lor 82,000?— A. 1 find nothing to represent the cheques. Q. L')ok at the last page of the book and you will see a cheque to N. K. C. for $2,200 ap])aiently on March Sth, which is about the date in question, and one of $4,000 on March 14tli. We have him dc|)ositing to his credit the cheque you gave him and we have against that on the other side, three one hutulreds, one thousand, one 2,200, another of f )ur thousand, and another of one thousand to Mr. Hume. The cheque of 82,200 is to his own initials, hut the four thousand is to a broker. Now those cheques arc not produced, will j-ou tell me also whore is N. K. Connolly's private cash book, it is not produced here. This entry " N. Iv. Connolly shortage and private use 8723.27. Amounts dislnusod b}- N. K. C. on firm's account taken from cash hook, folio 237-0, out of cheques withdrawn by him and not already cre- dited." That is your written record of a private cash book of N. K. Connolly's that is not produced here. Will you explain it? — A. December the 31st, 188() ; 1 do not remember. Q, That is j-oui' entry of items taken from private cash book of Nicholas Con- nolly ? — A. No : that entry is taken from a private Q. You see it is a prett}' large cash book; these are extracts from folios 237 and 239? — A. Well. I don", remember th.-^.t cash book now. 572 i m 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 (I. Did you remember it on the previous occasion ? Yoii see you have seen it and taken extracts fi'om it. Is it just this morning it is gone from you ? I can show you othei- entries vvheie you have taken extracts I'rom that private cash Look, from Larkin, Connolly & Co.'s books. Now, will you give some explanation of that? It is clear there was a cash book. — A. Yes ; there must have been one. Q. It is clear this cash book had a considerable number of the pages occupied ? — A. Yes. il. It is clear to me you had it in your own hands, and from that you carried a balance 8723.27 on the Slst December, 1886, to N. K. Connolly's .-rodit. This short- age and private account you carried it to his credit? — A. No, sir ; it was charged to his debit. Q. You charged him Avith the cheques and you credited him with private dis- bursements on the part of the firm and he owed the firm 872o.27. Now, you have not produced that book? — A. I don't know that I have; I must look up the books and sec. Q. Since you are relieved from immediate attendance you must look up the books. I am told there is such a book. Mr. Geoffri; :4. — Will you also look up an entry which may refer to the following, dated March 11th, 1886, whei e Mr. Thomas McGreevy writes to his brother Itobeit: — •' I enclose yuu the amount of estimate for December and January ; the January one includes the new system of measurement. The advance, $20,01)0, on drawback has iieen j)assed and will be sent at ono to ii. C. ; the amount of estimate for February has not been telegraphed yet ; I will let you know when it comes." Bi/ Mr. Hector Cameron : Q. You have spoken of certain payments made apparently by way of commission to tlio Inspectors for dredging and other work in (Quebec ? — A. Yes. sir. (J. So far as you are aware, had Captain Larkin over any knowledge or infor- mation of an^'thing of the kind? — A. No, sir; he had not. Q. You have referred to the audits that took place. How many audits did you take part in? — A. Four, I think. Q. At how many of those was Captain Larkin present? — A. It is impossible tor me to say. I think he was absent from some. Q. Where — in British Columbia? — A. I could not tell you where he was, (I. The lirst audit in which you took part, I believe, was in the sprimr of 1885, soon after j'ou entered the eniplryment of the tirm ? — A. Yes. Q. What years did that nudit cover?— A. I think it was IsS-'J and 1S81— up to the 1st of April, 18S5. Q. You, yourself, had not be-Mi book-keeper for the Mrm prior to the 1st jf January, 1885? — A. No, sir. Q. Did you take part in making up the balance sheet and audit for the year cr two prior to the time you entered the employment of the tirm ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Who else participated in that work ? — A. ilr. Kimmitt ami Mr. Hume. t^. It has bton stated that Mr. Kimmitt had a power of attorney from Cajjtain Larkin to represent him at the audits. Did you ever see that power of attorney? — A. I (to not reme iber having seen it. (J. Was it . amongst the firm's papers — was it not left there? — A. I do not think so. *i. At that audit in the spring of 1885, was there a discussion between Murphy, the accounting jjartnor, ami ^tr. Kimmitt, as to an item of 825,000.'.'' — A. There Wiw a discussion as to two items, ono 825,000 and the other 822,000. iJ *Vhat discussion took place between Mr. Murphy and Mr. Kimmitt on that occasion? — A. 1 do not remember exactly what took place. 1 was in what wo call the inside office, and I remember Mr. Murphy and .Mr. K'mmitt having hot woids over the producing of some vouchers. ^i. Did Mr. Kimmitt object to these items, or either or bof.h. being charged ^o the Him ? — A. I said he objected. 573 •ii| i! : i; V |. ! 1 1 i: iliiH I'' H ! r !' I Ml I I i 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 I' I hi if hi. \rl ^ 1 ' nil Q. Until the vouchers were produced? — A. Ye.s; or some satisfactory explana- tion iriyen. Q. Did Mr. Murphy at first refuse to either produce vouchers or give explan- ation ? — A. I understood so. from the fact that that was the cause of the quarrel. Q. Did very strong words pass between them? — A. Yes; I remember the lie passeil between them. Q. Did Mr. Mui-phy ultimately produce any vouchers or ultimately give any information? — A. He produced the notes that are here exhibited. Q. 1 believe on one of these series of notes Captain Larkin's name appears? — A. i think so. Q. On the production of tiiese notes did Mr. Kimraitt allow the item to pass? — A. Yes. Ho put them together and 1 think endorsed them with a green pencil to the dirt'erent works the^' seemingly appertained. Q. Was Captain Larkin present in Quebec at the time ? — A. I think not. Q. Was Captain Larkin often in Quebec? — A. Not very often. Q. Did he take any active part in the management of the business in Quebec? — A. No, sir. Q. Did he over examine the books in (Quebec? — A. Not personally. (^. Not ])orsoiuilly. ][ow otherwise do you mean? — A. Through his clerk, Mr. Kimmitt. Q. Mr. Kimmitt was auditing the books on behalf of the tirm generally, 1 understand, but with special authority to represent Cajitain Larkin? — A. Thai is how it was. Q. Did Mr. Hume represent any one in partieulai ? — A. No, sir. All that he represented was the tirm. Q. Ho and Kimmitt were the joint auditors, bi't Mr. Kimmitt had special instructions from Captain Larkin to ropi'osent him, as he was not superintending the works ? — A. 1 understood he was there on Captain Larkin's behalf. Q. You say that Captain Larkin took no active part in the management of the firm — he never interfered with it? — A. Not to my knowledge. Q. That is from the 1st of January, 1885? — A. Yes, sir. Bi/ Mr. Geoffrion : Q. The rii-st audit was in 1883 ? — A. The first that I was present at. Q. Where was it ? — A. In the office of tiie Graving Dock at Ldvis. Q. You say that Mr. Kimmitt made a mark on the notes with a green pencil ? — — A. Yes ; witli a green ])encil, Q. Tiial is six years ago? — A. Yes. (I. You could not remember much yesterday, but you can remember now the colour of the pencil ? — A. I saw the notes hero the other day and recognized his handwriting at once. Q. .So, it is not because you saw it then, but here? — A. 1 remember seeing it at the time, too. I remember we had u green pencil, and the check mark showed through the books. Q. Was (yaptain Larkin ])resont on the occasion of the division of the $31,000 on the 8th March, 1888? — A. 1 do not remember. (^. There was no green pencil there; you do not remember? — A. I do not remember. By Mr. Stuart : Q. Are these the notes to which you have Just referred (Exhibit " W7 ") ? — A. Yes; here is the green pencil mark on the l>ack in Kimmitt's handwriting. Q. Were they all fastened together at the time, do you recollect, as being vou- chers tor that item ? — A. I do not recollect whether the}' were so fastened or not. Q. Do you reco'.3ct whether Michael Connolly was aware of the payments to tlie Inspectors, as far as you know ? — A. No ; I do not. Q. You do not know? — A. I do not know whether he was aware of the paym snts. 574 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. I understood you to say these payments were originated liy Muipli^- ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. It was he who started the scheme and made tlio payments up to 1887? — A. Yes. That is the way 1 uiidcrstooil it. Q. Have you got the ledger containing the entry of these notes for the tirst 825,000 ? Eead me the entry referring to the tii'st of these notes wliere it is charged to Michael Connolly ? — A. There is an entry in Exhibit " 03,' page 2!M), deliit of 85.000 on May Uth, 1883, to Michael Connolly. Q. Is there any other note or any other entry in tlie books other than that against Michael Connolly for which this cheque of 14th Ma^-, 1883, for S5.0((0 could have been given? — A. No. This entry here on May 14th, refers to that cheque. By Mr. Geofrion : Q. Is not tlie drawbiidv which I asked you to verity as mentiuned in the letter of the 11th March, 188G. ])aid and received by the firm on the 25tli of March. ISSU? —A Yes; I find it in E.Khibit "113" '-.March. 25th drawback 820,000." Ai . L. J. IlioPEi. sworn. By Mr. Geoff rion : Q. You live in Quebec? — A. I'art of the time in Quebec and \)i\Yi of the time in Xew Carli.-le. Q. I think you have been connected witli the Eaie des Chaleurs IJailway ? — A, I have. Q. Are 3"ou still connected with tliat company ? — A. Xo. (I. In what cajjacity were _\'ou eonneeted with that company? — A. I have been managing director for part of tlie time. Q. For liow many years ? — A. l"'oiir years. (I. As nnmaging director, were you in charge of tlie books and ])apcr.-« of the com])any?— A. Xo. (i>. Had you sc)me of the |)apers of the company in j-oiir possession? — A. I had. Q. Who was in chai'ge of the books of tlie company? — A. The secretary-. (,>. Who is he?— A. L. A. IJobitaille. (^. Wlu',1'
  • eh iio live? — A. Quebec. (|^. iJia you li ve in your possession a certain agreement between C. X. Arm- strong a^d .!''.'>oa^fcGreevy, which was mentioned yesterday by ,Mr. Armstrong as having bc^ ii Ijf in your posses.sion alter having been signed ? — A. There was an agreement si.^i:' I by Mf. Armstrong ami Mr. Kobert McGrcevy which was in my lianils.^ It pass. ! tf )i.gh lu}' hands during the year 18S(;. Q*. Y'ou iiav M3en the document which was in your hands ? — A. At the lime? Q. Yes. — /.. I have seen it. Q. I3id v.m nign it yourself? — A. 1 did. Q. W'Vs there any other luimes on it besides Armsliung, R'lbert Mctircevy and vour '..ime ? — A. There was the signature of the lion, Thomas Mcdrecvy. Q. AVho else ?— A. The Hon. T. Robitaille. *i>. He was then tin* president of the company ? — A. Yes. Q. Are those all the names you can remember? — A. That is -dl the names there v i;. Q, !>> }-ou know where that document is Jiow ? — A. Xo. (I. 'v- '.. '» did you last see it ? — A. At the time. (^. il long tlid it remain in your hands ? — A. It never remained in my hands. Jt jiassed :hrough at the time it was signed, Q, You wore the custodian of the pa]»ers ? — A. I iianded it to Mr. IJobert Mctlreevy immediately after the signatures were made. It was left with him, I had it no more than anybod}* else. It was on the table, and I know it was hamlod to him at the time 575 i r I ■ i'T' !i J 54 Victoria. Appendix {No. 1.) A. 1891 :'n •: Q. It was not in duplicate ? — A. No. Q. Did you keep a copy of the document ? — A. I had notes of the contents of the document, but 1 have not got them now. A memorandum had been made up of the contents of the document. Q. Can you say where that memorandum is ? — A. It was left with Mr. Robert !McGreevy. Q. The memorandum itself? — A. No; that has been destroyed. I had no object in keeping it. Q. Can you remember what was the purport of the document ? — A. It was the agreement between Mr. McGreevy and Mr, Armstrong. Mr. OuiJiET. — Would it not be better, if there is a document, to have it produced by Bobert McGroevy. Mr. Robert II. McGreevy n;, .i''^?. By Mr. Geoffrion Q. You are already sworn ? — A. Yes. Q. You have heard the witness mention a document signed by ,you. Did you make a search for that document ? — A. I never had it, except at the moment 1 signed it. My impression is that Mr. Riopel or the Hon. Mr. Robitaille kept it. C^. You haven't it in ^-onr possession? — A. I never had it really in my possession at all. I signed it and got my brother to sign it, and left it with them. Q. Have you been making search for that document ? — A. I could not search, because 1 never had it. Q. Where was it signed ? — A. In Ottawa. Mr. Riopel's examination resumed. Q. Where was the document signed ? — A. In the Parliament Buildings, Ottawa. Q. What Dei)artment ? — A. In the Tower Room. I used to keep my books and papers there. Q. Will you state to the Committee what you can remember of that document? — A. It was an agreement between Mr. McGreevy and (J. Which McGreevy ? — A. The two gentlemen named Just now — that is, Tho- mas and Robert, whereby they agreed to transfer their interest in the conipanj' — that is, their stock — and all their interest. The consideration was that Mr. Arm- strong was to puj' $50,000 cash and §25,000 in bonds of the company. (}. Is that all j-ou can remember ? — A. That is all there was. The Hon. T. Ro- bitaille and myself signed individually that we would endeavour to sec the agree- ment carried out. That is the reason why our signature was to it. Q. You were a party to it ? — A. No ; we were more witnesses than anything else. Q. You say $50,000 was to be paid in cash — ^j'ou mean in money ? — A. Yes. Q. Was it paid then and there, or by instalments ? — A. By instalments, as far as I recollect. Q. Was it to be paid out of certain !-))ecial funds ? — A. No ; there was nothing specified about the way of payment. (^. Was it not to be paid gradually, as the subsidies were paid by the Govern- ment — part of it anyway ? — A. I do not recollect that. Q. Will you swear that that money consideiation was paid? — A. I do not know, but I understand there has been Siime of it paid. Q. You say that the two Messrs. McGreevy were selling their interest in the company? — A. Yes. Q. Do you know how much money Thomas McGreevy had put into the concern ? Mr. Stuart objected, but the objection was overruled. A. He had, I think, $50,000 of the stock. Between the two brothers they had §75,000. 576 i.;i;i ■y-fi 54 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. I.) A. 1891 Q. Tliat is not exactly an answer? — A. 1 am not ilone with in}- answer, Tlie 10 |)or cent, of the (stock had been paid l>3' notes. He iiad acted as president tor the company for two or thi-ee years, Iiad i^one to some expense in attending meetings, travelling, and looking after the business of the road. There were disbursements maile for the purpose of making the service, and there was work ilono and plant sup- ]ilied (orthe woik. I don't know but 1 have iindoistood thatMr. Thomas Mcurecvy or .Mr. Robert wei'e together. As tiir as we were concerned, we made no <.listinction between the two. Instructions were at once given to Robert McUreevy to go on with the work, and he did go on with the work of building the road. Q. You say ho had been put to expense for meetings. Where did the meetings take idace ? — A. .Some at Baie des Chaleurs. Q. Several ?— A. Two, I think. Q. And did he attend both '! — A. I think he did the two. Q. When was it?— A. I think in 18S:! and 1884, or 1S84 and 1885. Q, You say that Mr. Thomas McGreevy had shares of 85(l,un0. Is it not true that at the time of this agieement Thomas McGreevy sold and transferred all his shares to his brother Ilo'nert ? — A. I don't recollect whether it was before or after, but 1 know that a direction was i)ut, asfar us Mr. Armstrong was concerned, in this agree- ment, that Mr. Robert McGreevy was the i)arty with whom the transaction was to be carried out. Mr, Thomas may have transferred previous to that. Q. As a matter of fact, you dcm't know? — A. No. Q. You say that 10 \wv cent, on the shares subscribeil had been paid by notes. Were those notes paid ? — A. Yes. Q. By wliom? — I don't speak of the other shareholders; I speak of Thomas McGreevy ? — A. They were not })aid by him. Q. By whom were they paid? — A. They were paid by che(|ues by the Hon, Theoiloie Robitaille and myself. Q. Cheques signed by the Hon. Theodore Robitaille and yourself? — A. No; they were in our favour. Q. That were drawn in your favour ? — A. Yes. Q. Who were the drawers? — A. The Baie des Chaleurs Railway Company-. Q. So the shares wei-e pai. You received a cheque for 85,000, and ilr. Rohitaille a cheque for S25,000 ? —A. Yes. Q Thor.e cheques were paid ? — A. Those cheques wei'o deposited with the Richc.eu District Bunk. Q. You had t'lo cash for them; they were good; they were presented by yc i and <.luly honoured ?■— A. Yes. Q. And you kept the cash. You did not re-deposit it? — A I ilid not sa3- that. Q. Well, the cheques were honoured? — A. Yes. (^. Were they honoured with casli ? — A. I do not know. I know the cheques have iieen honoured by the Eichelieu District Bank, and the amount for which the cheques were drawn was allowed, ami the notes were deliveretl on the payment of these. Q. The notes disappeared — they were paid? — A. The notes were paid. Q. This was done in 1885?— A. In 1885. Q. What part of the year ? — A. I do not recollect. Q. In the fall of 1885 — but was it not after some meeting of the Board ? — A. There were several meetings of the Board. I do not recollect the time of the jear. It is, however, in the book. (J. It was a long time previous to the contract being signed with Armstrong? — A. Yes; several months, perhaps a j'ear. Q. Will you now take communication of a protest by the Hon. Thomas McGreev}' to the Hon. T. Robitaille, dated 23rd January, 188(J, which reads as follows: (Kxhibit"J12.") ''On the twenty-third day of .Tanuaiy, in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eighty-six. " At the request of the Honourable Thomas Mcdreevy, of the city of Quebec, a member of the House of Commons of Canada, I, the undersigned Notary Public, duly eommissioned and sworn, residing at the eity of Quebec, went to the Ilussell House, situated in Saint Lewis Ward of the city of Quebec, the residence of the Honourable Theodore Robitaille when in the city of Quebec, pretended President of the Bale des ('haleurs Railway Com|)any, antl then iciid there being and speaking to the said Theodoie Robitaille, I did. as by these presents I do, signify and make known unto the said Theodore Robitaille as such pretended President. "That whereas, by the Statute forty-tifth Victoria, chapter tifty-three, of the Province of Quebec, the said Thomas .McUmpvy together with the said Theodore Robitaille and others became incorj)oraled unoer the name of " The BaiedesChaleurs Company," with a capital of three million dollars, divided into sixty thousand shares of fifty dollars each, whereof six thousand shares have been subscribed for, amount- ing to three hundred thousand dollars, and the same are now held in the names of the following parties to wit: — Thomas Mctrreevy, one thousand shares; Louis IJobitaille, fifteen hundred shares ; Robert H. McGreovy, live hundred shares; L. .1. Jiiopel, fifteen hundred shares; Joseph Giroux, ten shares; Louis A. Robitaille, lourtoen hundred and ninety shares. '■ And whereas, the number of shareholders are insufficient in number to elect directors. 579 1-37* ?h i <' I I I I'i ■Ij:!::! i I 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 \'^ i " And whoreas. tlie directors of the said company have not been loi:;ally appointed, there having been no meeting called for their election, ])iirsiiant to the seventh section of the Statute aforesaid. ''And whereas, I lie said Directors have called a special general meeting of the shareholders of the said company to be held at the company's office, No. 4 Biiade Street, Quebec, on the twenty-tifth day of January instant, tor the transaction of most imjiortant business, and amongst others the issue of bonds and the construction of the said lino of railway. •' And whereas, it is provided in the charter of the saitl company that no one shall be elected Director of the said company unless he be u shareholder holding ten Bhares of the capital stock of the company, and unless he has paid all the calls duo thereon. " Anil whereas no part of the stock subscribed for as aforesaid has been paid by the parties subscribing for or holding the same, but on the contiai-y the call thereon of ten per cent, is represented by the promissory notes of the parties holding tin- said shares. " And whoreas the proceeding of the said company hitherto have been illegal, and that the special general meeting called as aforesaid is also illegal. " Therefore, the said Thomas McGreevy doth hereby signify and make known unto the said Theodore Eobitaille that he entirely disavows the acts and doings of the Directors of the said Baio des Chaleurs Railway Company, and further protests against the transaction of the business contemplated at the general special meeting of shareholders of the said company, advertised to be hold as afbiosaid, and hereby notifying unto the said Thetxloie Robitaille that he the said Thomas Mcflreevy will hold him personally liable for all costs, losses and damages suffered or to be suffered for any acts already done or which may be performed illegally in connection with the said Railway under the present illegal organization of the said company. '' Thus done and signified as aforesaid on the day and year first above written, under the number eight thousand seven hundred and thirty-two of the Minutes <>\ the unilersigned Notaiy having left with the said Theodore Robitaille, speaking as aforesaid, an authentic copy of these presents for signification of the premises. (Signed) " HENRY C. AUSTIN, KP. •• A true copy of the original remaining of record in my office. " HENRY C. AUSTIN, lY. P." Q. Have you seen that protest befoi-e ? — A. Yes. ii. Are the allegations contained in it true or not ? — A. Most of them are not true. Q. Was the Hon. Thomas McGreevy then aware you had paid $7,500 for him and his brother ? — A. I cannot saj*. Q. Are you in the habit of paying large amounts of that kind for people without letting them know ? — A. No. ii. Have you any tloubt that Hon. Thomas McGreevy was made aware that the notes subscribed by him for stock were ])aid ? — A. I do not know. Q. Was it not the I'osult of some agreement that you paid these notes? — A. No. Q. You did this of your own accord ? — A. Yes. (^. For the pleasure of doing itli^-A. For the sake of regularizing the pro- ceedings. Q. Hon. Thomas McGreevy did not put in a cent of money to pay for his shares himself? — A. Mr. McGreevy as I told you before, had gone to some expense, and some work had been done. ."^ Q. On the payment of the stock itself I explained sufficient to you. Q. Did the Hon. Thomas McGreevy pi-esent a claim to the company for that work ? — A. There has been a claim presented, but not by Hon. Thomas McGreevy. I stated before that Mr. Robert McGreevy did eveiything in connection with this. 580 lit 54 Victoria Api^cndix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Is it not a fact that Hobeit Mcdroovy alono diil the work on this line, and Tlionias Medroevy liad nothinji; to do with it? — A. We always understood that what Mr. f{oiiei't Mc( jioevy was doinj^f was jointly witli his brother. Q. So, in transacting business with IJobert MeUreov}- you were transaetini; business with Thomas? — A. Yes; one oi- the other; they seemed to liave a common interest. Q. Did you iiave any vahiation or estimate made of tiio work b}- IJobert Mi'Greevy before jiaying it? — A. lie filed an account. Q. For how much ?— A. It is 8.'{,00() or §5,000. Q. For work done? — A. Ves. Q. And though lie claimed between §3,000 and 85,000, you paid ST.SOO. , That must be a rich company? — A. The settlement that was maayraonts to him, and you proceeded to show that Mr. Thomas McGreovy had claims? — A. 1 stated that It was wanted to regularize the proceedings. That was the reason wo made the payment. Q. You mentioned he had been president of the company for two years? — A. Yes. (l. You mentioned he had incurred travelling expenses going from here to Bale des Chaleurs on two occasions. — A. Yes. Q. And ho mentioned he had disbursed some moneys in connection with the ser- vice? — A. Well, I don't know if he has disbursed money; he has been attending and looking after it. Q. You mentioned it ? — A. Yes ; I mentioned the things ho had to look after. Q. Did he render a detailed account of claims against the company ? — A. No. Q. Then you have paid §7,500 for Thomas and liobert McGreevy, have you ? — A. Yes. Q. You and Mr. Kobitaille. Have you been paid that back? — A. No; not by them. Q. By any body ? — A . We have not. Q. Do they owe it to you? — A. They do not. Q. Then you gave it to them ? — A. We made the pa3'ment for the sake of regulaiizing the proceedings, and we entered into a contract with Mr, Armstrong. The contractor was to get his stated sum and a certain interest in the road. We have over three ^-ears proceeding with the construction of the road, and wo have been obliged to give up our position in this company. We have transferred our interests. Q. Now, come back to my question ? — A. Well, that is the answer. The only thing we have out of this in the way of payment is what we have i-eceivotl in selling our interest in the road. Q. I am not askingyou anything about that? — A. That is all I have received. (i. I am not asking what you have received. 1 am now wishing to know whether you gave this 87,500 to pay notes of Thomas and Eobert McGreevy solely for the purpose of regularizing the proceedings of the company ? — A. Well, yes ; it was for the purpose of regularizing the proceedirigs, and settling everything in the way of dilficulties. Q. Will you explain what you mean '' by way of settling overytLing in tne way of difficulty ?" — A, You have read a protest just now ? Q. Yes. Then the whole consideration for your paying the 87,500 for other people was to regularize the proceeding ? — A. Yes; at the time of the payment, and the matter was left in abeyance since. Q. What matter? — A. The matter of the notes. Q, How was it left in abeyance? The notes were paid, — A. The amount was to our credit with them. Q. The amount of your claim against the McGreovys ? — A. Yes. Q. Then they were still your debtors ? — A. They would have been. Q. Did you not tell me a moment ago they did not owe you anything ? — A. 1 did. 682 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 wa,s Q. Tlion, how cniilil tliirs roinaiii to your croilit Ui^iiinHt llioni, it'tlie}' diil not owo you? — A. Hocaiise we havesottlod ovcrytliiiiir in connection with this road and these matters were inciudeil witli the rest. Q. I see. If they jjaid this out they wore to repay you tliis 87,500? — A. There was no aj^reenient about it. <^. JJid you expect to i^et a rejiaynient oftho 87,500? — A. Well, we did not after Mr. MctJreevy withdrew from the company. Q, At the time you made the pa\'mont did you e.xpect to he repaid ? — A. Wo had a rii^ht to expect to be repaid. Q. Did you expect it? — A. Certainl}-. ii. Then, do you say it was payment made at the request of the McGi'eevys, or either of them ? — A. I think so. Q. Was it m.ade, then, with at thoir rotjuest?— A. It was paid at their refjuest. Q. You spo'-'o of difficulties, and this was to settle all the difficulties to which you referred? — A. Well, in order to proceed with the work and have everything legal and regular wo thought it was proper to have 10 per cent. paid. Q. Be candid, now. Let us know exactly. Do you tell the Committee that this 87,500 was made as a present to the McGreevys? — A. I do not say that at all. 1 say that we had a right to expect we w(»nld l)e repaid. Q. In some way or other, you cxpecteil to get the value back again ? — A. Cer- tainly. Q. What form did you expect it to be repaid to ? — A. In any way at all it would come. Q. In any way? — A. Yes. It might come in several wavs. We were jointly interested in the company, and we had a right to exjiect that the money would come Lack. t^. What certain snm had you in progpect? The company was Just getting on its feet again. — A. It had had its charter tor three years. Q. What was your financial basis for carrj'ing on the work ? — A. We had local and t'oderal subsidies. Q. Had they been voted then? — A. Yes. We had also bonuses from the muni- cipalities to secure a free right of way, and wo had the bonding power of the com- pany. Wo always consitlered, and I still maintain, that that was sufficient to carry out the undertaking. (I. I suppose there wore conditions in the various subsidies that the work liad to be begun and carried on with acertainamounlof despatch? — A. Undoubtedly so. Q. And if these difficulties had not been smoothed over you might have lost some of these subsidies, I suppose ? — A. I do not say there was anything of the kino. Q. If the company- had not boon legally organized, what would have become of the Government subsidies ? — A. If the company lapsed the subsidies lapsed. t^. Then there were conditions that the work should bo proceeded with a certain amount of despatch ? — A. There were, and these conditions had been amended. Q. By Act of Parliament? — A. By Act of Parliament. Q. When was the first amendment to the Dominion subsidy?— V. I do not recollect; it is in the statute. Q. What was the nature of that amendment? — A. Thera was an extension of time for the obtaining of the subsidy. Q. What year was that legislation ? — A. There was legislation, I think, in 188 ! ;;: i-!| i !' Tr 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 i}. Tlu'ii yon Wtivo lo m't this 87,500 roc nupod in Nome way ? — A. Wo lind reason ti> exitoct it w'liild l>e I'l'cuiipcd. il. How t4. Q. Wiiat otlicutliil Mr. Hol.itaille then hold? ofiic'f at all ; I do imt tliink ho had ^*lock then. (}. That sidjsidy was not paid ? — A. No. (}. Wiiun was the suhrtidy tli:it was paid voted .' — A. There was u subsidy voted in ISiM' ot'8."{,2tJO per mile, 'riiere was another Huhsidy voted in 18H4 of Sli.'JOO jjor mile, to be applied tor work ^5 this money was transfeireil to the company. These are the two subsidies obtained from the Federal (ioverament. ii>. Transferred by whom 'i* — A. By tlie tJovernment. I.}. I»oyou mean paid over ? — A. 8;>0(»,(MIO were voted tobiiild the first 20miles as a Government work . The following; year the subsidy was conveyed to the company, Q. That is, ;.. IPSG?— A. In IH85. . With anybodj', which required settlement between yourselves and the tiovernment ? — A. No. Q. Had you any interviews with Sir Hector Langevin in March, 188(», or February. 1880, witli reference to the Baie des Chaleurs Railway? — A. I only recollect of one with Sir Jlectm- Langevin. Q. Whore was that one interview you recollect of? — A; I cannot say. Q. Who was present at it ? — A. Only myself, Q. Then there was no interview except the private one between you and Sir Ilettor? — A. I do not recollect that there was anything mentioned to Sir Hector about tins matter except once. Idonot think there was a conversation outside ot that. ti>. What was that? — A. Sir Hector was stating about some difficulty with the ^lessrs. .McGreevy . Q. Between the Messrs. McGreevy and whom ? — A. Ourselves. Q. Who are "our.selves "? — A. The other members of the company. t^. At this time you had an interview there was a difficulty between the McGreevys and the other members of the firm, and 3'ou saw Sir Hector about it ? — A. No; it was rather incidentally that I was in conversation with him, perhaps it was in his office when I was on other business, and he mentioned something about this matter anil suggested it should be settled in some way. Q. The initiative came from Sir Hector ind not from you ? — A, I do not know there was any initiative. It was in u conve' sation . t^. He began the conversation? — A. I am not positive. I know I did not go to interview him about this. 585 I f i ■ 5 I 'Ml, V i 1; ; :! I 54 Victoria, Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1801 f:i '"' s 1 1 ;3 Q. You have made two diverne statements. Which is true? — A. No. I did not go on purpose to have an interview with Sir Hector Langevin on this suliject. I approached him on some other business and the (luestion came up. I do not know whether it was iirought up by himself or myself. Jt was incidental. Q. What did he ask you todoV — A. He made suggestions that we had belter tiy and make arrangements and agree with them. Q. With who?— A. The McGreevys. Q. Did you try to ? — A. We did not. Q. On the 3rd of March, 188(1, there is a letter on tile here which reads : •'Nothing new in the Eaie des Chaleurs matter, except that Sir Hector wanted mo to come to terms and asked me to state the terms. I have not done so yet. but lam told that they have entered into a contract with one Refel, who is a partner of Is bester's. I have put Mitchell on the scent. Others told me that Armstrong is working on the line. 1 will know more before evening." Nuw, did you have a conversation witli Mr. Thoraad McGreevy in pursuance of Sir Hector's request ? — A. No, nevei'. Q. Although Sir Hector asked you to come to terms with Thomas MoGieevy you made no effort to come to terms with him ? — A. No. Q. On the 9th of March Thomas McGreevy writes again, as it appears on ])agc 23 uf the Evidence, " 1 had a meeting this afternoon with Sir Hector and Sir Adolphe on Bale des Chaleurs. Sir Hector insisted on animderstanding being come to. I refused to do so, and told him at last to let Kobitaille make a p. oposition himself." That is Senator Eobitaille, 1 suppose ? Or do you say you do not know to whom Mr. Mc(ireevy refers when he told Sir Hector to let Robitaille make a proposition? — A. I have no doubt it would bo Senator Ito'jitaille. Q. The letter continues. — " 1 refusetl to do so, and told him at last to let Robi- taille make a proposition himself; that I was not going to make bi-ains for him for- ever and let him take advantage of it. They propose (not Caron, Sir Hector) to give me control of road to Ste. Anne's with subsidy of ^6,00'^ per mile, if 1 would withdraw my opposition to B. de C. Railway and relieve you and me of our stock. They are in a complete fix. The Armstrongs can't get anybody to touch them. Isbester cent word by Mitchell that as long as the Armstrongs had anything to do with it, they would not." Was there any attempt made with your knowledge to come to an understanding between Robitaille and McGreevy? Do you know any- thing of this proposition ? — A. No. Q. You never heard of it before — never heard of any projiosition to make a settlement? — A. There was a proposition made, but not with reference to this matter. The proposition is tl is : Mr. Robert McGreevy came to me and said ; — " We had better mak~ c, settlement of this difficulty." The difficulty arose on this point from this question : In the year previous — that is in the tall of 1885 — Mr. Robert McGreevy had tendered for the contract for the construction of the road. He had asked as a price of the conti'act for one hundred miles, all the subsidies that were voted or would thereafter be voted, and the bonds of the company, making a total of over 830,000 a mile. We did not see any possibility of carrying out this undertaking, and after making eiuiuiries we found out the price was rather high. This was the cause of the difficulty between Mr. McGree/yand ourselves. Later on, Mr. Robert McGreevy came to me and said: "You hal better have this matter settled. I am pi'opared to transfer our interest in the road." 1 do not recullc ^ whether he said he would transfer or his brother would for a certain consideration. He said he would transfer his interest for §50,00(), and upon a second interview ho said it ivould be 850,000 and $25,000 in bonds. Wo had nothing to do with this, llo made tho agreement with Mr. Armstrong, and that is the agreement that hil^ been referred to at the commencement of this. The Committee then adjourned till 3.30 p.m. 586 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A 1891 Wednesday, 22nd July, H.30 o'clock p.m. Mr. Osi-er — I may mention, while the matter is fresh in the minds of the members of the Committee, that the private cash book of Nicholas K. Connolly, consisting of entries in some of the pages of one of the cash books of the tirm, has been yjroduced. Mr. (rEOKFRiON. — [ now put in, procos-veibal of signification, XicholasK. Con- nolly versus Julien Chi'bot — dated Quebec, IGth March, 1891, and which roads ns lollows : (Hxhibit "K12.") "On this sixteenth day of the month of March, in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety-one. " I, Edward Graves Meredith, the undei'signed J^otar}' Public for the Province of (Quebec, in the Dominion of Canada, residing at the city of Quebec, in the said Province, at the request of Nicholas K. Connolly, of the said city of (Quebec, con- tractor, the Assignee (Cessionnaire) named in a certain deed of sale antl assign- ment from the Honourable Thomas McGrecvy, of tiie said city of Quebec, in fsivcjur of him the said Nicholas K.Connoll3% bearing date and passed before E. G. Meredith, the undersigned Notary, on thctwenty-Hfthday of che month of February last (18[tl), jtroceeded to the office .vnd usual place of business in the said city of Quebec of Julien Chabot, of the town of L4vis, Manager, the debtor nameil in the aforecited deed of sale and assignment. " Where being and speaking to the said Julien Chabot personally, I signified unto the said Julien Chabot the aforecited deed of sale and assignment by serving upon the said Julien Chabot an authentic copy of the aforecited deed of sale and assign- ment. " The present proctis-vcrbal of signification is thus made in accordance with the provisions of an Act of the Legislature of the Province of Quebec, and passed in the forty-soventh year of Her Majest3''8 reign intituled : " An Act relating to notifica- tions, protests and significations " — 47 Victoria, cap. 14. "ill testimony whereof, I, the said Notarj^, have signed these presents at the said city of Quebec on the day, month and year first above written, the same being recorded in my office under the number four thousand two hundred and eighty-two. (Signed) " E. G. MEEHDJTII, N.P. •'■ A true copy of the original remaining of record in my office. " E. G. MEKEDITH." Mr. EioPEii's examination resumed. By Mr. Lister : Q. You and your friends went into the venture without investing any money, as I understand? — A. We had disbursed' for several purposes. t^. You had the company incorporated? — A. Yes. Q. You were one of the incorporators ? — A. Yes. Q. Then, up to the time you received your actual incorporation I supjuise the expenses were such as wei'C necessary to get that Act through ? — A. No ; there was that, ai"l s(>mething else. Q. What else was there? — A. There had been a charter previously obtained. Q. \Vell, Ave will include that. After getting your actual incorporation yourself ;iiid your friend:- subscribed for the stock 8300,000? — A. Yes. Q. Upon which you were to pay 10 per cent. ? — A. No ; it was not that. Q. Well, you did pay 10 per cent.?— A. f did. 587 . H illl ' i ' > 64 Victoria. Api:)en(lix (N^o. 1.) A. 1891 ' If . ' i.'i Q. That is to any, you paid it by li^iviiig your promissory notes to the company ? — A. Yes. Q. For 10 per cent, of the stocic suhserihcd by cacli of j-ou ? — A. Just so. Q. And in jiayment of those promissory notes you jtut in an accountagainst tlic compan}' for 830,000 ? — A. No; that is not tho way we did it. Q. How did you do it, tiien? — A. Wo handed these notes to our societary- treasuror. He accepted them, and subsequently, as I explained this morning, tiio notes of all tho shareholders were paid out of the amount whicii was due to u-. original)}-. Q. That is to say, you andj-oui- friend tiie Senator — he for twenty-tive thousand and you for five thousand. Is that correct ? — .\. Yes. . To whom ? — A. Wo sold to Mr. Oooper and others of Montreal — to a Mon- treal .syndicate. Q. Mr. Armstrong said that ho bought Mr. ^[cCireevy's stock because that gave liim control — that under this arrangement he had ac([uired half the stock of the list of shareholders, i.Md that by getting ^Fr. McGreevy's stock he got control of the I'oad. Was that statement wrong? — A. It was right, but it was not in point of your question. There is the fact that we entered into a contract with itr. Arm- strong for th(^ construction of the hundreil miles of the r-oad. These were the terms of the contract ; lie was to bo paid by securing all the subsidies from both ilic Governments, the municipal bonuses, whatever subsidy was then voteil or which was to be thereafter voted, and the balance, to be made up at the rate of 820,000 |)ei' mile, was j)ayablo by the company in bonds of the company, and he was also to bo entitled, after the com|)lotion of the hundred miles and the ((X(;cutioii of the contract, to one-half the stock in the company. Q. Then, his ac(iniring one halt of the stock was part of the agreement? — A. That was part of the contract tor the construction of the road. Q. Entered into by you ? — A. By the company and Mr. Armstrong. Q. r understand the old directoi-s have sold out since? — A. Not all of them. (^. Have you sold out ? — A. Yes ; I have. And Senator Robitaillo? — A. Yes. And who else? — A. Mr. Robert Mctfreevy has not- lout. All the I'est Q- have. Q. All have sold out except Robert Mc(rreevy ? — A. Yes. »i>. Did he not sell out his shares to ilr. Armstrong? — A. Not that I am awaro ot'. Jle has made an agreement with Mr. Armstrong. lie still hold his shares, and 1 think holds them still. Q. Then, with the exception of Mr. Robert McUreevy, all the directors have sold out to this Montreal syndicate ? — A. Yes. Q. For how much? — A. I may as well answer. That is another question there docs not seem to be much point in. The amount received by all the parties, outside ot'Mr. Ilobert McGreevy, who has not sold out, is 875,000 — partly cash ])ayments and ])artly by returns. Q, That is what they sold out their sf^ck for? — A. All interest and claims »n the road ? Q. That would be five of you? — A. There were more than live. (i>. iSeven, I think, was the number of directors, and excluding Robert McGrcevy, that would bo six? — A. 8ix — yes. il. Thomas Mctireevy sold out to Robert, did he not? — A. Vos ; I think he did. Q. So that the sale made by the other ilirectors was the sale made to the .Mon- treal syndicate ? — A. Ves. (}. So that would include five persons? — A. Why? Q. Were there not seven altogether ? — A. Yes. Q. And Thomas Mcrrreevy sold to Robert ? — A. Robert is the (jnly one. Q. Did Thomas Mctrreevy participate in that $"5,000? — A. I do not know. Q. You know nothing about that ? — A. No. Q. Was there much negotiating with Mr. Armstrong? — A. In what way? 589 li i ■ i F 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. About taking over the road — taking the contract? — A. There was nego- tiating. Q. Did it extend ovc" any considerable period ? — A. Over six months. Q. Is Mr, Armstrong any relation to Sir Hector Langevin ? — A. That F do not know. Q. Do you know l)y report? — A. I do not Icnow. By Mr. Stuart ; li'v \i V, ^ i Q. You have stateil that Mr. Thomas ilcGreevy was a party to the agreement i-ntored into with Mr. Armstrong — the agreement whicli is now missing. Are you tjuito sure of that ? — A. I have stated that he signed the agreement, and 1 have stated I do not recollect whether he tianst'erred his interest to his brother or not. J um not sure whether he had an interest or not, but I understood at the time what his brother was doing. I do not recollect whether he had. (i». As a matter of fact, is it not the case that he had transferred all his interest to Kohert Mc(ireevy ? — A. I do not recollect. Q. Is it not a fact that he did not sign that agreement? I may tell you thai Mr. Armstrong has sworn that Mr. McGreevy did not sign it. In his evidence yesterday he says : '"Q. Was there a written agreement to that effect? — A. There was an agreement of some kind, but I forget exactly the terms of it. Q. Did you keep a copy of the original agreement ? — A. Xo. Q. You have not got it in your possession ? — A. No. Q. No copy nor oiiginal ? — A. No. Q. The memorandum in wiMting would be to the effect that you were purchasing the shares for 830,000 casli and bonds of the company? — A. There was not only shares, but it included certain woik that was McGreevy, a copy of which has been produced here? — A. Yes. Q. Is it not the case that shortly after the protest was served upon you that Mr. Thomas Mctrreevy transferred his interest in the company to Jlobert Mctrreevv, antl that therefore Hobert ahme had to do with the company ? — A. I have told you before [ do not kn(jw. You can ascertain that by looking at the books. 1 would not recollect the date of the agreement, if I did not recollect whether Mr. McGreevy had stock or not. Q. Is it not a fact that immediately after the protest oi-, under any circum- .■^tances, within a couple of months after that, that Mr. Thomas McGreevy ceased tn have anything to ilo with the company, and 3'ou had no further business with him at all ? — A, Yes ; I know that Mr. Thomas McGreevy was not a shareholder. Q. Is it not the case that after ho ceased to be a shareholder he cea^il to tai^c any interest at all in the business of the company? — A. He had no interest. Q. Could you not tax your memory to say about how long after the i)rotest wa> served it was that he transferred his shares? — A. No; I do not know the date ot the transfer. Q, As a matter of fact, was it within a comparatively short timo? — A. It wa.-> about that time. soo it' 4 54 Victoria. Appendix (So. 1.) A. 1891 Q. At that time it was also undorstotMl that Mr. Robert Mctfieevy in takiiiii:(iver ills brother's sliuros assumed his liabilities tor them? — A. Uobert McCiteevy was tlie only person of the two who had an interest in the eompany. Q/ And ho had taken the shares with the unpaid calls upon them? — A. He iield the shares just as they stood. Q. Are you aware which of those men, Robeit or Thomas Mc(Jreevy. had done the work on the road ? — A. Mr. Ilobert McCTieevy was the superintendent on that Avork. Q. Do you recollect whether he did it in his own name or for Thomas ? — A. T cannot sa}'. It was under the inslruction of the company, and between them 1 do not know what anany;ements there may have been, Q. Was Robert McGroevy at the time of the original expenditures for makini:' surveys and at the beginning of the work a director of the company ? — A. Yes ; 1 think he was. Q. Both of them were? — A. Yes. Q. I understood you to say that you Avere quite satisfied Thomas McGreevy r'hould go "ut after he served this protest ? — lie stated that he would have no more t(i do with the company. Q. That was after he served the protest ? — A. Y'es. yndioate. [ wish to know whether or not Mr. Thomas Mc(rreevy bad iinytluui;- to do with tiie company at that tim'.>? — A. He had not. <^. Directly or indirectly ? — A. Xo. Q. He had ceased for many years to have any intoiest in the company ? — A. Yes. Q. You state that the price paid was 875,000. How was that sum paid? — A. It wa.> paid by cheques. 1 think the first cheque was by Mr. Angus M. Thorn, who was acting for the syndicate. Ho was trustee for the syndicate. The other pay- miMits wei'e made by the |)resident of the company, Mr. .lames Cooi)er, by notes and iheijues of the officers of the present company. 1 wish to state that out of that S7r).oOO we had to pa}' some accounts which was .-^o much deducted ott'oui- share. Q. Some debts? — A. Yes ; liabilities that we assumed to pay ourselves. By the Chairman : Q. Can you state what amount without giving the names ? — A. Of course, it would be a matter of general inquiry to go into all the details and L wish to explain thi> way: We have been connected with this undertaking since getting the first charter in 1>!7-. We have worked very actively for several yi'ars, and our chartei' lapsed. Subsequently, in 1882, we obtained a now charter, and we ]iroeeedeil with the under- takinic. We made many disbursements; we spent our time — for my part, for the last S or 11 years the greater portion of my time has been given to this undertaking. Tiie olHcers of the company, the presi.k'nt, the secretary-treasuivr. the manager and others, have not got one cent of salary out of it. There has been nothing got out of it but this amount that 1 have now stated. Tiiis is the amount which is an allowance lor our work and disbui-senients, which bad been made by us dui'ing all this time, and which were not charged to the account of the compan}-. We have not made an acfount to them, and we have not charged for salaries. The amount which we have received covers everything — that is, this last amount — that we have had out ot' the undertaking, Bi/ Mr. Mills (Botlncell) : - session of the bank; or was this a simultaneous transaction? — A. The notes did noi go into the possession of the bank. Q. Did the notes remain in the possession of the secretary-trea'"iier until tlu v were returned to the parties? — A. The notes have not been retui,.d to the parties. Q. Who is in possession of those notes at the present time? — A. I cannot say. Q. I understood j'ou to tell the Committee that these notes had been jiaid by tlio claims which j'ou had against the corporation ? — A. Yes. or negotiations for contracts in '.'onnection with the Quebec Ilarboui-? — A. There were nogotiations lespecting the projjosed dredging contract of 1882. Q. When you formed tiiat partnership had negotiations been entertained as tu the dredging contract of 1882? — A. That is the dredging contract of 18-i2 which I am referring t(j. Q. And this is the agreement to carry it out? — A. Y'os, Tliere was negotia- tions res|)ecting that contract. Q. Had the contract been obtained from the Government prior, or at the time? — A. At that time. Q. Do you know, or aro you able to state, whether your brother, Thomas McGreevy, had any knowledge about your interest in the tirm of Larkin, Connolly & Co. ? — A. I do state so — yes. (J. Will you explain to the Committee whether he had any knowledge, and to what extent his knowledge was? — A. He knew I was going into that contiact. because lie said before closing lie would see Sir Hector to get permission from him whether I would go in or not. 694 tliat 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. lla'l you any othei- interview afterwards? what did he tell you? — A. He toll! me Sir Hector did not see any reason why I should not go in as well as anybody else. T thought it was a very sensible answer, too. Q. Was ho aware, or did you tell hiin, what wasyour share or i)roportion — 3'our interest in that contract ? — A. I did not at the time ; subsequently I did. Q. Long after the signing of that document '* — A. Some weeks or mimths after. (^. In the sumo season, anyhow ? — A. In the same season. Q. I find that the contract was granted about the time you signed the |)arfner- ship. How did you come to negotiate with the former partners of LarUin, Connolly \ Co. ? When did you begin your negotiations with them ? — A. I ijegan with Mr. Murjihy about the month of 3Iay of June. 1 talked to hini about it and be talkeil to his other jjartners, and wo brought around an arrangement by which, when the tenders were called for, I bad another tender prepared to put in Beaucage's name. I >poke to Beaucage. Q. Do I understand you that early in May or June you anticipated tenders would bo called for ? — A. Yes; I knew they were to be lot voi-y soon. Q. How did you happen to know ? — A. 1 heard from Thomas McCrreevy and others that there was going to be tenders called for. Q. It would be expecteil that such tenders would bo asked ? — A. Certainly', it was known generally. Q. Will you ex|tlain to the Committee what happened when the tenders were called for and |)Ut in '! — A. It was agreed between Larkin, Connolly & Co. that I biiould put in a separate tender, anil I got Jlr. JJeaucage to give me the use of his name for that ])urpose. I put in one in his name. Then there was l,(KHI. !H 1,000. Cts. )>! Ct.-. .S Cts. •>< Cts. ••? Cts. .s .i; Larkin i^ ConiioUv . . 27 -- 4.->,4itr) 2il — 2(i,l— 31,,")00 45—24,750 5.5—11,000 1.3S,S45 .\-k«itli . .. 2fi — V\»W ■So ~27,o,40(» 5((-30.H(K) ()3— 12,000 217,!«»5 lUakf, (Ji'dige (iO -ltMt,00<) (iO —54,000 (M»— 54,000 tlO— 3;J,(KXI Refuses to tender for this depth. 242,1(K» I'.i-uiicagi- 25i- 42.!Hi7 27A-24,750 :«--2<.l,70o 43— 23,(i.")0 51-10,2t for 188(J. Q. From what document, did you take that note? — A. I prepared it from in- fdiniation I got in the office. Q. Will you look at this document and say whether you based your calculation for 1SS() upon this statement? — A. Yes ; that is a memorandum that was furnished nu' liv 3Ir. Hume, the contractors' engineer. Q. It is in his handwriting? — A.. Ve>. Q. Eead it. — A. It reads as follows: (Kxhibit "N12.") " Cost of dredging (wages of deck hands on dredges, cost of steel wire, coal, tugs and labour on same) 8 18,G4.'J 2.i IJepairs of tugs, dcrrick^•, clams, &c 3.a;!8 00 IJepairs "Sir Hecior," including salary of Manlcy and all men employed by the mo. (2 crews) r),f)S() 7'.' liepairs " St. Jos," one crew :is above 5,2;!0 '6b Ddg. plant — royalt^'on two dippers 200 00 Insurance on dredging plant 450 ) Sand levelling not an extra 2,006 OS Salaries of Mr. Cy. Mr. My. and others 2,500 00 "Total expenditure for 1886 S:{8..5.54 47 " I'or Mr. McGrcevy." 8 10(5,32.3 38,554 8_ 67,760 335,000. 67.76!) (»0 Q. Have you any memos or notes of tho amount which the firm received for the work so executed at that cost for the season of 1886? — A. 887,293.97. ^l. Was that the amount you received ? — A. Yes. Q. I see at the foot other memoranda? — A. Yes; that is in pencil. I ascer- tained the number of yards of dredging for that season to be 335,000, and I make it up at an average of 30 cents, making 8106,000 gross. Q. So, these figuies I see at tho foot of this document were upon an average of 30 cents a }-ard ? — A. Yes. Q. And approximately you have made 8106,323? — A. Yes. (^. Did you ascertain the actual amount that was received ? — A. I did not. Q. You mentioned 887,000 ? — A. I have another memorandum here of each month's earnini^s for that season which tots up 887,293.87. 597 . I ! ' III i-flVi ! 1: .r i ■I , 64 Victoria. Appenilix (No. 1.) A. 1891 (Kxhibit "012.") D<\ii 20.732 :W Hector 5,98« 7!» Jos 5,1H(} 52 11,173 31 40,905 t;7 Sand Lov i.oofi OS 42,im_7r> Reps & Store • — ' ■ - IS.'^fJ Mnv 8 4,482 !U Jiiiio 4.71'» 42 July 4,SU S4 Alii,' 14.512 13 Sep 23,r)3S 111 Oct 1S.03(; 73 Novr 17,lil2 00 8S7,293 !t7 42,l»ll 75 44,382 22 10,000 54,382 22 Sept X Willi 20,304 GO I)(lg 23,538 HI 43,842 91 ()ct Xwall 14,470 IS " Diig 18,031! 73 32.50tJ 91 Q. These monthly returns which you are including in the estimate, wore they taken from the books ? — A. They were given to mo by Mr. Ilume. Q. Is this j-our handwriting ? — A. No. (^. In what handwriting do you believe it to bo? — A. I think it is Mr. Hume's or Mr. Martin Connolly's. Q. This is a memorandum that was handed to you by one of the book-keepers named ? — A. I'es. Q. The figures under the words " for Mr. JicGrcevy," are not in the handwriting of ^^r. Hume. Are they your own figures ? — A. They are my own figures. By Mr. Ouimet : Q. What was your share of profit under that dreilging contract of 188(i ? — A. Well, the j-ears wore combined, you know. There was no profits divided until 1S89. Q. I thought you mentioned these figures as your share of the profits of the season ? — No ; I mentioned the gross earnings and the outla}-. By Mr. Geofrion : Q. I understand from you there was no annual division of piofits? — A. Not at that time. Q. You only filed it to prove the gross cost and the gross earnings'? — A. Yes. " 698 54 Victorin. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Can you give us tlie crevious years. That is my present imi)ression. Q. After the ehise of t!ie seasr)r) of 1S8(I are you aware whether any notitieation or intimation was given t(» the llarhour Commissioners or to the Mngineer that the tirm intended to discontinue dredging at these prices? — A, \ never knew ot it. never heard of it, until the winter. ii,. By the tigurcs that you received from your liook-keepers, as far as you were concerned, were vou «atistie^fl / — A. Yes. ' il. Was there any dredging done in the Wet Basin during that year of I'i'^il ? — A. There was sonic — yes. (^. Do you know whether the l?o>ident Engineer, or somcliody on his hehaU, attempted to make a ditl'erenco in the price to be paid for the material that was dumped into the river in ISSfi? — A. The contract provitled for the rates to ho put on the embankment, ai'd when they undertook to put it into the river he then made a deduction of 5 cents ibr whatever was dumped into the river. Bi/ Mr. Oiler : Q. The Resident Kngincer?— A. Yes; Mr. Boyd. By Mr. Geofri'on : . Do \T)U believe that the allowance or reduction of.') cents made by ^Ir. Boyd was a fair-one ? — A. It was, in his opinion, a fair one. Q. r mean in value. I want j-our opinion whether, from the point of view of the contract, this deduction was fair? — A. To my mind it was fair. Perhaps it is a cent wronv?, but it is about fair. It really was about what the ditl'crence would be. 599 I !l,' . i .'I ii .Mil I Mi' i' " ' i I\' 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 11 h I 'I ill Q. Did the firm of Larkin, Connolly & Co. got another contract in Quebec Ilar- b tur Improvements subHequent to that dredging contract ? — A. Yes ; thoy got the Cross-wall contract in 1883. Q. Did you associate your- if fo:- this contract also with Larkin, Connolly & Co.? What was the proportion of jour interest in the Cross- wall contract ? — A. 30 per cent. ; it was not fixed at the time. Q. But finally it became to bo 30 per cent.? — A. 30 per cent, Q. Will you explain to the Committee how the tenders were put in ? — A. Hav- ing agreed with Larkin, Connolly & Co. that I should be interestedin that Cross-wall contiact we agreed that I should get another name, by which I should put in a sej);i- ra'.e t,.>)ider, and I got Mr. Beaucage to consent to allow the use of his name. >.[. The M. . Beaucage was the same whose name you used lor the dredging contract ? — A. The same one — (Toorge Beaucage. I filleil in George Beaucages tender. The rates, I think, were to mj' mind fair and just, and Larkin, Connolly & Co. did theirs, and they also filled in one for one John Gallagher. Q. So, to your knowledge three tenders were put in in the inteiests of Larkin, Con- nolly and Co. ? — A. When each of them had ilieir tenders ready we met together to compare on.- figures, and we met in the office that 1 held up to that time, underneath my brother's office. Q. In what street? — A. In Dalhousie street. There we went over the com- paii>ons necessary to make the tendoi's consecutive. Q. You say that these three tenders, to wit. : Larkin, Connolly & Co.'s, .John Gallagher's and George Beaucage's, were compared in your office underneath Thomas McGroevy's office ? — A . Precisely . Q. liad Larkin, Connolly & Co. an office in the city then? — A. No; their office was at Point L^vis, at the Dock. Q. Is there any communi'.ation between your office and Thomas McGreevy's office in that building? — A. There is a communication by means of a trap door and stair>--a trap door worked by a weight. It was put there, bevause my brother's office being u|»stairs, sometimes I had to communicate with him, and it was better to do that without going out into the street. (■i. Whenever yi.u wanted anything with your brother's office you opened a traj* door ? — A. Yes ; and he could come down and see me. Q. AVhen did you meet and compare these tenders in your office ? — A. AI>out the 30th of April or the 1-t orMay. Q. Do you remember who were pre^ent at the comparing of those tenders? — A. To the best of my recollection Mr. Larkin was there, ^Fr. Nicholas Connolly- Mr. Hume, and I could no' say whether Mr. Michael Connolly was there or not. *i. Was Murphy there? — A. .Murphy — yes. (]. Was Thomas Mctireevy in his office or building ? — A. He was in the buil- ding : I think so. Q. Was ho ])resent at ihi>' work of comparing the tenders? — A. No. Q. Do you know whether your brother Thomas was aware that you bad an interest in those tenders for the Cross-wail work ? — A. Yes ; he was awaie Q. Did ho beciime aware of your interest alter your contract or when you were tendering? — A. When I was tendering. Q. You say that you were companngyour tenders, so that they shoukl be con- secutive. Will you explain to the Committee what you mean by that? — A. That if one tender did not suit the other would. Q. Was this contract an item tender or what '/ — A. An item contract. No quan- tities were furnished. Q. Do you remember whether a cheque or deposit was to be made with those tenders?— A. A cheque of 875,t)00, J thiidi. Q. Was such a cheque put in with Beaucage's tender? — A. There was. Q. Who furnished the money to be made with Beaucage's tender? — A. i think he got the money himself. i}. You did not furnish the monev j'ourself? — A T did not. liOO 54 Victoria. AY)pen(lix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Do you know where he procured tlie money? — A. I think it was the Union Bank whore he got the nionej'. Q. By way of discount ? — A. By way of discount. Q. Do you know whether your brother Thomas had anvthiuif to d^^ with or helped Beaucage in procuring that money? — A. My impression is that ho had. He was a Director of the 'Tnion iBank and helped him to get the discount there. By the Chairman : Q. Do you know it as a fact? — A. Not that I can recollect. By Mr. Geoffrion : Q. Was your brother aware of Beaucage's tender? — A. Yes. Q. Was he aware of wh:it you had to (to with it ? — A . Yes. (^. And about the part you took? — A. Yes, <^. He knew you wore using Beaucage's name? — A. Yes. By Mr. Ouhhit : Q. How do 3*ou know ? Is this of your personal knowledge? — A. Yes. Cji. How do you know ? — A. Because lie spoke to me about it. Q What did he say? — A. I do not recollect the exact words he made use of, •but there is no doubt in my mind but he spoke to me about Beaucage's tender. (^. At that time ?— A. At that time. By Mr. McLeod : (). You iiad better state what he said, aiid where? — A. 1 cannot. I am telling yi'ii the substance. ii. Where was it ? — A, It was somewheie in the office in Lower Town. {}. Do you know wheio it was ? — A. I know it was in the city of (^ueliec. i}. Can you locate it nearer than that ? — A. 1 cannot. (}. Can you tell us when, it was then'/ — A. It wa-i some time in th.' month of Apiil. By Mr. Geofrion : ' (i>. Had you occasion to see your brother almost eve. y day then? — A. Everyday. Q. You tiled aletter Exhibit '• li 2 " which is ])rin;edat page 16 of the Kvidonce. Will you read the letter and sa\' whether it refers to that tender? (Witness I'oads letter of .'jth May.) Can you state now whether that refers to the tender you are now speaking of? — A. That refers to the tender for the Cross-wall. Q. And the Beaucage referred to there is tl-.e same Beaueago '/ — A. Yes — (Jeorge ]]eaucage . (^. Will you now also read the oMiei' letter Hxhibit '-€2" on page IT, and say whether this letter is addressed to you by your brother, and whether it also refers to this lender? — A. This is a letter ot the Tth May and is addressed to me, (Witness reads it.) (^. Aftoi" you have read those two letters, have you any doubt that you had sjinken to your brother about this tender of Beaucage's? — A. ^ot at all. 1 know lieti):'e 1 read it, too. Q. There is a reference to an ari'angement with Heaucage in youi' brother's lettei' of the Tth. Will you now take communication of this document, and sa}* what it is? — A. It is Beaucage's transfer ot his interest that he might have in that con- tract to Larkin. Connolly A: Co. 'i. Who is it written by? — A. ^rysolf. and signed by (Jeorge Beaucage. (J. liead it. —A. It reads as follows : (Kxhibit "P12.") " I hereby agree to transfer all my rights in a tender dated tne 2nd of .May ins', to the Ilirboui' Commissioneis for the wo.'ks necessary for the Quay-wall, \c., to (iUl III- m ir It I i ! i -ii 54 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 Messrs. Connolly, Larkin & Co,, and agree to sign such further papers or agreements as may be necessary for either transferring them the contract if awartled me, or of withdrawing my tender for the same if they so desire it, either by power of attorney or my actual letter. In the event of the contract being awarded me. I will transfer the samo willi all my intei'ests, etc., for and in consideration of five thousand dollars to be pv.id me. "GHORGH BEAUCAGE." " QuEBFc, 4th May, 188:}." Q. I see that in his letter of the Itli ^tay, 1SS3, your brother says he will give you timely notice. He says: •' I hope to let you know to-morrow about the result of the Cross-wall tenders." Will you now lonk to this letter and say by whom it is written antl to whom addressed ? — A. This is a letter written to me by Thomas Mi- Greevy, dated 8th Maj*. Q. Arc you able to say at once if it was written in 1883? — A. Not until I. read it. Q. Then read it right through? — A. ft reads as follows: (Exhibit "Q 12") " House ok Commons, 8th May. " My Dear Robert, — =■= ■'- =•= I seen Boyd this morning. He has not finished Cross-wall ^^at. 1 will meet him this afternoon abnut it and know the result. Hector Cameron was speaking to Clarke the other day and asked liini if he Avas not going to put his reports in soon, as the supplementary ostimatos would come down in a few days. He replied by saying that it could not bo helped. '' I think Gregory will receive instructions to get possession of Queen's ston; :U. once. I saw a letter to-day to that etfect. " Yours trulv. , "THOMAS MclrHEEVY.' WiTNE.ss. — This is a letter which, from the subject, I would take to be written in 188i{. Q. After the receipt of that letter did you see 3'our brother ? — A. After that — yes. Q. Where ilid you meet him ? — A. I met him in Montreal. i}. Had your brother any ]iaper8 or documents to communicate to you tlii'ii, or information to give 3'ou ? — A. Yes; ho had some. Q. What was it? — A. He had some intl)rmation respecting the Ccoss-wuU. (^ Jiespecting the tenders or the Cross-wall? — A, Rcsijecting the raloulations made by Mr. l^oyd. Q. What was the nature of his information? — A. It was siiowing the (juanlities that 3Ir. Boyd had made up the tenders. \> That Mr. Boyd had applied to the tenders? — A. Yes; I took a copy of them for luy I'luidance. (^. Did he leave you any ])a|)ers. or did hu give you any document, or give you any other information besides? — A. 1 iuid the rates on which I'eters put in liis tender. (J Did he give j'oii any int'ormation also about the sheet piling in those lenders ? — A. N"o. lie sent me that. Q. He did not give you that at your meeting in Montreal ? — .V. Xo ; he sent the information in connection with the sheet piling either before or aftorwarils. Q. What have you done with this i)aper? — A. I think I must have iiiven it to Mr. Tarte. 3lr. Gkoi'I'Rion — I have to make a statement to the Committee. I was in posses- sion of the document, and I ])robalily losl it, either in this room or the other room, amongst the bundle of })apers. I have here a photograph of the document, and if necessary I may be sworn to prove its loss. 1 want to examine tiie witness now upon it, and cannot prove it unless this photograph is accepted as the oriirinal. 602 54 Victoria Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 I am ready to The Chairman — You had the whole of it photographed ? Mr. Geoffr[on- The whole of the document photographed. !«weiir that the originsil was in my possession and I have lost it. The Chairman — I think we ought to admit it. Q. Will you look at this photograph, and say what it purports to be, or whether it relates to any information you have received from your brother? — A. This is a photogragh of the shape of a postal card T received from my brother, showing the slieet piling item and the amount of each tender for that time. (l Eead it?— A. It reads: " She"* Piling Total— Peters, 820,000 or §8 per running foot ; Samson, S2G,000' or 810.50 pui' running foot; Larkin & Connolly, 8500 or 25c. per running foot. Q. Will you say in who.se handwriting the document is? — A. That is in Thomas- ?>IcG reevy's handwriting. Q. I mean the original one? — A. Yes. Q. You say it was in the shape of a post card. Do j-ou mean to say that it was sent to you as an open post cartl? — A. No; it was enclosed in an envelope. Q. But you explained to us it was a post card? — A. No; a memorandnm in the shape of a post Ciird. Q. That was about the size of the document? — A. Yes. Mr. Amyot — It has no date? Mr. Geofkrion — No. The Chairman — Is that an exact copy. Mr. Geoffrios — An exact copy, about the size of it. *.}. When you met you.' brother in Montreal I understand it was after having received the letter of the 8th ?— A. Yes. Q. Would it be sevei'al days after? — A. On the 13th. . The little paper had been sent to you by mail to Quebec? — A. Yes. . Did you carry out any plan, and if so what was ilio result? — A, It was dooideil that (rallagher should withdraw his tender. uebec. 'i>. Is there any date ? — A. No. OtKJ ly 113 whonj it is .Murphy, t'rom the U< >'ir ;• i n TT ii' I E 64 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Eead it? — A. It roads as follow.-.: *• St. Louis Hotel. (Exhibit "S12.") " O. E. Muiipiiy, Ks<]. " De.ar Sir, — Would you please send Mr. Connolly over to-morrow morning to Hend a letter to Mr. Perley for Gallagher in answer to one sent him on the 17th by Perlej' asking explanation on piles. Have you heanl from Gallagher if he has rec'd the letter so issued. The 5lr. Connolly 1 mean in the one who wrote the letter the other day and which, by the way, was put in and d.ited KUh. All will be right I think. " I would like to see you, also, at 7.150 a. m. at the hotel. This same hour would suit me for Connolly — as I wish the letter to go by morning mail. '• Yours in haste, "R H. McGliEEVY. " Sunday P. M." (^. Will you now give the date as approximately as possible?— -A. That would le about the 15th or Kith of May, 1SS3. Q. Eead it again. You refer to a letter of the 17th?— A. It would be 1883 anyway, and some time in May. It is marked Sunday. Q. You refer to Connolly, whose name you did not give. Did you ascertain what Connolly that was? — A. J ascertained afterward it was Michael Connolly. Q. What had Michael Connolly to do with these tenders ? — A. He acted for Mr. Gallagher. He acted in making up the tender as 1 understood it, and wrote the letter accomp;.:iying it. Q. As I'ar is Beaucage is concerned, what did 3'ou do in accordance with your brother's direc'.icms : '• I told you yesterday to try and get a gooil plan." What was done as far as J3eaucage was concerned ? — A. There was nothing done until .Mr. Perley wrote down his letter to .Mr. Beaucage asking explanations. Q. As a matter of fact, are you aware that Beaucage received a letter tVnni Mr. Perley ? — A. Yes. i}. Have ym seen the letter, then ? — A. Yes. Q. Ploa-e refer to page A'J of the Evidence, and saj- whether the letter which is there printed is the one you refer to? — A. Yes : that is the letter 1 lefer lo. Q. This one appears to have been sent to Larkin, Connolly Ai Co. You are aware that Larkin, Connolly ], Thomas McCrreevy i'6'. li'jbort Henry Mcdreevy. Q. As requested did you prepare copies of the pleadings and other docunieMt> which I aslced you to have prepared? — A. Most of them were prepared by 3[i-. Todd's cleriis. I have the copies here. Q. Will you tile them ?— A. I Hie Nos. ;J. 5, 11, 21, 22, 24. 31, 4-1, 4."), 72, >S1, llO, 123 and HG of the Record. Q. Did i not also ask j'ou for Xo. 3t> ? — A. Here is a co|)j of it. Q. Will you also look at this (U)eumont and say whether it is a true copy of the deposition ? — A. I cannot say that. Q. It is (.<;rtitied to by the stenographer? — A. It is certitied to by the steno- grapher, and hfc is an officer of the court; but it is not certitied to by Mr. Malouin. Q. Will you compare it with the original ? — A Yes ; but I am not paid for my time. 1 am only paid for my disbursements. Jf I am not paid for my time I m^^l decline. Mr. IJoiiERT il. McGreevy recalled and his examination resumed. Jiij Mr. Geoffrion : (^. Will you examine Exhibit "Y 2," being a letter b}- John (iallaghcr to Henry F. Perley, dated I'.Hh May, 18>S3, ])rinted at page 44 of tiie evidence, and say whetlicr you know the handwriting of this letter? — A. I thiidc it is that of Michael Connolly (^. You recognize his handwriting? — A. Yes, to the best of my memory. (i. In whose handwriting is Exlubit " U 2," being a letter sent on behalf of Larkiii, Connolly iS: Co.. bearing the same date, 19th May, and addre ed to Mr. I'erley, ami also printed at page 44? — A. This is the liandwriLing I think of Mr. Hume, the Engi'^eei- of Larkin, Connolly & Co. Q. Including tiie signature? — A. Yes. t^. In whose handwriting is the body of tlie letter dated 21st May, IS&i, pur- porting to be sent liy (reoi'ge Eeaucage and addressed to ^Ir. I'erley, marked as Exhibit " W2,"and a|)pearing at the same page? — A. That is in tiie handwriting of one of my sons. I really don't know which it is, they write so similar. Q. And wliose signature is it? — A. George Beaucuge's signatii re. (}. And written by one of your sons? Wiiicii would it be, liobert or Chai'les? — A. It IS not Charles, 1 tliink it is Robert's. t^. Will j'ou take communication of a letter dated 17th Janimry, 1SS3, and say by whom it is signed ? — A. It is signed by me. ii. To wliom is it addressed ? — A. To Mr. Murphy. i}. ''1 learn from my brother, liowevcr, that tiie harbour works will be adver- tised almost immediately." Will you explain to the Committee what haibour works you refer to in that letter; would it be the (Quebec harbour works ? — A. The harbour works referred to there is the Cross-wail. «06 wi re( up fol no wi 54 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 l)y .stilling tliut Yes. (Exhillt " T12.") " Ottawa, I7th .iaiiuiiry, 1883. " Dear Mk. Murphy. — I have no doubt j'ou lliink I am unmindful of my i)romi.so with regard to the loan of 81,50tj on the check J gave you. the fact is 1 liave not received any funds Irom Monctoii yet, and 1 am so busy hero witli my case getting n\) statements, evidence, Ac. that 1 iuive really not oven Sunday to myself and there- fore cannot get a moment to finance to meet my obligation to you. I trust you do not tind any inconvenience from it, if .so, and that you want it ])lca8e wire me and [ will attend ti) it. J expect to reach Queoec Saturday or Monday and will see you. 1 learn f/ ni my hrothei', however, that the harbour works will be advertised almost immediately. 1 encl(jse you letter for _Mr. Coker res|)OCting the proposed dock you .spoke to me about . •' I remain yours. "ROBERT J[. McCiEEKVY'." (^•. As you stated in j'our letter, as a matter of tact, have you been so informed by your brothei-? — A. Yes, thtit the plans were being prepared here. <,(. i'inally Larkin,Connolly&Co.'s tender was accepted, [ undei'stand ? — A. Y'es. *}. After y( Ml were irdbrmed tliat Larkin, Connolly & Co.'s tender was accepted did you become aware of something in connection Avith this tender? — A. I became aware of a good many things. ' i}. Jn connection with the granting or with the accepting of the (endei-? — A. I learned from ]\[r. ilurphy that 8-5,0(1(1 had to be ])aid in connection with the Cros>- wall. (I. ilow did you learn it? Please explain? — A. He explained it ot cour.se I would bo exjiected to contribute towards the 825.000. Q. Were you informed to whom the money had to be paid ? — A. (}, Who was it? — A. It was to be ])aid to Thomas Mcfrreevy. <}. Subseipu'iit to that information from Murphy, had j'ou any conversation with your brothel', Thomas .McGreevy, in connection with the same? — A. 1 had. (^ What was the substance of your conversation with your brother in connec- tion with that? — A. Well J understood from him what Murphy told me was correct. He told me to go to Larkin, Connolly A: Co. and got the notes. Q. In accordance with the request did j'Ou go to Larkin, Connolly & ('o. lor the>e notes? — A. Iditl. (t>. Please state what took place? — A. Well, I tolil Mr. Murphy that the notes were requireil ; tiiat I had been sent by my brother for these notes. He told me that tiie arrangement was that tho money was to be ])aitl as the work ]n'ogressetl ; I'lit 1 endeavoured to show him that it was necessary to have something at once, • veil if the notes were of a long date. (i. \'ou say he told you that the money was to bo paid as the work jirogressed ? Who did?— A. He did. (^). AVIio? — A. .Murphy did at the time ho was speaking to me. f these demand notes there was a three or four months note and a twelve months note, and later on I asked Mr. Mflrphy to change the twelve months note into what — 1 thought 80 then and I think so now — was a shorter date; but I have no recol- lection of any circumstances regarding the other note being changed or a domiiiid note being given for the twelve months. Q. You say that you asked Mr. Murphy to make another note at a shorter date. Did you do it of your own accord or were yon requested to ask it? — A. I was requested to get it changed. It was too long. 009 1—39 III i I il: !|i l!i |i!i i : I i 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. By whom were you lequesteil ? — A. Ly Tlioiniis McGreevj-. Q. Did ho HO request you after being j)ut in powseswion ol' the tive notes ? — A. Not at tlie time; some days after. Q. After you hati the twelve months' note altered as stated, what did you do with the new note? — A. I gave it back to Thomas McGreevy. Q. I think you stated that this shorter note instead of the twelve months' note was not a demand note? — A. I think not. Q. As far as you can remember it was not. Did you maiie your brotlier aware after obtaining the contract of the extent of your interest in that Cross-wall contract ? — A. Ho was aware of it botii before and after. Q. ]Jut I mean of the percentage of your interest ? — A. It was about that time that I told him what the extent of my interest was. I told iiim the circumstances under which I got that thirty per cent, interest. Mr. Lurkin was very desirous 1 «houid only get twenty-five per cent, in order to leave a place for Michael Connolij'; but I had insisted on the thirty, and he said I was right. Q. Were you interested in the Levis supplementary contract? — A. No; I was not interested in the Graving Dock at Levis at all. Q. Did you take any pari, however, in the obtaining of this new contract? — A. I did. Q. Will you take communication of this letter dated IHth March, 1884, from Ottawa and apparently signed by you and addressed to Mr. Murphy, antl say whether it is in your handwritting — both the body and the signature? — A. Yes. That is my handwriting. It is from Ottawa 13th March, written by myself and signed by me. I will read the part that bears on this case : (Exhibit "U-12") " I will get my brother to interview Perley with Valin before I leave on graving dock." Q. The brother you refer to in that letter is Mr. Thomas 3IcGreevy ? — A. Yes. Q. And the Valin is 3Ir. P. V. Valin, Chairman of the Harbour Commissioners. Quebec ? — A. Yes, if I referred to A'alin. Q. Take communication of this letter? — A. It is a letter written by myself from Ottawa, 17th, 188-1, no month. It does not say who to. It reads as follows : (Exhibit " V12 ") " Ottawa, Hth 1884. " My Dear Sta, — The result of the interview between Mr. Perley and my brother was that he, P., will write you to ascertain the rate at which you will complete the dock giving a guarantee of completion within this year or season of navigation. I will be down in a few days see you. In and meantime do not reply until you see me. The question of some diminution in the value of dock, being shorter than contract, came up. Perley says it is thirty-one feet shorter. 1 think they can bo convinced that only a bulk sum contract will ensure comi^lction this coming season. " Yours, "R. H. McGREEVY." Q. You wrote that letter in 1884? — A. Yes 1884. It would be in the spring, about April or March. Q. You remember that you were ia Ottawa in the spring of 1884? — A. Yes. By Mr. Amyot : Q. Do you remember to whom it was adressed ? — A. I think it was addressed to Mr. Murphy. By Mr. Geoffrion : Q. There is an Exhibit filed here, " Wl ", a synopsis of which is to be found at page 3 of the pink index, being a letter from Mr. l?erley. Chief ICngineer of the 610 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Public Works Dopartmoiit, to tlio Seeroiary ot'the Huiljoiirr<)inmi.') Q. Will you look at Kxhibit "X 7 " and tsce wliethor these notes are c<»niiootcil with that triiimactiuii? — A. As fur as I can seo tlu-so uro the notes lliat I yot from Mr. .^[^^•nily. i}. Wore they miulo and signed in your prosonco? — A. Thev were not. Q. They wore broiij^ht to you all prepared and signeil by Mr. .Murphy? — Yes. Q. When '/ — A. About the early part of.lune 1884. In fact, 1 think tliedaythey were dated was the day he gave them to mo. If not that day. the day after. il- After having received thoHe notes what did you do with them '! — A. I gave three notes making 814.000 to Thomas .Mctrreevy that day and the other §8,000 later on, not the notes but the product of them later on. Jiy the Chairman : Q. Do you know what your brother did with this money that you gave him froni the notes of 822,000.; Was it for his own benertt or the benefit of some one else ? — A. About the 814,000., he told me what he wanted it for. Q. What did he tell you ? — A. He told me he wanted it for the newspajier J,e Monde. Q. Thatis the 814,000?— A. Yes. Q. What about the balance? — X. I gave him by ones or twos as occasion otfei'ed afterwards. Q. Do you know what for? — A. I do not. Q. He never told you ? — A. I knew what part of it was for and at a Interstage will say what the portion of the notes went for. Q. Why not say it now ? — A. If you want it now I will give it at once. Q. I think you had better give the explanation now? — A. When the 86,0(H» note came due, or near about due, I got 82,000 in cash from Mr. Murphy, I got a note of 82,000 part renewal of four months, and a note of 82,000 ot tive months. In November, 1884, aliout the 28th November, on an application tor money lor the British Columbia Dock, I got Mr. Murphy to give me a six months note lor 83,000 on that account and I put with it one of these notes I now speak ofand made it 85,00(1 and gave them to Thomas McGreevy. Q. Do you know for what use ; was it for himself or some one else ? — A. I. tlioiij^lit that they had oiiglit to have more — 2 cont«, 3 coJits, fi tuntb — whiiti-vcr ilu-y eonld i,'et nioro. Q. Ami finally ? — A. It was agreed at 35 cents. (^. W't'vo you aware ot'the correspondence which look place hetweon Mr. I'orloy and the members of the tirni of Larkin, Connoll}- iS: Co, ? — A. Yes. Q. Did this conesjiondence take [)liicc at the same time as the conversations you have mentioned, or later? — A. The correspondence was not until the month of April, I think, ami those conversations I refer to began in December — very early in December. Q. You say yoii.' conversations wore first with Mur])hy and your brother, and then di'l it extend to other members of the firm also ?— A. Yes. Q. Can you name those memlters with whom you had conversations in con- nection with that new contract ? — A. I had conversation with them all exctpt Mr. Larkin. Q. Was there any talk about money to bo spent in connection with that contract ? — A. Yes; they led me to understand that thoy would take 82 cents, airl by getting !}.") cents they would allow '! cents on the quantity supposed to be dredged which was 800,000 yards, to be given to the elections coming on. Q. There was a talk of elections then? — A. Yes. (I. Will you look at Kxhibit " M5," read the document, and say whether this document has anj' bearing upon this part of your eviilence? — A. 1 have seen that before. It is a pencil memorandum reading as follows: (Reads the memorandum) (i. You have seen that document before? — A. Yes; it was in my possession before. Q. In whose handwriting is the document? — A. To the best of my belief that is Mr. Michael Connoll3''s handwriting. Q. Under what circumstances did it come into your possession ? — A. 1 was in tlioir office one day and it was thought better that I should have something definite to avoid misunderstandings, and Mr. ^lichaol Connolly wrote out a document which ho afterward handed me as the one written out. That is it. Q. Was it handed to you in the office of the firm ? — A. Yes. (^. Do you remember who were present when this little paper was written and signed? — A. I think Mr. Murphy and Mr. Nicholas Connolly were present, besides Michael who made it. Q. Was it handed to 3-ou for a special purpose? — A. It was handed to me to enable me to show what they would do. Q. To show that to whom ? — A. I showed it to Thomas McGreevy. Q. Where did you show it to Thomas McGreevy ? — A. In his own house. Q. Did ho read it?— A. Yes. Q. What did he do after he had read it? — A. Gave it back to me. Q. Did ho make any observation after having reail it ? — A. I do not think he made any more than " It i> all right:" Q lie handed back t flypaper and you kept it ? — A. Yes. Q. Whataction was taken upon this apparent otter at'terwanl ? — A. Thodredging money was paid — the S25.000 was ])aid — almost at once, in the month of February. Q. When about would this paper be prepared and signed? — A. That would be signed sometime in December, 188(1. i}. And the payments were made in February, 1887 ? — A. Ycg. Q. Do you know how the money was paid ? — A. I do. Q. Kxplain it to the Committee? — A. I gave §10,000 to Thomas McGreevy that were given to me by Mr, Murphy. Q. You have already said this was in February? — A. In the early part of February. It must have been between the 4th and 10th. Mr. Murphy gave §10.000, and 8.'>,000 were ordered to remain for the Quebec West election. Q. You sav that Mr. Murphy gave §10.000. To whom did he give the§10,000 ? —A. To Thom'as McGreevy. Q. How do voa know? — A. Thomas McGreevy told me so. 613 \ ii; III r iim: 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 1 : i! 1'^ ill : ] ■■! • 1 i af»' ■ ■■ V. . •I : Ii Q. About also tho 85,000. which you say Mr. Miirpliy was onlored to keep. Wlio ordorcd liiin to keep it? — A. Thoiniui McCxreovy did. Q. How do vou know? — A. IIo tol ' mo so. lEo told me lie hatl told ,Mr. Murphy to keep SJ),000. Q. IHd he tell you for what purpose ho had told Murphy to keep ?",000.? — A. For tho Quebec West election — tor his own election. Q. For February, 1887?— A. Yes, Febiuaiy, 1887. Q. 1 fori:;()t to ask you whether the §22,000. for which notes were ,i;ivoii were paid b}' the firm ? — A. I think so. Q. Were thoj' charged? — A. i do not kr.ow, because I had no inlerost in tliat work. Q. You were not charged with that? — A. No ; I would nut require to see. Q. About this $2', ,000. paid to Thomas McCree.y as explained, do you know whether thetso payments wore charged in the books of the firm ? — A. Yes, I do. (i>. You say thatMr. Parley's correspondonco was in Api'il, 188 r. AYillyou lookat page 13 of thoiiluebooic (ExhibifN 5,") at alette" dated 27th April, 1887, anti say whether you have sceii that letter before? — A. I would like m see the letter itself. However, I think I s;.w the letter. Q. Y'ou may take it for granted there is such a letter. Did you take communi- cation of a letter which was addressed to the firm in April, 1887, in connection with that new dredging contract? — A. Y'^es, I took a hantl in framing the reply. Q. Had 3'ou seen Mr. Perley and had a conversation with him prior to thai letter sent by hini to the tirm ; — A. I never had any conversation with Mr. L'ei'loy at all upon any coniratt. Q. Had you been informed by somebody that Mr. Perley was going to write such a letter' — A. Yes. P. By whom ? — A. Thomas McGroevy told me. He told me and he wrote no. Q. Are tho letters you refer to those that are printed at jiago 18 of tho l'',vid- ence. Exhibits "K2" and "F2" ? — A. Yes, that relates to the matter in ([uestioM, Q. Do I unilerstand you to say that besides tiieso two letters you hud also a conversation with your brother about it? — A. Y'os. Q. The sjcond of those letters is da'ed 2tjth April ?--A. Yes. Q. And on tho 27tl\ of April Mr, L crloy appears to have written to the tirm of Larkin, Con.ioli\ & Co. ? — A. Yes. Q. Askirg yon for j'our prices ? — A. Y'es. Q. You say you hud something to do with tho repl}' that was givci to it? — A. I did. Q. When you heljied in preparing that reply you had received both letter.-, ol the 16th and 2Gth of April ?— A. Yes. Q. Did you aL-o inlbrm your ])artners tluit your letter of the 2(!lh of April informed you that the letter you had received on the 2t)th April, beginning: "1 have just seen Perley on dredging. 1 think ho will ropoit on thirty-tivo cents, itc." Were thoy aware ol that letter? — A. I made them aware of all the inlormation I got. Q. Being possessed of that knowledge you wrote tho letter of tho 28th April 1887, in which you say: " Y'our favour of the 2Sth April is at hand, &c." Jt is printed it page 13 of tho Bhicbook (Fixhibit •' N 5.") Do you know if j'our brother was made aware < f iiiat? — A. 1 would not like to say that. Q. I do not nioan whether ho luid soon tho letter, but that he was awjiro you had tendered for thirty-tivo cents? — A. There is no doubt he knew about the reply. Q. As a matter of fact, afterward the contract for thirty-tivo cents was signed? —A. Yos. Q. You refer to the difficulty coniu^eted with the execution of tho contratt . What wore the^e difficulties? — A. Imaginary . Q. Y'ou say that tiu) passage was luirrowor' ill 1887, Was it? A, ^o; in 1887 it wouki not bo any narrower. CU 54 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 (i. Was tho p!issai,'o then too narrow out to llio St. Liiwronco ? — A. Tho passage would In narrower in tlio drodgini;- ol 1883 and 1S84. Q. There was no wall at all then? — A. No wall, hul when they beijan to sink the cribs for the (.'foss wall on the North side of tho entianeo, then tliey left a gap on tho south side of the entrance, which was about 200 feet wide, until such times as the entrance jiropei- would bo tinishcd and left open tor navigation. Q. The oMtranco whore the gates were tixod later?— A. Ves. (^t. Was 20(1 feet of sufficient width to travel with ease ?— A. Oh yes. The outside entfance at tho breakwater is only 200 feet or therealiouts. Q. So it was not a gfoatcr difficulty? — A. The difficulties, as 1 explained, were imaginary. Q. Taking this question of 200 feet witlth oidv, in what condition was this ]>ass;ige during the season of 188(!? — A. The same, aai part of 1885 woulil be tho same. (i. Hut the whole of the year 18S(! would be tho same? — .V. Yos. '• Q. You have tiled a statement of your operations in 188(1? — A. Yes.x (^. And you now sweai- that as tho passage was concerned tho difliculty was no greater in 1887 than in 188()? — A. Ob, not at all. <^. Where did you dump tho material? — A. It was dumped in tho JJiver St. Lawrence. Q The whole of it? — ^A. No, not the whole of it, not whatever was required elsewhere. (i. And what projjortion was put in the embankment ? — A. 1 suppose about o .0 fourth. . Did you use it for any purpose — was this material dumpetl into the bank used for any purpose for which j-ou had contracted ? — A. Some ot'the di'edging was used for mixinix coi'crote, some was used tor tilling tho l!ross-wall. Q. Was this tilling for the cross wall j)art of the contracts of Ijarkin, C\iniiolly \' Co? — A. It was part of the Cross-wall contract. (^. Do you remember how much your contract gave you per yard, for that i'H'ng of the Cro.ss-wall ? — A. -1") cents. Q. And you were ])aiil for that rilling ? — A. Certainly. (^. At the rate ot your contract? — A. Yes. Q. You were paiil these 45 cents besides 35 cents for dredging? — A. Yes it was a separate contract. />■ v/ 31)'. Ddvics : Q. It would amo int to 80 ci'uts, 3"! cents for taking out and -15 cents foi- cut- ting in? — A. The dredging was 35 cents and under anuthor contract ths tilling for the Cross-wall was 45 cents. />'// Mr. Edgar : Q. You (lid the work economically, you used tho same material ? — A. Yes. />'// ..)/'•. (leoffrion : (}. You said alinut one foi rth of the material was dumjied into the endiank- iiient. not into the river ? — A. One fourth. Q. Do you speak for the three years in which you were interested, or only lor the lirst year?— A. I speak now ot" 1S87 and 1888. In the ciirly part of I881t wo were fro/.en out. Q. How much of that 25 per cent was put into the Cr>ss-waH ? — A. I supp(,so iVom 1887 to isss the Cross-wall woidd have taken !ibiiut 1(10,000 yards. In 188(; nnd 1885 the (>ther juirtion of the rilling of the Cross-wall had been done, but in rouiul uiimbers about one hundred thousand for those two years. Q. In round inimbers you are satisfied that in 1887 and 1S88 about one hiin- ilred thousand vards were reciuired to d( .let rilling of the Cross.wall? — A. Yes. (il5 1 . 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 '( !!l M! pi f Q. The other material which was not u.sed in the Cross-wall and not diii.iped int(> the liver, was it used iiy you in doing certain worUs for which you were under con- tract, or used to your private use only? — A. There was a large amount used for mixing the concrete. Q. That was for your own use? — A. Yes. Q. I see by the repo;'t, ])rinted at page 12 of the Blue Boole (l']xhibit '• X 5 '') under wiiich this contract wasa^varded, that one hundreil thousand only were to be spent in the first year under that contract, will yoii state, it you know it, hnw much was actually paid to ihe Hrni for the dredging for 1887 in rouml llgures? — A. Well, I don't know how much there was in 1S8T. Q. (,'an you say whether, in that dredging of 188", you woic jiaid tor a certain quantiiy more than 3o cents? — A. Not to my knowledge. Q. You say that you were interested onl}' during ]S87 and 1.88S, and you left the linn in lS8i>. Are you aware whether this dredging was continued in 18SH ? — A. Y'es ; I siiw it going on. Mr. (iEni'i'KinN— I MOW produce this bundle cf Engineer's certiticates, 111 in numb^-r, which will be tiled together as exhibit " \Y12." Q. Will you take communication of the Engineer's estimate (Ivxhibit ■• \V12 "j .Number 8, being up Id November ;{Oth, 1887, and being the last one of tiie year 1887. and saj' what was the total quantity of cubic yards dredged during that season? — A. 4t)S,r)4() cubic yards. Q. And what was the amount of money the tirm received for it ? — A. ?>l<);i,98','. Q. So you exceeded, by a little, the amount of 810(1,000 that was to be -pent ? — A. Well. 1 don't know that". Q. And by the contract you were to woriv only for 8100,000? — A. I don t know what was in the contract. By Mr. McLeod : Q. AVas any of that put in the Cross-wall ? — A. Y'es. Q. How much of that would l>e put in the Cross-wall ? — A. In the season of 1887 there would be 50 or 00 thousand yards. Q. Is that included in the SltJIJ.OOoVou speak of?— A. Not the value of ]Milting it into tho Cross-wall; the (juantity would Ijo in that. Btj Mr. Kirkpatrb-1; : (}. How many dredgers were there ? — A. There were two. . What were their capacity? — A. Tho capacity of those dredges would be from 1,500 to 1,700 yards a day. B/i Mr . Geoff rion : Q- ^^ ill .V"" 'low look at estimate number 1-1, up to Xovemher ^Hrd, 1888, being the last of the season of that year, and sa\- how many yards were excavated or diedged during that year? — A. Well, that wiiild be up to tlie2ord Xo/cmbei 1888. (^. Give the total in the last estimate of 1888?— A. (if-l:,284 cubic yards. /i// Mr. 0.>'.r . Q, From wbicb has to be deducted the 4LvS.5iO yar Is ? — A. Yes; previous to 1887, and taken from the total. /iy Mr. Mills (Bothwell) .- (I Anil the money?— A. Tiie money of that item is .S225,4'.l!».40. Mr. OsLKii. — From which has to be deducted the 81(i;!,!tS!i. — A. Then there is another item of O'.IO yaids to a depth of 28 feet, at 55 centH, making 8;57',),5(». Tiiere is anoilu'r item In'rc, 2,754 yards ot' liottoming up in tid;il harlunir. as ])er agreement 55 cents, .8] 514.70. These are the three items in this estimate given to me. f!H; ^^1 54 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 By Mr. Mills (Bothicell) : Q. Have you tinished reading all in tiiat ? — A. Yes. By Mr. Geofrion : Q. I will now take the moiiili of Octobei', 1SS7. Will you now take comnumi- tation of the Engineer's estitnate No. G up to IJl.st Oetobei', 1SS7, and say for how imirh money the ilredging was done during the month of October? — A. The total is S 150,1 l.'J >)(), from which the drawliack would come 811,5(10; previous certitieates 8100,540. which leaves 828,501.119. That is the net estimate, and to that you must aild the drawback. Q. The total paid to the contractors was §28,501.00 for that month. ]dus the drawback at '.() percent. So that there was more than 81,IMHI u day of dredging dune during that nonth ? — A. It would appear so by that. Q. What is the capacity of a dredge per day '/ — A. Fiom l.oiM) to l,7oi) yard.>5 jier day for eacli di'edge. Q. J"'>'r tv.'cnty-four hours in the day or eleven hours? — A. From ten to eleven hours. Q. liv Mie month, then, without taking account of accident, break"agc, i:c. ? — A. 25,O0U to ;;iU,000 yards a month, taking broken time ami accidents altogether. By Mr. Osier : Q. Rach or both ?~A. Each . By Mr. Tarte : Q. Is that not a large average ? — A. I think it i> a tair average. By Mr. Geoff'rion : (i. Do you know how many dredges were in opfiation during the inunth of October, 1887 ? — A. I think there was only the two. There was a dredge belonging to .Mr. Connolly that u>ed to make attempts to take "ut stutf, but 1 do not think it Q, Will you look at estimate No. 3, ending July ;ilst, 1887. and verify how much noncy was p-.iid to the contractors for the dredging duriiiLC the month of .luly ? — S.. This would include May, ,Fune and July, three months. For these three months ly this estimate there apjlears to have been done 210,413 yards, to a depth of 15 feet. did much. It did not belong to the tirm at all. Q. Was this additional dredge in o])eration in the month of October all the time ? — A. I do not think so; it was very irregular, and 1 would not like to say. It had very small capacity. Q. Will you look at estimate No. ,3, ending Julv ;ilst, 1887. and verifv how much ni< •. . .. • . ■ .> .. ■ .. .-,..o A. by this estimate there apj) at 35 cents, which gives 873,0 l-t-5">- Q. Do you not see tiiat you make a mistake — that the jirevlous certitieates are deducted ; every progress certificate deducts the previous estimate? — A. The total of that which I read is 873,044.55 ; the drawback on that would be 87,:)04.45 ; the previous estimate deducted, 832,372.24 ; leaving a balance of §33, 007.S0 plus drawback. Q. For that month ? — A. {''or that month'. Q. Now look al estinuitc No. 4? — A. The same way. Q. It ends on August 31st ; say what is the net amount ])aid to the tirm for that amount ? — A. The August dredging would amount to 8'i3,022.15 |)lus the drawback. t^>. You spoke about tilling the Cross-wall, for which purpose ^'ou used the natcrial dredged undei' that contract in 18S7; did you also employ material for the ■cmoval of which you were also paime blue clay ■(■i|uired for the coffer dam and the South-wall, whitdi wa- taken uj) to Ca|) F)laiiche >» o'.ii- s V ove. (^>. How much were you paid for that? — A. I think we were paid the dredging •ice, 27 cents; soniewiiero in the vicinity of 30 cents a yard — from 25 to .30 cent>. (^ In connection with that dredging contract did you become aware that ])ay- entvhal h.-eii made to certain inspectors on the work by the lirm of Larkin. \n 1 1 1 !i r l'' 1 1.,. 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 ilili i! i ] ■ '■'■''. . IM I .lis. : I H % Connolly & Co. ? — I became uware of it late in the season of 1887. When I first saw it it was in small amounts, and I did not say much, not knowing at the time what it was for; but as the sums became lai'ge 1 made enquiries what it was tor. Mr. Nicholas Connolly told me what it was for, and 1 remonstrated anil protested verj' severely. Later on I reduced that protest to writing to each member of the tirm. Q. When you so protested do you mean by way of letters ? — A. By letters, because it was a system that I was never accustomed to. Q. Have you a copy of that letter ? — A. I have a letter-press copy of it. This is the letter-press copy that I got out of the book. " Quebec, 23rd April, 188!). (Exhibit "X12.") •' Pairiciv Larkin, Esq., Of Messrs. Larkin, Connolly & Co., Contractors. " Dear Sir, — I have examined trial balance sheets of the affairs of theCompi-ny, in connection with Harbour Works here, as made by Martin Connolly the Account- ant of the Firm, and have glanced over the books. I will secure an Auditor and have him thoroughly examine the Books and Accounts, as the investigation would be too protracted to do myself. " I have however seen enough to warrant ne in letting you know that there has been an expenditure to the extent of fully Si,ti,000, or thereabouts, that 1 will not pay my share, or cannot in any way i-ecognize, as they have been made without ni}- knowledge or consent. Contracts and agreements, engagements, appointments, sal- aries &c., kc, Avere made without my consent or knowledge — in a word, the work conducted without my being consulted, though the iirticlcs of co-partnership mako us all equally interested (except as to proportion of profits and losses) and respon- sible, with no power in any one over the other as to management or control. I have repeatedly complaineil of this, and now that the working season is again on I put my complaining in writing, and protest against anything being done without my consent and approval, otherwise 1 will not be held, nor will I be responsible for, or pay any part or share of such ej:penditure. A copy of this will be served on e-uh member of the firm, in due time. "I remain, dear Sir, A " Your obedient servant, ^ " ROBERT H. McGEEEVY." By the Chairmon ; Q. You have no reference to the Inspectors in that letter? — A. That is covered by the general statement. By Mr. Cameron : Q. I should like to ask Mr. McGreevy if Mr. Larkin had not ceased to lie iber of the tirm eighteen months before that letter was written ? — A. 1 was i a not mem aware . Q. Do you not know that lie retired in 188S? — A. 1 had a oonversatidii with -Mr. Larkin six months before that letter was written — aye, three months — and he made no intimation to me that he was out of the firm. I say that wiihoiu tear of eontradiction. 1 did not know he was out of the tirm when 1 was out. By 2rr. Geoffrion : Q. The next contract in which you were interested with Larkin, Connolly \' I'o. was the Esquinialt Dock? — A. Yes. Q. What was your proportion of intei'cst in that contract ? — A. Twenty per cent. — one-fifth. C18 ' '] m 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Will you take communication of this (locument, and say whether it refers to your interest in that contract, antl if so tile it ? — A . Yes. That is a letter sent by the members of the tirm giving me an interest, and reads as follows ; — (Exhibit " Y12 ") " Quebec, December, 1884. " We, the undersigned, forming the partnership of Lurkin, Connolly t\: Co., do hereby' agree that you shall have to the extent of one-fifth or 20 per cent, interest and share in the contracts profits or losses, as the case may be, we have made with the Department of Public ^York8 of Canada for the construction and completion of the (Traving Dock at Esquimalt, British Columbia, and any additions or works arising out of or in connection with said contract. "P. LAEKIN, '•X. K. CONNOLLY, "O. E. MUEPllY. ' 'To Mr. E. II. McGreevy, "Quebec." Q. This would be about the date when the Esquimalt Dock contract was entered into? — A, A few days afterwanl. Q. Do you remember how the tirm of Larkin, (JonnoUy & Co. came to tender for that contract ? — A. l''os. Q. Please slate it? — A. Tenders was called through the public press, and Mr. Murphy and myself agreed to put in a tendci-. Q. Before going further, do you remember, whether prior to putting in your tender, other tenders had been called? — A. Tenders had been in in the spring of that year, 188-i. Q. How did you become aware that those tenders would not be acted upon? Or did you become aware that those tenders would not be acted upon before you decided to put in your own tender? — A. I had not much information about that. 3[y knowledge bei^an at the letting of the fall — September — or coming on that time. Q. And Mr. Murphy, you say ? — A. Yes. Q, Were the other members of the firm at Quebec then? — A. Y'^es. Q. All of them, or some of them? — A. Mr. Larkin was seldom there; but the others would always be there. Q. What part did you take in the preparation of the tender? — A. Mr. Murphy tilled in the items and gave me the signed one, and I brought it to Ottawa in company with Mr. Ilume, the Engineer. He gave me a blank one signed also, in case it was necessary to make any changes we thought proper in the riUes. Q. He gave you also a blank form ? — A. Y'es , he sigi^ed it for the tirm. Q. Did lie sign in the name of the firm? — A. lie signed in the name of the fiiMo. Q. But the members of the firm did not sign it? — A. No. Q. When you came to Ottawa with this tender, or anj' time before had you any conversation with your brother, Tnomas McGreevy, in connection with this contract ill Esquimalt? — A. Y\'s ; I had some. Q. Was he aware, or did you make him aware, that you intended to take an Interest in that contract ? — A. He was aware of it. Q, Was he aware that you were taking' an iiiteiest alone or in partnership with Lurkin, Connolly iV Co.? — A. — Yes ; witii Larkin, Connolly tV; Co. Q. When you came to Ottawa with your tender was ^-our brother there? — A. No; he ^'as not there then. It was in the n\onth of September, I think. Q. Wits he in Qiiebei ? — A. Y'es. Q. Ha>i hr iieeu made aware ot' the tendt-r which you were making? — A. Y'es. Q. Flad yu communicated the tender to him? — A. I do not think 1 eom- ■Juniii'.ted any rates to him — ^,just the naked fact that 1 was interested. Q. Did you have an interview with .my parties in the Public Works Depart- lent wlion you came toOltawa with that tender in the fall of 188-i? — A, ^No; 1 had :.one 619 1 ^. ■ 1 !, i 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1S91 ^ J;i til 111 "r ' r Q. You purely and simply put in your tender — you did no transactions on that trip?— A. No. Q. Later on, were you informed of the result at the opening of the tenders ? — A. Yes. Q. llow were you so infoi-med? — A. I was informed bj' Mr. Murjihy and Thomas McGi-ocvy. Q. After having been informed, had you then interviews with any purtios con- nected with the Public Works Department? — A. I had no interviews with any members of the Civil Service — the Public Works Department — at all. Q. Neither before or after putting in your tender? — A. Afterwards I had, but it was more formal than anything else. Q. With whom did you have sucli an interview? — A. I happened to be here in the oarh' ])art of Oi-tober. 1 came to Ottawa on other business, and Thoma.- 3IcGrecvy told me I had better see the Minister about the tenders of the Eriti>li Columbia I 'ock. f went and seen him. Q. Wiiat tooic place at that interview which you had with the Minister? Mr. MxLOCK. — What Minister does he refer to? — A. Sir Hector. [ wanted to know for Larkin Connolly tV Co., what was being done with the tender^ that were in. He -aid they were not extended yet ; that he had telegraphed to Thomas Mcfrreevy on the matter. That is all the interview 1 had with the Ministi-r. Then I saw- Mr. Parley. 1 a,sked him on behalf of the firm, and h'.? stiid the tenuers were before the Privy Council. By the Chairman ; Q. That is the tenders about the British Columbia Dock ? — A. That is all the communications 1 had . By Mr. Geoff rion : A. Prior to the preparation of 3'our tender, had you been put in possession of any info "mation which helped you in the preparation ot such tender? — A. Yes. Q. Will you take communication of exhibit " IJO," and say whether j'ou have seen that letter before? — A. I'es ; I had that letter in m\- possession. t recollect the amount G22 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. f'an't you roeollect the iiinoiint ? — A. In those live or six or seven years when I have almost always some money on hand for charitable purposes, as I call them, it was impossible for me, liaving kept no books. I know I did not keep a cent of these moneys, Q. How much did you jjive to La Veritif — A. Even if you were to kill me at this time \ could not tell you. , Q. Was it about $100 ? — A. Yes; a few hundred dollars. By Mr. Mills (Bothicell) : Q. AYns it not 85,000 out of the §12,000 collected?— A. No, I bei;' your pardon, A few hundred dollars — T cannot tell exactly. Mr. Robert H. McOtreevy's examination resumed. By Mr. Geofrton : Q. At the adjournment 1 was examining j'ou as to the contract tor the Es(|ui- malt Dock. After the contract was granted to Larkin, Connolly lairi how, on the 24th February, you became aware that this second entrance had been ilone away with ? — A. 1 had communication with those, and I knew they could carry it into ettect, or 1 thought they could. t^. Who weie they ? — A. Thomas McGreevy. (i. Alone, or anybody else? — A. That is all I had direct communication with. (}. I sec this letter of the 24th February is written from Ottawa. Had j'oubeeii long in < )tlawa when you wrote that letter ? — A. Well, I couUl not say ; I only remained for two or three days at a time. 623 ' .'I ! ■ I. lit II 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 l:lfl'' '•11 wn-c ^,11 i V'\ i> '\:\Mi • i . .• . Q. Do you know wliethor tlii.s infonnatioii that was ixiveii to you liy your brother Thomas was given to you at Ottawa or somewlieroelso ?— A. Well, I j,'atlier from this it was given to nio wliiio I was in Ottawa. Q. But you liave no ininieiliatti rei'ollet'li(jn. Wiiat you say now woulil bo only from reading these letters'/ — A. That is all. Q. ^ou also say that tlie cireular head had liei'n substituted at an increase of 835.000. What was the source of that information ? — A. Tlio same as 1 iiave ju.^t mentioned. Q. Tliomas McfJroevy ? — A. Yes. Q. You state further, "the gi'anito substitution was juBt about being sent to Council, but happily my letter came in time to put it back to sandstone, where it is now ; high courses and beds will bo ]iut — the, ailditional length will be h.ereafter settled." Do you remember to what letter y<^u referred? — A. It must have been a letter I wrote up to Ottawa. Q. Belore going there ? — A. Before going there, asking that the granite be n^t adopted but that the sandstone be adopted. Q. Have j'ou any j)re8ent recollection, or ilo 3'ou state that it is only from the reading of the two letters you have just been shown ? — A. There is an impression on my mind, and what I read now has str'engthened it. Q. Are you satisfied you wrote the truth when you stated you had written a letter? — A. Certainly'. Q. And although you cannot remember exactly the contents of the letter, you aroeatietied you wrote it. To whom would the letter have been written ? — A. Thomas McGreevy. Q. Were you also informed by j'our brother Thomas that your letter had conio in time? — A. Yes. Q. When you came to Ottawa ? — A. Yes ; I had no other source of intimation. I had no communication with the Department, or with the Minister, or with anj- of the otficers. Q. Whenever you had a (H)mnuinicati()n with the Department, or the officers, you would do it through your brother Thomas? — A. Certainly. Q. You say, " 1 think this is what you want, but it was a close shave." Will you .explain to the Committee by what you mean by a "close shave," and what information you had to make that statement? — A. I learned my entleavours to get the granite adopted had been put in a report and recommended to the Minister. Q. Of Public Works? — A. Yes ; and that it had almost reached Council for its adojjtion, when my letter came up, and turned it back to sandstone. t^. But, as your letter was not to the Minister, who could stop the rejjort from being put before Council ? — A. I cannot say ; I could not tiraw any conclusion. Q. Well, had you any conversation with your brother as to that? — A. I ^-aid I had. Q. Did your brother say what he did when he received your letter? — A. lie told me it was just about being passed for granite. Q. But did ho say that, having received your letter, he did something? — A. Certainly. Q. Did he state to you whom ho saw ? — A. Well, ho did not. (^. You cannot answer my question ? — A. No ; I cannot. Q. You have just stated that your mode of immediate communication with the Department of i'ublic Woi'ks whenever you had something to do for Larkin, Con- nolly i*^ Co. was youi- brother, Thomas McGreevy? — A. Yes. (^. Do you know where his residence was when he was in Ottawa? — A. 1 do. Q. Where was it ? — A. He resided at that time with Sir Hector Langevin. Q. How may years has he resided with Sir Hector in Ottawa ? — A. Several years . Q. Was he living with him in 1883?— A. Yes. Q. I will go back further. Was ho living with him in 1882 — the time of the tirst contract? — A. 1 think so. 1 am not quite sure about 1882. [ am quite certain about 1883. 624 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1801 Q. Up to wluMi did ho livo witli Sii- Hcftor Liinfrwiii in Ottiiwa ? — A. As I'lir as my kno\vlod.i,'e wont, up to about liio early part ot ISSS-Sit. (I. Do you know wlietiioi' tlio tlrni of liaikin, Connolly \ Co. had 'o niako any disl>ur>t'rn(MitH in eonneclion with the olitainint^ of tlu' contract for the Ivsciuiniait Dock, indt!|)cndontiy of IcjLfitiinali' oxpcri>os i" — A. Vcs ; thei'o woio sovoral Hunis rliariro(l. I niontioiiod one lici'i^ this ruornin;^. (}. You mentioned a payment you made yuuiNoIf? — A. Yoh. ^i. How mucli wan it? — A. it was not myself ; it wan a note I ^ot from Miirpiiy. Q. Did you make an}' irrci^ular payments yourself in connection with tiio Kscpiimalt contract, or the changes and alterations in the contract, during tlie exe- cution of it? — A. Do you moan, in addition to what I liave stated this morniuii;? Q. Tills moining you mentioned an amount. I want to know whether you paid anythin/^ in addition to what you pui " ^ <" 1.0 I.I iii 128 1 2.5 e 1^ II 2.2 1.25 1.4 ||.6 • 6" ► vZ ^% Photographic Sciences Corporation 33 WeST MAIN STRUT WIBSTIR.N.Y. MStO (716) S73-4S03 %^ 'H,'- ^ "^ <" ^ Ill l''. 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 By the Chairman : was such a payment. I said in the beginning of this ex- planation that Mr. Murphy lirst mentioned to me that Mr. Connollv told him that this 810,000 had been paid ; and after some talk he said: "Go to Nicholas and he will e.xpl.'iin it." Q. How long after that did you have the conversation with Martin Connolly ? — A. The whole would ha]>pen in the same day, I think. Q. Do you know? — A. My impression is, I seen the three of them either that (lay or the next. Q. Is that your memorj* ? — A. That is all. I cannot tix the hour. (5. Do you* know whether, after seeing Murphy, you saw Nicholas Connolly, and then on the same day you saw Martin ? — A. Yes. Q. Are you .sure of that? — A. That day or the next. Perhaps if my business would call me somewhere, I would go and use that daj*, but the next 1 attended to it. Q. Can you remember what occurred ? — A. I ur Works? I never mentioned it to Sir Hector. Q. Any of these contrai'ts? — A. I never had any talk with him. The on!}- exception is what I mentioned to-day, on seeing him in Ottawa aU>ut the Graving Dock. By Mr. Lister ; Q. You did not negotiate directly with Sir Hector? — A. No. 028 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 By Mr. Geofrion : Q. There is sotncthinj; in the books of the tirni in connection with the ilistribu- tion of an amount in round tigiires of $31,000, and a statement wan tiled yesterday in the handwriting of Martin P. Connolly, givinj; the particulars of that division. Do you remember the circumstance when tliis money was distributed? — A. I do — in March, 1888. Q. Will you now refer to Exhibit " 112," and give to the Committee the explana- tions you can in connectier of the firm." Now, my pencil memorandum in the corner of thi-it, taken the day it was erased, is this, " I received a cheque for 85,195.81." The stone that was charged to me was two thousand. That marinted on page 19 of the printed Evidence ? — A. " Perley went to sec Page- this morningto try and get another engineer to send out at once and dismiss Bennett. He that goes out will get his instructions before going out." Q. Did you communicate this information which you had from your brother to the members of the firm of Larkin, Connolly & Co. that were in Quebec ? — A . Yes. Q. Do you know whether anything was done in the way of finding another man to replace this Mr, Honnett? — A. I recommended one; I recommended (leorge Benson Williams. Q. To whom did you recommend this party? — A. 1 recommended him to my lirother, Thomas McGreevy. Q. Did j-ou recommend Mr. Williams by letter or verbally? — A. I probably was paid by Nicliolas Connolly. Q. When you say '• was paid " you moan was reported by them to have been paid ? — A. Ves. (^. To whom ditl the}' represent as having paid the amounts? — A. Thonui^* McGreevy. By the Chairman : Q. Were these $4,000 and $1,000 paiil to Mr. McGreevy for hisown use?— A. 1 cannot sav. (J. \\^ill you look at the item under date of 3l8t December, 1888, $3,000, N.K.C.. in PLxhibit " B5, " and say what you know about that charge? — A. Coming on to tin- latter end of December, 1888, Thomas McGreevy asked me to get $3,000, for Le Courrier (III Canada, in order that Brousseau's interest might be bought out; and I went to .Mr. Murphy and Mr. Connolly. I think I saw both the Connollj's at tho interview, and J represented to them what was required, at the same time mention- ing that if it was done I wished it to be charged to British Columbia. Q. After you went to the firm, what was done ? — A. On the 2nd of January I had occasion to see Mr. Michael Connolly, and he told me that the $3,000 had been given to Mr. Thomas McGreevy. Q. But you do not knt»w personally whether the amount was given lo Mr. Thomas McGreevy ? — A. I do not know. il. Kxcept that Mr. Thomas McGreevj' applied to you for the money? — A. Ye^. ii. It is charged on the 31st December, Ift.SH. By Mr. Ouimet : Q. The proposition was to buy Mr. Brousseau's interest in Le Courrier du Co -A. I do not. ^. rnepi nada ? — A. Yes. Q. Do you know if the money was applied to that purpose ?- t^. Do you know for what purpose it was applied ? — A. No. (]. 1 11 no way? — A. No. i}. AVas there not an election going on at that time? — A. Not to my knowledge. There was no election going on at that time. By Mr. Amyot : Q. Do 3'ou know, as a nuitter of fact, that Le Courrier changed hands some time after that?— A. No. By Mr. Geoffrion : il. All 3'ou know is that the money was asked from you 1)}' Mr. Thomas McU reevy ? — A. All I know I have already stated. By Mr. Mulock : Q. Who is the manager of Le Courrier du Canada ? — A. Mr. Chapnis. 632 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. I8 ho any relation of Sir Iloctor Lani;eviM ? — A. Son-in-law I belicvf. By the Chairman : Q. What party did (hat papi-rsiippDrt l)efore that time? — A. At that time it r*iip- ported the Conservative party. By Mr. Ouimet ; Q. Iladyou any oonveruation with Mr. lirou^iseau or Mr. ('hapais about this matter? — A. No. Q. Neither before nor since ? — A. No. Q. Had yon any conversation with ynuv lirothui; about liow that money was dis. posed of? — A. No; becausethe relations between myself ami my brother a very few days after that broke. Q. What time was that? — A. That was given on theiSlst Doeember, is88. Q. Was tliero not an election going on in Megantic CVninty at that time? — A. There may have been. Q. Try and remember. >V^aH it not at that very time that Col. lihodes wa» elected for Megantic for the Local House? — A. I do not know it as a fact. Q. Do you remember that that election took place? — A. I do. Q. Did you take any part in that election? — A. No. Q. I)id your brother take any part in that election? — A. I do not know. By Mr. Wood (Brockville) : Q. Did you over hear of that election, and $3,0UO in connection with the same thing? — A. I lieard that it possibly went to the Megantic election. Q. Who told you ? — A. I do not know that I heard it from anybody. It wa^ general talk. Q. Where ? — A. Amongst those that generally interfere in these matters. By Mr. Ouimet : Q. Wh<» are those you moan now ? — A. 1 mean these corner conversations. Q. It was general talk in the citv of Quebec that that money, instead of going to Le Courrier du Canada, had actuaify gone for the elecHonofCol. Ithodes, who was then running as Minister in the Government of Mr. Mercier ? — A. It was. Q. Did you undertake to ascertain from Mr. lirousseau or Mr. Chapais if it was used for Le Courrier du Canada ? — A. No ; I did not. By the Chairman : Q. What party did Mr. Thomas MoGreevy su])port in local politics in ls88 ? — A. It would bo very hard for me to answer. Q. There has been something mentioned about Megantic. Was it possible tor Mr. Thomas McGreovy to support Col. Rhodes in Megantic ? — A. It is possiMe for anything. (J. What party was ho supporting in the Local House at that time ? Do j'ou know ? — A. I cannot say. It depended a good deal on circumstances. Q. C.tn you tell about that time what party he was supporting in tiuebee ? — A. I think his sympathies were with Col. Ilhodos as a personal friend ; but I do not think he mixed much in the local elections. Q. In the local elections or tlie Federal elections ? — A. In that particular election. By Mr. Ouimet ; Do you not know he had particular sympathies with Mr. Mercier at the time, too?— A. 1888? Q. Since 188(>. af^er the change of Government ? — A. Oh, I don't know. 633 -1 fi ■ 1 MH, ill I ;:i il- i ■ 1 t, ,., i ! in ;i t' i 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Had you not Homc iiittM'VHt, you undyoiir brother, inBUp|M»rting tlie Mcroivr Cr)ji-ii iiieiit at the time ? — A. I had noiw. Q. JIad your brother ? — A. Yus ; hu had a chiim aj^ainHt tliem. Q. I>id you undcrMlaiid it wa» on account of that claim hirtHympathics were with the Mercier Government ? — A. No, I did not. Q. When you referreil to thuKO tall{H at the corner of a Htreot in Quebec, at the time these t3.t*00 were given away, waH it not mentioned at the time that the reason why the $3,()0U were ^ivcn away on behalf of Col. IlhodeH' election wiw just on account ot that intereHt your brother had in favouring the Ciovernment of Mr. Mercier ? — A. Well, I could not nay that it woh. Q. Did you not act at the time an the buHineHH agent of your brother or a.s part- ner ?— A. At that time I did. Q. Well, you ought to know then ? — A. I did not act as |K)lilical agent. 1 dont know what he wa» ; he kept that to bimaelf. Q. Did he not tell you at timen to do certain things to favour Mr. MercierV Government ? — A. Not at that time. By the Chairman : Q. At what time did he tell you bo ? — A. I don't know that he had ever told me to do it. By Mr. Oaimet .■ Q. Is it to your knowledge that some of the moneys you took from the firm in 188l! went to Mr. Mercier ? — A. Not to mj* knowledge. Q. Did you give any money to your brother in 1886 ? — A. Yes. Q. During the local electionH ? — A. Yes. Q. Did he tell you what it was for ? — A. Yes. Q. What was it for ? — A. It was to support the Conservatives. Q. Which CJonservatives ? — A. There was Felix Carbray in the Woat and, as far us I knew, the other — Casgrain in the county, I believe. Q. When did he change sides ? — A. Well, he supported the Conservative party in the local elections in 1886. Q. Then when did he change from one side to the other? — A. The first percept- ible chanj'e I see, was in the elections of Owen Murphy in 1880. By Mr. Edgar : Q. He ran against whom — who was the candidate against Owen Murphy ? — A. 1 was. Q. Ther your brother opposed you? — A. Well, I don't know. He supported Owen Murphy. Q. And were you the Liberal or the Conservative candidate ? — A. I was the Conservative candidate By the Chairman : (l- Was that the firat time hu sided with the Liberal party in Quebec openly ? — A. Openly I think it was. Q. Was it the last ?— A. Oh, I don't know. By Mr. Geoffrion ; Q. Will you look at a letter now handed to you, and say in whose handwriting it is, and by whom it was written ? — A. This is a letter signed by Thomas McGreevy, and dated *8th March, 1888, reading " (Second letter to-daj-.) (Exhibit " B13.") " House op Commons, Canada, " 8th March, 1888. " Mr Dear Hobert, — Tell .Murphy I have seen Perley, and he will report to arbitrators or to commission of the amount to be submitted to them, which will be 634 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 (III their total claim of 8814,000; at the last mooting thoy wantod to make it out ttiat tho i.inoiiiit to lie Hubinitti'd wan thu balancu ot 8110,U0o't'(>i-*iaina^itH; that would 1)0 about ($80,000, inHtoad of 9274,000, no that matter in Kuttlod. I tteun Jiuvalle tliirt iiioriiing ; ho hau gono otf' NUtiMfiod. Foley and Leonard are here on huHincHs ; I have Nfcn thorn and trying to do what I can for them, I will get all tho information on the Suult Canal bejbre long. Tho ConnollyB have not eomeyot. " Vours truly, " THOMAS. ' (J. Xow, wart there anything done in connection witii tho niutterd that are ri'forred to in the first part of the letter just reaeon writti-n in January, 1885. Jty the Chairnuin : Q. "Telegram juht receiv*-)! (ptni Sir 11. L." Did you nee that teloKi'uni? — A. No. Q. flow did you get the information ? — A. When I Huy I did .lot Hee it 1 mmlc a mistake. (i. VVaw it a tolo|;mm to you ? — A. Xo. it was a telegram to Thomas Melireevy, t^. Ditl you see the telej^nim ? — A. Yes ; my brother showed it to me. By Mr. Geofrion ; Q. Do you remomber the circum-lunees under which the tenders for the Soulli- wall were put in ? — A. I had something to do with the making of the tendtMN for the South-wall. Q. Were the tendera in the name of Larkin, (.'onnollv & Co ? — A. Xo. Q. In whose name were they? — A. It was agreoil at the suggestion of tlic Connollys that Larkin should be left out of the work tor the South-wall, and tinllaglior and Murnhy should tender for it, so as to divide it into four; at 25 per cent. eadi. Q. Hut there were two tenders put in ? — A. Yes. Q. One of them was the same Gallagher whom j'ouhave previously mentioned? —A. Yes. Q. And the other w:i8 in the name of Murphy? — A. Yes. Q. Do you remember whether there were other tenderers ?— -A. There w;i- nnother, I think — McCarron and Cameron's, and |)erhaps someone else. Q. Were you to have an interest in that contract, although the tenders were jmt in the names of tiallagher an 1 Murphy? — A. Yes ; I was to have 2') per cent. Q. As a matter of fact later on you had 25 per cent f — A. I do not think I got Anything out of it at all. Q. Do you remember where the tenders were opontd ? — A. They were openoil in Quebec, in the Harljour Commissioners' office. Q. Did you see them whilst they were under examinatiim or under calculation by the Engineer — whilst they were handed to him or under his care for that purpose? — A. Yes ; I saw them . Q. Explain how you had communication of them during that time? — A. 1 saw them in Thomas .MctJreevy's house on the day they were opened. Q. Were the extensions by the Engineer completed ?— A. No; there was nothing done to them. They were only referred to the Engineer. Q. Y''ou say you saw them at your brother Thomas' house ? — A. Yes. Q. Were you alone therewith your brother? — A. Xo ; Mr. Murj)hy was witii me. Q. Did you only see them or hatl you access to the tenders ? — A. Oh, I exatnimd them. Q. Do you know whether Murphy also had occasion to examine them ? — A. Yes ; he looked at them. Q. Were they all the tenders that had been put in ? — A. They were all that lui'l been submitted. Q. How long did you remain in jrassession of them or how long wore those tenders in the hou.se of your brother subject to your examination ? — A. Oh, about an hour or so. Q. Were the}' returned t<5 the Engineer the same evening? — A. So I understoo'l. Q. Do you know who took them back to the Engineer ? — A. I think it was my son Charles. Q. Who was the Engineer to whom they had been referred? — A, Mr. Perley. 636 54 \ I l>p>tl ( your 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 H. You (*iiy yuu saw tlu'iii at your Itrothor'n houtte. Wh«ii ynu curau to your lu'otlierV liouso wiTc tlioy there? — A, Y'os. Q. You do n(»t know linw those temiorH hapiionod to li« in the private hoiiM* of your brother that evening? — A. No. Hy Mr. Amyot : Q. llow nmiiy toiiilers were there? — A. Tliree or four. Q. Do you romeinber wiiohe tiiey wore? — A. fraihigher'si, Murphy'8 ami M<'- Carron & Cameron'H. By Mr. Geofi'rion : (J. Those aro the ilireo you romemher, anyiiow? — A. Ye«. By Mr. Lister: Q. I>iii ' "aa the lii^ii- est and which waB the lowest ? — A. I took a metnoramiuni from them By Mr. Geoffrion : Q. Will you look at tluM letter, which appears t(» have heeii ■ ritten J>y you an 1 addressed to Mr. Murphy, and read it ? — A. It is written by ine :> Mr. Muiphv, and reads as follows : (Exhibit " IMH.') "KussEM, House, Ottawa, 22nd I>oPeinbcr, 188ti. '' Mr J)EAit Mk. MiTKi'iiY, — I hml expected to have seen you last ni^iu at train l(» j^iveyou copy of the extension of the three tenders. It was 'J.40 before woj^ot through with them or I would have left you a copy, I now enclose it. You will see llial (ialla^her is the lowest, no matter what interpretation is put on McC. & ('.'.■». Of course, they uhould not be asked to explain at all, but if the parties in power decide todo so, f would say do it atonce, before asking (iallagher, and then we will sec. Yours is a decent tender, and no doubt you would be prepared to do something, while on Gallagher's nothing can be done. I hope Perley won't do anything towards writing them until he comes u|> here. I tell you we have had a close shave on (rallagher, and if you are obliged to accept it, it will be hard work to make ends meet. I will l)e home Friday morning." Ihere is nothing after that. Q. Do you BJiy that you sent to Mr. Murph}' a copy of the extension of the three tenders? — A. Yes. Q. How did you prepare those copies ? — A. I made copies from the notes 1 took of the tenders. Q. Who gave you access to the tenders ? — A, .lust as I have mentioned. Q. You mean you saw them at Quebec? — A. Yes. Q. The extension was made in Ottawa? — A. No; it was made before I left. The night I left it was made. Q. In Quebec? — A. Yes; and I told him only for it being so late 1 would have sent him a copy ami then I could explain the position. Q. You had to leave for Ottawa the same evening, and you wrote from Ottawa 1,'iving him information? — Yes. Q. \'ou refer to the interpretation of McCarron's tender. What do you mean liy that — was there any difficulty? — A. The metalloiit §20,0(»0 to 825,000. Q. Was there any reduction made on your contract on account of that change? — A. I cannot tell you, because I lell about that time, and I do not know what tlie termination was. Q. You sold out before the termination ? — A. Yes ; I loft. Q. You were a party to the change ? — A. Yes. Q. You rendered your usual services in obtaining the change? — A. Yes. Q. Was there any reduction in the price of the contract when the changes weie made — in the PJ'ice you were to get from the Government or the Harbour C(jmniir<- sioners? — A. The change from brick to stone was an increase, but I do not know what took place for the raising of the sewer. Q. Did the reduction of the work bring a reduction of the price ? — A. I do mu know. The Committee adjourned at 6 o'clock p.m. 638 ¥ 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 House of Commons, Fridav, 24th July. 1891. Tho Committee met at 10 a.m. ; Mr. Giroiuvrd in the Chaii*. Inve.sligation into certain circumstances ami statements mailo in connection with tho tenders and contracts respecting the Quebec Harbour Worlis, Sic, resumed. Mr. Robert H. McGbeevy's e.xamination continued. By Mr. Geoff rion : Q. Will you say whether the letter now handed to you was written by you? — A. Yes ; this is a letter written by me. Q. Addressed to whom? — A. Addressed to Mr. Murphy, dated Ottawa, 27tli January, Q, Read it, please? — A. It roads : (H.xhibit " E13.") "Depart.ment op Militia and Defence, " Ottawa, 27th .Tany. "My Dear Murpiiv. — I reed your memo. ; but did not undert^tand the whole ot it. P. has been seen to-day, his report on St, Jo.seph D. is 8100,(M»U under riaiiii or as 1 understood it for about S100,0'i(» more whether this includes the .S30,oti(> ceriiticate you got during the summer I will explain you further when I see you." That is all that relates to that question of the LiSvis Graving Dock. Q, From whom did you receive the information ^-ou conveyed in that letter? — A. From Mr. Thomas Mctrreevy. Q, Will 3-ou also look at this letter (K.xhibit " F13") and sa3- by whom it is written and signed ? — A. It is a letter from Thomas McGreevy addressed to me and recei- ved by me, dated 4th May, but no year on it. (^, r don't think it is necessary to read the whole of the letter. What I want to put in is only this"! think Perley is delaying in sending report on drawback until harbour business now before the House is passeil," Ther" is some other funny part in the letter which 1 will not read? — A, From tho subject of the letter I would gather it was written in 1887, from Thomas MctTreevy to myself, and tho part that bears on this case is "I think Perley is delaying in sending report on iliawback until the harbour business is pa.ssed. Q, Yesterday 1 showed you Fxhibit " E7," and asked you to give to the Com- mittee what explanaticm vou could about the dift'erent amounts which are mentioned by Martin Connolly sis being charged to expense, FiSquimalt Dock. You had, I liolieve, explained the item for 817,000. Are there an}' other items you can explain, or can you add anything to this statement ? — A. With regard to this statement 1 think I explained all the items [ was familiar with. Q. You have no more explanation to give iis to this .statement? Can you give any explanation as to Exhibit " Ti.5 " ? — A. If it is of any importance to you 1 might explain this 8.'),00tt, Three Rivers, March, 1887, in regard to tho division of that account. As I understand it is included in the 817,000, that is the 810.000 I spoke of yesterday, Q. You think there is an error in mentioning the amount again because it is included in the $17,000? — A, Yes. What I would like to see would be the book- keeper's statement before that — the period before that began. That only begins in 1885 and there was an expenditure in 1884; the etirlior jmrt of 1885 — much earlier than that, Q, As you were not interested in L^vis Graving Dock you cannot give any explanation with respect to Exhibit "L5" ? — A. Xo, 63i> ! i! i ^i I li 1,1 '■i i I ■ I ,ii 1 w j i ; } ■ 1 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Will you now give your oxnianations of tiio items in " H 5 " on wliich you were not questioned yesterday ? — A. The tirst item of $25,000 I explained vester- day. The t.econd that I have any knowledf,'o of will bo Mart-h 20lh, 1881), 85,000. That was reported to mo by the other members of the firm as being paid to Thomas McGreevy, and is charged — should have been charged — to British Columbia. I found it in Quebec Harbour improvements, and I remonstrated with the book- keeper afterwards and it was corrected. It still remains here, however, but I think it was corrected and put in the I^ritish Columbia; but I heard Martin Connolly, the book-keeper, the other day on that item, and he said it was in the §17,000. That is notC(»rrect. It is not in the $17,000. September 30th, 1880, $5,000— that I got from Martin Connoll}' and gave to Thomas McGreevy. By the Chairman : Q. What was done with that money ? Was it for his own use? — A. He got it for the local elections of 1886. Ho came with me to Mr. Connolly's ofHueand asked for the money for the local election. The same with the 13th of October, $3,000. Both those sums — making $8,000. By Mr. Qeoffrion ; Q. They were asked by Thomas for the local elections ?— A. Yes. Q. Who got them ? — A. I got them and gave them to him. Q. Whilst you are at it, do you remember when the voting took place '{ — A. 14th October, 188(i. I think it was the 14th. The next item is March 28th, $27,000. That I disposed of yesterday in connection with the second dredging account. But I explained only $25,000 out of the $27,000. That occurred by Mr. Murphy spending $2,000 more than what was allowed ; but it was afterward admitted and passed. By Mr. Davies : Q. When he says admitted by the partners, I want to know the individual jiartners who admitted it? — A. The\' all admitted it. Q. You swear that Nicholas Connolly, the man who was examined here, admitted it?~A. Certainly. By Mr. Ed(far : Q. Was itj discussed distinctly before them so that there could be no misunder- standing? — A. Yes, and being one of those mutters smaller than the others it would be discussed, because unauthorized. August the 3rd and 8th, $1,000 and $4,000 — that I spoke of yesterday. December 31st, 1888, $3,000 — that I spoke of yesterday. That puts me through that bill. By Mr. Ouimet : Q. Did you explain the items of $1,000 and $4,000 on August the 3rd and 8th ? — A. Yes. Members of the firm that 1 spoke to on that saitl they gave them to Thomas McGreevy. Q. Which members of the tii-m? — A. Mr. Mui-phy and Mr. Connolly. Q. Did they say what it was asked for or given for? — A. Yes; they said — Mr. Murphy told me — that Thomas McGreevy came to him and said Sir Hector Langevin was about leaving and this money was necessary. Q. And the $4,000 ?— A. The same for the $4,000. By Mr. Geoff rion : Q. You say that you are aware that the $4,000 were i)aid by Nicholas Connolly ? — A. Yes. Q. What info'mation did you receive from Nicholas Connolly as to the $4,000? • — A. The only further evidence 1 can offer on part of that $5,000 is that \ met Thomas McGreevy in Dalhousie Street about four o'clock on that afternoon of 21st 640 54 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 July, and he told mo he had received 81,000 1'rom Mr. Murphy. About the 84,000 1 do not know any more than I have said. (^. Do you remember whether Sir Hector Laiigevin was in (Juebeu at that time ? — A. I do not. Bjj Mr. Osier : parent owiivr of it ? — A. Xo ; I had nothing to do with it at all. ~" 10 managed it ? — A. ^fr. Chabot miinageoiial knowletige of wliat it cost. 642 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Dill you supply any monoy for ihe payment of it ? — A. I:i 1884 1 jmid K10,0UO or $15,0UU, tiiiit wan running on the bout from the time it w.ta purciia^eci. By Mr. Geoffrion : Q. How liid you pay it, out of your own mone}' ? — A. I paid it out of the $84,000 I had received from the Government of Canada for the Intercolonial claim. (^. l)id vou not Hij^n a mortgage on the ship? — A, I sitjned a mortgage to Nicholas Connolly, 825,000 in 1888. Q. Did you keep the money lor j-ourself ? — A. No. (,;. To whom did you give the money? — A. 1 gave 820,000 to Mr. Ross of (^iieltec, in discharge of a mortgage that ho held on it, and I gave 85,000 to Thomas Mctireevy. (^. liad you been authorized by ThomuH McGroevy to borrow that amount ? — A. Certainly. Q. Will you look at Exhibit " II12" and say whether the first partof it is signed ly you ? — A. That is my signature, 7th February, 18S8. That is the time of the piiwor of attorney. Q. That is the time of thepower of attorney you gave to your brother Thomas? —A. Yes. Q. And the other part of the document is signed by your brother also ? — A. That is a transfer by Thomas McfJreevy to.lulien Chabot. (^. And that is your signature ? — A. Ves. By Mr. Kirkpatrick ; t;. You stated that this agreement had been made between you anil liobitaille jtiid Armstrong. You were to settle the proportions in which you weie to share the * iiKMH'v ? — A. I said our proportions was between ourselves. Q. L)idyou sj)eakiiig to Michael Connolly about w^is his indiscretion in speaking to Tho- mas Mctircevy about the large amount of money that was made in Britisli Colum- i'iii. Thomas Mc(ireevy had t(»ld me that Michael told him that there was an im- iiH'ii>e iimoiint of nioiivy made there, and that I certainly must have been keeping sniiu- of it when he did not see as mmli as Michael had told him had been made; iih'l the first opportunity I had of seeing .Michael, I told him: first, that he had over- rated tiie amount that was made, as tar as I understooil it; second, that I thought it was a very improper thing for him to speak to Thomas McGrecvy about it. That is vv liitt ihe conversation was about. Q, In the case* referred to? — A. In the case referred to. 643 I— 41i '• ■;!' im ■i I ' ■ !:l TT 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 fl pfi ft,;. Q. Some time in the beginning of that year 1889, hail you some cxplaration with your brother about j'our aceounts in connection with thojie ditferent contracts? — A. Yes. About the IHlh or 14th January I had occasion to meet him in his office in the Lowei-Town, and there we had some very unpleasant conversation respecting the attair, the amounts of money that he thought I did not account for to him that came from Larkin, Connolly & Co. I told him that probably the period covered, in which he was receiving those sums, was so long that he did not remember that the bulk sum was very large, but I could not convince him that was the case, and st of living, which includes Building Society; 8:i,000 per annum to pay Union Bank and other interests, in all $11,000 for live years is 855,000. I paid 81*>,000 out on I.C.R. claim ; I have paid Banquo Nationale (including note due to-morrow) 87.0. in all 873,000, with amount paid you of 857,000 makes 8130,000. I received Irom L. C. iScCo. about 81>i5,(lOO, something under that I believe: j'ou receivetl from mo out of this 8135,000 -ir theroaltouts 858,000, besides some 81 17,000 paid direct to you from L. C. & Co., anil still you are not satisfied. I have to pay between this and August 810,000 to Lii Bunque Nationale to clear them up. I intend to reduce and pay uj» tiie I nion Bank and all I can to you. If this reasonable programme don't suit you. then break up the whole thing and wind it up at once. I have no desire nor interest in being the metlium of conflict between these contractors and you, anil of trouble and tuimoil to myself. " I remain, you:s truly. (.Signed) 'JJOB. II. McGIJKKVY." (}. This is a true copy of the letter sent bj' you? — A. Yes. Q. You say that your brother later on acknowledged having received the account y — A. Yes; afier they ente ed the suit of about 8400,000 against me he pleaded the account, lie admitted the account. Q. He referred to that account as sent in from you? — A. Yes. Q. Did he admit the account?. — .\. Yes. (^. Did he correct the amount that you then mentioned in your letter? — A. It was not the exact amount. Q. The interest on the account, which I now see follows, is addeil ? — \. Yes. Q. In your letter you only give the capital, without the inlcjest. in round figures? — A. Yes. Mr. (iEoKKRfoN. — I put in now the following Kxhibits, from the records of the .Superior Court in (Jueliec : "H13", Declaration; ''113", Defendant's I'lea; "J13". Incidental Supplemen- tary Demand; ''K13", Interrogatives of the parties to the Plaintiff: "LI."!", Piain- titt's answers; "M13", Plaintirt''s depositions; "NIS", Plaintifl's special answer to the incidental proceeding; "013''. Defendant's amended plea; '•P13", Copy of r)efendant's liill of particulars filed with his Plea; "(^13"', Plaintilf's exhibit at trial, being copy of account referred to. <^. Will you look to this account, " . Q. Only, as there are errors in the copy, it is a true copy of the account yon refer to? — A. Yes. Mr. Ueofkrion. — I asked that all the papers filed by Mr. Campbell should bo copied and compared b}* Mr. Todd. Mr. Todd. — Copies have been made, and they have all boon compared. Q. Y'^ou state in this letter that you paid 858,000 to your brother out of ^-nur share of the profits of the different contracts of Larkin, Connolly & Co. ? — .V. Yes. Q. You mentioned different other amounts as having been received by your l>rother. What were the other amounts you claim your brother received? — A. I mentioned his having received 8117,000 from the Lurkin. Connolly i*t Co. firm. il. As to the item of 858,000, can you swear whether that statement made in your letter is correct, and if this money was really paid to your brother? — A. Yes. Q. This is the account which is put in in the case by your brother, atul of which a co])y is just shown you. Do you recognize the account as the one you sent ? — A. \'es ; the one I sent. Q. It was put in the case by your brother? — \. Yes. Q As to the 8117, OOf that you mention having been received fri>ui L;ukin, Connolly & Co., are you prepareil to say how much has been paid to your per.snnal knowledge to your brother? — A. I had paid him direct about 874,000. t>45 il:;- |! ■ I I ' K 1 i: :'! ^ 'i FW 64 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 By Mr. Oiler : Q. Ofthe 8117,000?— A. Yes. I I' By Mr. Geoff r ion : Q. And for the rest you are charged in the books of your partners? — A. 840,000, was given to me Ity Lurkin, Connolly & Co., of which t pnid my share, and it was charged in the accounts to suspense or expense. Q. That would make 81 14,000 ?— A. Well, that is the facts. t^. In your letter you mention 8117,000, but you can only swear to $114,000 ? — A. I have not the figures boiore me at the time. A. You could not bo precise. When you wrote the letter you had not Larkin, Connolly & Co.'s books before you ? — A. No, Q. Are 3'ou aware whether your brother Thomas, and Murphy, were in fretpient communication together? — A. They were veiy fi-iendly. Q. Had you occasion to see them together frequently ? — A. Yes. Cross-examination of Mr. llobcrt II. Mctireevy. By Mr. Stuart: Q. You have been asked to produce here your account books, diaries, cheques, and chunue-books. Will you kindly produce them ? — A. The account books and chequcct are before the accountants of this Committee. Q. Have you produced all the account books that you have covering the pcri':>tl in question ? — A. All that I have. Q. What do they consist of? — A. The blotter, ledger and journal. Q. Are they j'our original ledger ami Journal ? — A. Yes. Q. The only ledger and journal that you have covering that period ? — A. Yes. Q. The only ones? — A. Yes. il. Have you produced to the accountants of the Committee all the cheques covering that period? — A. All that I had. Q. And the bank books ? — A. The bank books — ^j'os. Q. You spoke on your examination before the Sub-Committee of some blotters that you had. Have you produced those ? — A. I mentioned to you what I have produced. Q. Have you produced the blotters thai you refen-ed to befoi-e the .Sul> Committce? — A. Yes; I have. Here are three of them. Q. The book I now hold in my hand is j'our original ledger. — A. Yes. Q. It is the only one you produce and the only one you have? — A. The only one I have. . Q. What is the date in September? — A. 1st of September. Q. Where is the blotter from the Ist of January-, 188;{, to the 1st of September, 1881) ? — A. I think this would be it. Either of those, (lieferring to two books placed in his hands.) Q. Will you please hand to the Clerk of the Committee the blotter from the 1st of January, 188 5, to the 1st of September, 1889? — A. I do not see anything to indi- cate the date. I see June here, out it does not ap|icar to indicate more. Q. I wish you to produce another from 1st of January, 18S;{, to 1st ot September, 1889 ?— A. I have produced all that I have. Q. Among the books you have here, will you now file with the Committee the blotter, if you have it, for that period — 1st of .lanuary, 188:^, to Ist of September, 1889? — A. You can read these for yourself. Q. 1 want you to read them. I wish you to produce to the Committee the blotter for the period I have mentioned ? — A. I have produced all I have. I do not know whether this is for 1883, 1887 or 1888. Q. You do not know whether this blotter is for 188:^, 1887 or 1888?— A. There is January- here, but whether it is for 1883, I8S7 or I'^i^S I do not know. That is all I have. Q. What date does the loose sheet which you now produce cover ? — A. It covers trom 10th June. Q. What year? — A. I do not know; it does not appear on it. Q. Can you identify the 3'ear by the entries? — A. I cannot tor a certainty. I ilo not tind by it what year it is. Q. What year are you prepared to say it is from the nature of the entries ? — A. From the nature of the entries it would be about 1887. Q. Now, what j)eriod does this sheet cover, supposing it to be 1887 ? — A. From .lune 10th to July 23rd. Sheet tiled as Exhibit " S13." Q. Take this loose sheet and state the period it covers? — A. This crtvers from January, I think, 1887. Sheet tiled as Fxhibit " T13." Q. Whatdatein January?— A, The 7th. (!47 m r.\ :•■ , , ♦* ■II I ; : ' I !MH1 CT! 64 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 1 l^ T.i wiml .late?— A. About May. 1881». H. From 7tli Janiiuiy, 1887 ? — A. Abuiit that time. Tliore in no Jato oit it, but I |iri->tiiiic it would bt' abiout tbat time. I do not Hay as u matltT of fai't that it is. H. So that in this bloUi'r, Kxiiibit " Tl.J," wo have from "th .lanuarv. 18S7. to about May :ind, 1881> ?— A. Yes. ii. And on the loose sheet, marked Kxhibit " S\'.i," we have fioin July. 1887, to what d«te? — A. I said no liefore. (^. lMea^e repeat it? — A. Ffom June 10th to Auj^u-t 23nl, 18S7. (J. And in the book, Exhil)it " Jilit," you tile an account from Se|ttenibei- Kt. 18S0. to what date?— A. June, 1S!I1, as far as 1 see. Q. Well now. you observe from that that 3'ou have jtroduoed no blotter juiortu Januaiv. I8fs7. Where is your blotter tor tin- previous years fnini Jaiuiarv, 18S:v/ — A. I don't know that I hud any. Q. Where, then, did you get the record of the entries subsequently made in these books ? — A. 1 don't know. if. You cannot j^ive the Committee any informatinn upon the point of where you kept those entries ? — A. Not at all. Q. Or where you yot the information you dictated to your liook-keejter». whicli is contained in the ledger and journal here .^ — A. No, By the Chairman : Q. Do you timl many pages in the ledger bctweeTi those dates covering that IHMiod from 1st Januaiy, 1383, to 1st January, 1887';' — A. The lelger would not go >y pages. By Mr. Stuart : Q. How many pages of the journal were covered liy that jieriod ? — A. The journal appears to begin in June 1st, 188;]. l^ Are you quite sure of that? — A. It says so at the top. *}. 1 would like to draw your attention to the top page, marked '•one-half '' 'f — A. It docs not begin from that; it begins at page 1. Q. Was theie an entry on the page marked •'one-half"? — A. It appears to have been crossed over. Q. Well, how many pages in this journal are covered from 1st January. 188;}. to 1st January, 1887? — A. About 60 pages. Q. Are those pages consecutive '? — A. It apjtears so. i}. The page that is marked '• one-half, ' was it part ol the original book, (>:• a page that is stuck in"? — A. It appears to be a half page that was j)asted in. (^. And the entry on it is on Julv 1st, 1882, headed '•(Quebec, July 1st. 1882 ' ?- A. Yes. Q. Will you tell us in whose handwriting are the entries in the journal, from 1st June, 188;^, to 31st D.K"ember, 188(J, contained in pages 1 to (50. inclusive, of the {"ournal. beginning with the tirst page"? — A. They are all in some one of my sons' landwriting. Q. I asked you to indicate, page by page, in whose handwriting they were'? — A. Well. I tell you they are all in one or other of my sons'. Q. I wish you would say in which of your sons' handwriting the pages are'? — A. They are all, except one or two, in the one handwriting. Q. Whose handwriting is that? — A. Some of my boys. Q. Which of your boys? — A. I could not say; there are two of them that write so much alike. Q. AVhich of these two? — A. There is Frank and Robert. Q. Will you tell us, if you can, in whose handwriting is the first j>:ige — wheti>er Frank or Robert'? — A. Either of them ; I am not certain which. Q, Which do you believe it to be? — A. I could not say as a fact. Q. You have no idea at all? — A. It is either of those two. tU8 64 Victoritt. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 I have. A. Not voiy. Q. Now. will yoii go on niul toll us, whetlior from |iaiie» 1 to GO tlioio i>* any other liumlwritidg than that o!i the tirrtt page? — A. Kxcept in one or two instances, they are all in one handwriting. (i. Will you ix)int out those one or two instan«'er., ami the jiai^es in whieh you tind a ilirtorence in the handwriting? — A. As far as I can see. except in one or two instance, it is the one handwriting. Q. I ask you toindicate the oneor two inHtances?— A. On page •<:< there appears to lie some entries in another hundwriting. Q. Whose handwriting is that p jgo in ?— A. 1 lo not Unow. Q. Von cannot »ay which of your sons it is? — A. No. (}. Any others? — A. On page ."Jl there are some entries there. . if. The two last?— A. Yes.' (}. I>o you Unow in whose hainlwriting? — A. No; that isasneara^I can get toit. Q. What time were these entries made? — A. They were made, I thiid*. at the lime repriisentcd to he made, (J Were the}' n»ade from day to t up the books. ii. From what would they post the hooks? — \. They would po>t them cither from liiollers or memoranda that I would give them. (^. Where are tho-^e blotters? — A. Vou have got all 1 have. Q. You sWear that the blotters now jjnxluced arc the only blotters you have got? — A. Yes ii. Where are the blotters in whieh the>e entries were made? — A. 1 do not know. (^. Jfave you searched lor them ? — A. tj. Have you made a careful search ?- ii- Will you do so?— A. 1 will, if it is necessary. (^. ('ui\ you say when you last saw them — the bloltcrs that are mining? — A. I do not know that there are any. t^. Were there ever any at any time? — A. There may not have been. Q . Where are the noies from which these entries are made ? — A. I do not know. Q. You now swear vou do not know whether there were blotters from 1SS3 to 1S87?— A. 1 say so. Q. Ti» the best of your recollection, was there or was there not ? — A. I do not lecollect whether there was or was not. Q. How did you keep a reconi of your business transactions from day to day ? — A. I do not know how I kept the business transactions; but in a woreen at home?--A. Ye.s. ii- And from memoranda or blotter? — A. Yes. <}. Where arc those blotters? — A. 1 cannot te!l you. (}. Have you any idea at all what became of them ? — A. Xo. By the Chairman ; Q. Did you make any oftho.se original entries on sheets r)f paper? — A. Tliat is wliat I said. ii- Those are the memoranda vou referred to? — A. Yes. ij. But did you keep them on sheets of paper? — A. Most likely they would be. Q. Can you recollect over a period of four or Hve years ? — A. 1 did not pay any regard to the blotters once the books were posted up. ii. You do not recollect whether you had many of those fly sheets oi- not ? — A. No. 649 ! I I 'I, i' I Mil V 1 1 f i Irn 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 11 By .Vr. Stuart : Q. Can you htate whether you had anj'? — A. I tin not know which it wuh. Q. Vou wotilil know, no matter what has bucome of thum. Have you had any at any lime? — A. The entries must have l»oon taken at some time from nheet-* c»r memoranda or l>lotteri>. By Mr. McLeo«i, onward? — A. That would depend a great deal on what the transaction was. Q. Then you had other Itooks ? — A. I have not. Q. So that there were apparently a number of transactions that you did n'>t keep a recorti of? — A. That I did not put in the account book. Q. How did you keep a record of them ? — A. In my head. Q. Could you indicate to us in a general way what class you j)nt in y ■ books and what class you kept in your head? — A. for instance, donations. Idi 't keep any of them in these b<»oks. Any moneys I got from Jjurkin. Connolly tS; « o. to be given away I did not make an entiy of. Q. J)o I nndei'stand you to say that this Journal contains the only record of all your ordinary business transactions for the period covered hy it ? — A. Mostly. Q. Does it contain all ? — A, I do not know that it does. Q. Can you indicate in a general way what it does contain? — A. I cannot. Q. What business transactions other than donations did you not enter np ? — A. There may Ijc others. Q. What' can they l»e? — A. I cannot say. Q. What would be the kind of transactions other than donations? — .V. Variuu-* transactions. Q. Can't you give the Committee some moredefinite information ? — A. I cannot. Q. Yon cannot recollect any particular transaction other than tlonations that is not entorod in th.it book ? — A. I cannot. Q. Is it not the case that this look was written up apparently at the same time for quite a perio»? — A. It may have been. Q. is it so? — A. I do not know that it is. Q. Look and see? — A. I have looked at it sevei-al times. Q. Look again if it is necessary from the beginning? — A. For several months it is. For eight or nine pages it lofiks like that. Q. Covering how many months? — A. Kight or nine months. Q. Covering how many months ? — A. From. Tune 1st. 188;i to August lilth, 1S85. Q. Further on are there any indications that they were not written at the same time '.' — A. They are not as precise as the other. Q But indications of that kind? — A. Yes. *i. I notice that the pages of this book K.xhibit "U13" skip from page tJii to page 75 ? — That is so. " Q. So that pages 67,«H,«;;t. 70.71, 72, 73 and 74 are wanting ?— A. Yes. Q. These pages have been cut out? — \. Evidently. Q. In whose handwriting is page li — the page added to the book? — A. It is in either of my two son-» that I spoke of a while ago. I could not say which. They write very similar. I wouM not like to G5'U »ay whose handwriting it is. 54 Victoria. Aiipt'ndix (Xo. 1.) A. 1801 Ihj Mr. McLeod ; Q. Do 1 iindorHtnixi you to say tliut tht' paj^cs coverinjj \\w puruxl lSsi5 were writU-n at oiio'tiino? — A. It lookH like that. PajjoH i to !>. Q. Thoy cover a period of two years? — A. Yen. From 1883 to August, ISM. nI from 1883 to By Mr. Mills {Bothwell) : Q. Where would those items on those bo taken t'rom? — A. Krom notes or slieets if jmper furniNhetl hy myKclf, likely. Bii Mr. MoLeud : Q. Have you any lueuiory about it ? — A. Not now. Ihi Mr. Stuart : Q. Will you refer to paj^e 12 of your journal, July 8th, 188."), and slate whether I lie entry had boon erased with a knife ? — A. There looks to be an erasure of some It is the first time I kind. Q. Can you saj' what entry tlvere was there ? — A. No seen it. Q. It is so completely removed that it is impossible to say what the entry was ? — A . Yes. It would appear th ,t the date had been scratched out and the whole entiy, including.; the date, removed ? — A. It looks to mo as thouf^h it was nn entry put in another place. Q. And nil roeonl of what that entry was is removed ? — A. It looks very like it, Q. Citii you say who did it ? — A. I do not know. il. < in you PB}' when it was done ? — A. No: it is the first time I seen it. Q. 1 notice many places in the journal in which there are blanks left for the (.utiles ? Is that so ? — A. No; I could not saj' that is so. Q. AVill y>u explain the four blanks on pai;e 5 of the Journal ? — A. The}' do not a|)pear trt bo blanks left for any entries, ft appears to be the system with which tlioM- who entered the books would make the pajtes. ii. Why IS it not so on paj^os 1. 2 and 3 ? — A. I do not know. i}. Was it the system of the party at that time ?— A. Aecordinjjf to nhose who entered them, evidently. (^ You have already stated it was the same person who entered. Just look and >ee whether it was the same person who entered them ? is page 5 in the same hnndwritin;; as page 1 ? — A. It looks very like it. Q. So that the same person varied his system of book-keeping ? A. Kvidently. (^. Will you refer to page H2 of this journal. The entry dated October 11th, ISS", and state whether there is any erasure there in the books? — A. It is not a ith are to be seen ; none arc erased. Q. Will you look at page 44, under date 28th June, the entry in these words, • Thomas McGreevy, Dr., to Cheque to himself82,000," and state whether that entry was made before the entrj' that followed it? — A. 1 do not know. 051 1' I , »* ■I 1 1 'I i'il ■i I' 't 64 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 f M A , > Q. It iri in the samoliamhvriting aiul ink as the entries that precede an. WilTvou now look at your blotter, Hxhibit •' Tl;V at the following entry — 'Cr. r. Mc(rreevy Xoyember"22— 8(5 Ck. tVoni Baie de ChaleurEy. Cv. SS,(»00. " " do — Tessier M.P.. tlif on interest given \in>^6, (S2000) l)cr Lindsay. 8172". There is the year 188t> in the corner. Is that tlie entry from ^vhich this entry in the journal was ])osted ? — A. It looks verj* likely. (J. Was it or not? — A. I don't know. Q. ll.'ive you any doubt at all whether it is so? — A. I don't see any reason to doubt it. (^ Was it not made in 1887? — A. It is on the sheet 1887. Q. !.■« in your hand writin:,? — A. It is in my hand writing. t^. It is dated in the corner lS8(i?— A. Yes, in brackets. Q. And 1886 is underlined ?— A. Yes. i). .So that was made, apparenti}' in August 1887 or after? — A. Kvidentl}'. t^. And the entry that goes before it is one of August 21)lh. 1887, and the one that tiillows is Septemboi- 1st, 1887, is it not? — A. That is what there is there. Q. Where did you get the entry that you posteil in August, 1887, and the entry of November, 188(J? — A. I could not tell. (J. You have no idea at all ? — A. No. Q. Will you look at this book (produced) atid state whether it is your ledger and what period it covers? — A. Fi-om 188:5 I think. ^^ What date?— A. o-.tober, 1882 or 1S8:{ it appears. Q. Cannot you .say which? — A. No, I could not. {}. Why cainiot you? — A. They are both there, 1882 on one side and 18S;J on the other. Q. The first entry I think has been scored? — A. There is a pencil mark over il. 652 M^m A. 1891 imi follow? ivritiiig but fith. 1SS(3, itli the coii- tliat entrv V. It is the recede and ire oxaotly L-aimot. liich reads 000. 8200; U>i- ir or before ) after, s?— A. 24 r — ("asli ti) >— " Frank )f the 22iid ie des Clia- ij entrv — s.ooo. " •6, (82000) entry it: reason to ntly. ml the one lie re. the entrv )iir ledger I ISSIJ on rk over it. 54 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Only a pencil mar..? — A. That is all. Q. Will you please reter to the account of O. K. Murphy, at pat;e (JtJ of your ledger and state whether there have been alterations of the account? — A. I don't ^ee any alterations. Q. ) you see erasures ? — A. I see one erasure here — the total. Q. Do you see fresh entries written above the other entries? — A. I see pencil marks. Q. Do 3'ou see fresh ink entries at the top of the page, and old ink entries and several alterations below them? — A. 1 do. Q. Can you tell us when these fresh ink entries were made? — A. I don't know. (i- Who made those entries in tresh ink? — A. Those entries were made by my son .Joseph. Q. Where is j-our son Joseph ? — A. In Quebec. (ij. On what date? — A. They were made on 21st June, 1S8S. Q. Do you swear those entries were made in June, 18SS''' — A. That is what it shows. Q. Ah, but that is not what I am asking. I am asking you when the entries} were made, not the day they appear in the book? — A. I c .nnot say. Q. You swear you do not kmtw when those entries were made? Can you ^ay whether they were made before or after the subsequent entries? — A. They were made after. Q. Can you say when ? — A. I cannot give precise date. Q. Have those papers (produced) that I tind in the book any reference to them? — A. I he}- maj-. Q. Does it? — A. I cannot say for certain. ii. Do the figures not correspond with the entries ? — A. I do not see what they are. (I. Are they not records of the same transaction ? — A. I do not sec any cones- pondence. Q. Do they correspond with the last three entries which are in the same ink as the two above to which 1 have directed your attention ? — A. Yes, there are corres- jtonding entries on this sheet. Q. Can you tell the date from these ^sheets? — A. This memorandum is made within the last two or tlree mdntir . Q. Is it not the last two or liiiee weeks? — A. I cannot say. Q. Is the memorandum in your hntuiwriting? — A. It is. part of it. Most of it is in my handwriting. Q. You say the last three entries on jiage (!(> were made within the last three months ? — A. Yes, Q. Is it not true that entries bearing date 2l8t June, 1888, were made at the san;e time ? — A. I think so. Q. Is it not a fact that these entries — that is the two entries bearing date 21st June, 1H88 — have been made in this book since the examination before this Com- mittee of O. E. Mur|)hy ? — A. I say they were not. (■i. You are perfectly sure of that ? — A. Yes. Q. How long before Mr. Murphy came up to give his evidence woie tiicy made? — A. I cannot tell. (J. Woie they made since his examination eniled ? — A. They were made, as 1 saiil before, about two or three months ago. Q, Since the enquiry began? — A. It must have been before. Q. Are you sure it was befoie ? — A. 1 think so. Q. Are you certain ? — A. No. Q. Are there any means by which you could make yourself certain ? — A, Xo. Q. Are there any other memoranda in your possession about this matter.'' — A. No. Q. Could you tell us whether, at this late period, vou changed an entry in the b'joks or made an entry before 21st June, ISSS? — A. Tlntt is veiv easily explained. (i't'.i i 11 ( i I ^';i i!^ 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 The stock ti-ansactions between Mr. Murphy and myself had went on for two or three years, and the entries of the sales and the lesnlts did not take place at the time, so that when the stocks this spi-ing and ail transactions of stocks was closed then I went to work with one of my boys and closecj the account. Havinsr no more stock there is no more entry. It had no reference whatever to any investigation or account to be rendered. It hod reference to stock that is now all gone. Q. Will you refer to pages 128 and 120, being O. E. Murphy's account, ami state whether those entries have been altered ? — A. They have been altered. Q. And other figures written over ? — A. Ves. Q. llow many are there — one, two, three, four, five, six or seven lines erased ? — A, No ; six, (^. And one hei-e ? — A. That has not been erased. Q. That paper is in its original condition there? — A. I had no knife on it. Q. What was tiiis erased with ? — A. I never touched it ; the .son wliorn I was directing what to do erased them. (i. It was done by your son unde* your direction ? — A. Yes. (}. He had the knife? — A. He had a knife or something. There appears to l.avi been too many letters used on the word " interest " ; thai/ is what I believe it is. (^. The knife has been used a little? — A. On one word these erasures are made. Whoever carried the sale of tiio stock carried out into Mr. Murphy "s credit in the column of dollars and cents, taking the whole amount of the produce of the stock, instead of carrying what Mr. Murphy paid on account of it He has carried these stocks on margin and instead of giving liim credit only for what he gave or advanced on them, they gave him credit for the whole result of the stock, and therefore it liad to be changed to meet that circumstance. It says : "So many shares R. & O., so much and so on." (^. You did not give us an answer as to when these erasures were made ? — A. About the same lime. Q. With this account before you, can't you bo a little more precise as to dale? —A. No. Q. And do not want to bo? — A. I would if I could; but I would ndl like to make a statement I knew was not correct. To give you an instance : He is charged here with the sale of one hundred shares of Richelieu at 56:J-, net 55.^'. commission off. He was charged with the total amount of the result. That would be S5,(>(K); whereas there should have been only thirty-Hve, ihc margin advanced on it in keeping with the facts. It is a mistake of the bo}' ent( ring it. Q. Will you look at pages 70 and l^i and state whether th j intervening loaf bus been cut out or not ? — A. It appears so. Q. Will you look at page SO ?— A. The folios from 80 to S.) (^. Appear to have been torn out? — A. No; the paging is not consecutive. Q. The binding would allow a few pages to be taken out? — A. I think not. Q. Will vou see whether pages 51 and 52 have been cut out? — A. There has been evidently a page cut out. (^ And the i)aging runs from 50 to 5!> ? — A. Y\'s. Q. Have \-oti ])roduced any diaries? — A. No. il. Will you produce them? — A. No. .Mr. Sti:.vut. — I ask that the Committee to order the witness to produce Ins diaries. The Chairman. — What are your objections ? Witness. — I make my objection in writing. This is a memoraiifiuin wliicii I drew ii]» at the time. The circumstances have changed a little, but I will read it as I piepared it : Memo ; "Staiement to Committee of reasons for non-production of books, on private business, as asked for in D. T. of June 20th . G54 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 " I appear afi a witness before this Committee on a summons issued hy the Clerk of the Committee to jfive evidence on matters contained in certain eliarges made by Mr. Tarte, M.P., against Mr. Thomas McOreevy, M.P., and bring with me all books, letters, vouchers, receipts and other documents in connection with : 1st, The dredging of the Harbour of Quebec since 1882 ; 2nd, the Cross-wall and lock in connection with the same Harbour; 3rd, the dredging of the Wet basin in same Harbour; 4th, the South wall or retaining wall in same Harbour; .jth, the (rraving Dock at L^vis ; 6th, the Graving Dock at Esquimalt ;' and 7th, theLangevin Testimo- nial Fund. " As a witness, I did not deem it necessary to employ counsel before this Com- mittee. Xow, I am asked by a telegram from the Clerk of the Committee to produce original statement in " Le Canadien," 3(Hh April, 1890, books, papers, cheque and bank books, letters, books and all papers showing my financial transactions from January 1st, 1883, to January 1st, 1888, as well as a statement of all transactions between Mr. O. E. Murphy and m^-self, covering the same period. " I respectfully submit to the Committee my willingness to protluce everything I have in connection with, or give evidence on, all the charges I have any knowledge of, contained in the reference by the House to this Committee op the mattci's for investigation ; but I have objections to give evidence or produce books, letters, statements, &c., of my private and other business irrelevant to the matter, for the ])urpose of enabling the counsel for the accused to make use of such intbnnation they maj- so obtain, to prosecute the various suits pending against me. '• The accused and the Connollys have now pending in the Courts in the City of Quebec, the following cases : " An action for $354,000, or thereabouts, general account, Superior Court. '• An action for Criminal IJbel against Tarte, Murph\' and myself, Queen's Bench. '' An action for §50,000 damage for libel against same parties, civil suit. '■ An action for conspiracy. In these actions the counsel here present representing the accused with several other advocates, represent the plaintitls ; that those books, papers, Ac, made as closed matters which will enable them to obtain information which they will use elsewhere against me, which knowledge will much prejudice my case and po.ssibly cause much diimage, and to their advantage in the said suits and actions; those are the reasons which n\ove me to ask your protection against such evidence as will enable them to continue the persecution which is going on against me for over two years by tho.'^e parties. By Mr. Da vies : Q. I would like to ask you whether you will submit those documents tothcSub- Coniiuittee to determine whether and what pages are absolutely jiiivate and should iijjt be subject to the inspection of these genilemen, and what we think you oiii;ht to submit? — A. I will submit them to the Sub-Committee. The only reservation 1 make is, that the counsel for these parties should not have access to them. £// the Chairman : Q. Would you have any objection to Mr. Osier antl Mr. lEenry having- accc>s to lh em r — A. Certainly not. The Committee tlioii ailjourned till 3.30 p.m. 1""kii).\y, 24lli .Inly, 3.;i() o'clock ]i.iu. Mr. JJoiiERT H. MclritEKVv's cro8s-e.\amination resumed. By Mr. Stuart : Q. You have produced before the Sub-Committee your diaries from 18S3 to ISSS. I understand ? — A. Yes. Q. Did you not keep another memorandum liook in which you made entries of your transactions daily or habitually ? — A. Not any other than the blotter. ()55 ' 1 \J. '¥ .''* n , i. 64 Victoria Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Are you quite sure of that ? — A. Yes. Q. You lecollect that you were examined as a witness iti the case of Eobert Henrj- McGicevy againBt Michael Connolly, i-ecently pending in Quebec. I will i^ow read you part of your testinion}' : In the suit of McGreevy vs. Connolly No. 1320: "Q. Have you got in your possession a memorandum book in which you enter everything that takes place fiom day to day? — A. Well, no; I don't think I > ave. I am not supposed to note down everything that takes place. " Q. As a matter of fact, do ^-ou note down the principal things that take place? — A. Yes; general I}'. "Q. Have you not got a memorandum book in which 3'ou enter from day to day what takes place ? — A. Yes. " (i. Have you entered in that memorandum book an^'thing about this? — A. Xo. " Q. Have you got that memorandum book in j'our pocket now ? — A. No. '•(^. You swear you have not got it now with you? — A. What book do you refer to ? "Q. The memorandum book in which you make daily entries? — A. I have got a book with me — a diary. "Q. You have another book, besides the memorandnra book which you have taken out of your pocket, in which you make entries ofdail}* occurrences ? — A. I may. •Q. You have, as a matter of fact ?--A. I suppose I have. "Q. Have you got by you your bank pass-book ? — A. No." (i. Now, after hearing thiit evidence, will you state whether you have the other memorandum book that was referred to at that time ? — A. That memorandum book I reieried to at that time was the blotter. Q. Whore is that blotter?— A. All that 1 have is here. Q. You are a contractor, I believe ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. How long have you been a contractor? — A. For 30 years. (I. What occupation, if any, did you follow before you became a contractor? — A. I was managing the contracts for Thomas McGreevy. Q. Where? — A. I began with these buildings in 1860. Q. The buildings in which we now are? — A. In which we now are. Q. Had you any contracts before that? — A. Not before that. Q. What is your trade or occupation ? — A. My trade is a joiner. Q. You say you began managing for Thomas McGreevy in 1860? — A. Yes ; in 1860. Q. In 1866 did you take a transfer from Thomas McGreevy of the contract which he then had for the completion of a portion of the Parliament Buildings here ? — A. Yes, Q. What was the price j'ou paid for it ? — A. The price 1 agreed to pay, I cannot say from memory what it was. (i. Will you look at the three promissory notes, tiled in the case of McGreevy cs. McGreevy, No. 1731, Superior Court, (Quebec, E.Khibits et enquete, Nos. 27, 28.20. being three promissory notes, dated at Montreal 3rd November, 186(!, each for §7,646.15, ami stale whether your's is the signature to them? — A. Those were signed by me. (i. Is it not a fact that those three notes represent the consideration price, or pari of the consideration price, for the transfer of the contract by Thomas McGreevy to you, of which you have just spoken ? — A. I think s(». Q. Is it not so, as a matter of fact ? — A. I don't know ; I think so. Q. When did you last see those notes ?^A. Fifteen years ago, perhaps. Q. You did not see them when they were produceil in the litigation in Quebec, on 4th November, 1880?— A. I did no;. Q. Was there any question of them in the litigation? — A. There was. Q. Well, now, with the assistance of the inform ition j-ou got during that litiga- tion, are you able to say whetiier or not those are the notes you gave for the pur- chase price of the contract? — A. I said they were. Q. Were those notes ever paid ? — A. They were paid, not in money but in kind. 656 ^m OB 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. In what kind ? — A. (No answer.) Q. I want to know from you in what way those notes were paid ?— A. Those notes was one part of the contract, and Thomas McGreevy did not fulfil his offer, so I did not pay the notes. y you and given in connection with that ti-ansaction ? — A. As they were renewed they kept the whole of them. The}' may have several sets. The.se are all signed by myself, and as far as I can see by the other members of the firm. These represent renewals and all. There was perhaps three or four lenowals. Q, Will you look at these, and say which are the renewals and wliich are not ? — A. It is hard, without putting them on the paper, to say which aio renewals and which are not. (^. Do you say that any of them are renewals ? — A. It looks to me that some of them are. Q. Will yuu swear that some of them are ? — A. Quebec, four months from i:^>th February, 1875, that would come due in June. Q. Aie those renewals? — A. As far as I see, there are some. «^. Will yuu state which of them are? — A. Not until I get time to do it. Q. Which do you find there, are renewals? — A. The i-easoii I say so is they are all (litferent dates ; therefore, if the notes were given they would have all one date. (J. These are possibly renewals for notes that were running at the time ? — A. Possibly not. Q. Had yuu ever any litigation with your brother about any of them that were renewals ? — A. No. Q. You (111 not ? — A. No. ii. What did you plead with reference to the sum demanded bj' your bi other from you of $5!>,79S for the advance to .Tones, Shanly & Co." — A. I pleaded prescription for one thing, and I pleaded that he had not settled with tiie other members of the firm lor a certain sum, as a discharge of those notes. 1 think that was my plea. Q. I think you adduced no evidence on the pretended settlement that you had pleaded, did you? — A. I don't know. Q. You don't know whether you did or did not ? — A. I don't know. Q. So, you now say to the Committee that you adduced no evidence of the settle- ment 3'ou pleaded with Jones, Shanly & Co. ? — A. Yes. Q. You were managei, I think, for your brother when he was contractor of the North Shore liailway, were you? — A. les. v *.}. Kor how many years?— A. From 1874 to 1S82. (}. During that time were you carrying on any other works of your own ? — A. I don't think it. Q. You were contractor for a section of the Intercolonial Railway, were you not?— A. Not at that time. (^. l^ut you weie at one time? — A. Yes ; that was from 1870 to 1874 or 187'). Q. Wha"t section ?— A. Section 18. Q. Did your brother advance to you in connection with your contract? — A. lie advanced a certain sum of money as representing his share. Q. How much did he advance ? — A. Oh, I don't know ; about $100,000, 1 suppo.>*e. Q. What period did those advances cover? — A. From 1870, the time of the con- tract, up to its completion, 1874 or 1875 and 1876. Q. I think he sued in connection with his advances on that contract, did he not? — A. Yes; that is part of the suit. 658 A. 1891 -A. 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. The amount that he demaiuleii from you in connection with that contract was S170.0U0, was it not?— A. I think so. Q, The result of the litigation was that tiio three tii-st items in Jones, Shanly & Co's account, the notes repre.-enting the purchase of the contract in Ottawa, and the other three Ottawa notes, were dechired by the court to be prescribed, or barred by the Statute of Limitations. Is not that so? — A. I don't know what the judgment of the court was. Q. Did you ever see the Judgment? — A. I don't think I did. Q. Were you ever told of the judgment? — A. 1 was told it was a judgmeni of fifty or sixty thousand. Q. Will you swear that you don't know that was the result of the Judgment? — A. Only from hearsay. Q. But that hearsay was from your counsel. Mr. Casgraiil, was it not? — A. I think so. Q. And the result of the judgment indicated to you by Mr. Casgrain, was it not that the com t helil those three accounts against you to be barred by the Statute of Limitation? — A, I think that was so. Q. And the balance of 856,000 for which you were condemned was taken as an offset against what your brother received out of that Intercolonial Baihvay account ? — A. No ; r think not. Q. All the offsets allowed were taken from the Intercolonial ilailway account? — A. i don't know. Q. Were there any offsets allowed against any of those other accounts that weie declared to be barred by the Statute of Limitation? — A. I could not sa\-. Q. Did Mr. Casgrain tell j^ou so? — A. I do not think he did. Q. Did you discuss this judgment with him? — A. No ; not much. Q. Did you direct him to take it to a higher court ? — A. 1 directed him to take it to the Court of Ileview. Q. Without discussing it at all? — A. Without discussing it. Q. Out of the Intercolonial Eailway account there was deducted the contra account, a copy of which you produced this morning? — A. I do not know what was taken out of it. Q. That account was taken out in any case? — A. I suppose so. Q. Did }ou say this morning it was allowed at the court? — A. I said that tile plaintiff admitted it. (^. It was therefore deducted from the amount for which you were .sued? — A. I-'roin the entire claim. Q. Will j'ou look at that, and say whether it is a copy of the judgment in the .suit? — A. I cannot tell whether it is or not. Q. Read it and see. Was there any other suit between Thomas McGreevy and liobert Henry McGieevy j; ending on the 9th February, 1801 ? — A. I do not think so. (^. You know, as a matter of fact, not ? — A. I think not. ■:.i Q. You said a moment ago that your brother contributed a certain amount as his share. What did you mean by that? — A. I mean with reference to the Inter- colonial Railway ; I mean that he was a paitner with me in the construction. By Mr. Mills i^Bothuell): Q. Was your brother a member of the House of Commons Yes, 18(i7. at that time ? — A, By Mr. Stuart : (iJ. Do you recollect that your brother was a candidate for Parliament at the time the contract was going on, or about that time? — A. Y'es. Q. Was Mr. John O'Farrell, of (^uel)ec, a candidate against him? — A. Ithinkso. Q. You know it, as a matter of fact? — A. Yes; in 1873 and 1874. Q. Did Mr. O'Farrell charge that Mr. Thomas McGreevy was a partner with you in the Intercolonial Railway matter? — A, Charge what? 659 1—42^ ! t J i -1^ ■ Si ■ i ■ ■■ •■'fi:!: I'! I': ill I:: ! ! . H M! !:; I m TP 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 ; £ «- •u I i!V- Q. Did he make the charge publicly that Thomas McGreevy was a partner with you in the Intercolonial llailway contract ? — A. I do not think that he did. I think he did it in a petition for unneatinir him. Q. Did he not make it on the hutstingfi? — A. I cannot say. Q. Can you Bay that you did not publish an affidavit at that time denying that Thomas McGreevy had any interest in the contract? — A. I may have done so. Q. You may have published to the world, on your oath, that your brother was not a partner with you, and now you say it is true that he was ? — A. It is easily explained. He was a partner up to the time of that election, as I stated in my pleadings; but inasmuch as there was a danger of his seat being contested, on thsf*^ account ho requested me to destroy ail papers in connection with his partnership, and then, of course, I was at liberty to take an affidavit that he was clear. But 1 made no affidavit while I was in possession of the papers. Q. So it was the destruction of the papers that justified you in saying that he was not a partner ? — A. Because he ceasetl to be a partner in 1873. Q. This affidavit was published during the time the election was coming on? — A. I am not sure. Q. To the best of j'our recollection it was so*' — A. No ; it is not. Q. It was in answer to the charge made on the hustings tliat your bi'other was interested with you. Was it? — A. I do not think it was. (J. It is extremely likely? — A. It may be likely. Q. These papers that established the partnei"ship, as you say, were they des- troj-ed at the time the election was coming on? — A. 1 do not know exactly when they were de:itroyed, but it was in either 1872 or 1873 they were destroyed. Q. They were destroyed before the nomination and return ? — A. I could not say now which. Q. Who was piesent when these papers were destroyed ? — A. Nobody. Q. Who witiiesset'. the destruction of the papers? — A. Nobody. Q. Where was the destruction of the papers done? — A. The destruction of the 1 capers was done at the time, and as he stated on his part he would destroy any he lad. Then, on that understanding I thought he was at the end of the partnership. Q. As a matter of fact, is it not the case that the affidavit made then and published was to the efl'ect that your brother had not been, and never had an interest in your Intercolonial llailway contract? — A. I tlo not know that it did ; but if it did, I was bound to make some declaration to protect him. (I. To protect your brother? — A. At his request, I might say. It could only be formal, however. Q. It did not dissolve the partnership? — A. No; it was to save him, (^. To save him you published an affidavit that your brother was not, and had not been interested with you in the Intercolonial Railway contract. Do 3-ou say that ? — A. I do not say it is. Q. Is it ? — A . I do not say. Q. You have already done so? — A. I say I may have done so. Q. You gave instructions for the drafting of your pleadings in the litigation of McGreevy vs. McGreevy, did you not? — A. 1 think not. Q, Did you see the ))leas before they were put in ? — A. I do not think so. Q. Do you say you did not? — A. I do not think so. Q. Will you swear the papers were not read to you before they were tiled? Were they, or were they not ? — A. I could not say. Q. You won't swear that they were read to you? — A. I will not. Q. As a matter of fact, is it not true that your counsel and solicitor, Mr. Cas- grain. refused to sign and tile the plea in that case until such time as he had read it to you ? — A. I do no know. Q. is it so or is it not? — A. I do not know ; I could not say. Q. Do 3'ou not recollect your going to Mr. Casgrain's office, and his reading the plea to you, in order that j-ou might take the responsibility of it? — A. I do not. 1^. You swear you did not? — A, I do not swear I did or ilid not. 660 tiled ■> 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Will you 8\veur tlio i)loii was not read to you ? — A. I won't swear that it was. Q. Did you read the ])lea? — A. I may oi- may not iiuve read it. Q. I want to know if you did ? — A. I maj* have or may not. Q. Did you read it at any time? — A. 1 did. Q. Does it contain the truth ? — A. I suppose it does. Q. Does it or does it not contain the truth? — A. I do not know, I am sure. I supjiose these pleadini^s as he submitted them were rii^ht. himsielf? — A. They were in his otiice. Q. You swear that ? — A. Mr. Chaloner Q. Was it he or Mr. Chuloiior who kept the accounts ?— A. It was between them. Q. Did ho or Mr. Chaloner keep the accounts? — A. I do not know. It was either of them. I took Mr. Chaloners wo:d alwa}'.-.. It was the same sis his as regards the accounts. Q. And Mr. Chaloner kept the accounts? — A. So be said himself. Q. So Mr. Chaloner said?— A. Yes. Q. I will read you a ])araiujra]ih from your plea, Mr. ^McGieevy, " That in the year eigliteen hundred and seventy-three the piaintitf having again been a catididate for re-election at the general elections for tlie said House of Commons of Catutda and liaving bien re-elected to sit tor the said eieetoral divi>ion of Quebec West against one .Tobn O'Farrell, of the cityof (Quebec, Esquire, advocate, who was also a candidate at such election, the election of the sai'l plaintitf was contested and his right to sit for the said constituency was controverted and a ])elition contesting plaintiff's said election was tiled and presented, demanding the avoidance of said election on the ground and for the reason, among others, that the sai 1 plaintitf having an interest in a contract for the building of a public work under the (lovernment of Caiuuia, to wit: in the construction of a part of the said Intercolonial Iliiilway of Canada and Iiolding, undertaking and e.x'ecutinga contract or agreement with and for the Gov- ei'nment of Canada for wh'ch the public moneys of Canada were and are to be paid, was ineligible as a member of the said House of Commons and disqualified to sit as such: and that tbe?'cupon in order to do away with any written proof of the said herein alleged facts, the said plaintiff re(iuesteil the defendant to destroy all the said documents, letters, missives and ])apers evidencing and containing the said contract, agreements and stipulations l)etweentbe said ]);irties herein above alleged.'" Q. Is that allegation true? — A. I thought it was true. Q. Is that allegation true? — A. I thought it was true. (J. But is it true now? It is immaterial what you thought then? — A. It is the same now as then. Q. You say it is true now? — A. I think so. Q. Was your brother's election contested by O'Farrell? — A. 1 thought so then. (I. Was it, as a matter of fact? — A. Well, I don't know, but I alleged that it was . Q. I don't care what you alleged. I want to know whether youi* brother's election was contested bv O'Farrell at that time '? — A. I don't know. 06 1 H ;. » ! I 1 1 1 i ■ i j !' 1 i ,'^ i i TT m n It I! I i 'f- ill 1? ! tit 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. As a matter of fact, do you not know it was never contohtcd ? — A. I don'l^ know. Q. When you came to prove this plea before the courts, diil j'ou adiluce any evidence upon that point? — A. I did not. Q. Did you seek to adduce any evidence upon it ? — A. I had none. Q. Did you go to Mr. John O'Farrell to see if you could prove that fact — if it were true? — A. I did not. Q. Was ho not in Quebec? — A. He ma}' liavc been for ail I know. Q. You know he lives in Quebec, and is there pretty nearly all the time ? — A. I do. (^. Did you see him upon the subject? — A. I did not. Q. Did you search the files of the court to see whether theie was a petition on record against your brother by him? — A. [ did not. Q. Did you search the files or in an}- way make any attempt to examine them to see whether, if there was a petition against your brothei-, what it would contain ? — A. I did not. Q. In other words, did you not try to substantiate that charge in the least ? — A. I did not. Q. A more recent case in which you wee conceisieu was a transaction betwoeii yourself and O. E. Murph}' for a 8400,000 note of Michael Connolly's, transferred to you by O. E. Murphy, was it not ? — A. Yes. Q. Will you look at the note produced here as Exhibit "DlO," and state whether that is the note that was transferred to you hv O. E. 3Iurphy, and upon which you instituted that suit? — A. I have already been examinined in that case, and my evi- dence is on record. 1 ask the Committee whether I am open for examination in a case in which I have already given my evidence before the court ? The Chairman. — This case is not before the court. You have to answer the question. Witness. — That is the note. Q. The note is in these words : " On demand I promise to pay to Mr. E. Murphy or order 400,000 dollars, for value received, without defalcation or discount." Signed by Michael Connolly, endorsed to the order of R. H. McGreevy and E. Murphy, with- out recourse. You instituted a suit upon that note against Mr. Michael Connolly, did you not. Q. That suit was instituted on the 4th June, 1890? — A. About May, I think. Q. The plea was fraud, want of consideration, and conspiracy between yourself and O. E. Murphy, was it not ? — A. I don't know what the plea was. Q. You did not see the plea ? — A. I may have seen it at the time. Q. The plea was not read to you by your counsel? — A. Yes ; it was. Q. W^ell, in substance, it was fraud, want of consideration and conspiracy, was it not? — \. You have got it there ; 30U can see for yourself. Q. I am asking you ? — A. It may not. You have it here now, and you can see exactly what it Avas. Q. I will read the paragraphs from the plea : '•The pretended promissory note declared upon was obtained by the said 0. E. Murphy falsely and fraudulently about nine or ten years ago and he never atau}- time gave, nor did the defendant receive any valuable consideration whatsoever therefor. '• The plaintilf in this cause nevergave any valuable consideration whatsoever for the said pretended note, and has always been aware that the same was obtainetl and held by the said Owen £. Murphy falsely and Iraudulently, and wholly without con- sideration. " The present action is the result ot a conspiracy between the said Murphy and the plaintitl' to harass, injure, and tlefraud the defendant, both well knowing that no value was ever given for the said pretended note, and that the defendant was never indebted to the said Murphy ; that the said O. E. 3Iurphy never had nor was intended to have any right of property whatever in the said pretended note, no value having been given by the said McGreevy to the former therefor." 662 stm 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Motion for particiilurd was mndo in this case. Voii were asketi in the eourso of these proceed inj^s to give details of the consideration that wa'" liivtMi by O. K. Murphy to Michael Conuoliy for the note in question? — A. (No answer.) The Chairman. — The witness will please answer ilie ipiestion. The Witness. — My answer is in the record of the case. Q. Was there or was there not a bill of particulars filed? — A. I will i!;ive you no other answer. Q. Why? — A. Because my answer and testimony is in the record, •Mr. Stuart. — I ask you, Mr. Chairman, to instruct the witness that lie is bound to answer? — A. You only want to catch me. Q. I onlj' want the truth? — A. I gave my answer. M}- evidence and answer is in the case. Q. Will you look at the bill of particulars filed in Xo. V,V20 and state whether that is the bill of particulars you filed ? — A. I cannot tell you, I am sure. (^. You do not know. Did vou prepare the bill of particulars? — A. Jdiil. (^ With O. E. Murphy?— A. Yes. (}. Did 3'ou hand it to your attorney, Mr. Casgrain ? — A. Yes. Q. Is that Mr. Casgrain's signature? — A. 1 do not know. Mr. Archibald Campbell recalled. By Mr. Stuart ; Q. Is that the bill of particulars filed in the case in question ?- bill of particulars in the casoof Eobert H. McGreevycs. Connolly. -A. Yes ; it is the Mr. E. II.McGreevy's cross-examination resumed. By Mr. Stuart : Q. Is that the bill of particulars you authorized your lawyer to give? — A. Yes; that is very like it. Q. Then you have seen it before ? — A. I think I have. Q. That is the bill of particulars filed in the case underyour insti-uetions ? — A. Ido not know whether it is the bill of particulars ; I saw one like it. Q. W.18 that the bill of particulars filed in the case ? — A. Something like it. Q. Does it differ in any respect from the one filed ? — A. It may, for aught I know. Q. Could you point out any differences? — A. Xo. Q. One of the items in this bill of particulars, furnished by Owen Murphy to the defendant, Michael Connolly, reads as follow.>j: (It is the last item) "Special sum he realized by the raising of the bottom of the sewer of South-wall contract of 3 feet, S35,000." Is that so or not? — A. That the sewer was raised ? Q. Xo ; that that W.1S the last item of the bill of jiarticulars furnished by you in the case ? — A. I do not say I furnished this. I see 8.*J5.(IOO mentioneil. Q. Did you give that information for the last item in the bill of particulars? — A. I did. Q. Did you give the other information for the bill of particulars? — A. I did. yiv. Stuart then announced that l>.e wouUl not be prepared to proceed further with the cross-examination of this witness to-d.iy. I ■ill: I ■ , If 111 I ■■, It Mr. John Benson Williams, sworn. By Mr. Geoff rion : Where do you reside now? — A. In Quebec. 663 . ! : I t 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Do you know Mr. Thinnas MeGrei'vy? — A. I do. (i. I)o you know Mr. Kobert McGreovy ? — A. Yes. <;. Do you know .Sir Hector Lanyovin? — A. Yes. wcr had been received up to that date, although it was two or throe days before that the letter had been written. He asked mo to call again at tho end ot tiie week, when he would l»e able to speak to mo more definitely on the subject, as by that time he e.\|K'Cted an anwser would have been received from tho Deparlment of Railways and Canal!>. Q. Did he tell you b\- whom tho letter was sent to that department? — A. Ho said it was sent by the Department of Public Works. Whether ho meant himself (jr not I do not know. Q. And he expected there would bo an answer in the course of a week? — A. He said if he did not get an iinswer in tho course of that week ho would then be in a po.sition to ^peak definitely with moon the subject. Q. What passed then? — A. Mr. Perloy then said if I would call upon him in a few days he would let me know more. In tho meantime, he handed to me the printed tender-, showing the position of the work at that time. ent you? — A. Yes, sir; 1 told him just what f stated here ; Mr. Thomas Mctireevy had told nio to cull on him. 1 was not at that time acquainted with Mr. Porley. I introduced mysci' to him, but he evidently expected me. Q. You told him you had been sent to jiim by Mr. Thomas McGroevy ? — A. Ye->. Q. What were those mills with which you wore connected professionally for some tifteen years? — A. The mills at Montmorency Falls, Quebec. 6G5 •M' »\ 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 JUj Mr. Edgar : Q, Did Mr. Perley enquire from 3'ou as to your experience and qualifications for this Ivinil of worU? — A. He Himpiy aslccd me. He know I was an engineer — I think the Minister was well aware of it— and 1 applied whenever there would be any opportunity for a position, as I would like work of that kind. il. To whom had you applied ? — A. To Sir Hector himself I knew him in Que- bec, personally; it was he who had given mo my sessional appointment. Q. And you knew Mr. Thomas McGreevy prettj- well? — A. I had. Q. At that time? — A. I have known him for many years. He lives in Quebec, and I have lived there, or near there, for a good many years. (I. Had he any means of knowing your professional capacity at all? — A. Well, 1 think indirectly he did, not through any work I had ever done for him, but he knew that I had applied for positions in that profession. By Mr. Tupper ; Q. What position have you applied for under the Provincial Government ?^A. Nothing at all in particular. I approached the Minister there lately. 1 had the hope before I came up here of doing something, but my business here has rather interfered with that. Bij Mr. JIulock : Q. Have you had any experience in such works as the Esquimalt (Jraving Dock? — A. Well, sir, by education; I am a graduate of the United States Military Academy. I served through the Civil War there, and aftei-wards came to Canada, and for a long time served my uncle, Mr. Hall, at the Falls, as superintendent of those mills. Q. Was that your first appoincment after you left the college? you served in the war? — A. Well, as an engineer officer. I am both a military and civil engineer. Q. And then you came to Canada and served fifteen years at a saw mill? — A. Well, at first I was superintendent of the mills. Afterwards I became general superintendent of the property, exploratory service surveys, etc. Q. You have not had any experience in building docks and public wo;ks ? — A. Xo. I have been engaged in wor'-s not exactly like that as a young man — canals, tor instance — and 1 hail some practical knowledge of all sort of engineering work — bridges and masonry of every description. Q. At the time you were ottered this though, it was I suppose thirt^^ years at least since you had any experience? — A. Yes, sir; in that special work, i have never been engaged in any kind of work like that, not for twenty years. Bi/ Mr. Kirkpatrick : Q. Had you any letter from the Department ? — A. No, sir Q. It was by wonl of mouth? — A. Yes, sir; I have no letters, except a letter of appointment in the month of July. That was after the session that I was appointed as engineer in charge of the surveys and improvements on the North Saskatchewan. The Commitee then ailjourncd. , i '5 GoG ^ 54 Victona. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 House of Commons, Tuesday, 2Sth July, 1891. The Committee met at 10 a.m. ; Mr. Girouarcl in the chaii-. Investigation into certain (urcumstances and statements made in connection with the tenders and contracts respecting the Quebec Harbour woriis, etc, resumed. Mr. Robert H. McGreevy, re-called. Mr. Stuart — I am not in a position to go on with an extended cross-examination until such time as I am permitted access to the diaries of Mr. McGreevv, and that access has been denied me. I would like Mr. MctTreevy to produce the note for $7,500 referred to in his examination, as having been given to Larkin, Connolly A: Co., at the time of the Cross-wall contract. Witness — I want to make some corrections in my evidence of Thursdaj- and Friday. It is just as well that it should be made now as later. At page Gtl4 of the Evidence, I am made to refer to a letter addressed by Mr. Perley to Larkin, Connolh^ & Co. What I Avanted to say was, it was a similar letter as the Beaucage one L referred to at the time. It reads as though I lelerred to Larkii.', Connoll,v & Co.'s letter. The letter shown to me is a letter to the same purport. I also wish to correct the evidence respecting the dredging of 1887, but I will do that when it is printed. By Mr. Stuart : Q. Will you produce a note for 87,500, in connection with the Cross-wall con- tract ? — A. I have not got it. Q. You were directed to produce here all the notes and cheques in connection with this transaction ? — A. Yes, but I don't know that I have it; I pioducL-d all that I had. Q. You have not searched for it? — A. Not particularlv for that; it may be in the bundle that I gave to the accountants, for all I know. Q. Well, I would ask j'ou to go through the papers and produce it if you can, J am not going on with your cross-examination now. There is a note of Thom.'is Mcfireevy's for $3,000, referred to in j'^our conti-a account which 1 would also like you to produce. Y'^ou know tho note I referred to? — A. It is a note discoi'.nted by 3Iurphy for me I think. Q. You were also required to produce the original statement, signed by you, and published in the Le Canadier, April, 1890, have you got that ? — A. I have r.oi ;Mr. Tarte stated that he had the document a.id would produce it. Q. You were asked to make search for any other books you had and stiit-d yo'i would do so, have j'ou done so? — A. Any other books? Q. Yes, books of account ? — A. I have written home and they will seavch up all tho papers, sheets, or notes, or any books, and I expect them here, if there is any, in a day r two. Q. Yon '"..de no search yourself? — A. The order was given to the young man in charge •* .e books. Bij Jlr. Osier : Q. You onlj' produce the books tVom 1883 ? — A. Yes. Q. Why not before that ? — A. I was not ordered: I was onl}- asked troni 1883 to 1887 inclusive. Q. Have you diaries for 1881 and 1882 ?— A. Yes. I have. (•i. And in 1888 as well — you had better pnduce thorn" — A. 1 will ■•end home for them. C67 ; flWf 1 •if '- ■ 1 I . ■' ■ r. II li ! i ■ I ■ i i J 1 I 1 iiif! I! ill n^ r { ill' ,1 ' 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 By Mr. Stuart ; Q. There are three entries on page four of Exhibit " U13." I should like j'ou to have the lod^^er in which those entries are contained or pisted. They i-efer to the Baie des Chaleurs Railway? — A. The index of the ledger refers to the account, but the items in the journal of January 18lh, 1884 are not in the ledger ; not as far as I see. Q. I see that in the Journal there is a reference to the folio of the ledger ? Will you look and see whether, under that folio, the entries are posted? — A. They are not there. Q. [s there any other ledger in which that would be posted? — A. There is no other ledger. (^, Well, then, what do those figures refer to, indicating as I believe po^ting? — A. They inJicate the folio of the account in the ledixor. Q. So that in the ledger you have now produced, as being your only ledger, these items are not posted ? — A. They are not posted. Q. You don't find them posted at all in the ledger?— A. No. (}. Can you explain to us, how it appears, that in the journal those throe items appear to be posted to a particular folio, and ai-e not posted at all or contained in the book? — A. I cannot explain because I did not keep the books. Q. You still maintain that the ledger you now have in your hand is the only ledger you have got? — A. It is the only ledger I have got. Q. And the only ledger you have ever had ? — A. I think so. Q. Are you sure? — A. Pretty sure. Q. Are you perfectly sure? — A. There is so little perfect, that we do not know, Q. I should like you to be as sure as possible? — A. That is as perfect as 1 can be. Q. Are you quite sure that is the only ledger you have? — A. I am almost quite certain this is the only ledger I have or had. ^;tz Q- And you cannot otter any explanation as to why these three items which appear to have been posted to some folio in the ledger are not jiosted at all? — A. I cannot offer any explanation, as 1 did not keep the books. Q. At folio (i I also find two entries referring to the Baie des Chaleurs Eaihvay which ajipear to have been posted at folio 5 of the ledger — the first and third entries at the lop of the page. Will you state whether these were posted or not ? — A. I did not see thcni entered. Q. .Tust read to the Committee what is contained on folio 5 of the lodger? — A. On May lOtli, 180(1, there appears the debit of the Baie des Chaleurs Eaihvay Com])any, (JCO shares of capital stock at $.')0 per share, $33,000. Q. That is (he only entiy on the page of the ledger? — A. Y'es. Q. I would like to direct your attention to folios 8 and !• of your journal in which there are four entries with reference to the Baie des Chaleurs Railway which appear to have been posted in the same folio in the ledger and ask if j'ou can give us any explanation as to where that appears? — A. There is nothing on folio .5. 1 see one of the references is to folio 13. The one referring to page 13 is carried to page 13 of the ledger. Q. Folio 13 of the ledger is not the Baie des Chaleurs account ? — A. I'O''. (i. If I am not mistaken it is Hugh O'Donnoll ?— A. It is connected with that. Q. But there are none of those items posted at page 5? — A. No, none. There is nothing at page 5. Q. I would like to call your attentiim to pages 10 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, It), 22 and 33 on all of which there appear to be entries with reference to Baie des Chaljurs Railway Company a])parently posted to page .") of the lodger, and ask whether you have any ox]iianation to give of the fact that they are not so posted ? — A. I see nothing at ])age .5 of the ledger except the stock entry of 833,000, to which I have just referred. Mr. Stuart- I think '•% is perfectly apparent that we have not got the hook or ledger into which the entries from this journal have been posted. I woi i :uk the order of the Committee in the sense which this fact indicates. ti68 3 re 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 By Mr. Mills {Bothicell) : Q. I understood you to say that the party w'.o made these entries and who posted the books would be better able to say whether there was any ledger or not? — A. I am quite certain that there is no other ledger, and that my son m ho is on the survey back of Lotbiniiire will be able to come here and explain thoroughly and smash that theory of Mr. Stuart's to pieces. The entry he is now asking about relates to labour expended on the road during the time I was contractor- -that is, engineers and labourers. That was embodied in the 65,000, which I sent in the account to Thomas McGreevy, I sent him an account for $5,000, for the work and money I spent. He admitted the amount was due to me and I have closed the ac- count. (I, I think they are marked as having been posted on a particular page of the ledger ? — A. I have said they are not posted. Q. That would seem to indicate that there was some other let'iger into which they had been posted ? — A. There is no other ledger or book or papei, not a sheet or scrap, to my knowledge but I have brought. At a later period, I think that will lo expiaineil. Bi/ the Chairman : Q. You say you have no other ledger ? — A. 1 have not. Q. Your son is in the woods novv ?• — A. Y'es. Q. Where ? — A. On the Lotbini^re road. Q. Can you get him here soon ? — A. I think he will bo here within :i few days. Q. Will you make efforts to get him ? — A. I have already started. It is diffi- cult to reach him at present. H. Your sons who were here last week ? Could not they explain the nature of the ledger ? — A. No. By Mr. Tarte : Q. How long is it since youi- son went away ? — A. The early part of May. Mh. iRCE L.woEviN sworn. I' 'I V/'. Geoffrion (^. V ii.it is your occupation ? — A. Civil Engineer on the Harbour works at Quebec. Q. How "', .i; have you been working in your professional capacity on those works ? — A iSoven years on the 1st of May last. t^. Prior to that date were you a practical engineer ? — A. I hail been working on ditfcont works for the Department of Public Works and for private individuals. Q. On what works ? — A. If you want to refer to the Canadian Society of Civil lingineers the histor}' is there. Q. I have not got that list. You try to remember ? — A. You may refer to the Secretary of the society. By the Chairman : , -re the information yourself to the best of your knowledge ? — A, If the Comiii.i ee want it I can give the full list. Q. Give it to the best of your knowledge as full as you can '! — A. Well, I have been on works for the Department of Public Works, on the Graving J)ock at Levis, on the Quebec Harbour Works afterwards, on the Cross-wall contract, and tl:y Souiii-wall. Last year 1 did special work on the Graving Dock at L<5vih. I 1!, 1} \\ - y \ I ■! 11 -ii-r u i '■ .; I ' I Ul t>. ,1:: J I) nw I i 54 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 189; By Mr. Geofrioti : Q. You mentioned also that you had been employed by ])iivate parties uv on private works. Can ycni remember any ? — A. Yes ; if I remember aright, for Mr. Lortie, making plans of something or other. Q. Mr. Lortie of Quebec ? — A. Yes. Q. When was it ? — A. I do not remember. Q. .Several years ago ? — A. Three or foui- years ago. I suppose. Q. You say they were for private works ; were they not for the drill shed at Quebec ?— A . No. Q. What kind of plans were they ? — A. It was to make a kind of survey whether he could not have a better plan than the Government plan. Q. For the drill shed ? — A. >»o, for the drainage for the citadel. Q. AVhellier he could not have a better plan than the (jrovernment plan ? — A. Y'es. I do not know anything of the Government plan. Q. You say you were liist .u. ployed on the Graving Dock at L^vis? — A. Yes. Q. When was it? — A. It w vo or three tirst years. Q. The two or three liist ye: the work ? — A. No. When Mr. Pilkington went away. Q. And the first year after Mr. Perley was appointed. Would that not be in 188.3 ? — A. I suppose so. Q. Mr. Perley was not the Resident Engineer ; who was the Eesident Engineer ■.•' — A. The Resident Engineer was Mr. Bojd. Q. AVhat was your work ; to what particular kind of work were you attached ? — A. I was doing all sorts of work, road man, chain man and inspector sometimes. l^H You weie not an engineer then, you were an apprentice? — A. I was an appientice. Q. This was your first engineering >vork ? — A. Xo, before that. Q. What had you done before that in a professional capaci*^}'? — A. I went on an expedition for the Des Joachims bridge with Mr. Hamel. I never received any pay fiom the Depai-tment. Q. How old were you then? — A. I do not remember; I do not remember rlie year. i^. You were onh- accomjianying the expedition ; you did no work yourself? — A. We made the sarve}' and put up the bridge. Q. What kind of work was it ? — A. A bridge at Des Joachims. Q. Across the river ? — A. Yes. Q. What kind of work ? — A. I was assistant engineer to Mr. Hamel. Q. Did you ever make any special studies in engineering? — A. Yes, Sir, I do all the time. Q. At what university or college? — A. At the Seminary at Quebec and after- wards the Tniversity. Q. Is tiiat ail the engineering which you learnedutthe University ? — A. I made two years of stuily besides that ])rivately. Q. When did you make those private .studies ? — A. That is about nine years ago. Q. How old are you ? — A. Thirty yeais of age. Q. When you made j-our private studies were you alone or under the tuition of a special ])rofessor ? — A. All my chiefs helped me as much as possible. Q. Oh. 3'(ni made special studies while emploj-ed on these works? — A. Yes. Q. Did you graduate as a civil engineer? — A. No. Sir. Q. Did you try ?— A. No. Sir. Q. While you were at the LtSvis (i raving Dock in whose emplo}* were you ? — A. I was under Mr. Boyd's employ — the Harbour Commi-ssion. Q. Under a monthly salary ? — A. Yes, Sir. By Mr. Amyot : Q Who was the professor of civil engineering at the University ? — A. Pro- fessor I.afiamme. 670 54 Victoria. Appendix (No, 1.) A. 1891 i : 'J By Mr. Geoffrion : Q. In the professor of engineerins^ the Priest, Rev. Mr. Luflumme? — A. Yes. Q. Do you claim he teaches eiii^ineering ? — A. lie is a scientist and engineering enters into his work — forms part of his studies. By Mr. Amyot : Q. Is there any regular course of engineei'ing at Laval Univeristy, and was there then ? — A. 1 have no business to state. ii. You mean Mr. Lutlamme may have studied engineering? — A. lie has to tlu it to make his lecture. By Mr. Laverrjne : Q. Did you not study mathematics as do the other pupils ? — A. Yes. Q. And all the engineering you studied was what you studied at Laval? — A. Besides that I studied engineering with Professor Paradis. i^. But at the University, it was the ordinary course of mathematics which all the scholars study there ? — A. Yos. Q. Nothing more special than that? — A. I made special studies as I stated befoie, besides that. Q. At the University? — A. No, with Mr. Paradis. By Mr. Amyot ; Q. How long ago? — A. I do not remembei-. Q. Is it two years, tivc years, or seven years that j-ou studied with Mr. Paradis? — A. 1 stated before that I studied D years ago. (i. With Mr. Paratlis?— A. With him and' the other Professors. Q. You tell us that Mr. Paradis was one of your professors ? — A. Yes he was. Q. How inanj* years ago was that? — A. Ab(uit S or !) years. (^. Do you swear that positive!}' ?— A. 1 swear p(jsitively that it was S or It years ago. Q. What is Mr. Paradis's tii st name ? — A. fidmond. Q. Ho lives in (Quebec ? — A. Yes. Q. He is Pi'icst and Professor of Mathenmtics in the Seminary at Quebec ? — A. Yes. Q. Have you ever had any other professor than those two, Abb^ Latlamnie and Mr. Paradis to loach you civil engineering? — A. I hud all my chiefs. Q. That is since you were emiihn'ed on the works, of course ; but besides that ? — A. Xo. I do not remember whether I had any. By Mr. Geoffrion : Q. You stated you are in the employ of the Harbour Commissioners at Quebec ? —A. Yes. (}. Did youi' appointment follow the arrival of Mr. Perlev as Chief Kngineer, or how long after his a]ipointinent were you appointed ? — A. I was appointed the same time as Mr. Boyd. Q. And you say that you worked at L^vis for about o years? — A. About that. Q. Then }'ou were transferred to the (Quebec Harbour works? — A. Yes. Q. When in the (Quebec Harbour did ^ou also act there in your professional ca2)a<'ity as engineer? — A. Yes. (}. How long did you work in the Quebec Harbour ? — A. Four years about. Q. When did you cease to work? — A. Last summer, on the last of August; but I was i-eplaced right off? Q. By somebody else? — A. No, by the Commission. Q. " Replaced, " you say; you mean reinstated? — A. Yes, reinstated, I mean. Q. Are vou still in the emplov of the Harbour Commissioners? — A. Yes 671 ILH Fl i| H m !| '• U ' > r ! ■ , I 54 Victoria. i i h t Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. So sincn 8 years, you are in the employ of the Quebec Harbour Commission? — A. Seven years on the Ist of May last. Q, On the Ist of May last, you had been in the employ of the Harbour Cum mis- sionoi's for 7 years? — A. Yes. Q. Eeeeiving a regular salary ? — A, Yes. (l. Have you always received the same salary? — A. No, sir. Q. What was your first salary? — A. $C0 a month. Q. When did the first change in your salary take place ? — A. I would have to refer to my papers. Q. Can you give us about the time, was it two or three years afterwards ? — A. Three years afterwards. Q. An increase to how much ? — A. 873. Q. Was there another increase ? — A. There was another increase in about a year and a half afterwards, or two years. Q. How much ?—A. To $90. Q. And what is your present salary ? — A. $150. Q. Were you increased from $90 to $150? How did that increase take place? — A. When Mr. Boyd died 1 was appointed, with Mr. Charles McGieevy, as assistant engineer to Mr. Boswell. Q. On what works were you engaged when your salary was increased to $1,800 a year ? — A. I was engaged on the South-wall. Q. Well, dui'ing this period had you not also been in the employ of the Public Works Department, and in receipt of a salary from the Department? — A. No, it was not a salaiy, it was just a remuneration for certain work that had to be done, and 1 had special permission to ao it outside of my oflSce work. Q. From whon did you receive that permission ? — A. From mj' own chief, because he could not attend there himself. Q. Who ?— A. Mr. Boswell. Q. You were engaged on these very works yourself ? — A. Yes. Q. And yet you claim that this was special work ? — A. Yes. Q. And you received special remuneration, as you call it ? — A. Yes. t^. From the Public Works Dc^jartment "^ — A. Yes. Q. And it was a work of the Quebec Harbour Commission ? — A. It was the Graving Dock at L^vis last year. There was a special vote for certain work. Q. And you were authorized by your chief, Mr. Boswell, to do that work? — A. Y'es, sir. Q. Have you been authorized to do that woik, and receive lemuneration from Public Works' Department, by the Harbour Commission ? — A. The Harbour Com- mission, wlicn they appointed me, told me to refer in anything that referred to the engineering part of the work, only to my own chief. Q. What I want to know is, whether, as a matter of fact, you had been author- ized by the Harbour Commission to work for the Public Works Department, during the time for which you were paid a salary ? — A. The only authorization I had to have was from my owr. chief, Mr. Boswell. Q. That is your opinion, that was the only authorisation you required ? — A. Yes. Q. And you have stated you were employed by the Har! our Commission ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. And notwithstanding that, you claim that you had not to got leave from tiie Harbour Commission, to absent yourself from their work ? — A. No, sir ; I did not absent myself from the work. Q. Well, to give your time to something else ? You swear you did not absent 30urself from the work attending to special work at Levis? — A. No, when there was anything special to do on the Harbour worKs I had to be theie, and T was there. Q. And when there was something to do at L^vis Dock, you had to be there and you were there ? — A. Yes. 672 64 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 Q. How long were j'oii employed at that special work at L^vis ? — A. Three or four months ; four months 1 think. Q. Durinjif what months ■? — A. The beginning of June, and wo finished at the end ot September I think, or October. Q. That was last year ? — A. Yes, sir. 1^. What work was it ? — A. It was just fencing, and repairing the work-shops, engine room, and different Avorks like that. Q. What was the amount of money voted and spent on these special works at Levis? — A. That amount is marked ; I don't know. Q. You know the works and you don't know how much they cost ? — A. Yes, but I don't remember exactly. Q. "Were you superintending the works or under the orders of the chief ? — A. I was superintending the work, Q. It was upon your reports that the estimates were made? — A. I made my re- poi « to Mr. Coste, of the Public Works Department, who was in charge, Q. And you cannot say how much money was voted for that work or how much money was spent ? — A. I could not say until I had seen my papers. Q. Could you give me an approximate amount ? — A. No ; I don't know. Q. Will you say how much you received for your remuneration? — A. That is another thing I don't remember. Q. It was last year? — A. Yes, sir, Q, And you cannot remember anything near it? — A. I could tell you if I made it up, (^ Well, make it up ? — A. I have not got the papers here. Q. Were you paid by the month or Commission on the amount spent ? — A. No, sir. Q. Was theie any agreement as to the amount you were to receive before you took charge of the work ? — A. No. Q. You never stipulated any remuneration before beginning work ? — A. No. Q, You went there blind ? — A, Yes. Q. When you reported your work finished, did you write lor your remunera- tion ? — A, I wrote once, yes, Q. To whom did you write ? — A. To Mr. Coste. Q. Did you keep a copy of the letter you wrote? — A. I believe so. Q. You have not a copy of that letter, have j'ou ? — A. Not here. Q. Can you state to the Committee what the purpoi-t of that letter was — did it mention or name your remuneration? — A. It was mentioning that I should be paid. Q. Did you name any amount ? — A. No. Q. At whose request did you take charge of these works ? — A. At Mr. Cosle's request. Q. So, during these works, you wore officially connected only with Mr, Coste ? — A. Yes, the only one. Q. After you wrote to Mr, Coste, claiming remuneration without naming the sum, did you receive an answer from Mr, Coste ? — A. Yes. Q. Did you keep that letter? — A. It must be with the other papers. Q. "When j-ou received the letter you may have kiept it — did you keep the letter you received ? — A. T think so. Q. Where is it ? — A. It must be at home, Q. In Quebec ? — A. Yes. Q. Did that letter mention the amount that was alloweil to you for the work you had superintended ? — A. I could not state that, Q. It was interesting to you though ? — A. Oh, yes. Q. Did the letter contain a cheque, or a voucher, paying you your remunera- tion ? — A, No. Q, When did you receive that remuneration ? — A. I don't remember, Q, Was it after the works were finished ?— A. The account must be there ; lie told me to make an account I suppose. G73 1— 4a •:i !| :i 111 i < i h ' I 'i I i" il i t ', t' . IIM^ nr |i^ 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Are j'ou sure he told j'ou to make an account in his letter ? — A. I am not Hure. Q. Well did you make one ? — A. Every time 1 got paid, I had to make an account. Q. Well, did you get paid after the works were completed ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. How long after — a month ? — A. About. Q. So you would have been paid about the end of October or beginning of November last, because you said you finished work in September ? — A. Yes, about. Q. Were you paid in a lump sum ? — A. No, 1 was paid three or four times. Q. Well, you told me you wore paid onl}- after the works were completed ? — A. No, I did not state that ; I could not state that. Q. You mean then that you were paid the balance coming to you only after the works were finished — you had received instalments during the work ? — A. Yes. Q. Well, cannot you give us in round figures the total that you received ? — A. As I stated before, I could not make It up now. Q. Was it 8500 ?— A. It must be about that. Q. Was it S600 ?— A. Oh, no. i}. Was it 8400 ?— A. It must be between $-400 and 8500. ^. Do you know whether the Harbour Commissioners wore aware you were there, superintending the work at L^vis ? — A. Yes. Q. When did they become aware of that ? — A. As soon as I started. Q. Is it not a fact you were called before the Harbour Commissioners and examined before them ? — A. Yes. Q. And this took place only after the works were completed ? — A. At the end ; they were not completed entirely. Q. Was it not at the end of September, }-ou were called before the Harbour Commissioners, to answer to them for what you had been doing outside of their work ? — A. Yes. (^ . Were you examined under oath thefe, or did j'ou make a statement ? — A. Yes. Q. And do you swear that it was not on that day only, the Harbour Commission had discover-eil you had been emplo3'ed somewhere else, but on their work? — A. I ahvaj's believe' they knew it. Q. But, is t not a fact, you then discovered they did not know it before? —A. No. Q. Is it not a fact you were censured for having been on other works than theirs, ami that there is a resolution in the Minutes to that oftect? — A. Well, the Harbour Commissioners called me on a charge that had been made against me by Captain Bernier; that is why I was called in, it was not on account of the works entirel}-. (^ They did not know you were working somewhere else? — A. Yes, they liid. i}. You say, then, that when you were called on a charge made by Captain Bernier, 3'ou thought the}' knew? — A. Yes. Q. You only found out then, that the}' did not know ? — A. I did not find that they did not know it. Q. The\' appeared to know thatyouweroworkingon some other works? — A. To my knowledge, they appeared to know. Q. When you appeared before the Board, did they ajjpear to know that you were engaged on some other works? — A. They seemed U>. Q. Is it not a fact that they discovered it, and you wore called upon to answer the chaige? — A. I do not think so. Q. What was Captain Bernier's charge? — A. That ho was put out as dock master. Q. Of what woiks?— A. The L^vis Graving Dock. Q. Had you any authority over him ? — A. As Engineer for the Harbour Com- mission, I had. Q. When you say he was put out, what do you mean ? — A. He gave his I'esignation. «74 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 <^. What for? — A. For certain changes that wore made against him. Q. Who made those charges? — A. The men could be called, if there was an investigation on it. Q. You did not make the charges yourself? — A. No ; I wrote to Mr. Coste to come and take charge, and I gave in my resignation right oft". I would have nothing more to do with the works. Q. When you appeareil before the Harbour Commission it was in connectioo with that charge against Captain Bernier ? — A. It was relating to that. Q. You said also in connection with the charge made against you by Captain Bernier ? — A. Yes. Q, What charge did Captain Bernier make against you? — A. It is entered in the Minutes. I do not know exactly the words. There were three questions put to ijie by the Harbour Commission. Q. What were they ? — A. I do not remember. Q. You remember that there were three or four. What was one of them ? — A. The Secretary read them to me. Q. In writing ? — A. Yes. (^. You were called upon to answer? — A. Yes. (J. Did you answer? — A. Yes. Q. Oi-ally or in writing ? — A. Orally. (i. Then and there on the spot ? — A. Yes. Q. You cannot remember any of those (piestions put to j-ou ? — A. Xo. Q. What was the result of the investigation against Captain Bernier by the Harbour Commission? — A. I never knew. (I. Was Captain Bernier employed by the Government? — A. No. (}. In whose employment was he ? — A. The Harbour Commission. Q. Was there any report made against him here in Ottawa? — A. Yes. Q. If he was not in the employ of the Government what had Ottawa to do with il ? — A. I believe there was an agreement between the Harbour Commission and the Federal Government thai the Harbour Commission had only the management of the Dock and the Government was to make the i-epairs. Q. Amongst these three or four questions put to you was there one asking explanation from you in connection with the fact that you had taken charge of these works at L^vis? — A. Yes. (^. Do you remember the answer you gave ? — A. Yes. Q, What was it ? — A. I cannot word it exactly, Q. Give the substance ? — A. They ajskod me why I did not ask the Ci inmission- ois permission to go there, and I answered it was through their own ord r; that I leferred only to my chief, Mr. Boswell, and that I had permission fiom him. That i> why I went there without having permission from them Q. They asked j'ou why you had gone on these works without their permission ? — A. I was asked that. Q. Having asked you that question, did you not naturally infer that they did not know it before ? — A. No. Q. Had you informed any of the Commissioners ? — A. I do not remember to have done so. Q. The only reason you assigned was that you liad been ordered to submit tc; the orders of Mr. Boswell, ami that you had been there on his orders ? — A. Yes. Q. And his permission ? — A. Yes. Q. Who appointed you Assistant Kngineer? — A. Where? Q. The Quebec Harbour Works ? — A. The Harljdur Commissioners, through the recommendation of their Kngineer. Q. Was Mr. Boswell called in after the statement you made to explain about having given you permission ? — A. Yes. >r three feet of ice? — A. No. (I. Where would the plant be in February, 1HS7 ? What kind of plant would it be which required your attendance ? — A. On the works going on at the time. Q. What wo>"k was going on in February, dredging ? — A. No, sir. H. Building snow ploughs? — A. No. Sometimes the derricks would bo in tho waiy and I would go over and toll them to remove them. il. In the way of navigation? — A. No, of traffic on the road. Q. Where were the derricks wintering in tho winter of 1887 ? — A. O thoworkis. Q. Where were the works ? — A. In St. Andrew street. ii. On the street ? — A. Yes. <^ In 1887 ?— A. Yes. ii, "What works were they doing on the stieet? — A. It was at tho gas house; the ga.s works down below. *l. They were workiiig at the gas works ? — A. I thiidc so. Q. Were they the contractors for the gas works ? — A. No, for the harbour ba^in. if. If vou wentdown there it would be something like that — to give them orders ? —A. Yes.' Q. As a matter of fact did you go ? — A. I used to go there often. I wasfriendly with Mr. Hume as well as with the contractors, I was friendl}' to them all in that way. I went there to have a chat with them, that is all. Q. In one of your visits when you went there hatl you any conversation with Mr. Nicholas Connolly? — A. I had many conversations with him. Q. About election funds ? — A. In what way ; about what ? Q. First of all had you any conversation with him about election monej', about election funds ? — A. No. i}. About elections generally? — A. About elections generally — yes. ii. Did you make to him a statement to the same effect as the one you made to Thibault, to wit, that if you had $5,000 you would- take it to Three Rivers? — A. Perhaps so. Q. Y'ott might have said so ? — A. I might have said so. Q. You might have said that if you had $5,000, it would be useful in Three Eivers?— A. Yes. Q. "What did Mr. Connolly say? — A. He commenced to laugh. Q. Your suggestion tickled him? — A. Yes. Q. Then did you drop the conversation there ? — A. Yes. if. "While he was laughing did you not go on with the conversation ? — A. No. Q. Did you not saj' to him, you iiave plenty of money? — A. No, sir. Q. Well, what did Nicholas Connoll}'^ say?— A. He laughed and went away. Q. You know Martin P. Connolly? — A. Yes. Q. Did he laugh too? — A. No, I did not see him. 678 No. the e l: 64 Victorin. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. He wiiN writintc at his desk ? — A. Xo. il. Where had you the conversiition ; was it in the utHce ? — A. No, Where was it? — A. Waikiiiit on the street. Then it was on the occasion of tiie removal of the derrick ? — A. Not at that Q. -A. About 50 yards. time. Q. Vou met him on the street and told him 85,000 would he usut'iil at Three Elvers y — A. Yes. (^. And he laughed ? — A. Yes, Q. Is that all he did ?— A. That is all he did. er. (i. Is that the only thing you diil for your fathei-'s election? — A. Yes, sir. Q. You did nothing at all to help him? — A. Well, I saw friends who wore in Quebec, and asked them to go and vote for him. Q. 'At whose request did you see friends and ask them to go and vote? — A. No one's request, Q. Some one had brought you a list of the Three Eivers voters, I suppose ? — A. No, 1 knew them. Q. Is that -xll you did for your father , sir. Q. You said you were in the habit of going to Lwrkin, Connolly's iV Co'.-i office frequenti}', did j-ou frequentlj* see there Martin P. Connolly, the book-keeper ? — A. He was always theve. Q. Did you ^ee Hume also ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. And you had no conversation with him abou' the wish you had — tha. is to say ii it were possible for you to send away 85,000 ? — A. With whom ? tj. With Martin P. Connolly ; did you express to iiim the same desire ? — A. No, sir, I don't remembei- that. Q. Did you have any talk about the elections, with Martin P. Connolly ? — A. 1 might with evei-yone. Q. Did you not ask him whether the partners, his ernployeis, has paid a good deal of money for the elections ? — A. No, sir. Q. You ilid not ask him at all ? — A. No, sir. Q. You had no conversation about the election expenditure which this firm had made ? — A. No, sir. Q. From simple curiosity, did you have anv talk ? — A. No, sir. t^ Never?— A. No. Q. Did you have any talk with the other members of the tiim. besides Nicholas Coiinoll}', about the expenditure they were disposed to nmke for the election ? — A. I dont rememlier having titlked about it. Q. Did you have any conversation with Hume about it ? — A. Privately in his own house, just friendly. Q. But in the office when you were there.? — A. I i :i't remember; I don't think so. Q. Now, j'ou say you had some conversation at hi-^ !i.ivate house, at Hume's do you mean ? — A. Yes. Q. Were you in the habit of going there 'f — A. Oh, yes. Q. Frequently '■ — A. Yes. Q. And did you go ther" during the elections':' — A. A couple of times, not more. Q. Did you go and see Hume aliout that desire of yours, to get >34.00(> or 35,000 for Three Rivers '/ — A. No. (^i. You did not go and see Hume ? — A. No. Q. You are sui-e you did not make a statement of anything of the kind to Hume ? — A. [ don't think so. Q. Were you ever charged during the election with a letter forLarkin, Connolly iV Co ■' — A. No, sii'. (J. Were you ever charged with a letter, or note of some kind, addressed to any members of the firm of Larkin, Connolly & Co. 'f — A. No. sir. *GS1 ■KJ t I iji I. flii . ! I': ' 1 i I 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Namely Nicholas Connolly ? — A. No, sir. Q. You are sure of that ? — A. I am sure ot it. ii,. Not to have delivered there a written message coming from Three Rivers ? — A. No. Sir, I don't remember that. (^ Will you swear you did not do it ? — A. I say 1 did not do it. (I. You are sure you did not do it ? — A. I am sure. Cross-examination of Mr. Langevin. By Mr. Osier : Q. Did you receive any letter to be carried to Nicholas Connolly, from Sir Hector, your father ? — A. No, sir. (i. Or any message ? — A. No. Q. That is in connection with that election we have been speaking of in 188". Did you ever carry a letter or a message from Sir Hector to an}- member of the tirm of Larkin, Connolly & Co.?— A. No. Q. Something has been said in this enquiry, as to some financial transaction of yours with Lai-kin, Connolly & Co. What has there been between you in the way of money ? — A. The only thing I can remember is §600 I borrowed from Mr. Hume personally, not from the firm. Q. When was that ? — A. That was when I made that ladder. ii. What ladder is that ? — A. A fire-escape, (}. Was that connected with that inveution of yours? It wa^ that invention ladder yon had, was it not ? — A. An invention ; a ladder Mr. Thibaultand I invented. t^. You borrowed $600 from Hume ? — A. Yes, until I was paid by the city. . Aie you acquainted with Mr. Laforce Langevin ? — A. Yes. Q. The witness who has just been heard ? — A. Yes. < >; j ;: ! ' M 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Hi i I' Wv I ii Q. Sir Hector Langcviais the fatherof Mr, Laforce Langevin ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. During that election, had you any convei-sation with Mr. Laforce Langevin connected with his father's election in Three Eivers? — A. Yes; often. He is very much interested in it. Q. Can you remember whether any of those convei'sations were of a special jiatuie ? A. Yes ; I recollect he spoke to me about some money. Q. State to the Committee as precisely as possible the purport of those conversa- tions? — A. What I noted moi-e particularly was when he told me that he had sent ■§5,000 by Joe Lachance. Q. Did ho say where he had sent that money? — A. To Three Eivers. Q. Did he say when he had sent that money? — A. He stated that he had sent it on that very morning. That convoisation took place in the afternoon while we were out driving. Q. Can you remember the da}- when he made that statement to you? — A. Ko, sir. Q. I do not ask you the day of the month, but can you remember what was going on on that date ? — A. It was throe or four days bef .he election — I moan polling day, Q. Did Laforce Langevin say where he had obtained that money? — A. If I recollect well, I believe he told me it was from a Mr. Connolly. Q. Do you know the Connollys? — A. I know the Connollys by sight ; I saw them several times in Quebec. Q. Do you know what they were doing in Quebec ? — A. They were working at the Wet basin in Quebec and at L^vis. Q. In the course of that conservation, did Laforce Langevin make any further statement? State to the Committee what you can remember? — A. I remember that conversation well, because as I did not belong to the same party as he did, 1 thought it strange that he made that statement to me. About that time I repeated what ho had told mo to some of my friends and that is how I am here now. By the Chairman : Q. You belong to the opposite party in politics? — A. I belong to the opposite party ; he must have known it, though 1 do not meddle much in politics. Ii;/ Mr. Geoffrion ; Q. You stated that you were intimate friends? — A. Oh, yes. We wore then the owners of a patent — ^joint owners for these years: we were then working it. Q. Subsequently to that conversation did Laforce Langevin revert to the same subject? If so, state what conversation took place? — A. Subsequently, after the elections we were chaffing together. I told him he had succeeded well with his money. He answered yes, that they had turned Three Eivers right sWo u]) or upside down. Q. Do you know the man Joe Lachance? — A. I know him by sight as being employed at the Dock. I huve spoken to him. Q. But you are not a friend of his ? — A. No. Q. A mere acquaintance? — A. Yes: 1 knew him through Laforce Langevin. Q. Did you know whether the man Joo Lachance had been to Throe Eivers? — A. Laforce Langevin told mo that he had gone to Three Eivers, Init 1 do not know that ])ors(mally. Q. Can you swear positively whether Mr. Laforce Langevin gave you the name of the party from whom the money had been received? — A. I txin jiositive he told me ho got it from a Mr. Connolly. He did not toll me from which, because there are two or three of them. Q. You do not know which of the Connollys was then in Quebec? — A, Xc By Mr. Osier : Q. What is your occupation ? — A. lam foreman at the shoe factory of Mr. Griffiths. 686 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Mn beini in. il'H ? — know f Mr. Q. How did j'ou como to be driving with Lafbrco Langevin that (hiy ? — A. We were driving together nearly every day that we had time to do it . Q. Are you still interested witli Laforce Langevin in the patent? — A. The patent was taken for five years, but it has now expired. Q. What was the last business transaction you had with Laforce Langevin? — A. The last transaction was when I sold one of the ladders to the City of Montreal two years ago. Q. Did Laforce Langevin know that you were taking an interest in the elections on the other side? — A. I could not take an interest in the elections on the other side hecause I was in the employ of the Government at tiiat time, but he knew it was not my party. Q. Did you take anj' active interest in the election ? — A. He was in the habit of driving with me in the city, but I never took much interest in elections. We used to talk a little together. The Committee then adjourned till !! o'clock. Mk. W. F. Cloney swoin. By Mr. Henry : Ti-ESDAY, 2Sth July, 8 o'clock, P. M. Q. Where do you reside ? — A. St. Catharines . Q. You were engaged on the woiks in the Quebec Harbour with Messrs, Larkin, Connollv & Co. for some years? — A. Yes, sir. Q. From 1884 to 1889, I think?— A. Yes, sir. Q. The spring of 1884?— A. The spring of 1884 to the fall of 1881*. Q. What work did you do? — A. Well, Time-keeper and varied duties. (}. Tell us what they are? — A. Foreman ; well, the duties were so varietl Q. You acted in the capacity of time-keeper and foreman ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. And did other duties besides, at times? — A. Yes, sir. Cj. Martin P. Connolly is u friend of yours, is he not? — A. Yes, sir. t^. It was you I think who met him at St. Catharines and accompanied him to Butta!')? — A. Yes, sir. Q. At the lime this investigation was first commenced ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. And spent some few days with him in Buffalo ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. You have heard, no doubt, about certain payments that were made, on behalf of Larkin, Connolly ct Co.. to Inspectors ? — A. Yes, I have read of tliem. l^. And you have also had conversation 1 suppose with Martin P, Connolly on the subject ? — A. Well, yes, I think 1 have. Q. Anil you are aware that he gave -jviient e on that subject, in which your jiame was mentioned ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Last Tuesday 1 think it was ? — A. Yes tii". Q. What was the practice, or what was doni.' a* any time to your knowledge, in that connection ? — A. Well, I may say that lie vvjs under a wrong impression with regard to myself. I had nothing whatever +- ao in co;inection with the dredging during the years 1887, 1888 and 'l889. Q. Well, when ditl you cease, if it is the case you ceased, to have anything to d(j with the dredging ? Up to what date did you continue to have ilredging ? — A. The fallofl88(;. Q. Do you remember who the Inspectors were during that season ? — A. 1 think Mr. Hrunel, Mr. Pelletier and Mr. Germain. Inspector would compare notes, and one would persuade the other where the mistake was. Q. Martin P. Connolly seems to have got the idea, rightly or wrongly, that j-ou had something to do with what has been referred to as the system by which these Inspectors ^vere paid by the contractors, in connection with the reports they made of the work done. Can you explain how he got that idea ? — A. No ; I really could not. Q. You have no idea about it at all ? — A. These years of which I told you ? Q. I am speaking now of 1886 ? — A. I merely took the captain's book oi- the inspector's report of what he would give me, and it was sent into the ofiice, and I lost bight of it. Q. When did you first ascertain that these thieo men whose names have been mentioned, Pelletier, Germain and Brunei, were receiving money from the contrac- tors ? — A. Well, they have been receiving a salary for services rendered for years. I remember when they were employed one entire winter as foremen. Q. I am now speaking of the dredging season. When did you first ascertain they were receiving sums of money from the contractors during the dredging season of 1880 ? — A. Well, I don't know as I ever was aware of the fact that they were receiving money. Q. You say you never became aware of it ? — A. Well, I could not swear that I had ever become aware of their receiving money. Q. Well, don't you think if you had become aware of that fact that it would be sufficient to caue 5 an impression on your memory for you to retain it up to this time ? — A. Well, if I imagined or had an idea that the Inspector or some one else was acting in consort for an increase during the dredging season I don't think it would be very unbusinesslike on my part to exercise inquisitorial powers. Q. I am asking you if you did not become aware of it? Was it known to you that they wei'e in the pay of the contractors tluring the dredging season of 188G. and, if so, why not tell us ? You evidently have some knowledge about it? — A. Well, here upon my oath I don't think 1 coulil yive expi'ession to my supposition. (J88 itccoun as jega their n <^ Martin There Q. appear and bee done, AVere tl Q. bably, , false re gave hi gHve hii "Q Q. answer do so. Inspect( Q. ■ were sm come up Q. scow ?— Q. iis a rule They ha you ? or the and I 3iir that I would be ip to this ,e else was ; would be 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. No ; and I do not think it would be proper to do so. But speak from factb? — A. Fi'om facts I cannot swear. Q. Have you had any conversation with them on the subject ? — A. On what subject ? Q. The very subject I am now asking you aliout — I mean the payments of moneys by the contractors? — A. 1 cannot remember that I ever had. Q. What was there or is there that seems to have given you ground for belief at that time that they were getting money from the contractors? — A. I really cannot tell you. Q. When did you first get the idea that they were getting money from the contractors ? — A. It is back so far. Q. Can't you tell simply becau,se it is back a few years? — A. 1880. 1 cannot tell you when the idea struck me or how. ii. Are you sure of that ? — A. Quite sure. Q. What work did you do in 1887, if you did not do dredging? — A. They luul various works, such as cribbing and grading from the Cross-wall. Q. Had }-ou anythiug to do with the dredging in 1887 ? — A. I may have had something to do with it, like being time-keeper on the scows. Q. For how long were you time-keeper of the dredges ? For the maximum period of time in 1887 and in 188(j — that is, time-keeping and acting as foreman? — A. I do not think I understand your question. Q. What was the longest period in 1887 during which you were acting as time- keeper and taking the amount of dredging in that year? — A. In passing along the wall I might see that thedreilges were without a scow. Q. I understood from you that for a certain period in 1887 you were taking account of the amount of dredging. How long was the longest of those periods? — A. Taking account of the dredging ? I was not taking account at all. The time- keepers themselves have not always to take account of the dredging. Q. Who else acted in that capacity beside yourself in 188G and 1887, and accounted to the contractors for the amount of dredging done? — A. I think in 1887, as legards the account of the tlredging and the amount dredged, the captains made their reports direct to the office. (i. And then there would be nobody between the captains and the office — Martin P. Connolly, we might saj' ? — A. No ; they reported direct to the office. There might have been someone, however. Q. Can j'ou give us any idea how the quantitie'i of drciging were made to appear larger than they really were by the Inspectors? It has ije>Mi suggested here, and been a subject of proof, that the Inspectors returned more work than was really done, and 1 ask you if you can give us any idea of how that was accoinpiisheil. Were those retui-ns put in in writing? — A. Certainly, Q. Martin P. Connolly said, in answer to this question : At other times, pro- bably, verball}'. That answer was given aftei we had been questioning him as to false returns, or returns of work in excess of what was actually done? — A. I gave him the captain's reports and the reports of the Inspectors. That is all I gave him. " Q. Did j'ou receive it in writing from Mr. Cloney ? — A. At tinieis, I did. Q. Can you explain how ^[artin Cor nolly got the inaed. Q. Did you stay with him in Buffalo ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. All the time he was there? — A. No ; 1 think it was on a Friday I went over and I returned the following Monday. Q. Was any arrangement made with him about his coming back ?— A. No, sir; no arrangement. Q. Did you not write to Martin P. Connolly, or telegraph to him, that the detectives were after him ? — A. That the detectives were after him ? Q. That somebody was looking for him ? — A. Yes ; I came home and read the Globe, and telegraphed him that W. R. Preston and Eichard Kimmitt were organizing a still hunt for him. That is the contents of that telegram. Q. Was it a telegram ? — A. 1 think it was a telegram. (}. Well, you did not know at all that ho was keeping out of the way? — A. I had rem! the Globe that morning. That was my first intimation. (^. He had never told you anything about it? — A. About him running away? Q. Or about his l)eing wanted hero ? — A. No ; I don't remember that he did. t^. You swear you learned that from the Globe, did you ? — A. Yes. Q. You swear that ? — A. Yes. Q. You saw that in the Globe, that Preston and Kimmitt were after him ? — A. We had been in Buffalo two or three days, and I had not read any Canadian papers. Q. That was in the Globe? — A. Yes. Q. Y'ou won't find it is in the Globe at all, if you found it? — A. I had read: " Where is Martin P. Connolly" in vor}- large letters. Q. But 3'ou went on to tell us they were organizing a still hunt ? — A. No, I beg your pardon. Q. All j'ou saw was "Where is Martin P. Connolly " ? — A. Y'es, sir. 692 64 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 Q. And you lonrnod thoy could not find Martin P. Connoll}'? — A. From infor- matinii I ffot from other partio« when I loturnod home. Q. From what party' — A. Preston's own tole^^rum from Hiitlalu — I road it. i.}. You said from other parties. Wore tiiere any other parties in St. Catharines who told 3'ou ? — A. There was a teloi^ram from I'rostnn to a t^entleinan named McMahon. and tlie telegram read : " Cannot find Martin in ilatl'aio. Look to iiu'"; that is I thiidc for information to look to myself Q. Yes? — A. I had read that telegram which was handed to me. (i. Were thoy at your house in St. Catharines inquiring for him ? — A. Xo. Q. Did anybody cn(]uire in St. Catharines from you ? — A. Yes, I think so. (}. Who?— A. I really could not tell. Q. Did you tell whore he was? — A. I don't know whether I did or not. Q. Did you tell them ho was in Buft'alo?— A. Yes. Q. What did you tell them ? — A. 1 told them that Martin was in Butfalo. Q. That is what you told them, who was it now? — A. My own family. (^. They are not the persons you referred to a moment ago as having enrjuireid he telegraph you that he was coming'/ — A. Xo. sir. Q. Then the first j-ou saw of him after you left him in Buffalo was in your own house in St. Catharines? — A. Yes. Q. What time of the day ? — A. In the evening, I think. Q. Well, was it? — A. In the evening. Q. Did he tell you then he was wanted heie 'i — A. Y'e?, sir. (J. Did he tell you that Connolly had telegraphed for him? — A. Yes. Q. And that he was going back '? — A. Y'cs, sir. Q. And that is the first you ever know about his being wanted before the ('ommittee ? — A. The first I can swear to, sir. s. I ' Mr. A. GoBEU.. Deputy Minister of Public Work*, recalled. Bij Mr. Tarte : Q. Y'ou could not find a telegram sent by Sir Hector Langevin in 1883 to Mr. Mctireevy? — A. Xo, sir. Q. I'ou could not find any telegram sent by Sir Ilectoi' Langevin in 1884 to the M.P.'s for Victoria ? — A. Xo, sir. Q. Y'ou could not find any telegram sent by Mr. McGreevy to Sir Hector Langevin ? — A. No, sir. "Q. Have you got another Order in Council, dated 15th Decemlier, 1882. re Graving Dock at L^vis? — A. I have an Order in Council. Xo. 38213, of the 14th ()93 IMlh t i ; . ; t t 1 1' 1 WA H ! 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 December, 1882. The 15th is the date on which it was received at the Department. The Order in Council is as follows : (Exhibit "X 13.") "Cektipied Copy of a Report of a Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by Hi>> Honour the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General on the nth December, 1882. "On a Memorandum, dated 7lh December, 1882, from the Minister of Public "Works, stating that a communication was received on the 5th instant from tho Harbour Commissioners at Quebec, requesting to be authorized to refund to the contr.'ictors for the Graving Dock at Lquimalt graving duck. " I have re-measured the v.'ork in accordance with the instructions of tlio Honourable the Ministc- of Public Works, as conveyed to me in your letter of the 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Cth inst., and have based the aocoinpanying estimate upon such re-measuroments, allowing tor the increasetl quantities of stone and rubble masonry anil deducting for the consequently reduced quantity of brick work and concrete, and I tind that the sum thereby added to the estimate to the ;{lst ult. is §23,444. U5. " I have the honour to be, ttir, " Your obedient servant, "W. BENNETT, " Hon. J. W. Trutcii, C.M.G. " Victoria." Q. Ibllowa ' Resident Engineer." Here is another letter, which [ must ask you to read ? — .\. It reads as (Exhibit " AI4.") " Chief Engineer's Office, "No. 12327. "Ott.vwa, 24th November, 1S54. " Subject, Esquimalt (Iraving Dock. "Sir, — Herewith I transmit for your use and guidance a copy of the contract entered into between the Department and Messrs. Larkin, Connolly A: Co. fjr the completion of the Graving Dock at Esquimalt. "The plans referred to in the contract will remain on record in thir- Depart- ment, and I may state that they are those which were sent by yourself previous to the first letting of this work, together with those prepared by Mr. Bennett, showing the position and amount of work done, and numbered 13, 14 and 15 — see page 20 of sjiecitication. "You will note that itetn 13* in the tender is for rubble masonry backing. " In determining the seveial amounts of the tenders received for this work, they were prepai'ed so as to show the cost of completion using concrete (items 11, 12, 13), and using rubble backing (item 13i), and as in all cases it was found that the use of rubble backing would increase the cost of completion, it has been deciiime year for the Esquimalt Dock? — A. I will have to look for it, it is a question of accounts. <.i. And will you kindly not forget the question I put to you about the draw- back in 1885 on the Graving Dock at L^vis, and bring that with you to-morrow if you can? — A. I cannot tind it; I have been looking through the synopsis of the papeis of the L^vis Graving Dock, and cannot find anything. Q. Then will j^ou look and see if there is anj' drawback on the feritish Columbia Dock — I find in the private papeis traces of a di-awback ? — A. 1 have been looking through the papers, but cannot tind it. i. Will you search again — it is in the books of Larkin, Connolly & Co. ? — A. Of course I will look. Q. Will you road this paper and file it, please? — A. It reads: (Kxhibit "D14.") " Larkin, Connolly <.S; Co., Contractors, Quebec Harbour Tmprovement.s. "Quebec, Oct. 30, 1886. " A. GoBEiL, Esq., "Secretary, Dopt. of Public Works, Ottawa, Can. "Dear Sir, — As the Graving Dock at Esquimalt, B.C., has been completed for some time we would ask j'ou to release our securit}*, and also pay us balance lUio on Contract, or as large an amount as j'ou can allow us on account of same, as we are much in need of funds at present. " Please forward amounts to us at Quebec instead of to B.C., as formerly. " Yours mo.>>t respecltuily, "LARIvIX, CONXOLLY & CO. "C." Then there is the report of Mr. Perley. Q. Read that, too? -A. Then there is the report of Mr. Perley, on the back as follows: " I have alreaih' recommended that a paj-ment of §2.1,000 account of drawl)ack in hand be paid to 5lessrs. Larkin. Connollj'^ & Co. — and I have now to lecommend that their security be returned. Any pa\'ment in settlement of the contract must remain until a final estimate has been rendered bv Mr. Trutch. " n. F. PEULKY. "2-lI-8(J." *i. Can you find a letter from .Afr. Ennis of the 31st October, 1884, Xo. 28528. Allusion is made in that very letter to a private note that Mr. Larkin has sent to Mr. Ennis. I would like very much to have that information? — A. Not a private note ? Q. Yes, my information is it relates to an important matter? — A. I could not produce Mr. Ennis' private notes; he has been dead five or six years. Q. Enquire if that private note is in Mr. Ennis' papers? — A. There are none of Mr. Knnis' papers in the Department. When ^Ir. Knnis died, five or six years ago, all those papers wore sent back to his family. Q. Who has his papers now? — A. I cannot toll. I have not the slightest know- ledge; the papers were sent to his wife, I .suppose. I have not the slightest know- ledge where they are, I was not Secretaiy at the time. Q. Do you tell me that all ^Fr. Ennis' private papers are with his family? — A. The only thing I toll you is that before I was appointed Secretary, and two or throe days after Mr. Ennis' death, his son came over to the room ^Ir. Knnis had occupied. 1 was Acting Secretary and I told him " anything that belongs to your father. t:ike it away, whatever it may be." I dont know what they tuok away. I presume they took away ))rivate papers if there were any. I don't know whether there were any, but ju»rha])s there were. 697 ! :l- i'l ! I ' 54 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 ^{1 Lt !l 5 -*i ) I It if 11 Mr. Tarte. — I shall be obliged to ask for an order to have all these papers now in your po8sess»...i from Mr. Ennis produced. I have got here I may say a copy of a pretty important paper which would indicate the very entries we have gone through, begun at that time, and 1 want brought here ail the papers written by Mr. Ennis or bearing his signature. This is a confidential copy ot a document that we know exists. It indicates just the basis of the partnership we have seen all through here. In this it is suggested that an outside party must be taken in with them, that the Engineers should be changed, and all that sort of thing we have gone through ; and I believe it would be most importa.it for us to have the copy here now. I suspect the copy is now in the Department of Public Works. I am not in a position to state that it is there now, but it has been in the De}iartment. Mr. Osi.er took a note of the document and promised that a search would be made for it. Mr. Tarte — I would like to put in the confiilential estimate made by Mr. Bennett as to the cost of Graving Dock for the benefit of Mr. Trutch. It is of the 3rd Januarj', 1885. It is as follows : (Exhibit "E14") " Confidential. •• Excjixeer's Office, '•EsQt'iMALT, B.C., ;^rd January, 1885. J " Sir, — I have th" honour to submit to you a comparison between our estimate of the cost of completing the Esqiiiinalt graving tlock and Messrs. Larkin, Connolly & Co.'s teider for the same. Om- Kstiinatt'. Larkin, Ci'imolly & Cd.'s Ti'iultr. Bill No. 1, Excavations, i^c. 8 20,725 00 8 31,223 S5 •• No. 2, Concrete 8 31.822 TO 147.52-t 00 •' No. 4, Masonry '121,472 80 !l!»,122 .30 Cement 84.762 00 238.057 50 240,640 30 " No. 3. Brickwork 51.800 40 72,785 50 •' No. 5, Timberwork .... -^.595 08 16,006 53 " No. 6, Ironwork 21.116 46 12.625 85 C(mtingencies... 15.0tl0 00 S355,2'J5 34 §370.348 03 ••In looking over Messrs, Larkin, Connolly & Co.'s tondei^, I notice that in item 6 the price, §2.50 per cubic yard for tunnelling in rocic for culvests, is very low. "Since it lias been decided to use concrete backing instead of rubble masonry, item J3^ will be struck out and item 14 should read thus, "5 to 1 lubble Portland cement concrete around and under bollards, cN;c." Item 15 should read thus: •' 3 to 1 tine Portland cement concrete 6 in. thickness on top surface, cS:c." Item 16 should read thus: "3 to 1 tine Poiiland cement coneretr, 4 inches in thickness, as paving to surface of quays, kv." Item 20 should read tl as: " 5 to 1 rubble cement in inner arches to back of walls and under stairs, \c." Item 21 should read thus: •'ditto to a radius of 24 feet, &c." •' Prices for items 14, 15, 16. "JO, 21 require readjustment in consequence of con- crete being u>ed instead of rubble masonry. " Two items ai'e omitted and should read as tollow>: '• Item 30a, 3 to 1 dodo in arches at backs of recesses in caisson chamber 18 ins. thick and to a radius of 5 feet at per' cubic ^-ard." •'Item 30b. 3 to 1 do do arches over recesses in side walls of caisson chambers, 17 in. thick and to a radius of 3 feet at per cubic yard." " Prices are required for these two items. " Price is required tor item HO. 698 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. IS'^l " I may remark the price tor brick work generally seems high, while the price for maintenance and romoval of cotter dam staging and wharf (item 300) is absurdly low; our estimate for this was 812,000, or four times as much as the contractors bid. "The contractors seem to havp made a mistake in price of item 28'), 15 cents eai'h is a ridiculous price for three wrought iron hinges six feet long, nix inches wide, one inch thick. •'In working out Latkin, Connolly & Cp's tender for the sake of comparison with our estimate, I put the following rates to the following items : Item 14 at per cubic yard 8 8.50 do 15 superficial do 10.00 do l(j d'> do 10.00 do 20 cu do 8 50 do 21 iU. do S 50 do :M)a do do 18.00 do 806 do do IH.OO do !I0 do foot 1.00 "It would have been preferable had a copy of the s]^Qciticaiioii first printed been iittacheil to the contract, as in that no mention is made of rubble masonry backing. " I have the honour to be. Sir, " Your obedient servant, •' W. BENNETT, " Resident Ew/ineer. '• Hon. J. W. Trutch, C. M. G., " Victoria.'' Kstimate made by Messrs. Kinipple iS: Morris as to cost of completing Dock at Ksquimalt was also tiled and marked (Exhibit '• Fl-1.") I ( Jill il " Mr. St. Georoe Boswem. re-called. By Mr. Geofrion : i}. Will you tell us who wore the Inspectors on the different public works that were executed in the Harbour at (Quebec since their inception? — A. H.J.Milne, Richard, Verrault, Labb^, Dick, Brunei, Germain, Pelletier, Lachance, and Sample. I tliiidv those are the names as far as I can remember. Q. Of course, they wore not all employed at the same time? — A. As far as I remember those were all who were :it any time connected with the work. Q. Cnn you say who were the Inspectors in the season of 1887 ? — .\. I wouUl like to look at the books. There were three dredging Inspectors — Pelletier, Brunei and Germain. Dick, ^lilne and Labb^, I think wore Q. I mean only dredging Inspectors -A. The dredging Inspectors were Pelle- tier. Germain and Brunei. Dick may have done a little of that work. Sometimes when one man was awa}' he would go on. Q. Off and on, I snppose? — A. When a man was away he used to go on. <^ You have brought their returns with you, I suppose? — A. I have. Q. Did you put them in the hands of the Hngineers now at work ? — A. Yes, the}' are all in their possession. Q. Did 3'ou prepare out of those returns from the Inspectors the ■stuteineiits for .July and August for 1887? — A. I did. Q. Have you that statement here? — A. I havf. Here is the actual working time of the dredges" Sir Hector" and "St. Joseph," during the month of August, 1887. This is taken fiom the Inspector's books. I have also the same thing for Jul}-, 18S7. (^. By these two reports, two ilredges appear to have been at work? — A. Two j that is all. 0!tl) !l ' i ' , !■: . ! 1 fill r\ 54 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 54 H i'j 1 Q. Dining the day time? — A. Day work. (}. Will you give the results tbr each dredge during the month of July — the quantity? — A. In July, 1H87. the dredge "Sir Hector," when Germain was inspecting it, did work 149 hours and 41 minutes; while Brunei was on board, 128 hours. The dredge "Si. Joseph," with Inspector Pelletier on board, 276 hours and 35 minutes. Those are lor July. Q. Will you give in connection with this time the number of yards reported ? — A. The total amount returned for July, 1887, was 107,644 cubic yards. (f. For the two dredges? — A. For the two dredges. (Statement filed as Exhibit "G 14.') (/. Xow. give the number of hours for the month of August that the dro Iges were at work? — A. In August, the " St. Joseph," with Inspector Pelletier on board, 288 hours and 27 minutes. The dredge "Sir Hector," with Inspector Germain on board. 281 hours and 55 minutes; wiih Inspector Brunclle,68 hours and 35 minute*. Q. And the number of yards returned was? — A. The number of yards returned was 106,737. (Statement filed as Exhibit " H 14.") Q. Did you notice whether they were all at 35 cents a yard ? — A. Yes, at 35 cents, Q. Did j'ou ever become aware that some of these Inspectors have been receiving monev from the contractors? — A, No, ij. You never were informed of that? — A, Never. (]. Did you ever become .-iware that they were doing work for the contractors during the time the^^ were under your orders? — A. No. Q. Of conrse you wei'c not aware thoj- ever did any work, or if they did it was never with your consent or permission ? — A. No. Q. Were these inspectors employed by the Commission, undei- your orders, dur- ing the o.inter ? — A . No ; there was one of them employed one winter at Point L^vis, sounding, Q, When was it? — A, I think that was in 1885, or somewhere about then. Q. Did you make any surve}' of the basins and ditt'erent places where the dredging was done in the harbour, since the woik has been suspended? — A. Yes. Q, Will you give to the Committee the re.sult of your survey ? — A, In what way, l^. As to the (lepth — what was to be the depth, according to the contracts, of tho tidal basin? — A. Tho depth of the Tidal basin, I think, as you will see in the con- tract, was for 25 or 26 feet, but it was never graded down to that, as appropriation was exhausted. Q. There was not enough monej' ? — A . No, not enough money. Q. So b}- the survey you made yourself satisfied the work was not completed? — A. No ; there are places where there is not 26 feet, but it is down to :i5 feet. 1 could show you the exact soundings if you wish it. Q. Wiil^'ou kimily show it? — A. This plan produced shows the depth down to a grade of between 25 and 26 feet, some of it deejier. On shoal places you can see soundings down to between 23 and 23^^ feet. Bij Mr. Tarfe : Q, What is the actual average depth of the Dock, that is to say, what kind of a ship could go safely into the Tidal basin now? — A, A ship drawing 25 feet of water. Q. Could go sal'elj- ? — A, Yes. Q. At every spot ? — A. At every spot excepting immediately along this wall here (indicating the chart), as the bottom of the cribs was only sunk to 24 feet thi-y could not dig away as deep as at other places. Bij 31): Edijar : Q. I think you said it was only some 23 feet deep in some places? — A. Sol did. Q. Well, how can a ship drawing 25 feet go in there? — A. That would notattcct the ship. A ship can go into it because it is all soft water will go right aloni,' in the mud. 700 A ship drawing 25 feet ol kno' 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 By the Chairman : Q. It is only mud ?— A. That is all. Q. No boulders? — A. Oh, no. Bij Mr. Tarte : Q. i>o you know what the draught of the ''Carthaginian" is? — A. I don't know. By Mr. Edgar ; Q. If a ship drawing 2.5 feet of water went in there, in some places she would have to root through two feet of mud at the bottom ? — A. Well, it is a very small spot and quite soft. Q. At some places ? — A. Yes, sir. By Mr. Tarte .- Q. IIow many thousand yards of dredging would be necessary to finish the basin? — A. Well, I have not made a calculation. Q. In round figures? — A. I would not hazard an opinion at ail without calculating; it would not be much. Q. It would not be much ? — A, It is a matter of just sweeping over. Q. Of bottoming?— A. That is all. Q. Was there any bottoming done ? — A. Yes; the dredges had been over there once or twice. Q. But still there are spots ? — A. Still there are spots ; you see them on the plan. Q. AV^hat is the extent of those spots, about how much? — A. Oh, I could not say. I would not for the sake of these spots ever attempt to go over the whole of it, and attempt to clean it. Q. You would leave the basin as it is? — A. I would leave it as it is there; yes. Q. Are you aware that the contract of 1882 jirovided from :^6 feet deep of dredging? — A. That is, as far as I remember, from 25 to 26 deep. Q. No. — A. Well, the contract will speak for itself; I forget what it is. Q. The contract has not yet been completed, then? — A. Well, the money has been finished. ^. How much money has been spent on that Tidal basin for dredging? Can you give us a statement ? — A.. I can if you give time to prepare it. Q. To-morrow can yon ? — A. No. Mr. Osi.EB. — It is in the Accountant's report. First Report. (Appendix No. 2.) By Mr. Mills {BothcelV) : <^. What was the depth of this basin before the dreiiging contract was let ? — A. The first dredging contract? (I. Yes. — A. It was a little above, in most places two feel above high water. liy Mr. Edijar : (^. Are you in a position to make a calculation for us, having regard to what has been done, to shew the amount which was necessary' to do after the first contract was lot ? — A. r have made a calculation, but it is a great deal a matter of Judgment. The contract was paid for by scow measure; it is a question of scow expansion after you measure it in place. Mr. Boyd made allowance of a third for expansion, and 1 see Mr. Kennedy does the same thing. Taking that as a basis, I have made a calculation here. The quantify measured in place was for the Cross-wall, 2<)7.''^05 cubic yards ; for the Tidal harbour, 1,000,020 yards ; for the Wet dock, 824,:J0.t yards ; the total place measurement was 2,092,730 cubic j-ards. Out of this amount Moore and Wright weie paid for 518,427 cubic vards. 701 ' t \\ m ill Hi ■r I 1* ■" I ■ i j , t m 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 \i\ By Mr. Edgar : Q. That is in scow? — A. I am reducing this to scow measurement. Q. Tliis is all reduced ? — A. No. The 2,092,730 cubic yards are measured in place. Q. And the 518,427 you have brought into place measui-e ? — A. Eeduced, yes. »So that the amount that Larkin, Connolly & Co. should have done, 1,574,303 cubic yards. Thej' were actually paid for 1,877, H59 cubic yards. Out of this some work done at the head of the basin is not included in this calculation, amounting to 230,- 609 cubic yaids, leaving a balance of 1,<»47,250 cubic yai'ds as what they were paid tor, against 1,574,303. That is, there is a discrepancy of 72,000 yards, covering a period of about seven years, I suppose. Jiy Mr. Tarte : Q. Bid you ever hear any complaints from ship-owners, whose ships were in the hasin, al)out the depth of the basin? — Yes. Q. When? — A. There was one ship, I think it was the summer before last, and that it was the " Beaconsfield " which giounded when she was lying in here (pointing to chart). She was drawing twenty-tivo feet of water. The Assistant Engineer had reported ihat it was down to grade but when the " Beaconsfield " grounded 1 made some soundings and found that there was a bank there. Q. What was the actual depth over wheio the " Beaconsfield " grounded ? — A. Eighteen feet. Q. The ship has been lost since ? — A. No. l^. Are you now in a position to tell us if it is not trne that there are a number of deep holes in the basin ? — A. In the Tidal harbour ? No. •.^. In the Wet basin ? — A. In the Wet basin there are places that areagood deal down below grade. Q. How much deeper than fifteen feet below low water ? — A. There are jjlaces five feet below. Q. Are you sure that there are not places deeper than that? Did you make !i careful surve}'? — A. Yes. Q. Are there many deep holes like that in the Wet basin ? — A. Not many. Q. Deeper than fifteen feet below low water ? — A. Yes. Q. Where do j'ou find these s])0ts generallj' ? — A. In the middle of the basin. Q. Larkin, Connolly iV Co. woie paid b}' the scow? — A. They were. Q. By the yard ? — A. So much per yard scow measurement. Q. They are not paid, as you call it, in the solid measurement? — A. No. Q. What is the difference between solid measurement and by the scow? — A. 1 have said that is a matter of judgment. Nobody can tell, as a matter of fact, what it is. Mr. Kennedy, the Harbour Kngineerof Montreal, takes it at about forty per cent. ; and Mr. Boyd in his calculation took it at one-third, and I think that is somewhere about correct. Sotiiat a yard in place would make one and one-third yards scow measure. It was on that assumption that this calculation I have read out was based. (^. When you are doing it by the scow it would be greater profit? — A. That depends on the price. Q. At the same price ? — A. No doubt about it. Jii/ Mr. German: Q. How many yards weie Larkin, Connolly feet too deep? — A. Xone of it is too shallow ; some of it is 5 feet too deep. By Mr. Tarte : Q. Did you make any wiitten suggestion or just reported it ? — A. Xo, I merely i^poke of it at the tinn-. Q. To Mr. I'erley? — A. Yes; the soundings were shown on the ])lan. ^i. All the Hnginoers on the start' there knew that the contract hod been made for 15 feet below water; you had the contract before you? — A. Ceitainly. Q. And knowing that these contractors, Larkin, Connolly & Co. were dredging at 20 feet, that is to say 5 feet more than they were obliged to do, you allowed tliein to go on ? — A. Yes. Q. You tell us you made a report to Mr. Perley ? — A. I did not say it was to Mr. Perley, I siiid the JCngineer. Q. But it was Mr. Perley? — A. You are right; it was Mr. Perley. Q. Did you make a report to him? — A. Yes. Q. ]\lore than one report? — A. I tlo not think so. All I remember is il rawing bis attention to the extra de2)th and telling him that I could not control the dredges unless I made this deduction. He said no. that it was an advantage to the Harbour Commissioners to have a greater depth in the basin. Q. But they were paiil for 15 feet? — A. Certainly. W he had asked for 20 feet they would have got a bigger price. *l. They were paid for all the dredging? — A. They were paid for all the dredg- ing they did. Jii/ Mr. Edghr : (i. In that quantity that you mention of 2,0112,730 cubic yards, being the total taken out, did you calculate arriving at that to a depth of 15 feet below water, or did you take it down to the ditferent depths? — A. This is what is arrived at from the soundings made. Before the work was begun and after it was finished. i}. Down to 15 feet or more? — A. Xo. down to actually what they did. Jii/ Mr. Kir kpat rick ; Q. Were they paid tlie same price for dredging at 20 feet as they were for 15 feet? — A. Yes. sir, 703 ■m I I i i i-r ii'i I Hi.: " 11 ; '1 >'4 >» 1 > ji S ' M'] 1 • . mr ''^5 tS a t ■m j; , m 41 li i 54 Victoria, Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 Q, They got no greater price ? — A. No, »ir. Hi/ Mr. Tarte : Q. Have you got any idea of the dredging that remains to be done in the Tidal basin? — A. Very little remainH to be done. It is satisfactory as it is, that is, unle-H they approach the wharf a little too close, as there is a bank there that has never been touched, but as far as the dredging goes it is as low as requisite for prac- tical puriioses. Q. The contract of 1887 provided for an expenditure of $100,000, for that season? — A. Yes. (}. Are you aware that more than $150,000 has been spent during that season ? — A. I am. Q. Wore you authorized to exceed the authorized amount ? — A. Yes. Q. By whom? — A. I could not say without Jooking at my letters. I reported to the Harbour Commissioners the fact that the amount hod been exceeded. It may have been to Mr. Perley that I made my report. (.1. Will you look for those letters and bring them with you to-morrow ? — A. Of course I can only bring the letters I wrote myself. Q. Did you get an authorization for the exti-a dretlging? — A. I must have, otherwise I would not have gone on. Q. What is the exact amount that is made in 1887? Did you keep special books tor dredging matters? — A. I can tell you that by looking up the estimate books. Q. From whom did you got the report of the diedging ? — A. From the Assistant Engineer. Q. Who was the Assistant Engineer? — A. The one who made up the report was .Mr. Charles McGreevy. Q. Who added up the i-eports? — A. He took the Inspector's books and added up the quantities and checked the additions in them and sent in the report. One is already tiled here. Q. Then you have nothingyoutself to do with the actual work of the Inspectors ? —A. No. Q. Nothing at all?— A. No. By Mr. Mills (Bothwell) : (I. How far does that portion of the basin that is undredged extend out from the wall ? — A. This wall Crefciring to plan) is 150 feet long. A ship drawing 25 feet of water can lie alongside the Louise Embankment, standing 10 feet from the wall. By Mr. Tarte : Q. Have j'ou got a maikcd chart for the Tidal basin, showing the spots deeper than 15 feet ?— A. No. Q. Can you give us the estimated amount of those spots ? — A. It would take a long time to do it. Q. Well, the average ?— A. If I did it at all, I would like to do it right. Q. Are those holes numerous ? — A. They are not holes. There is perhaps (jiio portion of the basin 20 feet, and then another portion 15 feet. By Mr. Lister ; Q. Did the contractors insist on going down to a depth of 20 feet in spite of your wishes? — A. The Inspectors were able to control the depth. They had gauges with them, and if they saw the dredge dip too low they would tell them to stop and move ahead. Q. I suppose they carried out the instructions ? — A. I suppose they could not see the figures all the time. Q. Is it more expensive to go down 20 feet than 15 feet ? — A. Yes. 704 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Well, how iis it the contractors wont below 15 foot ? — A. I don't think it wa* the tontructors ; I think it waa the tiredij;cM wore racing; the man who took tho most out wan to get a premium at the enil of tho season, ami when they got into a s|)ot they did not like to got out of it. Q. A Hoft H\ ot ? — A. No ; not that. Tho work was pretty much tho same. The- tide i^ always rising and falling, and uiilesH a man is reading his dipper all tho time» he easily gets 2 or 3 loot too low. Q. The Inspectors would know all about it ? — A. It was tlioir duty to know it, Q. They did not report to you 'f — A. They never reported anything. Tho Assistant Engineer took the soundingr?, or I took th<>m myself. By Mr. Tarte : Q, Are you quite sure there are not places deeper than 20 feet ? — A. I will give you the plan of tho exact soundings, and you can look for them yourself. Q. I want it from you ? — A. I will look the information up. If I can Hnd places deeper, I will let you know. By J/r. Amyot : Q. Who do you say was the Assistant Engineer ? — A. Charlo!- McGreovy. By Mr. Tarte ; Q. Was it his duty to see to the dredging ? — A. It was. Q. With the Inspectors ? — The Inspectors were under him. By Mr. Henry : Q. Have you made up tho averago number ot lOurs the dredges worked per day? — A. Yes. By Mr. Lister : Q. What did you take otf the 230,000 yjirds for? — A. I made a calculation, taking the sounding before tho work was begun and atter it was finished, and these 230,000 yards were in a part of the basin I ha' no soundings for, so 1 did not include that at all in the calculations. By Mr. Henry ; Q, I understood you to say you had made up tho average number of hours worked by each of these dredges per day ? What are the figures, say for instance during July, 1887 ? — A. I gave you the total number of hours ; the averago is about 10 hours a day. By Mr. Geoffrion : Q. Would it be 10 hours ? — A. It might be a little more, in Avill show it. By Mr. Tarte : The papers just put Q. Can you tell us if only 35 cents were paid for the dredging done by tho con- tract of 1887?— A. Well, I will have to look it up I think. They Avere all paid 35 cents I am sure. Q. But is it not a fact that some dredging was ])aid for at more than that figure, especially in 1887 ? — A. To what are you alluding now? Q. 1 am alluding to tho dredging made by the contract of 1887 in tho Wet basin ? — A. Speaking from memory, there was nothing that was paid beyond 35 cents. 705 1—45 1 ( m\\ 54 Victoiia. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 m i ■^ By Mr. Geofrion : Q. Tliere waa siu'ciul ilred^iiiij for which we Hml 50cont»? — A. What year was thnt ? Mr. Tartk.— In 1889. A. I ilon't romcmbiT anything in 18H!>, Q. You will look, please, and huo if I an» wrong? — A. That was not the 35 cent contract. H. There wan no other contract made? — A. Certainly. (/. What contract ? — A. It was a special arrangotneni by which they wore to dig down to 15 feet below low water, and when they went into bottoming of the tidal harbour, they did not go into it with the sunio price. ii. Tlieii" ci>ntract was not exactly that way because I read in Mr. Perley's let- ter '• I want only one price, which must cover the dredging to any depth required ? " — A, Not exceeding. Q. It may not exceed ? — A. Well, it may not. /ii/ Mr. (feoff rioH ; i}. It was giving an average? — A. That is a new interpretation of the contract, anil the understanding was it was 35 cents to cover any dredging from the surface of the ground down to 15 feet. <^. It was the understanding? — A. Certainly. Q. A clear understanding? — A. Certainly; that was the way I alwaj's under- stood the contract. <^. That the contract did not oblige them to dredge lower than 15 feet? — A. Certainly not; :ind when they went into bottoming the Tidal harbour, it was a dif- ferent atrangement. It did not come under their contract. Q. Did 3-ou understand that from Mr. Porlc}', himself? — A. The work was jiut into my bands to carry out and that is the way I carried it out. % Mr. Tarte : Q. We want to know that because the letter is quite opposite to that. Have you aii\' knowledge that some of the dredging material was thrown into the crib of the Cross-wall? — A. Ui-cd for tilling, yes. Q. Can you give us the quantity that %va8 thrown there? — A. Into the Cross- wall ? Q. Yes, in 18S7 ? — A. 1 shall have to look it up. Q. And give it to us to-morrow? — A. I cannot do it to-morrow. You have already given me two or three weeks' work, and I have been working on Sundiiy and every night. Q. 1 want to know what ([uantity was thi'own into the Cross-wall? — A. I have here the two plans with the measurements. These are the soundings, taken betore and after. Bij Mr. Osier : Q. Was the measuiement by the scow or tub measurement of the yards of dredged mateiial always at the same advance from the beginning, or was there a change fn the percent:ige added? You take your yard in situ and take jour yanl in the box and you say you allow 381 per cent, more ? — A. That is only to make a calculation to check the account returned by the Inspectors. The contractors were paid scow measurement. You measured the scow when it was full and ascertained that it would hold so many cubic j'ards. Q. Did you pay on the contents of the scow, or did you only use that measure- ment to check the quantities in situ with the scow ? — A. So much per scow. Q. Did you use that advance of 33;^ per cent, to check your scow measurement with that//i situ? — A. Yes; but the contractors would have nothing to do with that. 70G 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. You did not pay tlio contractors by the in situ meaBUrcment with the ud- vanco ? — A. No. Q. hut by the cubical contonts of tlic hcow that has been meawurud V — A. Yos. liy Mr. Tarte : Q. The scow in supposed to contain so much ? — A. I measured tlio ticO'.^N ni}'- selt'. They hold so much when full and the number tilled every day is returned by the Inspector, and lie deducts so miu'h, as I can show you by the books. liij Mr. Fitzpatrick : Q. After the report of the Inspector is made do you use this perconta^'o to check their measurement ? — A. Yes. % Mr. Tarte : Q. You had no business to see if the scows wore full or not ? — A, I had nolhinu; to do with that. i4m"'l^ tn The Committee then adjourned. House op Commons, Wednesday, 2!ith July, 1S91. The Committee met at U).'M a.m. ; Mr. Girouard in the Chair. Iiivestitjation into certain circumstances and statements made in connection M'ith the tenders and contracts respecting the Quebec Harbour Works, etc., resumed. Mr. St. Ueoroe Bosweli/s examination resumed. By Mr. Tarte : Q. Will you point out to us and count the spots on which there are not twenty- three feet of water (referring to the chart) ? — A. That is the only spot. Q. Only one spot? — A. Only one spot. Q. I speak of the whole Itasin ? — There are places in hero (pointingto the lower left hand corner) where there is only one foot or two feet of water. That is in the corner where there never has been any dredging. Thegioundis us it was originally. (^. Will you count the spots on which there is loss than tweiity-tivefeet? — A. As I told 3-ou yesterday, these marks indicate the places that are loss. Q. Count them ? — A. About forty-nine, somewhere about there. That is not absolutely correct. Q. There are forty-nine spots on which there is not twenty-five feet of water ? — A. Yes. Q. What is the depth of these spots? — A. Between twenty-three and twenty- four and a-half feet. Q. What would be the average size of these spots? — A. — They vary. Some are twenty feet long and ten feet wide. They are uU sizes. liy Mr. Edijar : Q. Do those white lines around thorn indicate the size? — A. Yes. Th-^re is nothing in any of those places to prevent a ship drawing twenty-four feet of water from getting through. By Mr. Tarte : Q. I find in one of Mi'. Perley's reports the following : '•' During the season Just closed the Tidal basin has been enlarged to nearly its full dimensions, and a uniform depth of twenty-five foot at low water has been obtained." How can you explain that? — A. I should * ail that very nearly a uniform depth. 707 i!' i::t; i! ml '•i ! : 1 , . ,1 I r 1 :,!'' ' w 54 Victoria. Appendix {No. 1.) A. 1891 hi i'i '!' i I Q. Wlien there are forty-nine spots ? Do j'ou call that uniform? — A. Yes. Q. You have sii^ned a report la^'t year in which [ road this: " The outer orTidal liaibour, havinj^ an area of about twenty acres and a general depth of between twenty- six and twenty-seven feet of w.'ter at. low water, spring tides. " IIow canyon prove that that statement is true" — A. That is an extract from a publication made for commercial purposes. Il was not a report made to the IlarbouiOommissioners. It is not in the Harbour Commissioners' Report, but it is an extract from anot'ier document. Q. Js not this document in the t^uebec IFnibour Commissioners' JReport in 18'J0?— A. Yes. Q. And it is not true' — A. Yes, it is, I beg your pardon. AVhat does it say? Q. Twenty-six and twenty-seven feet ? — A. 1 say that ships have been in that basin drawing twenty-five feet of water, an(' i sny that that ])arapiilet was written for commercial purposes, and that is an extract from it put into the Harbour Com- mis.^ioners' Iteporl. Q. Is this not the Harbour Commissioners' Keport to be sent to the Ministers here? — A. No ; this was never meant for Lhat. Q. Bui the former part of the report? — A. I am not responsible for the furincr part. I am only showing how that was written. Q. Were you asked liy the Harbour Commissiou'jrs to make that report? — A. Yes; for that pamphlet. Q. Will you kindly put in the reports of the soundings made at your request in 188i> by Charles McGreevy that was put into your hands in 1881) about the Wet basin ?-^A. That is il. Q. I mean for the Wet basin. — A. This is the one (referring to the chart on the wall). Q. Will you kindly point out to us the sj)ots that are there under fifteen j ;et of water at low spring tide? — A. Hero are the remarks made by .Mr,. iMcGnovy whitli indicate the spots that are between seven and fifteen feet. Q. Are these spots indicating between seven and fifteen feet very broad? — A. They are right along the wall. Q. How large? — A. They are within five or six feet of the iVice of thu wall. As I said yesterday, along this wall the dredging was never intended to be more than ten feet lielow low water. (J. Can you point out the spots at which there are twenty feet, as you told us yesterday? — A. Here is a place here and another here. There are several. Q. What is the area covered by the «pots deeper than fifteen feet? — A. I caiuiut tell 3'ou, <^. Are there any spots deeper than '10 feet. Did you make the ^(nindinns yourself there ? — A. 1 have, yes. (^>. Then you are in a position to tell us? — A. Hero is one place (pointing to plan) 21 feet. Q. You will find some 2;{, I think? — A. Hero is one of 22^^ feet, three places of 22 feet, one of 2U, two of 22^, two of 2U, one of 22, two of 21"^, one of 21, two of 21, two of 21, tin 00 of 21. two of 21, one of 2U, two of 22, two of 21, one of 22, one of 24, one of 2-H, one of 2(a, one of 22^, three of 21, one of 22^, two of 22, one of 2U, two ui''2lh, one of 22'^, one of 21',',ono of 21, one of 22, one of 21, three of 21. (^. At!" y rate, the depth of the Wet basin varies from? feet to 24 feet, according to what v" have just said ? — A. f did not say the depth vai-ied from 7 to 24 feet. Q. You have just indicated HO ? — A. I say it is 5 feet at the face of the wall, whore it was nevei- intended to deepen nu)ie than 10 feet, but that was not the general depth of the basin. Q. There a great man}' more sp(>ts of 22 or 2,5 feet depth by what 1 see — ;ju.-t about the same thing everywhere ? — * . Yes. (^. Very we!!, then. Did you ever get orders, either from tli" Harbour Commi.->- siouers or from Mr. Terley, to allow Larkin, Connolly & Co. to dredge deeper than 708 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 15 feet, as per their contract? — A. As? I wiiil yestonlay, I had spoken to Mr. Porloy aliout their j^oing down deeper. Q. Did you inaive any report to the Harbour Commissioners? — A. No; in fact I did not know jt until it was tlone. It was never I'ojiorted to iiic until it was ovei'. Q. WIk'm did j'ou get the tirst knowledge that they were droilging deeper than 15 feet ?— A. I could not tell you that. Q. Had you made a report to Mr. Perley ? — A. I spoko to him verlially. T don't remomljcr wlien it was now, it may have been the fall of 1SS7, and it pi'obably was, <^. And yet the same kind of work went on in ISSS, and then you had t'ldl knowledge th.'il the contractors were dredging deeper than per their contract ? — A. Yes. (^. Vouknewit? — A. Yes. (J. You never reported that to the Harlioui t"*! mmissic ners ? — A. No. Q. You have licver reported that fact, so fuj. until to 'la}- ? — .\. I have .>idy reported it in so far as they have had a co])y of the ]iian of the soundings, by wh!ch to see tlie ile])th themselves. t^. You told U!* yesterday that in 18.^7 you liad sent a letter to the Harbour Commissioners warning them that §100,000 was spent, and that the works were going on, or something like that?— A. I said I had sent it to Mr. Perley or to tlie Uarbour (>emmission. Q. You were asked 3-esieniay to produce that letter. Have you got it ? — -A. I don't think I was, I don't Icnow who asked me. t^. 1 did. — A. 1 dill not hear you. 1 asked you to write down what you wanted, and I have got a memoramlum of what you asked for. (^>. You had better search for the letter. — A. Here is a letter to Henry !•'. I'erley, lOsq., Chief I'lngineer Puhlic Works Depai'tment. Ottawa. (j. What 's the date, ])lease? — A. August -tth. ISST, and the letter I'cads : — '• 1 have the honour to enclose you estimates for woik done on the (^Micliec Harbour woiks for the month ot.luly.and in doing so would draw your attention to tlie fact that the appropriation of .5100,0(10 t'or dredging lias been exjiended, with the c\ce])ti()n of 824..'>5.').-15. At the present rale of progress this amount will become due on oi' about 20th instant." Q. Ar,ddid you get a reply? — A. 1 could not tell you; i wil' have to go and look tor it, Q. Von will kindly l'>"k- foi' it, and give it to us this afternoon? — A. I will take a note of it. Q, Have you go' .Mi-. Bo3'd's Ijook or books ot dredging — he kept books? — A. Yes ; 1 In.ve them. (). Are tbev in the iiands of the I'lngineers ? — A. Vcs, they are with the I'.iigineers. il. You know his handwriting ?—.V Yes. (^. Will you take coinmunicalion of thi-* letter, and road the tii>t part ot it ? — A. It reads r f 1 '.A . ! O'^xhibit " KU.") "QaE»EO ILVRUOLR Woiiics, " Kniuxkkr's Oim'K'K., 2lrtb .Tune, lS8o. " To Messrs. Laukin, Cox.mu.i.v \: Co., Contractoi's, (^tuebcc. " Centi.emk.n, — Without in any way wishing to dictate to you how you should carr}' on your work, I beg to submit ibr your consid(>ral' jn the following notes which, I think, may give some suggestions as to the amount of work to be done and the time it will take to do il. All the work is estimated to be done between 1st .lune aad 1st Novcmbi'r. '■ The quantity ofdredging to bedone to complete the foundalionsof tho( 'ross-wall and bring the Tidal H.'isin to !' uiuf ■ 'P- depth of 25 feet at loiv water is, in round 709 i" i 1 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 1i < 1, numbers, about 200,000 cubit- viircls. As you di'edged 300,000 cub. yds. last year, you will doubtless be able to remove the 200,000 cub. yds. this season without diffi- culty, or at the rate of 40,000 cub. yds, per month. In the same way, 165,000 cub. yds. was yjut into the Louise Embankment last year, so that you can complete the rilling, which requires 140,000 cub. yds., or 2,800 cub. yds. per month, this season.'' This is a letter signed by John Edward Boyd, Engineer in charge. Bi/ Mr. Tarte : Q. Did you give permission to Mr. liUt'orce Langovin at any time to absent himself from duties on the Harbour works at (\)uebec to go and woi'k eisewere ? — A. I gave him permission to go on work at tln^ (fraving Dock, provided it did not interfere with his ordinary duties Q. Did you give tiotice to the Harbour Commissioners that you had given him that leave ? — A. No ; I ilid not. Q. How long has he been working on ;!>i' (fraving Dock at L^vis ? — A. I do not know. Q. Yon have no idea ? — A. 1 liave no idea. Q. Kor how long ditl you give him leave of absence ? — A. J did not give him leave of absence at all; 1 told him he could go, provided it did not interfere with his duties on the Harbour works. (). Was it by your order that he made an in(|uiry into the conduct of Captain Bernier ? — A. No. ii. Was it part of the work that he got leave to make thoi'o ? — A. No. What he went there to do was to build tho fence, 1 believe, for Mr. Coste. Q. Did anyone outside of Mr. Laforco Langevin ask you to send him there ? — A. Mr. Coste asked me if 1 would allow him to go. Q. Mr. Coste himself ?— A. Mr. Coste himself Q. Did he write to you ?— A. No ; it was personally. Q. Mr. Laforce Langevin stated yesterday that he has iieen working on the Graving Dock between throt and four months. l>oyou know if he has been absent longer than that ? — A. I do not know that ho was absent at all. Q. Was he on the Harbour works all the time during those four months ? — A. Certainly not ; he was there wlun he had work to do. (). How many hours a day would he he there ? — A. I cannot tell you ; 1 do not keep his uuil". (i. But you should know when he is there ? — A. I am responsible for the work. and when 1 find that the woi'k is not being done it is my duty to look after it. No one else lias an^'thing to say. Q. Has he been paid for these three or four monthw by the Harbour Commis- bioners? — A. Certainly. By Mr. Osier : <,». I have a few (|ne.-tions to jiut to you, Mr. Boswell, which are, if -•■^ssihlc, to lie answered in aid of the ( "ommittee of lOimineers. Were the plans that you identitied — the six sheets — the actual plans sent to (Quebec at the time of the letting of the con- tract for the construction of the ('ross-wall ? — A. That I couh.' not tell, 1 neversaw the plans before tho contrjictwas let. Those are the only plans that .Mr. Boyd, when he came to the otli* e, brought with him. Q. Were the plans fxiiibited to the contractors ? — A. 1 could not toll. Mi'. Boyd brought those ])lans with him after the contract was signed. Q. If you will look at the date of those plans yon will see that there must have been other plans. Two of those plans have a date subsequent to the contract? — A. Yes. Q. A year or so subsequent '.'' — A. Yes. . You have no other plans mi the office '.■' — A. None. (,>. And you never had anv other':*— A. No 710 I have not s('(..|i any other. l^m. 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Where are the detail plans made from time to time as the work progressed ? — A. They are all with the Engineers. Q. They have all been produced? — A. All, with the exception of a few small drawings. (I. Is there any plan showing the Ci-oss-wall, foundations, depths, kc, as actually constructed — that is to say, any plans of the work as finished ? Have they been ])reparcd? — A. The plans of the crib-work were drawn to a certain depth, and then the tiguies were put on foi- a depth as they art; now c<)mplete, so that the figures would not corri'sjiond with the scale of the plan. Q. Ynu ])ut figures on the six sheets? — A. Mr. Boyd did. Q. Showing the depth or any other measurement, anil that you must not be uuided by the scale, but by the figures? — A. Yes; by the figures. Q. A lid to that extent we arc helped as to the work that is finished ? — A. Cer- tainly. VoM can see the original figures have been erased and new ones jiut in. (^t. Were llie quantities I'cturned in the final estimate coni|iuted in acco.dance with the specilicatioM and schedules, or was there anj" change? — A. 1 do not i-now whii* scheiiules you refei' to. Q, The original contract schedules. My question is. were the ([uantities returned in 3'our final e>tiniate com|)Utcd in accoi'dance with the sjiecitications ai\d schedules, or was there any change ? — A. The ])lans were certainly cliange(l from the specifi- cation^ — changed altogether — but it is carried out in accnrdance with the figureil dimensions on the jdans, as far as they show the work. t^. Was there any change in making up the final estimate from the provisions of the speciticalions and estimates? — A. There have been so many changes that I cannot tell what was originally intended. Originally, apparently, there was a caisson with crii>s mly l-lh feet lieiow low water. Q. The principle 1 want to get at is whether the cril>-work was paid fnr ly the cubic yard? — A. (.'ertainly. (}. Was any deduction made from the cost of crib-work owing to the increased spacing of the cross timbers ? — A. No (^. Then there was increased spacing and no deduction ?—.V. Nodeduclion. (}. Were ailditions made to the crib-work (piantities to cover extra work on the cribs? If so. how is that shown in the estimate? — A. Yes. In the back of the large entrance crib, which was n:aile solid, a quantity of extra tindjer was measured and put into hollows and cuts. Tlien a sutticient number of cidjic yards f)f crib-work were added by Mr. l^oyd to make up this extra cost of timber. (}. JIow "is tbatshown in tlie estimate ? — A. Just as he ligiired it; somanyculiie yards (jf ci'ib-work> equivalent to the actual cost of the extra timber usecj, Q. Added for the timber? — A. Y'es ; so many cubic feet of timber at the con- tractor's price. That gave so many dollars, and he reduced that into cubic yards of crib-work. Q. Are there additions to the crib-work quantities to cover extra work ?— A. Yes; in that special instance. Q. Then you have crib-worU at so much per yard : there is a ci'ib built, which is so niany yards; there is extra work in it ; you add the price of the extra work to the crib, and then add extra yards instead of extra |)'ices? — Certainly ; and then at the junction of the Cross-wall and the Louise Knibanknient tiiere is a space of about () feet closed with ])i!es. That was allowed as crib-work. ti). Allowed as crib-work, although it was ])ile-work? — A. Yes, (}, To what extent is that? — it is (! feet long on one side and 4 feet on the other. I could not tell you how many yards. f July and August, 1887, and the number of hours of work done by two dredges during those particular months. "Will you kindly give us the same information for the months of .luly and August, 1886 — that is, thequantity of dredging taken out and also tho numbers of hours of work ? — A. Yes. Ihj _l/r. German ,• ii. It appears by the final estimates of this dredging that .55 cents per yard wa- paid foi- some bottoming. You say that was under another agreement? — Ve>. Q. What was that agreement? — A. The contract onlycompelled them, as I understand it, to dredge down to 15 feet below low water. This bottoming, which consisted of the taking away of some of these mounds that you see in there, the depth was generally brought down to 24 feet. When I reported that that work was required to be done I was told to ask the contnictors for a rate at which ihey would (io it. (^ Dredging 15 feet below low water includes bottoming? — A. That contract was lot in here (pointing to tho chart), and that was the grade Of the Ijiisin; imt this was in another basin, where the water was already 23 or 24 feet. (^ This was outside of any contract they had ])reviously entered into? — A. Certainly. Their contract existing at the time was dredging over tho surface of the ground 15 feet below low water, and if you wanted them to go deeper you coul I not compel them to do so under that contract. col thi of of| 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 ^\•;l■^ Q. Was this bottoming over ground that they hud pi-evioiiily dredged under contract ? — A. Yes. le to maUe a new con- tract for iio cents foi- tliat work. Tlie Ijottomiug they had in tlie otlier basins was at tiieir old contract prices — j^rices that iiad been al)olisiied. \Ve could not com- pel them to go in there, because theii- contract was finished, and tliey were written to and asked what they would do the work for. Q. J)o you know how many yards of work they did in bottoming up ? — A. 14,-15l'. Q. At 5.) cents ? — A. Yes. Q. Now, j'ou were in the Harbour works employ at the time the contract for the Cross-wall conti'act was let? — A. 1 was. Q. l)id you ever see the Engineer's estimate of the quantities in the Cros.s-wall made before the tenders were asked for? — A. Never. (^. Is that not usually done— an estinuite of the quantities unide, which iii a ])ri- vate document for the use of the Department jirior to tenders being called for? — A. As I have said, that work was ail done in Ottawa and 1 was in Quebec. I do not leally know what tliey did. i knew nothing until the contract was signed about it. (^. If that estimate was made it vas nuide here in the i)e])ai'tment in Ottawa? —A. Yes. Q. Did 3'ou ever compel Larkiii, ConnoU}* \' Co. to dredge deeper in the Wet basin than fifteen feet ? — A. No; never. Q. Did Mr. Perlev tell vou that ho ever compelled them to dredge deeper ? — -A. In the Wet basin? No. Q. I asked you yesterday for a statement of the ijuantities thrown, after 1SS7, in tiie Cross-wall. Will you give me them'' — A. In 188" there was ll,4tt7 cubic yards; in 1888, 13,713; in 1880,38,238. Bi/ Mr. Curran : t^. A report was shown to you at the opening of your examination, and in it you said there had been inserted some stateiients. the whole of which yoii had >igtK'd. but t'oi which you were not responsible, ^'o'l said that statement was t.-d^on from >ome document jirepared for commercial ])urposes ? — A. Yes. Q. .Some of us did not understand that. I want _\ou to explain what y.ni meant by commercial ])U r poses ?—.\. I got up the jiamphlef. sliowiiii:' the extent of the embankment and the de])th of water, lor si'iiding ii|) west ard to Liverpool to peo- )ile interested in shiiiidng and handling cargoes, in ortha" to tell them about the draft of vessels that could go into the basin. "■'\\:U extrac t was laki'ti out of tiiat re- jiort. All that report does is to guarantee that a >ini) cm go into that iiasin drawing a certain depth of water, but it does not say that you cannot find places with less. A ])ilot going in tbeie knows M'heie to place the ship. Q. You say th;it a vessel can be worlced in there drawing to the iepth men- tioned? — A. Yes; Imt you would not juit a ves-el drawing tw(>nty--even feet of watr- into a fdace where there wax just twenty-seven feet. ^ on would want scuiie w " 1. er her. iiut one of the Allan >teamers that ground Ml .i..-ie .tod did not "-round. i\ in the channel went Ih/ Mr. Tarte: . \Vliat is the name of that steamer? — A. 1 um of S2,00(Mvas sc apart by the firm of Larkin, Connolly i\: ('<>. in Marc i, 1888, to be paid to your faiiier, but that it was not paid to your father, but given to you to give to your hither. That statement was given in evidence. What do you say to it ? — A. I. nevei- receiveil it. (}. l>o you know anything of any such payment? — A. I know nothing of it. . Weie you ever spoken to b3- Nicholas or Michael Connolly with reference to ail}- such payment? — A. No, sir. (^. Or to any other payment? — A. No, sir. (i. Did any member of the tirm of Larkin, Connolly & Co. atany time approach you on the sidiject of a money ]iayment ?— No, sir. t^. Did you ever receive any money fiom an\- member of the Hrm of Larkin, Connolly & Co. ? — A. No, sir. Q. Did vou ever know of anv being I'eceived for you or for your father? — A. No, sir. (^. f am not confining my tpiestioii to M;irch, 1S8S, although that is the time suggested. I am covering all dates, either before or after. Do j'our answers apply for all the time you have been in the public service ? — A. All the time I have been in the pulilic service. (I. I have asked you as to money. Now, have you received unything of money value ? — No, sir. Q. Or been the means of transmitting such to your father? — A. No, sir. (^. Or keeping it for yourself ? — A. No, sir. //// Mr. German : Q. Have you a brother ? — A. T have a brother. /iff Mr. Osier : Q. Your brother is an invaliil ? — A. Yes. ' i]. Confined to his bed ? — A. Yes. Q. And for a number of yeais ? — A. Yes. <^>. How many years? — A. Over two. ^). Mctoro he was an invalid, what was your brother? — A. He was a bank clerk — ill the Hank- of Ottawa. . (}. A 'leinand note? — A. A demand note of C. X. Ai'nistrong. Q. Endorsed by anybody ?— A. By L. .T. ,1. I-Vbrook. (I. Railway contractor? — A, Eailway contractor. Q. J)o you know whether Mr. Kosbrook was connccte I with Mi. Arni.->trung in any railwa}' construction? — A. Yes ; they are friendly together. (/. They constructed togethei- the Montreal and Soi"el Haihv.iy ? — A. The Montreal and Sorel Hallway. (^. They liad something to do with the construction of the Bale des Chaleurs Kailwa}- ? — A. I under.-dit entry. (^. Are there any more entries on that side of the book ! — A. No, sir. Later on, liUh Janur.ry. two cheques were drawn, one of 82.J.O0O and the other S.j.OOil, l)y the Bale des CInileurs Kailway Comjiany. (J. On the order of whom ? -A. That T cannot tnice. bcc.*ni>e the receipts them- selves have been surrendered tot lie Bale des Chabiirs Railwav Coinjianv. They were drawn a short time aftcrwanls by the Hiiie Clialeurs Railvuy Comjiany. I bold their receipts for tiie papers, and 1 can produce, if you wi>li, a letter acknowle^lging tlie cheiiues have been returned. 715 L Mi ' \Vi ' 4fi It : 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 5i < t Q. Wlien llic-o ehuques were presented, did yoii give the inoiioy for thorn ? — A. Ku, sir. Q. What '.vns (lie transaction ? — A. The note from Mr. Armstrong was with- drawn witli the clieqiie of 830.000. (^. And this closed the account? A. This closed the at-cnunt. I wish to make an ox|)lanation. It has been stated we are using a name we are not entitled to. The law allows us to use the name of" The Richelieu District Bunk " providing we state it is not incorporated. The bank pass-book was issued in my own name. i-i. Bid you use the name of the Richelieu District Bank ? — A. At one time we had tlio privilege, the same as all private bankers. Until aiiont 188G the Hanking Act autliorised the use of the title, providing the woi'ds " not incorporated " wei'c included. Q. In ISSC you were not using the name ? — A. We were using the name with words " not incorporated " on our letter-heads. Cross-examination of Mr. Robert H. McGreevy resumed. Bij Mr. Stuart : Q. You told us, in the course of your examination, that you had been connected in business with your brother for a period of about thirty years. Will you state what the character of those relations was, in general terms ? — A. Krom 18.50 to 18G0 I was working under his orders. In 18(!0 I was sent to Ottawa to take charge of the erection of this building, and I remained until 18()7 — until it> com]iletion, exce))l part of the Library, which was left in abeyance. During that time 1 had full control of the work. Thomas Mct-rreevy re:^ided in Quebec. Q. Fro:n the period indicated onwards? — A. From 1874 to 1882 I was put in cliarge of the construction of the North Shore Railwa\'. (i. Your bi other was a contractor for the Xoi'th Shore Railway ? — A. Yes. (^i. And from 1882 onwards, what were your relations to your brother? — A. My relations with him then were nothing permanent — ^just having business with him otf and on. (}. Your relations were of a very intimate ch.iracter up to the time of the break ? — A, Necessarily so. Q. You looked after his private business when he did not attend to it himself? — A. Yery often. Q. You wrote letters for bim,tlid you not ? — A. Sometimes. i}. In his name ? — A. Business letters I did, but not any others. Q. You knew all al)out bis private business, did you not ? — A. Not all. Q. ^'ery nearly all ? — A. What I Icnew of, 1 knew. Q. What was the genej'al class of business you did not know of? — A . I could not tell yon. Q. Do you know of any business at all that you did not know ? — A. I did not know what I did not know. (^ So you cannot tell us any class of business of your brother's that you had nothing to do with * — A. No. Q. You wei-e his contidential man — you had access to all his letters? — A. I had. Q. When he was not there, did you open bis letters ? — A. Business letters I did ; if they were mar'ked " private " I did not. Q. Y'ou had the combination of his safe? — A. No. Q. Was there a combination of the safe in the office ? — .\. I could not tell you. Q. Was it a safe that locked with a key or a combination lock? — A. In Quebec ':" (}. Yes. — A. The only safe I knew of having a combination was the one in the North Shore Riiilwa}^ office. t^. Is it not a fact that you had access to his safe in the office ? — A. No. Q. Y'ou say you had not ? — A. I say I had not. 710 V 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 ! ■ 1 i Q. Who kept the key of the sale as a rule ? — A. Mr. Chaloner, I think. Q. Did he ever let'use to allow you to have access to the safe ? — A. F do not know that I ever asked him. Q. Did he ever refuse you access to the safe ? — A. I do not know. Q. Mr. McGreevy kept some of his p:i|)ers at his house ? — -A. lie may have. Q. Do you know if he did ? — A. I do not know. Q, Do you know wiiethcr he hud a safe in his house? — A. f ilo not. Q. Do you say you never went to his safe in his house? — A. I do not think so. Q. Do 1 understand you to say you never wont to his private safe in his house? — A. 1 do not think I did. Q. Did 3'ou or did you not? — A. You have got my answer, and I will give you no move. Q. I want you to swear positively whether or not you went to his private safe ill his house ? — A. Vou will get no other answer. Bjj the Chairman : > Q. From your recollection, can you tell ? — A. I have said already that I did not know. It is not information Counsel is seeking; he is trying to complicate matteis. Bi/ Mr. Stuart : i^. Do I understand you to swear that you never went to his house and never got any papers from his private safe in his dwelling? — A. I have answered already. Q. To the best of your recollection, did you do so within the last throe years? — A. Put your question down in writing, what you want me to say. Q. I want you to say now whether within the last three years, to the be.>-t of your recollection, you have ever gone to your brother's house and obtained from his safe papers of any kind? — A. I think not. Q, You think not. To the best of your recollection, did you or did you not? — A. I think not. Q. Jfyou had gone there would you remember it? — A. I may have. Q. You may have gone ? — A. No; I may have recollected it Q. Do you recollect it or not? — A. f do not. Q. Do you swear you did not go ? — A. I do not know. Q. You stated that you were manager for your brother on the North Shore Kaihvay?— A. I said from 1874 to 1882'. Q. What salary did you draw ? — A. I did not draw any. Q. What amount is your name debited with in the books of the North Shore Railway. Q. Are j-ou aware, if I may be permitted to refresh your memory, that that subject came up in the litigation between you and your brother? — A. Itdidcomeup. Q. What was the amount shown in the books ? — A. Somewhere about §(J(t, 000. Q. The amount was 867,000 — the balance to your debit? — A. I do not know whether it is the balance to my debit or the balance of the credit. I never drew any money during that period for myself. Ho always obtained money from the cashier ot the I'ailway or from Mr. Chaloner, his ])iivate cashier. Q. You have told us up to about 1884, I think, you were engaged with your brother, and after that business relations continued. Can you tell us when the business relations or relations of any kind ceased? — A. Our relations eeaseii on the Uth January, 188!t. Q. And what was the cause of that (luarrel ? — A. The cause — the remote cause — of the quarrel which led to the break was his desire and expro.v-ion that 1 slioul ,11 ' 1 Q. JiiHt about this time was tlicro a (iiiestion of your ceasinyto have an intorost in tho business of Liirkin, Connolly & Co.? — A. Not until that trouble arose, I tiiinlc. t^. And that was about wiuit time? — A. It began to grow about November, 1888, as far as I can say. Q. And it came to a head. Can you tell us more precisely the date? — A. It came to a head on the 14tli January, 188l>. Q. Is that tiie date of your letter? — A. I think it is., Q. You had no fuither relations with your brotherafter that ? — A. No; T had not. (}. Previous to that time, was there a question of 3'ou and Murphy's buying out the two Connollys ? — A. I never had anything to ? — A. About .January, I think it was. (J. Had you an interest in tho business in the event of Murphy acquiring it — were 3'ou both interested? — A. No ; we had no discussion about it. Q. Was it understood between you your interest was to be bought out, or that you were to remain in? — A. No undeistanding at all. Q. There was no otier. Did he buy out your share at that time ? — A. No. Q. You were aware that Mur|)hy then concludeil with the Connollys, were you? — A. I was present when he concluded with them, I think. (^. That arrangement tell through ? — A. Fell through I thiidf. Q. Are you aware of the reason? — A. The reason given at the time was, that the Harbour Commissioners would not accept the itilease of Mr. Larkin. t^. And the Connollys, or Mr. Larkin alone? — A. M''. Larkin, and possibly the Connolhs for all I know. (I. In other words the Harbour Commissioners would not accept Murphy alone ? — A. That was a subse([Ueiit condition ; when they negotiated there was no question at all about the ti'anstei-. (^». But that was the ditticult}' that arose ? — A. It arose afterwards. Q. About how long after? — A. 1 thiidc perhaps the next day. (^. It was the cause of Murphy's not buying out the Connollys at that time? — A. That was the cause. Q. What was the price he was to pay the Connollys for their interest ? — A. Well, I dont recollect the sum now. Q. Well, about? — A. 1 could not recollect what amount. Q. it is not true it was 8ot),(»0U? — A. It may be possibly iu that vicinity. Q. Somewhere about there ? — A. Somewhere. Q. .lust about this time you were sued by the Union Bank, I think, were you not, I'or 819,000 on a note? — A. It was about the time, a little after the break with Thomas McClrcevy, that the bank sued me for that note. <^ And you took an action in warranty airainst your brother? — A. Yes. (^. You claimed that your brother was bound to indemnify you to some extent for that note? — A. I claimed he was the endorser of the note, and that the bank should hold him responsible. i^. So that, as your brothel' was the endor.-or, and you wore the i)rorai.ser, the bank should look to the endorser? — A. Yes. Q. .lust about this time, did you prepare the statements that were published. that in the month of Ajjril, in Le Caaadlen, one signetl by yourself, and one signed by O. E. M. ? — A. I did not prepai'e a statement. Q. You know the statements that were published in Le Canodien, which are the subject matter of libel j)roceedings? — A. I don't think I signed them. Q. Y(ni are aware in any case that sub.scquont to the publication of certain statements, there were libel proceeilings, both civil and criminal, insLlLuted against Mr. Tarte. against yourself, and against Owen Murphy? — A. When? (i>. In the course of 18!»0 ?— A" It was about the early part of 1890. 718 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Was it you wlio supnlieil t( -A. 1 don't tlniik so. Mr. Tiirtc tlie informiitioii uikim wliit'Ii he luisc I his ,)loiiH in tliis case ?- (/. Aroyousuro? — A. Almost ([uitosiire. {}, I)o you swear you ilid not ? — A. I swear tliat I don't think I did. Q. Did you ever see tiiose |)leas at any time'.'' — A. No. (I. Did you ovei' supply any int'nrniution wiiatsoovor to Mr. Tartf, witii a view of assist iiifij in malvini^ those ])k!as '.'' — A. I diii not. Q. Xo memorandum, payments, or statements, witli refeienee to the ditl'erenl tinaneial transactions that were spoken of in the statements which formed tiie .■^uliject matter oftiie libel suit":" — A. 1 liiink not. (}. J understand you, then, to .say yuu had no knowhil,ij;o of the statement that Avas ])ublisiied in Le Conndien .' — A. I have no knowledi,'e of the sialement. Q. None whatever':" — .\. As puhlished in the paper. t^. You sif^ned no statement':' — A. I did. Q. J)i)>eetinu' myself and the ai)i)lication of tiicse moneys, iilready referred to, and the verv rrrr])le;isairt circunistances which were reteiied to, led me to seek some redress. The same rejiortswere heinj^ set atloat respecting Mr'. JIurphy, which 1 knew were untrue. Bein^ connected so lonii; with my brother-, Thomas Mclireevy, and with the jtarty with which he was workirii;', I had no desire to give any ])rrbiicit3- to any statements. I therefore put down in writing' what I thoun'ht wirs a statement of my position with Larkin, Cormolly iS; Co., and all tht; cir'cumstances surrounding it, iuid I went to Thomas McCireevy's best political friends. 1 went to the Honour-able Theodore Uobilaille, whom I asked to see if some redr-ess could not be given for those rumours, mid I showed him tlie statements. He asked me what lie was to do with it : it he was to show it lo Thomas Mctrieevy. I said : "No; you are very intimate with Sir Hector liiingevin. Show it to him, and in a week I will be bade to Utt:iwa to see what is to be ilone.'' I says: " There is not 5 cents consider-ation in this matter' : it is simply that my character must be put right." The municiprd elections occiipiel me in Quebec for- thr'ee weeks, anil 1 then came biick to the Ilorunir'able 3D-, iiobitaille, and he said Sir' Hector would ^ce that Tl lomas .^f<-(i i-oevy wo uidd o somethirii. I asked him to .see Sir Hector- that ilav, and ifther-e was nothing done to give me the pa])ers. At 2 o'clock 1 met him in the Senate, and he told me tliat Sir Jlector hail told him that Thomas Mctireevy undertook to settle that matter and give mo back the iiaiiers. I-Iven yet 1 was not l)i-ep;ircd to make jmblic anything. I then seen Mr. Tarte. one ot the Conservative party, and a very intimate trienil of those connected with them, not as a jour-nalist — this was still about the month ot .Mar-ch — and I asked him it he would see Sir- .lolin ^^a(-dorlakl, aird I explained to him exactly what I did to the iloiioiri-able Theodore liobitaille. Di about thi-ee weeks or so Mr. Tai-te t(»ld me that he had seen Sir John, and that the result of it was that ho had seen Thomas Mcdivovy, and that ho said it was blaekmrdi, and that tliei-e was nothing true in it. Having got the ]iiiper.- again, there was nothir ■ft to me but to t.ike sor me other- coiir-.-e. and 1 went. having already got the paper's back fr-om Mr. Tarte, in a week or- so to him agiun, and 1 told him: " Ther-ear-ethetiictH ; you can guide yourself with regard to anything you may do, but not for )uiblication, by I'lo means." It was agreed that they were not to be published. That is tiie explanation I give. Q. Will you look at the statement which has now been iumded to me by ^Ir-. Tarte, and state whethei that is the sialement which you handed to Mr. Robilaillo, and Bubsequentiv to Mr-. Tarte'.-' — A. It is the statement I lianded to Mr. Tarte. 719 I I 'I !iilii w^a t>. V] A ^. m fi '/ IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I >•-• Ki ||||2.2 12,0 i Ui 1.8 11.25 1.4 Photographic Sciences Corporation // %" 33 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 873-4S03 r 64 Victoria. Appendix (So. 1.) A. 1891 if t •i" m 'if , 1 ' Q. Ih it the Ktutement you handed to Mr, Kohitnillo? — A. I don't know. Q. What beeainc of the statement? — A. I don't ks!.- w, Q. You got it back, you told ns? — A. Yes; that i.s my busineHH where it i>, hut it is Hulistantially tlie same. H. It iH "our busincHH where it is. I think it is the business of the Commit teo where it is, and I will ask you to pnnluee it ? — A. I id you take it away from Ottawa ? — A. Yes. {}. Did yon sliow it to imy person alter you showe,you have spoken of? — A. Yes. (I. You waited until .lanuary, 18!)(), before preparing this statement ? — A. I was wititing until all tho ammunition of those who were accusing me was tinished. (J. You waited a whole year for the purpose of clearing youi' <'haracter from the linio of the quarrel before preparin.^ this statement ? — A. I took that course, liecauso (Vfrv two or three weeks there was a lawsuit, ami I wanted to see whore it uiiiiid <>iid. ^l- There was an election in December. When was the election intjuebec West ii: wliich you wore a candidate? — A. I think it was December, 1889. (i Did you circulate this statement or tho purport of it during the election ? — A. Xo. (^ You did not refer to it in any way? — A. I do not think I did. Q. Can you recollect whether you did or not? — A. I cannot. i}. You may have done so ? — A. I may not have done so. Cl. Do you swear you did not ? — A. I do not think I did. 721 1—46 if" ( I I't ! Ill I lit'!' ' u lA 54 Victorift. Appciulix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 I <'iiiiversati<)n, Imt it did iioi wliat coiirso you wished your ulitiuld ivsign his seat in liic Q. To the l>t'»l of your lucollfction, yon did not ? — A. I diil not. Q. It was after your defeat in 18Ht» that you prepared thirt stutenient? — A. It vras alter that. Q. You have already said your brother worked against you on that occasion? — A. So I underHt(MHi. I did not make that statement here. (^. Did he work a^fain-t you? — A. I made the statement that he workeid yuu during cither of the conversations 3-ou had with Senator Rohitailji' Htate to him any of tlie conditions you reipiirod your brother to do to Mettle tlii« inipendini; (piarrel? — A. I have already stated the comlltion I impostHj. Q. What '.vas that condition? — A. That he would retract what ho had said. . tj. You thought it advisable that he shouM resign his seat and yiiu should run in his |>lace ? — A. 1 did ni)t. (^. In any i^jwe, you thought it advi^'able he should resign his seat ? — A. Yes. i}. And 3'ou also thought it lulvisable he should resign liis seat on the Richelieu Hoard ? — A. I diil not. (J. Did you tliink it advisable that you should become a Director on the IJlchelieu lioard ? — A. I did not thiid\ so. I was forcetl into it. Q. You have been a candidate on several occasions? — A. No ; not since. Q. Do I understand you to swear that you did not rcijuire or suggest that your brother should resign his seat on the ]{ichelieu Hoard? — A. I did not. Q. Did you suggest that he should cease to become President ? — A. No; becau-e 1 was the cause of ] utting him there. Q. Hut ciicumstances had altered since you put him there? — A. Not much. Q. Then you were >atistied he should remain on the JJichelieu Boanl ? — A. It was in the middle «)f the quarrel I hcl|icd to put him there. Q. You swear that theie was no suggestion in any ot the conversations you had with Senator RobitailU' as to your brother resigning his jilace .'it the Hoanl of tin Ifichelieu Company? — .\. The only condition \vn- the one I have statetl. Q. Was there an}- ipiestion at any ol these inti'rviews of your brother resigning his seat on the IlarlKxir ('ommissitm ? — A. It was the same as resigning his seat in the House. il. The discussion was begun b}' you ? — A. Yes. Q. The suggestion wju* made by you ? — A. Yes. Q. You thought it advi^able that he should cease to be a member of the Harbour Commission also ? — A. Yes. Q. Is it not a fact that when you made (he suggestion to Mr. liobitaiile that your brother shouhl resign his seat in the House that you also miggeHted that you were to l»e the candidate for the (Conservative part}' for the division of Quel»ec West ? — A. I did not ; I positively tieny. Q. There was no suggestion ? — A. Absolutely no sucii suggestion, in no way at all. 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. You yuurrtflf imil juist boon r brother t< rcsiirn his seat in the Ilouso and his seat on the lioard of Harbour Commissiuiiors f — A. 1 do not know wiiat the j^rouiid would bo. Q. NVhat wore your reasons for inukiiii; the suggestion? — A. I thought that was proper. (J. r'or what reason? — A. 1 cannot tell ''ou why Q. I think the Coniniittoe would like to know? — A. I do not know that I had any reason. Q. Had you any reason or not ? — A. I do not know that I had. By Mr. Cur ran : Q. Had you a motive in it? — A. Xo: 1 had no motive. 1 thought it woa a tiling that ought to be done. Hi/ Mr. Stuart : Q. Why did you think it should be done? — A. H 1 hud a motive I would have inaiie it a condition and I did not. (}. Why did you think so? — A. 1 thought so then and 1 think so still. (i. Why? — A. What I thought then and what I think now belongs to myself. Jii/ the Chairman : Q. What is your answer ? — A. 1 have no answer. 1 had no motive. C}. Ho tiiat you made these suggestions without any reason or without a motive? — A. I rofiise to answer that question. I have already answered it. Jiy Mr. Mumrlijlf' : (l. Why ne8I».vv, 2liili July, 3 o'clock p.m. Mr. iiiiUKUT II. .MHiiiEEW'd croos-u.Kumtimtion reHuniutl. Jii/ Mr. Stuort • H. Aftor yon got Imck tlio Htatvmviits from Mr. I^>l•ituillo wimt did you do wiili thorn ? — A. I slatod tiiiH morning tliiit I giivo tliom to Mr. Tiirtc. Q. How long iiftor getting thuni from Mr. Jiobitaiilo'.'' — A. About a wrok oi' >■>. il. Did you spoak to Mr. Tarto about tliis mutter at all i)oforo sooing Mr. JJobi- taillc?— A. 1 think not. Q. You arc suro you did not Hpuak to him biiforo getting tho Htatomonts h;,(k from Mr. liobitaillv? — A. I may liave. (I. Did you or did you n<»t? — A. I cannot say. Q. Whcie did you bco Mr. Turtu about it firHl? — A. I bcliove it \va« in Ottawa. (i. Had you made an appointment with Mr. Tarto in Ottawa? — \. Not ilmi time. (■l. How did ho como to bo here? — A. lie was hero in connection with tiio presH. Q. Do you remember if it was immediately after getting these papei» buck from Mr. liobitaiilo that you saw Mr, Tarte? — A. It was a week or ten dayt-. Q. Will you fix th»j montii that this occurred? — .V. That would lie about March. Q. The beginning or tho middle, or tho end of March ? — A. 1 cannot tix ii exaictly — about tho middle. Q. To the best of your recollection, you did not speak to Mr. Tarte until aticr you got back tlieso papers from Mr. Robitaille ? — A. I may have spoken to him, but, to the best of my recollection, I did not. Q. What induced you to ajtplj- to Mr. Tarte? — A. Tho refusal of Sir Hector m- Thomas Mcdreovy to have anything to do with it ; or, rather, the answer from Sir Hector that Thomas McGrcovy promised to attend to it. Q. Did you wait to see whether he would attend to it or not? — A. id Murph}- speak to you about not being allowed to tender, or his tciuif r being refused? — A. He did not. Q. D was not because he believed Thomas McGreovy would exercise his intlueiice against getting contracts that ho Joined with you? — A. I do not think it was. Ho did not join with me. Mr. Amyot objected to these questions being continued. Q. Now, will you look at a letter found among the pa])ers produced by Owen K. Muridiy, and state whether that letter is in your handwriting, and signed by you ? — A. That is a letter written and signed by me. 724 K w Ifl 64 Victoria. Appendix (N"o. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Will yon reml it? (Kxl.ibit "N14.") "The Uussei.i., "Ottawa, 2«!tli K.«liniary, 18'.t»(. '• Deaii Mr. Mcri'IIy, — 1 was Hurprisoil at your ti'Ii>i,'riiin from Moiitroal, I lielii'vod you Hat'o in (jiiebec. Tarto is not liuro, ami I holieve I will take a tnovo in aiiothor, uiul iicrhaps inoro rclialiio iliroctiun, widi our inattur, and jirolmbiy moot you at llio Ilall to-morrow at '.i.lW, liy tin* Alinnoapolis train olCanadian I'acitic Jiailway. '' I 800 tlio Wittiesn had nothing; last oveniiiK- Von better soo Ijovokin, of Star, lo" our manurtcript lie took. I met lieaui-licniin at Montreal an »ri-an;;cd. He apjjearh quite willing to go in, but did noltbink we could ael till a year. I, hftwever, allowed liin> otherwise, lie says they are destroying the Steamer '•Canada' tb adopting her for .Suguonay line, and is di.sposed to have a correspomlenee started showing all the gross blunders they are at, if ho could get them published, and he says by that moans tlio stock miglil bo let down. He will in a few da^'s give me u iiply to our oiler, and if ho goes in will act foithwith, and we can lay our plans. I told him wc! would be prejiared to lower the rate by selling 'lOO to enalile nim and others to get in more. *' I remain, yours, iVc, "ItOhKKT ir. MrfUJKEVY." Q. What do you refer to in this letter when you say : " I will take a move in another and ]iorhaps more reliable direction with our ?natter?" What was the matter/ — A. The wliole thing refers to Kichelieu. t^. Was Mr. Tarto assisting you in liichelieu ? — A. I don't think he was. (J. What did you want to see Mr. Tarto for in Jtichelieu 'f — A. It was certain purpo.se» he had, — triends of his. Q. You refer to two other statements here: "I see the Witness had nothing last evening. You better see Lovekin, of Star, for our manuscript he took." What did you refer to there ? — A. Well, I could not say now, unless it was some corres- |inndence that was written respecting the liichelieu stock ; that is my present impression. Q. What did you e.xpect to see in the Witness at that time? — A. I exnected to sec correspondence about tho stock of the liichelieu and the blundering of the Direc- tors, Q. This was in 1S90. Wore you a candidate for election as a Director at that time? — A. Oh, no; it was after election, that. Q. Had you been a candidate in the election immodiatelv previous to this'? — A. No. (J. AVas this an occasion you had assisted to put your brother in as Presidei»t ? — A. No; I think I assisted him in, 1880: that is ni}- present recollection. Q. I think you have told us why you went to sec Mr. Tarte with those papers il)at you had got back from Mr. Uohitaille ? — A. Yes; I staled what was tho reason; iliat Mr. Tarte, as one of the strong memliors of the Conservative part}*, would take another direction to try and accomplish what I wanted with Sir John Macdonald. I knew he was a strong memlior of the party. (i. What wero the relations between Mr. Tarto and Thomas McUroovy at that time '? — A. 1 could not tell you. t of your kMowle» HtHle wlici** that ti'inler Kfood rulativo to tlio (iIImm- tvniler^ ? — A Frailft \ Millor was 8!»s,l.')0. »i'uiicaf,'c wa>* 8l:tl,'J(!7, Askwitli was gl^s.Stio. Larkin. Connolly \ Co. was 81.{s,H45, Kse(|uontly, Larkin, Connolly iV Co. got the eouti-aet ? — A. Yes. (^. l)id they do any dredging that year? — A. No. Q. Why '/ — \. They were not prepared. Q. Having no plant, they hiiilt plant ? — A. Yes. Q. What did it eo«t ?— A. 1 eaiinot tell you. q. Did it eo.st (»vor 8100,000 ?— A. Thoy sai you know whether thoy were in a position to e.xpcnd any such money {<• ohtain this contract ? — A. No. t^. Who is Fradet ? You know ho is a 0'iition to carry out that contract? —A. '. am not. Q. D.» \-ou believe Jie was? — A. I do not bolicvo he was. Q. Are you awaro that the contract was awarded to him con litional upon hj. putting up .security to the extent of 810,000? — A. I have no personal knowledge. Q. You heard it at the time? — A. I heard it from Thom.is Metireevy. t^. Are you aware that when he failed to fultil that condition the contract wa- nwarded to the next lowest tenderer, Askwith? — A. I am not aware. Q. Did you hear it at the time? — A, I did not. <^ Are you aware that Askwith put up security? — A. 1 may have been. ii. Did you subsequently hear that Askwith found his plant was insutticient and withdrew? — A. Yes; 1 heard that. il- You have no reason to doubt that was true? — A. No. y. You told us it was at your request, you believe, that your relations with the firm of Larkin, Connolly & Co. was to be kept secret ? — A. Yos. Q. Was the deed of partnership registered ? — A. No. Q. What was the object of drawing up a deed of partnership? — A. To avoid any misunderstanding. Q. To establish the relations between the parties? — A. Yes. ii. Y'ou were in the habit, I believe, of tendering in other people's names — of putting in the names ot other people — were vou not ? — A. Using other people's name:;. 728 64 Victoria. Apponilix (No. 1.) A. 1891 (^ You carrifil on tliis (br i|iiit« a whilf? — A. Vo-». *^. Ami yitu liatl soim- vi-rv i-xpensivo eontract!* in the iiaiiU'H of otlitT poisons? — A. With tiieir pornii«>ioii. (.}. I tiiini< yoii iiad n contraot tor the Intercolonial wiiarf at Ti<5vir*, in tlivnanu' ot Mr. Laclianco'i* — A. Vos. Q. Ami a lontruct in tin* nanuM)t Mr. (Jiraitl, for the eonhtruclion of a wharf ai GroNse Isle? — Nhoil.''. Q, In tho name of Uerthier ? — A. No. ltcauca<;e ; not in the name (»f Berliner. <^ l)iy twelve mimths. Q. Possibly twelve months? — A. Po.ssibly twelve months. (i- Shortly afterwards, did you become very intimate with him ? — A. Yes. Q. And have continued so up to the present time? — A. And have continued so up to the present time. *-i. You had, I believe, large stock speculations with him? — A. Not veiy large. Q. You have had some, anyway ? — A. Yes. ii. Covering several years? — A. No; the stock speculations began in about ISS" an i lasted *■}. And continues to tho present time? — A. No. Q. You have also hail jn-operty s])eculalions and real estate s])eculations? — A. Yes, Q. And you have continued your friendly relations riyht up to the present liiue? — A. Yes. Q. Ho has loaned you mimey at various times in considerable sums ? — A. Y'os. Q. Look at Kxhibit " Ll2 " and state whether that is the partnership agreement with leference to the dredging contract of 1882? — A. Y'es; that is it. t^. Well, now, I direct your attention to this part: "Each of the said purtios ii!,'ree to contribute to the funds of the partnership, when called upon, and at any tiiiio. in tho following proportion: Patrick Larkin, twenty one-hundredths ; Niiholas Ivarrel Connolly, twentj'-Hve (mo-hundrodths ; Owon Eugene Murphy, twcntv-five one-hundredths; Robert H. McGreevy. thirty onediundredths of the 721) 7f '" 1 ' li M I ' il .'1 •III r i I ■ j 1 III, i 1 \ t ■ ii| 1 '; 1 1 lA i m^ttm i:. 54 Victorin. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 ■; V I AinilH roquiroil for i-nrrying on the nbovo meiitionoil conti-Hcts, nnd tho said imrlitM hIuiII bo owners of the Joint contrueti* in the «amo proiM>rtioii»." Will you Htiiie why that wuH put ill ? — A. To establiHh our rcBpt'Ctivo hIiiwoh und interoHt. Q. It therefore nppvni-H that your contribution to ciipital wan to be .'JO per cent . / A. Yen. Q. You have told it was undcrstotMl that you were not to contribute any Ciipitul. Why was it put in this ? — A. More to cslablisb the share I would have to jjjot out. Q. But you told us this was a secret agreement to dotermino the lelution!* between the partners, so that there were no reasons why the true relation!* Iietween the partners should not be contained in it? — A. I do not know exactly what liio facts were. Q. Xotwithstantling this secret partnership arrangement, by which it uppears you were to contribute 30 per cent, you still tell us it was understood you were imt to contribute anything ? — A. Quite so. By Mr. Tarte : Q. Did you put in anything ? — A. Not a dollar. By Mr. Edgar : Q. Was the firm registered with your name in ? — ^A. No. By Mr. Tarte : Q. Were you called upon by writing or otherwise, to put in any moneyi? — A. Never. By Mr. Stuart : Q. You have also told us that you did P'lt take any active part in the munsii^e- ment of the business. Is that so ? — A. I die lot. Q. Did you visit the works at all ? — A. I did ; very often. Q. Used you to go to the office ? — A. Yes. Q. Did you examine the books at all ? — A. I did sometimes. Q. Frequently or infrequently ? — A. Not very often, until 1888. Q. There were audits ? — A. There were audits every year. Q. Every year ? — A. Every year beginning with 1885. Q. Did you verify the accuracy of the audits ? — A. No ; I took the statonu'i.tfl as thej' were submitted. Q. So that, as a matter of fact, the audits are not correct, are they ? — A. I do not know whether they are or not. Q. Have you any reason to believe that they are correct or not correct ? — A, I am quite certain those I signed are correct. Q. From everything contained in the office, you are sure thejr are a correct record of the transactions of the firm ? — A. As far as I could ascertain. Q. You investigated the books with a view to ascertaining the accuracy of tin* audits ? — A. I did not investigate the books with a view to ascertaininij tlio accuracy of the audits. I did not investigate the books. I occnsionally lookeno under the contract of 1882? — A. The contract of 1882 continued over 1883-4-5 und 1886. Q. And there was no other contract in force in 1885 but the contract of 1882 ? — A. None to my knowledge. Q. None that you had any interest in or was ever shown ? — A. Or was over shown. Q. Did it last through 1886 ?— A. To the end. Q. Was there any dredging done from the opening of navigation, during tho working season, to the beginning of July of that year ? — A. I think so. The Engin- eer's estimates will show. Q. Was there anything done after the 11th July, 1885? — A. I believe so. 731 ill ;n^r ! ,1 'f'U I , '■, 54 Victoria. Appemlix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. I8 it not true that on the 11th July, 1885, there was a special agreement between the firm and the Harbour Commissioncra lor 100,000 yai-ds at 85 cents? — A. I never Icnew of it. Q. When did you first become aware that tenders were going to be naked for the Cro8H-wall ? — A. 1 became awure of it in the winter of 1882-83. Q. "When did you make arrangements with the firm of Larkin, Connolly & Co. to be interested in that work ? — A. Just about the time that it was known that the tenders would be asked for. I think it was during the winter or spring of 1883. Q. With whom did you negotiate ? — A. With Mr. Murphy sometimes, and coming near the time, I talked to Mr. Nicholas Connolly. Q. Y'ou agreed with both of them? — A. They both agreed. Q. Did they both agree to go in with you ? — A. Yes ; as it was coming the spring of 1883. Q. Previous to the spring of 1883, had there been any agreement by which yo\x were to be interested in the Cross-wall contract? — A. I do not know that it came to any definite agreement, but it was spoken of. Q. When?— A. The spring ot 1883. Q, T mean previous to the understanding you arrived at following the negotiations of the spring of 1883, had there been any agreement by which you were to be inter- ested in the Cross-wall contract? — A. It had always been understood. Q. What I want to find out from you is,whether previous to the spring of 1883 there was any agreement of any kind by which you were to have any interest in this Cross-wall contract? — A. No definite agreement. Q. Were there negotiations previous to 1883 ? — A. Yes. Q. When did they become fixed? — A. In the winter. Let me tell you that if Larkin, Connolly & Co. had not agreed that I should be interested in that Cross-wull contract 1 would have got the contract myself. Q. Under whose tender? — A. Under my own tender, or somebody's that would get it, and leave them out. Q. Did you prepare a tender for yourself? — A. No; I prepared one in BeaucageV name ; but during the winter that was the conclusion I came to. Q. That is to say, that you intended, if they did not take you in to tender your- self in the name of some other person? — A. Certainly, and leave them out. Q. But the question I i-eally want to get at from you is, whether, previous to the negotiations that ended in your being taken into the firm in the Cross-wall, ■was there an understanding of any kind that you were to have an}- interest in any subsequent contracts? — A. Previous? Q. Yes; previous to the negotiations ? — A. I don't know whether it was reduced to writing, but it was generally understood. Q. What was the understanding? — A. I was to have an interest. Q. In this particular contract ? — A. Yes. Q. When was it so understood ? — A. In the spring of 1883, 1 think, because I was in a position to control the giving of the contract. By Mr. Ouimet : Q. How so ?— A. How so ? Q. Yes ; please explain ? — A. I will explain if you like. Q. Y^es. — A. Because I would have got Thomas McGreevy to get mo the whole contract if they would not have agreed. If I could get it for them, surely 1 could get it for myself. By Mr. Stuart : Q. So, I understand it was you who got the contract for Larkin, Connolly & Co. from Thomas McGreevy ? — A. I am just telling you. Q. You state that distinctly ? — A. No ; 1 do not ; I state if I had not been brought in with them I would have got the contract myself, or in some name. I would have controlled them. 732 I II 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. As you got it for them you could have got it for yourself? — A. I have just stilted the whole thing. Q. As a matter of fact, did you get that contract ? — A. Xo ; I did not. Q. It was not by your influence they got it ? — A. No, it was not. Q. Whoso was it? — A. It was Thomas McGreevy's. Q. You could have influenced Thomas McGreevy to get it for yourself? — A. I tliink I could. Q. Therefore, it was your influence with him that got the contract? — A. It was his knowledge I had an interest in it that induced him to help me. Q. When did you prepare Beaucage's tender ? It was prepared by you, I be- lieve ? — A. I prepared it in time to go in. Q. About what time? — A. The end of April. Q. What did you do with it ?— A. With what ? Q. With Beaucage's tender ? — A. Sent it in to the Harbour Commissioners. Q. You sent it in? — A. I either sent it in or got it sent in. Q. I would like to know who it was that sent the tender to the Harbour Com- missioners ? — A. I don't know. Q. Weil, I would like to know from you what you did with the tender altec tilling it in ? — A. Well, I either sent it to the Harbour Commissioner's office or got it brought there. Q. It was you that sent in the tender ? — A. Yes. Q. Where did you get the $7,500 that was to accompany the tender? — A. I tliink that Beaucage got it himself. Q. So that it was Beaucage's interest to get $7,500 to send in with his tender, was it? — A. Yes. Q. Did Beaucage hand you a cheque for $7,500 ? — A. I don't know ; I fancy he did. Q. The cheque was on wh»»t bank? — A. I think it was the Union Bunk. Q. In his own name ? — A. In his own name, I believe. Q. Since it was your tender, and you had prepared it, and you were solely inte- rested in it, why did Beaucage get the cheque himself? — A. He was to have an inte- rest in it. (i. What interest was he to have? — A. It was not established between us, Q. It was not established ? — A. No ; the result would have been known. Q. So you prepared this tender in Iiis name, and he got the money, and your possible interest in it was not established at all ? — A With me ? Q. With him? — A. No ; he was to have an interest in it. Q. It was his share and he put up the money? — A. I think he put up the money. Q. Who controlled the tender, did he ? — A. No, he did not. Q. In what way did you control him ? — A. He would do whatever I asked him. Q. You believe he would do whatever you asked him ? — A. Yes. Q. When were the tenders sent in ? — A, lUth April or the 1st or 2nd May. Q. After the tenders were sent in you got this transfer from Beaucage, did you not? — A. Yes. Q. That was after the tenders being opened in Quebec ? — A. Yes. Q. And were in Ottawa ? — A. Yes. Q. So that you don't appear to have controlled Beaucage's tender, if you had to get a transfer of his rights ? — A. His rights are transfeiTed to Larkin, Connolly & Co. Q. You told us that you contrf lledthe tender — that it was your tender — aiidthat you got a transfer from him in consideration of $5,000 to be paid to him ? — A. That is the case. Q. That does not seem to have been a very efficient control you had of his tender ? —A. He was to have an interest in it. Q. Did you ever pay him the $5,000?— A. I did not. It was not for mo to pay it to him ; those he transferred it to should do that. By Mr. Tarte : Q. It was not for you to pay it? — A. No; it was transferred to Larkin, Con- nolly & Co. 733 iRi '' fl 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. l.i A. 1891 By Mr. Stuart : Q Q. Q. Q Q. rightH ? — A You were a member of the firm of Larkin, Connolly & Co.? — A. I was. You were at that time in the Crnsti-wali contract ? — A. Not by writing — no. But you were, ao a matter of fact ? — A. It was understood I would be. You did not see this man was paid his $5,000 ? — A. 1 did not. Did you communicate to your brother the fact that you were tendering in Beaucage's name ? — A. Yes. Q. Did you communicate to him the assignment that you had got of Beaucage's ts ? — A. I do not know that I did at the time. Q. Did you inform him of the fact without showing the paper ? — A. Not at that time, I did not. Q. Had you any reason for not doing so ? — A. No ; no special reason. Q. What makes you say he knew of your putting in a tender in Beaucage's name ? — A. Because I told him. Q. You recollect that you told him ? — A. Yes. Where did you tell him ? — A. In Quebec. Whereabout ? — A. Somewhere between his office and his house. And when? — A. About the Ist of April. You have a distinct recollection of the circumstance. Was it on the street ? — It may have been on the street or in his house or in his office. Q. lou ought to be able to tell us where it occurred? — A. It might have been in his house or on the road or in his office. Q. On the same day? — A. Very likely the same day or the next day. Q. When you communicated that fact to him did you make a note of it in your diary? — A. I do not know that I did. My diary would not be big enough to note all the things I do. A. Q Q. Q. Q. By Mr.Tarte: Q. Did you get a letter dated 7th May, from^your brother, in which these words : " Have your arrani will give you timely notice. appear: "Have your arrangements right with Beauoage before i-esult is known. I itice. Did you read that letter? — A. I read it. By Mr. Stuart : Q. What is the usual deduction or depreciation of dredging plant per year? — A. That is a business I am very little accustomed to. Q. But you were interested in dredging for a period of seven or eight years? Yon ought to know. What do you estimate the deduction or depreciation of plant per year ? — A. If you ask me the question as a matter of fact, and not ot opinion, I would tell you the facts, because tlu; result of Larkin, Connolly and Co.'s contracts showed it was about 2i^ per cent, per annum. A dredge that cost 828.000, as they reported to rao in 1883, and done five years dredging, was sold for $22,000. Ifyou spread that $0,000 over five yeai-s you will get $1,200 per year. Q. That is not the question at all. Do you state that 2^ per cent, is the usual sinking fund for the depreciation of the dredges? — A. I do not state it. I give you the faets. I have no opinion at all. Q. You have been interested in dredging for six or seven years, and yet you say you have no opinion of what the ordinary sinking fund was for dredging? — A. Well, I give you the facts. Q. Mr. Peters has said the depreciation or sinking fund is from 10 to 15 percent. Does that recommend itself to you as a reasonable amount? — A. That IS greatly in excess of what Larkin, Connolly & Co.'s statement will show. Q, Will you tell us the circumstances conueeted with the getting of the notes of the Cross-wall contract? — I have related them already. Q. I would like you to relate them again ? — A. I have related all the circum- stances connected with that. I would like to turn up the evidence I gave. 734 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 By the Chairman ; Q. You are not entitled to do that. — A. Well, he will have to ask me question by ijuestion. By Mr. Stuart : Q. I want the general ciroumHtannes connectetl with the giving of the noteb for the Cross-wall contract. — A. The question is verj- vague. To go and give a history, I cannot do it. Q. Will you state the general circumstances with reyard to the giving of the notes for the Ci'oss-wall contract? — A. I am unable to answer that question, as I do not know what circumstances you refer to. Q. At the time that this contract was under discussion, in 1883, was your brother aiKiuainted with Murphy? — A. Oh, yes. Q. Did ho know him well? Was he much with him? — A. I could not say. He may have been a great deal with him that I did not knov; of. Q. But you were intimate with Murphy yourself? — A. Yes. Q. You do not know whether your brother was very intimate with him or not? —A. Not necessarily. Q. Although you were a great deal with Murphy, you say you would not know whether any person else was. — A. No. Q. Were j-our brother and Murphy pretty' much together about that time ? — A. 1 do not know, but from conversations I judge they were pretty frequently together. Q. And from those conversations, which of you would be most intimate with him — yourself or j'our brother? — A. I could not say which; both alike. Q. With which of you was he more intimate at that time — yourself or your liiotlier? — A. 1 cannot say which. Q. How long had you been intimate with him at that time? How long had you known him? — A. To be intimate, I was not more than a year intimate. Q. How long had Thomas McGreovy then known Mr. Murphy? — A. I cannot tell you. Q. To the best of your knowledge, how long had he known him? — A. I cannot say, because Thomas McGreevy was Chairman of the Commissioners from 1879, the time that Larkin, Connolly & Co. had the Graving Dock, and there may have been intercourse or relationship that 1 know nothing about, because I had other business to attend to. He may have known him during that time that I did not know of. Q. So far as your knowledge goes, whendid he know him? — A. About the same time as T did. t^. You have told us that you were frequently down on the works ? — A. Yes. i}. Was Thomas McGreevy often there ? — A. I do not know how often he was there. Q. Was he there very often when you were there? — A. I cannot tell you. Q. When did you first hear that iiotes were being given to any person in con- nection with this Cross-wall contract? — A. I only ascertained that notes were given when Thomas McGreevy sent for them. Q. You are quite sure on that point? — A. Yes. Q. At that time had the contract for the Cioss-wall been given ? — A. I think the contract had been awarded at that time. Q. At the time you were sent for the notes ? — A. Yes. Q. Could you fix the date? — A. I cannot fix it precisely. Q. To the best of your belief, when would it be? — A. It would be between the 2(ithand30th ofMay. (i. That you went for the notes ? — A. Yes. i}. Had you had any conversation with any of the other members of the firm of Larkin, Connolly & Co. on this subject ?— A. Previous to that ? I think not, Q. Where did you go for the notes? — A. I Avent to Mr. Murphy. « U i' 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Where did you find him ? — A. I cannot say. I |>crhap8 found him in the city. Q. I do not want perhaps. I want to know where ? — A. I cannot sa}-. Q. Did you find any other members of the firm? — A. No; I did not look for any «nhere. Q. It was Murphy alone you were seekinji; for? — A. Yes. Q. What passed between you and Murphy then ? — A. I told him what I caino for, and he said that he understood it was to be paid pro rata as the work advaniod. Q. Had Murphy ever spoken to you up to that time about the matter ? — A. Of the notes. Q. What did he sa}*? — A. He spoke of the arrangements which were made. (^. What was the conversation ? — A, He said it was $25,000 to be paid. Q. How, when and where ? — A. He did not say how then. Q. Where did this conversation take place ? — A. Somewhere in Quebec. Q. Can you be more precise as to where it took place ? — A. I cannot. Q. You had gone to seek him out on this occasion ? — A. On the occasion he told me ? No ; I do not think I did. Q. Who began the conversation — he or you ? — A. I do not remember at all. Either might have begun it. Q. Had any nerson spoken to you about it before Murphy spoke to you ? — A. I do not think so — nothing us to the arrangement. Q. How did you get to know of it ? — A. The subject of the Cios-s-wall was uppermost in my mind. Q. Those payments were referred to by Mr. Murphy first ? — A. Yes. Q. When did he say they were to be made ? — A. He did not say in the tii-st interview. It was when I went for the notes. Q. When you went for the notes, can you tell us where you found him ? — A. [ cannot. Q. Can you tell us any of the other circumstances in connection with the giviii;^ of these notes ?— A. What circumstances do you refer to ? Q. To the circumstances connected with the giving of these notes ? — A. Tlio notes were signed in my own office. Q. You have told us you went to see Murphy, and asked him for the notes. What occurred after that ? — A. Then he said he would see bis partner. Q. Did he see his partner ? — A. Evidently, because he came next day, or two or three da3's afterwards, and made the notes. Q. Had he any communication with you before you met him for the purpose of making the notes ? — A. No further than 1 have related. Q. How did you make the appointment or when to meet ? — A. At that time? Q. At the time of the first conversation ? — A. Yes. Q. When did you make the appointment; where and how long alter that ? — A. I do not know. Q. What do you know with reference to the appointment ? — A. That he carried it out. He came with some of his partners and made the notes and gave tl:em to mo. Q. Who were the partners present ? — A. Nicholas Connolly ; I think Mr. Larkin was present when they were made, and Murphy. Q. Any person else ? — A. I do not recollect now that there was. Q. Was Slichael Connolly present ? — A. I do not think so. He may !>ave Uen, however, without my particularly noting i*^. Q. Did you know the Connollys intimately then ? — A. I did not. Q. Did you know Mr. Larkin ? — A. No. Q. Had you ever met him before ? — A. I might have met him once or twice, but very seldom. Q. Had you met the Connollys very otten ? — A. No. Q. Murphy was your particular friend ? — A. I was better acquainted with him than any of them. Q. Yon could not say certainly whether Larkin was there or not. Your im- pression is that he was ? — A. Yes. 736 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. You cannot say certainly whether Michael Connolly wa» there or not ? — A. No. Q. What time of the day was this ? — A. I think it would be between ton and twelve. Q. In the morninfj? — A. Yes. (^ Was TliomaH McGreevy there ? — A. No. Q. Was he present anj' time at that interview ?- was. Where was he ? — A. Upstaii-s. Was he there the whole time ? — A. Oh, well, I don't know. After the notes were si^no_ next following day, until they were produced before this Cccjjjju —A. I will make an exception to that; there was the onelwasaske" ***" Q. Which one was that? — A. T think it was the 12-months note, j y-Q^ aj^i.-j H. How long after you had given them to Thomas Mciireevy^s^ proj^^jji to change that 12-months note ? — A. It must have been a week or t^. Q. By whm was that 12-months note signed? — A. I could ncnow. I hare nr Q. To the best of your recollection, who was it? — A. I do -nnoJly's^ ^fichael memory as to that. There was so many names — Lurkin' Connolly's. 'ot know that he did Q. Did Michael Connolly sign any of the notes ? — A. ^"not say. The note - Q. To the best of your belief, did he sign any?- ' ** are here. /t say. I say to Mr. MurpbevVhari*^ ^ renewed •^^:r'r^^^^^^^^ to yo. ^ that 12 months ou that you saw Q. i want your memory on the point? — A. I c^:®^^ 'would state. Q. You decline to say ?— A. I do not decline; ^'"^ "' this note ?— -A. Jf,. Q. Whom did you see in reference to the„„ w ,, Murphy. *"« M^-^'-eevy ?-a. Within two Q. How long was that after you gave it/ i„tin,„t . f« u- weeks, .. .•* - . . . '" "*i Q. What did you was rather long ; that " Q, How long was Murphy ?— A. I would have seen hiiting another fi^-'-^o^ ^P^ another for it Q. Did you give him that 12 -i think I did '^' ' ^''^ »ot. Q. You did not give it up \«hd the tinin nftu » Q. Did you get another fb- . °^ ^''^^ note ?-A. The denomi- Q. What was the deno-^.t quite sure about th„t •. nation would be $5,000. .otiable. '""^ > it was reduced consi f Q. And the time ?--'f. what was the time? A t «rably anyway. It wi'^ months or 4. ^~^- I would not like to Q. To the best ffZ/' f-^ or 6 months, venture to say whe*.. . ,• ^h. no. Q. It was eitj„"r"t that ?_a. It could nof u .. Q. Was it are h r""*^ ""'«• ^"""^ ''««" "^ade -' ""' 'l" Was nni a ,1 at 3 K-^v'?.Si;S5s£Sr"- payable 1-474 did with thee.xchan, 733 'ged notes ?-_A. I nnse?-A. iecau..e gave it to Th OHias I ' ';: lii ■ u •ey 1*0 in il !'■ :- i: 1 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 11 I Q. How long was tbtit ftfter you got it from Murphy ? — A. It must have been ubout the Kame time. Q. Vou never hhw niiy of those noteu aflei-wardrt, after they were produceil here ? — A. That is my impicsHion. Q. You uru tirm and certain on tiiat point? — A. Certain as an opinion can lie. Q. Ih it not the case that ThomaB McGreevy gave you somu of those notes to "it them discounted to meet the judgment in the caisn of McCarron & Cameron ? — ■*■ He may have done bo. % Did he or did he not ? — A. He may have. 1'i83 '^^'*' ^^ ^^^ ^'^" ^"^ those notes in the course of the month of July or August, . iseM. *'^® purpose of getting some of them discounted to pay the judgment in t!io Ucurn A""" ^ Cameron ? — A. He may have given me one, hut I linow that John Q \\[r. Chaloner, his booiv-keeper, got some of thom to gut discounted. A I may it'^ ^^^ ^^ those that wore given to Ciialoner and John Hcurn ? — Q. But fieen them, time they weiyou not just told us that you did not see any of the notes since the the notes »von until ihey wereprwiuced before this Committee ? — A. J)idyou ** some of the» time they were discounted by Jolin Hearn? — A. I may have Q. Which ont In a conversation thA. I would not say. The one the Union Uankgot, foi- instance. rcrhaps two, lhat,,| ^jth Mr. Chaloner he told me regarding one of those notes, iret the note* dist.^^ McGreevy told him that ho had sent Thompson to go ^ .... ^..til to him Vl r'kalnnai- I. .Ill ma tknt. I>n Ixi.l u...>n Thr> or ano Thomitso" »fti'* **" ^**™^i. Chaloner told me that he hatl soon Thompson, and him BO ho had to do *»,„|,ms McUreevy had never said a word about a note vhv I'Unow I did not ban- j^.^,^^^;.^^,^^, himself. That is that 85,000. That i ^ ^ t^ Did vou handle any handle thoh, Q Did you hanoie "»"°f „j^y i,,,^^ . j^.^.e.*'„,„*8ibly fiom thiH «"^,'^^yg,.e discounted by John Hearn ?— A. [ may to iro't Larkin, Connolly & rpj^^^j I would remember. Going to Jonn Hearn ..; « which would i'®"*'" '"„i..nt tiscounted there would naturally a suspicion Hearn that it >vas '"-^.^r £'/^reevy. He therefore told me^o toll' .loin. .,. i,««n .Tohn Hearn iroiu ,^j ^^1, tTrkeep John Hearn ii"«" ° \n(\ sold to Larkin, Connolly & Co., so as nndhim. ., iuu?— A Thoniodge of any connection between them Q- Wl»o toW >7« ^^; \^ John Hca. Q. He told you to no ovy. ^y impressu,.|.^ ^^^ ^^^^ He^^'^^^^lJ fho S^""* '**"'' "''''' ^ A. That is Q.'And did you te'^^-"— l^^i the h«1^ n That these notes icpie ^^^^^^^ Hearna.vy had tohl you?— A. I did. Q What did you «» ;" ,= f jij you or d«_A. That is my impression. O To the best of youi »«' ' ^, ^^^^ Possibly to explain to l.ini. not ^y «»y n^^'"*' ^^T « told us vou never saw .^ to see him ?-A. 1 can- a best ot your tell Us that the ese probabilities belie'aotU they were fr«li.tO';j„b„ Hcu^n^., ,„ „,„ siro true l-«^^^^^£rrS^anend. over the notes my The Committee then adjourn ed. Vhen I delivered 740 54 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 IlnrsE OP Commons, Thursday, 30tli July, 18!tl. Tho Committee met at 10.30 a.m., Mr. (tiroijard in the Chair InvoHtigatioii into certain circumstances anil statements made in connection with the tenders and contracts respecting the (Jiiebec Harbour Worits, &c., resumed. Crcss-oxami nation of Mr. R. II. McGRERvr resumed. By Mr. Stuart: Q. Will you look at these notes produced in tins case as Kxhihit " W7," and .state wholhor you recognize any of them ? — A. I rocognizo tho three last as forming part of the 8:i5,00O. Q. Have you ever seen the other two? — A. Not to my recollection ; I have not, (^ Will 3-011 look at the two cheques of the 14lh May, 1883, and 1st of June, and say if you have seen them Iwjforo? — A. I have no recollection of seeing either of them. Q. Those cheques according to the books are cheques that paid the two demand notes, E.\liibit " W 7" V — A. I do not know anything of them. Q. According lo the audit also, those cheques are the two cheques that paid those two notes? — A. I ec Bank, Exhibit "ZO.'" — A. I prefer seeing mj* bank book that 1 gave in to the Committee. il. I am told you did not produce the bank book covering thut period ? — A. I am told that J did. The bank deposits to my account for the month of Ma\-, 1883, appear to be about 8!>,(lOO. I have not made it up exactly. *l. Are those cash ? — A. Cash and discounts. ii. How much cash ? — A. About 85,000 — between the 4th and 31st of May on • iiticrent dates and ditlerent amounts. I will give you the dates if you wish : intli -May, 8600; KJlh May, 83,500; 21st May, 8404. Q. How much did your cash deposits for the month of June amount to in the same year?— A. For Juno 1883, as follows: 1st. 84.0(tO; !)th, 8270; 12th, 820tt: loth, 8198; 18th, 82,007.0!! ; 21st, 8040; 2t5th, Sl.OOO.tJO ; 30th, 812(1. The total is 88,947. Q. Will you state where th«(se moneys came from ? — A. I really cannot tell you where they came from. Q. Produce your books and say where these moneys came from ? — A. These lU'posits represent the business transactions I had on various accounts, and I cannot now say where any particular sum came from ; Init I will say, without fear of con- tradiction, that none of that money camo out of that 825,000 — positively. Q. Where did you get the mono}'? — A. That is none of your business. <}. But it is someof tho business of the Committee? — A. Let the Committee want to know where it comes from, and I will tell them all I know. Mr. STirART asked that the witness be comj)olled to answer, Bf/ the Chairman : Q. How long would it talte you to find out from your books where this monej- 'i n, I ' . irl.l- ' ' came from ? — A. 1 do not know. 1 am not able to find that out there at all. 741 From 1;!:! 'I 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 memoiy. I tell you thHt the 84,000 camo from the Intcri-olonial Railway— from the St. Charles Branch wharf. Ihj Mr. Stuart: (i. Where tloes 'hut ap|)enr in j-our liook>? — A. I do not know. There was a f arphy. 742 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Q. Q. Q. Q. Whiit ilid you do with thorn ? — A. I gave 814,000 of them that same diiy to Thonius Mi'Crieevy. Q. Did you give the notes theniMolves to Thomiw McGreevy ? — A. Tlio iiotoH themHt'lvi's. Q. Which of the notes ? — A. I gave him the four months of 85,000, the three months of Sr>,000 and tho five months of 94,000. Q. What did you do with the other two? — A. I l1.25. Q. I asked you how much you charged in that account as having been paid out in connection with the Bale des Chaleurs to Thomas McGreevy ? — A. I cannot tell you particularly. Q. Will you look at the entry of 6th July, 1886, and read it to the Committee? — A. "July fith, cheque of j-ou-s $250, cheque of 81503.19. Expenditure and services in connection with the construction of the Bale des Chaleurs Railway, $5,000." Q. In the litigation between yourself and youi- brother, did 3'ou claim from him any pai-t of the moneys received from Bale des Chaleurs? — A. I did. Q. How much ?— A. I claimed $21,000, less $5,000 already charged. Q. Subsequently, did you claim the whole? — A. I do not think 1 s Exhibit "P13"? — A. '" 188G to 1888; To half amount received by you from Baie des Chaleurs Railway $42,000, equal to $21,000 less $5,000 in the account alreadv rendered, $16,000." 744 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 (j. Will you look at this affidavit of thedeCenduntir tbenmende quo par la prouvo faito en cotte cause, le douzo ot lo treizo du pidsent mois ; Lo defondour demaiide qu'il lui (^oit permis d'amendor son dit compto do ])arti- I'lilaritds produit au soution do son dit plaidoyor de compensation. ))nMlMit cm cotto cause sous I'intituld : Defendants' Bill of Particulars fijled with his pleas, ov substi- tiiant aux sommos montionndes aux items deux et quatre du dit compto, savoir : ?1.'»,000 ot $16,000 les montants suivants: nu montant portd ^ ritem doux du dit loniptc, colui do $21,038.81, ot afl montant portd d I'itom quatre colui de 836,482.r)7, il' tout au.x conditions que la cour adjugora. Qudboc, 14 novembro 1890. (Signo) CAS'tRAIX, ANfJKUS et LAVKRY. Procureurs du defendeur. iiolicrt Henry McGroovy, lo (idfendeur plus haut nommd, dtant dftmeut asser- mentd, ddpose et dit: "Que tous les f aits alldguds et mentionnds dans la motion ci- iiaiit sont vrais," et a signd. Asscrmentd devant moi, & Qadbec, ~\ cour icnante, le quatorze no- [■ vcmbre 1890. ) (Signd) JicRROioHs ET Campbem,, (Signd.) K H. McUKKKVY. P. C. S. , n •h: I- '! Witness. — I ask that the whole document be i»rinted. 745 " li; IS il! 54 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 B - ' '^ t The Chairman. — It is ordered that the whole document be printed in the pni- ccedings, in French, together with the tninslntion. The translfttion is as follows : Xo. 1731. " IX THE SUPERIOR COURT, QUEBEC. "T. McCtreevy, Pluintiff. vs. " R. H. McGreevy, Defendant. "Motion on behalf of dcteiulant : " Whereas by an involuntary error and omission, Defendant declared by his sta- toment of account filetl in this case in support of the plea of compensation, that the amount to him owing bj^ Plaintiff on account of operations in connection with the Bay Chaleurs Railway Company is one-half of the total amount roalizeil, to wit : — the half of S42,000, say 821,000'. less S5,000 already charged to Plaintiff in Defoii- dant's contra account for which credit is given him to the amount of 8G4,805.9.t in E.Khibit No. 1 of Plaintiff, and that the amoutit owing to Defendant \>y Plaintitl' for material, tools and implements (plant) in connection with the North Shore Railway is 815,000 ; " Whereas from the admissions of Plaintiff, examined as a witness in this caso, and also from evidence given therein by the witness Power, and from the books of the Plaintiff, it appears : " 1. That the amount for which Defendant must be credited and for which he is entitled to make a claim against Plaintiff in connection with the operations of the aforesaid railway company is 83(i,482.5'7 : and, "2. That the am(mnt for which Defendant is entitled to be credited in respect to material, tools and implements (plant) by him furnished to Plaintiff, in connt-ctiou with the construction of the North Shore Railway aforesaid, is 821,938.81 ; " In view of the vast number of items covered by the accounts in this case, the complicated nature of the arguments, and the length of time elapsed since the oper- ations aforesaid were carried on, Defendant was unable to show, in his said account of particulars, the exai-t amount of the above items ; ''In view of the fact that the error ho made in his said account was brought to his knowledge only b}* the evidence given in this case on the 12th and 13th of this present month ; " Defendant prays that he be allowed to amend his said account of particulars filed in support of his said plea of compensation entered in this case under the heading: ' Defendant's Bill of Particulars filed with his pleas,' by substituting fi>r the amounts named in items two and four of the said account, to wit, — 815,000 and 816,000, the amounts following : for the amount set out in item two of the said account 821,938.81, and for the amount set out in item four 830,482.57, the whole on such conditions as the court may order. " Quebec, 14th November, 1S90. (Signed) " CASG RAIN, ANGERS & LARUE, ' for Defendant. '• Robert Henry McGreevy, the Defendant above named, having been duly sworn, deposeth ami saith : " That all the facts alleged and mentioned are true, and both signed. Sworn befoi me at Quebec Jn Court, J ..j^^g^ j.j McCJREEV Y. the fourteenth Nov., 1890. \ v & / (Signed) " FISET, BU R ROUGHS &. CAMPBELL, P. S. C." Bij Mr. Osier : Q. As I understand it, it was not i.itended that j-ou were to bring in any capital into this partnership? — A. That was not the intention. 74« 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Were you to do any wavk — that is to say, were you to lake any active ]>art in the cariying on of t!ie works? — A. Xot in a practical carrying on of these works. Q. And as I understand it, you were there simply and solely in order thnt the influence of your brother, Mr. Thomas McGreov}-, might be secured ? — A. Well, I don't know that it was entirely that, but I si'.ppose to a great extent it was. Q. Well, now, to what extent? — A. I could not f','ll you. Q. Why were j'ou there? You brought no capital, and you did no substantial work. I want to know incisively and clearly the reason why you were there ? — A. Well. I did substantial work. Q. In what way? The leason of your being there to receive the 30 per cent, is what 1 want to get at ? — A. Well, I don't know ; my leason for getting the 30 per cent was that I should have some occupation out of which I could make money. Q. Yes ; but you were not to either occupy' yoi r capital, or devote your time to the execution of the contracts. I want you to stuto to the Coiumittce why j'ou were there? — A. That is m}- reason why 1 was there, and I think it would come better from Liirkin, Connolly & Co. why they thought I was there. Q. .lust kindly answer my question. Give me the reason why a barj^ain was made liv which you wo'e to get 30 per cent.? You were not to contribute capital and you were not to be known in the concern — ;just give mo very shortly the reason why you were there? — A. I was there for to occupy myself with those works, and that I should make money out of it. Q. Yes ; but why, when you were not to be known as a partner, and you were not to be seen about the works, and you were not to contribute capital, what was the reason you got30pefcont. ? — A. Well, I told you the reason; that is inj' reasons for it ; that is what I went into it for. Q. You went into it to make money ; no doubt that was the ultimate object ? — A. Yes. Q. But people don't give away 30 per cent, for nothing, you know. What was the reason of your having that position ? — A. Well, I gave you my reason. Q. Your reason was to make mone^'? — A. And to occupy myself in connection with these works. Q. What reason was there with reference to your brother? — A. You are asking me other people's reasons. Q. You know v ry well what reason there was whj* the arrangement was made — the ultimate object was to make money; but what had Thomas McGreevy, for instance, to do with the arrangement? 1 simply want to get in a clear, incisive way just your position in that contract. It is to be gathered, perhaps, from what you have already said, but I would like to get it in a short way ? — A. Well, I got into those works rel^'ing a good deal on my brother's influence. Q. Your brother's influence to do what ? — A. To do what he could to help the work, Q. In what way? — A. Applying for changes. Q. Yes, go on ? — A. And other ways of facilitating the cairying on of the Avork. Q. And increasing the profit of the work ? — A. Yes. Q. Well, was there any unde-standing between yourself and Thomas as to what >huuld be done with the 30 per cent, that you were to receive — had Thomas any s^liare in it? — A. It was understood without explaining that he was. «i. It was understood without explaining that he was to have a share of it? — A. Yes. Q. How much? — A. Well, that was not defined either. Q. It was left in a cloud}' sort of form ? — A. Yes ; a cloud_> sort of form. Q. So that you could give him 5 per cent, or ft.') per cent, as ym liked? — A. Well, no. Q. Well, then, how more defined? — A. There was no particular sum. Q. Let us get at what it was to bo if there was no agreement ? — A. It was not detined, but it was understood he was to get some benefits. 74T ;i t III :||- ipHM 64 Victoria ■\ i Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 I' U; Q You say it was understood — was understood by yourself? — A. Yes. Q. Was it understood by writing? — A. By inference, not by writiiii?. Q. The inference was what? — A. Throufrh the inference: " That now I am aiding you ii! this work, and of course certain benefits, a certain share, belongs to mo." Q. Yes; but was that said ? — A. Well, no it was not said. Q. Well, then, how was it inferred — you see it is a serious thing? — A. Well, it is inferred Q. This is a charge against a member of Parliament, and I just want to see what the base is. Now, when was the arrangement made and what was the arrange- ment, or was there no arrangement ? — A. There was an arrangement understood. Q. How was it understood. You could not understand things by sitting (ogcther merely, and saying nothing. It must eitlier have been by words or somotliing els'i ? — A. It was understood between us. Q. How understo-wi ? Were there words or writings, or what ? — A. There were words. Q. I do not suppose you can remember the woi-ds. Do you remembei- their effect? — A. The words were these: "You would not get this contract; you could not get these extras or additions without my influence." That was the inference I drew from him that he wanted a part of this money. Q. You drew it from the fact that he told you you could not get the contract, you could not get the extras, j'ou could not get the changes, without his influence ? — A. Without his influence from the po.sition he held. Q. Was there any understanding beyond the spcciflc 825,(100, which we W{jn't go over again, on the Gross-wall, and another specific sum s|)oken of ? Was tlieie any general understanding as to the amount of contribution by the firm beyond the 30 per cent, that you wore to got ? — A. I did not make those agreements tor tii()>e donations or contributions. They wore made by other members of ihc firm. Q. Were 3'ou there as a representative of Thomas, representing his interest to some extent ? — A. In the firm ? Not further than what I have said already. Q. But to the extent of the interest you understoo I Thom-is was to have you did represent him : otherwise, why should you be there ? Would you bo there except for Thomas' influence ? — \. I do not thnk I would. Q. If your reason for being there then was b. 'cause you were supposed to control the influence of Tlionias, how was it that these v'aiious arrangements were made ijy Thomas Mctxreevy and 3Iurphy ? — A. I cculu not explain that. Q. In round sums, what amounts of the share of the pi ofits have you paid t(' Tiiomas McGreevy ? — A. I paid him about 870,000. Q. That is to .say, of your HO per cent, in some contracts, 20 per cent, in the Esquimalt (jraving Dock, and the total 3"ou have received from profits, you have paid him for what reason it may be $70,000 ? — A. It is what I consider represented half of what I got. Q. You paid him the half of what you got ? — A. Yes. Q. Or as near as you could get at it ? — A. As near as 1 could got at it. (^. That was j'our intention ? — A. That was my intention. Q. You say you have substantially paid the half? — A. Yes; up to the time ot the quariel. That was uppermost in my mind — the half Q. That Slim is quite independent of the contributions for what wo may call irregular purposes? — A. Quite outside of that. Q. What was your first kno'wiedge of these irregular or improper payments f — A. Mv fiist knowledge was the Cross-wall sum. q. That was the $2.5,001) ?— A. Yes. Q. Generally sjjeaking, j'ou took notice of the amount of these payments at the dates of the audits and knew in a general way what was going on ? — A. Yes. Q. I notice that your protest is written after the quarrel — some months after tin- quarrel. I refer to your protest against certain irreguliir appropriations. — A. After the quarrel with Thomas McGreevy? Yes. 748 5-i Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 (i. Ami attor the procchS which I think you have described as " the freezing Diit " had been done? — A. No ; it had begun. Q. It h.ad begun, but the freezing was not quite complete? — A. No. Q. It was getting cold weather, but was not quite ice. You stated that, " in tiie early part of 1889 wo were fi-ozen out." The letter was dated in April ot same year, so that it was getting close down to 32° ? — A. That letter was sent while the accounts and audits were being prepared. Q. AVhich accounts and audits you havfe accepted? — A. I did not. My last acceptance was March, 1888. Q. Was the price you got to go out based on the audit? — A. They did not buy me out. (^ You went out? — A. Yes ; I was shoved out. Q. You signed the document? — A. I signed the document of sale by Murphy to Larkin, Connolly & Co., or the Connollys, Q. Do you know anything of these various donations that appear so thickly through the books? — A. I knew of none. the K(i\d mentioned there? — A. 3ir. Boyd was the Resident Engineer. (I. Can you explain, or do you now explain the words " added by Boyd "? — A. I took it from the report. Q. What did you understand from the report ? — A. That 160,000 yards more would be required to be done. But it is ''added by Boyd " ? — A. Yes; that he would require that much more to be done. Q. What shape did you see this report in ? — A. They were assuming or making up an approximation of what would be required to be done for the next season. Q. But why did j'ou carry down this balance of 168,000? That is as if jouweie checking whether the amount added by Boyd was really con-ect. You go over the figures tor three j'carn and bring down the balance, as if 3"ou were comparing your dredging account with the figures that were given. It is important, because Mr. Boyd was the Eesident Engineer, and is not here to explain, and it is fair that everything possible should be ascertained of that nature? — \. I cannot make any further explanation. I was trying to ascertain from the memoranda furnished the amount of dredging. Q. We want this explained, because your memorandum book alone appears to give the full figures. Did you see that report? — A. I think 1 did. Q. Who was it a report to ? — A. It was a report, if my memory serves me well, from Mr. Perley to the Harbour Commissioners of Quebec, showing not only the dredging but other works that were going on and would be required for next season. You would find I possibly made the figures in 1884, and at the end of 1885 I went to see what remained to be done. By Mr. Davies : Q. I understand that at this time Boyd had discovered that his estimate of the dredging was 160,000 yaixls short ? — A. It is, as I explained before, in the report fi-om Perley that came from Ottawa. Q. Now, passing to an entry in the diary of 1887, which is in these words — " Memoranda, dredging in 1886. Later statement shows total cost to be $38,554.47. Revenue 335 cubic yards — 106,323 cubic j-ards paid 32 cents, or profit of 27 cents cleai". Cost for wire rope, fuel, revolving derricks, etc., $29,732, Wages to " Sir Hector," 85,986, Wages "St, Joseph," $5,186. Sand levelling, $2,006; total. $42,911. Revenue, :!23,000 cubic yards $87,293, " Sir Hector " at Graving Dock, $10,000 ; total, $97,293." Then carried on " 17 cents a cubic yard profit ; total, $54,382." Whoie did j-ou get that information? — A, I got all that information out of Larkin, Connolly i^ Co.'s office. Q. From Larkin, Connolly & Co.'s office ? — A. Yes, sir; there is some of them pajiers in. Q. Now, this is the estimate of the profit in dredging, during the season imme- diately prior to the 35 cent contract? — A. Yes — 1886. Q. And from that you find your profits at 27 cents a yard wore 17 cents? — A, That shows that. Q. So that the cost of dredging in the season of 1886, if this memoranda is cor- rect, would be 10 cents per cubic yard? — A. Precisely, if the information I received fiom the office be correct. Q. There is no sinking fund apparently there? — A. I took it as I got it. Q. But, of course, a sinking fund, which j'ou put at 2i, but other witnesses more correctly at 10 ? — A. I did not ; I beg your pardon. 750 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 feet, some wu« in tlio By Mr. Alulock : Q. What would be tlie depth of water? — A. In all depths up to 2" i-i. What was tlie character of the dredging in 1886? — A, A\el!, so! Tidal hasin outside, and others was inside — most outside. Q. In wlial depth of water ? — A. Oh, it is from 15 to 27 teet. Q. From 15 to 27 leet. Where were the dredgings jnit? — A. In that season tliey would be dumped to a great extent in the river, and put in the Cross-wails, or u-fd in masonry and other works requiied. Q. And the actual cost of that dredging and disposing of the di edgings was 10 cents a yard ? — A. Y'es. By Mr. Osier : Q. I now put in your han«ls, referring to the entry "added by Mr, Boyd," the only report found in the Commissioners' papers for 1885, as to dretlging. It is a rL'i)ort by Mr. Boyd to Mr. Verret. Is that the report you loolied at ? You see it does not correspond, although it does suggest there is 100,000 more yards to be done ? — A. That is not the report. Q. We cannot find any report — I have had a search made, and it is re])orted to me that there is no document from Mr. Perley ? — A. I can almost speak to a cer- tainty that there does exist such a report. Q. A repoit from whom ? — A. From Mr. Perley to the Harbour Commission. Q. A general annual report? — A. No; a report showing the probable amount of money and work required for the ensuing year. 1 believe I could lay my hands on a copy of it. Q. Well, make R memorandum, please, of that, because it is of some importance. This report to which I allude is dated 9lh July, 1885, directed to Mr. Verret, Secre- tary Treasurer of the Quebec Harbour Commission. It "acknowledges the receipt of letter of Gth instant, and reports, in reply, that the dredging of the Tidal basin to a depth of 25 feet at low water over an area sufficient to admit of the entrance of a largo ocean steamer will require the removal of about 100,000 cubic j'ards more, at an average price of 35 cents, equal to 835,000. This includes the cutting away of the bank as far as the line EF, distant 500 feet from the entrance, and the deepening to 25 feet, the part dredged by Messrs. Peters, Moore & Wiight. The dredge is now workinj; on the line C D. (See plan). — John Boyd, Engineer-in-Charge." Witness. — May I add to my explanation ? Q. Any explanation you desire. — A. I want to add to that, that I know the memorandum in my diary has no improper reference to Mr. Boyd, or anybody else. Q. That is to say you were satisfied that in your own mind you never had knowledge that there was to be an added yardage by Mr. Boyd improperly? — A. Quito certain. t^. Whatever construction might be put upon that entry, you never had in your mind to write it down as an impro|)er one ? — A. No. Q. I find in the diary for 1887 this entry: "Cross-wall, May, net $8,600; June, 824.000 ; July, 834,000. South-wall, .lune, 819,000 ; July, 810,00''o. Then there are other figures, 818,000 and 8800." What is the meaning of that entry ?— A. I was eviilonti}' watching closely the work, and 1 would take that to be the amounts of the monthly estimates, or ])erhaps, deducting, it is the net profits of the various Works for that month, or the season. Q.Here is another entrj', dredging, 1887: "May. 26,000; June. 76,000; .luly, 51,000 — total, 153 cubic yards, costing 825,160. That amount includes coal wiri', &c., 819,577 ; wages, 83,794; monthly men, 81,789. This would equal 16^ ciiits." 1 suppose it is per cubic yard. "Cost of one tug, 812 per day. and two seow.-i, 88 per day for both to be added and the 819,577 includes coal, wire, itc, for seusun. Dredging to the Slst of August, 315,000 cubic yards at 35 cents, 8110.250 ; I'.xiienditure, 829,791; profits, 880,459," Is that memorandum got from the calcula- 751 r® l!^! I i.ill, T 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 tioiis made at the time from the books?- A. Yes. 1 had no other source of informa- tion of either the expenditure or the revenue, except from the office. Q. You see that is merely a part of the yeai-. Looii at what the drod^ini^ cost for the whole season (Exhibit *'G5") and what you ^ot for dredging that sesison. — A. This would be in 1887, The total cost was UCt,i}52.l2. Q. And the total receipts ?— A. 817(},G80.15. Q. Making a total piotit of — A. $130,128.03, plus the drawback, I suppose. Q. And not counting sinking funtl on the plant. — A. Xot counting sinking fund on the plant. That trial balance sheet does not mention whether it is tlio net estimate or whether it includes the drawback. Q. In 1889, I find a memoiandum which I will ask you to give me the meaning of. It reads as follows : CVoss-Wall 825,000, June, 1883. Graving Dock 14,000 8,000, Oct., .188*!. to Sir U 10,000, Jan., 1887. Dredging 37,000, Feb., 188?. To yourself. 5,000, Aug., 1887. B. C 25,000, 1884. 3,000, Dec. 8127,000, except 820,000 to H. L. and 82,000 to O. E. Alurphy in election of February, 1887, all the above was paid to you, and except 14 M and 10 M. I have to pay my share out of the above." What is the meaning of that entry ? — A. That was a memo- randum in leference to the sums paid to Thomas McGreevy. Q. Has that to do with your account with Thomas McGreevy? — A. No; it is only a memorandum making it up and showing Q. What explanation have you to give of the.se entries ? They do not correspond with the profits received and there are details the j that we do not get else- where. [ would like you to give a full explanation of that entry? — A. Well, the Cross-wall. 825,000. Q. We know ail about that.— A. The next, Graving Dock, 814,000 ami 88,000, October, 1880. is included for the elections of 1880, that 1 gave to Thomas McGioevv. The 810,000 was to Sir Hector, as stated bv Mr. Connolly. " Dredging, 837,000," that includes the 827,000. " To yourself, 85,000. August, 1887," that is to Thomas McGreevy, Then, there is J3. C, 825,000 and 83,000, December. The last is the sum paid to T, Chapais and is supposed to have went to the Courrier dii Canada. Then this memorandum, "except the 820,000 to il. L. and 82,000 to 0. Iv Murphy in elections of February, 1887, all the above was paid to you," that una is Thomas McGreevy. "And except 814,000, and 810,000,1 have to pay my slmre out of the above." I had no interest in the Graving Dock 814,000, nor in the 810,000, from theGiaving Dock. Q. You have not produced to the Sub-Committee the particular diary fr(jin whicli that entry was taken ? Have yon got it now? — A. I have not been to Quebec since I was asked to produce it. Q. It is in Quebec? — A. Yes ; 1 must get an order to go down. Q. You kept a letter book, did you not? — A. 1 kept a private letter book. (I. Have you any correspondence with the members of your firm, Mr. Larkiii for instance ? — A. I think I had only one letter from him, Q. What has become of the copy of that letter ? — A. I cut it out of that book and tiled it here. Q. That is the letter cut out of the book and filed here ? — A. Yes. Q. What letter was cut out of page 76 ? — A, I think it must have been on some other matter, and perhaps cut out to forward to somebody. Q. Have you anj- recollection of it ? — A, I have not, indeed. 752 IT 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 H. That is page 7,817.88. the document is notes ? — .\. Taken from his books to the to either, Is the now and (^ The balance ot statements. Q. But not copies of his statements taken from the books ? — A. From his state- ment submitted. Q. You said that 870,000 would be about one-half of the profits yon received from the contracts. Wt>ll, have you any explanation to ot^eras to the amount of S1'"^7,U(jO mentioned as your share of the profits in Schedule C, in page 5 of the First IJeport iif the Accountants (Appendix No. 2)? — A. As far as 1 know that is an incorrect statement shewing that 1 have received 8187,800. I have no knowledge of having received 85,000 as stated, nor 81,604. When I wrote to Thomas McUieevy on the 753 1—48 I :i. IP m ^p i'i 'I .' 1 • 'ii;! ' ■ 1 i' 'i i:l .' I ij 1 1 s : 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 14th January, 1889, I stated there was about 81^5,000 that I i-eceived from Larkin, 'Connolly & Co. as my shai-e (if the protit;^. Martin Connolly, tlie book-keeperV statement up to April following, lour months after, was $147li000. In the interval between the two periods Thomas Mctrreevy had received from Larkin, Connolly & ■Co. 810,000. With the 813.5,000 that I tpoke of, that would be 814.5,000, airieeing with the statement of the book-keeper, 8147,000. Bij Mr. Ouimet : Q. You say these ten thousand were chaigeil to you. Can yon say wnere? — A. One of them I gave to Mr. Murjihy, to give to^Thomas McGreevy. Bij Mr. Davies : Q. One of what ? — A. One of the fives in Janua r}* ; the other five there wa> no 4iuthority. By Mr. Ouimet : il. What date was the letter ? — A. I4lh .January. be included in the 86,050 that is there charged to the amou.it 'paid T. McG. tor hU share " ?— A. That $6,050 I gave him. Q. In one payment, independently of this 81,000 ? — A. Independently entirely. Q. Have you a voucher for that? — A. I gave a cheque, I think, to Mr. Chaloner to pay it. Q. A cheque for the whole amount ? — A. \''e8. Q. One and the same cheque? — A. I think so. Q. Well, is there any doubt about it? — A. There may be a doubt. Q. What would be the doubt ? — A. I don't know what would l»e the doubt. Q. Supposing we find that voucher is for a smaller sum, and there was Sl.OO") to make it up, what would you say? — A. The only thing I know is I gave iim the 86,050 as the amount agreed upon for the North-West Land fJompany, and that 81,t)00 was not included in it. By Mr. Ouimet : Q. Did I understand from you the other da}', that you were still a member or shareholder in the Baie des Chaleurs Kailwii^' Company? — A. Y'es. Q. In the present company? — A. In the present company. i-i- That is the company now seeking incorporation here? — A. \'es. if. Are you a director in the new company? — A. No. Q. Who are the directors? — A. Well, I could not sJty I am sure ; there is Coojier and Thom — I don't know them all. I have very little acquaintance with the new company. Q. Could you ascertain who are the directors of the present company? — A. 1 could ; yes. Q. Will you make a note of it, and give us the information when j-ouconie back next week? — A. Yes. (i. Are these shares that you have the same that J'ou had in the old company, or are they other shares? — A. The same ; the remainder of the shares I had. 750 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Did I une transactions and arrangements that wore made between the shareholders in the old company and with the new syndicate? — A. So; I had none at all. tj. When was that made? — A. Sometime during the winter or spring. Q. Last winter? — A. Last winter. Ci. is Mr. Armstrong, ot Sorel, interested in that syndicate, or interested in the i;ew company, either as a director, a contractor or a shai'eliolder ? — A. He was ]>refent at the meeting that we held on the 11th May last. Q. Was it at that meeting these arrangements were made? — A. It was at that meeting that I |)resided as vice-president, over the election of the new directorate. Q. You were not elected as a director? — A. I did not belong to that. (■i. Have you made any arrangements for the sale of your stock ? — A. No. (^ With what money were the notes of the old shareholders bought? — A. I could not say. Q. Is it to your knowledge that the company received a certain amount of money from the Local Government at Quebec ? — A. 1 don't know. (I. So you know nothing about the arrangements between the new company and tlie shareholders of the old company ? — A. Nothing at all. Q. Theie aie two statements of accounts tiled from that case of Thomas McGrcevy against you produced l)efore us. What are those statements of accounts? Are they vours or are thev Mr. McGreevy's? — A. 'ihis is the account of my own (Kxhibit "Qia"). t^. Is this an account prepared by yourself? — A. Yes; this is the one which was rendered with that letter of the 1-lth January, ISS'.t. Q. That is the account you sent to your brother when you wrote that letter of the Uth January. IS-H?— A. Precisely. Q. And this was filed subsequently by him in the case? — A. It was filed by the plainiitt'as admitting the amount, and was filed with his pleadings. (i. Dili he accept all these payments that apjicar to have been made by you ? — A. He accepted it as a satisfactory statement of account. Q. With what moneys were these payments made? — A. Part was made with tlie money from the Bale des Chaleurs Railway. A greater part was made from the moneys from Larkin, Connolly & Co., other than those special ones mentioned, .'iml some couple of thousand from other sources — from the sale of properly 1 had made on his account — making about §20,000 altogether from other sources than Larkin, Connolly & Co. Btf Mr. Mills (^Bofhwell) : Q. When you say from Lai-kin, Connolly i^ Co., you mean from your portion of the profits? — A. E.xactly. liy Mr. Ami/ot you rest Q. There is a question about the note of 8400.000, which was transferred to by Mr. Murphy. Do you remember that? — A. Y'es. Q. Was that a complete sale ? Did Mr. Murphy divest himself of any into in the note? — A. Yes. Q So it became entirely your property-? — A. Altogether m}- property. Q. Was there a question of any action to be taken in court upon that note? — A. No. He did not know what I was going to do with it — whether I was going to frame it. or anvthing else. 40t 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Cj. It wiiH a complete atile'nnd (live.itm«nt by him of thu iiirttnunent':' — A. It \va:4 11 complete buHiiicHtt truntinction. Q. And lifter it wont into your hundrt he hud nothing to do witli it? — A. Nothing whatever. {I. It became completely yours? — A. Absolutely. H. He pretended he had furniHho'l some value for that note? — A. Vos ; and he gave me a memorandum at the time of the iseiling ot what it was. Jiy Mr. Fitzjia trick : t'iirni>heil at Q. The consideration which you say he gave you as huvinf • that time is Hied with the Bill of Particulars / — A. Most of it Q. There is nothing else be^«ide8 what is in the Bill o»' iiiculars? — A. No. By Mr. Edgar : Q. Mr, Ouimet was asking you about the shares you were holding in the Bale des Chaleurs Railway. Are they shares acquired by you ? — A. I will state it ow-v again. Thomas McUieevv hehl 1.000 shares id the Bale des Chaleurs .llailway, capital stock. I held 500. That is 1,.500. When I made the agreement with Armstrong it was for 875,000, representing the 1..500 shatei^. For the 842.000 that he paiil I transferred him shares to represent that sum, and the rest are mine in my own name. Bji Mr. Geoff rion : (}. It is because j'ou wei"e not paid upon the whole amount agreed upon that yni transferred only a portion? — A. I transferreil sufHcicnt to cover the amount he paid. Mr. Richard R, Dobell sworn. By Mr. Henry : Q. You reside in Quebec ? — A. Yes, Q, And are a merchant, I believe? — A, Yes, sir, (^ A member of the firm of Dobell & Co, ? — A, Yes, Q. How long have you been engaged in business in Quebec? — A. Thirtj-'lhioo years. Q. Have you any position in c mnuclion with the Board of Trade of Quebec? — A, I am a member, I was Provide. -t for some time, Q. You became one of the H.rbour Commissioners of Quebec under the original Act iincier which the Commis.-sioj was established ? — A. Yes. Q. In what year? — A. About the year 1870. Q. Will you state what the constitution of that body was at the time you became a member of it with regard to the sources from which the positions on the Buaid were filled ? — A. The initiative was taken by the Board of Trade, who petitioned tho Government here to allow us to make certain improvements in the harbour which we thought would be desirable for the future trade of the city. We had several interviews with the Minister of Public Works at that time — Sir Hector Langevin. I myself urged the formation of the Quebec Harbour Commission, and we hadcon^i- derable contention at thtit time with the Government as to the formation of it. The Government wanted a majority on the representation. We contended that should not be granted. By Mr. Edgar: Q, About what year was that eftected ? — A. At the formation of the Quebe ■ Harbour Commission, about the year 1870, I think it was. We had considerabio discussion on that point; the Government wanting a majority on the Board, we 758 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 contoinlinj; that hh we wore voliinturily puyiiii; a special tax on our exports, lu'«i(le« the ten cent duty on shipping, that we Bliould have a majority, and the rof ,ioiisi- hility of the Commisnion. Finally, the point wa-* j,'ranted to us. tho payeinof the tax having tour nominees on the Commission, the Board of Trade of (Quebec one, and the (T(»vernment three representatives. We, theretore, had the oontroland wo were responsible for the work done. Bji Mr. J/ennj: Q. That is to say, the persons interested in the trade of Quebec constituted the majority of the Board of Harbour Commissioners? — A. Exactly, and the Govern- ment had merely a representation of three. (i. Did that mode of constituting the Board eoiitinue, or was it changed after- wards, and when? — A. It continued until there was a change of Government and Mr. Mackenzie came into power. Our constitution was amended then, and the Government — I am speaking of one of the conditions that wo insisteil upp:isibility of the Commission and the work. Bi/ Mr. Henry : Q. That is the way the Board has been constituted since? — A. Ever since— yes. Q. You remember that Messrs. Kinipple iV: Morris were originally the Engineers of the Quebec Harbour Improvements? — A. Y'es. Q. Ami the Dock, and so on? — A. Yes. Q. They were removed from that position? — A. Yes. Q. If I remember rightly, both yourself and Mr. Rae, as members of the Board, objected to their removal? — A. Yes; we protested. Q. And Mr. Rae made a formal notarial protest against that course, and you made a protest less formal? — A. The protests are those recorded in the minutes. Q. Y'ou had objections, which were cxpiessed at that time, to their removal ? — A. Yes. By Mr. Ouimet : (i. What year were they removed? — A. About 1SS2. By Mr. Henry : (I. But after your protest against their removal, fomo time subsequently, some- thing occurred which induced you to change your mind on the subject? -A. At tirst I protested strongly against their removal, but shortly aftef\N -rds some matters came to my knowledge as to the action they had taken in the corsti-uction of the Graving Dock which led me to change my view. I found that the Resident Knginecr had written or cabled to Messrs Kinipple & Morris, telling them that it was impossible to put the dock gates where they wei-e trying to do and that they had spent 12 months trying to do this. Instead of coming out and making a proper survey Messrs Kinipple & Morris merely cabled out: '"Move them 70 feet back;" 759 in . r.i ; I i Ti , I }' w iMii ; (: \ r-. % 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 ami so further woi-k was gone on with 70 feet back. Kindinij that they couM not Kucceod there the Engineers cabled out to put the gates 70 feet still further buck. I thought niysclf that that was a huHicient reason for making a change. Q. What was the cause of the difficulty in placing the gates where it had been originally intended to place them ? — A. They .sounded and found rock, and when they came to try 70 feet back, when they (lame'to get the foundation, thej- discovered boulders on a bed of sand, and it was impo.ssible to put the gates there. Q. And as to the second attempt wliich was also advised by cable, they were in the same predicament? — A. Exactlj* the same predicament. Q. Then you ceased to have any confidence in these Engineers in res])ect to their attention to the work that you had previously? — A. I believed when that came to my knowledge it was sufficient to discharge an}' engineers. Q. And you then agreed with the course that had been taken in discharginu' them ? — A. Most certainly. Q. And you are now of the same opinion that you were then ? — A. Entirely. Q. Was your loss of confidence in them attributable to want of skill or want of attention ? — A. Want of attention. Q. The Eesident Engineer of whom you sjioke, but whose name you did not give, was Mr. Pilkington, was it not ? — A. Yes. Q. You remember Mr. Pilkington leaving the work in consequence of infirmitv, or ill-health?— A. Yes. Q. Were the members of the firm present when ho left ? — A. I really forget. Q. Mr. Pilkington was not dismissed, any way, as far as j'ou know. Do \^on remember if he remained for some time after Kinipple & Morris were dismissed in the employ of the Harbour Commissioners? — A. Some short time. (i. Some months, as a matter of fact ? — A. Yes. Q. But the sole cause of his leaving, and his position being occupied by some- body else, was liis ill-health ? — A. Yes. Q. You remember the receipt offenders for the Cross-wall in 1883 ? — A. Yes. {}. Do you know whether, considerinir the circumstances under which the ten- ders were received and opened by the Ilaibour Commissioneis, there was, or was not, any opportunity fur persons present — for members of the Board, or otherwise — to form any opinion of the lelative position of the tenderers ? — A. Not in the least. Q. Thej' were not worked out at all ? — A. The tenders were not worked out ; it was impossible to tell how, relatively, they stood. Q. And the niture of the mode in which the woi-k was proposed to he done was such as to make the reading of the tender insufficient for the purpose of giving any idea of their relative value? — A. There was no possibilit}- of our having any idea which was the highest and which was the lowest. Q. And, as a matter of fact, you had no idea ? — A. We had no idea, and we weie ordered to send them to Ottawa, and they were sent. Q. What was done with them after they were formally opened ? — A. They were handed over to the Secretary, to be sent to Ottawa. Q. What was the object of opening them ? — A. We had no knowledge how the tenders would be made. We did not expect that they would be in this form, anl that we should be able to work them out, but we received instructions from Ottawa that after opening them they were to be sent up there. Q. And j-ou complied with those instructions ? — A. We complied with those instructions. Q. But j'ou are perfectly clear and positive in your statement that nobod}". from what was done when the tenders were opened, could form any idea of their relative value. — A. Certainly. Q. Now, you ascertained, at some time or another, that Eobert McGreevy had an interest in some of these tenders, oi- in the contract which was afterwards awarde 1 upon one of them ? — A. Yes. Q When did you first become aware of Robert Mcdcevy having any interest in that contract ? — A. Well. 1 forget the date, but it was some lime after the Cross- wall CI iilrnct had bem siveii out. 7f)0 54 TfTT 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Well, can you state with any more definitene^*s the minimum or muximura period of the time from the granting of the contract until you found it out ? — A. It was perhaps two years. Q. It may have been as much as two j-ears ? — A. It may have been eighteen months, or two years, but I think about that time. Q. Had j-ou any reason to be!ie\'e, up to that time, that be had any interest ? — A. Not in the least. Q. Or had you any suspicion ? — A. Not the faintest. Q. Nor had any of the members to your knowledge? — A. Not to my know- lodge — not one. Q. Was it the result of anything fortuitous that you became aware, or rather that you heard he had an interest ? — A. I was informed as 1 was walking along I'otei' street, by, I might state, Mr. Owen Murphy. He told me that I ought to know that liobert McGieevy was a partner in those works — the real Owen Murphy, I mean ; 1 oidy know him as Owen Murphy. Q. Owen Murphy, M.P.P. for Quebec?— A. Yes. Q. What did you find out from Owen Murphy? — A. He simply told me that lie knew, from intbrmation that had reached him, that Bobert McrTreevy was a ]):irtner in that Cross-wall contract. Q. And did you take any action upon that information ? — A. Ve?^. I mentioned it to our chairman at the next meeting, Mr. Thomas McCrreevj' being present, and hv emphatically, and witJ; some anger, denied it. Q. That wa< Thomas?— A. Yes. Q. Denied bis brother bad any interest in that contract ? — A. Yes. Jii/ Mr. Edijar : Q. J)o you remember the date of that? — A. It was aluut tiftciMi m mth^ or two years. . Q. Is it in the .Minutes? — A. No; I do not think so. It would be an informal matter. It is not the thing that would be put in. Q. Were you or were you not satisfied at that time on that point ? — A. I took .Mr. .McGreevy's word that it was as he said. Q. And believed Robert bad no interest in the contract? — A. I did. Q. Did any other members of the F^oaid take part in that discussion ? — A. They all heard it. Jiy J//'. Henry • Q. And the matter 'Viis dropped ? — A. The matter was drojipe 1. Q, Can you state when you ili• » u understood it to be? — A. Nothing irregular. Nothing that I would regard as other than, being one conversai\t with large contracts, he gave the benetit of that experience to the Harbour Commission. Q. And in respect of the nmtual interests of Sir Hector Langevin and the Do- minion Government, have you anything to say with regard to his position? — X. \ had no reason to doubt anyaction he took while on the Commission. Q. Were you or were you not aware that on account of Mr. Thomas McGree- vy's double position, as it may be called, it would be convenient — and it was so trea- ted by the hoard — that he should communicate with the Departn\jnt ot Public Works !u Ottawa in respectto matters of common interest — as a member of Parlia- nient and r. member of the Hoard? — A. Coming uj) to Ottawa so tVequentIv, he was 761 f ' li: :l ) : ■ ill y If ■I' b 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 the natural medium by which we would learn what the Ministei- of Public Works' views were. Q. You regarded, as I understand from your last answer, his communications with the Minister as perfect!}' proper, on that account ? — A. Quite. Q. Were or were not the works in question within the limits of Mr. McGreevy's constituency — I mean, geographically? — A, Xo ; because the (Iraving Dock is quite out of Quebec. Q. 1 moan the Harbour improvements ? — A. I lo not think so. I do not know whether they are or not. Q. Then, during 3'our membership, which has lasted from the first to the present; time, you were not aware of any impropriety in the relationship between !Mr. McGreevy and any person whatever, either contractor or persons in authorit}- iu connection with the work? — A. No. 1 may state that I had no suspicion of any thiuii; wrong, except when the dredging contract was given, and then I protested. I did not lilvC that dredging contract. It was forced upon us, and in a way I did not like. Q. You thought there was too much work being done? — A. I Iiad suspifio: that the work was not being properly done. Bij the Chairman : Q What was j-oiir protest ? — A. That they should not be allowed to throw any more of the dredging material into the river, and I thought the price was far too much for the work performed. Large portions of the work were forced upon us time after time. lit) Mr. Edyar : / Mr. Fraser : Q. I understand you represented the merchants of Quebec, particularly? — A. [ repre-iented the Board of Trade. Q. 'I'hey were composed of merchants ? — A. Yes. (J. You had a large interest in this matter a.s a mei'chant? — A. 1 think wo have heen about the largest contributor?;. Q. What amount would you contribute yourself yoarl}'? — A. I think about ■85,000 or $6,000, perhaps, every j'car, since its formation, twent3'-tive years ago. Q. You would then haven business interest as well as a civic interest? — A, Yes. The total of our tax was one-tenth of one per cent, on our exports, and the 10 ^ents on our tonnage dues. Bi/ Mr. C' trim: Q. Uave you uiii / represented the Board of Tiade ? — A. I have never varied. lam the only .»inal member of the Commission, and I have always represented the Board oi iVade. Ry Mr. Am>/ot : (^ The actual *ax on the shipping of Quebec was one-tenth of one per cent, of the exports? — A. No; that is not on shipping but on the trade — one-tenth of one pi-r cent. Kach merchant pays a clearance on each cargo that he ships. Q. And is there any special tax on the shipping at Quebec* — when the ships arrive loaded with merchandise? — A. They pay the equivalent of that one-tenth of one per cent, on the iiaerch mdise they bring into the country. It is both in and out a tax of one-tenth of one per cent. Q. That is additional to the other tax by the (rovernment? — A. Of course, to the revenue tax. Q. Especially for the Quebec Harbour? — A. Kspecially for the Quebec Harbour and di voted to that purpose. Q. And that is specially to defray the expenses incurred in the building of the Dock ?— A. Exactly. Bi/ Mr. Kir kpat rick : Q. Whether they used the improvements or not ? — A. We have never used tin- iniprovements. Bif Mr. Ouimet : Q. That does not apply to ships that pass Quebec for Montreal ? — A. Xo. Bfi Mr. Amijot : Q. This tax does not exist in Montreal ? — A. Xo. Q. So the ships that go to Quebec, either to bring in goods or to carr}' away goods, have got an additional tax to pay now on account of these works? — A. Cer- tainly. Q. And those works and those improvements, since the law has been changed, I think from 1873, have been decided by the majoritj' of the Commission appointed by the Government ? — A. Certainly. Q. And the majoi'ity of either the citj' or the corporation have never had control as to alterations to be made or decisions about the works ? — A. Certainly. Q. They Irave been entirely in the hands of '^he Government ?— \. CertainI}'. Q. And those very large works which have been carried out there have not. properly- speaking, been yet used by the Quebec commerce or shipping? — A. Xo ; we did not expect they wotild be used. t^. But. as a matter of tact, they have not been? — A. Xot yet. They are bcin^' used now to a small extent; they are beei»ning to use them. '7ii4 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Of course, you are in a position to say that, as far as you are concerned, you never found anythins; incorrect in your share, or in any share of the Commissioners in the decisions about contracts, and so on? — A. None. Q. The^' have generally decided at Ottawa and you carried out the decisions from Ottawa? — A, Weil, the first contract that was given out from Ottawa direct was the Cioss-wall. Previous to that we shared in the responsibility in the awarding of contracts. Q. But the Cross-wall, that was in 1883 ? — A. In 1883. Then the tenders were all sent up to Ottawa and they were there dealt with, and an Order in Council passed authorizing us to accept such-and-such a contract. It was taken out of our hands. Q. It was the same thing, I suppose, in regard to the South-wall? — A. Yes ; the South-wall. (-1. And the change in price to 35 cents in regard to the dredging for the deep- ening of the harbour and the dumping? — A. That was done by the Commission. Q. At 35 cents? — A. 35 cents. Q. Vou received a letter from Mr, Perley advising the Commission to do that ? — A. Stating that he thought it was fair and reasonable price. Q. It was on those instructions that the Commission decided to grant the 35 cents? — A. Certainly. By Mr. Curran : Q. Did you consider it instructions, or simply his opinion ? — A. Simply an opinion — emphatically. Jii/ Mr. Oiiimet : Q. You had all possible confidence in Mr. Perley? — A. Certainly. By Mr. Mills {Bothwell) : Q. I understood you to say you yourselves were of opinion that 35 cetits was altogether too high ? — A. For dumping it into the river. If they placed it on the ombankment and levelled it I don't know that it would be too high — I would not have raised a difficulty about it ; but it was taking it out of the bank and thiowing it into the river — taking what we had been protesting against for 3'ears and allowing it to be thrown into the river. By Mr. Edgar: tj. If you had been awaie they were going to be paid 45 cents a yard for the portion of this excavation which they put into the Cross-wall, would you not have thought that 45 cents in place of 35 cents was somewhat of a high tigure? — A. I should not have approved of it. Q. If you had known — as a matter of fact, I think lean tell: I have boon in- formed it will be proved here that out of the dredging under thatoontiact wliieli was paid for at the rate of 35 cents a yard these contractors filled in all the Cro>»- wall and were paid over $79,620 for it — how would you have characteii/.ed such a thing? — A. I leave it to every gentleman present to know. Q. IJut you were a parly to giving the 35 cent contract, and you were nnwaio iliat they were going to be paid during that contract 45 cents a yard for part of this >tutf they were taking out at the rate of 35 cents a yaril ? — A. I staled distinctly the ('r(jss-wall section we had nothing to tlo with, but 1 should say, with everyone heio, •if we wore paying 70 or 80 cents for what ought to bo done at 35 cents we were ]iaying too much. Q. They only got 27 cents, before that, for the fifteen feet 5 1 1 '■ i'ri;' ! m' n \ I !i I' ^•ii iv I' i '. I \. 1 i'HIi •: |1 TF 54 Victoria. Appendix {No. 1.) A. 189i i- I I Q. Do you remember the price they ijot previously on their former dredging for that depth — from 15 to 20 feet? — A. 1 i you had ooposdl their dismissal ? — A. Certainly, ii. Because you had not been informed of the errors ? — A. It brought out the question of why these dock gates had been put where they were, and it was then the Resident Engineer made a statement to us, ho had kept back before he had pri- vately written to Kinipple and Morris telling them of the nature of the bed where they were ti-ying to make the gates. Q. You made this discover\' after this resolution of the 4th of June ? — A, Cer- tainly. Q. You were at the Board, and the Board had not been informed of thi> inattention ? — A. We had complained several times of their want of attention. Q. But you supported them up to and after the 4th of June ? — A. 1 did. (}. I want to know if, as a member of the Board, you and other members luul been made awaie of that inattentirxi on their part before this dismissal? — A. Not before. It was after that. I stated it was after I had protested that I then fouml out they had made this gross error in the (craving Dock uui which led to a very considerable expenditure more than should have been made in the construction of that Dock. liij Mr. Mills (liothicell) : Q. I understand you to say that the Government were the parties who let contract for the dredging at thirty five cents? — A. To the extent of ^100,000. Q. And that contract was let with the understanding that the earth so drcd should be put in the embankment? — A. Yes. Q. And the thirty-five cents was intended to cover both of these works ?- Yes ; both the dredging and the placing. Q. 1 understand you also to say that you, as a Commissioner, had iiothini^ -wall. 766 IS tiie o-e.i -A. : to tiie 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. When did you become aware that such a contract was let ? — A. Wlien we had instructions to accept the tender of Messrs Larkin, Connolly & Co. (}. Did the Commissioners make any protest or representation as to that ? — A. No ; because it was some time after that that the filling took place. Q. It was the Eesident Engineerof the Harbour that recommended this filling or advised the Department with regard to this matter? — A. I cannot tell that. All tliese tenders were sent up to Ottawa. Q. As a matter of fact, the work that was subsequently contracted for at forty- tive cents was already embraced in the contract let by the Commissioners at thirty- five cents? — A. Not at all, and I am prepared to say that the gentleman opposite is incorrect in saying that the material dredged out of the Dock was put into the Cross- wall. I think he is wrong. I did not take exception to it at the time because I did iiot feel responsible for the statement. My belief is that the Cross-wall was not filled with that material but filled largely with blue clay. No one Commissioner could pretend to follow all these works in their details, and! think that tl.e Cross-wall was tilled up with a good deal of material that was taken elsewhere than from the inner liiisin. Q. Do you know that? — A. I know a portion was. Q. I think we have had the testimony of the Engineers themselves? — A. The quantities would speak. By Mr. Ouimet : (}. You are not aware that that part of the work known as earth filling was made with the dredging and that both were done at the same time? — A. 1 am not jiware of the details of that Cross-wall contract ; but I should have said at once, if I had been aware that they were getting forty-five cents for the filling as well as thirty-five cents for the dredging, that it was not right. I admit that at once, but it never came to our knowledge, and I think it was the part of the Engineer to point out to us if anything of that kind was going on. Q. Your in»])ression is that the earth filling in the Cross-wall was made with liliie clay and material which could not be dredged from the bottom of the river? — A. [ do not know to what extent, but to a large extent. By Mr. Langelier : Q. Was the contract for the South-wall given from Ottawa or by the Conimis- ^-iuners themselves? — A. I was in England when that contract was given, but the Secretary informs mo that it was let by the Commissioners while I was away. Q. Were the plans for that South-wall made at the instance of the Harbour Commissioners themselves, or were the plans prepared at Ottawa, without submission to the Harbour Commissioners? — A. They were prepared at Ottawa by our Engineei'. Q, Were the jtlans sent down to Quebec before the tenders were officially :iskeil for ? — A. They were laid before us. Q. Was only one plan exhibited at the Harbour Commissioners' office or was tliii'o more than one plan? — A. I beliovo there was only one. Q. Did that plan contemplate the very wall that has been executed since? — A. Yes ; I think so. (^ Did that plan necessitate any expropriation of private ]>roperty? — A. It necessitated the expropriation of a right of way that one individual hud, I think. from the harbour into his deal yard. ,Mr. Clint was interfered with, and it may have also interfered with Mr. Dinning. Q. Was any other property exproj)riated ? — A. No ; I am sure not. By Mr. 3fills {liothwell) : Q. Did you ever ask your Engineer, when this contract was being tondere I for for the Cross-wall, to take the plans and workout the quantities to see what was the relative character of each tender? — A. Xo. 767 ■ 'M m ' ■ .'11 «•! Il-.fi P" ■n I i''l HHr < ! ! ■ Ill I i: i 1 ! ii - 1 1 f -t ■ 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. That work was not done? — A. No; but I was not there when those tenders wore received and diccussod. I was in England. Ihj Mr. Amyot : il. You havealways taken agreat deal of interest in the enterprises of Quebec? — A. 1 have tried to. Q. To promote our commercial interests in Quebec ? — A. Yes. (}. \'ou did not suspect when the works were going on that the contractors were making immense profits ? — A. I did not. Q. It was impossible for anyone in Quebec to guess that ? — A. I think so. If we had had any suspicion we should have looked closely into it. Q. Were j'ou informed by somebody' or by the Engineer that the dredging was made at a greater depth than fifteen feet ? — A, No. Q. Never? — A. Never. Q, It was entirely out of your knowledge ? — A. Yes. Q. Were you informed that there were any changes — that the plans were not exactly followed for the South-wall? — A. No ; I never heard of that. (J. You were never informed thjit the Inspectors over-estimated the quantity of dredging made ? — A. No, sir; never. t^. All these things were kept hidden from you and the Commissioners ? — A. Certainly. Q. You were not informed that the report prepared by the Engineer about the actual depth of the harbour was honestly stating the actual depth of the harbour ? — A. We had it from the Engineer that it was properly dredged. il. So that the Commissioners are not res|)onsible for that ? — A. We took every pains to find that a lower depth was reached anil that the outer basin was dredged to a certain depth ; and not only dredged, but what they called "cleaned" after- ward. Q. How nian\' engineers have you got now? — A. We have two, Mr. Boswell and Mr. Langevin, the assistant. Q. The Chief Engineer is Mr. Perley? — A. No; Mr, Boswell. Mr. Perley is no longer engineer. Q. Since how long? — A. Some time ; perhaps two years. No; it was about :i year. (i. About a year ? — A. Yes. t^. Before that you had Mr. Perley in Ottawa?- -A. And Mr. Fioswell. That was all then. When Mr. Boswell was made Engineer-in-Chief, Mr. Laforce Langevin was appointed Assistant Engineei'. (I. Are the works going on now ? — A. No ; there is nothing doing. Q. But the ])ay of the Engineers is going on? — .V. Yes. Q. When you wei'e advised to take Mr. Perley as Chief Engineei-, was it repre- sentetl to you that there would be no salary to pay him and that he was aver}' coiii- ])eteiit Engineer, by which you were induced to accept his services ? — A. No ; we eliil expect we would have to pay him some s.ilary for the additional duties that would be laid upon him. ' Hy Mr. Curran : (J. You are quite clear upon that point? — A, Quite clear. Q. Were you satisfied ? — A. Wo were quite satisfied to pay him something. By Mr. Amyot : (J. Did you ever pay him anything? — A. Yes; but I do not quite remember wiiiit it was. If you ask me I wouKl state tliat the first year it was §1,000; afterwards it was increased, but really I cannot remember the exact date. By Mr. Tarte : Q. It was not a uniform amount ? — A. It was not, 708 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 -A. Y OS, By Mr. Amijot : (J. You knew tliiil Mr. I'otorH hail boon (li'eil.i,'ini!; in tlio Ilurljour of'Quoboc? — A. I know tlio fontiiictors, I'olors, .Mooro & Wright, did somo u tell us whotlior Mr. Boswell and Mr. Perley were paid as Kn^i- iieorw at the same time V The evidence shows that Mr. Boswell was appointed to the position of Chief Engineer several months before Mr. Perley resigned. — A. I knew Mr. Perley wished to i-esijrn before, and when we appointed Mr'. Boswell Engincer- in-Chiof I eoncluded that Mr. Perley was literally superseded. Q. Do you know whether they were both paid as Chief Encineer during that time? — A. I should think not. Mr. Perley had got no money since 1889. Even as it was, we did not consider it a salary, but merely as a recognition of the labour put upon him ; 81,000 or §1,200 was little or nothing of a salary for a Chief Engineer like him. Jiy Mr. Langelier : Q. I think you said that the Commissioners relied mostly on Mr. McGreevy because he was a man of great experience in public works? — A. I do not think I said that. I did not say we relied on Mr. McGreevy, but I said we looked upon him as having great experience in public works, and being a member of Parliament he naturally would be the medium of communicatin<; with the Minister of Public Works. Q. Is it not a fact that you also took into consideration his relation with Sir Hector? Was it not a fact — had it not come to be a matter of notoriety in Quebec — that his influence with Sir Hector was paramount? — A. We did not look upon it as anything that we need be afraid of in communicating with Sir Hector through Mr. McGreevy. Q. But was it not a fact generally known among the Harbour Commissioners that Mr. McGreevy's influence with Sir Hector was paramount? — A. No; our chairman claimed that he was all-powerful in Ottawa. By the Chairman ; Q. What is his name ? — A. Mr. Yalin. He laid claim that he was running you all here. By Mr. Langelier : Q. Why was he continued in that position ? — A. I voted against him from the beginning and have maintained a steady fight against him. as I believed him incapable of performing the duties prope.ly. I thought if he was the kind of man to run you gentlemen here in Ottawa it did not say much for those in Ottawa. Q. How comes it then that he was in that position so long? — A. The same reason put him there as led the Mackenzie Government to put an exceedingly high-toned honourable gentleman on the Board. I refer to the Honourable Mr. Chauveau. Xo more gentlemanly, honourable man could l,e found than he, but he was totally incapable of discharging the duties properly. Not only was he put there, but he was given a salary of $2,000 a year by the Liberal Government. That is really what weakened the usefulness of our Harbour Commission. Q. How long had Mr. Valin been there? — A. About tenj'ears; he claimed lie was going to be maile a Senator. By Mr. Langelier : Q. That is interesting, but it is not answering my question. Was it not con- sidered bj- the Harbour Commissioners, as well as by the general public of Quebec, that Ml. McGreevy's influence with Sir Hector Langevin was paramount — tiiat he could blow hot and cold, and do what he liked with the Department? — A. I do not think so. Mj- experience of Sir Hector has been that no one could blow hot ami cold with him. He has always appeareil to me to be better up in the details of his Depnrtmeiit than any man I know. He was always at us in regard to the tremen- dous cost of the works at Quebec, whether thej' were going to be useful, &c. His anxiety was always, I believe, ver3' great to keep the cost down. •770 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Do you think his anxiety was very seriouH all tiu- time? — A. I do. Q. You thiiiii lie was always in eainost ? — A. I do. 1 believe no man had ever the interest of Quebec more at heart than Sir Hector Lanj^evin, and I have always daimei'. that whether these works are successful or not we owe a f^roat deal to Sir Hector for the zoal he showed in the interest of Quebec; and I believe those works yet are fjoinu; to pay ; I have full confidence in it. Q. Can you mention any single instance of the Cirovornment doinf^ anythinjjf with regard to the Harbour Commission against Mr. Mcdreevy's advice? — A. Why, certainly. Q Do you know of any instance where Mr. McCireevy, having expressed an opinion, that opinion was not acted upon by the Ottawa (rovernment? — A. I do dis- tinctly, in a very important matter. I will tell you what it was. Mr. McGreevy advocated the construction of an independent South-wall, insiead of making the present wall that we now have, running along St. Andrew street, with sewers at its base. He wanted an independent South-wall constructed running parallel with the Louise Embankment, which would have had the ertect of making that place nothing but a great big cesspool. We contested with him on that point. We pointed out the evils that would arise if it was carried out ; wo came and saw Sir Hector about it", and it was abandoned. That was a most important thing, for it would have had the effect of ruining all the property along St. Andrew street. Bii Mr. Edgar : Q. From j-our acquaintance with Sir Hector during all this timo you have been on the Harbour Commission, you consider that he was very careful about details, and looking after all the matters himself, giving personal attention to them ? — A. I never knew a man that seemed to bo able to take in every detail as com|^!etoly as Sir Hector has been in these works, and he did not seem to neglect it. He seemed to be familiar with them all. Q. Ho was perfectly au fait with all the details of the contracts? — A. With everything. Ihj Mr. Amyot : Q. So ho must have known the dredging was paid at tiio rate of thirty-five cents and then forty-five cents ? — A. I should say he must have known, Jhj Mr. Ouimet : Q. As a question of influence, has the Hon. Thomas ^IcGreevy a very large influence in Quebec? — A. I don't know what ho had, sir; I don't think ho has to-day. Jij/ Mr. Tarte .- Q. Did you authorize the Hon. Thomas McGre(\'v ') communicate with Mr. Pcrley previous to the letting out of the dredging contract of l!^87 ? — A. \o; I don't think he did, but at the same time I allow every Commissioner perfect liljerlj- to communicate with the Chief Knginoer. Q. Did you have at the time communication of this letter of the 2<)th A|)ril 1887, fi'om Mr. ^rcGroevy to his brolhoi- — " I have just seen Perlov on dredging. 1 think he will report on thirij'-Hve cents and put some conditions which will amount to nothing"? — A. You may depend he did not show us tliiil letter; 1 never saw that letter before it appeared in print. Q. Then he had never been authorized to put himself in communication with 3[r. J'erley ? — A. No; or his brother either. (i- You told us that the dresioi Hij Mr. McLeod : Q. It was the Commission continued it? — A.* Thoj' continuod it, and [protested tt^'uinst It. By Mr. Edjar . ihoii-and had boon exceeded it should bo When I wont away and came back I Q. The Commission passed resolutions against it ? — A. Yes ; two or three times, and then it went on. \\ was tlie only thing that disturbed me — that dredging contract — and I stated it frankly. By Mr. McLeod : Q, You statoil when the hundred stopped ? — A. 1 thought so repeatedly, found a new dreiiging contract. By Mr. Stuart : Q. After tho hundred thousantl dollar contract was exhausted, just about that time a notice was given by the Engineers to the Commissioners thi "^he appropria- tion was about run out? — A. I think it is likely. Q. After that is it not the case that the Commissioners thor visited the works, and themselves ordered the continuation of tho dredging? — ^i. 1 think it is quite likely. Q. Without the intervention of the Engineers? — A. I think it is quite likely. Q. And is it not the case that this dredging so ordered was not paid by the cortiticato of tho Engineer, but paid directly hy the Commission, and was only in- cluded in the estimate afterwards by the Commission? — A. 1 think it is ([uito likely that certain corners were dredged otf afterwards to make certain lonos; that they had dredged into places, and it was necessary to clean u]) once or twice. I remem- ber we were c;;!led upon to sanction something of the kind. Q. I mean, when the question of the continuation of the dredging came up tho Commissioners visited the works themselves, and gave a direct order themselves that ,the dredging was to go on, without tho intervention of tho Engineers? — A. I know, and I stated that the Commissioners repeatedly gave orders for more dredging, antl I always protested against it. Q. I understand from the wording of the resolution in tho Minute-book pro- duced, your objection was principally to the dumping in th.o river — tiuit you had previously objected to the ballast being dumped into the river by the ships, or the dredging material being dumped there? — A. Certainly. By Mr. Mills {Bothwell) : (I. That is not what tho resolution says ? — A. It is stated distinctly we sl^oiild not exceed $100,000. By Mr. Tarte : Q. louring the first season ? — A. Yes. Q. That part of the contr.ict is in these words : " And shall place and level the dredyed m.iterials on the Louise Embankment, &c., the balance to be dumped in the river ?"— A. That was the 8100,000 contract. Q. At page 354 of Minute-book 6, I direct your attention to this (reads minute permitting the contractors to dump in tho river until further notice). — A. That wa^ done while I wasawaj'. T72 ■i \ \ < 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 18ftl Q. Is it not a fact that it wun fiom a ooinmon'inl Htandpoint yoii objected to the river boinj^ tilloil up? — A. Tliat wasiny stroiif^objoctiuii, thatn lumping should be alh)wed in the ri^'or. As lon^ as wo could utilize the material i did not mean to have it dumped into the river. It wan pushing a thing that would have kept per- fectly well. Q. There was a question here with rel'eience to the two prices thai wore paid tor the Hlling of the CrosH-wali. Ik it not a fact that the Cross-wi.ll contract of IS8;{ l)rovided a price for the tilling at forly-tivo cents a yard, entirely independent o the dredging? — A. I claim that the Ci'oss-wall contrai^t was taken out of our hands .'om- pletely. Q. As amatler of fact, that was what occurred? — A. Yes, Q. It did not provide for the dredging; and was the price touderod for, ai.l accepted for the filling of the CrosH-wall ? — A. Ves. (^. Subsoquentl)', in 1887, there was another contract lot for dredging? — A. It wa.'^ a separate contract. , (J. if was simply an accident that these two men bujjpened to be the same con- tractors for ditlerent parts of the work. — A. If we had anything to do with the con- tract for the CroHs-wall we should have provided that the dredged material wouhl have been dumj)ed in there the same as the dumping had been done in the Louise Hmbankment. There was dredging going on all the time in the inner basin. It should have been provided that the drink it wa> prob-dily 8 or 1> days. Q. How far is Throe Rivers from Ouelicc ? — A. About 77 miles. Q. Did you go walking? — A. No; I went by rail. Q. In ordei' to be there on ]iolling daj', you went there si on oi' eight days before — A. 1 did, >o that I wouM not niak'e no mistake. U^Ji V/l V il, A 1.1 IVt. r-W lIKil J 1T^/H1'» Il^/l. 1111111 v./ IIV/ IllldLlil'V^--, <^. Iknng iheie eight days before polling day, tlid you talk about jiolitios ? — A. I did. 1 went to help my friends and lielj) llio parly. Q. You took ])art in the elections ? — A. 1 went to see all my friends ; to do all that I could do. Q. Then you were not exactly correct when you said you went there for the purpose of voting ? Yon went there to vote ? — A. 1 did, and did vote. Q. Was that the only object that took you there ? llad j-ou any other purpose ifoiiig t hero ? — A. I went there as I would go anywhere else, because that used to be i lome. Ill my lU 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Tell me whether your object was only to vote or to sceyo'M- family ? — A. I went up there to woi'k for the elections on my own hook. Q. So you did not go only to vote ; you went for the purposie of working in the elections ? — A. I did. Q. On your own hook ? — A. I did. Q. And spending your own money? — A. I did. Q. Did you go to Three Rivers only the once, or did you come back to Quebec ? — A. I did come back to Quebec on the Sunday morning and returned to Three Elvers in the afternoon. Q. The same Sunday afternoon ? — A. Yes. ♦ Q. What brought you to Quebec? — A. Family business, and to :;-ee my lady; th 't ir; all. Q. And coming to see 3'our lady, you went back the same evening ? — A. Yes. Q. Were you so much needed in Three Rivers that you coul.i not staj' with your lady until next morning? — A. Well, I had had enough, Q Had your lady had enough ? — A Probably more than she should have, Q. You say you went there on a Sunday? — A. No, sir; I went down to Quebec on a Sunday morning and back on a Sunday afternoon. Q. On the same day in the aft^r-ioon ? — A. Yes. Q. Was it the Sunday preceding polling day ? — A. Yes ; before the poll day. Q. The polling day was on Tuesday ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you sc:-- any body else but youf wife in Quebec ? — A. I did. Q. Did you see Nicholas Connolly ? — A. No. Q. Did you see Laforce Langevin ? — A. No. Q. You did not give him any news about his flither's election ? — A. No. Q. You did not give any news about the election to any body ? — A. Yes, may be to some of my friends at the station oi' to some one else during the afternoon. Q. You had no special message, anyhow ? — A. No. Q. You went to Quebec on your own hook, as you say ? — A. I did. By Mr. Amyot : Q. Did you bring any letter from Quebec to Three Rivers ? — A. No. Q. Neither on the first trip or the second ? — A. No. Q. No message of any kind ? — A. No. By Mr. Geoffrion : Q. When you first went up to Three Rivers you took no parcel with you at all; you had been entrusted with no message at all ? — A. No. Q. You had not been instructed to see anybody there at all ? — A. No. (i. No one from the committee in Quebec gave yim instruclious to see anybody in Three Rivers ? — A. There may have been. I'robal',^ Uiere was something spoken of like that, but nothing partit-ular. Q. Did you toil anybody that you were going ti. ! hree Rivers? — A. I told lots. Q. What did you tell them you wore going for —-A. I told them 1 was going U) help Sir Hector. Q. To whom did you make ^ucli a statement — to whom did you speak about tha'. ?— A 1 cannot tell Q. Did you tell Lalorco Langevin ? — A. Oh, well, Laforce Langevin must have Iv'.iown it, but no moro than any other. Q. Ead you not occasion to see him often ? — A. We were in the same house together — in the same building. Q. Your oflioes wore in tiie same building ? — A. Next door, Q. Have you any idea that he knew you were leaving for Three Rivers ? — A. I do not know. Q. Did you give hi7n any message for his father ? — A. J do not think he knew the day I lett to go to Tliree Rivers. 775 ! t: ■' |; ! C 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 I I Q. You did not tell him yoii were going ? — A. I do not roniember. Probably I I did ; probably not. Q. Have j'oii seen him since you were in Ottawa ? — A. Yes. Q. Where did you see him ? — A. Last night at the cars. Q. He met you at the station ? — A. I do not know whether he met me. but I saw him there. il. You met him on the platform ? — A. I came up on the train and saw him at the station. Q. You saw Laforco Langevin on the platform at the station ? — A. Either I met him or he met me. Q. You found him there, anyhow ? — A. Yes. (i. Did you speak to him? — A. Yes ; I spoke to him ; I came to the hotel with him and he left me there. Q. Did you know what he was doing at the station ? — A. Xo. Q. Ho did not tell you what he Avas doing there ?— A. No. Q. What was the time? — A. About half-past twelve, I think. Q. He was taking the fresh air there? — A. Likely enough. Q. Was it raining? — A. No. Q. Meeting him there, you had not the curiosity to ask him what he was doing there? — A. I had not. Q. You drove with him to the hotel? — A. I did, because he asked me to get in with him ; 1 was going to take a buss up to the hotel. He asked me to get in wiMi him, and we went to the hotel and he left me there. Q. It was last night? — A. This morning at half-past twelve. Q. He drove you to your hotel ? — A. Yes. Q. Had you any conversation about this case? — A. No. Q. Did he tell you he had been here as a witness? — A. lie told me that he gave evidence heie, but he ilid not tell me what he said. Q. He did not tell you what he had been asked ? — A. No. Q. Did he tell you his name had been mentioned in the evidence? — A. He did not tell me, because 1 had seen it in the paper. Q. And having seen it in the paper, you did not ask him any fui'thei' particulars on the way from the station ? — A. No. Q. You did not want to talk to him? — A. No. Q. You avoided the subject? I don't say j'ou were wrong in talking, but I want to know whether you talked to him about the questions he had lieen asked? — A. I told 3'ou I did not. Q. There was no reference at all ? — A. No. The Committee then adjourned. House of Commons, Friday, 3Ist July, ISUl. The Committee met at 10.30 a.m. ; Mr. Girouard in the Chair. Investigation into certain ciicumstances and statements made in connection with the tenders and contracts respecting the Quebec Harbour Works, &c., resumed. Mr. H. F. Perley re-called. B)j the Chairman : Q. You produce the books asked for. Will you leave them ut the disposal of tlic Committee — do they belong to the Department or to j-ou ? — A. They are both mine. This book (Exhibit "S14") contains letters in connection with the Quebec Harbour works. 776 11' 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Bij Mr. Edgar : Q. Is that your letter-book as Chief Engineer? — A. As Chief Engineer of the Quebec Harbour works. It contains copies of my reports, but I mightexplain thcx'e are letters I have written that were press-copied in a book left in the office at Quebec. I kept this book here, so that when I wrote letters in Ottawa I could have a chance of copying them. This is my own private letter book — my own private property. (Book tiled as Exhibit "TU.") By the Chairman: • Q. Does it contain matters personal to youi'self ? — A. Nothing except my own personal letters ; nothing conuecte'; with any work. I have been asked to pioduce the letter-book containing all letters written by me duiing the month of September, 188(i. That book contains it, I was also required to produce diaries and private lettei books for the ins])ection and examination of the Sub-Committee. 1 have no diaries, and I never kept one. My pnivate letter book is here, showing what I wrote in November, 188G. By Mr. Tarte : ' Q. Did you keep copies of letters you sent to Larkin, Connolly k Co.? — A. I think so. Q. Have you produced copies of those letters? — .\. They ought to be either in the book produced oi- in the book at Quebec. <2. This book refers to the Quebec Harbour works? — A. Yes; to the Quebec Harbour works. Q. I want to call your attention to the fact that you may have written letters ab3Ut British Columbia Dock, and we have not copies of those loiters licre. Have you got coyjies of those letters? — A. All the letters I have written as Chief Engineer of the Public Works Department would be on tile or in the press-book in the Department. Q. Will you kindly look for this book? — A. . am foil>idden to. Q. Where would be the letters that you have received? — A. They would be in the Department of Public Works, By Mr. Davies: Q. What clerk in the Public Works Department if summoned here wouKI be able to produce them? — A. Mr. Lightfoot. Q. If we summoned him, would he know what letters there were, ami where to timl them? — A. You had better summon him through Mr. Gobeil, becausi' all papers ot iliat kind are supposed to be under the control of the Deputy Minister. Whatever there is, would be there on lile. By Mr. Osier : ('d. iy Thai would lio in (ho llarlioiii' ('oi)MniHHioiu>i>' atnonu;si llu> llarhoiir ('oininissioiuM's' papors. Q. l>o yon lomoniliiM' any iXM'asioii oailiii;i; loi- a ropoil I (*in;; niaiU l>y you in tin' early pari ofllu' soason of tSS'), in which an ostiinalo of l(iO,(MK> yards, or any- thinii like ihal, wnulil hi' rcl'iMiiMl to ? — A. No. lijl .Mr. (t'lrnuiii : (J. Tho practifo in your DoparlnionI lias always hoon. I Ixdiovo, prior to iis|{in!f tor U'ndors tor ])nl>lic works, to inaiio an i>stiinaU> ot'lho (|niintilios and an osliinali' ot'tho cost ol'tho partii'ular woik to hi> tondorcd (or? — A. Y»'s. (J. TIhmc was sucli an cstimaic made ol'the niiantilios in (lu> Cross-wall ? — A. 'I'hci(< was. ij'. Where is that estimate? It has never hcen prodiieeil here? — A. Do you mean how tlu' (jnantilies were arrived at ? hy you, or some person undor you, prim- to the tei\ders lu'inu; ('ailed lor? — A. 'I'he oidy lliiiifj: that 1 know of with refercnco to the ipiantities are tiiose that are entered on the schedule liiat lias hcen laid lielore the Committei'. l^V Was there not an estimate made of the iiiiantities ot'tho Oross-wall made l>y you, or some one in tlu' l>eparlnient, prior to the lenders heiiif^c ealled tor? — A. No; not lo my knowledge. ij. In the Hlue-iViok (^Kxhihit "Nr»") thore is a letter from you in which you say that tiallaiiiier's tender appears to he lowerthan the work could actimlly l)edono for. It appear- al pas::e liO. Will you |>lcase read it ? — ^A. This is a memorandum that I jirepareii on the i;!th May, IS'.to : " I advise that Mr. tiallajiher he permitted lo willi draw his tender in accordance with his letiucsl. and also hecaiise ! helieved thai lli amouni of that tender was far helow I hat for which the works could he execiiliM Von liave to j;o hack lo a previous letti-r to i;ei the conneclion. (>V You sav there that (lallatih lender w:is far liclow that lor which the w (il'K liich lo make your calciilalioii coiilil lie done. You must havi- had some hasi^ on w — A. 1 tlid not make any calculations in IS'.Ml. i.i. Uiit yon make this slalcment in 18!U>?— A. Yes. ti>. You s:iy that your o|)inion at that lime was that (ialla,i;licr's It ntler \V!is tar helow what the work could actually lie done foi' ? — A. .My o|»initin al that lime was hascd on what I knew in 1SS;{. O. \N hat vou knew in ISs; A. What I ki lew in ISSa came from the ollicci' who made n]> the i|uaiililies ami who extended tlii' tentlers. Cj*. lint this i^ put in !i« a I'eason why the (iallaulier lender should not I'c accepted. The report hy you lo tin- .Minister was that the (lalia^her leiidi'r was far Ih'Iow what the work could he done tor? — A. This has noihini:: to dn wilh llic acceptance of till' tcndi'r. This is a memorandum I wrou- in Mav, ISIM). T lenders were received in 1SS.'{, aiu I w. ere adjiKlicatcd u]ion then Q. hoes not that stalenuMil show why one ol'the lemlcrs was rejected? — A. ^Jll. \>. So that the Minister of I'lihlic Works would not liavo tliat ro)' u'l lieforo him? — A. Will you let me see the report. (^. l)o you rcmemlier \liat the ri-port is':*— A. 1 wuriM rather see it. {}. You say, then, there never was an estimali made of the (pianlilies in llio Cross-wall prior to the tenders heinu- asked for? — A. Xo. I'rior lo the tenders liciiii;' o])ened there was an estimate. Q. Where is thai estimate ? — A. Thai I do not know. Q. Is it not Usual to keep that ? — A. Those ;ire matters of calculation thai a n' KO]>t Minietinies, and sometimes tlioy are not kcp 1 cxjilaiiicd to the Suh-Commitlci that I had nothiiiir to do with the gettiiiii' up ol the plans ot the (,'ross-wiill, lakin,:,' out the nuaiitities of the work to bo done or ot' cxtendini;' the tenders; that the liist 54 Victorin. Appi'iulix (No. 1.) A. 1891 I saw nl'il was wIumi iIi(\v Imoiii^IiI to iiu* )li«* Mcliodiiln h\hwI proparcd hy Mr. Hoyil, wlKMlrmv my alloiiiinii In i|r« ciiurM wliicli rohullod in the lot Idih boiii^ written. Tliiil is all I know altoiil it. /;// Mr. 'I'artr: (j>. 'riio plans woii" certainly pr'epiired niider your direclioiiM ? — A. Tiicy woro ^'cnerally prepared, likt^ all plans are, tinder my direction ; (tut I did not, i^o and stand over them as they wer<' hein^ piepared. //// .)//•. l)iivii-!<: • Q. Ill this meinorandiini, which appears on pa^'e 20 of tlio ISIiie Hook (Kxhiliil " Nr>)" ymi ;iive the dill'cnMit lemltMs and Iho dilleieiil. amounts — (Jalhif^her, Ijiirkin, ('iMinolly X (!()., hcanca^i*, I'ett'is iS: Moore, and .1. iV A. Samson. Al'li^' applyiii/^ the (laanlilies to the aiiionnis they tendcnvl lor, the totals are ^iveii, 'riien yon j^o on to say, "and I ex|ilaiiied my course wTlh ies|iecl to the 'errors' and attached copies of lell(>rs siMil and relumed on tlu^ siilijcct. I advisi^d that iVPr. (ialla^her he permitti^d to withdraw his tender in aeeordance svith his rei|uest, and also liecauHe 1 h(diev(!i| that I lie amount ot that lender was far helow lliat i'or whiidi the works could hu <-xeciilcd." Now, it'yoii helii^ved that at the time the lenijerii were ojioned, you must, have! had line data on wiiitdi to I'orm the hidiel? -A. I would like lo sije what I wioh (I Ti lis is wli.it voii wrote? — A. I wrote that in iH'.tO; hut I want t(» /hat IS w liir It ritten in IKH.'J. (J. 'I'his says you tinui holiove that (ralla^hor's lender was tar hcIow what the rk could he d(Mie tor. it' yoii ludieved thai you must sundy huvit had some data I would like to have that ilaia? — A. 1 iiave not tfot it. />'// .)//•. Eiltjar ({. What report is thai which 3'ou are speaking of? — A. The Miport i mad t: in Mav, ISH;{. rcnai'i I to the (!ross-wall ? — A. On those |iarticular tenders /ii/ Mr. Frascr : i-l. Would that report show all tiiedataon which you advised the i»(!partiiient in i,s;.^:t* A. V es; It does. Jill Mr. A mijut (}. I want to know how tliesi! things o(;cur. I'"irst (tl'all, you preparc. And oponod at (^iiohec? — A. And opened atl^iiehcir. *). And sent from (^iiehec, without lieiiif;'toiieheil, to the Ottawa Dcpail mciil ? — A. They were Aeiil to the heparlnieiit at Ottawa. <}. Wilhoiit liciiiir touched ? — A. That I ilo not know. ii. Were tinsy li/.i;urcil up — were the (iiianliti((s applied lo the tenders at (^uulieo 'II' Oiiawa? — A. At Ottawa. (^». hy whom?— A. liy Mr. |{oy. .\iid you hased your report to the .Minisl 1 l;M' /M. 1 'jr ; '' ■ ! V ri II !!■ 1 'i ' it : . ; !■ , I'l'iiiii ! ' ■ . ■ . i' 1 ii .iiiiii ^ ill 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. It is not marked private. — A. Yes ; I received that letter. Q. How is it dated?— A. It is dated 17th June, 1882. Q. Addressed to you ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Will you read it? — A. It is as follows: (Exhibit "U14.") " Office of the Minister of Public Works, " Quebec, 17th June, 1882. " My dear Mr. Peters, "You promised to send me something about the elections. Will you kindlj- do 80 to-day ? " Yours truly, " HECTOR L. LANGEVIX. " S. Peters, Esq., Quebec." Q. It refers to a promise you have made. What was the promise ? — A. A promise to give something towards the elections. Q. And did you comply with the request contained in that letter? — A. Yes; I presented Sir Hector with ^1,000 — $400 of my own money and $600of mycolleaguef;, Moore & Wright. Q. To whom did you send that cheque? — A. It was not a cheque, but money; I gave it to Sir Hector himself at his house. Q. Had you any correspondence with Sir Hector also in 1883 in connection with the Cross-wall tenders? — A. Yes. Q. Will you read this letter, and state by whom it is signed and to whom addressed? — A. It reads: (Exhibit " VU.") " Ottawa, 7th May, 1883. " My Dear Mr. Peters. — Your letter of the 26th i-eached me some days ago, but it was impossible for me to answer you before to-day. I cannot fix a day to have an interview with you. If you want to see me during the Session you nlu^t run your chance, inasniueh as I cannot foresee, from day to day, whether I shall bo fiee the following daj' or not. " Yours ver}' trulj', " HECTOR L. LANGEVrX. " Simon Peters, Esq." Q. Did you answer or was this letter of the 7th May followed by a letter from you? — A. It is followed by a letter from me, yes. Q. Is this a copy of the letter you wrote? — A. Yes. It reads as follows : (Exhibit "W14.") " Quebec, 9th May, 1883. " My Dear Sir Hector. — I am this moment in receipt of yours of the 7th instant, will have to do as you say, run my chance. "I would now asic your favourable consideration of my tender for Cross-wall, ■we are the only partiei- having all the plant roquiied for immediate carrying out of this work. The ex])erienee acquired in oonstructiiig the Louise Embankment tits us in a special manner for the successful performance of this contract ; besides. Colonel Moore, A'ith whom I am associated, has had much experience in the building of colter dams which would be of great advantage in the present work. " Trusting that it will be in your power to award me the above contract, as beiii;:' a continuation of the work I commenced, including the ballast wharf in 1864. " lieliovo mo, dear Sir Hector, " Yours faithfully, " SIMON PETERS. "Sir Hector L. Langevin., " Minister of Public Works." r82 T¥T 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. When you received an invitation to subscribe to tlio Langevin Testimonial Fund, were you known in Quebec as a contractor ? — A. Oh, yes. Q. Were you undc contract with the Government at ttiat time ? — ^A. I had just finished the harbour works. Q. When did you finish, in li-82? — A. 1882, yes; we were contracting at that time, in 1881. Q. But were you also a public contractor in June, 1882? — A. Yes; we had tinished our contract in 1882. Q. But your accounts were not settled with the Government ? — A. Xo; nor yet settled. * Q, When 1 say against the Government, I mean the Ilarljour Commission ? — A. Yes; the Harbour Commission of Quebec. By Mr. Osier : Q. And that is in the shape of a suit now standing for judgment in the Supreme " Court of Canada ? — A. Yes. By Mr. Davies: Q. What was the amount of your claim ? — A. The amount of our claim was for §170,000. Q. What was the date, Mr. Peteis, as nearly as you can recollect that you sub- scribed ? — A. I did not subscribe. Q. What vvas the date you were asked to subscribe? — A. I cannot give tiie precise date . Q. The list of subscribers to the testimonial fund runs from 1880 to 1883 — can you give me the vear you were asked to subscribe? — A. About 1880. (List of subscribers filed as Exhibit " Yll.") Q. Who was the person who asked you to subscribe? — A. Mr. Carridre ; he was a Civil Service employ^. Q. In the employ of the Public Works Department? — A. I could not say. Q. Did he come to j'ou personally, or did he writ.^ ? — A. He wrote to me enclos- ing one of the circulars. Q. From what Department did he write ? — A. I do not remember. Q. What Department is he in ? — A. I cannot say. Q. Do you know his first name ? — A. No. By Mr. Henry : Q. You do not know which Mr. Carriere it was ? — A, Xo. Q. The letter was from Ottawa? — A. Yes. By the Chairman : « Q. Did you not know that Mr. Carriere was the Manager of the Bani^ue Xationale at that time or about that time? — A. I did not know that. ■ I I I ' ! ; ■! ill" i !:•: 1 m 'i I ! '. Mr. Ch.vrles McCireevy sworn. Q am. Q Q Q Q the Cro then By Mr. Geoff rion : You aro a son of Robert McGreevy who has been here as witness? — A. I What ii your occupation ? — A. I have none now. Were you employed in the Harbour works? — A. Yes. In what capacity ? — A. As Assistant JMigineer. Have you any personal knowledge of what took place when the tenders for Hh-wall were prepared first? — A. I was not with the Harbour Commission 783 !; :l I i ' ll[ 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Unvo yon any porsoiiiil knowledge of bow they wero prepared; were you connected with the preparation of Home oftlioso tenders? — A. 1 was present when they were finally made up. Q. How many; whose tenders? — A. The three tenders — Larkin. Connolly & Co.'b. (raliai^her's, and Beaucago's. Q. Where was it? — A. In my father's office. Q. Where? — A. Dalhousie street, Quebec. Q. Where is that office — on the s^round floor ? — A. On the ground floor. ii. Near Mr. Thomas Mc(ii'eovy's office? — A. Underneath. Q. Ik there a private communication between the two offices? — A. Not now, I think, but there was then. Q. Without being obliged to go outside? — A. Yes. Q. What kind of communication was there between the two offices? — A. A trap door in the floor and a staircase. Q. Did you work at some of those tenders yourself? — A. No. Q. Who were working at thoin ? — A. Thtjre wore present at that time, Mr. Nicholas Connolly, Mr. Larkin, I think, my father, Mr. Murphy and myself. Thai is all I icmember: there may bo more. Q. You bad nothing to do with the figuring of those tenders? — A. No, but when they were finally figured out by the different parties there I took them and copied them all on one sheet. Q. After they wore prepared ? — A. After they we>'e prepared. Q. You copied the three of them on one sheet? — A. Yes; on one statement. Q. Showing the three prices? — A. No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3. Q. Do you know whore that copy is which you say j-ou made from that tender? — A. Mr. Tarte has got it. Mr. Takte. — 1 gave it back to you. WiT.NESs. — No, sir, I saw it the other day. Mr. IrEoKFEioN. — I have it. 1 apologize to the Committee. Is this the paper? Witness. — That is it. The first and second sheets. (Papers filed as Exliibit " Z14.") Mr. Amvot. — Is it a!] in your handwriting? Witness. — All in mv har.dwriting. By Mr. Geoffrion : Q. You swear that this was then a correct copy of the tenders as the}' then read? — A. It was made at the tinio. After the three were prepared I copied them down taken from the originals, Q. Have you any knowledge about the South-wall tenders also? — A. How do you mean ? Q. Had j'ou anything to do with the preparation of those tenders? — A. No. (}. Did you see the tenders at any time? — A, I ilid. Q. When and where? — A. On the afternoon of the day they went in I was told to call round at my uncle's house, Thomas McGreevy, between half-past 7 and S that night. Q. Who asked you to go there? — A. Kither Mr. Murphy or my father; 1 could not say which. 1 think it was Mr. Murph}', Q. Did you go to your uncle's, as asked? — A. I did. Q. To his private house? — A. To his private house, on the Esplanade. Q. Whom did you meet there ? — A. I saw my uncle there and Mr. 0. E. Murphy. Q. Wa.v your father thei-e? — A. No ; ho had gone before I got theie. Q. You knew he had been there before you? — A. Yes. Q. But you did not meet your father there ? — A, No. Q You found Mr, Murphy and your uncle Thomas? — A, Yes. Q. What did you do when you arrived at your uncle's?— A. He said he wanted me to tetch the tenders he had there. He took them and put them in an envelopi' and asked me to give them to Mr. Parley at the St. Louis Hotel. 784 TTTT 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. You saw him take the tenders and put thorn in an envelope? — A. Yes. Q. How many were there ? — A. I think there were four. I did not count them, but J know there was more than one. Q. More than one document ? — A. Yes. il. Did ho cloNo the envelope ? — A. He did. Q. And he asked 3'ou to take it to Mr. Perley? — A. Yes; attlie St. Louis Hotel. Q. Did you take it the same evening? — A. I took it right otl". Q. And gave it to Mv. Perley? — A. Immediately. Q. You saw Mr. Perley there? — A. I did. I handed it to ^Nfr. Porloy. 1 told him, •' Those are the papers my uncle gave me to give *o you." Jle said " all right," and put them in his pocket. Q. You stated that you worked as Assistant Engineer ? — A. Yes. Q. Can you give us an exact idea of the distance to the dumping spot in the river from iho work", from the Wet dock, o;' ? — A. The Tidal liarbf)ur and Wot basin ? Q. To the dumping .spot in the river? — A. From the inside basin it is about a mile from the centre of it out to the dumping ground. il. Did they change the spot or was it generally about the same spot ? — A. I think it was generally abc^ut the same spot. I think there was no change. It was pointed out by the late Mr. Gouideau, the Harbour Master. It was in a very deep spot this side of the Ciraving Dock, between the two churches. Q. Is that a simple estimate of the distance, or did you measure it? — A. I measured it on the plan of the Harbour Commissioners made from a report of Com- mander Maxwell in 1877. (Plan filed as Exhibit '' A15.") The dumping ground is where the water is 189 or 190 feet deep. (I. Will you measure it ? — A. There is no particular spot between a few hundred feet. Q. On the scale of this plan give us the distance from the centre of the basin ? — A. (After making a measurement.) About one mile. Q. What is the length of the South-wall ? — A. I do not know exactly, but I think it is between 3,500 and 4,000 feet. 1 make it 3,500 feet on the scale. That is includ- ing the wooden sewer and stone sewer and wood piling at the gap. Q. Do you know what part of that sewer was raised ? — A. I know it from seeing it. Q. Do you know what was the length of the raising ? — A, I know it was laisi I, and 1 think it runs the whole way up to Ramsey street. I know it is a good distance. It must run a good distance. Boswell will be able to tell you, Q. Do you know whether Mr.Peters had another dumping ground ? — A. Except what I heard him say about the ballast ground. The ballast ground was supposed to lie up two and a-lialf or three miles. I do not think there was any particular spot, for J have seen ships dumping full}' three-quarters of a mile iliti'erent. I know it is opposite Wol lie's Cove. (i. Did you make any soundings in the Wet dock ? — A. Yes, frequently in the wot basin and Tidal harbour, both. (I. Did you make reports of your soundings ? — A. I did. (I. Did you see the map that was exhibited by Mr. Boswell ? — A. Yes. Q. Was that proj)ared upon tho soundings made by you chiefly ? — A. It was me who put the soundings on. C^. Were 30U assisted by anybody in that work ? — A. Sometimes I was assisted l)y the Inspector, John Dick. Q. Did Mr. Boswell do any of the soundings with you ? — A. Now and then ho did. In the winter time and the fall he did. Q. But this part of tho work was done by you ? — A. Yes. That is, mostly after 1S8G. after Mr. Boyd died. Then Mr. Boswell was in charge. Q. Is the depth uniform in the Wet dock ? — A. No. Q. Did you find any depth below 15 foot ? — A. Yea, especially around here ^pointing to the chart.) 785 1—50 1 1 p fSf il 'it 'it: m .'i Hi' iiil I u* IH'I Ml 'ill Hi ESI-** 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Aro yon in a position to swonr to the correctness of the figures roportcil to Mr. Jiosn-ell ?— A. Yos. il. Whilst you weie woriting on tiiese worku were you connected with tiioilroil- ging? — A. Acooriling to my appointment, I was not. (}. Had you anything to d(» with it? — A. Yes, I used to take tlie reports I'roni the InsjK'ctors. (^. Where did you take tliese reports? — A. They would leave their liooks in the otticr. () Would you transfer them to the books or make u statomoni trom them? — A. r would take them and prepare a statement from their books and make a report to Ml'. Bos well. Q. These Inspectors were not under your orders? — A. Not immediately. They were under Mr. Boswell. I was under him. He used to give orders to the Insj)eitor> without asking me. Q. Were you instructed to give orders to the rnspectors ? Did you superinttMid them ? — A. I had no written instruction to that etl'ect. <2. Their duty was to go on the dredge and remain until the work would stop? — A. They were to go on the dredge and see how much was dredged and see where it was put and make a note of it in the book. Q. In 1887, at the time of the new dredgini, contract, do you know whether the exit from the Wet dock was more difficult from the river than in i)revious years ? — A. No, it was not. Q. Had they to pass l)y what is marked as thegateentranceor was Iherean.itlior entrance left ? — A. 'Iheie was another entrance left at Pointe-4-C'arcy Wharf — about 180 to 200 feet wide. A crib was sunk there and a place on it to show by a light iit night the position of the crib. By Mr. Geoff rion : Q. Will you repeat your answer and point out on the map as it is there, wliere the opening was left by which they could puss whilst the gate was being constructed whilst the caisson wa.s there ? — A. It is between the pencil lines marked " A " ami • B." Q. Now, did you ever write any letters in the name of j'our uncle, Thomas Idcfrreevy, and sign"* his name to those letters? — A. I wrote letters for Tlioiuus Mc(jreevy, but he always .signed them. 1 only recollect wiiting one, and that letter he signed. Q. You only recollect having written one letter for him, and that letter he signed ? — A. Yes; that was a letter I think to the Honourable Henry Staines. Q. He generally emplo3-ed a secretary when he was writing to strangers, 1 su])- po.sc ? — A. Yes *i. Did you ever write for him a letter to Mr. I'erley ? — A. No ; I don't think 1 did. Q. And if j'ou did would you have signed his name? — A. No. Q. You are sure as to that? — A. No; I did not sign his name. If I sigiieil his name I put ''per C. Mctl." showing 1 was authorized to sign it. Cross-examined by Mr. Osier : (^. When did you go into the Harbour Commission ? — A. In January, 1884. Q. Were you an «>nginoer by profession ? — A. I have been studying. I was on the North Shoie Railway from 1878 to 1880. 1 was on Public Works wiili .^Lr. Guerin from 1881 to 1882. Q. Are you still in the employ of the Harbour Commission ? — A. I am not. H When did your relations with them cease? — A. On the 1st August, 18!I0. Q. There being nothing for you to do? — A. I don't know whether theie was anything to do or not. Q. But you ceased to be with them ? — A. Weil, Laforce Langevin and I both got orders we were no lonirer required, as there was nothing to do. 786 <^» T" 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 K rM Q. And what liuvo ym been doing sinco? — A. Gt'iioriilly nothing. Q. It waH the tondoi-* I'or the Cioss-wull tiiut yon tooli the copies from ? — A. The tenders tor the CroMs-wuil. Q. And it wan tlie tenthirs for the CroMs-wall that yoii had in your possesxion and delivered to Mr. Periey ? — A. Yes. C^, Was anything done at iJie meeting, with thone tenders tor the South-wall / — A. r helieve tliey were opened. Q. 0)>oned at the meeting that you have spoken of ? — A. Well, they wcie opened when I got there; at least, they were not opened; they were not in the envelope. * Q. There was McCarron's, and ^liohael Connolly's, and Owen Murphy's and John Gall;ighei's. Now, when was that tigure in Mr. Murphy's tender alteroil '.■' — A. That is more than I can say. Q. Was it altered at that meeting 'i* — A. I could not say ; I was not there. Q. You were at the meeting, were you not, when the tenders were opened. — A. I was not. Q. I mean, when they onioned the tenders — the four V — A. They were not opened, because they were folded up ready for me to taUe away. (i. Murphy was there, was Ua'f — A. He was. Q. And they were oi)enodwhen you got there? — A. Yes; they were in this con- dition (illustrating it). Q. When they were out of the envelope — you see where Mr. ^[urphy's is produeeil there is a distinct alteration, is there not? What I want to know is, whether that alteration was made at that meeting? — A. That is more than I ean say, liecause I told you I was not present. Q. You did not hear any conversation in reference to that? — A. Xo; it is not likely I would. Q. You see an important item which is at 8').oO in McCarron and Cameion's tender, in Michael Connolly's has been written originally at some other tigure, and that has been sciatched out, has it not, and this other tigure written over it? — A. It has evidently been a mistake or altered. (}. It is not as originally written, but altered in a different handwriting ovci- one of the most important items in the tender — the concrete? — A. I could not tell you the figures. (^. You cannot give us any explanation as to that? — A. No. Q. Whose handwriting is Murphy's in? — A. In his own. (^ When did you first see, or have your attention drawn to, that alteration? — A. Now. (^. Item 57, where Murphy's is extended at present as it stands is ten thoustind; item 57 in McCarron's is two thousand; that ''3" in Michael's looks as if it had been altered ? — A. It looks as if it had been at the time it was made. (^. You were on the worlds in 188(J? — A. Yes. (}. And jou wore on the works in 1887? — A. In a different position in 1S87. (J. How did the dredging plant as to capacity compare in 188(i and 1887? — A. I think there were two d; edges. There wore about the same, I think, and there were two small dump scows. Q. There were two small extra ilump scows? — A. In 1*"87 or 1888. Q. Was there an3- difference in the capacity to dredge and produce results? — A. 1 do not think there was. Q. Is there any element which would strike you as an engineer to make a better result in 1887 than in 1886? — A. 1 do not thiidc it would bo easier in 1887, because ill 188() the inside basin of the Wot dock, except what Peters took away, was above the surface of low water. Q. Would you look for a hotter or worse production in 1887 as compared with 1SS6 ? — A. I would not; except those two small dump scows. (i. Would you look for a better or worse i-esult in 1887, taking everything into consideration, and comparing it with 188(5? — A. As I have shown since, I do not tliink they could have done more in 1886 than in 1887. 787 l-50i ■I !"■■ i-f J iM! !!' ; I 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. That is to say, having regard to the location where they wore working, hav- ing regard to the dwtdges.and having regard to the accommodation for dumping, you think that the result in 1887 would have been about the same as 1886 ? — A. Yes; taking the c^mpai'ison with the two small dump ecows into consideration, they should not have done any better. Q. Taking one consideration with n- other, thei-e should have been about the same result ? — A. About the same. By Mr. Mills (Bothicell) : Q. In 1886, I understand, they worked 22 hours a day, and in 1887 11 hours?— A. In 1886 they worked night and day. Q, And in 1887 they worked the one shift? — A. They worked the 11 hours. By Mr. Osier. Q. With reference to that 160,000 yards "added by Boyd " — have you anything to say with regard to that? — A. If you will give me Mr. Boyd's book I will show it you. (Book produced.) What date is it ? Q. About .May or June, 1885.— A. May, 1885— "from the 12th to the 31st of May, 21,738 yards, making a total to date of 416,020 yards." Q. What I want to know is, when that " added by Boyd " comes in ? — A. It comes in here, after this 22,000 yards. Q. In the diary of Mr. Eobert McGrecvy there arc the words "added by Boyd" at a point when in the works, in 1885, there would be about 22,000 yards done. At the time this memorandum was made there would be about 22,000, which is in effect the 21,738 yards you have just mentioned? Will you tell me what explanation there is of the memorandum in j-our father's diary, " added by Boyd, 160,000 " ? — A. The dredging contract of 1882 amounts to 423,500 yt.rds, and Mr. Boyd must, have taken it that the work required 160,000 yards more than was calculated in the contract of 1882 to complete the area. Adding that 160,000 to the 423,500 it makes 583,000 yaris. Q. There was done in 1883 so much, in 1884 so much, and in 1885 so much, leaving so much. Now, how did that appear in Mr. Boj'd's memorandum book ? — A. It B.iows according to this that there was done 416,000 yards, and then in the month of June they dredged 64,000 yards. On the 9th July ho makes a rojiort tiiat 100,000 is required, and adding that to the 64,000 dredged in Juno it gives the quantity 164,000 yards. Q. So, in Mr. Boyd's report he reports 100,000 yards more to be done ? — A. Yes ; on the 0th of July. Q. You point out that from the date of the cor .pletion of the 22,000 yards ii]) to the time he makes his report 64,000 yards were taken out, and addinir 64,000 to the 100,000 that gives 164,000, which is about the quantity m'jiitioned as " added by Boyd." Is that your explanation? — A. That is my explanation of u. i\ ,i * By Mr. Bavies ; Q. How long were you Assistant Engineer? — A. From the 1st of May, 1884, to August 1st, 1890. (I. How long did this dredging work continue night and day ? — A. Up to 1887 thev did. I do not think thut in 1883 or 1884 they did, but in 1885-6 they did work night and day. Q. But in 1887 they did not ? — A. I do not think so. Q. Nor subsequent 1 3 1887 ?— A. No. Q. How mary hours a day did they work? — A. From half-past 6 or 7, to •» o'clock at night. 1 never saw them start, because I was not down early enough. Q. That would be 11 hours a da, ' — A. Yes; 11 hours. 788 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 1 ) i; s 51 By Mr. Edt/ar ; Q. Night work was extra ? — A. There was night Avork in l885-(i. By Mr. Luvies ; Q. Is liisre a stalemoiit here showing the quantity of work done in 1886-7-8-0 ? — A. I do not know. There is a statement in my handwriting ot what was dredged ill 1887. Q. Will you pi'oduoo that ? — A. I have not got it in my possession. It is in the Engineer's possession. ^ Q. Is it in evidence ? — A. No, it is a tabular statement. Q. There is sucii a document of the dredging of 1887 prepared by you? — A. Yes. It shows eacli day's dredging. « Mr. ¥. C. LioHTFOOT re-cilled. By Mr. Geoffrion : Q, Mr. Perley this morning stated that you would be the omployi; in the Public Works Department (hat could more easily find certain documents which he was asked to produce — namely, letters written to Larkin, Connolly & Co. — A. 1 have already given to the Deputy Minister a numi)er of documents, and I must know what you want, By Mr. Tarte : Q. Have you copies of Ihe letters which Mr. Perloy sent in connection with the British Columbia Dock from 1884 to the present time? — A. Certainly; an\- letters that have been sent copies would be in the pre-s-books. Q. Let us have those books? — A. It will take a cart to bring them over. By Mr. Edgar : Q. In the Department are the letters written on the subject of the British Columbia woiks in >eparato letter books from the other letters of the Department, or ilid you onl}' keep one letter book for all the work of the Department until it was finished? — A. In the Chief Engineer's office we have no letter books in connec- tion with the Department :is a Department. As the Chief Engineer's Branch, wo have our own letter books, which are totally and distinctly separate from the Depart- ment itself. Q. In that Branch you keep copies of letters wb'ch the Chief Engineer writes to the Minister or the Deputy Minister, I suppose ? — A. Any of his official letters to the iJepartment. Q. And copies of any official letters from him to outsiders ? — A. Yes. Q. Did you keep separate books for separate works? — A. No, sir. weiiave never done so. Q. So the letter books we are asking you to produce now include all the letters of that period ? — A. Written by the Chief Engineer on every subject. By Mr. Langelier : Q. Theuld not be fit foi- working in that depth of water ; that they would have to build dredges suitable to do the work in that depth of water. That was one of the reasons I did not say much about McGreevy liuvin^' thirty per cent, because he would have to furnish thirty ])er cent of the Ciipital. Q. How much did you expend at that time for dredges and plant ? — A. The first dredge, as near as loan find out, cost $40,000. Q. How much for the other ? — A. It was built the following year. If I was lightly informed in the oflBce she cost a great deal less, but in addition to thedredger? we had to have the necessary large scows. I think these scows were very large and (list S6,000 each. At least, they told mo in the office they did. Q. You say they told you in the office. You did not exercise any per.-^onal supervision over the accounts ? — A. Not over the accounts at all. Q. How often were you in Quebec ? — A. Sometimes, while I was doing work in tlie west, when I had a day or two to spare I went down. From 1874 to 1878 1 had work in the west. Q. Of what nature ? — A. I had finished on the Welland Canal and the woi k at Port Dalhoiisie, and I had Owen Sound harbour in 1881-82, and a portion of the Ontario and Quebec I'oad in 1882-83, and a portion of the main line of the Canadian Pacific J?Milway in 1884. Q. So that 3-our time was fully occupied with your own independent business at tliiit time?— A. Yes. (}. Speaking of the Welland Canal works, had Nicholas Connolly been connected with you in that? — A, Nicholas Connolly was the sub-contractor with me. I gave the lock masonry, and sub-let to V.ini Section 1 of the Welland Canal enlargement and the excavation, 1 think, in the month of December, 1875. Q. He was the sub-contractor, uniler you? — A. Yes, Q. Was Michael Connolly a sub-contractor also ? — A. No; he was working for his brother. (^. He was employed api)aiently by his biother? — A. Yes. Q. Had you any previous business connection with cither of the Connolly's prior tothiit?— A. No. Q. And it grew out of that business connection that you went in with them, and took them in wTth you for the contract on the Levis Dock? — A. Ves ; when he had tlio masonry as far" completed as he could get it at that time, 1878, I saw a notice in II pajter that came to me of an advertisement of L^vis J>ock, calling for tenders. I think the tenders were to the I'Jth May of that year. 1878, and I suggested to Nich- olas Connolly that as his part of the work on the masonry was neaily completed, he 793 iffl 3 ' ' •! ill li,p ^' Jf " k ■ 'M M 1^ ' I'- ll I ': II: ii '' !M, '■ 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 m V t ; r; M I hsul better tender for that work. I started our Engineer, Mr. Hume, to Quebec, to make out the tender. Q. And was it then he allied himself with Nihan ? — A. Nihan, ho and I woie the tenderers. Q. That led to your taking that contract ? — A. Yes. il. And you stated how Robert McG.eovy became interested in that? — A. Yes. Q. Subsequently, and Murphy at an antecedent period. Had you any experience or knowledge of dredging work yourself? — A. I had; because I had been dredging at Port Daihousie Harbour from 1875. The late John Brown — I sub-let the dredg- ing to him at the start. Ho died, ami I bought the dredges afterwards and com- pleted the work. Q. You were also dredging at Owen Sound ? — A. Yes ; that was in 1876, 1 think. Brown died, and we bought the dredges some time afterwaids. It was in IS"!) I took the dredges to Owen Sound and Kincardine Harbour. Q. There was a subsequent dredging contract entered into in 1887 — had you anything to do with the terms of it, or preparation of it? — A. No ; I was not hero at the time that contract was entered into; 1 was in British Columbia. Q. That was at 35 cents a yard, and it has been represented as an excessive price for such work. Will you state what your opinion and experience is as to a fair price for dredging work ? — A. For my dredging contract at Port Daihousie I can say the prices wore considerably higher. We had only to drcdfe the entrance to the Welland Canal. There wialhousie Street, on the river side. I had never been in the office before, but I understand it was Robert McGreevy's office. 795 m m r i 'U,! ,' I li HJ;!' p ■mIim! ;i I'l rt J« I m i 64 Victoria. Appeudix {No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. You had never been there before ? — A. I had never been thorc before, and I do not recollect being thoro since except that day; I may have boon (here two or three times that day. Q. How did you go into the office? — A. Walked in off the street. Q. You did not go thiough that trap-door they talk of? Do you know anything about u triip-door there ? — A. No. Q. Who took you there — who went with you ? — A. I said Eobort McGreevy and Murphy. Q. Did you all go there together? — A. lam sure three of us went together, and I think Nicholas Connolly was with us ; that I am not ? "re about. Q. Who prepared the notes? — A. Murphy. Q. And were they all signed at the same time? — A. Well, they were all signed that day. Q. And you endorsed one note? — A. One note; yes. Q. Do you know anything more than that? — A. I heard nothing more about it. I did not know anything jiositivoly about it until ihe audit of the books, in 1885 — there was no amlit in 1883 or 1884 — and much to my astonishment I found, when the audit was made out in 1885, that these $25,000 was charged to the firm. I thought the worst that could come of it would be, they would be charged to McGi'eevy himself. Instead of that they were charged to the firm. Q. Did you object to that ? — A. I did. There was considerable of a disagree- ment between ray auditor there and Murphy at the time. So my auditor told me. Q. About those notes? — A. About those notes. Murphy would not produce the vouchers, and Kimmitt would not pass the accounts. By Mr. Curran : Q. Did any other member of the firm object ? — A. I do not recollect that any of the others did. By 3Ir. Tarte: Q. He would not produce the vouchers? — A. No. Q. Were you there yourself? — A. Not at the time of the altercation. I was there when thej' concluded. Q. You do not know anything about it yourself? — A. I have it from my auditor By Mr. Hector Cameron : You were not in Quebec while the audit was being prosecuted; but you were there when it was concluded ? — A. Yes. Q. Did any other members of the firm back you up in your objection t(j the notes being chaiged to "Expense" account? — A. They did not. Q. What did you do? — A. I did not do anything, 1 could not. Q. You had to submit to it? — A. 1 had to submit to it. Q. When was the Esquimau Dock contract entered into? — A. It was entered into in Novemher, 1884. <^. That was the next contract you undertook? — A. Yes. Q. Will you state what occurred in reference to that contract ; have you any knowledge in reference to it; vvere you consulted about that tender? — A. I was not consulted about it. The first intimation I had that the tender was in. was ly seeing it in one of the Toronto papers. Q. By seeing it stated that the contract had been awarded to you? — A. Tluit we were the lowest tenderers. Q. The first you knew of the firm tendering for the work at I'-squiniult, was in seeing the announcement in the newspapers, that the tender of the firm of La.kin, Connolly & Co. was the lowest? — A. That is the first I heard of it. Q. Did you receive any communication subsequently about it? — A. A day or so afterwards, I received a letter from Nicholas Connolly in relation to the matter. 196 54 "Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. As a result, did you go down to Quebec ? — A. I went to Quebec. Q. What occurred there in reference to the tender ? — A. When I arrived there, I told Nicholas Connolly — his letter, I may state, before going any further (I. Have you got his letter? — A. No, Q. Do you destroy your letters periodically? — A. That letter is in existence. By Mr. Tarte: Q. Where is it ? — A, It is in St. Catharines at the present moment. ■ Q. You have been asked to produce all the letters? — A. You can have it. The Chairman — Take a memorandum of it Mr. Lfirkin, and produce it at the next meeting. By Mr. Hector Cameron : Q. Do you recollect the date of the letter? — It was sometime in October, 1884. I think it was October. By Mr. Aviyot : Q. Have you any other letters and documents concerning this inquiry?- A. I have several letters here. Q. And none but that one at your home ? — A. Not that I know of. By Mr. Hector Cameron : Q. What is your recollection of the contents of the letter? — A. The contents were, ^Ir. Connolly stated ho did not expect to get the work, and if I did not wish to go into it why they need not go any further. Q. Was there anything more in the letter that you recollect than that? — A. Yes. A portion of the letter stated that some person in Quebec advised him to take the contract and sell it out ; that he could get about ^20,000 for it, but lie would not be a party to any such arrangement. By Mr. Davies. Q. That is Mr. Nicholas Connolly ? — A. Yes. He said fuither that if the Gov- ernment chose to give the work to anyone else, they might have it. By Mr. Hector Cameron. Q. After you arrived in Quebec, what communications had you with them in reference to the matter? — I told Mr. Connolly that I did not want anything to do with the work ; that I would not go into it. I suggested to him that he and the rest might take it. Q. What were your objections to taking the contract? — A. I did not want to go out to British Columbia and another thing 1 wanted to get out of the firm. Q. Were you dissatisfied at that time? — A. Yes. Q. For what reason? — A. There were various leasons. I did not care much about staying. Q. What did Connolly say to that? — A. When I suggested that he and the others might take it or that he should take it himself he said that he would be breaking up the firm and he did not want to do that. Ho said further that they were then >-ix months of the year without doing anything, and for that reason thoy had put in a tender. Q. Six months of the 3'ear without doing anything in Quebec? — A. Yes; and that ho could go out to British Columbia with Hume our Engineer, and do the woik while we wore lying idle at Quebec. That was a strong argument in favour of going there, and I tinally consented. Q. Did anyone eUe speak to you about the matter befureyou tinally consented? -A. Yes. 797 I I 1 nil I ii I 1 1 . , i '] li' 'ii iff- l-M 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 <^. Who? — A. .Sir Hector fiUiiiroviii spoke to me "iboiit it oiio day. Me liap- puiiwj to beat the Gmving iMck. lie a! tlie subject with them? — A. They were not hoie. I iiad a power of attoi'no}' from Nicholas Connolly losiij,!! for him. Murphy signed foi- himself, and he was the only man who came here. Jii/ Mr. Hector Cameron : (^. There was no discussion of the plant oj' the terms of the contract when you Oiime? — A. No; f had no one to consult with. I went to Sir Hector with no one to consult with. Q. Did any members of the tii'm know anything about this plant which you were being charged 850,000 for until you came here and read it? — A. I did not. Q. And you acted on your own judgment, and on behalf of Connolly you ulti- mately signed the contract as you have stated ? — A. Yes. (l. Now, did you desire Bennett's lemoval ? — A. 1 diil not. (I. Were you out in British Columbia while tiie work was going on? — A. Ves, 1 was therefrom .Tulj-, 1885, until November of the same j'ear, i}. Ill the subsequent year were }'ou there? — A. Yes: \ w h^Sii, until the tall. I was there in the vear 1887, from March (^ And in IS88?— A. I was not therein 1888. In 1887 the work 'wa lileted -A. I built tifi theie from May, along in April. com Q. Were you interested in any other contract in British Columbia ?- y miles of the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway. Q. When was that built ? 188.') and 188(J. -A. At the same time as the Dock was going on, in Q. When was the Dock finished ? — A. Practically, the Dock was finished in June, ISSU; but we were detained there until the summer of 1887 from the fact that the '■iivernmeiit let the contract for the caisson to be built inside the Dock, and the loult was we could not get away from there. We had to keep the pumps going iiml have a stall' of men on until such time as they completed the caisson. It had 79a I ' ' i I U ;ih ' ■ W' l!i \< 54 Victoria Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 to l»o complotod bofoic wo could reraovo tho cott'or dam, and wo did not get uwuy until tlio fall of 1887. Q. Thon*j'i»u dill tnko a somowhat active part in tho work in Briti8li Colum- bia? — A. I wan there all the time it was going on. Q. Who else was there? — A. Alt tho timo 1 was there, Michael Connolly was there. <). And waH Nicholas Connolly there also at anj' time? — A. Ho was there in the winter of 1885, and went back there in the fall of 1885. Ilo went out thero in 18H4, I should suj', and came back in tho opring of 1885, and wont back there in tho fall of the same year. t^. He spent his winters thoro. Was Michael Connolly there all the timo ? — A. Yes. Q. And you were there during tho two summer seasons? — A. Yes. l^. I asked you as to Heiinutf, whether you personally, or tho firm, as far as you were aware, wore anxious to have him remove I ? — A. Not that I know of, Q. Was there any dissatisfaction with him ? — A. Not after I got there. Q. Was there any complaint about his slowness in putting in tho estimates? — A. I used to complain nf that myself. I do not know whether ho was so much to blame, or the per.sonfrom whom ho got his in>truution8. Q. Who was that?— A. Mr. Trnicdi. Q. Had you any ditHenlty with Mr. Trutch ? — A. Yes; I made somo complaint about this 850,000 wo paid for the plant. It used to be deducted from our estimates monthly. Mr. Trutch used to deduct the 10 per cent, from the whole, and then deduct the 84,000 from the balance. 1 considered that that was not tho fair way, but that they should deduct the 84,000 odd from the gross amount and the 10 jier cent, from the balance, as that would not pay for tho work as we went along. Q. Did you have this difficidty with Mr. Trutch or Mr, Bennett?— A, It was with Trutch, Jiy Mr. Turte .- Did you write letters as you wont along? — A. I think Michael Connolly did. By Mr. Hector Cameron : You never wrote letters to the Government? — A. No you write to any members of your tirm?- Q. Q Q. Did you write to Connolly was the correspondent of th Mr. Tarte nor to Mr. Trutch. A. No ; 1 think Michael firm. sy Q. Did you see any ot his letters before they wore sent? — A. Ye-, some of them; but I see a great many letters wore sent while I was absent. Q. Can you remember which ? — A. No, I do not think I can. I saw one letter. I think it was one sent to Mr. Trutch. I forget what tho subject was. 1 do not know whether I saw any that went to the Government or not. I think there was either one oi- two that went to Mr. Trutch. Q. You saw those before they were sent ? — A. Yes, and approved of them. By Mr. Hector Cameron : Q. If you had not approved of them, Michael Coiuiolly would not have sent them ? — A. No ; I do not think he would while I was there. Q. Were you out much of tho time on your railway work? — A. I was at ilic Dock most of the time. I did not spend much time on tho railway. (J. Was your railroad work next to Victoria? — A. No, it was the other end. Q. Forty or fifty miles from Victoria? — A. Twenty miles from Ksquimalt. Q. You began your railroad work 20 miles north of Esquimalt? — A. Yes. Q. You say you rote>te S02 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 view s Con- latioii;^ iw that tct was for the jiving a rare. I me auJ whoin ibout it. ^action I ou wouUl [^— A. He injuriou?^ ere tor?— iro. knew we 'by slioiiM why this would I'U lUoii to Lift j(h)wn. yos. givin<' $22,000 very kindly. I told him one day in Quebec that they — meaning him imd Murphy — grabbed 822,000 out of the contract when wo could not alt'ord it. By Mr. Fitzpatrick. Q. To whom? — A. I said to Robert McGreevy; I felt very sore about that §22,000 always. By Mr. Edgar. Q. Youi- piojiortion of it would have been how much ? — A. One third, sir ; I had one third internst in the Dock. Q. 87,000 ?— A. Ye.s, sir. Ihj Mr. Davien. Xim'd. Q. Still you let it go all the same ? — A. Yes, I did not want to quanel all the By Mr. Hector Cameron . (^, You said you had made up your mind to get out ot the firm? — A. I had. I did not tell them so, but I made u resolution to get out as soon as I could. Ij. What prevented your getting out at the time? — A. Well, f had a good do?! f>f interest in it. I owned a considerable amount of the plant, one third of what there was in the Dock, seventeen and one-half per c^nt. of all that was on the (^ue- ln'C works, and there was a considerable percentage retained by the Harbour Coni- inissinn. It was not a very easy thing to get that altogether. Q. Were the other members of the tirm in a position to have bought you out at the time ? — A. They were not that I know of. Besides, that same spring of 18S4 1 had to send them 820,000 there to help them along. Q, You had to send them $20,000 of your own money to help the Quebec firm nlong ? — A. Yes. Jn addition to that the3' drew several drafts on me, 81,000 at one time, 82.00(» at another, $1,500, and so on, when they were short of funds. Q. You were liable also to the Harbour Commissioners for the fulfilment of those contracts? — A. Yes. Q. And woulil vou have lequired their consent to your being dischaiged ? — A. Yes. (^. The other monetary tran!nnolly? — A. J. do not know whether the letter was from the liini or from Nicholas Connolly himself; I do not even remember whether it was a irtter or a telegram. 1 arrived, however, on the morning of the 1st of Febiiuiry, and we had a tneeting that afternoon. By Mr. Tarte : Q. Where? — A. In Nicholas Connolly's house. H. Who were present? — A. There were present Nicholas Connolly, Murphy, IJiibert McGreevy and mysell. By Mr. Hector Cameron : Q. Michael Connolly was not there? — A. No; he was then in British Colunibia. The iiuestion was liiou';hi up a ■ to ^'ving $25,000 for election purposes. The gene- ral election was then |)cading and they wanted these funds for it. The fact of the Q. Q. 'i !i: iVvh 803 1— 51Jr [ til ^ 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 &1 1 ' I matter is. I do not know as my memory will be quite so good about it had it not been that for seaiching for some papei-s in my house a v.eek or two ago I camo across the memorandum which I took that afternoon after the meeting. That is how I came to know the date so accurately. Bij Mr. Wood (Brockville) : Q. Did you tind it in a memorandum book ?— A. Oh, no; just as it is now. J found it among some papers in a diawei'. Q. Read it, please ?— A. (Exhibit "B15.") "(^uebec.Februarylrit, 1887.— Memo, of meeting this afternoon at the residence of N. K. Connolly, between X. K. C, O. E. Murphy, R. H. ^[(^(ireevy and P. Larkin, and agieed that ' tvventy-tivo,' " it does not go any further, but I know that that ' twenty-tive ' means $2iJ,00fl. The memo, goes on, ''and agreed that ' twent3--tive ' should l>e given and charged to dredging contract if obtained. If not obtained, to be charged to B. C. and Q. IT. I., and that a former proposal, a memo, of which was taken b\' M. Connolly, should be cancelled." That memo.. I never knew what it was at all ; I did not know anything about it, but it was mentioned there to be cancelled. By Mr. Davies : Q. In whose handwriting is that memo ? — A. Mine. Q. When did you write it ? — A. That afternoon, because 1 left Quebec that niglit. Bij Mr. Hector Cameron : Q. Having given your consent to that you left ? — A. Yes, I left that night. Q. Do you know anything of the subsequent payment ? — A. I do not. 1 do not know an\-thing about them. liij Mr. Davies : i Q. The contract was obtained ? — A. It was got while I was away. I went to British Columbia nftei'wards. (I. The contract referred to in that memoiandum was obtained ? — A. The dredging contract — yes. Bjj Jlr. Hector Cameron : Q. It has been said that there wore improjior payments made to the dredging lii- pectors who were inspecting the work of di-edgifig on lieluilf of the Harbour Com- missioners. Have yoii any Icnowledge of any such payments having been made ?- A. 1 have no personal knowledge of any such puymentt^. In Eebruary of 1^>^, iiowever, a week or ten days beture I sold «>;;t my interest to Nicholas Connolly, ,Mar])liy told me that such payments iiad been made. . By whom ? — A. He sai to the Inspectors during the season previous. This was in 1SS18, and of course would refer to the previous working year — that money had beeii jiaid to the Inspectors. Nicholas (Jonnolly remarked that Murphy was the last man to say anything about things of that sort. Q. He did not deny it ? — A. He neither acknowledged it nor denied it. 1 liai no conversation about it since. It is passeil almost out of my memory. S04 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 By Mr. Hector Cameronr Q. You say you retired from the fii'm a week or ton daj's after ? — A. T sold out my interest on the ;5rd or 4th March following. Q. On the ;>rd or 4th of March, 1888, you sold out to the two Connollys ? — ■ A. No, to Nictiolas Connolly. U. You have ])roduced the transfer, I believe ? — A. I have not, I have got it. I can tell you thedate of the signing of the document. I went home immediately after and had it j)repared by my book-keepoi'from ray dictation. 1 came down about a month afterwards. It is dated the 5th of April, but the .sale was actually made on the ;!rd or 4th of ^[arch. lijl Mr. Mills (nothwdl) : Q. When you made your sale what value was put upon the plant ii^ which ynu had :i pecuniary iiilere.st ? — A. Well I just jumped at the thing. I sold cut for what I considered was half it was worth. 1 was determined to go out and I told Nicholas Connolly that I could get out and he could not, and he had better lelieve me. I was ■ietermined to get out if I had to give it awa}'. /{i/ Mr. Tarte . (^. Why ? — A. 1 do not (hink I am obliged to answer that. Q. You must answer. — A. Well in the first ))lace I did not like my associates. 1 neither liked .Murphy or McGreevy. That is one reason. (,|. (rive us all the other reasons, ])iease. — A. W^ell for another reason there was a little transaction of Michael Connolly's that 1 did not consider just what it should be. Q. What was that transaction? — A. It was a charge of some things in British Columbia that he wante(] to put to my account in Quebec. I did not consider that a fair transaction and that was one with the other reasons. The reasons were accumulating then. (i. And that Inspector atfair, did that not strike you ? — A. I did say it was a vei'v dangerous thing to do anything of the sort. Bjl Mr. Am)/ot ; . ' Q. What was the danger ? — A. To tamper with the Insjiectors. nu Mr. Mulocli : Q. You say you did not approve of being charged wiih some money ''■ A. '^- Ve . He broun'ht a memoran. Ls tl'ere anything in British Columbia you aic interested in ? — A. Yes, there was this pumping. ^Ve had to keep the Dock pumped out while the people weie building the caisson inside. By Mr. Bavies : (}. AVhat is your claim there ?— A. The claim there is still 849,000. liy Mr. Edgar ; Q. Have you an}- other claims? — A. None that I have any interest in. /h/ Jfr. Hector Cameron : (}. The British Columbia claim is not adjusted ? — A. No. Q. But the Lt^vis Dock is?— A. Yes. <^. And all that remains to be done is for the Cirovernment to pay the agi>i I amount? — A. The Harbour Commissioners. I do not know who pays u now. I think perhaps it is the Government. Q. The British Columbia claim remains a matter of claim, not admitted ami no; adjusted ? — A. Not adjusted, owing to the Chief Engineer's illnes>. He left i he otfi'' about two years ago. Q. That has caused the delay in the settlement of that claim. ? — A Yes. Q. Mr. Robert McGreevj- stated here the other day that he had a conversaiiiii with you probably three months before ho wrote that letter of April, 1H80. and that 806 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Mi' i I ; you then did not tell him you were out of the tirm. Do yor recollect tiny wuoh con- veraation ? — A. The only conversation I recollect having with him was in the St. Lawrence Hall, Montreal, and I did not tell him J was out of the firm hecause I did not think it waH any of his business. I told it to Murphj', however. He asked me if r had sold out, and I said f had. Q. When did Murphy ask you that? — A. It was the following wiuter after I sold out. It was in .lanuary or February of 1889, I Iiappened to be Tn Montreal tmd met them at the St. Lawrence Hall. Q. Murphy asked you the question direct ? — A. Yes Q. Did Mcfrreevy ask the question? — A. No; he did not. <^ If he had asked you would you have told him? — A. Y'es; I would have. I did not think it was necessary to volunteei' any iiiformalion on tlie subject. (^. Did you ever receive the letter from Mr. McGreevy, a copy ol which has been produced here, dated April, 188!)? — A. No; I do not think I did. Q. Did you ever see it? — A. No; I ;et out of the firm? — A. Well, • 822, (too had something to do with It, and other things coming afterwards I knew \ ly little about, and a> I have stated here I was not in Quebec, but was absent !'nm the beginning of June ISS,") until November, ant' in May 188(1 until November, ind the charges you find there [ don't know anything about. (i. Did ynn examine the books j'ourself ? — A. Never. I sent my own Imok k< eper and trusted to him altogether. Q. Mr. Kimmitt?— A. Yes. ' i' I ) . l"i I ii 807 i . ..^'' 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Did you ever hear, or have any knowledge or information, as to the present of Jewell jry to Mi'. Perley ? — A, 1 never heard of it until I hoard of it in this room. Q. Had you any interest in the contract for the gates? — A. It seems I had not. (-1. Well, should j-ou have had ? — A. I should have thought I had. It was Connolly telegraphed me to British Columbia if the firm would bid for the gates, and I replied to him " yes." Q. And Mr. Connolly bid for the gates on his own account, and I see by thu Accountant's report here, the other four members of the firm divided the protits amongst them and left you out in the cold ? — A. It looks that way. Hf/ Mr. Edgar : Q. When did you discover that ? — A. I discovered it heio. Q. Did 3'ou not knoAv that you were not interesleil ?— A. I heard Nicholas Con- nolly had the contract himself, but never knew there was a division of prolit^^, the way that was ntated here since this investigation. Q. VdU nevei* knew that the other members of the tirm were interested with Nicholas Connolly ? — A. No ; I did not. By Mr. Hector Cameron : ii. You had no interest in the South-wall ? — A. No. Q. Did you expect any in the South-wall ? — A. 1 did not ; 1 did not wish f(>r it, and if I had been asked to join, I would not have Joined. Q. But the contract foi- the gates, it was ditl'erent? — A. It was ditferent. I thought it was a thing belonging to that work; 1 had not sold out of it at the time. If 1 had sold out, 1 would have thought differently. Q. Mr. Murphj- was questioned as to a transaction with Colonel For'syth. iuul he statotl that you authorized the charging of the amount paid to Colonel Forsyth, to the tirm ? — A. I authorized the charging of an amount that I thought wa.s a disputed atcount lor timber. Q. Which was the firm's business? — A. Which was the firm's business; that was what I thought it was for. (^. Did you understand that the claim arose out of some private ov individual transaction of Mur))hy's with Colonel Forsyth, about some grading on a railroad? — A. Xo ; I did not. ii. Were you awai'c of any disjiute about th.'it ? — A. I did not know there was any dispute ; I heard Murphy had something to do with the grading of the road. Q. Had Murphy been getting timber from Colonel Forsyth ? — A. 1 understHml so. Q. And you understoo made in tlit alterations? — A. There was some uain I know in the increased size of stone. By J[r. Tarte : ^l. And the recoursing? — A. And the i-ceoursing. (i. About how much would you say? — A. I coula not tell you. 1 w :iticinpt it because I had not the figures. However, there wa- nothing doi tiiat had not been done at the Dock in (Quebec 80'J uild not 10 tlifre ill M ' IjMh fill!! I mil ¥i\ 1 1 i'-f 1 ■» !« I 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 By Mr. Mills (Bofhwell) : Q. There was a circular head also ? question for our filiiginecr. better than I could. A. I think you will have to leave that He has the facts and tiguros foi- that and he can ifive it -A. Thei-e was no Iosb, but a gain to the Dock for tho It wa> Bij Mr. Edgar : Q. There was no loss on that?- of 50 feet in length. Q. And a gain to the contractors? — A. As I understood we were paid circular head by the cubical contents of the stone there and nothing more, an expensive part of the work, the stones having to be cut cir-^ular for that. By Mr. Hector Cameron : Q. It would appear that the circular head gave 50 feet additional length of dock without increasing the expense? — A. As near as I understand it. I cannotgo into that, however, because I do not know. I understood that the invert to the second entrance head, as it is called — it is the most foolish thing in the world except where there is a succession of docks opening one into the other — the masonry that was in the proposed second entrance and the expense of building it would havo come to as much if not more, than the circular head itself. 1 am told that that i> the case, but not of my own knowledge. By Mr. Tarte : Q. You had an increase of 835,000? — A. I am told that was never paid. Our Engineer told me it was noi paid ; he tells me positively it is not in ihe estimate. By Mr. Davies ; ^ Q. That forms no part of your claim against the Government ? — A. Not at all. Q. Ywu did it for nothing? — A. We got paid for the masoni-y we cut. We are like lawyers we do not work for nothing. By Mr. Hector Cameron : (J. Your claim against the (rovernment arises out of the delay and detention caused by the construction of the caisson ? — A. Yes. Q. Had you any knowledge of Mr. ^[urphy's antecedents in Xew York at tin' time he became a member of your firm ? — A. I had not, Q. When did you first learn of that ? — A. Sometime after he became a regis- tered member of the firm. Q. How ? — A. B}' some person sending me a newspaper called the tSV« published in New York. Q. It contained a paragraph on the subject ? — A. Yes. (I. That was some time after he was registered as a member of the firm ? — A. Yes ; some time afterwards. Had I known his antecedents before, I should not have allowed him to enter the firm. By Mr. Tarte : Q. When did you hear that ? — A. About a year and a-half afterwartls. He was u registered memDerof the firm immediately after he went to (Quebec. Q. That was in 1881 ? — A. I would not be positive about it. By Mr. Mills (Bothicell) : Q. When did you first become acquainted with Murphy? — A. In March or Apid 1880. (^. Had you had any business transactions with him at that time ? — A. Noiic whatever. Our books were brought up fnmi < Quebec to St. Catharines for audit — a sort of audit. 810 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Did j-ou ever lend or borrow money from him at the time ? — A. No, sir, I (lid not require it. If I wanted to borrow money, itwould not be from such people a« Mr. Murphy. Q. You did not know him then ? — A. No. 1 would not go to a stranger for money. Bji Mr, Davies : Q. You did not borrow 83,000 fiom him? — A. F did not. Q. There is no reason why you shoidd not ? — A. A very good reason. Q. AVhy ? — A. Because I did not want it. Q. Bid the firm borrow any from him ? — A. I do not knowanj-thing about that. Q. Vou (lih Columbia. The audit had not closed then and 1 gave Kimmitt a power of attorney til -ign the audits for me, as I did not know when I would be back. (J. We come on further, and it is at the auditing of the books: "Q. Was it in 1888? — A. We would begin, say, in the spring, at an early date, to audit the books for the previous year. Q. So the discussion would be in 1888, then ? — A. I suppose so," Did any such matter come to your knowledge? — A. No. (}. 1 speak generally, not only as to your being present when it was discussed; but it is suggested that the discussion may have taken place with Mi'. Kimmitt, who lepiesented you. Did Mr. Kimmitt represent you ? — A. He told me after my nturn from British Columbia that sums of money had been paid, and he could not get any vouchers for them. Q. In either 1887 or 1888 did you ever hear of a payment to Sir Hector? — A. I did not. Q. Either by discussion with \-our partners or hearing it through Mr. Kimmitt ? A. No. Hi/ Mr. Davies : Q. Before vou leave that, did you hear of pa^-ments to Perley or .Mcdreev}* ? — A. To what McGreevy ? Q. Thomas? — A." No; [ did not hear. . So far as your payments to Sir Hector, they stand in the same position as the I'iiyments made to McGreevy and Perley? — A. I did not hear of any of them. B// Mr. Tarte ; . Did you agree to them ? — A. If they were paid to the parties they would not be mentione. v<'^ ^ ^y IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) r^ «^ 1.0 I.I m •« I 2.0 L25 i 1.4 1.6 Photographic Sciences Corporation 33 WEST MAIN STRUT WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 873-4503 r o c\ \ O^ 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 By Mr. Tarte : Q. Let 118 have the letter ? — A. I have not got it, my dear fellow ; I would he must happy to give it to you it' I had. Q. Are you Hure " our friends " is there ? — A. Yes ; I am sure it was there. You will find it in some of the letters. You have not got all those letters. W»it until you get all of them, and you will find " our friends " right along. By 3fr. Mulock : Q. Whenever you used that in your correspondence, to whom did you refer? — A. To whoever Mr. Owen Murphy called " our friends " ; I am not quite certain who they were. Hi/ Mr. Edijar : Q. And you never asked him ? — A. I did not want to go into these things at all. Q. You never asked him? — A. I have no recollection of asking him. One of "our friends" I supposed to be Thonuts McGreevy; the others t know nothinjf aliout. Ihj Mr. Mills (Hothwell) : Q. You did not want to know ? — A. I did not want to know, to tell you the truth. liy Mr. Osier . Q. This letter calls for some explanation from you, and I think it is right that you should have the oppor»'>iiity of giving an explanation? — A. Just what I want. Q. There is another senteiice here — " bear in mind, my dear fellow, that there is a large amount due you, Connolly and myself, and tha< if wo continue donatini;; as we have been doing there will be nothing letl to ]»ay us, except old plant." Tiiis is the one in whicli we have got the eleventh commandment "keep the eleveiUh commandment in view" — that is " look out for yourself." Do you remember this ? — A. I do very distinctly. i}. Ai\d you have no other explanation? — A. The explanation about tlie cheques •is wo had donated 820,000, and we had donated $25,000, .ami I thought we were donating more than our means would allow. Q. There is a question my learned friend, ^Ir. Geoft'rion, suggests, and that is in reference to this part of the letter " should wo get an order to lengthen the Dock 100 feet or even 75 feet I would bo<[Uite willing that $5,000 should be given atonce '' '.' — A. Well yes, I can explain that. It would cost as much to start $100,000 of work as it does $50,000 and when you got there to the ([uarries, and everything ojienod it woiilil bo very easy to get another change of 75 feet. Jiy Mr. Geofi'rion : Q. And who wore to get the $5,000 ? — A. The parties who got all the rest. lly Mr. Tarte . ii. " Our friends " ? — A. " Our friends,'" yes. liy Mr. Edtjar : Q, Do you mean the parties who got the enlurgement of the Doek for you ? — A. Oh no; the parties to whom the 822.000 and the $25,000, and various other little sums were given, and donations, were the parties I supposed would get it. Jiy Mr. Dacies : ' (I, There was a mysterious stranger and Thomas Mctiroevy? — A. Mysterious strangers. I said one of the friends I looked upon as Thtrnms McGreevy. 814 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 R;j Mr. Edgar : Q. You said u rayHlerious Htraiiger, was not that so? — A. It was so certainly; not a strangoi-, but strangers. By Mr. Mills (Hothtcell) : (i. Could you form any opinion as to who those distinguished strangers were? — A. I think not. /iy Mr. Amyot : Q. Did you suspect they were influential at Court? — A. I don't know anything about it, and as I said before I did not want to know. liy Mr. Osier : ■ H- What did you know of the relations of the firm with Thomas Mo(ireevy ? — A. Mr. Murphy led me to believe he was on most intimate terms with him, that is all I know. I dont know that he stated so. t^. Well did you know an3'thing more? — A, No. ^i. Are j'ou sure about that ? — A. Yes. he represented to me anything he requiied to bo done he could get Thomas Mcdreevy to do it. 1^. In this record we have in your hand writing a letter marked K.xhibit "L8," and dated January 2nd, 1885, containing this sentence " I hope that Uncle Thomas will succeed in getting the percentage"? — A. Yes, that is all; 1 wanted it very liadly too at the time. (I. What is your explanation of tluit particular language used ? — A. The per- centage ? Q. No •' Uncle Thomas " ? — A. It was common conversation used among the people of Quebec " Uncle Thomas." /iy Mr. Mulock : Q. What had he to do with it ? — A. He was one of the Harbor Commissioners !ind the}' retained 10 per cent. (i,. Was not the nioney as a matter of I'act with the Government ? — A. I was not supposed to know where the money was, all I wantoil to know was who were the people to pay it. Jiy Mr. Dacies : Q. Who do you mean by " Uncle Thomas " ? — A. Thomas 3lc(ireovy. liy Mr. Osier . Q. Your interview with Sir Hector Langevin was in January-, 1885 ? — A. What does it sa)' there ? ^i. Was the interview yon have been speaking of in January, 18S5 ? — A. I tliink so. Q. Your letter, K.Khibit " M8" is the letter to Mr. Murphy describing what took jilace at the interview? — A. Yes; that is the time I wanted to change the security. (j. That is the only interview ? — A. Yes. (■I. lam speaking of the change of security? — A. Yes, when 1 brought the oertiticate from the Bank of Toronto down to substitute tor the Union Bank certi- ficate. Q. That is on record in your letter? All that I want to kiiow is, if that is what you are leferi-ing to? — A. That is all I was leferring to, liy Mr. Geojf'rion : (^ On the 28th Kebrtniry, 1885, you wrote a letter to Mr. Murphy in which you -iiv, "My dear Sir, Your letter of the 2(Hh instant recoivwl and contents careiiiily 815 hi i •il Hii\ 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 I noted. I cannot see why our friendH " — A. Excuse me. will you ho fjood enouyh to roud the letter, that is the answer to the one 3-011 uie reading. 1 handed them in with my ledger, and they will explain what you are wanting. .}. Well, let me read the extract, " I cannot »ee why our friends should he disappointed, or that they have cause to think that wo havo treated them in any way discourteously, either at Quebec or at (Ottawa." What " friends " do you refer to at Quebec? — A. The friends that have always been referred to. Q. At Quebec? — A. At Quebec — yes. Q. Who were the friends at Ottawa?— A. The letter of the 20th February will explain that. Q. Will you road it? (Exhibit " €15.") " QrEiiEC II.\RnocR Improve.ments, " 124. Dalhousie St., 2t5th February, ISvij. " P. Larkin, Esq. " Deak Sir, — Your letter just arrived, and in reply, would say that our frieinls here are greatly disappointed in the way we have treated them both here and at Ottawa, after everything was done to suit us, then, it has to be undone again. I cannot understand Nicholas, as you know, Mr. Trutch stated, there would be a letter in Quebec, giving a detailed statement of what we wanted in the way of changes and pri)posee, in his letter to you ho has u^iven details the same as he has to me, so there is no necessity of my repL-aling them. I note what 3'ou say about Perley and the drawback. We muMt^fot it some- way, otherwise we will not bo able to get clear of the Union Bank for sometiiiu-. and what is of greater importance placing us in ftuuls to carry on the B.C. work with- out a hitch Knancially. That we must avoiay, 1st August, 1891. The Committee met at 10 a.m., Mr. Baivek in the Chair. Inve!»tigation into certain circumstances and statements made in connection with the tenders and contracts respecting the Quebec Harbour Works resumed Cross-examination of Mr, P. Larkin resumed. Bij Mr. Geoffrion : Q. In the intercourse which you had with the tirm of Larkin, Connolly & Co. relative to the ditfercnt contracti^. you hiul frequent interviews and communications with Sir Hector Langevin ? — A. I hail not. Q. You had not? — A. No. H. Had you several ? — A. I had probably three or four allogother. The prin- cipal ones was about the signing of the Ks(|uimalt contract. Q. Will you look at this document (Kxhibit " M l.'i ") and say whether this is a letter written and signcil bv vou ? — A. Yes, Tiiis is written bv me. Q. Please give the date?— A. St. Catharines, April liSth, ISSl. Q. Will you read the last part which is included in jiencil marks — in brackets? — A. " The Dominion Board ot Arbitrators are now bore. 1 had them all at my Iiouno lust night. One of them, Simiini, of Montreal, is a first cousin of Iiangc\in's. He ^;iid that whenever I wanted anything done with Langevin to let him know. This is not a bad card," 817 1—62 '0 i •^1 Si "I in I ll ■■\r ' i I ■ I il I : i Ml III: 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Sir .loiiN TiKiMi'soN objected to thiw lotlcr bciii^jj pruseiitt'd in evidenco. fit'ttor witlidrnwM pro fern. Q. I rind ill the letter from you, dated I9th February, 188G, printed at j)!itro 184 of the Kvidonce, (Exhibit " K 7") that you saj': "II was in Ottawa on Tiiesiiav iaht and had a lonjic interview with Mr. Perley, he asKuroH me that the Docii will not be len^tlieiied before completion, as Sir II. is liound to liave it completed by the time speciried in the contract, even if it has to be lengthened immediately after- wartls." Had you an interview with Sir Hector on that occasion ? — A. If I mentioned so there, I did. *i. No, the letter does not say so. You say you had a long interview with Mr. Perley in reference to statements that would appear to have been made by Sir Hector. I want to know wliether you were informeil b}' Mi-. Perley, or .saw Sir Jlector him.-ielf? — A. I saw Mr. Perley on that occasion. Mr. Perley told me what Sir Hector's views were on that subject. Q. Then the same letter conciuded on the next page, I see that jou make the following statement : •' If Trutch was removed we could get along with Bennett all right, l)Ut iis long as he is under Trutch's influence we cannot." Will you explain to the Committee why you wanted Trutch to be removed ? — A. I did notwant him to be removed, nor did I say so. I can explain that matter. Mr. Trutch as I explained here yesterda}-. was, T thought, taking money from our estimates that he should not have taken, and in addition to that, he ordered a lot of woik, or the Kngincers through him — extra work — whicli was put in the estimates, and was tlirown out bv Mr. Trutch. Hi/ Mr. Osier .• Q. Vou mean deducting, not taking money ■/ — A. Yes, deducting, I ilon't mean taking; and the extra work that he ordered us to do. he would not allow the Engineers to put into the monthly estimate, nor yet wcmid he allow us for the extra stone that was put in. That is the cause of tluit remark. ii. The deductions you complained of were made on account of the plant? — A. Yes. Q. Was not Mr. Trutch acting within the limits of the contracts? — A. No, not according to my interpretation. I had better repeat it again. il. No, it is not necessary. — A. It will be better understood. Mr. Trutch de- ducted from the gross estimate monthly tint ten per cent., and from the balance ho deducted the $4,000 odd. I contended he should have deducted the 84,000 from the gross estimate and the ten jier cent, from the balance. That is one reason, and not allowing for the extra work was the other. (J. That is the reason why you wanted Trutch removed ? — A. I did not say I wanted him removed. Q. You wanted Bennett and ^-ou wanted Trutch removed ? — A. I did not say so. I did, not say I wanted him removed. Bij Mr. Amyot : Q. You wanted him to stay? — A. I wasnot very particular whether he remained or not. By Mr. Oeoffrion : Q. \'ou also say that " Ti-utch was very mucli annoyed before the oi-der was given to measure the increased masonry." Is that a statement to your personal know- ledge? — A. Yes. Q. Who made the change ? Mr. Trutch was the man to do it. — A. The change was made by the Chief Engineer here. Q. Had you anything to do with making that change ? — A. I had not. By Mr. Amyoi : Q. Do you know if anybody had ? — A. \'es, the rest of the party had. Those who were here. 818 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Ihj Mr. Geofirion : Q. At migo 206 I 8oe 11 letter (Exhiliit "KS") writtun l)y Michaol Connolly iliitod nil> l)ecomi)er 1S,S5, in whirh ho siiys "Captain Larkin has i^one over now to \\v.\\\v a social call on Sir Hector and Sir Adolphe, and as I am not acipiaintud with Sir Hector i remained behind." Is that correct? It is dated "Theiiussell" (Mtawa, Docemlter 17th 1885? — A. I havo"no recollection of calling on Sir Hector. I ciiiled on Sir Adolphe Caron, owing to the Kngineers he had making surveys for lolls out there, who were frequently at our office getting inlbrniatioii from us. I >|Miku to him about that. 1 say I did not call upon Sir Hector upon that occasion. Ihj Mr. Daries : Q. That stuteinunt then is incorrect 'f — A. Yes. I think I calleil on Sir Adolphe its I stated. Hi/ Mr. Geoffrion : M8") that you Q. On the 17th of January, 1887. you said in a letter (Kxhibit li:iil an ii lervie wwith Sir Hector? — A. Please read the letter. Q. " My dear Sir, — I arrived here yesterday morning at ten o'clock. I went ti) the i'uhlic Works Department and hail an interview with Sir ^octor aiul gave liim thi- Hank of Toronto certificate to take the place of tlie Union Hank one." l>o you remember that? — A. Very well. Q. You also said: "Sir Hector is not going to do anything in the Hriti.->h Columbia Dock matter until Trutch arrives; then I thiidv all the changes we looked lor will bo made; that is the inference to be drawn from what Sir Hector and Mr. IVrley say." Was that inference drawn by you from that interview? — A. It was ^...u, .V ..„o ^,.^^,^ ...^..Greevy. You did not yourself miike Robert McGreevy a partner in oi-dor that he might make any r-epresontations 819 1— 52i 111 I • ( li ' ' i M 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 to the Harbour CommisHioners tiB a Board, liut that lie might make private re])ri.'- Hentations to hit* brother ThomaH? — A. And through his brother to the Board. Q. But not to the Board direct? — A. Xo, I did not look u))on him an making repreHentation direct. By Mr. Amyot : Q. Did you let any of the Harbour Commissioners know that Bobert McGroevy was your partner? — A. I did not. Q. Do you know whether Thomas MeGreevy was informed of that partnerHhi]) ? — A. [ do not know that he was. Q. In spite of that you gave thirty per cent, interest to Robert MetJrcovy? — A. I did not. Q. Your partners did ? — A. Yes. Q. And you went on sanctioning that, and you shared in the donations otiiic two amounts of $2.5,000 and $22,000, and divers other amounts? — A. I think I fully explained that $25,000 yestenlay, as far as I wa.'^ concerned. It was distinctly undir stood that it was a loan to Robert McUreevy and not a gift to him. q. That is one $25.000?— A. Ves. Q. The other was for election purposes ? — A. I stated so here yesterday. Q. And the $22,000, what- was that for? — A. I know nothing al»out what it was for. It was only represented to me by Murphy that he had promised it, and if it were not given it would be injurious to the firm. Q. You stated that the partnership was i-egisterod at L^vis. Was it registereii as having Robert MeGreevy as a partner? — A. No. Q. Why did you hide that? — A. I had no particular object in hiding it. Q. Did you not know that the law of the Province of Quebec subjects a ptM^on to heavy penalty if registration is not made ? — A. I never looked upon it as a partnership, between Robert MeGreevy and the firm. I looked upon it that hv would receive a certain interest, but not as a partner. Q. It amounted then to a donation to him ? — A. Not as a partner. Q. Then in what capacity was he connected with the firm ? — A. That heshouM for his interest do anything he could. The intei-est, as far as I was concerned, wsis that he should put in 30 per cent, of all the funds that was noce^ssary to get new- plant. By Mr. Mills {Bothwell) : Q. How could he put that in without his being a partner? — A. interest. He i^ot an liy Mr. Amyot : Q, Without ever putting in a cent ? — A. Not one. Q. Did you exact anything from him ? — A. I left that to my partners to d'. They were in Quebec and I was not. 1 remonstrated on several occasions becaii-o they did not force him. Q, Did you remonstrate against Robert MeGreevy drawing his money at tli" division of the profits ? — A. He had the money drawn before it was made oul. Q. An\w cent from him ? — A. I told you just now that I left that to my partners. They wcif the managers. There weic only two of us furnishing the money — Nicholas Con- nolly and myself. I spoke io him on several occasions. Q. I want to know all about the interest you found in taking Robert Mc(Triovv in ? You say he did not put in one cent of money ? — A. No. (i. Is his name on the registry as a partner in the Rigistration office at Levis, or I presume it is in the Court House at Quebec? — No. Q. You never informed Mr. Thomas McGieevy that Robert was your parlmr ' — A. Never. 820 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Hud you no eoiivormition with him about it 'i' — A. I had no conversation with him on the subject. Q. You novor spoito ubout the matter to one of the Harbour Commissioners? — A. 1 «liid you over write u letter in which you would have said " urge our friends to use their influence with Sir Hector Langevin " ? — A. For what? Q. For obtaining something in the interest of your tirm? — A. If j'ou will show me the letter I will tell you. Q. I want to know from you. Did you ever suggest or ever ask thnt from Murithj- ? — A. Show me the letter. Mr. Cameron objected to the question unless the letter were pi-oduced. Mr. Tarte. — I withdraw the question. Witness. — I will answer the question. I did not, without you show me the letter. Q. Did you ever urge Mr. Murphy to tell those whom your call your " friends " to use their influence with Sir Hector Langevin ? — A. For wha'i ? {}. For obtaining advantages tor j-our firm? — A. What are the advantages? Q. Answer my question? — A. I want the letter. (■i. Answer my question ? — A. You asked mo if I wrote such a letter. I answer that I have no recollection. If you have suedj a letter show it to mo. •Mr. Tarte hands letter to witness. Witness. — I recollect that letter very well. By Mr. Tarte : Q. By whom was the letter written and to whom?— A. This was written on the isth of December, 1880, by me to Michael Connolly, and reads as follows : (Kxhibit " E 15.") " St. Catharines, December 18th, 1880. ■' My Dear Mike, — On Wednesday and Thursilay of this week I was in Toronto Jiini met Tomlinson at the Queen's, wo had a long talk about the Dock, he said that 821 §.i n m H m 4 '-}> i. f' -t i ■.f V ■iMJ). m * • i' any onu to work from the pronent plans. IK- HUpposod that what ho said would !><' Mtriotly conddential but Vorrett at onco went and told I'ilkington. Old I'ilkv iiotmi hiu ear and said that in any car>o wo were re(«pon>iblc lor the work and that lit' would not give uh any more cHtiniatoH. Tondinson addc«l that the (iovorninont woiiil not allow an injuHtico to bo done to any contractor and that wo need not bealai'iiic(|. What about Shanly, haH ho been appointed yet ? I havo heard nothing ilfliiiiic about it. I am ufraid that Parlianiont uutieH abs4>rbi9 all of Langevin's time and that ho in neglecting it. Urge your friondF^ to inimediuto actien. Tomlinson ha> .sent hiH report in to the Minister. He nayH it is tihort and to the point. I did not ■.[-k direct any more information on the subject but judge from remarket dropped in course of convorsjjtion that it iH very favorable to u». Write on receipt and give me all the information j'ou have. When will X. K, be here ? I expected him Home time ago. " Yours truly, " P. LARKIN " Q. The friends of that date are the same friends as to day ? — A. The frieniU ol that day — well, they were Mr. Murphy's friends, and some of the others round thci e, 1 supposed ho was getting. Q. Did you know at the time that Michael Connolly was vevy intimate with Tho.Tias MoGreevy ; he wrote the letters we have produced hero ? No answer. By Mr. Amyot : Q. You said that your object in having Mr. Robert Mctrreevj' as a partner, was to be able to have your case placed before the Harbour Commissi(jners, and you also said better place before the Engineers? — A. I don't think I mentioned Engineers at all, I mentioned the Harbour Board but did not say anything about the Kngincir-. o understoou Q. And the appointment of the Engineers had to be ratified by the Minister dI' Public Worlts? — A. Well, I don't know whether he ratified the appointment of ilio Engineers that were there then, or not. Q. You know that the money at the disposal of the Harbour Coram is8ioner> at Quebec, was obtained by virtue of a law passed by the Parliament of the Donuiii'Mi of Canada'^ — A. I did not enquire very closel}- into that 1 supposed it was money from the Dominion Government, to their aid. Q. Wore you not watching the Estimates every year to see the amount of e>ti- mates that was put in, and that the Commissioners were authorised to issue deben- tures ? — A. I was not. I did not know where the money was got. We hml the contract, and I supposed when it was done we would be paid for it. Q. You went blind at it? — A. There was nothing blind as to that, my dear sir, If you enter into a contract with a corpu-ation like tlie Quebec Harbour Board you feel sure you will get your paj', just the same as you would from the Government. Q. As a matter of fact did you know that the Harbour Commissioners wore under direct control by the majority who were appointed by the Government of the Dominion ? — A. I knew nothing about it when 1 went to Quebec. Q. But when you got Robert McGreevy as a partner did you know ? — A. I ili'l not. 822 mm 54 Victoria. Apitendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1881 By Mr. Geoffri'on : A. You »tate«l yorttiTilay tluit yoii hail nothing toilnwitli the preparation for the teinleri» for the Cross-wall ? — A. I had not. Q. Were you lot in Qiiehec when they wore Hij^ned ? — A. I was in (^iielK'c when they were put in, but 1 did not si^n them to my ree(»lloeti«)n, I si;;ne«l theni oidy when the eontract was beinp signed. My name was not on that tender when it waH put in ; that is my recollection. Q. But when you were in Queliee, you knew that one temler wjw put in the name of the firm? — A. Yes. Q. And \'ou were acquiescing in it? — A. Oortaiidy, l>ul 1 did not Hec the tigures or help to make it. Q. You did not see the Hguros? — A. No, I did not. Q. There wiii< uIhio another tender in the name of Joint (rallagher ? — A. Yen. Q. Is it not a fact that the Hume tender was ])repai-«td in the same rame time, as the one of the tirm? — A. I suppose so; I know nothing to the contrary; 1 wan not there when they wore prepared. Q. Is it not a fact the che(|ue of |7,600 accompanying John (rallagher's tender was \-our own cheque, or rather was made good with your own money ? — A. Yes ; I hrouirht a dep<»sit, or rather a certified cheque, to (Quebec, with a view ot putting it in with our tender. Larkin, Connolly &, Co.'s cheques, I understand, were put in with my tender, and my cheque went in with Gallagher's. (^. Are you sure it was your cliequo ? — A. I was told so ; I would not be certain whether it wa>» or was not. Q. Is it not a fact the necessary money was deiM>sited in the Imperial Itank in St. Catharines, and the cheque was drawn by John (iallagher? — A. No; I ilon't think that ; I don't see how it could be. Q. At j>age 85 of the Evidence 1 find the following letter (^Exhibit ' W 3 ") coming from Mr. Ennis: " Department of Public Works, " Ott.vwa, ;tth June, 1H83. "Sir, — An Order in Council having issued to allow Mr. John Gallagher to withdraw his tender for the construction of a proposed Cross-wall, Quebec Harbour works, and return to him the bank cheque for $7,500 submitted with his otfer, I am directed to enclose herewith the cheque in question to be ti-ansmitted by you to Mr. Gallagher. '' I have the honour to be, Sir, " Your obedient servant, " F. JI. EXNIS, " Se-retary." Does this refresh your memory? — A. No; I don't know anything al>out tiiat. I don't see how that would be required, for it is my cheque; lliat is 'he only cheque I know about. Q. That was not your tender ? — A. I have no iloubt the Krni put my checiue in, I believe, with the tender. Q. But it turns out by the public documents they put in Gallagher's cheque. How can you explain that? — A. I cannot explain it, ju< I Jo. 2 tender — that is Boaucuge's tender. Did you sonn." ? — A. The tii'st I ever saw of British Columbi:i was in Jul}', 1885. There is something wrong about that. 1 arrived Hrstin British Columbia, at Victoria, on the 26th July, 1885. By the Ctiairman : Q. Did I understand you to say that you did not write that letter ? — A. There is a reference to nn- being in British Columbia, and I say I was not there for month- after. Jiy Mr. Geoffrion : Q. Had you been urged by Kimmitt to sell ? — A. Ye.*. Q. Why didn't you sell? — No otters had been made. Kimmitt had urged it but no otters had been made by tho other members of the ttn.T. Had they made iiu- an off'er that I considered favourable 1 would have taken it. 824 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 liij Mr. Tarte .- (i. iJiil yuii take sninu |turt ill thu intciiilud (■liuti;;e t'n>in rtuiidHtoiit' to granite ill thf Ksiiuitnalt D<»ck ? — A. Murphy uixl McCrrucvy npoku td mo wlioii I uiih in (jiiuliec. but tlioy wure nug()tiulin|r tiliout it long before I know unylhiiig alioiit it. My kiiowioilge lit' it iH, that that originated in liritixh Coluiniiia and not with the |iei>]il«> here at nil. if. I>id you urge or did otIierM ? — I hud nothing to do with urging at all. 1 did not ; never. t^. You never urged your friends to have tliat chango inaile ? — A. I could not do io in face of the telegram which I received from Nicholas Connolly, and whicli I mentioned yeftleitlay, to Hce that no such change wan made. Other part ie> may iiave wanted that change made, but I did not in the face of t lie li'<;,ram frniii Nichi'las CoiinolU-. Q. Did you urge your friends not to have the chango maile ? — A. I showelo doubt Nick, on invcHtiguting the matter, has come to this conclusion, and since writing you tirnt about subHtiluting granite and — " \ViTNK8.s. — That is a loiter not written by me, but by Nicholas C(ninolly to Mur- ly. You must not make any mistake about it, Xicholus Connolly is writing tn iirphy about HubHtitutin^^j^ranite. •' lie is on the right track now. The last 1 received from Mike stated thai Nick ami Hume would leave sometime this montli." Jiy Mr. Tarte .- i-i. Did you over receive any communications either from Mr. Michael Ci^imolly or Nicholas Connolly about liaving that change made? — A. Kxcept the telegram tliat I have mentioned. 'i>. Was there no letter ? — A My reoollection is that the letters were sent to .Mui'pliy, and Murphy communicated them to me. 1^. You are sure you have not received any letter from them about that ? — A. I have :io recollection. Q. Will you look at this letter, datid the ISth of February, 1885. and read it ?— .\. Tills letter was written by mo, and addressed to O. IC. Murphy. ( Kxhibit '• (f 15.") " St. Catharines, ^8th February, 1885. •1). K. MuRi'Hv, Ksq., (Quebec. '• Mv Dkab SiK, — After posting my loiter to you yostorda\-, I iocived a letter hum Mike dated the 8th. \ou may have one of same date and to the same nurport. Ill case you have not, I will give you the main points. The first is, that they are Working the sandstone quarry. It has turned out first rate. A steamer calls there iilieiiiate da^'s, making communication with the dock e;isy, and that the substitution 'il' granite, oven at a dollar a foot, will not pay as well as the present contract for Miiidstone, and Mike does not want the change. The granite is good, l>ut hard to cut ; iiii'l the quuvries are 180 mi'as from the dock, and no regular steam commiinicalion 82& i': ■III k 'A'" ft ij 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 to them us there is to the (sandstone quarries. The latter is only 45 miles from the (lock. Of course Nick is anxious for the K'ngthening, hut nothing more. Better see our friends on thi« matter."* ='= * * " Yours truly, " P. LARKIN." Q. This letter is dated the ISth of Pehruary. Are you aware that on the 21st of February, 1885, a Report from Mr. Perley, recommending theiubstitutionof grniiito lor sandstone was approved by the Minister, and that at the toot of that very docu- nient the Minister said he could not carry that Eeport through Council ? — A. 1 was told about the Keport having been made. Murphy told me that the Report had been maile to substitute granite for sandstone. Q. Bui, that it was put back to sandstone? — A. It was put back to sandstone yes. By Mr. Amyot : Q. In spite of the Report of the Engineer? — A. By Mr. Bavies : Yes. -A. I suppose so; I did not see the report. I know Q. And the Minister ?- nothing about it. By Mr. Tarte : Q. Is it not a fact that the substitution of granite for sandstone would only have cost $45,000 ?— A . I do not know. Q. This, at the time you were urging Murphy to urge upon your coinmon friends to have all these things done ? — A. I think, if you look that letter over, ytm will see there is no urging. Q. Did you or did you not urge Murphy at the time? — A. He had all the com- munications about it, and if they wante I > Mi;! i!...l ii;i':i| li 'I il fll 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 walls were all built. Although the dock was shortened, we had to make connection between the dock proper and the winij walls, so that we would have the same amount, except on the floor, where we would not have masonry. By Mr. Tarte : Q. At the inception of the works you felt that you would need pretty large changes to make that Graving Dock at L^vis pay, did you not? — A. Well, I don't know anything about it ; whether we re.illj' required changes or not to make it pay, personally, I don't know anything about it. Q. Did not Sir Hector Langevin pledge himself to help you in a very consider- able way in that matter? — A. To help rao ? Not me. (I. Your firm, I mean? — A. 1 don't know that he ever did. Q. Will you kindly read this letter ? — A. It reads : (Exhibit "I 15.") "St. Catharines, 16th June, 1881. " My Dear Mike, — I have your letter of the 12th inst. As you say, we are very much disappointed. Matters are not turning out at all as we anticipated. I am in hopes, however, that Sir Hector will not recede from what he said about furnishing the funds for work controlle ' 'M; 3! I ! l: ; 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 ^A. I liave told you a little while ayo that NicholaH Connolly telegraphed me from Bi-itish Columbia not to allow any change to be made. Q. Therefore, when the change of mind was made on the part of the contractors was it a fact that the (Jovernment also changed their mind and allowed the original contract to stand? — A. It was stated so in one of Mr. Murphy's letters. Q. Is it a fact that you built it of sandstone ? — A. Yes. Q. Is it u fact that you were written to by your partners to use your influence with y<»iii' friends to got this done ? — A. 1 do not know that T was. Q. Did you hear your own letter read a little while ago ? — A. There was a letter from Mr. Murphy. Q. This letter is signed 1*. Larkin. I acknowledge your memory is capital on most matters, but there is one ])oint on which you are short. — A. That is all right. Q. Is it not a fact that you wrote on the 18th of February yourself. I must ask the pardon of the Committee for repeating it but I must do so. (Reads from Exhi- bit " G 15.") I want to ask you whether you came to the conclusion that it was not to your advantage to have the substitution, and }'ou wrote to Murphy to get your friends to stop that being done. Who were y')ur friends, on your oath ? — A. Just as I stated to you yesterday, the friends wer,? an unknown quantity. There was Thomas McGreevy, and the rtot 1 do not know. Q. You were always in blissfiU ignorance as to who this mysterious stranger was who could influence the Public Works Department? — A. I did not know who he was. Bji Mr. Mulock : Q. About that interview you had in Quebec. Yesterday you told us that you wont to Quebec on the 1st February, 1887 ? — A. Yes. Q. You mentioned you went in consequence of a communication you had received — a telegram or a letter — from whom? — A. It was from the firm — one of the Arm. Q. Since your examination yesterday have vou found that communication ? — A. No. Q. And you cannot even from memory speak of its contents ? — A. Nothing but to come to Quebec on important business. Q. Did you arrive on the 1st of February ? — A. Yes, the memorandum is here. Q. That is why you are able to speak so accurately ? — A. Yes. Q. You had a meeting that day? — A. Yes. Q. The meeting took place where ? — A. Nicholas Connolly's house. ii. What time did it begin ? — A. According to the memorandum I should jutlge it was afternoon. I see that it says " this afternoon." Q. How long did that interview last ? — A. A veiy short time. I do not think more than an hour altogether. Q. There wore present at that meeting, who ? — A. Robert McGreevy, Murphy, Nicholas Connolly and myself. Q. At this meeting there was reference made to a prior agreement or memo- randum ? — A. Yes, there was. Q. At that meeting it was agreed between the members of the firm present that the firm would give 825,000 for certain purposes? — A. Yos. Q. And how were they to be recouped that $25,000 ? — A. There was nothing said about the recouping. Q. To what account was the 825,000 to be charged ? — A. It was to be charged, according to the memorandum I have, in the event of our getting a contract for dredging. You had better read it. That it should bo chai-ged to the dredging con- tract, and if a dredging contract was not obtained, one-half to the British Columbia Dock and the other half to the Quebec Harbour works. Q. In the meantime, the firm was to make an advance on the chance of getting the contract?— A. They wore to ^ive it outright. Q. To whom ? — A. For election purposes. 830 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. To whom? — A. It wuwnot mentioned to whom, Q. And you expected to get a contract tor dredging from the Oepartmont of Public Woriis? — A. It was so Mtatod there. Q. Out of the earnings of that contract you expected to get back the 825,000? — A. I do not know al)Out getting it back; it was out of the earnings tiiat the 825,000 was to be paid. Q. At that meeting, having confirmed the previous arrangement spoken of by other vitnobses, there was a reference matie to a previous memoranthun. I believe? —A. Av-s. Q. Who referred to that previous memorandum? — A. I cannot remember which one did. ft was mentioned there. Q. It was .nentioned there that there was a previous memorandum? — A. Yes. Q. And it was to l)e superseded by the arrangement of that day? — A. Yes. Q. iJid you over see that document filed here as Kxhibit "M.')" whicii I now hand to you ? — A. Not to my knowledge. (^. Do you recognize the liandwriting? — A. Yes. Q. Whoso handwriting is it? — A. ^[ichael Connolly's. Q. It is signed by the firm of Larkin, Connolly & Co.? — A. Yes. Q. Ikcad it, please. Witness read Kxhibit " M5" which is primed on page 114 of the Kvidence. Q. There is a blank left ho>'e. Can you tell me tromyour knowledge what name or names were to go into this blank on Exhibit " M5 "? — A. I do not know. Q. It says: "We give 25,000." Do you know what name was intended to go in there? — A. No, because I never saw it before. (}. Does your recollection of tho conversation that took place enable you to say who was to receive the 825,000 or what was to bo done with it? — A. It was stateil plainly that it was to be given for election purposes. It was prior to tho election '.flS.«7. Q. Was this the agreement that wsis to be cancelled? — A. I suppose that is tiie one. Q. Was there any other agreement that you know of? — A. None other that I iioard of. One memo, was spoken of there and that "was cancelled. Q. You have no doubt tnat this was the agreement referred to? — A. I have no reason to doubt it. Q. Did you get back tho $25,000 in question ? — A. I do not know whether we ilid or did not. Q. To what account was it ultimately charged ? — A. To the Quebec Harbour Dredging. Q. To the dredging contract ? — A. Yes. Q. You did ' get that contract for two months after ? — A. I was not here, 1 was in British Columbia. Q. But tho money vvas paid in tho early part of February, 1887 ? — A. I do not know. It appears in the book, i presume. Q. Do you remember thodateot the elections in 1887 ? — A. The 22nd of February. Q. When do you say you got the contract for tho dredging? — A. I cannot tell you ; sometime afterwards. Q. Do you remember that Mr. Perley wrote a letter on the 27th April, 18S7, asking the firm at what rate they would do tho dredging? — A. I do not know any- thing about it. (}. You have seen the letter ? — A. I have soon it since. Q. And the answer made by tho firm ? — A. I saw that. Q. And the contract that followed ? — A. I do not know that I saw the contract. Q. You have worked on tho contract? — A. Oh, yes, wo havoworketl on it. Q. What did occur was that a memorandum was made at your meeting on the 1st of February, 1887, by Michael Connolly, on behalf of the firm, to grant a dona- tion that then you agreed to modify that previous arrangement, and you carrieil out your part of the bargain and gave the 825,000 ? — A. I suppose so. 831 II ""1 '4\ n ! ! M !: ;' 1 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 IHt, It Q. The other part of the bargain, the coiihidorntion in question, was also ear rieii oul '{ — A. I think ho. By Mr. Amyot : Q. Who was going to receive tliat 825,000 ? — A. I cannDt tell you. Q. It was not decided ? — A. No. It was a matter that I did not want to know anything about — these election attairs. To whom the money would be given woulil not be told to me anyway. Q. It was one of your partners who would receive the money? — A. Tliey wer..- to give it or distribute it themselves — they were to pay it out. Q. You had nothing to do with all those things that were doubtful, from the beginning to the end f —A. No, Sir. I had not. Q. In whom did you trust for that part of the business? — A. I did not t anybody. My bookkeeper would tell me about the amount of money paid out. Q. Surely you knew when you promised to give 825,000 what it was tor ? wa.s a large amount. — A. Certainly. Q, And you knew you would be recouped by extras for the new contract ot thirty-five cents? — A. I did not know that we would be recouped. I knew this much, however, that I might just as well consent to giving the money. It wnuM have gone anyway. Q. The new dredging contract was for eight cents more than you had before?— A. Thirtj'-tive cents was not discussed. All that my memorandum mentions theio is that if we get the contract for dredging, we would give this sum, but the rato ol the conti-act was not mentioned. Q. \ou had then the contract for dredging? — A. Oh. no; that had expirod. as I understand it. We had completed what we had to do under the former contract. This was a new one. Q. So you decided to grant 825,000 without receiving any advantage for that at all ? — A. It was agreed to. Q. What induced you to give such a large amount? — A. It was the amount asked for. Q. By whom ? — A. By my partners. Q. Which of them? — A. Murphy and McGreevy particularly. Q. You had always relied upon Mr. Murphy for the distril)Ution, I supp(j>o? — A. I had no reliance in him either for distribution or lor anything el.se. Q. Whom did you rely on for the divers amounts, besides the two sums i>\' 825,000 and the one of 822,000? — A. Do you mean the amounts of between 3;>0,0ii0 and 840,000 — I have not the correct amount by me? I never knew about them, or. at any rate, the principal part, until I saw Ihem published in the report of the I'L\]Mri Accountants. The 825,000 I knew was going for election purposes. I have aheailv said so Q. We have the two sums of 825,000, which makes 850,000, and then the 82l',00(). giving a total of 872,000. Add to that 840.000. which makes 8112.000. You say. however, tliat the report of the Accountants places the amount at8120,((00 ? — A. Yfs. Q. How do you account for the balance? — A. I account for it that it was paid out without my knowledge. Q. And if the payments were iricgular they were made without your knowledge ? — A. Yes. Q And if the Inspectors certitietl to false returns they diil so without ynur knowledge ? — A Entirely. Q. You will therefore be perfectly ready to reimburse the Harbour Comini- sioners for the money fraudulently obtained ? — A. I am not prepared to reinibiir-'' anybody for things I had nothing to do with. Q. But you iiad something to do with receiving the money? — A. How jcum was this continued with tlie Inspectors after I left ? (^. You would plead prescription, I suppose ? — 832 -A. I should plead that. 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. At all oventH, you took a Hhare of the money, whelhor it was received by improper means or not ? — A. It was put in the receipts lor the year, aad I sup])Ode I got my portion. Q, And you inloml keeping it, of course ? — A. I certainly do. By Mr. Avxyot : Q. About that substitution of granite for sandstone. Which was the best for the durability of the works ? Was it granite or sandstone ? — A. I should say that t lie granite is always looked on as the most durable stone of any, but the most expensive by nearly double. Q. So it would have been in the interest of the country to substitute granite for sandstone ? — A. Well, probably in the end, but for immediate use the other was just as good, and for years to come. Q. But in the end, do you think it would bo for the good of the country ? — A. For a hundred years, or something like that time, it would bo very much better. Q. So, Mr. Perley was right, in his report of the 2l8t February, liS85, when he said : " By substituting granite for sandstone at those point/s not only would a i^reater degree of solidity be given," etc. Mr. Perley was right in that report ? — A. I don't know. I had no experience of sandstone or granite either. I don't know that the report is correct. Q. From what you said a moment ago A. I don't know whether that report is coi-rect or not, Q. According to you, at all events, granite would be more durable than sand- stone? — A. No doubt about it; it is admitted on all hands. Q. So you would not blame Mr. Perley for agreeing with the contractors' request and sublituting granite for sandstone '? — A. I would not blame him — no. Q. Which would you prefer — Mr. Perley agreeing with your request to substi- tute granite for sandstone, or Mr. Perley deciding to keep the sandstone? — A. Well, I don't see, without the consent of the contractors, how ho could change from one to the other, Q. But you had given your consent? — A, So I believe. Q. So, when you gave your consent it was all right, and when you withcar Murphy," or something I.ko that? — A. I don't think you will find any of my Iftters where there is " ^My Dear Murphy." I used "My Dear Sir," Q. I find a letter of the 19th February, " My Dear Sir " and " Dear Murphy ?" —A. No; hold on. 833 1—53 M ; I f i 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 III Q. It i-i "My Dear Sir"— j-es. Since that time, not «>niy were you writing " My Dear Sir," but you were also going on with contracts with him — is not that a fact ? — A. The contracts wc had entered into at that time were going on, but no now ones. Q. The Cross-wall contract of 1883, and the Ksquimalt contract, are they nm later than 1881 ?— A. Yes. Q. Well, you knew all that time? — A. I never wrote to Murphy in 18S1 or 1882 at all. Q. But two years afterwards you wrote to him, and frequently since? — A. 1 never wrote to him until the Connollys left Quebec to go to British Columbia, and then it was necessary, as u member of the firm, to find out what was doing in Quebi'c and to communtcato in regard to matters generally with Murphy. It was necessary to write to him on account ot the contracts. Q. Since 1881 — since you have known of his dealings in New York ? — A. Since that — ^yes. Q. And it was necessary to keep him posted, so that he would commuiucato with •' our friends "? — A. I did not think it was necessary to keep him postehould think not. Hi/ Mr. Bavies : Q. You say you surmised in 1885 and 1S8G that Murphy and Robert Mcfireuvy, your colleagues, were manipulating some of the funds for their own bonelit? — A. I w> stated to Nicholas Connolly at the time. Q. You have sworn you surmised it? — \. I did. "" Q. Nevertheless, I find that in 1887 you agreed to pay $22,000 from the British Columbia contract to the friends who were manipulating for you? — A. 1 did not (li> anything of the kind. It was §25,000, and alter wards $27,000. Jiy Mr, Edgai- : Q. Your contributions to the party to which you belong up there, were they charged to the Larkin, Connolly k Co. contracts? — A. They were charged to mvseif. By Mr. Geoffrion: Q. I ask leave to have certain letters identified by the witness, and used later on tor the purposes of cross-examination. The^' are eleven letters that were picked oiit of those that this witness brought here, and JFr. Osier was gootl enough to mark them from 1 to 11. Identify these letters, .^nd say whether these are the letters brought in by you? — A. I identify them. 835 1-53J :!! 'J ''J 1 ■! 'I 54 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 ■ P i It By Mr. Daly : Q. In Exhibit ''L 8," u letter dated St, Catharines, 2nd Januury, 1885, prinit-il at page 2(H(, you say: " I have had Dunn write to his newspaper friend in liritiiili Columbia to agitato the lengthening of the dock 1((0 feet, to meet the growiii;; requirements of the shipping trade on that coast. It will not take much agitation ti> aucomjtlish it." Who is that D"nu ? — A. A friend of mine. lie is not coniiecteil witti tins matter at all. He had a newspaper friend in British Cc. There was a distinct understandinj^ tliat Nicholas i'oniiolly should take chari^^o of the wi ik. Q. After a while Niiian was liought out by Connolly anil Muiphv went in ? — A. Yes. Q. Do you know if Murphy had had any previous oxpeiience as a contractor ? — A. Not that I know of. {}. Well, what work did ho do on the works ? — A. He was a sort ot torenun over the Ijoys and men. who wore breaking; stones, nii.xin;,' concrole, etc. That is all. H. As ajnattcr of fact, what did he do in connection with the work of the tirm ? — A. I liavejust mentioned. Up to tlie time, I thitdv it was the fall of IsSl ur the lii'i^'innini^ of 1982, Michael Connolly used to do the banking uml i.andle the cash. After he went to Texas Murph}' took it up <^. He handletand. was to give him the money and the notes he required during the viiirand at the audit; at the end of the yaxv he would account for the moneys he had received '.' — A. I do not know how the thing was done. t^. At the end of the year the custom was to ask Mr. Murpliy to account for the payments he had made / — A. In all things I don't think that was done. There were a great many items at the eml of the year, as I uny .Murphy. (^. Is it or is it not a fai-t that at the time of the audits — take spciiall}- the audit t time what had become of the moneys ? — A. So I understood fiom the auditors. «i. Were you not there in l88.j ? — A. Not until after the amiit was completed. (^. Did you not, in 188.'), at the time of the audit, call on Murphy to explain certain accounts in the books which wore tmaccountcd for ? — A. Perhaps I did, not the large expenditures, I don't think, because that matter bad been settled before I went down. Q. You were in Quebec on the 2nd of May. 18S5 ? — A. Ves. Q. At that lime, I want to know if yor. did not call on Murphy for explanations of certain item> of expendittiro ? — A. I do not remember that I did. ii. As a matter of fact, at the audit of lS8.i was there not a ^um of •?2r).(lOO ciiarged to Murphj- and for which you asked explanations ? — A. I do not recollect my a^king him to do if, but the auditors diil. Q. Did not the auditors do it to your knowledge ? — A. My auditor was acting tlie same as if I was there myself. I was not present. Q. Do you not i-emembor that in 188,'). when the audit was first started, on the 2iicl of May you were about to close the amiit, but no vouchers could be i)roilu(ed tiu- this item of 825.000 ?— A. I don't recollect it. Q. Do you not recollect that the audit was not closed for a month fi-om the 2nd of May, 1885? — A. It was not closed until June, I understand that, but I do i.ot know that the audit was kept open on that account. Q. Do you not remember that Kiminilt, your auditor, reported to you that he would not con.sent to the closing of the audit, because no vouchers had been produced by Murphy for that 825.000 ? — A. He did object so. Q. Was not that the reason ? — A. I do not know that it was. Q. But is it not a fact that until the vouchers were produced the audit was not dosed for a month afterwards ? — A. I do not know how long it took to produce the Vouchers. I know there was a difficulty. Q. You remember there was a difficulty ? — A. I remember there was r ly tile firm witli your conHcnt to Murpiiy for tlie convenii'iifo of Itolicrt McCireevy ?— A. I Huiil BO — yes. Q. At tliut time wan tliero any HUggeHlion made by any jierson — Mur|iiiy, Me(iroevy or an}' perMoneiso — tliat tliewe noten were to lie iiseil for any jiurpose otjur tlian tlio pur|K>HO iiulieuteil liy Murpliy '.' — A. There wan iiotliing Mild to me about it. Q. At tlie time of tiie audit ill 18H5. wlien the ditticuity aroce in reforenic td thin specific payment of 825,000, was there anytliing said that tlie money liad licm lor any purpose other than tlie piiipoxo indicated when it was got? — A. It was imri tioneil bv Murphy at the time of the audit in 1HK5 that tiie 8-5.000 was uppropriaicil. )t for Uobert Mcdreti that wan made. n( reevy's benefit, but the jieople outside. That is the explanaiion Q. Is it not in terms, as far as you can recollect tlie explanation Murph}* gave in 1885 ? — A. I cannot recollect tiiat. The explanation was fiist given to Kimmiit, the auditor. il. Did he report to you ? — A. He reported to me that there was a large >inii ni 825,000 and that he would not pass the amounts until he had tiie vouchers for it. Q. That no vouchers had been jirodiiced ? — A. Vcs. The vouchers had not been produced. When he saw my name to two of the notes he passed it. (I. One of them ? — A. No; but there was twenty-two thousand and twenty-ii\ • thousand. Q. At that time, in 1S85, did you ever hear yourself in the courseof conversi with Murphy, McGreovy, or through anj-thing that might have transpired, or thnu, Murphy, McGreevy, or Kiiumitt, that anj- jiurtion of these notes ever went in Thomas McGreevy? — A. No; I never heard that. Q. Was it ever suggested, or intimated in any way, that ho got any portion ^t tho.-e notes ? — A. No, it was not. Q. Was it intimated to j'ou then, or at any other time, that this money went tu Thomas McGreevy ?— A. No. (^ You were as largely interested in the firm as Mr. Murjdiy, weie vou not ? — A. Yes. Q. And your financial interest was as great as that of Mr. Robert McGreevy. was it not? — A. Yes; the 822,000 I was interested in siltogether ; I mean to .say, in pait of the 822,000, and ho had nothing to pay in it. t^. You stated yestonlay, in the course of cross-examination, that the term 'ymir friends" used in some correspondence that look p'ace between Murphy and yotiiMlt. you understood to apply in part to Thomas McGreevy ? — A. At least, I said I thought -n, Q. 1 notice that this term "your friends" begins to be used by you in the course of your corrospondenco with Murphy as far back as 1880. Do you mean to say " "tir friends " would apply to Thomas McGreevy at that time? — A. In 1880 I don't think you can find anything like that. ii. I think in the letters produced this morning you will find "our friciiis ' referred to ? Sir .loHN Tho.mpso.n.— 18th December. 1880. A. That was before ]{obcrt McGreevy had anything to do with it. Q. And therefore, "our friends" as used in December, 1S80, did not apjily Thomas McGreevy ? — A. It might apply to Thomas McGreovv and Robert Mctinivy both. (^. In 1880 what had you to do ? — A. Murphj- had : I had nothing. Q. Did you at that time consider that the term "our friends" was used in the same sense that it has been used throughout subsequent correspondence? — A. Well. no, I don't think I did. Q. Then the signification of the term "our friends" changed? — A. Well, I sujiiiose it changed after Robert Mcnrticular bignitiran«'i' to it ? — A. Ye«. (i- Have yoii now prowont l)eforo your niiiul any fart or any convi'isation with Murphy upon wliii-h you ran bam' thi> stati'niont ymi niadi' yi'^ii'niay, tluit Ihv torni •• our friondN " waw intondud to Itc applioil,to Thomas M(( Jroovy in part '.' — A, I wan hhUlmI the (lUOHtioii it thfru was any person I could nanii' as one of the friends, and I named Thomas Me(ireevy; I thought so at the time. (}. It was purely a mutter of surmise on your jiart ' — A. Purely surmise, nothing else. (^. If that tornj ean he construed as applying to any im|iroper interl'erence of any persfHi for the purpose of inllueneing eontraets hy you, ean you say you have now present lielbre your mind any fact upon whieh you can hase the assumption that Thomas Metireevy was one of those wlio improperly influeneed contracts tor yoii "/ — \. \o; I cannot say anything of the sort. t^. ( 'im you say, if the teini "our friends" is used as indicating people who have leeeived anyoftho7.e corrupt payments that have been referred to, there is now present to youi' mind anything that would Justify you in saying Thomas .Mctiieevy was one of the men who received such payments? — A. No: I don t apply it in that way at all. H. Mr. Mmphy is a man who 's extremely discreet — more than ordinarily dis- creet, is he? — A. No; I ^.'> that *he tender.s for the Cross-wall had been prepared. Three tenders had been prepared in the interest of the firm, and he says further that it was suggested to him, or to the firm, that an error should bo made in these tenders in order that you might subsei|uently obtain an undue advantage. Did you ever hear of that? — A. No. Q. Did you hear that portion of his evidence? — A. 1 was here when it was given. Q. Is it true or not true? — A. It is untrue, so far as I am concerned. Q. Did you see these tenders before the}- went in? — A. I did not look them over. I saw them folded up ready to be carried over to ,ne ('(unmissioners' office. Q. In connection with tlie contracts you have had — i do not speak of those now under investigations-did you ever see any changes in the works as carried on? — A. Yes. Q. Is it the rule that the original estimate of the <'o>t of a contra't i> almost invariably exceeded in the final completion? — A. It is generally understood that the gross amount given for the tender is simply approximate. Q. Do you mean in the Public Works Department here? — A. In all T)e]>artments. Q. You had a contract on the Wei land Canal ? — A. Yes. Q. When was it awardeil to j'ou? — A. 1875. (^. When were j'ou settled with for that? — A. I diil not get paid until 188.'). 839 ii r LI I I ! , >» ;■ i 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. What was tho difference between the original estimate and the amount finally awarded ? — A. 1 cannot tell 5'ou exactly the final sum. The approximate sum was 8434,000. I remember that well ; but what the other amount was I do not know. I know it was something over 8rc(rreevy leaves here to-morrow and he will look afier the matter. 1 also learn that 'he Speeidi from the Throne in the H. C. Parliament they ask to have the ut and that the others shouldtinish the work ? — A. That was year?, before, in IsSii, I til ink the Xo, Q. Was not that in 1885? Did you not want to got out from the tirm and let others have it? — A. I do not think il was in 1SS5; 1 think it was betoie. (^. Do I understand that Nicholas Connolly did not make an otler to you? — A. (J. J le made no counter otler to you? — A. No, he said he would bo willing to take what he gave me. That did not say he could getout. ITc hail to slay theio. Q. You did not untlerstand from him that il was a hond liile, offer on his part to soil ?— A. No Ihj Mi\ Fitzpatrick .• (J. You .said that he could not get out? — A. Hither ho or .Michael Connolly litid til stay there. By Mr. Geojfnon : Q. You have stated that by "our friends" Mr. Thomsis Mctiioevy was meant. Will you take comm\inicalion of a letter written by U. K. Murphy, on the li'th ot 1'^ I Illl ! ■ I 841 ii:' ;i II H ' ; liii ' 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 January, 1885, (Kxliibit "K15") iiiul May whcthor you have more than a simple buiniisc there as to who is meant? — A. "I talked with each of the Commissioners, and the}' intimated that we would be paid, and friend Thomas stated that ho would see wo were j)aid. On this assurance 1 started." By Mr. Baker : Q. Paid for what ? — A. For work — levelling. Bij Mr. Geoffrion : Q. Will you look at this letter, dated 1st February. 1SS5, (Exhibit 'LLt") addressed by you to Mur|)hy, and also .say whether the reference there is tock. Q. Did you not want Mr. Page substituted for Perle\' ? — A. No; as a Coninii.s- sioner only. at L evis. th with By Mr. Mills {Bothwell) : Q. What work was that ? — A. The Graving Doc' Q. Not the WellandCaiial?— A. Oh, no. Bjj Mr. Davies : Q. " If you get the pai'ties tiiat is working up tlie business to have Mr. Page called on to report.' That must be somebod}- who liad intlu<.'nce to get Mr. I'age appointed? What did you mean by that? — A. I meant if they had inHiience with the (roverninent to have a Commission appointed. (i. Who were the parties that you referred to in that letter who had influence 1 the (iovernnient ? — A. Mr. Mcdreevy was one of the parties. Q. ^[ike was to get Mr. Thomas ^Ic, I ask you if it is a fact that Simard had that conversation with you ai your bnu~e, in which lie spoke about if anytiiing was wanted upon which to see Sir Ilector Langc- vin to let him know? — A. 1 spoke to him about the Welland Canal work — that I could not get a final estimate of it, and I had not influence in Ottawa with any person. Q. For what purpose? — A. To try and get the final estimate on i lie Welland Canal, i'liero wer'e a gooil many things in dispute lliere, and tinally it bad to be arbitrated, iuid it was not arbitrated until 1884. We ilid not succecil in getting an}'- thing done, getting it into shape; I tried for a couple of yeai's. (,. Ill whoso Department had that work to be done? — A. Railways and Canals. Q. What had Sir Ilector Langovin todo with it?— A. Nothing more tlian that I-o might use his influence with the Minister of Hallways and Canals, and he was Acting rvlinister at the time. Q. At that time wa.s he? — A. I don't think at the time the letter was written. Q. Then the conversation. I understand, amounted to tiiis: You bad claims un- settled with regard to the work on the Welland Canal, and you were an.xious to get your final estimate aiul get the ma. tor closed ? — A. Ves. Q. And there was a delay of which you complaineil ? — ^A. Yes. *-l. And you desired the help of Mr. Simard to get Sir Hector to hasten the settlement of the matter? — A. That was it — yes, sir. (i. lie had that conversation with you in j-our house, as you stated in your letter, I suppose? — A. Yes; I mentioned the matter to him. Q. With regard to the first i)art of the letter which lias been read to you by Mr. Davies, I want you to state what facts and transactions it refers to. Vou sjjoke of news)}apers having been sent to you by Mr. Coniu'll}- — the Telcjrdjih and the 'Chronicle — and there having been an argument between those |)apeis, because vou refer to one of ihem as having got the better of the argument — was there any 843 -t I • 'I TT^ 1 ' t ii ' 1 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 fublic discussion at tliat time about the condition of the Graving Dock? — A. Yes; think there was a good deal in the Quebec papeis at the time. Q. As to the suitability of the work, or what? — A. Well, the location, and the plans being a failure, and the work altogether a failure, and working on other lines. Q. These two papers had an ai-gument on the subject ? — A. Yes; I should judge 80 from that letter. Q. You go on to saj': "There was a short article in the Mail about Perley being in Quebec, and stating that the Dock and the Quebec Harbour works, as far as engineering was concerned, was all right." Had Periej- gone to Quebec ? — A. I do not know anything about that. I referred to an article in the paper. Q. What was the idea about a Commission you referred to a few moments ago ? — A. The Commissioners wore decided, and it was acknowledged by a great many people in Quebec, that along the linos we were then working we could never com- plete the Dock, and I wished and other parties wished the Government to send some competent ])er.-son to examine the location and plans and all. Q. For the purpose of ascertaining what ? — A. Whether the plans were faulty or the location. Q. Whether there was a fault in the location, or the plans, or the work ? — A. Yes. Q. And that was in consequence of the statement that had been made public respecting the location and engineering? — A. There was a very gi-eat fault, too. The plans represented when we t^igned them that the bottom was blue day, but after taking otf a little of the top we found it was all fine sand. The wing-walls were built on piles, and it was supposed that they would be water tight-underneaih by rea- son of a circular dam between these two walls; whereas the tide would rise just as fast inside the Dock as outside. Q. 1 understand the difficulties met with, referring to the location on claj' as compared with the sand and piling, would ait'ect the stabilit}- and usefulness of the work, audit was not a question of what was piofitable to yourselves alone? — A. Not at all. Q. W^as it this question j'ou wanted the opinion of !Mr. Page on ? — A. That is it. Q. I ask you that inasmuch as you use the expression in this letter? — A. I may say that Mr. Page located the Dock. Q. You say: " If you get the parties who are working up the business to have Mr. Page called upon to report upon the plans and the work it would be greatly in our interest." What did j-ou mean by that? — A. That members of our firm were trying to get people thei'e of influence to have a competent man sent to examine these defects. Q. That is all you had in view ?— A. That is all. Q. How were your interests as conti-actors atfecled by the faults in engineer- ing? — A. Wo had a large amount of money up as security and we had a large amount of stone on the giound on which we had no advance, and we were out a very large amount of money at the time. Q. Would the work cost more as it was actually found in construction than as compared with the representation made by the plans? — A. Yes. Q. If a Commission had been appointed, in what way did you see it would have been greatly to your interest? — A. I knew that anj- competent man, particularly such a man as Mr. Page, would change it. Q. In what respect? — A. He would shorten if. We had only to go 100 feet further in to get a foundation of rock. Q. I want you to state whether you had any expectation of any undue or improper influence with regard to Mr. tage? — A, J^ot at all. Q. Had you any communication with him, business or otherwise, that gave you to understand thai ho would give a favour to you as compared with the public ? — A. No; not at all. What I wanted was his unbiassed judgment. 844 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. You considered that if 3'ou had his unbiassed judgment or that of any compe- tent men forming a Commission, it would bo to your inlerest, because it wouM improve the work itself and lessen the cost you were under as well? — A. That is it. Mr. Hector Cameron produced originalassignmenttoN. K.Connolly of Patrick Larkin's right, title and intsrest in the firm of Larkin, Connolly &, Co, as regards the Cross-wall and dredging contracts, dated 5th April, 1SS8. Mr. Hector Cameron, on behalf of Mr. Larkin, requested leave to withdraw the original and substitute a copy. Mr. Larkin. — The Committee will understand that it is very impoitant to me that I should retain possession of the original, and so I trust that I will be allowed to deposit the copy instead. Permission to substitute a copy of said assignment was granted. Copy was accordingly filed, and marked Exhibit "N15." The Committee then adjourned. lit 845 i;i ^|-|( II li'l •^f i^i'.^i*''^' 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 House of Commons, Tlesdav, 4th Auyust, 1891. The Comnnttce met ut 10.30 ; Mr. Girouard in the Chair. Investigiititui into fortain circumstances and tstatements made in connection with the tendei'.s and contracts respecting the Quebec Harbour Works, etc., roisumed. Mr. E. J. Milne sworn. Bi/ Mr. Henry : (}. Wheie do ,you live ? — A. St. Josepli de L^vis. Q. Had you any omplovment under the Quebec Harbour Commission in 1883? —A. Ve>. Q. How long previous to that ? — A. From 1879. (}. Up to wiiat date ?— A. Up to 1888. {]. In what capacity ? — A. Inspector of masonry and concrete, and timber. (i. Were you employed in that capacity from 1879 until 1888 ? — A. Yes, 1888. Q. Your occupation was the same througiiout those years ? — A. Yes. sir. Q. Were you employed continuously through the year ? — A. Xo ; only during about seven months in the year. Q. During the working periijd ? — A. Yes. Q. And were paid by the month ? — A. By the month. Q. During that period did you receive money from the firm of Larkin, Connolly & Co., or any of the members of that firm ? — A. I had instructions from the Engi- neer in charge to act as superintendent over the men, both d.ny and night. They had a difficulty with the foreman, and I lepoi'ted that it would be neces^.try to make a change ; that there was injustice. He directed Mr. Murphy, in the presence of me, to make that change. Q. Do you say that Mr. Pilkiiigton instructed Mr. Murphy to employ- you and pay you for the same period that you were paid for by the Harbour Commissioners '! — A. Extra labour. Q. What time of the da}' was this work done ? — A. Taking chai-ge of the men ? Frequently during the day. Q. What were j-our hours of work for the Harbour Commissioners? — A. Eight or ten hours a day. From seven o'clock in the morning until six at niglit. Q. It was between seven o'clock in the morning and six o'clock at night that you did this work for the contractors ? — A. It was during the night. Q. What sort of work did j'ou do during the night ? — A. I took chai-ge of the men. Q. What hours ? — A. Sometimes during nearly the whole night; sometimes four or five hours in the night. Q. What kind of work was it you were doing? — A. Measuring timber, cubing •.tone, stopping leaks during the night in the wall and receiving coal and cement. Q. ^^ ill you now repeat the conversation which you say took place between h\: Pilkington, yourself and Mr. Murphy? — A. Mr. Pilkington directed Mr. Murphy to get me to act as foreman, and to pay me for extra labour. Q. Was it the interest of the work of which Mr. Pilkington was Engineer that made it desirable that you should be appointed ? — A. It was to see the work pro- perly done. (}. That is, you were to see the work properly done for the Commissioners and to be paid by the Commissioners during all the day, and j'ou were to act as foreman for the contractors at certain hours during the night and get paid for that from them? — A. Get paid for it. 846 54 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Who was Inspector during the time at niyht you were working lor Mio con- tractors? — A. There was no inspector at all. Q. Vou were woriving only for the contractors at nit(ht ? — A. I look cliarge at the same time. I looked after the interests of the Commissioners at the same time. Q. Vour story is, that you were i)aid during the night exclusively hy the con- tractors and received no pay from the Commissioners? — A. Yes; that is the case. Q. Did j'ou do anything for the contractors at all during the day time while you were being paid by the Commissioners? — A. I took charge of the men and wrought myself the same as a common labourer. Q. During the time y.iuwere paid as [nspector you were woiking as a common labourer? — A. T was seeing that the men did their duty. Q. You were working for the Commissioners and the contractors at the same time? — A. Sometimes during the day. Q. In point of fact, you did moie work for the contiactors during the hours of the day than during the night? — A. I did a great deal more during the night. The princi))al work I was paid tor was during the night. Q. I asked you if you did not do a large amount of work for the contractors during the day and get paid for it ? — A. Xo, sir, during the night. Q. Did j-ou do some work ? — A. I did. Q. You say that you worked for the contractors during the day ? — A. It was for the Commissioners as well as the contractors. Q. And you were paid by the Commissioners ? — A. I was paid l>y the con- tractoi-s. Q. Y'ou were not paid by the Commissioners for tiie work that you did for the contractors ? — A. I was paid by them for looking after their work. Q. And you were paid by the contractors for your labour ? — A. Yes, for the labour. Q. What is your salary from the Commissioners y — A. 870 a month. Q. What were your duties as Inspector for the Commissioners ? — A. Mj* duty for the inspectors we.^'e merely to see that the proper material was put in, that there was a proper quantity of concrete, sand and stone, &c. Q. That required fairly close attention to see to the work from hour to hour that the proj)er materials were put in ? — A. The work was under ni}' jurisdiction all the time. Q. You say you wore accustomed to labouring at the very same work ? — A. ('er- tainly I was. To see that the concrete was there ; I was there with my shovel u> see that it was properly put in. Q. What about timber ? — A. I was measuring and culling timber. Q. Did you do any work on tiinbei- yourself for the contractors ? — A. I measured the timber. I took charge of it for the conti-actors — I took the amount of the cubical feet. Q. What else did you do for the contractors ? — A. I received thecoal and ceinent and looked after the measuring of the stone. Q. In ])oint of fact you were doing double work all the time ? — A. Certainly 1 was. Q. You worked for the Commissioners and the contractors at the same time and were paid by both ? — A. Yes, as a labourer I was paid by the contractors. Q. How much labour did you got paid for from the contractors ? — A. I could not exactly state; I could not swear that. Q. Were you on their pa^'-roll ? — A. I could not say whetht»r I was. Q. Do you know if you were ? — A. I cannot say. Q. Will you swear you were not ? — A. I swear I do not know. Q. Did you get rogulai* wages by the month, week, oi- day ? — A. Xo, sir. Q. Is thare any method b}' which the amount you weie paid by the contractors could be ascertained ? — A. No, sir. (^ Did you keep any account of the hours you worked day or night for the contractors ? — A. 1 worked sometimes the whole night. 847 I i i fif ill -[\ '\ ■ 'I T \ f i . > : ; ■ 1 : j!" ' f 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. I am not asking you that qucHtion. I wiint to know if you kept any accbiint of the numboi' of houi't) that you worked for the contractors, either clay or night ? — A. I suppose I worked lor the contractors Q. I)id you or did you not keep any acccount of the number of lioura you worked for the contractors? — A. No, sir. Q. Did you keep any account of any of the work you did for them ? — A. 1 could not say. Q. You do not know if they did or not? — A. No. Q. Were you paid at regular intervals by them ? — A. I was paid sometimes. Q. I asked you were 30U paid at regular intervals by the contractors? — A. I was paid sometimes once a month and sometimes every two months. Q. You say there were ditferent kinds of intervals, monthly and every two months? — A. Yes; at ditferent periods. Q. Were not the payments at irregular intervals? — A. Yes; they were irretrular. Q, Was there any mode of ascertaining the value of your service that you know of? — A. I solemnly swear that the sei'vico was done by me. Q. Was there any method of ascertaining the value of the services that you rendered to them? — A. Yes. Q. What was it? — A. I could take my affidavit that I did the work for the money I received. Q. I am not asking you about an affidavits-did you make an affidavit? — A. It was not necessary for me to do so. Q. Did 3'ou report to the contractors the work you had done ? — A. Most cer- tainly I reported. Q. Did you do it in writing? — A. In memorandums. I did not keep the exact account of the work I did, Q, What was the longest interval between the payments for this work ? — A. Sometimes two months, sometimes three. Q. Will you swear that there were any as long as three months? — A. No, sir. Q. Will you swear that there were any as long as six months ? — A. I could not exactly say. Q. Will you swear you did not receive money from them for supposed services extending back six months before the time of pa^-ment? — A. I cannot swear that. Q. Will you swear you did not receive money from them covering six months of supposed work? — A. 1 cannot swear that. Q. Why cannot you swear — is it because you do not know that? — A. I will swear that the money I have received I gavo them labour for; that is all lean swear. Q. What is the date of this agreement which you say was made between -Mr. Pilkington and yourself and Mr. Murphy? — A. In 1880. Q. What time in 1880? — A. About the beginning of May. Q, Did you ever receive any money from the contractors before that ? — A, No, Q, Do you know anything about what became of Mr. Pilkington ? — A, No, I cannot tell you, Q, You know he left there ? — A. Yes ; when he left there he was in ill-healtli. (i. You have never seen him since? — A. No, sir. (I. When did you get the first payment from the contractors? — A. I kept no note of that. Q. Have you no idea? It was an important thing for you to get pay from them? — A. I left it entirely for them to give me what my services were worth. Q. I know that ; but have you not just told us that you gave memorandums to them ? — A. I said I gave memorandums for the amount of labour that was done. Q. Can you tell us when you first received the payment from the contractors.'' — A. I did not keep the date. Q. What year?— A. About 1881, I think. Q. Will you swear that the first payment you got was 1881 ? — A, To the best of my opinion. I cannot swear positivel}'. 848 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. What time in 1880 was the agreement of Murphy made whoa Pilkiiigtoii was present? — A. I have already lold you it was in May. Q. And you did not get any pay until the beginning of 1881 ? — A. No. Q. Have you any idea whether it was tlie beginning or the hitter part of 1881 ? A. I cam not say. Q. How much did you got in 1881 ? — A. I cannot say. Q. Have you no idea? — A. No; 1 can swear to the total amount I received alto- i,'ether. (l Did you get us much as $500 in 1881 ?— A. No, sir. (I, Will you swear you did not get that much ? — A. I will swear that tor the time I worked there for them during day and night, I only received on an average S200 a year. Q. You think the pa} ment would not exceed more than 8200 a year. J'or how many years would that be ? — A. Kight years. ld you the average I received every year. 1 can give you no more Q. You have given us the average for the 8 years at 8200 a yeai-. give us another average from ISSiJ to 1888? — A. No, sir. Q. Well, that is a most extiaordinary thing? — A. It is not. Q. Do you know what you received between 188.3 and 1888? — A. I have given you the amount I received already. Q. Do you say you cannot give us an idea of the money you have received since 1883?— No sir. Q. Did you receive any money since 18S3? — A. Of course. (-i. 1 suj)pose it was probably about 8-00 a year, since it was part of the period covered by your average? — A. That i> the average I received. I gave you that. Q. You say you have received about 8200 a year since 188;5-S8? — A. From 1S7!» to 188S. Q. Can you tell us anything about the pa^'ments made since 1883? — A. Xo, sir. Q. You have no idea? — A. Xo, sir. t^. When did you get the last money from Mr. Murphy : was it in 1888 the your you speak of when you stopped this work? — A. I cannot answer that question. t^. Are you unable to answer the (luestion because you do not know? — A. I have given you the total amount of what I have received alrcii ly. I will give you no more. (^ You swear that from 1S"9 to ISSS, you were paid 82O0 a year ? — A. On the average. Q. Difl you get pay for the last work that was done? — A. I have answei'ed you already. I told you that I got 81,ay what it moans? — A. I know nothing at all about that ; it is not mine. Q. That hati nothing; to do witli you? — A. Nothing to do 'frith me. Q. Li>ok at it caietully and suy wiiotiier it has anything t) do with j'our trans- action^ ? — A. I cannot say exactly. Q. Try and any exactly. Take your time and look at it.— A. I did not take a memorandum; I took an average. Q. We have done with that average business. You did not have an average on the field glass, compass and watch, did you? — A. It is not my business to answer that question. Q. Do you remember getting a field glass fron\ .Murphy ? — .V. Yes, sir ; I got it. Q. Do you remember getting a compass from him? — A. A small compass, yes. Q. Do you remembei- getting a watch and chain? — A. Yes, sir. if. You got a gold watch and chain? — A. Yes, sir. Q Now, l(v>k at that memorandum, and say whether thai is a reference to the tian.saclion Ijetween you and Murphy? — A. That is all included in the 8300. (i. I am not asking you about that. Look at the memorandum and say whether it also refers to the transaction between you and Murphy, and whether or not you recognize that memorandum ? — A. It is included in the 8:J0it. Jii/ the Chairman : <^. You say it is included in the 8300 ? — A. Yes. By Mr. Henry : Q. Answer my question: Whether the memorandum on the top refers to your tran.>-actions with Murphy? — A. If it is included in the S300, it does. Q. Does it or not ? — A. If it is included in the S300. Q. Look at that memorandum. Can you say from the items in it whether it I'urports to relate to a transaction between you and Murphy ; look at the items — field ;:la.s.s. compas.s. watch and chain ? — A. That is included in the 8;500. Q. Does it refer to the transaction between you and Murphy? — A. That is included in the S300. By the Chairnutn : Q. Does it refer to the transaction ? — A, That is included in the §300. By Mr. Henry : Q. Then you got a watch and chain, compass, anil field i;lass from Murphy? — A. Yes. Q. And that is included in the 8300 ?— A. Yes. By Mr. Lamjelkr : Q. What were the ])i oportions of sand and cement with which you would make the concrete? — A. The instructions were, five wheelbarrows of sand, and five of «i'ine. to each barrel of cement, Q. And you say these proportions were stiictly adhered to in the preparation (t the concrete that was used ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Will you swear that positivelj-? — A, I will swear positively. Q. That you never put a larger quantity of sand than you have just mentioned ? — A. So, sir, but I sometimes used to put more cement. Q. Would you be surpi-ised to hear, that the people working with you say quite the contrary? — A. I don't care what the people says: I did ray duty to the Commissioners. Q. Will you be surprised to hear that a larger proportion of sand was put into the concrete? — A. Xot to my knowledge. By Mr. Amyot : Q. You say you sometimes put more cement? — A. Sometiraeo in stopping leaks there was more cement put than was required. 851 1—54^ 'Iii ' I til \c '' \\i mil ' I 1 1 (I I Itl i'1 u i 64 Victorin. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. What iiroportion? — A. Sonu-tiiiios two or three biirreU of puro ceineni ii) Htop a leak. liij Mr, Lamjelier : (I. Were the watch ami chain you are now wuurini; ^ivon you by Murjthy ? — A. This chain, ami the watch also. (^. Will 3-ou nhow that watch to tlio Committee ? — A. (Witness exhihits the watch.) That is included in the 83(KJ I rccoived. By Mr. Milts {Bothwell) : Q. Were the 81.600 for which you gave a receipt paid you before the close -^ 1883 ?— A. No, sir, it was later. Q. The date of the receipt iH what ? Mr. Osi.KR.— 22nd November. 1S83. A. The receipt I think is dates Mr. Carbray? — A. Mr. Carbray is engaged in his father's business at (J'.iebec. Q. A merchant ? — A. Yes, sir. 852 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. It is Haiti liiat you wero in oompaiiy witii Carhray on the occa»ionot gottini; 8r)00 from Murphy; i« that poiTect? — A. No. wir; I novor was in >[r. raibray's company on the date mentioned. Q. Murphy in his evidence says : '' He came on election day for 8.")0;i more, in company wit'< Herbert Carhruy "? — A. I was never in Mr. Carlir'ay's conij)a:»yon an election day. (I. Did you call on Murphy on election dav, in I'Vbruarv, 1SS7, for the ]>uriioso of gottinj; gnoo?— A. No, sir. Jiy Mr. Geofirion : Q. Did you take anj* active part in that election? — A. I did, Av. 0. In Quebec West"?— A. Yes, sir. (^. Did you work for several weeks? — A. I worked for about, 1 .»uppo>e. ten <^)r twelve days before election. Q. Attending committees? — A. Attending c\ , 1 he man alone. «J. DiJ ; >'.] r)^ 'ot him in company with Roliert ^McGieevy ? — A. Robert Mc- Greevy may hii <. stopped me sometime when Murphy was in his company, and we have exchang d conversation. Q. Hov "often did these conversations lake place? — A. Xot more than once or twice. Q. You won't denj' that you met him twice before the election? — A. I may have, to the be.st of my knowledge. Q. And on both occasions you think you were in eomi)iniy witii Robert -Me- (xreevy ? — A. To the best of my knowledge. (;. Vou won't swear positivelj' ? — A. I will not. 'I iJ." swears that ho met you twice. You say tiiat j-ou met him on the side- walk tf. \ — A. Yes, to the best of my knowledge. Q. \( a are therefore agreed on that. You had some conversation with him ? A. Yes. (^. Do 3'ou remember the nature of the conversation A. Xo. sir. l^. Your mind is a perfect blank on it. — A. It is, because I ilo not think it was anything pertaining to business which would require that 1 should take special notice of it. B57 Pf''ffii 1 ■ ; . ; vva'g' *•»« ; ''i^ 1 ;■ 1 '1 i .(J 5M.I Dill I: ! m I It I 4 M la iii 1 ( i M 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Previously to 1887, with the exception of meeting Murphy twice on the sii'owalk you had no communication with him of any kiiul and did not know the man ? — A. I had once as regards an order for clothing which ho gave mo. Q. Then he was in your store ?— A. Yes. Q. And he gave you an order for clothes ? — A. Yes, two suits. (I. How many hundred dollars was it ? — A. No hundred dollars at all. Q. How much were they ? — A. The two suits would be 836 to the best of my recollection: $18 each. Q, So you are a cheap tailor ? — A. Yes ; you had better give me an order. Q. Did the club you spoke of get the 8800 or the 8900 ?— A. I do not know whether they did. By Mr. Fraser : Q. How many clubs were there ? — A. There were quite a number. Q. Is it the ordinary way of forming clubs to get money ? — A. Yes. Mr. H. .T. W. CaIihray sworn. By 2Ir. Osier : Q. You are known in Quebec as Herbert Carbray, I believe ? — A. Yes. Q. Do you know anyone else of that name in Quebec ? — A. No. Q. It is stated on page 281 of the printed Evidence that you were present with the last witness, Mr. Foley, when he approached M'lrph/ on election day, 1887, ami asked for $500 more ? Did that take place ? — A. No, sir. Q. Did you meet Murphy on that day in conijiany with Foley ? — A To the best of my recollection I do not think I saw Foley on theda\' of the election until I J met him at the Central committee rooms at the Clarendon Hotel when the returns were coming in after the poll closed. Q. You did not see Foley on the street that day, or anywhere else that you remember except r.s stated? — A. No, except as stuted. Q. He also says, "I gave him (Mr. Flynn) $250 to send four men to Chicago at the time Mr. Caibray was arrested for bribing voters." Do 3-ou know anj'thing about that $250 ? — A. I do not sir. Q. Are you the man named there as having been arrested? — A. I do not know that you can call it arrest, I heard there was a warrant out against me and I went to .Tudge Chauveau's office to give boml to appear whenever they wanted me. Ido not know whether you can legally call that an arrest. Q. Did they ever arrest you? — A. 1 really do not know. They gave me a li'icat deal of trouble and I know I danced attendance at the Court of Queen's Bench for a number of terms. Q. Nothing came of it? — A. Nothing came of it. By Mr. Geofiion ■ Q. There was a true bill against you, was there not ? — A. I understand there was after some time. 858 S4 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. And you had to give bail ? — A. Yes. Q. And the trial never came oft"? — A. And the trial never came ott\ Q. Are you aware that one of the witnesses were tnivellini!; for their iiealth about that time? — A. Well, no; 1 am not. lam not consulting ph^'sician for people going awaj-. Q. Are you aware that some of them were absent? — A. I heard they were, but have no knowledge of it myself. Q. Do you know Maurice Flynn ? — A. Yes. (^. Did you ever have anj- conversation with him ? — A. Ver}', very often. Q. Was there not a man by the name of John Hanion connected with that little aftair of yours? — A. What little affair do you mean? Q. The trifling little matter which you spoke about and in which there was a true bill against you ? — A. I am not aware that I said it was a trifle. 1 saiil it gave me a great deal of trouble. Q. Was John Hanion implicated in the matter ? — A. Yes. Q. Was he called as one of the witnesses ? — A. He may have been. Q. And you know he was away; ho did not turn up ? — A. Yes, he turned up. Q. After the affair was abandoned? — A. Not at all; he came back of his own accord. Q. Did you see him ? — A. Ye.s. Q. What was it that you were accused of? — A. Bribery and corruption in the election, I believe. Q. You have heard Mr. Foley speaking of clubs in that election? — A. I have. Q. Were you approached by any club for money ? — A. The one club. Q. What connection had you with that club — what happened about the 8400 ? — A. I am prepared to swear that I have never received any money from anybody' connected with this investigation for the purpose of using it in elections. Q. You had to deposit 8400 for one of those clubs anyhow ? — A. I really could not swear as to the extent of the amount ; it is something in that neighboiirhootl. il. Cannot you remember whether it was 8400 ? — A. lieally I cannot. Q. At anj' rate it was something about that ? — A. I know it was odd niotioy. Q. Betw-^-^n 8350 and 8400 ? — A. Something like that. It \va.s odd money ; something in the vicinity of 8400. Q. This was deposited on polling day ? — A. Yes. Q. Where diil you procure the money ? — A. I am not prepared to state, because the parties are not connected with this investigation. Q. AVas the man from whom you procured the money the only man in the elec- tion you had anything to do with of that nature ? — A. As a matter of tad. I could not swear where the money came from ; it came in an envelope to mo ca: ly in the morning of polling da}-. Q. It had been asked for, 1 suppose ? — A. Not by me. (-i. And you sent a messenger to say a certain club wanted a certain amount ? — • A. No, sir. Q. Well, somebody must have told you about the money? — A. There was a memnrandum put in the envelope saying as to how the money was to be depositod. Q. Did this man who came with that parcel containing money give you verbal instructions? — A. No, sir. Q. He told you what the instructions would bo in the envelope? — A. Simply handed mo the envelope, aftei- asking me if I was the peison to whom it was addressed. Q. And you cannot say where the money came from ? — A. Xo, sir. (I. Nor whore the party who brought it had got it himself? — A. No, sir. Mr. MuLocK. — As I read the evidence of Murphy on page 281, it does not bear out the statement of Mr. Osier of what Murphy said. The evidence is : " Q. Do you know Foley? — A, I do. Q. 1 find in your diary an entry accounting, or purporting to account, fur the payment out of this 87,000, and I see against Foley, tailor, the sum 81,150. Does that mean that you paid out ihissum to Folev, the tailor, 81.150 ? — 859 Tl If rrilffM ■'] ' "^'li '■'p ' '' '''j!^ ■'■/,!■ • S : '■.. I I i I ' i ! Ilfil! r I 11 I ! ( i ' & 1 I *- - I • S 1 i ' ' m 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 A. It does. Q. And you did pay him? — A. Yes. Q. When and where? — A. By order of Rohert McGreevj-. Q. Where and when ? — A. I cannot go into these details. Q. Where did you paj- it? — A. Quebec. Q. What did you pay it in ? — A. Bills. Q. What sized bills?— A. That I cannot tell. Q. Where did you ))ay it?— A. I believe as far as I can recollect he came to 124 Dalliousie Street — the office. Q. And got the money there ? — A. Yes. Q. You are quite sure about that? — A. He came also on elec- tion day for $50(» more in company with Herbert Caibray." Mr. OsLER. — I am not contradicting by this witness the receipt of any money, but merely contradicting the statement of Murphy. Mr. M CLOCK. — I do not find any evidence of the statement just read by the Btonographer, and which he purposes to contradict. Mr. OsLER. — What I asked him was this; if he ever met Foley on the street, whether these two together met Murphy, and whether there was any conversation as to 8500. Mr. MuLocK. — That is not the statement the stenographer read. You are making him conti-adict Murphy, whereas Murphy never swore to what you say. Mr. OsLER. — Very well. Jilj Mr. Davies : Q. Were you with Mr. Foley on election day in 1887 ? — A. I was after 5 o'clock on that day. Q. You ma}' have been with him during the day? — A. 1 was not. (i. You can remember clearly now as far back as 1887? — A. Very clearly because 1 have something to jog my memory ; that evening when I met Foley he asked : " Where have you been all day ; how is it I never came across you before?" Q. You have got a remarkable memory to remember from 1887. Who else did you meet on election daj- ; name another person ? — A. Stuff antl nonsense, I met thousands. Q. Stuff and nonsense ? — A. Yes, stuff and nonsense. Q. Can you swear to any other man you met that day ? — A. Yes, lots of people. Q. How can you tell, from memorj'? — A. I met a clerk of the post-ofHce, tlie postmaster. Holliwell, the stationer, and lots of people. Q. And the man with the envelope? — A. No, 1 did not meet him. Q. How did j-ou get that envelope from him ? — A. It was mj' reception day, that day he called upon me. Q. And when a man calls upon you you don't meet him ? — A. No. Q. You are an excellent witness, you are ; you don't meet a man when ho calls upon you ? — A. You are asking me whom I met on election day, on the street I presume. Mr. Geoffriox. — Not necessarily the street. Jii/ Mr. Daries : Q. You swear when a man conies to you, and hands a paper to you, you tlon't meet him ; that is what 1 understand to be your oath? — A. My dear i'ellow, you can understand just whatever you like. Q. That is all 3-ou care about your oath, is it ? — A. As regards j'ou, certainly. Q. You don't care what you swear to about that question ? — A. I beg your pardon. Q. I understand you to say that when a man comes to j-ou and hands you a paper, you are prepared to swear you don't meet him ? — A. I beg your pardon. (i. Do I understand you to swear, when a man comes to you on a certain day, and hands j'ou a paper, you are prepared to swear you don't meet him ? Take your time? — A. 1 certainly will: 1 am waiting for the lawyers in this case to decide whether I am to answer the question. Q. Answer the question please, you have heard it twice now. 8G0 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 The Chairman. — You had better answer the question. By Mr. Bavies : Q. Don't make a goose of yourself, answer the question? — A. I don't niaiie a goose of myself. Q. Answer the question? — A. I appeal to the Chairman against an}- such remarks. I don't think it is a proper remark to make, and I don't propose to stand it. By the Chairman : ' Q. Will you answer the question ? — A. Put the qnesiion, certainly. The q'" otion was then read to the witness by the stenographer. A. I ai prepai'ed to swear when a man comes to me, as that man did with the envelope, and comes into my house to see me, I would not consider that as meeting him. Q. That is your oath? — A. That is my oath. By Mr. Mills {Bothwell) : Q. And that is the sense in which you use tlio expression "meeting" all through, in your evidence? — A. When the gentleman asked me the people I had met, 1 presumed he alluded to people I had met on the street. By Mr. Davies : Q. Why did you presume that? — A. Because it was my manner ijf interpreting your question. Q. Your oath is only to be interpreted in reference to people j'ou meet in your house in that way? — A. I gave my evidence to the best of my ability, and of course the interpretation depends upon how it strikes you. Q. Then we are to understand when you took that oath of meeting those gentlemen, you meant you did not meet them on the stieet ? — A. 1 meant tluit [ did not meet them on the street, or any other way. By Mr. McLeod : Q. The question is this, are you quite sure about your statement in reference to seeing Mr. j\Iuiphy. Murphy was asked a question in reference to givini; money to Mr. Foley and his answer is this : " He came also on election tlay for §50i( more, in company with Herbert Carbray." Is that true or not? — A. That is positively not true, sir. By Mr. Mills {Bothwell) ; Q. You state the person from whom the 8400 came, bad nothing to do with this enquiry? — A. I did. Q. Then you know from whom the money came ? — A. The statement I made, and I am prepared to swear to it, was that I had not received any mcney, from any person connected with this investigation. Q. Then the $400 were received from a person not connected with this investi- gation ? — A. Well, not as far as I am concerned ; as far as I know. Q. Well, of course you know or you could not swear. You swore he was a jiarty not connected with this investigation — the party who sent the 8400? — A. As far as I know he was not connected with the investigation. Q. Then, who are the parties? — A. I don't care about saying, sir. By Mr. Chapleau ; Q. Who are the parties connected with this investigation? — A. I understand the parties connected with this investigation are the contractors. Robert ^IcGreevy, .Murphy, the Connollys, Sir Hector Langevin and Thomas McGreevy. 861 1': Mi ii.ini 1 ■< 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. And it did not come from tliem? — A. Xo, Sir. By Mr. Mills (Bothwell) : Q. The question was, from wlioni, 8400 were received, and he anf^wei'cd the ques tion 1)V saying it was not the parties connected with this investigation. Who wah the party? — A. I don't know, Sir. Q. Then you don't know whether he was connected with this enquiry or not? — A. I don't know whether he was connected with this enquiry. Q. You have sworn that the party from whom the S400 were received had nothing to do with this enquiry? — A. I still say so. Q. Who was he ? — A. I don't know. Mr. Osi.ER objected to the e.\amination unless it was for the purpose of testing the credibility of the witness. TiiE Chairman — The question is a fair one. By Mr. Mills {Bothwell) : Q. Who is the party? — A. I don't know. Q. Then you did not tell us the truth when you said he had nothing to do with the enquiry ? — A. Yes, I did. I don't know who the party is : I don't know if he is connected with this enquiry. <^. How can you swear he is not connected with this enquiry if you don't know who he is ? — A. Because I had every leason for supposing it was not one of the parties I have just mentioned who sent the money. ii. How can you state or swear this party has nothing to do with this enquiry? — A. Because I have not got the slightest doubt in my own mind about the matter as legards those persons connected with the enquiry. By Mr. Amyot I Q. Can you sa\ ',{ was any of the employes connected with the enquiry? — A am sure I don't know ; it is a very vast field to cover. Q. Can you speak of i[r. Chuloner ? — A. I am not supposed to. The Chairman — You had better answer the question. ^~ Witness — A. I might have my suppositions, but 1 would not like to mention a name hei-e, simply on my own supposition. ■'^ Q. So, that when you stated positively in the beginning of youi- evidence, that the party from whom that money camo, was in no way connected with this enquiry, you swore on your supposition as to the fsicts? — A. Well, I told you, I had a suppo- sition as to where the money camo from. Q. You swore on the supposition? — A. I swoi'e that as far as I knew. Mr. Davies — No, you swore positively. By Mr. Amyot : Q. Do you or do you not know from whom it came ? — A. Not to swear to. Q. So, you cannot, as a fiict, swear whether or not. the party from whom the money came, is connected with this enquiry? — A. Well, of course, on the same ground, I suppose, I could not swear. By Mr. Curran : Q. You just have a suspicion where it came from ? — A. Simply a suspicion. Q. You don't know where it came from ? — A . I do not. Q. The party whom you suspect of having sent that money in the envelope through the messenger is not one of the contractors, you feel satistied ? — A. Or tlu' other gentlemen I mentioned. Q" But whether Mr. Chaloner, or others, you are not prepared to say, because it is merely a suspicion in your mind where the money came from ? — A. That is it. 862 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 By Mr. Mulock : Q. You don't know the man who <.'ot tlie money ? — A. No. Q. You don't know yet ? — A. No. I don't think I do. Q. Don't know yet who biouervativo club in Quebec anil it was usi al for members of the parly to help such clubs. They said it was not only for the purposes of f lie election of Mr, Mc(rreevy, but of helping Conservatives all over the Dominion. Thoy claimed to be inomherN of cer- tain labour organizations and said they could u.se arguments on these people to ti'v and get them to vote that waj'. They said they e stationery; and their figures came to a great deal more than Si]50, or §40(1 tlia I gave them. I said " If you will take my word for it, I will seethat you get the money after the election is over, as there might be trouble about it and it might be sup])osed it was for the purpose of influencing your votes." They said that as far as they were concerned they would ; but there were some twenty or forty members in the club and they wanted something tangible. One said " Will you put the money in Father Burke's hands?" I said " No, I will not bring any clergymen into this. ' Another said "There is a savings bank in cimnection with the churuh and will you lieposit it in there?" I said I had no objection. Three of us went in there and I saw the brother in charge and told him there was a certain transaclion in connec- tion with these gentlemen which I wished to consummate after five o'clock that day. I said " Will you receive this money on deposit and pay it to these gentlemen after tive o'clock." Q. You had the money at that time? — A. I had the money at that time. Q. Why didn't you deposit it in a regular bank where you could have drawn it on a cheque yourself? — A. I did not know whether a bank would have taken a deposit in that way. Q. To be paid out after five o'clock on election day ? — A. In trust for a lew hours. Q. Di^\vo my evidence. (}. Do you know whether Ilanloii and Xolan went away at'teryou were indie toil lor Itriljery ? — A. I have heard so. Q. How long did they remain away? — A. I don't know. Q. Did they remain away until the indictment lapsed ? — A. I have seen several ot'them around while the matter was before the election courts. Q. Do you remember seeing llobert Mcfrreevy on election day? — A. I think I -aw him for a few moments on election day in the suburbs. Q. Did you see him in Montcalm Ward? — A. Yes. Q. Did 3-ou have a conversation with him ? — A. Yes. Q. Was any one present? — A. I don't think so. Q. What was the nature of the conversation you had with him? — A. IJobert MoGreev^- told me that there were some seven or eight young men who wanted 82 a piece and he gave me three Ave dollar bills and asked mo to give it to them. [ think one of these parties, or two or three, wore delegated to receive the money. They went into a house and I gave them the money. Q. Who else was there besides these three men? — A. I do not remember aiiy- bwly. I cannot state who was there. I was driving past, if I remember correctly, and Mr. McGreevy called me, and we went up three or tour steps ; but to the best of my recollection there was no one heard the conversation between >[r. McCrreevy and mj-self. He slipped the money into mj' hand. Q. That was a legitimate payment. You gave the money to the men ? — A. I gave the mt>ney to the men. Q. Where did 3'ou give the money to the men? — A. I think as far as I can remember it was on the corner of — anyhow, it was one of Mr. Mc(rreevj-'s committee rooms. Q. You didn't take a letreipt ? — A. No; I simply carrieil out Mr. irc(«reevy'8 instructions. (}. Y'ou did not know what the purjioses were? — A. They talked about having got up some torch light procession or something like that. By Mr. Dickey : Q. Is this indictment still outstanding against you? — A. It has never been ilisposed of. Mb. William II. Cross sworn. By Mr. Osier : Q. Y^ou are an Expert Accountant? — A. Y'es. Q. Y'ou were appointed one of the Accountants by ihi- ubraitted to you, and where there is a doubt you have explained it in the notes you luive given ? — A. We have found a large amount of matter more than is here, but about all this we are satisfied. There may be some other matters we may amend. Committee to make were ordered Ly ilio A. I do. Mr. J. B. Laino sworn. By Mr. Osier : Q. You were named with Mr. Cross as one of the Accountants to examine into the books and papers of Messrs. Larkin, Connolly & Co. ? — A. Y'es. 865 1—55 I ' ■ •' iip il I'!... lill r; I il i: I- r mi 1 : f 1 : iUi M 1 M' : 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. And the Report presented is 3-()ur joint work with Mi'. Cross. Is it correct';' — A. It In correct. (j. With the extensions and notes that are printed ? — A. Yes. /<*/ Jlr. German ; Q. Ill preparini; your i-eport had you the chei^ues, notes and stubs of clieques to examine ? — A. We had the stubs. Hi/ Mr. Geojfrion : Q. Had you tlie vouchors filed here, tiieche(ii,"sand notes? — A. We had tliostuli>. (I, But you liud not the dioques ? — A. No. Mr. W. II. Crosh ro-ciilled. Hij Mr, iieoffrion : Q. Did you examine the vouchers that liave been filed hei-o before the Com- mittee ? — A. I dituli he Com- thcm t'tir r Report incerneil, ujuiictioii exhibitN the actual itW of till.' es, one <'t' Deeenilier stiiteiueiit tirm wont should wo ,f 847.000. ai.l. ^Vl' kl 822,000. sums r— Wo tlieii uUificatioii ■ pjiynients ;s we show to be the In April. J d()cuinent> ,e(\ue of the Novenibor, 54 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 cheijuo of the Uli Deeeniber and cheque of the 4th February, 1884. These five « lioques are tlie vouohord for that payment. il Can you e.stal'liwh any lelationship between thai item of 82r),(MI0 — flie.-»e ( lie(|ues which you .say are the voucher« for the item, and the notes wliicli have alreatly been prinluced, dated the 1st of May, 18.s;5 ? — A, As to tlie last three, they ocar a striking; rosembhince — I shoulil suy they were the notes retired by the eiieques. ii. Wlnit about the two first? — A, I say nothinj^ about tliat. <^. Clin you find any entries by tlie books of Larkin, Connolly iV Co. which ijo to show how the two demand notes were paid? — A. Vou mean Iho two tirst notes? ii. Yes. ('an you establish any connection between the first two demand note> of 8.').(lOO each and the (dieques of the 14th May and 1st June? — A. I could not say. Q. Can you show anything in the books as to how the demand notes were jiaid if not by tiieso two cheques — is there no other way of explaininir it ? — A. There is iiu other. Q. According to t!ie books of the tirm, they have not been paid except by these two cheques? — A. Xo. The Committee then adjourned till 4 o'clock. Tt-ESDAV, 4th August, 4 V. .\I. Mr. .Ia.mes Woods re-called. Jii/ Mr. Geojf'rion : Q. You were requested to send for certain papers which were in your custody. Have you brought with you those papers? — A. I have tliem iinw, sir. " Q. Will you now file the papers that you have found ? — A. I havi' ]iiaced tlie tollowing papers with the dork : Statement of payments to 11. F. Perlcy and J. K. JJoyd ; Statement of payments made to St. George Boswell since ISSIj ; Statement (if ]>ayments made to Ivinijiple & Morris for Cross-wall jilans ; Letter of St. (icorgc IJoswell, dated lUth September, 1887, ordering contractors not to dumj) in the JJiver ; lieport and final certificate of 11. F. Porley on Graving Dock, of 24th .lanuary, 18S7. Joint Report of 11. F. Perley and Sandford Fleming, dated 27th February, 1881); licjiort of 18th August, 1886, of 11. F. Perley; Letter of 2.')th August. ISSii, ofA. Goheil, transmitting Perloy's Report ; Letter of 14th March, 1887, of 11. F. Perley, transmitting reasons for amending final certificate fur dredging; Letter from Lar- kin, Connolly & Co., dated 18th Febi'iiary, 1887, requesting that dredging accounts lie checked, as they are entitled to an additional 813,000; Rej)ort of II. F, Porley dated September 21st, 1887, on the claim of 8110,000 by the contractors; Report dated August 24th, 1887, of 11. F. Porley, on what is required to make Graving !)oek a complete docking ostablishnuuit ; Protest of December (itti, 1884, for non- coiiii)lelion of Graving Dock; Letter of Larkin, ("onnolly it Co.. dated December '.'til, 1884, in reply to protest ; Report dated December 23nl, issti, of IT. F. Perley, recommending the appointment of engineers; Letter dated August 27th, 1888, Lar- kin. Connolly & Co., regarding dumping in the River; Letter of August 27th, l^SS, ditto; Letter dated October 3rd, 1883, from Larkin, Connolly it Co.. asking \'i be allowed to erect a building on embankment ; Reports of H. Lafnrce Langcvin .4' February Sth, 1887, and October 14th, 188!) ; Letter of U. Binct dato.l July 21st, ISOO, reporting the loss of 825; Shopping accounts of Larkin, Connolly it Co. Jii/ Jlr. Tarte .- il. Have you any report from Mr. Perley of 24th Ja.iuary, 1887 and of 14th Sr])iember of the same year ? — A. 1 will take a note of tlem and make search. Q. Have you a letter from Larkin, Connolly & Co., to the Harbour Commission, let'using 830,000 as full settlement, about Xovembor, 1887, I think ; also letter of .Mr. Yerret of February 11th, 1888, acknowledging letter of 4th Xovember, 1887; Itttei- of February 13th of Larkin, Connolly it Co., naming John .1. Macdonakl as 867 1— 55i I 1 I'll;' I: I I i ':-i ; ' ! M if I I 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 their arbitrator ; letter of Mr. Verret of February 17th, agreeing to Mr. MacclonuKI, ai;(l naming Mr. Keeter as the inbitrator of the Commiesion. — A. I will take a note and miike search for those papers. Q. Did yon prepare a statement of the expenditure and revenue of the Harbour Commission, and also of the interest paid on thosil>- box. The tlie key-i like tluii. lavo lieiiii y after llmt bn.uicht the matter The JJoiird onlereil By il/r. IWte : Q. Where did you find those keys? — A. I did not Hnd them. I asked tlie inessenger where he found them, and he said he found them in one of tiie drawers. Q. At any rate, you coukl not find thera ; for two or tliree days they wei-e losi ? — A. Yes. Q. Will you kindly tell me to whom that letter from Mr. McGreevy, and that flieque of 825,000, Avere shown first? — A. I could not tell you, sir; I don't know anything about who it was first shown to. All I know about it is it was handed to me. and I kept it in the > afe. Q. I mean afterwards? — A. The first person I showed it to? Mr. Valin. Q. How is it that Mr. Valin could happen to know that there was :i change in that letter? — A. In 1801, 1 think, about the month of February, J[r. Valin asked me to show him the letter, cheque, and enclosure. I took out the letter and without reading it or noticing it, I handed it to ^Ir. Valin— *hat is only, remember, about February of this year — and I put it back in my box witiiout noticing it. Q. Did you ever show the letter to Mr. McGreevy ? — A. \o, sir; not that I know of; he only heard of it after the meeting. t^. What meeting, if you please? — A. The meeting of the Board. Q. When did that meeting take place? — A. I could not remember the date exactly. ! suppose some time in April. Q. Had Mr. Valin gone t'> interview you about that beiore that meeting? — A. Not that I remember. Q. Then you showed the letter to Mr. Mc(rreevy before siiowing it to Mr. Valin ? — A. I did not, sir. Q. No? — A. If you will allow me I would state, Mr. Valin uj) before the Board, stating there was some change in cheques, nie to examine the minutes and see whether there was any authority for the change ill the cheques. After the Board adjourned our present Chairman, i[r. (riroux. came over and asked me: "Let me see those cheques, letters and receii)ts. Mr. Wood?" I took out the letter, cheque and receipt, and showed them to Mr. (iiroux, and reau it; that was the first time I myself noticed the thing. Nothing more was said about it to anybody, until the letter was placed before the Board at the next nieeling when I reported. Q. You have just stated that Mr. Valin brought the matter before the Board ? — A. ^'o.~, sir. t^. Saying at the same time that he heard there was a change ? — A. No, sir ; I I eg your pardon. (J. What did he say, then ? — A. I say Mr. Valin brought the matter iieiure the i!i>ard. saying there had been some chiinge in the cheques — not a ■haiige in the letter : a change of security — and the Board ordered me to see it aere was any •iiiihority in the minutes for it, ^[r. A'alin was not aware of tlv reading of the li'tter, nor was I myself. Q. You were not aware yourself? You never read thelettn before? — A. I C'luld not have; I must have just glaiiceil at it, and been deceived, like all the others who took the letter. Q. You stated that Mr. (Iiroux ;i,-.ked for the letter afterwards ? — A. After the lizard had oidered me to look at it, not before I brought it before the meeting, he vame down to see the letter, I '.ook out the letter out of my box. and reixl il to liiiii. and read it the right way. Q. All I'lis took place, of cour.se, after your keys had been lost? — A, Oh. yes. Q. How long afterwards, if you please? — Well, the keys wore lost in l>siH); tirw was in 1S91 ; it must have been pretty nearly a year. The keys were not lost, I'Ut mislaid. (i(. From my point of view, it might mean just the same. Is it not a fact that the door of Mr. Binet's office, if lean call it so, is the same door througl- which HtiO ■ !' '■'.ii ti v^ 1 ! 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 access is gained to the office in which those pajieis were kept ? — A. No ; my office has been upstairs for the last two years. Q. Where was your cash box ? — A. It was in an inner office, j'ou had to go through Mr. Biaet's office. Until Mr. Verret left and until I took his place, as acting secretary, my office was down stairs, and you had to go through Mr. Binet's office to reach it. Q. Were all the inner doors locked ? — A. Not usually. Q. Then a man in possession of your keys might have been able to open the cash box ? — A. I don't think, it, sir ; if my cash box had been touched I would have known it. not, that a man in possession of your key A. No, because my cash box would have would have been in the Q. But is it a fact or been able to open the box.- vault. Q. Where was the key of the vault ? — A. The key was always in my pocket, but Mr. Binot has a duplicate key of the vault too. (i. You don't know if Mr. Binet had that key all the time in his pocket, of course ? — A. Always. The reason he lost his money was because he did not put the money in the vault. Q. Did you make any search in regard to that robbery, or so called robbery, of Mr. Binet ? — A. We tried to watch as well as we could, but we could not detect anything. Q. l)id 3'ou find nothing at all ? — A. Nothing at all. Q. Except that the money was gone, and the drawer was forced ? — A. Tluit is all. Q. And your keys were mislaid ? — A. Yes, at a ditferent time. Q. Different times ? — .\. At a different time, I said. Q. Did you put in Mr. Perley's letter? — A. Yes. Q. Did you put inLarkin, Connolly &Co's letter in which they ask for 813,000? — A. Yes. Q. At page 9 of the Evidence 1 see there is an extract from the Minute Book, reading as follows : " Moved by Mr. McGreevy, seconded by Mr. Edmond Giroux, Mr. Rue dissent- ing, and Jiesolved, that the Secretary-Treasurer be directed to inform the Ilonoui- able Minister of Public Works that this Commission have dispensed with the ser- vices of their Engineers in chief, Messrs. Kinipple and Morris, and to respectfully request the Honourable Minister of Public Works to recommend an engineer t> take charge of the works now under contract with this Commission, in connection with the harbour improvement at the mouth of the Kiver St. Charles." Q. Did you ever get an answer from Sir Hector Langevin? — A. I cannot tell y'^t\. <^. Will you take a note of that. I know you did. Did you put in the supple- mental y estimates for L^vis? — A. You have that already. Q. We have not the estimates. On pages 1-4 and 15 I see that a certain num- ber of cheques, of long accepted cheques, have Iteen given back to Larkin, Connolly & Co. I would like to know when the substitution of non-accepteil cheques lor accepted cheques took place? — A. 1 cannot tell you. nor can I find anything in the minutes about it. Q. Was it made before you were Secretary-Treasurer? — A. Yes; I know nothing- about it. Q. Except you found those non-accepted cheques? — A. Yes. Q. These cheques were for security on the Cross-wall ? — A. These cheques have undoubtedly been exchanged for cheques held previously. •^. Were you not all the time the custodian of these securities? — A. I think i; was a deposit receipt. It was changed without my knowledge. All Mi-. \'enet would do would be to get the enveloije from me and retui-n it again. 1 kept tlie cheques in my cash-box as the safest place. Q. You do not find anything in the Harbour Commissioner's books to show when this change took place? — A. No, and I have looked pretty carefully. 870 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. You told U8 a few days ago that you succeeded Mr. Yerret':'— A. Yeis. Q. Did I understand you to say that you draw his salary? — A. Yes, Sir. I draw the same salary as Mr. Veri-et got. Since I am filling Mr. Verret's jilace and the position I formerly occupied, the Board has allowed me to draw the same salary. : 5'. -51 Mr. St. CrEOROE Boswell recalled. By Mr. Geoff rion : Q. In the absence of Mr. Edgar, I may i-emind you that you were requested by him to prepare a statement? — A. Yes; here they are. One statement is showing the working time of the dredges for July and August, 188G, and the other is a memo- randum of quantities of material dredged by Larkin, Connolly \' Co. under their contract with the (^-'cbec Harbour Commissioners, dated 23rd May, 1887, and subse- quently placed by them in the Cross-wall for filling. They are as follows : (Exhibit "015.") Memo, of quantity of materials dredged by Messrs. Larkin, Connolly it Co., under their contract with the Quebec Harbour Commissioners, ilated 2;{rd May, 1887, and subsequently placed by them in the Cross-wall for filling : — 1887. May... 2,31U June 7,055| July 2.818\ Aug 198' Sept Oct I'lB Nov 1888. -May June July August Sept Oct Nov 20,5r,!t May. June July, Aug., Sept, 1889. ... 7,7071 ... 4,084 mi 21'! 12,53(J;\ 20,fi2 <1t Itl.tUU^ RECAl'ITCLATION. 1887. 1888. 1889. i2,r)3ti,i 20.t;274 ii;.()4(i^ Total 49.804n Working time of dredges during July and August, 18S(» : — Julj-, 188<;— iiKS. Bninelle 112 Pelletier 47 Germain 99 MIN. 1(1 Dredge "St. 20 do" "Sir :v.', dn "St. .Toseph." Hector." .loseph." 03 ques liuve I think it h: Vem't kept tli-^ how wla'ii August, 1S8(;— Pelletier 335 40 Brunelle 175 55 Germain 258 57 709 32 Dredge "Sir do do Dredging in July do August 871 "St. " St. 8,540 (J2,929 Heftor." .i-jseiili.^' .lo^epli.' cub. vdf do 54 Victoria. Appendix (!N'o. 1.) A. 1891 ¥\i by -A. Certainly. I acted undei' iii- h t\ I find by this statement that the two dredges '' St. Joseph " and "Sir Hector " Avorkcd 259 hours and 1.^ minutes in July and 7<»!> hours and l:!2 minutes in August; and have dredged in July 8,540 cubic yards and in August 02,921*. By Mr. Osier : Q. I asked you to prepare a statement for me. — A. I find that the filling was paid tor bj- place measure and not scow measure. I was asked to find out how near the $100,00(1 was expended the first year. The only record I can find is the 5th of August. 1887, a letter from the Chief Engineer in which he refers to the estimates, and adds : " You will note that I have called the attention of the Secretary to the fait the amount set aside for dredging will be expended during the present month. liy Mr. Tarte : Q. What does that mean ? — A. I read a letter here in which I notified the Chief Engineer that the appropriation was nearly exhausted, and I was told to produce his reply. This is the only reply I got, that he has notified the Secretary of the fact. By the Chairman : Q. Is that signed by Mr. Perley? — A. Yes. Q. That is his signature? — A. Yes, and the letter is in his own handwriting. By Mr. Tarte .- ii. You had nothing to do but to obey Mr. Perley ? Q. You were not responsible for what was going on ? — A fitruction. Q. Your only work was to supervise the work and make reports? — A. Ye^. By Mr. Osier : Q. The other day, if you are re])ortod correctly, in speaking of the amount of dredging done, did you place the dredging done by Peters, Moore A: Wright at 518,000 yards? — A. That was x-educed to scow measurement. The (juantities area little mixed up. Q. Was not the Peters, Moore &Wrightcontrac'talump sum contract?— A. Yes. Q. They were not paid by the yard at all ? — A. In the extra dredging they were, Q. But by their original contract they werg not paid bv the; yard at all ? —A. Xo. Q. I find by looking at the estimated quantities that they tendered for, that the estimated quantities were 709,000 yards Now where did you get the 500,000 odd yards? — A. This dredging that I took hero is a ditt'eront droiiging altogether. Q. I think not. — A. Allow me to explain. The dredging under the original contract was dredging for the crib work, trenches and channcl-wajs. Q. No, there was extra di-odging for channel-ways. There was a dee}i trench for the Wet-dock and northern crib work itc. and there was a total dredging done by Peters, Moore & Wright of 917,000 yards.— A. Yes, but not untler the bulk sum contract. Q. But in the area which wo were discussing the other day ? — A. Not in tiie area 1 was leferring to. Q. 1 think so.— A. The trenches and channel-ways were , Q. How do you distinguish when you say that l^eters, Moore ami Wright only did 518,000 yards ? How do you get at that quantity when they are mixo I uj) with the bulk sum contract and the special dredging and the dredging that was increased from one « and a half to two to one. How did you get at that ? — A. It was over a different area altogether. If you will allow me to exiilain I will do so : The bulk Bum dredging was for the Tidal-harbour ciil)s and Wet-dock cribs. It was for a channel-wa^- along the face of those cribs. The only part of that drf Iging that is included inthis calculation is that channel-way in front of the Tidal-harbour cribs. ■which is 1250 feet long. 872 l|f I'lim 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 5 ' Q. How much did you allow for that, when thoy were paid by lump sum ? — A. It was measured, and a deduction of 831,001) was made from their bulk sura prices. Q, That is what you called the clerical error ? — A. Yes; and the quantities in that general and extra dredging were paid for by the yard. That is what is taken into the calculation. Q. I am instructed that over the area j'ou have given, that m reality, instead of 518,000 yards, they removed 517,000 j'ards ? — A. I produced the tigui-es. Q. Where did you draw the line ? — A. I will get the plans. Q. AVhore did you get your data ? — A. I say they were paid so many yards for the channel-way in front of the Tidal-harbour cribs, by actual measure, owing to tiiat orror. Q. You know very well that that clerical error has been a matter in litigation, :ind that it was shown not to exist, and that two or three judges of the court have given judgment in their favour, and that it stands, with a strong expression of (ipinion on the part of the Supreme Court judges that such a deduction was all wrong ? — A. That does not alter the fact of how many yards was in the channel. I say that the channel was calculated to hold so many cubic yards, and that thoy wore paid for. They claimed an extra payment owing to a clerical error. Q. No; you claimed a deduction. — A. You may put it either way. How was it measured ? — A. B}' sounding. When ? — A. During the progress of the work. Before the wcrk was tiiiished ? — A. No ; when it was Hnished. You measured it ? — A. I did. With a view of seeing the clerical error ? — A. With a view it was 24 feet down. of seeing Q. Q. Q. ^^ Avhether Q. Where was the deep trench, 10t|,<)50 yards ? — A. That was under thoTiilal Harbour crib-work, which is tilled up now by the crib-work itself Q. And the Wet dock trench? — A. That was tilled in by the crib-work, too. Tliese are both obliterated, and the Wet dock trench is not taken in the calculation which I have made, because the soundings were made after that was dredged. Q. I am informed that Peters, 3Loore & Wright were allowed a slope to the bank of the trench of li to 1 in your estimate of quantities? — A. Yes. Q. Do 3'ou know that the former contractors had to make that slope 2 to 1, in order to got it to stand, and do you know that that area, the area which they had to take down, I'educing the slope of the banks from IJ to 1, is included in the area allowed to Larkin, Connolly & Co? — A. I do not know that. The area is bounded by two walls. i}. But the walls did not exist at the time of the trench ? — A. Yes ; they existed at the time the calculation was made. Q. And yoii only allowed up to the walls? — A. The area used in this calculation is bounded by the walls of the Louise lilmbankment and the Cio.ss-wall. There is a stono wall on the north, another stone wall on the ./est, and a wharfon the oast, so that tl\e area calculated is bounded on three sides by practically perpendicular walls. .Soi'.idings have been taken over that area as it exists to-day, and the total quantity I i dredged material in that area has been calculated. Q, Without leaving anything for slopes ? — A. Cortainh', allowing [a slope on the south side. Q. But you have calculated the area between the walls, and you have not allowed, ii> any of the material dredged, the natural slope which the material woul(! take under water? — A. There is no slope there now. Q. There is no slope there now, but there was when Larkin, Connolly & Co. commenced? — A. Xo, sir. (^ I am taking the cubical contents? — A. I am taking the cubical contents of that area as it exists to-day. From that I ileduct what has already been allowed to I'ot'rfs. Moore \ Wright on that particular area, and the ditlerence is what Larkin, 1. ' 1 ; !!' 1 • i ' , '*^ !'' 1! r i'i liiMi;, Coi.iiollv \' Co. must have dredged. 873 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 54 By Mr. Tarte: Q. Have you got any knowledge that Mr. Boyd deducted 5 cents from every yard of material thrown into the St. Lawrence by the contract of 1882? — A. He deducted 5 cents for a gi'eat portion of it ; I do not think he did for the whole. He commenced, I think, in 1885 to deduct 5 cents. Q. For all material that was thrown into the St. Lawrence? — A. Yes. Q. Have you got any knowledge that the 5 cents is paid back to the contractors later on? — A. Yes; thoy got 35 cents for all the dredging. Q. They were paid back, then ? — A. They were paid back. Q. On your report? — A. On no report of mine. They were paid from the final estimate. Q. On whoso report? — A. The 5 cents, as I understand it, was a temporary reduction to compel them to put the mateiial required into the bank. Q. H'ow many letters did you write to Larkin, Connolly iS: Co. to oblige thorn not to throw any more material into the St. Lawrence? — A. (^uitea number. Q. Wore you obeyed ? — A. No. Q. What steps did you take to be obeyed ? — A. I did not pay them. Q. Were the}' paid finally ? — A. They were. Q. By whom? — A. Bj- the Harbour Commissioners. Q. In spite of all your reports? — A. Yes. Q. Were you ordered by the Commissioners to make those protests against dumping material into the river? — A. Certainly, the Commissioners would instruct me not to allow dumping into the river and I would instruct the contractors acconl- ingl}', but still it went on. Q. And in spite of your report they were paid full prices? — A. Yes. By Mr. German . Q. tinued Did they know that you would repoi't against their being paid if tliey con- to dum]) in the river? — A. I toitl them I would not include it in tlie estimates. (i. And still thoy continued to dump into the river? — A. Yes. Q. I want to press you a little more about the Inspectors' payments. I iliink you had special charge of the Inspectors. Am I right or wrong ? — A. I had not K])ecial charge, more than being the Resident Engineer, and of course I was over them. 3Ir. Mcdreevy was supposed to look after the dredging more particulai'ly. I liad not the time. Ihj Mr. McLeod : Q. Which Mr. McGreevy?— A. Charles MeGreovy. Q, Son of Robert? — A. Yes. By Mr. Tarte : (J. How was he charged with supervising the Inspectors? — A. I told him to look after that specially. Q. What do j-ou mean by "specially"? — A. It is the onlj- thing lie did, to supervise theii- work, make out the returns anil check their books. Q. Was Mr. (.'harles McGreevy ever charged by you to supervise the work of the Inspectors or the figures of the Inspectors ? — A. Certainly, it was his duty, if he saw anything wrong, to report it. He took the books and added up their returns ami sent them in to me, Q, I admit that, but I want you to go further, and s.'iy whether j'ou ever charged him b3- letter or otherwise to see that thesj reports of Inspectors were right — not simply by adding up the figures, but by personal e.\iimination on the sjiot ? — A. I do not know that I ever did that exactly on these works, but natnnilly I would suppose, if he saw anything going wrong, it was his duty as Assistant Engineer, ti report it without definite instructions, 874 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. You never had reason to suspect that the Inspectors were paid by the con- tractors from 1 885-6-7-8-! t? — A. No; I had no reason whatever. I did not suspect it at ail. Q. Still, you have heard the evidence here ? — A. Yes. Q. And you have learned that they were paid ? — A. There appears to be no doubt about it. Q. Did you ever supervise the Inspectors yourself? — A. As I say I had very little time to look after them at all, I took their returns and just made out the estimates. Q. You never went on the spot ? — A. Oh yes ; f was on the spot sounding lots of times. Q. Are you awai-e that payments were made to the dredges when these dredges were idle at the wharf? — A. No. liij Mr. German the Q. Do you know where they should have dumped the material, as soon us dumping into the river was protested against? — A. In the work. Q. In the Embankment ? — A. In the Louise Embankment. Q. It was part of their contract, was it, that the material should l)0 dumped into the Louise Embankment? — A. Yes ; or into the Cross-wall, or any other property belonging to the Harbour Commissioners. Q. Were they paid nothing extra for filling the Louise Embankment ? — A. They were in 188G. Q. Not during the time they were dumping this material into the river against your protest? — A. No. Q. When they were dumping material in the Cross-wall they were paid for both — for filling the Cross-wall as well as for the dredging ? — A. Oh, yes ; any filling that was put into the Cross-wall thej' were paid for. , Q. As a fact, though, did the specifications require any particular kind of earth tilling in the Cross-wall ? — A. No. (I. It is not mentioned there should be any particular kind of day ? — A. No. Q. It would not be sand they Avould fill with ? — A. In the Cross-wall, certainly, it is all sand. By Mr. 'Tarie .• Q. Can j'ou tell me when the (iraving Dock at L4vis was completed over by the Harbour Commissioners? — A. I think it was in the slimmer the records will tell you; I could not speak from memory at all. Q. Have you any knowledge that stone was carried over from the Levis Do'-k to the Quebec Harbour works? — A. What sort of stone .■' Q. Well, dressed stone, I suppose? — A. Building stone'; Q. Building stone that required to be used? — A Probably so. Q. Have you got any knowledge of it ? — A. No. ' know theio was a certain amount of stone left in from the Graving Dock, and ti:ey p.-obably sent it somewhere or other. Q. Well probably is not clear evidence? — A. I have ■ / positive knowledge. Bi/ Mr. Ioniser : Q. Was the whole Oi" the material dredged about the same characlei through ? — A, Y'es ; all sand and boulders. By the Chairman : . When did you first discover these Inspectors were receiving any pay from the contractors? — A. I knew nothing about it until it was stateil here. Q. When did you first know they were doing extra work lljr the contractors? — A. I never knew they did any extra work, except during the winter, when they were levelling sand. 875 and taken )f ISSfl. but right !ii !::il 1 : '\ m: '\r iif ■[ i , I , (i*M '• 1 /* "i. ' 1 'l iJ-il m. . 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q, Was that work of any (hiration? — A. They were there for two or tinoe months, I think, in the winter, working for the contractors. Q. Every one ot them ? — A. No; there was Pelletier, Brunelle, and, I thinic, Germain. (i. What year was it ? — A. In the winter of 1884 and 1835, I tiunk ; there were two winters I think. By Mr. Tarte : Q. They went out after that ? — A. Xo : T don't think so. By Mr. Ouimet : Q. At the same time were they paid by tiie Government? — A. No; they were not. Q. Thej' were paid during the winter by the contractors? — A. Yes; I tliinlc tiicro is a letter, by Mr. Boyd, instructing the contractors to pay the Ijispectors fui' the work during the winter. By Mr. Mills (Bothwell) : Q. When were you first engaged as Engineer on this work ? — A. In 1877. Q. By the Harbour Commissioners? — A. By the Harbour C nnmissioners, but l:)y Kinipple & 3Iorri8 actually. Q. Did they appoint you, or the Harbour Commissioners? — A. The Harbour Commissioners appointed me on their recommendation. Q. And what were your duties at that time?— A. Assistant Engineer, lookiiii; after the outside work, the "onstruction ofcribwork, putting in concrete, anddit!erent things of that kind. Q. How long had you acted in the capacity? — A. I was Assistant Engineer until 1886. Q. Then you w?re Assistant Engineer under Mr. Perley? — A. Under Mr. BovtI. Q. Butafter Mr. Boyd's death?— A. Well, after Mr. Boyd's death, in 18Sb", I then became Eesident Engineer, and I was then directly under Mr. Perle}-; before that, Ml'. Boyd was between Mr. Perley and myself. Q. And you were Assistant Engineer then, at the time that Messrs, Peters ii Mooie were engaged in dredging? — A. I was, 8ir. Q. Did you take soundings, at that time, of the work that was done? — A. I did ; yes. Q. And after the work was discontinued by Peters & Moore, did you take soundings and ascertain the quantity that lemained by actual measurement? — A. Yes. The soundings were taken and they were actuallj' paid for what they had really done, but the3' claimed and they wanted to be paid what was put in the bills of quantities which was an excessive amount, and more than they had actually dnrii'. Q. Then you have taken soundings, and measured the quantities, or cstimateil the quantities, removed by Larkin, Connollj' & Co. ? — A. 3Ir. McGreevy and myself have both taken soundings, over the ground as it is at present, and the ditfereiieo between these two sets of soundings would sho\i' what Larkin. Connolly iV Co. hail done. Q. Who appointed ^Ir. .McGreevy Assistant Engineer? — A. The Harbour Com- missioners. Q. And when was he appoir.ted to that position — was it before you? — A. It was in 1883 or 1884, or somewhere about that time. Q. About the time you were appointed Eesident Engineer ? — A. No. it was about three years before that. Q. So that when you gave an estimate of the quantities dredged by Larlcin, Connolly & Co., you ascertained it by beai-ing in mind the condition of the souml- ings at the time that Peters & Moore quit their work? — A. Yes, certainly. I have taken the total quantity in a certain area, and deducted from that quantity what Peters, Moore & Wriuht were paid for doing in the same wav. 876 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 By Mr. Tarte : Q. I think it was intended that the depth in the Wet basin should be 27 or 25 feet?— A. Ill the Wet basin ? Q. Yes? — A. It was originally intended to be dredged tit 10 feet below low water. Q. And afterwards you made it fifteen ? — A. Yes, afterwanls made it fifteen, which means with a fifteen foot tide, 'M feet of water. Q. Which means 30 feet of water then ? — A We do not always get the same tides. Q. Did you inform the Chief Engineer and Commissioneis, that the contractcirs were dredging deeper than 15 feet? — A. Asl have already stated I did mention it to the Chief Engineer and he said he thought it was an advantage to the Commis- sioners to get the dredging dune a little deeper than was called tor by the s])ecifica- tions. Q. There were no letters about that?— A. No, there wero no letters, it was a detail of the work, Q, The contractors began to «lredge deeper in 1887 ? — A. I fancy it was about 1887. (I. Ti) the Wet basin? — A. Yes, it is the Wet basin we are talking about. Q. They were dredging by the contract of 1882 at 27 cents ? — A. Certainly 27 ecMits and 30 cents for putting it into the bank. Q. Besides? — A. Besides, in 1886. Jijj Mr. Mills {Bothicell) : Q. Did you know that Eobert McGreevy was one of the contractors? — A. I did not know. By Mr. Tarte : Q. You never were informed? — A. Xo. Q. Y'^ou never knew it? — A. Well, I suspected ho had some sort of interest in it. Q. Did you often see him on the embankment? — A. No, I never saw him, but he seemed to be a great personal frieiul of Murphy's and I thought perhajs Murphy was borrowing money from him — that is the only thing I suspected about i;. Q. You suspected that he was interested in it? — A. I suspe^ited there \^as some ])rivate arrangement, perhaps, between himself and ilurphy. I did not funk ho was in the firm at all ; I never suspected that. By the Chairman : Q, When did you fiml out that ^[r. ililne had received a present of a g(jld watch from the contractors ? — A. I never Icnew he had. Q. You learned it to-day, I suppose? — A. No, not until ynu sjjoke. I was not ])resont this m(.rning. By Mr. Tarte : Q. Was he employed as a dredging Inspector in Quebec? — A. lie may have been, once or twice, for a day at a time — something like that ; he never was constantly. Q. Do you know whether Pelletier, Germain and Brunelle worked during the nights ? — A. Well, I suppose they did ; they were paid for it. Q. Did you see them working during the night? — A. No, I did nut. By Mr. Geofrion : Q. Will you refer to Exhibit " HU " and state to the Committee how many hours of dredging work was done in the month of August, 1887 ? — A. The dredge "St. Joseph" did 288 hours and twenty-seven minutes, and the dredge "Sir 877 ir|i i : ; 1, 'M il . , i. Ill Ii! \ ;i r! !i ' - t I !!■ 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 [■'; : ) Hector," with Gorniain inspecting, iliil liiil liours and Jo minuteM. The dredge "Sir Hector," with Mr. Brunelle inspecting, did 08 hours and 35 minutes. Q. That is a total of 587 hours; and what was the number of yards or the result of the operations during the month of August, 1887, for 587 hours ? — A. 106,737 cubic yards. Q. Will you look now to the same month, in August, 188G, and say iiow many hours ? — A. 7<>0 hours and 31 minutes. Q. What was the number of yards?— A. 62,029. Jiy the Chairman : Q. How can you account for that ditlerence? — A. In 1887 the dredges were working constantly. In 1886 they were not. They appear to have been waitiiiic two or three hours without doing anything. Q. But the hours of working are greater? — A. There are tht- hours when they began in the morning and left off at night. In lS8(i, you can see that sometimes during the whole day they would only load one scow or two scows, and there were only two or three hours in which they did anything. The hours are counted just the same from morning until night. By Mr. FiUpatrlck : Q, In August, 1886, it appears they worked 760 hours and 32 minutes. Did they work tor that time? — A. No. As tar a-* you can tell from the books, there are i\\>\)i\- rently places of two or three hours in which they were doing nothing, loading only two or three scows a day. Q. So, in the case of 1886, there may not have been the same amount of work as tor the time in 1887 ? — A. You cannot tell the actual working time. The whole of the time is put in while the dredge was there — from morning until night, whether she was working or not. These are taken from the Inspectors' books, (J. Can you show us from any information which you have in your possession the actual number of hours that the dredges worked in August, 1886 ? — No, I cannot ; but I can icU the time in the ditferent yars to load the scows, and from that, I can see that they were not working the whole linio Jiy Mr. Geoffrion : Q. Can you explain why in 1886 they were not working all the time, and hml un average of 14 hours 45 minutes a day; while in 1887 they were making 11 hours .' A. They were working at night. Q. Why weio they doing night work if they were not busy all the day? — A. 1 can merely say what the books show. Here are two or three hours of interval^ between tlie scows and leaving the dredges. By Mr. Mills ( BothweW) : Q. Have you that work tabulated, so that we can see that worked out day by day? — A. I can show the number of scows each day. All that the books do, is lo show that the start was at 7.30 in the morning and the next scow which woul'l leave would be at 2 o'clock in the afternoon. You cannot think that it takes all that time to load a scow, when you know that when the dredges iire working the same scow can be loaded in an hour. Q. The Committee has no tabulated statement of that? — A. You can get a copy made out of the books. ByMr.Tarte: Q. Did you tell the Inspectors to be always on board? — A. Always on tlic dredge. Q. Are you in a position to swear that they were always on both of tho dredges ? — A, No. 878 54 Victoriii. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 m ,.i Q. Do you know that they were not alwa3'8 on boaid the tliedgcs? — A. They oiijrht always to ho able to see the dretlj^o and to bo on the ground. Q. Do you know that they were not always on both the dredges when the d red <;es were at work? — .A. I have seen them on the bank myselt, but that is a proper place for them to be, as long as they could see what was going on. Q. If the dredges were working at night, do you think that when they were not I. n board they could .see? — A. At night I fancy they were on board, 'fhey were jiaid for being there and and it was thoirduty to bo there. Whenever I went* to find them they wore there. They may have l)een asleej) sometimes; but thev wore theie. yir. Henry asked permission to tile the following letters: (Kxh-.bit " P15.') "IIahhouh C'ommissioxkrs' Offick. '•(^UEiJEc, null Dvc ISSo. • Messrs. Larki.v, Connolly & Co., " Contractors, Harb(Kir Works, " Quebec. "Sirs, — Tlie Engineer in charge ot the Harbour Works having recimimended to retain the services of the two inspectors, Labb^ and Laihance, at the Loui-e Easiii (luring the winter. I have been directed to refer the matter to you with request to inf'ii'm the Conunissioricrs whether j'ou woukl assume the payment of the expensos it would become necessary to incur in case the Engineer's lecotuniendation was ( omplied with. " 1 am, Sirs, •' Your most obedient servant. "A. II. VEKUET." .'^ei-i/.-Treas. (Kxhibit '-Ql.").") "Harbour Commissioners' Office. "Quebec, Uth Oct., 18S7. • ME.SSRS. Larkfn, Connollt \ Co., "Contractors, Harbour Works, •' Quebec. •• (iENTLEMEN, — I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of j'our letter of the lltli inst,. in which you draw the attention to the settlement of your contract for the ( rraving Dock, and to inform you, in reply, that the Commissioners are prepared to pay, in contbrmity with the rccommentlation of their Chief Engineer, the sum of thirty thousand nine hundred dollars (§30,000) in full settlement of your claim in Connection with the contract in que.stion. " I have the honour to be, (rentlemen. " Your most obedient servant, 'A. H. VlilTJRET." Si'ci/,-Treas. (Kxhibit "R15."; " Harbour Com.missioxei!s' Office. " Quebec. IHh May. 1S8S. Me>>rs. LarivIN, Connolly & Co., " Contractors Harbour Works, " Quebec. " Sirs, — I beg to inform you that tho Commissioners have had undei' consideration ymii' otter, conve\'ed in your letter of the 10th ulto. to the Chief Engim'cr, to accept til.' >um of thirty-tive thousand dollars, 635,000, with interot, in aiKlition to the liiirty thousand nine hundred dollars, $30,000, already reported as due yon in full ^' Ttlement of your claim in connection with the Graving Dock, and to state that they :ar ]ire])ared to pay you the said sum of $35,000 icithout interest, in addition to the s;;ii.'.inu above mentioned, with the understanding that you will lie allowed interest 8T0 ( 1 i' I t i 'I !!■ 1 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Im on this Inst mentioned Huni from the date of thp Final Certificate, the payment if otFt r aci'eptoil to be in full nettlement of all claiiiiH in connection with your contract, aiul Hupplementary contract for the dock. •' I am, Sirs, " Vour obedient >orvant, "A. H. VKRRET." Secy. -Trees. (Exhibit "SIS,") •' H.VRBotH Commissioners' Office, " (Quebec, 8th March, 1888. " Messrs. Lakkin, Connolly & Co., " Contractors Harbour Works, " Quebec. •'Sirs, — Adverting to the correspondence exclianged on the subject of your request to be paid the sum of 830,1)00 passed by the Chief Enijfineer on account ot j'our contract for the (Iraving Dock, pending a settlement of your claim, I ai:i directed to state that, as 5'ou have re(iuested that a settlement of your claim again*! the Commissioners shall bo made by arbitration and as the amount asked for is involved in such claim, the payment cannot be made unless you will agree to accfpr the sum §.'}0,000 in full settlement of the amount j'ou claim from the Commissioner*, viz., 8110,000.00. ■' J am, Sirs, •• Your most obedient servant, 'A. 11. VERRET." Secy.-Trea^. The Committee then adjourned. House op Commons, Wednesdaj', 5th August, ISitl. The Committee met at 10 u.m; Mr. Clirouanl in the Chair. Investigation into certain circumstances and statements made in connection with the tenders and contracts respecting the Quebec Harbour Works, iS:c., resumed. Hon. TnoMAs McGreevv sworn. By Mr. Fitzpatrick ; Q. You are member of I'arliainent for the Electoral division of (Quebec We.>t, are you not ? — A. Yes. Q. How long have you represented that division? — A. Since 1868, the genenii elections. Q. You were then elected by acclamation ? — A. By acclamation. (-1. And you have continued to represent the division up to the present tin\o '! — A. Yes. Q. What have been your politics during that time? — A. Conservative. Q. You have been closely identified with youi- party during that, period '! — A. I liave. il- I understand that you have taken an active part in the management ot the affairs of your party in the district of Quebec? — A. Yes. Q. Previous to the time of your election what was your occupation ? — A. I was a contractor. Q. Were you a contractor in a large way of business? — A. Y'es. Q. Which contracts were you specially connected with at the time of your election, or just previous to your election in 1867? — A. The Parliament Building.-*, here at Ottawa. 880 64 Viotoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 i" '•i''f?p k\ Q. You, of course, severed your coniioction v itli tlmt coiUnict at the liino of your first oloction? — A. Yoh, but as a matter of fact there was little romuiiiing to \>o done. The i)Uiiit and other stutl' I sold to my brotiier. Q. By your i)rother do you refer lo tlie witness IJoliurt McGreovy ?^A. Yes. Q. You handed over to him wiiatever was to be lione in connection with tlio eomplotion of that contract ? — A. Yes. I may state that it was an item contract and 1 need not have continued, if I did not wish. (■l. However, you handed it over to him ? — A. Yes. Q. Since I8(i7, when you first entered politics, have you ilone any business? — A. I built the North Shore Knilway under contract in 1874. Q. Except that contract with the North Shore you have not had any other business enterprises? — A. Nothing. il. Your occupatio^i during that time — from 18G7 — has been to look after your invest' ii-nts and matters connected with financial and banking concerns? — A. From about iSHl, when 1 finished the North Shore contract. (I. But independently of the North Shore you are nof engaged in any business cnlerprif^'s ? — A. 1 hud nothing else. Q. Since its formation, you have been, \ understand, vice-president and director of the Union Bank of Quebec ? — A. Since 18(15. (I. And are you the President of the Itichelieu and Ontario Navigation Co. ? — A. Yes ; for Mie last three years. <^. K.scept the N(»rth shore Railway contract, have you been in any way con- nected with any other contract? — A. In no way. Q. JEad you any financial or pecuniary interest in any other contract ? — A. Not one, (y VoJit brother when examined as a witness said ho bad been connectei' with you in bu-intss since 1850? — A. lie was employed by me during the construction of tlie Parliament Buildings here and on the North Shore afterwards. (I. That is to say while you were contractor for the Parliament Buildings hero at Ottawa, he acted as a sort of foreman or superintendent? — A. lie acteil as superintendent. Q. Did bo also act in the same capacity during the course of construction of the Xurtb Sliore Kailway ? — A. Y^es. II. Independently of that had you any other business relations with him in the \»ay of advancing money to him in connection with different enterprises? — A. f took notes of his for what I sold to him in the year 186ti. I think it was three notes Imt they have never been paid, neither princij'il nor interest. After that he got into dirticulties and 1 advanced him another large sum of money. That remains unpaid to-day, and with interest too. After that he went into a contrtict with .[ones, Shanly & Co., of Pittsburg. I made largo advances to him during that time, but I never got the capital or interest out of it. The last occasion was when he took the fiintract on the Intercolonial Pailway when 1 advanced him money and lost there iigain. Q. The result of your business relations with your brother was that you suffered a linancial loss. Of how much ?— A. About 8400,000. Q. During all these times to which j'ou have refei-rod you were on very close terms with your brother — were j-ou not ? — A. Y'es ; very much so. Q. Were your relations more intimate than those which usually exist between two members of the same fixmily ? — A. Well, 1 trusted him in everything. I did everything I could for him and helped him through. Q. In any enterprise that he had or with which he was connected ? — A. Yes. (J. Did he take the management of your private affairs? — A. Y^es. Q. As far as j'our political relationships were concerned, in matters affecting your constituents, did he act for you? — A. Yes ; he generally managed them. Q. This intimate relationship continued on between you until what time ? When was the first rupture? He has referred to it in his evidence, as having taken place in connection with the Richolieu and Ontario Navigation Co. — A. It was in the commencement of 1889. !■ il ~. 1 I 11 Mii 881 1—56 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 "I P Q. Will you stato briefl}* what were the circumstances which led to the ditticulty hetwyen you ami your brother in connection with the liichelicu and Ontario Xavi- gation Co. ? What was your connection with the Companj^ at that time? — A. J hu'l been a director of the Company for several j-ears. I became a director of the Kichclieu & Ontario Navigation Co. on account of th" amalgamation with the .St. Lawrence Steam Navigation Co. and the Saguenay line. I had been President of the St. Lawrence Steam Navigation Co., and it was stipulated when the amalgaina- lion look place that 1 should become a member of the Jiichelieu it Ontario Xavi- ^.'ation Co.'s Board. That is the Avay I became to be connected with the Comimny. Q. During the course of your connection with the Richelieu & Ontario Naviga- tion Co., didyour brotherendeavour to get on the Board or doanything which brouf;lit about t ho conflict between you ? — A. It was at the end of 1888 or the commencement of ISStt, before the elections took place, that in February some person told me that ivy brother was trying to get on the Board of the Ifichelieu Co. 1 think it was Mr. ]\Iichael Connolly who told me. lie was a directoi- at the time, and we were on our way from one ot ihe meetings of the board when he said to mo, that Eobert McGroe- vy was trying to become a director, I said to Mr, Connolly, " what business has lie to go theio; he does not own any stock or has beany money to put into investments; lie is too much in debt and has no right to go there." I said further that I thought it was *o create a division by putting a number of the then diicctors off. 1 stated at the lime that some of the other directors would think that 1 was intriguing to get some of them off the Board, and I was very much annoyed about it. Q. You have just stated that the first difficulty between you and your brother, arose out of a statement which had been made to you by Mici.ael Connolly, to the etfoct that your brother sought election as a director of the Richelieu Company?— A. Ves. (^. And you thou.'^ht that was impcssible, as he had no means to buy stock nor was he then in possession of the stock which would give him an interest in the affairs of the company? — A. Yes, sir. Q. What t'id you then say to Michael Connolly, and what did .Michael Connolly say to you on ti/it subject? Did he give you to understand that you wore in ermr about youi- brother's means ? — A. Ho tlisclosed to me that Robert ilcGreevy was a ])artiier in the tin , and had a large amount of money there in the company; that he was speculating with Murphy in the stock of the company. Q. Ho then said you wore in error as to the financial condition of your brDtlur? — A. Yes, and that he was a partn- '■ in the firm. Q. lie then stated that fact to you for tho first time? — A. For the first time. Q. And you say that was iu 1388 or the beginning of 1889? — A. Coming down fioni a meeting of the directors of the Richelieu Company. Q. J)iil you have any conversation with your brother subsequently*? — A. Yes, the next time I met him 1 reproached him for the whole thing, in my otHee at Que- bec, and we quarrelled about it, and I said some very hard things to him. We never spoke since thai day, or never had any conversation. Q. Your hroiliei' has referreil to a letter produced here, written in I'Vbniaiy 183'J to you. (y\in you i-emembc" whether that letter was written as the result nl the interview to which you have just referred ? — A. Yes, it was. Q. After that do you remember if anything M'as done, or any proeeeding,'- wiie taken by the Union Hank in which you were tlien interested, to recover the indelii- ediu'ss (d' Rohci't .Mctireevy to the Bai'k ? — A. Yes. There was some iiorson wonl til the hank — Robert Mctrreevy had a note I'linningtheio of which i was ilie endi'i-.i\' f":" a sum of eighteen thousand and some odd dolliii's. anil which had been I'lmniii;:' for a luuiiber of years — and some pirties outside knowing all about these traii>at- tioiis went to the bank and .ilfered to take the note and recovei' it, stating he had large amounts outside, aiiu they knew he could pay it. At that time he wa^ |)ayiiiir the interest of notes on renewal. Q. What was the amount tif that note? — A. -.US, 800 — somewhere about ih.ii 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. You ><&}• some por«oii went to the bank ? — A. i am told some of Ihe direc- tors; that if they wanted it ])aid, they would see and get it paid for him. Q. At any I'atc this resultetl in a suit bein^- taken by the bank against your brother Robert? — A. The matter was to be taken uj) by Ihe Ix^ard. I letiied from the boai'd, and tliey ic!'>!ved aftei'wa ids that unless he paid a large amount at each renewal they imis'^ sue for the note. Q. It resnltcd in a suit being taken? — A. 1 will explain. iLurphy went on his behalf to the bank and ottered to give ^12,000 on the note — $-1,000 in cash, and two notes of S4,000 — time notes. Q. It resulted in a .suit, and that suit resulted in an action being taken by your brother againsc you in wa'i'anty? — A. When they were pushing him rery hard for the recovery of the note, he took an action against me, for I had guaranteed him the note, and they let me otfand sued him. Q. That is to say action was taken on a note made by Robert and endorsed by you ? — A. Yes. Q. And the maker of the note, Robert, called you in warranty? — A. Not at the first suit, sometime afterwards. Q. At any j'ate it resulted in settlement of that claim ?— A. Yes, it was settled by Murph}'. Q. Do you remember if, immediately after that action, Jtobert Mc(Jreevy and Murphy left the tii-m of Larkin, Connolly & Co. and ceased to have any interest in it — in the spring of 1889 ? — A. Yes, I think that the Connollys hud sold out to him for $50,000 their interest, and they came before the board. ^[i.irj)hy came with a letter bel'ore the board and the boaril refused to entertain the matter; inasmuch as the principal names of the firm would disappear they would not entertain it. Q. Then after he had loft the tirm the ne.vt event of any importance was the election of December, 1889, for the local Parliament, between Owen ^[urphy and himself? — A.. Yes, I think it was in the end of 1889. Q. I need not ask you if you supported your brother ? — A. [did not take any part in it at all, [ left. Q. Then the next ovent was the placing by your brother, in the hand of Senator Robitaille, of certain type-written documents, charging you with subsiantialiy the .--ame oH'encos as are charged now by Mr. Tarte ? Mr. (Jeokkrion — You might ask liim if scnnething like that took phico Q. After 1889, do you remember whether or not you heard of any charges, that \0ur brother had made against you, liolii as a llarb(»ur Commissioner, and as a ^[ember of Parliament? — A. Yes, 1 was in Ottawa here and I weni in to >ee .Senator Jtobitaille in his room ; he was sick her.; and contined to his room, and he bad two jjiipers which he showed me, l>y my liroiher. I thinic it was in the month of February. Q. Who were those papers signed by ? — A. They were signed by Robert Mcdroevy, O. K. _Murphy, and Krank Mcfheevy as a witness. Q. Then subse(|Uently,wlu'n did you see those sanicilofumcnts again ; ilid you ever see them publisbetl anywhere ? — A. Well, 1 took copies. 1 asked Senator Robitaille to allow me to have thesi', and \ took copies of them whieli [ initialled. ii. Did you see them published any place afterwards? — A. 1 saw tlieni tir.st published in Le Canadu'n. Q. Towards the end of April, IS'.lo?— A. I think it was Ihe .'ioth of April. Q. A short limebetore the elections tor the Legislative AsseniMv in Qiiebeu ? — A. Yes. (}. When did you tirst bcLomo acquainted with any uiendiers of iho lin.i of Laikin, Connolly «.S; Co? — A. 1 think I became acquainted (I. Perhaps in connection with that, I might tirst ask you when did ymi lirst lieeome a mendiei' of the IJoard of Harbour Commissioners of (Juobee? — A. 1 ihink ii was the end of 1879; \ don't think I was there before that time. «i. When you tii'st became Harbour Commissionei' hitd ihe lirm ot I'onnollyiV. Co. any contracts with the Harbour Commission? — A. ^'e- : there was the tii'aving Dock at J.evis. 883 1—5(51 li.'irkin, 1 Ihink 'H ; ii 9.,* Ill ill' mam ii t. , Si I 54 Victoria- Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. At that time, or a short time after you became a member of the Board, did you become aware that there were difficulties existing between the contractors and the Tlarboui- Commissioners or the Engineers, with rol'erence to the woric that was then being carried on at L^vis ? — A. I think there had been correspondence between the contractors and the Harbour Commissioners, and I think a number of the Directors went over there to pay a visit shortly aftei-. Q. The difficulties which then, existed, arose out of some defect in the phms, or in the foundation upon which the work was being built, did they not? — ^A. On the plans which was marked Q. Answer the question straight ? — A. Yes ; it was the foundation. Q. At one time it was understood and agreed the Harbour Commissioners should appoint members to see what these defects weie ? — A. Yes ; to visit the place. Q. Up to the time that you weie on the Board, and those difficulties arose, and they weie brought to your knowledge officially as a member of the Board, had you any communication whatever with the members of the firm of Larkin, Connolly & Co. ? — A. 1 have no recollection. Q. You do not recollect having any ? — A. Xo. Q. To the best of your recollection were those the first relations you had with them? — A. Of course. Q. They were contractors long before you became member of the Board?- — A. Yes. Q. At that time you were presumed to have had considerable experience as a contractor ? — A. Yes ; I had. Q. You had been connected with different large enterprises? — A. Yes; I had considerable experience. Q. And you were then engaged with the North Shore Railway, between Quebec and Montreal ? — A. Just about that time. Q. At that time, during the course of the relations you had with them, you had occasion to know what their dfficullies were, and did you then try to give themsucli assistance as you could as u member of the Hoard, to help them with their enter- prise? — A. I was quite prepared to give them fair l)Iay, and see they got what was right, that was all. Q. Did you know Murphy at all, at that time, 187!>, 1880, or 1881, and did you see him at any time in connection with the work ? — A. He was always about the doors of the board room, where the Commissioners met. When we wore coming in or out he was always about the door, waiting and interviewing the members that went in and came out. Q. For what purpose? — A. For different things connected Avith these works. Q. To find out what was going on ? — A. To find out something; he was mostly al"'ays at the door. Q. You, at all events, during 1880, 1881 and 1882 knew very little of it?— A. Or 1883 either, or 188-1. Later on I became Q. Are you now in a position to tell us what was the system adopted and followtnl in connection with the letting of contracts by the Quebec Harbour Commissioners. In the first place, about plana? — A. Which contiacts do you mean? Q. All contracts, speaking generally — the .system followed with reference to letting of contracts by the Quebec Harbour (Commissioners. Who were the plans submitted to before tenders were called for? — A. I think all plans had to be appro\i d of by the Government Engineers. Q. In the first instance, the plans were piepared by the Engineer of the Ilarljoiir Commissioners, and referred afterward to the Grovernment Engineer for approval ? — A. Yes, for approval. Q. After that, the tenders were called for by the Harbour Commissioners? — A. Yes. Mr. (tEoffkion objected that the witness was being led. Q. And when the tenders came in, of course, as a rule they were opened ami examined by the Harbour Commissioners? — A. Yes. 884 1891 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Then, in the usual course, they would bo refen-ed to your Secretary and Engineer for report? — A. To report. 1 think in 1882 that wiis the case, but in 1883 Q. There may have been one exception and we will come to that in proper time. I am talking of the general rule? — A. That was the rule. Q. Then, the contract was, as a rule, awarded after this i-eport was made by your Engineers to whoever the Engineer might report as being entitled to it; but before final signature it had to be referi'ed to Ottawa? — A. Yes. Q. And approved of by the Government ? — A. Yes. Q. Fin>»My, the contract was awarded and signed by the Commissioners. They were partit,. to the contract? — A. Always signed the contract. The contract was made Avith them. Q. If [ remember rightly, the contract had to be finally approved of, or the plans, both by the Minister of Public Wo7'ks and the Minister of Marine? — A. 1 think so; 1 think that was the case. Q. Now, coming to the contract of 1882, d.i j'ou remember when the tenders were called for that contract? About what time of the 3'oar was it? — A. I think it must have been — let me see — in the fall of the year, the month of September, ft was some time in the fall of the year ; I am not sure of the month. Q. Do you remember if in the spring of 1S82 tenders were called for two different undertakings: one, for the dredging of the Louise Basin and the other for the closing of the opening in the Louise Embankment? — A. Yes. Q. Do you remember if in connection with ihese works there were '"'tfe rent sets offenders called for — that is to say, were the contracts awarded on the first tender, or were there new tenders called for? — A. You mean for the drtdging of 1882? Q. The first contract? — A. I really did not remember that until I heard it mentioned here. 1 know thei'C were tenders called for, and wo had a number of tenders in. Q. You say that j'ou remember that tenders were called for that work ? — A. Yes. Q. Do you remember whether the first tenders were opene ot the Evidence and say whether or not the tabulated statement of tenders received by the Quebec Harbour Commissionei's, found on that page, shows the result of the statement prepared by your Engineer? — A. There were six tenders I see here. Q. The usual course was, that these tenders w(ni!d be referreil to the Engineer for a statement? — A. Always. In the usual course, I would assume that. Q, Who was the Eesidcnt Engineer at the time ? — A. Mr. PilUington. Q. The gentleman who prepared the Keport (Kxhibit "U') which is to be found on page 42'J of the printed Evidence ? — A. Ves. Q. According to that report, who w.-is the lowest tenderer ? — A. I think it was FradetiS: Miller. Q. Do not think about it. Please lor)k at the statement ? — A. The lines are not opposite one another here. I think the lowest tenderer is a man by the name of Blake, of Portland, accor'ding to this statement. Q. What is the remark in the column alongsitle Blake's name? — A. ',' Not in terms of the a( the meetings. Q. J}ut did you take any part in, or wei'e you even present at the meotini!ui which this contract was aw.'irded to Larkin, Connolly it Co.? — A. I ■■annot really present or not at the meeting at recollect for the moment, I liuvi' recollect without seeing the >[inute books. 886 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. The minute is of the 2Hth of July^ 1882. Do you remember whether or not, in the usual course of events, after it was determined to let the contract to Larkin, Connolly & Co., the tenders were referred to Ottawa? — A. Tlie tenders for the (Iredgintr of 1882 ? Q. Ves. I am speaking of that altogether just now ? — A. I think they were sent to Ottawa. I think so, hut there were so many contracts that T cannot state posi- tively about them. Q. Do you not remember that the matter was referred to Ottawa after Fradet tt Miller had failed to accept the contracts? — A. 1 think so. I think they had been referred up here. Q. Do you remember whet' - or not a letter was received by the Harbour Commissioners on the 5th of Au,-.--!' t, 1882, from the Minister of Public Works, Sir Hector Langevin, asking for explanations whether the contract was let to the lowest tenderer? — A. I think there was something of that nature. Q. Will you look at the document now produced, and say whether that is not till' letter written by Sir Hector Langevin in connection with the.^e lenders? — A. Yes. 1 think I remember that. Q. Read it please ? (Hxhibit"T15.") " Cabinet du ministhe des trav.vux publics du Canada, " Ottawa, :n juiliet 1SS2. ''Monsieur, — Votre lettre du vingt-neuf jiiillet avec r<5tat qui I'accompagiuiit, m'est arr'iv(5e. Avant de pouvoir consid^rer la soumission i\ laquelle MM. les com- missaires voudraient donner la pr^f^rcnce, je desire savoir: P Si les commi-^saires lint lieu de croire que les eoumissions rc§ues, et qui sont plus basses que celle qu'ils pi'^ferent, ont ^t^ faites de bonne foi et qu'il n'y a pas eu collusion dans le retrail . You cannot recollect who they were ? — A. My mind is struck with the idea that Chabot was one of them, but 1 am not sure. Q. According to the records of the Harbour Commission of llJth September, 1882, it would appear that it was moved by >[r. Rac anil seconiled by Mv. Dobell that the contract be awarded to Larkin, Connolfy k Co. Have you any recollection of that ? — A. It might be. I have no recollection of it. Mr. rrEOFt'RioN. — 1 am quite willing to allow extracts from these books (the Minute books) to be put in as if proven by the Secretary. Q. You do not remember that ? — A. No. <^. Do you lecollect whether or not that contract was submitted to and apjiroved of b3' j-our Engineer before being finally signed ? — A. 1 know it was. Q. Who was your Kngineer then ? — A. Piikington. Q. He was the i{esident Kngineer; but who were the principal Engineers? — A. Kinipple & Morris. Q. Refeiring to this contract, Mr. Murphy, when examined as a witness, said, iit page 31 : — "ject to tho approval of the Governor in Council, and that public tenders for the said works shall be called for, and the contract awarded by the (rovernor in Council." Now, that contract appears to have been awaided in the spring of 1H8:{ — about the 6th of .luiie 188;j? — A. Somewhere about that time. Q. At that time were you on dose terms of intimacy with your brother Robert J[. McGreevy ? — A. 1 was. Q. Had you any acquaintance, and if so what, with Murphy the witness ox- iimined here ? — A. I knew veiy little of him. Q. You said that your relations with your brother were of the most intimate iliaracter? — A. Certainly. Q. Do you remember anything about the plans for tho Cross-wall as to who tlicy were prepared by? — A. By Kinipple and .Nlorris. <,». Do you lemember whether they were referred to Ottawa or not ? — A. 1 think they were. Q. Do you remember anything about it ? — A. Ves, they wci'c rct'errcd to Ottawa. Q. After they had been referred to Ottawa, was anything done in connection with the plans here? — A. I think they were sent back to the Harbour Commission- ncrs. Some changes were made and then they were referred back to the Harbour 891 f I :' V, (,' I I !■ .1 ill!!: 64 Victoria. I !i ; i hi. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 That is as far as I can changes, tla- tlH' Commissioners, and the}' approved of those changes recollect. Q. On those plans, as tliey came back from Ottawa witl tenders were called i'or ? — A. Yes. Q. The tenders appear to have been '-eceived about the 2nd May, ISSii'.'' — A. Yes, I remember that. I was present at the meeting. Q. At that time you were a member of Parliament ? — A. Yes. Q. The session was then going in Ottawa? — A, Yes, the session was going on. Q. When the tenders first came in, do you remember what was done with them? — A. They were opened by the Board and the items were read over of every tender and noted I think oy the Secretary, and tlien they were handed back to tlie Secretary to be sent to the Engineer at Ottawa for extension. Q. When the tenders were read over in Quebec, was it possible for any person having some knowledge of contracting work to form a fair estimate of the relative position of the tenderers? — A. You might of some of them. (J. Were there some items in particulars? — A. There were three or four items and by the.se items you might get an idea of what the tender might lie. There would bo three or four items which were the bulk of the whole amount. Q. Did you take any notes at that time of the items in the ditferent tenders ? — A. No. Q. Do 30U remember, after the meeting at which the tenders had been reail. what the impression was at the Board as to the relative position of the ditferi-iit tenders? — A. I was given to understand from the items that Gallagher was the lowest tenderer. We thought he was the lowest tender, judging by the large items. The other tenders we could not tell anything about. ii. Can you recollect at all from the conversation which took place between tliu different members of the Board, and whatever transpired at that time, whether or not you had any idea, either indicated by members of the Board or any person eNo, on information gathered from the tenders thenreelves, as to what the relative posi- tion of the tenders were other than Gallagher's? — A. The impression was tiiat Beaucage was tlie next lowest. I think I learned that outside. 1 took no calcula- tions, but I think that was the impression given. (J. Do you remember now what was the impression at that time as to the rela- tive position of Peters and Larkin, Connolly & Co. ? — A. No ; I could not tell. I dn not know that we could tell at that time. I could not tell at thetimcof themeetihii'. Q. You could not tell what took place at the Board? — A. No; there were ti»o many items in the tenders. (l. Did you leave for Ottawa shortly afterwards ? — A. 1 think I left the same evening or the day after. I am not sure which. Q. You came up here to attend to your Parliamentary duties? — A. Yes. Q. The tenders came up here shortlj- after they were opened in Quebec? — A. They were sent to Ottawa. Q. And until the tenders were worked out here, did you know anything of tlieii contents at all ? — A. I was constantly learning from day to day. Parties wore talk- ing about the tenders, but I had nothing definite; nothing sure. Q. As a member of the Harbour Commission j'ou were especially interestcl in knowing what the result of the tenders would he ? — A. 1 was. Q. Who had those tenders, as far as A-our knowledge goes, when they i'eaclie do with it. He might have got it tVom the Union Bardi, 1 dont know whether he did or not ; 1 had nothing to do with it. Q. As a matter of fact had you anything to do with fuiTiishing the tirm Ihe security or deposit that was put in with Beaucago's tender? — A. Not at all. Q. Did you ck) anything whatever to assist Beaucage in obtaining tliat secui'ity required ? — A. Well, I dont know. I have no recollection of it ; I don't know whether it over came before ns or the bank. Q. Otherwise than as a director? Had vou anything to do with it individu- ally?— A. No. Q. I am asked by Mi-, (ierman to aslv you whether you knew how Beaucage got the security which he put up with bis deposit ? — A. Well, I learned since that he got it from a man named Samson — an advancer of money. i}. Did you learn that since? — -A. 1 think it was from Mr. Chaloner or -nnio- body, I cannot saj' which now. and I am not going to mention atiy names. I loanied since he yot the monev from Samson, 894 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Is it since tliiw invostigation you ioiiniud thut? — A. Ni>, Itcloro that I hoani iio ^'<>t niorioy from Clmrlo» Sanisou wlio is an advancoiof niom-y; he wasailvanring iiionoy to him for St. John's Ciuiroh, whii-h 1 thini< ho was iniildinj,', Q. In connection with this lender, in the piihlic stalemcnt that has heiMi refer- red lo iiere, Mr. Miir|)hy says : — " In the M|>rin^' of 188:5 we (liarkin, Cunnolly A: Co) tondereil for the construction of tlie (Irosi-wall in connection wiiii tiie Ilarhoiir im- provements, Mr. l{()i)ert McGroJvy heconiini^ interested to the o.xtent ot ;j(( per cent, by an original ai^reement sigi.ad hy usidi. Tlie Hon. Tiionhis MetJreevy wa^ Jiwareof tiiis before the toi\ders wont in. Wo (Liirkin, Connolly k Co.) ijecanie awan' ot the liosition we held as tenderers, before iieinj^ informed olHciaiiy, and i^overned our- >elves accord i njji \-, b}' the witixlrawai of .lolni (rana;.;lier and Jkaucano's tenders." The statement hero is that Robert McUreevy hecanie interested previous to the ten- ders ;Xoing in. To your lense account." N,(t00 to get the contract awarded to Larkin, ("onnolly & Co. Was the contract awtirdcd to you? — A. Yes. (^i. I>id you pay the 82."),000 ? — A. Yes. Q. Who to? — A. If there is nt) objection I will explain : As 1 made the proposal I expected it would be money paid aw we got it out .000 to get the contract? — A. I never lieard any- Ihing at all about it. Q. J?eferring to the same matter Murphy says: " <^ Ynu say you li.liveied the notes to his brother Eobert ? Was Thomas McGreevy present ? — A. 1 am not clear Bits m 'I i 1 : I I' II: 64 Victoiia Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 I; ill IH on that point where he stood. We all weut cit to Dalhousie street. 1 think Mr. Mc(Treevy was present, but I am not clear on that point. I would not like to sweai" positively." — A. [ was not there at al', I don't know anything about it. Q. Referrin/j; to the same matter on cross-examination, page 258 of the Evidence Murphy says, referring to Thomas McGjoevy : " Q. Do you say whether he was there or not at the time the notes were handed to Robert?— A. Of that, I have no recollection, but to the best of my opinion, ha was no'." That is another version. Js that true or not true ? — A. That V was not, is quite true. Q. Have you any knowled^'o whatever of any notes having been given by Murphy to your brother Robert as staled by Murphy ? — No. O. Referring to the same matter-, Robert M':Crreevy says at page (!08 : — " Q. After the notes were completed, will you be good enough to exphiin" to wlioni they were handed ? — A. I handed them all to Thomas Mc(ri'eevy. Q. Then, thoy were first handed to you ? — A. They were handed to me, as I aid before, by Mr. Murphy. Q. You h;'ndod them to Thomas Mc'Treevy? — A. Yes. Q. Where.' — A. I do not know exactly where ; either in his office or h'u house. Q. When? — A. The day I got them. Q, On tiie same day ? — A. Yes." Q. Did you receive from your brother about the time this contract was signed, on the Gtii of .iune, 1883, or at any time that summer, did lie hand 3'ou any notes nf Larkin, Connolly & Co., amounting to §25,000 ? — A. Xo. (^. At page €08 of the Kvidence, Robert McGroevy says: " Q. Have j'ou iuiy personal knowledyo of the use which your brother made of some or all of those notes?— A. I have a personal knowledge, that an obligation was imposeelling stocks or securities that I would have to lose on. Q. You spoUe to him about it, and ditl he volunteer to come to your assistance about it ? — A. The conversation came about in this way. I asked liini if he could provide for it; if he had any means. I think he was then tinithing some woi'k on th(! Intercolonial Railway, in connection with which he had a contract with a man nametl Lachance. He told me that he had some accommodation notes and would provide for the judgment. On the 13th of July, he said: " I want a note ot yours (^. Leave that out for the present. Were j'ou at that time about to go away ? — A. I went below, and was sick below during the month ot July. t^. When you were going away from (Quebec at t'.at time, did you ask an}- per- son to sec your brother Robert about this judgment ?--A , .Mr. Chaloner. Q. Who was he? — A. My maiuiger. Q. Your confidential man ? — A. In fact he looked after my private affairs then. Q. You told Mr. Chaloner that he was to see your brother Robei't ? — A. Yes, and that he was going to arrange for the judgment— to piovide means for it. Q. You informed Chaloner that he was to supply the means necessary to satisfy the judgment ? — A. That he had arranged with me to do so. Q. In that connection, did you give a note to pay part of the amount ? — A. lie asked me for a note on the 13th July, and I signed a note tor 83,000, which was to make up part of the 817,000. (i. To go to make up the 817,000 ?— A. Yes. (,J. You gave that note? — A. I gave that note. Q. Did you subsequently pay it or was it charged against you by Robert? — A. lie charged it against me in his account. Q. Did you subsoijuenti}' ascertain how Robert provided the portion of the 817,000 whicli ne did pi'ovide to satisfy that judgment — how he got the money? — A. Not at the time. (J. Did you ascertain it subsequently? — A. I think so, later on — that he got -onie notes which ho discounted. Q. When i!i,000^ — three notes of ><5,U00 each. I think. T do not know that I have seen them. ii- That is to say. .!;e portion of money which Robert Mcdreovy contriliuted to satisfy thisjudgment was so contributed by a discount of three notes of .?."). (MM) each made by Larkin, Connolly iV Co.? — A. That is what I learned sometime afterwards. Q. At the time you liad the convci'sation with ('haloner about the judgment and directed him to see Robert .VIcdreevy had you any conversation with Robert as lu his getting notes from Larkin, Connolly A: Co. and did he tell you he had got any iVom Larkin! Connolly i*c Co. ? — A. lie tolil inc he had some accommodation notes. '),0(IU each were given to you after this c(mtra 't or about the time oi the contract of the (j'th of . I unc, was untrU' .' — A. It is not true. S'J7 1—57 I \\f Hf 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 ,(»' 1 ,. 5 m (^ At, that time or subsequently did tiio notes leacii you? — A. Nothing lufiie than I hiivo stated. Q. Did you make any bargain witii Murpliy under \viii(di lie was to give you $25.UU0 in notes or otherwise, of Lartcin, Connolly i\: Co.? — A. Xo. I have had nothing Id do with Murphy at all. 1^. Did you speak to Murphy when tlio time came to pay this judgment in tiio suit of ^fcCarron iS: Cameron? — A. I nevei'sjioke to him on tiiat siibjeet. Q. J"'rom his testimony he apj)ears to he moie inliniaiu with ynn than your brother? — A. I scarcely knew the man at all at the lime. Q. When this amount was tirst paid by Jlobert foi' you how did you look upon the transaetion at the time — when the transaetion was tirst entered into? — A. I looked upon it that it was a payment towards thudebt which he owed me. il. That it was in ))arl paymen! towards liquidating his indebtedness to you y — A. Yo^. Q. Had you subsequently any ciuiversatii •' with him by which you wrri- iidbrmcd that the notes were to be applied in a iliuereiit diiection ? — A. Not until next year. Q. What took place? — A. He told me afterwards that the notes belongeil to the tirm and that they had to be })aiil. He had tojirovide sub-cqiiently lor that amount. I had sjioken to him about some money licing wanted foi' a political pur]>o>e and l.e said I might substitute this 815, 000 lor that.' i}. For that pai'ticular jjurpose? — A. He said I hat he would not exact the amount. Q. Did you do it or not ? — A. I did. Q. Did the SI-"), 000 which were applied in the tirst place to the payment ot' a judi^nient of McCarron \ Cameron, subsecjuentU' go to a ])olitical ])urpose (;r not. — A. Yes. Q. You are certain of that? — A. Yes, I am certain. Q. Did you benefit ])cisonally in any respect whatever by the payment oi' 8l"),000?— A. Xotonecent. Q, hui-ing the year 188."!, did you gel any other money directly or indirectly fiom youi brother liobert? — A. lie may have made some siuallei- jiaymenls on my account, lint they n>ust have been vety small, peibaps a few hundred dollars, t^. But if there was anything else it would be down in the account produced in this case ? — A. Yes. That account runs tVoin Februaiy, 1SS3. (I. So that there woidd be no other payments, except the payment on account oi this indebtedness, than the 815,000?— .\. Kxcept that, nothing. (^». To justily this payment of ^'Jii.OOO, we have had produced here live notes of 85,000 ciich, dated the 1st of 3[ay, IHSLi, 'wo on demand, one at (1 mouths, one at T months, and one at 9 months. According to the report of tin.- Accountants it woidd appear that the demaml notes were ])aiil, one on the l-4th of Ma\-, ISS.S, and th> other lUi the 1st ot .liuie, ISKi. Now, on either of these two dates, the 14th of May and the l^t of June. ISS."!, did you receive any sum ot 85,000. either by note or hy cheque or in any other way, frooi your brother or .Murphy? — A. No. Q. So that not only ilid you not get the notes, but you did not get the cIk , ic- supposed to represent them ? — A. I neither got the notes nor the money. \>. And of this 825,000 all that reached you and that was apjdieil torynur benelit, was the 815.000 to which vou have reterred? — .V. Thai is all 1 rememlier. (}. Anil that was aiq)lied to \-our benelit in Ibe way you have described ? (^. I>o you I'ememoer if in the autumn of 1SS2 oi' the spriiiLC of l^^i.'i there wa< any dilliculty between the ilarbiuir ('(Mnmissi friction was — what the dilliciiUics were at thai time ? — A. It was about the toundations of the (iraving Dock at l-evis. (}. Were there other ditliculties arising out of the estimate-^ for I'eter-, .Mh'mc and Wright ? — A. I do not lemember 'hat part of it. (}. V' s, certiticates ? — A. There may have been, I don't remember. '8!tS 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Do you not romembei- that a loi^al difficulty arose out of the final estimato? —A. Oh, yos, I roniombcr now. Thoy had oomploted their contract — I'otcrs, Moore Mid Wrii^ht — and wanted to get their final estimate which was required hy the con- t ract should bo made out b\- the Kugineeis, so as to get their final certificate.' Messrs. Kiiiipplc and Morris wore both in Knjj;iand at the time, and thoy were cabled over to come aloni^ and make out the final estimate as the contracts were c()m])leted. Thev declined to come out. but they sent out one made in Kn<;-land by themselves, and wo referred that certificate to our legal adviser, and lie said it was not worth the paper il was written on and we could not act on it, and in consef|ueiico wc asked them to come out and they refused to come. tj. l)id the difficulties continue, until tinally, there was an arrangement ln'twec- the Harbour Commissioners and themselves? — A. Well, I tliink it was liucause of the lawsuit that was involveil afterwai'ds. They came out a long tim ) afterwards, and nuide a certificate out here, and gavo it a cc)nsiderable time after- wards. 'Ihe i|Uesfi(/n of the foundations Q. InanyevMit they hail the two ditticultics you have mentioned — that is the (litticulty '>f the foundation of thofifaving Dock, and the final certificate tor Peters. Mooro and Wright ? — A. It was the final ceitificate. Q. Ti.e difficnilies with Peters, Moore and Wright, culminated how? — .\. 'flu'ie was a committee appointed. Q. To meet Peter's, Moore and Wright? — A. There was an arbilratiun atter- wards. 1 think, before the Dominion Ai'bitrators. Q. Anyway, it ended in a lawsuit ? — .\.. Knded in a lawsuit. • '. And the services of ivini|(pU' and .Morris wei'c dis|iensed with ? — A. Ivxcept thi.\ wvi'ii retained as consulting iMiginoers. Q. Were they expensive men to have tlealings with ; what wore the rates they wore getting? — A. The rates they got were .") per cent, on all tho wui'ks. Q. That were being done ? — A. Plans and work, !Uid su])ervisiun. Q. Then, Mr. .Murj)hy, speaking of the quostion of their dismissal, says on pagi^ .'11 : — "Q. Befori! Roliert Mcdroevy was taken into the firm, iigation is closed. By ^^r Fitzpairick : '}. Is the note of the lOth Octubei', IS8;],ar >ix month-, for S.'l.nOO, signed by your iifi'iiier, and made fi> his own order, the renewal of another note? — A. 1 cannot tell > ! • yoii. Perhaps the acinunt that i- tiled mav throw nmrt- IHl'l iirlit nn It. Iff .' I '4 ill i'u .a I I ! 54 Victoria. Appeiulix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 Q. You do not recoUect now if this note given in renewiii in 1S8H was given in renewal of a note for u similar amount, diited i:uh .luly, 188;5, at three montlis ?— A. I do not recollect. Q. Do you remember what eonsidoration you gave for this note of the KJth Oct. )h('i', 188:5 ?— A. The eonsideratiun ? Caf*h. Q. At that time ?— A. Yes. Q. On the KJth October or previously ? — A. [ clon't know wiielher it was that date or not, but it was cash I gave for it, because 1 got Murphy to o(dv at Ldvis was being curried on b}' the day previous to the making of this contract 1 have Just referred to ? — A. I think thei'e was an arrangement come to after th(^ report of Mr. Tom- linson, that the contractors were not responsible tor the foundations, anil they went on doing it by daj' work and wo were paj'ing them for it and the material as well. (I. So that after 'rojiilinson made a rejiort that the conti'actors were not re- sponsible for the foundations, the work was then done by the contractors by day work '! — A. By tlav woi ' contract mber the work '! — A. By tlav woik-. Q. Then in 1884, Mr. Perley being Chief Engineer, this supplementary wo have referred to was entered into ? — A. I think about that time; 1 renie contract. Q,. Keferring to that su|)plemeniary contract at L^vis, Mr. .Murjdiy, at page 110 ot the Eviticnce says : — "*^», Was there any talk of it before the tender was nuide, about future dotuitions ? — A. Yes; .Mr. ircdreevy made this stiitement : That Sir Hector's paper was not paying. Q. Which ^fr. .McGreevy '! — A. Thomas. He said if some lump sum could be made so as some ot his frienils could be ]deased. he could make something out ot it. After several convci'sations, cari'ietl on chioH}- by niyscll and Thomas Mctrreevy, they tigui'ed u]) to us what it would come to an\' >^iik/iiiiiiv>ti (i- i;i((Ji ^/i vovtiiittLv 111 if«.'ii^ii iLittviv i^T "iiL Engineer, that amounted to some §-K),00(l; and on the shorteidng up of the Dock — it was to be shortened a cer'tain number of leet — the inciH^ase would shew gtU.COO : and then theri' was to be §10. 0(10 allowed for building the I'aisson. which niade it §74,0(11) ; anil after we agreed on that an that subse(iucntly, or about the same liiue possibly there wa> an arrangement made by which you were to get §21,(1011 oriLfiiially, and finally ??22,ilOi<, as a consideration tor the awarding ni this ennllact. Is thai tine ur not ? — A, That is not true, 9oa work iirvei' ever w r '''in 54 Victoria. Appendix (So. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Did anythiii;; ot'lhe sort take place between you — any conversation of tiiaL sort ? — A. Xovcf. Q. At pa^o 112, referring to the same mattoi, Murpiiy says, after speaUing of sonic notes which were to be given for those 822,nnolly and Co., marked as Ivvhibil " K 5," and set out here, and the draft of that answer was subniitted to you. At [lage 111 it is said: — •' Q. Will you look at these papers aiul see whether you will tind there the dralt of the tender or letter which .you had sent in the name f)f the firm ? — A, This lelteris dated 19th May, 1884. It is in the handwriting of Eobcrt McGreevy : J believe I received it from Thwmas McGrecvy, and Thomas .McGreevy made some arrange- menis and gave me instructions that our firm should send in as soon as we could a I'opy of this to the I)ei)artmcnt of Public Works. The other writings are in the handwriting of the same. I (that is, Murjih^^) took the letter to luy purtner. and iheothe. is in the handwiitini;; of Mr. Peter Hume, our i'lngineer." Now look at the letter, Kxhibit 'Mv')." and say whether that letter was submitted to you and wlif'her you maile any alteration in it ? — A. 1 never saw the letter until I saw it here il;o other day. Q. Al iiageill. referring to Kxhibit ".15, '' this (|Uestion is put: "this is in Hume's handwriting? — A. In Hume's handwriting. (}. And the total is §4.'!, '.'80 ? — \. Yes. Q. After having shown that to Mr. TlKUuas Mctiicevy. you were autho- rized by your firm to accept §50.000 for the work"? Will yoii look at the docu- ment pii'paied by Hnnie (Kxhibit ".I.")') and say il it was shown to you a- stated liy Murphy? — \. Murphy never showed me any such document : 1 never saw it. Q. At' page III, .Murphy says, reteri'ing to the |)ayMUMit ot' these note- lor .*22.0O(l : — "Q. How many no"tes, do you remember? — A. There was one of §2,(MlO made to the order of Miciiaol (\)nnoliy for two months. There was one of §5,000 made to my own order for three months. Theie was one matie to Nicholas Connolly iif §5.00(1 I'lr four months. There was one made to Michael Connolly -'1' §4.nil(l for five month- There was one made to Patrick Latkiii for §11, (Mill lor six nionihs. The .. To whom did yo\i hand the notes' when they were signed and eomplcted? — A. To Eoberl Mctireevy. Q. At whose re(|Uest'had y,000 each? — A. The one for ij moiitli> 85,000 does not appear to have ever gone through a bank at all for eollection. The one for 4 months also, 85,000, does not appear to have ever been through the bank. Q. Look at the note of 8 months for 85,000, and say bow it is endorsed? — A. It is endorsed " O. E. Murphy " with the word " paid " above. Q. In his own handsvriting? — A. 1 do not kn^w bis handwriting very well. I know his signature. Q. The other one for 85,000, how is that endorsed ? — A. It is endorsed by Nichd- las Connolly and the woril "paid" is marked below. Q. The one for 84,000 is endorsed " :Micbael Connolly," is it not?— A. S4,00i) at five months. It is endorsed Michael Connolly. • Q. The first note of three months endorsed O. E. .Murphy would mature on the 4th of September, would it not? — A. The 5th of September. Tnatiswhat is marked on it in pencil. Q. Did you receive or were you over given in payment of that note, or in payment of any value represented by that note, the cheque produced here as ])art ot Exhibit " DS,"" dated 4th September, 1884, made to the order of O. E. :Murpby and signed " Larkin, Connolly & Co. per O. E. M.," for 85,000? — A. I have never seen that cheque before. I have no recollection of it. Q. Look ;it the other two cheques given after in payment of the other two notes ? — A. 4th of September. 85,000, endorsed X. K. Connolly per O. E. Murphy. Q. It is made in the name of Murphy and signed in the name of Larkin, Con- noil}' & Co., and he endorsed it in the name of his partner ? — A. Yes. Q. See the other .S4,000, and see if it is made by Murphj' and endorsed in the same waj- ? — A. Larkin, Connolly & Co. per O. E. M., and endorsed M. Connolly per O. E. M. Q. There is nothing to indi.^ate that these weie used for any other purpose than for !Mr. Murphy ? — A. It appears so. Q. Did j'ou receive any money from your brother in the year 1884? — A. Ye-, I di( f» Q. What did you receive from him ?— A. 810,(100. Q. How did you receive it? — A. I received it in bills. Q. Y(ju mean in cash ? — A. Bank notes. Q. That money was paid to j-ou by whom ? — A. Robert Mc(rreevy. Q. Do you remember at what time ? — A. I think somttinie in the fall of 1884. Q. Was it all paid at the same time or were there two difi'erent payments ?- 1 think there were two difieront payments. 1104 Wm 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 (^ What was tho amount of each? — A. 85,000 oacli. Q. Was that money givoii to j'oii lor a spei-iHc purpose? — A. Yes. Q. For your own personal use in any way? — A. No. Q. Did you apply it for the purpose it was given to you?— A. Yes. Q. Was that purpose a political purpose? — A. I would say yes. Q. Was that 810,000 so given to you as a consideration or as a reward/or remu- neration Mr. Da VIES objected. Q. I will change it. What was the consideration of these jiayinentsso madeby your brother to you? — A. There never was any consideration mentioned in the bargain. Q. What was the reason you gave which justified the ap])lication you made for it? — A. I discussed the matter of what it was for with iiim, and ho stated that he would be able to give me that amount. Q. In connection with that amount of 810,000, which you received fiom ynur brother in bills then, did you pay any other amount out at that time or about' the same time, for the same purpose? — A. There was another amount. Q. How much did you pay out? — A. It was altogether in that yeai' 825,000. <^ Where did tho other 815,000 come from?- A. Krom the money 1 mentioned in my evidence this morning — the repayment of the 815,000. Q. So far as you are concerned, in 1884, you paid out 815,000, antl 810.000 whieli }-ou received from your brother? — A. 815,000 and §10,000 ; yes, sometime al the end of 1884 and the beginning of 1885. Q. Personally, there was none of that money remai ned with you ? — A. No. Q. You said a moment ago that there was no bargain or agreement that tlioiv was to bo any consideration furnished by you, or given by you. or which had been given by you, for this payment of 810,000 ? — A. Such a thing was never mentioned, and I was nevei- asked to. Q. Murphy, in his evidence, at i)age 112, referring to tho uwai-ding of this contract — the .supplementary contract at Ldvis — says : " Q. You made a bargain with Thomas McGreevy? — A. Yes. (^. And you agreed on the amount? — A. Ye>. Q. Originally it was for 824,000, but you finally soitled for 8';i2,000 ?— A. Yes, for S22,000." That is to say, there was a bargain made at that time for tho payment (if 822,000 in consideration of the awarding of that contract. Is that true or not true? — A. It is not true. Q, I understand you to say, now, that you are positive that in 1S84, and the lieginning of 1885, you did not I'eceive any other money than these two sums of S.').(i00 each from your brother? — A. No. Q. You are sure of that ? — A. Not for the purpose mentioned. Q. For any of these occult purposes — political purposes? — A. Xo. . Coming now to the Esquimalt Dock contract. In the month of November, 1^84, you were a member of Parliament? — A. Yes. Q. Will you look at the letter produced here (Exhibit " Ii(! "), and say whether or not you ever saw that letter before it was produced at this en(]uiry ? — A. That is -Mr. Perley's letter. I have no recollection of ever having seen that letter until I siw it here, when it was exhibited here in the commencement. Q. Do you recollect now having written a lottei- to which this purports to lie ail answer? — A. I have no recollection whatever about it. Q. In regard to the statement that Charles Mc(rreovy wrote this letter for yim. dii you remember having authorized him to write Mr. Perley in j'our name ?— A. No ; 1 iK'vor authorized him or anybody else to write a letter in my name, uidoss I was jii'fsent, and sanctioned it, and read it. Q. And so fai' as j-ou can now recollect, you can I'ocollect no such letter as that ivrorred to in the letter of Mr. Perley, as having been sent bv3'ou? — A. I have no 005 '-« ili'Hi v 11 54 Victoria. Aiipendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 ■i tJ3 recollcftion of over hivviiii; written a letter to Mr. Porloy in my life, and norecolk-c- tioii (if liaviiifj; received an answer. (^. In the chaige pubiislietl in Le Canadien, to wliicli I have yl ready referred, it is stated : " On or about Xovember, 1884, Larkin, Conndily iV (-'o., Hii^ned a cnntrai't witii the Public Worics Department, Canada, for the eonslruclion and eompielion <>\' thetiraving Dock, i'isquimait, British Columbia, .Mf. I{obert 11. McOreevy beini.' with his brother's (the Hon. Thomas McGreevy) knowle were paid to, orfor him, on said contract, amounting in all (exclusive ot R. If. Mc- (rreevy's share of the profits) to 830,000, as per statement of the Accountant of the tirm." Now, I ask you whether or not, about the time the contract for the Esquinialt Dock was awarded, in November, 1884, the sum of 6."), 000 was paid to you in promis- sory notes, as alleged, by JIurphy in his statement? — A. No. Q. At page 2S>4 of the Evidence, ^Ir. Murphy says, referring to this contract and the payment made under it : "Q. When ? — A. Immediately after we signeil the contract I think. There was 85,000 paid, but we did not keep a run. These things it is impossible for me to remember, as it wa.> a verbal agreement, Q. You ^M it was made up to Thomas immediatel}' after the contract, and that you paid him im- mediately after the contract, 85,000. Did you pay it or did the firm? — A. The tirm, I am speaking now on behalf of the tirm." Was any payment of 85,000 made to you either by .Murphy or the tirm at that time? — A. Under an agreement? No. Q. On account of the Esf 1884, at the time the contract wasawanlel any sum of 85,000 other than the sums which maj- have been made in cunnectinii with Le Monde from your brother Kobert, Miirphv or Liirkin, ConnoUv i^ t 'o. ? — A. No. Q. At piige 012, Iiobert McGreevy says: "Q. I think you had bolter give the explanation now? — A. When the 8ti,006 note came due, or near about due. I got 82,000 in cash from ^Ir. ^Iur])b3'. 1 got a note of $2,000 part renewal of four months, and a note of 82,000 of tive months. In November, 1884, about the L'8lli November, on an application for money for the British Columbia Docdt, 1 got Mr. Murphy to give me a six months note tor 8.3,000 on that account and I put with it one of these notes I now speak of and made it 85,000 and gave them to Thnrnas McGreev}-." Is that true or not ? — A. I got no notes. Q. You did not get these notes as mentioned here by Robert 3Ic(irecvy ? — A. No ; no notes. Q. Therefore in so far as the year 1884 is concerned j-ou got no payment>, cxrciit the two pajmionts of 85,000 cash which you have already stated? — A. "Which 1 iiave already stated. Bi/ Mr. Davies : Q. Do you deny that you maj- have received 85,000 from one or other dl these parties about the 20th November. 1884? — A. I did not receive any amount tliat 3'ear. only the 810,000 I have stated. Q. Did you receive any monej' abuiit that date ? — A. I received two rives. making 810,000 that year. Q. I asked you, did you receive one 85.000 in the month of Noveniiier, IS.^'t ? — A. I received 810,000 during that fall, but there was nothing mentioned to nic al'Diu agreement or bargains. Q. As a matter of fact you got money ? — A. 1 got 810,000. Bi/ Mr. Fit spat rick : Q. As you have staled before, you got 810,000 that tail ?- "^UOO -A. Y es. 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 By Mr. Mills (Bothrell) : Q. WuH the 81.5,000 to whifli yoii liave alrt'iulv referreil I eloro or at'tor tliiit '! — A. Before. Bij Mr. Fitzpatrich : Q. In ii letter found on page 18 ("Kxliibit " K2"), 1 notice there is a parui^raph wiiich refers to the Dock at Es(iuiinaH. It says ; ■• I. iiave ha(i a conversation with Siiakespeare on the lengthening of the H. C. Dock. I told him to unite with the ■ ithers and j)Ush it. He is prepared to do so. 1 told him to write and get the length nt .-.teamers chartered by tiie Canadian Pacific J{ailway from the Cunard ('ompany. If e hai* promised to do so. Connolly had hettcr wait until next week to come up. When I come down we will talk the matter over." At jiage 177, Murphy .> iiave granite substi- tuted, and they gave mo an idea of about what it would cost. 1 told Mr. McfJreevy if this substitution could be made, that I would give 25 cents a toot — we had a price made for granite which was in the tender — that the company would give 25 cents fur each foot of granite that would go in the works.'' — A. 1 have no rec(diection of anything of the sort. Robert may have spoken to me about it, but I have no recollec- tion of it. Q. Did Robert speak to you about a bargain under wliich you were to get a -urn of money ? — A. Kevei-. Q. Did he ever speak to you at all about it '! — A. About the Icngthenin.u- of the Dock .■" T think he wrote to me about it. Q. Or of the substitution of granite for sandstone ? — A. I have no recollection 'if anything of that at all. 6. Do vou mean to sav that if an otl'er of that character were made to you you W()uld not recollect it ? — A. What offer is that '■' Q. The offer of 25 cents a foot? — A. Such a thing was never made to me. Q. At page 178 Murphy says that the firm had a claim for exti'as in British (,'olumbia, amounting to about S2;{,000, and that he made an agreement with you that all the firm would get over §50,000 you should have. He say- further " to the I'cst of my opinion we got S71,800. 1 think that was got. luit I am not positive on that point, and this item of §17,000 and §5,000. making §22,000 would account for it." Was there any such bargain as that made to give you anything over 850,000 it the oxti-as were obtained ? — A. No. Q. Was there any such questions as that at ail. discusseil between you and .Murphy? — A. The oidy time Murphy ever discussed the matter of the tiraving Dock at British Columbia with me, was one day when he met me on the street. He told mo the amount of theii' claim against the tinvernment, and that if he could get it settled he would give half of it for jiolitical ])urposes. I said to him that things were not done in that way. That is the only time I ever sj)oke to him nn that matter. <^ Did you ever receive any money from Murphy for ]i(pliti(al purpose.- during this time?— ^A, No. (^ Whom did you apply to when you wanted an}- money and wiiom did ycni get it from ? — A. Robert McGreevy. Q Altogether?— A. Yes." Q. Referring to the removal of Mr. Bennett, will you explain under what circumstances the question of the removal of Mr. Bennett wa- discussed between vuu and your brother? — A. Being a director of the Union Bank, the bank was uniler 90T I I :l iV ) III!! IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I 1.25 •^ ^ Ilia ■r I- III 2.0 1.4 1.6 V] ^3 y] ^ ^F ^>' // '/ /A Hiotograpiiic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREiT WEBSTER, NY. 14580 (716) 872-4503 v .^v •N? :\ \ l\ ^ <■ A \ 1 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 heavy advances to these people and the directors asked me to look into it, and report about the estimates and send them word what the progress e:4timates would bo ouch month. 1 was to send worn to the manager of the bank at Quebec. I waK constantly- watching on that account. One month, I think, the estimutus were behind, and in regai-d to this, I think I did complain to the Minister and Mr. Perlcy about the estimates not being forthcoming. According to agreement each month the amount ofthee.>)timate was to be telegraphed to the bank and the Department would give credit to the banks tor the amounts. This was neglected and that was the reason why I complained. Q. Now, did you at any time have any other purpose or objest in view in so fur as the removal of Bennett was concerned ? — A. I 'lo not know any other reason. Q. Was any offer made to you in connection with that removal of Bennett? — A. No, never. Q. 1 notice in that letter of the 2nd May, 1885 (Kxhibit "(i2"), you ask your brother to try and get 872 for Chalonor. Did he get it? — A. lie would pay amounts for me. (^ Was that amount advanced by him and charged afterwards? — A. It is charged in his account. Even a telegraph is charged in his account. (^ Keferring now to the dredging contract, it is stated here that in February, 1887, a bargain was made under which the contractors were to obtain a contract for ihirty-five cents a yard in consideration of the payment of $25,000 for election Eurposes. Do j-ou know anything about that? — A. No. I will relate to you the istory of that : When the elections were on in 1887, I met Robert McGreevy and asked him " What is the firm going to subscribe for the general fund for the elec- tion?"; and he went and seen them and came back and reported that they were going to subscribe $25,000. But he never mentioned atiything about dredging. That dredging matter had been going on for some time before that and after. Q. What did they actually subscribe, and how much did you get ? — A. Ho i)ro- mi'^fld $25,000; but during the election I only got $15,00(1. In the months of January and February I got $10,000 and $5,000. Q. Did you get any other sum afterward, which was used in connection with the election? — A. I got another $5,000 later on. ii. What was that used foi ? — A. It was to pay some balances and for deposits and different things. i-i. As a matter of fact, you actually received in connection with the election of 1887, $20,000?— A. Yes; $20,000. Q. During all the time that Larkin, Connolly & Co. had contracts from the Harbour Commissioners of Quebec, did you receive different sums from them tor political purposes? — A. Not from Larkin, Connolly & Co. Q. I'rom your brother ? — A. Yes. Q. How much in the aggregate did you receive ? — .V. I think as far as I csiii recollect about $55,000. Q. In what year?— A. In eight years— from ISS.} to 1887 or 1888. Q. Including the $20,000?— A. Yes. Q. And the $15,000 paid in connection with the McCarron judgment?— A. Yes, and the $10,000. The whole thing— about $55,000 in all. /ii/ Mr. Mulock ; Q. Was that $55,000 for pf>litical purposes ? — A. Yes. By Mr. Fitzpafrick: Q. deferring to the letter which was written to Mr. Verret in connection with the deposit of security that Larkin, Connolly & Co. had put up with the contracts for the Cross-wall, that letter was produced here. From the day you wrote that letter to the day it was produced had you seen it ? — A. I never saw it until it was brought up in the Harbour Commission. Q. When? — A. During the winter I seen it then before the Hoard. It was broui^ht ui) before the Boaixl then. ^ • 908 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Yoii never Baw that letter until it was produced bofore the Commisaion ? — A. No, in February or J.iareh. Q. You heanl Mr. Dobell, when examined as a witness liere. ^peaU of sometliing that took place at a meeting of the Board with reference to your brother's inlerest in the contracts of Larkin, Connolly & Co.? — A. Yes. il. Did you speak to your brother about that time with reference to that subject ; and what took place between you? — A. As far as I am concerned, 1 think Mr, Dobell was a little out about the dale. I think it was in 188(i that Mr. J'obell spoke of it. Sometime in the fall of 18H<). In 1887, after the general election took place, there had been some articles in L'Electeur reflectint; on me and my brother, and about bis son beinji Assistant En^^inccr. They referred to his father being a contractor, and reflected upon n;yself as a member of the Harbour Doard. I j^ot into a eonversution about it and spoke to him about it and said " While you have a perfect right to be a partner in the firm, and you might as well tieclare it, your son .should not be there as Engineer. Nobody could find fault with you havmg a right to be there." We discussed that, and he said bis son had as much right to be there as anybody else. (j. Did he admit that lie was a partner? — A. He did not admit it. Q. Did he say anything about the special relations thai existed between hini.»elf and Mr. Murphy? — A. It was ver3' common that he was very intimate with Murphy and that they were speculating together. He admitted to me that they bad lari-e transactions together. H. In connection with the South-wall tenders, it has been slated here bv Mr. Charles McGreev}' that these tenders were brought to your house on the day that they were prt thousand. t^. That money was expended by liobert McGieevy. was it? — A. It was ex- pended by him ; I never knew anything about it until he produced these accounts, Q. Until he jiroduced these accountw and you came to jro through tlicni ? — A. Yes ; belore I sued him. It was in the month of .lanuary. 1K8H, I think. Q, When examined here as a witness, he said he ,i,'ot 842,(»U0 from the iJaie dc> Chaleurs IJailway sulmidies, which stim, he says, he applied for you, or j.'avc to you. Is that true or not ? — A, That was stated in his account at tlio time he saiil lie yot it. (i. And that was the only amount he j^ave you credit for ? — A, Woultl this In- chartjed ? sion to think that any one else was j,'eltinj,' money hut hiniself. We then — Ifohert in company with myself — went down to the hooks and cxamineii them, and found that there was 81(>,0()0 ehar>j;ed to the ('ro>s-wall. It was there we discovered alr«o where the Insjieetors were paid. We then lame Imck to .Mr. McGreevy's house and reported, and he hiniseif tound a i,'real deal of fault with the way thiuf^s weie done — and that is how I came to discover this nnuuy. Mr. Con- nolly made this statement ti> me that ho i^ot u letter from Sir Hector "Mr. ()>ler ohjected. •'Witness continued: — 1 askeaid anythint; of the kind. (}. Did you at any time ever have any knowleilge of any statement heing made hy Murphy in your (uesence. and in the |)re.sence of your hrothei' that Nicholas Con- nolly had said to him that he hail paid money to Sir Ilectoi' Langevin ? — \. No. Q. Vou had n<) recollection of anything of the sort having boon said '! — A. No. lii/ Mr. Curran : years and it was then renewed for 5 3ears. (2- Mr. Chahot in his evidence theother day stated that the profits of the steamer were 810,000 a year, or .M)melhing like that ? — A. It was nothing near that average. Q. About how much would it be? — A. It was nothing like that. It may have been so for the last two or three years, but for several years there were no piollts at all. Theie was a large e.xpendiluie on her when she went into the iluek at llalifa.x; then the next year a new boiler was put in ; then she was re-coppered, and >he went into tiio dock at Quebec. These expenses took away nearly the whole of her earnings. She may have earned, but it was all oxpemled on the boat. (i. First of all there was no insurance, and secondly. I wanted to ask you if that profit that was mentioned by Mr. Chabot in his evidence included in the account you received any profit from general traffic? — A. IJoih together; all combined. 913 1—58 ■^•'If .11 m il 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Was the truflie jiretty considerable? — A. it ainnunteii to as much as the Hubtiidy. The before, and she had not halt' the capacity of the "Admiral Not a great deal. I do not think little "Cl^'de" hud 810,000 » year By Mr. Mulock : Q. How many years had the subsidy been paid over? — A. There was the first five years, and 1 think this is the tliird on the second, q. That would be about $1()0,0(»0— eight years at «12,500?— A. You could not run without it. Jiy Mr. Geoffrion : Q. In connection with that steamer "Admiral," in the month of May, 18S)0, I find at j)age 4567 of Hansard a declaration which was made in your name by Mr. Curran. VVas this declaration authorizeii by 3't you : " Last year when this matter was brought up before the House I was absent, but I left a statement with my hon. friend the member for Montreal Centre (Mr. Curran) to be read by him to the House. That statement was read by him in my absence. I adhere to that statement, and I state to the House to-day that the whole charge is false and untrue from beginning to end. It is a foul conspiracy concocted by a clique to damage me for their own benefit, because I would not be their tool and instrument to obtain for them what they wanted. They used my name on more than one occasion, not only b\' writing letters in my name, but even by forging my name. I am prepared to jirove that there are letters written in the J>epaitnient in my name which I never signed. They made those statements because 1 would not do the work they wanted me to do. 1 am very glad this charge has been made, and I hope a speedy investigation will take ))lace, I am prepared to defend myself, and the result will bo that the whole thing will l.>e proved a conspiracy and lalse from beginning to end. The hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Tarte), who takes up tho case for those two parties whom I might call his associates, because the hon gentleman has associated himself with them, has made statements and taken a j>osi- tion out of which I think he will have some difficulty in getting. I am prepared for a speedy and thorough investigation.'" 915 1— 58i '•I ■■ tilMi 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Do V'U still mlhero to that ? — A. Yok. Q. Did yoii alno then uiulorHtnrxl that Mr. Ciiabot was the owner of tiio (ship? — A. Weil, I have airi-ady explained that purl of it aw fully as I could undoi«lniid it. PeiliapK I did not understand Q. Could you, boiii^ a man of experience antl a man of 2.'i years' standing; in Parliament, have mistaken the nature of the charge and the extent of your deidal, when about the steamer "Admiral" the following item is in Mr. Tarte s [r. Julien Chahot, on the condilitm of his causing the steamei- " Admiral " to ply between Dalhousie and fiasp^, forming a connection with the Intercolonial Jlailway. •' That the r-aid sum of twelve thousand tive hundred dollars (^IS.'jOO) liassineo been ])aid in the manner |)rescrilied in the Order in Council and the contract made thereunder. " That the said .lulien Chabot was merely a screen for the benefit of the said Thomas MctJreevy, who then was and continued to be for a long time tliereuttur, the pro|)riet()r of the ' Admiral ' in whole, or at least in great part. " That previous to the ICth of May, 1888, to wit, since 1883, or 1884, the same subsidy of $12,5(10 was paid for the said steamer ' Admiral,' then also owned \>y men representing the said Thomas McGreevy. •' That the saiil Thomas Mcdreevy received in that connection a sum of about $120,000, while being a member of the Parliament of Caiuidn." You said this was all false. Do you persist in that statement? — A. I have given my explanation about it. Q. No; it is not explanations I want. I want to know if you persist in your denial of these charges? — A. I deny that I was the registered owner of the vessel, and J deny that i was the personal contractor. Q. Is it not a fact that it is charged that during tivo yeais, .Tulien Chabot was the registered owner of the ship ? — A. Yes. I slated I was not the registered owner of the vessel, nor the contractor with the Government. That is what I intended to state and if I stated anything else I stated wrong. Q. You were awaie, were you not, that the subsidy mentioned in the Order in Council, dated 12th May, had been voted to Mr. Julien Chabot ? — A. Yes. Q. You wore a Member of Parliament at the time those subsidies wore voted? — A. I was. Q. And when you saw the vote, were you aware Julien Chabot was represent- ing you ? — A. I was aware he was the registered owner of the boat. Q. But wore you aware that he was representing j'ou, as owner of the ship, when you voted those subsidies ? — A. I was aware, certainly. t^. Is it not a fact that Mr. Julien Chabot yearly accounted to you for tl :)se Bubsidies ? — A. Some years he did. Q. Did he keep any of those subsidies? Did he account to you for each subsidj' he received ? — A. He accounted for the whole amount of the earnings of the boat each year, lie shewed what was earned, and what the balance was each year. Q. Is it not a fact that those subsidies wore included in those earnings? — A. Certainly, yes. Q. And not only did he account but ho paid j'ou whatever might be the amount ? — A. He paid me a certain amount each year. It varied every year. Q. Did he pay you all that was coming to you for each season. A. lie paid mo a certain amount. He did not pay all but kept a certain amount. He always kei)t a certain amount each year. Q. Was he your debtor for the ditt'erenco ? — A. I dant know that, sir, now, because I have sold out my interest. Q. But you have only sold out your intoiest since the 28th February last? — A. Yes. Q. Well those amounts must have been accounted to you before by Mr. Cliabot. How did he account? — A. I cannot say that. 1»16 paid foi behalf oi secretary here as i rcsolutio (^ J her, but solvent c 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Hud you any Htntoments from him? — A. I cannot wiy that. Q. But yuai'H proviou.-* ? Do I luvlerrttand you to m»y Mr. J. Ciiabot wan your debtor for any amount at the expiiy of tho year 1889 ? — A. I cannot nay becauf*i' bo did not Hend mu any stateniont. (J. r want to know whether he remained your debtor — whether he was your debtor at tho end of tho year 1889? — A. I have miid that he wa«; I sold out without gettini; a Ntatoment. Q. That is not an answer. Did Mr. Chabot keep any of tho money representing tlio earnings of the boat ?— A. I think so. Q. Did ho keep it, with your knowledge? — A. Tliat I cannot say. Q. Did he charge anything for his trouble or commission? — A. 1 cannot remember those accounts now. Q. 1 understand very well that Mr. Chabot had to pay for repairs, wages and perhaps salary to himself, but whatever amount would remain after all those charges and expenses wore made would bo paid to whom? — A. He never j)aid sums to me, he paid mo certain sums on account. Q. And you never asked him where tho whole of the money was, did you ? — A. I did not want to have any particulars at all. 'Hi •i! ■ ill By Mr. Fraser : Q. Mr. Chabot sworo that you told him that you wanted the vessel in his name because you wore a member of Parliament and could not have it in your own name. — A. lie was tolling what was wrong. I intended to bring that matter up. Q. Is that true or not? — A. It is not true. Q. You never told him that? — A. 1 did not toll him anything of the sort. Ho must have imagined it. Q. How do you explain a vessel for whicli you paid going in his name ? — A. Becmso it was intended to be a boat for the ctmipany, ami ho was to hold it until the company would provide the moans to pay for it, he was tho manager of the comjiany. (2. Well, when tho company did not do that, howiloyou ex|»lain that when you paid for her she still remained in his name? — .V. She still remainod in his name because we could not get rid of lier, we could not got paiil for her. Q. But after it was known the company would not take her? — \. 1 always ex))ected that tho time would come when they would have tho means. Q. After you found out ultimately, tho comi)any would not take her how do you explain that she still remained in his name? — A. Oh, well, I supposed he was a steamboat man and he could manage her better than I could. Q. You never had such a conversation as ho sworo to, at ail ? — A. 1 don't think such a thing could pass, lio must have imagined that himself. l0 By Mr. Ouimet : (.}. When you went to Nov/ York, with Chabot to buy the boat, you went on behalf of the company? — A. Yes, by resolution of the Roani. ^Ir. (iabnuiy. tho sccretarj' of the company, will tell you about that. I understand lliat ho is to be here as a witness. Q. Mr. Chabot was authoriy.ed to buy tho boat for tho company? — A. Yes, by resolution of tho Board. (^ And the company- refused to take her? — A. The company would have taken lior, but they had not got tho money to pay for her. Tho company was not in a solvent condition, and therefore they could not furnish tho means to pay lor the boat. By Mr. Fraser : Q. Was the company an incorporated comj)any? — A. Yes. 917 ;.,i i 'tip ■i! •Mil, 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Bij Mr. Of.offrion : Q. Tlioy iliil not take the Hliip tinywny ? — A. Tlioy ilid not, booniisti thoy hiid not the moncv. Q. Thiit wuH in 1884 ?— A. Yes. By Mr. Ouimet : Q. Did 3'ou ever account to *he t'omp»ny for tlio eurnin;;;8 of the bout ? — A. No. B)j Mr. Geoff'rion : Q. You nppropi-iatud tho eurningB yours»olf? — A. I paid the money. By Mr. Wood {BrockvUle) : Q. Aside from tho question an to who owned the hoat in law, did you think tho ownership was really in tiie company or in Chabot ? — A. There was no question about that. (;. What was in your mind at the time tluit Mr. Chabot was tho «)wner of the boat? — A. Virtually. He could have got the boat if he had wanted it. By Mr. Ciirnin : Q. Did 3'ou sa}' that this resolution havini; been pasiKod by the St. Lawrenv o Steam Navigation Co. it was through that com|)any thait the steamer was put in tho name of Chal>ot? — A. Kxactly. He was the inaiuiger of the company. By Mr. Bacies : Q. You jiaid tlie first 82,0((0 for tlie boat ?— A. Yes. Q. And when tho company did not pay the balance you paid it? — A. I had to pay it or lose the boat. Q. Y^ou put her i Ciuibot's name. What object hail you in putting her in his name ? — A. lie was .le manager of tho company. Q. And you let the boat remain in his name? — A. He made the contract with the Government in his own name. Q. I understand tha». but before he made the contract with the Government the lioat was in his name ? — A. Oh, yes. Q. And at the time the boat was in his name you had paid the money on her? — A. I had. Q. Chabot had paiil no money ? — A. He paid none at all. Q. After the money was paid tho boat being in his name, he entered into a con- tract with tho Government? — A. Yes. Q. From that time tho subsidies were jiaiil to Chabot anofore con.Mincing, that I never went into the average, never made it up, therefore I could not » Utto positively. Q. You must have an idea it' the amount ot money you received? — A. Yes; but 1 never made it up. J mtoived money evoiy year, but never matle up the total. Q. Mr. Chabol stateat ? — A. I <'ould not got marine insurance. il. You coulil not gel the boat insured at all? — A. I coul Ml 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 ii Q. Did vou state that the reason why you did not take it was because you were a member of Parliament? — I knew I could not hold the vessel as a member of Par- liament. There is no getting over that. Q. Was that the reason wh}' you would not take the ship in your own name ? — A. The ship was never bought for me in the first instance. That, is the reason I would not take it in my own name. Circumstances foi-ced me to take the boat. By Mr. Davies: Q. I understand you admit the circumstance? — A. I admitted it from the beginning. By Mr. Geoffrion : Q. About the Baie des Chaleurs Railway, you stated yesterday that 3'ou had a thousand shares of 850 each ? — A. I could not exactly remember how many. I have had nothing to do with it since I resigned from the company four, five or six ye&va ago. If you have the list there I could tell you. Q. When did you resign, do you say? — A. Four, five or six years ago. Q. Try to state when it was? — A. I am not going to state, because I cannot tell positively. It must bo five years ago. Q. You first of all resigned as a director? — A. I first resigned as president, and then as director afterwards, I was piovisional president. Q. Subsequently you transferred all your shares? — A. Yes; to Robert McGreevy. All the shares I had. Q. When was that? — A. When I resigned. I cannot state the month. (i. Nor the year? — A. Nor the year. After I resigned I transferred aM my shares to him. Q. WouUl.it be in 1886?— A Perhaps it was. Q. Would it be in 1887? — A. 1 could not tell you. I would have to get the books. I am sure it was five or six years ago, but I do not want to say positively. I am not sure because it has never entered my mind since. Q. You say you paid for the shares by cheque ? — A. I gave a cheque for what- ever the stock was. Q. When did j-ou give the cheque? — A. Some time before I resigned. Q. When the call was made? — A. When it was made by the directors. Q. When was the call made? — A. At the time they were going to organize and elect permanent directors. Q. Would that be in 1885?— A. Perhaps so. Or sooner than that? — A. It may be. Was not some work done before 1885 ? — A. That was under the provisional Q. Q. board. Q. Q. Couid you give the date when the directors were elected ? — A. No ; I cannot. On what bank did you give the cheque? — A. I think it was the Union Bank. For what amount was it? — A. It was 10 per cent, of what I subscribeil, whatever that might be. (I. Was the cheque honored ? — A. The cheque was never honored that I remem- ber. Q. You do not remember? — A. All the directors and shareholders gave their cheques at one time to Mr. Riopel, who was the custodian at the time or to Mr. L. A. Robitaille. Each of them gave their cheque to those gentlemen. I understood, however, that they were not to be used at the time, but helil there as a jiayment towarils the first call ? Q. And you gave the cheques to the secretary of the company? — A. I think so. Q. On the understantling that they would not be presented for payment ? — A. I think that was the understanding. Q. Was it not rather a promissory note that you gave? — A. I do not think it was a promissorj" note. I think it was a cheque. 922 Not 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Will you look at pa^e .^81 and read Exhibit "J12" which is a notarial protest served in your name by Mr. Austin, notary, and sa}' whether it is not stated there on your behalf that these payments on calls were made by notes? — A. I do not know whether they were notes or not, but I think it was cheques. Q. From this protest I read, " and wliereas no part of the stock subscribed foi- as aforesaid, has been paid bj' the parties subscribing for or holding the same, but on the contrary the call thereon, of 10 per cent, is represented by the promissory notes of the parties holding the said shares." — A. 1 think that is a mistake. I think it was cheques. Q. This protest is in your name ? — A. Yes. It may be so, but the notary may have made a mistake. I think the cheques ghould be brought here. My impression is that it was che(|Utis. Q. But the protest says they were notes? — A. Whether it saj-s that or not, I think it was cheques. Q. Well, whether they were cheques or notes, it was understood that the cheques would not be presented for paj'ment? — A. I think that was the under- standing. Q. And if they were promissory notes, they wore not to be collecteed of. Q. I want to know whether you received any of the money ? — A. I received one cheque to reimburse me for the mone}' I advanced for the local elections in 188me to. 1 re- fused to doso, andtokl him at last to let Kobitaille make a proposition himself ; that I was not going to make brains tor him forever, and let him take advantage of it. They propose (not Caron. Sir Hector) to give me control of roail to St. Ami's, with subsidy of $0,000 per mile, if I would withdraw my opposition to H. de C. Railway and relieve you and me of our stock. They are in a complete tix. The Armstrongs can't get anybody to touch them. Isbester sent word by ^lilchell that as long as tiio Armstrongs had anything to do with it. they wouhl not." Will you give an expla nation of this letter ? — A. I wanted to get rid of the responsibility of the stock. That is what I wanted. 925 m . > \-\. 'ii- i$i n 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Why was the proposition mailc to you to get control of nnother railway ? — A. I did not want it. 1 would not take it, Thoy wai^tod to make terms, liut I InsiHtcd on gettinjr out of it. Q. That \» ail you wanted. That is what you said : " All I want is to got rid of my shares." That is what you wanted ? — A. 1 would not take it. Q. You stated repeatedly that you became aware of j'our brother's interest in the firm of Larkin, Connolly & Co., only in 1889? — A That is it. I think it was in the end of 1888 or the commencement of 1889. Q. You had no knowledge of the interest he was taking in the execution of these contracts ? — A. 1 had no knowledge that he was interested as a partner — that he was a partner. Q. Let us explain. You did not know he was a partner ? — A. I did not. Q. Were you aware that ho had an interest in the result from the execuiion of these contracts? — A. I put him down more as a contractor's broker. He waspodling everything. Where anything was going on he was always around. Q. You appear to have had many conversations and much correspondence with that pedler ? — A. Yes, a great deal. A great deal too much. Q. Were you not pedling as much as he in these contracts? — A. No, I was not. Q. Your brother, j'ou said, haaid while 1 was absent. Q. How dicussion at all. I think tiiore was no discussion over it — at least. I have no recollection of there beinj^ any discussion, I would not have known it if 3Lr. Dobell haho tiiuy thought I would lut thuin know tho ruHuit uh hooii as I could tind it out. Q. Thun also, it' Murphy or Lai'kiii wuro not intorested in HoaueagoV tendoi*, why did 3'ou write in tho nanw lottor at* t'ollowH : — " Inqiiiru how O'Brien in doiiij^, or what irt IiIh intention about work on oxaininini^ wareiiouso. I think it' he watt proniiHed t(» be reiinburHed, he might give it up, and if Chnrh'boiN got. out of the way, it might i-eauli Beaucage'H tender, but you niiiHt not do it. It ixiunt In) done liy womeone else. Murphy might approach O'Brien aliout tiie matter, but ho would have to promise to get Charleboin away " '/ — A. 1 do not remeiiiber anything about timt It miiHt have been Home le'ter he wrote me to draw forth that anHWer. Q. Why would Murphy a|)proach O'Brien about the matter if he hiul no interest in the tender? — A. I think it was Honifthing connecled with the e.\anuning ware- house that they wrote me alxmt. I do not remember at all. Q. Now on tho ITtli of May you wrote your brother as follows: — "as I told you yesterday to try aiul get a good plan and asquicU as possible in answe'r to the letter that (Jullagher aid lioaucage will receive ai)oiil their tenders, to bring them over L. iS; C, so as their louder will be the lowest. The contract will be awarded from Ottawa direct." Now if Jieaiicago's tender was your brother's solely, what interest had he in so arranging matters that Larkiii, (Connolly & ('o. should gel the contract? — A. That is best known to himsfclf. Q. I would like to know from you':* — A. That is best known to himself. Q. Vou have ma Larkin. Connolly \ Co.'? — A. What I wrote was in answer lo his letter. Q. That is the only explanation you can irive '/ — A. That is about it. He wa-" always writing me. lie would mention 50 people's name in a week. Q. I am asking you about what you wrote, not what lie wrote'? — A. It was in answer to his letter, llati 1 his letters in my jjossession I aouKI explain bettor what he wanted, but the letters have been removed. By the Chairmnn : Q. Where are those letters'? — A. Some of them havo been produced here. W^e have just had ^Ir. Armstrong's letter produced here but nearly all my letters were taken out of my drawer. By Mr. Curran : Q. You havo not got the letters ? — A. No, they were taken out of my drawers ' in my house. Some of them havo been produced here. lie stole thoni out of my place; that is the shortest name I can call it. By Mr. Mulock : Q. Did you not destroy some '? — A. I Used to destroy my private letters ovoiy year. I looked for some of that year, but could not tind one of them. Q. I think it was your custom to destroy all your letters every year? — A. Yos, every year, but these wore some that I received that year and they were all gone when I came to look for them. Q. According to that you were taking care of these letters? — A. I said that all private letters from public men I destroyed every year. By Mr. Geoff'rion : Q. At page 20, you wrote to your brother on tho 17th of March, 1886 (Exhibit "12 ") as follows : " Larkin ami Alurphy are here, Larkin has learned a good deal 932 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1391 of what has hcen dono. The OMtitnatc for Fi'hnuiry i^< throiiffli anout tiiat. Q. Did ho write to you in tho interest of tiic hank ? — A. He must have written to me somctidnfi aiiout it. I was looking; after the inlervists of the I'nion Haidj, a.s the lirni was indebted to it for between 8"0,0((0 to 880.0(10; It was then tiial I went to see Mr. Boyd to see what money was cominu; to them, to ascertain what the bank miglit expect. (^. This e.xpiatuition would liave been all rij^lit if you had written to the liank, liut what interest liad your brotiior to know it? — .\. As 1 said he liad liis paddle in ovorythiny;. Q. You say tiiat Larkin, (-onnolly iS: Co. were largely indebted to tho Union Bank ? — A. Tiiey were, yes. Under large advances. Q. How much did thoy owe to the bank in 18H(V(* — A. I cannot say what was owing at that time. Q. Was it a large amount in 188ti? — A. 1 do not know exactly about any par- ticular time, but at one time it was 880.000. Q. Is it not a fact that they were indebted to tho bank in 1884-5 ? — A. Later on. (^. And in 18Sfi. their obligations to the bank were very small? — \. It maybe; the cashier could tell you that better than I. (}. Is it not the case that in 188tl, they were owing nothing to the bank ? — A. Tho boaitl asked mo to look after the estimates — to see after the money to pay tho estimates. Q. You Sivy, " tJioy otight to be flush out there now." ^Vas the account for the J^ritish Columbia iUick kept in Quebec? — A. Tho bank was advancing all the same. Q. You s!iy thiU Fradet iV Miller, who were the lowest tentlerers in 1882. had no means to carry on tlie contract ? — A. No, they had no means. Q. llatl you not, yourself, recommended Fradet as a ]»ublic contractor pre- viously? — A. In such a large work as that. I Iiller would not have boon able to huvo carried it on. Q. You think so? — A. I think so. (^. You have also saiti that the reason why tho first tenders were cancelled and the second set offenders called for, was that there was a chai.ge in the depth of the dredging? — A. I think so, on the recommendation of the Harbour Master through the intervention of the Board of Trade. Q. Tho dopt'. was to be 2(! feet?— A. Yes. Q. Is it nc. a fact that that depth has not been dredged?— A. I do not kni>w. Q. Is it not a fact that it has only beea dredged to the original de])th of 2-tfeet ? A. I do not know ; I think it is more than that. Q. You are a Harbour Commissioner and you do not know ? — A. I do not know exactly. I think wo tried to get as deep as we could. I thiidc it is 25 or 20 feet. Q. I see that a letter has been filed from Sir Hector Langovin making inquiries about the contract not having been given to the lowest tenderer? — A. Yes: that letter was filed yesterday. 933 ! > '• i m !■ 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 li I Q. Are you aware that in the Cross-wall tenders the contract was not even granted to the lowest tenderer? — A. I think not; no, it was not. Q. Were the Commissioners called upon to give explanations, and did they give any to the Minister in reference to the contract ? — A. I think the "ontractwas g" -n direct from Ottawa. Q. So there was no explanation to be given ? — A. Xo, everything was sent up here. Q. When this letter was shown to you, you said you thouht you had seen it bel'ore, but by the Minutes of the Harbour Board, it appears that you were not present when the letter was read? — A. It may have been referred to in the Minutes when they were read at the next meeting, and then I called for it. It was likely that. Q. One of those explanations given in that letter is that Beaucage was allowed to withdraw. Do you remember wh^' Beaucage was allowed to withdraw? — A. Because he could not turnish security. We was called on to furnish 810,000 •security and he could not to do it. You are now speaking of Fradet ? Q. No; I am speaking of Beaucage? — A. I do not know anything about that. The reasons were sent here in that letter? Q. There are no reasons at all. The letter says Beaucage was tillowed to with- draw, and Fra'^et & Jliller could not give \he guarantee? — A. Vou are now at the tirst dredging contract of 18S2? I thought you were referring to the Cross-wall contract. He was allowed to withdraw because he could not give the security. He was required to put up $10,000 within a certain number of days, but could not do it. No security had been called for in the tenders but that was a mistake. It was then given to a man of the name of Askwith, of Ottawa. Q. Is it not a fact that the Minutes show that l-'radet & Miller were called ujjon to put up security? — A. Yes. Q. And that they declined ? — A. They would not. Q. And then they withdrew ? — A. Yes. ii. But it does not appear at all that Beaucage was called upon to put up any security. It appears pure and simple that he was allowed to withdraw? — A. I do not know anything about Beaucage. He must have withdrawn himself. Q. Why was he allowed to withdraw and take back his cheques? — A. The reasons must be in the books. Q. You saj- that you saw Mr. Boyd on the square, here, and that he gave you certain information about this? — A. Yes. Q. Had he any written notes on hitn, or did he speak from memory? — A. I think he had a slip of paper in his hand showing where the mistakes had been made by the ditt'er-ent tender's, and he said his duties were then performed and he had handed his calculation over to ^Ir. I'erley. Q. Here is a piece of paper where the exact quantities are written in your hand- writing? — A. Let me see rt. I examined it yesterday. Q. Did you take these rrotes at the time of this interview with Boyd? — A. I think he showed me the slip of paper-, 1 urn not (juite sure ; but I think be did. It showed what the result was as he had finished his calculation. He came over to see me, or he told me he was cornirrg. Q. While we are at the Cross- wall tender-, you say that ^Ir. Samsorr advanced the money to Beau^-ige? — A. That is what I understood afterwar-d. Q. From whom? — A. From some persorr. I think Samson told me himself. I liad no conver-sation with Beaucage since about the matter. I have never seen him on the subject since. Q. Is it not a fact that the money was procured trom Samson by you ? — A. Xo. Q, To be handed to Beaucage? — A. Xo. Q. Are you not in the habit of trarrsaciing money matters with Beaucage ? — A. No; not in tliat resjiect. No, I did not got the money from him. I am "ure of that. Q. Y'ou received §15,000 durirrg the electiorr of 1887 934 A. Yes. Ib I 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q, From whom? — A. From Eobert McGroevy. Q. And 85,000 after the election ? — A. Some time after. Q. From whom? — A. Robert ^[eGieevy. Q. In connection with the British Columbia Dock yon statoil yesterday you received no payment on an agreement. Did you receive any payment without any agreement in connection with that contract?— A. I have no'rocollection. As to the agreement I may say distinctly I never had. I never heard anything of it. Q. Did you receive any donations from that contract? — A. I do not know any- tiiing about any coming from that particular contract. Q. You were examined in a certain case with j-our brotiier. You said j-ou received between 850,000 and $oO,000 from Larlun, Connollv & Co. Ihrouirh Robert? — A. le.s, Q. Between what years would you receive that amount? — A. Between 1S84 and 1887. 1 think it was from 188-t to the end of 18S7. Q. Would it not rather be 1883; because you only discovered §15,000 in 1884? —A. f considered that 1884. (^. Will von give us liov much you received in 1834? You have already stated to us 825.000'!— A. Yes, $2' .000. q. And in 1885?— A. SiO.OOO. 1885 and 188G, SIO.OOO. Q. In 1887?— A. S20,<»00. (^ That makes only —A. About $55,000. Q. Where they received in different amounts or lump amounts? — A. I do not know, except I got one 810,000 in the month of January or February 1887 iluring the election. There was one §10,000. I do not know wlicthor [ got that in one sum or not in the fall of 1884; but I think I got it in two fives, and then the other §15,000 I have accounted for. They were ail fives except that. By Mr. Tarte: Q. At page I'J of the Evidence I find a letter signed by you (Kxhibil "JI2") dated at Ottawa, 4tli May, to this eft'ect : " Dk.vh Robeht, — Ah I telegraphed 3'ou this morning, no estimate has been telegrai>hcd. Everything and every order has been sent out to them that was possi- ble to make thim understand. But still there was a despatch from them to-day which cost %\b, which they had in writing for over a month out there." Who showed •,'ou at the time that long telegram which cost §15 ? — \. I think I went over to the Department and found out about the estimates from British Columbia. Q. Will you kindly tell me who showed you that telegram? — A. I think I may have gone to the Secretary about the money coming along, as I was acting tor the bani< on that occasion — looking after the estimates. Q. Then 3'ou wrote that very letter to Mr. Robert Mcdreevy ? — A. I niaj' have written through him. The bank may iiave got the information. I was asking for this information for the bank and for nobody ei.se. Q. On page 18 of the Evidence I find this letter (Kxhibit " (J 2.") : '■ Ottaw.v, 2nd May, 18>!5, "My Dear Robert, — As 1 telegraphed you this raorning about estimate for Graving Dock at British Columbia, I'erley has telegraphcil Trutcli to send amount of estimate to-day without fail and to make no deduction on account of material this month, so the whole will be allowed in the estimate this time, and oidy 12A on future estimates and all new material, the value to be allowed less 10 per cent,, so the matter is now settled." — A. That was about the progress estimates, Q, Did you write this letter in the interest of the bank to your brother? — A. I did not write it in the interest of the ban!: to him. I wrote to him because he made enquiries, I suppose. Q. Did you write this letter in the interest of the bank ? — A. 1 was acting in the interest of the bank for the estimates. 935 1 ;i 'iH' i,.i . .ill! 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. That is, I believe, no answer If I can make it understood, I want to know i wlien you wrote this letter you were acting in the interest of the bank ? — A. Robert Mc(ireevy was always writing to me. Q. That is a plain question. Did you write this letter in the interest of the bank to Jloliert McGreevv? — A. I wrote it in answer to enquiries fioni him. Q. Did you write this letter in the interest of the bank? — A. I told you T answered because lie wrote me about it, but I was acting in the estimates in the in- terest of the bank. That is the truth of it. ii. At i)age 20, on the 17th of March, 188(5, I find this letter (Exhibit "12'".) " My Dear Robert, — Larkin and Murphy ai-e here. Larkin has learned a good deal of what has been done. The estimate lor February is through and amounts to over twenty-tive thousand dollars (825,000), that makes nearly seventj'-tive thousand dollars gone out within a month. They ought to be flush out there now." Did j'ou write this letter in the interest of the bank? — A. He was writing, and I answered liis letters when he wrote. Q. I would like to know if 3'ou are in a position to swear that you wrote this letter in the interest of the bank? — A. Whenever I went about the estimates it was for the bank and nobody else. Q. Is it in the interest of the bank that you wrote this : "Larkin has learned a good deal of what has been done here"? — A. That is, talk about the lobbies. They used to come to me and speak to me. Q. AVhat did Larkin learn at the time? — A. I do not know. Q. I rind a letter written by you, from the Department of Public Works on the 1st of March, 1880? — A. I never wrote a letter from the Department of Public AVorks in my life. It was in the little ofKce I used to occupy in the I'arliament Buildings. Q. You saj' this in your letter (Exhibit '• ,12 " ) at])age 20 : "I have had a long interview with Perley on Harbour Works and Graving Dock at British Columbia. Fleming was to have signed his Report to-day on Harboui- Works. It will bo shown to me as soon assigned. I will see it to-morrow and Sir Hector and myself will decide what is to be done for future." AV^as it in the interest of the bank you write this letter? — A. Not at all. I wrote it for the information he asked me for; that was not for the bank, that has nothing to do with estimates. Q. About estimates? — A. It v as about the general plans of the Harbour Works that was referred to Mr. Fleming and the two Commissioners. Q. Do you know that a Report was made at the time by Messrs. Fleming and Perley? — A. It was about that time. Q. On what works? — A. On Harbour Woiks of Quebec. Q. On the South-wall I think? — A. On the general plans for the whole cons- truction. Q. Was it not specially the South-wall ? — A. 1 don't know exactly, but diey were sent to report upon the whole construction and the whole plans to be adopted. q. I see .It the end of the letter marked Exhibit " J2," page 2!>, a statement: "I think the Graving Dock at British Cohnnbia will be lengthened, they are now making estimates of it. I think he is going to put another SloO, 000 in estimates for it." AVliat ground had you for making such a statement to your brother? — A. From letters that he wiote to me enquiring about it; (jf course 1 gave him the information I had. Q. From whom did you learn that $150,000 were going to be put in the esti- mate tor B. C. ? — A. Well I dont know because there was nothing done. I must have learned it b3- surmise or something; 1 cainiot answer that quesjion, because 1 don't remember. Q. Again, sir, I rind a letter on page 21, marked Exhibit " K2 " dated March 1 Ithr 1886. in which you say : — " My Dear Robert — I enclose yoa. the amount of estimates for December an.d .January. The .Tanuary one includes the new system of measure- ment." From whom did you get those two estimates of December and .January? — A. I used usually to go to the Accountant of the Public Works Dei)artment to get 936 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 the information, because I had to telograpli to the Bank. I used to go and lind out from the Secretary and the Accountant what the amount was. Q. 1 would like to know from whom you gotthoso two estimates? — A. I must have got it from the Accountant and Secietaiy of the Pui)lic Works Deiiaitment. I used to go there often to find out what the amount of estimates was that I might telegiapii to the Bank. Q. "The Januaiy one includes the new system of measurement." Wiiat was that new sj-stem of measurement? — A. I don't reniemlter now; I gave them the information as I got it at the time. Q. You don't remember what it was? — A. Xo, I gave it as I got it at the time. Q. In tiie same letter you say: " The advance of S'iO.OOO on drawback has been passed and will be sent at once to ]i. C." From whom did you get that iniornia tion ? — A. I must liave got it from the Secretary of the Department. Q. Who was then Secretary ? — A. I don't remembei- wiio was Secretary at these ditfei'ent times; there was ditferent Secretaries. 1 went to get the information to send it to tlic Bank. Q. Was it in the interest of tlio Bank? — A. If I went there to get the estimates it must be, but Roboi't JIcGrcevj' was writing enquiries ever}' day about everybody's business. Q. Again, sir, in a letter dated 13th May, 188G (Hxhibit " O'JJ. ") addressed to your brother from Ottawa, you say: "Estimates for April, ]}. C was passed on Monday last. The amount was 8;^<),(IU(I." From whom did you get this information ? — A. I went to the Department and got it. Q. From whom did you get that information? — A. Hither from Mr. Dionne, the Accountant, or from the Secretary. (^ And did j'ou send it to Mr. Robert ^rctrreevy again in the interest of the Bank? — A. 1 alwa3's sent to the Bunk first, and he was always anxious to know; he always wanted to inform those about. I have no doubt he wanted the informa- tion for them. Q. And who were "those about" who wanted to be informed? — A. I don't k-now. Q. You have no idea who they are? — A. No. Q. You told us tliat you (miy knew in IS.-rl), that your brother was interested with Lurkin, Connolly & Co. ? — A. Yes, I said so. Q. I tind a letter at page27, undei date of the 18th Juno. 1885 (Kxhibit '•f^li") written from the House of Commons. Are you ipiite sure that at that time you had no knowledge that your brother was interested with Larkin, Connolly iV Co. — in 1885 ? — A. 1 stated so distinctly-, and I state so again. ti. To refresh your memorj', I find a letter written by you from the House of Commons, dated IBth June, 1885, which roads as follows: — "Your letter and tele- gram received. Valin has telegraphed to Verret to give Jieaucjige the Jacks. The amount on hand in the books here to credit of Commission on 15ili ,Iune that includes 850,000 asked ti)r and has been sent tVom here on the lOth instant, in all S220,00(t. It now remains at 8170,000 after paying the §50,000, the estimate for SL'.'i.tlOO, comes out of the fifty sent down, so after" that estimate jiaid there remains about §200,000 for the season for Ifarbour works alone. There is about gUtO.OOO for dock yet, so according to your estimate and mine here the other day, only Sp.io.doo will be required for the summer and the 81:3,000 included in that." It' you had no know- ledge at all that Mr. Robert McUreevy had any interest in the works, why should you have made calculations for him for the works'/ — A. I suppo-e he came to me and asked mo and I gave him the information he asked for, as far as 1 could do it. He wrote to me as he was wiiting to me about everyi>ody. Q. You have no other explanation '.■' — A. No otiiev explanation. Q. Y'oii told us that you had met Mr. Boyd in the square heie'.'— A. Yes; he was coming to see me at tlio time I inet him. '.•37 'l'^ '■ i '91 :1 m m W ' " m itii IF 54 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 Hl> ii it Q. I find a letter written by you on the 8ih May, 1883, and printed on page GO'i as Exhibit ''Q12," which contains the following: — "I seen Boyd ihiw morning; he has not finished Cross-wall yet. 1 will meet him this afternoon about it and know the result." — A. Well, I did not meet him " this afternoon," but if I wrote it I must have done so, Q. You must have done so ? — A. If I seen him. Q. And you wrote that? — A. I don't think I seen him until it was finished. When it was completed he came to see me when the thing was finished ; I wanted to know what the result was. Q. And jou wrote it to your brother? — A. I sent him information. Q. And 3'ou sent it to your brotiier ? — A. Yes, what I had, I think. Q. You wrote this on the 8lh Mav, and the oontract was not awarded until the latter part of May, was it? — A. 1 think the result was known about tiie 17th or 18th, somewhere :d)out then. (■i. No. — A. I d;d not know the final result, but Boj-d gave me a statement when he finished his work. Q. Is it a fact or not that you met your brother at the Windsor Hotel in Montreal? — A. 1 have no recollection of that at all. Q. Can you swear you did not meet him there? — A. 1 would not swear Idid not. Q. Can you swear when you mot him there j'ou had not with j'ou the figures that you got at (ho time from Mr. Bo3'd ? — A. I have no recollection of it. Q. You have no recollectlion? — A. Xo recollection; but I would not swear I did not. Q. Will you kindly tell us when you made the acquaintance of Murphy for the first time? A. 1 don't remember much about it. Q. Well, try to? — A. it must have been some time after I came on the Harbour Commission ; 1 don't think I knew him before that. Q. Is it a fact that he came there in 1880 ?— A. Murphy? Q. Yes. — A. I don't know what time he came there. Q. In 1882 did j-ou know Murphy? — A. I knew him to meet him; he was round the doors of the office. Q. Make any business with him ? — A. No. Q. No services, or work, or ar.ything of the kind? — A. I never recommended men for work there. Q. Not at all? — A. Very seldom. I don't say 1 did not recommend some men, but very few. Q. You say in 18S;{ j-ou did not know Murphy? — A. I did not say I did not know him; I knew very little about him. Q. Not to ask anything from him? — A. I think not. Q Not to have any business intercourse with him? — A. I think not; none of any consetiuoiice. Q. I find this statement in a letter written by you on the Tth May, 1883, and marked as Kxliibit "C2," at page IT: "Em|uire how O'Brien is doing, or what is his intentions about the Examining Warehouse. I think that he was promised to be reimbursed, he might give it up, and if Charlobois got out of the way, it might reach Beaucage's tender, but you must not do it. It must be done bj' someone else. Murphy might approach O'Brien about the matter; but he would have to promise to get Charlebois away"? — A. That is my letter to Robert .McGreevy. Q. But you did not kn(Av Murphy at the time? — A. 1 don't say I had no trans- actions with him. Q. But was that not a rather delicate transaction? You were suggesting there the withdrawal of the lowest tender in a public contract? — A. I don't know any- thing about it. Q. Your letter is proved and you must know something about it? — A. It was in answer to a letter from Robert Mclireevy. Q. You had written asking Robert McGreevy to see that man and make a request to him? — A. That letter does not say that 1 suggested that. 938 not ber in t did Mur 54 Victoria. Appendix {No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. " Murphy might approach O'Brien about the matter, but he would have to promise to get Charlebois away"? — A. This was all political artairs. These jtarties had written to me about these things. They were ]wople all in my ilivisiun, and I was their repi-esentative. If they wanted intormation 1 gave it to them. That is the long and short of it. Q. When you wrote "all the others might be passed over," did you mean what you wrote ? — A. I do not know anything about that. Q. This was on the 7th of May, 1883, about the Cross-wall and the Examining Warehouse? — A. I do not recollect anything about the Examining Watehoiise. Q. You wrote the letter, however? — A. I wrote the letter. Q. At page 17 of the printed Evidence there is your statement, " all the others might be passed over." What did you mean by that? — A. You do not give the other subjects. There weie several others mentioned, the Intercolonial and other matters for himself. Q. Were you in a position to tell him that all the others might be passed over? — A. I do not remember anything about that. It was something about the Exam- ining Warehouse. It must have been in answer to some request to me for informa- tion. Q. When did you learn for the first time that Mr. Murphy was a fugitive from justice? — A. I learned it sometime or other; I do not remember well. Q. Can you recollect when you learned for the first time that Mr. Murjjhy was a fugitive from justice? — A. It wjis talked of in the stieets from the time he came there. I have no knowledge whether it was true or not. Q. From the time he came there? — A. From 1884 or 1885. Q. And you a member of the Harbour Commissioners' and a member of the House of Commons suggested on the 7th of May to your brother that he should associate himself with a fugitive from justice? — A. I think it was after tiiat that 1 heard he was a fugitive from justice. Q. You have just stated that you learned that about the date he came to 'Que- bec ? — A. It was talked of on the streets. Q. When was it talked of? — A. All the time. Q. From what time ? — A. It Avas not known jmsitively 1 think till ISST. Q. From what date was it known to you ? — A. 1 cannot tell you the date. I do not know every man's business. Q. I want to ascertain from you what date you knew it ? — A. I cannot remem- ber it. Q. Did you know it in 1882 ?— A. I did not. Q. Did you know it in 188H ? — A. I do not think so. It may have been known in the streets, but I had no information proper until 1887. Q. But you said it was known on the streets from the time Muipliy arrived in Quebec ? — A. You cannot rel}' on everything wc hear on the streets until we can get some proof. (^. Did you know it in 1887 ? — A. It was published in the newspaper's then. Jii/ Mr. Amijot : Q. What time of the year in 1887 ? — A. I think it was during the elections. By Mr. Fraser : Q. You said you knew it in 1884 ? — A. I said it was talked of in the streets. By Mr. Tarte : Q. When j'ou had known in 1887 that Mr. ^Murphy was a fugitive from justice, did you continue doing business with him ? — A. I never had any transactions with Murphv but once in my life. Q." When was that ?— A. 1 think it was in 1888. Q. Was that the only transaction you ever had with him ? — A. I think so. 939 r. i': r ..^r if iul n„ ikA ;,'! I 'I ■ H i ! li. 1 64 Victoria Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. What was tliut trail action ? — A. lie came to me in the fall of 188B. some time before tiie Eichelieu elect'. mis. I did not know whether ho wanted to iieepthe stociv up or not. He asUed me to take an interest with him in 250sliares of the company, and he said tliat lie could got the money for 4 per cent, or 5 per cent. I had nomonej' to put in at that time. Q. Did you s])eculate with him before 1887 ? — A. Never. This was in the fall of 1888, that ho came to me. lie bought 250 shares, and i gave him my cheque for 84,00(1. Then he wanted §500 more to pay the 10 per cent, on margin. I sold the stock back in tlio following Ma}-, and that is all there is about it. I was a director of the Richelieu and Ontario Navigation Companj* at the time. Q. Ho was a director at the same time? — A. He never was a director. Q. Did he help you to become a director of the JJichelieu & Ontario Navigation Co.? — A. I think one j'oar 1888 or 1889 he got control of the stock and ho had every- body under his control, because he loaned money to ditl'erent parties on the stock at a low rate of interest. He was going to reform the Board and put those there that he wanted to. V. You never had any other dealing with him than that ? — A. What do j'ou mean '! Q. About the Richelieu .stock? — A. No, that i.- the only transaction. (i. You sold him shares? — A. I sold him the interest I had in this 250 shares. Q. What was the amount? — A. I paid 84,500 on margin. They rdvanced a little and I think I sold at a slight increase. It ..as about 85.800. Q. In 1888?— A. Yes, in 1888. Q. Please look at this cheque and say what it is and the year it was given? — A. That was exactlj' the transaction I referred to. Q. Will you road the cheque, (Exhibit "Alfi") ?— A. "Quebec, May 13th, 1880 — Union Hank of Ijower Canada. Vay to Hon. Thomas Mcdreevy or order 85.540. Signed by O. K. Murpln-." That is the proceeds of the sale of the stock which I sold to him in the sjiring after the elections wore over. I wanted to get rid of it. (J. You never got from him a sum of money to be given to othei- people in any Avay whatever? — A. I have no rocollectior whatever of receiving any money from him except from stock transactions. I mink it advanced some tliree or four points and he gave me 85,800 for it. ' Bii Mr. JIcLeod: (^ Is that Murphy's cheque? — A. Yos, for the balance of the stock I sold. By 2fi\ Tarte : Q. You were speculating together? — A. That is the only ti-ansaction that we had together because the elections were coming on. Bij Mr. Cumin : Q. The Richelieu County elections you mean? — A. Yes, the Richelieu elections of ISSt). At this time ho had control and was going to put everybody otl" the Eoaid, Ji>/ Mr. Tarte : Q. You never broke off with him when you learned that he was a fugitive from Justice? — A. I was more careful. Q. Will you read this letter, and say if that is your signature ? — A. I wi-ote that letter. This is my signature. (Exhibit "lUfi.") Private. "Ott.\wa, 31st January, 188!*. " Dear Ma. Mirpuv, — I regret not having seen you before leaving Quebec for to discuss matters connected with the Richelieu meeting, but I intend leaving here for Montreal at 4 o'clock on Saturday afternoon and will be at the Windsor at 7.30 or 8 o'clock Saturday evening. There will be no meeting of the R. & N. Co.'s directors on Saturday morning, but on Monday morning there will be one before the annual 1140 54 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 meeting. I would like very much to meet you either on Saturday nii;ht or Snmhiy to try and arrauge matters before the meeting takew ])lace. "' Yours very trulv, '•Tiio.s.'.Mc(;jM:i:vv." Q. You were trying at the time lo ''arrange matteis " with a man wliom you hay was a t'ugitivu from justice? — A. I was a director of the coni|>aiiy at tlie time. Jle had control of the stock and his object was to ])ut off certain mcntrom the board, l-'or one he wanted to put off Mr. Michael Connoil'- whi» had been a director pre- viously. • I would not couhent to that and I opposed bini all through. He wanted to leave Michael Connolly off, and that Mr. Beaucheinin and Mr. .Stearns should go otf. I said I would not take any part in anythingof that kind. That was his course and 1 tried to persuade him all I could against it. That is the whole secret. Q. Is it a fact or not, that in all these public contracts that we are emiuiring into now you have been in frequent communication with Mr. Murphy? — A. I have not. He might meet me at the JJoanl, outside of the door of the Hoard meeting; but I had no communication with him at all. Q. You do not mind anything at all about him? — A. I hail no secret commu- nication with him at all. Q. You did not mind anything about him? — A. I was very careful — as careful as I could be. Q. I find at page 20, on the 1st of iiarch, lS8i!, speaking about Mr. I'leming's and Perley's JJepori, this from you : " I will see it to-morrow, and Sir Hector and myself will ilecide what is to be done for future, lie will adopt my views. I will see you and Murphy about it before doing anything." That is for the future? — A. I was the representative of Quebec, and 1 think that Q. '• 1 will see you and ilurphy about it before doing anything." — .V. That is a political letter. Q. No allusion to business? — A. No. (^. Still you speak here of the Eeport from Mr. Fleming and Mr. Perley ? — A. Yes ; it was a public thing. Q. A public contract, was it ? — A. Yes, certainly. Q. Was it a public contract? — A. It was a general outline of the whole system. Q. Was it to a public contract that 3'ou alluded when you say : '• I will >ee you and Muiphy about it before doing an^'thing ?" — A. I wrote that to iJobert Mcfueevy. Q. We know that. Wliat I want to know is that you were writing that you would do nothing before seeing Murjthy about a very important contract ? — A. I did not know that there was any contract in it at the time. It was a grand sidieme for the whole Harbour. Q. Is it a fact or not that Mr. Murphy himself and tiallagher got that work ? — A. That is the South-wall ? Q. Yes. It is about the South-wall. Is it a fact that Messrs. (Jallagher and Murphy got that South-wall contract ? — A. It was given to him by the Harbour Commissioners because he was the lowest. It was not Murphy got it. It \va-< (Jai- lagher; bui he associated himself with him. Q. Did not the Board accept iiurith}'? — A. lie gave the security. (I. 1 lieard you stating that in 188t) the Harbour Commissioners would not hear anything about Murphy? — A. Tliat was later on. Let me explain: I thiidc it was in'lSSO that Murphy came in before the Board with a letter one day and said " I have purchased the Connollys out, and I want to be substituteil for them." .My remark was, ihat that could not be done, that the names of Larkin and Connolly must remain in the firm. Q. That wa.s your own remark ? — A. Yes, at the meeting of the Harbour Com- missioners; that the names of Larkin and Connolly could not be removeil from the contract. Q. Is it not a fact that on that very day Larkin was no more a ])artner in the firm ? — A. Listen to me. We diil not know anything about thtit. His name was 911 PTl m ''\y~ ,,:t I ! I' 'J ■ ' I! 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 not flDppeil, Jlis iianio remained in the tirm, ami wo coiiki not change the contract. Q. Is it a fact or not that yon, as a member of the Harbour Commission, con- Keiiteil to have Muipliy and Gallagher's name alone in the South-wall contract? — A. Gallagher was the lowest tenderer, and Murphy associated himself with Gallagher and gave the secui-ity, The Board gave the contract. <^. Did you know Gallagher ? — A. No. Q. Never knew him ? — A. No. I did not see him, Q. Never saw him in Quebec? — A. I do not remondtor ever seeing the man. Q. Did you not sec his name among the tenders?- A. Ilis name was in one of the Cross-wall tenders. Q. Do \-ou know if he is a man of moans ? — A. F do not think he is. Q. Then it was not on account of Mr. Gallagher that you consented to Mr. Murphy's name being in the South-wail contract? — A. It is on account of the security which ho put up. Wo accepted him because he put up the re([uirod security, and Gallagher was the lowest tenderer. Q. I would hko to call you attention to page IS of this JCvidenoe. 1 find in a letter written by ^-ou on the 2nd of May, 1885, these words: — " On 3Fonday morn- ing I will have the Department of Public Works notity the Bank of British North America here the amount of estimate which will be paid them, and get them to telegraph amount to their bank at Quebec. If this arrangement does not suit Mr. Murphy, telegraph m>' what he wants done and I will have it done for him." — A. That is all right. It took such a long time to bring the estimates ovei' the distance from British Columbia. It took nearly a month at the time. Two or three weeks at least, and they asked me to get the Department to have the estimates telegra]died along. Q. Who asked yon ? — A. Robert, or some of the firm of Larkin, Connolly iV Co. would have askeil for that. I went to the Depariment and arranged that the cstinuite was to bo telegraphed each month and the amount was to be put to their credit here. Q. You arranged that ? — A. I certainly did. There is no doubt about that. Q. I find some other things on page 21 in a letter written by you from the House of Commons, 26th February, 188(J (Exhibit '•M2.") I see this; '• I wrote you yesterday j.bout Halifax Graving Dock. Sir Hector will be glad to recommend Murphy." ^Vhat ground had you for saying that ? — A. What date is that ? Q. 26th February, 188(). What ground had you for stating that Sir Hector Langevin was i)iepared to recommend Murphy at the time ? — A. Because Roliert McGreevy wrote me a letter asking me to get the recommendation that the}' were well known contractors for building ilocks, and I sjtoke to Sir Hector. It wt s a political att'air and I did it in my capacity as a Member of Parliament, as I thin! I had a right to. do. I ilid not give up my rights altogether. Q. In a letter written by you on the 8th March, 1888, I read: — " My Dear RoHERT, — Tell Murphy I have seen Perley, and he will report to Arbitrators or to Commission of tiie amount to besubmitted to them, which will bo on their total claim of 881-1,000; at the last meeting they wanted to make it out that the amount to be submitted was the balance of $110,000 for damages." You were .still at the time in frequent A. What date is that? (^ 8th JIarch, 1888. You knew at the time that Murphy was a fugitive from justice ? — A. I have no doubt I knew it at the time ; but I was still the repi-esenta- tive of Quebec. Ho was an important factor in the elections. Q. You have told us that you were acting in the interest of the Bank onl}' in every step ycu took? — A. Generally so. Q. Did you take some interest in Mr. Bennett the Resident Engineer in British Columbia? — A. I did; a particular interest in him. I complained against him. Q. To whom did you complain? — A. To the Minister and Mr. Perlej- both, because he was not sending along the estimates quick enough. He neglected it for a couple of months. 942 him. whet Wn. 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 4f Q. Will you toll me what estimates had been delayed ? — A. It was the estimates from the British Coluinhia (rravin<;; DoeU which were not sent alnnij. and tlie Hank ut the time asked me particidarly alM)iit thai — wh}- tliey did not uei l lie estimates and that ihoy were u long ways iiehind. Q. Was it at the request oftiie Union Bank that yon made a coniphiint against Mr. Bennett? — A. I may have done it tor both. I was wat( him; tin- interest of the Bank for the estimates. Q. You have just slated that you may hiive done it tor lioth. Une wis the Hank: who was the other? — A. Larkin, C/'onnolly iV Co. may have asked nu-. Q. As a matter ott'act, did they ask 3'ou or not? — A. They maj- liavo done so. Who would they write to unless to me as the representative of (^Mieliei'. I was the representative. Q. Did you enquire al>out the eomplaint maile to you hy I/ulanie time, and they said they would see to it. (I. Both of them .said they would see to it ? — A. Yes. Q. Did you approach Air. Williams of Quebee ? — A. His wiiolo statiineni is :i mystery to me. lie is a man I would not recommend for any sucii ])()>ition. Q. What I tind in j'our letter of tiie 2nd of M.-iy, ISS.'i, is this: •• It i> now under- stood that Bennett, the Kngineer at Hriti»h Columbia, will not suit, so the Minister and Perley are j)repared to change him. lie asked if 1 could reconiinend one." Wln> asked you ? — A. I have no recollection of that ])art of it. it must lisive been a>ked. inasmuch as I wrote it. Q. He was one of the two men you had seen ? — A. I di .lot recommend anybody. (^, Stick to that point : " So the Minister and lVrle\' are jirepared to change him. He asked if I could recommend one." Who asked you that ? — A. It must have been both together. 1 think they were both together. 1 have seen i'oth ot' them. (^. " If I could recommend one," and you added this much A. lam nut .-are whether that is strictly correct. Q. You wrote it. and you added : " Could you thiidc of one that wnuid .-iiit. and I woulho would suit was that very man Williams? — A. He would not suit. Q. What were the complaints against Bennett at the time? — A. It was about the estimates 1 complained. I did not complain of anything but the estimates. Q. Is it a fact or not that at that very date Bennett and .Mr. Trut(di weie both of them lesisting Larkin, Connolly & Co. 's pretentions in British Columliia? — A. 1 do not know anything about it. Q. You dont know anything about it? — A. No. Q. Y'ou swear you dont know anything about it? — A. I :l; fl'li' M\ ! u i ■ ,'f i : iMI. 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 i If Q. You liiul (senl tliat tel<'grain? — A. I may liave sent it; 1 am not wuro. They may have been tolegraplied to send the estimates along. Q. Is it not a tact that the telegram to be Ibiind on page 1»j3 was sent and that at the time you lead that telegram? — A. I dont know whether 1 did; perliapsl did. Q. Perhaps you did ? — A. I dont remember. Q. Then if you had read at the time, that very telegram A. I dont know whether 1 did or did not. Q. But you know there wero complaintH about Bennett? — A. I may have been told aiiout it, but I dont know that I seen it at the time. 8ueh a tiling may have been toltl to me. t^. Did you take any other steps to have him removed ? — A. 1 dont think so, I have no remembrance of it. I did not take steps to have him removed. I simply complained. Then his estirmites came regularly after that; there was no complaint after that about the estimates. Q. You told us that Mr. iieaucage used to tender for .Mr. llobert MeCrreevy ? —A. Yes. Q. Did you know that in 1882? — A. Oh he had been doing it for a long time. He was under mo as a sub coitractor on the North Shore Itailway and he supplied me with quarries. I knew the men very well. Q. Did Mr. Beaucage take any proceedings against you in coiinectiokfn tome al)out the U'n.ntii- fiiin^' of the l>ock ; 1 think T said him oi- some mend)er of tiie firm. (J. If it was not he who mij^iii it he I — \. Some of the firm. ii- Whom of the Ki'm I — -A. I do not know which just now. Some of them who spoke about the lenj^thenin;,' of the Dock. (-i. \\'ith whicii niend)ers of the firm iiad you most fre<|uent intercourse ? ~A. I do not know particularly. They would speak to me u|> here and sometimes below. C^. Had you an interview with Mr. Larkin ,' — -A. \ met him a few times ; not often. ii- Where '/-A. 1 may have met him here anuel»ec. Q. About what works did you speak with him ! -\. \ think he was the ctne \ referred to in the letter this mornin;;. He may have sj)oken to me a couple of time.s, but I ha\e no ]>resent recollection uf what lu^ spoke about. id you have many interviews with Michael or Nicholas Connolly ? — A. They may ha\e spoken to me on occasions. ii. About what ,' — A. About various thin-^s. I do not deny they may have spoken to me. (^. What was the pui'port of their con\ei'sation with you ? — X. Sometimes about the works, or their ;;rievances or something;. i}. Their fj;rievances '! -A. Sometimes. Q. 1 believe they asked you to take some steps to help thein '? — A. That is too gen- eral. I think they s[ioke about the lengthening of the (Jraving Dock. <^. .Vll i>i them ? -A. Some of them : T cannot tell you which. It is too long ago. Q. Can yoii reni.^mbei' if they spoke to y(»u alxtut .some of the other works when they we!i^ goin^' u .' — .-V. They may have. ii. Di(' Uuy ask you to help them with the Minister of Public Works to ])resent their cai-.(- (!i tiieir grievances ? — -A. They may have done so. Q. Have you got any recollection of having written letters or spoken to the Min- ister on their behalf or in their interest ? — A. I do not think .so. If I did it nuist have been in convei-.sation. f may have sj)oken to him, but T do not remember writing a letter to him. T did not write t<» him often. Q. You told us yesterday that you had only one interview with Mr. Murphy about the works and that it w;is about .some final estimate? — A. I did not say I hatl only one. I met him often as T stated before. 1 used to meet him near the entrance of the Harbour Commissioners' utiice. He would speak to me about the works very often. Q. About the works? — A. Yes ; he was always arounears to be addresseriiuj;lit liirj,"' c-liiims iij,'aiiist the (iuvei'iimeiit .' A. I think thev Imd. Not the (Jiivernmeiit ; it was a},'jiiiist the Har'lxiur Comiiiissiunei's. Q. And it was iihout tht^se elaim.s that you wrote a letter latei' nn in ISSS, that was alluded tu this niornin>^? A. I may have dune su. {}. Yiiu have just stated that that is une iif the letters which was taken away fmm you ? A. That seems tu he une uf them. <.^. This moriiin<{ you stated the letters were stolen. Do you sweiw ur not that your letters were stolen ? — A. Perhii|)s that was tuu harsh an expre.ssion. They were removed iiut of my drawers; they wei'c taken away. i^. l)id yiiu not swear hefoi'e the Sub-Committee that you did nut tielieve that the letters had been taken away from you for any had iiurjiose ! A. I think nut. (}. What was it you said ? -\. When I ;,'ave my evidenee hefure theSuh-Cummittee T said the letters had been removed from my drviwers ur .sume jilaee. Of euurse, that was in answer tu the urder to jiroduce the letters, f knew they had been remuved, and now we see them jirudut'ed here every day. i}. Can you swear whether tho.se lettei's were taken away frum you kv nut ? A. They must have been taken way, ur el.se why 'luuld they be jiruduced here liy the iither side 1 Q. Is it not 11 fact that on ditl'erent oueasiuns yuu i,'ave tu yuur brutlu'i' letters addressed tu yuu 'I — A. T du not believe so. Q. On different uecasiun.s, havt^ yuu nut furwai'ded lettei's yuu speak iif;is en'l.isures tu yuur bi'uther? — A. I nuiy have shuwn him letter.s, but I lu'ver jjave him the letters tu keep. *i. When you were in ()ttawa, would it not be jiussible that you wuuld .send une «if tho.se lettei-s to your bruthei' tu show what was duinj^ / -A. It is nut my eustom. It is not veiT likely that I would send to him a letter beloti^in;; to anuthei' pai-ty. Q. I s[)eak of a letter belon<;in<,' to you. Was not your' bruther yuur euntidential agent? — A. He was my confidential agent, but nut fur sueh a purpose as that to get confidential letters away. Q. Yuu have admitted this murning to have sent him duwn figur'es given to yuu by Mr. Boyd.' - A. There was nu signature to that. It was only a mere meniurandum. Q. But wuuld it be worse to .send him a letter than a confidential memurandum '/ — A. Send him another man's letter and a memorandum made uut un a slip uf p;iper / Q. Anyhow, you have nu rwullec'tiun ()f sending him any letter of the kind ? -A. I have nu knowledge. I may have shuwn him it, l)ut it is nut a likely thing. Q. Did yuu interview Mr. Perley un these works ?- A. Not very often. Q. How many times?- A. I am not going to answer that ([uestion. I eannot tell. Q. Which year? — A. I cannot tell. T never seen him only during the yeai's that he was down at the Harbour Connnis.sioners on business or during the .session. Q. Did you then see Mr. Gobeil ? — A. Certainly I think I .saw him on one ucca- .sion to speak to him about the.se estimates. Q. You mentioned his name this moi-ning and you have .said you got fi'om him certain information? — A. I did not .say I got information. I went to eiuiuire about the estimates and he would refer to Mr. Dionne. the Accountant. Do you understand now? 947 1—604 4y "Ol I n. 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 n f Q. I do, find T will try and make y<>u understand too. — A. T uiulerstHiid pretty well. Q. You say now that when ^Ir. Octbeil was spoken to ahout the estimates he I'e- ferred you to the Accountant? — A. Sometimes when he did not know himself he would send somebody. ii. What I mean to ask you is this : In your letters of the 2nd May, lMt<"), 4tli :May, lSf<-"), 1st March, 18.S6, 'l7th March, 1S^[»•. (Jobeil ? A. Tiiidu;^h Mr. Uobeil or the Accountant. I could not ;;et it from anybody else. Q. Did you tell him at the time that you wanted that information for the Uiuon liank? — A. He did n(tt mean that. He di(l not ask any iiuestions. There is no .secret about that. Any member could j.ret that information if he was iTHjuested by parties whom he i-ei)resente;inj;e transactions with Murphy. Q. Did the l^nion Hank ever ask you to communicate with them tiirougli Mi'. Pobert McCJreevy's ajfency ? -A. No, no ; I do not tliink s). Q. Mif^ht you not be positive about tiiat? — A. 1 do not think so. Q. As a matter of fact, are you not sure that the Union iJank never cliar;;ed you or autiiorizereevy in the interest of tiie bank ? A. I did nut say that T coiiimunicated to hiin in the interest of the bank ; but I .said that I went to look after the estimates in the interest of tlu! bank. He wanted to know what was coming and I wrote liim back. Q. Why did Mr. Robert McCireevy, if there was no interest, want to know? — A. He was a kind of brisker. (). With whom? -A. S(jme of these contractors — working in their interest in some way or oth''r, because he was constantly writing to me about them. 948 the 17 was it wi r-'sul tt'iid hanr I i im it et i-a 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 ii. Ami vdu were (•onstjintly niisweriiij; him abitut tlieiii ? — A. Wlieiiever lie wrute me I {{eneriiUy answered him. (j. Then you suspected he was a kind of liruker for these men ? — A. Yes. Q. And ymi still suspeet it ?--A. T would infer it. ii. Suspectinf,' that he wasa hrokei'foi- them you were sendinj^ him information ?— A. There was no harm in .sen; him that. The men had a ri<{ht to know tliat, the mo- ment that the estimates were j)assed. ii. Was there any harm in .sending' to tiiese eontivietors throuj^h tiieir l)roker llol)ert Mcdreevy the information that you sent iiim al)out theCross-Wall / In your estimation was it wr(»n^ to .send him the tij^ures before the contract was awai'ded ? A.Tlie contract was known. Kveryliody knew it. The principal tijfures wei-e known. ii. On the ilth of May and Sth of May and lOth of May they were known? A. After tile tenders wei-e opened in Queliec it was pivtty well known who was the lowest tenderer. ii. Do you swear you knew it yourself ? -.v. T do not swear ; liut I suspected it. IJy the lar;fer items we could tell who ^\as the lowest. ii. Who was the lowest ? -A. (Jallafiher. ii. Who was the hi;;hest ? -A. Samson. ii. Who was the second hij^hest / -A. That T do not know. Q. You did not know? A. 1 did not know at the time, hut we knew the two ex- treme tifjure.s. ii. After the tendei's wei-e opened did you know? — A. After the tenders were opened, the four or Hve larjje items would tell hy comparing; them who was the lowest. \'ou could tell hy Hve or six items. Q. You .say Mr. (ialla<;hei' was the lowest ?— A. It was well understood that .Mr. (lalla<;her was the lowest. ii. Who came aftei' him? — A. T cannot tell. C^. You coulfl then only tell two tliin;,'s : That is, who was the lowest and the hifjhest ?- -A. The lowest or the e.xtreme lii^h one, that could he told. Q. But you could not know at the time the medium ones? — A. Not the medium prices. ii. And it is the reason why you were looking' for information here ?- .\. T wjuited I) let them know when thethinj^ was decided. They wanted me to j,'et the first di'cision. ii. Well, sir, you did not tell that at the time. What you said is to he found at jia^e 1" : " Have your arvan<;ements riylit with Ueaucaije hefore result is known." The result was not known then ? -A. Well, 1 don't know, they knew it then pretty well. ii. Do you swear that at that time they knew tiie result ? A. I don't swear that it wa:. known. ii. Then, how is it that you wrote to your l);-'>tlie>' that you would let him know tiie r<'sult, hefore the result Wi;s known ](ul)licly? — ..\. T<. let him know the result of the rt'nders when they were completed. ii They were not then completed ? -A. 'J'lit-y were completed when Mr. Koyd handed tliem over to Mr. Perley. ii. On the 7th May ?- A. Not at that tiii.e ; it was not known then. Q. Then on the Htli ^lay you wrote to him that you were just j.;oini{ to see Moyd? — A. Tt was known on the Ifith. ii. Then you .sent them the result prixately iiefore the ri'sult was known publicly ; — A. No ; T did not. ii. Y'ou did. T am \ery soi-ry to insist, lint you said that this morninf,'? A. When it was known, aiiout the Kith or ITtli Alay, .somewhere aliout tliat date, I itavethem what r ;^ot from IJoyd. ii. But you pi'omised to send the result before the result was known publicly ? A- T don't know whether it was published or not. It was known when the tigures were ■out ; he did not ksKJW it thiou^h me. Q. You wrote those letters f — A. I wrote t'lose letters. l>49 ' 11 i< % > i irt M 1 ■■ »■ E i 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. When you nuicle youi- statement in the House during the present sessif»n, you said that some person had forged letters. You said: " Tliey used my name oil more than one occasion, not only by writing letters in my name, but even by forging my name. I am prepared to pi-ove that there are letters written in the Department in my nanie which I never signetl." — A. That is Mr. Perley's. I never wrote to Mr. Perley that letter. That letter to Perley was signed in my name, but I never wrote the letter. Q. When did you see the letter ?— A. Which letter ? Q. The letter you wrote to Mr. Perley ? — A. I difl not write it ; it was written in my name. Q. Then I want to kiKJw from you did you write a letter to Mr. Perley ? — A. I did not. Q. Are you sure ? — A. I am pretty well sure T did not. Q. You say this letter has been forged ?— A. I think so. Q. Did you see the forged letter ? — A. I never saw it. Q. How could you tell that it was forged if you did not see it ? — A. If I difl not write it somebody else must have written it. Q. At any rate you have never seen that .so-called forged letter? -J' . \ have never seen it, and I don't believe I ever wrote it -that is my conviction ; -v.'A Mer letter of Perley's wjis intercepte T will have \<, 'y iid-bye. 950 grave. not oil Q but w connec O PojH- befoi (., (. (, a moil I had rm. 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 bye. By the C/uiinnnn : Q. Are tliey prrHluced ? — A. I Imve produced iu)ne. Bi/ Mr. Tnrti'. : Q. Then you don't know of any other forged letters ? — A. T may get them bv-Jind- Q. Do you know of any other forged letters, amongst those that have been produced or elsewhere, liecause this is a grave accusation ? — -A. I think all the accusations are grave. Bi/ Jfr. DdviflH : Q. What letter is this and where are we to tind it ? — A. It is Mr. Perlev's lett er Perley in answei- to one supposed to have been written by me, that I never wrote. Mr. says he could not tind it. Bj/ Mr. Cnrrtoi : Q. You say you never received a letter written by Mi\ Perley ? — A. Yes. Q. That letter was intercepted and never reached you ? — A. Nc\er reached me. Bi/ Mr. Tarte : Q. Tn what year was that letter supposed to have been wiitten ? -A. Tt is on it > I don't remember the dates. Q. It is in 1SS4 ? — A. I cannot remembev, there is too many dates. Q. And you are (juite positive not to have seen the letter ? — A. Quite positive 1 hiul not seen the lettei'. The first I ever .saw was published in your own paper, in Le CaHm/if'u. Q. Did you authorize any one to open your letters at tliat time — in liSS4 ? — A. No, J autliorised no one. Q. Had you a box in the post oftice ? -A. T had. Q. Who had access to that box ?— A. T think the clerk T had at the time had access — I don't know wiiether I had a clerk at the time — and Hobert McGreevy used to come to my box and take the letters out. By Mr. Mulock : Q. Had he the right to open them ? — A. He used t<' go and take them. T did not object, l)Ut he had no right to open them except they were handed to me first. By Mr. Tarto .- Q. Regarding Baie des Chaleurs Railway you made this statement in a letter printed at jiage 20: (Exhibit "12"') "T sent you to-day Votes and Pioceedings about what Edgar ;isked about IJaie des Chaleurs R.W. Pf)pe sent for me to ask what answer he would give." Who is the Pope mentioned ? — A. It is the late Hon. .Toim Henry, Pope, then ifinister of Railways. Q. The letter goes on to say : "I agree that he should give the re([uired information, but will state that I have notified him of withdrawal from the direction, and severed my coiniectlon with the comjjany "" ? A. What is the date 'I Q. It is the 17th March, ISSO. At the time you made that statement to Mr. Po])e had \-ou really severed your ccnnectioii with the company ? -A. T think T had before that. Q. How long?— A. What date is that ? Q. The ITtli Jfarch. A. Tt must have been not (|uite a year before. Tt was in 188.5, T think .seven or eight months l)efore. Q. I find we have a protest here made by you, dated tlie •2:b'd .lanuaiy, ISSO, cmly a month or two before that, and at that time yt>u had not severed your connection? — A. I had left the Roard and T never went back. The election took place in iSS.'i. 961 ^:iMi; '//5^ f i mm ■ I 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 I Q. You luul not yet severed your connection with the company at the time of the protest ? — A. ily object in making the protest was to get clear of my liability for the shares I had subsciibed for. I did not want to be called upon to pay for them. Q. When you made the protest on the "JSrd of January, 1886, had you severed youi' connection with the Bale des Chaleurs Railway Company ? — A. I had so far severed my connection that I did not go back. I had left it the previous general election. Q. Were you not still in j>os.se.ssion of your shares? — A. I transferred them after that, because I wanted to get rid of the respon.sibility. Q. Were you still in j)ossession of any shares when you made the protest ? — A. I think T left the boaixl at the l)eginning of the .season of 188."), after the election of the regular directors took place. I left then. I wanted to get clear of the resjionsibility of the stock. *). After YOU had made Your protest you did not take any more interest in it ? — A. IC.. t, ;i letter written and signed by you of the 20th Mai-ch, 1886, sometime after thai • ill you identify the signature and say if it is yours — A. That is my sig- nature. (Exhibit "D16.") "House of Commons, Ottawa, 20th March, 1886. " Mv Deai{ Kobert, — I received the pai)ers to-day put in by the Baie des Chaleuis Company, in answer to mine. '" 1. Put in copy of the minutes and proceedings of all that was done under the provisional board. "2. Proceedings of the annual meeting and the election of flirector.s. " 3. A'' the meetings held since and what was done at each meeting except on the meetings held 29th and 30th December, 188."), when they voted .*2"),000 to themselves. They have omitted that, for I see nothing of this vote to them.selves. I am getting them all copied. There is also a certiticate put in dated the 1st March, signed L. A. liobitaille, certifying that 830,000 has l)een i)aid in, but it does not say how, and I understand that they have sent a bank certificate <»f a certain amount dejiosited to the credit of the comjiany. I have not seen it yet, but the Dej)Uty Minister of Justice tells me there is no date to it. I will see it and examine ii myself on ilonday. The ^Ministei- of Justice, aftei' examining the papers has asked them for a statemerrt of the shareholdeis on tlie date of the meeting, 26th of August last, and the amount paid by each. They have nut given it yet. I will .send you copies of everything as soon as T get them, that is if you are not coming ujt. Keep what T say to you private, say nothing to any1)ody until I get them to put everything in, then we will examine everything thoroughly. " Could you state to me what date and the amount that they voted to each of them- selves (the e.xact amount) and who proposed and seconded it, as I cannot tind it in the proceedings anywhere. " Weather very )>ad and diifting to-day. Expect Chabot here to-day. Hope to be home by next Thursday morning. "Yours truly, "THOMAS McGREEVY.' Q. You wrote this letter? — A. Yes. Q. After you had severed your connection with the company? — A. Yes, because T had not got released from my stock. I wanted to get leleaseil from it as speedily as possible. Q. Was the transfer of your shares made at the time you wn>te this lettei-? — A. I think not. 1 will not swear wheth.'r it was oi' not. Q. As a matter of fact you say you had no more interest in it? — A. Once 1 got the shares transferred I hail no more interest. Q. When you wrote this letter had you not a financial interest in the Haie des Chaleurs Railway Company? — A. I do not remember. 962 dozen Q. pavinj. Q. not act Q. you wi g. shares, Will y. wantefl unpaid Q. hands, —A. 'H y. McOrtM siiai'es. Tffn 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. I want to know if on the :20tl» Muivli, wlien you wi-otf the hotter wliii-li you just read, whetlier you liad or had not any tiiianeial interest in tlie Haie de Olialeurs liailway Company /A. I do not remember. Q. Had you not on the very day transferred your shares? A. Perliaps I had. Tliat is just wliat I wanted to know. 1 liave notliin<^' before me to yive me the dates. You (h) not want me to swear witliout dates. Q. Were you not at that time opposing; the Haie des Clialeurs l{ailway Company, witli all your mi;;ht at Ottawa? — A. T was doinji all T could until 1 could ;{et released from those shares. Q. In what way? — A. Until T jfot relea.sed from the shares. Q. Tn what way? — A. T did not think the company was properly constituted. Jii/ Mr. Ihn'ipx : ii. You said you were doin<.j all you could in .some direction. What do you nwan — was it in support to the IJill, or in o})position to it ? -A. T am not aware of any l>ill goinj; throuj;h Pai'lianient at that time. Q. Tn suj>port oi- in op|)ositi(jn to the proposals of the Bale des Clialeurs Railway Company, whicii were then before the Hou.se / -A. I do not know that theiv was any- thing before the House that year ati'ecting the com))any. Q. Or the Government ? — A. I was objecting to that going on until T got relea^ie from the shares. Jiij Jft: yVtrff : Q. What did you mean by being relieved of your shares ?--A. The responsibility of paying ninety per cent, on them. Q. At the time, did you want to .sell your shares or not ? A. I wanted to get released from them. Q. What was the difference between that comj)aiiv and vourself at that time, in Marcli, if<86? - A. Tn ISS"), T think. Q. T call your attention to ISHG. What was the diH'erence in March. ISSd, between tlie Bale des Clialeurs Ttailway Company and yourself? A. T think 1 have stated it a dozen of times. Q. .State it again ? — A. That T wanted to get released from my responsibility of paying these shares. Q. On account of this dittereiice ? -A. Yes; they were paid in cluMpies that were not accepted by a lot of men who had no means. Q. Did you suggest to them any means of relieving you of your shares what did you want ? -A. Tielea.se. Q. What would that mean? -A. T told you T wanted to get relieved from my shares, and T cannot answer any more. You do not want to be here a month. Q. You will be here a month if you don't answer me. fs my (piestion fair or not ? Will you tell me what you mean by being relieved of your shares at the time ? -A. T wantefl to get out of the I'e.sponsibility of ])aying tiie ninety per cent, that was still unpaid. Jiy thf Chairiiuui. : Q. Tn what way? — A. T wanted to get relief. 1 wanted to get tlii-m ott' my hanils. Q. By the company taking your shares : A. Somebody else taking them oil' my hands. Transferring them. Jii/ Mr. TurU' : Q. Transferring them ? Now it is clear. Then you wanted to transfei' your shares ? -^A. To get rid of them. Q. Transferring your shares to whom '. A. I transferred tliein ail to Hobert McGreevy after that. Q. To whom did you at the tiiii" want to transfer your shares and your brother's shares, because you speak of vour brother's shares and vour osvn shaies in your letter. 1153 m • 'I H m ) : :j I- i? m " M 'I^UI 54 Victoria. Appendix {No. 1.) A. 1891 You say "They pnijjosefl (ii(»t Caron, Sir Heitor) to <;ive me conti-ol of road to St. Anne's with subsidy of .*!G,000 per mile, if I would withdraw my op[Misition to Baie des Chaleurs Railway and relieve you and me of our stock."- -A. That is l)eai'infj out what 1 have stated fairly ; that T wanted to f^et relief frf»m the shares. Q. You wanted to ohlifje them to buy your shares? — A. You di. not find that there. Q. That is the reason I put the question. AVhat did you want from them ? — A. I wanted to <^et released. Q. By selling your shaies 1 — A. By getting rid of them. Jiy Mr. Ctivrati : Q. Was there anybody in the company who c.ss-wall was signed, you got 81,000 from tiie tirm of Larkin, Connolly A: Co. for the Ljingevin testimonial fund ? — A. I saw it the othei- day, and I came to the conclusion I had sent it ; otherwise, I would not liave remembered it. Q. This morning, you told us that in connection with the dredging contract of 1887 there was in.side work conducted before the contract was awarded? — A. Hi>w do you mean ? Q. You stated that inside work was done. At any rate, in the month of February, 1886 — 16th February, 1886 — you were writing your brother that you iiad an interview with Parley ?— A. What alniut ? Q. Did you have an interview witii any other members of tlie tii'ni on the .same subject ? — A. On dredging ? Q. Yes. — A. On which dredging ; the last drerlging 1 Q. In 1887?— A. I may have. Q. You told u.s, I think A. I have no lecoUection tif it. Q. You told us that you asked Mr. Robert McOreevy how much the tirm would subscribe for the general elections of 1887 ? — A. I did. Q. Was it yourself? — A. Yes : it was myself. Q. At what date did you speak to him that way ? — A. It must have been in the mrmth of January, I think, 1887. Q. Can you remendjer what was the purport of tiie conversation /A. I think I asked him how much the tirm would subscribe towards the fund for the general elec- tions coming on. I think that is about it, as near as I can remembei-. Q. Why did you go to Mr. Robert McOreevy al)out subscriptions for the electiims, fiom the firm of Ljirkin, Connolly A Co.? — A. Well, I would rather he would ask them than me. Q. Was that at the time you had known your brother was their bi-okei'. as you say? — A. Him and ^lurphy was great friends. He told me tliey had great ti'ansactioiis together, him and Murphy ; they were intimate and had large ti'ansactioiis togctiier. Q. Do you remember having seen Murphy about tiiat subscrijition I K. I liave no recollection of having seen Murphy about it ; T spoke to Robert Mc(Jreev\ about it. Q: Alone? — A. Alone, yes. Q. You ai-e sure of not having spoken to any one else ? —A. T did not speak to Muqthy about it. Q. You never spoke money to Murphy? -A. Very seldom : 1 never spoke money. Q. Do you remember wiieii that money was paid to you .' A. Yes : I think F got the ten thousand fiT>m Robert in the enil of January, or the beginning of Felnuary, 1885. Q. You never got any money from any other members of the tirm ? -A. Q. You never a.sked for any money from any members of the tirm ?-- A. Q. At any other occasion ? — A. No. Q. When did you break your relations with Mr. Murpiiy? — A. Well, it was after the publication of those things here. T was on speaking terms up to that time with him. When he published those documents Q. Nothing had happened before to break your relations? — A. Not that I aui aware of. T did not speak to him after that, I cut him. U55 No. No. !H^' i I \n\ hh 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 I (.}. liffoiv that you were still <») ^mmkI terms? — A. \ used ti» speiik to liiiii when I met him ; I was not on particularly ^e with him, and just after that he became a member of the Government. Q. Go on ? — A. I lived up to last year with him. time, you have a long time, he He went away he was Jii/ the Chaii'moH : Q. You continued up to last year? — JU/ Mr. Miih>,-k : Q. About 15 years?— A. Up to 1889, I think liji Sir John Thnuijtxtni : Q. During tlnj session ? — A. Yes ; du % Mr. Tnrt,> : Up to last year. the .sessutn on >y- Q. You did not stop at his place when you came to Ottawa duiing the recess? — A. If he was in town I used to go there. I would be veiy seldom up, but whenever I came up I went to his place. Q. Have you got any recollection of dredging which took place on the Fly Bank ? A. C>h, that is a channel that was cut through ; it was no dredging. Q. Who was doing the work at the time ? A. A man named Gigu^re. Q. Hail not the Hrm of Larkin, Connolly Ar Co. any connection with it? — A. They made .some offer to get the blue clay for the coti'er dam — at least we compelled the man to put the clay in there — the Harbour Commissioners. We had a channel through the Fly Bunk because ships could not go through before. We had to have steamboats go 950 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 tlirou^h iiiul we petitioned the Gnveiiiineiit, uud alldwcd tlu'in to iiiaki' tin- iliaiiiiel tlirou^li. Q. Did you interest yourself in their l)ehid£ on ac-euunl ot' tlie wufk .'- A. Nn. T did not more than anylMKJy else. T must tell you 1 was friendly (lisposfd towards tlu-m. Q. How many tiniesdid you interview the Minister of Pulilic Works, in lonin-ttion with those woi'ks, from 1SH2 to the present time, on their l)eiialf .' A. I tuuld nut tell you that. Q. Give us an idea? — A. Oh, I could not. Q. Did you interview him ten times? A. Oh, well, don't ask nic that (|uestion, T could not tell. Q. You cannot remend)er? — A. T could not tell. Q. Was it freijuontly ? — A. At dift'erent times, not often. When theiv was Mime- thiny whoni was the report going to be shown to you ? -A. I think it was shown tome a,-; a Harlxiur Connnissioner. It was in the Dej)artment ; it was a public doeumenf at the time. I think the report had been made to the (Jovernment. 0. You say : "I have had a long inteiview with P(Mley, iVrc ,' Fleming was tn jiave signed his report to-day." — A. We were waiting then to see it. Q. You also say : "it will be shown to me." liy whom was it to be shown to you .' — A. I do not know who, but it must have- been somebody who-[ forget now. .Mi'. Fleming and who else? Q. Mr. Perley ? — A. I must have seen it from some of them, T suppose. Q. You say it was as a mendier of the Harbour Conmiission ! A. Yes. Q. When you say: "I have had a long interview with Perley on Harbour Work.s and (Jraving l)ock at Uritish CoUnnbia, ' was the IJritish Columbia J)oek within tin; province of the Quebec Harbour Connnission ? Tn what cajiacity had you that day an interview with Mr. Perley in reference to the British Columbia Dock? A. He may have said something to me about it. Perhaps, some of the tirm asked me to speak al)oul it. T do not i'emend)er. Q. But it was not as a membei- of the Quebec Harl)our Commission that ynu saw- him about the British Columbia Dock ?- A. Vot likely. Q. Is it not a fact that you always took great care not to let anyone know about the source of the moneys paid to you by the tirm of Larkin, Connolly iV Co. and by your brother? — A. Whatever T got was from liobert ^Ic(iree\y. Q. You took care not to let anyone know where the money was coming from .' — A. As much as po.ssible. Q. If I understiMxl you well this moi'ning, T think yiai said that in l.'^S4, after having learned that •'?1-*),00U ha;l been got out of the Hrm of Larkin, Connolly >V Co. in 1(SS.'}, after having learned that that sum of money had been oiitaiiied from them, you stated that you rc-lmbursed that sum of money to the political fund? A. lioitert Mc(Treevy .stated that it might go for what I was looking for at the time muncy for Lf. Jfotidi'. Q. In l.S!^:3, 81-"),000 in notes were applied to j)ay a Jiulgmentof the Supreme Court iit re McCarron iCr Cameron ? — A. Make it short. Q. I will make it as T please to do. Then yow learned the year following that application had been made ? — A. It was an arrangement conit; to. Q. You learne,000, 817,000 or 8-0,000, and there was some money paid in the ))eginning of the year 1885. Q. You ai-e not in a jMisition to tell us by your books or memory where you took the 815,000 fr me jibout anything of the sort. He never talked to me al)out a l)argain, or money, or anything like that. He never once mentioned a bar- gain to me. Q. Did he talk to you about the supplementary contract at Levis ? — A. I do not know whether he did or not. I cannot remenilier that. Q. Are y(m in a position t( -^ay if this 884,000 that you received from your brother was entered in your btniks? — A. I think the most of it was. Q. Who was your book-keeper at the time ? — A. Mr. Chaloner ; I think he can tell you about that. Q. Do you say the whole of it was entered in your books? — A. I think it was entered in my books. Q. The whole amount ? — A. The whole account was tixed by Mi-. Chaloner and Robert H. McGreevy. It was a payment on account of the advances I had made to him. 058 "I|l !• 64 Victoria. Appendix (K'o. 1.) A. 1891 ■ ? \ Mr. "Thomas McCiUKKVv. Holii'i't MfCJivcvy not to -A. Pdlitii'iil iiKiiu'v ; never 1 Q. Was Mr. Clmloner your tiiiaiiciiil iif{eiit ? A. He liiul eliiiri;e of my liooks, and cluir^e of imy trtinsiictions I had. Q. What WHS tlie reason why you sometimes told ymir hrotlier to hide snine money attiiirs from Mr. Chaloiier ? A. 1 never lememher anytliin;,' of the sort. These moneys paid for jtolitical purposes I never made any entries of. 1 never ma(h> ei'tries (»f money leceived for ptilitical purjxtses. Q. In a letter tljat T tind hei-e, written fiom tiie "Windsor," Montreal, sijrned hy ) lU, T find this: Please identify this letter first. — A. T think that is my writinj,'. \ V rote that letter. Q. The letter reads as follows : (Exhibit "EIC") " My Dk.vk Rohkht. " Moxtiikai,, lOth March, ls,s,s. * ****** "Let me know what you ean ;j;i\e me before you leave, orseixl it to Ottawa tome. 1 1 'ive to i)ay an amount to Hudson IJay Company before the loth, or they will take judi;- int nt against me; also Milne for old Samson. ******* "Don't tell Chaloner anything about money." "Y<»urs ti-uly, Is it not a fact that on many occasions you told tell Chaloner about the money he was giving to you about anything else. Q. That time was it jxilitieal money? A. Which / Q. The money mentioned in your letter. A. 1 do not know what he mentioned say I did not tell him about political money nevei' him oi- anyixKly else. Q. Is it not a fact that it does not mean jxditical money at all ? -A. Tdo not know what it means. Q. "Let me know what you can give me before you leave, <»r .send it to Ottawa to me." — A. Tt is a small amount. Q. You have stated that you Jiever told your brother, e.\cei)t it was political money. This is not political money. — A. Tt was some instalment on lands. Q. Now, .>ir, did you write this lettei' to Mr. Robert McClreevy .' Identify your That is my writing. Q. The letter reads as follows: (Exhibit "F16".) " HousK OK Commons, Kith .May. " My Dkah Roukkt, — T received your letter about the Fly Jiank. Perley has nothing to do with that. Tt must come from the Board ; so it nnist wait, unless they can get Forsyth to bring it up. Tt would be better he should, and when 1 go down 1 will do the rest." Can you tell us why you say Perley has nothing to do with that ', Did not your brother Robert ask you to set i^ i-ley? - A. T do not remendier anything about it. That Fly Bank business was a sj)' i ;il -IVair, and had nothing to do with this. Q. Then vou are (juite positive that you never got more than between .*.")0,000 and 860,000 fr«m» Mr. l^»bert McCireevy ?— A. That is all. Q. For political purposes / — A. Yes. Q. Are you in a position to state more distinctly the dates of those payments ? — A. I cannot state dates at all. Q. You never entereeo|)le swear to it. T did not. f Board. The Hoard instructed them to lie since. ij. Were they handed to you? A. to he lianded to Mr. Pei-ley. /y.// .!//•. Osfrr : t^. There is a sufij^estion hefore the Committee that you knew of Hohert Mc(Jree\y's position as a ])artner in the works and various contracts, and that in the inception of liis position with the tirin of Larkin, Connolly it Co. you had lieen consulted -that you had consulted Sir Hector and he had consented to it. What truth is there in that su;(- ^(estifiii : A. There is no truth whate\-er. i}. You apparently knew from what you ha\e stilted that Hohert had some posi- tion with reference to the firm — as hroker, yiai put it ? -A. He stated to me instances of transactions with Murphy. (). Was thei'e any kuowledj^e hy the .Ministei' of Hohert "s position tiiroufj;h you ,' — A. No ; not from me. Q. It is stated that there was a chan;;e su;,';ie: works, from sandstone to j,'ranite. Had yiai any* before the Minister or the Heiiartment ? A. T 1 C^. Then it is said there was a i,'eneral talk words, that the re(|uested chanjie was altered hv the Hrm ? of it. C^. Did you do anythiiifi in it ? A. T do not rememher it. They may have talked to me ahout it, hut [ do not rememher anythinji havin;( taken jilace ahout it. Q. Tt is stated hy Mr Murphy that he had an interview with you in your house in Queliec and that you made an ofler of L'"i cents per foot of j^ranite ; or rather, that Murphy made the otter to you that for each foot of /,'nuiite that Went into the works that he would pay y«ai 2") cents. He said that Hohert was interested. Do you I'ememher any convei'.sation with Owen K. Murphy with rej^tard to that ehani;e from sandstone to <;ranite and that otter to you .' .\. 1 must distinctly .say that there never was such an otter made to me or any such proposal. (.}. Murphy also says that on the occasion of one of those chanj;es in the stone, when they chaiif^ed hack would deprive you of the profit that you were to make, that he .said that he would make it up to you. What lid you say to that ? A. There is no such a thiiifi ; such a thinj; never tMiilt<'rs oil tlic (itluT side. It wiis tlicir liiisiiit'sM, imt iniiii' : and 1 Imd iiutliiiig to do with their liusiiicss. (•i. He siiys he had sevei-id eouver.siition.s witli you, iiiid tliiit you told him Hohert Imd cheated you and liad not ^^iven you youi- hare? A. F never stated so. (i- Tliis was at'tei' tlie (|Uarrel ? A. T nevef stated so. Q. He also stated that wiieiiever you came t'or money it was always for Sii- Hector .' — A. [ never asked him for money at all. Q. You never asked ( >. K. Murphy for money? A. No. i}. He says you came askint; for Sir Hector, and, "i t one time he came askiiiji; for Li- .Wiiti(fi'." — A. 1 never asketl him. <,^. Your re(|uests, as you have sworn, were throu;;h {ohert ? A. Throu<,'h Koliert MclJreevy. i}. Murphy also swears that you came to him, wanti ij.; him to sij;n a paper to show to Parliament that you had f^ot no money. ^Vhat do you say to that? A. He once came to me you say? (^. He swears " he came to me with a paper to he sii^'ned foi' him to use on the cliar;;e a<;ainst him " ? Mr. LisTint. No ; Sii' Hector. Q. He had an interview with Thomas 'ilcOreevy andhe(Mc(;ree\y) wanted Murjihy to sij;n a paper? — A. I)enyin<{ the "har^es -is that what you mean? Q. Yes ; denying; the char^'es. A. \ will tell ycai how that occurred. A man named |)avis, who had been acting; with Murphy in stocks, and who had lieen a previous director of the Hichelieu Comjiany for one year, I think, came to me. He had left the Province here in default, and I think lie was permitted to cIc(Jieevy with regard to Lfirkin, Connolly ife Co. ? — A. I had several." " Q. Will you say on what subjects said conver.sations 961 1— b'l itted for '(). Had ' li ■ 'J "1^ ■ ii: -■'■ ... 1 ■it |!V 1 I i t » i lltl' 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 turned ? — A. I'lic conversation sometimes turned on the contractors, particularly in lfo yo'isay " likely ' or " jMisiti\ A. Any infurniation T had v.as from .Mr. V to tlie Cioss-wall lenders was from Mr. 'y "' ?--A. r say positively. ti>. .\gain, what relati ons lad vou with Mr. I ci'lev ! I see in your Icttei s|)ring of |SS7 you refer to Mr. I'erley in this way : " 1 ha\'' just seen .Mr a'oout dredging: 1 ha\ e an-angeil to meet him on .Monday to discuss his dre(ly:ir before. lie sends it to llarl)our Commissioneis." Again, on the lidlli of Aj>ri' " 1 have just seen Perley on dredging : 1 think I fondilions which will amount to nothing." In Perley (,). It is dredujiiii' be (htne ? .\. .\bout drtnlging being done because of ihe wall iiore than that. You sav it is dredging at .'1") cents : it -^ III the Perley g repiiil i read : ' will report on iio cents and ))r.t some what capacity and why did you see A. They may ha\(> written to me al)nut 902 It. IS nut simply that What date is tliat / th( flF 54 Victoria. Appendix (Nc. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Apiil lf tlie charges which atJ'ect the Public Works as tliey are printed in the Ordei- of Heference. I am not going into anything which the Department of Public Works are not interested in. It is chaiged in the I7th paragraph in the Order of Heference: "That while all the tiMiders were bt-ing examined and the (|uantiti:s applied in the I)e))artment t>f Pul)lic Works of Canada, the said llor). Thomas .Mc(!reevy, then and now a nieml)er of tlie Parliament of Canada, and a member of the t^uebec Harbour Connnission bv ai)pointr!ient of the (io\ernment, jinanised tu cildiiin and did obtain from the Department of Pulilic Woiks of Cairada, and from tlie otlicials of that Department, in rt'lation to the said tenders, to tigures in connection therewith, and to the amounts thereof, information which he otl'ered to connnunicate before the result was nthcially known, and which he did connnunicate to the tiriri of Larkin. ("orniolly A" d'., and to certain members of (';' • lid tirni in(li\ i(Uially. " That is a spccilic charge of your dealings witli the Depart nenl. Have you anything to add in explanation of tliat charge to what you ha\e alreadv >. ilcd either in e\ idenie oi' criiss-cxaniination .' A. Nothing. il. The ISth paragraj I i-. : "That to the knuwledge of the said Tliaper. Q. Til what shape did he give you that result? — A. He only told me that there wei'e some ditticulties about it, some mi.. understanding about the items that would need to be exj)lained. Q. Which, I'ightly or wrongly, you connnunioated ? — A. Yes. Q. To ]iol)ert ? — A. T suppose so. Q. To anyone else beside liobei-t? — A. Nobody else. Q. The next charge is that you directly participated. We need not ask you about that. On the Es((uimalt Dock you are charged, in paragraphs 27, '2H, IW and .?.■?, that you obtained from the Department of Public Works figures and calculations which ycni communicated to Larkin, Connolly it Co.; that you, in that contract, acted as their agent and obtained important alterations in the plans and works and more favourable conditions, enabling the conti-actoi's to I'eali/.e large sums from the public treasury improperly. What do you say to that charge that is contained i-i those four para- giaphs ? Did you act as the agent of that firm ? — A. Certaiidy not. Q. Were you concerned in obtaining those alterations? — A. No. Q. You remember the alterations ther(v tin; change of the .second entrance to a ciirulai' head, and the change in the stff): Q. The Connnissioners did not in that intei'fei'e 1 — A. It was submitted to them foi' the change and they approved of it. Q. Tt had been agreed on ? — A. T think it was in connection with the substitution of stone for brick. T am not quite sure. Ji)/ Mr. Oxh'r : Q. That was a matter which firiginated in the necessity for the city's sewage !)eing prOj)erly [)rovided for 1 — A. Ye.s. (^. Now, as to .'?•") cents a yard for t bargain with L;trkin, Connol'y i^ir Co., used youi' inHut'nce with the Department, and })aiticulaily with Mr. Perley, to induce him tt> report in favour of paying .'}•) cents a yard, and that it was through your intei-ference that no public tender was called for. What do you say to that ? A. As far as inter- fering with Mr. Perley, 1 nevei- did ; the whole thing was done by himself. T discussed the matter before that on moi'e than one occasion with Mr. tioyd. The dredging was being done inside, and I w is told at the time they were losing money on it, and the price was too low for tli' (b'edging, but T did not influence Mr. Perley in the slightest. He did not tell me what lie u.is guing to reconnnend. T was in ()tta\va at the time. Q. I find a letter here, that is in Mr. ifobert McCJi'eevy's productions of yesterday, in which this occui-s : "Tt is my iiitenti.Mi to leave here .iiid attend a liichelieu meeting in Montreal on (Saturday, and leave that night and aiiive in (.Quebec Sunday moi'iiing, find remain till 1 :.'?0 p. m. Tuesday. Tf there is anything to i)iing before the Harl)our Connnissioners by our friends there, advise them to ha\i' e\erytliiiig ready.'' \\\\n do 3-ou m»an by "our friends there "?--A. Well, 1 don't know about it. t^. You have no explaiuition to oti'er ? .-V. No. Q. You see that is in your handwriting ?- \. That is my signaturt^ ; it is one of my clerks' handwriting. Q. The re.sponsil)ility of the letter is yours?- A. Yes ; it is written from Ottawa. O. Who do you refer to ?— .V. T don't know who lie refers to. Q. Tt is your reference ? —A. T don't know who. Q. " By our friends there" ? — A. T don't remrmlM r it, Q. And you have no explanation to give ? .\. No. Q. Then the next [)aragraph says : "I understand that IVrley lias iiis tinal report ready on H. C. (J. I). T was trying to find out what the rejiort is. 1 told Perley to .send everything down for the Harbour Connnissioners that he may have reaily." Have you anything to explain after that ,' — A. Xo. The Committee then adjourned till 8.30 p. m. % ! 'i 965 'I '1 'I . li i I ! 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Thursday, 6th August, 8.30 P.M. Mr. Edmond Giroux sworn. Ihj Mr. Stnnrt : Q. What is yiiur uaiiie? — A. EdnKtiul (iimux. Q. You ai-e a nieinber of the Quebec Harbour Conmust oners ? — A. Yes. Q. iSiiiee wlien '/- A. Since 1883, I think. Q. What position do you now occupy ?- -A. Cliainnau. Q. Since what time? — A. Since three niontlis. Q. You are one of those named by the Govefmnent ? — A. Yes. Q. About wluit date were you named, in 1883? — A. Tn the fall. Q. Tiien you wil) have no personal knt>wledf;e of the contiactof 1882 and the Cross- wall of 1883, which contracts had been awanled before you were named to the board? — A. I have no knowledj^e of contracts of 1882, if the Cross-wall was given in 1883. I came in during the fall of 1882, because T was on the board when the contiact was given. Q. Was the contract awaixled by the Goverinnent ? — A. Yes. Q. Will you state with reference to the general carrying out of works whether the Commissioners inspected them perst»nally or whetlier they were carried out under the superintendence of the Engineer? — A. Under the superintendence of the Engineer entirely. Q. Have you any personal knowledge of the giving of the supplementary c«>ntract for the Graving Dock in 1884? — A. I think so. Q. Will you state undei- what circumstances that contract was given? — -A. T d(» not understand you. Q. What I want to get at is whether it was due to the intervention of any one mend)er or more of the Commission or whether it was given on the report of the Engi- neers ? — A. It was on the repoj't of the Engineers. Q. Did the report of the Engineers meet with approval on the part of the Commis- sioners? — A. I think so. Q. Was there any attempt by any Connnissioner to influence tiie Connnission in any direction ?—-A. Not that I am aware of. Q. As far as you know it was done wholly on the report of the Engineers? — A. Yes. Q. And on the repoi't I'ecommending itself totiie Counnissionersas it did ? — A. Yes. Q. You ap{)r'oved of it as l)est under all the circumstances? \. Yes. Q. And accordingly passed tiie order, believing all tlie Conmiissioners tiiougiit like- wise? — A. There were no dissensi(ins. Q. Do you recollect tiie dredging contract in 1887?-- A. Yes. Q. And the cii't'umstarices ?- -A. Yes. Q. State how it came to be given without tenders being asked ? A. Tiie contract of 1882 came to a conclusion, I think, and the Connnissioners desii'iiig tlieri^ would be iio delay in the continuance of the works concurred in ^Ii-. Perley's recommendation to give the contract for 35 cents per yard. Q. Was that price considered by the Connnissioners as a reasonal)le price ?-.\. As far as the Commissioners knew it was, because it was sti<)iigly reconin'.'.Mided l)y Pei'ley as a reasonable price. Q. From what the Connnissioners knew in view of tlie contri'ic of 1882, and of the possil)le difficulties in connection with the work do you yourse'f consider it reasonable as a Imsiiiess man? — A. I think T compared tliese prices witii tiie dredging done in Montreid, and T came to tlie conclusion it was ii low price. {See E.xhibit " \V 18." Page 1186 of the Evidence.) Q. Do you recollect at any time after the contract of 1882 while the contract of 1882 was being cari-ied on or afterwards, the Connnissioners went and visited the loca- lities and gave specific orders with reference to the contractors of the work ? — A. T think we did. Q. After making personal insjiection of tlie work, and seeing the work in the place and seeing the difficulties of the work .' A. We certainly did. 966 M 54 Victoria. Appendix (Eo. 1.) A. 1891 ffri Q. Might you have given «inleis which you deemed wise at tlie time? — A. Yes, sii-. Q. Now, will you state with refereTice t() the Hon. Thos. McGreevy. Was he a more pniminent member of the HarlxiurConnnission than others / — A. I do not think so. Q. Did lie appear to take the direction of the Connnissioners ? — A. Certainly not. Q. Now, substantially Mr. Valin said that Mr. Thos. Mc(ireevy led in all matters connected with tiie connnission, and fretjuently spoke in the name of the Minister of Public Works. Is that the case? — A. No, sir. Q. Have you any recollection that McCrreevy stated at a meeting of the Connnis- .sioners that he i-epresented the views of the Minister of Public Works, and imi)ose(l his views, and those of the Minister ujMin the Board ? A. I do not recollect it. Q. Have you any recollection that the Hon. Thos. McGreevy at any time simkeas being the mouthpiece of the Minister of Public Works oi- of the (lovernmeiit upon matters before the Board? — A. My re(4i>llection is that the Hon. Mr. Mc(ireevy being a member of Parliament, we often requested him to put before tlie Minister of Public Works any matters in which we were interested. We very often did that, ami it was by re(|uest of the whole Connnission. y. Tn any case, did he hold himself forth as being the organ of the Ministei- of Public Works, or as being .specially instructed ? — A. 1 do m>t think so. Jii/ Mr. Anit/ot : Q. You wanted to know from Sir Hector his views on the.se matters? — A. (iene- lally. Tt was foi' payments that Mr. McCreevy was asked to look after. Jiy Mr. Tartf. : Q. For payments to the contractors ? — A. Yes. Tt was becau.se the Union P.ank had made large advances to the contivictors to enable them to go on with the work, and veiy often the payments were not made regularly, and the Hon. Mr. McCireevy was asked to .see about this by the Connnissioners. Q. About payments to the Union Bank ? — ^A. The payment of the progress esti- mates. By Mr. Stuart : (.i. That was to get mcmey from the (Jovernment for the Connnissioneis ? A. Yes To j>ay the progress estimates to the contractors. Q. Why did you apply U> Mr. McCireevy nither than to the Chairman? -A. T nuist say that when Valin was a memlier of Parliament we applied to him in the .same way. Q. Was Mr. Valin an etticient Chairman ? -A. AVell, 1 do not think he was. (j. Was that the universal opinion of the Commission ? A. 1 speak fiu- myself. Q. Did the other Connnis.sioners .share your views? — A. You will find it out l)y putting the same (|uestion to the (.ther Connnissioners. Q. Now, Mr. (tirou.v, will you state in reference to any one of the coiitisicts which were awarded, with whicli the Harbour Commissioners had anything to do. whether there was any reason or any wish on the part of the Commissioners to favour one con- tractor over another ? — A. None. Q. To the be.st of your knowledge, were these contracts all awarded on merit oi' was there tuvimritism of any kind? A. Not that 1 know of. <^). No favouritism of any kind .' A. No. (.}. Did you yourself follow carefully the proceedings far as T could. Q. You gave it the best of your attention at the time you were here Q. And from your knowledge as one of the Commission at the time, can you say whether there was iiny favouritism or umlue advantage givin L.okin, Connolly iV- Co.? — A. None at all, that I know of. Q. Do you know the firm of Fradet it .Miller! A. 1 know Kradet. <„). Do "you know whether he was in a position to carry out the dredging contract of ISS-J? A. T cannot say. T do not know the man suttieiently. (,,) Was he in a tinancial position to make any heavy outlay for dredging plant 1 — A. Not that I know of. if tlie CiinnnissioM ? A. ...» A. 1 di< As "■■^il l.i M hiifi: '' i.(i ntJT \ n 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Tt is only from your knowledge in your position that I ask you? — A. I have no knowledge of his position. Q. What is his business ? — A. Tf it is a business, T think it is a diver. Jii/ 2Ir. (leo(f'riii)i : Q. A man that is a diver would not be a dredger? — A. T do n(»t .see that there is any t)bJeetion at all. Jii/ Mr. Stuart : Q. From what you know, was he in a positior. financially to carry out the dredging contract of lSf<:J if it had been awarded to him? — A. I cannot say. T did not know the man only i'h piiKSfuit. Q. QueV)ec is not a large place ; his iiatural reputation is fairly well known ? — A. From what I know, T do not think .so. Jly Mr. Tart,- : Q. Do you know Mr. Gallagher ? — A. I never saw him. Q. Was he not the contractor for the South-wall in Quebec ? — A. T believe so. Q. You never saw him before ? — A. Xt». Q. Do you know if he is a man «>f means? — A.' T - w that he is a man in theemj)loy of Larkin, Connolly iV Co. ? — A. [ understiMxl that he was one of their foremen. Q. When did you understand that? A. At the time the contracts were given. Q. Do you know whether he has more means than Mr. Fradet ? — A. No; I do not think so ; ))ut as T have already said, T do not know him at all. Q. Do you know if Mr. Fradet has been a mend)er of the Legislative A.s.scmbly of Queljec?— A. Yes. Q. Do you know if Mi-. Fradet had, previous to 1S82, some work to do for the Harbour Commission ? — A. No, sir ; T do not know. Q. You have just stated that the dredging contract of lSi<2 came to a close in 1886 ?— A. In 1886 or 1887. T could not be precise as to the date. Q. Cannot you tell us if the Harbour Connnission ever i)ut a close to the contract — put an end to the contract ? — A. T do not think we did. Q. Are you able to say that the contract of 1881' came to a close in 1886 or 1887 ? — A. 1 understiKxl that it came to a close then, l)ecause they would not continue the con- tract. Q. Did you e\er get any notice that they would not continue the ct>ntract ? — A. I do not remember. Q. How are you able to .sjiy that the conti'act of I88:i came to a close ? — A. All that I can reniemi)er is, that a letter came from Mr. Perley, reconnnending that a new contract should be given to the contractor. on. How is it that the contract of 1882 came to Q. That is no answei" to the (piest iin end, and you are not in a [losition to .say that you had any notice of it yourself? — A. I think the conti I" Kviderl for that. Tt came to a n eiu Q. What T would ;>«k is this you have just stated that the contract of 18S2 came to a close in 1886? What was your gi'ound for such a statement? — ^A. Well, I belie\e that the contract came to an end at that time. 9G8 64 V (. can hi ( ti> an C, or 18: (, canno ( with ( not remember. Q. Then, how is it that you are able to state that the contract came to an end? — A. Well, my belief is that when it came to an end they opened woi-k under a new con- tract. Q. Was it that contract I have got in my hand ? — A. I have never seen tlie con- tract. Q. Then you have no ground, e.xcept a supposition, that it came to an end ? — A. I think that would be a giMid answer, because the contract came to an end. Q. The contract was made in 1SS2 — was it intended that it should come to a dose iin lfS2 .' — A. I .said I thouj'ht T .ame in during the fall of 188-_'. You will find the date in the minutes. Q. Wiiiii share did you take in the sui>plementary coiitiart for the Levis (Jiaving Dock.— A. What shai-e ? "^ Q. What part did you take ? When did that contract come before you ? — A. We liad a great . [•69 ■ii ■ * I ml 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. In your opinion, that contract was to cover the whole cost of th« work ? — A. Yes. y. To complete it ?-- A. To complete the Dock. Q. Do you know the price that was ajjreed upon for tlie conipletiim of that work ? — A. I cannot tell tlie exact figures. It was something like ftifiOjOOO or s'TOjOOO. Q. Now, Sir, do you know if the (Jraving Dock at Levis had Iteen completed during the season it should l)e ? — A. I do not reniemi)er. Q. Is it a fact or not that the supplementary contract was to complete the work during the season of 1H84 ? -A. I cannot remember. ii. Ai-e you in a position to tell us when the HariHiur Connnission took possession of the (Jraving Dock at Levis? — A. Repeat the (juestion. i,i. Tell us in what year they t(M»k possession. When it was completeer of the Commission make any complaint against him ? — A. Not that T know of. Q. In what way was he not a good ciiairman, or an ineflicient chairman ? Was he not present at all the meetings ? — A. He was present at neai-ly all the meetiiigs. Q. Did he do anything dishonest? — A. Oh no. Sir. Q. [s he not a respectable citizen of Quebec ? -A. Yes. (I. Has he not been once associated with tin; late James (Jibb Ross at Quebec? — A. T think so. Q. Has he not a large ship business in Quebec?- Possilily he has. I do not know. Q. Has he not been a member of the House of Commons ?~ -A. Yes. Q. Hy whom was he appointed Chairman of the Connni.ssion ? — A. By the Com- missioners, but at that time T w.is not one. Q. Was it in tlie power of the Commission to disj)ense with his services ?-— A. Certainly. Q. Did y(m try to (k) that? — \. Not before thiec months ago. Q. As a matter of fact did you ever try to liave liim dismissed I — A. No, Sir, not l)efore that time. Q. You ha\e just stated that for the dredging contract of 1SS7 you accepted the rejxirt of the Chief Engineer as your guidance .' A. Certainly. Q. As your only guidance ? -A. Certainly. Q. You have stated that you believe it was a fair price? A. It was hanl for me to know anything else ))Ut what was reconmiended by the Engineer. I had no experi- 970 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 A. ill flu- jiajiers seen it in the t'uee as an Eiif^iiieer myself. So T took our En};(iiieer's word tliat tlie price was a just and fair one. Q. That is your only ground for staging that tliat is a fair juice ? A. I liave no experience at all. Q. Were you aware that by the contract of ISH'i, diedj;inj^ was made from l."> to 20 feet for '27 cents? — A. T believe so. Q. Then are you aware that the contract of 1HH7 is for I-"> feet deeji dredjjiii;; / A. If T remember rifjjhtly, they would not continue at that rate. Q. That is not my (|uestion. Is it a fact («• not that the contract of 1SS7 is for dredfiiiif; 15 feet deep? A. T believe it is. Q. You have just stated that they Would not fn> on at that work at the former jirice. Are you in a {Ktsition to give me any kind of evidence that your statement is right ? -A. None whatever. Q. Then how is it that you can .say that ?— A. Say what ? Q. Say that they were not prepared to go on at the former price? — A. I have ali'eady answered that - T cannot say anything else. Q. Then your statement cannot be substantiated ? -No answer. Q. You have said that no favours at all were .shown to [firkin, Connolly »V: Co. ? — • A. Not to my knowledge. Q. Are you in a position to tell us if you know that the South-wall sewer has been raised ? -A. I learned that only since this investigation conimencefl. Q. From whom did you learn it ? -A. By the public press. ii. Did you learn it from your Engineer, Mr. Hoswell t — A. I saw it before learning it from Mr. Boswell. Q. Hut did you emiuire from Mr. Boswell ? — A. Yes ; after I had papers. Q. What was his answer? -A. He said it had been elevated. Q. Did he give any reason ? — A. No other reason than that he got orders from Mr. Perley. Q. AV'ere the members of ihe Harbour Commission ever wari'.' .1 uoi...' this before? — A. Never. Q. You never heard alxtut it before? — A. Never. (j. Were you warned about the securities of the South-wall ?— to know this, in a letter received fioin Mr. Murphy. ii. Before that you knew notliiig about it ! A. I never heard Q. Were you evei- warned by seme of your OtHcers or Engiiieeis that Larkiii. Con- nolly it Co. were dredging deeper than I'l feet in the Wet basin / A. I iiexer lieani a word about it. Q. Then all that dredging has been made without the Harbour Commission lieiiig informed about it?- -A. Without a single word being said. (.i. You have said that Mr. McGreevy was ciiarged ity the riiimi Maiik ? .\. Not by the Union Bank, by the Commission. The contractors kept tlieir account in the Union Bank aiul they received large advances to cany on these works. At one time they had overdrawn their account. Sometimes they drew more in one month th.iii tiicy ought to have done. They would draw at thecoimnenceiiieiit of the month. Sometimes the payn i'lit did not come down very regulaily from Ottawa to the Union ISaiik and necessarily the bank would cease to ad van -e moiu'v to t)ie contractors if tliey were not paid regularly every month, and when we did not recei\e any nioiiey from Ottawa, as Mr. Mc(4reevy was a member of Parliament, he was asked !iv the Commission to use his authority .so that we could meet our engagements witli tiie cuitractois. Q. He was a.sked by the contractors ?— A. Yes. To see that they sent dnwn niuney to meet the cotitracts. Q. Was Mr. McGreevy ever charged to look into th.' account of the Ihitisii Coin .- bia dock? — A. T know nothing of the British Columlia Dock. Q. Was Mr. McCireevy ever charged, to your kiowledge, to loock ? A. Never to my knowledge. 971 -A. T ha« I' ' ■ r 1 1 fl 64 Victoria, Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Ts it It fiict or not, that Mr. Me(ifreevy used niiiny tiini's Sir Hector L)in.i,'eviii'.s name before tiie Harbour Coniiiiissioners? -A. No, sii'. Q. He never used it to your knowledjje ? — A. I eanuot say that lie never used it. Q. You told us tliat you have a recollection of the cross-wall contract? A. Yes. (j. Can you tell us if the tenders were opened in Quel)ec, if you knew who was the lowest tenderer? — A. No, Sir. Q. Were the members of the Harbour Commission in a position to state who was the lowest tenderer? — A. It was imjxissible for them. Q. All those tenders as you say, were sent to Ottawa and re-posted, and then they were on that occasion, as on many other occa.sions, acted upon under tiie advice of the En,i;ineer-in-Chief ? — A. Yes. lijj Mr. Frnspf : Q. You state that yciu knew the first contract was 27 cents for dredfjinj; from 1.') to 20 feet?— A. It was from lo to 20 feet. Q. When you acted upon the advice of the En<;ineer that ."{5 cents was a pi'oper amttunt to f^ive, did you think it was? Did you think that you were payin72 ^^n 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 m 'Mil S (.}. Ts it not 11 t'di't that with tlie iiu-eptiun of the oank ? A. Tt was not tiie C'onnnission. Q. When you so in.stniited Hon. Mr. Mdrieevy it was not as a Comniissi(,ner,kl)Ut as a director of tlie Union IJank / "A. Yes. \ /{,/ Mr. Titrtr ' Q. Cannot y<»u tell wlien t lie Cross- wail was coniiileted. Was it in ISSS? -A. [ think it was in 1H8S. T am sjieakinj; only from memory. Mh. Stuaut read the fnllowinj; extiaet from the .\linutes of tlie (^ueliee Harliour Connnission of .July 4th, 1S^<.">, iiaf,'e :V.\\ of the Minute l>ook : "The Seei'etary is directed to request the Enjiineer in ciiarjije of the Hari)our Work.s, Mr. Boyd, to prepare as .simui as possii)le a i'e|Mirt on the cost of coin](letinx the di'edi;- iiif^ of the cornel- of the hank of the Tidal liasin to an extent that will allow a laiiie steamer to enter the hasin. "The Secretary is also directed to instruct the Kiij,'ineer in char;;!' to notify the imhi- tractors that the (Jomniission<'rs will have to stop the ilred^'inj^ if they do not succeed in iiiakinj^ arranjjements that will allow to proceed with the extra dred^iin;^ the contrac- tors are now executing;, and to notify them also that it must he understood, howexcr, that all works i)erforiiied by them or that may he performed out of their contraci, not especially a;;reed upon, are and will he considered, as forming; part of the contract, it heing estahlished by certificate No. 1:? read at this meetin;; that the moneys already paid on account of ilredjiiiij; ha\e exceeded the total amount of the contract." Mr. Stuart also read the following letter from the letter hook of the Commission, page ."iTO : "(jth Ji i.v, l.^s.-). "John E. Uoyd, Es.]., M.T.C.E., " Engineer in charge, " Harbour Works, Quebec. "Siii, — T have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of tiie .">rd instant in which you report that the contractors have dredged the ."50,000 ciiliic yards which they were permitted to dump in the liiver St. Lawrence and in which you state that you will await further instructions before ordei-ing them to stop, and am rlirected in reply to instruct you to allow them to go on remo\ ing such further (|Uaiitity of material as interferes with the entrance of a large ocean steamer into the Louise liasin on the terms stipulated in the letter I have addressed to the contractors the L'llth May last, a copy of which has been enclosed in my letter to you of the same date. "T am furtherdirected to r(^(|uest you to jirepare, as soon as possiiile, a report on the cost of coiin>leting the dredging in (|Uestioii, that is to say of dredging tiie corner of the bank to an extent that will allow a large ocean steamer to enter the Basin. "It being established by your certiticate \o. 1.'? that the moneys already ]iaid on account of dredging ha\e exceeded the total amount of the contract, 1 am inoreever directed to instruct you to notify the contracto ■; that the coiniiiissioners will ha\e to sttiji the works if they do not succeed in making arrangements that will allow to proceed with the extra dredging in ([uestioii, it l)eiiig understood, however, that all works performed by them, or that may be performed out of the contract, not especially agreed upon, are and will be considered as forming part of the contract. " T have the Iioiisuni|)tion of the dredjfihf,' i)i'ovide(l, the .sum to be expended does not exceed JJi.lO.UOO and provided the Connnissioners so an^anj^e with the conti'actoi's that they do not call foi' payment until Pai'liament has authorized tiie (Jovenunent to advance that sum or any further sum to the Quebec Harl '»ur Coni- missionei's. " I have the honour to be, sir, " Your most obedient servant, "'.•igned) A. (K)JJETL. " Sfcrt'fari/. "A. H. Verhkt, Es jsartin'MH of Public Works, dated .'U ultimo referred by you to us is at hand, and in rej>ly 'i i 'to we bej; leave to state that we will accept the conditions therein stated with reur obedient sei'vants, "LARK IN, CONNOLLY .»L- CO." .Mr. Stuart tiled a copy of the dredging contract made l)y the Harbour ConiuiiM- sioners, .'5rd Septend)er, ISS"), marked Exhibit "JIG," and read the following extract : " And whereas, notwithstanding that the dredging, iii'c., under the contract of the liiid day of Sej)tend)er, ISSl', is now complete, the Connnissioners are still desirous of continuing the said di-edging in the same way and manner, for all intents and purpost's, and at the same rates and prices as are mentioned in the said contract." Mr. Stuart also jiroduced the following: (Exhil)it "KIO.") " DiOl'AliTMKNT OK PuitLIC WoKK.s, CaXADA, "Ottawa, 21st August, ISS."). "Sili, T am directetl to acknowledge tlie recei]it of your communication of tlic llith inst., enclosing a cofiy of a letter dated .'ilst ult., addressed to you by this Depart- ment, in which the consent of the hon. the Minister of Public Works is given under cei'tain conditions named therein, to the resumption by the Harl)oui' Connnissioners of (i)uebec nt' the dredging of the Tidal basin forming part of the Harbour works under their control, and informing this Department of the statement made by tlie Hon. ^Ir. McCreevy, a member of your iSoard, that instead of the conditions above referred to. the undei'standing arrived at between the Minister of Puldic AVorks and himself was as follows, namely, that the Harbour Commissioners will pay out of the funds at their dis- jHisal all the certilicates which will l)e issued either for dredging or other works under contract in connection with the Harbour works, and that only after tiie said funds will Ije exhausted they will be allowed to exj)end on the .same work.s a .sum not exceeding 974 TTpy 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 'i\ .*')0,000, jiiovided tlu' cKiiiniissionfis so iirmnjje witli tlic ((ihttiu'turs timt tlu-v ii<>t • till fur iMiynieiit until Piuliiiiiu'iit liiis jiutli(irizt' the cuinniissioncrs. "T am directed l>y the Imn. tiie Minister of PuMic Works to inform you timt the undeistiiiidin;; in tlie matter was as stated l)y the lion. Mr, McCJieevy, and to autlioii/.e your I'oard to aet aieoidinjfiy. " I ha\e the lionour to i)e. Sir, "Your obedient servant, "A. (SOIJKIL, " Si'iTrfdi'l/." Q. Aw you awaie tliat on different ociasions tlie Connnissioners attended at tin- works to jiivp instructions ;,'enei'ally as to the dre(i<;int; ? A. Yes. ii. You were asked l)y Mi'. Tarte wlietliei' Mr. (ialla;iher' was a man of any means I Will you state whether, wlien the conti'act was to lie awarded he put security, whether lie put an accepted che([ue ? — A. Security was put in, Jty Mr. Milh (Jint/iiiv/f) : g. They all did that ?— A. They all did that. Jii/ Mr. Stnnrt : Q. Are you aware that when the South-wall <'ontiact of 1SS_' was awarded they did not call for .security ? — A. I was not aware of the fact. Q. Y'^ou stated that in the comparison of jirices of the dred^^in;; in the Mtmtreal Harhour, when the Chief Eri<{ineer recommended .S.j cents, you were ;;ui(le(l hy him in makin<,; the com]>arison, did you take into consideration the differ'ent circumstances that one was made in waters that did not vary in depth? A. T certainly cannot answer that (juestion. It is ,si) lonf; aj;o. g. To the liest of your helief, did you take into consideration the varyinj; con,'ot the Itest information jiossilde as a Connnissioner. Q. And you exercised your independent judjiment ! A. Yes. Q. And your recollection is that the price was a reasonalili> one? .\. Yes. Q. Particularly after havinj; tlu' reconnnendation made hy Mr. I'erley the Kn;;ineer (if the Commission .'- A. Yes. (}. You have stated that the sewer of the South-wall was raised without the knowledge of the Connnissioners. Are you aware that it was a work in which the Connnissioners had no interest, and was done for the ]iurposes of the City .' .\. It was done for the purposes of the city. Q. It was To acconmiodate tlx' City that the sewer was laiilt .' .\. 'S'cs, it was to keeji the sewei' from ,i,'oinj,' into our liasin. /!// .Mr. T(irl>- : i}. To keep the water in it ? A. Cert.iiniy. <^. Are y(»u aware that the raisiiiy; of the sewer was iiatuiall\- an a(l\ .inlauc and entailed a less removal of earth and liastene(l tlie termination of not recollect - it ne\'er came before us. Q. You do not know anylliiii!; aliout it ? A. "idy what I saw in thi 11 jl .!//•. Stiiiirf : (,•. Y'ou ha\-e stated that you do not recollei t whether Mr. MctJreevy used the name of the Minister of Public Works liefon^ the Commission, and .Mr. ( ieofl'iion has asked whether you would believe Mr. Valin's word upon that -I wisli to know wlietlier, if Mr. McCreevy had been in the habit of usini; Sir Hector's name, it would have left an impression upon your mind in other words tiiat he used it with siicii fie(|uency as to show a desire to be considered the mouthpiece of the .Minister of Public Works ? — ■ A. 1 never considered that he did so. the uciik ,' A. I do pilliiic press. Ah ihd 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 m M MS' Q. Would you recollect that fact if it had been so ? — A. I think so. Q. Is it a fact that would be likely to leave an impression upon your memory ? — A. I think so. Jii/ Mr. Aini/ot : Q. The jnajority of the Commission is appointed by the Government? — A. Yes. (J. And has l)een since yon weie there ? -A. Yes. Q. Are tlie Connnissionei"s paid ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. And the Chairman 1 — A. Yes, sir. Q. The Commissioners are paid .'?1,000 a year and tiie Chairman .'?2,000 ? — A. Nu, ►Sir. The Chairman is paid 81,000, and theConniiissionei-s are paid !?.") for every sitting. Q. You say that when you accepted the .'5") cents you acted upon the recom- mendation of the Chief Enj^ineer ? A. Yes. Q. T sui)pose that was generally tiie case for all the contracts? — A. Yes, in ii'l tlni contracts. Q. Naturally, not bein<; a pi-actical man, you I'eceived instructions from the Chief engineer, whoever he was, whenever there was any contiact, either for the Cross-wall, the Soutii-wall, the dredging or the Graving dock at Levis ? — A. It was the same thing in all circumstances. (}. The Ciovernment furnished the money which was obtained from Parliament and advanced the money from the public purse at Ottawa, and it was o{)erated by you, and the contractors paid out of it ?- A. Yes. Q. Then as to the execution of the conti'acts -while the conti'acts were executed, you had, of course, the advantage of the Engineer's kiwiwledge and tlu-y were entrusted with the proper execution of the works ?- A. Yes sir. Q. Your responsibility did not go to that ?- A. No. Q. You trusted to the Chief Engineer and the start" of otHcers?--A. Yes. Q. Will y(ai tell me in what way, Mr. Valin was not a very ethcient chairman .' IJecause it is a very .serious matter and he feels it too. I want to know exactlv in what way he was inethcient, and whethei' there was any necessity for there being a practica' man as Chairman — how is it that he would be inerticient through not being [iractical while you would be erticient, he lielonginga little to the marine and shipping and lia\ing a great nunil)er of ship; in what way was he inerticient ?- -A. In my o)iinion lie as Chairman did not take enough interest in the works. (,^. What was the surt'ering from that want of activity?— A. That is all I can answer. Q. You do not speak of ciairse iigainst ills honesty ? — A. N<'t at all. Q. He is a man that you would l)elie\(' on oiith?--A. Certainly,] would belie\e tiim. i}. You wiadd believt? Mr. N'alin on oath ?- A. Certainly. (j. And that is the oidy explanation you can give of the inerticiency ? He was not bound more than y he pays the money out of that. Q. Mo, the actual .solvency of the man is not important, provided he dejtosits the necessary secu.it,, he may be a jioor man, if he has enough to furnish the amount of 97G nr Tn 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 W his security the iunount of liis possessions is not important '(- A. No : men do a ^rent (leal on eredit. (.}. IJiit you said lie had to [).iy out the money i'ei-eive'// .1/*'. I'"ilxi)iilrii-k : (^). What is y?air name ? A. William Uae. tj. You are an im|iortap' ship owner ? A. Allan, liac iV Co. arc Q. I l)elie\'e the lirm ha\c the l.-iigcst steam xcssels on the^i. i..i\\ icmc .' A. Allan, Rae tV: Co. have. (j. Thev arc intcrcstcut the <|uestion though do you not I'ecollect that at the time the first set of tenders were sent in, one of the utficials of the Quebec Harbour Commission, Mr. (Jourdeau, the Harl)our master, at the recjuest of the (Quebec l>oard of Trade, suggested that new tenders should be called for and an increase made in the depth for the convenience of the trade in Quebec? A. 1 do not remember. Q. You have no recollection whatever? A. None whatever. Q. You will remember, perchance, that amongst tii<' tendei's sent in was oiu- from Fradet i^- .Miller?- A. T learned that from the .Minute book to-day. Q. Do you remend)er whethei' or not at that time any security was asked from I'^ratlet it .\(iller, pre\ious to the awarding of the contract? A. Nothing beyond what 1 .see in the Minute book. Q. From the Minute l)ook ha\e you ascertained that you are the gentleman who moved a resolution re(|uiring that the tenderers Fradet iV: Miller should give .'?10,000 security before the contract was awarded .' A. Yes. 978 FmF 64 Victoria Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. You would not ask them to <;ive such security unless there was ■,'oo(l reason for it?— A. Not likely. Q. Will you now lecollect the leason why you asked for security? — A. Xt>thini; beyond my knowledge of Mr. Fradet. Q. Will you give us your recollection of that? — ^A. I did not consider him to he in a position, tinancially, to undertake that contract. Q. You were satisfied at the time that it was impossible for Fradet t^r Miller to do the work at the price stated, and in consecjuence of this you asked that they shouUl give security? — A. Yes, it must have been so. Q. Do you not lecollect tli.it the next lowest tender was from a man named Askwitii / -A. T find from the Minute book that that is so. I see that he withdrew his tinder and was not able to perform the work. Q. Tt was after Fradet tt Miller failed to put in this security to the amount re(|uire(l, that the contract was awarded to Larkin, Connolly I'i: Co. ? — A. Yes. Q. And Beaucage withdrew ?~ -A. T see that from the l)ook. Q. And you learned from the book that on youi' motion, .seconded by Mr. Dobell, the contra<-t was given to Larkin, Connolly it Co. ? Counsel objects. Q. Have you a.scertained from the Miimte book, that you moved that the contract be awarded to Larkin, Connolly it Co.? A. I do not recollect, but T have no doubt whatever, that T did. If it is in the Minute b(«ok, T have no doubt I mo\ed the reso- lution. <^. Will you liKik at the resolution of the L'itli Septeml)er, jiage ;5!)0, of Minute book 4, — it appears to be moved by William Kae, Ks([,, seconded by Allan Dobell, Es(|., " Resolved, that the Chairman and the Secretary-treasurer be, and are hereby authorized to sign on behalf of this Connnission the contract awarded the 20th July last to Messr's. Larkin, Connolly it Co., for the dredging in connection with the Haibour Wke of Harbour ( "uinmissit )solutely unnecessary to (|ues- tion me any further. I do not remend)er. Q. N. let us see if! can get you to remember oik thii to state with absolute cei'taintv tliat vou nc\fr at any tin>e concuired in ig. Ar<' \i)U in .i position th .iward ot any contract or payment of any sum of money to any contractor unless you were ab lutely certain it was in the interests of the public ,' A. 1 cannot use stronger woi than yours, positively w itl T never would have aci|uiesce(l if 1 thought otherwise. I agree most lout reser\ation in w hat you have .sau U. Do you recollect that in iS^i.") there were 1 .'!(), .'i.").") yards of dredging done at :<•"> cents and ])aid foi jiaid for it was correct. 1— G2i A. 1 have no recollection now ( if such details. If it w.is done and, n^ 4 ''ii IS '4;!- S<:i' ;tilS \\f, 64 Victoria. f ill Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Tt was li^flit lU'i'didiii;,' to your ju(l;;'in<'iit.- -A. Witli it'iiaid to tliat .■?•") ctMit contmct, r will say it included not only the di'ed;,'ing, itut the iilaein;; of the material on the harhour works, not only the iiarhour works in jxtssession of the Connnission hut any future land that niifiht he aciiuired by them. Q. Was that under the eontract of IW'l — A. Yes; was that not the same? Q. I am sjieakinjL; of ISSo? — A. I cannot reniemher all the details. F can only I'epeat that in coiinection with the 35 cent contract, when T saw the opinion of Mr. Perley that these fijfiires were reasonable and that we could not do better than acce])t them, of course it was perfectly understood to include that the dredj^inj; mateiial was to be ])laced to such an extent as the Connnission mi;iht direct on the embankment. I adtlt'd a I'esolution that not only must they put the material on the property of the Connnission but upon any projiei'ty which they mij,'ht ac<|uire. That circumstance is fixed in my mind. Tf it had not been for that it would have jias.sed from my mind altoreciate the value of the work done under tha<^ contract 1 A. No : not at all. Q. \''ou do not ?— A. Of course not. Q. l)o you consider that '-V) cents was a fair amount.^ A. I consider that Perley had figured out the thing and adwised us, that it was the l)est that could l)e done, had no opinion myself beyond excrcisi-.ig my intelligence upon the opinion gi\t'n liim. C^. I )o you remend)e!' that in ISf^t!, 30 cents per yard was allowed in additi;Mi tile l{."i cents under the contract ? — A. No recollection whatevei'. Not the least use ask me any such «|uestion as that. Q. Do you rti'ollect that in ISS(), the Connnissioners alhtwed in addition to tin conti'act price of .■}•") cents per yat'd, 30 cents for dredging material i)laced upon th( Louise Kmbankment ? -A. No such recollection. Q. Do you reme'i.ber anything about jirices jiaid in >ronti'eal, for dredging? — A. Not a bit. I simply ..ttend to my own liusiness. i}. Are you still a member of the lioard .' .\. Yes ; I am principally for tin l)Ui'jiose of looking aftei' the pilots. I wcadd not lie tlieic if it was not for that. Q. I)id you ac(juiesce in the change of Chairmen ?- A. 1 was not present. (.}. I)i(l you ])rotest afterwards ? A. T did not. as 1 i',y to to m-: lii) Mr. Tiirli- : (}. What is the depth of theTidal basin '. A. It is understood that thedejith is '2') feet at low water. Q. Did you have a vessel put there .' Yes: we had a vessel drawing •_'') feet )Hit ill, which met with an acciy tlie Hon. M\: Mciireevy, seconded l)y Win. Kae, Es<|., resolved that inas- uiueh as it appears on the I'eeonnnendation of tiie Harhoui' Master to he advisable that a deptli f>f water in ))asin and doeks, new harbour works, he increased from L'l feet at low water to l2G feet ; it he decided not to open the tendei's for excavation on the L'4 foot basis, but to advertise for tenders on the lid foot line, and they bere(|uire(l to l)e sent in liv noon on Tue.sday, 4th July pro.x." You have said you are aware that there are only 2;") feet cif watei' ? A. I am aware that there ai'e L'.") feet, and that it is stated to the Commission that there is 2') feet. Q. Had you yourself any knowledge of that '! — A. Xone. T know notliint; except that we had shii)))in}; there. Q. Did you jf(» throuj,di the whole basin? — A. To the furthest end of the basin (|uite close to the Ci'oss-wall. Q. Were you told al)out the changes in tlie sewer ! A. No, 1 never heard anything about it. It never came bef(»re us. Q. You are aware, of course, Mr. liae, that some Inspectors were employed iiy the Harbour Connnissioners to watch over the di'edging? -A. i am aware that Inspectors Aere appointed. Q. You were never aware that they were emj)loyed at the same time by tiie con- ;ractors? — A. Most decidedly not, "t had no idea of it. I remember that we iiad a great deal of trouble in selecting the Inspectors. That we had a great many ajiplications and we went carefully o\ei' the jKMiple who ai)p!ied. The Commissioners exercised tiieir be^, judgment in the men selected. Q. Wei'e you ever warned or told that Larkin, Connolly and Co. were dredging deeper than lo feet in the wet basin? — A. I do not rememl>er anything al)out it. i). You do not kni>\\ anything about it ?- A. No, T I'annot say anything about it, l)ei'ause it was for the Engineer to attend to all these matters. • /ii/ Mr. Linif/i'/lrr : (). You stated a few moments ago, that you remember that your \ie\\s were tii.it all the dredging material taken from the dredging of the Wet basin was to lie spread on the projieity of the C'onunissioners ?- A. It was understood tiiat the Comniissioners should ha\e a right to it. but it was not understood that the whole of the dredging was to be placed on the jiroperty of the Commissioners, l)Ut they had a right to direct the Engineer to order whure the dredging was to lie ])laced. Q. That is what i understood, and diu'ing the execution of the dredging, iliti it <-ome under the notice of the t'ommissioners that the contractors instead of putting the dredging matcial on the end)aid put on the ginund of the Har- bour Connnissioners ? .\. I understand so, a very large i|uaiitiry. (.). You know that jiersonally .' .\. Yes. ft i 'i '■ ' 1'^ ■f, ■ ff J ^ 1 i i i I 1 1 . 1 is i i ■ ; ti', 'M u illh- Jiiil ii'i !> H 981 54 Victoria. i n Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 iii Joseph Bkll Foksvth, called iiiid .sworn. Jiy Mr. Tarte : -A. Yes. Q. Are you a nieuiber of the Hailjour Coniniissiou of Quebec ?- Q. How long have you been a nienibei- ? - -A. Since 1879. Q. Have you any recollection of some scheme about the South-wall in Quebec in 1886 1 — A. Some plan was prepared at the time. Q. The plan was to go from near the Cross-wall to near the gas worics ? — A. I think so. Q. Will you tell us what that was?- A. I remember a plan was submitted l)y Mr. Perley to make the wall from the Cross-wall up to near the gas works. Q. Was tlie plan submitted in a written report ? — A. T do not think it was. I remember seeing the plan. The plans were at the Harbour Commissioners' ottice, but T do not remember any report. There may have been one, although T do not remember it. Q. Was the plan of Mr. Perley appi'oveil at the time by Mr. McGreevy, to your knowledge '? — A. I believe it was. When the plan first came down it was approved by Mr. McGreevy. Q. As a matter of fact, was there not at the time a pretty big fight between Mr. McCxreevy and the other members abt)Ut that plan 't — A. There was great opposition on the part of some of the Connnissioners to the building of the wall. Q. And he could not carry his point? — A. Well, T may say that I for one was opposed to it. Q. You cai'rit'd your point? — A. Well, it never came to a vote — that scheme was abandoned. Q. Have you any recollection of the dreilging contract of 1887 ? — A. For .'?.") cents, —Yes. Q. By what weve you guided at the time in granting the conti'act ? — A. — Well, as has been stated belore to-night, the old contract had expired tiie year before, and Mi'. Boyd, who was our "tiesident Engineer, said that the contractors would not go on— that there must be another pi'ice fixed. I do not think that we heard of it for some time — not until we I'eceived a letter from Mr. Perley reconnnending or enclf)sing a letter to Larkin, Connolly it Co., reconnnending the adoption of that price, and stating that he considered it fail' and reasonable. Q. It was the first time when you got that letter that you heard about that new offer? — A. As far as T can remember it was the first T had. Q. You never authorized Hon. Thos. McCireevy t(» arrange with Mr. Perley for a contract for dredging with condit' 'lis attached tiiat would amount to nothing?-- A. I do not think .so. Q. As a matter of fact, when you received that letter from Mr. Perley, it was tin; first time you had heard about it? — A. To the best of my knowledge and belief. Q. Did you ever receive any notice from Larkin, Connolly it' Co. that they would not go on on the former prices? — A. I do not remember. Q. Were you ever informed that Larkin, Connolly it Co. were dredging deeper than lo feet? — A. I do not think the Conimi.ssionei's were so informed. T do not remember any information as to that ([uestion. Q. AVere you informed that the sewer for the South-wall was raised 2 feet 9 inches ? — A. We were not. Are you correct in stating '2 feet 9 inches. The Cfmnnissioners were imt appri.sed of that. Q. You never knew anything about it ? -A. No. /ii/ Mr. Fifziiatrick : Q. Have you any reason to think the Engineer's Report was not correct after the condition of tlie dredging and the depth of water? — A. Certainly not. /if/ Mr. T,ir/<' : Q. Had you dealings with .Mr. Murphy at tliat time, you know 982 turn -A. Ye 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 By Mi'. /''Ifzj>afri>'k : Q. Do you renienibei' in ISH") there was tlre(l<^iii;{ done at -"V") cents? — A. T do not remember. Q. Was there in 1S8G some done at '27 cents, somt; at 21) cents, some at 4-"> cents and some at ■")•") cents? — A. I rememberthat the old contracts went tVom "J" to 4") cents. (}. You do not know if the contract was in existence in 1SS6? — A. 1 do not tliink it was. Q. Frequently during the coui'se of the work did not tlit^ Connnissionei's go to tlie work and examine how it was progi'essing and what were tlie rates to be given ? — A. Tliey went there and spoke to the coirtractors and Engineers. Q. And watched as closely as you could with the work in progress? A. Yes. Q. In ISSt) do you remember that l\0 cents were allowed in addition to the .'io oents for other dredging done, making in all (i") cents I — A. T do not rememltei' that. T* 1.; i. ^Kl 11 ■ « Mr. MicnAKL Flynn sw( I' iff' Jii/ Mr. Stuart . Q. Mr. Murphy has said that he paid you in 1SS7 two of .'?2")0 and one sui .f !?r)0. Ts that tn A. No ; it is untrue. He paid me one stnn of ■'?li;")0. Q. Was that for yourself ?- -A. Tt was ff)r pai-ties in l^uebec for the electior Q. Had you any conversation with him ivcently ? — A. Aijout what Q. Any conversati the course ol i last spring ni which you spoi (ke of the Hon. Thomas Mc(>reevv ? -A. Yes, I had several conversations with him about Mr. Mc(Jreevv. y. Will y< ly now if you had a conversation with him at the Helvedei'e club ? Mr. A.MYOT objects. The (piestion is not pressed. <.^. Do you know the genei'al reputation that <). E. Murphy enjoys in ( ).jection sustanied. Q. Do you know the general reputation of O. E. Murjihy ? Counsel objects. Question allowed. Q. Do v(ai know the general reputation that O. E. Murjiliv enjovs .' A. Not very litable. ■ • Q. Woulil you believe him on his oath .' -A. That is a i|uestion I am not pre|iarentiniied her in his name. Q. The contract was entered into with the Government for five years V — A. Yes I think so. (},. And renewed in 1888? — A. Yes, Q. And again in IS^it? — A. No; renewed in 1S88 for five years. Q, That is the wli le of the cxphmation ? — A. 1 nmy tell you th:>*, Mr. CIwiImiI would not take the responsibility; he had to be guaranteed against any responsiiiiliiy. Q. He hud to be guaranteed against any responsibility ? — A. Yes. t^. I want to ask you one or two words about the Bale des Chaleurs Railway. I understand you to say tluit the original stock you held in the company you paid ten per cent, upon it, giving a cheque or note? — A. I think it was a cheque. Q. That cheque was never paid ? — A. No, no. Q. It wa»j only just put in ? — A. Yes it was never used. Q. So that practically you paid no money out of your pocket at all for the stock? — A. I was simply responsible for the stock. I paid nothing except the cheque. Q. And that cheque you did not pay ? — A. I did not. Q. The cheque was never charged against you by anybody? — A. I am not aware that it was. Q. Afterwards you sold all the stock or transferred it to your brother ? — A. Yes to Robeit McGreevy. Q. And eventually i largo sum of money was paid by the Armstrong people for your interest in the Bale des Chaleurs Railway? — A. 1 explained already how it was paid. Q. I want you to tell me again please — that large amount was paid? — A. Yes. Q. Is it not a fact that you claini that your brother Robert was not entitled to any part of the money arising from the Bale des Chaleurs Railway? — A. Well that claim was put in by Counsel with my consent. Q. As a matter of fact did you claim that all the moneys from the Bale des Chaleurs Railway belonged to you and not to Robert ? — A. I do not think I would be entitled to the whole of it. I would be entitled to portion of the stock. Q. What portion would 3'ou bo entitled to? — A. I do not know how much. There never was any agreement as to the amount that each had. Q. You say you had no agreement. Can you not state more specifically than that what the position of matters was? — A. No. Q. As a matter of fact you claim in the dispute with your brother that you were entitled to the whole? — A. I authorized my Counsel to make tlio claini in the papers. Q. In the papers forming part of the proceedings? — A. Yes. Q. After the dispute arose and when the pleadings were put in you authorized your Counsel to claim the whole of it. \'ou
  • not deny that? — A. 1 did. What my Counsel did 1 am responsible foi'. Q. What I want to find out is with respect to the actual moneys that you liail received. I find as a matter of fact that in the suit between you and your brother in the accounts filed between you you admit a payment of .$,'{,000 in May ISSt! ? — A. No, I do not admit it. Q. Y'ou admit it in your suit? — A. No, I gave him the aggregate for the whole. Q. In the pleadings in the account tiled between you and your brother you gave him credit for $3,000 on the 7th of May, 18S(!, and »T,000 on June2Sth?— A. I gave him credit for the whole aniount en bloc but not for tlie separate items at all. I will not be responsible for the items. It may be that in giving him credit for the whole these particular items would be included. 987 iH' I,,!l !|''ir 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q, The wlidlc lux'ount was ('(miposeil of six ilift'oront itoins? — A. 1 liavo already explained those. Q. The iti-ms wore, May 7th, 188(), ?j:^.0tlO; .him- 2Stli, 87,000; Oi'toher (ith, 88,000; ^ovoinlier 22nd, §8,000; Deei'nil.iT 20th, 88,000, and Septemiior 20th. 1887, «8,000; making a total of 842,000? -A. Vos. if. Now, 1 will take the three tiist items — they are charged and admitted hy you':' — A. I admit the wlude account, Q. There is no other whole account 1 see except this? — A. There is account for 8(i4,0OO. It, is taken otf the (jrij^inal of the whole. Q, r am i\ot interested in the rest of the account here at all. I want to ask you if thoacc(mntcontaininj^ those throe entries was an excerpt from the Uaiedos Chaleurs Ilnilwii}-— 83,00(», 87,000 and 88,000?— A. I believe it was. Q. For the |)urpose of that suit at any rate you adinitteil those payments? — A. They were in the account. 1 admit the whole account. Q. That would make 818,000?— A. Yes. Q. Then again yon received in addition to this 88,000 from ^Ir. Xoel at Ottawa ? — A. It was a payment, 1 think, made on the 22hd Xovembor. Q. 1 don't care when it was. You tell us that j-ou received it? — A. I won't be definite about the cheque as to the date, but 1 received payment. 1 think on the 22nil or at any rate late in November. Q. That cheipie went to you? — A. 1 admit that. (I. That is that 88,000 in your brother's account given as coming direct from Mr. Noel ?— A. Yes. Q. That would make 820,000 out of the IJaie des Chalours J{ailway'— A. Y'es. Q. The 88,000 1 am now sjteaking of did not go through your brother's hands at all ?— A. No. Q. But it is in the same account although it came direct from Mr. Noel? — A. Yes. Q. Did Mr. Noel make a cheque ])ayable to yourself? — A. I got it as a cheque layable to myself. It was endorsed over to me but it was payable I thiidi to Robert Mctireevy, Q. Will you pledge youi- memory to that ? — A. No. Q. Y'ou have no memory- about it? — A. I don't say that. Q. Your memory is so :;ip,tl3' to tiieso transactions. Q. What is your liolicl'as to whofiier j'ou had tr-i.T storied tlio shares Ijolore vou received the 8^^,0(10 t'roin Mr. Noel? — A. I tluni< I liad transtenod tiiem. (I. Can j'oii tell nio whether you had tianst'erred the siiaies at the time Mr. Xoel sent you that cheque? — A. Tiiat cheque was not sent at the direction ot Mr. Xool ; ]Mr. Xoel did not send it witln ut liein^ directed. Q. It was payable to Iiobert MH ' reov}*, was it not '! — A. I believe so. Q. It was payable to Kobert >[eC reevy because the shares were vested in him? — A. I think so. Q. Have you any doubt about the matter? — A. Well, I don't want to give you nnythin<( more than I know mystit'. il. Is it true or is it not true that at the time }-ou i,''>t the payment you had transt'orie' W.i In m ^ '* Q. Did he make any pi-oposition to you ; didSii- Hector Langevln, personally, irake any proposition to you ? — A. There was some proposition made. Q. r»id Sir Hector Langevln make any proposition to j-ou respecting that road ? — A. Whatever was in my letter at the time. Q,. J am not speaking of your lotter. I am asking you from youi- memory now? — A. My memory is not perfect altogiuher. Q. Will you swear there were no negotiations bel.veen Sir Hector and yourself? — A. I won't swear that. Q. Will you swear that he made no proposition to you ? — A. T am after stating there was. Q. Then he did make a proposition to you ? Will you state to the Committee what jiropositir.i he made? — A. He was wanting to settle up the difference between the liobitailles. Q. That was his object but not the proposition. His object may have been the best in the world, but I wani to know what proposition ho made to you? — A. There was some proposition of some other road there. Q. What was the pr'position? — A. According to the letter., 1 think he proposed to give some other roatl a subsidy, but I did not enterlaiii it for a moment. 1 did not entertain it. T think there was some talk about that. Q. You were doubtful as to his power to carry out the undertaking. I a in asking you what the proposition was itself? — A. x'here was some talk about it. Q. Some talk to give you what? — A. It was something about this Montmorency Eailway subsidy: to build that road. I cannot remember all these things. Ft was a thing that never came to anything. Q. Do you state on the responsibility of your oath that you do not reniembei' anj'thing about it? — A. 1 do remember something.,, but I cannot swear to the thing exactly. Q. Do you state you do not remember what his proposition was? — A. It Mas u proposition of a subsidy of $6,000 a mile. Q, To gi\e 8ti,0('0 a mile to 3'ou? — A. No, not to give it to me. To give it to a ':(»riinany. Q. To a company- ? — A. To a company or something. Q. What company r — A, Soma com])any or other. I cannot remember what company. This is a thing too long ago. Q. Had you any connectior with the proposed company that was to get the subsidy '^ — A. It did not turn out. Q! What had you todo with the company th.ti was to get the gC.OOO ?— A. Xolh- ing in the world. I had not a share or anytliing to do with it. Q. Then you state the proposition was to give gtJ.OOO to some otner pet)ple and you were not to have any interest in it ? — A, I did not say that. Q. Then what interest were^'ou to have in the company? — A. There must have been some interest. 1 wa^ to be one of them, I suppose, some way or other. Q. As a matter of fact, Mr. Mcdi'eevy, wereyou not to be one of the beneficiai'ii s in that 86,000 subsidy or noc ? — A. 1 had no confidence in that at all. I did not entertain it. Q. Do you say you had no confidence in Sir Heett>r Langevin ? — A, I had con- fidence in him, certainly, but 1 did not know whether he had power to carry it out or not. Q. Were you or were you not to be one of the beneficiai-ies in that 8(i,000 subsidy? — A. I have no recollection personally of what was to be done or how it was to be done. There was talk that some such thing might 1)0 done. s it that you wanted, I aske(i ? — A. I did not want anything but to get rid of my shares in the other company a!id my responsibility. Q. And to induce you to get rid of your shares, Sir Hector Laiu:eVin ottered to give for some company in which j'ou wore to bo interested a subsidy of 8t3,(H))) a mile ? — A. I do not think he made it so definite as that. Q. You state that your only object was to get rid of youi des Clialeurs road ? — A. Exactly. Q. Could you not get I'id ot them by assigning tlieni over?- in a ])osition to get rid of them in that way. Q. Was not the real reason that you desireil to get compensation for youi' shares? — A. 1 do not remember making any proposition of the kind. Q. I did not ask you that. I asked you, was not your object in making these negotiations to get ome mon'^} value for your siiai-es ? — A. Perhaps it might be so. Q. In consideniiion of a money value that yon were to got, Sir Hector Langevin jjroposed something about giving a subsidy of $6,000 to another company ? — A. I said that was to settle a difficulty between his friends. I do not know that there was anything else in it than that. Q. T will call your attei\tion to the following letter. Exhibit "'P^," printed at page 23: "I had a meeting this afternoon with Sir Hector and Sir Adolphe on Baie dos Chaieurs," is that so? — A. I suppose so, if I stated so at the time. Q. When you say '"Sir Hector and Sir Adolphe," did you mean Sir Hector Langovin and Sir A. P. Caron? — A. I suppose so. Q. Have you any doubt about it?— A. Their names are there. 1 wrote the letter. (i. I want to know if you are honest and sincere, and desirous of telling the truth. When you used the names "Sir Hector and Sir Adolphe," did 3'ou mean Sir Hector Langevin and Sir A. P. Cai'on? — A. I sujipose so. Q. Vou are not capable of answering that question straight? — A. 1 am answer ing as straijiht as I can. I Q. Will you answer the simple question whether you meant Sir Hector Lange- vin and Sir A. P. Caron, when you used the names " Sir Hector and Sir Adolphe " ? — A. 11 I wrote that at the time it must have been so. Q. Have you any doubt about it? — A. I do not know. (^. If you have a doubt, who might you have meant? — A. 1 suppose it moaii« them, if I wrote it. Q. Have you any doubt that you wrote the Ictier? — A. I do not deny that. Q. Have you any doubt that the people to whom you referred were Sir Hectiir Langevin and Sii' A. P. Caron ? — A. It is very hard to sa}' when things never turned out to anything. Q. That is your answer to my question whether you have any doubt that thr parties referred to here are Sir A. P. Curon and Sir Hector Langevin? — A. J do not think there is any doubt about those two. it 1 wrote about them. (^, You have come to the conclusion now that there is no doubt ? — A. 1 think that is the case. Q. If you did not refer to Sir Hector Langexin did you refer? Suggest some other parties? — A. about M;uM). Q. Their names are mentioned here in this Adolphe." Does that mean Sir A. 1*. Caron and suppose so. (^ Did not tin sup|)ose it was so. Q, That is the most positive answer you can give? — A, That i^ the must positive answer I can give you. Q. You won't give mo any more ditinile answer than thai? — A. That is ihe most positive answer 1 can give. I supjxiseil it tn be them when I wrtile the name- at lb time. and Sir A. P. Caron. to whom I lefeiied l<> them, if 1 wi'oif letter "Sii' Hector and Sir Sir Hector Xanuevin ?- -A. I refor to Sir Hector Lany-evin and Sir A. P. Caron ? — A. I 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Do yon know any other Sir Huetoi- or Sir Adolplie ? — A. They are the two names that I mentioned. Q. Are there any other two bearing these names in Canada ? — A. No. If \ wrote about them, they were tlie men that were meant. Q. 1 read from your letter aiijain, Exhibit "V'2" : "Sir Hector insisted on an understandini^ being come to." Is that Sir Hector Lanuevin ? — A. Yes. Q. " I refused to do so, and told hiir at last to let ivobilaille maice a proposition himself; that I was not going to make brains for him forever and let liim take advantage of it. Tiiev proposed (not Canm, Sir Hector), to give me control of the road to St. Anne's, witli subsidy of St),000 per mile, if 1 would withdraw my oppo- sition to B. de C. Jiailway ami relieve me and you of our stock." Here is a definite and distinct pro])ositi(m. Did you write the truth m- a lie ? — A. 1 wrote ihe truth. i}. So that the proposition Sir Hector made to you at the time was that hewoaKl give yon coi.'iol of the road \n St. Anne's? — A. He jiroposed it, Q. With a ^;'l>r:^ly of ^(1, (Kin per mile, if you would withdraw your opposition to the Bale des Chaleurs road ? — A. That is it. Q. You did not think that was enough ? — A. I wanted to get rid of my s'.oci . Q. "To relieve you and me of our stock?' — A. The negotiation ne'-"r took place. . He did not propose to give you control of the I'oad to Charlevoix '.■' — It did not onU' go to St. Anne's, but Q. .\t any I'ate, the particular nifei' you had Vdu wduld not acccjit ? — A. 1 tiid not accep'. Q. S'dU did not accept because j'ou had them in a tix ? — A. I did not say that. Q. Reail your own letter then : " They projiosed (notCaron, Sir Hecter) to give me control of rnad to St. Amies with subsiily of .S(;,()ll() poi' mile, if [ would withdraw my ojijiosition tn Bale iles t'haleurs liailway, and relieve you and me of our slock. They are in a complete tix?" — A, I sujipose they were. I wanted to g< t rid of my stock, and I wanted to keep them there until 1 got I'id of my stock. Q. You had them in a tix? — A. I did not think the organization wa- a legal one, and I wanted to get out of it. ii. You alterwaids sold out for 84-!.()0(»? — A. I got no money, [{oberl ^^c(ireevy got the money and it was ]iuid out in various w;iys, Q. And you admitte, Have you with refereiue to Armstrong's 8>i,i)(Hl, tor wliiili it is alleged he ajtplifMl for an extension of timc'i' — .\. What have I to do with Annstrong? Q. What do you say? — .V. 1 do not know. Q. Do you Icnow whethei' you have a nieinory onllial >ubie(t ? — A. I have answered that, loo. t^. Listen now. Do you recollect Miiything about thai •■^s^odo and .\rin>tiong ap])lying for an e.Ktension of time with regard to its jiayment beyond what you see in that letter? — A. I remember >eeing the letter and I di> not remember anything else about it. 1 have no doubt he must have written mo the letter, and the letterhas got out of my possv'ssioii. Q. Do you have any doubt of the facts which he wroti' about and thai lliey are not mythical ; that the 88,0(10 he aiiplied for an extension of time to pay must have existed? He must have owed it to you '? — A. He (lid not owe it to me. The letter was put ill here liy Kobert MctJieevy, 1 suppose. (^. Do you believe that .\rmstrong was applying to you for an extension of time for 88,000 he diil not owe you ? — A. I tell vou a^ain that he did not owe it to me, '.•!t;5 1— (;;5 ■^m in r 54 Victoria. KH* F Appendix {No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. What did he want an extension of time to pay you for '.■' — A. I suppose he asked mo to speak to Robert about it. Q. " I telegraphed to-day hoping to have a favourable reply for you about the payment of $8,000 as 8j)oken about last week." Did ho siioak to you about $8,000 in the previous week ? — A. I have no recollection of it. Q. " I suppose your brother will have seen you about it on Tuesday. I under- stood he would be in Quebec to-moi'row, but I am writing iiini to River du Loup in case he should be there. I think an extension of time .-liould be granted to me." He is pleading for a delay about the $8,000 about which lie spoke to you. Is that all imaginary ? — A. I do not remember that he spoke to nie about it, Q. Do j'ou say this is a pure matter of imagination ? — A. L suppose he had money to pay to Robert McC^reev3^ Q. This is to you.— A. lie might write fifty letters to mc. I tell j'ou 1 had no negotiation with Armstrong — no agrc„...ont with him. That should be satisfactory ; call 3Ir. Armstrong. Q. Why should he write to you aliout tlio payment ot §8,000 and offer you new security? — A. I have no right to give an opinion aitout what he thinks. Q. If he tlid not owe you the money 'i* — A. I told you I have no recollection of the transaction at all. I had no connection with Armstrong or any agreement with liini. I have explained that about twenty times. Q. I want to see your cash book for 1883 which you have produced here. While it is coming I want to bring you to the payment of the moneys you received from Larkin, Connolly cS: Co. — A. I received no moneys from Larkin, C )nnolly & Co. What do you mean ? Q. I wanted to biing you to the payment of the moneys you received from Larkin, Connolly & Co.? — A. For the amount of contributions? Yes. Q. You understand what we are talking about '! — A. Yes. Q. How much do you say you received from them? — A. §55,000. (i. You are very clear about the amount? — A. Pretty much so. Q. In what payments did you receive it? — A. There was $15,000, as I explained in the first instance. Q. What year ?— A. I knew it m, 1884 ^or the first time. The $15,000 that was to be given to the fund — the political fund- -and then in the fall of that year Q. In wh.;t year was that? — A. 1884, and 82."),O00 during the ."^ame year. Q. Did vou not get $25,000 in 1883 ?— A. No, 1 did not." Q. You did not get the notes of Larkin, Connolly & Co. for $15,000 in 1883 ?— A. 1 did not understand anything of the sort. Q. I ask j'ou, as a simple matter of fact, did you receive Larkin, Connolly «& Co.'s notes — three for $5,000, each in the year 1881! ? — A. [ did not. Q. Then you have a clear memory about that ? — A. Yes. I have gone over it pretty often. (i. You are quite sure about that, and I nwd not press you any further? — A. 1 am (luite clear. Q. You say that there were $15,000 which ymi received in tlie first place, and then afterwards how much? — A. $1(1,000. Q. That was in the year 1884.''— A. In the oud i>i' 1884. Q. And these two payments make $25,000, that is the $15,000 and the $10,000— that vou paid to Lamont ? — A. Yes. Q. To whom did you pay tiiat? — A. To ^Mr. Vanasse 1^. Have you any entries in any of the ii' ^h< wing the payment a;id to whi >m it was made ?— .Y Xo, I keep no entries of thai kmd. Q. Why? — A. On account of tlie charmlcr of the tian^actiuu. Q. You don't keep entries of transactions of thai any receipts f(ir it, and didn't keep any particular account for ^lolitiod money. Q. Now. is it not a fact that you received'over §100,(100 ?— A. I did not. Q. You did not ''—A. I did not. Q. ilow can you be so positive? — A. I am imsitive KMause I would liavo known. I would have fouml ii somewhere." Now where would you get the amount that you woidd have found ? — A. I would have foii»i it so>mewliere. Q, That shows you had some nicmonindum of it ? — A. I had •ked over it, it is on the little small sliiis whore 1 ).tt,i.l it to— ireneralh-— — -.and I never couhl tind out anythinu' more than ai-ouit t*5<»,0#0 or ^jj!t€0. ~^ ^\, it was bucause you 9«5 1— 63JI in I E t 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 could not find some slips of paper that j-ou oamo to that conclusion ? — A. I found out pretty nearly what 1 had i^ut. Q, How did you find out ? — A. By examination of the slips of paper. (i. When did j'ou examine them ? — A. Oh, I had them from time to time. Q. When did you have them ? — A. I do not think I had them for the last two yeai'H. Q. Did you have them at the time the examination took place? — A. No. I wont say when I had them. Q. Did you have those slips of paper at the time the examination was made ? — A. I do not think so. I went there quite unprepared. (^. How long previously to that had you destroyed them? — A. Tiiey had been desti'oyetl from year to year, (J. .Fust now you said that about two yoai's ago you destroycil them. If you had destroyed them from ye"r to year how ^verc you able to swear in the Court below thatvou looked over the little slips of paper, and that you could not find more than §.')0,0('lO or 8C(),0(»0 from tbem?— A. Yes. t^. So that you must have had the slips of paper to look over? — A. I must have had ihem previous to that for some time. Q, ][ow long previously? — A. I can not tell you. Q. Vuu must have kept them up to a certain dale, because you say you looketl over them and fiund that it was from titty to sixty thousantl dollars according to these slips given to tl.o people to whom you |>aid the moneys? — A. Yes. Q. You were asked : "How can you be so positive, if, as you say, you kept no account of it? — A. I am positive because I looked over it. It is on the little small slips wiiere I ])aid it to." — A. Oh. no; that is a mistake. Q. J)id ynu not say so? — A. That is not what I said. Q. The Court below is wrong then? — A. That is not taken ilown right. Q. Did }<)u >ign it, ? — A. The answer is i)Ut down wrong, because it was intended for the amount I received and not paid. ii. Tiien you did not say what is swoi'n to hero? — A. I did not give an account to whom I paid it. Q. You do not adhere to the statement that you had little slips of paper show- ing to whom it was paid? — A. 1 only showed the amount of money I received. (i. That you received — that makes it all the worse. So that you receiveil moneys and you put them on little slips of ]>aper '■' — A There were little slij)s. Q. Those little slips dili them from the" others. I may have mixed them all up togethei'. (). Have you got any receipts ? — A. 1 think 1 have. (^ Would they enable yon to tell how much money \ ou ilid get ? — A. They would not. They are mixed up wiih others — the other moneys 1 had ; 1 got lliem in eouHdence. 1 will nm make v breach ofeonlidehee. {}. 1 will ask you :ii;ain to an>wer my quolion ? — .V. I have a large number of recei])ts coverini;- .-i mu(di larger ;iinount than that but there i> no distingui>hing l-eiween tiiem. The money i> .ill mixetl uji together ; 1 cannot distinguish between the two. Q. The ivceijit^ which you have may be for tin- money oiother moneys ':'— A. 1 could not say which is which. Tin- wa< uiven t-^ rne in eniilideme and I could not distiiiirnish one from the oihei . I I Hirpij M! 1 I' 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 5: m Q. You put it into the general funil and tliis S.'Jo.OOO turmoil part of the i,'oneral fuml ? — A. 835.000 wont to Le Monde newspaper ; it was alioiii that ultogothor and tlie other 820,000 went for the elections. Q. And that 820,000 is mixed up with the other moni'ys '! — A. Yes. Q. You have receipts for that money and you decline to ])n)(luco them ? — A. I decline because it wouhl not give the amount. Q. You refuse absolutely to pro(luce them ? — A, Yos. (J. Have you any memoramlum or data liesides the receipts to enable you to detei'raine how much you received, from LarUin, Connolly ic Co. ? — A. Xo. Q. The only data you had, was a piece of paper youilestroyod a "ouplo of years ago ? — A. Sometime ago ; yes. (J. I understanil you to s.ay that O. K. ilurphy was not a man with whom you had any dealings particularly in ISS.^ ? — A. No. Q. You hardly knew the man ? — A. I did not know iiim to have any business transactions with him. I saw him about the place. Q. Business transactions between you and him in 18So would boout of theciuestion, and you had none ? Would it surprise you if part of tiie very money with which you paid off the judgment obtained against you in the Supreme Court was received by you from O. E. .Murphy ? — A. It would surprise mo very much. I told you hei'e yesterday that I gave a note for §3,000 to my brother'. Ho came and asked me for it. Q. You sav you raised part of the monev by a nolo ? — A. I gave a note to my brother for 83,000. Q. That note was payable to yourself and Eobert McGreevy endorsed it ? — A. Yes. il. Are you aware that you got part of that money from O. E. Murphy?— \. 1 know nothing about it. I gave the note to Robert .McHroovy. I will tell you thai > had not known anything about it until I saw that note charged in the account ho fur nished to me afterwards, as having been got from 3rui'|)liy. Q. That was many years afterwards — about a yoai' and a-half ago ? — A. Yes. Q. But the transaction I am speaking o*' was (J or 7 years ago I am talking about 1S83 at a time when you swore you had no business transaction with ^lurphy and hardly knew him ? — A. I knew very little about him. Q. And you swore tiiat you had no business transactions with him ? — A. Xo. (l. As I understand it you got the §1.5,000 by three notes of hand in 1883?— A. I did not get it at all. I got no notes at all. J explained that yesterday. Q. I want to see now if you know anything about this matter at all. Is it not a fact that all the 815,000 you say you received, came to you in three notes of hand of Larkin, Connolly & Co.'sand which you discounted with Mr. Ilearn and Mr. Thom- son ? — A. I did not.. Q. Do you den}' that ? — A. I never saw the notes. Q. Is it not a fact that they were discounted for you and the money got by you ? — A. I saifl before that it was Eobert ilcGi'cevy who undertook to settle the judg- ment of the Supremo Court against me. He undertook to settle it and 1 gave him a note of 83,000 as I did not want to sell any stocks at that time when they were low. He undertook to settle the judgment for me. Q. Here are the notes of §5,000 each (lixhibit " W7 ") two of them endorserd of .Tul}' showing where the money came from, true or false ? — A. You will iiavc to i^^ot Mr. Chalonor to answer that. 1 never saw the ontr\-. Q. Are not those the notes? — (Hxliibit " W7 '') — A. 1 told you I neversaw the notes, Q. Do you know iEi-. Ilearn's signature? — A. I know it very well. (i. Is that his signature on the notes? — (No answer.) Q. Do you mean to tell this Committee that there mii}- bt- a duubt jibDUt the correctness of your cash book? — A. I wont swear to the correctness or non-correct- ness. Q, You furnished §10 of the amount from your own pocket and got 82.,")it0 tVom Murphy? JIavc you no explaiuition of that? — A. I have not. (J. That satisfies you altogether that ^-ou A^ere in error when you said you got nothing from Murphy ? — A. Not at all. Q. Did you get the money from Murphy? — A. I never got it from Murphy, I got it from Jiobert Mciri'eevy. Q. Although it is entered in your cash book as obtained from Murphy? — A. You must get Chaloner to explain that. 1 never saw the entiy until we began to examine the books here the other day. Ft is in Mr. Chaloner's handwriting. Q. Y'ou swore yesterday that the 815,000, which came from them went to pay the judgment ? — A. Afterwards. Q. You stated at the time ? — A. From the statement he gave me I understood he was going to pay it himself on account of his debt. Q. Did you not ask him if he could raise the money and he told you he could ? — A. Yes. lie tokl me he had some accomodation notes. Q. Some accomodation notes of Larkin, Connolly i^ Co? — A. He did not mention any names, until he mentioned chat they came from Mur|,hy. Q. These notes (Exhibit " W 7 ") you are satisfied now are the identical notes? — A. I see the names of those people on them. Q. Have you an}- idea of their being the identical notes entered in the cash book? — A. I never saw the notes at all. I told you that before. Q. The Accountant informs me that the 810, [ leferreil to bad nothing to rlo with the 81<), 844.51? — A. Mr. Chaloner will explain everything about those entries. Q. At any rate, we have got so far that you got the 815,01)0 ? — A. 1 got it as it Avas explained by me before. Q. Y'ou said afterwards you reimbursed that amount? — A. I stated that in an interview the summer afterwards, or the next year, he told me that he would, in place of me charging it to his (nvn debt, contrilmte it for the eoinpaiiy we were get- ting up for Le Monde news])ai)er. He allowed thai 810,000 to go toward the 815.000. Q. You stated that when you subsequently found out the source from which that 815,000 came, that you yourself reimbursed it to the ])olitical fund?— .V. So I did. Q. When ? — A. The next year after. As far as the political fund was concerned, it was largely in debt to me oven at that time. Q. Will you tell the Committee when you reimbursed that 815. "00 ?— A. I have already stated between the fall of 1884 and 1885. Q. Can you give me the date ? — A. I cannot. I gave it tor the purpose of Le Monde newspaper. 000 ! I 54 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 tt ,1 Q. Can't you give me the datois ? — A. I tell you I jiaid the money. Q. Can you give me the dates? — A. I tell you 1 paid the S'J'j.l'OO. Q. Can 3'ou tell me the date? You say tlmt some time afterward you discovered the s(uirce from whieh this 815.0((0 came, and you then reimbursed the political fund with 315,000 of your own. If j-ou did that we can trace it in your books soniewherc. Can you give me the date when you repaid that 815,000 ? — A. I paid Le Monde news- paper §25,000 for 1884 and the beginning of 1885. That is all I can give you. Q. The money you paid Le Monde newspa]ier you have explained already. It is the 810,000 you received from Eobert the following year. I want to know when you repaid tlie 815,000 to the political fund ? — A. When 1 gave it to Le Monde newspajter. Q. When ? —A. I cannot tell. I gave this witiiout receipts. Q, (y'an you tell within the year? — A. Yes; I think I have already stated that I paid the amount sometime between the summer or fall of 1.^8-1 and the commence- ment of 1885. Q. You made it in two payments to Le Mondel — A. Two or three payments. Q. You do not remember the payments? — A. 1 w the result. The items had been extended according to the prices, and they would be all added up so as to >how the i '.dative position of each. Q. Did that show winch was the lowest tenderer? — A. Ves. Q. You said that you would let them know? — A. That was after it went to Council. Q. What right would j'ou have to know the result of those tenders before they were reported U])on by Mr. Perley and by the Minister to Council ? — A. .Mr. Boyd came to me. 1 met him in the s(|uare here, and he told me he had tinished his ex- tensions and had given them to Mr. Perley, and that there was some ditference in some of the items that the}- could not ex))iain ; that he had to refer the matter to Pei'ley to get explained ; but he was tinished. Q. He did not give you the result ? — A. Jle told me about how things sto(xl. Q. Did he tell you how the tenders stood, ami which was the highest ami lowest? — A. He could not toll. Q. Jf he could not toll, and you could not get it from Jioyd, ami you wrote to your brother that you would let'him know to-morrow the result, and asking liim to have his arrangement made with Beaucage, and you would give him timely notice — where did you expect to get that information from ? — A. I had no information from any other ]ierson. Q. You say 3Ir. Boj-d was not able to give you that ? — A. He could give me the amount of each tender with the exception of some error in the words. 1001 I! nm IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) T 1.0 I.I " 1^ 1 2.2 i;2 IIM 1^ IL25 III 1.4 <,^ ^9 Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WIST MAIN STRUT WIBSTIR.N.Y. MSM (716) •72-4903 1^ .^^ 4^ ^ 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 ii. But you httvi< just stated not two minutos ago that Mr. JJoyd was unahio to give you that result? — A. lie reportotl that to Mr. Per ley ; but ho could not toll what Mr. I'orloy would do on those thiniCH. litical friend at the time. (^. In this letter of the 17th of May you wrote to your brothei- Robert : " As I told {:<»u yesterday to try and get a good plan and as quick as possible in answer to the ettor that (rallaghor and Boaucage will receive abnut their tenders?" — A. I have alresidy explained that. i}. " To bring them over Larkin and Connolly so as their tender will bo the lowest?" — A. I have explained that. ur Commissioners at the time. Q. NV^liy were you anxious ho should get a goini plan as <|uick as ])ossible to bring (iallaghor and Boaucage higher than Larkin, Connolly \ Co. ? — A. It was in answer in his own letter. Q. Why were you anxious to bring Larkin, Connolly & Co. down bolow Gallagher and Beaucago ? — A. I have explained that. Q. Are you able to give any explanation except on the assumjition that you wanted them to get it? — A. I would be glad for them to get it. 1 was in fav(»urof them getting it, Q. Why did you want them? For political reasons? — A. It might have boon. Q. Or that they might contribute to the funds? — A. That might be. Vou can put it that way if you like. (}. If I put it that way, I would not bo far wrong, 1 suppose? — A. I suppose not. Q. Now, you never saw Mr. Perley at all about these matters? How is it that on the hith of April you wrote " Mv dear Hobcrt, — I have just seen IVrloy ab<»ut the dredging. I have arranged to meet him on Monday to discuss his dredging report before he sends it to the Harbour Commissionei-s; also other matters aliout the Graving Dock?" — A. 1 was a Harbour Commisiiioner, and I think I was right in doing so, acting in that capacity. Q, Did you not soo him about the dredging and induce him to recommend the 35 cents? — A. I did not. Q. Did you discuss it? A. I think not. 10U2 54 Victoria. Appeudix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Did you report to your lirotlior tlwit he would rocoinuioiul it? — A. I suppose I mi^lit have dono «o. Q. Did you roport to your brother tliat tiioy were K"'">^ to recoiiuuond it with conditions uttnched thiit would not ninount to anything? — A. I suppone he wrote to mo UHkint; for intormution. Q. The conditionn were trifling?? — A. The conditions were iin|v)i'tanl. The con- ditions wore that the Harbour ConiniiHsionors might havestopped it at any time they wanted to get the dredging dono, because tho ('ross-wall was about linislied. Q. Then, sir, you wrote a stutemont which was not true, to your brother? — A. What is that? Q. The statement to your brother, " My dear Ifobert, I have Just seen IVrley on dredging. I think ho wili report on :t5 cents and put some conditions wliich'will amount to nothing. He will report when I will be there." Did you write that to your brother? — A. I wrote bin) atler that. ' (.1. Did you write that to your brother? — A. I must havo written it. il. Did you go on to say he ''will report when I will be there?" — .\. 1 did not happen to b»> there. As it turned out I was not present. A. What did you moan by that, saying that "'Perley will roport when I will bo there?" — A. Well, ho reported when I was n(»t there. *i. What did you moan by that? — A. I caimot remember. (J. You have no explanation to give of iheso , letters then? — A. No, nothing further than I have already given. il. Now, there is one more (luestion that I want to ask you, in connection with the statement made in your letter of the 1st .March, IHSt!. Vou say there, to your brother Uobert, " Kloming was to havo signed his report to-day on Harliour Works. It will be shown to mo us soon us signed. I will see to it to-morrow, and Sir Hector and myself will decide what is to be dono for the future, lie will ado|>t my views. I will ^ce you and Murphy about it before doing anything. It is a big thing for the future." What ground had you for stating that Sir Ileetor would au give? — A. It was written to Kobert and Murphy as political friends. I was glad to show that I was doing something for them to help them. Q. What expl'Miation have you for saying I will see you and Murphy. Does it not show that you were in consultation with .Murphy over tho work ? — A. It was a matter that llobert inquired about. il. Did you write faltiehoods? — A, No, I do not think I did. il. Y(m cannot give any other explanation of your use of tho words: ''It is a big tiling for tho future?" — A. It was a big thing. t^. .night I venture to suggest that you thought it was a big thing li)r Laikin, Connidly iV Co., and thoir friends? — A. I do not remember. Q. Your memory is a blank upon this? No answer. 100.{ 1^^ k i, 1 1 u •.V (I i .; j, ilfi 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. This man Murphy appeura to crop up nearly ovorywhere. I will take a letter of the 26th February, 188(], you say : " I wrote you yestoi-day about Halifax Graving Dock. Sir Hector would be glad to recommend Murphy. The way for them to jo would be to apply to the company in England, ottering to build the dock for them, stating that thev built the one in Quebec, and were finishing the one in British Columbia, and referring to the Minister of Public Workn of Canada as to their ability to do the work." Did you recommend Murphy as a contractor — is that correct ? — A. It is perfectly true. I think I spoke to Sir itector about it. Q. When you say : " referring to the Minister of Public Works of Canada as to their abilit}' to do the work " had you the authority of Sir Hector about that? — A, As a political friend I had his authority. Q. Had you his authority for writing that statement ? — A. I must have spoken to him. I think I did speak to him. Q. Is it not a fact that you and Murphy were on confidential terms, and that you were preparemall sums or in one sum ? — A. In odd sums. (.1 Was that 815.000 a portion of tho §84,000 or ot other moneys?— A. I .-oidd not .say; I mixed them all up togothcr. (J. Then can vou say that the §15,000 did not conic from Larkin, Connolly i*c Co.?— A. It .lid not. Q. How do you know? — A. Becau.so I paid it myself. il. But he had paid it forybert McCrieevy had pai* all ho paid mo. Q. You have accounted for 82r),000 out of'the 853,000. I want to know where the other 8.{0,000 went ? 825,000 you nay wont to Le Monde?— A. No, 835,000. Q. What hecame of the balance of the money?— A. The 820,000? I have already explained that it went to the elections of 1887? Q. To whom ? Mk. KiTZi'ATiiicK objected to the queution. WiT.VESs — I decline to auHWor that quoHtion. Q. You decline to auHwer ? — A. 1 do. Q. You have told u« you g«)t 855,000 from Larkin, Connolly & Co. ? — A. Yes. Q. 8H5,000 of which you paid to Le Monde .' — A. Yes. Q. What did you do with the other 820,000 ? — A. It wan spent in the election of 1887. Q, To whom did you pay it? — A. I explained that to 3[r. Davies. I had other mono3'8 which were mixed up with it, and I could not aive you an answor. Q. Do you decline to say? — A. I decline, because 1 cannot separate them from the other moneys. Q. I don't want you to separate them. You paid out large sums of money for the eleclions.of 1887 ?— A. Yes. Q. Of which this 820,000 was a portion?— A. Yes. Q. To whom did you pay it ? — A. 1 cannot loll you. I could not separate the mone\'B. Q. You i)aid out a large amount of money, of which this 820,000 was a portion ? — A. Yes. Q. To whom did you pay the money ? — A. I decline to tell you. (/. Do you decline to answer? — A. I do. Hy (he Chairman .- Q. You decline to answer? — A. Yes, because I cannot separate the amounts. Q. Do you remember to whom you gave it? — A. I decline to answer. By Mr, German ; Q. I want to know if you decline to answer the question? — A. I do, because it was given U) me in contidence. Q. Is that your only reason ? — A. I decline, because I could not properly sepji- rato it. Q. You decline? — A. I decline because it has nothing to do with this. Q. You decline to give the names ? — A. I ilccline to give the names. By the Chairman : Q. Wh3' do you decline ? — A. Because I was a trustee of those funds, and it was to be kept in confidence. I am not going to make a breach of contidence. By Mr. Curran : Q. When you gave me that declaration to make in tho House, did not you state that that declaration was true? — A. I believed it to be true when I gave it. Q. In regard to this 820,000, tlid you not show me receipts of Mi Tarte's for 83,00(»? Mr. Fitzpatrick. — I object to that. That is unfair. Mr. Tabte. — As this matter has come uj), I want my receipt to be produced here now. I now make application, if I ever gave such a receipt, that it bo prcluced hero now. 1006 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 WiTSESH. — I decline to produce the receipts. Mr. Tahte. — Ah the question haNbeon ruiHod, itimpliesathini; which is not true. Witness. — I refuse to produce them. Mr. Tarte — Am my numo has juHt l>oen mentioned b^' Mr. Curran, who says that he has been told by Mr. Thomas McGreovy when he was authorized by liim to make a statement to the House that I got 83,000 from him, I distinctly state here that I have not the slightest objection to Mr. McGreevy answering any ({uestion alx)ut me. I had political dealings with Mr. Mcfrreevy. I have been a pretty large subscriber to the ix)litical funds of 1886 and 1887 — to the direct political fiinut ; biit we must all remember one thing, that the witness has not answered it. The Committee then adjourned till 3:30 p.m. FwDAT, 7th August, 3:30 p.m. Cross-examination of Hon. Thomas McGkeevv resumed. Mr. German — I ask the ruling of the Chair on the question which 1 put to Mr. I [cGreevy this forenoon. The question is : To whom (till Thomas Mc(«reevy pay the 82O,(»0O, the balance of 855,000 that he received from LarUin, Connolly & Co. ? The Chairman — I think the question can be put. Witness — I decline to answer. Jt is .i matter of contidcnce. Mr. GER.MAN — 1 will move then that the refusal of Mr. McGreevy be reported to the House. B\j Mr. Tarte : Q. Will you allow me to put you one single question : Did you ever tell me that you got money from Larkin, Connolly &'Co. in your life ? — A. I have no recol- lection of it. By Mr. Masson : Q. Did those who receiveil this money from the fund, that you say was a niLxed fuHJ comprising the 82(»,000 and other money, know you had received money I'rom Larkin, Connolly & Co. ? — A. They did not know who 1 had money from. By Mr. German : Q. You understood that JJennolt the Kngineer on the (rraving Dock at British Columbia did not suit the contractors ?— A. I thiidi 1 fully explained that yester- day. Q. Is that the fact?— A. No; I did not say that. I give the same answer as I gave yesterday. Q. What was that ?— A. It is in the report. It was on account of the estimates not being returned. Q. Did vou understand [that Bennett, the iJcsident Kngineer on the Graving Dock at Britfsh Columbia, did not suit the contractors ?— A. 1 did not say anything of the sort. I said that it was because he did not send the estimates accoi-ding to instruction. Q. Did you say he did not suit the contractors? — A. No. Q. Who was it that Bennett did not suit?— A. I made a complaint, as I said yesterdav, on account of the estimates not being returned, as the bank had asked me 1007 li I ■ili: ij-f 5^1 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 i w If I ; i III!' i to look after it, nml see that they were sent down. Thuru waH an arrangement that they were to be telugraphud at the beginning of every month. Tliuy liad not Duon received. H. Wa8 it yourself whom he did not Hnit? — A. No; I complained of his not sending the OHtimatuH. You say in your letter of the 2nil r)f May, 18H.') : " It is now undorHtood that Bennett, the Engineer at B.C., will not Huit ?" — A. That wuh the roaHon. Q. Who diayou refer to an being the person that Bennett did not Kuit ? — A. It waa not me at any rate. Ho did not send the estimatcH as instructed, and I made a com])laint. I fully answered that yesterday. Q I must insist on an answer to that question. Who did you refer to in that letter as being the person whom .Mr. Bennett did not suit? — A. For the reasons I gave. I did not know any person in particular. Tlio bank asked me to look after the estimates. Q. You say: '• It is understood." Between whom was it understood at the time that if he did not be more prompt in the future that he would not suit. (i. Who did you understand that from? — A. I supi)oso 1 spoke to Mr. I'orley and the Minister. Q. Then you say that it was the Minister and Mr. Perley ho would not suit ? — A. I matle the complaint. I have no objection to stating. (i. Was it you ho did not suit ? — A. I had nothing to do with it. (J. There was some persim, as you say : " It was understood?" — A. Ho would not suit if ho would not send the estimates more regularly. I give the same answer as yesterday. Q. I want to know who it was that Mr. IJennett did not suit ? — A. I may have put down that expression. t^. 1 do not care what you may have done. I want to know who it was ? — A. It was on account of the estimates. Q. \Vas it yourself whom he ilid not suit? — A. It was on account of the com- plaint I made. (J. Was it yourself ho did not suit? — A. He would not suit the Doparlment if he did not do his duty as instructtM.!. with it. It was not mo. t^. Who WHS it? — A. It was the (rovcrnmenl. Q. You say it was the (Ifuerninent? — A. Yes, because he had not done his duty. Q. How did 3'ou learn that? — A. I ctimplained of him not returning tlio esti- mates as instructctl every month by telegraph. The bank asked nio to see the I)c])artment alM)ut it and I had complained that the estimates had not come along. ii. Then it must be the (Jovernment that liennettdid not suit? — A. I com- plained against him. il. Was it the Ctovernment ? — A. I cannot tell what |)aesed tivo or si.x years ago ; but I am giving it to the best of my ability. Q. You can tell, I think, if you will, who you were referring to there that ]Jennetl would not suit. Who was it? — A. I made no other complaint. 1 nuide u complaint then. Q. You say it wjis not yourself? — A. I say it was because I made the complaint that he did not send his estimates. I have re])eated that so oiten. y. It is not an answer to the question? — A. It is as goml an answer as I can give. Q. Here is a very jdain, e.\plicit statement : " It is now understood that Bennett tho Engineer at B. (". will not suit." The Chairman — He has given you an answer to that question. Q. Do you say now that it was the Do|»artment that Bennett would not suit ? — A. You can just interpret tho (juestion as well as I can. I have given you my reasons and I cannot give you any other answer. 1008 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 " S<> the MitUHtor and I'orlcy aro iircpurtKl to chaiigo liim. ninoiid one." Who is " ho " '/—A. The Ministor ami I'orley Q. It ii* a plain quoHtion and it rci|tiireH a plain answer, and a plain anHwur can he given ? — A. I had no interuHt in the matter. I made the complaint on hohalt'c't the bank, beeauHe the uHtimaten wuro not coming hm regularly iw promised and they weiv behind. Q. You further »ay : He OMked if I could rec-om together. I uaw them together. Q. Either one or the other, or perha|tH both ? — A. Yes. H. Anked if you could recommend one. On the ettrongth of that you wrote to your brother asking him to recommend an engineer? — A. Terliaivi 1 did. 1 do not know. "Could you think of one that would suit." — A. Perhaps no. Ih that not ho? — A. There waM none appointed. Ik>nnett tiniMhed the work. Why did you write to your brother? — A. I have already e.Kplained that, too. I have failed to hear it,? — A. I have explained it over and over again. osc. It might bo from outsiders. You can tind out these things in the Htieot or round the hotel. y. Did you ask at the hotel ? — .\. 1 tb> not know whether I did or not. 1 must have got it from some one. Hi/ Mr. Ouimet : Q. It was mentionce tiieni over L. tV C. ho iih thoii' uwurdod I'roni Ottawa direct." Then on tl>o 2nd iMay, 18H5, you wrote aH follows: " Ah I telegraphed you iIuh morning about estimate li>r graving liock at B. C, Porley ImH telugraphed Trutch to Hond amount ot'oNlimate to^lay without tail and to make no e paid them, and get thorn to telegraph amount to their bank at Quebec. If thin arrangement does not nuit Mr. Murphy, telegraph me what he wants done and I will have it done for him. It in now iinderstotKl that Bennett, the Knginoer at B. C. will not suit, ho the Minister and Perloy are prepared to change him. lie asked if I could recommend one. Could you think of one that would suit, and I would have the Minister appoint him." On the 4th Ma}' j'ou wrote to your brother: " As I telegraphed you this morning, no estiuiate has Ikjoii telegraphe. which they had in writing for over a month out there. Perley went lu -ee Page this morning to try and get another engineer to send out at once and dismiss livnnett. He that goes out will get his instructions before going out." On the IHth Juno, 1885, you wrote to your brother : " Valin has telegraphed to Verrot to give Beaucage the Jack.-. The amount on hand in ih*; books hero to the cie»ck yet.M» accoitling to 3'our estimate and mine made here the other day only 81i*0,000 would bo reipiired for tho summer and the 823,000 included in that." And then on the 26th February, 188(!, from Ottawa, amongst other thingnyou wrote to your brother as followH: '* 1 wrote you yesterday about Halifax Graving Dock. .Sir Hector would Ix' glad to recommend Murphy. The way for them to do would be to apply to the Co. in England, ottering to build the dock for them, stating that they built the one in Quebec and were finishing the one in B.C., and referring to the Mini!w until the llith, ho 3*011 will have Hol>i*aillo in (juuli«c, an hut pay will bi> goinfr on, I am told that IxltoKtor will not have anything to do with liaie dvit ChaleiirH contract until they are in a logul positiuii. 1 have roceivtMl no |>r<»|)oi4ition Ironi thum yot. Hir JIuctor wantH me to make one, or Htatu what I want them to do.' And then on the llth Mareh, 1H8«», you write to your brother : " I unclose you the amount of entimatui* tor DecemlM*r and Janiniry. The January one includcH the new Hyr^lum of meahuremunt. The advance 82U,U00 on drawback han Iwen pa(«(meH. " On the 17tli March, 1H8«;, from Ottawa, you write; "Larkin and .Murphy are here. Larkin huH learned a good deal of what hatf l>eun done. The estimate for February m through an*l amount:* to over iwenty-tive thouminddollarH (%'i'),{Mt) ; that makex nearly r>eventy-tivu thouminddiillarn gcmoout within a month. They DUght to Im) HunIi out there mow. I hont you to-day the VoteHan«l I'nxroodingH alMUtt what Kdgar unkx about HaiedeHChaleurH J{. W. i'ope 6unt forme to auk what answer he would give. I agreed that he mIiouUI give the required intormation, but will state that I have notified him of my withdrawal from the direction and nevered my connectitm with the ('dmpany. Other queHtions will follow. Pope told nie that lie has put in Momo answer which he has sent to the MiniHter of JUHtice. I will go and examine them to t>ee what ihey have put in. Your letters received ; I will attend to what you ask." Then on the I'.'th March. 188(>, amongst other things you write : " I enclose you a letter from .Stepiien liyan, in (7ham|ilain Street. I hope you can do something for him as I believe he is in want. Larkin and Mur])liy have been here. Lurkin left yesteiday at nit here. Ah you will see by the Hansard, I'ope answered Kdgar's enquiry as respects the Bale de» Chaleurs J{ailway and agreement and con- tract, lie asked me not to have him to state that ho had recuivc*d a letter troni tne withdrawing from the ('om|Miny. lie asked me to let that remain till later on. I havo no answer from Caron yet aUnit balance of works in the Citadel." On the liJth May you wrote to your brother, amongst other things : W1T.NE8S. — Call him Robert Mctireevv, if you please. Make a distinction. Mr. Amyot reatling: "The tenders for Ca|)o Tormentine work were ojicned to-day by >Sir Hector. The lowest is an Ottawa man. lie is 81''S4.tl0. You know what the lenders were that you were interested in. It is a great pity that a tine job like that should go so low. (rive enclosed to Mr. Chaloncr." Then on the ICth Ajiril, 1887. writing to j-oiir brother : " I havo just soon Perley alMfut dredging. I havo arrangt^l to meet him on Monday to discuss his dredging report before he sends it to Harbour (Commissioners, also other matters ab> cents, and put some conditions which will amount to nothing. Ho will report when I will be theie. I have had a conversation with Shakespeare on the lengthening of the B. C. dock. I told him to unite with the others and push it. He is prepared to do so. I told liim to write and get the length of the steamers chartered by the Canadian 1011 1— (i4* w l.' l!'! 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1801 Pacirto iiailway from tho Cnnard Lino. TTo had promised to do ho. Connolly hud bettor wuit until nuxt week tocomo up. When I como down wo will talk tliu mutter over. I intend leaving hero on Thuruduy ovenini;, it' v<>ii do not telegraph not to come. And then (»n tho Hth Mandi, 1888. yon nay : " My Dkab Kohkrt, — Tell Marphy I have Heon I'crli'y, and he will report to arbitrators or to (.'ommisHion of the amount tur secretarioH? — A, Sometimes. They would have written for mo sometimos but not often. By Mr. Masaon : Q. In the Second Keportof the Accountants, (Appendix No. 2) handed in yesterday I notit that a reference is made toacortain account of yours starting a long way back, in which a payment purports to be made to Tarto and Desjardins, amounting to $15,072.47. The question I wish to ask you is this — Is the Tarto referred to there, the gentleman conducting the prosecution? — A, I do not know any other Tarto, 1012 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 ayineiitM intomlc*! m* donntioriH when thov wt'i« tniule? OrwuH it intiMiiio. I mude tliirt an u dontition. ' <^. Thoy wore iiiado ax avies : Q. Which Mr. lJenjunlins?— A. Tiio momlM>r tor l/I(»let, I think. Jiy Mr. AVasHon : Q. He %va8 netin;; wltli Mr. Tarto in tho paper? — A. Yen. if. Who owns tlie paper now ? — A, Le Canadnn helonj^s to Mr. Tai to now. lie in the rejjiHtored owner. Q. Mr. Larkiii, in hin evidence reforroil to tho iuct tha*. :j had NnhscH))ul to Kome stoek in the (ilob' J)o you know whether any other niomlierrt m tin- firm o| Larkin, Connolly i^ l .. Hub- personal kiiowliHli^o of the fact. Q. Do ^'U know of any Hulmeriptionrt to tho Montreal Jierall tor taking up utock ? — A. I do not know anything about them. JiyMr. Tarte: Q. Will j'ou kindly toll us nt what dale these payments were made to .Messrs. Tarte and Desjardins? — A. Oh. it was heforo 18H0, during my eonnection with the North Shore Uuilway. (^. D(t y.m know that Mr. Tarto was olected to tho Lcgislativo Assemldy of Queboe in 18V7 ? — A. I boliovo so. Q. Are 3'ou aware that from 1877 to 1870. Mr. Tarto was not tho iiropriotor of Le Canadien and was not personally interested in it ? — .\. I do not know anything about it. Q. Vou have just told us that Mi-. Tarto was the proprietor o\' Le Canadien f — A. When we wont to take the names for these proceedings we found you to be tho registcrettngevin insisted very much upon .Mr. Tarto buying the paper? — A. Yes; I think both him and Sir Nareisso lielleau. Q. Is it a fact that at the time Mr. Tarte bought the pa|)er it was bankrupt, that no one would touch it at all ? — A. I do not kii >w anything abcmt that part of it. I beliovo it was in diiticulties. Tho Chairman objected, but subsequently allowed the qucstlcn to bo put. H. Am I to understand that at the time it was soli h Mi n :' li A -I, ■ hi: i . j J>&M 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. I did not look into all these accountH. Of course I will look into the matter, but are you Hure that you gave Mr. Tarte'and Mr. DesjardinH, $15,000? — A. I believe so, but I did not look into it myself. Q. You remember that the paper was in a bankrupt condition — that is when Mr. Blumhart had it ?— A. Yes. Q. Do you remember that at the time I was insisted upon to take the paper by Sir Hector Langevin, Sir Narcisse Belleau and yourself and friends in Quebec? — A. I think at the time they were anxious that you should take the paper and run it. You know that at the time you were a poor man. Q. I am not here under oath, but I am quite prepared to stato that I never made a cent out of the paper. By Mr. Masson : Q. I asked you if you knew of any payment being made to the Montreal ^eraW by Larkin, Connolly & Co. ; did you make any payment yourself to the Herald? — A. No. By Mr. Tarte: Q. Since we have gone into this, are you in a position to state from what funds this money was taken ? — A. The money that was paid to Mr. Pesjavdins and Mr. Tarte at that time, was my own money. Q. Were you at the time a public contractor of any works? — A. The North Shore Eailway. Q. Bid you ask any kind of political services from Mr. Tarte and Mr. Dcsjar- dins ? — A. I do not remember. By Mr. Fitzpatrick : Q. You had nothing whatever to do with the preimration of the Accountants' report? — A. No. Q. Did j'ou give any information to any person as to the way in which this report should be prepared ? — A, No. By Mr. Tarte : Q. Did a dollar of these sums of money paid to Mr. Tarte and Mr. Desjardins come from Larkin, Connolly & Co. ? — A. Oh, no. It was a long time before that. It was all my own money, my own private funds. Q. Are you aware that after Mr. Desjardins bought the paper from me, the paper became again in a bankrupt — in an embarrahseil condition ? — A. I do not remember that. I think it was in the hands of !Mr. Dcmers afterwards. I do not remember. These moneys were paid before I was member for Quebec. By Mr. Bavies : Q. 1 want to read you a paragraph from the Report of the Accountants, with respect to which Mr. Masson asked j-ou a question or two, but he did not ask you any questions except with regard to Mr. Tarte's name, which is not likely to be understood without reading the context. I want to read you this whole paragraph : "These hopkn show direct dealing with Sir Hector L. Langevin, notes amounting to 810,100 having been current from early in 1879 to June, 1891, the notes «3,000, $3,300 and $3,800 have recurred each four months as hills receivable, unchanged as to amount, through these twelve years." This part Mr. Masson did not ask you anything about. I lind on reference to your ledger that there has been an account openeid from 1879 down to the present date showing the notes to be renewed every four months by Sir Hector Langevin amounting in all to 810,000. From that time down to this, the notes have been renewed from time to time ; now, who paid the interest ? — A. I think I paid the interest. Q. Are you sure ? — A. It must bo entered there ; I think J paid it. 1014 F 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Are any of these notes discounted anywhere ? — A. They wore difscounled in the Union Bank. Q. The^ amounted to $10,000 in lound numbers— gS.OOO, 83,300 and 83,800. It is only fair to the Committee, as they have not got the report, to read the whole paragraph : '• These books show direct dealings with Sir Hector L. Langevin, notes amounting to $10,100 having been current from early in 1870 to June, 1801. The notes, $3,000, $3,300 and $3,800, have recurred each four months as bills receivable, unchanged as to amount, through these twelve years. The account ' II. L. Langevin ' begins on 12th j\Iarch, 1878, as a note account. The transactions can be traced back to 2l8t June, 1874, when a note of $1,500 is charged to the account of Tartc and Bes- jardins. Later, between 8th July and 7th September, 1874, fourteen ca^r in the estate? — A. I think I was. Q. Did you tile any claim against the pa|)er, or did Mr. Tarte tile any claim ? — A. I cannot tell that without going back into the books ; I might make a mistake anil I do not want to make any mistake. Q. The insolvent estate was then wound up, and it passed into the hands of Mr. Tarte, did it not? — A. No; I'think it was sometime after that. Q. Let us understand that. Were there insolvency proceedings in the matter at all ? — A. There was an insolvjncy, but I cannot remember the details. Bi/ Mr. Stuart : Q. Would you state the origin of the notes that appear connected with Sir Hector Langevin's name in your books? — A. I think that they occurred in connec- tion with two or three contests in C'harlevoi.\-, Q. At the time of the election? — A. Yes; in 1S7metimes, but not very often. 1015 I, !t III, i 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Is it a fact or not that I did myself over and over again come to you with Sir Hector Laiigevin's notes to get cndorsntions fVom you ? — A. It may be so ; I cannot recollect that. By Mr. Lister : Q. It appears that as far buck as 187!>, this transaction with Sir Hector Lange- vin began, viz.: ho became your debtor to the extent of 310,000? — A. 1 thinii it commenced in 1876, as far as my knowledge goes ; I cannot speak to the details. Q. It was in 187fi that this indebtedness was created ? — A. It was eitiier 1876 or 1877. It commenced about that time. Q. And in 187f*, notes were given lor the amount of the indebtedness ? — A. I think there were notes running before. I cannot remember. Q. Do you say notes were given from the lime the indebtedness commenced, viz, : 1876 ? — A. Part of the notes, and then they were increased afterws rd. Q. The account in 1876 was not as great as in 1873 ? — A. I think noi. Q. It increased then in 1879, to what it is now ? — A. I cannot tell you the year cxactlj'. It was somewhere about that time they commenced* Q. So about 187'.>, it incrensetl to the amount it now its ?— A. The bill book will show that. Q. They were 83,800, 83,300 and 83,000 in 1883 ?— A. It must be before that that they commenced. Q. The indebtedness was about 810,000 in 1870?— A. It is the same still. Q. And every four months you have renewed the notes given by Sir Hector ? — A. That is so. Q. And you have paid the interest? — A. I think so. Q. Have you added the interest to the amount of the indeb'tedness? — A. No. Q. You have paid the interest out of your own pocket? — A. It has been paid in the meantime. Q. Was it oi- was it not paid by you ? — A it has been paiil by me out of my own private mearis. Q. Have you taken any secui-ity from Sir Hector Langevin for the amount of interest paid by you for him ? — A. No. Q. And you have not added the interest to the notes? — A. No. (^. You have not taken any security for the interest by way of note or other- wise ? — A. No. Q. Were not ther-o notes originally given for the Charlevoix elec'.ion ? — A. Some of them, not altogether. ^i. Were they not given originally to elect Sir Hector ? — A. Some of then"* com- menced there. Q. Can you tell me what proportion of the indebtedness commenced there ?-- A. There was two contests, and two contests in the courts and the Supremo Court. Q. You cannot toll me how much of that indebtedness commenced there ?--A. I could not tell 3'ou exactly ; I could not tell \ou correctly. Q. Not within 81,000?— A. No, I could not. Q. Could you tell within a thousand ? — A. Not without going back, Q. What rate of interest are you paj'ing? — A. I think 6 or 7 per cent. Q. That is about sixteen years ago? — A. I do not remember the number of years. <^ Thirteen years ago. You have no account of that interest paid by you ? — A. No. Q. You do not charge it up against Sir Hector? — A. I think I have paid tho interest. Q. Do you charge it against Sir Hector? — A. I think not. Q. You have not charged anything against him for interest ? — A. No. v^. If a part was for the Charlevoix election, what was tho balance for? — A. [ cannot tell. For some outlay or other. 1016 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. What wore th« outlays ? — A. I said it commenced tlicre. I cannot j^o Imck 60 loni; a8 that. The amount is there, and I have told you all the pai-tieuiars I can tell without ijoing to the books. Q. You »\voar j'ou cannot tell what the indebtedness was for ? — A. I said part of it was for the Charlevoix election. Q. What was the rest for ? — A. I cannot tell j'ou that without going back. Q. Well, go back. — A. I cannot. Q. (to back in your memory. You swear you cannot remember? — A. I cannot. I have told you all I know or all I can think of. Q. IIow much money have you loaned Sir ilector Laiigevin besides what is entered here? — A. None at all. Q. What have you paid for him ? — A. There is no other nmney that I have paid for him. Q. You swear you paid no other money for him? — A. I cannot swear that. I am not in the habit of paying money for Sir Ilector Langevin. ii. Did you give him other money for elections ? Counsel objected, Q. Did you lend Sir Hector Langevin other money lor elections other than is charged here ? Counsel objected. Q. Did you lend or pay, I don't caro which it is, money for Sir Hector Lar\- gevin, other than the moneys charged here for election or other ])arpo.ses ? Counsel objected. The Chairman. — I don't thiidi. 3lr. Lister, be has any right to answer that question ; I don't think it is a proper question. I undort>t()oil the witness to say that be had lent no more than what had been stated in the accounts ; the question was sufficiently answered. Witness. — Out of my own moneys ? Mr. Davies. — Out of any moiie^-s. Mr. Lister. — That is the question — out of any moneys for election or other pur- poses. Hox. Mr. Chapi.eau. — Limit the jteriod. Mr. Davies.— In 1878 ? lii/ Mr. Lister : Q. Have you paid any, in addition to the amounts entered in this book ? Counsel objected. Witness — From Larkin, Connolly iS: Co. ? If it is from Lurkin. Connolly & Co., I don't know. Q. I will jmt the question this way. Take from 1882 down lo the present time, that is the perioti that my question will apply to. 1 ask you whether, during tliat 1 eriod,yoii have paid out of your own money or olhorwiso I()r8ir Hector Liiiigevin, or to bim, moneys in addition to the amount set forth in this ledger ? — A. So. Q. For election purposes or otherwise ? — A. No. Q. You have never done so ? — A. No. Q. Or to any person in the interest of Sir Hector Langevin ? — A. 1 won't answer that question. Q. Kh ? — A. I won't answer that question. ii. Why ilo you refuse to answer the question ? — A. Hecai; • it iins nothing to do with this enquiry. Tiie Chairman. — I think in Justice to the witness, it should be said that be refuses on the same ground that be refused before— :iiat is iniplieil in the other. Q. Did you contribute anything towards the ex))enses of Sir Ilector Langevin at the last election ? — A. I did not contribute anything. *.}. Did you pay anything out of any funds in your hands towards his election e.\penses in iSS" ? — A, I decline to answer on the same grounds as before. 1017 hi Ml J .■ (t i II ; I 64 Victoria Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. You decline to answer on the sa mo grounds as previously? On the ground that I he question is not relevant to the inquiry ? A. Vi''*. Mr, 1)avies. — I ask the Chairman to compel the wiiiu'ss to answer. The Chairman. — You must answer. .Mr, SicGreevy /—A. 1 refuse to answer, even to the Chairman, The Chairman. — You must answer the question ?— A. I refuse to answer the question on the same ground as before. Mr. Davies, — Then I move that the fact of the witness having refused speci- fically to answer sovei-al questions put to him, be rcpoitt'd to the House, The motion was adopted. By Mr. Davies : Q. I have one more question on another matter. The iiccountants in their second report on page 20 say, " the accounts with the three banks named above show a large volume of bu.Mness reaching a maximum of over a million and a-haif of discounts and deposits during 188.S. The cancelled cheh the witness to pay special atten- tion to) and endorsed by him may have some direct bearing upon the inquir}-. The dates (if these cheques are fi-om the ;^Oth of October. 1S8S, to the 8lh of June, 1889," Will you produce those four cheques?— A. What are they? Q. Cheques made by you payable to the order of O. E. Murphy. I want you to produce them ? — A. What is the amount of them ? Q. I have no other information than that which I have just read : "Four cheques made to the order of O. E. Mui-pliy and endoised by him, may have some direct bearing on the inquiry ; the dates of these cheques are from the 30lh of October, 1888, to 8th of June, 'l8S}»,"— A. I will tell 5-ou what they are. 1 explained that 3'esterday, I think. These were notes on some stock. Murphy bought 250 shares of Kichelicu stock on margin. That was in (he spring, and I paid him 84,000 and subsequently $500. I think one cheque was for interest, which would make three ; I do not know about the fourth. He boughr the stock again from me in the spring, and the cheque which I received from him has already been filed here. (Kxhibit "Alt),") lacknowledged that yesterday to Mr.Taite. He mentioned a stock specu- lation with Murphy; that is the only one 1 had with him. Q. And you and he were speculating in stock? — A. Only the once. Q, Here is the cheque drawn by Thomas McGreevy to the order of O. E. Mur- phy and endorsed by Murphy, 3id of October, 1888. $4,000 ?— A. That is what I have just explained to you. It has i-eference to the 2.50 shares of Richelieu stock that he asked me to buy with him to hold on margin until the Richelieu Comp:ui3''s elections were over. It was bought on a margin of lo per cent. — 2.")0 shares. Q. And you paid the margin? — A, I paid the margin, Q, The margin was 84,000?— A. No, $4,500. Q. It includes the other cheque of $500? — A, Yes, Q. These two cheques represent a mai-gin of 10 per cent, on Richelieu stock which Murphy bought for you? — A, He asked nie to go in for this 250 shares as he wanted to carry a good deal of stock during the elections, I gave him my cheques for these amounts to hold the shares on margin. Q, I>id that stock stand in Murphy's name?— A. He got it from the bank. Q, And what security did you take? — A, A broker's note, Q. Who held the stock? — A, A broker held the stock. Q. Then you and he, at that time, were very good friends "/ — A, That is the only time. Q. At any rate you were not sworn foes at that date? — A, It was about the latter pai t of the tall of 1888, Q. Then, in 1889, you appear to have given him a cheque for $49,19? — A, That was for interest, (J. Look at it and see, — A. I don't know of any other thing. 1018 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Then, on May 13th, 1880, you gave him a cheque for 82,240.94 ? — A. I don't reuoUect this one ; this one I cannot answer. Q. You had dealings to a larjje amount? — A. Only the one. Q. Well, here it is, you see, twice? — A. That is the only transaction. Q. What is that for? (Showing cheque.) — A. I don't know what it is. It must be something connected with the same stock. You will find another one there. Q. At that time you and he were friendly ? — A. Of course we were. Q. And you had advanced him 84,000 or 85,000 when occasion required ?— A. There i.) no loan about that; it is a business transaction. Q. You advanced mcmey? — A. No, I did not advance the money; I gave him a margin on the stock. Q. You must have been on friendly terms at that time, it was tor Miirj)hy's accommodation you gave these cheques? — A. No; it was not for Murphy's .nccom- modation, but for my own self. By Mr. Mulock : Q. You were interested in the Richelieu Companj'. ami it helped you to hold your own in the Richelieu Company by getting the proxies tor the stock, is that it? — A. I don't think that was it, because Murphy had control of everything. By Mr. Bavies : Q. Did not Mr. Murphy buy that stock for you, under your directions? — A. Certainly he did. Q. Mr. Murphy bought that stock for you under your direction ? — A. He must have done so. There is another cheque here for stock which I sold and he gave me his cheque. By Mr. Daly : Q. At whose risk? — A. The risk was mine altt)gether. By Mr. Davies : Q. Have you ever received cheques from Murphy? — A. I received one cheque when I sold out that stock in the company. Q. Which cheque? — A. The cheque Mr. Tarte shewed mo yesterday. 1 sold him shares in the tbilowing spring, and here is his cheque for it to me. Q. Those same shares? — A. Those same shares, 85,410. Q. You sold them to Murphy and got his cheque foi" them ? — A. Yes ; here is the cheque for t'>" stock. Q. Did you e> or receive any other cheque from Murphy, which you gave to anybody else ? — A. Not that I am aware of. Q. You cannot recall the occasion of receiving any other cheque tV>'ni Mr. Murphy ? — A. I don't rememljei". By Mr. Mulock : Q. Do j'ou remember the year when Le Monde was bnuglit? — \. The negotia- tions commenced in the spring of 1HS4 and continued until that fall. Q. And in that fall, the then proprie'ois were, 1 understand, Senecal and Lemaltre ? — A. They sold it to the new company. Q. Do j'ou remember who were the purchasers? — A. The purchasers, 1 cannot tell you e.xactly. Q. Was Mr. Chanais one of them? — A. I don't know anything about that; Mr. Vanasse is the president of it. (I. Do you know Mr. Chapais? — A. One Mr. Chapais; yes. Q. Does he occupy any position on Le Monde ? — A. I ilon't know. Q. Did he ever? — A. Not that I am aware of Q. Do you know who the shareholders were? — A. I stated I never got a list. 1019 ill '• I !il ; ii I i' 'U ii! 64 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 Mr. Hugh Stewart sworn. Hy Mr.Mulock : Q. You were a member of the firm of Baskerville & Co. ?— A. Yes. Q. I>o you i-emember 3'our firm tomlerine for the construction of the Esquimalt Dock?— A. Yfcs. Q. What year was that?— A. About 1884, I think. Q. In the early part of 1884?— A. Yes. Q. After your tender was in, had you any communication with Mr. Perloy, of the JJepartmont of Public Works, in regard to that tendor? — A. Yes. Q. Wiiat was the nature of that communication ? — A. lie sent for us to see if our tender coidd not be brought down below the appropriation that was given for the dock. Q. You had a conversation with him in regard to it? — A. Yes. Q. And made some suggestion, I believe, about changes? — A. Yes. Hon. Mr. Ch.\plkau. — What were the suggestions ? Mr. Mui,ocK. — They were all set forth in the record. (To witness.) You did not SCO Mr. Perley afterwards yourself? — A. I did not see Mi-. Perley afterwards. Q. You were jjartner ? — A. I was a partner in that contract. Q. You were a practical man ? — A. A practical man. Q. And had been out in the West? — A. I was out in British Columbia twice looking after that same work and missed it Mr. William Baskerville sworn. B>i Mr. Mulock : Q. You reside in Ottawa? — A. Yes. Q. You have heard what Mr. Stewart said ? — A. Ye>. Q. Do 3'ou confirm what he said ? — A. Yes. Q. Were you present when he had an interview with 3lr. Perley ? — A. Yes ; I think I was present at all the interviews. Q. What did y;u do in consequence of that suggestion ? — A. Mr. Perley claimed that we were too high on the contract, and if it shouiil l)e brought down, some change made to bri;ig it down, we could get the contract. Mr. Stuart made a suggestion that he could by putting — - Q. Wo won't go into the details. You saw Mr. Perley in consequence of the suggestions, 1 believe. Mr. Perley sent for you, and, afterwards, what occurred ? — A. He told me if I would put them in writing the contract would be awardetl to us. Q. And you did put it in writing, I believe ? — .V. Yes, Q. The upshot of it was the letter, to be foiind at page 88 of the Evidence, dated Ottawa, 8th May, 1884? Is that the letter you sent?— A. I think that is the letter or the substance of it anyway. Q. What did you do with that letter? — A. 1 handed it to Mr. Perley, and ho handed it to the messenger who was there wuitiiig to take it over to Council. The Ministers wore in Council at the time and it was after 4 o'clock that I went to his office. Q. You handed it to him in the Departmental building? — A. It was Mr. Perley, in fact, wh" dictated that letter. Q. It was dictateid ho give you to understanil that ho had the means of getting the contract for you? — A. He did, but I thought it was more a Joko than anything else. Jiy Mr. Mulocli: Q. Your tender was not accepteti ? — A. No. Q. New tenders were advertiseil for? — A. Yes. By Mr. Ami/ot : Q. Do you believe Mr. Heney knew thatyuu were one of the tenderers, from his own knowledge, or was the information obtaineil from some other source? — A. Oh, he knew of it. It was well known at the time. By Mr. Chaijlean : Q. Did you believe him or not? — A. T thought at the time it was only a joke. Q. Kven if you liud believed him, you would not have given the $10,000 to get the contract ? — A. No. By Mr. Osl>r : Q. Do you know that these tenders were called fUHine(«s fact of tiie past? — A. I don't think it. Q. Do you remeralior what tenders you wore in com])titition with at that time 'i —.A. The first time ? (i. Yes? — A. Starrs and O'Hanly were the only ones tliat were in. Q. And your firm was Baskorville. O'Connor, ('assidy & Stuart 'i — A. Yes. takcs afterwards. I wrote the letter, and after I wrote it he told mo we would get the work, sure. Q. You knew an Order in (council had been passed on the lilth April, 1H84, with reference to those two tenders, Starrs and O'Hanly, and your own, and that tho Order in Council was as follows ; " )n a memorandum dated 17th Api il,|18S4.'fri)m the Minister of Public Works, subn itting that in answer to public advertisement two tenders have been received for the completion of the (Graving Dock at Ks(|uimalt. B.C., and that on applying the quantities to the jiricos the tenders are liiund to be as follows: A — Messrs. Baskervillo, O'Connor, Cassidy \ Stuart 84fir».30!t .'(4 B— Messrs. Starrs iV: O'Hanlv Hlo,l.MO ."iS The Minister represents that Messrs. Starrs iV O'Hanly state that on looking over the duplicate of their fonder they have discovered clerical errors which amount to about 82.'>,0()0, and they ask to be permitted to amend and increase their otter by that amount, or if not permitted to lio so, to be allowed to withdraw their tender and to have their chefpie returned. The Miiuster referred the matter tor report to the Chief Knginoer of hi> Depart- ment, who reports: •■ 1 am of opinion that fender ' A ' is greatly in excess of the actual value of the work to bedone, whilst fonder ' B' is as much too low. and that the persons who have submitted the last tender, viz.. tender ' B,' cannot possibly execute the work for the pric«;s named, and as they have asked to amend their fender, which is a course not usually pursued, I would recommend that neither tender be accepted. and that the cheques be returned to tho several parlies.' Did you got your cheque back? — A. I cannot remember. Q. Will you loll mo whether your cheque was got back before or after the con- versation ? — A. Which conversation ? Q. That conversation with Honey'/ — A. No,l cannot remember that either just now. Q. You cannot remember that'? — .V. Xo. Q. Will you swear you had not got your cheJirtnient of Railways and Canals, the new works on the Ottawa at Ste. Anne's, and as contiactors possess experience and means for carrying out large works, I beg leave to submit for consi- deration by the Honourable the Minister the desirability of arranging with that firm for the works at Esquimalt under the terms of their tender as amended b}' them, and the alteiation on the plans whereby rubble backing shall be used instead of concrete backing, and that such other changes be made as will disiHjnse with the use of brick work in connection with the walls." So that you will see he was as good as his word? — A, I never knew really. Q. Then I ask you, did you come to the conclusion or not that this was a serious offer or a joke? — A. Well, I did not come to the conclusion until after I saw tenders advertised for again. Q. What was your conclusion then? — A. Then I thought it was serious when I saw the tenders advertised ; before that I did not think so. By Mr. German : Q. Do you remember whether it was before or after your letter to the Depart- ment of the 6th of May, 1884, that von had a conversation with Mr. Heney ? — A. It was afterwards. It was after Sir ifector came from Quebec. By Mr. Osier ; Q. You are quite sure it was with reference to the first tenders and not the second. Mr. W. H. Caoss recalled. By Mr. Osier: Q. You have the order of the Committee to give your reports ou oath. 1024 Is this your Second Report ? — A. Yes. 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Ik it correct? — A. Yen, aH far a>« wo know. (See Appendix No. 2.) Q. The figiireii yoa have given on int'urmation appear to bo on iiifurniution ? — Yo». Q. It iH correct in the HubHtiince that in given? — A. Yes. Iri this your Third and final lieport? — A. Yos. Is it correct? — A. Yes. (.S'ee Appendix No. 2.) A. By Mr. Davies : (j. In tliis report you refer to the ditlerent books and base your inforiniition upon them, and you ;;o on to »ay " tliu productions of other members of the firm are even loss complete ; they do not disagree with the tirm's books in any material ix)int." Whom do you refer to as the members of the Hrm ? — \. The four members of the tirm. Mr. J. I{. Lainu recalled. By Mr. Osier : Q. Is this your Second Ueix>rt (identifying document) ? — A. Yes. il. Is it correct? A. Yes ' (I. Is this your Third and final Report (identifying document) ? — A. Yes. Q. Is it correct ? — A. Yes. The Committee then udjourned. 'I ■^ • House op Commons, Saturday, 8th August, 181U. The Committee met at 10.30 a.m.; Mr. McLeod in the Chair. Investigation into certain circumstances and statements ma*lo in connection with the tenders and contracts resjiecting the (iuebu-j Harbour Works, &c,. resumed. Mr. OsLER. — I now put in the Second llepoit of tiie Engineers upon the Kstjui- mall (Jraving Dock contract, in accordance with the order tliat it be referred to tiie Kngineers to ascertain : first, as to the changes made in the works; second, as to changes made in the executions of the works ; and third, as to the cost of the several changes made. That rejwrt is now tiled. (For Report see Appendix No. 3.) Mr. W. T. Jennings sworn. liy Mr. Osier : Q. You are one of the Kngineers appointed by this Committee to report in accordance with the orders made ? — A. Yes, Sii'. (J. You have presentwl two reports to the Committee? — A. We have. Q. And ihofce reports are correct, according lotlio material you had before you ? — A. They are. Q. And you have pointed out the material on which you have founded your report ? — A. We have. 1 ' I ji-' Mr. Alan Macdouoall sworn. Q. You are one of the Engineers instructed by this Committee to report accord- ing to the terms of the two orders made ? — A. Yes, Sir. Q. And you have had before you the two orders of reference, and you have reported upon them ? — A. I have. 1025 1—65 64 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 Ml <^ Are ihu.se roportu corroct, uccordiiig to the infonnBtion upon which they avo busoil 'f — A. They nvv. Q. And tho intorniution upon which tht-y aio hunod is containeil in the report? — A. Vt'«, Sir. Jfi/ Mr. Mamon : {}. I would like to itHJc Mr. Joniiin^>«, had tho Kii:;iiieorH tliu lvini|ipli' tV .Morrirt plann hetoro tiioni ? — A. We out 82r>n,(UIO, and gradually increas- ing in doHign and cost, according to their estimate, to about 840(),(I0U. They show several designs, all executed prior to tho letting oi the contract, and a statement will be found in tho Public Workn and tho (juebec IIarlN)ur Works lleitorts for the years succeeding 1874. We used tho lvini])ple & Morris ])laiis simply to, if possible, tollow up tho subject from the beginning, and with the hope of getting at the man- ner in which Mr. Hoy Nuni of 810,000, you would >?uaraiile»j thai ho Hliould'l.uve tlio contiact. WImt liuvo you to nay with reijurd to that allowed convtirttution ? — A. I hciicvu I miuht havu Nuid that. It all panMud throu^li a jokv, whon wo wuro on thu lirid);o, near the ituHHvll House one niju^ht. I had no ^roundw tor nuyini^ that. It was o.dy UH a juku that I miid it.^ Q. Had you any InrttruotionM t'roni anyhody.or had you had communicationH with anylsxly whatovor, previously to that ooiivorsution whioh would authorize you or HU;,'L'o>tl to you making such an f)tl'er to Mr. IhtHkorvilio '/ — .\. Tlioro wa» some con- tnu'tors Q. I asUod if you had any authority, front anybody, or any oonvorsation with anybody, whioh indueod you to make any sutdi oiler to Maskoivillo about shotting money from him? — A. I never had any right from anybody. 1 hoi eve we had a joke about it one night near the Jtussull Hcuse. It was luithing more titan a joke on the street one night. I never had un\' authority from anyl"idy. Q. You never had any instructions from anybody in that direction ? — A. Never. Q. Have you any idea whether, frou) the manner in which you spoke to Mr. Baskerville, lie couldjudgeyou wore joking or not? — A. I cannot toll what he thought, whether it was thought fun or in earnest, but we were talking near the ]{us.«.ell IIou>e and I said it only ' fun. ^ Q. Only in liin? — A. Only in fun. Jiy Mr. Osier : Q. Til' was no money at tlio bac k of it ? — A. Not a cent. Jiy Mr. Mills (Bothuell) : Q. You say this was a Joke. !>» you i-omember having a joke in 1873 with Mr. Cunningham, who was a member of the House? — A. Yos, I do. (^. Was this joke exactly a similar joke? — A. There might be a little more in Mr. ( 'iinningham's than there was in this. Q. And ditl you j(dve with Mr. Baskerville on this subject more than once? — A. I do not think I had more than one. It was one night that wo met near the liusseli House and we had a talk. Ho was talking about this job. and I probalily said it. It was in a joke. Tiiere was no ground for it at all. AVe were talking about contractors and contracts. (^. Did yon talk about it several times? — A. We used to meet nearly every evening near tho Ilussell House and talk of one thing or another. (■i. Is Mr. Baskerville a man on whoso word you can place reliance ? — A. Yos, I always knew him to be tliat. not mind repeating it more than once. It might be more than once, but I cannot recall it to mind. It had passed fiom me altogether until this investigation commenced. I never mind tho first thing about it until this investigation commenced. Q. You repeated it to him once ? — A. Y'*' s just for the fun. I had no ground for saying so. Q. Do you remember how much you ot!ered Mr. Cunningham ? — A. I otfered Mr. Cunningham — tlie man is dead and gone now. He told a bundle of fabrications in tue House. Q. Y'ou were arrested in the House? — A. 1 was; there is no mistake about that. By Mr. Henry : Q, Y'ou said you repeated it to him once; do you mean that you spoke to him more than once? — A. 1 think I had only spoken to him once about lltat near the Busseli House. 1027 1— (55* i ■ ! i , ,M 11! h MM iy;! 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Bij Mr. Mills {Bothwell) ; Q. If Mr. Baskervillo swears you had two or three conversations, would yoii be- lieve him? — A. It might be the case, but I did not mind anything about the matter until Mr. Baskervillo reminded me of it. Q. You must have thought it to be a clever joke to rep^t it ? — A. I might do worse than joke on such things. By Mr. Fraser : Q. You were going to say something about some other contractors. What were you going to say ? — A. I say we often met at the Eussell House of an evening, Q. You said there were some contractors, and you were going to say something about this contract. What wa^ it? — A. I have nothing to say, I say we met several times at the Russell House and there discussed matters. Q. Did you toll him about any contractors at the time ? — A. I might. Q. What did you tell him? — A. I do not mind now. Q. Try and refresh you memory ? — A. I did. Q. What did you say about them? — A. I said there was a contractor who told me that they would give him 810,000, if he would give up this job. Q. S10,000 if he would give up the job ; you told him that ? — A. Yes, Q. Who was the contractor ? — A. I don't mind now. My memory is not good. Q. Anyway there was a contractor who told you that ? — A. Some person told me that. Q. Some contractor told you that he would give $10,000 to get the job ? And you told Baskcrvilie about this $10,000 that the contractor would give? — A. I did. Q. Did you believe that was a joke ? — A. I did not believe that was a joke. Q. If it was not a joke from the contractor to you, was it a j<>ke from you to Baskervillo. — A. I do not think it was a joke about givng §10,000 for the job, but it was a joke about my giving the $10,000 in that way. Q. Did you tell Mi-. Baskervillo he would get $10,000 if he gave up the con- tract? — A. I did. After the contract was given out. I began to fun him. When the work was advertised for again I said that to him. That is the way I spoke to him about it as a joke. Q. When had you this conversation with this ^ther contractor? — A. About the same day. Q. Do you know who the contractors were for the job? — A. N^ot until after the contract was given out. Q. Who wore they? — A. Larkin, Connolly & Co. Q. Was it Larkin, Connolly & Co. that spoke to you? — A. I cannot tell. If I could tell it, I would tell it as plainly as I am talking to you now. Q. Do you remember any other of the contractors who asked for the job ? — A. No, 1 did not know anything about them. Q. Just tr}' and refresh your memory for a moment. Were they Ottawa men that spoke to you? — A. I cannot tell for over since Baskervillo spoke to me I was jogging my meuiory and never could mind. Q. Wore you well acquainted with the members of the tirm of Larkin, Con- nolly & Co. ? — A. I was well acquainted with the Connollys and Ijui-Uin, years ago. Q. Were you acquainted with the McGreevys? A. Yes, with both the*Mc- Gi'eevys. Q. You do not remember whether it was any of them who spoke to you? — A. No. By Mr. Mills, {Bothwell) : Q, You have a contract in the Public Works Department at the present time, have you not ? — A. I have. Q. How long have you been a contractor for the Public Works Department? A. For 16 or 20 years. 102S ! !' 1 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. For what length of a period does your contract run? — A. It has generally gone out every three years. Q. it awarded by competition or not? — A. Sometimes. In a few instances I had It without competition. Q. How often have you had competition in your contract during the time j'ou have been supplying the contract ? — A. Seven or eight times during that time, I think. Q. Have you any lands belonging to the Ordnance Depi'rtment that you occupy ? — A. Only the wharf, I use it the same as other public men use it. Q. You use the wharf? — A, The same as the other public men when there is stuff there. (i. Any otiier lands? — A. No, there is no other lands. Q. What area do you occupy? — A. It might be a couple of hundred feet square perhaps. Q. You pay no rent for them? — A. Xo, I pay no rent. By Sir John Thompson : Q. Tell us what contract you have and how closely it is connected with the Quebec Harbour Works and the IJsquimalt Graving Dock, or with both ? — A. I have no knowledge about it. Q. What is this contract that 3Ir. Mills has asked you aliout? The Committee want to know about it ? — A. It is about the wood he has asked me. ((. You have not told us yet what the contract is. We do not know but that it is for a steamship or something of the kind ? — A. I am a contractor for fuel for the buildings. Q. Do you furnish the coal? — A. No ; I have not furnished the coal for the last 15 years. (i. Only wood ?— A. Yes. ' Q. What is the property that Mr. Mills saj'S you occupy as a reserve ? — A. Well, it was a resei've on which I left the vrood for the Parliament Buildings here, li is marked here and kept for that purpose. Q. Is it marked on your contract ? — A, Yes, it is a part of my contract to get that yard. I f! ti Mr. H. J. CnALONER sworn. Bi/ Mr. Fit:patrick : Q. You have been connected wiih .Mr. Thomas McGreevy for several years past as clerk, have you not sir ? — A. Yes. Q. Do you remember anything about the Judgment in the lawsuit in the .Supreme Court in the cas'^ of .^it•Curron and Cameron against McGreevy in 1883 ? — A. I do. Q. Had you anything to do with the payment of the amount of judgment? — A. I paid it. Q. To whom did you pay it ' — A. I paid it to Ann'ors, Casgrain, Cai'Oii, Laveiy & Co. Q. They were the lawyers acting in the case for McCarron and Cameron? — A. Yes. Q. From whom did you get the money to pay the Judgment ? — A. I got it from three sources. Q. What were the three sources?— A. John Hearn, Eobert McGreevy (through O. E. Murphy) and Andrew Thompson. Q. What was the amount ot the judgment ? — A. 817,000. Q. You paid 817,000, you say?— A. I did. It was 810.8-14. Q. What portion of the money did you get through O. E. Murphy from Robert McGreevy?— A. 82,500. 1020 ' i 1 1 'if' \m hi :';! I'. II !i ff 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. How did you come to get that ninount ? — A. Mr. McGreovy told mo he would give it to me. Q. Yon applied to Murphy for it ? — A. Yes. Q. And he gave it to you ? — A. Yes. Q. Would that amount of $2,500 complete the SIC.OOO that you paid ?— A. Yes, I paid altogether about $17,000. (J. Were you requested by Thomas McGroevy to go and see Murphy or to refer to him in any way? — A. No. It was Robert Greevy who supplied the money. Ho suggested it. I did not ask him. Q- It was ho who referred you to Murph}' for the 82,.')00 ? — A. Yes. Q. Do yoa know whether there was any connection between that and the 83,000 note entered in the books? — A. Yes, there was. but I do not know what 't was for. I knew there was a note. Q. Did you know whether it went to Thomas McGreevy ? — A. No, it was debited in the books to Robert McGreevy. Q. When did you get the note? — A. I got it in July, I suppose about the same time that the money was paid, Q. Was it about the time the judgment was paid or not ? — A. It must have been after that, I think. Q. Was it long after? — A. No, it was before August, I think. Q. The judgment was paid in Julj- ? — A. Yes. Q. Is it to your knowledge that in 1880, Thomas McGreevy received any money? — A. Yes. Q. A large amount of money? — A. Yes. Q. How much did he get?— A. 884,000. Q. From whom ? — A. Well, Robert McGreevy got it. Q. And paid it to Thomas McGreevy afterwards, did he not ? — A. Yes. Q. Do you know whether or not any arrangements were made as to the amount Thomas McGreevy was to pay out of the $84,000 ? — A. Yes. Q. Were you requested by Thomas McGreevy at the timo to prepare a state- ment of the amounts that were to be paid at the time out of this sum of $84,000? — A. Yes.. Q. Will you produce the statement which you then made? — A. les. (Exhibit "M16.") Q. On that statement which you now produce I find the woius: " McCarron and Cameron, special, $18,402.55. Will you say what that refers to? — A. That is the judgment, with interest up to date. Q. Did you at the time calculate the amount j'ou had received from Robert McGreovy with this judgment of McCarron and Cameron with interest up to the time of this statement? — A. I did. Q. Have you now the figures which j-ou then prepared, showing how you ascer- tained this amount of $18,402.55 ?— A. I have. (Exhibit "NlO.") Q. Do you now say positively that the Exhibits which you produce, " MIG " and "N16," the figures were prepared in 1884? — A. I do. Q. In connection with that payment of $84,000 to which you have referred? — A. I do. Q. These documents have remained in your possession from the time they were prepared up to a few days ago?— A. Up to eight days ago, when I found them. Q. Did you get at the time of the payment of this judgment any notes from Thomas McGreevy which were made by Larkin, Connolly «& Co.? — A. No. Q. How did you come to appi}- to Robert McGrcevj- for the amount that was to be given for the payment of those notes? — A. I do not remember. I suppose wo must have talked about it. Q. Who referred you to Robert McGreevy? — A. There were only two, and it must have been one of them. I cannot give all the particulars, it is too long ago. I know I got the money for them. Q. To pay the judgment against Tlmmns McGreevy? — A. Yes. 1030 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q/Was Thomas McGreev}' in town at the lime the discount was made ? — A. No; nor Eobert McGieevy either, Q. The matter was left in your hands to liquidate the judgment ? — A. I find a memorandum which shows that Mr. McGreevy was due inCiiicago: '-Wanted in Chicago Wednesday next." Q. You had occasion to examine the account produce l by Mr. liobert Mc(ireevy in the action taken against him by Thomas McGreev}-, or the account furnished to him in January, 1889? — A. I made a copy of it. Q. Will you look at the account produced here as Kxhibit " Q13," and say what the item : '•26th April, cash on vour note to O. E. Murphy, dated IGth October, 1883—83,000," means ?— A. It fits that note about. Q. That is the note for $3,000 ?— A. It fits. I do not know anything about it It was not paid to my knowledge by Thomas, and is charged in the account. Q. lias that amount of $3,000 any reference to the amount of §18,000 in the statement which you prepared? — A. I do not know. Not to my knowledge. Q, Do you know how that amount was made up, if the $3,000 is not in it? — A. It tits. I was told to get $3,500 from O. E. Murphy, and I got it, Q. You were tokl by Kobert McGreevy? — A. Yes. Q, To make up the balance of this judgment ? — A. Yes, Q. Who kept Mr. McGroevy's books — those that are produced here? — A. I kept what are produced here. ' Q, Did Mr, McGreevy know anything about book-keeping or the entries? — A. He never saw these books. Q. The entries referring to these transactions were ni.ido by yourself from in- formation you had ? — A. Yos, sir. By Mr. Geofi'rion ; Q. You mentioned as one of the sources from whom j-ou obtained the money to pay McCarron and Cameron, Mr. Thomson. Who is he? — A. A merchant, and President of the Union bank. Q. Did you get that from him personally, oi- from the Union Bank ? — A. Per- sonally, I understood. I find it is marked to him, and I assume it was, I thought so. ^ , By Mr. Fitzpatrick : Q. What was the date of the notes of 1884?— A entered. Q. How much was paid ?— A. $28,000, I do no1 merely have a note of it. By Mr. Geoffrion : Q. You have noted it as a private memorandum. How could you that ]irivate memorandum ? — A. I got it from Mr. Eellew, of Montreal, Q Who was that Mr. Bellew ?— A. We were en(iuiring about the marked it down, ii. Was he not one of the employees of ;Mr. McGreevy ? — A. No. Q. Not connected with Mr, McGi-eevy ? — A. No. (l Was ho not connected with the Eichelieu Co. ?— A. No, He was a sort of broker, ' We were talking about the change in Le Monde, and I marked it down at the time. Q. When did he toll you ?— A, This book is only two or three months old. • Q. Not more than that ?— A. No. Q, You did not know personally ? — A. No. Q. Harl you any conversation with Mr. McGreevy about the purchase of Le Monde ?— A, It must have come out of this. We were trying to find out when Le Monde was sold, " Q. When it was sold ?— A. It must have come up in that way. 1031 ISth November, 1884, I have know anything about it. I have made date and I ': II 1 m ! I ■'■I 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q, And you asked 31r. McGreevy when it was sold ? — A. I was not trying to find out. I am not interested. It was Mr. McGreevy. I am not mixed up in this at all. I know nothing about it, Q. If he did not make any entries himself, they must have been made by his orders ? — A. This is not his book at all. It is my private memorandum. Q. But I am speaking of his books. You kept his books and when you made entries it must be with his knowledge and consent ? — A. Yes ; but there is nothing about Le Monde in his books, Q. You need not be uneasy. When did Mr. Thomas 3IcGreevy receive this 684,000, in 1884 ?— A. During the month of May. Q. In one payment ? — A. Robert McGreevy was the cashier. lie gave it out as we wanted the money. He made the cheques himself. The money was in his name. Q. Where was it ? — A. Ottawa. Q. And he checked it off by diffeient cheques ? — A. Yes, b^" different cheques. (^ This amount was ail paid during the course of May? — A. May and by the end of .Tune it was all finished. Q. When did you make the calculations which I see are written on that Exhibit "M K!"?— A. At that time. Q. What time?— A. May, 1884. Q. What did you do with the amount, §18,462.55 ? — A. I did not do anything with it. Q. The amount marked " ^IcCarron and Cameron, special " ? — A. I did not do any- thing with it. (J. What was the object of making that calculation ? — A. To show how he would spend the $84,000. Q. Why should he have to know it if the judgment was paid the j-ear pre- vious?— A. I would take from that, that he had to pay it back again. Q. To whom ? — A. It is " special." I do not know who it was. Q. You do not know to whom he would have to pay it back ? — A. I know nothing about his private affairs. Q. But did you make these calculations at his request? — A. At his request, yes. Q. And when he asked you^ to make the calculations, dW he tell you what his object was? — A. Ho would not tell me because I am intelligent enough to under- stand it. Q. What was the object of paying it back?— A. To use up the $84,000. Q. After he had given his note for $3,000 in part payment of that amount, whj- should be return to Robert McGreevy the whole amount with intere.>)t ? — A. I don't know anj'thing about the note, whether he gave it to him or not. Q. But 3'ou have here an enti-y to that effect ? — A. I say there was a note in a book marked : " private, $3,000." Q. You say you received $'2,300 from Murphy? — A. I did. Q. And you had seen an entry of a note of $3,000 in connection with that paj-- ment ? — A. No, 1 did not. Q. When did you make the entry of the payment of $3,000 ? — A. Produce the book and j-ou will see it. Q. I want you to find out when you made the entry about that $3,000? — A. From the book I find that the note is dated 13th July. Q. What year?— A. 1883. Q. You never saw the note? — A. No sir, I did not get the note then, I don't know if I ever got it. I have entei-ed it after the 23rd July, I got the particulars afterwards. Q. JVom whom would j-ou get the jjarticulars? — A. Oh, well, I could assume Mr. McGreevy. Q. You would not make entries in his book without his knowledge? — A. Oh no, because it is marked private. I got it after the 23rd July, between that and the 23rd August, I don't know which. 1032 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Were you told by Mr, Thomas McGrcevy where you would procure the money to pay jlcCarron aud Camofoii's judgment? — A. It is quite possible wo liad a conversation, but I cannot remember the particulars now. Q. How did 3'ou hapi)en to apply to three different sources for the money? — A. I did not apply to three different sources; I did not go to John Hearn, and never interfered with it. Q. Who went to Mr. Thomson ? — A. I did, to got the money, yes. (J. Who went to Mr. Murph}'? — A. I did ; buo T did not go to .John Hearn. (\. Did you receive the n.oney from John Hearn? — A. Well, I suppose I got his cheque, but I cannot remember now. Q. You were aware this judgment had to be paid? — A. Certainly; yes. Q. And Mr. Thomas Mc(rrcev\'^ also knew there was such a judgment against him ? — A. Certainly. Q. Had you any conversation with him, being his agent and bookkeeper? — A. I was not his agent ; please stop. Q. Well, then, his bookkeeper? — A. I was not his book-keeper; this is a mattei- of friendshi]). Q. And you kept these books through friendship? — A. Certainly 1 did, from 1882 to 1887, through friendship. (^ Through being his confidential man? — A. T was not his confidential friend. Q. His friend ? — A. Yes. • Q. Cannot you remember, seeing you paid the judgment, whether yni\ had any conversation with him as to how he intended to pay that judgment? — A. 1 cannot give particulai's, but I suppose we understood it. Q. You understoml from Mr. Thomas McrJreevj' how the judgment was to bo paid ? — A. They were both away. Q. The}' were both away from the city? — A. Certainly. Q. When the judgment was paid ? — A. Certainly. Q. When did they get the money? — A. I must icfer to the cash book ior 1881^. I think 1 got Hearn's money on the 23rd, O. K. Murphy's on the 28th, and 1 tliink I got Thomsons on the 27th. Q. Did Mr. Thomas ^[cGreevy tell you before going away how the money was given to pay the judgment? — A. I presume he did ; that he was satisfied his brother would fix it — he never spoke to me about Owen Murphy though. Q. AVho spoke to you about Murphy ? — A. J{obert McUrcevy. Q. And you have no personal knowledge whether these amounts, mentioned in Exhibit " MKI," were paid or not ? — A. Some were paid, and some were not paid. Q. But to your knowledge? — A. Well, Eobe;t Melirecvy gave the cheque, and I presume they were paid; I handled no money at all. Q. But you say that after he received 884,000 from his brother Kobert yock. It was partly required for the Harbour worke, but more particularly for the cit}-. Q. It was rendered necessary' because the water-tight wall which the Commis- sioners wore building intersected the other sewer? — A. Yes; and blocked the sewer. Q. Do you recollect whether j-ou were consulted by Mr. Boyd, the then Resident Engineer, as to the level of the sewer? — A. I was certainly cons.iilted by someone, I do not remember who, but the letter I sent in answer was to Messis. Larkin, Connolly & Co. Whether they consulted me or Mr. Boswell. I am not sure now. Q. i am now speaking of the original plan, as to whether you were consulted as to the datum of the level of the sewer. Have you any recollection on the sub- ject? — A. I do not recollect that I was ever consulted. Q. In 1888 were you consulted, and was your consent asked as City Kngincer to the i-aising of the level of the sewer higher than tfiat which was originally con- templated ? — A. There was no question as to whether it was raising or lowering. I was merely asketl what was the minimum depth which I, as City Kngitieer, would require for city purposes for my scheme of carrying out this drainage in the limits of the city. My answer was that fifteen feet would be the minimum depth required. Q. Look at that letter, dated .luly tJth, 1888, and say whether that was written under your instruction ? — A. Yes. (i. Read it, please? — A. It reads as follows: (Exhibit " OIG.") No. 798-4. " Hotel ue Ville, Queuec, Uth July, 18S8. " Messrs. Larkin & Connolly, " Dear Sirs, — In answer to yours of the 5th instant, re depth reciuired at Ram- say Street level from surface level to crown of invert of sewer, this depth should be if possible at least fifteen feet. " Yours verv trulv, " CHARLES BAILLAIRGE, " City Entjinetr, per W. D. B. Q. This letter was written under your instruction and authority? — A. Yes. (^. You do not recollect who it was who spoke to you about it? — A. No; I do not recollect who. I was under the impression it was Boswell — I ilo not ki'uw Larkin. Q. You knew the Connollys ? — A. I am not sure; I do not think I knew them at the time. Q. Did you know O. E. Murphy? — A. Not at that time. By Mr. Geoff'rion : Q. What is the length of that sewer ?— A. About 4,00(1 feet. By Mr. Fraser : Q. Were you consulted about this — did the Engineer in Charge consult you about it? — A. About the depth ? Q. Yes. — A. I said I was under the impression that Mr. Boswell did ; evidently someone did in order to elicit this answer on my jjart. 1037 fii'i! :i;^: illii I 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 If I I ; Q, Were you not really employeii by him to rattlce this iiivostigatioii on pay ? — A. I was not omployeil by anybody noi- paid. Q. Wore you not paid for your advice? — A. Perhaps I should have been, but I never made any demand. Q. you gave all your information for nothing? — A. Yes. By Mr. German : Q. Have you measured the sewer to see whether it is 15 feet? — A. Xo; I do not think I have. Q. Have you tested it? — A. In a lough way 1 did, and I made it about 14i feet. It is too lr)iig ago. 1 just took u cursory view in my mind's eye, and I made it up to about 14i feet. 1 think it was about what I required. Q. That was after it was built? — A. Ves. Q. 14^ feet was about what you required for 15 feet? — A. Yes. Q, Would not 6 inches make a difference ? — A. Only a little less fall. Bi/ Mr. Stuart : Q. You said this was more u scheme of the City than the Harbour Works. Was it not the original intention to just build the wall without reference to the bewer? — A. Yes. Q. This sower was put in for the accommodation of the city ? — A. I represented to the Harbour (IJommissioners that they would cut off our sewer. Q. You were satisfied with the way the sewer was built ? — A. Yes. By Mr. Amyot : Q. You say you infoinied the Harbour Commissioners. Are you sure of that ? They do not appear to know anything about it ? — A. About what ? Q. The building of the sewer ? — A. There is some correspondence between myself as City Engineer and the Harbour Commissioners. Q. As to the change in the depth of the sewer had you any correspondence with the Commissioners ? It is not perhaps important, but they seem to deny it ? — A. I had no coriespondence with regard 1o that. It is very possible that since m}' answer was to Connolly & Co., that Larkin, Connolly & Co. may have addressed me on the subject about the depth. There was no other correspondence than that. Q. Between you and the Commissioners? — A. Ye^, about the depth. pin Mr. George Beaucaoe sworn. By Mr. Fitzpatrick : Q. You are a public contractor, and you have been carrying on public works in the Province of Quebec for several years ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you remember having made a teniler ni connection with the contract, to be awarded by the Harbour Commissioners in 1882, for the closing of the opening in the Louise Embankment, and for some dredging ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. You put in a tender at that time, did you not? — A. Yes, sir. Q Do you remember a tender which you made in 1883 for the Cross-wall? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Referring to that tender for the Cross-wall, will you tell us by whose instruc- tions you came to make it? — A. 1 saw in the papers that tenders were called for, and I went to see Charles Samson, who was my financial advancer. He told me he would advance me if I would go into the contract, and I saw at the Commissioners' office a schedule of the works, and at that time there was some parts in that sche- dule I did not much understand. I made myself a great friend with Mr. Robert McGreevy. He never told mo he had an interest with the other parties, and he gave me some information I do not think was right. I received a letter from the Depart- 1038 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 meiit for si)me clianfic in the rtclietlule. I don't know when it hii|)|H>ni-d, lnil I wiMit bacii to Hco my tinurifier. Mr. Charlou Samson, and wiion I ox|)huiiud to him, he said he would not ^o socur'ty for mo, Q. Ho would not i^o on with tiio contract? — A. No, lio would not i,'(> security for me. Q. Did he say why? — A. Because m}' tender was too low. He haid, " You had better see Mr. Kobert MciJreevv and make a bari^ain." Q. And did you go and see Uobert Mcflreev}' ? — A. Yes. Q. And did you make u bargain with him ? — A. Weil, he said ho would find some one to buy my contract — to buy my rights. Q. Did you sign any paper in connection with that ? — A. I siiiued my name on a paper and left it in blank. Q. From whom did 3'ou uet the money which was required for the deposit with your tender? — A. Mr. Samson. Q. Did you pay anythinj^ to ill-. Samson for money you j^ot from him ? — A. Yes. (j. How much did you pay him ? — A. I don't recollect whether it was finm 8200 to 8M00 cash, before he f^ave the cheque in ni}- hands. Q. Did you see Mr. Thomas McGieevy, or have any conversation with him. with reference to that deposit ? — A. No, sir. Q. Are you absolutely certain of that ? — A. I am certain I never had. Q. Did you have any conversation whatever \^ith Mr. Thos. McGreevy with reference to the tender you were then putting in ? (I. Did he furnish you with any infoiuiution, or speak to you about it at all ? — A. Not at all. « Q. Is C.Samson »iill alive? — A. No, sir; he was a kind of broker who lent money on high interest. Q. Did he tell you how he came to ascertain your tender was too low? — A. It seemed tn me he had information from Mr. McGreevy. ii. Which McGreevy ?— A. Robert. Q. Had you made several tenders previously, in coimection with Mr. Robert McGreevy for public works ? — A. Had I tendered ? (i. Have you had tendera for public works, in which .Mr. Robert McGreevy was interested? — A. No, I made none. Q. The Grosse Isle wharf for instance? — A. I had a tender for it. Q. Was Mr. Robert McGreevy inteiested ? — A. He asked me for the jiriviloge to do the work. Q. And you gave him the privilege? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Who had the privilege of drawing the money? — A. 1 drew the money and gave it to him. ii. You subsequently sued Mr. Thomas McCJreevy for 8(j,00(>, did you not ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. When you took out that suit had you, up to that time, any conversation with 5lr. Thomas McGreevy, or any intercourse by letter, or otherwise, upon which you were ju^titied in assuming that he owed you any money? — A. My lawyer sent a letter to Mr. Thomas McGreevy. Q. But yourself — so far as ^-ou were concerned? — A. Myself? Q. Yes?— A. I don't recollect that I had. Q. Do you remember having seen Mr. Thomas McGreevy about the matter at all ? — A. 1 met Mr. McGreevy very often. Q. But about this matter did you ever have any conversation with Thomas Mc- Greevy on the tender for the Cross-wall contract? — A. I think I met him once attho Richeiieu ottice, and he spoke to me about the matter — about what I knew about the matter — If I had any business done with him, if 1 would depend upon his name. I said I would. Q. When was this?— A. That was in August or September last year. Q. Up to that time had you any conversation with Mr. Thomas McGreevy about the Cross-wall ? — A. No. sir. 1039 i!tr C I III. 64 Victoria Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 M Q, Aroyou certnin of that? — A. Cortiiia I iiovor had. (^, Any connoctioii wliatevor? — A, No coiinoction whatever. (.1. Your uetioii was iliiiriiiH«utl in tho 8ui»«rior Court '{ — A. Tlio action wa.i (lisnuHHeci. Jiy Mr. Tarte : Q, Did you authorizo .Mr. Archambault to write n letter to mo boforo taivin:,' this action? — A. No, when ho wrote to you I never authori/.od liiin. Q. Were you aware tiuit he wrote to mo? — A. No, sir. Q. Did he tell you at the time tliat he had writte. to mo ? — A. Ho told me that he had seen you. Q. That lie had seen moor written tome? — A. That he had Been you, ii wanted to «ee you once moie aiioui tho nuitter, t^. IJoforo tais-wall was awanled ) the ii in of Larkin. ("onnoily & Co., ahove nuuitioned iiy i.'io Jlarbour Commission of Quehec acting for and under the authority of the Dominion tJovern- mont. and that the said tirni lias dul}' carried on the said works. That on or about, the dale of the j^rantini; of said contract for the said (!io.''s-wali to Larkiii, ("oniiolly iS: Co., the del'eniiant in the case (Thomas .MeiJreov}-) was one of the members of said Commishion and interehted in said works. That on or about the bii,'iiiii^ of the said contract, and previous thereto, viz., since 1SS2, Itobt. II. .Mclireevy, a brother of the defendant in this case and O. K. -Murphy, both contractors, of the city of (Quebec, hail an iMtcre.-.t in various contracts of a public character under the control of tiio Harbour Commission, of which the defendant was a memlur, either as a partner oi- otherwi.so with the tirm of Larkin, (/'onnolly iV Co., and that in etfecl for the purpose of e.xecutihi^ the said Cross-wall works each and all the parties above menlioneil, beneliteil by the fjrantin^ of the said contract to the tirm of Jjarkin, Connolly iV do. That the tender of ))laintitf in this case for tiie said (/ross-wall work was the lowest tender; ' i.at it was just and ica.-onaiilo and made on ^rood taith by him. That on the instigation of the defendant in tlii.* case, in consequence of his false ropre^entations and of his fraudulent contrivances, and in concert with the pre- meditated connivance of divers other persons actiui^ for and in the interest (if the defendant, notably the firm of Larkin, Connolly ic Co., the other tenderers, the ]ilaintilf was induced on the pretext of errors made in his tender, or of chanii;es in the plans and specifications of the works, and believing that he was actinia to the best of his interest in chanjifing the terms in his tender, to ameixl it witii the result that he lost all the advantages and benefits of his being the lo\> est tenderer. lie goes on to say that this was done on the instigation of the dcfeadiint, Thomas Mc- Greevy. Bi/ Mr. Tarte : Q. I want to know fi'om you if you have given to Mr. J. L. Archambault, lawyer of Montreal, and a Q.C., the information on which he based this action? — A. No, sir. Q. Von never did ? — A. I never did. He took that action, we may say, without my consent. t Q. Did you give him all the information, or some of the information, on which he based this action? — A. No, sir; never. Q. You never told him that Mr. Thomas McCJreevy had deceived you? — A. I heard it from you. That is the reason I told him that. (^. Where did you learn that from me ? — A. I learned it in the cars, as I told you just now. I do not know what date lit was. It was in the St. Lawrence Hotel that you said I had the right to sue Mr. McClreevy. Mr. Archambault told me the suit that is taken against him, you have the right to ibllow that suit, and that" ho had got all the information ; that the informatiup. was given to him by you, Mr. Tartb. Q. Do you swear to that ? — A. I swear he told me that. Q. Do you swear that Mr. Archambault told you that I gave him that informa- tion before the action was taken ? — A. Yes. (}. As a niaHer of fact, you swear again that you never gave yourself that in- formation to Archambault ? — A. No. ^i. The first you knew of that was in March ? — A. Yes. Q. Y'ou had seen Mr. Archambault, before? — A. Y'es. 1041 1—66 Itltil^ ii; li ■ ',■•:[ 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Yo'i were in the tirivate room in the hotel with him and some one else ? — A. Yes. Q. Was it not agioed between you thi'ee that you should meet him there? — A, It was never asfreed, but that day I saw him. Q. You called to see him? — A. Yes. Q. It would be after this when the action was taken ? — A. Yes. By Mr. Amyot ; Q. What is the first name of Mr. Archambault? — A. Mr. J. L. Archambault. Q. Do you know that he is a practising lawyer in Montreal ? — A. Yes, sir, I knew him long ago. Q. And you swear that he took the action in your name without your consent and knowledge ? — A. My consent was this, that he was nearly every week, every day at the hotel. I have a letter which was written, in which he tried to get my consent to sue Mr. McClreevy at once. I told Mr. Archambault to let the enquiry go on and if it was proved he had my §5,000, it would be returned to me, and he took a law-suit before I intended to take ir, and the letter will show that this is so. Q. Do 3'ou produce the letter ? — A. Yes. It was at the place where I was boarding, that I received it. I reads as follows : (Exhibit "Q16") "Montreal, 7 Janvier 1891. " M. George Be.\ucage, " J'al re9U une lettre des avocats de M. McGreevy de Quebec, que jc dfeire vous communiquer, si vous venez au bureau ee matin. M. Tarte est ^ Montreal et je vonlais vous voir avant de le rencontrer. En votre absence je vais au St. Lawrence Hall ce suir pour lui jiarler do raifiiire. " Yotre ddvou^, " J. L. ARCHAMBAULT." (Translation.) " Montreal. 7th January, IS'.il. " Mr. George Beaucage. " I received a letter from Mr. ^IcGroe\ y's lawyei- which I desire to communicate to you, if you come to my office to-morrow. Mr. Tarte is at ^Eontreal ami I want to see j'ou before meeting him. In 3-our absence I will go to the St. Lawrence Hail this evening to speak to him about the atta'^. " Yours truly, 'J. L. ARCHAMBAULT." Q. The action was taken on the 2nd of February ? — A. Yes, There is a letter of the 3id February, 1891, which T produce. (Exhibit " RK; ") "Montreal, 3 t'6\'ncv 1891. "M. George Beaucage, en ville. ''.I 'a! eu tous les renseignements ndcessaires au sujet de votre riSclamation contre I'honorable monsieur McGreevy et j'ai adoi)t^ les piocddds contre lui. lis sont entre les mains du huissier qui lui en fera signiticiitioii taiidis qu'il est ii, Montreal. " Yotre ddvoud, "J. L. ARCHAMBAULT." (Translation) " Mo.NTREAL, 3rd February, 1891. " Mr. George Beaucage, City. " I have had all the necessar}' information in reference to your claim against the Honourable Thomas McGreevy and I have adopted legal proceedings against him. They are now in the hands of the b;iililf, who will serve him during the time he is in ^Montreal. " Yours truly. " J. L. ARCHAMBAULT," 1042 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Had you the first interview with Mr. Archambault about the lawsuit and about your aft'airs? — A. Pt was Mr. Archambault that met me and showed me that I had a right to get $5,000 from Mr. McGreevy. I was not a man of business if I was not going to see him, and ti-y to get it. Q. It was in Montreal ? — A. Yes. In the Banque Xationale. Q. Do you remember the time ? — A. It was last fall sometime. Q. What did you answer to him ? — A. Why I was interested in the 85,000. Q. That is not exactly my question? — A. Well, I told him if he could get that $5,000, without any trouble to try to get it. That is the reason he wrote to the lawyers of Mr. McGreevy in Quebec. Q. I suppose 3'ou pretended that you had been frustrated in the concern, or otherwise you would have told him at once not to issue any writ ? — A. Mr, Archam- bault was always at me about it. He was coining to my room, we wore several times together and spoke about the lawsuit. He came to me with a newspaper and said I should get the money Q. Did you pretend that you were not of opinion that you had been wronged in the matter ? — A. I shall swear that I was wronged and that I should have had my §5,000. By Mr. Fitzpatrick : Q. Where did you expect to get it? — A. From the party from whom Mr. Archambault said I had a right to get it. Q. What 85,000 do you speak of? — A. There w^s some money promised me fur the contract. Q. Have you a copy of your tender? — A. Yes. As 1 said just now, I was nut able to proceed with the work even if I had the contract. Q. That is not my question. Who was the party who had ottered you 85,000 to withdraw 3'our tender? — A. There was something done besides. I gave my signa- ture to Mr. Eobert McGreevy and if I see the paper I can answer. Q. That is not my question. You are sworn to tell all the truth and we want it. You are an honest man and must tell it ? — A. I did not see what was on that papei'. Q. Leaving that aside, before giving your signature there was a reason for you giving it. You were, is it not true, to get $5,000 if you transferred your interest in your tender ? — A. Yes. Q. From whom? You must say from whom? — A. Mr. Ilobert McGreevy told me 1 wouhl get it. He did not tell me it' it was liim or ^^omeone else. Q. And through him j-ou weve going to receive $5,000? — A. Ye-;; if the <'oa- tract was mine. I would cancel my contract to him it J got it T!u>;e is something written between me and him. I put in ny signature and he ^vrote the rest. (I. Do you positively swear that un acti()n was taken by Mr. Arciiambault against the Hon. Thos. McGreevy for this 8.'> ,000 without your consent in any way, and that Mr. Archambault has been guilty of that? — A. I have been and seen ^Ir. Archiini- bault with a witness, and told him not t'» proceed with that suit, and that L neve." gave him rights to sue Mr, McGreevy. I \vont. there with Dr. Rodier. 1 have sum- moned him and told him I did not give him the power to sue Mr. McGreevy. Q. Do not avoid my question. My question is: Do you swear that Mr. Archambault whei he toolc out a vrit had not in any way your consent to sue Mr. McGreevy for "^ ' )0 ? — A. I did not know that he took the summons. (^. Do you swear \'es or no, that lie took it without 3'our knowledge ? — A. lie took it without my knowledge. It is after 1 had that letter that I went with Mr. Eodier and told him that I never gave him power to sue before this enquir}- would be linished. Q. After this enquiiy would bo finished you would be ready to sue ? — A. Then I would be able to know who got the money. Q. Do you know now ? — A, No ; I do not yet. 1043 1— 66* m ■ i^ m m m 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 f ^ n Q. I asked if you knew and if j'ou did consent to the action being taken in any way. I want vour answer on your oath. Did vou consent to the action being taken ?— A. I d'id not. Q. You swear that Mr. Archambault took it without your consent? — A. I swear that. By Mr. Daly : Q. Was that letter produoetl here the first intimation of the aotioui being brought? — A. Yes. That was the first information. Q. i>id you give a retainer to Mr. Archambault ? — A. I went with Dr. Rodicr Q. Did you give any money to Mr. Archambeauit ? — A. lie said he did not want any money, and told me before Mr. Rodier that he did not want any money before the suit was fnished. Q. When you got this letter you went with the Dr. to see JEr. Archambault ? — A. I went with Dr. Rodier, bringing a witness before him, to tell Mr. Archambault that that suit was taken against my consent. I might sue t-ome day when I knew who got the mone}-, but he was to wait until this enquiry was finished, Q. You spoke of a oonvorsalion a few days ago in the cars with Mr, Tarte. Where was that? — A. Between Quebec and Three Rivers, coming along the road. Q. AVhat was that conversation and what took place ? — A. Mr. Tarle often said to me that I was not a man of business, losing mj^ time and interest withMr. McGreevj'; that 1 was a fool; that I did not know what kind of business I should do; that 1 was a good fellow ; that Mr. McGreevy was humbugging and cheating me. That excited me a little. It did not last long. We were very close to Three Rivers, and we got off there and got our luncli and it was all done for that day. Q. Did he say anything about bringing this action against Afctireevj'? — A. Not then. Q. Did he urge you to take action against Mr. McGreev}'? — A. He did not urge me to take an action, but told me that if it was taken my action was good. By Sir John Thompson ; Q. This Mr. Archambault did legal business for you generally? — Ho does some for Montreal. In Quebec I have another lawyer. Q. He is your legular lawyer in ^Montreal ? — A. Yes. By Mr. Tarte : Q. How long has he been your lawyer? — A. Too long ago. Q, How long ago? — A. I suppose about fourteen or fifteen years. By Mr. Geoffrion : Q. You received a letter on the 3rd of February informing you that an action had been taken ? — A. Yes. Q. When did you go to Mr. Archambault with Dr. Rodier to tell him to discon- tinue the proceedings ? — A. It was some da3s after I got the letter. It was left iu the Jacques Cartier Hotel, and sometimes tor four, five, six or seven days I do not go there. Q. ]! would be within a week ? — A. Vos ; f supj)ose so. (^ The judgment on j'oar action in this case was rendered on the l.'ttli of March, 18!>1 ? — A. [ do not know. I have no interest in that. Q. Is it not a fact that an appeal was taken from that judgment to the Court of Queen's Bench ? — A. Yes. Q. And that th's appeal must have been taken after the 13th of March, since the judgment was rendered then ? — A. Yes. Q. And you claim that before tlie 15th February — since it was witliin a week of the 3rd <»f February— y a notified Mr. Archambault not to proceed ? — A. Yes. Q. You were aware that judgment had been irndered and an appeal taken? — A. Alter that discussion we had together he told tiio that the action was dismisse • 1044 H rif 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 in Montreal, but that T could take it before the Court at Quebec, and he oncoiiragel mo by teiiing me that my action is good for $5,000, and Tarte had told nie that the action was good. What he told megave me courage. I wanted to gofmy $5,000. Q. After that appeal was taken you were notitied that the Court of Appeal had confirmed the judgment and that your action had been dismissed finally? — A. Yes. Q. Until then you had taken no proceeding to disavow Mr. Archambault? — A. No. By Mr. Dahj : Q. Have you paid any costs of action, in this matter, to Mr. Archambault? — A. He has asked money tor the appeal. Q. Did 3'ou pay him ? — A. No; I would not pay him, because I told him I had no money for that lawsuit. He says: "It is none of your business ; if j'ou don't want to move I will proceed with the action ?" Q. Do you know if there is a judgment against you for the costs in this action ? —A. Yes. Q, Have you paid that judgment ? — A. I have not paid it yet. '^'id J'OU not say a few moments ago that Mr. Tarte otleied j-ou $5,000 for T'.ur i ! I'll ? — A. Yes, sir. < I. Where did he make that otter ? — A. In the St, Laweence Hall. Q. In Montreal?— A. l''es. By Mr. Aniyot : Q. If 3'ou had received $5,000 j'ou would believe you were entitled to it? — A. Yes; if he had given it to me. Q. You say the action taken was against the Hon. Thomas McGrecvy ? — A, Yes, sir. Q. How is it the action was taken against the Hon. Thomas McGreevj* when he never bound himself to pay you any money? — A. That is on account of Mr. Archambault showing me the newspaper, and saj-ing T had the rights for $5,000 from him. He w.ns a lawyer, and knew the rights better than I did. By Mr. Langelier : Q. Are you >t opinion that the sutn of $5,000 was honestly due to you? — A. Yes ; I tliink ' is. (^ By Mi'. Mcfircevy?— A. Mr. Robert McGreevy. Q. Y'ovi i';>o"c ..-ii, the action because you believed the $5,000 were honestlv due to you? — /. ] 'liink the acti(m was taken in force, as I said just now. Council asiH'i*. that (he question be repeated, and the question was read to the witness. Witness. — IW ., ,jg the money was duo to mo, but the action was taken without mj' consent at the time. Q. Well, thjo, you still believe that the $5,000 in (|uostion are honestly due to you by the ITjn. Mr. McGrecvy? — A. No ; I don't know yet. That is the reason I never paM the cost before I know more about it. Q. You htated a few min\ites ago you took the action because j'ou honestly believed then that the $5,00U wer6 due to you?— A. Mr. Archambault told jne. Q. But i,uppo8ing Mr, Archambault tokl you to rob $5,000, would j-ou do it ? — A, He w 'd not do it; that is not his duty, Q, ^iir.j.ONing Mr, Archambault told you, would you do it? — A, No, sir. Q. 3)' v">'i. or do y(m not, consider it was a dishonest act to claim $5,000? — A, As I said, *ii nionev was there, and as he said, 1 wanted to get it, Q. But were you convinced that the money was honestly duo to you ?— A, It was honestlj'dui^ to me by somebody. Q. B3' whom? — A. Mr. Robert McGreevy promised mo the minioy — no one else. Q. Do you pretend you believe it to bo an honest act to claim $5,000 from the Hon. Thomas McGreevy when, as you sav, you were promised $5,000 by Robert 1045 - ; i ) •iii J 1' ■ 64 Victona. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 ai'if of 85,000 ?- jfFei-, but -A. Yes. something in this way: ,000 were due to you, and I would mentioned in the presence of Dr. McGreevy? — A. In the enquiry last fall it was shown by the evidence that Mr. Eobert McGreevy and Mr. Murphy had given the money to Mr. Thomas Mcdreevy, and it was during that case that Mr. Archambault came to me several times with the newspapers, showing me the money was due to me and was in Mr, Thomas McGreevy's hands — he was often there at night smoking with me — and I should take a lawsuit, and one morning I saw in the papers that he took a lawsuit without my consent. Q. You were then convinced, at that time, after all those conversations, that the money was honestly due to you by the Hon. Thonies McGreevy ? — A. By some one; I don't know who. If Mr. Archambault was right, it was due to me by the advice of a Lawyer; it was his advice. By Mr. Tarte : Q. You told us that I made an otfer i ;'^u Q. Is it not a fact that it was not a pj. I told you that knowing what I did, that tii give the $r),0((0 myself. Was that not what ^\, Eodier ? — A. That was what you said at the beginning, that you would bu}' my right for 85,(»00. Q. Did I not tell you, on the same occasion, or thedaj^ following — because I was three days at Montreal at the time — that after having talked it over as a member of the House, that as I had a great many lawsuits with Mr. McGreevy I was wrong in speaking to you about buying that. Did I not tell you that in presence of Dr. Eodier? — A. Two days afterwards, but not at the beginning. By Mr. German : Q. Did you till out the tender for the Cross-wall? — A. Some part of it, sir. Q. Who tilled out the rest? — A. Mr. Eobert McGreevy helped me. I thought he was not interested with any one. Q. After your tender was sent in you received a letter from Mr. Perley ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. What did you do with the letter? — A. It was that letter, as I said just now. I went to ray tinanciei-, 3Ir. Samson, and he told me he would not back me any more. Q. What ilid you do then ? — A. I wanted him to back me,, but he said: "Go and see i[r. Robert McGreevy." Q. Did you go antl see Mr. Robert McGreevy ? — A. Yes. Q. Then what was done ? — A. He told me after a long conversation together: "I know some one who will buy your right." Q. What was done about tlie letter ? — A. Of Mr. Perleys ? Q. Yes. — A. 1 answej'od Mr. Perley. Q. Did you write the letter ? — A. No. Q. Who did ? — A. It was wrote in the oHice of Mr. Eobert McGreevy. It was there he promised me $5,000. Q. Which office? — A. He had so manj-, I do not remember. Q. Which office were you in ? — A. He has no office of himself. He has got some everywhere. 'Q. Was it not the office of 3Ir, Thomas McGreevy ? — A. No, sir. Q. Where was it written ? — A. It might be at the Commissioners' office. Q. The Harbour Commissioner's office ? — A. The Harbour Commissioners' con- tractors's office. It might be at the corner of St. Peter and St. Paul street, where the Yacht Club building is. Q. Did Eobert McCreevy write a letter ? — A. I cannot tell. If I see the letter I could tell you. f By Mr. Tarte: Q. On the occasion you say you met ;nc in March, in the St. Lawrence Hall, Montreal, did you tell me in the presence of Mr. J. L. Archambault that Mr. Thomas McGreevy was" the man who had induced vou to make your tender ? — A. No. 104tJ ii A 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. You did not tell me that ?— A. No. "SU: A. P. Bradley re-called. By Mr. Stuart : Q. Did you obtain the information you wore asked to get alio;.L the cheques? — A. I find there was no money of any description paid during May and Juno, 1883. Q. There were no cheques returned ? — A. Not during May or June. Q. Or to Lachancc ? — A. No. By Mr. Geoff rion : Q. Did you keep the cheques for the St. Charles Branch here or at Quebec ? — A. Sometimes thej' were kept here and sometimes at Moncton. Q. Would you have entries of them here ? — A. Yes. We would know of them here. By Mr. Fit: pat rick : Q. So that neither from here or at ^Moncton would any cheques go ? — A. No. Mr. Charles Mc( fREEVY re-called. By Mr. Fitzpatrick : Q. Will you look at the three documents which wort- proiiuced hero by your father as No. 12 of his productions, and ntiy in whose handwriting tliey aio ? — A. This one is in mj- handwriting ; this one is in mv handwriting; and this is in my hand- writing. (Identifying the three papers). (Documents tiled as Exhibits "' SIG," '• Tl(>,"and" UK!.")' Q. All tliroe arc in your handwriting ? Q. When did j'ou give these three documents which are tho figures, quantities and items of fbe Cross-wall work, to your uncle Thomas McGreevy ? — A. 1 do not know that I gave them to him at all. Q. Try and be positive about it ? — A. I am very positive about it. Q. Are you absolutely certain you never gave .Mr. Thomas McGreevy the three documents ti'lod as Exhibits " S16,""" TlO," and '• Ulo " ?— -A. I am pretty sure I did not. Q. Bo positive about it ? — A. I am positive. By Mr. Osier ; Q. Did you make these three documents at iho lime you were an omployt? of the Quebec H^jrbour Commission ? — A. No, sir. Q. When were they made, then ? — A. This one (referring to " Ulositive denial. But I feel bound at once to lay my resignation as Minister of Pul)- ic Works in the hands of the First Minister, so that my colleagues, as well as the Committee and the House of Commons may have the greatest freedom in j idging my acts and the value of the accusations brought against me. To-r'-'y I iisk to be allowed to make under oath a statement of my conduct in the several i atters inquired into. I wish here to meet all the accusations, either direct or indi'-ect, which, according to rae, are found in the evidence. I hope none will oscape my notice. I begin by declaring, that, in all Departmental works mentioned before the Committee, 1 ha%'e fultilled my duty most conscientiously, to the best of my know- ledge of matters and of my ability, without ever having allowed anyone to influence me by promises or gifts of any kind whatever, and that my acts have always had public interest as their object ; that J never received gifts, loans or values whatever, directly or indireclly, from the firm of Larkin, Co*inolly & Co., or from any of its members; that, in truth, Mr. Thomas McGreevy and I have been, for a long time, on fiiendly terms, and that he has been mj- guest at Ottawa in the period from 1878 to 1800, whilst I resided here as a Minister, and during which I did not receive from him, and he never ofl'ered me, any sum of money, gift or loan ; that Mr. Thomas McGreev}' has never tried directly, or, to my knowledge, indirectly, to influence me unduly in the execution of my dutj-, nor to obtain directly, or, to my knowledge, indirect!}' verbal information or documents that my duty would have required me to hold as private ; that I never authorized any one to communicate to him any such information, and he has received none to my knowledge; that I did not know, before Mr, Tarte adduced evidence on the subject that Mr. jiohert 11. ^[cGreovy was a partner with ^lossrs. Larkin, Connolly & Company or interested in iheir contract, and that Mr. Thomas McGreevy never gave me reason for suspecting that he was personally interested, directly or indirectly, in their works ; that I always had full confidence in the integrity and capacity of the Chief Engineer of Public Works (Mr. Perley), and of the other officers of my Department who had anything to do with the works which have been inquired into ; that, up to the time Mr. Perley admitted it, 1 lid not know that he had received any gift from the Arm of Larkin, Connolly and Company, or from any of its members; that, therefore, not being myself an engineer, I considered 1 was justified in accepting and treating as correct the state- ments of the Chief Kngineer and to adopt his advice about works of which, on ac- count of their special nature, I was not competent personally to form an accurate idea. Having made, as honour and truth required it, this first general denial, 1 now take up in detail such of my acts as are attacked bv the evidence adduced by .NLr. Tarte. These acts have reference : Ist. To the contract of 1882 about dredging in the Harbour of Quebec; 2nd. To the contract ot 1883 about the building of the Cro-«s-wall and locks or g ites in said harbour ; 3rd. To the contract of 1884 in connection with the L(5vis Graving Dock, also in said harbour; 4th. To the contract of 1»87 for the dredging of the Wet Basin in said harbour ; 5th, To the contract of 188(j for the building of the &outh-wall ii. the same harbour ; 6th. To the contract of 1884 for the building of the Esquimalt Graving Dock, in British Columbia ; 1049 ;'< 'r m 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 ill' w 7th. To the subsidies granted to the Baie dos Chaleurs Railway Company; 8th. To the payments of large sums of money to myself by certain members of the firm of Larkin, Connolly & Company. The first five headings i-efer to contracts executed under the direction of the Quebec Harbour Commissione.-s, and not under that of my Department. In order to determine the responsibility of the Minister of Public Works it is necessary to establish the extent of his duties and his precise sphere of action with reference to these contracts. It is to be observed that the Harbour Commissioners of Quebec are a corporation created by Statute (36 Yic, chap. (t2), having the control of the Harbour of Quebec (section 15), and the dutj' of making therein ail the improve- ments which they find necessary (section 17). When Parliament has voted money for these works it has reserved in certain cases to the (jovornment of Canada a restricted control, and in all other ca., sec. 2) authorized the Governor in Council to borrow 8500,000 for building a Graving Dock at Quebec. The Act proviiled that the Finance Minister shall make out of this sum no advance to the Commission before the site and the dimensions of the Dock, the plans and specifications, and the draft of contract for the works of construction have been approved by the Governor in Council on the report and recommendation of the .Ministers of Marine and Fisheries and of Public Works. The funds were to be hando'l to the Cor]>ora;ion as the works progressed, on the report of the Minister of Public Works, showing that the progress was satisfactory. In 1880, an additional authoritj- was granted by Parliament to the Governor in Council (43 Vic, chap. 17) to obtain, by an issue of debentures, a sum of 8250,000, so as to enable the Harbour Commissioners to complete the Tidal Dock, the construc- tion of which they had begun after 1873 on plans approved by the Governor in Council. In 18S2, authority was given to the Governor in Council (43 Vic, chap. 47) to raise 8375,000, for the construction of a Cross-wall and Lock. The Act provit.es that the plans of the.-e works be prepared by the Engineers of the Department of Public Works, that they be submitted to the approval of the Governor in Council, and that tenders be called by him for their execution, and that he gives the contract for the same. In 1883 (46 Vic, chap. 40), a sum of 8100,000 was voted for the Gr.aving Dock, and in 1884 (47 Vic, chap, 10), another sum of 8150,000 was voted for the same object. In 1884 (47 Vic, chap. 9), Parliament authorized an advant e of 8300,000 to be utilized for the completion of the Tidal Dock. The Act does not contain any provision for any special actic.n by the Goveriiineiit, who is to advance the money from time to time. In 1886 (4!) Vic, chap. 10), advance of 8750,000, to be made from time to time, as needed, with no special condition. In 1887 (50-51 Vic, chap, 51), additional and final adv.ances are authoiizcd — one of 8160,000, and the other of 81,100.000 — to enable the Commissio.i to continue and complete the construction of the Graving Dock, and the works of improvement in the Harbour of Quebec, In each and every one of the above cases, the Government has fully .icted up to the requirements of the Statute, It is now the time to explain my action with reference to the contracts which were awarded in pursuance of the advances which have just been referred to for the 1050 7 Jti; r! 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 execution of works in the Harbour of (Juebeo, and to reply to the insinuations as well as to the charges made against m}- administration. Contract ok 1882. Dredging in the Harbour of Quebec. With reference to this contract, Mr. Tarto insinuates that the Minister of Public Works, having learned from Mr. Thomas McGreevy that his brother, Mr. Kobert McGroevy, was to become a member of the firm of Larkin, Connolly k Co., and having approved of such action, unduly favoured that firm with respect to award of contracts for the works, with the intention of also favouring the said firm during the execution of the works, and that for that purpose he took a share in the dis- missal of the Engineers employed b}' the Harbour Commission, Messrs. Kinii)ple and Moi'ris, and the appointment of Messrs. Perloy and Boyd in their place. These insinuations are unjust and false. Up to the day that Mr. Tarte made publicly his accusations, I never heard that the Messrs. McGreevy wore ]5ei'sonally interested in the dredging works. 1 had no reason to suspect that Mr. Robert ^rclrieevj- wished to become a partner with .Mossi-s. Larkin, Connolly & Co., and in no case have [ given my assent or consent to such a thing. On his side, Mr. Thomas McGreevy had never said anything to me about it. On the 27th July, 1882, the Corporation transmitted to the Department the tenders they had received, and informed it that they gave 'the contract for these works to Messrs. Larkin, Connolly and Company. They requested that the draft contract should be submitted for approval by the Governor in Council ; Messrs. Larkin, Connolly and Company's tender was not the lowest, and the Corporation did not explain why they had accepted it. The Department requested them to explain, and on the 8th of August it received the answer, containing their explanations. \_See Appendix A horeta attached; page 10U4.] The next day the Corporation requested, in writing, to be allowed to sign the contract. On the 18th of August, they gave additional explanations about the reasons which induced them to accept Messrs. Larkin, CoiuioUy and Company's tender. Their letter is attached hereto. [(See Appendix B hereto attached ; page 106(!.] Finally, on the 2l8t August, the draft contract received the approval of the Governor in Council. The contract was carried on by the Harbour , Commissioners, who wrote to my Department on 29th July, 1885, respecting the continuation of the dredging in the haibour basin which could not be proceeded with by the reason of the mone3's voted by Parliament being exhausted. By letter of the 81st Jul}', my Department informed them that it agreed to the resumption of the dredging provided the sum expended did not exceed $50,000 and that contrrictor's would not call for payment until Parlia- ment should have made further advances to the Commission. The Departmental letter was written in pursuance of a report of the Chief Engineer dated, the 30th July, recommending that course. [(See Appendices C and D at end of this statement ; page 1067.] In this matter, I believe I did all I could reasonably do to master' the subject. The explanations given by the Corporation must have appeared to me sufficient to indirce me not to tlelay further- the approval of the draft conti-act. I consulted only public interest. 1 have in no way contributed to the dismissal of the Engineers, Messrs. Kinipple and Morris; I had not to give it my assent. On the 7th December, 1882, the Har- bour Commissioners wrote to the Minister of Public Works, complaining of those Engineers, who resided in England, and whose absence was the cause of vexatious delays and of considei-able increase of expense; and requesting them to be replaced by Canadian Engineers. Here is the original letter: 1051 'tr i i ►♦ It-,: 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 .1 ( •■t " IlAnBDUR Commissioners' Office, "QuKBEf. Till Ueeember, 18.S2. "Memorial to the Honourable Sir Hector L. Langevin, '^.Ji.. K.C.M.G., Jlinister of Public Works, Ottawa. "The Ql'ehec Harbocb Commissioners most respectfully sheweth: "That in cunsequence of certain tlifficultios, as hereinafter enumerated, with Messrs. Kinippie and Morris, the Eiiifineers, in referenti'lo the execution of their plans and specitications with the Harbour Improvements in thelliver St. Charles and the (iravin^ Dock atLdvis, the Harbour Commissioners are of op'nion that a chanij^e is desirable for the satisfactory completion of these important public wo;-ks. "That the Harbour Commissioners beg to suggest that the superintendence for the completion of the Harbour Improvements and the (Jraving Dock should be intrusted to Engineers residing in the eountry, and the services of Messrs. Kinipple and Morris should be retained as consulting Engineers only when required. The reasons the Commissioners produce in support of their requcit are as fol- lows, viz : " 1st. When the majority of the present Commission came into office they found an agreement signed by Messrs. Kinipple and Morris, dated 23itl August, 1S75, by which these P^ngineers agreed to superintend the Harbour Improvements as enumer- ated in their plan No. 1, section II H II, and the construction of the Graving Dock at 5 per cent, commission — 2h per cent, has been paid on the total cost of both these Avorks, and the balance, 2h per cent, for superintending them, which latter has been unsatisfactorily performed owing to their absence from tiiis country, having their residence in England. Although ])aid their commission regularl}' they have visited these works on the following dates : " In 1877 Mr. Morris arrived at the end of March and left in the beginning of Ihxy. " In 1878 ho arrived at the end of April and lett in the beginning of July. " In 1871) ho arrived in the middle of July and left in the middle of September. " In 1880 he arrived at the end of .7uly and leit at the end of August. " In 1881 Mr. Kinipple arrived the 27th April, left the 12th May, returned the 28th same month and lelt the 2nd Juno. "This year Mr. Morris arrived the 18th July and left the 10th Xovember after an absence of over two months to British Columbia. " 2nd. To carrj' out the execution of these i)lans and specifications the}' had no responsible Engineers on the works, cxcej)t those ])aid bj* the Harbour Commission- ers ; many alterations were and are still required, which, through their absence, are a constant cause of delaj's and extras charged by the contractors, as ]>roved by the disputed accounts produced by Messrs. Peters, Moore & Wright and lateiy settled by the Government Arbitrators, " 3rd. Thjit similar defects in the plans and specifications have been noted b}' the Harbour Commissioners at the Graving Dock etitrance, which have been valued by Messrs. Kinipple and Morris at a cost of Sl.i.OOO to 820,000—820,000 have been actually spent in its foundations, and the total cost will exceed 872.000, as si.own by the Government Chief Engineer in his report dated the 11th October, 1882. " 4th. The refusal of Messrs. Kinipple and Morris to comply with the Harbour Commissioners' request and to come to Quebec when required, and to arbitrate hero in the disputed accounts with the contractors, has been the cause of serious delay and additional expenses botli in the construction of part of Section No. 1 in the Harbour Improvements and the Graving Dock. "That the Commissioners, with their past experience and absence of the Engineers from the country, added to the difficulties of carrying out the works, and considering the great importance of these public works, the large amount required 1052 • nil 54 Victoria. of by Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 for dredging the Tiilal Basin, the Wet Dock and ilio building of the (.'roBs-wall, earnestly request your immediate attention to authorize the CoinniirtBionerrt to come to an agreement with the present Engineers, Messrs. Kinipplu & Morris. " Humbly submitied on behalf of the Quebec Harbour Commissioners. "A. H. VKIIIIKT. "Ser.-Treas." After consulting with my colleagues T answered the Corporation that I had not the power to interfere, and that it was for (hem alono to decide whether their Kngi- necrs should bo discharged. This is my letter: "Dei'aktmknt of Pubmc Works. "Ottaw.x, 22nil May, 1883. "Sir, — Having reference to the suggestion of your BoanI, made in tiieir memorial of the 7th Decemlter last, that the superintendence of the completion of the Harbour Improvements at Quebec, and of the Graving DockatL<5vis be intrusted to Kngineers residing in Canatla, and that Messrs. Kinipple and .Morris be retaintul as consulting Engineers only, when their services as such shall be rci[uircd, 1 am directed to state that the Hon. the Minister of Public Works, after full consideraliou of the matter and having consulted with his colleagues, is of opinion that the question is one to bo dealt with directly by the Harbour Commissioners. " I have thehoi\,our to be. Sir, " Your obedient servant, " i-\ H. Kxxrs, *' A. H. Vebret, Ksq., '• tiecreiarij. "Secretarv, Harbour Commissioners, "Quebec." On the 19th of June, 1883, the Corporation thought it their dut}- to inform the Department that they had discharged Mesi?rs. Kinij>ple and Morris. Hei-e fs their Tetter : " Harbour Commissio.nkus' Office, "Quebec, I'Jth June, 1883. "To the Honourable "Sir Hector L. Lanoevix, K.C.M.G., C.B.. " Minister of Public Works, &c., &c., " Ottawa. "Sir, — I have the honour, by direction of the Commissioners, to inform you that the Commission have dispensed with the services of their Engineers in chief, Mossi-s. Kinipple and Morris, and to most respectfully request you to recommend an Engineer to take charge of the works, now under contract with the Commission, in connection with the Harbour Improvements at the mouth of the lliver S' C!iarles. " I have the honour to be. Sir, " Your obedient servant, "A. H. YERRET, " Sec.-Treasr On the same day, they requested me (see letter just read) to recommend them an Engineer to take charge of the works then under contract at the mouth of the Eiver St. Charles. I spoke to Mr. Perley about it, and following his advice, I gave the name of Mr. J. E. Boyd, who, on the !»th of July following, was selected by the Corporation. On the 1st September, 1883, the Commissioners requested the Department to send Mr. Perley to visit the works connected with the Graving Dock at L^vis. Mr. Perley went, and on the 11th the Minister received from him the following \\i r\. n- i! i' ■■!i!i f telegram : 1053 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 11 i' ■■}(. ■ a .1' (By Tolef?rum from Quebec.) " Ottawa, lltli Sept., 1883. " To Sir Hector L. La.noevin, " Minister of Public Works. "CommiHsioners biivo trarmfcrred (iraviiig Dock to my charge, to appoint mv own aBsistunts. I'ilkinytoa bettor, and granted leave of abbence. I assume worlc to-morrow. "H. F. PKRLKY." On the 16th of May, 1884, the Secretary of the Corporation informed Mr. Pcriey that the}- had appoiiitod liim their Chief Engineer. That is all the share I have taken in giviu'^ the (lro(li,'ing contract and in the discharge of Messrs. Kinippio and Morris. In so fur as the works themselves are concerned, I had no control at any period, over thoir execution. I liad nothing to do with them, Parliament fiaving entrusted altogether the Commistiioners with that dut}-. I have had only to recommend the paymci.t of advances, at successive periods, on the recei[)t ot cci iliicates from the Secretary of the Corporation showing what woiks were executed, those cei'tificates being recommended for payment by the Chief Engineer of my Department. I allowed Mr. Perley to be appointed, because I had the greatest confidence in bis character and capacity, and I thought I was thus serving public interest. I was moreover, convinced that I was preserving intact my position towards the Corporation, and that the nature of my duties would never be changetl b}' the consent 1 liad given to 31r. Perley being employed in con- nection with the Quebec works. Contract 2. Cross-wall and Lock. Mr. Tarto gives it to bo xmdorstood that the Minister of Public Works has causeil the contract to be given undul\' to ^[essrs. Larkin, Connolly & Company, and that it is after recciviuj^ this contract that they subscribed $1,900 to the " Langovin Testimc' lial Fund." • The U'lty of the Minister, in accordance with the Act 45 Vic, chap. 47, was to cause the pi u>s of the works to be prepared by the Engineers of his Department, to submit them for approval by the Governor in Council, to see thiit public tenders were called, .nd to submit the draft contract to the Governor in C'ouii m1. J have complied wit, 1 all these conditions ii' good faith. I have had no knowKdge of the manipulations Mr. Tartc complains ot in connection with the tenders, nor of inform- ation unduly communicated by officers of my Department or others. I never authorized anyone to make any such communications; I was not aware that the Messrs. McGreevy were interested in the contracts foi- works tendered for. 1 had in view, under the circumstances, only public interest. The Governor in Council had approved of the plans on the 6th of April, 1883. The Harbour Commission called for tenders, which were to be addressed to their secretary. They wore opened by them at Quebec and transmitted to Ottawa, where the Chief Engineer of the Department of Public Works, who had previously pre- pared the specifications, classified the tenders in the following order, after making the technical extensions, viz. : John Gallaglicr 8.552,255 Larkin, Connolly & Co 634,340 G. Beaucage 640,808 Peters k Moore 645,071 J. & H. Samson 864,181 (For Chief Engineer's Report, see Appendix " Da " of this statement ; page 1068.) Previous to the Chief Eni/ineer making his report, on the 16th May, 1883, Mr. Gallagher wrote to the Department to be allowed to withdraw his tender, and to receive back his security cheque. This request was granted him ; accoi'ding to the custom of the Department, any tenderer who withdraws his tender, before being 1054 •jir 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 calloil to sif^n tlio contract, is entitled to Imve hiw depoHit Luck ; it is, iiinivover, in coiitbrmity with the conditions of tl>o adNoitisenioiits caliinj,' for tenders ; hut shouhl the tenderer, after being called to oij^n hi.n contract, refuse to do , so, h.>'» liable to lose his de))osit. Hero I produce Mr. (fallau;her's letter. " To the Secretary. " Department of Public Works. " Ottawa. " Montreal, May ICth, ls,s;j. "SiH, — Since my propo.sal tbrtho"Cross-wall," Quebec, which 1 learn from the Sec- retary of the Harbour Works has been sent to your Department, 1 find, owin^ to the len<;th of time that has passed since my tender went in and the time it may take to decide, and from the fact of tearing further delay, I have taken another contract and wish to withdraw my tender for the said work on condition of my tieposit cheque being returned to me " Very respectfully, \c., .lOIIN (iALLAluiphy, Connoll}- and Robert Mcttreevy. The contract of 1886 was given by the llariiour Commissioners in the same way as the preceding one. I did not tiy to influence them, and no employ^ of my Department has, to my knowledge, given iniormatiim about the tenders, which, moreov r, had not been communicated to the .Department. iMr. Perley was acting in this matter as the Chief Engineer of the Harbour Commission, and I did not influence his decision. Contract (J— 188-1. Building of the Graving Dock at Esqumalt, British Columbia. Mr. Tarte insinuates that the Minister of Public Works, giving way to the influence of Mr. Thomas McGreevy, agent uf Messrs, Larkin, Connolly and Co, (Mr. Robert McGreevy having an interest in the work), allowed Mr. Thomas McGreevy to obtain from the Department illicit informations, and modifications of the plans, and changes in the execution of the contract, to the public detriment. To this insinuation I give the most formal denial. I never knew that Mr. Thomas McGreevy and Mr. Robert McGreevy hail an interest in the contract. I never had any conversation with Mr. O. E. Murphy about the Esquimalt Graving Dock. 105G If 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 This work is the only one of all those which came under examinution by the Committee which was from its inception to its completion carried on under i!ie direct supervision and responsibility of the Public Works Department. It has been explained above that the details of all the works In Quebec were carried out under the direct responsibility of the Harbour Commissioners. The construction of this Dock had been undertaken by the Government of British Columbia, under plans prepared by Messrs. Kiuipple and Morris. The British Columbia Government had called for tenders for the execution of the work and the contract tor the same had been awai-ded to Messrs. F. B. McNamee & Co. The work appears to have been carried on with varying degrees of success until the 18tii July, 1882, when the Hon. Mr. Truteh reported to the Department that the Governmep*. of Bi'itish Columbia had cancelled their contract with Messrs. F. B. McXamee & Co. and intended to ouiry on the work by days labour. The works were continued accordingly witli more or less vigour, when on ' ao 27th September, 1883. an Order in Council was passed approving of Sir Alexantler Campbell's report of his mission to British Columbia and of the agreement of the 20th August between himself, on behalf of the Dominion Government, and the Local Government in reference among other matters of the taking possession of the Grav- ing Dock at Esquimau. The agreement in question was authorized by 47 Vic, chap. 6 (1884), which was assented to on the 19lh Apru, 1884. Steps were then taken by this Department to organize the service in connection with the Dock, and on the 24th November, 1883, the Hon. Mr. Tiutch was ^iven the supervision of the work, with Mr. Bennett iis Resident Engineer, Mr. Bennett having been connected with the work since its inception, he having been sent by Messrs. Kinipple and Morrij as their representative Engineer on the Dock. Tenders were accordingl)' asked in February, 18S4, for the completion of the Graving Dock, and in March following two tenders were received reply eight tenders were received, the lowest of which was that of ,\i O'Hanly, and the next lowest that of Messrs. Larkin, Connolly iV: C ». diately recommended, on the 13lh October, 1884, that the tciulir li & 0'Hanl_\' be accepted. However, having before me the rej on of my Cliief Engineer that their jtrice was too small, 1 directed them to be asked on the 7th October to strengthen themselves financially by associating some other contractor with them ; but although theii' prion v.as very low, as they considered it unnecessary to have the a.-sist;ince of another contractor, I (the Minister) being desirous of giving the contiact for the lowest possible price, recommended to Council the acceptance of the said lowest tender, on condition that they would deposit to the credit of the Government an additional sum of 89,r)00 to complete the amount off) per cent, secuiity required, and an Order in Council was passed to thatetfecton the ItJth October, 1884. However, on the 24th October, Messrs. Starrs & O'Hanly wrote stating that they found thiy had made a mistake in some of the items of their tender, and it would neither bo prudent for them nor in the public interest to take the contract, 1057 1—07 ■« work, and in .-srs. Starrs it ; and I itnine- Mossrs. Starrs )•'; M I i !■ :■ ■ii ' ' ' 1 ■'li 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 «n(l thoy asked, therefore, leave to withdraw their tender. The statement heing a •conlirmation ot the opinion entertained at the outset by the Chief Engineer, that the price of this rirm was too low, that oflScer reported on the same day {24th October) that, having made a thorough examination of their tendei-, he found that the prices for masonry and concrete was so low that they barely covered the cost of the stone to be furnished, leaving nothing for cement and labour, fur cutting and sotting the same in the work, and that it was evident that they had made a serious mistake in the j)rices given. This report of the Chief Engineer formed the basis of a report to Council of the same date, which quoted the remarks of the Chief Engineer, and accordingly recommended that permission be given to Messrs. Starrs & O'Haniy to withdraw their tender, and also to accept the next lowest tender, that of Messrs. Larkin, Connolly & Co. A year had elapsed since the agreement had been made with the Br-itish Columbia Government for the completion of the Dock, and it was imperative that no further delay's should occur in the completion of that important work. An Order in Council of the 25th October authorized the acceptance of the tender of Messrs. Larkin, Connolly «& Co. Changes, it'c. in Bock at Esquivialt. The first change in order of date is the dispensing with the second entrance of the Dock, theiebj' giving the same an ailditioiial length of 50 feet. The Dock, as originally intended, was to have been 380 feet long. )r stone, a quarry was found in which stone of a fine quality and great thickness could be obtained; stone large enough to make one course in- stead of two thin courses was got out and brought to the works. Correspondence ensued betweet) the contractors, the Hon. Mr-. Trutch and the Chief Engineer with reference to use of larger stones, and Mr. Trutch was instructed on the 4th May, 1885, to permit contractors to build work with stone of increased size as proposed by themselves, no extra payment to be made to them on account of this change. In the fall of 1885, the Chief Engineer visitetl the works, and after his I'oturn he, on the 18th January, 1886, made a report to me with reference lo his examina- tion of the Dock. He stated in that repoi-t that the cost of the works will be in- creased by 835,000 owing to the change in size of stone, and recommended that the conti'actors be paid full measurement for all the stone they have placed in the 1058 T 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Dock, due care being taken to reduce the quantity of concrete backing. The repoit was approved by an official letter dated the 28th of January, and payments were made accordingiy. It must be borne in mind that the price given in their tender for the stpne was not increased and that no payment over the price mentioned in tender was made to them on account of the change in coursing, but that the additional amount was thrf result of the difference in the tender price of stone and concrete backing, where the price of one was $1.00 per cubic foot, and that of the latter $8.50 per cubic yard. The change in the dimension of the stone had been suggested by the contractors themselves. I did not at once see the advantage of the change. I knew, however, that stone of large dimension suited well the work, and for that reason I assented to the change on condition that the prices should not be increased. Later on, in 1885, Mr. Perley went to Britieh Columbia and visited for the first time the works. When he returned, he exphi'iied to me how the change in dimen- sion of the stone was advantageous to the public, because it increased the solidity and the power of .osistanco of the walls. Being thus convinced, I thought then that I was acting in a proper administrative way as well as in justice in granting to the contractors a compensation for the change that I had assented to. Nobod}-, 1 believe, will contend that the public was not benefited by the change, at least in proportion to the additional amount paid to the contractors. On the 18th January, 1885, the Chief Engineer reported that the caisson recess had been built of stone instead of brick, difference of cost being $6,000. and he recommended payment, and the Minister approved'his report on the 28th January. This chansre not having been criticized I will sa}' nothing more. I refer to the second report of the P]ngineers appointed by the Committee — which shows that the entire cost of all changes in plans and execution of the work is about $ii3,000. When the contract with F. B. McXamoo was cancelled and the arrangement was made between the Local and Federal (Jovernments for the assumption and completion by the latter of the Dock works, an inventory and valuation of the plant and materials on the ground was made, and, in the specification drawn up for intending tenderers, it was stipulated that said tenderers would have to take over all plant, buildings, tools, materials, &c., mentioned in the ivenloiv attached to said specification and which was valued at $50,288.()!l. On the 16th April, 1885, the Hon. Mr. Trutch that the plant and materials had been delivered to the were unwilling to accept the same at prices named. Engineer reported that the plant, &C., should be accepted by the contiailors at prices named in inventory; and, on the 12th May, 1885, lion. Mr. Trutch was officially informed that there was no option on the part of the t-ontractors to take oidy part of plant or lefuse portion of same, and that the3' would have to take all that was mentioned in the schedule. The value of th< to the thirteenth, unt upon his return from British Columbia, the Chief Engineer, in his report of the 18th January, 1886, alludes to that plant, and 8i,yM he found a portion of it old and unser- viceable, and that its value might at some future date becon\e a question between this Department and the contractors. Since that time no mention is made of that plant in the Departmental papers ; and when the allowance of $l!t,000 on account of old and unserviceable plant was made, the action in that nuitter appears to have been taken by the Chief Engineer personally without reference to the Minister. Mr. Perley has himself nnide a declaration to that effect before the Committee. (See page 142 of Evidence.) There is no doubt that my attention should have been called to this allowance of $19,000 in the final estimate; and there is every reason to believe that the ('hief Engineer, finding that a large portion of the plant which was supposed to be sei-vice- ivble was useless and rubbish, thought that the contractors should not pay for material that could not be used and to rei)laco which thev would have to pay a second time. 105!) l-67i inforniL'd the Department contractors, but ili;il thev On 29th April ;lio Chief le plant was, therefore, deducted in twelfths from the second estimate ntilthe whole amount of $50,288.69 had been deducted. However, m lii If f I 54 Victoria, Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Final estimates are not submitted to me, when there is no reduction made or extras granted. If the Chief Engineer is of opinion that the works are completed, it is for him to see to the issue of the final certificate for the paj-ment of the balance of the price of the contract. In BO important an administration as that of the Public Works, were the corres- Eondence alone in this last 3'ear represents nearly thirty thousand official letters esides 8,1)46 cheques, it is impossible for the Minister to see and know everything. He must necessarily leave to his chief officer that part of the work of the Depart- ment which does not require a decision on his part. Ho must also have confidence enough in them, so long as thej^ have not shown themselves unworthy of it, to rely on their fidelity' and depend on their submitting to him all questions which require his interference. I have only to say a word on the projected substitution of granite for sandstone. When Mr. Perley, who was favourable to that change, consulted me, I was inclined to assent to it. For prudence sake I spoke of it to Council, Council was of opinion not to accept the change, and I informed Mr. Perley accordingly. I have stated everything that occurred to the best of my recollection. In order to help my memory, I have caused searches in the records of the Department and examinations to be made of the documents which might have reference to the works above referred to. 1 hope that no important papei' shall have escaped notice. In any case, my statement of facts is honestly made. The Committee will please observe that Mr. Thomas McGreevy, as Member representing Quebec West, was presumed to take a special interest in the works of the Harbour of Quebec. His position as a Harbour Commissioner gave him the knowledge of the tenders ami contracts; and as a Director of the Union Bank of Lower Canada, now Canada, which made advances to Messis. Larkin, Connolly i\: Co., he followed with interest the execution of works at Esquimalt. ^th. — Subsidies granted to the Bale des Chaleurs Eaibcay Company. Mr. Tarte has accused Mr. Eobert McGreovy of having received more than §40,000 from these subsidies. Although no mention is made of me, nevertheless in the evidence my name is hcveral times mentioned in connection with these subsidies. In a letter of the 3rd of March, 188(J (page 22 of the Evidence), Mr. Thomas McGreovy writes : — " Nothing new in the Baio dos Chaleurs matter, except Sir Hector wanted me to come to terms and asked me to state the teims." And in a letter of the 8th of March, 1880, (sumo page) he says : — " I am told that Isbester will not have anything to do with Eaie des Chaleurs contract until they are in a legal position. I have received no proposition from them yet. Sir Hector wants me to make one, or state what I want them lo do." In another letter to Mi'. Eobert McGreovy, of the 9th March, 1880, (page 23) Mr. Thomas McGreevy says, moreover : " I had a meeting this afternoon with Sir Hector and Sir Adolphe. Sir Hector insisted on an understanding being come to. I refused to do so, and told him at last to let Robitaille make a proposition himself" And further on : " They proposed (not Caron, Sir Hector) to give me control of road to St. Anne's withsubsidy of $0,000 per mile, if I would withdraw my opposition to Bale des Chaleurs Eailwa}', and relieve you and me of our stock." Mr. Riopel, in his evidence, mentions a conversation which he says I had with him about the then existing difficulties between him and the Messrs. McGreevy. Mr. Thomas McGreevy and Mr. Eiopol spoke to me about these difficulties. Tho onl3' pai't [ had in these matters was that of a friend who wishes to hvw[urphy, and I never asked the said Thomas McGreevy for any such sum of money. 4'h. In answer to the statement made by the said O. E. Murphy, that he came to me and lold me that if I allowed him and his associates to have the contract of the Esquimau Graving Dock at something less than the price of the highest of the two tenders leceived, they would give an interest of twenty-five per cent, in said contract, I swear positively that he never came to me for any such purpose, a!id never made me, directly or indirectly, any such proposal or offer; and I may also ndd that O. E. Murphynever spoke to me on the subject of the contract for the Esquimalt Dock before or after the contract was awarded to Larkin, Connolly & Co. 5th. To the insinuation or charge made in this enquiry, that $5,000 were sent to Three Eivers for election purposes, I swear positively that, before this insinuation or charge was brought before this Committee, 1 had not he:ird it made, and I never knew and do not know of any such sum having been sent to Three Rivers, and I add on mj' oaih that said sum never was given or sent me, or to any one else with my knowledge, for such or any other purpose, directly or indirectly. There are other cha?ges or insinuations in the evidence which have come to my notice. 1 wish to explain and deny them, viz.: Mr. P. V. Valin, at page 413-4, refers to a letter or declaration which he says he signed, being taken bj' surprise. The circumstances are as follows : Mr. P. V. Valin intended to be a candidate for the County of .Montmorency at the last general election for the House of Commons, and wished through me the influence of the Government ot Canada in his canvass. He therefore came to me at Quebec on the 17th of February last, and found himself in my office with two lead- ing electors of Montmorency, viz., ;>[essrs. L. A. Lapointe and Hdward Cauchon. I said to Mr. Valin that the Canadien newspaper of that morning had |)ublished, over Mr. J. I. Tarte's signature, an open letter addressed to me, and in which Mr. Tarte related a conversation he said he had had on the 16th with Mr. Valin, and during which Mr. Valin was reported tu have used my name in a disparaging manner. I added that the first thing 1 wished to know was whether or not he, 10(31 t\ : \ ; i ■ I , I'' \f 54 Victoria, Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 r Ml'. Valin, had so expressed himself. Mr. Valin protested that he had not. I asked him whether he would state so in writing, in order that my political friends might be so informed. He consented, and as I was reading to him Mr. Tarte's letter, Mr. Valin protested against Mr. Tarte's allegations, and I wrote nearly the exact words of his denial, and at all events the exact meaning, and after the letter was completed, I read it to and invited him to sign the letter in presence of the two electors above-mentioned, who signed with him as witnesses of his signature. The original letter, and Mr. Tarte's open letter, accompany this statement. The Chairjian — Have you any objection to read the letter of Mr. Valin? Sir Hector Langevin — None whatever. Mr. Davies — You say that Wi«s di-awn by you ? Sir Hector Langevin — It was written bj' me in his presence. It was read to him and he signed it. The Chairman — And you produce it now together with the article from Le Canadien f Article from ie Canadien tiled as Exhibit " V16 ", and letter of Mr. Valin as Exhibit "W16". (For these Exhibits *See Appendices I and J to this Statement, pages 1071 and 1072.) Sir Hector Langevin — Yes, I think both should go together, because one ex- plains the other. The other was not asked for by the Committee, but I thought it better to give it. Mr. Valin states in his evidence that I told him to follow always Mr. Thomas McGreevy at the Quebec Harbour Boanl, and that he ahvJiys did so, convinced as he was that it was my wish and desire. This 1 nicst positively deny, Mr. Valin evidently is quite mistaken. Mr. Valin insinuates in his evidence that, though I did not promise him a place of Senator, I told him on the subject that he might take Sir A. P. Caron's word. He says also that Sir A. P. Caron told him on my behalf and on that of Sir John A. Macdonald, that he (Mr. Valin) would be appointed a Senator. To the above state- ment I answer that I never promised Mr. Valin that we would appoint him Senator. The fact is, he visited me very often, praj'ingto be called to the Senate, and I always told him that I could not promise him anything of the kind, and I never authorized anyone to promise it on my behalf; and I never stated to Mr. Valin to take Sir A. P. Caron's word in that sense, knowing fully that Sir A. P. Caron was not disposed to have him appointed. In answer to ^Ir. R. H. McGreevy's statement that Mr. Thomas McGreev}- con- sulted me in 1882 on the question of E, II, McGreevy becoming a partner with Messrs. Larkin, ConnoUj' & Co., I swear positively that Mr. Thomas McGreevy never consulted me on the subject, and I did not know that R. H. McGreevy was or had been a member of the firm until the papers about the case now before this Com- mittee became public and weie communicated to me during last Session. Mr. Noel having been examined about a testimonial that was begun in 1880 and presented to me in 188.3, I wish to state that T ditl not know of the names of the subscribers to that testimonial until they were communicated to this Committee by Mr. Noel, nor the amounts subscribed by them. I may add that I have not i-eceived the list of subscribers or statements of receipts. Mr. Peters states in his evidence that he subscribed for the elections in the month of June, 1882, and handed me for that purpose 8400 as his subscription and ^600 more that he collected. I do not remember that hedid so, and, therefore, shall not deny it. But, supposing it to be a fact, .Mr. Peters was not a contractor with the Government. On the 2nd of May, 1877, he, with Messrs. Moore and Wright, signed with the Quebec Harbour Commissioneis a contract for the South Tidal Harbour, without the intervention of the Government of Canada, the Commissioners paying those contractors out of the prov'ceds of their debentures. That contract was practi- cally completed in October, 1881, and Mr. Peters could with all propriety contribute to an election fund in 1882. None of that mone}', if so contributed, was used for my own election. 1062 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 In H letter laid before your Committee, it is stated that one Mr. Siniai-d, who is said to be a first cousin of mine, informed Mr. Larkin that if he (Mr. Lurkin) wanted anything done by me, to let him know. All I can ."ay is that Mr. Simanl never spoke to me about any of the works now being considered byj'our Committee, never wrote to me about any one of them, and never approached me, directly or indirectl}', about theiTi. I say the same about the Wei land Canal works mentioned b^' Mr. Larkin, and all other public works, Mr. Simaid never having communicated with me, directly or indirectly, about any of them. In a lette- dated 2nd May, 1885, published at page IS of the Evidence, allusion is made to Mr. Bennett, the then Engineer in British Columbia. I cannot recollect positively how and by whom my attention was called to that Engineer in the first instance. But I remember that Mr. Perley spoke to me about him, and mentioned that there seemed to be some difficulty or friction between the contractors and the Engineer. We came to the conclusion that most likely it was purely and simply a friction that might not last. However, I said to Mr. Perley that, in order that the post of local Engineer might not become vacant without proper preparation, he would do well to see Mr. Page, of the r)e|)artment of IJailwaj-s and Canals, and ascertain what good hj'draulic Engineer we might obtain in case of want. I under- stood that Mr. Perley did so, but matters renmined as they were, and no change of Engineer took place. Mr. Williams says in his evidence that he was offered the position of Engineer in nlace of Mr. Bennett. If made, that offer was ]¥)t authorized by me; and if Mr, Williams wrote m3 a letter on the subject, I could certainly not h ive consented to his appointment. He was not the Engineer that would have suited for that post. The negotiations between Mr. Perley and Mr. Page, and perhaps Mr. AVilliams' inter- view with Mr. Perley as stated by him, may, have transpired and thus given the idea that Mr. Peiley and I were prepared to change the local Engineer. r swear positively that Mr, Thomas ^IcUreevy never spoke to me about i-emov- ing Mr. liennett, and that I never intended to remove him so as to favour undul}- Messrs. Larkin, Connolly & Co. At page 21 of the Evidence Mr. Thomas McGreevy says, in a letter dated 13th May, what follows : — "Tell Kerrigan & Co., plumbers, that they have contract for Marine Hospital. They were not the lowest, Vaudry was. I got the Minister to give it to them." I oo not recollect anything about this matter; I have caused searches to be made in the Department, and there are no traces of such tenders. The onlj- thing found is a pavment of 8150 to these men for plumbers' work. In the letter of the 26th February, 1886, at page 21 (Exhibit "M2"), it is stated that I would be glad to recommenii O. E. Murphj' to the Company in England for the building of their Halifax Graving Dock. This must have been only a supposi- tion, inasmuch as I had no influence with that 'Jo.npany in England. Moreover, I hardly knew O. E. Murphy, and I had no opportunity of saying whether T would recommend him or not. In the account books rf Mi. Thomas McCrif evy, laid before this Committee, mention is made of certain promissory noteti on which my name is. I wish to state in connection with this, that in 1876 and 187T, no; bnug then a member of the Gov- ernment, I ran twice for Parliamentary el?ctio'' in the County of Charlevoix. I was elected there in 1876, and the following.' ;ar also after my first election had been annulled, fJoth elections were petitioncl against nad I was put to a large ex- pense, the judgments in the Superior Court Loing appealed from to the Supreme Court of Canada, One can judge of the expense when J say that in one of these con- tested elections nearly two hundred witnesses were examined and their time and expenses were taxed by the Court and paid. The printing of the record in the Supreme Court on my side cost one thousand dollars. I had no money, and I had therefore to borrow by having my notes discounted. Mr. Thomas Mc(rreev)' know- ing the circumstances endorsed my notes, paid out of his own money the interest or discount when due, and told me then that later on he woukl see the notes redeemed. 1063 ii ;■ ill -.. , I 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 I have considered, therefore, that he a88umed the notes, and I have been contii-ined in that idea by his having met regularly the interest or discount since then, and I have never troubled my mind about the matter. Mr. Thomas McGreevy in his evidence said that he paid $35,000 to Le Monde out of moneys received for political purposes. I had no personal knowletlge of this or these payments. But I understood that Mr. ^fcGreevy had paid some money to that newspaper. I, myself, paid sums of money to the same paper, which are still due to mo, and this is the only interest I have in that paper, besides the political interest. At page 90 of the Evidence, Mr. Baskerville saj-sjin a letter to mo : " As your Honour lemarked to me to have this matter kept quiet ; my brother and I did so." I do not recollect this. Mr. Baskerville must have mistaken what I told him. It was not to keep that matter quiet, but [ must have told him to keep quiet himselt. meaning not to be excited. The fact is the Order in Council refusing to give the contr-act either to Messrs Baskerville & Co., or to Messrs. Starrs & O'llanly was passed on the 19th April, 1884, and Mr. Baskervillo's letter is of the 26th May following. At page 233 of the Evidence, Mr. O. E. Murphy says that 1 knew what he had done ill New York. I here declare on my oath I did not know it, and heard of it only after Mr. Tarte had publislied Murphy's statement last year. Ai page 296 of the Evidence, Mr. O. E. Mui-phy says that he met 3Ir. Thomas McGrcov}' at my office in Ottawa about a sum of $5,000. I declare on my oath that he never to my knowledge, came to my office either with or without Mr. McGreevy, and tiierefore his statement about the above-mentioned $5,000 is false. I end here my statement. The Committee will understand the difficult and unjust position in which I am. If direct and clearly defined charges had been made against me, I could iiave pre- pared a complete defence. But when the charges come up from time to time as the evidence developes itself; when often they are made only in the form of insinua- tions, and based on the words and writings of third parties, on mere comparisons of dates and other presumptions of similar value, it becomes difficult to ascertain all their bearing, and impossible in manj' cases to meet these sayings by witnesses or documents. However, I have made this statement in the most straightforward way possible, believing it to be perfectly true, and wishing over and above all to defend and clear mj' character. Having done so, I leave my case in the hands of this Committee and of the House of Commons. APPENDICES TO STATEMENT OF SIR HECTOR LANGEVIN. No. 26,332. A. Harbour Com.missioners" Office, " Quebec, 8 ao&t 1882. " L'honorable " Sir Hector L. Lanoevin, K.C.M.G., C.B., " Ministre des Travaux Publics, etc., etc., etc., "Ottawa. "Monsieur le sii.mstre, — En r^ponse k votre lettre du 31 ultimo, j'ai regu ins- truction de declarer respectueusement que les Commissaires consid^rent qu'il n'est f»as n^cessaire qu'ils se dtJfendent du soupgon ile la connaissaiice de leur part de col- usion entre les soumissionnaires pour les travaux du havre. 106-4 w 64 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 "Lesplus bus soumissionnnires se sont Kimpleinent retires, et, suivant I'ordre natnrel, les doux contrats Hont 4ehu8 i Larkin, Connolly et Cle, et radjudication leiu" en a ^ti- whore the value of the plant required is so nearly equal to the supposed value of the work to be done. I think, therefore, that the rejection of the tender of Mr. Fradet would have followed as a matter of expediency and prudence, apart from the failure on his part to find the needful securitj-. " With regard to the lenders of Mr. Beaucage and Mr. Askwith it is understood that they have voluntarily requested leave to retire from the competition, not feeling able to carry out the work. "The tender of Messrs. Larkin, Connolly & Co. at 8138,845 at rates per yard as proposed, being 879,150 below the next tender in order of succession of Mr. Ed. Moore, which has been guaranteed by a deposit of 810,000, although under the estimate herein given of the value of the woi-k, is made by responsible persons apparently able to meet any loss that may be involved, so that no complete justifica- tion for rejecting such an otter could be made, although it is well to obj^erve that the security and certainty of fulfilment of contract otfered by the tender of Mr. Ed. Moore in the fdct that the plant required is nearly complete, is now on the ground, combined with his great experience in this class of work, would have induced many to have favouied the acceptance of his tender. "The tender of Messrs. Blakc& Co. being informal and outside in price, no further remark is necessary. Timber Work. "The tender of Messrs. Poupore & Charlton for 89,000 has been set aside, they having failed to accept the conditions of contract with regard to security — at the same time I may add that the price named is altogether below the fair value of the woi'k required. " The tender of Messrs. Larkin & Connolly is at fair rates, and the whole of the different items being priced ut per foot in the quantities given, no difficulty can arise in the completion of this work or either of the alternative lines suggested by the plans. "The rest of the tenders are too high, althou:'h with regard to the tender of Mr. S. Peters, had he been aware that the work would certainly not have been required to be completed this season, a difference in the amount of his tender would probably have renulted, in any case if it is considerably' abovi' the price at which I estimated the work as based on the conditions of the specification. " 1 liave the honour to be, Sir, " Your obedient servant. (Signed) " WOOOFORD PILKIXGTOX, M.I.C.E,. " Resident Engineer. " I fully concur in the foregoing. (Signed) " WILLIA.M MORRIS. " (KiNiPi'LE & Morris.) " 5th August, 188 i. " Harbour Commissioners' Office. Xo. 2t!,389. " (Quebec, 18th August, 1882. " The Honourable " Sir Hector Langevin, K.C.M.G., C.B., •' Minister of Public Works, &c., &c., " Ottawa. " Sib, — I have the honcar, by direction of the Commissioners, to add the following information to my letter to you of the 2Tth ultimo, having reference to the tenders that had been received for the dredging and timber work required in connection with the Harbour Works in course of construction, viz. : lOtJtJ 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 " The contract for the timber work was ottered to Messrs. Poiip )re .^ Cliurlton on Ihe condition that the}' would make a cash deposit of 83,000 for the due perfoi-rnance of the work they had tendered for. Their reply was that they would comply with the new conditions on being allowed to amend their tender by correcting an error which had been discovered after the tender had been filled, and wliich, if cor roc ted, would have added $7,60(» to the sum mentioned in same. "The Commissionere having refused to comply with their requt'st and the next lowest tender, Mr. Beaucage's tender, having been withdrawn, the contract- was thereupon awarded to the next lowest, Messrs. Larkin, Connolly & Co. " r have the honour to be. Sir, " Your most obedient servant. (Signed) "A. H. VERRET, " Sec.-Treas" c •' Harbour Commissioners' Okfick. •'Quebec, 2yth July, 1SS5. " To the Honourable "Sir Hector L. Lanqevin, K.C.M.G., C.B., " Minister of Public Works, " Ottawa. " Sir, — I have the honour, by direction of the Commissioners, to most respect- fully state that, through lack of sufficient means at their disposal, they have been compelled to suspend the dredging of the Tidal Basin forming part of the Harbour Works under their control ; that the suspension in (juostion will have the ettect of retarding this year, the completion of tbi' dredging of a sufficient quantity of material from the bank now in existence, which, once removed, would insure the fi'ce access to the Louise Embankment of the largest ocean sleainors freoii quart de million. " Vous avez dcrit la verity, la'a-t-il dit, mais vous ne savez pas toute la v^ritd." " II voulait etio le candidal de I'opposition dans le comte de Montmorency, dans le but de d^uoncer ii I'^Iectorat et au parlement la coi;duito de M. Thomas MctTieevy et la votre. '•Dinuinche dornior, le huil de ce mois. il osi descondu ilSte-Anne, chez M. le ca- pitaine Fortier, maire de la paroisse. et il lui a d^clart? qu'il «5lait lesoluavous d(5masquer. vous, M. le ministre. et M. Thomas .McGreevy. li a lomi lo mCme lan- gago, me dil-on, a des pietres du oonite. .\ M. Fortier, doiiljevous donnerai le t^moijfnage ecrit, as>ermeht^ si vous voulez. \\ a ajoiite: "Si Sir Hector savait ce (jue j'ai a dire contrc !ui, ^a ne lui cofiterait pas do n>o donner §10,000 pour me fail e laire un voN'age aux Etats-Unis." "M. ^'alin a mis son nom au bus de tous les contrats qui ont ^te la souicede tanl de vols, de fraudos ti de pi^varications. Et quand je I'ai vu vous faire poitei' la resjjonsabilift entiere tie toutes ces choso icnorniidouses, j ;i' ouvort les ])apiors int^ressants, les preuves a conviction que je possede, et j'ai constate que vraiinonl il n'avait ))as eu sa pait de I'aigent vol»S au ])ays. On nc lui a jete par-ci par-la que dos OS. Los gros chi.?ns avaient gros appetit. '■Cro3'ez-niiii, " M. le ministre, " Votre serviteur, (Sign^O "J. ISRAEL TARTE." (Translation.) '• (Quebec, Tuesday, 17th February, 1891. WARXIXG TO SIR HECTOR LANtlEVIX. " QuEiiEc, Kith February, 1801. " Hon. Sir Hector Lanoevix. '' Miinster of Public Works, " Quebec. "Sir, — Passing along tlie street just now, I saw Mr. P. V. Valin come out of your house. On Tuesday last, in the afternoon, ho was at my oflice on Fabrique street. He came there to describe you to me as the most culpable of all the crimi- nals whom 1 deemed it my duty to denounce in Le Canddien. Mr. Valin assured me that he was in a position to piovo that it was at your re(|uest and byyoururder. that the (Quebec Harbour Commissioners awarded to Larkin, Connolly i Co. too contracts out of which Thomas .MctJreev}- has made, since 1882 or 1883, iiis quartvM of a million. ' You liave written the truth,' he said to me. ' iuit you do not know the whole truth.' 1071 ■mi* ,'■ :!f ' •■ K § f i; 54 Victoria. Appendix {No. 1.) A. 1891 " He wanted to be the Oppo>ition candidate in the County of Montmorency, for the purpose of denouncing before the electors and before Parliament the conduct of Mr, Thomas McGreevy and your*. " On Sunday hist, the 8th ot this month, lie went down to Ste. Anne and to the house of Captain Foi-tier, mayor of the parish, to whom he declared that he was detei-mined to expose you, Sir Hector, and Mr. Thomas' MeGreevj*. He said the same thing, 1 am told, to certain priests of the county. To Mi'. Fortier, whose testi- mony in writing, under oath, I will give j'ou if you wish, he further said : ' If Sir Hector Jinew what I have to say against him, he would not hesitate to give me §10,000 to got me to take a trip to the United States.' " Ml', Yalin signed his name at the foot of all the contracts which have been the source of so much robbery, fraud and prevarication. And when I saw him make you bear the whole responsibility for all those shameful acts, i ojiened up the inter- esting documents, the evidence in my possession, and I found that in truth he had not received his share of the money stolen fiom the country. H-e had been given a mere bone from time to time. The big dogs iiad been too voracious. " Believe mo, &.C., (Signed) " J. ISRAEL TAETE." ft ■:-, (Exhibit " Wit).") • "Quebec, 17 f^vrier, 1891. " L'Honorable Sir Hector L. L.\nuevin, " Ministrc des Travaux Publics, " Quebec. "Monsieur le Mi.nistre, — .J'ai lu ee matin la lettre que M, J, I, Tarte publio dans le Canadien. •' M. Tarte ne m'a pas compris. .le ne lui ai pas dit (][ue j'avais des choses si lui dire ou i dire contre voiis; le fait est queje ne lui ai rion dit contre vous. Dans notre conversation, je lui ai dit quand il m'a parl<$ dc I'artaiie McGreevy, quo quand cette attaire serait ddcid^e par les tribunaux ou par iin comity de la Chambre, je vo- terais conti e M. McGreevy s'il t5tait trouve coupable. • "Je n'aipasditquoc'^tail avotre demande et par votre ordre que la commission du Havre do Quebec a fait avec Messieurs Lurkin, Connolly & Cie. les contrats en question ; mais Je lui ai di< ([ue ces contrats avaientel^ soumis ii I'ingdnieur en chef il Ottawa, notre ingdnieur. " Je n'ai pasditque je voulais etre le candidat de I'opposilion pour vous denomer et d(5iioncer M. McGreev}' ; mais je lui ai dit que .M. Uesjardins dtant sur les rangs jo voulais nic venger de M. l)e^jilrdins pour ce qu'il m'avait fait dans la dernier, Election. "Jo n'ai pas dit i\.M. Kortier ce qui est dans la lettre do M. Tarte it. son sujet. Le fait ''St qi 9 je n'avais ot que je n'ai rieii il denoiicer contre vous. M. Tarte m'a ques- tionn»? [low savoir quelles conversations j'avais cues avec vous et avec M. ^IcGreevy. Je lui ai rdpondu que les conversations piivees ue >e communiquaient pas au.x autres. " Et je signe en pidsence Work added 8103,017 Work omitted 89,989 Extra cost of amended plan 81 3.028 " I remain, Bear Sir, " Your obedient servant, "ST. GEORGE BOSWELL, " Besident Engineer." Q. Now, what answer did Mr. Pei-ley make to this report of yours? — A. Ho answered that he would not entertain the proposition, unless it could be done at the same price as the original design. Q. Have you ^ot the answer ? — A. Yes. (Exhibit " XIC") "Departjient of Public Works, Chief Engineer's Office. •' Ottawa, June 13th, 1887. " Dear Sir, — I am in receipt of yours of the 8th with plan relative to a pro- posal by the contractors for the South-wall to substitute cut stone in lieu of brick and concrete in the sewer. I note you state, that when they submitted theii proposal they said the cost of the outward work per lineal foot would be about the > to Larkin, Connolly & Co. ? — A. Certainly; that it would hasten the completion of the works and assist the contractors. Q. How many hours a day were they able to work on account of the tides at the depth that was intended ? — A. Sometimes not more than three-quarters of an hour or an hour. Q. And by raising the sewer they were able to work longer? — A. Certainly. Q. How much longer a day ? — A. I could not say how long, but it made quite a difference. I suppose an hour and a half longer; perhaps 2 hours. With the neap tides before the raising took place they could not work at all with the original grade, but after the raising the neap tidf would give them a chance to get in there for per- haps half an hour. Q. I would like to inquire of you if j-ou knew of the communications which took place between Larkin, Connolly & Co., and the City Engineer? — A. I knew of nothing but the letter which they produced from the City Engineer establishing the grade. Q. You knew nothing else about it? — A. Nothing whatever. Q. Did you consult Mr. Baillairg6 at the time ? — A. I did not. Q. Did he often come to inspect the works? — A. Never; at least I never saw him there. Q. He consented to a raising of 2 feet? — A. It was over 2 feet at the upper end. The average was about 2 feet. Q. You suggested the average of 2 feet? — A. Yes. 1078 54 Victoria, Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. What was the real raising? — A. At the intersection of Dalhousie street where the stone first began the sewer was raised 2^ feet, ut the upper end at the gas house it was 3 feet 1 inch. Q. Were you aware at the time the works were progressing that the raising was so big as that? — A. Certainly. The City Engineer said that if the invert of the sewer was placed at 15 feet below the surface of the street, it would meet all the requirements of the oily. Then when I gave them the grade I put it down at 15J feet, making it half a foot more to be on the right side. Q. You said at one part it was more than 3 feet and at other parts 2^ feet. Is it not a fact that rock excavation has been saved to the contractors by that raising ? — A, Certainly. Q. To what extent? — A. 462 yards of rock were saved, but they were not paid for that. Q. I know that. At any rate it was the contractors themselves who applied to you to hove that changed ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. It was a benetit to them, as you say? — A. Certainly. Q. It was a very great benefit? — A. It was. It was a benefit to everybodj'. Q. But it was a benefit to them ? — A. It was. Q. About the benefit to the city, I would not be pi'epai'ed to agree with j'^ou, but at any rate we have nothing to do with that now. It was a great saving to the contractors ? — A. Yes. Q, How much did they save ? — A. That is a matter of judgment. I never inquired into it at all. I did not form an opinion. il. Is it not a fact that they saved between thirty and forty thousand dollars by that raising? — A. I could not tell you at all. Q. At any rate you admit it was a saving and a large saving? — A. I admit it was a benefit to them ; they may have been making a profit on their excavation. Q. By working longer every day it was a saving to them ? — A. It was. 1 con- sider it a benefit to them. Q. Is it not a fact also that the change from brick to stone was a saving? Be- cause it is easier to put stone when you have only a little time to work in ? — A. I do not think myself that they could have built a brick sewer. Q. Who made the plan then ? — A. Mr. Boyd. Q. And you believe that the plans were not properl}' made ? — A. They were properly made, but I do not think he counted upon the water getting in in the way it did, and washing everything to pieces. Q. At any rate it was a saving to have stone instead of brick ? — A. I could not say that, because the real cost according to the contract price was $13,000 more. Q. At that time had they the stone on the spot when they asked foi- the change from brick ? — A. They had some cut stone. Q. But had they not the stone there ?— A. They had cut stone certainly. But the stone for the South-wall was cut. a great part of it. Q. What was the total width of the entrance they had to pass through in 1887 ? —A. The total width was about 190 feet, but on the shore side they could only pass at high water because the bank was 2 feet above high water. Q. Because the Caisson was built ? — A. Yes. Q. Y^ou have told us that Mr. Perley found that Mr. Boyd paid too ranch for the dredging ?— A. No. What I said was that I think what influenced him in making the change of contract was the difficulty of classifying this dredging. There was always room for dispute. The contractors might say there was more done at a lower depth. Q. Do you think Mr. Boyd paid too much ?— A. With the twenty-seven cents and the thirty cents that made fifty-seven cents. Q. Is it within your knowledge that when the materials were dumped in the river Mr. Boyd took off five cents ? — A. Yes. Q. Was it properly done ? I mean by that, do you think that it was a proper reduction ; or in other words, is it not a fact that a deduction of five cents for 1079 T ( |i| M\ ' T: i 'I 1 '-^ 1 '.n 1 ' r - 1 i:;i i\'i,r .'Hi^'l 64 Victoria Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 i;:- m '! -M dumping into the river is about the difference of price ? — A. I should think the difference would be a little greater if anything. Q. When did you give the order to allow them to raise the sewei- ? — A. I gave them the order when they produced the letter from the City Engineer and after I had received a telegram from the Chief Engineer. Q. Immediately after that ? — A. Yes. Q. Can you tell U8 if there is any more claim about that South-wall contract before the Commission ? — A. No. Q. Everything is paid ? — A. As far I know the final estimate is accepted and the whole thing paid. Q. Are you in a position to tell me what the cost was? — A. The total cost of the work was 8259.518.48, That is the final estimate and that was what the Engineer certified to. Q. At what date?— A. 30th November, 1890. Bu Mr. Henry : Q. You spoke of the difficulty of ascertaining the amount of dredging done under the different heads of the contract? — A. 1 did. Q. J5id the rise and fall of the tide have anything to do with that difficulty ? — A. I do not think so. Q. Will you state how the dredges were moved from place to place and held in position while at woi'k? — A. They were held in position by what is known as spuds — four long timber sticks at each corner of the dredge which when put down would anchor the dredge there. Q. They would have to bo lifted ? — A. No, they raise them. Q. Were they put down at each place they were working at? — A. Yes. Q. There was a certain amount of dredging paid for beyond thirty-five cents per cubic yard after the contract of 1887 was made? — A. There was. Q. That was nearly all in the tidal harbour? — A. Yes; there was a special arrangement made. Q. Did the contract of 1887 cover dredging in the Tidal harbour? — A. The con- tract of 1887 was for anything down to 15 feet. Q. But the dredging which did not extend to a greater depth than 15 feet was all or principally inside the Wet basin ; that was the maximum depth of the Wet basin? — A. Yes. Q. The dredging in the Tidal harbour was deeper ? — A. Yes. Q. It has never been explained why, although it is fairly obvious, the dredging outside the Wet basin was deeper than inside? — A. The reason is, that in the inner basin they relied upon the tide being retained there giving the depth. Q. State generally the excess of dejjth of dredging outside the Tidal harbour, and give the depth of the dredging inside ? — A, About lO feet. Q. The difference being due to the rise and fall of the tide? — A. Yes. ByMr.Tarte: Q. If all the money that has been spent in the Wet basin had been employed to make a proper dredging to 15 feet below low water, do you think the whole work would be completed to-day ? — A. Certainly. By Mr. Mills (Bothwell) : Q. When was the work of putting the earth upon the embankment at 30 cents per cubic yard done? — A. 1886. Q. By Larkin, Connolly & Co. ? — A. By Lai-kin, Connolly & Co. Q. When was that contract let, and by whom ? — A, What contract was that ? Q. The contract for putting this earth on the embankment at 30 cents per cubic yard. — A. I am not very clear about that. It is in the records of the Commissioners' books. Mr. Boyd was ciirecte 1 to make some arrangement with the contractors by which that work could be done. They refused to go on and do it on their contract. 1080 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Was it dono by the Commissioners? — A. Yes. Q. Witliout consulting with the Department? — A. Certuiiil}'. Q. Were tenders advertised for?- -A. No. The way was tJiis: The contractors were bound by their contrnct to put a certain number of yards on the embankment. When they hail 'ompietoil tiiat they I'cfused to go on and put any more there, Q. Then wiiat was done ? — A. Then 1 say the Commissioners authorized Mr. Boyd to make an arrangement with the contractors by which they w.mld put a certain amount of material on the embankment. That anangoment appears to have been 30 cents. Q. Any report on it ? — A. I can only tell by Mr. Boyd's estimates, appearing with that amount and the instructions from the Commissionc - to him to make the arrangement. Q. You wore connected with the work at that time '! — A, 1 was. (J. Were you asked to make a report as to the value of puttingthat earth on the embankment ? — A, Xo. (^ Was Mr. Royd? — A. Mr, Boyd, J know, did value it, Q. What value did ho put upon it? — A. 1 cannot tell 30U. Q. Have you seen his report? — A. I do not know that he ever made a report, 1 know he calculated, I know he got Mr. McGreevy to keep the time on the embank- ment, and to ascertain how man}' men wore employed but what the tin::l result was, 1 do not know. Q. You do not kno^v how the Commis!>ioiior8 came to make the contract ? A. Mo. All I know is, that Mr. Boyd was authorized by the Commissionei's to make the best arrangements he could with the contractors. There was no actual contract. Bij Mr. Bavies : Q. I don't quite understand about that sewer business, I want to ask a ([iiestion or two about it. If I understand j'ou rightly, the South-wall — we have not got the plan — was built forming one side of the Wet dock ? — A. It was. Q. By the original contract that South-wall went some feet below wli.i the Wet Dock was to be dredged to? — A. The South-wall, but not the sewer. Q. The South-wall would go some feet bolow what the Wet dock wouM be dredged to? — A, No; not at all. The dredging in the Wet dock was to tifteen feet below low water. The South-wall was never contemplated to go down below low water, or one and a-half feet below low water. Q. Then I was wrong. The South-wall would not go below the depth to which the Wet dock was to bo dredged ?— A. Certainly not. Q. The idea was to go below the average depth of the river? — A. The original intention was to gel down to hardish ground where Mr. Boyd thought ho was to get to cilay. Before the plans were made there were borings made tilong the side of the street, and thus ho found the depth to which clay was. He made the bottom of the wall to suit the general formation of tho ground. It had no reference to the dredging in tho Wet dock at all. Q. Had it any reference to tho water in the river?— A. The only object was to retain the water, and the moment he got down to what he considered tirm ground he did not go any lower, Q. Did that involve digging up anj' rock? — A. Certaiiily. Q. Much? — A. It only involved digging up rock to get the grade of tho sewer. The wall could pass over the top of the roclf. We did not excavate tho rock for the wall at all ; but we excavated it for the sewer. Q. Was the sewer run through that wall ?— A.. Xo, ^ir. The sewer was perfoctly separato, on the City side of the wall. The depth of the wall was never changed and the grade of the sewer never changed. Q. It remained always the same, and was built on the same foundation that Mr. Boyd originally intended ? — A. Certainly. Q, And the sewer ran on which side ?— A. The City side. 108 1 I ! in! 1 i"i 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1801 m m m \ \ Q. ilow deep was that to go with respect to the original wall? — A. I gave you the ixiades. Q. With respect to the foundation of the original wall, how near was that to go down to tho sewer? — A. They wore porfoclly independent of each other. The sower started at one and a-half foet above low water and ran with a grade of one-tenth of a foot in a hundred. Q. Was it near the foundation of the wall ? — A. It would be within two or throe feet, and in some places within a foot; liut it kept rising whereas tlie wall kept on the same. (^ The only thing this change did was lo relievo the contractors from excavating rock? — A, I don't know that it relieved them, as they were prepared for it. They were getting %2 a yai'd for rock, and were certainly making money out of it. (^. 1 a.sk you if it relieved them from excavating the rock ; because if it did not I am going to ask you the meaning of certain language in your report? — A. I can answer that they excavated less rock than they would have done if the sower had not been rai^ed. Q. I suppose that when you reported to Mr. J'erley that the raisingof that level two feet and a half or three feel would be of very great benefit to the contractors, that was what you meant? — A. Did I say that? Q. " It would be a great benefit to them." \)o I understand that referred to the contractors ? — A. I said " It would be a groat help to the contractors." Q. Read it please. — A. "As far as the work itself is concerned I do not see any objection ; but it certainly would be a great help to them." Q. AVhat did you moan by that? — A. It would relieve the execution of the work. Q. Mr. Tarte askod you whether it would be a bcnetit to them of from $30,000 to 840,000, and you said you had not made a calculation. Are you sufficiently acquainted with the facts to say that it would be half that?— A. I could not say. Q. As an engineer? — A. As an engineer I would not express my opinion. (I. Why ? — A. I would have to go into some figures and go into the matter carefully. Q. Can't you say roughly? — A. I would not express an opinion roughly. By Mr. Tarte : Q. Is it not more expensive to excavate in deep ground? — A. There is no question that the raising ot the sower was a benefit to the contractors, as excavating at the lower depth could not have boon paj'ing them ; but what the saving was I would not begin to say. They may have been making a profit on their excavating all through. I am merely stating what my opinion was. By Mr. Mills (^Bothwell) : Q. You gave a lecture before the society in Montreal in this subject. Was it printed ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Could copies of it be laid before this Committee ? — A. By Mr. Davies • Q. Was that sewer built in a wall ? — A. No, Sir, it was not. The sewer was built and the wall was upon one side of it. Q. Can you state whether the stone and the earth filling constituted a wall for the sewer ? — A. No. The sewer was built of masonry. It was filled on tho top with earth stuff. Q. There was no wall there forming the side of it? — A. No, it was perfectly independent. Q. I have been instructed by those who built that sewer that it was built in the wall itself? — A. Well, they instructed you wrongly. The sewer was built of masonry and there was no masonry used that was not necessary for the construction of the sewer. Q. You are positive that there was not a wall ? — A. You can call any sewer a wall with a hole bored in it. 1082 which you discussed , I suppose there could. l\. i| 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 By Sir John Thompson : Q. It is not the wiiU of the works ?— A. No, sir. The masonry wiis only used for the purpose of building the sewer. No wall was put thoro that wuh not ncccs- Bury for this purpose. Q. Was tlie raising of the sower beneficial to the Commissioners ? — A. Yes ; it saved the Commissioners, as I have already staled, 83,(i45 in obviatini^ the necessity for excavation of rock and earth. Q. And it answered the purpose of the Harlii)ur Commissioners as well ? — A. Certainly, it had nothing really to do with the Harbour, i-xcept to take away the sewer which was running into the Wet dock. The Committee then adjourned till 4 o'clock p.m. TcKSDAV, llth August, 4 p.nr;. Mb, H. J. CHAiiONER re-called. By Mr. Geoffrion : Q. Did you prepare the statement from the books which you were required to prepare, to wit : Showing the way in which the 884,000, referred to in your exarain- ation-in-chief, were paid out or used by Thomas McGrcevy? — A. Yes, 1 made the statement. Q. This is the statement you made out from the books of Thomas McGreevy ? — A. Yes. Q. It purports to be payments included between the 8th May, 1884 and the 3Gth June, 1884 ?— A. Yes. Q. Read it please. — A. It reads as follows : (Exhibit '-YIG") " Government Cheque account Intercolonial Kailway. — 1884, May 8th— The amount 884,075.00 How disbursed : — Thomas McGreevy — Note British Bank 8 10,48(;.l.j Taxes 851.01 Cheque 8 2,000.00 " 500.00 " 500.00 •' l,00O.0(t • " 1.50.00 '• 100.00 '• 100.00 .5,100.00 '• 52.50 0,502.50 Glover&Fry 200.00 Tardivel, painter 400.00 H. S. Smith 2,834.94 Note Mousseau 222.(10 Life Insurance " .Etna " 027.00 825,423.00 1083 ■ I h 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 E. H. :k[c(ireevy— Cheque Forward 825,423.66 5; 100.00 500.00 50.00 158.11 161.86 150.00 :W2.0(» 150.00 525.00 200.00 75.00 150.00 213 SI 60.20 4.37 112.00 212.0(t 100.00 50.00 200.00 E.G.Meredith, note Mr.s. Iiglis, rent D. I. Power, salary Hon. Geo. li'vine, costs Subpfcnas, McDougall Note, Foote Union Bank — Note 8 5,087.86 Overdraft 10,527.0i> II - Eanl\ of Montreal Quebec Bank La Banque Nationaie IJossi^Co Note, M. 1. llogan do Andrews, Caron & Andrews.., Account Note, Caisse d'Economit ... Taxes Wendover Chas. Sa mson Union Bank interest Mrs. Lindsay Borrowed Monev H. J. C Note, Sir N. F. Bolloau Account Nrto, Honey BignoU I.. P., on property N. S. E.. Account O'Connor note Mousseau, N(jte Witnesses, N. S. E Eoss &Co do Note, Sir N. F. BcUoau Quebec Bank , Union Bank Actou nt Note, O'Ci^nnor 1084 3,504.35 300.00 30.00 128.00 463.50 35.00 425.00 15,614.05 10,000.00 5,064.24 7,521.36 5,000.00 1,260.00 3,000.00 218.00 20.76 582.2'J 151.75 360.00 757.00 300.00 322.10 739.S0 6ti2.90 693.10 63.30 72.88 502.47 300.00 182.20 20.7:: 160.00 .891 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 189J Note, Union ThomjiH McGreevy — fiulunce 150.00 45.41) June 30ih, 1884." 884,075.00 II. J. ClIALONER. Ottawa, Aui:;. 11, '91. Q. Do you know whether these difterent cheques wore given with the consent or by the orderof Thomas McGreevy ? — A. Yes; ho is satisfied that the amount waw spent. Q. Was he aware of these ilifterent payments about the time they were made ? — A. Of course. Q. And he agreed to them ? — A. Yes ; either he or l>'..-i })rother signed the cheques. The .noney is gone, at any rate. Proscription is up uo\" .my way. They could not call me to account. Q. ^Vere these cheques signed by Thomas McGreevy or you? — A. liobert, 1 pre- sume. By Mr. Mills {Boihwell) : Q. They were paid out by j'ou on Thomas McGreevy's order ? — A. No. (I. They were drawn by Eobert ^[cGreevy on money lie had in Ottawa? — A. Yes, under instruction from his i)rother. Q. And geneialiy the money would be handed to you or cheques to ])ay the money? — A. Some. I have icnowledged that theditferei.t payments were m;uie. The otlier cheques charged in July, I do not Itnow anything about thtnn. Q. Dill you have in your iiossession at any time the two notes which wore dis- counted by lion. .John llearn? — A. No. (I. Never saw them ? — A. I do not think I did. Q. Did you ha\ e in your possession the $5,U00 note that was discounted by Mr. Thomson? — A. 1 think I had it in the bank, but I cannot tell wiio gave it to mo. I have been tr'ving to do so all along, but I cannot tell. I got the money from Andrew Thomson. % You cannot remember whether you had the note in your possession? — A. I must have had il'to hand it to Andrew Thomson. (J. From whom did yoa receive it ? — A. That is what I told you \ could not remember. Q. When you went to Mr. ; Uomson to discount that note, did you go there by order o. under instruction from either of the McGreevys ? — A. Since coining to Ottawa I read Ilobert Mc(rreevy's evidence, and if I had not seen it 1 woulil not have known as much about .'. Jle tells me that I went there and told him his brotiier had not spoken about it on \ihen you came with the nolo ?—i.. 1 think he complained about it being late in the month, and 1 think I ke|)t the montsy over until the first of the month. I think I marked the receipt the Ist of August, ai-d 1 had the money on the ;!(»th or 3 1st. I did not pay the judgment until the 1st. Q. After the judgment of McCarron and Cameron was j)uid,did you creilit Ilohort McGreevy with the amount of that payment ?— No, sir. (I. You did not treat this payment as having been made by Ilobert for his brother? — A. When I acted under instruction, 1 treated it as Thomas's. Q. As far as entries made by you are concerned they go to the same etl'ect as i^ judgment had been paid with Thomas McGioevy's money? — A. Yes, it is simply this, I put the note for my own satisfaction where the money came from. (I. But as far as tl.e money coining from it is equivalent tf) a payment made by Thomas McGreevy ? — ^A. Yes, sir. 1J85 i, l^t P ?! 54 Victoria. tl> Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Did 3'ou pay the judgment in one or several instalments? — A. In one instil- ment. Q. You are sure it was made in one payment? — A. The receipts are in one pay- ment, sir. Q. Will not the books show two payments ? — A. Xo. The books will shew one payment. I may tell you that when I paid the judgment I deducted a $1,000 for cost:*, and then the co.sts only amounted to 8750. I paid the balant'e afterwards — some 83.50 to the same people. Q. The lawyers? — A. I suppose so. Q. Did you credit R. 11. McGreevy with §2,500 that appears to have come front Murphj'? — A. No, it is all one account. By Mr. Kirl:patrick : Q. Has Mr. Me(rreevy any kriDwledge of the ciK'^ies in the hooks? — A. Xo, he never saw my bocks. Mr, Louis CosTE sworn. By Mr. Fit zpat rick : Q. You are in the omplov of the Public Works Department at the present time? —A. Yes. Q. And you have been emploved in that Department for manj^ years ? — A. Yes ; since 188:1 Q. Do you rcmcmbjr in tlie winter of 1883 that plans wei'e prepared in the Public Works Department for the construction of the Cross-wall at Quebec ? — A. Yes. Mr. Boyd prepared those plans. Q. Have you seen those ])lans recently? — A. Yes, I saw tlieni tiie other day. Q. When did you see them? — A. I saw them on Saturday last. Q. Those were the plans which you saw on Saturday last, which had been used for the Engineers' EejMirt ? — X. i believe so. Q. And are the ntlicial plans used by the Department for the work in connec- tion with the Cross-wall? — A. I sin mid say no, from my knowledge of Depart- mental matters. Q. What are your I'casons? — A. All plans prepared by the Chief Engineer of Public Works are sent to the Council and generally signed by himself, that is by 'Slv. Perley. Q. That is j'our only I'cason ? — A. XothiiiL;' fui'tlier. generally iliese plans are sent back to the Depat'tmenl. after having been subniillcd foi' the approval of the Privy Council, with the Order in Council to which they I'eter. Q. Did you see whether or not these ])lans to which 1 have referred, bear the signature of the Chief Mnginei-r or the stamp of the Department ? — A. As far ar r know they dont bear any stamps or signatures at all. Q. What did those plans a])pear to be, !is far as your knowledge of them goes ? — A. I should say they are Mi'. Boyd's working plans. Q. Will you look at the letter now produeed which purports to be written liy Mr. Hnnis, dated Ottawa 23rd March, lS8.'!.and adilressed to A. IF. Yeri'et, Secretary to the Harbour Commissioners, Quebec? (Exhibit " Z16.") 17.523 "Ottawa, 23rd March, 1883. "Sir, — f am directed by the Honorable the Minister to enclose herewilh plans and specifications, etc., for the proposed Cio>s-wal! necessary to render available as a Wot (lock, tiie dock constructed by the Harbour O\)mmissioners at (Jueboc, at the 1080 64 Victoria. Appendix (Ifo. 1.) A. 1891 mouth of the Eiver St. Charles and to ask tlie expression of the opinion of your Board in the matter, " 1 have the honour to be, Sir ■•' Your obedient sservaiit, " F. H. EXNIS. " A. II, Verret. I'^sq., '• Secretary. " Secretary Board of Harbour Commissioners, " Queliec." Q. Will you state wliother you have any Ivnowledye of the p!an>i referred to in this letter? — A. No, sir, I have no knowledge of these plans, Q, C'ln you say whether or not they are the plans which you have n-fcrred to — from wiiich quantities were taken by the Kni-ineer. Mr. Jennings — whether they are the same plans that were leferred to in that letter? — A, I believe not. By Mr. Tarte: Q, Did ycu give some orders to Mr, Laforce Langovin to enquire into the con- duct of Captain iJernier of Quebec? — A. No, sir. Q. You never gave any orders ? — A. No, 1 made the enquiry myself. Q. On whose complaint ? — A. I made the enquiry on a com])lainl made b}- one of the foremen on the Doi-k. Q, Who was the foreman ? — A, The fureniitn's name was Labbt'. <,>, Did any correspondence take phice alioiit that ? — A. Yes, I was told by Mr. LtJorcc Langovin, who was in charge of the work at Levis that very crooked things wcii- <:• img on at the Doelc. While 1 was there making an examination of the work, I telegi'ai)hed to the Department asking power to investigate, iind having received such ])ower, I made my investigation independent altogether of .Mr. Laforce Langevin. Q. Fiom whom did you get your powers ? — A. I got powers from the l)ei)art- ment. (i. I'Vom whom in the Department? — A. It was a letter addressed to me by the secn'tiiry, as far as I rememl-er. (^. To whom did you telegraph for instruction? — A. Chief Kngincer of Public Works. Q. if I understand you rightly, you have Just lokl us you did ask Laforce Langevin to be employed at the L^vis (iraving Dock. Did you saj* that ? — A. 1 did, (^, When did you ein])loy him ? — A. When the (luostion of having an I'lngineer in charge of these works was broached by Sir Hector himself. I asked that .\rr. I^aforce Langevin should be appointed as the Hngineer in Charge, because be had perfect knowledge of that work. He was the only one of our Engineers aroui\d Quebec who han this work by which he acquired this special know- ledge ?— A. I should say, 1884 or 1885. Q. In what capacity was he employed ? — A. As the assistant of Mr. Boswell. (J. What work was it. that Mr. Hoswell was engaged in at that time? — A. I think he \vas Resident Kngineer of that Dock. Q. What was the woilc that was to be performed that required this previous special preparation? — A. It was specially the building of a fence around the pro- perty. Q. And it required a previous knowledge to supervise the spreading of the earth. Was it that which qualified this man specially? — A. We wanted a man who knew the property. Q. What do you mean by that ? — A. Knowing the bounds of the property. Q. Vf'ere not the bounds of the ))roporty known genei'ally ? What other pro- perty is contiguous to this property? — A. I cannot tell. Q. Do you know who made a plan of this property and marked the limits that plan ? — A. No ; I do not. Q. Was it Jlr. Boswell?— A. T think it was. Q. Are you sure about that ? — A. No; I am not. Q. Was Mr. Laforce Langevin engaged in that woi-k? — A. I do not think was. 1088 on he iiy )ro- he 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. What was the special k now ledyo he required ? — A. lie liad been already eiiipioyoil on the J)ock and !oswell, and I understood he was employed at the Jlarhour Works ; but Mr. Langeviu having been on the W(^rk before was (|\ialilieil to lake charge of that work then. Jhj Mr. Mills (Bothwell) : Q. W^as there not a plan prepared for that woik lit'oie the appoinlnieiit was made at all ? Wasn't there a i)lan showing what tlie public jirnperty was? — A. Yes. Bi/ Mr. Geoffrion : Q. Couldn't another engineer follow that plan as \'ellas Mr. Langevin ? — A. [ sujtp>of.e for the fence he could. On the other ri'pairs, ha\ iiig i)eei! already employed, i thought 1k' was tie I. est man. Jforeover, we liad no other llnginei-r we could cm- ploy. All our other I'aigineeis at (Quebec wore employed on the other works. Q. It was not because he was the best man. but because he was the orly available man ? — A. [ said he was the best man for our |iurpose. (I. Hut when you had sim])ly a plan which any inielligent man coidd follow? — A. Then' weie a lot of ([uestions of rcjiairs in addition to the fence. .Vnyoncon our >tatf could have done it. Q. CoukI not a foiemau who had once been pointed out wlieieihe teiicc was to go. have done it ? Did it require an engineer? — A. I believe it required the hcrviees of an engineer to give the lines ot' the fence and to >ee that the woi'k would be pro])ei'Iy carrieil out. Ill/ Mr. Jf ''.s (Bvlhuell): the hiii^th of this lence ?— A. it goc> all around the property. <,(. U it u Work that any com[ietent man could mark out in half u hw? — A. Yes, or k'ss. Q. And yet you testilied Ihat it reijuircd this man for a whole summtT for .several hour.'> morning and evciung ? — A. I do not recollect how long he wan employed, liut he was employed as lo-.u' as the work lasted to see that it was iLuiie l(|S!i 1— <]<• 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 properly. It has always been tlio pruotico of the Department oC Public Works to appoint ongineois to look after the works. By Mr. Tarte : Q. How long has Labbd been employed there? — A. Ldo not know when he was ajjpoiiitod. I think he must have been appointed at the beginning of the work. (i. Did he remain there until tlie end of the woriv ? — A. ldo not know. Q. Have you got a copy of the enquiry or lather of the evidence taken in the cn([uii'y in Captain Bernier's case? — A. No evidence was taken. Q. Nor any notes made of it? — A. No. No evidence was taken by myself in writing. Q. There was no written evidence you sa}'. — A. No it was all verbal. Q. How !oiig did the enquiry last? — A. Seven or eight days. Q. If there was no written evidence was tiiere a written report? — A. Yes, f made tlie rct at all. Q. Are .you aware that ilr. Perley at that date had two capacities in which he acted — that of Chief Engineer to the Public Works Department, and of Chief Kiigi- anything at all A. I do not know 'I neer to the (Quebec Harbour Commissioners ? abi>iit it. Counsel objected. Bij Mr. Geuffrion : Q. Do you know whether tliese plans formed jiart of the work of the Public Work- Deparmient or of the Harbour Commissioners' otHce at Quebec ? — A, i was untler the ini|)ression they belonged to llio Harbour Coiumissionors; the}' were made in the Harbour Commissioners' otiice by Mv. Boyd. Q. Would not they fall under the rule of the plans of the Public Works Depart- ment, whicli rei)uired to be certified and .'i|iproved of by the Chief Engineer of that Department '■* — A. Jl'they had been iipproved l>y the ('iiief I'Jiginecr oi' the Public AYoi'ks Department they would bc:ir his sigiialur^'. (■i,. I want to know whether these jilans. if prepared in the Department of Pub- lic Works, would bo filed in the Department or in the Harbour Commissioners works ? — A. I do not quite understand ^'oiii' ((Uestion. (^. Wouhl these plans, forming pait of the iloi uinenis produced, be found in the I'uMic A\'orks Dep;irlmeii; here or Jimong lliejiapers and documenls tiled with the Haibiun ('oinmisbioners at (Quebec ? — A, The work as I understand i' was carried out by the Harbour Works Commissioners, and therefore those ])lans would be sent by the Department of Public Works to the Harbour Commissioners at (^Mieliec. after they had lu'on approved even if made in the Dc|:artmeiit oj Public Work-. The rea- son 1 hilled why in my belief these plans, ou whirh t|>c |']|iul||i'( fs have cMlculatcd llieir tiuantities, are not the original plan- i- Ihal In Noveiidii'r or J>eceiubei', ISSo, I '^aw \lr, Boyd then completiiiii' the very plans Ibal 1 saw here theotlu^' day. They iO'JO .1 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 were in pencil and I concluded that the originals must have been tracings made from these plans. I took a special interest in ihem because they were the most important works being done when T joined the department. By Mr. Tarte : Q. Have you any other plans than those produced iiero ? — A. Xo, sir. (I, If there are any, whei'C could ihey be '^ — A. I do nut know. Q. Are you (piite sure that in the Public Works Department there are no other ])lans for the Cross-wall than those we have here? — A. I have made a special search to tind what 1 thought would be the original plans. We fountl no other plans rela- ting to the Cross-wall. Q. Did you see all the plans made by the Department of Public Works ? — A. I liavo soon them now. Q, Do you swear that all of them are approved tliat all plans submitted to Council bear the stamp. Ihj Mr. Mills {Bothwell) : Q. Did you ever see any other plais than those for the Cross-wall which you have here? — A. I have seen tracings maue by Mr. Boyd. Q. Of other plans? — A. Of these same plans. Q. Did you over see any plans that may lie rcgardetl as the original plans and finished in the way you speak of? — 'No, sir, never. Q. And you found no others in the Department? — A. Xo, sii*. The Committee then adjourned. by Council ? — A. I have stated That is what I stated. .., 1 ' ;';^i. HousK OK Commons, AVednksiiav, llith August, 1S91. The Cnnnnittcc iiu't at lO.-'W a.m. ; ~S\v. rjifDUiird in the Cliaii'. liiM'stiuiitioii inti) certain circuinstani rs and stiitt'iiu'iits made in connection with the tcndci's and contracts rcsjicctiiii; liic (i>iicl)fc llarhiiur Works, iVc, resumed. The Chaiuman stated that in aceonlanco with the Resolution adojjted at yester- day's sitting, he had, in comi)any with Mi. Tarto and Messrs. .Stuart and GeotlVion, gone to Hon. Mr. llobitaille's room in the Senate and taken his evidence under oath. The evidence is -di* follows : Hon. TiiKODoBK JioiUTAir.LK sworn. By Mr. Stuart : Q. Did you at any time --eo Mr, Robert McGreevy on the subject of ;t statement that was afterwaids published in J.c Camu'tcn ; if so. can you state when and what was the purport of llie conversation that passed between you? — A. Mr. Robert Mcfireevy came to see me in my room here, li was at the beginning of last se.vsion a year ago last winter, I think, /■ Her a good deal of casual conversation lie brongiit u|1 the object of hi-- visit, lie lold me that he had had M)nie dit!icultie> with his brother, and that aniong.-.t them was a lawsuit wliich was >till u^ing on. and that he liyd in his possession documents which he was anxious i" communicate to the (Tovernnient, ILo asked me — may be it was before this time that he asked me — if I was on good terms with the Government ? I told him I tiiought I M'as as usual, and he asked me if 1 was also on good term> with Sir Il-ector Lungevin ? 1 told him 1 was as usual— as far as I knew, 1 was. Jle sai.l he had documents in his possession which lie wanted to communicate to them, and he asked me if I w mid take the matter in hand and liring it before them. I told him the tirt-t thing would be to know what the documents' were, and so he took out of his pocket several sheets of 1(I!>1 1— (J9i \ \ 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 paper, type-written. He rvad a portion of it and tlicn gave uw the ])apcrs t" read. I first of all asked liim if ho liad given the matter every consideration; tiiat l»o miiHt see himself it was a very serious thing he waH bringing on; that ho was the father of a large family, especially of hoys, who had, of (■oiirsc, to look for a living and that it was a serious thing for him to undertake, lie implied (hat he had tlmngiit the matter ovei' very seriously- and that he had determined tlic thing siuuild go on; that he and Murphy had made up their minds that the thing would go on. Then I said, " have you any other documents to estalilish the facts which you assert in this declaration ? " lie said " Oh yes, we have got f)ther docinnents to prove everything there." Well, I said, if you are anxious for it, I have no objections to take these papers and to commuiucate them, " but tii'st of all " I remarked, " do you de>ii e me to communiciiie these jjapcr.-' to your brother Thomas ?" lie ^^aid "no, it is perfecily useless; he wont listen to anybody. The only thing is to have them Ijeliae the Government." Then, I said, the only member of the (iovernmcnt I w(juld feel it that you want ? Do you desire that the lawsuit on the |)art of your laoiher should be abandoned ?" He said "no, I do not care anything about that." Then I asked him again, " what is it that you want ; is it money you want ?" — " No. it is not money I want." " Well, wdiat is it?" Ho said. '" we want him to resign his seat in the House of Commons, and his seat at the Hoard of the Quebec Harbour Commissioneis ; that is what we want him to do." 1 asked " what is your olijeci in that?" "Our object in tliat," he replieil, -'is that so long as he is there we will never be able to get a contract from the Government, and he must go out of that." " Well.'' I said, "su[)posing it is in this w:iy, you are asking a thingfroni the Government whicli they have no power to do. It maybe that the (toveiiiment has the power to put him otf the Board of Harbour Commissioners; but, su])p()sing that was done, the next thing is as to his seat in the House of Commons. Kven if the (rovornment persuaded him to resign his seat in the House, and he did resign, there is nothing to prevent him the next moment from presenting him.self iti the same constituency, ami he would be retui'nctl." Eobert McGi'cevy tliercu|)on said, "no; he would not be returned. We would check him there and prevent him being returned." After our conversation 1 sail to him, "well, if you ate perfectly determined, I have no objec- tion to do that which you ask me." 1 thereujxm took the papers and coninuinieateil tliem to Sir Hector Langevin, to 31r. Thomas .McGreevy and to Sir .Folin -^[aellonald. That is all I remember just now. Q. Did 3'ou have a subsequent interview wit papers? — A. Yes. He came for tlu' jjajiers. remembei' how long aUer: him when you returned him these -A. 1 cannot say exactly. Terbaps a Q. Do you fortnight after. (I. Do you recollect the ]jurport of the conversation that occurred then? — A. There was nothing very particulai'. only that 1 could not give him the answer he would have liked. He would have liked the answer to be that the Government would take the matter in hanil md do what he wanted should be done. The answer I had t _'(■ ■; lie II the He He 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 By Mr. Geoff rion : Q. I want to Iviiow from yoii whether you have aii}' recollection when a certain agreement between Armstrong, contractor for the Bale des Chalciirs Ifiiihva}-, and liobert Mctlreevy, in which agreement I heliove you, as I'resident of the Conipanv, ■were a Jiart}', was signed here in these imildings? — A. First of all, if you will permit me, you assert a thing in 3'our question, wliich, if you will allow me to say BO, is not correct. Q. I speak from the evidence which has been given? — A. I do not know what evidence has been given, but I. never signed that document. First of all. (iiere was Huch a document I iindei'stanil between Armstrong and llobert McGreevy by whi(di JMcGreevy was to transfer to Armstrong his shai'cs and intei'est in the Baie des Clialour.s Eailway for the sum of 8.')0,0()0 in cash, and 825,000 in bonds, payable by instalment. This agreement between them took ))lace apart from me altogether. I was no party to it, and the conipan3- was not a parly to it. 1 have been thinking the matter over seriously for some time past, and now that you |)Ut the question to me 1 am not positive that I have signed that document. I could not swear that I did sign it, and I would not like to swear I did not sign it. However, there is one thing verj' certain that I never did sign the document as President of the Company; that if J did sign it, it must have been onlv as a witne.ss and nothing else. ii>. You are satisfied that the company represented \ty you and Mr. Itiopel were not parties to this agreement for the ]iiirpose of carrying it out, or assuming any obligations? — A. I am satisfied of this, that I felt at the time the agreement to. ¥^ '^ '/ Photographic Sciences Corporation \ «\> L1>^ :\ Cv u k \ 6^ 23 WIST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, NY. 14580 (716) 872-4503 ^^ ? -«*^^* 6 o ^ ^. ^> 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 of thu inomitiiinH tor Iioi-hus^. 1 hud 100 miles to wulk on »iiiowt;lious, but 1 thoiiij^ht I would try it, 1 walked those 100 miles in throe (hiys. The mail in tliosu days was tluMi carried hy dogs on sleif^hs and a man on snowshoes, once a week. That is thf way we had to travel thirty years aj^o. The year following, in 18(5;{, we hud an election under SundtioM .Maedonuld. I was elef;ted again hy I lie same ])eople. In 180". the general elections came on and 1 was elected lor this House. In ISTl. 1 <'ame out tor the Local Legislature anil was elected. In li*T2, 1 ran for the Fodeial Parliament and was elected. In 1878, I was elected unanimously as Jteceiver General of the Dominion, and I think it was in 1874, when Mr. Mackenzie had his election, that I was elected again, and in 18715 1 was re-elected. I mention these things to show what my motives wore in moving in this liaie des Chuleurs raihvaj' matter. Well, after going through such an amount ot misery and knowing the |)eo|)lo as I knew them 1 mnde u]) my mind that this people should be disinherited no longer if I could help it. Accordingly in IS72, 1 asked for a charter for u railway. I was at the time, I ho laughing Btock not only of the members of the House, but of the members of ihe (iovernment themselves — Hon. Mr. Chuuveau was at the head of the (iovernment at that time. Even a good number in my own county, laughed at tlie idea of a railway. After t ho charter had been obtained I usked for a subsidy and it was said, "oh. give it to him : it will never be required. That is the way in which the sub.-'idy was started in Quebec." I went on, however, and did all l could, but 1 could not got poo])le to join me; t hoy were afraid to assume any liabilities and that is the reason why tinally I had to g, jukI rcciuest tliiit tlicy Imi in-intcd. \ iz. : " KNKKI( K, (Kxhiliir "AIT.") •• (i>ri:iii:f, -.".itli .luiif, Issf,. " A. H. VKltllKT, iOM|.. • .'^firctaiy-Trfasurer, llailiuur C'liMiMiissioncis. " QucIkt. •• Siu, As Ihi' seasttii is t'asi |>;issinu away ;iii(l tlicrc is a u>'<'at (leal nt" dicdiiiiii; to lit' Wmic in the pai't nt" llic l!;Lsiii west nt' ill-' ( 'rcisswali. I lie;.' to sni,'s.'''sl tor tlir coiisidfr- at ion of tilt' Conniiissioncrs wht'tlii-r it would not be adxisiililc to make ;ii'r;oi!.'< niciits witli tin- t'onti'actors to <>i\ on with jiart ot' it at onci-. •• No matter whieh ot' the sciicnics propo'^i'il t'or tlii' flosiiii; of tlif soiitii side is ado|iirc|. !i sutticient sjuicc to ciiahh' a stcanirr to turn insidr I he Cross \\ .-Ml will In- needed. This will neeessitate the renioxal of some •J.'iO.IIOl) <'td)ie yar(K of niateriid. wliieli. at the .'iveraife rate of l.'i, (!()(( enliie yards |ier month, will Ite more tli.in eaii l>e t.-ikeii out l>y Itoth dredj;es hetween this time and the end of the sejison. '• If Messrs, liarkin, Connolly A- Co. are willin;; to ^'o mi at their ])ieseiit prices, a !.'oiid deal of valualtic tiiiH' will lie saved liy allow iiiii iliem lo do so. •• While on this snhject, I may jierhaps lie jiermitled to say also that il apiieais to me lilost dcsiralilc th.'lt some decision should lie eome toils sodii as |i('issilile res|icetiln; the works iieeessary for the eompletion of the duck. •■ Were either sehcmc '1 or scheme .'I adopted, and the dredj;in<; for the wall lieiiini without delay, a lar.i;c portion of tiie foundalioii trench miiilil lie completed liefme the end of t he season. •■ l>y puttins,' on a liiri;e force of men, and under fa\ouraMe circumstances, ;i ^re.-it pait or possilily tlii' whole of the foundaiion crilis miuht he sunk and conci'cted liy the end iif l.^sr. " It will then take the whole of ISSS in Imilil the masunry :ind complete details. •■ This is assmnini; the most i'a\onralile circumstances possilijc w iili the liest oruiini- /iit ion. ■• If the scheme No. I is adopted, it will take .ilicmi the same time. " If mueli more of this season is lost it will throw the com)ileiioii of the Wet l>ock into issil, iir possilily iS'.td. •• In the meantinie, the C. I'. 1{. Co. ;ire alioul erect inir a second larp' ;;rain elev.itor Ui Montreal. The l.,aeliilie ririd;.'ewill lie compleli'd ihis y(.ar. IC\ en the deal trade is licinu diver(ed to other poinis. ,'iiiil ilie prospects of future tratlic are surely, and not \eiy sjiiwly, slippi^ig away from the (j)uelicc doi-|,s. " 1 ha\c the honour to lie. Sir, " ^'oui' oliedieiit -erx iint. '•.lolIN KDW.MJI) I'.itYD. " /'Siii/i II' I r-iii-V/d'iy. Wi m KtUT 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 III (Kxliiliii "lilT.") " Kn l>e. Sii-, " Your i)l)eNV.\IJI> IIMYD, " Kii'/i II'' r III C/iiii'i/'. "OlT.VWA, 1 1th August. 1S!»1. (Kxhii.it "CI 7.') •' E.VTI'ACT fruin the Minutes ot" the (^tuelM-e llarltour Connnissiuners of date of .")tli .luly, IKM. "The order of the day having Immmi called for the consideration of Mr. r»oyd's letter read at \ In- last meeting, and same havin^lM-en laid before the Commissioners, as aKo the lettiM's from the same on leave the hall and meet on the Kmliankment. " After inspect inj; the works in com]>any with Mr. Murphy, of the contraclinu' lirm Lirkiii. Ciniiolly «V C'o., it is aj,'reed upon to onler the dredifini; to a uniform depth of at least L'.'i feel at low water mark, of all the luni|is desi^niated on the ]ilan laid liefore the Connnissioncrs at this meeting;, showing; the exact condition of the liottoni of the Tidal llasin. and Mr. .Murphy, tin lH>hidf of the contracting tirin, undertakes to jir-fforni the work at contract price, that is to s)iy, as work executed under their contract for dredifin;;, dated •J.'tth Se|ileudier. iSSi'. with the proviso that the handlinu: and levelling' of the dred;;ed material after its tlumpiiif,' on the Kmliankment will he paid extra, and that the price for performing this work will he arranued with the Kngineer- in-Clmrj;e. ".lAMKS WoolVS, " Ai'diiij Sixt'ftnrij-Ti''iixiif< ,;' (Kxhiliit "l)I7.'") Ci,/,i/. '.John K. I'mivii, Ks.|.. M. Tnst. C. K., ■• Knj;ineer-in-Cliarj;e. Harbour Works, MJuetiet "HAmUH'lt CoMMISSIilNKIIs' OkKICK, '•(i>ii;iii:c, sth .luly, ls,s(i. "Siu, — T lieg to acknowledge the ivceipt of your letter of the .trd instant, i-ndosjuL' a jilaii jirepared in conformity with instructions conveyed to you. showing the exact condition of the Ixittom of the Tidal Itasin. and to inform you that the Commissioneis have conclud»'d the following agreement with the contractors : "They, the contractors, have uiulertaken to dredge, to a uniform dejith of at least ■J.'t f(H't at low-wati-r mark, all the lumps designated on yoin' |ilan. The work to Ih* jierformed at contract prii-es. that is to say. as work excavated under their contract for tlrevm' toy i>«*i-t'(iriiuii>; this work will he ari'an<^iMl l>y ynii. " I am, Sir, "Your must iilM-dit'iit sci-vant, (SijriH-d) '"A. II. VKI{I!KT. " Sirfi'tni\i/-Ti'iisii I'l i\" ' ! ' • (('«/>!/.) (Kxhil.it "El 7.') " IIaIIMoIK Cl>MM|ss|(iXl.lis" nKFICK, "giKHKr, i:Uii .July, 1S.S6. ".Toiix E. lloYi., Es(i.. M. Inst. C. E., " Enjiiiu't'i'-iri-Charjui'. Harhiair \Vi»i'ks, " Queljec. "Sill, -Advcrtiii;! ti» your h-ttcr of the :.".tth ultimo, the receipt of which I have ackiiowledj^ed the 1st instant, I am directed to insti'uct yoii to oi'der the contractors to pi'oceed with dred;.'injL' in confoiMnity with your sii;;j;e.stion, proxided they coiiM-nt to do the work at the I'onlract priees, that is to say, as woi'k executed uiah-r their coiiti-act, «lated tlie :i"»th SepHMuher, lf informed ; * That llii' iiandling and levelling of the dredged material after its dum]>iiig on the Louise Eml)ankmenl shall he paid extra, and that the price for perforuiing this work will he arran;,'ed hy him.' He also (piotes the letter addressed to him the l.'ith of sani<> month, in which he is directeed with the dredging iii^iile the Cross-wall without any mention of extra ]>ayment for the handling and le\eiliimof the material, and stales that the con- tractors iiave rei)eatediy declared that they were elititled to extra |(aym*iit for the handling and levelling the material in this last i-ase as well as in the other, and that, uidess they were )>,'dd for same, they woidd lie compelled to cease dredging insidi- the Cross-wall for the reason thev wiaild he winking tluMe at a loss. After a i'vw i|Uestions put to him to which he answers, he, .Mr. ISoyd, is thereupon directed to apply the same treatment in hoth cases t(uvard the handling ami levelling of tin- dredged niatcii;d, and eonsetpu'iitly to follow tlie instructions coineyed to him in the letter of the .'^ih July." "J AS. WOODS, " Actiiii/ tSfi'Miirji-Ti-i'dxiiii r. Alt\ I J h 10D9 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 .Sir JIectur LAN(iKVlN: — Before the crosii-exnininatioii ho^^iris I winh to make an a to the teHtimoiiial, that lie had paid 8200 in the handii ot the Treasurer, and he paid me tiie bahinee in two inHtaimcnts of SITK) each," Cross-examination of Sir Hector Lanokvin. By Mr. GeotYrion : Q. Since iiow lonj; did yon live with, or was .Mr. Mctirocvv a f^uo-^t in your at OttJi I?— A. Si 1H78. That is after I beci Mi iter tor tht hou.so h Bocond time. (i. Was ho your giiost only during; the session, or did ho keep his apartments in your house and stay at your house when he eame to Ottawa durinu; recess? — A. Sometimes he did. He cajue tor a day or half a day, and that is all. Q. He had his apartments set aside for him in your house? — A. Well, yes; I told him previous to 1878. when we were boardiuif out, that when 1 took a house "you may rel}' upon my always havinj^ a room for you," ii. Had he his desk with keys inyuiir house? — A. lie had what was required md the keys were there, had a The keys were tlieie in the room a writing desk? — A. Ye>; he had a writin;; de-k. for the room. lie had a bureau, Q. Hut ha.l he if. And he had the ko\'8 of the desk? — A. he did not brin^ them with him. Q. J>u'-inii the same period, since 1878, aiul i-ven liefore. were you in the habit of corresjiondinj; with Mr. Thomas .Met ireevy? — A. Seldom. Q. Was ho writinj^ to you frecjuently ? — A. No ; not freiiuenti}'. t^. Anyhow, you have received letters from him? — A. 1 diii. Q, I Mil 3011 keep those letters? — A, Xo. Q. Vou have none of his letters? — A. None. (^. You say that he came to your house as a i^uest in IS7S and that you nevei- received anvthin;; from him e.xcept delicacies or snudi cont'iibutions to the house? —A. Yes. ^ Q. Was it not about that time that ho discounted for you, or endorsed and had discounted lor you, at the baidi, the notes which you referred loin your declaration yesterday, amounting in round li^'iiies to 810,0Utt? — A. These notes, as I stated yes- terday, were in connection with my elections of 187()-77. As I stated then, I had no money and I rerjuired money to pay tlio expenses of the elections and of tho con- testations — two of them. They were exj)ensivo, and Mr. Met ireevy, who has boon my friend for over 25 years, 1 applied to him and asked him whether I could count upon him. He uaid : ''Yes. I will have the money for you." [ jj;ave him my notes und he endorsed them, and he told me then : " I have no money now. Later on I will BOO that these notes arc paid." He paid theinterest alltho time and I never troubled myself further alx)ut thorn. Q. What I want to know is, was it not about the same date that those notes originated? — A. Xo, before that 1 think. It must have been in 1S7U-77. Some may have gone in to 1878, but I am not sure of that. Q, Tho first entries we find in Mr. Thomas McGroevy's books are on tho 12th of March, 1878? — A. That may bo; I do not remember that, I have not seen those books to refresh my memory out of them. (i. You must have paiil those election expenses a long time before the 12th of March, 1878? — A. Some of thom, but I have no doubt it was on notes that they wore paid and now notes given. Q. You saitl you never cared about these notes any more. Is it bocaueo Mr. McGreovv told you ho would make thom his own private ijcrsonal atiair ? — A. That ii!i 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Ih wliiil I undorHUXMl from liim ut tliu time. The inturortt on tliosu Iiiih lioen \)iiU\ by him all tliu time. (i. Bill you aro still the miikur of tho notes? — A. Yes. rstood. (I. You know the notes arc genenilly ren»!wed every four months? — A. I think it m so. Q. Who attonda to the renewal ? — A. Mr, Mctireevy. Q. He asks for your sij;nalure and nees to the lest ? — A. Yes. (I. These notes have heen continued and renewed since that dale? — A. Yes. Q. They are not paid ? — A. Tiioy are not paid — at all events, they were not paid the la^t time I hoard of tliem. (^. Your name is still indicated on them, I suppose? When did you hear of them the last time — within four montlis? — A. Within four months. Q. What knowledge had you of the purchase of A/f J/''«(/(; iiews|)aper? — A. I heani of it, hut 1 eannot say that I knew it personally, except by parties sayini; so. I knew the negotiations were going on and that the paper was to he ])iir(diasi(i, hut did not do it myself. (I. That is what J want to know, iiut no douht you did. You did not attend to it yourself, but it was attended to by some one else. Have you any knowledge who was interested in the puirhase? — A. I think it was Mr. Lcssard, .Mr. Vnnas>eand tiome others. Q. Are you not aware, Sir Hector, that those gentlemen had not the necessary funds to pay for the paper, and that they negotiated for the henelit ot some other people who were to furnish tho funds? — A. I thiidv so. Q. Are you aware to whom they appealoil foi- tunds? — A. To .Mr. Thomas Mctireevy, I think. I do not know whether they applieaid tor Le Monde c-Atno from ? — A. No. Q. Did ho tell you that it was from his own personal fumls ? — A. ITe did not. but »f I had been asked tho source this money came from, 1 would have thou , 'lit it came from himself. Q. You say that you yourself paid money to Le Monde. That was from your l>ersonal funds? — A. Y'es. (J. Y'our private funds ? — A. Y'es. 1101 m ! ' I 'I Hi il 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Voii woro umlor the impreHrtion then that the puymont or MibNcription timdo by Mr. Mcrji't'evy lor Le Monde was from hii* i>\vii private funds":' — A, Vc;* : that waw my imprcsHioti. Q. I won't follow you exactly in the order of your statement of voMterday, hut will take up my own noten. In your ducluration you mentioned you nmdo soveruladvanceH to Le Monde? — A. Yes. Q. Wore they at dirt'orent tinieH ? — A. Yes: they weie at ditforent times. Q. You cannot j,'ive us tiio dates or the amounts? — A. No; I kept no account. Q. When did you make tlie advances'/ — A. Oli, I have heon nuikiiig thorn tor several yean*. Q. When would ho the last a. McfJieev}' went to him and told him 'hat as you were going that day you required 85,(((H>, and that on another occasion he gave Mr. Thomas Mcdroevy a thousai-d more for ^ou. I would like to call your attention to the fact that this is not what was ))roven. The evidence adduccil is to the etf'ect thai on that date, when he asked for 85,()OU, ho gave $1.U0I). and that at a later date the imiance of 84.000 was given to Mr. Thomas McCieevy ? — A. Hut at another place he speaks (»f another $1,000 paid to Mr. McUroovy for me, and that i^ the reason wh}- that was put rirsl. lie said i had got 81,000 and 84,000. and then he sjtcaks of another thousand else- where, and that is the reason wh}* I ]>ut them in that nolo. ort came to your official knowledge? — It came to the Department, as all those reports come. The oidy time atler that that the matter came — not to my knowledge, but came to the Department — was when the tintd estimate was made by Mr. Verloy. as ho was bound to do. There he addo't — the 810,000 that had lioon dcduclcd with some oihersums, making up the 8'>e final estimates did not come under my supervision or under my notice, hccause it was a matter of form. liut in this case, when a sum of $19,000 was to he added in this way, certainly Mr. Perley should have called my attention to it, and if ho did not it was an ovorsij.;ht on his part I suppose. Q. Vou refer in your declaration to pa^^e 142 of the Kvidence, where Mr. Perley taUcs the responsibility of that reduction, or aildition — that is. returniiii; the money. I will read to you jtart of his evidence at page 14I5: " Q. As a rule, he ^onc'-ully discusses them with you- . mean, reports of all works done ? — A. Will you uilow me to inform you Q. I w'.nt all the information possihle ? — A. Will you allow nic to inform you and the Committee that I f^eneially have from a iuindred to two hundred and fifty works under my chari^o every year, ami it is .-.imply impossihle for me to rememher every little detail that happens with regard to those works. I did iHjf chuii;e my niemoiy, and no man's memory can carry the little incidentals that happen to cause you to recollect, jxissihiy, this conversation or that conversation rcspectMm it. I am willing;; to state to the Committee exactly what happened within the limits of my recollection. Q. That is, Mr. Perley, just exactly whut I thou^iht. You have no reason lo state there was an exception to the rule made in this case more than another ? — A. None. Q. Am I to understand from you that the rule is, when the report is important, that it is discussed with the Minister? — A. Ves. (i. And if you have no recollection, it is not hecause you are ready to swear there was no such discussion, but because of the lar^^e number of rejiorls you have to make? — A. That is true." t^. Can you recollect whether such a discussion look place? — A. Could you indicate to me in this book the report iiKiuestion? Q. The report is the latter ])art of piij,'e 13'J (Kxi.ibit "S*!"') ?— A. f see that rejiort, it is not a report that would have called my special attention or would have been ilisciissed, for the reason that the ])orlii ii you have just referred to in the cviilence of .Mr. Perley is only to this etl'ect. He says: " Whil.-t at Hscpiimait I made a careful examination of the plant, materials, etc., mentioned in the schedule attacfied to the contract to be taken over by the contractors, aiitate that it is lo be rei^rettcd that a very larj^e |iortii>n of it \v;is accepted at any price fVom the Provincial Ciovernineiit. It is old, unserviceable, of no use, ami ol' but ver\' little value, and in my opinion llu- prices wbidi were alHxed lo many of the articles are very much in excess of their value ; but could thov have been made use of they mifibt have jjiovcd of benefit, in>lead of beiiin- not of any service. I presume the value of these articles will become a (ineslional a future dale between the Uepartment ,and Ibe contiactoiv." Tberel^ore, lliat report would not call my altention, because it was a (|Uc>tion to be ilccjijed not tberi, but a i|iieslion lliui wimiil come up ata future dale between the JJepartmeiit and the contractors. Q. Will }'ou read the letterthat was written byyoiir then Secretary, .Mr. (iobejl, to .Mr. Trulch, at pat,'e lt)() (Kxliibit ' X 1 "i, and say wiiether baviiii:' written such a letter in .May, ISS5, you would not be struck by the re|Hirt of your Chief Knj,'incer to that etfet:!. I specially refer you lo this jKirl of your letter : " 1 am directed by the Ifon. Ihe Minister of Public Works lo state that the specilic.ilion is very clear, and that there is no option on tlie part of ihe contractors to lake what jilaiit.^c, they jileaso and to refuse what they do not want ; and that they will havelo tike over all that is named in the schedule. The Jlonourable the Minister airrees, b(»w.ver, that the first dehary t<» diM-iiss with, or ^olul lor, your Kngiiuoi' when ho put in that H'liort of January, 1SS(J, to Iho contrary, to wit, noin;^ contrary to your k'tli-r au'l -latinj; tlial ruductions had to bu niadi* wlicn S or '.I niontlih lusforo you had^'ivcn hiui a tinal dooision V — A. Ilo says, '• I prcsunu- tin- valiu' of thoM- articles will lifconic iiiiuesiion at a t'uturu date ht'twuen tliu iK'pai tinerit and Iht; coiitraclors." If >ou hinI Kitu in In}' position, not only to look after all tho works of tho Chief Mnj^ineor, who loni- platns that hu himself had so nuieh work tiiat he couhl not reineinhur delaiU. hut having; also all the works of tho Architect's hraneh and the other work- of tiio DepartineiU to look after, with daily visits of nienihers of Parliament and olliers, with my Council duties, and my Parliamentary duties, all the work of a Ministei of tho Clown that I had, Iiesidt' my private (oiri's|)ondenco. whi(h is .-omeihiiiL:'. per- haps you would understand that I couhl not take every report myoflieers would make and discuss it with them. Thoic are only 24 liours in the«lay, and I had to work It;, 17 and even 18 hours a day, and in thi> case 1 would certainly not liaveiliscu-scd this report |»rinted at i)af^e i:j!t (Kxhihit "Sfi".) I would certuinly not have dis- cussed that lopoit, heeause (hero was no need ot discu.-sin^" a thinj; which iii'i;ht afterwards hecoine a y a contractor or contractors, as the case nii^ht he, they min-ht not insist upon a linal receipt. (I. That is to say, you havo no special recollection of this case? — A. No; l>ui I tell you how it luinht havt^ hap|iened. .Mr. PerU'V ininht have knowF' •'"'• '>" I'tli"!- matters, and said, that is the .Minister's opinion or decision. i% ii'!0 I.. I. . I -n»r wj ft ...l.;..i ...;.. *i... .1......; (I. Will you look ul pau'es 7!I7-!^-!', which contain the deposition of Patrick Larkin, and say whether you had the convorsation referred to hy him there? — A. I do not remeinher that, hut I am sure tluit f made no ]iromise ahout any change. Q. It is not a (dianyc that is rcferied lo. Il is in lefeieiice to a reduction on the amount of 8."»<>,anifevin's olHce. 1 drew his attention to the amount of material that we wore calleil on to take over anil pay "'" """ '■ - 1 told him that one-half of that stutf was no u.se to us. In readini; it m ■ we could Use. ^[r. Perloy would not consent to putting any such clause in. C)n that wc yot very warm over it, the pair of us. i}. .Sir Hector was present then ? — A. Yes. Q. Wiiat did he say ? — A. Ho said, ' W^e will look into the matter.' We lookoil over 1104 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 tlio items iiiul r point«'il out tho items wliicli were no t(<><>(l to us. Tlioro was uno itt'iii •)•' stone, for instance, whicli I Huid was of no use. (i. Did he say he would niaito a reduction '.' — A. He said lie would have the thing lookeaid " Wo will look into the matter." i had all the greater reason in this particular case, wiien Mr I'erley was <|uarrelling with iiim, as he says. (^ You "*aid you would look into the matter ? — A. Yes; hut that is no promise, and it Mr, I. irkin t(jok it as a jn'omise he ilid not know tho usages of tho l>cpurt- inent. <^ Had he undeistood it so, and seeing that thething has hocn done, would it he right '/ — A. I am soiry to say that this is a correction that, it it has been done, has boon done witliout my knowledge. i.1. After this conversation, did it seem fair to the other tenderers that you should have even agreed to look into the matter, as the tenders had been put in with the puiilie notice that they must take the plant r.t $.'j((,00(» — did you? — A. I ncvei- retuM'd to consider a matter bi ought before me. Q. Would not a consirleration of the matter induce you to make a decision to call tor new tenders rather than to make a reduction of Slit), Odd ? — A. 'I'hc answer I give to this is the same answer I have just given. The reduction was not made with my consent. (l- Mr. Larkin iias tiled this morning — has placed in the hands ot' the Clerk ol tills Oommit'ee a letter which purports to be written to him by Nicholas K. Con- nolly on llie 2yth October, 18S-4. Will you road it? (Kxhibit "GK;.") " (Prit^tr and covfidential.') "Point L«vis, 2f>ih October, 1884. •' l)K.\K Si«, — You will see by tho enclosed message that we are olfeiel liie Ks(piimalt (Iraving Dock. 1 cared nothing about tendering (or the dock and .scarcely expected to get it, but now that wo areotfered it, and under the circumstances f think it would be best to accept it, with the proviso that the changes we suggest are niadt^ and have been jiartially agreed between parties. Then they say there will be no >e- curity (cash) reijuirofl by us. Our friends jiroiKJse to arrange this; moreover, there is no money paid lorsecuring cimtract. The works here arc in this shape: we loilay have an estimate to clear ourentire bank indebtedness, and at eiidof sea-son will havo at least 8-5,000 cash on deposit. Mr. Hoyd, in granting our estimate yestcniay on the dock, retains 88.'»,0(I0 lor coni|»letion of same, and in his o|>iiiiiin §i{."),ddd will comjilote the work. After one month from date there will bo nothing to do here, and I can go to JJritish Colunilua, and be absent from hero until the lirM of .May, during which time nothing will sutler here — at least, not tho dock, at which lime I can return and finish the dock here, which will not occupy more than two months of next season. With regard to finances, whit h is an important factor, I think there will be no difficulty about it. There is no doubt but that ere long we shall receive our mono}' from .section "' I ", and incase your funds are not accessible I will see that y(Mir interest does not sutler so long as I havo a dollar, and as it will re(|uire but §20,000 there will be no trouble about your share. Since writing the above I have seen some of our friends who were anxious wc should sellout and inlimatod that 820,000 could be obtained in cash or its equivalent. I object strongly to selling out. If tho Oovernment wish us to withdraw in favour of other parties, I am willing lodo so without recom])onse other than the return of our ileposil chetpie. I don't want to be a party to any job of that kind ; besides I think it is a gooil ]iiece of work. Tho climate is fiivouruble and party in power both here and out there are friendly and anxious wo should have the work. I think what we could do this winter and next would complete it. Mr. Ilumo or myself will go to Ottawa on .Saturday or Monday, at which time I want you to be there. Should I not be able to go I will soiul you a 1105 1—70 i. n ) ! I ■ FM! Ill* ill 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 k I ]»(nvor ol'altKriR'V \>y Mr. Iliiniu to act 11 n- nic. JJcjjjanJiii^ hocliini ' I ' ulien .Mr, lliniio will 1)0 lit Ottawa it w tlio tiiial is dci-i'lt'il. In »a>u weiJo not wiNJi to tr.ku the liiitiNli Columbia Dock oiiruulvuM 1 woiiM |irc>l«'r In contnu-t t'or it, ami at'torwanU siiblot it to sonio^ioiKJ party, anno dmilit iliuiv is iiionoy in it, altllou;;!) |>urnoiially I caro but liltlu about it, any iiioru liiaii wiiai in bcciiiniiig to tliu ooiicerii. " YouiM vory truly. "N. K. ('((.WULLV. •' 1'. Lakki.n, Emi, St. Catharines." (^. WouM this letter havo any coMncclion witli llio cunvi'isiition uliicli Mr. J.<)ul the wriiin^H of these gentlemen amon:^ them- hulves 1 must decline all responsibility. (I. I asked 3'ou only if it bel|)od your memory and had any connection with the sworn tCMtimoiiy jriven liy Mr. Larkin? — A. 1 understand he says that it was otloreil on the undersiandini; that they were the lowest, ami llial an Order in Council was passed. Of course, I do not know, as I havo no dates, and then I hey say they were oU'eied the work'. That is the way it has always been done. (^. It seenis wtran,!,'e, docs it niit, that they should say that ihey were oil'ereil the work if they had tendered for it? — A. Yes; but you will uudersland that if a man tenders ami bis tender is too bij;h bo is not, although he has leiiiiered, (dl'ered the work. It is otlbred to him only who has tendered lowest or whose lender for sumo other reason is considered mo.^l acceptable. It is ollered-to him if his •tender is accepted by the Council, otherwise it is not olfered. l^ Was the tender accepted on the le. It J had only one (;(jiit act to deal with I would remember, as it is otherwise, I cannnt. (J. Now, in connection with your statement contradiclinii; to a certain e.xtont Mr. \'alin'.s deposition, you tiled a letter signed by him. I)(» you remember whether he was requested to give a sworn declaration instead i>\' n letter? — A. That is later on — the day after I think. Jle came to my oHico in (Quebec when there was a large number oftiie electors of Montmorency there. When I say a large number juy two small rooms were tilled with them. I suj)pose there must have Ijcen 50 or 6U of them, ami they bad come with the idea of sup|)orting Win candidature of Montmorency, and asked me to support him. When they got there they en(|uired, a number td' them, about this letter that he hau received, and which was known, 1 liavo no doubt, that the gentlemen that were the.e belnre and jterhaps myself had .spoken about it. At all events, it was known. I peiliap.s might have communicated it to some friends who came to see me at the .same time. They said to Mr. Valin. " It is all very good if 3'ou had to deal with an onliriary member of i'arliameni or a private citizen, but you are reported in this open letter of Mr. Tarte to have stated things disparaging to the Minister. Under tiieso cireumstarjces, as the Minister is our chief, we must insist upon you signing the ileclaration and this statement. We ask you to do that." However, Mr. valin wanleil to know from Mr. Charlebois, who was in the company present, the objecl of the declaration, Mr. Charle- bois being a lawyer. He wanted to know whether his making that affirmation would make him subject to any penalty or tiouble afterwards. He used the word trouble. 3[r. Charlebois explained it to him, and said : " If you put your name under that affirmation, and the paper contains the truth, and nothing but the truth, nobody will trouble you, and you won't be subject to any difficulty; but if you put your name to the document, and it is not true, or any portion of it is not 64 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 true, ill tlmt cuso you nmy l)o sulijcct to ilifTli'iiItie> iiflcrwartlK iiinl Itc r»iie so there, i liavi- no doubl it \vas so. lit ly have told me: ".Mr. Uoyd had made his I'.Nicnsioii ot' the schedule price>, and he reports lliat in llii'cc of these lower tenders ibcre are error.-, and I niu>t ascertain how it is." That would not have been a new tliiii-, because that was done several times in the i>eparlmeiit, when it \'a> a|)pareiit that a coiitrjiclor had nuido errors or bliindern, and some of them haviiiu; been written to — not in tlusca-i', but in other cases — have written back and thanked the I'-iif^ineer or the .Vrcdiitect.as the case mii^ht be, fur havinir called their atteniioii to it, because they saiil it would iiave been ruin to them. They would say: " Kvidoiitiy, we have made a j;reat mistake.' I cannot remember the name, but I remember this : That in one case a man had put in his tender 6- in the schedule, and when we wrote toliim it was .STJ. It was a larf{0 item, and he would have been ruined by it. In this case, Mr. Perley wrote to these men, as you see, and obiaineil the result as staled there. (^. I am (luite williiiir lu admit that if an errur is di«iuvered thai tlie jjarty should be allowed to withdraw his tender; but do 1 understand from you, Mr. Minister, that a part}' will be allowed to amend his teniler alter all the other lenders have been opened ? — A. No. Q. lie would be allowed to withdraw, so as not to be ruineil? — A. Ve> ; but in this case, Mr. Heaucan'o — you see what he says: ".SiK, — I have received your letter of ITtli iiist., Xo. ti'.Ml.'i, relative to items in my tender for 'Cross-wall.' which demands an explanation. " Having' examined, on receipt of your letter, my memorandum of details of cal- culations for this work in Ilarbourof (Quebec, 1 tind that my rates or prices, as is evi- dent on the face of it, are ba.seil on loot lineal of pile,and the width of these piles are assumed at !» in. to 10 in. wide each, and 1 so read those items as meaning' foot lineal of jiile. This, 1 iniisl say, is a serious error on my pari. " ]k[yratetbr this work, as now explaii.-.'d by you. would bo nineteen (.SI!*) dollais per loot for sheet piling' S in. thick, drive- fioin t! to S ft., white pine; do., ti in. thick, seventeen ($17)dollars; do., 4 in., fifteen (815) dollars per foot; do., in. thick of any timber, as per clause 1 Hot" specification, rii'teen ;S\'>.75) dollars ami seventy-five couts, all per lineal foot in line of work, and f desire my tender to be so amended. "I think, under the circumstances, I his addition should be allowed to my tender, seeinj,' it is evidently alienor causetl by a misunderstanding of the terms of the Hchedule. 1101 1— 70J I I \L Ml iii i5i! ^ 'Ml ;i^ 1 54 Victoria. Appendix Vo. 1.) A. 1891 If! I 1,1 i K'' I' " With regnnl to the hccoikI niiL'>tioii in your letter, on tiie item, ' pile driving to any flepth not t!xcooding20 ft.' Where you isii}' \ have put the words ' labour only,' tiiis liiis ulho been an error, but as the chiuso 80 of tlie specitication you invoke, is clear on the Hubjoct, I would strike out the words 'labour only,' which 1 put. Ho|)ing these explanations are clear and satisfactory." By this it is apparent that Mr. Beaucage wanted his lender to be amended accordingly, or he could not take the work at that price. Therefore, Mr. I'orley seeing that, added to the tender of Mr. Beaucage the additions that he wanted to put I here, and he saw that his tender was §(i40,000, (i. It shows what was customary was not followed: that instead ot allowing the tenderer to withdraw ho was allowed to amend his tender? — A. No; that was done for the Department not him. It was to bring the matter befoie the Minister and Council. Q. His tender was taken into consideration, although amended after having been opened ? — A. It is not so. By his letter of the 21st May he .says that he has macoiiin- liiat it wii> )ut at )}'2. and was oviilently an orri>r. the attontion ot the tiMidurer ha« h-iii lalleil >y the orticer, either tiie Ai(diitei't(>r the Chief lOiiiiineer, and tlu" tenderer wou hi say: " Ves, 1 have made ii icravo err or not. I did lot see the letter written hy Mf. I'erley. Q. Will j'ou refer to page ;j:>, of the Hluedjook ( Kxhihit "N .'),") where j'ou will see the Order in Council on the matter, dated the 2Sth May, 188!}, and say if you are quite satisfied that you were made aware of all these letters, A.c. ? — A. 1 said not. Q. It says here : " The Minister ohserves that on examining the tenders it was foun. Lurkin, Connolly t*^ Co. >tated that though they had made an error they would hold themselves ready to enter into contract at the ])iice> in their oiler." — A. All these things were not to my ])er>onMi knowledge. They wen* hrought to me on the report of the Chief Knginecr. and therefore as usual. It is always on the report of the Chief Kngineer or Chief Anlii- teel, as the case may he, that my report is made to Council, hecausc I know nolliinir of these matters personally. Q. The Order in Council says you had heen informed hy the Chief Kn^iineer. What [ want to know is, had he so informed yon ? — .\. Of course. I could imt ::n to Council wilhoul that. It is necessary to the routine of the Dc|)artmenl. Tender- are called for ; they are received in the Depailnient. iind they are then opened liy the Deputy of the Department and the Chief of the Mrancli. These gentleiiien make a proper statement in regard to the lenders, endorsing the lender- and making a list of tlie tenderers, their prices and the amouiil of their security. They h ilh sign thtit. and then hring it to me, and say, here is the result of the tenders. Then, sei'ing im ditHculty. the tender heing all right, ihedeiiosil heing all right, the amoiini of the tender heing the lowest, I woiiid say: " Let that he ilone." If, however, it were a large contract, 1 would go ti- Council and say to f'ouncil: " Here is the lender ; tiiis man is the lowest; neverlhele-s. I hring il to Council." Ihii when il wa> a -ia;dl amount I would order it my -elf, in acconlanec With the law. Q. Is it nol a fact thai the following year iinoi her tirm warned to amend their tender, and were not allowed to do so. viz., Mes-rs. Starrs \ O'llaidy? — A. Ves; that proves the rule, that we did not allow them to amend their tender, and thai in this case Mr. I'erley put tlinl there in order t> shnw that Heaucage, who had m;ide hlunders in his lender, if lie were allowei' to change his lender even the;i wmild he higher than the olliers, and his tendei- could iml he iiceoplod. Q. Is it not i, fact. Sir Hector. tl!;it it wsis hecausc he hecame the lowest he was allowed to amend, and if he h:id not d'>ne so he would have heen the luwest ?— A. Ves; hut he says himself that lie inadi' siicli a serious error that he wanted to have it amended, and the result of his amending his tender wa-, that he wmdd not stiidv to it. 110l> \': 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 11 Q. Once a,ij;ain, in the ease of the Cross-wall, the exception was made the rule. Tenderers wore allowed to amend their tenders, when in other cases the rule would not have allowed them to do so ? — A. Mr. Perley may have done so, but the Council did not do it. I did not do it. I reported to the Council. Q. War< not the Council or the Minister informed of it. as is stated. The minute ^hows in page H3 of the Blue Book (Exhibit ■•'S't'') "That Mr. Beaucaj^e acknow- ledged the error and asked that his tender be amended.'" This was done bv the inserting of the increased prices stated in Mr. Beaucagc's letter. Messrs. Larkin & Connolly have stated that though they were in error they would hold themselves ready tii contract at the prices in their offer? — A. Mr. Beaucngc must have seen that his error was such that he did not want to take the tender at that low price. Q. I do not look to the result nf this. I look to the fact whether the exception was not made the rule in that case ? — A. No. Q. Yiiu will find at page 'Ait of the Blue Hook that it is thei'c stated by Mr. Perley " antl as they have asked to atneml their tender, wliicli is a course not usually pursued, 1 would rcccmnieiul that neither tender be aceepte 1. and that the cheques be returned to the several parties ?' — A. Yes ; that is what he said. (^>. Does he state the rule well? — A. lie might have said this "which course is not pursued." Q, Will you look at the foot of the page, and say wheilieryou have n(it reported in the same terms •' the Minister rel'erred the matter for report to the Chief Engineer of the ])epaitment. 1 am of the opinion that lender ' A ' is gr'eally in excess ol' the actual vahieot work to bedone. while tender ']>' is much loo low. and that the jiersoii- who have submitted the la-t tender 'li' cannot possibly execute the work for thi- ))i'ice> named, :ind as they have aslced to anu'iid the tendei'. which is a coui'so not usually )iur^iied, I would recoinmond tliat neither tender lie accepteil, and that the cheijues be returned to the several parties." — A. Of course. I ilo not know that \ could say whether every word of his re]K)rt was exactly in accordance with pri'vious I'eports. 1 put the whole thing together, which was, that he recommemleil that inas- much as the lowest tenderer. .Stan's \ ()'llanly. was too low — much too low — and that of Baskei'villo \ O'Connor nuii'li too high, neither the highest noi' lowest woubl be accepted. That w.'is the object of his report ;ind that lie recommended to the Council and the Council tigrced to it. Q. Now, about the testimonial which was presented to you, Sir Hector, Mr. Noel, at page 40!> of the Kvileiu'e. . Vou are positivi that you haxi- not receiveid you ever see Mr. Carriere wh' is cidled the secretary of the testimonial -A. 1 have no doubt 1 did. Did he have any comnninication with you in connection with the testi- monials — di clox'd ? — A. I wouiil know of it when Mr. Noel came to inform me. Q. And when it was understooil between you and him what the rate ot' interest would be if the fund remained in the bank ? — A. Ye*; he askeil me that, and 1 told him. . Did neither the Treasurer nor the Secretary of the fund, after the fund was closed, inform you who were the donors? — A. No; I er, Sir Hector, whether you were in Quel)ec on the 21st July, 1887 ■?^A. No. I see you with those newspapers. I may tell you that my experience in that way is this: That very often tliey iiniiouncc my arrival in Quebec the day I am going there, and so on. [ do not say that that ajiplies to all newspapers, but I have found it often so. Hearing In Ottawa that I had gone on, it woulfl III' announced a day or two befoi'e my arrival ; but at other times I have been in town for thi'ee ilays ami it was not announced. I may say that 1 did it purposely, because 1 wantetl to have two or thi'eo days at my business liefore visitors would come ai>d ask to have inter'views. (I. 1 do not want to nuike evidiMice tVoni the papers, jtoyou rcmciiiber bavin::' left for the (iulf about the 18tli of .Inly, ant following you left Quebec for Rimouski and spent a few days there? — A. 1 cannot remember those dates ai all. Q. I)oyou remember that you returneil to Quebec on the 8tli. left on the ami arrived at Ottawa on the !Hh, in the month of August ? — .\. Xo. Tin there is nothing — no event — lo connect these dates. Q. Hxcept the visit lo your brother at Rimouski? — A. i am in (he going eveiy year, sometimes twice, to see my brother. (}. You do not keep diaries ? — A. No, never; and I do not intend to. Q. Do you remember, on the 21st .luly, having met Mr. Thomas McGreevy, .-inil to have stated to him that yvy pay to you or hand to you an aiblitinnal amount of 8-l.(»0(l ? — A. No; it is not so. I 'st;ited so in my exaniinatii.n-in-cliief. or my statement. (i. If Mr. Thonuis Metrreovy made such a re(iuest. either to .Murphy or to Nicholas Connolly, wa.s he authorized to ilo so? — A. No. Q. Was TIkhiuis Mctireevy ever !uiilioi'i/ed a! any tlnie to ask niomy cm your behalf of Larkin, ("onnolly \ Co., or any member of that tirm ? — A. Xo. (i. 1 have asked the question generally ; now 1 will make a di-linetioii. J)idy. Q. Did lie ever tell you or inform you in any way that he had received money from ihoni for political ])urposcs? — A. Xo. il. You slated yef the amount of their indebtedness? — A. No. Q. \Vlien was this application made to you by the i)resident ot the bank? — A. I cannot say that. (^. Js it not a fact tiiat it took place in 1H8,'5 or ISSj, jit the beginning of the work*? — A. No; because I know they were very anxious to be paid at (lifferenl periods. 1112 64 Victoria. Appendix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 J, , .. (}. Did Mr. Thomson apply to you by letter or vorltally ? — A. T saw liim in (iucliee, and I tliinU 1 saw him also in Ottawa, lie oney they had, oi- how financially strong I hey were. Q. Therefore, tlie only information you have was on account of the application fro II th»! jirosidcnt of the liank ? — A. And I told yuu fioni .Mr. Mcdreevy. As a direvlor of the bank he was taking a great interest in the matti-r. I think he told me that, coming to I'arliamer.t as a tnemher, ho was entrusted by them, or commis- sioned hy the liaid< to inquire about it. (^. You cannot precise, more particularly, the date of the conversation with Mr. McGroev}'. and as to the ditl'erent conversations with Mr. Thomson? — A. 1 cannot. (^. I would like very much if you coultood with the hank, and these conversations may have taken place at the heginning of the works. — A. Tiiese con- versations couUl not strike my mind at all. t^. You cannot locate them ? — A. Oh, no. Having >o much to ilo every diiy, the.se tilings would go out of mind the ne.xt day. Q. Were \-ou aware that, notwithstanding the tiict he was a>king this informa- tion for the benefit of the Union Haid<, that Mr. Thomas Mcdrcev}- wa-; continually writing to his brother and giving him this information? — A. 1 never knew of any letti'fs passing between the two brothers, ami I never saw any letters until 1 saw them here in print. Q. Were you not well aware that Thomas and IJobert Mdrreevy were not only lirotliers, but they were on terms of the utmost intimacy together, on account of business, confidential and otherwise, that was entrusted by Thomas to IJol>ert ? — A. Not in that way at all. All that i knew was, they seemeil to be on a verj' good footing. Q. .I)id not J'obert 3Ic(lreevy frequently (tome and see his brother Thomas in Ottawa? — \. I do not know whether he came to see him, but I know he was in Ottawa sometimes. If I am not mistaken, L think Robert had some of Ins children at the College or at the convent here. (I. Had Kobert not several interviews with your head officers or your-elf in connection with the Quebec Harbour works ? — A. Xo. <^. You never saw him in compiiny with Mr. i'erley, or Mr. i?oyd, or Mr. Hnni>. the Secretary of your Department ? — A. Xo. 1 will tell you he came to .Mr. I'erley on one occasion. This is one e.\ain])le I want to give you. Ih' came to Mr. I'erley — it was not in connection with these works — and told him that he wanted to have the amount of- '■ertificate for another work that one Lortio, of Quebec, had, and he sail], '' T am nis partner, and I want to have that money." .Mr. I'erley told him : '• Xo ; I cannot do that. Ofcour.se, you will go and see the .Minister, and it he gives the oriler in writing I will 'ittenil to it." ii,. Tiiat i.s the only question j'ou can remenibei' ? — A. Will you jdlow me to finish, |)lease. Mr. McGreevy then came to mo and tol I me just what he hail stated to Mr. I'erley. Well, 1 said, .Mr. Mdireevy, the contractor tor the work is .Mr\ Lortie ; I do not know you in the matter, lie said. '• Here." and he took from his jiocki't a |)apei' showing he was a jiartner with Lortie. 1 said : " That may be. but any busine-s that I transiict in this 'matter mu>t be with Lortie. not with you. If he come> iiinisolf he will be paid, or if he give> you a proper power of attorney it will be ail right, but as it is I cannot pay you." lie went away much dis]ileased, but 1 think I was right in doing that. //// Mr. Titrfe : Q. Can you remember the cause of the trouble between Hon. Thomas .McCreevy jind .Mr. Uobitaille, or the Haie des Clialeurs Railway C )mpany ? — A. 1 know ih.y had some difficulty, but I do not remember the reason of it. I was not a director ; I had nothing to do with the company. * ^ 1113 1 . ■ i I I ' I ! m l!i 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. You were never made aware of the cause of the trouble ? — A. 1 do not rememlter it now at ail events, if I wfiS. Q. In «ome ofMr. McGreevy's letters that liave been put before us there are references to the IJaio des Chaleurs matter. On pasje 22, for instance, tlicre is a letter fi-om Mr. Thomas Mcfrreevy to his brother iiobert, undei* date March IJnl (Fixhibit " X2.") in which he says: " Nothing new in the Baie des Ciialeurs matter, except that Sir Hector wanted me to come to term.'*, and asked me to state the terms."' Do you remember to what terms you wanted him to come ? — A. No; I wanted peace and happiness and harmonv between them. That is all. Q. In a letter of the Hth of March, ISSfi flvvhibit "P2") published at imge 23 of the Kvidence, Mr. Thomas Met rreevy says : '• .Sir Hector insisted on the understand- ing being tome to. I refused to du so, and told him at last to let Kobilaille make a jiroposition himself." Mr. McUreevy swore hero the other day that he had such a <'onversaliition himself, ho might have said this: " I was not going to make brains tor bim forever.'' <^. Then he says: ''They pro]toi-e'J to give nie control of the road to Ste. Anne's, with a subsidy ot8(3.UO(l per mile, if I would withdraw my opposition to the Haio des Chaleurs IJaihvay and relieve mo and you of our stock?" — A. Well. I stated j-esterda}- that I bad no interest in the ali'airs of this company. I never ])roposeti to give him the cf)ntrol of the rf)ad to St. .Vnne's or elsewhere. I never jiromised to give a subsidy of 8'».000 per mile for the la-t-inentioned comjiany. I alwaN's thought that the road did not require it. 1 never ])roi)osed to give Mr. MctJreevy the control of the Sto. Anne's road, lie might have spoken of the Ste. Anne's roaelves they could have one road or another, with a subsidy of S'l.'I'lO. >Ic. Mc(Jreevy makes a mistake in mentioning me there. Others rn:i}- have done so ; I did not. Q. Vou said later on that there was an understanding. Did you take any part in assisting them to ariive at that understanding? — A. Xc; I do not know what the understanding was. 1 did not take an\' >hare in it. Q. You took no share in it? — A. No; 1 was glad to hear of it. to know that they were not fighting. " Q. Well, Sir Hector. I shall call j'onr attention to a letter that you wrote on this very Jiine des Chaleurs Railway — a letter that I want you to read now. ') Ott.\w.\, 1st October, 1SS7. (Exhibit "HIT. •' {Private.) " Deak Mk. MrdRKEVV, — You remember having dejiosited in my iiands a largo envelope, and Mr. C. N. Armsti'ong also put in my bands one later on. I wish to know now what is to bo done with those two papers. I have written to Mr. Arm- strong to the same effect. If your answer> are the same, I will act accoi'dingly. •' Yours truly, •• RonERT McGreevy, Esq., " HKt.'TOH L. LAXtrKVIX. •' Quebec. ■' Q. Is this your handwriting"? — A. This is my handwriting and this is my sig- natuie. Q. Did you gel an answer to this letter either from Mr. Armstrong or , Mr. Mctfivevy '.■' — A. I do not kiiow. All I know is that theso papers were banded back some one or two years ago to Mr. Armstrong, and I never knew what those envelojies contained 1114 u 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Do you renjonibcr what wcro the demamls of Mr. Thomas Mc(ireovy at the time? — A. No; I do not remember. I might have tried to mai\0 peace between them ; I have no recolleetion. ni Q. 1 find, on looking at page iW of the Mliie-Hook (K.\lMl)it •' X5 "). that you iiiadc a report to Council about the Cross-wall tender, and that .Mr. John (rallagher was declared by you to be the lowest tenderer? — A. Yes. I will give the list ; it is hero. Q. 1 want you to inlorm mo of the fact whether he was the lowest tenderer? — A. Veh; he was the lowest tenderer. (}. Did you ever ask Mr. .John (rallagher to come to Ottawa ami sign that contract? — A. Xo ; of course not. Q. Was there any i-eason ? — A. The I'casoii why he was not called is given in the letter on jiagc 1().')5 of the lOvidonce, dated the lUtli of May. (I. Hefore the Ulth of May, tlid yon ever ask Mr. .lohn (;!dla;.duM' t(» gn to Ottawa to sign the contract ? — A. Of course not ; oi\ the lUth of .May lie wrote me this leiler, and it was on!}' on the ITtli ^fay — the next day — that Mr. IVrley wrnte .Mr. (iallaghor, Mr. Heaucage and Messrs. Larkin. Connolly \ Co. the letter in which he called ui)on them to say whether thej* had made errors, anil so on ; and later "n, when Mr. Pcrley mtide his report, an Order in Council was p:isscd. Tlicioforf. wo could not fidl upon Mr.ffailagher ]>revious to the l(!th May to i. And then e.xamined by you and your olHeers ? — A. Xo. (J. Is it ii fact or not that tho.se tenders were sent U[) to Ottawa duiin^' the first days of May — that is to say, the 1st or 2nd of .May ? — A. That 1 eannol say, because 1 have no data before me to show it. Q. As>uming that they have been sent on the Isl or I'lid of May, did you see these lenders before ITth of May ? — A. Xo. t^>. Vou are (piite sure about that? — A. I am (|uite suie about it. The only thiny- that was put before me was a verbal statement, as I -tated just now. bv -Mr. Per ley. <}. I would call your attention t(t the letter on page 417. i IvKhibil " JI 11. ") : '• ()TTAW.\, lOtii May. ls,s;{. •' Dk.ah Sik, — I duly receiveil your letter of the olh instmu on the subjeci ot' the tender submitted b}' yon tor the con-truction of the ])ro|io-iMl Cno-wall in coniu'C- tion with the Quebec Harbour works — and have communicated ii to ihe Chief Engineer of the J)epartenent, Mr. IVrley. " " The schedule of tenders has beenhanded to the Honourable the .Mini>ter. " 1 am. bear Sir. voiirs verv tiulv, "Simon I'kteks, Ksq.. '(i. F. HAILLAIIKiK. •'Quebec." A. -Mr. Bailliarge put -'lat there without warrant. It was not so. becau.s. tenders were in t he hands of the Chief Kngineer ,as I have stated Jiist now. Q. 1 would again call your attention to jiage ].')i;, and read whiii fi "The tenders were fbrwiirded to the L>e|)artmenl of Public Works at Oitiiwaand received there. Why these tenders were plaeed in my hands, as they were sche- 1115 tl lese iw> : 'rU i »' ' 1i':il ^ Ml ''ii ; t' 61 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 m (lulof* of prift'.s and tenderH to which f|uahtities hud to be npplieil — whother they woio placed ill my liaiids tor tiiat ]iiir|) not renu'inlier. 'I'lu' plans were jiivpaii'd l)y iIr' iato Mi'. Hoyd. an as.sirttanl ottlio Deimrlnu'iit, wlin UmU out al! the quantilios roquirod i'»v the preparation of tin- scheiiuU". 1 am awaro that those tenders wore jilaced in lii> hands, that he |irepaivd the schedule, and he di.-eovcred the errors in three ot the tenders, marking those errors on the margin of the h lie- dule sheet. I lielieve it is in evidence; he called my attention thereto, and as it was my duty to do r.o, I laid that schedule sheet before the Minister of Public Works and discussed with him the errors tliat liad been detected, and that unless iho^e errors were cleared up in some way it was inipn-.>ible to make a comparison between the tliiee teiiiler> which were incom|)lete and the two tenders that were complete." Afier having discu-sed, as he says, these schedules with you, he wrote his letter oi the ITtii of May, did he not?— A. The Hrst thing is this " Q. That is a pretty fair question. I believe you had those tigurcs before j-ou on the ITthof May? — A. That is a discussion and not a(|ueslion. There was an argument afterwanls that inaile me forget your question. To that I sa}' this : That Mr. I'erley put before me the schedule ^heet — that is to say, the names of the con- tractors, and llien all the ditferent columns containing the ))rices for each item, and the extension of them. That. I have no doubt, he brought before me. Q. Hefore the 17tliol'May? — A. I have no iloiibt lie brought that before me. mo>t likely on the ITtli or the Ulth. I have no doubt about that ; but I would not go into tliat. 1 knew nothing aiiout the^e ligiiri-s, and all that. That was a technical thing that 1 hail notliing to lo with, i have no doubt he called my attention t" what he says theie, that he had diseovereil. or that Mr. Hoj-d had, the errors, and marked them on the edge of the receipt : and upon that he went away. As he -ays : '■ At that discussion 1 have no doubt no directi(»n was reipiired. but as it is the course I have always ])ursued in cases ofteU'ler-. 1 have no doubt that was done." Q. Having this schedule and figures bet'ore you, you could clearly see that (iallagiier's tender v,as the lowest? — A. If the additions bad all been made, jierhaps 1 might. Q. Were they not made as Mr. I'erlcy says? — A 1 ilo not know. (}. Is it po-isibie that what .Mr, Pcrlev ^av^ is true or not ? — A. What portion of it? *i. All that J h.ave read. (Read- airain.) — A. Therefore, he had not made the additions and did not show me which was the lowe>t of these three. Q. Ho you swear that when the-e Mdiedules and teiulers were shown to you, on the ItJth of May or before, that the additions were not made? — A. I do not remember that they were made. Vou must see that .Mr. Pcrley said further down, on page 157: "Q. All this is not evidence. .>fr. Perley? — A. [ know that, but I am speaking a little in justification of myself, because I have lieen attacked in this matter ])retty plainlj'. These letters, with ni}' copie-i. went in to the Minister, and 1 altered in ' red,' on the .schedule sheet, the Heaucagc tender. All the columns were added up, because the addition is in my handwriting, but the body ot' the schedule is in the liandwriting of Mr. Boyd, it was then >ent forward to the Minister with these schedules." This would show tiiat I was right when I said I did not remember that they were added. Jiy Mr. Varies: Q. Ft shows they were added ? — A. They were added afterwanls. lie says lio sends the letters written on the 17th. and the answers eamc later on, showing they Avere added afterwanls. Bjj Mr. Tartc . (^ Is it not the fact that after Mr. Perley received answers from (iallagher, Beaucage, ami Larkin. Connolly iV Co.. that new additions or alterations to suit the case were made to that very >chedule of rates? — A. lie says himself he made the altorati(ms in "rod." "These letters, with my lopies. went in to the Minister, and I altered in red on the schedule sheet the Beaucai:e tender," That came afterwanls. IIIU 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. That \n to say, when he ptt the aiii-wer from Beaiieaj,'e atni'iidini.' Iiis first teiiiler Mr. Perloy himsi'lf anioiiduil tlic schetliilo of ratos that liad lioon jnopared lieforo the IGtIi. Is it ho or not? — A. Yes: Jkaiuaujf's U'tter is dalod tlic :ilst of May. Q Do yon not see, Sir Hector, on that schedule ot' rates ( K.xidliil " .\."{.") ^t-e Schedule A, Appendix No. 2 to the Kvidenee, beini,' tiicures written with red ink in this way, "gilt, $17, 81.'). "5," and are not those ti^uies just the same as you find in Mr. Heauca^e's answer, dated the 21st of May, ISB-Ti* — A. Yes. Q. Was not y»)ur attention called to those tenders in a special vvay? On the 7th of May did you not receive a letter from Mr. I'eters, whiit of receiving every time there is a big contract to be awarded. Contractors would write, asiving that their tender should be specially looked into, and they would get their friemls, influential men. to write, recommending them as good contractors, and so on. But these were letters of a confidential character, which would not lie filed in the l)e)>art- ment. but be referred to only if the tender was found to be a projuT one. Q. On the same page I find a letter written by you on the "th May. 188ii, to Mr. Peters, in which you say : " Your letter of the 2H in the Public Works Dopartiuunt at tlic tiiiio?— A. No; I tlo not know. Q. You Hlateil yesterday that you iwul no knowled^'e wlialovcr tliul Larkin, Connolly i^ Co., Boaut-agis and (ralla^lior were, as a niatlor of t'ael, the same tenderers? — A. No. As to tiie cheque, as matter of fact, Ida not know why the cheque was delayed ; 1 do not know whether the Onler in Council said whether tiie deposit sliould bo returned. (I. At any rate, there is no ditliculty about tiiis fact, that you saw the schedule of rules when it was added U|), as Mr. Perley states? — A. No; that is not it. Ilesjiys that ho put a schodide of prices of rates before me when liecanie about these errors in the three terniers; the schedule of prices, of course, would teach me notiiinjjf. Q. M\- question is this: When Jieaucaj^e had amended his tender were those figures so that the schedule of rates would apjiear before you. as y\\: Perley says / .Mr. I'erloy stated hero that it was forwarded to tiie Minister? — A. JIo nii«:ht have done so; it did not strike me at all. I would take his report of thc'^e tenders as [ would take it in the case of all tenders. Q. Is it the Chief Kiif^ineer himself, or the Minister himself, after a report is made, who decides U|)on the contract? — A. That is, after the tenders are opened? (^. When the (Jhief Kni^ineer had made liis report to you, are you the party who decides the question between the ditl'erent tenderers? — A. When the Chief JCniiineer makes his leport he states the case, and I'ecommends that such a tender be accepted or be rejected. It it is only to accept the lowest tene changes were so-and-so, and they would bring up his tender to so-and-so; and then alter that Larkin, Connolly i^- Co. answered that they had made errors, but that they would not change their tender. Q. Then you state that Mr. Perley told you that Eeaucago's figures were so-and- so? By looking at the schedules of the rates, does it not strike you at tirsl sight that Mr. Eeaucago's figures are fictitious tigiires? — A. I do not know that. Q. lie put §19 for work that other contractors would put at 89 or SIO ? — A. I did not compare these things, f never looked at these calculations; it was not my business : it was the business of the Chief lOngineer. I am a layman in matters of this kind, and ho was a scientific man. (J. I call your attention to the fact that in Mr. Perley's letter and in his report he says these people have made evident errors that made it impossible to compare their tenders with other people's tenders that had properly tendered. I ask you if 30U have any recollection of having seen tliese figures? — A. No; they might have been jnit before me. I did not test them, but to say that [ went through the figures and compared, I never did that in my lite. The Committee then adjourned till ;U50 p.m. 1118 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 WED>fEsnAY, 12th Au^'ust, rs..*]!! p.m. Sir IIectoh LANfJKVi.NS ciosw-fxaniination rewiimi'd. Witness. — TIum inorninj^ tlicrt- was a Ifiior that Mr. Tarto put in my liaiids — that |nivuto letter wliich I wiote Ik Mr. IJobert Me|)es tliat were in mv haiid>. Tliuy wore sealed. They liad liei'ii |»iil in my hands for >al'('-kee|)iiiix. anil hy I lie outside a|)]tearaiu'») ot" tiiem i'viileiilly they niiisl i)ave heen pajiers. atnl not hunk note>. By Mr. Tarte : (}. Were those envelopes opened liel'ore you ? — A. Xo. ithou^hl you iiad an idea of that kind, and as I wauled K) dispel every had idea from your mind I tr.ade that e.xplanation now. (I. At paj^e 17 of the Kvidence, in a letter from .Mr. Thomas .Mclircevy, daled ITth May, l^^s;; ( Kxhihil " 1)2,'') he says: •• As 1 lolil you yesterday to try and i,'et a yood |iian. and as quiek as possihle, in answer lo the letter that o as their tender will be the lowest." Are you in a position to tell us from wiial ^out■(■e Mr. Mc- (ireevy cttuld know that a letter was /^oin.u; to h«' sent to fJallaiiher ami Meaueaiie ? — ■ A. No; I cannot — except tiiis, thai it di .Mclireevy could know nucIi a letter was iioinjf to he sent 'f — A. Xo ; ! sei- the two loiter- are of the haine date, that is all. Q. At that date the .schedule, accordiiii? to Mr. l]aillairue's letters and Mr. I'er- ley's evidence, was in y"), [ hcc tliiit Mr. I't-rley in a inein- oraiulum to you nHyn: '• I ciillod on tlio I'tli May, iHS'i, tlio attoiitiDii of tho parties liorciii iiainud to tliu errur, ank Co. did not amend their tender? — A. Yes, that is tho answer I j^ave. Q. You said that yon fouml yourself able to irrant tho tender, to award tho contract to people who did not tender in accordance with tho specitications ? — A. Well, they had tendered, but they had mistaken the uieanin;; of that clause or that portion of the clause. Neverlholess when their attention was called to it they said : '"Nolwithstaridinj^ the eifor we will stanil by our figures." Q. Very well. Mi'. Minister, is it not a tact that you allowed Mr. I'erley to write a loiter on the 7th May, just because tho tenders were not j)roporly drawn up? — A. The understanding was that he should write as ho has written many times to tenderers calling their attention tt> those errors that he thought existed thcr and asking them what they hail an Ik> said, and wlietlifi- yon Haw thoM« lij^iuvs. llo naid tliey woiv ^ent to you ; did you hoo tlioin or nut ? — A. [ till' ilon't roinonib'T lliat I saw tlK-ni. 1 know that ho iidd mo that hi- had rucoivod thoni. (I. You don't romomlior if, as ho nnyn, ho went thorn forward to you .' — A. No; I woo ho ways those h'ttors wont in to tho Ministoi-; ho inii^ht havo l)ioiii;ht them himself il. lie says: " Theso iottors with my eopy wont in to the Minister, and I idtcred in rod on the schedule shoot tho Huauoai^o tender. All thi' ooliituns woro added U]), hooauso the addition is in my handwriting, but tho hudy of tho so throe tenders — the tirst three. TIumi Mr. I'orley, the Chief Kiijijineer, wroli; to those men to know how it was—whothcr llu'y had made those oriors and so on. Then the answer came, and it was after that that the Chief Kiijj;inoer reported to me how thinjjs woro situateil — the status of c.'icli of those tenderers and making his recommendation. On that I reported to Ciiuncil, and after the Council had passed the Order in Council, then the time came to make an otfer to the tenderei- whoso tomler had been accepted by the ('oiincil. Tho Order in Council was dated the 28tJi ot May,lS8;!, but long' before that — 12 days before that — Mr. (lallaghtti*, on the Kith, had already withdrawn his tender, because ho had taken some other contract. Therefore no offer could be made to Gallagher to take a contract which ho had already refused. Q. You say Mr. (Tallaghor had withdrawn his tender; it was on tho IGth of May be wrote that letter ? — A. Yes, his letter is that date. ' Q. ^Vhy did not you !inswer him immediately that you were projiared to accept that withdrawal ? — A. That wont to Mr. IV- ley; not to mo. Q. You had nothing to do with that ■ — A. No. Q. Then when ^[r. Porley says all the answers he received were sent torward to you, he is mistaken ? — A. lie must have been that later on. Q. You have no other explanation to give ? — A. What can I ii" Q. Asyouhuvo already stated, Mr. Baillarge was wrong too, when he said you had tho tenders before you on the 16th of May? — A. I stated Jit the time what 1 stated. It could not be. Mr. Baillargd was in error, evidently, because his letter is dated tho KUh of May, and Gallagher wrote on the 16th from Quebec. Besides that, on the 17th of May- the next day — Mr. Perley. who had the schedule in his hands, and who was trying to find out whether therowere errors, was writing these letters below. Therefore, he had all tho documents in his hands. 1121 1—71 • It I. IN I i| \ 1!: •1, ! i' *'. I 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 I] m Q. Do you pwcai- thnt on the 17th May that j'ou saw GallagherV letter, which was written in Montreal on the 16th? — A. 1 do not swear anythinjjf of the kind hecaiiso T think that letter onlj' camo to me when th<' answers from Beaiicage and Larkin, Connolly & Co. had cotie bat'k and Mr. Perlev had had time to mark that in the schedule. Therefore I cannot swear what j'ou ask me. ^[r. Baillairgd must be per- fectly wrong in this. Q. I do not see any answer in any public document, between the liJth and 28th of May, to (iailagher's "letter?— A. That may be. Q. Are you in u position to give us any answer that might have been sent to Mr. (iailaghi-r from the Department? — A. \ say this — Mr. Galiagiier answered on the lOth of May, therefore L could not have seen that letter on the 17th myself because it was not written to me. It was wrilten to ^Ir. Perley and the reason why there is no answer from the Depai'tment is because it was not written to the Depart- ment. It was written to the Chief Engineer iiimself. Q. Y(.iii do not consider, then, that Mr. Perley, although the Chief Engineer, belongs to ^-our Department? — A. Certainly, he belongs to my Department. I stated yesterday in my statement, that in the Department of Public Works last year we received about 30,000 loiters, or sent them. The Departmental correspondence — the letters that we sent last year, was 7,2S(J ; tlu; Chief JMigineer's correspondence — what Mr. Peiley sent, 4,045, and the Chief Architect's 7,751, showing that these letters of the Chief Engineer and the Chief Architect are lettersof their own as heads of branches for the works under their control, and, therefore, this letter that the Chief Engineer sent to (iallagber was a letter that was sent from the Chief Kngineer's branch, and the answer that be received was to himself, and not to the Department. Q. Then j-ou sa}- you did not see these letters? — A. I did not see them then — no. (^. Then you had only to base your oitinion on the report and the opinion of Mr. Perley biniseif? Is that what yon want to convey ? — A. Isaj' this — when .Mr. Perley made his report be told me all about those letters; what lie liad done; what was their result, and he put that in writing and that was bis rejtort. Q. When .Mr. Peiky says that these letters •' with my cojuos " (meaning his copieO were sent otiicialiy to you, does ho say the truth or not ? — A. It depends altogether on the date. t^. My question is thero. — A. I say it depends altogether on the thite. Q. Look at ])age 157 and you will see there to whom I allude. — A. lie does not say there that these letters were sent at a certain period. lie explains : " I know that, bnt I am speaking a little in Justification of myself, because I have been attacked in this matter pretty ])laiMl3-. These letters, with my copies," that is, cojiies of letters to them, '' went in to the .Minister, and I altered in red, on the schedule sheet the Heaucage tender." B3- tbMt it is evident that .Mr. Perley had alr'cady sent his letters to these tenderers and he hi:d ahead}- received their answers. Then what did he do? '■ All the columns were ailded u]i, because the addition is in my hand- writing, but the budy of the schedule is in tlie handwriting of Mr. Boyd. It was then sent forward to the .Minister. That is my connection with these schedules." I have no doulit that is coriect. Q. Can you tell us wbeii the iirst fenders were asked foi' the British Columbia Dock ?— A. "l ,\'ill have to refer to the Blue-Book (Ivviiibit •' N5.") Q. Was it not in 1882 or 1884? — A. The memorandum of Mr. Peric}- is this : "On a memorandum dated 17th April, 1884, from the Minister of Public Works, submitting that in answer to public adveitisements two tenders have been received for the C(unpletion of the (irav' .g Dock at Es(piimalt, B.C." (I. On these tenders it was decided that one was too high iind tho v-'her was too low ? — A Yes, and an Order in Council was passed to that ert'ect. Q. If I am not mistaken, the tender that was too high was Messrs. Baskcrville &Co.'s?— A. Yes. Q. And thnt tender was for 84f!5,30!) ?— A. Yes. Q. And that of Messrs. Starrs i»t O'Hanlv was foi- 8;n5,240?— A. Yes. 1122" 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. I think from a raemornnduin from you, ciateii I7th April, 1884, these two tenders were decided one to be too low in your esiimation and the oth.05, besides 841,750.48, making in all, 8282,72U.5:{ ?— A. I know iiotliiny; about that. Q. Assuming that it is the fact, how could .Mr. Perley in 188:j say that sucii a tender as Messrs. Starrs and O'llanly's v,'as too low? — A. I do not know what cal- culations he made. (^. On Mr. Berley's report, new tender.-' were called for? — A. Yes, now tenders were called for. Q. Who were the new tendei'crs ? Mr. D.VLY objected. A. Well, Mr. Tarte, j'ou ask if I can give the names of llie tendLivrs lor the eecond lot of tenders called ; if you look at page IJiJol' the J]lue-Book, (lv\liiliit '• X5 "), tliei'e they are. Starrs i'. O'llanly were amongst the tenderers. Larkin, Connolly i*c Co. were amongst the tenderers. Starrs \; O'llanly, in both columns, weie the lowest ; then Larkin, Coiinoll}' iV (Jo. came iie.xt ; lliey were the next lowest in b )tii columns. Q. Did you have any comniunication with Messrs. Slarrs& O'llanly about these tenders? — A. 1 do not tidnk I saw them personally. I do not think so. But there were some letters that passed, one oi' two, I think, before the tender was accepted by Council. I think tliero were oiu^ or two tenders. t-i. Did you .see Mr. 1'. Haskerville, who wasa member of rlie Ontario Legislature lii the time? — .\. 1 think ho came onco to see me. Q. About the second tenders ? — A. No; I think it was about the first Itatidi of tenders. Q. Do you remember sending telegrams to .Messrs. Hukerand Shakes|ieare, who were members of the House tor Victoria, B.C., 1 »hink ? — A. I do not remember that. Unle.ss it would be the ordinary business of the Department, I do not know. There would be the telegrams there if they related to the ordinary business. Q. I must ask if you have got these telegrams? — A. Ifyou want telegrams from me, you will have to wait a long time for them, bocuuso i never keep private tele- iframs: any others would be in the Department. ^ ^ ' 1123 1— 71A !• 'I iii ■'M'i: 1 1 'iiii -ui. 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 h Q. Would telegrams sent to Messrs. Baker iiml Shakespeare about the B.C. Dock relate to the business of the Department ? — A. It wouki depend altogether on tho matter. (}. You have no recollection of these telegrams? — A. No. (^. What was the leason for asking tor new tenders at tho time? — A. The reason was this: that we had made an arrangtinent when Sir Alexander Campbell came back from British Columbia. He reported to Council what he had done and the Order in Council sanctioned his report, and by that he had made arrangements with the British Columbia Goveinmcnt to take over the Dock. f^. If you will allow me, we are wasting time, I thiidc. My question is this, what was the reason for the second tenders being asked ? — A. The reason was, that the tirst tenders were to be set aside, and tiiat we were bound by the arrange- ments with British Columbia, to call for a new tender to go on with the work. Q. Did you not give as the reason tliat you wanted rubble backing to be sub- stituted for concrete backing? Is not this the reason why the second tetulers were asked for? — A. No. the fact that we had to |)ut aside the tirst tender might have given an opportunity for doing that, but that was not the reason. If the tirst tenders had been higii enough and not too higii, we would have accepteil one of them, nodoubt. Q. Did you authorize the report from Mr. Perley dated 'Jth May, which appears on page 8!) of the Kvidence ? — A. No, I did not. Q. You have just stated that the rea.son that j'ou caih'd for new tenders was not the fact that you wanted^ to substitute rubble backing for concrete backing? — A. No. Q. You are ([uite sure of it? — A. I say this: That was not tho reason. The reason was that the tirst tender lieing too high or too low, we had to call for new tenders according to our ai'rangementwitii British Columbia, and tho Chief Kngineer might have taken this opportunity of changing bis specilicalions. Q. You have Just stated tliat you never authorized the Chief Engineer to niuko a leport on the Baskerville tender ? — A. I am not aware that this was authorized by me. Mr. Perley, if you will allow me, makes his re]iotts as he thinks they slK)uld be made. I do not control Mr. Perley in bis reports. He made his reports as he found the case to be. If the opinion of tho Minister or !he opinion of tho Council was ditforent, the reports were not accepted and he did s'vinothing else. Q. Did you authorize that letter from Mr. Perley to Mr. T'utch of the 2(ith of May, 1SS4 (Exhibit "AT") which ajipears at ])age 153 of t!;o jjvidonce ? — A. I have nodoubt the instructions given there by ilr. I'crlev to Mr. Trutch were the result of a conference between Mr. Perley and mj-self. Q. In that leiler you say that rubble backing would bo substituted for concrete backing, and it is tho reason why you are Just asking for new tenders ? — A. No. As I have t(»ld you already, tho Chief Engineer took that opportunity to change the specification and the plan of the Dock in order to make it more to his taste, believing it to be better for the work. Q. Do you know if that rubble backing has been kept or if some change has been made about it ? — A. I do not know that. I did not attend to these details; they were under the direction of the Chief Engineer. (^. You do not know at all if the backing of the Dock at Esrjuimalt is concrete or rubble backing, or anything else ? — A. It must bo what the Chief Engineer ordered it to be. Q. But, personally, you do not know what it is? — A. Personal 1}', I cannot tell you that any more than I could toll you that for all the other works in tho Domi- nion. (J. Y'ou do not remember having given any ciders ab')ut that yourself ? — A. Seeing this letter of Mr. Perlc}- (Mxhiiiit "A 7"), and the way it has come, I have no doubt the conversation I had with him was in that direction. Q. Did you give any orders later on with reference to any change? — A. I do not remember that. 1124 so 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 i Q. You do not rememhor, either, I suppose, whiit took place about the reduction on the plant; do yon nMnember any particulars about that? — A. I have stated already what I have stated about tiiat, I stated it twice. Q. I want only to add one question on this point. Will you refer to pa might bo some negotiations between the contractors and the Government or the Department, but he ilid not mention the 8111,000 there. Q. And he did not mention that to you ? — A. Xo. Q. Then he is the only party responsible for the deduction? — A. Yes, ho says so himself. By 3Ir. German ,- Q. lie does not say so here ? — A. He said so himself and his evidence is here. By Mr. Tarte : Q. Who was ynwv Engineer on that Dock in British Columbia?— A. Mr. Trutch ■was our Agent, being an engineer him-eif, and Mv. Beniu^tt was tijero receiving his instructions from Mr. Trutch, who in turn iee> ived such instructions as were re- quired from Mr. Perley in Ottawa. Q. Then you were communicating with Mr, Trutch oidy. not with Mr. Bennett? — A. We communicated with Mr. Trutcii. Q. Have you got anv recollection of complaints that may have been made against Mr. Bennett by Mr. Thomas MXrreevyon the 2nd May. 1885 ?— A. There may have been; F do not remember them. 1 stated yesterday that I could not re- member how in the first instance this matter was brought to me, but 1 said that Mr. Pe 'leyspoke to mo about it and we had the convorsatioii that 1 put in my statement. Q. What I want to ask is this: Did Mr. Thomas Mc(rreevy at the beginning ot Ztlay, 1S85, make complaints to you against Mr. Beimett ?— A. That I do not remem- ber at all. Q. Were there on the 1st May, 18S5, any other complaints with you against Mr. Bennett ? — A. T am not aware of 'that. As far i:s I can recollect the complaint came once, and then Mr. Perley spoke to me about it and 1 told him what 1 stated yester- day. Q. From whom did that complaint come?— A. I tried to remember it when I was making my statement, but I could not lemember who it came from. Q. On'the 1st May. 1885, were there any estinnites behiml in connection with that British Columbia Dock?— A. 1 cannot say that at all. 1125 Hf : (' 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. When you have stated this morning that Mr. McGreevy was acting for the Union Bank, diil you mean to sa}' that when he made a complaint on the 2nd Ma^', 1885, that he was acting for the bank ? — A. As 1 do not know that he made a com- phiint on the 2nd Maj-, I cannot say that. Q. You have no recolluclion whatever about that? — A. Xo. Of course, I do not say he lias not, because I have no recollection ot if. Q. Was there ever any complaint made against Mr. Bennett by any other party than Mr. McGieevy, that you can remember? — A, I told you that I did not remem- ber that Mr. McGreevy made any complaint. 1 can aiihwer that in that way, but I am not aware tliat anyone else came to me but Mr. Perlej-, Q. In hih letter of the 2n(l Ma\- Mr. McGreevy saj-s: " lie asked if I could re- commend one. Could you think of one thai would suit, and 1 would have the Min- ister appoint him.'' J o you remember having had any conversation with Mr. Mc- Greevy about that matter to this etl'ect ? — A. No. 1 stated yesterday everything I remembered about that — my conversation with Mr. Perley and his going to Mr. Page, talking to him about it, and Mr. Page not recommending anyone; and from that moment the thing dropped. Q. Do you say yon had no conversation with Mr, Williams about that affair? — A. I do not remember Mr. Williams speaking to me. Q. You do not remembei- him at all? — A. Yes; he was employed at that time as an extra clerk by Parliament here, and he was jnit there on m^' lecommendation. I knew the man was in great want and I thought he could do that work here ; but I would not have recommended him to be the Engineer in British Columbia for this work. Q. Did you give him any other employment? — A. Later on he was employed in the North-West. Q. Was he emplo}ed by your Department? — A. Yes, by my Department. Q. How long was he employed by you ? — A. He must have been employed for perhaps three months — perhaps more. (^. In what capacity? — A. As an Engineer Mr. Williams was, ] think, a graduate at West Point. Q. You have stated yesterday that the only changes that took place in that Dock amounted to S5;{,000 ? — A. That is the rcpo:t of the experts appointed by the Com- mittee. (i, Do you know that the contract was given for that Dock for $37-1,0(10? — \. I think those are the figures. Q. I have ju>t put before you the tiiuil estimate amounting to §581,000. How can you account for that big margin ? — A. By the ditt'erent work that was ordered, Q. What were those works? — A. I cannot say that. I askeJ the other day one ol the Engineers of my Department to give nic a statement of the difference between the two. The estimated amount of tender was §374,000 Q. Will you kindly tell us who that Engineer was? — .V. Mr. Coste. Q. Was he there on the works ? — A. I think he went there; but he had the data under his hand and made this report. Q. Are you yourself in a position to give us an account of those works ? — A. I asked Mr. Coste Mr. D.vvrEs objected. The CnA[KM.\N — I will allow the answer for this reason : We have had so much hearsay evidence admitted here — statements not under oath — that I feel inclined to allow this answer. A. (After having question read.) Si mie time ago I saw the difference stated between the tender as accepted and the amount of the final estimate, and on that I asked my officer to give me a statement of the whole. 1 wished to be aufait of the reason why there was a difference of §206,000 betweeti these two amounts, anter a|»]»roves of the suggestion that the masonry in this dock be built in heavier courses than called for by the specifications, and you are authorized to permit the contractors to recourse the work provided it will not entail any extra expense on the Cidwn.' Was Mr. Perley authorized to write the letter by you? — A. I suppose he was authorized at the time, but I explained this in m}' statement yesterday. Q. Now you have ju.vt stated that the recoursing that you authorized by this letter, this very letter, has cost 841,000 ?— A. Yes. Q. Wore you warned at the time by Mr. Trutch thatif youdid not take measures of precaution the recoursing would co-id you get any communication from Mr. Trutch about that recoursing? — A. I think Mr. Trutch wrote, but f do not find his letter here. Q. Can you tell us iiy whom that recoursing was suggested at the time? — .V. I think it was suggested by the contractors to Mr. Trutch, if 1 am not mistaken. Q. By the contractors? — A. Yes, I tiiiiik so; I am not suie. (^. At any rate, you don't remember now if you received a communication from Mr. Trutch warning you about the change on account of the cost ? — .V. No, I cannot remember that, f have to give my recollection to so many objects that I cannot tell. (J. Did you obtain troiu Mr. Perley or any other officers a report on which yna based the allowance of 841,000 ?— A. It was not 841,000, it was 835,000, I think. Q. I understand from the figures 3-011 have road that it was 841.000 ; I want to ask \'on if you have based your allowance of 841. OOO for recouising on any engineer's report? — A. The report I had stated that it would cost 835,000, and it appears in the measurements tiiere was more stone and it cost 80,000 more. Q. Have you got the report ? — A. it is in these books. 1127 m I i Id i 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 li ; 1 Q. We do not find it? — A. It is there. If j'ou have not the report you have the letter fiotn Mr. IVrley. Q. There is no letter and no report about that ? — A. Did not Mr. Perley say so in hin evidence ? Q. I have just (|uotod a letter that Mr. I'erley wrote. Look a,i,'aiii at page ()fl4. He said that the question of substituting granite for sandstouein portion oi' the Dock at Esquimalt had been considertlby the Privy Council. That is the fir.st inforniafion that we have in the books here? — A. Well, it was brought to nie by the Chief Engineer, I am sure, wherever it is. Q. Will you kindly find the report which j'ou think exists, because we have not the report hei-e? I would call your attention \o page 127. The tirst news we have ^ot about that is this, in the telegi'am from Mr. Perley to M''. Trutch. He says, " -Mini-tor directs contractors shall be paid for full quantity of stone in dock and caisson recess and full measurement on all stones. Letter by mail" — A. There is something in these documents. I cannot sa}- exactly where it is. showing that in the first instance when the contract was being made, or previous to that, when we were calling Ibr tenders, we knew only of one quariy of small stone, and that some months after that a beautiful quariy was found of stones of ?nu(h larger dimensions. That is ^tated in these documents comewhere. Then authority was given by the Department to lho.se men to use larger stones instead of smaller ones. Q. Jf 3-ou can give us some documents we will be glad to have them. You have just read a letter in which j'ou allow Larkin. Connolly \' Co. to use heavier courses provideii that it will not cost one cent more? — A. Yes. Q. You made that condition, but sub.u to answer mo if there is no secret about it? — A. There is no secret about that, because it was decided by the Council. I put down my recommendation on the foot of the report, on a special report to Council, and the Council, after considering the matter, referred it back lo me at my request. Q. Council referred it back to you ? — A. Yes. That is the ordinary way with all reports. When a Minister makes a report and it is not accepted by Council, the President of the Priv^' Council, seeing the opinion of the Ministers, puts on the liaok or .side of the report "Referred back to the Minister ot Public Works (for example) at his requesi." Then it comes to me, and that is the end of it. By Mr. Tapper: Q. Whenever it is not adopted it is referred back? — A. Y'es. By 3Ir. Tarte : Q. Without going over all the letters of Mr. McGreevy— you have gone over them yourself, I am sure — will j'ou tell us from what source Mr. Mc(irecvy was able to obtain the information ho obtained?— A. No. If I had known that any of my officers had communicated to Mr. McfTreevy. or anj'one .else, matters that should not be communicated, certainly that officer would not have remained in the ottice ten minutes. Q. Y'ou did not know anything about it, until this enquiry came on?— A. No. Q. And to-day you are not in a position to tell us from what source that infor- mation came? — A. No. I tried to ascertain or inform niyselt about it, to see if any officer had given any information that ho ought not to have given, and I could not find out. Q. For instance, I see a letter of the 2ud May, IH8,') (Ivxiiibit "(i 2 "). on page 18 : " As I telegrai)hed you this morning about estimate for (iraving Dock at B.C., Perley has telegraphed Trutch," and so on. From whom was ,Mr. McUrcevy able to obtain that information ? — A. 1 do not know. Q. Y'ou have no idea? — A. I do not know at all. Q. Look at the letter dated 4th May, (Kxhibit ^•112") on page 10: -'Perley went to see Page this morning to try and get anotliei' engineer to send out at once and dismiss Bennett. He that goes out will get his instructions before guing out." Again, from whom could he get that information ?— A. I do not know from whom. I know he had no such information, neither in that letter nor this below, from me. Q. Not on that account?— A. No ; nor on any other account. 1129 &I iii li!-:l! ifli ! , 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1S91 •; i ni 1 'i*. Q. The moment you say yoii never trave him yourstolf information, there is no use askini,' you any more question-* on that? — A. No, because you will have the same answer to the end of the chapter. (I. You never Unew that Perley received any gift ? — A. 1 know it only on the day that the mattei- was mentioned here by Mr. Murphy. Mr. Perley came to my house, about halt'-an-hour afterward, and told me that, and I told him he would have to go before the Committee. Ho was very sorry about it. Q. I feel bound to :'sk you a few questions about the statement you made yester- day, as far as I am conoerned mvself ? — A. I mentioned 3'our name because you brought the accusation in the House, and I had to mention someone as the plaintiff. Q. You saiil this much : " In cfmsequence of the manner in which, as respects myself, this enquiry originated, I have been obliged to appear to be passive, while charges of the gravest character have iicen gradually accumulated against me l)y the slow and unusual process of adducing evidence upon them, before they had been formulated or communiciited to me." Is it not a fact, that when I ma>le my state- ment you were in your seat in the House? — A. The statement printed here? Q. Yes. — A. I was. (^. Is it not a fact, that at the time you arose from your seat and answered me? — A. The answer 1 gave there. I will be ready to give to-day. Q. You said it wii-* not fair — that j-ou had not been treateil fairly by me. I feel bound to ask 3'ou to state if you were not in your .seat when these accusations were made? — A. All the accusations there were against Mr. McClreevy, except the last three or four lines, where you stated that I was accused of having received large sums of money from the contractors Beyond that, I do not remember anything brought against me personally. Therefore, I could not know what was coming on. I thought of it and said to my.^elf : Wher a man is brought before a court of justice and he is accu.>*ed ot murder, oc any other crime, he knows always what he is accused of. He has time to prepare, and he prepares. The charges are brought then and he defends himself. He knows what the charge is ; but in this case it was not so. You brought only one. and an indeiinite one, without giving names or dates and so on, and therefore, I could not know what was c tming on. That is the reason. I stated I was not represented by Counsel. I had to be passive until we could see what wascoming on. It was oidy the week before last, I tiiink, — on Saturday or Mon- day of last week — that the charges were brought, and I had all the time to see what the charges were in order to prepare my defence. I have prepared it and made it the best I could under oath, giving all 1 thought I knew and what I believed was the- truth. That is the reason why I came here yesterday without being asked bj' anj'^ Counsel or the Committee to appear here. I u V — A. No. Q. Will you l()(>i< at the Si^rd section; "That in consideration of the sums of money so received by hiiu and of the promises to him made, the said Thomas Mctrroevy furnislied to Larkin, Connolly \ Co. a great deal of intormation, strove to procure, and did ])rocure, to be made by tlie Department ami the Honourable the Minister of Public Works, in the plans of the Graving Dock and the execution of the work, alterations which have cost large sums of money to the public treasury." Did you understand that you were embraced in the charge made there V — A. I did not know that any sums of money had been received by M;. McGreevy and piu- rnises mjidc b}' him. I did not know thnt. (^. Then, that he furnished a great deal of information to Larkin, Connolly & Co.? — A. 1 knew nothing about thai. (i. Then that in consideration id these sums of money he strove to procure aijd did procure alterations to be made in ihe jtians which have co^t large sums ot money? — A. Well, 1 cannot say I mc anything wrong; I was read}- to wait the ])ro()f that might be adduced. (^. You understand from that that the charges were made against y(Mi ? — A. No. (}. Therefore; when a charge is made that a member of Pailiament procures from the Minister of Public Works, alterations in a contract which cost large sums of money, do you understand the Minister of Public Works to he charged ? — A. I had nothing to do with this and don't know anything about it at all. (^. Then you say that this charge, that the said Thomas Mcr, as being cori'n[)t in consideration of moneys paid to him, with corruptly procuring changes in plans by the Department and Minister of Public Works 3[r. Daly objected. (i. The words in the charge are: — ' That in consideration of the sums of money so received by him the said Thomas .McGreevy strove to procure, and did pi^ocuie to he made by the Department and the Honourable the Minister of Public \Vork.s, alterations which have cost large sums of tnoney." Was not the money that lie is charged with receiving a corrupt payment, or alleged to be so, whether he received it or not. Mr. Daly objected. Q. I wiil ask the witness, does he understand that the :j;^rd paragraph charges Mr. Thomas McGreevy of doing these things corruptly? Mr. Kirkpatrick objected. Q. Do you understand or do you not that there was a corrupt charge made against Thomas McGreevy ? I will put it again : Do you understaiul or do yiui not that Thomas McGreevy was charged with corruptly using his inttuenco to do certain things ? — A. I must say I did not consider these three lines more than I did the 1131 ■ I I ;! *l 1^ ; i. 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 other charges against Mr. McGreevy ; T "lid not give any pnrticiilar attention to this, I itnew from the beginning that there wore charges against him. I never considered those three lines Ijotbrc that you cull my attention to now. Q. The H2nd jmragmph states "That during the execution of tlio works hirge Bums wero paid by Larl-o. You may ditler from me, but that is how I considereil it. (^. Then you considiir that a charge made against the Minister of the Crown, that he had received from a firm of contractors large sums of money, and cinruptl}' received them, is an inilcHnite and indeterminate char'ge and imt woithy of notice ? Several Memhkrs — The charge does not say corruptly. A. Wlien it is made in the way it is there, it is vague and indeterminate. 1 did not resign, on that account. Q. Do you under.-tand that if a man charges in this way, that ceitain members of the tirm of Larkin.CotinoUy kCo. paid and caused to be paid, large sums of money to the Minister of Public Works out of the jjioceeds ot their contracts ; do you or do you not consider that a charge of corrupt payment of moneys? — A. I took the charge as it was. Q. Did you understand it to be a corrupt charge ? Can you conceive of a Min- ister being paid by members of a coiuracting Hrm huge sums of money out of tlicir eont r acts" and that not be a corrupt act ? — A.J considered that this charge was made with the intention of attacking me, but it was vague and indeterminate and therefore 1 said, I cannot accept that. Hvidently it has been put there at the last moment after all the charges against Mr. Mctrroevy were drawn up. • ^ And you do not admit that it charged you with corru})tly receiving any money ? — A. It charges mo with what is stated there. (i. I put the question directly to you. Did you imilerstand tiiat it charged you with corruptly receiving money ? — A. I did not consider it in that way. If was vague and indeterminate. Q. Do you consider that tiisit charged you with receiving the money ? Do you mean there is any doubt at all about it ?— A. If Mr. Tarte could have i)roved that I received that money from one of the firm, or the firm itself, on such a. date, at such u place, and it had been a clear and detinite ami determinate thing, then 1 would have considered that it Avas a charge that should have been met at once. (^ So that if he had proved the chaige you would hi.vo considered your taking the money a corrupt act ? — A. I might have had the evidence to show it was not so, ii. Is that vour answer ; is thaf which you desire to say ?— A. Yos. (i. If this is the fact, that certain members of the tirm of Larkin, Connolly & Co. paid and caused to be paid to you large sums of money ouf: of the proceeds of those contracts Avould you doubt that that was proving corrupt conduct on your part ?— A. It wouki be uvery improper thing on my part and it might be considered a corrupt. act, but Mr. Da VIES — And you Several Mesibers— Let the witno-s pioceed Aviih the answer. 1133 '■I "W II*- 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 r l\ Witness — You aro not acting fairly towHrds imp. You take advantago of your position, but 1 am Hure tiiat in this room tliuru aro many fair-mimiod men, wlii> will not aliiiw you to act in tiiisway. You putquuhtions to mu, will you l)o kind onou^di to let MU' answer them ? Am woonas I bc^in to f^ivo my answer, because my answer is not (luito what 3()u want, then you intei rupt me. Q. I only want to know how you look at these charges? — A. 1 have tried three times to answer this (|uestion. The previous question and answer being read, the witness continued whore he lett off, as follows: — IJut when the charge was made it was vague am. indidcrniinale, as I ^ a. There was nothing to .show me that the cliaigc was really baci d by pioper .t-nce, and under those circumstances ! did not consider that 1 shoul I take .ii.il »diarge as one that was to call upon me to have Counsel heie and to lollow the en(iuirv. Q. Now, to see if I understood you .so correctly, you ilo not denj' that if the charge was proved to be true it wouKl imply corrupt conduct; but you say it was vaguoand indetermiiuito and not backed by proper evidence, and thercloroyou did not take the course you otherwise would ? — A. 1 said that. Q. 1 think we agree that there was a charge of corrupt conduct if it is jtroved 'f — A. My answer is there. The Committee then adjourned. House op Co.mmon's, Thcksday, liiili .Vugust, 18"J1. The Committee met at 10.;^0 a.m. ; Mr. (iirouard in the Chair. Investigation into certain circumstances and statements in connection with the tenders and contracts respecting the (Quebec Harbour Works, &c,, resumed. Mr. Tarte said : The statement I intemled to make yesterday was this. This Coinmitteewerediscussingthechargecontainedinthe.se four lines: "That certain members of the tirm of Laikin, Connolly iV Co. had paid, or caused to be paid, large sums of money to the Honourable Minister of Public Works, out of the |)roceeds of the said contracts, and that entries of the .said sums were made in the books of the tirm." AVhat I was going to say is this. When Mr. Murphy came to me — not the first time, but later on when he gave the name of Sir IToctor Langevin — be staled that he never corrupted Sir Hector Lahgevin; ihat he never intended to corrupt him, that Sir Hector I.aiigevin never askeil liini tor any sum of money, but believing that Sir Hector Langevin was not a wealthy luji.i, and had political needs, that ho left two envelopes with monej', without telling Sir irectoi- what was in the envelope, or something like that; and it is the reason I did not put the word '' Corrupt." At the same time, he told mo that Nicholas Connolly had made entries in the books about the other §10,000 that v.ore heard of here. That is the only statement that I have to make. B''>' W'V PI Cross-examination of Sir Hkctur Langevin resumed. By Mr. Bavics : Q. I would like to ask Sir Hector with reference to a man named Peters, who gave evidence heie. You asked him for some contribution to political elections once? — A. I saw that loiter was produced hero. Q. H. is correct, I suppose? — A. I never saw it since it was put in here. I auppc»se it is. If is in your handwriting ? — A. You know. Q, If yo'J iiave any doubt about it 1 will show it to you ? — A. I take it for granted j'ou know, but I did not see it. 1134 64 Victonn. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 t i}. llore in tho lottor will you kindly look at it ? — A. Yo.h, tliiit is my imtul- wiitiii^, Q. I uiidorHtood you to Hay in your oxplaiiation, in roforonoo to that lottiT and tin Mulwcfiuont payniont made l)y Mr. t'etcrs of 8I.O()t), that I'otois was not at tliat til. e a coiitiuclor ?— A. it is no, (^. You were at that time Minister of PuIjIIc Works? — A. I \'iM Q. Are you aware that ho had at thai time, and has i.|il[ ;;ciidin^', a claim aj^ainst the Department, arising out of his previous contract ? — A. I undorstnod, und I undorstantl, that tho tender that was made by Peters, Mnore k Wrij,'lit was one (or which each of them had a specialty, and that each had heen settled with lor his portion of the work by tlie Harbour Coinmissioiieis. i}. Ho states that of the contribution of a 8100(1, 8400 were given in money by himself, and 8'>0(t by his partner ? — A. So he said. Several iMkmhehs — He did not say his partners but his asM»ciatos. Q. What 1 want to know is did you know that either JVters, or Peters, Moore iS: Wright, had an unsettled claim at that time against the Department; is it not a fact?— A. I think so. Q. You think so? — A. Ye.>. Q. Can you iiiate the amount of the claim ? — A. No. Q. Would it bo as much as a.'jlM»0(» or 8(i0,000 ?— A. 1 cannot say. 1 think it was a large sum but it was against the Harbour Commissioners. By the Chairman : Q. Not against the Department ? — A. Tho Department had nothing to do •with it. By Mr. Davies : (i. You understood there was a claim against the I farbour Commissioners? — A. Yes, who had given them the contract. Q. I understood you to say that with reference to the testinioiual fund sub- scribed liur your benefit, that you did not know until the schedule was produced here, who tho subscribers were? — A. Yes, Avith the exception I mentioned. Q. Was there another case, Goodwin's, wheie a i)crsonal paymcni was ma(lo to you besides Rochester's ? — A. I do not remember. Q. I moan a ])or8onal pa3'moMt, the same asIJochester- a jtaynient m:ide to you personally? — A. Not that 1 am aware of. Q. Then as a matter of fact you say, that outside that one payment of Roches- tor's, made to you direct, you did not know, until the list was produced, wlio the bubscii bers were ? — A. Yes. Q. Will you go fill t her and say you are anxioi.s not to know? — A. f have no doubt of it, and 1 would have been much more pleased if 1 did not know now the names of the subscribers. Q. You stated )-ou ^vore particularly anxiou.s not to know? — A. Yos. Q. And you would much rather never have known now? — A. Yes. Q. You think it would not be right for you to know ?— A. No; that was not the reason. Q. Well, why did you not want to know?— A. UocmmsO subscribers subscribin^r to a fund of that kind do not expect that tho party for whom they are subscribing will know it; that it will be only tho testimonial itself as a whole, and notiiingelse. because some friends might say: "If 1 bad known that my n:imo would bo men- tioned, and the amount, 1 would have given more tliun I have given," and soon; anrt the measures brought bet'ore the House just as you would have to support tlie measur-.; brought forward on 3-our side of the House. (I. Will you turn to pages 156 and 157 of tie Evidence ? Where Mr.Perley i^tutcs that the plans were piepared by the late Mi. Boyd, an Assistant of tho .Depar''.ivc!»t, who took out all the quantities of tho Cross-wall required for tho prepui«*.i'^"i of the schedule; that he was aware that those tenders were placed in hia hands that). e pr^ ■ pared the schedule; that ho called his (Mr. Perley's) attention thereto, and that he put 1138 Tr 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 the schedule sheet before the Minister of Public Works and discussed with him the errors. I want to ask you, Sir Hector, whether ]>lr. Perley is right about this, and that thih schedule propaiod by Mr. Boyd of the extension of the tenders for the Cross-wall, which was in 3Ir. Boyd's handwriting, and about which there is no doubt — I did not undei'Stand, from your examination yesterday, whether you admitted that this statement had been submitted to you before the 17lh or not? — A. You mean the schedule ? Q. Yes ? — A. Well, he might have spoken to me about the schedule. My recol- lection is this, that when I i^aw that scheilule here the other day, I had not scon it before except that Mr. Perloy might have had it with his reports when ho said : "Hero is my report about these tenders." Q. 1 will show you that, in addition to Mr. Perley's statement, we have a letter from Mr. Baillairg^ in wiiioh he says that the schedule of the tenders was handed to the Minister? — A. I understood that it was not. Q. Your recollection will enable you to state that you think this is a mistake? —A. Yes. Q. Although the ordinary course of business is, if I understand Mr. Perley's Aatement right, that the schedules are extended, and then they arc taken to you with tlie tender? — A. Well, if they are they are not shown to me. They would show me only the tabular statement which contains the names of the tenders marked a, b, c and d, and the amounts found by the extension of the scht^dule prices. Q. Exactly, that is what is on the schedule? — A. I beg your pardon; all the figures were there. Q. Listen to me. Mr. Perley says in his evidence, page IGl, giving the ordinary course of business, and not any unusual practice : "So all tenders are opened in that wa3' and schetluled ; tlion when tendei' ' A ' has been opened, I am speaking now of a bulk sum — it is folded and on the back is \m\ the letter 'a' and 1 write as well on the iiack of it ' opened by Deputy Minister and 11. F. Perley, and date it.' After the schedule has been prepared the Dei)uty lakes the schedule, and I take the temier and I'oad them and check the scheilule to Nee if any ei'rors have been made. The Deputy then makes his mark across the back of the tender, and they are taken then by the' Deputy to the Minister." That is the ordinary course of business ? — A. That may be. Q. i- nc t that a fairly correct statement of the ordinary course of business? — A. yes, ''■'hat is correct, for the bulk sum. Q X, A- would the statement made by Mr. Perley as to the ordinary course of bi 8iiis experience and means for carr^-- ing out largeworks, 1 beg leave tosubniit for consideration by the Honourable Minister the desirability of arranging with that firm foi' the works at Estiuimalt under the terms of their tender as amended by them, and the alteration and tho plans whereby rubble backing shall be used instead ofconcrelo backing, and that such other changes be made as will dispense with the use of brick work in connection with the walls." How was it ^Ir. Perley came to make that report three weeks after the passage of the Order-in-Council calling for new tenders? — A. I do not understand it. otherwise than this, that Mr. Perley seeing that these tenders had been set aside — " The Minister represents that Messrs. Starrs and O'Hanly state that on looking over tho duplicate of their tender they have discovered clerical errors which amount to about §25,000, and they ask to be porTuitted to amend and inci'oase their otter by that amount, or if not permitted to do so, to be allowed to withdraw thoir tender and to have their cheque returned. The Minist,or referred the matter for report to the Chief Engineer of his Department, who reports - " I am of opinion that tender ' A ' is greatly in excess of the actual value of the work to be done, whilst tender ' B " is as much too low, and that the persons who have submitted the last lender, viz., tender 'B' cannot possibly execute the work for the prices named, and as they have asked to amend their tender, which is a course not usually pursued, I would recommend that neither lender be accepted, and that the cheques be returned to the several parties. The irinister recommends that autho- rity be granted in accordance with the rojiorl of his Chief Engineer. TheCommitiee advise that the requisite authoritj- be granted accordingly." A. That is the Order in Council. Q. That Order in Council was made on the 10th of April, 1884, and on the re- commendation of Mr. Perley printed on the same page of the Blue-Book (Exhibit 1141 ■ i i m k' ^ ' 1 1 f, 1,1 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 11 Ini "N5") recommending lliat ^either tender be accepted, and that the cheque be re- turned to the several parties, you reported in favour of that course being adopted ? — A. Yes. (i. And the Council endorsed the report? — A. They endorsed the report. <^ And three weekb afterwards Mr. Perloy comes in with a recommendation thet their tender be allowed to be amended and accepted? — A. I do not know how Mr, Perley did that, why he did it, and under what circumstances. But I say this, that, on page 91, you find at the top of the page : "Q. There is something written by the Minister on the letter; please read it? — A. Memo. — Inform Mr. Baskerville (who had written on the 2(Jth of May) that new plans and specifications had been ordered, and that new tenders will be called for. — H. L. L." The delay evidently was this. New plans and new specifications had been ordered, and the order for new tenders had not yet been given; but that was my order and it was so given. Most likely ^[i'. Perley wanted to see if, out of these two tenders, one could not bo accepted, with modifications. That was without my knowledge. Q. But, on the 9th of May, Mr. Perley reports to you that these men have amended their tender and offered to do the work for83[oGreevy was working with his money and otherwise in favour of Mr. Mercier? — A. I think so. Q. Do you know if he subscribed money for this purpose? — A. No; you mean for the Mercier Government? Q. Yes? — A. I do not know. Q. Do you know if he assisted Mr. Mercier in some particular county — Mogantic, in the election? — A. No; it maj* have been so, but I never lK'ar .. works and sf) on — for example, the change from the double entrance, that is air-;' them, and other things of that kind. Q. Well, as I remember the double entrance was some time subsequent to the letting of the contract. When the decision as to the circular head was arrived at ? — A. Yes. Q. That was not one of the changes referred to here ?— A. No, it came later on. Q. Were those changes that were modifications in the original plans adhered to by the contractors or did the contractors return to them ? — A. I did not understand that, Q. On which ))lan8 was the work carried on ?— A. On the new plans. By Mr. Lavergne : Q. In your statement of yesterday you say :— " Mr. Yalin states in his eviilonce that 1 told him to follow always Mr. Thomas McGreevy at the Quebec Harbour Board, and that he always did so, convinced as he was that it was my wish and desire ; this I mo.st positively cieny, Mr. Valin is evidently mistaken." I understand 'hat you have read the whole of the evidence of Mr. "Valin ? — A. Yes. ^ 1147 I ,i,U! J 'iii 64 Victona. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Mr. Valiii miyb at pafije 4J>2 ; — " I toiti tho Minister that the names of Gallagherand Murphy might cause trouble with t!io firm ot'Larlvin, Connolly & Co., because he was one of its member ami that it did not from that Moom to me to bo a ditforent tirtn, and that it might cause trouble. IIo gaid I have spoken to Mr. McCireovy about that, both vote for and follow Mr. McGreevy and f toll you everything will bo all right. You know we meet frei]Uontly and that wo consult together." Will you undertake lo swear that this is I'also ? — A. Mr. Valin is iiuilo mistaken about this; 1 did not do that. ii. Will you undertake to swear that ho is swearing falsely ? — A. Well, a man might be (juite mistaken ; you must have seen in my statemont that 1 have avoided anything of litis ki'vl, because I would be the last to suppose that a man like Mr. Valin would co'iv' !;oreand state a deliberate falsehood under oath. Q. That is not tme, then, You say that no such conversation took place as men- tioned there ? — A. No ; it is not true. Q. Then it is false ? — A. I gave you my answer. t^. If this statement was only one of its kind, it might bo all right, but if you look at puge4l);i you will tind: — " Q. This was after the conversations that you had '! — A. [t was very nearly always tho same thing repeated. I had several conversations with tho ^rmister ; every time anything important came up [ consulted him and had ahvaj's very nearly the same answer." Do you suppose that Mr. Valin would niakt 'ho same mistake so many times ? — A. Mr. Va'in came, as f have stated beh)re, r ediy to my tiouse; I would say ho came too often. At all events he came very and the object that he had constantly in view was to lemind mo that ho wisheu ., .;o a Senator and that I should have him appointed as a Senator. That was his hope all the time. Now ho would speak about what passed in the Harbour Board, and he would say : "Well, what can I do " and " what shall I do." T would say to him to hear the vliscussion that was going on and give it tho same amount of attention as othcrsdid, aiii if you are ditterent from the withers you cannot help that. You are there on tho Boi.rd, a number of friends together whom you can consult. You have Mr. ITamol, Mr McCrreev}', Mr. Giroux and others, and you must Just do the best that you can Mr Valin had this difficulty that he was very deaf and hn could not follow all tho discussions that were going on there, and at times he would be in this position : that another subject would come up and he would not see very well what they were dccidingabout ortho uianner in which the first subject had beendealtwith or decided, being a little deaf ho would not hear that. Ho spoke to me about this once or twice. He .said : "I cannot hear them." I said : " Why don't you ask your neighbours. If Mr. McCxreevy is near you ask him. If not, ask some other member." I never toM him to be there and be like a piece of wood and not use his own intellect, and gf^ :;ucr,rc! ing to the will of another man. Q. Is it not as he says that you have several times told him this? — A. It is Just as I have slated. I did not tell him to bo the tool of Mr. McGreev}- or follow him implicitly or anything of the kind. Q. You see that ho said so several times ? — A. Yes; and I state the contrary to that. Q. At page 498 I read this: " Q. Now, when you were appointed Chairman of the Harbouf Commission, were yon put there as a safeguard to the interest of the Commission or to do as Mr. ^icGreevy would tell you to do ? — A. That is what I told at my examin.ition in chief. When I saw that Mr. McGreevy wanted to take the control, then I asked tho Minister whether I did well in following his advice or not. <^. Then when Mi-. McGreevy proposed anything befoie the Commission, you considered that you had nothing to do except accepting his propositions? — A. Not always, since on various occasions I consulted the Minister of Public Works. If you want to know a little more, Mr. Fitzpatrick, I will tell you. On one occasion, Mr. Langevin said to mo : If the Commission does not act properly I shall dissolve it." Q. Is that statement true ? — A. I do not say that. Q. You deny that? — A. I deny that. I read that before, and it is not so. 1148 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 lof 1)11 Is; Q. How can you huv that these tiro simply mistaken — tliat they cani' Im any- thing; else but niistuket ? — A. Well, I am xorry toMiy that Mr. Valin did not always undorHtand well what wo toKl liim. By Mr. Mulock: Q. Did vou a)»pr(»vo ot'tho appointment ot Mr. Periej' us Chief Kn^incor ot'tho Quebec Harbour Woiks? — A. I agrood to it. Q. Did you sanction it before he wa^ appointed? — A. I think not, no. Q. You did not give your consent before ho received tlie appointment ? — A. No. (}. Had you any convorwation with Mr. J'erley in regard to bin l)eing ap- pointed? — A. Well, he telegraphed mo from Luvis, saying that the Harbour Commis- .Hioners had put the Dock under his control, and so on. Tlion, two or three day.s after- wards, 1 do not remember exactly how long, the ratification came either through him saying that he had been ap|)ointed Chief Kngineor there, and I agreed to it. Q. i)o you not think you must have intimated before hand that you would agree to the appointment? — A. Some of them may have spoken to mo whether I would consent to it. That is quite possible. Q. From the telegram which you have quoted in your statement, page 1054, it would appear he had your authority beforehand ? — A. Xo, ho wont down there at the request of the Harbour Commissioners. Q. Yes, but the telegram you read said lie entered upon his duties the next day? — A. Tluit may bo, I do not know. Q. I[o could hardly enter upon his duties as Engineer with the Harbour Com- missioners, without your consent? — A. Well, ho may have had my con>eiit by telegiaph. Ho may have asked it. Q. Did ho? — A. 1 do not know. Q. Had you a c(mvorsation with him, about his being appointed Chief Kngineor to the Harbour Commissioners before he was appointed? — A. I do not recollect that. Q Tills telegranr. to you from ^[r. Perley at page 1054, reads: "Commissioners have transferred (Iraving Dock to my charge, to appoint my own assistants, I'ilkington better, and granted leave of absence. 1 assume work to-morrow ." From that you will observe that he was going on to assume control the next day. Could hedothat without your permission as head of the Department of Public ^Vo^ks? — A. He might do it, and ho could do it, relying on my sanctioning it, when he was telegraphing me at once. Y^ou see that in the next two lines, it says, "on the lOlh of May, 1SS4. tiio Secretary of the Corporation informed Mr. Perley that they appointed him their Chief Engineer." That is a little over — Q. Five days? — A. Oh no, it was not May then, it was Sei)tember. It was hi the following year, seven (-r eight months after, that he got formal notice of his appointment. Q. But Mr. Perley having told you he was going to enter upon his duties next day, must have had your previous authority to accept the appointment? — A. That may be; the Commissioners may have asked it. Q. Then there may have been someconversatlonor communication between you and Mr. Perley nnd others in regard to his accepting the proposed appointment ? — A. That may be. I did not compare the d"tes there when the Knglneers in Chief of these works, Messrs. Klnlpple ifc Morris, htiJ their services dispensed with. It was necessary then the Commissioners should have some officer in chai-ge. Q. Mr. Perley could not have assumed the work without your permlsbion? — A. He may have done this because he telegraphed me at once. Q. As Engineer of the Public "*Vorks Department, I presume the Public Works had the right to his services excloiively? Was not that the nature of his engage- ment? — A. Tes, it was; but I would not have considered his taking this position would be beyond his duties, provided I assented to It. Q. You consider if you assented to this, tie was discharging a public service by being Chief Engineer for the Harbour Commissioners?— A. Under those circum- stances. 1149 I !' I ! 'I >1 I I !' m 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. In that case ho must have hail authorit}- expressed or iiiiplied that you sanc- tioned this appointment before he telepi-aj^hed you ? — A. if'j'ou looli at the preced- ing four lines on page IU54, you will lind tliis : "On the 1st Se))tcinber, 1883, the Commissioners requested the De])aftment to send Mr. Peilej' to visit the worIin in 188". What did you know about that before applying to Parliament for money "' — A. That was out of the general vote for these works. Q. Jiut in I'arliament it was stated, part of the money was to go to dredging. To what extent did vou investigate the dredging scheme beiore asking Parliament to vote the money? — A. Xtan(es so much more mone}' would be required, and that was done. Q. Is there a report from the Chief Engineer to you on the subject ? — A. I do not think there would be. ^l. Was it that more money ford rodging in the Wet basin was necessary? — A. I do not think there was !inything else than the discussion when the estiriates were being prepared to see what an.ount was required. Q. When were Ih.. -sti mates prepared on which you asked Parlir.ment to vote money lor dredging in 1887 ? — A. I cannot say that. , Q. When was it first brought to your notice that mone\- would be required for diedging in the Wet basin in 188" ? — A. 1 cannot remember that, either. These thi" gs would be ])art ot' the estimates for the yeai'. Q. Is it a fact that the Engineer woukl only s])eak to you verl)al!y in regard to a transaction involving asking P;'rliament for SIOO.UOU?— A. Xo doubt he would dis- cuss the the matter. I would send for him and say : ■ Xow the time has come for these works. How are they progressing, and what jimount of money should be asked." Ho would say : "If we had §200,000 more we could pay these works Tor the year ; or perhaps it would be better to have S350,00i», because we could continue them next year until new funds would be given for the full year." Q. I am not asking the general rule; I am asking what occurred in regard to the application to Parliament for this loan ? — A. I cannot tell you that. Q. You recommended to Parliament the making of a loan on which the dredg- ing contract of 188" could be carried out. You recommended that loan; or the grant of the money ? — A. Yes. Q. I want to know why you recommended Parliament to loan $100,000 to the Quebec Harbour Commissioners in 1887 for dredging in the Wet basin ? — A. Because my Chief Engineer must have told me it was requiretl for that purpose. Q. Did ho tell j'ou in writing ? H' you remember, did he do so verbally ? — A, It must have been verbally. 1150 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 c- d- le n- e ;f) lis ed cd it. II r ed to id Q. Would you siccept a more vei-bul statemoiit of the Engineer as to i; jjublio vote to the extent of 8100.000, and with no other record make your statement in Parliament?— A. You say that in 1887 I asked 8100,000 for tliat |)urj)ose. In 1S8V additional and tinai advances are authorized — one of 8100,000 and another of 81,100,000. There was nothing s])ecial for this. It was for the whole. Q. You refer to the dredging and the conti'act entered into by the Harbour Commissioners for dredging to the extent of 8100,000. I un) assuming tliat j-ou had some data to go on when you asked Parliament for that >uni ? — A. The Chief Engineer had his data. Q. Wnere is the statement? — A. He stated ,-o to me. Q. Do you mean to say Parliament was asked lo grant that loan in 1S87 of 81,100,000, and that the information you had on whiih you asked Parliament o grant that 81,100,000 was simply a verl)al conununieation? — A. He did noi make a special report tor me, but 1 would saj- : "How far ha\ ihe works gone, and what are the payments to be made, and is there any additional work required ?" He would have his books and say what was the amount required On that we would call for so much more money from Parliament. Q. Am I to understand that it is a practice in your De|)aEtment fur the bead of the Department, having a matter to move in Parliament ii.r large sums of money, to have nothing on record fiom your officials showing why you make these requests? — A. I do not say tSat. Q. Is that what occurred in iliis ]iarticular case? — A. No; I do not say so. The Engineer was there with his books and statements showing that the work had Ix'c-n done and hail co' t so much ; that we had expended so naich and thai tlicie was so much more for the works of the year, and to complete these works it would rcijuire for this and ihat so much more money. That was the way it would be done. (^. In this case you have no doubt that the Kngiiieer, Mr. ]\'rley, biought to you books or memoranda and showed you fiom these books or memoranda win- you should ask Parliament lor this giant ? — A. There must have been given me data for the vote I was asking Parliament. Q. Are they anywhere on recf>rd ? You say they must have been taken trom books. If so, why should not the books be produced before this Committee? — A. Everything the Committee wanted has l.ieen brought down. (^. I think these should be lirought down, and I do not wish to com])lote this examination until thej* are produced. I desire to ascertain whm you first learneil that this money was required or was tirsl brought to your notict' ? — A. That was not a v.'ork of my l)e])artment, but of the Harbour Commissioners altogether. (i. Put you were asking Parliament to have it carried out. I want to know when It tir>t came officially to your notice? — A. That 1 cannot say. Q. Then the records of the Engineer would refresh your memory ? — A. All the books and papers -of the Engineer have been sent down here. 1 enquired about that sometime ago, and they said : •' We have taken down ever 'idng we have." ii. And there is no such entry in any book? — A. I d !i)t know. 1 have nut looked over them. You must see this ; you cannot imagine that from 1SS7 I can keep alt these things in my memory. At that time the matter of Ihe Harbour Com- missioners of Quebec was bettM'e the House, ami J answered this: "They simply ask that the money be advanced to them in the same way as it was advanced in previous years to complete this work. There is the report of the Chief Engineer showing the amount of money that was required and for \vhat|)uri)ose. Ttiere was a statement made last year which showei' that there w.uld be required nearly 81,000,0(10 at that time to complete the Dock, and the plan l.dd before the House showed three schemes. There were three lines to be Ibllowed from the gas works at ihe upper end of the Docks down to the iviver St. Lawrence. One of these plans was to build a wharf from the gas works inside the dock, leaving south of it the wharves that are there alongside of St. Paul street an.l the other street in the lower town. It was lound that that scheme would entail a lar,;;e expenditure for damages and for purchasing piers and wharves, and it was abandoned. It was 1151 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 afterward thought that another line further north would meet the difficulty by clearing the wharves and leaving a further entrance for them, but it was found' that proprietors of these wharves would complain or claim damages for being deprived of a portion of their franchises on these wharves. Finally, it was decided that the third scheme, for a wharf coming from the gas works down to and through St. Andrew's street, would be the best and would not require a laige purchase of property to come down to what is called the cross wharf between the Tidal basin anil the Wet basin. That plan was adopted last year. That work was put under contract, and the other works were also under contract. That is to say, the cn.ss-wall and dredging. The amount of money which the Government asked last year to borrow will cover all the expenses that will be incurred this year and next year, and will be the last amount to be contributed by us to these docks. The same condition is to be imposed on these as on the other, with reference to the sinking fund." Q. I want to know from Sir Hector when it was first brought to his notice there was to bo a request to Parliament for the money to do the dredging for llie AV'et basin in 1887, and Sir Hector is unable to say from memory, when that matter was first brought to his attention ? — A. It must have been, by what I see there, in 188G, because I was asking money for 1887. Q. Very well. Whenever it was from what you consider to be the practice of youi- Department there would be some record even it if it is only a memorandum in the books of the Engineers showing that ? — A. The report of the Engineer is published every year. Q. That is not the report of the Engineer of the Department. I want to know when it was brought before you officially, as head of the Department of Public Works, that there was going to be a contract let fordredging, or that there had been a contract let for dredging in the Wet basin, and upon which information you took the responsibility of asking a vote from Parliament. You say that there must have been a memorandum, and that the Engineer would point out to you from entries in his books the particular matter in question ? — A. You see that it must have been in 1886. Q,. I wish, then, Mr. Chairman, that the proper officer be requested to attend here and point out if ther'c are any such books or records, in order that I might bring them to the notice of the Minister ? — A. It was a portion of the works, it was notliing s]jecial. The basins hail to be made, they were made, and they were dredging them and they came Q. If you will excuse me, I desire to know when it came to your notice officially ? —A. I say 1886. Q. You say it was 1S86 ? — A. Yes ; it must have been 1S8G. (i*. It must have been in 1880 you first learned that the money would be required for dredging the Wet basin in 1887 ? — A. Yes ; I think so. Q. Can you say when in 1886? — A. It must have been at the end of 188i!, because I was making estimates for the following j'ear. Q. I would like Mr. Gobeil to make a search. If he floes not succeed in finding anything 1 shall not trouble Sir Hector again? — A. 1 want to give every evitlenco that I can to the Committee, but I would tiot like to be in the position of Mr. Perloy. I am not in good health just now. Q. Would you tell me in what form you secured the money you advanced to the i.e Monde'i — A. That was my own money. Q. But what form did it take? You mentioned you desired to retain control of the paper? — A. I said that it was a loan I gave to them, but I received no interest and I did not expect any. Q. It was for political advantage ? — A. For political advantage ami nothing else. I might say, Mr. Chairman, my attention has been called to a letter filed here as Exhibit '-CKi," which is a letter addressed by me to the Honourable Thomas McGreevy. 1 did not see the letter after it was written in 1886 until I saw it in the paper the other day. The letter says : " My Dear Mr, MuGreevy, — The contractors for the L^vis Graving Dock should ask a settlement of their accounts from the 1152 ^m 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 189J -•t. Harbour Commissioners, who then will most likely consult with their Engineer. For the Efiquimalt Graving Dock it is different, bceause the work there is altogether under my control." Well, about this letter, I must saj' that evidently it is an answer to Mr. McGreevy, who called my attention to the matter, and probably said : " Cannot these contractors have their money ])aid I'or the Gi-aving Dock at Quebec, and the works at Esquiraalt?" Well, on that, I answered him: "The contractors for the L^vis Graving Dock should apply to the Harbour Commissioners, who will then most likely consnlt with their Engineer, because those works are under their control." The word "Engineer" is underlined here. Hit has been underlined by me I must say it had no significance whatever. It is tbe last word on the page, and it is under- lined. It had no significance whatever, because it was quite natural that the Harbour Commissioners would consult with their Engineer. As to the Esquimalt contract, I was in a differont position for the reason that that work was under my control altogether, and if something had to be ])aid it had to bo by the Department, or the officers in my Department. By Sir John Thompson : Q. The letter is your Secretary's hanilwriting, I think ? — A. It is in my Secretary's handwriting and the signature is my own. Mr. Joseph Louis Arohamballt sworn. By Mr. Ouimet : Q. You ai-e practising law as a barrister in Montreal ? — A. Yes, for the past 20 years. Q. Do you know Mr. George Beaucage, the witness wlio gave evidence here last week ? — A. Yes ; he is one of my clients. Q. How long has he been your client? — A. For ab<; .i 15 yours I suppose. Q. Are you aware thatan action was taken in his name against tiio Ilnn. Thomas McGreevy on the 22nd February last? — A. Yes; I have taken that action. Q. You have taken that action as his solicitor ? — A. Yes. Q. From whom did you receive instructions to take that action ? — A. Mr. Beau- cage himself. Q. How long before this action was taken did you receive these instructions ? — A. He spoke to me about it, I suppose, two or three months before, in Montreal. He was then living in Montreal and is still living there. I don't know if he has his actual residence there, but he has got contracts in Montreal. Q. Did he see you several times before the action was taken? — A. Yes; many times. Q, In fact he gave you instructions to take action? — A. Yes; in the ordinary way. Q. Did you inform him when you had taken action ? — A. Cerhiinly. Q. Did you speak to him, aftci" the action was taken? — A. I spoke to him, after it was taken and before. 1 read to him the bill of particulars to know whether the instructions were correctly given. Q. You read to him what we call in our courts a declaration ? — A. Yes ; a state- ment of facts. Q. When the action was taken was it not mentioned in the newpapers in Mont- real ? — A. Yes. Q. When did it come to the knowledge of the public? — A. Well, the action was taken and the reporters of the Press went to the Court House and they saw that there was a very important action being taken in the matter and asked the Honourable Mr. McGreevy himself to publish a letter in the Gazette to that effect. Q. Did you publish another letter in answer to that letter ?— A. Yes, I answered the letter of the Honourable Thomas McGreevy, because there was something 1153 1— 7.i If it ■r": H i ill I (! 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 If ■ ii »aul in that against my client or myself, ftO I wanted to put the matter properly before the public. Q. Was Mr. Beaucage living in 3Iontreal at the time ? — A. Ye>. Q. Doing tlie work of u contractoi' ? — A. Yes. Ho had two contracts in Mont- ieal. Q. Did he evei" i)rotest against you taking this action ? — A. Never. Q. What was the result of the action in tiie Courts, in the first instance? — A. Ho succeeded in the Superior Court. Q. The demui-rer was dimissed ? — A. Yes, the action was brought, there was a preliminary plea and i urgueiJ the case befoie Judge Davidson. Q. It was dismi.^sed ? — A. Yes. Q. So you won the first judgment in his favour ? — A. Yes ; and I wiote a letter to my client to that effect. He came to my office and was very pleased with the judgment, but afterwards the defendant in the case, Mr. McGreevy, took a wiit of appeal and the judgment was reversed. I want to correct a statement that has been made. It has been said that I have taken out the appeal. It was not so. Q. Now while the appeal was pending, did yon see Mr. Beaucage ? — A. Yes ; I wrote him day by day, as far as the case went. Q. Did he ever lequest you to discontinue the action ? — A. Never. The only thing I can remember — if I had my letter book here I might refer to my letters, but I took a memorandum of some of the letters — Q. Y'^ou wrote him during that time ? — A. Y'es ; I wrote him a letter, apart from the letters which he gave in his evidence. I wrote him a letter on the l-4th of March, the very next day after the judgment bad been given in the Superior Court, and then I sent another letter on the 23rd April, giving notice to him that I had been served with a writ of appeal by Mr. McGreevy. These entries are taken from my book. On the 13th May I sent him a lettei- stating that the case was tixetl in the Coui't of Appeal and was to be argued on the 15th. Q. Did you see him several times at your office, while the appeal was pending? —A. Yes. Q. Did ho request you to discontinue (he action? — A. No, nevei-. Q. Did he go to your office with Dr. liodier with a request to discontinue the action? — A. No. I remember he came once to my office after the action was taken. He wanted an enquiry; I understood that tliey had some business together. Q. What we want to know is whether he wanted you to discontinue the action? — A. I shall explain the facts of the case to you. Q. Did Mr. Beaucage make any request to you about the ap])eal ? — A, No. Well, he made this request : that if it were |)()ssible to 8us|)end for a certain while the a2)peal he would be glad, because I hoard ho bad some otl'or to settle the matter. Q. lie wanted you if possible to suspend the appeal? — A. Yes, and I told him "no." I could refresh my memory by looking at the letter book if it were here. What I told him in this letter was that I could not suspend the appeal myself without a proper arrangement with the solicitors of Mr, McGreevy, because it was they who were forcing the appeal upon us and I could not suspend it of my own fiee will. I wrote to him lo that eft'ect — that it was impossible for mo to suspend it. If it had been possible for mo to do so 1 would have done it. The reason that ho wanted me to sus])end the a])peal was that he had received an otter Q. Did ho mention the oifer at the time? — A. He did. Q. Did he say anything about the offer for settlement? — A. He told me that he had an otter of 82,500. Q. From whom? — A. Well, I do not know if it is a privileged communication at til is time. Mr. Amyot objected. Q. Have you any correct recollection of the name ? — A. As far as I can remember, he came to my office and we were speaking about the matter theie anil I told him that I could not suspend the action. He said he had had an offer and I asked him from whom and I think the name he gave was Mr. Cameion or McCarron. 1154 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 By Mr. Amyot : Q. You iii'e at present practising in Montreal ? — A. Yes. Q. What is the name of youi- firm? — A. I am alone now. Q Were you alone then ? — A. Yes. Q. But you have been in partnership ? — A. i'os, I have been in partnership since the last fifteen years. Q. Who were your partiicrs ? — A. Mr. Bergeron, Mr. Mignault and Mr. Aloussoau have been my partners. Q. Now, from the evidence given by Mr. Beaucage we were given to infer that you had been soliciting him to give you a case. Was it so? — A. No. Q. Did he offer you the case without solicitation ? — A. Yes. 1 never solicited a case of that importance, especially. I was at the time the solicitor of Mr. Beau- cage. I have had many other cases of his. There is one still pending in the Court of Review. I wish to state this, that I was his regular solicitor. Q. I desire to draw your attention to tiiis particular point. Mr. Beaucago insin- uated that 3'ou had solicited, had seen him frequently, and insisted upon being entrusted with the case. Is it true ? — A. I never solicited the case. The case was given to mo by Mr. Beaucago. 1 waited two months before taking the case, because he was at the time a little fond of litigation. I had two other cases in which I had to represent him. Q. I ask the question, did you solicit him for the case ; yes or no ? — A. No. By Mr. Tarte : Q. Did you consult me before taking that action ? — A. No. Q. Did you write mo a letter and if so, about what ? — A. I wrote you a letter in the month of December, I think. Q. At any rate did you consult me about that ? — A. No. The first intimation I had was two or three days after the action was taken in Montreal— seven or eight days after. By Mr. Geoff rion : Q. You.are a Queen's Counsel ? — A. Y'^es. Q. For how many years have you been a Queen's Counsel ? — A. Four j'ears. ii. Y'^ou were made Q. C. by the Dominion Government ? — A. By the Dominic Government. Q. I think j'ou are well known in Montreal. Have you been President of the Club Cartier for several years ? — A. Yes, in 1870-77, and after the Kiel matter 1 was appointed President of that club again. Q. You have been President, how long ? — A. Three times. Q. And the Club Cartier is a Conservative Association in Montreal ? — A. Well, the Conservative Association is a dilfc ent association. (I But the Club Cartier is a Conservative Association in Montreal ? — A. Yes. By Mr. Stuart : (}. Will you look at the letter of the 7lli .Tanuary, 1801 (IvKhibit "Q IG "), which is proved to be in your handwriting, that part in which you say you wisii to meet Mr. Tarte and explain why you wanted to meet him ? — A. Is that the letter which has been produced l)y Mr. Beaucago ? (]. Yes ?— A. At that tinio ^Ir. Beaucage wanted to got from me the full parti- culars of his claim against Mr. McGreovy. lie lold me that he had details of the informaticm about his claims against Mr. McGreevy, by what would appear in the inquiry — the charges brought before Parliament last session, and as Mr. Tarte was connected with the matter, he wanted mo to write to 3Ir. Tarte or to see him about it. I wrote, as I have just stated, to Mr. Tarte asking no explanations, but asking him if he had in pamphlet form all the articles which ho had published in his paper Le Canadien and asking him also to send me a copy. It Avas only three lines. That 1155 1-73^ )mmiou II : 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Avas during the month of December. Some lime before sending that letter I tried to meet him in Montreal at the St. Lawrence Hall ; I saw his name in the paper one morn- ing as being there. I wrote to that effect to Mr. Beaucage, but I did not see Mr. Tarte at that time. My recollection, howevei-, is this, that I wanted this paper and when 1 had received a letter from Mr. Turte, I had my late partner Mr. Bergeron imme- diately get a copy of the " Hansard " to have all the particulars of the claim of my client. 1 got it, too. Q. In that letter (Exhibit " Ql() ") you say you have received a 'etter from Mr. McGi-ecvy's lawyers ? — A. Yes ; I i-eceived an answei-. Q. An answer to a communication demanding payment of S5,000 b}- Thomas McGreevy ? — A. Yes. I Avrote according to the statement of my client. Q. And the answer from Mr. McGreevy's lawyers asked particulars of the claim against Mr. McGreevy ? — A. Yes. Q. You never furnished those particulars did you ? — A. I wrote the answer. Q. I should judge, however, from that letter that you were not in a position to furnish the particulars ? — A. Yes, I had the particulars, Q. In this letter you say you wanted to see Mr. Tarte to get the particulars ? — A. Yes, but the action was taken about a month afterwards — the 3rd of February, Q. But at the time you jcceived the letter from Mr. McGreevy's lawyers you had no particulars to give them ? — A. I said I had none to give. Q. Did you know them then ? — A. I did. Q. If you hud the particulars why did you want to see Mr. Turte fi-om whom you said you desired to get them ? — A. I wanted to know from him this only — whether the letters and documents brought before Parliament and since jiublished in his paper weie genuine documents. That is the only thing I wanted to know, and I told my client Mr. Beaucage that all my information was correct; I need not get any other information. Mr. Tarte told me after the action was taken, " you may feel confident." Q. How long after the letter of the 7th January did you see Mr, Tarte ? — A. I saw Mr. Tarte, I suppose, 7 or 8 days after the action was taken. Q. On the 3rd of February (Exhibit " E16 ") you tell Mr. Beaucage you had just got the information, so that apparently on the 7th of January you did not have the information? — A. That is not the meaning to be put on my Utter. The accurate translation of the meaning of the letter is this: At the time I had the full docamects and everything connected with the case. I read to Mr. Beaucage, as I just stated, the bill of particulars, the declaration. I wanted to have him aware of what I was doing at the time. Q. This is a copy of the writ and declaratioi> served on Mr. McGreevy ? (docu- ment shown to witness) — A. This is my signature attached. Q. When this preliminary exception was filed I think the Judge of the Superior Court expressed the opinion that Mr. McGreevy's lawj'ers ought to have proceeded by motion for further particulars ? — A. The judgment is there. Q. Where did you see Mr, Beaucage on the subject of this claim for the first time ? — A, In my office. Q. Are you sure of that ? — A. I am quite sure of that. Q. Did you go to Mi-. Beaucage's hotel to speak to him on the subject ? — A. No, not directly. I went two or three times to his hotel about a case now pending before the Cour*; of Review. By Mr. Tarte : Q. Is it not a fact that Mr. Beaucage told j'ou ho had seen Thomas McGreevy in connection with the Cross-wall tender ? — A. Yes, he told me in your presence in St. Lawrence Hall, I am glad to be called here to vindicate my character as a professional man. I am very glad, indeed, and my statement is sustained by Mr. Tarte himself that I have been authorized by Beaucage to enter the suit, Beaucage told me I had been authorized, after the action was taken, 115G 54 Victoria Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 By Mr. Ouimet ; Q. Who was to pay the costs of that suit against Mr. Thomas McCTreevy ? — A. Beaucage himself. Dr. J. A. EoDiER sworn. By Mr. Ouimet : Q. Did you go to Mr. Archambault's office with George Beaucage ? — A. Yes. Q. How many times did you go to the office of Mr. Archambault with George Beaucage ? — A. Only once, that I remember. Q. Was it about the case Mr.Beaucage had against the lion. Thomas McGreevy ? — A. Yes. Q. In your presence did Mr. Beaucage state anything to Mr. Archambault to request him to stop the action, or to tell him that the action had been taken without his instructions ? — A. On that question, I remember very well that thoy had a few hot words together, but I do not remember really what was the sense of those words. Thej' quarrelled. Q. Do you remember anything that Mr. Beaucage may have said conveying the idea that Mr. Archambault had taken that action against his instructions? — A. They spoke about the fees. Mr. Beaucage told Mr. Archambault that he thought he would incur the risk, and Mr. Archambault answered no. That was four or tive months ago and I cannot remember more of what took place. I know neither Mr. McGreevy or Connollj- or any of these people. By Mr. Stuart : Q. The general impression of tlic conversation is that Mr. Beaucage was finding fault ? — A. Yes; they were not agi'eeing on a certain subject, but I cannot tell on V hal subject. The Committee then adjourned. ■;■ d ^ House of Commons, Friday, 14th August, 1891. The Committee met at 10.30 a.m.; Mi. GJrouard in the Chair. Investigation into certain circumstances aad statements made in connection with the tenders and contract respecting the Qtiebuc Harbour Works, &c., resumed. Mr. A. GoBEiL recalled. By Mr. Mulock : Q. You understood the direction given by the Committee yesterday for you to make search for cci'tain memorandum papers? — A. Yes. Q. Have you made such a search ? — A. T have, sir. Q. What is the result of your search ?- A. i four.d these papers you see now before you. Q. The papers you produce, in all probability, contain the information asked for ? — A. I think so, sir. Q. If these do not, you do not know of any other papers ?— A. I do not, sir. By Mr. Tarte : Q. At the beginning of this enquiry I asked you, I ihinlc, to look for an estimate made by Mr. Trutch, Xo. 43,615, on the cost of the British Columbia Dock. I wish ' 1157 ii ! r 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 you would look again for that estimato if you liavo not found it. Have you looked carefully? — A. 1 have looked caiefuUy, but have been unable to lind it, Q. Will you look carefully into the papers produced before this Committee? — A . It must bo here. Mr. James Woods i-ecalled. By Mr. Tarte : Q. Tasked you to look for some papers. Have you got a list ot tiicm ? — A. I have got a list. Q. Did you tind them all ? — A. I found them all. w Mr. MiciiAEr, Starrs sworn. By Mr. Mulock : Q. What is your business ? — A. I am a Contractor. Q. Wore you a member of the tirm of Starrs & O'Hanly ? — A. Yes. Q. Do 3'ou remember seeing an advertisement inviting tenders for building the G-raving Dofdc at Esquimalt ? — A. Yes. Q. Did j'our tirm tender for that work ? — A. Wo did. Q. Who piepared the tendei-? — A. Mr. O'llanly and myself. Q. Did anyone assist \'ou ? — A. No. Q. It was a tender on j-our own a(!Count for your own firm ? — A. Yes. Q. For your own benefit ? — A. Yes. Q. You remember sending in the tender to the Department? — Yes. Q. Do you remember when you sent it ? — A. Which tender do you speak of; the first or second ? Q. I am now speaking of the first tender. Do you remember the date of the first tender? — A. Not exactly. It would be the spring of 1884, if I roniemboi' well. Q. What is the date of the second tender ? — A. It would be the fall of the same year. Q. Y'"ou moan by the second tender the tender that was ]iut in afterwards when new tenders were invited ? — A. Yes. Q. I am speaking now of the tender that was put in in answer to the first advertisement. You remember sending in your tender ibr that work? — A. Yes. Q. Do you I'omeniber the amount of your tender? — A. I do not remember the amount exactly. It was something over §300,000. Q. Well that is not material. It was 8315,000-odd. You say Mr. O'llanlyand yourself piepared the tender? — A. Yes. Q. What was the first you heard in regard to the fate of your tender? — A. I know very little about it. I do not remember. Q. What was the first communication, verbally or otherwise that you had from the Department or any pei-son in connection with the Departmo-it in regard to your tender ? — A. I do not recollect that there was anything special said about it. The first tender was ignored ; it was not consideiod as far as I can remember. Q. Tell mo what you can remember about your first tender ? — A. I remember that we hoard that our tender was low. Q. Did you hoai- that from the Departments ? — A. No. I cannot say that it came tlirect from the Departments. Q. Did you leceivo a communication from the Department in regard to your tendei- at all ?— A. No. Q. Did you receive any communication from any person in the Department in regard to your tender ? — A. The first tender ? No. 1158 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Did you ever send any communication in regard to your first tender ? — A. I think not. Q. Did you ever send any notification that you had made some errors in your tender ? — A. That may have been the case. Q. Ave you not aware tliat yon communicated with the Department to tlio effect that yon had made some errors? — A. Aivnit the tender iicing too low ? Q. I do not say what tiie comphiint was. — A. I dt) not recollect. It may have been the case, but 1 do not recollect that. Q. Well, did you stand by your tender? — A, There is scarcely anything that I can recollect at all about the first tender. There wore only two tenders put in the first time, and there was no communication that I can remember between the Depart- ment and the contractors in reference to the first tender. Q. Do you remember writing to the Department asking to be at liberty to with- draw your tendei"? — A. I do not remember, but it niaj' be the case. Q. Do 3'ou remember asking the Departments to leturn your cheque which you had put in as a deposit with your tender ? — A. That would likely follow. Q. Do you not remember having had verbal commimication with the Depart- ment in regard to the return of your cheque? — A. Xo. Q. You do not? — A. I do not rcmemboi-. It may have been so. Q. Who on behalf of your firm attended to the business in connection with the tender? Who conducted the correspomlenco or verbal communication of the Depart- ment? — A. The correspondence was by my partner Mr. O'llanly. But thi- verbal communication was done with myself Q. Do you remember asking t<> have your cheque returned? — A. 1 ilo not remember. It is very likely that I did, though. i}. Do you remember asking to have j'our tender cancelled ? — A. Very likely. Q. What was the icason for that? — A. Wo thought we Avero rather low. Our tender was rather low, I su])pose. Q. Was that the reason ? — A. It must have boon. Q. Was it the reason? — A. I think bo. (^. Did you have any communication — did any person sugJ5,ost to you that you should withdraw your tender? — No answer. Q. Whei'e are your books of account in regard to this matter? — A. Wo have no books. (). No entries ? — A. No. Mr. D.wiKs — Let him answer your previous question. Q. Did anj' person suggest to you that you should withdraw j-our tender? — A. I have no recolloction of the first tender at all. There was so little talk about the first tenders that went in, I have no recollection of that partioular tender at ail. There was scarcely anything said about it either in the Department or outside. Q. Well thcn"lhe"^socond tender? Do you remember whether anybody sug- gested that you should withdraw j'our second tender or any tender ? — A. Yes. It was suggested that i should withdraw the second tender. Q. Who made that suggestion to you ? — A. Am I bound to ansAk'cr that qucst'on? The Cu.MUM.VN — Yes, sir. Witness — Well, Sir Hector. Bi/ 2fr. Milook : Q. Tell me the circumstances under which that suggestion was made ?— A. There was considerable circumstances in connection with that. Sir Hector sent for mo and I went up and seen him. He told me, of course, my tender was too low ar.vi he called in Mr. Perloy and talked the matter over. He discussed the question and suggested that 1 was entirely too low. ir By the Chairman : Q. He .sent for Mr. Perley, you say ?— A. Yes. 115!) Tf 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 By Mr. Mulock : Q. Where did this conversation take place ? — A. In Sir Hector's office. (^ Do you remember what Sir Hector said to you or have you told us all you remember ?— A. He told me several things in connection with it. I do not think it ia necessary for me to — The Cn4fiRMAN (Interrupting) — You had better say everything you know in connection with the matter. You are bound to do so. W1TNE88.--H0 went on to tell me that I knew myself there was a certain amount to l)e paid for plant and it was necessary to pay that S50,000, and that there was no getting out of it. He also told me that I could not expect any extras, that it was straight sailing, and so and so ; that the work had to be done, and taking the $50,000 that was to be paid for plant out of our total, there would not be enough left to complete the work. That is about the sum and substance of the conversation. Q. llail you any influence as a contractor? — A. A little. Q. Were you prepared to carry out your contract? — A. I was. Q. Were you able to cany it out ? — A. 1 think we could have had means to carry it out with friends to assist us. Q. Had you any means of your own ? — A. If wo had not Q. Did you put up your deposit ? — A. Yes; we did. If we had not means wo could not have put up the deposit. Q. What deposit did you put up with the tender? — A. I think it was $7,500 that the tender called for. (i. Did you comply with Sir Hector's I'cquest? — A. I did at last. Q. What do you mean by " at last " ? — A. At the wind up. Q. At that interview ? — A. He gave me three or four days to consider it, and I took up the balance of the deposit, amounting to §0,(»00 more, which made the total sum of $17,000. Q. You brought that at the time? Was it in money? — A. It was an accepted cheque. Q. Which with the original deposit of $7,500 would have made §17,000? — A. YeiJ. Q. AVhat did you do with that when you brought it to the Department ? — A. The first cheque went in with the tend'^r and the next I handed to Sir Hector himself. Q. Why did you hand that second cheque to Sir Hector? — A. Because we had the conver.sation. and he gave mo, as I have already stated, three or four days to consider. I was not anxio.is to take the work but my partner was and some friends, and as I told you before it was I who did the business with Sir Hector and I took the cheque up with me and handed it to him. Q. The answer you gave Avas that j'ou wished to withdraw ? — A. Yes. Q. Was there any inducement held out to you by any person ? — A. None whatever. Q. Sir Hector assured yf)U that if you got the contract the $50,000 for the plant would have to be paid and there would bo no exti-as ? — A. That is right. Q. And that it wai all plain sailing? — A. Yes. Q. That you need not look for anything above contract jjriccs? — A. I told Sir Hector I thought from the tone of his discussion he did not want me to take the work, and said : "Sir Hector, I believe our figures are enough to do the Avork, but I Bee that you do not feel inclined to give nio the work and consequently I will withdraw. " By Sir John Thompson : Q. Were you over in British Columbia ? — A. No. Q. Nor your pai-tncr ? — A. No. Q. And you never had built a work like that Dock? — A. No. By Mr. Amyot : Q. Did you feel capable of going on with the contract, and had you engineers at your disposal to go on with ? — A. It was not necessary. The Government supplied engineers. 1160 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 lit ■ill Mr. Stuakt — Our case is closcil. Mr. (Jeukkkion — I wish to call a witness or two in rebuttal. Robert H. McGreevy re-callod. had part By Mr. Geofrion : Q. Do you Icnow a man by the name of Foley — Martin Foley? — A. I do. Q. Had you occasion to see iiim in tlie course of the elections of 1887? — A. I (^ You have already stated you took part in that election ? — A. A very active Q. Namely, in the election of your bi-other Thomas? — A. Yes. Q. Do you know whether Foley took a part in that election also ? — A. Yes, a very active part. (^. Are you aware whether he had the handling of any money? — A. I do not know as a fact, except from a circumstanct' ijetwoon himself and mo, and as to what took place between us. Q. Did Foley come to you during that election ? — A. He did. ii. In connection with election matters ? — A. He did. Q. What did he state to j'ou ? — A. He stated to me the amount of mono}- he requiied for the district he controlled, and he stated tiie sum to be 81150 or there- abouts. Q. What did you answer him ? — A. I answered him to go to Mr. Murphy and possibly he would get what he required. Q. That was the nature of your conversation with him on this question ? — A. On that question, yes. Q. You did not accompany him to see Mr. Murphy ? — A. No. i}. Did you see him again during the election about some matters of this kind ? — A, I saw him every day and evening. Q. Did you see him after this afternoon ? — A. Yes. Q. Did you see him in charge of a district ? — A. Yes. Q. AVhat district ? — A. It comprised the Finlay Market, and Little Ciiamplain Street, and Sous Le Fort street. Q. That is the district he is supposed to control ? — A. Yes. Q. When Mr. Valin went to you had you reason to believe that ho thought j-ou had the management of part of the funds of the election ? — A. Well, he know I had control. Q. Will you explain to the Committee how you came in ]iossession of certain letters which were tiled by you in this Committee? — A. Any letters I tiled here belonging to Thomas McGreevy were those he handed to me to carry out the object mentioned in the letters and no other, and no other letters did lever see or get possession of, or did I handle or have at any time. Q. There was a letter written and signed by yt)ur brother Thonuis addiu.>sed to Mr. Perley which is not filed but to whicii an answ,er by Mr. Perley is tiled in this case. Have you any knowledge of the writing of a letter to Mr. IVrley ? — A. Some time previous to the tenders being put in for the Esquimalt Dock, British Columbia, I asked Thomas McGreevy if he could get me any turtlier information than is con- tained ill the specifications submitted and lie said no doubt he could from Mr. Perley. Says he " Write down what you want me to ask him and I will sign the letter."' I got the letter written and he signed it; after that a reply came from Mr. Pi'rley, and he handed to me the letter and says he "there is more information than you want- ed." Tliere is a i)hotograph of some of the work. Q. Mr. Thomas McGreevy has stated that ho received from you, in the fall of 1884. 810,000. Will you state whether you made such a payment at that date ? Counsel objected. Objection sustained, lltJI ;H' TTT I 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. ],) A. 1891 fhj Mr. Oiiimet : * Q. You waid thiit you had that lotfor written to Mi'. Thomas Mcdroovy stntini( what information you wanted ? — A. Yi'h. Q. Who wrote that letter? — A, I either wrote it mj'nelf or i,'oi one of my nohh to write it. Q. You do not reniomher ? — A. No ; I dictated the letter no doubt. lii/ Sir John Thompson : Q. You say ^-ou saw your brother sign it? — A. Yoh, sir. Jiy Mr. Ouimet : Q. You do not romembor wiio wrote it, whether it was yourself or your son ?— A. It was either myself or one of my sons. By il/r. Davies : Q. I want to ask you a question with lespect to that 810,000 ? Objection was raised, but after some discussion tlic question was allowed to bo put. Q. You have hoard the statement made by your brother that he did not receive 822,0(10 from you at the time you stated, but that ho received $10,000 afterwards in the fall. Have you an}- statement to make with res])ect to that 810,000. I do not want you to repeat what you have already said, but simi)ly to make your statement with reference to the 810,000 he alleges he reeeived from you in the fall ? — A. I gave him no 810,000 in the fall; I gave him. no sum in the fall except as already stated in my evidence. By Mr. Geoffrion : Q. Wlien I was questioning you about the manner in which you came into \)0S- session of certain letters, I foi-got to ask you also whether you had an}' explanation to give in conneclioii with a statement made by your brother, that ho believes you must have taken the letters written by you to him. What statement have you to make? — A. I have never seen the letters I wrote to him after I sent them to him. Q. And (hey are not in your possession? — A. They are not, and never liavo been; and I further state that I never had the key of the Post Office box; I never used it. .My son has discovei-ed this blotter, ami I want to produce it. This is the missing blotter covering the period from 18S.^ to 188(). The Chairman — It is too late. This book should have been in the possession of the Accountants. The Witness — Mr. Chairman, I promised to get this book when my son came from the bush, and after he came he found it. It was my son found it, not me. Q. Since when have j'ou had it in your possession? — A. Since he came from the bush ; he found it. Q. When ? — A. About a week ago. He got summoned here as a witness, when he found it. Sir John Thompson — This is all the witness was required by Mr. Thomas ^Ic- Greevy's Counsel to produce. He has now brought it, and Counsel have an oppor- tunity to use it if they please. Mr. Sti.art — I decline to cross-examine the witness. Sir .loHN Thompson — Counsel for the defence are otforod an inspection of the book which is now produced, and if they decline to do it I think Mr. ^McGreevy should take it back. Mr. Fitzpatrick — We do not decline to take it. Mr. Stuart declines to cross- examine the witness. The Witness — There was a question here the other day about 86,050 for North- West lands, and it was sought to be made out that 81,000 of this Avas what I gave to Thomas McGreevy for Ottawa. I have a paper here (Exhibit "J 17") showing that il had no connection with the 8(J,050. That was for North-West lands only. 11(52 ! 54 Victoria. Apj.)en(lix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 Bij the Chairman ; Q. Wlioro (lid yoii jjot tlmt Htutomont? — A. \ got it in 1887. Q. When did you find it? — A. I only found it since i wont down ilio hint tinio. Jiy Mr. Ouimet. Q. At whiit duty, Mr. .McGriovy, was that transaction wliicli is montionod in tlmt papor (Kxhihit " JH.") ?— A. May 188!». Q. With what is it conncctod ?— A. It was sought to cstuliiish horo that that 81.000 givon for Ottawa, in 1884-5, was jiart of this 8(!,050 for North-West lands, ThoHo woro lands which I had purchased from Thomas McGroevy. Wo hud them on shares and I liought him out after our quarrel, and gave .Mr'. Chaloner a cheque for 80,050. It has boon sought to be ostahlishod the last time f was here as a witness that the 81,000 1 gave Thomas McGreovy tor Ottawa was part of thlK money, whereas the transaction took place three years before. I Mr. Robert McGreevy, Jr., sworn. By Mr, Geoff rion : Q. Do 3-ou know .\[r. Herbert Cai-bray, of (^ueliec? — A. [ do, sir. Q. Were you in Quebec during the general elections of 1887 V — A. I was. Q. Did you see Mr. Carbru}' during that election ? — A. I did. Q. Will you stale to the Committee under what circumstances ? Objection was taken that the evidence was not material, and Mr. GcotlVion there- upon withdrew his question and the witness was dischargefl. Mr. J. Israel Tarte, M.P. sworn. ♦ By Mr. Amyot : Q. I want to know if these papers connected with the case were given to you by Mr. Murphy or Robert McGreevy tor any other jmrposo tlian that of showing them to the Ministers anil trj'ing to come to a settlement between the pai'ties interested? — A. If j-ou allude to the first paj)crs, I will answer that they were givei. to me to be shown to Sir John Macdonald. Q. For no other purpose than that? — A. No. Mr. G\\RTE. — Mr. Chairman, I ask that the following letters and papers, ]iro- duced this morning by Mr. Woods, be marked as Exhibit-: and printed with the Evidence, viz. : (Exhibit "K17.") " Harbouh Enoineer's Office, '• Quebec, 2;^rd December, 1880. " Sir, — Owing to the death of Mr. John Edward Boyd, Engineer in charge, it has become necessary for the future conduct and management of the works in progress, and about to ta undertaken in connection with the Harbour Improvements, to ett'ect changes in the Engineering staff. " After due consideration, I have concluded that it is not desirable that a successor should be appointed to fill the vacancy caused by the demise of the late Mr, Boyd, as I believe the present staff is sufficiently large and the members capable of con- ducting the works in a satisfactory manner. " 1 have, tliei-efbre, to recommend the following as my staff for the futui'e,_ or until a necessity arises for increasing or reducing their number, or of dispensing with their services entirely. "Mr. St. George Boswell to be Ecsident Engineer, at a salary of 82,500 per iv.mum. 1163 m\ I >i I ,1, i. 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 " Mr. C. McGreevy to be Assistant Engineer, Cross-wall Contract and Walls in connection therewith, at a salary of $1,800 per annum. ■' Mr. H. Laforce Langc In to be Assistant Engineer, South-wall Contract, at a salary ofSl,800 per annum. "All appointments and salaries to date from the 1st Januarj-, 1887. " I am, Sir, " Your obedient servant, "HENRY F. PERLEY, ^^ Chief Engineer " A. H. Vekeet, Esq., " Secretary-Treasurer, Harbour Commissioners." (Exhibit "L17.") "Larkin, Connolly & Co., CoNxaACTORs, "Quebec Harbour Improvements. "Quebec, 8th Feb., 1887. "The Honourable Board of Harbour Commissioners, " Quebec. " Gentlemen, — Wo would respectfully call your attention to the final estimate on dredgini^, and would beg leave to state that we cannot accept the same as final as, according to our accounts, we are entitled to over $13,000.00 more than has been allowed, and would kindly ask you to authorize your Engineer to check over the accounts together with our Engineer, so as the eiTor maj- be corrected. " We are, most respectfully yours, "LARKIN, CONNOLLY k Co." (Exhibit "M17.") {Cofiy.) " 22nd February, 1887. " Gentlemes, — Your letter of the 8th to the Commissioners in re the quantity of di-edging done Ly you has been sent to me. I have requested Mr. Bosweil to gc go over the quantity with your Engineer, and if any error be found I will be ready to correct it. " I may tell you that when going over thi^^ matter, I found that Mr. Boyd had made an error whereby you were over-paid some $13,000.00, and this may account ibr the smallness of th* amount fouml to be due to you. " Yours obediently, (Signed) " HENRY F. PERLEY. " Messrs. Larkin, Connolly & Co., " Quebec." (Exhibit " N17.") "Harbour En(3ineer's Oj^pice, " Quebec, 14th March, 1887. " A. II. Verret, Esq., " Secretary-Treasurer, " Harbour Commissioners. "Sir, — Under date 22nd January l;ist, I tritnsmittcd estimate 20 and final for dredging, kc, done by Messrs. Larkin, Connolly & Co., under a coniract dated 25th Scp*3mber, 1882, and under subsequent arrangements, in connection with the har- bour works, and accoi'ding to that paper then forwai'dod I stated that the sum of $074.87 was due. " On the 12th February, you transmitted to n>e a copy of a letter from Messrs. Larkin, Connolly & Co., in which they stated ih' >•' could not accept my estimate as final, as according to their accounts they worn lUitied to receive a much larger 1164 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 amount, and they asked that the account bo checked by their Engineer, and an Engineer on behalf of the Commissioners. " This has been done, and though no erroi was found in the quantity of work done, yet errors were found in the prices affixed to sundry items of vork, whereby the sum of five cents per cubic yard had been deducted and retained fiom the prices mentioned in the contract of September, 1882, which prices were to apply to all work done over and beyond the amount stipulated in said contract, and also in classifying the quantities of work done at ditt'erent depths. " In making up my estimate ?f January last, I adopted these reduced prices, because I found that the late Mr. Boyd had used them in the progress estimates he had given from time to time, and was not aware that there was any dispute as to correctness. " On enquiry I find that the late Mr, Boyd retained ' live cents per cubic yard ' from all materials dumped into the river, doing so with the hope tiiat the eon- tractors would place a greater quantity in the embankment at the larger price, where a benefit would be derived. " As I am 'if the opinion that the contractors are entitled to be paid this ' live cents per cubic yard,' I enclose herewith an amended final estimate showing that the sum of 817,056.27 is due; and I may here state that this sum 's arrived at as follows : " Amount paid on contract work S138,8'16 00 do do extra S17 1««3. Oct. 31. " paid them acct. v()te,24 for work done S2,0(H» 00 Nov. .5. " balance of note. 13,970 iMi 15,!t7(i ilO 1H85. I'eb. 17. Paid I'nion Bank on of acct. 10 IH-r cent, drawback 25,000 00 _18H7. Sept. l(i. " Bank of B. X. America jiart of final certificate 77,f<87 18 PiiitI Acconntx tig folluvs, 1S87. Oct. 1. Additions to Kn- gine-house .S4,285 "fi IHHH. April 7. Dreilering d ii ring S-pt., 1887.... 7,107 70 A]iril7. LalMui,' for booms. . 7!)i( 20 Ai.riir Kl. light aj.paratus. 2,500 00 June30. TonttHjn. 2,7iJO m 17,502 m Mav29. Topaidatct.sett'nt. .«il2,0(K) 00 .Tune27. do .. %\im 00 Jiuie.SO. do 10,000 00 57,000 00 188!). .Sei)t.25. I'.iid balance of (Jraving Dock funds in tlie hands of Com- missioners 3,1()0 88 1880. July 1. To balance due L., C. & Co. this date, .and foi- which a letter of recogni nance has been given bearing interest at <>% l>t-r annum 8,,528 71 "5; I 720,901 05 ^ a57,0<10 00 = 3,-»(Ji> 88 .= I 8,528 71 I r 08,995 59 5, i 3,095 59 Lens Interest. •j: ■ •■= i .S(!5,900 00 = 1 By total amount of main and sujiple- inentary contracts claimeil at *841,241.98 and settled at. " Accounts not included in tliis settle- ment ■ • • • " Interest on final certificate of 830,- SKK) from 24th .Ian., 1887 " 9 months interest on -iill, 479.03, balance due Oct., 18.S8, to ,Tuly, 1889, atO% 8 cts. 70e.3a3 40 17,502 CO 2,579 03 516 5(> 720,901 ()5 (Signed) JAS. WOODS, Acting Secy.-Treas. " Quebec, July 1, 1889. (Exhibit "X17") A. H. Verbet, Ei*q., — "Sec.-Treas., Harbour CommiBsiou, " Quebec. "Dear Sir, — We would kindly request that, if at all convenient, the balanoo due on the Levis Gi-aving Dock, be paid us as soon as possible, as we are very much in need of funds. " Very respectfully yours, ■^" LARKIN CONNOLLY & CO. 1170 ])er M. P. CoNNOLbv. 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 5<> (Exhibit "Y17") Memo. 1880. KiNiPPLE & Morris. Aug. 26. — ^To paid them for preparing detailed contract draw- ings, printed specifications, detailed quantities, conditions, form of tender of the proposed Cross- wall, of the estimate cost of £43,000 Stg., © 2i £1,075 Os. Od., (a>8| .: §5,195 83 (Exhibit "Z17") lUemo. Amount paid to John E. Boyd. 1883.— To cash 6 months § 750 00 1884.— do 12 do 1,500 00 1885.— do 12 do 2,000 00 1886.— do 11 do 1,875 00 86,125 00 (Exhibit "A18.") Statement of Account presented by Messrs. Larkin, Connollyjifc Co. in connection with the construction, &e.. of the Graving Dock at L^vis, Quebec. Enclosed in Mr. Perley's Keport of 24th January, 1887. 10 11 12 13 14 15 ic. 17 IS ]!> 20 21 22 23 24 2;") 2<> 27 2S 2!) 30 .'?iis,(;(ii.73' 22,72r).n7 2,4].j.25 Aiiioimt of ctiiitract dated Aug. 17tli, 187S Kxtras < m cDiitract Auxilliary flam do do do do Amount as per supjdcnifiital contract, 4th June, 1SS4. do for erection of caisson do for comjileting and placing of keel-l)lock», &c do for tunnel from engnie-liouse to wharf do for brick building built on site of works do for loss sustaineflin not carrying out tlie contract for construction of crib on west side of (Jovernment wharf after i«)rtion of the materials had been delivered on works and estimated by Mr. I'ilkington .... Amount for additicmal cut stcme furnished and used in construction of doc'k alx>ve what is shown on plans, or as originally intended to Iw built Amount for cut stont^ left on account of shortening dock ">,") feet do for conveying surplus stone to |H)ints designated by Engineer in charge, anil as iH.'r clause 2 of the s|)ecification, folio 120 ' Amount for two stones in wing walls for in.scriptions ... do for loss sustained by storm 17th Aug., 1870 for lalKHir taking soiuulings for additional dredging in trenches for placing, maintaniing and removing pumps dming two years for errors ui teiulers. pages 71 and 72 do page '.17 for interest on moneys due for constructing resevoir in engine-house for additional fastenings in eais.son works for coal furnished for main pumps for additional concrete caisson chamber and east wing wall for materials furnished for comiiletion of the caisson for dressing ashlar in wing walls to raduis of 200 feet for excavations in foundation chimney for additional clay in trench in line of wharf _ • • for ivdditional foiit in depth of dock through error of Messrs. Kinipple & .«!330,!).")3 SO 40,(l.")0 74 143,742 O.-) 04,0S0 IH) 10,()(M) (Kt 1.350 (M) .-),247 30 ,"),0 do do do do do do do do do do do do do Morris in establisiiing datinn .A.niount for damages sustained for deduction, salaries, maintenance at Levis and tlie cpiarries of orgaui/.ation Total amount claimed . 1171 32,31S 13 tj,m 50 5,111 00 .SHI) 40 4S1 50 SO 70 ',170 IM) 5,.5(«l IH) 3,030 IH) I.IHM) IN) 1,07S 05 l,40'.l 07 7S 30 570 00 3,.S43 41 f.13 01 25'.l 1)0 07 20 2.5l> 34 3.5,000 00 iio,im;o 00 5i 814,241 08 Ik 1— 74J I m 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 liii (Exhibit "B18") Memo. Amount paid to Henry F. Perley. 1884, January 15th. To cash 81,000 00 1885, April 27th. do 1,250 00 188G, September 22nd. do i 1,000 00 1887, March 15th. do 1,000 00 1888, January 3rd. do 1,500 00 1889, January 8ih. do 1,500 00 8., 250 00 (Exhibit " C18.") ~ Ottawa, 4th August, 1891. HARBOUR COM.MISHIOXKRS' REVENUE STATEMENT. Revenue. Expenditure. •S Ct8. .•? cts. 187(i 75,040 .-)7 .53,407 7(> 1877 80,020 1(> ()(),3i)5 83 (i.S,254 05 1878 ,57,!Mi5 88 187it (i4,721 45 58,!MJ0 (i() 188(1 7(i,7(>5 07 01,5.32 45 1881 (-.8,033 (i8 (i0,258 4(i 1882 50,854 27 60,4;« 00 188.S (i(!,504 82 53,3;i0 37 1884 54,7()8 85 53,381 83 1885 54,178 22 5(!,42(i 4(! wm 50,417 .34 .54,.303 27 1887 ,53,032 .5(i 55,.3;^5 13 1888 53,4,58 14 48,758 70 188!) .■).5,07O 07 (13,485 42 .52,,584 11 1800 57,,S20 42 0,53,454 45 853,771 .54 Ottawa, 5th August, 1891. (Exhibit " D18") Interest Statement. Quebec Harbour Debentures — Old debt 8 723.000 00 New debt 2,800,000 00 $3,529,000 00 Interest annually at 4 per cent 141,160 00 Arrears of interest to 1st of July, 1891 259,319 31 (Exhibit " E18 ") Memo. Amounts paid to St. George Boswell. 1883— To cash, 12 months 8 1,250 00 1884— do 12 do 1,500 00 1885— do 12 do 1,500 00 188«— do 12 do 1,791 62 1887— do 12 do 2,333 28 1888— do 12 do 2,500 00 1889— do 13 do 3,000 00 1890— do 12 do 3,000 00 1891— do 6 do 1,500 00 18,374 90 1172 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 (Exhibit "F18.") HARBOUR IMPROVEMENTS, QUEBEC. Final Estimate of work done and materials supplied, kc, by Messrs. Larkin, Con- nolly iS: Co., in and for the construction and completion of the Ci-raving Dock at St. Joseph de Lauzon, Levis, Quel)OC. ■(; I'll 1 I 'l No. I of Itl'lll. Dpscrii>tion of Work and Materials. liiiaiitity. ! Ainoiuit as [H-r coiitiiict dated 17tii August, 1K7S i Add, for miiission in itciii for sliei't iiilcs in cotfcr-dam, luiin,' itciii; I No. IH in claim presfnted liy .Messrs. Larkin, Connolly & Co.. Add, for olcrical error in Item for layintf diH.'k copinKs, lielni? item 1 S'o. lit in claim presented by Messr-s. Larkin, Connolly it Co. . Deduct amount .specified in contr.ict dated I'tli .\ns;ust, 187H, for work done l)y the Comunssioners prior to signing said contract, viz., I(),4!t7 cubic yards of excavation, at tiOc Aniount of extras in connection with tiie Dock, as |)er supplemental contract dated 4th .fune. 1S,S4 i Amount expended in connection with the auxiliary dam, as |>er supple- mental contract dated 4tii .Tune, 18X4. ... Amount furtlier sum in connection witli the auxiliary dam, as [K-r suiiplemental contiact dated 4tli .lunc, 1SS4 Amount for completintf work, as ] per supplemental contract dated 4th .Tune, 1HS4 Amount for erection and completion of caissons, as per supplemental contract dated 4th .Tune, ISS4 * cts. 330,!)."i3 8il 3,024 !I0 4,(I(K) 00 337,1178 7!» i I (!,:>i)8 20 Amount for completiuR and placing keel l)lock.s, &c. 8 Amoun do !l do 10 do 11 do 12 do 13 do 14 do 15 do 10 do 17 do 18 d) 1!) do 20 do tunnel from enj^nie-luaise to wh.arf . brick buildinff erected for cement siieil extra dimensions of stone furnished and used inscription stones on winji walls lalHiur supi)licd to the eng'ineers. .. . ... ...... us«' of pumps during two years constructing reservoir in engine liouse .additional fastenings in caisson chambi-r coal furnislied for main jHunps additional concrete cais.son chamlx'r and east wing wall.. materials furnislied for completion of cais.son dressing ashlar in portion of wing walls to a circular face extra work due to an error of one f4,080 (N) HUMXl OO .")0,241 02 040.403 40 o(i2,ol() 22 877,887 18 (24th January, 1887.) HENRY F. PERLEV, Chief Engineer, Harbour Works, Quehec. Note in Red Ink. " A certificate for that aniount was granted the 5th April, 1887, to Messrs. Laikin, Connoliv & Co., bearing interest at the'rate of G per cent, per annum from the 24th Januarj' last, payable out of the tirst monies winch will be voted by Parliament in connection with the Graving Dock. " Paid with interest the'lGth September, 1887, to Bank of British North America." 1173 ^ L 64 Victona. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 111 if- Mr. Tabte. — The following is iv synopsis of the reniaindor of the letters and papers filed by Mr. Woods this morninif. In ray opinion it ih not necessary that they should bo printed, viz. : Letter dated 26th September 1883, from Larkin, Connolly \- Co. to Quebec Harbour Commissioners requesting to be allowed to construct a store house on the Louise Embankment under certain conditions mentioned therein, (Kxhibit "GIB"); Notarial protest dated 6th December, 1884, Quebec Harbour Commissioners vs. Larkin, Connolly & Co., (Exhibit "1118.") ; Letter dated Dtli December, 1884, from Larkin, Connolly & Co. to Quebec Harbour Commissioners in reply to foregoing, (Exhibit "118.") ; Joint report dated 27th February, 1886, of Messrs. H. F. Perlev and Sandford Fleming on their examination of the Harbour Works at (iuobec,' (Exhibit " J18.") ; lloport (copy) dated 18th August, 1886, of H. F. Perley in reference to the works proposed for the completion of the Quebec Harbour works, (Exhibit "K18.") ; Letter dated 2r)th August, 1886, from Secretary Department Public Works to Secretary Harboui' Commission, trans- mitting copy of a repoi't and plan inade hy the Cliief Engineer of the Department with leference to the various proposals made for the completion of the Quebec Harbour Works, (Exhibit "L18.") ; Letter dated 24th September 1886, from Henry F. Perley to Quebec Harbour Commissionei-s, stating that the frraving Dock being practically finished the necessity for maintaining an Engineering staff in connection therewith has ceased aiid requests therefore that Mr. L. Langevin be transferred to the Harbour Works and that the services of Inspec- tors be dispensed with. (Exhibit "M18.") ; Engineer's certificates from No. 1 to 39 inclusive in connection with Ldvis Graving Dock, (Exhibit "N18.") ; Letter dated 8th February, 1887, from Laforce Langevin to Secretary Harbour Coni- mission, calling his attention to the way Canadian Pacific Eailway Auth critics act towards the Commissioners, regarding the Louise Kmbankment during the present winter, (Exhibit "018.") ; Report dato1) saying in substance that they did not require to strengthen themselvos financially and that they had tho necessary means lo perform tho contract, thoy added that they would be ready to sign the con- tract on Monday (13th) and make the necessary deposit, which evidently thoy had not then made. On tho Monday, l.'Jth of October, I recommended to Council (pages 92 and 93) to accept Mossis, Starrs and O'llanly's tender provided they made the necessary deposit of 89,500 to bo added to that of 87,500 already made as mentioned in their letter of tho lOtli. I thus showed my desire that they should have tho contract. On the lOlh an Order in Council was passed accordingly. On tho 21st, Mr. Starrs not having appeared from the day ho and his partner had Avritton their letter of the 10th, and at, I wished to have the contract signed, the Secretary of tho Department wrote to Mr, Starrs (page 91 of the Evidence), asking him to be good enough to call at the Department at once re Esquimalt Graving Dock. Mr. Starrs came to the Department, and il' he is not mistaken about tho cheque he speaks of, ho evidently carried it back with him as he did not leave il with mu and ho was not ready to sign the contract, and did not sign it. The fact is, on the 24th, a letter was received from .Siossrs. Starrs and O'llanly (page 37 of tho Blue Book, (Kxhibit " N 5") in which they say they find thoy had made a mistake in some of tho items in their tender and find their prices generally too low. They consider it therefore not prudent to take the contract, and that it would not be in the public interest if they wore to do so. They lliereforo bog to withdraw their tender and request to have their tleposit cheque returned. Their cheque was accordingly roturneil to them on the 2Tth. It the contract did not go to Messrs Starrs and O'llanly, it is evidently due to their not wishing to have it, they having, as they say, made mistakes in their tendei' and finding their prices generally too low. liy Mr. Davies : Q. The second tondei Starrs & O'llanly. ii. After 3'ou reported to Council did you send for Mr. Starrs ? — A Q.* By letter ?— A. By letter, Q. From tho Secretary of the Dopaitment ? — A. Yes. Q. That was on tho 2lBt October ?— A. The 21st, 1 think. Q. And Mr. Starrs came to your office in pursuance of that letter ? — A. Yes. Q. Was that on the 2-ltli ?— A. It was between the 21st and the 2-tth, I think. Ho must have come either that day oi- the next day. Q. I see the letter in which he withdraws his tender and asked for tho return of the deposit cheque on the 24th is addressed to you. I undenstund he sent the letter withdrawing on the day he had the interview with you ? — ,\. I cannot say. Q. Is it true that he withdrew on the same day that ho hinl the interview with 3'ou ? — A. I cannot say whether it was the 24th, 2:iril or 22nd. Q. You ai'O not clear whether that letter withdrawing the second tender wa.s written on the day he had the interview with you or not ? — A. No. It maj' be so. When I received the letter of the 24th I was quite surprised that he had sent it, because I expected him to come himself. Q. Do I understand you to swear that you did not suggest to him to with- draw? — A. I did not. On tho contrary I was desirous of him taking tho contract. Q. His statement in that respect then is untrue ? — A. He must be mistaken. Q. It is untrue at any rate? — A. He is not correct. 1176 you reported to Council in favour of it? — A. In favour of Yes. 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 11' Q. Is hi8 statomont ti'iio that when lit> wont to moo yon at tlint tinu'j'ou told him his tondcr was too low and you oailod in Mr. Policy to talk tho matter over? — A. It is not HO. When lio camo — t^. I am askinj,' cato^orically in it'f,'urd to certain spocitic statoniontH. Sir .FoiiN Tiio.mi'son. — I would suj^t^cst that Mr. Daviot allow Sir Jloclorto .inish l,is answor i when ho ilosirow to maUo an explanation, permit him to do so. Wir.NKss. — My answer is this ; when Mr. .Starrs camo in I ran^' my Ik'II to liavo ^Ir. I'orloy nmo. iCithor ho brought witii him his report, or I told the mossengor to toll him to hrinfj; it in. Ho brought it in and then I reail to Mr. Starrs that j)or- tion of tho report of Mi-. Poiley that related to his tender. In that report Mr. I'erloj' stated — 1 am not giving tho o.vact words — but in i-tfoct th:it tho lender was too low and I think, that thoy could hardly do the work for the money. V- '^" y*'" '*i'"t *""■ ^I'"- l*oi'l«3', you got him there, and road 1 < Mr. Starrs Mr. IVrloy'h rojiort that the tender was too low an 1 that Starrs coul . not do tho work for tho money? — A. There is no doubt about it, I read him that. Q. Mr, Starrs in his evidence says (page ll.'ili) " Sir Hector sent for me and I wont up and seen him. Ho told me of course that my teiulor wa^too low." Is that correct ? — A. No. (i. This interview took place in your office? — A. In my otKce — Yes. There may have been a discussion but 1 did not toll him ho was too low becau8eofcour.se I knew nothing about that. i}. You have sworn that you i-oad to him tho report of your Kngineer that the (ender was too low? — A. Yes, but I could not tell him that, because I did not know it myself. (I. Starrs goes on to saj', " He went on to loll mo that I knew myself thoi'o was a certain amount to bo paid for plant and it Avas neces.sary to pay that 8.50,000, and that there was no getting out of it." Hid you tell him that ?— A. Xo. The 850,000 was montioued in Mr. Porley's ro])ort and that was road to him. (^. 1 did not ask you about tho report? — A. I am tolling you what was done. Q. You are swearing directly opposite to a witness ami I want you to answor — yes or no. I ask you did you toll Starrs, as ho swears, that there was no getting out of the payment of this $50,000 ? — A. I letter that he received some ihn-s afterwards. The letter told him that the Minister gave him until the eleventh to decide, and to stiengthen himselt financially, and to state whether he was ready to sign the contract. I never stated that in the interview with him. *l. That is your version ? — A. Yes. Q. Starrs further says ; •• I told Sir Hector ! thought from the tone of his dis- cussion that he did not want me to take the contract." Did he tell you that? — A. I do not remember that at all, if he did tell mo that. 1 was quite surprised after- wartls when he sent me a letter stating he would give up the contract. (^. Never mind saying what you were suri)rised at. Can you or can you not swear he made that statement to you : " I told Sir Hector I th(»ught from the tone of his discussion th'.:' he did not want me to take the contract " ? — A. No. Q. What d(j you mean — that you deny you do not recollect ? — A. I do not recollect his havitiy- said so. Q. Youaienotso strong in your memory that you are prepared to deny his statement ? — A. I do not believe it. (■l- 1 am simply asking you. is your momoiy so clear that you arc prepared to deny Ids statement ci oath? — A. I cannot say every word of a conversation that took place se\ 3n or eight years ago — I canii' *: say that. He seems to be very clear about that but he was not so clear about the other matter. I see that he remembered notb.ing at all. <^. 1 am asking you, nv you in a position to conti'adict hint from your memory? — A. Yes: I will sav wh}- — because he cannot remember it in that way. He has 1178 W^' 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 mixed the conveiTition with the letter about the three or four clays, and therefore I must recollect it in that way. That is what I say. Q. Then you have not got a clear recollection about it, but by reasoning it out you think it could not have been so? — A. Yes. Q. But you have no clear recollection yourself? — A. That is as far as 1 say. Q. Then he goes on to say further that he told you : '• Sir Hector, I believe our figures are enough to do the work, but I see that you do not feel inclined to give me the work, and consequently I will withdraw." — A. I have Just answered that. <^. No, you have not answered that. — A. I answer it in the same wa}-. (i. Are 3'ou in a position to swear that statement is incorrect — thai he die! not make that statement lo you ? — A. Yes. Q. You contradict him tlatly on that f— A. Yes; 'ic did not tell me that. Q. Or anything in substance equivalent to that?- ,V. No. Q. You catcgoi'ically deny he used these words, do you? — A. Yes. Q. You won't deny the substance of it ? — A. If he says that, he is mistaken. Q. You categorically deny that he used these words. I ask you it you are pre- pared to deny he used words equivalent to them, the substancu of them ? — A. I do not think he did Q You won t go further than that ? At that time who drew uji the letter? — A. What letter ? Q. The letter which he signed ? — A. Mr. Starrs and O'llanly signed it. Q. He signed it, did he ? — A. 1 believe so. Starrs iuid O'Hanly. Q. Do you remember the drafting of the letter ? — A. No. Q. Are you in a position to swear. Sir Hector Langevin, that letter was not drawn up in your Department at the time ? — A. It may have btjen drawn in the Department but I knew nothing about it. (I. Will you swear that letter was not drawn up in your nffivu at the time this conversation took place? — A. At the time? No. (^ AVhat do you mean by "no'" that you do not racDllect, or tin.; you are in u rosition lo swear it did not take place ? — A. It was not written in mv nttiff. Q. You swear that positively ? — A. Positively. Q. Was it written in the Department ? — .\. That 1 do not know. Q. 1 judge from your statement you are pre|)ared lo swear you l,:id no part or lot in in the drawing up of that letter ? — A. No. (I. Thiit you did not in "ly sense or way ask him to write it ? — A. No. Q. You swear you did no "ask him to write any such letter ? — A. No. he must have written it himself, Itecause, as 1 slated just now, when his letter came 1 was quite astonished to see it. Q. That is not an an^wer to my (luestion Sir Hector ?— A. I answered it. Q. I ask 3-ou are you in a position to swear you diil not sugge-t to him to write that letter ?— A. I did not. Q. And if he wiote the letter it was after that suggestion from you ?— A. Q. You did not attempt to tell him what to jnit in the letter? — A. No. (^. You swear tliiit y,Hi did not know whiit he wa^ to juit in the letter?— .\. 1 do. (l So far as you are concerned this letter was written without your knowledge, without in any sense your suggesting that it shoidd be written and Nvilhout vour suggesting its contents? — A. It was. Q. Vou swear that positively ? — A. Yes. (I. Did you see any other parties sup|)osed to be in O'Haidy, wilh reference to this contract for which they remember. (}. I will give you a name — Manning — Do yo\i remem ning of where? Q. Manning of Toronto, contractor?— A. I do not remeinbei'. q. Purcell— Patrick Purcall ?— \.. No, I do not rcmeinlier. Q. .loiin Shields?— A. No, I do not think so. 1179 il! Y. lie interest ot' Starrs & tender ? — A. 1 do not ilier Mannin: -A. -Man- ^■t 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 i i:i Q. AVere you to see any of these parties or were their naniOH suggested to yon by eillier Mr. Starrs or Mr. O'llanly as men who would back thorn up, tliat is Manning, SiiieUis or Patricic Puree!!? W^ere either of those tiireo names suggested to you by Starrs ^c O'llanly or either of them as men wlio were ju'epared tol>ac!'? — A. Nottliat I can recollect. (^. There was some conversation as to the demand made b}' the Department, that the firm should tinancially strengthen themselves? — A. Yes. (^. Yon had some personal convei'sation with Mr. Starrs in addition to the letter suggesting that they should strengthen themselves? — A. Perhaps there was. But I Avas under the impression that the tenderers were not men of tinaucial strength and that was the reason they wrote ^he letter. Q. Kxactly. You think that the chances are you might have suggested — do you recollect that you did suggest to them the desirability of slrengthening them- selves by associating with them some financial man that was strong? A. That may be, 1 do not say no. Q, I nnderstanil you to say that you swear distinctly you have no recollection of any conversation v/ith Manning, Patrick Pnrceil or John Shields; that you had no eonversiition with them or any of them respecting this tender of Messrs. Starrs and O'llanly, as to backing up the tender of that firm? — A. 1 do not remember any- thing about it whatever. t^. I am ordy asking from a memorandum of instructions that I received upon this point, that you did see these gentlemen, and you swear that you do not recol- lect seeing them, atter you lead the report of the J-'ngineer in Chief? — A. I cannot remendter that. (»>. Y(: the comple- IISU 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 tion of the Dock be awarded to them." Xow, Sir Hector, tliat vvas apjjroved, and your raemorandum was dated tlie 13th of October. The Privy Council meeting took place on the 16th of October, and you told the Coniinittce, I think, juht now that you were anxious that they should have the tender? — A. Yes. (I. Very well. On the 21st you wrote to Mr. Starrs askin<.' him to call for the purpose of encouroginy him, and you read him Mr. Perley's J'eport ? — .\. It was not then; it was previous to the passing of the Order in Council that the interview took place. Q. Are you sure about that ? — A. Yo>. (I. Now, you know the Order in Council I am referring to? — A. Ve-*. Q. The Order in Council awarding the contract to Starrs and O'JIanly? — A. Yes; I do no' know whether you iiave there my letter upon which he came — it was the 7th October. Q. No ; it wp,s the 21st of October ? — A. There was a letter of the "th of Octobe;- which brought him to this interview, at Avhich I read him the report of Mr. Perley. 0. Here is a letter dated. Public Woiks Dei)artment, Ottawa, 21st October, 1884 — that is after tiie Order in Council was passed — "'Michael Stairs, Clarence Street, Otiavva. Will you be good enough to call at this Department at once re Ksquimalt Graving Dock. (Sgd) F. II. Knnis." Yon know about that letter? — A. Yes. Q. What happened about this? — A. lie came and saw me. Q. Did you encourage him then? — .V. I encouraged him then. The Order in Council was ])assed and 1 was waiting for him to go on with the contract. Q. Did you send for Mr. Perley? — A. No; I clo not tiiink so — it was not neces- H,'u y, the Order in Council was passed. Q. What did you do? — A. At the interview? — I cannot say the exact words. My object was to have him there and sec whether during the last 11 days — that is the 11 days following the date of his letter in answer to the letter of the Tth ; he had been 11 days without giving any re]ily — f- I wisiied to ki\ow whether he wa-^ ready to sign the contract for which I bail obtained the Order in Council. Well he was not ready, and a few days afterwards, on the 2-lth, he wrote this letter saying that the price was too low and he could not take it. (.1. Was the conversation which yr)U mentioned a while ago, on this occasion — was that after the Order in Council ? — A. Xo. Q. You are ([uite sure it was bcfci'!? — A. Yes; I am quite sure. Q. Well, now, this letter of Starrs and O'llanly was dated on the 24tli of October? —A. Yes. Q. That is the letter in which they state they wish to withdraw their tender — do yon know whether it was received on the day that it is dated — it was addressed to yourself? — A, 1 thiidc it was received that day. (■}. Were you very anxious to have it disposed of — to have their withdrawal accepted, as soon as they bail withdrawn, .ifter the time had elapsed since the nego- ciations were begun ? — A. I thought it was time that we should close the niat'.er, and there was a report made to Co\incil, I think, on the same day, 1 tiiink by me, stating the circumstances, and recommending that the next lowest tenderer should have it, Q, On the same day that you received the withdrawal from Starrs an — we accepted from all the tenderei- a deposit of §7,500 for the reason that after they had signed the contract we \\()idJ get the additional amount that we asked for in accordance with the speciticiition — the tenderers were bound to deposit in the hands of the (iovornment equal t( ."> per cent of the amount of the contract. Q. WouM you consider that the first amount of87,.")0i,00(Cj t that lime?— A. f cannot say. But he did not leave the chot|ue with rne. Q. Did you on that occasion read' any part of i'eriey's report to him.' — A. No Q. Did "you advise him in any way a.gainst taking the contract? — A. No. Q. Did you tell him that the §50,01)0 would be exacted ?— A. No. Al relates to the first interview. Q. You deny that any jiortion of it relates to the interview of the 21st ? — A, Q. Then tell us what to(dc place? — A. 1 sent for him in order to see (i. Tell me what took place?— A. I have stated already that Mr. Starrs talked of his tirst interview and the letter th.-il was sent to him (m the Tth, and ho has mixed them up. But I do not say that he did that wib.illv. hid you ask me there whether when 1 sent for him by the letter of the Department of the 21st the interview in,,k place -«'iweon that and the 24th and what was said there? I was asked il tiH.K platxT and 1 have already said no to that. That was all ivei thai i<»'>k place at the tirst interview. ^l What did take place?— .\. It was this: That an Onler in i jiassed ive wore ready to sign the contract with him. Hi- hail n ■< cdeven days and we wanteil to know what he was disjtosed to do. wrote this letter of the 24th. (). I have asked vou what took place?— A. I have just told you. 118;{ asiscu II all liial Anything abnul iiuncil iiavingbeeri .•.,;i,|0 tn sot} U> f tut fr 54 Victoria. Appendix (ITo. 1.) A. 1891 him unci that I was ready to a'v^n the contract The result was that he wont away and on the Q. What did you say to him ? — A. That an Order in Council had been passed, that the contract was awarded to " ' with him. (I. And he said nothing? — A. 24th he wioio that letter. Q. Did he say anything,' '.■' — A. I do not remember what ho said. Q. He did not say anything? — A, Ho must have spoken, ofcourfo. Q. Do you remember what lie said? — A. I lemain undjr the impresMon that when I would receive a letter from him he would sa\', yes. Q. So that there may be no mistake about the time I am speakinir about, you made no suirgestion to him about that letter or its contents ? — A. Not at the intoi'- view at all. All that was done in the first interview. By Mr. Mulock : Q, With regar'd to the first tender put in in March, I observe that Starrs and O'Hanly made a deposit of 87,500. I observe that the Engineer reporled adversely to the lenders put in in March and thoi'oltire there was no furthei- deposit put in above that §7,500? — A. No; because he made a report saying that nnt^ was tooliigh and tlie other too low. That report went to Council and Council agreed to it. Q. Then Starrs iV O'Hanly's deposit was returned to them ? — A. Yes. Q. When Mr. Starrs in his evidence referred to what occurred and there being in j'our hands a certain sum of money, and his having brought up 81(,5O0, that must refer to the second tender ? That coukl not have occurred in regard to the first? — A A No .1 \jt Q. That tender never went further than to be reported upon and rejected? — They wrote letters saying the^' were too low. (^. The Department never went so far as to accept it? — A. No. Q. It is quite clear, then, that wi)en Starrs speaks of having come up to you with the additional sum A. That must relate to the second tender. By Mr. Amyot : (I. It must have been after the Order in Council, because he would not have had to make up the balance? — A. You saw that by the figures I gave you. (i. It hap)iens sometimes that you accept tenders at lower prices than estimated by the engineers? — A. Sometimes. (^. That haft been done in the Kingston Dock ? — A. 1 do not remember the figures. By Mr. Bavies : Q. Did you on that occasion, after the letter of the 21st was written, give him to understand that the 850,000 for the ])lant would have to be jiaid down ? — A. There was no reference to those matters at that time. t^. You deny categorically that you said the S.")0.0OO hail to be paid down? — A. The only thing about the 8.")0,000 was in the first interview, when I read him the rejioi't of the Chief Engineer, who spoke of that. (^. ho you say that after the interview thcrts was no reference to that 850,000 and you did not say that it would have to be j)ai(l down before the work was under- taken?— A. No. Mr. Sti'AUT — Mr. Chairman, I beg to file Annual l{c|iorts of the .Montreal Har- bour Commissioners for the year 1887 (lO.xhibil " WIS") and request that the follow- ing extracts be printed as being that pari of I he lleports more specially referred to by .Mr. (riroiix in his evidence printed lui page H'l'). (Hxhibit" W18.") "Extracts from Annual He])orls of Montreiil Ifufboiir Commissioners lor year 1887. (Pages (18, (;'.» and 70.) 1184 to id, ict he 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 "Tho total outlay for working tlie fleet, consisting of three spoon dredges, two unloading dcrriclis, two screw tugs and tho scows, was $41,4:3().58 and this, as usual, represents tho entire cost of working tho plant, machinery, repairs, outfit, fuel, wages, teiihiries, insurance and all other outlays, except interest on capital and depreciation of plant. " The following are the comparative costs and (|uantitie8 of dredging for 1887 and for previous years : Yfai> Cubi(' yards (Ircdgi'd Total C( )St. CllSt per cubit: yiiid, cents. is;;-).,. 1S7<>;.. lS-7... IS-H... 187!»... 18K0... 1881 . . . 1882.. 18S3., 151,71!) ir)li,()K2 17«,44!» 211,7.31 lS!),r.()!) 18(',4.S() 170,7(i4 (!8,i)7!t 55,41)2 4.5,103 48,748 4l,(Ki(; 4(i,lll4 54,128 187,3;«t I 6,'!,!t58 .i '.),42il I 13,254 [' li)(i,7()8 ! (M),852 , i »(;,.S.58 17,!I5() 2(1 2;{ ^1 ;;; 25 ,V 31 ;y; 28 .'i;^ Ut'inarkH. SiKHiii (li-cdgcs and stoiii'-liftcru. .si. 40 ,",■,"„ i Elevator dmlgL'S. I Average. QQ 1M1 1 [ 1884.... 18S5 .. , 188(1.... 1S87.... 40 •'!.«_ (1,!!!)() 1 1!),H85 ' *2.77l^iiii S|K)(in dredjjes and sriini'lil'ters. Klevalor dredges- lifting,' nick and iHHilders and clearing' up. 4^,M» ! 37,341 i m^\ I Average. 125.(148 j 4!l,4(i8 i;!l.4'.l4 2H,.5(13 57,728 25,77: 3(1,!I!I3 ; 23,25il 3!'i",Vi-i I Spdon dredges and st(inc lifters. «>% I " " :: 44 " " (12 I Mi; 1,1:, r: Mr. J{oi(KKT 11. McdiiEEVV, Si'ti., ro-callcd. The CiiAiKM.s.v — I understand you desire to make eertain correelioiis in your evidence. WiT.NKss — Yes, sir. Page fi]) of the pau;e, tiie first answer Hhoulii read, " [ became aware of it bite in the season of 1887. Wiien J first saw it, it was in small amounts and I ilid not say niueh, not knowing; at the time what it was for; but as tlie sum became largo in 1888," tliat is adding 'the words, " in 1888." I'ago (141, fourth question and answer from the bottom, shouhi read "about the year 1880 or 1887," instead of "about tiie year 1887." Pago (157, sec(md (piestion and answer. The answer should read "Thomas Mc- (Ireovy did not fulfil bis part," instead of "fulfil his oti'or." Pago (ioD, near the bottom of the page, speaking of the elections of 187;> or 1874. It should be 1872. That was my mistaUc. As a matter of fact the elections took place in 1872. On the no.xt page also I ask that a similar correction be made. I'age 717, fourth answer from the bottom, should read "1 always obtained nujney from the cashier of tlio railway," not " healwaysobtained." I was speaking of mysell at the time. The very last lino of that same page the sentence should read "'"and tliat 1 was a thief," instead of "the thief." Page 717, to tlio vor}- last answer, "J cannot recollect any reason," 1 desire to aild, " more than the relraction of the calumny sot out against me." i'agc 724, the ninth question and answer, instead of " it was a week or ton days," it should be "u week or ten days after." Page 72r), near the bottom, the answer, "Ithiidc I assisted him in 1880," shoidd be " 188!l." Pago 727. after (ho (piestion "what is your reason?" the answer should lie : "Pocause I did not wish, owing to the position Thomas MctJroovy occupied on the Harbour Commission and in Parliament, that it should be known/' that is omitting the word " not." Page 72!), about tl:e middle of the page, the answer should read: "No interest in any of them. J loaned lUDuey and I promised my interest." I'age 7;);>, n'nth answer trom the bottom, it should read " I'.Oth April, or the 1st or 2nd of ilay," instead of " P^th of April, or the l-l or 2nd of May." Page 7;!4, the answer to the question, " and when ? " should be " about the 1st of May," instead of " 1st of April." The CiiAiKM.w — You had tho 1st of .May in your mind at the time? Witness — Yos; ami that is what 1 said. i'age 70."), the tenth answer from the bottom should reail : "I only ascertained that notes were to bo given when Tlomas Mctri'oov}- sent fo^' them." I'age 740, in the ninth answer fiom the top, it should read : " Thomas Mcdreovy told him that ho had seen Thompson," instead ot "sent Thompson." Page 741, sixth answer from tlie bottom, I said tho total was " about 88,!>47." On the same ])ago the second ansver from the bottom should commence, " if tho Committee want," instead of "let." Page 744, near the boUom, tbe printed answer is, " I would not like to bo sure." I would like it changed to, " I would not like to be positive." L'age 749, tho fourth answer should be, after the words " March, 1888," " I saw no Htatomont or audits after that." go 750 should roai 50,000 cubic yards," instead of " IJiJo. tractors. Page 752, on the second line it should read " except from the office of tbe con- Page 757, the ninth question and answer, tho answer should road, " 1 did m)t belong to that syndicate." The Committee then adjournoil. 1186 54 Victoria. Appomlix (No. 1.) A. 1891 not tlio 1 of to HoirsE OK Commons, Tiiiusd.ay, 20i1i Au^usl, ISDI. The Commiltoe mot at 11 a.m.; Mi'. CMroiianl iii tlio Chair. Invostij^atioii into certain circiimstnnecs and stiitcnuMils inailo in oonnoclioii with tho tondoi's and contracts respecting tlio (iiioiiec Harbour Works, i^e., resinned. Mr. RuoAK — .Mr. Chairman, in accordance with tho Resoiution adopted liy tho (!omniitteo yestenhiy, T made a searcii of liie letter books of the ('hief iMii^iiieer of the I'liltlic Works J)e|)ai'tmcnt and have selected the followiiiic ietlcrs for piintinj^; thoy have also iieon inspected by .Mr. Henry. .Afr. J[knby' — I have inspected tho letters, and see no objection lo thoir beiiiii; printed. (Exhibit "X18.") "Ottawa, ITith March, ISS;!. G472. "Quebec Harbour. "Sir, — Herewith I submit for the apjiroval of the Cloveiiior in Council tho Knoldsc : Plan p'ans, specification and form of tender for the conslnictioii of a (!ioss- SiicciHcaticiii, Wall and doclv necessary to render availal)l(^ as a Wet Dock the Dock" Koniicftiiidii'. {.()iiHtructed by the (Quebec Harbour Commissioners at the mouth of (ho liiver St. Charles, (Quebec, as stipulated in I.') Victoria, Chajiler 47. " I am, Sir, " Your obediiMit servant, ^ "HK.NIiY F. I'KIMiKV, " Chirf Enii'ineer. " K. H. Ennis, ■'Secretary, i'ublic Works Hepartment. ! 1 (Kxhibit " YIS.") " Ottawa, liSih .rune, iSs;;. 71!W. (iuobec Harbour. No. ;j.5,r>77. "Sir, — Witji reference to the re(iuest maile by the ITarboiir Commissioners of Quebec that an Kiifrineer be recommended to take cliai'ue of the works in conneclioii with the Harbour Improvements, I have to siitruest the aiipoinlnieiit of Mr. . I. H. Eoyd of this Department to the position. I need hardly say that .Mr. i^oyii is emi- nently qualified to perform all the duties of the otliee. " As these duties are such as will not demand the whole of .Mr. Hoyd's time ami attention, and as his services can be utili/.ed in connectinn with Depart mental works in (Quebec, f have to suggest that the acceptance of .Mr. l!o3'd's nomination by tlic Commissioners be on the understanding that he shall lie free to act for this department on works in and below Quebec — and that 'SVv. lioyd's salary and expenses shall be defrayed jointly by tho Harbour Commissioners and the Dopai tnient. 1 liavt^ the li(uiour to i)(\ Sir, Your obeilient servant lir-XKY v. riJlLKY l'\ A. KN.\r.s, Ksq., Sec v., " Public Works" Dept. (.'hf. ElKJ. (Exhibit" ZIS.") Kxtract taken from Henry F. Perley's Report, datc.l liHh .March. ISS4, and nd.lress.'i to F. H. Ennis, Secretary, Department Public Works Under the provisions' of 15 Vic., chap. 17, the plans of the <'ross-wall wore prei )are( 1 und er my (lircctioiif^ 1187 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1801 (Exhibit "A19.") "Ottawa, 22n(l Dw., 1885. " 15498.— (Graving Dock, IIC. "frENTi.E.MKN, — Accronliiig to proiiiiso miido on the ground, I soiul you copies ol' tlio ' Fiivontory of itl:in(,' itc, on Olio cony of wliich yon will noti^ the articles yon state yon ought not to tiiUc over, and flic reasons why, and send the sanu) to me. " V'ours obediently, " HKNIIY l'\ i'ki?m;v, ''Chief J'Jii;/. " Messrs. Lahkin, Connoij.y it Co., "(iraving Dock, Es(iuimalt, 15.0." "Ottawa, IKh .lany., 188(1. (Exhibit "B19.") "No. 15()04.— E8i|. Dock. " LAIlKtN, Co.NNOM-Y & Co., " Ksqninialt, B.C. " Wire mo the amount wliicli you consider will cover the change in ashlar du(> to recoursing work in dock ; also amount of diU'erciico belwci^n >tiiiie and hricli in caisson recess, " HENJiV F. I'KIILEV, " Clif. linii. " Chgo. D.P.W." (Exhibit "Clt).") "Ottawa, 2Sth .lany., 18S(;. "No. 15711.— Es(j. Dock. " Larkin, CoNNor.LY it Co., " Es(,ui malt, B.C. "Mr. Trutch directed to give full measurement on all stone in dock. "HKNIIY V. I'KULKV, " Chf. Eiuj. " Cligo. D.P.W." (Exhibit " D19.") "Ottawa, l;itli Sept., ISSfi. " 177080— Graving Dock, B.C. "Sir, — I am directed to inform you that the Honourable the Minister wishes to 1)0 furnished with a final estimate of the work done, &c., by Messrs. Larkin, Connolly & Co., on the (Iraving Dock at Ks(iuimait, B.C. " So far as I am aware, there are but two items of work which the conli'aclors have not executed, viz., Nos. 800 and .'tOl, both of which are dependent on the com- pletion of the caisson. "As the caisson will not In; ready for sometime, you might deihict two-thirds of the amount attached to item 300 and the whole of item l!01, to cover the <'ost of what tlie Department will have to do when the cais.son is ready to be tested and after it is in place and also to open the dock. " Yours obediently, "HENRY E. PERLEY, " Chief Eiujineer. " Hon. J. W. Trutch, C.M.G., " Dominion Agent, Victoria, B.C." 1188 noo ye: to I 54 Victorin. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 (Kxliil)it"Ein.") "Ottawa, l.itli May, 1SS7. " 1!)(J!)8— Queb. H. W. " Dkah Silt, — III reply lo yotirs of I lie 121 li in re llie sowor Ix'lwccii Hie eiist ciid ol' I;oii(k'iiliiill Strc'cl iiiid it> (Hitlhll, you liinl hcllcM' in'ciPiiic ii siiiiill plan HJiowiiiij: its posilion, i^ive it to Mr. Vci ret and a>l< liiiii to ap|iiy on licliall'ol' llio ('oniinissioMt'rs to Sir lloeloi' Jianffovin lor porniissioii to place llio sewer in llio wharf as sliown, " Yours failhliiilv, "lIKNIiV !•'. I'KIMjKY, " ''///(/ Kiiijiiuxr. " St. (M), ilrawn in favour of the Minister of Public Works and signed by Starrs it O'llanly. i made out tho cheque myself, it accompanied the tender to the J)oparlineiit of Public Works. Q. We are now speakinn' of the second tender, namely, the lender dated 20th September, 188-1 ? — A. There was none of that date. Q, 1 moan in the fall of 1884. not the one ot the spring ? — A. lam talking of thut. Yes; it was put in on the 2l)th Sejitembor, 188-1. Q. Did you got any further marked cheque from any bank in connection witii this tender ? — A. On the 2rJrd October, i got an .•iddilionai cheque tor .S!',4r)() at the Uniim IJank. which was accepted, and the jmrpose was to com[ilele the live pi^r cent, on the amount of the tendi'r. Q. That was ]iayiible lo whose order ? — A. The Minister of Public Works. Q. What did you do with that cheque ? — A. I gave it to .Mr, Slarrs on the fore- noon of the 2-l:tli when he was going up with the iiiieiition of deposiling it. Mr. Montague Anderson re-called. (I. Wore you Manager at that time ? — A. Yo.s. Q. Have you !iny recollection of it ? — A. Not of thai transaction, it is seven years ago and we have so many contractor's chei[ues. (.l.\ would like the date to be ])Ut beyond doubt. Perhaps you would go down loyoiir bank and examine the books ?— A. Yes. Now thai 1 know llie transaction 1 can go down and look it up exactly. 1189 ■I [■ i ' H'"l ' 1 1 ! IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I 1.25 "- m 12.2 m M. 1.4 2.0 1.6 v] 71 A "e ^^'J>> ■>> ^V!'>^.-* -a '4V^ ? PhotDgraphic Sciences Corporation A '\ ^q^ •s? \ \ 6^ 33 WIST MAIN STREIT WHSTH.N.Y. 145SO (716) S72-4503 >'*' 54 Victoria. Appeudix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Mr. MiciiAEi. Starus rocallud. By Mr. Mulock : Q. Did you rocroivo the choquo in qiiostioii from your partner ? — A. Yos. Q. You havo heard him mention that he handed it to you on the 24th October? — A. Yos. il. Do you remember what you diU<> up that went in with the first tender, and, of course, there is always sup- posed to be a risk about getting that back — if the tender is awarded to you ami not com])lied with. So that Sir Hector threw so many obstacles in the way, showing mo the lowness of our tender, and the difficulties that wo had to contend with — no extras and 9r)(),000 to be paid for plant — I asked Sir Hector : " Well, then, what am I to do to get our cheque back?" Ho suggested " write a letter to the J>epartment, officially to me, and I will get you your chciiue returned." I said : " what will we say?" Sir Hector himself, I swear positively that he is the man who suggested to write it in the tone in which that letter is written now. Q. Did he tiien make a suggestion on which you made this statement? — A. Ho said: "you can write a letter representing that you made a mistake," and ho on. (j. Then you ^ay now, on your oath, that this statement — that this loiter wherein j'ou say j'ou had made a mistake — in your tender and that your tender was t(»o low, was not your suggestion, but was suggested by Sir Hector? — A. Oh, cer- tainly. It was suggested by him in his own office in the Public Works Department. (j. Was that the reason and the oidy reason you wrote him the letter and made the statement? — A. That was the reason — to get back the other cheque for $7,r>,400 cheque when I handed it to Sir Hector, he took it and looked 1190 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 lit it and Bnid : " I hoo you aio ilolurmincil to take this worlt," F said : " Sir liavo not bucii very anxious for it,' ami tliun ailur tiic conver atioii, tho I written by ray partner. Q. You liandeii your «'lio<|iio to Sir Jleclor ? Did he ^ee tho cheque ?- he looked at it and exanuiied it. Q. And aHerwards he roturnod il? — A. lie returned it lo nie hoCoru r«K)ni. Q. i)id he make any observation wlien he returneil it? — A Haid in connection with it wau: "Thank rtanco. Q. What unimportant work have you done ?— A. J have li'iic Monio work in connection with the canal. Q. With «he Ridoau Canal ?— A. Yes. Q. Tliat wa« previous to this ? — A. Yo8. (i. How long? — A. Two or tlireo years. Q. Any other work ? — A. That is all I romonilier. Q. What wan the extent of the contract aljKut the bridj^c '! — A. Do you ask mo tho original tender ? Q. Yes, about?— A. «25,(»00. Q. You have tendered for muny other works ? — A. Ye« ; for wovoral other works. Q. You live in Ottawa ? — A. Yos, sir. By Mr. Davies : Q. Do I understand that T/hen you had oommuninitod witii yoit>' partner the result of the interview with Sir Hector, it was lie who wrote tlio letter ? — A. Yes. Kvorytime I had an interview with Sir Jleoior, I told my iiartnor about it. Q. Did you communicate to Mr. O'llanly the result of your interview before he wrote the letter on the 24th of October? — A. Yes, sir. By Mr. Henry : Q. ^'ou wrote a letter to tho Department of Public Works on tho lJ)th of March, 1884 — do you remcml)er the contents of (hal letter? — A. I 2 64 Yiotoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Do you Buy that tho HtntementH in the letter of 24th Octoboi* were i'uiKe— the NtutomeDt iih to your haviiiju; inudu mmtukcs in your touiior ? — A. Tliat wan faJHe. Q. And thu Ntatumont in that letter, that iho priceH montioned aro too low, watt alao t'alHU ? — A. Yes. Q. Did you know it was falwe when you wrote it ? — A. I did not write it. Q. But you know thoy were false when tliey were written ? — A. Yes. Sib Joun Tiiomphon a^ked that the following letters be road and put in evidence : (Exhibit " F19.") "Ottawa, 19th March, 1884. "F. II. Ennis, Esq., " Secretary Department of Public Works, " Ottawa. "Sir, — In lookin,<{ over the duplicate of our tender for *,ho Esquimalt Graving Dock wo have discovered the following mistakes : " Clerical Errors. — Item 4 : the price per cubic j'ard sot down in tho tender is 33 cents. This was intended to be $1.33. Item G : the price per cubic yard inserted in tho tender is 84.50. This was intended to bo 814.50. Item 302 : the sum for which set down in the tender is $2,500. This was inluiidod to be 82.'i,000. The prices set down in the tender for items 1!)1, lft2, 1!>3 :inl. Tho Sul>-Coininittoe of the Select Standing Committee on Privileges and Kleclions to which was referred, for tho purposeH of examination, the books of account handed in by Mr. Michael Connolly in obuiliunoe to tho order of the House, beglcuvo to pre- sent Iho following us their First l{c|>ort: That the proceedings of your Sub-Committee have been conducted with closed doors. That during the deliberations of the Sub-Committee the following persons only were admitted to tho room: Mr. Tarto and his Counsel; the other Counsel admitted to be hoard before the Committee; the Accountants authorised to have access to all the papers, etc., in the custody of the Committee; Messrs. Michael CVmnolly and Martin P. Connolly; the stonogruphors and the clerks. That during the examination of Mr. Hyde, Mr. O. K. Murphy entered tho room at tho request of Mr. Tarte and his Counsel, whereupon Mr. Stuart and Mr. Ferguson made objection. It being after 3 o'clock, and the Houso sitting, the objection was reserved for the docision of tho Standing Committee. Mr. Murphy, in the meantime, retiring from the room. The Sub-Committee also submit I. erowith all the minutes of evidence taken by them up to date. {See pages 10 to 30 of this Appendix.) All which is respectfully submitted. D. GIBOUAKD, Chairman. i! 1199 1-77J 1 .. 1:1 I h r- *!; 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 SECOND RKI'OTIT. Satckday, 4th July, 18U1. Thu Sub-Coinmittuo of the Select Slunding Committee on PrivilegOH and Eloctiona to whii'h wiiH rufurreil, for the piirpoHUH of exuminution, thu booko of account handed in by Mr. Michuol Connolly in obudiunco to thu onioi- of the IIouso, be^ leave to prenent the following as their Second Itoport : That Hinco presenting thoii- First Uepoi-t, on 2(ith .Tune, 1891, your Sub- Committee have had two HesuionH for the purpoHe of further examining the said books of account, and beg to Hubmit herewith the Minutes of Evidence taken beiore them at both sittings. (See pages 32 to 40 of this Appendix.) All which is respectfully submitted. D. GIROUARD, Chairman. THIRD REPORT. Tl'ksday, 7th.Tuly, 1891. TheSul)-Committeeof the.Solocl Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, to which was referred, for the purposes of examination, the books of account handed in by Mr. Michael Connolly in obedience to the order of the House, beg leave to present the following as their Third Report: In accordance with the Resolution adopteroduco the bank books airl c)ther papers required of him, for the reawins assigned in his evidence attiuMcd heioto, (^See page 41 of this Appendix.) Your Sub-Committee liave oi-dered Mr. Martin P. Connolly to go to Quebec and make further Hoarch of the pa]>ers and books of Larkin, di)hnolly & Co., having special reference to tho.se which Mr. Cross indicates as missing, .Mr. Cross furnishing a list to Martin P. Connolly of those that ho does not find ; that in the event of the bank books of the firm for any periml not l>eing found, Mr. Martin P. Connolly go to the bankers of the firm and obtain from them a transcript of the account for the period for which there is no bank book pnMluced, Mr. Nicholas Connolly hero pre- sent, authorizing Mr. Martin P. Connolly to procure the information and a transcriiit of accounts from the banks; that Mr. Martin P. Connolly, now instructed by Mr. Nicholas Connolly, do proceed to Queliec and make search for, and produce to the Committee, all Mr. Nicholas Conmdly's private books of account, cheques and ])apers, bearing upon the inquiry, which has been described in evidence here to-"r Sub-Committee, and the books and papers submitted to them by Charles McCrreevy and Patrick Larkin, your .Sub- committee have decided as follows : Ordered, That the P^xhibit "Z'J" be now opened and remain with the Clerk, Mr. Todd, for inspection and examination by the Accountants, Messrs. Cross and Luing, and the membei-s of the Sub-Committee; and, further, that the books and papers now produced by Charles Mctireevy and Patn k Larkin remain in the Clerk's possession for inspection of the members of the Sub-Committee, the Aftcounf- nnts ^fessrs. Cross and Laing, and the Counsel of both parties. All which is respectfull}- submitted. D. GIBOUARD. Chairman. 1201 r 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 FIFTH KEPORT. Thursday, 23id July, 1891. The Sub^ommittoe of the Select Standing Committee on Privileges nnd Elections, to which was referred, for the purposes of examination, the hooks of account handed in by Mr. Michael Connolly in obedience to the Order of the House, beg leave to present their Fifth Beport. Your Sub-Comniitteo, having examined under oath Mr. Cross, one of the Account- ants employed by your Committee, beg leave to lecommend that the said books of account be not open to the inspection of members of the General Committee until the said accountants have finished their work, which will bo in the course of a few days. They have also adopted the following Resolution : That the Chairman direct Martin P. Connolly to go over the said books and indicate to the Sub-Committee at the earliest possible moment which pages he con- siders should not be open to the inspection of the members of the Committee. The evidence of Mr, Cross alluded to above is annexed hereto. (^See page 65 of this Appendix.) All which is respectfully submitted. D. GIEOUARD, Chairman, SIXTH REPORT. TcESDAY, 28th July, 1891. The Sub-Committee of the Select Standing Committee on Privileges and Elec- tions, to which was referred for the purposes of examination, the books of account handed in by Mr. Michael Connolly in obedience to the order of the House, bog leave to present the following as their Sixth Report. That on Friday last the 24th inst., Mr. R. H. McGreevy produced before your Sub-Committee five (5) diaries, a 'otter book and some loose papers. These were I'eferred by the Sub-Committeo to Messrs. Osier and llenry for inspection, and having heard their Report, and having themselves examined the said diaries, letter book and papers, The Sub-Committee recommends that the following papora be openeil lo the Counsel engaged in this enquiry, and to the members of the Committee : 1. All the loose papers in the envelope. 2. All the entries on the typewritten list furnished by Mr. McGreevy and marked " Extracts from Diaries of Robt. McGroivy." 3. All the entries indicated on the three added sheets attached to the said list. 4*. AH the pages in the letter book indicated by the word " open " in the index. The Sub-Committee are also of the opinion that there is no harm in placing the dia- ries in the hands of all the Counsel. All which is respectfully submitted. 1202 D. GIROUARD, Chairman 191 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 SEVENTH REPOl^T. )n8, Lded lo to lunt- Is of intil fow Thursday, 30th July, 1891. The Sub-Committee of the Select Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, to which was referred, for the purposes of examination, the books of account handed in by Mr. Michael Connolly, in obedience to the order of the House, beg leave to present their Seventh Report. The Sub-Committee held a meeting at li) o'clock on Wednesday morning, at which counsel for the Hon. Thomas McGreevy produced for him the following books, required by-order of the Committee on the 8th instant, viz.: one bill book, cash book, three blotter cash books, and one bank statement. That at 10 o'clock this morning the Sub-Committee held another meeting, at which Hon. Thomas McGreevy was pei-sonally present, and, being sworn, was examined as to the books and papers not yet produced by him. The evidence adduced is attached hereto. (See page G7 of this Appendix.) The Sub-Committee also ordered Martin P. Connolly to begin at once the work of selecting the pages of the account books which, in his opinion, ought to be closed from inspection. D. (IIROUARD, Cliairman. ! :•' li' EiariTlI REPORT. list, dex. Thuusday, 13th August, 1891. T\w Huh-Coimiiittce of tht- Select Staiuliiij,' Committee on Privileges .iiid Eleetioiis, to wliiili was referred, for tiic purposes of exiunination, the books of iiirount handed in by Mr. Michael Connolly ir\ (bedieiR-e to the order of tiie House, he;,' leave to present the following as their Eighth ({ejMirt : Your Muh-Connnittee liii\<' luid under coiisidenition tlieciiiiiiis of Martin P. Connolly and H. .1. Chaloner for reniunenition for services leiidereil, and beg to recoiuiiieiid that the sum of one hundre ■ 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Judging by what? — A. Nothing in particular, except ray own knowledge. Q. Was the mumorandnm " Nix " made in your presence? Do you swear? — A. To the best of my knowlclge it was. Q. When was it made, tiien ? — A. A short time alter the entry was made. Q. What do you mean by a short time ? — A. I do not remember exactly how long. By Mr. Adams : Q. At the time you made the first entry of $25,000 you nay it was done by the direction of Mr. O. E. Murphy? Was he the business manager of the firm nt that time? — A. Yes, sir. Q. Was he the cashier of the firm? — A. I believe he was. Q. Have you any doubt that he was the cashier ? — A. I hnve not the least doubt that lie was the cashier. Q. And the business manager of the firm ? — A. And the business manager. Q. And it was b}- his direction that the entry of $25,000 was made ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. You say that the woi-d "Nix" was written by Hume in your presence, a short time after the original entry was made. Can you swear to it inside of a year? — A. To the best of my knowledge it was within a year. Q. Have you any doubt about it yourself? — A. I do not remember exactly when it wax. Q. Are you quite certain it was within a year? — A. I am almost certain it was inside of the year. Q. Was it within two, three or six months? — A. The original entry was made in 1885 ; to the best of my i-ecoUection the memo, was put thero when Mr. Hume was examining the books in the following winter. Mr. Kimmitt and Mr. Hume were the auditorn, and it must have been made at the time they were examining the books. Q. That would have been about a year, then ? — A. Yes. By Mr. Tarte : Q. Will you kindly look at the entry, 1885, $22,000 ?— A. It appears in the Jour- nal, Exhibit " F8,'" page 290, the first entry. "Levis, HOth April, 1885. " Expense — " Dr. $22,000. To Cash $22,000. For incidental expenses paid for notes." Q. Can you find somewhere else in your books any other entries incidental to this item of $22,000, or connected with it ? — A. On page 9 of the Journal, Exhibit " N;}," there are two entries. The first one reads as follows : " Graving Dock — "To M. Connolly $-',000 " For one $2.000-iiote charged to incidental expenses, from $22,000 charged to Dock." _ The next entr}-, same date, 30th April, 1885. " Cash ToP. Larkin $8,000 For $8,000, in .lotes charged to incidental expenses from $22,000, charged to Dock." Q. Are there any other entries in the books connected with this item of $22,000 ? — A. Not that I know of; I would have to look up my ledger, (after searching) I find in ledger. Exhibit " M3," at page 104, the following entry : " O. E. ?.Iurphy, 30th September, 1884, note No. (page 69, cash book) $5,000 1208 m 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 By Mr. Baker : Q. To what does that entry refer ? — A. I cannot find that it refei-s to an^-thing else but the entry of 922,000. By Mr. Davies : (J. How did you come to that conclusion ? — A, On account of the fact of having done the work — that is, helping the auditors that year to audit the b of the cash book, Exhibit " K3," "30tli September, 1884~0. E. Murphy, Note No. 2, 85,000. do M. K. Connolly, Xote No. 3, §5,000." Do you know anything about those items? — A. Not any more than I do about the others. I have no knowledge of them. By the Chairman : Q. Is the second note a portion of the 322,000 item? — A. No; it is not. By Mr. Tarte : Q. Do you swear positively that it has no reference to the 322,000? — A. I cannot «wear positivelj', because it was not made by me or in my time. Q. Did you make this entry yourself? — A. I did not. (J. And you understand as much about the first note of 35,000 as you know of the last one? — A. I understand it in that way. Q. When you were assisting the auditors to audit the books were you informed about the second $5,000 as you were informed about the first 35,000 ? — A. I do not know that I was informed about the first 35,000 ivote at all. 1 may have come to a conclusion myself. Q. Were you informed in some way foi- the two notes? — A. I do not remember, J do not remember getting any information about them. Q. Will you kindly look again to see if you have any other entries connected with the item of 322,000 in April. 1885?— A. I have no other entries. Q. I find an entrv on page 299 of Exhibit " F 3." Has it any reference to the $22,000 or the $25,000 transaction?— A. It is impossible for me to say. These are the credits charged to the account of each of the members of the firm. By the Chairman : Q. Read the entry ?— A. The entry is as follows : "April 30, 1885— Cash, Dr. to sundries $38,000 To N. K. Connolly 31.-),000 P. Larkin 8,000 M. Connolly 5,000 O. K. Miirphy 10,000 For incidental notes charged to their accounts now credited back. 1209 \I\ >. :08itively. By Mr. Davies : Q. What is your opinion? — A. I believe it has. By Mr. Tarte : Q. Have you an}' entries in your books about this same item of 825,000 ? — A. No not that I am aware of',, except that they are in the books prior to my time. Q. Will you kindl}' tell us if there is an entry in any of your books for a sum of 827,000 dated the 28th March, 188"? — A. There is no entry for any such amount. il Will you tell me if this entry for 825,000 in the journal (Exhibit "N 3)" page 282, has any connection with the entry made by you in the paper tiled before this Committee as Exhibit •' B 5 " ?— A. Yes ; it has. Q. Read the entry? " SlTSPENSE — Dr. " To EsQUiMALT Dock, 823,000. "For error in chargini; B.C. with the following cheques : Feb. 4, B.N.A. Bank, jour. fol. 268 85,000 r )r 0, lin lot Ive By Mr. Adams : Q. I hold in my hand Exhibit ''■ B 5" in your handwriting, dated 28th March, 1887, in which the »um of $27,000 appears — th»i» is not for Ki^qiiiniHlt Graving Dock, 18 it, but wao charged against the Quebec Harbour Improvements? — A. It in charged against the Quebec Harbour Improvements, Q. In your ordinary day-book and IwJger? — A. The journal entrv was first charged to the Esquimalt Dock, and another entry was made correcting it. Q. You charged it where it ought to bo — to Quebec Harbour ImprovementH ? — A. I do not know if it ought to be there. Q. Who told you to put that item ot $27,000 in this statement 'i* Who gave you instructions? — A. Mr. O. K. Murphy. Q. Did anyone else give you intitructions? — A. No, sir. By Mr. Davies : Q. Who directed you to add the 825,000 and the $2,000 together?— A. It was Mr. O. E. Murphy. Q. You mean Mr. O. K. Murjjliy told you not to keep the two sums separate, but to put them in one lump? — A. He told me that. By Mr. Adams : (i. Did not O. K. Murphy at the time he told you to make out a statement tell you to put down the 827,000 in a lump sum, and not put d«»wn the items comprising it? — A. Ho told me that prior to the time I made out the statement. He asked me for the statement, an0 $1,000 " Q. Now will you look at the enti-y on the 8th August, 1887, of 84,000 ?— A. It is in the i^ame book, page 351, on 8th August, 1881 : " Suspense, Dr. To cash— Cheque No. 305 to order of N. K. C 84,000 00 " Q. What do you mean by N. K. C ? — A. N. K. Connolly, I believe. By the Chairman : Q. Have you any doubt? — A. No ; the checjue was to the ordor of N. K. Con- nolly. Q. Will you kindly look at the entry in August, 1885, of 84,000 ?— A. In Exhibit " K3," page 62, I find the following entry : "Expenses 84,000 N. K. C. draft, 3rd June 1,000 do do 2,000 do do 1,000" Q. Do you know in whose hand writing that is in ? — A. No, sir, I do not. Q. It is a British Columbia matter ? — A. Yes. 1212 1 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 By Mr. Tarte : Q. Will yon kindly look at the entry of the 8lh February, 1880. of 83,000?— A. I do not see any entry of February, 1886, of $3,000, By Mr. Adams : Q. Can you get any items to j?o to make up the sum of $3,000 ? — A. Vch. Q. Can you nnii them ? — A. It would take mo some little time. By Mr. Turte : Q. Now.then, turn up the entries of April. 1886, of $1,000?— A. I will require a little time to look that up. Q. Well, please look at the entry on March, 1887, of $17,000 lor the Ks((uimait Dock ?— A. I find that on page 282, of Exhibit " N3." " Kriquimalt Dock Dr. To Sundrien. Total to lie divided $72,000 Ijess disbursed 17,0(tO" Q. Where did you got that Htatement from of $72,000 loss $17,000?— A. From Mr. O. H. Murphy. He made this up himself. He had a sum ol $71,H0ii, and he suid, " Wo will take $2U0 and add that to it." I do not know how ho made it up, but he Baid it would be divided up amongst the members. Q. Have you an}' books showing how these disbursements are made up ? The Esquimau books do not show these $17,000 of disbursements? — A. I. will look that op. I do not remember exactly. The Sub-Committee then adjourned. Wednesday, 24th June, 1891. The Sul>Committee met at 2 p.m., with closed doors. Present : — Mr. Girouard, in the Chair, and Messieurs Adams, Davies and Edgar; also, Messieurs Taite, GeottVion, Stuart, Henry, Ferguson, Hyde, Kimmitt, Michael Connolh-, Martin P. Connolly, two stenographers and two clerks. Mr. Martin P. Connolly, re-called and further examine. Exhibit The Chairman — PrcKluce the bf>ok8. As you are requested to compare the entries you will be able to do so. By Mr. Davies : Q. Where do you find thai $17,0')0, regarding which you were asked at the last meeting to obtain information?— A. That 817,U thoro i» this entry : "QuKMEr, 24th January, 1887. SiindrioH Dr. to cnsli 93,000 (Graving Dock 1,000 K8quimalt Dock 1,000" This inakoH 82,000 of the above 83,000 iiu-liuled in the 817,000. On page 281 I find the entry rending : "C^UEBEc, 2Hth March, 1887. Esquinialt Dock 85,000" " ThiM item of 85,000 is now charged to B. C. ft wan tor a cheque dated 20th March, 1880, and wa» then charged to expense Q. II. I, .Journal folio 117, and Ledger folio 176. It huH now to be charged to B. C, aH inutructed by the mem. of tirm." By Mr. Edgar : Q. Do those letters " mem." mean members of the firm ? — A. Yes. The other $5,000 I take to be part of an entry crodite«l to N. K.Connolly of 8(i,(i40. Jiy Mr. Davies: Q. Is there anything on those books that would enable an expert or yourself to Bay that that constituted the 817,000, or is it from personal recollection or from any- thing you w»}re told by any other jjarty ? — A. It is from personal recollection. Q. Of the facts ?— A. Yes, sir. By Mr. Edgar : Q. Is there anything particular about it, that you should have :i personal recollection that it meant anything like that? — A. No. Q. Did 3'ou audit the accounts ? — A. Yes; but not at that time. By Mr. Davies : Q. Will you look at page 282, and read the entire entry ? " QirEBEc, 28tli March, 1887, Esquimalt Dock Dr. to Sundries, 820,500.00 : To H. il.Mr-Greevy 8 3,000 00 N. K. Connolly 6,040 00 P. Larkin 1,640 00 O. ]<:. Murphy 1,640 00 Michael Connolly 1,640 00 (•raving Dock 6,000 00" By Mr. Edgar : Q. Can you tell us what that was for — that cheriue 148 that you charged up in that way — 85,000 ? — A. No, sir ; I do not know of my own knowledge what it was foi-. Q. Where did you get it from to make that entry? — A. I was told by some of the members of the firm to charge that to the (Jraving Dock at the time, and then they contradicted that, and had it charged to the Ei^quimalt Dock. Q, Have you the cheque ? — A. I have not. Q. Will you tell us all you know about that matter now ? — A. I know nothing further than that the cheque was written out as cheques or;<«sBion ot'conn«el. Q. You do not know whether they Imve been rotuined by coun^«el or not '/ — A. I tlid not know unything uhout them. il. What wan the nature of the tiiniinal trial? — A. It was a trial against Mr, Tarte for libel and a irial aj^ainst Mr. O. K. Murphy and Mr. Holiert H. Mtttrocvy for conHuiracy with the 840;f,(i0() note. Q. Some of the notes, I believe referred to the 825,(100 charge, and I here wei-e Home notcH, I think, in connection with the 822,000. Q. But alKiut the cheques? Some of tliotn, 1 believe, referred to the donations ? A. Some, I believe, referred to the donations. Mr. 3IICIIAEI. Connolly examined : By the Chairman : Q. Mr. Connolly, you have heard the evidence given a moment ago liy Mr. Hj'de and Mr. Martin I*. Connolly. Do you know where are to-day the notes, cheques, bill books, stubs of cheques and letter hook roferreil to by those two wit- nesaes ? — A. I know nothing, further than I sent a telegram when directed to])roduce the books here before the Committee, to our jigent in Quebec, asking him to wend ail letters, letter books and vouchers to Ottawa at once and in reply to that telegram I got these books. By Mr. Ed'jar: Q. Do you think by the telegram sent to your agent, he would take it to include the cheques and bill book? — A. I would think so, as I call a cheque a voucher. It is a bank voucher. I will get a copy of the telegram I >eiit if you wish. I believed up to the time these boxes were opened, we had all these things here. I wish to state here we have no desire to protract this investigation one moment. By Mr. Adams : Q. Inasmuch as you have heard these things are not here now go to work this evening and got them here by to-morrow morning ? — A. I will take means to get them here to-nioirow morning if the>' are in our possession. Q. Is Mr. Kell}' there at Quebec ? — A. lie is. Ho has the key of the otfice and the combination of the safe. By Mr. Edgar : Q. Mr. Hyde, thinks they are probably in Kingston? — A. A man can think what he pleases. Q. You do not think the same ? — A. No 1 do not. By the Chairman : Q. Mr. Hyde says he thinks Mr. Nicholas Connolly told him they had gone to Kingston ? — A. 1 heard Mr. Hyde say he instructed a party to send them up here. Ordered, — That Mr. M. Connolly do obtain from his counsel, Mr. Fitzpatrick, all notes, cheques and other papers which were given to him lor the purposes of the criminal trial against O. K. Murphy and R. H. McGreevy. Mr. Martin P. Connolly — On again .searching this box, I find a bundle of cheques for the year 1887. The sub-committee then adjourned. It I; I 1227 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 :l House nv Commons, Thursday, 2nd July, 1891. Tho Sub"Cominittt30 met at 2.30 p.m. PreHent: MeBHioiirH Giiouard (Chniriniin), Atluins nn0, tlio fDliowing : — LovIk, ."{Oth April, 1H8.'», oxpeiiHt'^ to in>\\, 822, (»(»((. Q. Hut tlioio aio MiTiio enti'iutt alioul iif)t«n in n-Curftifo to liio way tlic 822,000 Ik (Jivi'ltMl y — A. Th»! only (iMlail.'* I liave of that entry au« iIiom! ^allly dotaiU you have Hoeii already in Kxhihii, " N .*{," payo !». Q. And there in i. 'thineeomljer, 18S;{ : '• I'aid (Quebec Hank for note 85,000."?—. A. I tind in ': ::hihit •' K H," page 150, 4th December, l.s><3, checjuo, Quebec Hank, 5,000. Q. Foi' a note? — A. No. It does not nav in tho cash book what it is for. Q. Then 4th 1-Vi)riiary, 18S4, 85,0' 0, ■' to p!i\ note"?— A. I find an entry in Exhil)il " K ;j," 4lh February, 1884, " Uiuon Hank cheque to retire note 8J,000." Q. Can you tell us what note was due on that da}' ? — A. No, sii-, I cannot. il. You cannot by referring to the books? — A. No, sir, f cannot. H. Will you look, if you please for a cheque dated Quebec. 25th January 1887, on the Bank of British Nortli America, Pay N. K. Conrudly, ?J10,000,"'-ignod Larkin Connolly, i*t (Jo., and endor.>ed N. K. Connolly ? — A. There is no ci ry in the cawh book. Q. But is there in any other book? — A. I find an entry in Exhibit ' N H" page 2(1.'), of tho journal, "Quebec 25th Januaiy, 1887 ; Ksquimalt Dock to Haidv of British North America, 810,000, for che<|UO No. 8(il5l paipense, cash, 84,000, cheque No. 305, to order of N. K. Connolly. Q. Do you find the cheque ? — A. I find a cheque upon the Union Bank of Canada, dated Quebec, 8th August, 1887, to the order of ^i. K. Connolly for 84,000, signed Larkin, Connolly & Co., and endorced by N. K. Connolly. By Mr. Tarte: Q. There is a word in pencil on thu body of the cheque ? — A. That word is " Suspense. " il:30 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 By the Chairman : Q. What is the meaning of tljat word ? — A. It means that cheque was to bo charged up to the sus-jiense account. Q. Who told j'ou to write that? — A. I do not lomembor. By Mr. Tarte: Q. And it was charged in the suspense account ? — A. Yes. By Mr. Geoffrion : Q. Who had control of the cash and the books in August, 1887 ? — A. Tn the month of August Mr. Nicholas Connolly bad the management of the cash and books. Q. Since you left ? — A. Since the previous audit in August 1887. By Mr. Adams : Q. Who kept the books before the audit you mentioned just now ? — A. I kept the books all along, but Mr. Murphy had the hiindiing of the cash. Q. How came it to be changed from Mr. Murpbj' to Mr. N. K. Connolh' ? What was the reason of that? — A. I don't know positively the particulars. The\' could not agree Mr. Murphy should handle the cash any longer. By the Chairman : Q. Had they agreed that Mr. Murphy should not handle the cash any longer ? Do you know anything about it personally? — A. I know that Mr. Connolly took charge of the cash by whatever authority he had to do it. By Mr. Ferguson : Q. Do you know why he did it ? — A. No ; I do not. By the Chairman : Q. Did he tell you why ?— A. I don't remember now. By Mr. Ferguson : Q. You spoke of managing, that would give the idea that Nicholas Connolly kept the books. Mr, Kdoar — He said they were the cashiers. Is that whp.i yt/a meant, Mr. Connolly? — A. Yes; he was the cashier. By Mr. Geoffrion : Q. Ue directed the entries as far as the «Msh was concerned? — A. No; he may not have directed toe entries. By Mr. Ed,— A. I don't find tho Quebec cheque for 1886. Q. You cannot find the cheque dated 30tli September, 188(5?- -A. No. Q. Will you look in the books of that date ? | By Mr. Edgar : Q, Look J»t the stub. — A. I don't see the stub for that year. By the Chair mail : Q. Well, look at the books as Mr. GeortVioii suggests. By Mr. Geoffrion : Q. Take the 20th Mareh, 1886.— A. 1 find an entry in Exhibit •' K 3," dated 20th March, 1886. " Union Bank cheque to ourselves, $5,000." By Mr. Edyar : Q, That is under cash is it?— A. Yes, sir, under cash. By Mr. Adams : Q. Ourselves, what does it mean? — A. To the rivm. Q. The cheque, what does it say? — A. " Pay ti' the ortler of ourselves." By Mr. Edgar : Q. That was merely your account of cash with the Hank, was it? A. Yes. 1232 Vy 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 ii(i Q. What account wan it carried into? — A. Charged to the expense account. Q. It remaineil there in the expense account, or was it carried anywhere else? — A. Il may have been carried somewhere else. Q. Do you know whether it was transferred? — A. I think it was. Q. To what? — A. I will sec. It was transterred from expense account to Esquimait Dock. By Mr. Geoffrion : Q. Xow make the same verification for 30th So])tember, 1886, to see what entries you have. The amount is $5,000. — A. I find an entry, but no cheque. In Exhibit " L 3 " I find: "SOth September, expense, donation, 85,000." By Mr. Adavis : Q. S'd to whom it was paj'able? — A. It is not in the book 30th September. It m^'^t I'f mistuke. .' y Mr. Geoffrion : Q. You find a donation, 30th September, S5,000, but no cheque ? — A. No. By Mr. Adams : Q. Have you anything in your book by which you can show the Committee that that $5,000 entry was paid by cheque? How did you come to make that entry? — A. From some writing or something I was told about. Here is the entry: " Expense, donation, 85,000." "^ Q. Let me see that book. Tyrn now to the 1st of October and see if you find anything for that $5,000? — A. That (pointing to an item) may bo the same. Q. Eead it.— A. In Exhibit " L 3, " •' October 1st, Union Bank, O. K. M.. being cheque to donation $5,000." (.1. Is that thu item Mr. Geoffrion is asking you about? — A. I think it is. Q. Are you satisfied about it? — A. Yes; I am satisfied. Q. Can 3-ou fimi the cheque? — A. No. It is incluled in the 1886 cheque. Q. Did you i. r,|.: !iej,,)nd September ?-rA. I cannot find any for the whole year, except those few tbrl '':\v. Fitzpatrick had. Q. The c'leii c u' -vwil 20th March, 1886, is drawn by Murphy— is in Murpii^-'s handwriting. Sf • if i' Is not. — A. It is signed Larkin, Connolly & Co. Q. Whose hat'(' vriting is that? — A. O. E, Murphy. Q, Is it paid to ,.h' ;ius K. Connolly? — A. No. Q. Is it endorsei'. by Nicholas K. Connolly ? — A. No. By the (Jliairman : Q. P;^ whom? — A. It is endorsed by Larkin, Connolly A: Co. Q. And written by whom ?— A. O. E. Murphy. By Mr. Adams : Q. H:'v» you anything about that cheque of 30th September, 188(1 ?— A. N'o. sir. Q. IIuv\ ' ■' anv means of informing the Committee by rcforonce to your books as to that ite: -t.W'th Septembe;-, 1886," $5,000, by the entry of the cheque and to whom it wab payable?— A. On 1st October, the entry in the cash book reads; " Cheque to order, O. E. M." Q. Are there two of $5,000 each in 1887. written by Nicholas K. Connolly in his own handwriting and payable to his order ? — A. Yes. Q. Therefore, there is only one cheque out of the whole$20,000, that is payable !o O. E. Murphy?— A. Yes; as far as the number we have gone through. 1233 ; 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 I- Bij Mr. Geoffrion : Q. 3l8t December, 1888, 83,000, in Exhibit "B 5"— explain that entry.— A. That $3,000, I find to be $3,050, on page 498 of Exhibit " L 3 "—•' Cheque to order N. K. C, office use, $3,050." Q. Is there any other entry ? — A. It is journalized. Q. What i« the meaning of" " office use " there? — A, Use for the general office, as far as I understand. Q. Look further to see if you can find an exact entry tallying with this $3,000. — A. I think wo found that before in these other books. Q. Have you got the cheque of 31st December, 1888? — A. It is not in either December or January among the cheques. H n^Mt is : " Quebec, 30th December, 1888. Union Bank cheque to order Nicholas I\ ? ■ iif^'ly, signed Larkin, Connolly & Co. for $3,050." Q. Are you satisfied that this justifies the entry )iave made in Exhibit " B5" of 31st December, 1888, of $3,000, in expense ? — A. iu the best of my knowledge it is. Q. How can you explain the fact that you entered it in expense when it was office use ? — A. I must have been told to charge it up to office account. Q In 1888 ? Who would have told you that ?— A. Mr. Connolly. Q. To charge it to the expense account you must have been told by Nicholas Connolly in the usual loutine ? — A. Yes. Q. Was the name of the firm signed in his handwriting ? — A. Yes ; it is signed Larkin, Connolly & Co., in the handwriting of Mr. Nicholas Connolly. Q. And endorsed by him ? — A. Yes. Q. You have also mentioned in Exhibit ''Bo" certain amounts under the names of Pelletier, Germain and Brunei. By \yhose order did you make those entries and charges in the books ? — A. I do not remember now. Q. Who ought to have^jiven you those ortlers in 1887 or 1888 ? — A. Mr. Hume, I think. Q. Haii he any control over you, or would he not report to Mr. Nicholas Con- nolly before you made any entries in the books ? — A. [ do not know, but I do not think so. Any orders I took from Mr. Hume I considered him the same us a roomber of the firm. Q. But you are not positive it was ^Ir. Hume's order ? — A. No ; I can't say. The Sub-committee then adjourned. 1234 ^ 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 pi House of Commons, Friday, Snl July, 1801. The Sub-Committee met at 2.30 p.m. with closed doors. Present : Messieurs Givouard (in the Chair) Adams. Baker, and Kdgar ; also Messieurs Tarte, GeoftVion, Stuart, Fitzpatrick, Henrj', Ferguson, N. K. Connolly, M. Connolly, M. P. Connolly, Hyde, Kimmitt, O. E. Murphy, two stenographers and two clerks. Mr. Martin P. Connolly recalled. By Mr. Edgar : Q. Mr. Connolly, amongst those books of the firm are there any accounts in the ledger showing the bank business in connection with the British North America Bank — that is showing all the debits and credits ? — A. We have, sir. Q. Will you get it for us, please ? — A. I find the Bank of British North Amorina Account in Exhibit " M 3," on page 178. Q. Where does it begin ? — A. There is a deposit in April, 1885. Q. Can you, by referring to the cash book, Exhibit "Iv 3," ai\d referi-ing to the ledger accounts with the British North America Bank in tiiis book, pick out the items which represent cheques paid out by the firm or money paid out by the firm in which you have charged, or were directed to charge, against either the expense •oi' suspense account? — A. I think I can. Q. W^ell, begin in January, IHSfi, with the Bank of British North America, — A. I finil on the 30th January an entry ■' Five hundred dollars cheque, to William Shar- pies." I also find on ;>[arch the 20th, 188(;,an entiy : " Five thousand dollars, cheque to ourselves. Union Bank." By Mr. Adams : Q. What do you say that five thousand dollars is for ? — A. I do not know. By Mr. Edgar : Q. Go on please. — A. I find an entry dated June the 6th of a cheque on the Union Bank, O.E.M. Private use, 85,100. Q. Is that the one you had charged to expense account? — A. It was lent to Mr. Murphy for his pi'ivate use. On page 68, Exhibit " L 3," t find an entry Ist October, 1886. Union Bank cheque; cheque to O.E.M. charge to " expense," 85,000, being donation. At page 70 of the same book, under date 9th October, there is an entry, cheque to O.E.M. for private use, $5,000. At page 70, there are two cheques, both dated 13th October; cheque to O.E.AI. $1,000, ditto $2,000. At page 90, under date 11th November, 1886, cheque O.E.M.. $5,100. 3rd January. 1887, page 126, Union Bank cheque to Older of N. K. Connolly to be charged to Dock, $5,000. 4th February, 1887, page 132, there are two cheques. The first is on the Union Bank to the order of N. K. Connolly, B. C. division, $5,000. The other is, British North Amei-ica Bank cheque to order of N. K. Connolly, B. C. Division, $5,000. On the 14th of February, British North America Bank chequeto orderof O.K.M. B.C. Division, $6,000. 17th February, cheque to O.K.M, for B.C. Division, $5,000. Another dated the 18th Febnuii-y, cheque to O.K.M. for B.C. Division, $2,000 1235 I i:! 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 3i(l Marcli, choquo to order of N.K. Connolly for private UhC, 85,28(». 4th March, cheque to O.K.M. for pi-ivate use, $5,000. 12th March, page 140, Union Banlc ci.equo to O.K.M. for capital, E. W. — $5,042.24. Ist April, 1887, page 148, cheque to order of O. E.M. for Q.H.I. Division, E.VV., 87,000. :^rd August, 1887, page 220, cheque to O.E. Murphy for private use, 85,000. On the same date, there is also a cheque to N.K.C. for 81,000. The blank is there, because I did not have any explanation for what the money was for. 8th August, page 222, cheque to N. K. Connolly for 84,000. By Mr. Geoffrion : Q. You had no explanation as to that entry either? — A, No, sir. By the Chairman : Q. Can you say whether any of the above entries which you have given just now has any leference to the mjitters under investigation before the Committee? — A. I cannot. By Mr. Tarte : Q. Will you kindly look in the books for the item March, '88, 82,000 ?— A. There is no cheque for 82,000 in March. Q. Is there an entry in the books? — A. There is an entry in the books. Q. Read it, please?— A. Exhibit "L 3," page 346; 8th March, 1888, N. K. Connolly for amount of his private cheque for donation re B. C. as agreed, 82.000. . By Mr. Edgar : Q. Is that a cheque ? — A. No, sir. "i// Mr. Adam.'i ; Q. How did you pav him? — A. I did not pay him. Q. Who told you to make the entry ? — A. It was agreed by the members of the firm that Mr. Connolly should get 82,000, which I suppose he had expended. Q. You do not know whether he paid it or not? You were simply ordered to make the entry in the books? — A. Yes. Q. Without any knowledge on your part as to whether he got a cheque from the firm or not ? — A. The fact of crediting Mr. Connolly with 82,000 is sufficient evidence for me that he got it. Whether he paid it or not, I do not know. By Mr. Edyar : Q. What book does that appear in ? — A. The cash book. Q. Is that the first book it was in ? — A. Yes; this was the first book, Q. Did you carry it forward? — A. Yes; into the journal and ledger. By Mr. Adams : Q. Would it not be a cash payment ? You say, " paid to X. K. Connolly ? " — A. This entry does not show it. Q. Was It by cheque, then ? — A. I do not know. 1 only placed it to his account. The suli-coramittee then adjourned. 123ti lf\ 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 uMi i:§l [ am, except that Mf. McCTroev3- told me he is having all his Since he has been taken ill, House of Commons, Wednesday, July 15th, 18!tl The tSulj-Commitlou met at a p.m. Present : Messrs. Girouard, (Chairman), Adams, Baker, Puvies and ildgar. Ml'. Thomas T' iCIrecvy, M. P., was called. Mr. Stuart, slated that Mr. MctJreevy was ill in bod, and added : I have not got his papers, but I have telegraphed him to Quebec, that if he is not able to come here, to send them to me. Mb. Gkoffrion. — Meanwhile you are without instructions? Mr. Stuart lupers prepared and would bring them u|> with him 1 have telegraphed him to send them direct to me. Mr. Edgar. — I would ask for the production, from the Union Bank, of Thomas McGreevy's bank account. Are there not other banks he has dealings with? Mr. Stuart. — Not that I am awaie of during ihat time. Mr. McGreevy told mo that from the period in question the Union Bank was the onl}* btiiik he dealt with. He had, however, other accounts while he was carrying on the North Shore work. So far as I linow the Union Bank is the only one with which he dealt during the period. Mb. Robert H. McGreevy sworn. By Mr Osier : Q. You know the order that the Committee has made with reference to the production of your papers — " Ordered that you, amongst others, forthwith produce on oath before the Sub-Committee all your books of .iccount, bank books, cheque stubs, notes, drafts and all other documents and papers bearing upon the question under inquiry, and that when so produced, the same shall be placed at the disposal of the said accountants for the purposes aforesaid." What books of account do you produce under this order, Mr. McGreevy? — A. Not any. Q. Do you produce any bank books? — A. No. Q. Do you produce any cheques ? — A. No. Q. Do you produce anj' cheque stubs ? — A. No. Q. Do you produce any notes ? — A. No. Q. Do you produce any drafts? — A. No. Q. Do you produce any other documents or papeis?— A. No. Q. Will you kindly tell us why not? — A. Because 1 do not think that as a witness I have any right to divulge mj' private affairs before this Committee, or any Committee ot the House. I am called in this investigation as a witness and not as an accused, and, therefore, my business and bank "books covering various other transactions, and very little of these, 1 refuse to produce them. Q. You have considered the matter of the order?-— A. Yes. That was my decision up to. I mav say to-day, when I will relax one of thorn, and that is with reference to the bank books and accounts in coiinoction with the bank which I will produce when the othei's do it. Q. You put the conditions that the others must produce theirs simultaneously with yours ? — A. Yes, at the same time. Q Then you decline to obey the orders of the committee, for the reasons you have given. And you do that advi-edly, presuming it is within your right.— A. Yea. 1237 s; ■>] Ml 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 li Q, Seeing you do not proiluce them I desire to ask you what books of account you have, covering the period in question and bearing on this inquiry? — A. I have nothing but the bank books and the cheques. Q. That is not what I mean. Under the head of books of account, whether nominally or not referring to this transaction, had you in use a bank book ledger and cash book? A. My books of account have nothing in them at all concerning — Q. 1 would ask you have you books of account? — A. Yes. Q. Did you during the period in question keep a cash book ? — A. No. Q. Did you keep a journal ? — A, Yes. Q. And a lodger? — A. Yee. Q. Did you make the entries yourself or the book-keeper? — A. 1 mostly made the entries in the blotter. Q. And the book-keeper? — A. The book-keeper cai-ried them forward. Q. Carried them forward from the blotter to the journal ? — A. Yes. Q. So that 3'ou have not only had the journal, but the blotter as your original book of entry? — A. Yes. Q. Your Iiabit is to keep a blotter always? — A. Yes. Q. And during the period covered by this inquiry have you more than one blotter, can you say how many j'ou have? — A. I do not think 1 have more than one one or two perhaps. Q. Then with regard to bank books, what have you ?- A. I have nothing but the Quebec liank book. Q. Was that the only bank with which you dealt during the period in question? — A. Yes. I had however, some little transactions in the Caisse d'Economie. but in trust. Q. Were you concerned with others in trust? — A. Xo, in trust for my children only. Q. In the Caisse d'Kconomie '^ — A. Yes. Q. Moneys in trust tor j-oui hildren originating with yourself? — A. Yes. Q. Gifts made by yourself nml which you put in trust for them ? — A. Yes. Q. Y'ou have the bank book? -A. Yes. Q. As well as the bank book in the bank you have named? — A. I have the bank book of the Caisse d'Economie with me. Q. And you have the Quebec bank book ? — A. Yes. Q. And on the conditions named you are willing to produce it to the Com- mittee? — A. Yes. Q. Are you also willing that that which is probably a transfer of it from the books of the bank — the paper produced by Mr. Brown — should be considered as your production, and put in the hands of the accountant in lieu of the bank book ? — A. y J, I would give them the bank book that they held with my account. I do not know the production here. Q. The bank produces, and it is here, a transcript of your account with them? — A. They said it was wrung from them under a threat from this Committee, Q. And it is under the protection of this sub-committee now? — A. The bank told me they had a threat to produce it. Q. It would remove any difficulty in the matter, presuming that paper to be a mere transcript from the bank book, if it could be put in the hands of the account- ants ? — A. If I am ordered to do it I will produce what I have. By the Chairman : Q. About everything? — A. About the bank book and the cheques. By Mr. Bavies : Q. You prefer your own bank book rather than this transcript? — A. Yes. By Mr. Osier: Have you any objection to our opening the parcel and Just seeing whether it is a transcript or not? — A. I have all the objections in the world 54 Victoria. 'Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 WTtW i; jji !i' (.'Oncurreiit with the i-— A. Yes. Q. Q. Q. Q. could not say. Q. Then what cheques do I understand that last remark of yours to apph' to ? — Q. You are willing to make any productions onlerod of you, or only with reference to the bank account? — A. Onlv with reference to the bank account. Q. What cheques have you?— A. 1883, 84, 85, 86, 87. Q. Returned banker's cheques ? — A. Yes. Q. Y'ou have them here ? — A . Yes . Q. Do you object to produce them? — A. Yes. Q. For the reasons you have already given? — A. Y'es; rest, I will produce them. Q. That is, conditional on all the othern producing thcirc Q. What cheque stubs have you? — A. None. Q. Did you keep stubs of cheques? — A. Very seldom. Q. What has become of the stubs? — A. There are two of them in Quebec, but out ot every ten there would be eight blanks. Q. But you have stubs? — A. Yes. Q. And your answer to the call to produce those is the same as regards the cheques, 1 presume? — A. I have no answer about that, because I felt the}- weie of no use. Q. That will be for the Committee to judge. Then notes and drafts, have you none of those ? — A . None at all . Q. No retired notes? — A. No. No retired drafts ? — A. No. Have you seai'Ched for them? — A. Y'es. What has become of them? — A. I do not know, I am sure, Y'ou have not desti-oyed them ? — A. I have not. Q. What you say is : they are lost? — A I think so. Q. Have you satisfied yourself as to that? — A. Not completely' I would not undertake to say they are lost. Q. You have not made a careful search ? — A. I have not. Q. And the papers coming into your possession — ^you have not found anj'? —A. No. Q. They ought to be in existence? — A. Yes. Q. And you ought to be able to tind them? — A. Yes. Q. Now, as to other documents and papers, what have you ?- ask for ? Q. Any of the documents you may have — letters from any of your partners, letters from Mr. Murphy, letters from Mr. Tarte, letters from Mr. Thomas McGreevy, letters from Mr. Charles McGreevy, letters from either of the Connollys, oi- copies of letters you may have written to any of these parties. Have you got such letters ? — A. I have, but I did not bring them here. Q. Did you keep a letter, in which you took impression copies ? — A, Yes, I did. Q. Of important letters? — A. Y'es. Q. And you have the file in which you keep your letters? — A. Yes. Q. But these letter-books and the letters i-eceived, you have not brought with you ? — A. Not here ; no. Q. Have you any letters written to Thomas McGreevy, or any of his correspond- ence which has come into your hands? — A. They are in the letter-book, if any. Q. I mean letters written to Thomas McGreevy, which should come into your hands as his one time agent? — A. I do not think so. Q. Letteis written by anybody to Thomas McGreevy ?— A. I do not think 1 have. ^i. Have you looked? — A. I have. Q. You at one time, to some extent, controlled his correspondence and were familiar with the letters he would receive ?— A. I would not go as far as to con- trol it. Q. Take, for instance, we have a letter here from Mr. Perley to Thomas McGreevy; did it come from your possession ?— A. No, I never saw it to my know- ledge. 1239 -A. What do vou ? iiii^ 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.)' A. 1891 I il ■! Q. That did not oomo from your pos8es^»ion at all ? — A, Xo ; that i- from Thomas McGreovy to Mr. Perlcy. Q. No; a letter from Mr. Parley to Mr. McGreevy? — Oh. yen; 1 h:id flint. Q. I am awkin^ you now, had you imy letters of Thomas McGrcevj-'s liiiit i-aitio into your possession? — A. No, that is the only one ; he giivo it to ine. Q. I am not askin;^ if he gave any letters to you, liut if you had them? — A. It is necessary to explain somewhat. Q. Nevermind the explanation. I have spoken of a document th:it you have. What have you here under your real contnd in Ottawa? — A. The Quohec Bank statement from 1883 to 1888, and the fhc(iues of 188:}-84-S5-8t;-87. Q. Nothing else hero? — A. Nothing else here. When I say here, I mean in this room. (j. You have those in this room? — A. Yes. (J. Have you anything else in Ottawa? — A. Yes, the letter-book. Q. Any letters? — A. Yes, and statements. Q. You have those under your control in (Jttawa ? — A. Yes. Q. Your blotter is not here? — A. No. Q. Nor your cheque stub book ? — A. No. Q. Nor have yo..> made a search for bills and notes? —A. No. Q. What documents and papers have 3'()U had which 3-ou have parted with and that are now in the possession of others? — A. I could not siy that I have partetl with many. Q. What documents have you had which arc for instance in the posses-ion of Mr. Tarte and Mr. Geotfrion? — A. I do not think there are manj'. Q. IIow many are there, and what, are they?— A. 1 could not say how many. Q. You have handed documents to Mr. Tarte which he now holds? — A. Yes. Q. Some of which are exhibits before the committee? — A. Likely. Q. Are there others not produced hero, which you have handed to him? — A. I do not know ; there may be; my impression is there is. C^. Have you taken a list, av a receipt for lho.se handed over? — A. No, not for those handed over. Q. Have you any objections to Mr. Tarte producing those you have handed to him before this sub-commit tee? — A. I have. Q. What is j-our objection? — A. That I am called as a witness before tlie general committee. Q. And you think it is only your right to produce them a-* a witness before the general committee? — A. Yes. Q. That is the position you take? — A. Yes. Q. I call upon you now, to produce here, in obedience to the order of the com- mittee the documents referred to in the order, or such jvs you choose to in the mean- time? — A. I refuse to produce them unless concurrent with the others. Q. What does that refusal extend to? — A. To everything 1 have. Q. To bank books, cheques and everything ? — A. Yes. Q. You decline to produce anything ? — A. Yes. Q. 1 did not ask you as to memorandum book and diaries, have you any of those ? — A. I have diaries. Q. With transactions entered into them ? — A. Yes. Q. Have you any other memorandum books except diaries ? — A. No. Q. Ouiing what years have you diaries ? — A. From 1868 to 1891. Q. You have a diary for every year? — A. Yes. Q. Do you decline to produce those ? — A. Yes. (^. You include those in your refusal ? — A. Yes. Q. Are those b)ok9 here ? — A. Not in this room. Q. Are they in Ottawa ? — A. Yes. Q. Have you more than one diary — 'that is to say a business diary and a private diary ? — A, I have no business diary. Q. Thcv are all pri%'ate diaries ? — A. They are all priv-ite diaries. 1240 64 Vi'^toria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Pocket-diuried ? — A. Yes. Q. Diaries you kept with you ? — A. Yes. Q. And jotted down in them fiom time to time ? — A.' Yes and jotted down from time to lime. Q. Who is your b(X)k-keeper, Mr. McClreevy ? — A. My hook-keeper was eacli of my sons, as tliey happened to be at home. Q Name your sonn' names who have kept your books. Entered them and worked at them ? — A. Charles, Francis, Bobert. Heniy, James. Q. Keep on? — A. Joseph, Walter; some more, and my eldest daughter, Mrs. LeMoine. (J. And the books would be posted in the handwriting of the one who was at home?— A. At the time — yes. By the Chairman : (I. You stated that you will produce certain papers only concurrently with other witnesses or paities n.cntioned in the same order as you were? — A. Yes. Q. i>oes youi' condition extend to all the papers you have as well as to the envelope which has been left with the clerk of the committee ? — A. It only extends to the bank account which the committee has. Q. This condition then applies only to that paper? — A. Yes. Q. As to the other papers, have you any condition ? — A. The other j)Mpors I refuse to pioduce. Q. You refuse to produce anything you have — with the exception of the bank account until youi- examination is on before the general committee? — A. Precisely. (^. You are willing to produce the bank account simultaneously with the others, but 3'ou are willing to produce all the papers before the general committee? — A. I will then state to the committee what! intend to do. Q. To-day you are not piepared? — A. No, I am not. Q. And you refuse to i)roduce them now? — A. Yes. By Mr. Osier : Q. Y'ou refuse to produce anjthing now? — A. Yes. By Mr. Davies : Q. I understand you prefer that the Committee should have before them your banking account and not the transcript? — A. Yes. Q. Your pass books? — A. Yes. Q. When you are examined before the general committee antl you are asked to produce your diary with releience to any events — where there are entries made — do you wish to intimate that you will not produce it ? — A. I do not know what I will do. Q, Y'ou want to wait until you are asked before the Committee? — A. Yes. Mr. CuARtiES McCrREEVv sworn. By Mr. Osier : Q. You are a son of Robert McGreevy ? — A. lam. Q. Wliere were you living at the time these works were carried on? — A. I was living with my father and then with my wife. Q. One pact of the time, and after you were married, did you keep separate house? — A. 1 did not keep separate house. 1 boarded. Q. What was your position on the works?— A. In January, 188-4,1 was appointed on the survey by M:*. Boyd. Q. What is your position on these works?— A. Assistant Engineer, from 1884 to 1887. Q. Unde.- whose immediate or^er ?— A. J. E. Boyd, and Mr. BoswcU during the winter. 1241 ea 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Von ivsidod in Qiiuboc ? — A. I did. Q. Had you anytliiny t(< do with llio worlfs prior to 1884 ? — A. No, sir, Q. Hud you nnytiiin;; to do witii them utter 1887 ? — A. Yoh, up lo 1890. <^. Ah ABoislttiit-Kngineor ? — A. AMsisiant on the cro8s-\vail from 1881 to 1890. i). When did yon oeawe to have anything to do with the works ? — A. Tlie 1st of August, 1890. Q. At that time you coaled to lie in the employment of the Harbour Commis- wioneiH ? — A. I was expelled on the 1st of August, 1^90. Q. By whom ? — A, As I think, by the Commission — the ifarbonr Board. Q. You were in their employment ? — A. I was. Q. And not in the Public Works Department? — A. I was under Mr. Perley, Ciiief Engineer of the Public Works Department. Q. Ho had two capacities ? -A. I looked upon him as my chief. When I was di8ch«rgeworn, Bij Mr. Osier • Q, The oxportM have rt'porteibor.-s of the C — your books of account, bankbooks, cheques, stubs; notes, drafts and all oiher papers and dociimonts bearing on the question under enquiry. What private books of account have you V -A. None here. Q. Have you any anywhere? — A. I think 1 have some in Quebec. I niaj' say that on Saturday 1 asked the Committee to l«t me go down and get them. (^ We want first to get at what 3'ou have in Queiiec ? — A. 1 must have cheques and bank books, Q. What books of account have you of your own private books? — A. 1 do not know. Mr. Connolly kept my private account. Q. You have some private books of account? — A. Yes. Q. Martin P. Connolly kept them tor you? — A. Yes, and 1 was going to ask the Committee to let him go wi'h me so as to make but one trip of it. Q. Have vou any privale bank acco\int? — A. Yes, in Quebec. 1243 1 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 r f Q. Diiriiij^ tlio (MirroiK^y xftliih oiKjiiiry Iiow many liimlcs did^oii tU'iil with '( ■• A. I tliiiiU I (inly Ixxl oiio |)rivalc haiilv. 1^. Wliat hank waH that ? — A. Tlio liaiik (if Miitinli North America. I may huv«« had a traimactioii or two with tho other. (i. Wlioro is your haiiic book 'i — A. It. miiHt he in (iiiidioc. <). Have you roLuriied cIkwiuom from that liarik 't — A. Yes. (l. Wlioro aro tlioy '/ — A. In (Juoixif. too. (Jl. Have you HtuliH ? — A. I think I liave. (i. llavo you any notos or drariM? — A. I think all my iiapers uro thoro. il. Have you any other docunionts or letters — letters iiotwetui partnitrs? — A. I may have Home. , <^. Then your attention is now directed to tliis ordt^r, which is personal and nut rolntinir to the linn? — A. I understand that. » Q- l>'>y<>u say you cannot olicy it. without any oppor unity oftioin^ to (^iiohtui ? — A. That is my only reason tor not (ilicyiiii;' it. Q- "<> yo" reijuue Mr. Martin ('onnoliy t<» ;.^o with you i" — A. Yes, in order that we may ho s'.iie tn ^k\\. all. My ieaMin is that I mi^ht overlook some and I do not want to come hot'ore the ComiiMttot* and say that i luivt! ne^locted to producu) anything. il. Have you a letter book ? — A. I think i had for part of tho time. Kl. Is that also in Qmd)oc ? — A. I think so. <\, Will you undertake as soon as you art* lelievtMl I'rom at tendance a this (!om- . Moe to ^n down with Mi-. Martin I'. < 'onnolly and make a thorough seai'cli an un all I want him with me. t^. Cannot Martin 1'. t'ii('i)oc i* — .A. No. (j. Wlion did you yourHoH'airivo in Ottawa? — A. l>UHt ni^ht. (^. Wlion did you ioavo Kinj^Hton? A. YoHlonlay arit'inoon or at noon. (},. You luivor lolo^^rapluvl or vvroto any iuHlruc^tionH lo (^uclioo ahoutllio^o jiaporw? — A. No. .),. You c.annol iindorhiko lo prodiir(> IhoHO paporn unlitHH you aw lot IVctt willi Marlin I". Oonnolly to wfaroli rorlhom? — A. if you ur(> HatiMtiod nhout Martin I*. Connolly to /^o thoro alono, lot. him ^o, hut I do not want you to nay, al'tor' ho (^omoH back, if ho Iuih not hrouirht ovorythin^ that it in my fault that ho has not hroiii^ht ovcrythin/^. (J|. It novor occurroil to you to iuMtiiict. Martin I', (yonnolly to hrinf^ all tho hooks ho could find ? — A . I novor tho\if^ht oCit. il. Ar« you Hatintiod d instruct him to j^o and hrinLf all ho can tind "i* -A . Yoh; hut I do not. want, you to ho diHsatisliod at'loi'wai'dH. Mil. I'athk'k Imiikin Hworn. % Afr Osier : {},. 'IMioro Ih an ordor nnulo upon you to produco your lio(daid he had sent all the books that were not here up. I know it is not there in any of the examinations I made. Q. The journal was not the only book missing then? — A. Yes, I think so. Q. W^liat about cash book"E"? — A. I think it is at Quebec. I ili lot know about it. By Mr. Davies; Q. Why do you think so ? — A. I thought I saw it but I remember now I did not see it. It struck me that 1 had seen it. It covers a very late period, I guess 1890 or 1891 this last summer. By Mr. Osier: Q. Do you remomlier a perioil in which the bank account was changed for for some months?— A. Yes. Q. And you went to the liank of Mritish North America? — Yos. Q. They say that bank book is not produced. L*'d you enquiro from the Bank of British North America for it? — A. I think the account was changed in the Union Bank. Q. There was a period for which there is no l)ank account here. Now what have you to say about that ? — A. I think it is the same period that the account in the Union Bank was changed froni tho name o^'Lurkin, Connt)lfy & Co. Q. To whose name? — A. To .Mr. Connolly V. Q. Which Connolly? — A. I do not remember whether it was Mr. Nicholas Connolly or not. Q. Then there was a time when the bank account ceased to be carried on in the name of Larkin, Connolly & Co. and was carried on in the name of one of the Connolly's? — A. I think so. Q. What year would that be ? — A. That would be during the missing period That is probably the time the bank account began tt) be in the new name. ' \ 1— 80i 1247 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Here we have 3i'd January to Slst January 1889, and after the Slst January it was carried on in the name of N. K. Connolly, Here we have up to the 22nd of January as far as deposits were concerned, the name of Larkin, Connolly & Co, Then we have the 23rd of January the account changed to N, K. Connolly., and the book is not produced. This book carries us down lo the Slst of Januaiy 1889, but the next book produced commences on the 21st of May in the name of Larkin, Connolly & Co. Where is the intervening account and cheques? — A. I think the cheques are here. The stubs are here. Q. But the bank book? — A. I thought the bank book was here. I do not know where it is. By Mr. Geoffrion : Q. Is it not a fact that there is a bank book from April 1886, to April 1887, missing? — A. No. It was here all the time and it was found, Q, Is there not one pass book missing on the Union Bank? — A, No, sir, Q. For the first part of the year 1887 ? — A. Xo, sir, it was here all the time. Q. Is it not a fact that all the cheques from April, 1886, to April, 1887, on the Union Bank are missing ? — A. There is one bundle missing, I only found it was missing when I examined them here, Q, We searched here and found that all the cheques for one year — April, 1886 to April 1887 — were missing? — A. Yes. By Mr. Bavies : Q, Is that the bank book you supposed to be missing all the time? — A, No. By Mr. Geoffrion: Q, Would not that little hiatus in the book correspond with the period that N. K, Connolly obtained a contract for the gates in his name and without the knowledge of Mr, Larkin? — A. I think not. The gates were made in the summer of 1887. After certain specific orders were given to Mr. Martin P. Connolly, The Sub-Committee then adjourned. i House of Commons, Thursday, 16th July, 1891. The Sub-Committee met at 3 o'clock with closed doors. Present : Messieurs Girouard (in the Chair), Adams, Davies and Edgar; and also Messieurs Osier, Geoff I ion and Henry, H. F. Perley, Boswell, Verret, a stenographer and two clerks. Mr. H. F. Perlky sworn. By Mr. Edgar : Q. I have just been looking through the Minute book of the Quebec Harbour Commissioners just prior lo the letting of the Cross-wall contract, and I find on the 9th of April, 1883, according to an entry, that a letter had been received from Mr. Ennis stating that plans and specifications have been submitted for his approval. He was then the secretary, was he not, of the Public Works Department? — A. Yes. Q. Then I find on 21st April the entry of a letter being received from Mr. Ennis, with a copy of an Order in Council approving the ph.ns and specifications of the Cross-wall, together with a copy of the plan as approved. Are these the plans (indicating then) that have been signed by the Harbour Comraissioneis, or were they the other plans? — A. Might I say to the Sub-Committee that I had nothing to do with the [jreparation of the plans, but they were prepared entirely by Mr. Boyd, He prepared a plan and specifications, and everything else. The specification was signed by me as the Chief Engineer of the Public Works Department. I believe 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 ^|! these to be the original plans prepared by Mr, Boyd. I believe them to be, because I often discussed points with Mr. Boyd relative to the plans to make watertight work. Q. You have seen these plans? — A. Yes. No. 1 was a plan that was prepared to close the entrance either of the caisson or gates. This shows what would have to be done if we put in a caisson ; but it was never acted upQii. Q. It was one of the original plans prepared, but not acted upon ? — A. But not \cted upon. By Mr. Adams : Q. It does not form part of the enquiry at all? — A. No. No. 2 was the general plan showing the general mode of construction — how the work was to be constructed and how built. By Mr. Edtjar : Q. This is one of the original plans? — A. Yes; it is one of the original plans. No, 3 is also a plan of details and one ot the originals. No. 4 the other alternative plan for the gates. By Mr. Geoffrion : Q, And this is one upon which the work was acted upon ? — A. Yes; thif is one upon which the work was acted upon. By Mr. Edgar : Q, This original No, 4 is one upon which tenders were asked? — .\, Yes; that would be a wooden platform with wooden sill, which was afterwards turned into stone, Q. The sill was afterwards turned into stone? — A. Yes; but otherwise the plan was acted upon. No. 5 is a plan showing the sluices. The contractors did not have to build the sluices, and this merely shows what we purposed as regards their work. By Mr. Geoffrion : Q. It did not form part of the contract ? — A. No ; except in so far as the stone had to be made of the dimensions stated, to allow us to put the sluices in. By Mr. Edgar : % Not the sluices; only the stone work? — A. Only the stone surroundings. The sluices did notform part of the contract. No. 6 is the plan of the gates. Q. Was that the original plan? — A. I don't think it is. I would not like to say thai . I don't think we prepared any plan of the gates, although it may have been copied afterwards. Q. It may have been one of the working plans ? — A Yes. Q. The gates — were these built separately ? — A. Yes; separately. Q No. 6 was not in the contract? — A. No. The one marked No. 8 is a sub- sequent plan, showing the wooden mitre sill. That wa... abandoned whereby a stone sill was put instead. By Mr. Osier: ■•I. These look like a series of plans ? — A. I see Mr. BosAvell here ; his evidence might be taken with regard to those plans. By Mr. Edgar : Q, Wo are asking what you know about them ?— A. They are the only plans I know of. By Mr. Osier: Q. Did vou sign any of the plans, Mr. Perlcy ? — A. No. 1249 ; f i 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 -A. I don't Q. You do not identify any of the plans ? — A. No. Q. And they are Mr. Boyd's work? — A. Yes. Q. Wherein did they differ from the Kinipple & Morris plans ?- know anything about the Kinipple & Morris plans. Q. You never saw them? — A. Well, I saw them, but never had occasion to study them . Bij Mr. Edgar : Q. Well, was the work substantially carried out in accordance with Chese plans that you saw ? — A. So far us I am aware, the work was carried out in accordance with these plans. Q. Except in the item you mentioned ? — A. Except in the substitution of the stone mitre sill for the wooden mitre sill. By Mr. Osier : Q. What was done to your knowledge, apart from that which would bo within Mr. Boyd's knowledge, as to estimating the quantities which these plans and specifi- cations would take, having regard to your lettei" to Ennis of the 23rd of May, 1882, in whicJi you say : '' I have to report that I have examined the three tenders for Harbour Works at Quebec, forwarded to the Department by the Secretary of the Harbour Commissioners in his letter of the 2nd of May, and hereinwith enclose schedule showing the estimated amounts of the different kinds of work executed, to which have been applied the prices named in these tenders, for the purpose of determining the relative value of the said tenders, which are as follows." Now, can you tell me who prepared the estimated amounts of the different kinds of work to be executed ? — A. Mr. Boyd. Q. Was that prepared under your supervision? Did you have a personal knowledge? — A. I took no personal knowledge of the plan ; everything was left in his hands. Q. And you could not say whether those quantities were correct or not from anything that you did? — A. 1 could not say. Q. You were writing here as Chief Engineer ? You know the letter, of course ? — A. I know thf letter. Q. And what you say is that the schedule which you then had in your office as Chief Engineer, was entirely prepared by Mr. Boyd ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. And is probably, I suppose, the schedule you have now before us — a schedule nioneying out the tenders. Mr. Edgab — I was told that was Mr. Boyd's handwriting ? — A. Y"es, the whole schedule is in Mr. Boyd's handwriting. Q. Quantities and all? — A. Yes, all that is not printed, and all except a few red figures. Those are mine. Q. Those were the changes by Beaucage ? — A. Yes, by Beauciige. There are other figures of mine ; the additions are my figures. By Mr. Davies : Q. The addition of the columns? — A. Yes. By Mr. Edgar : Q. You made the additions and checked them ? — A. I made the additions and checked them ; I did it in pencil. Q. How did you arrive at the quantities in the first column ? — A. The quantities of work to be done ? I did not arrive at them at all ; they were done by Mr. Boyd. Q. You took them individually from Mr. Boyd ? — A. Yes, Q. Did you cause no measurements to be made or estimates ? — A. None. Q. Did he submit to you any detailed statement of the estimate of quantities ? — A. None; I never saw them. 1250 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 By Mr. Osier : Q, Do you know how the quantities of earth-filling would be 8f» hirgcly increased — the difference between the amount that wo find in the schedule working out the tenders, I think some 80,000 yards, and the amount we find under the final estimate, which is 191,000 yards? Did it come to your knowledge at ail, or how can you give the Committee anj' idea how that large increase cariie about? — A. I cannot; I might state to the Committee that I never had anything to do with the Cross-wall at all in any way than as the Chief Engineer of the works. 1 was merely, perhaps a few times during the year in Quebec, perhaps once a month, taking a general look at it and knowing the work that was going on. As to the amount of v/ork that was being done I knew nothing, and I never asked. By Mr. Edgar : Q. I think you signed the estimates? — A. The estimates came to me; I don't know whether I signed them during Mr. Boyd's litetime or not. Q. The final estimates? — A. The final estimate is signed by myself; the progress estimates were prepared by the liesident Engineer in charge, and I was simply handed the certificate sheet on which my name appeared ; but how the details of that certifi- cate were made up, were not sent up to me ut the time. Q. You assumed the measurements to be correct ? — A. I assunxed the measure- ments were correct. By Mr. Osier : Q. It is no part of a Chief Engineer's business to keep measurements unless he has reason to suspect there is something wrong? — A. No, sir, it was not my business to have done it. By Mr. Edgar: Q. You did not notice the discrepancy between the amount and the final esti- mate? — A. I would never notice, and never saw the final estimate or the total quan- tities, to my knowledge. I would have had to carry in my memoiy all the quantities used in moneying out the schedule. That I don't know we ever had. Q. You noticed the total, which was all you had to certify to. How is it you do not recollect the original amount? Did 3'ou not recollect what the original amounts were — did you not notice it was nearly §200,000 higher at the end ? — A. No ; for I had no knowledge of what it would money out to. Q. You told us just now, T think, that you added up those figures ? — A. That I did in 1883, and I had forgotten that in 1889, when the final estimate was given. By Mr. Osier: Q. And you could not suggest at all how we come to hav e more than double the amount on concrete — the ditlerence between the schedule tender and the final estimate? — A. I never knew that that existed until I read the pipers. That is the first intimation I had of it. By Mr. Davies: Q. Do you mean the newspapers? — A. Yes; the new* pers. T might state that the plan shows the concrete resting exactly on the kv.i^ni ; but if I mistake not a very large amount of concrete had to be placed under the cribs, owing to the cur- rents created, and the sand being washed out. I know that wo put a great deal of concrete under the cribs, a great deal of which had to be bagged. By Mr. Osier : Q. From the nature of the soil, and the currents discovered during the progress of the work? — A. Yes; during the progress of the work. 1251 m V ■ t i 1 ■ .i 4 ! i ^ 1 ! f ^^^11 54 Victoria Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 By Mr. Davies : Q. Are you speaking from actaal knowledge of your own ? — A. I know these bags were put down, and they were pot down by a diver, I speak of the bags being put down, from seeing them put down and knowing that a diver was at work. Q. You speak from what you were told by whom? — A. By Mr, Boyd and Mr. Boswell, Q. Have you any personal knowledge yourself? — A, No man, unless he was a d'vei', and had a personal inspection or overseeing, could speak as to the nature of the quantities that were put down. It may have been that when the bags were being put down there was a gap beneath, and a solid wall had to be made, so that when the concrete was down we would not lose it. By Mr. Edgar : ii. Do you know of any circumstances which would materially alter the quantity of crib work ? — A, I don't know of any. Q. Do you think there were any? — A. I don't know of any. II I Mr. St. George Boswell sworn. By Mr. Osier: Q. What was your position with regai-d to these Quebec Harbor Works? — A 1 wa assistant engineer for a great part of the time. Q, Commencing when ? — A. In 1877, until Mr, Boyd's death. Q, Commencing in 1877 and continuing as assistant engineer until Mr. Boyd's death ?— A. Yes. Q. When? — A. I was appointed Resident Engineer. Q. When you succeeded Mr. Boyd? — A. Yes, Q. So that you have been in a professional capacity connected with these works from the beginning ? — A. Yes, Q. When did Mr. Boyd die?— A, In 1886 1 think. Q. Did he continue in charge of the work until he died, or was there an interval of sickness? — A. No, he continued until two or three days before his death. Q. He died suddenly ? — A. Yes, he died suddenly, Q. Speaking of theCrosi^-wall, we want to get at the contract plans which were exhibited to the tenderers, and on which the contract was made ? — A. I knew nothing at all ab it the contract until it was signed .ind everything settled and Mr. Boyd came to i ao office with the plans. These are the only plans I ever saw until we pre- pared othei-s in the office — working plans. Q. Of coui'se there would be detail plans from time to time ? — A. Yes, certainly. Q. Were the plans mi^rked No. 1 to fi, the plans on which the work was executed ? — A. Yes, that was the general design. Q. These (indicating them) were the foundation plans ? — A. Yes. Q. Then from time to time you would work out the details, perhaps with some little alterations. Where would those plans be? — A. They would be here some- where : I sent them up. Q. All the plans shewing the details and alterations were sent up by you? — A. They were, sir. There were a few little detai's about the iron work about the gates, which I did not send . Q. You were the officer sending the plans to the Committee ? — A. I was, sir, Q, Then we have here, in the possession of the Committee, these six sheets, and any variations that had been made? — A, \'"ou have all the plans that were used in the execution of the work. Q. Do you know of the preparation of a schedule of quantities prior to the as I the tenders being called for ? — A, No, 1 do not . 1252 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Did you know of Mr. Boyd's making out schedules of quuntitiea and working out and comparing the tenders ? — A. No. Q. You did not aid him in that work? — A. It was all done when he was up here. Q. He came up lie re and that was done here ? — A. Yes. Q. Do you know of the existence of any estimated quantities prior to Mr. Boyd's coming up to Ottawa to work out the tenders ? — A. N"o. Q. Did you ever hear of their being in existence? — A. Never. Q. Then did you afterwards know that Mr, Boyd had made a schedule of quantities, in comparing the tenders? — A. No, I did not. I know somebody had. Q. Did you see the document ? — A. No, I never did. Q. Then you do not know what quantities there were? — A. No. Q. Was there any document in the P^ngineer's o£3ne at Quebec, showing the quantities, or the supposed quantities? — A. Yes. There have been estimates made from time to time, by showing what the probable cost of the work would be. Q. Where are those estimates? — A. They are in Mr. Boyd's letter beok. Q. Where is that? — A. I could not tell you, sir. ii. Did he take his letter book away? — A. No; 1 sent it up here. Q. Those estimates a'-e in Mr. Boj'd's letter book, which was amongst the other papers sent up here, and those letters of his would contain the estimates of the quantities. Are they the only documents ? — A. They would bo his views of the quantities at particular times. Q. Did you help prepare them at all ? — A. No, sir. Q. Were there any sketch plans befoie the contracts were made, on which these quantities got up by Mr. Boyd would be based? — A. I saw a rough book of calcula- tions amongst his papers, but whether they were the ones used in making up the schedule I cannot say. Q. Can you point out that book here? — A. It is in Quebec. I telegraphed for it but I cannot say what is in it. I have not looked into it ; but there are calculations made by him. Q. That will be here, perhaps, to-morrow. — A. It ought to be here to-morrow. Q. What changes were made in the carrying on of the work, by which the work executed differed from the work appearing in the plan? — A. Well, the only cssgn- tial change was in the entrances to the work. They were increased in depth from I think, 15 to 18 feet below low water, and stone mitre sills were put in instead of timber ones, and the bottom was paved with masonry. Q. What change would there be, if any, that doubled the amount of concrete tO be found in a final estimate as compared with the schedule on which the tenJn-s were worked out? — A. I don't think there would bo any change that would have doubled the quantity. Q. Well, was there any change which would increase the quantity ? — A. Yes ; as I say, there was a change from"l5 to 18 feet which would most decidedly increase the quantity. Q, To what extent would that increase it?— A. Well, that I never calculated, Q, Was there any other change? Is it suggested "by Mr. Perley there had to be an excavation below the line originally intended— that is at the bottom of the line of the conti-act there had to be an excavation and a greater depth of concrete placed? — A. No; as a matter of fact thei-e was a little more conct-ete because the dredging could not be done so correctly as to fit the bottom of the crib, but that was only a matter of a couple of feet or so which was filled up, as Mr. Perley said, by bags of concrete, Q. That would be simply irregularities in the excavation ?— A, That was all It was not a contemplated change. Q. Did the irregularities in the exca\ ation occasion the use of more concrete than the straight line of the plan would show?— A. Certainly. Q. That is all j-ou think?— A, Yes, sir. 1253 • I' 't ,i 'I 'u m m I V 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 By Mr. Edgar : Q. Materially largo? — A, Well, aa I say I have never calculated, would double the ([uantities. Nothing that By Mr. Davies: Q. Give us some approximation? — A. I could not tell without calculation. By Mr. Osier : Q. Is there anything else? You have suggested two methods by which the concrete would be increased, and as to which you cannot give me any estimate ot' the extent of the increase at present? — A. Xo; I cannot. Q, Was there anything else that would increase the volume of concrete? — A. No; I don't know of anything else. Q. What other changes were made? The mitre sill of the entrance as sug- gested additional concrete? — A. That is what I sa}-. Q. Now, give me any other changes that were made? — A. There wore no other material changes made that I can think of. Q. No changes in cribbing? — A. I cannot say there were no changes because there were no plans of the work. You see when there is no plan amongst these of the stone wall, and I dont know what the stone wall figured in the original schedule. By Mr. Ed(jar : Q. That is masonry ? — A. Yes. By Mr. Osier : Q. There is no section plan shewing the thickness of the wall ? — A. No. Q. But the specitications will shew that? — A. They may. Q. Are there any working plans that would show it? — A. Yes, but they were made after this schedule was got up. Q. So far as a section of the wall was concerned wo will have to depend upon the description in the specification and if not there it was supplied by working drawings afterwards ? — A. Yes. Q. Well what material would there be, from which Mr. Boyd could figure the quantities? — A. Well I did not notice in the book I sent for. He has some outline sketches, or something. I don't know what he based his calculations upon. Q. Were you the engineer to measure the quantities? — A. Yes, as the work was done. Q. And were the progress estimates founded on your measurtments? — A. To a certain extent, Mr. Boyd made calculations of his own, and I handed him what I considered to be the correct quantities which he 'z^ed. Q. He used your estimates?— A. He used his own estimates, or mine, whatever he seemed to think correct. Q. You were then in charge ? — A. Yes. Q. And the final estimate was from your own estimates ? — A. Yes, except as far .'is it was a repetition of what Mr. Bo3'd already allowed. I diu not alter anything he had allowed ; I just carried on from where he left, that is all. I did not re-traverse any woik he had done. Q. Yes, but ordinarily speaking — perhaps not in this work — we find the final estimate is not at all based or may not be based upon the progress estimates that have gone before but is on a review of the whole work ? — A. Certainly. Q. Was there a review and measuremeni. of the whole work? — A. No. I was satisfied that the measurements were correct enough, but where thoi'e were any little discrepancies, or where he had made certain allowances I left it alone. Q. Have you details of the way in which vou got at the final estimate ? — A. Yes. Q. Where are they ? — A. They are here. 1254 1 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. What shape are they in, have you got them in a book or are they papers? — A. They are in a book. By Mr. Edgar : Q. Was thero anj'thing you know tliat would materially increase the crib work — the quantities of the crib work — from what is shewn in these plans? — A. No, they increased the depth to a slight extent, but oidy very slight. " Q. It was a partial increase of crib work? — A. Yes. il. Do you know anything that would materially increase the earth tilling from what is shown there? — A. It is not shown hero at all. I could not calculate from that. Q. The crib work could be calculated from it ? — A. Approximately. By Mr. Osier : Q, Can you explain how wo find in Mr. Boyd's schedule 80,000 yards, and in your estimate of final quantities 191,000 yards of earth filling? — A. No; I cannot explain it. Q. Have you got anything else in that book of Mr. Boj'd's which shows how he got at that 80,000 yards? — A. No; because he had allowed, I think, 90,000 when the work was half done, in his estimate. By Mr. Edgar ; Q. As still to be done ? — A. No ; he allowed 90,000 when the work was not more than half done. By the Chairman ; Q. It was not more than half done, you say ? — A. It was not much more than half done, when he allowed, I think, 90,000 yards. By Mr. Edgar : Q. Was that when you took it up ? — A. Yes ; when I took it up. By Mr. Osier : Q. Have you any suggestion as to how that could have occurred ? — A. None whatever. By Mr. Davies : Q. When Mr. Osier put a question to you a moment ago, you said that in making up your final estimate, you did not re-traverse any of the work of Mr. Boyd's. How in the world did you make up your final estimate if you did not do that ? — A. I accepted what he had done and went on; I had no right to alter anything. 1 am merely stating what I did as a matter ot fact. By Mr. Osier : Q. When re-measuring the whole of the yardage, or units, he had already cer- tified to other progress estimates. He took these progress estimates as final in the amounts, and added to that what had been performed from the last progress estimate?— A. As to the filling, I did go over it from the very beginning. I re- traversed the filling and went over the whole thing myself. Q. And you knew what?— A. I know the exact quantity that actually went in is what I allowed there. By the Chairman : Q. Did you find your figures did not agree with the last estimate of Mr. Boyd ? — A. I cannot tell you exactly. . Q. Did you not find any difference between your findings and his findings f—A. I could not tell that. 1 could not tell at what condition the filling was when he 1255 Ml I ; ii :. 1! h\1 , *, 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 iillowtid these 90,000 j-arJs, but I stiirtod from the boifinning and went right on to the end. Bij Mr. Davies : Q. This is an exception to the gt^neral statomont ? — A. It is an exception to tlie general statement, because I couid not arrive at it in any other way. By Mr. Edgar ; Q. You wore his assistant all this time? — A. I was one of his assistants. Q. Have you any reason to suppose that during the time he was alive anil acted as Kesidont Engineer fresh bills of quantities were put in these? — A. No; I am certain there were not. By Mr. Osier : Q. Who were the other assistants to Mr. Boswell ? — A. There wore Mr. McGroevy and Mr. Langevin, Q. Were their figures taken at all ? — A. I don't think so. Q. Are you above them? — A. I was, yes. Q. You ware over them ? — A. Yes. Q. What details did they work at? — A. Mr. Mefireevy used to take the returns of dredging, and then I took them and checked them. By Mr. Edgar : Q. And Mr. Langevin, what is his dut^*? — A. He was employed on the South- wall. 'J. Not on this?— A. No. By Mr. Osier: Q. And had you inspectors on this Cross-wall ? — A. Yes, sir. Q. And how far did you rely upon their reports to you of work, or were they merel}"^ inspecting, and seeing the details of your instructions were carried out? — A. They made returns as to the number of barrels of cement used, of the number of boxes of concrete put down, and the estimates were based largely on these returns, which were checked, for the actual quantity in the crib. Q. Then you had to depend upon the inspectors to a great extent for the con- crete ? — A. On the inspectors' return, yes. Q. Did you yourself check the quantities in the crib ? — A. Mr. Boyd allowed the accounts ; it was done in this time. Q. How far would the engineer depend upon the inspector's return as to the quantities of concrete? — A. I think as long as there was no discrepancy between the calculated quantity and the returned quantity, he took what was returned. Q. Then there would be a calculation of quantity before the engineer? — A. Certainly. He knew what he had to go on. Q. Well, where would we get the details of that? — A. You will have them in Mr. Boyd's book o^' calculations. I think there are some in this book here, and I calculated myself Q. That is what you took, the new area of the space to be tilled and the insi)ec- tor's return, and having those, you took the inspector's return. If there was a dis- crepancy what did you do? — A. They went for the inspector. Q. Did you pay the contractor? — A. As a matter of fact the concrete was paid for by Mr. Boyd, who made an average of what he thought a barrel of cement should make, the number of yards it ought to make — 'Sli, I think, to a yard of concrete — and these barrels were all counted and the returns made, acd then he simply multi- ])lied the number of barrels by the constant, and so obtained the number of cubic yards of con cretc. 1256 !! 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. You inoiiHured the concrete by counlinj' tho number of empty ban eU ? — A- By counting the full ones. Wo would count tno full ones in the morning ami the full ones at night, and the dirt'oienco between them was ami'int UNed. H. Then your yardage of concrete was really a matter oi caloulation based upon tlie cement used ? That was then for your progress purposes? — A. That wa-i useil throughout. Q. And it was on that your final estimate was based? — A. Ves. (-1. Your final estimate is not then based on the measuremont of concrete, but the barrels of cement used ? — A . Yes. Q. Who counted the barrels? — A. The inspectors. il. What wore their names? — A. One was named Mr. John Dick, one E. J. Milne, I think, another Joseph Lachanco, and Kichard. By Mr. Edgar : Q. Hero is a copy of the contract for this work, and the printed specifications annexed to it? \. I think that comes from our office. Q. From these specifications, together with these plans, could you not form a pretty good estimate of most of the ^[Uantities? — A. Yes, a good many of them. Q. Tell US what ones you know ? — A. It is so long since I inspected it, that I don't know really what is in it. Q. Does this show the filling in? — A. No, sir ; you have not the original .nnrface of the ground. The cribs were 150 feet below, with long spaces between. One crib stood here, atiother ther-o ; the spaces between them was not filled. Q. Would not the distance between the cribs bo there exactly? — A. Yes, imt we don't know the surface of the ground. (i.. That is, nssuming the bottom was varied there might be a difliculty, but assuming ther e v\ »s no difliculty at the bottom, that it was an ordinary even bottom, there v,'ould - > r'> 'ilticulty? — A. If it was. Q. Well, on ciic assumption that the bottom was even, the iiuantity of filling could be approximulely calculated ? — A. The masonry would be the most difficult. Q. I want 30U t') tell me the larger ich as you have spoken of — could you, with these facts given j-ou, make an approximate estimate of the quan- tity of earth V — A. Not without knowing to a certain extent the original suriace of the ground. Q. With a knowledge of the surface of the groun '. you could malce a fair approxi- mation? — A. A vei-y fair approximate. Q. It was not a serious matter to take levels there ? — A. No. Mr. IJoyd might have known the surface or he might not. By Mr. Bavies ; Q. Were there special inequalities in the ^oil? — A. I merely say I do not know whether Mr. Boyd really knew th'i surface or not. If he did not, he could not have lairly arrived at the quantities. By Mr. Henry : Q. You remember how the dredging was provided for in making room for these t-ribs in this contract? — A. That was another contract — a separate contract. Q. Not in the same ? — A. No; separate altogether. ii. Which contract was it done under? — A. The dredging contract. Yuii must have ti copy of it here. Mr. Michael Connolly, re-called. By Mr. Osier : Q. On the 10th of July it was ordercil that you forthwith produce and lay before the sub-Committee your pei'sonal liooks of account, distinguished from that of the firm — bank books, cheques, stub;, notes, drafts and all other documents antl ])apers bearing on the question tinder inquiry. What have you got toprotluce'.'— A. 1 never had any jiersonal books ; never kept any. Q. Did you keep a separate bank account ? — A. I had a bank account in (Quebec lor a time, but I had no bank book. Q. What bank was it? — A, The Bank of British X(jrth Anierici. Q. You had a deposit account? — A. Just a de|)osit account. I never luul an}- cheque-book or bank-book, Q. You got your cheijues back ? — A. I think 1 did Q. What vear was that in ? — A. 1 think that was in 1SM7 or 1888 — a portion of ISSS. Q. Do you produce those cheques? — A. 1 soon after I received them. I never kept those things. I never cai'ed to bother myself with those things. Those letters that came from Murphy I generally burned them. Ml. A. H. Verret re-called. I made a I would There is Witness — I believe I made a mistake in my evidence this morning, statement that I thought there had been a plan signed with that contract like to see the contract now to see if there was a plan or drawing with it, none, it seems. Then 1 made a mistake. There were so many contracts. By Mr. Davies: Q. You were under the impiesbion that you had signed the plans, and now you think, on seeing them, you did not sign them ? — A. I believe there was no plan attached to the contract. The Sub-Committee then adjourned. mm ■tUia House op Commons, Thursday, 23rd July, 1891. The Sub-Committee met at 3.30 p.m., with closed doors. Present: Messieurs Girouard (in tiie Chair), Davies and Edgar, also Messrs. Geotfrion, Henry, Stuart, Hyde, M. Connolly, Cross, Laiiig, one stenographer and two clerks. Mr. W. H. Cross sAvorn. By the Chairman : Q. You are one of the Accountants engaged in the work of inspecting the books of Larkin, Connolly & Co ? — A. Yes. (i. Tlieso books have been placed at your disposal ? — A. Yes. Q. Without sealing any of the pages ? — A. All pages open. Q. How much more time will you require at these hooks before making your report? — A. For the purpose of the books alone a very short time. Q. What do you call a short time? — A. A few days. Q. You will then ho through them ? — A. 1 think so. Q. Suppose any member of the Standing Committee wished to. look into these books now, could it bo done without interfering with your work? — A. It would interfere with the work wo are doing just now. Q. By Mr. Edgar : But after this week it would not ? — A. No. By Mr. Osier : Q. Is tiiere anything in these books which relates to any other business except the matters that are being enquired into by the Standing Committee ?- 1201 1—81 -A. I think so. m 111 H 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Q. Business of the firm whi ^h has to do with their works other than those being enquired into '! — A. 1 think so. The books presented to us are an adjustment since the Ist of April, 1889. Perhaps it is the 31st of January. It is one or the other — I tkinh, perhaps, it is the 31st of January. Then lookin»>, I have not received one of them. I did not discover one of them or have no recol- lection of any. By Mr. Adams : You have no recollection of getting any from Murphy, or L:irkin & Connolly, or theConnolly's?— A. No. By Mr. Davies : Q. You have got files as far back as 30 yeai-s ago ? — A. Not files, but stray Icttei's. Q. I want to know about what quaiitity of fiie.i you would have to go through to make the examination ? — A. A lot have been torn. ii- Would you have a dozen boxes ? — A. Oh, no. There ai-e not a dozen boxes in the house, but in connection with the North Shore, there aie two dozen boxes; outside the North Shore there is not a box. Q. Are they large boxes ? — A, No ; small bo.ves. Q. How long did it take you to go through them ?— A. I have been at them all last year, day after day, and I have gone through them all. Q. Will you swearyou did not discovei- any from Sir Hector Langevin during all that time ? — A. Oh, that may be. There may Iiave been some letters. Q. Will you swear that during this investigation lasting over a year you did not discover a letter from Sir Hector Langevin ?— A. I would not like to swear if I did or did not. For the moment, I have no recollection of h.aving discovered any. Q. How are we to know whether we can get at them ? — A. I have not destroyed any letters of Sir Hector within the last year. By the Chairman : Q. Did you get any letters within the last 10 years from Sir Hector Langevin ? — A. Oh, res ; lots of them. Q. Did you keep any ?— A. Oh, no ; I destroyed them all every year. I cannot now recollect whether 1 discovered any. If 1 did they had no reference to this case. 1269 ■ I' I n 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 By Mr. Edyar : Q What did you do with them ?— A. I do not romomber "having discovered any at all. 1 do not thinly I have, because I had destroyed them regularly every year. Hy Mr. Fitzpairick : Q. You iiavo not done any businesB since the North Shore contract ?— A. Not isinco r finished ihe North Shore in 1881. Q. And you have ke])t no books personally ?— A. No. ... Q. And if there are any books for the last ton years they have been kept by Mr. Chaloner ?— A. Yes. ,,.,.. ., * v„. Q So that if any person Knows anything of the books ho is the man ^— A. ^ es. q". That is Henry .John Chaloner, who is snbpffinaod here us a witness ("—A. i was not aware of it. . ,, . xi /-i Q However, ho is tho only Chaloner in Quebec ?— A. He was in the Crown Timber Office, and he used to come in the evenings after hours and do any business I had. The Sub-Committee then adjourned. 1270 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 APPENDIX No. 2. mmii M mwmn m im\m. REPOTiTS I '-^n ill I ACCOUNTANTS APPOINTED BY THE COMMITTEE TO EXAMINE INTO AND REPORT UPON THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BKLONCINO TO THE FIRM OF LARKIN, CONNOLLY & CO., &c., &c. 64 Victoria Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 FIRST REPORT OF THE ACCOUNTANTS. Ottawa, 28th July, 1891. To THE Select Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections : Wo have the honour to submit the following Scheilules: " A "— IStatcincnt of triuliiig awcmiit (if Liiikin, ( 'uniKilly k Co., in loiiiifction with tin- contnuts uiidt-r investigation (ilffi'i'tivr as to works cMciitt'd after tlic 31st .lanuary, LSHII). "M" — Totals of payments niaile on acco\nit of .-aid contraets liy tin' <^ui'lii-c Hai'lK.iU' t'oniniissioncrs and the Department of I'ulilic Works of Canada. •*C"" Table of ap|iortionnient of tlie anioiuits actually divided ;is piotits. " !»'" — Table of jiai'tneis' draw ings liy way of salary. "K" — Details of ;.\traordinary i-xpenditun-s at hiv is. "F" — do do do eliarged to Kxpense Aeeoiuif at ueliee, "<»"— do do do do Suspense Aecevnit at Ijluebee. "H" — -'o do do do Dredgint; Atroimt at li)uebee. "I" — do do do di other acecjinits at '^hiebee. '* K." — do do do do Working .Vceonnts at Ksipiinialt, and notes thereon. '• Ij ""—Note as to expi'iiditnre of SL'o.lKMI in l.>.., O. K. Murphy, Michael Connolly, Xicliolas K. Coimolly and Eobert H. Mcih-eevy. The two first nanu'd also received 5L',t (10 each as salary. This South Wall contract was completed by the Quebec firm, and the result was merged in the working accounts at that ])oint. A like sum (810,000) was divided as profit efjuallv amtnig the said four jtartners in the " Knt ranee dates" contract. The books of the firm seem to have 'leen carefully adjusted as on the ."Ust January, 18811, and the ])rotits struck rs l.ot veen the ahove-named four partners, the .senior member, P. Larkin, having letired as on the 31st March, IS.'-S. Two part- ners, O. !•;. .Murjihy and E. II. Mcvireevy, sell out their intere.it to the brotiiers, N. K. and M. Connolly, as on the oi- 1 Januaiy, 1889, receiving for their two shares notes amounting to $70,000, No ))art of this sale appears to have reprc.sontod Ca])ital, and it has therefore been, in Schedule '•(','' treated as prolltN. ■ No valuation of plant or other assets at any period has liecn submitted, nor ha.> there been produced any lialance sheet since lUst March, 1S8S. Moreover, two prin- cijial hooks of account aie missing. We are. therefore, unable to su])ply any intbrmation as to the resuU of opei'ations later than :ilst Januaiy, 1889. The books have not been uniforiiily kejit, and at several points during the Ihirleen years under review, the record h.is hecn broken in various ways. Then the persons who have kept the books, from time to time, have in>ufiiciently under- stood the tran.sjictions they have recorded. Many transfer entries have been made and it is not always that amounts transferred from one set of books can be certaiidy recognized in the other set. Wo have eiuleavoured to avoid du|)lication ol' items and to avoid the treatment of legitimate outlays as Trading Prolils. 'Miller light may show that our work needs amendment in many particidars. The various schedules now |)resented, though lobe regarded as oidy provisionally correct, may be found useful at this stage of the i)roceedings. W. II. CiJOSS, J. 15. LAINtr, AiC'iiiiitdiit.'f for Committee. 1273 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 A. Trading Account. ['aid to piirtnors us profitH, note § 735,061 TL Paid to partners as salaries, note 48,466 67 Extraoruinary expeiulitures cliarged to working ;> jcount, viz. : Levis Books. Expense account $45,035 28 Quebec Books. {expense account 3 31,060 3<> Suspense account 57,618 oO I)redi':ing account 8,006 00 Extras account 374 oG Sundiy accounts 267 M Esquimau Books. Expense account 8 27,085 00 Construction account 1,000 00 .$ 170,447 14 Total Trading Profits ^ 053,975 .53 Amount received by firm from Har'oour Commis- sioners at Quebec, and the Department of Public Works at Ottawa 3,138,^34 ob Showing cost to Hrm $2, 184.259 05 B.' Totals by Contracts of Payments made to Labicin, Connolly & Co. L^rjs. Graving Dock and supplementary work 8 718,372 04 Quebec. Drediiing Contract No. 1 ^ 'la'r'l^o o? ,'lo do 2 294,J18 81 Gas Wharf .Junction and piling 12,634 6^) Cross-wall ^'&it^ V> Entrance gates ••••• &0,U,)< rf- Saiid levelling and roadway tracklay- „,. , . i„„- ,*cc.. •'l-95i) K. Sontl^^' 11 259,518 48 ^<'"*''"'*" : 1,833,415 04 British Columbia. Esquimau Graving Dock $ 581,841 43 Na.iaimo Harbour, clam shell dredge.. 4,354 7.) New Westminster, rails to penitentiary. L4.) o.- ^o-. ..- r,. . 580,44a 70 83,138,234 58 • 1274 I 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Totals bv Years op Payments made to Larkin, Connolly d- Co. ioJo ^ 1*^'1^7 •■'>0 S ::::::;:::::.::::. S'SHJ iQBi (>o,.U2 73 \tll ^'oJfiO 07 joo; 72,000 00 \lli 174,758 87 ]lli 287,85n 64 j««P 4H;],2(iS 71 iRoJ 547,408 00 ^"'^ 542 ''7() *>(; ■tOOQ •''±^,-11) -I) iQQn 406,776 28 is?o -^-^'^^-^ 11 1801 7:5,002 77 ^'^^^ 10,183 59 83,138,234 58 Profits liECErvED by Partners. Fur |ii-i'io(ls fiiiling Work. Total of Pi'ofits. P. Larkii), X. K. S..i,t. Mill-. Ain-il (to Fflj. April .Tan. Mar. .Tail. 17, 1S87 ai, isM(i 1, 1HS7 I, ISSS 1, is,s:i 1, ISMS ;ii, i,ss!i 1, ISSH 31, l.HSlt Li'vis (;rii\iiig Duel '2n''lit'f Harlicitir, . . 'I" S cts. 2n,mr> :a x,7r,n 00 '>,2ryH 00 17, •"mo 00, Ct.H. M. <'iii!iiiir Sniith Willi, (,»ut.lM.C. . . Kiitr:iiR'C iJatcs, (,)iu'l)( Ks(|uiiualt (I'Mtirc uiirk). L'40,!)7!l ();"> <)vcr(lrii.wii ac'counts .j,lS(; 71 Cliarj;c(.l as expenses... . S.OOO 00 tSilice .laii ;{1, l.SSO 70.000 00 4S,lil.-i Hli 17,!l7ti .•*.750 o.-'oO 17,500 4.\."iOO :.',5o() 2,500 48,1! I,-) O. E. ! R. H. -Muiphy. M<(ir(^evi oo' OOi 00 00 00, 01)! 5, 17 '22 .) 4H, S I'ts. 1)7(1 ,S8i Too (M), .'.")0 W, 500 00 750 00 500 00: 500 00 1!I5 SI: ••S cts. •S cts. 17,!)7(> SK 8,750 0() 15,000 IMI 5.2.50 (10 !l,('00 (HI 17,-iOO 00 .30,11(10 (III 22.750 10 3!I,(I(I0 (III 2,500 00 2,5(1(1 00 2,500 ()(» 2.500 (HI 48,1!)5 81 48,I!I,-) SI 3,582 10. 1,(1(14 (H 3,000 (K)< 5,000 0(1 .35,000 00 35,000 (Kl 73.5,001 72 10(i,(;(il 13 148,172 (Ml, 125,422 ()'.»! 107,004 7!) 187,800 42 1275 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Partners' Drawings by way of Salary. X. K. Connolly. M. Comiolly. (). K. .Mmiihy. Total. To .'nlof ISSO. 1881 l.s,S2 1,S83 •S cts. 3,1(1(1 (!7 2,000 (Kl 2,(MK1 00 2,0(KI 00 2,000 00 2,0(K1 (Ml 2,0(Ml 0(1 2.(MK) (Ml 2,(KH) 00 ••? cts. 2,800 00 1,200 (Ml 1,2(K> (Ml 1,200 (Ml 7(J0 (Ml 2,4(K1 (Ml 3,1 lOO (Ml 3,(HM1 (Ml .S.(MM1 (Ml .s cts. r,2(Mi m 1,2(M1 00 1,200 (M) l,2(J(l (Kl 2.(K)(1 (M) 2,(KM1 (Ml 2,000 00 •S cts. ."),!Mi(i (i? 4.400 (Ml 4,4(M1 (Kl 4.4(Ml (Ml 3,!MM1 0(1 (i.4(Ml (Ml 7 (HMl (Ml 1884 188.-) 188(i 1887 1888 Totals 7,(HM) (Ml .\(KMI 00 lii.Klfi (i7 18,r)00 (10 10,800 (Ml 48,4(i(i (•)7 E. L6vis Graviiio- Dock. Nov. Dec. do Mac. 31, 31, 1, Ainil 30, .lulv 20, .lo -'•">, Nov. '.1, Oct. 1!', Nov. I'.l, L).'c. 31, do 31, Nov. »j do -'I, Dhc. 20, K.'l). 2!», .Ill '"1 .Vpril 1!1, 1880 Personal act'cjiiiit in Icdtfcr ((;-3fo. 402), name cra.-i' Donations, .SL'.'iO and .•*l,-)(l 18,S(i llonation. .1. !•:. li 188(i'Kxpeuded on acc(]unt of sale nf electric '.{{{lit plant 188(> llonation, !•:. .1. .\I 1880 d,, per N. K. (' ..... _ . 1887 Kxpen.ses, elie(pie fa'.ci.ir \. K. (," I887: do 1887 I)onati (Ml l,r)88 03 TMHl (Kl ., ISHC. April 1, issr. Mav IS, 1S,S(! Auk. IS, l.SHl) do 2S, lS,S(i S(>pt. 3, lSS(i do n, ISSli Oct. •> ISSC. do *> ISSii Nov. 0, IS,^li do 1,S, 1 SS(i do 24, l.SS(i do :«), 18.S(i !).'C. 20, ISSIl Mar. 1.S, 1S.H7 a<'lva};es of Colli Wine purchased and distrilnitcd tt) ni(.nili..rs of tirr ;uid others Donation, .1. .(. Foote do P. V do iSt. Bridget's .\svhun do C. H ' do To Mrs. Boyd on tlie deatli of Mr. Boyd do .Tohii .lordan do .1. Dick do P.'rX. K. C do Reception to Cardinal ... . . .... Donation do P. O. Order do K. .r. ^t do l^uehe.. Kxhiliition do Trinity Church fioaii to K. .). .^i Donation- v., per O. K. M do .1. K. I'riiic do )M.r N. K. C do .Imc(|Ucs Cartii.r Monument do ],^■\■ O. K. M do per M. ( Loaned }[. (icrujain May 23, ISSK Donatu ii to suffer. •- .\ late tire at St. Sauveur. 20 00 2.') IK) 20 01) 20 C) 100 00 1.".o (M» ■2:> 01) 20 i«) .Ml 00 2.') no ;i(Mi 00 ."ill 00 .'ill 00 2."i.") 00 .Vi no 20 no 111 no I.IKIO 00 12.-) 00 2.') 00 .■)0n no loo no .Ml no loo no .■ll l( 1 00 •Ml lU) 42 no 100 00 202 2S loo 00 l.Ml 01) .Ml 00 .Ml no .Mill 00 ."i IMl •)*, 00 2Mi Ol) 27:. 00 loo OO 40 01) 7:) IIS 10 IHI loo III) to no l.'l 00 2.MI no IMl no 21 II 1 no .Ml on 2.'in no 2.M1 no .Ml IHI .M) 00 31,o<)i) m 127 V 1—82 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 G. Quebec Books. — Suspense Account. Date Kiitrv. Atiioimt. Sept. ;^o, Oct. Hi, •'i-li. IS iMaii:li2S All),'. :! do S Mav -J-', .Jul'v do Oc;. do do Dec. May do June Aug. do St'pt. do 1 ifc. 14, 24. 1. 23, I l.''S(J t'licfuic to (). K. M., l«-iii<^ donation diargwl to expense aceouiit and no« t I'ansfeiTed ISSt) An i-\|ien(lituie cliaive'l to Suspense for the ineseiit 'I'lie latter paviiient <(iri~ists of two eliri),(KHI ; and .S2,1MHI. 1.SS7 ('Inline (li-aun liy < '. IC. M. in eseess of !>.('. Division, lV) .\l ; 1H,S7 T'lieipies eliarKed to l'!s(|uinialt I )o<'k n.iw transfen'ed | 1SS7 I'nion l'.ank cliecpie .\o. 2!M) favo\n- X. K. (.' i \HH7 do do :«».■) favour X. K. C 1,S8S M. Connollys loan to II. A. r ' 1S,S,S donation..' j IS8SI,, lan 1 ISSS I'liiil K. J. M I l^SSl'aid H. A P ISSS I'aid K. I), r. . l.S,s.S I )onation ,^ ^ The checpie on Inion Bank is tor .'>!3,05(J tt) order of X'. K. C. "' for ottiee uhc." l.sSlM'aid K. ,). Milne ISSH Ahered entry in fash l:! favoiu' X'. K. C 18.SII Xoelieipie issit Che<|ue Xo. 22S. §1,5(10— ^10(t oii-shed, 15 x loit— 1n x 10 the nanii: of Cluiloner appeals thereon l'-'''i'X'o eiu-que I- -Hinieqne No. .W? favour X. K. Connolly .'s cts. ."i.OtMl (Nl ;i,iNHi no 2,000 (10 25,01 HI 00 l,0S4 do li 1S.S(; Donation lS,StiK. 1). Hrundlc IHSli do ... ISKIi I'cllcticr l.HSC. Di.sliinscd liv X. K. C ■2. IHSt; I'cllcticr •J. lSS(i Hi'inicUc ;!(p. ISSt) (oTiuain :^1. l.SSCi l'.runcllc and Pcllcl l.'i, 1SS7 Donation ]' L'l. 1NS7 do K. I), i;. V2, l.S,S7 I'aiil !• ,. , -. 1S.S7 Two donations. . . . L'S. 1.S.S7 Donation 11. Hi, 2.'.. 11. VX 20, 2.1, o, 21, 10, 10. 11, ~\. I. 21, 'A I , 10. 12, Hi. 2(< l.'i, 1, 21, n . v.. B. H. .V. 1' n IS,S7 1.HS7 l,s,s7 l.s,-<7 1S,><7 1SS7 IS,S7 1S,H7 1SS7 1SS7 1SS7 1SS7 1.SS7 1S.S7 ls,s7 IS,-: 1S,S7 1SS7 ls,s7 1S.S7 l,s,s7 ls,S7 1.SS7 isss ISS.S ISI^SX. ISS.S do (1(1 l,s,>^'.l Donation to Cigtu'rc (1( do do do do do do do K. i: I'. (I.. I'... I'.. C. altered ciidy .\nioinit. .«! CtS. 10 00 4.") 00 1,"> (HI l.") (Kt l.J 0(t :C)0 00 .■)0 00 .-)(» m 10 00 ISO 00 120 (M) l.-)0 00 20 00 1,5 00 100 00 100 (Ml SO m 10 00 H7 oO KKI 00 !13.-) 00 20 00 !(),■) 00 l.->4 00 240 00 1(i 00 :u."i 00 200 oil OlHI 00 37.J 00 S(HI 00 lO.'i oo 17 .-"O .-||> 00 ; 00 lidll IKI 1,200 00 ,-)0 (Kl S.IMWi (Ml 12t9 1—821 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 I. Quebec Ledger — Sundry Accounts. Diitf. Auk milt. Total. Sept. do Oft. do Seiit. do do do do Oct. do do do do do do do do Xov. do do do .July dc, Aug. do do May May Dec. Aug. 12, 1, 1, •i, 2J, 2S, •i, 24, •>. X, 20, ", ". 1«, IS, 30, ■M), 2.S, 2S, 2«, 2S, 1SH3 1HH3 tHH3 1883 1884 1884 1884 1884 1884 1884 1884 1884 1884 1884 1884 1884 1884 1884 1884 1884 1884 1884 Cxtrati— K. .1 .!(.«. K. J. Paid do do do do do do do do do do do do dp do do do do . M Ki d. M iluc. . lanl. M. M M ilne . . . . iccouut cribs L do L. . . do R . . . . do dredging B. do do B. account cribs L do dreflgiiig B. . . . do cribs L . . do dreflgiiig B do cribs L do dredging B do cribs L do dredging IJ. . . do CI inci ete M . . . . do cribs, Jos. Hiclii 31, 18841 31, 1884 !l, 1884| 23, 1884i 21, 1884 !», 188.") Crilis Account - I'aid L. 0 I 12 .">0 I I.') 00 l."i (M( 10 IH) 1.") (KJ 1.") (Hi .") 00 10 IMI I 10 IH) I 1.-) (H) j 1.") (H» I ].■) (Ht j 1.") (H» I !.■) IK) ! !.■) IH) ! l."> IH) I 1.-) IH) I 7.") 00 I 22 IH) ' •■S cts. 1.5 00 10 (HJ 1.5 IH) 1.-) 1)0 .•)() IH) 1.") 00 Nov. 2, 1883 •redging Plant — Paid .Itjlm .Forda Concrete Accouiit- !), 188.5 Paid Hicliaid.. 12, 1887 Donation Stone Haiiling- 23, 1887 Donation . .5 01) 12 M 374;50 12U 00 30 IH) 17 50 lOO IH) ii42 W K. E,SQULAIALT BOOKS. EXPENSE .VCCOUNT. This account amounts to 889,946.29 divisible into three parts, viz. : — Business expenses §6,(565 48 , Payment to E. II. McGreevy of a one-fifth interest in the profits, treated in the balance sheet as 48,105 81 Donations and extraordinary payments ;{5,085 00 1280 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Tho niiine of R. II. Mctlroevy, the partner, does not appear in these books, but to certain puvmonts in Expense account the letters I*]. W. arc appended, understood to apply to him. By a comparison of the entries in those books witii the record at Queuoc, where ahnost all the payments of the two last-named portions wore actually made, wo find as follows: Payments to R. II. McGreevv. 1SS7. .Ian. 22 .. Jan. •_'.■)... March . . . 1880. Dec. 31... Nov. 11... do ir... 1S.SS. Maicli 1... .Tan. 31 .. Clie.nuMin I'. H. No. l.'iO in favor of (). K. Miirphv. Cliwiuf n. N. A. Xo. S(il51 '. , Credit to account at folio 171 Anioinit. Casli. do . do Cheiiue IJ. N. A. No. 8(i24S Plant .and stone at B.C. sold K. W. as per entry folio "H, e\liibit T3. .»! 3,(MM> ,l)(MI )M) .•S.WMI (Ht 10,(«lfi ()(» o.lMH) (N) 15,000 (M) 5.11I.J SI 2,000 0«( 53,1!15 .Si The total makes $.5,000 more than a fifth share of profits divided. To enable the Committee to follow this it seems necessary to add the account of E. H. McGreevy in tho Quebec Books. 1883. April 30.. June 1.. 1887. Mardi 14. 1885. Nfiv. 17.. Dec. 10 . 188(>. Red Pine sold to firm.. . Interest thereon . Finn cheque. , Cash paid on account C^. H. profits, do do .Tan. — Cash paid Aug. 30 ...: do Sept. 30.... I do Oct. 2....; do do 21 ... . iCash on account B. C . do 25 do * cts, r),rm 42 845 .S2 1..500 00 5,042 24 $ ('ts. (>,542 24 fi,,'J42 24 1SS7. April 1.... do 1. . .ICash [Miid. 1,S8('.. Dec. 31. 1887. April 1. Portion of B. C. D'vn erroneously charged to him. Transfer to Ksfiuinuvlt Dock 10,000 00 5,000 00 1,000 00 4,t)00 00 l,00f> 00 2,000 00 5,0(M) (K) 5'000 00 3,000 00 1,(KK) 00 10,000 00 3,000 00 37,f>00 00 4. H. profits last year ! l^^.'HKMM) do thisyear 1 '^-^[^J^ 1281 37.0" KJ 00 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 1SK7. S L'tS >1 Ct-4 Oct. Nov. 1. 4... CuhIi paid ' i,ihhmki Dfc. 10 . . I'aid his notu iltli Nov., ^JilMMl mid intcn-Ht !?S5. do ;n . . . . A Lortits' lu'ciiunt trmisfci-rrd liitt'ieHt 1)11 (ivcr-di'iifts dnriiiff year 'JVansfiTs fioiii .Miicliiiii- Sliop ISSS. •Ian 10 d. .;u,.. . A|.l •JO. .. S^p. 1!). .. ()(t. 15. ... l).c 10 l).c 10 do 21 ... . do .■fl I'aiil his oi'dcr favour (). ]•]. .Murpliy this (hiti-. Paid his note fith Ainil, IMS" ' Chi'iiuc No. 4H1 for ualaiifc of 1887-S division :),((2r> (H) ."iOO IH) 140 75 4S M i(i,ii:t."i 'HI :i,(NM) 00 1,!I51 lil !His proiHirtion of chcciui' favom- of M. (J. for .'*i;t,375 ICasli I do iLfgal cxiM'iisi's )■< Lortio jX. K. CoiiiioUy 'f "asli Intcrt'st I'otntofH S,!ll7 .5,(KKI (H) 5,000 00 5,000 OO 2,000 00 30,0S5 IK) 3,000 (Kl 27,0K5 iKt 1282 64 Victoria. Appemlix (No. 1.) A. 1891 ' if Connti'uction AccDiiiit in E8(iiiimiilt in Ajtrii, 1881], jit folio 27 <»t Kxiiihit " E3, " is chnryotl witli amount disbuiKcd, 81,00(1. This coiacs from Quebec anil under dale <»f 28th April, 188'), at folio l')7, Kxliibit *' K3," the entry tiioro runs : " ]?. C. Graving Dock, useil for use of construction Dork," 8I,0(tO. An entry in the Diary of O. K. Murphy for 1S85 (I'-xhibit "<2!»") under date ol June 3 appears: 1.000 ino'*. X. K. C. 1,000 :{ mos. 2,000 4 mos. " Evidently refei-ring 'o the item of 84,000 of AuL;'ust 188,'). I'll xoTi-;. 825,000. — Transartion of 1st May, 188.1, re Quebec Harbour. B2-2,0Q0.— Transaction of 2nd June, 188-1, re Livis Dock. The book record of the iiayment and subsequent treatment of the notes to have been given for these transactions is as follows: M. I'onnolly, Cheque Uth May, 188^, for Note Xo. 1 (fo. 3;j, Kxhibit K3)... N. K. Connollv, C'k Ist June, for Note Xo. 2 (fo. :U of E3) P. Larkin, C'k Oth Nov. '83, Note No. 3 (fo. 147 of K3) O. E. Murph}-, C'k 4th Dec. '83, Note No. 4 (fo. 1(14 of E3) N. K. Connolly, C'k 4th Feb., 1884, Note No. 5 (fo. 181 of J';3) M. Connolly, C'k No. 645, 4th Aug., '84, Note No. 1 (fo. 37 of K3) O. E. Murphy. C'k No. (iOC, 4th Sept., '84, Note No. 2 (fo. G!) of K3) N. K. Connolly, C'k 24 Sept., '84, Note No. 3 (to. 69 of K3) C'k 5 Nov. '84, favour M.Connolly This eiitiy at folio lOH of K3 is not posted to any account the etfect being that Cash a;c would then be wrong to that extent. P. Larkin, C'k Dec. '84, paid on a?c Note (fo. 109 of K3) P. Larkin, 26 Jan. 1885, paid on a;c Note (fo. 12!)ofK3) P. Larkin, 28th Jan. 1885 " " " alle^'ed 8,-).000 5.1100 .'i.iioo r).i)U(» ."),(I00 2,(t00 .").(f00 5,U0(» 4,000 2.000 5i)0 500 In all 844,000 So far 844,000 has been paid and all, save one amount ot 84,000, which has not yet found its way into the ledger, appears to be personal jiayments made on behalf of members of the firm. Their accounts, however, are discharged by the following entries, which show the true character of the outlay: — 30th April, 1885 (Folio 299 of F3). For incidental notes charged to their accounts, now credited back : Cash Dr. to Sundries 83^000 N.K.Connolly 815,000 P. Larkin 8,000 M.Connolly '»,000 O. E. :Murphy 10,000 30th April, 1885 (Folio 9 of Exhibit •' N3"). Graving Dock Dr. to M. Connolly For 82,000-note O. E. M., charged to incidental expenses. 8 2,000 As these two amounts, 340,000 in all, were charged to Levis Cash that account has api)ropriated to it 844,000— in this way. 1283 IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-S) ^ <4^ ■"■.^ ''*.^" ^ ! :^<^ Ms 4^ Si %" 1.0 I.I 11.25 •- 121 12.5 1.4 11.6 V] ^;. 7 Photographic Sciences Corporation \ iV [v SJ :\ \ 6^ <^ 33 WIST MAIN STMfT WltSTER.N.Y. MSSO (716) •72-4503 o 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Then, on '.iOth April, 1885, the trnnsnctioii-s aseiuine the final fiirin as cash pay- ments on that day, the entricH being (Folio 0, Exhibit " NS") in Quebec books. Expentsus Dr. to (iruving Dock (Cash account) For iicldental notes paid for Q. 11. 1 $25,000 (Folio 2t»0, Exhibit " F;{ ") L^vis Books. Expenses Dr. to Cash For incidental expenses paid for notes 22,000 Thus $3,000 is charged to E.\pen.se account as having been paid, whereas there is no trace to this date of any such payment. On 30th May, 1885, two payments of $3,000 are entered. (Folio 173, Kxhibit " K3.") 30tli May, 18^5, Ivsquimalt Dock. 6 mos. draft favour of M. C, dated 28th Nov, '84. payable at Union Bank 83,000 (Polio 177, Exhibit " K3.") Esquimau Dock cheque of B.X,A. Bank to pay draft 3,000 The latter cheque to the oi-der of the firm is credited to the Bank on 1st May, 1885, the former payment is credited to the Bank as cheque to the tjiiebec Bank to retire note for B.C 3,000 The evidence is that a $6,000 note was settled by a cash payment of $2,000, and by two notes, each for same amount. Diary of O. E. Murphv for 1884 Exhibit ("P 9 ") shows cash payment as made Isl December, 1884 2,000 That for 1885 (Exhibit " Q 9 ') shows two further payments on 27th and 31st Jan., 1885, each for $500, the other moiety is evidently represented by the above- named note at 6 mos. from 28th Nov., '84, which, strange to say, is charged to Esqui- mau, and thus $3,000 is charged twice. The obvious conclusion is that all other entries for the two years prior to 30th April, 1885, being correct, the shortage during two years in cash of $391.79 charged on folio 159, Exhibit " K3" to O. E. Murphy should have been $3,391.79. The earliest reference to the $22,000 transaction is found in note book ofO. E. Murphv for 1884 (Exhibit "P9"). Notes given 2nd .Tun«\ 1884. 1 of $2,000, two months for M. C. 1 of $5,00it, three months for O. E. M. 1 of $5,000, for four months for N. C. 1 of $4,000, live months for M. C. 1 of $(J,000, for six months for P. L. $22,000 Sofar as the $»i,000 entry is concerned there has been an erasure where the figure U now appears. M. NOTE. $27,000 — Drcdtfimj Contract Item of 'I'th March, 1887. appearmj in Supen^e Account in Quebec Books. The entries ai-e : Folio 282, Exhibit '•N3." 28th March, 18S7. Suspense Account, Dr. to Esquimalt Dock $25,000 12S4 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 For error in charging B. C. with cheques on — Feb. 4, B. Jii. A., 80,157, Folio 268 85.0(10 4, Union Bunl{, 1.56, do 268 .5 000 14, B. X. A., Folio269 5.000 17, Union BanU, favour O. E. M,, 270 .'>,000 28, do do ,lo 272 ."ijOOO At Folio 1H4 ot^ Exhibit " L3," 18lh Fobiuary, 1887. Sui^punsiu Dr. to Union Bank 82.000 Cheque drawn by O. E. M., in excess ofB. C, division of 2.') M. No entry appears in O. K. Murphy's diary for 1886 and 1887 in this connection, unless the following apply thereto : 2nd .May, 1887. ".Sent $25,000 through the Bank of British North America by telegraph." 21st February-, 1887. Chas. McNamara S 670 R. H. McGreevy 200 Belleau 200 Golden 360 Dushine 8100— 8.')0 LiO Lee— Tailor "i.^O Foley— Tailor l^loO (!haloner 300 Howard 200 Flynn 2.-)0 R. H. Mclr 100 Brady 75 Denning 40 R H. McG 800 R. H. McG 1,100 R. H. McG 200 Joynt H R. H. McG 200 Valin 250 i ^ Levis ;.).> A total of 87,0.53.00. Two additions appear on the book — one of 86,4.53, and an- other 86,853. N. O. E. MURPHY. The personal diary for 1881 (Exhibit " 3l!>") throws some light upon the item of $1,576, charged to expenses on Slst Dec, 1881. Near the end of the book, isolated from other mrUer, the following list appeared : DONATIONS. 2 July, '81 8100 16 " 100 30 " 100 12August 75 26 " 100 lOSeptembei' 75 24 " l»0 1285 sa J 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 DoNATinxs. 8 October 8 !M» 22 '■ f»0 a November !I0 18 " 12ti r. B. Inspeet(tr 10 Milne TiS Volor T'j Sewoll 2U0 Cbubot 200 A total of 81,57(J. This is evidently ii summary, the details of wliicdi might be looked for among the jmymentH made from day to day kept at tlie boginniiig of this book (Kxhibit "MO.") Such paj'ments as there ret'ordei)N.\TIoNS. Nov. Dec. 4, 1882 18 " IS " 21 " 27 '• •> 1. .R. \- H. 80.D 8 M M ? .M .H . B. 150 tiays extra. .F{. Mil denick 25 •a 11.') 110 12.5 2.J 100 A total of 81,449 — amount of the I^dvis expcriHe entry of 31si Decenibi-r, 1882. Tho above recurring tbrtniglitly, payments ret»emble the payments to inspectors, and others appearing in the lirm's books in later years. A further entry of 82,472 is made as on the same iluy, in the !, for near the end of the diary of O. E. Murphy for 188.$ (Iv\hibit " O'.l "; appearsthe following list headed : Donations. May June .Fuly Auu'. Sept. 19, 188:5, R 8 5 00 Reception President .') 00 R. on T :IJ tto 31 2) 00 .las. Patton ') 00 M.cash .'» 00' Donation Ha/.aar 2 00 F 100 00 R. Time 3:5 00 R. Time 2.-. 00 Forsvth 150 (to M.. ! l'» 00 Forsyth 5 00 R. Time 40 0(t M 140 0(( Labbe 20 00 R. Time 4.-» 00 Ldbbe 20 00 Labbe -'0 00 Brenelie 20 00 J. B. F 100 00 R..mTime 40 00 M. Locket & (Mass •> 75 M.Cash 15 00 Lubbe -0 00 Brenelle 2<» 00 ' R. Time •■!."• 00 ' (rermain 20 0(» ' Brenelle -'0 00 ' Lucbbe '.iO 00 ■ (ici-main -0 00 ' .Tos. Richai-ds 40 00 ' P. Volor -'»•• 00 ' (U'rmain 20 00 ' Richards :{0 00 12S7 20 2t; 4 8 8 !» :) 7 7 12 18 21 28 28 4 4 18 18 IS 18 18 24 1 1 1 1 l.j 15 15 15 15 15 29 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 DONATIONS. Sept. '_'U, 18h;j, Bioiiellc 8 "-'O 0(» 2!» '• llnmoll Churett 2«M( »0 Oct. i:{ " Kichurd 1"-' 50 i:i " Boondle .' 20 00 20 '• Klection Clmbot 400 Oit 27 " Hichanl 25 00 27 " Bronelli' 2(» 00 27 •' Miliio 5 00 Nov. 10 '• Uiclmrd 15 00 10 '• Hienello 20 0(» 15 " Jiiclmrd »3 00 A total of $2,147.25. Thm ia $324.25 less tlmii the entry in the firniH bfjokn, 4i;,'ainst this there aro items in the continuous list at the Iteginninj,' of the book as follows: Fob. 15, 1H8;{, H. Donation $ 300 00 Evitlently the disbursement by Hume appearing; in the Ixniks and soparatel}* listi'd. also June 22, 188.*$, Monthly donation, Cliaries Lavelle 8 15 00 Nov. Hi. Election Committee 5W "" Dec. 15, Harbour Commissioner 50 00 The diaries in subsequent years contain the original memorandum from which entries are made, at dates usually some days later, into the tirm's b(M>ks, and the yearly lump sum items cease. 1288 54 Victona. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 SECOND REPORT OF THE ACCOUNTANTS. Ottawa, (Ith Au«,'u»c, l-i'.M. To THE SEI.ErT SxANIilXd CViMMlTTEK DS I'KI VII.EOEB ASD Kl.ECTIoSS : Wo have the honour to pl•o^ollt ll^ our Sut'oiid ituport two .Si-Ir'(1iiIi>,s ileuling with tho liooUs of account, clie<|ueH ami tinancial ilociimunlM .')Uhniittey Tiioinas Mctrreevy, M, I*., and Jtobort II. Mc(f reevy, viz. : •I' ■O" -niniMii.. MiCr.'.vv. .M.l'. •P" IC.Uit II. Mi(ir.4vy. W. II. CKOSS, .1. I{. LAINt;. Accoitntantu for C'unmittie. "O." TJIO.MASM(MiIli:i<:VV. pKonucTioNs : IiOc!i;or B— From 4th .June. 187:5, lo.il8t Oct., 1S7!». do C— From \\\^i March, 187!l. to ;^Oth Nov., 1SS4. (Vh Journal— From 21.-*t .lanuarv, 1H80, to :^Jst Doc, 1884. Cubh Blotlor— From 21st January, 1880, to IJIst March, 1884. do do l»t .laniiaiy", 188.*>, to 31rtt May, 18S7. do do 1st Juno 18H7, to 3(Hh .Mar, 18!»1. Bill Book— From Ist Nov., H77, to 'Jlst May, 1888. t'opy from Bank Nationaie ol account current, Ist .May, 187."), to 12tii May, 1S84. Pass books : Bank Nationalo— From 1st Dec, 187 do 23rd Nov.. 188(5, to :5tUli June, 18'.i"i. Bank of .Montreal— From WUi l>ec, 1882, to ;50tl. June, 18IM. Cancelled cheques : Union Jiank — Jietween 2nd February, h'"S7, and 2Stli February, IsJl. : I The books of account, seven in number as above, cover a period of 18 years and have ijeen kept by the isme person throughout. The keeper of them has regarded himsolt as an agent and Thomas Mcttreevy is treated as a tliird person, no distinction between 'Capital.' • Profit and Loss,' 'Kxponbcs' business or personal, is made, but an account in the Letlgers, 'Thomas Mctireevy,' end)races receipts and e.\|H.'nditurc8 which are usually found >eparately accounted for. From 1st January", 1885, only a scroll cash book is kept and the particulars given therein are very bald ; they deal with the discount transactions with the various banks. The actual cash shown as received appears in a single entry each month and Tiiomiu) McGreevy appears as the source from which tho money comes. .Sometimed a second line with the word 'interest' before the amount appears ; oicasionallj', a third with 'InHUranco' similarly written. At no jjcriod do the entries sufficiently describe the transactions recorded, but fiom Ist January, 1885, the information given is 80 detevtive as to render it quite valueless for tho purpose of this enquiry. At one point an exception must be made. 12 5!» 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 Folio \'{t of Cash lllotttr. .Inly 2:j, 188;{.— T«» I{. 1[. MtCiicovy th/ (this , IHS;{.— Hy N. S, !{. IJ.mtl. .McCarroM \ Canioion, on account W!..')!! ."»!• Aui,'. 1(1, 18H;i_By N. S. It. l{oail, McCarrouiN: ranuTon, llifirjudifinent |>ai,24<» 11 do 1(17.— do I', accl., .Icl.il halance :{.:;s2 47 do l(»8,— !4s .-»4 do 14(1.— do Special accl., credit l.alancc .I.'ilil l!» Tiie l.alancc at folio 102 includes an interest cnlry of 8HS,ir>4.S.'i and a .>.uliMe(|uenl enlrv.as of 1>I .lanuary. lSS!t, is made cliaririnir a further ilcni <.f intiMc-«l 8'''»,r.'('.M when the dcl.it halanci) l.ccomcs 8170,1.10.45. To the accouiil at foli(. 110 an ilciii of ca>h, 81,072.87, is chained, rcduciiii; ihc l.alancc lo 62.."!tl.(»2 ; othorwiso no re- gard is had lo the many transactions since l>t .lanuarv. 1>>.'<5. These hooks showdirect dealings wiiii .Sir IIect(.r J>. Laiifrcviii. notes aniounliiif; to 810,100 havinu: hcen current fn.iii early in 187'.) to .Inn.', ISIH. The notes. 8:5,0"". 8.'v'!00 ami 8.I.H»(t, have recurred eacii lour months as Hill> licceivai.lc, iinchanired as |(. amount, ihr(.u;^h these twelve ycar>. The accouni ' II. L. lianiievin "' heuins on 12lh -March, 1S7>, as a noie aecoiinl. Tlu' lraiisaciion> (an he traced hack to2l>l June, 1871, when a note oi 81,.")00, is chaif^cd lo the account of Tarle \ J)osjar lins. Later, lietwccn Hlh July and 7lh .Septeiulier. 187 l.tourlccn cash paymeiils, amounlin^ in all to 82.000, are charijcil lo the same tirms accoiml and arc oir>(i l.y a note II. Ji. L. for 82.000, due 2Md .\ov.. IS71. ()n !>tJi .lune, 1S77, the advances to Tarte and Dcsjaidiiis aiiK.nnl to 8>^.."».'I4.0S, and are carried to an .•iccount at folio 12'.', heaec., 1.^7!'. liiiuk Aciuitnts. The accounts with the three hanks namcci ahove, show a larice volume of hilsiness, reaching a maximum of over a iniilion .ind a-half dollars of disct.unts and de|.osit8 diiriiiij 188!!. The cancelled cheipio j.nHluccd for four years with one hank, deal with only a fraction of this volume of husiiicss. I''(.ur chei|ues made to the order of O. K. Murphy, and cndorm-d l.y him, may have some direct hearing upon the Knquiry. thedatesof these cheques nre from iJOthOctoher, 1888, to 8thJune, 1889. 12'.»o S4 Victoria. Appeiulix (Xo. 1.) A. 1891 ,. p .. i:. II Mc(;i{KKVv. I*R<»l»i;('THlN8: ;,\liil.it UVi — Withif lUtoU. fioiii Sept., iss'.t, tu.luiic, IH'.tl. Si:{ — I,<»(m« Slu'ols, t'nuii loth June, to 23ril July, ISsT. Tl.'t— WuHto UuoU, lioni Till Juii.. ISST. to JJlst Aut;.. li^sn. n.'J — Journal, from l>t June, |s,s;{, to i»!Ml< May, iSiM. Vl.'J — Lotlm'r do do lU) Xll — Savinn^ ItankH at'c-ouni. Ironi ITlli Nov., ISs.'i, to ;trd Julv, ISltl. Yll — do do fi I I)«r.. IS8_', to 2Hli Sopl., ISIK). ()ri::inal of I'ans Hook (Kxhiltit "Xll '). (..'ai>M» d'Kcononiie. (^in-hec Hank l'ni*r* Book. IHili tu-t.. 1SH2. to :j(Hli Aii;:., ISS.'). do Copy of a«tt. current. Isi .St-pt., ISS."), \i>:i\s\ Au^'., 1H89. do Cancel led (•lie(|Uf> for (5 years, iSS;; to ISSS. /,. !• — t/ueDec Hank.copy of account current. ."{Iwl I)ec.,ls,s2,!o .ilsi Dec.,lSS7. KnveU ,»os (."l) conluinin^r retired itills. Sluli of chet|ue Iniok, (iueliec liaidv. 2llli Jwiy to-'Unl l)«c., I8h4. lay to I'dlli May. 1«S |. Tenders re Sontli-Wall and Slateinenth. !;t documents. Letter Hook (I're.ss cupioh). lin-l Nov., 188r», to ICth .Iiinc, IS'.tl. Diaries for six years, iss;{-,«i7 and l88!t. do do do do do do d. Tlie l(ook> |>rodueed, a> del:iiled mImivc. do n of glST.suti. U'. (See Scliedule < ', Ist Heport.) We have since heen informed that his >hare of Ihe STO.IHIO, was ??IO,(iilO, in which case his receipts umhr this lieail would he 8l"2.^'tMt 42, the payment t<> (). \'.. Murphy heinir iciliiccd hy this diirerenc«« ot s.'i,(Ml(i. The hooks of account show the receipt of no part of tjiis moiic\. Besides ihesedefects, the liooks as hooks of account are absurd, iiutsmuch as they show tin- |iaymont of larye sums of money without aUMpiato conlra-roceipts from any soiirie. Kntries appear in tho Lediier not jiosted from the .Journal or Blotters and en- tries appear in tiie Journal without heini; carried into the licdiicr. hlnliios po>ted into the liodycr are ruled out and there are entries intcilincd, Ihe whole accounl at flilio "S in cancelled, hein;; scored over with a pen. Ki;,'uies are era.sed with a knife and others wriltenovor ihoerasures. In a similar maniuM', erasures have heen made and iiolhiii;; suhstiluleil. I'aijes in several places have heen cut or torn out. If these hooks are to he seriously re^;iiiled it would apju'ur from them, that -ave one .sale of red pine in 188."!, and a trillinj^ sale to the lirm since, J{. II. McUreevj- has had no ilealin,i,'a with liarkin, Connolly \ Co., for the past oii,'ht years. Several accounts with haidvs ajtpuar in the Ledger, hut none with the t^iieboc Bank, with which institution his deposits and discounts toi;ether amoiniteil to $.'>() 1.1.'):;. 28, during tho tive years ending 31st December, 188". Diitn'is. Tiie diaiies, although largely occupied with trivial matters, tiirow light upon the firm's atl'uirs from time to time. Tiie following i-ntrics appear during these nve years: l-'tH 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1R91 1884. May 12— Gave T. MiG., 815,000 on account of imlebtcdnosH, to bo applied on notu ut Bunk. Doc. 3.— Note, 9<»,000, of L., C. & Co., due, Hettled as follows :— Canh $2,000 Note, 4 moiithH 2,000 do .'» ers of the tirm. The three notes entered on Hrd .fune, 1885, are clearly those entered in thodiar^' of O. £. Murphy (Exhibit " Q9 "), making together the 94,000, charged Ksquimalt Exiiense Account in August, 188.5. The 95,000 entry of 9th November, 1887, would seem to bo the N. K. C. pay- ment of 2nd November, 1887, charged to IAvIh Graving Dock, as to which evidence has been given. (Exhibit " V\V)— Ledger. The account of Thomas McRreevy begins on Ist .Tune, 1883, with a bulnnco due by him to R. H. McGreevy of $3,174.44. The account runs through six folios to 26th .fanuary, 1889, but is not added up, and no balance or final result is shown. If the entries made were added, there would appear a balance of nearly 960,000 against Thomas McGicevy. The cancelled cheques produced for the six years (1883-88) seem fairly com- plete. As a rule they arc made payable to Bouror. Among the exceptions aie six payable to the order of O. E. Murphy, none of which aro explained or entered in the books of account. The name of no other person coimected with this enquiry appears on any of the cheques, except on one cheque, 17th October, 1884, for $9,817, in favour of Thomas McGreevy or Bearer, and this bears no endorsement, and the books atford no information regarding it. 1293 1—83 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 1 THIRD REPORT OP THE ACCOUNTANTS. Ottawa, 8th August, 18'J1. To the Select Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. • Wc have tbe honour to re|)oi't that the bookH of uccount, cancelloil chequua and memoranda Hubmitteil to U8, other than thoHe referred to in Schedules " A " to " P," of our Firxt Koport do not contain information of a character likely to pmve useful to the Committee. We hoped to have be^n able to show the extent to which tint various productions by individual members of the firm and by Thomas McGreevy, M.P., could l)e reconciled with each other and with the five sets of books of the tirm of Larkin, Connolly & Co. Apart from the subsequent mutilations, at various places, wu should believe the firm's books to be honest and straightforward statements of the transactions they purport to record, if those who kept them were in all cases really, as allegtHl, igno- rant of the details of the extraoi-dinary payments there recorded. We have found nothing in the productions by other witnesses that discredits anything appearing in the said firm's books. The productions of Messrs. Thomas and li. II. McGreevy hopelessly disagree with each other, and we are without the means of determining, as between such differences, the extent to which either are right or wrong. The productions of other members of the firm, viz. : Patrick Larkin, Nicholas K. Connolly, Michael Connolly and O.K. Murphy, are even less complete. They do not disagree with the firm's books in any material point, and on the other hand they add nothing of importance lo the information afforded thereby. W. H. CROSS, J. B. LAlNiT, Accountants for (committee. 1294 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 I APPENDIX No. IT llGMIimOURIflLEf-ESAll RT]PORTS OK THK ENGINEERS APPOINTED BY THE COMMITTEE TO EXAMIXK AND BKHMIT UI'OX THK TKXDKKS AND COXTRACT FOR THK CROSS-WALL IN THK HARROUR OF gUKRKC ; AND THK ( OST OF THK CHAN(JKS MADE IN THK (iRAVIXC DOCK AT KSQUIMALT, R. C. I , 1-83J 1,1* 54 To of} fort for tlie or she toi Coi Vi( for Co cat hIk of ap on tlii 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 FIRST REP( >RT OF THE ENGINEERS (CllOSS-\VAI,I, IN THE IIaRIKH'R <>K QlEUEd.) HdusE »»F Commons, August 4tli, 1891. To THE ClIAIIlMAX ANIt MeMUEKS ttK THE SELECT StANUINU CoMMITTKE ON PrIVI- LEUE8 AND Ki.ECTIONS : Sirs, — In oomplianco witli iiistniclioiis containod in the iin7 54 V'ctoiia, Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 \)u\:\erti:— The Morning Chronicle, The Daily Telegraph, Le Canadien, Le Courrier du Canada, of Quebec; Le Quotidien, of L^vis; and The Gazette, The Herald, The Shareholder, La Minerve anil L'Etendard, of Montreal. " Notice to Oontbactohs. "Sealed Tenders addresseil to the underisigned and endorsed "Tenders for Qiielieo Harbour Works," will be received at this office, until 2ntl Maj- next, at 3 o'clock p.m., inchisive, for the construction of Quay-wall, and entrance works to the Wet dock and other works in connection therewith, accordini,' to a plan and specifi- cation to be seen at this office, where printed foims of tender can be obtained. " Persons teiiderinff are notified that tenders will not be considered unless made on the i)rintod forms supplied, with all blanks and prices properly tilled in, and sii^ned with their actual signatures. 'Each tender must be accompanied by an acf;e/)fed bank cheque for 87,500, made payable to the Honourable the Minister of Public Works of Canada, and the party to whom the contract is awarded must be prepared to deposit as security with the Honourable the Minister, a sum, of which the S7,5U(( will form part, equal to five per cent of the amount of the contract, which sum will be forfeited if the contractor tails to complete the woik. If any party tendering declines to enter into a contract when called upon to do so, the che75 to amount of his tender, sis moneyed out hy Mr. I'erley. On the HOth May the honourable Minister submitted to the Privy Council the following memorandum recommending that the tender of ,J. (iallagher be with- ilrawn and his cheque returned " for the reasons assigned " therein : •'On a memorandum dated JJOth May, 188;{,from the Minister of Public Woiks, stating that of the tenders received by the Harbour Commissioners of (^ueltec, and forwarded to his Department, for the c J. & A. Samson 8(J4.181 oO "Tho Minister observes in examining the tenders, it was found that Messrs. Larkin, Connolly & Co., Gallagher and Beaucage had made evident errors in their prices for ' Sheet piling ' and in Mr. Beaucage's case for ' Pile driving.' "That Mr. (tallagher adheres to the prices mentioned in his otfer, but desires to withdraw it, he having taken another contract, and he requests that his security deposit be returned. " That Mr, Beaucage acknowledged the error, and asked that his tender be amended ; this was done by tho insertion of tho inrrea>e 1 prices stated in Mr. Beau- cage's letter. " That Messrs. Larkin, Connolly cV Co. stated that though they had made an error, they would hold themselves ready to enter into contract at the prices named in their offer. 1301 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 "The Minister reoommends that the Mecoiul lowest tender, viz. : That ot'Laritin, Connolly & Co. amounting to $6:U,'M0M he accepted. "The Committee submit the ahove recommendation for Yoiir Kxeellencv's appro- val. " (Signed) JOHN J. McUKK." This action was communicated to the Harbour Commissioticrs in meeting; at Quebec on June 4th — on the same date the Harbour Board passfcd a resolution, au- thorizing the Chairman and Secretary to sign the contract in conformit}' with direc- tions from the Privy Council, as cited. On June fJth the contract fos the "Cross-wall " was executed at Quebec, and on the OtJi of the same month the Secretary of the Public Works Department wrote the Secretarj' of the Harbour Board intimating that an Order in Council had been passed permitting John Gallaghe" to withdraw hit* tender and enclosing the cheque which accompanied the same for return to Mr. (Jailagher. In compliance with the above order the Secietary retained the said cheque on the 11th June, 188.'!. Having set forth the leading features in connection with this subject, from its inception to the letting of the contract for the consti iiction of the work, we will now draw your attention to the schedule '"A,'' attached hereto contaii-ing the Ibrin of tender with schedule of items and the specification setting forth the iU'scrij)tion of, work required, and would specially point out that in clause 3, it is stateil that the ! .")0 «lie.t "M. ■ g Peters \ Moore (I4:J.0T1 10 Samson & Samson , st;4.181 00 By amending the Gallagher tender as per terms of his letter of May 19th, and thus placing all on the same plane, the result would be as follows : Larkin, Connolly A: Co 8634,340 00 s...MU.tHils f^- Beaucage ....'. 640,808 50 i.n sh.et S. Peters & Moore 643.071 16 ""•' .1. Gallagher 659,230 00 Samsor. \ Samson S64,1S1 00 By a further comparison based on (|uantities of cribwork. concrete, stoneballast, sheet piling and earth tilling, taken by us troni the said original plans and specifica- tions, we find the following result in these items alone : S. Peters & Moore 8281.009 00 .s,... details L"' kin, Connolly A: Co 369,971 70 nil Hliwt (t. Beaucage 389,871 00 "C-" J. Gallagher 405,346 32 Samson A: Samson 552.812 00 And this comparison carried out by the addition thereto of the items in sche- dule of quantities used in above comparisons, and not obtainable from plans and specifications, we find the position of the tenders to be : S. Peters & .Moore 8736.243 50 S«'e sluct Lai'kin, V onnolly & Co...,. 753.371 70 '"C." .1. Gallagher 762.378 32 fordttails. (I Beaucage "65.510 50 Samson & Samson 1.032,011 20 ' Kdr Kxliiliit " .XH." kk piige 24 of tlii.s Ai'in'iKlix (Sclii-dule A 1.) 1303 64 Victoria. Appeudix (No. 1.) A. 1891 A further compariiion biwod on qimiititios, in orilnvork. ma^o u-y, ooncrote, HtonoballuHt, pile'lriviiifj to any depth, \c., sheutpilin20,7:{3 10 oiiHliiH't Li. fieauca^e «i2!(,(>35 25 "D." J. Galla^'hor G58,!»;jO 4<5 Samson & Samson 877. '.'ItO 5(( Yet another comparison based on the quantities found in '' Kstimate Book" before referred to, witli tlie other itemn to complete as taken from the original schedule slieet (Kxhibit ''Xa")* gives the following results : S. I'otersiV Moore 8734,84(i 13 »«•«• (l.tiiilK G. Beaueage . 755,484 75 nmrk.T Larkin, Connolly & Co 7b'3,02:{ 10 "K. J.Gallagher 774,(182 46 Samsoa & Samson 1,077,444 50 In conformity with clause 3 of instructions we submit the following statement compiled from information obtained by us from the jdans and specification and from schedule used in the original comparison of tenders (K.Kbibit "X3")* by the Chief Engineer of the Department, as compared with (quantities returned in tinal estimate made by Mr. Boswdl. and for this purpose assumed to be correct, but not including items for " special " and " day-lalM)ur work " which have been treated as common to both : Increase due to changes 8139,<)13 31 Decrease do 99,80137 Total increase S 39,811 94 To which add day labour account 8 5,(»21 28 do special items 34,240 96 .39,262 24 Total 8 79.074 18 The above estimate must not be confoundeil with the one made botweei! Bo3'd's original and Boswell's final estimates. The "days' labour" and material item of $5,021.28 was appai-ently iiicurreil for work of a general character, which could not be scheduled in the tender other than has been done in "labour rates," as shown in attached comparative statement. The " special item " account contained a laige number of items, especially of timber and iron, which should have been provided tor in the schedule — again, it embraces work not included in the contract, such as the construction of the valve-house, clay-filling, kc, as will be seen by reference to the details. The totals, moneyed out at the various rates Submitted by the tenders, do not vary to an appreciable extent, and in both items Larkin & Co. are the lowe.st. A second comparison, showing the increase in final estimate as compared with the late Mr. lioyd's Progress Return No. 13. of Xov. 30th, 1885, including his estimate of quantities to complete, as set forth in his letter-book, folio 276, about date January, February, 1886. l-W Increase $80,861 44 details, Decease 18,724 05 wIlfl'tM ■ "V' Balance, increase $62,137 39 * For Kxiiiliit " \'X" .-'f i^ip* 24 of thix Apinndix (Sclifdiile A t.) 1304 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1S91 made up largely of items omitted by Mr. IJoyd in his " estimate of co>ts to com- plete " above teferred to. To this sum must be added the "special " 9-2,43().3*> and "days labour" items 84,4715.78, making in alia total Increase of. 8 89,050 .'»3 Amount of Progress Estimate No. 13 295,806 30 lioyd's "estimate to complete" 447,891 t!l Total 8832,448 44 Bt)swell'8 Final Estimate 832,448 44 In compliance with the clau.se 4 of instructions we submit u comparative table, based on (juantities taken by us as far as possible from plans, inchuling balance from "original" schedule, as compared with Uoswell's Final Estinuite No. 37 and result- ing as follows: Final RetiiriiK vs. KHtiiiiiitc frnin Plan. S. Peters & Moore 8 762,587 48 g 736,243 50 y„r „l,. J.Gallagher 776,81109 762,378 32 Htriict*.- G. Ueaucage 793,268 49 765,510 50 '*'"'•'* ■■*'"Larkin& Connolly 832,448 44 753,371 70 Samson ASamson 1,088,19171 1,032,011 20 The following comparative estimate setting forth the cost of the work is based on the final quantities as returned by Mr. Boswell, C.E., in his estimate. No. 37, dated 30th December, 1889 — to which have been a|)plied the prices submitted by tenderers, with amended rates for sheet-piling, iVc, quoted by Gallagher k Beaucage. For .l.tailM Peters & Moore 8 762,587 48 rarklT' J-Oallagher 776.811 09 "H." G. Beaucage 793,268 49 Larkin, Connolly & Co 832,448 44 Samson & Samson 1,088,191 77 The final estimate and plans not having been made out in detail, we are conse- qtiently unable at present to complete a check of the measurements recorded, anil, as a large amount of the Cross-wall work lies under water level, and beneath the masonry and earth wall, it is impracticable to carry this feature of the investigation to a satisfactory conclusion other than by the expenditure of a considerable sum of money, and after the lapse of a longer time than we fear can now be allowed ; however, we may be permittetl to explain that we learn from Mr. Boswell, C. E., (who was on the work from beginning to end, and who succeeded the late Mr. Boyd, the Resident Engineer, at the time of his death in November, 1886), that the original design of the "Cross-wall " was changed, and that other circumstances oc- curred during the process ot the work whereby the origitial quantities were largely increased in the following important items : The cribs forming the substi-ucture on the Wet dock side of the Quay-wall wore carried down 6 feet below the specified level and those on the Tidal-basin side 1 foot and both lines of cribs were completed IJ feet above the level us originally intended. These additions entailed a proportionate increase in cone rete which was added to by being carried 6 inches above the top of the timber work and by being used for filling up irregularities in the bottom of the trenches for the cribs, which appear to have been excavated to a greater depth than specified or required; an increased amount of concrete was also used under the side walls and floor of the entrance. The amount of eartli filling was largely increased owing to the changes made in the dimensions of the cribs and by its substitution for stone ballast. The stone ballast was decreased in executron as only a sufficient quantity was used to sink and retain the cribs in position and the remaining voids were filled with sand. 1305 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 The amount of masonry in the Quay-walls was reduced by the Hunerelevation of the cribs as before referred to, and by the changed mode of eloHing the entrance chamber. The item of " Pilin^LC " wan inci-easod some ?5,800, owing to the introduction of supporting piles (under the cribs) — which were not originally contemplated but evidently became necessary owing to the before mentioned irregularities in the bottom of the trenches. Should your Committee deem it atlvisable that we continue our examination of the measurements, &(!., returned in the "final estimate " the matters above referred to can then be reported upon more fully. We remain, Sirs, Your obedient servants. \VM. T. JENNINtiS, M.lnst.C.E. ALAN MACDOUGALL, J/./ns^C.-E:. VM)6 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 HCirEDULK "A." Tknder Kiiii THE Constriction ok a Quav NVaf-l ani. Knthance to tiik Wkt Dock AND OTHER WoKKS IN CONNKCTION THEREWITH, AT QlEBEC, i'Si- the iin^hown on the ])lan. r»th. Two cott'ej-daniH and other .workt* in connection therewith in accordance with the drawing and specitication exhil)ited, awl hucIi other detailed drawings and iimtructionH as may be furniHheels, Chain- l)aths, &c., as tier S|)ecification MaHunry in Inverts of Kntrance Channel and Caisson ChanilM>r, including (Jranite Masonry in Walls, Covers and Paving of lU'gidnting Culverts and sluicing Chanil)ers Concrete laid under water below datum level do laid dry lielow datum in Kntrance Channel, &c. . do laid dry aliovo datum in Walls or elsewhere, including cost of moulds, screens, &c ... . (iranite in l^uoins of Caisson Chanilier or in Hollow (Quoins for (lates, measured, dressed and laid complete (iranite in Inverts, measured, dressed and laid comiilete . . Limestone in (^"oins of Caisson Chamber or in Hollow ijuoins for (Jates, nieivsured, dressed and laid complete Limestone in Inverts, meaHiire* ill", tliii'k, driven fridii (i ty 10 in*. White I'ine in rhoi'l<» do do li liv K iiiH. or H Iiih. Hipiare White I'ine in HriweN do ill) 12 iiiH. Hi|iiiire Wiiite I'ine do 12 ardn 1 do 1 ^|Kjil where ordered I'er 1 9 , c. iU'timl Higtiature of Parties interested. Occupation. Po«t Ortiif Address. Sl'ECIFICATroN FOB THE CONSTRUCTION f^V A QuAyWaLL AND ENTRANCE FOR THE WeT Dock and other Works in jonnection therewith at Quebec, P.Q. 1. The works to bo dono under the present tontract consist in the construction of: Ist. A quay wall for the wet dock ahout 880 feet in length. 2nd, A quay wall for the tidal harbour about 850 feet in length. 3rd. A facing to the present wharves fiboiit 500 feet in length between the isouthern end of the quay wall and the northern line of Leadenhall Street. 4th. An entrance to the wet dock of the width shown on the plan and with a depth on the sill of 15 feet below datum, 5th. Two cofferdams and other works in connection therewith, as hereinafter specified. 1—84 1309 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 2. The datum to which all heifi;htK and depths are referred is the level of low- water spring tides, whicii level will be defined and marked by the Chief Engineer of Public Works before oporntions are commenced. 3. The Drawings exhibited are intended to show onl}' the class and nature of the work required. Detailed drawings giving dimensions, &c., of the (iitterent part.x. will be fuiiiished during the progress of the works. 4. The Commissioners reserve to themselves the right to change the mode of closing the entrance to the wet dock from that by a caisson to that by gates, and to make any alterations in the width of the entrance or the shai)e of the side walls which such a change might render necessary. 5. The Commissioners shall have power at any time to make changes in the position or dimensions of any of the works or to substitute one kind of work or materials for anotht r in any part or in the whole of the works, and the contractor will be requir.ed to make such changes when ordered and to do the work for his schedule price without any claim for damages or loss of profit on the class of work or materials which maj" be abandoned ; provided only that if the change is ordered after any work is executed the contractor shall be paiil at his schedule price for the work i-emoved and the cost of removal as well as for the work substituted. 6. The price affixed to each item in the schedule shall be considered a full com- pensation for the actual quantity, whether it be large or small, of that kimi of work done or materials or labour fuinished, without any reference Avhatever to the prices attached to other items. 7. In measuring any class of work the quantitj' paid for will include only the actual net cubic, superficial or lineal measurements or weight as the case may be. of executed and finished work, without anv allowance for waste in cutting ott' the heads of piles or for ends of timber, laps or scarfs, or loss in cutting stone or tor shrinkage or settlement of concretes or earthwork, or any other contingency whatso- ever connected direct!}^ or indirectly with such works. 8. The whole of the works are to be executed strictly in acco?"dance with this specification and such drawings and instructions as may bo furnished by the Engineer from time to time during the progress of the works. Wherever dimensions are marked on the drawings or described in the specification thoj- are to be considered correct, although not corresponding with the measurements taken by scale, which are to be used only when the dimensions are not so marked or described ; and drawings to larger scales and those showing any paiticular parts of the work are to be taken as more correct than those to a smaller scale which are for more general purposes. Cribtrork, r>. The parts of the qua3' vails below the level of six inches below datum will be formed of cribwork, the front chambers of which are to be tilled with concrete r.nd the back chambers with stone ballast. 10. The cribwoi'k for the quay wall of the wet dock will be founded in a trench dredged to 15 feet below datum and that for the wallof thelidal harbour in a trench dredged to 2G feet below datum. 11. The face timbers ai-o to be 12 inches square, in lengths of not less than 20 feet and laid so that the ends shall overlap the dovetails at least 2i feet. The joints are to be formed as shown and aie to lap ))ast each other at least 10 feet. The outei- corners of the sticks must be worked to proud edges and the beds hewn true and parallel so as to make perfectly close work. Notches to receive the ends of the cross- ties are to be cut at such 'istances as are shown in the drawings. They are to be 4i inches deep by 9 inches witle at the back of the stick and to splay 1 inch on each si.Ie. Tne face limbers are to be fastened every 10 feet with bolts 24 inches long and 1 inch square, each butt being fastened in addition with a boit ^ inch square and 24 inches long. The corners are to be framed as shown, the projecting ends being protected by tenders of birch or elm four inches thick, treenailed to the face timbei's. 1310 T 64 Victoria Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 12. Tlio cross tics arc to bo placed 10 feet apart, centre lo centre, except wliere "♦■lerwiso sliown in the dfawingf^. They are to he so phiced in alternate courses that ; .0 ties in one course will ho midway between those in the next. They are to he 11 inches thick, and flatted to faces of not less than 14 inches, and of sufficient length to extend fiom front to hack of the cribs. On the ends which pass through the face timbering, dovetails inches square at the throat, ane neatly pointed up while green. All the invert stones of the entrance are to be from 3 to 4 feet in height on their vertical, and from 3 to 4 feet in width on their horizontal faces with the joints rajecting faces are to be set to a true plane and will afterwards be Hno axetl, rubbeit down ami j)olished by men in the employ and at the cost of the Commissioners under the direction of the Engineer. 35. All exposed faces of invert stones, copings and (jiioins are to be dressed off equal to rougli bouchard work having arrises ot all copings lounded and line axed to a radius of 3 inches and invert stones to a radius of liineh. 36. All the quoins of the caisson stops are to be jointed in square to the face lines and are to be dressed, bedded, JDinted, ])ointed u]) and finished off as specified for the invert stones. 37. The top or finishing quoins forming ])art of the copings at the entrance and caisson stops are to bo extra sized of the various forms shown, aceuralely fitted and firmly bedded in place, jointed, pointed, run up solid and finished olf as specified for the other copings. 3^. There are to be six regulating culverts extomling through the embankment. The heads are to be formed as shown in the drawing. The walls ure to bo of first- class masonry, similar to that specified for the quay walls except that tlie cour>e8 may be 12 inches in thickness. The beds of the stones in the division walls are to lie of the full thickness of the wall. The side walls will be 3 feet thick and the header's must extend through from front to back. The covering stones are not to be le>s than 18 inches in thickness. 30. Theeoihols supporting the chain jiaths are to be 2 feet i! inches in length lyl foot in width and 1 foot (i inches in depth, Imilt I foot 6 inches into the upper side walls of the cas>ion chamiier, and projecting 1 fool beyond the faee line and having the arrises on their under sides rounded off to a radius of 6 inches. 40. The stones I'orming the chain paths are to be 4 feet (I inches in length b^- 2 feet in width and I ft. in thickness, tailt;d (» inches into the 'nasnnry of the side walls and jointed over centres of corbels. V grooves (1 inches in depth are to be cut in the Joints of the stones to form holes 3 inches square, and dowels run up solid with neat Portland cement. 41. The wall stones to which the chain rollers ure to be attached are each to be 4 feet by 2 feet by 2 feet, and Ixdes are to he suiiU- through the same for six l-iiich diameter bolts. All the stones are to be Imilt into the side walls. 42. The bed stones for the girders over the caisson chamber are to be (5 feet in leiiiith, IS inches in breadth and 14 inches in depth, firmly laiil. 43. The stone used in all parts of the work (exee[tl the (pioins of the cassion berth and the inner (|Uoins of the inveifs or the quoins and hollow ([Uoins foi- gates, which are to bo granite) will be limestone from St. Vincent do Paul, Terrebonne, Ra feet long and aie to have six bolts in each. The nuts anil washers are to be countersunk and plugged, 47. There are to be also four rows of chocks j» inches by 10 inches, chamfered on the outer corners. The}' are to be fitted tight!}' between the fenders and secured with similar bolts |inch in the diameter, three in each chock. The timber in the fenders and chocks is to be white pine. I Concrete and Mortar. 48. Concrete is to be composeil of six })arts by measure of sand and stone in the n'oportion of one of the former to five of the lattei-, and one part of Portland cement, jut the proportions of sand to stone may be altered from time to time at the discre- tion of the Engineer without extra cost. 49. The concrete is to be mixed by hand on a platform of three inch deals tongued and grooved, laid close and made water tight. The materials are to be turned over twice dry, and water is then to be gi-adually added through a fine rose- headed nozzle until the concrete is of a proper consistency. The concrete is to be turned over twice during the process of watering. It is then to be immediately wheeled into the works and i-ammod solidl}' against and round all timber work or masonry, and flushed up with thick grout whenever it ma}' de found necessary, to ensure water-tight work. All unfinished surfaces of concrete during progress are to be left rough and are to lecoive a spread of grout as each layer of concrete is added, and all cavities are to be filled up solid with grout. The moulds are to be kept at least 12 inches higher than the concrete as the work proceeds. 50. The price i5er cubic yard of concrete i^ to include the cost of providing, fixing and i-emoving all the necessary moulds, screens, planking, &c., the whole of which are to be completed, screwed up and adjusted before commencing the concrete work, and care must be taken to preserve accurately all lines and batters. 51. If the Kngincer shall so direct all concietes laid under water are to be pai- tially set before being put in place in order to prevent the cement being washed out. It is to be lowered in skipi oi- boxes, or in such other way as the Engineer may direct, and caretully filled in close to the ])iles and planking and round the inter- secting timbers of tlie crib-work, so as to make jierfectly solid work, free from all cavities and defects. 52. Mortar is to bo composed of two parts by measure of clean, shar]), moder- ately coar.se sand to one pait of Portland cement, with the exception of that for lipping the face joints, which is to lie made of one part of sanil to one of cement. 53. Grout will be made by adding water to well-tempered mortar until it is of a consistency to run freely. 54. The cement to be used throughout the works is to be Portland, of the best quality, finely ground, and must pass through a sieve of 2.5(10 meshes to the square inch, without leaving more than 20 per cent, of its bulk as residue, or through a sieve of 1,000 meshes to the s(|Uare inch without leaving more than 10 per cent, of its bulk as residue, and must weight not less than 112 lbs. to the Imperial striked bushel, or 87} lbs. per cubic foot. It shall be deposited upon the works at least one month before it is required for u^e, and at least two tests shall be made, one at the time of delivery of the cement and another on the tenth day after delivery, or at such other times as the Engineer may direct. The tests are to be made from samples taken from eveiy twenty-fifth bushel. After having been mixed and cast in 1314 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 moulds, as directed, they shall remain in the open air for twelve hours and then he immersed in water for seven days at the end of which time if every five samples do not bear an averafjje tensile strain of 600 lbs. avoirdupois (the minimum being 450 lbs.) to a section 1+iiich by 1^ inch, the cement will be condemned and must bo removed from the works and premises of the Commissioners by and at the cost of the contractor. 55. The ballast far the concretes is to be clean broken stone, free from all impur- ities and of a quality "^^o bo approved by the Engineer. Tho stone must be broken into shai-p angular IViigments not larger than will pass freely through a 2-inch ring. 50. The sand for the concrete and mortar is to be perfectly clean, sharp and moderately coarse, washed fieo from all impurities. 57. All concretes and other mixtures will be rejected unless deposited and used in the works immediately after they are made, oi' within a reasonable time in the opinion of the Engineer. Before the concrete is laid in the trenches or over the area of any foundations on dry ground or below water, all mud, slu.^h. soft ground, &c., must be removed down to the solid surface. The sides of excavations are to be care- luliy protecteil, so as to prevent loose euith or other materials from falling into and injui-iiig the concrete, and if, owing to the presence of springs, iVc, it shall appear to the Engineer to be necessary, the foundation shall be covered with canvas, tarred or plain, before the concrete is laid. 58. All the foregoing compounds are to be mixed umler strict inspection, and the contractor or his foreman is to give notice to the Engineer of his intention to begin such work, in default of which the Engineer oi- Inspector will reject any cim- cretes or mortars mix(/d without inspection, and the contractor must remove the same from the premises. 5t*. The contractor shall at any time mix for the inspection of the Engineer any concretes or mortars whiidi ho may require, a.ul in such quantities as he may order, and shall subject the same to any tests the Hngineor may consider necessary to deter- mine their quality; and shall provide at his own cost all the labor, tools, materials, moulds, boxes and other appliances required for making such tests. (50. When niasoniy or concrete is laid by " tide work," operations are to be suspended at such a time before the water reaches the work as the l^ngineer ma}' think is necessary to allow the cement to set properly. (jl. The sheds for storing cement are to be wind and watei' tight, with shingle roofs and dry, elevated floors. They are to be of sufficient capacity to store enough cement for two months' work and to place it under cover immediately on its arrival at the works. Facing of Wharves. (J2. The facing ot' the present wiiarves will be formed of either two I'ows of sheet piling or of one row of sheet piling and a casing of o-inch deals spiked to the wharf, as may be found necessary. 6.3, The space between the outer and inner rows of sheet piling or between the former and the wharf is to be dredged by hag or spoon to the depth of 18 feet below datum, and filled with concrete and clay puddle as the Engineer shall direct, 64. Where necessary sheeting will be driven to the depth of 20 feet below datum along the face of the wharves to prevent undermining. 65. The gauge piles in the front row are to be 12 inches square, in two lengths of 18 itnd ^55 feetj joined by a scarf 5 feet long bolted as shown, and driven to 25 feet below datum ; and the sheeting 8 inches thick, not less than 8 inches wide and driven to a depth of 22ii feet below datum. The sheeting will be in lengths of 19, 21, 24 and 20 feet. The gauge piles in the back row are to be 10 inches square and 42 feet long ; the sheeting is to be 6 inches thick, not less than 7 inches wide, and driven to 18 feet below datum, 1.-515 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 66. The walings are to be G inches by 12 inches in lenp;th, of not less than 23 feet, breaking joints and joined by scarfs 3 feet long fastened with two i inch screw bolts. The walinga are to be let on to the gauge piles 2 inches and are to be fastened to them with 1 inch screw bolts. 67. Any piles not properly driven or twisted or split in driving are to be drawn out and others driven in their places. C. The caps are to be 12 inches square and secureil to the piles by tenons, bolts or in any other way the Engineer may direct. (»9. Ail timber in the gauge piles, sheeting piles, caps, braces, walings or other part of the work, the whole or any part of which is above datum, is to be white ]iine, perfectly sound, straight and free from all defects ; and all butts, scarfs, crossings and intersections are to have a coat of Stockholm tar before being put together. TO. The iron in the screw bolts and tie rods is to bo best English or Canadian refined. The screw bolts must bo 2^ inches longer than the wood length measured from the inside of the head. The hcrew is to be equal in diameter at the bottom of the threads to the diameter of the bolt on which it is cut. The head and nut must be equal in thickness to 1^ diameter of the bolt and in width to If diameter. The washers are to be equal in diameter to four diameters of the bolt, and in thick- ness to half a diameter. The holes must not be bored with an auger larger than the bolt. 71. All castings are to be of tough grey nietal, and free fntm sand, honeycomb, or po;ou8 places, a''" holes and other defects, and delivered on the woiks without being painted, stopped or plugged in any part, otherwise thc}- will be condemncil. 7-. All ironwork after being examined and passed is immediately to receive one coat of red lead and oil, and two additional coats on all exposed parts when fixed. 7o. The mooring posts, if of timber, are to be white pine, 18 inches square and 12 feet long; above the level of the Quay they are to be worked to an octagonal shape and faced with moulded cheeks of tamarac. The tops are to bo neatly rounded off and covered with cast iron caps. They are to be inserted and wedged up in sockets of 3 inch pine or cedar planking built into the ([uay wall, and are to have 4 inch tiiangular fillets round them at the level of'tlie coping. 74. If the Engineer shall so direct cast iron mooring posts of the same pattern as tho>e in the " (Graving Dock, Ldvis," are to be substituted for those of timber. 75. Should the method of closing the entrance iiy caisson be adhered to, the completed caisson berth will be handed over by the Engineer whenever he may deem tit to the contractors for the caisson or an}* parties whom the Commissioner may employ to construct or erect the caisson. This portion of the work is to he kept free from all obstructions and is to be in readiness for handing over to the caisson contractors at the end of the second year from the date of the contract, and the contractor is b(mnd to keep the site entirely free from water during the time the caisson is in hand. Everj- care will be taken by the Engineers to ensure the fitting of the caisson against the meeting faces at its first flotation and trial, and at its secomi flotation and trial against the inner stop face, but should a fit not be made in two trials, the contractors for the main work will be bound to clear the whole of the entrance works of water, and keep them clear as many times as may be found necessary. For this pumping he will be ])aid by the hour at the price named in the schedule. 76. Should the method of closing the entrance by gates be adopted, the conditions in the above clause are to be binding so far as they are applicable to the altered construction. 77. The contractor is to provide, set up, fix, work and keep in repair all hand, steam or any other power or appliances foi- )»umping, baling or raising the water, and keeping the entrance works perfectly free and clear of water, whether the same be caused by ordinary rainfall, snow, ice, high tides, floods, spi-ings, fissui'es, soaks, percolations, leaks or otherwise, or by the bursting in of the cofler-dam8,or any other dams, or by any other contingency whatsoever, and he will be held responsible for all damages arising from such causes. He is to lay down pumping power to the 1316 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 extent of 50 per cent, more than may he found absolutely necessary for keepini^ the entrance works dry, and he w to provide all en^^inemon, drivers, stokers, fuel, oil, waste and otiier labor, stores and materials requisite for the proper working of the machinery. 78. The whole of the surface of the qua^Ms to be hiid to such levels, inclinations and falls as may be directed by the Enffineer, and is to be coated with mefallirg con- sisting of 8 inches of large sized broken stone of approved quality, tinished otf with 4 inches of small stone, gravel or other approved material. 7"J. Any roads, streets or pathways leading to the works are, if cut up or damaged by the contractor, to be repaired and ke])t in repair by him and delivered up at the completion of the works in as good condition as he found them, the Engineer being the judge. SO. The rates and prices named in the schedule will bo held to be rigidly inclusive of the providing of all service grounds, and free acco.-'S thereto, together with the entire cost of all labor, materials, tools, vessels, plant and machinery, and every other contingency connected with the work. 81. Befoi'c erecting cotfor-dams, moidils for conciote, or any othei" important temporary work, the contractor shall submit ])l;ins there'if for the appi-oval of the Engineer, or the Engineer ma}' furnish plans for such works, but such approval or furnishingof plans shall not in any wa}' relievethecontracior from his responsibilit}' for the efficiency and maintenance of such works. 82. No work of any kind is to be commenced until the foundations have been examined and approved by the Engineer and permission given to begin work. So. Tlie work must be executed throughout in a substantial and workmanlike niannei', strictly in accordance with the specitication and such diawings and instruc- tions as may be furnished by the F']ngineer during tlio progre-is of the worlds and to his full satisfaction, and no alterations in or deviations from any drawings or specitications are to iie made without his written authority. 84. The contractor is to assume and make good at his own cost any damage that may happen to the works either from gales, storms, scour, settlement, tire, ice. or any other cause whatsoever up to their tin.il completion and accejjtaiice by the Engineer. S,). Xo tendei- will be considered unless made on the ])rinted torms, with the blanks in the tender and schedule ))roperly tilled up. 86. Each tender must be accompanied hy nn accepled bank cheriue for 87,500 made pa3-able to the Hon. the Minister of Public Works of Canada, and the party to whom the contract ■< awarded must be ])repared to de]>o>it as >ecurity with the lion, the Minister a sum ot which the .S7,50(l will iorm part equal to ."» per cent, of tlie estimated amount of the contract, which sum will be tort'eited if the contractor fails to complete the work. Jf any Jiarty tendeiing declines to enter into a contract when called upon to do so the cheque aecompanying his tender will be f)rfeited : if the tender is not accepted the cheque will be returned. 87. Ninety per cent, onl}' of the pi-ogi'css estimates will be jtaid until the final completion and acceptance of the works, and no \n\vl will be finally accepted or taken otf the contractor's hands until the whole is com})leted to the satisfaction ol the Engineer. S8. The works are to be commenced as soon as the j)erson or jiersons whose tender is accepteil shall have entered into a contract for their execution, and must be proceeded with in such a manner as will ensure their completion wiihin three years from the date of the contract. lIENliV E. L'EHLEV, Chief Engineer. Chief E.n'uineer's Office, Dept. Pubmc Works, Ott.\wa, 15th March, 1883. 1317 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 54 SCHEDULE A (1) Schedule of TonderB receivwl fur construction of Cross-wall, • iunntitit's. Ilfscriptidii (if Iti'iii. 550,140 12,5(30 5,700 3,000 )mO 1,000 ir>,r)00 1,700 3,000 15,000 •(!(K( 3,(HJ0 .IaMKS it Al.KHKO Sa.MSoN. Price. AtniiU't.l. I :iO .")0 Ciib.yd»!Cril)Wi(rk- liri({lit iiu-iisurcct froin Ixitttun of l(i\vt'«t to top of liijflu'Ht fiu'i'tiiuU'i-, and the tliickiicsMi's from front of fiUf-tiiiilx'r.s to IkicU of rear loiigi- tudiiialH, including all tiiiiU'r and iron, but not slifct |)ilinjf ;l'('r cubic ynrd do .. Masonry in t^uay-walls witli b;icking of masonry of cross sections shown, and including copings, iVc. i all conipU'te, as |K'r s|icciticati(in Masonry in (^uay-wuUs with Iwukiiig of concrete of cross sections shown, and including coiiings, kc, all comidete a.s |)er spccitication (h) . . Masonry in walls of entranci' channel fitted to receive either caisson or gates anil swing bridge, as may Ih- ordered, and inclmling granite (juoins, all com- plete . Masonry in walls of caisson chamber, including cqr- i 1h-1s, chain paths, itc, as |M'r specification. .{Masonry in inverts of entrance cliannel and caisson I chanilier, including granite .jMa.sonryin walls, covers and paving of regulating I culverts and sluicing c'lanilH'i's ]Concrete laid under water below datum level . Concrete laid dry Ik'Iow datum in entrance channel, I itc ........ ,■ ^ . te laid dry .al)ove datum in w.ills or elsewhere, I including costs of moulds, screen.s, itc. . . . jCrranite in (pioins of cai.sson chamiier. or in liollow (pioins for gates, measured, dri'ssed, and laid I connilete '(•ranite in inverts, measured, dre.s.sed, and laid com- plete .... Limestone in (juoins t)f caisson chamU'r, or in hollow • pioins for gates, measured, dressed, and laid complete Limestone in inverts, me.isured, dressed, and laid complete do . . .Stone ballast in cribs, measured in work do .. Heavy stone in toeing do do ..Clay iniddle laid above datum level, prepared as I ordered ..... jCluy puddle laid below do do do do do do do do do (h> do (h. do do r».-) l.S2,347 00 !( .^o ll!l,:?20(»f, 10 (»0 Xo. do do d.i d(i 10 .\ 12 ins do 30 20 do (U> do do do 1,,")00 Lin. ft. iPile driving to any depth, not e.xceeding 20 feet rm d. 2,500 do .Sheet piling, S ins. thick driven from l! to S ft. wliitt pine. Per lin. ft. in line of work. do do do do do 4 do do do t> d.. do tinilier spec fied in clause IS. . 14 Ill r>o 11 20 10 .50 12 45 S .30 25 '075 IH) !)75 00 375 00 IS 27; '.1,13.5 (HI 10 ,55 any do do 10 .50 20,2.50 00 Carried forward ... rt Mr. Beaucage inserts the words " lalnjur only" in his tender, whereas the jirice of pile driving includes the finding of all necessary machinery. 1318 CK kIk L.K1 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 CHOSS-WALL. allowing Quantities applied by Mr. Boyd. (E.xhibit " X'd "). LaUKIN, CoNNOl.l.V&Ct). .loilN ( i.\l.l..\i;HKII. Price. Amount. 1 Price. CtH. 9 CtS. ••* cts. .S (ts. -S ct«. 07,815 00 1 U5 .58,773 (K» (iKoltiiK IU:.\rcA(iK. Simon Phtkhs & Kn. .MooitK. Ainimnt. Prici-. Aiii I'>3,'.>!I4 (Ml 1 ;«', 4o,i.s(; t;*'> 11 M 144,440 00 25 11(!,1H0 00 10 00 12.5,000 00 11 ,58,4(IO (Ml 13 .50 7(!,0.50 00 14 .50 ,S2,li.50 (HI 1.1 tio ill, 1120 IMI •1 00 27,«MM» 0(1 10 00 30,1100 (K) 11 00 ;«,000 (Kl Ki ISO 4;i,SiMi no 1,") (Ml 0,750 (Ml 35 (Ml 22,7.">() (HI •J5 (HI n;.2."io 0 lO.T'.HI IMI 14 50 H 00 14,r)(NI INI I24,(MMI (Kl 14 (Kl 5 75 14,(HMI (HI 80,125 (M» 13 (HI (i .50 13.(MHI 00 1(HI,7.">0 IKl lf> I'l 00 IHI ir,..MMi I'l ".i;i.(MM: 1 7 50 i-_',7r)(i 00 5 75 !l,775 (H) (t .50 11,0.50 00 • 1 IMI 1II,2IHI IHI 7 (Kl 21,000 00 5 75 I7,:.'.'>o "HI li .50 l'.l,.50O (HI i; 00 IS.IMM) 00 40 00 30 (Ml 25 (HI 35 00 30 00 40 40 .50 .50 30 00 15 00 14 10 1 .50 1 75 1 75 1 75 12 ."HI 7 ."HI 12 (Ml 11 20 7 00 18 20 15 00 22,.5(Hl IMI 1,050 00 .5,250 00 (525 (Kl (iOO (io 27() (HI 25 ! '/ 125 OO ! 23 I 18 i;i IMI I 25 1S,7.">0 (Ml 1 30 780 IKl 1 50 4,5iKI 00 I 60 12 00 rm (HI 7 (Ml 10 (Ml THHI IHI 11 (Ml 7 (Ml II 15 225 IHI 25 r 125 IHI /, ,5(MI 00 020 15 18 r 4.50 IHI 14 OO 12 IHI 1 35 1 45 1 110 I (10 12 25 7 25 11 IHI 10 .50 II M 111 f it 20 '( * /,'; IMI • I tl II 20 I * /; "" f »ni 15 I I * I'l mi ( >10 10 \ * /.; 7.-I 20,250 (Ml 870 IMI 4,80(} IHI 1112 .50 .5.VI IMI « 240 00 -/ 1311 (Ml H.'^HI ll'l ,1 400 00 ! I * .l:i,.C'i (Kl ; J h, c, il. Tlier»' is evidently a inixtake in tlieso prices. * Coerrcted prices, (shown in KKM INK on Mr. Bovd's Statement. 1319 K) .50 111 .511 II 11.") 115 85 85 15 S5 II IHI IS llll 12 IMI ,s (HI II 25 10 00 !l 00 .■< IHI 8 00 !l,75o O'l ;!'.Mi 0.1 2,550 IHI 702 .50 !I30 00 375 IMI 5,l)0illMI 20, M) 00 ....... 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 SCIIEUUIiK A (1) SiiEDULE of Tenders received for Coiistniction of CrosK-wnll, (^uantitU'H. 5.400 liicc Per cubic feet. 40 2,1K4 00 Tiiulicv, 12 ins. s 40 1,,S«0(MI Tinilier, (! x S or S ins. sijiiare, white pine in braces. fitted in place.. do m 4>s5(Mi TiniU'r, 12 ins. sipiare, white jiine do :io latf(irms, dressed. do 1 00 framed, and laid complete do 45 Walinns, H x 12 ins., white [lint, fitted in iilace do '.' 47 do (t X 12 do do do 4, 705 00 I'lank, 4 in. thick, white jiine 1'erM.ft.B.M. .'55 00 do 4 do hemlock or spruce do 25 (K» 750 (K) do 4 do liircli or rock elm do .S7 50 do 3 do white pine do .S5 00 do 'A do hemlock or spruce do .S do birch or rock elm do do 25 (M» ;t7 ."lO Board.s, 1 do white pine do do Per hundred . . .T) 00 25 00 S 50 Treenails, \\ in. diam., locust or tamarac, as ordered. or 1 50 Canvas, tarred or plain, laid in foundations Per yd. snuare Per iHiund. . 45 10 Iron in screw bolts and tie rods, including' nuts 2(K) (W do stiaips fitted in |)lace, including,' bolts do .. . OS do pile shoes fitted on pile.s, includini,' nails do 03;. do drift bolts do .... 05 2(H» (HI do pressed spikes . do .... 04.', AM (M) (Jalvanized iron in bolts, nuts and washers of fenders .and chocks, includinj,' drillini.,' of masonry, tixiiif; and pluffgiiiK' do .... l.S '.110 (Kl Cast iron in mooring' luists, complete in place, and inchidiiiff cost of patterns do .. , 05 Iron, finished in castings, incliidiuff paintinj; do .. . (h; 126 m Hrass do do Steel, finished in spindles, &c Timber moorinj^ posts, comjilete in place, including do d.> m 25 sockets and C. 1. caps Kacli 30 00 (KH) 00 Karth filling between (.liiav-walls Per cubic yard 50 40,0(»0()0 Metalling surface of <,)uav, as per specification do 3 (K) 12,(H»0 00 Bulk sum for coffer dams, including coft of building. maintaining as long as ordered and removing. . . . Hulk sum for un«aterilig foundation during construc- 75,000 00 tion of walls and inverts of entrance channels and caisson chamber or niitre sills and jilatfornis for gates, or any other works included m main con- tract, including laUmr and machinery do 30,000 00 8(i4,181 00 1320 • I 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 CROSS-WALL.— Cont/«rfed. showing QuuntitieH applied by Mr. Boyd. (Exhibit ''XiJ"). — Coiu'laded. LaKKIN, CONNOLI.V & Cci.j .lolIN (iAT.I..V(iHKI<. (!K()1<(;K HkAICAiIK. Simon I'kikiis it Kd MooilK. Katf. 8 CtH. r.0 .s« U ?SA 30 3() ;« Amount. i? CtH. 2,730 (10 342 00 228 00 1,410 00 ,300 m 25 (h50 (K) 45 30 1 25 85 30 25 375 00 .S5 00 25 00 750 00 40 (X) 30 00 25 00 40 (K> 25 00 20 00 5 00 50 w; 120 00 0(i 00 05 200 00 07 700 m 12 H40 00 05 0(i 120 00 .30 25 25 00 500 00 45 3(i,000 00 1 50 (i,0(X» 00 00,000 00 (iO.OOO 00 2,500 00 2,500 00 (»4,.340 00 45 '• 2,457 00 411 3r>i) m 37^! 2-.'.") Oti O 40 1,SS(» IMI 35 ;<.V) (K) 40 25 tiriO (H» 45 45 85 40 40 II 40 liiio m 50 22 50 (175 00 42 .">o 32 TiO 22 ."Ki 50 :«) (HI 20 OO 5 (M) 00 , 07 140 00 10 05 M\ ISO 01) o oi>~ i;(Ki (HI 043,071 1<> 1321 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 SniKDULE B— Statement Himwiny values of TeinU'is for Work on l>i'n('ri|itiiiii iif Iti'iii. (^imiititii'H. Piice. 5,700 3,0(H( (i5<» l.tXH) 15,500 1,700 3, |»'r ^•|H't'iKctltillll Ma.sciiny in <^iiiiy-\viills with liivckinu of ctiiuTcti', lis inT HiK'cilicatiiiii MaMiiiiy ill walls of fiitraiice I'liimiii'l fittcfl to ivcfivf i-itlnT caiswiii or pitrH anil swiiiK lii'iil){f as may iMMU'dricil anil iiii'liulinf^giaiiiti- (lUoiiiH Masiiiiry in walls of caisson rhaniU'r, inchu'tiiig I'orlH'ls, cliRin-i>atlis, i1:('., as iht s|M'C'iKt'ution... Masonry in iiivcitsof i-iitraiic't'clianiifl and caisson I'lianilH'i', incluiliiiK ^niiiiti- Masonry in walls, covers anil paving of regulating ciiherts anil sluicinn cliiuiiU'rs Concrete laid under water Ih-Iow datum level do laid dry U-low ilatiini in entrance chan- nel, &c Concrete laid dry aliove datum in walls or elne- wliere, including costs of mulds, screens, &c. . . 4iranite in quoins of caisson c'lauiU-r or in liollow <|Uoins for gates, dresswl and laid com|>Iete. . . . (iranite in inverts, dressed and laid coni|>lete LiniestoTie in (|uoins of caisson cliainlx-r or in hollow (jiioins for gates, dressed and laid coni|iIete Limestone in inverts, dressed and laid complete. . Stone ballast in crilis, measured in work Heavy stone in toeing do Clay puddle laid above datum level, prepan f! .ifi, "as ordered ! 3,i'!m Clay puddle laid l)elow datum level, prepared «■' ortlere to 8 feet, white pine Sheet piling, 4 inches thick, driven from (i to 8 feet, wliite [tine Sheet piling, fi inches thick, driven from (i to 8 feet, any tinil)er sjiecified in clause IS 'iinilwr 12 incites square, white pine, in fenders of 0 (JO 14 tKI 71t,S(MI 00 Hi (10 40,800 (M) 10 00 .'m,(NHI 00 1 11 (HI Xi,<¥m (HI 20 00 liO.IMMJ 00 1(1 00 ! 10,700 00 35 0 tio 1 48 0(1 31,200 00 10 00 . 10,000 00 (Kl OH.IKH) m U 00 5 75 14,IHK) 00 ,S!I,125 (H» 13 0(1 13,(HI0 GO (> -Kl 100,7.")0 IKI IS IM) 7 (Ml 1S,(MM) (K) 10S,5(M) (Kl (I 00 10,2 00 18,000 00 5 75 1 17,250 00 r)0 1!>,,5(KI (HI 1 8 IMI 24,(MJO IMI 30 00 i Nl (Nl 'A) (M) ... .1 1 1 1 10 50 10 50 05 0,7.50 00 65 300 (M) 15 00 13 (K) I 25 1 30 "]'«,750 iM) 780 (Ml 14 00 . \ 12 00 1 35 2(l,2.-)0 00 1 45 870 00 27 .Kl 27 (Ml 1 25 3 00 1S,7.">0 00 1,,S(M) IK) 86 2.5,5(» (M) 1 .50 4,. 500 (KJ I 01) 4,.S0O 00 1 70 .■),l(MJ 0(1 1 50 1 (HI ! 1 .50 15 85 702 50 12 00 (KH) 00 i 12 25 ()12 00 10 .-)0 075 (Kl S) 00 7 OO 7 25 11 20 18 GO 0») (M» 10 00 .500 00 ' 11 00 j 5.50 00 111 .50 K.\lCAi:K. Samson. Ruti'. Amovint. cts. 37i 40 35 40 25 45 45 85 40 40 40 32 50 22 50 42 50 32 50 22 50 42 50 30 00 20 (K) 5 (10 <10 07 10 05 04.', 00 25 04 04 40 30 ?0 00 ,» 25 1 30 !§ Cts. 225 00 i,m) 00 i 350 00 ' ' 050 m (iOO 00 (175' 00 140 00 18(( 00 I (100 m 1,7.50 (K» ' S(') (K) ()()0 (K) 20,(KI0 00 5,200 00 75,000 00 Kate. 043,071 lt> !^ cts. 35 30 25 %5 25 40 30 1 20 45 35 30 25 00 20 (X» 40 00 25 00 20 00 35 00 25 00 20 00 4 m r)0 05 08 0(i 05 07 10 mh i> 0(! <» 50 25 18 00 36 1 25 AiiKiunt. * cts. 210 00 1,410 00 250 00 65(V()0'' 4.50 (K) (ioi) 00 KJO 00 200 00 70O 00 700 (10 i2o ! Cts. 210 tm 1,175 ( cts. 240 00 1,SS0 00 4S5 00 520 (JO 110 00 220 00 (IOO 00 770 00 iio '6(j 400 00 32,000 00 .5,2(K) 00 .50,0(K) 00 4,000 00 47 47 3i5 m 25 (K> 37 M 35 (W 25 00 37 50 35 00 25 (M) 8 50 or 1.50 45 10 OS 03?, 05 04 13 05 (H> 50 25 30 00 50 3 (»0 15,000 (K) ; ■''.'>"») 00 .5.52,255 (HI (140,808 00 M()(0l75 01^ (150,230 00 •,<»*' 375 lunl .'«84,(i(H), additoii for correctefl iH-icc for sheet iiiliriK. " 'l_85 1325 705 00 750 (W' 1 2(H) 00 ' 2()6 m 450 00 ItlO (HJ 120 (H) (100 00 40.(HHI 00 12,(HK> 00 75,000 00 H0,000 00 864,181 00 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 SCHEDULE O— Comparative Estimate of Tenders based on Quantities obtained from Mr. Boyd's Plans DKMC'KIPTIOX. Petkks & MOORK. Rate. Aiiitmnt. Ivioli (if Wdi'k. 11 .50 S 40 IG (iO 1(5 (10 10 (iO l(i (iO i: iHi 6 00 (i (HI 40 oO 40 50 l(i .-)0 10 .')0 II ll.i ! -IJ do ... do do laid drv Iwlow datum in entrance ehan- | nel, itc 1,700 do ..i do do laid dry al«)ve datum in walls or else- where including c(jsts of nudds, screens, &c. . . 3,(HMI do .. do (iranite in .luoius of caisson chaudier or in hollow (pioins for gates, dressed and laid complete i do . . do < iranite in inverts, dressed and laid complete ', do .. do Limestone in (pioinsof caisson cliandM'r or in hollow ' (juoins for gates, dressed and laid complete • do .. do Iiimestone in inverts, dressed and laid complete. . . do .. do .Stone ballast in cribs, measured in work t'ff''i'> ''" ••! •'" Heavy stone in t(H'ing do 0(MI do .. do Clay puddle laid alnive datum level, prepared as ' ordered 3,0(H) do . . do Clay puddle laid l)elow datum level, prepared as onleied do .' do Piles 12 inches s(piare, 35 feet long, driven from S to 12 feet .")0No Piles 12 inches square, 20 feet long, driven from S to 12 feet dc Piles 10 inches s(piarf, 42 feet long, driven from .H to 12 feet . iM) di Piles 10 inches bv 12 inches, 30 feet long, driven from S to 12'feet d( I'iles 10 inches bv 12 inches, 20 feet long, driven from S to 12'feet d( Pile driving to any depth, not exceeding 20 feet.. . . 1,.500 Lin. ft Sheet piling, H inches thick, driven from!) to M feet, SS't do white pine '. Siieet piling, (i inches thick, driven fnnn (ito H feet. white pine I do .. do .. 00 i Sheet piling, 4 inches thick, driven from li to 8 feet, 1 white pine do . . do . . 8 00 ' Slieet piling, inches tiiick, diiveii from (itoMfeet,' liny timU'r spc Hed in clause IS •','''^/ do .. do .. tl (Ki I Timber 12 inches s(piare, wi,...e pine, in fenders j of l^imy and Kntrauce walls,titted in place. . . 5,400 t!ub. ft.. Per cubic f t. . . . 45 Timber 12 inches s(piare, white pine, in >ipper part j of gauge piles, fitted in place ... I !MK). do .. (U> .... 41' No'i'K -Corrected prices for sheet piling taken in IJe.iucage's tendec only. Com-cted pr piling added for values of (iallaglier's tender at foot of coliunn of values. 132(5 •s cts. 53,m> IM) 144,440 00 04,020 00 41),>S00 00 10,"!t0 00 1().0(KI 00 l.',,\i:i.s IK) 10,2(M» 00 l.s,0 00 ,S',,V)'/ mi ,.>S,.IJS im 2,^57 iK' 3(i0 !' - CIS f"V ..'iieet 54 CE (sh L •:5/(i 110 1 93 T'tOi.i IK) 11 50 144,440 00 il 25 110,180 00 10 25 12 00. 00 15 (M) 14 50 cV (HI 7 50 7 00 40 00 30 00 15 no 14 10 1. y /?■' 1 r» 1 I t)H,4(H) 00 27,000 (W 0,750 m 14,."i(lO (M) i:i(i,..'(if mi 12.750 00 21,(MM) (to 1,0,50 (Ml 1 7r> 5,250 00 (iL'5 00 12 ■ ■ , 50 12 00 11 20 7 00 18 il ,in .23 :s (/ ..'II ,'".v ..'" .'Ml 2.7H0 00 (I ;it ".\;r" « 0(10 00 '2T('t (Nl JJI J'l il 00 13 5(1 10 00 35 (H) 14 m .7 /■■,) 5 75 5 75 30 (H) 25 00 15 (M) 13 00 / ,'.; 1 30 1 50 I 50 12 00 700 10 (HI 11 00 7 00 (I 15 II Jj 7(),(t50 00 30,0(J0 00 1 22,750 00 14,000 00 /.}i,ixi.i ;.; 9,775 00 17,250 00 /.s.-iim J'> 780 00 4,500 00 (KHI (HI .")(MI 00 2-.'5 (Kl 2.'/ -.'J 20 I 15 ' II IS I 1 1-1" -IS 45 2, 157 00 G. BEALl'AliK. •Samson. AiiKnmt. Katf. S cts. a 10 10 00 il 50 14 50 11 00 j 25 00 I 13 (Nl I J oil V, 50 : (> 50 3i") 00 30 00 14 (M) 12 (10 / .<:, I 45 1 (10 1 (!0 12 25 7 25 II (HI 10 M (i .50 Ki /,'( iiii 17 0(1 15 (Ml /; ::> 45 .S cts. -S cts &i,nm iHi 125,00(1 00 82,fir)0 00 :b,(h)o (m) 1(),250 00 13.0(HI (Ml i/):i,/,i:/f oil 11,050 00 10,500 00 ,S7() (M) 4.l'i(IO 00 012 .50 55(1 00 240 00 lii,Si:) mi :,.,,; :ii ..< 2,4.57 (HI 35 ' 315 00 i 35 315 (Hi patrc 24 iif this .-Vpiu-iulix (Si'liiihilc A 1.) 1327 1— 8.U Amount. ij Do !» 50 10 00 Si cts. 2.',l,7')S mi 110,320 (XI 14 00 I 20 ,^» 48 00 18 (HI / im () .50 S 00 50 00 ,50 (M) 27 (Ml 27 (HI / J.') 3 00 1 70 1 .50 T.I 50 11 20 111 .50 12 45 S 3(1 O 25 IS ,.',' 10 55 I I 7 85 i /" ■■;" I ( 4(1 4(1 7!l,80(l» (HI (iO.OOO 00 31,200 (Ml 18.0iiie in braceH, fitted in place Timber 12 iiicheH square, white pine do 12 du iienilock, Hpriiceor taiiiarae do 12 do l)ircli,rockniapleorrockelin do 10 iiiolien by 12 inches, white pine White oak tinib inches by 12 inches, white pine, ti' .ed in jilace Plank 4 inches tiiick, white pine do 4 do hemlock or s|jnice do 4 do bircii or rock elm do 3 do white pine do 3 do hemlock or spruce do 3 do birch or rock elm Hoards 1 inch thick, white pine do 1 do hemhick or sjiruce Treenails IJ inch diameter, locust or t:tniarac, as tirdered Canvas, tarred or plain, laid in foundations Iron, in screw IkjIis and tie rofls, including nuts. . . do straps fitted in place, including lH)lts do pile shoes fitted on piles, iiichuling nails. . . do drift bolts do pressed spikes iialvani/.ed ii-oii in bolts, nuts and washei's of fenders and chocks, inclu ling drilling of ma- sonry, fixing and pl'igging Cast iron in iiUKiring |K)sts, complete in place, and including cost of patterns Iron, fiiiislu'd in castings, including painting Brass do do .Steel do in spindles, &c Timber mooring posts, complete in place, including sockets ami C. I. cajis . Kartli filling between 0 4,00(1 10,000 7,000 2,(H)0 Xo. .. .S(|. yds, L(.s do do do do do do do do 20 Xo. . . /.«,.<.« Cub. yds 4,000 do I I Per hniidi-ed . . . . Per yard square. Per |Mmnd do do do do (hi do do (U> Each Per cubic yard . do Bulk sum. , . . Rate. 8 cts. Amount. 04 04 40 30 30 m I) Jfi 1 30 8 cts. 37A 225 00 40 1,880 00 Xi a50 00 40 u 25 (i.50 ^1 1 30 ?f ets. 210 00 1,175 00 250 00 ■"oo6'66 S ct». 40 40 48A 30 20 25 030 1 00 45 47 47 35 00 25 00 37 50 35 00 25 00 37 «» 35 00 25 00 8.50(.rl.50 45 10 a 08 03i^ 05" 0044 13 05 0(i 50 25 30 00 1) ail 3 00 i* cts. 240 (10 1,880 m 485 00 25 45 050 00 .520 .K) 30 1 25 375 00 750 66 085 U 30 25 35 00 4.50 00 ' (iOO 00 450 00 (kkVoo' 705 00 25 00 40 00 30 00 750 00 25 00 40 00 95 00 20 00 5 00 50 KX) OO' '20(V66' 700 00 700 00 ' 120 00 ... m 0(i 120 00 110 00 200 00 0(i 05 07 12 05 0(i 30 25 25 00 II 4,') 1 50 ' mm 700 00 840 00 120 00 '22066 (MMI 00 770 00 liooo 206 (» 4r)0 0o 010 00 i26 6o" .500 00 iiii,:hhi 7't (i.OOO 00 (tO,000 00 2,500 00 743,371 70 3(iO 00 5,000 00 4,5,000 00 .5,000 00 400 (JO r,'f, u} mt 5,200 00 M,im 00 4,000 00 705,510 50 000 (K) l!",lill" 'ill 12,000 00 75,000 00 30.000 m M-i,rm 88 :i 10,827 44 l,(«2,0ll 20 702,378 32 Addition due to corrected price for sheet piling. 1329 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 C ^ 7^ •§ ^ e •-^ u -% H •b> © a -*d o e 61) 2 r P •*4 -^ o e g e "1 o c :. • r^ « * J= <^ v^ * CO •r H g 2 •J H- 1 ^ o n W « u -w > I1 at' S £| 11 <.S £ ■*" o o 'A O O a B 2 s 5 -2 ^'iSiJ^ 15 ?5. sn it I U\i^ 5 P5 ifr o o » c o if4 iM « 5 i5 -r Pi I s -5- < £ -s * * * * * o . ^ ^ ^ ^5 ? ^ 5 ,-x ^ 5 5 5 5 !•; 5 15^^ I i^ E ^ -CI i-iooc;oo s 5 o "-I 3 '-" i2 2 > ••S.S iE : B LliS M9qiuu;ij B i'C - ^ > '^ « S i -B r; J, B S u OK .. OXl*_ r- 5-m f IS -^ 1330 n 1 if ex »w ^ ■^ 5 g s i^=i -1 << 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 o ■^ '^ ^ ^ m O 2^ ■2s 2 '^ = y^ 00 1—1 .2 « c_ 0»3 m C 00 o 0.2 •« . - « — X S 1-H 3 cs ^— • JS 3 D r3 ^ « - W > a ^ S o P §-^ o :x: £ © 1—1 S-^ 1— < 9 -3 3 c yj a tfi ii .-. © « I H i is X o>^ to •»»'?> '^ : =— £Si « -2 ■ € 5 s r"-^ .< <^- 'A T. ^. _ •^ X c 5 s C S -rl I. « .as- a"-! ■^ ^ £ 1 5 5 5^5* ->''^ 5 5 1? 5 ~i — ^ 1 1> ( % 5 * * -l-i =^-| •S; 1.5?, — :■! Is?! -7-1 I '-?:s ■• ! I I Cm ?■ -X.i 5 ^ I -s lis •a*\iiinj^ ^ ^ S rr « I- ' 9^ S X X M 5 -x — i- ^ ^ I- « 3 3C yi 'A -4-1 ^ '^ Lr 5 5 a 5 C 5C tft * 5-I O 5 5 5 5*5 i SI \ 'S I S5 .'5 5 P. Ii c : — c 2 i:; c iK 5 c 5 I- is i-c •^ ir: c 1 = a: X S 'i: K ^ 1- S $ I'i is ri ^ N S! IS « >-( © 5 5 5 5 5 * ji S '^ '1 '^ I .2 8 ^^f4 -^ 5 « «_ , I * * ^ ** 1^ >- -!c? i; !?» "^ -^ + f 5S P. x '^ .<> s .- ^' ,-• l^i 5 ^ 55 ; 8?:' f: »> c; ^ O © IS 1-" © 1- « w f i.": a 1331 I § s ' -5 XJ - 2 ■=3 ' 54 Victoiia. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 SCHEDULE D— Comparative Statement showing Values of Tender."* received, based on Quantities in construction of entrance to Dexcription of Item. •Quantities. Cribwork-hciglit measured from" lx)ttoiii of lowest to toji of liij^heHt face-tiinVier and tl e thick- nesMes from front of face-tinil)er» to liack of rear lungitiidinalH, includiii^ir all timber and iron, but not stheet piling Masonry in (^uay-wallK with l>acking of uiaMunry, as i)er specification Masonry in l^uay-walls with backing of concrete, as Ijer s|)ecification Masonry in walls of entrance channel fitted to re- ceive either caisson or gates and swing bridge as may be or(lereels, chain-paths, &c., as tier s|)ecification . . Masonry in inverts of entrance channel and caisson chamlH-r, including granite j Masonry in walls, covers and paving of regulatingi culverts and sluicing ciiambers ! Concrete laid unde>" water l)elow datum level . . . . | do laid dry Itelow datum in entrance channel, &c do laid dry above datum in walls or elsewhere,, including costs of mulds, screens, &c . . . I Granite in quoin.x of caisson chamber or in hollow, qj^uoins for gate.-, dressed and laid complete ; (Jranite in inverts, i! ssed and laid complete ' Limestone in quoins f caisson chamber or in hol- low quoins for gates, dressed and laid complete^ Limestone in inverts, dressed and laid complete. . Sttnie ballast in oribs, measured in work j Heavy stone in toeing do j Clay puddle laid above datum level, |irepared as ordered i Clay puddle laid below datum level, preiiared as ordnred '• Piles 12 inches square, 35 feet long, driven from 8 tol2fett I'iles 12 inches square, 20 feet long, driven from 8; tol2feL't ! I'iles 10 inches square, 42 feet long, diiven fnjm 8! to 12 feet I Piles 10 inches by 12 inches, 30 feet long, driven] from 8 to 12 feet ' Piles 10 inches by 12 inches, 20 feet long, driven from 8 to 12 feet • Pile driving to any depth not e.\ceeding 20 feet .... Sheet piling, 8 inches thick, driven from 6 toSfeet, white pine, do f» do do do 4 do do Sheet piling, 6 inches thick, driven fitnn to 8 feet, any timlier si>ecified in clause 18 Tin;l>er 12 inches square, white pine, in fendere of quay and entrance walls, fitted in place Timber 12 inches square, white pine, in upi)er |Mirt of gau^e piles, fitted in place Timlier 12 mcnes square, white pine, in caiw, fitted in place Timber in piles, hendock or spruce 50,740 10,812 3,924 4,294 540 1,3J0 28,529 1,.5G5 15,070 Cub. yds do do do do j do ; do ' do do i do ■ do do do do do i do ! do i do Price. Pkteks * MooiiK. Rate. Amount. $ cts. cts. Per cubic yard . . I 33A «7,053 33 do do do do dt. do do do do ine ... Sheet piling, (i inches thick, driven from (5 to 8 feet, ■ white pine , .Sheet piling, 4 inches thick, driven from 6 to 8 feet, ' white pine Sheet |>iling. (J inches thick, driven from 6 to 8 feet, any timlier si)ecified in clause 18 Timber 12 inches square, white pine, in fenders of' (juay and entrance walls, fitted in place. . . . Tinil)er 12 inches scpiare, white pine, in uijjier part ,,'44 <"> 171,174 IKI do .. do 11 m ;i,.i!Ki iHi do 00 18 tiO 7!»2 .■><')' do .. d.. .. Lin. ft. do . . do 12 (K> 8 00 0-25 HI IKI Per ft. driven. . . Per Hn. ic. inline of work J,ri7o M 7,IKKI IKI do .. do i) 00 do .. do .. do do 8 00 S IKI Ji,<.)84 IK) Cub. ft.. Per cubic foot. . . 45 2,457 00 do .. do .. 40 .'MM) 00 do .. do 37i 225 00 do .. do 40 1,880 0* 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 CROSS-WALL. QiiantitioH applied (See Kxhibit " X3 ")* in moneyiny out Tenders (shown in Romiin)' tound in his Estimate Bool< (shown in Italic). Bbaucaok. La UK IN & Connolly. • Jallaohkii. Sasihon. 1 Ratf. ! Anumnt. Rat.'. Amount. Rat*'. .-Vniuiiiit. Ratf. Aii.oiiiit. 8 CtK. !* ct«. !? CtS. * c;t«. St etH. 9 CtH. )? CtH. •it ots. .' II) 1110,004 mi ,' 2o 114,liifi mi / !I3 !i8,U4.i mi 03 .imi,!i77 110 Id mi 10S,m) mi 11 oil l24,.i.iS im U 2o imi,iill mi U .^1 102,714 00 !l ')() 10 25 /,' mi 4',ihSS mi 00 /./ 3ii 32,'.i74 mi 10 00 14 IH) H oil ,v;,Ar« mi o4,!i.ii! mi 11 mi 47,i34 mi :i mi .is,iiJ/i mi III mi 42,!ip mi 20 mi S,'>,SSO 00 J'l iH) n,5iKi mi 13 mi s,imi mi .13 mi is,;khi mi 48 mi 25,U2il mi I.I mi i: I'tii 17,4211 mi lS3,4.ifl oil 14 oil s mi l'.i,4.iii mi 22S,2.i! mi 14 '^l .5 73 lS,7ili> mi 104,041 75 18 DO ? 0(1 24, mi m) 1!)!1,7I>3 00 11 oil 111,172 oil 7 r,ii 11,737 30 3 73 S,9H8 73 11 50 10,172 30 ti :<0 1!»,500 00 7 00 21,000 00 5 75 17,250 00 8 00 24,000 00 35 00 40 00 30 00 15 00 14 10 1 oil 1 75 "'22,W3mi \,(m 00 30 00 25 00 15 .H) 13 00 / 23 1 30 .50 00 50 00 27 00 27 00 / 23 3 00 80 00 14 00 12 00 " 211,344 hi i «70 00 1 45 lS,S.f7 30 780 00 1S,8S7 50 1,800 00 1 60 4,800 00 1 75 5,250 00 IM 4,.50O 00 1 70 .5,100 00 1 (K) 12 25 7 25 ' iiu'm 1 75 12 50 7 50 12 00 025 06 (too 06' 1 .50 12 00 7 00 10 00 (ioo'oo' 1 50 i;» 50 11 20 19 50 07.5 w"^ 11 50 550 00 iJOO 00 075 00 10 50 "'l,!ii)4W 11 20 7 00 18 11 00 7 00 13 12 45 8 30 25 li .50 '2,J42'ijo' II PI 1,785 mi 2,1(73 m> i;i mi U,.iiKi mi II 23 173 IKI II 23 173 mi IS 27 12,7 S!) 00 17 00 23 20 15 00 18 II 211 15 II IS 317 14 III oD i.'i ;.j 4o,24!> 7o 374 00 .i(),li:i! 30 45 2,457 00 .50 2,730 00 45 2,4.57 00 f 40 1 \ 7 85 J 2,184 00 a5 35 315 00 210 00 .38 38 342 00 228 00 35 315 00 035 210 00 40 25 1,175 00 .30 1,410 00 30 1,410 00 40 3(H) 00 For Kvliibit "X3" .<« liape 24 of thiw Apiieiirlix (Sohednle liJ35 Al.) 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 SCHEDULE E— CdMPARATiVE Statement showing the value of Tenders received, l>KJ«CKII'n('N. (juRiititifH, I l.iKX) 1,500 30)666 ...... J. Tiiiil»T li l)y H incheH t)r 8 incheHW|uiti'e, white pine ill l)riiffH, nttwl ip. jiliice TiiiilxT 12 incliex <^(|(lllrf, wliit»- pine do 12 fli> lie.'iiIofk,Hpriice(irtaniii>'iie. rlo 12 (Id liircli,riic'knmple(iri(>ckelni _(lr> 10 inolieH by 12 inclies, white pine Wliite oak tiniher in mitre siUm of giiteH, dresHed, framed and laid complete Wliite pine timber in mitre Hill platformx, drenHed, framed and laid complete WaliiijjK, 8 iiiK. by 12 inn., white pine, tittelace. do li liiH. by 12inN, do do Plank 4 iiicheN thick, white pine do 4 do heml(K;k or npruce do 4 do birch or rock elm do 3 do whit^ pine \ do 3 do hemlock or Mprnce do 3 do birch or rock elm ^ blt» and tie rodH, inchidin" iint». . . . d> HtrajM fitted in jilace, includiiiL' boltH ... d( pile shoPH fitted on pile«, iiichiding nailM d( drift lioltH 4,000 d( preiwed spikes 10,000 t cts. 350 00 li.50 (Ml .i/imi (HI (i(H) (Kl HI 140 (Ml 180 (HI 000 00 1,7.50 (Kl 80 00 (iOO 00 20,fJ00 00 5,200 00 75,000 00 15,000 00 734,84(i 13 NoTK. —No date as to when estimate taken from his bcxjk was made up, but it was evidently change in construction of entrance was decided on. liefore 1336 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 CHOaa-yi ALL— Conilud( d. based on the Quantities upplietl ((See Exhibit " X:^ ")=i«, &c. — Concluded, lU:.M<'AiiK. Lakkin it CdSNor.i.Y. tiAI.I.Ai^HKK. Samwjn. KhU'. •S etK. 25 30 25 I) Jlo 42 027 1 20 056 35 30 30 (Mt 20 (JO 45 (to 27 OO 20 OO 40 (K» 25 00 20 0(» 4 00 45 05i 07 (Hi 05i 00 Anuiiint. Kftt.-. 8 ctM. : 200 00 (i50 00 i,oiJi) im " "4iy»'()6' 0(10 (j« "iio'cKy 22(> (K) (100 00 * etH. 30 ai II ,',•; 45 30 1 25 85 30 25 35 m 25 (N) 40 00 30 OO 25 00 40 00 25 00 20 00 5 00 50 0(! (Hi (Mi 05 07 Aiiiouiit. 8 CtK. 3(HI (JO (i50 00 375 J 40' 23 20 00 40 1 30 "iio 66' 400 00 32,0(KJ 00 5,200 00 .50,(J0O 0,(HMI 00 (i,(HH) (Ml (iO,0(HI (HI 2,500 00 7()3,023 10 (I 05.1, (Hi" 5(1 25 18 00 (I *•> 1 25 7(J(J 00 ]2(J (HJ 3(i(J (HI 2S,(HHI (HI 5,(HM) (HI 45,(HHJ (M) 5,0(HJ (JO (!45.:>;<5 774,082 14 4(! 13 (I 05 (Mi 50 L'5 30 (HI (I :hi 3 (HI iJlO (HI 120 (HI (i(H) (MJ 40,(MMJ 00 12,(MMI (H) ■5,(J(J() (H) 30,00(J 00 1,077,444 TjO For Exhibit " X3" aa l>age 24 of this Al)ittMi(Ii.\ (Sclicdiilf A I. : Addition for corrected .shw t piling iiricfs. 1337 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 >> o e o S :§§ • :S?ii?g ■ 5 § 1? 5 Se at S 5 (3 • 5 w ■ C ■j. i e*& iir-ss :r iTi- — Tl M'^ CT .... ^-* i* * i; . . t-( p-( f— 1 X j3 O g?. u s X X . .3Sgi 'xSSS S s 2 s 5 : g g : " ■♦-J ^^'-S s rt s 11 : 'i^'fJi .'-i^B S i a? X ^ ■ 3e X ; * ^ c- .-^ 1-H . ^^-:c 1— 1 1— ' '- •* . :'^S : : C IS « ^3 X u S :5 ■ 5JS : : i §8 i ; ; . ; ■;.:?§: -ss p. £ ? ®& if; i J^ • ■ ■ • i-t • -s-'IJ : • . ; r:?i • i- IJ c to s 00 £'z *-^ ?i ;?j : : " ■^ . . N- ... hJ u X. 6 ■T" n s Si': f-H : ;g§ ; : : ; . .CIX . . . . i ; : i §g ; igs ; : : : xir: : .-i^ : ; : : : ^ : : g O 1 i M ^ 71 r. J* 9. SJ^SS JAi^SSgg - = - =^ = = = = JA ?. !A 1 « Pi ^ ,— ^r^ /■"N •^ ^^ ..^ ? 2* r be ? S 5 S S §S§S5?SSSS§5 g gggg § ;§g ■■ ■ H a •|S><-|'r 1 -J. 3 s S i^ 5 ^ ^ |H||';||pS||:| t— 1 .s r*. H CC I-H CI r^ h-^ 9 ' ■» s Q ■" W W 7 ' '. ! -^ t' : :^- • • o • : :•», o CO ^ ^ .• ^- - - - _ "3 ; : t c _c /< 1-! :>-; C3 !-E "^ ii?j 5 ';i?^$5 5§-:?S . : : •? §g ; -gS 9 ■^■^ 'X, X — cc ■^gJifi •?-;?. : :c2f o h— « ^ 'M ^ 1- 1* «—> r- * T-^ -^ r: ^ ■ • ; '- ; i g : : : ^"^ ' i ^ ; j • ■ . t- . - X, . u r : i. : 1 i ^ r : : ; : . : o ■ ^^ ■ ^ * Wf i ■ — „•— '^..^tt^ •/I ■ ■ C i: ■ 1 :3 : ; .J_: JJI ■~ :'Z 'Z . ~ ; i : 5 H '/: .' i; ■ ■ - 4J " * -~ S = :.= .=-6.5.^' ■= ; ti • t a 5 '. ^J=.:ii t-^-H !-t^ x.-'TT Ed H 1 : -ill ^'"^ i : it"!' Xt ^ r-1 ;i|-e4 ~ ^' - i^..i 3 «"Sti =,i:'5. '*^ ' — ; •1' CC ?^ U. - fc. '-' Jj c "^ .- TiSw'i^ ' "x H H H &. l^;,S 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 ■ r ... _ ^ ■ '-r X '. X ff4 ^\\m ■■% •l -r . w £ : ; ; igs ;? ;§ :ii^ c^ ■ 2 o ■ — . s5 1 "^ ?i X X ■ ■ ; iTi- '•?'' ■M "" :' 1 --.-o 7.1!?; 'si 1" "1 12 s ■ "2 ; 'X ?i • S ' ''■"l !M x -r -i • •, — 1 , Lt .t; v' JT . a s V3 • 2 * ■ 1 .^-l --„- : ;»4' . X P. : : : ? 2 5 S , '. c '■ $ '5 * w C*t * • ^ S'SSg'cS'i'i^iS'-*^ ■ = . * X ,"K . Tl -T — l-"■ 7=.^ :r S C* ^ ; ;§ .§ .5'-: ; -r '-' — . . *ij^ H i ■ "" ;*- ■ - o tc . - B lilt 11 I ill f: ? !•- 1 i. = •■£•§ I = !' ^ "'• — ~ •~ a z - >-' -c ■= s S-5-6'c St" i = =t 4fi ^d x'^ms .'■tS-- :, ^' X r. ■M X 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 s S3 F . .^ o n . B 2> e '-= g ^J5 O ?1 ■*■ Xl .t; = '— 1—4 » - *- .- rt hH iJ < ^ _r: ^ rt t 1 -/. o zr. ^ c: Ui '^ s O ■^ -3 o 25 '■''.-* s^ 1:0 h C3 X 2oo %-1 t— 1 .- ^i :2§ Si «-= p— 1 Cr?" O v; _-3 - C c^ 2S r^ rt a - p^ -^ — « ,^ — ;^ s a » !S r, -.J £- i- » ^ s ^ '/J I *j-^ 5! s s: ^ a s^ ** ,— - «^ '"' '"' I i^ 5*3 " - c' fe ^^^•*-„.=>^,^ '* ^ 2 X r ^ d^o 3 5 =5 !I S = ^ 8 ;§Scl « -r w :|§?5- 5 :55s : '5 55 • ^ fl r: £ ?i Ti c o Tim- ^ c; -^ I- "s ■i':-Ti.i- "^ -r -r 1" ~. 1^ c I- ir: -r r« oc « • X • S Ti Ti S S 5 i.t N M CI c; t*-- -H ■g S S 5 S 5 s '-; S S S t^ 5 5 i? 5 S ?i i" i S c^ t"i ^A 5 rl S § S 5 S 'X» r^ 11 r- f-^ f— r- « CI •A !-5 = t. 5 ?" •£ ''. 4-» . — w r" -ff ^ 1. ■y. i: -. " i- — le S -r l'^ — o X r. CI ci r: •;£ CI I - • x X 1 - c cc rt CI X -^ p 5 c- — ci C-Tl-rH r- ClciCirHr- X -^ ■55.-55 l- "T IT ?i =s t s t :~z = SSS ^iSs ^ ^ JC "JX .Tt ^ X X 5^ c*! CI I- Or- S^ rH Y X X 3; Z X X 5 5|-.- ■-■Tim r: X !x ■ a: fi ;= §§§§§§§ ^.sg§§g§ — I - r. — X :-. -r CI r: -i CI 1 - — X X X c « -/ X ? ^ £ = r-. .r ci CI X CI — r- CC CC *. CI CI r- .— 1* J* -^ Clr-'l-T r-'cc' T-^xcyiS I*; rH « *l i-£-5 ■ ■« '• ij- t. 1, i . -t- t; _ ^ • =^ > > i C- .= " S X 2 .-r: Ir" .= X ,-ci r--^-S-= is 2 =~ S.i c = a - .-^ H 5 'i? .^ X i? = S. : rt 5 • > •- - SSP ^ >.= ii-S' ^^i"? ;i ■= -cici-g-f , S i^ 11^ a,' •C i - - - - c^' f..s 02 1340 « c 64 "Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 11 s si^ p. ?$ r M 23 gg is 1^ ^ -^ f M © »1 15 l~. ^ in Iff 5 5 o c ff-5 1" S S O C C O rH §SSS :S 1-1 S s 3 ss «SSi§§SS c: C5 ^ — - I- i i^ 3 ISC 5.5 2 Hi c C'C « O X ^'c ~S ^S --S-^ «4^ "-' - X ^ 1—86 « 5 o ^ I 1. X II e3 1341 ^ 3 XI h:5 -/T •XI u O *^ 9 3 CU :i- p^ is D Q Ed 1— 1 B •— n o X CO ^ O 3 •/2 "3 M IT" t4 1) S * u «■ I;- I- 7fc? -£ = £ 3! — . ^ 5? U 64 Victoiia. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 54 SCHEDULE H— Comparative Statement showing the Values of Work based on the Final Estimate Descriii'iox. Cribwork-hfiglit measured from bottom of lowest to topof highest face-timber and the thicknesses from front of face-timl)er» to back of rear longi- tudinals, including all timl>er and iron, but not Hhtet ])iling . Masonry in (^Hay-walls with backing of masonry, as iier specification Masonry in Quay-walls with backing of concrete, as i)er 8i)ecification Masonry in walls of entrance channel fitted to n:- ceive either caisson oi pates and swing bridge as may Ixf ordered, and including granite quoins ISIasonry in walls of caisson chamber, including corbels, chain-paths, &c., as j)er si)ecification . . Masonry in inverts of entrance channel and caisson ciiamter, including granite Masiinry in walls, covers and paving of regidating culverts and sluicing chambers Concrete laid under water below datum level Concrete laid dry below datum in entrance chan- nel, &c Concrete laid dry above datum in walls or else- where, including costs of uuilds, screens, &c. . Granite in quoins of caisson chamber or in hollow (quoins for gates, dressed and laid complete.. . . Granite in inverts, dressed and laid complete Limestone in quoins of caisson chaml)er or in hol- low (pioins for gates, dressed and laid coni|)lete. Limestone in inverts, dressed and laid complete. . . .Stone ballast in cribs, measured in work Heavy stone in toeing do Clay imddle laid above datum level, prepared as ordered Clay puddle laid below datum level, preiiared as ordered Piles 12 inches square, 35 feet long, driven from 8 to 12 feet Piles 12 inches square, 20 feet long, driven from 8 to 12 feet Piles 10 inches square, 42 feet long, driven from 8 to 12 feet Piles 10 ins. by 12 in.-*., 30 feet long, driven from 8j to 12 feet Piles 10 ins. by 12 ins., 20 feet long, driven from 8 to 12 feet Pile driving to any depth not e.xceeding 20 feet.. Sheet piling, 8 inches thick, driven from (J to 8 feet, white pine Slieet piling, G inches thick, driven from G to8 feet, white pine Sheet piling, 4 inches chick, driven from G to 8 feet, wliite i)ine Slieet piling, G inches thick, driven from to 8 feet, any timlier s|)ecified in clause 18 Timber 12 ins. square, white pine, in fenders of (piay and entrance walls, fitted in place Timl)er 12 ins. square, white i)ine, in upper part of ?auge piles, fitted in jilace ter 12 ins. square, white pine, caps, fitted in place Quantities. 52,884 11,287 7,G01 C. yds do do 22 do do 130 1,388 3(),3«!> 212 1,20!) G,10() 3,1!»2 G28 do do do do do do do do do do do do do Number Kacli Price. Per cubic yard . . do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do 3G3 1,82G I do . do . .: do . do . . Lin. ft. do . .' do . . do . do . .Cubic ft ,! do . do 1342 I do . . . do ... do ... Petkhs&Moork. Rate. Amount. S cts. 1 33i 11 50 S cts. ; 70,512 00 i ! 129,800 50 Ki CO ' 126,180 25 10 GO ' 2,158 00 16 GO G 00 G 00 6 00 23,051 5!» 182,334 00 1,277 7G 7,250 40 do Per ft. driven. P. lin. ft. in line of work 110 00 05 85 3,908 m 2,713 20 15 85 9,953 80 3,G30 00 do do do Per cubic ft . do do 8 00 14,608 00 CI of 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 1 CKOSS-WALL. of Quantities and applied to Prices submitted by all the Tenderers for the Work. Gallaiihkr. BeALCA(!K. LaHKIN & CONNOU.Y. Samson. Rate. Auioiint. Rate. Amount. Ratf. Aniount. Rate. Amount. . ' 1 * cts. 1 05 9 25 S cts. 103,123 80 104,404 75 S cts. 2 10 10 00 : $ cts. lll,05(i 40 112,870 00 •S cts. 2 25 11 .50 118,989 05 129,800 ,50 ■S cts. 1 6 05 9 50 i 8 ct«. 319,948 20 107,220 .50 i S 13 50 1 102,616 47 1 14 50 110,217 (iO 12 00 91,214 01 14 00 1 106,417 08 35 00 ■ 14 00 5 75 5 76 5 75 4,550 00 10,441 10 174,736 75 1,224 .52 6,054 05 25 00 1 13 00 (i 50 (> .50 (i 50 \ 3,250 00 18,0.52 45 107,528 50 1,384 24 7,801 10 15 00 14 50 8 00 7 50 7 00 l,!i50 00 20,135 42 243,112 00 1,.597 20 8,465 80 48 00 ; 18 00 ! 7 00 1 6 .50 H 00 6,240 00 24,005 70 212,723 00 1,384 24 9,675 20 1 25 7,032 50 i'35' "8,243'i6 i'So" " 9,15906 i'25" 7,()32 .56" 5,426 40 1 50 4,788 00 1 (iO 12 25 .5,107 20 7,603 00 1 75 12 .50 5,.586 00 1 70 12 00 1 7,530 00 7,850 00 19 .50 12,246 00 1 .'i 025 ■ JK) 75 10 00 (i,807 00 25 '.K> 75 ! 18 27 ! (i,632 01 'it 1 'I i 1 18 1 328 68 15 75 28,75!) 50 20 365 20 10 50 19,173 00 1 i 1 * ! i 1 1^43 l-86i 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) SCHEDULE H— Comparative Statement showing the Values of Work bused on the Final Estimate Dkmckiptio.v. (^'lantitiuM. Price. Petehs&Moohk. Rate. Aiiiutiiit. T Timber !( iiiH. V)y 10 ins., wliite jiine in chuci<8, tittwl in place Timber by H ins. or 8 ins. H(iuari', white pine in braces, fitted in place Timber 12 ins. square, white pine Timber 12 ins. square, hemlock, spruce or taniariic. Timber 12 ins. square, bin^li, rock maple or rock elm Thnl)er 10 ins. by 12 ins., white pine White oak timber in mitre sills of gates, dressed, fra;iied and laid complete White pine tinil)er in mitre sill platforms, dre.ised, framed and laid complete Walings, 8 ins. by 12 ins., white pine, fitted in place. do fi ins. by 12 ins. do do Plank 4 ins. thick, white pine do 4 do do 4 do do 4 do do .3 do do 3 do hemlcK'k or spruce bireh or rock elm white j)ine heml(Kk or spruce birch or rock elm Boards 1 in. thick, white pine . . do 1 do hemlock or spruce Treenails IJ inch diameter, locust or taniarac, as ordered Canvas, tarred or plain, laid in foinwlations. . . Iron, in screw Ixilts and tie rods, including nuts . do straps fitted in i)lace, including IriIIs.. . . do pile shoes fitted on piles, including nails do drift bolts do pressed spikes (Jalvanizefl iron in bolts, n\its and washers of fen- ders and chocks, including drilling of masonry, fixing and plugging Ca.st iron in nuHirnig jjosts, conii)lete in place, and including cost of patterns Iron, finished in castings, including i)ainting . . . Brass do Steel, finished in spindles, &c Timter mooring posts, complete in place, including sockets and C. I. caps Karth filling between (^uay-walls Metalling surface of <^uay as |)er specification Bulk sum for coffer-dams, including cost of build- ing, maintaining as long as ordered, and removing Bulk sum for unwatering foundations during con- struction of walls and inverts of entrance channel and caisson chauilier or mitre sills and platforms for gates, or any other works includ- ed in main contract, including all labour and machinery Total value of work, exclusive of day work and siiecial items (i«l-50 oi(4 5,470 ilO 30,500 I,!tl4--j0 12,0!I7 .50,357 10,ill2 3iHt I Cubic ft. Per cubic ft. do do do do do do 0 22 50 GO 07 05 04i 0(i" 04 30 25 1 30 •S cts. 238 52 237 110 l,3f>7 .50 2 92 mi 25 1,148 70 840 7'.) 2,517 85 4! II 04 23 !t4 l,53(i 00 31 20 44,2.S7 75 2,244 45 75,000 00 15,000 00 r23,0.54 ill ,4 Addition due to corrected price for sheet piling. I ^Hl 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 CROSS-WAJjL— Continued. of Quantities and applied to Pi-it-es submitted by all the Tenderers for the Work. Gallagher. Beaucaoe. Larkin & Connolly. Sam.son. Rate. Amount. Rate. Aiuount. Rate. Amount. Rate. Amount. •S CtH. §! Ct8. * CtH. $ cts. .? cts. if ctit. 8 CtH. * cts. 025 035 25 170 37 207 00 1,307 50 25 30 25 170 37 178 20 1,307 50 30 35 25 204 4.5 207 9(» 1,307 5> 00 35 1 25 61,932 8" 2,15f. 12 45,000 00 ,50,000 00 661,171 41 40 1 30 70,780 ..«» 2,241 4^ 50,000 0" 4,000 0«> 45 1 50 79,027 95 : 50 2,589 75 : 3 00 60,000 00 88,475 .50 .5,179 .50 7.5,000 00 2,500 fK) 30,000 00 " • * * 755,581 82 793,lS»i 20 1,040,880 40 739,207 50 1345 it^tUfsm 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 SCHEDULE H— CoBiPARATiVE STATEMENT showing the value of work based on the Final Estimate Peteh.s&Moork. Rate. I Amount. Amount brought forward Day Work. Motton or stone cutter iPer hour . . . MtVHon's labourer | BlackHmith I Blacksmith's helper Carjientor Painter. Machinist Machinist's assistant Kngine driver. . . Foreman ... Diver, including all apimratus Diver's assistants Foreman of labourers Labourer. ... Horse and driver. Horse, cart and driver Pumping during erection, fitting and fixing of caisson or gates, including use of machinery, fuel and wages Dredging, including machinery, wages and deposit- ing aiioil where ordered ... 1 Total, including day work Special items not included in ^heet No. t, but with prices based thereon as far as (xissible •S cts. 723,054 91 .5,094 12 728,149 03 34,43S 45 54 CI of 762,587 48 1346 ■iPPM 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 CROSS-WALL— Concluded. of Quantities and applied to prices submitted by all the Tenderei-B for the work. (lAIXAdHEH. Beaucage. LaBKIN & CONNOI-I.Y. Rate. Amount. 1 Rate. Amount. 8 ctH.. I « <='«• 739,207 50 ! ^^'^^ ^'^ Rate. i Amount. Samson. Rate. Amount. 4,883 95 5,049 06 744,091 45 32,719 6-t 770,811 09 760,630 88 32,f>37 61 793,268 49 I S cts, . . '; 793,186 20 5,021 28 , 7il8,207 48 .^ ct«. 1,046,886 46 n,%f> 69 1,052,853 15 H;740 96| !__^^J1L 7^,47814' i 1.0»«-1"1 77 11 134T 64 Victona. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 SCHEDULE H (1)— Comparative Statement showing Value of Day Work relui-ned in 54 Cli Fii Pakticilaks ok Itk.m». CjuantitieH Fence — Feiici- [Hwts, (i, 4 x in. x it ft. (> in Ft.B.M. Wales, 2, 4 X 5 in. X 45 in do Hoarding, (> ft. in. x 1 in. x 45 ft do do 4 ft. x 1 in. X 45 ft do do 3 ft. X 1 in. x 45 ft do Sidewalk- Pine, 42 ft. (J in. X 1 in. x 3 in do Iron () in. cut nail SKI 45 Lbn. do 3 in. do 30 do Vahe House (Sundries) — Pine in wall plate Cub. ft. do riK)f, ceiling and waiuMcot B.M. Spruce in floor and bulkhead do (ialvunized iro)i squarert in roof No. Windows . do do do Door do Plastering Sq. yds, Painting — Painting valves ; 10 hours Days. Paint L6s. Painter Days. Paint Lbs. Making Booms and Furnishing Timber— Cariwnter Days. LalxHirers do Wire splicers do di) hel|)er do Ii"on, I in. drift bolts Lbs. do various bolts and nuts do do 12 in. tiniter dogs do do eye-bolts, 4, with nuts and washers do Wire rope, J in Feet. Shackles, 4 Lbs. Spruce Cub. ft, Cart)enter . . . Days. Or. —Previously estimated in No. .S7 Cub. ft, Wliite pine do do do do do Iron Lbs. do do •Taking Fenders off c' Crib No. 3— Foreman ... Days. Labourers . . do Diver do Carried forward. 1348 LaIIKIN & COXXOLLV. 582' 9 •.Ni3 Rate. Amount. Total. * CtH, 20 00 30 00 0." .? cts. 11 65; 2H 68 3 75; 64-83 25 16 20 3,044 25 00 !W 61 (!52 25 00 16 30 13 50 7 00 04 .50 16 7 00 112 (H) 1 12 00 12 00 1 20 00 20 00 125 15 2 50 18 75 4 10 00 30 12 3 .55 50 145 05 300 7 10 -2i)2 70 4 12 00 44 1 80 70 20 3i 10 00 32 .50 cts. 44 OS 388 36 18 !>5 15 47 123 70 Ka 8< 20 32 30 20 7 7 12 20 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A 1891 CROSS-WALL. . Final Estimate at Prices submittod by all the Tenderers PkTERM & lilOOKK. Rati". Amount. 8 ct». 8 eta. 20 00 ,S2 50 04A a") 30 00 20 00 7 00 7 00 12 00 20 00 15 2 50 12 2 50 12 2 50 1 50 .3 50 1 50 04A 007 07 007 .0 17 07 25 2 50 40 40 40 •0 40 07 04^ .3 00 1 .50 5 00 Total. 11 65 31 30, 3 38 22 ()!> 118 32' 13 04 i)4 50 112 00 12 OO' 20 08 18 75; 10 00 8 60 3 75 1 2o; 22 i50| 30 00 3 50 160 3 6»l 52 081 4 20 9 52; 47 60i 1751 162 75i 3 75i -342 84 237 60: 6 20 lit 20, 3 60! 64 75 6 52 -337 87 12 00 66 00 16 25 (i.M.t.AtlHKH. Rate. .? CtH. ^ CtS. 20 00 Aiiiuunt. I lV)tal. Hkaix'auk. Rate. * CtH. !? cts. * C'tS. 11 (« 25 00 24 07 46 33 05 3 75 441 30 18 55 4 97 94 25 25 16 20 25 00 98 61 20 00 13 04 7 00 94 50 7 00 112 Wl 12 00 12 00 20 00 2(t 00 » 15 2 50 18 75 10 00 12 3 60 2 50 3 75 12 1 20 200 18 00 1 50 30 00 3 50 3 50 1 50 1 50 005 4 10 05 37 20 oa5 3 00 05 6 80 17 47 60 oa5 1 25 25 162 75 2 00 3 00 -H318 60 35 30 30 35 05 05 3 00 1 50 11 00 ■283 60 12 00 66 00 35 75 20 00 11 05 Aiiumnt. S CtH. 39 47 27 00 05/, 885 10 18 55, 2 50 1 75 350 1 75 o.-)A 05j 05i 05J 26 00 4 12 Total. 25 16 20 25 00 98 61 20 00 13 04 7 00 94 .")0 7 00 112 00 12 00 12 00 20 00 20 00 15 2 50 18 75 10 00 12 3 6(t 2 50 3 75 12 1 20 22 50, a") 00 3 50! 1 75! 4 51 40 92 3 30 7 48 35 00| I 113 17 05A (t 25' 2 50 47 60 1 .37 162 75, 3 75 -H334 43 .30 27 27 30 05i 05$ 178 2(t 4 18 12 '.m 2 70 50 87 7 07 -256 88 4 00 1 75 12 00 16 00 77 0(t 39 00 1349 .9 CtH. 41 7; 385 10 18 55 55 132 00 Samson. Rate. * CtH. 25 00 35 00 05 4H.\ 35 00" 25 00 7 00 7 00 12 00 20 00 15 1 50 12 1 50 12 1 50 1 50 3 50 1 50 05 10 10 10 17 10 20 1 50 030 30 ,30 30 10 a5 2 00 1 .50 20 00 Ainimnt 8 CtH. 14 67 Total. .<« CtH. 70 3 75 31 44 1.38 04 16 »l 94 50 112 0(t 12 0 1.39 00 54 Victoria. Appendix (Na 1.) A. 1891 SCHEDULE H CD- Comparative Statement showing Pahticilahs ok Itbms, IjuantitieH Carried forward . Valve HouBt! Siiiidries— Painter l)ay». Carpenter do Ijalxnirei-H, Klling under floor do Mason, relayini; plinth du do hel|ier do Lime Btmh. Portland cement Brl. Bricklayern' contract . . Caritenters on niaciiinery DayH. LawnirerH do Oak Cub. ft, dting (Kain's account) Pine, 18 pieces, 9 x 8 in. x 4J ft Ft.B.M, do 14 do do do Cr.— Amount allowed in Estimate No. 37 — Pine Cvib. ft, Painting Sfi. yds, Rcjoflng Sfjrs. Ballast Box, Chairs, Ac- Foreman Days. Labourers do Oak Ft.B.M. Iron (14) straps Lbs. do bolts do Shackles for winches, 9 do do boxes, 14 do Bolts, 518 d(j Ualvanissed chain, 50 ft do Carried forward . 1350 15 -oO 7-50 8 •25 2 40 1 ' 3'5« 8 72 157 10 30 5 22 24 »i-50 6-50 2 2 18 li»2 (i3 3 2-50 2 50 35 31 42 20 35 48(i 378 (»2 125 13 50 i) 14 1,327 630 2t) 23 28 291 60 LaKKIN & CON.NOI.I.Y. Kate, Amount. Total 9 cts. 9 cts. 2 .TO 2 50 1 80 3 50 2 .50 25 3 00 2 50| 1 801 60 (iOi 45] 2 50 2 i)0 2 .50 3 50 1 80 3 50 1 80 2 50 06 m 10 3 50 1 80 06 06 06 06 06 15 35 00 35 00 2." 15 7 00 4 00 1 80 60 00 06 06 006 06 06 08 38 7 18 7 14 40 88 6 (X) 10 00 3 00 150 00 8 14 40 43 20 114 2(( 12 57 16 00 12 50 .55 00 tW 00 22 75 11 70 7 00 3 60 45 00 11 .52 3 78 030 88 45 10 86 52 56 10 42 1 50 45 140 00 17 01 13 23 + 847 19 16 30 18 75 94 50 129 55 20 00 25 20 79 62 37 80 1 56 1 38 1 68 17 46 4 80 $ cts. 717 04 ■I mmm 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 CROSS-WALL. Value of Day Work, &c. — Continued. Pktkhh ft MooiiK. (lALI.A'HEK. Hk.'.lc.\i;k. S.XMWON. Rat«. Amount. Ti.tiil. Rat*-. Amount. S CtH. Total. Rat.'. .Vuiount. Totsl. Rate. Amount 8 CtH. Total. «ct*. 8 CtH. 1? CtK. :* CtH. * CtH.' 8 CtH. « CtH. 9 CtH. 8 CtH. 8 CtH. 2 60 38 75 2 r)0 38 76 2 60 38 75 1 50 23 25 2 50 18 75 2 00 15 00 2 50 18 76 1 50 11 25 I 60 12 00 1 50 12 00 1 76 14 00 1 .50 12 00 3 50 88 3 50 88 3 60 90j 3 60 88 I 50 3 00 2 50 5 00 2 60 13 00 1 60 7 .50 25 10 00 26 10 00 025 10 00 2i") 10 00 3 00 3 00 150 00 3 00 3 00 160 00 3 00 300 1.50 00 3 00 3 00 1.50 (10 '2 50 8 76 'i'eo' 8 75 ■2'50 8 75 iiV*' 5 25 1 50 12 (to 1 60 12 00 1 76 14 00 1 .50 12 W m 43 20 60 43 20 60 43 20 (!0 43 2(! oo 04 20 60 94 26 W 94 26; 60 94 26 .... 12 57 12 67 12 .571 12 67 o'46 13 60 40 12 00 42' 12 60! 25 7 SO 2 50 12 50 2 00 10 00 2 .50 12 50 1 60 7 60 2 50 55 00 2 00 44 00 2 50 55 00 1 60 33 00 2 50 00 00 2 00 48 00 2 50 m 00 1 50 36 00 3 50 22 75 300 19 60 ' 3 (iO 23 40 2 50 l(i 25 1 M 75 1 60 10 40 1 70 11 051 1 .50 9 75 3 50 7 00 3 00 6 00 3 m 7 20 2 50 5 fXt 1 50 3 00 1 W 3 20 1 70 3 40 1 50 3 00 2 50 45 00 2 00 36 00 2.50 45 00 1 60 27 0(» (» 07 13 44 06 9 60 05A Obi 10 5«! 10 19 20 07 4 41 05 3 16 3 46 10 6 30 10 30 10 30 10 030 10 3(t 3 50 88 3 00 75 3 )i0 90 2 .50 62 1 50 37 1 60 40 1 70 42 1 50 .S7 07 2 46 06 1 75 05 05; 1 92 10 3 50 07 2 17 05 1 55 1 70 10 3 10 07 2 94 05 2 10 0.5. 2 31 10 4 20 07 1 82 05 1 .30 05 1 43 10 2 60 07 2 45 05 1 75 OO6I; 1 92 10 3 .50 1 42 1 42 1 42 1 42 1 42" 1 42 1 42 1 42 1 50 1 eo 1 50 1 50 1 50 1 .50 1 50 1 50 15 45 46 45 45 45 46 45 140 00 140 00 140 001 140 00 35 00 17 01 3506' 17 01 35(16 17 Oil 136 00 17 01 36 00 13 23 + 840 30 35 00 13 23 + 7!K) 77 • 35 00 13 23 |35 00 13 23 + 849 86 + 747 46 40 26 08 35 22 82 30 19 m 30 19 .56 15 18 76 15 18 75 15 18 76 15 18 75 7 00 94 50 -139 33 17 30 701 17 7 00 4 00 94 50 -136 07 20 00 654 70 7 00 4 00 m 50 717 05 7 00 4 00 94 50 -132 82 -132 81 614 (» 3 50 20 00 20 00 1 30 21 00 1 30 21 00 1 75 24 50 1 .50 21 00 (K) 00 79 fi2 60 00 79 62 60 (JO 79 62 60 00 79 62 10 63 00 08 .50 40 07 44 10 08 .50 40 07 1 82 06 1 :M) 05J 1 43 10 2 60 07 1 61 06 1 16 05l m 1 26 10 2 30 07 1 96 06 1 40 1 54 10 2 80 07 20 37 06 14 .55 0.5X 16 00' 10 2!t 10 08 4 80 08 4 80 08' 4 80' 08 4 80 1 1351 54 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 SCHEDULE H (1) COMPABATIVE STATEMENT showinv?0 (iOO- Diver- Working on Boulder in " T " Basin Days. Stopping leak between cribs. ... . . do Putting " T " Sway Braces >n Bridge Pils ,-— Foreman Davs. Labourers do Carpenters do Cutting piles at junction of Trinity flouse and Coinmi.ssioners' Wharf- Foreman Days. Labourers do Cari)enters do Piers for Bridge Machinery and cutting througli Miwonry for Shaft— Stonecutting on piers Days. do heli)er oo Stonecutter do do heliwr do Foreman do Labourers do Stonecutter on piers do do helix^r do i " oreman excavating for shaft do j Labourers do do do j Blacksmith on tcxjls do , do heliier do i Steel Ll>s.l do in drills and wedges ' Carried forward. (>1 1...0 27 .50 2 10 (> 10 50 2 11 11 4 31 12-75 12 75 5-50 28-50 2-25 225 13 20 50 cts. Amount. 8 cts. Total. 40 .S5 18 05 25 50 30 00 20 00 320 2 80 1 44 25 2 25 3 00 1 80 10 00 10 00 3 00 1 80 2 50 104 70 12il 70 28 t!9 12 00 30 00 18 00 + 323 09 44 08 137 25 - 181 ai 4 50 48 (iO 10 00 5 00 (i 00 18 00 15 00 3 00 1 80 2 50 3 .50| 2 m, 3 50 2 50; 3 (X) 00 10 80 20 00 3 50, 1 80, 25 25 3(j 75 5 00 38 ,50 27 50 13 50 .55 80 44 (12 31 88 l(i Ml 51 30 7 88, 4 05 3 25 50 S cts. 197 l!l 141 7fi 93 10 15 00 39 00 3(5 80 l'6'i)'. 5to .■■~.— 54 Victoria. Appendi.x (No. 1.) A. 1891 CEOSS-WALL. Value of Day Work, &c. — Cantinued. Pktkhk "c Moohk. (;.';;.A(iHKK. BK.VlC.UiK. S.vjisox. Rate. • 1 Aniuunt. 1 Total, j Rate. Ainuunt. i Total. 1 Rate. ! Aininuit. Total. 1 Rate. Ainuiiiit Total. $Ct8. !? CtH. !? cts. .Sits. I i 1 •^ cts. •S cts. ■? cts. •S cts. •S cts. 40 3W> 40 j 3 20 40 3 2<» i 40 3 20 3.-) 2 SOI 30 2 40 30 2 S8 25 2 (M) 18 1 44 l(i 1 28 17.\ 1 »i 15 1 20 07 35 05 25 05J 27 10 50 21!) 47 104 70' ^MM '^\ 200 m 219 52 2.") 25 104 70 1 25 104 70 20 83 82 45 11(> (-.4 35 ilO 72 1 30 77 "0 30 77 70 32 50 30 83 25 00 23 85 27 (M> 25 82 35 00 ;« 47 20 00 12 00 20 m 12 00 120 00 12 00 25 00 15 m .30 00 .30 00 30 00 30 00 18 00 . .. . 18 00 18 00 IS 00 + 312 17 4 270 27 44 00 3 (K) 00 8 (Ml 2 (Ml 4 (Ml 1 50 15 00 1 50 15 00 175 17 50 ] ,50 15 (Ml 2 50 15 iK) 3(i 00 2 00 12 00 1 2 .50 15 00 40 0(» 1 ,50 11 00 28 (Ml 3 00 (i 00 3 00 (•> () 1 50 12 00 25 00 3 50 36 75 3 ,50 30 75 3 00 37 80 3 ,5(1 3(i 75 1 M 3 00 2 ,50 5 tHI 2 00 5 20 1 ,5(1 3 (Ml 3 50 38 50 3 ,50 38 ,50 3 00 .30 00 3 50 as 50 1 50 Iti 50 2 ,50 27 50 2 (10 28 (iO 1 .50 Ki 5(.) 1 3 00 13 .50 3 00 13 50 4 0(» 18 (Ml 2 m <.l (Ml 1 50 4(1 50 1 50 40 ,50 1 75 54 25 1 i50 40 ,50 3 50 44 02 3 ,50 44 02 3 00 45 JH) 3 50 44 02 1 M 10 12 2 ,50 31 ,S8 2 (iO ;« 15 1 50 10 12 3 00 10 50 3 00 10 .50 4 00 22 00 2 (M) 11 (» 1 50 42 75 1 50 42 75 1 75 40 87 1 ,50 42 75 3 50 7 88 3 (HI 75 3 00 8 10 2 .50 5 02 1 60 3 37 1 m 3 01 1 70 3 82 1 50 3 37 25 3 25 25 3 25 23 2 !MI 25 3 2." 25 .50 2.5 .50 23 5 08 25 .50 1 1 i ... . . 1 •••■ 1 1 1 1 1 U?3 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 SCHEDULE H (1) COMPAKATIVE STATEMENT showillg Particulars ok Itkms. Quantities Amount brought forward Piers for Bridge Macliiuery, &.C.— Continued. \ Foreman excavating shaft Days. Labourers "" Mason building piers do Lab in. (12 x 12 in,) -^jo. do shoes, !»3 of 37 U).-:. wich Lbs. shoes, •Mmber, 12 x 12 in . . i-Viders, 7 ft., fiin. (12 X 12in.). . . Filling pieces, 9, 5 ft. .') in. (7 x 12 in.). do do 10, il ft. (12x12 in.) Iron — 13 wood screws, 4 ft. 8 in. x 2 in. 13 heads to do 3 in. scpiare, 13 washers, (i^ xli in., 41 1-in. screw-bolts, 2 ft. 4 in., 41 nuts and heads,. 57 1 in. rag-bolts, 4 ft., 8() do do 3 ft. (J in., 70 do do 2 ft., ' 43 do do 2 ft. (i in.. Total . Cub. ft. .SI> 01 152 252 "44 lbs. do do do do = 700 lbs. = 1011 do =^ 511 do . 301 do Lbs Lbs 0-.50 4 3-50 22 280 3 8' 50 8 50 (i LaHKIN & CoXNOLt.Y. Rate. Amount. Total .«i Ct8.1 I cts. 237 1,304 202 12 544-50 03 3,441 !MI ()7-50 28 ,50 141 1,145 2,04!t 3 00 1 80 3 .50 1 80 20 1 00 3 00 3 50 3 f)0 1 80 00 35 35 00 (Hi 2 50 1 00 14 00 00 35 50 35 25 00 05 1 50 7 20 12 2," 39 60 50 00 3 00 15 00 1211 50 2it 75 15 ao 30 82 05 47 74 12 12 30 00 1,.302 (K> 2(H) 40 31 ,50 , 33 75 1)7 30 00 (•>8 70 132 45 8 cts. (•)52 40 172 81 .544 50 8c 3 I 1 3 1 1 3 3 3 1 1,820 83 5,021 28 1354 LZ. £4 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 CEOSS-WALL. Value of Day Work, &c. — Concluded. PeTEHS & MOOHK. 3. Aniuunt. Total. 8ct8. 3 00 1 50 1 50 (> 00 3 50 12 25 1 50 an 00 20 5() 00 1 00 3 00 3 00 15 00 3 50 129 50 3 50 2!» 75 1 50 12 00 07 42 40 •32 50 07 04J 8 cts. !)4 80 44 33 07 14 14 2 50 30 00 050 18 tiO l,72(t 80 05 172 05 40 3(i m 4," 30 37 35 !l 07 40 57 00 80 15 110 20 S cts. o!»7 10 183 21 272 25 iTALI.AIiHEll. Beal'cage. Samson. Rate. Amount. Total. ! Rate. Amount. Total, i Rate. Amount Total >ct». 3 00 1 50 3 50 1 50 20 1 00 3 00 3VM) 3 00 1 (10 05 2,235 14 5,004 12 35 25 00 05 2 50 1 10 14 00 0() 35 45 30 35 05 05 8 cts. •S ets. 1 .50 (J 00 12 25 33 00 5() 00 3 00 15 00 120 50 25 .50 13 ()0 30 82 05 34 10 10 10 30 00 1,302 00 20(i 4( 31 50 30 3: 8 50 50 40 57 2; 132 45 (ilO 20 157 15 508 05 1,818 03 4,883 05 S CtM. (M) 75 00 75 20 e o •o .A O " C © 5 I m O 3 s V EC I W £ S o 1^ Is -1 m 3 o o -^ r-( IN IS C-. «n i-< rH r« O l~ O '2 ;C R is 1-1 O -T I- M O — S-1 ^ 2 I « wTwT Oi-h'i?!' f^i-Tc^r T-T ^ ^OX— lOS-rp-»'Oei5XlNp-^ — OOCOOSOOiHOOSSO 'ci-t--« F-tt-l ^rHi-HNi-HFHNf-'W 1-1 ir; rt !-■ i;: F- X X s I- c cc 1"; M 3" ci S5 1-1 ir: ~ '-ri- •- CO s ?) s C". -c — -r ^ r. t- cc — X O'TOi-Xi-mOiSifi-.xos-rio -r i-ii^ cc-^i-iX;-!-.— rt-ri---i-i£2 CC CC 1^ fH (M JS o o Q 13 15 i; ?-i ic c: Q o c o c ~ I- 1- o o c 15 C '5 '" o c i:: ir: 3" L- 5 S i tr u -"i-i3-^xxxi- © 0) I- 1- © CO © -- 01 — © — 15 © CO M 15 CO X 01 © ©. © j:? 1.0, 3! © [- -J H X -p iS«--r ^ © i-co c © i © CO -r 1-15 CO t- © —■£'-' ^ ;2 S, S-_ r^^ '^ i-icoi5©eox T-ii-^ ,.„"" Z fe 1 X ■ IJ ■ oi'i" ;T: S" ;'£ : ^ ' = 3 f? ■— • S ■" § - 1356 fccoi'ii.i 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 SECOND REPORT OF THE ENGINEERS. '^EsQUiMALT Graving Dock.) House of Commons, Ottawa, 7th August, 1891. To the Chairman and Members of the Select Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. Gentlemen, — In compliance with instructions contained in the undernotod Resolutions of your Committee, wc beg respectfully to submit the following statement setting forth the result of our examination into the matters therein referred to. EsQuiMAi.T Graving Dock Contract. At the suggestion of Mr. Osier, Q.C„ it was resolved : That it be referred to the Engineers to ascertain and report on the Esquimalt Graving Dock, as follows : 1. As to the changes made in the plans for the said works. 2. As to the changes made in the execution of the works ; and 3. As to the cost of the seveial changes made. The contract for Iho completion of the Graving Dock at Esquimalt was awarded to Mossi's. Larkin, Connoily and Company, and a contract was duly executed between them and the Honourable the Minister of Public Works on the 8th November, 1884. The dock wasdoiiigned and the contract provides for the construction of inverts and a caisson berth at the head of the dock, in anticipation at some I'uture date of an extension of the dock. Representations having been made, that owing to the increasing size of vessels trading on the adjacent waters, as well as the size of the newer ships of war of Her Majesty's Navy, the new dock would soon be found ineffi- cient — a Memorandum dated the 2l8t .January, 1885, was submitted to the Honourable Ministor of Public Works by the Chief Engineer relating to the size of steamers ply- ing on the Atlantic Ocean, and some of the ships of the Roj-al Navy. Jn this^Iemor- andum the Chief Engineer recommends the removal of the projected works for a second entrance, and the extension of the dock, as follows : — " As before stated, the works for a second entrance at the head of the dock are, and will remain, useless, and if the dock bottom were carried out, and these works abolished, a further length of 50 feet would be obtained within the limits of the present contract at an additional expense of, say— 835,000, or a total of $410,000." This recommendation was adopted by Ordei- in Counfil dated 3rd February, 1885 (-Exhibit " R4.") The works at the head of the dock wore thus altered by the substitution of a circular head (having a radius of 2() feet), in lieu of the inverts and caisson berth originally designed, thereby lengthening the side walls and increasing the length ot the dock 50 feet, and making the total length 430 ieet. The plans for this alteration were sent to the Dominion Government Agent, the Honourable J. W. Trutch, by the Chief Kngineer on the 4th May, 1885, letter No. 13.538 (Exhibit .) Shortly after the commencement of the work, the contractoi's submitted to the Honourable ,T.W. Trutch, a plan showing a proposed alteration at the head of the dock, along with three other plans, showing (1) proposed change in drip of dock floor from 1 in 370 to 1 in 400; (2) inmascmry of outer invert; (3) in details of ashlar in main culvert in dock floor; all of which were submitted to the Chief Engineer. The altera- tions proposed by the throe last named plans, w^re approved of and ordered by the 1—87 1357 64 Victoria. Appendix (No. 1.) A. 1891 54 Chief Engineer, in his letter to Honourable J. W. Triitch, dated 16th April, 1885, No. 13416 (Exhibit " Q5";. The plans for the re-coursing of the ashlar, were approved of and ordered on the 4th May, 1885, by letter No. 13537 (Exhibit " Z5"). In poimitting the change to be made, the Chief Engineer wrote as follows : " Department op Public Works, " Ottawa, 4th May, 1885. "Sir, — I write in confirmation of the following message sent lo you to-daj'. ' Telegram received ; Minister authorizes you to permit contractors to build work with stone of increased sizes as proposed by themselves, they to be made aware that this permission is merely acceding to their request and not ordering them to make the change.' " Your long Message of the 2nd, I laid before Sir Hector, together with my tele- grams of the 16th and 20th April, and letters in confirmation of same, and the above telegram was sent to you at his request. " I am of the opinion that the contractors should have preferred their request in writing before being permitted to change the courses, but as they have not done so, bui have informally applied heie for permission to do so, it has been granted to them, and T will inform them here of this decii^ion of the Minister, and that no extra payment will bo made to them on account of thi.< change. '' I am, Sir, your obedient servant, "HKNRY F. PERLEY. " Chief Emjinecr" " Hon. J. W. Trutcii, C.M.G., " Dominion Agent, Victoria, B.(/'." The contractors wore duly informed of theso changes and served with copies of the plans, and notified that no extra payment would be allowed for the increased size of stones or their substitution for concrete {See Exhibit " A6," Hon. J. W. Trutch to Chief Engineer). In September, 1885, the contractors made a claim for extra payment for r, details at iiioiitli of ciiUfrt and outor invfTt anumnt to S <>01 Tlic cost of tlu! circular hciul, as niea-surtid from the plans, amounts to S'.iJiS'i iMhict tlm vahif of the works included in the invert and laisson Ijertli, side walls, &c., as shown on contract i>Ians 22,.W 17,02.5 The cost of altars, ashlar Mid dock walls, as constructed and taken from final estimate 13«5,07l> Deduct value of these items as nieas\ired on contract plans and value of cemi^nt concrete displiK«d by the increased size of stone 1(>3,1!I1 The difference in cost of the caisson chamber as constructed in stone instead of brick — Caisson chantbttras built in stone ^ ;i3.14!( do do brick 2it,7r>7 8il7,«2« 32,87!) .S,3'.t2 Totid increase • $.'>3,897 Wc have the honour to be, gciitlenien. Your obedient servants, W. T. JENNINGS, M.I. C.E. ALAN MACDOUGALL, M.I. C.E. 1359