IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) k A . (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec ie plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettetd de l'exemplaire film6, et en conformitd avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimde sont filmds en commengant par Ie premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par Ie second plat, selon Ie cas. Tous les autres exemplaires 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. Un des symboles suivants apparaltra sur la dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon Ie cas: Ie symbole — ^> signifie "A SUIVRE", Ie symbole V signifie "FIN". Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre filmds d des taux de reduction diffdrents. Lorsque Ie document est trop grand pour dtre reprodult en un seul clich6, il est film6 d partir de Tangle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant Ie nombre d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mdthode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 ^^■^mi' V ■ *, HISTORY OF A CONTRACT. Al)ont twelve days ago, certain papers, referring to ihe award of a contract on the Canadian Pacific line, pui)lisheJ ail Ottawa despatch worded somewhat as follows : The con- tract for the section from Emory Bar to Port Moody has been awarded to Mi'. A. Onderdonk, Yale, B, C, Messrs. Char- lehois and McDonald, aithongli they were the lowest tender- ers, being set aside an account of an irregularity in their attached cheque. This short despatcli contained a fact and notliing more. But the results were none the less disastrous for two highly honorable contractors, whose reputation with specialists and the general public is attested by tlie important works they have executed. Brief and vague as it was, the despatch further signified that the ta.\-payers of Canada would be called upon to pay §•200,000 more for this little transaction, than if the section had been awarded to Messrs. Charlebois and McDonald. This dead loss, for which tliere is no compensation to the coun'ry, this kind of denial ofjustice Ihroughthe lickleness of a Minister, who is a greater stickler for the letter than for the spirit of the law, is one of those strokes of authority which carry with them Iheir own lesson: My turn, yester- day ; yours, to morrow. In consideration of the large interests involved in this case, it has been thought proper to lay the facts before the public, with the documents relative thereto. On the 'M St of October, 1881, the usual advertisements were published in the Canada Gar:et(e, and other papers, for the tender of one of the sections of the Canadian Pacific Railway The limit for llie recci.Lioii of lenders was ilie I si I'ebniarv 188-:. Tiiis ratiior lenglliy interval was granted, hecanso it gave tenderers the opportunity of visiting the locality, and becoming acquainted with all the requirements of the work. Almost at the same time, Messrs Charlebois and McDonald sent, at their own expense, an engineer to British Columbia, in order to explore the section under tender. 1 1 was understood that the tenders were to be for Die work in bulk and not in detail. Besides this, and according to the custom, the department did not give its own estimates, but left these to the contractors at their own risk and responsi- bility. Furlhonnore, the Gov-rnment did not reserve the right, as it generally does in its entries for teudei's, of awarding the contract to the tenderers who produced the best guarantee for the fulfilment of the work. In the month of January, of this year, the maps and ofii- cial plans relating to the work were open for consultation in the Engineer's Olhce at Ottawa. Mr. Fowk-r, engineer for Messrs. Charlebois and McDonald, remained from that date till the 1st Feb i nary, busy making out liis quantities and estimates. Jt is a singular fact that, whereas the Covernment had previously left Ihe estimates to the tenderers themselves, about the 28th January, it suddenly made public its own esti- mates. Better late than never! Another point Avorthy of mention is that on the board whei'e these figures were set forth, there was this notice in good- sized letters : '• these estimates have been drawn up for the use of the department, but it declines to be responsilde for them. " 'Idiis meant a great deal in one sense, and nothing m the other. On the 2ith January, Messrs Charlebois and McDonald went to Ottawa to examine and verify the estimates, carrying with them, and attached to their tender, that famous cheque, /9 I accepted by Iho Bank of MoiUn^al, which will remain for ever memorable iu the politico-linnncial annals of Canada. On the 1st February, Messrs Trudoan, Schreiber and Braun, Avho were appointed to examine the tenders, did so with the following results : Mci:>onaldan(l Cliaiiobois S'2,'277,OnO A. Onil.T.lonk, Yale, C, H '2,-W,,r>:> Evan and Purct'U, OUawa '^,()7l),0nii .1. Murray and Co, 8te Cathcrinfi '2,^ij'i.1Vl I). O'Brien and Go, Montreal ^9'j;),73:) James Godwin, OLIawa 3,002,000 W. Davis, (JUawa 3,109,800 Tlie Railway Imporlaliou Go, Nrw- Yoik 3,100,000 F. ,1. 13eemer. Montreal *,l'j:),000 E. .1. Gharllon and Go, (jueV.ec 3,3i9,00o Wm Ede and Go, San Francisco 3,989,000 Manning and McDonald, Toronto. .. . 3,389,000 .1. B. Montgoni'TV, Portland, Oregon. 3,488,000 .lolin Ilebortund Go. Toronto 3,031,000 And light here the trouble begins. The first document iu this case consists of a report which Mr. Schreiber, Chief Engineer of the Government, addressed on the Gth February, to Mr. Braun, notifying him of the reception of fourteen tenders iu all for the section from Ivmoiy Bar to Port Moody. Mr. Schreiber adds that the tender of Messrs. Charlebois and McDonald, of Montreal, must be rojecLed, on account of the worthlessnoss of the che- que attached thereto, a cheque stamped witli the stamp of the Bank of Montreal, bearing date "24th January and pnr- jiorting to be good for two days only, and that consequently tlie tender of Mr. A. Onderdonk. to the amount of 8"2,i86,-2-2r> became the lowese. The report concluded with the reception of the latter, after mentioning the ability and tlie means of the said contractor, whose figures were found to be almost identical with those of the learned engineer himself. A copy of the cheque of Charlebois and McDonald was as follows : — 3/^ ^ wmmm Montrea', 23rilJanuary 188L To the lUnk of Montreal : Paylolho 01. lor of the riona'ablc Ih.' Minislor of Haihvay. ina Canals Iwnily Uiousati'l dollars ($20,000). McDonald & ciiAMLEiiOis. mamp'^J on the face of the clicqne wa?/' Bankof MoiUiei.l. ..nlore.l in No. -, -Innuary ^4, 18cS-:. Goo.l for two -l.ys only." Now Ihose falefnUvords'-j^ocd Cortwo days only," (li^■- nuieted the Honorable Minister of Railways who sent his private secretary to tne Ottawa Branch of the Bank of Mont- real for exphmations. Here he-ins an incident on which depended the accepiunc^ or lefnsal of Messrs. Charlebois ?< McDonald's lender. The point was whether, in spite of the stereotyped phrase, ■ ^ ..ood for two days only ", the cheque maintained Us value as^'an accepted draft, or whether that value was confined to the narrow period therein specified. Two things were to he considered, thou-h in reality tliey form onlv one-the object and scope of the Bank of Monlreal stamp Kverv business man knows very well that the said stamp is a pure formality, having no legal sanction whalev..r, and used for the sole purpose of preventing the circnlaliou of Uie Bank's cheques. This measure favors the return of the paper io the Bank and facilitates bookkeeping, on the one liand; while, on the other hand, its st cures for the Bank, which discounts its own drafts, a commission which it wouhl lose if tK --^ers, reliying on the credit of the institution, used its paper as simple hills. By what right could a bank limit the term of discount ol a cheque, value for which its has received and retains ? \s a matter of fact, the cheque is the properly of Messr.. Charlebois .^ McDonald and not that of the Bank of Montreal. The latter is debtor and not creditor. This is the law of the case. Now for the fads. The Honorable Minister of Railways, evicleiilly lillle familiar with Bank oporalions, conceives a donht of the validity of the ch-que, and sends iiis secretary to the Ottawa Branch for necessary information from the Manager. Now, if the Minister asks for explanations, it is naturally witli the view of using them, and acting accordingly. This is clear from the fact itself which would have been useless, if not acted upon. Well, the explanation was given by Mr. Drun-imond, the Manager, as appears in a letter of Nir. Bradley, the private secretary. Here is the document : I)i-.pvut.mi;nt IImi.ways a.nh Canais. Minister's OfTice, Vvh. 6, ISSi. Mlmo.— Monday, I'dnnary G, lS82,n' lender Kmory Bar and Fori Moody. Under inslniclions from the Minister on f-alurday last, I called al aliout hair-pasl ten Q-clock this morning on Mr. Drummond, Manager of the Bank of Montreal here, and handed him a certain cheque drawn by McDonal'i A Charlebois on the Bank of Montreal, dated 23rd January. 188-2, for $20,000, and stamped on ihe 2Uh of same mon Ji " good for two davs only." asking him whether ho would pay il. He shook his head and said it would be necessary to inquire at the hea.l office. He suggested^ making enquiries, to which 1 assented. Al about one o'clock this day> Mr. Drummond called al my office and handed me in presence of Mr. Trudeau the telegram from the head office, Montreal, which I this afternoon handed lo the Minister, and which is marked with my initials; [Signed] A. P. BItADLEY. As to the despatches that passed to and fro, here is their drift : OUawa, February 0, 1882. To B.mk of Montreal, Monivral : The Department of Railways holds McDonald A Gliarlebois cheque for S-::0,000, certified by Montreal Branch, 24th January. Is it still good and for how long will it be guaranteed ? [Signed] A. DliUMMOND, Manager. c Fol)ruary 0, 18S2. To Hank of Montreal, Ottawa, llerorrin.i,' lo your tel'^'ram lo-day, ihw^i' strike out lor two (Jays o\\]\ liom our accq.laiico stump. The choiiuo will lie good uiiiil paid. [Signed] SHAI)H()!/r, Mainig'T. After reading these dociimeiUs, so rorinal ami ('X[ili'Mt, can there be the shadow of a doubt in any imparlinl nun 1 as to their moaning ? How does it come, however, that this answ(."r of the I'.ank communicated to the Minister in the afternoon of the (Uh. as is shown by the Unter of his private secretary, shoubl in lb'- Minister's report of the Otli or Ttb, and kiid before the Gonuril on the Htli, have been made the ground of a decision so contrary to precedent, equity and common sense ? And, by what miracle of foresiglit could tin] Minist.-r ol Hallways have known, on the -ith Fel)rnary, the irregularity of the Gharlebols-McDonald cheque, when it i> othcially estaldlsbed that the report addressed lo tlie Minister l.y one of the oliicials appointed lo open the tenders, Mr. Sclu'eiber, the enginper in chief, did not reaoh the Minister till th.^ Cth February ? There' is more. We are assured that Iba olUcials who examined the lenders could not have pointed out th'> irregularity of the cheque, for tln^ excellent reason that not one of them noticed it. Were there two reports— one drawn iq) on the 1st Fein uary and the other on the Gtb. ? 'Yhe fad is worth clearing np. We shall recall, only as a memorandum, the interference of Mr. Schreiber in a special question, outside of hisoflicial attributions. We refer to that portion of his report in wliich lie delivered his judgment on tlie validity or nuUily oi the Charlebois-McDonald cheque. This case reveals a singular mode of proceeding. Relation> of professional courtesy are reversed, an engineer treats ol Riianrialqunslions, and a Bank Managor ivsolvcs j.i'oL'.'viis ot civil (MigintM'niig The report add rt'srioil l)y Mr SchroilKM-, chief (Migineorot'lho government, shows thai ho formally declared Ihe nullity of a Hank stamp, and one ol the last paragraphs, to which we call attention, will display a hanker pronouncing judgment on pnlilic works. OiTAWA. iM't. 11, !SS-2. Tollie M'uuifii'i , Monlinit : lJEAuSn..-l line your leli.T onh.'IOlli \ns[, inre MeDoiiaiaana Cliariel.ois chofiu.". Tin' cniuiiy I'V loL-ram on llio Glli iiist. was by ivquo?! of Mr. liru^llcy, Secretary lo llie Minisln-, wlio called au-l e.xlubi- tcithoch.'quoslumi'LMl as " good lor two .lays unly from ^'» in^l. H'S .InsircM to know il'll was still goo.i, merely, tail while lelognipliing for a special n«|,ly from you as lo Ihis-in onln' to iulbrm Hie Dei-arlnunil-l would rurlher ask lor li. w long it would he lu'Id, so this he .^aid niighl do al the same lime. AUhough bis en [uiry was only if il was £lii! good, on receipt of your reply that it wa^ so and would he good until paid, 1 w-n ( over person illv to llu' Depaitm.'ut and mentioned your i- ply to the Secre- >arv. The che^-ue I did not again s-'c, ))Ut by requesi I left yoi;r tele- gram with inm,'as the authority to deal with or treat the cheque as it sta- led ' hail no knowledge at the time as to wliether any ilecuion or not had been arrived al in respect tu the tenders to which the cheque had ref.>- rence, and which were given in and opened on the 1st inst, nor until the ',1th was 1 made aware that it had been awarded to Mr Onderdonk by hi> callin" here in relerence lo Lissecurily through tlie head ollices. 1 natu- ral! v i'rifer red arier leaving your telegram with the Department that u wouhl be .[uite satisfactorv, and that as authorized, the restrictive clausb would be struck out : but 1 infer from an expression of the Deputy Mi- nisler yesterday, that while in their possession it was held such an altera- tion of the terms could not legally be done, and that ihe cheque at the lime of opening Ihe lenders was informal, from the time it was limited U. having previously elapsed. I presume, tlieiHMore, that under the circums- tances their tender under the regulations was excluded from considera- lion. The (Ifllerence is not great, however between their lende-r and that of Omlerdonk, and both, being low-.they might have had an unprolitable or losing contract, while he, having a large amount of plant there already, could make it p^v with his appliances ami means. Mr. McDonald, along with Judge Coursol, called this morning about the mailer, apparently desirous to remove any impression with the Department that the cheque I 8 was so limilod with any dosign on their pari. This, no doubt, occurred inadvertently and without being known when issued, wiiicii I explained to the Dopartment previously. Yours truly, A. Dui'mmon-h, Manager. What are we to think of this comfort i?i extremis couclied in terms of so much art and sympathy ? For the edification of the reader it is well to reproduce the letter of Mr. Shadbolt, Manager of the Bank of Montreal at Montreal : Bank of Montreal, lOlh I'ebruary, Mess-r. McDonald a Charlebois. Dear Sirs. In reference to the telegram from Ottawa saying that your contract could not be taken ^into consideration, inasmuch as there was no chcquo ^tamped as good, as required by the specifications, I take the liberty to declare that on 6th I telegraphed to our Branch at Ottawa to enace on our stamp of acceptance " fortwo days only, " and I anirmcd the validity of the cheque until it was paid. Our Branch reydied by the same day s mail that they had done as required, and that this satisfied the depart- ment. Truly yours (Signed) E. SHADBOLT, Which clerk was it that manifested the satisfaction of the department, as the letter says ? Whence this contentment ? Doubless from the certainly acquired of the cheque's validity ? Or did it spring from other motives ? That is the question. The following is the letter to Mr. Trudeau. Ottawa. Feb. 17, ISS:. T. Trudeau, Uepulij Minister of' nailways and Canals: Dear Sir. 1 have read the memorial of Messrs. Charlebols A McDonald, 9 and with Iho view of correcting an apparent misapprehension or error ui exhibit No. 1, I have to remark that llie telegram of enquiry dal.^.l lli'> 6th inM was drafted by me. Mr. Hradl.^y merely franked a blank for the luirpose, which was filled in after he left. In reference to the 9th clauso and exhibit No. 4, wherein the reply by telegram from the Montreal branch stilting thatthe cheque was good and would be good until paid was expressed as satisfactory to the Department, I enclose a copy of the letter to tlie Montreal Branch dated the 1 lib inst., explanatory of this and the circumstances of tiie case under which the enquiry was made, which led me naturally to infer the reply to be quite satisfactory when 1 commu- nicated it to the secretary ; iiut no one in the Department then expressed anything in regard to it, fiylherthan the secretary requested the telegram to be loft wilt him, which 1 presumed was with the view ofbeins attached to the cheque, and being submitted with it as the requisite nulho- rity for dealing with it as expressed in the telegram. Your obediont servant, (Siiriiei!', A. DlU MVOM). Manager 111 ihis last missivo,Mi-. Druinnioud explains the salisfaclion of the Deparlnien I. It would appear that this salisfaclioii was with liiin only a personal impression, a sudden illumi- nation, for he hastens to add that no one in the otiice said a word to hini about the affair. Wise manager! Next we have this lett.'r : (:AN,\ni.\.\ pAiiirii: Railway, Olli''o of the Knginoer-in-chel'. Ottawa, iMdini.iry 1. 1, 1\> r. Schretbfi', ('. P. II : Port Moody-Emory Section.— I have made a rathor hurried ostimatH of the co*l of constructing this section at the lowest prices I considered ilsafe. This amounts in round numiiers to $3,000,000 (including the station and wharf at Port Moody). I do not tiiink that this can be much roduceil in Si; ict accordance with the plans, but I am going over th.' whole matter carefuUv, checking the quantities an 1 noting poiiUs whoiv a jiossible loduclion can inodiiicalions. 'Vhla will occupy several day? (Signed) 10 bo made by sligbt changes in liie lino and olher MARCUS SMITH. This letter bulonqs to anolher class of literature, liglit,easy and free. The writer is Mr Marcus Smith, the goverament rngineer in British Columlua, the honorable functionary who made out the official estimates submitted to the con- tractors on the 28lh January and that fell among them, on the nil January, three days before the opening of the tenders, like an aerolite on a market square. In his letter of the 'Jd February, he says tliat he made these estimates in haste; that the cost of th e Emory Bar and Bort Moody section could hardly be less t h an S3.000.000, but ho would look into the matter carefully, calculate ih^ esti- mates and determine the points Nvh.«re light changes on tne line, or other alterations might be made tending to reduce the ^'tIiW is candor Avilh a vengeanc^ ' Indeed, coming fiom a subaltern to his superior, it is independence. And just lancv that engineers and contractors risk their lutuie and llieir"honor on estimates mada thus hurriedly ! Notice further the touching agreement between these two C ' °The te'nder of A. Onderdonk recommended by Mr Schreiber ,0 the Minister, on the Gth February, is $2,480.-55. But the S3.000.000 calculated by Mr. Marcus Smith who was on the .. ronnd and measured for himself, what becomes of them . Oh , hut his exploration was made in a hurry, and Mr. Marcus Smith assures us that reducliousran be made by trying hard. \nd yet this did not prevent the estimates of the 28th Janu. 'ary being 20 or i'5 per cent higher than the real quantities. How are we to understand these reductions and this hand- 1 iim -^ What were the object and motive of it all ? If thev could have discovered in the contract one ot Inose ,,,,ors oi calculation or omission which alter the bearing ot 11 the Nvholo, with what secret joy they Nvould have pohited it ^^3ut no. The cslimales, made with the utmost care, agree almost entirely with those of M. Sandford Fleming when, as chief engineer of the Canadian Pacific, he furnished the fi-ures--cited in Sir Charles Tapper's report of 1880-ot tke cost of the section between Emory Bar and Port Moody. Including rolling stock and rails, the learned engineer -ave the price as 638.888 per mile. The contractors, not having to provide rolling stock or rails, had $13,000 a mile in their favor for equipment.- Mr. Fleming's calculation-a a difference which reduced the cost to $-25,000 a mile. And yet the tender of Messrs. CliarleDois and McDonald exceeds-the estimate of the government engineer by about $75,000. ^ J 1 , This sum added to the $-200,000, lost on the Onderdonk contract, represents a pretty heavy loss to tlie public exchequer. ■ The game continues to the end, pretty much as it commenced, thus : MohUlmI, lOlh Febriiaiy, ISS^. To Sir Cluirlrs Tavper : The Gazelle of llus morning says U.al wo w.re the tovs-est len,lerers n^ tiJUrtMooaysocUonand that, as we had failed to make he cK>po us. the contract was awar.led to Onderdonk. That is not accurate^^ ^^ . onl, await notice from the government to complete the deposds. %\ c aN\a.l . reply. (Signed) McDONAi.D.UlIlAraEBOIS. The Gazette was well informed. Same dale to Mr. Braun : Is there any decision ahout the British Columbia lenders? ^Ve awaiv notice to make deposit. (Signed, M.:tX NALD A CIIAULEBOIS. The answer was : 12 Oltawn, 16 Febi'uary 1882. To McDonald A Charlobois The contract has been awarded to Onderdonk "^-hnse tender was the lowest, inasmuch as yours could not be taken into cocsideration, your clie(iue not being stamped as good, as required by the specifications. (Signed) F. BRA UN. What reply was made to this ? A petition to the Governoi General in Council, dated 14lh Febi-narv. It was the only 1 ecourse . These Gentlemen contend that their tender was regular and S'200,000 lower than any other, but that it was set aside, the department alleging that it was not aecomj)anied by the cheque for $20,000 marked " valid'", as required by the specifications. They allege that their cheque was valid, that it was accepted by the bank, the 25th January, and that later, after inquiry made on the 6th February, it was declare 1 valid until paid an! that it was valid since the dale of the said cheque. They allege that the chetjue is still valid, that it could be paid or negotiatgd for cash at any time, and that it is still in the possession of the department. They request that the order in Council awarding the contract to Onderdonk be reconsidered and that the contract be awarded to them ; and they declarr that they are prepared to fill the said contract. This petition is accompanied J)y copies of letters and despatches given abov*' i:^ CONCLUSION. The award of iho Emory Bar-Port Moody contract, a transaction as suspicious as it is complicated, and in which date?, letters and despatches are mixed up as in a weh, needs only to be exposed in order to be ir.ade clear and limpid. The validity of the cheque — the principal point — was afTirmed and confirmed formally and categorically to the Honorable Minister of Railways, and that in good time, by the principal oflicers of the Bank of Montreal. In connection with this, we learn from pretty good authority that, on the 2nd February, Sir Charles Tupper replied to a (juestion put by a contractor : "Your affair has just b?en laid before the Council. " Then come the letters and despatches whoso sul)stanco and style bewilder the credulous and make the prudent smile. There are not a few who see in this unfortunate award a secret hostility, a covered persecution against a race and province. Others discover motives of self interest and political considerations. Others again suspect CiM-tain. inflnences that had to be conciliated, certain demands that had to bij satished. The press and the public have exhausted every conjecture in regard to this sorry award, and no one has yet been able to find the reasons of the Minister's conduct. We reproduce these rumors here, not because they favoi- our cause, but because, taken all together, they do not suffice to explain to sensible men, in so serious a matter, the light CO . ;ct, want of practical intelligence and the incapacity of the Minister of Railways, and a Privy Concillor. We submit the whole case to the members of Parliament and to the public. Every one will judge for himself. As for ourselves, we accept the verdict in advance. 14 Will the Minister of Railways, and his colleagues, tho members of the Council, show themselves less confident, will all their power and on the merits of their cause, than two citizens in their weakness and obscurity? The refnsal of an inquiry demanded by public opinion would give j'ise to the gravest presumptions against the authorities and in favor of ignored rights. I ,