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 3 of 246)


June 25, 1924

Mr. GERMAN:

It is six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.

At six o'clock the House took recess.

After Recess

The House resumed at eight o'clock.

Mr. W. M. GERMAN (Welland)- Mr. Speaker, after what was said by the hon. mover of the report (Mr. Archambault) this afternoon in support of his motion for its adoption, it would hardly seem that very much more is required to be said to convince hon. members that it should receive the support of the House.

The hon. member for West Hastings (Mr. Porter) took an hour and a half in stating a very large number of things with which no person had any quarrel or any dispute. He

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

June 25, 1924

Mr. GERMAN:

My hon. friend is absolutely wrong. What the Prime Minister said is this: That was a matter of such importance that I would have to bring it before members of the council.

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

June 25, 1924

Mr. GERMAN:

At any time after that.

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

June 25, 1924

Mr. GERMAN:

Most certainly he would,

and that is the point I am coming at. I may remark in passing, however, that my hon. friend from Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail), who is getting particularly interested in this matter now, did not take so prominent a part m the whole course of the proceedings in the committee. We did not. have the pleasure of hearing her. Now, references have been made to the statements of English statesmen, and with those statements I have not any fault to find. Mr. Asquith for instance has said:

No minister is justified under any circumstances in using official information that has come to him as a minister for his own private profit or for that of his friends.

With that statement I am 'jn absolute accord. But I should like to remind hon. members that there is a very great difference between that and the question we are now discussing. In that case members of the cabinet, after having received information as cabinet ministers, purchased shares in a company out of which they made thousands of pounds; and there is a clear distinction between that situation and the case of a minister going to a bank and drawing out his own money, to which he has an absolutely perfect right. The Minister of Labour had an absolute right to withdraw his money any minute he saw fit; it was his own money and he had a right to draw it out. And how in the name of all that is intelligent could the Minister of Labour on that day have had any knowledge that the withdrawal of his $4,000 would injure in the slightest degree any other depositors in the bank? No one else thought it would. It was known that the bank was likely to fail; but who would lose in consequence of such a withdrawal? The shareholders would lose, and that is the utmost that any one supposed, the utmost no doubt that the minister himself supposed. It would not appear to anyone that the minister's withdrawing his $4,000 would injure in the slightest degree any other depositors.

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