,"b. 
 
 >^^. W, 
 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATBON 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 /jr. >^S^ Cry 
 
 1.0 
 
 !.l 
 
 IfiElE 12.5 
 
 |5o ""^" IHI^B 
 
 A 
 
 
 1-25 U |||||,.6 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 6" 
 
 ► 
 
 
 %" 
 
 ^>. 
 
 
 5 
 
 '/ 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 
 Corporation 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, N.Y. MS80 
 
 (716) 873-4503 
 
CIHM/ICMH 
 Microfiche 
 
 CIHIVI/ICIVIH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques 
 
Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniquas at bibliographiquas 
 
 Tha Instituta has attamptad to obtain tha bast 
 original copy availabia for filming. Faaturas of this 
 copy which may ba bibliographically uniqua, 
 which may altar any of tha imagas in tha 
 raproduction, or which may significantly changa 
 tha usual mathod of filming, ara chackad betow. 
 
 nColourad covers/ 
 Couverture da coulaur 
 
 I I Covers damaged/ 
 
 D 
 
 Couverture endctmmagie 
 
 Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restaur^ et/ou palliciilie 
 
 f~n Cover title missing/ 
 
 n 
 n 
 
 n 
 
 n 
 
 La titre de couvertfire manque 
 
 Coloured maps/ 
 
 Cartes gAographiquas an couleur 
 
 Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 Encre de csulaur (i-a. autre que bieue ou noire) 
 
 Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 Planches et/ou illustrations an couleur 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Ralii avac d'autres d'lcumants 
 
 Tight binding may causa shadows or distortion 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 La re liure serrie peut causer de I'ombra ou de la 
 diatorsion la long da la marga intirieura 
 
 Blank leaves added during restoration may 
 appear within tha text. Whenever possible, these 
 have been omitted from filming/ 
 \l sa peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutias 
 lors d'une restauratior ap^«raiS8«nt dans la taxte, 
 mais. lorsque cela Atait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 paa iti filmias. 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentaires supplimentairas; 
 
 L'Institut a microfilm* la mailleur exemplaire 
 qu'il lui a iti possible de se procurer. Les details 
 da cet exemplaire qui sont peut-^tre uniques du 
 point de vue bibliographiqua, qqi peuvent modifiar 
 une image reproduite. ou qui peuvent exiger une 
 modification dans la m^thoda normala de filmage 
 sont indiqute ci-dessous. 
 
 I — I Coloured pages/ 
 
 n 
 
 Pagaa da coulaur 
 
 Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommagAes 
 
 Pages restored and/oi 
 
 Pzges restauries et/ou pelliculAes 
 
 Pages discoloured, stainec'; or foxei 
 Pages ddcolories, tachataes ou piquias 
 
 Pages detached/ 
 Pages ditachees 
 
 Showthrough/ 
 Transparence 
 
 Quality of prir 
 
 Quaiit^ inigala de I'impression 
 
 Includes supplementary matarii 
 Comprend du material supplimantaire 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Seule Edition disponible 
 
 r~l Pages damaged/ 
 
 |~n Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 
 |~T1 Pages discoloured, stainec'; or foxed/ 
 
 I~n Pages detached/ 
 
 rri Showthrough/ 
 
 r~n Quality of print varies/ 
 
 r~| Includes supplementary material/ 
 
 r~n Only edition available/ 
 
 Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata 
 slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to 
 ensure the best possible image/ 
 Les pages totalement ou partiallemant 
 obscurcies par un feuillet d'arrata. une pe!ure. 
 etc.. cnt M filmies d nouveau da facon i 
 obtanir la meilleure image possible. 
 
 This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 
 Ce document est film* au taux de reduction indiqui ci-dessous. 
 
 10X 
 
 
 
 
 14X 
 
 
 
 
 18X 
 
 
 
 
 22X 
 
 
 
 
 26X 
 
 
 
 
 30X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 J 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 12X 
 
 16X 
 
 20X 
 
 24X 
 
 28X 
 
 32X 
 
fiar 
 
 le 
 ge 
 
 Th« copy f<lm«d h«r« Hm b««n raproduead thanks 
 to tha ganarosity of: 
 
 Library of Parliament and the 
 National Library of Canada. 
 
 Tha imagaa appaaring hara ara tha baat quality 
 poasibia conaidaring tha condition and lagibillty 
 of tha original copy and in Icaaping with tha 
 filming contract spaeificationa. 
 
 L'axamplaira filmi fut raproduit grica i la 
 gAniroaiti da: 
 
 La Bibliothdque du Parloment et la 
 Bibliothique nationale du Canada. 
 
 Laa imagaa suivantaa ont 4ti raproduitaa avac la 
 plua grand toin. compta tanu da la condition at 
 da la nattat* da l'axamplaira film*, at an 
 conformitA avac laa conditiona du contrat da 
 flimaga. 
 
 Original copiaa in printad papar eovara ara fiimad 
 baginning with tha front covar and anding on 
 tha laat paga with a printad or illuatratad impraa- 
 •ion, or tha bacit covar whan appropriata. All 
 othar original copiaa ara fllmad baginning on tha 
 first paga with a printad or illuatratad impraa- 
 sion, and anding on tha laat paga with a printad 
 or illuatratad impraaaion. 
 
 Laa axamplairaa originaux dont la couvartura mn 
 papiar aat imprin^Aa tont filmia m% commandant 
 par la pramiar plat at an tarminant soit par la 
 damiAra paga qui comporta una amprainta 
 d'Impraaaion ou dliluatration. soit par la sacond 
 plat, aalon la eaa. Tous laa autraa axamplairaa 
 originaux sont filmte an commandant par la 
 pramiAra paga qui comporta una amprainta 
 d'Impraaaion ou dliluatration at an tarminant par 
 la damiira paga qui comporta una taila 
 ampratnta. 
 
 Tha laat racordad frama on aach mieroficha 
 shall contain tha symbol —^(moaning "CON- 
 TINUEO"). or tha symbol V (moaning "END"), 
 whichavar appliaa. 
 
 Un daa symbolaa suhrants apparaftra sur la 
 damiAra imaga da chaqua mieroficha. salon la 
 caa: la symbola -«- signifia 'A SUIVRE". la 
 symboia ▼ signifia "FIN". 
 
 Mapa. plataa, charts, ate., may ba filmad at 
 diffarant reduction ratioa. Thoaa too large to be 
 entirely included In one expoaura ara filmad 
 baginning in the upper left hand comer, left to 
 right and top to bottom, aa many framea aa 
 required. The following diagrama iiluatrata the 
 method: 
 
 planehae. tableeux. etc.. peuvent itre 
 filmde i dee taux da rMuction diffArants. 
 Loraquo le document eat trop grand pour 4tra 
 reproduit en un saul clichA. il aat film* A partir 
 da Tangle supArieur gauche, do gauche A droite. 
 et de haut en baa. an prenant le nombre 
 d'Imagaa nAcaaaairs. Laa diagrammea suivants 
 llluatrent la mAthoda. 
 
 ta 
 
 jre, 
 
 ] 
 
 f 2 3 
 
 1 2 3 
 
 4 5 6 
 
REMARKS 
 
 j: 
 
 UPON 
 
 THE EVIDENCE 
 
 ADDUOBD BEFOBB THK 
 
 COMMISSION OF INQUIEY 
 
 IHTO 
 
 CHARGES PREFERRED AGAINST MR. LEWIS, 
 
 fiURVBTOE OF C"8TOM8. 
 
 PRINTED BY JOHN LOVELL, ST. NICHOLAS STREET. 
 
 1870. 
 
 WL^. 
 
To 
 
 Customhouse, 
 Montreal, 14th March, 1870. 
 
 J. W. DuNSCOMB, Eaquire, 
 
 Commissioner, ^c. 
 
 Sir, — In handing the accompanying remarks on the charges 
 made against me by Bathgate & Bro., and the evidence 
 adduced at the recent investigation by you, I would beg to 
 say that, it appearing from your commission that charges of 
 " serious offences have been laid against and affecting the con* 
 duct of the public business of my oflSce" of Surveyor, other 
 than those made by the parties named,and specified in the Com- 
 missioner of Customs' letter to me, dated 20th December kst, 
 but of which serious offences I have had no communication 
 from the Department, and which it would also appear have 
 reference to that branch of your inquiry, connected with the 
 Bonded Warehouses and their management : 
 
 I, therefore, deem it a duty due to the Government as well 
 as to myself to say most emphatically that any charges which 
 may have been preferred against me in connection with the 
 Bonded Warehouses, or any other matter relating to the con- 
 duct of the business of my office, are false, and have no more 
 foundation in fact than those referred to in Commissioner cf 
 Customs' letter, and can only have been prompted by 
 malice. 
 
 The defects in the present system of Bonding Warehouses, 
 for which I am in no way responsible, being well known to the 
 Department, were pointed out in my letter to Mr. Collector 
 Dehsle, dated 80th November, 1869, which, with other 
 papers relating to the same subject, have been placed in your 
 hands by the Department. It may not therefore be necessary 
 that I should make any remarks here en the subject, and will 
 
only say in this connection, that, notwithstanding the defects 
 referred to, I am not aware of any irregularities that have 
 occurred in consequence, resulting in ultimate loss to the Rev- 
 enue, excepting in the two or three cases referred to in my 
 letter to Mr. Collector Delisle above mentioned. Any irregu- 
 larities of any importance that may have taken place were 
 reported at the time of their occurrence. 
 
 It is right, however, that I should here state that, not 
 having had for over three years 'he exclusive control and 
 direction of lockers employed in and connected with the 
 Bonded Warehouses, it has been beyond my power to exercise 
 that authority and check so necessary to the due performance 
 of the duties connected therewith and the interests of the 
 Revenue and of the service. 
 
 Before closing my remarks it is proper that I should also 
 state, both with reference to my duties in connucfcion with 
 Bonded Warehouses, and my duties generally as Surveyor, 
 that, never having received any instructions as to the nature 
 of the duties of my office, I have had to rely upon my own 
 judgment and experience,and aa circumstances required, and 
 with due regard to the interest of the revenue, have adopted 
 such rules and regulations, books and forms, as the increas- 
 ing business of the port called for, all of which books, forms, 
 &c., and various changes which I have been instrumental in 
 introducing, have received the approval of the Department as 
 well as of the Civil Service Commissioners, when inquiring 
 into the management of the business of the port generally. 
 
 Among the changes referred to I may mention the 
 following: — With the view to expedite and facilitate the 
 forwarding of goods arriving in transit for western ports I 
 suggested the present system, and prepared the necessary 
 forms for passing such goods at the Custom House by 
 the Grand Trunk Railroad, which system and forms are 
 equally available to all forwarders, rendering unnecessary the 
 production at this port as theretofore the invoices of such 
 
goods by western importers, and reducing the number of 
 entries at the Custom House, from, in many instances, fifty 
 or sixty for one vessel, and corresponding other documents 
 to one entry for each vessel embracing all goods for transit 
 by railroad, and one document for each port of destination, 
 including all the consignees at such port. 
 
 I also submitted for the approval of T. Bouthillier, Esq., 
 the Collector at the time, the books and forms necessary for 
 the correct and expeditious conduct of the public business in 
 the Customs Examining Wai'ehouse, which have been since in 
 use. And at the request of the late Mr. Collector Holmes 
 I prepared regulations for the general management of that 
 most important branch of the service of which I had the 
 general supervision, during that gentleman's incumbency 
 of the office of Collector, and for nearly eighteen 'months 
 after his decease, acting as Collector until the 17th August, 
 1866, when I received the following communication from 
 the Commissioner of Customs : — 
 
 *^ His Excellency the Governor General, having been 
 " pleased to appomt Alexander Maurice Delisle, Esq., to be 
 " Collector of Customs at the port of Montreal, vice 
 " Benjamin Holmes, Esq., deceased, I have to instruct you to 
 *' transfer to the hands of that gentleman the management of 
 " that port, the duties of which have been so creditably per- 
 " formed by yourself since the death of the late Collector." 
 
 I was also informed at the same time that an increase had 
 been made to my salary, as Surveyor, of $200 per annum, 
 which, I presume, I was to regard as indicating the appre- 
 ciation by Government of my services. 
 I have the honor to be. 
 Sir, 
 Your most obedient servant, 
 
 JOHN LEWIS. 
 
REMARKS BY MR. LEWIS ON CHARGES MADE 
 AGAINST HIM BY BATHGATE & BRO. 
 
 The charges preferred against me, and which have been 
 the subject of investigation by the Commissioner, have been 
 supported by evidence of such a character that, were it not 
 that my doing so might be misconstrued, I should give them 
 no other notice than is contained in my declaration, already 
 produced under oath, in which I have declared the entire falsity 
 of each and all of those charges. My services of 28 years 
 duration in various capacities in connection with the Customs 
 Department, and the evidence adduced of my integrity and 
 efficiency as a public officer, entitle me, in my judgment, to 
 meet the accusations made against me with a simple and 
 indignant denial ; and if I deviate from such a course it is 
 only because I am unwilling to appear as treating charges of 
 so grave a character, from whatever quarter emanating, with 
 undue levity. I shall, therefore, submit a few remarks 
 upon the evidence adduced before the Commissioner, and 
 show that the accusations against me are as false and mali- 
 cious as the sources whence they spring are disreputable and 
 corrupt. 
 
 The Commission authorizes the Commissioner " to inquire 
 " into all and singular such complaints or charges as may be 
 " referred to or brought against me in my official capacity," 
 and also into my conduct and management of the office of 
 Surveyor of Customs at the port of Montreal. These " com- 
 " plaints and charges " are preferred by three persons, named, 
 respectively, William Bathgate, Robert D. Bathgate and 
 Robert Gerrie. They may be briefly stated to be, in sub- 
 stance, as follows, viz : — 
 
 1. That about the end of December, 1866, or the begin- 
 ning of January, 1867, 1 received from Bathgate & Brother 
 the sum of 1500 as a bribe or reward for having obtained 
 
e 
 
 the revocation of an order said to have been issued by me 
 requiring all tobacco, &c., to be taken to the Examining 
 Warehouse to be stamped and weighed, so that their goods 
 might go direct to their own warehouse. 
 
 2. That on or about the 1st of September last one Thomas 
 Sillibourne, storeman to Bathgate & Bro., informed me that 
 his employers had been committing extensive frauds on the 
 revenue, and that I took no ?5teps to inquire into the truth of 
 those charges until a complaint to the same effect was made 
 by Sillibourne direct to the Collector of Customs, about the 
 20th of September last. 
 
 3. That in February, 1869, at the request of Robert 
 Gerrie, acting for Bathgate & Bro., and upon an implied 
 promise of a consideration from him, I dispensed with an 
 examination of their bonded warehouse. 
 
 These charges were put in writing, under date of the 14th 
 December last, and handed to Mr. Delisle, Collector of Cus- 
 toms at Montreal, and by him handed to the Government. 
 
 Before adverting at length to the evidence adduced respect- 
 ing these charges, it may be well to refer to the characters 
 and position of my accusers. As drawn by themselves, the 
 characters of William Bathgate, Robert D. Bathgate and 
 Robert Gerrie are those of persons capable of offering bribes, 
 having no scruples in attempting to better their position by 
 deliberate falsehood, and actuated by pure malice in making 
 the charges referred to. They have hardly attempted to deny 
 that for several years they have been engaged in perpetrat- 
 ing extensive frauds upon the revenue, some of the means for 
 which they possessed in the shape of a number of blank bill- 
 heads of foreign traders, and the extent of which frauds ren- 
 dered it necessary for them to destroy their books of account 
 immediately after the seizure of their premises in September 
 last. Upon this point it is only necessary to say that the 
 Grand Jury at the last Term of the Court of Queen's Bench 
 found eight indictments against all of those parties, for felo- 
 
niesand misdemeanors, committed in the course of their frauds 
 upon the revenue. As an instance of deliberate falsehood on 
 the part of one of them (Robert D. Bathgate) connived at by 
 the others, I refer to the letter written by Robert D. Bath- 
 gate, about the 1st December last, to the editor of a newspaper 
 published in New York, and called The Tobacco Lecff, in 
 which he stated that all the goods of the firm which had been 
 seized had been returned to them, a statement they wore ob- 
 liged to admit to be untrue, as a large portion of the goods 
 had been sold by the Customs authorities. The malice of 
 my accusers is admitted by themselves, "William Bathgate 
 stating that had I confined myself to my duty as a public 
 oflScer they would never have laid any charge against me, and 
 Robert D. Bathgate alleging that " he repudiated the idea 
 " that malice against Mr. Lewis was the sole reason for these 
 "charges." 
 
 So much for the characters of these persons as described 
 by themselves. The same unenviable traits will be shown still 
 more clearly when I come to speak of the inconsistencies 
 which appear in their evidence taken before the Commissioner. 
 
 As to the charges numbered two and three above it is only 
 necessary to say that they are entirely false and unsupported 
 by evidence. The accusation that I had received information 
 from Thomas Silliboume, about the 1st of September last, of 
 the frauds committed by the Bathgates, and had neglected to 
 act upon it, never had any better foundation than hearsay, 
 and that is swept away by the evidence. William Bathgate 
 says, that while the seizure was going on James Barry, Cus- 
 tom House clerk, stated to him in the presence of James S. 
 McCormick, tidewaiter, and others, that Silliboume had given 
 me the information in question on or about the 1st Septem- 
 ber last. Mr. Barry and McCormick in their evidence posi- 
 tively deny this statement. Silliboume, who was produced as 
 a witness against me, states that he never gave suchinforma- 
 
tion until the 20 th of September last, upon which day the 
 seizure was made. 
 
 The charge as to neglect in February, 1869, to examine 
 the warehouse of Bathgate & Bro., has no better support 
 than the evidence of Gerrie, who states in one part of his 
 deposition that I said " there would be some bonds in which 
 '* stock would not be taken, so it would not make much odds 
 " or, words to that effect. That is about all I remember, that 
 " is the substance of it," and in another part " I did aot speak 
 " to him (Mr. Lewis) of or give him any money at that time, 
 " I must have said, and I think I did say, that I would make 
 " it worth his while or something to that effect, or it would 
 " have been a great accommodation to not have stock taken.'* 
 
 The evidence of Mr. James Barry upon this subject is 
 clear and pointed, and gives the reason why stock was not 
 taken in the warehouse at the time referred to. He states 
 that Gerrie applied to him in January or February, 1869, to 
 have the stock taken. It was not taken owing to Mr. Barry 
 being occupied in preparing the stock sheets of the smaller 
 bonds. He was so employed until the 12th of March follow- 
 ing, when he left for Ottawa, only returning to his duties in 
 Montreal at the end of ApriL Stock taking would have been 
 continued in all the warehouses had Mr. Barry remained in 
 Montreal. Mr. Barry states that my instructions were, that 
 the stocks of the smaller warehouses should be taken first, as 
 there was less security to the Revenue against frauds in respect 
 of the smaller than the larger warehouses, and that I never 
 requested him to deviate from those instructions in favour of 
 any person or persons. * 
 
 It remains to speak of the first accusation above mentioned 
 which is one of a much graver nature than the others which 
 simply import neglect of oflBcial duty. The charge of cor- 
 ruptly receiving the sum of $500 from William Bathgate 
 (acting for his firm) rests upon his own evidence and is 
 uncorroborated, for his alleged statements respecting it to 
 
s 
 
 his brother and to Gerrie afford no corroboration of the truth 
 of his accusation. As William Bathgate was the only person 
 who claimed to have any personal knowledge of the pretended 
 payment, and Robert D. Bathgate and Robert Gerrie only 
 knew what he had told them, and the entry that they say 
 they saw in the Cash Book, the respective rSles of these indi 
 viduals vras *eadily learned. As they all lived in the same 
 house they had opportunities for frequent rehearsals, an 
 advantage which taey availed themselves of nightly during 
 the progrc iS of their evidence upon this inquiry. The tale 
 of these conspirators, (for I can call them by no milder 
 name) is simple and soon told. It is alleged by them that 
 about the end of December, 1866, or early in Jauuary, 1867, 
 an order bad been given by mt that all tobaccos, cigars and 
 snuflF should go to the Examining Warehouse to be weighed 
 and stamped. The Bathgates and Gerrie, their brother-in- 
 law, heard of this order and, regarding it as seriously affect- 
 ing their operations, agreed that " something bold and decisive 
 *'• should be determined upon, and that the matter should be 
 " arranged at any cost." (Evidence of Robert D. Bathgate) 
 It was settled between them that William Bathgate should 
 see me and have the matter " arranged." It is alleged that, 
 in pursuance of this plan, William Bathgate saw me at my 
 ofiBce, and, at the first conversation he ever had with me, 
 approached me with an offer of $500. He states that he 
 asked me " how and why our goods should be sent to the 
 " Examining Warehouse while other merchants' merchandize 
 " were sent to their own warehouse." The reply he alleges was 
 that I had heard that packages were being opened, &c., and 
 hinted that Bathgate & Brother had committed frauds on the 
 Revenue ; that he denied that anything wrong was going on, 
 ** but said that the taking of the goods to the Examining 
 " Warehouse would be a great inconvenience and expense 
 " in the items of ccriage and storage ; and that the privilege 
 *' of having the goods sent direct from the Grand Trunk Depot 
 
9 
 
 <' to our Bonded Warehouse was of great importance to us, so 
 " much so that we were willing to pay for it and was worth 
 " at least to us $500, which we would pay for the privilege. 
 " Mr. Lewis then said that he would see what could he done 
 " in the matter^ that he thought that he could arrange it satis- 
 " factorilyy 
 
 This emissary, who was a stranger to me and had never 
 spoken to me before (according to his own evidence) , at once 
 reported to his brother that he had seen me and " had 
 arranged it satisfactorily," (Evidence of Robert D. Bathgate) 
 although from the foregoing evidence of William Bathgate, it 
 appears that :>o " arrangement " had been concluded, but 
 only the hope held out that one might be made. William 
 Bathgate goes ci to say that " a few days or a day or two 
 after I met Mr. Lewis in St. Francois Xavier street and 
 asked him if that matter was all rights to which he gave an 
 affirmative answer, while I handed him a package containing 
 $500." 
 
 There is then, on one side, the sworn statement of William 
 Bathgate, whose character and position I have sufficiently 
 alluded to, that I had accepted a bribe of $500, as above 
 detailed ; on the other hand, there is my denial, under oath, of 
 the charge — the denial of one (I do not consider it self-praise to 
 say) whose integrity has never, up to the date of these charges, 
 been in the slightest degree impugned. I feel that I might rest 
 here. The most suspected person, who has to meet a charge in 
 the Police Court, might claim a triumphant acquittal upon 
 such evidence as that adduced against me upon this inquiry. 
 
 It may serve some purpose, however, to make a few com- 
 ments upon the case as shown in the depositions of the witnesses 
 brought to substantiate the charges against me. 
 
 The accusation of having received the $500 is one, the 
 
 truth of which is very improbable under the circumstances. 
 
 The alleged bribe was offered (according to the evidence of 
 
 William Bathgate) at the first interview he ever had with 
 
 1* 
 
10 
 
 ill 
 
 me; and, as appears by the statement of his brother, he falsely 
 stated to him, immediately after the conversation, that 
 the matter had been arranged. No time was specified during 
 which the coveted privilege was to be enjoyed, and no 
 assurance given that the obnoxious order would not be renewed. 
 Indeed no evidence was furnished that the desired change 
 had been brought about, and no inquiry was made, appa- 
 rently, whether others weresuiFering from the rule complained 
 of, nor whether it could not be modified by more innocent 
 means than the offering of a large bribe. 
 
 The Bathgates and Gerrie appear to have very good 
 memories for dates and events. They had no difficulty in 
 swearing to definite dates, when it suited their purpose to do 
 so ; Gerrie having gone in his evidence with puerile minute- 
 ness, mistaking childishness for humor, into the events of his 
 whole life, and yet, with reference to past circumstances of a 
 recent date when it would seem impossible for them to err, 
 they fell into strange contradictions. They were each of them 
 questioned as to the period when the firm of Bathgate & 
 Bro. was formed, and their statements upon the point 
 are singularly conflicting. Gerrie says that he thinks the busi- 
 ness commenced in 1864, but that the correct date would be 
 found at the Court House ; Robert Bathgate states the part- 
 nership was formed in the spring of 1865 ; while his brother 
 William avers the firm had its origin in May, 1866 ! But the 
 certificate of registration at the Court House, fyled in May, 
 1867, states that the partnership commenced on the 1st of 
 February of that year ! This written statement, signed by 
 both the Bathgates and not dependent upon their memories, is 
 undoubtedly correct and the period (1st February, 1867) 
 thereby given as the origin of the firm becomes important 
 when taken in connection w'th the evidence (Ho be hereafter 
 referred to) of an entry, in the books of the firm, a month 
 before the partnership had any existence ! 
 
 The first witness examined, and the principal one during 
 
11 
 
 the whole inquiry, was William Bathgate. So long as he was 
 able to keep within the limits of the plain and simple story 
 that ha had to tell, all went smoothly. He narrated the pre- 
 tended conversation with me, in which he so successfully 
 assailed my oflBcial virtue ; the makiiig up of the package of 
 money, the meeting with me in St. Fran9ois Xavier street, 
 the time of day, and the particular part of the street, are all 
 duly chronicled. The $500 he says belonged to the firm, 
 and, as he was the cashier and bookkeeper, he of necessity 
 states that the payment was entered by him in the Cash Book. 
 This "book which formed one of the regular set of books was 
 ruled in three columns of dollars and cents, one for merchan- 
 dize, one for expense and one for sundries. (This fact is of 
 importance when taken in connection with the evidence of 
 other witnesses.) 
 
 At the close of the first day of the inquiry (being Saturday) 
 the evidence of William Bathgate being unfinished, I asked 
 that an order should be given to the witness to produce, on 
 the following Monday, the Cash Book, Day Book, Journal 
 Ledger, Cheque Book and Bank Pass Book of Bathgate and 
 Bro., in use in December, 1866 and January, 1867. This 
 order was given and a list of the books required was furnish- 
 ed to the witness. He made no remark that would imply an 
 unwillingness on his part, or an impossibility to produce the 
 books or any of them. 
 
 On Monday, the 24th of February, William Bathgate re- 
 appeared and, being asked to produce the books mentioned 
 in the order of the Commissioner, stated that he had consulted 
 counsel and had been advised " that it is not necessary to 
 produce the books of the firm in our possession ordered by the 
 Commissioner to bring here this morning" Being asked 
 whether he refused to produce the books, he answered " acting 
 " on that advice we do not produce the books, or cannot pro- 
 " duce the books, going against our legal opinion." So far all 
 was ,olain, however damaging to the position of my principal 
 
I 
 
 ill 
 
 .:<! 
 
 12 
 
 accuser, who had sworn to an entry of the $500 m the Cash 
 Book. The firm had been advised that they were not bound to 
 produce the books, and they had made up their minds to act 
 upon that advice. Upon being asked, however, to state dis- 
 tinctly whether he refused to produce the books ordered by 
 the Commissioner (naming them) William Bathgate came out 
 with the following statement (than which it would be difficult 
 to conceive one more damning to the conspirators) : " Well ! 
 " I cannot produce them because there were some books des- 
 * troyed immediately after the premises were seized in 
 September last ! " After such an admission there was, of 
 course, an end to an accusation emanating from creatures so 
 saturated with fraud. However, the investigation went on, 
 and I have no reason to complain that it did, as every step 
 only plunged my accusers still deeper into inconsistencies, con- 
 tradictions and falsehoods. William Bathgate states that he told 
 Gerrie (who is said to have been only the agent of the firm, 
 and who had no particular interest in the matter) " imme- 
 " diately after the seizure, that these (the new set of 
 " books) were the only books we wanted, and the others 
 " were no use." " There was something said between 
 " Gerrie, my brother, and myself, that it would be as well 
 " to have these books destroyed, in case they might 
 " be brought up. I believe all the books were destroyed 
 " that were of no use except the Dai/ Book, which was 
 " about July, 1868. The books that were destroyed would 
 " probably be old weight hooks, Grrand Trunk Books, perhaps ; 
 *' it would not he the Day Book, it was in use. William 
 Bathgate attempted to make it appear that he did not know 
 at the time when he was ordered to produce the books that 
 they had been destroyed ; but his statement on that point is 
 contradicted by the evidence of his brother, Robert Bathgate? 
 who states : — " I think my brother William was not here when 
 " the books were burne '.. When he came back we had some 
 " talk about the matter, which tve all acquiesced in. He 
 
13 
 
 " knew when he came home that the books had been burned^ 
 " that is the old^ not the new, set" Notwithstanding this 
 knowledge Gerrie states that after the close of his first day's 
 evidence, William Bathgate " said he wanted the books to 
 " produce here, and he showed me a slip of paper containing 
 " the list of the books ! " However, on the Monday when 
 William Bathgate's evidence was to be resumed all the parties 
 had become pretty well satisfied that the old set of books had 
 been burned ; but, as a measure of precaution, they " con- 
 " suited a lawyer to know if it was necessary to produce 
 " those books or any other books !" (Deposition of William 
 Bathgate.) 
 
 The evidence, as to the destruction of the books, is, of course, 
 worthless, but admitting it to have any value it entirely fails 
 to establish that the Cash Book, in which the $500 payment was 
 entered, was destroyed. This will be clear by comparing the 
 statements of Wm. Bathgate and Gerrie. The former was the 
 book-keeper of the firm and was the only one who had an 
 intimate knowledge of the books. Wm. Bathgate swears " The 
 " payment (i. e. of the $500) was entered in the Cash Book 
 " the next day. " " This transaction did not appear in our 
 *' Journal. We charged the $500 in our Cash Book to 
 " merchandize account. It would appear as a payment for 
 " a consideration for a purchase of merchandize. " "In the 
 " old Cash Book I had three columns ruled, one for mer- 
 " chandize, one for expense and one for sundries. These 
 " were the ordinary columns of dollars and cents. " Both 
 Gerrie and Robert Bathgate appear to have forgotten the 
 existence of this Cash Book, which, from its containing so 
 many columns, must have been at least of foolscap size, and 
 probably was larger, for they both say that the old set of 
 books consisted of a Cash Book — of about the size of the 
 Year Book of 1870 and ruled in a single column (called by 
 Wm. Bathgate a Memorandum Cash Book) a Day Book, 
 Journal and Ledger. Gerrie states that in September last, on 
 
14 
 
 the day of the seizure, he took all the books to his own house, 
 and there destroyed the small Cash Book, the Day Booh, 
 Journal and Ledger composing the old set of books. He says 
 " I forget what books I examined first, hut burnt the two small 
 " ones firsty that is the Cash Book and Day Book. " This 
 statement is contradicted by William Bathgate, who states 
 that the Day Book was not destroyed on account of its being 
 still in use, and its falsity was shown hy the Day Book itself 
 having been produced by Robert Bathgate, on the 29th 
 January last — the first entry appearing in it being under 
 date of 2nd May, 1867. 
 
 The discrepancies to be found in the depositions of the 
 Bathgates and Gerrie, as to the books, and as to what ones 
 were destroyed, &c., are, no doubt, to be accounted for by 
 their not having had an opportunity of conferring with each 
 other upon these matters ; their examination on these points 
 having taken place upon the same day without their having 
 had a chance to compare notes. 
 
 It would lead me too much into detail to remark, at any 
 length, upon the improbability of the story, that it was left 
 entirely to Gerrie, a man, by his own admission, entirely 
 ignorant of bookkeeping, to decide what books should be 
 destroyed ; that he could examine books c6vering several 
 years' transactions in an hour or two, so as to tell what books 
 to destroy and what to retain, and upon the singular fact 
 that he could not remember a single account that was in the 
 old books. It is to be remarked also that the chief object 
 for burning these books was to conceal the fact of 8500 
 having been paid to me, while, according to the evidence, 
 these $500 were entered to merchandize and my name in no 
 way appears in their books in connection with such payment. 
 
 The whole story about the books having been destroyed is, 
 probably, false ; but, taking it as it stands, there is nothing to 
 show that the Cash Book, in use in December, 1836, and 
 January, 1867, was destroyed. 
 
)0 
 
 (( 
 
 (( 
 
 15 
 
 The statements of the Bathgates aad Genie, respecting the 
 blank bill-heads, found in their safe at the time of the seizure 
 place them in a very bad light, shewing them to be equally 
 capable of fraud and falsehood. Gerrie states that he brought 
 the blank bill-head, marked " C " from Cincinnati " and 
 " brought about a dozen other kinds also. I brought these, 
 
 one reason was to copy the style of printing a bill-head 
 
 we thought of gptting up." To copy the " style of print- 
 ing " was, no doubt, an important " reason " for bringing a 
 large supply of blank bill-heads from the West ; but when 
 asked whether these documents were not intended to be used 
 in defrauding the Revenue, he declined to answer. Robert 
 Bathgate expatiates, with charming simplicity, upon this 
 matter of the blank bill-heads, and as his evidence upon it 
 was taken some days after that of Gerrie their accounts agree 
 well together. He says, '* Mr. Gerrie brought some of these 
 " from the West as models for our own bill-heads." " I 
 " recollect of telling Mr. Gerrie to bring along some bill- 
 " heads as we intended to get up one of our own," The 
 fact that Gerrie brought from the West " ten or twelve " 
 bill-heads, all exactly alike, and which were found carefully 
 put away in the safe of the firm, stamps the pretence that 
 they were to be used as " models " as too absurdly false to 
 impose upon a person of the dullest comprehension. 
 
 There are many other contradictions in the evidence, such 
 as that relating to the question of Gerrie having been a 
 partner of the Bathgates, all of the parties swearing that he 
 was not; while on the 26th November, 1867, William 
 Bathgate fyled a Power of Attorney stating that he was, sub- 
 stituting it for one of the 28th June, 1866, in which 
 William Bathgate and Robert D. Bathgate are represented 
 as the only members of the firm, which might be pointed out, 
 but it would only be to add, upon minor points, examples 
 showing the utter worthlessness of the testimony of all these 
 persons. 
 
The statements of Gerrie as to the importation of pianos 
 in 1862, in reference to the short entry for duty of tea by 
 Messrs. D. Torrance & Co., and respecting Hennessey's 
 Bonded Warehouse, are all equally unfounded. The first was 
 fully reported to the Department at the time referred to ; in 
 the second case the full quantity was debited to the impor- 
 ters when the transaction took place, and the application for 
 Hennessey's bond was made in the usual manner to the 
 Collector. The Warehouse was inspected by the proper oflficer 
 and the requisite bonds taken for the goods entered for such 
 Warehouse. 
 
 It may be well to make some further remarks upon the 
 order that tobacco, &c., should be sent to the Examining 
 Warehouse to be weighed and stamped. The Bathgates 
 have alleged that such order was given by me, and leave it 
 to be inferred that it was applicable solely to them, and was 
 issued in consequence of their being suspected of fraud. 
 This is an entire mistake. A general order that tobaccos, 
 &c., should be sent to the Examining Warehouse to be 
 weighed and stamped had been given by the late Mr. Holmes 
 whon he was Collector, but was never carried out. (See 
 evidence of T. M. Bryson.) This order was revived by 
 Mr. Delisle on the 3rd January, 1867, in consequence 
 of complaints of the cold, and of the impossibility 
 of labelling tobacco in stores without stoves. Mr. Bryson 
 gives a clear statement of the facts respecting the revoca- 
 tion of the order in so far as the Bathgates were concerned. 
 He says : " There was a great deal of grumbling about this. 
 ^' Robert Gerrie, who I thought at that time was a partner of 
 " Bathgate and Bro. came to my office and told me that as 
 " they were going to be large importers of tobaccos the 
 *' arrangement under this new order of going through the 
 ■*' Examining Warehouse would not suit them. I told him it 
 ^* was tried before and had not been persisted in, and that I 
 *^ would put up a stove for them and make the officers com- 
 

 ^^fortablBf -when I thought the Collector would not object t<y 
 " the stamping in Bond. It was accordingly understood that 
 " I should go to the Custom House and make the application 
 " in the usual way. To the best of my recollection, Gerrie 
 " went with me, or Robert Dundas Bathgate. We went to 
 " the Custom House. I spoke to Mr. Crispo, the chief clerk, 
 " and after a little conversation with him about the expense 
 " and inconvenience, and that I was willing to put up a stove 
 '^ and make the store comfortable for a stamping office, I 
 " made a written application on the printed ^orm provided by 
 " the Custom House for that purpose. I now produce the 
 " application which I made, dated the 7th January, 1867, 
 " No. 651, and signed Bathgate & Bro.y per pro T. Maxwell 
 "Bryson, I being the Attorney for that cause. The 
 " application was acceded to by Mr, Delisle^ the Collector, 
 " and I knew no more about it." (See also evidence of 
 Martin Barry.) 
 
 It is to be observed that the Bonded Warehouse referred 
 to was Mr. Bryson's Bonded Warehouse. The " privilege '* 
 for which the Bathgates allege they paid $500, was one always 
 enjoyed by all merchants who afforded the proper facilities 
 for stamping in their own warehouses, and one which was 
 never denied. (See 2nd deposition of Francis Crispo.) 
 The order of the 7th January, 1867, doing away witii 
 the previous one which had been revived on the 3rd of 
 the same month was made by Mr. Delisle upon the grounds 
 stated in the application for it, and detailed by Mr. Bryson in 
 his evidence. 
 
 The falsity of the evidence of William Bathgate as to his 
 having arranged with me for the modification of the order 
 complained of is clearly shown upon a mere comparison of 
 dates. His statement is that he had a conversation with 
 me about the end of December, 1866, or the beginning of 
 January, 1867, when he held out the inducement of a bribe 
 of 1500, reported to his brother at once that the matter had 
 
18 
 
 "been satisfactorily arranged, and ** a few days or a day or 
 ** two after" met me in the street and paid over the money, 
 first asking " if that matter was all right." Now the order 
 of Mr. Holmes was only revived on the afternoon of the 3rd 
 January. On the 5th January two large entries of tobaccos 
 were made by the Bathgates^ and an order was made on each 
 of the warrants for these goods, that they should be taken to 
 the Examining Warehouse. Now the Bathgates must either 
 have been ignorant of the order of the 3rd January when 
 they made these entries on the 5th, or if aware of its existence 
 they must have been satisfied of its revocation. If they were 
 ignorant of the existence of the order on the 5th, which was 
 Saturday, they could only have known of it on the following 
 Monday, the 7th, when the warrants were sent to the rail- 
 way station. If tliey had known of the order they would 
 not have passed those entries on the 5th, otherwise the 
 " bold and decisive '* action which they had determined 
 upon might have come too late to benefit them in respect of 
 those entries unless they had been equally sure that the 
 order had been revoked. If they had ascertained its revo- 
 cation they would not, on the 7th, have made a formal requi- 
 sition to be relieved from the effect of the order upon the con- 
 ditions stated in the requisition. But William Bathgate says 
 that all was arranged with me at our first interview, which 
 must have taken place before their entries on the 5th. It i^ 
 sufficiently evident that the Bathgates only knew of the 
 revived order after the passing of their entries on the after- 
 noon of the 5th, and they immediately afterwards (the 5th 
 being Saturday) made their requisition, and had it granted 
 by Mr. Delisle, the whole transaction being completed on 
 Monday, the 7th of January. 
 
 I refrain from any further comments upon the evidence by 
 which it has been sought to substantiate the charges pre- 
 ferred against me. The motives of my accusers are suffi- 
 ciently evident. They were confessedly actuated by malice 
 
19 
 
 against me and were determined to obtain my dismissal, one 
 of them having bad the hardihood to write a letter on the 1st 
 of December last (before they had laid any accusations 
 against me) to the editor of The Tobacco Leaf^ stating 
 that I was '^ in a fair way of getting discharged." No doubt, 
 also, the fact that there is a sum of $8,500, the nrocccdo of 
 their seized tobacco, in the hands of tho Customs authorities, 
 and which they may hope to recover, has had its due weight 
 with my accusers. It matters little what their motives may 
 have been. Wm. Bathgate, R. D. Bathgate and Robt. Gerrie 
 conspired together to bring disgrace and ruin upon me and my 
 family. They have failed in their nefarious scheme, and the 
 shame with which they had hoped to overwhelm me remains 
 with them, although it can bring no blush to the cheeks of 
 persons so hardened. I now leave them to that justice which 
 sooner or later overtakes the guilty. It cannot fail some day to 
 reach men who did not scruple to bring against me grave 
 xjharges which they knew to be unfounded but which they 
 •did not hesitate to support by the blackest perjury. 
 
 Montreal, 14th March, 1870. 
 
 JOHN LEWIS. 
 
20 
 
 THB LEADING PACTS CONXBOTED WITH TUB ACCUSATIONS 
 
 PREFERRED AGAINST MR. LEWIS, SURVEYOR OP THE 
 
 PORT OF MONTREAL. 
 
 On the 20th of Soptombor last, information was Laid 
 against Bathgate Bros., of tliis city, tobacco dealers, to the 
 effect that extensive frauds had been committed by them 
 upon the revenue, and in consequence a large quantity of 
 tobacco was seized in their premises by ray direction. 
 The " complaints and charges " subsequently laid against me 
 were made by these persons, respectively named William 
 Bathgate, Robert D. Bathgate and Robert Gerrie, their 
 brother-in-law, composing the firm of Bathgate & Brother, 
 as appears by documents in the Custom House, produced at 
 the recent investigation before Mr. Commissioner Dunscomb. 
 In order to show the animus which induced these charges it 
 may be necessary to state that several days after the seizure 
 of the tobacco, true bills were found against the Bathgates 
 and their partner, for felony and misdemeanour in connection 
 with the frauds on the Revenue, but owing to an alleged 
 technical informality in the indictments, they were set aside. 
 On the 14th of last December, three months after the 
 seizure, Robert D. Bathgate made " a private and confiden- 
 tial" charge to Mr. Collector Delisle against me, in 
 which it was alleged that his brother, William Bathgate, 
 had paid me a bribe of $500 upwards of eighteen 
 months before the seizure. The first intimation of this 
 charge reached me on the 23rd of the same month, in 
 a letter from the Customs Department, dated at Ottawa, 
 the 21st ; and to this I replied on the day of its receipt 
 denying the allegations and stating that I had never even seen, 
 to my I knowledge,either William or Robert Bathgate previous 
 to the seizure. I further added that I was prepared for any 
 investigation into my conduct as a public ofiBcer, touching the 
 matter in question, or any other. I also remarked, that the 
 
 I 
 
21 
 
 ,1 
 
 circumstances under which the malicious and false accusa- 
 tions 'were made bore their own refutation, and desired 
 to be put in possession of the documents so as to enable the 
 me to trace origin of what I believed to be a fiendish conspi- 
 racy. It is clear from the evidence adduced durmg the 
 investigation that those men had either been mis-informed or 
 influenced, William Bathgate stating in his deposition, '' that 
 they considered that Mr. Lewis had overstepped his duties as 
 a public officer in several instances, and thereby persecuting 
 us ; " and, also, " Ho (Mr. Lewis) brought a charge of 
 felony against us, and we considered that ho took every step 
 to injure and intimidate us. * * * * Had he confined him- 
 self to his duties as a public officer we should never have 
 
 laid any charge. * * 
 
 Our opinion was that he was trying to scare us out of the 
 country." Here the malice which induced these men to make 
 a nefarious charge against mo is evident. But there was no 
 doubt another reason for these accusations against me. 
 Believing, as the Bathgates did, that the indictments against 
 them were at my instance, they naturally desired to invalidate 
 any evidence I might give before a jury. The fac.t, also, 
 that there was a sura of $8,000, proceeds of the tobacco 
 seized, in the hands of the authorities, and which they hoped 
 to recover, doubtless had its due weight with my accusers. 
 The concluding paragraph of their letter to Mr. Delisle reads 
 as follows : — " We may add that we sincerely regret our share 
 in this transaction, and hope our candid and open avowal may 
 invoke a leniency, which in other cases might be misplaced." 
 This places the transaction in its true light. I need hardly 
 add that their base charge utterly broke down. 
 
22 
 
 The following is the Departmental letter to me : — 
 
 [Copy.] 
 
 Ottawa, 31st March, 1870. 
 
 Sir, — I have the honor to inform you that the first part of 
 the Report of J. W. Dunscomb, Esquire, the Commissioner 
 appointed to investigate the charges of bribery and other acts 
 of corrupt dereliction of duty preferred against you by 
 William Bathgate, merchant, of the City of Montreal, ha zing 
 been brought under the consideration of the Minister of Cus- 
 toms, I am directed to convey to you the expi'ession of his 
 entire satisfaction at the conclusion arrived at by the Com- 
 missioner ; and concurring in the opinion expressed by the 
 Commissioner, the Minister of Customs has great pleasure in 
 CO. firming the full and honorable acquittal you have received 
 upon the charges above referred to, in the conclusions of the 
 Commissioner's able report. 
 
 ' I have the honor to be, 
 
 ..." Sir, 
 
 . ■• • Your obedient servant. 
 
 (Signed,) 
 
 R. S. M. BOUCHETTE, 
 
 Commissioner of Customs. 
 
 .ToHN Lewis, Esquire, 
 
 Surveyor of Customs, 
 - - Montreal, 
 
 Canada. 
 
 I have deemed the above explanation necessary, to enable 
 
 those not familiar with the circumstances which prompted the 
 
 malicious persecution to which I have been exposed, fully to 
 
 appreciate them. 
 
 JOHN LEWIS. 
 
 Montreal. 7th April, 1870.