Was that done ?

Mr. BELL.

No.

Then the hon. gentleman, according to his own authority, did not lay the necessary foundation for his motion.

Mr. BELL.

What I say is that the hon. gentleman is not correct ill saying that the motion before the committee should contain a statement of the reasons for ir.

I say that at the time the motion was made there was no statement, no charge, nothing at all but a huge blue-book containing a large number of accounts ; and if a man gets up in the committee, and says I move that John Brown be summoned, and a couple of days afterwards says I believe that John Brown can give useful information, that is no ground whatever for summoning him. My hon. friend from Antigonish (Mr. Mclsaac) afterwards said : ' I wish you would report to the House that there are thirty or forty men in my county who could give useful information, and who would like a trip to Ot-

tawa ; why not summon them ? ' There would be just as much reason for summoning these persons as for summoning the man whose name was mentioned, and who had no more relation to the investigation than any other man you could imagine. The hon. gentleman talks of the magnitude of the expenditure. The expenditure is larger than it was, undoubtedly; but that has nothing to do with the question. What we have to consider is whether there was anything before that committee which required the summoning of this gentleman. We were at the first stages of the Inquiry- f do not say investigation, because there was "nothing to investigate-into the public accounts. Hon. gentlemen opposite, who thought they knew a good deal about railways, but have since discovered that they know precious little, thought they had something to inves-gate ; and they spent two days in asking the Auditor General about matters of which he confessed he knew nothing. That was the first stage of their investigation. Then they had the General Manager of I he Intercolonial summoned, and he was waiting. They had another officer of the Intercolonial Railway summoned as well as several other witnesses. Hon. gentlemen opposite have a fashion of getting a lot of witnesses summoned at the expense of the country, and keeping them dangling around Ottawa two or three weeks, and then not calling them after all. Now, I quite admit that circumstances may arise in which they might connect this gentleman, either as an expert or in some other way, with the business of +he Railway Department. If they can disclose anything which seems to be a reasonable matter for investigation, then let him be called ; but at a time when no charge was made, no ground alleged, and when the hon. member did not comply with the rule which he himself quotes, I submit that there was no foundation whatever for calling this gentleman. I was one of those who voted that he should not be called. I say now that if hon. gentlemen can show any reason in the world, after the examination of the principal officials, for supposing this man can give any useful information, I am prepared to call him. Nay, more, if they are prepared to make any accusation respecting the honour or honesty of the management of the Intercolonial Railway, and this gentleman or anybody else can give any evidence in support of their accusation, I am ready to call him. But when we have no charge before us or anything to investigate, and a gentleman stands up in the committee and says, I move that John Brown be called, and two days afterwards some one else says, I think John Brown knows something about this matter, I submit there is no proper ground laid for calling him. If Mr. Archibald can give any useful information, I shall be glad to hear it, but on the grounds which the hon. gentlemen have laid down, they 45

have net a shadow of right to call him. If we are to observe the practices and rules-of the House, then we will not undertake to-call witnesses until a fair and reasonable ground is laid to show that such witnesses can give some useful information bearing on the public accounts before the committee.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).

Mr. Speaker, what a delightful exhibition the hon. gentleman has given us of a quiet, businesslike discussion.

I thought I was exceedingly quiet.

Mr. BORDEN Halifax). A most delightful exhibition of what he says should be the mode of discussing this question. The hen. gentleman has had some experience in the same kind of business in the province of Nova Scotia. A gentleman made a charge with regard to the distribution of road allowances in that province when my hon. friend was premier of the province ; and witnesses were allowed to be summoned when it was convenient, and certain witnesses who were not perhaps thought to be very agreeable to the hon. gentleman were not allowed to be brought; and the investigation was dealt with by my hon. friend's government in such a way as seemed best adapted to serve not the interests of the country, but the interests of my hon. friend's government.

If my hon. friend will permit me, he lays the foundation that there was a charge, which I deny ; and in doing that he lays down different conditions from what exist to-day. -

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax;. What I am pointing out is that there was a charge.

There is no charge here.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

There were distinct charges in the province of Nova Scotia on that occasion and they were dealt with in exactly the same way as this matter was dealt with. I think my hon. friend ought to think before he speaks.

We settled all these things in Nova Scotia.

Thirty-six to two.

Thirty-six to two.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

On that particular occasion ?

On nearly all occasions. We do not have to count very closely down there.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

That is a most delightfully satisfactory answer to the ques-' tion as to whether or not we are to have this witness. The answer Is-thirty-six to two; call in your members.

No, we did not call in the members ; we called in the people.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

The hon. gentleman is not only attempting to violate the rules of the committee but the rules of the House by interrupting me without my consent.

I will not interrupt the hon. gentleman without his consent, but when he interrupts me I will call his attention to it.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

I have the floor at present. The hon. gentleman must remember that although he is a very great man no doubt, he has to observe the rules of the House, if he does not observe the rules of the committee. If he desires to make any special remarks that are pertinent to this debate, I will sit down and give him the opportunity.