him for salary and after he had left the service of $1,775.76, less the balance in his favor June 30, 1872, $2.81, leaving debtor for $1,772.95. That no doubt may remain of the intention to fix his salary at $1,800 per annum, the following

entries are taken from the Journal: 1871

June 30, for salary from 15th May to June 30th one and a half months, at $150 $223; July 31, salary this month $150; August 31, salary this month $150; September 30, salary this month $150; December 31, three months salary from 1st October to 31st December at $150-$450; 1872-March 31, from 1st January to 31st March, three months, at $150-$450; June 30, salaries account from 1st April to 30th June, three months at $150-$450. But in the state ment sent in by him within the past few days, occurs this entry, that portion of it following the date "31st July 1872, being written in pencil, By salary from 15th May, 1871, till 31st July 1872, fourteen and a half months' at $200-$2,900.” Thus apparently by an attempt to get an increase of pay beyond what his books show him to have been entitled to, endeavoring to make his earnings more nearly balance the money he had drawn. But even at $2,400 instead of $1,800 per annum there is a considerable of a balance against him. The overdrawn amount as previously stated was...... $1.772.25 Claim for 13 months

at $50 month....

extra per

$675.00

Extra work, (July 1872), claimed in statement....

200.00

875.00

$897.65 Apparently against this and leading to what further demands their vagueness renders it impossible to say there are in the statement these most extraordinary entries :

By services since time of resignation 31st July, 1872.

1872, September

October had gone to
Toronto, was taken
ill and laid up.
November,

December,

1873, January,
February sick about

During this time was a Member of Parliament and not

legally entitled to

half the time in Otta- | Payment.

wa.

June,

November, from 6th.

1874, March from 24.

April,

May,

June, about two weeks.

Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said the hon.
gentleman had only read part of the
letter; he had not read the most material
part, which showed that he (Mr. WALLACE)
had resigned his position on the 30th of
June, 1872; that he immediately there-
after became a candidate for the represen-
tation of one of the counties of Ontario,
and that after the time he was a candidate,
and after his election, he attended the
exercise of the duties of his office, so far
as paying himself a salary was concerned.
What more than that the hon. member
did, he (Mr. MACKENZIE) did not know.
These items the hon. gentleman had not
read along with the other parts of this
letter. The hon. gentleman complained
of the inaccuracies of the dates when
certain parties were said to have become
servants of the Government. This was
of no importance. The statements he
(Mr. MACKENZIE) had received were such
as he believed to be correct, and the
question raised by the hon. gentleman's
motion was as to whether the money was
correct or not. Whether the amounts
were settled yet, he was unable to say, but
when he came into the office of head of
the Public Works' Department, the
accounts of the Pacific Railway Survey
were in arrear for years. When he had
been in office for some months, he
appointed a new auditor, in order to be
able to ascertain where the money went.
At the time the letter in question was
written, it was impossible to ascertain
even that, for the hon. gentleman had
carried away the cash book with him. He
quite understood that it was possible to
have the money accounted for, and not

September except from 1st till 8th, and have vouchers posted in the ledger, but

а

moneys, and paying them to himself, without any reference to any Department. It was unnecessary to go into a detailed criticism upon these statements; the whole matter was taken hold of the other day by the Committee on Public Accounts, and they in turn had referred it to a sub-Committee to be dealt with and investigated by them. He had no objection that the late accountant should place his case before that Committee, but the hon. gentleman was not here as a member of the House so far as this matter was concerned, but as an officer of one of the Public Departments; and no clerk of the Public Departments could come to this House and demand an investigation of his grievances. Every facility would be given to the hon. gentleman to have any investigation he desired, and he (Mr. MACKENZIE) would be glad to appear personally before the Committee if they desired him; but he could not consent to have matters of this kind delegated to a special Committee, and the irregularities of a departmental officer magnified into a matter of public importance. He therefore objected to the motion in its present shape, although he was quite willing that the investigation should be prosecuted by the sub-Committee of the Committee on Public Accounts.

found that they had a certain number of vouchers for years in their possession, which they had never presented, and which were never entered by the hon. gentleman. Whether the hon. gentleman was accountant or not, after he was a member of Parliament, he had public money in his possession, and was drawing public money for his services. After the election was over, he had a special account in his own name at the Bank of Montreal, in this city, and between the 2nd August, 1872, and the 22nd of September last, he had chequed for himself no less than $8,279.44, the last cheque being for $65.76 on the date last mentioned. These were facts that could not be disputed, to which the hon. gentleman had made no allusion, and in regard to which it might be assumed that the hon. gentleman thought there would be nothing wrong. He (Mr. MACKENZIE) did not say there was any deficiency in the hon. gentleman's accounts when they were wound up, but they were not yet wound up. He (Mr. MACKENZIE) had never seen the books, but had left them entirely in the hands of those who were charged with the duty of producing a satisfactory statement duty, he might add, which it had so far been found imposible to perform. He found also that one gentleman of the Department Mr. WALLACE, in reply, contended had drawn $600, of which he, as Minister that he was legitimately entitled to his of Public Works, knew absolutely nothing. expenses in going to and coming from As a matter of fact he never knew there Ottawa on the business of the Departwas such a person about the Department ment. The Minister of Public Works had at all, and no authority could be produced stated that the sum in connection with for his possession of the money. He which the Clerk referred to had been found another gentleman who had brought before the police magistrate was received nearly $1,000 returned by parties $1,000, when he knew very well that it getting supplies from the Department. was only $875, and that the entire claim That money should have been paid to the was not for extra salary, but that $300 of Receiver General, or to the Deputy Min- it was for his regular pay. The young ister of Public Works; but instead of man at once said, when challenged with that the clerk referred to put the money respect to the subject, that if there was in his own pocket, and charged it against any balance owing to the Department, he himself. Proceedings were directed was ready to pay it over. The hon. against him, but the Police Magistrate gentleman knew that this Clerk was decided that since he had a claim against brought into the department without him the Government for extra salary, he could (Mr. WALLACE) knowing anything about. not commit him for embezzlement. it, and he also knew that he (Mr. Another person received $140 which were MACKENZIE) had threatened him with disnot accounted for, except by an entry sub-missal if he did not pay over the money. sequently made in the books to show that the money was paid. He only referred to these matters to point out to the House the irregularity of having a member of Parliament having charge of public Hon. Mr. Mackenzie.

The facts connected with this came to the knowledge of the Minister of Public Works in the early part of November, but although this threat had been made at that time, he had allowed it to go on until

within a day or two of the nomination in
South Norfolk, and then it was heralded
abroad that the assistant of the late pay-
master of the Pacific Railroad Survey had
been arrested for taking the funds of the
department. It was also hinted by the
supporters of the hon. gentleman that he
(Mr. WALLACE) was guilty of the same
thing, and the whole matter was used as a
lever to prevent, if possible, his election
for South Norfolk. The hon. gentleman
also knew that in the books in possession
of this professional accountant there was
contained a full and explicit statement of
all moneys expended by him (Mr.
WALLACE) in his capacity as paymaster,
and it was not necessary, to having this
statement, that the book referred to by
the Minister of Public Works as missing,
and in his (Mr. WALLACE's) possession,
should have been in the hands of the
accountant at all. The hon. gentleman
said that he (Mr. WALLACE) had drawn Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said the hon.
some $8,000 from the 2nd August, 1872, gentleman would have justice as far as he
to the 2nd September, 1874, for his own (the Premier) was concerned, but this
purposes. The sum of money, as a mat- matter was in the hands of the Sub-
ter of fact, was somewhere between Committee of Public Accounts, and if he
$4,500 and $5,000 and for a sum of (Mr. MACKENZIE) understood right, the
$3,000, he gave a check to the gentle- hon. member had been summoned before
man acting as paymaster. The the committee already, and would have an
reason why this sum was not carried | opportunity of making good his case. He
over was that there were no settlements of (Mr. MACKENZIE) stated as a simple fact,
his accounts, and that he was rendering all that when the hon. member left the service
these services for which he felt he had a of the Government to become a candidate,
right to some compensation. He could not he was paid all but $2.08 of what was due
come down here and be under expense him, and he afterwards paid himself
without some remuneration. The question $1,775.76 out of moneys improperly kept
was, was there wrong in connection with in his hands that he had no right what-
this matter, or if he had violated the law, ever to deal with. After he became a
or misappropriated any of the funds of member of Parliament he should not have
that survey?
As to those queries he remained in the service of the Govern-
challenged the strictest scrutiny and ment, or received any money from it. He
examination. He had been assured that (Mr. MACKENZIE) did not say the hon.
he might have a committee to investigate member had not accounted for all the
to his heart's content; that he should have money for which he was responsible. He
all he wanted. He asked a committee to could not tell, that, the accounts not being
investigate. If he had been a member of posted up. The hon. member asked why
the Civil Service. as an hon. member he (Mr. MACKENZIE) did not make some
claimed, why was he not dealt with as a charge against him, and have him arrested
member of the Civil service? Why did when he came here. The reason
hon. gentlemen not take action against simply because he did not know there
him, instead of giving a letter to the Min- was any charge against him. With refer-
isterial candidate to be used against him ence to young Mr. STEERS, whom he had
in the election contest. It was true the caused to be arrested, the moment his
hon. gentleman did not speak of him as a claim against the Government was pre-
defaulter, but the inference to be deduced sented, he (the Premier) immediately
from the letter was that he had been guilty forbade Mr. FLEMING's entertaining any
of a defalcation. He (Mr. WALLACE) had claim, no matter how just it might be,

| left Ottawa on the 21st November. Very
shortly after, if not on this very day, this
letter was written. Why did the hon.
gentleman not take him to task about these
matters instead of writing letters to be
scattered broadcast over South Norfolk.
If any wrong had been discovered in
connection with him (Mr. WALLACE)
why was he not asked to come forward
and answer for his conduct? He had been
summoned as a a witness to come to Ottawa,
but when he came nothing was said against
him. He called the attention of the
Department to the fact that he was here,
and ready to answer any charges preferred
against him; but the matter was allowed
quietly to drop, the object in view in
referring to it at all having passed. He
was not aware whether he had a right to
ask for this committee or not, but he
demanded justice from the hon. gentlemen
opposite.
|

was

Ar. Wallace.

until he had paid over to the Government | more about it. In the South Norfolk what was due them. He had told Mr. contest he He had told Mr. contest he observed, as he always STEERS, when he had called on him, that endeavored to do, a strict adherence to he (Mr. MACKENZIE) could not allow him truth. He charged the hon. member with to keep the public money received on no defalcation, but said it was mysterious account of the surveys. On that occasion after his having left office more than a year Mr. STEERS promised to make good the and a half, that he was not able to give amount due. He afterwards took legal any account either of moneys or vouchers. advice, and kept the money, and the All he asked the hon. member wasmoment he (the Premier) discovered this, where the money and the vouchers had gone. proceedings were taken against him to After returning from South Norfolk, he compel him to make restitution of the funds (Mr. RYMAL) felt that he had dealt very he held. As to the amount, he (Mr. gingerly with the hon. member. If he MACKENZIE) did not pretend to give it. had done that gentleman any wrong, it All he knew was that the Department had was not intentional. The publication of lost something like $1,000 by clerks in the letter, he was bound to say, had that office putting money in their pockets aroused a great deal of sympathy for the on the pretence of having claims for pay- hon. member: to it he owed a great deal ment. He held a certificate from the of his support. The appeals the hon. Bank of Montreal that showed that on member made to the electors with his Aug, 2nd he had taken $8,279.21 of the eyes streaming with tears,secured for him public money when he had no position many of the votes which he received. under the Government, and was not entitled to hold any money belonging to the Government.

Mr. RYMAL said he was particular, when assisting his friend, Mr. STUART, in South Norfolk, to abstain from bringing any charge against the present member for that constituency. He did say that if these charges were true-judging from what had transpired not long ago he could say where some of that money had gone. He did not believe the hon. member was too pure in the days when his friends were in their agony, to advance them something towards the corruption fund, or to retain it for his own services. He (Mr. RYMAL) thought he was amply justified in saying more than that, in view of the fact that the hon. member's friends during the election were parading the streets of Dover with their hands full of money, and betting largely on the results of the election. He (Mr. RYMAL) believed that money was obtained by some other way than by chopping wood by the cord. Perhaps it was easier to obtain it by a system of book-keeping known only to the hon. member for South Norfolk. With reference to the allusion made to himself, he (Mr. RYMAL) could allow it to pass without saying a word. He had been known in Parliament as long as the hon. member, and he would treat that gentleman as the man did the jackass that kicked him. He would consider where it came from, and say no Hon. Mr. Mackenzie.

Hon. Mr. CAUCHON rose to a question of order. The hon. member asked for a committee on documents not before the House.

included in the resolution.
Mr. SPEAKER said they were now

Hon. Mr. CAUCHON said he knew

nothing of the documents, and had not
seen them before, and the resolution was.
Since the matter
therefore out of order.
was before the Committee on Public
Accounts there was no necessity for bring-
ing it up in the House.

Hon. Mr. BLAKE said the suggestion in reference to the point of order was quite correct. This question was one for the Committee of Public Accounts and a subCommittee had been appointed to deal with it. Everybody was willing that the hon. gentleman should have the fullest. opportunity of vindicating himself from the statements made with respect to him. He was sure the hon. gentleman would get from the sub-Committee ample justice, but if it should turn out contrary to his expectations, he was sure the House would be willing to take up the matter. On the statement of the First Minister the resolutions should be withdrawn. If there should be any hitch, or anything to prevent him from getting justice in the Public Accounts Committee, he (Mr. BLAKE) gave his assurance that he would do his best to assist the hon. member to have the matter dealt with in the House.