Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.

It is shown by the addressee, I think.

Mr. LANCASTER.

The inspector came to that conclusion.

Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.

It is sworn to.

Mr. LANCASTER.

The inspector does not say who proved that. The inspector should have brought the man who he pretends proves that face to face with Gallagher and if he had done so he might have found that Gallagher was entirely innocent. He seems to have been treated most unjustly. The person the letter was addressed to would not know when it arrived at his post office. There does not seem to have been any investigation into the matter at all. He was charged with having taken an interest in the political matters of my hon. friend from Lennox (Mr. Wilson) but they seem not to have been able to prove that and the hon. Postmaster General justifies his dismissal upon the delaying of this letter. I would like the hon. Postmaster General to tell the committee what he calls interference in election. I would like him to tell me whether the mere allowing use of his premises by a postmaster for a political committee, he not being present hi in self, would be held to be an interference in politics on the part of the postmaster and would justify liis dismissal.

Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.

I do not know that I am called upon to pass opinions upon mere theoretical cases.

Mr. LANCASTER.

Suppose the postmaster acts as a scrutineer in a parliamentary election will the hon. Postmaster General tell the committee whether h'e thinks that is an undue interference or not ?

Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.

When any case of the kind comes up it will be dealt with.

Mr. LANCASTER.

Is the hon. Postmaster General going to shield himself behind that vague statement ? Will the hon. gentleman say whether acting as a scrutineer would be considered as interference or not ?

Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.

That is not the case we have before us at the present moment.

Mr- LANCASTER. I am able to understand that quite well. I know this is not the case that we have before us but we are dealing with the question of taking an active part in politics such as would justify the interference of the Postmaster General. I thihk it is only fair to the postmasters who at' bne time in their lives have belonged to one' or both sides of politics that they should understand where they are in reference to these matters. On the general principle, applying it to both sides of politics, suppose that" a' postmaster acted as a scrutineer at a parliamentary election and did nothing else would that be considered as interference or not ? - The hon. Postmaster General need not be ammtbat I am goiiig at this session

Mr. LANCASTER.

to make a charge against any postmaster of having acted as a scrutineer. I know that postmasters in the country act as scrutineers, and it may be that they fear that the axe of the Postmaster General will fall upon their necks. Would the hon. Postmaster General be inclined to treat that as an interference in politics which would justify the dismissal of a postmaster ? I think the Postmaster General ought to tell us whether a postmaster who acts as a scrutineer, doing nothing illegal or dishonest but who assists in securing a proper counting of the votes and in the prevention of personation, acting in the interest of the people as a scrutineer for one side of politics or the other, is guilty of an undue interference with politics which would justify his dismissal.

Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.

If an opinion upon that point were at all necessary in order to deal with the present question I would be bound to give that opinion but I do not think it has the slightest bearing upon the subject. Obiter dicta are very unwise utterances. It is never expedient for any one to indulge in them and I think I cannot do better than adhere to that determination.

Mr. LANCASTER.

I would suggest another case, and that is where a postmaster attends a court of revision to settle voters' lists. The postmaster is often the best informed man as to the age of people, as to where people were born and as to the qualifications generally of people in his neighbourhood. Would the hon. Postmaster General say that if a postmaster attended a Court of Revision, acting on one side or the other, acting honestly and 'giving correct information to the court it would be an improper interference in politics ?

Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.

After my former answer it is hardly fair to ask that question.

Mr. LENNOX.

The Postmaster General says he is not very well acquainted with the inspector, but so far as he knows he is a respectable man. I am not at all acquainted with the inspector but I judge of his fitness for the office by what he has set down in writing, and by what the Postmaster General has inadvertently submitted for the consideration of this committee. On the rules of reasonable legal evidence with which the Postmaster General is so familiar, he will find it difficult to justify his action with regard to this postmaster. He will find it hard to sustain his decision, based upon idle rumour and upon mere tittle-tattle reported by his inspector, to dismiss an official who has been long in office. There was no ground for dismissing this postmaster, and whatever may have occurred in other cases it is abundantly clear that in this case the most flagrant injustice has been done. The inspector says :

I have no reason to doubt or question the correctness of the affidavits made by John Kerr, John Kearns, Isaac McEwan, Thos. Clyde, Gay Simmons and others, some of whom were personally interviewed.

The inspector was not asked to make a return that he bad no reason to doubt these statements, but he was asked to investigate by proper evidence whether the statements were substantiated or not. He continues :

That Mr. Gallagher did take part in the last political contest ; perhaps not so openly as heretofore, but an active part when opportunity occurred.

We do not know what active part he took heretofore, or what active part he took in the last contest. If he voted I assume the inspector would find he took an active part. The Postmaster General can takeTwhatever horn of the dilemma he likes ; either the inspector did not perform his duty or the Postmaster General acted upon the most shadowy suspicion which is not evidence at all. Does the Postmaster General claim that he was in any degree influenced by this report in dismissing Mr. Gallagher ? The inspector continues :

To what extent I was unable to definitely learn, although Mr. Gallagher admitted the facts stated in Mr. McEwan's affidavit, that Mr. Uriah Wilson and others were at his house the evening after Mr. Wilson's political meeting was held at Wilton, at the time of the last Dominion election contest, but denies that the meeting was political.

The admission of Mr. Gallagher was that Mr. Wilson and some others were in his House after the meeting was over, but he says there were no political matters discussed at all. Is that the reason the Postmaster General dismissed this man V That is not evidence ; it is not even enough on which to base a suspicion. The inspector adds :

Of course an accurate report of the business transacted or matters discussed cannot now be obtained.

What the inspector wants his chief to understand is that this was a star chamber meeting, and although there is not a scintilla of evidence to show that there was anything political in the meeting, he regrets to find that an accurate report of what took place cannot be obtained and then he says :

But I think the conclusion come to by Mr. McEwan is not unreasonable, and that a political meeting was held and matters in connection therewith discussed.

Could anything more disgraceful be conceived than that the Postmaster General received that report from his ofhcial without protest. In any court of justice the lowest in the land ; in any magistrate's court ; in any division court', would any judge for one moment take such evidence as that from a witness ; would he not tell ISO*

the inspector : you have no right to think ; your duty is to give facts to which you can depose. Is the duty less upon the Postmaster General ? I venture to say that the universal opinion of all thoughtful men, when this matter comes to be known, will be that a more contemptffide manner of administering the affairs or a great department could not possibly be conceived. The Postmaster General not only does not reprove his official, but actually brings his report before this committee and puts it forward as a basis on which to support the dismissal of this man who has been dismissed without any investigation or any opportunity to defend himself. Now, he comes to the second point :

Delay in delivery of a registered letter. This fact was clearly established.

This is the gentleman that the Postmaster General says he will not have criticised ; he will not have any aspersions cast upon him ; he will uphold him. Well, I wish him joy of him. He says the fact was clearly established-how ?

By reference to the registered letter book, and the admission of the clerk in charge of the office, showing that the letter, although frequently asked for, was not delivered for eight days.

The letter book will show when the letter was received and when it was delivered ; but it will be a peculiar kind of letter book if it will show that the letter was frequently asked for. I have not followed this matter with sufficient care to know what the evidence is on that point ; but I did not understand from the hon. member for Lennox that it is all admitted that the letter had been called for. I challenge the Postmaster General to show one tittle of evidence that it was ever called for. I notice that the Postmaster General said that he would not dismiss him on that ; but I propose to show the evidence in regard to that, and it is a gauge by which we can judge the evidence on other matters. The third charge is :

Delay in sending forward correspondence in order to gain a municipal advantage.

The animus of this independent inspector is pretty well shown in that very sentence. He is to investigate the matter, not to paint or colour it. He says further :

In January last, Col. Clyde was a candidate for the reeveship of Ernestown township in opposition to Mr. Gallagher, and of course no effort was spared by the friends of the respective rival candidates to win.

Again he enters into the political arena. What does he know about no effort being spared ? Has he any right to deal with that ? Is it not the most offensive political partisanship on the part of this inspector to put that into his report ? Was the Postmaster General ready to reprimand or dismiss him for that V This gentleman, on

no evidence at all; but on suspicion, is prepared to find' that no effort was spared.

Sir WILLIAM MTJLOCK.

I suppose he could get such information in the community.

Mr. LENNOX.

*Of course, if he had nothing to do but learn gossip and take it in, and then pen it down for the Postmaster General to gloat over. But if he was to ascertain the facts he would have endeavoured to find those who knew them, and kept clear of those who knew nothing about them.

Mr. Simmons, a strong supporter of Col. Clyde, wrote a letter on January 3rd, posting it before 2.30 p.m. on that day, to Mr. Harry Timmerman, then at Camden East, urging him to come to Wilton and vote for Col. Clyde on Monday. Mr. Timmerman, who was known as a supporter of Col. Clyde, did not intend returning, having paired with another voter ; this was well known at Wilton, and it was common gossip in the village that Mr. Simmons' letter was purposely delayed so that Mr. Timmerman would not cast his vote against Mr. Gallagher.

If this gentleman was paired, and if that was well known in Wilton, it would be in order to ask this zealous inspector how Mr. Gallagher was obtaining the political advantage with which he charges him by the delay of that letter. I suppose there is honour there as well as here, and if a man is paired, that is the end of it. With this knowledge in his mind, this official is so zealous that he actually charges him with a design to prevent the return of this man who if returned could serve no useful purpose and could do no harm to Mr. Gallagher if the other part of his statement was true.

I am unable to say that the public came to a correct conclusion

I do not suppose he was to investigate that.

-but the fact remains that the letter was posted at 2.30 p.m. on Saturday

He does not show where he got the evidence for that

and that the mail for Camden East did not leave Wilton until 6 p.m., and that the letter for Mr. Timmerman did not go forward on that day, although posted in ample time, and did not reach Camden East until Monday p.m., too late to serve the purpose intended.

Although I understood the hon. member for Lennox to say that the postmaster at Camden East did not say when the letter reached there, and this gentleman does not furnish any information that can tell us to the contrary. He goes on to say :

The letter did not reach the candidate until Monday afternoon, too late to serve the purpose intended.

But it could not, in any event have served any purpose because the man to whom it Mr. LENNOX.

was written was paired. But we have here the fact stated that the idle rumour of the streets, the common gossip of the village, as he expresses it, suggested to his mind that there was some reason more than simple oversight which caused the delay in sending the letter forward, and he concludes :

In my opinion the charges made have been in the main substantiated.

It is suggested to me that the inspector had no right to form opinions or to render finding. All he had to do was to report the facts to the Postmaster General, and it would be for that gentleman to come to a conclusion. If he came to a wrong conclusion, we cannot help it; and no doubt this Inspector was convinced that he would best meet the views of the Postmaster General and give evidence of the zeal that was expected of him if he based a finding on the flimsy suggestion which idle gossip brought to his mind. Under the circumstances, I submit that this is a case in which, as a matter of justice and principle, the Postmaster General should order an impartial investigation into all the circumstances ; and if such an investigation should be held and acted upon, it would no doubt result in this postmaster being reinstated in his position.

Mr. ALCORN.

This discussion has thrown a little light on a matter of general public interest, namely, as to what evidence should be required and what procedure should be taken to guide the government in coming to a conclusion with regard to the dismissal of any Conservative postmaster, a great many of whom have been dismissed by that hon. gentleman. This particular postmaster appears to have been signally honoured in the procedure adopted in his case. What is called an investigation appears to have taken place. An official of the government was sent to the neighbourhood, and he did gather some idle gossip from the streets of a country village which was excited over the dismissal of a postmaster and the issue of a local municipal election. This official does not even suggest that lie took any evidence by any proceeding with -which we are familiar, but simply that he gathered a certain impression from ordinary gossip, and on that impression he came to a conclusion which he thought would meet the views of the Postmaster General. _ I might here recall to the recollection of' the hon. minister the case of one David Simpson, in the county I have the honour to represent, who was summarily dismissed without even having been honoured by an investigation of any description whatever. The office was sought by a large number of supporters of this government who failed during a number of months to agree among themselves as to which one of them should receive it. That was in fact the only question that was dis-

cussed. A great many meetings were held in the village of Wellington, where this particular postmaster held office to decide who should take his place. There was no effort made to obtain charges against him. none were ever made, except two to which I shall refer in a moment and no investigation was ever granted. But an hon. member, who represents a constituency some two hundred miles away, and who happened to be in the neighbourhood wrote to the Postmaster General a letter which contained two allegations of fact. One was that this postmaster had allowed certain cartoons, then being circulated in the last Dominion election, to be posted up in his office. But according to the best evidence we can obtain, he never allowed any such documents to be posted up in his office at all. The other charge was that the building in which he held the office, which he had caused to be erected himself for the convenience of those receiving mails, was too small to accommodate the public. Another allegation was that this same office, which was too small to accommodate the people who were coming for their mails, and who, I suppose, were throng-inf the office some ten or twelve feet deep, was ordinarily used by the postmaster as a public meeting room for the Conservative party. If one statement be contrasted with the other, we cannot fail but be struck with the absurdity of the situation. Yet without investigation that postmaster was summarily dismissed.

Mr. PUTTEE.

Inasmuch as the Postmaster General has given notice of the introduction of two Bills to amend the Civil Service Act and the Post Office Act, will there be anything in these respecting the officers whose salaries are included in the items we are now discussing ?

Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.

I hardly think I could anticipate the contents of a Bill at this stage. It will be introduced in a few days, and it would be irregular to explain it before it is brought down.

Mr. BELL.

Is it understood that, while this item passes, all these items will be open for consideration ?