IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT.3) V // Cx A (/a .0 I.I 1.25 m Rhe IM 12.0 1.4 1.6 V^ ^/#/ ^a # ^;. c^. e-1 / / ^V ^^ <^ W Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN JTRFFT WEBSTER, N.Y. l4S8u (716) 872-4503 iV ^v 4^ -^ s> (\? f^ ^ % i^y Q- (/a CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiq ues Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy availabid for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or whi'^h may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. D D D D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagee Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur6e et/ou pellicul6e Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque I I Coloured maps/ Cartes gdographiques en couleur □ Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue jr black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bieue ou noire) □ Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Pli D Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Reli6 avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge int^rieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout^es lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela dtait possible, ces pages n'ont pas 6t6 film6es. Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl6mentaires.- L'lnstitut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibiiographique, qui peuvent modifier une image rsproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mdthode normale de filmage sont indiqu^s ci-dessous. I I Coloured pages/ D Pages de couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagdes Pages restored and/oi Pages restaur^es et/ou pellicul6es Pages discoloured, stained or foxe( Pages ddcolor^es, tachet^es ou piqu6es Pages detached/ Pages ddtach^es Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of prir Quality indgale de I'impression ides supplementary materis prend du matdriel supplementaire edition available/ Seule Edition disponible I I Pages damaged/ I I Pages restored and/or laminatei / I I Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ I I Pages detached/ r~71 Showthrough/ I I Quality of print varies/ □ Includes supplementary material/ Comi I I Only edition available/ Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6x6 filmdes d nouveau de fapon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film^ au taux de reduction indiqu^ ci-dessous. 10X KX 18X 22X n/ 12X 16X 20X 26X 30X 24X 28X 32X e 6tails IS du nodifier ir une ilmage IS The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Library of the Public Archives of Canada The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — ^- (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. L'exemplaire filmi fut reproduit grAco A la g4n6rosit6 de: La bibliothdque des Archives publiques du Canada Les images suivantes ont 6x6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettetd de l'exemplaire film6, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimde sont filmds en commen9ant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont filmds en commengant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole — ^ signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbole V signifie "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre film6s 6 des taux de reduction diff^rents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul ciich6, il est filmd 6 partir de i'angle supdrieur gauche, de gauche 6 droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mdthode. arrata to pelure, n 32X 1 2 3 12 3 4 5 6 REPORT OF EVIDENCE AND COMMENTS ON THE MERCIER CHARGES IN CONNKCIION WMH THE PARLIAMENTARY BUILDINGS, QUEBEC, JUNE, 1884. THE MERCIER-MOUSSEAU CASE. On the ;{i-(l of Jiirif lasl. tlio llonoi'iiblo Mr. Mort-ior, in liis place ill tlic Le^ri^^iativc A.sscinl.ly oi't^urlHH-, iniidc! tho followint; chai-ge against flio llonorabli' J. A. Moiisscaii, which wa.s rcfcrml for invostigaf ion to a Special ( 'om mil tec. The Session being near its close, the Legislature passed an A.t authorising the Com- mittee as a (Commission to take evidence under oath, and to sit during the recess. The following i)ages contain a i-ej.ort of the proceedings of the Committee, and the evidence taken before it, together with editoi'ial comments of the Montheai, Ca/ette after them, whii'h appeared in thai journal fiom lime to time during the progress of the enipiir}-. The reader will tind in these comments, and in the evidenc*^ upon which they were based, a complete history of this famous case. THE CHARGE AGAINST MR. MOUSSEAU. {From the, G.v/jKrry., JiDir (ilh,lHS4.) The appointment of a Committee to inquire into the charge preferred by Mi-. Mercior against Hon. Mr. Mousseau and Mr. Bei'goron, M.P., of having shared in the money paid to Mr. Beaufort for his induence in obtaiidng a contract from the late Government will, it is to bo hoped, speedily determine the truth or falsity of the charge. The (iovornment could not decently have refused thein(|uiry If the accusation can be substantiated, the |)ublic interest demands the production of the evidence and the jiunishment of those guilty of betraying their trust, while, if the charge is based on mere rumour, having absolutely no foundation in fact, and made in the Legislature for Party poli- tical effect, it is equally imperative that the accused gentlemen 4 should ll(^ viiidifiittMl, jiiid lh(Mr tiaducn- unmii>koro(lue(! hi^ proiHs. Il«' (Jiiiiiol atl'ord, and lio cannol, dosir(> lores! iindoi' tlio iinimlalion ol' liuving corruptly (iiHposod of a public contract when at the head ol' the Govern- nienl, and in a suhject of thi> kind, loiudiing ho nearly tho inte;^rity of a jiidife, it is a inattor of satisfaction that the Govcrn- ineiit t:;ranted the (\)niinit(oe without ijuililtlin^' ovei- the form of the accuijation. Qi'EUKe, June H. TllK Mol'SSKM -CriAHI KIIOIS ('(i.MMITTKi:. '* . The ('i)ininittee on Mr. Mcnicr's rlmr^es njjiiiiist Mr. Moiisseini in (■(iiniectiuii witli tlie < liarlclidis ((nitract, nicl tliis iiKprnini.' and organised, with Mr. Ilesjjiniins iis cliairniaii. .Mr. .lolv sn^';:cfcle.d, in view nf jiroro- gation to-uiorniw, that all disputed |Miints, siicli as the lixin^r of the HUoruin, sittings at <,)uel)oc and Montreal, exaiiiinatinn ot" witnesses on oath, enijiioyineiit of stenoy:rai>liors, iVc, he re^'ulate(| at once, following the precedent ol the eniiuiry into the Tanneries scandal. Mr. Nantel asked that tiie parties concerned lie allnwcd representation hy conn.sel. (In motion of .Mr. .loly, tlu' ( 'onmiittcc's ipKiruiu was fixed at three, that it l)e authorised at. its disciftinn to sit. at <,»iie.liec iw MnMti'cai, that ineni- bersottlie l,(v_ri.slature and I'ress he alone admitted in its sitting's, that parties he represented l)y cnnnsel, and that the ('ommiltiM'. he empowenid to employ ono or more steno^raiiheis. Mi-. Mercierthen lyled heloro the (.'ommittee a copy of an a;.'reement mider private .seal, dated 7th Mecem- lier, ISS;;, between Ihdteaui'nrt and Charlehois, and also asked that all otiieial pa|H'rs in the pnsseHsion of the Houst, he prodiiccMl. lie would he ready to-morrow to j^ive a list of witnes.scs whom it would i>e necessary to summon. An adjourinnent then took place. It is understood that tho ("ommittee will not meet until the 17th, when it will enter ui)on the regu- lar business of investigation. Qi KBBf, Juno flth, '81. The re])Ort of the committees on the Meroier and MouBseau cases, recommended among" other things tho adjournment of tho House for two inoiilhs instead of j)rorogation, was not adopted. Mr. Taillon said, when ho spoko of this being a free (luestion, that tho indoinnity of $"700 was not sutficient for a further pro- longed session, and ho could not force members to return tor that coiisideration. He thought it was premature to vote on this report because the date of prorogation was not known. Tim: Miukskai' .\\i> M khi i kh (iiAUciFis. Tho fomiuitU^^ion Mr. Marfd's cluirm's ii^;nin.st Mr. Morcior mot thin iiiiirnin^, tlu^n^ Ihuii); ii lur;:(^ atttMidain'o of iiKtinhtMS ol' l)otli lloiist^H. .\ (li.S(Miasi(iii (III tlio I'oiiiiiiittcn'.s |ll)^v(^rtM Nil and runo attt'iidaiKi' of wit- iios.>«<8 al'ttif pnini^ratifin aiosn, ulicii linn. Mr. Taillnii siiL'>;«.','n'(Ml, pm- vidod tlio ('(iiiiiiiitt(te on tlio cliar^cs aj^ainst .liuli^o .Moiissoaii l>o alHo t roat(Ml a royal roiiinii.'^Hiuii. Hcforr llio iloiisc was asknl to roconinioiid tlio appointiiKMit of coiniiiis.sioniMs, lio d(Miiiindod tliat tlu^ coinniitttto lirst.satisfy itsolf that tlioro csihtod a iircos.sity for an cmiiiiry liy t^x- ftiniuiiij.' Mr. .Martol a.s to tlio iiatiin'. of lii.s iiiforinatioii. Ilo wa,s roady to do llu^ same tiling in tlioMoussoaii caso. Mo.ssrs. .\iiiyot and I'ollo- tior, advocatt'H, applied to ap|H'ar as toiiiisol for .Mr. .Martol, and ro- Histeil Mr. Moicior's application, doclariiij; llioir roadinoss to jmx'tHMl to- morrow. Mr. Morcior said in that casti tlioro would ho no iiocossity for a royal commission. .Mr. Amvot .said thoy ohjoct«Hl to put in all tlioir tjrofif in twolvo hours. Mr. AH.solin thou^'ht it would take a wook at oast. It wa.s oviMitually docidod to njioit to tho IIoii.so in favour of a royal commi.ssion. Till* committoo on tlu' (•liar;;('s a>.rainst .Mr. Mousscaii mot this aflv TnTi'liuiiiiu, ami .Mr. .1. E. Kd.idi.u.x, M.P.I*, lor ( 'iiali'auL;iia\ , wcro also pivsont. 'I'licn^ worn (luito ii minilK'r of promiriciit |Mj|iti»iaiis and otlii-rs pri'sfnt, inoludiiii^ lion. Ii. Latlaiiiiiii', (^ ( ' , .Mr. N'anaNM', M.l'., M»'>sis. lidvi-r, Martol and liiMiiimix, .M. 1'. Vs., Aids. .Icannottu and lii-aiiscdoil, Messrs. .Matliicii, Itoiili', ProvcncluM', ( ilohciisNy and ••lln-rs. As soon as the I'hairnian liat'iij,rave, t lerk tf» the fommissinn, pruceedi'd to do so hy tirst callint;' Mr. .\ . Charh-hois' iiann'. .Mr. tiiohensky, (^.C, stated that lu- apprared fi»r .Mr. Charle- liois, who declined to appear, inasiaiieh as ht' toi*|< olijection to the lei^alily of the service made upon him. lie argued that as the iiotitications ordering the witnesses to appear were signed by Mr. hehiLirave. merely in his capacity as clerk to the special cummiltei-, which had after the '.Mh of .luiie ceased to e.\i.st, and not as Secretary to the lioyal Commission, the notice.s were evi- dently irreguhir and ijh'gal. lion. .Mr. .Mercier rep!i(Ml at some length, expressing great surpi'ise that his li'arneil friend >hould raise such an olijection as t(» the legality id' such a notice hefore even a rule niai had been issued. The proper coiiise in >ucli a case would have heen to allow Ihc rule tor contempt to issue and then to contest the ser- \'ico on the grniind of illegality. Mr. Asselin agreed with Mi', (ilnhensk}- and pruposed thai the Commission, after appointing its secretary and issuing notices to the witncssi's, adjourn until l-'riday. lion. Mr. Mi'i'cit^r protested in hi^ own name and that of Messi's. Hoyei- and .Mallette, wlm wi'i'c witnesses in the case, and who were willing t<> be heard under the notice-^ as issued. 11' Mr. Charlebois' objection was maintained e;ich witness «'ould <"onie and dn the .sanu; and lliere would be im end t(» the pro- ceet ling> Mr. (rlobensky said that Mr. Charlebois appeared both as a witness and as one of the accused. ;iiid he had a jx'i'fcct light to object to the proceedings. After some further discussion, in whi(di lion. Mr. Joly, Mr. Asselin, Mr. I'obidoux. Mr. Nantel ainl Hon. .Mr. Mereier took |iart. as lo whether Mr. ( 'harlebois should be brought betbre the ('ommi^Hion un an iutore.^ttMl party, Mr. As.seliii m ivcM tluit Mr. (MiarU'lNiis he rei)r«'«uiit4Ml licloro i\w (^>llllllirt^'i()l) an an int(>r- (•sf(((l party, aid Nir. tilohon^ky llu-ii drallt'd a Mtatfiiumt slating thai hi.H tiriii appcurcil tiir .NIr. Charh-lxiis Itoth as " a wiliicss iri-ci^iihirly ansiirn,.! and as a party liahUt to h*t iiirriniiiiatcd hy Honii' 1)1 thi' »'\ id«'n<'»'. lion. .Mr. M«-r iissijrneil, and itiiirK>diali>ly (h'at'lt-d a re<|iii*st In that ftVi'ct. Mr. A>s»'lin said tliat it was for the Coniinission to siiininon the acciisfd and aii to have the accused sunimoni'd. Mr. (Jlohensky ohjeetetl in the name of Mr. Charlehois, on the i^ioiiiid I hat none ol the persons implicated could lu' considered as accuseii. lion. Mr. Mercier denied tiiat Mi', (ilobonsky had the rii^ht to speali upon this question, as his client was not directly inter- ested. Moreover it was evident, after Mr. .Mou.sscau's h'tter to ti»c secretary ot' the eonimittee, that he considered himself an duly a«'cused. Mr. Nanlel expresserecedin<^ one. Hon. Mr. Mercier then fvled another motion askiu"- to l>e ex- amined at once, so as to prevent the disappearance of certain very important documents, inasmuch as it wa.s to his knowlcdi^e that some of the/riil)U'ly iisHij^iuMl I'^fori' ilit> Coiumiw-iion, IIh' applic'ilion ul" Mr. Mcrcicr he rojoclotl. TIiik iiiotion wuh adoplod on the MUnio diviHion as IIk' former ones. Mr. Uoi>idoux then moved tliat lion. .Mr. .Mi^rciur he examined only on llie point oI'iIk? documents r(!l'erred to. Mr. Nantol proposed in amendment that tlie ( 'omniission do now adjourn. The amendment heing adopte(|. iii(> CommiHNion adjourned \o 2:w p.m. Aki'kj{ Wkok.ss. It wa.s mutually agreed that Mr. Wohidoux would withdraw hiw motion, and that a siilipn'iid ilidrs tecum .should he immediatol}' issued summoning the witness rel'ei-red to to pi-oduee instantcr \]u' documents referred to. 'The Huhpo'iiu was imme(liately drafted, Hummonlng .lean de Meaufoi-I, lion. Mr. .Mcrcier fui-nishing the following as the list . 11. Her^reron, M.I'., diit(Ml <.>uel)cc, Utii Dccctn- her, IMS:.', iiiiij addnsscil t(i .ican ncHcaiit'nrt, Mmitieiil, asking' for S-iO. 'J. Tclcirraiu IVmn tli(< llmi. .Mi'. ('ha|)lcau, dated OMiiwa, N'(>veml>er ir>tli, IMSli, asking' IK'U ^aurnil tu iiiccl liiiii at the Wintlsor Hotel, and In lirinj: tlio papers on tlic ('liarli'l)nis allair. Letter tVoni Mr. Her«.'(^r^)n, dated <.)uel)i'(', iMceinher 'J".»tli, 1S82, sayinj? that lie had .seen Hon. Mr MousstMUi, that cverylhiny: was cnnect, and askiiiji I'cr .•sKiO. Letter from Mr. .Uph. Charleh(.i,s, .laled (,)nehcc, .Inly iL'th, 18.s:5, in- I'lirmin)-' Mr. Heaiifnil lliat SI'.IKI had licon paid to Mr. Hnrfieron on the nrder uf a (.'eiillcnian ilcsi^natcd as " N.itic prcndcr ami." U•tt(^r i'n.ni the Ih.n. Mr .Mi.iis.scau, dateil (iuclicc, .\pril iL'th, 1H8;!, and addressed to .Mr. I'ldU^aiit'nrt, ucknow l(\diiinautnrt. Letter from tia* Hon. Mr. .Mmisscaii to Mr Hcdieauforl, dated (,JuBl)ec, ( )ct. "jrith, l.ssil, ackniiw led^intr tlie dc.htto Mr Dclk^aiifort of a balance for c\|ionses hy him (d{eatil'ort from the 1st l>ecc.nd)er. 1S8'_', in conntM-tion with the <'harlel>ois atlair. During the prej)aratioii of the subjxena, Mr. A. Mathieu asked to he heard for Mr. DoBcaufort, and ohjeeted to so rigoi-ous an action being taken against his (dient. Mr. Nantel was of sub- ])(i;na shoukl not be made returnable immediately. Mr. MiithitMi il(>ni<'(| lluif tlio (IncuiniMit^* were in any diinufor of woiiM nol aiiniit this. Alter .-^oiiir (li.Miu.sHioii i'lc (.■oniiiii.'isioii (Irciilcd lo iiiaintaiii its (li'ciMioii. A liaililV waH i'liar;,'»'il with i;i(> serving of the Hulipona. Ml'. Mcrcicr ih'clart'il Ihiil lifwuuld he I't-adv to pnicccil uiili tho (diar^'f hrouMht a^^ainsl hiiu \>y I'r Martcl on 'riiiirsday. After soinu (li.'^cuHHion it was (h'cided that tin" '7'7W»7<' .should he adjourned sinfdir, to he rcncwfil on a notice ol . hi days. The ('(HuniiHsion then adjonrni>d. Ski'oni) Day's Sittinh. MoNTRK.M IHth .luilO. Tho lloyiil CoinniisHion appointed to in\ c.-iti^atc the charnOH inaile hy lion. Mr. .Mcrcici- against the Hon. Mr. .iiisliei Mous Heuu, in eonnoction with the Charlehois- Hery'eron DelJeautbrt iiffuii", and hy Dr. Martcl, M.P.P. for Chanihly, auainst Hon. Mr. Mcreioi" in connection with the contestation ol lion. Mr. Mons- seaii .s election in .lac(|iu!s Caitier (.'oinity, met ai;ain at the (lovernnu'iit Otiiees this niornini;-. The chairman. Mr. I,. .1. Hos- jardins, M.P.I*., pi'osided, and all the nieinhei's of the coninn'ssion were jtrescnt. HailitV Roy reported that he had serveil suhpcena.s upon lion. Mr. Mousseau anil Mi-. heMciiufort. hut could not tind .Mr. Mer- ijoron. Hon. Ml'. .Mereier then retjuested that, tln^ two former i;entle- men he called upon to testify. Mr. Mathieu Haid he a|»peared foi- Mr. J)e Beaulort, and ohjee- ted to any fuither proceedinu^s hy the ( 'omiTiiidt- Jxenas were void hy reason of infoinialily. Hon. Mr. Mereier ohjected to Mr. .Mathieu speaking, as he repi'esented neither of the pariics whom he wished to he calle I. and indeed Mr. Mathieu had no right to represent anyone unt'l he had hoen aceordcd the right hy the (/'onimission. Hon. Mr. fjaeoste, (^.f., here roso, and stated that lu^ repre.sen- ted the Hon. Mr. Mousseau, who declined, with all respect to the ('oinnussion, to appear on a Hiniple invitation of the (JonnniMsiun, 10 aH that was the, solo purport of the notification that had been sent him. lion. Mr. Joly said Mr. Moiisseaii could not i/^^nore the wish of llit^ Ooniniission, ami he ought to have heen present. lion. ^Ir. Lacoste asked for an adjournment until the 10th .luly, to allow him to take conimunieation of the documents in the matter, and [<> juvparo a defence, lie had heen assured by Mr. ?,?^ousseau that there had been changes in the contract which iiilly exonerated him from the (diai-ge. Hon. ^^r. Mercier piotesled energetically against an adjourn- inent. Mi-, Mousseau had written a letter to the Commission, in which he had professed a desire to hasten the proceedings in order to clear himself of the charges, but now, through his coun- sel, he asks for a delay of twenty-foui- days. Probably by that time a new delay would be asked for to enable the constitutional (question to be investigated. He had placed his own scat in jeo])ardy in making the ciiai-ge. and a delay would be to hi m ueni; »f justi ce. Hon. .Mr. Laeoste said when Mr. Mousseau fii-st spoke to him last Satui'day of this nuitter, he could not see that his (ditjnt was in any way attjicketl in the charges made by Mr. Mei'cier, and advised him not to appear. Still, as the commuiucation of the Commis- sion to Mr. Mousseau assumed that ln^ was the accused, he iiad every right to the dela\' asked for. Besides, Mi'. MoiLssean was engaged in important judicial duties, and could not lea\e them to attend the (.\>mmissieau was the strongest possible reason whv he should not sit as judge until they had been investigated. The House hail been unanimous in the wish, as expressed in the reso- lution, thai the in\ csligaiion should take place with all possible celerity. At least the Commission, he hoped, would allow him to call the witnesses he had present. He asked the Commission to order Mr. C. II. St. Louis, who was present, to remain until he had been heard. Mr. St. Louis had in his possessitui the original of one o*' the most important documents in the case, Hon. Mr. Ijacoste objected to proceeon Mr. J^er^eron, wiueh request was t^ranted. The ai.pliration ,.t Hon. Mr. Laeosle'i.r an adjournment was tnk.n en deLbere by the (Commission, whieh then adjourned tJnsmonum,: the witness St. Louis, the prothonutarv and clerk hems ordered to brino- all doeuments in their posse s on Thfri. Days SiTTrNu. MoNTRKAI., null Jiiiif, I8S4. m-d!^' I^'^' hV"" m''''u' ''W'''"te^' ^" imvstii^ate the eha.^es made U Hon. Mr. Morcier a-ainst the IJon. Mr Justlee Mous8eau, ,n conneetion with the C].arlel.ois-Ker^eron- )e Cu h,rt aftan-, and l>y Dr. Martel, M.1M>. tWr (-iKunbir, against iron. Ml. Me.cier m eonneetion with the eonte.stati.m of J Ion Mr Mousseau s elec-t.on in .Faoques ( 'artier County, met a^ain t the pvernment othces this mornin,:; The Chairman, Mr. [ .1 I et -mm' ^i^- 1 ^""'ru'' ""^^^' the members of tiie Commission Ion Mr July and Messrs. Nantel. Asselin and l{obi,loux were present. A nund.er of other gentlemen were also presen, ^,n ,'• whom were notieed Messrs. J. B. Uufresne, cfyle eot^^ f Luhamel, Heroero,., Stephens, M.P P., MeSliane.'M'p P Ro ' Mr. Laeoste, (^.C., and Hon. Mr. La tamme, Q.C. ' sc' vvhv ''";' '•^'^'' '•^'M'llarly summoned, and there was no rea- bon wJiy l.e did not ajipear. The Chairman then called Mr. BermMo.;, M I' who nromntlv responded. He naid he had receive,] ;^.tice'to app a XH dM 8o hi-ouyh courtesy towards (he Commission, id took exce t n the .statement in the ,^^,r that he eould no, be in^tTZ oflicer entrust,.! wit,h servin..- hin, with the subpa-„a, and ^i 1 Mde, the hrst iiotice suthcient, but he liad received a subpcena on 12 the preceding evening, and in compliance therewith he ad fyled an appeai-ance. Mr. Elliott, advocate, representing the last speaker, asked for a delay to answer the chiii-gcs made against his client. Hon. Mr. Lacostc. Q.(a. thought it strange that while the orig- inal chai'gcs were made against Messi-s. Moiissoau, Bergeron, l)e Beaufort and Charlcliois for corruption in regard to contracts, only Mr. Mousscau was mailc the subject of ihc juvscnt cn<]uiry. Why were the other three called u|i as witnesses, instead of being placed in the same category as the honorable judge. The Cliairman said Mr. I)e Beaufort had been summoned as a witness. Hon. Mr. Lacoste said De Beaufort had the same right to ap])ear to answer to the charge as any other person named. lion. Mr. Mercier hoped that before any steps were taken in regard to Mr. De Beaufort, the latter should show courtesy to the Commission by fyling an appearance. Mr. Mathieu said De Jieaufort was present at the hour H.xed for the session, and had left the building, bul would shortly I'eturn. Hon. Mr. Joly wanted De Beaufort, in the tirst place, to recog- nize the Jui'isdiction ol' the Commission by appeai'ing before being allowed to be entered as a ])arty in (hi- cast'. Mr. Bergeron said, as a member of the House of Commons, he could not accept the jurisdiction of the present Commission ap- pointed by the Provincial Legislature ; as a witness, he was ready to tell all lu' kni'W [(>iisseau oi- Mr. Bergeron, M.I*., as his honour and name wei'e at stakt\ Mr. !>e Beaufort then appeareil and was sworn, at'ter which Mi-. Mathieu presented a written declaration, setting forth the fact that he a|)pear(Hl as ccninsel for .lean De Beaufort. It being 1 o'clock, tlu' Commission t0(jk recess for an hour. AkTEHNOON SlTTFNli. •lean l>e Beau(()rt, examined by Hon. Mr. Mereier, said tho documents which he was called upon to produce were neither lost nor mislaid, but were not in his possession at the present, moment. He could, however, produce them in two days. In answer to the question, in whose possession the papers were, wit- ness said he couldn't tell, as by so doing he might compromise tho person in his position. Hon. Mr. Mereier having insisted on an answer. Messrs. Nantel and Asselin said they considered the witness has a i-ight to refuse to answer. Hon. Mr. Mereier said if the witness were befoi-e any of the courts he would be compelled to answci', and surely the (V)mmis- sioi\ had the same power in the present instance. Mr. De Beaufort said the documents were not in the city, anil he could not get them before at least twenty-four hours. He had made all the diligence he could to procure them without delay. 14 Hud he desired to hide anything he could have desti-oyed the papers referred to, as they were his personal property. The Chairman decided that the question as to the name and address of the pai-ty to whom the papers had been forwarded should be answered. Mv. De Beaufoi-t — The name of the person is Mr. Jules Robin, ofEouse's Point, Hon. Mi-. Mej-cier — What is his occupation, since you so much fear to compromise him ? Witness — He is a shantyman. Continuing, witness said that he hiid sent the package contain- ing the documents to the post-office, on the 17th or IHtli instant, by a man named Jacques, whose other name he did not know. A question as to the identity of the papers having been put, Mr. Asselin said they only met at pre.sent for the production of documents, and anything further than that was breaking through the unanimous agreement made by the Board. Mr. Elliott also objected to going outside the prescribed duties of the day. Witness was asked if there was a letter fi-om Hon. Mr. Mous- seau in the package, and he replied that he could not say, as he had received so many letters from that hon. gentleman. Being asked if among the documents there was a lettei' dated July I'Jth, 18H3. to him from A. Charlebois, stating that S30(» had been paid to Mr. Bergeron on an order from "our tirst friend." Mr. A. J. Ouimet. Q.C., M.P., objected, on the ground (hat the (piestion only tended to elicit secondary evidence, which should only be heard uftor primary testimony had been exhausted. Witness said he thought he had a list of the papers which he had sent to his friend for safe keeping. Tliis closed the examina- tion of this witness for the present, the Commissioners giving him orders to ])roduce the list referred to at the session this (norning, John Sleej) Honey, [trothonotary, produced the record No. 1,1*23 in the Superior Court, the case being "Gaspard Mathieu vs. A Charlebois et al." Among the papers was a contract between A. Charlebois and Jean i)e Beaiifort. By consent of both parties to the suit, the exhibits produced by the plaintiff were handed ovei" to the legal tirm of Archambault and St. Louis, the case being settled. Document marked Z was missing from the record and could not be found. Witness said that being the i-esponsiblo custodian of t'le record he could not leave them in the possession of the Commission. After some discussion, the witness was instructed to furnish the Commission with copies of all the documents required. 16 Napoleon Binet. clerk in the Superior Court, testitied to hand- ing over a contract hetwet-n Charieltoiis and De Beaufort on the 14th of May last. Mr. St. Louis, advocate, said he received the •. A. ('harlebt»i.s ct af." He declini^d to produce the floeunient, which was in his ottice. and he also rel'used to give the name of the client on whoKo Itelialf he had received (he docu ment in question. He declined, with all due lespect to the Com- mission, *)V profeBsional grounds. The Commission then adjourned until ten o'clock this morning. Fot?RTH Bay's Sitting. MoNTHEAi,, June 30, 1884. The Royal Commission appointeil to investigate (he charges made hy lion. Mr. Mercier against the Hon. Mi'. .lust ice Mous- seau in connection with the* Charlehois- Bergeron- 1 >e Beaufort aflaii-. and by Dr. Martel, M.P.P. for Chambly. against Hon. Mr. Mercier, in connection with (he contestation of U(»n. Mr. Mous- seau's election in Jac)|ues Car(ier ('oun(y, met again at the Government Office this morning. Tht) < hairnian, Mr. ,1. li. \h\n- jardin.s, M.P.P., jn'esidetl. and all thcnncnihers of the Commission —Hon. Mr. .I0I3' and Messrs. .\antel, Asselin, and lvoliirs giv(^ orders to Mr. St. Louis to name the pc^rson to whom he had givtsn the do(.'ument taken from the recoj-d in the case of "Mathieu vs. Charlehois ef. al." ' Mr. St. Louis said: "The document in cjuestion is in the vault of the law firm of Archarnbault and St. Louis; it belongs to another person, and T shall only pi-oducc it when authorised to do 80 by that person. The latt«r told me not to give up posses- sion of that paper, and if I don't produ(JC it, it is out of regard to (he privileges of my profession." Mr. Robidoux — Is the name of your client in this affair a i)ro- fcssional secret ? Mr. St, Louis — Ye.s, sir. 16 IIdm. Mr. Moroicr t|ii(»(c(l articU's fVinn the Civil Code to prove thiit the name oT a tlioul was not a ]»r(>f'o.sHional secret. He .said the document loiild not he taken I'rom thi' record except on the order of u Judifc, hoforo a dehiy ot one year and ti day from (ho date of ju(li,'ment. Tiic document did not heloni,' to MeHsrs. Archainha\il( and 8l. Loins, and the witness should he ohliged to pr(Mluce it. Mr. St. Ijouis had no rii^ht to keep the paper in his (jffice without the consent of the opjiosin^' party. Mr. Kobid(ni.\- insisted that Mr. St. Louis slioidd give the name of the client wliom he re[»resented in the matter. Mr. St. Louis — '■ 1 diMliin- to answer tiiaf «|Ucstion. ' Mr. Iiohidoux asked tliat an oi'ut decided to adjourn until the 4th July. z 18 THE ROYAL COMMISSION. {Fruin Tub Gazktte, 2i^th Jun<, 1884.^ Tlie proooedings of tlu> Fioyjil Citminission icachfil iiiiothdr Htagc on Tiiofsday, wIkui tlic Coniniissioiii'!'s rcsolxMul lo oiicii iind oxiiininc, Avitli tlo-^t^d tlooi's. ('ertain cvji-respoiidciKH' and papery, produced under sub|)(Tena by Mr. DeBfaut'nrt. This e(»ri'e.spon- denoe was asked for liy Mr. Mer<'ior, wlm, forgetting the old adage about the class of client lawyers have who [dead theii- own cause, a])pi'ars in (his case in Ihe dimhlc capacity of eoiinscl and accuser. The list furnished by him of pa|)ers \vhi( h he re(|uii'ed the witness to ])rodu('e was embodied in the sid)p(ena, and it is to bo presumed that the documents produced by Mr. DeBeatifort included those mentioned in il. Mr. Lacoste, who had already on behalf of Mr. Mousseau intimated his readiness to ]»rocee(l, insisted that these papers should Ite examined in private b\- the Commission, the lawyei's in the case being present, and that only such as were found to bear upon the charges should be mad(> public. To this Mr. Mercier objected. With an insolence all his own, he cawt doubts upon th(^ im[»ai'(ialit \ oi' the Com- mission, declaring it to be against him. and claimed that his only protection, therefore, was pulilicity. In one sense Mr. Mej'cier is right. It is most imi>oi'tanl, ni>t in his iiiter(.'s(,s alone, which are ]>urely secondary, but, in the interests of public mor- ality, that the Commission should be an o|ten one. But it is equally important that it shouM not be made use of as a means of giving to the public purely |)rivate coi-respoiidence, in whiidi that public can have no proper interest. Mr. Joly, who brings to the consideration of this subject, and to the performance of the important duties devolving upon him, the instincts of a gen- tleman, saw the point at once. Jle recognized the propi-iely of the i-equest thai (he correspondence should tirsi be examined by the Commission with closed doors; he had confidence that no imju'oper advantage would be taken of this proceeding; but he wisely guarded himself against the suggestion that he was bound to secrecy as to what transpired in that ^n-ivate meeting, if he found it was being improperly used to s.ipprcss evidence 19 bearing upon Iho cuso. Xothing could ho tiiiroi- or luoiv vcason- al)lo than this view ; and the theatrii-iil attitudes of Mr. Mercicr will not avail him much against the <'ommon-stMisc Judgnu'nt of Mr. Joly. There has lieen a dispoHition ever since the opening of this Commission to create an impression that the majority of its members were liound to exculpiite the acc-used persons. Rut there has cei'lainly nothing y{'\ oceurreil to Justity that opinion. The legality of the Commission, the powei- of the i'rovinciiil Legislature to apjxunt it, and to clothe it with MUthority to deal with the matters which have been sulimitted to it, are interest- ing constitutional i|uestions Avhich may be raised without the imputati(»n of desii-ing to shirk the (>nquiry itself. The Com- mission, in this case, appear to consider that they luive the neci's- sary power, and indeed the fact that Ihi'V accepted the trust, implies that much. As Mr. Nantel said, in rtsply to Mr. Klliot's objection on the jiart of Mr. Herger of sut l» ( 'ommissio I ns. They ire, lietbrc t hey begin their iiioceedings, tainted with the sus- picion of paidizanshi[», on both sides. The accusctl is treatcel5eaufoi't atfair, and bf l>]'. Murtel, M.IM'. ihv Clunnbly. against J Ion. Mr. Mercier, in connection with the contestation of Hon. Mr. Mous- seau's election in Jacques Cartier County, met again at tiie gov- ernment offices yesterday morning. The chairman, Mr. L. J. Desjardins, M.P.P., presided, and all the members of the Com- mipsion — Hon. Mr. Joly and Messrs, J^antel, Assolin and Robi- 21 tloux — wciT jd'c'M-nt. a^ also a lai'ifci iiiimln'r oi ifciilli'incn iii- t«restefi'. Tin- rollowiiiij; icilcrs and IcK'- ;j,iams fiom ll"n. Mr. .Moiissoaii lo Mr. he Hoaiil'oit wi-if in lli»' Itackai^i', and weiv retained as havinu^ dii'oet reference to the euHe: ' iTth of Mar.h. .'ith A|.iil, li.'hd Kel.., lllh .Ian., 1 1th Kel... 1882; 2fiih Manh. I'lst Jan., 2S(h .Ian., 2nd Kel.., Otii S.-pt.. 2n.l Jan., ard Pel... Sth Feb.. 10th .luno, 1H81. Theso papers wore prodiici'd, tin' Commissioners having ummimously deelurod them to Ik! in relation to the present case. .Ml'. Isidore I)iii'oehei, of tho Ilicholien Hotel, said Messrs. Charlehois and De lieaufort eume to his hotel and <,'ave him some ])apei's to put in the ^afe. which were to he returned to these parties whin the contract for ei'ecting the I'ailiamenI huildini^s at (^iiehcc ii;id U'eii awanled. This was ahoiit the 15th May, 18H3. il»( ri'turncd the-e paper> a few weeks afterwards, when he rea were returned. ThoUi;ht from the conversation he- tween the parties that the documents had reforcnee to a contract to he lendi'i'ed for hy ('hailehuis it Co. Since that time l)e Meaii- forl had said he wanted to he paiil the amounts of the notes. Th«i ]»ackat!;e couiaininir the documents was handed over some days iieforc^ the Mathicut "harlehois action. .lean he Beaufort said he was the per.son mentioned in the jiart of the lecoi'd produced as heini;' a party to an arrange meiit with Mr. Charlehois. At the end of November, or the beginning of December, 1882, Mr. Charlehois went to tho ofHce of witne;«s and suggesicd that they slK)uld go into ]iartnci'- ship in tt'iiilerinir for the lonstriietion of the Parliament build- ings at (jMicbec. Witness said he had no money, and, not being a contractor, could not take any .share in such a ]U'ocee(ling. Mi*. Charlebois thought his (witness) nann' was sufficient to secure the contract, and ottered 810. OOU to witness if the contract wore awarded to them. At this time witness was very intimate and in daily corre>pondence with the Hon. Mr. Moussenu. Witness went twice to Queljec after the agreement with Charlebois about the contract. Horace St. Louis, advocate, declined to give the name of the client in whose interest he was holding the document asked for by some memltors of the Comnnission. lion. Mr. .>I(M'('i('r insist('c Hcaiilort was ai;ain ul)out to Ih> (Examined \>\ Mr. Mci'iicr, when an inttMraption took place liv Mr. (/'oriifili«M", rfpi-cscntin^ tin- lion. .Mr. Moiissoaii, olijcM'tin^ to .Mr. appointed \>\ that lii'aneh of Parliaini^nt. lion. Mr. Mereier asked 'tr the pi-odiietion of the doeiuiients, us it was necessary they should he lyli'd, in order that he could take full cit^nizance of their contents, lie eontendiiil that they wori' the propi'rty uf the pnlili<'. Hon. Mr. Laeoste, lepiesenliny' Hon. Mr. Mousseau, thoiit:;lit the papers wore not of such a character an to make them |tul»lic property. Imt had no ohjcctioii that the nieinhers of the C'omniiH- sion snoiUil iiavc lull K'cess to them. Mr. he Meaufort, conlinuiny;, said that the notes to which refer- 'w once had heen made had heen dejiosited with Mr. Isidore Dui-o- chcr, and placed in the safe hy that fj;entlenian. The |)a( ka^v was sealed, and on the outside was wi'ittcn the name of witness. About two month.s after the award of the contract, the notes came into the jiosst'ssion of (iaspard Mathieu. and on one of them, for $.'{.(1011, judi;nienl had hct-n (»!(tained; the other two notes should he ill the hamls of ^^l■ Mathieu, advocate, by whom the claim was bou^i'lit from witness for ^:i,.SO(). Heing- asked by llieHoii. Mr. Mereier what amount he received out of the !$!(), (M)() to be jfiven for the award of the conti-act, wit- ness saitl he had abandoned his claim, and in consideration of that step had i-eceived from Mr. Mathieu S2,80(» tor the notes lor $1(»,()U0 whiidi he had received, and which were to be divided amonii" <» ther per Mr. ( sons who lent a hand in getting the contract. fclM ii'iiculer oiin'ciefl to a (|Uestiun "lavuig reference to a pri vate eoiivtTsation between Messrs. Hergeroii and Di' Beaufort, and stated the (Commission hail no right to enter into jirivate niatter. He furtlu'r contemled that Mr. Hergtii'on, being a mem- ber of the House of (Commons, was beyond the jurisdiction of a eommitlee appointed by any local House. His client should be pr oved gnilt\ oi" influencing the (Jovernment before he could be jilaced under accusation befori' the Commission. 23 Mr. 'IV-llior >aiil llic CominiHsinii a)t|)oinl(''l by tito Lt'^i.sliiliiro )m(l ilrci(l«'(l llmt its powers would coiititiuu until soiuu roiitrut'y onU'i's wi'i'i) I'cccivcl t'riiiu the IkmIv which liml niiidc the ii|i])oiniiiini!. ilo thnui^'lit the itiloiitioii ol' ih<' ('iii|uii y was to protect till* puhlic- iiitorcMt, and to didcnd t\w honour and di^^niity ol'thc iloMsc, Sonu' of iIh' (|Ucstioi\s made tcMidcd to i^u inio the private lMi>iness of iMi-, IJeri^eron, ami it was not intended that the ( 'onnnif^sion fhoulil have hucIi extr»ordinai\\ powerH, which in no way served to uphold or defend thetliu;nity ot' the Lei^i^la lure. Mi'fore enterini; into eonver^ations hetween inaid it was all nonsense to piotuml thai .Mr. liei'tferon. hecuuse ho was an M.l'., should not he held answer- ahhi to t ■ '"oniinisHion tlir his acts when lu' meddled with pro vincial i 'dracts. Mr. Asst'lin, one of the ConimissioncrH. eonsidei'od tha the C'onintission hud perfect jurisdiction lo piucced aw it wu.s doirij^, lind was Ueepini^ strict ly within its Ici^al hounds. .Mr. ('omnussioner Nantel thought thai they should lirst lia\'e proof iIimI 8lr»T<» was subscribed by a few friends of the Hon. Mr. Mousseau about a year previously. Hon. }i\v. ^lercier asked witness to <;ive names of subsci'iber.s, which led to a lengthy discussion, Hon. Mr. Lacosti- saying he had no objection to the parties interested seeing the list, but ob- jected, as a matter of delicacy, that they should be given to the Pi-ess. Hon, Mr. Mercit^r held that there was no harm in asking the witness if the sub.scribers in the order in which tiie}' were named 24 (wliicli he procecilcd to road) wore corroet, whereupon Hon. Mr. Luc'oste Hiiul the list was a coiitidential one, hut as the names had been i-ead by Hon. .Mr. Mercicr, his objection wa.s o.^' no ett'ect, and ho withdrew. The Comniission tht n adjourned until three o'elook. .'lFTERN'oon Sesskjn. Mr. T)e Beaufort coutiiiued, and said lie th<>'i(rlit it, was about a veai' ago, or thei'eabnuts, that lu' got the subsoriptions on the list in (jui'stion. Knew that Jlon. Mr. Moussean had gone inrough two elections, and thouglit the subscription in (|uestion was raised Ibr the expenses of the tirst one. He undertook personally to take up the subscription in question. All the sums mentioned except S5 had been paid to witness. He did not thiidv that .'iny portion of the amount nad been ]»aid towards the expenses of the election of September, 1883. Witness employed oidy Mi'. Ber gc ron to assist in u;eltin the production ol" Charlelu.i.s' letter fo- Hon'- M 'v "' "' ""''"^ '"'^' ^^'' '^^^'-^''•' "• ^f'' ■' =^'"' ""< 101 Jlon. .Mr. Mou.s.seau. Ill reply t<. the Chairman, the Hon. Mr. I.acoste sai.l that he had a.s promise. , teleg-raph.Nl to th. 11..,,. .Ind-., Mous^.au an.l that ge.itleman ),ad repln-.l, staling he w.uil.l lu- I.Hbre th'. (Jom- miijsion on Monday. to Mr. St L.)uis a].peare.l, an.l state,! that he was n..w i.ivnared give the name of his client, whi.-h he ha.l ..l.je.-te.l t.. .livuli.-e the day p,evi.iu Hon. Mr. Mercier wi.she.l to have th.' .1 sion on his ai)plication to compel the witm-ss't i'c,s,on hi' Co, iaid before the commission. O lT[)ly 'I' Tl was necessary, in order t.. .letine the position of wit iimis- lis, he n esses Mr. F. X. Archambaiilt, 1 nv w give the name partner of Mr. St. Louis, .said it as only :,c,er consulting their diet tha, it had been d ecided t .) ir.)n. M. Mercici- sai.l Mr. Arelmmbault had bet whom the Comr re the Commission, he not represent ine- an III) i-ight to sjical iiission had to doa y pei'son with Mr. ;\,-.'hanibault sai.l I the rights of his partner, Mr. St. L <■ was i)i'csc,,t lo .k-fci.l hi.s ullice and DUIS. Mr. Coinmissi.)ner Nantel m..ve.l that Mr. St. T, >y received, which was carriid u,iaiiii,i.),isl\-. iiuis rcjilv Mr. St. Louis then said that his client was A. Charleb. tractor, an. the documents had been drafted through instrucuoi trom the latter and under the legal direction of MiC A ,chambaul 'ois, con- uctions the legal a.lviser of Charlel ).>is. Orders had been 'iven b >y tlu 2(1 latter that tliesc ]iapoi's slionM iu>t leave the office of the attor- neys ill the case without his (Charlebois') demand. II(jn. ^Ir. Mercier wanted to have the papers spoken ol pro- duced. Mr. S(. Louis said he had no control )ver them, as they were not in his possession. Mr. Archamhault said the documents wen^ in his own suf'e, and Mr. St. Lmu is had no access to them, and it was physically im- possililc for him to place them hofore the ( 'ommission, a])art from the pi'ofcssional liuiiDr in\nl\-cd. lion. Ml-. Mcrcicr said that if Mr. St. Louis had not the (Incu- ments in his p<»ssessir)n he showed contem))t for the C'onunission. as he had stated at the heg'innin<;' of his e.xamination that he actually iiad them. He asked that Mr. Aridiambault he exam- ined. .Ml'. K. X. Archamhaull was not prepared to say if the papers refVu'rcd to were actually (he ones hudced up in hi:- safe, and even if they were, he >hould refuse to pi"(.duce them for j)rofessional reasons. His client alone, in any ease, had the right to produce (he pajiers, whi(di wei'e. to a certain extent, his propei'ly, and il was to him only the witness <'ould he compelled to hand them over. lion. Mr. .Mercier wished the ('ommissioii to <;ive oi'ders to Mr. Archamhaidt to product! the papers, incdudiui;' the ai;reement about the sale of the eonii'act foi' the (iovei'iinu'ut hi>ust', made by De Beaid'orl lo Ci.ai'lebois. He maintained that (he docu menls had been illeixally taken awav fr(Un anioiiii,' tin' I'ccords of the Superioi' Coui't, no copy having been left, allhouu'h the law hiMu> liiai the original, or at least a co]»y of the records, shoulil remain in thi' hands of the prothon^ttary. After several remarks on points of hiw bearing on the question, Hon. Mr. .^^ercier urged upon the Commissioners the necessity (jf vindicating their an thoi'ity. as some of the parties to the ease had st'onu'il lo ignore it up lo the present. Mr. Archambaidt sai was taken en deliliew. The depo- in (juestion referred. Witness aiiswerel l>y raying that he understood there was nu danger of the contract being awarded to any person other tiian the one lui' whom he wa.n act- ing, ami he liased that belief on the fact that ^Mr. Bergeii^n was an intimate friend of the then I'l'cmiei' (Hon. Mr. Mousseau). Met al Mr. Laflamme's oHice, on the 27lh of Ajiril, .Mes.srs. Latlamme. Mercier, lioyer, ami (re(». W. Stephens. MV. l^a- rtamnie at that time was his legal adviser, and as some misunder- standing arose with Hon. Hon Mr. M(»usseau. he (^witnes''^ uave the papers in (piestion into hi^ (Mr. LatlamnK''s) ])ossesht he had up lu the present proved most of his statement made in the House, and he wanted to complete the mattei' by the admission of the wiliit'ss under examination. Mr. Commissionei- Robidou.K thought that no objection could bo ottered on the part of Mr. He Beaufort, as the latter was a ]»arty in the case. After a short consideration, the Commissioners declared the objection not well founded, and eonse((uently overruled it. Ml'. De Beaufort, on the question being again ]»ut to him, le- ])lied that he declined to answer, as his reply might incriminate iiim. Hon. Mr. Mei-cier held this was not a criminal nuitter, and that no mattcj- what i'e])ly a witness gave, so long as it was given in good I'aith, he would not be incriminated. At the suggi'stion of his counsel, Mr. Mathitui, ^Ir. De Beau- fort withdi'cw his objection to answiT, and stated that he might have said that Jlon. Mr. Mousseau, Mr. Bergeron and himself were to divide the $10,0f*<^' in thirds, but as lu! was not under i.iii\i al the time, he did not consider himself bound by the state- ment, as it was merely a supposition based upon the tii-st letter from Mr. Bei'gci-on, which b;tt(»r was now in the hands of the Comnussi<)n. Witness stated in a most positive manner that he had no recollection of ever having ottered to make a declaration or affidavit to the eflect that the ^10,000 was to be shared equally among himself and Hon. Mr. Mousseau and Mr. Bergeron, He was sure that he 5session, in their rehition as attorney ami client, and which had l)een niven iiji to Mi'. Charlebois yesterday morn- ing. Mr. Dv Beaiitbrt's evidence was to the etl'cct tiiat lie was remotely relate(l by niarriaiie to Mr. Moiisseaii, that he had fre- quently had money transactions with him, lending and borrow- ing, which transactions had extended over a liival many years without any account being kejtt iietwccn them. He hail on three occasions raised money by subscrijition to assist Mr. Mous- seau in his election contests, and had paid him, outside of these subscriptions, the sum of two hundred dollars. He had never had any conversal'on with Mr. Motisseau, at any time, about the Charlebois contract ; but he considered in giving liim (he two hundred dollars, which was part of the moneys received by him (Mr. De Beaufort) fr(»m Mr. Charlebois, be was giving him what belonged to him, although he had never bad any conversation at that time or at an}' other with Mr, Mousseaii about the contract, or which would lead hiui to suppose that that, gentlemen re- garded this money as Iteing in any way connecteii with it. Jle exi>lained that he was very angry with Mr. Mousseau, who had dismissed him from the public service when the facts came out at the trial in the Mathieu-Charlebois case, and had gone to the ifon. Mr. Latlamme, to whom he had shown certain paj»ers, on the promise that no use would i)e made of them, and had made certain statements, which he n(tw (•oiitradicted under oath. Mr. Maillel's examination developed one ot" the abuses of (his mode of enquiry. The Commission was appointeil to en([uiro into (he charges made l)y Mr. Meicier, to the etVect that the Charlebois contract had been sold by Mr. Mousseau. who Avas to receive $3,000 as his share of certain moneys agreed to be paid to De Beaufort, Mr. Bergeron receiving another $3,000, and tho 30 balance going to De Beaufort ; and to investigate generally the cii'cumatances ronnoi'terl with the letting of the contract. The Conimibhioiiei'.s, tht'ietor(>, have no power to go beyond the order of refei'((noe, and (hoy should see to it that the proceedings are iiol iiiiide a cloak for impertinent enquiries into purely business (ransactions. unconnected wilh cither Mr. Mousseau or Mr. B(!r- geron, or with the letting of the contract by the government. Mr. Maillct, being .sworn, stated in answer to Mr. Merciei' that he knew nothini; whatever of the circumstances uttcndintr the letting of the contract ; that he became a partnei' after it was let, having a thii'd interest, another gentleniiin, whose name he did not now know, lunng a third parlnci" as well. He knew nothing of any inoiuns being paid by the tirni i>f which he was a memb»M" to any public men ; and when Mr. Meriier insisted upon knowing the name of the third jjartner. he said he could not tell his name ; he understood ho was a banker, a sleeping partner, who derived his protif in return for financing for the lirm. Mr. Mercier took advantage of this statement to nuike two or three of his characteristic speeches, in which the guilt of both Mr. Mousseau and Mr. Bergeron was coolly assumed, and the ii\sininition thrown out that possibly one oi- other of them was the sleeping partner. And because the Commission very Y>ropei-ly refused to compel Mr. Maillet to disclose the ordinary pi'ivate affairs of his fii-m, notwithstanding his statement that those allairs, so far as he knew anything about tht'm, had noth- ing whatever to do with the charges brought by Mr. Mercier, that gentleman whined about being obstructed in his enquiry. The ti'uth is he has had far more latitude fiian would have been allowed him in a criminal court, at the trial, on an indictment, of the meanest ci-iminal ; but his game has been to secure a con- viction in the i)ublic mind before the evidence has been taken, by asking questions some of which even his own friends on the Commission have been compelled by a sense of propriety to rule against, and thus create the impression that witnesses are un- willing to let the tiuth bo known. He has been apparently very anxious that Mr. Mousseau should apj)ear fur examination; but yesterday when Mr. Lacoste stated that .fudge Mousseau was at the service of the Commission, he did not call him, and it is said to be doubtful if he will call him to-day. 31 F)inniTH Day's Sitting. Montreal, 7th July, 1884. The Royal CoinmiMBJoii appuintod to invostii>ati' Iho (•liaru,(\>< made hy JIoii. Mi'. Mt'n'icr aniiiiist the lloii. Mr. .Tii>tuu Mous- 8caii in coniu'Ction with tho (Miai'h'liois-Hci'n'cfuii he H(>aiirof( afl'air, and l»y T>\\ Martel, M.IMV \oy Chaiiil.ly, against Hon. Mr. Mercior, in connt'ction with tho contestation of Jlon. .Mr. Moiis- soau's (jU'C'tion in Jac(iuos Cavtier ("bounty, met again at tho gov- orninent otHces (his afti'rnoon. Tho chairman, Mr. L. J. Des- jardins, M. P. P., presided, and all the nieiulieis of the ('uMiniis- sion — Hon. Ml'. Joly and .Messi's. Nantol, Asselin and Pohidoux — were pi'osent, as alsf) a largo nuinher oC ifentlenien interested. Hon. Mr. .Mercier asked for the rulini;' of the Coniiuission on his application for the e.xainination of Mr. F. X. Archainbaiilt, Avho had claimefl exception from replyinii; to cei'tain (piestions on the ground of professional priviU'ge. Mr. St. Louis then ma him. Witness porsoiuilly gav(i tho documents to Mr. Charlobois, who was his client. in answer to a ([uostion from Mr. Commissioner Nantel, the witness said ho had not the docunuMits in his posses^ioHj and even if he had. he would not produce th(>m without the permis- sion of his (dient, even though he might be sent to gaol for his refusal. He considered he was only doing what he was entitled to do as a lawj'or in docdining to make any furthoi" statements before the Commission in this respect. Had never seen tho original document of tho agrt)ement between Messrs. De Beaufort aud Charlebois, •30 Jean Do Bi-tiufort, recalUMl, tsaid ho had shown thc^ documents in queHtion to Mr. liaflamme, as hl.s lawyer, who stated that they mi^hf^ he sei/.ed in pos.session of witrifss. Mf. liaHanune said it would he a «^ood thinj^ to have the papers photograjihod, hut witness said it was heyond his p(»wei', as lie had nol the means. Witness llien made an otier to u'ive the documents over to Mi-. Latlamme, on eondition of the latter discounting witness' note for !$5,0()(), !i^8(Hl in cash and the halanec heini;- payidilo at matu- rity', lie made this otl'er in order to show those who had injured him what injury lu' could do them, wiien he found liimself unahle tf> do anythinii, towai'ds supportiui/; his family, lion. Mr. Mous- sciin was the jicrson of whom he spoke as havin;;- injured him. To the Hon. Mr, MercicM- — Did not show th(^ documents to the JFon. Mr. LaMamme in oidcr to have th((m puhlished and therehy damai^e the political character of Ifon. Mi'. Moussean anil Mr. Ber^ici'on ; simply tH)nsulted Mr. Latlamme as his lawyei". Wit- ness had a salary of SI, 500 a yeai- undei- the local government as chief of the revenue police, hut was discharged when the tbrce. was dishanded on the 1st of Fehruar\- last. The ag-i'cement between himself and Chai-lehois about the contnict was to have been strictly pi-ivate. Paid Ifon. Mr. Mousseau $200 of the sum received from Uharlehois for the (d)taining of tlie contract. Gave him that sum believing it to be his due. VV^itness was a brother- in law of the Hon. Mr. Mousseau, and was not in the habit of making any mcmiorandum of amounts whieh might pass between them. Often borrowed sums of money, and pei-haps as often lent amounts, but never kept any account of them. , The silting was here interrii])tc*l for the ])ur))ose of allowing Mr. Tclliei', advocate, (o examine the ilej)ositions given at the last sitting of the Commission. li. Z. Malhitte, member of the tirm of A. Chaiiebois \' Co., contractors, knew nothing of the ^10,000 to b(^ paid to L)e Beau- fort for the contract for the government buildings at (^ueltee. Never heard from his partner anything about, the contract re- ferred to. Witness was to gel one-thii'd of all the proiits, it b(>ing understood that there was a third person having an intei'cst in the partnership. Hv said he did not know the name, and was about explaining it when Mr, Archambaidt objected, saying that the witness should not be compelled to go into his private busi- ness matters. Hun. Mr. Mercier replied, saying that it was absohitely neces- sary that the fullest investigaiion should be made into all the facts of the case, and he hoped the Commission would sustain him in bringing all the facts to light. Mr. Mallette, having been asked if there was a registered part' 33 nership between hiinsoll", Mr. Clmi'U'lj(MH iuul the iinkiiovvn [)!irl- ncr, Mr. Archiimlnuilt again objecttMl, and Naid that tin; niattor amo!ii!,- pai'tnors in I'dnimcrciMl concornH should md Ix; ma(h^ pnh- lic li»j{i)rc lliis cnfiuii'v. Hon. Mr. Mc'irioi- insisted on having an answor, and thu (.'oin- mission having decided in favor of his j)retensiun8, the witness said tlicrc were oidy, in reality, two in the firm, Mr. ("harleliois and witness, although Charleliois had statetl lo witness tiiat there was a third party, who would ael as bankei- tor the firm and tak<' one-thir scandal tli:it nn^dil result tVoni it, intimated that it eoidd Ite settled it he, Mallette, would \y.\y S.'J.nOO ; hut that, in the event of this .>^iim not Ijcini;' paid, .Mr. Mrreier' would hrinii; the matter up in the Legislature, and tin' resu'i woidd he nm.st danuigin^. Mr. Mailetto declined to have anythinn' to y iiiakinu I'm- I'ormjil (diartje whi(di is now hcin^^ invtstigateil. WIkmi Mr. Mallette. mentioned the name of Mr. Meausolifl. Mr. .Mereier at onct; ohjecled, with great energy, to his ^oini;- on, on tln^ gi'ounil is .Mr. ^^el•«'ier"s partner. Ninth Day's Sitting. Montreal, Hih July, 1S84. Th(! Ro} al (/ommissior\ appointed to itifesiigate the (duirges iriaile by Hon. Mr. Mereier against the Hon. Air. Justice Mous- seau, in eoniuiction with the '^haidebois-Bergeron-i>e Beaufort affair, and by Dr. Marte!, M.T.P, for Chambly, against lion. Mr. Mereier, in connection with Ihe contestation of lion. Mr. Mous- seau's election in .laeques (,'artier ( 'ounty, met at th(> goverMnumt offices this afternoon. The Chairman, Mr. L. .1. Desjardins, M.P.P., pi-esided, and all the meinliers of the ( 'ommission — Hon. Ml'. Joly and Mes.srs. Nantel, Assclin ami Kobidoiix — were pres- ent, an were also a large number of othei- gentlemen. Mr. Mallette, partner of Mr. Cbarlebois, conti'actor, was re- time.*, to Mr. I^ergeron tor travt'lling e.K|)enses. Showed the documents at Mr. Latlamme's after having exacted a solemn ]>romise t'rom those jiresent, M(!ssrs. Koyer, Mercier. LaHamme. and .Stephens, that their contents would be kept secret. Had ai\ otler from Hon. .Mr. Latlamme of .§100 tor tin; papers. The money given to Hon. .Mr. Moiisscau had never been returned to witness. Had sold his claim at less than the face value, and consepientl)' didn't gel his itill one-third uf the S 10, OIK). The .S2(HI .•'poken of as having been given to the Hon. Mr. Mous>eau formed jiart of the $H)() received from (Jharlebois on account of the award of the contract. Hon. Mr. Mercier asked if witness had not received from his friends S57(t towaitls jiaying the election ex])enses of the Hon. JVIr. >rousseau, and why the money was })ai ;my uiimwit Iming ^ivon l>y wil Mcss, wliilo llic iruri. Sir-. Joly iirpl Mr. Ifuliidoiix llioiiuhl HOino exjiliMialioii WHS norcssiiry in i(';^iii'(l In Ilit- rttiilctin'iii. Mr. ANMclin eunHidcred tim! the (JitriiniiHHion liiid iin ri;f|if wliutovoi- l(» ciKiiiiif iiitii tlif nwiniHi' in wliirli lli.n. Mr. .Mouh- n«.'iiii M election (Xitcnses hiul I ictin |i:iii Tl ic ohji'ction was Mislninnl, and III uilni (()iiliniiin<>-, naid llial out ot the $510 HubscrilK'd to the fund lie had paid the account of y\v. huinaine, livery htahlo Ivi'eper. Mr. J. L. Ar( handiaull, advocate, huid tlial allhniii;|i hi.-^ name was atta(die(| to that of lion. .Mr. Mousseau in the law tirni, he, howover, had no intiU'est in ,Mr. Moiisseau's iMisiuess in the luat tor untler eonsiditration. lie had heoii cuinisei for the defendant in the case of ''(Jaspanl .Malhirmatioii he had I'eeeivcd in that dijvc- tion Avas in his |»i'ofoHHional cii])aeity as a lawyer. After consideralih>- di.seussion, the r«'fu.sal of Mr. Arehand'ault was sustained h\' the (.'oinniisaion, aflei- whicdi mess was taken until two o'l lock. AktEHNOO.N SlTTIN(i. (vh.ii'lcs Adolphe l>uinainu, master eaiMcr, depo.^cd ihal ahout twoyeai's since, .l(ian l)e l?eaufoi't paijiiii(' piii'ticH woro ."(till in con- >ll1llttii)||. Ml'. !>(' lit'llllloft llli'll |llll(-('ii it IHIMiIm'I' lit' lloCIIIIM'lltS i(» lilt' iianils (iC witiii'>s. Tlic |>ii|u'i's wore citlu'r Iclti^i^* tie Iclc yi'iiius liiiviu^ I't'loi'OMi ( |»i'iiiri|ially to (lit' ( 'liai'iohois cunt lai'l. hi' Ht'jmliii'l liMil :i Mill" liir !?.'», (10(1, liir wliiili In' winln'il In nlilaiii i?iT.*i() Of J. 'I'Ih' unto s|)olvi!ii III wa-- ti'iiiii .Mr. ( 'hai'K'liois. ami he Mfaurml ntlt'n-il (ho iiiiiiio of Mr. I'llliott, III' ni'auhariiois, as an ciulorsur. Al tin* ini'iitiiiLf ii'Ccrri'il lo ihcrt' was nnlhini;' whatever .saiil ahniil si«- t-rriy ; tlii' |»a|K'r.s \wvv vnhintarily ;,MVt(n over (or I'xaininulion, mill du' Hon, Messrs. Ludaninu' ami .Morcier wcro (ukin^ any iiolos llit'V tli'iiij.;ht |ii to lion. Mv. Moiisseau. He fur- ther said in the prestjiu'e of \vitne>s that he had paid a notts and otlnir anioMnl> for lion. Mr, .Moiis>eau (o .Mr. hiiinuine, livery s(alile keeper. The note in (|Uestioii ti»r ijffj.OdO was (o beheld, provided that he Meaiitort reioived .S7.'>() or ,ifS(((), and (he parties present wert! told they eould do what Ihey wished with the hal anee if they only ii'ave hini Ihe simi reipiired. The inatler was liront^hl to IJH' notire of the House simply in onler to exposo a piiblie sramlal. Mr. De Heaiifort was u tenant of witness' and was in arrears fur rent, hut the amount had heeii paid hy a dral'l Nii;;ned hy the Hon. Mr. .Mousseau. .Mr. hiimaine, who had returned from his otiiee, produced a statenieni hy wliitdi it appeared that siiici' the 2(t\\\ ot' Septein- her, 1HS2, no moneys had hoeii paid to him or to his linn hy .Mr. he I'lcaiifdil nil hehalfof the Hon. .Mr. .Mousseau. Hon. .Mr. hatianime >aid that the witness he Meaufort had cun- suUed him on profcssiniial inatteis, and had lolil him ahout the contract which ('harlehois had rocoivod. he iJc^aufort stated that Hon. Mr. .Mousseau was to have I'cceived one-third of the sum of 5rlO,()0(l given as a Imnus for the granting of the eoiuract to the tirm of A. Charlehois k C'o. Witness said that he wanted to know, for ])orsonal ri'iisons, all ahout this circumstance, and he Beaufort was (j^uite willing to give all possible inl'ormation, say- ing at (he time, ''Certainly; all I want is my Hharo of the ^10,- 000,'' The documents were hand(Ml oyi'v and copies taken of the principal ones, the only s(i[)ulation being that they should not be tmule public until he (De lieaufort ) had ett'ec(ed a settlement witli Hon. Mr. Mousseau iind the others. De Beaufoi't said he had always been a Ijiheral, and wu.s reducisd to necessity by the action of his fornuu' friend, Hon, Mr. Mousseau. Witness said he would consul! his fi-iends and do the best lie could for him, 38 pi'Dvidod his statements wore straightforward. Had the docti- niciits in liis ])ossessi()n t'oi' several days, and tlien returned theui to l)e Heautbi't. The hitter gave all the explanations asked of him, and was most anxious to obtain the assistance of witness and his friends. Thought De Beaufort's conduct was tlie result of a spontaneous outburst of patriotism. Thought the facts as given were sufficient to justify the subsequent investigation. When the papers had been considei-ed. witness, in answer to De JBeaufort, said that he would see about it, and if his tViends would consent he might be able to give about S-tOU on the note, and he con-idered it to h^ worth that sum, if only as ix piece de conciction. (ieorge W. Stephens, M.P.P., was present at the i-esidence of the Hon. Mr. Latlamrae on the day above I'eferi'ed to, 27th April. The object of the meeting was to hear what Mr. De Beaufort had to say in I'eference to the contract foi- the Pai'liament buildings. De Beaufort said that §10,000 was to be given foi- obtaining the contract, and that there wei'e three to share that sum— Hon. Mr. Mousseau, Mr. Bergeron, M.P., and himself In reference to the \\(n'i.\s notre premier ami, Da Beaufort said that they i-efen-ed to Hon. Ml". Mousseau and the brter B in one of the documents was intended lor Bergeron, be Beaufort stated, in the presence of witne-^ses and the otheis pi'esent at Mr. Lathimme's house, that he was willing to give evidence belbre any court sustaining his statement, that Hon. Mr. Mousseau was to receive one-third of the §10,00(1 given by ('harlebois for having secured the con- tract. J)e Beaulort placed a bundle of papers before the gentle- men present, and also said that Mr. Bergeron, M.P , was the agent at the court at Quebec. There was no question as to secrecy in the matter, and. in fact, De Beaufort offered to hand over all the letters and other papers for S750 or ^800. The Commission then adjourned until 10 o'clock this morning. Tenth D.w's Sitting. MoNTREAi,, July yth, 1884. The Royal (commission appointed to investigate the charges maiuents and thei\ left. Mr. Boyer stopped for some (im ■, then wtnt away, but returned m the evening. Mr. De Boa i fort invited the gentlem« "i •" ^sent to take cognizance of tho papers which were laid Oi, mt.! table. After witness had examined some of the docum'^nls, ho asked Mr. l>e Beaufort if he could say to whom the ^vords autre premier a?n< in one of the papers rei'erred; the roply was that Hon. M^r. Mousseau was the gentlenuin referi'Ovi lo. The letter Bin in- otlier document was described as alluding to Mr. Hergeron, M.P. De Beaufort said that the $10,000 to be received from Charlebois was to be divided erpiully betwoou Hon. Mr. ?*Iou.elf fV' Bcaufv)rt. The latter suid he did not want the matter uiade pui)lic for a i »v lays as he thought, per- 40 liaps, ho niiglil bo ultle to olitain his money. Mi-. Stephens otlered lo collect the S5,0()() note then coming due, on which De Beanloi't wished to obtain an advance. Mr. Steplicns saiil he would undertake to make the collection and would not charge De Heautbil one cent for his services in that respect. De Beau- fort said he dibidoux. Amom-- other promuK'iit gentlemen in the chambei- were noticed Hon A » '^m^ff' ■^^'■■"- -^- ^J«?i'ti(^i', '^Ji'. t\ X. Archambault. Q C Mr t" A. Telher, Mr. Mathicu, Mr. Thomas While, .M.P Mr J g' h" Bergeron, M.P., M. Jos. Ta.sse, M.P., and many others. Mr Alphonse Charlebois was the first witness called bv Hon Mr. Mercier. Witness testified that he had received an or-ie,- from' the Commission to produce certain documents that ho had received from :\Iessrs. Archambault and St. Lonis. He would now ru-..- duce, under protest, the original of the agreement of the 7th December, 1882, between himself and .Mr. Jean De Beaufort an.l would allow a copy of it to be taken. He also produc^ed" the three notes which he haoken to Mr. Mousseau once in ref'n'ence to tlie contract. .1 I on iliat occasion he asked him wh(!ther it was his impression that .Mr. (.'harlebois would get the contrac't. Mr. Mousseau replietl no. as there was a lower tender. The letter . ;iiiil at xxiir oi' tlu'so iK-casioiis thoro were inomhoi's ol Parliaiiit'iit ami utiiei's of hi- trieiids l)resciit. There had heeii no talk at ail at such ^atheriii^s ol'the contract in qMcstion. Jl(> hail never horiowcd or lent money to the lion. .Mr. Monsscau. Re;;ai'iliiiii; the Ictlci- addres'-ed hy him to DcBcaut'orl, and dated the !Mli A]iril, ISS;;, hy the iiiterro^-a- tion, whetlu'r ('harhdtois had done his duty or not, he meant to kiK)\v whether ( "harlehois hadsettleil his matters with DeHcauiort or not. The tele.u'ram, ■• Things look well," dated the I2th Do- cend)er. 1SH2. and siii;ned ■Horace,'' was from him to DeHeaii- tort, as also the one dated the 14th Decendter. " |)on't semi titty; going U|) to-night.' At this time he was still in (^iieh(>e in the interests of I)e Beaufort, and the telegrams referred to this maltei-. Hc! had had several coin crsalions with Chai'lehois after the latter had re(|uested him to act as his legal adviser. McNfillan had the contiaet at the time, anil Charlehois wished to (ditain it from him witli the consent of the department, and he had t^nployed witness to revise the contract and to watch his interests. He had never seen any ot the miiiisteanfoi-( to dcsti'oy the notes, because he (lid not think he ( De Jk-aufort) would be able to get anything on them, and he foresaw that suits would arise. When De Beautort told him that if Charlebois got the coiiti'act he (De Beaufoi't) would make $10,000, the witness laughed at him. This closed Mr. Bergeron's evidence, and the Commission then adjourned until 10 o'clock this morning. INMI ■16 THE ROYAL COMMISSION. (From Tmh Gazeitk, .My 16erat ions w(U'e l(Migthy, seeing that it was after Ihi-ee o'clock before they met again, and then they sim|tly announced that this moi'ning they woulil make known theii' decision, and requested that Mr. Charlebois might l»e present. In thi! mean- time we are b()und to say that we think Mr. Charlebois' objection was well taken. What money he paid to regain these notes from the third party into whose haner and look alter a conlraet tur which Ml". Char!chuis had ]iut in a lender, and in whirh lie, I)e Ik-aiifort, had an inttM-est, He eonseiite I to go on cnnilition that his expenses were paid; he went several limes (hiriiiii' that month, and ascertained all that he ei>ulil in relation to the tenders, and linding tinally that by the reject ion of the two lowest lenilers on account uf the pai'lies neglect iiig or refusing to conijdy with the terms of the (jrovernment, McMillan's tenis', and was taken b)- him, there was nothing more to be done. That was all that occurre(l so far as the arrangement between J)e Beaufort an intliicncc any Minister in connection with it. lie did not know when r)e I^caufoil asl thinking that this tendency to speech making might be restrained, on both sides, without in way interferinir with ny way the proper eliciting of all the facts connected with this business. Mr. Charlebois' evidence, which our i-eaders Avill find reported 49 III iinotluM' cnlmnn, is intiMO>tini; as atVordinu; an iiisiLclif inl<> llio mi'aiis I'liiployt' I liv fniiti'acloi's wlio ari' lomleriiii;' li)i' conirju'ts to ascLM'taiii all al'uiit their rivals, to imluco tlios(^ rivals, if ])os- silijf, Id witli'Iraw. oillier Ity siitfjjfcstion that llioir icinU'rs aii' -o low thai thcv iiiii>t tail, or hy iiKhifini;' them to sell out. Tliis is tho worU whit'ii Mr. Do Beaufort was cxpoelcMl to perform, and his political iiirtuoncc — or supposed iMflueiico — did iiol i-iitcr as ail elciin'iit in the ••..nsiduration yivcii for his servicos. So tar as Mr. Miiu^^faii was concorncd, .Mr. OharUdiois was ino>t om pliatic in hi- Ntati'inont that he had never i>'ivi'ii him iiioiii'V, di- rectly oj- indirectly, in connection with tho ohtainmeiil of this Contract ; and the oidy conversation he had with thai y'diilenwin was in (iuehec when ho was told hy him that he had tommitteil a li'i'oss folly in makim; any such arraiin'cmeiit with De Heaufoi't, and w; without delav. advised to jLToi rid of all coniieclion wilh timt pi'r>on Much of (he los-. of tiino was due to M.r. Mer(d(M' attemp commit the Comini.vsion to an cn([iiiry into the .lai'ipK^s Cmiier election. •■J)idyou subscrihe any money within the la-l two '■ years to Mi-. Mou^scau's elctdioiis?" .Mr. .Meridei' aski'ij, and the question Was overrule|Ue-tions, Mr. Mercier again came up smili' Did vou subscribe a considerable sum of mom>v toward er a Mousseaus elections, and did vou consider th( )Se subscriptions " as on account of these ten thousand dollars?"' And upon this, wdiich should have been decided at once, an hour's s])eech-makini;- occuri'i>d. I'he question eouM not have been put in a oouiM of justice, becau-e it wa^ a<^ainst one of the most (dementary rules of evidence, beiiii; two (|uestion-i in one, to which the answers yes" and '• no"" miirht be ydven. The Commission had alieai ly deci(,led that no quo-^tion coniie'-ted with sub>criptions to olection? so oonl.l !)(> |)ut ; (liiit HctUod the lirsl juirt oCllio (luostion, iind Mr. ('liiu'lclMiis hiul ali-oaily swoni Imll'ii do/en limes lluit lio liad not <;'ivi'ii Ml-. Mi)uss('iiij, ilii'iM'tly or itiflircclly, or lor his !i{lvaiiliig(' ill any way, a siii^'U^ cdiit in coniuiclioii with tlic awardinn- of tliiH cnnli-act, or Iho arraiii^^cincnl with .^^r. I)o Hc-aiilort. It is prohalilc that liif lion. .Iiisticc Moiisseaii will he ('xaniincd lo-d.-iy, at least it is lo he hopi-d that he will ho, as he has luien in alten- daare, await iiii;' Mr. Morcier's ploasiire, lor si^veral days. TwKr.FTii Day's Sitttno. Tho Royal Coniinission a])|)oiiite(l to invesli<:;!Uo tho C'har;i^es mad(» hy lion. !\rr. Mereior ai^ainst the ll(»ii. Mv. .lii>tieo .Moiis- seaii, ill eoiiiH'elion with the Charlelioi.s-Hery'eroii-J)!' Jk'autort ailair, and hy Dr. Martol, M.l'.P. for (Mianihly. ai^-alnst lion. Mr. Moreior, in eoiiiieotioii with tho ('oii(e>tatioii of lion. Mr. Mous- Heiiu's oleetion in .lae([ues t'artior County, met, astion. Mv. Charlebois re(i[uested tliat the Commission should give him leave to make certain explanations, and a long discussion then ensued as to whethci- these explanations should bo perniitted. t(ir A. iia- )iit to •cl.- •tlio lim 51 MortHi's, Xiuitol ami AhhoIIh oxprossoil lli«»inH«ilv(w in favour of ullowiui; tlio ox|)laniiti')iis, lutt .Messrs. IJohidoiix arid July fliDiii^ht tliut a ilii'oci aiis\v(M' >li yivfn to lln' niK^'liori, Tilt' ( 'Minmissiiiii finally ilofiijcil tlial the t'XplaiwUiini-^ slumld lio allowc I. .Mr, Cliarlcliiiis said llial \vliil(> lie liad ( lie liin'Iiost rcspoct (or till' <'omiiii.ssi(>ii. and wliilc lie was [n'rfi'rtly willini;' to y-ivis it all )i>ssil)lo assisiancd. lie (lid iiol tliink (hat llii' (|ni'stion wliirh he lad l((M>n called upon to answer hail any reference \vhate\cr, directly or iiiilirectly, to the case, and he niiist ili-elino to answer a iniustion that rotated solely to a private and personal trans- action. 'flio Chairiiian asliincaii .Mcl>oiiald, and also did work for him. lie had not s(>archei| for Mr. |)e lleautoi'i to gel him (o go in(o (ho nia((ei'. .Meeting l)e I'eaiititrl, how- over, the latter had asked him if lu> inti'nded to send in a tendiM' iiir the cont w Witness I'eplied that lu; did not think ho had niiudi (diaiice, ii|)on wdiicdi I )e ISeaiifort said that he had the right man to get the tendoi' (hroiigh. and asktid how niiieh ho would receive if he was successful. Witness replied s!l(l,(l(l(). The agreement of (he 7(li of Decomher was af(erwarils prejiared. and (iio wlioK' of the pajiers given into the hands of .Mr. Dnroidier. with inst 1 uclions not (o part widi (hem until authorised, lie had never to his knowdodge met .Mr. I)e Heaiiiiir( wi(h .Mr. .Mons- seau. lion. .Mr. Mer(der — What was the nature of the services that Mr. De Reaufoi't was expected to render? Witno.-s, in I'cply, >aid that De Beaufort was simply emjdoyed to act as his agent, acu'onling to the usual course. Contraiior.s were aocustomed (o employ agents and hrokers (o secure con- S2 tracts, and to induce, if possible, othei" tenderers to withdraw for pecniiiaiy consideration, and it was to do the usual s(M'vicos tliat Mr. Dv Boaufoi't was employed, namely, for the ]>ui'pose of actin;^ as his agent and Avatching the proceedings in his interest. It was the intention that the expenses attending the matter sliould be paid out of t!ie 810,(Jt)0 in question. There was no regular agi'eement of partnership existing between himself and Mallotte, but occasionally the latter and othci-s were taken in by Iiim into contracts. Jle had met ]\[r. Bergeron in <^uel)cc, as tar as ho could remember, some time in December, 1SS2, but at that time there was no talk between them in regard to tl>e contract. Tbe services that ^I.r. Bergeron liad rendei'ed to luni were sim])ly professional. To tlie liest of Ids knowledge he had paid hini money in thi-ee sums of .S200, -SoOO, and 3'><>0. llis services con- sisted in revising the contract for witness und other legal advice. He had given no money to Mi-. Bergeron previous to the time that the latter became his legal adviser. As far as he could remembej', he iiad paid to Mr. De Beaufort some $1,800 or$l,!JOO. Hon. Mr. Mercier — You sa}^ yon gave S.S.OOO to ^[r. St. Louis to settle the case brought bv (Jaspard .Mathieu, $1,000 to Mr. Bergeron, and 81,800 or $l,i)00 to Mr. De Heaufoi-t. Did you give any other sums besides these on the $10,000 in connection with the C(mtract ? Mr. Archambault objected to the question as illegal, but the question was allowed. "Witness re])lie(l tliat he would swear that he paid no other sums in consideration of obtaining the contract neither dii'ectly or indirectly. The 83,(100 was not expended in connection with the contracd. He had never paid anything towards Mr. Mousseau's election. Hon. Mr. Mercier — Have you expended any money towards aiding Mr. Mousseau during the last couple of years ? lion. Mr. Lacoste objected to this (juestion as being entirely foreign to the case at issue, and not connected in any way with tb(! sul)ject of the contract which this comnussion had been appointed to enquire into. The oidy (question that could be asked was whether witness had given any money to Mi'. Mousseau in oi'der to (djtain the contract. After some further argument the objection was maintained, Messi's. Desjardins, Asselin and Nantel voting in favour of ii, and Messrs. Eoltidoux and Joly against it. Hon. ^Ir. I\rercier — Since the month of December, 1882, have you |>aid any sums in connection with the election of the Hon. Mr. Mousseau, and if so, how much ? 58 Hon. .Mr. Lacosto i-aised llic saiuo obJcH'tioii to tliis i|Uc.sli()n. After somodisciisision ihm. Mr. Joly sugifcsteil (hat Mr. Mcri-icr .should modify his (question hy adding tlic woids ''out of the ^10, 000 in connection witli (lie contract."' Messr.s. Assolin and Xanlol expros,>au in have Hon. An Important Statemknt. Hun. Mr. Mercier — I notice in the letter the following words: "At the suggestion of our (irst friend (notre premiere ami) I have sent $;>00 to B." Will you explain what these words mean ? Witness — They are very easily ex])laincd. On the 2d of July, the same date as the letter, while at (Quebec, Mr. Mousseau sent for me to come to his otlice. 1 went immediately, and asked t(j see Mr. ^fousseau. lie was engaged at the time in finishing his private and otiicial cori'e>pondence, and I waited in the office for ten oi' tiftceu minutes. Having tinished, he asked his private sec- retary to withdraw, and we i-emained alone. Then Mr. Mousseau asked me if it was the case that 1 had uivon notes to Mr. Beau- u t'oi'l. or ])lace(l iioti's ill the hitler's Iwirxls. I rcjiliiMl lliat 1 hiul 111)1 ilirectly phiced Ihe notes in the hands of Mv. Dv Eeaulbrt, l)iU thai I liad hound myself' by notes foi- a sum of ^10,000, whieh wi'ie in the hands oI'Mr. J. Dui'oehiT. and wliich were to be given to Mr. De Beaufort when I authorized it. On this Mr. Mousseau said: "You lia\-e done a very wrong tiling, and if T had i. There was a case now pendini;' in llie Courts, and bi'ini^-ini^ in surh matters nughl seriously atfecl Mr. Charlebois' interest. The question beinii' alloweil, .Mr. Charlebois declined to answer, as the question related In a ])urely ])rivate mattei-, and was not at all concerne ith (piestions that might not be allowed. lion. Ml'. Lac(jsle contended that the commission having once maintained an objection was not bound to specify the reasons in writing. Mr. Xantid thought the reasons for maintaining the objection had been sutliciently explained. Mr. Asselin i-emarked that the reason why he had voted in favour of the objoctioi! was because the (|uestion was an illegal one, and asked the C'ommi.ssion to go outside of the subject into which it has been appointed to onrpiire. He did not think any further reasons were necessary. The ( 'hairmari handed in his reason in writing for maintaining the object i(jn, which was to the following effect :—'' Because the Commission is not charged to ciuiuire whether the witness sub- scribeil to the election in .IaC(|iu's ('artier Cartier, outside of the 8 1(1.(1(10 relating to the legislative building contract,"' .\ not her discussion ensued as to whether the Commission was called upon to s])ecity its reasons tor nii'.intaining the objection, and the matter was finally deferred until this morning. It being 5 o'clock, the Commission adjourned until 10 in the morning. 57 m ■•al ing (III, TiiiiiTEENTii Day's Sittinms — TIon. .Mit. Jolv WrniniiAWs tiklm THE (JOM.MISSION. .MoNTREAi.. ITtli .Tilly, 1SS4. Tlio Royal Coimnissicjii ai)|i()iiitoil to investigate tlio chargo.s made liy Hon. Mr. Mereier a^aiiist the lion. Mr. .Iii.-.ti('(' Mdii.s- seaii, in connection with the C'harleliois-iJei'^'eroii-De J5i'aiit<)i'L alVair, and by Dr. Martei. M.l'.P. Ibr Chanibly, ai^ainst lion. Mr. .Mei'cier. in conneetion witli (lie conle.station of Jlon. Mr. Moiis- scaii's election in ,Iaei[iies Cartier County, met a,!4'aiii at tlie(Jov- ernment offices this mornini.;-. The Chairman, .Mr. L. J. J)esiar- dins, M.l'.P.. [iresided, and all the members of the Commission were present — .Messrs. Nantel, Asselin, .loly and lioliidoiix. There were also present Hon. A. Lacoste. Hon. H. Mercier, Mr. F. X. Archambaiilt, (^C., .Mr. T. A. Tellier. .Mr. .Mathieii, .Mr. Thomas White, .M.P, .Mi-. .]. G. H. Beii^^eroii, M.P., and a number of others. .Mr. C]larleboi^' evidence was continued. Witness was shown a telei^ram dated the 20tli Deceinlier, 1882, addre-^sed to Jean l)e Beaufort, as follows; "Important for you to be in (Quebec to- nig-ht. Can you come down? Reply. — Charlcbois,'' and asked by Hon. Mr. .Nfcrcior the meaning of this message. Witness replied that he had sent the message to Mr. De Jieaufort i)robably because ho wished to see him about something. He could not j'ecall the exact purpose. Witness whiK' in (^>uebec did not take any s])ecial stejis in regard to the contract. A letter dated the 14tli May, ISSo, was addressed by him to De Beaufort. Being asked why in this letter he had iiicjnired the news of the Jac<|ues Cartier election, witness replied that he took the onliiiaiy interest of an elector in the contest. The $100 enclosed in the letter for I)e Beaufort was on account of Ibe expenses connected with the contract. He had paid no money to He Beaufort after the 12tli of .luly, 1883. Witness being shown telegrams dated 2(Jth May, 1883, 29111 May, 188:5, 3d Juno, 1883. lOtli July, 1883, and 31st July, 18£3, said that these had all been sent b}' him to De Beau- fort, and were in response to demands from the latter for money for the services he had rendered. He Beaufort was not doing anything foi- him at this [)eriod. Witness here [iroduced four other telegrams exchanged between himself and De Beaufort in reference to the hitter's demand for money. Witness, in rejily to a (juestion whether the changes he had requested in the orig- inal contract had been granted or not, stated that the conditions i-egarding insurance were altered, as well as those concerning the heating apparatus and the amount of money to bo retained on the payments, which were reduced from 20 to 10 pei- cent. The 58 (lo|)0.si( of 818,500 was to roplaco the .sofiirity uskcil for in tlio ^j)lu•iti(•a(i(»ll. The .securities were .Messrs. I)iiiieaii, .MeI)onalank, and given tlie Government a mortgage on a pi'ojjcrty at Vaudreuik lion. Mr. Mercier liere asked tlie value of the property on Avhich the mortgage had been given, .Mr. Archambault objected to this question, as this transaction had taken place after tlie Eoss Cxovernment had come into powei-, and was not connected with the Hon. Mr. Mousseau. After some discussion, the objection was dismissed. Witness, in I'oply, said that he iiad bought the property in question at sheriff's sale for $10,200, and he had made improve- ments on it to the value of $15,000. Hon. ^[r. .Mercier asked witness whether he had withdrawn the entire deposit of 318,000 from the bank. Mr. Archambault objected to this question as illegal and not ])Oi'tinent to the case at issue. Witness, in reply to a question from the Hon. Mr. Joly, said that the deposit in this case was the product of witness' note, which had Deen discounted by the bank. The Commission, after some discussion, unanimously main- tained the objection. Witness, continuing, saitl that it was before Mr. Turcot, notary of Vaudreuil, that the mortgage on the proi)erty was passed. Hon. Mr. Mercier — How many persons are interested in the property in question ? 50 osr.s. Ill Widicss (IccliiHHl lo ;iiis\vi'r this (jiicstioii, Ml'. AivlKunbatill also Mippoilcd llio olijecMion. After syiiu'disnission ll„- (,l,j,.rtioi, was luainlaim..!, M ./<)l.\' ana .Kohuloiix (lissciitinn'. Hon. .Mr. .Mcirior— Did Mr. Moassoaii mniosl voii t„ ar connci-tioii with his (dcctioii in JacM^iics rartior? "' Hon Mr. Lacostc objected to this quostion as inv-ular illcoj,! :i..d not pcKincnt to the case, and the objcHion u-a,^ niaintai>';;d; .Messrs. .loly and K'obidonx again dissenting-. lion Mr. ^Ierei.^r_|',.evi<.us to or atW iIk- o-rantin- of the contract lor the construction <.f the le-ishitive "bnildino-s were you invitcMl to subscribe and did you subscribe anv money in r?''.;f:*r' ^^"'' "•' ^'^^'^'"'^ '^'"-^i""- ■^''■- ^-u^Hoau in .lucqucs > til llOI' i ^ Hon. .Mr. Lueoste raised thi' same ob.H'ction, rcmarkino- that the .,uestion was not at all pertinent to the case in nm.stion the commission not being charged to en.,uire into tlie election matters 111 Jac(|ues ( ai'lier. _ Messrs Nantel, Asselin and Hesjardins were of the same view and tlie objection w.'is thei-efore maintained, Messrs .j.>lv and Hobidon.x tlissenting. ••' Hon. M r. .Mercier-What were the sums of monev you expended during the las eouple ot years in connection with the election ot the Hon .M r. .Uousseau in Jacques ("artier, and whicii you considered to be taken trom the $10,000 in question? Hon. .Mr. Lacoste strongly objected to the .luestion as bein- illegal and outside ot the issue. This commission was met to inquire into the question of the contract for the legislative build.. mg.s, and he did not think the eiKpiiry should be allowed to degenerate into a question of election matters. The .niestion in .MHO her torn, had already been overrule.l by the commission, and he did not think it was fair to ask it again, Hon. M Mercier said he desired to know fr(,m the commission whether he w.mld be allowed (o enter into the expenses of the Jacques Cart ler election or not, so that he might be guided in the matter He supported his .,uestion at some lengthrand bad not tinished when the commission rose at one o'clocdv for recess Afternoon Session. The commission resumed at 2.30 o'clock in the afternoon. Hoii. .Mr Mercier continued his ai-gument in favour of h question which had been objected to ' by the Hon. Mr. L; is :lC08te, -a 60 anrr. ("li!ii'iul)(,.is_Xo. faH toi; Hk" l.oi.slMlivr h,i.l,l„,u.s, ul.irl, is i,M|.uvsti7,n iiMhis (•aso paid any sums iii .■crompcus,. to,- ivcoivino- (lu. n.n.ra.-t ac'- •'.nliMo- o Iho OMdo.-of McMillan, lu llu> IL.n: Mr. Monssoau or or^Xl^^sI'? ""*" ^"''^'■'•'l""""''M'l-'-'iMl.l.' vain.., in n.on.y Mr. ("Iiarlchois— No. lion. .Mr. .McM-cier (conlin.iin- his .■xaniination of wilncss)- 3I.i.s( uv un.h.rslan.l hy your answrrs t„ ih,, pr.M.clin- .piosfions hat yon hav. no. at any (in,., .inr. tlu, ^ntin.- T.t 'tluM.on. nu. torth. Lo^.slat.v. huiMin^. paid ceHain snn.s .>t mono; m ..n.> (•onsidcrahlc anmnnls |„ tlu. account of l|„n Mr .>r()us 8oau cither l„r liis clccli„n, in cunnoction with the election or any othei- manner? ' Hon. .Mr. Lacosto ohjcetcd to the question as illoo-al on tho san,co.,.oundsas t.. the previous question, and as no? per, „en? to tlie en(|Uiry. * ossrs. tl Asselin and Nantcl i.\prcsscil themso! U e ([uestion foi- the same reason Hon. .Mr. Joly expivssed tjie opinion tliaf tlie '"\^''"M' whclhcr tlie witiujss had vos as a!>-ainst was interested in ki sums of moiic}' in the clecti* ommission not think he would he d »n ill Jacijues Cart! c.x pcnded question of the Hon. Mi-. Mere )iii,i;- his dutv if lie did uo{ <-'i', and he did ler ■^U])[)()i't tlie ^Iv. Asselin explained tliat the C en< ommission was not met to luire into the ehH-tion in Jacques Cartier, but into tl ing of the contract foi- the Lei,nslative l»uild le ici-ant- IIIL^S. Hon. Mr. .loly said that I the position taken hy the Hon. Mr. .M le considcrei 1 it his duty ,o support the (juestion himself to ll ercier II (dined to give him pen ic witness, and if his e desired to put from tlie Commissi nission, he would feel hound I leagues were agreeal)le to his >ii. He desired to ki colieagu(.s d( !> withdraw low whether his co|- Mv. Naiitel clearly ex])lained tl putting the ([uostion or not ter. This, lie said into any electoral matters. 1 was not a committ le position Iw took in tl contract for the Legislative huild 'Ut into the ce (diari-'ed ( le mat- o en(|uiri. pecial matter of the .Mr. Churlehois. All that tl iiigs, which had het ley wei'o met hei'c for n given to enquiry into the transactions relating to tl into any cloctions in the County of Jacques "Carti'ei'.'"TJ was to make contract, and not ques- 62 lion was iiol poi'llnonl to IIk* ciKpiiiy. iiiul it wm-- foi- this ronsoii (liatJi(M'oiisi(|('i'(M| it illci;iil, aiiil inaintaincil tiic olijoction. \ri'. AmsoHii said lie was |iort('otly willin.<^ lo allow anyquostion that r(>lateil lo llio siilijoct into which tlii-y wore appointed (o cn- (piii'(^, l)iit ho (lid not thinlv tiiat tlicy should jjcrniit (piestions which wci'i! cntii'cly forciLcn to tho issue. ITc! was ot'opinion (hat the (piostion of Hon. Mr. .McrcicM- was not ])L'rtinent to the issue, and lie was tijorcforc in l'a\ onr oi' inaintainini^ the ohjoction. '['he Chaii'nian also held thai tho ol)jeetioii slioidd be iniiin- tainud. Hon. Ml'. Jol}', lioi'o risini;- (Voni his seat, said that they liad l)cen discMssinjL^ this point tor nearly (wenty-loiir hours, and the luoro ohj(!ctions wei'O raised the clearci- did his duty appeal' to him. llo \iivy much re^'i'etted tiial he t'clt ohlii:;ed to l>reuk the cordi- ality that ha Iloval Cmi- niission yt'sliT'lay. .Mr. Cliai'lcbois liail been under cNaniiiialiMn for throe ilay-x. and dufiiii,' thai time Mr. .Mcrcicr had alidiil a do/.on linifs sou<,'ht to obtain inlbrnialion from him as to anv Mibscri[»lions ho may havi- made to tlic dccUon in the conslitii- t'lif.y of.Faci|U03 C'artic'i* on bohalt' of Mr. .Moiisscaii, who was a ('andi(hi(o. As was staled in our rc^pDrt ofycsterchiv, those niics- fions were alway> objeeled to, and the objt'ction alwavs main- tained. Mill this did not j)rovent tiie learned counsel Irom con- tinuini;- U) put ihrm. Vestei-day afternoon he renewed his altempt. without sueces.s, and then Mr. Joly re'uai'ked fl,;ii he was most iinwillini,' to jiermit or provoke enquiry into matters which affected the election, with which, in Kseif, the (Commission had certainly nothing to do; but he was most anxious lo i^'ct at llie (mill. He had, therefore, prejiared a question which he hoped would not be objeeled to. The(iuestion will be found in our report. In -ukstance it was as follows: Did you yive any money, directly or indirectly, by siibscriplion oi' otherwise, lor the elections of Mr. 3b)usseau. on account ot; or in connection with, these ten thousand dollars ? There was no objection lo the question. It wa- ]irom]»tly aiiswcre I in the negative. Mr. Assolin then ]uit two other questions, more comprehensive, ask- ing? if any consideration of any kind had been given by the wil- iiCHs, ('harlebois, to Mr. .Moiisseau in cf)iincc(ioii with the award- ing of the contract tor the Legislative buildings in (^Hiebec, and again the answer came in a prompt negative. Then .Mr. .Mercier came back t(» liis oM i|uestion : Did you sul)scriln' aiivtliiii«- to the Jac(pies t artier elections? the question being, as the same (juestion had been a dozen linie.s before, objected to, and the objec- tion being maintained. Mr. Joly then stated that he projiosed to put the question himself, and il" not permitted to do so, ho would withdraw from the Commission. Tlie rommissiou had decided 1 he question many times, but under any circumstances it could not, with self-respect, change its repeated decision in face of a ■-9 <:4 lliifiil of'tluK kind, an(i tlio ol^joclion was, tlKM-oforo, miiinliviMOil. Tln»ris(i|vo(l il, a view wliicli, wo vciiliirc Id lliiiik-. is willioiit wai-rant. Kvoryiiiic will rcLi'i-ct lliis nciiDii on llio part dl' Mr. .Idly, ll is roinarkalilr thai he was ih<> tirst to suic^ost to Mr. Morcior whoii ho |iiil a(|ii('Htidii Iciiilitii;' to elicit iiit'drinatidn ('((iiccriiiiiii; snb- Hcri|)li(>ns to the ,la('(|ii(^-t Carlior cU'ctidii, that the (|ii('slidn shdiild lio so fraini'il as to coiMiocf the siiliscripl idiis with \\\v har- ^•aiii dl' Dc lU'aiiI'di'l uml tho awardiiii;- of (ho coiiti-aot. Mr, .^^or(•i('r, il is Inio, oltjriMcd lo do this, l»iit. tin* su^ifoslidn of il is tho I)("-t [idssihlc |ii'dd|' t hal Mr. .loly rcali/i'd at loast tho doiiht- t'ullcgalit }• of ih(> (|Ui -tidii as |iiil. Tho same (|noHtidii was put and iMiloij out several liiin's, and il was so lailod out without, }i\v, Jdly snyn'ostin^" tiiat tlio lailin^ was sd i^ravo as td justiiy tho Ht(»p])a,i;'o of tho on(piiry, so far as his withdi-awai was inlluontial enough td eau>e that stoppa^;o. Nay nidi'o, lio had actually him- self [)roparcd a (juostion whioh was to !j;ivo him the infoi-mation ho wanted, which Iiad hoon put and answered, and which had boon sup])lomontod hy two other questions, as incdusivo as it was ]tossilile (d make them,wdule maintaining their oonueolion with lln' suhjert of en(piiry, and thoso had been auHWorod. Why then sliould his determination have been taken at that ]ireciso time? Was it because the answers given did not tend to convict a political opponcuit of wi'oni;--doini;- ? Was it because, failini;' in direct evidence of the guilt of that opponent, tinding in fact that all the eviilence negatived tho presum[>tion of guilt, he was anxious t(» furnish material u])on which sus[)icions might bo aroused in the minds df people who are always pi'e})areil lo be- lieve evil of ])ublic men who do not belong to their i)arty ? ' ditlicuU to come to this conclusion in the case of agentlom; Mr. Joly; and yet what other c the Commission, which is simply a committee ot (he Legislature sitting out of session. It re([uired an Act of the Legislature to enable them to do so, but that Act, except in so 65 Car iis it anlliori/o tlicm !<• >\\ iit ii time wlicii nii oi'dinnry rum- inittt'c cniild iiol, iinilcr tlic laws (tl' I'arlianu'iit, sit. (|(K'> iioi in any way cliaii;;'*' lilt' cliMractor oi' tin- Irilninal. 'I'lii' sanif riiU's i^nvcniiiin' citiniiiitltu's of llic li('i;'i>^latiii'(' apply \n llii^ ('(Hiiiuis- sinii, ami llic iiiDst olcnu'iilai'y of (lidsti nilt's is tluit u iiiajiiiity may all that tlio comiiiith't', with all Its incmbtM-s prt's«Mit, may (|i». Any ntlit'i' I iilc wi'iihl plarc Ihc ciiiiunillcr at the mercy III a miiiMi'ily, Iimwc-vci' small. 'IMic ai'c mtl williniii Iii)|if lliat liutli Mr. .loly and Mi'. Unliidoiix will rccoiisidcr llifir ai'tii'ii. Hill if tlicy di» 111)1, il "Illy adds In the I'l'spoiisiliilily nf llic romaiiiinii; commissionci's to cai'r.v 'li»' iiivostiijatiiMi to a coik In- sioii. ( 'crlaiiily, after all thai lias lioeii said, Mr. .Moii-jardin.s, .M.LM'.. piesiiled, the other meiiihers of the Commission jircsent heing- .Messrs. Nantcl and Atiselin. There wei'O also present lion. A. Lacoste. lion. II. .Mercier, .Mr. F. .\. Arc]i:imliaiilt, (,).C., .Mr. T. A. Tellier, .Mr. .Mathieu. .Mr. Th.mias White, M.P., .Mr. J. G. Jl Mergeron, .M.l'., and others. The last entry on the previous day's minutes luiving' been read, Hon. .Mr. .MiM'cior said that owina; to the advocates' lihrary 06 liavin^^ bocri clp.sod whon the Commihaioii adjoufned, he had not had limo to consult autlioritios uu the (piestion at issue, ■whetliei- tlie reniaiiiiiig inemliers of the Commission c( Id proceed with the mquete. He had, however, prepared a statement which ho would submit, at the same time movinij; for an adjournment until two o'clock, HO tha( he could consult further authorities on the question, lion. Mr. ^Fercior then read the statement, whicli was as follows; — ]\rONTRKAL, ISth .Tilly, 18S4. To ^fi8^'rf. Dtiijardinx, Amlin avd NanUi. Gentlenion, — Yesterday two members of the Comniission, the Hon. Mr. .h)ly und ^Ir. Uohidoux, retired, ;ind declared that they would not take further jjurt in the Iatt(>r proceed in,<,'s of this trilnuud in view of your detonuiuatioM to prevent tlie adduction of the proof olfered against tlio Hon. l\Ir. Mousseau. Tiie Commission created at the last Session of the IVovincial T,oc;isla- ture Mas constituted a s[KM'iaI tribunal, composed of five persons designa- ted by name in tiie law, and tlu^se live iK>.rsons alone, all being present, are c. )injx>.t(^nt to proceed witii tiK> (iKjiiflc ordered l)y the I^'gislaturts tiio law having given to tiiese tivi>. persons alone, and to thi'S() ass(>mlile(l togetlier, the exclusive jtower to proceed with tiie enquiry into tlie facts and .statenn'nts sot lieforo tiie Jjcgislative Assembly. This power not being ccnforred upon tiie majority, 1 believe that you are witliout juris- diction to j)roceed furtlier in tlic abseiu'o of your two colleagues. More- over, and I regret to liaAC to state !(, two of tlie judges having retii'ed because in tlieir opinion jii(. honour to be, gcaitlemon. Your very obedient servant, IIONORE ]\[KRcn:i?. ITon. Mr. Mcrcior continuinc;, said that while denvinheil to the end. lie was .>f o|Mnion ibat jusdce shoulil be done to 'iie Hon. Mi-. Mousseau and that he sliould be heard before the Commission, so that he nught explain the matters in tlu-ir ti-ue light. The Chairman saiil {ha( (Ik- < 'onijuission considered (he ]»oint a very impoi-(an( oiu' ansible. This Commis- sion had been nameil for the [)urpose ot iiKpiiring into the nuit- ters connected with the declaration of the Hon. Mv. .^[ercier before the Assembly. It had fixed three members as a (piorum, and aiTanged other pi'eliminaries, Tlie intention of the Assembly was clearly that this (Jommission should .sit as a Committee of the House alter the close of the session. This Commission was, in fact, nothing more or less than a Committee of the House. He held that the ([uoi'um of this Committee having been fixed, consisting i»f a majority, it had a })erfect right to proceed with the on(|uiry. lieferring to authorities, he showecl that in the statute constituting the Su})erior Court, thei-o was a special (dause authorizing one judge to sit. In the act constituting this (Jom- mission there was no special clause regarding this matter, but in this case he considered that they should be guided by the general law, par. 9, sec. 17 of the civil code, which set down that where there are more than two persons the majority shall form a quorum, with powei' to act. He theretore held that the three members of the Commission had a pei-fect right to j)roceed with the en(£uirv to the close, "eferi'ing to the question of pai-ty, which had been introduced . the Hon. Mr. .Mercit'i-, he said that no such (|uestion should enter into the matter. When the mem- bers once became Commissioners, all (piesfion of party ceased, and every member should be guided by honour. But it was a well-delined principle that in all bodies the minority should sub- mit to the decisions of the nuijority, and when the majority had decided against a question he considered that, from every point of view, ttie minority should liave submitted lo this decision. The Commission was not a ti'ibunal with ext r.-iordinary powt'rs, but simply a Commission of Knc^uiry, and wlici-e there was noth- ing specific in the law, it was always understood that the majoi-ity formed a (juoi'um, with power to act. He would suppose that -Mr. Joly had been taken ill, or that .Mr. liobidoux had met with an accident, would it be pretended that the whole proceedings of 70 tlie CdmmissioM must, hocause of this, lie brought to a sitaiulstill ? lie (lid not think that this was rcasonahlo. And for the I'casoii he liad niciilioiied, he chiiiiicMl thai I lie reniaiiuni;' uieinbors had a porlcct right to ad and ^iroeeed with the enquiry. Hon. R. Tjiithnnme then addi'e.sscd the eoniinission in support of the contciutions of tlu' .lion. Mr. .Merciei". lie conteniloil that this t'omniis>ion must be considered as a commission d' expertise, and in this case no siinjile majority could act, hut a complete numli(!r must In' pi-esont. The Legislature had a right to gi'ant all the powei's to the commission that it desired. If this commis- sion was at fii'st instituted as a committee of the House, it was clear by tlu; act that other powers had been substituted aftei- wards. Then all the powei's that the committee would have would, in his o])inion, cease to belong to the commission. In this instance the powers could hardly be more (dearly detined, and he held that, according to Fi-ench and English law, when tive per- sons were constituted a tribunal and part of those i-etired, the tribunal ceased to e.x.ist. If judiciary |)owcr, the attribution of the House, was given to live pei'sons, it could not be taken by less. lie claimed that the clause of the civil code which said that when there were more than two ]ters()ns (he majority should I'oi'm a (quorum had nothing to do with such a case as the jiresent. According to French law if thirty Judges were named to consti- tute a tribunal and there was one absent the ti-ibunal would cease to e.Kist. lie claimepointnient, and such resignation and revocation were not elfectual and valid. " 5. That after one of the arbitrators had so affected to resign his ofllce, and his r(>signation has l)eon so accept(>.d, and bis authority had lieen so alfected to lie revoked, the remaining two could legally proceed to hear the case and to make a linal award." Mr. Mercier ap|)eared (o rely upon the Judgment on (lie first point, holding that the majority could only inake an award wlien the whole number of arbitrators had heai-d the evidence and the argument U])on that evidence. But in the case in question Mr. Justice Day withdrew upon a preliminary decision of the arbi- trators, and the evidence was taken after his withdrawal, a condi- tion of things covered by the judgment on the fifth point. But this commission is not an arbitration. It is simply a committee of the legislature sitting out of session, in virtue of a statute giving it that power, and the rules which apply to committees of the legislature apply to this commission. So far as the statute is concerned, it must be read, like all other statutes, in the light of the interpretation act which, for pui-poses of interpretation, must bo held to be a part of it. The interpretation act decdares that when a thing is to be done by more than two persons, it may be lawfully done by a majority, except in cases of special exception. Thus if this statute had declared that four members, or that all the members must be present at each meeting to enable the commission to act, that would have been a case of special exception, and the interpretation act would not apply. But it does not say this. Then, as to the intentions of the legis- ture, it is sufficient to point out that this committee, befoi-e the 72 j>iissagc of the act, aiul while llio lioiHo was in session, had miulo ii report fixing its rj^uorum at tliree, and that this had boon adopted without division. So, whetlioi- the question is looked at tVoni llie point of view of the intorprc^tation of the statute authorizing' this coniniittoe to sit (jut of session, or from that of the strict interpretation of the statute itself, the commission is liound to continue its sittings and to complete the en(iuiry which has been entrusted to it. We hope there will be no hesitancy on the subject, and that the decision to be given to-day will be to ])ro- ceed with the investigation. THE FAMOUS COK TRACT. {I'Vom Thk GA/K'ni3, Jn/ij 21st.) In the discussion of the questions which have been submitted to the Committee of J^^nquiry now sitting, and rejected by them, and specially in relation to that particular question which caused the withdrawal of Messi's. Joly and Eobidoux, it has been assumed that there was something suspicious, to say the least of it, connected with the awarding of the conti'act in the first in- stance. Of course, if this assumption was well founded, there might be some reason in the suggestion that the refusal to per- mit the putting of questions connected with the Jacques Cartier election had some significance in it, altliough the witness had >worn positively thai lie had not eonlributed a dollar to that election, either directly or imlii'cctly, in connection with the ten thousand dollars in ([Uestion, or as compensation for this con- li'act. It is, therefbi'c, of much importance to enquire into the eircumstances attending the awarding of tlie contract. The papers wci'c brought down to the Legislature in ajiswer to an address of the ."Jrd Api'il last, and from them we take the follow- ing facts: — We may state that the estimate of the tlovei'ument architect of the pj'obable cost of these buildings was in the neigh- bourhood of 821I>,00(). Tiiis fact is not given in the papei-s, but it came out incidentally in the discussion before the Commission IB liisl wrok. The speciticjilioiis .v.|i.iml that tlio (."ii.lors sl„,iil,l be acc'omptinicd by the nniiies oflwo sureties. There were a number of tenders sonl in— il,e lirsi wu-. by .Mr Joseph Thos. Lovallee, „r (^u'bee. who named as his sureties Wilham Gunner, who is doscribeU;],l!lli. The seeon.i lender was by Messrs Iliiot and Jobin, for tho sum of 8158,1811, and thev olferod -is securities .Mr. GoorgoT. I'hilli])s. a plumber in (iuobee anis and Beaugage, ollbrino- to perform the work for 81in,5crfbrmod. Now tho contention of Mr. .M were made in the specilications for the adv enable him to got ihe conti-act ; first a d changes (/harlebois and to in money was substitutetl for the Iwo duel in the ereier is that two impoi'ianl ion from tho monthly estimates of I ml age of .Mr. >posit sureties, and next the de- spceihcations, was waived. Ml per cent., as provided Let us look at these two Changes and see whether thoy justify the presumption that they were made in the inteivst of .Mr. CharleboLs ami Government to give him the contract. Take th., ...„. ,^., The tender was dated on the first December, and on'thi 4th to enable the (! first tender. the u following loiter wais udilrcsscd to ^Fr. Dionne, tho CommiHsionor of I 'ill)! ic Works:— "Sii!, — I liiivc received imtif'c I'nun (Uie (if my Hureti<'s for th(^ CDnstriic- tioii dl' tlie new l/ei^islative buildiii^'.s, tliiil iKM'iiiiiKit be iii ',>iieliec until Hoiiietiiiie to-iiKirrow ; I tliefeinre. iie^,' tiiat vnu will Ih? f,'ooil eiiini^'li to jiiit ntr until to-niormw the interview wliii'h Vdu (ienired to liavo with my .surotieH. " I liuvc tho honour to l)e, " Your obedient servant, " J. T. Lkvai.i.i.;k." Now, that is certainly oviflonco that tho (iovei'nmont wore ox- :iiniiiiii<^ into tho characlor ol' the socuritios otl'orod by this lowest tenderer. The Ibllowinju: "- i-'i'";.^::j':t::;;:;,;!i;-: '".Msdl n. (■ninn,„,n,.ati..n will, an„tlu.r uf tl,,. tomlcror.' ' ' " I iiiivc till! honour to he, " Vonr oltodicnt fscTvuiiJ, "EUMOST (i\(;.VOV, " Sccivtary." The fo]Iowi..i. day, U.c 12th Doccrubor, L.vallce wrote savin- ' '^"^^" tJie following day the sum of S?l<.,040, being ten per cent, on the amount of his contract as 19 gimriiiiU'ii for llie priipoi' oxccution of (ho work. To this no iiii.swcr was nivi'ii until tlio LJiilli I>fi'i'mliur, wlicii Mr. liortio said lie was willing' (o iiiidorlakc (liKconlrarl if periiiiltiMl to do ho oti furiiisliiiif^ personal sctnirity, and lio olVcrcid as such sociirily oidy one najno, that of Mr. (Toorg'o (Jostolow, luit that he could not. at'ccpL it, on condition of niakin;^ a nionoj dojtosit. On the 27tli the contract was olforcd to Mr. McMillan, on condition that ho would deposit (en per cent, of the amount of the tender, oi" 8lH,51(i, \>y the lind January. Mr. McMillan on the "JUth l)e( etu- bor wrolo accepting these terms, i)ut askinijj, as the st'ason was a holiday orkO, that he might have until the 8th .lanuary to make tlio deposit, a request which, as every i'C(|UCst foj" delay \)y the other tenderers had hoen, was grtinted. On llio (!th .lanuary ho wrote, asking that the name of Mr. Al])honso Charlehois iniglit he Hubstituted for his in the tender, a rcque^t which seems (o have been granted, as on the 20ih an ordor-in-council was j)aasod granting the lattoi' the contract, on the condition of this deposit, which was accordingly mtido. That is the simple histoiy of the letting of this contract, and i( can bo left to any business man lo say whether there was anything in it of a sus[)icious chai'actor. The lenders woi-e all below, considerably bolow, the Ostimato of the architect, and it was therotbre most important that abundant security should be had foi- the performance of the work. The names of the securities olfered by the lii-st tenderer were with- drawn, but those substituted certainly did not give guarantee sutlicient for so a largo a contract. The detei'mination, therefore, to exact a money deposit instead was a wise precaution. If it is said that the government adoj)ted it because they knew none of the lowest tenderers wore in sutlicient credit (o raise the money, that is a sutlicient justification for their refusing the contract to them exceitt upon the most undouljled sec'urity. Having deter- mined to exact the ten j)er cent, all those who tendered beluw McMillan were given the chance to have the contract, and there is no evidence that in any case any ilelay asked for (o enable them to arrange tor the tleposit was refused. One wonders why Mr. C'harlebois took the contract at .McMillan's oifer, which it is now known was his own, Mi'. McMillan being simply a prct-nom, while that in his own name would have given him ^12,000 more. 77 Tho fiu.'t. \vc bi>Ii«'vo. is thai tlio <;ovortnnoiit luul rcmolvod thiit in tlic t'vi'iil nj MfMiUaii (Iccliniiii;' lo miikc tlic ilc|»i)>it. |u ciitui'I !ill ihf oIltM's. anil advei'tise anew for tcmlors. TIih. Mr. lit'iii'iTon hWdi'i', 111' leanit'il from Mr. .Moiisscaii, or ratlicr lie U-ariieil (liat \\\vy wniiM not IT'" liry(»ii(| .McMillan's tcnily e.xplainable to any ha^inesa man. The ilepo>it was made in the Ex(diani,fe Bank, to the credit of the Provincial Treasurer, a eei'titicate to that etfect beiny' ii-iven to the Government by tlie maiuii^er of tho l)ank. After the failure tlie deposit was certainly locked up, so far as tlovcrnmcnt was concerned, for some time. Unless by jii'ivile^'e of the t'rown. which we hardly think will extend to tlie Provin- cial (iovei'iiment, it was of douhtful value, and, if jirivileifed, coidd only i'O secui'od after a leiiifthy litinatioii. Mr. Charlcbois, under the circumslances, in XoviMiilicr of last yt'ar proposed to j.>;ive instead of it security upon land at \^audi'enil, valued at S">0,000 l)y the expert> naiucd by ihetioverninent. Thai ar!'an;;-e- nienl was carried out in .M:ii(di last, by .Mr. li)ss. after Mr. Mons- soau liad ceased to be a Minister; and, certainly, having rei;aril to the position of deposits in the lOxcbange Bank, a man must be desperately blinded with ])artizanship who will not say that the Government maile a liaj)py ari-angement for the Province, We liave thus given a simi>le statement of the circum.stances ton- 7H noctod with tho lofting of tliocontrnft, and wo uvo contldont that n in it unylhiii!;' to jii^tily tins Hiis|iici()ii that it was ohiaiiud as tho i-osult of a coitiiiiI liaru,-aiii with a .Miiiistor ol' I ho ( Vowii. Tim; Ivovai, < '(immisskin.— On tlic Jl'ikI July llio f,'(t:iltr snid:— Mr. ll()l)i(luux, olio of llm two ( 'nminissi()ii('r.s wlio fi^riisod to sit iit llio iiicot- lii;,'s of ili(> ( omiiiissloii n]i|Miiiitc(l to iiKiairc iiilo iIim >[()r('ior-Mouswaa iiiiittcr, ycsl'TdiiN I'dcciviMl II rcuistcri'd Ictlcr, sijiiicd liy Mcssfh. TH-s- janliiis, Asst'liii, and Naiitol, iiiforiiiiii;,' iiiiii lliiit tho < 'oinmi.s.sioii will roHiiiiio its sittinj.'M at (.)iioho(: tliis morniii^f. A .siuiilar noliticutinn lui.s Ix'iMi sont to tho Hon, Mr. .tolv. THE FAMOUS CONTRACT. {From TiiuCiAZH'iTi;, JiUy 22.) Oiii inoniitiij; c()iitoiii[iorary thinUs Iho conimitloo of on(|uii'y into tho Morcior chargos liavo inado a mistako in not iionnitting to l»o put tlio quoslion as to siibseiiptions by .Mr. < 'liarlohois to tho .Iac't|iics Cartioc cdoction, ovon aflor that ^'ontloman iiad sworn in tho most posilivo inannoi- that ho gavo no such subsofijdions, con noctod directly oi- indirectly with tho Do iJoaufoi-t bill-gain, or with tho awarding of tho fainou.s conti-act, and goos on to say : — "Tho disputed point is as to tlio moneys, if any, paid l)y ]\rr. ("lmrlo])ois to ]\Ir. ^hiussoaii or nil his account, ponsonal or ijolitical, iind it is aroiuid tiiis point that all tho. iiitorost contrcs. Diil tin I'mHur of (^I'lnc sd/ /lin ivlhiiiici III (t fdiifrKctor far (iinjpiivtUin i>i' the $10,0(10 or for itin/otlicr iiiuiii i/s/ \Vod(j not ll(^liovo iio did, nor will the piihlio boliovo that there was .'^ik ii a f(irrn]it ami dishoiiipiirahlo transaction. lint aiioth(M' (|iU'.siion ii.yes in this I'oniioctioii : Was Mr. jMoussc^an's iiillneiice sold hy anylmdy t^lsc- ? Wore tlioro parties who inlluenced Mr. Mousseau, and afterwards rei'oived moneys from ^Ir. ('liarlohois to oxpiMid on IVIr. Moussoau's IxOialf? The public would like to have this point oleansd up; it is still .shrouded in mystery. Wo are (piite sure that tho general verdict will he tho same a.s thiit to which tho Herald has arrived, namely, that .^^l•. .Moussoau did not sell his influence to a contractor for any portion of the ^lt),O()0, or for any other moneys. Tho otlior point i.s undoubtedly important, tliat is, wore there other parties who intluenced Mr. Mousseaii in tlio awarding of the contract, and who wore paid for doing this? A ghiiice at tho evidence should be suHicient upon )1.S (1 I 'is ■» li III , •> (Is 's as in TO llml point. Mr. Do nomitoi-t, with whom tlic luir^iiin was made, Hwuars ])()siliv(t|y llial lio liad im coiniiiitnicaliDii wiili .Mr. Moils* HOiiuoii tlu> siil»ii!<'t ol' liuwoiitract, aiitl, IIh'Ii'Ioic, Ik' coilaiiily (lid not iiilliu'ii('t> liim. Ili».s(>ciiis lit liaxc oniiiloycid .Mr. Mciijorou to i^(» to \>iU'lu'c and walili lliiiii;>. coniu'cli'd wilji i||t> tenders; Inil .Mr. Hor;j,t'roii swears |)n«.ili\ t-ly that ho had lull one rnnver- satioii with )\\\ Mousseau, a casual i-iic at the hMtcl ilimier tnhh*, and th(> eonvei'satioii went no Initlier than an eni|Miry as to whether it was liiady >rcMilian's tender would ho passi'd over, nnd he was tohl tiiat it wouM not. .\nd .Mr. ( "hariehois swears tlial lie had no eoiivorsatioii witli Mr. .N[oii>o. So that tiio evidence is aii'ainst tiio tiieory ot any inlliionco ha\ iii^' hi't-n used wilh Mr. Mousseau iiy anyone in the letting; ol a contracl. Wo sliowecj yesterday that the manner of lottini;; the contiaot, as exjiosod in the papers brnun'hl down to the JiO^islature, also noijutivos all idea of Mr. .Mousseau haviuii' hoen improperly inlliicnced— if, in- deed, ho over had aiiylhiiii^ to do wilh \\w lotting:; of tin' eonti-act at all. Both the p;ipors and tho ovidenco would load u.s to snp- poso tluit ho had had iiothiiii;- whatever to do witii it, tlu^ hii>i- ness beinu; trnnsaote(l ly the proper head of the de|tartmeiit, the iron. .Mr. Dioime. When all tlu^ witnesses who are calleil, and who eould Unow anythini;' ahoul this matter, swear jtositively that they novei- attem[)ted to ii\tluenco ')\\'. .Mousseau diieelly oi- indirectly, in connection with tho contract, ami that tiny never paid any money to him, oi- on his account, directly or indirectly, in connection with tlie contract, surely it is not unreasonaMe to say that tlio investii;'ation so far has utterly failed to produce any evidence of g-uill, or oven of wrong-doini^, on the part of tho Hon. ^Ii'. .Mous.seau. r, ir ui The statement is made C(mstantly, as rendering- suspicious the fact that ^^r. Charlehois suhscrihed money towards the election fund on behalf of .Mr. Mou.sseau durinj^ the contest in Jacques 80 ('artier, tliiit lu' was a ])olitieal op|)onenl of Mi-. Afousseau, and therefore not likely on parly grounds lo Hubscrihe money to a Consoi'vativo fund. Dul those who make this statement bIiouM state all Ihe i'ads. Mr. Charlehois is an (dd-time Lilioral, Just as Sir I}i(diard (Jartwright, tor instance, is an old-time Tory. Hut ])is adhesion lo the ('onsorvalive party docs not date from I lie Jacques ('artier election. On the contrary, if any one will take liietrouhle to enquire, tliey will lind that he was one of tlir nominators of .Mr. Louis Eeauhien, at the elecion in I[(K'lu'la;;a, in the general elections of IHSI, months liefore tiie lenders for this contract were advertised for, and u year before the tenders were opened. The Glohe\\\\^ ilie f)llowing on the subject of the official en- quiries going on in Ontario and (Quebec: — "A (lisintcrestiMl obsorver can hardly fail to be iniprnssod with tlio marked contracts lictwccii the mode of j)roco(hiro of tlic Royal Conniiis- sion now sittin.ij; at -Montreal and the conduct of that apjiointed to Invcs- tijiatc tlie conspiracy au'ainst the Ontario fc^nslalnre. In the forni'T case tli(^ whole tccluiicai nuudiincry under the •■i^ntrol of the Conuiiission is employed to hlocli the cnurse (if the iiuiiiiry and prevent tiie facts it was apjioiiited '.:^ (dicit beii'L' bmiiLiht out. Jn t!ie. lattiT case, the i.ivi'sti- iration has been ^dxen t!,o freest and fullest scope, and as yet not a siirile ol>iection has been raisi'd to prevent c'Hiiisel j,'ettinLr at the hard truth." Would it Jiot luive been as well to have stated the whole truth. At the tirst meeting of the Ontario Commission on theii- resum- ing their sittings on the 1-tth of July, AEr. AEercdith apiteared and ])ointed out tluit this was an enquiry the object of whicli was to implicate one political party in discreditable transactions, and asked to be permitted to cross-e.xamine the witnesses. Th.it was a reasonable re(][uest, but it was reftised on a strict party division in the committee. Mr. .Meredith then withdrew. .Mr. Hector ( 'ameron protested against the jurisdiction of the Com- mission, which is engaged in the unprecedented work of invest,i- gating u matter which is at the moment before the courts, and also withdrew. Having thus refused a hearing to the leader of the opposition, by a party ^-ote, and resolved to persist in an in- vestigation against the protest of the parties implicated, and in that way practically got rid of one of the parties, it is too much SI now to ])oa8t tha< they havo allowed all fho (luoslions put Iiy llic counsel for the othoi" party. 11' the committci' in Montreal had done anything like that, there would have i)een no end ol"a howl. iK'h )ns, li.it irty M r. iiUl- ;>\'.- and ir of in- I in lUC'h Fifteenth Day's Sittino. QiEnEC, July 22. The f'ommitteo of enquiry into the ^^"l'<•ier-!^^oussl'au f'liai'ixes resumed its sittings here this morning. ^Fessrs. Desjardins, Asselin and Xante! being present Hon. Mr. Langelier fyled an a])|)earan('e as counsel lor .Mr. i\rei'eier, who was also ])i'eseiit. .^!r. ('harl('I)ois' I'vidence was concluded. It related ehielly to the value of the property taken as security by the government. .Mr. Mercier havini; tendered eertiticates of the i-egistrar. wliidi. notwithstanding the objection of .Mr. Ijacoste, were admitted by the eomniitteo, these showed the value of the pro|)erty niort- gaged to the Tlovernment to be 822.500. liefore adjoui'iung for luneh Mr. .Mereier, while declining to call witnesses, suggested the names of a number whom he thought should be examined. As four of them I'eside in .Montreal, it is i'elt that .Mr. .Mt'i'(;iei' has not acted iairly in not suggesting them while the eommiUee was in that city. On the reassembling of the committee, Mr. Lacoste urged that Mr. Mercie!', who ha sent foi', but Ml-. .AEercier then stated that he li;id no questions to ask that gentleman. Mr. (jacoste having stated the same thing, saying that lie intended to examine Mr. .Mousseau later on, the chair- man read Mr. Mercior's charge, and asked Mr. .Mousseau if he bad anything to say. That gentleman then read a full statement in eN]ilaiialion of the letting of the contract, in which he deincd ex])licifly tbe chaigus. .Mr. .Mereier aski'd to have a copy of the statement so as to cross-c.Natnine Mr. .Mousseau to-morrow, and the committee ass-(piestion witnesses. His pre- tence, under such circumstances, that he declines all responsi- bility for the further conduct of the investigation, will be accepted by no one as serious. Under the circumstances ho must be held i-esponsible, not oidy for the investigation, but for the loss of time and money which its a])])arentl3'' indefinite pro- longation involves. At the last meeting held in Montreal, before the withdrawal of Mr. .loly, he announced that Mr. Oharlcbois Ava-< his principal witness, that lu; had only the one question, which was not admittcsd, to put to him, and that after him he had only a couple of witnesses, Mv. Baxter an[ercier to suggest names instead ni' asking subpoenas for witnesses. But at least they should reqture him to say wholhe;' he has any other names to suggest, and if he answei's in the negative, or even if he says, as ho .said on Tuesday, that he has none other at the moment, they shoidd formally declare the case closed after they have examined thi>se whose names have been suggested. That is due to the ac- cused as well as to the public, and no one will jiretend to say that, under the circumstances, it is unfair to Mr. .AFercier. We are qiule sure the committee will be sustained by all reasonable men in taking this course, and we sincerely trust that, in the juiblic interests, they will take it. 84 Sixteenth Day's Sittino. QrEBEc, July 22, 'St. The committee of onquiiy into the char^-es brought by Mr. Mercier against J\rr, Moussoau resumed its sittings in tlie i-oom of the Council of i'ublic rnsti-uclion this morning, >rossrs. l)es- Jardins, Asseliu and xsTantel being presenl. l)cf'ore proceeding, Hon. Mr. Langelier filed an appearance as counsel foi' Mr. Mer- ciei", who was also present, thus recognizing the jurisdiction of the committee. Mr. Charlebois was called, and Mi-. Mercier being asked if he had any fui'ther questions to put to him, stated that he had not, recalling the attention of the coininittco to the terms of the letlei' he had put in, in which he said hv would not proct'cd to furthei' proof, but would attend the meetings of the committee to watch his own interests and those of the public. in answer to Mi". Lacoste, Mr. Charlebois stated '.hat his em- ployment of Mr. (Ilobcnsky was purely in his capacity as a law- yer, the services being simply professional. in answer to ^h\ Hlliot, ifr. Charlebois sl:ifed that his, .Mr. l*'!liot's, visit to Quebec with ^[r. IJeig'cron was simjtiy to ex- amine the contract professionally, and that he had nothing more to do witli the matter. There being no further questions, Mr. Mercier put in two cer- tificates from the registry office, in relation to the property given as security by M\\ CharUibois in March last, showing that ndiile the propei'ty included six numbers, only two v.'ere mortgaged to the (Jovernment ; these two, however, compi'ised one-half of the pro])erty. Mr. Lacoste objected to any questions as to this property as not being c(mncctcd with the charge. Mr, Mercier said that the Commission had alreatly admitted some evidence as to the value of this property. The Commissionci's admitted the evidence; and on further questions, it appeared that the whole of the pi-o])erty was valued for municipal purposes at 82 l,00t», which Mr. Merciei' admitted was, of course, as in all cases of municipal valuation in the country, under the actual value. Mr. Charlel)ois stated that the valuation of the one-half, that is the two numbers included in the mortgiige to the (iovern- ment, l»y Messrs. Valois and llarwood, experts, was 822, ;■)(((). Mr. ]\Iercier asked whether he, ^Fr. Charlebois, had any ob- jection to produce the certificate of valuation by the experts. Mr. Charlebois — Not the least. 85 Afj llic dociiineut was in ihr rublic Works J)epurtniciit, .Mr. Charlobois lei'l to j^ot it, and having returned j»rodiicc'd (he cor- (ificato of .Messrs. Valois and llaiwood, from wliich it ap[)cai'ud that tliey valued I he property mortgag-ed, that is the two nuni- bera, at $22,50U. In answer to .Mr, Mereier, .Mr. Charlebois «aid that Mr. Ilar- wood was tlio former member foi- A^audreuil, and .^^r. Valois was a farmer in the district. So far us ho knew, lie thought .Mr. -Mallette had procured the valuation by tho.se gentlemen in con- formity with a i'e(|iiest of the (rovei'nmeiit that he sliould ba\e tlie j)r()[)erty valued by competent persons. This closed Mr. Charleb(»is' examination. .^[r. ^hould lake the responsibility of sum- moning his witnesses and (dosing bis case, belbre he (Mr. Lacoste) on behalf of his client, Mr. Mousseau, was called upon to enter iipon his tlefence. .Mr. I'Uliot took the same ground, and called attention to the fact that in Montreal Mr. .Mereier had declared his case (dosed, Mr. Charlebois being his hnl witness, and the coming to Quebec had been agreed upon because it was more convenient there to examine Mr. Mousseau and the oliicers of the department ; and now we had the names of four more witnesses living in Montreal suggested. Mr. Mereier said he declined to proceed by asking to have ^vitIle8^os called, lie .suggeslccl the names ot certain per.sons who, ho thought, couhl give some infonnution of value. But ho woulil certainly n(»t ask suhpcvnas for tlioso persons. Tho i'(jm- inittee could call or not call the Avitnessos. After some further conversation the coiuniitteo agreed to hear tho witnesses named. Ml'. Asselin asked whether Mr. Morcior had any other names to suggest. Mr. Mercicr— -Not ut j>i'osehi. If in the course of the evidence other names suggested themselves, he would mention them. Mr. Nantel said the committee were determined to give Mr. ^lei'ciei' the tullest latitude in calling witnesscss, and in their examination, so far as that examinaiion bore directly upon the charge made by liim in the Legislature. Mr. Lucoste said Mv. Moussoau had been for several days at the disposition of ^Lr. Mercier, and was at his disj)osition now. He, Ml-. Lacoste, would not, however, call him until tho committee declared the case for tho accuser closed, when he proposed to call him for tiio defence. It was resolved by the committee to call Mr. Mousseau, in <*bedience to the suggestion of Mr. Mercier. When Mr. Mousseau arrived, Mv. Mercier deidared that he had no (juestions to ask that gentleman, but that he would reserve the right to cross-examine him. Mr. Lacoste stated that he tlid not intend to ask any questions, as he intended to call jIv. Mousseau after the case foi- the accuser was closed. The Chairman then read the charge, and asked Mr. Mousseau if he had any statement to make in relation to the contract for the Legislative buildings. lion. Mr. Mousseau. read the tbllowing statement : — MR. MOUSSEAU'S STATEMENT. Declaration of the Hon. Joseph Alfred Mousseau, Judge of the Superior Court. The lenders for the Parliament Ijuilding had been asked lor tcwards the middle of June, 1882, under the government of tho Hon. Ml'. Cha[>icau, a month and a half before I assumed the ad- ministiation of the attaii's of the Province of Quebec, in this call for tenders the Department of Public Works did not requii-e, as is the case at Ottawa, that the j)ersons tendering should deposit with their tenders live per cent, of the amount of their subscrip- 8V lion, us iiii assui'fiiKu^ of j^ood Ihitli and ii L(uai'anloo of the exocil- lio!i of the coiiti-at't, the porcciita^i' in (|iiesti()n l»oing conHscated lo tlio profit of 1 ho (lovornmont in case the ])er8on or perHons lemlering should I'efiisci the contract tlial should l>c i;rant(!(| to him or Oiem. Accoi'dini;: to the comlilion.s contained in the formula of tenders for the Parliament building', the persons ten- dorini^had to send with their lender I he names of t^ood securities. J intei'fered in no way at the time of ojicMiin^ the tendoi's in No- vember oi- December, 18S2, to have a deposit substituted for per- sonal scurity ; but I ;im informeil that the depart men! demanded the depo.^it for the best of all reasons and in the interest of the Government anressrs. Iluot & Jobin was $158,000 , that of Mr. Lortie, $100,000. 'fhey were, therefore, lower th.tn the estimate of the department by, in lound numbers, $*7tl,000, jjGl.OOO and $59,000 respectively. I believe that, later on, by my advice, the Government in calling for tenders for the Construction op the Court House in the advertisement i-ecj^uii'ed trom the tenderers a deposit of five per cent., to be confiscated, as above mentioned, in case the eon- tract should be refused. The result was that all who tendered were contractors, serious and pi-uctical, and the lowest tenderer m 88 received tlio conlracl. In luct, \ lliink il is tlic in'opci' inetliod and tlic (inly \v!iy to clicil hoiid jide U'lvlvvs. It is liie nu'lliod iidojtlcti ill Otliuvii diiriiiy tlie last lil'tecn to twenty yearH. Coming to TiiK Tknuku oi' Messus. McjJMii.i.w till' (rovernnient m ted jiiHl as had been done with the others — and witli nioro reason, it' possiMc, as the se('iiiMtiesollVi'»' a sum of from 880 to $100, on account, of the -SBIT. made up of the 8110 lent in 1881 and of the 820*7 paid for his rent. This amount of from 880 to $100 is the only money received from him in 1883. In 1882, a few weeks or days after my Election at Jacques Cartiek, which ended on the 2()th of August, he remitted me a sum of from 800 to $80, saying that it was the balance of a subscription ^m 00 tliai 111' liiul I'ui.soil nnioii;^ my tVioiids to piiy my oloe-tion ox- )K'iiM)> and n ciirtoi-'M aci'oiiiit IIimI I iia cm ployed, as usual, in payini;' tho cl(Hilion expenses, liui I do not know so much alioul the ]iay- ments that he made in ISS.'J as almut those of li-!Hl*. 1 i-eeotn- mendcd him to use the y-rcatesl pnilviit':itt'. lit' .N[onti'ciil, iiinl iiiciiilin- liir IU>iiiili.'ii'iii>i> in llio Cornindii^. to I'xainiiu' liis i-outracL wiili rcsiicri id ilic rliuii^'i'i* wliirli lir IiikI tk'iiiaiHlcd. n/ would (|(>iii:iii(|. and thai llif lallt'C a.^lvi'd Mill |(ii' >cinu' iiioiu'V — tliroc or li)iir liiiiidrcd dollais, if I I'eeollc'i't rii^lilly. It \vii< then tliai 1 told liini. lo ilir liol o| niy rccollt'C'lion, that, if he owi'd moiu'V to Mr. Ilrrn-cron, he hiid iM'ticr pay it liim-olf directly. Tlial, ni'iitlciucii, is the answer I lia\(' to make (o the deelaration llial lia- hoen made anainsl mo in tlio lloii>e, and [ declai'*- lliat I am ready to answer all (|iie-.- lioiis that may Ik> put to me. 1 aUo mainlaiii empliatiealU' thai I lia\ e lieoii iVom the first at tlie disposal of the commission, whose competence 1 never thoiij^ht of doiihtim,''. 'riio ('hairman asked .Mr. .Morcior if lu! had any (iiicNtions to ask. to which tiiat !.;;entleman replied thai he had not. .Mr. Ijacosto made the same answer. Mr. Mereier, on rc^fK^ctioii, saiil he would he i;'lad to havi- a copy of the deposition to examine it and he would |»roeecil witli the ero-ss-exaininalion to-morr(»w morning. This was ordered aiul tho eomniittoo adjourued till to-morrow ut ten o'clock. Yesterday's Piuxjeedinqs. (iiiEUEc, July 2;{. 'fill' coiuiuittec coiitimiod to-day, Mr. Moussoau heiiii;; cross- examined by Mr. .NEercder, nothiiii^ important heing elieiletl. Mr. Lavallee, who put in the lowest lender, was called l»y Mr. Mereier. The facts hrought out in his examination wore that ho was a aaloondveeper, an owner of real estate to the value of about S6,000, and of stock in wines, cigurs, etc., worth !j>;!.0()t) or 6+, '•<•(). lie had never been a contractor, and the tender in this case had been piepared by Mr. Jobin, who had ])Ut in u tendor ul or about 820, (MM) higher, with the understanding that if there was no ten- der between the two Levallee's should bo droj)ped and he would have an interest in the higher one. The Government had given him all the time he a.-^kcd to rai.se the money for the dej^osil, but ho had not bi-on able to raise it. IIa. 14S80 (716) 872-4503 V <^- ^■^.^ <^ \ -^s 6^ ^^ .<• '^"4^ '^ c. m.^ a r^w^ m Sixteenth Day's SiTTiNd. (iUEiiEC, 2;{rd July. 1884. The committco of onqiiiiy resumed its sittings this moming at 10 o'clock, Hon. Messfs. Langolior and Mercior being present on behalf of the accusers. Hon. Mr. Mousseau was cross-examined by Mr. Mercier. Ho said ho was sworn in as Premier of (Quebec on tho .'{1st July. 1S82. In March and Fei)ruary of that yeai- ho was a n.embcr of the Ottawa governinenl. In 1882 ho was familiar with Mr. De JJeaufort and Mr. Bergeron. The formei- was his contidant in some matters of a personal nature, deferring lo his statement that 5 per cent, was exacted as a deposit with tenders at Ottawa, and as a reason why 10 per cent, was exacted in this case, he said that the 5 per cent, was dej)Ositod with the tenders, sub- jected to forfeiture in the event of the ccmtract not being taken, l>ut as a security for the completion of the contract 10 per cent, was exacted, lie had learned from .Mr. Lesage that the securi- ties ottered were not considered sutticient. This was not, as he believed, although ho had no personal knowledge on the subject, the first time a money instead of individual security had been exacted in this pr(»vinco. lie believed a money deposit had been exacted in the case of Mr. Cimon, the contractor for tho do])art- montal buildings. After some questions about the refusal of the Federal Government to give Charlebois and Macdoiiald the British Columbia contract, in which Mr. Mercier quoted from Hansai'd, Mr. Mousseau said all ho knew about the refusal of that contract was tho otticial reason, that it had been refused because of irregularities connected with the che(pie de])i)sited with the tendei's. He was not aware whether any etl'ort was made to obtain other indiviilual securities. He knew of the change, because the Commissioner of Public Works, Mr. l)ionne, had reported it to council. He sujtposed at the time that the securities were not sutticient, as tho only one considered really sutlicient had withdrawn. Mr. Mercier — liut, as first minister, do you not think you should have ascertained these tacts before permitting the change? Mr. Mousseau sjnd he had conHdonco in his colleague in whose ile}iartment this was. and had no doubt that evoiy precaution had boon taken in the mattoi'. Mr. Mercier. — How was it that tho tender of Mr. McMillan, who sent in securities utterly valueless, who vvere not even resi- dents of tho Province, got this contract, when others who ottered securities residents of the Pi-oviuce were refused. an, 93 Mr. Moussoau. — The contnu-1 was f^iven to Mr. McMillan on his tciKJor, not on liis socuritii's Imt on a (U'posit, and it had l»oon offered to the otluMS on the same terms an(l refused. A numher of other (jiiestions were a.skod, without eliciting any special infoi-mation, liu' details having been carrietl out by the Tiepartmcnt of Pulilic Woi'ks. ^[r. Mtiu>seau said iid one had H])olven to him during Dect'mber, 1.SS2, and January', IH^iJ, about the C'hai'lebois tender. He liad not sj)oUen to that gi-ntleinau during those nioiiths about this contra*-!. As to the subsequent change made by which the deposit in the Exchange Haidc was released and hypothecary security accepted instead, this had been done in the ii\terests of the |)ul)lic, in eonse(|Uence of this failure of the bank. As to the change releasing the discount of ton per cent, on the monthly estimates of the contractor, ho consid(U'ed that having a ten per cent, deposit from the oiitset, no advantage was given to the conti-actor. On the subject of the insurance on the buildings being put up, which the contractor had to make, Mr. Mei'cier asked what ditl'erence it could make to the (Jovern- ment what amount the contractor had t(* ]tay in conseriuence of the heating. ^Ii-. Moiisseau replied that tlie ditference on insur- ance on the depai-tmental buildings in conseciuence of heating the new buildings by stoves, which the (rovernment had to ])ay, would be serious. No doubt in relieving the contractor of the " carpenter's risk," an advantage was given to him. As to his statement, in his examination in (diief that he had said to Air, Hei'geron that they wouM not go fuither than McMillan's tender because they were in face of a gooil contractor, he referi-ed to Mr. Charlebois, whose name had been asked to be subsiituted at the time foi- tliat of AlcMillan. He did not think he knew bet'ore this that McMillan's tender was really (.'harlebois'. As to the moneys received by him in 18S2 and 188.":{, from De Heauf()rt, he thought that received by him in 1SS2 was in Septeml)er or October, about $110, andin 1H83, during the summer, ^00 to $80. So far as he had anything to do with De Heaufoi-t. he considei-ed him an honest man. As to bis (|)e Heanfort's) statement, that he had given him two sums of §100 each, one at Monti-eal and one at Quebec, he had received from bini SlOO in .Montreal on account, but no §100 in (Quebec. Jle bad never received the sums from .Mi-. De Beaufoi-t which were subscribed by a number of friends for the .lacques Cai'tici- election. De Heaufoi't had paid moneys for him to Dumaine in 1SS2. but not in 188.5. He paid a note for him. Having been shown a lettei- from him to De Beaufort acknowledging receipt of money, he gave a detailed explanation of the matters referred to in the letter, wliich has nothing whatever to do with De Beaufort's transactions with Charlebois, of which at the time he was not even aware. 94 Mr. Morcior — Mr. Do Boaiifoi-t in liis deposition staled that he had paid yoii in money, or accounts paid, and in subscriptions for eleclioti ])urposes, bet\viH>n Decemljcr, 1882, an^sist in i^etliiig t.io oontrnct lot at Iho luLjhor pnVo of ^r.t7,<»nO. Ho lolil Mr. Cliarli'l.ois thai Do Meauli.rt had had no influcnco in tho matter of Iho conti-acf, and that ho should not pay him any nionoy. Ho condomned thi' hai'^ain, and bhimod Charli'bois for iiavin^ mado it. Ho Iwul had bomo ooi- rospondence with Do lioaufort. Being shown letters of ids to Do Boaufoft dated in Octoher and Xovenihci', 1S«3, he said tho matters I'oferi'etl tn in them had no relation, direet or indireet, with this hai'gain. Before his tdection in 1S8;{, Do JJeaufort ort'ored liim a service in connection with it, which lie at tirst re- fused, but which ho afterwards consented to allow him to under- take. Subsequently Do Eeaufort said tho thing had cost ^ll{2, and he sent him S(iO, saying that lie was hard up and would sencl tlie balance hiter; that was one of tlu; letters. The second had relation to the balance which ho j)aid him. Mr. Mercier asked what tliis service was, and for what ho had spent tliis mon(fy. Mr. Lacoste ol»jectod on the giound that it had to do with the election. In answer to Mr. Assolin, Mr. Moussoau said that tho sorvico had no relation, director indirect, with the Charlobois contract. Tho objection was maintained. Mr. Mercier asked whetlier, when he (Mr. Moussoau) had leai-nod of this ti-ansactit)n in .Inly, 18S3, he had taken any pi"o- coedings as Attoi-ney-tJeneral to annul the (contract with Charlo- bois, or any ])roceedings criminally against the jjai'ties to tho De Beaufort-Charlcbois bargain, to which J\Ir. 3r()usseau replioil that he had not. After the actioa taken by Mathieu against Charlebois he may have had some conversation with the latter, but lie had no I'ocollection (^f such conversation. He did not re- memboi- having a meeting iit the 8l. Lawrence Hall with (/harlo- bois, De Beaufort and others about this matter, and he did not believe any such meeting had tak<'ii place. Jle had nevei- seen tho notes in (juestion. Mr. Mercier- -Is it not true that since 7tli December Mr. (Miai'lebois has spent sums nf money tor you, concerning your elections or otherw'se, of which you have not rendereil hitn an account ? Objected to and objeclion maintained. Mr. Lacoste then proceeded with the re-examination. All the details connected with the contract wore carried out by the I'ub- lic Works Department, which was the judge of these matters. The (rovernment were not bouiul to take the lowest or any tender. Referring to the question of in.surance, looking at the specitica- tions, 1. find that they are made part of the contract. One of tho clauses of the specitication is to the effect that the contractor shall keep tho buildings insiu'ed. 96 Ml". Lacosto — Then tho oontivictor is roquirml to maintnin tho insurance ? ^^^. ^Fercior objoototl on tlio ground that this was an attempt to gel a Ici^al opinion from tho witness in rehition to a mat' m* whicli could bo ostal)li.shod by tho papers. Mr. Tiacosto said Mr. Mcrcior had (|Uostioned tl»o witness about tho obligation of th(^ contractor to insure the buildings or other- wise, and his question followed luitui-ally in cross-examination. Tho shorthand writer was askod to i-oad the (piestions put by Mr. Mci'cioi', one of which was '• Then you admit that it was an advantage to the contractors not to be called upf)n to i)ay the in- ,suranc(* ? The question was admitted as following on the examination. Mr. Mousseaii said yos. tho contractor is obliged to maintain tho insiiran<'i'. Mr. Moi'cier said ho had foi-gotten a couple of questions, and in I'oply to those Mr. Mousseau said ho could not say whether tho tenders wore o|fonoconiit of 2(t per cent, would ho maile, and this was more serious than a discount of 10 per cent. Jlo did not ])ri'paro the tender ; it was Mr. .lobin. lie eouM not tell what dillbience it would make if tho iliscount oi- monthly estimates was 10 per cent, instead of 20 per cent. He could, he thinks, have i'urnished satisfactory securities if ho had had an oj)por- tunity. Has been a resident of (Quebec for some time, and his means were well known. He was a ])roperty owner. His jiro- porty was worth about S6,0(>0. TTe has a considerable stock in his city establishment. iNni m CmsH-oxaininoil l)y Mr. Lucosto — IIo wiis nsiilooii-koopor. Had nevoi" boon ii contractor, unci had novor tnkon ji contract; the valuations made had i>ocn niado hy Mr, Johiu; ho por.sonally know nothing; ahout it. Mr. Jobin was also a (ondcror. It was nndorstood i)ctwoon Ihoin lliat in tho ovont of thoro bidni^ no tondoi- botwcon his tender and that of Jolnn and lluot, his won d bo dropped so as to come to tlio other, in which ho was to be a partner. He had sent in the names of Mr. (Ireniei- and Dorval as snrotios, but they had l)oth retired. Ife then j^ave tiio names of Pliiilips, Leonard ami (barrel. Mr. Phillips was fairly well ott", ami lie tlioiiLijhta ^(uA security. He had a i)roperty worth about 85,(»t)() or Slateiueiits of Mr. Charlehois, against his own evidence on oath, could not he taken as atlbetinf^ Mr. Moiisseau, and that hy tlu' rules of evidence, before evidence (!ould be admitted to contradict that of a wit- ness already examined, tiie latter must have been (piestioned on the specitic fact upon which the suhso(juent evidence was nought. The CommisHi(»nors, after un examination of the authorities, maintained the objection on the ground that sworn testimony could not be contradicted by unsworn liearsay statements. Mr. ^Fercier then stated that as he undei-stood that the pi-in- cipal ground of the decisioji was that Mr. ('harlehois had not been examined on this point, ho asUeil that Mr. Charlehois bo recalled. The Commission Haid they would render their decision on this point at two o'clock, and in the meantime, Mr. Lionais was called. He know Messi-s. .Mousseau, De Beau- fort and Charlehois. Ho saw Mr. Mousseau in December last, and had a conversation with him about this matter. Mr. Mous- seau asked witness to see Do Beaufoi-t and persuade him to stop the proceedings arising out of the bargain, which he described as a villainous one, on the ground that Do Beaufort had obtained money for his supposed influence in getting this contract, while as a matter of fact no influence had been used, Charlehois get- ting the contract because he was the lowest tenrovothe value of this fui'nitiire the rooms were closed against that witness. It was pointed out that the witness had been named on Tues- day evening, and Mr. liickaby. who 'was present, said that ho had been in the Legislative Chambers yesterday, and that this morning the doors avoi-o closed. Mr. Charlebois having been sent foi-, entered tho room, and being told by the chairman that he was to be re-examined, stated that lie declined to be sworn again without the presence of his counsel, Mr. Archambault. lie would send for him, and would be at the disposition of tho Committee to-morrow morning at ten o'clock. A note having been made of this incident, Mr, Lionais was re-called. The objection to tho question put by Mr. .Mercier as to tho reasons given by Mr. Charlebois for re- sisting tho payment of the notes, was maintained. Mr. Morcior asked what reasons Mr. Do Beaufort had given for not settling. Objected to by Mr. Lacosto. (Juostion admitted on the ground thai witness was the agent of Ml-. Moussoau in his interview with Mr. De Beaufort. Witness said the reasons wore that De Beaufort was not satis- tiofl with what Charlebois was willing to give. There was a dis- pute about tho amount. He had i-oported this to Mr. Moussoau, out he could not remember precisely what that gentleman said. 101 t\m Mr. Mcicioi- thou iv>kotl wluit, import ho, Mio wiliioH>, hiul mat an ui^eut to Mr. CharlobolH. Ill answer lo other (|iiesli()iis widu'ss said tliere had lU'Ver hoen any conversation between him and Mr. Moiisseuu as to (Miarleboirt ob octiuf^ to pay beause lio had already paid. Jle had .suid ho understood Mr. Charlehois" objection to ])ayin!;' I lie notes was lut- eause he had had no consideration. On one occasii>n when tho Htateruent of I)e Heaufoi-I that .Mr. Moiisseau had an intei-esl in the lualtoi' was i-eported to him, ho had strongly doided it. A numbei- of (questions were |»ut as to conversations in tho presonce of Mr. .Mousst'uu to the oiVect that (,'iiai'lebois had claimed that ho had uuide payments on uecoimt of Mr. Moiissoau "which should bo dotlucted from these ton thousand dollars, all of which were admitted, and woi'o answered in the negative. A number of (pjostions seeking to get information about conversa- tions to which Mr. Mou>seau was not a [uoboc at the time of the letting of the contract to see tho government, and in fact knew nothing of the contract for six months aftei- it was lot. This ended the testimony, there Iteing no cross-exami- nation. Mr. Lavigno was then sworn. He was a cabinet-maker. Ho su])plied the furniture for tho Legisiativo chambers during last winter, that is, the chair of the Lieutenant-Governor, the Si)eak- er's chairs, and tho furniture for the Speaker's rooms. He had furnished nothing else. He had contracted with the govern- I 102 iiioiit, ami not will) Mr. Chiirlohois. Thu pricf |»ii,;!liH. lie ;^iiv«' lU'lails ol' Iho ai'ticlos I'linii.sluMl inul (lio ('(ml orilioiii. 'I'll*' coiitiiict lid' tliciii was mii was al I he tliiui Snoakor of llio Jict^islativt! AssoinMy. Tiio riirniliin' had hccii (U-livoroil by liiiii anil |ila('»iil in tlio rooms wlu'ri' tli<'y aro now. llu wonM Mond a copy ol' llic orders lie had rocoivcd. Tho cojnniiltuu thun adjournod. YBSTKKDAy's Seshion. (^UKUEc, Jnly 25. The HOHsion of tho ConimisHion lo-duy I'osullod in no new ovi- denco. Mr. ('harU^bois bavin/j; rcfusod to porinil j)orHons to c.x- umino the furnilurc in tln^ tom])r)rai'y JiOgiHiutivo (^huinbcrw, which arc in \m chargo, and for which l»o in roHponsiblo, tho connnitteo conclndcd that they liad not tho nccosnary aulhorily to coni|tol him to opon the buililiiigH. Ho was called and gave cvidonco iw to the pornons who bad furnished llie liirniture, and an order was given to subiKona (horn for to-mon-ow, when tho Commission udjournod. KlOIlTEENTH Day'h SITTING. (Quebec, July 25. The Committee mot at ton o'clock. Mr. Charlebois appeared and was sworn. In answer to Mr. Mcrcior he said before being sued by Gaspard Mathiou, ho had htwl a convei'sation with Mr. Adolpho Mathiou bis lawyei-. They liad disoussed the question of settling the ditHcnlty witii Do Beau- fort. He had told Mr. Mathieu that ho would not pay more than §;{,000, and did not remember saying that he bad "paid ^!t,000 already, or of giving a list of names to whom he had paid that sum, but if ho did, it was simply to induce a settlement, and ho swore positively that he bad paid nothing but what ho bad stated in bis examinalion-iii-cbief Ho had no recollection of having made a list of names 1o whom be bad paid money, but if ho did, it was sim])ly with the view of inducing a sottlomont. If lie had given tho list, it was simply a pretext, and bo swore that nouhor directly nor indirectly had lie paid any money on account of these ton thousand dollars to Mr. Mousseau, Mr. Morcior asked : — Had you paid any money to Mr. Mousseau Mt that time ? lOJ T1m( quoMtion wiu «tlijt)«'trtl lo hy Mr. fiaiOHto on (lie ^••otmil that it wiw prwirti'ly llio huuw an tliut ali'-ady dt'ciilod. IT tlm wordn wcro addtMl "out of tluwo ton thoiiHaiid dollai'M, or ciri acL'oimt directly ur iiidiii'i-lly nf this (•(iiitnicl. ' titoii Ihoro I'ould Ijo no idijuftioii to i(. Tli" ohjoctioii was rnaiiitaitit'il. Mr. .Morcior tlwMi askod wliothor witness wouM swoar that ho had not in' liidod in tho list which the witness .Malliicti said had hycn i^ivon him, oi' moneys paid on account of tho 810, (HX), tho namo of Mr. Mousse.. n. Mr. Klliot ol)Jotd('(l to tlio quostion as iUo^al and an Houkin^ to CHtahlish I lie cxistonco of a document which was not produced. Tho (jiioslion was admit'ud on thn ground that it had relation to tho ;iJ10,((00, and vvilnoss roplioil tl... 'ui had no rucoUectiou of luivini^ done so, or of having given tiny .ch list. Tho witness was not cros.s-oxandned Mr. Moreier then applied lo ha' Mv. ( l.arlol«\, eailed in rela tion to the refusal to permit Mr. liicUahy anl others to examine tlio works and furniture cuniieeted wiM, me preparation of tho Legislative building , which rel'usal, h'' understood, had been made by Mr. Charlebnis. The (rommittee granted tho apj)licati-;ii, and Mr. Charlobois being reealU'd, said that before an.HWering any (pi, ' ions, he de- nirejection. This was an attempt to contradict the evidence of a witness, by ^showing that ho liad wm 104 inado Htutcrai'nts inconsistent with his sworn ovidencc. But in this ctisc the sworn statonu-nt of Mr. Charleljois was that he did not roincmber havin<;' made any such list, or made any statement about 60,000, but, bad ho (b)ne so, it was simply for the purpose of etlocting a settlement, and was not the truth. There was. therefore, no contradiction of formei* sworn evidence by formoi- statements inconsistent with it. Witness, continuing, said Cliarlebois had given him no list , be had simply nuide some ligui-es on a piece of paper, without putting down any names, llo (witness) had not mentioned to .\li'. .Mousseaii the reasons given by Mr. Chariebois for resisting the payment of the notes. There being no cross-examination, the Committee adjourned until half-past two o'clock. Afternoon Session. On ro-assemI>ling, the Chairman, Mr. Desjardins, stated that he had made oiKpiiry as to the position of the temporaiy buildings and the furniture in them, and found that the contractor was bound to furnish the accommodation, with furniture, for two sessions of parliament, anil was responsible for the buildings and furniture until tinally taken over. The Speaker had personally, at the close of the session, placed the property in the possession of the contractor, and he would not, in the public interest, do anything which would release the contractor from his responsi- bility for the safe-keep' n) principles, to admit no evidence of subscriptions by Charlebois to election funds unless connected, directly or indirectly, with the matters into which they were charged to on([uire, and to admit no evidence of conversations at which Mr. Mousseau, either per.sonally or by an authorized agent, as in the case of Mr. Lyonnais, was not present, several questions have been objected to and the objections maintained. But outside of these, we venture to say that objections made by counsel for the defence were more frequently overruled than maintained. The famous one, which nearly led to a severe test of the powers of the committee by the impi-isonment of Mr. Charlebois, was a case in point. The question was connected with the ton thousand dollars, because it sought to ascertain how much Mr. Charlebois had paid to get back the notes, and there- fore it was admitted. Had Mr. Merciei* been able to lay the ibundatioii of his inquiry by proving that there had been an im- j)roper or sus]»icioiis letting of the contract 'n the tirst instance, more might be said in favour of his fishing excursions for evi- dence outside of the record. But he utterly failed in this. His own witnesses ])roved tnat there was nothing wrong, nothing but what was eminently in the interests of the ])ublic in the letting of the contract, and therefore the conduct of the committee in acting upon the general principles which we have named in the admission of evidence was an eminently proper one, and will bo so adjudged by any reasonable man. 109 ' THE SUPPLEMENTARY CONTRACT. {From The Gazftitk 3l8( July, 1884.) One part of the charge brought against Mr. MouHsoau hy Mr. Mercior, and whu-li has been the subject of an almost intorniin- al)le investigation, bad relation to tbo supplementary contract entered into by the Government with Mi-. Charlebois for tempo- rary provision for the meeting of the Legislature, pending the completion of the Legislative buildings. AVhen the buildings in which the Legislatm-o ha ' been housed for many years, were burned down, the contract for tlie new building had ah'cady been let, and tlie worlc of construction had commenced. The Govern- ment found themselves in the face of a difficulty as to where the Legislature was to assemble, the leasing of buildings for the two branches and for the use of the otlicers of both Houses and the committees, was a serious question. There were only one or two buildings in Quebec which had any fitness, one being the Music Hall, in which the Legislative Assembly of old Canada had once met, but which, even if leased, would be insufficient for both Houses and would involve a serious outlay to put it in proper condition. It was resolved to an-ange with Mr. Charlebois to provide tem])orary accommodation by roofing in one part of the building whicli had i-eachedone story high, and to fui-nish it. For this the conti-actor asked 83,5,000 ; but upon a report of the- Ciovernment architect, Der( me, ho consented to do the work and furnisli the accommodation tor two sessions for the sum of ^28,000. Attaclied to the contract entered into was a schedule prepared by the architect of the probable cost of the work and furniture, amounting to $28,000, and it was this sura that Mr. Mercier de- clared was extravagantly high, the execss of pi-ice being charged by him as having been designed to unduly favour the contractor, Mr. Charlebois. Mr. Mercier had three witnesses called to value the work and furniture. At first a difficulty arose in conse-es result ini,' from delay, which under such circumstances would easily have been shown to be a serious item. The ar- ran^fement made was under the circumstances a wise one, and by the testijuony even of Mr, Mercier's own witnesses was, takin,'^- into account all that was involved in the contract, an economical one as well. NrNETEENxn Day's Sitting. Quebec, 30th July, 1884. The Parliamentary commission mot this morning at ten o'clock. ^h\ John Elliot, advocate, of J3eauharnois, was the tirst witness and was examined by Mr. Lacoste. He had examined the con- tract for the Legislative buildings. :Mi-. Bergeron had requested him to do so. They had come to Quebec on'"a Tuesday, and the following day tlie contract not being ready they liad to remain over until the next day, when they commenced to examine the contract, and remained in (Quebec at the work until the Saturday following. They had then gone to Moiitieal and coniinued their work, and as .Mr. ]iorgeron had to go to Ottawa he had obtained the assistance of Mr. Lacoste's tirra to further consider the docu- ment. To Mr. Mercier— He could not remember the details of sufo-es- tions made by him. They were made to Mr. Charlebois.'^'llo had not had any conversation with Mr. Mousseaii or any other minister about the conti-act. Ho had mot Mr. Mousseau one evening with a number of other gentlemen in a social way but the contract was not even mentioned. Charles Jobin, contractor, was next examined. Had been a contractor since 1870. Had had contracts from the Dominion Government, and the Coj-poration. He had been used to all kinds of work, buildings, bi-idges, etc. Looking at the I'efurn, he said ho was the person named as having tendered for the Legislative buildings, the amount being $158,189. When lie had tendered he had not taken much notice of the specitications. Ho had ten- dered in the hope of making arrangements with some one else to n 112 do tho work, or of selling out to a higher tondoror. Ho had had negotiations with Mr. Ford to that etlbct ; the amount proposed to be given him was $(J,000. But Mr. Charlehois's coming be- tween I hem, prevented any arrangement being made. Ho did not Icnow Mr. Clmrlobois at the time, and never saw him until after the work on the conti-act commenced. He knew Mr. Lovaileo, and Mr. Lortio, and that their tenilcrs had been put in with the object of making money by selling them to higher ten- derers. He bad no other object in view in putting in his tender. To Mr. Mercier — When his tender was sent in it was with tho intention of sijliing i' out to aiiothcM- eontractoi- or being taken in as partner. He had given the names of Messrs. Phillips and JJemers as securities. They were understood to be solvent. If the con- ti-acl bad bi'en given bim at S 150,000, he would have bad to sell it ; if be (lid not succeed in selling it, be did not know what he would do. He was iletermined to sell, and was actually in nego- tiation with .Mr. Ford t(^ that etfeet. If the contract luul been given bim, and he could manage to sell to a higher tond^^rer, he would have sent a letter to the Government declining the con- tract, and thus ])ass it to the higher tendei-er by whom he expected to be ])aid. He had tendered only with the object of selling t)ut. When be wrote to the Government protesting against the change from personal security to a deposit, the object Avas simply to gain time with the object of making the sale. The protest was not in good faith. It was [)erfectly understood that Lavallee's tender would be withdrawn. .Mr. Ford bad told him that be hoped Charlebois and lieaugage would witbdi-aw their tenders and thus come to the one sent in by Ford k ^EcXamee of 8220,950. Mr. Ford was interested in three contracts. He was not engaged foi- Mr. Charlebois, and was not doing any work for him. He bad borrowed small sums of money from him on two or three occasions. He did not think he owed him anything now. yh\ Pageau w^as sworn. He was a cabinet maker and executed orders. He had visited the two Chambers and the Committee Rooms this morning. Ho gave a detailed comparison of the articles mentioned in the return, and the value at which he esti- mated them, Ijcing the price at which he would furnish them. In the aggregate he found the value ^5,071 against $4,738 named in the return. He had not taken into account any damage from injury in changing the buililings. To }>h'. ^rei'cier — He had taken about an hour anil a half to make the examination, and was accompanied by Mr. Charlebois and Mr. Jobin. When he said, in .some jases, that there were a greater iuimber of articles than mentiored in the return, ho 113 meant that he haxl been ho informed by Mr. Oharlol.ois ; ho saw Homo of tliom and was tol.l thoro wore so nianv of tho same kind Witno«H .said ho would profor to make a furllH-r oxanunatio,, s.". as to count tho articios, before swoai-iii"- p.-sitivolv as lo iho numbers. This wtxH agreed to and tho Committee adjourned until (wo o cloek. Afternoon Skssion. On ro-assembling, :\rr. Tageau continual lus evidence, llo had boon ,n th. Logislativc Coun.dl, and had s.hm, but one clorU's desk (hero. Ho ha-i not liad time to visit all (lu. ph.cos whore the furniture was. lie liad not seen the two dosks of the Snoakors of which he had spoken. ^ Mr. CJiarlobois said there liad not been time to count each piece of furniture, and the witness could only swear as to the value of the articles he had aeon, not as to tho number of arti(dcs which ho had not counted. As to the statement that he (.Mr Uiarlebois) had refused to permit tho examination in presence .)f Mr Morcior and Mr. Charles Lan-elier, ho wouM simply say Tliat_3Lr. ( harles Langelior had not been authorized bv (lio't.'oin- mission to go wilh them. Many of the articles wore in other parts_of the budding, and he thought if there was to be an exammation as to tho number of articles the witness should have timo to make an examination of all the articles, those in the Chambers and those belonging there, but which wore in other parts of the building. Mr.:\rercior objected (o further adjournment, which wassimplv to permit a witness on cims-oxamination to lake lime to ascoi'lain whether his oxamination-in-chiof was correct. In answer to Mv. Asselin, witness said he had not had timo to make an examination so as to ascertain (he number of articles but ho could make a thorough examination by ton o'clock to- morrow morning. It was agi-oed that the evidence of the wit- ness should bo postponed un(il I o -morrow at ten o'clock and the committee adjourned. ' The Last Day. Quebec, July 31. To-diiy some witnesses were examined as to value of the fur- niture but nothing of impin-tance Avas elicitotl. Mv. Lortie one of the tenderers whose tender was without tho nanies of soeui'i- 8 w 114 tios, wnH callod l>y Mr. Morcior lo contfiidicl Uk^ (n'illonco of Mi*. .I<>l)in. He stiit*'(l (lull lie liiid |iiil in his tcmlor in i^ood fjiitli, and witii llio intention ol' doinjj,- tin; work it' lie i!;ot tli»> contriict, hut, on crosM-t'Xiiminiilion. jidniitlod (liul MV. Iliiol, Mi'. .lohin's pai'tnoi'. had siiu'LCcstcd to him the tii;-iir( s to imt in his lenii'od. JIo liad not sent in llio names of socni-itios hcM'aiiso ho liail not hail time to jtrociiro tiiom, havini;' only resolved to ten- dor on Iho last day for tho rocoption of tondors. There heinic '><) more wilnossos tho coinmittoo iidjournod .sine die. CONTRACTORS' METHODS. {From TiiK GA/yimi:, l«t Aiujmt, 1884.) The ovidonco of Mi', .lohin ibllowin^- ii])()n that of ^[r. Lo- valloe, hol'oro the commit too of en(|uiry on tho charifo of ^[r. .N[orc'ior against Mv. Moiisseau, is oxeoodingly intoresting and important. TI>o ground of tho accusation brought against Judge ;>[oussoau is that Mr. Charlobois was unduly favoured in having tho contract for the Legislative buildings given to him notwith- standing that thoi'o were tenderers inucli lower to wliom it shoulil have been given. Unless this fact can bo ostablislicd, tho whole accusation in the nature of things, falls to tho gi'ound. Tho person who sent in the lowest tender was Mr. Levallee, tho amount of his tender being the bulk sum of Sl-i;>,OI)0. lie was examined last week, and as our readers know, tho result of that examination w'as to show that tho tender was not a serious one. JIo is a saloon keeper in (Quebec, who never was a contractor, who admittedly know nothing about Iniilding, and whose tender hail been jjreparod for him by Mr. ,Iobin, who, with Mr. Huol, sent in another tender for Sir)8,180. Tho intention of the Le- vallee tender was that it should disap|)oar if there turned out to be no tender between it and .Tobm's. That was i\[r. Levallec's own sworn testimony. On Wednesday ^h: .Tobin was examined, and he made no bones about explaining the whole method of tendering, which is fre(|ueiitly, as ho put it, always resorted to. He stated that 116 lat Lovalioo's toiKli'i', iind lliul of Mr. Lorlio, wliidi hy (Im- way whm not ii Utgiil UMtdorut all, no iiainus of Mceiirilios lioiiig i'iiriii»lio(l, wtiiT put in wilh his own in pursiiiinco ol' u pcdicy of si'llinif out to a liii^lior tcniiei'or wlio roully wanted tlio jolianii tonili'iud wilh (ho iioni'81 inliMition of |iorforininjL^ tho woil; if iho conliact was awarded to him. llo was actually in noi^otiation with Mr. Koi\l, who had put in a couplo of hi,i,'h tondern, one with tho nanio of Mr. McNainoo associulod with him for ):5--0,()0(l, and anolhor with tlu) luimo of Mr. Piton for ahout S2()0,(M)(». Ami it was undurslood that that j^cntloman was |»ro|tarod to pay ^(i,(tU() to thoso lower tenderers to get thom out of tho way. When tho witness' attention was called to tho lottor he had iiddressed to tho hepartment, protesting against the chungo from personal security to a money deposit, and expressing his willingness to acciept the eontract on the basis of j)orsonal secui'ity, ho frankly admitted that this letter was put in only with thelio|)e of gaining time to enable him to carry out his negotiations with higher tenderers to sell out. If anything was wanted to justify tho Government in its action in insisting upon a money deposit a.s security instead of personal security, the evidenceof .Mr. Levalleo, supplemented and am])liliod by that of Mr. .lobin, would atl'ord it. Here wtis an otler by a salo(m-keeper, who had never had a contract in his life, who knew nothing of building operations, to put up these public buildings at $70', 000 less than the estimate of the Government architect ! The Government would have been justilieil in casting it aside at unce; but in view of tho fact that there were a number of tenders, all ridiculously low, all at figures at which tho j)rofes- sional adviser of the Government declared tho work could not be done, they I'esolved, not being obliged under the terms of tho advoi'tisemont to accept tho lowest or any tender, to accept a money deposit which would at least bo the evidence of good faith. It spoiled tho game of these specuhitivo tenderers. To deposit so large a sum as §15,000, subject to forfeiture if the con- tract was not completed, was altogether too serious a mattoi' for the people who had only tendered to sell out ; and the conse- quence was that those three lowest tenders, which it now appears were in fact in the interests of the same syndicate, shall we call it, disappeared. ik; And, lollowini,' up (lie liistory ol' tlio ciiso, \vt" liiivo llio most concliisiv*' |ii'(>(»t' llmt, HO fur tVom .Mr. ('liai'K'lM)i.>( hoin^^ iiiululy tiivoiiivil — uiiil lliut is {]{{.• Dxindittioii of Mr. .Mcrcicr'H cliar^o — lu! was, in fad, dctoatfil in wliat was cviilciilly his ^amc. Ila(i tlioi'o hot'ii a dosirc to fiivoiir him, all tho j^ovornmont had to do was to a-'U Ml'. .McMillan for his deposit, and, failin<^ to '''ninu'nt and a complcto Jiistilication of it. Thoy discovorod that Mr. .McMillan was an oini)loyo(! of Mr. Charlol)ois, tlicy reasoned liierefroni that tho tender was roally the hitler's, and (hoy caused him to bo informed (hat unless he would take (lit^ contract at the [)rico named in it, .^185,000, thoy would not ^o to tho no.Ki, hut would advertise anew for tenders. J)id that look like an adempi urululy to favour .Mi". Charlebois ? Tlie evidence of Mr. Jobln is iin|)ortant for another reason ; it lets in a llood of li^hl upon the nu'thods of contractors, aniit thorci is this ('(iinpcnsutioii loi- iIiucohI; it has rclicvtMl tlu> gDVoniinuitt tVotu iill sii>|)i('i()ii (iC \vi'()ii;^'-ili>ii)f(, it has sliowii that in all lhi> h\v\)h coiiiu'cti'd with this coiiliatt llicv Wert' iiilliionccd hy an hoiiosL (lusii'o to |)i-oto(-t thu puhlic iiitcM'cst, and it ha-^ lei such li^ht in upon conti'ucturs' niothoils as should at Icasl uHsirtt piihlic hodicH wlu) have puhlic works to porfbrni in Iho adoption of moans to dolbat those methods. Twentieth Day's Sittin(i. Quebec, July .'U. The Parliamontaiy CommisHion mot this morning at 10 o'clock. Mr. iMui'cotti' was sworn. JIo is the managor oi' the i-arpot departmont of Glovor & Fry. Looking- at an account from tliat tlrni, he siiid the articles mentioned had been furnished lor the temporary buildings, the account amounting to li5!>7i{.4(). The goods wore furnished about 25 per cent, lo.sa than the ordinary prices. To Ml'. Mercier. — All tlu' cari)ets mentioned woie ])laced in the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Council. Thoy had be(Mi laid by him at the cost of fTlover it Fry. The carpet at ^1.25 wa^ sold ordinai'ily by them at ^1.45, anil that at T);') cents at 05 ct^nts. There was a five per cent dist-ount froni those jirices tor cash. Mr. Charlcbois was to pay cash, lie had made the i-eduction to Mr. Charlcbois, in the hope that ho would get other orders for the public buildings. The price of the car])et in the Legislative Council, and two conimittees, was 85 cents a yard, lie gave |)articulars as to other items. Mr. Pageau was called and re-examined by Mr. Mercier. lie Ibund 310 chairs, of all kinds, in all the rooms and in the garri't. lie found 11 sofas, and was told by Mr. Iluot thai there W(!re two others in the cmtside building, lie bad not said that there wore 200 chairs in the gallerv ; be said that he was told that there were 200 similar to those in the gallery. IL' found, by actual count, that there were 41 chaii-s in the public gallery, and 21 in that of the repoi-tors, and 8 of a ditlerent kind. He gave particulars of the luunbers in other rooms, the whole he valued at 8770; instead of the bidk sum of .S 1,000, which he mentioned yesterday, the ditference being of articles which he was told were there, but which he had not seen; the other valuations he 118 liiid iiiiido hiul heeii cluefly from a viow of ouch article, lie liad ItL'i'orc l)ecu culled ii|ioii to vuliu^ fiinuliire; 'lO hud cstimuted then us he did now. He hud been thirteen years in bii>iiie8B, and employcil seven or eight men. To Mr. Charlehois. — Ho had (bund ;>10 chairs in all the rooms, 24 tables, and 11 sofas. He did not count the speakers' chuir.s nor that of the I. ieutenunt-dovernoi-. When tirst culled lo ex- amine this furnitui'i'. he had not been called a])on (o make an inventory, but to value the articles submitted to him. He valued them at the price he would have charged to supply them and considered the prices as reasonable. To Ml-. Merciei-. — He adhercnl to the prices he had given in his examination-in-chief. He admitted that his estimate of 81,000 was too high, but that was on quantities and not on the price, to which he adhered. Mr. Lyonnais, sworn, said he had made a statement of the evidence of Rickab}' it Stavely, and the reductions involved by them from the schedule ])repared lor the government. He pro- duced the statement as follows: — Accordiusi to Kickaby's vahuition rt'ductions are made to t lie extent of $1,072 50 on tin' fslinuitc of tlie Governniont En^dueer for Jurniturc siijiplit'd. "Witnesses Staveley and Archer in estimating the other works value them at 4,o77 GO less than the Uovernment schedule. Forming a total of ^1,050 10 Ivjual to a prolit of 21', per 100 on the 828,000 price of the supplementary contract. In the above re items .'-;750 and .--^oO entered for wall and ceiling linings in the l)a8cmont. Assuming tiiat these were n^placed l)y the plastering of these walls and ceilings the amount of jtrotit is I'cduced ))y Sl,200 00 Icavinu' oidy S4,850 10 e(iual to 17;1 on the S28,O0(i. The above witnesses als() made a reduction of .S2(iO on the value of materials which may yet bo used. JUit in cross-examination they admitted that in case of removal, storing away, and replacing of such materials, and in case of roi)airs needed by tear and wear during the two Sessions, the amount sluudd be allowed lo ('harleb(Ms, therefore, in ab- stra( ting these $200 00 From the reductions nuide there remains of actual reductions from the Government estimate only. . . $4,500 10 Equal to lOA prolit on §28,000. to Witness made ;in explanation of the statement; which was objected to by Mr. Merciei- or. tl:o ^^round that it was an appreci- ation of the evidence of former witnesses by this witness. Mv. Lacosto pointed out that the object was simply to facilitate the work of the committee, but if there was any objection he would withdi-aw the statement, and he announced that he had no other witness, Mr. Mercier said he mii;-ht have another witness or two- he was not sure, but asked an adjournment until two o'clock' for that purpose. His witnesses would be to discredit the testimony of Pageau and possibly to contradict some of th.- statements made by the witness .Tobin. The committee accordingly adjourned until two o'clock. Afternoon Session. The committee met at half-pa t two o'clock. Mr. Gauvi'cau was sworn— He was a cabinet-maker. He knew Mi-. Pageau, had known him foi- live years. He kc])t a cabinet- making establishment. He did not know how many men he kept. Prom wh:it he knew of AEr. Pageau he thought he was i-ather a merchant of furniture than a manuf: ".turer and he would not consider him competent to make a valuation of such furniture as is in these buildinirs. ToMr Lacoslc-He had never known him a valuator, and thought he would not be taken as such. Mr. Dechene, cabinet-maker, was sworn. He knew Mr Pa'^eau and agreed with the testimony just given by Mr. Gauvreau%on- cerning hira. Ml-. Alfred Lortie was sworn, and examined by Mr Uercier He was a contractor, and was tlie person whose name is mentioned' a^ lavmg tendered tor the work. His tender was a sei-ious one antl was not intended to be sold. ' To Mr Lacoste—lMie Hgures for his tender were furnished by Mr. Huo( at (he Russell House. Mr. Huot was a tenderer Ho did not send m any name of securities. He had afterwards sent ill Mr. Costello, who was to be his partner. He had not scut in any other name, nor was he asked for any. Ife had given a power of attorney to arrange the matters with the government Ho had not agi-eed to the sale of the contract. To Mr. Mcrcier— He was prepared to execute the contract if it had been given to him. To Mr Charlebois— He had sent no securities, because lie had not had time to get them. TJie tender was not formal, becauso 120 thoro were no gocuritios numod in it. Ho hud not oftoi-ed to soil to Ford or Piton for S2,00(l, but would not swear that lluot luid not niatlo Huch an otl'or on his behalf. By the power of attorney lu' had given Mi-, lliiot. he would have been bound by anythin,!^ that g-endenian tlid. lie would not say that Iluot was not •specially authorized by the power of attorney to Hell out the con- tract, lie did not renieml)er its precise terms. To ]\[r. Nantel — lie had not sent in the names of sureties booauso he had not had time. Tie liad only ])re2)ared his tendei- on the day they had to be sent in. He was aware some days before tliat the names of sureties nuist accompany the tender. ^^r. Mt'rcier said he had no other witnesses to suggest, and the coniinitLee adjournetl sine die. CONTRACTOHS' METHODS. {From Tuic G.\/irn'K, Aucjuxt 2iid, 18S4.) Mr. Mercier is cci'tainly not to be congratulated upon his effort to contradict the blunt, plain testimony of Mr. Jobin, in which that gentleman gave so grajdiic a description of contractors' methods. The witness by whose testimony he sought to break the effect of Mr* .Fobin's evidence was ]\[r. Alfred Lortie, a con- tractor of the City of Quebec, who sent in an iufoi-mal tender for the construction of the legislative buildings, there being no sure- ties named in it. This tender was the third lowest, and came novt to that of }ili: McMillan, which Mr. Charlebois was forced to assume as the condition of getting the contract. Mr. Lortie, being examined by Mr. ^Fereier, stated that liis tender was a serious one, and that if the work had been awarded to him, it was his intention to undertake it. That was the statement upon which Mr. Mercier evidently relied to contradict that of 3Ir. Jobin to the effect that all three tenders, namely, those of Leval- leo, of Jobin & Iluot, and of Lortie, were in the same intci-est, and were ])ut in with the intention of making money, not by putting up the public buildings, but by selling out to higher tenders ; and we can imagine the air of complacent triumph with which he announced j;(if5 d'autres questions, when he had obtained this statement fiom his witness. The cross-examination, however, rather spoiled the value of the statement, and instead of contradicting, fully confirmed 121 the evidence of Mr. Jobin. We had ah-oady the testimony of Levallee, the lowest tenderer, to the etfect that the figures in hiti tender had been furnislied him by Mi-. Jobin, and tliat (he tender was in fact the latter's, unless there should turn out to be one be- tween them, when another disposition of it might have to be made. When Mr. Lortie came to be cross-examined, he admitted that the figures in his tender had been :>-iven him by Mr. Iluot, Mr. Jobin's pai'tner, at whose instance he had tendered, and to whom he had given a power of attorney to make what disposition he pleased of the tender. Thus the identity of intoi-est of the parties sending in these three tenders was established beyond controvei-sy; and the evidence of Mr. Jobin, almost brutal in its blunt plainness, has been fully confirmed. It is true that Mr. Lortie was unwilling to swear that he had put in the tender to sell it out, and that ho was anxious to have the Commission believe that he had put it in with the honest intention of accept- ing the contract and carrying out the work, believing that the figure he had named would enable him to do this. But as a matter of fact, ho 'uade no enquiry as to whether the amount named by him was sufficient for the work to be performed. When asked why he had not put in the names of securities as requi]-ed by the advertisement, his answer was that he had Jiot had time to look for them, having only resolved to tender on the very day upon which the tenders should go in. lie could not, therefore, have had time to look at the specifications ; he was,' in fact, simply making a leap in the dark; and the fact that he accepted the suggestion of :\[r. Huot, who was himself a tenderer, as to the figure to name, and gave said Huot a power of attorney to do what he liked with the fender, establishes the object with • which that leap in the dark was taken. THE CHARLEBOIS CONTRACT. i-l'^rvm The GazI'TH-b, 8//i Aur/., 1884.) We see it stated that it is no argumimt in favour of Mr. Mous- Beau, and in answer to the charge made against that gentleman by the leader of the opposition, that the character of the person upon whose verbal statement, although contradicted i)- himself 9 = ./ 122 aiul by otlioi's iindci' oath, this charge was made, i» at least shady, and the methods by which the accuser became possessed of certain correspondence, disgraceful ; that if the contract was improperly let to ]\[r. Charlobois, Ihe impropriety cannot be removed or ex- plained aAvay by attacks upon either Mr. De Beaufort or Mr. Mercier. We (juite admit this. In fact, the proposition is so self-evident, that it will commend itself to public acceptance at once. But what we say in re})ly is that when it is charged that a public contract has been improperly and cori'uptly let to a con- tiaclor. the impi'opricty of the conti-act slioidd be established. In this case that is precisely the point that Mr. Mousscau's accusers tight shy of They will not consent to discuss the letting of the contract. Jf they can show that there was anything improper, anything bearing even a suspicious a])pearance, in the manner in which the contract was let, there may be some reason in their suggest ions of wrong-doing. Hut so far from this being the case, the evi