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
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,
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