IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 l.i M 2.2 M 1.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 .4 6" — ► % (^ /^ A "a % /A Photographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, NY. 14580 (716) 872-4503 M CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for iHistorical IVIicroreproductions / Institut canadien de microreproductions historiques pf^^ Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The to t The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. D D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur □ Covers dumaged/ Couverture endommag^e Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaur^e at/ou pelliculee D □ Cover rtle missing/ Le tit? de couvertui I I Coloured maps/ re manque Cartes g^ographiques en couleur □ Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que blaue ou noire) □ Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur □ Bourn Reli« Bound with other material/ avec d'autras documents D Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ Laretiure serree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distorsion le long de la marge intdrieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout^es lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont pas itA filmies. Additional comments:/ Commentaires supplementaires: L'institut a micofilma le meilleur axemplaire qu'il lui a ete possible de se procurer. Les details de cet axemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger unb modification dans la m^thode normale de filmage sont indiqu^s ci-dessous. r~n Coloured pages/ n Pages da couleur Pages damaged/ Pages endommagees Pages restored and/oi Pages restaurees et/ou pelliculees Pages discoloured, stained or foxei Pages ddcolorees, tachet^es ou piquees Pages detached/ Pages d^tachees Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of prir Qualite inigale de I'impression Includes supplementary materii Comprend du materiel supplementaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible I I Pages damaged/ j I Pages restored and/or laminated/ r~] Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ [~n Pages detached/ rri Showthrough/ r~~j Quality of print varies/ I I Includes supplementary material/ r~~| Only edition available/ Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totaiement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., cnt it^ film^es ^ nouveau de facon a obtenir la meilleure image possible. The pos oft film Orij beg the sior oth( first sion or il The shal TINI whi( Map diffc entii begi righi requ metl This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film^ au taux de reduction indiqu^ ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X y 12X 16X 20X 26X 30X 24X 28X u 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: Harold Campbell Vaughan Memorial Library Acadia University L'exemplaire filnn6 fut reproduit grAce h la g6n4ro8it6 de: Harold Campbell Vaughan Memorial Library Acadia Uriveriity The images appearing here are the best quality poss'ble considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol — »> (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les Images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tunu de la condition et de la nettetd de l'exemplaire film6, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exempiaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprim6e sont film^s en commengant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exempiaires originaux sont filmds en commenpant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Uii des symboles suivants .^pparaitra sur la dernidre image de chaque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole — »► signifie "A SUIVRE ", le syrr:bo!e V signifie "FIN". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc.. peuvent dtre film^s d des taux de reduction diff^rents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour §tre reproduit en un seul clich6, il est film6 d partir de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mdthode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 I THEB o^/r^T^r^ ^ n AT ST. JOHN. N. B ....REPORT.. •• M OF Captain BLOOMFIELD DOUGLAS, R.N. R. (Oovernrnent Commiitsioner.) 1 oncerning the Enquiry held at Saint John, N, B, in October and HoYember, 1897. AND EVIEW OF EVIDENCE -BY I. ALLEN JACK, Esq, DCL, Q.C. (Formerly Recorder of the City of St. John,) AND JOHN B. M. BAXTER, ESQ., Solicitor, et ♦♦-• B- ST JOHN, N. B, CANADA. 1898. .D14 ^79^ V^Sf ■.'HfUMi' -'. ' . «»^r "i' * ■■- ■ I The Pilotage System . . . .AT . . . SX, JOHN, N B. 39 Ifollis Street, Halifax, N. S., 27th December, 1897. "To Major Gourdeau, Deputy 3[inister, Marine and Fisheries Department, Ottawa. Sir,— In obedience to the instructions contained in your letter, dated Ottawa, the 6th October last, I have the honour to report that I have made a very careful and exhaustive enquiry into tlie complaints preferred by twenty-three of the St. John Pilots against the Commissioners, and into all matters relating to that pilotage district. In compliance with the decision of the Honorable Minister as conveyed in your telegram of the 15th of October, the in- vestigation was open to the public and the press, and the Coaimissioners and Pilots employed counsel. On my arrival in St. John vOn the 14th of October, I placed myself in communication with the Pilots, through their repre- sentative, Mr. Thomas Tray nor, a licensed pilot, asking for a formulated list of the charges against the Commissioners. The eight charges are given in Exhibit A, and are signed by twenty-three pilots, the total number of the staft' being twenty-nine. Mr. C. N. Skinner, Q. C, of St. John, was counsel for the Commissioners, and Mr. Samuel Schofield of the tirm of Messrs. Schofield & Co. (Limited), represented and acted on behalf of the Pilots at the enquiry. ^ The enquiry opened at the Custom House, St. John, on the 20th of October, and closed at midnight on the 18th of November. Enclosed herewith, I have the honor to forward the fol- lowing papers : Four Volumes of the Evidence given before me. One Volume of the Addresses to the Court. One Volume of the Appendices and Exhibits. One Letter from Mr. AV. M. Jarvis, enclosing Board of Trade Report on the Enquiry. One Letter from Mr. S. Schofield, covering a resolution of the " Pilots' Association." I also beg to enclose, and submit, for the convenience of the Department, papers containing comprehensive references to the evidence and to the exhibits. Having attentively heard the evidence given in court, and very carefully and minutely considered it since my return from St. John, I have the honor to report, that In my opinion, the twenty-three pilots who formulated the eight complaints against the Commissioners, have utterly failed to substantiate them. It is to be regretted that the Commissioners acting on the precedent afforded by the Halifax Pilot Commissioners, sought for authorit}' to receive remuneration for their services : the fact of their having taken this injudicious step and paying themselves, has doubtless weakened their influence and con- trol over the subordinates, who with some exceptions, took advantage of the position when the Commissioners, wisely, in my opinion, refused to sanction the " combine" so fully dealt with in the evidence. The whole tenor of the Pilots' complaints is based on the "1800" and the "combine" questions : these have given rise to the action of the Pilots, and have in my estimation /a?a^'y ihstm/ed the poicer and control of the Commissioners, and as a consequence broken down the disciplije and obedience of the twenty-three Pilots who have joined and remained in the " combine." In maki'.ig this statement, which I do after the most care- ful and serious consideration of the evidence, and being fully sensible of the very grave responsibility I am taking upon myself, I have ccme to the conclusion that the administration of the Pilot system at St. John by Commissioners has failed beyond redemption^ and that the surest, simplest and most effective method of controlling the Pilot service is by direct personal authorit}^ under the orders of the Department. I, therefore, strongly recommend that the necessary legislative provision should be made as early as possible to place the iSt. John Pilot staff under the immediate orders of the Agent for the Province of New Brunswick, assisted by the present very efficient S cretary, Mr. J. U. Thomas, subject to instruc- tions from the Department in Ottawa. I now propose to deal with the changes this system would involve, and in doing so without unduly or unnecessarily lengthening this report, I beg to refer to the report of the exhaustive and comprehensive investigation held by Captain W. H. Smith, R. N. R., and myself in 1895, on the Pilot Ser- vice of St. John. The report of this enquiry is in the Blue Book, published by the J)epartment in 1 ^^95. The majority of the recom- mendations in that report are, I consider, applicable to the pre- sent state of things. I shall refer to them in the margin of this letter as I proceed. In doing this I am actuated by the desire of condensing this letter as much as possible. I have now the honor of making the following recom- mendations. That the number of Pilots be reduced from the present list of twenty-nine to twenty. That the Pilotage dues remain as at present, but that steamers pay the same rates as sailing vessels, and that the charges be levied on registered tonnage, in lieu of per foot draught as at present. That the principle of supplying the Pilot staff by appren- tices be abolished. That L tasters of British registered ships, having actually been in command for twelve months of a square-rigged saj'ing vessel of not less than 300 tons register, and holding a cjrtiti- cate of competency, shall be eligible for vacancies in the pilot service, provided they have made five voyages out of the Port of St. John at any time as a master, mate or seaman before the mast. That all candidates for vacancies shall pass an examina- tion before two duly qualified nautical men to be appointed by the Honorable the Minister of Mfirine and Fisheries, touching their qualifications and knowledge of the Bay of Fundy and the Harbor of St. John. That these examinations shall be competitive, and the candidate possessing the highest qualifications shall be appointed. That candidates above the age of fifty-five be not eligible for examination. The amount of fees in connection with examinations to be determined by the Department, and be paid to the examiners. That candidates t^hould pass the colour test, and possess a competent knowledge of the principles, and application of the deviation of the compass on board iron or composite ships. That candidates must be prepared to give bond for the performance of their duties as a Pilot if licensed, The amount of bonds to be determined by the Department. That Pilots charged with negligence, misconduct or any other offence in the performance of their duties shall be dealt with by the Wreck Commissioner under the same pro^iedure as enacted as relating to enquiries into wrecks and casu; Ities, and the misconduct of masters and mates in the Mercantile Marine. That all compulsory Pilotage for the Port of St. John, and in the Bay of Fundy be abolished. The evidence given in the Report of 1895, discloses that the most startling anomalies exist in regard to the insistence of compulsory Pilotage, or rather, in the support of the com- pulsory payment of Pilot dues, the actual employment of a Pilot not being compulsory. It is needless for me to go through the arguments or to refer to the evidence already given in connection with this subject. T think that it mus*; now be admitted that the principle of compulsory Pilotage is doomed in the Bay of Fundy, and that the rule of charging for services actually necessary and rend- ered, is the fair and just one. In this opinion I am sustained by the Report of 1895, by the Board of Trade, and the Common Council, St. John ; and I therefore strongly recommend the abolition of the tax on shipping now so unfairly and unnecessarily imposed. The reduction of the staff of Pilots fiom twenty-nine to twenty, would form a very difficult question had it not been so fully ventilated and dealt with in the evidence and the Report of the Enquiry of 1895. Full information is given in the appendices as to the number of pensioners on the Pilot Fund, the amounts paid to them, and the state of fund to the latest dates. In reference to the very important question involved in the payments of the pensions to those now on the list, in pro- viding for the retirement of the nine pilots not required for the service, and the claims, if admitted, of the twenty Pilots retained on the fund, I would very respectfully suggest that the whole subject should be dealt with in the first instance by the Department, and subsequently, if found necessary, that a competent actuary to some reliable and well established life insurance company should be consulted. Tn the report of 1895, the question of the future payment of pensions, the retirement of the nine Pilots and future claims are fully dealt With. In that report it is recommended that a tonnage tax of two cents, per register ton, should be imposed on foreign vessels, and one cent on British registered vessels to meet the pensions and claims referred to. 6 The conduct of Mr. Traynor, Pilot, in writing to the press on matters referred to the nonoral)le Minister, and in venti- lating his and his brother pilots' views and grievances, fancied or otherwise, in the newspapers, was, in my opinion, subver- sive of all discipline, and I would strongly recommend that the established and very satisfactory rules of the public service, as regards writing to the press tjhould be rigidly enforced as to all Pilots in future. It is impossible for any authority, be it a Commission Board or an individual officer, to carry on discipline, and the quiet orderly and agreeable routine of duty, if subordinates are allowed to air their grievances, real or imaginary, in the news- papers. The Chairman, Mr. Howard D. Troop, and the Com- missioners, Messrs. Lantalum and McLauchlan, have not returned the amount they have received contrary to the pro- visions of the law, but they will do so if now directed by the Honorable Minister. In concluding this report, I desire to record my thanks to the Board of Trade, to the Common Council, to Mr. C. N. Skinner, Q.C., and to Mr. S. Schoiield, for their courtesy, and the assistance I received from them in carrying out the duties entrusted to me. I have the honor to remain. Sir, Your most obedient servant, BLOOMFIELD DOUGLAS, R.N.R., Commissioner. 1 COMPLAINTS OF THE PILOTS. Since the Pilots objected to the Commissioners paying themselves Eight Hundred Dollars per annum out of the Pilotage Funds the Commissioners have acted in a vindictive 1 and unfair manner towards the Pilots, the result of which u not only injurious to the welfare of the Pilots, but is likely to prove detrimental to the shipping trade of the Port unless their actions are overruled. PROOFS. No. 1. The Commissioners have recently called upon the Pilots to equip their boats in a more expensive manner ttian was ever required before since the Commission was created. No. 2. The Commissioners have adopted a Rye-Law for which they are now seeking the approval of the Government, exempting from pilotage dues all vessels up to 250 tons register instead of up to 125 tons as heretofore. This action on the part of the Commissioners is directly contrary to their policy during all the years previous to the *-ime when the Pilots objected to the Commissioners appropriating the $800 to themselves. It is also directly contrary to the opinion of Chairman Troop, who in his sworn testimony before Captains Smith and Douglas in the year 1895, stated that after twenty years consideration and experience the Commissioners had arrived at the conclusion that all vessels over 125 tons register ought to pay pilotage fees, which he declared was essential for maintaining the Pilotage service. This opinion was also supported by the evidence of Secretary Thomas and several of the other Commissioners, all of which appears in the report to the Government. No. 3. The Commissioners have abolished the " Turn System '' in connection with Pilots sent abroad for vessels, which system was adopted by the Commissioners themselves a good many years ago and has been rigidly adhered to by them, even when objected to by ship-owners, down to the time when the Pilots took action against them regarding the $800 matter. No. 4. The Commissioners have lately treated the Pilots in a discourteous and unfair manner in connection w'ith their business. No. 5. Some of the Commissioners have been known to I oxpreas themselves in a very unfriendly manner about the Pilots, and it is currently reported that the entire board is exceedingly hostile towards them. Ko. 6. ' The Pilots are informed that notwithstanding the decision of the Minister of Marine regarding the $800 mis- appropriated by the Commissioners last year, the money has not been restored to the Pilot [Funds. No. 7. The Commissioners cancelled the Indentures of Richard Cline, Jr., an indentured apprentice, for acting con- trary to their Bye-Laws. When the Pilots took action in re- o-ard to the $800, they allowed him his time in full, and ordered him to sea to qualify to become a Licensed Pilot, without regard to a protest made against same by the Pilots, which we consider unfair and unjust. No. 8. The Pilots consider they are unfairly treated as regards the payment of Pilotage dues in having to wait for their money, in most cases from vessels ownhd or controlled by some of the Commissioners. In consequence of the foregoing actions of the Com- missioners the Pilots have entirely lost confidence in the Board as at present constituted, and they would recommend that an entirely new Board be a^^pointed, which appears to be the only means of restoring harmony and of ensuring fair play to the Pilots, who have abandoned all hopes of ever obtaining same from the present Board. The Pilots are also desirous that in future one of their own number, to be appointed by themselves, should be a member ot the Board, which system prevails in several English ports and also in many other places. John S. Thomas, Thos. Traynor, Henry Spears, Wm. Miller, J. L. C. Siierrard, Jonx Sprars. Thos. J. Stoxe, "William Scott, Martin Spears, Egbert Thomas, James E. Mantle, E. J. Fletcher, John Sproul, James Reed, Joseph Doherty, James McPartland Richard Scott, Charles Daley, "W illiam Lahey, James Bbnnet, Frank L. Lahey, William Quinn, P. G. Doody, The Pilotage System . . AT ST. JOHN, N. B. St. John, N. B., November 15, 1898. I. Allen Jack, Esq., D.C.L., Q.C., and John B, M. Baxter, Esq., Solidlors, d>c. Gentlemen, — The St. John Pilots, for whom I acted as Counsel at the Government Enquiry held here in October and November last, are exceedingly dissatisfied with the Report of the Com- missioner—Captain Bloomfield Douglas, II. N. R.— whose conclusions they consider are partly inconsistent and absurd, and largely contrary to the evidence submitted. They also claim that his r< commendations concerning the future manage- ment of the St. Jolin Pilotage business were entirely unsup- ported by any of the witnesses, none of whom were even asked by Capt. Douglas what they thought of the plan whicli he has since proposed for adoption by the Government. In consequence of this unsatisfactory character of Captain Douglas' Report, the Pilots have decided to obtain an inde- pendent report upon the evidence by gentlemen of legal train- ing, who are skilled in dealing with such matters, and capable of correctly judging in regard to the weight of evidence sub- mitted on both sides of a case, and I am instructed by the Pilots to request you to undertake that duty, if it is convenient for you to do so, in which case you will please con)plete the work at the earliest possible date. I send you herewith the complete evidence as taken down at the enquiry by Mr. W. il. Fry, Otucial Stenographer ; and 9 10 while it is not the wish of the Pilots to prescrihe the form of your Report in any way, T am instructed to ask you to answer the following questions after carefully reading and considering the evidence. (1) Were any, or all, of the Pilots' charges against the Commis- sioners substantiated by the evidence submitted, and if so, which of them 1 (2) If any of ^he charges were unsubstantiated, in what respect was there insufficient evidence regarding them ? (3) Were any of Captain Douglas' findings substantiated by the evidence 1 If so, please state which of them, and also those that were unsubstantiated. (4) Was any evidence offered, or called for, regarding the system of future management recommended by Captain Douglas for the Pilotage business 1 (;")) Were Captain Douglas' recommendations in any way sup- ported by the evidrnce taken at the encjuiry '? (G) How do Captain Douglas' recommendations correspond with those made by himself and Captain Smith in their report concerning the enquiry held in the year 1895 'i (7) Has the management of the business by the Pilot Commis- sioners, and their treatment of the Pilots, been skilful and proper ■? If not, in what respects has it been unskilful or improper 1 (8) Was the Pilots' recjuest for representation on the Pilot Commission supported by the witnesses who were interrogated regard- ing same I (9) In view of the evidence, do you consider that in the public interest it is advisable for the present Commissioners to retain office t The accompanying evidence and documents comprise the entire ^ase as submitted to Captain Douglas at the enquiry, by the Pilots, the Pilot Commissioners and the St. John Board of Trade, and therefore you have before you exactly the same information upon which Captain Douglas made his report to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. I remain, yours respectfully, S. SCHOFIELD, Counsel for the Pilots. The Pilotage System ST. JOHN, N. O. Saint John, N. B., 25th January, 1899. S. ScHOFiELD, Esq., Counsel for Samf Johv Pilots. Sir, — In accordance with your letter of 15th November last, requesting a report upon the evidence adduced before Captain Bloomfield Douglas, R. N. R., at an enquiry held in October and November, 1897, we have fully considered the charges made by the pilots, the evidence taken at the enquiry, the exhibits produced, the addresses of counsel, the finding of the court, and also the report of the enquiry of 1895, so far as it bears upon matters adverted to in Captain Douglas' present report. In our consideration we have endeavored to follow the usual rule for the review of evidence, viz.: that where the person who heard the evidence given has come to a conclusion upon disputed facts, that conclusion, if supported by any reasonable view of the evidence, should be sustained. This, wc think, under the circumstances, might bear unfairly against the persons making the charges, if our answers to your questions were simply categorical, but we have in each case added such comment as we have deemed necessary to avoid such result. We beg to submit the following answers to the questions pn ►pounded : Questio), One. Were any, or all, of ^he Pilots' charges against the Commissioners substatitiated by the evidence sub- mitted, and if so, which of them ? 11 I 12 Answer. All the "charges," in onr (.pinion, include the allegation that the acts complained of were done in consequence of the Pilots' objection to the Commissioners paying them- selves $800 out of the Pilotage Fund. We do not find that any action of the Commissioners towards the Pilots was taksn in consequence of such objection, consequently we answer this question in the negative. The allegation is only based upon an inference drawn by the Pilots from the acts of the Com- missioners ; the Commissioners deny that they were actuated by resentment aroused by the opposition of the Pilots to the payment of the $800 in their dealing with the Pilots, and to this evidence, of persons whose reputable standing in the com- munity seems to be unquestioned, it would be impossible to refuse due weight. Question Two. If any of the charges were unsubstantiated, in what respect was there insufHclent evidence regarding them? Answer. This question, being the converse of question one, is answered by the reason for the previous answer, viz.: the absence of evidence connecting, as a consequence, the acts of the Commissioners with the objection of the Pilots to the payment of the $800. There are, however, important acts of the Commissioners which we do not feel justified in referring to the $800 matter as a cause, which will be fully dealt with in the answer to the seventh question. Question Three. Were any of Captain Douglas' findings substantiatid by the evidence? If so, please state which of them, and also those that were unsubstantiated. Answer. The first finding of Captain Douglas is that the complaints are utterly unsubstantiated. We cannot agree with this conclusion e>^en with the most rigorous inclusion of the motives and conduct of the Commissioners assumed on behalf of the Pilots as the result of their attitude in regard to the $800 matter as an integral portion of each charge. Even then, we think that the strongest conclusion against the Pilots which would be warranted is that there was insuflicient evi- dence. There is evidence substantiating most, if not all, of the i'ilots' charges, tliough Captain Douglas may be quite cor- I I I 13 I I I rect in finding that it has been met by the testimony adduced by the Commissioners. Wo agree witli Capt. Douglas in his second finding that " the fact of their (the Commissioners) having taken tnis inju- " dicious step (the voting to themselves the $800) and paying " themselves has doubtless weakened their influence and con- " trol over subordinates." With his third finding that the $800 and combine matters have " fatally destroyed the power and control of the Com- " missioners and as a consequence broken down the discipline " and obedience of the twenty-three Pilots who have joined " and remaliied in the combine " we would agree with the substitution of the words " materially weakened" for " fatally destroyed " and " impaired " for "broken down." With hie fourth finding " that the administration of the Pilot system at Saint John by Commissioners has failed beyond redemption " we do not agree. We think that Oapt. Douglas has not sufficiently distinguished between the system and those by whom it is administered, and that however applicable his finding may be to some members of the Com- mission, it is not supported by any evidence at all against the Commission as a system. The remainder of Captain Douglas' report, we think, is intended to consist entireU^ of recommendations. Question Four. Was any evidence offered, or called for, regai'ding the system of future management recommended by Captain Douglas for the pilotage business ? Ansiver. No. Question Five. Were Captain Douglas' recommendations in any way supported by the evidence taken at the enquiry ? Answer. No. Question Six. How do Captain Douglas' recommendations correspond Avith those made by himself and Captain Smith in their report concerning the enquir}' held in the year 1895? Answer. They do not correspond. We do not feel that we are required to review, on its own merits, the finding of 1895, but a proper response to this and the two preceding 14 questions requires that we should point out that, there being no evidence before Captain Douglas ?^t the enquiry of 1897 an to the system reported upon in 1895, or suggestive of any change in system whatever, it follows that no sufficient reason can be assigixed either for a change from the report of that time (prepared by Captain Smith and concurred in fully by Captain Douglas) or for the introduction of this subject into his last report. It may be that Captain Douglas having con- cluded that government by commission had proved a failure, felt impelled to suggest a substitutionary system. We, how- ever, as already indicated in the preceding answers, do not think that he was at ail justified in so doing in connection with this particular enquiry. At the 1895 enquiry it was contended by the Board of Trade and ship-owners' con^.mittee that " the constitution of " the present pilotage authority, consisting of seven commis- " sioners, is objectionable, and that their number should be " reduced to three." (See Keport 1895, page 2.) At page 20 is to be found a recommendation, in which Captain Douglas concurred, for the abolition of the pilot board as then (and now) constituted, and the substitution therefor of a board consisting of five members, of whom one, to be the chairman, should be appointed by the Dominion Government, and one each by the City of Saint John, the Shipowners of that city, the Board of Trade and the Pilots. The disparity between this and the system now proposed by Captain Douglas is so great as to require no detailed explanation. Question Seven. Has the management of the business by the Pilot Commissioners, and their treatment of the I*ilots, been skilful and proper? If not, in what respects has it been unskilful or improper? Answer. This question was not submitted m these terms to the Commissioner, but we think that there are a number of matters fully detailed in the evidence to which some allusion should have been made in the findings, and which can best be ,lpalt with under this head. We unhesitatingly reply that the treatment of the Pilots by the Pilot Commissioners has 15 been in many rospectK unHkilful and improper. To enumerate the instanceH it will be advisable to take up the Pilots' oharges in detail, omitting the element arising out of the $800 matter with which, we think, we have sufficiently dealt in our answers to questions one and two. We think that the forma- tion of the combine is the real point of departure from which the Pilots' case must be judged. It will be remembered that the "combine" was formed on the 15th December, 1896, and that it was disapproved by the board at a meeting held on the 7th January, 1897, and an opportunity to explain its provisions and submit by-laws thereunder refused two of its promoters who were in waiting for that purpose. The annual accounts were produced at this meeting, and, in the usual course, were published by the newspapers next day. To the payment of the $800 the Pilots then objected. Now, whether this objec- tion was the outcome of a refusal to consider the "combine" or not, is immaterial to enquire. If the Pilots would not have objected to this unwarrantable depletion of the fund, had the Commissioners sanctioned the "combine," we think they would have been acquiescing in a wrong which they should have resisted. Substituting, then, the formation of the "combine" and its continuance after the disapproval of the Commissioners as a possible motive for the acts of the Commissioners of which complaint has been made, we may consider such acts seriat'.m, as indicative of the skiifulness and propriety, or otherwise, of the treatment of the Pilots by the Commissioners. Charge 1, as to the equipment of the boats in a more expensive manner than before required, is not of itself, if wholly proved, evidence of unfair, unskilful or improper treat- ment. The Board simply did what they should have done long ago in enforcing their by-laws. It seems strange that all of the Commissioners should not attribute the action of the Board in this matter to the loss of the " Warwick," and the consequent discussion in the Board of Trade ; it seems stranger still that the chairman, Mr. Troop, should deny that such was the cause. He docs, iiowever, ascribe Ihq change to the 16 winter port trade, and it does not seem to us surprising tl.at, after a nnmbnr of years of non-enforoenient of the by-laws, the real cause of their enforcement should have been in existence for some time before action wf.8 taken. Nor does it seem to us that the request for the keeping of a log was at all unreason- able. The ninth by-law rf quires the reporting of a number of things, particularly light-houses unlighted or fog whistles not sounded. Therefore, though compliance with this request was not insisted upon, we are not prepared to say that it might not have been enforced as a command. Incidentally, the question of apprentice Cline, dealt with later on, shows the expediency of keeping a log on the pilot boats. Had such evidence been forthcoming in that case the matter could easily have been settled. Charge 2, as to exemption up to 250 tons. The gravity of this matter becomes apparent when it is considered that at a meeting, without notice that such a matter was to be dis- cussed, an important vote was carried by three to two members of the Board. The chairman, vho was known to have held views strongly opposed to the resolution, sayr that he did not oppose it; that he has now no opinion about it (being a loss to the pilots) ; that he had a very strong opinion in 1895, but that when he found the way they (the pilots) were paying him for his efforts to protect their interests, he lost all interest in them in that direction. (See page 557 of the evidence). Another commissioner, Mr. McLauchlan, who testifies that he wa? opposed to the change, was absent. It may be said that the chairman could not have controlled the vote, and that there was no opportunity for a casting vote. Under ordinary circumstances, and applied to ordinary transactions, this answer would be complete ; but it seems to us that in a case which has all the appearance of legislation by a bare majority ; which would reduce the income of the pilots, already none too large ; and which was also in the direct interest of two out of the three persons who constituted such majority ; that the chair- mb ^ wonld have been iustified in leaving the chair and using all other means in his power to prevent what can only be 17 termed a "snap vote." The time, Ist April, 1897, when this vote was taken, is important in considering its advisability. Assuming that the motives of the Commissioners were unim- peachable when they passed this by-lav^, yet in view of the friction which had been caused by their refusal to sanction the proposed " combine," dating from the 8th January, and by their action in taking the $800 which had been disallowed by the Minister c.' Marine on the 27th January, coupled with the absence of any fresh petition or request of vessel owners or persons interested in such a change, it would not be unreasonable for the Pilots to think that such legislation was either intended as a punishment to them for their persistence^ in the " combine," or for their opposition to the payment of the Commissioners. There was but one other view possible, viz.: that the Commissioners were legislating in favor of such of their number as were owners of vessels which would come within the exemption. It would seem incredible that such could have been the motive of the gentlemen occupying the position in the community which these Commissioners do, and we are therefore of opinion that they cannot complain if the Pilots ascribed, however mistakenly, their action to one or both of the other motives suggested. We can conceive, as a defence, that the Commissioners, by their action, have acceded to the views of some merchants and vessel owners, which may be reasonable enough in themselves, and which it would not be wrong 2'e^ -^^ ^^ the Commissioners to accept. On the other hand we cannot see how these Commissioners could property discharge their duty as a commission unless they at the same time considered the interests of the Pilots. Where a conflict of interest occurred the Commissioners might, hone tly and X'roperiy, in some cases come to a conclusion adverse to the Pilots, and for this reason their authority should, as far as possible, be sustained. At the same time it is essential that, in dealing with such questions, they should consider the Pilots' interests ; and this, in our opinion, they failed to do in this nxatter, so far as the evidence discloses what took place at the meeting. In short, the matter seems to have been 18 decided without diBCUSsion or consideration, at perhaps the only meeting during the year when a majority could have been found in favor of the change. We therefore unhesita- tingly conclude that the action of the Commissioners in this matter may be regarded as ample evidence that their manage- ment of the business, so far as it affected the Pilots, was extremely unskilful, if not absolutely improper. Charge 3 as to the abolition of the Turn system. It appears that several plans had been tried by the Commission- ers, and it is evident, from their owm testimony, that the system in force immediately prior to July 1897, w-as the best, as it practically ensured a fair division of the pilotage of ves- sels for which pilots had to be sent away and all other special pilotage as it may be termed. Messrs. Elkin and Smith (pages 394, 401) voted for a change ; Messrs. Thomas and Lantalura (pages 486, 523) against it. Commissioner Knox (page 464) is not sure how he voted ; Con missioner McLauchlan was absent ; the chairman, it is presunied, did not vote, but of this he is not sure, and f om his evidence it appears very strongly that, while he judged the Turn system to be the better one, he advocated its abolition (page 560, etc., etc.) It is to be presumed, we think, that there has been no mistake in the minutes and that the system has really been abolished. If we are correct in this supposition we are surprised to find that the sole motive which can be discovered for the action of the Board is a letter from one of the Pilots (Doyle) who was not in the combine. The power of assistance to particular men, which the abolition of the Turn system places in the hands of vessel owners, is so great that w^e cannot come to any other conclusion than that this step was taken for the sole purpose of " check-mating" the " combine." This is, certainly, highly improper legislation. If the "combine" wore objectionable, surely the Commissioners could have adopted other and better meang, for minimizing its assumed objectionable consequences than by destroying the portions of their own system, which, according to their own testimony, worked well and fairly. This, we think, was unskilful and improper treatment of the Pilots. 19 Charge 4, as to discourtesy. Many instances which are <;ited as evidence of discourtesy may perhaps be accounted for by the practice which had evidently grown up of communi- cating orally with the Pilots by the Secretary, and which, we think, was for most purposes sufiicient. But, when the de- tails of the proposed combine were laid before the Commis- sioners, we think they shorld have acted with more circum- spection. It is fair to them to say that the system of the combine was a sweeping one, and that it might be regarded, in some respects, as a substitution of pilot authority for pilot- age authority. The latter aspect however appeared, perhaps, mostly in the bye-laws, which the Commissioners did not see. It is important, on the other hand, to note that the Pilotage Act (R. S. Can., Cap. 80, Sec. 15) enacts that the pilotage authority may make bye-laws to provide for aiding in the establishment of and participating in the profits of companies for the support of pilot boats (sub-sec. c). They may also (sub-sec. b) make regulations for the maintenance of the boats. Why, then, should not this proposition for the reduc- tion of expenses have had a fair and adequate hearing? We do not say that the Pilots were in the right, nor do we pretend to judge of the system further than to say that the sole objec- tion raised by the Commissioners is one of practice and not of principle. They allege that the vessels would not be spoken until within the first district, but we fail to see why a strin- gent bye-law applicable to the " combine " system woulu not compel the pilot-boats to be at their proper stations, and in every respect perform their duties. The subject of stations had already received attention. In the Report of 1895, at page 27, we find the fourth recommendation, as follows : " That three pilot stations should be established in the Bay "of Fundy : one at Briar Island, anoth r at a convenient " point in the North Channel, and one on Partridge Island ; " details of which should be arranged by the pilotage authorities." At page 21 of the same Report we find the following recommendation : " That the number of pilots shall be reduced from 28 to 20, I •20 " whose husivess it shall be to keep in commission three pilot boats " of mt less than 30 tons register, from the 1st May to the mk " November of each year, avd two during the other months." In view of these considered recommendations, in which Captain Douglas wholly concurred, it does not seem possible that the opinion of the Pilot Commissioners against the system of stations can be wholly justified. We have therefore con- cluded that this prejudging of the Pilots' case and refusal of ordinary consideration to their propositions is evidence of unskilful and improper management on the part of the Commissioners. Charge 5, as to hostility of Board to Pilots. The expres- sions attributed to Commissioner Knox by Pilot Sherrard are denied, not only by the Commissioner, but as well by the per- son to whom they were said to have been used, Pilot Rogers. Commissioner Smith denies makiiig any remark about^ the Pilots having stations or places where they could " fleece " the ' vessels, and in the confusion which appears to have existed in the Common Council committee room it is, perhaps, not sur- prising that there is a conflict of testimony regarding almost everything which took place there. The chairman, Commis- sioner Troop, has left no doubt as to his views, for he honestly and emphatically says that he has lost interest in the Pilots. We think, from all the evidence, that he voices the feeling of the Commissioners, as a body, better than they do individually. It is unfortunately true, whatever may be the cause, that the Commissioners do not appear to regard the Pilots as they have done in the past. While we think it would be too much to say that the Commissioners are hostile to the Pilots, as men, we feel that they are so strongly opposed to die iiae of action pursued by the Pilots that they have practically ceased to re- gard their interests. This, however, does not apply to all the members of the Commission, and we would not find, in terms, that the Board is hostile to the Pilots. Charge 6, as to the repayment of the $800 to the pilot funds. This charge has been sufficiently dealt with by Captain 21 Douglas in ais report. It is a subject on which we need make no furthe; comment. Charge 7, as to the action of the Commissioners in allow- ing apprentice ('line to make his voyages. It is undisputed that, in consequence of complaints received, the Commissioners carsed apprentice Cline to be notified on 3rd February, 1893, that his indentures were suspended. There is, unfortunately, no record of this action in the minutes of the Commission, but we have no reason to think that the secretary sent such a notice without authority. It is clear that there was good reason for the act of the Commissioners, as apprentice Clino was performing very little duty under his indentures, and there is no evidence of his restoration to the stand-ng of an apprentice except what is alleged to have taken place upon an explanation to the Chairman. Commissioner Troop, in 1895, made the singul^rr mistake of stating in his evidence that there were three apprentices, while, if Cline were then to be counted, there were reaily four. Yet he says now that he did make a mistake, and that his attention was called to it shortly after making the statement ; and this explanation muse, we think, be accepted. It is to be regretted that in a matter of so much importance, occurring at such a critical time, the Commissioners did not explain to the Pilots the reasons for their action. We think that, had apprentice Cline been demanding that the Commissioners should treat him as having performed his indentured service they could easily have justified themselves in refusing to do so, had they so desired. Coupling with this the fact that every additional Pilot causes a reduction of the earnings of all the others, we Ihink the matter required full consideration, and that the Pilots had a right to an explanation from those who have charge and management of their business. We do not, how- ever, say that apprentice Cline should not have been permitted to make his voyages, as that was a matter entirely for the con- sideration of the Commission. Charge 8, as to delay in payment of pilotage hi most cases from vessels owned or coutrollcd by some of the -^oRimissioners. 22 The evidence does not show that the Commissioners were more frequently indebted than other people, and the actual loss appears to have been but slight. The cases of the "Su.my South " and " Winthrop " appear to be explained, at least to some extent, by the evidence of the chairman of the Board, and the Commissioners, as a body, were not called upon to deal with them. The "St. Julien" matter speaks for itself and relates to the chairman alone, and solely in his personal capacity. We would like to have had some better explanation of the " Edward Slade," as we can hardly think that the facts have been wholly detailed in the evidence. Without com- menting upoTi the instances mentioned, we think the Commis- sioners should rigidly enforce the law as to payment of pilotage before the clearing of the vessels. This would prevent even the appearance of discrimination and would be much more just to the secretary who, at present, is or may be sometimes placed i: an awkward position by the continuance of the present system. Besides, as a public body, the Commissioners have simply to enforce the law. We would, however, acquit them of anv intentional wrong-doing in this regard. (^niesfion Eight Was the Pilots' request for representation on the Pilot Commission supported by the witnesses who were interrogated regarding same? !^nswer. The Pilots' request for representation on the Board was strongly supported by nearly all thewitnesses who were interrogated regarding it, and was not opposed by any. The evidence demands a finding in favor of the appointment of a representative of the Pilots, who, however, shoukl not himself be a pilot. Question Nine. In view of the evidence, do you consider that in the public interest it is advisable for the present Com- missioners to retain office ? Answer. This question has virtually been answered by Captain Douglas, as his recommendation of the abolition of the system involves the removal of the persons by whom it is administered. Applying the rule as to review of evidence before stated to this inference, we would be unable to say that I 1 23 there was not testimony to support such a finding. We would acquit the Commissioners of acting with any intention of wrongdoing, but we think that even those among them who have opposed the acts which have caused the exiscing trouble must feel that the Commission as at present constituted can no longer be as useful as before. In view of the extensive class of testimony reviewed in our answer to the Seventh question, it would seem to us that the Commissioners must see the advisability, in the public interest, of placing their appoint- ments at the disposal of the bodies from whom they were received, trusting that due consideration will be given to such claims as each may think he possesses to reappointment. In filling vacancies, so caused, as well as in all future appoint- ments to the Board, we think the proportion of vessel owners in the Commission should be reduced, and that individual Commissioners should not in any way be interested in pilot- boats. In connection with the latter recommendation, it is but fair to say that no reflection upon Commissioner Knox is intended or would be justified. While the evidence shows him to be without reproach in this matter, yet it must be apparent that such interest is so apt to cause friction that it should be eliminated from the Commission. ^ - We have the honor to be, sir, Your obedient servants. * I. ALLEN JACK, Q. C. JOHN B. M. BAXTER.