K SPEECH OF MR. J. D. EDGAR, M.P. IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS JULY 3rd, 1894 ON THE M^GREEVY CONSPIRACY TRIAL AND THE CHARGES AGAINST SIR HECTOR LANGEVIN AND SIR ADOLPHE CARON Mr. EDGAR. Mr. Speaker, before you leav^e the Chair, I desire to addi'ess some observations to the House. On the 22nd November last, a trial was brought to a close In this city which, in some wa^s, par- took of the nature and Importance of a state trial. Tlie defendants in that trial were Thomas McGreovy and N. K. Con- nolly, and the charge for which they were ti'ied was that of consviring to defraud the Quebec Harbour Commissioners and the Governor in Council in eonneorion wit], procuring contracts and with improper deal- ings in connection M'ith those contracts, the contracts being for very large and import- ant public works between the Quebec Har- bour Commissioners and tlie Government, ou the one hand, and Tiarkin, Connolly & Co., a well-known Arm of conta-aotors. on the other hand. The expenditure connected with ihose works was very large, and their con- struction extended over some years. The RESULT OF THE TRIAL was the conviction of the defendants, Messrs. Connolly and McGreevy. and they were sen- tenced by Mr. Justice Rose, who condiictod the trial, ' one year's imprisonment In the com lon jail of the country. Great and unusual public interest at- tached to that trial, and it was quite to be expected that it should be so, for a good many reasons. One was the lirorainence of the defendants. The Hon. 'Lliomas McGreevy had been In pub- lio life for many years. He was a prominent figure In this House from Con- federation to 1891. He was not exactly in tlie Caibinet, but he was next to the Cabinet in supporting the Conservative party while they were in power, and also while they were in Opposition. N. K. Connolly, the other defendant, was a wealthy man, and a very large and well-known contractor in tlie countrJ^ This trial attracted public in- terest for another reason. We know quite I well, from the comments of the press at the time, the trial aroused public interest in the events of 1891, when remarkable dis- closiu-es were made (before a committee of this House respecting Messrs. McGreevy ^t Connolly, and others, which were, to a large extent, the cause of t^e downfall of one of the Conservative leaders. Tliat trial also suggested to the public, and brought to tlie minds of the people some- thing that haippened in 1892. Tlie ' Globe ' newspaper published throughout the coun- try, with great enterprise, lithographic fac- similes of certain documents, end tho«e documents were also brought to tihe atten- tion of tlie House. Then It must be ad- mitted that the Interest the public took in that ti'lal was not lessened by the renin rli- able circumstance that instead of serving out their term of one year, the PRIvSONERS WERE ALLOWED OUT at the end of three months of their sentence. Another matter which still further excited public Interest about the trial was the fact that, arising out of those investigations of 1891, where it was disclosed that the Government had been robbed to an enormous extent by the contractors and by Mr. McGreevy, a civil suit had been brought ' by the Government to recover Inrge sums from those contractors, &V.6. that civil suit is still pending in the courts. I cannot help feeling that another, aind a still greater reason for public Interest attaching to that conspiracy trial was the fact that it was well known that a leader of the Conservative part/ was still remain- ing within the Cabinet, although he was largely interested In the distribution at least of tlie funds thait were found to have been ciiminally received by Mr. Thomas Mc- Greevy from those contractors. I certainly think that the country expects to hear some- thing from Parliament this session, the first session after that trial, on the subject at least of the political aspect of that trial, and the duty devolves on me to-night to bring before the attention of this House ■what I think \a the fair and reasonable con- clusion to be drawn from the evidence and records that are l>efore this House in re- spect to tile political action of two of my fellow members who are in this House to- night. Wliat was the consideration, the pur- pose and OBJECT OF THAT CONSPIRACY of which those men were found guilty ? It was the obtaining of money by Thomas .McGreevy from contractore in exchange for improper intluence and secret information supplied by him to them. That was its ob- ject. What was its result, in a pecuniary sense ? The result of that conspiracy was that large sums of money were actually paid over by the contractors to Thomas McGreevy, and were received by him, and that out of those moneys n large sum was paid to Thomas * McGreevy by the contractors for a specific and clearly-defined oibject and purpose, that was for the election expenses of the Con- servative party. Now, Sir, the amount of these moneys was estimated by one of the counsel for the Crown, Mr. Osier, in his address to the jury at the opening, at some- thing over $119,000. and the Judge, in his charge, said that $117,000 may be consider- ed upon the evidence to have gone for elec- tion expenses, while other sums were shown before the parliamentary commit- tee, to have gone for political purposes In addition co those I have mentioned, and for other general pecuniary purposes. This might be very interesting, indeed, to investi- gate further, but I will confine myself now to the political purpose to which those funds were devoted. What I contend Is this : That the conspiracy was, to the extent of its providing those FUNDS FOR THE ELECTIONS, a political conspiracy. The plea may be made that the political object lessened the crime, and in anticipation of a plea, or de- fence of that general nature, that the poli- tical object of this conspiracy ought to lessen the crime, one of the counsel for the Crown, in opening the case for the jury, made some remarks which I will take the liberty to quote. Mr. Osier said to the jury : Those items of ifirger expenditure witli .iltered entries amount altogether to .?1 19,4.38. Now, what is to lie said about tliese ? It is said, and will probal)ly appear in evidence before you, that these items were paid out l)y this firm of contrac- tors to Mr. Thos. McGreevy and otliers for tlie purpose of lieing expended in election expenses connected witli various elections tliat went on from time to time. Well, gentlemen, it will be for you to consider whetlier that circumstance does not aggravate instead of lessen tlie offence. If these moneys were paid out for tlie purpose of corrupting electors it is worse, not l)etter, for tlie defendants. It is a very serious crime for you to consider if a man l)y irregular practices obtains public money foi' liis own poclcet that is one tiling, but if lie olitairs it for tlie purpose of influencing tiie minds of men in exercising tlieir franchise, and that money comes from public contractors, one of the MOST SERIOUS OFFENCES against good government and the community that is possible is committed. Again, after the evidence had been put in, and afte-* the appeals had been made by counsel for the defendants to tlie jury for acquittal on tbe ground of the political character otf 1/his expenditure, Mr. Osier said : It is suggested by my learned friends, on tlie otlier side, that we should have invited those wliom my learned friend Mr. Blalte, chose to call the N'oblemen of the country, wlioever lie may mean. I apprehend he means those higiier in autJio- rity. By tliat suggestion lie means tliat sometliing. was done with this money wliich was wrong furtlier on l)eyond the liands of Thomas McCreevy, and that these are the men we ought to get at. But Thomas McGreevy's counsel says :— " I decline to give those away. I stand dumb. I won't say what I did with the money. I won't say who received it." And he chooses to take the consequences of that, lie chooses to plead to you tliat thi^was honouralile on his jmrt. * # « « What is it that he conceals ? What i ort of honour ia it that calls forth that concealment ? And the great poet has described that sort of honour in des- cribing Launcelot's dealings with the Queen : " His honour rooted in dishonour stood, And faith unfaithful kept him falsely true." Now, did the judge, when he charged the jury, tolerate, for a moment, suoh a plea as that ? He dealt with it as an able and upright judge might be expected to do, and I quote from his CHARGE TO THE JURY, as follows : It is no defence to say that this contract was let, or this influence was given or the service was rendered in consideration of a money subscription being ^iven by contractors to assist any Govern- ment, any Minister, any member of Farliament in either corrupt or legitimate expenses. Tlie whole confidence of tlie public in the administration of public att'airs would be gone, the whole watchful- ness over contractors would ])e taken away, and tlie contractor who would sink his conscience suffi- ciently to give the largest sum would be the man who would have the ear of the departmental oliicer, and be able to pull the largest amount of money out of the public exchetjuer. * » * * It iias been suggested in !;he course of this trial that such things are not uncommon, and that if it did occur it was in pursuance of a system. If so, it was a system as vicious as can be suggested, and as improper as can be perpetrated. In passing sentence the judge pointed out in language that could not be misunderstood that there were other offenders on whom the vengeance of the community should be visited. He said : The offence ia one which affects many, which ia against public policy, which is against the good government of the people and cannot be liglitly treated, and yet I have no desire, and shall not yield to any cry for severe punishment which might visit upon single oflTeuders the vengeance of the com- munity, or the justice which ought to be adminis- tered towards nuuiy. IS IT A SECRET ANY LONGER as to who were the beneficiaries of those election funds ? It was a mystery before the jury, who had no evidence before them to show who were the " noblemen " of th(; country, those high in authoi'ity re- ferred to by Mr. Osier. Is it, to-day, a mystery who these were ? Even the judge had no direct proof by which to identify the Government, the Ministers, the members of Parliament he referred to, who were assisted by these subscriptions, under a system which he characterirsed as " as vicious as could be suggested and as im- proper as could be perpetrated." Thart; evi- dence does exist to-day. It is written in the records and papers before this House. It discloses the names of those who receiv- ed the proceeds of the conspiracy from the minor culprits who were found guilty, and it throws upon this House the responsibility of acquitting or condemning the beneficiaries imder that consph-acy. The evidence to which I will direct the attention of hon. gentleman is mainly to be found In two apendices of the Jom-nals of this House. Appendix No. 1 of the Journals of 1891, con- tains the evidence taken by the committ(?e on Privileges and Elections on charges made by Mr. Tarte, then the member for Mont- morency, against Mr. Thomas McGreevy and Sh- Hector Langevin. The appen- dix to the Journals of 1893, in this other blue-book, is a report of a Royal Commission on charges against Sir Adolphe Caron and Is accessible to all the mem- bers of this House. It will be remeuih bcred that the Inquiry of 1891 was some- what restricted by the refusal of Mr. Mc- Greevy to answer quesrtlons that were asked him as to the disposal of the election furds tliat came to his hands ; and It will also be remembered that the inquiry of 1893 was also considerably restricted by the Govern- ment on tlhat occasion voting down a motion for a full Inquiry. Yet, for- tunately, an Important portion of this very conspiracy fund is traceable with abso- hite certainty from its criminal source to its disgraceful and corrupt destiny, the de- bauching of the electorate by TWO MINISTERS OP THE CROWN. In order to trace a considerable portion of this conspiracy money, I would quote tvom page 909 of tlie blue-book of 1891. M'r. Thomas McGreevy was examined, and he admitted that he had received )i!55,(X)0 for political purposes. He was asked by the chairman of the Committee on Privileges and Elections, the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Glrouard), who is still the chair- man of that committee, the following ques- tions :— Q. You say you got .?55,000 for political pur- poses ?— A. Yes. Q. You did not say on behalf of which party ; I think tie committee would like to know that ? — A. Th 3 Conservative party. Q. Exclusively ?— A. Exclusively. Q. Nothing went to any other party ? — A. No. The amoimt was proved to be much larger than this ; but we wUl confine ourselves to the amounts that are admitted. Now, coming right down to a particular occasion, to the general ELECTIONS OF 1887, and taking Mr. McGreevy 's admissions/ in that old inquiry, he says at page 908 :, * Q. As a matter of fact, you actually received in connection with the election of 1887 |20,(K)0? —A. Yes, «20,0(X). There is other evidence, given by Robert McGreevy and by Murphy on that occasion, ebcywliDg other and larger sums ; but I will not waste the time of the House In dteous- slng whether that evidence should be rf- ceivei paid the money ?^ — A. Well, I liad other moneys besides tliat. Q. Would you nialie any exceptions in tlie political moneys received from Larliin, Connolij. & Co. ?— A. Well, I will tell you. This money was spent in tlie general election of 1887. I had otlier moneys besides that, and they were all mixed together. Then he says : They vrcre all mixed uj) together. They were mixed up with others — the other moneys I had I got them in confidence. I have a large numbei of receipts, covering a much larger amount than that, but there is no distinguishing between them. The money is all mixed up together ; I cannot distinguish between the two. Now, Mr. Speaker, so far we have It made perfectly clear that the funds MoGreevy re- ceiWl were large election funds, in part the \ prowls of the conspiracy. We have it ' , madfe clear that he was the treiasurer for tha '■OonBervative iparty for the district of Que- bec in the general elections of 1887, that a hirge portion of the conspiracy fimds went into the elections, and that they formed part of a mixed reptile fund for the district of Quebec. Now, this one branch of the case is complete, and compromises the Con- servative party, first, of the district of Que- bec, and. sec«>ndly, of all Canada, so long as they do not repudiate and denounce tha transaction. But now. wha;t do we know of any and the amount of OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS to this mixed reptile fund ? We- know per- fectly well from the blue-book that Sir Adolphe Caron himself collected lor this fund $25,000, which he handed over to this same Mr. Thomas McGreevy. He collected it ft-om Senator Ross, who was president and prac^ tlcal owner of the Lalre St. John Rfdlway Construction Company, who had got Domin- ion subsidies for that railway passetl and afterwards assigned to him to secure his advances to the contractor; ajid. If anything was left over, he got It from tlie Construc- tion Company. We see all that on pages 223 and 224 of this blue-book of 1893 ; and the strange part of it Is that It appears from the evidence in thait blue-book that after this gift of $25,000 In February. 1887, by the late Mr. Ross to Sii* Adolphe Caron, for this fund, there were $262,000 of subsi- dies granted by the Dominion Government to this very Lake St. .John Railway Company, evei"y dollar of which subsidies were to go to Mr. Ross. And that $25,000 was not paid openly : it was not entered openly in yir. Ross's books. You will see by his book- keeper's evidence in the report of the Roy.al Commission, at page 177, that It was not charged to election funds at all. It was charged to Mr. Beemer, the contractor ; but It was paid by Mr. Ross's hands into Sir Adolphe Caron's hands, and carried by him in dirty bank notes and bills and put into Mr. Thomas McGREEVY'S HANDS for the political purposes of the campaign. Why, Sir, In this 1887 election fund, we find that Mr. Beemer, the contractor fc: this rail- way, Is shown by his books to nave con- tributed $25 " ') towards this election fund, wliich he marked with the letters "G.E.F." these, he explained, not being the Initials of the Finance Minister, but General Election Fm>d. But the other initials, which also appear In his books, " A.P.C." he had to ad- mit were the Initials of the Postmaster General. The evidence Is so very curious and contradictory as to these items contri- buted by Mr. Ross and Mr. Beemer, that, when this report was discussed before the House, a gentleman so much accustomed to analyse and sift evldetnce as the hon. mem- ber for Slmcoe (Mr. McCarthy), was forced to the conclusion that there was not one sum of $25,000, but two separate sums. And the photograph of a letter which I have in my possession, and may refer to later, shows tl:at the hon. member for Three Rivers (Sir Hector Langevin) did not think that Mr. Ross was even doing his duty when he gave the $25,000, but referred Mr. Valln to him to gel more money, should he require more, and not be able to get it from Mr. McGreevy. So far as we have evidence or can find out, there was not oae dollar of disinterested con- tribution to this general election fund of 1887. It was all from contractors or SUBSIDIZED PATRIOTS —every cent of it. It was much worse than judge Rose could ever have imagined it was, when he made the comments I have read. Now, another brancli of this case is to find out who controlled and who distributed this mixed fund for 1887. In the evidence given before the Royal Com- mission, Mr. McGreevy threw some light iipon that. He said that two things were arranged apparently. He said : It was arranged that there was a certain amoxint of money, and it was to he paid according to orders. Q. I want t'> know who it was that dir cted and controlled these arrangenienta ? — A. At what time ? Q. We will say during the elections of 1887 ? — A. I think it was .Sir Hector Langevin and .Sir Adolphe Caron. They consulted about it: Q. You say Sir Hector Langevin and Sir Adolphe Caron. Were there any others ? — A. I am not aware of any others. I have paid without written orders some, but the bulk of it was paid out in written orders. Sir Adolphe Caron is very explicit on that point, because in his own evidence, at page 224, he explains the whole thing in this way : Mr. McCxreevy was one of a committee composed of three, the Hon. Sir Hector I^angevin and myself l)eing two of the three, and Mr. Mc(4reevy being tlie third and the treasurer for the purpose of that campaign. These amounts were distributed after discussion between the three meinljers of that com- mittee, Sir Hector I^nngevin, myself, and Mr. Mc- Greevy. They were distributed in what we con- sidered to be the legitimate and indispensable expenses of the various counties which we were looking after in the district of Quel)ec. We may have to see what these gentlemen's ideas of legitimate and indisp nsable ex- penses were on that occasion ; but at any ratcv that is what Sir Adolphe Caron said about them. It is just to observe that Sir Adolphe Caron includes Mr. MoGreevy in the committee, whereas Mr. McGreevy mo- destly disclaimed control himself, and said he simply handled the money for the other two. That, however, does not make very much difiference, for if he were not on the committee, no doubt he knew a good deal about it. Then Sir Adolphe Cai-on further gives us light on that point. He says at page 228 of the report : The three members of the committee discussed to- gether, and we decided that such and such a county would receive so much. No amount, to my know- ledge, was ever given out until we three agreed that that amount should be given. It is therefore clear, beyond a shadow of doubt, that both Sir Hector Langevin and Sir Adolphe Caron were active agents in controlling and distributing the whole of this Immense fund. Including at least $20,000 which came out of this CONSPIRACY MONEY In connection with which ^McGreevy and Con- nolly were sent to jail. It Is also clear that If any sums were paid ouri of the funds for tbelr own constituencies, both were partie.'* to the payments, because Sir Adolphe Caron says : " No amount was ever given out imtil we three agreed that amount sliould be given." I think, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that In the motion which 1 shall place In your hands shortly, I am absolutely boiuid' to in- clude both of those gentlemen who controlled and distributed every cent of that fund. I propose to include them both, and under the oircumstimoes I do not see how I can avoid doing so. They both shared tlie benefits of that fund and should shai-e the responsibili- ties. In the months of April, May and June, 1893, the Toronto ' Globe ' displayed its re- markable newspaper enterprise by publish- ing a series of documents pm'porting to be lithogi'aphic fac similles of orders, letters and receipts of Sir Hector Langevin and Sir Adolphe Caron, passing between these gen- tlemen and the Hon. Thomas McGreevy as tieasm-er in 1887. I have procured copies of the papers of these dates, and will lay them on the Table for the information of any members who may desire to inspect these -beautiful PHOTOGRAPHIC ENGRAVURES A large part of these documents are /also on record iu the proceedings of this House and in the ' Hansard ' of the 15th June, 1892, so that any member may refer to them. Now, the genuineness of tliese have never been de- nied. In the Royal Commission Sir Adolphe Caron does not dispute the documents re- lating to himself, which were produced by Mr. McGreevy. But, in view of any dis- pute as to these relating to Sir Hec- tor Langevin, I obtained from the ' Globe ' people origiuuil photographs — which I have here and which I submit for Inspection by members of tlie House — of orders and re- ceipts, &c., somefchlng ovel" thirty In number, which connect Sir Hector Langevin with the dletrlbuilou of these funds in a most strik- ing manner. Now, it will he found that there were written orders on this fund given by Sir Adolphe Caron for twelve counties, and by Sir Hector Langevin for fifteen coun- ties. A number were for the same county, bui". In all, they covered twenty separate counties. This does not Include Quebec "West, but the treasurer himself provided carefully for that— hie own constituency— out of the fund under his own control, bui, apparently without anybody's order. No orders have been produced for Quebec West. But I do not suppose that Mr. Mc- Greevy would go through tlie formality of making an order upon himself to pay for himself. Now, Sir Adolphe Oaron ordered at least $5,100 to bo paid for his own county out of the fund. Admitting that he sub- scribed nothing more, we have an idea of what he considered legitimate iind indis- pensible election expenses. SIR HECTOR LANGEVIN'S ELECTION cost the fund $13,150, as shown by vouchers which I have here. The list of vouchers which I hold in my hand connected with the election at Three Riv(n's covers the period between the 31st of .Tanu- arv and the 3rd of March, and includes these Items; $500, $1,000, $1,500. $1,000. $4,000, $2,000. $3,150. total $13,150. Now, the hon. member for Three Rivers (Sir Hector Lan- gevin) said, in 1891, in the course of his evi- dence, which I may have to refer to a little later ou. that he took care not to Icnow any- thing about any expenditure for his own county. He was very particular about that. He did not know anything about any of these matters anyway, but about his own county he was particularly careful to know nothing. But he had forgotten what he had said to Mr. McGreevy in a foot note to an interesting letter I have here. Because, after all these sums, excepting the last $JJ,t.50 had been paid to various gentlemen under orders from Mr. Panneton, the manager of the Banlc in Three Rivers, La Banque du Peuple, and Sir Hector Langevin's chief election pusher— ,not agent, but promoter— we find the follow- ing letter dated the 26th of February, 1887, —the election was held on 22nd February- addressed to Mr. McGreevy. The letter is' in French, but perhaps hon. gentlemen will ex- cuse me ifrom reading it in French. I will translate it. Some hon. MEMBERS. In French. Mr. EDGAR. I am afraid that a good many English people would not be able to understand my French, but perhaps that would not be so bad if I was able to believe tha* the French members could understand it My DkarMr. McGreevy,— The battle is finished and we remain victorious. I felicitate you upon your success. We are indebted yet in the sum of !li!2.689. Sir Hector last evening gave me this word — which you will find lierein. I have done for the best. He ordered me not to lose this election. Pelletier has spent on his side at least $6,000. The fight has been terrible. As this sum lias been borrowed from a friend, and as it will be due on Tuesday, will you Ivave tlie amount deposited on Monday and telegraph it to me. If you prefer to see me, telegrapli Monday morning early and I will go down at half past eleven A.M. Sir Hector wishes that nothing shall be neglected. Bien a vous. P. E. PANNETON. Then there Is this : I have learned that JjT.OCK) has beeu spent by the committee of Pelletier. In the last two days he has made enormous efforts. Destroy this. P. E. P. And hei'e Is a little memorandum at the bot- tom of the page, and in a handwriting which I think we all know— My Dear Mr. Mc(iREEVY, — Please hear the bearer. Sir HECTOR LANGEVIN. THAT PRAYER WAS HEARD. You will remember that in this letter Mr. Panneton asked for $2,689. Apparently, on the 3rd March Mr. McGreevy had not yet paid the amount, for Mr. Panneton addresses Mr. McGreevy again :— Mv Dear Sii;,— Tlie draft in ((uestion has been drawn. It is by A, G. Gouin. I liave added $281 to settle some accounts of which I did not Itnow liefore. It will lie presented to you to-morrow morning by the Banque du Peuple. Our friend wishes that all should 1)6 arranged in order to avoid all disagree- ment. We are going to take means not to have any protest. Yours truly, P. E. PANNETON. And here is the draft drawn by Mr. Gouin for $3,150 on Hon. Thomas McGreevy, Que- bec, dated at Three Ri/ers, March 3rd, drawn at sight, land marked paid. That shows also what Sir Hector Langevin's ideas were of legal and reasonable expenses. Now. you will reinop ber that he cautiously refrained, from connecting his name with any order, but, if you will remerabar. Sir Adolphe Caron has told us that no amount was ever given out until " we thi'ee " ttgi'eed what tlie amoimt should be. Therefore, all three knew what was given to Three Rivers. I can tell you, as a fact of interest, that there were only 040 votes polled for the hon. gentleman at that election. Although there is evidence of a great deal more money provided for this Three Rivers elec- tion that I will not refer to, here alone wo had $13,150 paid for tliese 640 votes, or over $20 APIECE out of this blessed fund. Those are moderate and reasonable election expenses, of course. Now, what does the law say about things of that kind at elections ? Section 118, chapter 8, of the Revised Statutes of Can- ada, says : The payment, advance, loan or deposit by or on behalf of any candidate, before, during or after an election, otherwise than through the regular agents, is illegal, and the persou^making the same is guilty of a misdemeanour. SectioQ 120 says: The statement of ^election expenses shall include payments made by the candidate, and any agent or candidate wlio wilfully furnishes to the re- turning officer any untrue statement, is guilty of a misdemeanour. Now, Sir, we have the published election expenses of Sir A. P. Caron for the county of Quebec, In 1&J7, as follows :— Porsonal expenses, $58 ; expenses of ai^ents, $846.46 ; in all, $904.40, Mr. H. A. Turcotte being the a^ent who voualied for that being accurate. Now, deducting thai from the $5,100, ror which we find his own orders for his own county. It leaves to be classed as Illegal, a balance of $4,193.54, the payment of which looks very much as If it might possibly be considered by a court and Jury to be a mis- demeanour if it were brought before them. I am. however, only dealing with political ini- quities to-night, not misdemeanours. Now, we have also the published election expenses ot Sir Hector liamgevin for Three Rivers, in 1887. They are also dn tlieir way very curious, and exceedingly moderate : personal expenses, $30 ; agent's expenses, $887.09. They are very imrticular about cents ; it is well to be so when one is honest and above- board. That leaves to be classed as ILLEGAL, EXPENSES a balance of $12,232.91. Did the Min- ister of Justice direct tlie prosecution of his colleagues ? Or will he do so ? 1 do not ask any verdict of misdemeanour against tliem ; 1 only ask a political verdict from this House. Now, there is another feature in this case. At tlie Tarte inqiiiry in 1891, Mr. McG-reevy was examined, but persisted in refusing to give particulars as to how he spent the election fimds of 1887, received from Larkin, Connolly & Company. Afterwards, in 1892, when he was examined before the Itoyal Commission, he changed his mind. I cannot tell you all he was asked, but on that occasion in 1891, whem he repeatedly refused to answer, he said : I decline to answer, it is a matter of confidence. I decline because I cannot separate tliem from the other moneys. I elieve lie has, Init I do not know. Q. Did you direct any bodv to do that ? — A. Do what ? Q. To go to Mr. McGreevy and see tliat moneys were paid for political purposes ? — A. I might have referred parties wlio came to me : " You must go and see Mr. McGreevy ; I have nothing to do with tliat." If you ask ine to name any person, I could not do it. Now, Mr. Speaker, you have seen what hap- pened about his own election. You liave seeu his own dlriJCtions to Mr. McGreevy : that he was it<> hear the beai-er raontiitou, and you have also heard from the bearer Panneton what it was for and wihat he got, and you have heard that SIR A. P. CARON SWORE that no amount was ever given out "until we ifhree agreed what amounit gftiould be given," and that $13,5lK) Is covered by those amounts distinctly and clearly. Then as to the other oases apart from Three Rivers, wo have seen that he aiTanged for the fund, that he and Sir A. P. Caron sat down and apportloneu the whole of it, and he distributed part of It. I have here, as I say, ithlrty-two ddflferent ordea-s of his own. signed by himself, containing directions In detail, many of them. Some of them I might trouble the House with reading. For In- stance, here Is the first one to Mr. McGreevy about Mr. Valln : Mv Dkah McGuekvv,— Mr. Vulin has come. He says that ho wants some help for his legal expenses. Oh, yes ; legal expenses ; always legal ex- penses. Do what yon think proper and necessary and send him for any more to Senator Rosa. This county is very liaril. Then there is at the foot of the letter a receipt for $500. These let- tei-s are all signed by Sir Hector Lange- vln and are IN HIS OWN HANDWRITING. This $500 was received by Mr. Valln. Again, In regard to the county of PorLueuf. There is a final amount on 21st February of $200. The papers show that the treasury had been previously drawn on for $3,000. Here is a letter to Mr. McGreevy.: Mv Dear Mr. McGhkevy,— Please let Mr. Dionne have §200 for legal expenses, on account of Portneuf. That is the last. This shows the scrupulous care exercised in Intrusting the funds to proper parties, so that they might not go wrong. I will now read a letter from Sir Hector Langevin to Mr. McGreevy, dat«d 17th Febniary, 1887. It relates to St. Mam-ice, and is as follows :— I JMy Dear Mr. McGreevy,— Mr. F. L. Desaul- niers has sent the bearer, Mr. F. M. (ielinas, a trustworthy man, to receive the balance of what conies fco him for his legal expenses in St. Maurice. Please do so. H. L. Langevik. P.S. — You should obtain a receipt of course. "Received .$500, F. M. Oelinas." That shows the businesslike car(> and ac- curacy with wliich the whole matter wos carried out. It Is extraordinary that Sir Hector Langevin's memory was so utterly blank as regards the whole of this subjeot in 1891. I hope these papera will i-efresh his memory to-night. Heire Is anoither docu- ment showing the care that Sir Hector took —It relates to the county of Rlmouski. It is a letter to Mr. McGreevy : Dear Mb. Mc!(jRi;kvy,— Mr. Charles Tach^, brother of our candidate in Rimouski, leaves to- morrow morning for Rimouski. I think you might on tlie balance alloted for legal expenses of timt county let him have $800. He is a safe man. Received, $800, J. C. Tache. He Is a safe man— they were all very careful about the kind of men to whom they Intrust- ed the balance. There were ORDERS SIGNED by Sk- Hector Langevln for all of these. Here Is another documesnt which shows the trouble Sir Adolphe Caron sometimes gave Sir Hec- tor, and I think It was hardly fair. This letter is In regard to the BeUechasse election, and Is as follows :— My Dear Mr. McGreevy,— Mr. Bealleau (Narcisse), brother of Isidore Bealleau, our candi- date in BeUechasse, has come down witli Mr. Labrc' ue, for balance of what may come to the elect! for legal expenses. It is urgent it appears. Pleasi do what can be done. Tliey liave been running after Sir Adolphe all day. They cannot find liim. Perhaps you might tell them where he is. I do not know whether the hon. member for j BeUechasse wUl take any interest or not in this communication. Possibly the party was told where Sir Adolphe Caron was ; but at aU events these matters were kept quiet and he took a receipt for $500. I dare say I have presented enough facts to refresh the hon. gentleman's memory ; but I could run over the whole business. In Beauce he wants to inti-ust $200 to a faithful fi-Iend. It will be observed that they are all faith- ful friends appaa*ently, because the amoimts were rather im excess of the amounts re- j quired for legal expenses. An hon. ' friend says legal appropriations. Thoy were not in excess of the appvopria- tions, but they were in excess of the state- ments of legal expenses published by the candidates. For whait reason Avas Mr. Mc- Greevy expelled fi'om this House ? He was expelled for refusing to answer inquiries of this kind. Sir Hector Langevin did not. I will ' not characterize the nature of his answers ; I will leave that to the House to do so. Now, Mr. Speaker, It Is reasonable to ask, what have Sir Hector Langevin and Sir Adolphe Caron to do with this particular sum of $20,000 received from Larkin, Con- nolly & Co. for the 1887 elections ? I say they have EVERYTHIxNG TO DO WITH IT. Mr. McQreevy has explained It In the evi- dence I have read. There were certain moneys placed In his bauds— the evidence Is to be found at papo 102— and orders were given to pay them out. It was arranged, he said, that there should bo a certoln sum of money, and it was to be paid out according to orders. The evidence was as follows :— Q. I want to know wlio it was that directed and controlled these arrangements ? — A. At what time ? Q. We will say during the election of 1887 ? — A. I thinlt it was Sir Hector Langevin and Sir A. P. Caron ; they consulted about them. Q. You say Sir Hector Langevin and Sir A. P. Caron ; wei-e tliere any others ? — A. I am not nware of any othci'#. Those gentlemen, Sir Adolphe Caron and Sir Hector Langevin, had intimation of the exact extent of the funds, because Sir Adolphe Caron, In his evidence, at page 228, said : The three meir.liers of the committee discussed together, and we decided that such and such a county would receise so nnich. Therefore, they had the whole funds before them when they arrived at that decision. There Ls direct evidence that both knew of this large contribution by Larkin, Connolly & Co. Tjut no direct evidence was required. They accepted the money, they guve no pos- sible or pretended con.sideration for it. to Mr. McGreevy at least, and they dealt with it -ind distributed it as if it was their own. Did they suppose it DROPi'ED FBOM THE CLOUDS V Did they shut their eyes to other sourcA? of supply, besides the McGireevy source ? No. Sh' Adoli>he Caron had his eyes open, and kept them open, and received in bank notes $25,000 with his own hands. He did not shut his eyes to the source of supply. So faa- it appears that not a cent of the reptile fund came from disinterested political supporters. Can any sane man believe that either of those gentleman was Ignorant of every one of the foul so; roes of supply ? Was the nature of the land «o Iri-eproaohable, was its object so pure, was its distribution so legitimate, that the dis- tributors oould wrap themselves in a mantle of virtue and sternly demand from Thomas McG-reevy to know that this golden stream only flowed from pure and unpolluted sources ? No. It was never pretended that they asked such a question of Thomas Mc- Greevy, or ever received or could have re- ceived such an assurance, a false assurance from him. They knew all about the Larkin- Connolly fund. They knew as much as we knew, and a great deal more. What were the relations of Sir Hector Langevin and Mr. McGreevy ? They were of a pro- longed and Intimate character. For ten J D E 2 yoars Mr. McGreevy had lived with him in h\a house, and they had shared the same office. In public and private life they were bound up together. The evidence shows— I can give all the pn^es— that Mr. MoGreevy during this time Indorsed, flnancod and float- ed a $10,000 note foi- Sir Hector Langevin. and piiiid the interest on it out of his own pocket for years and years for Sir Hector linngevin. The evidence also sliows that Mr. McGreevy contributed ifS.'t.OOO to support Sir Hector L;ingevln's personal organ ' Le Monde.' Mr. MoGroevy in a moment of W('i.l;ness disclosed to his brother his rela- tion to Si;* Hector Langevin. Here is a letter dated l.st of March, 18S6, wliich was QUOTED BY T±"E JUDGE at the conspiracy trial, and also to be found in this report of the proceedings of 1891, as exhibit J-2 at page 20. Mr. Thomas Mc- Greevy writes to his brother : I hav; liad a long interview witli Pui'ley on iiarbtnir worlis and graving docks at Hritish Coi- unitiia. Flcuiing was to have signed his report to- day on harbour works. It will be shown to me as soon as signed. I will see it to-morrow and Sir Hector and myself will decide what is to be done for future, ite will atlopfc my views. I will see you and Murphy about it before doing anything. It is a big tiling for the future. Can there be any possible question about Sir Hector Langevin's relation to Thomas McGreevy. What was Thomas McGreevy convicted for ? He was convicted of con- spiring, and using his influence with Minis- ters In order to wring a i-eptlle fund out of contractors. Is it not infinitely more dis- creditable for these very Ministers to have conspired, as they did with Mr. McGreevy, to use that very fund to debauch and cor- nipt the people at the general election ? Is it not more disgraceful to have conspired as they did, with Mr. McGreevy, to flood their own constituencies with enormous Illegal sums out of these very funds collected by a crime ? Mr. Speaker, before the Carleton jury were brought, only Thomas McGreevy and N. K. Connolly, and again to quote the judges charge to the jury : Those who stand high or low may be equally guilty, ami it might be right to have them brought before the Bar of Justice and their punishment awarded them, but with that, neither you nor I have anything to do. And the judge was right. But with that this House and every member of it has every- thing o do. I bring before this House for their judgment TWO OF THE OFFEIVJDERS, and I ask, not that a criminal but that a poli- tical sentence be passed upon them. I charge that common political decency demands a vfcTdlct and a sentence at our hands. When 10 these glaring facts of political corniption are laid before you, as I formally lay them bo- fore you uow, you cannot, you dare not, ig- nore theiu. Are we to advertise ourselves as a pack of arrant hypocrites and pass here laws against electoral corruption ; and place severe laws upon the Statute-books against tritliug offences, and yet allow those crimes to go without condemnation. Shall the ille- gal expenditure of a dollar, uuHoat, or per- haps disqualify a member of this House be- fore a judge, iind shall illegal expenditure of $4,000 by one Minister In his constituency, and $12,0n- stltuency, not meet with the ceusun; of this House ? Mr. Speaker, after the disgraceful exposure of 1S!)1. t\w I'irst Minister was a party to the celebrattMl prot'essiDU of Loii'Tv viirruio expressed by the promi.«L' thav tlie Gov- ernmeut would l)nng to justice all olT'eiid- erK, be they higli or low, lieli or poor. What has he done ? Tlie Inquiry of 1891 at the Instance of Mr. Tarte, and the investigation, pressed on by meiid)ers of that committ(H> who are not on the Government sifle of the House, disclosed facts for many weeks, in spite of the strenuous attempts to suppi'ess these facts by counsel, h?red and paid by the (Jovernment for that purpose. At any rate the facts of this conspiracy were dis- closed, which was partially tried last Novem- ber, and the Minister of .fustice Avas forced by the parliamentary Inquiry to institute that tiial. 'Jlie Ontario Govermnent took part in it also, and after many adjournments it was pressed to a trial and the judge and the counsel for the Crown commented on the abst-uce of the greater culprits. Why did the Minister of Justice not prosecute tliem ? Tlie Minister of Justice knew every damning fact AVhich I have laid before the House, as well as we know them to-day. Why did he stay his hand ? Why, Sir, it was to save a col- league and TO SAVE HIS PAR TY. I wonder If I might not venture to quote to the Minister of Justice these words, whieli were applied by Mr. Osier to Thomas Mo- Greevy : tlie words of Tennyson, as to Launcelot's position. Is it not a fact that the Minister of Justice, too, was in the posi- tion that : His lionoiir rooted in ilishonour stoorl, And faitii unfaithful kept him falsely true. Then there was a civil suit which is In pro- gress to-day. How could the Minister of Jus- tice avoid bringing the civil suit, when this big volume of 1891, la full of the clearest proofs that the country was robbed and de- frauded by these contractors. It s a long time since 1891, and the civil suit has not been finished yet. I do not know whethei" it win be or not, but I want to draw the at- tention of the Minister of Justice to the fact that he knew then, as well as we know now, that at 'least $20,000 of that money that he is suing these contractors for, was traced directly into the very hands of his colleagues, and was spent by tiiem for his and their benefit for illegal and corrupt purposes. A public crime was added to the private oue of Thomas McGreevy. Why is not the l.iw put ill motion to recover at least that .«;20,000 as to which the evidence is conclusive ? Why did he stay his hand ? I would answer again : to save a colleague and to save his party. Is any colleague worth saving at such a price, Mr. Speaker ? Can any pai'ty l)e saved from the acts of its leaders unless it repudiates those leaders ? And, Sir, is it i necessary for me to say anything as to the neoassity of Iji'inglng these matters before the House at this session, of Parliament ? Why, Sir, the charges arise from that trial and that vei'dict and that sentence, and from the judge's h^Jiguage, which constitutes an INVITATION TO PARLIAMENT to take action on these matters, if any words tliat ever fell from the lips of a judge could be so construed. More- over, I want this House to understand clearly, that tliis House heretofore has not judged in this matter — not at all ; nothing like it. In ISDl, how did Sir Hector Langevio clear himself from the charges brought In connection with this con- spiracy fund ? Why, Sir, he denied receiv- ing or expeuding or distributing any of these moneys. That was the evidence that was before the House when the House considered the report of the Privileges and Elections I Committee In 1891. Was that a true state j of affairs ? Do we not know now, from- ' the evldeince that we have here in imlimited quantities ? The evidence of Mr. McGreevy contradicts that ; the evidence of Sir Adolphe CaiNJoi contradicts that: ; and the orders by the dozen given by the hon. gentleman under his own hand and signature also contradict that evidence. Therefore, I say that wa.3 not an adjudlcixtlon so far as Sir Hector Langevin is concerned. Then, Sir, as ^o the hon. Postmaster Greneral. In 1893, the evidence taken under the Royal Commission was considered by this House ; but there was no reference in that Royal Commission anywhere to the Larkin, Connolly case— no reference whatever to It in the inquiry as It was sent by this House to the Royal Com- mission. I had made a charge, and asked for a committee of this House to inquire Into It, which Included and oovea-ed this conspiracy of Larkim, Connolly & Co., for the appropriation of ELECTION MONEYS; but. Sir, that charge was stnick out by the House at the Instance of this Government. And, Sir, you will remember that the inquiry of that Royal Commission was limited to two raAlways, to the subsidies granted to those 'I 11 railways, and to raajtters oonnected with tbose subsidies ; amd upon tuose matters aJone did the House pass judgmemt. Yes, Mr. Speaker, an inquiry was asked by me Involving these very election funds, a