[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. MACDONNELL:: 1.	Has the government received a request from Washington to permit the ' Dubuque,' an American war vessel, to pass through the Canadian canals? If so when, and what is her armament?
2.	Has the government permitted any United States war vessel to pass through the Canadian canals since the r Dubuque ' ?
3.	Has the Canadian government observed the provisions of the Rush-Bagot Convention, and is Canada, at the present time, adhering to such Convention?
i.	In what respects, having regard to number, size, speed, armament and crews of vessels, is the United States government at the present time, not adhering to the said convention ?
5.	Has the United States, on all occasions, had the consent of the Canadian or British government in its departures from the said convention ?
6.	Has the government considered the desirability of negotiating with Washington for the purpose of securing a permanent treaty, because of the fact that the Rush-Bagot Con-

vention is terminable on six months' notice by either country, and thereby avoid the risk of the abrogation of the agreement?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: 1.	The government received a request to allow the steamer ' Dubuque ' to pass up through the canals. It was permitted, the steamer ' Nashville ' being taken down out of the lakes.
2.	No.
3.	Yes.
4.	5, and 6. The matter is under consideration.


INQUIRY RE REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE, POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT.
Mr. EDWARDS:: 1.	What was the revenue and expenditure
of the Post Office Department for each year from 1900 to 1911?	.
2.	When and where was the free rural mail delivery route established in Canada?
3.	In how many counties are there free rural mail delivery routes, and how many miles of such routes in each county?
4.	What is the extra cost to the Post Office Department because of the establishment of said routes?


Mr. LEMIEUX.: I would ask my hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) to move for a return in regard to this question.


SUB-TARGET GUNS.
Mr. BLAIN:: '
How many sub-4:arget guns have been purchased by the government, from whom were they purchased, and what was the price paid?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: I would say to my hon. friend that this question was fully answered in the month of May, and the answer will be found at page 8752 of the unrevised Hansard'. There have been no purchases of sub-target guns since then, and the situation to-day is exactly as it was at that date.


CENSUS ENUMERATORS IN PEEL COUNTY.
Richard Blain: How many census enumerators were appointed in Peel county, what is the name and post office address of each, and on whose recommendation were they appointed?
1.	39.
2.	The names and post office addresses of census enumerators in the county of Peel are:-
Albion Township-*


William T.: Wellwood, Macville, Ont.


John F.: Horan, Lockton, Ont.
Geo. Mackenzie, Bolton, Ont.
Samuel Jefferson, Palgrave, Ont.


Mr. MACDONELL.: W. H. Monkman, Castlederg, Ont.
J. H. Rutherford, Caledon East, Ont,
James Killeen, Sleswick, Ont.
Caledon Township-
James Davidson, Belfountain, Ont.
Jas, F. MacDonald, Inglewood, Ont.
R. W. Burrell, Caledon East, Ont.
John Heard, Star, Ont.
Daniel McArthur, Caledon, Ont.
Richard Hawkins, Alton, Ont.
David Smith, Belfountain, Ont.
A. N. Adams, Melville Cross, Ont. Chinguaeousy Township-
Fred Sinclair, Brampton. Ont.
David H, Cation, Mayfield, Ont.
William Bowels, Sandhill, Ont.


John C.: McClure, Brampton, Ont. (Box 368).
H.	A. Dolson, Alloa, Ont.
John McQuarrie, Cheltenham, Ont.
James Laidlaw, Snelgrove, Ont.
Archibald McGregor, Claude, Ont. Toronto Township-	[DOT]
John Craigie, Port Credit, Ont.
Percy Adamson, Streetsville, Ont.
A. E. Tolman, Cooksville, Ont.
Thomas Allison, Burnhamthorpe, Ont.
Wismer Hall, Churchville, Ont.
P. G. Dunton, Britannia, Ont.
John McIntosh, Hanlan, Ont.
Henry Milner, Malton, Ont.
Wm. Shook, Clarkson, Ont.
Toronto Gore Township-
John O'Reilly, Crahamsville Humber.
J. Harrison, Castlemore.
Brampton-
M. Treadgold, Brampton.
Fred Early, Brampton.


Charles R.: Findley, Brampton.
Bolton-
D. B. Kennedy, Bolton.
Streetsville-
C. H. Falconer, Streetsville.


POST OFFICE-STE. MARIE DIVISION.
Mr. MONK:: I.	Has the site of the new post office in the Ste. Marie division of the city o.f Montreal been found defective, the soil being unsuitable on account of the alleged presence of springs, to sunport the intended building?
2.	Have these defects been pointed out tj the government? If so, by whom?
3.	What measures will be taken under the circumstances ?


Mr. PUGSLEY.: I think this refers to a post office in the division represented by my hon. friend (Mr. Martin). It was discovered after the examination of the site for the building -was made and after borings had been made in the usual way, that owing to the nature of the subsoil we would be obliged to go to a greater depth than was originally expected, in order to make a proper foundation. This we decided to do. The question of driving concrete piles

is now under consideration, and I have no. doubt any difficulties which might exist in regard to the foundation will be overcome by the plan which has been decided upon.


DOCK AT OWEN SOUND.
Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: Is it the intention of the government to proceed wtih the building of the continuation of the dock or revetment on the west side of the harbour at Owen Sound? If so, when?


William Pugsley: As to the first part of
the question it is the intention of the government to proceed with the work. With regard to the second part of the question, the requisite appropriation for the work is contained in the estimates, but owing to my not being able to get a full vote-for reasons which my hon. friend understands-1 have not felt myself able to proceed as rapidly as would otherwise have been the case; therefore, I cannot tell my hon. friend the exact date at which the work will begin.


DRY DOCK AT COLLINGWOOD.
Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: 1.	What is the capital cost of the first dry dock built at Collingwood, the amount of interest or bonus paid yearly by the government thereon, and the number of years such bonus or interest still has to run?
2.	What is the capital cost of the second dry dock at Collingwood, the subsidy or interest or bonus to which it is entitled, and for what period will such be paid?
3.	What are the dimensions and capacity of each dry dock and the name of the company to whom such subsidies, bonus or interest is paid?


William Pugsley: I would ask my hon. friend to have that question made a motion for a return.


THE SEAL FISHERIES.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I beg to lay
on the table the information asked for as to the electoral lists which are not completed.
I beg to lay on the table of the House the text of the pelagic sealing treaty signed at Washington July 11, 1911. I noticed yesterday that my hon. friend from Grey (Mr. Sproule) asked for the production of this treaty and the correspondence. Now, 'the correspondence is very voluminous, extending over a number of years. 1 think my hon. friend will find the treaty gives all the information he requires, but if this should not be the case, I will produce any correspondence he may desire, but I do not think it would be any advantage. My hon. friend can read the treaty, and if he thinks he wants any further information I will give it to him.


IMPERIAL CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS.
Wilfrid Laurier: I beg to lay upon the table the report of the minutes of the proceedings of the Imperial Conference of 1911. This ma'tter came up for discussion the day before yesterday. I called upon His Excellency the Governor General, who had just returned from a holiday, and ascertained from him that the report of the conference had naehed him that very evening. At the same time a despatch was sent to His Excellency which I have his permission to lay before the House. It is as follows:
Downing Street, 14 July, 1911.
My Lord,-I have the honour to transmit to Your Excellency, to be laid before your ministers, the accompanying copies of memorandum of conferences between the British Admiralty and representatives of the Dominions of Canada and Australia on the subject of the status of Dominion navies.
2.	This matter was mentioned at the last meeting of the Imperial Conference on the twentieth of June and it was agreed that it should he published simultaneously in this country and in Canada and the Commonwealth.
3.	I have asked the Governor General of the Commonwealth to inform me by telegraph when it is proposed to publish the memorandum there, and I shall at once telegraph to you so that arrangements may be made for a simultaneous issue of the report in Canada.
I have the honour to be, My Lord, Your Lordship's most obedient,
humble servant, (Signed) L. HARCOURT. Governor General,
* His Excellency,	.
. The Right Honourable,
Earl Grey, G.C.M.G., G.C.V.O.
A despatch anticipating this had been received a few days ago before by His Excellency to this effect:


FROM MR. HARCOURT TO LORD GREY
[Stage Direction]
London, 11th July, 1911.
Immediate.
Please inform Brodeur that it is understood by the Admiralty that time of publication of arrangement with regard to Dominion naval force would be settled in concert as was done in 1909 and that in the mean time terms will not be made public. You will be informed later as to proposed time for publication. Copy goes ito you by next mail.
(Signed) HARCOURT.
In due course this despatch was sent to the Office of External Affairs, and by *them referred to the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Brodeur) sent me the following letter:
[Stage Direction]


Office of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries
of Canada.
Ottawa, 18th July, 1911. Sir Wilfrid T.aurier.
Prime Minister of Canada, Ottawa.
Dear Sir Wilfrid,-I beg to send you herewith copy of the despatch of which 1 spoke to you to-day, on the subject of the publication of the memorandum on the agreement arrived at between representatives of Canada and Australia on one part and the Admiralty, on the other.
I fail to sc-e why this document should not be published at the same time as the proceedings of the Imperial Conference though, indeed such may be the intention. At all events, I send you the above despatch to keep you in touch with the matter in case it should come up in the House.
Would yon be of opinion that it would be well to cable the Secretary of State asking him to hasten the publication of this document r
Yours very sincerely, (Signed) L. P. BRODEUR.
I called the attention of His Excellency to these despatches, and I stated to him that, in my opinion, I did not understand the resolution of the 20th of June, which is referred to in the despatch which I read a moment ago, as implying that the resolutions of the Defence Committee were not to be laid before the House at same time as the report of the conference. I call the attention of the House to these words of Mr. Harcourt of the 20th June, 1911:
Mr. Harcourt.-Then there is the report of the Committee of the Imperial Conference convened to discuss defence, military matters, at [DOT]the War Office. That is before the Conference now in a paper. Assuming that that report is approved, it is proposed that the precis of to-day and the proceedings of the Conference when published should contain the following statement on the matter: ' The Conference received and approved the report of the Committee on Military Defence, which had held two sittings at the War Office, under the chairmanship of the Chief of the Imperial General Staff,' and the report will he included in the papers of the Conference.
(Mr. Pearce here referred to the question of the conferences which were taking place at the Admiralty with the representatives of the Dominion of Canada and of the Commonwealth of Australia with regard to the status of the Dominions' naval forces and their cooperation with the Royal Navy, and it was agreed, on the suggestion of Mr. Harcourt, that a memorandum embodying the conclusions reached should be incorporated among the papers published in connection with the Imperial Conference.)
These resolutions of the Defence Committee were not, however, included in the report which I now lay upon the table. Having called the attention of His Excellency to this, His Excellency was pleased at once to send the following cable to Mr. Harcourt:
Your despatch of July 25, 1911, No. 573, Prime Minister will be very grateful if permission Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
could be given to lay enclosure before parliament immediately. He wishes if possible to lay it simultaneously with a full report of proceedings of Imperial Conference just received and is anxious not to have to wait till memorandum of conference on naval question is received in Australia.
Please telegraph reply as soon as possible.
(Signed) GREY.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: No reply has yet been received to that?


Wilfrid Laurier: I understand a reply has been received, but I have not yet got it. I will communicate it as soon as possible.


Robert Laird Borden: What does the Prime Minister propose to do in regard to the printing of this document or putting it in such a position that it may be available to members of the House-in both languages?


Wilfrid Laurier: I should have stated that 50 copies are on the way, but 50 copies will be quite insufficient. I therefore move:
That the rules of the House be suspended and that the minutes of proceedings of the Imperial Conference, 1911, be ordered to be printed forthwith.


Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds).: In both languages.


Wilfrid Laurier: Why, of course.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. ARMSTRONG.: I wish to ask the Postmaster General a question. It has been the practice for certain newspapers previous to an election to accept short date subscriptions from candidates or their supporters, and these newspapers are very generally distributed throughout the country at ordinary newspaper rates. The postal regulations state that this practice is against the regulations of the Post Office Department. Clause 62 of the regulations reads:
62 On all newspapers and periodicals posted in Canada other than those provided for in the foregoing sections, when addressed to places in Canada, the United States, or Mexico, the rate is lc. per 4 ozs. or fraction thereof to each separate address, which must be prepaid by postage stamp.
This resolution was in force previous to the last general election, but it was flagrantly violated by many of the Canadian newspapers. Clause 60 reads:
60. Copies of newspapers sent to advertisers in connection with the publication of their advertisements, and copies sent to addressss furnished by advertisers, or to persons whose subscription have been paid in whole or in part by interested parties, or marked copies, cannot be considered as addressed to sub-

scribers or as specimen copies, but are liable as transient newspapers to postage at the rate of lc. per 4 ozs. to each separate address.
I ask the Postmaster General whether it is his intention to enforce these regulations and whether he should not send out a copy of clause 60 to the newspapers of the country so that they may know if they violate that regulation they are liable to punishment.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Clause 60 shall be enforced. Any complaint that may be made to the department will be fully inquired into, and any infringement will be stopped. There is no reason why this clause should be violated by any of the newspapers. The clause shall remain as it is and it must be enforced.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: If the post office authorities are notified that the regulation is being violated, will they at once take action?


Mr. CURRIE (Simcoe).: We all know that the law was broken immediately before the last election and that tons of mail matter were sent out by several of the daily newspapers. Of course, they knew they would receive the protection of the government, and after the election there would not be much said about it anyway. It would even up matters if the same freedom to send out this material was given to all newspapers alike immediately before the election. There might be an amended regulation, by which, for thirty days or sixty days prior to an election, this matter would be sent out at the same rate of postage as is charged on an ordinary newspaper. At all events, the regulation so long as it exists should be enforced against ail newspapers equally.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The regulations will be enforced and I will see to it.


Richard Blain: The answer of the Postmaster General will hardly be sufficient.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Richard Blain: The right hon. gentleman says ' hear, hear,' but I would remind him that the regulation was flagrantly violated by his government before the last election and the right hon. gentleman sat quietly by and said nothing about it. I was going to suggest that such a violation of this regulation at the last general election should be sufficient to warrant the Postmaster General to issue special instructions to every postmaster in this country, directing his attention to the violation which took place at the last general election, and warning him that if such a thing took place again, there would be prosecutions and dismissals.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have no objection to issuing special instructions to postmasters 326i
that that be done forthwith. I may say to my hon. friend that no discrimination was made at the last general election, nor will be made if an election should take place this year. The only complain that was made to the department, if I remember well, in the last general election was against a Grit newspaper.


Richard Blain: What one was that?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I think it was published in the county of the Deputy Speaker, or in the county of my hon. friend for Grey, a local newspaper. There was a certain number of papers addressed to political friends, or to the public at large, and the complaint was made by the postmasters themselves. The postmasters are interested in seeing that a large number of papers does not come in at night and keep them at their office later than they should be. I may say to my hon. friend tha*, much to my personal regret, I had to ..nforce the regulation against that paper. There is no discrimination, there is the same law for the Grits and for the Tories.


Mr. HUGHES.: I would like to ask the Postmaster General a question on another point. It is a common practice-I will not charge it against one party more than another-'but I happen to know of a case where that thing was done against me, and I have no doubt possibly it may have been done in favour of the Conservative candidate in some other places. Post offices are in the habit of taking mail bags from the newspaper offices without opening them. For instance, a mail bag is sent out from Ottawa addressed to Almonte. The postal department here see the label Almonte, and takes it for granted that the newspaper office is acting honestly, and is not sending out anything but legitimate newspaper matter to regular subscribers. Unfortunately, advantage has been taken of this in many instances to put in, not merely extra newspapers addressed, or unaddressed, to persons wishing to get them in an election, but also campaign literature. I know this positively, and this literature is sent, as a rule, only to postmasters who, it is known beforehand, will accept it. 1 took the matter up on one occasion, the only time I ever made a personal charge. I personally conducted the investigation against the postmaster, and had him dismissed. His defence was that he did not hand it through the post office, that he received it in the post office mail bag and took it out and distributed it over the counter. Then I drew his attention to	the	fact that	if	he	hadplaced it	in	the hands	of	the	persons addressed through the wicket of the post office, he would have to put a half cent stamp on each one. But he thought
that because he handed it over the counter he was not obliged to put a half cent stamp on it. He had to vacate the office. I think the Postmaster General, in view of the fact that we are going into a. contest, should do his part to see that each party is treated alike.


Mr. EMMERSON.: I concur in the suggestion made by the hon. member for Sim-coe. I see no reason why, in the interest of the education of the people of this country, there should not be some special regulation on the occasion of a general election. We know that at the cost of the country there is literature going out to-day franked by the Hon. Clifford Sifton, documents that are published by a league known as the Canadian League. Now, I am not complaining of any efforts to educate the people.


Richard Blain: Is he violating any law?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No, he is not violating any law. I think perhaps he may be considered as abusing a privilege, but he bs not violating any law, and I have no complaint to make with respect to it. But if there is an election there will be one great issue, the issue will be reciprocity; and I would like to have every man, woman and child in this country who is capable at all of exercising a judgment, to have all the literature possible on both sides of the question, and then the responsibility will be upon the individual having the information. I believe it to be in the interest of the country that newspapers containing information on this subject should be circulated, and I think that the Post Office Department should make some regulation whereby newspapers can, upon the same, or proportionate terms, that they are paying the department to-day for their general circulation, be permitted to send out special issues in view of the urgency of the case, as it may exist. I heartily concur in the suggestion of the hon. member for Simcoe.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: If I may be allowed another word in reply to the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Em-merson). My reason for bringing this matter up was that I know certain constituencies where wealthy candidates are running, with plenty of money, and they are able to send out, for instance, the whole of the voters' lists in their riding, and they did it at the last election to a great extent; while the candidate on the other side was not able to do anything of the kind. It was a most unfair advantage. That is one kind of literature. If hon. gentlemen could send out independent literature that was perfectly free from bias, it would be a different story.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I was referring to literature that could be considered as unbiased.


Samuel Hughes: 


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The hon. gentleman may have a different opinion to my own as to what is unbiased literature. However, that is the position I have taken. And I sincerely hope the Postmaster General will see that some instructions are issued to postmasters not to allow anything of that kind to occur.


EMBARGO ON BRITISH UATTLE.
Mr. SPROULE.: Before the orders of the day are called, 1 wish to ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) if there is an embargo against the importation of cattle from Great Britain; if so, when w'as it put in force aind for what reason?
Hon. SYDNEY FISHER ^Minister of Agriculture). There is an embargo. When it was put in force I do not remember exactly, but I think it was two or three weeks ago. It was put in force because of the outbreak in that country of the foot and mouth disease, and we had to protect ourselves.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would that apply to any country except Great Britain and Ireland?


Mr. FISHER.: The order does not apply to any other country but the United Kingdom. But my hon. "friend is aware that for a long time cattle have not been allowed to be imported from the continent of Europe.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was desirous of ascertaining also whether cattle could be brought in from the United Kingdom through any other country; for instance, through the United States?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No.


USE OF MILITIA IN STRIKES.
Mr. KING.: A week ago to-day my hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor) took exception to an inference which I had drawn from some words he had used in a correspondence, and I stated I would bring to the House the communication which I had in mind.
I had the letter here on the day following and I was watching to see if my hon. friend were in the House, but except for a few hours yesterday I have not seen him in the House since. This is, therefore, the first opportunity I have had of placing before the House in his presence the communication that I had in mind. The letter is addressed to the Hon. Rodolphe Le-mieux, Minister of Labour, Ottawa. My hon. colleague the Postmaster General (Hon. Mr. Lemieux) was at the time no longer Minister of Labour, I had been taken into the government on June 1st, and this communication was transferred to me and was replied to by me. The communication is written on the paper of the Hillcrest Coal and Coke Company, Limited.

of which my hon. friend from Leeds was president. I think, at the time of writing. The letter is as follows:-
The Hillcrest Coal and Coke Company,
Limited.
Hill Crest Mines, June 7th, 1909. Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux,
Minister of Labour,
Ottawa.
My Dear Lemieux,-On the strength of your letter of May 26th, and also of conversations with you previous to that date with reference to the strike out here I left home on June 1st and came to Hillcrest fully expecting that the mines in this district would be in operation by the time I arrived, but regret to say that things are in the same unsettled condition. I think it is outrageous that this state of affairs should be allowed to continue without the department interfering. It is true that a Board has been appointed but no agreement has been reached and it is doubtful that any will be from all that I can learn here. The mines have been idle now for over nine weeks and surely' if the Department of Labour had applied itself they could have forced matters to a conclusion before this time. I think Mr. King should appear on the ground at once and if a settlement is not reached the mine owners should be allowed to import men whom the government should protect. with soldiers. If the Labour Act is to be enforced some stringent legislation must be enacted to prevent occurrences of this kind.
I am,
Yours faithfully, (Sgd.) GEO. TAYLOR.
There is a concluding paragraph and then the signature, yours faithfully, George TayloT.'


George Taylor: I would ask the hon. gentleman to read the continuatior of that letter and the further correspondence where I made a suggestion dm response to the reply of the hon. gentleman.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The concluding paragraph is as follows:
Had this been in winter balf the people might have perished. I am also" surprised that.the man who was entirely responsible for the present condition of affairs (viz., Mr. Sherman) should now be sitting as one of the judges on the case, and but for whom a settlement might have been reached.
That is the conclusion of that letter.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


George Taylor: Read the correspondence.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend is at liberty to read any correspondence he may have had in mind when he was speaking. I have read 'the correspondence I had in mind when I was speaking.


George Taylor: Then there is nothing in the correspondence that would lead the minister to make the statement he did. The minister certainly misrepresented'
the fact. He had the correspondence in his possession and he rose and made the statement and authorized the leading papers from one end of the country to the other to publish a photograph of myself


Samuel Hughes: That is right.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


George Taylor: and ' Soldiers
driving miners into the pit at the point of the bayonet '-that is what the Grit papers are doing throughout the country to-day. There is nothing in the letter that the minister has read that I am ashamed of, and if he will read, as he should read, the balance of the correspondence, he will find the statement I made suggesting what the government should do. I challenge him to read the balance of it."	'


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the House permits me I shall only be too pleased.


George Taylor: You will find iyi bayonets in any of it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I might say that I have here another letter dated June 28, 1909. It is a suggestion for compulsory arbitration.


George Taylor: Read the letter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This is probably what my hon. friend has in mind:
The Ontario Wheel Company, Limited, Gananoque, Out.


Hon.  W. L.@: Mackenzie King, Minister of Labour, Ottawa. Onit.
June 28, 1909.
My Dear King,-Your letter of June 15th addressed to me at Hillcrest Mines has been returned to vie here. I wrote from there to the Hon. Mr. Lemieux and he acknowledged receipt of my letter and told me lie had transferred the matter to yon.
I have not heard from our manager since I left there, but I did learn through the press that' a report, had been made by the board signed by the chairman and Mr. Sherman, the miners' representative and that the mine owners' representative, Mr. McLeod, had signed the minority report. Therefore, I presume do agreement was reached, nor have I seen anything to indicate that the men have gone to work.' With Mr. Sherman on the Board I did not anticipate any good results. From all I could learn out in that country both from the men and the mine owners the whole trouble was caused by Mr. Sherman. I certainly think you will have to amend the Labour Act or introduce legislation to prevent strikes, making it illegal for men to make strikes


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


George Taylor: That is right. Mr. KING 'reading)
-or to interfere with men who take the places of men who quit work. These miners

have all been idle since last March and should that have happened last fall the people of the district would certainly have sufiered. There should be a regular commission appointed to whom all matters between capital and labour should be referred for adjustment and in the meantime the men should costinue work, or if they should leave their employers other men could take their places. I certainly think now after three months the time has arrived when you should undertake to settle this dispute. The men are all anxious to go to work so far as I could learn, but are afraid to do so owing to the union miners preventing them. I think you should visit the ground personally and ascertain both from miners and men the true state of affairs and prepare such legislation as will for all time in future prevent the recurrence of a strike like this.
I am, yours faithfully,
(Sgd.) GEORGE TAYLOR.
I think that possibly is the other communication. I have two or three here, but they are all, as I understand it, suggestions for the introduction of a measure in tr-nature of compulsory arbitration to compel the men to remain at work whether they desire to better their conditions by seeking other employment or not.


George Taylor: No, nothing of the kind. Do not misrepresent me. Read the letter.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I must allow the House to put its own construction on the wordfe ' making it illegal for men to make strikes.' They can only have one meaning in the minds of all men who consider this question. In regard to what my hon, friend has said about the expression I used, if there is any different meaning to be attached to the words than that which they would be generally understood to bear, I am prepared that he should have the benefit of any different meaning which may be drawn out of them, but I repeat now that the _ method that is common in Pennsylvania and has been common on the part of some of the mine owners there in fighting labour has been to import men and use the state militia as a means of keeping them at work, and I say it is precisely that kind of action which the following words seem to imply:
The mine owners should be allowed to import men whom the government should protect with soldiers.


George Taylor: Has the government not done this down at the mines in Nova Scotia?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, the government has not.


George Taylor: Have the soldiers not been called out there to protect the men? Will the minister get up and deny the statement that the soldiers have been called out?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend asked me the question:	Had the government not
done this? The government has had nothing whatever to do with the calling out of any soldiers.
Mr, TAYLOR (Leeds). The soldiers were there and protected the men when they went to work.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The soldiers were there at the instance of the mine owners, not at the instance of the government, exactly the kind of thing that the hon. gentleman suggests here.


George Taylor: But the minister got up and voluntarily made the statement that he did make here the other day. I will quote his words; I will not misrepresent them:
My recollection is that the hon. member from Leeds (Mr. Taylor) suggested the government should drive the men back at the point of the bayonet.
When the minister got up and made that statement and when he had the documents in his possession, he did so with one purpose only-to try to injure me and the party behind me with the labour men of this country. The papers published that broadcast throughout the country. I say that there is notning in the correspondence nor can the minister show that there is, to verify the statement that he has ascribed to me here. I say it was a malicious


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


George Taylor: I am perfectly in order. I say it was done maliciously by the Minister of Labour to try and injure me politically.


Samuel Hughes: He could not do that.


George Taylor: He could not do it in this country because I have a reputation a good deal better than his, politically and otherwise. If the Minister of Labour will keep his seat till I get through, I will give him an opportunity to meet me here or on any other platform. I will discuss the matter with him in his own constituency, or in any town he likes before the labouring men of this country. I will go out to Hillcrest among the miners and I will face him there if he dares. How dare he charge me with suggesting to drive the men back at the point of the bayonet, when my suggestion was that there should be a labour commission, and that its rulings should be obeyed by the employers just as well as by the men, and that if a man wanted to leave his employment he could, but he had no right to prevent another man taking his place. There is the Minister of Labour drawing his salary for doing nothing and the people of the west likely to freeze to death this winter. It is a disgrace

to the minister and a disgrace to the government to allow that strike to go on, for they have the power to settle it. A deputation is coming down here to ask for free coal, and if the government grant that request the strike will be settled at once.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Mr. SPEAKER.: The hon. member- has made a personal explanation, and there is nothing now before the Chair. There has got to be an end to this discussion.


George Taylor: I am surprised at the Prime Minister calling me to order when I am chastising one of his ministers for having made such a malicious statement, a statement which the Prime Minister must know was not in accordance with the facts. The Prime Minister should call his Minister of Labour to order and say to him:	Until you apologize to the House
for making that false statement you cannot sit at the council board over which I preside. But in place of that he wants to surround himself with a lot of gentlemen who will do his bidding. Compare the government of to-day with his cabinet when he came into power. The men he could not control he elevated to the bench, like Mowat, Mills and half a dozen others, and he has called around him a lot like the Minister of Labour. He will back up the Minister of Labour or any other minister in making statements that he himself knows are not in accordance with the facts. Let the minister accept my challenge and we will go into some mining district, either in Nova Scotia or out in British Columbia.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Marquis of Queens-bury rules?


George Taylor: I will leave it to the verdiot of the labour men there whether I am right in making this statement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I just want to say


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I cannot allow the debate to go on further; there is .nothing before the Chair.


Samuel Hughes: Is not every dollar of the expense of the militia at Sydney and elsewhere coming out of the pockets of the people of Canada?


Frederick William Borden: No, the
municipalities pay.


Samuel Hughes: Did not the government pay at Montreal and Sault Ste. Marie?


Frederick William Borden: No. the municipalities did.	-


Morley Currie: The Minister of Labour has made a very grave statement against the Militia Department and it is up to the Minister of Militia to explain.
The Minister of Labour said that in cases of strikes the militia were called out at the instance of the mine owners. The Militia Act permits nothing of the kind. The militia can only be called out by the order of the civil authorities. The Minister of Labour has let the cat out of the -bag as to the policy of the government in case of strikes.


Frederick William Borden: I presume the Minister of Labour meant that


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


Frederick William Borden: I have been asked to explain, and I wish to do so. As I understand it, in case of a strike any person can go to the proper municipal authorities, and if such authorities are satisfied that there has been a serious breach of the peace, then application is made under the Aot in a proper way for the calling out of the militia. That is what happened in this case.


George Taylor: The government passed the Act and they are responsible.


Frederick William Borden: The Act is on the statute book for 50 years.


George Taylor: It comes hack to the government all the same.


Mr. BOYCE.: What is the position of the claim made by the government against the town of Sault Ste. Marie for assistance rendered at the time of the trouble in 1903? Action was taken against the town at the instance of the Crown to recover the cost of the militia. Has that judgment been enforced?


Frederick William Borden: I will get the information by to-morrow.


ARGENTINE CANNED MEATS.
Morley Currie: I wish to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether there is an embargo against Argentine cattle coming into Canada, and what steps are taken by the government to ascertain whether the canned meats from the Argentine, which are being brought into Canada in large _ quantities, are packed under sanitary conditions. These meats are advertised all over Canada in the daily papers, and I have here a sample tin. In view of the passing of this reciprocity treaty is the government taking any steps to protect the people of this country against unsanitary canned meats, and the herds of this country against the importation of Argentine cattle. I will place this can on the table of the House for the benefit of the Minister of Agriculture.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The cattle of the Argentine are not permitted to lan-d in Canada, and so far as the .canned meats are concerned

the department is preparing an Act to deal with that question.



WAYS AND MEANS-CORONATION CELEBRATION IN OTTAWA.

[Stage Direction]
Air. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Ways and Means.
["Before the motion passes I would like to refer to an inquiry I made with regard to the preparation of the voters' lists on the 20th inst. The hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Murphy) informed me on that occasion that Jhe would have a statement prepared and brought down. A certain statement was prepared and brought down, but it does not cover all I asked for. I asked for a statement of the ridings jin respect to which the voters' lists have been printed and delivered. That has been brought down. I asked also for a further statement as to when it is expected the lists will be ready for the ridings that have not been served in that way up to the present time. If the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfred Laurier) would be good enough to remind the Secretary of State, who is not in his place, I would be very glad."]
Air. BEATTIE (London).: In connection with the coronation celebration in Ottawa and the absence of the ministers therefrom I call attention to the following which appears in the Ottawa 'Journal':
Alayor's Office, June 16, 1911.-Yourself and ladies are cordially invited to enclosure on Parliament Hill on the morning of June 22, beginning at 11.15 sharp. Your presence and help upon that occasion will be very much appreciated in connection with the Coronation Day celebration.
This is the letter which the mayor dictated to his secretary in connection with the Coronation Day celebration, and which the secretary states he sent out to all the cabinet ministers who were in the city, as well as the four local members.
He ascertained the ministers who were in the city, he states, by calling up their offices. Those who were in England were not sent invitations. The others, he says, were sent invitations. .
This is the mayor's answer to the statement made by the Hon. ffm. Pugsley in the House of Commons day before yesterday, that the reason the three cabinet ministers who were in town on Coronation Day did not attend the Coronation celebration on Parliament Hill was that it was a civic affair, and they had received no invitations.
At the coronation celebration on parliament hill there were 10,000 people assembled in the presence of Lord Grey and Lady Grey, and the newspaper account of the ceremony says:
Led by Earl Grey, Governor General of Canada, ten thousand people on Parliament Hill this morning sent forth a cheer for King George V., the echo of which resounded throughout the city, and the spirit of it throughout the empire. It was Coronation Day, and in spite of the rain Ottawa citizens showred their -appreciation of the fact.
The only real lack was the absence of prominent citizens and-cabinet ministers. Earl and Lady Grey occupied a place on the flag draped platform, with a party from Government House. Mayor Hopewell was there, -and Sir Richard Scott. There was not a cabinet minister to be seen, however.
There is- Mr. Speaker a growing feeling of uneasiness1 in Canada at the anti-British attitude of this government, and that feeling has not be-en allayed by the Premier's boast in Quebec of having preserved Canada's autonomy at the Imperial Conference, and his co-olness towards pro-British proposals generally. It is a lamentable fact that


Mr FISHER.: at the coronation ceremony in the capital of the country not a single cabinet minister thought it worth while to attend His Excellency, or to step on to the lawn in front of their offices where the celebration was being held. Indeed, it was said that some of them were looking out the windows at the ceremony in th-eir shirt-sleeves. We spent a good deal of money to send a delegation to London to participate in the ceremony there, and the people of this country will want to know why there wa-s not a cabinet minister to attend His Excellency at the Ottawa celebration. As to the statement that the ministers did not receive an invitation, whatever question there be as to that, I think they might very well have gone without an invitation.


Sir ALLEN AYLESWORTH.: As I am one of the three ministers who enjoyed the privilege of remaining here during the two months' recess of parliament, and as this is a repetition of some newspaper attempted attacks made on some one or other, perhaps I should say a word about it. I do not know in what manner the alleged invitation to attend this function was sent to the three ministers in question, but I certainly would be a little interested to know. I have no doubt that my hon. friend the Postmaster General who was one of the three ministers who were her-e during the day of coronation would be equally glad to know whether or not the post office was utilized for the sending of the invitations. So far as I am concerned I have nothing to add to what was stated by the Minister of Public Works when this matter was mentioned in the House the other day. I do not pretend that I did not know, that there was going to be some sort of parade upon the lawn. I was at my office during each of the previous days, and I saw the building of the platform, and I should have been a very strange man if I had not supposed that it was in connection with the coronation, and that it was intended there should be some sort of celebration upon that occasion. But while that is so, and while for that reason I attach no consequence to the fact that no invitation came to me in any way in. connection with the matter, I was equally of opinion from what I saw in the newspapers that the matter was of a purely municipal or civil character. I understood an invitation had been extended to His Excellency and that His Excellency intended to be present, and that there was to be some sort of review or inspection of the Boy Scouts, and some parade of school children, and something of that sort. But that it was in any sense a government affair, or in any sense a national affair, or in any sense one that it was my duty as a minister of the Crown to attend, never occurred to

me. I am not much given to that sort of thing; I do not commonly attend such things, whether they are of a public character or something to which I would go merely as a spectator. In this instance the day being a holiday in the departments I was not in my office at as early an hour as usual, but I reached there just about when the small gathering of perhaps 150 or 200 boys and young people were separating on the lawn. If I had had the good fortune to reach the buildings a few minutes earlier, I think I should have gone to witness what was going on, but in the circumstances until somebody tried to make a great grievance of the absence of the ministers, and a slight even to His Gracious Majesty himself, it nevei occurred to me that there was the slightest importance attached to the matter one way or another. It should also be borne in mind that the fact of there being so few people present was because of a heavy rain shower in the morning, and the notifications that were put up about the city that the whole function was at an end, and that there would be no ceremony at all. I mention that, not as accounting for my own absence, because I did not know of the notices of cancellation until afterwards, but the circumstances are these I have described, and I can only say that if anybody thinks to make any political capital out of it, or to cast upon any of His Majesty's ministers in Canada aspersions as to their loyalty, it seems to me that it is about parallel to the waving of a pocket edition of the Union Jack.	[DOT]


Thomas Beattie: Perhaps you did not go there because the platform was draped with the Union Jack.


William Pugsley: As I stated the other day I was informed by the Secretary of State, and by the Minister of Justice that they had not received an invitation, and the Postmaster General told me that the day after the coronation, when the whole affair was over, he did receive an invitation.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I cancelled an engagement I had in Montreal district to address a public meeting in order that I should be here to attend any coronation ceremonies that might take place in the capital. I received an invitation to attend the coronation dinner at Rideau Hall, and as befitting a minister of the Crown I was present with His Excellency there. Had there been an invitation received by me from the city authorities I would only have been too pleased to attend. I saw the ceremony which took place from the window of my office where I was working that day, but I may say that on my way to the office, I saw a notification posted that everything had been cancelled on account of the heavy
rain. I am surprised to see the statement of Mayor Hopewell in the newspapers that the ministers were specially notified. That is not a fact. The day after the ceremony,
I did receive at my private residence an unsigned typewritten notice stating that I would be received on the platform, if I should attend the ceremony.


Mr. PERLEY.: Is not the hon. gentleman a citizen of Ottawa?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Certainly.


George Halsey Perley: Then, was it sensible or right that he should stand upon his dignity on an occasion of this kind?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Might I ask my hon. friend if, as a citizen of Ottawa and a member of the House of Commons, he was present himself?


George Halsey Perley: It so happened that I was many miles away from here. However, I did attend two celebrations of that kind on that day.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I also was many miles away the day before, but I came here expressly to attend.


Mr. OWEN.: When the House adjourned ,on May 20 a supply was arranged for up to September first. I must say that since the House resumed, about two weeks ago, the business of this country has not gone along very rapidly. In the riding I have the honour to represent there are about 2,000 men employed on government public works, and I would like to know if it is the intention of the right hon. the leader of the government and the hon. leader of the opposition to make arrangements for supply before prorogation takes place. If we are to believe what we read in the daily press prorogation may take place in the very near future, and we. may have a general election at no very distant date. If anything should happen which would result in these 2,000 men being turned idle, during the early winter, I think it would be a great hardship. Therefore, I would like to know if it is 'the intention to arrange for Supply before prorogation.


Wilfrid Laurier: The House is engaged at the present time in passing the reciprocity agreement. We have had it before us for some months, and ft seems to me that for all the information drawn from the debate we could pass upon it to-day. At any rate we could have a vote upon it and know whether we are in favour of ft or not. As soon as we have voted upon this question we shall have to take up to the matter of Supply..



Richard Blain: Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct the attention of the hon. Postmaster General to a very important matter. Some weeks ago I put a question on the Order Paper asking how many post offices in the county of Peel were receiving less than a daily mail. My hon. friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux) was good enough to give an answer to the House. I am one of those who support, and will continue to support, a rural free mail delivery.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Hear, hear.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend the Postmaster General says hear, hear. I can show to my hon. friend that I supported a resolution in favour of a rural free mail delivery when my hon. friend voted against it in this House, but afterwards acted on the suggestion of the opposition. However, I did not rise for the purpose of discussing that. My hon. friend must remember that his department has the support of, and is contributed to, by almost every elector in Canada. The Post Office Department shows a very considerable surplus, but, in my humble opinion, that surplus is at the expense of the poorly paid postmasters in rural districts-notwithstanding the fact that since my hon. friend has been Postmaster General some increases have been made in the salaries of these rural postmasters, for which I compliment my hon. friend.
To-day we have telephones in many parts of the country, and I think my hon. friend should see to i't that a telephone is installed in every rural post office in this country where there are rural telephone systems and where the Bell Telephone Company's system reaches.
, I think in addition to an examination into the twice-a-week mail service and three-times-a-week mail service, which we have in some of the older sections, my hon. friend should see to it that we have a daily mail service to these points, and that where we have a rural telephone system there should be a telephone in each of the post offices, at the expense of the government. I think the hon. Postmaster General would receive the co-operation of the hon. members of this House, and that he would be endorsed by the people of this country if he were to introduce some system of that kind.	'


Henry Robert Emmerson: Is it my hon. friend's suggestion that the government should pay the rental for the telephones?


Richard Blain: I should say yes. I do not think it could be expected that a postmaster receiving a salary of only $35 a
Sir WILFRID LAURIER
year should be asked to contribute $10 or $15 a year for the rental of a telephone, which would be used for the general service of the community. In my opinion the rental of the telephone should be paid out of the revenue of the Dominion, in connection with the Post Office Department.


Mr. EDWARDS.: I wish heartily to concur in the remarks made by the hon. member for Peel. Since I have had the honour of a seat in this House I have frequently called attention to the lack of proper postal facilities in my part of the country. I endorse the hon. gentleman's statement that in these older provinces, throughout the country districts wherever there are post offices, there should be a daily service, and in many places where there are no post offices they should be established. There are many reasons why the country districts in Ontario should receive more consideration than they have received in the matter of postal facilities. In many of the outlying districts the people live anywhere from five to fifteen miles trom a post office, and in many districts they get a mail only twice a week, which is practically no service at all. I think the facilities should be extended, and a daily service should be given to. all those country places. I will go further, and say that I think this government should take up the whole matter, and lay out a regular system of rural routes for post offices, and even to assist those country districts in maintaining good roads connecting many of those points. In some parts of my own constituency, the postal facilities have been so poor that the people have been obliged to put in little telephone systems of their own as their only means of communication. I have taken the trouble to compare the number of post offices in the province of Ontario in 1895 and the number in 1909, and I find that during that period the number has increased by 17 per cent. In the province of Quebec during the same period the number of post offices has Increased forty-one per cent; in Nova (Scotia, twenty-two per cent; in New Brunswick, twenty per cent; in Prince Edward Island, twenty per cent; in British Columbia, one hundred and twenty-two per cent; 'and in Manitoba and the Northwest Territories, one hundred and ninety-eight per [DOT]cent. Of course, we can readily understand that in the newer sections of the country where population is rapidly increasing there would be many demands on the Postmaster General for new offices. But we find .that while the province of Onatrio has contributed more than any other province to *the revenue of the Post Office Department, the increase in the number of post offices In that province has been considerably less than in the other provinces. That strikes me as unfair. Not only is that the fact in

(regard to the province as a whole, but 1 think that very little consideration has been given to the country districts throughout that province. I am certain that so far as the county of Frontenac is concerned, they have received very little consideration. Now the Postmaster General has boasted of a surplus in the Post Office Department. I want to say that if there is one department in this country which is not entitled to a dollar of surplus it is the Post Office Department. Every dollar of the revenue of that department comes out of the pockets of the people, and I maintain that every dollar of that revenue should go back to the people in the form of increased postal facilities.
I go further, and say that if there is any department of government which would be justified in making an expenditure in excess of the revenue, that department is the Post Office Department. Therefore the boast of the Postmaster General that his department shows a surplus is a boast that, in my estimation, reflects no credit on the management of the department. I wish to raise my voice against any policy of laying up a surplus by withholding postal facilities where they are required. Now the county of Frontenac contributes considerably towards that surplus. The post offices in that county contribute nearly $4,000 a year in revenue, over and above the amount paid by the government in salaries and allowances to postmasters. I could refer the Postmaster General to some thirteen offices in the county of Frontenac where the surplus revenue over and above salaries and allowances amounts altogther to over $1,173, and the average salary paid to the postmasters in those thirteen offices is only $108 a year. None of those offices are allowed to issue postal notes or money orders, and that is a matter that I wish to draw to the attention of the Postmaster General. 1 think he is not treating the people of the rural districts fairly. I think the revenue from these post offices I refer to is large enough to warrant the Postmaster General in granting them the right to issue postal notes and money orders. I have had experience heretofore with the Post Office Department in regard to obtaining better postal facilities in my county, an experience which has not been encouraging. For instance, I asked him to establish a post office on the border of the city of Kingston at the junction of the city with the township of Kingston. I pointed out to him that within a hundred yards of the proposed location of this office there was a school, and that the daily stage went right past it. I pointed out that the cost would only be a matter of the postmaster's salary, which might be taken out of what revenue there would be from that office.
As things are now the people in the adjoining country have to travel down into
the city three-quarters of a mile to get their mail, whereas, if this office was established at, you might say, no cost at all to the government, at the point I have indicated, the convenience to the people would be very great, indeed. For a time the Postmaster General agreed to establish that office at that particular point. Apparently he was convinced that the people were entitled to that convenience. Then the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Harty) intervened and raised an objection to the post office being established just inside the city limits. He objected to the people of the adjoining country coming inside the city a matter of a few feet in order to get their mail. The point selected was the only available place for a post office. The people kept a little store and were very popular in that section. The people of Kingston in the neighbourhood of the locality signed a petition, a copy of which I have here, which was sent to the Postmaster General asking him to establish an office at that point. The people of that section of the city have their mail delivered to them two or three times a day by letter carriers. They are not asking the Postmaster General to do away with any office. The convenience to the people in the city would be very slight. It would be some convenience, I dare say, but it would be slight, whereas, the convenience to the people of the surrounding country would be very great, indeed, and the cost to the department would be practically nothing. The Postmaster General gave his consent to that, but the hon. member for Kingston objected to a post office being established within the city limits, and apparently the hon. member for Kingston was able to overcome the convictions of the Postmaster General that a post office should, in justice to the people, be established, for up to the present time, that post office has not been established.
I want to call the attention of this House to another matter. I was asked by some people living in the north of my county to bring this matter to the attention of the Postmaster General and this will serve to illustrate the lack of postal facilities in rural distri.cts. I endeavoured to have a post office established between Maberly and Sharbot Lake at a place called Fall Kiver. I asked the people to get up a petition, and I would present it. They did so, the petition was presented, and I have in my hand here now the acknowledgment from the Postmaster General of the receipt of that petition requesting the establishment of an office at that place. The letter acknowledging the petition was dated April 3, 1909. On January 18, 1910 the hon. Postmaster General sent me this letter with regard to the request for that office. I wish to place this letter upon ' Hansard ' in order that mem-

,10360
bers of this House will realize'tire difficulties in getting proper postal facilities in country districts:
Ottawa, Jan. 18, 1910.
Dear Mr. Edwards,-1 have your letter of the 13th inst., relating in part to a 'proposed post office at ' Fall River/ on lot 12, concession 7, township of Oso, county of Frontenac, at a distance of miles south from Maberly, and beg to say that it is found, on inquiry, that not more than 18 or 20 families would benefit, that it would cost $70 a year for a semi-weekly exchange of mails with Maberly, and that the office would collect a revenue of probably not more than $10. It is understood that for three or four miles the road is not open in winter between Crow lake and Fall River, and that it would, therefore, be impossible for the mail courier between Crow lake and Sharbot Lake to travel by way of the proposed office site.
In view of the cost involved, namely, $70, for the service, and $35 as the postmaster's salary, as against an anticipated revenue of only $10, the department has been unable to see its way to open an office.
Yours sincerely,
(Sgd.) RODOLPHE LEMIEUX.
Here is a letter signed by the Postmaster General and giving as a reason for the non-establishment of this office that the department could not afford to spend possibly $90 a year in giving these people a semi-weekly service, that there are only eighteen or twenty families involved and that these eighteen or twenty families, we must infer, must remain without postal facilities, because, forsooth, the cost to the government would be $90 per year. I think I am justified in making the severest kind of criticism of the Post Office Department when they speak of the surplus of that department with such conditions prevailing in my county. I think I am justified in making the severest kind of criticism of sawdust wharf transactions, Aylesworth ditches and expenditures of money along that line when one of the members of the government will sign a letter stating that in his opinion the government would hot be warranted in expending a matter of $90 a year to give this convenience to some eighteen or twenty families. I want to read in connection with that a few words which passed between the Postmaster General and myself in this House in regard to the establishment of post offices. The hon. Postmaster General, speaking this session, as reported at pages 2143 and 2144 of 'Hansard,' said:
As regards postal facilities in a whole township, I do not know that there is any reason why the people should not be provided with these postal facilities where the distance is about five miles from a post office. It is certainly the policy of the Post Office Department to grant any request which is made with such a distance in view. Whenever my hon. friend on behalf of his own township in Frontenac or any other hon. gentleman makes a Mr. EDWARDS.
request to provide postal facilities, where there is a distance of about five miles, the Post Office Department cannot but accede to that request, and I appeal to him and to members of the House on both sides whether, whenever a request of that kind is made to the Post Office Department, it is not granted.
These are the words of the Postmaster General. In answer to his appeal I recited the case which I have recited here to-day and at the same time I expressed my pleasure at his making use of those words because I saw, or thought I saw, in those words of the Postmaster General, some hope for certain sections of my county where they have absolutely no postal facilities whatever. We had in those words the distinct promise of a minister of the Crown to relieve the situation, to grant postal facilities in places where these facilities do not at present exist.
In spite of the plain words of the Postmaster General he turns a deaf ear regardless of his own statement. I would not be doing my duty to my constituents if I did not under the circumtances state the facts in this House. I do not think that the people in the country districts have received proper and just treatment from the Post Office Department. I want to be most emphatic in being understood that I do not think the Post Office Department is entitled to boast of any surplus. The money comes from the people, and the money should go back to the people in increased postal facilities. I want to- impress also on the Postmaster General and the members of the House the further fact, that the relative increase in the population of the various provinces does not in my estimation warrant the great difference which prevails in the increase of the number of post offices granted to the various provinces-. If we consider the increase of the population of Ontario and of the other provinces, between 1895 and 1909, and if we take into consideration, as we have a -right to, the post office revenue obtained from these various provinces, then, I say it is worthy at least of a little thought on our part, that the increase in the number of the post offices in the province of Ontario-which contributes most towards the revenue of the post office, which has the largest population and the greatest wealth -is relatively much less than the increase in the number of post offices in any of the other provinces. Taking the years 1905 to 1909, there has been an increase of 17 per cent in the number of post offices in the province of Ontario, an increase of 41 per cent in the province of Quebec, an increase of 22 per cent in Nova Scotia, an increase of 20 per cent in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, an increase of 122 per cent in British Columbia, and an increase of 198 per cent in -Manitoba and the prairie provinces. I

appeal again to the Postmaster General to give the country districts more consideration in the matter of increased postal facilities, than he has given in the past. I -would rather not have to adversely criticise, but I do not think I would be doing mj duty, if I allowed this opportunity to pass without saying a word on behalf of the people'of my county. I am perfectly sincere, in making this statement that whatever has been done in the way of improvement-and a good deal has been done in various parts of the country-I do not think that more consideration has been given to the cities and towns than has been given to the country districts. This or any other government would be well advised in establishing well defined postal routes in the country districts, and I think a considerable sum of money might well be expended bv this government in helping to maintain the roads on these well established postal routes. A post office means a great deal to the people of a rural district. I have no objection whatever to the free rural mail delivery routes, and I think it is a step in the right direction, but I do saj that before free rural mail delivery is given to these centres which now have a daily service, or even more than a daily service, consideration should be given to these sections of the country where the people get their mail only twice or three times a week. I believe in giving to the various districts a daily mail and then extending your free rural mail delivery limits just as rapidly as your finances will permit. If the Postmaster -General or any member of this House, tells me that greater postal facilities cannot be given to any section of my county, because so much money has to be expended on free rural mail delivery routes, that they cannot afford to give proper facilities to the outlying districts, then I think it is my duty to state here my objection to such a policy. I hope the Postmaster General will give this matter the consideration it deserves.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I think the hon. gentleman for Peel (Mr. Blain) for the compliments he has paid the Post Office Department, and I trust he will convince my hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) that in the administration of the post office, I am generally fair in mj dealings with members on both sides of the House. When I took office the rural postmasters were receiving only a maximum salary of $10 a year, and I have increased that on two different occasions until it is now $35 per annum. My intention is to continue that until it is raised to $50. I am heartily in favour of the extension of the rural telephone system, because 1 know the advantages which would accrue from it. In the county of Nicolet, which I once represented in this House, I found
in nearly every parish a good system of rural phones, and it was a great facility to the people. In many European countries, and even in Japan, the Postmaster General is called the Minister of Communications, and has under his control not only the mail system, but the cables, telegraphs and telephones. In these countries the system works well and it pays well although the rates are far from being high. The day may not be far distant when in Canada a similar system will prevail. Speaking for myself only, I am personally in favour of a government controlled rural telephone system. I think it would be quite an addition to the advantages now enjoyed by the farmers. I think public opinion in the country, especially in the western provinces and in Ontario, is shaping itself in that direction. For my part I have no hesitation in stating that I would view with favour the establishment of a rural telephone system, under the control of the Post Office Department. Of course this is only my personal opinion, and I do not wish to commit any one but myself to it.
As regards the service in the older sections of the province, I would like to answer the mild arraignment of my hon. friend. I think I am right in saying that whenever it has been shown to me that an extension of the service should be made, I have never hesitated in granting the request. As a matter of fact I can state that for the last year at least, it has been an excsptional case when I refused such a request. I consider that a semiweekly or tri-weekly service in the older sections of the country at the present time is an out of date system, -and should be replaced by a jnore modern one. My hon. friend (Mr. Edwards), spoke a moment ago in reference to the average number of post offices opened in the new provinces as compared with the older provinces. I must shy there is some truth in the statement of the hon. gentleman, but, the explanation is not very clear. The postal system has been in vogue in the older sections of the community-in the eastern part of Canada as we call it-for over a century; since the time of Benjamin Franklin, who was the first Postmaster General. In the new provinces those people who come from the, old country ask to have the postal facilities as they had them in England. This is not a matter to he trifled with. We must meet their legitimate demands. We bring them to the western provinces by advertising our country, and having brought them there the least we can give them is proper postal facilities. I may tell the House that up to the present time I have not refused one per cent,of the requests which have been made for new offices in the western districts. I might

say that same thing for New Ontario and New Quebec.
My hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards), compared the number of post offices in Ontario and Quebec. I hope my hon. friend does not think I am in any way sectional in connection with this matter.


William Cameron Edwards: Will the hon. Postmaster General permit me to say a word? I did not confine my statement to Ontario and Quebec. I gave the increase in the number of post offices for all the provinces; so the hon. gentleman is not justified in saying that I confined my comparison to Ontario and Quebec; neither should the hon. minister think I expressed any idea that he was sectional.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Last year I gave, of my own accord, a statement showing the average number of offices opened in the various provinces, in which the hon. gentleman will find the figures he quoted. My hon. friend must know that the province of Ontario has been for many years the best equipped province in the whole
Dominion, so far as postal facilities are concerned. Now, there were obvious reasons for that. In Ontario the people go to the post office nearly every day, whereas in the province of Quebec it has been for many years the custom of the habitants to go to church on Sundays, and get their mail at the church door. That custom is passing away now, and as the new colonization movement goes on we have to provide the, people in the far away districts with better postal facilities. As I say, there has been no favour shown to the people of my province in the establishment of post offices; I have simply given them what they were entitled to get in all justice.
As regards rural mail delivery, I am glad my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain), and my hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards), support me in the new policy which has been put into force for the last two or three years. I might lay on the table of the House a statement which will show what progress has been made in connection with rural mail delivery routes in the Dominion of Canada up to ithe 31st of January, 1911:
Statement in connection with Rural Mail Delivery Routes, in the Dominion of Canada for the period ending January 31, 1911.
Division.	Number of Routes author- ized.	Number of Routes on which authorized rate was accepted.	Number of Routes on which authorized rate was refused.	Total Number of Box- holders reported.	Cost of Service of Boxes for Four Y ears.	Increase in cost of Mail Services for Four Years.	Total Increase in cost of Mail Services (including service of Rural Delivery Boxes) for Four Years.$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.Prince Edward Island.	40	28	9	598	2,175 76	4,180 88	6,356 64Nova Scotia	9	8	1	141	515 00	2L2 00	'727 00New Brunswick	23	17	3	598	2,143 48	3,276 80	5,420 28Quebec 	8	5	3	65	259 00	2,120 00	2,379 00Montreal	3	2	1	35	140 00	1,273 40	1,413 40Ottawa	12	6	4	211	803 00	1,530 40	2,333 40Kingston	35	21	10	1,177	4,638 00	8,859 20	13,497 20Toronto	63	37	16	1,825	7,197 00	11,698 64	18,895 64London	149	82	50	4,054	15,708 00	38,521 84	54,229 84North Bay	1	1	Winnipeg	
.	30	16	11	241	744 00	7,297 52	8,041 52Moose jaw	8	8	12S	345 00	1,040 00	1,385 00Saskatoon	4	4	40	113 00	113 00Edmonton	15	14	1	223	644 00	220 00	864 00Calgary	7	6	80	261 00	Vancouver	7	4	3	219	836 00	4,399 88	5,235 88Victoria	8	7	56	198 00	3,628 00	3j826 00Totals	422	266	112	9,700	36,720 24	88,336 96	125,057 20
Mr. LEMIETTY

During the course of next week, I will give the House a statement showing the operation of the rural mail delivery up to date. I may say there has been a very large increase in the number of routes during the last few months-in fact during the last few -weeks. We were short of boxes until late in February this year, which will account for this. As I stated the other day, we gave an order for 100,000 boxes, and they are being manufactured at the present time, so that all the requests which have been granted for the opening of these routes will be covered, and there will be no delay in putting on the rural mail service.


George Taylor: This hurry up order is on account of the coming elections. I suppose.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Not at all. I do not believe in the elections, and I do not think my hon. friend believes in them.


George Taylor: You said in Quebec that they were coming.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is not exactly what I said. There must have been a rider to it. At all events I do not believe a rural mail box will influence the electors in the section where it goes.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: My hon. friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux) tells us that he will probably make some statement early next week. Might I ask him whether he will make that statement Monday or Tuesday?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Let us say Tuesday.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: That will be a general statement with reference to the progress made in the rural mail routes?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes.
Mr.'ARMSTRONG. In reference to the statement which has been' laid on the table by my hon. friend, might I ask him whether that $125,000 is all attributed to the increased cost in reference to rural free mail delivery?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes. Whenever there is a rural mail route established, new tenders are asked for from the couriers. They are entitled to so much per box, and as they have to serve every box they ask more for the service.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Might I ask whether the hon. minister has deducted the original cost, or the former cost of carrying on the service on these routes?


Rodolphe Lemieux: No. It is included.
Mr. ARA1STRONG. Then, this increase cannot be attributed to rural free mail delivery?
Mr. LEA1IEUX. In my judgment the cost of serving a rural mail route as contrasted with the cost of serving an ordinary mail route is 25 to 30 per cent more; that is the general opinion in the department, taking it all in all. To my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain), I must say that if he has in mind any post offices which suffer from the fact that they have only a semi-weekly service, and if he will make a list of them and send it to me I will deal with the matter at once. Now the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) spoke of the Kingston and Frontenac imbroglio. Well, my hon. friend represents Frontenac, and another hon. gentleman (Mr. Harty) represents Kingston and I my hon. friend was'encroaching on the Kingston territory. He wanted to make a charge which would affect an existing post office near the border of the county. That is the information I have from the hon. member for Kingston. But I will tell the hon. gentleman now that if he will find within the borders of his own county a suitable place for a post office, I am quite willing to open one there. I think the objection was that there was a hotel at that point, and it was not a suitable place for a post office. At all events, if my hon. friend will find a suitable spot for a new post office, the order is ready, and I am waiting the hon. gentleman's choice of a site. As regards the surplus, I quite agree with the remarks that have been made by hon. gentlemen opposite. I think we can spend freely, spend liberally, and be generous towards the public, and yet do more than make both ends meet. I would be unworthy to hold the position of Postmaster General if I did not follow the traditions of my predecessors, and I think I would receive the criticism of hon. gentlemen opposite if, after taking charge of the department, I now came forward with a deficit instead of a surplus. The service has expanded, we have nearly doubled the expenses of 1896. I have certainly spent liberally for the service, both in the rural and in the urban sections; and wijth all that, and notwithstanding the decrease of the postal rates, if I am able to show a surplus, I should not be blamed for it. As long as I remain Postmaster General, I will spend liberally and fairly, in order to meet the wants of the public, but I am not going to give away the surplus. I maintain that it is better to meet the expenses and at the same time have a surplus, than to spend too largely and have a deficit at the end of the year.
At one o'clock, House took recess.
House resumed at three o'clock.


THE ALIEN LABOUR LAW.
Mr. G. H. BARNARD (Victoria, B.C.).: 
J. A. AIKMAN,
[Stage Direction]
Solicitor for the Victoria Building Trades Council.
I would like to point out to the Minister in the first place the -difficulty, delay and expense which are necessarily incurred in working out the provisions of that *Act. Even if the legal gentleman who wTote that letter has an erroneous opinion, which 1 am very much disposed to doubt, and if the Act is workable, then the only way in which the penalties provided in the Act can be enforced is by an action at law. That is a matter of great expense and great delay, and it does seem to me that the proper and efficacious way of enforcing the Act would be by a summary conviction. The matter could then be decided in a

very short time and without expense to the labouring men, who, as a rule, are not in a position to incur the expense of protracted litigation. Further, I am informed that evidence can be adduced to show that these labouring men, when coming into those parts of British Columbia, are not put through the course of questions to which immigrants from other countries are subjected. As I understand, all immigrants-and these men are clearly immigrants within the meaning of the Act-are compelled under the regulations to have a certain sum of money. I do not wish to make any charge against any particular official in the minister's department, but I am informed that these regulations are being ignored as regards these men, and I would ask the minister to institute an investigation into this matter.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I must confess that I am not a little surprised at the communication that has been read to the House by the hon. member. It seems to me that it was written without a full knowledge of the Act. That is the only explanation that seems possible, in justice to any professional man who would give advice such as that contained in this communication. In reading over the letter carefully, I find that it has reference only to one part of the Act. And that the suggestion which is made in this letter as one which it would be advisable to have embodied in an amendment to the Act is. as a matter of fact, a part of the Act already. The letter states:
There is no provision in the act authorizing any court to declare what the forfeiture shall he, and I can find no provision covering the matter in any statute, and it seems to me that the offence being a statutory one, there must be jurisdiction conferred upon a court or courts authorizing a declaration of what the forfeiture shall be. Having this in mind I call the matter to your attention so that you will be enabled to lay the matter before the proper authorities at Ottawa and have the Act amended so that two justices of the peace or any magistrate having the power of two justices of the peace may declare a forfeiture.
That is exactly what is in the Act at present. The Act contains two methods whereby it may be enforced. The first is:
The sum forfeited may, with the written consent of any judge of the court in which the action is intended to be brought, be sued for and recovered as a debt by any person who first brings his action therefor in any court of competent jurisdiction in which debts of like amount are now recovered.
That' is one clause in the Act to which attention has been called by this solicitor, and he says he does not see why that should he the only method of enforcing 327
the penalty, and suggests an alternative. The very next section has in it exhctly what he is suggesting. The first method is the recovery of the penalty as a debt, the second is the recovery on summary conviction.
Such, sum may also, with the written consent, to be obtained ex parte, of the Attorney General of _ the province in which the prosecution is had, or of a judge of a superior or county court, be recovered upon summary conviction before any judge of a county court, being a justice of the peace or any judge of the sessions of the peace, recorder, police magistrate, or stipendiary magistrate, or any functionary, tribunal or person invested by the proper legislative authority with power to do alone such acts as are usually required to be done by two or more justices of the peace, and when recovered, shall be paid to the Minister of Finance.
Exactly the suggestion made in this communication.


George Henry Barnard: If the minister will look at sec. 3, he will see that for an offence a sum not exceeding $1,000 or less than $50 is to be forfeited. 'Section 4 says that the sum iso forfeited may be, with the written consent of a judge, recovered. Section 5 says such .sum, which obviously refers to the same sum as mentioned in section 4, the sum so forfeited, and the point of the letter that the minister has before him is that until a court of competent jurisdiction has declared the sum forfeited nothing can he rec/overed. His point is that in the first place you cannot go straight into court and sue for any amount until there has been a forfeiture. You have first to take the proceedings to declare the amount forfeited, but he says that no court has been authorized to make that forfeiture, and his contention is that section 5 is in precisely the same position, that you have got to take the two proceedings.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not profess to have had the legal experience either of my hon. friend who has given this advice or of the Ron. gentleman who has stated his opinion of the Act. All I can say is, that what both he and this writer have said is absolutely absurd in the light of convictions which have been obtained under the Act in accordance with the procedure here set forth. As I understand, the complaint is that it is impossible to obtain convictions under this Act by summary proceedings. I would like to. read to my hon. friend, and perhap.s he will pass^ on to his adviser who has given this advice, the following list of convictions obtained under the Act not by having a penalty sued for as a debt, but by summary procedure, precisely what is desired toy any hon. friend's informant.


STATEMENT OF CONVICTIONS TJNDER THE ALIEN LABOUR ACT.
[Stage Direction]
Albert Geiser was convicted before the police magistrate at Rossland, B.C., in August, 1901, of two infringements of the Act, being fined $500 in one case and $50 in the other case. The information was laid by W. L. MacDonald, a member of the Miners' Union of Rossland, and 50 per cent of the penalties recovered was paid to Mr. MacDonald on the recommendation of the then Minister of Labour.
The secretary-treasurer of the Toronto Carpet Company, Toronto, was convicted before the police magistrate of Toronto in August, 1902, of' an infringement of the Act, and was fined $50 and costs. The information in this case was laid by the Carpet Weavers' Union, Toronto.
The Frayseng Cork Company, Limited, Toronto, was convicted before the police magistrate of Toronto in February, 1904, of two separate infringements of the Act, being fined $50 and costs in each case, half the penalty recovered being, on application, paid through the Department of Labour to the informants.
J. Amberg, tailor, Dundas, Ontario, was convicted before the police magistrate of Hamilton, on August 21, 1904, of an infringement of the Act. The costs of prosecution were paid by the defendant and the penalty withheld.
The Cape Breton Electric Railway Company, Limited, was convicted in July, 1905, of two separate infringements of the Act, a penalty of $200 with costs being imposed in each case. The information was laid by one George Low, to whom, on the recommendation of the then Minister of Labour, half the amount of the penalty recovered in each case was subsequently paid. An appeal was entered in the case of one of these convictions, but did not succeed.
The Menzie Wall Paper Company of Toronto was convicted before police magistrate Ellis of Toronto on August 15, 1905, of five separate infringements of the Act. A fine of $50 was imposed in each case.
Robert Mienzie, president of the Menzie Wall Paper Company, mentioned above, was convicted before police magistrate Denison of Toronto, on February 19, 1906, of a further infringement of the Act, and a penalty of $50 and costs was imposed. Half the penalty was paid over to the informant.
H. Holman Evans, manager of the Union Life Assurance Company, Toronto, was convicted before the police magistrate of Toronto in February, 1906, of an infringement of the Act, and was fined $50 and costs. Half the penalty was paid over to the informant.
An employer named Elliott was convicted before police magistrate Denison of Toronto on March 15, 1906, of an infringement of the Act and was fined $50 and costs.
The Corby Distillery Company of Belleville, Ontario, was convicted of an infringement of the Act before police magistrate Flint at Belleville, on December 22, 1906, and a fine of $50 imposed. The conviction was appealed to the Court of Appeal and sustained in a judgment given March 30, 1907.
The Spanish Mills Company of Blind River, Ontario, was convicted on June 26, of an infringement of the Act and a penalty of $50 with costs was imposed. Mr. B. H. Wiley, Mr. KING.	, ]
Echo Bay, Ontario, laid the information in this case and 50 per cent of the penalty obtained was paid to Mr. Wiley, on the recommendation of the Minister of Labour.
On September 24, 1909, the Charlton Sawmill Company at Collingwood, Ontario, was convicted before Mr. W. A. Hogg, police magistrate of Collingwood, of an infringement of the Act and a fine of $50 and costs was imposed.
On January 4, 1911, The Johnson Carey Co., Limited, was convicted before His Honour Judge C. R. Fitch, at Fort Frances, Ontario, of an infringement of the Aot, and a fine of $500 imposed.
Those are only some of the convictions that have taken place under this Act before a magistrate, who has the very power that this legal adviser thinks should be given in order that this Act might be made more workable. If I may be permitted to put my own construction on this communication, I would say that some significance may be attached to this sentence:
It does seem to me that the Act is simply a piece of legislation designed for the purpose of satisfying claims that have been advanced by the Labour Unions throughout Canada, but made unworkable for some ulterior purpose.
I think that if this legal adviser, who is presumably being paid by labour men for advice, would give them advice in accordance with the law instead of volunteering opinions evidently designed to have a political bearing and purpose, he would be acting more in accord with professional duty than he is doing on this occasion, and my hon. friend could do no better service than to inform his correspondent that if he will take the trouble to look over today's ' Hansard ' he will see there a list of convictions obtained under the Alien Labour Act; and if he will proceed in accordance with the methods laid down by the Act, and the facts are as stated by my hon. friend from his seat in the House, I have no doubt he will be successful in getting convictions of any company who violates the Act in the manner he has described.
George Henry Barnard: Mr. Speaker, all I have to say in reply is that the hon. gentleman seems to be somewhat nettled over the matter.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. gentleman has already spoken, and can only speak again by the courtesy of the House.


George Henry Barnard: The only observation I would make is that probably the minister has a guilty conscience, considering his action on the Eight Hour Bill last session.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Mr. Speaker, I am very much interested in this question. As the hon. minister knows1, I brought to the attention of this House on

two or three occasions instances in which there had been wholesale infractions of the law. I have also- pointed out the manifest injustice and futility of an Act the administration and enforcement of which is left to private individuals, who in the majority of cases do not care to take the trouble or the financial risk involved in working up a case against a large corporation, not to speak of the risk of an adverse verdict. As far back as July, 1908, a former Minister of Labour, the present Postmaster General, realizing the cogency of the position I then took, promised that the situation would be reviewed, by the department, and that legislation would be introduced as speedily as possible to remedy the defects in the law which I then pointed out. Nothing further has been done, and the same conditions continue to obtain throughout the length and breadth of Canada. We had an instance of that only a few months ago which I brought to the attention of my hon. friend, and I think he promised an investigation into it. It was a case in which men were brought by the score almost from across the boundary at Sault Ste. Marie to displace Canadian workmen who had been there for many years, and against whose work alone no objection could be found. Those men were aliens, brought to Canada in defiance of the law, but no one cared to take the risk involved in fighting the gigantic corporation which had brought them in, and, therefore, the matter was not brought to the attention of the department. These importations could be easily prevented. Just as the Department of Immigration places officers on the frontier to watch for undesirable immigrants, why could not the Department of Labour place inspectors at different points along the frontier to make reports on these matters, and, thereby minimize if not entirely prevent the infractions of this law? If the Alien Labour Law is a serious law and the Minister of Labour is serious in his attempts to enforce it, why does he not enforce it? If he finds that private individuals do not take enough interest in the law to enforce it-and I do not blame them- why does he not himself take power, if he considers he has not sufficient already, to attend to the enforcement of his own law? The members of this government are usually not lacking in vigilance in matters of this kind except where provincial authority is concerned. We have a very cogent instance of that in the administration of the Election Law. When my hon. friend from South York (Mr. Maclean) commented on the government's inability to enforce laws which it placed on the statute-book, the answer was: The laws are there, and they should be enforced by the provinces; that is what the judicial machinery of the provinces is for. How does that apply to the-enforcement of the Dominion Elections Act? The Minister of Justice told us in this House that he was perfectly justified two or three years ago in sending at the expense of this government on election day policemen on a special train in order, as he said, to prevent any violation of the Election Law at the polls. If it is competent for this government to do that in one case, why can it not do it in another case which is of manifest interest to' the whole of Canada? I sincerely hope that this serious niatter will be dealt with in the manner in which it should be. The minister's contention is that the remedy is entirely in the hands- of the workingmen. Take the one instance of the man who had the hardihood to prosecute a large lumber corporation at Blind River for the infraction, of the Act. He had to go to the expense of going to Blind River, subpoenaing witnesses and employing counsel, and when he was able to get a conviction, and the corporation was fined $50 of which $25 went to the prosecutor, all of this $25 was exhausted in the expense of prosecuting. What encouragement is that to a man getting $2 or $2.50 a day to take upon himself the whole burden of the enforcement of that law? What the department says is: Go ahead, take all the risks, employ counsel, go on with the evidence, and if you succeed we will give you one-half of the penalty that may be imposed, entirely losing sight of the fact that these men are labouring men who are absolutely unable to lose the time, and the money involved in a prosecution; and if there be not a conviction, who is to pay the man the expenses- involved? This is a view of the matter upon which I have not yet heard the Minister of Labour comment-the risk imposed upon a class of men who are. least able to bear it; and if the minister is sincere and honest in his desire to relieve the workingmen, to prevent injustice being done, and to secure the enforcement of a workable Act, which will be for the benefit of Canada generally, and the working classes in- particular, he will adopt some method, as was promised three years ago, by which this Act will become more workable and more enforceable.


Mr. J. W. MADDIN (Cape Breton, South).: Mr. Speaker, in connection with this matter, I would like to draw the attention of the minister to- two prosecutions which were instituted by private parties in 1905 against the Cape Breton Electric Company. The hon. minister will doubtless appreciate the difficulty that must exist where individuals 'are called upon to enforce their rights under an Act as cumbersome as that now under discussion. Leave must be obtained from a county court judge before proceed-

ings can be begun either before a magistrate or before the judge himself. That means an application to the judge in any event, and before that can be made, counsel must be employed, the order must be served on the company, and then the procedure must go on from that to the trial. This involves loss of time, and a great deal of expense, varying from $75 to $200 or $300, depending on the number of -witnesses and the distances they have to travel. That is not all. The individual who brings an action against his employer need never again seek employment from that employer or even from any other in the locality. He becomes black-listed. It is only in districts where complete organizations exist for the defence of labour that prosecutions can be brought under the Act at all.	It is unfair
to keep on the statute-book any longer an Act so expensive to - the individual that in view of the fact that it has been in operation so many years, the minister, going back ten years, can only cite the number of cases he cited this afternoon as having been carried to a successful conclusion.


Mr.   ICNG@: Some of them. I was only citing some of them that come to my attention.


James William Maddin: Well, the fact of the matter is that, as this is an Act for the protection of the labourer, the protection of those who belong to the country, and who belong to the flag, it should be the duty of some person to enforce it. Collectors of customs guard the ports of entry, and we have a fishery protection service. It is not left to the fisherman to lay a charge against those who encroach on the country's fisheries. There seems to be some one appointed to administer every one of the country's laws except this Alien Labour Law. 'In the United States when a person lands from a boat or a train, he is almost always interrogated, especially if he has the appearance of being an artisan or labourer and he is asked as to his object in entering the country; and again and again many of them have been turned back. In this country no such safeguards are organized to protect the labourer, and the individual labourer in a country village or small manufacturing town where there are no organizations, is left the burden. It is left to him as an individual to prosecute parties, perhaps, a powerful corr>r>ration; who will take appeal after appeal, and he is a wise labourer who will look at the Act, and forget its existence, and bear the burden. It would be folly for the ordinary workingman to assume the responsibility of prosecution under such an Act as that, and hope to come out successfully. I do not urge this matter in a party spirit, but I think Mr. MADDIN.
I am making a wholesale criticism of the administration. I hope the minister will take it seriously to heart, and if he ever gets another opportunity before this parliament, which is very doubtful, he will see to it that the Act is amended and improved.


DEFERRED ELECTIONS.
Mr. MARTIN BURRELL (Yale-Cariboo).: One result of the agreement already has been the enhancement of the value of fruit lands in the Okanagan.
Mr. Martin Burrell, a member of the House and a fruit grower, owned a 160-aere farm, with a partially-bearing orchard, and offered it for sale about a year ago for $20,000. About two months after the agreement was announced Mr. Burrell's ranch was sold for $30,000, or $10,000 more than he offered it for before the reciprocal agreement was concluded.
I am quoting now from the Victoria 'Times,' the organ, I believe, of the hon. friend. He added:
Another instance which I am able to vouch for also, is that of the Matt Miller ranch, sold for $200 an acre on May 5 last, although a man had been given the refusal of it at $100 an acre several months before, showing that some people are not afraid of any evil effects to the fruit industry because the duty is to be taken off fruit. (Applause.)
I will just deal with the last paragraph first. The minister says: that he is able to vouch for this statement. This Tanch is in Kettle River valley where I live. I know the circumstances absolutely and I am, in my place in this House, prepared to say, and to make affidavit, if necessary, that his statement that the ranch was sold for $200 an acre after reciprocity was announced and that it had been offered for $100 before, is absolutely untrue, and that the second price was simply the first price, namely, $100 an acre. I may further add that the man who made the second proposition after . reciprocity was announced fell down in his deal. These are the absolute facts that the minister can find out for himself. Yet he goes on to say that he can vouch for a statement of that kind. Let me deal with the statement he made about my own affairs and I do it for the reason, that I find that up and down the country in the Liberal press, this statement of the minister has been reported without the denial which was given to it by myself. It was given prominenqe in paper after paper after he had held this meeting. 1 think it a most disgraceful thing that a minister should make an unsupported statement on false Pretenses dragging in my private affairs, and then that no correction shall be given to it in the Liberal press published in Winnipeg and elsewhere. The minister made a statement along similar lines in the dty of Nelson, and the paper there telegraphed me there for a statement. This is the statement I made at the time:
1VLt,le	the/ Daily News,' Nelson, B C.
Sir,-The News reports Hon. Wm Tem-pleman as saying that he has good authority tor stating that since the announcement of the reciprocity pact I had sold my ranch for Si0,000 more than I had offered it for before further, that American capital lias gone into the purchase and that the deal was made as a result of the reciprocity pact. All three
Mr. BURRELL
statements are false and absolutely misleading. Negotiations had been entered into with the parties concerned before reciprocity was announced in the House, the first figures being higher than those finally agreed upon. It is painful and amazing that a minister of the Crown can perpetrate this sort of thing. Apart from the question of taste in making statements about my private business, what must be said of the ethics of the case? If Mr. Templeman is reported correctly his gross inaccuracies in regard to my affairs will justify the public in assuming that no weight can be attached to his other utterances.
In answer to that, after I left Grand Forks, the minister saw fit not to apologize, not to correct his statement, but to write a long letter to the Nelson ' News ' in the course of which he made these remarks:
Further information received by me at the time from residents of Grand Forks was to the effect that the sale was made at a price $10,000 in advance of wliat the property had been offered for before the reciprocity agreement had been negotiated.
I had already given this a frank denial. From my seat in the House I give it now a most unqualified denial. He goes on to say:
It was a complete answer to his jeremiads, because if wide-awake men would buy his fruit farm and other fruit farms adjacent to it, in the face of the ' smashing blow ' that he said had been dealt the fruit industry, it surely was an argument in favour of mv contention, and to my mind an unanswerable one.
It was unanswerable if it were true, but what becomes of the argument if the thing is_ entirely false? I am amazed that the minister could follow up one serious break by making another so bad as this particular letter. Then he says:
While Mr. Burrell denies the accuracy of my statements, he does not correct them.
I do not know what the minister wants in the way of correction. Does he want me to tell him the names of the parties, their birthplaces, ages, what their prospects are, and everything about them? The thing is absolutely absurd and I have to tell him that he seems to be entirely astray on this thing. For the minister's particluar benefit, let me tell him what he does not appear to know, that long before these negotiations for a part of the holdings that I have in the Kettle valley were commenced, about 80 acres were added to the propertj, a new water system has been supplied and a large value has been added, and that so far from his being anywhere near the truth he is absolutely wide of the mark,
I repeat that I never was offered $10,000 less, but that the price before reciprocity was entered into was higher than that which the parties subsequently agreed upon. I might add, Mr. Chairman, that the deal has not been finally concluded yet. I do

not want to say anything more about my private affairs and I apologize for having brought them to the attention of the House. But, I think that it is a perfect disgrace that a member of the cabinet should go on public platforms and make statements of this kind as the basis for an argument for reciprocity when these statements are absolutely without any foundation.
With regard to the other mailer I would be only too glad to get some expression of opinion from the hon. Mini; ter of Finance, who dealt with tne question in a very fair way at the time the debate occurred. I hope, in view of the subsequent facts and the present knowledge of the government there will be some reasonable chance of the elections in Kootenay and Yale-Cariboo taking place on the same day as the general election.


Mr. FIELDING.: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the observations or my hon. iriend concerning the date of holding elections, it is not a matter to wnich I have given particular attention. I quite join wi.th him in the general view that what we call simultaneous polling is a good feature of our constitution. .
It is certainly desirable that wherever it is reasonably possible that principle should be applied throughout the whole dominion. Whether there are exceptional circumstances or not would, I think, depend upon the information to be received. I will see that the observations of my hon. friend are brought to the notice of my colleagues, whose duty it is to give more particular attention to that branch of the public business.


Hon. WM. TEMPLEMAN (Minister of Inland Revenue).: I had no intention to interfere with the private affairs of my hon. friend (Mr. Burrell) when I used as an argument the statement that he had sold his fruit ranch at an enhanced price, nor do 1 think that any one could construe my using this alleged fact into an interference with his private business. The report that Mr. Burrell had sold his fruit ranch at Grand Forks at a very good price to a company that were going to engage in the fruit business appeared in the British Columbia newspapers, and I wrote to ascertain the facts from a responsible gentle* man in Grand Forks, and the statement I made at Nelson and Fernie that Mr. Burrell had held his ranch at a certain figure previous to the announcement of the reciprocity pact, and that he had sold it several months after the announcement of reciprocity at an advance of $10,000, was given to the public on the authority of a letter which I have still in my possession from a very prominent resident of Grand Forks who inquired into the facts. I will
accept the word of the hon. member that he has not sold his fruit ranch at an enhanced price. It is none of the business of the public at what price he sold his ranch, but if it is a fact that he did sell it at an enhanced price after the announcement of reciprocity, as the general opinion is in the neighbourhood of Grand Forks, dt would be fair and legitimate to mention it as an argument in favour of the benefit of reciprocity to the fruit business. The hon. gentleman h ad an excellent ranch and the statement is that he sold it at a very good price, and that those who bought it are going into the growing of fruit on a still larger scale than he. It is a fact that the other ranch to which I referred was negotiated for at an. enhanced price, and that in the neighbourhood of Nelson a small ranch has been sold at $750 an acre, although that may be accounted for in part by the fact that it is beautifully situated on the lake and very desirable for a residence. The fact remains that the removal of duty on fruit, has not tended to depreciate the value of fruit lands in British Columbia, but on the contrary has caused the prices to go higher. The price of fruit lands immediately south of the boundary line is I believe from 50 per cent to 100 per cent higher than the price of fruit lands in relatively as good a position north of the boundary line. I 'used these statements on the public platform. I admit the information is second-hand, but the hon. gentleman himself knows better than I do about it, and I would suggest that he might take the public into his confidence, and tell the people the circumstances, not contenting himself with making a general denial. I do not think there is any divulging of private business about it. There is not a land transaction in British Columbia that the price is not published in the newspapers. Probably the hon. gentleman (Mr. Burrell) regrets that he has sold his fruit 'lands so soon. The price of fruit land, in the Boundary Creek country and _ the Okanagan Valley, is higher to-day than it was 5 months ago, and I am quite positive that there has been no depreciation in the price of these lands in consequence of the reciprocitv agreement. I have no desire to interfere 'with my hon. friend's private affairs nor did I think I did so when I made use of the argument. Now, in reference to the other matter, the hon. gentleman has said that the Yale-Cariboo election might be held on the same day as the other elections throughout the Dominion, and I am inclined to agree with him. The difficulty in Comox-Atlin is that the ballots cannot be sent around that district in the week intervening between nomination day and polling day. It certainly could not be done at my by-election which was held in the winter. I question if it could be done in

an interval of two weeks. There are places up the Skeena Kiver where the people have to travel by dog train in winter and it takes two or three weeks for them to get their mail, but of course in summer it is more easily accomplished, and, if it can be done, and if nomination and polling can be fixed on the same day as the other elections, I am absolutely, in favour of it, because I do not think there is anything to be gained by deferring an election. It must be remembered that Oomox-Atlin is i,000 miles long by the route travelled from Alberni on {lie Southwest corner to Atlin on the Northeast, and it comprises 150,000 square miles in which there are 100 polling places, and in the case of Queen Charlotte Island a steamer has_ to go around delivering the ballots. If it is at all possible, I am of opinion that the election should be held on the same day as the other elections.


Martin Burrell: I am astonished that the Minister of Inland Revenue did not frankly teilder an apology. He has not even given us the name of the responsible gentleman m Grand Forks who has given him the alleged facts that are not facts.
He has to accept my word that these statements were absolutely correct. Now, 'as to aisking me what was the exact price I sold the land for, how would he like me to ask him the amount of the mortgage he has on the Times Building, Victoria? I do not think it concerns the House, but, at the same time, I have no worry about the matter. I may, however tell the.hon. gentleman that the figures were higher before reciprocity was introduced than they were afterwards. I have told him that there was no foundation in fact for the statements he made, and he has to accept my word.


CHINESE INVESTIGATION COMMISSION.
Mr. J. D. TAYLOR (New Westminster).: 
William Templeman: and held its first session on the 19th December. The hon. Mr. Justice Murphy was appointed commissioner. Mr. George E. McCrossan of Vancouver appeared on behalf of the Dominion government, Mr. S. S. Taylor on behalf of Yip On, one of the accused, and Mr. Gordon Grant represented the Trades and Labour Council of Vancouver. The scope of the commission was indicated by Mr. Justice Murphy at the opening _ session, when he said that the commission had been appointed to further investigate and report upon the frauds recently shown to have existed in connection with the unlawful landing of Chinese immigrants in Canada at British Columbia ports, and any other evasions in violation of Chapter 95 Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, ' An Act Respecting and Restricting [DOT] Chinese Immigration' and 7-8 Edward VII, Chap. 14, 'An Act to Amend the Chinese Immigration Act,' and orders in council based thereon, and to investigate and report upon the results of the operation of the Opium Act, viz: 7-8 Edward VII, Chapter 50, ' An Act to Prohibit the Importation, Manufacture and Kale of Opium for other than Medical Purposes,' with special reference to any opium seizures that have taken place under said Act and disposition thereof.


Before I .: must be discouraged by drastic amendments the Act on the lines suggested by the police oihcers of Vancouver and Victoria, above set out.
So that the commissioner found that, with the exception of the individuals named, the charges of maladministration made against the several departments of the government were proved up to the hilt. This commissioner was in a most delicate position during the inquiry. He was familiar with the attitude recently taken by the Minister of Justice, who has declared in this House with pride:	I am
a political partisan, and has disavowed that his department has any higher ideal in the conduct of its affairs than, like other departments of the government, to advance the political interests of the party in power in Canada. This judge, therefore, must have felt and realized painfully that his was a purely political appointment bv a political partisan, recommended to the Minister of Justice and his colleagues by another political partisan; that his appointment to the commission was recommended by a political partisan to his colleagues at Ottawa, and that that recommendation was inspired by the Local Patronage Committee which, no doubt, in turn had dealt with his own appointment to the bench, so that which ever way lie turned this judge was surrounded by political embarrassments, and when he started upon his inquiry he felt impelled to break away from the commission extended to him which I read at the opening of my remarks, and instead of dealing with the more important matters of the frauds upon the revenue, and the administration at Vancouver, he chose to take up first the purely political side of the investigation vhich he intended to hold. He says, at page 11 of this report:
At an early stage the main inquiry became complicated with a subsidiary issue which was so intimately connected therewith as to Imperatively demand investigation. Briefly stated, this issue as first presented was a charge that prominent members of the Liberal party had done all in their power to prevent any probing into the alleged frauds, because they were participants therein. These statements were contained in a letter, dated November If, 1910, sent to the Minister of Customs which appeared on the official file relat-mg to the subject-matter of the inquiry forwarded to the commission from Ottawa, through an oversight this letter was not made fin exhibit, but its contents so far as material were set out at pages 336, 337 and 338. The original, Mr. McCrossan states, has been returned to Mr. O Hara, the chief comptroller of Chinese immigration at Ottawa. The matter was speedily cleared up it being shown beyond peradventure that the allegations could T0ti be suPP<>rted by evidence of any kind (see .Judge Grant pages 335 to 363 inclusive, and McLean, pages 1579 to 1584).


James Davis Taylor: 
James Davis Taylor: possession of the government. In pursuit of his investigation, Inspector Foster had caused the removal of the intepreter Yip On, who had been time and time again reported to the government by its own officials as supposed to he guilty of frauds against the revenue in connection with the bringing in of Chinese. Inspector Foster had him superseded and another interpreter put on in his place. Yip On was suspended when Mr. Templeman appeared in Vancouver. The suspension took place on the 17th of September, 1910. It was speedily rumoured about Vancouver what the significance of the suspension was and what revelations must inevitably follow from the substitution of an honest interpreter for u dishonest one. Three days later Mr. Templeman appeared upon the scene. I take his movements as detailed in the evidence. It is not necessary for me to read that part of it, which is very long. Suffice it to say that he had a dinner at the Vancouver Club, and a subsequent conclave in a room with the chiefs of the local patronage committee in Vancouver, namely, Mr. Robert Kelly, Mr. George Macdonald, Mr. J. H. Senkler and others, these persons being amongst the persons indicated as accused in the letter of Judge Grant which I have read. _ These were the associates of the minister in British Columbia on this momentous occasion. After they had incubated in a private room at the club for a considerable time, there was produced a telegram, drafted by whom it is not stated, signed by whom it is not stated, but signed in fact with the name of W. Templeman, said to have been affixed to this telegram by Robert Kelly's typewriter.


William Templeman: Of course, that is all absurd. That does not appear in the evidence. I signed that telegram myself. There is no use of misrepresenting me.


James Davis Taylor: I am glad to hear from the Minister of Inland Revenue. I hope I shall often hear from him. I have in my hand the telegram itself, and it is precisely what I say and precisely contrary to what the minister has said.


William Templeman: As a matter of fact, I signed the telegram in lead pencil. Afterwards, after it was secured from the telegraph office, I obtained a copy of the telegram from the Trade and Oommeree Department in typewriting, but I signed the original in lead pencil.


James Davis Taylor: I have here the original telegram as sent with all of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company's office marks upon it-the filing marks, the number of the telegram, the red ink marks, the typewritten marks, every mark that the telegraph office puts on a telegram. This is indisputably the original

telegram which was filed in the office at Vancouver and transmitted to the Department of Trade and Commerce at Ottawa.


William Templeman: It cannot be the original, because I signed the original in lead pencil.


James Davis Taylor: There is an explanation. I said the original telegram sent. If a minister of a Crown goes into a private room in the Vancouver Club-


William Templeman: A dark room.


James Davis Taylor: A dark room if you like, with the leader of Tammany at Vancouver, and gives into that gentleman's possession a telegram to be taken away and copied and sent out at that gentleman's sweet will, he becomes responsible for the telegram delivered by his messenger to the telegraph office. On this occasion Robert Kelly appears to have been the chosen messenger of the Minister of Inland Revenue, and the telegram delivered at the telegraph office in pursuance of the authority given to him by the minister was this identical telegram which I have here.


William Templeman: There is no disputing the telegram. I am responsible for it, whether it was sent by myself or by another person. I signed the telegram. What my hon. friend has may be a copy sent by the telegraph office to the commissioner. I myself have a copy which I got from the Department of Trade and Commerce.


James Davis Taylor: I am glad the minister admits his responsibility for the telegram, although I do not see very well how he can evade it in view of the evidence. Just to make it perfectly plain, I will read the evidence of Mr. Robert Kelly.
I quote from page 3111 of the Evidence, question 3428:
Now there is a telegram on file, M'r. Kelly, purporting to be from Mr. Templeman to Sir Richard Cartwright, dated September 20, 1910, which I will read-do you know anything about that?
A. I guess I know something about them all, maybe. I think this telegram, the Hon. Wm. Templeman was asked to send it by Mr. Senkler, Mr. McDonald, myself and many others and was approved of by the meeting, and of course Mr. Templeman knew very little about the case although he went and inquired, and he was assured that this man was all right, and he had nothing against him from Mr. Poster.
Q. Was that sent from the meeting at the Vancouver Club, the dinner given by Mr. Glover?-A. We had dinner at the Vancouver Club with Mr. Glover and adjourned to a little room and discussed the matter.
Q. Who wqs at that discussion?-A. Myself, Mr. Senkler and M'r. McDonald, I think.
Q. And Mr. Sclater?-A. Yes, I believe so. Q. Mr. Duff Stewart?-A. I think he was, but I would not say positively, as I did not pay much attention, but I remember some remarks Mr. Senkler had made in reference to David Lew, that he was anything but what was right, and he fwas very strongly in favour that this telegram should be sent in time.
Q. And Mr. Templeman sent that after that discussion with you others at the Vancouver Club?-A. He certainly did, I don't know if Mr. Templeman sent it, but he signed it I presume.
Mr. Justice Murphy.-I think in justice to Mr. Templeman you ought to tell us what that discussion was that led up to the sending of a telegram, why was he asked by those people to send it?-A. Mr. Templeman was aware as I understood it or had a pretty good idea that there was a certain element in Ottawa trvdu" to get this man, David Law, put in the position of interpreter, and in order to do so they had to get Yip On suspended or dismissed, and Mr. Templeman after he wrote that telegram and before it was sent, I think, he went and made inquiries from Mr. Munro and went over in the auto to see Mr. Foster at the boarding house where be was stopping and Mr. Foster was in bed and Mr. Templeman told me he made an appointment to meet Mr. Foster and Mr. Foster assured him there was nothing against Yip On. and it seems to me that the Minister's name should not have been dragged into this thing the way it has.
Question 34300:
It was stated by Mr. McLean, Mr. Kelly, when he was on the stand, although to some extent it was outside the inquiry, since it has come out it was only fair that you should have an opportunity to give your explanation of his statement that you control Mr. Templeman, what have you to say about that?-A. I have a good deal to say about it. It is quite in accordance with what I expect from Mr. McLean. I do not control Mr. Templeman nor do I think any other man in Canada does, and as far as Mr. McLean is concerned he is the only man I know of who ever had any desire to control.
We are getting some inside history of these gentlemen who are all part of the happy family of Liberals, and who are complimenting each other about the distribution of the spoils of office. The examination proceeds:
Last year, I was in Ottawa and Mr Norman was there so much he had worn out his chair at the Russell House attending sessions and he stayed at home and sent his brother Hugh. I was in Ottawa when Mr. McLean came down. He was staying at the Russell House, also, and he came to me and said that he wanted to get a settlement with the government for this license they cancelled on him up in Dawson, and I asked him what was the amount he thought he should receive and he said that the amount they were looking for was approximately $350,000 and he wanted me to speak to the Minister and I 6add, all

right, I will speak to him and see what he has to say, and I met Mr. Templeman, and told him what Mr. McLean had said and I said if the government owed the McLeans any money why don't they pay them what they owe them and get rid of them; he said if the McLeans were only asking the government for $5 I would recommend the government not to pay it, as they had nothing against the government. If the McLeans think they have any claim against the government they can sue the government; and they did sue the government and the claim was thrown out.
Question 34301:
It was not thrown out, it was withdrawn. That is the case that was reported in the 'News-Advertiser' yesterday morning?-A. Yes, I presume that is the one.
Question 34302:
Who went with you to Mr. Foster's apartments after the Vancouver Club dinner and how dad you come to go to his apartments? -A. We went over in the auto.
Q. Who were writh you?-A. I was trying to think who it was that came with us. I think Dr. Munro went on ahead.
Then, in cross-examination by Mr. Gordon Grant, Exhibit 395, is shown. That, I take it, is the telegram that I referred to just now. The question is asked of Mr. Kelly:
Do you know who drafted that telegram for Hon. William Templeman?

A. I don't remember who drafted it, I know I did not.
Question 34330:
Do you know of any one being with the Hon. Mr. Templeman at the time it was drafted?-A. I could not tell you who drafted it, I don't remember.
Question 34331:
Do you know where that telegram 395 was typewritten?-A. This one here?
Yes?-A. No. I do not, I could not swear where it was typewritten, I do not know.
Q. Do you think from your office?

A. In all probability I should think that was where I would likely typewrite it.
That is the way Bob Kelly was likely to typewrite a telegram from the Minister of Inland Revenue to his colleagues, drafted in the Vancouver Club over night when Bob Kelly's office was closed so that there would be no usual and ordinary traffic from the club down to the office and back again to the telegraph office in the course of sending the message.
I notice that telegram was filed at 11 o'clock in the morning at the C.P.R. Telegraph office 11K; would that assist you in recollecting if you were down at your office or if you had been any other place that morning?-A. No, hut I might have written it the day before.
So Mr. Kelly writes the minister's telegrams, according to Mr. Kelly's statement. Mr. TAYLOR (New Westminster).
Q. But you think in your own office?-A. I think in all probability it was in my own office, but I don't remember, but I signed the telegram anyway no matter where it was typewritten.
Q. Was that telegram written for you and submitted for you to send?-A. No, it was not, I wrote that myself or had it written.


William Templeman: What telegram is that?


James Davis Taylor: The same telegram.


William Templeman: He did not send my telegram.


James Davis Taylor: That is what he says. I am reading from page 3121 of the evidence. I have read continuously since question 34,329:
Do you know who drafted that telegram for the Hon. Mr. Templeman?
Bob Kelly says:
I don't remember who drafted it. I know I did not.
Q. Do you know of any one being with the Hon. Mr. Templeman at the time it was drafted?-A. I could not tell you who drafted it. I don't remember.
Question 34339:
There are four telegrams here, one of which is signed by you, which is the one to the Hon. Charles Murphy, can you not recall anything more about that?-A. No, I don't remember.
Q. And you don't remember where it was typewritten? A. No.
Q. Do you remember what time of the day you signed it?-A. I do not.
Q. Do you remember if any person had anything to do with the framing of it?-A. I don't think they did, but I am not in a position to say as I don't remember.
Q. This telegram signed by Mr. Templeman which has not been marked as an Ex., yet:
' Most important that Yip On should be continued as Chinese interpreter, David Lew's claims should not be entertained.' Is that the telegram you identified as the one the Hon. VVm. Templeman sent from Vancouver Club? A. I think so.
Q. Is that it here?-A. Yes, that is it.
Q. That is the only telegram that has been produced by the Canadian Pacific Telegraph Company signed by Mr. Templeman, that is the only one you know of?-A. I think so.
Q. And you say that telegram was sent as the result of the discussion at the Club?-A. Yes.
Q. Will you explain to me, Mr. Kelly, as it is a fact, how that Templeman's telegram came to be typewritten by the same typewriter as your own?-A. As my own?
Q. Yes, it is a fact they are.-A. I don't know anything about where it was typewritten, but we discussed it and to the best of my knowledge it was written at the Vancouver Club in the strangers' room.
Q. Is it not a fact to your knowledge that the telegram bearing Mr. Templeman's signature was typewritten in your office before you

left there to go to the Vancouver Club that night?-A. It was not.
Q. It was not?-A. No.
Q. Did Mr. Templeman or any one take a draft of the telegram from the Vancouver Club to your office that night and have it typewritten, using your typewriter, or a typewriter in your office?-A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. Did any one of those gentlemen leave the Vancouver Club long enough to do that?-A. I could not tell you how long they left because they scattered around. I did not follow them. I was not in that business.
Q. How long did that discussion take at the Vancouver Club?-A. I could not tell you.
Q. How long before the telegram was sent to your recollection?-A. I could not tell you as I don't recollect.
Q. One or two hours after dinner had concluded?-A. I don't know, I suppose between one and two hours after.
Q. I understand you had dinner, starting at a quarter past seven, is that correct?-A. I don't know.
Q. That is what Mr. Glover said?-A. If he said it, it is right, I presume.
Q. Did you see that telegram after it had been completed for dispatching to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company?-A. I don't remember if I did or not.
Q. You will observe, Mr. Kelly, that Mr. Templeman has not signed that telegram?-A. This one here?
Q. Yes, that is a typewritten signature, Wm. Templeman, from the same typewriter that typewrote yours?-A. I suppose Mr. Templeman will be able to explain that when he comes. I know I did not sign Mr. Temple-man's name here.
Now, I think I have read enough to


William Templeman: The hon. member read evidence to the effect-I do not know who the witness was-that the telegram signed by me had been written by Mr. Kelly in his office, and he has now read evidence to the effect that the telegram was written in the Vancouver club. Of course I never read that evidence, but there seems to be a discrepancy which I cannot understand. I imagine there may have been two telegrams in question.


James Davis Taylor: I think the minister's brain must be getting befogged.


William Templeman: Very possibly, but ' Hansard ' will show I am right.


James Davis Taylor: I don't think they ever had Bob Kelly's typewriter in a room at the Vancouver Club. The original telegram procured from the Canadian Pacific Railway office was written on Bob Kelly's typewriter and Kelly himself admits it. He gives conflicting stories in his evidence as to when, how and where it was written, but cornered he admits it was written on his typewriter. The point I want to make is this I think the minister will admit it is a good one
that it is a most careless and reckless way of doing business for a minister of the Crown to permit a telegram to be sent on such an important matter of public interest as this was by a person held up to him by public rumour as likely to be a beneficiary of the frauds that were about to be exposed.


William Templeman: That is a very deliberate insinuation, and a very improper insinuation.
Mr.	TAYLOR	(New	Westminster).	I
would like to know what is improper about it?


William Templeman: That public opinion held Mr. Kelly up as likely to be a beneficiary of fraud. That is not true.
Mr.	TAYLOR	(New	Westminster).	I	.
cannot say with certainty as to what is held up to the Minister of Inland Revenue as I have no knowledge of his inner conscience, and private acts, but I can say from my own knowledge that Mr. Kelly is held up, if not to the minister, to all the rest of the community as the chief beneficiary of what in vulgar parlance is called the graft upon the government at Vancouver. That is a matter of public knowledge, discussed by Robert Kelly himself in his evidence, and accepted by him as being common property. It seems incredible that when all the rest of the world knows it, and when Mr. Kelly admits it, that the minister from British Columbia after all his intimate relations with Mr. Kelly should never have heard it. Here we have an interpreter .suspended to make possible the discovery of the frauds; suspended on evidence so substantial that the very thing predicted turned out, and on this ship from which he was excluded they discovered over twenty bogus merchants, each of them having a letter to Yip On, the suspended interpreter, and a bag of gold to be given to him. All these were exposed as frauds by the suspension of this interpreter, and yet the minister from British Columbia, who should have been the first to. put a stop to these frauds, which according to public rumour had been going on then for three years, and perhaps longer, allowed Bob Kelly to send this telegram:
Most important that Yip On shall be continued as Chinese interpreter.
Most important to whom? Not to the public, because the public were making $500 a head, out of these twenty men coming in at that moment, and which they would not have made had it not been for the suspension of Yip On.


William Templeman: My hon. friend is quoting in a very untruthful way; untruthful in respect to the impression created.

He says' that certain evidence had been given incriminating Yip On, with respect to handling a certain amount of money, and I then recommended that he be reinstated. One event came after the other; my hon. friend is misconstruing it.


James Davis Taylor: _ 1 am sorry to have to contradict the minister so often, but he is absolutely wrong.


William Templeman: I am absolutely right.


James Davis Taylor: Absolutely wrong. His own evidence give's as a reason-I was going to say an excuse, but I do not want to use hard language as the minister does-his own evidence gives as a reason for sending this telegram,, that the Poster inquiry in connection with Yip On, had at this stage been completed.


William Templeman: Quite true.


James Davis Taylor: Four days after that date, when he had time to reflect, he wrote to his colleague the right hon. Sir Richard Cartwright, Minister of Trade and Commerce as follows;
.	Victoria, B.C., Sept. 24, 1910.


The Right Hon.   S@: Cartwright, G.C.M.G.,
Minister of Trade and Commerce,
Ottawa.
My dear Sir Richard;
I notice in the press to-day that you have suspended Bowell for reinstating Yip'On without instructions. Bowell, having so acted, is deserving of suspension.
I wired you from Vancouver to the effect that Yip On should be reinstated and that the acting interpreter should not be retained. I did this after being given all the information obtainable. I subsequently had a conversation with Mr. Poster and the information he gave me sustained my view that it would be in the interest of the department in getting to the bottom of the alleged irregularities if Yip On were reinstated, the investigation to he continued both here and at Hong Kong.
I am advised that the Chinese acting interpreter, while Yip On is under suspension, is one of the crookedest in Vancouver.
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) W. TEMPLEMAN.
As to the question of dates and the statement of the hon. minister just now , that there was no information disclosed as to Yip On's complicity when he sent these telegrams and that the disclosure came subsequent to the telegrams, I propose to read one or two telegrams which will establish the facts. I have before me exhibit No. 404, a telegram dated Ottawa, Sept. 14, 1910^sjx days before the minister's telegram:
Sherwood to Poster.
Ottawa, Sept. 14th., 1910.
Confidential.
Instruct Customs Officers Newbury and i Bowell to relieve Mong Kow and Yip On from !


William Templeman: duty temporarily prior to arrival Empress of India pending special investigation and then proceed as suggested in your letter September seventh provided Lew will act in capacity indicated. Special care must be taken to prevent all communication with Chinese after arrival steamship at Victoria. Bowell and Newbury will be instructed by Chief Controller. Chinese to accept instructions from you.
Then on September 17th, I have a memo to the deputy minister of Trade and Commerce, reading as follows:
_ Following telegram was received by me at six o'clock last evening, "Yip On, Lew and I leaving to meet 'Empress'.
(Signed) A. P. Sherwood,
Commissioner of Police.
Exhibit No. 146 is a telegram dated Vancouver, September 20, 1910, which reads as follows:
To Sir Richard Cartwright, Ottawa

Most important that Yip On should be continued as Chinese interpreter. David Lew's claim should not be entertained. Friends here strongly recommend Yip On.


W. TEMPLEMAN.
[Stage Direction]
In. regard to the dispute between the hon. minister and myself, I think I have proved the case absolutely. On the 20th of September we have an official report from Foster to Sherwood, his chief, that the discovery was made of Yip On's rascality at Victoria. That was no matter of secrecy. It was on the tongue of every employee in the customs service, and they were making a regular hubbub in Vancouver. Is it conceivable that these gentlemen, the heads of the patronage committee in Vancouver, should be closeted with the hon. minister on such serious business, on the night of the 20th September, and have no knowledge of a matter officially communicated from Vancouver that very day by Foster to his chief, Sherwood? I say the evidence is indisputable that these gentlemen knew all about the discovery of Yip On's complicity in this transaction befote the date of this telegram. It is impossible that it should be otherwise. Of course, I cannot say that the hon. minister knew, but I go back to my former premises that it is an act of the most gross impropriety, in a matter so grave as this, for him to allow his name to be used, and telegrams to be sent in his name by any person whatever, least of all by persons bearing the character of these men with respect to these matters in Vancouver.
Apparently the patronage committee at Vancouver got very busy, as will appear from the following:
Sept. 23, 1910.
To Sir Richard Cartwright, Ottawa-
Collector Bowell should be reinstated. Our

friends unanimous for Yip On. Think dept, acting unwisely.

[Stage Direction]
Pres. Lib. Assn.
It is only fair to Mr. Senkler to tell the House that he says he never signed that telegram.
On September 24th we have another telegram to the Hon. Charles Murphy, Ottawa, reading as follows:
Friends here very indignant way O'Hara ignoring our recommendations. Yip On should be reinstated. If not ask our association for recommendation. Association wired Sir Wilfrid.

[Stage Direction]
Here is another one dated September 24th, to the Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Ottawa:
Recommendation of our minister and Liberals for re-instatement of Yip On should be carried out. Hip On lias support of Immigration and Customs officials. Complaints against Yip On not sustained. Our friends indignant at O'Hara's drastic action.

[Stage Direction]
For Liberal Association.
This telegram is said to be another forgery. That the telegram came from the Liberal executive at Vancouver is not disputed, but Mr. Senkler says that they had no right to sign his name to it.
Robert Laird Borden: Is any reason given as to why Yip On should be put back into the service?


James Davis Taylor: No reason whatever is stated as to why he should be put back. There was a reason stated why Lew should not be continued as interpreter, and that was because all these gentlemen represent him to Ottawa as being a person of bad character. In the light of the revelations respecting Yip On, it seems to me their judgment is somewhat defective. In any event the fact remains that it was most important that Yip On should be reinstated in the public service, notwithstanding the fact that he had been caught red-handed in this rascality at Victoria. It is a peculiar thing that we have the hon. minister from British Columbia (Mr. Templeman) lending himself to the suggestion.


Robert Laird Borden: When was the first information that documents incriminating Yip On were in the possession of the government, before or after this?


James Davis Taylor: Before this. The explosion at Victoria took place on the 18th September, when the new interpreter and inspector went on the ship and discovered these incriminating documents. On his return to Vancouver two days after the discovery he made his official report. This is where our friend Bob
Kelly comes in. He engaged in the attempt to paralyse the inspector by giving him as an associate the man primarily responsible for the frauds, and who, of course, would prevent him from making any further discovery.
We had an argument in this House the other day as to whether or not the minister sent a telegram asking for the discontinuance of the investigation. The argument was invited by himself, because when In arose, it seems to me with a guilty conscience, he put these words in my mouth, when as a matter of fact I had not said anything of the kind. What I had said was that the minister sent a deterrent telegram to the department at Ottawa. He immediately rose to say it was absolutely untrue that he had sent any telegram asking for the stopping of the investigation. I ask any reasonable man whether that is not playing upon words, whether it can be dignified by any better term than quibbling, when a minister and his associates sent telegrams which in effect would stop any effective investigation although in express terms they did not say so, to make the bald denial in the Blouse that they ever sent any telegram advising the stopping of the investigation. This would have been the wrong term to use in any event because according to the minister himself, Inspector Foster had completed his investigation; having obtained sufficient evidence to justify the further inquiry, which, at Mr. Foster's request, was held by this Royal Commission. Yet we find the minister asking to have Yip On reinstated to continue for seven years more the irregularities which ne and his associates had carried on for seven years unchecked. With further reference to whether or not this had the effect of stopping the investigation I would like to read to the minister the evidence of one of his friends.


William Templeman: The hon. member has denied that he had suggested that 1 had used any influence to stop the investigation. The hon. gentleman said:
This shows how carefully the ministers of the Crown, under this government, administer their departments, when a minister will deliberately advise his colleagues to stop investigation into a fraud of this kind.
That is what I denied.


James Davis Taylor: I think the minister did advise, in effect, the stopping of the investigation. I will read from his friend, Harry Senkler, to show that he, too, thought he advised his colleagues to stop the investigation and I could read other evidence to show that that belief was wide spread.


William Templeman: Read it all.


James Davis Taylor: The evidence here would take 200 hours to read.


William Templeman: Then do not, make insinuations.


James Davis Taylor: I am not making insinuations; I am making direct statements. Mr. Senkler, at page 366 of the evidence, question 2895, said:
Q. Do you, of your own knowledge, or through your association with members of the Liberal party in this city, know or believe that there are any men profiting; by graft through Chinese immigration frauds?- A. I do not believe there is any as far as the Liberal Association or its members are concerned. From what appears in the papers it may be there is money beihg made out of this Chinese business, but if so it has been done by people who had no connection with the Liberal Association, either personally or any other way.
Q. And it has been done in such a way that the Liberal Association has known aiotliing about it?-A. Then when this matter first came up the matter of the investigation there, when, I think you, Mr. Grant, and Mr. Farris acted as counsel, I was away and while I was away there was one telegram sent in my name by some individual members of the committee to Ottawa which was, I think, that this investigation should not go on.
There was the interpretation of a telegram identical in terms with that of the minister, translated by the man in whose name it was sent ' which was, I think, that this investigation should not go on.' Now, I ask the House whether I am justified in forming the imprsssion formed by the very gentleman in whose name the deterrent telegram was sent.


Robert Laird Borden: What was the reason suggested why the investigation should not go on?


James Davis Taylor: There was no reason suggested, simply an urgent request that Yip On should be reinstated as interpreter.
If there is one member of this House, and I am glad there is one, who comes out of this business creditably, so far as his personal actions are concerned, that member is the first minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). He turned a deaf ear to all the remonstrances of all his influential friends on the coast. I shall read some correspondence with him.
(Private.)
Prime Minister's Office, Ottawa,
October, 3, 1910.
My Dear Senkler,-I write you with reference to the Chinese frauds, as to which you have telegraphed me. On receipt of your telegram I communicated at once with the Department of Trade and Commerce and there found that there was a very strong prima facie case against the Chinese interpreter, and that he had been properly suspended. I Mr. TEMPLEMAN.
cannot, therefore, understand why these frauds should not be exposed. The public are so keen about this Oriental business that we will put ourselves in very serious trouble if we were to create the impression that we are not doing our full duty to have the law faithfully carried out. If you have any reason to think otherwise,, please write to me and give me your full views.
Let me avail myself of this opportunity to again offer you my sincere thanks for the great assistance which you gave me and my friends in our last visit to British Columbia.
Believe me, ever,
My dear Senkler,
Yours very sincerely, WILFRID LAURIER,
J. H. Senkler, Esq., K. C.,
Vancouver, B.C.
While the minister from British Columbia, on the ground /at Vancouver, had made most diligent inquiry as he said, and had found no reason why Yip On should not be reinstated, and took the trouble to authorize -that telegram, the first minister, 3,000 miles away, had found that there was a very strong prima facie case against the Chinese interpreter, and that he had been properly suspended.
The following is from Mr. Senkler:
(Personal.)
October 8, 1910.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier,
Ottawa, Ontario.
My Dear Sir Wilfrid,-I have your telegram of the 26th of September, which reads as follows:
' Sorry cannot agree with you. Have looked into matter and prima facie case against Yip On so strong as to warrant suspension, matter will be looked into again but meantime suspension must be maintained.'
That was Sir Wilfrid's attitude from the beginning:
I presume that this was in answer to a telegram which was sent to you in my name by the executive of the association on the 23rd of the same month. It also seems that a further telegram was sent by the committee in my name on the 24th of September, but whether it was sent to yourself or to Sir Richard Cartwright, I have not been able to find out. As a matter of fact, I think the committee were wrong in sending a telegram of that kind in my name in my absence. It they thought so strongly on the matter as they apparently did, they should have sent it in the name of the secretary, or vice-president, or acting chairman. However that may be, I desire to write you in connection with mv ideas thereon.
I personally do not know very much about the former interpreter for the government, Yip On. He has been a witness in one or two matters that I have been connected with, but otherwise I know nothing about him. Chinese interpreters, as well as most others of the same nationality are, in my opinion, proverbially dishonest and need a great deal of watching, and if it were at all possible to obtain a Chinese interpreter who is not a Chinaman, it would be infinitely preferable to one of the Chinese race.

(Paragraph left out.)
I wish also to draw your attention to the fact that a message came to the press of this city from Ottawa, that the Liberal committee of this city Mr. Ralph Smith and Mr. Templeman were all endeavouring to stop the investigation which was started in connection with the immigration of Chinese. I, of course, cannot tell you how this dispatch ever came to be sent, but it is entirely^wrong so far as our committee, at any rate, is concerned. When I returned home and found what had been done I called a further meeting of the committee, and every man of the committee agreed that a thorough investigation into this matter should be taken, and, when I was approached personally by the press in connection with it, I told them so, and had the dispatch from Ottawa flatly contradicted.
I am to-day writing you in answer to your letter of the 12th of September.
Yours very truly.
This is not signed, but it is evidently the duplicate copy of Mr. Senkler's letter. In passing I may mention that this is one of the gentlemen said to have been in the room in the Vancouver Club when the Templeman telegram was sent.
Now we will return to the commissioner. He gives a long inner history of the proceedings taken to ensure exnosur" ' these frauds. On page 30 of his report he says:
Concurrently with these wires, however

That is, the wires to Ottawa announcing
the discoveries



events [DOT] were happening at the coast
which gave Messrs. Mclnnes and Lew considerable trouble and out of which grew the charges against the lion. Mr. Templeman, and the members of the Liberal executive hereinbefore outlined. Some inkling of Mr. Mclnnes' activities leaked out in Vancouver, and Mr. R. Kelly heard of them. His information was that Mr. Mc-Innes was endeavouring to oust Yip On for the purpose of installing D. Lew in his place, and that the charge was desired not from any desire to improve the service, but for the personal benefit of those seeking to brim' it about. (See Kelly, p. 3108, q. 34275-6, and p. 3133, q. 34427-32.) To test Mr. Kelly's candour on this matter, Mr. Grant was specifically requested by the commission to cross-examine in reference thereto. (See Kelly, p. 3144, q.
34504)	. The result is set out at pp. 3145, q.
34505)	, and shows, that Mr. Kelly believed what he alleged.
It was well known in Vancouver that there was great rivalry between the Canadian Pa-cifio railway steamship line and the Blue Funnel line to secure the Chinese passenger traffic. It was known also that Yip On's uncle was the Canadian Pacific railway agent for Chinese passenger traffic in Vancouver, and that Sam Kee, a friend of Mr. Lpw, acted in a similar capacity for the Blue Funnel line. As will be seen later, the interpreter could do a great deal in the way of influencing the passenger traffic to one'of the other line by making entrance of incoming Chinese difficult or easy at his pleasure. Mr. Kelly from the information lie had of the 328i
activities of Mr. Lew, believed his object was to secure control of the post of interpreter for the "benefit of the Blue Funnel line (see Kelly, 3134, q. 34429-31), and (p. 3145, q. 34,507-9, and p. 3146, q. 34509-10) and from other information he had, he believed Mr. Mclnnes was the man behind the whole investigation from the start, and that Mr. Mclnnes had brought it about and was active in it, not for any improvement in the public service, but to further his personal interests (p. 3110, q. 34276, and p. 3145, q. 34508).
These two beliefs actuated Mr. Kelly in what he did. The motive he attributed to Mr. Lew was not proven before the commission, but sufficient was proven to indicate that Mr. Lew had his eye on the position of interpreter.
Good Mr. Kelly-Mr. Kelly, the saviour of his country, the leader of Tammany, so reformed that he would foil this great evil, would nersuade the minister to send telegrams in his name, and would send wild expostulations in his own name, because he thought some person had some personal end to serve by his recommendations to the government! Is there anybody in Vancouver except this commissioner who would write in that way of Mr. Kelly? Can we attribute this to anything except the inherent good nature of one Irishman, Denny Murphy, dealing with another Irishman. Bob Kelly? I do not think this has been taken anywhere for anything but a joke. I think again the commissioner has been overwhelmed by the political asssociations connected with his appointment. Here is what he says of another hero:
Just at this juncture Mr. Templeman came to Vancouver, and at a dinner at the Vancouver Club, on the evening of either September 20th or September 21st, probably September 20th, 1910, met Messrs. Kelly, Senkler, McDonald and others. After dinner he went in'o a room with the three named. He was informed by them that Yip On had been suspended, and that Mr. Lew, who he was told was crooked, was acting in his place, and was whollv unfit for such a position of trust, because of his undesirable character. Further that the investigation was practically over, and that nothing in particular had been elicited against Yip On. (Templeman. p. 3436 and 3437). As to this last statement, whilst as will be seen, Mr. Foster had failed to get any legal evidence against Yip On, he did have in his hands moral proof, if credited, of his complicity in the frauds. The parties interviewing the minister had not approached Mr. Foster to ascertain what he had because of their belief, justified in the opinion of the commission, that he was being used to promote the Mclnnes' intrigue. (Kelly a. 3144, q. 34502-06). Instead they had inter-[DOT]iewed Mr. Bowell, comptroller, and Colonel Worsnop, surveyor of the port of Vancouver, and Dr. Munro, medical inspector, who all assured them of their thorough belief in Yip On's honesty. (Kelly, p. 3130, q. 31394-7). The fact, however, that Mr. Foster had not been seen must have been told to the minister by his interviewers, for some of them as will

be seen, went with him very shortly after the interview, when he set out to ascertain what Mr. Poster really had discovered. (Glover, p. 2479 at top, and Templeman, p. 3448, q. 36,557,-60.
I would like to contrast that with the minister's statement a little while ago that I had misplaced the date-that at that time nothing had been discovered; that ne had sent his telegram first and the discovery had come afterwards. I have proved conclusively by the evidence that the minister was wrong, and I have now the same statement by Commissioner Murphy himself, that Mr. Templeman, after hearing these revelations in the private room at the club, said he had set out to ascertain what really Mr. Foster had discovered-a wise precaution, but which had no effect from the fact that before he set out to see what had leaked out he sent the message to his colleagues instructing them what must be done, what was most impoitant in the interest of some person not yet disclosed.
Whilst there is no direct evidence that Hon. Mr Templeman was told of the suspicions entertained against Mr. Mclnnes, it would seem that he was, from Mr. Kelly's evidence (page 3113, q. 34287) and from the minister's statement that the fear expressed to him as a reason for asking prompt action on his part was that Mr. Lew's permanent appointment to the interpretership was then imminent at Ottawa (Mr. Templeman, page 3437, q. 36533). Because of this fear, Hon. Mr. Templeman sent a wire (ex. 417) to Sir Richard Cartwright recommending the reinstatement of Yip On (Mr. Templeman, page 3438 at top page).
I was going to refer to some of the criti-ism of Mr. Foster by the commissioner, but first must read a letter from the police inspector, found on page 34 of the evidence. Mr. Foster's letter throws so much light on the inner history of the investigation that, in so far as it refers to Chinese matters, it is here set out verbatim.
Ottawa, November 10, 1910.
Dear Friend Lew,-Your letter of November 2 received to-day. I showed it to Sherwood and he had a copy made and he took it to O'Hara. I was just speaking to O'Hara for a few minutes. He was greatly pleased with our work, he told me there was going to be a Royal Commission appointed sure. I had a talk with T. McL, he states you are not the only target that they are firing at from Vancouver, for he has had to stand some pretty hot shots; he says he had the necessary papers to prove them liars, they had him before the Premier twice. Sherwood said when I was talking to him the day I got home that O'Hara wanted to have a talk with me, and he would let me know when he would see me, but so far I have heard nothing about him meeting me. They seem to be leaving everything to the commission. I was talking to Tom again to-day, and he stated that he had a talk with O'H. yesterday, but Tom is Mr. TEMPLEMAN.
afraid Templeman will stop the Royal Commission when he returns from the west, if he can, but X think Temp, say is pretty small or in other words he is a lightweight in this case and particularly with O'Hara now since he has the record of your successor, who is Temple-man's appointment. I am returning card, Sher. wood said it was not necessary to have a writing expert compare the writing for O'Hara, and he also was convinced what you stated was correct. Sherwood also stated Canadian Pacific railway were going to look fully into your case,. You seem to have Sherwood and O Hara on your side now, hut you know you are still in the hands of the politicians.
I was summoned from Edmonton to Chicago the first of November as fingerprint expert to give evidence at a murder trial. I was able to swear positively to the prints, I was there for two days, but I left as soon as I got off the stand an'd have not heard if the accused was found guilty or not.
Yours respectfully,
E. Foster.
So not only was the opinion prevalent in Vancouver that there was an attempt to stop this investigation, but in the corridors of the departmental buildings at Ottawa the same story was prevalent. Now the judge proceeds to apologize for Mr. Templeman, page 35:
Pursuant to appointment, the minister saw Mr. Foster on the morning of the 21st and heard from him what progress he had made. Mr. Foster informed Hon. Mr. Templeman that he had to get any legal evidence incriminating Yip On, but had acquired knowledge of facts that looked very suspicious. Hon. Mr. Templeman told Mr. Foster of the wire he had sent, and it was agreed the investigation should go on, Mr. Foster suggesting the advisability of sending a secret service man to China. The minister pointed out that it would be well to re-instate Yip On, thus putting him off his guard if guilty, and in the meantime carry on the proposed secret investigation. To this Mr. Foster assented, and with this end in view, the minister's wire was allowed to stand. The interview closed by the minister promising to assist Mr. Foster in every way. (Templeman, page 3439, and 3440.)
This is the judge's report on Mr. Templeman. It shows nothing short of Machiae-vellian cunning on the part of the Minister of Inland Revenue, in proposing to deceive the wilely Chinaman into thinking that he really was not suspected by the subtle device of reappointing him to the office he had abused. There has been nothing furnished by the minister in this House that would have led us to suspect the possession by the minister of this marvellous cunning or ability to outwit the Chinese sharper, that has been discovered in this matter by this admiring judge. I think we should take off our hats to Mr. Commissioner Murphy. Now, the evidence at this stage deals with the appointment of counsel to assist Mr. Foster, if perchance he should be able to start prosecution against Yip On. This is important

as	showing that, while Commissioner Murphy holds Gordon Grant up to public scorn as a person against whom he would, if he could, direct criminal proceedings because of his part in this investigation, as one who should not in decency accept ia retainer in the matter yet we find this same young man-1 have no knowledge of his 'qualification for the duties assigned to him, and have to take the estimate given of him by these gentlemen on one side and the other-this young man was at this very time appointed one of the government's counsel to assist Mr. Foster, a fact to which I direct the minister's attention, because if he has the character suggested by Commissioner Murphy, it is most improper that the government should so recklessly appoint him to a position of trust and responsibility in connection with the prosecution of frauds of this kind.
If he does not deserve Commissioner Murphy's condemnation, if his character is gratuitously taken away from him, what are we to think of the commissioner and of the injustice he has inflicted upon this gentleman in his desire to save the skins of other men? I would like the minister to consider that and to make some explanation to this House how he reconciles appo nting Mr. Gordon Grant to a position of responsibility representing the government at Vancouver with the wholesale condemnation pronounced by this judge. I do not know whether this extraordinary occurrence is an outgrowth of the system at Vancouver, but I think we are entitled to some asissurance that more attention will be paid to the recommendations of this patronage committee so that estimates so contradictory as this cannot be made within one month by the same government official. We get a sidelight on the lack of confidence that some of his colleagues had in the Minister of Inland Revenue. The report proceeds:
On September 30th, 1910, Col. Worsnop, who was to make the investigation of his own volition, he swears, (Worsnop, p. 400), and I see no reason to disbelieve him, wired asking that Mr. Senkler be appointed counsel. His reason was that he was about to preside over the official inquiry as to the status of the passport men, and had known Mr. Senkler many years, who had not only advised him in his official capacity, but was also his personal solicitor. Knowing the importance of the task he was about to undertake, he desired Mr. Senkler's assistance owing to his confidence in that gentleman as a legal adviser (Worsnop), p. 400;. Mr. O'Hara replied that Mr. Senkler was on record as opposing the action of the department (Ex. 36).
Apparently, Mr. Mclnnes had some difficulty in having Col. Worsnop's application turned diown, for on October 1,
1910, he wired Grant (Ex. 242) as follows-in cipher, which I translate:
Ottawa, October 1, 1910.
Gordon Grant,
Barrister,
William Building,
Vancouver, B.C.
Private.
Worsnop asked O'Hara retain regular departmental counsel. O'Hara refused. Temple-man and Murphy insisted but First Minister sustained O'Hara. Worsnop instructed prevent Chinese Consul privately interviewing Chinese. Tell ' Ceder ' keep eye on this. Also continue tea trail. Hunter's authority over Worsnop confirmed this morning.


McINNES.
[Stage Direction]
Here we have the minister from British Columbia endeavouring to have appointed as counsel a gentleman who had sat with him in that dark room at the club.
William Templeman: Whose letter is that?


James Davis Taylor: That is a telegram from Mr. Mclnnes. [DOT]


William Templeman: Of course, that statement is a deliberate untruth.


James Davis Taylor: I take the minister's word for it, but I think I have something under my hand dealing with it.


William Templeman: I never tried to get anybody appointed.


James Davis Taylor: These two gentlemen are prominent members of the Liberal party; far be it from me to judge between them. Mr. Mclnnes there says that Templeman tried to have this gentleman, who wished to have the thing hushed up, appointed as counsel. Templeman says that Mclnnes' statement is untrue. 1 leave it to themselves to settle. He followed this by a detailed statement by letter of his doings (Ex. 276). The document will repay perusal:	i
Private.
October 1, 1910.
Gordon Grant, Esq.,
Barrister, Vancouver, B.C.
Re Chinese affair.
Dear Sir,-I practically staked my reputation with the powers that be in making good provided I was given a free hand, and my suggestions followed.. They have not gone back on me.
I call the minister's attention to the fact that this gentleman whom he so lightly reviled in the House just now is the personal friend and confidant of the First Minister, the private adviser of the First Minister, and the right hon. gentleman's confidence in him is shown in the correspondence a number of times. This confidant of the First Minister writes to Gordon Grant of Vancouver:

-and am confident now will back me to a finish-but the position has been fierce. This very morning the Secretary of State sent word to O'Hara to cancel the appointment of yourself and Ferris and appoint Senkler in your places. O'Hara refused and appeal was made to the Premier. I wired you the result half an hour ago. This is a big chance for Ferris and yourself, Gordon-a keen interest is being iaken over here in the matter especially in view of the stand taken by Tem-pleman, Ralph Smith, Senkler and the Liberal executive on behalf of the accused and against the investigators.
That is a very definite statement.


William Templeman: That is also untrue.


James Davis Taylor: The statement is made by the confidential friend and adviser of the First Minister himself. I would like if the First Minister had been present to hear his colleague denounce his private adviser in this way. The suggestion of a royal commission came on October 12. as far as I can find out, and not from those quarters in Vancouver that professes to be so anxious to have an investigation, but from Inspector Foster himself. There seems to have been no action taken until a letter of October 24, written by Judge Grant, another good Liberal, was delivered to the government. Here is another quotation from the judge's report, showing that he had an extraordinary view of some of the circumstances to which he referred. He says on page 48:
The whole plan having thus come to naught, Messrs. Grant and Lew, associates of Mr. Mc-Innes, determined to make things as interesting as possible before the commission for the minister, and such members of the Liberal executive as were known to be his strong supporters, and personal friends.
The judge indulges in the extraordinary course of supplying motives for his witnesses. He does not adduce any evidence in support of it, but he supplied the evidence gratuitously out of his own consciousness, and further proceeds:
In justice to Mr. Mclnnes it must be said that there is nothing on the. record to show that he was a party 'to this. He, indeed, was unwilling to appear at the hearings at all and wired the commissioner that he had no direct knowledge that would throw light on the subject of the inquiry (Mclnnes, page 1712, q 13631, and exhibit 235). The charges were accordingly made and the telegrams quoted as proof. In the light of all the foregoing the commission finds, not only that the charges were entirely without foundation, but that the sending of the telegrams were -very much in the public interest.
That is a recommendation which I think must stigmatize this report as hopelessly biased. I do not care who makes the report; any commissioner who will find that the sending of a telegram for the reinstate-Mr. TAYLOE (New Westminster).
ment of Yip On as interpreter after he has been shown to have been looting the treasury for seven years-and this recommendation on the very eve of Yip On becoming a fugitive from justice, and in face of the commissioner's own well brought out statement as to on what grounds Yip On should be prosecuted-the fact that he should report that the sending of these telegrams was in the public interest, passes my comprehension.


Robert Laird Borden: Does he mean that Yip On ought to have been reinstated?


James Davis Taylor: I ,dq not see how it could mean anything else but that Yip On should have been restored to the public service. He says that the commission find not only that the charges were without foundation, but that the sending of the telegrams was very much in the public interest. The telegrams were that Yip On should be reinstated, that the party friends wanted this, and that the Liberals were indignant at the drastic action of O'Hara.


Robert Laird Borden: Was there not the most positive evidence in the possession of the government at that time that Yip On was guilty of these frauds? -


James Davis Taylor: Why. yes, this very judge who says it was in the public interest to send the telegram that Yip On should be reinstated, makes this very report on Yip On. I think I am justified in reading this whole report in view of the very extraordinary finding.
First.-Yip On and Yip Sue Poy are partners in a mercantile business at Vancouver.
This fact was admitted by Yip On before the inquiry. The first question to be considered is whether evidence given by Yip On at the commission can be used against him at the trial. Immunity was offered him as to such evidence, but his counsel declined to accept it, stating that to do so would weaken his position. His counsel, however, intimated that such evidence could not, be used against Yip On, even after such offer of immunity had been made was rejected.
If it is concluded that such evidence cannot be used, then proof of the partnership can doubtless be obtained obiter.
Second.-Yip On was the Chinese interpreter at Vancouver, from 1902 to 1910.
This fact will be easily proven by the customs officials.
Third.-During Yip On's term of service as interpreter, Chinese who were not merchants, were passed through the customs as merchants exempts. Their real status was known to Yip On, and he was acting as interpreter when they entered as such exempts.
These facts can be proven by the evidence of Fung Chang Ning, p. 3027, et seq., and by the evidence of Yip Dit Chor, p. 2340, et seq., and of Yung Jem Sun, p. 2347, et seq. The

evidence of the two last is unsatisfactory as there was a night's interval between their evidence in chief and their cross-examination and they, to a large extent, then denied what they had stated in chief. However, doubtless leave to cross-examine them as hostile could be obtained.
It is noted that all these men entered Canada in 1907, and therefore the limitation provisions would probably apply as to any prosecution under the Act itseif. Mr. McCros-san suggests such prosecution might be laid under section 573 of the Criminal Code.
Fourth.-Great numbers of Chinese entered Canada at Vancouver as merchants exempts.
This can be proven from the records.
Fifth.-A private investigation into Chinese matters was started in August, 1907, at Vancouver. Can be proved by Mr. Foster.
Sixth.-On September 3rd, 1910, a warning cable (Ex. 60) was sent from Vancouver to Hong Kong.
This can be proved by the telegraph staff.
Seventh.-Yip On admitted in the box that Ex. 63 was in his hand-writing. He also wrote several specimens by direction of counsel for the government when in the box. Messrs. Sproat and Cunningham, handwriting experts, using Ex. 60, and the specimens written in court as a basis of comparison, expressed the opinion that the sender's address on the back of Ex. 60 (which is unsigned) was that of Yip On. This signature is Yip On's firm name and address.
Eighth.-On September 6th, 1910, three warning cables, Ex. 52, 53 and 13 a, all signed Himg Sam, were sent to various parties in Hong Kong.
Can be proven by telegraph staff.
Ninth.-Hing Sam is one of three names borne by Yip On.
Can be proven by his admission in the box, if admissible. If not, possibly evidence may be obtained in Chinatown, Vancouver.
Tenth.-Handwriting experts Sproat and Cunningham, using the same basis of comparison, declared this signature to be Yip On's handwriting. If admission of Ex 60 and specimen made by Yip On are not admissible, difficulty will probably be experienced in getting many specimens of Yip On's writing to use for purposes of comparison at a criminal trial. However, two copies of his firm signature written by himself as given to a bank, can be proven by the bank manager and may serve the experts as well.
Eleventh.-Letters addressed to Yip On as Hing Sam were intercepted on a vessel, ' Empress of India,' on October 7th, 1910, which letters quoted verbatim one cable sent on September 6th, 1910, and indicated fully the nature of the fraud being perpetrated. (Ex. 03 and 94.) Translations of all cables and letters can be had by reference to the commission report.
The rest of the character of this young gentleman, who the commissioner thinks should be reinstated in accordance with . the terms of the telegram, I will give after the dinner hour.
At 6 o'clock, the House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


James Davis Taylor: When the House rose at six o'clock, I was quoting 'Murphy on Murphy ' that is Commissioner Murphy's summary of the evidence adduced against Yip On and his confederates, the two men whom he now reports it would have been in the public interest to have retained in the public service as recommended by the telegrams of the hon. minister from British Columbia (Mr. Temple-man), and of Mr. Robert Kelly and his associates at Vancouver.
This report was made for the information of the hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) and was intended to help the hon. minister in arriving at a decision as to whether or not he would prosecute the parties. I will continue reading the summary :
Twelfth.-
These letters hear the signature of Yip Get Woon and the stamp of Nam Mow. agents for Yip On in China. This fact can he proven by Yip Sue Poy and by Yip On's admissions is receivable.
None of the cables of September 6th, 1910, are addressed to Nam Mow, but one is addressed to Yip Get Woon, who is reputed to be Nam Mow's manager.
This can be proven as current report by Lee Mon Kow. No more definite proof is Obtainable-
Thirteenth.-
Ex. 337, from Westminster to Hong Kong, addressed "Conclusion", informing him of the fact of Yip On's suspension, and Ex. 330, detailing all steps in connection with the investigation were sent by Yip Sue Poy, Yip On's partner. This can be proven by the operator who received them.
Fourteenth.-
Several other cables, as to which see report of the Commisssion, all dealing with passports, and the investigation can be proven as probably sent by Yip Sne Poy.
(See Wilson's evidence, n. 2192). Translations of all these cables will be found in the main report.
Fifteenth.-	.
On the first boat intercepted (The China, September 17th, 1910) a number of suspicious letters were taken. One in particular directly implicating Yip On. (See main report).
The defence likely to be set up is also dealt with in the main report. In the opinion
f the Commission if Yip On is put upon his
lefence he will be convicted. He certainly
in + n	VinV T1 fl fnA
__111 rt 1 4" ll P

does its duty.
If these facts do not justify the prosecution of Yip Sue Poy, he might possibly be convicted of perjury, if that crime can be committed before such a forum as the Commission was.
He swore positively that he did not send Ex. 337 and 330. The only corroboration of the operator's evidence that he did send these cables would he the evidence of handwriting experts using specimens written by Yip hue Poy, whilst in the box by direction of the

Government Council that these messages are in Yip Sue Poy's handwriting.
If a prosecution is decide! upon, Mr. McCrossan should be employed to conduct it rs for any other counsel to familiarize himself with all the details necessary would he a herculean task.
(Signed) D. MURPHY,
'	' Commissioner.
You will recognize that 'D. Murphy, commissioner,' thinks that if the jury did its duty Yip On would be convicted at his trial, yet this commissioner finds that it was in the public interest that the hon. minister from British Columbia (Mr. Tem-pleman) and the patronage committee at Vancouver should send telegrams to the government recommending that this criminal should be kept in the public service, holding the responsible position of interpreter. Mr. Speaker, I take the liberty of dissenting from the finding of the commissioner, and I feel quite satisfied that no unbiased man, and no man outside the ring immediately benefiting from the proceeds of these operations will agree with the commissioner that it was in the public interest to recommend the retention of this criminal in office. This emphasizes the evil of the method of appointing this commissioner and the counsel. It seems to me simply monstrous-it is excusable, perhaps, that the hon. ministers at Ottawa should notify their colleague even though there were certain charges against him-more or less grave or more or less trifling, as you like to view it. It seems a little odd, to say the least, that they should notify him to nominate the counsel and the commissioner to try the charges; but it is simplj unspeakable that having confided the nomination to him he in turn should ask for recommendations from the patronage committee at Vancouver, and bring into the affair of the nominators of the judge -and jury the men accused of complicity in these odious crimes.
I have now to turn to another phase of the rascalities carried on at Vancouver. This relates to stowaways. It was found through an investigation by the Dominion Police officer that there was simply a clear avenue for the escape of stowaways from ships arriving at the harbour of Vancouver. The customs watch was of no avail whatever, and the reason it was of no avail was because the watchmen were recommended by the patronage committee, and the collector-as he said himself-had no effective control over them, he added that if he had the choice of the officers to watch the ships, he would not have any of these men in his employ.
At page 53 of the commissioner's report, I find the following:
Up to last autumn, however, that is subsequent to the reports of Mr. Foster, the government watch at Vancouver was simply j


James Davis Taylor: farcical, and the port so far as stowaways were concerned practically free, and this to the knowledge of Mr. Bowell, the comptroller, as will be seen
In the first place, but one man was detailed to watch a vessel for the whole night through, that is from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. (Rowell, p. 88, q. 731-2). The practice to the knowledge of the comptroller was for even this one man to leave the ship about midnight to go for lunch (see Bowell, p. 89, q. 738). The comptroller apparently believed this lunch was obtained uptown, but in reality it was taken abhard the vessel, which the one man was supposed to watch, during which time the vessel would be wholly unguarded. Moreover, the man was stationed on the wharf and was expected to watch the gang plank which apparently was In place during the whole night. The water side of the vessel was therefore wholly unguarded, and as admittedly it would be impossible for any one man, even if trustworthy to guard both this and the wharf, the watching staff of Vancouver was clearly not sufficiently numerous. The comptroller was likewise aware of this (see Bowell, p. 88, q. 737-8), and although he asked in a general way for more help he did so apparently more in connection with the general customs service than with the watching of ships. He, at any rate, never reported that ships were left wholly unguarded whilst watchmen went to lunch. (Bowell, 89, q. 740-56).
But even the /sight of one watchman was useless, because the men) employed were incapable and untrustworthy. Instead of being absent for lunch, they were accustomed to take supper, lunch and a third meal on hoard the vessels they were watching, so that at three periods between 6 p. m. and 6 a. m., the vessels so far as the government were concerned, were wholly unguarded. (See Busby's report, Sept. 28, 1910. Ex. 194.) At the date of that report, four men were employed as watchmen when their services were required, this being the whole force for day and night service. Mr. Busby reports on them as follows:
W. A. Kent, aged 48, given to drink and unreliable.
T. Physick, aged 63, physically unfit and service unsatisfactory.
H. H. Warburton; 50, cripple and unfit.
J. McPherson, given to drinking and unreliable.
That this report is correct is shown by the evidence of the secret service officer Quinn (p. 973 et seq). He worked as a Canadian Pacific railway watchman on the Vancouver wharf from August 29 to September 29. He states that the government watchmen and the ship's watchman would retire Into the interior of the vessel, and frequently spend the greater part of the time there from midnight to 5 a. m. Drinking went on to a great extent. White men, Chinamen, and even on one occasion a white woman went on and off the vessel at will at all hours of the night. Members of the crew went to and fro to the city as they listed.
Here is another paragraph on frauds by entry as merchants, page 68 of the report:

Frauds by Entry as Merchants.
Exempt merchants have likewise shown a marked increase of late years, but this increase has been confined almost entirely to the port of Vancouver. From the time that the head-tax was raised to $500 in 1904 to December 31, 1910, there have been 54 Chinese entered at Victoria under this head (Ex. 412), and of these some 18 were members of a Chinese government official's suite (Newbury, p. 2812 q. 32716) and are classified as new merchants, although they had nothing to do with trade, and presumably they did not remain in Canada at all (Davey, p. 582, q. 30968-70). The true number passed as merchants exempts during these six years was 36, and of these 31 brought Chinese passports (Ex. 363, Davey, p. 2627, q. 31248-50) hereinafter discussed. These were not honoured in Victoria, but independent evidence was in every case required, as shown by the notes on the passports themselves and by the evidence (Davey, p. 2626, _q. 31239). Five such passports were rejected in Victoria from the time they were first presented early in 1907 to the date of the commission sittings. Several other passports not in the Chinese language were also rejected there during the same period.
As will be seen in Vancouver, on the contrary, they were the open sesame to free entry. At that port there entered free during the same six years 389 under such passports, and seven were rejected (Ex. 13). Yet the total number of new arrivals of all classes at Victoria since the increase of the head-tax in 1904 was 5,334 (Ex. 412) in Vancouver 5,198 (Ex. 350). These figures are not strictly accurate for under the head of merchants are included merchants who had gone to China from British Columbia and overstayed their year's leave, and returning obtained exemption under the general merchant clause of the Act. There were 194 instances of this at the port of Vancouver during the six years. The commission was furnished with the number of similar oases in Victoria, but it is unlikely that it is greater than the Vancouver number, and in all probability not as great, as the latter city is the point of departure for the mainland, and the Chinese population of the mainland is probably fully as great if not greater than the Chinese population of Vancouver island, for which Victoria would be the more likely point of departure. It can, therefore, be safely concluded that the influx through the port of Victoria was at any rate as great as through the port of Vancouver. Certainly the poll tax number was much greater at Victoria, 4,340 as against 3,451 (see same exhibits). The greatly disproportionate number of exempts, both new merchants, 389 to 36, and merchant's sons, 924 to 579 (same exhibits) at Vancouver is, therefore, significant.
Before dealing with the causes of this, it is to be observed that under the Act as it stands Chinese could, without any fraud on the part of any one in the government employ, qualify and enter Canada as merchants without being at all merchants in the sense intended by parliament. All they would have to do would be to put, say $100 Mexican, or about $50 gold into some business in China, and enter the store or warehouse for a period sufficiently long-say six months-to familiarize themselves with the general method of conducting the business, and then enter Canada as merchants. No cross-examination as to knowledge of business methods would shake them, and the Act makes no provision for exclusion because of the limited amount of capital invested. It does not even require that such applicants must intend to engage in mercantile pursuits in Canada. When it is remembered that $500 in Canadian currency represents over $1,000 in Chinese currency in exchange, and very much more in purchasing power, the incentive to thus qualify is very great, and the Chinese astuteness of mind would doubtless have discovered this long ago had not an easier means by direct fraud been at hand. Vancouver was chosen as the vulnerable spot owing to the laxity of administration there.
There was another class of frauds respecting the importation of opium which is dealt with on page 112 of the report as follows:
As to opium, no evidence whatever was adduced to substantiate the charge that white officials in the service instead of destroying opium when seized, sold it and converted the proceeds to their own nse. Mr. foster investigated this, and reported on October 17, 1910, that it was without foundation (Ex. 171).
And again on page 113.
There is no doubt, however, that opium enters Canada as freely a s it ever did, in fact more freely, as there is now no duty to pay (see Mulhern, police inspector, Vancouver, p. 2895, q. 35467; Langley, chief police, Victoria, p. 2895, q. 32960-63). All that has been stated in reference to opportunities for stowaways to come ashore applies, of course, with much greater force to the question of opium smuggling.
As a further commentary on the finding of Mr. Commissioner Murphy, that the minister from British Columbia and his colleagues did a virtuous act, in recommending the reinstatement of Yip On, I wish to read what the government counsel engaged to assist Inspector Foster in his examination, says:
Maedonell, ICillam & Farris,
Baristers, Solicitors, &c.,
Notaries Public.
Offices: Rooms 5-9, Flack Block.
Vancouver, B.C., Oct. 15, 1910.


Mr.  T. R. E.@: Foster,
Inspector, Vancouver, B.C.
Dear Sir,-In reply to your request for instructions as to instituting criminal proceedings against Yip On and noting that the department here advised you by wire that the decision rests with us as counsel for the department, we beg to advise as follows:
The evidence secured whilst of the strongest nature so far as it goes, would nevertheless in a court of law on a prosecution against Yip On be considered as hearsay evidence and so excluded. For this reason we think a prosecution would fail. At the same time we wish to put ourselves clearly on record as recognizing the importance of the evidence secured as demonstrating to a moral certainty that

Yip On and others have been engaged in a well arranged conspiracy which has been in operation for some time for the illegal admission of Chinese into Canada, and we believe that the only effectual way of getting at the bottom of this conspiracy and of determining who is concerned therein is to continue the investigation by Koyal Commission,-the inquiry then being directed not merely against the incoming Chinamen hut also against the local officials and others who may or may not be implicated. Such a course should lead to the conviction of the guilty and clear the skirts of those who may now be unjustly suspected in the public mind.
Yours faithfully,
(Sgd.) J. W. deB. FARRIS,


GORDON GRANT,
[Stage Direction]
You will notice that these gentlemen, counsel for the Dominion government, contemplated an exhaustive inquiry before a Royal Commission if one were instituted. Is it any wonder that the persons against whom the inquiry was directed, should reject the idea that these two men, with that in their minds, should be counsel before a Royal Commission and that the local committee, desirous as I have no doubt they were, to shield the guilty party should have used the minister who confided in them for that purpose, and should have prevailed on him to accept their recommendation of a gentleman to be named as commissioner and the gentleman to be named as counsel? It is natural that these persons should try to make their influence felt to throttle the inquiry from the beginning. But what have we to say of the minister who, knowing that from the beginning, sought advice from such quarters 'and transmitted that advice to his unsuspecting colleagues at Ottawa so that the commission when appointed might :be of no good from the beginning.
I have said that this story is of long standing, that it has been reported to the government early enough, and oft an enough for the ministers to have thorough knowledge of it, and to realize that it was not simply hearsay, but something to be dealt with in the most serious manner. I will not burden the House or the records of the House with the particulars of the various reports received, which were set forth in the evidence, particularly the evidence of the customs _ inspectors, and the customs collector at Victoria, and in Mr. Justice Murphy's summary of the various reports by Mr. Mclnnes to various members of the cabinet at Ottawa. But I will take a letter which may well be regarded as the starting point of the official information on the subject, a letter fully borne out by the further communications to the government, and which, if paid attention to by the government, would have enabled the ministers to understand the accuracy of the reports received from time to time to Mr. TAYLOR (New Westminster).
the effect that a well-arranged conspiracy was in progress. This letter, marked ' private and confidential,' and written three years before this important investigation was started, is as follows:
Private and confidential.
Vancouver, B.C., July 11, 1907.
E. S. Busby,
Inspector of Customs.
Sir,-Knowing through public gossip, that there is considerable suspicion attached to the dealings with Chinese entering this port, I heg to report to you a peculiar proposition propounded to me by one Mr. Chin Chan.
Talking with this gentleman one evening, he inquisitively inquired my occupation. On replying I was a ' Tyee ' customs, he became greatly interested, and asked me if T would like to make ' heap money,' in a hurry.
Of course I replied in the affirmative. He asked me if I knew Yip On, and on telling him T was very well acquainted with him, he requested me that I go to him, tell him who sent me. and eliter on a deal to ' stand in ' cn the Chinese proposition. I questioned him closely and he informed me it was a very easy thing to work the game, that he ' savvied ' all about it. After arranging with Yip On. we (Chin Chan and myself) were to go to China. I was to transact the financial end of it, while he would procure the Chinamen in Canton and Hong Kong. These Chinamen, he said, could be shipped to Vancouver in amounts of 20 to 30 each boat. Each was to nay us from 600 dollars to 700 dollars, Chinese money. A photo and description of each Chinaman was to be sent to Yip On, fictitious names to be given them, and they allowed landing as students, merchants sons, &e. I inquired how Yip On and those at this port would get their 'rake off.' To which he replied * heap easy.' Put money in bank at Hong Kong, and send draft to Chinese firm in this city, as though it were merely some ordinary commercial transaction. In fact he had every difficulty which I suggested met in a business like way. I promised him I would see Yin On and discuss the matter with him, which of course I had no intention of doing, but he came to see me often, and insisted on my seeing him when I stood him off for several months by telling him that ' i'yees ' in Ottawa were watching things closely.
After getting him to tell all he knew in making this deal, I informed him that I could not go as a partner unless I got proof that it could be worked, when he informed me he procured his knowledge from dozens of Chinamen who have arrived in Canada during the last three years. They informed him that they paid $700 or more in Chinese money to Yip Yen at Hong Kong, and not a cent to the government of Canada, when landing at Vancouver. Chiu Chan tells me that as many as 25 have come over in one boat, and have told him the story of their trip as above related. He also Informs me, that a Chinese firm cleaned $100,000 in one year shipping Chinamen to Canada. I was unable to make out the firm's name owing to his imperfect English.
I do not know whether this information will be of any service to you or the government, but being a government official, I consider it my duty to tender it to you, whether it be valueless or otherwise.

To me it emphazises beyond peradventure, the fact that there is a grand and lucrative scheme by which Mongolians are brought to this country, and by which the government is defrauded out of the capitation tax legally collectable on the same.
I have the honour to be.
Your obedient servant,
(Signed) W. A. BLAIR.
Then, relating to this letter by Mr. Blair, there is a covering letter from Inspector Busby, then stationed at Carcross in the Yukon Territory, transmitting the letter of Mr. Blair to his superior at Toronto. That letter is as follows:
Customs, Canada.
Carcross, Y. T., August 10, 1907.
Confidential.
S. W. McMichael, Esq., I.S.O.,
Chief Inspector of Customs,
Toronto, Ontario.
Sir,-I have the honour to herewith enclose for your consideration, a copy of a letter written me by Mr. W. A. Blair of the Customs. Vancouver, which has been forwarded to me here, respecting the alleged illegal importation of Chinese at the port of Vancouver.
The man named ' Yip On ' mentioned in Mr. Blair's letter is the government interpreter at Vancouver.
The man named ' Yip Yen ' is, I understand, a relative of ' Yip On's ' and was formerly Chinese interpreter at Vancouver for the government, and is at present conducting a business at Hong Kong.
My reason for forwarding you the enclosed letter is, that I believe Mr. Blair to be a careful and trustworthy officer, also that you should be fully informed of any matter likely to affect the interests of the department.
I have the honour to be. Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Inspector.
(Enclosure.)
Though this copy is not signed, the address shows that the letter is from Mr. Busby, the inspector.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say that that is all the evidence that I wish to present to the House at this moment. I have -shown from these official records: That in July, 1907, official information was given to the government of plans to defraud the revenue in connection with the arrival of Chinese at Vancouver. That from time to time, subsequent to that date, reports were made to the government of the existence of fraud on a large scale, in this connection.
That these reports were verified by investigation made by Inspector Foster of the Dominion police in August and September, 1910, consequent on which information was conveyed to the government that 'certain parasites of the Liberal government' (indicating the Vancouver patronage committee) were involved in the frauds.
That upon the suspension of Interpreter Yip On, on suspicion of complicity in the
frauds, the Hon. Wm. Templeman, a minister of the Crown, joined with the Vancouver patronage committee in pressing for the reinstatement of Yip On, which reinstatement would have had the effect of preventing the exposure by Inspector Foster immediately following.
That upon request by Inspector Foster and others for a Royal Commission of inquiry into the frauds, said Hon. Wm. Templeman invited the patronage committee of Vancouver to nominate the commissioner and counsel to conduct the investigation, and procured the appointment by the government, of which he is a member, of the commissioner and counsel thereupon named by the accused patronage committee.
That, contrary to the evidence, the report of said commissioner exculpates said Hon. Wm. Teimpleman and the Vancouver patronage committee from blame in connection with their efforts on behalf of the guilty interpreter, and makes unjust and uncalled for reflection upon the motives and character of those who procured and gave the evidence of the frauds.
In view of these facts, I move, seconded by Mr. Currie of Simcoe:
That all the words after the word ' that ' be struck out, and the following be inserted in lieu thereof.
During the period of three years preceding the commencement of the investigation into the frauds connected with Chinese immigration at Vancouver, the government had been repeatedly warned of the existence of such frauds, and during such period neglected to take any steps to check or prevent them;
That very large sums of money have been lost to the public revenues of Canada by this neglect and default of the government;
That none of the persons guilty of complicity in the said frauds have been prosecuted or punished;
That the course of the government in the matters aforesaid, deserves the censure of this House.	,
William Templeman: Mr. Speaker, I think it was last session, or probably the session before, that my hon. friend for New Westminster (Mr. Taylor) rode another hobby. On three or four occasions the hon. gentleman occupied the time of the House in making speeches, asking questions, reading newspaper reports, as to the whereabouts of the famous outlaw, Bill Miner. So much had the hon. gentleman Bill Miner upon the brain that he even went so far as to charge the Justice Department, or penitentiary authority, with -conspiring, or conniving, at the escape of that famous outlaw. So much did my hon. friend prosecute the Bill Miner hobby that he became known in his own home city by the sobriquet of Bill Miner. And to-day' if the men of New Westminster ask where Bill Miner is, they are more apt to

say that he is down in Ottawa than down in South Carolina. Now my hon. friend has got hold of another hobby. He has consumed the time of the House on two or three previous occasions. He has occupied, with those associated with him on this question, one day and a greater portion of another day in putting on ' Hansard ' the evidence as reported in the Vancouver newspapers of the commission investigating Chinese immigration. He occupied a long time in putting upon the records a great deal of irrelevant matter taken before the commission. I am bound to say that probably one-third or one-half of the evidence taken.before the Eoyal Commission in Vancouver was irrelevant; yet my hon. friend, for the purpose probably of occupying the time of the House, and thinking this was as good a question to kill time with as any other, has taken two or three days to put on the 'Hansard' column after column of evidence that has no particular bearing whatever with the real question of Chinese brought into the country under the Immigration Act. As a matter of fact, my hon. friend to-day has taken nearly three hours to place on ' Hansard ' again evidence that he read to some extent from newspapers a day or two ago, but which he takes this time from the official report made by Mr. Commissioner Murphy. I regret very much that my hon. friend has given so much attention to the personal aspect of the evidence. I would have preferred if he had gone into the merits of the question, which, however, he has absolutely not done. I am not here to say that there has been no fraud committed under the Chinese Immigration Act. I believe that during the time we have had Chinese coming into the country, and as long particularly as there has been a $500 head tax, there have been Chinamen -coming in, or attempting to come in, without paying that head tax. Smuggling in Chinamen without paying the head tax is a very profitable business indeed. "I would not be surprised to learn that the practice was not uncommon, and not only common on the Pacific coast, but not uncommon on the Atlantic coast; relatively to the numbers coming into the country, just as common on the Atlantic coast as on the Pacific coast. My hon. friend has thought well .to try and identify me personally in some way with an alleged conspiracy on the part of certain /Liberals in Vancouver, a conspiracy between them and the Chinese interpreter to evade the head tax in some way or other, and he intimates that the Liberal party in the city of Vancouver have profited thereby. The other day, in speaking on this very question, when he was reading this voluminous evidence to the House, mv hon. friend, in reply to a protest, I think, made Mr. TEMPLEMAN.
by the hon. the Premier, said that hon. members on this side of the House were tlie beneficiaries of a fund of a million dollars corruptly obtained by smuggling Chinamen into this country. I think I am correctly repeating what my hon. friend said.
It will be my painful duty, he said, to remind these hon. gentlemen every time that they are benificiaries of this million dollar fund now occupying the attention of the House.
On the same day the hon. member for Vancouver referred to the million dollars that had been obtained by somebody by smuggling Chinese into Vancouver. Now, Sir, as a matter of fact, there is not a scintilla of evidence in the entire report of Commissioner Murphy upon which that statement can be based; there is not one statement of any witness whatever implicating any man in the city of Vancouver, any white man, in tany respect whatever. I say it is unfair, it is deliberately unfair, it is untrue to make a statement to the House that -conveys the i-d-ea that any member of the Liberal party in the city of Vancouver, or that I myself in the remotest degree, was connected with any plot or plan that would lead to these results. I say it is a monstrous thing. But it is in line with the hon. gentleman's remarks in this House, the insinuations he has conveyed, the manner in which he read the testimony, and the arguments and conclusions he deduced therefrom-just as unfair and just as untruthful as some of the evidence given before the commissioner bv Mr. Joseph Martin, and by Mr. Norman McLean. These men gave their opinion of the members of the Liberal party, of the Premier and others, but they had nothing to say. and knew nothing whatever, about the alleged irregularities with respect to Chinese immigration.
Now, had the hon. gentleman not wasted so much time (with the proceedings in Vancouver, I would not have wasted five minutes upon it. I went to Vancouver and gave my evidence. It is on record, but my hon. friend has not done me the justice of reading it. because I answered most of his statements in my evidence. But I feel under an obligation, in justice to myself, in view of what the hon. gentleman has read concerning myself, in view of the letters he has read from Mr. Mclnnes, Lew and others, I feel bound to give to the House my version of my connection with this investigation. It is not material; but it may be that some hon. members may form a wrong -conclusion from what thev have heard, and I think in justice to myself I ought to give parliament and the country my sworn evidence

before the Royal Commission, only a portion of it, and particularly that portion of it which will form, I think, a very effective reply to the allegations made by the hon. member for New Westminster. I will read the evidence sworn to before the commission which is on record. On this evidence the commissioner founded his conclusion in respect to my connection with the Chinese question or the alleged frauds, or the frauds, because I have not the slightest doubt that there have been frauds, to what extent nobody knows.


Robert Laird Borden: Was any attempt made to ascertain to what extent?


Mr TEMPLEMAN.: This commission was for that pm pose. The commission has gone into that very fully and nobody can give any better information than the commission does. I am not aware what steps the Trade and Commerce department have taken	in that	regard. I believe they have been acting upon the information they received from the evidence taken in this investigation and have been making certain changes in the immigration regulations as to interpreters and so forth, but to what extent they have gone I am not advised. Much has been said about a telegram that I sent to Ottawa. The telegram which was sent on the 20th September and was addressed to Sir Richard Cartwright, is as follows:
Most important that Yip On should be continued as Chinese interpreter. David Lew clearly should no-t he retained.	Friends
strongly recommend Yip On.
David Lew, I might explain, is a Chinaman who was at that time acting interpreter, ias Yip On had been suspended during the investigation by Mr. Foster, a member of the Dominion police force and agent of the Justice department. I want this to be clearly understood by the House because the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Taylor) has been mixing up two investigations. There have been two investigations. In the first place, Mr. Foster was sent by the Department of Trade and Commerce several months before September 20 to carry on a private investigation to ascertain as a detective what he could with regard to irregularities. He had been there about two months when I arrived in Vancouver and that was the first intimation I had that an investigation was going on at all. I will read my evidence.
Q. How did you come to send that telegram?-A. I came to the city of Vancouver, after being in the province of British Columbia two or three months, and spent two or three days meeting friends here who had
public business they wanted to talk about. I learned on my arrival here for the first time of the investigations going on regarding frauds in Chinese matters. I was informed then by various people that the agent of the Justice. Department, a Dominion policeman, had been here for some months, I think, or some weeks, carrying on a secret investigation to find out what he could as to frauds in connection with the illegal passing of Chinamen. I was also informed that Yip On, the interpreter, had been suspended for the Purpose of enabling Mr. Foster to carry on his investigation with a free hand; also that David Lew had been acting temporarily in his place. It was reported to me that the investigation was practically over, on that particular day, September 20 or 21, and that Mr. Foster was about returning to Ottawa; that nothing in particular had been elicited by him in his investigation, and that this man, David Lew, would be a very improper person to put on as permanent interpreter, and that Yip On should be reinstated, and I sent this telegram on that information.
These are the absolute facts. Mr. Foster, the agent of the department of Justice, had been carrying on an investigation which he himself informed me was at an end, he stating that he was preparing his report for Ottawa, that he expected to return in a day or two and that he had not found any evidence upon which he could base a charge against Yip On with any hope of success. He had intimated to me that he had his suspicions, that he did not think everything was all right and that the investigation should continue. I sent this telegram believing that the investigation wtas over, as it was over. There was no talk of a royal commission for a week afterwards. I sent that telegram to my colleague, Sir Richard Cartwright, believing that I was acting in the best interests of the department. I want it to be understood that I did not know either of these Chinamen, David Lew or Yip On, and I had never seen them. I was simply acting on information received. That information was that David Lew, who was trying to be the interpreter was a very dishonest Chinaman. I was informed by Mr. Senkler, a leading barrister in the city of Vancouver, that he had had a charge of fraud in the police court against David Lew and it would never do for the Dominion government to put him on instead of the old interpreter. So that, I was influenced by these facts.


Robert Laird Borden: At what date was that conversation?


William Templeman: September 20, the day that the telegram was sent. 1 was only in Vancouver two days altogether.
I may explain to you how it occurred. It has already been dealt with with a good deal of embellishment and a good many falsehoods, deliberate, in my honest opinion that at ^

dinner party at the Vancouver Club I sent this telegram. This is true. Mr. Glover has already dealt with the facts,-some time about ten o'clock I with a number of friends discussed this matter in the visitors' room at the Vancouver Club.
I do not think it is necessary to go into the Vancouver Club incident. I think it is^ a shameful piece of business in the first place for prejudiced witnesses to give that evidence before this commission and in the next place "for my hon. friend to have repeated some of it in this House. The facts simply are that a friend of mine, Mr. Glover, who was not a Liberal at all, a very prominent citizen of Vancouver, invited some friends to the Vancouver Club to dinner at eight o'clock, we were there till about ten o'clock and before leaving I signed this telegram and left it there to be sent. I did not send it to the telegraph office myself. Much has been made of that meeting at the club. Evidence has been given by Mr. Mclnnes, David Lew, the	chin,am. an, and Mr. Gordon Grant that they had been informed by Mr. Foster that I had called on him at midnight, that I had insisted upon this investigation being stopped and there was the insinuation that I was in a certain condition, presumably under the influence of liciuor
That evidence was given before this commission by these- three witnesses, and it is sufficient to say that it is not in accordance with the facts. I asked to see Mr. Foster and I proceeded from the club to Mr. Foster's residence, but I did not see Mr. Foster at all until I met him at the Hotel Vancouver next day at ten o'clock, under an engagement made with him, and we had a conversation. The whole evidence given before the commission by the witnesses I have named, with a view of discrediting myself and giving a political tinge to this matter, was absolutely untrue, absolutely unfounded, and had no basis of truth. Mr. Foster who was supposed to have been the gentleman who stated to these three witnesses that I had called after twelve o'clock at night, and that I was in an irresponsible condition, went into the witness box, and absolutely denied that he had ever said anything of the kind. Mr. Foster's evidence is on record, if the hon. member Mr. Taylor cares to- read it, denying absolutely that I ever suggested in any way that he should discontinue the inquiry.


James Davis Taylor: I read Mr. Foster's evidence, and I have a very distinct recollection ft wound up by saying that Mr. Templeman told him he was sorry he had sent the telgram.


William Templeman: That is not quite right either. I had made the statement


William Templeman: that Mr. David Lew was crooked, and that he should not be appointed, and here is the evidence.


James Davis Taylor: What is the hon. gentleman reading from?


William Templeman: I am reading from a copy of the Victoria ' Times.'
. An hon. MEMBER. The official evidence is here.


William Templeman: I am reading the official evidence as taken by the official stenographer, and a copy of it was given to me personally, and was published in the Victoria ' Times ' verbatim. I have not access to the official evidence just now, but I am sure that this is absolutely the same as the official evidence. I had said in my evidence that I objected to David Lew being appointed because he was crooked, and then followed this evidence:
Q. Who represented that to you?-A. Mr. Senkler particularly. He told me there was a charge against him in the police court of some kind of fraud, forgery or perjury, and statements were made that he was not a fit man to be appointed interpreter. I believed what I was told, and I warned my colleague not to put David Lew on as interpreter. The fear was he was going to be put on permanently. I sent that telegram for that reason. I was advised that the chief of police had the same opinion of David Lew, and I was told the collector of customs and the deputy collector, Col. Worsnop, were of the same opinion, and upon the information thus received I sent this telegram.
It is absolutely true that Mr. Bowell, the collector, and Colonel Worsnop, the deputy collector, were also of opinion that Yip On should be reinstated, and that David Lew should not be appointed, and I was informed of that at the time.
I thought it was due to my colleague and myself that I should ascertain from Mr. Foster all the information he could give me. I wanted to be certain that in sending the telegram I had acted properly, that it was consistent with the proper carrying on of any further investigation that was contemplated, and I suggested to the friends present that I would like to see him, and never have seen him since that occasion. I was told where he was living. Mr. Glover, I believe, had an auto waiting at the door and we started to go to see Mr. Foster. Dr. Munro was in the lobby of the Vancouver Club. I know him very well, and his standing, and I asked him what there was in this matter anyhow. He said he didn't think there was much in it. I said I wanted to see Mr. Foster and he told me where to call, and we started over to Glen-wood chambers.
Dr. Munro is the medical inspector of the Immigration Department.
Dr. Munro had preceded ns, and I met him at the door. He ran upstairs and returned

and said Mr. Foster had retired. X asked him to see if Mr. Foster would make an appointment to meet me at 10 o'clock next morning at the Vancouver hotel. Mr. Foster met me at the Vancouver hotel the following day, the 21st or 22nd, as the case may be, and told me what he had been doing. He said he had been here a considerable time quietly investigating, and that his work was at an end, and he was now proceeding to make out his report to send to Ottawa. He further said he had failed in obtaining information that would incriminate Yip On. At the same time he told me about an incident at Victoria when he went down to get on board an incoming steamer that had Chinamen aboard, to intercept them ; that Yip Oil's brother, or cousin, or friend, had reached the incoming steamer and got at the Chinamen ahead of him and put them on their guard. He also said that although he had failed in securing the information lie expected to get, that he felt convinced that there was something wrong. I told him about the telegram I had signed. We discussed the question of continuing the investigation and I believe we agreed that it should be continued. Something was said about accomplices in China and the advisability of sending a secret service man to Hong Kong. I thought it would be a good thing to continue the investigation at both places. There was no talk at that time of a Royal Commission. I promised to assist him in any way I could.
The departmental agent, Mr. Foster, did intimate to me that he was suspicions there was something wrong, but he had. not the evidence that would incriminate Yip On. Having told Mr. Foster that I had sent the particular telegram, I discussed the matter with him, and we agreed that the advice, as given Sir Richard Cartwright was not improper advice, that there was nothing at the particular moment against Yip On, that it was good advice and it should stand. I discussed with others the fact that if the information I had received was not correct, 'and if there was anything incriminating Yip On I would countermand the telegram. I so stated to Mr. Foster, but meanwhile I said I would allow that recommendation to stand, and I did.
Q. Had you any particular reason in wiring for the reinstatement of Yip On?-A. No; I told Mr. Foster the purport of the telegram I had sent, and when he told me be had failed in getting anything incriminating against Yip On I felt the telegram was alright. I pointed out to him that it would be good policy to reinstate Yrip On and send secret service men to Hong Kong and Vancouver and carry on a secret investigation, Yip On having been reinstated would be off bis guard. I believe that yet. Mr. Foster said that would probably be a good plan. I signed the telegram before I saw Mr. Foster, and I had it in my mind that if he would give me any information that would convince me that it should not have been sent that X could countermand it and give Sir Richard Cartwright other information.
Events followed this very rapidly. I went over to the city of Victoria the day afterwards, and I saw in the newspapers that Mr. Bowell, the controller of Chinese immigration, had bepn suspended because he had of his own motion reinstated Yip On without instructions from the department. I then -wrote to my colleague, Sir Richard Cartwright, the following letter:
Victoria, B. C.,
September 24th, 1910.


The Right Honorable Sir R.: Cartwright, G. C. M. G.
Ottawa.
My dear Sir Richard,-
I notice in the press to-day that you have suspended Bowell for reinstating Yip On without instructions. Bowell, having so acted, is deserving of suspension.
I wired you from V ancouver to the effect that Yip On should be reinstated and that the acting interpreter should not be retained. I did this after being given all the information obtainable. I subsequently bad a conversation with Mr. Foster and the information he gave me sustained my view that it would be in the interest of the Department in getting to the bottom of the alleged irregularities. if Yip Ou were reinstated, the investigation to he continued both here and at Hong Kong.
I am advised that the Chinese acting as interpreter while Yip On is under suspension is one of the crookedest in Vancouver.
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) W. TBMPLEMAN.
Continuing the citation from my evidence, I said:
In saying Lew is the crookedest man in Vancouver, I want to add that the statement is not made on any personal knowledge, but from information received from Mr. Senkler and the other gentleman I have named, and also because I was informed the chief of police in this city had no confidence in him.
Now, the difficulty in getting a Chines" interpreter at that particular moment was very great. It is not an easy thing to get a qualified Chinese interpreter, to discharge the duties, and there are very few in the country who are not Chinamen.


An hon. MEMBER.: Are there no white men in the country who can speak Chinese?


William Templeman: ing, Vancouver. He is English. Lived all his life in Canton. Understands and speaks Canton dialects. His temporary employment will enable you to learn his qualifications. He is about 40 years of age, and impresses me favourably. I have no knowledge of him personally. You want a man who is not a Chinaman.
(Signed) W. TEMPLEMAN.
Then I continued my evidence as follows:
I recommended Mr. Arthur, who appeared to be an educated man, and I thought he would be a proper interpreter. I thought it would be improper to appoint a Chinese interpreter in Vancouver under existing circumstances. I have a copy of a telegram to Col. v\ orsnop from Mr. O'Hara instructing him to employ Mr. Hugh Arthur. I understand Mr. Arthur was not satisfied that he could interpret accurately all the dialects and didn't accept the position. The department then wanted another in'erpreter recommended, and I recommended, alter being ad-V'v i	d,u Long. That is absolutely my
wfiMe connection in the matter. I returned to Ottawa sometime about the 1st or 2nd of October. At that time I suppose the inves-tigarnn was concluded. I had no knowledge directly or indirectly of the selection of Mr. I1 arris and Mr. Grant to conduct deportation proceedings. I know nothing whatever about that or about the reasons given for the appointment of a Royal Commission until I arrived at Ottawa, and was consulted by Sir Richard Cartwright. That is the whole knowledge X have. It is a slanderous tiling that any person, by lnuendo or implication, would ,,7 attach 1116 tlle charge that I, a minister ot the Crown, would try to circumvent ail investigation authorized by a colleague. It is an outrage. I have come here to go on record with regard to both charges. Uiey are deliberate falsehoods.
I had no knowledge that a royal commission was going to be appointed. Certain evidence had been obtained in the prelim-lm.iy investigation by Mr. Foster at Vancouver, and from certain deportation proceedings which had been taken, and when they concluded that they had obtained sufficient evidence to warrant the department m the appointment of a royal commission I approved of it, and after consultation with oir Richard Cartwright, I suggested as commissioner Mr. Justice Murphy, a very prominent member of the judiciary, and a responsible, able and reliable judge of the Supreme Court.
. An hon. MEMBER. He is all right politically.


William Templeman: He is all right personally and every other way He is absolutely one of the best and nurest minded men we have on the bench in British Columbia'. Mr. McCrossan, who conducted the proceedings for the government, is also one of the leading young barristers of the city of Vancouver. There could not have been two better appointments made, as the resuits would show. If I had any criticism ' Mr. TEMPLEMAN.
at all to make of the commission it would be that a lot of irrelevant matter was permitted to go on the record; however, that is erring on the right side. No evidence having any bearing on the question was ruled out.
I think this will dispose of the question so far as I had any personal connection with it. The attempt that has been made by my hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. Taylor) on this occasison and on former occasions, was with a view to connecting myself and the Liberals of the city of Vancouver with an attempt to burke the inquiry. I absolutely deny any attempt of that kind, either on my own part, or on the part of the Liberals of Vancouver. I think it is an outrageous thing, and I say to this House that there is no foundation in fact for it, nor has there been any evidence adduced which would substantiate any such charge. I do not desire to delay the proceedings, or to kill time, but there are a few points in reference to the question to which I wouid like to refer.
The enforcement of any law respecting the immigration of Chinamen is a very difficult proposition; it has always been so, it always will be so. There were very few difficulties, I am advised, up to the time the head tax was increased, some six yearns ago. Previous to that time there were certain exemptions. As the law stood, Chinamen were required to pay a tax of $100, and for a number of years before that $50, and there was very littje temptation to the Chinamen to smuggle themselves into the country or enter it by false pretenses. Under the law as it exists now, there are certain exemptions. As the law stands, Chinamen are required to pay $500 head tax with exemptions of, among others, merchants, their wives and minor children, tourists and men of science. The great difficulty with the department for a number of years has been to define the term ' merchant ' in such a way that cidinary Chinamen might not come in under that designation. Merchants among Chinamen are very numerous. Chinese firms are sometimes very large, there may be a dozen members of a firm; merchants may be almost anything; peddlers of green vegetables may be merchants. So the Chinaman could put the most -liberal interpretation on the term ' merchant.' The frauds committed during recent years have been bv the introduction of labouring men as merchants. They have received consular certificates in China, duly signed by Chinese viceroys or officials of some standing, as merchants when, as a matter of fact-, they were not merchants. The certificates have been given, the department believes, by the Chinese authorities

in good faith, but they have been trafficked in on the other side. That is one explanation of the case with which Chinaman have come in as merchants when they were probably simply labouring men and should have paid the $500 head tax. The
law,	therefore, as it exists at present is
lax,	it allows the Chinamen to interpret almost for themselves the word 'merchant,' and if they are permitted to come in under the passports issued by Chinese authorities it is very difficult for the officials on this side of the Pacific to keep them out. The department was fully cognizant for years of the difficulties of administering the Act, particularly of describing merchants, and the department prepared an Act session before last, but owing to the pressure of business it was not then presented to the House. This session a Bill is on the Order Paper amending this very clause and making it more difficult for Chinamen to enter the country as merchants. The onus of proof under the Bill now before parliament and which might before this have had its second reading but for the delays caused by the long speeches of our friends opposite, provides that the burden of proof in respect to the profession of the incoming Chinaman shall be with the Chinese, and also that the burden of proof of the right of any Chinamen in Canada to be in Canada shall be with the Chinaman.


George Henry Barnard: Did not the Teport of the commissioner state that there was no illicit entry in Victoria?


William Templeman: The Teport of the commissioner, I (believe, is that the Act is very faithfully administered at Victoria.


George Henry Barnard: Is the law the same?


William Templeman: The same law, yes,


George Henry Barnard: Then if the officers at Vancouver had exercised the same care and supervision, there is no reason why these frauds should have been perpetrated.


William Templeman: I am not saying there is any reason why the frauds should have been perpetrated; the law, according to the report of Commissioner Murphy, has been very faithfully administered at Victoria, while a number of exempts have come in at Victoria, as at Vancouver-


George Henry Barnard: There is not very much the matter with the law.


Morley Currie: Only ten exempts in five years at Victoria.


William Templeman: There must have been more than that. The exempts from the entire province have been up in the hundreds for years, and probably of 329
these one-third have come in at Victoria. The exempts last year numbered about 800. The Bill now before parliament is an attempt to deal with this question, and to make the law more rigid, so that the definition of a merchant should be clearly understood, and it would be impossible to evade the law. The department undertook in the year 1909 to define the term ' merchant ' by order in council in order that the law might be more successfully administered, but the Justice Department took the ground that it could not be amended by order in council, and so the department was defeated in its effort to perfect the Act. There is no question that a large number of Chinamen, according to the statement of Commissioner Murphy, have come into the country illegally without the payment of head tax. In the report of the commission at page 110 it is stated that in ten months ending January 31, 1911, there came into Canada through Victoria, Vancouver, Nanaimo, Montreal and other ports, 4,760 Chinamen.
At Victoria 2,512 paid the head tax and 166 were exempt; at Vancouver 1,289 paid the head tax and 545 were exempt; at Nanaimo 9 paid the head tax and 29 were exempt; at Montreal 153 paid the head tax and 25 were exempt; at other Canadian ports 30 paid the tax and 2 were exempt.


Morley Currie: Has the minister the figures of the number of merchants who were exempt? At Victoria, I understand, according to the evidence and according to the Victoria papers, there were only 10 of that class.


William Templeman: The exempts under the law are: members of the diplomatic corps and other representatives of the government of China, their suites and their servants; consuls general, consuls and consular agents, their suites and their servants ; the wives and children of these persons; merchants, tourists, merchants' sons in certain cases; clergymen of the Christian religion; men of science, students and teachers; the wives and minor children of merchants, clergymen, tourists and men of science, subject to such regulations as may from time to time be made by the Governor in Council. These are all the classes who are exempt under the law. There is no distinction between them, so that it is impossible to tell how many of those 166 who came in at Victoria or of the 545 who came to Vancouver were merchants' sons, and were really labourers.
The *commissioner says:
These figures include merchants, resident in Canada who have overstayed their year's leave, hut a liberal allowance for this class would be 160. 4.600 Chinamen entered Canada therefore during this period of ten months, of whom 3993 paid the poll tax of $500. A


P.EVISED EDITION' COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
perusal of tliis report will show that probably more than half of the remaining 607 entered fraudulently, either as merchants or merchants' sons, and were really laborers or artisans.
As I have said, the whole purport of this reiport is to show that the present Act is lax in its definition of a merchant, and that is the whole weakness o' the measure. There is no attempt on the part of any body-there should not be, in view of that report, at all events, and in view of our knowledge of the Chinese character- to deny the fact that Chinamen have been smuggling themselves into Canada, or have been coming in surreptitiously by entering as merchants or as merfchants' sons when they should be classed as labourers; *and as long as there is a $500 head tax on (Chinamen we shall be subject to that sort of thing. I believe that white men would try to smuggle themselves into the country just as much as Chinamen to evade a $500 head tax. I have a complete record of the [DOT]number of Chinamen who have come into Canada since the head tax was put upon them some years ago. The numbers coming in are of course very laTge, and I think it will be seen that the ratio of exempts to the total number coming in is no larger now than it has been in past [DOT]years. During the last three months, up to June 30, 2,124 Chinamen came into Canada and paid the $500 head tax, the largest revenue ever received from that source for that length of time. In three months over $1,000,000 has been paid into the treasury for Chinamen coming into this *country. During that time the exempts were 100. How many of these are really exempts or how many are fraudulent, coming in as merchants, nobody knows. The Commissioner has said in his report tljat he believes that a considerable number have come in. It is all a matter of estimating.
Morley Currie: Has the minister any figures of the number that have come in by Montreal or Halifax, and does the government know that this gopher hole at Vancouver has been stopped only to be opened at some eastern ports?


William Templeman: All the figures I have given are official figures from the department, and are I believe correct. If there is one man more than another responsible for the lax administration of the Chinese Immigration Act, it is Mr. John Bowell, collector of customs of the city of Vancouver. Now, I do not want to attach any stigma to Mr. Bowell. He has been exonerated by the commissioner of any personal knowledge of wrong-doing, although he is spoken of as careless. But all this immigration of Chinamen at Vancouver is under Mr. Bowell. '


William Templeman: Mr. Bowell is controller of Chinese immigration in the city of Vancouver, or had been for years until he was suspended. He had the entire management of the [DOT]Chinese Immigration Act. The Chinese interpreter Yip On was under his instructions. He had to put the guards on the steamers, the whole thing was in his entire charge. Now, Mr. iBowell, as his name indicates, is not a Liberal. Mr. John Bowell is a Conservative, and there is not a Liberal in the city of Vancouver who believes that Mr. John Bowell is guilty of any wrong-doing. But, if Mr. Bowell, who had full charge of the immigration of Chinese, who has .had control of the interpreter all these years, is not responsible, how in the world can my hon. friend from New Westminster attach any stigma to men like Mr. Senkler, to Mr. Kelly, one of the most prominent merchants in the Dominion of Canada? It is unfair and unjust. I do not believe it is good politics, I believe this attempt of the hon. member for New Westminster to attach a stigma to these men, to try to make it appear that they were in collusion with the Chinese interpreter in smuggling Chinamen into this country with a view of getting a rake-off-I think such a charge as that will recoil on the head of the hon. gentleman who has made it, and will do no injury whatever to the Liberals in the city of Vanoouver.
Now Sir, there is no question that the Department of Trade and Commerce is fully advised of the situation. They have taken what steps they could to remedy this evil. They have put on double guards to watch the steamers, they have changed the interpreter, they have, for the moment, at all events, suspended Mr. Bowell as controller. With a view of placing all immigration matters under one head, they have transferred the administration of the Chinese Immigration Act to the Department of the Interior; the transfer will take effect on the 1st of October next. To my mind, the administration of this Act .should never have been given to the Department of Trade and Commerce. The Department of Trade and Commerce have no officials to carry it on, they have been depending altogether on the officials of the Customs Department, and all the officials who have administered this Act have been customs officials. That, it seems to me, is not a good method. Thfe Interior Department have immigration officials in the city of Vancouver, they have medical men, they have experts on Chinese immigration, and to that department the administration of the Act, I think, should have gone years ago. Therefore, probably this investigation may do good, though it has caused considerable sensation, though it has given our political

opponents an opportunity to throw a good deal of mud, and some of our own so-called political friends in the city of Vancouver have done the same thing; our political opponents have been especially anxious to take advantage of all the evidence relevant or irrelevant given before that commission and to use it politically. Still, they can use it, so far as I am concerned, as much as they please; they cannot injure me personally in the city of Vancouver or in the city of Victoria. Nobody in either city will believe that any Liberal whose name has been mentioned in this inquiry, read 'by the hon. member for New Westminster before the House, can suffer in any way whatever. They are too well known, they are too respectable, they are too prominent as citizens to be injured by slanders of that kind to which my hon. friend has lent the dignity of his name. Sir, I have nothing to add. I have any amount of evidence that can he read. My hon. friend read column after column of evidence that bore upon one side of the question only. I can read column after column of evidence to the contrary. I can read the evidence of Mr. Foster, of Mr. Glover, of Dr. Munro, but wihat is the use of doing so? We frankly admit that there has been fraud, and these frauds will be 'attempted as long as the head tax is imposed upon Chinese entering Canada. The only thing that can be done is to make the law more rigid and to put on more guards and reliable interpreters. I believe that it is possible the administration of the law in Vancouver can be improved. The customs -collector at Victoria, Mr. Newbury, is a very efficient officer As I said a moment ago, if there was any discredit attaching to the controller of the immigration law in Vancouver, in conjunction with the officials, and the dishonesty of the interpreter whom he -had under him for so many years, the responsibility might justly be placed on the right -shoulders at once. The interpreter, Yip On, has been found guilty, but Mr. Bo well was his superior and should have seen that he discharged his duties. I have nothing further to add. This matter has been discussed in the British Columbia papers, the section of the country most interested, the section of country that alone knows all about it, has been fully advised as to the evidence given, and I do not think it is necessary for me to put on ' Hansard ' any further statements about it'. My attitude throughout the whole proceedings has been plain and .straightforward, and I challenge the hon. member from New Westminster, the hon. member for Victoria, or any other person in the province, to attempt to injure me in any way whatever, by showing that I have done anything wrong, that I 3291	[DOT]
have known or encouraged anything wrong regarding the fraudulent immigration of Chinese into Canada.


Mr. J. A. CURRIE (North Simcoe).: I do not wish to delay the House at any length at this late hour, knowing that we are all anxious to get on to the debate on reciprocity. The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Templeman), began his remarks by making, what I consider a very uncalled for, and unkind reference to the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Taylor). He said that the hon. member spent a good deal of time discussing Bill Miner, and that on the coast he was known as Bill Miner. Now, that, coming from a member of a cabinet that is so redolent of Bills as the cabinet to which the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue belongs, and also in view of the fact that the hon. member himself is known on the coast as Sleepy Bill, I think the least that he can do or say would be. to consider honours even, and remain perfectly still on a personal matter of that kind. I am reminded that there is a Slippery Bill in the cabinet, you can't have two of them. I may say there is another Bill known as the Reciprocity Bill which thjy have on the brain, and they can't get rid of it. Then two Bills went down to Washington, and they brought back a counterfeit Bill, and it has not passed, and I am afraid it won't pass. Now, to refer to this great Tong war that has broke out in the west, and which my hon. friend has taken pains to point out, there was no onus on anybody.
He says that there was nobody to blame, but that the only thing to blame was the law. Any one who has followed the question, who has listened to the -speeches in the House, who has read the newspapers, must come to the conclusion that it was not the legislation that was to blame on the coast, that it is not the present law so much as the officers who administer that law. It does not matter two pins how good a law is unless the officers of the government appointed to carry out the law do their duty honestly and fearlessly. The law, it is true, was changed for the purpose of making it easier for a Chinaman to evade it by calling himself a merchant. The result is that Chinamen have arrived in large numbers, a fact which the minister has acknowledged. Consequently, the -charge m-ade by my hon. friend from New Westminster has been fully sustained upon the admission of the hon. gentleman who has just sat down. Now, the next question is, who were guilty -of not carrying out this law, and did any stigma in that regard attach to the minister? The evidence clearly shows that even a watchman appointed to guard a gang plank at


Morley Currie: was that these fellows should hog It all and that if it had gone to the Liberal executive he would not care.
We have these facts in consecutive order. It was clearly shown in the evidence that Mr. Bowell, the collector of customs at Vancouver, had nothing whatever to do with the appointment of the officials under him whether they were good, bad or indifferent. They were all appointed on instructions from Ottawa, the Minister of Customs giving authority to appoint them, and after him came Mr. Robert Kelly, and in the background of Mr. Robert Kelly was a whole army of Chinamen who came to the countrj without paying the poll tax. The minister says he is free from stain in that Tespect, but he can take what change he likes out of that evidence, and I don't think there is much coming back to him. Let us see what the friends of the minister say. Mr. T. R. E. Mclnnes, an official of the government who was appointed to investigate this matter, has been turned down by the government and he is angry at what Judge Murphy said about him, because, for years, he had been a respected and confidential officer of the first minister. Mr. Mclnnes finds insinuations, in this report of Mr. Justice Murphy, which he resents and he comes back very strongly against the Minister of Inland Revenue, and in a letter published in the Ottawa 'Citizen,' of July 25th, he states the facts pretty clearly and so that we maj have some intelligent idea of what took place out there, I will put this letter on 'Hansard.' It reads:


Mr.  T. R. E.@: Mclnnes, whose name figured prominently in the report of Mr. Justice Murphy who investigated the Chinese immigration and opium smuggling in British Columbia, made a statement to the ' Citizen ' to-day, replying in detail to the commissioner's findings. Mr. Mclnnes does not mince matters. He says:
' On Saturday you published the findings of Mr. Justice Murphy of Vancouver, who sat as a commissioner to inquire into Chinese immigration and opium smuggling in British Columbia. My reputation is at stake in this matter, and I now ask you to give equal prominence to what I have to say in reply to this honourable judge. I make four charges.
' 1. I say that the first four statements or findings made by this commissioner in summing up his report are irrelevant, truckling, malicious and cowardly, and in so far as Officer Foster, Gordon Grant, David Lew and myself are concerned, they are absolutely false and unwarranted by the evidence.
' 2. I say that the Dominion government permitted the fraudulent entry of Chinese to continue without any attempt at prevention for at least two years after the attention had been formally drawn thereto.
' 3. I say that the Dominion government deliberately delayed criminal proceedings against the guilty Chinese indicated by its own commissioner, Judge Murphy, for two months in order to allow them to escape from justice.
' 4. I say that if Sir Wilfrid Laurier, when replying to Mr. Borden in the House on Friday meant me when he said: ' The only person not a Chinaman who was suspected was not appointed by this government'; then Sir Wilfred Laurier deliberately misstated the fact.
I will deal with this last charge first, and the doing so involves the whole question of my connection with the government. In August, 1907, the Indians of the Garden river reservation in Algoma were being debauched by American whisky-sellers, operating on Sugar Island in the state of Michigan just across the river from the Canadian reservation. Members of parliament, priests, and missionaries were asking the government to do something in the matter, but as the whisky-sellers were on American territory, and the Canadian Indians crossed the river to them, the situation was difficult. Neither under United States federal or state laws was it unlawful to sell liquor to a Canadian Indian on American territory; and so the offenders felt secure. My services were asked by the Indian Department. As a result inside of a month the offenders were arrested, convicted of something, and jailed in Michigan. In the following month the Chinese riot occurred in Vancouver, and Hon. Frank Oliver mindful perhaps of my Michigan success, asked me to go to Vancouver to report on the situation, and advise as to what should be done. I returned in three weeks with a report which anticipated the later findings of Mackenzie King. My report was acted upon, and copies were sent to the imperial government and to the government of India. Two months later, owing to the activities of the Asiatic Exclusion League and the fear of renewed riots Sir Wilfrid Laurier wrote a note to Mr. Oliver, giving it to me to take to him asking that 1 be sent again to the coast. Nominally for the Immigration Department, in reality to attempt to check a dangerous situation, and to be on hand to advise if emergencies arose. I was there all winter. The riots threatened, and actually planned in Seattle, were averted. To Mr. Gordon Grant, president at the time of the Asiatic Exclusion League, the credit for this is largely due. His sense of loyalty was awakened when he was shown what was being planned by American agitators, and what the success of their plot would mean to Canadian and imperial interests. This is the Mr. Grant upon whom Mr. Commissioner Murphy throws a slur in the third paragraph of the summary of his report.
The next summer I acted as adviser to all the Chinese of Vancouver, in preparing their damage claims for consideration by Mr. Mackenzie King, special commissioner to assess damages in connection with the September riots. On this occasion I talked with Mr. Owyang King, then Chinese consul at San Francisco, and Mr. Tung Ching Ling, attache of the Chinese embassy at London, as to future relations between Canada and China, and the chance of developing a large trade between the twro countries, the profits of which would tend to overcome race antagonisms. At that time there was no Canadian trade commissioner in China. I had many Chinese clients and a knowledge of local Chinese customs^ and business methods. I sent in a report either

to the Trade and Commerce Department or the Interior Department, I forget which, hut dealing with the whole question of developing Canada's trade with China, and urging the appointment of Canadian commissioners at Canton, Shanghai and Tien Tsin. I discussed the matter with Mackenzie King and he heartily approved, and promised his support if I wanted the position. Many strong recommendations were made on my behalf. The government adopted the suggestions in my report so far as to establish an office at Shanghai, but appointed the late Mr. MacLean instead of me. After Mr. MacLean's death, which occurred in the following December, Mr. O'Hara telephoned for me, and asked if I were still open for the position. I replied that I was, and would be willing to go in February, after I had finished my first draft of a new Immigration Act, which I had been retained by Mr. Oliver to prepare. A recommendation to council was prepared accordingly, and signed by Sir Richard Cartwright. The appointment, however was blocked by Mr. Templeman and that ended the matter, I never sought the position after that because Mr. Templeman had unwittingly done me a good turn; remaining in Canada proved vastly to my advantage. From time to time after that I had a retainer from the government for special services. Among them was the drawing of the new Immigration Act above referred to. This involved observation of the methods actually practised by American and Canadian officers at seaports and on the boundary.
' Now it happened that Hon. Frank Oliver in September, 1908, feared something in Alberta on the part of the Conservatives which he called ' skullduggery.' The general elections were on at the time, and he asked me to go to Calgary and vicinity on a still hunt for this 'skullduggery.'
This skullduggery must have been the gentleman who was going around the west dropping great big bunches of money into the people's bank accounts. He goes on to say:
Up to this time my services had been absolutely non-political, and Oliver knew that I had no more respect for one side than for the other. He did know, however, that I generally got results worth while in any matter which I undertook. I found to my surprise, however, that he did not propose to pay my fee from any party fund, but that I was to go on political service at government expense, to cover which I was to make a report on immigration matters.
Let me ask the House how many men to-day are in this same service of the government, in view of the election which is about to take place? We all know that in the customs service, presided over by the bom. member for Brantford (Mr. Paterson) there has been a tremendous increase in the amount of wages paid, although there has not been a very large increase in the real amount of efficiency of the department. There are what are known as special officers throughout the different towns in this country drawing fat salaries, and their Mr. CURRIE (Simcoe).
work is of a political character, just as is shown in this letter. Mclnnes goes on tc say:
This was not much to my stomach, hut in connection with the act upon which I was working I wanted to observe the working of the official immigration machine between Winnipeg and Vancouver, particularly along the British Columbia border and at Seattle. I did, however, throw an eye over political methods at Calgary and vicinity for about ten days, became satisfied that honest voting was the style there, and that anything in the nature of ' skullduggery ' was more to be apprehended from the Liberals than from the Conservatives. This I told to the Honourable Frank and left him to go about my proper business.
' On the 10th December, 1908, I sent in a report to Mr. Oliver, covering my observations on this trip, and making certain recommendations. It was during this visit to the coast that I first paid any particular attention to the smuggling of Chinese immigrants. In drafting my Immigration Act I wished it to apply equally to Chinese, considering that there should be hut one Immigration Act, designed to apply to all classes of immigrants, and administered by one department. As far as I remember, however, I made no written report then as to this smuggling, wishing to make a fuller investigation later on. But a year before that time I am told that Officer Busby of the Customs Department had noticed and reported upon these frauds, hut to put it mildly, was not encouraged to disclose anything further in that line.
'Well, a year later, 10th November, 1909, I made another report to Mr. Oliver, detailing the system of fraud practised by the Chinese both as regards evading head-tax and smuggling opium. That report is completely verified in every detail by the evidence given before Commissioner Murphy two years after, and the commissioner makes that two year old report of mine the basis of the only conclusions and recommendations that are relevant or worthy of consideration in his own report now laid on the table of the House. But when I made that report in November, 1909, Mr. Oliver was afraid to act upon it. I urged him strongly one day in February, 1910, saying that not only was the continuing fraud bad alike for the reputable Chinese and the whites, but that the government was losing hundreds of thousands of dollars of revenue. Mr. Oliver, in his own frank phraseology, replied :	'To hell with the government; I'm
not going to mix up in the thing and get old Cartwright jumping on me in council.'
About March, however, a copy of this last report came into the hands of Mr. O'Hara, and he began inquiries on his own account; inquiries which he pushed to a successful conclusion. In July he instructed Secret Officer Foster-a man familiar with the coast, and who had done good service there during the Asiatic troubles-to go to Vancouver, and observe the working of the Chinese Immigration Act at that port. At the same time Sir Wilfrid, then acting Minister of the Interior, issued the following order:	' That


Mr.  T. R. E.@: ture careers have been virtuallj ruined because they dared tackle this infamous Chinese ring who were robbing the country of millions.


William Templeman: It is not true that Mr. Mclnnes went to the coast on any mission whatever, officially charged to investigate these frauds.


Morley Currie: Does the minister desire me to read the exhibit put in by Mr. Mclnnes, wherein Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier appoints him to this commission. The exhibit is here. Here is a dispatch from Laggan, dated September 12, 1910.
Please ask Premier take communication first part tenth inclosoire my report Oliver sixth instant, t'eatherstone will have it. Twenty-one fraudulently admitted last week, more will probably arrive on ship next Sunday. If suspension made and Foster authorized act as suggested not later than Friday, confident of capture and conclusive evidence. I wall arrive Ottawa Friday morning.


T. R. E. McINNES.
[Stage Direction]
He was on his way to see the Prime Minister and the minister says that none of this occurred, that the Prime Minister and officials of the government were not acting to try and find this out without consulting him. For what reason was he not taken into the confidence of the government? Why, was Mr. Foster appointed without Mr. Templeman being made aware of these facts. On the very first boat on which they captured Chinese they saved to the government something like $17,000. He did not know that these Chinamen were seized or that Yip On was suspended. The government was acting apparently behind his back. The only thing he knew was that he sent a telegram to Sir Richard Cartwright,_ which he afterwards denied, asking that Yip On be reinstated.
William Templeman: I did not.


Morley Currie: That is the boldest I ever heard. The minister did not recommend that Yip On be reinstated?


William Templeman: Not at all.


Morley Currie: And Yip On was not reinstated although he desired to have him reinstated. It is the same thing. He spent all the night apologizing for having sent that dispatch to Ottawa and claiming that the next day he went to see Mr. Foster about 2 o clock in the morning, and Mr. T oster would not see him, so he sent the telegram and went to see Mr. Foster later on to see if Mr. Foster would confirm what he had done. Mr. Foster probably told him all right, but being a good officer, working for the department, he would not have any outsiders interfere with him. The whole trouble with the minister is that he was dragged into this controversy very unfairly, because the great controversy that raged Mr. CURRIE (Simcoe).
on the coast was whether Mr. Templeman was drunk that night or not, and he went across the continent to deny it, and there is apparently no one who can say whether he was drunk or sober, because being a good strong man, I suppose he carries his liquor well. He went home and denied it, and I have to take his word" that he was not drunk.
What is the result of this investigation? What has the member for New AVestminster done for this countrj ? He has brought before the attention of this House, one of the most rascally scandals and most desperate conspiracies ever attempted on the part of the Chinese to rob the government of many millions of dollars. This matter was brought to the attention of the House on two previous occasions and information was denied. The first minister virtually refused to bring down this evidence in order to have it come after the elections so that the public in the east would not know what was going on in the west. The member for New Westminster (Mr. Taylor) and I placed a resume of the evidence on Hansard,' with the result that the next day the premier brought down the report. He said he did not want to bring it down because the report recommended that several parties should be prosecuted, 'and it was not wise that it should be made public. Everyone in the west knows that these men were out of the country weeks ago, that dur-ittg four or five months they have had time to get away and during the interval the Department of Justice has not moved one iota, has not issued any instructions and to this day I challenge the minister to saj that any steps have been taken to bring Justice or any warrants issued. Why? Because the moment anyone runs up against that Chinese ring in Vancouver, there is some scullduggery as the Minister of the Interior would say, going on there, justice is demoralized and even the justice that^ should be presided over by the Prime Minister, and the action he should take comes out about four months late. The minister said Mr. Mclnnes was not appointed by the government. Here is a letter, a memorandum by Mr. Mclnnes to Mr. O'Hara:
Re Chinese Smuggling Cases-Vancouver, B.C.
Memorandum for Mr. O'Hara,
Following my conversation at noon to-day I inclose copy of suggestion submitted to the Premier, and which I understand he is to discuss with Sir Richard.
As to appointment of counsel the Premier intimated that he had to-day written you a letter giving you a free hand.
Please submit to Sir Richard that owing to the unusual nature of the case, and the political and official influence used to render it abortive, a slight departure from the regular legal patronage list would be justified.
Mr. Senkler has already taken a stand on behalf of the accused; and has undertaken bo

criticise the action of the department without knowing the facts upon which the department's action was based. The case in his hands would be almost certainly doomed to failure.
The men suggested in place of Senkler and MacDonell are equally staunch Liberals; are specially trained in criminal law; and I will vouch for their not being led off the track by all the influence or threat the Chinese can bring to bear.
If you should wish me to to continue to act privately at the coast in completing evidence in this matter I am at your service.



[Stage Direction]
September 28, 1910.
That is the letter of Mr. Mclnnes, and I think it dissipates the view of this matter taken by the hon. minister. Perhaps the hon. minister personally had nothing to do with this; but at the least he has been like clay in the hands of the potter as far as the operations of this ring are concerned. The evidence shows that if there was any end they wished to attain, all they had to do was to have Mr. Kelly or Mr. Macdonald outline the programme to the Minister of Inland Revenue, and he was only too glad to fall in with it, especially if a good dinner preceded it. I think this country owes a debt of gratitude to the hon. member for New Westminster for bringing such an important question before this House. I consider that he has done his duty by the country, and has promoted the ends of justice by disclosing the actions of this junta that consists of a section of the Liberal party in the west. The good Liberals of the coast do not want to have anything to do with these people; they do not want to have any ' skullduggery.' There are honest men in the party as well as unscrupulous men. The honest ones have rebelled, there is dissention in the ranks, and this question is a burning question there. The hon. minister says that no one in Vancouver thinks that anybody is guilty in this matter, but that everybody considers that the whole wrong is in the law. If the law was wrong, how is it that it was maintained at Victoria and broken flagrantly at Vancouver? The reason is that the Chinese and the officials of this government, as shown by the evidence, entered into a conspiracy whereby this government was defrauded of a large sum of money; and after the report of the commissioner, which showed that somebody had done wrong and should be punished, was in the hands of this government, no action was taken until it was possible for the guilty parties to flee the country. In this case I think full responsibility rests on the Minister of Inland Revenue. He is the man who recommended all these appointments-Yip On and all the landing waiters who let the Chinamen come into the country without passports.
He is the man behind the gun in all cases. It is true, his hands were guided by the executive committee; but he cannot divest himself of the responsibilty as a member of the government and the minister from the Pacific coast.
Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, the first paragraph of the motion which has been placed in your hands by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Taylor) is in these words:-
During the period of three years preceding the commencement of the investigation into the frauds connected with the Chinese immigration at Vancouver, the government had been repeatedly warned of the existence ot such frauds, and during such period neglected to take any effective steps to check or prevent them.	.
The second paragraph is as follows:

That very large sums of money have been lost to the public revenues of Canada by this neglect and default of the government.
The third paragraph is in these words:
That none of the persons guilty of complicity in the said frauds have been prosecuted or punished.
And the conclusion based upon these alleged premises is as follows:
That the course of the government in the matters aforesaid deserves the censure of this House.
The hon. Minister of Inland Revenue has addressed himself to this question, but I did not hear one word from him denying any of the allegations made in this resolution, and he could not deny them Let us take the first. It is a charge that the government knew all about these fraud , or at all events were warned of them repeatedly, during a period of three years before this investigation commenced My hon. friend from New Westminster read the first of these warnings, which was not Horn any outside individual, but from'an officer of the government, in July, 1907, who declared that these frauds were then going on according to the best of his belief, and stated the reasons on which he grounded that belief; and in his letter he named the very man, Yip On, as guilty of these frauds who was eventually found guilty by this Commissioner. There was the first warning, more than three years before this investigation began, because it did not begin until August 1910. That warning was repeated over and over again, and during those three years this government remained absolutely supine so far as any active and effective steps to check these frauds and bring them to a conclusion were concerned. They went on during those years unchecked and unhindered, and the only minister of the Crown who has spoken on this

question to-night has taken his seat without offering one word in explanation or extenuation of that remarkable conduct of the government. It seems to me that is a painful spectacle. I am astonished that the Minister of Inland Revenue saw fit to take his seat without even apologising for that conduct of the government or giving some explanation for this inaction, neglect and default on the part of the government. So I say that the first paragraph of the resolution proposed by my hon. friend from New Westminster has been made absolutely good. The second paragraph declares that large sums of money have been lost to the public revenues of Canada by this neglect and default of the government. That is not denied either; it cannot be denied. It is true that- the moneys have been lost, how much we do not know. I would have expected that the Commissioner would have been instructed to make inquiry more definitely as to the amount that has been lost. It is enough to know that hundreds of thousands of dollars have been lost by this inaction, neglect and default of the government, who were bound by their oaths of office to protect the public revenues of this country.
The third paragraph which I have quoted sets forth that none of the persons guilty of complicity in the said frauds have been prosecuted or arrested. The Minister of Inland Revenue did not controvert that, for the very good reason that he could not controvert it. These men were shown to have been guilty of fraud by evidence given before the commissioner in the earlier part of the inquiry. There was no doubt, so far as I understand the case, as to the guilt of this man Yip On. I did not understand my hon. friend the Minister of Inland Revenue in one respect, and I would like him to clear this matter up for my own information -not in respect to any of the matters to which I have been alluding, because he cannot do that, but in respect to one matter to which I can allude. I understood him to say that at the time of this conversation with Inspector Foster on the 20th September, 1910, there was no evidence in the possession of Mr. Foster against this interpreter Yip On. But I also understood my hon. friend from New Westminster to assert, and to support by evidence, that Mr. Foster had made a seizure of documents and money in possession of Yip On on the 18th of September, 1910. Am I mistaken in that?


William Templeman: Mr. Foster complained to me, I suppose about the 18th, that he did find some letters in the possession of incoming Chinamen about which he was suspicious. He said that some of Yip On's friends had obtained access to these documents, but Yip On had not been suspended at the time. He thought some of Yip On's Mr. BORDEN (Halifax)
friends had obtained access to incoming Chinamen and put them on their guard. But there was nothing, Mr. Foster assured me, in the way of evidence, there was suspicion that something wrong was going on.


Robert Laird Borden: Where were these documents and these moneys seized?


William Templeman: They were letters that the incoming Chinamen had, introducing them, I suppose, to Yip On. I don't think there was any money.


Robert Laird Borden: I understood these documents and certain moneys connected with them had been seized under such circumstances as directly or necessarily to implicate Yip On in these frauds.


William Templeman: Not directly. It created suspicion in the mind of the detective.


Robert Laird Borden: Schaffner,
Sharpe (Lisgar), Sharpe (Ontario), Sproule,
Staples,
Stewart,
Taylor (Leeds), Taylor (New Westminster), Thornton,
Wallace,
Wilson (Lennox and Addington) and Wright.-51.
NAYS:
Messieurs
Allard,
Allen,	I
Aylesworth (Sir Allen), Belaud,
Bickerdike,
Black,
Bureau,
Cash,
Champagne,
Chisholm (Antigonish), Chisholm (Inverness), Clark (Red Deer), Clarke (Essex), Congdon,
Currie (Prince Edward),
Deldsle,
Demers.
Devlin.
Dubeau,
Emmerson,
Fielding,
Fisher,
Fortier,
Fowke,
Gauvreau,
Girard,
Hodgins,
Hunt,
Knowles,
Kyte,
Lachance,
Lafortune.
Lanctot (Laprairie-Napierville),
Lanctot (Richelieu), Lapointe,
Lauriei (Sir Wilfrid) LeBlanc,
Lemieux,
McGiverin,
McIntyre,
McKenzie,
McLean (Huron), McMillan,
Marcile (Bagot), Martin (Montreal, Ste. Mary's), Martin (Regina),
, Meigs,
Michaud,
Miller,
Molloy,
Nesbitt,
Oliver,
Papineau,
Parent,
Paterson,
Proulx,
Prowse,
Pugsley,
Rankin,
Reid (Restigouche), Richards,
Rivet,
Ross (Middlesex), Ross (Rimouski), Roy (Dorchester), Roy (Montmagny), Rutan,
Savoie,
Schell.
Seguin,
Smith (Middlesex), Siperry,
Talbot,
Templeman,
, Tobin,
Tcdd,
Turcotte (Nicolet),

Loggi e, Lovell, Low,
Macdonald,
MacNutt,
McAllister,
McCoig,
McColl,
Ministerial.
Tureotte (Quebec County), Turgeon,
Turiff,
Verville and White (Victoria, Alta.)-90.
PAIRS:
Messieurs
Brodeur,
Stratton,
Harris,
Brown,
Pardee,
Graham,
McCraney,
King, '
Robb,
Carrier,
Borden (Sir F.),
Tolmie,
Harty,
German,
Carvell,
Sinclair,
Smith (Nanaimo),
Gordon (Kent),
Law,
Chisholm (Antigonash), Chew,
Geoffrion,
Douglas,
Murphy,
Conmee,
Martin (Wellington), Guthrie,
Wilson (Laval), Warburton,
Sealey,
McLean (Sunbury).
Amendment negatived.
Opposition.
Haggart (Lanark), Gordon (Nipissing), Beattie,
Lortie,
Stanfield,
Bristol,
Magrath,
Northrup,
Wilcox,
Arthurs,
Thoburn,
Elson,
Price,
Osier,
Henderson,
Monk,
Barker,
Sexsmith,
Daniel,
Crocket,
Lalor,
Forget,
Lake,
White Renfrew), Marshall,
Lewis,
Foster,
Worthington,
Crosby,
Smyth,
Meighen.


PREPARATION OF VOTERS' LISTS.
Robert Laird Borden: Before the motion passes I would like to refer to an inquiry I made with regard to the preparation of the voters' lists on the 20th inst. The hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Murphy) informed me on that occasion that Jhe would have a statement prepared and brought down. A certain statement was prepared and brought down, but it does not cover all I asked for. I asked for a statement of the ridings jin respect to which the voters' lists have been printed and delivered. That has been brought down. I asked also for a further statement as to when it is expected the lists will be ready for the ridings that have not been served in that way up to the present time. If the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfred Laurier) would be good enough to remind the Secretary of State, who is not in his place, I would be very glad.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Ways and Means.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax)

Mr. JAMES U. DONNELLY (South Bruce).: Mr. Chairman, before dealing with the principal effects of the proposed tariff changes now before the House, I wish to make a short reference to the conditions which led up to the present situation. The Payne-Aldrich Bill, which came into effect in the United States in the year 1909, provided for a maximum and a minimum tariff. The minimum tariff, which was the regular tariff, was considerably higher than the Canadian tariff, but was still 25 per cent lower than the maximum tariff. The maximum tariff was to be applied against all countries which, in the judgment of the president,. discriminated in tariff legislation against the United States. The President of the United States took the ground that the terms of the French treaty, which a short time previously had been arranged between Canada and France, discriminated against the United States, and that therefore unless certain tariff concessions were made they would impose their maximum tariffs on all imports from Canada. Our government became alarmed, they sent representatives to Albany and then to Washington, and finally agreed that if the president would refrain from using his big stick, thirteen classes of articles would be placed upon a list advantageous to the United States, and assured the president that they would later on consider a. broader tariff agreement with the United States. The changes in connection with the thirteen classes of articles may have been unimportant. The objectionable feature of the whole transaction was that our government assented to the principle of being dictated to from Washington in the arrangement of tariff legislation. In the fall of 1910 negotiations were again resumed, and in January of this year the Hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) and the Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) went to Washington and arranged the present pact. There is this difference, however, in the way that the measure was submitted in the two countries. In the United States the question was submitted to the House of Representatives and to the Senate not as a. party measure in the same sense that it is submitted here. It was dealt with more upon its merits. The Democratic party or the Republican party did not depend upon the result. But the situation here is very different. An agreement of great national importance is entered into by two members of the cabinet without consulting the people, without consulting the members of the House who represent the people, and we have been told by one Liberal member of the

House that it was only submitted to the members of the cabinet for their consideration for about one hour before it was brought down to this House as a government measure on the same day. Theoretically, the government supporters are free to support or oppose it, but they are aware that such opposition might lead to the defeat of the government that they were elected to support. The right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has stated that the government will stand or fall by this agreement. The Minister of Finance stated that parliament is bound in honour to accept the agreement entered into by these two cabinet ministers. The main principle of the proposal is, that we should open our market and let in a long list of articles mentioned in the agreement, mostly natural and farm products, and that the Americans should open their market to us on similar terms. With regard to the United States lowering their rates of duty upon Canadian products, I have no objection to make. I realize that the United States tariff is a subject for the United States government to settle. If they really want to secure our products, they will grant them free entry. The indications are that in the near future the Democrats will be in control and we will then receive many concessions proposed by this agreement without Sacrificing our home market. It has been stated by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. ,'Sifton) that eighty per cent of all our agricultural products are required to supply our home market, and I am not aware that this statement has been successfully refuted; while the remaining 20 per cent find a ready market under present conditions. Why, then, should we open up our home market to the competition of half the civilized world in order that we may get into a market that already has a surplus of the principal products included in the pact? During 1908 the United States exported the following:
Wheat	 151,000,000 bush.
Oats	
2,333,000	"Barley	
8,262,000	"Oil cake	
$9,303,000Flax seed	
437,000	"
While there is a decrease in their exports of grain there is an increase in their exports of grain products. In 1905 they exported $42,000,000 worth of meal and flour while in 1908 they exported $66,000,000 worth of the same commodity, an increase of $24,000,000 worth, showing that they approve of the principle of sending out all their exports as far as possible in the shape of the finished product. The same condition exists in regard to live stock. While there has been a decrease in their exports of live stock there has been an increase in their exports of beef and pork. In 1905 they exported beef and pork to the value of $153,000,000. In 1908 they exported $172,000,000 worth, an increase of $19,000,000.
Now, dealing with some of the different items I propose first to take up the question of wheat. There may be local conditions at some points near the border which might occasion an apparent difference in the price of wheat in favour of the American producer; yet, I see no reason to think that this agreement would materially increase the price of wheat. In some of the Liberal papers a statement is made that the removing of the duty on wheat would increase the price of our Canadian wheat at least ten cents a bushel. In order to show the editors of these papers that their Liberal, political friends who have made a study of this question do not agree with them, I will quote the remarks of the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) as they appear in ' Hansard ' at page 3730:
I do say, this, however, that so far as I have been able to examine the matter-and I have looked into it with some care-I cannot see any reason why we should expect any very great increase in the price of wheat for transportation to the United States. There may be a reason, and there may be an increased price, but I am not able exactly to find out how it will come about.
We have heard a good deal about the benefits that would accrue to our farmers if -they could get into the American market with their barley. While the price of malting barley is higher on the American side of the line than on this side, there are many factors that tend to prevent our Canadian farmers from ever going extensively into the raising of barley.
Among them is the scarcity of farm labour and the general use of the selfbinder and the fact that such barley can only be produced on very fertile soil and handled only under very favourable weather conditions. Twenty-five or thirty years ago, when farm help was plentiful, the farmer could cut his barley with the self-rake reaper, leaving it lie a few days, and thus have a fair chance of harvesting it while the grain was still dry and bright. A field of barley that does not ripen evenly, if cut with a self-binder will not produce good malting barley. In fact the length of time required to dry any barley cut with a self-binder reduces the possibility of its being of a high grade. The progressive farmer who is anxious to conserve the fertility of the soil, would prefer to feed his barley at home and get his return from the sale of his live stock and dairy products. Even if our farmers desired to ship their feed barley to the United States, they could not profitably do so and compete with American corn. In support of this statement I may say that during last winter many of our stockmen in Ontario

were feeding corn to their cattle, although feed barley could be purchased at that time for about one cent a pound. With regard to hay, when making a comparison of the price of hay in the United States and Canada, it is always well to remember that on the other side the quotations are on the long ton, 2,240 pounds, while in Canada a ton requires only 2,000 pounds. I may say that so far as the people of Bruce county are concerned, they have higher ambition than to spend their time raising hay for the Americans. They raise hay, it is true, and we expect they will continue to raise hay, but they prefer to feed it to their stock and to maintain the fertility of their farms by the by-products. The people of western Ontario and particularly the people of the county of Bruce, have for many years gone extensively into the raising of horses, which has proved a very profitable occupation. While fancy or select horses have found a ready market in the United States, the opening of the three prairie provinces has supplied the best market for the great bulk of our horses. Any person familiar with the horse industry knows that no matter how carefully the sires and dams may be selected, a very small proportion of the horses raised will be what might be called fancy horses, and it is easily seen how important it is to preserve the western Canadian market for good serviceable blocks of horses. Our Liberal friends tell us that the west will soon be in a position to raise their own horses. Well, we have heard that statement for the last 15 years, but the demand has kept on increasing and in all probability will increase for many years to come, as only a small portion of the arable land of that great country has yet been brought under cultivation. I have been assured by men familiar with conditions in the west that if this agreement goes into effect our horses will be displaced in the prairie provinces by the cheaper horses from the western states. I have here document No. 849, prepared by the American Tariff Board relative to the various commodities named in the proposed reciprocity measure, and at pa"" 109 I find the following:
Prices of horses range from $106 ito $125 per bead in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and New York. In Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and North Dakota the range is from $111 to $126, and in Montana, Idaho, and Washington from $80 to $108. In eastern Canada prices of horses range from $107 to $139 per head, while in western Canada the range is from $107 to $156. In the great agricultural states of Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa, prices range from $120 to $124. In all the Canadian provinces, except Prince Edward Island, Manitoba and Nova Scotia, the prices are higher than in any of our states.


James J. Donnelly: At page 110 I read that the average price of horses per head in Montana is given at $80 and in Saskatchewan the average price of horses is given at $156 per head. I wish also to call attention to the American view as put forward in the ' Saturday Evening Post ' of March 25, by Senator Beveridge of the United States, who writes:
Take horses and mules. We now ship to Canada every year thousands more of horses and mules than Canada ships to us. Canada has an under supply of horses and mules: comparatively we have an over supply. So the free interchange of horses and mules between this country and Canada means an enlarged market for horses and mules raised by our farmers. And our farmers want that enlarged market, do they not? Why, then, should we make it hard for them to enter that market with their horses and mules?
In reference to the position of the cattle and meat trade, should we enjer into this proposed agreement, I find in the Toronto 'Globe' of July 24th 1911, a leading article extolling the benefits that will accrue to the United States from this pact, and there is something in that article that our farmers should reflect upon. The ' Globe ' is giving a statement of the conditions in the United States, and it says:
The meat trust has taken toll of the people without mercy, and the cost of living has been forced up so high that the town dwellers, and in some measure the farmers also, nave revolted, and demanded the removal of the food taxes that were used to make great fortunes for the manipulators of the markets. On the one hand the frusta were able to depress the farmers' selling prices, and on the other to compel the consumer to pay enhanced prices for their food supplies. The secret of the meat trust's tremendous power lay in the fact that the farmer was selling cattle at prices prearranged by a little group of men who controlled practically all the packing houses in the United States, while the consumer was buying meat at retail stores similarly controlled by the trust.
That is a fair explanation of the conditions existing in the United States, and if it means anything, it means that the meat trusts had got practical control of both producers and consumers there, and the result of entering into this agreement would be simply to extend the scope of their operations. They have now their machinery in very good order to control the ninety millions of people in the United States, and it will be a very simple matter for them to extend their operations to the seven or eight million people in Canada. The last census showed that the State of _ Pennsylvania had a slightly larger population, and the State of New York a much larger population, than had the entire Dominion of Canada, so that for the meat trust to extend their

operations to Canada would be nothing more to them than extending their operations into another state.
In regard to the hog industry, I wish to say that our farmers have made great progress during the past ten years. Canadian bacon has gained an enviable reputation in the British market. Now, if this pact goes into effect, the result will be an interchange of hogs'-whether our hogs go the United States or the United States hogs come here, the result will be that the identity of Canadian bacon will be lost, for the Americans produce sixteen hogs to one produced in Canada. Even should the agreement be revoked-as our Liberal friends seem to think, would be such an easy thing to do-it would take years to establish Canadian bacon in the position it occupies to-day.
So far as I am aware the farmers of Western Ontario have not been asking for reciprocity in hogs or hog products." The very opposite is the case, for, as a matter of fact they have been asking for increased protection in hog products. I have a copy of a petition which was sent to me during the last session of parliament, and was presented to this House early in that session. This is not in any sense a partisan document, and it was prepared at a time when there was no talk of reciprocity, but when the farmers were simply looking at it from a business standpoint of view. I will read the petition to you so that you may see what their view is:
To the Premier and members of the Dominion Parliament of Canada, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sirs,-In view of the enormous quantities of hog products being imported into Canada from the United States during the last few years, and in constantly increasing quantities which in most cases is being slaughtered on the Canadian market at a time when there is no local occasion for it, the only apparent reason being a glut in the United States market, thus enabling our Canadian packers and dealers to, get supplies at a considerably reduced price, the effect of which they use to reduce the price to the producers here without, as experience shows, reducing the price to the consumer, and whereas Canada is capable of producing an abundance of pork products for the home market as well as for export and are anxious to be relieved of the great annoyance and loss of this periodical slump, therefore, we humbly petition and strongly urge your honourable body to increase the tariff on pork from two cents to four cents, and we hereby request our re presentative to both advocate and support such a measure at the approaching session of the House; believing that producer and consumer would be greatly benefited by a more uniformly even fair price.
And as in duty bound, your petitions will ever pray.
John McCharles	Dan. MacKay,


James H.: Needham,	A. W. Hamilton,


Fred. H.: Solomon,	Dan. Thompson,
R. Hamilton,	W. J. McGuire,
It. Finlayson,
W. R. MacDonald,
J. A. McKenzie,
W. E. Treleaven, Daniel Altan,
Thomas Glen,
Godfrey Hall, Alexander McKinnon, Herb. Ensign,


William J.: McKenzie, William Davie,
Levi Boyle,
Tom. Speers,
W. S. McCrostde, David Falconer,
John Fraser,
James Kenny,
Archie Harper,
John McDonald, Kenneth McDonald,
W. C. Smith,
C.	E. Smith,
Alex. Thomson,
J. A. Ruttle,
Henry Campbell,
Elisha McDonald,
Angus McIntosh,
William Henderson,
Angus Maityn,


John A.: $6.75 per 100 pounds-$1.25 in favour of the Canadian market.
In order to show you that the Americans are sending sheep and lambs in here even under present conditions, I would like to refer to 'Hansard' of July 24, where the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) replying to an inquiry made by the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) stated that there were 12,226 sheep and lambs sent into Canada from the United States during the month of May of this year, and that the value of these lambs and sheep was $21,063. Instead of our lambs going into the United States, evidently the result would be that our home market would be swamped by American sheep and lambs. The defenders of reciprocity tell us that it will open up a market with 90,000,000 people. Take the population of Canada at 'about seven or eight million and the population of the United States at about ninety million, the proportion would be twelve to one.
So, for every Canadian farmer who is permitted to enter free into the United States market, twelve American farmers will be permitted to enter free into this country. By looking through the Canada Year-book for 1910, which was recently issued, I find That of what is listed as animals and animal products we imported from the United States, $11,836,464, and exported to the United States, $10,629,614, or the value of *our imports from the United States for home consumption was $1,206,849 greater than the value of our exports to that country. I find that we imported in that year from the United States meats to the value of $2,216,343 and exported to the United States, $69,965. In other words, for every dollar's worth of meat that we sold to the United States we bought $30 worth from them. Of eggs, we imported from the United States during 1910, $177,577, and we exported to them in the same year, $11,551, or we bought $15 worth from them for every dollar's worth that we exported to them. Evidently if this ninety million market was such a great boon to the Canadian farmers as the advocates of reciprocity would leave us to believe, the Americans would find a market for products of this nature at home without sending them into Canada. It does not end there. For the privilege of getting into the United States market we permit 12 other nations to have free entry into our markets on the same terms which we give to the United States without getting any trade concessions from these other countries. I have here a list of the favoured countries with their areas and populations:


James J. Donnelly: Argentine (1908) .. .. Austria-Hungary..	..
Colombia..		
Denmark (1909)	
Japan (1908)	
Norway	
Russia (1909)	
Spain (1909)	
Sweden (1909)	
Switzerland	
Venezuela	
Bolivia	
Area in Population.
Square miles.
1,117,049	6,484,023
241,197	49,280,000
504,773	4,142,000
15,052	2,692,000
147,476	52,340,220
124,090	2,253,000
8,379,044	157,044,700
194,744	20,068,381
1721875	5,476,441
15,417	3,555,000
599,358	2,647,000
650,000 say 2,000,000
12,161,085	307,982,765
say 308,000,000
So for the privilege which this pact will give us we are opening our market to oyer
300,000,000 people, very many of them living behind high tariff walls which will prevent us competing with them in their home markets. By the operation of the favoured nation clause the products of a protected territory three times the size of Canada, much of it highly developed, will be admitted into our home markets free. A foreign population exclusive of the United States, forty times as great as the population of Canada, will be furnished with free trade passes to the Canadian market. Including the United States, with the twelve favoured nations, it means competition between one acre in Canada and four acres outside of Canada, between one Canadian farmer and fifty foreign commercial foes. To illustrate these conditions, I wish to quote from the tariff rates of some of the different countries. Argentine will be able to send oats into Canada under this agreement free, whereas our farmers in sending oats into Argentine would pay 66 cents per 100 pounds duty. Butter would enter Canada free, while Canadian butter entering Argentine will pay 41 cents per pound. Fresh meats would enter Canada under a duty of II cents a pound, while going from Canada into Argentine they would pay 25 per cent. Bacon would enter Canada from Argentine at a duty of II cents a pound, while Canadian bacon would pay 9 cents per pound. New Zealand mutton would enter Canada under a duty of II cents a pound, while New Zealand charges a duty of 20 per cent on our mutton. Similar conditions will apply to a great many other commodities included in this pact.
That the products of the favoured nations are similar to ours is shown by the fact that they are large producers of wheat. In 1908 the following countries, Switzerland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Japan, Spain, Argentine, Austria and Russia, produced a total of 1,154,000,000 bushels. The advocates of reciprocity tell us the favoured nations will not send in anything free under this agreement, that they are not

10466; r
likely to be competitors with the Canadian producers. The member for Lisgar (Mr. Sharpe) has placed a statement in 'Hansard' which shows that we imported goods from the favoured nations during six years to the value of $33,000,000. These people are able to send $33,000,000 worth of farm products _ into Canada and pay the duty under existing conditions, so what may we expect when our duty is taken off altogether? The advocates of reciprocity are not quite so confident as they were at first. Their proposition now is to give it a trial, a.nd if it does not prove a good thing for Canada, revoke it. Do they honestly think that if they enter into this agreement and it proves a good thing for the United States that they can so easily revoke it? They have only to remember the position of President Taft a little over a year ago, the only difference would be that the size of the stick would be increased tenfold.
The Liberal organs very often refer to this agreement as a measure of tariff relief. Well, if there is going to be any tariff relief about it, I fail to see where the farmers of this country are going to share in that relief. We have a large national debt on which we are bound to pay interest. The public works which it is necessary for us to build require a very large expense of money. We have also to meet the expenses of carrying on the government of this country. We are committed to a total expense in the neighbourhood of $100,000,000 per year. Now, the Dominion government does not send around a tax collector to get that money, but collects it by customs duties; and it appears to me that if this agreement goes into effect, the farmer will pay a larger portion of his taxes in the form of customs duties than he does at the present time. Under this agreement, if a farmer requires a buggy brought in from the United States, he will still pay duty on it; if he will require to bring in any other foreign machinery, he will continue to pay duty on it. He will continue to pay duty on his cotton, his sugar, and other necessaries of life, while the miner or the lumberman who wishes to bring in supplies for his camp, feed for his horses or food for his men, will be able to bring them in duty free. The lumberman will be able to bring in his oats from the United States without contributing anything to the revenue of this country. He will be able to bring in American cattle, American hogs and American butter to supply his camp, without paying any duty upon them. The farmer will be forced to sell everything he produces in a non-pro-tected market, while practically everything he requires to buy is protected, and he will have to pay duty on it. Now, the 330
National Policy; asinaugurate*! by the government of Sir John A. Maecjonald, and continued by the present government, laid the foundation for and developed a splendid home market. The purchasing power of our people is continually increasing. The census returns show that the urban population of this country is increasing at a greater rate than the rural population. Not only is it increasing in number, but its purchasing power is increasing very rapidly owing to the increased wealth of the country. Many of the people who are included in the Tural population might be classed as part of our consuming population. Practically all the northern parts of Ontario, where the people are devoted to lumbering and mining, supply a good market for the farm products of the older portions of Ontario. Even the farmers of our western provinces specialize largely in wheat, and are good customers for the majority of the farm products of the older portions of Caniida.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I wish to refer to the statement so often made that both political parties have been in favour of reciprocity. Conditions to-day are very different from conditions twenty years ago. The refusal of the Americans at that time to open their door to us has resulted in developing a spirit of self reliance in the Canadian people. In the face of what looked like adversity we have found other markets for our surplus products. They refused to give us assistance while we were on the up-grade. Now that we are reaching the summit, we do not require it. Let us not be deceived: the Americans to-day as in the past are legislating for what they believe to be their own best interest. Having almost exhausted many of their resources, they are entering into this agreement for the purpose of getting control of our natural resources, and in the belief that has been so freely expressed by many of their prominent men that the arrangement wiki ultimately lead to the annexation of Canada. While I am free to admit that in some cases this pact might result in increased prices, the discussion so far has convinced me that it is not in the best interests of Canada. I prefer to support a policy which will preserve the Canadian market for farm products for the Canadian farmer, which will encourage the transforming of Canadian resources into finished products by Canadian workmen, and reserve the Tight of Canadians to regulate their own tariff.
On motion of Mr. Beattie, committee rose and reported progress.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 11.55 p.m.


the following communication from the Colonial office:
Friday, July 28, 1911.