,"b.

>^^. W,

IMAGE EVALUATBON
TEST TARGET (MT-3)

/jr. >^S^ Cry

1.0

!.l

IfiElE 12.5

|5o ""^" IHI^B

1-25 U |||||,.6

►

^>.

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/

Couverture endctmmagie

Covers restored and/or laminated/
Couverture restaur^ et/ou palliciilie

f~n Cover title missing/

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/

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

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.

jre,

]

f 2 3

1 2 3

4 5 6

REMARKS

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^.

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

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

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

<' 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

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

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

ill

.:<!

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

" 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

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.

((

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

"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

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.

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

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.

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.