William Manley GERMAN

GERMAN, William Manley, K.C.

Personal Data

Party
Liberal
Constituency
Welland (Ontario)
Birth Date
May 26, 1851
Deceased Date
March 31, 1933
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Manley_German
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=511d8a61-1106-4b86-a494-9cfa7e47f4f6&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
barrister

Parliamentary Career

March 5, 1891 - April 5, 1892
LIB
  Welland (Ontario)
November 7, 1900 - September 29, 1904
LIB
  Welland (Ontario)
November 3, 1904 - September 17, 1908
LIB
  Welland (Ontario)
October 26, 1908 - July 29, 1911
LIB
  Welland (Ontario)
September 21, 1911 - October 6, 1917
LIB
  Welland (Ontario)
December 6, 1921 - September 5, 1925
LIB
  Welland (Ontario)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 2 of 246)


June 25, 1924

Mr. GERMAN:

I* propose to argue this

case from the evidence on the record and not from the suppositions of hon. gentlemen opposite. Let me quote again:

Q. You did not tell her to put it in her name in trust?-A. I told her to put it in the Royal Bank so she could draw on it as she had been doing before.

Q. The other deposit was in her own name?-A. Yes.

That is easy enough to conceive. Mr. Murdock had confidence in his secretary; she had a power of attorney to draw on his account. She went to the Royal Bank and deposited this money in her own name in trust.

I am sure hon. gentlemen will not feel that there was anything done in an improper or dishonourable way in that connection.

There is another matter which I think the hon. member for West Hastings referred to this afternoon which did not do him very much credit, and I regret very much that he made the remark. I think he himself will regret it when he comes to consider it. He said that the statement made by the Deputy Speaker of the House (Mr. Gordon) was not made or heard of until after the death of the president of the Home Bank. The remarks he made were as follows:

It is singular and worthy of remark that after all the attempts at defence that the hon. minister made on various occasions in this House and before the committee he never mentioned and the committee never heard of a conversation with Mr. Gordon, the Deputy Speaker, or of the minister acting upon any conversation with him until the morning after Mr. Daly, the man from Toronto, died. You could not call Daly. It never was mentioned before, but the next morning after Mr. Daly was dead this evidence was given. It is rather a remarkable feature, to say the least.

It is a most remarkable thing that a man of the legal standing of the hon. member for West Hastings (Mr. Porter) should draw on his imagination to such an extent as to insinuate against the Deputy Speaker of this House that he would make a statement after the death of Mr. Daly that he would not make during Mr. Daly's life. I think that statement should certainly be retracted.

Now coming down to the concrete facts of the case, what do we find? The hon. member for West Hastings mentioned a number of statements that he had made. He said, "I want to convince hon. members of this House that everything I have said has been absolutely proved". He read a large number of the statements that he made to the House when he first made his allegations and said, "Is this statement not true, is that

statement not true, and is the other statement not true"? He might have gone on with a hundred other statements, and everyone would admit they were all true. There was no contention about the fact that there had been a meeting of the directors of the Home Bank and that they declared the bank insolvent. All these statements were admitted, but he has failed to produce any evidence to prove the very crucial point in dispute in this matter. He appears to think that if he can convince the House that he has made a large number of statements which are true consequently the one statement which he made which is not true will be believed, even without evidence. In that I cannot agree with him. He started out to prove one particular statement, but not all the statements he made on the floor of the House when he made bis accusation. The allegation which he must establish as true in evidence is this:

The Honourable James Murdock, Minister of Labour, did withdraw from the Home Bank at its Ottawa branch on the 15th day of August, 1923, two days before such bank's failure, thousands of dollars on deposit therein to his credit, using certain information he had received, as such minister, of the likely immediate failure of said bank, and had received advantage and profit to himself to the extent of such withdrawals, contrary to his obligations as such minister in derogation of his office and the honour, dignity and traditions of parliament.

That is what he has to prove. Every one knows that the bank failed. Every one, or at least most people, knew months before that the bank was likely to fail.

Topic:   HON. MR. MURDOCK AND HOME BANK
Full View Permalink

June 25, 1924

Mr. GERMAN:

Topic:   HON. MR. MURDOCK AND HOME BANK
Full View Permalink

June 25, 1924

Mr. GERMAN:

Is the right hon. gentleman referring to the deposit in the Home Bank?

Topic:   HON. MR. MURDOCK AND HOME BANK
Full View Permalink

June 25, 1924

Mr. GERMAN:

I beg my right hon.

friend's pardon?

Topic:   HON. MR. MURDOCK AND HOME BANK
Full View Permalink

June 25, 1924

Mr. GERMAN:

The right hon. gentleman says he did not say so, nor did anyone else. His name, it is true, was not mentioned in express terms. I was at the committee when the hon. member for West Hastings suggested calling a large number of witnesses, whom we thought it was absolutely unnecessary to call because the facts were not in dispute, but were admitted. Mr. Murdock was there and every member of the committee knew he was prepared to make a statement and desired to do so. That went on for a few days until this calling of witnesses to establish something that was not in dispute became rather wearisome to the members of the committee, to the majority of them at any rate. We said "Mr. Murdock is here and he admits all these things; call him." The offer was made that Mr. Murdock should go into the witness box and give his evidence, but the hon. member for West Hastings (Mr. Porter), said "No, I will not consent to that

3638 COMMONS

Mr. Murdock and Home Bank

until I have had fifteen or twenty minutes to consult with my companions." Apparently a consultation was necessary before my hon. friend could decide as to whether or not Mr. Murdock should be allowed to go into the witness box and give his evidence. Later on the minister did give testimony and his statement was a truthful one; it impressed every one who heard it as being true, and I believe that is the opinion of the people throughout the country.

The hon. member made another statement regarding Mr. Murdook which I believe on reflection he will consider should not have been made, and which every member of the committee feels should not have been made *-that Mr. Murdock in having the $4,000 deposited in the Royal Bank in the way in which it was deposited was doing something in secret, was trying to cover up the fact that the money was so deposited. The facts are-as stated by Mr. Murdock himself, and by his private secretary, Miss McCool-that this money was in Mr. Murdock's hands in his office. He was engaged with an attorney from Toronto in connection with an injunction proceeding in which the government was interested. He called his secretary and said "Take this money and deposit it in the Royal Bank so that you can draw it; deposit it in the same way that you have always done." She said "I have no power of attorney to draw money out of the Royal Bank." "Very well," he said, waving his hand, "go and deposit it in your name as you have done before:" and the evidence shows she had deposited the money in her name on prior occasions. My right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) shakes his head as to that. Let me read just what was said and I will make the quotation as short as possible. This is the evidence given by Miss Sadie McCool:

By Mr. German:

Q. I believe you are the private secretary to the Hon. James Murdock?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. On the 15th of August you took $4,000 in money from him to deposit in the Royal Bank?-A. Yes.

Q. It seems you deposited it in your own name in trust?-A. Yes.

Q. Will you explain to the committee why you did that?-A. I came in from lunch and Mr. Murdock called me into his office where he was eating lunch. He had an appointment with a man and he said, " I have not time to go out, will you take this money and deposit it in the Royal Bank so you can draw it like you are drawing on my other account?", and I replied, " I cannot do that without a power of attorney unless I put it in my own name in trust."

Q. What happened then?-A. He said, "All right," and waved his hand, and I went out.

I will now quote the evidence of Mr. Murdock himself. This is his statement:

I will give it in another way. I was sitting in my affice with $4,000 in 400 ten-dollar bills in an envelope,

[Mr. German.?

which I expected to place in a safe depository. As a legal gentleman from Toronto was waiting to see me in connection with an injunction in which he had been engaged by the government, and this was the only time I could see him-right between the two meetings of the cabinet-I rang the bell and called in my secretary and handed the envelope to her with the money in it, and said, "Go and deposit that money in the Royal Bank so that you can draw on it as you have been doing on the other account."

By Mr. German:

Q. Had she been drawing in other banks?-A. She had a power of attorney since about September, 1922, just before I went overseas to Geneva in 1922.

Q. She had a power of attorney to draw on your account?-A. Yes, and you will notice that eighteen of those cheques out of the twenty are drawn by her.

By the Chairman:

Q. Is that all you wish to say, Mr. Murdock?-A. I think that is all.

By Mr. Hanson:

Q. You did not tell her to put it in her name in trust?-A. I told her to put it in the Royal Bank so she could draw on it as she had been doing before.

Q. The other deposit was in her own name?-A. Yes.

Q. You know now that this was not in your name? -A. I do, and I knew before she went out of the room that this would not be in my own name.

How anyone can attempt to say, in view of that evidence, that Mr. Murdock was trying to keep this matter secret or do anything different from what he had been doing in the past I cannot understand. I cannot even think that my hon. friend (Mr. Porter) has any such idea himself, but being led away, perhaps, by his feelings he said something more than he really intended to say. There was another remark made which I think was equally uncalled for.

Topic:   HON. MR. MURDOCK AND HOME BANK
Full View Permalink