The Supplementary Estimates for 1877 were then taken up.

Item 1 was passed without discussion.

On item 2, for the salary of one Stipendiary Magistrate, or County Court Judge, to provide, if necessary, for the vacancy created by the death of the late A. T. Bushby, Esq., in British Columbia, $2,425,

Hon. Mr. BLAKE, in reply to Sir John A. Macdonald, said this was simply for one year, until the question of the County Court Judges in British Columbia was settled.

The item was passed.

With reference to item No. 8, providing for the payment of $200 to Ensign Fahey, in accordance with a report of the Medical Board,

Hon. Mr. CARTWRIGHT explained

that this was the renewal of an old grant. Ensign Fahey had been injured at Ridgeway, and had been had been granted a pension of $200 for five years, with the understanding that if he (Fahey) remained in a disabled condition at the end of this period, it would be renewed for a similar time. The Medical Board reported that this was the case, and accordingiy the pension was continued.

Mr. IRVING trusted that when occasion arose, these graceful tributes for services rendered the country would be made more general in order to afford encouragement to our volun

teers.

The item was passed.

Item No. 9, providing $10,000 to purchase forage for, and for contingencies in connection with the North-West Mounted Police, being taken up,

Hon. Mr. POPE thought that this service was managed at present in a very extravagant manner.

Hon. Mr. BLAKE replied that he would be glad to hear any suggestions as to the way in which the appropriation could be reduced. The original estimate comprised only 4 lbs. of oats per day for each of the horses, based on the supposition that large quantities could be raised at the posts, but further information led him to believe that this hope could not be realized; and this sum was in part intended to provide for the deficiency.

Hon. Mr. POPE-Could not the force be reduced?

Hon. Mr. BLAKE-I do not think that it could be reduced at present. The military force in Manitoba has been lessened one-half during the present year, and that is something.

Hon. Mr. POPE urged that the volunteer system should be introduced in the North-West Territories, and if such provision were made he thought a reduction in this force would be quite

feasible.

Mr. SMITH (Selkirk) held that they must be dependent for some years for protection on the Mounted Police Force.

The item was passed.

Item 10, appropriating $200,000 for the Cornwall Canal, being taken up, In reply to Hon. Mr. LANGEVIN,

Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE explained that originally they had not intended to do anything in connection with this work during the present year, but they had subsequently thought it advisable to make a commencement, in order that they might next year proceed with it more vigorously.

Mr. SMITH (Selkirk) enquired whether it was the intention to make any appropriation for the improvement of navigation on Red River, between Winnipeg and Lower Fort Garry. Were an interruption which existed removed-vessels could pass from Winnipeg and Fort Garry direct to the mouth of the Saskatchewan. This would be a very great convenience, and he thought that it could be secured with the expenditure of from $5,000 to $8,000.

Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE replied that they were not in the possession of information which would enable them to present an intelligent estimate in regard to this matter to the House. It was also to be remembered that a bridge, which would not be a swing bridge, was to be built across the river some 23 miles below Winnipeg and between this place and the Lake. The vessels used on the river were utterly unsuited for lake navigation.

Hon. Mr. MITCHELL hoped that it was not intended to erect a bridge which would interfere with the freedom of navigation, compelling the transshipment of cargoes, a very serious matter. He trusted that the Government would reconsider its decision, if such was its object.

Hon. Mr. SMITH (Selkirk) held that the interruption of navigation by means of such a bridge would cause great inconvenience and hardship. A boat at present plied between Lower Fort Garry and the Saskatchewan.

The item passed.

MONTREAL EXAMINING WAREHOUSE.

Item No. 11, providing for the expenditure of $50,000 in connection with the erection of Montreal Examining Warehouse, being taken up,

Mr. DESJARDINS made reference to the Martin Contract. He stated that while Bourgoin and Lamontagne -to whom the contract had since been awarded-had tendered for excava tions at the rate of $6.50 per yard, Martin's tender for this portion of the work had been $4.30 per yard. A telegram was sent to the former requesting them to come to Ottawa on this business; and on the 13th of May a similar dispatch was sent to the latter. On the 21st of May, notification from the architect, of a change in the conditions of the contract with reference to the excavation work, was received, and on calculation being made, Martin's tender was found to be the lowest by $1,084; nevertheless, a momorandum of the Minister of Public Works, of date the 25th of May, stated that the tender of Bourgoin and Lamontagne had been accepted, on condition that the rate for the excavation, walls, and foundations, was reduced

from $6.50 to $5. A letter was sent from the Department of Public Works on the 28th, informing Martin that his tender was the lowest; but, notwithstanding all this, the contract was given to Bourgoin and Lamontagne. Martin wrote desiring to know why the Government had changed its first decision, and rejected the tender which had been accepted; and this letter was dated the 2nd of June. It remained without reply. On the 8th of June Martin wrote a second letter requesting the reasons why a change in the conditions had been made, and why

such action had been taken as was

To

mentioned: but acknowledgment was simply made of its acceptance. This note was dated the 10th of June. On the day following, Martin wrote, statreceived a telegram desiring his preing that on the 13th of May he had sence at Ottawa. He had gone to Ottawa, and had been informed by Mr. Trudeau, the Minister that his tender was the lowest. Deputy He was asked several questions, amongst others, what security he could furnish. He had offered either a money deposit or a mortgage. He then wished to know why the contract had been taken from him; and he asked whether this was due to the fact that he had the misfortune to be a Conservative. this letter no reply was vouchsafed. On the 2nd of June the tender of Bourgoin and Lamontagno was accepted, on the 4th of June the report of the Committee of the Privy Council was approved of by the Administrator of the Government, and on the 25th of May an Order in Council was passed, accepting the tender of Bourgoin and Lamontagne on condition that the price for extra work was reduced to $5 per yard. He did not pretend to say that Bourgoin and Lamontagne were not as competent as Martin to perform the work; but the matters of justice and impartiality were in question. He hoped that the Minister of Public Works could give an explanation that would satisfy the public. These questions had been discussed in the press, and on the hustings during the late local elections, and it had been charged that the change had been made owing to political motives. When it was found that the works would be more considerable

than the architect had at first foreseen, it would be seen that Bourgoin and Lamontagne had been informed that they could change their contract prices, while Martin had not been placed in so advantageous a position, although the latter's tender was the lowest by the amount of $1,084. Bourgoin and Lamontagne did change their rates, and they had received the contract.

Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE replied, that it being discovered that extra excavations would have to be made, a a second provision was made in the tender to obtain the schedule of prices at which these extra depths, which were assumed, not positively known, might be taken. Bourgoin and Lamontagne were the lowest tenderers for the superstructure, the main point, by nearly a thousand dollars; and provided that the outer work was taken at lower prices, they considered those persons were entitled to the contract. Bourgoin and Lamontagne at first refused to accept the price mentioned, considering it was too low; and the next tender was that of Martin, with whom they communicated. Shortly afterwards, however, the former returned, and accepted the conditions which were in question. He knew nothing about either of the contracting parties; he made it his business never to know anything about people under these circumstances, and contracts were awarded on principles which admitted of no challenge. Mr. MASSON remarked that Martin was telegraphed to come to Ottawa; when the latter arrived he was told by the Deputy of the Department that he had received received the contract, which almost immediately was transferred to Bourgoin and Lamontagne. Ho did not wish to touch on the political question, but he would observe that Martin had a reputation to maintain. They were aware that a kind of rivalry existed between these contractors, and he could not but think that Martin, under such peculiar circumstances had a right not only to demand, but to obtain an explanation of the reasons which had actuated the Government with reference to this matter. He asked whether the Administration had acted in a business like manner.

despite this fact, Bourgoin and Lamontagne had been placed in a more advantageous position, and to them the contract had been transferred. Should such action be taken with reference to contracts generally? He thought not. Martin had offered satisfactory security, and who knew but that if he (Martin) had received the same offer that had been extended to Bourgoin and Lamontagne, he would not have lowered his rates for making the superstructure, and thereby a real saving for the country would certainly have been effected. He considered that the Government had taken an improper course. His hon. friend from Chateauguay remembered the question which came up last year, when a Sub-Committee was appointed by the Public Accounts' Committee to investigate the contract awarded for supplying with wood the Penitentiary of St. Vincent de Paul. A gentleman had tendered at a certain price, and had every expectation of securing the contract, but he was ultimately informed that a party who had tendered at a higher rate would obtain it on condition of lowering it, and this was certainly not just. It was a system which was consistent with the duty of a Government towards the tenderer that he should know that if he were the lowest tenderer he should have the contract, provided he could give sufficient security. In this case the gentleman was not only to give security, but to deposit the money required as a guarantee that he would carry out his contract. Mr. Martin's contract was proved to be $1,000 less than the successful tenderers', who were political friends of the existing Administration.

Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said he

knew nothing about the Penitentiary luded to, further than it was let by one contract the hon. gentleman had alof the hon. gentleman's political friends. the contract was let to the lowest tenIn this particular case he contended it, and further explanation he did not derer. It was exactly as he had stated feel himself called upon to give.

computation it was shown that the Martin tender was $1,084 less than that of Bourgoin and Lamontagne.

Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE stated that in a tender let at Kingston, a political friend of the hon. gentlemen opposite tendered three dollars below a political friend of the Administration, and the lowest tenderer got the contract. It was precisely so in this case.

Mr. MASSON said he had no

complaint to make in reference to the complaint to make in reference to the St. Vincent de Paul Penitentiary contract for wood, which had been given to friends of the Administration. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said the contract was given out by a political friend of the late Administration.

Mr. MASSON said that gentleman had no doubt changed his political principles lately.

from the Lower Provinces and the Province of Quebec and members of the Crown changed round, it would not be surprising that the Warden of a Penitentiary should allow his political opinions to change. It had been proved that the Warden of the Penitentiary had awarded the contract upon the urgent representations of the hon. gent's political friends. Mr. Masson here read extracts from the report of the Committee which inquired into the matter, and said that at one of the meetings of that Committee the hon. member for Chateauguay asked if it was not the custom of the late Government to give give contracts to their political friends? To this inquiry the witness replied that they invariably gave the contract to the lowest tenderer. He next stated that under the late Administration the Government had always given the contracts for supplies for the Government institutions to the lowest tenderers, and he could prove by the record that in the majority of cases the contracts were given to Reformers.

Hon. Mr. HOLTON said, as the hon. gentleman had referred to this matter, he thought he should have gone a little further and referred to the enquiry which was made respect ing the purchase of a quarry at St. Vincent de Paul.

Mr. MASSON-It is not in point.

Mr. HOLTON said it was perfectly in point, and he called upon the hon. gentleman to read that report. With regard to the wood contract, the Warden stated emphatically that he regarded the party who had made the lowest tender as not qualified to fulfil the contract, but it had been awarded to one who had put in a higher tender, on his accepting it at the figure of the lowest tender. The public had suffered no wrong, and the Warden who had awarded the contract was. when in this House, a supporter of the former Administration, and had been appointed to his present position by the right hon. gentleman himself. As the hon. member for Terrebonne would not read

the

report in regard to the quarry purchased, he would do SO himself. The Sub-Committee examined Mr. F. X. Auclair, the proprietor of the farm on which the quarry was situated, and other witnesses. The report was as follows:

"It appears from the evidence that the ment by its original proprietor late in Novemquarry in question was offered to the Governber 1872, for the sum of $9,000; that no answer to this offer was received; that early in the following month of December Mr. E. H. Lemay purchased the quarry from Auclair for the sum of $9,000; that later in the same month of December, valuators were appointed by the Government or by the Directors of Penitentiaries, under instructions from the Minister of Justice, to report on the value of the quarry, which was variously estimated at $29,750, and at $25,750; that the quarry was offered by Lemay to the Government for $18,000, at which price it appears to have been finally accepted by the Government in the month of January 1873, and a vote for the money was obtained at the next Session of Parliament; that Mr. C. A. Dansereau, chief editor and co-proprietor of La Minerve, a journal established in Montreal, took an active part in the negotiation of the Lemay, sale of the quarry to the Government by and in consideration of his supposed influence, or the influence of his firm and journal, he was to receive individually, according to Lemay's evidence-but for his firm according to his (Dansereau's) own evidence-one-sixth part of the profits arising from the transaction; that over and above one-sixth share of the profits so stipulated for, Dansereau demanded of Lemay the sum of $2,000 for an election fund, which he (Dansereau) says Lemay had previously agreed to pay, and that this demand was made pending the election in the County of Laval, in October 1873, and the money was intended to be used in connection with these elections, this sum of $2.000 or any portion thereof. It but it does not appear that Lemay ever paid seems to be established beyond dispute or doubt that double the sum was paid for the quarry that it was offered or might have been purchased for; that the sale by Lemay was

He (Mr. Holton) did not intend to go any further into this matter than to call attention to the facts connected with it.

Hon. Mr. LANGEVIN wished to know why the hon. member tried to connect his (Mr. Langevin's) name with this transaction.

Hon. Mr. HOLTON said it was because reference was made to the hon. gentleman in the evidence.

Hon. Mr. LANGEVIN said there was malice in the hon. gentleman's attempt to represent him as being implicated in the matter. It was not in accordance with the evidence to say the quarry was offered to the Government for $9,000. It never was communicated to them, and that fact changed the appearance of the matter altogether. The Government having been ignorant of any such offer, the course they pursued was perfectly right. If they had known it could be bought for $9,000 they certainly would not have paid more for it. Experts were appointed to value the property, and the matter was regularly brought

before Parliament. But this trans

action had nothing to do with the question before the chair, and he hoped the House would not be diverted from it by the hon. gentleman.

Hon. Mr. HOLTON quoted from the evidence of Messrs. Moylan and Lemay to show that reference was made to the Hon. Mr. Langevin by them.

Hon. Mr. LANGEVIN said this was brought up as a screen to the other matter. When he, a short time before, had brought to the notice of the Premier the fact that money had been squandered on public works on the Lower St. Lawrence, instead of imputing wrong motives to the Government, he merely directed attention to it. The Premier had thanked him for the manner in which it was referred to. He (Mr. Langevin) had been a Minister of the Crown himself,and he treated

hon. gentleman opposite as he desired to be treated himself.

Mr. DESJARDINS said the hon. member for Chateauguay bad attempted to justify one wrong by another. The matter then dropped.

RAILWAY LANDS IN VANCOUVER ISLAND.

Mr. DECOSMOS asked :—Do the Government intend to surrender to British Columbia the belt of land reserved for Railway purposes on Vancouver Island, or do they intend to perfect their title and offer the same for sale in conformity with the Dominion Lands Acts?

Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-We do land. not pretend to have any claim to the

THE DEBT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. Mr. DECOSMOS asked:-Do the Government intend to carry out the agreement made in 1873 by and between the Province of British Columbia and the Dominion of Canada, respecting the advance by the latter to the former, of the difference between the actual and allowed debt of the said Province at the date of Union? And why did the Government refuse to carry out the said agreement in 1875 ?

Hon. Mr. CARTWRIGHT-The is defined very clearly in the Act of agreement made by the Government Parliament of 1874, for regulating the advances to all the Provinces. As to the second Branch of the hon. gentleman's question, the sum of $189,000 was advanced to the Province of British Columbia, but it was not considered expedient to advance any further sum.

FISHERIES ON THE ST. LAWRENCE.

Mr. POULIOT moved an Address to His Excellency the Governor General for a statement of the fishing licenses granted since Confederation. for setting up fisheries on the beach of the St. Lawrence in front of the parishes of Notre Dome du Portage, River du Loup and Cacouna, shewing:-1st. The names of the persons to whom licenses were granted, together with the amount paid for each such license. 2nd. The amount of fines and penalties. paid for infractious of the law in set