Mr. FARQUHARSON.

I am discussing what was done from the point of view of a business man, and I say that under tbe circumstances the government acted wisely. The first 111 miles had been tendered for and the lowest of five tenders accepted. Mr. Kitchen proved himself a good contractor. He did not belong to our province, but any prejudices we might have had against him on that score were removed by the fact that he showed himself a good man, and an able contractor. To get a good man and a good contractor is a great deal.

Mr. FARQUHARSON.

I did not say that. I went over this road with the hon. Minis-

ter of Railways and Canals and liis engineer. We spent a whole day, from morning till night, travelling over it. The engineer of that road is a man, I think, above approach, and he has examined all the ground carefully, and no doubt reported to his superiors, and therefore when the 311 miles were let on the same schedule rates as the 111 miles, I do not think the government could have done better. And when that contractor had all his apparatus on the ground for building the 111 miles, we thought no other man could do the rest of the work as cheaply or as well. But of course prejudices are apt to be created by letting a contract without tender, and the minister is liable to be under a cloud so to speak until the facts are all fully known.

Mr. FARQUHARSON.

Having referred to this matter some days ago, I find it necessary now that the opposition have returned again and again to this question, to repeat what I have already said. Considering the circumstances in connection with the road referred to, of which I consider myself in a position to judge, because I know the ground, have known it all my life and have travelled over it many times, I think that the giving of the contract for the balance of the 31 miles to the contractor who had built the other 11J miles, was in the interest of the country. While the letting of contracts after calling for public tender is the principle to which we are all committed and while I think that principle is a good one, there are exceptions to every rule.

Mr. FARQUHARSON.

If these hon. gentlemen will wait a moment I will explain what I mean. This contract was not let after inviting tenders, but there are exceptions to every rule, and this is one of them.

I do not think that this country has lost a dollar by the transaction. I am satisfied that no good business man would have done otherwise than the Minister of Railways did. But prejudices are liable to be created when contracts are let without tender. If, however, hon. members opposite knew the circumstances as well as I do, I have no doubt that, as honest men, they would take the same view. The contract was a fair one and a good one and one in the interests of the people, and I am pleased to be able to congratulate the government and people, as a new member, that the opposition can find nothing greater to complain of duriug this session.

Mr. FARQUHARSON.

Get a man who does not understand his work and you will soon find yourself in trouble. The question was asked why, in the first instance, the contract was not let for the whole distance instead of for 111 miles, and the hon. Minister of Railways properly answered that after the 11J miles had been located, the government were undecided whether the road should continue by Vernon river or take a northerly course, and it could go no further until the location was determined.