IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 1.25 
 
 '"IIIIM IIIIM 
 
 '" ilia |||m 
 
 .ii2 111112.0 
 
 mm 
 
 U IIIIII.6 
 
 V} 
 
 ^ 
 
 /}. 
 
 m. 
 
 
 
 
 /a 
 
 ^% 
 
 ^> 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 Corporation 
 
 23 V/EST MAIN STREET 
 
 WieBSTER, N.Y. 14580 
 
 (716) 872-4503 
 
4fj 
 
 i/x 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 
 
Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques 
 
 The Institute has attempted to obtain the best 
 original copy available for filming. Features of this 
 copy which may be bibliographically unique, 
 which may alter any of the images in the 
 reproduction, or which may significantly change 
 the usual method of filming, are checked below. 
 
 L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire 
 qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details 
 de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtr~ jniques du 
 point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier 
 une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une 
 modification dans la mithode normale de filmage 
 sont indiqu^s ci-dessous. 
 
 □ 
 □ 
 
 n 
 
 a 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couverture de couleur 
 
 Covers damaged/ 
 Couverture endommagee 
 
 Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restaur^e et/ou pellicul6e 
 
 Cover title missing/ 
 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 □ Coloured maps/ 
 Cartes g^ographiques en couleur 
 
 Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 ere de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) 
 
 I I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 
 □ 
 
 Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Relie avec d'autres documents 
 
 Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 La reliure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de !a 
 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 ajout6es 
 lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, 
 mais, lorsque cela dtait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas 6t6 film^es. 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentaires suppl^mentaires; 
 
 □ Coloured pages/ 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 □ Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommag^es 
 
 □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 Pages restaur6es et/ou pelliculees 
 
 Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 Pages d^color^es, tachet^es ou piquees 
 
 I I Pages detached/ 
 
 D 
 D 
 D 
 
 Pages d^tach^es 
 
 Showthrough/ 
 Transparence 
 
 Quality of prir 
 
 Quality in^gale de ('impression 
 
 r~7| Showthrough/ 
 
 I I Quality of print varies/ 
 
 Includes supplementary material/ 
 Comprend du materiel supplementaire 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Seule Edition disponible 
 
 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 6t6 filmdes d nouveau de facon ci 
 obtenir la meilleure image possible. 
 
 This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 
 Ce document est filmd au taux de reduction indiqui ci-dessous. 
 
 10X 14X 18X 22X 
 
 26X 
 
 30X 
 
 7 
 
 12X 
 
 16X 
 
 20X 
 
 24X 
 
 28X 
 
 32X 
 
 \ \ 
 
The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks 
 to the generosity of: 
 
 National Library of Canada 
 
 L'exemplaire filmd fut reproduit grdce & la 
 g6n6rosit6 de: 
 
 Bibliothdque nationale du 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. 
 
 Les images suivantes ont 6x6 reproduites avec le 
 plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et 
 de la nettet6 de l'exemplaire fllmd, et en 
 conformity avec les conditions du contrat de 
 filmage. 
 
 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. 
 
 Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en 
 papier est imprimde sont filmds en commenpant 
 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 film6s en commenpant 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 apparattra 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 
 filmds d des taux de reduction diffdrents. 
 Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre 
 reproduit en un seul clichd, il est film6 d partir 
 de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite, 
 et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre 
 d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants 
 illustrent la mdthode. 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 

 HI". ">. 
 
 KN OPEN UETTER 
 
 TO THE 
 
 
 HOMABliE EDWARD BLAKE, Q.G., EX-IVI.P. 
 
 ■i- .■ -I'll. I 
 
 
 (SECOND LE'FrER.) 
 
 Sin, — In the letter which I addressed 
 to you in March last, I promised at a 
 future time to deal more at length with 
 the Cypress Hills timber limit investiga- 
 tion, in which j'ou plaj'edthe most con- 
 spicuous figure, the Minister of Justice 
 ably assisting you in distorting the evi- 
 dence and drawing conclusions which 
 both of you well knew were not justified 
 by the facts as presented to you. 
 
 You have not deigned to reply to my 
 feeble effort to remind you of your vas- 
 cillating course in respect to the charges 
 made against me, or to clear your skirts 
 of the several charges which I made 
 against you. It was hardly to be ex- 
 jiected that one who, in his own estima- 
 tion, stands upon a higher pedestal of 
 morality than other people, would for 
 one moment condescend to notice so 
 humble an individual as myself. Your 
 dignified silence will not, however, pre- 
 vent me from exposing the little game 
 which you so successfully played^ and 
 in which you had so willing a coadjutor, 
 as the gentleman, who first presented to 
 the committee a report for its consider- 
 ation which entirely exonerated me 
 from any wrong doing, save the writing 
 of private and confidential letters to a 
 friend which were illegally dragged 
 before parliament and with which par- 
 liament had nothing whatever to do. 
 
 The Ministerial press having been 
 gagged for some unaccountable reason, 
 and the organs which up to the fifth 
 day of March were in sympathy with 
 you having tilled their columns with 
 reckless and untruthful statements and 
 charges against me, I am forced to deal 
 with the action of parliament, for which 
 you and the Minister of - Justice are 
 alone responsible, through the medium 
 of corresix)udeuce which 1 do not pro- 
 
 j)0He to mark " i)rJvMte and coiilidon- 
 tial," like tliat whicii was uncart lied 
 and presented to tlip pubiii;, as I am 
 informed, through the iuEtrunieu- 
 tality of your office. One of the 
 leading Grit papers of your city 
 has suggested that you and I. iiaviii-j: 
 retired from parliament, our little d'li- 
 feronces sliould be buried, but 1 do not 
 concur in that vnew, and shall not rest 
 contented until 1 have thoroughly ven- 
 tilated 
 
 THE DUPLICITV AN1> CUNNIN'U 
 
 of yourself and others who took such a 
 conspicuous course in trying to con- 
 vince the people of Canada that I had 
 been guilty of a high crime against 
 parliament, although you laid down tlie 
 l)road proposition, in whicli they con- 
 curred, that unless I had been guily of 
 corruption in obtaining the limit for 
 Mr. Adams, 1 was not within the 
 bounds of parliamentary jurisdiction. 
 You and the few insignificant meiul)ers, 
 who assisted you in violating every 
 principle of evidence, may rest assured 
 that I will not permit such an unjust 
 sentence as the minority of parliament 
 passed upon me, to remain unclial- 
 lenged, without exposing your hypro- 
 crisy. If a mere tyro in the profession 
 had so far displayed his ignorance of 
 the application of facts to the law, or 
 had exposed himself to the ridicule of 
 every man of common sense in a matter 
 similar to that with which 1 am deal- 
 ing, you would have been the very lirst 
 to condemn him. but when men of such 
 distinguished ability as the Minister of 
 Justice and yourself, and men, too. wlio 
 have always prided themselves with 
 having judicial minds, will for jirecise- 
 ly opposite reasons, permit their names 
 
fC 5Z0 
 
 to be appended to a report which on its 
 ver> face carries its own cordemnation, 
 it is not to be wondered at that those 
 outside of parliament should have their 
 minds prejudiced against the supposed 
 offender against the laws of parlia- 
 ment. The public wiUukturally look 
 at the result without enquiring 
 as to the means by which it was 
 brought about, when they have 
 before them the verdict and judgment 
 of men who are entrusted with the hi^h 
 and responsible duty of protecting the 
 public interests. It is because of this 
 that I propose dealing with the report 
 of the Minister of Justice which he, 
 after a week's incubation, presented to 
 the committee for its adoption, the re- 
 port which you proposed in amendment 
 thereto, and the compromise report of 
 no less than thirty-two closely printed 
 pages, which under ordinary circum- 
 stances would take not less than two 
 hours to read, without even suggesting 
 any amendments or alterations, but 
 which was passed by the sub-committee 
 within the space of twenty-five minutes 
 or less and adopted by a non-quorum of 
 the general committee without being 
 read at length or even the eliminations 
 from your report being read over or 
 considered. I do not propose to find 
 any fault with the less than one half of 
 the n embers of parliament present 
 when the report was adopted, becav;se 
 I know it has been the invariable, 
 although 
 
 PERNICIOUS PRACTICE 
 
 of that deliberative assembly to adopt re- 
 ports when unanimously concurred in 
 by the leading members of both sides. 
 I might with justice, if I felt disposed 
 to do 80, accuse four-fifths of those 
 present when the report was adopted, 
 with entire ignorance of the facts upon 
 which that report was based and with 
 nob having informed themselves of the 
 evidence in support thereof. In fact, I 
 could go further and give the names of 
 at least fifty out of the seventy-five 
 members present when the report was 
 adopted, who have told me that they 
 had not read the evidence or report 
 when action was taken by the House 
 thereon. 
 
 It will be no reflection upon the action 
 of parliament to say, that through your 
 connivance, cunning and vindictiveness 
 and through the desire of the Minister of 
 Justice to prevent the government being 
 
 censured^ asl shall hereafter prove)an un- 
 just and illegal condemnation was passed 
 upon one, who according to your very 
 high authority, had offended against no 
 law, and who had not by any act of his 
 rendered himself amenalile to its juris- 
 diction If the evidence and report 
 could be submitted to any court in the 
 land for its adjudication, I am satisfied 
 that the judgment would not only en- 
 tirely exonerate me from the censure 
 passed upon me, but would convince 
 the public that 1 had been made the 
 victim of a compromise. It is rather 
 amusing to see the cordiality with 
 which tne whole Grit prtss joins hands 
 with you and the Minister of Justice in 
 my condemnation, but it is very sin- 
 gular that in their anxiety to convict 
 the government of wrong doing, they 
 condemn me for something from which 
 the committee entirely exonerated me 
 in obtaining the limit illegally and by 
 corrupt means. 
 
 If the verdict rendered, viz: that the 
 only corrupt act of which I was found 
 guilty was the payment to one Muckle 
 of $5,000 to bribe his employers, the C. 
 P. R., and the evidence in respect to 
 this matter had been published, I would 
 have no cause for complaint, for the 
 very publication would nave been my 
 vindication. If you had a particle of 
 generosity or honesty about you, you 
 would admit that Mr. Muckle was cor- 
 rect when in his letter published in the 
 Globe of May last, he characterized the 
 report whicifi you manipulated as an 
 unwarranted, gratuitous and infamous 
 lie from beginning to end, and the re- 
 port lacking his evidence a farcical in- 
 sult to the people qf the Dominion, and 
 Lincoln in particular. 
 
 THE FIRST REPORT. 
 
 I now propose to deal with the con- 
 clusions arrived at in the several re- 
 ports to which I have above referred. 
 First, that of the Minister of Justice 
 declares: 
 
 (1) The committee find that at no 
 time was the government or any of its 
 members, or the department or any of 
 its officers, influenced by any undue or 
 improper meams with regard to any of 
 the transactions relating to the said 
 timber limits, and that no attempt was 
 made by Mr. Rykert or any other per- 
 son to obtain the said limits or any 
 concession in relation thereto by any 
 undue or improper means or influence. 
 
8 
 
 (2) In making this finding;, supporteil 
 as it is by the evidence of Mr. Uykort 
 and of all tlio witnesses called at his 
 instance, the committee are aware that 
 such conclusion is opposed to many ex- 
 pressions which were used in letters of 
 Mr. Rykert i-eferred to the committee, 
 and to many unavoidable implications 
 arising therefrom, inasmuch as in some 
 of those letters Mr. Rykert pretended 
 to Adams that the limits had been 
 awarded to Adams, and that the objec-. 
 tions which arose from the interference 
 of the two applications, and from the 
 claims with the railway company, 
 were overruled in consequence of the 
 influence which he (Mr. Rykert) alleged 
 that he had and was using with the 
 department and the government, and 
 in consequence of the influence of others 
 which he was bringing to bear on the 
 department and on the government. 
 
 Mr. Rykert has suggested that the 
 statements of that character which 
 appear in the correspondence may be 
 regarded as an idle boast, but the com- 
 mittee consider them untruthful and 
 reprehensible. 
 
 (3) The committee are unable to dis- 
 cover that in the treatment of Shortreed 
 and Laidlaw's application there was 
 any intentional wrong-doing, and they 
 find that Mr. Rykert was not impli- 
 cated as to the change of description 
 wkich resulted so disadvantageously to 
 Shortreed and Laidlaw. 
 
 THE WORK OP A MASTER HAND. 
 
 Secondly, your first report which you 
 moved in amendment to that of the 
 Minister of Justice, and which for ma- 
 nipulation, deceitfulnesSf distortion of 
 evidence, duplicity and cunning could 
 not be excelled by the greatest special 
 pleader who ever received a fee to bol- 
 ster up a bad case, declared : 
 
 (1) The policy of the department, as 
 stated to Mr. McCarthy in January was 
 not to issue timber licenses in the local- 
 ity ; and to apply, in case that policy 
 should be changed, the principle of coni- 
 petition under the regulations. 
 
 (2) Shortly after, Mr. McPherson 
 ay reed at Mr. Rykert's instance to re- 
 commend the issue of a license to his 
 client, Adams. 
 
 (3) A little later, when it was found 
 that there was a conflict involving un- 
 der the regulations a competition, the 
 depsft'tment promoted an arrangement 
 for an aijustment of the boundaries so 
 
 jis to do away with thatco"m|>otition, //* 
 (hf. iiitrrcst of the ti})[tli((ints, mul not. 
 tix t/if ri'porf sht/u's in thv intircs( of 
 fill' (IrjKirtinrnt, that is, uf thv puhlic! 
 (4) The iirea of sjilection uraut«cl to 
 Adiims was us shown by the writtcni 
 .ind onil testimony, including that of 
 Mr. Kykert, and of the then and of tlic 
 present IJeputy Minister of Interior, 
 unusually large; the Uiftrr stafin;/ finif 
 Itc, roulil not /n-iHlwr any casi- of <i like 
 urea under like cir<uuistunces. 
 
 (.5) No grounds for, or explanation 
 of, the change of uolicy of tne action 
 taken for the avoidance of com|)etition, 
 or of the unusual size of the area appear- 
 ed before us, sore those apj)e<irf.n(/ in 
 .\fr. Jtykert's letters. 
 
 (»J) ffiese letters claim that these re- 
 sults were due to Mr. Rykert's influence 
 and i^rsistence with the government ; 
 and we are unohle to find, those letters 
 to he in that respect 'deroid of truth : 
 thouyh they are probably exoyyerated. 
 
 (7) The agreement ma'de. or assumed 
 to be made, as to the boundaries, namely, 
 that Laidlaw should have the area of 
 selection applied for by him and that 
 Adams should not encroach upon it, 
 seems to have been made at a time when 
 the departmental memorandum of a 
 contrary tendor had a' ready been pre- 
 pared, and to have been deceptive and 
 illusory. 
 
 [8} At any rate that agreement was 
 not carried out, but the reverse. Adams 
 was given that to which Laidlaw was 
 entitled, which was the common object 
 of application, and which turned out 
 t;o be the only object of value ; while 
 Laidlaw was given something for which 
 he had never asked, to which he had 
 never agreed, and which turned out to 
 be prairie and not timber land. 
 
 (9) The applications of Mr. McCarthy 
 and of Laidlaw, made when some ink- 
 ling of the facts had reached them, and 
 l)efore any license had been recommend- 
 ed, for a stay, for an appointment, and 
 for an opportunity to bo heard before 
 any such action though based upon the 
 allegations that a mistake, and later 
 that a gross fraud had been commit- 
 ted, were not merely neglected, but were 
 treated in a way calculated to lull their 
 apprehension that a decision might be 
 reached without their having the oppor- 
 tunity they asked ; and meanwhile the 
 recommendation for Adams was pushed 
 through and his license was issued. 
 
// 
 
 >4 
 
 (10) On iukI after the Prd Ai)ril. that 
 is, from a [tcriod antorior to all tliu 
 ilitliriilti(!H narrated Mr. Hykert (who 
 hatj, luul. as shewn l)y tlie early corres- 
 pondence, from the hep;innin)^ accepted 
 the relation of a |)erson who was to 
 receive (iom|>ensation for liis ser- 
 vices) became, by means of the 
 aj^reement made by Adams Mith 
 Mr. Rykert's wife. throuj;h Mr. 
 Rykert himself, which was witnessed 
 by, anvl delivered to Mr. Rykert, and 
 which was expressed to l^e in consider- 
 ation of liis .services therefov voluntarily 
 j^iven in the matter, substantially inter- 
 ested* in one half 6i the net profits of 
 the expected ji;rant ; and all that was 
 thereafter done by Mr. Rykert was 
 done under the influence of that interest. 
 
 (11) Mr. Rykert did not divulge, but, 
 on tlie contrary, concealed the existence 
 of his jjersonal interest, and assumed to 
 be actinfi: still only as the solicitor of 
 Adams. The motive for putting? the 
 transaction in the form adopted, and 
 for concealing the true relation of Mr. 
 Rykert to the matter, we infer to have 
 been two-fold : First, to avoid any 
 possible impairment of the strentj;th of 
 his representations to the executive ; 
 and secondly, to avoid any daraaj^e to 
 his standing as a member of parliament 
 and a public man ; and the existence of 
 this .second motive seems continued by 
 the statement sub.se(iuently made by 
 Mr. Rykert in his place in parliament, 
 to which we must later on refer. 
 
 (12) We think it right to state the 
 opinion ive have fonncrl that Mr. 
 Lindsay Russell, the Deputy Minister 
 of Interior, was. at the time of these 
 events, iu consequence of his impaired 
 mental vigor, incapable of fully appre- 
 hending the proceedings, and suDJect 
 to the influence and initiative of others,' 
 and is not obnoxious to the charges of 
 coftscious wrong-doing and neglect to 
 which he would under other circum- 
 stances be liable. 
 
 {i'6\ The payment of $5,000 to Muckle 
 was in our opinion, as shown by the 
 correspondence in evidence, substanti- 
 ally a Dribe to induce him to betray the 
 interests of his employers, the Canadian 
 Pacific Railway Company. 
 
 (14) We find that in fact no 
 corrupt advances were made by 
 Mr. Rykert to any minister, either 
 directly, or through any relatives, or 
 otherwise ; and that his letters are in 
 
 this particular untrue; and we find 
 that the relations of ministers men- 
 tioned wore not offered, did not ask for, 
 and did not receive any money iu re- 
 sjject of this matter. 
 
 TIIK VK'TI.M or A CO.MPKO.MISK. 
 
 I liave italicized certain portions of 
 your first report, and I shall also italic- 
 ize those portions of your second report 
 which were substituted for those struck 
 out of the lirst report, which you at 
 .the instance of the Minister of Justice 
 struck out of your second repoi't,so that 
 the government or its policy might 
 not be censured, for the purpose of 
 showing that I was right in the state- 
 ment I made, that I was made the vic- 
 tim of a compromise and a scape-goat 
 so that the government might escape 
 the censure of the committee. Tne 
 Minister of Justice, on behalf of him- 
 self and his colleagues on his bended 
 knees begged for mercy at your hands 
 and surrendered his mature judgment 
 and verdict and permitted, as his report 
 shows, an innocent man to be sacrinced 
 in order that his government might go 
 free, and that too at a time when he 
 and his colleagues should have stood 
 by and defended a policy which the 
 Mackenzie government had initiated 
 and which remained upon the statute 
 books. 
 
 MR. blare's second REPORT. 
 
 Your second or compromise report 
 declared that : 
 
 (1) The decision of the department 
 as stated to Mr. McCarthy in January, 
 was not to issue timber licenses in the 
 locality and to apply in case that de- 
 cision should 'be changed, the principle 
 of competition under the regulations. 
 
 (2) Shortly after, it was decided at 
 Mr. Rykert's instance to recommend 
 the issue of a license to his client, 
 Adams, and this was communicated 
 by Mr. Macpherson to Mr. Rykert. 
 
 (3) A little later, when it was found 
 that there was a conflict involving 
 under the regulations a competition, 
 the department promoted an arrange- 
 ment tor an adjustment of the boun- 
 daries so as to do away with that com- 
 petition/or the reasons appearing in 
 tn the report of the Deputy Minister of 
 the Interior, of August 3ist,1882. 
 
 (4) The area of selection granted to 
 Adams was, as shown by the written 
 and oral testimony, including that of 
 
 , 
 
Mr. Ilykort. and of thn thou an<1 of tlio 
 present Dcsputv Minister of Interior, 
 usually lar^c. 
 
 (5) No grounds for, or explanations 
 of, the chanj;(' of tin- decision, stahd to 
 Mr. McCurf/ii/ in JdniKiry, or of the 
 artion taken for the avoidance of com- 
 ]ietition, or of the vuiusual size of the 
 aav.a appcarod before us. 
 
 (6) Mr. Ityke,rt's letters claim that 
 these results' were due to Mr. Rykert's 
 influence and persistence with thejjiov- 
 ernment; and imjind that. Mr. Ii'i/kcrf 
 (U'.rtainly used, (fmat pHrsistanrc in 
 prf.s.sin<f the claims of his client on 
 the. department and the yoverninent. 
 
 (7) There was a strong conjlivf of 
 evidence as to the date at u'hich the 
 agreement made, or assumed to be 
 made, as to the boundaries, namely, 
 that Laidlaw should have the area of 
 selection applied for by him, and that 
 Adams should not encroach on it, was 
 in fact made. But we are ohliyed to 
 arrive at the conclusion that it was 
 viade after the 10th Anril, and there- 
 fore at a time when the departmental 
 memorandum of a contrary tenor hud 
 already been prepared, and, that Mr. 
 liykert was guilty of bad faith in this 
 respect. 
 
 (8) Same as No. 8 in your first report. 
 
 (9) (Same as No. 9 in your first re- 
 l>ort). 
 
 (10) (Same at No. 10 in your first re- 
 ix)rt). 
 
 (11) (Same as No. 11 in your first re- 
 port). 
 
 (12) We think it right to state the 
 opinion that there is some evidence to 
 show that Mr. Lindsay Bussell, the 
 Deputy Minister of Interior, may have 
 been at the time of these events, in con- 
 sequence of his impaired mental vigor, 
 incapable of fully apprehending the 
 l)roceeding8, and subject to the influence 
 and initiative of others; and is not ob- 
 noxious to the charges of conscious 
 wrong doing and neglect to which he 
 would under other circumstances be 
 liable. 
 
 (13) (Same as No. 18 in your first re- 
 port). 
 
 (14) Same as No. 14 in your first re- 
 port). 
 
 WHAT THE COSCPROM18E WAS. 
 
 The public can now, by comparing 
 your two reports, see what the <*.om- 
 proniise was which vou and the Min- 
 ister of Justice made. 
 
 Ilpon the only question which was 
 
 submitted by parliament* to you and 
 
 th ) only one, according to your HjKH'ch 
 in i)iirliament, with which it had .iiiy- 
 ihing to do, viz: Whetlier or not I was 
 u'uilty of any corrupt act in obtiiining 
 ' lit- limit for Mr. Auanis. you conliiiUy 
 ay;roe. If you and the Minister of . I us- 
 ticc had wanted to act an liouoriiljle 
 parttovvardsa fellow member,you would 
 have stopped there and made your re- 
 port. But no, botli you and he seemed 
 from the very outset most anxious to 
 prolong the investigation by enciuiring 
 into a ot of irrelevant matter, against 
 which I protested. Tlie statement made 
 in the renort of the Minister of . Justice 
 that the ooast of my influence contained 
 in my letters was untruthful and repre- 
 hensible, is a piece of gratuitous impu- 
 dence, with which neither he nor the 
 committee had anything to do. If I did 
 boast of having an influence with the 
 government, what business was that of 
 parliament? and how childish it was 
 for a deliberate body to discuss the ex- 
 tent of my influence, particularly when 
 it is known that every member of par- 
 liament, not even excepting the Minister 
 of Justice, has frequently stated in his 
 correspondence that he had or would use 
 his influence with the government he 
 was sui)porting. , And pray, let 
 me ask, who had a better right to suppose 
 he had an influence with a government 
 which for twenty-five years he had 
 faithfully supported and defended than 
 myself '? But on the question of influ- 
 ence you and the minister do not agree, 
 for you in paragraph H of j'our first re- 
 port above f|UOted, say : "'These letters 
 
 claim that these results were due to 
 "Mr. Hykert's influence and persistence 
 "with the government, and we are un- 
 "able to flrid those letters to be in that 
 "respect devoid of truth, though they are 
 "pr(jf)ably exaggerated." In your com- 
 promise report you very kindly drop the 
 langtiage I have just quoted and itali- 
 cised, and say (in sec. ft), "We find Mr. 
 Rykert certainly used great persistence 
 "in pressing the claim of his client on 
 "the department and the government." 
 It is quite evident that the Minister 
 having in his report accused me of un- 
 truthfulness felt that he would not like 
 to take 'it all back, and consented to 
 modify it by saying that I had used 
 great persistence. 
 
 Dealing with the last finding of the 
 
^ 
 
 MiiiistHr of .histice, wherein he exonor- 
 at»«H iiu) from- any wroii^ doinj; in cou- 
 no(;tioii witli tht> (;onliii;t with Mr. Liiid- 
 hiw, let ine a^ain roi)eat that you anil 
 the t^oininittee were M["'lty of 
 
 A OROSK ACT OF IN.TITSTKJB 
 
 towards ine in Of)enin>j: up the case after 
 it had l)een finally closed, in order to 
 curry a little favor with Dalton McCar- 
 thy, the le>j;al adviser of and applicant 
 for Laidlaw in resfject to the limit. 
 Where in the reference to the committee 
 do you find any authority for dealing 
 with this matter? You know you had 
 none, hut you hoodwinked the commit- 
 tee into taking; up and discussinp; that 
 irrelevant matter. You in your com- 
 promise report (Section 7) declare:— 
 "But we are ohliged to arrive at the 
 ''conclusion that it was made aft^r the 
 "I tVi April and therefore at a time 
 " when the departmental memorandum 
 " of a contrary tenor had already been 
 " prepared, and that ' Mr. Rykert was 
 " guilty of bad faith in this respect ;' " 
 and the Minister of Justice, notwith- 
 standing his reoort above quoted, was 
 founded upon the sworn testimony of 
 every officer of the department, quietly 
 permits you to wipe out its finding, and 
 make him declare in efifect over his own 
 signature that Mr. ^jlussell, Mr. Burgess 
 and Mr. Hylej% three as honorable men 
 as ever lived, and whose integrity has 
 been rewarded by promotion in the de- 
 partment, were guilty of perjury. There 
 is no denying this. The evidence is too 
 plain, but the Minister of Justice was 
 at your mercy and you made him swal- 
 low what Mr. Muckle calls "your infa- 
 mo'is and lying report" as a condition 
 precedent to your permitting the Gov- 
 ernment to go uncensured. Now, let me 
 examine this matter a little further. 
 The charge is that I induced the de- 
 partment to frame minutes for council 
 prior to the time when McCarthy and 
 I had agrded to leave the matter to 
 Mr. Russell. You know that your 
 charge and report are both ialse 
 and in direct conflict with the evidence. 
 Let it speak for itseif and let the public 
 judge what a vindictive, spiteful and 
 reckless judge you proved yourself to 
 be. 
 
 First we have the report of Mr. Bufi- 
 sell, then deputy minister of the inter- 
 ior, in a letter addressed to tne first 
 minister, as follows: 
 
 Department of the Interior, 
 Ottawa, Hist August, )8«2. 
 
 "Rt. Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald, 
 
 "K. C. B., Minister of the Interior, 
 
 "Riviere du Loup en has. 
 
 "My Dear Sir .John:— I enclose a 
 "letter fioin Mr. Rykert, represent inif 
 "Mr. Adams, respecting a timber l»orth 
 "near Cy|)ress Hills, for which he had 
 "Order in (Jouncil to locate within cer- 
 "tain limits. 
 
 "Messrs. Shortreed and Laidlaw, 
 "who were represented by Mr. Dalton 
 "McCarthy,had a like order for .similar 
 "location in an a<ljoining tract. 
 
 "The latter complain tnat the choice 
 "made by Mr. Adams is within the 
 "bounds of the original application by 
 "thorn, to meet which the order in 
 "Council in their favor was passed, and 
 "affirm an official blunder in our hav- 
 "ing included in the tract within which 
 "Adams could locate ground which 
 "formed part of their prior application. 
 
 "The matter truly stands thus: Both 
 "parties filed applications of unreason- 
 "able extent, so much beyond anything 
 "that coiild in rule be granted that 1 
 "assumed that their conflict on one 
 "side on which they overlapped each 
 "other, was of secondary importance, 
 "and also assumed as acting for you, 
 "the right to deal with them by a (iur- 
 "tailinent and re-adjustment in such 
 "wise as to do away with the over- 
 "lapping. 
 
 "This action I clearly explained to 
 " Messrs. Rykert and Dalton McCarthy, 
 "at an interview which I had with 
 " them together, pointing out to them 
 "that the alternative would be, under 
 "the regulations, to make them com* 
 "pete for that part of the ground on 
 " which they both had application. 
 "They seemed fully to understand the 
 "the adjustment I proposed. So far 
 " from there being any difficulty, they 
 " proposed at act in harmony, by em- 
 " ploying jointly with a view to econ- 
 "omy, a surveyor to lay out their 
 " berths. 
 
 " I submit to you that inasmuch as 
 "under the regulations they would if 
 "ebch tnaintnincd his application in 
 " conflict with the other be obliged to 
 "comp6M 4nd thAt in their interest, 
 " not that of the department, an adjust- 
 ''ment doing Away with such competi- 
 " tioji was made, of which both parties 
 " were cognizant, and that the adjust- 
 
" mpiit was made in good faith, witli- 
 ''our any kiiowlodj^o an to location of 
 "any vainahii* tiinl)er (for of this 1 was 
 " as ignorant as I l)elieve wore the 
 " parties thevnaelves). and was therefore 
 " im|)artial. they can now have no 
 '' ground for complaint even thouj;!' t.he 
 "hazard in the arranRement has, it 
 " would apj)ear, turned out to be mm-h 
 " more in favor of one than the other. 
 
 " It may l)e mentioned as additional 
 "ground for nuiintaining the course 
 "taken, that Mr. Adams has made a 
 "most costly survey, of which the re- 
 " turns have been tiled, while the other 
 " party, the one that complains, has, 
 " so far as the department is aware, 
 " done nothing in tiiis direction. 
 " Respectfully yours, 
 
 " (Signed) Lindsay Russell, 
 " (Exhibit No. 9) Deputy of the 
 
 " Minister of the Interior." 
 
 This report, made by a gentleman 
 who had no interest in the matter, 
 proves conclusively that Mr. Mc- 
 Cai-thy and I went before the 
 Deputy Minister and agreed that he 
 should make the adjustment, both of 
 of us being in ignoi-ance of the fact 
 whether there was any timber or not. 
 Mr. McCarthy endeavored to prove, and 
 you tried hard to assist him in his 
 dilemma, that the adjustment was 
 made behind his back, and that 1 had 
 taken advantage of him, but the report 
 of Mr. Rvissell .sets that at rest unless 
 you can show that Mr. Russel's report 
 was erroneous. Fortunately, however, 
 we have other evidence to corroborate 
 my statement in opposition to that of 
 Mr. McCarthy. On the same day (Au- 
 gust 31st, 1882) that Mr. Russell made 
 his report, 1 addressed a letter from St. 
 Catharines to him, which letter appears 
 on page 22 of your compromise report, 
 and which is as follows : — 
 
 St. Catharines 31st August, 1882. 
 My Dear Sir, — Seeing by the papers 
 that you were likely to be away for a 
 time, I thought I might venture to ask 
 you to endeavor to settle the Adams 
 matter and if possible sign the license 
 before you left. I assume that Sir John 
 will, without anv hesitation, confirm 
 what has been aone, and order the 
 license to be issued. You will recoUeet 
 that after it was determined to giTe 
 Adams his limit it was discovered that 
 one prior, that of Laidlaw, had been 
 applied for and refused for part of the 
 
 same groimd. You then nsked n\o to 
 see McCarthy, who tcild nif that there 
 was no use in ap()lving any furtht-r; 
 that it would not w granted. I ti)ld 
 him I V as certain it coiil<l be (lone He 
 then went with me twice to your othce, 
 and agreed upon the lioundarv and told 
 yon he was jierfectly satisfied. Jn fnct 
 Laidhiw was so well pleased he offered 
 to pay me for my trouble. It soems 
 very strange that they find no fault 
 until now. They have made no survey. 
 have dune nothing, but on account of a 
 piece in the Winnipeg paper, stating 
 Adams had all the timber (which is not 
 true) they make a fuss. I sent Laid- 
 law's letter to Sir .lohn which particu- 
 larly states he is willing to purchase 
 from Adams, but does not complain of 
 any injustice l)eing done. I hope you 
 will stand by the Order in Council and 
 not let any of this baby play intervene 
 to prevent justice being done. Please 
 telegraph me if all right. 
 
 Faithfully, 
 (Signed) J. C Rykhrt. 
 
 A few days before writing this letter 
 to Mr. Russell, I wrote to Sir John A. 
 Macdonald, under date of August 28, 
 1882. (See report page 21) as follows :— 
 
 28th August, 1882. 
 
 My Dear Sir John,— Mr. Adams has 
 made his survey in accordance with the 
 Order in Council at an expense of $5,0 
 in cash and I hoije there will be no de- 
 lay in having the license issued. Mr. 
 Laidlaw has done nothing, has not 
 made any survey, and now, through 
 Mr. McCarthy, objects to Mr. Adams 
 getting the license. 
 
 Before the Ordern in Council were issued, 
 MC' ARTHY and I met Mk. Ru.s.sell and we 
 agreed upon the respective boundaries. Each 
 party was quite satisjied. Mr. Russell will 
 tell you that there was no mistake, no 
 advantage taken, but everything done 
 in good faith It would be an outrage 
 now to delay the license, especially 
 after all the expense and trouble. 
 
 These letters not only corroborate the 
 statement of Mr. Russell as to the mat- 
 ter being settled before the Order in 
 Council was prepared, but show that 
 McCarthy and I went to the Deputy 
 Minister twice on the same business, 
 which fact Mr. McCarthy denied under 
 oath. You saw plainly fifom the evi- 
 dence that Mr. McCarthy's recollection 
 ol the transaction was not very clear, 
 yet you accept his explanatfon in op- 
 
(• 
 
 J)Ositioii to that of \\u' otticnrH of th«' 
 lenHrtint.'tit and iiiysrlf, and charfjce mv 
 with U«'C.«)itfulness. 
 
 TIIK KV1I)KN« K ITSKLF. 
 In support of u»y stateiiH>iil and the 
 n'port of Mr. KhshoII I will iiuotc the 
 t'videnc.H of Mr. Biirj.cess : 
 
 (By Sir John Thompson. PaKt' '»*'• • 
 (J. Were you at the time informed of 
 the nature of the adjuHtment that was 
 made to [jrevent interferenco V A. Y^h. 
 Q. How .soon after the interview ilid 
 you know V A. I could not say. I was 
 aware of the interview, and I was 
 aware that there was at the time a 
 memorandum jirepared for council. 
 
 Q. You mean the report that was 
 made for the Order in UouncilV A. Yes. 
 Q. Do yon know anything; of the cor- 
 rectness of the dates stated here ; the 
 date for instance on which that nego- 
 tiation could have taken place as coin- 
 pared with tha Order in Council Kraut- 
 ing Mr. Adams' application? A. I <lo 
 not know anything personally as to 
 dates, f'Ut I know that coinmitnicatiou woa 
 maile to nif by Mk. Rrs.sKr.i, hf/ore flin 
 Adams' mfinoranUum w-nt to Council, lie. 
 iiiforined me before, that meniornndirin uu nt 
 to ('onncil that an ndjiuitment had hreu inadr. 
 Q. This adjustment? A. Yes. 
 Q. He informed you of that before 
 the Adams' application went to Coun- 
 cil ? A. Yes. 
 (By Mr. Blake :) 
 
 Q. )Vh*;n did the \u\vi^ iHemornmluinijo 
 to Council ? A. On the 10th April, IS8i\ 
 (By Mr. Rykert) Page (58 : 
 Q. Your recollection is clear upon the 
 appointment, and Mr. McCartliy mak- 
 ing the settlement with me before the 
 10th April ? 
 
 A. My recollection is clear that Mr. 
 Russell told me so. 
 
 Q. Did vou see Mr. McCarthy and me 
 in vour office at any lane ? A. Oh, yes. 
 (^. Yow saw lu how often ? A. I could 
 not sav. 
 
 Q. More than once? A. Yes. 
 Q. You saw Mr. McCarthy and me 
 more than once ? A. Yen, I thitik / hare 
 a recollection of aeeimj you twice. That is 
 my recollection at this moment. 
 
 Q. A letter of mine to Mr. Russell 
 si^eaks of the fact. I was there twice 
 with McCarthy. Tou recollect the fact 
 that I WYf.s' there tvfice with him? A. That 
 is mil recol lection. Of course it is k long 
 time acjo. It mat/ have been more than twice^ 
 I will quote Mr. Ryley's evidence. 
 
 (Hy Sir John Thompson. Page 71.) 
 
 Q. ('an you remeiulwr the time at 
 which vou wore aware of the c-ontlict : 
 how di(l you Ujcome aware of it ? A. I 
 know there was i' conflict and that Mr. 
 Rykert and Mr. M(;Carthy «5ame to stio 
 Mr Russell about it. 
 
 l^. That would lie a good many 
 months after that. What was the first 
 communication you had with Mr. Rus- 
 sel on the s\ibject ? 
 
 A. 1 cannot remenil)er that. I expect 
 I must have reported to him that the 
 applications contiicted. I mu.st have 
 told him that. 
 
 U. Soon after the date of that memor- 
 anaum? A. Bet wetiii that date and tlio 
 date that Mr. McCarthy and Mr. Ry- 
 kert came to see him about it. 
 
 t^. About what time would that bo? 
 A. It must have been Iwifore the 10th 
 April, 18H2. 
 
 Q. By that time had you plotted any- 
 thing showing the interference ? Had 
 you plotted the two applications show- 
 ing ho-v they interfered V A. Yes. 
 
 IJ». Was that plotting before Mr. 
 Russell ? A. When I went into the room 
 where Mr. Md'arthy and Mr. Hijkert and 
 Mr. RiMnell were toijether, Mr. HuHAell had 
 a tiketch in Aw haiul .showing the interfer- 
 ence. 
 
 Q. Mr. liijkert and Mr. McCarthif were 
 there then ? A. Yv». 
 
 Q. <hia iioufj. thiU date? A. I cannot. 
 It wa« before the JOth April, 1881. 
 
 Q. Long before? A. I cannot re- 
 member that. I know it must have 
 been before that date. 
 
 (^. What assists you in arriving at 
 that conviction ? A. The date of the 
 memorandum to Council. 
 
 Q. ft was drawn up after thut ? A, After 
 the interview which Mr. McCarthy and Mr. 
 Ri/kerl hnd with Mr. Lindsai/ Hun-sell. 
 
 Q. You say it was drawn up at that 
 interview? A. No, after. 
 
 Q. W^ere you present at the inter- 
 view? A . I remember ilxstincthf beimj there, 
 and Mr. McCarthy ami Mr. Rykert left, Mr 
 Lrndxriy Rii-sscll explained to mc the axljust- 
 vietiit that had been aijreed upon, ' , 
 
 Q, Tell us what took place while you 
 were present. A . They were sittimj. to- 
 gipther (tnd^/ watt utaudimj up at the time. 
 Thkif'toere talkinif to each other and when 
 thijf-totnt out Mr. Ki.ssell .showed int ex- 
 acthf how the adfmtnient would be made. 
 
 Q. Do I tmderstand from that that 
 you did not jmy attention to the con- 
 
VerHiitioM iiu<l <litl not follciw it ? A. F 
 think I must luvvi' Imm-u tlHTc iluriiii; 
 till' liiMt pjiit of the cuuviii'sutioii only. 
 I do not roniiMnbtU' \vli;it ^'iis said. 
 
 Q. You took no notice; of it? A. I 
 mi^ht havo iit the liniu, f'nt I knnw lUnl 
 ii/tt-r (hij/ went nwdi/ Mu. Ui'ss. u. iJifdaineU 
 to me the tuljimtiiu'iit t/iitt htid liten inivle. 
 
 (). What took phuo on that? A, 
 
 Upon Ihtlt hi' titlil nil' to orrfxirv t/n- tlrJiCri/i 
 
 fton to hr iunerti<l in the, uuinorumltim to 
 Council. 
 
 O. Did you do so ? A. I did so. 
 
 Q. And iho H'port wont to Council? 
 A. I consulted Mr. Kussoll about the 
 de.scription at the tiin*! as I had to tak<' 
 from this nhm of loc.ord in the IVpart- 
 mont. I had to y;et the nhm of record 
 tlie Department in onier to asc 
 
 in 
 
 ;ertain 
 
 about what section post.s one of tlic 
 
 poh 
 hi c 
 
 boundary lines would como at, 'u order 
 that anybody who made a surv ' of 
 tlio V)erth would have no diffii'u}ry ; 
 doinj; so. 
 
 Q. As a matter of fact, who prep.ircd 
 the description? 
 
 A. I prepared the descrioL^an an'i 
 then explained to Mr. Russoll what ' 
 had done. 
 
 Q. Then Mr. Rnsse?I ins'rnrte<l y )u 
 what settlement had l)een arrived at ? 
 A. Yes. 
 
 Q. You prepared a description mvl 
 showed it to Mr. Russell? 
 
 A. Yes. 
 
 Q. Did yoii draw up the memoran- 
 dum to Council ? A. Yes. 
 
 (By Hon. M. Chapleau: p. 70.) 
 
 Q. When you saw Mr, Rykert and 
 •Mr. McCarthy together witli Mr. Lind- 
 say Russell, had they a map beforo 
 them? A. Yes. they liad a .sketch. 
 ' Q. Were they talking about that 
 sketch with the Deputy Minister? A. 
 Yes, they were sitting on a sofa at the 
 time and Mr. Russell was sitting be- 
 tween the two, and he had the sketcli 
 in his hands and I came in either by 
 accident or he rang my bell atid Mu. 
 Ru.ssELL said thei/ were arranging this 
 matter and making an adjustment. 
 
 S. There was a sketch in his hands 
 you say you did not hear any spec- 
 ial conversation. You state also it was 
 at the end of the iniorview. Did you 
 understand by what you saw, by the 
 little you heard, that it had been agreed 
 to accept the sketch as finally arranged 
 between Mr. Russell and them ? 
 A. Mr. Russell told me that there 
 
 9 
 
 waH to b^ no contlift l»iitwef>n the aj)- 
 plicutions, that AdaniM was to givf ui> 
 the »outlii«rn jiortion of Iuh IxTth and 
 Shr>rtre«3d A Laidlavv ."^ application was 
 to 1k) moved down so that tbey would 
 not I'onllirf one with the other. 
 
 (^. You did not hear anything to that 
 effect when the three w(»ro together? 
 A. I do not rememlter them .saying any- 
 thing about that. They were talking 
 together when I went in. 
 
 (.^. Wore they talking as people who 
 • diflered or as a jx'ople who agreed? A. 
 rioy ngrfeil . certnii lif, 
 
 t,j|. You underxttitid hif irhnt panned in your 
 prinnice tin;) then and thin ogrfrd. and 
 iminediattig n/terwui'dn Mk. Kus.skm. fnid 
 thix in arranged. A. Yen. 
 
 t^. Are you positive about that fact? 
 A. 1 am ponitive., gen. 
 
 Q. Yoii are positive the thrtw had 
 agreed, and immediately afterwards 
 Mr. Russell said, this is adjusted? A. 
 Yts. 
 
 (j And tlie report UHM prepared and sent, 
 to t'o' :ii t A. Yi6 
 
 WHERE IS rfiE <!(>NKI.Hrr. 
 
 And yet in the face of this evidence 
 you have the audacity to report that 
 there was a strong conflict of evi<lence 
 as to the date at which the agreement 
 between Mr. McCarthy and myself was 
 made, liut tVat you were ob!i,..r'vl to 
 arri"^e at the coi;c,lusion that ir was. 
 made after 10th of April. Yon 
 display your great impartiality 
 as a judge do you not, in 
 this conclusion? If a jury were 
 to give a similar verdict on the same 
 statement of facts, you would say, 
 they had periured themselves. This 
 is a fair sample of the malice and spleen 
 which you exhibit^ towards me 
 throughout the trial, and .shows cle riy 
 that you would resort to the most con- 
 temptible of means to crvish a jtolitical 
 opponent. But the noat surprising 
 thing of all is the humilif ^ing position 
 in wnich the Minister of Justice i)laced 
 himself by permitting you to i>ass a re- 
 port -which he knew was not founded 
 upon the evidence, and which is in direct 
 conflict with the verdict which he had 
 before pronounced upon the same state- 
 ment of facts. The reason for the change 
 will be apparent when the clauses seven 
 of your first and compromise reports 
 are fully examined. In the former you 
 charge th^ Department with wrong 
 doing and that the conduct of its officers 
 
1/ 
 
 10 
 
 was deceptive and illusory. In the lat- 
 ter you withdrew the charjje against 
 the Department and throw the blame 
 upon myself. What magnanimity you 
 displayed towards the Goverrment to 
 gratify the Minister of Justice, and how 
 readily he acquiesced in the condemna- 
 tion of one whom before he had entirely 
 exonerated, in order to please you and 
 save the Department ! ! You also very 
 kindly eliminated from clause three, of 
 your first report, all reference to im- 
 proper conduct on the part of the De- • 
 partment in order to gratify the Minis- 
 ter. In fact, if the clauses from 1 to 9 
 inclusive of your first report and those 
 of the compromise report are carefully 
 compared and the several portions 
 which I have italicized "noted, they will 
 afford a kev to the reasons for the sud- 
 den capitulation of the Minister of Jus- 
 tice. The public will be able to judge 
 of the impartiality of two such eminent 
 judges, when they note the fact that 
 they are both prepared to condemn Mr. 
 Russell, Mr. Burgess, Mr. Ryley and 
 myself as perjurers 'h.nd as men unwor- 
 thy of belief, if the one can screen his 
 Government from censure and the other 
 can gratify his spiteful revenjzie 
 towards a political antagonist who for 
 many years has been a thorn in his side. 
 If Mr. Burgess and Mr. Ryley swore to 
 what was untrue, as your report clearly 
 indicates and insinuates, why did you 
 not report them to the House and recom- 
 mend their dismissal ? You knew that 
 your report was untruthful so far as it 
 reflectea upon those gentlemen, and 
 therefore you thought it unwise to say 
 anything more so long as you con- 
 demned me. 
 
 But the meanest insinuation of all is 
 contained in paragraph which 1 have 
 numbered 12 of your report, wherein 
 you state Mr. Russell on account of his 
 impaired health was incapable of fully 
 apprehending the proceedings and was 
 subject to. the influence and initiative of 
 others. When you penned this lying 
 statement you knew that the report of 
 Mr. Russell was corroborated by the 
 evidence of Mr. Burgess, Mr. Ryley and 
 myself, and yet try to cast a slur upon 
 me, by insinuating that I had unduly 
 influenced and taken advantage of him. 
 It is no wonder that Mr. Muckle char- 
 acterized your report au " an unwar- 
 ranted, gratuitous and infamous lie." 
 
 Now, then, let me examine the evi- 
 
 dence upon which you declared that 
 ''the payment of $5,000 to Mu(;klc was 
 in our opinion as shown by the corres- 
 pondence in 'Evidence, substantially a 
 bribe to induce him to betray the inter- 
 ests of his employers, the Canadian Pa- 
 cific Railway Company." But before 
 doing so, let me ask you what right had 
 the Committee to examine into or pro- 
 nounce upon the payment to Muckle? 
 You know it was never referred by the 
 order of the House for the simple reason, 
 as pointed out by you in the House 
 when speaking of the Sands matter. 
 You then declared that if I had robbed 
 Sands, Parliament had nothing to do 
 with it. and that the only question was 
 whether I had been guilty of a corrupt 
 act in obtaining the limit, upon which 
 question you found by the report that I 
 was not guilty. The only evidence 
 as to the payment to Muckle offex-ed was 
 that of myself, which will be found at 
 page 20, and which is as follows: 
 
 2. Who was Muckle V A. "'He was the 
 "timber agent for the C P. R. Muckle 
 "was the person who claimed an inter- 
 "est in this limit. He claimed that 
 "he first discovered this limit and gave 
 "Adams the information. He claimed 
 "also that Adams had agreed to pay him 
 "$5.000for the information, provided the 
 "limit turned out satisfactorily. 1 will 
 "be able to show that Adams paid the 
 "$5,000 when the limit was sold. This 
 "same Mr. Muckle was out in that neigh- 
 "borhood when the survey was being 
 "made, and commenced to cut down the 
 "timber with a view to making the C. 
 "P. R. buy it. He claimed he had an 
 "interest in it with Adams." /' 
 
 At page 16 of your report appears a 
 letter from Mr. Adams to myself under 
 date of July 10th, 1882, in which he 
 states: "I had to secure Muckle his 
 $5,000 and he will deserve it." This 
 letter had reference to the original agree- 
 ment made between Adams and Muckle 
 in the fall of 1881, when Muckle gave 
 him the information which enabled him 
 to apply for the limit. Then again, at 
 pag6 23 in a letter written by me on Sep- 
 tember 5th. 1882, to Sir John Macdonald 
 I said : " There is no harm in stating 
 that Adams had to pay the party who 
 originAlly selected this limit $5,000, be- 
 sides the subsequent cost of suryey, or 
 in all. he is out $10,000, about as much 
 as the limit is perhaps worth." Now- 
 t hat is all the evidence in relation to 
 
11 
 
 the 
 C. 
 an 
 
 he 
 
 his 
 ^his 
 
 at 
 Sep- 
 
 be- 
 
 oi* 
 
 uch 
 
 ow. 
 
 n to 
 
 the payment of the $5,000. And what 
 does it show V It shows that Mr. 
 Adams himself had agreed with Muckle 
 to pay him this sum for the discovery 
 of tiie limit and the infoi'mation which 
 he furnished in order to enable him 
 to make the application. It shows 
 that this took place at a time 
 lonj; prior to the time when the C. P. 
 R. put in a claim, which was not until 
 January, 1883. It shows that this 
 atjreement was made long before the C. 
 P. R. ever contemplated changing their 
 line from YeHow Head to the Kicking 
 Horse Pass, and at a time when they 
 had no power to change the line. There 
 is no evidence that I knew of this 
 transaction between Adams and Muckle 
 until a year after it had taken place ; 
 and yet you as an honest, upright judge 
 had the impudence to declare by your 
 verdict that I was guilty of a corrupt 
 act in paying to Muckle money which 
 you knew I never paid him nor had 
 anything to do with. You knew when 
 you penned that report that it did not 
 contain one word of truth in respect to 
 Muckle, and that there was not a parti- 
 cle of evidence to co meet me with the 
 transaction. Your report had its 
 effect and it did its dirty work as 
 evidenced by the leading article in 
 Globe of May last, wherein it is stated 
 that "Mr. Rykert stated before the 
 committee that $5,000 was paid by 
 Adams to Mr. R. T. Muckle the titaber 
 agent of the C. P. R., in order to secure 
 the release of the company's claim on 
 the celebrated Cypress Hills Timber 
 Limit." You read that article and you 
 knew it did not contain one word of 
 truth, and yet you were too cowardly 
 to make the correction. You knew it 
 would mislead the public and that was 
 what you wanted. Again, I say, it is 
 no wonder that Mr. Muckle in a letter 
 published in the same editorial of the 
 Globe, said: "I hereby characterize 
 the statement with reference to me in 
 the Rykert-commission report as an 
 unwarranted; gratuitous and infamous 
 lie from beginning to end, and the re- 
 port lacking my evidence is a farcical 
 insult to the people of oi:r Dominion, and 
 Lincoln in particular." 
 
 And yet, Mr. Blake, this is the only 
 corrupt act of which you found me 
 guil' V. But admitting, for the sake of 
 argument, that you were wrong when 
 you stated in the House of Commons 
 
 that parliament had no right whatever 
 to inquire whether I robbed Sands or 
 any other person, or whether I had 
 bribed any one, and that you were 
 right in the conclusions which you 
 drew in your report, that I had at- 
 tempted to bribe Mr. Muckle to betray 
 tlie C. P. railway, I would like to ask 
 you if it were a decent thing for you to 
 accept a fee, or what might, with greater 
 propriety be called a bril)e, from this 
 same company to betray the interests 
 of the Dominion in a matter which you j 
 had pronounced as a gross fraud, and 
 on wnich you voluntarily held a brief 
 on behalf of the people against the said 
 company, and afterwards deliberately 
 charge a fellow-member (without a 
 scintilla of condence) with attempting 
 to do something similar to that which 
 you so successfully accomplished. Why 
 do you not as an honest man come out 
 over your signature and declare that 
 you misled the committee of the House 
 of Commons when you induced the 
 minority of that committee to accept 
 your report? Have I not just and 
 ample reason to ask you to "speak now" 
 ana let the people of Canada know 
 what a huge fraud you perpetrated 
 upon parliament and what a grose in- 
 justice you did to a fellow-member? I 
 am afraid, however, it is useless to ap- 
 peal to one whose whole life has been a 
 mistery and an enigma which nobody 
 can solve. You are too cold-blooded to 
 repair an inju^ which you have done 
 to anybody. I do not expect that you 
 will have manhood enough to ask par- 
 liament to reverse its unjust and illegal 
 verdict against me, although in apply- 
 ing the evidence to the principles enun- 
 ciated in your speech on the appoint- 
 ment of the committee, you would be 
 amply justified in so doing. You may 
 however, rest assured that I will never 
 permit tfie cruel wrong which you have 
 inflicted upon me ana my family to be 
 forgotten, and that I will spare no effort 
 to show the people of Canada that I 
 have been made the victim of a com- 
 promise brought about through your 
 spiteful vindictiveness. 
 
 I shall take the liberty of again ad- 
 dressing you upon the same subject, as 
 well as upon other matters connected 
 with your past political history, which 
 require explanation. Yours truly, 
 
 J, (9. Rykert. 
 July 6th, 1891.