Mr. VICTOR GEOFFRION (Chambly and Vereheres).

Mr. Speaker, in asking that the

report of the committee appointed to inquire into the charges of Major Hodgins with respect to the National Transcontinental Railway be concurred in, I wish to place before the House as briefly as I can some of the reasons which induced the committee to adopt this report. It will be useless for me,

I suppose, to state very minutely the circumstances which led to the appointment of this committee of investigation. I think they are known by every hon. member of this House, and I simply wish to recall that Major Hodgins, who now resides in the city of Victoria, B.C., who had been for some time previously in the employ of the Transcontinental Railway Commisison and who had either left his position or been dismissed by the commission on the 16th April last, wrote a letter which he signed and caused to be published in the ' Daily Colonist' newspaper, published in the city of Victoria, B.C., charging the Transcontinental Railway Commission with undue influence over their engineers, charging them also with undue influence over some members of the government and making other charges which are set forth in the letter, which letter is quoted in the report now before the House. This letter was followed by two alleged interviews in the same paper with Major Hodgins enlarging and repeating in other words the charges that had been made by him in the previous letter. The Transcontinental Railway Commissioners thought it their duty to send a memorandum to the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier) denying all the charges made by Major Hodgins in his letter and these interviews, and asking that a committee of this House be appointed to inquire into these charges, to give an opportunity to Major Hodgins to prove his charges and an opportunity to themselves to disprove them. That committee was appointed on April 29, and commenced its proceedings about that date. Major Hodgins was put on the stand and was subjected to a long examination by his own counsel and by the counsel of the Transcontinental Railway Commission. During the course of this examination, after it had proceeded for some time, on June 3 last Major Hodgins practically repudiated the two interviews which had been attributed to him by the ' Colonist.' I shall quote his exact words to the House to show how emphatic his repudiation was. They are to be found at page 248 of the evidence. He was then being examined by Mr. Murphy, counsel for the Transcontinental Railway Commission, and his examination reads:

Q. Well, it is of importance to know, major, how much or how little of this interview you are now prepared to stand by, because it affects the cross-examination?-A. I am not prepared to be responsible for the interview at all. As I say, if a reporter interviews you and takes down half a dozen sentences, and his notes certainly were not that long (illus-

trating by a gesture) and writes up two columns you cannot hold me responsible for it. Part of the interview, I might tell you, the reporter was trying to find out what an engineer has to do, why he does this, that and the other-in fact I was giving him more or less of a lecture on engineering. There was a whole lot of questions he was working up and he got hoplessly mixed up in the thing.

Q. Prom your answers this morning you would not like to be responsible for other articles that are written nearer home?-A. No.

Q. On the same subject?-A. No.

After this repudiation by the Major of his two interviews in the 'Colonist.' I think about June 16, Major Hodgins repudiated or withdrew all charges he had made previously in his letter to the ' Colonist ' with which we had to deal during the investigation. The question of the classification of materials In district P where he was working, had been the subject of a great deal of correspondence and discussion between the engineers for the Grand Trunk Pacific and for the Transcontinental Railway. The engineers, the commission and the contractors also had obtained from eminent jurisconsults in different parts of the country opinions as to the proper interpretation to give to the specification on that very question which was the basis for Major Hodgins' charges. It was given in evidence that these opinions were all adverse to the contention held by the Major. In the face of this evidence the Major on June 16, withdrew these charges and imputations which he had made in his letter. His withdrawal is to be found at page 386 of the evidence. Major Hodgins was examined by Mr. Macdonald, a member of the committee :

2. You regard that as practically the only question left now?

That is the question of the interpretation of the specification for the classification.

Q. You regard that as practically the only question left now, the question of whether your view of the classification is correct?-A. That is all.

Q. That is all. I understand you to say, from the information that you have gathered since coming into this matter, Major, that you feel that you can not say that you have any imputations to make upon the commissioners in regard to any improper interference, with the engineers for instance?-A. With those legal and engineers' opinions there I do not see that I have.

Q. And you are, not in a position to offer any evidence to show that they exercised any improper interference with the engineers?-A. No.

Q. In regard to that matter in which the statement was made here that Sir Wilfrid Laurier refused investigation on account of the influence exercised on him by Mr. Parent;

I understand , you are not in a position to say, or to offer any evidence that would show that Mr. Parent attempted to influence Sir Wilfrid

Mr. GEOFFRION.

in any way, or are you?-A. No, not unless Mr. Parent came up to say he did.

Q. You have no evidence of that?-A. I have none.

Q. And in regard to the question of engineering you apparently as an engineer, with your experience, took a certain view as to how the wording of these specfications should be interpreted?-A. Yes.

Q. Now you find that since you put in the statement here, Mr. Lumsden, on January ID laid down certain instructions for the engineers to follow, which may; be said to be an interpretation from his standpoint of whaf the specifications mean?

A. Yes.

Q. You were not aware of this being in existence at the time you wrote to the ' Colonist' on April 15, were you?-A. No.

Q. J suppose in regard to these opinions of counsel on the meaning of the specifications you had no intimation of them at the time you wrote the letter?-A. Another man's opinion is just as good as mine, as a matter of fact every engineer's opinion is valuable to himself.

Q. And it is a question upon which men may differ quite honestly?-A. Certainly.

* Q. You do not impute to these gentlemen any improper motives in their ideas?-A. Not after reading Mr. Lumsden's letter.

Q. You made use of the expression the other day that you did not regard this committee as the proper tribunal to determine the question at issue?-A. With all due deference to the committee, I do not; it is an engineering dispute and as far as I am concerned I quite believe that the arbitrators who are appointed for the purpose should deal with this question of classification and I think that the board of arbitrators is the only right and proper tribunal to determine it.

Q. And any evidence you have to offer in regard to this matter, to this question at all, whatever is left of it now, is evidence that you would prefer to give to this tribunal of arbitrators that has been appointed under the statute?-A. Exactly.

Q. They are people in whom you have confidence that they can settle this question in the interest of this country fairly?-A. Absolutely.

Q. And you are prepared to accept their judgment on this question of classification as absolutely fair from your standpoint and in the interest of the country?-A. Certainly; I would not put imyself in the way at all; they have to look after the interest of the country.

Q. And you regard this board of arbitration as being the proper tribunal to determine whatever there is in issue in this matter ?- A. They are the proper tribunal.

Q. Personally, Major, it does not seem to me -or have you any desire to go on before this committee through your counsel offering evidence and taking up the time of this committee, or wouln't you prefer to give it all before the aribtrators?

Mr. Lennox.-Would it not be better to hear counsel?

By Mr. Macdonald;

Q. What do you say to that, Major?-A. What is that again?

Q. Have you any desire to go on giving evidence here in view of what you have said now, or do you not think that the proper tribunal

to determine this question is the board of arbitrators composed of Mr. Woods, Mr. Lums-den and a third arbitrator?-A. I do not think it is for me to answer that. I think it is for the committee to decide that.

I shall pass over some of the evidence which is very long as I want to give only answers bearing on the withdrawal of the charges. The examination continued :

By Mr. Macdonald:

Q. I understand you to say you do not desire to press before this committee any charge of wrong-doing on the part of the commission as far as their interference with the engineers is concerned, is that a fair statement?-A. That is right.

Q. And as far as that phase of the inquiry is concerned, you do not offer any evidence for our consideration?-A. It is simply this, that I do not see why I should stand the expense of finding out whether the specification is right or wrong.

Q. Or whether the academic question between engineers should be settled at your expense, that is the position you take?-A. Yes.

This was a withdrawal by the Major of all imputations and charges made in his letter. The question came up afterwards in the committee whether it was proper to continue the investigation. A long argument followed between members of the committee and the majority of the committee thought that it was no use continuing the investigation after the withdrawal of the letter. I submit that the proper guide for us in this investigation was the order of reference which reads as follows :

Order of reference.

House of Commons,

Tuesday, April 28, 1908.

Resolved, that the memorandum of the chairman of the Transcontinental Railway Commissioners to the Prime Minister, of date the 23rd April, and laid on the table of this House on the 24th instant, and the papers accompanying the same, together with the letter of Major Hodgins to the publio press therein referred to, be referred to a special committee of five members, with instructions to investigate the matters and charges therein mentioned, and that the said committee be composed of Messrs. Carvell, Macdonald (Pictou), Geofirion, Barker, and Lennox; and that they have power to send for persons, papers and records, to examine persons on oath or affirmation, and to report from time to time.

Attest.

(Sgd.) THOS. B. FLINT, Clerk of the House.

What was referred to that committee for investigation ? I submit it was properly the charges of Major Hodgins. It could not be the memorandum by the Transcontinental Railway Commissioners to the Prime Minister denying the charges he had to investigate, it must have been the letter, and the charges in the letter in respect to the question of classification having been withdrawn, we thought that the proper

tribunal to continue the investigation was not the committee but the Board of Arbitration which had been created by statute pursuant to agreement between the Grand Trunk Pacific and the commissioners for the Transcontinental Railway. It is for that arbitration board to decide all questions according to the agreement. The agreement says that all difficulties and especially difficulties which appertain to the classification of materials which is probably the most important part to be decided by this tribunal are to be decided by a, tribunal composed of Mr. Woods, chief engineer for the Grand Trunk Pacific and Mr. Lumsden, chief engineer for the National Transcontinental Railway. If these two chief engineers cannot agree on the disputed question, they are to choose a third arbitrator and this tribunal is to adjudicate on the question. All these questions of classification are to come up before these gentlemen. They had agreed after having discussed the question a long time to adopt a certain standard of classification which has been adopted in the work and is being used now. I admit that some complaints as to over classification or under classification have been made by the Grand Trunk Pacific, but the fact that one of the parties to that agreement claims that there has been over classification or under classification does not prove this to be the case until that tribunal has adjudicated on it. That clause providing for arbitration in a contract is not an unusual one. We find very often such a clause in contracts where works of special importance have to be performed, and the fact that it is claimed by one of the parties to the contract that the work has not been properly classified, as I said, does not establish that fact until after the board of arbitration has adjudicated upon it. The very important question of classification was not one to be discussed before the committee. A board has been properly appointed by statute for this very purpose, and all those questions, as Major Hodgins said himself, ought to be brought before that board to be adjudicated upon. After having discussed the matter we came to the conclusion that there was nothing left to be inquired into by your committee. Supposing that Major Hodgins, before the appointment of that committee, after the publication of his letter had withdrawn his letter, no one would pretend that this House would have appointed a committee to investigate. Suppose also he had withdrawn all charges and put in another letter charging that there had been over classification by some engineers, would a single member pretend that a committee should have been appointed to inquire and decide whether that question of classification, which by agreement is to be entrusted to the arbitrators, ought to be discussed any f urthen ? I think iSir, that the .course adopted by the committee was logical, fair

and just, and I move, seconded by Mr. Car-veil, that the report which I laid on the table of the House a few days ago be now concurred in.

Mr. HAUGHTON LEiNNOX (South Sim-coe). Mr. Speaker, I recognize that in appointing a small committee the House expected us to occupy a somewhat judicial position and to endeavour, regardless of what our preconceived opinions politically might be, to arrive at a conclusion which would be in the interest of the country. I am sorry that I cannot concur in the motion of the chairman of our committee for the adoption of the report to which reference has just been made. The order of reference to that committee was made on April 28th last. The hon. gentleman who has just moved the adoption of the report has stated that certain matters were known to the House, certain matters were of public notoriety at the time the order of reference was made. That* is true. At the time the order of reference was made it was known to the House and to the country that Major Ilodgius had made certain charges which reflected very seriously upon the conduct of public business by the Transcontinental Railway Commission and, not only that, but (that his statements had been followed up by comments and editorials in the newspaper's which carried the matter even further than Major Hod-gins' statements went. There was abundant reason why the investigation should take place. It was the motion of the government and not of the opposition. It was a position taken by the government which the government thought was justified by the circumstances. But whilst the charges of Major Hodgins and the editorial and other comments in the press were known to the country, it was not known to the country or the House, but known to the government and the government alone, that statements had been made by the Grand Trunk Pacific engineers which were far more damaging and far-reaching than any charge made by Major Hodgins or the public press. The Grand Trunk Pacific in fact was up in arms against the classification which prevailed, not upon any special section of the eastern division, but from one end of the line to the other. The charge was made by that company-as the government knew, but as the country did not know at that time- that this was not the result of ignorance on the part of the government, but was due to malice aforethought. At the time the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) made the motion it was not known, but it became known in the committee afterwards, that there were attached to the memo, of the Chairman of the Transcontinental Commission the letters which constitute Exhibit No. 38, as filed before the committee, and which contained the dam-Mr. GEOFFRION.

aging statement I am about to refer to. It is alleged and reiterated by Mr. Parent that attached to the memo, laid on the table, and upon which the right hon. gentleman moved, were not only clippings from newspapers, but the bundle of papers which form Exhibit No. 38 filed in the committee as well, and which contained the charges I am about to refer to. In other words, the right hon. gentleman, for reasons unexplained, saw fit to detach from that memo, a portion of the documents which had been transmitted to him with it. I do not wish to read any more of this correspondence than is absolutely essential, but I believe it is essential that this House should know exactly the class of material and how it was classified, in order to be in a position to decide whether the motion I am about to make, namely, that the matter be referred back to the committee for further investigation, should be adopted, or whether the inquiry should be burked at this stage. Before reading the letter of Mr. Wood, Chief Engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific, I wish to make an explanation in order to elucidate certain statements in it. In the specifications in the various contracts on the eastern division we have it defined that earth excavations have a slope of one and a-half foot to a foot; that loose rock excavations have a slope of one foot to a foot, and that solid rock excavations have a slope of only one-quarter of a foot to a foot. Therefore, when we fin 1 in these letters reference to the fact that a slope is one and a-half to one, that means that the engineer is calling attention to the fact that whereas the slope is a slope of common earth the percentage returned for the work is a large percentage of solid and loose rock.

Having said that, I want to read the first letter of Mr. H. A. Wood to the chief

engineer :

Montreal, October 7, 1907.

H. D. Lumsden,

Chief Engineer, _

Eastern division of the National Transcontinental.

Dear Sir,-At the request of District Engineer Armstrong, he was furnished recently with a statement of classification for the heavier work on the above section, which were, /when given in detail, so different from his expectations that he requested the writer to visit the work.

During the past week we passed over por- . tions of the work from the Batisoan river west for fifteen or twenty miles, and later from mile 115 to 132.

With reference to the former portion, the classification was given in distances of from three to five miles, and as we did not have total quantities of graduation, could not judge with reference to any particular cutting, although percentages for entire distance seemed excessively heavy in both loose and solid rock.

With the latter portion we had detailed percentage for each cut, and were greatly sur-

prised at the allowances made for solid and loose rock. In nearly every case where the cuttings were not entirely all ledge the estimate given for solid rock is double, or more than double, what it should be.

In fact, the specifications had been entirely ignored and an excessive allowance made, not jjy reason of an error in judgment, but, as I understand, by special instructions from the assistant district engineer.

Let me give you some illustrations:

Take the cutting from stations 5818 to 5826, estimated 71 per cent solid rock and 29 per cent loose rock, slopes taken out li to 1. Very little ledge in this cut. Some large boulders, but a very large percentage is common excavation.

Station 5842 to 5860.-Classified 94 per cent solid rock, 6 per cent loose rock. Slopes taken out li to 1. Solid rock over-classified at least 100 per cent.

Station 5866 to 5875.-Estimated 80 per cent solid rock, 20 per cent loose rock. No rock in place in this cut. Many large boulders, but a large amount of earth.

Station 5882 to 5901.-Estimated 78 per cent solid, rock, 22 per cent loose rock. A large amount of this cut wasted with slip scrapers, and ploughing being done with two horses. There are hundreds of yards of earth here without a stone, large or small.

And yet there is not a foot of common excavation in that. They plough with two horses, and where It can be ploughed even with six horses it is common excavation. But it is all classified as solid rock and loose rock.

Station 6030 to 6046.-Estimated 40 per cent solid rock, 10 per cent loose rock. This is the large sand cut west of O'Brien's camp. Of the 95,000 yards moved to August 31 in this cut, at least 80,000 yards was pure sand.

Station 6071 to 6078.-Estimated 99 per cent solid rock, 1 per cent loose rock. Very little solid rock in place. Slopes taken out li to 1.

So that the solid rock might crumble down.

West of St. Maurice river.

Station 6391 to 6394.-Estimated 46 per cent solid rock, 33 per cent loose rock. Sand cut with few boulders, and possibly 1,500 yards ledge in bottom of cut not yet taken out.

S&ation 6493 to 6504.-Estimated 20 per cent solid rock, 49 per cent loose rock. No evidence of ledge and very few large boulders; nearly all sand.

Station 6506 to 6512.-Estimated 16 per cent solid rock, 44 per cent loose rock. This is purely a sand cut, with very few boulders. Upper slope nearly 100 feet high, material wasted into river. Certainly not 10 per cent of this should he classified.

I may say that it is only ' classified ' when it is solid rock or loose rock. Ordinary excavation is not ' classified.'

Mr. HAGGART.

Do the specifications declare what is loose rock ?

Mr. LENNOX.

Yes, they state the nature of each class of material.

Mr. J. T. SCHELL.

May I ask is that an estimate of the quantities taken out, or an estimate of what they were before the work was begun 1

Mr. LENNOX.

This has reference to the returns actually made by the engineers upon the work to the Transcontinental Railway Commission. The engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company is pointing out how ruinous and absolutely unjustifiable this classification Is. And I am reading for the purpose of showing what these men propose the country shall pay for.

Station 6522 to 6548.-Estimated 26 per cent solid rock, 49 per cent loose rock.^ This is borrowed material from the side. Very little solid rock shown, except what was used for blind drains, but some large boulders not placed in embankment.

On account of heavy rains we were not able to go west of station "6600, but we understand that classification is made about as noted above.

In every case where cuttings were not entirely in ledge we find the material over classified very largely. Mr. Armstrong has been over this work at different times, perhaps quite as often as the assistant district engineer. His estimate and my own are not very different as to the amount of classified material, and until he received detailed quantities he had no intimation that such heavey classification had been given. In many cases, particularly in sand and gravel cuts, he had supposed that no classification would he given, except perhaps for a few boulders as loose rock.

I am informed also that on the work east of the St. Lawrence river heavy classification is being made in borrowed material where ploughing is done with one team and material moved in slip scrapers.

As before stated, these over-classifications are made through error in judgment, not upon the decision of the resident or division engineers, who -are fully acquainted with the character of the work, hut by arbitrary orders from their superior. To such classification as mentioned above, increasing the cost of the work to such alarming extent, we most seriously protest, and respectfully request that either yourself or the assistant chief engineer visit the work and pass judgment upon the classification as made. Please note that the percentages given above indicate the work done to August 31. We are not advised what the September estimate will show.

Yours truly,

(Sgd.) H. A. WOODS,

Assistant chief engineer.

Now that letter, 1 thought it well to read in full, because every word of it is important. But I can economize time in relation to the others. Mr. Lumsden took action. He wrote a letter on October 18 which will be found in the printed evidence at page 395. 1 need not read the letter but merely

refer to it for the purpose of showing that at that time it appeared to Mr. Lumsden, from statements made by District Engineer

Doucet, that Mr. Doucet at that time admitted and recognized that his assistant engineers were over-classifying. It is important to bear in mind that, at that time, Mr. Doucet, to some extent, stood by the country and against the contractors. But Mr. Doucet does not maintain that position afterwards. I need only read from this letter what Mr. Lumsden says to the commissioners. He says : It would appear to me some material may be classified as rock which should be classified otherwise.' He had learned that upon a verbal statement of Mr. Doucet on the 12th instant. More anxiety seems to have been felt about points of etiquette than about the interests of the country. Mr. Ryan, secretary of the Transcontinental Commission says :

Although the procedure

Referring to the letter of Mr. H. A. W. Woods complaining of these matters :

-was distinctly irregular, the commission have taken full cognizance of Mr. Woods' complaint and have given directions that the matter he fully investigated.

This committee, although they do not approve of the manners exhibited by Mr. Wood, have been gracious enough to say that they will take the matter into their full consideration and have it Investigated.

I regret to say that that promise has not been carried out. Mr. Doucet thinks this was not as politely done as it ought to be, and he says in his letter to Mr. Lumsden on October 21:

I may state that such accusations are not only uncalled for, hut most unprofessional, as we in Canada understand professional etiquette.

I am more concerned about this investigation and about some gentlemen stepping out than I am concerned about the order of their going. Now, I refer on page 399 of this evidence to the letter of Mr. Doucet to the chief engineer of the Railway Commission. That I need not read in full, but I want to call attention to one or two sentences. A moment ago I mentioned the fact that Mr. Doucet did not propose to stand in harmony with his subordinates as to the higher classification, but in some way he gets over there, and like the chief engineer he chooses his attitude as time advances, and as soon as the 26th of October we find that Mr. Doucet is prepared to state to the chief engineer that they stand shoulder to shoulder as one man for the Quebec classification. The effect of that upon the chief engineer, upon the fortunes of Canada and upon the amount that Canada will have to pay for this work will be evident to every member of this House before we conclude. Now, he says to Mr. Lumsden :

Dear Sir,-I have already had occasion to state to you verbally that the interpretation

Mr. LENNOX.

the engineers in district ' B ' have placed on the classification of solid and loose rock, and in accordance with which the progress estimates have been returned since the inception of the work.

I want hon. gentleman to take note of that, that the engineer here announces that from the very beginning of the work the classification which he has contended for as made by these subordinate engineers, and which at first was resisted by Mr. Doucet, and definitely resisted by the chief engineer, that classification has prevailed from the very inception of the work, and prevails to the present time.

Mr, E. M. MACDONALD. tVou 1 d my

hon. friend be good enough to indicate where he finds this theory of his that Mr. Doucet in his conversation with Mr. Lumsden, as referred to in Mr. Lumsden's letter, took any different position from that which he took in his letter of October 26 ?

Mr. LENNOX.

I have given the evidence and the references. I had some little experience of my hon. friend in the committee, where I had not as much support as I hope to have here, and I will endeavour to make this clear. My hon. friend can point out a distinction if he sees any between the letters to which I have referred. I have read a portion of this letter, and I have referred to the position which Mr. Doucet is said to have taken, as reported in the letter of 18th of October, and now I wish to add a sentence :

I have never had occasion to force my views on my assistants, all, to a man, have taken the same interpretation of the classification as I have.

So, as I intimated a moment ago, between the 12th and the 26th, for reasons which I cannot explain, Mr. Doucet seems to have advanced along the line on which the contractors were travelling. On the 24th of October there was an examination into this matter. Mr. Lumsden went down and in the letter of the 30th October, page 403, lie points out what was done ; he tells who was there. There were a number of contractors, among others. He points out what they did ; he refers to an interview with them after they had examined the work, and he points out that after this interview he requested Mr. Doucet, the district engineer, to procure statements as to the. interpretation of the specifications from the various engineers under charge of Mr. Doucet and to send these and his own interpretation of the specifications to Mr. Lumsden, the chief engineer. This is a significant letter, the letter of the 30th of October ; it shows the position in which Mr. Lumsden stood on the 30th of October when he communicated with the Railway Commission, and it shows this fact, that at that time, notwithstanding hds subsequent attitude, he stood in comdemnation of Que-

bee classification. After referring to these various matters, and having had these letters from the various engineers on the Quebec section, including the statement of Mr. Doucet, he says :

I can only say that I do not concur with the interpretation placed on clauses 34, 35 and 36 of the general specifications, by Mr. Doucet or the engineers under him. In my opinion solid rock excavation, clause 34, covers all material that should be classified as solid rock, etc.

He goes on to define for the purpose of pointing out that he does and will not agree with the classification prevailing in Quebec. What are you to say to the members of the committee? 'What are the members of this House to say to the members of the committee as to staying their hand now when we find that subsequently the chief engineer of this work, for reasons not appearing, now says that that bind of classification is to prevail, and that kind of classification is prevailing from one end of the eastern division of the Transcontinental Railway to the other at the present time? After pointing out what he regards as proper classification, he says :

Such being my views and as stated to you in my letter of the 18th instant, I must decide to certify to any future estimates, except upon classification in accordance with my interpretation of the specifications above mentioned, unless both parties to the contract agree to amend the contract formally, with due concurrence of t>he government, o,r until the estimates are corrected and conform with my interpretation. In any event, I ask that this correspondence be at once submitted to the government. [DOT]

So the matter stands on the 30th October. The chief engineer, the gentleman by whose decision we are bound, the gentleman whose word is final, as has been said by a majority of this committee, the gentleman who is the sole arbitrator on the question of classification, stands firm with his back to the wall deifying all the subordinate engineers of the eastern division of the Transcontinental Railway. Yet strange to say, he changes his opinion later on. How does he do it? Well, he does it at the instance of an honourable class of men, but not the best class of men to invoke in a case of this kind. He has the engineers on the one hand, he holds them down ; he seems for the time being to be the strong man. Then a greater influence comes in, and lawyer after lawyer is introduced to argue this question-in the interest of the Grand Trunk Pacific xvho are complaining? Not at all. In the interest of the people whose money is being paid out? Not at all. But the ex-parte argument of the contractors who are clamouring for more is introduced to shape and guide the judgment of the chief engineer of the Transcontinental Railway Commission.

Mr. FOSTER.

Before whom did the lawyers argue?

Mr. LENNOX.

They are asked for opinions for which they are paid $500 each. That is all right.

Mr. E. M. MACDONALD.

Paid by whom ?

Mr. LENNOX.

By the contractors, I presume, but I am not going to swear to that

Mr. E. M. MACDONALD.

Who asked for that opinion?

Mr. LENNOX.

I presume the contractors asked for that opinion and the opinions rendered should have bean to the contractors and should have been reserved toy the contractors, but when these opinions were used as an argument ex parte, 'behind the backs of the people-and the Grand Trunk Pacific who were, incidentally, protecting the people -to shape and warp the judgment of the chief engineer, who was to have been independent judge in this matter, a great wrong was done to the people of Canada. Here we have Mr. Lafleur-all right; Charles H. Ritchie-all right; Mr. Lacoste-all right ; all good lawyers, all prominent men-

Mr. E. M. MACDONALD.

Not Mr. Lacoste; Sir Alexander Lacoste.

Mr. LENNOX.

It is A. Lacoste here. I did not know that he had a title-Sir Alexander Lacoste, K.O. He is no better lawyer on that account. You see etiquette in it all the way through. I do not think the people are so much concerned in that matter as in the question whether or not they are, through fraud or otherwise, paying too much for the construction of this railway. Mr. Donald McMaster, Mr. George F. Shep-Igy-\yhave heard of him before and Messrs. Aylesworth & Company, inclosing the opinion of Mr. Wallace Nesbitt. What happens? We had the opinion of the chief engineer on the 18th October, a pretty strong opinion; we had the deliberate, considered opinion of the chief engineer, on the 30th October, sure, firm and defiant; we had a subsequent reiteration of that opinion slightly emphasized on the 16th December, which is found at page 426, and we have bis opinion on the 9th January.

Mr. HAGGART.

Did the Department of Justice give an opinion?

Mr. LENNOX.

That is what I am coming to. Before referring to that I may say that the matter was referred to the Justice Department and that Mr. Newcombe was asked for an opinion but Mr. Newcombe did not give one. I want that to be clearly borne in mind. It is alleged that Mr. New-combe gave an opinion, but Mr. Newcombe ' appears to have recognized this fact-

Mr. E. M. MACDONALD.

What about bis letter on page 429?