IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) V /. {/ s,. % . SIR H. LANGEVIN, C. B. I am aware that what is known as individual wrong seldom obtains either sympathy or consideration with the great mass of men. A momen- tary feeling of regret, a passing spasm of indignation that injustice should have been committed may be experienced. But such a sentiment is evan- escent ; and when the novelty of the event has passed away, it ceases to attract even the limited attention it has obtained and soon falls into oblivion. It is this result which is calculated by the politician when he contemplates a line of conduct which his interest or his vanity may dic- tate, and which his conscience or his experience may tell him will call forth stern criticism when it is first made public. He reasons that all phases of opinion pass away, or are modulated ; and if he can but see before him. so that he can right himself by the purchased support which he can command, he conceives that the impression, however hostile to him, will fade away or will be remembered only with some cynic.il apology, or accounted for only by some coarse jest. In public life there are always many inferior agents to do the bidding of their masters, who are only too willing to earn the wage of sycophancy and subserviency. The scruples of this class are slight. Their anxiety is rather to testify that they merit the patronage which they receive by abject submission. It is therefore found that men in a position to be mischievous, with no principle to guide or restrain them, seldom hesitate to carry out their purpose, when the interval of being called to account is Ion and when there are defenders in the House of Commons and elsewhere to justify their conduct or to turn aside the debate in any awkward investigation. They know, however flagrant the injustice, their supporters can be relied on to defend it, and the more disgraceful the abuse of power, the greater the claim for future consider- ation with those who defend the trespasser. With such as these there can be no wrong. The Ministerial portfolio is with them as immaculate as the kingly office of prerogative. Hence the confident assumption that the com- plaint when made will be forgotten by the world, while the political bravo is ready to stigmatize the accusation as slanderous and unfounded, or if quieter language be sufficient, as captious, untrue and unjust. But there are occasions when so important a principle lies at the base of individual wrong when it is established on irrefragable evidence that the whole heart of the community is stirred and awakened, and its sense of justice so called forth that it cannot be turned aside by evasion and equivo- cation. The dispute ceases to be a tournament between two persons, each having his supporters, with the possibility of advancing pleasing and plau- sible arguments. Or put it the other way : one having only his cause and truth to sustain him ; the other in office, with power, with Ministers at his side interested in his character being cleared, with a political party to whitewash him by a vote, with a numerous class of retainers and adherents ready and obsequious to do his bidding. It is then that the point at issue rises above the appeal against personal wrong and pushes aside the pur- chased support which the accused puts forward to stifle investigation. The question becomes one of public import and morality, and its consideration a public issue. In this case the point to be considered is definite and clear. It is : is the public service to be made a convenience tor a Minister to purchase adherents, or satisfy enmities at the public expense and to the public detriment ? Is the tenure of public duty to be no higher or firmer than as the will or the fancies of the man of the hour — the Minister of the day — may regulate its life ? Whether the possession of office confers the right to model and form the department for the profit and benefit of its holder ? Whether he shall possess the power to remove as rubbish old and competent public servants ? To commit deliberate acts of injustice ? Or whether the public service is to be conducted honestly, ably and justly, to the benefit of the State, and to the advancement of good government and the public interest ? Whether men who, loyally fulfilling their obligations, are to be protected by the aegis of public opinion, in their position, so long as they perforin their duty honorably and satisfactorily ? This is the question which is contained in the papers I am making public, and I ask for it the consideration it may justly claim. I ask a calm and judicial enquiry into the action of Sir H. Langevin with regard to myself, and especially that an investigation be made as to the truth of the explanations given by him in the House of Commons when called upon by Mr. Mackenzie to justify his proceeding. There can be but one response to any such enquiry — that Sir H, Langevin abused his powers by summarily dismissing me without cause for his own purposes — from the position I had held for eight years — after these years of honest and efficient service and assigning my duties to others ; and that in the House of Commons he gave an untrue and dis- honest explanation of the matter. I write this with deliberation, with a full sense of the character of my language. If I make an unadvised and calumnious accusation, I should be criminally prosecuted, and I hold myself at the disposal of Sir H. Langevin to answer him as he may call upon me. But when what I write is established as truth, what should be the ver- dict with regard to Sir H. Langevin ? That is best left to the people of the Dominion, to that great soul of the world which is so just. In the month of April of last year I published the following letter in The Globe, which the Editor, notwithstanding its length, was good enough to print. It will be seen that I then explained that the length of the cor- respondence prevented its being appended — and that on a future occasion I would publish it. As I consider this period op[)ortune for its production, I give it in its entirety. There are some additional letters, but they are unimportant, having only a bearing on the time when the payment to me should be made of the money given me by order in Council. The Auditor- General objected to any payment being made without a vote of the House of Commons of the sum in the Estimates, and the Department declined to take any steps to meet this objection. The money was eventually paid, and it seems to me that nothing further need be said on this point, for it is without present importance, and it is in no way connected with the main argument I have advanced. If it be held desirable that this branch of the correspondence be published, the papers can be obtained in the usual way. To my mind they have but secondary connection with the facts I am setting forth, and in no way need consideration with them. THE HON. H. LANGEVIN, MP., MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS, AND MR. KINGSFORD, C.E. {To the Editor of Thf Glok-.) Sir, — The tone of the debate of the Committee of the House of Commons on the 15th March, when the vote to pay me six months' pay — ^1,650 — as compensation for loss of employment as engineer in charge of harbour and river works, Quebec and Ontario, was submitted, leads me to ask your permission to set forth my views on the subject For I do not admit the statement of Mr. Langevin, the Minister of Public Works, to be in accordance with fact. The proper mode of establishing this view is to publish the correspondence and docu- ments bearing upon the case. But they exact so much space that it is not possible to produce them in a newspaper. It is my intention to bring them out in p^amphlet form, with the remarks necessary to make them intelligible. I am led to this course independ- ently of my own feelings, for I consider that an important principle has been attacked in my person, on which the well-being of the whole Civil Service depends. I have to »«5k your indulgence to make this statement in your columns. I trust that the extent to which I will have to tres,^ ass on your consideration will not dictate the re- fusal of my request. Equally I ho)ie that if you are good enough to meet my views the ordinary reader will not be deterred by the length of my remarks from reading them. I will be as brief as I can. Mr. Langevin's explanation is that the office I held was abolished ; that there was some question as to the tenure of my position, which was submitted to the Minister of Justice, who reported that I had no legal claim for compensation. " Nevertheless, I thought," added Mr. Langevin, " some compensation should be given, so I recommend- ed accordingly that Mr. Kingsford should be paid six months' salary !" Anyone accepting this statement must say that nothing can appear fairer, and it would seem mere queru- lousness to make objections to it. Mr. Langevin spoke of the comparative cost of the surveys made under my directions, and those carried on last season, claiming that the new arrangements were less costly, inferentially leading to the idea that my work was unnecessarily expensive. He spoke also of the average cost of each survey under the two systems. Such a comparison is childish and absurd. As well compare, as the test of value, the weight of a George III. copper penny piece and a Victoria gold sovereign. Mr Langevin recognizes himself the fallacy of any such argument by placing in the Estimates $2,000 for the survey of the Neebish Rapids, and $500 for the survey of the Perce waters, Bay of Chaleurs — two surveys. I may remark, to me inexplicable. It will be difficult to establish their raison d'etre. The harbour staff in 1879 consisted of one assistant engineer and nine junior assist- ants and clerks of works, my work extending from the Bay of Chaleurs to the frontier line of Lake Superior. Of this number five or six acted as clerks of works where work was in progress. The surveying party consisted of one a^sistant engineer, with three or four junior assistants. We were absent generally from May to December, when we re- turned to Ottawa to assist in the Department in all work assigned us ; and I wrote the Minister's Annual Report to be submitted by the C.overnor-General to Parliament, a duty I performed for seven consecutive years. Mr. Perley had charge of the harbour works in the Maritime Provinces. He came to Ottawa only when Parliament was sitting. His duties were confined to the works under his direction which called for his constant presence in the Maritime Provinces. Whereas in addition to my duties as Engineer in charge of harbours, I was a general drudge of all work. I was so quite willingly. My services were always at the disposal of the Department. My position was made in every way agreeable to me. My work was pleasant under all aspects. I took a pride in it ; and the constant kindness and consideration I received led me to think nothing a toil. During the eight years I was in the Department I had only six days' leave. What is the character of the organization of to-day ? Mr. Perley is the Chief En- gineer, and has theoretically a general supervision of the whole works. Actually, how- ever, he directs the work in Ontario and Quebec. Mr. Boyd, who superintends the work in the Maritime Provinces, is not a young man. On the contrary, he is an engineer of experience. Practically it amounts to this : — Mr. Perley directs my old work, and Mr. Boyd directs that of Mr. Perley. But there is this distinction : — In my time the whole work was done under a fixed and regular system. Last year the parties sent out were without the influence of Mr. Perley, for they received their instructions from the Secretary — at least so I learned from one of themselves. The parties so sent ii 1879 were as follows ; — Mr. Michaud. Mr. Hamel.. Mr. Farijana. Mr. Lindsay. , Mr. Austin. . . Mr. Roy Mr. Gray Mr. Sullivan. Total . Assistant Enf^ineer or surveyor. I I I I I I I I Junior assistants. 8 30 This number is independent of the draughtsmen engaged in the ofiice at Ottawa, tsome four or five I believe. Yet Mr. Langevin stated in the House after the change had been made that the staff numbered 12, and the surveys were 13. The total number exceeded 40. My connection with the Department commenced m 1872, when I examined the supply -waters of what is known as the Rideau Canal in connection with the River Gananoque, I reported at length on this question settling some important points. I made likewise two or three other examinations. For this work I was allowed to count a year's service. In 1873 I was placed in the position of Engineer in charge of harbours, Quebec and Ontario, which I held till the 31st December, 1879, on the morning of |which day I was ■dismissed, my dismissal to take effect on the completion of the Minister's Annual Re- port, on which I was then engaged. It is this question of dismissal I have now to consider. The first intimation that there was a feeling inimical to me was communicated to me by one of my staff. One portion of my duty was the charge of the Government dredge in Ontario. It had been placed under my directions unasked and had so continued for five years, the work having been regularly, methodically, and economically carried on, and I claim satisfactorily. Shortly after the resignation of the late Ministry I was in- formed by a member of the staff that he had been met by Mr. J. Arnoldi, then of archi- tects' branch, who had said that the dredge was to be transferred to him, and that he would want a different sort of person to manage it. I also understood that this transfer was to be made by the instructions of the First Minister, Sir John Macdonald. I spoke ■accordingly to the Deputy-Minister of the circumstance, but he had heard nothing of the matter. On the loth of January, 1879, (the official number is 78,854), a letter was sent from Mr. Langevin to the Minister of the old Department, Sir Charles Tupper. It enclosed a letter from a Mr. Austen who had been an assistant of Mr. Page. Mr. Austen made a statement as untrue as it was astounding ; that he had been discharged to make room for me, and that the appointment against the wishes of Mr. Page was my reward for political services. Mr. Langevin in enclosing this letter virtually asked Sir Charles Tupper to dismiss me. His words are: "Will you look into his (Austen's) case and :see justice done him." A public department is a small world. Anything extraordinary runs through it like wild fire. The letter had not been on record more than two hours before I heard of it. As the head of a branch, I had the right to send for any paper, so I obtained this docu- ment from the record room and took a copy of it. Mr. Page hearing of the use of his name sent the chief of his staff, Mr. Townsend, to 8 say that he had never authorized Mr. Austen to use his name; that he had never re- monstrated with Mr. Mackenzie, and had in no way recommended Mr. Austen, with other remarks which I will not repeat here. The fact is that I was appointed before Mr. Mackenzie took office, and when he assumed the direction of the Department, he found me engaged on the duties I carried on for six years under him. It was now evident that there was a determmation to attack me. My presence at Ridgetown with regard to Morpeth Harbour, Lake Erie, had been spoken of as dictated by political motives. In a letter dated 3rd of October, 1878, published in the Mail, I stated the facts of this official visit, made simply in accordance with my instructions. A paper also in the County of Bruce had spoken of me as a " Grit agent." I wrote to a leading Conservative of the place, a man of influence and a personal friend, who had particular reasons to know that I had taken no interest in anything but the harbour works. I asked him to see the editor, and to state that unless rfetraction and apology were made I would deal with the statement as a libel. My friend replied that the paper had temporarily stopped its issue from money difficulties ; that the article had been written and sent from Ottawa ; that every one who saw it was surprised and knew its untruth ; that if the paper were resumed he would make it a personal matter to have it contradicted, but the paper ceased to appear. With the unwelcome conviction of these inimical agencies acting against me, I wrote to a public man of high position in Ontario, with whom I have long been intimate. He took up my case as one knowing his character would have expected he would do. He made it his own ; and with the courage and judgment which mark him, in every way exerted himself to serve me. He saw Sir Charles Tupper ; and I understood that the- result of his interview was the understanding that I should not be interfered with, and that I should be transferred to the Department of Railways and Canals. What I have here related ran over some weeks. During the period of these events I received official instructions to transfer the dredge to Mr. J. Arnoldi. I wrote protesting against the proceeding as one unjust and insultmg to myself, the dredge having been in my charge for five years ; and as injurious to the public service, Mr. Arnoldi being totally inexperienced in the work the dredge had to perform. My friends, however, held that this letter was unnecessary and inexpedient, and suggested that the transfemvas the first step to my being translated to the Department of Railways. I accordingly with- drew the letter, but I retain a copy of it, which I will publish. During the season of 1879 I continued to carry on my duties as Engineer of Harbours, as I had hitherto done. I returned to Ottawa for the winter about the end of Novemb'ir. I was then informed that Mr. Perley had been appointed to n.y work with the title of Chief Engineer, that three of my staff had been detailed to duties beyond my control, and that the old organization had been broken up. In a few days I received an official letter instructing me to dismiss seven members of my staff ; all of whom had been several years in the Department. In a few days their places were filled by an entirely new set of men. On the last of the year I was myself dismissed. Who then can dispute the truth of the statement oi Mr. Mackenzie, that I was- legislated out of the office in a small way ? Mr. Langevin would not even wait for the reports of the surveys and examinations- and works of 1879. Hitherto the system had been with me to turn to my own reports- when I had completed that of the Minister. They were accordingly written between the first week in February and the middle of April. No report was made on any of the examinations of 1879 owing to my dismissal. I must explain that in 1S77 I brought my position before the notice of Mr. Mackenzie, then Minister of Public Works. His reply was communicated to me by Mr. Trudeaui to the effect that the Minister was good enough to consider my services as valuable, but it was not then expedient to include me in the permanent class of civil servant — those entitled to retiring annual allowances on superannuation — but that the Minister would make my engagement an annual one. My pay was increased from Sj.ooo to $3,.^oo a year. On that occasion everything was said to lead me to consider my position as permanent, and that on a future occasion, when expedient, it would officially be so determined. Indeed Mr. Mackenzie wrote to this effect to Mr. Langevin. Shortly after my letter of dismissal was known Mr. Fleming spoke to me on the subject. For many years there have been friendly relations between us. Doubtless it was no little owing to this fact that, on knowing my dismissal, he stated that he was greatly harassed by work ; that he received calls during the whole day from members of Parliament and others, and that it was physically impossible for him to attend to much he had to do; that it was of a character to call for the aid of an engineer of experience, and that he desired to avail himself of my assistance. I acceded to this kind proposition of my old fr-^nd. I worked therefore at night for Mr, Fleming from the end of January, and he has caued at my house with papers as late as half-past eleven. I saw likewise Sir Charles Tupper, specially to ask him to transfer me permanently to Railways and Canals, on the Annual Report of which I was then engaged, as I have had much experience as a railway engineer. The interview was not long, but it was sufficiently pleasant. Nothing definite was said, but there was nothing to foretell an unfavourable future. This was the only interview I had with Sir Charles Tupper, and. I had no other conversation with any other member of the Ministry. I woiked at the two Annual Reports until twelve o'clock of the last day of February, 1880, and I walked out of the office in the afternoon, leaving, I believe, nothing undone or nothing unsatisfartory behind me which I felt it was my duty to have done. The Public Works Repori nas not a serious matter, and was early completed. The report of Railways and Cana i was only finished a few hours before the end of February. My record nrw diverges into two lines. I will first take my connection with Railways and Canals. Towards the end of March I reminded Mr. Fleming that one of the charges against him was that he had not drawn his pay. It was not my intention to subject myself to a similar accusation. The question being thus raised I received a month's pay. A few days afterwards I saw Mr. Trudeau, the Dv^puty-Minister of Railways and Canals. He pointed out that I had been paid by order of the Minister, and consequently that my services were at the dispcsal of the whale Department ; that he was much anicn: in work in which I had experience, and suggested that in the public interest I should now do my work in the office, so that when there was a lull ia Pacific Railway matters I could take up this work, and personally relieve him from the pressure of the hour. My connection with Mr. Trudeau for the eight years I was in the Department calls- for more than a mere passing remark. Thoroughly trained, with a scientific education in French and English, a travelled man, with a wide professional experience, his courtesy and kindness to all in the department are a proverb. The tone given by him to the old Public Works Department was such that as a whole .'t was a strictly working department,, with as little of faincantisc, jealousy, meanness and disregard of duty, as I ever saw with the same number of persons. I speak of the general tone. I have reason to know that every member of the Department is not a saint. But on the other hand, many of the officials are men of high personal character, marked ability, and varied attainments. It is to Mr. Trudeau's ability and mdustry and devotion to duty, his utter absence of all professional jealousy, and his desire to give to every man his due suuin cuitjue, that this p •"•'• 10 result i? owing. As I am writing of those eight years of my life, is it an indiscretion lor me to add how admirably he was seconded by the Secretary, Mr. Braun ? Knowing no one could be more friendly to me, or more sensitive on the points when personal honour and character have to be considered, I replied that I would meet his •wishes in anything, as I always had a pleasure in doing. I returned to the office, I did what Mr. Fleming asked of my hands, and I faced the work Mr. Trudeau set before me. The latter is known as precis writing. It gives the facts of a claim, the arguments of the claimant, and the contra views of the Department ; a duty better performed by one having a knowledge of work, and acquainted with its difficulties. The record room will show the cases I cleared off. I do not think I ever worked better. One mornir", however, I received a private note from Mr. Trudeau to the effect that the Minister , i sent him word by Mr. Bradly that my engagement terminated with the Pacific Railway work. Inquiry on my part established that this decision was final. I saw Mr. Fleming. His own position was then threatened. Nothing could be done. I ■did not again see Sir Charles Tupper. I felt it tc be useless. For then, as now, I thought that this termination of my services was from the interference of an outer influence too powerful to be overcome. I have my own theories of its value and character. I have now cleared the way to deal with Mr, Langevin's statement in Parliament, given in the first part of this letter. On the ist of March I addressed the Secretary of Public Works complaining of the treatment I had received, stating that I had an annual engagement, offering a year's service or claiming a year's pay. On the i2th of March my letter was acknowledged, and I was informed it would be referred to the Minister of Public Works. On the 15th July I called ?*tention to my letter of the ist March. On the 22nd July I was in. jrmed that the matter was under consideration. On the 20th August I addressed Mr. Langevin, directly protesting against the unjust treatment I was receiving. On the i6th September I was informed that " repeated but unsuccessful search had been made * • • for any letter or document which might show your engagement to have been an annual one from the ist January, 1877, and that your claim cannot be allowed." Six months had elapsed since my first letter. That the iocuments exist, Mr, Lan- gevin's remark in the House of Commons itself establishes. They must have been known to the Deputy-Minister of Public Works, Mr. Baillairge, who had been my con- temporary in the old Department, and was hence cognizant of my pobition. In any case a few minutes' conversation with Mr. Trudeau would have set him right, and if Mr. Langevin had desired to do justice to me he n-oald have written to the previous Minis- ter, Mr. Mackenzie, to whom I referred him. What Mr. Langevin would not do in the cause of right and justice I did myself. I applied to Mr. Mackenzie. Mr. Mackenzie, with that high sense of honesty and right which the most factious of his political adversaries cannot dispute, at once acted as his antecedents would suggest. He wrote to Mr. Langevin establishing fully my claim to an annual engagement. On the 25th September I wrote again to the Secretary. I pointed out by number and date the documents establishing my claim, which the repeated but unsuccessful search had failed to fiud, and I asked a reconsideration of the decision contained in his letter of the roth September, on the groun'i that the reason assigned for it was at var- iance with the facts of the case. I II On the 14th October I was informed that my letter, immediately on its receipt, had been submitted to the Minister of Justice. On the gth November I again wrote to the Secretary demanding a reply. On the loth November I enclosed a copy of the correspondence to Sir John Macdonald, the First Minister, adding " that I take this course trom the unjust treatment I am exper- iencing at the hands of Mr. Langevin, so that in the event of my being forced to appeal to the justice of the House of Commons you will not be without knowledge of the cir- cumstances under which that appeal will be made." On the 30th of November I posted a letter dated the ist of December, reviewing my case, stating that I should appeal to the people of Canada th»-ough their representatives in Parliament, and I should write no more letters to the Department of Public Works. On the and of December I received a letter dated ist December, informing me that the opinion of the Minister of Justice was that I had no legal claim ; but after con- sideration of the equitable view of the case, the Minister (Mr. Langevin) had obtained authority to pay me If 1,650 as a gratuity for my loss of employment. The Minister of Justice had, therefore, taken from the 26th of September to the end of November to give an opinion that an annual engagement running from year to year, with three years' life, can be terminated at ten o'clock on the last day of the year with- out claim for damage on either side. I accepted this offer — not from a sense of its justice or friendliness. Well-read lawyers tell me the point has not been formally determined. All, however, that I have spoken to agree that a party in my position has a legal claim. All hesitate to define the extent to which that legal claim would be determined in the Courts. But I was tired of delay. Nine months had passed since my first letter was written. The Government had shown itself so inimical to me. It had treated me so harshly, and su at variance with every right principle, that I was convinced that if I had recourse to a petition of right delays would have been interposed and difficulties created. It was almost a rule of three sum. If it took seventy days for an opinion like this to be given, how long would it take to have the case decided in a Court of law. I accepted the offer accordingly, and in my letter of acceptance of the 3rd December I stated plainly under what conditions I did so. Moreover, I felt that even when I obtainevi the verdict there was nothing to enforce the amount appearing in the Estimates, I felt my impotence to contend against the '.government in this form. Technical law is not my weapon. If I have to battle I prefer the field where I can protect myself. But weigh the treatment I received by the practice followed when a public servant un- der fair and legitimate conditions is no longer required, or when the fortunes of a favorite have to be furthered. I had nine years' service. I can confidently refer to their record. When I think of the men who have received high gratuities and full consideration, of the back allowances granted and the courtesy given, I turn to the illiberal mode in which my claim was treated, and I see how fit a continuation it is of the injustice with which I was dismissed. I owe it to Mr. Mackenzie to thank him for his reference to my case in the House of Commons. Mr. Langevin did not attempt to say that I had neglected my duties, or that I was a political partisan of the late Government, as two years ago he wrote to Sir Charles Tupper. That such a report was spread, that falsehoods the most systematic were uttered by men to whom I did not speak to suit their own ends, I have reason to know. I heard all these things and treated them with contempt. During Mr. Mac- kenzie's rule I was on several occasions reported to him as acting in the interests of the Conservative party and that I was endeavoring to embarrass him. Every Government engineer knows it is a mode with a class of contractors and their agents to prosecute 12 their claims and to avoid their responsibility in this form- But we have to do our duty notwithstanding. This line of conduct took such form with regard to Cobourg pier, that I was unjustly giving returns of thewcrk and striving to ruin the contractors, that Mr. Schreiber was deputed to measure up my work as a check upon me ; and in a matter of some 880,000, by a different mode of measurement, he made the total less by $100 than my figures. On the lower St. Lawrence I was assailed in the same form for doing my duty, and I was reported to Mr. Mackenzie as having acted in the mterest of the party of which Mr. Langevin is a member. In February, i88o, I heard from a common friend that a gentleman from the Province of Quebec, unsolicited on my part, had interested himself on my behalf, and had taken up my case. I called to thank my kindly advocate. He told me that Mr. Langevin's. objection to me was that I had taken a strong part in his county against him, and had otherwise injured him politically. I pointed out the intense absurdity of this statement, and asked for the slightest proof of its truth. Further, I pledged my word to the absence of even the least foundation for it. My friend repeated that such was Mr. Langevin's- conviction. If Mr. Langevin will apply to me for the name of this gentleman I will give it him. I am aware how much that I write is weakened by the non-production of the corres- pondence. It will be seen by it when published that I understate my case. Personally there can be but little interest about the writer, except with his own intimate friends. We are all soon to learn how utterly unimportant to the mass of men is individual suf- fering or privation. A wrong only makes the whole world kin when it is felt to affect an all-important principle. The wrong which I have suffered is of no public import, viewed as it affects the writer. But it strikes at the very condition and efficiency of a body of men of the first importance to the country. I have nothing to gain by what I say in any direction. I am a bad hater and I hope I will continue so. But I trust public attention will be awakened to the necessity of guarding the purity and efficiency of the public ser- vice, so that no man who holds a position of trust, or indeed, however humble he may be, can be remorselessly put into the street, be the cause what it may — whim, caprice, malignancy, hatred, pained vanity, or feminine full-blown pride and insolence. The public service should be (I /'rt/W of all such influence. It is one of the most serious questions of the day. For nothing can be more depressing and disheartening than the present condition of the service in Ottawa. There is no recognition of merit, no reward f jr an honorable career, no encouragement to industry, and to devotion to duty. The pr zes are given to subserviency and political influence, to usefulness out of the sphere of (.ii.ty, to amenities which form no part of official life, and which are looked for in a form wnich a proud and independent spirit cannot stoop to give. The most deserving keep on the noiseless tenor of their way, only sustained by their self-respect and sense of duty. Their •' hopes lie drowned " in continued neglect and disregard. When the debate in question came up in the House of Commons this question was distinctly raised by Mr. .Mackenzie. One would think that anyone with the least gene- rosity would have felt sympathy with a body of deserving men — for exceptions of unworthiness cannot take away the general merit of the class ; that among the members cf that House there were men who, having privately high views of duty and of honour would have uttered something in vindication of a great principle by which the public service should have been upheld. Mr. Mackenzie's own experience of the Department, and his knowledge of my case, told him how perfunctory Mr. Langevin's explanations were, and how at variance they were with fact. He took exception to what was being said, when Mr. Kirkpatrick rose up to turn the debate into another channel. He claimed that a gentleman in Central Canada had been dismissed unworthily by the late ^dmin- »3 istration on political grounds. The remark led to a contradiction, and explanations were given of the cause of the proceeding. Mr. Kirkpatrick succeeded perfectly — the debate wandered from the first issue — it was closed. Nothing more was said. In what does this conduct differ from the worst spirit of faction, which in the common interest of a personal combination justifies all injustice and all wrong. I have mentioned Sir Charles Tupper's name. I saw much of him officially. I owe t to him to say that he was invariably courteous. I found him a man of a high order of ability, capable of grasping a subject in all its bearings, who could see his way through the mazes of contradictory arguments and assertions and so-called facts. I shall always retain a kindly memory of him. Quippe benignus erat. I cannot say this for Mr. Langevin. His discourtesy was most marked. I will give two instances. The Riviere du Loup restoration had been carried on under my direction for three years. The superintendent was Mr. Ferdinand Chamberland. He was capable, careful, and had much experience in crib work. There was no com- plaint against him. On the contrary, he had performed his work admirably. In July, 1879, when the work was to be commenced, I received written instructions to appoint one Mr. Elzear Marquis as superintendent, the nominee of the member Dr. Grandbois. On my arrival at Riviere du Loup, Chamberland called on me. I explained to him my positive orders to appoint Marquis, and that I had no alternative but to do so. At the same time Dr. Grandbois had his brother-in-law, Mr. Pelletier, a storekeeper of Riviere du Loup, named paymaster, thus throwing the whole control of the men in the ha. .s of the storekeeper, a proceeding in every way objectionable. The practice had hitherto been to detail the Postmaster to pay the men on occasions when the Paymaster could not attend. Mr. Jarvis, the agent of a bank, I think Molsons, had so acted at Riviere du Loup, but he had not the sHr^htest power of interference with the men. I never heard of Chamberland having taken any part in politics. On the St. Lawrence all our atten- tion had been given to do the best we could with the little money we had for the restora- tion of the several piers — in .^ is case confined to Riviere du Loup. On the i2th July, 1879, i had received instructions to examine Rimouski Pier, and to give an estimate of the cost of repairs, it having been represented that it had been greatly damaged by storms. It was accordingly necessary to send a reliable man to examine in detail the various timbers represented to be injured. Having confidence in Chambcland, and knowing that it was work he thoroughly understood, I detached him to this duty. He worked four days or so ; he was paid his time and his travelling expenses, which amounted to about fi6, I think. I followed him to Rimouski in a couple of days, and I found that the pier required no restoration, and so reported. I did so with the greatest confidence, as the examination had been thorough. In October, 1879, I received a minute to the effect that the Minister wished to know why Mr. Kingsford took Chambe'-land down to Rimouski. I had heard at Riviere du Loup that the proceeding had with a clique received unfavorable comment. But I paid no heed to the affair. I had simply done my duty in sending a capable man to do what was required, and so saved the Department furtner expense and trouble. The matter indeed had been closed by my operations, and I had forgotten the whole circumstance when this minute was sent to me. I replied to it gth October, 1879, No. loi in the Depart- ment, setting forth the facts of the case. It was returned to me the same day, with the remark in the caligraphy of Mr. Langevin. " This man should not have been employed without the previous permission of the Min -^ry." This censure for employing a worthy and competent man, who had worked three seasons in the Department on necessary work, for which he was perfectly fitted, at a fair wage, is a marked discourtesy, and so intended. It is more than a violation of propriety — it is a departure from truth ; for my position gave me authority to make the arrangement generally. In this case my special instructions even dictated the course. If I had employed an incompetent person and paid him extravagantly, if I had neglected my responsibilities, then the reproof could have been administered. As it stood it was an unworthy exhibition of that inso- lence of office classed among the serious fardels of life too many have to bear. Another instance of gross and unjust discourtesy, equally objectionable is the memorandum of Mr. Langevin, dated the 17th December, relative to the balance avail- able on Quebec piers, owing to the misunderstanding of the figures by Mr. Baillairge and himself, as clearly set forth in my memorandum in reply. No. 1,549. These remarks were sent me a few days previous to my dismissal, and were but forerunners of it. I know well the difficulty of getting this statement considered ; but I trust there will be those who can recognize the important principle of public policy which underlies its merely personal element. Even if passed over and doffed aside for the moment, the historian may turn to it in the future and conceive that it presents a phase of official life which in a few sentences, he may deem it expedient to perpetuate. I am. Sir, Your obedient servant, Ottawa, 12th April, 1881. William Kingsford. The following is the debate in the House of Commons. The proceedings are taken from Hansard, the date being 15th March, 1881 (pp. n-13). Sir H. Langevin's assertions are that my duties were no longer to be performed; that money was saved by my dismissal; that six months' pay was readily given me; that he had but a certain number ol assistants; that my office had been abolished. They are untrue. It needed but his childish comparison of the cost of surveys to make them ridiculous, if a false statement in the House of Commons can be regarded in any other than a serious and a painful point of view. I must direct also attention to Mr. Kirkpatrick's part in this debate. '1 he latter member took upon himself to say that " a very satisfactory reason" was given for my removal, " an economic reason," " the saving of public money," and then at once he turned the issue of the debate on some other matter. The general value of Mr. Kirkpatrick's assertions and the character of his support of his principal Sir H. Langevin are here clearly established by himself. To pay Wm. Kingsford, Esq., Civil Engineer, as compensation for loss of employment as Engineer in charge of Harbor and River Works, Ontario and Quebec, &c., at the rate of ^813, 300 per annum $1,650 00 Sir Richard J. Cartwright. Is this gentleman now employed by the depart- ment? Mr. Langevin. No. 15 but Sir Richard J. Cartwright. I forget the tenure of his office. He was for a very- long time employed in the public service. Why was he dismissed ? Mr. Langevin. Mr. Kingsford was employed for a long time in the department, but the special work for which he was employed was no longer required under the new arrangement of the department. We, therefore, dispensed with his services, and the question of compensation came up. He claimed compensation on account of his having been discharged. The tenure of his office was not very clearly explained by papers in the department, and Mr. Kingsford produced a letter from the late head of the depart- ment to show that, though he was not a permanent officer, nevertheless the Government of the day had thought he should have some more firm position than an ordinary clerk or engineer, and, therefore, he was paid by the year. Mr. Kingsford having claimed a year's salary the matter was referred by us to the hon. Minister of Justice in order to know how far I could go in that direction. The hon. Minister of Justice reported that Mr. Kingsford had no legal claim ; nevertheless, after considering the matter, I thought some compensation should ,?e given, and I recommended accordingly that Mr. Kings- ford should be paid six months' salary. Mr. Mackenzie. Then no fault was found with him. Mr. Langevin. I made ro complaint against Mr. Kingsford; he was discharged be- cause of the changes in the department. Mr. Mackenzie. Is no one employed to do work at the harbors of Quebec and On- tario ? Mr. Langevin. The Chief Engineer of the Departmen t now does that work. We have not any special engineer to look after the engineers in Quebec and Ontario, as Mr. Kingsford was employed ; now the Chief Engineer does it. Mr. Mackenzie. Who is the Chief Engineer? Mr. Langevin. Mr. I'erley. Mr. Mackenzie. And who does the work that Mr. Perley formerly did in the Lower Provinces? Mr. Langevin. Mr. Boyd has been employed during the summer to superintend the works there, but after the season he returned to headquarters and assisted Mr. Per- ley in preparing plans. Mr. Mackenzie. Can the hon. gentleman give a statement of the expenditure on engineering surveys in Quebec and Ontario last year. Mr. Langevin. I have a comparative statement of the cost of those surveys in 187S, 1879 and 1880. In 1878, under the old regime, JMr. Kingsford being then employ- ed, the staff numbered nine, number of surveys eleven, total expenditure $14,715, cost of each survey $1,387. In 1879, after the change had taken place staff numbered twelve, surveys thirteen, total expenditure $16,007, cost of each survey $1,231. In 1880 the staff was increased to sixteen, engineers and assistants, surveys forty-four, amount expended $19,794, cost of each survey $449. Hon. gentlemen will see that, though the expenditure was larger, the number of surveys was also largely increased, while the average cost was reduced, and that was the object desired to be accomplished in making the change. Mr. Mackenzie. The hon. gentleman talks about the number of surveys, but it en- tirely depends on what the surveys were. The^e have been a large number of a very trifling character. The fact remains that the hon. gentleman dismissed an old and faith- ful servant and took on a new man. Mr. Langevin. The hon. gentleman should not say that, because it is not so. I have no doubt the hon. gentleman says that because he does not know better. Mr. Kingsford has not had any successor. The men employed were the ordinary surveyors or engineers that were employed in the time of the hon. gentleman. We did not employ i6 :a superintendent of those surveyors, as the hon. gentleman did when he placed Mr. Kingsford over them. That office is abolished, and these engineers were placed in •charge of the Chief Engineer's Department. Mr. Mackenzie, Did the hon. gentleman employ other engineers who had not been employed before Mr. Kingsford's dismissal? Mr. Langevin. There may have been some; it is quite possible; but they were ■only employed for two or three months — perhaps four or five months — at $4 a day and their travelling expenses, while Mr. Kingsford's salary was $3,300. Mr. Mackenzie. Then the fact remains that the hon. gentleman could not fiid any employment for a man who, lam bound to say, deserved well of the department — a man who is a political opponent of mine, and therefore, I have nothing to say on that account. I have endeavored to treat all the engineers alike, no matter what their politics. Here is a gentleman dismissed who, confessedly, is an able engineer, dismissed unceremon- iously, and for a reason that is not an honest reason. The hon. gentleman's reason is very like that for dismissing the inspectors of weights and measures. The law was ■changed so that the law would dismiss them. The hon. gentleman goes through the farce of changing the arrangements in his office, and so in his small way legislates Mr. Kingsford out of his position and employs other engineers after that, who have been em- ployed to this day. This is the sort of usage that is meted out to men who have rendered good service to the country. I am surprised the hon. gentleman is not ashamed of the treatment he has meted out to that gentleman and to several others in the department. Mr. Langevin. The hon. gentleman may try to be as offensive as he pleases, but he will not compel me to be offensive to him. I shall not lose my temper, but I shall •try to be civil, and I hope the hon. gentleman will do the same. Mr. Kmgsford was dis- charged — I will not say dismissed, because I understand that in the English language the word dismissed means that a man is sent away for good cause, while the word dis- charged means that he was not required any longer, though he might be a very good man. Therefore, I say Mr. Kingsford was not dismissed but was discharged. I have always found him an able man. .It was not I who put him into the department, but it was the hon. gentleman, and therefore I had no reason to find fault with Mr. Kingsford being in the department because I put him there. But his usefulness was gone, the office was no longer required and therefore it was abolished, and Mr. Kingsford left the service. Thinking that, under the circumstances, Mr. Kingsford should have an indemnity I have asked my colleagues to have this put in the Estimates. Mr. Kingsford could not be off'ered another position in my department because I have none to giv«! him. The •officers I require only serve for a few months at a time, and in that way I am able to curtail very considerably the expense, while they are only paid for the work they do. Mr. Mackenzie. I am not aware I said anything offensive such as the hon. gentle- man complains of. I certainly had no intention to be offensive. I am not aware of ;anything I said which he could call offensive. Mr. Langevin. The hon. gentleman spoke of my small way of doing business. Mr. Mackenzie. The hon. gentleman is mistaken; I said he legislated Mr. Kings- iord out in a small way, meaning the legislation of a department as compared with the legislation of Parliament. In the parallel case, I said the inspectors of weights and ineasures were legislated out of their positions, and the hon. gentleman legislated Mr. Kingsford out of his position in a small way, and if the hon. gentleman understood me to .be offensive in that, he is entirely mistaken. Mr. Langevin. There is another thing. The hon. gentleman said the reason I was '7 f[iving was not an honest rectaon. I do not think that is very complimentary to any member of Parliament. I nev treated the hon. gentleman in that way. Mr. Mackenzie. I have no complaint to make of the hon. gentlcinan's statement, and I do not think he has much reason to complain of my treatment of him. The reason why I said it was not an honest reason, was that I believed that Mr. Kingsford was treated precisely as the inspectors were — that the arrangement was changed for the pur- pose of getting rid of him. Mr. Langevin. No. Mr. Mackenzie. I accept the hon. gentleman's statement of course. Mr. Langevin. Mr. Kingsford has not been replaced; if he had been, the hon. gentle- man would be right in his assertion. I have saved his salary. I have saved a great deal in the other provinces also by getting rid of the staff that were there with those local engineers. I do not think the hon. gentleman knew that ; I only knew it after I had been a certain time in the department When I found that they had nothing to do, and were a source of expense in many ways, I got rid of them all. Mr. Mackenzie. Where ? Mr. Langevin. In New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Ontario. Mr. Mackenzie. I was not aware of any engineers in New Brunswick. Mr. Langevin. The hon. gentleman did not know it. I did not know it for several months, but as soon as I discovered it I dismissed them all. Mr. Mackenzie. I would like to know where they were. Mr. Langevin. In St. John and Halifax, the staff of Mr. Kingsford. Mr. Mackenzie. There were none in Halifax that I am aware of. We paid none in Halifax. I think there were two assistants to Mr. Perley in St. John, but I am not aware of any other engineers. I think the hon. gentleman is wrong. Mr. Langevin. If the hon. gentleman wishes I will give him a statement. Mr. Mackenzie. Then I hope he will bring a statement. In the meantime we find his economy results in 'his way : In my last year this business cost ^114,000; in the next year, under the hon. gentleman, it costs 1 16,000 — I give the round figures. In this last year it cost $ig,ooo. This is economy going backwards. Mr. Langevin. The hon. gentleman says that in his last year he expended $14,000, and that in the next two years I expended |i6,ooo and #ig,ooo. That is perfectly correct, but the hon. gentleman should add that the number of surveys for his !|i4,ooo were eleven; for my $16,000, thirteen ; and now that the system has been perfected, for $19,000, I had forty-four surv(3ys. The surveys in the time of the hon. gentleman cost $1,337 each, while they now cost $449 each. Mr. Mackenzie. But one survey may be equal to a dozen, and no doubt in this case it is so. Mr. Kirkpatrick. I am glad to hear the hon. member for Lambton complain of the dismissal of public servants without just cause ; but I do not think he has found an example in the case of Mr. Kingsford. The Hon. Minister of Public Works has given a very satisfactory reason for the removal of that officer — an economic reason; he has shown that he has saved public money. But the hon. member for Lambton forgets that he himself dismissed a public servant for the simple reason that he would not *need the hoii. member for Centre Huron (Sir Richard Cartwright) on a certain occasion — I refer to the case of Dr. Strange — and re-appointed an officer to replace him without any trial or enquiry. He dismissed him in a manner most obnoxious to a volunteer officer- by stating that Her Majesty had no longer need for his services. I think it does not lie in * Su: in Hansard ? " heed." B z8 the mouth of the hon. member for Lambton to make this complaint against the Hoa Minister of Public Works. Sir Richard J. Caktwright. I doubt whether any particular service will be done in the passage of the estimates by bringing up a transaction five years old. But I take occasion to say that Dr. Strange was dismissed for the grossest possible vie ition of his duty, he being a public officer iw the pay of the Government and deliberately electioneer- ing in Kingston. Mr. KlPKI'ATRlCK. No. Sir Richard J. Cartwright. Yes ; in favor of the present I'remier and against the other candidate, and he was warned repeatedly that if he, as a Government officer, sO' interfered in elections, he would be dismissed. He was most righteously dismissed. Mr. Mills. The hon. Minister of Public Works says he was not at all influenced in his conduct towards Mr. Kingsford by any politic-"' considerations, but (su*) on account of complaints made of 'lis conduct in the discharge of his duties as an engineer. Well, I think it is removed, and I think Mr. Kingsford is under the impression that the hon gentleman was influenced by certain charges made against Mr. Kingsford in connection with some things that happened at Rimouski. I may say also that the person who opposed me at the last election accused Mr. Kingsford of interfering in the political con- test in Both well. For that accusation there was not the shadow of foundation. I never discussed politics with Mr. Kingsford for ten minutes in my life, and only then to learn that his sympathies were not with us, but with hon. gentlemen opposite. But I nc»ver supposed for a moment, that Mr. Kingsford was in the smallest degree influenced politi- cally in the discharge of his duties as an engineer. The whole accusation made against him in my constituency was that, not long before the election, he was passing through Morrisburg, and telegraphed to the Custom house officer, who is himself not a politician asking him to see him while the train was passing. I do not think he was off the train' for five minutes, and I do not think any person saw him but Mr. Duff, the Custom house officer. Mr. Langevin. Any accusation which may have been made against Mr. Kingsford for anything he may have said or done previous to our coming into office was not noticed by me. We never reproached him or any other officer for taking part in any election before we came into office ; but if these officers while we are in office, would go and canvass against the Government, that would be taken notice of. Mr. Mills. Or for them. Mr. Langevin. I have no doubt that would be a much more venial offence, but one unlikely to occur. I have said that the first intimation of an)' weight which I received that my position was threatened, was the receipt of a letter from fSir H. Langevin to Sir Charles Tupper, of which I have made mention in my published letter. This letter enclosed an application from Mr. George F.. Austin, and was consequently made official, as the recommendation which, would justify Mr. Austin's employment. Mr. Austin's letter is one tissue of misrepresentations. How it could have been written by him it is difficult to understand. Mr. Austin's posi- * The "but" is ovideutly ft nnsinint Icn- •'nor." Ihe art^iiiueut ot Sir H. Langevin was that although Mr. KingsforH's duties had been efflcicntly perfovnied, there •was no longer any call for his services. I I describe the Ministers, of whom I siioak by their laesent rank, although at the period of which I ■write they had not received the distinctions they now hold. 19 tion in the Department was Resident Assistant En^inee'* under the En<,'ineer-in-Chief, Mr. Page, at the Rond d'Eau, at Gode ch, and the Chantry Islaud H? • 'ours. With the exception of some slifjht work at Kincardine, he hac" never the sHghtest connection with any part of my work, which extended from the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the Restigouche to the River Kaministiquia, Lake Superior. My position was Engineer in charge of Harbours, St. Lawrence and Lakes, reporting directly to the Secretary — in other words, it was an independent branch, controlled only by the Minister and Deputy-Minister. Mr. Austin himself states he was appointed in 1871, and was continued on Mr. Page's staff until 1877 — five working years after my appointment. I was appointed in May, 1H73, by Sir H. Langevin himself, whatever his representations in his letter to Sir Charles Tupper. My first connection with the Department was an examination and report on the water supply of the western descending levels, on what is known as the Rideau Canal, with a map shewing the sources of supply on each level. I had reported confidentially on the possi- bility of constructing a ship canal between Lake Champlain and the Hudson, and thence by the Hudson to the deep water below Albany, so far as the question of a reliable water supply could be counted on in rela- tion to any extended enlargement of the present navigation. I have reason to believe that it was from my reports on these two subjects that more per- manent duties were subsequently assigned me. I never, therefore, came in any way in connection with Mr. Austin, except when the laws of courtesy and good manners brought us side by side. His own statement is to the effect that he remained nearly five years, until 1877, as Mr. Page's assistant in the Department, during the period I was acting in the position I held. Why his services were not continued by his Chief is a matter with which I could have nothing to do, as the point was determined by Mr. Page. His name, indeed, was never heard that I know, out of the circle where it obtained official mention. Mr. Austin's introduction of my name is in every way unwarrantable. It is not even a reproach to the late Minister of Public Works, Mr. Mackenzie, as for a moment it may appear, for my appointment was not made by him. The attack of wrong doing, if it fall on any one, strikes Mr. Trudeau, the Deputy-Minister, and Mr. Page, as having been the cause of the valuable services of Mr. Austin being termi- nated, owing to some political influence. The whole matter is simply ridiculous. The wonder, however, is that with the facts to be brought against such a letter that anyone could be found to put it to paper. It is as follows : The Hon. H. Langevin, St. Andrews, Qi;e., Post Master General, Ottawa. torn Jan.. 1879. Sir — I beg most rcs] ectiully lo inform you that I have made application to the Hon. ao Minister of Public Works to be reinstated to my former position as Engineer in charge Improvements on tht: Upper Lakes, and would l^be, obliged if you could by using your valuable influence forward my views. As you are aware I was appointed in the year 1871, when you were Minister of Pub- lic Works, to superintend the construction. of the Harbours of Refuge on Lakes Erie and Huron, in which position, I can safely say, all the works were carried on to the satisfac- tion of Mr, Page the Chief Engineer. I may mention that I had charge of the construction of the Harbor of Refuge at Rond d'Eau on Lake Erie, the construction of Piers, Breakwaters, Landing Places, as well as the deepeninj; of the Harbor of Goderich, the extension of Piers and deepening of the Basin at Kincardine, the construction of Breakwater at Chantry Island, and Beacon, as also the Breakwater and Landing Pier at Southampton. In the spring of 1877, owing, I am informed, to some political influence, I was dis- <:harged to make room for Mr. Kingsford, a strong supporter of the late Government, seemingly against the wishes of the Chief Engineer as he took the trouble to have sev- eral interviews with the Hon. Mr, Mackenzie in order to keep me in the employ of the Department. You must be aware that after having served the Department faithfully for six years, and considering my position a permanent one, to be discharged without a moment's warning has proved very damaging to my interests. I have, &c., (Signed) George F. Austin. This letter was inclosed in a letter from Sir H. Langevin, then PovSt Master General to the then Ministei of Public Works, Sir C. Tupper. The latter is placed officially on record No, 78354. 15 Jan'y, 1879. Ottawa, 15TH January, 1879. Mv Dear Doctor — I send you herein enclosed Mr. Austin's letter He was employed, as I told yon yesterday, for the construction of Harbors and Piers in Ontario in my time and until 1877, when it appears he was superceded (sif) to make place for some one else. Will you look into his case and see justice done him. Yours very truly, (Signed) Hector L. Langevin. As to the statement of Mr. Austin that Mi . Page spoke to Mr. Mackenzie on his account, I have the authority of both the then Minister and R-r. Page to state that it is mere invention. When the news of the letter went the round of the Department, Mr. Townsend, the then chief of Mr. Page's staff, called on me to say that Mr. Page was exceedingly annoyed at the unwarrantable use of his name, that the statement had not the slightest foundation in fact, that he had not spoken to Mr. Mackenzie, or in any way interfe.red with regard to my position, and most certainly he had not asked Mr. Austin's appointment to additional works when his duties ceased. Later, in 1880, when I had frequent meetings with Mr. Mac- kenzie, with his permission I brought the matter under his notice, and he authorizes me to say that the whole story is a fabrication. Mr. Page 21 never mentioned Mr. Austin's name that he could recollect, except in a general way ; certainly never in connection with mine, and never asked for his appointment to my position, or to anything analoj^ous to it. Indeed, as I have said, I had been nearly five years already employed on the Enf,Mneerin<;j StafT as a Superior Engineer when Mr. Austin ceased to belong to it as a Resident Assistant. That the letter, however, was deliberately written and sent there can be liitle doubt. Sir H. Langevin, in his letter, speaks of his interview of tlie previous day with Sir C. Tupper, and taking the text of ^Ir. Austin's letter there can be but one meaning in Sir H. Langevins request, viz., that I should be summarily dismissed to gratify his enmity or his requirements. While my position was being threatened by the correspondence I have given, other circumstances shewed that I had to look for a combina- tion of influences against me, which to all appearance had full strength to sweep me away from the Department. The enumeration of a few dates are necessary to make clear what I have to state, The elections of 1878 took place on the loth September. Mr. Mackenzie resigned the i6th October. The new Ministry was formed by the i8th October, the day Lord Dufferin left Ottawa for England, Lord Lome arriving the 28th November. It was the custom with the harbour branch under my charge for the parties on surveys and the clerks of works to close up their opera- tions, and to proceed to Ottawa for our winter labours ; and we wer'; never idle. One of these gentlemen arrived in the last week of November, when Mr. J. Arnoldi met him in the passage, and this person told my assistant that the dredging plant was to be transfered to him ; Sir J. Macdonald had so directed, and that he, [Mr. J. Arnoldi] would want a different person to manage it — the remark being a threat to the gentleman who was supposed to be in charge that that position should no longer be held by him. The conversation was reported to me, and I at once saw the Deputy Minister, Mr. Trudeau, on the subject. He told me that he had heard of no such proposed change, and I regarded the speech, like much that is said, to be beneath notice, and the matter at the time made little impression on me. The reader of Sir H. Langevin's letter will see it is dated the 15 h anuary, two months after this conversation took place. Tlie date is sug- gestive. Either on that day or the following the Deputy Minister ofticially |J informed me that the Minister, Sir C. Tupper had directed the transfer y of the dredging plant to Mr. J. Arnoldi, and I was called upon to report a upon its condition and where it was being wintered. I can speak confi- M denty of this date by my official letter which I subjoin. There had been |l a personal interview betwee'* Sir H. Langevin and Sir Charles Tupper, as |J the former tells us, in which my position was discussed, and doubtless the U exacted transfer to Mr J, Arnoldi of the dredging plant was one of the a 32 topics of remark. My duly was plain ; it was to comply with my instruc- tions. 1 reported as follows on the i6th, and one week from that date I was ordered to give over the charge. The following is my report on the dredging plant, ond the official letter sent me regarding it. Ottawa, i6th Jan., iHyij. Sir, — In conformity with the personal instructions of the Deputy Minister, I have the honour to report OM the Government dredge and tu^s, which have been in operation on the ljj)per St. Laurence and lakes, and further, to set forth the places where they are now lying. The dredge, which has been under my charge since September, 1874, is now lying at Kincardine, in order to resume work at that place the ensuing season. Mr. James DufI , who is the clerk of the works, ii entrusted with the duty of seeing to its safety it is generally in good condition, and only requires the usual repairs, incidental to a season's work, ordinarily made at the commencement of the working season. The three scows are likewise at Kincardine. They are in good condition. The dredge tug has been removed to Sarnia. Its engine generally has been taken out and placed in security. The iiuU requires to be, from below water, rebuilt. A now boiler is likewise required An expenditure not exceeding^ 3,000 will be required to meet these repairs. The present boiler is old and insecure. It was only with difficulty it was made to last last season, the pre.ssure of steam having hv.cn limited to 60 lbs. The tug " Trudeau," which was purchased by me, under he authority of the Depart- ment, in the Spring of 1870, for the Neebish works, on whii h it has been (engaged during the last three \vorking seasons, is now lying ai Sarni.i. It is m perfect order and requires no repairs. Both these tugs are under the sunvi/Zcuia- of Captain bymes, of Sarnia, who has had charge of the " Trudeau" for the two preceding seasons. It is the duty of Captain Symes to o!)tain proper berths for the boats, and keep them under control and free from injury I have the honour to be, sir. Your obedient servant, William Kingsford, F. Bkaun, Esy., Engineer in Cha)\i^c. Secretarv. Ottawa, Jan. 23d. 1879. Sir,— I beg to inform you that iho lion the Minister directs that Mr. J. R. Arnoldi, Mechanical Kngineer of the Department, assume charge of the dredges, tugs and scows hitherto employed in connection with the western harbors, and at present laid up at Sarnia and Kincardine. I am, sir, Your obedient servant, W. Kingsford, Esy., F. Braun, Sardary. Eng. Dept. Fub. Works, Ottawa This transfer to Mr. Arnoldi, totally inexperienced in such work and whose management of the dredge for a few weeks in Kincardine harbour in 1874, had been a scandal to the Department, established that the feel- The change itself was a professional insult, ing to me was most inimical 23 and I felt it my duty temperately and respectfully to protest against the proceeding!;. Accordingly I addressed the Deputy Minister on the subject. I did not do so officially but personally, a course often followed in a public ■department. A letter of this character is not necessarily placed on record, but the writer of it is in this position : The Ministeror the Deputy Minister can direct that it be made official, so that he be held tojhis statements. On the other hand, should the matter on which he treats be accommodated, the communication can be withdrawn and all trace of the difficulty be (removed. My object in taking this tone was that Sir Charles Tupper woald see the injustice of the proceeding — that himself a professional man he would understand the slight put upon me, and as a man of education he would not commence the administration of his Department by a gratuitous departure from those principles of right and fair dealing, the observance of which all may claim, but especially one whose years of good service merited better treatment than a wound to his feelings and his •character. I stated in an interview with Mr. Trudeau my feelings on this occasion, and I subsequently placed what I said in writing. I cannot give the precise date, but I presume my conversation took place between the 15th and 23rd January. My letter was as follows : Wilbrod Street, Monday, Januars, rhyy. Dear Mr. Trudeau,— The intimation I received Irom you on Friday afternoon that the Minister has given instructions for Mr. J. Arnoldi to report upon the dredging plant which has been solely under my charge since September, 1874, su^geUs that as I have asked you to do me the favour of obtaining an interview with Dr. Tupper, I should submit for his information the grounds on which I claim to tax his attention. I believe that I will most properly do so by addressing you in a form which can be made official or not as .circumstances may dictate. I am not taken by surprise by this announcement, for Mr. J. [Arnoldi at the end of November meeting Mr. * * of the Harbour Staff, who had acted as Clerk of Works .on the dredge, told him that the dredge was to lie placed in his (Mr. J. Arnoldi's; charge, Mr. ♦ * does not now hold that position. The present Clerk of the Works is Mr. iDuff, appointed by Mr. Langevin. But there is only one construction of this language, •the threat of the removal of * * from the position Mr. Arnoldi considered that he was then holding. At the time I paid no attention to Mr. * * 's report, conceiving these remarks to be mere ill-bred gasconade. For I could not understand why even such a course had been proposed. No enqui:y had been made of me as the responsible Engineer in .charge on any point. There is no report of mismanagement referred to me for explana- .tion, no failure in carrying on the work, no ill doing brought under the notice of the Department : and it is not usual either in the Department or in professional life to make a change arbitrarily without cause and enquiry — a change in itself which is a reflection on the status and character of any one so superseded. Mr. Arnoldi, moreover, is not an ^engineer, he is deficient in the education and experience necessary to the condu::t of dredging works. 24 I cannot but think that the matter has been misrepresented to the Minister, and that he misconceives the position I hold, and the part Mr. J. Arnoldi has himself played with regard to this dredge. I fear that in justice to myself I must somewhat intrude upon the attention of the Minister and yourself. But the defence of one's character is imperative, and I must say that in this case I find my reputation not only questioned, but assailed. The dredging plant came into the possession of the Department on Jan. 7, 1873. It was purchased by Mr. J. Arnoldi from Mr. John Brown, of Thorold. The original cost of dredge, tug and two scows was $19,350. Within the four succeeding months, under the direction of Mr. J. Arnoldi, the sum of $12,311 was expended in repairs and altera- tions, making a total cost of #31,461. The above amount includes the travelling expenses of Mr. Arnoldi, amounting to $250. This plant came under my charge in September, 1874 — a charge, as you are per- fectly aware, utterly unsought by me in any way — given over to me by yourself as Deputy- Minister, as an ordinary matter of duty of my branch. At the commencement of the season the dredge had been placed in Kincardine harbor, under Mr. J. Arnoldi. Nothing can be more unsatisfactory than its operations during this period. The sum of #2660.57 was expended, for which scarcely any work — I am almost prepared to hazard the expres- sion, no work was performed. Eventually, its operations ceased. The dredge runner became sick. Instead of the obvious remedy being applied, and a new man placed at the work, the dredge remained perfectly idle in the harbor, to become the talk of Lake Huron and that district of country, and a scandal to the Department. The incapacity of Mr. Arnoldi was totally unequal to the emergency, and until the dredge passed under other management, it was simply a source of useless and discreditable expense. In this dilemma, I was ordered to take charge of the dredge by yourself. The docu- ments can be produced to establish the annoyance experienced by me in doing so. It was only after great difficulty and by firmness that the dredge was taken from its then condition, and put to work. Even during this proceeding, when I was carrying out the orders of the Department, and the dredge was being taken from Mr. Arnoldi's control, Charlton, the dredge runner, as encouraged in his contumacy by communications from Ottawa, and from what I then heard, I have ground for belief that the encouragement came from Mr. Arnoldi. Most of these facts, I feel warranted in saying, are known to yourself, and I ask you, v'ith your known sense of justice, and with the kindness I have invariably received at your hands during the six years I have been in my present position, to bear testimony to them. I have said that there has been no report of malfeasance on my part, no failure of the work during the time I have been in charge. On the contrary, much has been said to lead me to consider that the operations of the dredge plant under my control in the years 1S74-75-76-77 and 78, were satisfactory to the Department ; dates which show that I have been five seasons responsible for it, during which period not a word has been saixl in a contrary sense, and I beg leave to bring under the notice of the Minister these riva years of good and loyal service in contrast to the four months of mismanagement pre- ceding my control, and to ask for them the consideration I respectfully claim they are entitled to. The records of the dredge can be produced at a moment's notice to show its perform- ance—the cost of work, with full detail of expenditure analysed into classes of dis- bursements. I cannot conceive that there i'- any desire to treat me with indignity, or discourteously, or wrongfully. But, is not the removal of the inspection from my charge a Departmental rebuke and a professional reproof? The change is called for by no circumstance. It 25 will be at variance with custom. No antecedent inquiry has been made as to its expediency. No difficulty requirmg ability and experience higher than mine has pre- sented itself. Certainly, if such were the case, neither would be found in the person to whom this transfer over my head has been suggested. The proceeding would be unjust to myself. No one can conceive that the change has taken place causelessly. The infer- ence will be that it has been called for by my misconduct, my mismanagement, or my inability. I have seven years' service in the Department. I hold respectfully they siiould give weight to my representations. Of the character of this service I venture to appeal to yourself. I leave its epitaph in your hands, and I have to ask, as the course most e.xpedient to the Department, and as an act of justice to myself, that the contem- plated change be not made. Believe me, Sincerely yours, T. Trudeau, Esq., William Kingsford, Deputy Minister. Engineer-in-Charge. As was natural in such circumstances I addressed myself to friends with political influence, and asked their intervention. It is a matter of some delicacy in any way to allude to what happened, and little can be said about it. So far, however, I think it may with propriety be stated that my friends behaved with great kindness to me. They intervened powerfully in my favour. At this period it became publicly known that the Depart- ment of Public Works was to be divided into the present divisions of Railways and Canals and Public Works; the latter to consist of the Architect's Department, Harbours, and Slides or River Works : that is to say it would embrace the wnvk of the then Chief Architect, Mr. Scott, that of Mr. Perley, the Engineer in charge of harbours, Maritime Pro- vinces, and my work, which included the harbours in Qjebec and Ontario. The river works exact but little surveUlance, The division was carried out on this principle : a fact of importance when considered with Sir H. Langevin's statement in the House of Commons that the special work for which he [Mr. Kingsford] was employed was no longer required under the new arrangement of the Department. Mr. Mackenzie correctly stated the case : " Here is a gentleman dismis- sed who confessedly is an able engineer, dismissed unceremoniously, and for a reason that is not an honest reason The hon. gentleman goes through the farce of changing the arrangements in his office, and so in his smal! way legislates Mr. Kingsford out of his position and employs other engineers after that, who have been employed to this day. This is the sort of usage that is meted out to men who have rendered good service to their country. I am surprised that the hon. gentleman is not ashamed of the treatment he has meted out to that gentleman, and to several others in tiie department." 26 ,11. 111:1, ■II ■'!■: ■'f'ih I will not further repeat here what was said in that debate, LUt I will ask all who are interested in the good order and efficiency of the Public Works Department to refer to it. They will see how the case was deliberately misrepresented by Sir H. Langevin in his place as Minister. My friends saw Sir Charles Tupper, and I was then informed, and I have lull authority so to speak, that Sir Charles Tupper had spoken of me kindly, and even complimentarily, and I must bear testimony to the •courtesy and kindness I experienced from him. Influences — which I cannot set forth in writing, for I have no positive proof of them to justify me doing so — were exercised to overbear his good intentions towards me, but that "here were such influences I am certain. My work also went on pleasantly with him, and he impressed me as a man of high ability, and great breadth of view. Whatever the cause I was made to feel, that the consideration I hoped to receive from the influence exercised in my behalf by my friends, or I will venture to say from a feeling personal to myself, that this consideration it was not in his power to extend. It is a relief in this statement of wrong to be able to bear tribute at least in one direction. I return to my subject. Sir H. Langevin's letter which I have given was on record, and it had unmistakeabiy shewn his feeling and his intentions towards me. The fact was pointed out by me to my friends with what force I conld command, i . ^lanced the removal of the dredge from my control, which an influence o: "side the Department, too powerful to be resisted, had insisted on, For I held it not simply as a public wrong, but as an insult to myself which could have only the meaning of evil augury. For the step itself was objectionable. No change in this direction was called for, except to gratify Mr. J. Arnoldi, if I set out of view the desire to strike a blow at myself. My friend informed me that he understood I was to be transferred to Railways and Canals, and that the assurance was plain that my position as a Superior Engineer should not be assailed. No one of sense, writing a letter similar to that I have given, protest- ing against a line of conduct of an official superior, would take this course without carefully weighing every word, and asking the opinion of friends interested in him, on whose judgment as to the general context he could rely. Every one of course, must be the judge of what is due to his own character and honour, and must assume the responsibility of the line of conduct he may follow. But we all desire to avoid any false step. Ordinarily we ask those capable of giving us sound advice, if any phrase or word we have written can be held to be objectionable. From what I then heard, in view of my change to the Department of Railways and Canals, I accepted the opinion that it was inexpedient to place the letter on record. It was pointed out to me that I had made a respectful protest 27 against the removal of the plant from my charge ; that my friends had sustained the attack upon me, and that on my part I ought to show a con- ciliatory and proper spirit. My transfer to the Railway Department could not long be delayed, and hence I was justified in regarding the proceed- ings as the first step towards it. And that, moreover, I had to consider the position of the Minister of Railways and Canals, who should not be forced to leave behind him an unpleasant heritage of my bequeathal. Accordingly I withdrew the letter. The complications which arose when the asked for removal of the late Mr. Letellier from the position of Lieutenant-Governor of the Province of Quebec was discussed in Parliament, led to delay in the division of the Departments. Many of the Ministers went to England — Sir H. Langevin — on a special mission, and did not return until the end of the fall. The work of the season therefore remained under Sir Charles Tupper, and I continued at my old duties, nothing extraordinary taking place. The dredge plant was transferred, and I am impelled to say something on this point. In the season of 1878, we had trouble with the dredge tug. The boiler leaked. The work had been impeded on some occasions, and there had been no little unpleasantness, which had only been removed by determination and care. The daily expense of a dredge, crew and main- tenance, is some thirty dollars. Stoppage of work is the loss of so much a day, with the disadvantage, annoyance and discredit of delay on a job in the working season. The upper works of the tug were also in bad condition. The difficulty had been such, that I went to the ground myself to examine into it, and to superintend putting on patches to the boiler. The tug was finally put in working order for the rest of the season, and I gave instructions for the pressure of steam to be kept down, so that risk would be avoided and the work go on satisfactorily. By care and pre- caution, no further difficulty arose, and v vi got through the year without further hitch. It was evident, however, that no risk of a break-down should be run in the coming year, and I took measures accordingly to place the plant in an eff'ective state At the close of the season the tug was taken to Sarnia, and placed beside the " Trudeau," the tug used on tlie Neebish work. The engine was partially taken out and secured, and I obtained estimates of restoring the hull and putting in a new boiler. Had the work been left to me to carry out, it could have been executed for about $2,500. In my official report I mentioned a sum not exceeding i^3,ooo, for the power of controlling it was passing from my hands, and I amended my figures to admit of a margin, and to prevent any remark agamst me on under estimate. This expenditure of if>2,5oo would have made the tug in every way equal to a tug worth ^6,500. & 28 i: V ii D c. a O oi th C or What took place would seem an exaggeration if it were not established by public documents. It is well here to set forth the situation of the proceeding so that it be clearly understood. As engineer in charge of harbours, the dredging plant had been under my direction for five years. Without a reason being assigned — without cause — I am called upon to transfer to a person inexperienced in this work, not only the plant, but the tug engaged on the deepening of the Neebish Rapids, then in progress, taken from my control. My recommendations, based on the experience of what is required, are set aside, and the scheme of transfer, of which Mr. J. Arnoldi prophecied and boasted in the month of November as a coming event is fully carried out in January. Mr. Arnoldi recommended the sale of the dredge tug, and the sub- stitution of the Trudeau, engaged heretofore on works, in its place. The sale took place in Sarnia by auction. In the public accounts, 1878, Part I, page 58, under the head of " Statement of Casi al Revenue," the fol- lowing item appears as a receipt : E. Pleatson, Sarnia, sale of tug " Minnie Battle." ^641. 00. From this sum, however, the travelling expenses of Mr. J. Arnoldi, and other disbursements have to be deducted. From what [ hear they may be set down at $200. The tug therefore sold for $450. I heard in Sarnia, she earned the cost of purchase in six weeks. As the season opened the work of deepening the Neebish Rapids com- menced. The tug, indispensable to the work on which it had been engaged three years, had been removed, and it was simply impossible to carry on the works without a tug. 1 sent the Clerk of the Works to the Welland Canal to obtain one. With trouble and tact and judgment an arrangement was made for $200 a month, the tug to be returned at the close of the season to the moorings whence it was taken. We used the tug from July to October, four months, and taking into account the cost for finding her, of bringing her from St. Catharines and returning her there, ♦^he hire of the tug cost the Department [§1100] eleven hundred dollars, nearly half the amount of the estimated cost of the repairs and restorations which would have placed the dredge tug in perfect conditio.!, and have left it the property of the Department. The year was well advanced before the Ministers, who were in England, returned. I, myself, was busily engaged on my duties. When Sir H. Langevin took charge of the Department I was absent, and I was never in Ottawa before the month of December when he was there. My daily address, however, was known, aud I was repeatedly communicated with. Had it been considered expedient for my vievs on the branch under my control to be given, instructions sent to me to repair to Ottawa would have brought me there in a few hours. But I was ignored from the 29 ablished 1 of the harge of e years, upon to lant, but Drogress, :perience 3f which iber as a the sub- ce. The 878, Part ." the fol- noldi, and sy may be in Sarnia, pids corn- had been )ossible to rks to the igment an rned at the ^e used the nt the cost urning her ;n hundred repairs and L conditio;i. in England, hen Sir II. was never My daily icated with. :h under my :tawa would ed from the moment Sir H. Langevin acted as Minister of PubHc Works. There was no inquiry of me of any kind as to the arrangements of the new Depart- ment, of the nature of my duties, of the efficiency of my staff; no in- vestigation of the means and appliances at the disposal of the Department to continue the duties of the last eight years, and I never heard its etticiency or its character impugned. The new Deputy, Mr. Baillairge, took the tcne from his chief, quietly ignored me, and gave orders to my staff directly without reference to myself, a proceeding as much at issue with good manners and right feeling as it is antagonistic to discipline and the management of work — a proceeding utterly unknown under the able, courteous management of Mr. Trudeau. I returned to Ottawa in the first days of December, when I heard my staff was broken up. My first assistant had already been removed from my orders, and all was anarchy and confusion. On my arrival at the office I met Mr. Baillairge — who had shortly before been appointed Deputy Minister — accidentally in one of the rooms, with silent complacency he put a MS. memorandum in my hands. It set forth the names of my staff — the few who were to be retained, the many to be dismissed at the end of the month. I took it and returned it as silently as it had been given. 1 cannot, however, say with satisfaction equal to that of Mr. Baillairge. I soon learned that the organization was completed — that the new Department was formed. The Architect's Department continued undei- the superintendence of Mr. Scott for a time, as it has since proved. Mr. Perley, with the title of Chief Engineer, was appointed to my work in Ontario and Quebec, to which he has since given his personal attention, that is to say, Mr. Perley was translated to my position with the respon hibility of accepting the work in the Maritime Provinces. Either duty, as the old organization shewed, was sufficient for one engineer. Indeed, the only mode by which such work can be successfully carried on .3 by its being continuallv personally examined and directed by the responsible officer. The distance from the sea board to the lakes makes any such inspection impossible by one man. Indeed, the old organization is virtually unchanged. The harbour work, of which Mr. Perley was formerly in charge, has been given over to Mr. Boyd, as a principal assis- tiint. Mr. Boyd himself is a man of experience and ability, and has taken, whatever his title, Mr. Perley's place, as Mr. Perley has taken mine. My staff, who had held their appointment, many of them for years, were, with a few exceptions, dismissed, and a totally new set of men appointed, and hence the old staff of the St. Lawrence and the lakes with its head were " legislated out." It was not until the last day of the year that I received an official 30 letter of dismissal. I had, however, ceased to act on new matter in my district, for as it came up it was referred to Mr. Perley. My old work, on the other hand, could only be closed up by myself, and I think Mr. Perley will do me the justice to say that when he took it up, he found it brought up to its latest possible stage — that I left him no annoyances to contend against, and no unnecessary work to do. In any case I endeavoured to do so. After the 31st December I ceased in any way to deal with the work, old or new. I was no longer Engineer of Harbours. My attention was then confined to the Annual Reports which I ii.^d written for several years, on which I was then engaged, and on their :ompletion at the end of February, I left the office in which I had passed e ght very happy years. I trust my old friends and comrades will believe that I shall always think kindly of those days. As I write this I feel how much I owe to the consideration always shewn me, and the great ability and kindness of the Deputy Minister, Mr. Trudeau, and to the courtesy and honorable bearing, which in common with every one in the office, I experienced from our excellent Secretary, Mr. Braun. The first letter now published is my letter of dismissal, after my eight years' service. The correspondence which follows took place after I left the office, on the last day of February : No. 783. Sir, — Ottawa, Dec. 30TH, 1879. I have the honor to inform you that owing to the recall of Mr. Perley from outside service, and his assignment to the duty of Engineer of the Department of Public Works, the services of an Engineer in charge will hereafter become unnecessary. I am there- fore to state that after the completion of the Annual Report of the Department, which you are now engaged in preparing, your services will no longer be required. I have the honor to be, (Signed) S. Chapleau, Secretary. Wm. Kingsford, Esq., Engineer-in Charge, Ottawa. |i' ( SlK. No. 194 WiLBROD Street, Ottawa. Monday, ist March, 1S80. I received from you on the 31st December last an official notification that after the completion of the Annual Report my services as Enginf;er-in-Charge " will no longer be required;" the reason assigned being that such services "will hereafter become un- necessary." The Annual Report was finally completed on Monday, the 23rd instant, and I have received no communication from you countermanding the notice of the 30th Decer^ber. Accordingly I beg leave to call your attention to the conditions under which my position was held. I was appointed to the duties I have hitherto performed in May, i«73. Having been 31 allowed to consider my operations on the River Ganano(iue, and the waters of the Rideau Navigation as a year's service, I have nearly nine years' service. During this, time I have had six days' leave. In October, 1877, my engagement as Engineer in charge of Harbours, St. Lawrence and Lakes, (Quebec and Ontario) by the then Minister of Public Works, was made an annual engagement, commencing from the 1st of January of that year. From that date my services have been given on this basis. Since the receipt of the notice which reached me rn the 31st December, I have been unremittingly engaged on the preparation of the Annual Reports of the Department of F'ublic Works and the Department of Railways and Canals, a duty fulfilled by me independently of my work as Kngineer-in-Charge for seven years. On this occasion the work, which is of a particular and confidential character, exacted unusual labour, care and attention. Hence it has not been possible for me to look for professional employment in the few weeks of interval, or to make any effort out of the Department for another engagement. I am now and always have been willing to continue my services and perform my duties as a civil engineer, as I have been hitherto acting, or in any other similar capacity in the service of the Government of equal rank and emolument, and I hereby offer to- perform such services to the best of my ability. If the Department does not see fit to accept my offer of continuance, and insists upon Its notice being carried into effect, then I have respectfully to say 'hat I claim one year's srdary for the inadequate notice and the loss entailed upon me by so abrupt, unforeseen and painful termination of my nine years' connection with the Department. I have, tVc, (vSigned) Wilijam Kingsford. No. 1370. Ottawa, March i2th, iSSo. Sir, — I am directed to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the ist instant, asking to- be continued as Engineer-in-Charge of Harbours, or in lieu thereof, that in consideration of nine years of official employment, a sum equal to a year's salary be granted to you, and I am to say to you that the matter of your application will be brought to the attention of the Minister of Public Works. I have, (4c., (Signed) S. Chapleau, Secretaiy. Wm. Kingsford, Esy., Engineer-in-Charge, Ottawa. Ottawa, iHtm June, 18S0. Sir, — I beg leave to call the attention of the Department to my letter of the ist March last, on the subject of my dismissal from the position of Engineer-in-Charge of Harbours, Quebec and Ontario, a position which I have held for the previous nine years. My letter was acknowledged by you on the 12th March, and at the same time I was informed "that the subject will be brought to the attention of the Minister." No furtlier reply has since been received, and accordingly I have again to bring the subject under your notice. I have, &c., (Signed) William Kingsford Major Chapleau, Secretary. «» w W"' 32 Toronto, 15TH July, 1880. Sir.— I beg leave to call the attention of the Department to my letter of the ist March which still remains without notice. I have, &c., (Signed) William Kingsford. Majok Chapleau, Secretary Public Works. No. 2734. Ottawa, 22nd July, 1880. Sir, — I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 15th inst., calling the attention of this Department to your communication of the ist March last, in which you request re-employment as Engineer-in-Charge of Harbors in the Provinces of Quebec and Ontario, or that allowance be granted you equal to one year's salary. I am directed to state that your case still remains under the consideration of the ilon. the Minister. I have, &c., Wm. Kingsford, Esq., C. E., (Signed), S. Chapleau, Toronto, Ont. Secretary. I ' I- i i f 194 WiLBROD Street, Ottawa, 20th August, 1880. Sir, — I ihave addressed three letters to the Secretary of the Department, and they liave simply been acknowledged. I beg leave, therefore, to write directly to yourself as Minister of Public Works, to ask your attention to my letter of the ist March last, which jed to the two subsequent communications. In that letter I set forth that after eight years' service on the last day of the year, I had been dismissed. My services were, however, retained until the completion of the two annual reports, and it was not until the last days of February that this duty was terminated. M engagement with the Department was an annual one, and I have expressed my willingness personally to fulfil the year's service. On the other hand, if this offer be not .acceptable, I have claimed a year's pay by virtue of the engagement so abruptly termi- nated by your instructions. Six months have elapsed since this letter was written. It virtually remains unnoticed. That it is not the intention of the Government to give me professional employment, I have been made thoroughly to understand. Other parties have been placed to the duties 1 have so long carried on ; and my designs for the work placed this year under contract have been entrusted to others to execute. Impediments have also been created so that my services could not be accepted in other Departments ; and whatever your silence, the impression is fully established that my services are in no way desired. But I can claim to be treated with justice and fairness. I am a citizen of Canada, and I have my rights as a British subject. I do not suppose that there ever was an instance, under British rule, that a man of my years, with my service and antecedents, has been dealt with as I have been — a course, as injurious to my interests as it seriously affects my professional reputation. Had I been guilty of crime, or vice, or even neglect, I could not have been treated with greater harshness. In my eight years' service, I had never but six day's leave. My work, which is on record behind me, is a proof of the Jionesty, the loyalty, the ability with which I have fulfilled my obligations. Such a record 33 should have protected any one whose name it bore but, in spite of it, I have been sura- marily dismissed with an utter disregard of that broad pripciple of right which rewards honest service, and which is the immutable law of a just Government. I address myself, therefore, directly to yourself to ask that the claim I have preferred may be considered forthwith, viz., that I be paid a year's salary in compensation for my dismissal, and for the injurious effects it has entailed upon me. I have to ask you to make this an official record of the Department. I am, &c., (Signed), William Kingsford, En^ineei: No. 3726. Ottawa, 16th Sept., 1880. Sir, — Referring to your letter of the 20th ult., in which you request an early con- sideration of your claim to be paid a sum equal to one year's salary as late Engineer-in- Charge of harbours, on the grounds that your engagement with the Department was an annual one, and that you were discharged without due notice. I am directed by the Hon. the Minister to inform you that repeated but unsuccessful search has been made through the records of this Department for any letter or document which might show your engagement to have been an annual one from ist January, 1877; and that your claim cannot, therefore, be entertained. I have, &c., (Signed), S. Chapleau, Wm. Kingsford, Esq., C. E., Secretary. 194 Wilbrod St., Ottawa. Toronto, 54 Avenue Road, 25th September, 1880. Sir, — I have received your letter, as per margin, in which, by instructions of the Minister, you inform me that " repeated but unsuccessful search has been made through the records for any letter or document to show my engagement to have been an annual one from ist January, 1877 ; " and that my claim to be paid a year's salary, as I set it lorth in my letter of the ist of March, for the inadequate notice and the loss entailed upon me by so abrupt, unforeset: and painful termination of my nine years' connection with the Department, that this claim cannot be allowed. I do not entertain the view that n<" document can be found to establish the annual engagement under I affirm my .^ei vices to have been rendered. I refer you accord- ingly to I. — 57018. 31 January, 1876. — A communication from myself, in which I ask that my engagement be by the year, and my pay fixed at $300 per month. 2. — 76684 9 Nov, 1877. — The pay list of my staff for October, 1877, referred through the usual channel, audited, certified and ordered to be paid. My own account is as follows: ist January to 31st October, 10 months' pay at $275 $2,750 Less 9 months pay received at $250 2,250 Balance . . ^500 Being my October pay $275, and nine months' advance of pay per month, $25—3225. The facts of the case are that early in October, 1877, the Deputy-Minister informed me that in answer to my written application, the then Minister the Hon. Mr. Mackenzie C. 34 had been good enough to accede to my request that my engagement should be annual, and had so made it at the rate of #275 per month to date, from the ist January, 1877. In accordance with this authority, the engagement was affirmed in the next pay list. I refer you for the correctness of this statement to Mr. Trudeau, who was at that period Deputy-Minister of Public Works. I cannot but think that every obligation of official dut> should have dictated to the Minister of Public Works a reference to the Deputy at that date, without my calling upon him to take this course, so that my true position in the Department could have been established, and justice and fair dealing dealt out to my long service. To prevent further misrepresentation with regard to the tenure on which I held my position, when I was summarily dismissed on the last day of the year and my duties assigned to others, I addressed myself on the subject to the Hon. Mr. Mackenzie, the late Minittterof Public Works. He tells me that in accordance with my application, he has been good enough to write to the present Minister and has stated that he made my engagement an annual one, and considered it a permanent arrangement, although cir- cumstances prevented it being made so by Order-in-Council ; and he cannot but think that some memorandum to that effect may be found in the Departmental records. I have, therefore, to ask a reconsideration of the decision communicated in your Jeter, on the ground that the reason assigned for the refusal to pay what I hold to be my just demand is at variance with fact. As seven months have elapsed since my first application was made, although the documents I name and the reference I suggest have been always available to the Minister. I feel justitied in adding the request that a reply be given me forthwith. 1 have, &c.. Major Chapleau. (Signed;, William Kingsford, Secretary Public li'^orks. The following is the text of the letter which Mr. Mackenzie was good enough to write on my behalf to Sir H. Langevin, when I addressed my- self to him on the subject. That I am enabled to give it here is owing to Mr. Mackenzie having permitted me to take a copy of it. I cannot sufficiently express the deep sense I entertain of Mr. Mackenzie's con- siderate and kind treatment of me in this emergency. I feel under deep obligations to him. Is it an impropriety to say that his conduct to me was that which those who know him best, would have most expected. Toronto, Sept. 25, 1880. My Dear Sir, — Mr. Kingsford has requested me to state to you what took place in the Department of Public Works regarding the tenure of his engagement as Engineer-in- Charge of the Harbours of Ontario and Quebec. I can only, at such a remote time from the transaction, state what the conclusion was which was arrived at. Mr. Kingsford applied for an increase of salary and permanent employmnt as a member of the Civil Service. He had been receiving :$25o a month, and a special allowance ol I300 for completing the Annual Report. We did not at the time see our way to embrace him and others in a similar position in the Civil Service, for reasons I need not refer to. But it was agreed that his engage- ment should otherwise be considered as permanent as possible ; that it »hould be con- 35 rsidered a yearly one, at a salary equal to that above mentioned, including the sum of 9300, or in all, $3,300. My impression is that there must be some record of this in the Department, and that Mr. Trudeau will also recall it. I am, yours faithfully, Hon. H. L. Langevin, (Signed), A. Mackenzie. Minister of Public Works, Ottawa. Ottawa, 27th September, 1880. My Dear Mr. Mackenzie, — I am in receipt of your letter of the 25th inst., relative to the position which Mr. Kingsford occupied in the Department of Public Works when you presided over it. I shall give it my best attention, and you may be sure I shall respect any engagement which you may have made in regard to Mr. Kingsford. I remain. My dear Mr. Mackenzie, Yours, very truly, The Hon. Alex. Mackenzie, M.P., (Signed), Hector L. Langevin. Toronto. 3 le Toronto, nth Oct., 1880. Sir, — I have to call your attention to my letter of the 25th Sept., which remains with- • out acknowledgment or notice. I am, &c., Major Chapleau, (Signed), William Kingsford. Secretary Public Works. No. 41 13. Ottawa, 14th Oct. 1880. Sir,— I am directed to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the nth inst., draw- ing attention to your communication of the 25th ult., in which you request a reconsider- ation of your claim in connection with the position lately held by you of Engineer in Charge of Harbours. In reply, I have to inform you that, immediately upon the receipt of the latter, it and the other documents in the case were submitted to the Minister of Justice, whose opinion, when received by this Department, will be duly communicated to you. I have, &c., "Wm. Kingsford, Esq., C.E., (Signed), S. Chapleau, Toronto. Secretary. Toronto, gth Nov., 1880. Sir, — I have again to address you, as Minister of Public Works, on the subject of the claim I have made, owing to my dismissal on the last day of the year from the position I held in the Department of Public Works for so many years. Six weeks have elapsed since I placed in your hands evidence to prove that the state- ment of the Secretary of the Department of the i6th Sept=imber that, after repeated and unsuccessful search, no document can be found to prove my engagement to be an annual one, is at variance with fact. I gave you in my letter the nuipbers and dates of docu- ments which " the repeated and unsuccessful search" had failed to make known. I also applied on the subject to the Hon. Mr. Mackenzie, the Minister of Public Works, before the late division of the Department, who established the conditions of my service. 36 Mr. Mackenzie, with the sense of right ind love of justice which mark his character,, unhesitatingly acceded to my request, that he would be good enough to state to you the terms of the agreement he made with me, and he wrote you a letter clearly setting forth its conditions. He has been pleased to give me a copy of that letter, and likewise your reply to it, in which you state that you '' will respect any engagement" Mr. Mackenzie may have made with regard to myself. For upwards of two weeks my lettt r remained without the slightest notice, and on my calling the attention of the Secretary tf) the fact, I was informed that my claim had been submitted to the Minister of Justice, and since this date, no communication has been received by me. To my mind, very little law was required to determine the merits of the claim I have preferred. It was and is one to be dealt with by the principles of common sense, com- mon honesty, and every day justice, unless the pledged faith of a Minister of the Crown is to be held of no force or account. "What are the facts ? Having an annual engagement — the fact of which I have clearly established — on the last day of the year, I am officially notified thai the services I have rendered for the- past eight years as Engineer in charge of Harbours, Quebec and Ontario — services I affirm to have been efficiently, creditably and honourably given, were no longer required ; a dismissal, I repeat, as unjust and causeless as it is unprecedented under British rule. It cannot be said that the office I held has been abolished, for whereas my staff consisted of one Assistant Engineer and ten Juniors, this season there has been detailed to what hitherto has been my work eight Assistant Engineers and forty Junior Assistants. My dismissal was to take effect on the completion of the Annual Reports of the twa Departments of Railways and Canals and Public Works, a duty which was completed only in the last days of February. On the ist of March I informed you by letter that my services were given on the basis of an Annual Engagement, and I stated my willing- ness to complete a year's service, otherwise that I claimed a year's pay. My letter- literally remained without the slightest notice until I protested against the unjust treat- ment I was receiving. It was only on the i6th September, seven months after its date,, that any steps were taken when the Secretary informed me that as nothing could be- found in the Department to establish my annual engagement, my claim could not ber allowed. This was the reward of eight years honourable and devoted service. Even if no proof of such engagement existed, the course you have taken is at variance- with the principle which has been observed with regard to the public servants of the Dominion. It has hitherto been the rule to make acknowledgment for long and honest performance of duty, when circumstances have led to the discontinuance of meritorious services by a gratuity graduated according to the merit of the recipient. I can adduce many instances from my personal knowledge, at least two have occurred during the last twelve months ; a fact easy to establish. But my claim is not founded merely on usage. It is stronger. It is based on a positive engagement, as Mr. Mackenzie's letter and the documents in the Department establish : yet seven months were allowed to elapse without any practical notice being taken of my first letter. When I do receive a reply, I am called upon to suffer from the failure of the Deputy Minister to make an efficient search, and because whoever was responsible neglected the duty of making the necessary enquiries which my letter itself suggested. I then furnish you with the information required, Mr. Mackenzie writes the letter establishing my claim, which you personally undertake to respect as an engagement of a Minister of the Crown. In spite of these proofs and your own 37 lletter, ill that has been done is to refer my claim for a technical legal opinion, and, .although six weeks have elapsed, a case so simple and plain remains without settle« ment or result. I have my rights as a British subject, and as a Canadian citizen. These rights I :«hall not patiently see violated if I have to appeal to the highest authority where redress ..can be obtained. By virtue of these rights I ask that justice be done me and an imme- • diate settlement be made. I have, Ac. (Signed) William Kingsford. Hon. H. L. Langkvin. Minister Public Works, Ottawa. Toronto, loth November, 1880. Sir,— I beg leave to enclose for your information, as first minister of the Crown, copies • of the correspondence between the present Minister of Public Works, Hon. Hector L. Langevin, and myself, which has taken place with regard to the claim preferred by me < owing to my dismissal from the position in the Public Works I held for eight years as rEngineer in charge of Harbours in Ontario and Quebec. I take this course Irom the unjust treatment I am receiving from the hands of Mr. Langevin, so that in case of the event of my being forced to appeal to the justice of the Jlouse of Commons you will not be without knowledge of the ci'^cumstances under which .this appeal will he made. I am, &c., (Signed), William Kingsford. Right Hon. Sir J. Macdonald, First Minister. Ottawa, Nov. 15th, 1881. Sir, — I am desired by the Right Hon. Sir John Macdonald to acknowledge the receipt ■ of your letter of the loth inst. enclosing copy of correspondence between the Minister >( .Public Works and yourself. I am sir. &c., (Signed), Frbd. White. Wm. Kingsford, Esq., C. E., Toronto. No. 4571. Ottawa, 15th November, 1880. Sir, — I am directed to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 9th inst., and to state that the Hon. the Minister of Justice to whom, as you were informed on the 14th October, the matter had been submitted, not having yet forwarded his opinion on your .claim in connection with your late position as Engineer in charge of Harbor works, has been again communicated with by this Department and requested to give his early .attention to the subject, I have, &c., (Signed) F. H. Ennis, Secretary. Wm. Kingsford, Esy., C. E. 38 Toronto, ist December, 1880. Sir, — If any inference is to be drawn from your letter of the 15th November, written- by the instructions of the Minister of Public Works, to the effect that the Department of justice had been requested to give its early attention to the papers connected with my claim refused on the 20th September, it is that no further prolonged delay was to be •experienced. But seventeen days have elapsed and I have received no communication ^ on the subject. We are now in the tenth month since the claim was first preferred. For five months it was treated with unconcern and neglect. At the end of the sixth month, after my protest in August, I was informed that no papers could be found in the Department to prove my engagement to be an annual one and that my claim was disallowed; in other words,, hat the statement contained in my letter of the ist March was untrue. A slight search would have proved precisely the contrary. During this period, reference to the Minister and Deputy Minister of that date, the Hon. Mr. Mackenzie and Mr. Trudeau, would have established that that which 1 have asked is based on right and justice. Indeed the official reply did not venture to take the contrary ground. The refusal to recognize my demand was founded on the mere objection that my claim was not sustained bj' written proof. The written proof furnished by me, instead of being, accepted as sufficient, as it must be by any candid mind, has been referred for a techni- cal legal opinion, and the only inference to be drawn from this course is that it has been adopted with the hope of possibly finding some legal loophole by which an unwelcome obligation can be avoided. Unless the pledged word of a Minister ot the Crown is to be held as a convenient phrase, to be recognized or repudiated as feeling or interest may dictate, — unless the honour and good faith of the Dominion are to be held as mere ''■imes without reality and without account, there is little law required in my case. Nevertheless, my case complete within itself, exacting scarcely an hour's reading — with no new information to be obtained, with the facts sequaciously set forth, established and indisputable, with many precedents to guide opinion, with the written pledge of the present Minister of Public Works to the Hon. Mr. Mackenzie — a copy of which I annex — that he will respect any engagement Mr. Mackenzie may have made with me — the case has been seventy (70) days waiting for an opinion, which by the laws of abstract justice, honour, fair dealing and common sense could have been given in a few hou.s. Even to have asked for it is a violation of every right principle. The explanation you have assigned for continued delay, ir. therefore un'^Rl's.- factory to me; and to-day I am as far from a settlement as when I wrote my first letter in March. I am unsustained by the least assurance that my claim will be in, any way be considered within reasonable time. Therefore, in spite of any desire to think otherwise, I am forced to the convictian that it is idle for me to expect justice at the hands of the Minister of Public Works, and that there is no course open to me but to appeal to the people of ^Canada, through their representatives in the House of. Commons against the persistent wrong I am experiencing at his hands. This communication is the last which I shall write on the subject to the Department, of Public Works. I am, &c., (Signed), William Ktngsford F. M. Ennis, Esq., Secretary Public Works. Eli*.: 39 Toronto, ist December, 1880. Sib,— I beg leave to enclose to you, as the First Minister of the Crown, the completion of my correspondence with the Minister of Public Works — Hon, H. L. Langevin. I have, &c. (Signed), William Kingsford. Right Hon. Sir J. A. Macdonald, First Minister. No. 4812 Ottawa, ist December, 1880. Sir,— Referring to your claim for payment of one year's salary as Engineer formerly em- ployed under this Department in connection with Ilarhour works, on the ground that your engagement had been made an Annual one from the ist January, 1877, I am directed to inform jou that the opinion of the Minister of Justice, to whom the matter was submitted, is that you have no legal claim. The Minister of Public Works, however, after full consideration of the equitable view of the case, and having regard to the statements contained in a letter addres.sed to him on the subject by the Hon. A. Mackenzie, his predecessor as head of the Department, is of opinion that you should (be allowed a gratuity to compensate for your loss of em- ployment, and has consequently obtained the authority of the Privy Council for the payment to you of the sum of $1650, an amount equal to your salary for six months, at the rate of pay formerly allowed for your services. I am therefore directed to inform you that the said sum of If 1650 is now at your disposal. I have, Ac, (Signed) F. H. Enms, Secntary. William Kingsford, Esq., Toronto. Ottawa, 2nd December, 1880. Sir, — I am instructed by the Right Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald to acknowledge the receipt of your letter to him of the ist instant enclosing copies of the completion of the correspondence between yourself and the Hon. Minister of Public Works. Your obedient servant, (Signed) Fkho. White. Wm. Kincsford, Esq., C. E., Toronto. Toronto, 3rd December, 1880, Sir,— I have the honour to acknowledge your letter as per margin, informing me that the sum of $1,650 is now at my disposal, allowed as a gratuity for loss of employment by authority of the Privy Council after full consideration of the equitable view of my case, and having regard to the statements contained in a letter addressed to the Minister of Public Works by the Hon. Mr. Mackenzie. I have the honour to state that I accept such sum in full of all demands set forth in the claim made by me on the ist March. I have to ask you to do me the favour to send the cheque at your convenience to Toronto by registered letter, P. O. Box 816, with such receipt as may be necessary for me to sign in full quittance. 40 I: '.; I';; As I accept the offer of the Department, it is incumbent for me to do so without criticism. But I do not conceive that it is unbecoming to make allusion to the remark that the Minister of Justice has given the opinion that I have no legal claim against the Government. I beg leave to refer you to my previous letters in which I have advanced that my claim should be considered on higher ground than mere technicality, and it would seem by your letter that this principle has been recognised. The settlement of the claim therefore does not suggest any analysis of the ground on which this opinion has been found. But I feel it due to myself to say that I have consulted professional men in Ontario, in whom judgment and knowledge I have full confidence, and they hold a totally opposite opinion, and had the course been forced upon me, I should not have hesitated a moment to have tested the question in one of Her Majesty's Courts of Justice. I would have answered your letter yesterday, but the mail being seven hours late, any reply to it was impossible. Personally I beg leave to assure you of my high consideration and I have, &c., (Signed) William Kingsford. F. H. Ennis, Esq., Secretary Public Works. So far as I know myself, it is not from private feeling that I publish this correspondence. The injury which Sir H. Langevin was enabled to inflict on me is not sligV't. I had been eight years without connection with professional outer life, and hence I was dissevered from it ; and it is not a passport for the employment of any agent, especially an engineer, when it is known that he is under the ban of the Government. The fact has no public interest. But the whole case, in itself has an important bearing on a branch of public interior economy. This is the point not to be lost sight of, and there are special features in the narrative which I have put to paper so affecting the general interest as to exact the attention of the least reflecting. I have to rept .t that Sir H. Langevin's explanation in the ^^ouse of Commons is in every way untrue, and it is strikingly at variance with the reasons he first assigned for my removal. It can easily be substantiated that, in the early stages of this proceeding, his explanation was that I had taken part in politics. I have it from more sources than one that my friends were met with the square assertion that I had personally opposed Mr. Langevin in his own county, and had endeavored to influence many electors. The statement is so ridiculous that it is a wonder it was utterec. But I will go through the form of stating that it is untrue, and that there is not even ground that I can understand for its having been made. Had it been the case, and I had thrown my bread on the waters of political strife, I would have silently and uncomplainingly accepted the consequences of my act. But my feeling is against a public officer taking part in politics. His first duty is to his Department. It has long been my opinion that in the Dominion elections everyone receiving continuous pay should be dis 41 franchised, and that, equally, he should take no part in Provincial elec- tions if they be identified in the general political feeling. Then, by my own canons of criticism, were Sir H. Langevin's charge correct, I should admit ray conduct to have been reprehensible. The reality is that there is not a scrap of evidence to warrant the statement. That it was made is certain. One French Canadian gentleman distinctly declared that the opposition to me was owing to the conviction of Sir H. Langevin that I had so acted. Many of the political jackals of those in power repeated this imputation as a justification of the treatment of me. This view has long ceased to be expressed. Certainly, in the House of Commons, no one had the courage to advance it, for he would have been immediately challenged to specify the date and the instance of the interference. The contrary was the case, as proved by the fact that, in the execution of my duty, I was reported to Mr. Mackenzie as endeavoring to embarrass his Government by aiding the Opposition. Mr. Mackenzie knew the falsity of the state, meat, and it proved harmless. Every one in the Department, especially my own staff, knows that such an opinion was never heard. If I com- mitted any crime, it was serving loyally and speaking respectfully of the ability, industry and energy of Mr. Mackenzie, my official superior. I carried on my work with him for seven years, and was invariably treated with con- sideration and kindness. I can recollect no instance where my represen- tations failed to receive his attention, or where any course was adopted when the interests of the country were lost sight of. I defy those who desire te justify Sir H. Langevin to put their hand on any act of mine con- trary to my official instructions — and I never received any other. I had no private hints to tread the paths of meanness and subservience. I was guided, I believe, honestly and loyally to do my duty, and I w.is never accused of neglecting it, or of considering myself unduly, or wanting in that impartiality and justice which should mark an Engineer of a Department to whom important duties have been entrusted. It will be seen by the correspondence that Sir H. Langevin steadily denied me justice; first, treating my communications with contemptuous silence, and after advancing strained arguments against my claim, he eventually refused to recognize it. When I showed how tiimsy his objections were, he inter- posed delay upon delay. It was only when I stated that I would write him no more letters, and would bring my case before the House of Com- mons, that he agreed to give me six months' pay for the loss I had incurred. I accepted this offer, not as just and fair treatment, not even thankfully. I had then been eight months engaged in a tedious and bar- rassing correspondence on the subject. I had suffered loss of time, and incurred expense, and it is discreditable to the Government I should have been so treated. I think to-day, as I thought at the time, that my dis- I 42 missal was causeless, and dictated only by the emergencies of Sir H^ Langevin to provide ior others by removing myself and my staff: a feeling sustained by enmities of wounded vanity and personal feeling in other quarters, so that this wrong could be perpetrated. But this private view is lost in the public injury to good government. It needs to be but looked upon abstractedly to show the course was unjustifiable. Here on a frivolous pretext of a new organization, a permanent officer, with eight years' service, is removed from his duties, and another person is named to perform them. That I held that position is conceded. Sir H. Langevin made the admission to this effect in the House of Commons, and the pay- ment of the money is accounted for by the fact, not by good feeling to my- self. The position I held was known in the Department. The neglect of Mr. Baillairge to produce the papers is personally discreditable to him. He was my contemporary in the old Department, and could not but know my status. He never had any love for me, or any of my staff. I always fancied he thought that I was in his way. If he had desired to act with straightforwardness and justice, he could have crossed the hall and asked the Deputy-Minister of the old Department what was the nature of my engagement. Or the inquiry could have been made directly of myself, how I established my claim. It is hard for me to think these papers were unknown. Long after I gave the references tor their production, my case remained unnoticed r nd unconsidered. It will be seen that at no time I gave no new facts to sustain my cause. My argument was in November what it was in March. There was no special proof to be obtained, no inquiry called for But whatever the stage, and whatever the date, there was the same dogged refusal to consider the evidence at the disposal of the Depart- ment, and the same determination to refuse me justice and right. No one at iW cognizant of the working of the Department can recog- nise any other conclusion than that the statement of Sir H. Langevin ' that the special work for which he [Mr. Kingsford] was employed was no longer required under the new arrangement of the Department ' is at variance with truth. In what does Mr. Perley's present work differ from mine ? In no respect. Take one marked example. Captain Eads, who has been bought in to examine Toronto Harbour. Whose survey and reports were put before him ? Mine. The work throughout my old district, where it was surveyed and examined, and designs made, has been carried on according to these designs. In my letter I enter into the number of Engineers employed in 1880. Independently of Mr. Perley, few of them did any work of any public utility, and I allude to the childish com- parison of Sir. H. Langevin of the average, cost of a survey. The old work has been carried on as I traced it. I except Owen Sound Harbour work, which I could not way have recommended. But I know no instance 43 where change has been made. And what is the new work of the last two years ? Precisely of the same kind and character as that I carried on, proving that the services of an Engineer like myself have been called for, and there is no ground for the statement made by Sir H Lappfevin in the House of Commons. To those friends who kindly undertook the advocacy of my case, and I have warmly to thank them for doing so, no unfavourable criticism was made of me professionally and personally. I was given to under- stand my transfer to the Department of Ra!!',vays and Canals was assured .^ But influences intervened, and I have my theories what those influences- were. Indeed the personal character, the weight and influence of my friends were such that I hardly think Sir H. Langevin would have dared to ignore them unless he had oeen sustained by some extraordinarily strong influence which was felt and not seen. Even admitting that my services were no longer called for, that the work had been terminated, and as often happens in our pleasant and happy but uncertain profession, there was nothing more to be done, and we had to shake hands. The course to be observed towards me was simple enough. I should have been told that the work I was engaged on had ceased ; that it appeared that I considered I had an annual engagement, and that from my long and good service, I would receive the benefit of the doubt and be paid in full for the year without delay. After a courteous sentence of regret that the connection had terminated, with an expression of thanks for past eff'orts and services, and some good wishes for the future, a separation takes place without bitterness or bad feeling. Such is the treatment which custom and decency have long established. It was the opposite to what I received. No one of any right feeling can justify the treatment extended to me. Indeed many of my Toronto- friends joined in a letter to Sir J. Macdonald, calling his attention tO' my case, and asking in regard tc my past good services, I should be replaced in the Department of Railways and Canals under Sir Charles- Tupper. This joint letter was, after some days, acknowledged by Sir J. Macdonald, and his reply was to the effect that he had referred it to Sir H. Langevin. Such was the result of the appeal to the First Minister for justice and consideration, by some of the most distinguished and estimable men of Toronto. All the facts, and published letters establish that Sir H. Langevin felt that he had the power to remove me, and had determined to do so, from the earliest formation of the Ministry. The letter of Mr. Austin, was- forwarded by him when he was Postmaster General. The fact plainly shows that the false statements of Mr. Austin were written with his concur- rence and his own note is neither more nor less than a demand that an 44 Engineer of seven years' standag should be dismissed on grounds frivo- lous and unjust, and personally discreditable to their advocate. The treatment I experienced from Sir H. Langevin from the com- mencement was one of insolent injustice. The work of the Engineer of Harbours is to-day what it was when I filled the position. To transfer it to another was a wrong to good government and every principle of honor and justice. Will the people of Canada allow this wrong, not to the individual but to themselves ? It is subversive of public morality. It strikes a blow at the rectitude of purpose which should be the prompting motive of every public servant. It tells the world that neither honesty, merit, truthfulness, nor good conduct is to have the least recognition from this person — the present Minister of Public Works, Sir H. Langevin. The question is not one of efficiency, it has become one of interest, intrigue and vindictiveness. Early in this correspondence, I enclosed copies to the First Minister, Sir J. Macdonald. Men of the highest station appealed to him to do justice to me, protesting against the treatment I received. But to him the matter was one of indifference. Sir H. Langevin lay between public opinion and himself, if blame be expressed. Who can doubt his power of intervention in this matter? Who can tell the influence he has exercised on it ? A few words from him at any time would have stayed all proceed- ings. A sentence on the other hand would have carried it forward, and it is certain that he knew the features of the case in all its stages. I will conclude as I commence. To the many to whom my name is unknown, or only familiar in con- nection with the works which I have carried on, injustice to nie personally must be purely a matter of indifference. Such as these may, however, on public grounds, reflect on what appears in these few pages. If the civil service is to be kept intact ; if the interest of the Dominion is to prevail ; if government is to be administered honesty, justly, ably and eco- nomically, then a class of men are to be brought together, not the mere creatures of a Minister, to pander to his vanity, to flatter his prejudices, to punish when his enmity teaches, to build up his fortunes — but men who are the servants of the public, to fulfil the obligations due tj the Country, honestly to*expend the money ^they have ta supervise ; and to extend the same justice to the humblest and of the most narrow means, as to the most influential, and the most wealthy. The days of privilege are dying out in the old world. Our own Mother Country has been foremost in opening out every career to ability and worth. Are merit and good service in Canada to be of no account ? Is the public department to be 45 within the grasp only of the parasite, the election agent, and the syco- phant ? Is a man of blameless public life to be insolently denounced without consideration of the consequence ? Is a false explanation to be admitted in the House of Commons as an atonement? Is injustice is wrong to be an admitted ministerial prerogative ? This issue I distinctly raise, and place it before the public of the Dominion, as one on which they have to pronounce sentence, let it fall on whom it will. Ottawa, 3rd Dec, 1881. f=Sja;'