1. Were Messrs. Lynch-Staunton and Gutelius

sworn to faithfully and impartially perform their duties?

2. If so, who administered the oath in each case, and what was its full text?

Mr. REID:

Messrs. Lynch-Staunton and

Gutelius were appointed commissioners by Order in Council in the usual way. They were not required to be sworn.

1. Were the witnesses caned before Messrs. Lynch-Staunton and Gutelius sworn?

2. Were any of the parties whose names are mentioned in the report of the said commissioners represented by counsel?

3. Were the sessions of the commission open to the public?

1. Yes.

2. Yes, counsel was present at some of the sessions.

3. No; in most part where evidence was taken sessions were held along the line of railway.

1. Is the F. P. Gutelius who signed the report of the commissioners to investigate matters connected with the construction of the National Transcontinental railway the same man who is now and has been for the past year general manager of the Intercolonial railway? If so, when was he appointed on the said commission, when did he enter upon his duties or work as such commissioner, at what salary and at what date did his pay begin to run?

2. When did he cease to act as such commissioner, up to what date was he paid as such, and on what date did He sign the said report?

3. In whose employ was the said F. P. Gutelius at the time of his appointment as such commissioner, or if not then employed by any person or corporation, or otherwise, what was his last employment preceding his engagement and employment as such commissioner, by whom was he employed, in what capacity and at what 33.lo.ry ?

4. When did the said F. P. Gutelius first come to Canada to engage in any work, in whose employ was he at that time, how long did he remain in said employment and at what salary?

5. What was his citizenship at that date, and was he then an American citizen? If so, how long did he so remain?

8. Has he ever changed his citizenship? If so, at what date, and has he ever been naturalized as a Canadian or British subject? If so, on what date and where?

7. Is the said F. P. Gutelius a British subject? If so, how long has he been such?

8. Was the said F. P. Gutelius an employee of the Government as general manager of the Intercolonial railway at the time he signed the report referred to, what salary was he then in receipt of from the Government of Canada, and for how long is his term of engagement as such general manager?

9. At what place was the said report signed by him, and if at Ottawa, for how long had he been continuously in Ottawa previous to his placing his signature to said report?

1. Yes. Appointed commissioner January 29, 1912. Entered upon duties as commissioner February 1, 1912. Salary $65 per day.

2. Commissioner during pleasure; report signed February 6, 1914. Paid as Commissioner up to May 1, 1913, the date he assumed his present position. Signed letter transmitting commissioner's report February 6, 1914.

3. At the time of appointment as commissioner, in the employ of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in the capacity of general superintendent. No information as to salary.

4. The Government has no information.

5 and 6. Naturalized as a British subject February 23, 1912. District of Montreal.

7. Answered by numbers 5 and 6.

8. At the time of signing such report Mr. Gutelius was a commissioner (but not drawing salary as such) and an employee of the Government as general manager of the Canadian Government Railways, at a salary of $20,000 per annum. Term of engagement for two years from May 1, 1913, and thereafter during the pleasure of the Minister of Railways and Canals for Canada.

9. Report signed at Ottawa after being continuously there for a period of about one week.

1. Was an agreement entered into by the Transcontinental Railway Commissioners to retain ten per cent from the moneys earned by O'Brien, Fowler and McDougall on contracts 16 and 17, and pay the same to M. P. and J. T. Davis?

2. Did the commissioners retain ten per cent from the moneys so earned by O'Brien, Fowler and McDougall, and pay the same to M. P. and J. T. Davis?

1. No; but the commission ratified' an assignment of these contracts, and the consideration of the transfer was 10 per cent.

2. No; the 10 per cent retained by the commission was the regular drawback and was released to O'Brien, O'Gorman and McDougall. The latter, it appears according to the report of the investigating commissioners, paid M. P. and J. T. Davis the 10 per cent consideration mentioned in

' the transfer.

1. Under contract No. 16 on the National Transcontinental railway, were payments made on account of drawback in the months of January and June, 1911?

2. If so, what were the amounts paid and the name or names of the person or persons to whom the said payments were made?

1. Yes.

2. January, $50,000; June, $50,000; deposited to credit of O'Brien, O'Gorman and McDougall in Merchants Bank of Canada, Ottawa.

1. What was the cost of material used for recovering- the public wharf at Barrington Passage, Shelbourne county, N.S. ?

2. From whom was the material purchased?

Mr. ROGERS:

Frank Nicoll, Clyde

River, $422.75; Curtis Atwood, Riverhead, $31.20; Crowell Bros., Halifax, $24.97; Edgar S. Wilson, Crowell, $7; Josiah P. D. Crowell, Crowell, $1.19; Jas. H. Banks, Crowell, $6.53; John R. Gammon, Barrington Passage, $7.50; Mildred L. Wilson, Barrington Passage, 80 cents; total, $501.94.