been presented praying for such action. This was very unfair on the part of the hon. member, as the latter at the time alone had any information in this regard in his possession, rendering an immediate reply impossible. The papers were brought down, and what proved to be the case? The postmaster, it was true, had performed his duties to a considerable extent by deputy, but this was done by three out of four of these officials throughout the country. As to the petition, to it were appended only fifteen or twenty signatures, comprising those of three persons, members of a single firm; one other of the signers received his mail at the office, and another did so, perhaps, only twice or thrice a year. The balance were obtained all over the township of Osnabruck, and with the exception of those mentioned, not one of these individuals obtained his mail matter at this office. They were, also, all adherents of the opposite political party. It was not claimed that the duties had been inefficiently performed; no complaints against the postmaster existed; and under these circumstances, it appeared to him, when was taken into consideration the remarkable coincidence that although this person had employed a deputy for several years, this was not objected to until after the elections of 1872, that this dismissal could only be ascribed to political causes.

Mr. McDONALD (Cape Breton) rose to make a personal explanation. The Premier had said that he had not moved in this matter previously, because he (Mr. McDonald) did not wish to, and because he was so prompted by his friends, and in the interest of his client. The facts were these: In 1874, when the notice was called, he explained that he had received information from. the Postmaster-General which induced him to drop it, and

did so. Last year, when it was called, he rose to make the motion, but was called to order by the Premier, an understanding, of which he was ignorant, having been reached between the First Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, that no argument was to take place that day on a notice of motion; and he wished above all things to make an explanation. When the mat

ter came up a second time it was towards the end of the Session, at six o'clock, and thereupon the PostmasterGeneral at once left his seat. As he (Mr. McDonald) did not wish to take action in the Postmaster-General's absence, he deferred it. On the third occasion the notice was reached at 8.30 o'clock; it was first on the list, and the Premier moved an adjournment of the House. Consequently he was unable to discuss the matter last year, and during the present Session he had seized the first opportunity to bring the question before Parliament. The Premier said that he (Mr. McDonald) had been prompted to abstain making the motion; this he denied, save to the extent that he was requested not to do so by the late PostmasterGeneral.

Mr. GALBRAITH stated that a postmaster in his county, who was not a drunkard, but an earnest member of a temperance society, and who had been for several years a warden of the county, had been dismissed from his office for political reasons by the late Administration, owing to the efforts of political opponents in the neighborhood. Strong feeling having existed amongst the Conservatives against this official, repeated attempts were consequently made to injure the man's character; and one person was, for connection with them, sentenced to serve a term in prison for the crime of perjury. Charges were made against the postmaster, and an investigation was held; none of them were, however, fully proven, shewing that the memories of the witnesses were either defective, or their evidence fabricated. The Government dismissed the postmaster on the report of the Inspector, though a petition in his favour, signed by nearly every man in the village had been presented; he moved for the papers, and the return included a very short report from the Inspector. He might say, that the postmaster had, in 1872, at a public meeting, controverted a statement made by a prominent Conservative, and was at the time threatened with dismissal.

When the change of Government took place, the gentleman in question brought the matter before the Admin

istration; and on re-investigation, it was found that no ground existed for the action taken by the former Cabinet, and consequently he was reinstated and his interim successor, who was a very worthy person, dismissed. Last year a motion was made for the papers in this relation; and at the suggestion of the Postmaster General, all documents in this connection were brought down. It was then established that a very large portion-nearly the whole-of the report of the Inspector, to which he had referred, had been suppressed by the late Administration; and the party who made the motion, discovering that his position was untenable, at once let the matter drop.

Mr. COCKBURN said on the very evening three years ago when the hon.

member for Stormont stated the case repeated again to-night, he (Mr. Cockburn) had mentioned a parallel case, the postmaster at Gravenhurst having been dismissed without notice by the late Government. It was true he was absent, but he had a deputy in his place, and he would have attended if he had received notice.

Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD said with respect to the case mentioned by the hon. member for North Lanark, he regretted exceedingly the hon. gentleman from South Lanark, who knew tleman from South Lanark, who knew all the circumstances, was not present. However, the facts were easily under

stood from the statement now made.

The charge brought against the postmaster, if true, would have been sufficient to deprive him of the confidence of the head of his Department. That charge was investigated by the Inspector, in the presence of the accused, and a report submitted to the Department on which the dismissal was based. Afterward the postmaster was restored by Mr. Macdonald, the first Postmaster-General in the present Government. The hon. member said the whole report was not brought down in 1873. Of course, he (Sir John) could not now say how that might be, but he was quite sure the Postmaster-General in in his Government was not a man to garble a report of any kind. There was in this case a full investigation, and a report on which the Government acted.

Mr. MACKAY-The hon. member of Cumberland stated in his place that two barristers swore to the fact that in my election campaign I had threatened the Postmaster of Christmas Island with dismissal.

Hon. Mr. TUPPER-I stated we

had it in evidence from the hon. gentleman's colleague that two respectable barristers had made affidavits they that when they brought forward their were prepared to prove the fact, and witnessess they were not allowed to speak.

Mr. MACKAY rose to speak but was called to order, having already spoken.

Mr. KERR rose for the simple purPose of doing an act of justice to an absent friend and highly respectable citizen of Canada. The right hon. saying it was either the postmaster of member for Kingston was in error in Bloomfield or Baltimore who had interrupted him and Mr. Smith on the hustings.

Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD—I do not remember what postmaster it was, but it was a postmaster.

two postmasters present; and if the Mr. KERR said these were the only right hon. gentlemen knew them as he (Mr. Kerr) did, he would be convinced they were incapable of the conduct charged against them.

Mr. JONES (Halifax) moved the adjournment of the House.

Mr. MACKAY (Cape Breton) said. his case had been investigated by one of the ad hoc judges, and subsequently taken before a full bench, and there argued for a considerable time; but none of the charges against him had been substantiated. He was amazed when he heard his hon. colleague made charges which he knew perfectly well had been thoroughly disposed of in the investigation which extended over some four months, and in which he (Mr. MacKay) had been accused of every crime in the political calendar. In that trial seventy or eighty witnesses were examined, and when the petitioner found he could not unseat him, he (the petitioner) and his counsellor made affidavit they believed they could prove something else against

possession of office, and came to the conclusion that all that the people required had already been achieved, and that it was of no consequence whether public works of the greatest importance were proceeded with or not. The hon. gentlemen opposite allowed the Session to pass without making any provision whatever for this improvement, except that in 1874 $75,000 were voted for an estimated expenditure of $250,000. The people naturally expected they were going to carry out this work; the Government had asked for this money, and it had been placed ungrudgingly at their service. But how did they perform the work? Not a blow was struck, and the entire season was allowed to pass with the money voted in their hands, and with the country pledged to the immediate prosecution of the work. In 1875, another Session having passed over and renewed pledges having been given to the people, tenders were invited on the 9th May; and he asked the Minister of Public Works, who had had this money in his hands between and why years, the call for tenders was delayed until then, everybody knowing that the summer season is the only time when such work should be undertaken? After the contractors had expended a large amount of time and money in examining the plans and specifications, nothing was done, and on the 5th of July amended plans were made and tenders were again invited. He wanted for a moment to draw the attention of the House to the power attempted to be exercised by the Minister of Public Works and by the Government in relation to this matter. What would hon. members say if, after the Government had received an appropriation for the widening and deepening of the Welland Canal in accordance with a certain plan, and had declared their intention of performing a certain amount of work, they had come back to the House and confessed they had made a contract on different plans from those agreed upon?

one

two

The House would observe that these tenders were invited before the Minister of Justice became a member of this Government, and that after he entered the Ministry these amended

plans and tenders cutting down and reducing this work to a depth of 143 feet instead of 15 feet and to 36 feet in width instead of 50 feet, were adopted. If there was a gentleman in this House, in this Ministry or in this country who was bound to protect the interests of Cape Breton against this alteration, and the cutting down of this work for which the money had been voted that man was the Minister of Justice. When that hon. gentleman was employed in the laudable work of destroying the Baie Verte Canal project he gave a solemn pledge to the members from the Maritime Provinces, when he was inducing the House to take away the appropriation of a million of dollars out of the estimates for the construction of this work, which it was claimed would cost five or six millions, he represented to the House and to his constituents that if the Maritime Provinces would consent to the abandonment of that project he would pledge himself that that money would be expended in other legitimate public works in the Maritime Provin

ces.

He would read the hon. gentleman's statement from the Reports and "hear! hear." see if he would say

"Hon. Mr. Blake said that this item for the construction of an important public workimportant especially in point of expense-had for a long time appeared in the estimates, and he regarded it as the settled policy of the country, which at any rate he was not prepared to dispute, that an equal amount, supposing the Baie Verte Canal should not be constructed, should be expended for some public purpose of national importance in the Maritime Provinces. He thought that the people of Ontario-he spoke only for his own constituency-would sustain him in the statement that it having been the settled policy of Parliament, for a considerable number of years, that a large expenditure should take place upon this work they would be agreeable if it were proved to be unreasonable or impracticable to carry such a work out, to an equal amount being expended in some other public works, in which the Dominion had an interest. Therefore, so far as he was concerned, speaking for his constituency, the only question he had to consider was whether that particular work was a fit one on which to expend the funds of the Dominion. Upon that question he did not express any opinion. He thought it would not be becoming in him to solve the question, which from the statement of the Leader of the Government, it appeared was not ripe for settlement, the necessary information to that end not being yet forthcoming. But it did seem to him,