1. Yes.

2. No.

Mr. PAQUET.

ished, but while this is satisfactory enough from the public point of view, it gives poor comfort, to the losers of the money, who may frequently be in sore need of it. Another aspect of the matter, however, calls for serious consideration. While the postal authorities are engaged in tracing out the guilty parties, it is no unusual thing for suspicion to rest on honest and perfectly honourable employees, and the knowledge that such is the case and that they are kept, so to speak, under a surveillance which is painful to them as it is insulting, naturally tends to make their lives miserable and to engender in them disgust for their employment. It is certainly not in the public interest that so undesirable a state of things as this should continue any longer, especially as there are so many ways of sending money through the post with absolute safety by registered letter, by insured registered letter, by money order or by postal note, upon all of which the rates have been so greatly reduced that they are within every one's reach, and the money, if lost, can always be recovered.

Why then people should persist in entrusting money to the uncertain and dangerous channel of ordinary letters is beyond comprehension. Under the circumstances we would take the liberty of suggesting to the Honourable the Postmaster General, who has already made so many improvements in our postal service, to make another and an equally needful one in this important particular, which might he done either by giving it to be publicly understood that no special trouble will be taken to trace ordinary letters containing money that are lost or stolen, or by passing a Bill at the present session imposing a flne upon all persons sending money in ordinary letters. This last measure would have the double eft'ect of protecting the public and rendering existence more agreeable to the honest postal employees, who have to suffer from the present deplorable state of affairs. We sincerely trust to see favourable consideration given to this matter by the Postmaster General, and at the same time we would strongly advise our readers never to send money through the mails, no matter how small the amount, in a letter that is not registered or insured, or by some of the other safe methods above indicated.

Le Soleil,' of Quebec, of the same date, publishes the following :

The transmission of money by mail.

A great number of people have the very bad habit of .sending money in letters that are not registered. Several of such letters go astray or are lost. It is true that the thieves always end by being caught, but in the meantime it often happens that suspicion hangs over perfectly honest employees, and when these latter become aware of it they take a dislike for their positions and lead a miserable existence.

There are, however, many safe ways of sending money by mail, such as by registered letter insured letters (lettres assurdes), post office orders and drafts. The tariff for these different forms has been considerably reduced in order to induce the public to make use of them. Yet how many people still persist in sending money in ordinary letters.

We therefore take the liberty of suggesting to the Honourable the Postmaster General who has already improved so much the postal service, to have a law passed, during the present session, that will impose a fine on all those imprudent, not to say stupid, people who send money in letters that are not registered Such

law would have the two-fold result of protecting the public and of rendering more agreeable the lives of those honest employees who suffer from this unfortunate state of affairs.

We hope that our suggestion will be taken into serious consideration by the Honourable the Postmaster General. In any case, we advise our readers to never send any money, not even the smallest sum, in a letter that is not registered or insured.

2. Is the Post Office Department aware that a law similar to that asked for in articles in question exists in France, and is as follows :

Are punishable with a fine of from 50 to 500 francs (Article 9 of the laws of the 4th June,' 1859, and of the 25th January, 1873), 1st the inclosing of gold, of silver, of jewels and of other precious goods in correspondence ; 2nd, the inclosing of bank notes, bonds, cheques, coupons or dividends or interests due and payable to bearer, in letters that are not submitted to the formality of registration (ehargement ou de la recommandation) ?

3. If so is it the intention of the Post Office Department, for the better protection of the public in general and of the employees in particular, to have a law passed this session based upon that which now exists in France1 and in other foreign countries ?

My attention has, by this question, been called to the articles in question. The department is aware of the existence in France of such a law as is referred to in question 2, but understands that such a law does not exist in any other country. It is not in contemplation at the present time to introduce any legislation dealing with the matter.

1. At what dates, and to whom, were the first water-power leases issued on the Williamsburg and Cornwall canals ?

2. At what yearly rent was each lease issued ?

3. Have any of these leases been transferred? If so, to whom ?

4. Has the government made any claims under these leases for extra water used ?

5. If so, upon whom, and what amounts are claimed ?

6. Does the government intend to demand payment of such extra amounts ?

Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals) :

Mr. A. MARTIN.

Before the Orders of the Day are called, I wish to call the attention of the Minister of Railways to some returns which were ordered some time ago and have not yet been laid on the table. I asked questions in regard to a railway station at Charlottetown in January last. The minister would not answer, but told me to ask for a return. I did so, and have been trying in vain to get it ever since. I asked also for a return showing the expenditure on railways and canals in each province, and in the return brought down, there is the statement by the minister that certain information could not be obtained. This seems very strange because I obtained a return in 1898 for similar expenditure up to that date, and I see no reason why the government should not he able to supplement that return by giving the information from 1898 down to the present. I would also bring to the notice of the Postmaster General a similar remissness on the part of his department. I asked for a return with regard to the additional subsidy given the province of Prince Edward Island in 1901 and have not yet got it.

Hon. H. R. EMMERSON (Minister of Railways and Canals).

It is true that my hon. friend has spoken to me on several occasions with respect to certain returns, and I have frequently brought his complaints to the attention of my deputy. My deputy has always assured me that he had applied to Moncton for that information but it had not been received. Only within the last day or two I spoke to him again and he assured me he would do everything possible to get the information at the earliest moment. I personally cannot attend to these matters and have to depend on my officials. I shall make a note of what my hon. friend says and see if I cannot spur them up. As regards the expenditure on railways and canals since 1898, I was under the impression that the return brought down gave all the information called for. 1 did not read the return but took it for granted that it furnished the information required. If my hon. friend will give me a memo, of what is lacking, I will have the matter looked up.

Mr. A. MARTIN.

I shall give the hon. gentleman the memo.

Mr. EMMERSON.

There certainly has been no information withheld intentionally. I cannot understand what possible reason

4S11

there could be for withholding it and presume there must be some misunderstanding.

Sir WILLIAM MTJLOCK.

I am afraid that my department is also in fault, but if my hon. friend will be good enough to name the office, concerning which he wants information, I shall have the returns brought down if at all possible and give instructions at once.

Mr. A. MARTIN.

The office is Stanhope, and Mr. Lawson was the postmaster dismissed.