r.-*^'

^

.^'''

..\o'

f!»

Go^*^'

x^^'

^u^^^<^*'

uotJ*

--^/

SESSIONAL PAPERS

VOLUME 28

THIRD SESSION OF THE TWELFTH PARLIAMENT

OF THE

DOMINION 0¥ CANADA

SESSION 1914

VOLUME XLTin.

■\

V f)

10 915 0^'

4-5 George V.

Alphabetical Index to Sessional Papers.

A. 1914

ALPHABETICAL INDEX

TO THE

i

SESSIONAL PAPERS

PARLIAMExNT OF CANADA

THIRD SESSION, TWELFTH PARLIAMENT, 1914.

Auditor General for year ended March
31, 1913, Vol. I, Pts. A to J; Vol.
II, Pts. K to U, and Vol. Ill, Pt.s.
V to y 1

Agriculture, Report of Minister of,

ended March 31, 1914 15

Agriculture, Dept. of ; number of lec-
turers, inspectors, &c.. belonging to,
in Province of Nova Scotia, &c. . . . 2.53

Agriculture, Dept. of ; correspondence
with ?-e importation of pure bred ani-
mals into Canada 260

Agricultural Instruction Act : copy of
all arrangements between Govt, and
Provinces under 298

Aldershot Camp, N.S., re supply of ice

for season of 1914, &c 256a

Aldershot Camp, N.S., accounts re sup-
plies for summer and autumn drill
at, 1913 256

Antigonish Harbour, correspondence re

dredging of, &c 232r

Antigonish Co., N.S., Blue Rock Break-
water in, re expenditures on in 1913,
&c 232v

Archives : Documents re Constitutional

History of Canada. 1791-lSlS. &c. . 29c

Arichat, N.S., re Public Building at,

expenditures on. &c 232(2wi)

Armstrong, David, mail carrier of

city of Sherbrooke, re dismissal, &c. 70 (2&)

Asiatics : Immigration of, &c., in re-
lation to O. in C. passed Dec. 19,
1913, restricting such into B.C. . . 261

Appointments : —

Of the Moosejaw Post Office em-
ployees, salary, &c 77

Of Mr. Pierre Cournoyer, I'ostmas-
ter at St. Pierre de Sorel, County
of Richelieu, &c 77«

63433—1

A

Appointments : — Continued.

Of Public Officers in city of Quebec,
Depts. of Inland Revenue, Rys.,
Customs, Immigration, Marine, &c.,
since Oct. 1, 1911, to April 14,
1913 ; names, duties, &c 776

H. P. Duchemin re copy of instruc-
tions issued to, on appt. as Com-
missioner in N.S., &c 77e

Of Train or Ticket Agents on I.C.Ry.
and P.E.I.Ry., amts. rec'd, re-
sults, &c 77c

Of J. G. H. Bergeron as Commis-
sioner ; daite of, number of inves-
tigations held, &c 77d

Of F. Roy as Postmaster of St. Phil-

lipe de Xery, Province of Quebec. 77/

Of Mr. J. G. H. Bergeron as Com-
missioner, &c 77^

Of Mr. T. J. Oliver, of Humboldt,
Sask., to present position ; also
appt. of successor at 77^1

Of successor to W. S. McKechnie,
Dom. Lands Agent, Prince Albert,
Sask, &c 77<

Of Jos. Lemieux, Pos master at Mont

Louis, County of Gasp6, &c. . . . 11 j

Of successor to C. A. R. Desjardins,
Postmaster at St. Andre de Ka-
mouraska, &c 78

Of for year 1913, of Captains, first
and second Engineers for Dredges
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11,
Dept. of Marine, below Montreal :
Appointment of Captains and En-
gineers for 1913 for Tugs ' Car-
melia,' ' Chambly,' ' Contrecoeur,'
' De L^vis,' ' Emilia,' ' Iberville,'
' Jas. Howden,' ' Jesse Hume,' &c. 77*

i-5 George V.

Alphabetical Index to Sessional Papers.

A. 1914

A

Of number of additional employees
added to Customs Dept., city of

Halifax, since Oct. 10, 1911.. 77<

Of correspondence re appt. of C'are-
talters of Post Oflflce at Rigaud,
&c 77m

Of Morrison, Allan. St. I'eter's, N.S.,
Inspector of dwellings in Gregory
Isand, N.S., 1912-1913 77n

Of names, length of service of all
employees, Dept. Interior, in out-
side service since Jan. 1, 1912, to
Dec. 31, 1913 77o

Of n\imber of appointments made in
Cu.stoms at Montreal since Oct. 1,
1911, names, sal.iries, &c 77p

Of numlier of Engineers, Asst. En-
pineers. Clerks, Divers, Dept. of
Public Works, in Co. Bonaventure,
since Oct. 1, 1911 77g

Of showing whotbei- Louis P. Thi-
bault, Alphonse Poirier, J. A.
Morin, C. F. Rioux, and others,
were appointed by Postmaster
General 77r

Of corre pondrnce re appointmt^nt of
present Collector of Customs at
Antigonish 77»

Of correspondenec re appointment of
present Collector of Customs at
Antigonish lit

B

Bf'langer, Capt. of Stmr. ' Eureka ' ;
correspondence between, and Dept.
Marine and Fisheries, year 1912 . . 249

Binders, Reap rs M iwers, &c., export-
el to Canada, values, &c., in 1910,
1911, 1912, 1913 184

Bonaventure Co.. Que., expenditure in-
curred since Oct. 1. 1911. re investi-
gations held in 93c

Boring Mill at Lr-thbridge, Alta., cor-
resi>ondence in Dept. of Customs re-
lating to 213

Banks, Shareholders in Chartered, of
the DoMiinion of Canada, to Dec 31.
1913 6

Banks, unclaimed balances, &c.. in . . 7

Barre. Etienne, Trudeau. .los. of muni-
cipality of Chamhly Rasin. it peti-
tion of. to Minister of Justice. . . . 214

Berceron, J. i'.. H.. Irxiuiring Commi.^-
sioner — Report made by. re Dr. .1.
D. Pag4. Qup»»ec. year 1913 60

Bergeron. J. O. H.. return showing date
of appointment, salary, tnivelling
expenses, number of Investigations,
*c 77d

Bertrand. Mrs. C. F.. DIonne. Arht6-
miae. rr purch-is • of land from, con-
nect'on with works, &c 232V

Boards of Concili.'xtion. Report of for

year 1913 3(«

Bontis :mvI Securities, Statement of all

aino Dec. 1912 39

Bonaventure Co.. Que. Expenditure of
public moneys In, since Oct., 1911, to
Feb .1914 232(2*)

Blais. M. C. Documents rr resignation
from Govt, yards at St. Joseph de
Korel. and appointment of successor. 146

B

Bourinot, John C, Seizures made by,
as Preventive Officer and Collector
of at Port Hawkes-bury, N.S., &c. .. 49o
Bourinot. John C, Return re telegrams,
letters, &c., received or sent to, by
Dei)t. Customs, during years 1895-

6-7 49

Boutillier's Island, Lunenburg Co.,
N.S., correspondence re tenders, ac-
counts, &c., connected with 168

Branch Lines of Ry. of I.C.Ry. re con-
struction of into Co. of Guysbor-

ough. &c 86«

Branch Lines Ry. of I.C.Ry re docu-
ments respecting question of acquir-
ing any or all of, also running rights

over I.C.Ry 117

Branch Lines of Ry. of I.C.R., Orange-
dale to Cheticamp, in Inverness Co.,

N.S., Documents referr ng to 117c

Bruce, Jas., re all documents connected
with entry and cancellation of home-
stead entry of 110^

British Columbia, Indian Lands in, in-
quiry of N. W. White during 1912-

1913 as Commissioner 130

Breal<water at Green Point, Glouces-
ter Co.. N.B.. re construction of a. . . 165
Breakwater at Goulman's Po nt. Guys-
borough Co.. N.S.. corre?] ondence

re 232/

Breakwater at Blue Rock, Antigonish,

N.S ■ . . . . 232t;

Breakwater at Meat Cove, N.S..&C. "|
White Point. N.S.. &c.
Mill's Harbour. N.S.. |

&c I

" McT.ieod's. Ingonish, j

&c \ 271

Breton Cove. N.S. . . |
I.,ittle Bras d'Or. N.S. j
Cape Dauphin. N.S...
" Point Anconi. N.S. . j

Jamesville. N.S J

at the Graff. Halifax.

N..S 232 f 25)

Bhwagan Singh, a Sikh Priest, cor-
respondence re the deport.ation of,
&c 267

Campbell, John, and Albert E. Milli-
gan, correspondence re expropriation
of lands of

Canadian National Bureau of Breed-
ing, Ltd., date of incorporation of,
names. &c., of *hembers of

Chatcauguay River, rr damming of,
number of employees on. wages. &c.

Ooal lands situated in 2S-19. 27-1 S,
27-17 and 28-18. west of the Fourth
Merldl.in

Coil in Canada. Report of Conservation
Commission on conservatioti of. . . .

Customs. Report of Dep.-\rtment of,
year ended March 31, 1913

Canadian Northern Railway Co. : —
No. 1. Copy of trust deed, date 30th
June. 1903. between, and British
Empire Trust Co. Stc

232C2*)

289
2329

110*
210a

11

269

2

4-5 George Y.

Alphabetical Index to Sessional Papers.

A. 1914

C

Xo. 2. Copy of trust deed, date 6th
May, 1910, between, and British Em-
pire Trust Co., &c 269a

Xo. 3. Copy of trust deed, date 19th
Xov., 1913, between Mackenzie,
Mann, Ltd., and British Empire
Trust Co., &c 269&

Xo. 4. Statement of floating liabilities
of Ry. Co.s in general title of Cana-
dian X'orthern Ry. System 269c

X^o. 5. Statement of securities pledged
as collateral to Temporary Loans of
Canadian Xorthern Ry. System . . 269ri

No. 6. Statement of Engineer's Esti-
mate of cost of completing Cana-
dian Xorthern Ry. System 269e

Statement of Capital Stock authorized
and issued of Companies set out in
first schedule 269/

Approximate estimate of betterments
for six years of Canadian X^orthern
Ry. System 2693

Statement bearing on financing of
Canadian Xorthern Ry. System to
Dec. 31, 1913 26971

Papers and Statements re Canadian

Northern Ry. System, &c 269t

Copy of trust deed dated Oct. 4, 1911,
Canadian Xorthern Ry. to Guardian
Trust Co., Limited, &c 269J

List of Companies whose total stock is
owned by Canadian Northern Ry.
Co., &c.. .. .' 269fc

Further Statements bearing on financ-
ing of Canadian Northern Ry. Sys-
tem 269<

Correspondence, telegrams, &c., from
Premiers of Provinces of N.S., B.C.,
Alberta and Sask. re matter of aid. 269»i

Copy of trust deed, Dec. 28, 1903, Lake

Superior Terminals Co., Ltd., &c . . 269"

Colonels, Honorary do, Lieut, do, re
return showing number appointed by
Minister of Militia since Oct. 11, to
March 31, 1914 218

Return re number of Honorary ap-
pointments to Military rank made
by Minister of Militia, &c 21Sa

Canal Statistics, season of Navigation,

1913 20a

Canadian Forestry Association, Com-
munications made by, to the Govt.,
&c 45

Canadian Pacific Railway Strikes, Re-
turn re application for Board of
Conciliation, &c 62

Canadian Pacific Railway Coy, re
lands sold by, year ended Oct. 1,
1913 107

Canadian Pacific Railway, Copy of all
contracts with Dept. Rys. with re
joint station at the Palais, Quebec
city 114&

Chesley, Village of. South Bruce, re
installation of letter boxes in, &c. . . 209

Civil Service Insurance Act, Statement

re, for year ending March 31, 1913. 51

Civil Service, Superannuation and Re-
tirin.g Allowances in, during year
ending Dec. 31, 1913, &c 52

Civil Service, Inside, Number of per-
sons appointed, not passing exams.,
held in May and Xovember each
year 104'?

634:33—1^

Civil Service, for each Dept. of Civil
Service, names, salaries, &c., of em-
ployees ; also names, &c., not in
Service, employed in any Dept., since
Oct. 10, 1911 ; also names removed
from office, &c 104i7

Civil Service, Xumber of Certificates
asked from Civil Service Commission
since March 31, 1913 ; number re-
fused, and reason for, &c 104ft

Civil Service, List for 1913 30

Civil Service Commission, Report of,

for year 1913 31

Commissioners appointed by Govt,
since Oct. 10, 1911, X'umber of;
names, amount paid, number still
under pay Vi't

Commissions created since Oct. 10,
1911, Return asking for copy of;
copy of evidence taken, report, &c., 9la

Commissions created since Oct. 12,
1911, Names and members of, pur-
poses, salaries, &c 91

Country Harbour, Guysborough, Co.,
X.S., Survey of line of Ry. from, to
Cape George, X.S 86

Conference of Representatives of the
Provinces held Oct., 1913, Minutes
of &c 119a

Criminal Statistics, year ended Sept.

30, 1912 (Appendix to Report of
Minister of Trade and Commerce for
year 1912) 17

Cruiser, D.G., 'Margaret,' re the build-
ing of ; contract price, names of
tenderers, &c 215

Criminals released from parole from
Penitentiaries, &c., year ended Mar.

31, 1913, &c 274

Car Ferry Service between Mainland

and P. E. Island, Correspondence,

&c., re I2la

Canadian Contracting Coy, showing
names of promoters and powers
given to Company, by letters patent. 194

Cape Breton Railway, re purchasing of
by Govt., and building line from St.
Peter's to Sydney and Louisbourg. 171

Canal, Soulanges, Xames of employees

on, salary, date of hiring, &c. . . . 127

Central Ry. Co. of Canada, re applica-
tion of, for change of route, to
Dept. of Rys. and Canals 82

Central Ry. Co. of Canada, Annual
Report by, to the Railway Dept... 136

Cimon, Hon. Mr. Justice, re amount of
money received by, from 1890 to
1913, during time of connection with
Kamouraska 280

Chartered Banks in Canada in liqui-
dation since Confederation, Number
of ; date in each case, &c 183

Citizens of the United States, how
many employed by Govt, since Nov.
1, 1911 94

Chemical Manure, re report of Geo.
Lafontaine respecting manufactur-
ing of, during fiscal year 223

i^hinamen. Number of entering Can-
ada in years 1911, 1912 and 1913... 196
'olijitts, Gustavus A., re detention at
Rimouski on steamship in Sept.,
1911, by ofl^cers of Govt, &c. . .. 195

4-5 George V.

Alphabetical Index to Sessional Papers.

A. 1914

C

Combines Investigation Act, Board
ajjpt. under, to investigate United
Shoe Machinery Co., Report 154

Commissions, re each issued by Govt,
since Oct. 10, 1911 ; Copy of Evi-
dence, &c. 91 &

Commissions formed by Govt, since
Oct., inil ; names, occupations of
Commissioners, &c 9lc

Commission for purpose of beautify-
ing Ottawa city and vicinity, Cor-
resiJondence re, &c ' 9ld

Commissions created by legislation or
Orders in Council since Oct. 12,

1911, Members of, &c 9le

Commission of N. W. White to inquire

into Indian Lands in British Colum-
bia 139

Commission to investigate the cost of
living, copy of O.C. appointing same. 132

Commissions appointed under Inquir-
ies Act ; number of since Oct. 1,
1911 : names of Commissioners, &c. 91/

Constitutional History of Canada, 1791-

1818, Docum.ents re, &c 29c

Coteau Landing, Names of wharfing-
ers at ; number of vessels moored
at, &c 250

Customs Tariff Act, &c.. Correspond-
ence re temporary suspension of, re
wire rods, &c 116

Customs Act, Copy of Orders in Coun-
cil since Jvme, 1914, altering rates
of duties existing under, &c 156

Customs Building in Village of Ches-

ley, South Bruce, Documents re, &c. 232(21)

D

Dairy and Cold Storage, Report of
Commissioner of, for year ending
March 31. 1913 15o

Distilled Water &c.. Amount paid for,
in Ottawa by Govt, since Jan. 1,

1912, to March 1, 1914, also cost per

day 247

Dominion Lands, Order In Council re,
between Oct., 1912, and Nov. 30,

1913, Forest Reserves Park Act. ... no
Dominion Lands. Orders in Council re,

between Oct. 1, 1912, and Nov. 30,

1913 -. HOC

Dominion Lands Regulations re dis-
position of, from Oct., 1911, to Jan.,
1912. &c 43

Dominion Police Force. Average num-
ber of men employed on ; travelling
expenses, &c 112

Dorchester Penitentiary, re vacancy of
Deputy Warden, and appt. of succes-
sor to Mr. A B. Pipes, &c 174

Dredging operations in British Colum-
bia 101

Dredging at Bnlhurst Harbour, N.B.,
relating to. done on bar, seasons of
1910. 1911. 1912. 1913 170

Dredging at Bathurst Harbour. N.B..
rr all tenders for, and contmcts
awarded 170a

Dredging at Bathurst Harbour, N.B.,
Correspondence re deposit of sand,
&c.. dumped into S.W. channel.. .. 1796

Dredg-ng at Bonaventure River, all

documents, &c., connected with.. .. 232«

D

Dredging. Nova Scotia Dredging Co.,
re dredging performed by, or other
companies, at Jeddore, N.S 232/

Dredging in Harbour of St. John. N.B.,
or tributaries. Number of firms or
persons engaged in, since Oct. 1,
1911 232n

Dredging in Harbour and River, St.
John, N.B., Number of tug boats en-
gaged in connection with, since
Sept. 21, 1911 232P

Dredging of Des Prairies River, all

documents re, &c 232(2a)

Dredging operations carried on in

Bonaventure Co. in 1913 232(2<7)

Dredging operations at Port Elgin,

N.B., all documents relating to. <S:c. 232 (2p)

Dredging. Surrender of contract for. in
Miramichi Bay, N.B., by A. & R.
Loggie 232 r20

Dry-Doclv, Specifications, tenders. &c.,

re proposed, at Lauzon, Que 232rf

' Destructive Insect and Pest Act,'

Regulations under 65

Desjardins. C. A. R.. Postmaster at
St. Andr^ de Kamouraska, re resig-
nation of, &c 78

Demers, Eugene, and Jos. Olivier,

Claims of. against the I.C.Ry, &c. . 85&

Deputy Ministers, Number of em-
ployees under each. &c., also salary
of Customs Commissioner &c. . . . 104*

Dog-Fish Reduction Works at Clark's
Harbour. N.S., Cost of rnaintenance.
receipts, &c., years 1910, 1911. 1912. 67

Duties, Remission and refund of, un-
der section 92. Audit Act 66

Dubisson. Arthur, re employment of, as
Immigration Agent at Gravelburg,
Sask 77U

Duchemin, H. P., Return re date of
appoi!itment. number of investiga-
tions held since. &c 93/

Duchemin. H. P., Return re expendi-
tures b? I.C.Ry. in connection with
inquiries held by 23 ff

Dlsmiss.als : —

Return re dismissal of Horace Rin-
dress. Quarantine Medical Officer,
North Sydney. N.S 44

Return rr dismissal of A. T. Dou-
cett. Postmaster and Collector of
Customs at Salmon River, Digby
Co.. N.S 44a

Return rr dismissal of Alex. Bour-
que. Storm Signal Agent at Bona-

, venture. Que 44&

Return rr dismissal of Patk. Con-
way. T..ighlkeeper, White Head Is-
land. N.S 44c

Return rr dismissal of Capt. Wm.
Smith. Coxswain, Lifeboat at Shel-
burne, Co.. NS 440

Return re dismissal from Public
Offices. Co. of Kings. N.S., since
Oct. 11. 1911 440

Return re dismissal of Jos. E. A.
Landry. Lighthouse keeper, St.
Omer, Que., Copy of charges
against 44/

Return re dismissal of Colin Mc-
Isaac. Preventive Officer at Port
Hood. N.S 44F

4-5 George V.

Alphabetical Index to Sessional Papers.

A. 1914

D

Return re dismissal of Mr. Pesha,

Postmaster at Kent Bridge, Ont. 44/i
Return re dismissal of John F.
Reeves, Postmaster at Mulgrave,

N.S 44i

Return re dismissal of Havelock Mc-
Leod, Postmaster at Big Intervale,

Inverness Co., N.S 44/

Return re dismissal of S. Lapointe,
Postmaster, St. Eloi, Temiscouata

Co., Que 44fc

Return re dismissal of Wm. Bow,
Postmaster at Winchester Village,

Dundas Co., Ont 442

Return re dismissal of Mrs. Ellen
O'Xeill, Postmistress at O'Xeill's
P.O., Westmorland Co., N.B . . .. 44m
Return re dismissal of Alex. Labil-

lois. Postmaster at Miguasha. . . 44n
Return re dismissal of Madame Z.
Narcotte. Postmistress, Nouvelle
West, Bonaventure Co., Que. . . . 44o
Return re dismissal of Jos. Venault,
Postmaster at Guay, Co. of Levis,

Que . . 44p

Return re dismissal of Postmaster
at Osage, Sask., and appointment

of successor, &c 44g

Return re dismissal of Geo. Taylor,

Postmaster at Bickerton, N.S . . 44r
Return re dismissal of Mile Paul-
hus. Postmistress, Point St. Vic-

toire. Que 48s

Return re dismissal of Perker S.
Hartt, Postmaster at South Man-
chester, N.S 44^

Return re dismissal of Chas. L.
Gass, Postmaster at Bayfield, N.S.,

also copy of evidence, &c 44w

Return re dismissal of Madame Bel-
zil, Postmistress at St. Octave,

Co. of Rimouski, Que 44u

Return re dismissal of John McDon-
nell, Postmaster at Essex, Inver-
ness Co.. N.S 44w

Return re Jas. Bain, Postmaster of

Niiiga P.O., Ninga Manitoba. . . . 44.T
Return re dismissal of Wm. McKin-
non. Postmaster at Erinville,

Guysborough, N.S 442/

Return re dismissal of J. N. Clou-
tier, Postmaster at St. Benoit

Lake, Beauce Co., Que 44»

Return re dismissal of Mrs. Weave,
Postmistress at Coal Creek,

Queen's Co., N.B 44(2cO

Return re dismissal of Postmasters
in Bonaventure Co., by present

Government, &c. 44(20)

Return re dismissal of Alex. Eraser,
Postmaster at Eraser's Grant, An-

tigonish Co., N.S 44(2c)

Return re dismissal of all public offi-
cers by present Government in
the district of Portneuf, &c. . .. 44(2d)
Return re dismissal of the Postmast-

lers in Co. of Two Mountains, &c. 44 (2e)
Return re dismissal of Thos. Chalm-
ers Mcl.iean, Postmaster at Ivera,
North Cape Breton and Victoria,

N.S 44(2/)

Return re dismissal of C. P. Blan-

chard, Posmaster at Truro, N.S. 44(2£7)

D

Return re dismissal of Samuel At-
wood, Atwood's Brook, Shelburne

Co., N.S 44 (2ft)

Return re dismissal of Postmasters
in Co. of Berthier, since 21st Sep-
tember, 1911, &c 44(20

Return re dismissal of Wilfrid Pelle-
marre, Postmaster at Hervey
Junction, County of Portneuf .. 44(2/)

Return re dismissal of Rufus D. Cor-
rigan, Postmaster at Sand Point,

Guysborough Co., N.S 44(2fc)

Return re dismissal of Daniel Dun-
lop, Postmaster at New Campbell-
ton, North Cape Breton, N.S. . .. 44(2?)

Return re dismissal of Duncan Cam-
eron, Postmaster, Craigmore, In-
verness Co., N.S 44(2m)

Return re dismissal of Angus Cam-
eron, Postmaster at Fairlight,
Sask 44 (2n)

Return re dismissal of M. Sauriol,
Postmaster, Port Janvier, Co. of
Terrebonne 44(2o)

Return vf dismissal of Donald John-
ston, Postmaster, Leitche's Creek ;
changes made in names of
Leitche's Creek, &c 44(2P)

Return re dismissal of Jas. McLees,
Postmaster at Bishop's Mills,
Grenville Co., Ont., &c 44(2rjf)

Return re dismissal of Mrs Sara C.
Rankin. Postmistress at S. W.
Ridge, Mabou, N.S 44(2r)

Return re number of dismissals
from public service in County of
Cumberland, N.S., from June 23,
1896, to September 21, 1911, &c. . 44 (2s)

Return re dismissal of all employees
in Co. of Three Rivers, and St.
Maurice, since Oct. 15, 1911, to
April, 1913 44(20

Return re number of dismissals by
present Govt, in constituency of
Regina, up to Dec. 10, 1912.. .. 44(2w)

Return re dismissal of all public offi-
cers by present Govt, in Co. of
Kamouraska, names, duties, &c. 44 (2v)

Return re dismissal of all public ofl^-
cers by present Govt, in Co. of
Prince, P.E.I., up to Eeb. 10,
1913, &c . . . 44(2M7)

Return re dismissal of all public offi-
cers by present Govt, in Strath-
cona Riding, to Dec. 10. 1912.. 44(2a;)

Return re dismissal of all public offi-
cers by present Govt, in Saltcoats
Riding, to Dec. 10, 1912 44(22/)

Return re dismissal of all public offi-
cers by present Govt, in Co. of
Champlain since Oct. 15, 1911, to
April, 1913 44(2-2)

Return re dismissal of all public offi-
cers by present Govt, in Co. of
Cumberland, N.S., since Oct. 11,
1911, to March 3, 1913 44 (3a)

Return re dismissal of all public offi-
cers by present Govt, in Co. of
Westmorland, N.B., since Oct.
1911, to Feb. 3, 1913 44(36)

Return re dismissal of all public offi-
cers by present Govt, in Co. of
Annapolis, N.S., since Oct., 1911,
to Mar. 3, 1913 44 (3c)

4-5 George V.

Alphabetical Index to Sessional Palmers.

A. 1914

D

Return re dismissal of all public offi-
cers by present Govt, -in Co. of
Nicolet, since Oct., 1911, to April
28, 1913 44(e<i)

Return re dismissal of all public offi-
cers in constituency of Victoria,
Alta.. to 29th Jan., 1913, &c.. .. 44(3e)

Return re dismissal of all public offi-
cers by present f'ovt. in Co. of
Shelburne and Queens, N.S.. .. 44(3/)

Return rr number of Postmasters
dismissed in County of Antigon-
ish, N.S 44(3'7)

Return re dismissal of Dr. Freeman
O'Neill. Port Physician, Louis-
burg, C.B., N.S 44(3h)

Return re dismissal from public offi-
ces by present Govt, in County of
Digby, N.S., since Oct. 11, 1911.
to Mar. 3. 1913 44 (3i)

Return re dismissals from public
offices bv prrsont Govt, in Co of
Queens-Shelburne, N.S., since Oct.
11. 1911, to (late 44(3;')

Return re dismissals from public
offices by present Govt, in city of
Quebec. Dept. of Rys. and Canals
and others 44(3 />;>

Return re dismissals from public
offices by present Govt, in Co. of
L'Assomption, Que.. &c 44(30

Return re dismissals from public
offices by present Govt, from each
Dept.. names. P.O. address, since
Oct. 11, 1911 44(3»i)

Return re dismissals from public
offices by present Govt, in Co. of
Digby. N.S.. since Oct. 11. 1911,
to Mar. 3. 1913 44(3n)

Return re dismissal of Phileas Ha-
bel, LightUeeper, St. Louis de Lot-
bin&re. Co. of Lotbini&re. Que... 44 (3o)

Return re dismissal of Fishery Over-
seer Mipnenult at Seven Islands,
and appt. of Elz^ar Levesque .. 44(3p)

Return re dismissals from public
offices by present Govt, in Co. of
Maskinong^ since Oct. 11, 1911, to
April 2S, 1913 44(37)

Return re dismissals from public
offices by present Govt, in Co. of
Kings, N.S.. since Oct. 11. 1911. to
Mar.. 1913 44 (3r)

Return rr dismissals from public
offices by present Govt, in Co. of
Colchester, N.S., since Oct. 11,
1911. to Mar. 3. 1913 44 (3s)

Return re dismissals from public
offices by present Govt, in Co. of
Hants. N.S.. since Oct. 11. 1911.
to Mm: 3. 1913 44(3f)

Return re dismi.^sal of Miss Kugenie
Dorion from office of P. O. Inspec-
tor. Quebpc. &c 44(3u)

Return re dismissal of .las. R. T^aing.

Postmaster. Liscombe. N.S.. &c. 44 (3v)

Return re dismissal of A. L. Des^ve.
Odicer in charge of Fish Hatch-
ery. l^Iajiop. Que., &c 44(310)

Return re dismissal of Jas. T. Rich-
ardson. Sub-Collector of Customs.
Humboldt. Sa.sk 44(3x)

Return re dismissals from public
offices in constituency of Regina,
names. &c., to Dec. 10, 1912.. .. 44 (3V)

D

Return re dismissal of Mr. Hicks
from Customs Service, Bridge-
town, N.S., &c 44(3^)

Return re dismissal of Ralph Har-
ris, Sub-Collector of Customs at
Pelee Island. Ont 44 (4a)

Return re dismissal of Aylmer Orton.

Customs Officer at Windsor, Ont. 44(46)

Return re dismissal of Fredk. Fors-
ter, Sub-Collector of Customs.
Kingsville. Ont 44 (4c)

Return re dismissal of Andrew Dar-
ragh. Immigration Officer at
Windsor, Ont., &c 44(4d)

Return re dismissal of John Hal-
stead, Imtnigration Officer at
Windsor, Ont., &c 44(4e)

Return re dismissal of Napoleon
Daigle. Lightkeeper at Barre-a.-
Boulard, St. Louis de Lotbini^re,
Que 44(4/)

Return re dismissals from public
offices by present Govt, in Co. of
Cumberland, N.S.. from June 23.
1896. to Sept., 1911 H(i(j)

Return re dismissal of Jas. H. Smart,

Postmaster at Kingsville, Ont.. &c. 44 (4ft)

Return re dismissal of John A. Roy.
Postmaster at Maitland. Co. of
Hants. N.S 44 (4i)

Return re dismissal of Thomas Nel-
son, Postmaster at Scotch Village,
Co. of Hants. N.S 44(4;)

Return re dismissal of Albert Mc-
Hefl'ey. Postmaster, Shubenaca-
die, N.S 44(4*;)

Return re dismiss.al of C. Stewart,
McPhee. Po.stmaster at Enfield.
Hants Co.. N.S 44(41)

Return re dismissals from public
offices by present Govt, in West-
morland Co.. N.B.. since Feb. 1,
1913. to Fob. 2. 1914 44 Mm)

Return re dismissal of D. Dishaw.
employee of Marine Shipyard at
I'rescott, Ont 44(4n)

Return re dismissal of A. Michael
Russell. caretaker drill hall,
Windsor N.S 44(40)

Return re dismissal of Mr. A.
Goyette, Postmaster at .St. Vale-
rien de Milton, Shefford. Que., &c. 44 (4p)

Return relating to investigation re
charges against I*. D. Bourdage.
Lightkeeper. Bonaventure Point.
Que . &c 44 (4q)

Return relating to investigation re
charges against Louis Bujold.
Lightkeeper. Carlelon Pt.. by W.
S. Montgomery and others 44 (4r)

Return re dismissal of Mr. Shinbine,
Caretaker Immigration Hal), Ed-
monton, &c 44 MS)

Return rr dismissal of Mr. Webster,
Immigration Agent at Edmonton.
&c 44(40

Return re dismissal of Jacob Mohr.
Interpreter at Immigration
Agency, Edmonton 44 (4u)

Return re dismissal of P. Tompkins,
Dominion Lands Agent at Gir-
ouard. &c.. also name of succes-
sor 44(4v)

4-5 George V.

Alphabetical Index to Sei^ioiiiil Papers.

A. 1914

D

Return re dismissals of Inland Rev-
enue Dept., Bonaventure Co., since
Jan. 1, 191.3, to Feb. 3, 1914, also
appointments 44 (4w)

Return re* dismissal of Mr. Arthur
Dupuis, Postmaster at Pontbriand,
Megantic Co., &c 44(4a;)

Return re dismissal of Jos. Serguis
Archambault, Postmaster of Town
of Terrebonne, also appt. of suc-
cessor 44(42/)

Return re dismissal of Martin Lani-
gan. Postmaster, Se.xton, Co. of
Kent, N.B., minutes of evidence
re 44(4?)

Return re dismissal of Felix Ray-
mond, Postmaster, Ste. Scholas-
tique Village, Que 44;

Return re Sub-Lands Agency at

Gravelbourg, Saskatchewan .. .. 44(5f')

Return re dismissal of all public offi-
cials by present Govt, in Co. of
Kings, N.S., &c 44(5c)

Return rr dismissal of Postmaster
at Ainslie Green, Inverness Co.,
N.S., and appt. of successor.. .. 44(5d)

Return re appointment of a Post-
master at Upper Ohio, Shelburne
Co., N.S., &c 44 (5e)

Return re dismissal of Jos. H. Le-
febvre. Postmaster, Howick Sta-
tion, Chateauguay Co 44(3/)

Return re dismissal of Postmaster at
Alexander, Inverness Co., and
appt. of successor, &c 45 (ff)

Return re dismissal of N. H. Mc-
Leod, N. East Margaree, N.S., offi-
cial of Geological Survey, &c. .. 44(5ft)

Return re dismissal of M. Barry
from Marine Dept. at Prescott,
Ont 44(5i)

Return re dismissal of W. Granton,

Marine Dept. at Prescott, Ont. .. 44(5;)

Return re dismissal of Postmaster
at Fletwode, Sask., also changring
of said P.0 44(5/c)

Return re dismissal of all Postmast-
ers and Postmistresses in the Co.
of Westmorland, X.B., since Feb.
1, 1913, to Feb. 1, 1914, &c.. .. 44(5?)

Return re dismissal of Postmaster
of St. Henri de Lauzon, County
of Levis, &c 44 (y)»)

Return re dismissal of Geo. Skates,

Postmaster at Appin, Ont., &c . . 44(5M)

Return re dismissal of Geo. J. Ryan
and Chas. Hamlin, Canadian Cus-
toms Service, Newport, Vermont,
U.S 44(50)

Return re dismissal of J. Shaver,
employee of Marine Shipyard,
Prescott, Ont 44 (5p)

Return re dismissal of R. Lunay,
employee of Marine Shipyard,
Prescott, Ont 44(5(7)

Return re dismissal of J. Slattery,
employee of Marine Shipyard,
Prescott, Ont 44(5))

Return re dismissal of J. Walsh,
employee of Marine Shipyard,
Prescott, Ont 44(5s)

Return re dismissal of W. Gerts,
employee of Marine Shipyard,
Prescott, Ont 44(50

D

Return re dismissal of D. Boivard,
employee of Marine Shipyard,
Prescott, Ont 44(5m)

lieturn re dismissal of G. Scott, em-
ployee of ^Marine Shipyard, Pres-
cott, Ont 44 (5v)

Return re dismissal of J. Offspring,
employee of Marine Shipyard,
Prescott, Ont v. 44(5m7)

lieturn re dismissal of J. Hayes, em-
ployee of Marine Shipyard, Pres-
cott, Ont 44(53?)

Return re dismissal of P. Belanger,
employee of Marine Shipyard,
Prescott, Ont 44(52/)

Return re dismissal of L. Place, em-
ployee of Marine Shipyard, Pres-
cott, Ont 44(52)

Return re dismissal of C. Kavanagh,
emplojee of Marine Shipyard,
Prescott, Ont 44(6a)

Return re dismissal of J. Roche,
employee of Marine Shipyard,
Prescott, Ont 44(6V)

Return re dismissal of J. Mclnnis,
employee of Marine Shipyard,
I'rescott, Ont 44(6c

Return re dismissal of E. Scott, em-
ployee of Marine Shipyard, Pres-
cott, Ont 44(6ri)

lielurn re dismissal of C. Wright,
employee of Marine Shipyard,
Prescott, Ont 44(6e)

Return re dismissal of L. Lalonde,
employee of Marine Shipyard,
Prescott, Ont 44(6/)

Return re dismissal of H. Birks, em-
ployee of Marine Shipyard, Pres-
cott, Ont 44 (6f?)

Return re dismissal of '^ . Jarvis,
employee of Marine Shipyard,
Prescott. Ont 44(6/»)

Return re dismissal of J. McDermott,
employee of Marine Shipyard,
Prescott, Ont 44 (6i)

Return re dismissal of Geo. L
Brown, Lightkeeper, Prescott De-
pot, Ont., &c 44(6;)

Return re dismissal of J. Lane, em-
ployee Marine Shipyard, Prescott,
Ont 44(6fc)

Return re dismissal of D. Perrin, em-
ployee Marine Shipyard, Prescott,
Ont 44(60

Return re dismissal of J. A. Mundle,
employee Marine Shipyard, Pres-
cott, Ont 44(6m)

Return re dismissal of Postmaster
of Parish of St. Lambert, County
of L^vis, &c 44(6n)

Return re dismissal of Postmasters
in Bonaventure Co., from Jan. 1,
1913, to Feb. 1, 1914, &c 44(60)

Return re dismissal of Customs offi-
cials in Bonaventure Co., from
Jan. 1, 1913, to Feb. 1, 1914, &c. 44(6P)

Return re dismissal of Postmasters
in Albert Co., N.B., since Oct. 1,
1911, to Feb. 2, 1914 44(69)

Return re dismissal of public offi-
cials by present Govt, in Queens,
Shelburne, Oct. 11, 1911, to Mar.,
1913 44(6r)

4-5 George V.

Alphabetical Index to Sessional Papers.

A. 1914

D

Return re dismissal of public ofH-
cials by present Govt, in District
of Kamouraska, &c 44(6''

Return re dismissal of W. H. Mc-
Kechnie, Dominion Lands Agent,
Prince Albert, Sask., &c TTi

Return re names, salaries, &c., of
persons removed from different
Depts. since Oct. 10, litll, &c. . . 104b

Return re dismissal of Postmaster,
Parish Notre Dame de Charny,
Co. of L6vis, Correspondence, &c.,
re 44(6';

Return re dismissal of Chas. S. M.&-
lanson. Postmaster of Corberrie,
Digby Co., N.S 44(6i(J

Return re dismissal of Gordon Mc-
Donald, Homestead Inspector,
Grouard Land Agency, &c 44(6a')

Return re dismissal of W. F. Slack,
documents re suspension and re-
instating of, &c 44(6if

Return re dismissal of Wm. Bru-
nelle, Lightkeeper at Point it Cit-
rouille, Champlain Co., Que., <S:c., 44(6a;>

Return re dismissal of Arthur Le-
veque, Lightkeeper at Grosse Isle,
Que., Documents re, &c 44(63/>

Return re dismissal of L. Phillipe
Carignan, Lightkeeper, Cham-
plain, Co. of Champlain, &c . . .. 44(G-;

Return re dismissal of Dominique
Levesque, Lightkeeper at Riviere
Quelle Wharf, Co. of Kamour-
aska, &c 44(7(1)

Return re number of dismissals by
Govt, in Co. of Shefford, since
Oct. 1, 1911, to Feb. 2, 1914, &c. 44 (7b)

Return re dismissal of all public
oflicers by present Govt, in Dis-
trict of Portneuf, &c 44 (7c)

Return re dismissal of Alex. W. Fin-
layson, Lightkeeper, St. Esprit Is-
land, Co. Richmond, N.S., &c. . 44(7ri)

Return re dismissal of Lightkeeper
of Cape Cove, County of Gasp6,
investigation against, in 1911 .. 44(7e)

Return re dismissal of Dan. Cormier,
olticer in the Life Saving Station
at Eastern Harbour, N.S 44(/)

Return re dismissal of Ben. V. Wil-
let, Lightkeeper at Point Duthie,
Que., and appt. of successor .. 44(7f7)

Return re dismissal of I'ostmastcrs
in the Co. of L<^vis since Sept.,
1911, number reinstated who were
dismissed by late Govt 44(7/»)

Return re dismissal of John A. Mc-
Lellan, Lightkeeper at Fish Is-
land, P.E.I 44 (7»)

Return re dismissal of Thos. Le-
Blanc, Postmaster of Allard,
Bonaventure Co., &c 44 (7^)

Return re dismissal of Wm. K. Ehler,
Lightkeeper, Queensjiort, N.S., ex-
peiises re investigation, &c . . .. 44(7fc)

Return re dismissal of Samuel Dick-
son, Postmaster at Seaforth, Ont.,
re investigation held, &c 44(7/)

Return re dismissal of Chas. Mc-
Pherson, Posrtmaster, North River-
side, Guysborough Co., N.S., &c.. 44(7"i)

D

Return re dismissal of Christian L.
Ehler, Postmaster at Queensport,
X.S., appointment of successor, &c. 44(7")

iieturn re dismissal of Christian L.
Eliler, Postmaster at Queensport,
&c 44(70)

Iieturn re dismissal of Jas. White,
Postmaster at Sydney, B.C., re in-
vestigation held, &c 44(7P)

Ueturn re dismissal of Postmaster
at Mount St. Patrick, South Ren-
frew ; change in location of Post
Omce in 44(73)

Ueturn re dismissal of Edwd. Dea,
officer in charge of Lobster Hatch-
ery, Port Daniel West, Que., &c. . 44(7*)

Iieturn re dismissal of A. C. Cam-
eron, Mail Contractor of Fairlight,
Saslc, correspondence re 44(7s)

Iieturn re dismissal of Geo. F.
Payne, Postmaster at C5ranby,
Que., appt. oL" successor, &c. .. 44(7t)

Return re dismissal of Postmasters
in Co. of Portneuf, names of, num-
ber of investigations. <&c 44(7m)

Return re dismissal of Postmaster
at Havre Boucher, N.S., corre-
spondence re, and appointment of
successor.. 44(7v)

Iteturn re dismissal of Wm. Camp-
bell, Lightkeeper, wharf at New
Richmond, and appt. of succes-
sor »,. 44(7to)

Return re number of dismissals of
public employees in Co. of West-
morland, N.B., since Feb. 1, 1913,
to Feb. 2, 1914 44 (7a;)

Return re number of dismissals from
Dept. Marine and Fisheries from
Dec. 5, 1912, to April 14, 1913 .. 44 (7y)

Return re disinissal of J. R. Dcni-
son. Postmaster of Richmond,
Que., and appt. of successor.. .. 44(7«)

Return re dismissal of Arthur B
Caldwell, Asst. Inspector Weights
and Measures, Dist. of Quebec. 44(8a)

Return re dismissal of public offi-
cials in Co. of Annapolis. N.S.,
since Oct. 11, 1911, to March 3.
1913 44(86)

Return re dismissal of public ofH-
cials in Prov. of P.E.I, by Govt.,
since Oct. 10, 1911, number of,
&c 44(8c)

Return re dismissal of Capt. J. De-
coste. Mate and Craneman on
dredge No. 6, during season of
1912 44(Sd)

E

Estimates of sums required, for year
ending March 31, 1915 8

Estimates. Supplementary, for year

ending March 31, 1914 3i

Estimates. Supplementary, for year

ending March 31. 1915 4

Elections, Grncral, &c.. Resumf of. for
1896. 1900. 1904. 1908. 1911, and
By-elections between July 11, 1896,
and January 1, 1914 18

I'^lections. By, &c.. for House of Com-
mons, for year 1913 18o

Elmira Branch Ry., P.E.I. , Total cost
of. &c 84

8

4-5 George Y.

Alphabetical Index to Sessional Papers.

A. 1914

Employees of Depts. at Ottawa, and
in all Provinces and Territories, in-
side and outside service, who have
left their employment since Oct. 1,
1!)11, up to Jan. 10, 1912, names,
&c

104
104a
104&
104C

Exchequer Court of Canada, General
Rules and Orders of, made on Sept.
24 and Dec. 13, 1913 64

JS.Kpress Statistics of Canada, year

ended June 30, 1913 20e

Expenditure to June 4, 1913, by pre-
sent Govt., into alleged partizan
conduct of officials, &c 93a

Experimental Farms, Report of Direc-
tor and Officers of year ending Mar.
31, 1913 16

Experimental Farm at Ste. Anne de la
Pocatiere, Number of employees at,
in years 1912, 1913, &c 221

Experimental Farm in Prov. of Que-
bec, re purchase of horses, cattle,
&c., during 1913, expenses, &c. . . . 297

External Affairs, Report of ' . . 29e

Edmonton Power Co., re lease of power
on Saskatchewan River, at Rocky
Rapids, Alberta, &c S0<?

Flour and Grain, Quantities of, ship-
ped from Fort William to Port Ar-
thur by vessel, 1912, &c

Farm labourers and servants respec-
tively, placed by Govt. Agents in
1912, 1913 ; where placed, &c

Falmouth, Township Dyke, Hants Co.,
Expenditures, pay-lists, &c., on..

Fair, Mrs. Marguerite, Postmistress of
Black Cape, Que., Copy of charges
against, &c

Fairen, Frank, Evidence taken before
Commissioner to inquire into charges
ai?ainst, of partisanship

Falardeau, A. O., and Falardeau, C.
N., Document re withdrawal of ap-
peal in case of, in Supreme Court.

Farmers Bank, Correspondence re ap-
pointing Sir Wm. Meredith, Commis-
sioner ; letters re relief of share-
holders, &c

Ferry Service, Steam, between New
Brunswick, Nova Scotia and P. E.
Island, all correspondence apper-
taining to the proposed, for all sea-
sons of the year

Ferry Service, Car, between Mainland
and P. E. Island, all documents, &c.,
re

Fenian Raid "Volunteer Bounty, Report
of Board of Inquiry re claims for
Bounty in Province of Nova Scotia.

Fenian Raid Volunteer Bounty, List of
applicants in N.S. whoso claims are
approved list of, in N.S. not yet con-
sidered, &c

Ferguson, John M., Correspondence re
seizure of 11 horses belonging to, &c.

Fisher. Ward, of Shelburne, N.S., In-
spector, re amounts paid to, for sal-
ary, expenses, &c.. 1912-1913 ....

46

182
232?

207

211

238

121

12la

188

1880
216

150

Fishery Hatchery at Port Daniel West,
Report of operations at, for year
1913 151

Fishing Pond at Margaree, Corre-
spondence re men appointed at, &c. 164

Fish exiiorted from Canada to United
States, months of Oct., Nov. and
Dec, 1913, and Jan., 1914, also 1912,
1913 186

Pish, Transportation of, from Mari-
time Provinces to U.S., documents
received by Dept. since Jan. 1, 1914, 264

Forestry Association, Canadian, Do-
cuments, re to

Eraser, Jos., re purchase of lands
from, in connection with works at
Cariboo Island, Pictou Co 248

Friar's Head Boat Harbour, re expen-
diture of money at, by Simon P.
Doucet, in 1912-13, and 1913-14 .. 232(2b)

G

Geographic Board, Report of 25«i

Gold River, Lunenburg Co., N.S., Cor-
respondence re tenders, contracts,
&c., for wharf at. . 167

Governor General's Warrants issued
since last session of Parliament on
acct. 1913-14 50

Government Public Buildings at Lunen-
burg, N.S., re supply of coal for, &c. 169

Government of Canada, showing cash
on deposit to credit of, in last day
of each month between April 1, 1913,
and Dec. 31, 1913 ISO

Government of Canada Loans placed
by on London market in years 1912,

1913 : date, copy of prospectus,
price, &c 181

Grazing Leases, Regulations re, of

vacant Dominion Lands, &c 149

Gravelburg, Immigration Hall at, do-

cunients re, since Jan., 1912 232r

Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Co. : —
Copy of protests of, against changes
in grades from Winnipeg east-
ward, terminals at Quebec, &c. . 134
Showing who were from incorpora-
tion, and who are the officers and
directors of, amt. of capital stock,

&c 187

Estimates of cost re construction of

Mountain Section of, &c 293

Grain Commission, Copy of rules, re-
gulations, &c., re hauling of grain,
innde by Commission to March 2,

1914 241

Guysborough Co., N.S., re statem.ent of
salary and expenses of Commis-
sioner Duchemin re investigations
in 93*

H

Harbour Commissioners of Montreal,
Documents re proposed advances to,
for 1914, 1915, 1916, 1917 157

Harbour Commissioners of Quebac,
Memo, of proposed improvements for

1914 out of advances to. &c 158

Harbour Commissioners of Quebec, re

construction by them of line of Ry.
to connect Trans. Ry. with Union
Station at the Palais 178

9

4-r> (iiM.r^o V.

ALpliiiU'lical Index to Sossioiiiil Tiipers.

A. 1914

H

Hiilifax Oc<>:iM T(M-fiii Mills, N;imi\s of
owners from vvlioin luiul liiis bueii
exiiropi-iated for 172

Halifiix Dfoaii Terminals, oonstrniM ion
of lly. from IJedfoid Hasln to Hali-
fax Harbour, in eonnertion with
Terminals 172a

llniitsiiort, N.S., ?"f erection of public

buil.linK at 232(2;)

lliiitUl i'ublisliing Co. of Halifax, re
amounts p;ii(l by Govt, to, since
ooi. 11. 1911 8le

Uud.soii Hay Hallway, re provisions,
supplies forwarded to Port Nelson
duriuK HM:1 by Oovt. connection
with Terminals at 201

HydroKraphic Survey, 1!U 1-1912 2.'')/

Inland Revenue, Reports, Uelurns and
Statistics for year ended March :'. 1 ,
1913 :—

I'art T— Kxcise 12

II — Insi)ection of Weights

and Measures 13

" III — Adulter.ition of Food.. 14

Indian Reserve at Sydney, N.S., rf
sale and transfer of, and removal of
Indians therefrom 198a

Indian Titles, Report re presented to
Supeiintendent tSeneral Indian Af--
fairs. Auk. 20, 1909 47

ImmlKiants. J~)ocuments re mental,
moral ami i>hy.sical inspection of all
entering Canada 228

Internal Koonomy Commission, Report

of, for 1912-1913 109

Interprovincial Conference, Copy of
proee»dinKS and resolutions adopted
at la.st 119

Interinovincial Conference, Minutes of
proceedinRS in Conference of Repre-
sentatives of 119a

International Convention for safety of

human life at sea. <^oi>y of 129

Imperial Naturalization. Correaiiond-
enco lu^twecn Imperial Govt, and
(lOVt. of Canada Ill

Imperial Naturalization, Documents rf?
passluR of an Act in Great Hritain
and Dominions providing for .. .. Ilia

Indian Affairs, Rei)ort of 27

Inspectors of Aptents, Reports made
by, rf placiiiK farm labourers, do-
mestic servants, &c., in years 1912-
13 290

TuUistrlal Disputes of, 1913, between
operators and employees In Coal
Mines on Vancouver Island, also be-
fore or since 1913 1476

International Conference on safety of
life at Sea, O.C. appointlnp repre-
sentatives of Canada on, &c 129a

li\dusirial Disputes of 1913, between
operators and employees in Coal
Mines on Vani-ouver Island, also be-
fore or since 1 913 147

liish, Kred. U., Tostmaster at Afton,
N.S., Correspondence re oharRes
aprainst 7Sa

International I'urlty Congress, Report
of Delegates appt. by Govt, of Can-
ada to attend In November. 1913.. 2S1

Intercolonial Railway: —

Return re aniounts of receipts and
expenditures on, during montlia
of April, May and June, 1913, also
same re corresponding months of
1912; also woricing expenses, &c.,
for same periods 126

Total revenue of, during fiscal year
1912-1913, revenue east and west
of Campbellton, N.B 126a

Names of persons from whom land
has been expropriated, in connec-
tion with Dartmouth and Dean
Settlement branch of 128

DocumeiilH »'' claim for damages
from lire in Village of Hopewell,

I'ictou Co., N.K S.'ic

lOlectrical Branch at Moncton, con-
duct of John \V. Gaskin and
others, coat of iiiQuiry into, &c. . 93*

Documents re loss of horse killed on
Sept. 10, 1913, property of John
Roy, of Amqui 152

lie increase of freight on live stock
carried over; tariff of May 1,
1913, compared tariff Aitril, 1909. 153

Agreement, Copy of, between Cana-
dian Govt. Rys. and C.lMty. Co.
re freight .an<1 passengers between
Halifax and St. John over I. (^.Ry.,
making Halifax terminal i)ort, &c. 155

Re any arrangement between, and
C.l'.Ry. in 1913, re hauling C.P.
freight and passenger transit be-
twe.>i\ St. John and Halifax .... 173

lie local minimum late of freight,
small parcels on, prior to Oct. 10,
1911, also present rate on same to
Feb. 12, 1914 189

Hi- pai)ers. plans, &c., re shortening
of distance between Pictou and
Port Mulgrave and bridge connec-
tion 197

lie purchase of quantity of coal for,
in I'nited States within past few
months 199

Re time when I.C.Ry. called last for
tenders for coal supply, also P.K.I.
Ry. ; number received, &c 199a

Re freight rates on flour, hay, oats,
lumber, *ic.. )>otween Rathurst,
N.H., and Neplslgult Junction, and
other places, &c £00

Rv inirchasc of property in Moncton
owned by late P. S. Archibald,
now occupied by General Supt. .. 202

Supplementary re property in Monc-
ton owned by late P. S. Archibald,
now occupied by General Supt. . 202a

Freight rates under old tariff on
fresh, dried and cured fish, molas-
ses. &c,, from Gloucester Jet. and
Balhurst to St. John 203

Copy of all documents, &c., rr i>ro-
posod diversion of, from I-inwood
Station, through Linwood, Cape
Jack, &c 117*1

Names of contractors, &c., for
double-tracking, from Chaudi^re
Curve to St. Komuald, Q>ie., from
NiMson to D. Junction. N.R.. .. 117*

Re elimination of present grades, re-
placing light bridges with heavier,
and all reports thereon by F. P.
Gutellus 117/

10

4-5 George V,

A^habetical Lidex to Sessional P^»ers.

A- 1914

I

Be total earnings on DiTi^cm 3, in
connection with passenger traffic,
years 1910, 1911. 1912, 1913,, ., 12«»

iSe pmrcbase of property in Monc-
ton, X.6., tormeriy owned lay late
P. S, Archibald, *c 2©2l»

Re retirement of Amasa EL Killam,
an official of 229

Xomber of engineers employed at
Moncton, and names of; nnmber
of formerly in employ of C,P,B.,
&c 235

Tlulem, regulations re employees on
IC.R. and P.&I.Ry 242

All docmnents re refusal of Dept. to
permit employees of Ry. to attend
Militia Camp last year 270

Bringing of, to ballast ground at
Sydney, N.S-, wharf at Sydney
Mines, &c 271

Number of passiengers, tons of
freight, total earnings, number of
cars, *c„ carried by C.P.Ry, over
J.C.Tiy. under agreement between
said Rys., from Xov. 13, 1913, to
March 31. 1914, &e 283

Showing number of cars purchased
in past six months, anantity, price,
Ac 199»

'r-brfcaker. Documents, tcc, re con-
struction of, by Canadian Tickers
-^o. of Montreal 301

-' rr '/ration : —

ReiHjrts. re, ma'le V»y C. F. McKin-
non, F. A. yifiKchf-.n, John A. Mc-
Dousall, J. iL ilcDonaUl, Wra.
Walkins, S. P. Frearn and J. J.
Walker, Special Agents, from
Nova ^:Otia. 244

Names, duties, &c„ of ofRdais in
txoth inside and outside services
of, in 1911 and 1913 42

Jackson, Mr. J. S., Correspondence,
&c,, re appt. of, Supt. of Govt.
Shipjards at St. Joseph de SoreL

Jwlgfui, Number of, retired since l^HO,
names, salaries, reasons for, &c. . .

Justice, \i(:\A. of. Names of lawyers
represtenting, in Dist. of Quebec
since Sept. 21. l&ll, &c

Justice, Tiftfjort of Minister of, for year
endefl March 31, ISl.-;

69

2^4

237

34

LAChine Canal, re cancellation of
leases of water lots by Govt., dates
of, names of lessees,) See Sto

Lachine Canal, re cancelation o€
leases at water lots by Govt., length
of time said leases were In force;
tec 8©c

labour. Report of Department of. ... 3S

Land, Purchases of, made by Dom-
inion of Canada «nce Coirfedera-
tiam, ice 9f

Land, Purchases of, made by. Domin-
ion of Canada since supplementary
return. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 99<i

Loansy Dominion, showing rates of in^
terest paid on all, from 1S99 to 1914. 225

Long Sault Development Co.. re appli-
cation ol, to dam St. Lawrence
"River, See 79

Long Sault Development Co., Corre-
spondence re application ^^nade by,
tec.. 75<i

Lobster Fishery R^ulations. New, by
O. in C. of 3Iar. 23, 1914, in lieu of
those of Sept. 30, 1910 234

Long Beach, St. Marys, Digby Co.,
N.S., Correspondence, toe, re pur-
chase of property for Lobster Pond,
at 95

L§vis Co., Fees and disbureements paid
to witnesses in, summoned by Com-
missioners in, tte 93

L^vis, Quarantine Station at, con-
tracts, tee., re pmxihase by Govt.,
July 29, 1913 265

Leronx, Pacifiqne, re application for
damages sustained by removal of
bridges on Soulanges Canal 120

Lingan Beach, South Cape "Breton,
N.S., re work done on, under H. D.
McLean 1S«

Liquor, Relating to, brought from out-
side of Canada into Territories by
special permisinon, Icc. . 195

Library of Parliament, Report of Joint
Conmnittee on 33

Lighthouse at Red Cape, Margaree

Harbour, N.S., Correspondence re... 2ZZg

Lingan Bar, N.S., Names of all em-
ployees on, wages, &c 232*

Life-saving station at Cheticamp,

N.S., documents, pay-rolls re, *c. . 232m

Lighthouse at Grand Anse, Gloucester

Co., N.B., re tenders received for . . 2Zix

Live Stock, re purchase of, by Howard
Coming, of Tarmouth, N.S., in the
Maritime Provinces, tcc 295

K

Karluk, Documents containing all in-
formation re charter, outfit, in-
structions, &c., of the stmr. . . . 151

Kelly. Wm. J., all documents re im-
prisonment and proposed libera-
tion of, tcr 302

Kingsport Pier, Kings Co., N.8., re
amount of money spent on, during
year 1913 2.31(2e)

Kitsilano Indian Reserve, re purchase
of, by Oovt. from Province of
British Columbia, Ac 219

Kraut Point Wharf, Lunenburg Co.,

N.S., re construction of, &c. . .. 231 r 2d)

n

M

Magdalen Islands, Documents re latest
changes in Lobster Fishing Regula-
tions at, Ac 205

Manitoba Water-powers 25e

Marine and Fisheries : —

Report of Dept of, year 1912-1913

(Marine) 21

Report of Dept of, year 1912-1913

f Fisheries) 22

Supplement to Forty-fifth Report of
Dept. of f Steamboat Inspection) 23

Margaree Harbour, N.S., re repairs to

pier ?it. &c 23 IX

4-5 George V.

Alphabetical Index to Sessional Papers.

A. 1914

M

Margaree, N.S., Correspondence re sup-
plying of coal to Lobster Hatchery
at, years 1910-11, 1911-12, 1912-13,
1913-14 206

Margaree, N.S., Correspondence re
Slieer Dams on Margaree River,
1911-12, 1912-13 232(2V)

Meridian, Demarcation of, 141st degree
of West Longitude, Joint Report
Commissioners, &c 106

Metapedia Road Cos. of Rimouski and
Bonaventure, Documents re repair-
ing of 2320

Medical Inspection of Immigrants at

port of entry in Canada 98

Masinasin, Province of Alberta, docu-
ments, re location of P.O. in, 72

Miscellaneous Unforeseen Expenses,
from April 1, 1913, to January 14,
1914, &c 54

Militia: —

Copies of General Orders promul-
gated to, period from Nov. 18,

1912, to Nov. 25, 1913 59

Names, addresses, rank or occupa-
tion of persons accompanying Min-
ister of, to Old Country and

Europe in 1913 143

Jic transfer of lands by, to Harbour

Commissioners of Montreal, &c . . 239
Total amount paid for pensions by
Dept. of, for year ending March

31, 1913, &c 257

Correspondence between Dept. of,
and Messrs. Macdonald and Mont-
petit re organization of 33rd Hus-
sars 258

Correspondence re land in Farnham,

Que., for Military Camp ground. . 259
Militia, Sydney, N.S., Documents re
transportation of, over I.C.Ry. in

year 1912 97

Militia Council, Report of 35

Mooscjaw. City of, re purchase of lots
1 and 2, Block 125, Plan 96, in, for

warehouse, by Government 232(2i<)

Montagnais Band of Indians, re ad-
vances made to. through Agency of

Seven Islands. Que 287

Mira, Co. of Cape Breton, re petitions,

&c., for subsidies for wharfs, &c., at. 96
Moravian Indians of the Thames, and
Regulations of the Abenakis Indians
of St. P'rancis, ajiproved of by Govt.,
&c., on IMarch 27, 1913, and April 21,

1913 63

" Montfort," Stmr., Report re ground-
ing of April 28, 1914 278

Municipalities of Pictou, Guysborough
and St. Mary's, Claim for refund of

monies, &c ^"j

Mails, re contract for carrying between
Sherbrooke, Guysborough Co., N.S.,
and Moser's River, Halifax Co., N.S. 70
Mail Contract between Scotsburn Sta-
tion and West Branch, River John,

I'ictou Co., N.S.. year 1912 70o

Mail Contract between Scotsburn Sta-
tion and West Branch, River Jolin,
Pictou Co., N.S.. since Oct. 1. 1911. 706
Mail Contract, each one awar<led,
names and figures of tenderer, since
Oct. 15, 1911, &c 70c

M

Mail Carriers, showing contracts can-
celled or renewed by present Govt.,
in Co. of Two Mountains 70d

Mail Contracts made between P. O.
Dept. and party or parties, and can-
celled before maturity, from Oct. 15,
1911, to Nov. 15, 1912 70e

Mail Contract between Back Shore and
I'ictou, Co. of Pictou, N.S., since
death of late contractor, D. G. Mc-
Kay, in 1912 70/

W.ul Contract between P. O. Dept.
and N. LeBlanc, for carrying of, be-
tween Carleton Centre and Carleton,
&c 70£f

.Vlail Contract, re from Noel to Wal-
ton, Hants Co., N.S., during 1913.. 70/i

Mails, Correspondence re carrying of,
between Warkworth and Colborne,
County of Northumberland 70i

Mails, Correspondence re carrying of,
between St. Frangois Xavier de
Brompton and Windsor Mills, Que. 70j

Mail Contracts cancelled in Nova
Scotia since Oct. 10, 1911, names of
contractors, &c 70fc

-Mail Conti'acts cancelled in Co. of Pic-
tou, N.S., since Oct. 1, 1911, names
of contractors, &c 101

-Mail Contracts, Documents re, between
Tatamagouche and Brul6 Shore,
Colchester, N.S., during 1913.. .. 70m

-Mail Contracts and tenders received
for carrying of, between Antigonish
and Livingstone Cove, N.S 70w

Mails, Correspondence on file re ser-
vice of, and tenders received, be-
tween Antigonish and Livingstone
Cove, N.S 70O

Mails, Correspondence, &c., re service
between Bridgetown, Port Lome and
Hampton, Parker's Cove, Annapolis
Cove. N.S 70p

-Mails, Correspondence, &c., re con-
tracts for carrying of, l>etween An-
tigonish and Livingstone Cove, N.S.,
&c 70«

.Mails, names, amounts, to whom given
of all tenders, in 1913, for mail
routes in Co. of Shelburne, N.S., &c. 70r

IMails. Documents re contracts of, be-
tween Bridgetown and Port Lome,
Hampton and Parker's Cove, 1912.. 70j

.Vlails, Copy of Contract for carrying
of. between North I.,ochaber and Col-
legeville, for 1913 70f

Mails, re tenders received for carrying
of, between Merigonish and Malig-
nant Cove 70u

Mails, number of Contracts cancelled
in County of Inverness since Sept. 1,

1911. to Mir. 19, 1914 70v

Malls, Documents re renewal of con-
tract with Geo. A. Stewart for carry-
ing, betwfen N. Lochaber and West
Jyochab) r 70w

Mails, Documents re increased mail
sub.sidy agreed upon by Postmaster
General and various Ry. Companies. 70x

Mails, Names of 82 t'^ndt?rers for carry-
ing of, between Bale St. Paul and
Murray Bay, Co. of Charlevoix . . 701/

Mall Contract between Pictou Post
OfTlce and Ry. Station, between Dept.
and Peter Foley lOz

12

4-5 George V.

Alphabetical ludex to Sessional Papers.

A. 1914

I

M

Mail Contract awarded to Christophe
Leveqiie of St. Eleuthere, for car-
riag:e of, between St. Eleuthere and
Sully 70(2a)

Mail lock patent. No. 151043, corre-
spondence, application, &c., for . . . . 74&

Rural Mail service in Parish of Ste.
Marguerite de Blairfindie, Co. of St.
Johns and Iberville 141c

Rural Mail service in Co. of Quebec,

what Parishes of said County, &c. . lild

Rural Mail route from New Glasgow,
through Mount "William, Granton
and Ambercrombie, N.S 14le

Rural Mail service in Parish of St.

Theodore d' Acton, Que 141/

Alail carriage between Canadian and
European Ports, Agreement between
Govt, and Stmr. Co.'s re 282

Mail carriage from Port Hood to S.

West Port Hood, &c 70(2c)

Mail Contracts cancelled in Counties
of Westmorland, Albert, King's, and
Kent, N.B., since Oct. 9, 1911.. .. 70(2<Z)

Rural Mail Routes in Pictou Co., N.S.,
7-e establishment of, also number of

P.O. closed liig

Melville, Sask., re applications to Govt.

for Post Office Building at 292

Montreal, re buildings, offices. &c., oc-
cupied by Govt., rented or otherwise. 291

Mc

•McDougall, H. F., of Grand Narrows,

N.S., Claim of, against the I.C.Ry. 85a

McGillis, Jos., re suspension of, from
Dept. of Customs, Ottawa 220

N

Newspapers in Canada. List of re ad-
vertisements in, by Govt., or Minis-
ter, Officer, or Dept., between Oct.
10, 1911, and April 28. 1913 81

Newspapers in Canada, List of re ad-
vertisements in, by Govt., Oct. 10,
1906, ot Oct. 10, 1907, up to Oct. 10,
1911 81o

Newspapers in Canada, List of re ad-
vertisements in, by Govt., between
Oct. 10, 1906, and Oct. 10, 1907, and
years up to 1911 81b

Newspapers in Canada, List of re ad-
vertisements in, by Govt., between
Oct. 10, 1911, and April 28. 1913,
amount paid 81c

Newspapers in Canada, List of re ad-
vertisements in, by Govt., between
Oct. 10, 1906, and 1907, and years
up to 1911 Sid

Newspapers in Nova Scotia, Moneys
paid to, during years 1912, 1913,
and nature of service 81/

Newspapers in Canada, List of ad-
vertisements in, by Govt., between
Oct. 10, 1911, and April 28, 1913.. 81fir

New London Branch of P.E.I. Rail-
Vay, re copy of contracts, tenders,
in connection with proposed 179

N

New Carlisle, Bonaventure Co., re non-
erection of public buildings in, &c. 23 2j
Navy, Royal Canadian, Pensions or
Gratuities to Officers of, &c., Copy of

Order in Council re 48

Navy, Royal Canadian, Documents,
&c., re death and burial at Montreal
of Jos. LeBlanc, sailor on D.G.S.

Canada 144

Naval Affairs, Correspondence respect-
ing requests that vessels belonging
to Navy be present at regattas or

celebrations in 1912-1913 227

Naval Service, Report of Dept. of, for

year 1913 38

yHohe, Cruiser, Number of men on

duty on, &c 41

Natural Resources, certain portions of
King's Dominions, Interim Report of

Royal Commission on 135

National Drop Forge Co., Ltd., show-
ing names of promoters, powers held

by, given by letters patent 193

National Battlefields Commission, Re-
ceipts and Expenditures of, to March

31, 1914 268

Northeast I 22-11-5-W. 3 M., Copy of

all papers in connection with. . . . llO/i
Northeast | 22-11-5-W. 3 M., Supple-
mentary papers in connection with. 110;
Northwest \ Section 20-4, Range 16,

West of 2nd Meridian 110?

North i 1-3-16-W-2-M.,- Copy of all

papers in possession of Dept. re.. llQwi
North Cape Breton and "Victoria,
South Cape Breton, Antigonish and
Inverness, Names of witnesses in
connection with investigations held
by H. P. Duchemin in Counties of &c. 936
North Cape Breton and "Victoria,
South Cape Breton, Antigonish and
Inverness, Names of witnesses in
connection with investigations held
by H. P. Duchemin in Counties of,

<&c.. Supplementary re 93e

North Cape Breton and "Victoria,
South Cape Breton, Antigonish and
Inverness, Names of witnesses in
connection with investigations held
by H. P. Duchemin in Counties of,

&c.. Supplementary re 93ft

North Cape Breton and "Victoria, Ry.
extension into. Breakwaters, "Wharfs,

opening of Harbours in, &c 271

Northumberland, Dredge, Number of
men employed on, at Pictou, in Jan.,

Feb. and March, 1913, &c 233

Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and P. E.
Island. Memoranda re claims to rep-
resentation, &c llSa

Ontario Equipment Co.. re Order ol
the House for production of sam-
ple of patent lock and key sold by,
to P. O. Dept 74

Orders in Council, Copies of all, re-
quired by House under Resolution
passed on February 20, 1882, since
date of last Return under Resolu-
tion 107a

13

4-5 George V.

Alphabetical Index to Sessional Papers.

A. 1914

O

Onlers in Council, Return re those
pub'.ished in Canada G«sc»c- between
Oct. 1, 1912, and Nov. 30, 1913, in
accordance with Dominion Lands
Survey Act, Sec. 5, Chap. 21, 7-8
Edward VII HOa

Orders in Council, Return re those
piiblislied in Canada Gazette between
Oct., 1912, and Nov. 30, 1913, in
accordance with Sec. 77 of Dominion
Act, Chap. 20, Statutes of Canada,
1908 110b

Orders in Council under a Resolution
passed on Feb. 20, 1S82 since the
date of last Return and Resolution. llOd

Order in Council, Copy of, No. P.C.
976 re Regulations governing the en-
try of Naval Cadets 266

Order in Council, dated May 18, 1914,
re the organization of a Naval Vol-
unteer Force 266a

Ottawa ]mi)rovement Commission, Re-
ceipts and Expenditures of, to March
31, 1913 53

Ottawa City, Commission appointed
for beautifying of, and vicinity, cor-
respondence, &c., re 91rt

Ottawa City, Correspondence between
and Govt, re pure water supply for
city and Govt, buildings 175

Ouellette, Arsene, re death of, at Trois

Pistoles, I.C.Ry., &c 88

Public Accounts of Canada for year

ended March 31, 1913 2

Public Works, Report of Minister of,

year ended March 31, 1913 (2 Vols.) 19

Public Health Service, Several

Branches of: P. S. engaged in.. .. 99

Public Printing and Stationery, Total
number of employees in, on Feb. 1,
1914, increased wages, 1913 104ri

Public Land of Dominion, Number of
acres of, given to Ry. Cos. by (Jovt.,
from 1878 to March. 1914, &c.. .. 275

I\atrol Boat Davis and Ijobster Hatch-
ery, Charges incurred by, season of
1912 40

Parcel Boxes re Rural Boxes, Con-
tracts for, &c 224

I'arcel Post Service, Regulations relat-
ing to 108

I'etroleum and Natural Gas rights.
Disposal of, in Manitoba, Saskatche-
wan, Alberta, N. W. Territories,
Yukon, &c 148

Penitentiaries, Report of Royal Com-
mission on, ]3vidence taken. &c. . . . 252

Public Printing and Stationery. Re|)ort

of 1913 32

I'rivate Secretaries of Members of
Liberal CJovt.. names, salaries,
grades, on Oct. 11. 1011 139

Prince Edward Island. Memo, of spe-
cial claim of, re representation in
House of Commons 118

Prince I'dward Island, Nova Scotia
and New Brunswick, Memo, re
claims of 118a

Provident Fund Board of the I.C.Ry.
and P.E.I.Ry's employees. Return re
proceedings of, from Jan. 1, 1912, to
Feb. 2, 1914 125a

Pure Bred Animals, re names and ad-
dresses of persons with whom pure
bred animals have been placed . . . . 294

Pure Bred Stallions or Bulls, Number
of, purchased by Govt, for settlers in
Man., Sask., and Alta., since Jan. 1.
1912 296

Post Offices : —

Masinasin P.O., Province of Alberta,

re change in location, &c 72

Moulin Basinet P.O., St. Jean de
Matha, Co. of Joliette, re closing
of 73

Post Office Dept., regarding return
for production of one sample of

patented lock and key. &c 74

Post Office Dept., Correspondence be-
tween, and Alleyn Taschereau,
avocat, re locks for mail bags . . 74a
I'ost Office Dept., Correspomlence be-
tween, and Messrs. A. de Macdon-
ald, Elzear Montpetit and others. 75

Documents re changes in Postmas-
tership of Port Daniel Centre.
Avignon. New Richmond. Black
Cape, Que.. &c 75a

Documents re removal of the Post
Office from store of Alex. Robert-
.son, Red Point. P.E.I. &c.. .. 75b

Documents re complaints against
John A. Campbell. Postmaster.
New Richmond. Que.. &c 75c

Correspondence between P.O. Dept..
P.O. Inspector, St. John. N.B..
and Postmaster at Kouchibougac.
N.B.. re sale of stamps, &c. . . . 78

Re new Post Offices made in Co. of
L'Islet, names of Postmasters, re-
venues and expenses, &c 142

Appt. of Caretakers of P.O. at

Rigaud. Que.. &c 77wi

Number of persons appointed to In-
side Service of. by present Govt.,
names, salaries, &c 104/

Documents re opening of Post Office,
named Giasson, Parish of St. Au-
bert, Co. of L'Islet 142a

Building in Saskatoon, re purchase

of a site for 232A

Building in Halifax, Purchase of

site for. on Gottingen Street. . . . 232u

Post Office at Canning, N.S.. re pur-
chase of site for 232to

Post Office in Village of Eganville,
Correspondence re location and
erection of 232a

Post Office in Village of Eganville.
Supplementar>' 232(2/)

Post Office In Village of Eganville.

re further supplementary. &c. .. 232(29)
Postmaster General. Reiiort of, for

year ended March 31. 1913 24

I'ointe Cascades, re tearing down of

houses and dependencies erected on

Govt, grounds at. the property of

L. A. Sauv.^ 176

Population of Canada, Provinces and

Territories, years 1871, 1881, 1891,

1901 and 1911. &c 1S3

14

4-5 George V.

Alphabetical Index to Sessional Papers.

A. '1914

Potatoes, Quantities f^nd values of, im-
ported monthly during years 1911,
1912, 1913 ; countries from which

imported 217

Potatoes, Quantities and values ex-
ported monthly from Provinces, from
Sept. 1, 1911, to Jan. 1, 1914, &c. 217a
Pictou Bank, Documents re incorpora-
tion and licensing- of, also re wind-
ing up of business of, &c 2436

Plaunte, Arthur, Copy of O.C. appoint-
ing Commissioner re claims Atlantic

Lake Superior Ry., &c 279

Plaunte, Arthur, Supplementary Re-
turn relating to, appointment of, &c. 279o
Privj' Council, Judicial Committee of.
Documents generally respecting pro-
posed changes of 245

Public Works: —

Iteturn re amount of expenditure in
Counties of Rimouski and Gaspe

since Oct. 11, 1911, &c 232

Return re amount of expenditure in
Antigonish Co. since Oct. 11, 1911,

ftc 232a

Return re documents concerning

proposed building and purchase

of site for, at Bear River. N.S.. 232b

Return re expenditure on Mabou

Harbour, in years 1911-12, 1912-

13 232C

Return re specifications, tenders,
&c., connected with proposed dry-
dock at Lauzon, Que 232ri

Public Building at Gravelburg, all
documents in connection with,

since Jan. 1, 1912 232(2c)

Public Building at Brantford, re all
specifications and tenders pertain-
ing to 232(2d)

Public Works in Richmond Co., N.S.,
all documents received from J. A.

Gillies re 232 (2e)

Post Offlce at Eganville, Renfrew

Co., re location and erection of. . 232/
Public- Works in Co. of Bonaventure
since Oct. 10, 1911, to Feb. 2,
1914 2320

Q

Quebec Oriental Ry. and Atlantic,
Quebec and Western Ry., Corre-
spondence, re acquisition of, by Govt,
as branch lines of I.C.Ry., &c. . . . 117n

Quebec Harbour Commission, re con-
struction of a line of Ry. to connect
Trans. Ry. with Union Station at
the Palais 178

Quebec Harbour Commissioners, Board
of, re purchase of stone quarry by,
at St. Nicholas, Que 263

Railway Statistics of Canada, year

ended June 30, 1913 206

Railway Commissioners, Board of,

Report, year ending March 31, 1913- 20c

Railway Commissioners, Board of,
appeals from ruling, decisions, find-
ings, &c., and action of P.C 83

A

Railway Commissioners, Board of,
Copy of all decisions of, made on or
after Oct. 10, 1911, re appeals from,
&c 124

Railway Belt in B.C.. Sale by Govt, of
following lands in : Townships 23-24,
R. 18 ; T. 23-24, R. 19 ; T. 24-25, R
20, &c iiofc

Rainy River Navigation Co., Claim of,
against Govt, re operation of boats,
season of 1911, &c 68

Radio-Telegraphy, Copy of Regula-
tions governing, under Radio-Tele-
graph Act, 1913 300a

Radio-Telegraphy, Copy of Order in
Council, No. P.C. 1386, re Regula-
tions governing, &c 300

Restigouche River re projected Rail-
way or Highway bridge over, at
Campbellton, N.B., and Quebec. . . . 103

Rideau Canal, re permits to Clubs to
erect boat houses on, between Lau-
rier Ave., Bridge and Hartwell's
Locks S06

Rifie Range, near Souris, P.E.I., all
documents connected with purchase
of 255

Uoyal Society of Canada, Statement
of affairs of, for year ended April
30, 1913 55

Royal Mail Steam Packet Co., Agree-
ment between (^ovt. of Canada and,
re British W. I. service 113

Royal Northwest Mounted Police, Re-
port of 28

Royal Northwest Mounted Police, Re-
port of Magisterial cases entered
by 280

Ross, .lean, or Joseph, of Araqui,
Rimouski Co., re claim of, against
I.C.R., for accident to horse, &c. . . 131

Uowell, Newton W., re sums of money
paid to, for legal services during
past fifteen years 228o

Rowell, Newton W., re payments made

by Govt. to. for legal services, &c. . 288

Roy, Hon. Jvidge, travelling expenses

of, during years 1912, 1913 and 1914. 236

Roy, Mrs. Marcelline, Complaints
against, investigation into conduct
of, &c 71

Railways and Canals, Report of Dept.

of, for year ending March 31, 1913. 20

Rural Mails. &c. : —

Routes established in Co. of Bona-
venture from Oct. 1911, to Feb. 2,

1914, &c 141

Tabulated Statement of Rural Mail
Routes opened since 1911, number
of boxes used, delivery, contracts,

&c 14la

Number of Rural Mail Routes estab-
lished in N.S., names, &c 141ft

Shareholders in Chartered Banks to

December 31, 1913 6

Seizures made by John C. Bourinot, as
acting Preventive Officer and Collec-
tor of Customs for Port Hawkesbury,
N.S., from 1KS4 to 1886, and from
1886 to 1898, also from 1898 to
1912 490

15

4-5 GTeorge V.

Alphabetical Index to Sessional Papers.

A. 1914

S

Section 36, East h of, in Township 6,
P.3,nge 8, West of Fourth Meridian,
Correspondence, &c., re 61

Section 8-49-23-4, and S.W. | of 7-49-
28-4, Documents, &c., in Dept. of
Interior re 61«

Shelburne, N.S., Reports, &c., re mail
serivce from, to Jordan Bay and
Jordan Ferry since Oct. 1, 1911 .. 208

Shareliolders Montreal City and Dis-
trict Savings Bank and La Caisse
d'Economie de Notre-Dame de Que-
bec, Statement of, as on December
31, 1913 58

Scoles, G. R., re contract entered into
by, for completion of Atlantic and
"Lake Superior Ry 87

S.E. 4 Section 16, Township 25, Range
5, West Fifth Meridian, Papers con-
nected with, &c 110/

S.W. I 23-16-12, W. 3 M., Papers con-
nected with, &c 110i7

Secretary of State, Report of 29

Skinner's Pond, Proposed Harbour at.

Surveys made for 100

Skinner's Cove, N.S., Documents re
payments made for, purchase of land
at, year 1913 230

Steamboat Inspection, Report of Dept.

or Marine on, for fiscal year 1912-13 23

Steamship Service between Canada
and West Indies, all documents re
between May 1, 1913, to Dec, 1913. 286

Strikes in British Columbia coal mines.
Correspondence re, also copy of all
Orders in Council, &c 147a

Stream Measurements, Report of . . . . 25c

Sackville, N.B., re proposal to have
spur line to connect public wharf at,
with I.e. Ry., &c 117b

Salisbury and Albert Railway, Annual

Report made by, to the Ry. Dept.. 137

Salmon Hatchery, Nepisiguit River,
N.B., Coi)y of tenders for construc-
tion received, and contracts let. . . . 145

Salmon Fishing in St. John River
above tide water. Orders in Council,
Documents re, &c 163

Saturnia Stmr., Report of Commis-
sioner on grounding of, April 28,
1914. 277

Senate, Opinion of Deputy Minister of
Justice on increased representation
in, of the Western Provinces . . . . 212

Senate, Copy of Resolution of Assem-
bly of B.C., re increased number of
Senators from said Province 212a

Senate, Increased representation in,
Copy of Assistant Deputy Minister
on subject of 2126

Senates or Upper Chambers in Brit-
ish Empire, or foreign countries. In-
formation respecting constitution of. 246

Senates or Upper Chambers in Brit-
ish Empire, or foreign countries,
Supplementary Return re 246a

Smelt FLshing lictns'^s issued in Co. of
Pictou, N.S., during past season, all
correspondence, re 204

Smelt Fishing licenses issued in Co. of
Pictou, N.S., during past season, all
correspondence re 204a

Southampton Ry. Co., N.B., all docu-
ments, &c., relating to. Reports of
£:nglneers, &c 285

S

South Lake, Lakeville, Antigonish Co.,

re expenditures in 1913, at 232(2t)

Steamship Service between St. John,
N.B., and Bear River, N.S., during
1912, 1913, Memo. ?c, &c 159

Smith, B. F., re cutting lumber on To-
bique Indian Reserve, N.B., also
amts. paid since Jan. 1, 1912.. .. 198

Strikes and Lockouts from 1901 to

1912 36&

' Stevens Dam,' across River Trent,
Documents connected w^ith power
privileges relating to 262

Stellarton, Town of, re purchase of

site for public building in, &c. . . . 232s

Steamer Canada, Memo, of subsidy
paid to, and copy of reports made
by proprietors of, season of 1913.. 160

St. Peter's Indian Reserve, Instruc-
tions issued to C. P. FuUerton and
Fawcett Taylor in reference to. . . . 19Sb

St. Lin des Laurentides, re public
building authorized in Estimates of
1911-12 232i

St. Jean, Bank of, Banque Ville Marie,
Banque Jacques Cartier, &c., re in-
corporation and licensing of 243

St. Phillipe East and St. Phillipe West,
re expenses of, since June 1, 1912,
to Feb. 2, 1914 276

Trade and Commerce, Report of, year
ended March 31, 1913:

(Part I — Canadian Trade) 10

(Part II — Canadian Trade with (1)
France, (2) Germany, (3) United
Kingdom, and (4) United States) 10a
(Part III — Canadian Trade with for-
eign countries, except France,
Germany, the United Kingdom,

and United States) 10b

(Part IV — Miscellaneous informa-
tion) IOC

(Part V — Report of Grain Commis-
sioners for Canada) lOrf

(Part VI — Subsidized Steamship
Services, Statistics. Trafflc, &c.,
to Dec. 31, 191 ;!, and Estimates

for fiscal year 1914-1915 lOe

Part VII — Trade of Foreign Coun-
tries, Treaties and Conventions).. 10/
Treasury Bills discounted since March

31, 1913 57

Trade Unions, Return respecting, &c.. 89
Telegraph or Telephone line from Bad-
deck, N.S., to Margaree, N.S., re

construction of, by Govt 232t

Telegrai)h Statistics of Canada, year

ended Juno 30, 1913 20/

Telephone Statistics of Canada, year

ended June 30, 1913 20rf

Temporary Loans, Statement of, since

March 31. 1913 56

Temporary Loans, rr total liability of,
between May 1, 1913, and Dec. 31,
1913. rates of Interest paid. &c. . . . 122
Trniporiry Clerks, re niimber rmjiloyed
in Library In Sessions of 1911-12,
and 1912-13, names, salary, &c. . .. 162
Three Rivers, Return re investigations
hold in District of. since Oct. 15,
1911, to April, 1913 92

16

4-5 Georore V.

Alphabetical ludex to Sessional PapeYs.

A. 1914

T

Transcontinental Railway: —

Heturn re changes made in original
scheme for terminals at city of

Quebec, &c 114

Return re correspondence between X.
T.Ry. Commissioner and Minister
of Rys., and between N.T.Ry.
Commissioner and C.P.R. re terra-

inais, &c 114a

Report of Royal Commission ap-
pointed to investigate construction

of, eivdence and exhibits, &c 123

Copy of assignment by M. P. and
J. T. Davis in Sept.. 1909, of con-
tracts Nos. 16 and 17 on, to
O'Brien, Fowler & McDougall .. 123a
Copy of contract with Jos. Gosselin,
Locomotive and Car Shops at St.
Malo, correspondence between De-
partment and "W. J. Press, M.E.,
or Chief Engineer re charge of

price for excaavtion, &c 123b

Copy of original contract and
amended one of Mr. Jos. Gosselin
re car shops at St. Malo, Que.. 123c
Copy of correspondence re appoint-
ment of Messrs. Lynch-Staunton
and Gutelius as Commissioner re. 123*
Copy of Rei>ort of Geo. S. Hodgins,
of New York, re Transcona Shops
of N.T. Railway, of June 10, 1912. 123c
Copy of documents submitted to Sir
Wm. White by Govt re Commis-
sion investigating Transcontinen-
tal Ry 138

Copy of agreements between, and
the Canadian Northern Ry. for use
of line by trains of Trans. Ry. to

St. Malo 177

Copy of all documents re the in-
tended construction of, from
Pointe St. Claire, east of Quebec

Bridge, &c 123/

Return re choice of site for station
at Village of St. Eleuthere, on

N.T.Ry., &c 1233

Return re Coaling Plants on N.T.Ry.,
number of, where constructed,

names of tenderers. &c 123ft

Report of Commissioners of, for

1913 37

Interim Report of, for 1913 37a

Taschereau, AUeyn, Que., Correspond-
ence between, and P. O. Dept. re
purchase of locks for mail bags. . . . 74n
Toronto Harbour Works, re letting

construction of, &c 232(2n

Towns in Prov. of Ontario having a
population larger than town of Ches-
ley, S. Bruce, number of, having

letter boxes. &c 192

Trent Valley Canal, Correspondence re
investigation by Mr. Ferguson con-
cerning affairs of 190

Trent Watershed Survey. Report of
Commission of Conservation of Can-
ada on 210

Trawling, Steam, correspondence since .
Oct., 1911, between Govt, of Canada
and Govt, of United States 226

TJ

Unclaimed Balances, dividends un-
paid. &r. 7

63433—2

U

United Shoe Machinery Coy, Report
of Board appt. to investigate mat-
ters of 154

United States, Citizens of, employed by

Government since October 11, 1911. 94

Veterinary Director General, Report

of, year ended March 31, 1913.. .. 13b

Veterinary Inspectors employed by
Govt, in slaughter houses, amt. of
expenses of that branch of Dept... 222

W

Wharfs : — •

Expenditure of Govt, for Wharf at

Whycocomagh 231

Re expenditure on Wharf at Feltzen

South, Lunenburg, N.S., &c., . . .. 2310

Re expenditure on Wharf at South
Gut, Victoria Co., by Govt, dur-
ing summer of 1913 231b

Re expenditure on Wharfs, Break-
waters, &c., in Co. of Yarmouth,
N.S., since Oct., 1911 23ic

-Re expenditure on Englishtown

Wharf, Co. of Victoria, 1913.. .. 231(i

Re expenditure on extension of
Wharf at Finlay Point., Mabou,
Inverness Co., year 1910-11.. .. 23le

Re expenditure on Wharf at Port

Clyde, Shelburne, N.S 231/

Re expenditure on construction of
wharf at Finlay Point, Inverness
Co., N.S . . . 231£^

Re expenditure on construction of
Wharf in Town of L'Assomption,
Que 231ft

Re expenditure on construction of

Wharf at Bear River, N.S., &c. 231i

Re expenditure for Public Wharf at

Centreville, Shelburne Co., N.S... 231/

Re expenditure for Public Wharf at

Sainte Croix, Lotbiniere Co., Que. 23lfc

Relating to proposed Wharf at
Little Cape and Great Shemogue
Harbour, N.B 23lJ

Relating to construction of Wharf in
Town of L'Assomption, Petitions
for and against. &c 231»n

Relating to expenditure on WTiarf at

Arichat, N.S., since Oct. 11, 1911. 23in

Relating to expenditure on Govt.
Wharf at Croft's Cove, N.S., in
1911 2310

Relating to claim re Wharf at Bona-

venture River, Bonaventure Co... 231P

Relating to completion of Wharf at
Ste. Croix, since Sept. 21, 1911, to
March, 1914 231<3f

Relating to purchase of site for

Wharf at Bear River, N.S. . .. 23lr

Relating to expenditure on Hall's

Harbour Wharf. N.S., 1913.. .. 2313

Relating to expenditure, &c.. on
Wharf at L'U^ Verte, Co. of Te-
miscouata 2Zlt

Relating to copy of pay-list of em-
ployees on Wharf to west of
Riviere Verte, Temiscouata . . .. 231M

Relating to completion of Wharf at

Sainte Croix, Co. of Lotbiniere. . 231V

17

4-5 George V.

Alphabetical Index to Sessional Papers.

A. 1914

W

Relating to construction of Wharf

at Cole Harbour, X.S 231M'

Relating to repairs on Pier at Mar-

garee Harbour, N.S 23ia;

Relating to construction of Feltzen

South Wharf, N.S 2312/

Relating to building and repairing

Wharf at Port Hood, N.S 231*

Relating to expenditure of $500 on

Finlay Point Wharf, N.S., during

1913 231(2a)

Relating to expenditure on Wharf at

Arichat, N.S., for use of stmr.

3Iagda1cn 231(2b)

Wheat, Quantities of, by grades re-
ceived at elevators at Fort William. 102
Wheat, Quantities of, by grades re-
ceived at elevators at Fort William
and Port Arthur. 1910-11, 1911-12. . 240
Wheat, Freight charges on, from Fort
William or Port Arthur to Canadian
Lake Ports, by C. P. stmrs. and

other lines, year 1912 254

Winnipeg River, re leases of water-
powers granted on, dates, to whom,
&c. 80

W

Wire Rods, Temporary suspension of,
Dumping Clause of Act respecting,
correspondence, &c 116

Woollen Industries, Number of, op-
erated in the country, &c 140

Wright Co., Que., Memo, re sums of
money spent in, by Govt, since Sept.,
1911, &c 161

Wreck Commissioner, Dominion, Report
^e stmr. ISaturnia grounding of,
April 27, 1913 277

Wreck Commissioner, Dominion, Report
re stmr. Montfort, grounding of,
April 28, 1914 278

Y

Varmouth, Bank of. Documents '"e in-
corporating and licensing of, also re
winding up 243o

Yarmouth Harbour, N.S., re removal
of ice in, by C.G.S. Stanley, in Feb.,
1914 251

Yarmouth, North, re Postmaster of,

selling stamps out of jurisdiction. . 273

Young, Captain Murdock, investigation

held against, by Mr. Wilson, B.C.. 101a

18

4-5 George V. Alphabetical Index to Sessional Papers. A. lOl-i

See also Alphabetical List. Page 1.

LIST OF SESSIONAL PAPERS

Arrangeu in Xumericcd Order, with their titles ai full len.gth; the dates vjhen Ordered
a7id when Presented to the Houses of Parliament; the Names of the Senator or
Member who moved for each Session-al Paper, and whether it is ordered to he
Printed or Not Printdd.

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 1.

(This volume is bound in three parts.)

1. Report of the Auditor General for the year ended March 31, 1913. Volumel. Parts A to J,
and Volume TI, Parts K to U. Presented by Hon. Mr. Foster, January 28, 1914.

Printed for distribution and sessional papers.

1. Report of the Auditor General for the year ended March 31, 1913, Volume III, Parts V to Y.

Presented by Hon. Mr. "WTiite, January 19. 1914.

Printed for distribvtion and sessional papers.

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2.

2. The Public Accounts of Canada, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1913. Presented by

Hon. Mr. White, January 19, 1914 Printed for distribution and sessional papers.

3. Estimates of sums required for the service of the Dominion for the year ending March 31,

1915. Presented by Hon. Mr. White, January 29, 1914.

Printed for distribution and sessional papers.

3a. Supplementary Estimates of sums required for the service of the Dominion for the year
ending March 31, 1914. Presented by Hon. Mr. White, 2Harch 20, 1914.

Printed for distribtition and sessional papers.

4. Supplementary Estimates of sums required for the service of the Dominion for the j-ear end-

ing March 31, 1915. Presented by Hon. Mr. White, May 28, 1914.

Printed for distribution and sessional papers.

5. Further Supplementary Estimates of sums required for the service of the Dominion for the

year ending March 31, 1915. Presented by Hon. Mr. White. June 9, 1914.

Printed for distribution and sessional papers.

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 3.

6. List of Shareholders in the Chartered Banks of the Dominion of Canada as on December 31,

1913. Presented by Hon. Mr. White, January 19, 1914.

Printed for di^tributio7i and sessional papers.

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 4.

7. Report on dividends remaining unpaid, unclaimed balances and unpaid drafts and bills of

exchange in Chartered Banks of the Dominion of Canada, for five years and upwards
prior to December 31, 1913. Presented by Hon. Mr. White, March 16, 1914.

Printed for distribution and sessional papers.

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 5.

(This volume is bound in two parts.)

8. Report of Superintendent of Insurance for year ended 1913. Presented by Hon Mr

White, June 2, 1914.

Printed for distribution a7id sessional papers.

9. Abstract of Statement of Insurance Companies in Canada for the year endetl December 31,

1913. Presented by Hon. Mr. White, June 2. 1914.

Printed for distribution and sessional papers.

e3433— ^ 19

4-5 George V. Alphabetical Index to Sessional Papers, A. lOli

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 6.

10. Report of the Department of Trade and Commerce for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1913,

Part I. — Canadian Trade. Presented by Hon. Mr. Foster, April 15, 1914.

Printed for distribution and sessional papers.

10a. Report of the Department of Trade and Commerce, for the year ended March 31, 1913 :
Part II. — Canadian Trade with (1) France, (2) Germany, (3) United Kingdom, and (4)
United States. Presented by Hon. Mr. Foster, January 22. 1914.

Printed for distTibution and sessional papers.

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 7.

10b. Report of the Department of Trade and Commerce for the fiscal year ended March 31,
1913 : Part III. — Canadian Trade with Foreign Countries (except France, Germany,
the United Kingdom and United States). Presented by Hon. Mr. Foster, April 1,5,1914.

Printed for distribution and sessional papers.

10c. Report of the Department of Trade and Commerce, for the fiscal year ended March 31,

1913 : Part IV. — Miscellaneous Information. Presented by Hon. Mr. Foster, April 27,

1914 Printed for distribution and sessional papers.

\0d. Report of the Board of Grain Commissioners for Canada. Presented by Hon. Mr. Foster,
June 4, 1914 Printed for distribution and sessional papers.

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 8.

10«- Report of the Department of Trade and Commerce, for tlie fiscal year ending March 31,
1913 : Pait VI. — Subsidized Steamship Services, with Statistics showing Steamship
Tiafflc to December 31,1913, and Estimates for fiscal year 1914-191.'5. Presented by
Hon. Mr. Foster, March 25, 1914 Printed for distribution and sessional papers.

10/- Report of Trade and Commerce for fiscal year ended March 31, 1913 : Part VII. — Trade of
Foreign Countries, Treaties and Conventions. Presented by Hon. Mr. Foster, 1914.

Printed for distribution and sessional papers.

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 9.

11. Report of the Department of Customs for the year ended March 31, 1913. Presented by

Hon. Mr. Reid, January 22, 1914 Printed for distribution and sessional papers.

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 10.

12. Reports, Returns and Statistics of the Inland Revenues for the Dominion of Canada, for

the year ended March 31, 1913. I'art I. — lilxcise. Presented by Hon. Mr. Nantel,
January 19, 1914 Printed for distributio7i and sessional papers.

13. Part II. — Inspection of "Weights and Measures, Gas and Electricity. Presented by TTon.

Mr. Nantel, January 19, 1914 Printed for distribution and sessioiuil papers.

14. Reports, Returns and Statistics of the Inland Revenues for the Dominion of Canada for the

year ended March 31, 1913. Part III. — Adulteration of Food. Presented by Hon. Mr.
Nantel, February 11, 1914 Printed for distribution and sessional papers.

15. Report of the Minister of Agriculture for the Dominion of Canada, for the year ended

March 31, 1913. Presented by Hon. Mr. Burrell, January 22, 1914 .

Printed for distribution and sessional papers.

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 11.

15a. Report of the Dairy and Cold Storage Commissioner for the fiscal year ended Marcli 31,
1913. (Dairying, Fruit. Extension of Markets and Cold Storage.) Presented by Hon.
Mr. Burrell, May 5, 1914 Printed for distribntion and sessional papers.

15b. Report of the Veterinary Director General for the year end.ng March 31, 1913. Presented
by Hon. Mr. Burrell, February 2, 1914.. Printed for distribution and sessional papers.

16. Report of the Director and Officers of the Experimental Farms for the years ending March

31, 1913. Presented by Hon. Mr. Burrell,'April 7, 1914.

Printed for distribul ion and sessional papers,

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 12.

17. Criminal Statistics for the year ended September 3n, 1912. (Appendix to the Rejiort of the

Minister of Trade and Commerce, for the year 1912.) Pr- soiitcd by Hon. Mr. Foster,
February 20, 1914 Priiited for distribution and sessional papers.

20

4-5 George V. Alphabetical Index to Sessional Papers. A. 191-i

18. R^sumtl of General Elections of 1896, 1900, 1904, 190S and 1911, and of By-Elections held

between July 11, 1S96 and January 1, 1914. Presented by Hon. r. Coderre, January
27, 1914 Printed for distrihution and sessional papers.

18«. Return of By-elections for the House of Commons of Canada,' held during the year 1913.
Presented by Hon. Mr. Coderre, January 27, 1914.

Printed for distribiition and sessional papers.

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 13.

19. Report of the Minister of Public Works on the works under his control for the

fiscal year ended March 31, 1913. Presented by Hon. Mr. Rogers, January 19, 1914.

Printed for distribution and sessional papers.

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 14.

20. Report of the Department of Railways and Canals, for the fiscal period from April 1, 1912,

to March 31, 1913. Presented by Hon. Mr. Reid, March 20, 1914.

Printed for distribution and sessional papers.

20a. Canal Statistics for the season of Navigation, 1913. Presented by Hon. Mr. Reid, March
12, 1914 Printed for distribution and sessional papers.

20b. Railway Statistics of the Dominion of Canada for the year ended June 30, 1913. Pre-
sented by Hon. Mr. Cochrane, January 29, 1914.

Printed for distribuiion and sessional papers.

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 15.

20c. Eighth Report of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada, for the year ending
March 31, 1913. Presented by Hon. Mr. Cochrane, January 22. 1914.

Printed for d-istribtition and sessional papers.

20^?. Telephone Statistics of the Dominion of Canada, for the year ended June 30, 1913. Pre-
sented by Hon. Mr. Cochrane. F'ebruary 10, 1914.

Printed for distribution and sessional papers.

20e. Express Statistics of the Dominion of Canada, for the year ended June 30, 1913. Pre-
sented by Hon. Mr. Cochrane, February 20, 1914.

Printed for distribution and sessional papers.

20/. Telegraph Statistics of the Dominion of Canada, for the year ended June 30, 1913. Pre-
sented by Hon. Mr. Cochrane, February 10, 1^14.

Pritited for distribu.fion and sessional papers.

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 16.

21. Forty-s'xth Annual Report of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, for the year 1912-

1913. — Marine. Presented by Hon. Mr. Hazen, February 2, 1914.

Printed for distribution and sessional papers.

21b. List of Shipping issued by the Department of Marine and Fisheries, being a list of vessels
on the Registry Books of the Dominion of Canada, on December 31, 1913. Presented
by Hon. Mr. Hazen, May 1, 1914 Printed for distribution and sessional papers.

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 17.

22. Forty-sixth Annual Report of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, 1912-13. — Fisheries.

Presented by Hon. Mr. Hazen, January 19, 1914.

Printed for distribution ana sessio7ial papers.

23. Supplement to the Forty-sixth Annual Report of the Department of Marine and Fisheries

for the fiscal year 1912-13. — Steamboat Inspection Report. Presented by Hon. Mr.
Hazen, March 27, 1914 Printed for distribution and sessional papers.

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 18.

24. Report of the Postmaster General, for the year ended March 31, 1913. Presented by Hon.

Mr. Pelletier, March 12, 1914 Printed for distribution ami sessional papers.

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 19.

(This volume is bound in two parts.)

25. Annual Report of the Department of the Interior, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1913.

— Volume I. Presented by Hon. Mr. Roche., February 23, 1914.

Printed for distribution «jid sessional papers.

21

4-5 George V. Alphabetical Index to Sessional Papers. A. 1914

25. Annual Report of the Department of the Interior, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1913.
— Volume II. Presented by Hon. MrVRoche, March 9, 1914.

['Tinted for distrihution and sessionaJ papers.

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 20.

250.' Report of Progress of Stream Measurements, for the calendar year 1913, prepared under
the direction of F. H. Peters, C.E., Commissioner of Irrigation. Presented by Hon.
Mr Roche March 26 1914 Printed for distrihution and sessional papers.

Presented by Hon. Mr. Roche, February 2, 1914.

Printed for distribution and sessional papers.

25d. Twe'.fth Report of the Geographic Board of Canada, for the year ending June 30, 1913

r. Roche, February 2, 1914.

Printed for dis

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 21.

25^. Manitoba Water-powers,

25/- Railway Belt Hydrographic Survey for 1911-1912. Presented, 1914.

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 22.

26. Summary Report of the Geological Survey, Department of Mines, for the calendar year

1912. Presented by Hon. Mr. Coderre, 1914.

Printed for distribution and sessional papers.

26a. Summary Report of the Mines Branch for the calendar year 1912. Presented 1914.

Printed for distribution and sessional papers.

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 23.

27. Report of the Department of Indian Affairs for the year ended March 31, 1913. Presented

by Hon. Mr. Roche, January 27, 19H Printed for distribution and sessional papers.

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 24.

28. Report of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police, 1913. Presented by Hon. Mr. Borden,

January 19, 1914 Printed for distribution and sessional papers.

28«. Statement of Magisterial cases entered, and convictions obtained by the Royal Northwest
Mounted I'olioe in the Provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, the Yukon Territory
and a portion of Manitoba, during the years 1909 to 1913. Presented by Hon. Mr.
Borden, February 16, 1914 Not printed.

29. Report of the Secretary of State of Canada for the year ended March 31. 1913. Presented

by Hon. Mr. Coderre, February 9, 1914. . ..Printed for distrib'ution and sessional papers.

2D«. Repoit of the Secretary of State for External Affairs for the year ended March 31, 1913.
Presented by Hon. Mr. Borden. January 19, 1914.

Printed for distribution and sessional papers.

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 25.

ZQe. Documents re Constitutional History of Canada. — (Senate).

Printed for distribution and sessional paperit.

ZQc- Public Archives. — Documents relating to the Constitutional History of Canada, 1791-1818,
selected and edited with notes by Arthur G. Doughty and Duncan A. McArthur. Pre-
sented by Hon. Mr. Coderre, March 27. 1914.

Printed for dislributi-on and sessional papers.

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 26.

30. The Civil Service List of Canada, 1913. Presented. 1914.

I'rinted for distribution and sessional papers.

31. Fifth Annual Report of the Civil Service Commission of Canada for the year ended August

31, 1913. Presented by Hon. Mr. Coderre, March IS, 1914.

Printed for distribution and sessional papers.

32. Annual Itepoit of the Department of Public Printing and Stationery for the fiscal year

ended March 31, 1913. Presented by Hon. Mr. Coderre, March 11, 1914.

Printed for distribution and sessional papers.

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 27.

33. The Report of the Joint Librarians of Parliament. Presented by the Hon. The Speaker,

January 15, 1914 Not printed.

34. Report of the Minister of Justice as to Penitentiaries of Canada, for the fiscal year ended

March 31, 1913 Printed for distribution and sessioanl papers.

22

4-5 George V. Alphabetical Index to Sessional Papers. • A. 1914

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 27'-ConHnued.

35. Report of the Militia Council for the Dominion of Canada, for the fiscal year ending March

31, 1913. Presented by Hon. Mr. Hughes, March 9, 1914.

Printed for distribution and sessional papers.

36. Report of the Department of Labour for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1913. Presented

by Hon. Mr. Crothers, January 19, 1914. . . .Printed for distribution and sessional papers.

36a- Sixth Report of the Registrar of Boards of Conciliation and Investigation of the proceed-
ings under " The Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, 1907," for the fiscal year ending
March 31, 1913. Presented by Hon. Mr. Crothers, January 19, 1914.

Printed for distribution and sessional papers.

36&- Report on Strikes and Lockouts in Canada, from 1901 to 1912. Presented by Hon. Mr.
Crothers, January 19, 1914 Printed for distribution and sessional papers.

37. Ninth Annual Report of the Commissioners of the Transcontinental Railway, for the year

ended March 31, 1913. Presented by Hon. Mr. Cochrane, January 22, 1914.

Printed for dislribution and sessional papers.

37o- Interim Report of the Commissioners of the Transcontinental Railway, for the nine
months ended December 31, 1913. Presented by Hon. Mr. Cochrane, February 18, 1914.

Not printed.

38. Report of the Departm.ent of the Naval Service, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1913.

Presented by Hon. Mr. Hazen, January 22, 1914.

Printed for distribution and sessional i^apers.

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 28.

39. A detailed statement of all bonds or securities registered in the Department of the Secretary

01 State of Canada, since last return (4th December, 1912) submitted to the Parliament
of Canada under Section 32 of Chapter 19, of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906.
Presented by Hon. Mr. Coderre, January 22, 1914 Not printed.

40. Return to an Order of the House of April 7, 1913, for a copy of all accounts, vouchers and

charges incurred by and relating to the Lobster Hatchery and Patrol Boat Davis dur-
ing the season of 1912, to December 31. 1912, with the names of the officers and crews,
and the wages paid to each. Presented January 19, 1914. — Mr. Kyte Not printed.

41. Return to an Order of the House April 21, 1913, for a Return showing the names and the

respective ranks and positions of the officers now on duty on the Niobe at Halifax,
under the Department of Naval Affairs ; the number of men now on duty as seamen or
other like positions on the Niobe ; the number of men dropped from the service on the
Niobe since J\ily 1, 1912; and if any efforts have been made to recruit men for the
Niobe since July 1, 1912. Presented January 19, 1914. — Mr. Macdonald. . .Not printed.

42. Return to an Order of the House of May 12, 1913. — 1. For a Return showing the respective

names, duties and salaries of Officials of the Immigration Department of both Inside and
Outside Service on March 31, 1911.
2. The respective names, duties and salaries of Officials of the Immigration Department of
both Tnsiue and Outside Service on March 31, 1913. Presented January 19, 1914. — Mr.
Oliver Not printed.

43. Return to an Order of the House of February 24, 1913, for a copy of all regulations relat-

ing to the disposition of Dominion Lands made by the Minister of the Interior from
Octolier 12, 1911, to January 1, 1912, and of the regulations for the placing of half-
breed scrip on homestead or other lands, made by the Minister of the Interior from
October 12, 1911, to January 1, 1912. Presented January 19, 1914. — Mr. Oliver.

Not printed.

44. Return to an Order of the House of January 15, 1913, for a copy of all charges, correspond-

ence, letters, telegrams nd other documents relative to the dismissal of Horace Rind-
ress, Quaiantine Medical Officer at North Sydney, in the Riding of North Cape Breton
and Victoria, and of the evidence taken and report of investigation held by H. P. Duche-
min, in regard to same, and a detailed statement of the expenses of such investigation.
Presented January 19, 1914. — Mr. McKensie Not printed.

44a- Supplementary Return to an Order of the House of December 11, 1912, for a copy of all
papers, documents and correspondence relating to the dismissal of A. T. Doucet, Post-
master and Collector of Customs at Salmon River, Digby County, N.S. Presented
January 19, 1914. — Mr. Maclean (Halifax) Not printed.

44b. Return to an Order of the House of April 21, 1913, for a copy of the charges made against
Alexis Bour<|ue, Storm Signal Agent at Bonaventure, on which he was dismissed by the
Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and a copy of all letters and other documents bearing
on the appointment of his successor. Presented January 23, 1914. — Mr. Marcil (Bona-
venture) Not printed.

23

4-5 George V. Alphabetical Index to Sessional Papers. A. 1914

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2S—Co7itinued.

44c. Return to an Order of the House of January 29, 1913, for a copy of all letters, petitions,
telegrams, complaints, evidence, reports and other papers and d/Dcuments in the posses-
sion of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, or any Department of the Government,
relating to the dismissal of Patrick Conway, Lightkeeper at White Head Island, N.S.,
and if there was an investigation the names of the witnesses, a copy of the evidence,
and a detailed statement of the expenses of such investigation. Presented January 21,
191 1. — Mr. Sinclaii- Not printed.

4t4d. Return to an Order of the House of May 7, 1913, for a copy of all papers, documents, tele-
grams and correspondence in connection with the dismissal of Captain Wm. Smith,
Coxswain, of the lifeboat at Blanche, Shelburne County, N.S. Presented January 21,
1914. — Mr. Laio Not printed.

44e. Return to an Order of the House of March 3, 1913, for a Return showing in detail the
number of dismissals from public offices and positions of employment by the present
Goveinment since the 11th day of October, 1911, to this date, in the County of King's,
Provnce of Nova Scotia, in connection with any of tlie Departments of the public ser-
vice, not including cases in which oiders have already passed ; together with the names
of the dismissed officials or emjiloyees, the reason for their respective dismissals, the
complaints or charges against them, and by whom made ; together with a copy of all
coirespondence, letters, telegrams and other communications with respect to each such
case of dismissal, and of all minutes of evidence of investigations, where any such were
he'.d, and of all reports relating to such dismissals now in the possession of any of the
Departments of the Government, also the names of all parties appointed to fill the
vacmcies caused by such dismissals, and the names of the persons by whom the same
have be.'jn respectively recommended for appointment ; together with a detailed state-
ment of all amounts and expenses paid, or to be paid, by any Department in connection
with the said dismissals and investigations or removals from office. Presented January
2] , 1914. — Mr. McKenzie Not printed.

44/. Return to an Order of the House of the 23rd April, 1913, foi- a copy of the charges mado
by Mess'.s. J. A. Mousseau, A. Godbout and J. Blondin, against Jos. E. A. I>andry,
keeper of the lighthouse at St. Omer, Quebec, on which he was dismissed for alleged
political partisanship. Presented January 21, 1914. — Mr. Marcil (Bonaventure).

Not printed.

44J7. Return to an Order of the House of the 29th January, 1913. for a copy of all charges, cor-
respondence, letters, telegrams and other documents relating to the dismissal of Colin
Melsaac, preventive officer at Po: t Hood, Inverness County, N.S. Presented January
21, 1914. — Mr. Chisholm (Inverness) Not printed.

44/». Return to an Order of the House of the 19th May, 1913, for a copy of all pptit'ons and
coil espondencc^ relating to the dismissal of Mr. Pesha, postmaster at Kent Bridge,
Ontario. Presented January 22, 1914. — Sir W. Laurier Not printed.

44*. Return to an Order of the House of the 29th January, 1913, for a copy of all letters, peti-
tions, telegrams, complaints, evidence, rei)0rts and other papers and documents in the
po.ssession of the Post Office Department or any department of the Government, relating
to the dismissal of John F. Reeves postmaster at Mulgrave, N.S.. and if there was an
investigation, the names of all witnesses examined, a copy of the evidence, and a
detailed statement of the expenses of such investigation. Presented January 22, 1914. —
Mr. Sinclair Not printed.

44j. Return to an Order of the House of the 29th January, 1913, for a copy of all charges, corre-
spondence, letters, telegrams and othe;- documents relating to the dismissal of Havelock
McLeod, postmaster at Big Intervale, North East Margaree, Inverness County, Nova
Scotia. Presented January 22, 1914. — Mr. Chisholm (Inverness) Not printed.

44fc. Return to an Order of the House of the 21st April, 1913. for a copy of all documents, peti-
tions, correspondence, messages, inquiries, reports, &c., relating tC' the dismissal of S.
Lapointe, postmaster of St. Eloi. County of Temiscouata, and to the appointment of his
successor. Presented January 22, 1914. — Mr. Gauvrean Not printed.

44Z. Return to an Order of the House of the 3rd February, 1913. for a copy of all correspond-
ence, letters, telegrams and other documents relative to the dismissal of William Bow,
postmaster at Winchester Village, County of Dundas, and of all rpcoiiimendations for
the appointment of his successor. Presented January 22, 1914. — Mr. .MacNutt.

Not printed.

44w. Return to an Order of the House of the 26th March, 1913, for a copy of all charges, cor-
respondence, letters, telegrams, petitions and other documents relating to the dismissal
of Mis. Ellen O'Neil. postmistress at O'Neil's post oflice. Parish of Moncton. County of
Westmorland, New Brunswick, and of all evidence, if any, taken in legard to the same,
and of all reports concerning same ; and also a copy of all I'ecommendations, correspond-
ence, letters, telegrams, petitions and other documents relating to the appointment of a
successor, or of Robert C. Kelly as postmaster of or at the said ONeil post orflce, and
of all reports, if any, as to the proper location of the office. Presented January 22, 1914.
— Mr. Emmerson Not printed.

24

4-5 George V. Alphabetical" Index to Sessional Papers. A. 1914

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 28— Continued.

44"- Return to an Order of the House of the 21st April, 1913, for a copy of the charges made
against Alex. Labillois, postmaster of Miguasha, on which his dismissal took place, and
of all letters and documents regarding the appointment of John Caissy in his place.
Presented January 22, 1914. — -Mr. Marcil (Bonaventure) Not printed.

440. Return to an Order of the House of the 21st April, 1913, for a copy of all letters and
other documents containing evidence or charges against Madame Z. Marcotte, post-
mistres-g of Nouvelle West, Bonaventure County, on which the Postmaster General acted
In removing her from offlce, and also of letters and other documents regarding the
appointment of Mr. Lazare Fallu in her stead. Presented January 22, 1914. — Mr.
Marcil (Bonaventure) Not printed.

44P- Return to an Order of the House of the 28th April, 1913, for a copy of all complaints,
accusations, correspondence, petitions, and telegrams respecting the dismissal of Joseph
Veruult, postmaster at Guay, County of Levis, of the evidence and report made follow-
ing tlie inquiries held by the inquiring Commissioner Smith and the inquiring Commis-
sioner JoliccBur in this matter ; also the names of the witnesses summoned and heard,
with a copy of the evidence heard at each inquiry, the names of those who represented
the Government at these inquiries, and a detailed statement of the expenses caused by
these inquiries, with a copy of all docum.ents respecting the appointment of his successor,
such as petitions, letters of recommendation, &c. Presented January 22, 1914. — Mr.
Bourassa Not printed.

44<7. Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd June. 1913, for a copy of all telegrams, papers
and correspondence in the possession of the Post Office Department, or with any of the
offlcials thereof, regarding the removal from ofTice of the postmaster of Osage,
Saskatchewan, and of the appointment of a successor thereto ; and of all correspondence
bearing upon the said removal or appointment with the post office inspector for that por-
tion of the province of Saskatchewan, and of all other letters and documents with
respect thereto. Presented January 22, 1914. — Mr. Carvell Not printed.

44''. Retun to an Order of the House of the 29th January, 1913, for a copy of all letters, peti-
tions, telegrams, complaints, evidence, reports and other papers and documents in the
possession of the Post Office Department, or any department of the Government, relating
to the dismissal of George Taylor, postmaster at Bickerton. N.S., and if there was an
investigation, the names of all witnesses examined, a copy of tlie evidence and a de'tailed
statement of the expenses of such investigation. Presented January 22, 1914. — .1/?-.
Sinclair Not printed.

44s. Return to an Order of the House of the 21st April, 1913, for a copy of all correspondence,
telegrams, complaints, affidavits, reports, recommendations, requests, certificates and
other documents, relating to the dismissal of Mademoiselle Paul Hus, as postmistress of
the Parish Ste. Victoire, County of Richelieu, and the appointment of Mr. Paul Bardier,
of the same place, as postmaster. Presented January 22, 1914. — Mr. Cardin.

Not printed.

44*. Return to an Order of the House of the 3rd March, 1013, for a copy of all charges, corre-
spondence, letters, telegrams and other documents relating to the dismissal of Parker
S. Hart, postmaster at South Manchester, Guysborough County, N.S., and of all evidence
taken and report of investigation held by H. P. Duchemin in regard to the same, and
also a detailed statement of the expenses of such investigation. Presented January 22,
1914. — Mr. Sinclair Not printed.

44m- Return to an Order of the House of the. 17th February, 1913, for a copy of all complaints
and charges made against Charles L. Gass, late postmaster at Bayfield, Antigonish
County, of the evidence taken, if any, before Commissioner Duchemin, and of his report
thereon, and of all letters, telegrams and documents of every kind relating to his dis-
missal and the appointment of his successor. Presented January 22, 1914. — Mr. Chis-
holm (Antigonish) Not printed.

44v. Return to an Order of the House of the 27th January, 1913, for a copy of all documents,
correspondence, letters, reports, &c., relating to the dismissal of Madame Belzil, post-
mistress at St. Octave, County of Rimouski, and the appointment of her successor. Pre-
sented January 22, 1914. — Mr. Lapciate (Kamouraska) Not printed.

44to. Return to an Order of the Hou.sa of the 9th April, 1913, for a copy of all charges, corre-
spondence, telegrams and other documents relating to the dismissal of John McDonnell,
).ostmaster at Kssex, Inverness County, Nova Scotia. Presentetl January 22, 1914. —
Mr. Chisholm (Inverness) Not printed.

44iC- Return to an Order of the House of the 31st March. 1913, for a copy of all letters, tele-
grams and documents in connection with the d'smissal of .Tamos Bain, from the post-
mastership of Ninga post office, Ninga, Manitoba. Presented January 22, 1914. — Mr.
Turriff Not pri7itcd.

25

4-5 George V. Alphabetical Index to Sessional Papers. A. 1914

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2S— Continued.

44j/. Return to an Order of the House of the 9th April, 1913, for a copy of all letters, petitions,
telegrams, complaints, reports and other papers and documents in the possession of the
Post Office Department, relating to the dismissal of William McKinnon, postmaster at
Erinville, Guyshorough County, N.S., and the appointment of Daniel Kenny as suc-
cessor ; and if there was an investigation in connection with the dismissal of the said
"William McKinnon, the names of all witnesses examined, a copy of the evidence and
report of the commissioner, and a detailed statement of the expenses of such investiga-
tion. Presented January 22, 1914. — Mr. Sinclair Not printed.

44'^. Return to an Order of the House of the 7th May, 1913, for a copy of all correspondence,
evlilence and reports in connection with the dismissal of J. N. Cloutier, postmaster at
St. Benoit Labre, County of Beauce, Quebec. Presented January 22, 1914. — Mr. BeJand.

Not printed.

44 (2a). Return to an Order of the House of the l2th February, 1913, for a copy of all letters,
telegrams, papers and documents relative to the dismissal of Mrs. Weave, postmistress
at Coal Creek, Queens County, N.B., and of the appointment of Michael L. Kno::. Pre-
sented January 22, 1914. — Mr. McLean (Sunbury) Not printed.

44 (2b). Return to an Order of the House of the 26th May, 1913, for a copy of all correspond-
ence and documents of any kind whatsoever relating to the dismissal of postmasters
in I^onaventure County, by the present administration, not already ordered and brought
down. Presented January 22, 1914. — Mr. Marcil {Bonaventure) Not printed.

44 (2c). Return to an Order of the House of the 28th April, 1913, for a copy of all petitions,
complaints, and correspondence containing any charges against Alexander Fraser, post-
master at Fraser's Grant, Antigonish County, N.S., and of all other documents and
correspondence on the file in relation thereto. Presented January 22, 1914. — Mr. Chis-
holm ( Antigonish ) Not printed.

44 (2d). Partial return to an Order of the House of the 10th December, 1912, for a return show-
ing all public officers removed by the present Government in the District of Portneuf,
together with the name and duties of each person, the reasons for their dismissal, the
nature of the complaints brought against them, also a copy of all correspondence relat-
ing theieto and reports of inquiries in cases where such were held. Presented January
22, 1914. — Mr. Delisle Not printed.

44 (2e). Return to an Order of the House of the loth January, 1913, for a return showing a
list of the postmasters dismissed or removed by the present Government in the County
of Two Mountains, the names of such persons, the reason for their dismissal, the nature
of the complaints brought aginst thern, and a copy of all correspondence and petitions
relating thereto, and reports of inquiry in the cases where such have been held ; also the
names of their successors. Presented January 22, 1914. — Mr. Ethier. . . .Not printed.

44 (2/). Return to an Order of the House of the 15th January, 1913, for a copy of all charges,
correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents relative to the dismissal of
Thomas Chalmer McLean, postmaster at Ivera, Middle River, Riding of North Cape
Breton and Victoria, N.S., and of the evidence taken and reports of investigation held by
H. V. Duchemin in regard to the same, and a detailed statement of the expenses of such
investigation. Presented January 22, 1914. — Mr. McKensie Not printed.

44 (2<;). Return to an Order of the House of the 29th January, 1913, for a copy of all letters,
telegrams, reports and other documents relative to the dismissal of C. P. Blanchard,
postmaster at Truro, Nova Scotia, and the appointment of his successor. Presented
January 22, 1914. — Mr. Macdonald Not printed.

44 (2/1). Return to an Order of the House of the 29th January, 1913, for a copy of all papers,
documents, evidence, reports, letters, correspondence, &c., relating to the dismissal of
Samuel Atwood, Atwood's Brook, Shelburne County, N.S. Presented January 22,
1914. — Mr. Lata Not printed.

44 (2»). Return to an Order of the House of the 3rd February, 1913, for a return showing the
names of the postmasters in the County of Berthier dismissed since the 21st September,
1911; their respective parishes, the date of their dismissals and the reason alleged; if
an inquiry was held in each case; on whose recommendation were these dismissals
made; th.e names of those apjwinted as their successors and on whose recommendation
were they appointed. Presented January 22, 1914. — Mr. B€land Not printed.

44 (2;). Return to an Order of the House of the 3rd March, 1913, for a cony of all complaints,
accusations, correspondence, petitions and telegrams, respecting the dismiss.al of Wilfrid
I'elloniarre, postmaster at Hervey Junction, County of Portneuf. and of all documents
respecting the appointment of his successor, such as petitions, letters of recommenda-
tion, &c., and also of the evidence and reports made after the intiuiry held by the
inquiring commissioner ; together with a detailed statement of the expenses caused by
this inquiry. Presented January 22, 1914. — Mr. Dclislc Not printed.

4-5 George V. Alphabetical Index to Sessional Papers. A. 1914

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2S— Continued.

44 <2k). Return to an Order of the House of the 10th February, 1913, for a copy of all letters,
petitions, telegrams, complaints, evidence, reports and other papers and documents in
. the possession of the Post OfRce Department, or any department of the Government,
relating to the dismissal of Rufus D. Carrigan, postmaster at Sand Point, Guysborough
County, N.S., and if there ■was an investigation, the names of all witnesses examined,
and a detailed statement of the expenses of such investigation. Presented January 22,
1914.- -Mr. Sinclair Not printed.

44 (20- Return to an Order of the House of the 15th January, 1913. for a copy of all charges,
correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents relative to the dismissal of
Daniel Dunlop, postmaster at New Campbellton, Riding of North Cape Breton and Vic-
toria, N.S., and of the evidence taken and reports of the investigation held by H .P.
Duchemin in regard to the same, and a detailed statement of the expenses of such
investigation. Presented January 22, 1914. — Mr. McKenzic Not printed.

44 (2m). Return to an Order of the House of the 9th April, 1913. for a copy of all charges, corre-
spondence, telegrams and other documents relating to the dismissal of Duncan Cameron,
postmaster at Craigmore, Inverness County, Nova Scotia. Presented January 22, 1914.
— Mr. Chishohn (lyiverness) Not printed.

44 (2n). Return to an Order of the House of the 29th January, 1913, for a copy of all letters,
telegrams, reports, charges and other documents relating to the dismissal of Angus
Cameron, late postmaster at Fairlight, Sask., and of the evidence taken at the investi-
gation held by Mr. Dorsett. Presented January 22, 1914. — Mr. Turriff ... .Not printed.

44 (.20). Return to an Order of the House of the 15th January, 1913, for a copy of all docu-
ments, correspondence, petitions and telegrams respecting the dismissal of M. Sauriol,
postmaster of St. Janvier, County of Terrebonne, and the appointment of his successor.
Presented January 22, 1914. — Mr. Ethier Not printed.

44 (2p.) Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd June, 1913, for a copy of all petitions,
letters, telegrams and resolutions in connection with the changes made in the names of
the post offices at Letches Creek Crossing and Letches Creek, North Cape Breton, N.S.,
the dismissal of Donald Johnston, the former postmaster at Letclfes Creek, and the
appointment of his successor. Presented January 22, 1914.— Mr. McKe^izie.

Not printed.

44 (2(3'). Return to an Order of the House of the 27th January, 1913, for a copy of all letters,
documents, telegrams, reports, corresoondence and recommendations in any way relat-
ing to the dismissal of James McLees, postmaster at Bishop Mills, County of Grenville,
Province of Ontario, and the appointment of his successor. Presented January 22, 1914.
— 3/r. Proulx ' Not printed.

44 (2/). Return to an Order of the House of the 9th April, 1913, for a copy of all charges,
correspondence, telegrams and other documents relating to the dismissal of Mrs. Sarah
C. Rankin, postmistress at S. W. Ridge Mabou, Inverness County, Nova Scotia. Pre-
sented January 22, 1914. — Mr. Chishohn (Inverness) Not printed.

44 (2s).Partial Return to an Order of the House of the 19th March, 1913, for a Return show-
ing in detail the number of dismissals from the public service during the period from
June 23, 189G, to September 21, 1911, in the County of Cumberland, Nova Scotia, in
connection with any department of the public service ; together with the names of the
dismissed officials or employees, their ages at the time of entering the public service,
the length of their period of service with dates, the amount of their remuneration, the
reason for their respective dismissals, the complaints or charges against them, and by
whom made : together with a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other
communication with respect to each such case of dismissal, and of all minutes of evi-
dence on investigation, where any such were held, and of all reports relating to such
dismissals now in the possession of any of the departments of the government ; also the
names of all persons appointed to fill vacancies caused by such dismissals, their ages
at the date of appointment, the amount of their remuneration, and the names of tha
persons by whom the same have been respectively recommended for appointment ;
together with a detailed statement of all amounts and expenses paid by any department
in connection with said dismissals and investigations or removal from office. I'resented
January 22, 1914. — Mr. Rhodes Not printed.

44 (2t). Partial Return to an Order of the House of the 29th April, 1913. for a Return show-
ing all employees of the Dominion dismissed in the County of Three Rivers and St.
Maurice since October 15, 1911, to date, the date of dismissal, the employment of each
man, the salary he was receiving at the time of his dismissal, the reason for dismissal,
whether there has been an investigation or not, with the names and places of residence
of the men appointed to replace them. Presented January 22, 1914. — Mr. Bureau.

• Not printed.

44 (2m). Partial Return to an Order of the House of the 10th December, 1912, for a return
showing the number of dismissals from public offices by the present Government to this
date in the constituency of Regina, together with the names of the dismissed officials,
the reasons for their dismissals, the complaints ag.ninst such officials, and a copy of all
correspondence relating thereto and reports of inquiries in cases where such have been
held in respect of the same. Presented January 22, 1914. — Mr. Martin (Regina).

Not printed.

27

4-5 George V. Alphabetical ludex to Sessional Papers. A. 1914

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2S— Continued.

44 (2f). Return to an Order of the House of the 10th December, 1912, for a return showing
all the public officers dismissed by the present Government in the electoral district of
Kamouraska, with the names and duties of such persons respectively, the reason for
their dismissal, the nature of the complaints brought against them, also of all corre-
spondence relating thereto and reports of inquiries in cases where such have been held.
Presented January 22, 1914. — Mr. Lapointe (.Kamouraska) Not printed.

44 (2w). Partial Return to an Order of the House of the 10th February, 1913, for a return
showing in detail the number of dismissals from public offices by the present Govern-
ment to this date in the County of Prince, Prince Edward Island, giving the names of
the dismissed officials, the reasons for their dismissal, the complaints against such
officials and a copy of all the correspondence with respect to the same and of all notes
of evidence and reports of investigations where such were held ; also the names of all
parties appointed to fill the vacancies caused by such dismissals and the names of the
persons by whom the same have been recommended for appointment. Presented
January 22, 1914. — Mr. Richards Not printed.

44 (2x). Return to an Order of the House of the 10th December, 1912, for a return show ng
the detail and number of dismissals from public offices by tht present Government to
this date In the riding of Strathcona, together with the names of the dismissed o;"CU-
pants, the reasons for their dismissal, the complaints against such officials, and a copy
of all correspondence with respect to the same, and of all reports of investigations,
where such were held. Presented January 22, 1914. — Mr. Douglas Not printed.

44 (.2y). Partial Return to an Order of the House of the 10th December, .1912, for a return
showing the detail and number of dismissals fi-om public offices by the present Govern-
ment to this date in the riding of Saltcoats, Sask.. together with the names of the dis-
missed occupants, the reasons for their dismissal, the complaints against such officials,
and a copy of all correspondence with respect to the same, and all repo!-ts of investi-
gations, in, cases where such were held. Presented January 22, 1914. — Mr. MacNutt.

Not printed.

44 (2~). Return to an Order of the House of the 28th April, 1913, for a return showing all
employees dismissed in the County of Champlain since October lo, 1911, to date, the
employment of each man, the salary each was receiving at the time of his dismissal,
the reasons for dismissals, whether there has been any investigation or not. with the
names and places of residence of the men appointed to replace them. Presented
Januai\y 22, 1914. — Mr. Bureau ' Not printed.

44 (3o). Return to an Order of the House of the 3rd March. 1913, for a return showing in
detail the number of dismissals from public offices and position of employment, by the
present Government since the 11th day of October, IPll. to this date, in the County of
Cumberland, Nova Scotia, not including those for which returns have already been
ordered, in connection with any of the departments of the public service; together with
the names of the dismissed officials or employees, the reason for their respective dis-
missals, the complaints or charges against them, and by whom made ; together with a
copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other communications with respect to
each such case of dismissal, and of all minutes of evidence of investigations, where any
such were held, and of all reports relating to such dismissals now in the possession of
any of the departments of the government ; also the names of all parties appointed to
fill the vacancies caused by such dismissals, and the names of the persons by whom the
same have been respectively recommended for appointment ; together with a detailed
statement of all amounts and expenses iiaid by any department in connection with the
said dismissals and investigations or removal from office. Presented January 22, 1914.
— Mr. Kyte Not printed.

44 (3b). Return to an Order of the House of the 3rd February, 1913, for a return showing in
detail the number of dismissals from public offices and positions of employment, by the
present Government since the first day of October, 1911, to this date, in the County of
Westmorland, New Brunswick, in connection with any of the departments of the public
service; together with the names of the dismissed officials or employees, the reason for
their respective dismissals, the complaints or charges against them, and by whom made,
save and exceiit the case of George H. Cochrane, Collector of Customs at Moncton (the
papers for which have been already moved for) ; together with a copy of all corre-
spondence, letters, telegrams and other communications with respect to each such case
of dismissal, and of all minutes of evidence of investigations, where any such were held,
and of all reports relating to such dismissals now in the possession of any of the
departments of government, or of tlie rjovernment Railways Managing Board, or of
the officials of the Intercolonial and the Prince Kdward Island Railway ; also the names
of all parties appointed to fill the vacanc es caused by such dismi.ssals. and the nnmes
of the persons by whom the same have been respecitvely recommended for appointment ;
together with a detailed statement of all amounts and expenses paid by any department
in connection with the said dismissals and investigations or removals from office. Pre-
sented January 22, 1914. — Mr. Emmrrson Not printed.

28

4-5 George V. Alphabetical Index to Sessional Papers. A. "i91-i

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 28— Continued.

44 (3c). Partial Return to an Order of the House of the 3rcl March, 1913, for a retui'n showing
in detail the number of dismissals from publir, offices and positions of employment by
the present Government since the lltli day of October, 1911, to this date, in the County
of Aniiapors, Nova Scotia, in connection with any of the departments of the public ser-
vice, but not "'nclu'ling- cases in which orders have already passed together with the
names of the dismissed officials or employees, the reason for their respective dismissals,
the complaints or charges against them, and by whom made ; together with a copy of
all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other communications with respect to each
such case of dismissal, and of all minutes of evidence of investigations, where any such
were held, and of all reports relating to such dismissals now in the possession of any
of the departments of the Government ; also the names of all parties appointed to fill
vacancies caused by such dismissals ,and the names of the persons by whom the same
have been respectively recommended for appointment ; together with a detailed state-
ment of all amounts and expenses paid by any department in connection with the said
dismissals and investigations or removals from office. Presented January 22, 1914. —
Mr. Chisholm {Antigonish) Jsiot printed.

44 (3d). Return to an Order of the House of the 2Sth April, 1913, for a return showing all
employees dismissed in the County of Nicolet since October 15, 1911, to date, the date
of dismissa'l, the employment of each man, the salary he was receiving at the time of
his dismissal, the reasons for dismissal, whether there has been an investigation or not,
with the names and places of residence of the men appointed to replace them. Pre-
sented January 22, 1914. — Mr. Bureau Not printed.

44 (3e). Return to an Order of the House of the 29th January, 1913, for a return showing in
detail the number of dismissals from public offices by the present Government to this
date in the constituency of Victoria, Alberta, together with the names of the dismissed
officials, the rcasc>n of their dismissal, the complaints against such officials, and a copy
of all correspondence with respect to the same and of all notes of evidence and of the
reports of investigations where such were held ; also the names of all parties appointed
to fill the vacancies caused by such dismissals and the names of the persons by whom
the Eamo> have been recommended for appointment. Presented January 22, 1914. — Mr.
White (Alberta) Not printed.

44 (3/). Officials dismissed in the constituency of Shelburne and Queens, N.S. — (Senate).

Not printed.

44 (3^). Postmasters dismissed in the County of Antigonish, N.S. — (Senate) Not printed.

44 (37i). Return to an Order of the House of the 29th January, 1913, for a copy of all charges,
correspondence, letters, telegrams, and other documents relating to the dismissal of
Dr. Freeman O'Neil, from the office of port physician at Louisburg. Cape Breton South,
Nova Scotia, and of the evidence taken and reports of investigation held by H. P.
Duchemin in regard to the same. Presented January 26, 1914. — Mr. Sinclair.

Not printed.

44 (3i). Partial Return to an Order of the House of the 3rd March, 1913, for a return showing
in detail the number of dismissals from public offices and positions of employment by
the present Government since the 11th day of October, 1911, to this date, in the County
of Digby, Nova Scotia, in connection with any of the departments of the public ser-
vice, but not including cases in which orders have already passed ; together with the
names of the dismissed officials or employees, the reasons for their respective dismissals
the complaints or charges against them, and by whom made ; together with a copy of
all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other communications with respect to each
such case of dismissal, and of all minutes of evidence of investigations, where any such
were held, and of all reports relating to such dismissals now in the possession of any
of* the departments of the Government; also the names of all parties appointed to fill
the vacancies caused by such dismissals, and the names of the persons by whom the
same have been respectively recommended for appointment ; together with a detailed
statement of all accounts and expenses paid by any department in f^onnection with the
said dismissals and investigations or removals from office. And also — Supplementary
return to an Order of the House of the 3rd March, 1913, for a return showing in detail
the number of dismissals from public offices and positions of employment by the pre-
sent Government since the 11th day of October, 1911, to this date, in the County of
Digby, Nova Scotia, in connection with any of the departments of tlie public service,
but not including cases in which orders have already passed ; together with the names
of the dismissed officials or employees, the reasons for their respective dismissals the
complaints or charges against them, and by whom made ; together with a copy of all
correspondence, letters, telegrams and other communications with respect to each such
case of dismis.sal, and of all minutes of evidence of investigations, where any such were
held, and of ail reports relating to such dismissals now in the possession of any of the
departments of the (government ; also the names of all parties appointed to fill the
vacancies caused by such dismissals, and the names of the persons by whom the same
have been respectively recommended for appointment ; together with a detailed state-
ment of all accounts and expenses paid by any department in connection with the said
dismissals and investigations or removals from office. Presented Janaury 22, 1914. —
Mr. Sinclair Not printed.

29

4-5 George V. Alpliabetioal Index to Sessional Papers. A. 1914

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2S^Continued.

44 (3j). Partial Return to an Order of the House of the 3rd March, 1913, for a return showing
in detail the number of dismissals from public offices and positions of employment by
the present Government since the 11th day of October, 1911, to this date, in the con-
stituency of Queen's, Shelburne, Nova Scotia, in connection with any of the departments
of the public service, not including cases in which orders have already been passed ;
together with the names of the dismissed officials or employees, the reason for their
respective dismissals, the complaints or charges against them, and by whom made ;
together with a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other communications
with respect to each such case of dismissal, and of all minutes of evidence of investi-
gations, where any such were held and of all reports relating to such dismissals now
in the possession of any of the departments of the Government, also the names of all
parties appointed to fill the vacancies caused by such dismissals, and the names of the
persons by whom the same have been respectively recommended for appointment ;
togetlier with a detailed statement of all amounts and expenses paid by any department
in connection with the said dismissals and investigations of removals from office. Pre-
sented January 27, 1914. — Mr. Law Not prin'ed.

44 (3A;). Partial Return to an Order of the House of the 19th March, 1913, for a list of publi'.:
officers employed in the city of Quebec, in the Departments of Inland Revenue, Rail-
ways and Canals, the Transcontinental Railway, Customs, Immigration, Marine and
Fisheries, Public Works and Militia, the names and duties of such persons, the reason
for their dismissal, the nature of the complaints brought against them, .also a copy of
all correspondence relating thereto, and of reports of inquiry in the cases where such
inquiries were held. Presented January 26, 1914. — Mr. Lachance Not printed.

44 (SJ). Return to an Order of the House of the 29th .January, 1913, for a return showing all
the public officers removed by the present Government in the District of Li'Assomption,
together with the names and duties of such persons, the reasons for their dismissal, the
nature of the complaints brought against them ; also a copy of all correspondence relat-
ing thereto and reports of inquiries in cases where such were held, with the names of
the successors of the dismissed officers. Presented January 26, 1914. — Mr. Seguin.

Not printed.

44 (3m). Further Supplementary Return to an Order of the House of the 7th February, 1912,
for a return showing for each department of the Government the names, post office
addresses, offices, employment, and salaries of all persons employed either in the inside
or outside service thereof, and of such persons not in the Civil Service, employed by the
Government in any department, on the tenth day of October, 1911, who have been
removed from office or employment by dismissal; specifying in each case the manner
of and grounds of such dismissals and the length of notice given to the persons removed,
and also indicating in each case whether an inquiry was or was not neld prior to such
dismissal. Presented January 26, 1914. — Mr. Kyte Not printed.

44 (Sn). Supplementary Return to an Order of the House of the 3rd March, 1913, for a return
showing in detail the number of dismissals from public offices and positions of employ-
ment by the present Goveinment since the 11th day of October, 1911, to this date. In
the County of Digby, Nova Scotia, in connection with any of the departments of the
public service, but not including cases in which orders have already passed ; togeaher
with the names of tlie dismissed officials or employees, the reasons for their respective
dismissals, the comjilaints or charges against them, and by whom made ; together with
a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other communications with respect
to each such case of dismissal, and of all minutes of evidence of investigations, where
any such were held, and of all reports relating to such dismissals now in the jjossession
of any of the departments of the Government : also the n.ames of all parties appointed
to fill the vacancies caused by such dismissals, and the names of the persons by whom
the same have been respectively recommended for appointment ; together with a detailed
statement of all accounts and expenses paid by any department in connection with the
said dismissals and investigations or removals from office. Presented January 28. 1914.
— Mi: Sinclair Not printed.

44 (30). Return to an Order of the House of the 26th May, 1913, for a copy of all correspond-
ence, telegrams, inquiries and reports respecting the dismissal of Philias Hable, light-
keeper at St. I.iOuis de Lotbini^re, County of I^olbiniere, Quebec. Presented February
4. 1914. — Mr. Fortier Not printed.

44 (3p). Return to an Onler of the House of the 19th May, 1913. for a copy of all correspond-
ence, complaints, petitions and reports connected with the dismissal of Fishery Overseer
MignoauU at Seven Islands, and the appointment in his place of Elaear Levesque. Pre-
sented February 10, 1914. — Mr. Biland A'ot printed,

44 (39). Return to an Order of the House of the 28th April, 1913, for a return showing all
employees dismissed in the County of Maskinorvge. sinca October 15, IMl. to date, the
date of dismissal, the employment of each man, the salary he was receiving at the time
of his dismissal, the reasons for dismiss.al, whether there has been investigation or not,
and the names and piiu-es of residence of the men appointed to replace them. Presented
February 10, 1914. — Mr. Bureau Not printed.

30

4-5 George V. Alphabetical Index to Sessional Papers. A. 191-i

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2S— Continued.

44 (3r). Partial Return to an Order of the House of the 3rd March, 1913, for a return showing
in detail the number of dismissals from public offices and positions of employment by
the present Government since the 11th day of October, 1911, to this date, in the County
of King's. Province of Nova Scotia, in connection with any of the departments of the
public service, not including cases in which orders have already passed ; together with
the names of the dismissed officials or employees, the reason for their respective dis-
- missals, the complaints or charges against them, and by whom made ; together with a
copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other communications with respect to
each such case of dismissal, and of all minutes of evidence of investigations, where any
such were held, and of all reports relating to such dismi-ssals now in the possession of
any of the departments of the Government, also the names of all parties appointed to
fill the vacancies caused by such dismissals, and the names of the persons by whom the
same have been respectively recommended for appointment ; together with a detailed
statement of all amounts and expenses paid, or to be paid, by any department in con-
nection with the said dismissals and investigations or removals from office. Presented
February 10, 1914. — Mr. McKenzie Not printed.

14 (3s). Return to an Order of the House of the 3rd March, 1913. for a return showing in
detail the number of dismissals from public office and positions of employment by the
present Government since the 11th day of October, 1911, to this date, in the County of
Colchester, Nova Scotia, in connection with any of the departments of the public ser-
vice ; together with the names of the dismissed offi.cials or employees, the reasons for
their respective dismissals, the complaints or charges against them, and by whom made ;
together with a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other communications
with respect to each such case of dismissal, and of minutes of evidence of investigations,
where any such were held, and of all reports relating to such dismissals now in the
possession of any of the departments of the Government ; also the names of all parties
appointed to fill the vacancies caused by such dismissals, and the names of the persona
by whom the same have been respectively recommended for appointment ; together with
a detailed statement of all amounts and expenses paid by any department in connection
with the said dismissals and investigations or removals from office. Presented
February 10, 1914. — Mr. Macdonald Not printed.

44 (3f)- Return to an Order of the House of the 3rd March, 1913, for a return showing in
detail the number of dismissals from public offices and positions of employment by the
present Government since the 11th day of October, 1911, to this date, in the County of
Hants, Nova Scotia, in connection with any of the departments of the public service,
not including cases in which orders have already passed ; together with the name of the
dismissed officials or employees, the reason for their respective dismissals, the com-
plaints or charges against them, and by whom made ; together with a copy of all corre-
spondence, letters, telegrams and other communications with respect to each such case
of dismissal, and of all minutes of evidence of investigations, where any such were held,
and of all reports relating to such dismissals now in the possession of any of the depart-
ments of the Government ; also of the names of all parties appointed to fill the vacancies
caused by such dismissals, and the names of the persons by whom the same have been
respectively recommended for appointment ; together with a detailed statement of all
amounts and expenses paid by any department in connection with the said dismissals
and investigations or removals from office. Presented February 10, 1914. — Mr. Chis-
holm (Inverness) Not printed.

44 (Sw)- Retuin to an Order of the House of the 10th December, 1912, for a copy of all corre-
spondence, documents, recommendations, and reports concerning the dismissal of Miss
Eugenie Dorion, an employee in the office of the post office inspector at Quebec ; the
reasons for her dismissal, the nature of the complaints brought against her, if any. the
names of the persons who brought these complaints, also a copy of all correspnodence
relating thereto, and the report of inquriy, !f there was one held. Presented February
20, 1914. — Mr. Wilson (Laval) Not printed.

44 (3v). Return to Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a copy of all charges,
correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents in the possession of the Post
Office Department, relating to the dismissal of James R. Laing, postmaster at Liscombe,
N.S., and of the facts taken, and report of investigation in regard to the same, if any,
a detailed statement of the expenses of such investigation, together with a copy of all
recommendations, letters, telegraxns, and other papers relating to the appointment of
his successor. Presented Februarj- 23, 1914. — Mr. Sinclair Not printed.

44 (3^^). Return to an Order of the House of the 5th June, 1913, for a copy of all correspond-
ence, papers, &c., in connection with the dismissal of Mr. A. L. Des^ve, officer in charge
of the fishery hatchery at Magog, Quebec, and the appointment of Mr. L. A. Audet to
the said position. Presented February 23, 1914. — Sir W. Laurier Not printed.

44 (3x). Return to an Order of the House of the 9th February, 1914, for a copy of all corre-
spondence, telegrams and other documents relating to the removal of Jas. T. Richard-
son as sub-Collector of Customs at Humboldt, Saskatchewan, and the appointment of a
successor. Presented February 23, 1914. — Mr. Neely Not printed.

31

4-5 George V. Alphabetical Index to Set^sional Papers. A. 1914

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 28— Continued.

44 (33/). Supplementary Return to an Order of the House of the 10th December, 1912, for a
retun showing the number of dismissals from public offices by the present Government
to this date in the constituency of Regina, together with the names of the dismissed
officials, the reasons for their dismissals, the complaints against such officials, anil a
copy of all correspondenc* with respect to the same, and of all reports of any investi-
gations held in respect of the same. Presented February 24, 1914. — Mr. Martin
{Regina) '. Not printed.

44 (3«). Return to an Order of flie House of the 9th February. 1914, for a copy of all papers,
documents, correspondence, &c., in connection with the -nissal of Mr. Hicks, of Bridge-
town, N.S., from the customs service in 1913. Presented February 24, 1914. — Mr. Muc-
lean (Halifax) Not printed.

44 (4o). Return to an Order of the House of the 16th February, 1914, for a copy of all letters,
petitions, telegrams, complaints, evidence, " reports and other papers and documents in
the possession of the Customs Department, relating to the dismissal of Ralph Harris,
sub-collector of customs at Pelee Island, Ont.. and if there was an investigation, the
names of all the witnesses, and a copy of the evidence ; and also of all the papers con-
nected with the appointment of his successor. Presented February 26, 1914. — Mr.
Clarke (Essex) Not printed.

44 (45). Return to an Order of the House of the 16th February, 1914, for a copy of all letters,
petitions, tele.grams, complaints, evidence, reports and other papers and documents in
the possession of the Customs Department, relating to the dismissal of Aylmer Orton,
customs officer at Windsor, Ont., and if there was an investigation, the names of all the
witnesses, and a_copy of the evidence; and also of all the papers connected with the
apDointment of his successor. Presented Februarj- 26, 1914. — Mr. Clarke (Essex).

Not pri7itcd.

44 (4c). Return to an Order of the House of the 16th February, 1914, for a copy of all letters,
petitions, telegrams, complaints, evidence, reports and other papers and documents in
the possession of the Customs Department, relating to the dismissal of Frederick For-
ster, sub-collector of customs at Kingsville, Ont.. and if there was an investigation, the
names of all the witnesses, and a copy of the evidence ; and also of all the papers con-
nected with the appointment of his successor. Presented February 26, 1914. — Mr.
Clarke (Essex) Not printed.

44 (id). Return to an Order of the House of the 16th February, 1914, for a copy of all letters,
petitions, telegrams, complaints, evidence, reports and other papers and documents in
the possession of the Interior Department, relating to the dismissal of Andrew Darragh,
immigration officer at Windsor, Ont., and if there was an investigation, the names of
all the witnesses, and a copy of the evidence ; and also of all the papers connected with
the appointment of his successor. Presented March 2, 1914. — Mr. Clarke (Essex).

Not printed.

44 (4e). Return to an Order of the House of the 16th February, 1914, for a copy of all letters,
petitions, telegrams, complaints, evidence, reports and other papers and documents in
the possession of the Interior Department, relating to the dismissal of John Halstead,
immigration officer at Windsor, Ont., and if there was an investigation, the names of
all the witnesses, and a copy of the evidence ; and also of all the papers connected with
the appointment of his successor. Presented March 2, 1914. — Mr. Clarke (Essex).

Not printed.

44 (4/). Return to an Order of the House of the 26th May, 1913, for a copy of all correspond-
ence, telegrams, inquiries, and reports, respecting the dismissal of Napoleon Daigle,
lighthouse keeper at Barre a Boulard, Parish of St. Louis de Lotbini^re, Quebec. Pre-
sented March 2, 1914. — .Mr. Fortier Not printed.

44 (4ff). Supplementary Return to an Order of the House of the 19th March, 1913, for a return
showing in detail the number of dismissals from the public service during the period
from June 23, 1S96. to September 21, 1911, in the County of Cumberland. Nova Scotia,
in connection with any department of the public service ; together with the names of
the dismissed olllcials or employees, their ages at the time of entering the public ser-
vice, the length of their period of service with dates, the amount of their remuneration,
the leason for their respective dismissals, the complaints or charges against them, and
by whom made ; together with a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other
communications with respect to each such case of dismissals, and of sill minutes of evi-
dence on investigation, where any such wore held, and of all reports relating to such
dismissals now in the possession of any of the departments of the government ; also the
names of all persons appointed to fill vacancies caused by such dismissals, their ages
at the date of ajipointmcnt, the amount of their remuneration, and the names of the
persons by whom the same have been respectively recommendetl for appofntment ;
together with a detailed statement of all amounts and expenses paid by any department
in connection with said dismissals and investigations or removal from office. Presented
March 2, 1914. — .Vr. Rhodes Not printrd.

32

4-5 George V. Alphabetical Index to Sessional Papers. A. IGl-i

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2S—Continued.

44 (4ft). Return to an Order of the House of the 16th February, 1914, for a copy of all letters,
petitions, telegrams, complaints, evidence, reports and other papers and documents in
the possession of the Department of the Postmaster General, relating to the dismissal
of James H. Smart, postmaster at Kingsville, Ont., and if there was an investigation,
the names of all the witnesses and a copy of the evidence ; and also of all the papers
connected with the appointment of his successor. Presented March 2, 1914. — Mr.
Clarke ( Essex) Not printed.

44 (4i). Return to an Order of the House of the 11th February, 1914, for a copy of all papers,
letters and documents of every kind relating to the dismissal of John A. Roy from the
position of postmaster at Maitland, County of Hants. Presented March 2, 1914. — Mr.
Macdonald Not printed.

44 (iJ). Return to an Order of the Hou-se of the Hth February, 1914, for a copy of all papers,
letters and documents of every kind relating to the dismissal of Thomas Nelson, from
the position of postmaster at Scotch Village, County of Hants. Presented March 2,
1914. — J/7'. Macdonald Not printed.

44 (4 A:). Return to an Order of the House of the 11th February, 1914, for a copy of all papers,
letters and documents of every kind relating to the dismissal of Albert McHeffey from
the position of postmaster at Shubenacadie, County of Hants. Presented March 2, 1914.
— Mr. Macdonald Not printed.

44 (4/). Return to an Order of the House of the 11th February, 1914, for a copy of all papers,
letters and documents of every kind relating to the dismissal of C. Stewart McPhee from
the position of postmaster at Enfield, County of Hants. Presented March 2, 1914. —
Mr. Macdonald Not printed.

44 (4'H). Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a return showing in
detail the number of dismissals from public offices and positions of employment by the
present Government since the first day of February, 1913, to date, in the County of
Westmor'-and, Xew Brunswick, in connection with any of the departments of the public
service, except the Post Office Department ; together with the names of the dismissed
officials or employees, the reasons for their respective dismissal, the complaints or
charges against them, and by whom made ; together with a copy of all correspondence,
lette: s, telegrams and other communications with respect to each such case of dismissal,
and of all minutes of evidence of investigations, where any such were held, and of all
reports relating to such dismissals now in the possession of any of the departments of
the government, or of the Government Railway Managing Board, or of the officials of
the Intercolonial and the Prince Edward Island Railways ; also the names of all parties
appointed to fill the vacancies caused by such dismissals, and the names of the persons
by whom the same have been respectively recommended for appointment ; together with
a detailed statement of all amounts and expenses paid by any department in connection
with the said dismissals and investigations or removals from office. Presented March
3, 1914. — Mr. Emmerson Not printed.

44 (4n). Return to an Order of the House of the 1.5th January, 1913, for a copy of all letters
documents, telegrams, reports, correspondence and recommendations in any way relating
to the dismissal of D. Dishaw, employee of the Marine shipyard at Prescott," OntaricT.
Presented March 3, 1914. — Mr. Turriff ." Not printed.

44 (40). Return to an Order of the House of the 11th February, 1914, for a copy of all papers,
letters and documents of every kind relative to the dismissal of A. Michael Russell frorn
the posi;\on of caretaker of the drill hall at Windsor, County of Hants. Presented
March 3, 1914. — Mr. Maclean (Halifax) Not printed.

44 (4p). Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a copy of all charges,
correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents relating to the dismissal of Mr.
A. Goyette, postmaster at St. Valerien de Milton, Shefford County, Quebec, and of the
evidence taken, and of the reports of investigation held by Dr. "W. L. Shurtleff in regard
to the same. Presented March 5, 1914. — Mr. Boivin Not printed.

44 (4fy). Return to an Order of the House of the 21st April, 1913, for a copy of the evidence
and report in the investigation held by Mr. TV. A. E. Flynn, in the case of P. D. Bour-
dages, keeper of the lighthouse at Bonaventure Point, Quebec, of the charges made
against the said Bourdages by Ovide Bourdages, Raymond Bourdages, Pierre Henry,
J. A. Mousseau and D. Champoux. Presented March 5, 1914. — Mr. Marcil (Bonaven-
ture) Not printed.

44 (4r). Return to an Order of the House of the 21st April, 1913, for a copy of the charges
made by Messrs. W. S. Montgomery, J. I. Boudreau, N. Bourg, J. A. Mousseau. N. Boud-
reau, against Louis Bujold, keeper of the lighthouse at Carleton Point, Quebec. Pre-
sented March 5, 1914. — Mr. Marcil (Bonaventure) Not printed.

44 (4s). Return to an Order of the House of the 11th February, 1914, for a return showing
reasons for the dismissal of Mr. Shinbine, caretaker of the Immigration Hall at Edmon-
ton, the date of his appointment and of dismissal, and salary at time of dismissal ; also
the name of caretaker appointed in his place, with date of appointment, salary and
qualifications. Presented March 6, 1914. — Mr. Oliver Not printed.

63433—3 33

4-5 George Y. Alphabetical Index to Sessional Papers. A. 1914:

CONTENTS OF VOLTJME 28— Continued.

44 (it). Return to an Order of the House of the 11th Feliruary, 1914, for a return showing thf>
re:\sons for the dismissal of Mr. Webster, immigration agent at Edmonton ; tlie date of
his appointment and of dismissal, and salary at time of dismissal ; also the name of
the agent appointed in his place, with date of appointment, salary and qualifications?
Presented March 6, 191-1.— ilfr. Oliver Not printed.

44 (in). Return to an Order of the House of the 11th February, 1914, for a return showing
rea.Tons for '.he dismissal of Jacob Mohr, interpreter for the immigration agency at
Edmonton ; the date of his appointment and of dismissal, and salary at time of dis-
missal ; also the name of the interpreter appointed in his place with date of appoint-
ment, salary and qualifications. Presented March 6, 1914.— .1/r. O/t'ver Not printed.

44 (•;!). Return to an Order of the Houe of the 11th Februarj', 1914, for a return showing
reasons for the dismissal of Mr. P. Tomkins, Dominion Lands Agent at Grouard, the
date of h:s appointment and of dismissal, and salary at time of dismissal ; also the
name of agent appointed in his place, with date of artpointment and salary. I'resented
March G, 1914. — Mr. Oliver Not printed.

44 (4tt). Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a copy of all docu-
ments bearing upon dismissals and appointments of officials of the Inland Revenue
Department in Bonaventure County since January 1. 1913, to date; together with
a statement showing the salaries, emoluments and amounts paid to the new appointees
since appointment, compared with amounts paid officials for corresponding periods in
1911 and 1912. Presented March 6,1914. — Mr. Marcil (Bonaventure) ... .Not printed.

44 (4.r). Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a copy of all
charges, correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents relating to the dis-
missal of Mr. Arthur Dupuis, postmaster at Pontbriand, County of Megantic, Quebec,
and of the evidence taken and. of the reports of investigation held by Dr. W. L. Shurt-
leff in regard to the same. Presented March 6, 1914.. .Mr. Pacaud Not printed.

44 (-13/). Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a copy of all
correspondence, letters, telegrams, petitions and other documents relating to the dis-
missal of Jos. Serguis Archambault, as postmaster of the town of Terrebonne, and to
the appointment of George Beausoldeil, as his successor. Presented March G, 1914.
Mr. Seguin Not printed.

44 (4.::). Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a copy of all
correspondence, letters, telegrams, reports and all other papers relating to the dis-
m ssal of Martin Lanigan, postmaster at Sexton, County of Kent, New Brunswick, and
of the minutes of evidence of any investigation or inquiry held relating to the said
dismissal, and of all and any charges and recommendations connected therewith ; also
a copy of all letters written to the Postmaster General or to any official of the Post
OfTice Department, by F. J. Robidoux, M.P., or by any other person relating to the said
dismissal. Presented March 6, 1914. — Mr. Emmcrsoii Not printed.

44 (50). Peturn to an Order of the House of the 2nd February. 1914, for a copy of all docu-
ments, letters, correspondence and petitions asking for the dismissal of Mr. Felix Ray-
mond, postmaster at Ste. Scholastique Village, County of Two ^Mountains, together with
everything in connection with such dismissal. Presented March 6, 1914. — Mr. Ethier.

Not printed.

44 (56). Return to an Order of the House of the IGth February, 1914, for a copy of all
papers in connection with the sub-lands agency in Gravelburg, Saskatchewan. Pre-
sented March 10, 1914. — Mr. Knowlcs Not printed.

44 (5c). Further Supplementary Return to an Order of the House of the 3rd March, 1913,
for a rt-tuin showing in detail the number of dismissals from public offices and
positions of employment by the present Government since the 11th of October, 1911, to
this date. In the County of King's, Province of Nova Scotia, in connection with any of
the departments of the public service, not including cases in which orders have already
passed; together with the names of the dismissed offici.als or employees, the teason for
their respective dismissals, the complaints or charges against them, and by whom made;
together with a copy of all correspondeni'e, letters, telegrams and other communications
with respect to each such case of dismi.^sal, and of all minutes of evidence of investi-
gations, where any such were held, and of all reports relating to such dismissals now
in the possession of any of the departments of the Government, also the names of all
parties ai)po nted to fill the vacancies caused by snch dismissals, and the names of the
persons by whom the same have been respectively recommended for appointment;
together with a detailed statement of all amounts and expenses paid, or to be paid, by
a*ny department in connection with the said dismissals and investigations or removala
from otflce. Presented March 10, 1914. — Mr. McKrnzir Not printed.

44 (5fl). Return to an Order of the House of the 11th February, 1914, for a copy of all
papers, telegrams, correspondence and petitions in any way referring to the dismissal
of the postmaster at Ainslie Glen, Inverness County, and the appointment of Neil
MeKinnon to said office. Presented March 12, 1914. — Mr. Chisholin (rnvcrnrss).

N«t printed.

4-0 George V. Alphabetical Index to Sessional Papers. A. 1914

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 28— Continued.

44 (5e). Return to an Order of the House of the 9th February, 1914, for a copy of all
papers, documents, correspondence, letters, &c., since October 1, 1911, relating to the
appointment of a postmaster at Upper Ohio, Shelburne County, N.S. Presented March
12, 1914. — Mr. Maclean (Halifax) Not printed.

44 (5/). Return to an Order of the House of the 9th February, 1914, for a copy of all
papers, documents, correspondence, letters and telegrams, relating to the dismissal of
Jo.?. H. Lefebvre. postmaster at Howick Station, County of Chateauguay, and the
appointment of his successor. Presented March 12, 1914. — Mr. Robb Not printed

44 (5(7). Return to an Order of the House of the 11th February, 1914, for a copy of all
correspondence, letters, telegrams, petitions and other documents in any way connected
with the dismissal of the postmaster at Alexander, Inverness County, and the appoint-
ment of a successor. Presented March 12, 1914. — Mr. Chisholm (.Inverness).

Not printed.

44 (5/i). Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a copy of all
correspondence, letters, telegrams and documents of all kinds in possession of the
Government or any departm.ent thereof, in any way relating to the employment of and
dismissal from the Geological Survey of Canada of N. H. McLeod, North East Margaree,
Inverness County, M.S. Presented ilarch 12, 1914. — Mr. Chisholm (Inverness).

Not printed.

44 (5i). Return to an Order of the House of the 15th January, 1913, for a copy of all letters,
documents, telegrams, reports, correspondence and recommendations in any way relating
to the dismissal of M. Barry, from the service of the Marine Department at Prescott,
Ontario. Presented March 17, 1914. — Mr. Letmcux Not printed.

44 (5;). Return to an Order of the House of the 15th January, 1913, for a copy of all
letters, documents, telegrams, reports, correspondence and recommendations in any way
relating to the dismissal of W. Granton, from the service of the Marine Department at
Prescott, Ontario. Presented March 17, 1914. — Mr. Thomson (Qu'Appelle).

Not prtnfed.

44 (5fc). Return to an Order of the House of the 9th February, 1914, for a copy of all letters,
and telegrams in connection with the dismissal of the postmaster at Fletwode,
Saskatchewan, and the changing of the location of the said post office. Presented
March 17, 1914. — Mr. Turriff Not printed.

44 (50- Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a return showing in
detail the number of dismissals or removals from office from 1st February, 1913, of
postmasters in the County of Westmorland, Xew Brunswick ; together with the naimes
of the dismissed postmasters, or postmistresses, the reason of their dismissal, and a copy
of the charges or complaints against such officials respectively, and of all correspondence
with respect to the same ; and of all correspondence, recommendations, petitions, pro-
tests and other documents, and of all notes of evidence and of the reports of investiga-
tions, where such were held, relating thereto, or to the appointment of successors to fill
such offices respectively ; and also the names of all persons appointed to fill the vacancies
caused by such dismissals, and of the persons by whom the same respectively were
recommended for appointment. Presented ;March 17, 1914. — Mr. Emmerson.

Not printed.

44 (5w). Return to an Order of the House of the 16th February, 1914, for a return show-
ing the name of the postmaster of the Parish of St. Henri de Lauzon, County of Lfivis,
who, it is said, was dismissed from office since September. 1*911, the reasons for such
dismissal, the nature of the complaints made against him, the names of the parties who
made those complaints, together with a copy of all correspondence and telegrams relat-
ing thereto, the name of the inquiring commissioner, and report of investigation, if any,
and of all evidence taken at the investigation, the names of those who recommended the
successor, names of the parties by whom the Government was represented at such
investigation, with a detailed statement of all the accounts paid or to be paid by any
department in connection with the aforesaid dismissal and investigation, the names of
the parties who received any money or filed their accounts in connection with said
investigation, and the amount awarded ,to or claimed by each of them* Presented
March 17, 1914. — Mr. Boia-assa Not printed.

44 (5n). Return to an Order of the House of the 23rd February, 1914, for a copy of all letters,
petitions, telegrams, evidence, reports, papers and documents, in the possession of the
Post Office Department, or any other department, relating to the dismissal of Geo.
Skates, postmaster at Appin, Ontario ; and if there was an investigation, the name of
the investigator and witnesses, a copy of the evidence and of letters, papers, petitions,
recomm.endations and other documents connected with the appointment of Mr. Skates'
successor. Presented March 17, 1914. — Mr. Ross Not printed.

44 <5o). Return to an Order of the House of the 9th March, 1914, for a copy of all charges,
concspondcnce, letters, telegrams and other documents relating to the dismissal of Geo.
J. Ryan and Charles Hamlin from the Canadian customs service at Newport, Vermont,
and of the appointment of Charles A. Boright and Frank S. Baker to the said positions.
Presented March 20, 1914. — Mr. Boivin Not printed.

63433— 3i 35

4-5 George V. Alphabetical Index to Sessional Papers. A. 1914

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2S— Continued.

44 (Zp). Return to an Order of the House of the 15th January, 1913, for a copy of all letters,
documents, telegrams, reports, correspondence, and recommendations, in any way relat-
ing to the dismissal of J. Shaver, employee of the Marine shipyard at Prescott, Ontario.
Presented March 20, 1914.— 3fr. Law Not printed.

44 (Sg). Return to an Order of the House of the 15th January, 1913, for a copy of all letters,
documents, telegrams, reports, correspondence, and recommendations in any way relat-
ing to the dismissal of R. I^unay, employee of the Marine shipyard at Prescott, Ontario.
Presented March 20, 1914. — Mr. Crirroll Not j}rintrd.

44 (5r). Return to an Order of the House of the 15th January, 1913, for a copy of all letters,
documents, telegrams, reports, correspondence, and recommendations in any way relat-
ing to the dismissal of J. Slattery, employee of the Marine shipyard at Prescott, Ontario.
Presented March 20, 1914. — Mr. Belaud Not printed.

44 (5s). Return to an Order of the House of the 15th January, 1913, for a copy of all letters,
documents, telegrams, reports, correspondence, and recommendations in any way relat-
ing to the dismissal of J. Walsh, employee of the Marine shipyard at Prescott, Ontario.
Presented March 20. 1914. — 3Ir. Chishohn (.Inverness) Not printed.

44 (50- Return to an Order of the House of the 15th January, 1913, for a copy of all
letters, documents, telegrams, reports, correspondence, and recommendations in any way
relating to the dismissal of W. Gerts, employee of the Marine shipyard at Prescott,
Ontario. Presented March 20, 1914. — Mr. Wilson (Laval) Not printed.

44 (5»). Return to an Order of the House of the 15th January, 1913, for a copy of all letters,
documents, telegrams, reports, correspondence, and recommendations in any way relat-
ing to the dismissal of D. Boivard, employee of the Marine shipyard at Prescott. Ontario.
Presented March 20, 1914. — Mr. Kyte Not printed.

44 (5w). Return to an Order of the House of the 15th January, 1913, for a copy of all letters,
documents, telegrams, reports, correspondence, and recommendations in any way relat-
ing to the dismissal of G. Scott, employee of the Marine shipyard at Prescott. Ontario.
Presented March 20, 1914. — Mr. Nesbitt Not printed.

44 (5t«). Return to an Order of the House of the 15th January, 1913, for a copy of all letters,
documents, telegrams, reports, correspondence, and recommendations in any way relat-
ing to the dismissal of J. Offspring, employee of the Marine shipyard at Prescott
Ontario. Presented March 20, 1914. — Mr. Warnock Not printed.

44 (Sx). Return to an Order of the House of the 15th January, 1913, for a copy of all letters,
documents, telegrams, reports, correspondence, and recommendations in any way relat-
ing to the dismissal of J. Hayes, employee of the Marine shipyard at Prescott, Ontario.
Presented March 20, 1914. — Mr. Turriff Not printed.

44 (Sy). Return to an Order of the House of the loth January, 1913. for a copy of all letters,
documents, telegrams, reports, correspondence, and recommendations in any way relat-
ing to the dismissal of P. Belanger, from the service of the Marine Department at Pres-
cott, Ontario. Presented March 20, 1914. — Mr. Proulx Not printed.

44 (5s). Return to an Order of the House of the 15th January, 1913, for a copy of all letters,
documents, telegrams, reports, correspondence, and recommendations in any way relat-
ing to the dismissal of L. Place, employee of the Marine shipyard at Prescott, Ontario.
IMcsented March 20, 1914. — Mr. Pacaud Not printed,

44 (6«). Return to an Order of the House of the 15th January, 1913, for a copy of all letters,
documents, telegrams, reports, correspondence, and recommendations in any way relat-
ing to the dismissal of C. Kavanagh, employee of the Marine shipyard at Prescott,
Ontario. Presented March 20, 1914. — Mi: Carvell Not printed.

44 (6b). Return to an Order of the House of the 15th January, 1913. for a copy of all letters,
documents, telegrams, reports, correspondence, and recommendations in any way relat-
ing to the dismissal of .J. Roche, employee of the Marine shipyard at Prescott, Ontario.
Presented March 20, 1914. — Mr. Sinclair Not printed.

44 (6c). R*^turn to an Order of the House of the 15th January, 1913, for a copy of all letters,
documents, telegrams, reports, correspondence, and recommendations in any way relat-
ing to the dismissal of J. Mclnnis. employee of the Marine shipyard at Prescott. Ontario.
Presented March 20, 1914. — Mr. McCoig Not printed.

44 (6d). Return to an Order of the House of the 15th January, 1013. for a copy of all letters,
documents, telegrams, reports, correspondence, and recommendations in any way relat-
ing to the dismissal of E. Scott, employee of the Marine shipyard at Prescott, Ontario.
Presented March 29, 1914. — Mr. Demers Not printed.

44 (6e). Return to an Order of the House of the 15th January, 1913. for a copy of all letters,
documents, telegrams, reports, correspondence, and recommendations in any way relat-
ing to the di.^missal of C Wright, employee of the Marine shipyard at Prescott, Ontario.
Prosentcd March 20, 1914. — Mr. Clark (Red Deer) Not printed.

44 (6/). Return to an Order of the House of the 15th January, 1913, for a copy of all letters,
documents, telegrams, reports, correspondence, and recommendations in any way relat-
ing to the dismissal of L. Lalonde. employe* of the Marine shipyard at Prescott.
Ontario. Presented March 20, 1914. — Mr. Bureau Not printed.

26

4-5 George V. Alphabetical Index to Sessional Papers, A. 1914

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2S— Continued.

44 (&9). Return to an Order of the House of the 15th Jlanuary, 1913, for a copy of all letters,
documents, telegrams, reports, correspondence, and recommendations in any way relat-
ing- to the dismissal of H. Birks, employee of the Marine shipyard at Prescott, Ontario.
Presented March 20, 1914. — Mr. Charlton Not printed.

44 (6/i)- Return to an Order of the House of the I'oth January, 1913, for a copy of all letters,
documents, telegrams, reports, correspondence, and recommendations in any way relat-
ing to the dismissal of W. Jarvis, employee of the Marine sliipyard at Prescott, Ontario.
Presented March 20, 1914. — Mr. Gauvrcau Not printed.

44 (61). Return to an Order of the House of the 15th January, 1913, for a copy of all letters,
documents, telegrams, reports, correspondence, and recommendations in any way relat-
ing to the dismissal of J. McDermott, employee of the Marine shipyard at Prescott,
Ontario. Presented March 23, 1914. — Mr. Devlin Not printed.

44 (6i). Return to an Order of the House of the 27th January, 1913, for a copj of all letters,
documents, telegrams, reports, correspondence, and recommendations in any way relat-
ing to the disinissal of George L. Brown, officer in charge of the Dominion lighthouse,
Prescott Depot, Ontario, and the appointment of his successor. Presented Marcli 23,
1914. — Mr. Proulx Not printed.

44 (6fc). Return to an Order of the House of the 15th January, 1913, for a copy of all letters,
documents, telegrams, reports, correspondence, and recommendations in any way relat-
ing to the dismissal of J. Lane, employee of the Marine shipyard at Prescott, Ontario.
Presented March 23, 1914. — M,*. MacNutt Not prinfed.

44 (60. Return to an Order of the House of the 15th January, 1913, for a copy of all lettera,
documents, telegrams, reports, correspondence, and recommendations in any way relat-
ing to the dismissal of D. Perrin, employee of the Marine shipyard at Prescott, Ontario.
Presented March 23, 1914. — Mr. Lemieux Not printed.

44 (6m). Return to an Order of the House of the 15th January, 1913, for a copy of all letters,
documents, telegrams, reports, correspondence, and recommendations in any way relat-
ing to the dismissal of J. A. Mundle, employee of the Marine shipyard at Prescott,
Ontario. Presented March 23, 1914. — Mr. Maclean (Halifax) Not printed.

44 (6n). Return to an Order of the House of the 16th February, 1914. for a return showing
the name of the postmaster of the Parish of St. Lambert, County of Levis, who, it is
stated, was dismissed from office since September, 1911, the reasons for such dismissal,
the nature of the complaints made against him, the names of the parties who made
those complaints, together witli a copy of all correspondence and telegrams relating
thereto, the name of the inquiring commissioner, and report of investigation, if any,
and of all evidence taken at the investigation, the names of those who recommended the
successor, names of the parties by whom the Government was represented at such
investigation, with a detailed statement of all the accounts paid or to be paid by any
department in connection with the aforesaid dismissal and investigation, the names of
the parties who received any money or filed their accounts in connection with said
investigation, and the amount awarded to or claimed by each of them. Presented
March 23, 1914. — Mr. Bourassa Not pr nted.

44 (60). Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a return showing the
changes in postmasterships in Bonaventure County from January 1,'1913, to date, with
a list of dismissals, and reasons therefor, and of new appointments, also a copy of all
reports, correspondence, petitions and documents generally bearing on this subject ;
tcgetl^.er with a list of post office contracts cancelled in said constituency, with reasons
therefor, if any, and of new contracts awarded, with the old rate and the new, and
whether tenders were called for, in each case, and whether contracts were awarded to
lowest tenderer or not. Presented March 23, 1914. — Mr. Marcil (Bonaventure).

Not printed.

44 (6p). Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a return of all
reports, memorials, correspondence and documents generally, bearing on the dismissal
of customs officials in Bonaventure county from January 1, 1913, to date, together with
a statement of salaries paid to old and new officials, and a copy of recommendations on
which new officials were appointed, if any. Presented March 25, 1914. — Mr. Marcil
(Bonaventure) Not printed.

44 (6fi). Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a return showing in
detill the number of dismissals from office since October 1, 1911, not already brought
down, of postmasters in the County of Albert, New Brunswick, together with the names
of the dismissed postmasters, the reason of their dismissal,, and a copy of the charges
or complaints against such officials respectively, also a copy of all correspondence,
recommendations, petitions, protests and other documents, and of all notes of evidence
and of the reports of investigations, where such were held with respect to the same or
relating thereto, or to the appointment of successors to fill such offices respectively.
And also the names of all persons appointed to fill the vacancies caused by such d s-
midsals, and the names of the persons by whom the same were respectively reco.n-
m^nd-^id for appointment. Presented March 25, 1914. — Mr. Emmerson Not printed.

37

4-5 George V. Alphabetical Index to Sessional Papers. A. 1914

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2S— Continued.

44 (6r). Supplementary Return to an Order of the House of the 3rd March, 1D13, for a return
showing: in detail the number of dismissals from public offices and positions of employ-
ment by the present Government since the 11th day of October, 1911, to this date, in
the constituency of Queen's, Shelburne, Nova Scotia, in connection with any of the
departments of the public service, not including cases in which orders have already
been passed ; together with the names of the dismissed officials or employees, the rea-
son for their respective dismissals, the complaints or charges against them, and by
whom made ; together with a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other
communications with respect to each such case of dismissal, and of all minutes of evi-
dence of investigations, where any such were held and of all reports relating to such
dismissals now in the possession of any of the departments of the Government, also the
names of all parties appointed to fill the vacancies caused by such dismissals, and the
names of the persons by whom the same may have been respectively recommended for
appointment ; together with a detailed statement of all amounts and expenses paid by
any department in connection with the said dismissals and investigations or removals
from office. Presented March 26, 1914. — Mr. Law Not printed.

44 (6s). Supplementary Return to an Order of the House of the 10th December, 1912, for a
return showing all the public officers dismissed by the present Government in the elec-
toral district of Kamouraska, with the names and duties of such persons respectively,
the reason for their dismissal, the nature of the complaints brought against them, also
of all correspondence relating thereto and reports of inquiries in cases where such have
been held. Presented March 26, 1914. — Mr. Lapointe (KamourasVia.) Not printed.

44 (60- Return to an Order of the House of the 16th February, 1914, for a return showing the
name of the postmaster of the Parish of Notre Dame de Charny, County of Levis, who,
it is stated, was dismissed from office since September, 1911, the reasons for such dis-
missal, the nature of the complaints made against him, the names of the parties who
made those complaints, together with a copy of all correspondence and telegrams relat-
ing thereto, the name of the inquiring commissioner, and report of investigation, if any,
and of all evidence taken at the investigation, the names of those who recommended the
successor, names of the parties by whom the Government was represented at such inves-
tigation, with a detailed statement of all the accounts paid or to be paid by any depart-
ment in connection with the aforesaid dismissal and investigation, the names of the
parties who received any money or filed their accounts in connection with said investi-
gation, and the amount awarded to or claimed by each of them. Presented March 31,
1914. — Mr. Bourassa Not printed.

44 (6m). Return to an Order of the House of the 16th March, 1914. for a copy of all telegrams,
letters and correspondence in connection with the dismissal of Charles S. Melanson,
postmaster of Corberrie, Digby County, N.S. Presented April 1, 1914. — Mr. Law .

Not printed.

44 (6u). Return to an Order of the House of the 11th February,, 1914, for a return showing
reasrjis for the dismissal of Gordon McDonald, homestead inspector in the Grouard Land
Agency, the date of his appointment and of dismissal, and salary at time of dismissal ;
also the names of inspector appointed in his place, with date of appointment and salary.
Presented April 2, 1914. — Mr. Oliver Not printed.

44 (6u)). Return to an Address to His Royal Highness the Governor General of the 17th Feb-
ruary, 1913, for a copy of all letters, papers and documents relating to the appointment
of W. F. Slack as clerk of works in the Department of Public Works at Ottawa ; a
copy of the charges against the said W. F. Slack, which were investigated by Honour-
able F. D. Monk, and of all the letters suspending and re-instating the said W. F. Slack ;
of the employees memorial, dated May 11, 1912, and addressed to Honourable F. D.
Monk ; praying for the retention in office of the said W. F. Slack ; a copy of the charges
investigated by Commissioner R. V. Sinclair, of the evidence taken and the reports made
by the said commissioner ; and also of all correspondence, requests, recommendations
and orders in council relating to the dismissal of the said W. F. Slack. Presented April
2. 1914. — Mr. Murphy Not printed.

44 (ftx). Return to an Order of the House of the 28th April, 1913, for a copy of all correspond-
ence, memoranda, reports, telegrams, and of all documents whatsoever, in connection
with and having relation to the dismissal of William Brunelle. lighthouse keeper at
Pointe i\ Citrouille, County of Champlain, Province of Quebec. Presented April 2. 1914.
— Mr. Bureau Not printed.

44 (6j/). Return to an Order of the House of the 23rd March, 1914, for a copy of all documents,
correspondence, petitions, recommendations, &c.. In connection with the dismissal of
Arthur Levesque, light keeper at Grosse Isle. Kamouraska, and with the appointment
of his successor? Presented April 7, 1914. — Mr. Lnpointc (Kamouraska) . .Not printed.

44 (Gs). Return to an Order of the House of the 28th April, 1913, for a copy of all correspond-
ence, memoranda, reports, telegrams and all other documents whatsoever having refer-
ence to the dismissal of L. IhHippe Carignan, lighthouse keeper at Champlain, County
of Champlain. Presented April 2, 1914. — Mr. Bureau Not printed.

3-3

4-5 George V. Alphabetical Index to Sessional Papers. A. 1914

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 28— Continued.

44 (7fi). Return to an Order oft he House of the 2.3rcl March, 1914, for a copy of all documents,
petitions, correspondence, recommendations, investigations, &c., in connection with the
dismissal of Dominique Levesque, lightkeeper at Rivi§re Quelle wharf. County of
Kamouraska, and with the appointment of his successor. Presented April 7, 1914. — ■
Mr. Lapointe (Kamouraska) Not printed.

44 (7b). Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914 .for a return showing in
detail the number of dismissals from public offices by the present Government in the
electoral district of Shefford from the 1st of October, 1911, not already brought down
to the present date ; together with the names of the dismissed officers, the reasons for
their dismissal, the complaints against such officials, names of the complainants in each
case, and the names of tlieir successors in office. Presented April 16, 1914. — Mr. Boivin.

Not printed.

44 (7c). Supplementary Return to an Order of the House of the 10th December, 1912, for a
return showing all public officers removed by the present Government in the District of
Portneuf, together with the names and duties of each person, the reasons for their dis-
missal, the nature of the complaints brought against them, also a copy of all correspond-
ence relating thereto and reports of inquiries in cases where such were held. Pre-
sented April 16, 1914. — Mr. Delisle Not printed.

44 (7d)- Return to an Order of the House of the 4th February, 1914, for a copy of all corre-
spondence relative to the dismissal of Alex. W. Finlayson, keeper of light on St. Esprit
Island, Richmond County, N.S., and to his resignation and the appointment of a suc-
cessor. Presented April 17, 1914. — Mr. Kyte Not printed.

44 (7e). Return to an Order of the House of the 4th March, 1914, for a copy of all papers, evi-
dence, <&c., in connection with the investigation held by the Department of Marine and
Fisheries against the light keeper of Cape Cove, County of Gaspe, in 1911. Presented
April 17, 1914. — Mr. Lemieux Not printed.

44 (7/). Return to an Order of the House of the 16th February, 1914, for a copy of all tele-
grams, correspondence and documents of all kinds in any way relating to the dismissal
or suspension from duty of Dan Cormier, an officer in the life-saving station at Eastern
Harbour, Inverness County, Nova Scotia. Presented April 21, 1914. — Mr. Chisholm
(Inverness) Not printed.

44 (7^/). Return to Order of the House of the 16th February, 1914, for a copy of all documents
bearing on the appointment and dismissal of Ben. V. Willett, as light keeper at Point
Duthie. Quebec, and of the appointment of James Doddridge as his successor, as well
as of those bearing on the contemplated removal of that light to INIaria wharf. Pre-
sented April 21, 1914. — Mr. Marcil (Bonaventure) Not printed.

44 (7ft). Return to an Order of the House of the 12th February, 1914, for a return showing the
names of the postmasters who have been dismissed in the County of Levis since the
month of September, 1911 ; the number of the dismissed postmasters, since the month
of September, 1911. who have been appointed in the place of postmasters dismissed
under the late administration ; and the names of the postmasters who were dismissed
under the late administration. Presented April 22, 1914. — Mr. Boiirassa. .Not printed.

44 (7J)- Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd March, 1914, for a copy of all correspond-
ence, papers, documents, evidence, reports, telegrams, &c., relating to the dismissal of
John A. L. McLellan, late Light keeper at Fish Island, Prince Edward Island. Presented
Ap.il 28, 1914. — Mr. Hughes (Kings, P.E.I.) Not printed.

44 (7;). Return to an Order of the House of the 6th April, 1914, for a copy of all documents

bearing on the dismissal of Thomas Le Blanc, as postmaster of Allard. Bonaventure

County, and the appointment of his successor. Presented April 30, 1914. — Mr. Marcil

' (Bonaventure) Not printed.

44 (7fc). Return to an Order of the House of the 21st April, 1913, for a copy of all letters, tele-
grams, petitions, complaints, evidence, reports and other documents relating to the dis-
missal of William E. Ehler, Lightkeeper, Queensi")ort. N.S., also a detailed statement of
the expenses connected with the investigation, distinguishing the allowance paid the
commissioner from travelling expenses and witness fees ; and of all papers connected
with the appointment of Mr. Ehler's successor. Presented May 5, 1914. — Mr. Sinclair.

Not printed.

44 (7/). Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd March, 1914, for a copy of all letters,
petitions, telegrams, evidence, reports, papers and documents in the possession of the
Post Office Department, or any other Department, relating to the dismissal of Samuel
Dickson, postmaster at Seaforth, Ontario, and if there was an investigation, the names
of the investigator and witnesses, with a copy of the evidence and of all letters, papers,
petitions, recommendations, or other documents connected with the appointment of Mr.
Dickson's successor. Presented May 8, 1914. — Mr. Ross Not printed.

29

4-5 George V. Alphabetical Index to Sessional Papers. A. 1914

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2S— Continued.

44 (7m). Return to an Order of the House of the 6th April, 1914, for a copy of all petitions,
letters, complaints and other documents relating to the dismissal of Charles McPherson,
postmaster at North Riverside, County of Guysborough, N.S., and of all recommenda-
tions and correspondence relating to the appointment of his successor; also a copy of
all evidence and of the report of the investigation, if any, and a statement of the
expenses of said investigation. Presented May 8, 1914. — Mr. Sinclair Not printed.

44 (7m). Return to an Order of the House of the 9th March, 1914, for a copy of all letters, tele-
grams, petitions, notes of evidence, charges. If any, and other papers and documents
relating to the di.smissal of Christian L. Ehler, postmaster at Queensport, N.S., and of
all correspondence, petitions and other papers and documents relating to the appoint-
ment of his successor, with a detailed statement of the expenses of the said investiga-
tion, if any. Presented May 11. 1914. — Mr. Sinclair Not printed.

44 (7o). Return to an Order of the House of the 12th March, 1914, for a return showing: —

1. Whether Christian L. Ehler, postmaijter at Queensport, N.S., has been dismissed ;
and if so, when?

2. Whether the charges against this postmaster were in writing, and by whom the
said charges were signed?

3. Wliat the charges were?

4. Wlio conducted the investigation, if any?

5. Whether the investigation took place after the dismissal or before?

6. ^Whether the commissioner recommended the dismissal of this postmaster?

7. The names of fiie witnesses examined?

8. The expense of the investigation in detail?

9. If the Postmaster General is of the opinion that the evidence t-aken at the
Investigation justified this dismissal? Presented May 11, 1914. — Mr. Sinclair.

Not printed.

44 (7p). Return to an Order of the House of the 19th February, 1913, for a copy of all letters,
petitions, telegrams, complaints, findings, reports and other papers in the possession of
the Post Office Department, or any Department of the Government, relating to the dis-
missal or discharge of James White, postmaster at Sidney, British Columbi-a, and if
there was an investigation, the names of the witnesses examined and a detailed state-
ment of the expenses of such investigation ; also of all letters, telegrams, recommenda-
tions and other papers connected with the appointment of his successor. Presented
May 11, 1914. — Mr. Sinclair Not printed.

44 (7q). Return to an Order of the House of the 9th March, 1914, for a copy of the petition,
recommendations and other correspondence relating to the change in the location of the
poFt office at Mount St. Patrick in South Renfrew, and the dismissal of the postmaster.
Presented May 11, 1914. — Mr. Graham A^ot printed.

44 (7r). Return to an Order of the House of the 16th February, 1914, for a copy of all docu-
ments bearing on the dismissal of the officer in charge of the Port Daniel West, Quebec,
lobster hatchery, Edward Dea. and on the appointment of his successor. Presented
May 15, 1914. — Mr. Marcil (Bonaventure) Not printed.

44 (7s). Return to an Order of the House of the 20th April, 1914, for a copy of all correspond-
ence in connection with the dismissal of A. C. Cameron of Fairlight, Saskatchewan,
from his position as mail contractor. Presented May 16, 1914. — Mr. Turriff.

Not prlirled.

44 (70- Return to an Oi'der of the House of the 16th March, 1914. for a copy of all charges.
CO respondence, letters, petitions, telegrams and other documents relating to the dis-
missal of Mr. Geo. F. Payne, postmaster at Granby, Shefford County, Quebec, and of
the appointment of his successor, Mr. J. I^. Dozois. N.P., and also of the transfer of the
said office from the one to the other, together with a copy of the evidence taken at
all investigations held in connection with the said dismissal, appointment and transfer,
and of 'the reports of said investigations. Presented May 16, 1914. — Mr. Boiviyi.

Not printed.

44 (7u). Return to an Order of the House of the 30th March, 1914, for a return showing the
names of the postmasters who have lieen dismissed from the office since 1900. in the
County of Portneuf, the number of investigations and the names of those whose cases
were investigated. Presented May 16, 1914. — .If?-. Delisle Not printed.

44 (7t'). Return to an Order of the House of the 23rd March. 1914, for a copy of all letters.
<^''egrams, corresjiondence, complaints and protests on file, rcefrring to the dismissal of
the late postmaster at Havre Boucher, N.S., and to the appointment of a successor.
Presented May 16. 1914. — Mr. ChisJiolm (Antigonisfi) Not printed.

44 (7t«). Return to an Order of the House of the 6th April. 1914, for a copy of all documents,
investigations, reports and letters, concerning the dismiss^al of William Campbell, light
ke«-pcr on the whai f at New Richmond, Quebec, and the appointment of James Robert-
son as his successor ; together with a copy of recommendations and the letteis respect-
ing the appointment, if any. Presented May 29, 1914. — Mr. Marcil (Bonaventure).

Not printed.
40

i

4-5 George V. Alphabetical Index to Sessional Papers. A. 1914

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2S— Continued.

44 (Ta;). Supplementary Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a
return showing in detail the number of dismissals from public offices and positions of
employment by the present Government since the first day of February, 1913, to date,
in the County of Westmorland, N^w Brunswick, in connection with any of the Depart-
ments of the Public Service, except the Post Office Department, together with the
names of the dismissed offlcials or employees, the reasons for their respective dismissal,
the complaints or charges against them, and by whom made ; together with a copy of all
correspondence, letters, telegrams and other communications with respect to each such
case of dismissal and of all minutes of evidence of investigations where any such were
held and of all reports relating to such dismissals now in the possession of any of the
departments of the Government, or of the Government Railway Managing Board, or of
the officials of the Intercolonial and the Prince Edward Island Railways ; also the names
of all parties appointed to fill the vacancies caused by such dismissals, and the names
of the persons by whom the same have been respectively recommended for appointment ;
together with a detailed statement of all amounts and expenses paid by any department
in connection with the said dismissals and investigations or removals from office. Pre-
sented June 2, 1914. — Mr. Emmerson Not printed.

44 (7j/). Return to an Order of the House of the 14th April, 1913, for a return showing the
detail and number of dismissals from public offices in the Department of Marine and
Fisheries from December 5, 1912, to this date, in the County of Bonaventure, the names
of the dismissed occupants, the reasons for their dismissal, the complaints against such
- officials, and a copy of all correspondence with respect to the same, and of all reports
of investigations, where such were held ; as well as a list of the new appointments made
by the department, with names, residence, salaries and duties, and a copy of all recom-
mendations of such appointments. Presented June 2. 1914. — Mr. Marcil {Bonaventure) .

Not printed.

44 (7«). Return to an Order of the House of the 4th May. 1914. for a copy of all complaints
and otler documents bearing upon the dismissal of J. K. Denison as postmaster of Rich-
mond, Quebec, and the appointment of his successor. Presented June 2, 1914. — Mr.
Tobin Not printed.

44 (8a). Return to an Order of the House of the 4th May. 1914. for a copy of all correspond-
ence exchanged by and with the Department of Inland Revenue and the late J. G.
Mousseau and A. M. Coldwell. Xew Carlisle, Quebec, and David Champoux, Campbell-
ten. N.B , or Restigouche. Quebec, in connection with the dismissal of Arthur B. Cald-
well, Assistant Inspector of Weights and Measures, District of Quebec. Presented June
8. 1914. — Mr. Marcil A^of printed.

44 (8b). Su-^plementary Return to an Order of the House of the 3rd March, 1913, for a return
showing in detail the number of dismissals from public offices and positions of employ-
ment by the present Government since the 11th day of October, 1911, to this date, in
the County of Annapolis, Nova Scotia, in connection with any of the departments of
the public service, but not including cases in which orders have already passed together
with the names of the dismissed officials or employees, the reason for their i-espective
dismissals, the complaints or charges against them, and by whom made ; together with
a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other communications with respect
to each suclj case of dismissal, and of all minutes of evidence of investigations, where
any such were held, and of all reports relating to such dismissals now in the possession
of any of the departments of the government ; also the names of all parties appointed
to fill vacancies caused by such dismissals, and the names of the persons by whom the
same have been respectively recommended for appointment : together with a detailed
statement of all amounts and expenses paid by any department in connection with the
said dismissals and investigations or removals from office. Presented June S, 1914. —
Mr. Chtsholm (Antigonish) Not printed.

44 (8c). Partial Return to an Order of the House of the ISth February, 1914, for a copy of all
charges, complaints, memorials, correspondence and telegrams, not already produced,
relating to officials in any department of the Government since October 10, 1911, the
number of officials dismissed, reports of investigations held in respect of such charges,
items of expenditure and cost of eacli investigation, the names of persons appointed to
office in the place of dismissed officials, and of all recommendations received in behalf
of persons so appointed in the Province of Prince Edward Island. Presented June 12,
1914. — Mr. Hughes (.Kings, P.E.I.) Not printed.

44 (8ri). Return to an Order of the House of the 1st June, 1914, for a copy of all charges and
complaints, letters, telegrams and correspondence respecting the dismissal of Captain
Jeremiah Decoste, mate and craneman, employed on dredge No. C under Captain Dan
GilTs dui ing the season of 1912, and of all representations made and correspondence
had with the Department of Public Works, or any oificer thereof regarding his
re-instatement. Presented June 12, 1U14. — Mr. Chisholm (Antigonish) . . . .Not printed.

45. Return to an Order of the House of the 12th May, 1913, for a copy of all communications
made by the Canadian Forestry Association to the Government between March 31, 1912,
and March 31, 1913, with the replies made thereto. Presented January 19, 1914. — Mr.
Oliver Not printed.

41

4-5 George V. Alphabetical Index to Sessional Papers. A. 1911

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2S— Continued.

46. Return to an Order of the House of the 16th January, 1913, for k return showing the num-

ber of bushels of grain and sacl^s or barrels of flour which were shipped from Fort
William and Port Arthur by vessel during 1912, and the different kinds of grain respec-
tively ; to what points were the same shipped in Canada and the United States giving
cuantities and kinds respectively, and at what points in Canada was grain or flour
received by vessel from the United States, giving the quantities and kinds respectively.
Presented January 19, 1914. — Mr. Bennett (Simcoe) A'of printed.

47. Return to an Order of the House of the 7th May, 1913, for a copy of the report concerning

Indian Titles which was presented to the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs
under date of August 20, 1909. Presented January 19, 1914. — 3Ir. Thompson (Yiikon).

Not printed.

48. Copy of Order in Council Xo. P. C. 3002, dated 29th November, 1913, in respect to Pensions

or Gratuities to officers of the Royal Canadian Navy, in accordance with section 4 7 of
the Naval Service Act, 1910. Presented by Hon. Mr. Hazen, January 19, 1913.

Not printed.

49. Return to an Order of the House of the 26th May, 1913, for a copy of all telegrams, letters,

&c.. from the Department of Customs sent to or received from John C. Bourinot, Port
Hawkesbury, customs officer, during the years 1S95-6-7. Presented January 19, 1914.
— Mr. Chisholm (Invei-ness) Not printed.

49a.. Return to an Order of the House of the 26th May, 1913, for a return showing a complete
I'st of the seizures made by John C. Bourinot, during his incumbency as acting preven-
tive officer from 1S84 to 1S86 ; also during his term of office as Collector of Customs for
the Port of Hawkesbury from 1SS6 to 1S9S, also during his term of office of special
officer of customs from 1898 to 1912; with the date of each seizure, number of each
seizure, name of party from whom seizure was made, in case of vessels, the names of
the vessels ; also the names of the owners of such vessels, the amount of each seizure,
name of port where seizure was made, and the amount of the seizures made by him
from 1884 to May 1, 1912, for the whole Province of Nova Scotia. Presented January
19, 1914. — Mr. Chisholm (Inverness) Not printed.

50. Statement of Governor General's Warrants issued since the last session of parliament on

account of 1913-14. Presented by Hon. Mr. White, January 19, 1914 Not printed.

51. Statement in pursuance of Section 17 of the Civil Service Insurance Act, for the year ending

March 31, 1913. Presented by Hon. Mr. White, January 19, 1914 Not printed.

52. Statement of Superannuation and Retiring Allowances in the Civil Service during the year

ending December 31, 1913, showing name, rank, salary, service, allowance and cause of
retirement of each person superannuated or retired, also whether vacancy is filled by
promotion or by appointment, and salary of any new appointee. Presented by Hon.
Mr. White, January 19, 1914 Not printed.

53. Statement of Receipts and Expenditures of ihe Ottawa Improvement Commission to March

31. 1913. Presented by Hon. Mr. White, January 19, 1914 Not printed.

54. Statement of expenditure on account of " Miscellaneous Unforeseen Expenses." from the 1st

April, 1913, to the 14th January, 1914, in accordance with the Appropriation Act of
1912. Presented by Hon. Mr. White, January 19, 1914 Not printed.

55. Statement of the affairs of the Royal Society of Canada, for the year ended April 30. 1913.

Presented by Hon. Mr. White, January 19, 1914 Not printed.

56. Statement of Temporary Loans since March 31, 1913. Presented by Hon. Mr. White,

January 19, 1914 Not printed.

57. Slattment of Treasury Bills discounted since March 31, 1913. Presented by Hon. Mr.

White, January 19, 1914 Not printed.

58. Ceitified List of Shareholders of the Montreal City and District Savings Bank, and La

Caisse D'Economie de Notre Dame de Quebec, as on the 31st December, 1913. Pre-
sented by Hon. Mr. White, January 19, 1914 Not printed.

59. Copies of General Orders promulgated to the militia for the period between November 18,

1912. and November 25, 1913. Presented by Hon. Mr. Hughes. January 19. 1914.

Not printed.

60. Return to an Order of the House of the 30th April, 1913, for a copy of the report made by

the Inquiring Commissioner, Mr. J. H. Bergeron, in the inquiry lately held by him, at
Quebec, re Doctor J. D. Page, of Quebec ,and of the reports made by the advocate of
the complainant and defendant in the same cause at the request of the Inquiring Com-
missioner. Presented January 20, 1914. — Mr. Boulay Not printed.

61. Return to an Order of the House of the 26th March, 1913, for a copy of all petitions,

reiioi'ts, recommendations, correspondence, letters, telegrrams and other communications
ccnc?rniiig the east half of sef'tion 36, in township 6, range 8, west of'the fourth meri-
dian. Presented January 20. 1914. — Mr. Buchunnn Not printed.

42

4-5 George V. Alphabetical Index to Sessional Papers. A. 1914

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2S— Continued.

G\a. Return to an Order of the House of the 24th February, 1913, for a copy of all memoranda,
letters, papers, or other documents in the possession of the Department of the Interior
relating to the X.W. J of 8-49-23-4, and the S.W. J of 7-49-28-4. Presented January
20, 1914. — Mr. Oliver Not printed.

62. Return to an Order of the House of the 22nd January, 1913, for a copy of all correspond-

ence, &c., exchanged between the ^Minister of Labour and the Canadian Pacific Railway
strikers on their application for a Board of Conciliation and Investigation. Presented
January 20, 1914. — 2Ir. Lemieux Not printed.

63. By-laws of the Moravian Indians of the Thames and Regulations of the Abenakis Indians

of St. Francis, approved by His Excellency the Administrator in Council on the 27th
March. 1913, and the 21st April, 1913, respectively. Presented by Hon. Mr. Coderre,
January 20, 1914 Not printed.

64. General Rules and Orders of the Exchequer Court of Canada made, respectively, on the 24th

September, 1913, and the 13th December. 1913. Presented by Hon. Mr. Coderre.
January 20, 1914 Not printed.

65. Regulations under " The Destructive Insect and Pest Act." — (Senate) Not printed.

66. Remis.?ion of Duties and refund under Section 92, Audit Act.— (Senate) Not printed.

67. Return to an Order of the House of the 19th May, 1913, for a return showing a compar-

ative and detailed statement of costs of production, maintenance, operation, and man-
agement, and receipts of the Dog Fish Reduction "Worlds at Clark's Harbour, N.S.. for
the years 1910, 1911 and 1912. Presented January 21, 1914. — Mr. Maclean (Halifax).

Not printed.

68. Return to an Order of the House of the 21st May, 1913, for a copy of all papers, letters,

documents, contracts, settleinents, records of settlements, and all other papers and docu-
ments in any way relating to tlie claim of the Rainy River Navigation Company against
the Government, arising out of a subsidy agreement for the operation of certain boats
between Fort Frances and Kenora for the season of 1911, or in connection with the
settlement of the said claim, or of the said subsidy. Presented January 21, 1914. —
Mr. Maclean ( York) Not printed.

69. Return to an Order of the House of the 31st March, 1913, for a copy of all correspondence,

letters, telegrams, reports, recommendations, certificates, and of all other documents
relating to the appointment of Mr. J. S. Jackson as superintendent of the Government
shipyards at St. Joseph de Sorel. Presented January 22, 1914. — Mr. Cardin.

Not printed.

70. Return to an Order of the House of the 29th January, 1913, for a copy of all letters, peti-

tioTiS, telegrams, complaints, reports, bonds of indemnity, and all other papers and docu-
ments in the possession of the Post Office Department, or any department of the Gov-
ernment, relating to the letting of a contract for carrying the mails between Sherbrooke,
County of Guysborough, N.S., and Moser's River, County of Halifax, N.S., during the
years 1911 and 1912. Presented January 22, 1914. — Mr. Sinclair Not printed.

70a- Return to an Order of the House of the 29th January, 1913, for a copy of all letters, and
other documents relating to the mail contract between Scotsburn Station and West
Branch, River .John, County of Pictou, in the year 1912. Presented January 22, 1914.
— Mr. Macdonald Not printed.

TOb. Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd April, 1913, for a copy of all correspondence,
reports and other documents relative to the mail contract between Scotsburn and West
Branch, River John, Pictou County, since October 1, 1911. Presented January 22, 1914.
— Mr. Macdonald Not printed.

70c. Return to an Order of the House of the 10th December. 1912, for a return showing (a)
each mail contract awarded since the 1.5th of October, 1911; (b) the name of the
tenderer in each case; (c) the figures of each tender; and (d) the name of each
party to whom such contract has been awarded. Presented January 22. 1914. — Mr.
Lemieux Not printed.

70d. Return to an Order of the House of the 15th Januarj', 1913, for a return showing a list of
the mail carriers whose contracts have been cancelled or renewed by the pre-
sent Government in the County of Two Mountains, the names of such persons, the
reasons for cancelling or renewing the said contracts, the former price and the pre-
sent price of the said contracts ; also a copy of all correspondence relating to the said
mail carriers. Presented January 22, 1914. — Mr. Ethier Not printed.

tOe. Return to an Order of the House of the 9th December, 1912, for a return showing all the
mail contracts made between the Post Office Department of Canada and any party or
parties, and cancelled before the maturity thereof from October 15, 1911, to the 15th of
November, 1912, designating such cancelled mail contracts by giving the name of the
conti actor, the amount of the contract, the period of the unexpired service, the name
of the district or districts, and the county and province wiierein the service was per-
formed, together with the reasons for such cancellation. Presented February 12, 1914.
— Mr. Maclean (H-clifax) Not pi-inted.

43

4-5 George V, Alphabetical Index to Sessional Papers. A. 1914

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2S— Continued.

70f- Return to an Order of the House of the 29th January, 1913, for a copy of all papers, and
documents of every nature and kind relating to a certain mail contract between Back
Shore and Pictou, County of Pictou, since the death of the late contractor D. G. McKay,
in 1912. Presented February 20, 1914. — Mr. Macdonald Not printed.

700- Return to an Order of the House of the 14th April, 1913, for a copy of the contract
between the Post Office Department and Napoleon Le Blanc, for the carrying of the
mails between Carleton Centre and Carleton, Quebec, Railway Station, and of all
coi-respondence, petitions, and other letters bearing on the cancelling of that contract
and the awarding of a new one, with a copy of said new contract. Presented February
23, 1914. — Mr. Marcil (Bonaventure) Not printed.

70'^- Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd April, 1913, for a copy of all papers relating
to the mail contract from Noel to Walton, County of Hants, during the pi-esent year.
Presented February 26, 1914. — Mr. Macdonald Not printed.

TOi. Return to an Order of the House of the 12th May, 1913, for a copy of all tenders for, and
correspondence relating to, the awarding of the contract for the carrjing of His
Majesty's mail between Warkworth and Colborne, County of Northumberland. Pre-
sented P'ebruary 26, 1914. — Mr. Graham '. . . .Not printed.

70j. Return to an Order of the House of the 12th May, 1913, for a copy of all correspondence,
papers, &c., in connection with the carrying of the mail between St. Francois Xavier de
Brompton and Windsor Mills, Quebec. Presented February 26, 1914. — Mr. Tobin.

Not printed.

TOk. Return to an Order of the House of the 17th February, 1913, for a return showing the
number of mail contracts cancelled in the Province of Nova Scotia since October 10,
1911, the names of the conti-actors, the prices paid to them, the reason for the can-
cellation in each case, and a copy of any investigations and reports had into the causes
of such cancellations, the names of the new contractors and the prices paid to them in
each case. Presented March 2, 1914. — Mr. Sinclair Not printed.

701. Return to an Order of the House of the 4th December, 1912, for a return showin;:: the
number of mail contracts cancelled in the County of Pictou since the 1st of October,
1911 ; the names of the contractors, the prices paid to them, the reason for the can-
ce.lation in each case : and a copy of any investigations and reports had into the causes
of such cancellations, the names of the new contractors and the prices paid to th^^m in
each case. Presented March 2, 1914. — Mr. Macdonald Not printed.

70"i- Return to an Order of the House of the 31st March, 1913, for a copy of all tenders
received and of all letters, telegrams, papers and other documents relating to the mail
cont'-T^t between Tatnmapouche and BrulS Shore, Colchester County, during the pre-
sent year. Presented March 2, 1914. — Mr. Macdonald Not printed.

70"- Return to an Order of the House of the 9th December, 1912, for a copy of all letters, tele-
grams and correspondence referring to the tenders received and the contracts awarded,
if any, for the carrying of the mails between Antigonish and Livingstone Cove. Pre-
sented March 5, 1914. — Mr. Chisholin (Antifjonish) Not printed.

70o. Return to an Order of the House of the 19th May, 1913,*for a copy of all telegrams and
correspondence on file relating to the mail service between Antigonish and Livingstone
Cove, and of the tenders received, and the contract entered into for this service. Pre-
s.nted March 12, 1914. — Mr. Chisholm (Ajitigonish) Not printed.

70P- Return to an Address to His Excellency the Administrator of the 28th April, 1913, for a
copy of all documents, tenders, contracts, correspondence, orders in council, &c., in
reference to the mail service between Bridgetown, Port Lome and Hampton, Parker's
Cove, Annapolis County, N.S., for which service tenders were recently solicited. 'Pre-
sented March 12. 1914. — Mr. Maclean (Halifax) Not printed.

70</- Return to an Order of the House of the 9th February, 1914, for a copy of the advertise-
ment for tenders, and of the tenders received, and of the contract awarded last year,
for the cairying of the mails between Antigonish and Livingstone Cove, and of all
letters, te egrams. correspondence and documents in any way relating thereto. Pre-
sented March 12, 1914. — Mr. Chishohii (Antigonish) Not printed.

70r. Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February. 1914, for a return showing the
names of all ]>ersons tendering, the amount of tender, and to whom awarded in 1913,
fo.- the ( arriaj^e of mails covering the following mail routes in Shelburne County. Nova
Scotia ; Shelburne to Jordan Bay and Jordan Ferry and return : Clyde River to L'pper
Clyde and return : Lower Woods Harbour to Charlesville and return ; Port Le Herbert
to Sable River. Presented March 20, 1914. — Mr. .Maclean (Halifax) Not printed.

70S- Return to an Order of the House of the 9th February, 1914, for a cojjy of all tenders, con-
tract.s, documents, papers and correspondence in connection with lenders and contracts
for the carriage of mails between Bridgetown and Port Lome, Hampton and I'arkers
Cove, In 1912. I'resented March 20, LU. — Mr. Maclean (Halifax) Not printed.

u

4-5 George V. Alphabjtieal ludex to Sessional Papers. A. 1914

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2S— Continued.

70t. Return to an Order of the House of the 9th February, 1914, for a copy of the contract
entered into last year for the carrying of the mails between North Lochaber and Col-
legeville, and of all letters, telegrams, and correspondence referring to said service and
the awarding of said contract. Presented March 23, 1914.— J/r. Chisholm (Antigonish).

Not printed.

70!'. Return to an Order of the House of the 9th February, 1914, for a copy of the advertise-
ment for tenders, and of the tenders received last year foi the carrying of the mails
between Merigomish and Malignant Cove, and of all letters, telegrams and correspond-
ence and documents in any way relating thereto. Presented March 25, 1914. — Mr.
Chisholm {Aiitigonish) Not printed.

70v. Return to an Order of the House of the 19th March, 1914, for a return showing how many
mail contracts have been cancelled in the County of Inverness from September, 1911,
up to date.

2. The route of each contract, the name of the contractor, and the amount of each
contract.

3. The reasons for cancelling the several contracts. Presented April 22, 1914. —
Mr. Chisholm (^Inverness) xot printed.

70it'- Return to an Order of the House of the 30th March, 1914, for a copy of all letters, tele-
grams, correspondence, guarantee bonds, and other documents and security relating to
the renewal of the contract with George A. Stewart for carrying mail between North
Lochab.r and West Lochaber, in or about the month of May, 1913, of the subsequent
cancellation of said renewal contract, and of the contract made with Hugh D. Cameron
for said service. Presented April 29, 1914. — Mr. Chisholm (Aniigonish) . .Not printed.

70^- Return to an Order of the House of the 4th M.arch, 1914, for a copy of all correspondence,
telegrams and papers generally concerning the increased railway mail subsidy recently
agreed upon by the Postmaster General and the various railway companies. Presented
Ap:il 30, 1914. — Mr. Lemieux Not printed.

70j/- Return to an Order of the House of the 4th May, 1914, for a return showing the names
of the 82 tenderers for the carrying of the mails between Baie St. Paul and Murray
Bay, County of Charlevoix, and the amount of the tender in each case. Presented May
8, 1914. — Mr. Lemieux. Not printed.

70«- Retun to an Order of the House of the 20th April, 1914, for a copy of all letters, papers,
contracts, memoranda and other documents relative to the mail contract between
Pictou post office and railway station, between the Post Office Department and Peter
Foley. Presented l\lay 8, 1914. — Mr. Macdonald Not printed.

70 {2a . Return to an Order of the House of the 23rd March, 1914, for a copy of all documents,
letters, recommendations, &c., in connection with a contract awarded to Christophe
Lavesque, of St Eleuthere, for the corveyance of the mail betTseen St. Eleuthere and
Sully. Presented May 11, 1914. — Mr. LrCipointe (Kamouraska) Not printed.

70 (2b). Return to an Order of the House of the 11th May, 1914, for a return showing: —

1. "Whether Mr. David Armstrong, mail carrier of the City of Sherbrooke, has
been dismissed. If so, for what cause?

2. Whether an investigation was held at which he was given an opportunity of
meeting his accusers and being heard in his own defence?

3. How many years Mr. Armstrong has been in the service?

4. \Yhat remuneration he was receiving for his services?

5. Whether a successor has been appointed? If so, what his name is, who recom-
mended him and what remuneration he received. Presented May 28, 1914. — Mr.
McCrea Not printed.

70 (2c). Return to an Order of the House of the 18th May, 1914, for a copy of all correspond-
ence, papers, tenders and other documents in any way referring to the transfer from
J. A. Campbsll to Alexander Macdonnell of the contract for carrying the mail from
Port Hood to South West Port Hood. Presented June 2, 1914. — Mr. Chisholm (Inver-
ness) Not printed.

70 (2(0- Return to an Order of the House of the 17th February. 1913, for a return in duplicate
showing tl.e number of mail contracts cancelled in the Counties of Westmorland, Albert,
K ngs and Kent, Province of New Brunswick, since October 9, 1911, the names of the
conti actors, the prices paid to them, the reason for the cancellation in each case, and
a copy of any investigations and reports had into the causes of such cancellations, the
names of the new contractors, and the prices paid to them in each case ; and in cases
where tenders were asked and received preliminary to such new contracts, a statement
in duplic.ite showing names of the tenderers, with the offers made by each, the name
of the successful tenderer, and the amount or price, for whicli contract was executed in
each ca.se ; together with a copy in duplicate of all letters, correspondence and other
com.munications relating to each such cancellation and the giving of any new contract.
Presented June 2, 1914. — Mr. Emmerson Not printed.

45

4-5 George V. Alphabetical Index to Sessional Papers. A. 1914

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2S— Continued.

71. Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd June, 1913, for a copy of all correspondence

and telegrams relating to complaints, political or otherwise, made against Mrs. Mar-
celline Roy, postmistress at Elm Tree, Gloucester County, N.B., which led the depart-
ment to issue an order for an investigation, and the said postmistress to tender her
resignation, and to the appointment of her successor. Presented January 22, 1914. —
Mr. Turgeon Not printed.

72. Return to an Order of the House, of the 26th March, 1913, for a copy of all petitions

recommendations, correspondence, letters, telegrams and other communications concern-
ing the change in location of the post office known as Masinasin, Province of Alberta.
Presented January 22, 1914. — Mr. Buchanan Not printed.

73. Return to an Order of the House of the 31st March, 1913, for a copy of a\l letters, tele-

grams and petitions concerning the closing of the Moulin Basinet post office. Parish of
St. Jean de Matha, County of Joliette. Presented January 22, 1914. — Mr. Lemieux.

Not printed.

74. Return to an Order of the House of the 7th April, 1913, for the production of one sample of

a patented lock and key sold by the Ontario Equipment Company of Ottawa to the Post
Office Department. Presented January 22, 1914. — 3Ir. Verville Not printed.

74a- Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd April, 1913, for a copy of all correspondence
between the Post Office Department and Alleyn Taschereau, advocate of Quebec, con-
cerning the purchase of new locks for the mail bags. Presented January 22, 1914. —
Mr. Carvell ; Not pnnted.

74&- Return to an Order of the House of the 4th March, 1914, for a copy of the application,
correspondence and papers generally concerning mail lock patent No. 151043. Pre-
sented May 11, 1914. — Mr. Lemieux Not printed.

75. Return to an Order of the House of the 10th February, 1913, for a copy of all letters, tele-

grams and other correspondence exchanged between the Post Office Department and
Messrs. A. de Macdonald, Elzear Monpetit and all others, relating to the change of the
postmasters at He Perrot North and He Perrot South, Vaudreuil Station, Roquebrune.
St. Lazare Village, Mount Oscar and Pte. Fortune, and of the report of the inquiring
commissioner in each of the cases in which an inquiry was held ; of the correspondence
exchanged between the parties above named relative to the new post office building at
Rigaud and of correspondence exchanged between the parties above mentioned, relating
to the post offices lately named Choisy and Demartigny. Presented January 22, 1914. —
Mr. Boyer Not printed.

75«- Return to an Order of the House of the 9th April, 1913, for a copy of all documents bear-
ing on changes asked for in the postmastership of Port Daniel Centre, Avignon, New
Richmond and Black Cape, Bonaventure County ; and of all documents bearing on the
closing of Black Cape East post office, Bonaventure County. Presented January 22,
1914. — Mr. Marcil Not printed.

75&- Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a copy of all letters, tele-
grams, papers, and other documents connected with the removal of the post office from
the store of Alexander Robertson at Red Point, P.E.I. , to the store of J. E. Robertson
of the same place. Presented February 20, 1914. — Mr. Hughes (P.E.I.) . .Not printed.

15^. Return to an Order of the House of the 16th February, 1914, for a copy of any complaints
made against John A. Campbell, postmaster of New Richmond, Quebec, and of all corre-
sijondence bearing on any change called for in that office. Presented March 17, 1914. —
Mr. Marcil (Bonavcnti'ire) Not printed.

76. Return to an Order of the House of the 7th May, 1913, for a copy of all correspondence and

telegrams exchanged between the Post Office Department, the Government or any mem-
ber thereof, the post office inspector at St. John, N.B., or any official of the Post Office
Department at St. John, N.B., on the one hand, and the postmaster at Kouchibouguac,
Kent County, N.B., Mr. Cliff Atkinson, or any other person, corporation or firms, relating
to the sale or non-purchase of postage stamps, or the mailing of letters, delivery of
mail, &c., at the said post office ; together with a copy of all correspondence, reports
and other papers and documents in any wise relating thereto, on file in the Post Office
Department at Ottawa, or in the office of the post office inspector at St. John, N.B. ;
also a copy of all regulations or orders of the Post Office Department relating to the
sale of jiostagc stamps, or the mailing of letters, or the delivery of mails, or generally
as to the use of post office by residents and non-residents. Presented January 22,
1914. — Mr. Emmerson ^ Not pnnted.

77. Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd June. 1913, for a return showing the names,

dates of appointment and salary respoctively, of the employees of the ^loosejaw post

office. Presented January 22, 1914. — Mr. Knotvlcs Not printed.

77a. Return to an Order of the House of the 24th February, 1913, for a copy of all letters,
telegrams, recommendations, petitions and documents, relating to the appointment of
Mr. Pierre Cournoyer as postmaster at St. Pierre de Sorel, County of Richelieu. Pre-
sented January 22, 1914. — Mr. Cardin Not printed.

4G

I

4-5 George V. Alphabetical Index to Sessional Papers. A. 1914

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2S— Continued.

77&- Return to an Order of the House of the l4th April, 1913, for a return showing what public
officers have been appointed in the City of Qubeec, in the Departments of Inland Revenue,
Post Office, Railways and the Transcontinental, Customs, Immigration, Marine and Fish-
eries, Public Works and Militia, since the 1st October, 1911, up to this date; together
with the names and duties of these persons, the dates of their appointment, the salary
pnid in each case and the increases granted since; also the date of these increases, and
which ones of these officers have passed the Civil Service examinations required for the
positions which they occupy, and on what dates they passed such examinations ; and
also a copy of all correspondence, requests, recommendations and reports relating to
the appointment of these officers. Presented January 22, 1914. — Mr. Lachance.

Not printed.

77c. Return to an Order of the House of the 29th January, 1913, for a copy of all letters, peti-
tions, telegrams, complaints, evidence, reports and other papers and documents in the
possession of the Department of Railways and Canals, or of the Intercolonial Railway,
or of the Government Railways Managing Board, relating or in any manner appertain-
ing to the appointment and employment of train or ticket agents on the Intercolonial
Railway and Prince Edward Island Railway, together with a copy of all statements
sliowing the amounts received by said agent, in cash and tickets, on the trains of the
respective divisions of said railways ; and also showing the amounts received during
corresponding periods for the past two years, in cash and tickets, on the same trains
on the said respective divisions by the conductors of said trains, when no train or
ticket agents were employed thereon, either before or since the employment of such
agents on the respective trains and also a copy of all statements showing the results of
the experiment in employing such ticket agents. Presented January 22, 1914. — Mr.
Emmcrson Not printed.

77f'- Partial Return to an Order of the House of the 9th December, 1912, for a return showing
when Mr. J. G. H. Bergeron was appointed commissioner to hold investigations, the
number of investigations held since his appointment, salary received in each case and
the amount paid for travelling expenses in each case. Presented January 22, 1914. —
.air. Lemieux Not printed.

lie. Return to an Address to His Royal Highness the Governor General of the 29th January,
1913, for a copy of all orders in council, memoranda or instructions issued to or written
to H. P. Ducheniin in connection with his appointment as a commissioner to coHduct
investigations regarding political partisanship in the Province of Nova Scotia ; also a
copy of all letters received by any department of the Government from the said H. P.
Duchemin relating to such investigations since the date of his appointment as such
commissioner, and all instructions of wiiatever nature at any time issued to him relat-
jjig to such investigations. Presented January 22, 1914. — Mr. Lemieux . . . .Not printed.

TJf. Appointment of F. Roy, as postmaster of St. Phillipe de Nery. &c., Province of Quebec.
Presented January 22, 1914. — Mr. Lapointe (Kamouraska) Not printed.

TJg. Supplementary Return to an Order of the House of the 9th December, 1912, for a return
showing when Mr. J. G. H. Bergeron was appointed commissioner to hold investigations,
the number of investigations held since his appointment, salary received in each case
and the amount paid for travelling expenses in each case. Presented February 23, 1914.
— Mr. Leynieux N'ot printed.

TTh. Return to an Order of the House of the 9th February, 1914, for a copy of all correspond-
ence, telegrams, and other documents, relating to the removal of T. J. Oliver, as
Dominion Lands Agent at Humboldt, Saskatchewan, his appointment to his present posi-
tion, and the appointment of his successor at Humboldt. Presented March 6, 1914. —
Mr. Neely Not printed.

77'- Return to an Order of the House of the 9th February, 1914, for a copy of all correspond-
ence, telegrams, letters of instructions, or other documents relating to the removal of
"W. S. McKechnie. as Dominion I>ands Agent at Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, and the
appointment of his successor. Presented March 6, 1914. — Mr. Neely Not printed.

TiJ- Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a copy of all correspond-
ence, telegrams and papers generally in connection with the appointment of Joseph
Lemieux as postmaster at Mont Louis, County of Gaspe. Presented March 6, 1914. —
Mr. Lemieux Not printed.

77^- Return to an Order of the House of the 7th April. 1913, for a copy of all correspondence,
telegrams, petitions, affidavits, complaints, certificates, recommendations, reports and
other documents relating to the engagement and appointment for the year 1913, of the
captains and first and second engineers for dredging machines Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. 7, 8,
9. 10 and 11 of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, under the control of the agency
at Sorel. and employed in the deepening of the St. Lawrence below Montreal. Return
to an Order of the House of the 7th April, 1913, for a copy of all correspondence, tele-
grams, petitions, affidavits, complaints, certificates, recommendations, reports and other
documents, relating to the engagement and appointment of the captains and engineers
for the year 1913, for the tugs Carmclia, Chainbly. Contrecoeur ,De Levis, Emilia, Iber-
ville, Jamns Hoioden. Jesse Hume, Lac St. Pierre, Lanoraie, Loihi-niere, Portneuf,
Varennes and Vercheres, of the Department of Marine and Fisheries under the control
of the agency at Sorel. Presented March 23, 1914. — Mr. Cardin Not prvnted.

4ri

4-5 George V. Alphabetical Index to Se&sioiial Papers. A. 1914

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 28— Continued.

771. Return to an Order of the House of the 23rd March, 1914, for a return showing: —

1. How many additional employees have been added to the Customs Department
in the City of Halifax, since October 10, 1911.

2. Their names and salaries at the tjme of their appointment, their respective
salaries at present, and also their respective ages at the time of appointment.

3. Whether all of them passed the necessary Civil Service examinations for the
Customs service.

4. How many temporary clerks there are upon the said Customs staff, who they
are, and the dates of their appointment. Presented April 2, 1914. — Mr. Maclean (Hali-
fax) Not printed.

77»i. Return to an Order of the House of the 28th April, 1913, for a copy of all letters and
telegrams exchanged between the Government and Messrs. Arch. Macdonald, Elz. Mon-
petit and others, on the subject of the appointment of caretakers of the post office at
Rigaud, Messrs. Jean Baptiste Charlebois and Napoleon Vallee. Presented April 2, 1914.
— Mr. Boyer Not printed.

77n. Return to an Order of the House of the 23rd February, 1914, for a copy of all correspond-
ence, recommendations, &c., relating to the appointment of Allan Morrison, St. Peter's,
N.S., as inspector of dwellings erected on Gregory Island, Richmond County, N.S., in
1912-1913, and of all accounts, charges, vouchers, &c., rendered to the Department of
Marine and Fisheries by the said Allan Morrison as such inspector. Presented April 7,
1914. — Mr. Kyte Not printed.

770. Return to an Order of the House of the 9th February, 1914, for a return showing the

names, date of appointment, length of service, remuneration and office held by each of
all the employees of the Department of the Interior in the outside service since January
1. 1912, to December 31, 1913, not given in the Civil Service list of 1912 or 1913. Pre-
sented April 21, 1914. — Mr. Neely Not printed.

77p. Return to an Order of the House of the 16th April, 1914, for a return showing: —

1. How many appointments have been made in the Customs Department at Mont-
real sinc« the 1st of October, 1911.

2. The names of the persons so appointed, and the dates of their respective appoint-
ments.

3. After what recommendations have they been appointed.

4. The salary of each of these new employees.

5. What increases of salaries have been granted in the same department since the
same date, and to whom, and why. Presented April 29, 1914. — Mr. Proulx.

Not printed.

771- Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a return showing the
number of engineers, assistant engineers, draftsmen, clerks, divers, and students in
engineering or surveying, or other parties employed by the Depaitment of Public Works
in the constituency of Bonaventure, from October 11, 1911, to date, with their names,
residences, salaries, nature of their work, time employed, and on whose recommendation,
together with a copy of all correspondence, and reports bearing on such employment,
and of reports made to the said Department of Public Works in that constituency from
January, 1913, to date. Presented April 30, 1914. — Mr. Marcil (Bonavent^n-e).

Not p7-inted.

77r. Return tc rn Order of the House of the 12th March, 1914, for a return showing: —

1. Whether Louis Philippe Thibault, Alnhonse Poirier, J. A. Morin. C. F. Rioux,

Thomas Thibault and Adjutor Demers, of L6vis. have been appointed to positions under

the control of the Postmastei General of Canada.

:'. If £0, to what posir.cns they ii?vo been appointed, what their duties are, when

they were appointed and their salaries, respectively.

3. The names of the officers who have been dismissed and replaced by the above.

4. The total amount of the annual salaries of said dismissed officers. Presented
May 4, 1914. — Mr. Boinassa Not printed.

77s. lieturn to an Order of the House of the 16th March, 1914, for a copy of all recommenda-
tions, protests, petitions, and representations received by the Government or any
Depai-tment or Minister thereof, regarling the api)ointment of the present collector of
cusionis at Antigonish. and of all the letters, telegrams and correspondence relating
thereto. Presented May 15, 1914. — Mr. Chisholm (Inverness) Not printed.

77 1. Return to an Order of the House of the 16th March, 1914, for a copy of all recommenda-

tions, i)rotests, petitions, and rei)resentations received by the Governmest or any Depart-
ment or Minister thereof, regarding the appointment of the present collector of customs
at Antigonish. and of all the letters, telegrams and correspondence relating thereto.
Presented May 16. 1914. — Mr. Chisholm (Antigonish) Not printed.

77". Return to an Order of the House of the 16th February. 1914. for a copy of all papers in
connection with the employment of Arthur Dubisson as immigration agent at Gravel-
burg. Sask , and all papers in conr.ev tion with the said Dubisson. showing the moneys
paid to him and the work perfoimed by him. I'resented May 30, 1914. — Mr. Knowlcs.

Not printed.
48

4-5 George V. Alphabetical Index to Sessional Papers. A. 1914

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2S— Continued.

78. Retuin to an Order of the House of the 7th April, 1913, for a copy of all documents, recom-

mendations and correspondence relating to the resignation of C. A. R. Desjardins, as
postmaster at St. Andre de Kamouraska, and the appointment of his successor. Pre-
sented January 22, 1914. — Mr. Lapointe (Kamouraska) Not printed.

78«- Return to an Order of the House of the 28th April, 1913, for a copy of all complaints or
churgres against Fred. R. Irish, postmaster at Afton, Antigonish County, N.S., and of
all correspondence on file in reference thereto. Presented January 22, 1914.— Jlf»-. Chis-
holm (Antigonish) Kot printed.

79. Return to an Order of the House of the 29th January, 1913, for a copy of all correspond-

ence, papeis, &c., concerning the application made by the Long Sault Development Com-
pany, with a view to dam the St. Lawrence river above the I^ong Sault rapids from the
American to the Canadian side. Presented January 22, 1914. — Mr. Lemicux.

Not printed.

79a- Supplementary Return to an Order of the House of the 29th January, 1913, for a copy of
all correspondence, papers, &c., concerning the application made by the Long Sault
Develo! ment Company, with a view to dam the St. Lawrence river above the Long
Sault rapids from the American to the Canadian side. Presented February 12, 1914. —
Mr. Lemieux Not printed.

80. Retuin to an Order of the House of the 21st April, 1913, for a return showing all leases

of water powers granted on the Winnipeg river, the dates of such leases, to wliom
granted, and the location of the water powers covered by each ; together with a copy
of all correspondence passing between the Government, or any member thereof and any
person or persons, with respect to such leases. Presented January 22, 1914. — Mr.
Martin (Regina) Not pointed.

80a. Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd April, 1913, for a return showing whether the
Government cancelled any svater lot leases on the Lachine Canal and, if so, the dates
of such cancellation ; the names of the lessees : length of time the cancelled leases were
in force, and the rental paid in each case ; the names of the lessees whose water lot
leases on the said canal have not been cancelled, and the rental paid by each ; the
basis on which rental has been calculated and the method to be followed in future ; the
reasons why some leases were cancelled and others allowed to remain in force ; and if
tenders are to be invited through the press for such water lot leases in future. Pre-
sented January 22, 1914. — Mr. Buchanan Not piinted.

80b. Return to an Order of the House of the 23rd April, 1913, for a return showing all leases
or permits granted to clubs or individuals to erect or maintain boat houses on the
Rideau canal between Laurier avenue bridge and Hartwells Locks, the date of such
leases or permits, to whom granted, and the rental in each case ; together with a copy
of all correspondence between the Government, or any member thereof, and any person
or persons with respect to such leases or permits and the cancellation thereof. Pre-
sented January 22, 1914. — Mr. Murphy Not printed.

80c. Supplementary Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd April, 1913, for a return show-
ing whether the Government cancelled any water lot leases on the Lachine canal and,
if so, the date of such cancellation ; the names of the lessees ; length of time the can-
cel'ed leases were in force, and the rental paid in each case; the names of the lessees
whose water lot leases on the said canal have not been cancelled, and the rental paid
by each ; the basis on which rental has been calculated and the method to be followed
in future ; the reasons why some leases were cancelled and others allowed to remain
in force ; and if tenders are to be invited through the press for such water lot leases in
future. Presented March 13, 1914. — .1/r. Buchanan Not printed.

80rf- Return to an Order of the House of the 23rd March, 1914, for a copy of the agreement for
a lease of water power on the Saskatchewan river at Rocky Rapids, Alberta, made with
the Edmonton Power Company, with information in detail as to the operations carried
on by the company to date. Presented April 21, 1914. — Mr. Oliver Not printed.

81. Retuin to an Order of the House of the 2Sth April, 1913, for a return showing a list of all

the newspapers in Canada in which advertisements have been inserted by the Govern-
ment, or any minister, officer or department thereof, between October 10, 1911, and the
present date, together with a statement of the gross amount paid therefor between the
above dates to each of said newspapers or to the proprietors of the same. Presented
January 22. 1914. — Mr. Sinclair ^ot printed.

81a. Partial Return to an Order of the House of the 30th April, 1913, for a return showing a
list of all newspapers in Canada in which advertisements have been inserted by the
Government, or any minister, officer or department thereof, between the 10th day of
October, 1906, and 10th October, 1907, and between said dates in each of the years fol-
lowing up to the 10th of October, 1911, together with a statement of the gross amount
paid therefor for the years mentioned, to each of the said newspapers or the proprietors
of the same. Presented January 22, 1914. — Mr. Thoi~nton Not printed.

63433—4 49

4-5 George V. Alphabetical Index to Sessional Papers. A. 1914

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2S— Continued.

81&- Supplementary Return to an Order of the House of the 30th April, 1913, for a return show-
ing a list of all the newspapers in Canada in which advertisements have been inserted
"nv the Government, or any minister, officer or department thereof, between the 1 0th
day of October, 1906, and 10th October, 1907, and between said dates In each of the
years following up to the 10th of October, 1911, together with a statement of the gross
amount paid therefor for the years mentioned, to each of the said newspapers or the
proprietors of the same. Presented April 1, 1914. — Mr. Thornton Not printed.

81c. Fuither Supplementary Return to an Order of the House of the 28th April, 1913, for a
return showing a list of all the newspapers in Canada in which advertisements have
been inserted by the Government, or any mini.ster, officer or department thereof, between
Octoper 10. 1911, and the present date, together with a statement of the gross amount
paid therefor between the above dales to each of said newspapers or to the proprietors
of the same. Presented April 2, 1914. — Mr. Sinclair Not printed.

81rf. Supplementary Return to an Order of the House of the 30th April, 1913, for a Return
showing a list of all the newspapers in Canada in which advertisements have been
inserted by the Government, or any minister, officer or department thereof, between the
10th day of October, 1906, and 10th October, 1907, and between said dates in each of
the years following up to the 10th of October, 1911 ; together with a statement of the
gross amount paid therefor for the years mentioned, to each of the said newspapers or
the proprietors of the same. Presented April 2, 1914. — Mr. Thornton. .. .Not printed.

81e- Return to an Order of the House of the 15th April, 1914, for a return showing how much
money has been paid by the Government, or any department thereof, since October 10,
1911, to the Herald Publishing Company of Halifax, N.S., for advertising, printing and
lithographing. Presented April 27, 1914. — Mr. Sinclair Not printed.

81/- Return to an Order of the House of the 4th February, 1914, for a return showing the
names of all printin.? and publishing companies, and newspapers in Nova Scotia to
whom any sum of money has been paid respectively, by any department of Government,
during the calendar years 1912 and 1913 respectively, and the nature of the service
rendered therefor. Presented April 29, 1914. — Mr. Maclean (Halifax) ... .Not printed.

81&. Supplementary Return to an Order of the House of the 28th April, 1913, for a return
showing a list of all the newspapers in Canada in which advertisements have been
inserted by the Government, or any minister, officer or department thereof, between
October 10, 1911, and the present date, together with a statement of the gross amount
paid therefor between the above dates to each of said newspapers or to the proprietors
of the same. Presented May 11, 1914. — Mr. Sinclair Not printed.

82. Return to an Order of the House of the 3rd February, 1913, for a copy of all letters, cor-

respondence, reports and other documents in the possession of the Department of Rail-
ways and Canals relating to an application by the Central Railway Company of Can-
ada to the Honourable Minister of Railways and Canals for the approval of their pro-
posed route between Hawkesbury and South Indian. Presented January 22, 1914. — Mi:
Pronlx Not printed.

83. Return to an Order of the House of the 9th December, 1912, for a copy of all documents.

papers, memoranda, rulings, findings, appeals and correspondence relating to any appeal
asserted from any decision, ruling or finding of the Board of Railway Commissioners erf
Canada to the Privy Council of Canada, and the action taken by the Privy Council
thereon. Presented January 22, 1914. — Mr. Maclean (Halifax) Not printed.

84. Return to an Order of the House of the 7th May, 1913. for a return showing the total cost

of the Klmira Branch Railway in Prince Edward Island ; the total amounts paid the
contractors. Whitehead Brothers ; the total amount paid by the Government after taking
the work off the contractor's hands, and showing the amount paid in wages each month,
the-jiames of the men to whom it was paid, the positions they lield, and the wages per
day to each ; also showing what materials were used, each kind and class, with the
cost of each, from whom purchased, and when, and the quantities left over, if any.
Presented January 22, 1914. — Mr. Hughes (P.E.I.) Not printed.

85. Return to an Order of the House of the 15th January, 1913, for a copy of all letters, tele-

grams, correspondence and documents referring in any way to the claim of the muni-
cipalities of Pictou, Antigonish, Guysboro and St. ISIary's for payment or refund to
them of the monies paid by said municipalities for the right of way of that part of the
Intercolonial Railway running through the Counties of Pictou, Antigonish and Guys-
boro. Presented January 22, 1914. — Mr. Chisholm (Antigonish) Not printed.

85a- Return to an Order of the House of the 12th May, 1913, for a copy of all claims made by
H. F. McDougall, of Grand Narrows, N.S., against the Intercolonial Railway, and of all
letters, telegrams and other documents in connection with the said claim or claims;
together with the particulars of said claims; the amount or amounts paid upon said
claim or claims ; the particular items of the claim or claims upon which payments. If
any, were made; the date of the filing of the claims and of the payment or payments
made thereon ; and the total amount paid on said claims or upon any other claims made
by the said H. F. McDougall against the said Intercolonial Railway or the (.overnment
of Canada. Presented January 22, 1914. — Mr. Smc/air Not printed.

50

p 4-5 George V. Alphabetical Index to Sessioniil Papers. A. 1914

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2S— Continued.

SSJ*. Return to an Order of the House of the 16th February, 1914, for a copy of all documents,
letters, petitions, telegrams and evidence heard, reports, &c., in connection with the
claims of Eugene Deniers and Joseph Olivier, of the parish of St. Nicholas, County of
I^evis, for damages arising out of flres caused by the Intercolonial Railway's locomo-
tives ; and, if investigations have been held, a copy of all evidence an-d documents relat-
ing thereto. Presented March 6, 1914. — Mr. Bourassa Not printed.

85c. Return to an Order of the House of the 27th April, 1914, for a copy of all letters, tele-
grams, reports, correspondence and documents relative to the claims made for damages
from a fire in the village of Hopewell, County of Pictou, which was occasioned by
sparks from a locomotive on the Intercolnial Railway. Presented May 13, 1914. — Mr.
Macdonalcl Not printed.

66. Return to an Order of the House of the 14th May, 1913, for a copy of all reports, corre-
spondence and other documents on file in the Department of Raiwlays and Canals, relat-
ing in anj- way to a suggested survey and construction of a line of railways from
Country Harbour, Guysborough County. N.S., to Cape George, N.S., or any other point
in Antigonish County. Presented January 22, 1914. — Mr. Chisholm (Antiponish).

Not printed.

86a. Return to an Order of the House of the 29th January, 1912, for a copy of all letters,
written to the Right Honourable tlie Prime Minister, the Honourable the Minister of
Railways and Canals, or any other member of the Government since October 10, 1911,
by S. R. Griffin. Goldboro. N.S., John S. Wells, White Head, N.S., and G. A. R. Row-
lings, Sydney. X.S., relating to the construction of a branch line of the Intercolonial
Railway into the County of Guysboro. X.S., also of the replies to the same. Pre-
sented January 22, 1914. — Mr. Siticlair Not printed.

87. Return to an Order of the Hous^ of the 27th January, 1913, for a copy of the contract

entered into by C. R. Scoles, New Carlisle, Quebec, with the Department of Railways
and Canals for the completion of the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway between
Caplin and Paspebiac, and of the report of the engineers on such work, of details of
payments, and of all documents bearing on such matter. Presented January 22, 1914.
— Mr. Marcil Not printed.

88. Return to an Order of the House of the 21st May, 1913, for a copy of all documents, corre-

spondence, reports and inquiries, relating to an accident which occurred at Trois Pis-
toles, Intercolonial Railway on 10th September, 1912, respecting the death of Arsene
Ouellet, and the wounds inflicted on Joseph Gagnon, at the time that these two men
were struck by train No. 150 on the above date. Presented January 22, 1914. — Mr.
Boulay Not printed,

89. Annual Return respecting Trade Unions under Chapter l25, R.S.C., 1906. Presented by

Hon. Mr. Coderre, January 22, 1914 Not printed.

90. Return to an Order of the House of the 29th January, 1913. for a return showing: —

1. What purchases of land have been made by the Dominion of Canada since Con-
federation?

2. The amount of money paid for same?

3. The approximate area of land so purchased?

4. In what provinces the said land is now situated?

5. The approximate area in each province?

6. The acreage of school lands set aside by the Government for the Provinces of

Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta?

7. The present approximate value of the said school lands so set aside in each of
the said Provinces?

8. The number of acres of the said school lands already sold in each of the said
Provinces, and the proceeds of such sales, deducting expenses?

9. The acreage of lands set apart at any time by the Government as an endowment
to any university, the name of the university, and the Province in which the lands are
situated?

10. The number of acres of swamp lands transferred to the Province of Manitoba
under the provisions of Cliapter 50 of the Acts if 1885 and amendments thereto?

11. The gross amount of cash allowance made at any time by the Federal Govern-
ment to each or any Province of Canada, to assist in the construction of necessary
i;ub!ic buildings?

12. The approximate value of the railway, public works and other assets of each
o:" the Provinces of Canada, taken over by the Federal Government at the time that
each Province entered the union?

13. The annual compensation made to the Province of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and
Alberta, by reason of the fact that they are deprived of the public lands as a source of
revenue?

14. The debt allowance to any time placed to the credit of each of the Provinces of
Canada by the Federal Government. Presented January 22, 1914. — Mr. Sinclair.

Not printed,
6343:1 — li 51

4-5 Geoi^e Y, Alj>hal>©tical Index to Sessional Papers. A. 1914

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2S— Continued.

90o. Supplementary Return to an Order of the House of the 29th January, 1913, for a return
showing : — . . ^ , . _

1. What purchases of land have been made by the Dominion of Canada since Con-
federation?

2. The amount of money paid for same?

3. The approximate area of land so purchased?

4. In what Provinces the said land is now situated?

5. The approximate area in each Province?

6. The acreage of school lands set aside by the Government for the Provinces of
Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta?

7. The present approximate value of the said school lands so set aside in each or
the said Provinces?

8. The number of acres of the said school lands already sold in each of the said
Provinces, and the vroceeds of such sales, deducting expenses.

9. The acreage of lands set apart at any time by the Government -as an endow-
ment to any university, the name of the university, and the Province in which the lands
are situated? .

10. The number of acres of swamp lands transferred to the Province of Manitoba
under the provisions of Chapter 50 of the Acts of 1885 and amendments thereto?

11. The gioss amount of cash allowance made at any time by the Federal Govern-
ment to each or any Province of Canada, to assist in the construction of necessary
public buildings?

12. The aiiproximate value of the railway, public works and other assets of each
of the Provinces of Canada, taken over by the Federal Government at the time that
each Province entered the union?

13. The annual compensation made to the Provinces of Manitoba, .Saskatchewan
and Alberta, by reason of the fact that they are deprived of the public lands as a
source of revenue?

14. The debt allowance to any t'me placed to the credit of each of the Provinces
of Canada by the Federal Government. Presented March 12, 1914. — Mr. Sinclair.

Not printed.

91. Partial Return to an Order of the Hou.se of the 12th May. 1913, for a return showing the
names and purposes of the several Commissions created by legislation or Orders in
Council since October 12. 1911 ; the names of the members of the several commissioners,
with their respective salaries and remuneration ; the names of commissions still in
existence; and the names of conxmissions created since October 12, 1911, which have
ceased to exist. Presented January 22, 1914. — Mi: Oliver Not prin:cd.

91a. Partial Return to an Address to His Royal Highness the Governor General of the 4th
December, 1912, for a copy of each Commission issued by the Government since October
10, 1911, directing an investigation to be held; and also for a copy of the evidence
taken and the report made in each case that has been concluded. Presented Jianuary
22, 1914. — Mr. Murphy '. Not printed.

9 lb. Further Supplementary Return to an Address to His Royal Highness the Governor General
of the 4th December, 1912, for a cony of each Commission issued by the Government
since October 10, 1911, directing an investigation to be held; and also for a copy of the
eviden 'e taken and the report made in each case that has been concluded. Presented
February 9, 1914. — Mr. Murphy Not printed.

9lc Return to an Order of tlie House of the 9th December, 1912, for a return showing the
number of Commissions fcumed by the Government s nee September 21, 1912, the names
and the occupations of the Commissioners aiipointed, their duties, the duration of their
services, and their remuneration. Presented February 12, 1914. — Mr. Devlin.

Not printed.

91d. Return to an Address to His Royal Highness the Governor General of the 9th February,

1914, for a copy of the Order in Council appointing a Comm ssion for the purpose of

beautifying the city of Ottawa and vicintiy. of all correspondence with regard to the

same, and of all reports made by the commission up to date. Presented March 6 1911.

— Sir W. Lanrier Not printed.

9le. Supplementary Return to an Order of the House of the 12th May, 1913, for a return show-
ing the niimi^ ainl pnrpost-'s of the several Commissions cioatOil by legislation or Orders
in Council since October 12, 1911 ; the names of the members of the several commis-
sioners, with their respective salaries and remuneration ; the names of commissions still
in existence; and the names of commissions created since October 12. 1911, which have
ceased to exist. Presented March 9, 1914. — Mr. Oliver Not printed.

91/. Return to an Order of the House of the 9th February, 1914, for a return showing the num-
ber and i)articulars of Commi-ssions appointeil or issued under ttie Inqu rics Act since
October 1, 1911, the purpose or object thereof, the name of the Commissioner or Coinmis-
s oners, and tl'.e cost of each to the present time. Presented May 29. 1914. — .Vr. Mael an
{Halifax) Not printed.

52

4-5 George V. Alphabetical Index to Sessional Papers. A. 1914

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2S—ConUnu€d.

92. Partial Return to an Order of the House of the 28th April, 1913, for a return showing all

those who have been holding investigations within the judicial district of Three Rivers,
since October 15, 1911. to date, in reference to the conduct of men holding offices from
the Dominion Government, the place where each investigation was held, the amount
paid to each investigator in each case ; the names of the solicitors employed in each
cas3, the post office addresses, and the amount paid in each case to the solicitor. Pre-
sented January 22, 1914.— Mr. Bureau Not printed.

93. Return to an Order of the House of the 26th March, 1913, for a return showing whether

the Government paid or intends to pay fees and disbursements of the witnesses sum-
moned by the commissioners appointed by it in the County of Levis, to hold inquiries
on the conduct of public officers whose dismissal had been requested ; the amounts
which have been paid and to whom, and the siuai remaining to be paid for the same
purpose. Presented January 23, 1914. — Mr. Bourassa Not printed.

93a. Partial Return to an Order of the House of the 4th June, 1913. for a return showing the
total expenditure to date by the present administration in connection with the investi-
gation of charged partisan conduct against officials. Presented January 23, 1914. — Mr.
Sinclair Not printed.

93b. Partial Return to an Order of the House of the 7th May, 1913, for a return showing in
deaail the names of witnesses summoned by Commissioner H. P. Duchemin in connect. on
with all investigations held by him in the counties of North Cape Breton and Victoria,
South Cape Breton, Inverness and Antigonish, Nova Scotia, and the amounts paid in
each such case. Presented January 23, 1914. — Mr. Cai-roll Not printed.

93c. Return to an Order of the House of the 9th April, 1913, for a return showing in detail the
expenditure incurred since October 11, 1911, in connection with investigations held in
Bonaventure Covmty by commissioners appointed by the Departments of the Post Office,
Customs, and Marine and Fisheries into charges made against employees of said depart-
ments of offensive political partisanship, together with the names and amounts paid to
each of said commissioners in each investigation, as well r>s details of amounts paid to
witnesses and others. Presented January 23, 1914. — Mr. Marcil Not printed.

93d. Return to an Order of the House of the 26th February, 1913, for a copy of all statements
of account for salary or remuneration to the commissioner, and his expenses for wit-
ness fees, and all other expenses in connectoin with the investigation by Commissioner
Duchemin, of the following, persons in the Ciunty of Guysboro, Nova Scotia namely ; — -

H. L. Tory, fishery offi.cer, Guysboro.

John W. Davis, fishery officer, Guysboro.

Patrick Shea, postmaster, Tompkinsville.

John M. Rogers, postmaster. East Roman Valley.

James Bowles, postmaster. Alder River.

Abner M. Carr, postmaster, St. Frangois Harh.our.

Everett Hadley, postmaster. Oyster Ponds.

Parker S. Hart, postmaster. Lower Manchester.

S. M. Ferguson, preventive officer. Oyster Pond.

Robert Hendsbee, postmaster. Half Island Cove.

A. B. Cox, Manager Reduction Works, Cansu.

Edward Kelly, engineer. Reduction Works, Canso.

D. S. Hendsbee, weigher. Reduction Works, Canso.
Al fx.. Roberts, postmaster, Canso.

David Sutherland, caretaker, Canso.

Henry Han'.on, chief engineer. Hatchery, Cansu.

Thos. Sullivan, assistant engineer, Canso.

W. G. Matthew, cockswain life-boat, Canso.

Patrick Ryan, assistant cockswain life-boat, Canso.

M. McCutcheon, postmaster, Sonora.

Stanley McCutcheon, preventive officer, Sonora.

Freeman Pride, lightkeeper, Sonora.

David Reid, fishery officer. Port Hilford.

L. M. Pye, customs officer, Liscomb.

Stanley Hemlow, lightkeeper, Liscomb.

W. H. Hemlow. keeper storm drum, Li.scomu.

R. Conroy, postmaster, Country Harbour.

John Milward, postmaster, Stormont.

A. W. Salsman, postmaster. Lower Country Harbour.

W. B. Harris, postmaster. Whitehead.

E. L. Munro, customs officer. Whitehead. „
W. L. Munro, lightkeeper, Whitehead.

Patrick Conway, lightkeeper. Whitehead
H. P. Munro, cockswain life-boat, Whitf},ead.
Levi Munro, harbour master, W^hitehead.
Williaxn McKinnon, postmaster, Erinville.

53

4-5 Geoi^e V. Alphab&tical Index to Seseioaal Papers. A. 1914:

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2S— Continued.

J. H. McMillan, manager hatchery, Isaac's Harbour.
Sanford Langley, postmaster, Isaac's Harbour North.
Fred. E. Cox, engineer lobster hatchery, Isaac's Harbour.
Simon Hodgson, assistant engineer, Isaac's Harbour.
Archibald Brass, postmaster, L. New Harbour.
Parker Sangster, postmaster. New Harbour West.
William Gerrior, customs ofRcer. Larry's River.
James M. Webber, lightkeeper, Torbay Point.
W. A. Hattie, preventive officer, Mulgrave.
J. F. Reeves, postmaster, Mulgrave.
John P. Meagher, foreman deck-hand, Mulgrave.
PhUip H. Ryan, Intercolonial Railway employee. Mulgrave.
Alex. Wilkinson, Intercolonial Railway employee, Mulgrave.
Alex. Mclnnis, car inspector, Mulgrave.
Frank Fougere, postmaster, Port Felix.
Sam. Smith, postmaster, Port Felix, West.
Captain Freeman Myers, postmaster, Cole Harbour.
George Taylor, postmaster, Beckerton.

.'Stephen C. Richard, lightkeeper, Charlo's Cove. Presented January 26, 1914. — Mr.
Sinclair ^^t printed.

93c. Supplementary Return to an Order of the House of the 7th May, 1913, for a return show-
ing in detail the names of witnesses summoned by Commissioner H P. Duchemin in con-
nection with all investigations held by him in the Counties of North Cape Breton and
Victoria, South Cape Breton, Inverness and Antigon!.sh, Nova Scotia, and the amounts
paid in each such case. Presented February 10, 1914. — Mr. Carroll Not printed.

93/. Return to an Order of the House of the 9th December, 1912, for a return showing when
H. P. Duchemin, of Sydney, Nova Scotia, was appointed commissioner to hold investi-
gations, the number of investigations held since his appointment, names of officials
investigated, if evidence and report in each Investigation has been forwarded by Mr.
Duchemin to the department interested, if not, in what cases has no evidence and report
been submitted, salary or remuneration received in each case, and amount paid for
travell ng expenses in each case. Presented February 10, 1914. — Mr. CaiToll.

Not printed.

93iJf. Return to an Order of the House of the 23rd February, 1914, for a return showing the
expenditures by the Intercolonial Railway in connection with all the inquiries and
investigations held by H. P. Duchemin, concerning any and all employees of the Depart-
ment of Railways and Canals, or of the Intercolonail Railway, for any cause whatever,
and reliting to any complaints or charges, or to any matter of whatsoever nature,
giving in detail the items of all accounts or bills of or payments to the said H. P.
Duchemin in conne'.tion wilh same, during the years 1912, 1913, and for the year 1914
to date ; together with a statement showing the total amounts paid in each specified
investigation and the total paid in each year, for the whole period to the said H. P.
Duchemin. Presented March 5, 1914. — Mr. Emmerson Not printed.

93h. Supplementary Return to an Order of the House of the 7th May, 1913, for a return show-
ing indetail the names of witnesses summoned by Commissioner H. P. Duchemin in con-
nection with all investigations held by him in the Counties of North Cape Breton and
Victoria, South Cape Breton, Inverness and Antigonish. Nova Scotia, and the amounts
paid in each s-uch case. Presented March 17, 1914. — Mr. Carroll Not printed.

93i. Return to an Order of the House of the 23rd March, 1914, for a return showing in detail
the expenses and cost of an inquiry or investigation held by Commissioner Adair, under
the authority of the Department of Railways and Canals, into the affairs of the Klec-
trical Branch of the Intercolonial Railway at Moncton, and the conduct of John W.
Gaskin ;ind otliers, in relation to their services in said branch or otherwise, held during
ihe ye.ir 1912; together witli the names of the commissioner, the agents, attorneys,
counsel, constables, police officers, detectives, witnesses or other pei'sons in connection
with said inquiry ; the number of days consumed and paid for in the conduct thereof,
and the services rendered by each person in connection therewith ; and a detailed state-
ment of the sunr or sums of money paid to each party therefor, at what rate and the
aniovmts paid to each witness sworn and in attendance or otherwise, together with a
copy of all bills, claims or accounts rendered in connection with said inquiry, and of
all vouchers for moneys paid, by whom paid and to whom : with a copy of all letters or
other correspondence relating to the appointment of a commissioner, and of counsel to
be engaged or other oflucrs employed, and relating to the compensation to be paid for
services, and in connection with any of said bills, accounts, payments and vouchers, with
a statement or summary of the total cost of said investigation, showing the number of
ra Iway employees railed as witnesses, the witness fees allowed and paid them, and the
cases in which their time respectively was not allowed them while absent to give such
evi ence. and the ca.ses to which such time was allowed and no deduction made from
their wages or salaries for the period of their absence in attendance at such inquiry as
such witnesses respectively. Presented May 13, 1914.— .Vj-. Evivierson. . . .Not printed.

54

4-5 George V. Alplinbc^tieal Index to Sessional Papers. A. 1914

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2S— Continued.

94. Return to an Order of the House of the 9th December, 1912, for a return showing how

many citizens of the United States have been employed by the Government since Novem-
ber 1, 1911, in what department employed, their names and occupations and salary paid
to each, and also, the number appointed under section 21 of the Civil Service Act. Pre-
sented January 24, 1914. — Mr. Murphy Not printed.

95. Return to an Order of the House of the 23rd April, 1913, for a copy of all letters, telegram.?,

papers and documents in any way relating- to the purchase of property at Iwong Beach
St. Mary's, Digby County, N.S., for a lobster pond. Presented January 23, 1914. — Mr.
Lata Not printed.

96. Return to an Order of the House of the 24th February, 1913, for a copy of all requests,

petitions, &c., made to the Government, or any department thereof, by the residents of
Mira, County of Cape Breton, for subsidies for boats, wharf accommodations, or in-
creased facilities on the Mira river. Presented January 23, 1914. — Mr. Carroll.

Not pi'intcd.

97. Return to an Order of the House of the 7th May, 1913, for a copy of all reports, corre-

spondence, telegrams and other documents in the custody or control of the Militia
Depa-tment or the Railway Department, concerning matters brought to the attention
of the Mil tia Department by B. A. Ingraham, of Sydney, N.S., with reference to the
transportation of the Sydney militia over the Intercolonial Railway in the year 1912.
Presented January 23, 1914. — 3/?-. Carroll Not printed.

98. Medical inspection of imm.igrants at port of entry in Canada. — (.Senate Not printed.

99. Public health service, several branches of R.S. engaged in. — (iSenote) Not printed.

100. Proposed harbour at Skinner's Pond — Surveys made for, &c. — (Senate) Not printed.

101. Investigation held in 1912 re dredging operations in British Columbia. — (Senate).

Not prijited.
lOla. Investigation held by Mr. Wilson, B.C., against Captain Murdock Young. — (Senate).

Not printed.

102. Quantities of wheat by grades received at elevators at Fort William. — (Senate).

Not printed.

103. Projected railway or highway bridge over the Restigouche River, N.B. Presented

January 26, 1914. — Mr. Marcil Not printed.

104. Relating to the employees of the different departments at Ottawa, the provinces, and

territories, &c. Presented January 26, 1914. — Mr. Wilson (Laval) Not i)ri7ited.

104«- Return to an Order of the House of the 11th December, 1912, for a return showing for
each department of the Civil Service, the names, ages, oflices and salaries of such per-
sons employed either in the inside or outside divisions thereof, and of such persons not
in the Civil Service employed bj' the Government in any department since the 10th
October, 1911 ; and in cases where no commission of investigation was appointed, aa
have been removed from office by dismissal, superannuation or otherwise, specifying in
each case the manner of, and grounds for such removal, and the length of notice given
to the person removed, and the amount of superannuation or gratuity granted, if any ;
also showing the name, age, office and salary or remuneration of any and every person
appointed to the Civil Service in the place of, or as a consequence of any such removal.
Presented January 26, 1914. — Mr. Murphy Not printed.

104?'- Partial Return to an Order of the House of the 11th December, 1912, for a return show-
ing for each department of the Civil Service, the names, ages, offices and salaries of
such persons employed either in the inside or outside divisions thereof, and of such per-
sons not in the Civil Service employed by the Government in any department since the
10th October, 1911 ; and in cases where no commission of investigaiton was appointed,
as have been removed from office by dismissal, superannuation or otherwise, specifying
in each case the manner of, and grounds for such removal, and the length of notice
given to the person removed, and the amount of superannuation or gratuity granted,
if any ; also showing the name, age, office and salary or remuneration of any tand every
person appointed to the Civil Service in the place of, or as a consequence of any such
removal. Presented February 10, 1914. — Mr. Murphy Not printed.

104c. Further Supplementary Return to a^ Order of the House of the 11th December, 1912, for
a return showing for each department of the Civil Service, the names, ages, offices and
salaries of such persons employed either in the inside or outside divisions thereof, and
of such persons not in the Civil Sei-vice employed by the Government in any department
since the 10th October, 1911 ; and in cases where no commission of investigation was
appointed, as have been removed from office by dismissal, superannuation or otherwise,
specifying in each case the manner of, and grounds for such removal, and the length
of notice given to the person removed, and the amount of superannuation or gratuity
granted, if any ; also showing the name, age, office and salary or remuneratio- of any
and every person appointed to the Civil Service in the place of, or as a consequence of
any such removal. Presented March 10, 1914. — Mr. Murphy Not printed.

53

4-5 George V. Alpbabotical Index to Sessional Papers. A., 1914

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2S— Continued.

104d. Return to an Order of the House of the 23rcl February, 1914, for a return showing the
total number of officials and employees in the Department of Public Prniting and
Stationery on February 1. 1914; and the increase in wages granted to the several
groups of employees during the year 1913. Presented March 18, 1914.— J/r. Murphy.

Not prmtcd.

104e. Return to an Order of the House of the 23rd February. 1914, for a return showing how
many persons have been appointed to positions in the inside Civil Service since October
10, 1911, who had not passed the public competitive examination held by the Civri Ser-
vice Cornmission in May and November of each year.

2 How many of such persons were appointed in each department. Presented
March 23. 1914.— il/r. Murphy ^o« printed.

104/. Return to an order of the House of the 4th March, 1914, for a return showing how many
persons have been nppointed to the Inside Service of the Post Office Department by the
present Government, with the names of the appointees, the grade each of them was
appointed to, and the salary in each case ; how many of these appointees passed the
Civ 1 Service examination, and how many did not do so, with the names in each case.
Presented April 1, 1914.— il/r. Proulx Not printed.

1045'- Further Supplementary Return to an Order of the House of 11th December, 1912, for a
return showing for each department of the Civil Service, the names, ages, offices and
salar es'of s'ch persons employed either in the inside or outside divisions thereof, and
of ;uch p rsons not in the Civi' Service employed by the Government in any department
since the ICth October, 1911 ; and in cases where no commission of investigation was
appoint?'\ as have been removed from office by dismissal, superannuation or otherwise,
specifying n . ach case the manner of, and grounds for such removal, and the length
of notice given to the person removed, and the amount of superannuation cr gratuity
granfed. if any ; also showing the name, age, office and salary or remuneration of any
and every person appointed to the Civil Service in the place of, or as a conseauence of
any such removal. Presented April 2, 1914.— il/r. Murphy Not pririted.

104'»- Return to an Order of the House f)f the 2nd April, 1914, for a return showing how mnay
certifi'ates for promotion have been asked from the Civil Service Commissioners since
the 31st Mach, 1913; how many of such certificates have been refused, and to whom,
and the reasons given in each case for such refusal. Presented April 16, 1914. — Mr
Carroll ^ot printed.

104<- Return to an Order of the House of the 30th March. 1914, for a return showing the salary
of each deputy minister ; tlie number of clerks or employees under each of the deputy
ministers, or over whose work the deputy is supposed to exercise supervision ; the salary
of the Customs Commissioner, and length of time employed. Presented April 23, 1914.
— Mr. Chisholm Unvcrness) Not printed.

105. Return called for by Section 88, of Chapter 62, Revised Statutes of Canada, requiring

that the INIinister of the Interior shall lay before Parliament, each year, a return of
liquor brought from any place out of Canada into the Territories by special permission
in writing of the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories. Presented by Hon. Mr.
Roche, January 27, 1914 ^ot printed.

106. Copy of the Seventh Joint Report of the Commissioners for the Demarcation of the Meri»

dian of the 141st Degree of West Longitude. Presented by Hon. Mr. Roche, January
28, 1913 ^of printed.

107. Return showing lands sold by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company during the year

which ended on the 1st October, 1913. Presented by Hon. Mr. Roche, January 28, 1914.

Not printed.

108. Regulations relating to the Parcel Post Service, 1914. Presented by Hon. Mr. Pelletier,

January 28, 1914 Not printed.

109. Report of the proceedings of the Commisioners of Internal Economy of the House of Com-

mons for 1912-1913. pursuant to Rule 9. Presented by Mis Honour the Speaker,

February 2, 1913 Not printed.

no. Return of Orders in Council which have been published In the Canada Gazette between
the 1st October, 1912, and 30th November, 1913, in accordance with the provisions of
•'The Forest Reserves and Park Act," Section 19, of Chapter 10, 1-2 George V. Pre-
sented by Hon. Mr. Roche, February 2, 1914 Not printed.

llOo- Return of Orders in Council which have been published in the Canada Gazette, between
the 1st October. 1912, and 30th November, 1913, in accordance with the provisions of
Section 5 of "The Dominion Lands Suivey Act," Chapter 21, 7-S Edward VII.

Not printed.

llOb- Return of Orders in Council which have been published in the Canada Gazette, between
1st October, 1912, and 30th November. 1913, in accordance with the provisions of Sec-
tion 77 of "The Dominion Lands Act," Chapter 20 of the Statutes of Canada. 1908.

Not printed.
56

4-5 George V. Alphabetical Index to Sessional Papers. A. 1914

¥

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2S— Continued.

HOC Return of Orders in Council which have been published in the Canada Gasette and in the
British Columbia Gazette, between 1st October, 1912. and 30th November, 1913, in
accordance with provisions of subsection (d) of Section 3S of the regulations for ' the
survey, administration, disposal and management of Dominion lands within the 40-mile
railway belt in the Province of British Columbia. Presented by Hon. Mr. Roche,
February 2, 1914 J^ot printed.

llOd. Return of cor-jes of all Orders in Council, plans, papers and correspondence which are
required to be presented to the House of Commons, under a resolution passed on the
20th February, 18S2, since the date of the last return, under such resolution. Pre-
sented by Hon. Mr. Roche; January 28, 1914 Not printed.

llOe. Return to an Order of the House of the 9th February, 1914, for a copy of all letters,
papers, homestead inspector's reports, declarations and of all other documents connected
in any way with the entry and cancellatiorT proceedings against the homestead entry
of James Bruce for the southeast quarter section 36, in townshpi 49, range 27, West
scv ond meridian. Presented March 6, 1914. — Mr. Neely Not printed.

llOf- RetuTn to an Order of the House of the 9th February, 1914, for a copy of all papers in

connection with the disposition of the S.E. |, section 16, township 25, range 5, West fifth

^ meridian. Presented March 10, 1914. — Mr. Oliver Not printed.

lies'. Return to an Order of the House of the 16th Februarj', 1914, for a copy of all papers

in connection with the S.W. J, 23-16-12 W, 3 M. Presented March 10. 1914. Mr.

Knowles Not printed.

110ft- Return to an Order of the House of the 16th February, 1914, for a copy of all papers in
connection with the N.E. i-22-ll-5-W. 3 M. Presented March 23, 1914. — Mr. Knoicles.

Not printed.

llOi- Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914. for a copy of all letters,
telegrams and papers concerning coal lands situate in 2S-19, 27-18, 27-17 and 2S-1S West
of the fourth meridian. Presented April 21, 1914. — Mr. Buchanan Not printed.

110.'. Supplementary Return to an Order of the House of the 16th February, 1914, for a copy
of all papers in connection with the N.E. |-22-ll-5 W. 3 M. Presented May 5, 1914. — -
Mr. Knowles Not printed.

HO''.'. Return to an Address to His Royal Highness the Governor General of the 20th April,
1914, for a copy of all documents, letters, telegrams, papers, Orders in Council and
agreements of sale, in connection with the sale by the Government of Canada of the
following lands in the railway belt in British Columbia, viz. : Townships 23 and 24,
range IS ; townships 23 and 24, range 19 ; townships 24 and 25, range 20 ; townships
25, 26 and 27, range 21 ; townships 26 and 27, range 22, all ^\"est of the fifth meridian.
Presented May 18, 1914. — Mr. Buchanan Not printed.

110?. Return to an Order of the House of the 27th April, 1914, for a copy of all letters, tele-
grams, &c., in the Department of the Interior in connection with the X."V\'. J section
20-4, range 16 west of the second meridian. Presented May 18, 1914. — Mr. Turriff.

Not printed.

llOw. Return to an Order of the House of the 27th April, 1914, for a copy of all papers, letters,
telegram.s, &c., in possession of the Department of the Interior in connection with the
N-i-l-3-16-W. 2-M. Presented May 18, 1914. — Mr. Turriff Not printed.

111. Correspondence between the Imperial Government and the Government of Canada, and

othfr documents, relating to Imperial Naturalization. Presented by Hon. Mr. Doherty,
February 4, 1914 Not printed.

Ilia. Return to an Oder of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a copy of all correspond-
ence and documents, or other information, as to the passage of an Act in Great Britain
and the different Dominions, providing for uniformity of the Naturalization Law. Pre-
sented February 18, 1914.— JTr. Macdonald Not printed.

112. Account of the average number of men employed on the Dominion Police Force during

each month of the year 1913, and of their pay and travelling expenses, pursuant to
Chapter 92, section 6, subsection 2, of the Revised Statutes of Canada. Presented by
Hon. Mr. Doherty, February 5, 1914 Not printed.

113. Copy of Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Royal Mail Steam Packet

Company, for a steamship service between Canada and the British West Indies. Pre-
sented by Hon. Mr. Foster, February 9, 1914 Not printed.

114. Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a return showing what

changes have been made in the original scheme for terminals of the Transcontinental
Railway at the city of Quebec ; the estimated cost of the former ; the estimated cost of
the said terminals under the present scheme. Presented February 10, 1914. — Mr.
Graham Not piHnted.

57

4- J George V. Alphabetical ludex to Sessional Papers. A. 101

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2S— Continued.

n4f<. Return to an Address to His Royal Highness the Governor General of the 23rd February,
1914, for a copy of all correspondence between the National Transcontinental Railway
Comrnlssioner and the Minister of Railways, and between the National Transcontinental
Railway Commissioner and the Canadian Pacific Railway regarding the Joint Terminals
n.t Quebec; also a copy of the Order in Council regarding joint terminals at Quebec,
and of the final agreement regarding same. Presented March 16, 1914. — Mr. Graha7n.

Not printed.

1146. Return to an Order of the House of the l6th March, 1914, for a copy of all contracts by
t)ie Department of Railways or the Transcontinental Railway Commission with the
Canadian Pacific Railway Company with regard to the establishment of a joint station
at the Palais, city of Quebec, and of all correspondence with regard to the same. Pre-
sented March 20, 1914. — Sir Wilfrid Laurier Not printed.

115. Return to an Order of the House of the 9th December, 1912, for a return showing ths

number of commissioners appointed by the Government since October 10, 1911, to hold
investigations, giving their names, the amount paid to each commissioner up to Novem-
ber 21, 1912, the number of the said commissioners still under pay, with their names.
Presented February 10, 1914. — Mr. Murphy Not printed.

116. Return to an Order of the House of the 31st March, 1913, for a copy of all papers, docu-

ments, correspondence, &c., relating to requests for the temporary suspension of the
application of the dumping clause of the Customs Tariff Act in reference to wire rods
or any other products or articles, made to Department of Customs, or the Department
of Finance, since November 1,1911. Presented February 10,1914. — Mr. Maclean (Hali-
fax) Not printed.

117. Return to an Order of the House of the 20th January, 1913, for a copy of all proposals,

offers, agreements, reports, estimates, letters, telegrams and of all other communications
or documents in the possession of the Department of Railways and Canals, or of the
I'rime Minister of Canada, or of any other department of the Government, filed with
fcaid department or any of them, since the first day of January, 1910, relating to or in
Ruy way appertaining to the question or proposal of acquiring any or all, or any one of
the lines of railways connecting with the Intercolonial Railway along its line, and
Serving as a feeder or feeders of said railway, either by lease, purchase or otherwise,
also of all proposals, offers, requests, applications, petitions, memorials, or other docu-
ments, and of all letters, telegrams and other communications and correspondence, relat-
ing to or in any manner appertaining to the acquisition by any Railway company of
running rights, so called, or the securing of a leasehold or other interest involving the
rights by any Railway company to ojierate its trains over the rails of the Intercolonial
Railway, together with a copy of all answers, letters, telegrams, correspondence and
reports relating thereto, on the files of the Department of Railways and Canals, or of
the Prime Min-ster, or of any Department of the Government. Presented February 10
191 1. — Mr. Emmerson Not printed.

117(1- Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February. 1914, for a copy of all correspond-
ence, mem.orials, petitions, engineers' reports and other documents exchanged by or on
behalf of the proprietors of the Quebec Oriental Railway and the Atlantic, Quebec and
Western Railway, and the Department of Railways and Canals, since last session, with
the view of the acquisition by the Government of these roads as branch lines or feeders
of the Intercolonial Railway. Presented March 6, 1914. — Mr. Marcil (Bonavcnture).

Not printed.

117b- Return to an Order of the House of the 9th February, 1914, for a copy of all letters,
telegrams, petitions, reports, cvorrespondence and other documents on file in any Depart-
ment of the Government, or in the possession of any member of the Government, relat-
ing to, or In any manner connected with, the proposal to have a spur line or siding to
connect the new public wharf at Sackville, N.B., with the Intercolonial Railway at that
place, and of all letters, telegrams and other correspondence passed between any person
or persons and any member of the Government. Presented March 11, 1914. — Mr.
Emmerson jV'ot printed.

117c. Return to an Order of the House of December 9, 1912, for a copy of the report made by
Mr. Te-sier to the Department of Railways and Canals on a proposed line of railway
from Orangedale to Cheticamp in the County of Inverness, N.S. ; and also all petitions,
memorials and correspondence referring to the proposed line of railway. I're.scnted
March 17, 1914. — Mr. Chisholm (Antiponish) Not printed.

117'i- Return to an Order of the House of the 23rd March, 1914, for a copy of all petitions,
correspondence, eng'neers" reports of surveys and of all other reports on file, referring to
a proposed diversion of the Intercolonial Railway from, at or near I.,inwoofl Station,
through the districts of Linwood, Cape Jack and to village of Harbour au Bouchfi ;
and more particularly of the petitions and reports relating to such diversion filed in or
about the years 1S87 and 1891. Presented April 7, 1914. — Mr. Chisholm (Antiffonish).

Not printed.
53

4-5 Geoi^e V. . Alphabetical Index to Sessioiial Papers. A. lOl-t

CONTEITTS OF VOLUME 28— Continued.

117e. Return to an Order of the House of the 23rd March, 1914, for a return showing the
names of the successful contractors, with the particulars of their schedule prices respec-
tively, on the contracts awarded by the Intercolonial Railway for the work of double
tracking from Chaudiere Curve to St. Romuald, Quebec, and the division line from
Nelson to D&rby Junction, New Brunswick, and the division or spur line from North
Sif'ney to Leiiche's Creek, Nova Scotia, with a copy of the reports, correspondence and
recommendations relating to the awarding of said tenders or contracts respectively,
and also showing the estimate of cost of said works respectively. Presented April 1-5,
1914. — Mr. Emmerson .Not printed.

117/- Return to an Order of the House of the 16th March, 1914, for a copy of all memoranda,
instructions and authorizations issued by the Minister of Railways and Canals sinca
October 11, 1911, relating to the eliminating of the present grades and replacing the
light bridges with heavier steel structure on the Intercolonial Railway ; and of all me.mor-
anda, recommendations and reports made by Mr. F. P. Gutelius or the Board of Manage-
ment of the Intercolonial Railway thereon. Presented May 6, 1914. — Mr. Kyte.

Not printed.

118. Memorandum of special claim on behalf of Prince Edward Island in respect to representa-

tion in the House of Commons. Presented by Hon. Mr. Foster, February 10, 1914.

Printed for distrihutlGn and sessional papers.

118a. Memorandum on behalf of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island,
claiming the right to have their original representation in the House of Commons
restored. Presented by Hon. Mr. Foster, February 10, 1914.

Printed for distj-ibuti^n and sessional papers.

119. Copy of the proceedings and resolutions adopted at the last Interprovincial Conference. Pre-

sented by Hon. Mr. Foster, February 10, 1914.

Printed for distribution and sessional papers.

119o. Minutes of the Proceedings in Conference of the representatives of the Provinces, Octo-
ber, 1913. Presented by Hon. Mr. Borden, March 11, 1914 Not printed.

120. Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd June, 1913, for a copy of the application of

Pacifique Leroux for damages sustained by removal of a bridge on the Soulanges Canal,
and of all reports and correspondence on the same. Presented February 12, 1914. — Sir
Wilfi-id Laurier Not printed.

121. Return to an Order of the House of the 20th January, 1913, for a copy of all plans, pro-

posals, diagrams, specifications, reports, surveys, requests, correspondence, letters, tele-
grams and of all other communications and documents in possession of the Department
of Railways and Canals, relating or in any wise appertaining to the proposed steam
ferry service for ajl seasons of the year between the mainland of New Brunswick, or
of Nova Scoiia, nnd Prince Edward Island, whereby a connection could be made
bitween the Intercolonial Railway and the Prince Edward Island Railway, by the
tr?.nsfer of railway cars over and across the waters of the Straits of Northumberland
by means of said proposed ferry, together with a statement of all estimates and figures
as to the total cost of the installation of such ferry, and the items of said estimate or
estimates in detail. Presented February 12, 1914. — Mr. Emmerson Not printed.

121a- Return to an Order of the House of the 11th December, 1912, for a copy of all letters,
telegrams and other dccum.ents relative to the establishment of a car ferry between
Prince Edward Island and the mainland, of the report or reports of any engineers or
experts in regard to the said proposal, and of their estimates of the cost thereof, the
advertisement calling for tenders therefor, and a copy of any plans, conditions or pro-
posed specifications therefor, or in regard thereto, and of any tenders received in
response to said advertisement, of the reports, if any, of any officials in regard thereto,
and of all data in possession of the Department in respect of said project. Presented
February 12, 1914. — Mr. Macdonald Not printed.

122. Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a return showing the

total amount of liability in the form of temporary loans on the last day of each month
during the period between the 1st day of May, 1913, and December 31, 1913, together
with, in each case, the rate of interest paid upon said amounts during the same periods.
Presented February 12, 1914. — Mr. Maclean (Halifax) Not printed.

123. Report of the Royal Commission appointed to investigate the construction of the National

Transcontinental Railway, together with the evidence taken and exhibits filed befora
the said commission. Presented by Hon. Mr. Cochrane, February 12, 1914.

Printed for distribution and sessional papers.

123a. Return to an Order of the House of the 23rd February, 1914, for a copy of the assign-
ment by M. P. and J. T. Davis in September, 1909, of contracts numbers 16 and 17 on
the National Transcontinental Railway to O'Brien, Fowler and McDougall, and of the
Transcontinental Commissioner's approval thereof, in the said month of September, 1909.
Presented March 4, 1914. — Mr. Graham Not printed.

59

4-5 George V. Alphabetical Index to Sessional Papers. A, 1914

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2S— Continued.

laa??- Return to an Order of the House of the 18th February, 1914, for a copy of the contract
with Mr. Joseph Gosselin for the locomotive and car shops at St. Malo, and of all
telegrams, letters and correspondence between the Department and Mr. W. J. Press,
mechanical engineer, or the chief engineer, with regard to change of the price of 85
cents per cubic yard for common excavation to the price of $2.30 per cubic yard for
frozen earth. Presented March 11, IQU.—Mr. Graham Not printed.

123c- Return to an Address to His Royal Highness the Governor General of the 16th February,
1914, for a copy of all papers in any way relating to the tender, original contract, ana
amended contract of Mr. Joseph Gosselin for the locomotive and car shops at St. Malo.
Quebec, together with a copy of the advertisements for tenders, the specifications, tha
contract, the amended contract, reports of engineers, recommendations to Council, Orders
in Council, letters, telegrams, minutes or reports of interviews, and of all other docu-
ments referring in any way to the said contract or the amendment thereof. Presented
March 11, 1914. — Mr. Graham Not printed.

123d. Return to an Address to His Royal Highness the Governor General of the 23rd Feb»
ruary, 1914, for a coiiyof all correspondence in connection with the appointment ot
Messrs. Lynch-Staunton and Gutelius as commissioners to investigate the cost of con-
struction of the Eastern divi-sion of the National Transcontinental Ra Iway, and also of
the Order in Council appointing them. Presented March 12, 1914. — Mr. Graham.

Not printed.

123e- Return to an Order of the House of the 23rd February, 1914, for a copy of the report of
Geo. S. Hodgins, of New York, regarding the Transcona shops of the Transcontinental
Railway, dated June 10, 1912. Presented March 19, 1914. — Mr. Graham. .Not printed.

123/- Return to an Order of the House of the 23rd March, 1914, for a copy of all plans and
profiles deslgne-i by the engineers, in connection with the intended construction of tha
Transcontinental Railway from a point called Ste. Claire, County of Dorchester, between
the twentieth and thirtieth miles, east of the Quebec Bridge, going through the parishes
of St. Malachie, Standon, C:anbourne , Ste. Germaine and Ste. Justine, passing
through the towuships of Panet, Rolette and Valois, towards Ste. Perpetue, on the 105th
mile east of llie Quebec bridge, and of all the informat-on and reports on the nature
of land, timber and minerals of the places through which the engineers have been,
showing alFO how much the railway would have cost per mile had It been built in that
part of the country. Presented April 7, 1914. — Mr. Sevigny Not printed.

12327. Return to an Order of the House of the 23rd March, 1914, for a copy of all correspond-
ence, messages, nptitions, and other documents in connection with the choice of a site
intended for the construction of a station at the village of St. Eleuthere, on the
National Transcontinental Railway. Presented April 15, 1914. — Mr. Lapointe (Kamour-
aska) Not printed.

123'>- Return to an Order of the House for a return showing. —

1. What kind of coaling plants have been provided on the National Transcontinental
Railway?

2. How many have been provided?

3. Where they have been constructed?

4. If any tenders were called for them?

5. The name and address^ of the lowest tenderer.

6. From whom thoy were obtained and at what price? Presented April 15, 1914.
— Mr. Macdonald Not printed.

124. Return to an Address to His Royal Highness the Governor General, of the 2nd February,

191 1, for a copy of all decisions of the Board of Railway Commisioners made on or
after the lOth of October, 1911. on which appeals have been taken to the Governor in
Council, and of all decisions given by the Governor in Council on such appeals. Pre-
sented February 13, 1914. — Mr. Sinciair Not printed.

125. Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a copy of all rules and

regulations ni.ulo and pas.^cd I'V the Hoard, witli the approval of the Minister, under
the iirovisions of the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railways Employees'
Provident Fund Act, pursuant to section eight of said Act. Presented February 13,
1914.— Afr. Emtneraon jVot printed.

125a. Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a leturn shoving in
detail the transactions and proceedings of the so-called Provident Fund Board from the
1st day of January, A.D., 1912, to date, with the names of applicants and their addresses
and the nature of their employment, for retirement under the provisions of The Inter-
colonial and Prince Edward Island Railways Employees' Provident Fund Act, and a
statement of the names so retired durim? that period, showing the amount of t heir
respective retiring allowances, their respective t>rms of service, their respective ages,
and the total of the fixed yearly charges upon the said fund made thereby ; together

GO

4-5 George V. Alphabetical Index to Seseiotuil Papei*s. A. 1914

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2S— Continued.

with a copy of all correspondence, letters, documents and other communications relat-
ing to such applications and retirements on file in the Railway Department either at
Moncton or at Ottawa, and of all correspondence, letters, petitions or other communica-
tions addressed to and received by the Minister of Railways and Canals, the Depart-
ment, or any official thereof, or any member of the Government from any member of
Pari ament, or other person charged with the responsibility of directing Government or
railway patronage, or froin any person or persons, club or association assuming to
advise or direct with respect to any such patronage, and of all replies made to any
such letters, petitions or other communications. Presented March 3, 1914. — lilr.
Eimnerson Not printed.

126. Return to an Order of tlie House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a return showing the

amounts of receipts and expenditures on the Intercolonial Railway during the months
of April, May and June, of 1913, respectively, giving separately the revenue from
passenger trains, freight traffic, mails and express and miscellaneous revenue, respecti-
vely, with the total thereof during that period ; also the same information respecting
the corresponding months of 1912, with the total thereof for that period. Also a state-
ment showing the working expenses or expenditure during months of April, May and
June of 1913, respectively, giving separately the working expenses or expenditure on
maintenance of way and structures, maintenance of equipment, traffic expenses, trans-
portation expenses and general expenses ; with the total thereof during that period ;
and also the same information respecting the corresponding months of 1912. with the
total thereof for the same period ; also a statement showing the cost of transporting
freight per ton mile during the period named in the years 1912 and 1913. Presented
February 13, 1914. — Mr. Emmerson Not printed.

126a- Return to an Order of the House of the 4th March, 1914, for a return showing the total
revenue of the Intercolonial Railway during the fiscal year 1912-1913, and the revenue
from Camphellton and all stations east of Campbellton, and from those west thereof as
far as Halifax, on the main line, including the branches east of Campbellton, Prince
Edward Island Railway excluded. Presented March 17, 1914. — Mr. Boulay.

Not priyited.

126&- Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a return showing the
total earnings of the Intercolonial Railway on Division 3 in connection with passenger
traffic for the calendar years 1910, 1911, 1912 and 1913 respectively, and the monthly
passenger traffic earnings for each of the said years ; the total expenses or expendi-
tures connected with the said passenger traffic on said division during the said years
respectively ; together with a statement showing the monthly passenger traffic expenses
or expenditures connected with said passenger traffic for each of the months during the
said years ; and showing, in addition, the loss and surplus for each of said years and
the months thereof respectively, in connection with the passenger traffic on said division
3 between St. John and Halifax ; also a statement of the revenue and expenditures
on the transactions connected with said passenger traffic over said division during the
months of December, 1913, and Januarj', 1914, separately; and also a statement show-
ing the gross passenger earnings for December, 1912, and January, 1914, respectively,
and the gross expenditures with the passenger traffic for the said months respectively ;
together with a copy of all reports, returns, letters and correspondence relating to the
earnings, expenditures or losses or surpluses on said division either in connection with
freight or passenger traffic. Presented April 7, 1914. — Mr. Emmerson. . . .Not printed.

127. Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a return showing the

names of the employees of all kinds on the Soulanges Canal in the section extending
from the foot of the canal to the first bridge ; with the functions of each of them, the
salary thereto attached and the date of their hiring during the season of navigation.
Presented February 13, 1914. — Mr. Boyer Not printed.

128. Return to an Order of the House of the 3rd February, 1914, for a return showing: —

1. The names of all persons from whom land or property has been expropriated for
right of way and station purposes in connection with the Dartmouth to Dean Settlement
Branch of the Intercolonial Railway of Canada.

2. The quantity of land or property so expropriated.

3. The amount paid or offered to such person or persons for such land or property,
in cases where payment or an offer has been made. Presented February 13, 1914. —
Mr. Maclean (Halifax) Not printed.

129. Copy of the International Convention for the safety of human life at sea. Presented by

Hon. Mr. Hazen, February 16, 1914 Printed for distribution and sessional papers.

129a. Return to an Address to His Royal Highness the Governor General of the 2nd February,
1914, for a copy of all correspondence with the Imperial authorities, or any commercial
bodies, on the subject of Safety of Life at Sea ; and of the Order in Council appointing
representatives of Canada on the International Conference on Safety of Life at Sea.
Presented February 20, 1914. — Sir Wilfrid Laurier Not printed.

Gl

4-3 George V. Alpliabetical Index to Sessional Papers. A. 1914

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 28— Continued.

130. Return to an Order of the House of the 9th February, 1914, for a copy of all accounts,

bills, receipts and vouchers in connection with the services of N. W. White, during 1912
and 1913, as commissioner to inquire into Indian lands in the Province of British Colum-
bia. Presented February 17, 1914. — Mr. Maclean (Halifax) Not printed.

131. Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a copy of all documents

whatsoever relating to the investigation of a claim of Jean Ross or Joseph Ross, of
Anciui, County of Rimouski, Province of Quebec, against the Intercolonial Railway,
fol'.owing an accident to a horse, which occurred on the 10th of December, 1906. Pre-
sented February 17, 1914. — Mr. Boulay Not printed.

132. Copy of the Order in Council appointing a commission to investigate the cost of living.

Presented February 17, 1914. — Sir Wilfrid Laurier Not printed.

133. Statement of the population of Canada and its Provinces and Territories in the years

1871, 18S1, 1891, 1901 and 1911, according to the census returns. Presented by Hon.
Mr. Borden, February 17, 1914 Not printed.

134. Return to an Order of the House of the 9th February, 1914, for a copy of all protests, if

any, by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, against changes in grades of the
National Transcontinental Railway from Winnipeg eastward, and terminal facilities at
Quebec ; of all subsequent approvals of such changes, if any, by the Grand Trunk Paci-
fic Railway Company, and of all correspondence on the above subject. Presented
February 18, 1914. — Sir W. Laurier Not printed.

135. Copy of Second Interim Report of the Royal Commission on the natural resources, trade

and legislation of certain portions of His Majesty's Dominions, together with the
Minutes of Evidence taken in Australia and New Zealand in 1913, in connection there-
with. Presented by Hon. Mr. Foster, February IS, 1914 Not printed.

136. Return to an Order of the Senate dated 27th January, 1914, for a copy of the Annual

Report made in January, 1913, by the Central Railway Company to the Railway Depart-
ment.— {Senate) Not printed.

137. Return to an Order of the Senate dated 27th January, 1914, for a copy of the Annual

Report made by the Salisbury and Albert Railway Company to the Railway Depart-
ment.— (Senate) Not printed.

138. Return to an Order of the House of the 9th February, 1914, for a copy of all correspond-

ence and documents in reference to the matter submitted to Sir William Whyte by the
Government, the Transcontinental Commission or the comm.ission appointed to investi-
gate the construction of the National Transcontinental Railway, between the Govern-
ment or any member or official thereof, and any official of the Grand Trunk Pacific
Railway Company ; and also of all correspondence between any member or official of
either the above named commissions and the Justice Department, concerning the said
matter. Presented February 19, 1914. — Mr. Graham Not printed,

139. Return to an Order of the House of the IGth February, 1914, for a return showing th«

names, salaries and grades of the private secretaries of the members of the Liberal
Government on October, 1911 ; the names of the private secretaries employed from
time to time by the members of the present Government, and the salary and grade of
each. Presented February 19, 1914. — Mr. Murphy iVof printed,

140. Return to an Order of the House of the 9th February, 1914, for a return showing how

many woollen industries are operated in the country ; where situated, in which prov-
ince, and in what city, town or village ; the number of hands employed in each, and
the output for each during 1913. Presented February 19, 1914. — Mr. Vervillc.

Not printed,

141. Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a return showing the

number, location, and mileage of rural mail routes established in Bonaventure County
from October, 1911, to date, if any ; together with a copy of all applications, memorials,
reports and correspondence generally on this matter. Presented February 23, 1914. — ■
Mr. Marcil (Bonaventure) Not printed.

141o. Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a return showing a
tabulated statement of the number of rural mail delivery routes opened since 1911,
including the number of boxes used ; also the new mail delivery contracts necessitated
by the establishment of said routes in each county, not already moved for. I're-
sented February 23. 1914. — Mr. Lemicux Not printed.

141b- Return to an Order of the House of the 19th February. 1914. for a return showing the
number of rural mail delivery routes which have been established in Nova Scotia, and
their names : and if any of the routes are provided with a daily service. Presented
March 2, 1914. — Afr. Sinclair Not printed.

62 ^

4-5 George Y. Alphabetical Index to Sessional Papers. A. lOli

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 28— Continued.

141c. Return to an Order of the House of the ISth February, 1914, for a copy of all docu-
ments, petitions, letters, telegrams, &c., exchanged between any one and the Post Office
Department, in connection with the establishing of a rural mail service in the Parish
of Ste. Marguerite de Blairfindie, County of St. Johns and Iberville, and of all docu-
ments, letters and telegrams, &c., relating to the contracts for the conveyance of rural
mail in said parish. Presented April 29, 1914. — Mr. Demers Not printed.

141ri. Return to an Order of the House of the 20th April, 1914, for a return showing: —

1. Whether the rural postal delivery service has been started in the County of
Quebec? If so, when and in what parishes of said county?

2. V/hether public tenders have been advertised for such service? If so, when,
how many were received and from whom, the amount of each tender, and what tender
was accepted?

3. The price of the accepted tender, the name of the tenderer, the condition or
conditions of payment, and the length of the contract. Presented April 30, 1914.^ —
iJIr. Lachance Not printed.

141e. Return to an Order of the House of the 6th April, 1914, for a copy of all letters, peti-
tions and documents relative to the establishment of a rural mail delivery route from
New Glasgow through Mount William, Granton and Abercrombie, County of Pictou.
Presented ^lay 8, 1914. — Mr. Macdonald Not printed.

141/- Return to an Order of the House of the 4th March, 1914, for a copy of all correspond-
ence, telegrams, petition, recommendation and other documents relating to the estab-
listment of the rural mail service in the parish of St. Theodore d' Acton. Presented
May 16, 1914. — Mr. Marcil (,Bo7taventure) Not printed.

141 (g). Return to an Order of the House of the 11th February, 1914, for a copy of all peti-
tions, letters, telegrams and other papers relative to the establishment of rural mail
delivery routes in the County of Pictou since January 1, 1912, together with the num
ber of said routes, the carriers on each route, the tenders received in each case for
the service, a copy of the correspondence in relation to said tenders and their accept-
ance, and the post offices closed or to be closed as the result of the establishment of
said routes. Presented June 12, 1914. — Mr. Macdonald Not printed.

142. Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a return showing what

new post offices have been established in the County of L'lslet since 1911 ; the names
of the officer in charge of each of them ; the revenue brought ; the expenses incurred
by these offices, including the salary and fees of the postmaster and charges for the
conveyance of the mails ; if these officers have been asked for bj- opetitions of the
interested ratepayers, and if so, by whom ; the quantity of letters and other postal
matters that have passed through each of these offices since they have been established.
Presented February 23, 1914. — Mr. Lapointe (Kamouraska) Not printed.

142a. Rturn to an Order of the House of the 30th March, 1914, for a copy of all documents,
papers, petitions, correspondence, reports, &c., in connection with the opening of a post
office under the name of Giasson in the parish of St. Aubert, County of L'lslet. Pre-
sented April 22, 1914. — Mr. Lapointe {Kamouraska) Not printed.

143. Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a return showing the

names and addresses, with i-ank or occupation, of all persons who accompanied the
Minister of Milit;a and Defence to the Old country and Europe during the summer of
1913, and whose expenses were paid wholly or in part by the Dominion Government,
or who were paid salary or allowance during such time, with the amount paid to each
person. Presented February 23, 1914. — Mr. Carvell Not printed.

144. Return to an Order of the House of the 11th February, 1914, for a copy of all corre-

spondence, telegrams and other papers to be found in the Department of the Naval
Service in connection with the death and burial, at Montreal, of Joseph LeBlanc, a
sailor on D.G.S. Canada. Presented February 23, 1914. — Mr. Sinclair. .Not printed.

145. Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914. for a copy of all tenders

received for tlic construction of a salmon hatchery on Nipissiguit river, Gloucester

County, N.B., and of the contract awarded. Presented February 23, 1914. Mr. Tur-

P^o" Not printed.

146. Return to an Order of the House of the 9th April, 1913, for a copy of all correspondence,

telegrams, petitions, affidavits, certificates, reports, complaints and other documents'
relating to the resignation of Mr. M. C. Blais, recruiting officer of the Department of
Marine and Fisheries from the Ciovernment shipyards at St. Joseph de Sorel, and to
the appointment of Mr. F. P. Vanasse to this office. Presented February 23, 1914. —
Mr. Cardin Not jirinted.

fi3

4-5 George V. Alphabetical Index to Sessional Papers. A. 1914

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2S— Continued.

147. Return to an Order of the House of the 9th February, 1914, for a copy of all correspond-
ence, letters, telegrams, and other documents relating to industrial disputes during the
y ar 191S, between the operators and employees of any of the companies operating coal
mines on Vancouver Island, and disturbances arising out of the same ; and of any cor-
respondence, either before or since the year 1913, with respect to any of the said dis-
putes. And in particular of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, and other documents
to or from the Prime Minister, the Honourable the Minister of Labour or any of the
ofTicers of the Department of Labour, respecting attempts at. conciliation in connection
with these disputes, and to or from the Honourable the Minister of Militia, or any offi-
cers of the Department of Militia and the Honourable the Minister of Justice, or any
officers of the Department of Justice, respecting the calling out and services of the
m'litia in connection with said disputes ; and a statement of the arrests made and of
conviotions, if any, for infringement of the laws. Also a copy of the evidence taken
and reports of investigations made by the Honourable the Minister of Labour, Mr.
Samuel Price, Commissioner appointed by the Department of Labour, and of the Deputy
Minister of Labour ; together with a detailed statement of the expenses of all such
investigations and expenses otherwise incurred by any of the Departments of the Gov-
ernment in consequence of said disputes or difficulties arising out of same. Presented
February 23, 1914. — Sir W. Laurier Not printed.

147a- Return to an Address to His Royal Highness the Governor General of the 2nd February,
1914, for a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and reports that have been
exchanged between tlie Government and the strikers and operators of coal mines in
British Columbia since the beginning of the strike until the present ; also a copy of all
Oi-(lers in Council in connection with said strike. Presented February 23, 1914. — Mr.
Verville Not printed.

147i'- Supplementary Return to an Order of the House of the 9th February, 1914, for a copy
of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, and other documents relating to industrial
di.^putes during the year 1913, between the operators and employees of any of the
companies opeiating coal mines on Vancouver Island, and disturbances arising out of
the same; and of any correspondence, either before or since the year 1913 with respect
to any of the said disputes. And in particular of all corresoondence, letters, telegrams,
and other documents to or from the Prime Minister, the Honourable the Minister of
Labour or any of the officers of the Department of Labour, respecting attempts at con-
ciliation in connection with these disputes, and to or from the Honourable the Mini.ster
of Militia, or any officers of the Department of Militia and the Honourable the Minister
of Justice, or any officers of the Department of Justice, respecting the calling out and
services of the militia in connection with said disputes; and a statement of the ari-ests
made and of convictions if any, for infringement of the laws. Also a copy of the evi-
dence taken and reports of investigations made by the Honourable the Minister of
Labour, Mr. Samuel Price, Commissioner appointed by the Department of Labour, and
of the Deputy Minister of Labour ; together with a detailed statement of the expenses
of all such investigations and expenses otherwise incurred by any of the Departments
of the Government in consequence of said disputes or difficulties arising out of same.
Presented February 24, 1914. — Sir Wilfrid Laurier Not printed.

148. Regulations, approved by Order in Council , dated the 19th day of January, 1914, for the
disposal of petroleum and natural ga.s rights, the property of the Crown in Manitoba,
Saskatchewan, Alberta, the Northwest Territories, tlie Yukon Territory, the Railway
Belt in the Province of British Columbia, and within the tract containing three and
one-half (34) million acres of land acquired by the Dominion Government from the
Province cf British Columbia, and referred to in subsection (b) of section 3 of the
Dominion Lands Act. Presented by Hon. Mr. Roche, February 23, 1914.

Not printed.

149.Regulations in regard to grazing leases of vacant Dominion lands, &c: Presented by Hon.
Mr. Roche, February 23, 1914 Not printed.

150. Return to an Order of the House of the 9th February, 1914. for a return showing the

amounts in detail paid to Ward Fisher, of Shelburne, N.S., fishery inspector, for the years
1912 and 1913 for salary, office expenses, travelling expenses, and all other expenses.
Presented February 24. 1914. — Mr. Maclean (Halifax) Not printed.

151. Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a copy of the report of

operations at the fishery hatchery at Port Daniel West, for the year 1913. Presented
February 24, 1914. — Mr. Marcil (Bonavcnture) Not printed.

152. Return to an Order of the House of the ISth February, 1914. for a copy of all corre-

spondence, investigations or other documents respecting the loss of a horse killed on
the Intercolonial, on the 10th of Sejjtember last, the property of Johnny Roy, of
Amqui. Presented February 24, 1914. — Mr. Boulay Not printed.

G4

4-5 George V. Alphabetical ludex to Sessional Papers. A. 1914

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2S— Continued.

153. Return to an Order of the House of the 16th February, 1914, for a return showing the

increase in freight rates on live-stock, including horses, carried over the Intercolonial

Railway, by the tariff effective May 1, 1913, as compared with the tariff effective
April 15, 1909, for the following distances, respectively: —

Over 5 and not over 10 miles.

" 10 " " 15

" 15 " " 20

" 20 " " 25

" ?5 " " 30 "

" 30 " " 40

" 40 '* " 50

*• 50 " " GO "

" 60 " " 70

" 70 " •' 80

" SO " •' 90 "

« 90 " ■• 100

" 100 " " 110

" 110 " " 120 "

" 120 " " ISO "

" 130 " " 140

" 140 " '• 150

" 150 " " 160

Presented February 24, 1914. — Mr. Kyle Not printed.

154. Return to an Order of the House of the 9th February, 1914, for a copy of all correspond-

ence, letters, telegrams, and other documents relative to the report and recommenda-
tions of the Board appointed under the Combines Investigation Act to investigate the
methods adopted by the United Shoe Machinery Company. Presented February 24.
] 914. — Sir Wilfrid Laurier Not printed.

155. Return to an Address to His Royal Highness the Governor General of the 2nd February,

1914, for a copy of memorandum of agreement between the Canadian Government rail-
ways and tlie Canadian Pacific Railway Company, covering the transportation of frci^'^t
and passengers between Halifax and St. John over the Intercolonial Railway, in con-
nection with the Canadian Pacific and Allan Line Steamships, carrying British mails,
making Halifax the terminal port ; also of all agreements. Orders in Council, petitions,
memorials, regulations or orders of the Department of Railways and Canals, or of
any officer or officers of the Intercolonial Railway ; of letters or other correspondence,
interviews with the Prime IVIinister and other member or members of the Government,
and representations to the Prime Minister, or other member or members of the Govern-
ment, in any manner relating to the said memorandum of agreement ; and of all tele-
grams and letters received by the Government, or any member thereof, or sent by
them, either in reply or otherwise ; also of all letters, telegrams, representations or other
documents relating to the said agreement or in any way connected therewith, received
by F. P. Gutelius, the General Manager of the Intercolonial Railway, from the Can-
adian Pacific Railway, or from any corporation, persons or body, or sent by him, in
reply thereto or otherwise, to the said Canadian Pacific Railway or to any other cor-
poration, body or person. Presented February 24, 1914. — Mr. Emmerson. .Not printed.

156. Return to an Address to His Royal Highness the Governor General of the 9th February,

1914, for a copy of all Orders in Council since the 1st of June last in any way altering

the rates of duties existing under the Customs Act. Presented February 24, 1914.

fiir Wilfrid Laurier Not printed.

157. Correspondence, statements, &c., in respect to certain proposed advances to the Harbour

Commissioners of Montreal, for expenditure during the years 1914, 1915, 1916 and 1917.
Presented by Hon. Mr. Hazen, February 27, 1914 Not printed.

158. Memorandum of proposed harbour improvements to be made by the Harbour Commis-

sioners of Quebec during 1914, out of certain proposed advances to be made to the said
commission. Presented by Hon. Mr. Hazen, Februajy 27, 1914 Not printed.

159. Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a copy of all papers,

correspondence, telegrams, &c., between the Department of Trade and Commerce and
any person or persons, companies or corporations, in the yeai-s 1912 and 1913, respect-
ing a steamship service between St. John, X.B., and Bear River, N.S., and intermediate
points, and the matter of the payment of a subsidy therefor. Presented March 2, 1914.
— Mr. Maclean (Halifax) Not printed.

160. Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a copy of the reports

made by the proprietors of the steamer Canada, on which the subsidy was paid to
them for the season of 1913, for the service between Campbellton, X.B., and Gasp<?,
Que. ; together with a copy of all complaints regarding the said service ^nd of the corre-
spondence, reporifi and documents in the possession of the Department of Trade and
Commerce in that connection in the said year. Presented March 2, 1914. — Mr. Marcil
(Bonaventure) Not printed.

634.33—5 65

4-5 George V. Alphabetical Index to Sessional Papers. A. 1914

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2S—C ontinued.

161. Return to an Order of the House of the 4th February, 1914, for a return showing what

sum or sums of money, if any, have been expended by the Government since the 21st
of September, 1911, in the County of Wright, Quebec, and how such money has been
expended. Presented March 2, 1914. — Mr. Devlin Not printed.

162. Return to an Order of the House of the 26th February, 1914, for a return showing: —

1. How many temporary clerks were employed in the LiDrary of Parliament during
the Sessions of 1911-1912 and 1912-1913, their names and the salary paid to each for
such service, and the total so paid?

2. How many temporary clerks are at present so employed, their names and salaries
respectively?

3. If any temporary clerks were employed in said library, during the Session of
1910-1911 ; if so, how many?

4. What was the then number of permanent clerks in the library, and the present
number of temporary clerks employed in said library?

5. Why temporary clerks are employed in said library in positions superior to and
at higher pay than that paid to permanent clerks? Presented March 3, 1914. — Mr.
Turge<yti Not printed.

163. Return to an Address to His Royal Highness the Governor General of the 2nd February,

1914, for a copy of all correspondence, telegramS, memoranda, Orders in Council,
instructions to officers, regulations and other papers and documents relating to a change
in the regulations governing the fishing of salmon in the St. John River, above tidal
water. Presented March 3, 1914. — Mr. Sinclair Not printed.

164. Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a copy of all letters, tele-

grams and correspondence in any way relating to tha appointment of men in any way
connected with the salmon fishing pond at Margaree during the year 1913. Presented
March 3, 1914. — Mr. Chisholm (Inverness) Not printed.

165. Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February. 1914, for a copy of all tendera

received in 1912 for the construction of a breakwater at Green Point, Gloucester County,
N.B., and of all correspondence, letters and telegrams showing why the contract was
not awarded to lowest tenderer. Presented March 3, 1914. — Mr. Turgeon. .Not printed.

166. Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a copy of all correspond-

ence, letters, telegrams, &c., touching in any way the work done on Lingan Beach,
South Cape Breton, under Superintendent H. D. McLean. Presented March 3, 1914. — •
Mr. Carroll Not printed.

167. Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a copy of all papers.

advertisements, tenders, bids, contracts, reports, vouchers, accounts, receipts, correspond-
ence, &c., in connection with a wharf recently constructed at Gold River, Lunenburg
County, N.S. Presented March 3, 1914. — Mr. Macle<in (Halifax) Not printed.

168. Return to an Address to His Royal Highness the Governor General, of the 9th February,

1914, for a copy of all documents. Orders in Council, correspondence, telegrams, tenders,
accounts, vouchers, part, &c., in connection with the construction of a bridge or work be-
tween the mainland and an island, known as Boutilier's island, at South West Cove,
Lunenburg County, N.S. Presented March 3, 1914. — Mr. Maclean (Halifax). .Not printed.

169. Return to an Order of the House of the 9th February, 1914, for a copy of all advertise-

ments, tenders, contracts, documents, letters and correspondence relating to the supply
of coal for the Government public buildings at Lunenburg, N.S. Presented March 3.
1914. — Mr. Macdonald Not printed.

170. Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a comparative statement

of the quantity of cubic yards of dredging done by the Restigouche, or dredge No. S,
on the outside bar of Bathurst Harbour, during the .seasons of 1910, 1911, 1912 and

1913. Presented March 3, 1914. — Mr. Turgeon Not printed.

170o- Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a copy of all tendera
received for the dredging in Bathurst Harbour, and of the contract awarded. Presented
March 3, 1914. — Mr. Turgeon Not printed.

170^- Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a copy of all correspond-
ence, letters and telegrams relating to the deposit of sand and mud dumped into the
southwestern channel by the contractors of dredging in Bathurst Harbour. Presented
March 3, 1914. — Mr. Turgeon ! Not printed.

171. Return to an Address to His Royal Highness the Governor General of the 9th February,

1914, for a copy of all corresjv'ndence. telegrams, petitions and memorials received by
the Ri.ght Honourable R. L. Borden, Premier of Canada, or the Minister of Railwaya
and Canals, from J. A. CJillies, Esq., Sydney. N.S.. or from any resident of the County
of Richmond, N.S., relative to the purchasing of the Cape Breton Railway by the ("rov-
ernment and the building of a line of railway from St. Peters to Sydney and Louisburg,
and of replies thereto. Presented March 3, 1914. — A/r. Kyte Not printed.

6G

4-5 George V. Alphabstical Index to Sessional Papers. A. 1914

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 28— Continued.

172. Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a return showing: —

1. The names of all proprietors from whom land and property have been expro-
priated for the purpose of the Halifax Ocean Terminals between Three Mile House and
the proposed site of the railway and shipping terminals?

2. The price or amount of damages paid therefor, or the amount ofEeerd and
accepted in the case of each proprietor?

3. The amount offered or tendered each proprietor for damages and which has not
been accepted.

4. The quantity of land and nature of property so expropriated from each pro-
prietor. Presented March 3, 1914. — Mr. ilaclean (Halifax) Not printed.

172a- Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a copy of all advertise-
ments, tenders, papers, documents, letters and correspondence relating to the construc-
tion of the railwaj^ from Three Miie House at Bedford Basin to Halifax Harbour, and
also to the piers or wharfs and sea walls in connection with the proposed Halifax Ocean
Terminals. Presented March 16, 1914. — Mr. Maclean (Halifax) Not printed.

173. Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a copy of all agreements,

correspondence, papers and documents referring to any arrangement made between the
Intercolonial Railway of Canada and the Canadian Pacific Railway in the year 1913,
relating to the hauling of Canadian Pacific Railway freight and passenger trains be-
tween St. John and Halifax, connecting with any transatlantic steamship lines at Hali-
fax, during the winter season of 1913-14. Presented March 4, 1914. — Mr. Maclean (Hali-
fax) Xot printed.

174. Return to an Order of the House of the 20th January, 1913, for a copy of all recommenda-

tions, correspondence, letters, telegrams and reports now on file in the Department of
Justice, relating to the vacancy in the office of deputy warden of the Dorchester peni-
tentiary, and the appointment of a successor to Mr. A. B. Pipes, who was promoted from
the position of deputy warden of Dorchester penitentiary to that of warden. Presented
March 4, 1914. — Mr. Emmerson Not printed.

175. Correspondence between the City of Ottawa and the Government, on the subject of a pure

water supply for the city and Government buildings. Presented bj' Hon. Mr. Borden.
March 4, 1914 Not printed.

176. Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a copy of all letters, corre-

spondence, telegrams and all other documents between the Department of Railways
and Canals and Archer, Macdonald, E. Montpetit, C. A. Harwood. and A. Marceau, local
engineer. St. Amour, Superintendent of the Canal of Soulanges, L. A. Sauv&, and others,
respecting the tearing down of several houses and dependencies erected on the Govern-
ment grounds at Pointe Cascades, the property of the said L. A. Sauve. Presented March
5, 1914. — Mr. Boyer Not printed.

177. Return to an Order of the House of the 23rd February, 1914, for a copy of all agreements

between the Transcontinental Railway Commission and the Canadian Northern Railway
for the use of the line of the said company by the trains of the Transcontinental Rail-
way from Cap Rouge to the shops at St. Malo. Presented March 5, 1914.— Sir Wilfrid
Laurier Not printed.

178. Return to an Order of the House of the 23rd February, 1914, for a copy of all correspond-

ence between the Minister of Railwavs or the Transcontinental Railway Commission
and the Quebec Harbour Commission, with regard to the construction by the said Har-
bour Commission of a line of railway to connect the said Transcontinental Railway from
Champlain Market with the proposed Union Station at the Palais, and of all contrac^^
by the said Harbour Commission towards that end. Presented March 5, 1914. — Sir
Wilfrid Laurier Not printed.

179. Return to an Order of the House of the 9th February, 1914, for a copy of all advertise-

ment.s, tenders, contracts and correspondence in connection with the proposed New

London Branch of the Prince Edward Island Railway. Presented March 5, 1914. Mr.

Graham Not printed.

180. Return to an Order of the House of the 4th February, 1914, for a return shov.ing the total

amount of available cash on deposit to the credit of the Government of Canada on the
last day of each month between April 1, 1913, and December 31, 1913. Presented
March 5, 1914. — Mr. Maclean (Halifax) A^oj printed.

181. Return to an Order of the House of the 4th February, 1914, for a return .showing the

following particulars respectively, of all loans placed or extended by t!ie Government
of Canada, upon the London market during the calendar years 1912 and 1913: Loan,
date and copy of prospectus ; price in prospectus and price realized ; date on which loan
matures; rate per cent; total issue; amount realized; charges including discount for
immediate payments, fcc. ; net amount of cash realized ; and the annual effective rate
of interest per unit. Presented March 5, 1914. — Mr. Maclean (Halifax) . . . .Not printed.

63433— 5i 67

4-5 George V. Alphabetical Index to Sessional Papers. A. 1914

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 28— Continued.

182. Return to an Order of the House of the 9th February, 1914, for a return showing the

number of farm labourers and public servants respectively, placed by the Government
employment agents during the years 1912 and 1913 ; also the counties where placed and
amount of bonus paid. Presented March 6, 1914. — Mr. Sutherland Not printed.

183. Return to an Order of the House of the 26th February, 1914, for a return showing: —

1. What chartered banks in Canada have gone into liquidation since Confederation,
and at what date in each case ;

2. The loss in each case to the depositors, the note holders and the stockholders
respectively ;

3. What relief, if any, was given in each case by the Government to any of the
parties suffering loss. Presented March 6, 1914.— Jlfr. Neely Not printed.

184. Return to an Order of the House of the 11th February, 1914, for a return showing the

number of binders, reapers, mowers, ploughs, seedeis, and cultivators exported from
and imported to Canada, with their value respectively, in each of the years 1910, 1911.
1912 and 1913. Presented March 6, 1914. — Mr. Neely Not printed.

185. Return to an Order of the House of the 23rd February, 1914, for a return showing the

number of cattle exported from Canada to the United States in the months of October,
November and December, 1913, and January, 1914, and for the corresponding months
in 1912 and 1913. Presented March 6, 1914. — Mr. Maclean (Halifax) ... .Not printed.

186. Return to an Order of the House of the 23rd February, 1914, for a return showing the

quantities and varieties of fish exported from Canada to the United States in the months
of October, November and December, 1913, and January, 1914, and for the correspond-
ing months in 1912 and 1913. Presented March 6. 1914. — Mr. Maclean (Halifax).

Not printed.

187. Return to an Order of the House of the 26th February, 1914, for a return showing: —

1. Who were, from incorporation, and who are, the officers and directors of the
Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company ;

2. The amount of capital stock of said company, the amount paid up, and who are
the holders of such paid up stock, and the amount held, and still held, by each ;

3. Tf this company, or a subsidiary company, has contracted to build any portion
of the National Transcontinental Railway ; and, if so, the total amount of their con-
tracts for Buch work ;

4. What portion of such contracts or work was sublet, and on such sublet contracts
what profit was made by the said company. Presented March 6, 1914. — Mr. Middlrbro.

Not printed.

188. Report of the Board of Inquiry appointed to investigate and verify the claims of appli-

cants for Fenian Raid Volunteer Bounty in the Province of Nova Scotia. Presented by
Hon. Mr. Hughes. March 9, 1914 Not printed.

188c- List of applicants, in Nova Scotia, for the Fenian Raid Volunteer Bounty whose claims
have been approved. — L,ist of Fenian Raid Volunteer Bounty applicants, in Nova Scotia,
received to December 31, 1913, but not yet considered. Presented by Hon. Mr. Hughes,
March 9. 1914 ^'ot printed

189. Return to an Order of the House of the 12th February, 1914, for a return showing what

was the local minimum rate of freight on small parcels on the Intercolonial Railway
prior to October 10, 1911, and also the present rate on the same. Presented March 9,
^914. — Mr. Sinclair Not printed.

190. Return to an Order of the House for a copy of all correspondence, reports, evidence taken,

and of all other papers in the possession of the Minister of Railways and Canals, relat-
ing to the investigation recently held by Mr. Ferguson. ML A., concerning the affairs
of the Trent Valley Canal. I'roponted March 9, 1914. — Mr. Bitrnham.

Report only printed for distribution and sessional papers.

191. Return to an Order of the House of the 16th February. 1914. for a copy of all papers

necessary to convey full information as to the charter, outfit and instructions of the
Karluk and auxiliary vessels; the names, rank, pay and terms of engagement of their
olHcers and crews ; and of all communications received from Mr. V. StePfansson, or any
other person who has received such a communication, written after the expedition
sailed for the Arctic Ocean. Presented March 10, 1914. — Mr. Oliver Not printed.

192. Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a return showing the

number of towns in the Province of Ontario which have a population larger than the
town of Chesley, South Riding of Bruce, which was 1.734. according to the last census;
also the number of such towns served by letter boxes on the street. Presented March
10, 1914. — Mr. McCrancy Not printed.

193. Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February. 1914, for a return showing the

names of the promoters of the National Drop Forge Company, Limited, and the powers
asked by and given to said company by letters patent. Presented March 10. 1914. —

Mr. Lemicu-x "• -V"' printed.

US

4-5 George V. Alphabetical Index to Sessional Papers. A. 1914

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2S— Continued.

194. Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a return showing the

names of the promoters of the Canadian Contracting Company, and the powers asked
by and given to said company by letters patent. Presented March 10, 1914. — Mr.
Lemieux .Not printed.

195. Return to an Order of the House of the 4th February, 1914, for a copy of all papers,

letters, telegrams, reports, inquiries and documents or other communications had with
any of the Departments of the Government, particularly with the Interior, Customs and
Marine and Fisheries Departments, relating to Gustavas A. Colpitts, a Canadian citizen
returning as a passenger on the Royal Mail Steamship Empress of Britain, in September,
1911, who alleged that he was not allowed by officers of the Government to disembark
at Rimouski from said steamship. Also a copy of all letters, correspondence or other
communications received by any members of the Government, particularly by the
M nister of Marine and Fisheries, and by any Department of the Government, from the
said Gustavas A. Colpitts, who was at the time a student at Mount Allison University,
Sackville, New Brunswick, and of all letters or other communications sent in reply
thereto. Presented March 10, 1914. — Mr. Emmerson Not printed.

196. NumVyer of Chinamen entering Canada during years 1911-12-13, &c. — (Senate.).

Not printed.

197. Return to an Order of the House of the 23rd February, 1914, for a copy of all letters,

papers, plans, correspondence, memoranda and other documents relative to the shorten-
ing ot (Jistahces on the Intercolonial Railway between Pictou and Port Mulgrave. and
to the construction of a new bridge at Pictou in connection therewith. Presented
March 12, 1914. — Mr. Mavdonahl Not printed.

198. Return to an Order of the House of the 23rd February, 1914, for a copy of all letters,

telegrams, correspondence, leases and other documents relating to the cutting of lumber
by Mr. B. F. Smith from the so-called Tobique Indian reserve, in the Province of New
Brunswick, and of all recommendations with reference thereto, made by the Indian
agent for that portion of the Province, or any other official of the Department in the
said Province ; together with a statement of the lumber cut by said Smith from said
reserve, with the rates of stumpage charged and amounts paid since January 1, 1912.
Presented March 12, 1914.— Af7-. Carvell Not printed.

198o. Return to an Order of the House of the 23rd February, 1914. for a copy of all corre-
spondence, letters, telegrams, memorials, petitions, &c.. relating to the sale or transfer
of the Indian reserve at Sydney, N.S., and the removal of the Indians therefrom. Pre-
sented March 17, 1914. — Mr. Kytc Not printed.

198''- Return to an Order of the House of the 23rd March, 1914, for a copy of all the instruc-
tions issued to C. P. Fullei'ton and Fawcett Taylor, or either of them, in reference to
the St. Peter's Indian reserve. Presented April 8, 1914. — Mr. Oliver Not printed.

199. Return to an Order of the House of the 11th February, 1914, for a copy of all corre-

spondence, letters, telegrams and other documents relative to the purchase for the Inter-
colonial Railway of a quantity of coal in the United States, within the past few months.
Presented March 12, 1914. — Mr. Macdonald Not printed.

199«- Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a return showing:

1. When the Intercolonial Railway and the Prince Edward Island Railway last
called for tenders for its coal supply, and when the tenders were returnable?

2. The number of tenders received, the names of the tenderers, and their respec-
tive prices?

3. The date of the last contract or contracts for coal for the Intercolonial Railway,
and who was the contractor or contractors respectively?

4. The names of the successful tenderers, as the result of the last call for tenders,
and their prices respectively?

5. The amount in tons of the contract made with each, and at what prices per ton
respectively?

6. If any coal was purchased for the Government system of railways in the United
States since March 31, 1913? If so, by whom, from whom, and through whom it was
purchased, and at what price, the cost per ton delivered, inclusive of commissions to the
railways. Presented March 18, 1914. — Mr. Evimerson Not printed.

199&- Return to an Order of the House for a return showing whether the Government has pur-
chased any coal, freight or passenger cars during the past six months for the Inter-
colonial Railway ; if so, from whom and in what quantity ; the price paid in each case ;
if any tenders were called for the same ; who the tenderers were and the amount of
each tender. Presented April 6, 1914. — Mr. Macdonald Not printed.

200. Return to an Order of the House of the 4th March, 1914, for a return showing the freight

rates on flour, hay, oats, lumber and firewood per 100 lbs. or per ton, between Batiiurst,
N.B., and Nepisiguit Junction, Red Pine. Bartibogue, Beaver Brook, and between
Bathurst, Berresford, Petit Rocher and Belledune, before the changes made in August,
1913, and the freight rates on the same articles, between the same points, under the

new schedule of rates. Presented March 16,1914. — Mr. Turgeon Not printed.

69

4-5 George V. Alphabetical Index to Sessional Papers. A. 1914

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 28— Continued.

201. Return to an Order of the House of the 11th February, 1914. for a copy of all contracts.

accounts, bills, memoranda, letters, correspondence, receipts, vouchers, bills of lading,
&c., referring to all materials, provisions, supplies and goods of every description pur-
chased and forwarded to Port Nelson during the year 1913, by any Department of the
Government of Canada, and agreements for employment of workmen in connection with
the construction of the Hudson Bay Railway terminals at Port Nelson. Presented March
18, 1914. — Mr. Maclean (Halifax) Not printed.

202. Return to an Order of the House of the 9th February, 1914, for a copy of all papers.

letters or other correspondence, instructions, reports, valuations, appointment of
valuators, or appraisers, appraisements, abstracts of titles, deeds or other conveyances,
in any Department of the Government or in the railway offices at Moncton, relating to,
or in any manner connected with, the purchase by the Intercolonial Railway of a prop-
erty in Moncton, N.B., at the corner of Archibald and Main streets in said city, form-
erly owned in his lifetime by the late P. S. Archibald, C.E., and now occupied by the
General Superintendent of the Intercolonial Railway, F. P. Brady, as a residence ;
together with a copy of all bills, accounts and statement of expenditures for repairs
made on the buildings of said property ; and also of accounts, commissions and bills
paid to solicitors, attorneys or other agents, for searches, conveyances, and a statement
of all moneys paid for charges and expenses in connection with such purchase or the
procuring of a deed of said property? Presented March 16, 1914. — Mr. Emmerson.

Not printed.

202a- Supplementary Return to an Order of the House of the 9th February, 1914, for a
copy of all papers, letters or other correspondence. Instructions, reports, valuations,
appointment of valuators, or appraisers, appraisements, abstracts of titles, deeds or
other conveyances in any department of the Government or in the railway offices at
Moncton, relating to, or in any manner connected with, the purchase by the Inter-
colonial Railway of a property in Moncton, N.B., at the corner of Archibald and Main
streets in said city, formerly owned in his lifetime by the late P. S. Archibald, C.E.,
and now occupied by the General Superintendent of the Intercolonial Railway, F. P.
Biady, as a residence ; together with a copy of all bills, accounts and statement of
expenditures for repairs made on the buildings of said property; and also of accounts,
commissions and bills paid to solicitors, attorneys or other agents, for searches, con-
veyances, and a statement of all monies paid for charges and expenses in connection
with such purchase or the procuring of a deed of said property. Presented March 26,
1914. — Mr. Emmersoryi Not printed.

202J>. Further Supplementary Return to an Order of the House of the 9th February, 1914. for a
copy of all papers, letters or other correspondence, instructions, reports, valuations,
appointment of valuators, or appraisers, appraisements, abstracts of titles, deeds or
other conveyances in any department of the Government or in the railway offices at
Moncton. relating to, or in any manner connected with, the purchase by the Inter-
colonial Railway of a property in Moncton, N.B., at the corner of Archibald and Main
streets in said city, formerly owned in his lifetime by the late P. S Aichibald, C.E.,
and now occupied by the General Superintendent of the Intercolonial Railway, F. P.
Brady, as a residence ; together with a copy of all bills, accounts and statement of
expenditures for repairs made on the buildings of said property ; and also of accounts,
commissions and bills paid to solicitors, attorneys or other agents, for searches, con-
veyances, and a statement of all monies paid for charges and exiienses in connection
with such purchase or the procuring of a deed of said property. Presented April 1,
1914. — Mr. Emmerson Not printed.

203. Return to an Order of the House of the 4th March. 1914, for a return showing the freight

rates under the old tariff of the Intercolonial Railway, per 100 lbs. or per ton, on fresh,
dried and cured f^sh, molosses. coa! oil, nails, hardware and anthracite coal from Glou-
cester Junction and Bathurst station to and from St. John, and the present rates for
the same articles between the same points. Presented March 17, 1914. — Mr. Titrpeon.

Not printed.

204. Return to an Order of the House of the 2.'5rd February. 1914. for a return showing all

smelt fishing licen.sps issued in the County of Pictou during the past season, and of all
correspondence in reference to the same. Presented March 17. 1914. — .Mr. Macdonald.

Not printed.

.804«- Supplementary Return to an Order of the House of the 23rd February, 1914, for a return
showing nil smelt fishing licenses issued in the County ot Pictou during the past season,
and of all correspondence in reference to the same. Presented April 17, 1914. — Mr.
Macdonald Not piHntcd.

205. Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February. 1914, for a copy of all documents

concerning the latest changes in the lobster fishing regulations at Magdalen Islands.
Presented March 17, 1914. — Mr. Lcmiciix Not printed.

70

4-5 George V. Alphabetical Index to Sessional Papers. A. 1914

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2S— Continued.

206. Return to an Order of the House of the 16th February, 1914, for a copy of all correspond-

ence, telegrams, tenders and documents connected in any way with the supplying of
coal to the lobster hatchery at Margaree during the years 1910-1911, 1911-1912, 1912-

1913 and 1913-1914. Presented March 17, 1914. — Mr. Chisholm (AntigoJiish).

Not printed.

207. Return to an Order of the House of the 16th February, 1914, for a copy of the charges

made against Mrs. Marguerite Fair, postmistress of Black Cape, Quebec, on which Mr.
Louis Tache of Rimouski, was authorized to hold an investigation, together with the
appeal of said Investigation, if any was held. Presented March 17, 1914. — Mr. Marcil
iBonaventure) Not printed.

208. Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a copy of all correspond-

ence, papers, documents, reports, &c., in connection with the proposed increase of mail
service from Shelburne, N.S., to Jordan Bay and Jordan Ferry and return since Octo-
ber 1, 1911. Presented March 17, 1914. — Mr. Maclean {Halifax) Not printed.

209. Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a copy of all correspond-

ence between the Post Office Department, or any official thereof, and any person or
persons, concerning tlie installation of street letter boxes in the village of Chesley, in
the riding of South Bruce. Presented March 17, 1912. — Mr. Graham. .. .Not printed.

210. Report of the Commission of Conservation of Canada on the Trent "Watershed Survey, a

reconnaissance by C. D. Howe, Ph.D., and J. H. White, B.A., B.Sc. F., with an intro-
ductory discussion by B E. Fernow, LiL.D Presented by Hon. Mr. Borden, March 19,

1914 Not printed.

210a. Conservation of coal in Canada. Report of Commission of Conservation. — {Senate).

Not printed.

211. Copy of evidence taken before Mr. William Henry Moore, the commissioner appointed to

inquire into certain charges against Mr. Frank Fairen, store keeper on the Trent Canal,
sentation in the Senate, of the Western provinces of Canada. Presented by Hon. Mr.
March 19, 1914 Not printed.

212. Copy of the opinion of the Deputy Minister of Justice on the subject of increased repre-

sentation in the Senate, of ahe Western provinces of Canada. Presented by Hon. Mr.
Borden, March 19, 1914 Not printed.

212«- Copy of a resolution of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia,
approved by His Honour the Lieutenant Governor in Council, in which application is
made to the Federal Government to increase the number of senators for the said
province. Presented by Hon. Mr. Borden, March 19, 1914 Not printed.

Z\Z^- Copy of opinion of the Assistant Deputy Minister of Justice on the subject of increased
representation in the Senate, of the prairie provinces of Canada. Presented by Hon.
Mr. Borden, March 23, 1914 2fot printed.

213. Return to an Order of the House of the 9th March, 1914, for a copy of all papers and

correspondence in the Department of Customs regarding the entry of a boring mill at
Lethbridge, Alberta, shipped in Aug"st. 1913, by John Stirk and Company, and billed
to the Letlibridge Iron Works. Presented March 20, 1914. — Mr. Buchanan .

Not printed.

214. Return to an Order of the House of the 16th March, 1914, for a copy of a petition dated

the 9th of July, 1911, signed by Etienne Barre, Joseph Trudeau and others, taxpayers
of the municipality of Chambly Basin, and addressed to the Minister of Justice, together
with a copy of all documents and vouchers attached to said petition, and of all corre-
spondence and other documents relating thereto. Presented March 23, 1914. — Mr.
Lamarche Not printed.

215. Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a return showing where

the D.G. cruiser Margaret was built; the names of the builders; the contract price;
whether the contract was awarded to the lowest tenderer ; the name and address of
each tenderer and amount of each tender ; if the Government or any department thereof
has contracted for any other vessel or vessels during the past eighteen months ; and if
so, the number of such vessels, the names and addresses of the contractors, the gross
tonnage of each and the contract price, and the service for which they were intended.
Presented March 23, 1914.^3/r. Sinclair Not printed.

216. Return to an Order of tlie House of the 2nd March, 1914, for a copy of all letters, tele-

grams or other corre!?pondence in connection with the seizure of eleven (11) horses be-
longing to Mr. John M. Ferguson, Kaleida, Manitoba, on or about the 28th day of
March, 1912. Presented March 24, 1914. — Mr. Turriff Not printed.

217. Return to an Order of the House of the 4th February, 1914, for a return showing the

quantities and values of potatoes imported monthly into Canada during the years 1911,
1912 and 1913, and the countries from which such potatoes were imported. Presented
March 25, 1914. — Mr. Ilughes (Kings, P.E.I.) Not printed.

71

4-5 George V. Alphabetical Index to Sessioiial Papers. A. 1914

CONTENTS OF VOLTJT"^, 2S— Continued.

217«- Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a return showing the
quantities and values of potatoes exported monthly from each province of Canada, from
September 1, 1911, to January 1, 1914, and the countries to which the same were
exported. Presented March 25, 1914. — Mr. Carvell Not printed.

218. Return to, an Order of the House of the 12th March, 1914, for a return showing how

many colonels, honorary colonels, lieut. -colonels, honorary lieut. -colonels, and other
officers, honorary and otherwise, have been appointed by the Minister of Militia and
Defence from October, 1911, to the present time. Presented March 25, 1914. — Mr.
Hughes (Kings, P.E.I.) Not printed.

218«. Return to an Order of the House of the 11th February, 1914i for a return showing the
number of honourary appointments to military rank which have been made by, or with
the approval of, the present Minister of Militia and Defence since he assumed office,
giving the names of the persons so appointed, and the rank of each. Presented April
1, 1914. — Mr. Murphy Not printed.

219. Kitsilano Indian reserve — relating to the purchase of by the Government of the Dominion

of Canada from the Province of British Columbia. — (Senate) Not pri7ited.

220. Return to an Address to His Royal Highness the Governor General of the 9th March, 1914,

for a copy of all papers, documents. Orders in Council, correspondence, &c., in refer-
ence to the suspension of Mr. Joseph McGillis of the Department of Customs,
Ottawa. Presented March 27, 1914. — Mr. Maclean (Halifax) Not printed.

221. Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a return showing the

names of all parties who have been employed at the Experimental Farm at Ste. Aime
de la Pocatiere during the years 1912 and 1913, and the salary and fees paid to each of
them. Presented March 30, 1914. — Mr. Lapointe (Kamoiu-aska) Not printed.

222. Return to an Order of the House of the 9th February, 1914, for a return showing the

total number of veterinary inspectors employed by the Government in the slaughter
houses of the country ; how they are distributed in each Province ; the names of the
establishments they are connected with, and the number of officers in each of them; if
the Government employ some others to supervise the health of the herds on the farms
besides the veterinary inspectors connected with the slaughter houses ; the number of
them, and how they are distributed in each Prov nee ; the number of herds of both
cattle and hogs that have been submitted to inspection during the years 1911, 1912 and
1913 ; the number of animals in each Province slaughtered .after tuberculosis was
found in them ; if the Government paid indemnities to the owners on account of such
slaughtering, and if so, the amount in each Province ; the respective salaries of the
veterinary inspectors employed in the slaughter houses ; the working hours of those
officers ; the respective salaries paid to the veterinary inspectors employed for other
purposes ; the amount of the expenses of that branch of the Department of Agriculture
for the years 1911, 1912 and 1913 for internal managmeent. such as salaries, and the
salaries and expenses for each of the Provinces. Presented ilarch 30, 1914. — Mr. Boyer.

Not printed.

223. Return to an Order of the House of the 23rd February, 1914, for a copy of the report of

George Lafontaine, received by the Department of Agriculture during the present fiscal
year, relating to the manufacture of chemical manure. Presented March 30, 1914. —
Mr. Boulay Not printed.

224. Return to an Order of the House of the I6th February, 1914, for a return showing. —

1. Whether the Postmaster General has given a contract for rural parcel boxes ;
and, if so, to whom?

2. "Whether tenders for the boxes were asked?

3. From whom tenders were received?

4. The price, if any, of the different tenders?

5. How many bo.xes were ordered, and at what price?

6. Whether the Postmaster General, since he came into office, has made a contract
for rural mail boxes, and, if so, when?

7. The amount of the contract?

8. Who the tenderers were, and the price, if any, of the different tenders?

9. Who received the contract, and the price paid per box?

10. How many boxes, if any, were ordered? Presented March 31, 1914. — .Vr.
Nestitt Not printed.

225. Return to an Order of the House of the 23rd March, 1914, for a return showing the

rates of interest paid on all Dominion loans from 1890 to 1914. Presented March
31, 1914. — Mr. rardec Not printed.

226. Return to an Address to His Royal Highness the Governor General, of the 9th March,

1914, for a copy of all correspondence since October, 1911, between the Government
of Canada, represente'l by the Department of Marine and Fisheries, of the one part,
and the Governient of the United Kingdom, the Government of the United States, or
any other Government, of the other part, relating to steam trawling in Atlantic
wa.eit. Presented March 31, 1914. — Mr. Sinclair Not printed.

72

4-5 George V. Alphabetical Index to Sessional Papers. A. 1914

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2S— Continued.

227. Return to an Order of the House of the 11th February, 1914, for a copy of all letters,

telegrams, and written requests during the years 1912 and 1913, addressed to the
Department of Marine and Fisheries, or the Department of Naval Affairs, or any
officer of either Department, or Marine branches of said department, or any officer or
persons of either branch, by any person or persons, relating to proposals or requests
that the vessels or any vessel under the control of the Naval Bran<.'h of said Depart-
ment, should be present at any regatta or celebration of any description held any-
where on the Atlantic or Pacific Coasts of Canada during said years; also of all
replies to such letters, telegram.s and written requests. Presented March 31. 1914. —
Mr. Law Not printed.

228. Return to an Order of the House of the 9th March, 1914, for a copy of all correspond-

ence, memoranda and other documents relating to the moral, mental and physical
inspection of all immigrants entering Canada. Presented April 1, 1914. — Mr. Paquet.

Not printed.,

229. Return to an Order of the House of the 16th jMarch, 1914, for a copy of all orders,

rcnoits, applications, letters, telegrams and other documents connected with or in any
manner relating to the retirement of Amasa E. Killam, an official of the Intercolonial
Railway, from the employment of the said railway, and to his claim for a retiring
allowance, under the provision.s of the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Rail-
way Employees' Provident Fund Act ; and also of all letters showing the date of his
beginning work in the service of the said railway and of his appointment to a posi-
tion in the employ of said railway on the first of April, 1897, or at any other date.
Also a copy of all instructions and letters from the then Minister of Railways to the
general manager or to any other official of the Intercolonial, relating to engagement
or employment of the said Amasa E. Killam, and of all letters, correspondence, instruc-
tions, reports, or other documents in any way relating thereto and to the engagement
of the said Amasa E. Killam, during the month of March, 1897, to take the position
of bridge and building inspector on the Intercolonial Railway, to commence work on
the first day of April, 1S97. Presented April 1, 1914. — Mr. F.mmerson. . .Not printed.

230. Return to an Order of the House of the 23rd February, 1914, for a copy of all letters,

papers and other documents relating to the payments made at Skinners Cove, Pictou
County, for purchase of land or other rights in the year 1913. Presented April 2,
1914. — Mr. Macdonald Not printed.

231. Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a copy of all papers,

correspondence, telegrams, letters, pay rolls, accounts and vouchers in any way
referring to the expenditure of money by this Government for the public wharf at
Whycocomagh. Presented April 2, 1914. — Mr. Maclean (Halifax) Not printed.

231a- Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a copy of all papers,
advertisements, tenders, bids, contracts, reports, vouchers, accounts, receipts, corre-
spondence, &c., in connection with the construction of a wharf at Feltzen South,
Lunenburg Countj', N.S., now under construction or recently completed. Presented
April 2, 1914. — Mr. Chisholm (Inverness) Not printed.

231?'' Return to an Order of the House of the 4th March, 1914, for a return showing: —

1. How much money was expended on the repairs to the wharf at South Gut,
Victoria County, during the summer of 1913?

2. How much on labour and how much on material, respectively?

3. Who was the foreman, by whom recommended, and his rate of wages per day?

4. How many days he was employed as foreman?

5. Plow many men he had working for him on the wharf each day, and the wages
paid each man?

6. How much was paid for material for the repairs, and where it was obtained?

7. From whom the material was purchased, the nature of it, and the price paid
per foot?

8. Who was the paymaster on this work and when the men were paid? Pre-
sented April 2, 1914. — Mr. McKenzie Not printed.

231c. Return to an Order of the House of the 9th February, 1914, for a return showing the
amount expended by the Government on wharfs, breakwaters, public works and
dredging in the -County of Yarmouth since October 11, 1911; and to whom the-
amounts so expended were paid. Presented April 2, 1914. — Mr. Law. .. .Not printed.

231(2. Return to an Order of the House of the 4th March, 1914, for a return showing: —

1. How much money was expended on repairs to the Englishtown wharf. County
•of Victoria, in the summer of 1913?

2. How much on labour and how much on material, respectively?

3. Who was the foreman, by whom he was recommended, and his rate of wages
per day?

4. How many days he was employed as foreman?

5. How many men he had working for him on the wharf each day, and the wages
paid each man?

73

4-5 George V. Alphabetical Index to Sessional Papers. A. 1914

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2S— Continued.

6. From whom the material was purchased, of what it consisted, and the price
paid per foot?

7. Who was the paymaster on this work, and when the men were paid?

8. When tlie work was begun and when completed? Presented April 2, 1914. —
Mr. McKenzie Not pri^ited.

231e. Return to an Order of the House of the 16th February, 1913, for a copy of all letters,
telegrams, correspondence, pay-rolls, vouchers and documents of all kinds connected
in any way with repairs or extension of wharf at Finlay Point, Mabou, Inverness
County, during the year 1010-1911. Presented April 2, 1914. — Mr. Chisholm (Inver-
ness) Not printed.

231/- Return to an Older of the House of the 4th March, 1914, for a return showing the
amount of timber used and the price paid for same in renewing and repairing the
wharf at Port Clyde, Shelbourne County, N.S. ; the amount of wages paid on same,
and to whom ; and the number and price of ballast poles used in the above work. Pre-
sented April 2, 1914. — Mr. Law Not printed.

231fl'- Return to an Order of the House of the 12th May, 1913, for a copy of all papers, tele-
grams, documents, reports, correspondence, &c., in any way relating to a proposed
extension of a wharf or the construction of a new wharf at Finlay Point, Inverness
County, N.S. Presented April 2, 1914. — Mr. Chisholm (Inverness) Not printed.

231''- Return to an Order of the House of the 26th May, 1913, for a copy of all papers, letters
and documents relating to the building of a wharf in the town of L'Assomption. Pre-
sented April 2, 1914. — Mr. Beguin . . . , Not printed.

231^- Return to an Address of the 19th May, 1913, to His Excellency the Administrator for a
copy of all papers, tenders, contracts, accounts, and Orders in Council, between the
Department of Public Works and any other person or persons, relating to the pur-
chase of a site for the public wharf being erected or recently erected at Bear River,
N.S., and also relating to the construction of said wharf, and anything in connection
therewith. Presented April 2, 1914. — Mr.- Maclean (Halifax) Not printed.

231;- Return to an Order of the House of the 31st March, 1913, for a copy of all papers,
documents, correspondence, &c., relating to the purchase of a property at Centreville,
Shelburne County, Nova Scotia, as a site for a public wharf, and in connection with
any monies expended on the McGray property at Centreville, upon the public wharf.
Presented April 2, 1914. — Mr. Kyte Not printed.

231'f- Return to an Order of the House of the 9th March, 1914. for a copy of all correspond-
ence, letters, telegrams, notes, requests, &c., addressed to the Department or the
Minister of I'ublic Works, directly or indirectly, in connection with the work necessary
for the completion of the wharf at Sainte Croix, County of Lotbini^re, since the 2l3t
of September, 1911, to date. Presented April 16, 1914. — Mr. Forticr Not printed.

2311- Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February. 1914, for a copy of all correspond-
ence, petitions, memorials, letters, reports, and telegrams, in the Department of Public
Works, or in any of the Departments of the Government, relating to a proposed wharf
or breakwater at Little Cape, and Great Shemogue Harbour, W^estmorland County, N.B. ;
also of all correspondence, letters and telegrams exchanged between any member of the
Government and M. G. Siddal. or any other persons or corporations, relating to a pro-
posal or application to construct a wharf or breakwater at Little Cape or Great She-
mogue Harbour in Westmorland County, N.B., or in connection with having a survey
made in connection with any such proposal. Presented April 17, 1914. — Mr. Emmer-
son Not printed.

231'w- Return to an Order of the House of the 9th February, 1914, for a copy of all rei)orts,
memoranda, correspondence and documents of every nature, relating to the construction
of a wharf in the town of L'Assomption, and of all petitions and correspondence in
favour or against such construction to date, and the reasons why the construction of
such wharf, authorized in the estimates of 1911-1912, has not been proceeded with.
Presented April 17, 1914. — Mr. Sepnin Not printed.

ZSln. Return to an Order of the House of the 16th March, 1914, for a copy ol all accounts,
vouchers, pay-rolls, in.structions, correspondence and recommendations relating to the
expenditure on the public wharf at Arichat, N.S., since the 11th day of October, 1911.
Presented April 30, 1914. — Mr. Kyte Not printed.

231o. Return to an Order of the House of the 16th February, 1914. for a copy of all tenders,
contracts, memorandums, pay-rolls, accounts, vouchers, correspondence, papers and
documents, &c., in connection with work performed upon the (Government wharf at
Croft's Cove, Lunenburg County, in 1912. Presented April 30, 1914. — Mr. Maclean
(Halifax) Not printed.

231P- Return to an Order of the House of the 9th March. 1914, for a copy of all correspond-
ence, letters, telfegrama, petitions and other documents relating to the ciaim of the Bona-
venture and Gloucester Interprovincial Company, Limited, in connection wtih a wharf
on Bonaventure river, Bonaventure County. I'resented April 30, l914. — Mr. Seviony.

Not printed.

74

4-5 George V. Alphabetical Index to Sessional Papers. A. lOll

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 28— Continued.

231a. Supplfementary Return to an Order of the House of the 9th March, 1914, for a copy of all
correspondence, letters, telegrams, notes, requests, &c., addressed to the Department or
the Minister of Public Works, directly or indirectly, in connection with the work neces-
sary for the completion of the wharf at Sainte Croix, County of Lolbiniere, since the
21st September, 1911, to date. Presented April 30, 1914. — Mr. Fortier Not printed.

231r. Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a copy of all tenders,
contracts, pay rolls, vouchers, documents, correspondence, &c., in connection with the
purchase of a site for the Government wharf at Bear River, N.S., and the construction
of the said wharf. Presented April 30, 1914. — Mr. Maclean (Halifax) . .Not printed.

231s. Return to an Order of the Hou.se of the 9th March, 1914, for a return showing: —

1. How much was spent upon Hall's Harbour wharf. Kings County, N.S., in 1913?

2. The name of the commissioner or foreman, by whom he was recommended, and
his remuneration?

3. How much lumber was used upon the said wharf during 1913, from whom the
same was purchased, and the price paid for the various forms thereof. Presented
April 30, 1914. — Mr. Maclean {Halifax) Not printed.

231^- Return to an Order of the House of the 16th February, 1914. for a copy of the pay-list,
including the names and residences, of all those who have worked at the wharf of L'lle
Verte, County of Temiscouata ; the number of days of employment of each of them ;
the amount received by each of them ; who has or have signed the receipt or receipts
for said amounts, in connection with the works which have been going on during the
summer of 1912 and during the -summer of 1913. Presented April 30, 1914. — Mr.

Gauvreau Not printed.

231». Return to an Order of the House of the 16th February, 1914, for a copy of the pay-list,
including the names and residences, of the men who have worked on the wharf to the
west of Riviere-Verte, Temiscouata ; the number of days' work of each of them ; the
amount of money received by each of them ; who has or have signed the receipt or
receipts for said amounts on said pay-list or otherwise, the whole for: (lo) 1912; (2o)

1913. Presented May 4, 1914. — Mr. Gauvreau Not printed.

231v. Further Supplementary Return to an Order of the House of the 9th Mrach, 1914, for a
copy of all correspondence letters, telegrams, notes, requests, &c., addressed to the
Department or the Minister of Public Works, directly or indirectly, in connection with
the work necessary for the completion of the wharf at Sainte Croix. County of Lot-
biniere, since the 21st of September, 1911, to date. Presented May 4, 1914.^ — Mr.

Fortier Not printed.

231 If. Return to an Order of the House of the 30th March, 1914, for a copy of all letters and
telegrams addressed by G. A. R. Rowlings and J. S. "V\'ells to the Department of Public
Works, or the Minister, since October 1, 1911, relating to the construction of a public
wharf at Cole Harbour, Guysborough County, N.S., and of all replies thereto. Pre-
sented May 12, 1914. — Mr. Sinclair Not printed.

231a?- Return to an Order of the House of the 16th February, 1914, for a copy of all letters,
telegrams and correspondence of all kinds in any way relating to repairs required on
the pier at Margaree Harbour, Inverness County, received in 1912-1913 and 1913-1914.

Presented May 12, 1914. — Mr. Chisholm {Inverness) Not printed.

2312/- Return to an Order of the House of the 27th April, 1914, for a copy of all correspondence,
pay-rolls, accounts, receipts, vouchers and papers relating to the construction of Feltzen
South wharf, Lunenburg Coimty, N.S. Presented May 16, 1914. — Mr. Maclean (Hali-
fax) Not printed.

231^. Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a copy of all papers,
correspondence, telegrams, letters, pay-rolls, accounts and vouchers in any way referring
to the expenditure of money by this Government for the building and repair of the pub-
lic wharf at Port Hood. Presented May 16, 1914. — Mr. Chisholm {Inverness)

Not printed.
231 (2a). Return to an Order of the House of the 4th May, 1914, for a copy of all correspond-
ence, telegrams, complaints, pay-rolls, vouchers and all other documents in any way
connected with the expenditure of .?500 during the year 1913 on Finlay Point wharf,
Inverness County. Presented May 16, 1914. — Mr. Chisholm (Inverness) . .Not printed.
231 (21)). Return to an Order of the House of the 6th April, 1914, for a copy of all correspond-
ence, letters, telegrams, petitions and recommendations relating to the wharf at Arichat,
N.S., to be used by SS. Magdalin. Presented May 29, 1914. — Mr. Kyte . . . .Not printed.
231 (2c). Return to an Order of the House of the 9th March, 1914, for a return showing:

1. How much money was spent upon Kingsport Pier, Kings County, N.S., during
the year 1913?

2. The name of the foreman or commissioner, by whom he was recommended, and
the remuneration paid him?

3. How much lumber was purchased and used for said pier, from whom it was pur-
chased, and the particulars of the prices paid therefor?

4. What was done with the lumber or piling taken out of said pier, and if the same
was sold, to whom and at what price? Presented May 29, 1914. — Mr. Maclean {Hali-
f^^) Not printed.

75

i-5 George V. Alphabetical Index to Sessional Papers. A. 1914

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2S— Continued.

231 (.2(1). Return to an Order of the House of the 27th April, 1914, for a copy of all correspond-
ence, pay-rolls, accounts, receipts, vouchers and papers relating to the construction of
Kraut Point wharf, Lunenburg County, N.S. Presented June 12, 1914. — iW?-. Maclean
(Halifax) Not printed.

232. Return to an Order of the House of the 4th March, 1914, for a return showing: —

1. How much money has been expended in public works in the Counties of
Rimouski and Gaspe, respectively, since October 11, 1911.

2. How much of the money so expended was provided for in the estimates of 1911-
1912?

3. What amount was expended on the works for which money was not included in
the estimates of 1911-1912? Presented April 2, 1914. — Mr. Marcil (Bonaventure).

Not prmted.

232a- Return to an Order of the House of the 23rd February, 1914, for a return showing how
muh money has been expended on public works in Antigonish County since October 11,
1911.

2. How much of the amount so expended was provided in the estimates for 1911-
1912?

3. What amount, not included in the estimates for 1911-1912, was expended on
public works in said county? Presented April 2, 1914. — Mr. Chisholm (Antigonish).

Z32b. Return to an Order of the House of the 9th February, 1914, for a copy of all papers,
reports, documents, correspondence, plans, &c., in reference to a proposed Government
public building at Bear River, N.S., and the purchase of a site for the same. Presented
April 2, 1914. — Mr. Maclean (Halifax) Not printed.

232c- Return to an Order of the House of the 9th April, 1913, for a copy of all charges, corre-
spondence, pay-rolls, telegrams and other documents relating in any way to the expen-
diture of money ori the harbour improvements at Mabou Harbour by the Department of
Public Works, during the years 1911-12, 1912-13. Presented April 2, 1914. — Mr. Chis-
holm (Inverness) Not printed.

232d- Return to an Order of the House of the 28th May, 1913, was issued to the proper officer
for a copy of the specifications and tenders for materials to be used in connection with
the proposed dry dock at Lauzon, Quebec. Presented April 2, 1914. — Mr. Lemicux.

Not printed.

232^- Return to an Order of the House of the 3rd March, 1913, for a copy of all documents,
letters, reports of engineers and statements of detailed expenditure in connection with
dredging at Bonaventure River, Quebec. Presented April 2, 1914. — Mr. Marcil ( Bojia-
venture) Not printed.

232/- Return to an Order of the House of the 3rd March, 1913. for a copy of all petitions, corre-
spondence, reports or other papers or documents in the Department of Public Works
relating to the building of a breakwater at Goulmans Point, Half Island Cove, Guys-
boro' County, N.S. Presented April 2, 1914. — Mr. Sinclair Not printed.

2320- Return to an Order of the House of the 16th February, 1914, for a copy of all letters,
telegrams, correspondence and documents of all kinds in any way relating to a light-
house to be built at Red Cape, Margaree Harbour, Inverness County. I'resented
April 7, 1914. — Mr. Chisholm (Inverness) Not printed.

232'i- Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a copy of all papers,
documents, telegrams, correspondence, &c., in reference to the purchase of a site in
Saskatoon for a post office building. Presented April lb", 1914. — Mr. McCraney.

Not printed.

232t- Return to an Order of the House of the 9th February, 1914, for a copy of all correspond-
ence, reports, petitions and documents exchanged by and with the Department of Public
Works since the 1st of September, 1911, to date, with the reasons why the construction
of the public building, authorized in the town of St. Lin Des Laurentides, County of
I..'Assomi)tion, a.s per tlio estimates of 1911-1912, has not been proceeded with. Pre-
sented April 17, 1914. — Mr. Seanin Not printed.

232i- Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914. for all correspondence, reports
and documents exchanged by and with the Department of Public Works from October,
1911, to date, regarding the non-erection of the public building authorized to be erected
at New Carlisle, the county seat of Bonaventure County, in the estimates of 1911-1912.
I'resented April 17, 1914. — Mr. Marcil (Bonaventure) Not pritited.

232A:. Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February. 1914, for a return showing the
names of all persons wlio worked on Lingan Bar. South Cape Breton, under Superin-
tendent H. D. McLean, the wages paid to each per diem, the amount paid each or pay-
able to each, and showing generally how the amount voted for such work was expended,
and the amount received by H. D. McLean in connection with said work. I'resented
April 17, 1914. — Mr. Carroll Xot printed.

76

4-5 George V. Alphabetical Iiidex to Sessional Papers. A. 191-1

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2S— Continued.

232^ Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a copy of all papers,
advertisements, tenders, contracts, papers, telegrams, correspondence, returns, reports,
accounts, vouchers, receipts, &c., in connection with any dredging performed by the
Nova Scotia Dredging Company, or any other company, corporation or individuals,
at Jeddore, Halifax County, N.S., in the years 1912 and 1913. Presented April 17, 1914.
— Mr. Maclean (Halifax) Not printed.

232'H- Return to an Order of the House of the 12th May, 1913, for a copy of all papers, tele-
grams, documents, reports, correspondence, pay-rolls, &c., in any way relating to a life-
saving station wliich was constructed at Cheticamp, during 1912. Presented April 28,
1914. — Mr. Chisholm (Inverness) Not printed.

232«- Return to an Order of the House of the 12th March, 1914, for a return showing: —

1. What firms or persons are or have been engaged in dredging for the Government
in the haibour of St. John and upon the St. John river and its tributaries since Octo-
ber 1, 1911.

2. What amount has been paid to each firm or person for this work from October 1,
1911, to the present time?

3. Who are the officers, president, manager and secretary of each of these corpor-
ations? Presented April 30, 1914. — Mr. Carvell Not printed.

2320. Return to an Order of the House of the 16th February, 1914, for a copy of all documents
bearing on the repairing and improvement of the Metapedia Road in the Counties of
Rimouski and Bonaventure. Presented April 30, 1914. — Mr. Marcil (Bonaventure).

Not printed.

232p. Return to an Oi'der of the House of the 12th March, 1914, for a return showing: —

1. What tug boats, steam or gasoline tenders, have been employed by the Govern-
ment since September 21, 1911, in connection with the dredging operations in St. John
harbour and in the River St. John and its tributaries?

2. Who are the registered owneis of these boats and from whom each is hired?

3. The sum paid per day for each tug boat or tender and how many days each has
worked in the period referred to.

4. What amount of money has been paid for the service of each boat in the period
referred to and to whom it has been paid. Presented April 30, 1914. — Mr. Carvell.

Not printed.

232a- Return to an Order of the House of the 9th March, 1914, for a return showing the details
as to tlie nature of the work concerning the damming of the Chateauguay river, the
number of men employed, their names, the wages paid in each case and the period of
their employment during the calendar year 1913. Presented April 30, 1914. — Mr.
Lemieux Not printed.

232''. Return to an Order of the House of the 16th March, i914, for a copy of all letters, tele-
grams, correspondence, reports, petitions, and communications filed in the Department of
Public Works since 1910, relating to the dredging of Antigoni"sh harbour, or the straight-
ening or widening of the channel, or other improvements proposed to be made there.
Presented April 30, 1914. — Mr. Chisholm (Antigonish) Not printed.

232s. Return to an Order of the House of the 23rd March, 1914, for a cooy of all letters, papers
and other documents relative to the purchase of a lot of land in the town of Stellarton,
for a public building. Presented April 30, 1914. — Mr. Macdonald Not printed.

232t. Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a copy of all papers,
coirespondence, telegrams, letters, pay-rolls, accounts, and vouchers in any way refer-
ring to the expenditure of money by this Government in the construction of the new
telegraph or telephone line from Baddeck, Victoria County, N.S. ,to North East Mar-
garee, Inverness County, N.S., thence to Big Intervale, Inverness County, N.S., and also
in connection with the lines from South West Margaree to Loch Ban, and from Scots-
ville to Whycocomagh, all in Inverness County, N.S. Presented May 4, 1914. — .1/?-. Chis-
holm (Antigonish) Not printed.

232"- Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a copy of all papers,
documents, telegrams, correspondence, &c., in reference to the purchase of a property
or site on Gottingen street, Halifax, for the erection of a post office building. Pre-
sented May 4, 1914. — Mr. Maclean (Halifax) Not printed.

232v. Return to an Order of the House of the 16th March, 1914, for a return showing all pay-
ments made in the year 1913 in connection with repairs done to, or moneys expended
on, the Blue Rock breakwater in Antigonish County, with the names of the persons to
whom such payments were made, the amount paid to each, and what such amounts
were for. Presented May 4, 1914. — Mr. Chisholm (Antigonish) Not printed.

232tw. Return to an Order of the House of the 9th IMarch, 1914, for a copy of all papers, docu-
ments, correspondence, &c., from any person or person.s in connection with the purchase
of the site for the post office at Canning, N.S. Presented May 4, 1914. — Mr. Maclean
(UuUfax) Not printed.

77

George V. Alphabetical Index to Sessional Papers. A. 1914

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2S— Continued.

232ic. Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a copy of all tenders
received for the construction of a lighthouse at Grand Anse, Gloucester County, N.B.,
and of the contract awarded. Presented May 5, 1914. — Mr. Turgeon Not printed.

2322/. Return to an Order of the House of the 16th February, 1914, for a copy of all papers,
letters, telegrams, reports, deeds, fees paid to lawyers, and other documents relative to
the purchasing of land fiom Mrs. C. F. Bertrand and Arthemise Dionne, in connection
with the works on the southwest side of Rivi&re-Verte, I'Islet, County of T6miscouata.
Presented May 5, 1914. — -Vc. Gauvreau Kot printed.

232«. Return to an Order of the House of the 20th April, 1914, for a copy of all correspond-
ence between the Minister of Public Works, the Minister of Justice, or any other mem-
ber of the Government, and any person or persons, relating to the location and erection
of the new post office in the village of Eganville, County of Renfrew. Presented INIay
5, 1914. — Mr. Graham Not printed.

232 (2a). Return to an Order of the House of the 16th March, 1914, for a copy of all corre-
spondence, documents, recommendations and reports, respecting the dredging of Des
Prairies river, the work done, depth, length and width of channel dredged, the list of
men employed to perform that work, their salaries respectively, and the amount of
money spent on that work since the 22nd of November, 1912, up to the 2nd of February,
1914. Presented May 7, 1914. — Mr. Wilson (Laval) Not printed.

232 (2b). Return to an Order of the House of the 6th April, 1914, for a copy of all letters, tele-
grarrjs. correspondence, complaints, bills, accounts, vouchers, receipts and any docu-
ments in any way connected with the expenditure of money at Friar's Head Boat Har-
bour by Simon P. Doucet, during the years 1912-13, 1913-14. Presented May 7, 1914. —
3Jr. Chishohn (Inverness) Not printed.

232 (2c). Return to an Order of the House of the 16th February, 1914, for a copy of all papers
in connection with the public building at Gravelburg, from and since January 1. 1912.
Presented May 7, 1914. — Mr. Knowles Not printed.

232 (2d). Return to an Order of the House of the 23rd March, 1914, for a copy of all specifi-
cations and of all tenders pertaining to the Brantford public building now being erected,
and of the contract awarded, and of all correspondence, whether by letter or telegram,
with reference thereto. Presented May 7, 1914. — Mr. Nesbitt Not printed.

232 (2e). Return to an Address to His Royal Highness the Governor General of the 9th
February, 1914, for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, petitions and memorials
received by the Right Honourable R. L. Borden, Premier of Canada, or any other Min-
ister of the Crown since the first day of October, 1911, from J. A. Gillies, Esq., N.S., or
any resident of the County of Richmond, N.S., relative to expenditure of public money
on public works in the said County of Richmond. Presented Alay 8, 1914. — Mr. Kyte.

Not printed.

232 (2/). Supplementary Return to an Order of the House of the 20th April, 1914, for a copy
of all correspondence betewen the Minister of Public Works, the Minister of Justice or
any other member of the Government, and any person or persons, relating to the loca-
tion and erection of the new post office in the village of Eganville, County of Renfrew.
Presented May 8, 1914. — Mr. Graham Not printed.

232 (2fli). Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a return showing
the dredging operations carried on in Bonaventure County in 1913, together with a
copy of estimates, reports, and correspondence. Presented May 11, 1914. — Mr. Marcil.

Not printed.

232 (2ft). Return to an Order of the House of the 9th February, 1914, for a copy of all corre-
spondence and other documents in reference to the erect'on of a customs building in the
village of Chesley, Riding of South Bruce. Presented May 12, 1914. — Mr. Truax.

Not printed.

232 (2i). Return to an Order of the House of the 6th April. 1914, for a copy of all accounts
and vouchers covering the expenditure during the calendar year 1913 at South Lake,
Lakevale, Antigonish County, and showing in detail, the persons to whom such pay-
ments were made, what such payments were for, the number of day labourers
emjiloyed, and the rate of wages, the quantity of niatei'ial used and the price paid
therefor, the quantity of material hauled to the work and not used, and the persons
supply!^ such material. I'resented May 12, 1914. — Mr. Chi.'iholni ( Aniip»nish).

Not printed.

232 (2>). lieturn to an Order of the House of the 23rd February. 1914. for a copy of all
letters, papers, telegrams, valuations, appraisals and other documents relative to the
obtaining of a site for a public building at Hantsjiort, Nova Scotia. Presented May
12, 1914. — Mr. MacdomiUl Not printed.

232 (,2k). Return to an Order of the House of the 11th p-ebruary. 1914, for a copy of all corre-
spondence, letters, telegrams, reports, aiipraisals and other documents relative to the
expropriation of the lands of John Campbell and Albert E. Milligan, In connection with
the improvements on the East River at Pictou. Presented ilay 12, 1914. — Mr. Mac-
donald Not pr.nted.

• 78

-i-5 George V. " Alphabetical Index to Sessional Papers. A. 19 li

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2S—Conti7iued.

232 (20- Return to an Order of the House of the 16th March, 1914, for a copy of all papers,
letters and other documents, including pay-lists relating to the expenditure of moneys
by the Public Works Department on Falmouth Township Dyke, Hants County, in 1913.
Presented May 12. 1914. — Mr. Macdonald iVot printed.

232 (2m). Return to an Order of the House of the 16th March, 1914, for a copy of all accounts,
vouchers, pay-rolls, instructions, correspondence and recommendations relating to the
expenditure on the public building at Arichat, X.S., since the 11th day of October, 1911.
Presented May 16, 1914. — Mr. Kyte Not printed.

232 (2i!.). Return to an Order of the House of the 4th March, 1914, for a copy of all corre-
spondence and other documents in connection with the letting of the construction for
the Toronto harbour works. Presented May 16, 1914. — Mr. Pardee Not printed.

232 (2o). Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a return showing the
nature and cost of works carried on in the County of Bonaventure by the Department
of Public "V\"orks since October 10, 1911, to date, together with a copy of all repoi-ts,
estimates, pay-lists, and correspondence in connection therewith. Presented May 27,
1914. — Mr. Marcil (Bonaventure) Not printed.

2,Z2 (2p). Return to an Order of the House of the 23rd March, 1914, for a copy of all corre-
spondence, documents, recommendations and reports respecting the dredging at Port
Elgin, Westmorland County, N.B., with the names of men employed to perform that
work, their salaries, respectively, and the amount of money spent on the same from
January 1, 1901, to January 1, 1914. Presented May 27, 1914. — Mr. Roiidoux.

Not printed.

232 (2g). Further Supplementary Return to an Order of the House of the 20th April, 1914, for
a copy of all correspondence between the Minister of Public Works, the Minister of
Justice, or any other member of the Government, and any person or persons, relating to
the location and erection of the new post office in the village of E^ganville, County of
Renfrew. Presented May 27, 1914. — Mr. Graham Not printed.

232 (2)-). Return to an Order of the House of the 16th February, 1914, for a copy of all papers
in connection with the Immigration Hall at Gravelburg, Sask., from and since the
1st January, 1912. Presented June 1, 1914.- — Mr. Knowles Not printed.

232 (2s). Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a copy of all adver-
tisements, tenders, accounts, vouchers, letters, documents and correspondence relating to
the construction of a breakwater at The Graff, Halifax County, N.S. Presented June
2, 1914. — Mr. Maclean (Halifax) Not printed.

232 (20- Return to an Order of the House of the 23rd February, 1914, for a copy of all letters,
telegrams, correspondence, contracts and documents relating to the surrender of a con-
tract for dredging in Miramichi Bay, N.B., by Messrs. A. and R. Loggie, and also with
reference to the letting of a contract for the same, or any portion of said work, to the
Northern Dredging Company ; together with a copy of all notices for tenders, tenders
and contracts in connection therewith. Presented June 2, 1914. — Mr. Carvell.

Not printed.

232 (2u). Return to an Order of the House of the 6th April, 1914, for a copy of all letters,
telegrams, documents, papers, &c., in connection with the purchase by the Government
of lots 1 and 2, block 125, plan 96, in the city of Moosejaw, for an examining warehouse
site. Presented June 2, 1914. — Mr. Knowles Not printed.

232 (2v). Return to an Order of the House of the 16th February, 1914, for a copy of all letters,
telegrams, correspondence of all kinds, pay-rolls, vouchers, &c., in any way referring to
the expenditure of moneys on sheer dams on the Margaree river, at Margaree and
North East Margaree, during 1911-1912 and 1912-1913. Presented June 2, 1914. — Mr.
Chisholni (Inverness) Not printed.

233. Return to an Order of the House of the 24th April, 1913, for a return showing what officers

and men were employed on the dredge Northumberland at Pictou in the months of
January, February and March, 1913, and the salaries and wages paid to them respecti-
vely ; the amounts paid for repairs and supplies respectively, for said dredge during
said months and to whom paid respectively. Presented April 2, 1914. — Mr. Macdonald.

Not printed.

234. New Lobster Fishery Regulations established by Order in Council of the 25th March, 1914,

in lieu of those established by Order in Council of the 30th September, 1910, and all
amendments thereto, by virtue of the provisions of Section 54 of the Fisheries Act,
chapter 45 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906. Presented by Hon. Mr. Hazen,
April 7, 1914 Not printed.

235. Return to an Order of the House of the 23rd March, 1914, for a return showing: —

1. How many engineers there are in the employ of the Intercolonial Railway at
Moncton and at other points on that railway, and their names?

2. How many were formerly in the employ of the Canadian Pacific Railway Com-
pany?

3. Whether Martin Murphy, C.E., is employed in the service of that railway. If
so, when he was employed and what his age is? Presented April 7, 1914. — Mr. Etnmer-
son Not printed.

79

4-5 George V. Alphabetical Index to Sessional Papers. A. 1914

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 28~Continued.

236. Return to an Order of the House of the 30th March, 1914, for a return showing the travel-

ling expenses paid by the Government to the Honourable Rodolphe Roy, Jud^e of the
Superior Court at Rimouski, during the years 1912-1913 and 1914, for trips from Quebec
to Rimouski and return. Presented April 8, 1914. — Mr. Bo^day Not printed.

237. Return to an Order of the House of the 23rd March, 1914, for a return showing: —

1. The names of the lawyers who represented the Department of Justice In the
district of Quebec, since the 21st September, 1911.

2. The amount of money paid to each of them. Presented April 8, 1914. — Mr.
Lapointe (Kamouraska) Not prin'ed.

238. Return to an Order of the House of the 4th February, 1914, for a copy of all letters, tele-

grams and documents generally concerning the withdrawal of an appeal in the Supreme
Court of Canada, in the case of His Majesty the King, appellant, and Alfred Olivier
Falardeau and Constant Napoleon Falardeau, respondents. Presented April 8, 1914. —
Mr. Lrcviieux Not printed.

239. Return to an Order of the House of the 16th March, 1914, for a copy of all transfers of

lands by the Militia Department to the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal, and of ail
correspondence with regard to the same. Presented April 15, 1914. — Mr. Carvell.

Not printed.

240. Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd March, 1914, for a return showing: —

1. The quantities of wheat, by grade, received into the terminal elevators at Fort
William and Port Arthur, from the date of the weigh-up in 1910, to date of weigh-up
in 1911, the same for 1911-1912, and the same for 1912-1913.

2. The quantities, by grade, delivered by each of the said elevators during the same
periods.

3. The average or shortage, as the case may be, of each grade in each of the said
elevators, as shown by the said weigh-ups in each of those above mentioned periods.

4. The date of the weigh-up in each case. Presented April 15, 1914. — Mr. Neely.

Not printed.

241. Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd March, 1914, for a copy of all rules, orders

and regulations, &c., affecting the handling of grain made by the Grain Commission to
date, and of any changes made in elevator charges and terms, if any. Presented April
15, 1914. — Mr. Neely Not printed.

242. Return to an Order of the House of the 6th April, 1914, for a copy of the new rules and

regulations in regard to employees of the Intercolonial Railway and Prince Edward
Island Railways. Presented April 15, 1914. — Mr. Macdonald Not printed.

243. Return to an Address to His Royal Highness the Governor General of the 30th March,

1914, tor a copy of all coi-respondence, petitions, lists of shareholders. Orders in Council,
licenses, certificates and other papers and documents, and of all renewals thereof, relat-
ing to the incorporation and licensing of the Banque St. Jean, the Banque Ville Marie
and the Banque Jacques Cartier, all in the Province of Quebec. Presented April 16,
1914. — Mr. Demers Not prijited.

243a' Return to an Address to His Royal Highness the Governor General of the 23rd March,
1914, for a copy of all cori-espondence, petitions, lists of sliareholdres, Oi'ders in Council,
licenses, certificates and other papers and documents and all renewals thereof, relating
to the incorporation and licensing of the Banlc of Yarmouth, and of all papers and
documents relating to the winding up of the business of the said bank. Presented
April IG, 1914. — Mr. Lato Not pr.nted.

243i>- Return to an Address to His Royal Highness the Governor General, of the 16th March.
1914, for a copy of all correspondence, petitions, lists of shareholdres. Orders in Council,
licenses, certificates and other papers and documents and all renewals thereof, relating
to the incorporation and licensing of the Pictou Banl<, and of all jiapers and documents
relating to the winding up of tlie business of the said bank. I'resented April 30, 1914.
— Mr. Macdonald Not printed.

244. Return to an Order of the House of the 23rd March, 1914. for a cpoy of the reijorts made

by Colin P. McKinnon, of Taylor's Road, Antigonish County, Frank A. MclCchen, of
Inverness, N.S., John A. McDougall of filace Bay, C.B., J. M. McDonald, of Christmas
Island, C.B., William Watkins of Cobourg Road, Halifax. H P. Freain. of Brighton,
Digby County, and J. J. Walker of Truro, N.S., special immigration agents appointed
from the I'rovince of Nova Scotia. Presented April 16, 1914.- — .Mr. Chishohn (Anti-
(jonish) Not printed.

245. Return to an Address to His Royal Highness the Governor General of the 4th February,

1914, for a copy of all corresjiondence and papers generally concerning the proposed
changes of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Presented April 16, 1914. —
Mr. Lemieux Not printed.

SO

4 5 George ^'. Alphabetical Index to Sessional Papers. A. 1914

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2S— Continued.

246. Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd March, 1914, for a return giving the follow-

ing information, as far as may be available, respecting the constitution of Upper Cham-
bers or Senates within the British Empire and in foreign countries, and especially such
informal on in respect of the self-governing Dominions and of foreign countries possess-
ing a federal system of Government : —

1. As to the method of appointment, whether by executive authority or by election
by the )ieople, or otherwise.

2. As to the term of appointment, whether for life or for a term of years, or toher-
wise.

•3. As to a re-appointment or re-election, and generally as to the filling of vacancies
occasioned by death or otherwise.

4. As to qual fications, whether by age, residence, possession of real or personal
property or otherwise.

5. As to limitation of the membership, and as to the numerical relation of the
membership to that of the Lower House.

6. As to provisions for dissolution, appeal to the electorate, conferences or a ddi-
tional appointments in case of disagreement between the Upper and Lower House.

7. As to the operation of the various systems in the several Dominions and coun-
tries mentioned, and in what respect defects or difficulties have made themselves mani-
fest.

S. All other relevant information respecting the constitution and status of such
Upper Chambers. Presented April 16. 1914. — Mr. Middlehro.

Printed for sessional papers only.

246". Further Supplementary Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd March, 1914, for a
return giving the following information, as far as may be available, respecting the
constitution of LTpper Chambers or Senates within the British Empire and in foreign
countries, and especially such information in respect of the self-governing Domin'ons
and of foreign countries possessing a federal system of Government : —

1. As to the method of appointment, whether by executive authority or by election
by the people, or otherwise.

2. As to the term of appointment, whether for life or for a term of years, or other
wise.

3. As to a re-appointment or re-election, and generally as to the filling of vacancies
occasioned by deatli or otherwise.

4. As to qualifications, whether by age, residence, possession of real or personal
property or otherwise.

5. As to limitation of the membership, and as to the numerical relation of the
membership to that of the Lower House.

6. As to provisions for dissolution, appeal to the electorate, conferences or addi-
tional appointments in case of disagreement between the Upper and Lower Houses.

7. As to the operation of the various systems in the several Dominions and coun-
tries mentioned, and in what respect defects or difficulties have made themselves mani-
fest.

8. All other relevant information respecting the constitution and status of such
Upper Chambers. Presented June lO, 1914. — Mr. Middlehro....

Printed for sessional papers only.

247. Return to an Ord?r of the House of the 1st April, 1914, for a return showing: —

1. Wtj^at it has cost the Government for bottled and distilled water in Ottawa since
January 1, 1912, to March 1, 1914?

2. What it is costing the Government per day now for bottled and distilled water?
Presented April 16, 1914. — Mr. Sexsmith Xot printed.

248. Return to an Order of the House of the 11th February. 1914, for a copy of all papers,

letters, telegrams, reports and other documents relative to the purchase of land from
Joseph Fraser, in connection with the works at Cariboo Island, Pictou County, in the
Public Works Department. Presented April 16, 1914. — Mr. Macdonald. . . .Not printed.

249. Return to an Order of the House of the 21st May, 1913, for a copy of all correspondence

exchanged during the year 1912, between Captain Belanger. commandant of the
Eureka and the Department of Marine and Fisheries, both at Quebec and Ottawa. Pre-
.sented April 16, 1914. — Mr. Boulay Not printed.

250. Return to an Order of the House of the 23rd March, 1914, for a return showing: —

1. The names of the wharfingers at Coteau Landing from 1900 to 1914.

2. The names of the vessels which moored there during that period.

3. What wharfage each of those vessels paid during that time?

4. What wharfage a coaler paid for unloading between 1900 and 1912? Presented
April 17, 1914. — Mr. Paquet Not printed.

251. Return to an Order of the House of the 4th March, 1914. for a copy of all correspondence,

letters, telegrams and documents in connection with the removal of ice in Yarmouth,
N.S., harbour, by C.G.S. Stanley in P'ebruary. 1914. Presented April 21, 1914. — Mr.
Laic '. Not printed.

63433—6 81

4-5 George V, Alphabetical Index to Sessional Papers. A. 1914

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 28— Continued.

252. Report of the Royal Commission on Penitentiaries, together with the evidence taken and

exhibits filed before the said commission. Presented by Hon. Mr. Doherty, April 22,
1914. < Report only) Printed for distribution and sessional papers.

253. Return to an Order of the House of the 9th March, 1914, for a return showing: —

1. How many professors, lecturers and inspectors the Department of Agriculture
has in the Province of Prince Edward Island?

2. Their names, the salaries they receive, and the travelling expenses of each.

3. The duties of these professors, lecturers and inspectors?

4. How many meetings were held or demonstrations given by each of these pro-
fessors, lecturers and inspectors during the months of March, April, May, June, July,
August, September and October last year?

5. Where each meeting was held or demonstration given, and how each was adver-
tised?

6. How many bo.xes, baskets and barrels of fruit were inspected last season, and
the kinds of fruit so inspected?

7. When and where the inspection took place and how many bo.xes, baskets and
barrels were found to be impioperly or falsely marked?

8. Whether the Department received a resolution or petition from the Fruit
Growers' Association of Prince Edward Island.

9. If so, what prayer or request the said resolution or petition contained, and what
the Department has decided to do in regard to the matter?

10. How many cheese and butter factories were operated in each of the counties
of Prince Edward Island in the year 1910 and how many in the year 1913. Presented
April 22, 1914.— il/r. Hughes (.P.E.I.) Not printed.

254. Return to an Order of the House of the 26th February, for a return s^iowing : — The freight

rates charged during the years 1912 and 1913 on wheat from Fort William or Port
Arthur to ports on the Georgian Bay and Canadian ports on Lake Huron and Lake Erie,
by the Canadian Pacific Steamship Line, the Northei-n Navigation Company, the Mer-
chant's Mutual Line, Inland L:r.es, and the Canadian Lake Line. Presented April 24,
1914. — Mr. Aikins Not printed.

255. Return to an Order of the House of tho 23rd March, 1914, for a copy of all letters,

papers, telegrams, recommendations and documents of every kind in connection with the
purchase of a Rifle Range near Souris, Prince Edward Island. Presented April 27, 1914.
— Mr. Huf/hes iP.E.I.) Not printed.

256. Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a copy of all papers,

advertisements, tenders, bids, contracts, telegrams, correspondence, accounts, receipts,
vouchers, &c., in reference to the supply of meats, hay, oats, and all other supplies for
the 1913 summer and autumn drill at Aldershot Camp, Nova Scotia. Presented April
27, 1914. — Mr. Maclean (Halifax) Not printed.

256«- Return to an Order of the House of the 30th March, 1914, for a copy of all advertise-
ments, tenders, contracts, documents, papers, &c., relative to the supply of ice for the
Aldershot Military Camp, N.S., for the season of 1914. Presented May 29, 1914. — Mr.
Maclean ( Halifax) Not printed.

257. Return to an Order of the House of the 1st April, 1914. for a Return showing: —

1. The total amount paid for pensions by the Department of Militia and Defence
for the year ending March 31, 1913.

2. The number of militia officers at present on the pay-roll of the permanent corps.

3. How many private soldiers are at present on the pay-roll of the permanent force?

4. How many private soldiers joined the force during 1913?

5. How many deserted during 1913?

6. The gross amount expended by the Department of Militia and Defence for the
salaries of officers and officials of every kind in the employ of the Department at Ottawa
or elsewhere during the fiscal year 1912-1913.

7. The gross amount paid out for services to the private soldiers of the permanent
corps during the said year 1912-1913. Presented April 27, 1914. — Mr. Sinclair.

Not printed.

258. Return to an Order of the House of the 4th February, 1914, for a copy of all letters, tele-

grams, &c., exchanged between the Department of Militia and Messrs. A. Macdonald, E.
Montpetlt and others, in connection with the organization of the 33rd Hussars, at Vaud-
reuil and Soulanges. Presented April 27, 1914. — Mr. Boycr Not printed.

259. Return to an Order of the House of the 9th March. 1914, for a copy of all letters, tele-

grams, reports, and other correspondence, in possession of the Department of Militia
and Defence, relating to the purchase of land in Farnham. Quebec, for a military camp
ground. Presented April 27„ 1914. — Mr. Kay Not printed.

260. Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914. for a copy of all correspond-

ence between the Department of Agriculture or the Department of Customs and C. S.
Campbell. Esq.. K.C.. relating to the importation of p»:re b-ed animals into Canada.
Presented April 27, 1914. — Mr. Kay Not printed.

82

*-o George V. Alphabetical Index to Sessional Papers. A. l!tU

COirrENTS OF VOLUME 2S— Continued.

261. Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd March, 1914, for a copy of all correspond-

ence, letters, telegrams, and other documents relative to the immig-ration of Asiatics,
including Hindus, Japanese and Chinese, which have a bearing either directly or
indirectly upon the Order in Council passed by the Government during December, 1913,
restricting immigration into the IM-ovince of British Columbia. Presented April 27,
1914. — Mr. Oliver Not pi inted.

262. Return to an Address to His Royal Highness the Governor General of the 30th March,

1914. for a copy in duplicate of all leases, agreements, correspondence. Orders in
Council and other documents relating to the water-power or privileges connected with
the Stevens Dam, so called, that had been constructed across the River Trent at the
village of Campbellford, together with a copy in duplicate of a license in connection
with said dam, granted to the Honourable James Cockburn and others under date Decem-
ber 9, 1S69, and of all correspondence with, and opinions of, the Minister of .Tustice at
the time of the granting of said license and since that date; also a duplicate copy of all
papers, correspondence. Orders in Council and other documents relating to or connectt 1
with the cancellation, termination and revocation of such license on the 12th of August,
1911, and of all correspondence, propositions, agreements or other documents had and
made bj', to or with the Trent Valley Woollen Manufacturing Company, Limited, and
of all correspondence with the Department of Justice and opinions thereof relating
thereto ; also a duplicate copy of all correspondence, reports. Orders in Council and other
documents referred to or mentioned in an Order in Council of date August 25. 1913, set
forth on page W 39S. in the third volume of the Auditor General's Report, 1913, and of
all correspondence with the Auditor General and by and between the Auditor General
and any department of Government relating thereto or connected therewith. Presented
April 27, 1914. — Mr. Emmcrscm Not printed.

263. Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a copy of all papers,

deeds, contracts, &c., in connection with the purchase by the Board of Harbour Com-
miss'oners of Quebec, of a stone quarry at St. Nicholas, Que. Presented April 2S, 1914.
— Mr. Lcmienx Not printed.

264. Rtturn to an Order of the House of the 6th April, 1914, for a copy of all petitions, corre-

spondence, telegrams and other papers and documents received by the Department of
Marine and Fisheries since January 1, 1914, relating to the transportation of fish from
the Maritime Provinces to the United States, and of all replies thereto. Presented
April 29, 1914. — Mr. Sinclair .... .Not printed.

2G5. Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a copy of all papers,
deeds and contracts in connection with the purchase by the Department of Agriculture
of a quarantine station at L^vis, Que., on or about July 29, 1913. Presented April 29,
1914. — Mr. Lcmienx Not printed.

266. Copy of Order in Council No. p. C. 976, dated 18th April, 1914, "Revised Regulations

governing the entry of Naval Cadets." Presented by Hon. Mr. Hazen, April 30, 1914.

Not printed.

266o. Copy of Order in Council dated ISth May, 1914, concerning the organization of a Naval
Volunteer Force. Presented by Hon. Mr. Hazen, May 23, 1914 Not printed.

267. Return to an Order of the House of the 4th March, 1914. for a copy of all papers, corre-

spondence and telegrams concerning the deportation of Bhwagan Singh, a Sikh prie.st,
in defiance of a writ of Habeas Corpu.«. Presented April 30, 1914. — Mr. Lemieux.

Not printed.

268. Statement of receipts and expenditures of the National Battlefields Commission to 31st

March, 1914, as required by 7-8 Edward VII, chapter 57, section 12. Presented by
Hon. Mr. White, May 4, 1914 Not printed.

269. Copy of the trust deed, dated 30th June, 1903, between the Canadian Northern Railway

Company and the British Empire Trust Company and the National Trust Coini any.
Limited. Presented by Hon. Mr. Borden, May 4, 1914 Not printed.

269" Copy of the trust deed, dated 6th May, 1910, between the Canadian Northern Ra Iway
Co.npany and the British Empire Trust Company and the National Trust Company,
Limited. Presented by Hon. Mr. Borden, May 4, 1914 Not printed.

269b. Copy of the trust deed, dated 19th November, 1913, between the Canadian Northern Rail-
way Company, Mackenzie, Mann & Co., Limited, and the British Empire Trust Com-
pany, and tlie National Tiust Company, Limited. Presented by Hon. Mr. Borden. May
4, 1914 Printed for dislribulio7i and sessional papers.

269''. Statement showing the floating liabilities of the railway companies embraced in the gen-
eral title of the Canadian Northern Railway System. Presented by Hon. Mr. Borden,
May 4, 1914 Not p,intcd.

269<i. Statement of securities pledged as collateral to temporary loans of the Canad'an Northern
System. Prpsfnted by Hon. Mr. Borden, May 4, 1914 .V"' printed.

83

4-5 George V. Alphabetical Index to Sessional Papers. A. 1914

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2S^C on tinned.

269e. statement showing the engineer's estimate of the cost of completing the Canadian Nor-
thern Railway System. Presented by Hon. Mr. Borden, May 4, 1914 Not printed.

269/. Statement of capital stock authorized and issued, of the companies set out in the first
schedule. Presented by Hon. Mr. Borden, May 6, 1914 Not printed.

269f/. Approximate estimate of betterments for six years of the lines of the Canadian Northern
Railway System. Presented by Hon. Mr. Borden, May 6, 1914 Not printed.

269/t. Statements as on 31st December, 1913, bearing on the financing of the Canadian Nor-
thern Railway System. Presented by Hon. Mr. Borden, May 6, 1914 Not printed.

269i. Papers and statements in respect to the Canadian Northein Railway System : —

1. Correspondence, including official application for aid.

2. Detailed statements showing particul.'irs of capitalization, earnings, cost to com-
lilete, &c. Presented by Hon. Mr. Borden. May 6, 1914.

Printed for distribution and sessional papers.

269/- Copy of trust deed dated October 4, 1911. — The Canadian Northern Railway to the Guar-

" dian Trust Company, Limited, and the Biitish Empire Trust Company, Limited, and

His Majesty the King and the Canadian Northern Railway Company. I'resented by

Hon. Mr. Borden, May 7, 1914 Printed for distribution <tnd sessional papers.

269A-. List of companies whose total issued stock is owned by the Canadian Northern Railway
Company ; also, list of companies whose total issued stock is to be transferred to The
Canadian Northern Railway Company ; and also, list of companies in which the con-
trolling interest is to be transferred to The Canadian Northern Railway Company. Pre-
sented by Hon. Mr. Borden, May 7, 1914 Not printed.

269?. Further statements bearing on the financing of the Canadian Northern Railway System.
Presented by Hon. Mr. Borden, May 7, 1914.

Printed for distribution and sessional palters.

269»i. Correspondence and telegrams received from the premiers of the Provinces of Nova
Scotia, British Columbia, Alberta, and the Acting Premier of Saskatchewan, in regard
to the granting of aid to the Canadian Northern Railway System. Presented by Hon.
Mr. Borden, May 7, 1914 Printed for distribu'.ion and sessioanl papers.

269". Copy of trust deed dated 28th December, 1903. — The Lake Superior Terminals Company,
Limited, and the National Trust Company, Limited, and the Canadian Northern Rail-
way Company. Presented by Hon. Mr. Borden, May 11, 1914 Not printed.

270. Return to an Order of the House of the 20th April, 1914. for a copy of all letters, tele-

grams and other documents relating to the refusal of the Railway Department, or any
official of the Intercolonial Railway to permit employees of the railway at Moncton to
attend the militia camp in the last year. Presented May 6, 1914. — Mr. Macdonald.

Not printed.

271. Return to an Order of the House of the 23rd March. 1914. for a copy of all correspondence

received by the Government since October 1. 1911. to date from John M. Cormick. of
Sydney Mines. N.S.. in reference to the following matters in the Riding of North Cape
Breton and Victori.i : — Railway extension into the Riding of North Cape Breton and
Victoria; the opening of the harbour at Dingwall. Aspey Bay. C.B. ; the breakwater at
Meat Cove in tiie said Riding; the boat harbour at Bay St. Lawrence; the breakwater
at White Point ; the breakwater at Neil's Harbour ; the breakwater at McLeocl's.
Ingonish; in respect to Ingonish Harbour; the breakwater at Breton Cove; the
breakwater at Little Bras d'Or ; the breakwater at Cape Dauphin ; the breakwater
at Point Aconi ; the proposed wharf at North Sydney the proposed extension of the
breakwater at North Sydney ; the bringing of the Intercolonial Railway to the ballast
ground at North Sydney ; the wharf at Sydney Mines; the wharf at Leitches Creek; the
repairs to the wharf at Groves I'oint; the rebuilding of the wharf at Boisdale ; the
breakwater at Jame.sville ; the wharf at Castle Bay, and the proposed wharf at
Shenacadie. Presented May 7, 1914. — Mr. McKenzie Not printed.

272. Copy of all letters, documents and corrrsi^ondence relating to action by the CJovernment

in regard to the relief of the shareholders and depositors of the Farmers Bank, and of
the Order in Council appointing Sir William Meredith as Commissioner, and all corre-
spondence in relation thereto. And also. Statement of Affairs. &c.. relating to the
Farmers Bank of Canada. Presented by Hon. Mr. White. May 8. 1914.... ATof printed.

273. Return to an Order of the House of the 6th April, 1914. for a copy of all letters, telegrams

and correspondence received by the Postmaster General in connection with complaints
made that the postmaster at Yarmouth .North, N.S.. had been or is selling stamps out
Ride his jurisdiction. F'resented May s. 1914. — .Vr Law Not printed.

274. Return to an Order of the House of the 9th February. 1914, for a return showing the

number of criminals released on parole from the various penitentiaries of the Dominion
for the year ending March 31. 1913; the offence for which each prisoner so released was
convicted, and showing at the same time whether such offence was a first, second, or
s-ubsequent offence. Presented May 8, 1914.— .1/r. Sinclair Not printed.

84

4-5 George ^. Alphabetical Index to .*^e>>ioiinl Papers. A-. 1914

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 28~Contmue(l.

275. Return to an Order of the House of the 9th March, 1914, for a return showing: —

1. How many acres of public lan'l have been given to railway companies in the
Dominion of Canada by the Federal Government from 1878, to the present time?

2. How many acres were grantetl in each year during the above period of fni^
Presented May 11, 1914. — .1/,-. Tobin Xot p. iiUnl.

276. Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a return showing the

receipts and expenses of the post office at St. Philippe, East, and of the post office at
St. Philippe, West, in the parish of St. Philippe de Xeri, since the first of June, 1912,
to date. Presented May 11, 1914. — Mr. Lapointe (Kamouraska) Not printrd.

277. Report of the Dominion Wreck Commissioner in the matter of a formal investigation into

the causes which led to the British steamer Saturnia touching the ground in the Lower
Traverse, River St. Lawrence, on Tuesday, April 2S. 1914. Presented by Hon. Mr.
Hazen, May 12, 1914 Printed for sessional papers onlir

278. Report of the Dominion Wreck Commissioner in the matter of a formal investiagtion into

the causes which led to the stranding of the British steamship Mont fort, on Beauport
Bank, River St. Lawrence, on Tuesday, April 2S, 1914. Presented by Hon. Mr. Hazen.
May 12, 1914 Printed for sessional papers only.

279. Return to an Address to H s Royal Highness the Governor General of the 2nd February.

1914, for a copy of the Order in Council appointing Arthur Plaunte, Esq., a Commis-
sioner to receive claims against the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway, the Bale des
Chaleurs Railway and the Quebec Oriental Railway, and of the report of said Com-
missioner and of the statement of claims accepted and those rejected by him. with the
reasons therefor, as well as of all correspondence, memorials, petitions and documents,
generally bearing on said subject. Presented May 12. 1914. — .1/?-. Marcil iBonaveti-
ture) Xot printed.

279"- Supplementary Return "to an Address to His Royal Highness the Governor General of
the 2nd February, 1914, for a copy of the Order in Council appointing Arthur Plaunte,
Esq., a Commissioner to receive claims against the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway,
the Bale des Chaleurs Railway and the Quebec Oriental Railway and of the report of
said Commissioner and of the statement of claims accepted and those rejectetl by him,
with the reasons therefor, as well as of all correspondence, memorials, petitions and
documents, generally bearing on said subject. Presented May 22, 1914. — Mr. Marcil
(Bonaventiire) " xot printed.

280 Return to an Order of the House of the 6th Apri.l 1914. for a copy of all correspondence,
accounts, indemnities, travelling expenses, &c., from Fraserville to Quebec, and of all
other documents relating to the amount of money received each year by His Honour
Mr. Justice Ernest Cimon, from 1890 to 1913, as Judge of the Superior Court sitting at
Quebec, during the time he was connected with the District of Kamouraska. Presented
May 16, 1914. — Mr. Gauvreau Xot printed.

281. Report of the delegates appointed by the Government of Canada to attend the "Interna-

tional Purity Congress," held in the city of Minneapolis, Minn., November 7-12, 191.3.
Presented by Hon. Mr. Borden, May 16, 1914 Xot printed.

282. Agreement between the Government and steamship companies for mail carriage between-

Canadian and European ports. — (Senate) Xot printed.^

283. Return to an Order of the House of the 15th April, 1914, for a return showing: —

1. How many passengers have been carried over the Intercolonial Railway from
St. John to Halifax, and from Halifax to St. John, respectively, under the agreement
made on the 30th September, 1913, between the Canadian Government Railways by F.
P. Gutelius, General Manager and the Canadian Pacific Railway Comapny, by G. M.
Bosworth, General Traffic Manager, from the 15th 'November, 191.3, when the said agree-
ment went into effect, to the 31st March last?

2. How many tons of freiglit of each of the classes mentioned in said agreement
have been carried each way over the Intercolonial Railway between St. John and Hali-
fax, under said agreement during said period?

3. What have been the total earnings by the Intercolonial Railway under s:iid
agreement up to the 31st March last, for passengers and freight carried, respectively?

4. What amount has been paid to or earned by the Canadian Pacific Railway for
car hire under said agreement?

5. What number of empty cars of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company have
been hauled by the Intercolonial Railway free under said agreement, and what has been
the cost of such haulage?

6. What would have been the total amount paid by the Canadian Pacific Railw^iy
Company to the Intercolonial Railway, under the tariff prevailing at the time of tlie
making of said agreement, for the passengers and the freight so carried, respectively?

7. Whether the said agreement has been submitted, as promised by the Govein-
ment, to the Board of Railway Commissioners by the Minister of Railways for the ))ur-
pose of having the Board determine as to whether or not said agreement is discrimina-
tory against the port of St. John. If not.- why was it not so submitted?

S5

'!-.' Ctenr^e V. Alphabetical Index to ^Sessional Papers, A. 1914

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2S— Continued.

8. If it is the intention of the Minister of Railways to renew the said agrreement,
or to put in force a similar agreement, during the next Winter Port season.

9. What agreement the Government intends to make as to the Atlantic termini of
the fast Atlantic mail steamers for the winter of 1914-1915. Presented May 22, 1914. —
Mr. Pvfjslcy Not print- d.

284. Return to an Order of the Senate dated 15th May, 1914 : —

1. How many judges have been retired since 1880?

2. What are their names?

3. What .salary did they receive in each case?

4. How many years did they serve in each case?

5. What was the reason given for their retirement?

6. How much did they receive for retirement allowance each year in each case?
Ordered, that the same do lie on the table, and it is as follows. — (Senate).

Not printed.
'285. Return to an Address to His Royal Highness the Governor General of the 9th March.
1914, for a copy of all petitions, letters, telegrams and documents by any and all parties
to and by the Department of Railways and Canals, or any other Department of the
Government, with reference to the Southampton Railway Company, also of all reports
of engineers and recommendations regarding a subsidy to the said railway, and of all
Orders in Council granting same, and of all other documents and memoranda in the
possession of the Department of Railways and Canals or other Departments of the
Government regaiding the said railway. Presented May 27, 1914. — Mr. Carvell.

Not printed.

286. Return to an Order of the House of the 2nd February, 1914, for a copy of all correspond-

ence, papers, documents, contracts, &c., between the Government of Canada and any
company, firm or individuals from May 1, 1913, to December 1, 1913, referring to the
(^stablshment of a subsidized steamship service between Canada and the British West
Indies. Presented May 27, 1914. — Mr. Maclean (Halifax) Not printed.

287. Retuin to an Order of the House of the 4th May, 1914, for a copy of all papers, letters,

telegram.s, accounts and receipts concerning advances made to the Montagnais Band of
Indians through the agency of Seven Islands, Quebec. Presented May 29, 1914. — Mr.
Jjemicnx Not printed.

288. Return to an Order of the House of the 11th May, 1914, for a copy of all papers, letters,

telegi'ams, accounts and receipts, concerning advances or payments made by the Govern-
ment to Newton Wesley Rowell, K.C., for legal services in connection with the Oko

Indian litigation. Presented May 29, 1914. — Mr. Sharpe (Otitario) Not printed.

288"- Return to an Order of the House of the 6th May, 1914, for a return showing: —

1. Whether the (lOveinment paid Newton Wesley Rowell, K.C., any sums of money
for legal services during the past fifteen years?

2. If so, the amounts and when?

3. Whether the Government paid the firm of which Mr. Rowell is the senior partner
any sums of money for legal services?

4. If so, the amounts and in what years? Presented May 29, 1914. — Mr. Sharpe
I Ontario) Not prinfrd.

289. Iteturn to an Order of the House of the 20th April, 1914, for a return showing: —

1. The date of the incorporation of the Canadian Natiotial Bureau of Breeding.
Limited, with the names, addrc.'^ses and occupations of the charter members of said

< "ompany.

2. The amount of capital of the Company and the number of shares into which it
is divided.

3. The number of shares taken f i om the commencement of the Company up to the
date of the return.

4. The amount of calls mnde on each share, the total amount of calls received, the
total amount of calls unpaid, and the total number of shares forfeited.

r>. The names, addresses and occupations of the persons who have ceased to be
members within the twelve months next preceding, and the number of shares held by
eaih of them.

»;. The amount of moni-y i)aid to said Company by the r;overnment in each year
sin^'e incorporation. Presented May 29, 1914. — Mr. Sutherland Not printed.

290. lUtuMi to an Order of the House of the 9th February, 1914, for a copy of all reports made

liy the inspectors of agent.s for placing farm labourers and domestic servants in Canada
during the caleiuhir years 1912 and 1913. Presented May 29, 1914. — .Mr. Sutherland.

Not printed.

291. Return to an Order of the Hou-se of the 2nd March, 1914, for a return showing all the

buildings, houses. ofTices and immoveables, occupied by the Federal Government in
Montreal, for the use of the various Der)artments and services of each branch of the
ndrninistration, together with the following information in each case; for what Depart-
ment and lor what service; where situated, street and number thereof; whether Govern-
ment property or under lease : in the latter case, the length of lease, the rent per annum
nnd also the other charges that may be imposed ur>on the f lOvernmr-nt. Presented June
5. 1914. -Vfr. Wilson (Lnrnl\ .Vof printed.

86

i-5 George V. Alphabetical Index to Sessional Pai)er.«. A. 19H

CONTENTS OF VOLUME 2S— Continued.

292. Return to an Order of the House of the 4th May. 1914. for a copy of all correspondeive

exchanged by and with the Department of Public Works or the Post Office Department,
relating to an application or applications for a post office building at the town of Mel-
ville, Province of Saskatchewan. Presented June 4. 1914. — Mr. ilavNutt.

Not print' J.

293. Memorandum, correspondence, estimates of cost. &c.. in connection with the construction

of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway — Mountain Section. Presented by Hon. Mr.
Borden, June 4, 1914 Xot printrd.

294. Return to an Order of the House of the 4th February, 1914, for a return showing the

names and addi-esses of the people with whom pure bred animals have been placed by
the Department of Agr culture, the breed in each case, and the conditions on which
these animals were placed. Presented June 5, 1914. — Mr. Kay Not printed.

295. Return to an Order of the House of the 30th March, 1914, for a copy of all correspond-

ence, telegrams, instructions, accounts, vouchers and other papers and documents relat-
ing to the purchase of live stock in the Maritime Provinces by one Howard Corning of
Yarmouth, N.S., during the period of his employment; also a copy of the appointment
of the said Howard Corning and of all correspondence, complaints and other documents
relating to the dismissal of the said Howard Corning, if he has been dismissed or retired
from the service, together with a copy of all recommendations, correspondence and other
papers relating to the appointment of the said Howard Coming's successor. Presented
June 5, 1914. — Mr. Sinclair Not printed.

296. Return to an Order of the House of the 19th March, 1914, for a return showing: —

1. How many pure bred stallions and bulls have been purchased by the Depart-
ment of Agriculture for the use of settlers in the Provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan
and Alberta since the firbt of January, 1912, to date.?

2. Where these animals were purchased, and from whom ; and also the price paid
for them respectively. Presented June 5, 1914. — Mr. Douglas Not printed.

297. Return to an Order of the House of the 9th February, 1914, for a copy of all correspond-

ence, including letters, telegrams and accounts, regarding the purchase and disposal
during year 1913, of all horses, cattle, sheep and swine for the Department of Agricul-
ture, Province of Quebec for Experimental Farms, or for the improvement of stock,
together with a return showing the commission and fees paid, and to whom paid, for
and on account of said purchases. Presented June 8, 1914. — Mr. Robb.. . .Not printed.

298. Return to an Address to His Royal Highness the Governor General of the 9th February,

1914, for a copy of all arrangements made between the Government and the various
Provinces under the Agricultural Instruction Act. Presented June 10, 1914.— Sir Wilfi:id
Laurier Not printed.

299. Partial Return to an Address to His Royal Highness the Governor General of the 4th

March, 1914, for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, petitions. Orders in Council,
and other papers and documents, relating to subventions or assistance given, or to be
given, by the Department of Marine and Fisheries or the Department of Agriculture to
firms or joint stock companies, or persons operating cold storage plants for. the preser-
vation of fish products in Nova Scotia during the years 1908, 1909, 1910, 1911, 1912
and 1913, excluding such correspondence, &c., as relates to companies known as Fisher-
men s Bait Association. Presented June 10, 1914. — Mr. Sinclair Not pri7ited.

300. Copy of Order in Council No. P.C. 1386, of the 29th May, 1914, concerning the regulations

governing the Radiotelegraph administration. Presented by Hon. Mr. Hazen. June 11.
1914 Not printed.

300"- Copy of regulations governing Radiotelegraphy promulgated under section 11, Radiotele-
graph Act, 1913. Presented by Hon. Mr. Hazen, June 11, 1914 Not printed.

301. Return to an Order of the House of the 27th April, 1914, for a copy of all letters, tenders,

telegrams, plans, specifications and other documents in regard to the construction of the
new ice breaker by the Canadian Vickers Company of Montreal. Presented June 11,
1914. — Mr. Macdonald Not printed.

302. Return to an Address to His Royal Highness the Governor General of the 16th March,

1914, for a copy of all petitions, letters, affidavits, telegrams and documents to and by
the Department of Justice, or any oaher Department of Government, on behalf of or in
reference to Wm. J. Kelley, a prisoner in the United States federal prison at Atlanta,
Ga., and of all the letters, telegrams and other memoranda between the Department of
Justice, or any other Department of the Government, and the British Ambassador at
Washington, or the Government of the United States, regarding the imprisonment and
proposed liberation of the said Wm. J. Kelley. Presented June 12, 1914. — Mr. Cnrvell.

No! printed.

87

r

4 GEORGE V. ■ SESSIONAL PAPER No. 118 A. 1914

RETURN

(118)

REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

OF CANADA.

SPECIAL CLAIM ON BEHALF OF PRINCE EDWAED ISLAND.

GENERAL STATEMENT.

When this province entered Confederation, it was allowed sis representatives,
though on a basis of population it would only have obtained five.

On the redistribution following the census of 1881 no reduction was made,
although it had still but five units of representation.

After the census of 1891 representation was reduced to five.

After the census of 1901 it was reduced to four.

If the same principle is applied, the next redistribution Bill will reduce its repre-
sentation to three.

It is claimed that according to the spirit of the terras upon which Prince Edward
Island entered Confederation, the original number of its representatives should not be
decreased, and that in order to carry out the true compact, that number should be
restored.

Eirst Confederation Conference was held in Charlottetown, September, 1864;
adjourned mxceting held in Quebec, October, 1864.

Prince Edward Island refused to enter the Union unless six representatives were
conceded.

The following extracts from the speeches of the Island delegates at the Quebec
Conference show definitely their reasons for standing out: —

Mr. Havilaxd:

' Prince Edward Island would rather be out of the Confederation than consent
to this motion. We would have no status, only five members out of one hundred and
ninety-four would give the Island no position.'

Mr. Palmer:

' Representation by population is not applicable when a certain number of prov-
inces are throwing up their self-government and individuality. "When a colony sur-
renders that right she should have something commensurate in the Confederation.
Why give up so great certainties where we have only a feeble voice. I never under-
stood that any proposition at Charlottetown was to be binding as to representation by
population.'

Colonel Grey :

'I am instructed by my co-delegate to say that the provision of five members is
unsatisfactory.'
118

2 REPRESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

At the following session of the Legislature of Prince Edward Island, held in 1865,
the Quebec Resolutions were discussed. These Resolutions provided : —

* 17. The basis of representation in the House of CoininoBS shall be population,
as determined by the official census every ten years; and the number of m'embers at
first shall be 194, distributed as follows : —

Upper Canada S2

Lower Canada 65

Nova Scotia 19

New Brunswick 15

Newfoundland 8

Prince Edward Island 5

Hon. J. C. PoPK, Prime Minister, afterwards Minister of Marine, said:

' If the relative circumstances of Canada and this Island should render a Union
practicable, the evident injustice of the terms agreed to by the Quebec Conference would
prevent their being ratified by the Lgislatuve of this Island. Without admitting the
principle of representation according to population under all circumstances to be
sound, it is, in the opinion of this House, particularly objectionable as applied to this
Island in connection with Canada, taking into consideration that the number of our
inhabitants is, and must continue comparatively small, owing to the fact that we have
no Crown lands, mines, minerals, or other resources sufficient to indiice im'migrants
to settle here, and that we never can expect to become to any extent a manufacturing
people in consequence of onr navigation being closed for nearly half the year, and all
trade and communication with other countries stopped.'

And later, in the same debate, Mr. Pope is reported thus :

' Among these objections I may mention the principle of representation by popula-
tion. A very simple calculation will show that the adoption of this as a standard
would entitle the city of London to send to the British House of Commons no less
than seventy representatives, and the city of Montreal in the Confederate Parliam;ent
would have a representation greater than that of this Island. Its statistics warrant
the belief that in a few years the population will be so increased by the influx of the
tide of immigration that the Island would lose in the halls of legislation even the
small voice which she might raise at her entrance into the Union.' (Debates P.E.T.
Legislature, 1865, p. 45, et seq.)

Hon. Mr. Hensley:

' The terms of the report before us are, in my opinion, vei-y unfavourable to this
Island. On the scale of representation proposed, we would be without the slightest
influence in the United Parliament. It is true that, if we went into the proposed
Union, we would have no right to expect as largo a number of representatives ns either
uf the Lower provinces, but then why should we throw away the independence which
we now enjoy?' (Debates P.E.I. Legislature, 1865, p. 50 et seq.)

Mr. IIowLAN:

' Representation by population might be very well for Canada herself, but in a
general L^nion of the Colonies, it would operate injuriously for the Maritime Prov-
inces, as they could not expect to protect their interests when they would have to
contend with 100 of a clear majority over their own representation. This principle
would give the city of Montreal, with its 10,000 inhabitants, one representative more
than this Island. Quite different is the representation of Great Britain, for whilo
London has about the same population as Scotland, that city has only 16 members in
the House of Commons, while Scotland has 53. But it may be argued that as our

SPECIAL CLAIM OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND 3

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 118

population increases our representation will increase. This is very doubtful. Indeed,
under the operation of the 20th and 21st clauses of the Report it seems probable that
we mig-ht lose our representation altogether. Lower Canada is always to have 65
members, and the representation of the other Colonies is to be arranged every ten
years so as to give each the same ratio to population as she will then possess. Now.
should the population of Lower Canada increase more rapidly than that of this Island,
which is almjost certain to be the case, our representation would decrease, and we
would be left perhaps without a member at all.

ITr. Duncan:

' As to the General Legislature I consider the representation in it allowed to
this Island unfair and unjust. The five representatives allotted to us in the Lower
House would not give the colony much influence there; but as our population will
not increase so rapidly as that of Canada, there is a prospect, through the operation
of one clause in the report, that our five representatives would dwindle down to three.
Taking all these points into consideration, therefore, it is clear to me that we have
nothing to gain and much to lose by adopting the Quebec scheme.' (Debates P.E.I.
Legislature, 1865, p. 65, et seq.)

The above extracts represent the attitude of both political parties in the province
at that time.

The Canadian goveriiment continued desirous to round off Confederation with
the addition of Prince Edward Island, but no definite progress was made until the
year 1873, when that government at last conceded six members as the following cor-
respondence shows : —

Telegram, from Robert P. Haythorne to Lieutenant Governor Robinson, dated
February 26, 1873.

' Held two conferences. Increase of annual allowance. Probable yield six repre-
sentatives.'

Telegram from Robert P. Haythorne to Lieutenant Governor Robinson. March
6, 1873.

' Highly probable get six representatives ; try and send reply Council as soon
as possible.'

Telegram from Lieutenant Governor Robinson to Robert P. Haythorne.
' Council will concur in advising dissolution. "We hope six representatives will
be conceded.'

Telegram to Hon. Edward Palmer from Robert Haythorne, March 6, 1873.
' Except modifications stated and interest difference old debt better terms allowed.
Six members conceded.'

That we were to have a minimum representation of six is made clear enough
from the evidence and facts above submitted. By some oversight or mistake the
memorandum embodying the terms did not in clear and imequivocal language pro-
vide for such. That, however, was the joint mistake of both contracting parties and
a mutual mistake sho^^ld never be held to be binding. Had there been more care
shown at that time in seeing that the understanding for a minimimi representation
of six had been clearly placed in the agreement no one would have made the least
objection. We are simply asking now that the mistake then made be corrected.

SECOND GROUND.

The decline in the population of this province was owing in some degree to the
failure of Canada to carry out its contract to place ' the Island in continuous com-
munication with the railway system of the Dominion.'

4 REPRESENTATIOy IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

Prior to Confederation, this Island had a well-established commerce directly
with Great Britain, the West Indies and other lands, and had a very small propor-
tion of its commerce with the colonies now comprised in Canada. By entering the
Union the direction and control of its commerce and industrial development were
delivered over to Canada; the independent lines of trade which this Island had estab-
lished were diverted to Canadian channels and continuous communication with the
mainland as a consequence became essential to its welfare.

Canada defaulted on its contract. — It is unnecessary to set forth in detail the
extent of this default. It was admitted in 1901 when the Dominion agreed to pay
annually to this province the sum of $30,000 ' for non-fulfilment of the terms of
Union as respects the maintenance of efficient steam communication both summer
and winter between the Island and the mainland.'

The vitter inadequacy of this allowance need not be considered in this connection.
The point is that the breach of contract was admitted by Canada.

Prior to Confederation this Island was doubling its population every 30 years;
its revenues were doubling every 12 years. In 1841 its population was 47,034; in
1871 — the last census before Confederation — it was 94,031. At a steadily diminish-
ing ratio of increase it reached 109,078 in 1891 and then declined rapidly to 93,722 in
1911.

If the pre-Confederation ratio of increase had been maintained the population
would now be 219,000.

In the neighbouring colony of Xewfovmdland in which the natural advantages
were much less and where the ratio of increase had always been much lower, the
population increased from 161,374 in 1874 when its census was taken, to xipwards
of 240,000 in 1911. Population always tends to move from disadvantage to advantage.

It is but fair to assume that the \mfavourable conditions brought about in this
province by the non-fulfilment of the terms of Confederation had much to do with
its loss of population and it is contended that it is most unjust that this province
should be penalized by Canada for Canada's default.

It is impossible to come to any other conclusion than that the draughtsman in
drawing jip the terms of Union overlooked the agreement that had been arrived at
as to representation and neglected to use words necessary to provide for a minimum
representation. It is clear that our province refused to accept the Quebec terms because
that minimum of six was denied us. Is it reasonable to suppose that having refused to
come in for nine years on account of the smallness of the representation which the
Quebec terms offered that all these objections would vanish in 1873 and that the
Island would join the Union knowing that it would only have six members for a
few years.

After the census of 1891 we lost one member. After that of 1901 another, and
unless this conference comes to our relief with a recommendation we will certainly
lose a third as a result of the census of 1911 ; and in a few years our province will
only have one representative in the House and eventually none at all. When this
takes place an intolerable situation will arise. Taxation witho\it representation is,
under constitutional government, impossible and to this Prince Edward Island is
steadily drifting. It is not the part of wisdom to wait till that day arrives. The
remedy should be given and the mistake under which our province suffers should be
corrected now. Dday only aggravates the situation and renders the final adjustment
more difficult.

Dated at Ottawa this 27th day of October, A.D. 1910.

4 GEORGE V.

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 118a

A. 1914

(118a)

RETURN

REPRESENi T ATION

THE HOUSE OF COMMONS OF CANADA.

MEMORANDUM on behalf of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward
Island, claiming the right to have their original representation restored.

GENERAL STATEMENT.

Nova Scotia and New Brunswick were two of the charter members of Confedera-
tion. Prince Edward Island joined the Union in 1873 under the provisions of section
146 of the British North America Act.

The following table shows the representation allowed these provinces from time
to time, and the effect of applying the same principle to the last census : —

Orieinal
Number.

After ! After

census of census of

1881. 1891.

After

census of

1901.

After

census of

1911.

Nova Scotia

19

15

6

21 ' 20

16 1 . 14

6 5

18

Ifi

New Brunswick

Prince Edward Island

13 1 1]
4 1 3

The question of the legal right of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island to
retain their original representation was referred to the Supreme Court of Canada in
1903, and was decided against these provinces. On appeal to the Privy Council, the
answer of the Supreme Court to the question submitted was held to be correct.

We must bow to this decision so far as the strict interpretation of the written
contract is concerned, but this was not the expectation and belief of the delegates at
the time of the negotiation of the terms of Union, for the Hon. George Brown in
moving the resolution fixing the number of representatives which each colony should
have in the House, stated : ' The practical result will be that while Lower Canada
certainly will not be less and the lower provinces may increase in population, they
cannot decrease in the number of representatives. It keeps the House within a reason-
able limit.' And the Honourable A. T. Gait, in a speech delivered in Sherbrooke on
November 23, 1864, shortly after the termination of the Quebec Conference, and
reported in the ITontreal Gazette of that time, declared: 'The House would never
have less than one hundred and ninety-four members.'

Representation by population while accepted as a guiding principle in fixing the
representation of each province in the Dominion Parliament, was intended to be made
subservient to the right of each colony to adequate representation in view of its sur-
render of a large measure of self-government. In consideration of surrendering its

118a

2 liEPliESENTATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

independent colonial status, each colony was entitled to such a representation in the
Federal Parliament as would be sufficient to guard that right.

A self-governing colony was something more than the number of its inhabitants.

The principle that population was not the sole consideration in fixing representa-
tion was recognized in the cases of Manitoba, British Columbia and Prince Edward
Island when these provinces respectively entered the Union.

Manitoba with a population less than one unit of representation was given four,
with a provision that after the census of 1881 its representation should be ' readjusted '
under the terms of the British North America Act. ,

The census of 1881 showed a population of 62,260, which would have entitled it
to three members, but it was ' readjusted ' up to five.

British Columbia with a white population of less than 10,000, and a total popula-
tion not exceeding 40,000 when it entered Confederation, in 1871, was given six
members as an irreducible medium. In 1881 it had but two units of representation,
and in 1891 four units.

Prince Edward Island obtained six members upon entering Confederation with
but five units of population, passed the census of 1881 in the same condition but, not
being safeguarded as was British Columbia, was reduced to a representation of five
-after the census of 1891.

It may be said that in each of these cases there was the expectation of such
increase as would in time bring all the provinces upon the basis of representation
allowed upon entering Confederation. ' Admitting such to be the case, it goes to show
that the splendid optimists who made Confederation thought only of readjustment
upwards and not downwards.

When the Maritime Provinces entered Confederation it was impossible for them to
have forseen the extent and effect of the development of western Canada. They
never imagined that in the days to come the growth of the west would strip them of
their influence in the councils of the nation. Though the times were not over pros-
perous they contributed their share to the cost of purchasing the lands from the
Hudson Bay Company and equipping them for settlement; bore their part of the cost
to Canada of the Canadian Pacific railway and all the other vast expenditures that
went to link together the far-flung provinces of Canada, and to convert the wilder-
ness into thriving communities out of which have developed the splendid prairie
provinces of to-day.

But most of all, they gave their sons and daughters to the west. From Manitoba
to the Pacific coast the Maritime provinces people form an important element of the
population who have played no small part in the development of these new lands.

Theirs also is a potent influence in binding together the east and the west with
bonds of sjTupathy ' light as air though strong as iron.'

All these contributions the Maritime provinces have cheerfully made in the
interests of Canadian unity and progress, but they feel it a cruel exaction of the strict
letter of the bond which will impose a lasting penalty upon them for the sacrifices
they have made in such a cause.

Another ground upon which the Maritime provinces claim consideration in respect
of their representation is that they had as good a right to share in the public demesne
of Canada as had those provinces upon which it was bestowed. It is true that the
Maritime provinces have claimed a share of the value of these lands, but that does
not touch the question now under consideration. The territories added out of the
public demesne will increase to a limit not now possible of calculation the representa-
tion of these provinces in the Federal Parliament.

The Maritime proTinces, situate as they are, could not well obtain their share in
actual territory, but it is surely just that thoy should not by reason of the aggrandize-
ment of the provinces more favourably situate be compelled to accept a representa-
tion decreased not only relatively but absolutely in the Canadian Parliament.

yOVA SCOTIA, XEW BRUNSWICK AND PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND 3

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 118a

There is surely something wrong with a system of representation which penalizes
some provinces for the sacrifices they have made in sending their children and their
means to upbuild the other parts of the Dominion, and which would fail to make any
special allowance in their representation in the Canadian Parliament in respect of
their isolated position which prevents them from enlarging their bounds out of the
public lands of Canada.

Prior to the Act of 1912 the representation of Quebec was fixed at 65, but now in
the added territory additional representation will be given under the terms of the
British Xorth America Act. This may be few or many, but it introduces in that
province the same principle now contended for.

This is the status of British Columbia as well, and it is submitted that each
province in the Confederation might well be placed upon the basis of a fixed minimum
of representation.

For the reasons above set forth, it is claimed that the representation of the iTari-
time provinces in the House of Commons should be restored to the number allowed
upon entering Confederation upon terms that the same may not in future be subject
to reduction below that number.

Dated at Ottawa, this 2Tth day of October, A.D. 1913.

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 119 A. 1914

RETURN

(119)

To AN Address, of the House of CoMitoxs, dated the 2ud February, 1914, for a copy
of the proceedings and resolutions adopted at the last Interprovincial Conference.

LOUIS CODERKE,

Secretary of State.

Quebec^ November 6, 1913.
Eight Honourable R. L. Bordex, LL.D., K.C,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa.

SiR^ — In conformity with the request made by you and pursuant to a resolution
of the Interprovincial Conference, I beg to send you, under the same cover, an extract
of the deliberations of a conference of the representatives of the several provinces,
held in Ottawa on the 2Tth, 28th and 29th October last.

I have the honour to be, sir.

Your obedient servant,

(Sgd) CHARLES LANCLOT,

Secretary.

Extracts from the Deliberations of the Conferences of the representatives of the
several Provinces of Canada, held at Ottawa, on the 27th, 28th and 29th October,
1913.

Were present: —
For Ontario —

Hon. Sir James Whitney, K.C.M.G., Premier.
Hon. J. J. Foy, Attorney General.
Hon. I. B. Lucas, Provincial Treasurer.

For Quebec —

Hon. Sir Lomer Gouin, K.C.M.G., Premier.

Hon. L. A. Taschereau, Minister of Public Works and Labour.

Hon. J. E. Caron, Minister of Agriculture and Roads.

Hon. P. S. G. Mackenzie, Provincial Treasurer.

For Nova Scotia —

Hon. G. H. Murray, Premier.

Hon. O. T. Daniels, Attorney General.

Hon. R. M. McGregor, Member Provincial Executive Council.

For New BrunsvncTc —

Hon. J. K. Fleming, Premier.

Hon. W. C. H. Grimmer, Attorney General.

119 , , . .

INTERPROyiNCIAL CONFERENCE

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

For Prince Edward Island —

Hon. J. A. Matheson, Premier and Attorney General.

Hon. A. E. Arsenault, Member Provincial Executive Council.

Hon. W. Stewart, Member Provincial Executive Council.

For Manitoba —

Hon. Sir Rodmond Koblin, Premier.

Hon. James H. Howdon, Attorney General.

For British Columbia —

Hon. Sir Richard McBride, Premier.
Hon. William R. Ross, Minister of Lands.

For Saskatchewan —

Hon. Walter Scott, Premier.

Hon. J. A. Calder, Minister of Railways.

Hon. W. F. A. Turgeon, Attorney General and Provincial Secretary.

For Alberta —

Hon. Arthur L. Sifton, Premier.

Resolved, That in the opinion of this Conference it is desirable that the Govern-
ment of Canada be requested to consider the placing of the remuneration of the
Lieutenant Governors on a basis more in accordance with present circumstances.

Resolved, That in the opinion of this Conference, the Government of Canada
be requested to have the necessary legislation passed to change the title of the head
of the Executive of each Province so that in the future he be designated under the
name of ' Governor ' instead of ' Lieutenant Governor.'

Whereas under the provisions of the British North America Act, 1867, and the
various amendments thereto, the existing financial arrangements between the Govern-
ment of the Dominion of Canada and the various provinces thereof are inadequate
to provide a sufficiency of revenue to enable them effectively to provide for their
expenditure, in consequence of the heavy and steadily increasing amoimts required
to be expended to maintain the efficiency of the services of their respective Govern-
ments, as by law provided, to promote the moral and material progress of the people.

Whereas the financial arrangements made at the time and since Confederation
have never been regarded as final by the provinces.

Whereas, in 1867, the Provinces surrendered to Canada their Customs and Excise
duties amounting to $11,580,968.25, and received in lieu thereof the sum of $2,227,-
942.11.

I

IX7EBPR0VINGIAL CONFERENCE 3

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 119

Whereas, in 1913 the total revenue from Customs and Excise was $135,312,143.67,
of which the Provinces received only $10,281,042.50.

Be it therefore, —

Resolved, 1. That in the opinion of this Conference an additional subsidy equal
to 10 per cent of the Customs and Excise duties collected by Canada from year to
year should be granted to the Provinces, payable semi-annually in advance, in addi-
tion to all other subsidies to which they are now or may hereafter be entitled, under
the reserve of the right of any province to submit to the DominiorL Government
memorandum in writing concerning any claim it may have to larger sums than
those mentioned in this resolution, and without prejudice to any existing claims or
demands of any province.

2. That this additional subsidy be paid to each province, as follows : —

(a) There shall be set aside out of such additional subsidy an amount sufficient
to pay to each province a sum equal to 50 per cent of the amount now payable to
each province for Government and Legislature.

(h) The balance of such additioVLal subsidy shall be payable to each province
according to its population as ascertained from time to time by the then last census.

3. That in the case of the Government of Canada concurring in the views of
the Conference as expressed in the above resolutions, a measure should be submitted
to the Parliament of Canada at the next session providing for payment of such
increased subsidies and allowances as may be determined upon, pending an amend-
ment to the British North America Act, if such amendment should be deemed
necessary.

Whereas by the Imperial Colonial Stock Act, 1900, the powers of Trustees in
the United Kingdom under the Trustees Act, 1893, have been extended and pro-
vision made for the investment of trust funds in colonial stocks under regulations
to be made by the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury.

And whereas the regulations in question were in due course promulgated by
the Treasury, in the London Gazette, and are as follows: —

1. ' The Colony shall provide by legislation for the payment out of the
revenues of the Colony of any sum which may become payable to stockholders
under any judgment, decree, rule or order of a court in the ITnited Kingdom.

2. ' The Colony shall satisfy the Imperial Treasury that adequate funds
(as and when required) will be made available in the United Kingdom to
meet such judgment, decree, rule or order.

3. ' The Colonial Government shall place on record a formal expression
of opinion that any Colonial legislation which appears to the Imperial Govern-
ment to alter any of the provisions affecting the stock to the injury of the
stockholders, or to involve a departure from the original contract, in regard
to the stock, would properly be disallowed.'

And whereas all (»r nearly all of the Self-Governing Colonies and most of the
Crown Colonies, have taken advantage of the Act, and have passed the necessary
legislation and have given the assurances that are required under the Treasury
Regulations.

And whereas the financial position of the Colonies which have come luider the
provisions of the Act, has been much improved and their securities have obtained
a wider market.

4 INTERPROYINCIAL CONFERENCE

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

Whereas both as regards the in'irt's realized hy th.e C'aiitidian yirovinecs, on the
urif^iiial issue of their loans, as on the selling prices of their existing securities on
the London market, other Colonies or dependencies of the Emlpire whether of
equal or less importance in wealth or population are presently able to dispose of
their issues at greater advantage, and their securities are quoted at much higlicr
figures.

And whereas the Provinces of Canada by their Union have formed the Dominion
of Canada, which is justly regarded as one of the most important portions of the
British Empire.

And whereas the said Provinces of Canada have so far been unsuccessful in
their endeavours to obtain for their stocks the advantages conferred by the Act of
li>(>0, and they alone among the constituent parts of the Empire are, in consequence,
prejudiced, and their financial interests adversely and seriously affected.

And whereas the securities of the Provinces of Canada are eligible for registra-
tion under the Colonial Stock Act, 1877, and amending Acts; and the necessary
legislation can readily be passed to comply with the first two of the regulations that
have been issued by the Treasury under the Cplonial Stock Act of 1900.

And whereas the only difficulty in the way of extending the benefits' of the Act
of 1900 to the Provinces of Canada is found in the provisions of the third regula-
tion.

And whereas it is stated to be held by the Imperial authorities that they have
no direct right of disallowance so far as the legislation of the Provinces of Canada
is concerned, and that the position in that respect, is therefore different to that
obtaining in the case of the Colonies to which the provisions of the Act of 1900 have
been applied.

And whereas under the British North America Act, the power of disallowance
in relation to the legislation of the provinces is reserved to the Governor-General
in Council; but the Provinces of Canada are, therefore, in a position to place on
record a formal expression of opinion iinder the third of the regulations ' that any
of its legislation which appears to the Dominion or Imperial Government to alter
any of the provisions affecting the stock, to the injury of the stockholders or to
involve a departure from the original contract in regard to the stock, would pro-
perly Ije disallowed by the Governor-General in Council,' or to take such other and
further course as may be suggested with the view of meeting any objection.

And whereas if this assurance or formal expression of opinion is not deemed
to be sufficient, the Provinces of Canada will be prepared to give favourable con-
sideration to any suggestions that may be made by His Majesty's Government to the
Dominion Government, in order that the Colonial Stock Act of 1900 may be extended
to the stocks it may have already issued, or which may be issued in the future.

And whereas the Provinces of Canada cannot but believe that there is every
disposition on the part of His Majesty's Government to extend to their stocks the
benefits of the Act of 1900, if necessary and proper assurances are given in the
spirit of the said Act, and of the regulations that have been promulgated under its
provisions.

And whereas it also appears that under the pmvisions of the Imperial Statutes,
known as the Irish Land Act, 1909, and the National Insurance Act, 1911, the
trustees and commissioners appointed thereunder respectively are empowered to
invest the purchase money and investments arising thereunder in any of the public
stocks or funds or Government securities of any foreign government and in any
securities in which trustees are for the time being, by law. empowered to invest
trust funds, and that under the provisions of the said Acts investment in the securities
of the Provinces of the Dominion is likewise excluded, the whole prejudicial to the
interests and credit of the provinces.

INTERPROViyCIAL COXFEREXCE 5

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 119

Be it therefore resolved tliat iii tlie opinion of this Conference that the authori-
ties (if the Dominion Government be requested to submit this statement to the
Imperial Government in order that it may be brought formally to the notice of the
Secretai-y of State for the Colonies for the consideration of the Government of Tlis
^lajesty, with a view to the laws and regulations that have been made under the
Colonial Stock Act of 1»00 and the Irish Land Act, 1909, and the National Insur-
ance Act, 1911, being applied — or if necessary amended, modified or extended to
meet the circumstances, and permit of their being made applicable — to the securities
of the Provinces of the Dominion of Canada.

Resolved, — That in the opinion of this Conference, it is desirable that the postal
regulations of Canada be amended so as to provide for the free carriage of all provin-
cial public documents, both sessional and departmental.

On the debate respecting representation of the provinces in the House of Com-
mons, it was moved by the Hon. Mr. Fleming, seconded by the Hon. ]\Ir. Matheson,
that in the opinion of this Conference the representation granted to the Maritime
Province? at the time they entered Confederation should be restored and rendered
irreducible.

Tliis motion was withdrawn.

It was moved by Hon. ^h\ Fleming, seconded by Hon. Mr. Matheson : —
That this Conference would favour and request that an amendment be sought to
the British North America Act providing an irreducible minimum in the representa-
tion of the Maritime Provinces, and that the irreducible number of representatives be
as follows: for Nova Scotia, eighteen; for New Brunswick, thirteen; and for Prince
Edward Island, six.

This motion was withdrawn.

It was then moved by Hon. Mr. Matheson, seconded by Hon. Mr. Fleming : —

That this Conference having heard and considered the special claim of Prince
Edward Island for the restoration to that province of its original six members in the
House of Commons as a minimum, deems that it should receive the favourable con-
sideration of the Government and Parliament of Canada.

A debate having arisen thereon, it was

Resolved, — That this Conference expresses the opinion that, not representing the
provinces for the purposes of this matter of representation, it declines to take any
action in regard to it.

6 INTERPIiOVINC.'AL CONFERENCE

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

It was moved by Hon. Mr. Scott, secouded by Hon. Mr. Sif ton : —
That in the opinion of tbis Conference any action contempbated by the Doniini-ou
(Jovernnieut towards assisting in the carrying on of provincial works or obligations
.^liould take tlie form of an increase in the subsidies payable to the provinces l)y the
Dominion under the terms of the B.N. A. Act.

A debate having arisen thereon, the Conference was adjourned till the after-
noon.

Tlie debate on Hon. Mr. Scott's motion concerning any action contemplated by
the Dominion Government towards assisting in the carrying on of provincial works
and obligations, was resumed; and in view of the divergence of opinion which
seemed to prevail amongst the members of the Conference regarding the subject
matter of the motion, the mover and seconder considered it tuiadvisable to press the
same to a vote and asked leave to have the same withdrawn. Leave to withdraw was
in consequence granted.

Resolved, Tliat the contention of the provinces concerning the incorporation of
companies having been upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada, after a reference
to this tribunal at the instance of the Dominion, this Conference expresses the firm
belief that the decision should be c^nsidered as final and conclusive, especially in
view of the far reaching and disturbing impression created in the public mind by the
doid)t cast upon the powejrs of the legislatures in regard to this matter.

Resolved, That the secretary be instructed to transmit to the Eight Hon. Mr.
Rorden copies of the resolutions which have been adopted by this Conference.

Resolved, That the members of this Conference desire to place on record their
hearty appreciation of the attention shown them by the Prime Minister of Canada
and his colleagues.

(Sgd.) CHAELES LANOTOT,

Secret an/.

REPORT

OF THE

National Transcontinental Railway

Investigating Commission

PRINTED BY ORDER OF PARLIAMENT

OTTAWA
PRINTED:BY the KING'S PRINTER TO HIS MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY.

1914
[No.";! 23— 1914.]

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123 A. 1914

List of Witnesses Examined

Page

BALKAM, H. M., District Engineer, District C-D 310

Recalled 323

BEAUDETTE, N. R., Resident Engineer, Residency 16, District B 162

Recalled 279

BELL, P. W., Division Engineer, Division 2, District F 238

BERGEVIN, RAOUL R., Real Estate Agent 571

BLACK, R. A-, Division Engineer, Division 7, District B 278

BOURBONNAIS, A., Resident Engineer, Residencies 13, 14, and 15, District B. .. 182

BROWN, W. G., Resident Engineer, Residency 40, District B 142

BUCKE, H. L., Division Engineer, Divisions 3 and 4, District F 242

BUTLER, G. A., Division Engineer, Division 3, Districts CD 185

CALVERT, W. S., Commissioner, N.T.R -. 613

CHARLTON, R. M., Division Engineer, Division 1, District B 225

CHEVALIER, ADOLPHE 588

DAVIS, M. P 654

DICK, A., Division Engineer, Divisions 2a, 3 and 4, District B 259

DOBELL, A. C, Advocate 551

DOUCET, A. E., District Engineer, District B 358

FAUQUIER, E. F., Contractor 487

FERGUSON, A., Division Engineer, Divisions 4, 5 and 6, District B 269

FOSS, C. O., District Engineer, District A 334

Recalled 350

GOODWIN, E. P., Inspecting Engineer, N.T.R 377

GRANT, GORDON, Chief Engineer, N.T.R 380

HAWKINS, S-, Resident Engineer, Residencies 6 and 7, District B 173

HERVEY, C. L., Late Assistant District Engineer, District B 302

HOAR, E. A., Division Engineer, Quebec Bridge Company 652

HOLIDAY, J. H., Division Engineer, Division 2, District B 266

HOLLAND, R. R., Division Engineer, Divisions 4, 5, 6, District CD 220

KITCHEN, WILLARD, Contractor 478

LOCKWELL, CAMILLE, Real Estate Agent 568

LONGLEY, H., Assistant District Engineer, District A 297

LUMSDEN, H., Late Chief Engineer, N.T.R 389

Recalled 403

MACFARLANE, A. G., District Engineer, District F 370

MacPHERSON. D., Assistant to Chairman, N.T.R 409

MARTINEAU, NAPOLEON 581

MATTICE, G. L., Assistant District Engineer, District CD 280

Recalled 291

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123 A» 1914

Page

McARTHUR, J. D., Contractor 604

McDOUGALL, A., Contractor 560

McISAAC, C. F., Commissioner, N.T.R 598

McMANUS, REID, Contractor 495

MOLESWORTH, A. N., Late District Engineer, District CD 325

MONSARRAT, C. W., Chairman, Quebec Bridge Commission 475

MORENCY, OMAR, Purchasing Agent, District B, N.T.R 564

O'BRIEN, M. J., Contractor 623

O'LEARY, H. D., Division Engineer, Divisions 2 and 3, District B 20€

PARADIS, A. A., Resident Engineer, Residencies 8, 9, 10, District B 151

PARDEE, H. M., Division Engineer, Division 7, District C. D 210

PARENT, S. N., Chairman, Commissioners N.T.R 618

PORTER, J. W., Assistant District Engineer, District B 298

POWERS, E. F., Contractor 541

ROBERTSON, WM. A., Division Engineer, Division 4, District CD 191

SCHREIBER, COLLINGWOOD, Government Consulting Engineer 443

STANTON, F. M., Accountant, Distr^-t B, N.T.R 556

TIMBRELL, A., Division Engineer, Division 11, District B 250

TOMUNSON, A. T., District Engineer, Grand Trunk Pacific 416

TREMBLAY, ANTHEOD, Assistant Land Agent, District B 557

TYE, W. F., Consulting Engineer 449

VEDAL, GEORGE, Bailiff 698

WOODS, H. A., Assistant Chief Engineer, Grand Trunk I'acinc 425

Recalled 434

YOUNGMAN, W., Resident Engineer, Residency 7, District F. 141

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123 A. 1914

February 11, 1914.

Hon. Feank Cocheake, P.C,

Minister of Railways and Canals,
Ottawa, Ontario.

SiE, — "We have the honour herewith to deliver to you for transmission to His
JRoyal Highness the Governor General of Canada the report of the Commission
appointed to investigate the construction of the National Transcontinental Eailway.

Yours recpectfully,

GEO. LYNCH-STAUNTOIsr,
Chairman.

F. P. GUTELIUS,

Commissioner.

12?.— 1

4 GEORGE V, SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123 A. 1914

To Field Marshal His Royal Highness Prince Arthur William Patrick Albert,
Duke of Gonnaught and of Strathearn, K.G., K.T., K.P., etc., etc.. Governor
General of Canada.

May it please Your Royal Highness :

The undersigned have the honour to present to Your Royal Highness the
Report of the Commission appointed on the 29th day of January, 1912, to
investigate tlie building of the Transcontinental Railway.

GEO. LYNCH-STAUNTON,

Chair man J

F. P. GUTELIUS,

Comniissioner.

Ottawa, February 11, 1914.

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123 A. 1914

Report of National Transcontinental Railway
Investigating Commission.

By Eoyal Commission dated the 29th day of January, 1912, Your Eoyal
Highness was pleased to appoint the undersigned Commission to investigate tie
building of the Transcontinental railway. In the performance of the duties
imposed upon us we have familiarized ourselves with the work and its history,
insofar as possible from an examination of the contracts, estimates, plans and
correspondence in the office of the Commission at Ottawa, and by making a personal
inspection of all the work done prior to the first day of October, 1911, between
Moncton and Winnipeg.

"We were attended over each section by the engineers and other officials who
had charge of or were familiar with their particular parts of the line which we
were from time to time examining, and we took the evidence of these persons,
which is appended to the report, either on the ground or immediately after each
inspection.

The report is based in the main on the evidence of the persons who had charge
of tliB building of the railway, and on what we ourselves have seen, and we feel
that we have thoroughly familiarized ourselves with the facts and circumstances on
which we base the findings and opinions herein contained.

The Government of Canada made an agreement on tiie 29th July, 1903, with
the representatives of the proposed Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, which was
ratified by an Act of Parliament (3 Edward VII, Chapter 71), whereby the Govern
menr agreed to construct a line of single track railway from Moncton, in the
province of New Brunswick, to Winnipeg, in the province of Manitoba, according
to such plans and specifications as the Government should thereafter determine,
to be known as the Eastern division of the National Transcontinental railway.
After its construction the road was to be leased to the Grand Trunk Pacific Eailway
Company, which was to operate and maintain the same for a period of fifty years,
pa}4ng as a rental therefor three per cent per annum on the cost of construction
for the last forty-three years of the term of fifty years. Four commissioners were
appointed by the Government to manage the construction of the railway.

CON'STITUTION OF THE COMMISSION.

Until the appointment of Major E. W. Leonard, in the autumn of 1911, no
member of the Commission had any experience or knowledge of railway building
or operation.

6 " NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

DESIGN OF THE RAILWAY.

The railway was designed, i.e., its standard was decided on, without any
knowledge as to whether it was suitable for the country, and on assumptions as to
business expected which were unwarranted.

(See page 13.)

PEELIMINARY ESTIMATES OF COST.

When the Bill for the construction of the railway was being discussed in the
House of Commons, the Honorable Mr. Fielding, then Minister of Finance, stated
that he had been advised by experienced railway men that the cost of such a railway
from Quebec to Winnipeg, 1,344 miles, would be $35,000 per mile, or $47,040,000
and from Moncton to Quebec, 460 miles at $31,250 per mile, or 14,375,000

Total $61,415,000

(See page 17.)

ACTUAL COST ON WHICH INTEREST IS TO BE PAID BY LESSEES.

Contracts were let for most of the road, and on September 30, 1911, there
had already been spent $109,000,000, and Mr. Gordon Grant, the chief engineer,
then estimated that when completed the road will, exclusive of interest, have cost
$161,300,000.

If the road is completed at this cost by the end of 1914 the Grand Trunk
Pacific will commence to pay rent at the beginning of 1922 on this amount with
$18,700,000 interest added, making an annual rental of $5,400,000, or about
$14,800 a day. (See page 18.)

ACTUAL COST TO THE COUNTRY.

Assuming that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company will commence to
pay interest on the cost of construction in 1922, the road will have cost the country
for principal and interest $234,651,521. This amount has been arrived at by
calculating the interest on the amounts expended during each year from the end
of that year up to the end of 1921. (Page 19.)

METHOD OF INVITING TENDERS.

The rules adopted by the Commission in advertising for tenders, the unlimited
security required to be furnished by the contractors, and the proposal to let the
work for the most part in unreasonably large sections, resulted in only five con-
tractors tendering for 806 miles of the railway, and eleven contracting firms
secured all the work and sub-let it to upwards of 100 sub-contractors, who, had the
work been divided into reasonably large sections and tbe security required in otlier
governmental contracts only been exacted, would have in all probability competed
in the bidding. As an indication of the handsome profits derived by these eleven
firms, it appears tliat they were paid $8,800,000 in profits for that part of their
work which they let to subcontractors. (Sec i)age 19.)

INT ESTI GATING COMMISSION T

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

METHOD OF AWARDING CONTRACTS.

The contracts for sections Xo. 8, 150 miles; No. 18, 75 miles: and Xo. 21^
245 miles; which are estimated to cost, No. 8, $5,011,000; No. 18, $2,100,000, and
No. 21, $13,000,000, were not let to the lowest tenderers, and we believe that in
at least two or three cases advance information as to estimated quantities was made
use of by the successful tenderers. Our reasons for these statements are fully
given in that part of this report referring to these contracts. Contracts Nos. 16
and 17, M. P. and J. T. Davis, were improperly allowed to sell at a profit to them-
selves of $740,000. (Page 19.)

CLASSIFICATION.

The classification prescribed in the contracts was ignored and contractors were
overpaid $3,300,000 on improper classification.

(1) Solid Rock.

A new sub-classification of solid rock, called " Assembled rock," which i»
described as " fragments of rock cemented together by interstitial material " was-
improperly introduced after the contracts were signed, and though $1,835,051 was
paid for " assembled rock," there is no material on the line which can possibly be-
marshalled under that head, and that material which was described as " assembled
rock " should have been classified as " loose rock " or as common excavation.

(2) Ploughable Clay.

About 1,317,940 yards of ploughable clay on contracts 14, 15 and 16 in New
Ontario, whicji should have been classified as common excavation, were classified
as loose rock, resulting in a loss of $750,000.

(3) Overbreah.

Overbreak, i.e., rock taken out beyond the section, should never exceed 20 per
cent of the intended excavation. On this line it exceeded 40 per cent. The
engineers first certified that all overbreak, amounting to $4,084,843.78 should be
paid for. The arbitrators reduced their returns by $500,000. We find that that
reduction snould have been $677,866.59 more than it was. (See page 69.)

GRADES.

Had momentum grades been adopted, as is the usual practice in high-clas&
modern railway construction, they would have in no way impaired the usefulness-
of the railway, or increased the cost of operation, or reduced its hauling capacity,,
and $6,200,000 might and should have been saved. (See page 71.)

ALIGNMENT.

Had sharper curves, i.e., curves of a shorter radius than those actually used.
bfpn allowed they would not have impaired the usefulness or increased the cost of

8 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

cperation or reduced the hauling capacity of the road, and $2,400,000 might and
should have been saved. (See page 73.)

BRIDGES.

Had wooden trestles been used instead of train fill and steel structures, as waa
done by the Grand Trunk Pacific on its portion of the line, and as is allowed in
the best modem railway construction, they might have been in course of time re-
placed by fill and steel structures and $2,947,227 thereby saved without impairing
the usefulness or reducing the hauling capacity of the railway or increasing the
cost of operation. (See page 74).

TRAIN FILLING.

The Commission had an offer from the Grand Trunk Pacific to fill wooden
trestles at the rate of 25 cents per cubic yard. Had the Commission made such an
agreement to do the train filling after the road was opened, $3,250,000 would have
been saved in addition to that included under the last heading. (See page 74.)

BUILDINGS.

The sixteen engine houses to be constructed were considered of such small
importance that the contractors were not required, altliough the attention of the
Commission was drawn to the omission, to name a price either in bulk or in detail
for their construction, but were given the contractors on prices afterwards to be
arranged. In consequence of this, these buildings cost $800,000 more than they
otherwise would. In the opinion of this Commission, this was a direct violation
of the statute, which clearly requires that contracts be given on tenders which
name the price at which the work is to be done. (See page 80.)

STATIONS.

There were sixteen station buildings at different points on the line, each with
office accommodation for a staff sufficient to operate 500 miles of railway. Four such
might have been justifiable, but no more. These station buildings average $22,000
each, and $204,000 might have been saved here had care been taken to only provide
stations with ample accommodation for the operation of the road. (See page 80.)

REDDIT STATIONS.

At Eeddit, which is in a wilderness, a station ample in every respect for any
possible purpose was built but because it did not comply with the extravagant
Grand Trunk Pacific design a second station was built beside it at a cost of
$22,112, to the profit of the contractor alone. (See page 80.)

FREIGHT SHEDS, &C.

The design for freight sheds, bunk houses, storehouses, ice-houses, were on an
unnecessarily extravagant scale, and there were far too many of them built. Had
the design been within reasonable limits and had they been built only where they
were useful $300,000 would have been saved. (See page 80.)

INVESTIGATING COMUISSION 9

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

CAP ROUGH VIADUOT,

On this viaduct, ■which is near Quebec, had the piers been built trith ordinary
open caissons, as they should and could have been the same result would have been
had at $250,000 less cost. (See page 88.)

CHAUDIERE CUT.

This cut is about one mile east of the Quebec bridge on the south side of t^he
St. Lawrence river. Xot"withstanding the fact that the approach to the Quebec
bridge on both sides is over a one per. cent grade, the Commission spent $351,000
to preserve the low gradient within one mile of the Q.uebec Bridge. (See page 90.)

COAL CREEK FILL.

An embankment was built here containing over half a million cubic yards of
material of which 200,000 yards was solid rock borrow. The total cost of the fill
and arch was $398,000.

If the Commission had built a wooden trestle there they would have saved in
seven years $413,000 and could have then built the embankment and the arch and
have been $239,000 ahead. (See page 92.)

CHIPMAN GRADE.

On the New Brunswick section there are at mileage 1-46 and 174 two pusher
grades thirteen miles and eleven miles in length respectively, where the grade is 1.10
per cent, yet at Chipman, rather than allow the grade to be increased one tenth per
cent the Commissioners spent $178,224. (See page 97.)

LITTLE SALMON RIVER VIADUCT.

This large steel structure, containing 14,000,000 pounds of steel, was erected
across the Little Salmon Eiver valley in New Brunswick, at a cost of over $800,000.

If pusher grades had been used in locating this crossing $1,750,000 would
have been saved in a distance of 10 miles, and the interest on this sum would in 20
years have paid for a revision of the line if the traflfic then warranted it. (See
page 98.)

LA TUQUE.

Contrary to the recommendation of the engineers the Government, because it
had been stated that this was to be a 0.4 per cent railway, refused to allow a
pusher grade to be put in at La Tuque where everybody admitted it should be used,
and thereby, for no purpose, wasted $1,000,000. (See page 100.)

SECOND SIDINGS.

The original plan was to build along the whole line at seven mile intervals
two sidings of 3,500 feet and 3,235 feet in length, to accommodate two 80 car
trains. After having spent $374,500 on the second sidings, the Commission realized
that this was an unwarranted expenditure and abandoned the two sidings plan and
built only one. (See page 102.)

10 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

'4 GEORGE v., 1914

WEIGHT OF RAILS IN SIDINGS.

On the line there are 367 miles of sidings and yard tracks which are equipped
with new SO pound rails. This was an unjustifiable expenditure as rails of 65
pounds would have answered the purpose equally well, and $340,500 was wasted by
not using the lighter rail. (See page 104.)

DOUBLE-TRACKING.

The statute provided that the line should be a single track railway with ne-
cessan' turn-outs and switches. The Commission, exceeding their authority, double-
tracked six miles at an additional expense of $679,692.00. (See page 105.)

TWO PRICES FOR ONE HANDLING OF MATERIAL,

Certain contractors were by a wrong construction of the contract paid two
prices for one handling of material. The waste under this head amounted to
$75,284.83. (See page 108.)

HEIGHT OF EMBANKMENTS.

On contracts 14, 15 and 16 we iind that the extra height of embankments
beyond what was necessary to si,ay within the maximum gradients resulted in un-
necessary expenditure of $150,000. (Seo page 110.)

PILING FOR FOUNDATIONS,

The contracts provided that piles delivered on the ground should be paid for
at so much per foot, and that piles driven should be paid for at another price per
foot. The contract was unreasonably interpreted to mean that for piles driven the
contractor was to be paid for piles delivered and after he drove them he was paid
a second time for the piles plus the additional price per foot for driving them. The
contractors on contract 9 were in this way overpaid $33,900. (See page 110.)

DRAINING BORROW PITS.

One hundred and sixty-six thousand nine liundred dollars was spent in drain-
ing borrow pits, a useless and unjustifiable expenditure. (See page 112.)

NARCISSE DELTSLE, HONORE PERRON, FARM CROSSINGS.

The Commission wasted $21,617 changing a six-foot culvert into an under farm
crossing for the use of the first man .who had given them an option on his whole
farm, which is 59 miles west of Quebec, for $3,500, and a further $21,600 in a like
la.-e at Honore Perron's farm next to Delisle's. (See page 113.)

FENCES.

Sixty-one thousand three hundred and eighty dollars was spent on unnecessary
fences. (See page 117.)

IXTESTIGATING COMMISSION 11

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

QUEBEC EIGHT OF WAT. — R. R. BERGEVIN.

The chairman of the Commission paid R. Bergevin, of Quebec, $7,950 just
after the election of 1911 on a pretended claim for damages to a certain leasehold
property. This was a most improper pa^nnent and cannot be justified in law or in
morals. (See page 118.)

RIVER DU SUD AND CREEK a'sHEA.

The two streams, the Eiver du Sud, 60 miles east of Quebec, and Creek
A'Shea, 160 miles west of Quebec, were approached with fills and crossed with 30
and 40-foot concrete arches respectively. Had steel been used, a saving of
$234,000 "would and should have been made. (See page 121.)

TRANSCONA SHOPS.

The country has been committed to the expenditure of $4,500,000 for the erec-
tion and equipment of the Transcona shops at Winnipeg, which, in our opinion, are
not authorized by law and which are, in any event, twice as large as are required
for the purposes of the Eastern division. (See page 121.)

WINNIPEG ENTRANCE.

Large sums of money could have been saved if ordinar}' business methods had
been adopted in negotiating for and acquiring tlie entrance to Winnipeg at the
proper time. (See page 134.)

DRAINAGE OF ROAD CROSSINGS.

The use of cast-iron pipe instead of concrete pipe is the usual practice to
carry water from the ditches along the line under highways and farm crossings
accounts for $12,072.15 unnecessary expenditure. (See page 136.)

WATER SUPPLY.

Sixty- two thousand two hundred and eighty dollars was lost by installing
gravity water supplies at Pangburn, Beaver Brook, Bluebell and St. Leonard, in
District A, New Brunswick, instead of pumping plants. (See page 138.)

PUMPS.

Forty-five thousand sLx hundred dollars was lost by the installation of fifty-
seven gasoline pumping plants instead of steam pumping plants. (See page 138.)

NEW BRUNSWICK SECTION.

Large sums of money in interest have been lost by the premature construction
of the New Brunswick section of the railway. In our opinion this section should
not have been constructed at all. If one-third of the money had been expended on
the Intercolonial railway it would have provided all the trunk line facilities for the
province of Xew Brunswick which would be required for very many years. (See
page ]38.)

12 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914
CONCLUSION.

We find that the Transcontinental Railway Commission, the Grand Trunk
Pacific Eailwa}^, and those having charge of the constmction of the railway did not
consider it desirable or necessary to practise or encourage economy in the construc-
tion of this road.

We find that without including the money which was unnecessarily expended
in building the railway east of the St. Lawrence river $40,000,000 at least was
needlessly expended in the building of this road.

In the following papers will be found a detailed statement respecting each of
the subjects treated herein, and we also include the e\idence taken and tlie docu-
ments referred to in this report.

IXTESTIGATIKG COMUIS^ION IS

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Design of the Railway.

The cost of a railway depends principally upon its design.

The principal feature in the design of a railway through broken country la
the gradient, for upon it depends the length of sidings and the size of yards. It
controls the curvature ; it decides the depth of cuttings and the height of fills, and
in a broken country the cost is high or low according to the gradient decided on
by the projectors.

It is, therefore, of first importance where cost is to be reckoned with that reli-
able information as to the character of the country through which the railway is
to be built should be obtained by reconnaissance surveys before the gradients and
curvature are decided upon. Eailroads are built for commercial purposes and
'■ cost of construction and operation " of one class of railway may be by the topo-
graphical conditions of the country so great as to prevent the carrying of the trs^c
which will come over that road being carried at reasonable rates unless the road
is to be operated at a continuous loss.

The reason for building the National Transcontinental railway was to afford
to the people of Canada increased and cheaper transportation facilities, and that
being the object it must be evident that the expenditure must not for any reasons
be so great as to require the imposition of such tolls in order to pay interest upon
the capital expenditure as will prevent the operating company affording reasonable
rates to the public.

An examination of the National Transcontinental Railway Act and of the
Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Acts makes it quite clear that it was expected and
intended by Parliament that whatever class of railway should be built it would be
one on which the capital expenditure would not be so great as to make it unreason-
able to expect the operating company to pay the statutory rent of 3 per cent on its
entire cost and afford reasonable rates to the public and if a railway was designed
which must necessarily cost more that design was not autliorized and was con^ary
to the spirit of the legislation and the intention of Parliament.

Assuming tlierefore that the Government intended to carry out the will of
Parliament, that is, to build a road upon which the Grand Trunk Pacific could
afford to pay 3 per cent on the " cost of construction " it was its duty and that of
the Commission, before they laid down a hard and fast rule for the guidance of
those responsible for the building of the road, to have had made a reconnaissance
survey to guide it in its choice of a design for this railway. As will be seen, the
Government committed the country to the construction of this railway vnth grades
of 0.4 per cent against east bound and 0.6 per cent against west bound traffics with
maximum curves not to exceed 6 de<jrees without knowing whether such gradient
and curvature fitted the country, without any further information than the opinion
given by Mr. Schreiber of the cost of a totally different railway and the casual
assurance from the Minister of Finance that "from other experienced railway
men" he had learned that $31,250 per mile from Quebec to Moncton and $35,000
per mile from Quebec to "Winnipeg was a most liberal one.

Having decided upon the design the Commission proceeded to find a country
to fit the design.

14 ^'ATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

The engineers sent out to locate a line were, as is usual, furnished with tables
of figures called " Tables for equating value of grades and curvature." These
tables are always based upon the business expected over the line and are to guide
the engineers in locating the line through difficult country. For example, an
engineer is confronted with the question as to whether he should go around a moun-
tain, or tunnel or cut through to shorten the track. He knows that it will cost
much less to build around the mountain. The tables will tell him the cost of
operating the trains over each alternative route and so inform him as to whether
the lesser cost of operating through the mountain will or will not be sufficient to
justify the larger expenditure of passing through the mountain or not, and as these
tables indicate he will decide, or it may be that between two points both on the
same level there may intervene a succession of hills through which he may wish
to run his road on the level. It will palpably be cheaper to have succession of
grades crossing these hills, but it may be that operating expenses will be thereby
so much increased that it will be better business to adopt the more expensive one
of a level road through the whole section. It is tlicrefore of essential importance
that these tables be founded, not on utopian hopes, but ratlier on prudent assump-
tions of the business reasonable to be expected. It may seem incredible, but it is
the fact that it was assumed that the road would at once receive the maximum
business it was possible to carry over a single-track low-grade road. That there
was an entire lack of business along the line from Winnipeg to Quebec and from
Quebec to Moncton, or that this was a trunk line with no feeders does not seem
to have occurred to those who made these tables.

The original estimate was as has been said made by Mr. C'ollingwood Schreiber,
consulting engineer of the Government, who in reply to an inquiry from the Hon.
W. S. Fielding, Minister of Finance, stated that a line which would comply with
the Government subsidy specifications, that is one with grades up to 1 per cent,
curves up to 10 degrees (p. 443). and on which would be used wooden trestles,
60-pound rails, and which could be improved as traffic requirements warranted,
could be constructed between the Quebec bridge and Winnipeg for $28,000 per
mile, and between the Quebec bridge and Moncton for $25,000 per mile.

This estimate was given by the Hon. Mr. Fielding to Parliament. (See
Hansarrl, 1003. vol. IV."" column 8588). In the course of the debate, Mr. J.
Charlton, then member for North "N'orfolk, suggested that instead of building a
road as described by Mr. Schreiber. one with grades of only 0.4 per cent should be
built. His estimate for such railway, given in Hansard, vol. IV. 1903, column
8505, was $30,000 per mile for the whole distance between Winnipeg and Moncton,
at a total of $5 1,090,000.

Knowing that his estimate was based on 1 per cent grades allowing 10 degree
curves, the Minister of Finance said (Hansarrl, vol. IV, 1903, column 8588) : —

"I have made an estimate of $25,000 per mile for one part (Moncton
to Quebec) and $28,000 per mile for the other part (Quebec to Winnipeg),
which estimate is backed by the reputation of an engineer of standing. But,
if we are to have the high grade — perhaps I should say low grade — road
called for by my hon. friend from Xorth Xorfolk (^Ir. Charlton) perhaps
these estimates are not high enough.

" I propose to add 25 per cent to the first estimate of the cost of con-
struction of the Eastern division, and so add 25 per cent to the pre.=ent value
of the seven years' interest of that portion of the road. This is an equivalent
to an advance on the cost of from $25.000 to $31,250 per mile for one part,
and from $28,000 to $35,000 for the other part. This is a pretty liberal
estimate and ough*- to build even the fine road called for by mv hon. friend
from Xorfolk (Sir. Charlton)."

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 15

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Taking Mr. Charlton's 378 miles east of Quebec bridge at Mr. Fielding's
estimate of $31,250 per mile, and Mr. Charlton's 1,435 miles west of Quebec
bridge at $35,000 (Mr. Fielding's estimate) we find tlie above estimate is increased
to $62,037,500^ which appears to be the largest estimate prepared or suggested
prior to the passage of the Acts and in consequence is the largest amount that the
Government expected to pay when they entered upon this undertaking or made the
contract with the Grand Trunk Pacific.

After the passage of the National Transcontinental Eailway Act which was
assented to October 24, 1903, the Government, on August 20, 1904, appointed the
following commissioners: — Messrs. Fletcher B. Wade, K.C., chairman; Eobert
Eeid, Alfred Brunet and Charles Young. Upon the death of Mr. Wade and the
resignation of Mr. Brunet, the Government, on July 31, 1905, appointed Mr. S.
N. Parent, K.C., chairman, to succeed Mr. Wade; and Mr. C. F. Mclsaac in place
of Mr. Brunet. On October 31, 1909, the Government appointed Mr. W. S. Calvert
as Commissioner to succeed Mr. Pteid, deceased, and on October 23, 1911, the
present Government appointed Majoi' R. W. Leonard as chairman and sole com-
missioner.

That the Government and the Commission settled on the design of the road
before a reconnaissance survey had been made, simply guessing at its cost, clearly
appears from the above and what follows.

On August 20, 1904, the Government appointed Mr. Hugh D. Lumsden chief
engineer and upon his resignation, the Government, on July 17, 1909, appointed
Mr. Gordon Grant chief engineer in his stead.

The instructions for field engineers were prepared by Mr. Butler and approved
by the chief engineer and commissioners, as described in Mr. Lumsden's report for
the year ending June 30, 1905. Under the heading of " Instructions to Engineers "
he says : —

" District engineers were furnished with printed instructions for their
guidance and for that of the engineers in charge of parties under them,
giving full particulars as to their various duties. They were also instructed
to adhere to grades not exceeding 0.4 feet per 100 adverse to eastbound, or
0.5 adverse to westbound traffic, though in regard to the last mentioned,
this has been changed to 0.6 per 100 in one or two exceptional cases, the
maximum curvature was limited to 4 degrees."

We also find in the Book of Instructions, which was issued and revised in
January. 1907, page 46. (See exhibit No. 1) : —

" The maximum grade rising eastwardly on a tangent will be 0.40 per
cent, rising westerly the maximum grade will be 0.60 per cent."

Page 38, under the heading " Curvature " : —

" The maximum curve on a level shall not exceed 6 degrees."

The Commission has not been able to learn how the Minister of Finance came
to his decision to add 25 per cent to the cost of a one per cent railway to arrive at
the estimate of the cost of a four-tenths per cent railway through the same district
(p. 444) and Mr. Schreiber advises us that he did not concur in any such estimate.

In addition to the limiting instructions to field engineers contained in the
Book of Instructions, the Chief Engineer issued drawing No. 59, table of values for
equating distance, rise and fall and curvature, etc., above referred to. (See exhibit
No. 2.) These values were taken from various engineering literature which treats

16 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

particularly of grade revision and alignment, and betterment of existing railways'
^here the volume of traffic is developed and the cost of operation accurately known,
which items form the basis of careful^ accurate and minute calculations.

In order to utilize these modern values of distance, rise and fall and curvature,
it was necessary, as we have said, for the Chief Engineer to assume a volume of
business and costs for a basis on the National Transcontinental railway. The
volume of business assumed was (see exhibit No. 3) : —

20 daily trains between Quebec and Moncton, 600 cars, east and west
20 " " " Graham and Winnipeg, 600 cars, east and west.

12 " " " Quebec and Graham, 360 cars east and west.

Assumed cost per train mile, $1.

The volume of traffic assumed is double the present tonnage of the Canadian
Pacific Eailway Company's transcontinental line, and it is the full capacity of a low
grade single track railway.

The cost per train mile assumed is two-thirds of actual tiain mile costs on
other railways where trains are only half as long and where fuel is several dollars
less per ton in cost.

With these erroneous assumptions as the foundation of these calculations, the
results of the calculations are equally erroneous and their erroneous results were
given to the field engineers for guidance.

In tlie application of these distance values, which requires a comparison, we
might take the Canadian Pacific railway and Intercolonial railway.

Winnipeg to Moncton, 2,000 miles, say it cost $50,000 per mile. Then to
shorten this line to 1,800 miles would permit of expending 200 by $184,000 or
$36,800,000 on account of this shortening, or $20,000 per mile for 1,800 miles.

Thus +he engineers on location were given instructions which allowed them a
latitude equal to about $20,000 for each and every mile, which instructions were
concurred in by the Grand Trunk Pacific Eailway Company. (See exhibit No. 3.)

We are unable without detail surveys to say how much money was expended
in consequence of these instructions, but the effect of such latitude was enough to
induce them to locate as near straight and level as possible, regardless of cost.

The first real information in connection with the high cost of this railway is
given in Chief Engineer Lumsden's estimate of June 23, 1908, prepared for the
Commissioners and available to the various parties interested, and although it was
based on experience on the partial construction of 200 miles, it shows that the
estimated cost of the entire line at that time was $114,400,000, and exclusive of
the cost of the Winnipeg terminals, Quebec terminals, Quebec branch, or the shops
at Transcona, proposed shops at Quebec and any double track. This estimate
showed clearly that the railway would cost over 100 per cent more than the highest
estimate given to Parliament, and the estimate was made at the time when only
two-thirds of the line had been contracted for. The Hodgins Inquiry in 1908 also
drew attention to the high cost of the railway in the matter of overclassification —
the Lumsden Inquiry in 1910 should have shown that he resigned on account of
the high cost of the railway — Mr. Young's Inquiry in 1908 showed that right of
way was costing fabulous sums.

With all of this information before them, what did the Government, tho
Minister of Railways and Canals, the Grand Trunk Pacific Railwav Company, tho
Commissioners, or the Chief Engineer? do towards reducing the copt of the railway?
We do not find any instructions or recoramendations from the Government to the
Commissioners or Minister of Railways and Canals to the Commissioners or tho
Chief Engineer, or protest from the Grand TmnV Pafific Railway Company or it-

District B, Residency 11, Mileage 64.6. Crossing of Forchue du Pin River. Page 14.

District F, Residency 26, Mileage 86.5. Tunnel. Page 14.

District F, Residency 30, Mileage 128.6. Heavy Work. Page 16

District A, Mileage 165.5. Crossing of the Tobique River. Page 28.

■m

lyVESTIGAlING COMMISSIOy 17

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Engineers for retrenchment except in the matter of classification and some minor
detail matters to the Commissioners (see exhibit No. 15), or any recommendation
or instructions from tlie Commissioners to the Chief Engineer or the Chief
Engineer to the District Engineers, suggesting the advisability of economy or
retrenchment on the remainder of the line, although it was then known that the
road was going to cost more than double the amount estimated or the amount upon
which the legislation was passed.

It is fair, therefore, to assume that the Government and the Grand Trunk
Pacific Eailway Company were satisfied with this forecast of the ultimate cost of
the railway.

The instructions in the matter of gradients are generally in accord with the
object of building this kind of railway, i.e., to obtain cheap transportation, or in
other words, low freight rates. But the Government and the Commission seem to
have lost sight of the object in view and allowed the high-class feature to govern.
They raised the cost of the railway by building most extravagant structures, spend-
ing millions of dollars on light curvature, unnecessarily taking out sags, building
larger yards than were required, using heavy rails in sidings and yards and by
many similar extravagances which did not affect the efficiency of the road. They
seem not to have known that there was a maximum of expenditure beyond which if
this road was to be used as a freight regulator or as a means of cheap transportation
they could not go. The operating company must pay interest on the whole cost of
construction or capital investment, and in our opinion the interest payable to the
Government and the operating expenses taken together will be about the same as
the dividends, interest charges and operating expenses of the competing roads which
are only capitalized at from one-third to one-half as much per mile as is the
National Transcontinental, and they will in consequence from the same freight
and passenger rates be able to pay dividends to their shareholders easier than can
the Grand Trunk Pacific pay the rental of 3 per cent on the " cost of construction."

In the following pages we have pointed out the most important of the extra-
vagant and improper expenditures made by the Commission, but it is quite im-
possible for us within reasonable limits to touch upon them all, and there are
numbers, each perhaps, relatively speaking, small, which in the aggregate amount
to a very large sum of money and which, had they not been overshadowed by those
of which we have treated, would have, in themselves, afforded reason for condemn-
ing the conduct of those responsible for their incurrence.

ESTIMATES AND COST OF RAILWAY.

We reproduce the various estimates which have been compiled at various times
as to the cost of the National Transcontinental Eailway. Based on the actual
mileage between Moncton and Winnipeg, Mr. Collingwood Schreiber's original
estimate of $25,000.00 per mile (see exhibit No. 4) from Moncton to Quebec,
and $28,000.00 per mile from Quebec to Winnipeg, places the cost at $49,132,000.
Mr. Fielding^s addition of twenty-five per cent on account of the adoption of 0.4
per cent and 0.6 per cent gradients, raises this figure to $61,415,000 (see exhibit
No. 5).

Mr. Lumsden's estimate of June 23, 1908, reaches the figure of $114,393,765,
or a cost of $63,427 per mile (see exhibit No. 6).

The statement compiled by the Investigating Commission shows the cost of
work done up to September 30, 1911, as being $109,172,090 (see exhibit No. 7).

This gross amount is in excess somewhat of the actual expenditure to that date,
for the reason that the amounts due contractors for work done during the month
of September are included in this sum, the statement showing the value of work
done and not the actual expenditures per the accountant's bookr Tn this statement

123—2

18 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE V, 1914

the general expenses have been distributed among the contracts on the mileage
basis, and the same applies to the engineering expenses which have hitherto been
charged under the heading of "districts" only. The items in the column of
" engineering " cover location, transport and construction engineering.

" Grading " covers the excavation of cuttings, the forming of embankments,
and all work consequent to the actual formation of the roadbed proper.

" Tracklaying " covers the purchase of rails and fastenings, switch material,
ties, etc., and their installation.

"Bridges and culverts" covers the construction of all concrete arch or pipe
culverts, together with the sub and superstructure of steel bridges and viaducts.

" Buildings " covers the various terminal stnictures, together with way stations.,.
water tanks, etc.

" Eight of way " covers the purchase of land required for right of way or
station ground, together with the legal and other expenses properly chargeable
under that heading.

Under " General Expenses " has been charged the cost of the Commission and
their offices, and all head-quarter expenses, together with such minor items which
are carried in the accounts under this charge.

In connection with the actual cost up to September 30, 1911, a further state-
ment has been prepared showing the percentage of work completed to that date,
compiled from the figures supplied by the Engineering department of the Trans-
continental railway, from wliich will be noted the large amount of work still to be
completed at that date, while the cost per mile of main line had reached the figure
of $60,400.

An estimate prepared by Mr. Gordon Grant, dated April 18, 1913, places the
cost of the completed railway at $161,307,800, or $89,300 per mile of main line.
(See exhibit No. 8.)

Bearing in mind the average annual expenditures in the construction of this
railway, and the total estimated cost of $161,307,800, with about $140,000,000
expended to date, it would appear that the end of the year 1914 should witness
the completion of the through line of railway.

With the addition of the interest charges of three per cent, compounded
annually in accordance with the Act, this cost, at the close of 1914, will total
$180,000,000 or $99,500 per mile of main line, and upon this sum the rental charge
to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company will be based.

Under the terms of the Act, the three per cent rental charge will amount to
$5,400,000 annually.

The cost of the National Transcontinental railway to the country is represented
by the actual amount of money expended thereon, together with all interest charges
payable on these sums.

The Act authorizing the construction of the railway provides that the rate of
interest to be paid on any loan to be raised for this work, shall not exceed three
and one-half per cent per annum. Xo loans have been issued by the Government
under this Act, but money from rovenue or outstanding issues has been used to
defray the cost of construction. The records of the Finance Department show
that after taking into consideration the figure these issues brought in the market,
together with the charges in connection with placing them, the cost to the country
in interest has been in excess of three and one-half per cent.

Taking Mr. Gordon Grant's estimate of thf^ total cost, namely, $161,307,800,
and assuming that the close of the year 1914 will sec the completion of the road,
and adding to this sum the compound inti?rest charges at three and a half per cent
from the date of the first $16,000,000 expenditure, in the year 1907 up to the close
of the year 1921, which date we place as the t-ermination of the seven-year period

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 19

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

during which the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company will receive the free use
of the railway, the cost to the country, in capital and interest, will have been
$234,651,521.

METHOD OF AWARDING THE CONTRACTS AND THE CONSEQUENCES

As there are several important matters considered under this head, an
explanation of some length is necessary to their understanding.

For construction purposes, the 1806 miles of railway to be built was divided
into 21 sections, the length and location of which will be seen on Exhibit No, 9.

The Commission furnished tender forms (see exhibit No. 10), which included
a unit price schedule for various items of work and material connected with the
intended contract and named everything which the engineers thought might enter
into the construction of the railway in all its ramifications. The tenderers were
required to fill in the schedule with their prices per yard, per pound, etc., for
excavating and furnishing material.

Before advertising for tenders the engineers made an estimate for each section
of the quantities and cost of the various materials and works named in schedule
expected to be moved or provided, to be in a position when the tenders were received
by placing the prices mentioned in the tenders opposite these items to determine
who are the lowest tenderers. A glance at the schedule will make the above quite
clear.

The contractors were required to tender on a general contract to do ever3'^thing
towards the building of the railway excepting the supplying of the steel for the
tracks, the building of steel bridges, depots, shops, warehouses, freight and fuel
sheds. For some reason unknown to us although the other buildings were excluded
the engine houses and section houses along the whole line were specifically included
in the general contract and, for some other reason quite impossible to understand,
it is provided in the contract that the prices named should not apply to engine
houses and section houses. That this was deliberately done appears from the fact
that the secretary drew the attention of the Commissioners to the omission. Later
(see "Buildings," page 80) we will have something more to say about this
peculiarity of the contract, which practically allowed the contractors to fix their
own prices.

It was open to the Commission to inform the tenderers of the quantities which
the engineers estimated would be included in their contracts for the purpose of
letting them know what the engineers thought as to the magnitude of the contract.

After consulting with Mr. Collingwood Schreiber, who strongly advised that
estimates be not exhibited to the tenderers the Commissioners decided that they
would not give to the contractors this information, and would furnish them only
with profiles and plans. (Exhibit No. 11.)

The contractors themselves considered that the engineers' estimates were itrictly
private. (Page 494.)

Where the information is not open to all it is most unfair that any one ten-
derer should obtain " inside information " because, if he knew the quantities ht
might put a very high price against an item on which he knew the engineers had
not estimated or had only estimated for a small quantity without any fear of the
total under that head bulking so large in the entire price as to imperil his chances,
or he might, as was done by Fauquier Bros., put a very low price on an item which
the engineers had mistakenly estimated at a very large amount.

In awarding the general contracts the first step was to advertise for tenders.
A copy of an advertisement is appended. (See exhibit No. 12.) In submitting
their tenders the tenderers were to fill in in the column headed " rate " their price
for each of the 103 items enumerated. The prices which the contractors were to

20 ^'ATIONAL TRANSCOKTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

submit were to be based on their experience and their knowledge of the country
together with the information gathered from the inspection of the plans and profiles,
and it was a proper course for the Commissioners to refuse to supply the contrac-
tors with any estimate of the quantities or data concerning classification, because
as Mr. Schreiber informed the Commissioners it was not the practice of the Depart-
ment of Eailways and Canals to exhibit estimates which were only approximate and
often proved, as they did in this case, most inaccurate and misleading, and might
be used by the contractor as a basis for claims for damages from misrepresentations.

After they had prepared their tender and filled in the schedule with their
prices the various contractors handed their sealed tenders to the Secretary of the
Commission, who placed them in a locked tender box. At the appointed time all
the tenders were taken from the box and opened privately by the Commissioners
in session and the prices in each tender were entered by them upon a sheet of paper.
Each tender was given a number, and this number instead of the name of the con-
tractor was entered on the form. These forms were then given to the engineers to
money out, using their private estimates of the probable amount of each item as
1 he assumed quantity required on the work which was being let. By using the same
quantities for each item of the various tenders and multiplying them by the unit
prices in the tenders and adding the amounts opposite each item a total tender
price was obtained, and by comparing these totals the various tenders were arranged
in their order from the highest to the lowest, and the contracts awarded accord-
iugiy.

The tenderers were required by the advertisement to accompany their tender
with a marked cheque payable to the Commissioners for sums varying from $10,000
to $400,000 and to agree that in the event of their tender being accepted if they
failed to furnish within ten days such additional security as the Commissioners
required their cheque should be forfeited. This was the information given to the
public. If, however, one applied for the tender forms he would from them learn
that the security -^iiich he might be required to provide- on pain of forfeiting his
cheque amounted to one-third of the estimated total consideration of the contract.

One would have expected that the Commi?i=ion would have followed tbc gov-
ernmental practice which was to require (see Order in Council, April 24, 1897,
exhibit No. 13) contractors to deposit pecurity to the amount of 5 jxr cent for
contracts amounting to $250,000 and upwards. Indeed, we find that the Honour-
able Mr. T^ielding, after the first three contracts were let, strongly urged on the
Commission the advisaliility of requiring contractors to comply with no more
arduous conditions than thope imposed by the Grovemment of Canada. Mr. Fielding
wrote to Mr. Parent on June 14, 1906: "Do you not think that it is expedient
that whatcvor conclusion the Oovernmcnt and the Commissioners arrive at should
be in substance expressed in the advertisements so that parties tendering will be
in a position to know exactly wliat f!a=^ of sccuritv and what amount will be
required of the successful bidders? This would avoid some of the questions which
arose upon the award incr of the recent contracts."

Despite the suggestion in Mr. Fielding's letter above quoted, the Commis-
sioners ignored his advice and continued the advertisements in the same form for
oil subsequent contracts.

These extraordinary conditions required the contractors tendering on this work
to be prepared to forfeit the certified cheques which accompanied their tenders,
unless they were in a position to furnish, within ten days, enormous amounts of
sccuritv running from one hundred thousand dollars to four millions of dollars.

The conditions in connection with letting the contracts, therefore, were such
(hat the Commissioners held in their o-wn hands the authority to force any con-
tractor to give a cash security which would be so large aa: First, to prevent him
from securing the contraft: and. second, to forfeit the cash deposit which accom-

lyi'ESTIGATING COMMISSION
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

21

panied his tender; or they were in a position to make the security as small as they
chose to make it. Certainly the Commissioners did not go out of their way to
encourage competition.

In order to give some idea of the serious handicap put upon contractors in
their efforts to obtain a part of the work on this great Government undertaking,
we append a statement giving for the twenty-one grading contracts (which fell to
only eleven firms, one of which had a fourth of the whole work) full information,
etc., with respect to the security imder the following headings : —

(A) Contract No.

(B) Contractor.

(C) Amount of tender.

(D) Amount of cheque deposited with tender.

(E) Amount of security actually called for by Commissioners.

(F) Amount of security which might have been called for under the terms

contained in the form of tender.

(A;

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.
9&10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18-
19.
20.
21.

(B) (C) (D)

Grand Trunk Pacific Ry 989,985 75,000

J. W. McManus 289,190 10,000

Grand Trunk Pacific Ry 767,434 75,000

Grand Trunk Pacific Ry 1,898,124 100,000

Willard Kitchen Co 1,646,253 75,000

Lyons & White 1,385,941 90,000

M. P. & J. T. Davis 2,377,409 100,000

M. P. & J. T. Davis 5,011,346 225,000

Hogan & Macdonell 5.297,257 225,000

Grand Trunk Pacific Ry 1,691,073 75,000

Macdonell & O'Brien 4,559,284 150,000

Macdonell & O'Brien 3,815,279 150,000

Grand Trunk Pacific Ry 3,986,901 225,000

E. F. & G. E. Fauquier 3,936,566 150,000

M. P, & J. T. Davis 3,308,048 150,000

M. P. & J. T. Davis 2,019,908 150,000

E. F. & G. E. Fauquier 2,101,499 100,000

O'Brien, Fowler & McDougall.. 5,967,208 200,000

O'Brien & McDougall 1,158,258 100,000

J. D. McArthur 13,010,399 400,000

Totals

(E)

(F)

75,000

327,000

28,919

96,300

75,000

255,800

100,000

632,000

75,000

548,000

90,000

461,900

100,000

792,400

225,000

1,670,000

794,588

1,765,000

75,000

563,000

150,000

1,519,000

150,000

1.271,000

225,000

1,328,000

150,000

1,312,000

150,000

1,102,000

150,000

673,000

100,000

700,000

200,000

1,989,000

125,000

386,000

1,301,000

4,336,000

4,239,507

21,727,400

It will be seen from the following table that for nine contracts covering half
the line only five firms tendered, and in one case there was only one bid, while in
all the others only two, with the result that M. P. & J. T. Davis secured 204 miles, M.
J. O'Brien and partners 246 miles, and the Grand Trunk Pacific 256 miles. This
affords convincing evidence that the conditions were too onerous for many firms
who afterwards undertook the construction of large sections of the road at lower
prices as sub-contractors.

CONTRACT NO. 3. Length, 39 miles.—

Tenderers, 1. — Amount of tender.

Grand Trunk Pacific Eailway Co $767,434.95

CONTRACT NO. 4. Length, 67 miles,—
Tenderers, 2. —

Grand Trunk Pacific Eailway Co $1,898,124.21

Macdonell & O'Brien 2,001,486.51

CONTRACT NO. 12. Length, 107 miles.—
Tenderers, 2. —

Macdonell & O'Brien $4,559,284. 50

M. P. & J. T. Davis 4.883,713 . 50

22 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

CONTRACT NO. 13. Length, 115 miles.—
Tenderers, 2. —

Macdonell & O'Brien $3,815,379 . 10

M. P. & J. T. Davis 3,876,377.60

CONTRACT NO. 14. Length, 150 miles.—
Tenderers, 2. —

Grand Trunk Pacific Eailway Co $3,986,901 .42

Pacific Construction Co. (E. F. Fauquier) 4,423,837.11

CONTRACT NO. 15. Length, 100 miles.— '
Tenderers, 2. —

E. F. & G. E. Fauquier $3,936,566.00

Grand Trunk Pacific Eailway Co 4,334,214. 00

CONTRACT NO. 16. Length, 104.2 miles.—
Tenderers, 2. —

M. P. & J. T. Davis $3,308,048.25

Grand Trunk Pacific Eailway Co 3,402,585.50

CONTRACT NCm. Length, 100 miles.—
Tenderers, 2. —

M. P. & J. T. Davis $2,019,908.25

Grand Trunk Pacific Eailway Co 2,106,246.00

CONTRACT NO: 20. Length, 24.13 miles.—
Tenderers 2.— —■

0'Brien'& McDougall $1,158,258.25

J. W. Stewart 1,284,979.50

Had the Commissioners, instead of dividing the line haphazard into sections
of from 8 to 247 miles, made them about 50 miles each and prescribed conditions
as to eecurity similar to those on any other Government work?, there can be no
reasonable doubt that many of the more than one hundred sub-contractors to whom
the contractors afterwards sublet the work would have been in the field as com-
petitors.

Thei=e sub-contractors took the work off the hands of the main contractors at
from 10 to 30 per cent less than the contract price. The Commissioners in all
leases sanctioned the sub-contracting. This Comm'ission concludes that at least
$8,800,000 or about ten per cent of the amounts paid the main contractors, might
have been saved if the smaller contractors had been given an opportunity to secure
any tf the original contracts.

lEEEGUT.AEITIES IN AWAEDING CONTEACT.

Under another head (page 25) the contracts themselves are dealt with, but
we desire to draw attention to the action of the Commission in the awarding of
certain contracts.

Contract No. 8.

The engineers' oijiginal estimates contained no estimate for trestle timber. A
copy of tlie original estimate was handed to the chairman of the Commission.
Afterwards, and before the tenders were received, the engineers amended their
(stimate by adding an amount of timber for trestles. After the tenders were received
and opened, and before they had been awarded, these items were struck out, with

INTESTIGATINO COMMISiilON 23

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

the result that the contract went to a firm whicli otherwise would not have received
it. The engineers say that when, by direction of the chairman, they struck out
these items they signed the estimate and dated it on the day on which they signed
it, namely, the 18th February, 1907. Some person has for some improper purpose
altered the date by erasing the figure 1 so as to make it appear that the signatures
of the engineer and the chief engineer, were affixed on the 8th. The facts and
evidence respecting this most suspicious proceeding are given under " Contract
No. 8," (page 33.)

Contracts Nos. 16 a7id 17.

These contracts are in the Thunder Bay district, north of lake Nipigon, and
were awarded at a time when there was no way to get at them excepting by cutting
I'oads through the wilderness, and when the Commission knew the tenders would
necessarily be much higher than they would be if the letting of the contracts were
postponed until the railroad had been built up to them at either end.

After these contracts were let at an exceptionally high price the Commission

allowed the contractors to defer the commencement of construction for more than

a year or until the reason for the high price had disappeared. These contracts are

considered at page 47 so it is only necessary to say in this place that for this unbusi-

■ ness-like step the country paid at least $740,000 for nothing.

Contract No. 18. — Aivarded to Fauquier Bros.

Here the engineers estimated 655,400 cubic yards of moss sufficient to provide
a carpet twenty feet wide and two feet thick over the entire seventy-five miles.
T]ie moss in this case Mas in reality a negligible quantity, amounting to only some
15,000 cubic yards. Fauquier Bros., knowing that there was little or no moss and
believing that the engineers were estimating at a large quantity tendered at 13
cents a yard, while their competitors were all about 30 cents. This mistake secured
the contract for Fauquier Bros. Fauquier Bros', tender was $150,000 less for moss
than was Chambers & McQuigge. Had the moss been estimated even approximately
correctly, Fauquier Bros, would not have been awarded the contract. The result is
that they had the contract, although they were not the lowest tenderers for the
work really to be done.

Contract No. 21.

This is tlie largest contract, 246 miles, estimated to cost $13,000,000, awarded
to J. D. McArthur. We found that in McArthur's tender there were forty items
for whicli he liad submitted no prices, on which the engineer after the tenders were
opened filled in in red ink prices adding: "Note. — Red figures show prices made
up by Chief Engineer and for the items so marked no prices were quoted in tender
No. 4." Properly speaking, McArthur's tender should not have been considered
at all.

By incorrectly reading the other tenders, McArthur appeared to be tendering
for piling delivered and piling driven a price $64,715 less than his competitors.
(See contract No. 21, page 58.) Tender No. 4 was clearly $18,000 lower than
McArthur's, yet he got the contract.

CONTRACTS.

Bv the National 'I'ranscontinental Railway Act (1903), this road was to be
leased to tliat (ompany for fifty years at 3 per cent on the "cost of construction"
as defined in section 15 of tlie agreement, schedule to the Act, and by section 7, for
the protection of the company as lessees, it is provided that in order to ensure for

24 NATIONAL TRAN8C0XTINEXTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

the protection of the company as lessees of the road, the economical construction
thereof in snch a manner that it can be operated to the best advantage, it is to be
bnilt under the joint supervision of the Government and the company. Here
plainly it was thought by po providing that extravagance or improper outlays being
subject to the inspection and criticism of the tenant who should have to pay a rent
based on the cost would be checked, as presumably a railway company would be
concerned in the safeguarding of its own interests.

Excepting where Mr. Hays urged the cancellation of contracts Xos. 16 and
17, and where he gave his not too strong support to District Engineer Doucet in
his efforts to have a pusher grade at La Tuque, and where the company offered to
do' train-hauled filling after the railroad was completed at half the cost paid by the
Commissioners, appreciating the gi-avity of our statement, we unhesitatingly find
that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, instead of discountenancing, has
rather encouraged this inexperienced Commission in its extravagant expenditure
on this railway.

If the railway company really expected to operate this railway when completed,
according to the terms and at tlie rental provided in its agreement with the Govern-
ment, we must attribute its want of proper care to its indifference to the interests
of its own shareholders or its desire to so increase the cost of construction of the
353 miles of railway, for which it was contractor, so as to reap the largest present
profit possible therefrom.

It was a very credulous Commission indeed if it rehed on its contractor, the
Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, interested as such in high classification,
to criticise improper classification where other contractors were concerned, or to
ex]:)ect that that contractor would be astute to discourage expenditures where they
were the builders of one-seventh of the line. Their estimates to December 31.
' 1912, amounted to $15,365,000, and we unliesitatingly condemn the action of the
Commission in putting the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company in a position
where its interests as a contractor conflicted with its duty as an intending lessee.
By allowing tliis Grand Trunk Pacific Railwav Company to become contractors.
the Commission were inducing that company not only to connive at, but to en-
courage improper expenditures on the railway.

That the Commission did not appreciate the false position in which they were
placing the railway company we can only attribute to the fact that at no time was
there ever on the Board a member who liad hitherto ever had any experience in
the business on which they so lightly entered.

The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company were not contractors, nor had
they an organization, nor was it equipped with plant necessary to undertake this
work, nor did it ever perform anv of the work, but acted merely as a middleman
between the Commission and its sub-contractors, to whom it let its various con-
tracts at 5 per cent less than its own contract price. We cannot imagine what
advantage could be expected to accrue to the country by allowing the railway com-
pany to act merely as a go-between.

In the following pnges we have summarized each of the twenty-one contracts,
giving its history and showincr the estimates, and where they were exceeded, the
reason for the increnso of cost, and why in contracts Nos. 1, 7, 11, 13 and 16 and
17 we are of opinion that the penalty of $5,000 a month should, for the time spe-
cified therein, be enforced against the contractors.

We desire to draw particular attention to our criticism and findings on con-
trncts Nos. S. 13, 16, 17, 18 and 21.

Contract No. 1.

Prom Moncton, westerly 50 miles. Mile 0 — 50.
Chief Engineer's estimate of cost, $1,017,051.43.
Tenders advertised for January 5, 1007.
Tenders received Februarv 14, 1907.

INTE8TI0ATING COMMISSION 25

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

SUMMARY OF TENDERS.

Difference be-
tween tenders.

Tender No. 1, Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Co $ 989,895.90

No. 2, M. F. Schurman & Co 1,146,916.10

1157,020.20

" ' No- 3, Eastern Construction Co $1,186,789.09

39,872.99

$196,893.19

Contract awarded to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, March 14, 1907.

Date for completion, September 1, 1908.

Work commenced, October, 1907.

Security accompanying tender, $75,000 cash.

Security returned to contractor, April 16, 1909.

Additional security called for, nil.

$100,000 of 10 per cent drawback paid contractor, November 36, 1910.

$100,000 of 10 per cent drawback paid contractor, July, 1911.

Gross amount of progress estimate to December 31, 1911, $2,214,311.20.

Amount of drawback retained on December 31, 1911, $21,431.12.

Percentage of contract complete to December 31, 1911, 97.38 per cent.

The Grand Trunk Pacific Eailway Company were awarded this work in March,
1907. They, however, evidently experienced some difficulty in procuring a reliable
contractor to take over the work, for it was not until September 23, 1907, that they
entered into an agreement with the contracting firm of Corbett & Floesch to under-
take the conatruction of this fifty miles of railway.

The terms of this agreement provide that five per cent of the sum total of the
returns under this contract were to be retained by the Grand Trunk Pacific Eail-
way Company as their profits on the transaction. They agreed to construct a road
from Chipman to Mileage 57 to the west end of the contract at Mileage 50 so as to
enable the contractor to commence operations at both ends at the same time. The
amoimt to be expended on this road was not to exceed $35,000.

Th*^ five per cent profit on this work, up to December 31. 1912, amounted to
$117,308, from which should be deducted the amount expended on the constiuction
of this temporary roadway from Chipman.

Tlie amount paid the contractors to December 31, 1911, was $1,224,000 in
excess of the estimate of the cost of this work based on the successful tenderers'
returns, and the following figures, extracted from the engineer's estimate and the
returns, indicate to what items of construction this increase is largely due: —

In estimates In returns

S. rock nil 53,015 c. yds. at $1.50, $79,522.50

L. rock 129,379 c. yds at .89, $115,147.31 1,195,267 c. yds. at .55, 657,396. So

C. ex 1,841,152 c. yds. at .32, 689,168.62 560,067 c. yds. at .25, 140,016.75

Train -hauled filling nil 170,075 c. yds. at .50, 85,037.50

Solid rock borrow nil 222,022 c. yds. at 1.10%, 244,779.26

Special common ex. nil 282,093 c. yds. at .30, 84,627.90

Overhaul on excavation $ 43,759. 1:2 289,099. iS6

Cost of concrete 106,353.50 179,42S.79

$853,429.07 $1,759,908.91

The quantities of the various materials to be excavated, etc., were estimated by
District Engineer Dunn from profiles of the final location on forty miles of this
work, the other ten miles being estimated from third location profiles.

The train-hauled filling and solid rock borrow unprovided for in the estimate
were used in the construction of embankments for which material was not available
from the line cuttings. Large portions of this extra material were used in the

26 l\^ATI02iAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

enormous fill at Coal creek, Mileage 45, the cost of which, including the arch
culvert, amounted to $423,000.

The l^rge divisional yard being constructed one mile west of Moncton, for
whicli no provision was made in the estimate, is another reason for the increease
in cost, the engine house, not yet complete, having cost to date over $76,000. The
returns to December 31, 1912, on this work amount to $2,346,527 and the contract
was reported as being 98.92 per cent complete on tliat date which is four years,
four months after the time specified in the contract for the date of completion.

Tlie Grand Trunk Pacific Eailway Company were not apparently prepared or
equipped to undertake the construction of this or any work which they tendered
for. The delay in the commencement of operations due to difficulty experienced
in procuring a reliable contractor to take over the work would have been eliminated
had the successful tenderer been a bonafide contracting firm. Without here going
into the question of the desirability of the early completion of the work, we feel
that-the enforcement of the penalty clause of $5,000 a month for the eight months
of initial delay and the reduction of the main contractors' profits by that amount
of $40,000 would not be an injustice to them.

Contract No. 2.

From a point at or near the town of Chipman, N.B., easterly about 8 miles.
Mileage 50-58, District A.

Chief Engineer's estimate of cost, $326,341.
Tenders advertised for June 5, 1907.
Tenders received June 25, 1907.

SUMMARY OF TENDERS.

Difference be-
tween tenders.

Tender No. 4, J. W. McManus Co., Ltd $289,190 . 62

No. 2, Willard Kitchen Co 325,188 . 68 $35,998.06

No. 1, Grand Trunk Pacific Railway 337,419.69 12,231.01

No. 3, M. J. O'Brien, Z- J. Fowler 387,690.75 50,271.06

Difference between highest and lowest tenders $98,500.13

Contract awarded to J. W. McManus Co., Ltd., August 23, 1907.

Date for completion, August 1, 1908.

Work commenced, October, 1907.

Security accompanying tender, 10 per cent, $28,919 cash.

Additional security called for, nil.

Security returned to contractor, December 22, 1911.

Gross amount of progress estimate to December 31, 1911, $587,081.01.

Amount of drawback retained on December 31, 1911, $11,295.85.

Percentage of contract complete to December 31, 1911, 99.76 per cent.

This short contract of eight miles contains a rather startling feature of con-
struction, consisting of a cutting two miles in length at the summit of what i&
known as the Chipman grade. This cutting was made necessary by the strict
adherence to the 0.4 per cent gradient and is dealt with further in another portion
of the report.

The line here runs through the town of Cliipman at Mile 57 and tlierc crosses
the Salmon river on a steel viaduct, 1,200 feet in lensrth.

The quantities on this work were p=tiniatcd by Mr. Guy C Dunn from final
location profiles.

The work was carried out in its entirety by the main contractors, no sub-
contracts being awarded.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 27

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

CONTKACT No. 3.

From the 58th mile west of Moncton to the crossing of the C. P. E. at or
about Mile 97.7. 39.7 miles, District A.

Chief Engineer's estimate of cost, $933,137.
Tenders advertised for February 1, 1908.
Tender received March 10, 1908.

SUMMAEY OF TENDERS.

GraJid Trunk Pacific Railway Company $767,434 . 95

Contract awarded to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Co., March 28, 1908-

Date for completion, September 1, 1910.

Work commenced, June, 1908.

Security accompanying tender, $75,000 cash.

Additional security called for, nil.

Security returned to contractor, November 25, 1910.

$50,000 of 10 per cent drawback paid contractor, November 25, 1910.

$50,000 of 10 per cent, drawback paid contractor, July, 1911.

Gross amount of progress estimate to December 31, 1911, $1,042,618.36.

Amount of drawback retained on December 31, 1911, $3,553.87.

Percentage of contract complete to December 31, 1911, 99.71 per cent

The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company sublet this entire contract to the
Toronto Construction Company under an agreement dated the 21st May, 1908,
and that firm commenced operations the following month.

The terms of this agreement were similar to the other agreements consummated
by the Grand Trunk Pacific Eailway Company and provided for them a profit of
five per cent of the total value of the work done.

The Toronto Construction Company had four firms of subcontractors who
undertook the grading on this forty-mile stretch, and another firm of subcontractors
for the concrete work. We are, however, advised by the Toronto Construction
Company that their concrete subcontractors failed and they were obliged to finish
the work themselves.

The following statement shows comparison between the rates contained in
the main contract and those in the subcontracts which were awarded by the
Toronto Construction Company: —

Main contractors. Sub-contractors.

Clearing $50 per acre $35 per acre

Grubbing $160 " " $135 "

Solid rock, per cubic yard $1 . 25 $1.05

Loose rock, per cubic yard .44 .35

Ex. In foundations, per cubic yard $1.00 and $3.00 .50

Cross logging, per acre $800 . 00 $600 .00

Timber for culverts 40.00 per M. 30 . 00 per M.

Concrete, 1-2-4 per cubic yard 13.00 10.00

Concrete, 1-3-5 per cubic yard 11.50 9.00

Concrete, 1-3-5 per cubic yard in arch culverts 12.00 9.00

The items enumerated above cover only those for which quantities have been
returned in the contractors' progress estimates.

The estimates, compiled by the Investigating Commission from the records
available showing the work performed by these subcontractors, give the following
figures : —

Value of work done by subcontractors at their rates, $280,776.
Amount paid Toronto Construction Company for this work, $352,921.
Profit, $72,145.
Percentage of profit, 20 per cent.

2S NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Here allowance has been made for the five per cent profit which the Grand
Trunk Pacific Eailway Company received, so that the total percentage of profit
between the original contractors and the subcontractors was 25 per cent.

The five per cent profit to the Grand Trunk Pacific Eailway Company to
December 31, 1912, amounts to $51,198. It will be noted tliat they were tiie only
tenderers on this work and the Commissioners awarded them the contract in view
of the fact that the estimate of the cost of the work, based upon their returns, was
considerably lower than the estimate of the cost as prepared by the Chief Engineer.
These estimates were compiled from those taken by District Engineer Dunn from
the final location profiles. The increase in cost over the original estimate is due
to the large quantity of over 275,000 cubic yards of train-hauled filling used in
the construction of embankments and for which no provision was made in the
original estimate, also, to the increase in the solid rock returns from 22,000 cubic
yards as estimated to 84,000 cubic yards as finally paid- for.

Contract No. 4.

From about Mile 97.7 west of Moncton to the Tobique River at about Mile
] fil: . 7. 67 miles. District A.

Chief Engineer's estimate of cost, $2,356,389.84.
Tenders advertised for February 1, 1908.
Tenders received March 10, 1908.

SUMMARY OF TENDERS.

Difference be-
tween tenders.

Tender No. 1, Grand Trunk Pacific Railway $1,898,124.21

No. 2, Macdonell & O'Brien 2,001,486.51 $103,362.80

Contract awarded to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, March 2S, 1908.

Date for completion, September 1, 1910.

Work commenced, June, 1908.

Security accompanying tender, $100,000 cash.

Additional security called for, nil.

Security returned to contractor, November 25, 1910.

$150,000 of 10 per cent drawback paid contractors, November 25, 1910.

$110,000 of 10 per cent paid contractors, July, 1911-

Gross amount of progress estimate to December 31, 1911, $2,805,300.01.

Amount of drawback retained on December 31, 1911. $18,924.58.

Percentage of contract complete to December 31, 1911, 99.53 per cent.

This contract was sublet by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company to
the Toronto Construction Company under an agreempnt which provided a profit
of five per cent to the main contractors. The Toronto Construction Company, in
turn, sublet the grading and concrete work to four firms of subcontractors, and,
in addition to the terms of these subcontractors, we have procured a .«!eries of copies
of further sub-subcontracts by which this work was again sublet, and the following
statement shows the comparison of these prices: —

Sub-
Main contractors. Subcontractors, subcontractors.

Clearing, per acre $riO $45 $30

Grubbing, per acre $150 $135 $100

Solid rock $1.45 $1.25 $1 and 11.10

Loose rock .45 .36 .30 and .28

Common excavation .27 .23^4 and .22% .18

Timber for culverts $40 per M. $36 per M.

Concrete, 1-2-4 $12 $10

Concrete, 1-3-6 $10.50 $8.50

Concrete, 1-3-6 in arch culverts $11.00 $8.50

IXVESTIGATIXG COilMISSIOX 29

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

These figures illustrate to a remarkable degree the extent of profit taking
between the main contractors and the stationmen who actually performed the work.

To December 31, 1912, the five per cent profit to the Grand Trunk Pacific
Eailway Company on this contract amounted to $141,773.

The estimate for this work was prepared by Mr. Dunn from the profiles of
the final location of the line.

The returns on this work show an increase over the original estimate of about
$500,000. This increase is due to the item of train-hauled filling, which, in cost,
exceeded the estimate by $274,000, to the solid rock returns which increased 100
per cent, and to other items, one of which is the engine house at the divisional
point of ISTapadogan which has cost to date $96,000, and for which no allowance had
been made in the engineer's figures.

CONTEACT No, 5.

From one mile east of Tobique Eiver to about 2^ miles west of Grand Falls,
If.B., being from Mile 163 . SO to Mile 195 . 58 west of Moncton. 31 . 7 miles.
Chief Engineer's estimate of cost, $2,232,891.45.
Tenders advertised for February 1, 1908.
Tenders received March 10, 1908.

STJMMAEY OF TEITOERS.

Difference be-
tween tenders.

Tender No. 2, Willard Kitchen Co.. Ltd $1,646,253.65

No. 6, Craig & Thompson 1.694,626.02 $48,372.87

No. 5, M. P. & J. T. Davis 1,718,288.41 23,662.83

No. 4, Kennedy & McDonald 1,757,483.19 39,194.78

No. 3, Grand Trunk Pacific P^ailway 1,774,991.33 17,508.14

No. 7, Macdonell & O'Brien 1,818,402.74 43,411.41

No. 1, Trltes, McPhail, Mavor & Miller 2,003,283.99 184,881.25

Difference between highest and lowest tenders $357,030.34

Contract awarded to Willard Kitchen Co., March 28, 1908.

Date for completion, September 1, 1910.

Work commenced, May, 1908.

Security accompanying tender, $75,000 cash.

Additional security called for, nil.

$220,000 of 10 per cent drawback paid contractor, Januar5', 1911.

$40,000 of 10 per cent drawback paid contractor, July, 1911.

Gross amount of progress estimate to December 31, 1911, $3,023,784.84.

Amount of drawback retained on December 31, 1911, $42,230.39.

Percentage of contract complete to December 31, 1911, 97.28 per cent.

The entire mileage of this contract was divided by the Willard Kitchen
Company among twelve contractors for the grading and general work, while the
concrete work was sublet to the firm of Powers & Brewer, who, in turn, sublet a
portion of it to the firms ©f Farlinger & McDonald and Cavichi & Pagano.

The statement compiled by the Commission from the subcontractors' rates
and their returns shows the following results: —

Value of work done by sub-contractors at their rates, $1,819,456.00.
Amount paid main contractors for this work, $2,518,937.00.
Profits, $699,481.00-
Percentage of profits, 27% per cent

The following are the respective pricei paid the main contractor* and the
Tarioufl subcontractors for the items contained in the returns: —

$42

$35

noo

$75

$1.49

$1.25

.35

.30

.24

.20

$i.ioy4

.75

$35

$25

$98.90

$77.12

.20

.08

.30

.18

$20

$13.50

$12.75

$15

$10

$9.75

$11

$8.50

$7.75

$10.50

$8

$7.25

$11.50

$8.75

$8

$11.00

$9.50

$8.75

$10.75

$9

$8.25

30 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Sub-
Main contractors. Subcontractors, subcontractors.

Clearing per acre

Grubbing

Solid roclc, per cubic yard

Loose rock, per cubic yard

Common excavation

Solid rock borrow

Timber in culverts

Tunnels

Piles delivered per lin. ft

Piles driven per lin. ft

Concrete facing mixture

Concrete 1-2-4

Concrete 1-3-5

Concrete 1-3-6

Concrete 1-2-5

Concrete 1-3-5 in arch culverts

Concrete 1-3-6 in arch culverts

Tlie 31.7 miles covered by this contract shows a cost of over $130,000 per
mile.

Mr. Dunn prepared the estimate for this work from the profiles of the final
location. There were seven tenderers for this contract, which was the largest
number of tenderers for any grading contract on the Transcontinental railway.

A comparison of the figures contained in the original estimate and the returns
to date show that the large increase in cost is due principally to the item? of solid
rock, concrete work, and train hauled filling. These figures are: —

In Estimate. In Returns.

Solid rock 252,893 cub. yards 692,600 cub. yards

Concrete 21,956 cub. yards 34,801 cub. yards

Tralnhauled filling 50,000 cub. yards 335,570 cub. yards

On this contract is located some of the very heaviest work experienced on
District A. From the summit at Mileage 178, which is overcome by a tunnel, to
Mileage 192, the cuttings and fills are exceedingly heavy, and, in addition to the
excavation costs, within this mileage are located four steel viaducts, one at Graham
Brook, 520 feet in length, one at Caton Brook, 1,060 feet in length, one at Little
River, 1,242 feet in length, and the Salmon River viaduct at Mileage 184, 3,900
feet in length and some 225 feet high. This is the costly piece of construction on
which one and three-quarter million dollars might have been saved, as outlined in
the report on the Salmon River viaduct.

Contract No. 6.

From a point at or near Grand Falls, N.B., westerly to the Quebec-New
Brunswick boundary, being from Mile 195.58 to 256. Gl west of Moncton. 61.03
miles.

Chief Engineer's estimate of cost, $1,478,395.78.
Tenders advertised for January 5, 1907.
Tender? '•eceived February 14, 1907.

IXTESiTIGATING COMMISSIOS 31

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

SUMMARY OF TENDERS.

Difference be-
tween tenders.

Tender No. 1, Lyons & "White $1,385,941.09

No. 2, Grand Trunk Pacific Railway 1,407,349.41 | 21,408.32

No. 5, Toronto Construction Co 1,514,147.48 108,798.07

No. 4, Eostern Construction Co., of Amherst, N.S. 1,516,269.04 2,121.56

No. 3, Eastern Construction Co- 1,639,306.02 i23,036.98

No. 6. J. W. McManus Co.. Limited 1.641.681.46 2.375.44

Difference between hig'hest and lowest tenders $255,740.37

Contract awarded to Lyons & White, March 9, 1907.

Date for completion, September 1, 1908.

Work commenced, May, 1907.

Security accompanying- tender, $90,000 cash.

Additional security called for, nil.

$100,000 of 10 per cent drawback paid contractor, April, 1909.

$100,000 of 10 per cent drawback paid contractor, July, 1911.

Gross amount of progress estimate to December 31, 1911, $2,409,112.80.

Amount of drawback retained on December 31, 1911, $40,911.28.

Percentage of contract complete to December 31, 1911, 94.86 per cent.

The grading work on this contract was sublet by Messrs. Lyons and White to
seven firms of main subcontractors. A few minor sub-subcontracts were let, but in
the main the work was carried out by these seven contractors.

The following list shows a comparison of the rates paid Messrs. Lyons and

White and those paid the subcontractors for a few of the principal items of con-
sti'uction : —

I^.Iain contractors. Subcontractors

Clearing per acre $40.00 $30.00

Solid rock, per cubic yard 1.60 •1.20

Loose rock, per cubic yard .50 .40

Common ex. per cubic yard .23 .18

Excavation in foundations, no cofferdams i.OO .35

Excavation in foundations, with cofferdams 2.00 .50

Piling delivered per lin. ft .25 .15

Pile driving per lin. ft .1.5 .TS

Concrete 1-2 mixture per cub. yard 16.00 12.50

Concrete 1-2-4 .- 12.00 9.00

Concrete 1-3-5 10.50 7.50

Concrete 1-3-6 10 . 00 7 . 00

Concrete 1-3-5 in arch culverts 11.00 8.00

Concrete 1-3-6 in arch culvert.s S.50 6.50

Train-hauled filling .40 .35

A summary compiled from the subcontractors' returns and their rates shows
a profit of 19-34 per cent for Messrs. Lyons and White on this work.

The yardage of material in excavation and embankments was very greatly
in excess of the estimate prepared by District Engineer Dunn. The item for train-
hauled filling alone has increased the cost by ^22'7M0.

Contract Xo. 7.

* From the Quebec-Xew Brunswick boundary, westerly, being from Mile 256.61
to 310.22. 53.61 miles.

Chief Engineer's estimate of cost, $3,139,367.00.
Tenders advertised for February 1, 1908.
Tenders received, March 10, 1908.

^2 XATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914
SUMMARY OF TENDERS.

Difference be-
tween tenders.

Tender No. 2, M. P. & J. T. Davis $2,377,409.00

No. 1, O'Brien & Fowler 2,512,488.30 $135,079.30

No. 3, Grand Trunk Pacific Railway 2,608,099.75 95,611.45

Difference between the highest and lowest tender $230,690.75

Contract awarded to M. P. & J. T- Davis, March 28, 1908.

Date for completion, September 1, 1910.

Work commenced, June, 1908.

Security accompanying tender, $100,000 cash.

Additional security called for, nil.

$200,000 of 10 per cent drawback paid contractor, January, 1911.

$10,000 of 10 per cent drawback paid contractor, July, 1911.

Gross amount of progress estimate to December 31, 1911, $2,529,912.41.

Amount of drawback retained on December 31, 1911, $42,045.70.

Percentage of contract completed to December 31, 1911, 71.40 per cent.

The estimate on which this contract was awarded was compiled from first
location profiles.

Work was commenced by Messrs. Davis, in June, 1908, but has not been con-
ducted with sufficient vigor or diligence to ensure early completion, being only
71.4 per cent complete on December 31, 1911, a year and four months after the
date set for completion.

The delay in the progress of work on this contract and the eastern end of
contract No. 8, which might have been reached earlier had contract No, 7 been
further advanced, has undoubtedly been the cause of delay to the completion of
the through railway from Levis to Moncton. On December 31, 1911, contracts
Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 were reported 90 per cent complete, and contract No. 6. 88.7
per cent complete, while the work on contract No. 7 was only 62.8 per cent com-
])lete. We feel that these being the conditions the enforcement of the penalty
clause "would have had, perhaps, salutary effect, and that at this date the penalizing
of the contractor for twelve months' delay at $5,000 per month and the reduction
of his profits by this sum of $60,000 would be an inadequate compensation for the
delay to the opening of the through line of railway.

The followirig list shows a comparison between the .main contractors' rates
and those paid the subcontractors: —

Main contractor. Subcontractor.

Solid rock, per cubic yard $ 1.45 $ 1.24

Loose rock, per cubic yard .50 .40

Common ex., per cubic yard .24 .22

Concrete 1-2-4 mixture 13.00 10.75

Concrete 1-3-5 mixture 10.00 8.10

Concrete 1-3-fi mixture 9.50 7.60

Train-hauled filling .40 .28

And while no statement has been compiled sliowing the approximate profits
realized, at the rates shown for main and subcontractors, the item of train-hauled
filling alone would have provided a profit of over $225,000.

Contract No. 8.

From a point at or near the Quebec Bridge, easterly about 150 miles, being
from mile 310.22 to 460.45. 149.12 miles. Quebec Bridge— 1.11 miles.
Chief Engineer's estimate of cost, $5,491,974.00.
Tenders advertised for January 5, 1907.
Tenders received February 14, 1907.

District B, Residency 43, Mileage 97 0. End of Grading, August 14 1912 Page 42

District F, Residency 21, Mileage 24.6. Waste. Page 60.

District B, Residency 30, Mileage 162.3. Assembled Rock. Page 66.

District B, Residency 32, Mileage 174.7. Assembled Rock. Page 66.

IXVESTIGATIXG COMMISSIOy 33

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

SUMMAEY OF TENDERS.

Difference be-
tween tenders.

Tender No. 4, M. P. & J. T. Davis $5,011,346.50

No. 3, Grand Trunk Pacific Railway 5,018,554.80 $ 7,208.30

No. 2, O'Brien & Mullarkey 5,169,745.05 151,190.25

No. 1, Russell, Chambers, Limited 5,213,542.50 43,797.15

Difference between highest and lowest tenders $202,195.70

Contract awarded to M. P. & J. T. Davis, March 9, 1907.

Date for completion, September 1, 1909.

Security accompanying tender, $225,000 cash.

Additional security required, nil.

$300,000 of 10 per cent drawback paid contractor, December, 1908.

$250,000 of 10 per cent drawback paid contractor, January, 1911.

$10,000 of 10 per cent drawback paid contractor July, 1911.

Gross amount of progress estimate to December 31, 1911, $6,341,955.99.

Amount of drawback retained on December 31, 1911, $64,405.94-

Percentage of contract completed to December 31, 1911, 80.17 per cent.

The first statement prepared by the Chief Engineer of the estimated cost of
this contract, was completed on January 18, 1907, and amounted to $5,491^974,
which was a compilation of the estimated quantities as submitted by the District
Engineer. Tenders were advertised for on January 15, 1907, and were received
and opened on February 14. Prior to the opening of the tenders, the Chief En-
gineer revised these original estimates by the addition of the following items, for
the reason as given by Mr. Lumsden that he thought they would require some
trestles in that portion of the country covered by this contract: —

Item 24, Framed Trestles 732,190 P. B. M.

Item 26, Sawn Ties and Guard Rail 166,600 F. B. M-

Item 27, Stringers 192,780 F, B. M.

Item 96, Iron in Drift Bolts 8,109 No.

Item 97, Iron in Screw Bolts 38,887 No.

Item 99, Cast Iron Washers and Separators 27,560 No.

On January 23rd, the Chairman of the Commission, Mr. Parent, was supplied
with copies of the Chief Engineer's estimates of the cost of the five contracts for
which tenders closed on February 14, one of which is Contract Xo. 8. The estimate
for contract oSTo. 8, which he received, was a copy of the original estimate, and did
not contain the items covering the construction of trestles noted above. (Page 409.)

The tenders for this contract were opened on February 14, and on the after-
noon of February 15, the list of prices contained in the various tenders was handed
the Chief Engineer's ofiice, so that they might be moneyed out, according to the
estimated quantities.

If these tenders had been moneyed out by the revised estimate, which con-
tained the items for the construction of trestles, the result would have been as
follows :

Difference be-
tween tenders.

Grand Trunk Pacific Railway $5,078,334.77

M. P. & J. T. Davis 5,105,389.24 $ 27,044.47

O'Brien & Mullarkey 5,245,586.55 140,197.31

Russell & Chambers Co 5,269,671.22 24,084.67

Difference between highest and lowest tenders $191,326.45

and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company would have been the lowest tenderer
by $27,044.47.

12.3— .3

34 KATIOXAL TRANSCONTIXENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE V, 1914

However, before these results were announced, the chairman, having learned
that after he had received copies of the engineer's estimate it had been revised by the
addition of the items for the construction of wooden trestles, directed the Chiei
and Assistant Chief Engineers to strike out these items and to rewrite the estimate,
leaving these items blank.

After they were amended and rewritten, the chairman caused the rewritten
copies to be signed by the Chief Engineer, Hugh D. Lumsden, and the Assistant
Chief Engineer, Duncan MacPherson. (See exliibit Xo. 27.) These signatures
were dated 18th February, 1907, but the figure "1" of the "18th" has been
erased to make it appear that these signatures were affixed to this estimate on the
8th of February, 1907. On the 8th of February, Mr. Lumsden was not in Ottawa,
in fact, hut was in "Winnipeg, as he has sworn (p. 408) ; and as appears by entries
in his (iiary, produced before the Commission. Mr. MacPherson states (see
exhibit No. 28) that this was signed by Mr. Lumsden and himself on the 18th of
February, and that Mr. Lumsden left for "Winnipeg on the 5th of February, and
returned on February 13. The tenders were opened by the Commissioners on the
14th and 15th of February, so that the Chairman on the 18th knew what the
tenders were.

In their tender, M. P. & J. T. Davis asked for item 24, framed trestles, $80
per m.f.b.m ; item 26, sawn ties and guard rail, $80 per m.f.b.m. ; item 27, stringers,
$85 per m.f.b.m. ; while the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company asked $50,
$45 and $60 per m.f.b.m. respectively for these three items. Had the chairman not
ordered the estimates for these three items to be struck out the standing of the
tenders would have been as follows: —

Grand Trunk Pacific Railway $5,078,334.77

M. P. & J. T. Davis 5,105,339.24

O'Brien & Mullarkey 5,245,558 . 55

Russell & Chambers 5,298,671.22

It will be seen from the above that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway would
have been $27,044.47 lower in their tender than M. P. & J. T. Davis. It was, there-
fore, essential if M. P. & J. T. Davis were to receive this contract that items 24,
26 and 27 should be struck out.

No legitimate reason can be adduced why the chairman should direct these
items to be struck out of the estimates. The price which M. P. & J. T. Davis
asked for these items is double that which any of their competitors asked and is
double what it was worth to supply the timber, and it is not reasonable to suppose
that had they expected that this timber would figure largely in the engineer's
estimate, that they would have made such preposterous figures for this timber.
Some person with a guilty mind erased the figure " 1 " from the date on tlie
estimate and that person clearly erased that fi.gure for the purpose of making it
appear that that estimate sheet was signed before the tenders were received and
opened.

Mr. S. N. Parent, who was chairman of the Commission at the time these
contracts were let, gave evidence on this investigation, and he was shown all the
documents above mentioned and was informed of what Mr. MacPherson and Mr.
Lumsden said in regard to the matters above spoken of.

He said that he did not order the Chief Engineer to strike out the estimates
for the timber : —

" I never did that; on the contrary, we obliged them to have them in."
(Page 619.)

IXTESTIGATIXG COMMISSION 35

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

He said, when he was giving his evidence (page 621), that this was the first
time he had seen the estimates signed by Lumsden and MacPherson, and the
evidence then continues : —

" Q. Mr. Lumsden was not here on the 8th February at all; he was,
as he swears, at Kenora on the 8th February, and some person has altered
his signature so as to make it appear that he signed that document before
the tenders were in for that contract, while, as a matter of fact, he signed
it after the tenders came in. Do you say you know about that ? — A. I never
knew anything about that. I know notliing about it. For my part, I am
prepared to swear now it is the first time I saw that document. If the
alteration which you state there has been done, I am perfectly well con-
vinced that it has been done since I resigned here. They have the new
administration going on and they try to find fault with the last adminis-
tration."
The document was filed as Exhibit A., in Mr. Parent's evidence. (See Exhibit
No. 27.) He was further asked: —

" Q. As a matter of fact did the Davises see these estimates, to your
knowledge? — A. I cannot say that.

" Q. Do you know whether they did or not? — A. I do not think so,
for this reason, that I do not recollect at all the changes that MacPherson
and Lumsden speak about.

" Q. Did vou show the Da\dses tins estimate ? — A, I cannot say that.
If it occurred to me and I thought it was in the public interest to do so, I
would have done so. Davis may have seen it, or the Grand Trunk may
have seen it, or somebody else may have seen it, but I gave no preference to
Davis or anyone else.

" Q. I understand that, but I want to know now if you remember
whether or not this estimate was shown to the Davises? — A. I cannot
swear.

" Q. You do not know whether thev were or not ? — A. I cannot swear
that.

" Q. You do not know whether you showed them or not? — A, If I
did the others must have seen them too.

" Q. Do you remember whether you showed Mr. Davis ? — A. I cannot
say as to that. There were so many things going on in the Commission
that I could not recollect a special thing like that. We refused to give
quantities to a contractor from the start because by doing so we might get
into trouble."
It will be observed that Mr. Parent states that he did not instruct the elimina-
tion of the estimates for timber but that he caused them to be inserted. "We think
he must be mistaken in this or he certainly would have understood when the tenders
moneyed out were brought before him, that the engineers, after having amended the
estimates in that respect had again struck them out and would have restored them.
Though he testifies that he had never seen the document on which the date
ha.s been altered from 18th February, 1907, to 8th February, 1907, he will not
directly pledge his oath that he gave no information respecting these estimates to
the successful tenderers. Mr. M. P. Davis in his evidence positively denies that
he has seen these estimates.

Whatever may be the proper inference from this evidence, there can be no
doubt : —

1. That originally there was no estimate for timber trestles.

2. That the Commissioners had a copy of the signed estimate.

3. That the engineers, before the tenders were opened, had added an
estimate for timber trestles.

4. That on 18th February, 1907, after the tenders were opened, the
estimates for timber trestles were struck out.

36 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWA7

4 GEORGE v., 1914

5. That had the estimate for timber trestles not been struck out, the
Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company would have been the lowest tenderer
and would have been awarded contract No. 8.

6. That some person, for some sinister purpose, has altered the date
on the document, " Exhibit A " in Mr. Parent's evidence, from 18th
February, 1907, to 8th February, 1907, and that the fair conclusion is
that that person altered that date for the purpose of making it appear that
these amendments to the estimates had been stricken out before the tenders
were received.

The firm of M. P. & J. T. Davis, therefore, secured this contract, and the
work was proceeded with. The great portion of the grading work on this con-
tract was sublet to various contracting firms, and the following comparative state-
ment shows the prices paid the main contractors and tlie average prices paid the
sub-contractors for a few of the principal items: —

Main contractors. Subcontractors.

Item 4, solid rock $1.45 $1.26

Item 5, Loose rock .65 .42

Item 6, common excavation .27 • .22

Item 59, concrete 1-2-4 15.00 11.00

Item 62, concrete 1-3-5 10 . 50 8 . 15

Item 63, concrete 1-3-6 10.00 7.60

Item 74c, train filling - .45 .29

We have been unable to compile accurate statements showing the profit-taking
on this entire contract. The item for train-hauled filling, however, of which there
was 2,700,000 cubic yards, at the rates paid the main and sub-contractors, would
indicate a profit on this item alone of $432,000.

There is no doubt that it was a very profitable contract.

Contract No. 9a.

For construction of railway from the northern approach to the Quebec bridge
to the Champlain Market in the City of Quebec, a distance of about 6.38 miles;
and

A terminal revetment wall of timber crib substructure with concrete wall
superstructure to extend from a point on the river front just east of the Champlain
Market site in a westerly direction, a distance of approximately 1,930 feet.

Contract awarded to M. P. & J- T. Davis.

Contract dated April 5, 1911.

Date for completion, January 1, 1914.

Security accompanying contract, nil.

Gross amount of progress estimate to December 31, 1911, $419,422.06.

Amount of drawback retained on December 31, 1911, $31,942.21.

This contract covers the portion of the work which was included in that
being undertaken by the Quebec Bridge Company before the disaster to the Quebec
bridge.

The Covernment took over that work and found that M. P. .t J T. Davis had
a contract witli the Quebec Bridge Company for the construction of the necessary
approach tracks to the Quebec bridge. This contract was then transferred to the
Commissioners of the National Transcontinental railway, and its scope is somewhat
extended, so as to join up the City of Quebec with the Quebec bridge and Transcon-
tinental railway.

The contract recites that it is given to the contractors in lieu of that held by
them from the Quebec Bridge Company. It was not for that reason advertised
for public competition.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 37

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Contracts Xos. 9 and 10.

{Contract No. 9)

From the Quebec Bridge westerly 50 miles — mileage 460.45 to 510.31=

49.86 miles.

Estimate on basis of loT\'est tender (see note below.)
Gross amount of progress estimates Dec. 31st, 1911 — $3,660,000.41.
Contract dated May 15th, 1906 (with Hogan & Macdonell.)
Securit^^ deposit $225,000.00; returned Oct. 17th, 1910.
$85,000\00 a/c drawback paid M. P. & J. T. Davis April 6th, 1908.
$50,000.00 a/c drawback paid M. P. & J. T. Davis Dec. 5th, 1908.
Amount of drawback held Dec, 31st, 1911— $47,005.84.
Percentage of contract completed Dec. 31st, 1911 — 80.43 per cent.
),000.00 a/c drawback paid July, 1911.

{Contract No. 10)

From 50 miles west' of Quebec Bridge westerly 100 miles, -mileage
510.31 to 610.41=:100.10 miles.

Chief Engineer's estimate of cost (See note below.)

Estimate on basis of lowest tender (See note below.)

Gross amount of progress estimates Dec. 31, 1911=$9,489,472.67.

Contract dated May 15, 1906 (with Hogan & Macdonell.)

Note : — The above contracts were assigned by Hogan & Macdonell.
Contract No. 9 to M. P. & J. T. Davis.
Contract No. 10 to Macdonell & O'Brien.

SUMMARY OF TENDERS.

No. 7— Hogan & Macdonell $5,297,257.00

No. 8— O'Brien & Mullarkey 5,550,204.00

No. 6— G.T.P. Railway Co '3,459.538.00

No. 5— M. P. & J. T. Davis 6,677,598 . 00

No. 10 — Connolly, Jardine & Wilson 7,081,001.00

No. 9 — MacArthur Construction Co 7,940,325 . 00

Chief Engineer's estimate 6,172,827.05

Security deposit, $569,588.00; returned September 23, 1908.
$300,000.00 account drawback paid, April 6, 1908.
$250,000.00 account drawback paid, December 5, 1908.
$125,000.00 account drawback paid, July 28, 1910.
Amount of drawback held December 31, 1911=$34,622.45.
Percentage of contract completed, December 31, 1911=96.20 per cent.
$125,000.00 account drawback paid, July, 1911.
Advertisement dated February 8, 1906.
Tenders received, March 12, 1906.

Contract No. 9.

M. P. & J. T. Davis.

From the Quebec Bridge, westerly 50 miles. Mileage 460.45 to 510.31.
49.86 miles.

»8 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Contract dated May 15, 1906.

Date for completion, September 1, 1907.

Work commenced June, 1906.

Security deposit $225,000, returned to Messrs. Davis, October 17, 1910.

$85,000.00 of 10 per cent drawback paid contractors April 6, 1908.

$50,000.00 of 10 per cent drawback paid contractors December 5, 1908.

$80,000.00 of 10 per cent drawback paid contractors July, 1911.

Amount of drawback retained on December 31, 1911, $47,005.84.

Percentage of contract complete to December 31, 1911, 80.42 per cent.

This contract extended from the Quebec Bridge, westerly about 50 miles.
The Quebec divisional yard, roundhouse, etc., which are located immediately
north of the Quebec Bridge, are included in this contract.

This divisional yard has been called " bridge " to distinguish it from any
other station which may be erected in the City of Quebec proper.

The features on this contract are the large double track cutting at Cap
Eouge, and the Cap Rouge Viaduct, both of which are dealt with further in
another portion of this report.

The work on this contract was generally sublet by Messrs. Davis, and the
following figures show the main contractors' rates and the average prices paid
to subcontractors for a few of the principal items of construction :

Main Contractors. Subcontractors_

Solid rock per cubic yard $1.50 $1.25

Loose rock per cubic yard .50 .40

Common ex. per cubic yard .21 ,18

Concrete 1-2-4 mixture 12.00 8.25

Concrete 1-3-6 mixture 10.00 6.75

Concrete 1-3-6 in arch culverts 10.00 7.75

No statement of approximate profits has been compiled for this contract on
account of the difficulty experienced in procuring accurate records of subcon-
tractors' prices and quantities.

About 790,000 cubic yards of trainhauled filling have been returned to
December 31, 1912, at the rate of fifty-five cents per cubic yard, and, at the rates
which this work was sublet by IMessrs. Davis on Contracts Nos. 7 and 8, these
figures would indicate a profit to the main contractors of $200,000.00 on this item
alone.

Contract No. 10.

Macdonell & O'Brien.

From 50 miles west. of the Quebec Bridge, westerly 100 miles. Mileage
510.31 to 610.41. 100.10 miles.

Contract dated May 15, 1906.
Date for completion, September 1, 1907.
Work commenced June, 1906.

Security deposit $569,588.00 returned to Macdonell & O'Brien, September
23, 1908.

$300,000.00 of 10 per cent drawback paid contractors April 6, 1908.
$250,000.00 of 10 per cent drawback paid contractors December 5, 1908.
$125,000.00 of 10 per cent drawpaid paid contractors July 28, 1910.
$125,000.00 of 10 per cent drawback paid contractors July, 1911.
Amount of drawback retained on December 31, 1911, $34,622.45.
Percentage of contract complete to Deeember 31, 1911, 96.20 per cent.

The grading work on this 100 miles was divided among about a dozen
firms of subcontractors, and the concrete work was sublet in like manner.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 39

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

The following list shows the rates paid the main contractors and the average
prices paid subcontractors for a few of the principal items of construction :

Main Contractors. Subcontractors.

Solid rock per cubic yard $1.50 $1.30

Loose rock per cubic yard .50 .40

Common ex. per cubic yard .21 .18

Concrete 1-2-4 12.00 9.79

Concrete 1-3-5 11.00 8.71

Concrete 1-3-6 10.00 8.43

Trainhauled filling .55 .40

Piling delivered 20 .16

Piling driven .40 ,16

The statement compiled by this Commission, based on these prices and tne
subcontractors' returns, show the following results :

A'alue of work done by subcontractors at their rates $5,540,571.72.
Amount paid main contractors at their prices for this work, $7,088,266.24.
Profit, $1,547,694.52.
Percentage of profit, 21 3-4 per cent.

There has not been included in these figures any yardage of trainhauled
filling as the returns from the District Engineer's office do not show that any of
this work was handled by subcontractors. Messrs. Macdonell & O'Brien, however,
in statements submitted by them, give the average price paid subcontractors for
this item as forty cents, and assuming that they could handle the work themselves
for this rate on the 3,577,960 cubic yards returned under this heading, a profit,
would be realized of $536,000.00.

In connection with the further subletting of this work, we have been sup-
plied with subcontracts to stationmen, under which agreements the men who
actually performed the excavation of the cuttings were paid for solid rock ex-
cavation, ninety cents per cubic yard, and for loose rock excavation, twenty-five
cents per cubic yard, and for common excavation, fifteen cents per cubic yard.
From the records which we have been supplied with, we find that these are the
lowest figures paid to stationmen for grading work of any character.

The prices at which Messrs. Macdonell & O'Brien sublet the work has a
direct bearing upon several features in the report to which it is well to call
attention. The price per cubic yard for trainhauled filling, we have contended,
was excessive, and the quantity handled at these prices was unnecessary. The
large profits indicated by these returns are conclusive proof of the desirability of
limiting, by every expedient possible, the extent of this, to the mam contractors,
highly lucrative work.

Attention is also drawn to the prices paid by Messrs. Macdonell & O'Brien
for the items of Tiling Delivered' and Tiling Driven.'

The increase in quantities on this contract over the engineers' estimated
quantities are as follows :

In Estimate In Keturns

Solid rock 779,433 cu. yds. 2,712,359 cu. yds.

Loose rock 211,200 cu. yds. 1,513,284 cu. yds.

Common excavation 4,242,455 cu. yds. 1,501,802 cu. yds.

Train fill Nil. 3,577,960 cu. yds.

In connection with the largely increased cost of work on this contract, we
cannot do better than quote here from the explanation of this increased cost as
applying to District "B," given by Mr. Gordon Grant in a report of the Com-
missioners to the Honourable George P. Graham, dated April 11, 1910, and
printed in column 8356 of Hansard for April 23, 1910. The memorandum is as
follows :

40 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Kemarks as to District "B" —

"Some of the reasons counting for the apparent inaccuracy of the estimates
of quantities made before the opening up of the work and the award of the
contracts in this district are as follows :

" (1) In the case of the 150 miles from the north abutment of the Quebec
Bridge, westerly, Contracts Nos. 9 and 10, the surveys were not completed before
the contracts were awarded, and the estimates of quantities were based partly
on first location lines, partly on preliminary, and fifty miles on projected lines,
the demand for the estimates being made by the Chief Engineer; on revising the
work, errors in levels were found requiring a change of line in several places and
heavier work to get a 0.4 per cent grade; the opening up of the work disclosed a
vast quantity of mixed material not provided for in the estimated quantities. No
allowance was made for train filling where common excavation borrow could not be
obtained. The estimates were based on the use of velocity grades, the elimination
of which increased the quantities greatly. The estimates were made on the order
of the Chief Engineer before sufficient information had been obtained regarding
the rise and fall of some of the streams encountered, and this, in some cases,
required the subsequent raising of the grade and an increase in the quantities,
thus adding to the cost both of the grading and the bridges; the location lay
along steep side hills in many cases, thus adding to the difEiculty of making
accurate estimates of quantities cross sections not having been taken; (2) many
of the above reasons apply to the district generally and test pits were not as a
rule dug in cuttings."

Contract No. 11.

Erom about La Tuque to Weymontachene, P.Q., being from Mile 610.41 to
656.83. 46.42 miles.

Chief Engineer's estimate of cost, $1,776,280.00.
Tenders advertised for January 5, 1907.
Tenders received February 14, 1907.

SUMMARY OF TENDERS.

Difference be-
tween tenders.

Tender No. 1 Grand Trunk Pacific Railway $1,691,073.41

Tender No. 2 Macdonell & O'Brien 1.9.51.905.74 $260,832.33

Tender No. 3 Russell, Chambers, L.td 2,033.711.23 81.805.49

$342,637.82

Contract awarded to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Co. March 14, 1907.

Date for completion, September 1, 1908.

Work commenced November, 1907.

Security accompanying tender, $75,000.00 cash.

Additional security called for, nil.

Security returned to contractor June 7, 1910,

$3 75,000.00 of 10 per cent, drawback paid contractor July, 1910.

$120,000.00 of 10 per cent, drawback paid contractor July, 1911.

Gross amount of progress estimate to December 31, 1911, $3,168,162.95.

Amount of drawback retained on December 31, 1911, $20,465.00.

Percentage of contract complete to December 31, 1911, 97.19 per cent.

This contract was a?.';i<inod by the Craud Trunk Pacific Railway Company
to Messrs. Macdonell & O'Brien on the 21st March, 1907, the Grand Trunk
Pacific retaining as their profit on the transaction five per cent of the total
returns, which, to December 31, 1912, amounted to $158,365.00.

The first return fn the contractors on this contract was in the month of
November, 1907, or eight months after the contract had been awarded.

INVESTIGATIXG COilMISSIOX 41

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

The location of these forty-six miles would apparently justify the increased
rates paid for excavation as compared with the prices on Contracts ISTos. 9 and 10,
as the work was in a rather inaccessible part of the country until Contract No.
10 was sufficiently completed to permit of supplies, etc., being brought by rail
right on to the work, and the delay of eight months from the date the contract
was awarded to the first return made by the contractors, was apparently due to
difficulty in getting in touch with the work. The increase in the rates for ex-
cavation is, in our opinion, a sufEicient compensation to the contractor for the
inaccessibility of the work, and the increased profits made possible by these rates
should have been expended upon the construction of roads, etc., and in other
means taken to complete the organization for this contract so that the work
could have been commenced within a month of the date of the awarding of the
contract.

The enforcement of the penalty clause, which provides a refund of $5,000.00
a month for delay of this character, we consider applicable to the first seven
months of delay, though a reduction in the contractor's profits of $35,000.00
would be small compensation to the Commission for the loss sustained by them.

It will be noted from the summary of tenders that Messrs. Macdonell &
O'Brien, who subsequently carried out this work, submitted, originally, a bid
which monied out $260,832.00 higher than that of the Grand Trunk Pacific
Eailway Company, and, in the carrying out of the work, they were satisfied to
accept prices five per cent lower than the successful tender, or, in other words,
the rates at which they were eventually paid for this work were about eighteen
per cent lower than the prices which they submitted in open competition. This
point strikes us as being a very positive proof of the fact that the contractors
tendering on this work were not influenced in submitting their bids by any fear
of keen competition. A contractor desirous of obtaining the work would not
submit a bid from which eighteen per cent might be deducted and still permit
him to make the profits which the statements for this contract show to have
existed, if he had any reason to believe that the work would be the subject of
keen competition from a number of contracting firms.

The following statement shows, for a few of the principal items, the rates
contained in the main contract and the average rates paid subcontractors who
performed the work, and Macdonell & O'Brien sublet to a considerable extent
the grading and concrete work.

Main Contractors. Subcontractors.

Solid rock per cubic yard $1.65 $1.13%

Loose rock per cubic yard .60 .45

Common ex. per cubic yard .27 .20

Concrete 1-3-5 mixture 12.00 9.50

Concrete 1-3-6 mixture 11.00 8.90

Concrete 1-2-4 mixture 13.00 10.37

Concrete 1-2 mixture 14.00 10.37

Train fill .50 .42%

From the subcontractors' returns and their rates, the Commission have
compiled the following statement:

Value of work done bv subcontractors at their rates, $1,449,624.71.
Amount paid Messrs. Macdonell & O'Brien for this work, $2,147,790.58.
Profit, $698,165.87.
Percentage of profit, 32 per cent.

The fact that Messrs. Macdonell & O'Brien suffered a reduction from their
original bid of eighteen per cent, and at those reduced prices were in a position
to sublet the work so advantageously, is an indication of the free and confident
manner with which the original bids were prepared and submitted.

42 NATIOXAL TRANSCONTINENrAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Contract No. 12.

From a point at or near Weymontachene, westerly, being from Mile 656.83
to 763.83. 107 miles.

Chief Engineer's estimate of cost, $5,715,892.33.
Tenders advertised for July 18, 1908.
Tenders received August 20, 1908.

SUMMARY OF TENDERS.

Difference be-
tween tenders.

Tender No. 1, Macdonell & O'Brien $4,599,284.50

Tender No. 2 M. P. & J. T. Davis 4,883,713.50 $324,429.00

Contract awarded to Macdonell and O'Brien September 19, 1908.

Date for completion, December 31, 1910.

Work commenced February, 1909.

Security accompanying tender, $150,000.00 cash.

Additional security called for, nil.

Security returned to contractor July, 1910.

$150,000.00 of 10 per cent drawback paid contractor February, 1911.

$80,000.00 of 10 per cent drawback paid contractor July, 1911.

Gross amount of progress estimate to December 31, 1911, $4,194,878.09.

Amount of drawback retained on December 31, 1911, $189,487.80.

Percentage of contract completed to December 31, 1911, 64.69 per cent.

In addition to the two tenders shown in the summary of tenders for this
work, the Grand Trunk Pacific Eailway Company submitted a proposal to
undertake and complete this contract on the basis of cost plus ten per cent and
as outlined in the following letter which they submitted with their tender:

August 19. 1908.
The Commissioners of the Transcontinental Railway,
Ottawa, Ontario.

Gentlemen:

The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company hereby tender on the work on District
" C," from a point designated on the plans of the Commissioners near Weymontachene,
in the Province of Quebec, 196.38 miles west of the north abutment of the Quebec Bridge
(such point being on the boundary between districts "C" and "D"), westerly for a d s-
tance of about 107 miles, — date of completion 31st December, 1910, — on the basis of cost
plus 10 per cent, guaranteeing, should the tender be accepted, to give the company's
bond with security satisfactory to the Commissioners and the Government.

The reason for taking the liberty to depart, in making th s tender, from the rules laid
down by the Commissioners of the Transcontinental Railway governing such tender, is
that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company is interested beyond anyone else in keep-
ing the cost of th's Section down to the lowest possible point that will ensure its being
completed in accordance with the standards prescribed, because of the fact that under its
agreement with the Government the Grand Trunk Pacific ultimately become responsible
for the interest charge, also owing to meagre information furnished by the Commission-
ers relative to the character of the material to be handled, and the quantities of the
several kinds of materials, and the cost of transportation of supplies, material and equip-
ment, which will be one of the large items, due to the great inacces.<5-blity of the work,
and realizing that this condition appeals to all practical contractors and that they will,
therefore. In fact must put in a figure that will make them safe, which we feel will result
In an excessive cost, unless the Commissioners will view the situation as we do and see
their way clear to. award to the Grand Trunk Pacific the work under the conditions above
mentioned and, in case they have not the power, to obtain such power from the Govern-
ment.

Yours truly,

FR.\NK W. MORSE.
Vice-President and General Manager-

IXTE,'?TIGATIXG COMillSSIOX 43

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

As this proposal was not in accordance with the terms and conditions under
which this work was to be awarded, and was not accompanied by any cheque as
called for in the advertisement for tenders, it was not considered by the Com-
missioners, nor did they take any action thereon.

This work was awarded to Messrs. Macdonell & O'Brien, who, in turn, sublet
the grading, etc., at the rates shown in the following comparative statement :

Main Contractors. Subcontractora.

Solid rock per cubic yard $1.60 $1.30

Loose rock per cubic yard .57 .45

Common ex. per cubic yard .22 .20

Concrete 1-2 mixture '. . . 15.00 10.75

Concrete 1-2-4 mixture 14.00 10.75

Concrete 1-3-5 mixture 13.00 9. SI

Concrete 1-3-6 mixture 12.00 9.12

This statement, based on these rates and the work returned for the sub-
contractors, gives the following figures :

Value of work done by subcontractors at their rates, $1,958,573.24.
Amount paid main contractors for this work. $2,502,046.01.
Profit, $543,472.77.
Percentage of profit, 21 3-4 per cent.

The penalty clause of five thousand dollars a month is applicable to the five
months' initial delay in the commencement of work on this contract.

CONTEACT jSTo. 13.

From 107 miles west of Weymontachene, westerly for 114.97 miles, being
from Mile 763.83 to 878.80. 114.97 miles.

Chief Engineer's estimate of cost, $4,007,326.73.
Tenders advertised for July 18, 1908.
' Tenders received August 20, 1908.

SUMMAET OF TENDERS.

Difference be-
tween tenders.

Tender No- 1, Macdonell & O'Brien $3,815,279.10

No. 2, M. P. & J. T. Davis 3,876,377.60 $61,098.50

Contract awarded to Macdonell & O'Brien, September 19, 1908.

Date for completion, December 31, 1910.

Work commenced, December, 1911.

Security accompanying tender, $150,000.00.

Additional security called for, nil.

Gross amount of process estimate to December 31, 1911, $1,194.00.

Amount of drawback retained on December 31, 1911, $119.40.

Percentage of contract complete to December 31, 1911, 0.02 per cent.

The 115 miles comprising this contract is located in the most inaccessible
portion of the country between Cochrane and Quebec.

The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company submitted a tender on this
work, their proposal being to complete this contract at cost plus 10 per cent, in
accordance with the letter which they submitted with a similar proposal for
Contract oSTo. 12. The proposal was not, however, considered by the Com-
missioners of the Transcontinental Eailway.

The contract was awarded to Messrs. Macdonell & O'Brien on September 19,
1908, and the first payment made for work done was in the month of December,
1911, three years and two months after the contract had been awarded, and one
year after the date set for completion.

44 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

The following list shows the comparison between the rates paid the main
contractors for a few of the principal items, and the rates at which they sublet
this work:

Main contractors. Subcontractors.

Solid rock, per cubic yard $1.80 ' $1.45

Loose rock, per cubic yard .65 .50

Common ex., per cubic yard .35 .25

Piles delivered per lin. ft .25 .20

Piles driven per lin. ft .25 .20

Timber for culverts per M. F. B. M 50.00 30.00

Concrete 1-2 mixture 18.00 14.00

Concrete 1-2-4 mixture 16.00 14.00

Concrete 1-3-5 mixture 16.00 12.00

Concrete 1-3-6 mixture 15.00 11.00

From the quantities returned for the subcontractors at these rates, and which
represent, of course, onl}^ a small proportion of the work on account of the late
start made, a profit of twenty and a third per cent is shown to have been realized
by the main contractors.

We consider that the Commissioners of the Transcontinental Railway did
not take a firm enough stand with the contractors with regard to the commence-
ment of work on those contracts in isolated parts of the country.

The rates paid for excavation are higher than those prevailing either east
or west of Contract No. 13, and should have been compensation to the contractor
for any extra expense he would be put to on accoiint of the difficulty experienced
in getting to the work prior to the completion of the line and the laying of the
rails on either side of this 115 mile stretch.

If the work on Contract No. 14 had been vigorously pushed from its
inception, access to Contract No. 13 from the west end would have been made
possible a year earlier than it actually took place.

We do not feel, however, that one contractor is in a position to blame
another for slow progress made on his owti work, as, when the contracts were
awarded, no conditions were inserted as to the method of reaching the work
under contract, but the contractor undertook to complete a certain mileage of
railway by a certain date and the responsibility in this matter cannot be
shouldered off on other contractors who have undertaken similar contracts and
signed similar agreements. In this case, we feel that Messrs. Macdonell &
O'Brien might justly be penalized to the extent of seventy thousand dollars, being
represented by the fourteen months' initial delay at five thousand dollars per
month, as by the expenditure of this amount in the construction of tote roads
and other means of forwarding supplies to the site of operations at the date they
were awarded the contracts would, in all probability, have reduced the delay in
the completion of this work to the extent of fourteen months.

The contractors were given a higher price because of the inaccessibility of
the work and had no valid reason for delaying operations.

The Commissioners should have cancelled the contract for default and relet
the work whon it became accessible.

CONTR.\CT XO. 14.

From about 8 miles west of Abitibi Crossing, easterly for 150 miles.
Chief Engineer's estimate of cost, $3,985,462.40.
Tenders advertised for January 5, 1907.
Tenders received February 14, 1907.

IXTESTIGATIXG COMMISSION ' 45

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

SUMMARY OF TENDERS.

Difference be-
tween tenders.

Tender No. 2, Grand Trunk Pacific Railway $3,986,901.42

Tender No. 1, Pacific Construction Co. (E. F. Fauquier) 4,423,837.11 1436,935.69

Contract awarded to Grand Trunlv Pacific Railway, March 14, 1907.

Date for completion, September 1, 1909.

Work commenced, September, 1907-

Security accompanying tender, $225,000 cash.

Additional security called for, nil.

Security returned to contractor, July, 1910.

$375,000 of 10 per cent drawback paid contractor, July, 1911.

Gross amount of progress estimate to December 31, 1911, $5,246,744.16.

Amount of drawback retained on December 31, 1911, $149,674.41.

Percentage of contract complete to December 31, 1911, 69.75 per cent.

The completion of this 150 miles of railway from Cochrane, easterl}^, has
a most important bearing on the final completion of the through line of railway
from Winnipeg to Quebec. It was the gateway to the territory covered by
Contract No. 13, and the slow progress made has proved a stumbling block to
the early completion of this portion of the line.

The Grand Trunk Pacific Eailway Company, in competition with the Pacific
Construction Company, in which Mr. E. F. Fauquier was the chief factor, secured
the contract.

The Grand Trunk Pacific Eailway Company, under an agreement dated
September 11, 1907, sublet to the J. H. Reynolds Construction Company, a firm
incorporated under the laws of the State of Missouri, that portion of the contract
extending easterly from a point fifty miles east of the junction of the Temiskaming
and Northern Ontario Eailway with the Transcontinental Eailway to the end
of the contract, this subcontract covering the easterly 100 miles of Contract No. 14.

A further agreement was entered into between the Grand Trunk Pacific
Eailway Company and the J. H. Eeynolds Company on March 11, 1908, whereby
the latter firm took over from the Eailway Company the construction of the
westerly fifty miles of Contract No. 14 under the same terms, conditions and
prices as embodied in the agreement of September 11, 1907, so that when the
second agreement was signed, the whole one himdred and fifty miles of Contract
No. 14 was sublet to the J. H. Eeynolds Company.

The J. H. Reynolds Company, however, failed to perform and carry out the
construction work covered by these two contracts, and the agreements were, by
mutual consent, put an end to and determined on February 9, 1909, at which
date the Grand Trunk Pacific Eailway Company entered into a new agreement
with Me^;?rs. Folev, Welsh & Stewart, covering the entire one hundred and fifty
miles under the terms of which the Eailway Company undertook to provide the
requisite funds for the carrying on of the work, while Messrs. Foley, Welsh &
Stewart were to act in the capacity of superintendents and to give the benefit of
their organizations to the enterprise.

Agreement provided that the Grand Trunk Pacific Eailway Company pay to
their agents, Messrs. Foley, Welsh & Stewart, five per cent of the total value of
the work as shown by the progress estimates, certified to by the Chief Engineer.

The grading work on this contract was largely handled by gangs of station-
men, the excavation being composed of clay and sand of various consistencies.

The average prices paid the stationmen were:

Solid rock $1 . 40 per cubic yard

Loose rock .40 " " "

Common excavation .25 " " "

46 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

For which the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company received :

Solid ruck $1.75 per cubic yard

Loose rock 65 " "

Common excavation .35 " " "

No statement has been prepared showing the profits realized by the Grand
Trunk Pacific Eailway Company on this work, but, on the assumption that
they, in this case, as in their other contracts, would realize about five per
cent in profits on the total returns up to December 31, 1912, this profit to the
Railway Company would amount to about $300,000.00.

As will be noted, the contract was awarded in March, 1907, and one hundred
miles of- this work was sublet to the Reynolds Construction Company in
September of that year, which was an initial delay of five months in the
commencement of operations.

The balance of the contract, comprising the westerly fiity miles, was sublet
to the same firm in March, 1908, and in February, 1909, these agreements were
put an end to, and Messrs. Foley, Welsh & Stewart took over the work.

The monthly returns under this contract show that from September, 1907,
up to March, 1908, less than twenty thousand dollars' worth of work was performed
by the J. H. Reynolds Company, and subscqiiently the value of the biggest
month's work which they carried out was forty-eight thousand dollars.

We do not know what assurances the Reynolds Company gave the Grand
Trunk Pacific Railway Company with respect to their capability and financial
standing, but we consider that the slow progress of the work as indicated by the
first six months' returns should have led them to consider the matter very
thoroughly before subletting the balance of this contract to the same firm.

The J. H. Reynolds Construction Company practically abandoned operations
in January, 1909, as only fifteen hundred dollars' worth of work was done duriug
that month. Messrs. Foley, Welsh & Stewart, the acting managers for the Grand
Trunk Pacific Railway Company, took over the entire one hundred and fifty
mile contract the next month. ,

This contract runs through the Northern Ontario clay belt, a large percentage
of which clay has been returned under the heading of loose rock.

The engineer's estimate for this work contained 6,689 cubic yards of loose
rock, while the returns to December 31, 1911, were 1,137,333 cubic yards of loose
rock.

It was on this work that Mr. A. T. Tomlinson occupied the dual position
as Inspecting Engineer for the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, and
Superintendent for Messrs. Foley, Welsh & Stewart, the coiitractors.

Contract No. 15.

From about 8 miles west of Abitibi Crossing, westerly 100 milos. being from
Mile 1028.80 to 1128.77. 99.77 miles.

Chief Engineer's estimate of cost, $4,124,233.30.
Tenders advertised for February 1, 1908.
Tenders received March 10, 1908.

SUMMARY OF TENDERS.

Difference be-
tween tenders.

Tender No. 2, E. F. & G. E. Fauquier 13,936.566.00

No. 1, Grand Trunk Pacific 4,334,214.00 $397,648.00

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 47

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Contract awarded to E. F. & G. E. Fauquier, March 28, 1908.

Date for completion, September 1, 1910.

Work commenced, May, 1908.

Security accompanying tender, $150,000 cash.

Additional security called for, nil.

Security returned, June 10, 1910.

$200,000 of 10 per cent drawback paid contractor January, 1911.

$90,000 of 10 per cent drawback paid contractor July, 1911.

Gross amount of progress estimate to December 31, 1911, $4,108,908.10.

Amount of drawback retained on December 31, 1911, $120,890.81.

Percentage of contract complete to December 31, 1911, 87.85 per cent.

A large portion of the grading and concrete work on this contract was
sublet, and the following figures show a comparison between the main contractors'
rates and the average rates paid subcontractors for various items :

Main contractors. Subcontractors.
Price per cubic yard. Average price.

Solid rock $1.85 $1.57

Loose rock .70 .52

Common excavation .40 .31

Concrete. 1-3-5 ._ 15.00 11.00

Concrete, 1-3-5 in arch culverts 16.00 11.50

Concrete, 1-3-6 in arch culverts 15.50 11.25

Contracts Nos. 16 and IT.
Contract No. 16.

From the west end of Fauquier's Abitibi contract, westerly for about 104.24
miles.

Chief Engineer's estimate of cost, $3,224,718.75.
Tenders advertised for September 12, 1908.
Tenders received September 28, 1908.

SUMMARY OF TENDERS.

Difference be-
tween tenders.

Tender No- 1, M. P. & J. T. Davis $3,308,048.25

No. 2, Grand Trunk Pacific 3,402,584.50 $94,536.25

Contract awarded to M. P. & J. T. Davis, October 29, 1908.

Contract assigned, September 29, 1909, to O'Brien, O'Gorman & McDougall.

Work commenced January, 1910.

Date for completion, December 31, 1910.

Security accompanying tender, $150,000 cash.

Additional security called for, nil.

$50,000 of 10 per cent, drawback paid contractor, January, 1911.

$50,000 of 10 per cent drawback paid contractor, June, 1911.

Gross amount of progress estimate to December 31, 1911, $2,500,695.78.

Amount of drawback retained on December 31, 1911, $150,069.58.

Percentage of contract complete to December 31, 1911, 47.83 per cent

Contract No. 17.

From Mile 1232.85 to 1332.85. 100 miles.
Chief Engineer's estimate of cost, $2,004,330.63.
Tenders advertised for September 12, 1908.
Tenders received September 28, 1908.

SUMMAHY OP TENDEBS.

Difference be-
tween tenders.

Tender No. 1, M- P. & J. T. Davis : $2,019,908 . 25

No. 2, Grand Trunk Pacific Railway 2,016,246.00 $86,337.75

48 NATIOXAL TBANiiCOXTIXEyTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Contract awarded to M. P. & J. T. Davis, October 29, 1908.

Contract assigned, September 29, 1909, to O'Brien, O'Gorman & McDougall.

Date for completion, March, 1911.

Security accompanying tender, $150,000 cash.

Additional security called for, nil.

Gross amount of progress estimate to December 31, 1911, $1,110,914.78.

Amount of drawback retained on December 31, 1911, $111,091.47.

Percentage of contract complete to December 31, 1911, 29.52 per cent.

These two contracts which cover a little over 200 miles of grading, are
located due north of Lake Superior, and were, at the time the contract was
awarded, in the most inaccessible portion of the country traversed by the
Xational Transcontinental Eailway. Both contracts were awarded to Messrs.
M. P. & J. T. Davis, on October 29th, 1908, and according to the terms of each
contract, they were to be completed on December 31st, 1910.

Work was commenced on Contract ISTo. 16 in January, 1910, or 15 months
after the awarding of the contract, and on December 31, 1910, which is the date
the work was to have been completed, twelve and a half per cent of the work had
been done.

Work was not even commenced on Contract No. 17 until March, 1911, or
two years and five months after the contract had been awarded, and three
months after the date set for its completion. On September 29, 1909. 11 months
after the work had been let to Messrs. Davis, they assigned their interest under
these two contracts to M. J. O'Brien, J. O'Gorman and Alexander McDougall,
trading under the firm name of O'Brien, O'Gorman & McDougall, for the
construction of this work, for the consideration and upon the conditions set
forth in a deed of transfer passed between these parties on September 16, 1909,
under the terms of which Messrs. O'Brien, O'Gorman & McDougall were to pay
to Messrs. M. P. & J. T. Davis 10 per cent of the total estimates returned on
these works.

This assignment was submitted to and approved by the Commissioners, so
that Messrs. O'Brien, O'Gorman & McDougall became the main contractors and
payments for work done are made direct to them.

The prices paid for work done under these contracts are very greatly in
excess of the average price paid for similar work on other portions of the
railway, and the following list shows a number of the rates which were paid on
these contracts, together with the average price paid for these items on all other
contracts :

Average price
Item. Prices paid. on other contracts.

1. Clearing $60.00 $50.00

3. Grubbing 175.00 145.00

4. Solid rock 1.90 1.60

5 Loose rock - . So .60

6. Common excavation .43 .29

7. Ex. in foundations 1.50 .97

'8. Ex. in cofferdams 5.00 3.12

10. Piles delivered .40 .28%

13. Sheet piling, Wakefield type 100.00 74.00

12. Sheet piling 80 . 00 57 . 00

16. Pole drains .75 .52

16. French stone drains 2.00 1 . 52

17. Paving in culverts 7 . 00 4.01

18. Crib fining 4 . 00 2 . 24

19. Riprap, hand laid 5.50 2.98

20- Riprap, random 4.00 1.90

22. Round logs in cribs .40 .26%

23. Cedar mudsills per M 50 . 00 40 . 50

24. Framed trestlo.« per M 90.00 52.00

25. Caps, etc., per M 90.00 51.40

26. Ties and guard rails per M 90.00 50.77

District A, Rock Borrow from side of Cutting. Page 26.

District B, Residency 37, Mileage 29.4. Assembled Rock. Page 68.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 49

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

27. Stringers per M 90.00 62.00

28. Cedar in culverts 50.00 43.50

29. Plank in crossings 45.00 32.50

30. Timber in culverts 50.00 43.50

30a. Timber in cofferdams 60.00 44 . 00

30b. Timber in caissons 100 . 00 66 . 43

58. Concrete in 1-2 30.00 16.40

59. " 1-2-4 18.00 14.00

60. " 1-3-5 17.50 13.00

61- " 1-3-6 16.00 12.00

61a. " 1-2-5 18.00 14.60

62. " 1-3-5 in arch culverts 17.50 13.00

63. " 1-3-6 in arch culverts ...- 16.00 12.42

64. " 1-3-6 in box culverts 16.00 11.50

65. " 1-4-8 14.00 10.75

66. " 1-4-8 in walls of buildings 16.00 11.68

67. Masonry, first class 25.00 17.00

68. Masonry, second class 18.00 13.50

69. Masonry, third class 16.00 10.30

70. Masonry, dry 10.00 7.00

71. Masonry, in arch rings 30.00 23.40

76. Ties, first class .70 .51

77. Ties, second class .65 .46

78. Switch ties, per M 70.00 45.00

Because the contractors had done nothing towards the performance of their
contract, on Angust 2, 1909. Mr. Hays, President of the Grand Trunk Pacific,
wrote to the Prime Minister urging the cancellation of the contracts, and because
it gives succinctly good reasons why it should have been acted on, we reproduce
it here:

" My dear Sir Wilfrid :

"On the 29th day of October, 1908, the National Transcontinental
Eailway Commissioners awarded two contracts for the construction of about
20-1 miles on Sections " D " and " E '' of the National Transcontinental
Eailway. The first section starting on the west end of Fauquier Brothers'
Abitibi contract, in the Province of Ontario, about 100 miles west of
Cochrane, for a distance of 101:.24 miles; the second contract commencing
at the termination of the first and joining Fauquier Brothers' contract north
of Lake Nipigon, a distance of 100 miles. By the terms of these contracts
the work was to commence immediately after the execution of the agreements
to be proceeded with continuously and diligently under the personal super-
vision of the contractor until completed, the date of completion being 31st
December, 1910.

" This work is remote from rail transportation, the closest point being
100 miles west of Cochrane. The prices at which the work was awarded
were very high and consequently sufficient to allow contractors to build tote
roads or some other means of transportation and getting in supplies so
as to immediately commence work. To the best of our knowledge no attempt
has been made as yet to open this work,, and the indications are that while
the work, as before stated, was let at very high prices on account of the
difficulties of transportation, it is now the intention of the contractors to
haul their material over a portion of the Fauquier Brothers' work track, on
which will be completed the present season, say about 50 miles, and haul
along right of way to their own section 50 miles distant. This delay will
add largely to the profits of the contracts with no commensurate advantage
so far as the National Transcontinental Railway is concerned, and under the
circumstances I will ask that the Government arrange for the cancellation
of existing contracts and ask for new bids which can undoubtedly be obtained
123—4

50 NATIONAL TRAZ^^SCOXTINEXTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

on very much reduced schedule prices, — particularly so if it is known that
the contractors will be enabled to haul their material and supplies over such
portion of Fauquier Brothers' work as track has been laid upon.

" Yours very truly,

" CHAS. M. HAYS."

Mr. Hays also sent a copy of this letter at a later date to ilr. Parent,
asking for the cancellation of the contracts, and that new tenders be called for
this work. Mr, Parent refused to take any action, and we do not find that any
pressure was brought to bear on the contractors to take steps to ensure the early
completion of these two contracts.

The basis of the argument of the Grand Trunk Pacific Eailway, for the
cancellation of these contracts, is thus expressed, in a letter from Mr. Hays to
Mr. Parent, dated October 9, 1909 :

" The point I make is that these tenders, those made by the Grand Trunk
Pacific itself as well as those made by other contractors, were all based on
the work having to be taken up at once and completed within a certain time,
thereby making necessary the taking in of supplies overland at a great
expense. Several months have been allowed to pass without anything having
been done by the contractors. In the meantime, the work immediately
adjoining the sections under discussion has been completed to an extent
that will permit the bringing in of supplies at a very much lower price,
meaning thereby, a much greater profit to the contractor in the sections
named than if he had commenced work as was assumed he would be required
to do when the contracts were let.

"What we are asking now is that since we are to pay the interest on
the cost of this work, and the contractors having not been pushed, that new
tenders should be asked and if this is done the work could be let for much
more reasonable rates than was the case in the first place, at a saving to the
Government and eventually to the Grand Trunk Pacific, which is to pay
rental based on the cost."

The position taken by Mr. Hays is absolutely unanswerable. The Goin-
missioner had the right under Section 21 of the contract to take it out of the
hands of the contractors. Knowing that Mr. Parent is a lawyer of eminence, we
are surprised that he should have written such a reply to Mr, Hays as the
following :

14th October, 1909.

" Dear Mr. Hays :

" The essential point in your letter of August 2nd to the Honorable
the Premier, regarding certain contracts in districts ' D ' and ' E ' wn-^ a
request that they should be cancelled. In my answer, I therefore endeavored
to show that, the award having been quite regular in every respect — which
you admit — such a step as was suggested would be illegal on the face of it.

" I noticed your contention that the prices were too high, but did not
think necessary, for tlie reason just given, to dwell at very great length
on that side of the question. Even granting the propriety of the ground
taken, there is little doubt that it would not be sufficient before law to
render void actions which were regularly performed.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 51

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

'■' For the purpose of discussion, however, I am willing to go into
particulars.

'' Among other proofs that your company had urged with us that the
work referred to should be let at an early date, I shall quote from a letter
written by Mr. Morse to the Honorable the Minister of Railways, on May
12th, 1908, which says:

" In order to give the Grand Trunk Pacific an outlet to the east through
N'orthern Ontario, the contracts for the inlet portions of the line between
Lake Superior Junction and the T. & IST. 0. Eailway to be let without further
delay, it being understood that the surveys are sufficient advanced to permit
this being done.

'"' We complied with these wishes and contracts were signed on the 26th
December of the same year. At such a late date in the season the con-
tractors were unable to get their supplies, materials and plant in soon enough
to begin operations during the next season.

" Our forms of contract provide, it is true, that work be started at once
and pursued diligently until completion, which, in the present case, is to
take place on or before December 31st, 1910. Allowance must be made,
as you know, for adverse conditions. I need only to point out the fact that
we have done so for more than one of your sub-contractors, viz : the J. H.
Eeynolds Construction Company, who were so much behind in their work
and gave us endless trouble. They were unable to carry out the undertaking,
and we had at one time to advance money to pay their men. Yet your com-
pany would not withdraw its contracts, although they were practically in
default. There is surely much less cause and possibility to do so in the
present instance, where the facts are altogether different.

" Now we come to your statement, that tenders were all based on the
work having to be taken up at once and completed within a certain time.
As supplies had to be taken overland at great expense, the prices would
naturally be high. Perhaps the work done on the adjoining section may,
but the difference would not be as large as you claim. There will be still
a considerable distance to cover by 'tote' roads, while haulage by rail
through to the point of delivery is no small item, and this remains the same.
Labour conditions, which you represented as favorable at the time, must
have been taken in account by the tenderers. It is not likely that working-
men can be had to-day as cheaply as could be expected a year ago, during the
financial stringency.

" There is no certainty, therefore, that better prices than before could
be obtained now if new tenders were to be called for. Any a^vanta^e that
might be gained on one hand would be more than counterbalanced by the
loss of time on the other, not to mention the liability incurred. It would
take a year or more before another contractor would get down to work.

"We are told that preparations have been made to proceed actively
with the work, and it cai^ be expected that these two sections will be ready
in good time.

" In any event, there would be no way of complying with your sug-
gestion, as stated before, unless the contractors would give their consent
to the work being let anew, which, it seems, would be a most unusual course
in business.

" Yours verv trulv,

" S. *N. PAEEXT,

" Chnirtnnn."

52 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

This letter does not contain one reason, which justified the Commission in
its refusal. The contractors were clearly at that time a whole year in default
and could have no legal or moral claim to any consideration from the Commission.

The total amount of money in Contracts Nos. 16 and 17 paid for work done
to the end of October, 1913, amounts to more than $7,400,000, and, as already
pointed out, the agreement by which Messrs. M. P. & J. T. Davis transferred
these contracts to Messrs. O'Brien, O'Gorman & McDougall, provided for them
a profit of 10 per cent of this sum, so that Messrs. M. P. & J. T. Davis have
received a bonus from the country of over $740,000 for which they gave no return.

This Commission finds that no action was taken to enforce the early com-
mencement work on these two contracts, nor, when the assignment of these contracts
was brought to the Commissioners for their approval eleven months after the
contracts had been awarded, were any steps taken to annul the gift of $740,000 to,
Messrs. M. P. & J. T. Davis.

To sum up, if the work had been immediately proceeded with, the high
prices paid for the work under these contracts, would have been justifiable to
some extent on account of the isolation of the section. The contractors, however,
were permitted to hold the contract until it was salable at an enormous profit,
when the site became easily accessible by the construction of the road to its east
and west limits.

The Commissioner's refusal to cancel the contracts and relet the work, under
the circumstances related, was absolutely inexcusable.

Contract No. 18.

From about 19 1-2 miles west of Crossing of Mud Eiver, easterly 75 miles,
being from Mile 1332.85 to 1407.85.

Chief Engineer's estimate of cost, $2,326,333.33.
Tenders advertised for February 1, 1908.
Tenders received March 10, 1908.

SUMMARY OF TENDERS.

Difference be-
tween tenders.

Tender No. 3, E. F. & G- E. Fauquier $2,101,499.88

No. 2, Chambers Bros. & McQuigge 2,192,509.15 $ 91.009.27

No. 1, J. D. McArthur 2,325,777.50 133.268.35

No. 4, Grand Trunk Pacific Co 2,565.186.10 239.408.60

Difference between highest and lowest tenders $463,686.22

Contract awarded to E. F. & G. E. Fauquier on March 28, 1908.

Date for completion, September 1. 1910.

Work commenced. July. 1908.

Security accompanying tender, $100,000 cash.

Additional security called for, nil-

Security returned to contractor, June 10, 1910.

$75,000 of 10 per cent drawback paid contractor, January. 1911.

$75,000 of 10 per cent drawback paid contractor, July, 1911.

Gross amount of progress estimate to December 31, 1911, $1,915,855.09.

Amount of drawback retained on December 31, 1911, $41,585.51.

Percentage of contract complete to December 31, 1911, 66.03 per cent.

This contract covers 75 miles of railway construction on District "E," lying
immediately north of Lake Nipigon, In accordance with the usual custom,
the engineers compiled an estimate of the approximate quantities of grading
and work to be done on this 75 miles of construction. This estimate was made
so as to be able to arrive at the comparative values of the tenders when received,
the various items being moneyed out at the tenderers' prices as previously

IXTESTIGATING COMMISSION 53

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

explained. In the approximate estimate prepared by the engineers there is
shovm under Item 74 (e) an estimated quantity of 655,400 cubic yards of moss
to be removed. This yardaire of moss is half as much as the entire quantities
allowed for excavation in the approximate estimate, which are as follows:

Item 4. Solid rock 225,845 cubic yards

" 5. Loose rock and other materials 25,900 " "

6. Common excavation 1,046,000 " "

1,297,745

This yardage of moss in the approximate estimate was entirely out of pro-
portion to the actual amount encountered on the work, as to date there has
only been returned about 14.000 cubic yards. The 655,400 cubic yards of nioss
would provide a carpet of this material 20 feet wide and more than two feet
thick over the entire 75 miles. This approximate estimate was prepared in the
District Engineer's office at J^ipigon under the supervision of District Engineer
Armstrong, and in a letter to Mr. Gordon Grant, under date of October 14, 1913,
District Engineer Armstrong explains the inclusion of the large quantity of raoss,
as follows :

" With regard to moss, this is the one item in the schedule ^"hat was not
•' seriously consult^red. It was never mentioned in returns of quantifies by the
^'locating engineers and personally I knew nothing of what quantity there might
'*be, but in my travels to the locating parties I knew that in some cases in the
•' woods it was a couple of feet thick, and as this item was in the schedule. Form
' 89, I took the profile and on level swampy ground simply added enough moss
*' to cover, in case it might have to be removed. "

Four contractors tendered on this work and the following statement shows
a comparison of the prices for the main items in the engineers' estimate of the
work to be done under this contract :

Tenderers' price per cubic yard.
Tenderer. Solid rock. Loose rock- Common excavation. Moss.

E. F. & G. E. Fauquier $1.80 .60 .38 .12

Chambers Bros. & McQuigge 1.75 .65 .31 .35

J. D. McArthur 1.80 .65 .38 .35

G. T. P. Railway Co 1.85 .70 .45 .32

It will be noted from these figures that Messrs. Fauquier Brothers' price
for the removal of moss was very much lower than that of the other three
tenderers. The tenders were moneyed out in accordance with the estimate pre-
pared and Messrs. Fauquier Brothers' tender was found to be about $91,000 less
than the next lowest bid, which was that of Messrs. Chambers Brothers &
McQuigge, and the contract was awarded accordingly.

If the price tendered by Messrs. Chambers & McQuigge for the removal of
moss had been 12 cents instead of 35 cents, their tender would have been lower
than Messrs. Fauquier Brothers by $58,000. The Commission have had the
total quantities returned on this contract up to October 31, 1912, moneyed out
at Messrs. Fauquier Brothers' prices and also at the prices contained in the
tender put in by Messrs. Chambers Brothers & McQuigge, and they find that if
the contract had been awarded to this latter firm there would have been a saving
effected of about $33,000. This is on account of the fact that the prices con-
tained in Messrs. Chambers Brothers' tender are generally lower than those
contained in Messrs. Fauquier Brothers' tender. The large yardage of moss
contained in the engineers' estimate was the governing factor in the valuation
of the tenders received for the 75 miles of railway construction.

54 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Mr. E. F. Fauquier, in his evidence on page 491 states that he knew that a
large amount of moss was being estimated upon this work, that he obtained
information from some of the junior engineers, and that he expected that his
tender would have a very favorable showing on account of the price he estimated
for the removal of moss per cubic yard.

Mr. E. F. Fauquier in giving evidence stated that he appreciated that the
Engineering Department was under the impression that there was a very large
quantity of moss to be removed on this contract and he expected that their
estimates would show a large quantity of moss, while his information was that
there was in reality a very small quantity, and he expected that if his rivals put
in a high price for the removal of moss as he was putting in a lower price, he
would probably get the contract, and in this he was right.

His tender was $150,000 less for moss than that of Chambers Brothers &
McQuigge. Had the moss been estimated even approximately correctly, Fauquier
Brothers would not have been awarded the contract. The result is that they
liave the contract although they were not the lowest tenderer for the work really
lo be done.

This contract. Number 18, was completed and dated March 28, 1908. On
April 6, 1908, one week after the signing of the contract, Fauquier Brothers
sublet it to Messrs. Chambers Brothers, McCaffery & McQuigge, who were doing
business under the name of the Nipigon Construction Company. Under the
Terms of this assignment Messrs. Fauquier Brothers Avere to receive four per cent
of the total amount of the final estimate returned under this contract and were
indemnified by the assignee against the security which they had furnished the
Government. The result is, that the people who were really the lowest tenderers
had to pay a premium to Fauquier Brothers to obtain the contract, which, had
The moss estimate been correct, they would have been awarded by the Commission
and the Commission on account of this error bad to pay a larger price for the
work actually done.

As to whether or not these tenderers were given advance inforniation (see
article on Awarding Contracts, p. 22), Mr. E. F. Fauquier was examined and the
following is taken from his evidence:

Q. Do you know that if the engineers had not made an absurd mistake,
as to the quantity of moss in that country, that your tender would not have
been the lowest? — A. I have been told so.

Q. Moss is easily removed? — A. Yes.

Q. Yet the engineers estimated that there were 655,000 cubic yards
of moss in there; was there any such quantity? — A. I do not know that we
were allowed anything for more.

Q. You were allowed 13,000 yards? — A. Yes.

Q. And that was about all the moss that was on the right of way? —
A. I think so.

Q. Your price on that contract was 12 cents for moss? Do you
remember that? — A. I think it was about twelve cents. On looking at
the tender I find it was 12 cents.

Q. And Chambers tendered at 35 cents for moss? — A. Yes, it was
an absurd price. Chambers told me he tendered at somewhere about that,
and that is all I know about it.

Q. Your tender was $1.80 for solid rock there? — A. Yes.

Q. And for loose rock, 00 cents? — A. Yes.

Q. And for common excavation, 38 cents? — A. Yes.

Q. And Chambers tendered for $1.75 solid rock, fi5 cents for loose
rock, and 31 cents for common excavation? — A. I do not know as to that.

lyVESTIGATIXG COMMISSION 55

SESSIONAL PAPER No, 123

Q. And if it had not been for the moss, he wonld have got the con-
tract ? — A. Possibly.

Q. Do 3'ou mean to say it is impossible for you to tell us? — A. It is
impossible for me to trace back how I got it. I got it from some of the
junior engineers, I was enquiring about the whole contract from one and
another, ^nd I got the information.

Q. I want you to make your position as clear as you can. — A. I had
the advantage of that knowledge; I do not mind acknowledging it; I do not
want to husband it up in any way.

Q. And the fact that you tendered 12 cents on moss. . . . — A. I
would have tendered that anyway.

Q. At all events, it gave 3'ou the contract? — A. Yes, but I should
have tendered about twelve cents on moss, whether I knew it or not. You
know yourself that it is easy to remove moss.

Q. But you did have knowledge that there was going to be a large
amount of moss fisrured on that contract, and vou rather expected it? — A.
Yes.

Q. And you knew when your bid was going in that your moss bid
was going to get you the contract? — A. I expected it would be very
favorable.

COXTRACT No. 19,

From the westerly end of Fauquier's contract, westerly 126.19 miles, being
from throush mileage 1407.85 to 1534.04.

Chief Engineer's estimate of cost. $7,861,791,28,
Tenders advertised for July 1, 1908.
Tenders received August 2*0, 1908.

SUMMARY OF TEN'DERS.

Difference be-
tween tenders.

Tender No. 2, O'Brien & Fowler $5,967,208 . 75

No. 3, Nipigon Construction Co 6,403.536.50 $436,327.75

No. 1, J. W. Stewart 6,450,334.50 46,798.00

No. 4, Craig & Thomson 6,553,761.25 103,426.75

Difference between highest and lowest tenders $586,552.50

Contract awarded to O^Brien, Fowler & McDougall, September 19, 1908.

Date for completion, September 1, 1910.

Work commenced, November, 1908-

Security accompanying tender, $200,000 cash.

Additional security called for, nil.

Security returned to contractor, June 1, 1910.

$260,000 of 10 per cent drawback paid contractor, January, 1911.

$80,000 of 10 per cent drawback paid contractor, July, 1911.

Gross amount of progress estimate to December 31, 1911, $4,812,513.27.

Amount of drawback retained on December 31, 1911, $141,251.32.

Percentage of contract complete to December 31, 1911, 79.25 per cent.

CONTR.A.CT XO, 20,

(and No. 20-A.)

From near Dog Lake westerly about 24.13 miles, being from Mile 1534.04
to 1557.80.

56 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Chief Engineer's estimate of cost, $l,513,2-i7.00.
Tenders advertised for July 18, 1908.
Tenders received August 20, 1908,

SUMMAEY or TENDERS.

Difference be-
tween tenders.

Tender No. 2, O'Brien & McDougall $1,158,258 . 25

No. 1, J. W. Stewart 1,284,979.50 $126,721.25

Contract awarded to O'Brien & McDougall, September 19, 1908.

Date for completion, September 1, 1909.

Work commenced, October, 1908.

Security accompanying tender, $100,000.

Additional security called for, nil.

Security returned to contractor, June 1, 1910-

$120,000 drawback paid contractor, July, 1911.

Gross amount of progress estimate to December 31, 1911, $2,000,437.56.

Amount of drawback retained on December 31, 1911, $47,257.20.

Percentage of contract complete to December 31, 1911, 96.69 per cent.

The eastern eleven and one-half (11 1-3) miles of Contract No. 20 is
known as Contract No. 20-A, though the work on this portion is included in
Contract No. 20, and the work was performed by Messrs. O'Brien & McDougall,
and the payment for the work is made to them. It is designated as Contract No.
20-A for the reason that it originally constituted a portion of the branch line
constructed by the Grand Trunk Pacific Eailway Company from Fort \Yilliam
to join the main line of the National Transcontinental Railway.

These eleven and a half miles of railway were partially completed when the
Commission were about to let contracts for Contract No. 30. It was then found
that if the line surveyed and located by the Government were adopted and
constructed, they would be paralleling the Grand Trunk Pacific branch line for a
distance of about 11 1-2 miles. The line adopted by the Government was known
as the northerly route, and the line partially constructed by the Grand Trunk
Pacific Railway was known as the southerly route, and the Commissioners, in
considering this matter, had the following situation before them:

They were bound to pay for the construction of these 11 1-2 miles of
railway. If they adopted the northerly route and built the railway on that line,
when completed the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company would have to
operate two lines of railway, paralleling each other, over a distance of 11 1-2
mik'S. If the southerly route were chosen, only one line of railway need be
constructed and operated.

The Commissioners decided upon the adoption of the southerly route, and
took over from the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company the 11 1-2 miles of
their partially constructed branch line and converted it into the main line of
the National Transcontinental Railway. It was to the advantage of the Grand
Trunk Pacific Railway that the southerly route was decided upon, for they were
thereby saved the construction of 11 1-2 miles of branch line at about $50,000
per mile, or, in round figures, the sum of $575,000.

Mr. Frank W. Morse realized this advantage and wrote many letters to the
Commission, urging the adoption of the southerly line, and in one dated July
2, 1911, he says:

" T>ongthening the main line one mile oast of the Ivake Superior connec-
tion only afTects a small number of trains and hence a small percentage in
operating and maintenance expenses, as compared with shortening the
Lake Superior branch 11^ miles with its greater number of trains."

IXrESTIGATIXG COinilSSIOX 57

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

The objection to the adoption of the southerly line as the main line of the
I^ational Transcontinental Railway, was that it would iiicrease the len^h of
their main line approximately a third of a mile, and their cost of construction
approximately $197,000. Mr. Lumsden's report on this matter is as follows:

" Ottawa, September 11th, 1908.

" The Commissioners of the
Transcontinental Railway,
Ottawa, Ont.

" Sirs :—

" In reference to mine of the 25th August handing in details of com-
parison of tenders^ I beg to supplement the same by adding to the report in
regard to Section Xo. 6, that in my opinion the southerly route, though
approximately one-third of a mile longer, and costing — taking into con-
sideration divisional yard — approximately $197,000 more than the northerly
route, should be adopted for the following reasons, viz :

"1. It will avoid the duplication of the construction of about 11-|
miles of road.

" 2. It will afford better accommodation for divisional yards.

"3. It will save the operation of ll^ miles for all time, which advan-
tage will accrue to the Government in the event of the taking over of the
branch line at any time in the future.

"4. The interest on the additional cost will, under the terms of the
lease of the Eastern Division, be borne by the G. T. P.

" Your obedient servant.

"HUGH D. LUMSDEX,

"Chief Engineer."

The points about this case are as follows :

The main line of the Transcontinental Railway was increased in length
and in cost by $197,000 (estimated). The branch line of the Grand Trunk Pacific
was reduced in length by 11 1-2 miles (estimated cost $575,000).

We find that the extra expenditure made on this account by the Government
should have been properly charged to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railwav Company
and an agreement should have been entered into between the two parties, providing
for the restitution of this amount of capital to the Government.

Contract Xo. 21.

From or near "Winnipeg to Peninsula Crossing, about 245 miles, being from
mile 1557.80 to 1804.47. 246.67 miles, Dist. " F."'

Chief Engineer's estimate of cost, $13,756,023.54.
Tenders advertised for, February 8, 1906.
Tenders receiyed, March 12, 1906.

58 XATIOXAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

SUMMARY OF TENDERS. ,

Difference be-
tween tenders.

Tender No. 4, J. D. McArthur $13,010,399 . 00

No. 2, Pacific Construction Co. (Fauquier) 13,028,753.00 $18,354.00

No. 3, G. T. P. Railway Co 13,991,860.00 963,107.00

No. 1, Tiie McArtliur Construction Company ... 17,048,813.00 3,056,953.00

Difference between the highest and lowest tenders $4,038,414.00

Contract awarded to J. D. McArthur, May 15, 1906-

Date for completion, September 1, 1907.

Security accompanying tender, $400,000.

Additional security required, $910,000.

$400,000 of drawback paid April 6, 1908.

$500,000 of drawback paid December 5, 1908.

$150,000 of drawback paid February 22, 1911.

Gross amount of progress estimate to December 31, 1911, $18,268,710.54.

Amount of drawback retained on December 31, 1911, $154,446.92.

Percentage of contract completed to December 31, 1911, 94.60 per cent.

The Commissioners could not agree upon the awarding of this contract, and
the Chairman, in his minority report to the Minister of Railways and Canals,
Avrote as follows:

" As for District ' F,' as already stated, the two lowest tenders for this sec-
tion are also several hundred thousand dollars below our engineer's estimate,
but our engineers are of the opinion in that case that the dilTorenoe between
the lowest tenders and their estimates is not sufficient to prevent the proper
completion of the work. For the same reasons as have already been given in
regards to District ' B,' especially in order to prevent any possible delay in the
performance of the contract, I sincerely believe that the only tenderer personally
interested and in a position to complete this work within the stipulated time,
viz.: the 1st of September, 1907, is the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company,
inasmuch as they already have important work in progress on their Lake
Superior branch, and Vrould have exceptional facilities for the transport of
material, supplies, etc. This section being ready for operation at an early date,
the Government would thus be sooner enabled to draw a revenue therefrom, and
it will, moreover, facilitate the construction of the Western Division."

Commissioners Mclsaac, Reid and Young did not concur with opinions held
by Mr. Parent, and recommended the acceptance of the lowest tender, namely
that of J. D. McArthur, with the stipulation "that the security required under
Section 17, Chapter 71, 1003, be fixed at ten per cent of the amount of the
tender, or $1,301,039, besides the ten per cent retained under Section 34 of
the contract."

The acceptance of McArthur's tender was approved of bv order in Council
on April Uth, 1906.

The security for the completion of his contract, asked of ^McArthur. was the
amount rocomnu'nded — $1.301,000.00 — and the Commissioners returned to him
the cheque which accompanied his tender, and accepted in lieu thereof deposit
plips amounting to the above named sum which were to be cashed only in the
event of the contract going by default.

There were conditions in connection with the moneying out of their tenders
for this contract which were a divergence from the usual practice.

The form of tender contained one hundred and one items for which the
contractor had to submit prices.

Mr. McArthur. in submittincr his tender, filled in prices for only fifty-eight
items, leaving forty-three spaces blank.

In the estimate prepared by the Chief Engineer of the co.st of thi« grading
contract, items coveriufir sixtv-four features of construction were involved, and

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

59

when it became necessary to money out the tenders received in order to arrive
at their comparative values, it was found that there were fourteen items con-
tained in this estimate for which McArthur had submitted no prices.

The original sheets for Tender No. 4 (J, D. McArthur's), which contain
the tenderers' prices, and which are designated by the number of the tender
only, and are those which were handed the Chief Engineer by the Commissioners
for the purpose of moneying out the tenders, have filled in, in red ink on them,
prices for forty of the items enumerated, and these sheets bear the following
notation (see Exhibit Xo. 29) :

" Note. — Red figures show prices made up by Chief Engineer, and for the items so
marked no prices were quoted in Tender No. 4.".

The following is a list of the forty items for which the rates have been
filled in in red ink :

Item.
15.
21.
28-
32.
33.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
54.
55.
56.
57.
60.
62.
64.
66.
81.
82.
83.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
93.
94.
95.

Pole drains

Piling out reserved stone from rock cuttings.

Cedar timber in culverts

Vitrified pipe culverts, 14"

15"

Reinforced concrete pipe, 12"

14"
16"
18"
20"
24"
30"
36"
42"
48"
54"
60"

4-inch tile drains

Cast iron pipe culverts, 16"
18"
20"
42"

48"
54"

60"

in arch culverts....
in box culverts. . . .
walls of buildings.

Concrete, 1-3-5
Concrete, 1-3-5
Concrete, 1-3-6
Concrete, 1-4-8,

Semaphores at stations

Interlocking appliances ....

Each additional lever

Tunnels rock section unlined

Tunnels lined

Tunnels concrete lining . . . .

Masonry lining

Drainage tunnels

Turntables

Track scales

Tunnel shaft

Rate.

.25

1.00

40.00

1.25

1.35

1.20

1.30

1.40

1.50

1.60

1.70

2.00

2.50

3.50

4.50

5.50

6.50

.05

2.30

3.00

3.50

6.80

7.50

8.00

10.00

.12.00

13.00

11.00

10.00

550.00

000.00

200.00

75.00

85.00

15.00

15.00

25.00

,000.00

,000.00

5.00

Mr. Lumsden states that, to the best of his recollection, he filled these
figures in himself, personally, that he called attention to the fact that one of
these tenders had not any prices in for a number of items which thev were
bound to use a lot of, and that he was instructed to fill them in, and that as

60 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

these instructions emanated from the men who were letting the contract he did
not feel nervous about fixing up a tender (which subsequently developed into
the winning tender) in this way. He did not recollect discussing the matter
with Mr. McArthur.

Mr. McArthur explains that when putting in his tender he figures that
the items left blank would not amount to very much, and that when the con-
tract was being awarded it was left to the Chief Engineer, and, though he does
not recollect the conversation with Mr. Lumsden, he and Mr. Lumsden discussed
the question together, but he cannot say whether at the time of this discussion
Mr. Lumsden had already inserted his figures in the blank spaces in the McArthur
tender or not.

The following list shows the engineers' prices which were used in the final
moneying out of the McArthur tender, and also the engineers' estimated quan-
tities of each item:

Item.

15. Pole drains, 4.900 lin. ft. at 25c $1,225.00

21. Piling out reserved stone, 850 cu. yds. at $1.00 850.00

38. Reinforced concrete pipe, 18", 872 lin. ft. at $1.50 1.308.00

40. Reinforced concrete pipe, 24", 396 lin. ft. at $1.70 670.20

60. Concrete, 1-3-5 1,000 cu. yds. at $12.00 12,000.00

62. Concrete, 1-3-5 in arch culverts, 2,651 cu. yds. at $13.00. 34,463.00

64. Concrete, 1-3-6, in box culverts, 212 cu. yds. at $11.00.. 2.332.00
66. Concrete, 1-4-8, walls of buildings, 2,000 cu. yds at $10.. 20.000.00

81. Semaphores and stations, 34 at $550 18.700.00

82. Interlocking appliance.s. 1 at $6,000 6,000 . 00

83. Each additional lever. 5 at $200 1.000.00

90- Drainage tunnels. 250 lin. ft. at $25 6,250.00

»3. Turntables, 3 at $3,000 9.000.00

94. Track scales. 2 at $1,000 2.000 . 00

In order to draw attention to the peculiar condition brought about by the
insertion of those prices, we append here a list of the rates submitted for the
other concrete items in the original tender, these were:

Item.

58. Concrete facing mixture $1 5 . 00

59. Concrete coping course 15.00

61. Concrete, 1-3-6 15.00

63. Concrete in arch culverts, 1-3-6 15.00

65. Concrete In ordinary foundations, 1-4-8 13.00

from which it will be noted that the richer concrete, namely the 1-3-5 mixture,
which requires a greater quantity of cement (the governing feature of cost) is
$2.00, $3.00 and less per cubic yard than the 1-3-6 mixture.

Mr. McArthur had told this Commission that he intended that the prices
which he .submitted for the several concrete items should govern those it^ms
which he bad left blank, and that he intended his tender to be for:

Item.
60. $15.00 per cubic yard. Instead of $12.00

" 11.00
.. jQ 00

and, as will be noted from the foregoing figures, this would have m.nde a differ-
ence in tlie total value of the tender of for

62.

15.00

64.

15.00

66.

13.00

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION $1

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Item.

60. 1,000 cu. yds. at $3.00 $3,000.00

62. 2,651 cu. yds. at $2.00 5,302.00

64. 212 cu- yds. at $4.00 848.00

66. 2,000 cu. yds. at $3.00 6,000.00

$15,150.00

and increased McArthur's tender to $13,010,339.00 phis $15,150 — $13,025,549.00.

The insertion of these forty items by the Chief Engineer, while affecting
the value of the tender to the amount stated, did not change the order in which
the tenders ranked. If McArthurs tender had been monied out at the prices
which he intended to submit, his would still have been the lowest by $3,204.00.

These unbalanced prices, however, caused some considerable discussion in
the carrying out of the work.

During Mr. Lumsden's regime as Chief Engineer it was evidently considered
good business to pay Contractor McArthur for the 1-3-6 concrete mixture at
fifteen dollars per cubic yard when he had a price in his schedule for 1-3-5 con-
crete (the better mixture) at twelve dollars per cubic yard.

We feel that Mr. Lumsden could not have taken any xeTy firm stand in
this matter on account of the fact that it was he (though acting under instruc-
tions) placed these prices in the tender and so finally caused their adoption.

A further perusal of the sheet containing the tenders as monied out shows
a much more serious error in regards to the items for piling, and one which had
the direct result of changing not only the values of the tenders but their order
of ranking.

In tender Xo. 2, the rates submitted for Items 10, Piling Delivered, and 11,
Piling Driven, are 20c. and 35c.

In tender ISTo. 4 (McArthur's) these figures are 25c and 15c respectively —
with the notation opposite the latter price "driving only.'^

Without taking into consideration that in Tender Ko. 2 the cost of the piles
themselves were included in the 35c. rate, these items were extended as follows :

Item. Tender No. 2. Tender No. 4.

10. Piling delivered, 282,555 lin. ft. at 20c $56,511.00 at 25c, $70,638.70

11. Piling driven, 258.860 lin. ft. at 35c 90,601.00 at 15c, 38,829.00

$147,112.00 $109,467.70

Total cost of piling—Tender 2 $147,112 . 00

Tender 4 109,467.75

$37,644.25

thereby giving McArthur an advantage over his competitors by reducing the
total value of his tender by $64,715.00, which is the value of the piles themselves
at his rate of 25c., and which sum should have been included under Item No. 11
in order to make a true comparison as to the values of the tender.

Mr. Lumsden contends that all the tenderers intended their price for "piling
driven" to be the cost of driving only.

These figures for the four tenders are:

Tender No. 1 65c

No. 2 35c

No. 3 24c

" No- 4 15c (driving only)

and they certainly do not represent that condition.

62 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAT

4 GECRGF v., 1914

While Mr. MacPherson states that the tenders as moneyed out convey a doubt-
ful meaning as to their value, Mr. Monsarrat is definite that to obtain a true
comparison, the value of the piles themselves should have been added to Tender
No. 4.

As will be noted from the fore,?oing figures it was a combination of peculiar
circumstances which resulted in this $13,000,000.00 contract being awarded to
Mr. McArthur.

Tender No. 2 amounted to $13,028,753 . 25

No. 4 (McArthur's) amounted to 13,010,398.92

$18,354.43

leaving a balance in McArthur's favor of $18,354,43 and from this balance
should be deducted for the prices for concrete which Mr. Lumsden filled in, and
which Mr. McArthur intended should be $2.00, $3.00 and $4.00 per cubic yard
higher, the sum of $15,154.00, and for the cost of the piling which was omitted
from his tender when moneying out, the sum of $64,715.00 which leaves Tender
No. 2 the lowest by $61,514.57, and to which tenderer the contract should have
been awarded.

The rates for excavation submitted in Tender No. 2 are all lower than those
at which McArthur was paid, and a computation based on the final quantities
returned on Contract No. 21 shows that if the work had been awarded to the
lowest tenderer at his rates, the amount paid out would have been over $200,000.00
less than what it has actually cost.

In his evidence before this Commission the following questions were put
and answers given by J. D. McArthur: —

Q. Do I understand you to say that you did not see or get any infor-
mation which gave you any knowledge of what the preliminary estimate of
the engineers was as to the cost of the work? — A. No. I did not get it in
figures more than it was approximately spoken of,

Q. By whom ? — A. Well, by Major Hodgins.

Q. Do you know whetlier he had a copy of the preliminary estimates
made in the office by the engineers? — A. No. I do not.

Q. He did not show you any? — A. No.

Q. Did any of the Commissioners show you any? — \. No, not by
really showing it to me. They may have talked over it, but I do not recollect
them showing me the figures.

Q. Did any of the Commissioners tell you approximately wliat the
estimates of the cnginctM-? were? — A. I think proliably they did, just tlie
same as Major Ilodgins did, and he was down here at the time.

Q. Who probablv told vou ? — A. I guess probably Young told me and
Reid.

Q. So that you had a more or less accurate idea of what the Com-
mission expected this work would cost? — A. These figures were mentioned.

By reference to the article on awarding the contracts it will be seen tliat
this was quite irregular and an advantage contractors generally were not given.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 63

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

CLASSIFICATION OF EXCAVATION.

The item in the general classification which caused most of the trouble
among the engineers themselves, between the engineers and the contractors
and between the engineers and the Commissioners, was the clause governing
classification.

It should be remembered that all contracts were let on the unit basis,
whereby a certain price per cubic yard was to be paid for each of the various
kinds of material to be removed.

It is the common practice in Canada and the United States to contract for
the removal of material, ranged under different heads, at unit prices, so that
aU experienced Canadian engineers, contractors, sub-contractors and stationmen
know just what they are undertaking when they enter on such work, under such
contracts. It has always been considered a contractor's privilege to endeavor
to obtain a higher classification for materials, upon any plausible pretext, and
the fact that the different classes are so intermingled, and because cuts of prac-
tically the same material differ slightly from each other, contractors are never
at a loss for reasons to support their arguments for better terms, and experienced
engineers know that they will be constantly bombarded with demands, more or
less sincere, to modify their classification in favor of the contractors.

The very nature of the case, then, required that railway construction
engineers should be men of integrity and experience, as their position makes
them, in fact, arbitrators between the contractors and the railways, and very
large discretionary powers are necessarily given to them.

The following is a copy of the Grading Specification used in all contracts
on this railway:

33. Grading will be commonly classified under the following heads:
"Solid Eock Excavation"; "Loose Eock" and "Common Excavation."

34. Solid EocJc Excavation. — Solid rock excavation will include all rock
foTind in ledges or masses of more than one cubic yard, which, in the judgment of
the engineer, may be best removed by blasting.

35. Loose Rock. — All large stones and boulders measuring more than
one cubic foot and less than one cubic yard, and all loose rock, whether in situ
or otherwise, that may be removed by liand, pick or bar, all cemented gravel,
indurated clay and other materials, that cannot, in the judgment of the
engineer, l)e ploughed with a 10-inch grading plough, behind a team of six
good horses, properly handled, and without the necessity of blasting, although
blasting may be occasionally resorted to, shall be classified as " loose rock."

36. Common Excavation. — Common excavation will include all earth, free
gravel or other material of any character whatever not classified a? solid or loose
rock.

As might be exipected when vast quantities of material had to be classified
and more than sixty millions of dollars was involved, very many disputes arose
over the interpretation of these specifications, adding another to the multitude
of examples that nothing which man can express in words is not open to forced
construction, differing from what he plainly intended. It appears to this
Commission that to the impartial reader there is no difficulty in understanding
the true meaning of these specifications.

Clause 34 clearly limits solid rock excavation to "rock," that is, no material
which is not rock can be classified under this head. Secondly, That rock must
be in boulders, ledges or fragments, each one of which measures more than one
cnbic yard.

64 NATIONAL TliANiSUONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

So far, the engineer has no discretion to exercise, but the remainder of
the clause : '" which, in the judgment of the engineer may best be removed by
blasting/"' makes it his duty, not to allow even the above-described rock a*
solid rock excavation, if he believes blasting is not reasonably required for its
economical removal. Thus, if he were asked to class as "solid rock excavation"
a quantity of disintegrated granite or soft slate, which could be removed by
shovel as earth or sand, he would not be justified, notwithstanding the fact that
it was "rock," in classiiying it under this heading.

Loose Rock: To simplify this rather involved paragraph, it may be para-
phrased as follows: Under this heading should be classified :

(a) All lose rock or stones which measure more than one cubic foot and
less than one cubic yard;

(b) All loose rock which may be removed by hand, pick or bar;

(c) All cemented gravel, indurated clay and other material which cannot,
in the judgment of the engineer be ploughed (as described) without first being
blasted. (The fact, however, that over a large body of material blasting may
be occasionally used to make some small portion of it ploughable, shall not
bring the whole mass wiihiu this class.)

3G. Coianton Excavation. — Common excavation will include all earth, free
gravel or other material of any character whatever, not classified as solid or loose
rock.

It it clear, therefore, that loose rock includes everytliing excepting solid rock
larger than one cubic yard, which requires to be blasted for its removal, and that
common excavation includes everything which is not described in clauses 34 or 35.

As will be seen, hereafter, vast quantities of material which was not rock,
has been classified and paid for by the Coimuission as solid rock excavation, and
as it was admitted in their evidence by some of the chief contractors who had
had many years experience contracting for railroads, that they were allowed as
solid rock, material which they had never known to be classified as such before
under any other contract.

Shortly after the work commenced, Mr. Woods, Assistant Chief Engineer
of the Grand Trunk Pacific, protested to the contractors, in a letter dated
October 7, 1907, against the classification being allowed to O'Brien & Macdonell
at La Tuque in the Province of Quebec. He said :

" In nearly every case where the cutting was not entirely of ledge, the
estimate given for solid rock is double or more than double what it should
be. In fact the specifications have been entirely ignored and an excessive
allowance made, not by reason of an error in judgment, but, as I understand
it, by special instructions from the Assistant District Engineer."

He then gives illustrations. (See Exhibit No. 15.)

Following this letter, the Commissioners, their Chief Engineer, Mr. Woods,
Mr. Armstrong and the contractors, Mr. M. J. O'Brien and Mr. M. P. Davis,
met at La Tuque to discuss the question on the ground.

The Chief Engineer, ^Ir. Woods, and Mr. Armstrong contended that under
the specification the material should be classified as loose rock (p. 390) wliile the
contractors, and, according to the evidence of Mr. Lumsden, tiie Chairman and
Mr. Mclsaac agreed that it should be solid rock, taking the position that because
in tlieir judgment the material required blasting for its economical removal, it was
solid rock under the specification. No agreement was arrived at, the con-
tractors obtained under their representations of the facts opinions from several
leading counsel, copies of which were sent to the Commission, which supported
their contention as to the classification. What the contention of the contractors
was was made clear by the evidence of Mr. M. J. O'Brien as taken before this
Commission.

District B. Division A, M.leage 189.5. Assembled Rock. Page 64.

District B, Residency 23, Mileage 81.1. Assembled Rock. Page 68.

IXTESTIGATING COMMISSION 65

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Mr. O'Brien, who is, perhaps, one of the most experienced and largest con-
tractors in America, admitted, however, that he had never been paid for such
material as solid rock by any other railway, (p. 537.)

He was asked:

Q. What is your contention? "What under these specifications were
you entitled to have classified as ' solid rock ' ? — A. Where the cutting is
either one thing or another, mixed up^ and can best be removed by blasting,
I don't care what it is, if that cut is a solid mass of indurated earth and we
cannot take it out any other way economically except by blasting, we must
resort to blasting, and we are properly entitled to that as solid rock
excavation.

The Chairman of the Commission gave copies of these legal opinions (p. 390)
obtained by the contractors, to the Chief Engineer, and suggested that he consult
Mr. Collingwood Schreiber. Mr. Lumsden says that the fact that the Com-
mission was against him, the engineers against liim, the opinions against him,
made him waiver in his judgment, and he consulted Mr. Schreiber, who made a
diagram which introduced into the classification a sub-head called "Assembled
Eockj" consisting of "Rock in masses of over one cubic yard (Assembled Eock)
which in the judgment of the engineer can best be removed by blasting" (p. 390.
See Exhibit No. 16).

There is nothing in this diagram said of cementing material, but Mr.
Schreiber, who made it, and Mr. Lumsden say what they meant to say was that
these masses of rock should be cemented together to qualify as solid rock
excavation and Mr. Doucet so told his engineers. This diagram and the
law3^ers' opinions were sent broadcast among the engineers, the first by the
Commission, and the latter by the contractors, and resulted in our judgment in
the utter demoralization of the classification. Why stones, wliich were less than
a yard in size, which are by clause 35 declared to be loose rock, can be turned
into solid rock excavation under any condition, passes our understanding.

The appended statement shows that materia], which this Commission un-
hesitatingly finds should have been classified as loose rock or common excava-
tion, to the extent of 2,898,000 cubic yards was classified as solid rock excavation
under the heading of "assembled rock." It is well to remember that Mr. O'Brien
admitted that under no other classification h«,d he ever been allowed "assembled
rock" as solid rock excavation, and Mr. McArthur says (p. 518) :

Q. From information before us, you appear to have been paid for
408,220 cubic yards of solid rock in your progress estimates for material
known as " assembled rock '■', which is composed of pieces of rock smaller
than one cubic yard mixed in with sand and clay and hard pan. What have
you to say why this material, not being solid rock, should not be classified
as loose rock? — A. I cannot tell you.

Q. You were to be paid for solid rock of a cubic yard and over in size,
and you were paid for solid rock which was under a cubic yard? — A. Yes,
assembled rock was something I never heard of except on this job.

Q. And when you made your tender on this job you never heard of
assembled rock? — A. No.

Q. So that any advantage or disadvantage that might accrue from the
adoption of assembled rock was a new feature to you? — A. Yes.

Mr. M. P. Davis in his evidence said :
123—5

66 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. With regard to classification, did you ever know a solid rock
specification in which was included rock fragments less than a yard paid
for as solid rock in this manner? — A. No, sir.

By introducing the words "cemented together," the contractors were furnish-
ed with a new argiiment for wider classification, of which they quickly availed
themselves. Stones, mixed with stifi' clay or packed tightly in sand, were, in
their view, cemented together, and seemingly because there was no other descrip-
tion of excavation to which to apply it, the engineers classified imder assembled
rock vast quantities of stoney material, loosened by blasting, which, without this
interpretation they would have classified as loose rock.

From the evidence of the ex-Chief Engineer, Mr. Lumsden, it is clear that
if he had received the support of the Commissioners, or if they had allowed him
to make his own interpretation, as was his right and duty under the contract,
lie would have insisted upon the proper classification of the material, and the
country would have been saved an improper expenditure of $1,835,051.20.

From the evidence, it will be noted that the solid rock classification, known
as "assembled rock" was an innovation to all contractors. They received it
because they argued and insisted upon it, and with the assistance of the Com-
aiissioners, lawyers and engineers, overcame the Chief Engineer.

The peg on which this assembled rock classification was hung, was the use
of the word "masses" in the specification, which it was contended was not limited
to masses of rock each of which was over a cubic yard, but included masses of
material made up of any size of stones, cemented together by the interstitial
material.

The evidence of Mr. Schreiber and of Mr. Lumsden, given before this Com-
mission, and of Mr. Lumsden, given in the Lumsden Enquiry, and of the en-
gineers, who were examined by this Commission, show that they all understood
assembled rock to be limited to masses of stones cemented together, and, there-
fore, if any material which did not consist of stones cemented together by such
interstitial material was' classified under this head, the engineers gave to the
contractors solid rock prices for material which was not even covered by this
wide and improper interpretation.

This Commission, in its journey over the La Tuque District, was accom-
panied by several of the engineers of the Commission, and requested these
engineers to point out to it the places where assembled rock was to be found.
This Commission failed to find any material on the whole road, which could be
classified under the heading of "assembled rock," and the engineers were unable
to point out to them any such material. It invariably consisted of stones
of various sizes mixed with or packed in clay or sand, none of which had any
cementing properties.

On their return to Quebec they took the evidence of the Field Engineers,
Ferguson and Porter, who accompanied them, when they testified to that fact (p.
276).

Mr. Collingwood Schreiber, who was examined by this Commission, stated
that although he had travelled over the whole lino, from Winnipeg to Quebec,
he had seen little or no material which could be classified as "assembled rock*'
(p. 448).

This Commission, therefore, finds that even admitting the assembled rock
definition to be correct, there is little or any of what could be allowed as such
or that could reasonably be properly so classified, and that this rlefinition was
nserl to allow what under any interpretation of the specification should have been
classified as loose rock or common excavation.

In order to determine the amount of money which has been crivon to the
contractors as payment for the excavation of assemblod rock at solid rock prices
instead of the pavment which tbey shonhl b.ivo received had the material been

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 67

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

classified according to the specifications, as we find they should have been inter-
preted, it is necessary to attempt a reclassification of the total yardage of assem-
bled rock paid for on the Transcontinental Eailway.

The Commission endeavored to secure from the engineers records of the
actual yardage of boulders of a yard or over contained in the yardage of
assembled rock, but it was found that, though the records kept by the boulder
measurers were in most instances incomplete, in the majority of cases they covered
only a percentage of the work. This was partly due to the fact that boulder
measurers were not emjiloyed regularly on all residencies, and partly because the
boulder measurers did not consider it necessary to measure accurately the boulders,
over a yard contained in the masses of assembled rock, in view of the fact that
the entire mass was to be returned at the solid rock price.

We find that the question of whether a mass of material was to be paid
for at solid rock prices or not depended upon the percentage of stones in the mass.
If this percentage of stones was fifty per cent or over, the mass was classified
as solid rock. If the stones aggregated less than fifty per cent., the mass was
classified as loose and solid rock, the solid rock in this case being represented by
the number of boulders or rock fragments each containing a cubic yard or over.

The size of the stones usually did not appear to have any bearing on the
matter. They might be solid rock size, which is one cubic yard or over, they
might be loose rock size, which is from one cubic foot to one cubic yard, or they
might be common excavation size, which covers stones smaller than one cubic
foot in volume. The usual requirement in order to return the material as solid
rock was that there should be, in the judgment of the engineers, fifty per cent,
of stoney material in the mass. Mr. Doucet, however, placed the minimum size
at eight or nine inches (p. 359).

The matrix of sand or clay, of which the "assembled rock*' was composed
up to fifty per cent of the mass, has been given the benefit of the doubt and been
taken as loose rock, though the large quantities of this clayey sand indicates that
a certain proportion might well come under the heading of 'common excavation.'

In making this reclassification, the results of which are shown in the state-
ment below, the Commission has classified forty per cent of the entire yardage
of assembled rock as solid rock and sixty per cent as loose rock, and they feel
in so doing they are allowing a far more liberal classification than would have
existed had the term "assembled rock" not been invented.

This classification does not apply to District A. for which District Engineer
Foss has supplied the information based on his judgment and knowledge of the
conditions when the work was being carried out as per the following letter:

Gordon Grant, Esq.,

Chief Engineer, ' N.T.E.'
Ottawa.

" St. John, N.B., Sept. 5th, 1912.

"Dear Sir:—

" Referring to your circular of August 31st, file 10328, with reference
to Boulders included in Assembled Eock, no Boulder measurement was
kept, and as regards the percentage of Boulders contained in the Assembled
Eock, I am satisfied that on Contract 1, with my knowledge of the cuttings
from which this return was made, 50 per cent of this rock would have filled
the specifications for Boulders, namely, one cubic yard. The same, I am
satisfied would hold true of the small amount returned on Contract 2. On
all the' other contracts, I think an average of 5 per cent would cover all the
Boulders that would be measured by the yard and returned in Assembled
Eock statement. This would amount to:

68 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

3534 on

Contract 1

305 "

2

1509 "

3

5175 ''

4

5780 "

5

3110 "

6

■' Yours very truly,

" C. 0. FOSS,

-

"District Engineer.

The payment of solid rock prices for masses of material which contained only
five per cent of solid rock is an example of the latitude taken by the engineers
with Lumsden's assembled rock circular to appease the contractors with the know-
ledge that the Commissioners would approve of it.

The statement then is briefly as follows: The first column shows the yardage
of assembled rock returned on each of the districts. The second column shows
the cost to the country for this excavation paid for at the contractors' prices for
solid rock. The third column shows amounts which would have been paid for
this excavation had the classification been based on the percentage classification
which this Commission has adopted from the reports and evidence and which they
feel is on the liberal side. The difference between the totals of the second and
third columns, namely, $1,835,051.20, is the amount which the contractors have,
in our opinion, been overpaid.

Assembled rock returned to date. Value at proposed

Yardage. Cost. re-classification.

District "A" 305,009 $ 448,645.54 $ 148.637.00

"B" 2,163,212 3,267,351.75 2,015,805.44

"C-D" 14,473 27,971.05 17.391.65

"F" 416,142 705,625.63 432,709.48

2,898,836 $4,449,594.77 ?2,614,543.57

Difference in cost $1,835,051.20.

The above overpayments were received by the following contractors:

M. P. & J. T. Davis $307,837.75

E- F. & G. E. Fauquier 4,991 .00

Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Co 283,857 . 25

Willard Kitchen Co 125,195 . 94

Lyons & White 50,063 . 20

J. D. McArthur 269,527.20

Macdonell & O'Brien 784,979.01

O'Brien, Fowler & McDougall 3,388 . 95

O'Brien, O'Gorman & McDougall 4,903.90

Classification of Loose Rock and other Material.

Paragraph 35. — Under these specifications, clay and other materials, of a
certain degree of hardness are to be classified as loose rock. The test of this
degree of hardness is that if in the judgment of the engineer, the clay or other
material is so hard that it cannot be ploughed, with a ten inch grading plough
behind a team of six good horses properly handled, and without the necessity of
blasting, though blasting may be occasionally resorted to, it is to be classified
as loose rock.

The engineers of the National Transcontinental Eailway paid little atten-
tion to that portion of clause 35, which defined this test. A number of them
have stated to this Commission that they did not consider it a test at all, but that
they considered if the material for any reason could not be practically ploughed

INTESTIGATINO COMMISSION 69

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

it came imder the heading of loose rock. This is obviously an erroneous reading
of the clause, for under that interpretation a bank of sand, so located that it was
impossible to get horses to it, or on account of being on a very steep slope impossi-
ble to plough it, would come under the heading of "loose rock" as far as the test
of hardness was concerned.

The cost of excavating and removing of the material to the contractor, was
the feature which governed the loose rock classification. This is a dangerous
basis to work on, and has resulted in this case in improper returns, and increased
profits to the contractors over and above what they are justifiably entitled to.

On contracts N"os. 13, 14, 15 and 16, east and west of Cochrane, the country
through which the line passes is composed almost entirely of clay of varying
degrees of hardness and it was to cover just such material as this that the test for
hardness was inserted, so that the engineers would have a definite rule to work
by and so the contractors, when tendering, might regulate their prices to cover the
material as described.

Mr. A. T. Tomlinson, Inspecting Engineer for the Grand Trunk Pacific Rail-
way over this territory, said that all classification was based on cost and that he
ignored the specifications (p. 423).

Mr. H. M. Balkam, District Engineer of District CD, gave the opinion that
a team of horses could pull a plough through most of the clay in his district (p.
317).

The other engineers examined by the Conmiission, confirmed its opinion,
already formed by inspection of the various cuttings, that an enormous quantity of
clay had improperly l)een returned as loose rock, under these specifications.

The reclassification of the material excavated on Contracts 14, 15 and 16,
based upon the specifications, shows that the contractors have been overpaid for
this item to an extent of over $750,000 (p. 379).

The overpa3anents for this ploughable clay was distributed among the con-
tractors as follows : —

M. p. & J. T. Davis $155,000.00

E. F. & G. E. Fauquier 223,500 . 00

Grand Trunk Pacific Railway 373,000 . 00

Overhreah.

The term " Overbreak" is an engineers' name (not used in the specification),
applied to such solid rock as the contractors remove from outside of the prescribed
slopes of cuts. The specifications prescribe a width of 18 feet in the bottom of
the cuts, the sides of which were to be on a slope of 1^ feet to 1 foot. The en-
gineers marked out the ground by stakes, showing the limits of the proposed
cutting, so that the contractors knew exactly what material they were to take out,
and any material removed outside of these lines is called " Overbreak ", i.e., un-
authorized excavation in rock cuts.

Paragraph 37 of the General Specifications covers overbreak:

" 37. Material in slips, slides and subsidencies extending beyond slopes
" in cuttings will not be paid for unless, in the opinion of the engineers, such
" occurrences were beyond the control of the contractor, and not prevent-
" able by use of due care and diligence." See Exhibit Ko. 10.
The terms " slips " and " slides " mean overbreak in rock cuttings, and, accord-
ing to the above paragi'aph, any such which is avoidable must not be paid for.

" Avoidable overbreak " is usually caused by the use of excessive quantities of
explosives.

" Unavoidable overbreak " means rock, outside the prescribed section, which
because of natural seams or cracks existing prior to the blasting, slips, or slides into

70 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

the cutting, as soon as the rock in the cutting, which supported or kept it in
place, is removed, and thus occurring through no fault of the contractor, he is
properly paid for removing it from his cutting.

Under the specifications the engineer is to classify this material as he finds it
after it falls into the cutting, that is, he is to pay solid rock price for fragments
larger than a cubic yard and loose rock, for those less than a cubic yard.

In District B, east and west of Quebec, out of 3,206,571 cubic yards, 837,230
yards were overbreak, an amount of overbreak equal to 35.3 per cent of the rock
excavation inside the slopes. ,

In District F, from Peninsula Crossing to Winnipeg, out of 6,352,940 yards,
1,688,244 were overbreak, or an amount of overbreak equal to 36 per cent of the
rock excavation inside the slopes.

In many of the individual cuttings in both these districts, the overbreak ran
up to 50 per cent. It is considered that an allowance of overbreak equal to 20 per
cent of the amount of rock excavation inside the section is a liberal allowance to
the contractor as '^ unavoidable overbreak ".

The engineers allowed all overbreak to the contractors and certified that they
should be paid solid rock prices for it, ignoring entirely the provisions of paragraph
37 and of paragraph 38, which provides " the classification of material from slides
shall be made by the engineer, and will be in accordance with its condition at the
time of the slide, regardless of prior conditions ".

It will be noted that the contractor is not to be paid for any material whiqh
he takes out of the cut unless it is something which either unavoidably slid or
slipped into the cutting. Here we gave a glaring example of reckless disregard of
duty.

Under paragraph 24 of the agreement between the Grand Trunk Pacific and
His Majesty the King, being Schedule to 3 Edward VII, Chapter 21, disputes be-
tween the Government and the company are to be referred to arbitration, and the
Grand Trunk having protested against these allowances for overbreak, three arbi-
trators were agreed upon to endeavor to settle the amount of overbreak which should
be allowed. The arbitrators went over Districts B. and F. and revised the estimates.
They found tliat mo=:t of this overbreak had been used to make embankments, that
is to fill up depressions, which it had been intended to have crossed by standard
wooden trestles. They allowed solid rock prices for that part which they con-
sidered unavoidable, and for that part which they considered avoidable, they
allowed for each yard of solid rock the price of a yard and a half of train hauled
earth, and for whatever amount of unavoidable overbreak they estimated had been
wasted, that is not used in the line, they allowed nothing.

Tlie result of tlie arbitrators' findings and the classification made by the en-
gineere subsequent to these findings, is shown in a statement appended hereto. The
net result of these reclassifications was the reduction of the contractors' estimates
by $561,311.84, which amount they would have otherwise received. (See exhibit
No. 18.)

If the Commission had adhered to its original intention to use standard
trestles and the contractors had not been encouraged to this reckless making of
overbreak, by kno"\ving that tbey could use this costly material for fills and receive
solid rock prices for it, in all probability they would have been reasonably careful
and this unprecedented condition of affairs would not have arisen.

This Commission on its inspection compared the original classification and the
arbitrators award w-ith the cuttings on the ground, and is of the opinion that the
arbitrators instead of classifying strictlv in accordance with the specification made
a compromise between tlie award made and tbat M-hicli sliould have been made, and
in our Qpinion the arbitrators' award is more liberal to tlio contractors than it
would have been had tbe arbitrators made tbe original classification.

The item of train filling in for rock classification is not included in the con-
tract and general specification. It was the result of trying to find some legitimate

IlfVESTIGATING COMMISSION 71

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

way to pay for avoidable overbreak when the material had been used in the fills
adjoining the rock cuts, and is justified on the ground that it relieved the railway
from making the fill of some other material and the contractors should, therefore,
receive an amount equal to what it would cost to make these fills from train fill or
borrow. (See Train Fill.)

It is clear that when the contractors are paid a profitable price for the removal
of rock that the larger the quantity to be removed from a given cutting the larger
will be their profits.

The time to have prevented this large amount of overbreak was when the
engineers made their early estimates. They should have made it apparent to the
contractors that they would not be paid for this excess material. Instead of doing'
eo, however, they allowed all of the overbreak and classified it as solid rock. This
gave the engineers a larger amount of material for fills over depressions than they
expected, and had the further effect of filling many of these depressions with solid
rock which would otherwise have been filled with cheaper material, or would have
been crossed by means of wooden trestles, i.e., fills were made by unauthorized
excavation by the contractors on their own responsibilitv', and because the material
was so used, the engineers and the arbitrators passed the estimates for it the same
as though it were legitimate excavation. When the contractors found that they
were to be paid for all material excavated, whether inside or outside of the section,
there was no incentive for them to use care and diligence as called for in the speci-
fications to prevent these slips and slides, but there was a premium put upon this
wasteful method which the contractors readily seized because it gave them larger
profits, equal in principal to the amounts shown in the statement above referred to.

For evidence in connection with " Overbreak", see pp. 3T0, 394, 504, etc., etc.

MOMEXTUM, TIRTUAL OE VELOCITY GEADES.

Eailways cannot ab.vays be built on the level, and rises in the line are called
" grades ", of which there are two classes; first, " Actual grades ", and a second class
of grade called indifferently " Momentum ", " Virtual " or " A^elocity " grades. Not
to introduce momentum grades in a line of this standard is to manifest careless
ignorance of modern railway construction.

An "Actual grade" is where a line passes over a given distance from a lower
to a higher point on the same slope for the entire distance.

A " Momentum ", " Virtual " or " Velocity " grade can be more readily under-
stood by an examination of the following diagram :

The above drawing shows an actual grade line over a distance of 3,500 feet and
shows the construction of a momentum grade line on the same location.
For a momentum grade the line is so constructed that a freight train ap-
proaching the momentum grade passes for 1,000 feet over a 0.6 per cent
down grade, and so gets a "run at the hill." The train moving at ten miles
an hour when it enters on the down grad increases its speed by momentum
so much that when it arrives at the 2,000 feet level stretc'h it is moving

72 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

at eighteen miles per hour, and when it arrives at the foot of the " mo-
mentum'' grade it is moving at twenty miles per hour, but when it arrives at
the top of the " momentum grade " it is back to ten miles per hour. It will be seen
therefore that the momentum which the train acquires in passing from the top of
the 0.6% grade to the bottom of the "momentum" grade has increased its speed
by ten miles, and this momentum helps it over the 0.73 grade without making any
greater pull on the engine than required to take it over the actual 0.4 grade which
reaches the level with the 0 . 72 grade a virtual 0 . 4 grade, all of which is shown on
the diagram.

" Momentum " grades are introduced to save money in construction by lessen-
ing the fill or cut as tha case may be. In this case it is a fill. If the " actual
grade" is taken the fill in this case is from the ground line shown on the diagram
up to the " actual grade " line. If the " momentum grade " line is taken the expense
of filling between that line and the " actual grade " line is saved. In this case the
saving is about 40,000 cubic yards.

The use of " momentum grades " was suggested to Chief Engineer Lumsden
by Assistant Chief Engineer MacPhersoii, after he had taken the matter up with
Mr. "Woods of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway and the Principal District Engi-
neers of the National Transcontinental Railway.

Mr. Woods, in his reply of August 14th, 1905, to Mr. MacPherson, discouraged
their use in the following language. (See Exhibit No. 19.)

" I beg to say that we have not considered momentum grades in any
way on our located lines, and I question the utility of doing so on grades
as low as we are using."

Chief Engineer Lumsden's ruling of November 21st, 1905, that "We must
adhere to actual grades so far as our construction is concerned, and all District
Engineers should be so instructed. Should any exceptional cases arise, they should
be submitted to this office, but you must bear in mind that they must be approved
by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company before they can be adopted", was
the positive decision against their use^ as the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway,
through Mr. Woods, had already expressed themselves as being adverse to their
introduction.

The evidence establishes the fact that momentum grad^ are as efficient as
actual grades, for over both grades trains of the same weight, carrying the same
tonnage, can be transported by the same locomotive at the same cost, and with the
same degree of safety and comfort, and the evidence also establishes that had
momentum grades been used in the location and construction of this railway, the
cost of this construction might have been reduced by millions of dollars.

The evidence also is that it is in the location of the road and the adoption of
the various lines run, based upon the best procurable grades, that the largest saving
can be made from the introduction of momentum grades, and that any reduction
in cost Ayhich might be made possible by introducing momentum grades on the
profile of a located line would be insignificant in comparison with the saving which
might have been effected had the locating engineers been permitted to practise
this economy.

Mr. W. F. Tye, consulting engineer, formerly Chief Engineer of the C.P.R.,
in his evidence states that this saving on a railway like the Transcontinental would
amount to millions of dollars. Other engineers, wliom this Commission examined,
estimated the probable saving as being from seven to twenty per cent of the cost
of the grading.

As to the use of momentum grades, Mr. Tve says (p. 470) : —

" The use of momentum grades will not in any way degrade the stand-
ard of the road. They would not reduce the haulage capacity of the loco-

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 73

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

motives by one ounce, would not increase the running time of passenger or
freight trains by one minute, and would not increase the operating expenses
by one dollar — on ihe contrary, they would, by decreasing the cost of con-
struction, reduce the fixed charges and so improve the commercial effective-
ness of the road.

"If the result to be arrived at by the construction of the Transcon-
tinental was to provide a means of handling traffic between the east and the
west and vice versa at lowest cost, the use of momentum grades would cer-
tainly be a means to this end, and would be an improvement in the standard
of efficiency of the road. They would certainly reduce the total cost of
handling and so tend to permit of lower freight rates."
The following engineers, who, excepting Mr. Tye, have been, many of them,
for years employed in their professional capacity in the construction of the railway,
testified strongly in favor of the use of momentum grades, some of them had recom-
mended them and all were of opinion that they should have been and could
have been used without in any way lowering the standard or impairing
the usefulness of the road; W. F. Tye, Consulting Engineer, and late Chief
Engineer of the Canadian Pacific Eailway; Gordon Grant, Chief Engineer of the
National Transcontinental Eailway; G. L. Mattice, Assistant District Engineer,
District C. D. ; H. M. Balkam, District Engineer of District CD. ; E. E. Holland,
Division Engineer, District CD. ; A. X. Molesworth, late District Engineer,
District CD. ; C 0. Foss, District Engineer, District A. ; J. W. Porter, Assistant
District Engineer, District B. ; Duncan MacPherson, Assistant to Chairman, Trans-
continental Eailway; A. E. Doucet, District Engineer, District B.

Mr. Lumsden had no experience with momentum grades, as their use had only
become imperative since the adoption by railways of low rates of gradient.

Had the Commission included among its members gentlemen who had had
experience in modern railway construction and operation, we have no doubt but
that the Commission would not have forbidden but, on the contrary, would have
encouraged, the use of momentum grades, and we entirely agree with Mr. Tye when
he says (p. 468) : —

"If momentum will be used by the operating officials in any event

(and it is undoubtedly used on practically every road in the continent) it

seems silly not to apply the theory in a scientific manner on construction and

take advantage of the undoubtedly large saving in construction expenses."

The cost which covers the excavation of the cuttings and the formation of

embankments, amounted to approximately $62,000,000 by December 31st, 1912,

and we conclude that at least ten per cent of the sum, namely, $6,200,000 was lost

to the country by reason of the neglect to use momentum grades.

ALIGNMENT.

The instructions to engineers limited the curvature to six degrees — and also
limited the minimum length of tangent to 300 feet. (See Exhibit No. 1.)

These hard and fast rules applied in the location of a railway 1800 miles in
length had the effect of increasing to a very great extent the cost of construction.

We find that in expensive locations on railways of this character, curves up to
ten degrees without tangents between spirals is good practice.

On District B in tlie 200 miles west of the Quebec Bridge, an aflditional ex-
penditure of about $602,000.00 was undertaken in keeping within the limits pre-
scribed by these rules. This mileage is about one-quarter of the rough country
through which the railway was built, and we estimate that on the entire railway
at least $2,400,000.00 has been expended in maintaining this light curvature align-
ment, which Mr. W. F. Tye, C.E., says is of " absolutely no value whatever ".
We quote here from evidence given by Mr. W. F. T3-e :

74 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. "Would you have recommended a modification in this original
instruction concerning a maximum degree of curvature? — A. The rule is
a reasonable one to be included in the general instructions, but it should
have been modified by a circular to the effect that where the use of curves
sharper than six degrees would result in a large saving, surveys should be
made and detailed estimates submitted showing the amount of such saving.
No curves sharper than six degrees to be used without the express sanction
of the Chief Engineer in each case.

Q. "Would any large saving have been effected had this latitude been
given in the construction of the railway? — A. There cannot be any doubt
that in rough crooked country this rule rigidly adhered to especially in
connection with the rule making the minimum length of tangent between
the ends of easement curves 300 feet, must have resulted in tremendous
expenditures that are of absolutely no value whatever.

And further in connection with these rules and particularly as regards the
rule limiting the length of tangents, Mr. Tye says :

A. Such a rule is decidedly expensive on construction . in a rough
crooked country, such as is much of the country traversed by the Trans-
continental. I have been trying mentally to apply it to some of the rough
country through which I have located railways and I confess the thought
appalls me. I am certain many many millions must have been spent in this
way to produce results that are absolutely valueless or to speak more
correctly are worse than valueless.

The District Engineers on Districts A, B, and F, have also pointed out to this
Commission that the restrictions with respect to the curvature had the effect of
increasing the cost of the railway in their respective territories, and as engineers
would recommend greater latitude where rough country is encountered.

STANDARD WOODEN BEIDGES, EMBANKMENTS, STEEL
AND CONCRETE BRIDGES.

In the construction of a railway, depressions in the surface of the ground
which are lower than the intended grade line of the railway are either crossed by
bridges of some kind or fillings called " embankments " of earth, rock or sand.

Bridges are either wooden trestles or steel and concrete structures of various
kinds. There are, of course, many places in a long railway where it is not neces-
sary to construct bridges across the depressions, as the object of the permanent
bridge is to provide an opening for the passage of water or roads under the railway,
and in tliese places the depressions are crossed by " embankments ", sometimes
many thousand feet in length.

If there are any adjacent high places through which th.e road is cut, the
material taken from these excavations is used so far as it will go to form these
embankments. "Where there is not sufficient material obtainable from the excava-
tions on either side of the depression, and material to form the embankments has
to be brought from a pit or elsewhere, it is called " borrowed material " and if it is
brought from such a distance as to make it necessary to carry it to the place by
train, it is called " train hauled filling."

"Where the material hauled by train is " common excavation ", that is earth
and sand, it is called "tnain hauled filling" simply; where the material so hauled
is loose rock or solid rock, it is called " classified train haul ".

INTESTIOATINO COMMISSION 76

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

The contractor agreeing to take out excavation must necessarily carry it a
certain distance and on this railway, where he carried it for 500 feet or less, the
carriage was included in the price per yard for excavating,, and he was paid where
he transports it by men or teams one cent per cubic yard for haul for each additional
100 feet or less, which he carried it. The first 500 feet is called the " free haul ".

Where deep depressions are to be filled with material hauled by train from
some distant source, " temporary trestles " of rough material are first thrown across
thern^ just strong enough to carry loaded trains, which are then run on to the
trestle and the earth unloaded from the train until the depression is filled, and the
trestle is left buried in the embankment.

In the original construction of all modern railroads, standard wooden trestles
have, on account of the present and ultimate enormous saving effected by their
use, been invariably installed instead of train hauled embankments, or steel or
concrete bridges, it being well recognized that after the railway is completed train
hauled embankments to replace these trestles can be made at less than half the
cost which would have been incurred by making them during construction, and that
generally steel structures are not only unnecessary during the first few years of the
railway^s operation, but that after construction is completed and the railway is
equipped and in operation, they can be more cheaply hauled to the site and more
economically installed.

Further where local conditions are unknown many mistakes are bound to be
made respecting the size of openings and reliability of foundations for heavy struc-
tures, and sinkholes, slides and washouts develop which ignorance of local condi-
tions made it impossible for the engineers to anticipate. Where trestles are used
engineers have time to become familiar with the country. The railway itself drains
the ground before loading the line with heavy structures. Already on this line where
the structures are put in they have had to be renewed more than once by reason of
sinkholes, washouts and other misfortunes which would have been avoidable with
the knowledge gained by experience.

The Commission was well aware before it decided to make embankments with
'' train hauled filling " that the cost per cubic yard would be more than double
during the construction that what that cost would be if made after the railroad
was completed, and we find that it was originally intended to construct wooden
trestles instead of permanent concrete and steel structures and instead of embank-
ments over depressions in the roadbed that could not have been filled with material
from the adjoining cuttings or wdth borrow within short haul.

The Minister of Finance, in discussing in the House of Commons the policy
of construction to be followed on the Transcontinental Railway says: (Hansard,
Aug. 12th, 1903, page 8574.)

" Now we know that in the construction of a road, in the anxiety to
get a raOroad built some things are done which may be regarded almost of a
temporary character. In one place, you put in a trestle, which five or six
years later you will fill up and make a permanent road. In another place,
you put in a small wooden bridge; in time, when it commences to weaken,
you put in a steel structure, and so on. The road is not finished when its
nominal completion takes place but it may be finished as time progresses."
And on the same page :

"We will give them a completed road as far as any new road can be
made so, but as years roll on, if the Government be in the same position as
the landlord to whom I referred, desired to make embankments on the road,
if they desired, having regard to the permanence of the road to take out a
wooden bridge and put in a steel structure, if they desired to fill up a trestle
or do one of the many things which hon. gentlemen opposite, who are fami-
liar with railways, will understand better than I do, then the Government
will have the right to do that in the way of betterment."

76 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

The first grading contracts (Nos. 9 and 10, Quebec Bridge and westerly 150
miles, Hogan & Macdonell, and No. 21, Peninsula Crossing to Winnipeg, J. D.
McArthur) contained no item in the schedule of prices for train hauled filling of
any description, nor was any yardage of this material included in the Chief
Engineer's estimate of quantities on these contracts. (See Exhibit No. 20.)

Before these contracts were let Mr, Lumsden advised the Commission that it
should be made clear to the contractors that they would not be paid anything above
the prices fixed for common excavation for any kind of train hauled filling or tem-
porary trestles. Mr. Lumsden's correspondence with the Commission and the
Grand Trunk Pacific Eailway put it beyond controversy that it was originally
intended to use standard trestles instead of train hauled filling. Mr. Schreiber,
who made the original estimate, intended to use wooden trestles; Mr. Fielding, in
his explanations to Parliament, contemplated them; the Grand Trunk Pacific Eail-
way Company not only approved of wooden trestles which it used throughout its
own road west of Winnipeg and on the Fort William Branch, but by a formal
resolution of its Board agreed that when they were worn out it would replace them
by embankments at a cost not to exceed 25 cents per cubic yard for train hauled
filling, which was less than one-half the price paid by the Commission. (See Exhibit
No. 21.)

The correspondence and the evidence, therefore, indubitably show what was the
intention as regards this feature of construction, and we have endeavored to find a
reason why this so sensible and economical principle was abandoned. There is no
official record of exactly when the Commission abandoned standard wooden trestles ;
it seems to have slowly drifted from or to have forgotten its original intention, a3
appears by what follows :

In a letter dated 9th June, 1906, from Mr. A. E. Hodgins, District Engineer,
to the Chief Engineer, the first signs of the coming change appear:

" Mr. McArthur has raised the question who will pay for temporary

trestles if train hauled filling is ordered in heavy fills. He is very anxious

to do train filling west of the C.P.R. crossing in place of permanent trestles.

He has not put in any price for temporary trestles and claims that his price

per cubic yard for train filling does not include anything but the loading

and offloading material for' banks from fiat cars."

As before stated, Mr. McArthur's contract did not provide for train hauled

filling, and he is evidently referring to Item 74 in the Schedule (Train Hauled

Surfacing), which is the gravel used for finishing the grade around the ties, and

for which he was paid 30 cts. per cubic yard. Mr. Lumsden, in his reply, points

out that:

" It was not the intention that the present contractor should be called

upon to make very heavy fills, the material for which would have to be

hauled by train, but that he should put in standard trestles in such places.

Of course, if the contractor prefers to make up a fill by train-hauled filling,

rather than put in the standard trestle, he can do so with your approval,

and in such cases he must provide the necessary temporary trestle at his own

cost (except under clause 17, headed temporary bridges or haulway)."

Letter dated June 12th, 1906.

On November 5th, 1906, Mr. A. E. Doucet, District Engineer at Quebec, wrote

that Mr. M. P. Davis was asking him for bills for timber for wooden trestles at

eight locations mentioned in the letter, and points out that to give this information

opens up the question of temporary trestles and train hauled material, concerning

which no decision had as yet been come to, and argues that, as train hauled filling

had not been provided for in the contract, they were at the contractors' mercy, and

should have to make the best of a bad bargain.

Some verbal discussion appears to have then taken place between them, because
on November 12, Mr. Doucet enclosed a letter from ^Ir. Davis, asking Mr. Lums-

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 77

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

den to make a price for train hauled filling, and in his reply of December 4, the
Chief Engineer says that in his opinion if the present contractors were allowed an
addition to their ordinary earthwork price (21 cents per cubic yard) of 15 cents
per yard on all train hauled material to make embankments (other than ballast),
with an addition of one cent per yard per mile for haul over five miles, such an
arrangement would be a fair and equitable one between the contractors and the
Commissioners, for train hauled filling hauled by train for a distance over 2,000
feet.

Mr. Lumsden now appears to have lost sight of the fact that he had laid down
a policy of constructing standard trestles where large fills were encountered. The
contractors, apparently assuming that they were in the comfortable position spoken
of by Mr. Doucet of ha^'ing the Commission at their mercy, promptly refused this
offer and claimed that they were entitled to be paid, unless a special price were
made, common excavation price, plus one cent per 100 feet overhaul, and as some
of this material had to be brought four or five miles, it put up the price to perhaps
$2.50 per yard. Of course, this contention was entirely wrong, as the 100 feet over-
haul clause only applied to material which was hauled by teams and men and not
by train.

Mr. Lumsden, in his evidence, told this Commission that on the 14th of
December preceding, at a meeting in Quebec, with Messrs. Davis Bros., Macdonell
and O'Brien, the Chairman, Mr. Doucet, Messrs. Wood and Armstrong, the Grand
Trunk Pacific supervising engineers, he eventually consented to a price of 55 cents
per cubic yard, which in his opinion, " is a very good one" (p. 404).

With the approval of this price for train hauled filling, the contractors were
furnished with an excellent money making substitute for wooden trestles. In the
meantime, difficulties had arisen on Mr. J. D. McArthurs Contract, No. 21, in con-
nection with the scarcity of material for constructing embankments, and the result
of the correspondence between Mr. McArthur, the District Engineer and the Chief
Engineer, was the submission of a price by Mr. McArthur of 52 cents per cubic yard
for train hauled filling, including temporary trestles, which offer .was approved by
the Commissioners on May 27, 1907.

After these arrangements had been made with the early contractors, the speci-
fications were revised by the insertion of clause 224X, which covers train hauled
filling, so that in all the grading contracts, other than 9, 10 and 21, this item was
tendered upon by the contractors and prices fixed before the contract was awarded,
and we thenceforward hear no more of wooden trestles.

An estimate has been compiled (see Exhibit Xo. 22) showing the saving which
might have been effected by tlie construction of wooden trestles instead of embank-
ments and permanent openings at 150 locations between Moncton and Winnipeg.
The costs of the embankments and permanent structures have been supplied by the
district engineers of the Transcontinental Eailway. Likewise the estimated cost of
constructing wooden trestles at these locations has been figured by these engineers, the
contract price for this work being used, except in two instances, where the price
for lumber in trestles ran from $80 to $90 per thousand feet board measure. On
these two contracts, the estimated cost of the trestles has been arrived at by using
a price of $50 per thousand feet for lumber, which is considered a fair and reason-
able price for this class of work, and is in excess of the contract price for lumber in
trestles on some other contracts. The life of the wooden structures has been
assumed to be only seven years, though as a fact it is really much longer, and con-
sequently the amount we show to have been saved is considerably less than would
have actually resulted.

In the columns covering the estimated cost of the fill and structure, if under-
taken in 7 years the train filling has been figured at 25 cts. per cubic yard, which
is the sum for which the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company offered to do the
"work in the event of the Commissioners deciding to construct wooden trestles.

78 ' NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWA7

4 GEORGE v., 1914

The cost of the masonry structures has been reduced to 80 per cent of what they
did cost to construct at the existing contract prices, for the reason that the prices
at which this concrete work was sublet by the main contractors provided for them
profits in excess of 20 per cent, and in seven years time when the Transcontinental
Eailway would be in operation and easily accessible at all points, this work could
be undertaken and completed at the prices paid the subcontractors, thereby
eliminating the heavy profit-taking which added so much to the cost of this work.

The Act, under which the Transcontinental Eailway is being constructed,
provides that the rate of interest to be paid on any loan to be raised for this work
shall not exceed 3^ per cent per annum. The records show that Canadian Govern-
ment 3| per cent bonds have brought on the market from 90 per cent to 95 per cent
of par value. This feature increases the interest charged to approximately 3.8
per cent, so that a 4 per cent charge has been used in this statement as being the
nearest figure to the actual cost to the country in interest charges on the amounts
expended on permanent structures and embankments.

By reference to Exhibit No. 22 it will be seen that at the end of seven years,
had wooden trestles been constructed at these 150 locations, tbe saving would have
been $6,967,284.00, and if the Government had then decided to put in steel
and concrete bridges and embankments in place of these trestles the work could
have been done for $3,534,701.00 less than it actually cost and after deducting
from this the cost of the original wooden trestles there would have been an ultimate
saving of $2,947,227.00. It is estimated that the completion of the road has been
delayed several seasons by not installing wooden trestles, resulting in a loss of
interest amounting to over $1,000,000.00.

A detailed statement has been compiled showing the additional expense in-
curred owing to slips, slides, subsidencies and washouts where heavy embanlcments
were used to convey the railway over soft muskegs, silt and soft clay deposits. The
total cost of repairing these embankments was $1,376,910.43. Many of the loca-
tions where the additional money has been expended are included in the " "Wooden
Trestle " statement above referred to, and the cost of the fills as shown is thereby
increased, for had these treacherous places been crossed by means of trestle bridges
supported on piles, the engineers would have had eight or ten years to study the
conditions and provide drainage, and in many cases the drainage and clearing
would have dried out and hardened the surface of the ground sufficiently to carry
the embankments without tlie subsidencies, slips and slides wliich have occurred
and which have caused this additional cost.

It may be argued that the fire risk in connection with the wooden trestles in
a new country was sufficient to justify the enormous expenditure necessary on
account of their omission. The answer to this is, that the fire risk could have been
reduced on this railway in the same manner as on the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway
and other Canadian lines by clearing the combustible material in the vicinity of
the bridge for such a distance as to make communication from forest fires to the
structure itself impossible, and from other causes by watchmen, water supply and
fire resistant paint, as provided in the instructions of the Board of Railway Com-
missioners.

By reference to tlie contract with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, it will be
found that trestle repairs and protection against fire and renewals on account of
fire come within the cost of maintenance to be borne wholly by it, so that their
maintenance does not figure in their ultimate cost to the Government.

It has been intimated to us that the Commission had no option under the
statute creating it and authorizing the construction of this road. In other words
they were in duty bound quite irrespective of cost to deliver to the Grand Trunk
Pacific Railway Company a railway completed in every respect. There is no pro-

INVESTIGATIXG COMMISSION 79

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

vision of the statutes which requires or authorizes the Commission to make any
unreasonable or unnecessary expenditure in the construction of this road. They
were given a free hand and could not have been criticized had they proceeded along
lines followed by prudent railway companies constructing high class roads who
recognize cost as an element to be respected, and they cannot point to any railway
in Canada or to any similar undertaking in the United States as a justification for
their enormous expenditure on embankments and permanent bridges. A com-
pleted railway means to any reasonable person one over which traffic may be safely
and advantageously carried, and cannot mean one on which all conceivable capital
expenditure has been made because in the wider meaning of the term railways are
never completed.

In our investigation we do not find that the question of economy in the matter
of construction of wooden bridges was ever seriously discussed between the Com-
mission and its officers, and we do find that when it was understood by the engineers
in the field that all fills should be completed at once they found it necessary to
borrow large quantities of rock with which to complete these fills, as sho"«Ti in the
statements covering overbreak and rock borrow, this material costing the country
four times what filling would have cost later had the policy of wooden trestles been
adopted. (See exhibits 18 and 23.)

The construction of embankments opened wide the gate of recklessness in over-
break. If wooden trestles had been used where the material within the prescribed
slope lines in cuttings was insufficient the contractors would have had no profitable
way of disposing of the enormous quantities of rock which they unnecessarily took
out over hundreds of miles of the line, and so would have been careful to remove
the least possible.

Had wooden trestles been used undoubtedly a further saving would have been
made in the cost of culverts and bridges, over water courses because their size had
to be determined before the engineers had any reliable knowledge of the height to
which the water from year to year might rise in Ihc streams, so they in the interests
of safety constructed the openings of a larger size than ten years of experience
might have shown to be necessary.

While it is not possible to prophesy what might have been the saving under
this head, it is certain that a few years experience and knowledge of the country
would have shown that smaller and more economical structures would be used in
many places.

Had the locating engineers been instructed that the use of wooden trestle
bridges was contemplated, it would have influenced their location in such a manner
as to reduce the amount of material excavated from the adjoining cuttings, that
Is, instead of endeavoring to make their cuts and fills balance, they would have
located the line in the most economical manner.

As an example of the enormous profits realized by the contractors upon the
item for train hauled filling it is pointed out that Contract No. 7, the main con-
tractors M. P. & J. T. Davis sublet this work for 28 cents per cubic yard and
received 40 cents per cubic yard from the Government. At these prices the quan-
tities handled would give them a profit of over $225,000 on this item alone. Simi-
larly on Contract Xo. 8, where they received 45 cents per cubic yard, and the
returns here would indicate a profit of $432,000.

The total yardage of train hauled filling paid for on the Transcontinental
Railway up to December 31st, 1912, was 25,958,130 cubic yards, which cost at the
contractors' prices for this work $13,537,924.68.

This material has been used in the construction of embankments, where it
was found impossible to procure sufficient material from the adjoining cuttings.
The locations dealt with in the trestle statement account for about 13,000,000 yards

80

NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v.. 1914

and the balance of this train hauled filling has been generally used in bringing
shallow embankments up to the grade line and for widening embankments to the
■width called for by the specifications. We have been told that a great deal of
unnecessary material went into the construction of this road.

In view of the fact that the train hauled filling was proving such a heavy
expenditure the Commissioners should have taken steps to ensure that the grade
line be kept as low as possible, sags introduced in heavy fills and embankments
only widened to what was necessary to make them safe for traffic, and in doing this
they would have been following Mr. Fielding's intentions as regards the construc-
tion of the road, and the practice of all responsible railway companies whose
object is the economical construction of a high class efficient railway. Had the
work been undertaken in this manner and finally completed at the Grand Trunk
Pacific Eailway Company's rate of twenty-five cents per cubic yard (at which rate
they offered to fill wooden trestles) the country would have saved in contractors*
profits alone the sum of $3,250,000.00.

BUILDINGS.

The foIlo^^^n.2: buildings erected on the Transcontinental Eailway have been
constructed according to the designs supplied by the Grand Trunk Pacific Eailway
Company (p. 415) : Engine houses and machine shops, coaling plants, sand houses,
trainmen's rest houses, store and oil houses, ice houses, freight sheds, way stations,
divisional point stations, section houses, section tool houses, water tanks.

Of these buildings, the engine houses, section houses and water tniik-= were
included in the general grading contracts, and separate contracts were let for the
other structures.

Engine Houses.

There are sixteen divisional points on the Transcontinental Eailway, between
Moncton and Transcona, and including these two points. The following statement
supplied by Mr. W. J. Press, IMechanical Engineer of the National Transcon-
tinental Eailway, shows the location and through mileage of each divisional point
with the capacity of the engine house to be erected, together with the estimated
cost :

Estimated cost
Through (Including heating

District. mileage. Location. Number of stalls. but not boilers).

"A" 1.0 Moncton 12 stalls and machine shop $100,000

117.5 Napadogan 12 stalls and machine shop 110,000

330.0 Edmundston 12 stalls and machine shop 100.000

"B" 355.4 Laurier 12 stalls without shop 90,000

460.4 Quebec 12 stalls without shop 110,000

586.9 Fitzpatrick 12 stalls 90,000

705.8 Parent 12 stalls and machine shop 110,000

808 . 8 Doucet 12 stalls 100.000

"C" 916.7 O'Brien 12 stalls 95,000

■D" 1028.8 Cochrane 12 stalls and machine shop 110,000

1157.8 Hearst 12 stalls 100,000

"E" 1282.8 Grant 12 stalls and machine shop 120,000

1413.2 Armstrong 12 stalls 95,000

(Including heat-
ing apparatus
and boilers.^

"F" 1552.1 Graham 18 stalls and machine shop $205,000

1675.8 Reddit 12 stalls 95,000

1800.0 Transcona 24 .stalls 135,000

Total estimated cost $1,765,000

District B, Residency 14, Mileage 29.6. Assembled Rock. Page 68.

District A, Mileage 45.0. Portion of Coal Creek Fill, Looking East. Page 96.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION " " 81

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

In the standard forms of tender and contract covering the general contracts,
the construction of engine houses is included as part of the work to be performed
by the contractor. (See Exhibit 10.)

That is each grading includes the construction of the engine houses wliich
may be located within its particular mileage.

The items, however, in the contract schedule, do not cover the various classes of
work which it is necessary to pay for in the construction of an engine house, and
those which are common to both classes of work are so defined in the general con-
tract as to make them inapplicable to engine house construction. For instance,
lumber in the general contract is allotted to trestles, culverts, cofferdams, and plank
in highway crossings, and the various mixtures of concrete are specified for cul-
verts, bridge abutments, and walls of buildings (1-4-8), which latter mixture is too
poor to be considered in first class construction of any nature. There are only two
items in the general contract which might have been used in the engine house
schedule, and these are Item 60, concrete 1-3-5, including forms and Item 61, co]i-
crete 1-3-6, including forms. The use of these mixtures of concrete is not tied
down to any particular form of construction. The Commissioners of the Trans-
continental Bailway took the view that as these buildings were included in the
definition of the work to be performed by the general contractors, that it was essen-
tial for the work to be awarded accordingly. It became necessary, therefore, to
arrange with the various contractors a schedule of prices covering the work to be
undertaken, and in doing so the Commission occupied the unfortunate position of
having awarded a contract for the work with no mention made of price or cost.

Some of the rates contained in these schedules submitted by the contracts and
approved by the Commissioners are very high, viz; concrete at seventeen dollars
per cubic yard, which Mr. Monsarrat considers should have been amply paid for at
twelve dollars ; brickwork, thirty-four dollars, forty and forty-four dollars per thou-
sand; and lumber at seventy and seventy-three dollars, per thousand feet board
measure.

In order to arrive at a conclusion as to whether these high prices were justi-
fied by the distance and isolation from mercantile centres of the locations where
these buildings have been erected, the Commission secured the services of Mr.
Thomas Tompkins, building contractor of Ottawa, to invstigate and report on the
general contractors, together with a section of main line grading through
Particularly from the contractor's point of view.

Mr. Tompkins' report is as follows:

" Ottawa, November 25, 1912.

" The Transcontinental

Investigation Commission.
Ottawa, Ont.

" Dear Sir,—

" Acting on your instructions of September 20, I visited Transcona,
Eeddit, Graham and Cochrane, all divisional points on the National Trans-
continental Eailway, and made a practical study of engine house construction,
costs and conditions at these locations. I now beg to hand you a report
dealing with Graham engine house, boiler room and machine shop, as being
a representative example of the manner \n which the work is being done.

" This contract was let to Messrs. O'Brien, Fowler & McDougall Bros.,
general contractors, together with a section of main line grading throiigli
Graham.

123.— 6

82 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

"According to the final estimate for this work at the prices contained
in the approved schedule, the entire structure, engine house, machine shop,
fan room and boiler room, has cost $203,911.78.

" The construction of this building was sublet by the main contractors to
Messrs. Farlinger and McDonald, sub-contractors^ at prices which show a
clear profit for the main contractors of $50,446.19, without doing any work.
This profit was nearly all made in the concrete work for wliich the main con-
tractors received $17.00 per cu. yd. and the subcontractors $10.00, the total
cost of the concrete in this building being $90,191.

" Messrs. O'Brien, Fowler & McDougall supplied the cement necessary
for this concrete work to the subcontractors at a rate of $3.00 per barrel.
This cement cost the general contractors $1.10 per barrel at Fort William
and with the addition of freight charges to Graham and an allowance for
handling, the cost to Messrs. O'Brien, Fowler & McDougall at Graham was
$1.75 per barrel, so that in addition to the profits already referred to, the
main contractors had a profit on cement of $1.25 per barrel which amounted
to $7,500.00 on the whole transaction, and this added to the profits referred
to shows Messrs. O'Brien, Fowler & McDougall as being $57,946.19 to the
good.

" In order to arrive at the profits which the subcontractors were enabled
to make at their prices, I have prepared an estimate of the net cost of each
item included in the construction of the building, the prices being based
on cost at Fort William with full allowances for freight charges from there
to Graham.

" I find that the net cost of this building was $96,202.59 which leaves
the subcontractors a profit of $57,263.00, so that of the $203,911.78 which
was the cost to the Transcontinental Railway, some $115,209.19 was con-
tractors' profits.

"Attached herewith is the detailed estimate referred to which shows
the amount paid to each of the contractors together with the net cost of the
building."

'TTonrs truly,

"THOMAS TOMPKIXS."

Mr. Tompkins' report, as regards the large profits made possible by the high
prices paid by the Commissioners, is confirmed by the evidence given by Mr. A.
McDougall (p. 550).

The Commission have endeavoured in various ways to determine what is a
just and fair price for these buildings and what their cost would have been had
the contract for their erection been open to ordinary competition.

A further report from Mr. Tompkins, based on the Canadian Pacific Railway
Company's standard design which reads as follows:

INYE8TI0ATIN0 COMMISSION 83

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

''November 2oth, 1912.

" The Transcontinental Railway
Investigating Commission,

Ottawa, Ont.
" Dear Sir:—

"I beg to acknowledge receipt of plans of the Canadian I'acific Hail-
way Company's standard engine house.

" As requested, I have made a study of these plans and also of a C.P.E.
engine house constructed to these plans, and beg to submit the following: —

" This design appears to be complete in every detail and I am well
acquainted with it, having constructed similar houses for the Canadian
Pacific Railway at various points on their system,

" I have prepared an estimate of the cost of constructing an engine
house of this design at each of the divisional points on the Transcontinental
Railway, of the same capacity as regards engine accommodation^ and boiler
and machine equipment as provided for in the program arranged by the
Transcontinental Railway Commissioners.

" This cost is based on my personal knowledge and experience in doing
this character of work and full allowance has been made for all freight
charges, etc., incidental to the construction of this building at isolated
points.

" To this cost has been added an item of 15 per cent as a fair and just
profit to the contractor and which is generally in excess of what my ex-
perience tells me any contractor may expect on work which is obtained in
open competition.

" The following would be the total cost of each of the points enumer-
ated, based on the Canadian Pacific Railway Company's design :

Location. Number of stalls. Estimated cost.

Moncton 12 stall and machine shop $ 62,000.00

Napadogan 12 stall and machine shop 62,000.00

Edniiindston 12 stall and machine shop 62,000.00

Laurier 12 stall and machine shop 53,000.00

Quebec 12 stall and machine shop 62,000.00

Fitzpatrick 12 stall 53,000.00

Parent 12 stall and machine shop 62,000 . 00

O'Brien 12 stall 53,000.00

Doucet 12 stall 53,000.00

Cochrane 18 stall and machine shop 76,000.00

Hearst 12 stall 53,000.00

Grant 12 stall and machine shop 62,000.00

Armstrong 12 stall 53,000.00

Graham 12 stall and machine shop 76,000.00

Reddit 12 stall 53,000.00

Transcona 24 stall 96,000.00

$991,000.00

" I find that these sums mentioned above are over 33 per cent in excess
of what these buildings have cost at points on the Canadian Pacific Railway
along the north shore of Lake Superior.

"Yours truly,

"THOMAS TOMPKTXS."

84 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

indicates that by the inclusion of the items for engine houses in the general con-
tracts, "without insuring any protection to the country as regards the cost of the
buildings, the Transcontinental Eailway has become involved in a series of agree-
ments which have increased the cost of these buildings, unnecessarily, about
$759,000.00, the greater portion of which is contractors' profits.

Mr. J. M. E. Fairbairn, Assistant Chief Engineer of the Canadian Pacific
Eailway, has supplied the Commission with a statement showing the cost of these
buildings on that railway, and from the figures submitted we find that for a twelve
stall engine house with machine shop, which on the Transcontinental Eailway
costs from $96,000.00 to $110,000.00, the Canadian Pacific Eailway have been
paying from $49,000.00 to $50,000.00, so that we have no hesitation in accepting
the estimated figures in Mr. Tompkins' report as being not only sufficient for the
work, but liberal.

At O'Brien, the first divisional point east of Cochrane, the engine house has
not yet been erected, and the Grand Trunk Pacific Eailway, who hold the contract,
No. 14, having released the Commissioners from this feature of their contract,
tenders for the construction of a twelve stall engine house were advertised for on
March 22, of last year. The lump sum tenders received and the amount at which
the contract has been awarded, namely, $59,189.44, is about 30 per cent less than
the estimated cost of this structure under the original schedule of prices for this
work, and illustrates most forcibly the serious losses which result from the handling
of contract work of this character by inexperienced officials.

Coaling Plants.

The following list shows the location, design and contract price of the coaling
plants, either complete or in the course of erection :

Transcona 1.000 ton coaUng trestle $26,314.00

Reddit 1,000 ton coaling trestle = 27,000 . 00

Graham 1,000 ton coaling trestle 27,000.00

Armstrong 200 ton mechanical plant with sand house 18,000.00

Qrant 200 ton mechanical plant with sand house 17,959.00

Hearst 200 ton mechanical plant with sand house 17,927.00

Cochrane 1,000 ton coaling station with sand house 28,400.00

Edmundston 200 ton mechanical plant with sand house 18,347.00

Napadogan 200 ton mechanical plant with sand house 18,365.00

Moncton 200 ton mechanical plant with sand house 18,335.00

$217,647.00

The other divisional points, Laurier, Quebec, Fitzpatrick, Parent and Doucet, ■
when complete will be provided with coaling plants.

Trainmen's rest houses, or what are more familiarly known to the railway
employees as bunk houses, have been contracted for at the following points at the
various rates shown :

Napadogan $9,400.00

Edmundston 12,990 . 00

Monk 8,220 . 00

St. Foye 7,550.00

Fitzpatrick 7,875.00

Parent 6.096.00

Cochrane 11.290 . 00

Hearst 11,300 . 00

Grant 11.040.00

Armstrong 11,040.00

Graham 11,290.00

Reddit 11,290.00

Transcona 11,290.00

$130,671.00

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 85

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

The Grand Trunk Pacific design for this structure shows a two-storey
building with a deep basement extending the entire length and width of the
building.

Without going into the detail of design or construction of the other buildings
coming under the head of "Terminal structures" the Commission are desirous of
pointing out the serious increase in cost of thase items on the Transcontinental,
as compared with the Canadian Pacific Eailway.

In order to arrive at a fair comparison, the Commission requested Mr. J, M.
E. Fairbairn, Assistant Chief Engineer of the Canadian Pacific Eailway, to supply
them with details and cost of the terminal and other buildings erected at the
divisional point at Muskoka on the main line of the Canadian Pacific Eailway
between Toronto and Winnipeg.

Muskoka was selected as representing similar- conditions to those which exist
on the Transcontinental Eailway.

It is a modern railway divisional point on a low grade line (0.3 per cent). It
15 in an imsettled part of the coimtry, and, in fact from every viewpoint, re-
presents, as nearly as possible, the conditions to be met with at such a divisional
point as Eeddit on the Transcontinental Eailway, between Winnipeg and Superior
Junction.

In the following comparison, between the equipment, accommodation and cost
at these points, the date and figures in connection with Muskoka are taken from
the statement submitted by Mr. Fairbairn, and the information regarding Eeddit
from the records and contracts of the Transcontinental Eailway.

Engine Hotises.

Eeddit :

This is a 12 stall brick building with boiler room, but no machine shot).
Cost $95,000.00.

Muskoka :

Concrete building. 8 stalls with machine shop and boiler room, 47 ft. bv 63
ft. Cost $36,000.00.

Store and Oil House.
Eeddit :

Concrete and brick building 47 ft, 9 in. by 20 ft. 2 in. with extension oil
vault. Cost $7,200.00.

Muskoka : ,

Concrete and frame building, 30 ft. by 30 ft. Cost $3,500.00.

Coaling Plant.
Eeddit :

1,000 ton coaling trestle. Cost $27,000.00.
Muskoka :

Two pocket, 80 ton mechanical coaling plant, with sand house. Cost $8,000.00.

Station Buildings.

Eeddit :

One Standard No. 1 Station. 24 ft. by 53 ft., containing on the ground
floor, baggage room, 13 ft. 6 in. by 22 ft. 8 in. — ladies' waiting room,

9 ft. by 13 ft.— operation office, 10 ft. 6 in. by 12 ft.— living room, 9 ft. by 13 ft.
— kitchen, 10 ft. 6 in. by 13 ft. — and general waiting room, 12 ft. 6 in. by 22 ft.
8 in. — and on the first floor, 2 bedrooms, 10 ft. 6 in. by 13 ft., and 2 bedrooms.

10 ft. 6 in. by 9 ft. 10 in. Cost $5,164.56.

86 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

One Station Building, Design D. 30 ft. by 103 ft., containing on the
ground floor restaurant and kitchen 28 ft. 6 in. by 40 ft.— general waiting
room, 20 ft. by 28 ft. 6 in.— operators' office, 11 ft. 6 in. by 20 ft.— trainmen's
room, 14 ft. 6 in. by 16 ft. — ladies' waiting room, 26 ft. by 8 in. — lavatories, 15 ft.
by 9 ft.— baggage room, 20 ft. by 28 ft. 6 in.

And on the first floor, office, 26 ft. by 11 ft— office, 10 ft. by 11 ft.— office,
25 ft. by 11 ft.— office, 10 ft. by 11 ft.— office, 23 ft. by 28 ft.— Office, 12 ft. by
11 ft.— Office, 14 ft. 6 in. by 11 ft.— Office, 21 ft. by 11 ft.— office, 11 ft. by 11 ft.
—office, 28 ft. 6 in. by 11 ft.— lavatory, 8 ft. by 11 ft. Cost $22,112.00.

Muskoka :

Station Building. 24 ft. by 87 ft. 6 in., containing on the ground floor,
waiting room, 18 ft. by 22 ft. 6 in.— operators' office, 10 ft. by 12 ft. 6 in.—
trainmen's room, 10 ft. by 16 ft. 6 in. — ^living room, 10 ft. 3 in. by 12 ft. —
kitchen, 13 ft. 6 in. by 12 ft. 0 in.— baggage, express and freight, 40 ft. by 22 ft.,
and on the first floor, 3 bedrooms. Cost $5,000.00.

Reddit:

Standard Freight Shed, 23 ft. by 60 ft. Cost $3,098.50.

Muskoka :

Freight room in station.

Ice Houses.
Eeddit:

Standard ice house. Cost $3,400.00.

]\Iuskoka :

None except a small building, 10 ft. by 16 ft. in connection with boarding
house. Cost $200.00.

A summary of these figures shows the following conditions and costs:

Reddit Muskoka.

Engine house $95,000.00 $36,000.00

Store and oil house 7,200.00 3,500.00

Coaling plant 27,000.00 8,000.00

Stations (2) 27,376.56 (1) 5.000.00

Freight sheds 3,098.50 nil

Ice house 3,400.00 200 . 00

$163,075.06 $52,700.00

These figures in some measure indicate the costly equipment of the Trans-
continental Railway in the matter of buildings as compared with the Canadian
Pacific Railway.

We have already dealt with the engine houses and have shown that the
excessive price paid for these buildings was the result of the method of awarding
the contract. At the same time, we wish to point out that it would have been
advisable to have reduced the number of stalls in each engine house to be
constructed to as few as could properly provide shelter for the number of loco-
motives required to handle the train servioe on a new line of railway. The
extensions of these engine houses, when required, could then have been carried
out under a contract awarded in open competition with the resultant reduction
in prices and cost and saved interest in the meantime.

The store and oil house erected is a one-etorey building with a deep basement
No stores are carried on the ground floor, the entire basement being used for this
purpose. The ground floor is devoted to a delivery counter to hand out the
\arious stores to the employees, the oil pumps and office accommodation for about
five men. This arrangement necessitates a separate concrete vault being con-
structed outside the building to receive the oil tanks, thereby adding largely to
the cost of the structure.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 87

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

In the operation of a store house of this character the fact that every article
to be delivered, with the exception of the oil, has to be brought from the basement,
is a serious handicap to rapid and economical handling of stores.

The office accommodation is greatly in excess of that provided in similar
buildings on the Canadian Pacific Eailway.

It will be noted that there axe two station buildings at Eeddit. The smaller
building, which corresponds in design and cost very closely with the station at
Muskoka, was erected first, but the design was not in accordance with the Grand
Trunk Pacific Eailway Company's idea of the requirements at a divisional point
like Eeddit. The second station building, constructed at a cost of over $22,000.00,
is the standard plan supplied by the Grand Trunk Pacific Eailway for divisional
points on the Transcontinental Eailway.

The office accommodation provided on the first floor is sufficient for the
staff required to operate a railway district of five hundred miles or more.

The design is an olfice building and station combined and as such should
have been erected only at district headquarters on the Transcontinental Eailway,
which would mean instead of constructing sixteen of these buildings at a cost of
$22,000.00 or over apiece, they should only have been erected about every five
hundred miles, or say four, for the entire mileage of the Transcontinental
Eailway.

At the other divisional points, a station building similar to the small station
at Eeddit would have sufficed. The saving in this one item alone at the prices
given above would have been $204,000.00.

The construction of freight sheds at points like Eeddit, situated in an abso-
lutely uninhabited country, with a population restricted to the number of
emploA'ees on the railway compan^^'s pa}" roll, was, in our opinion, a gross
extravagance.

In both designs of station buildings, liberal accommodation is provided for
baggage and freight, and we cannot imagine a condition which would justify the
erection of a freight shed at these points until some local industry had sprung
up or some indication of the necessity for such a building was given.

Owing to the character of the countrv^ at Eeddit, the freight shed is so
placed that only by expensive construction work will it be possible for teams to
receive freight from this building. The approach to this building is through a
marshy swamp, ten or twelve feet below the level of the freight delivering
platform.

As regards the bunk houses which are being erected at an average cost of ten
thousand dollars, Mr. Fairbairn advises the Commission that the standard bunk
houses of the Canadian Pacific Eailway, providing sleeping accommodation for
twenty-two men, with dining and reading rooms, office, kitchen and lavatories,
is erected by them at a cost of $3,300.00.

Bunk houses of this character would have been sufficient and desirable for
those points on the Transcontinental Eailway where such accommodation was
required, instead of the rather elaborate two-storey structure which the Grand
Trunk Pacific Eailway Company designed for this service, and had the Canadian
Pacific design been followed, the saving to the Commission would have amounted
to sixty or seventy thousand dollars.

The foregoing chapter deals with the principal structures with which a
railway company is concerned. We feel that in dealing with this subject a
comparison with the Canadian Pacific Eailway, a transcontinental line whose
present equipment, structural or otherwise, is the result of many years' experience
is entirely in order. The designs in use on the railway are based on the known
requirements for each individual building, and, as such, represent what must be
accepted as a standard in railway construction. The indiscriminate erection of
buildings on the Transcontinental Eailway without closely delving into the

88 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

necessity for this work, is due to a lack of intelligent supervision on the part of
the Commissioners. The money needlessly expended on unsuitable and unnecessary
structures, such as the divisional point stations, bunk houses and freight sheds,
we place at $500,000.00, which, together with the $759,000.00 to be paid away
in contractors' profits, on the engine houses, forms a total of $1,259,000.00 of the
country's money, which might have been saved in the various manners dealt
with in the foregoing chapter.

CAP EOUGE A^ADUCT.

The Cap Eouge Viaduct which carries the Transcontinental Railway across
the valley of that name, is located on the North Side of the Eiver St. Lawrence,
pome 2.4 miles West of the Quebec Bridge.

This is a steel structure 3336 feet in length and the rail level of the viaduct
i<; 172 feet above the low water level in the Cap Eouge Eiver.

The total cost of the viaduct is as follows:

Substructure (concrete pedestals and abutments) ■ $454,133.51

Superstructure (steel work) 363,329 . 22

$817,462.73

Of this amount $329,429.18 was paid the contractor for the construction of
the three pedestals adjacent to the river.

The building of this viaduct was included in Contract No. 9, District "B,"
find the contract was originally let to Messrs. Hogau and Macdonell on the 15th
May, 1906, to be completed on September 1, 1907. On the 15th May, 1906, tlfe
contract was assigned to Messrs. M. P. & J. T. Davis.

The concrete prices in this contract do not cover pneumatic caisson excavation
but do cover all material useable in such work.

In October, 1906, it having been suggested that the three piers for Cap
Eouge viaduct be put dovra by the pneumatic process, Messrs. M. P. & J. T. Davis
by a memorandum dated October 27, 1906, offered to do the work of constructing
each pier by the pneumatic process for $47,523.80, each pier to take 42 days to
build. The memorandum further stated that they would build these piers on a
pile foundation, using ordinary coffer dams for $34,547.20 each, but in this case
they stated the piers would each take at least 90 days to build.

Tlie prices were submitted to the engineers, who, for the additional cost,
which would be about $40,000.00, favored the adoption of the pneumatic caisson
plan. Afterwards Messrs. M. P. & J. T, Davis put in a new bid for this work,
which is given below with corresponding prices, where they exist, for which they
had contracted to do the work in Contract No. 9 :

Excavation in pneumatic chamber.

Timber in caisson

Iron bolts, nuts and tie rods

Iron drift bolts

Cast iron

Spikes

Caulking, oakum, as required

1-2-4 concrete in chamber

1-2 1/2-4 concrete in crib
1-2-4 concrete in pier

New Prices.

Old Prices.

.70

in foun-

.06% per cub.

dation.

ft.

100.00

.10

.06

.05

per lb.

.05

.04

per lb.

.06

.05

per lb.

.10

.75

1-2-4

concrete

.44

per cub.
ft.

.55

.60

1-2-4

concrete

.44

per cub.
ft.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION • 89

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

This put the work up to $200,000 more than it was expected to cost, and was
objected to b}' tlie engineers, but the Chairman of the Commission insisted upon
the new prices being accepted and the work being done by the pneumatic caisson
process.

Xow, why the contractor was given higher prices for the material used in the
caissons has not been explained to us, nor do we know of any reason why it should
have been given.

These piers had to be sunk about 40 feet, and, in our opinion, the work could
have been done as expeditiously by the open caisson method as by the pneumatic
caisson, and we can see no reason why the pneumatic caisson was adopted except
the usual one of increasing the expense.

Mr. E. F. Powers who has had a great deal of experience in just such work
as this on the Atlantic Coast was examined. In his opinion work such as was
done here can be performed quite as expeditiously and for less than half the cost
by the open caisson as by the pneumatic caisson method (p. 549).

Mr. C. N. Monsarrat, who is an engineer of eminence, and who has control
of the building of the Quebec Bridge, says in a report made to the Commission :

" Having made a close examination of the site and of local conditions,

and also of the results of boring tests, as shown on Drawing B-1-32, dated

November 10, 1906, I would say that I find no conditions which, in my

opinion, would warrant the use of pneumatic caissons for the river piers of

this bridge "

Mr. C. N. Monsarrat further at the request of the Commission prepared an

alternative design for the construction of these bridge piers, the work to be carried

out by the open caisson method, and his estimate of the cost of this work, based

on the prices contained in Contract No. 9, shows that at least $250,000.00 has

been unwarrantably expended on this structure.

On December 6th, Mr. M, J. Butler, then having before him the offer from
the contractor to do the work by pneumatic caisson process for $47,523.80 for
each pier, considered that the price was reasonable and decided to accept it.
Afterwards when the contractor changed his price to increase the cost by
$136,000.00, the engineers abandoned the idea of using pneumatic caissons and
Mr. R. F. Uniacke, the Bridge Engineer of the Commission, prepared and
recommended design "C" which was for the open caisson work. Mr. Uniacke in
his report to this Commission on this subject says, in reference to the design:

'• While we were discussing this we were summoned to the Chairman's
office, bringing down the plans to lay before him. Mr. Davis was
already with the Chairman. The Chairman refused to consider such a
change decided upon by Mr. Butler, impressing on me the fact that time
was the most important consideration and the object was to have the Cap
Eouge trestle ready by the end of 1907 so as to be able to transport the
heaviest structure sections of the Quebec Bridge from Belair station to Cap
Rouge for the Quebec Bridge, and instructed that the caisson metl^od be
followed."

Now then, it will be noticed that the contractor stated that the piers could
be put down in one month by the pneumatic caisson and in 42 days by the open
caisson method, and in 90 days for the other, so that the only possible gain that
the Commission would make by adopting the more expensive method on the facts
which were before them, was the saving of about 50 days' time, because there
is no reason why the three piers could not be built concurrently. To make this
50 day saving in time $250,000.00 were spent. The benefits to accrue from this
saving in time were lost owing to the fall of the Quebec Bridge.

Mr. Davis in his evidence gives a different story as to how the plans were
finally decided upon.

90 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

CHAUDIERE CUT.

The present line of the Transcontinental Railway, as constructed, from the
Quebec Bridge Company's line on the South side of the St. Lawrence River to St.
John Chrysostome, where connection is made with the Intercolonial Railway, is a
very expensive bit of railway construction. The main feature being what is
known as the Chaudiere Cut, — a cutting over one mile and a quarter in lengtb.
40 feet deep in places, and from which some 300,000 cubic yards of material have
been removed.

The adoption and final approval of this location was not accomplished
"without some dissension on the part of several of the Commissioners' Engineers
and on the part of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. The following is the
sequence of events which led to the final decision on this important matter.

On May 13, 1907, Mr. MacPherson wrote to District Engineer Doucet,
stating that Mr. Grant had suggested a change in alignment and grade at this
point, and sees no objection to the introduction of a velocity grade. In July of
the same year, Mr. Woods, Assistant Chief Engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific,
also wrote to Mr. Lumsden, stating that Mr. Armstrong (Grand Trunk Pacific
District Engineer), advocated increasing the gradient, which would reduce the
cost of the work to one-third of what was contemplated, and again in July, in a
letter to Mr. Lumsden, pointed out that the saving to be effected by the adoption
of Armstrong's suggestion would be about $250,000.00, that taking into con-
sideration the 1 per cent grades on the Quebec Bridge crossing the St. Lawrence
River, it would be needless to sacrifice the amount named to obtain an 0.4 per
cent grade eastbound on the present location, and that the adherence to this
latter grade would make a very bad showing for all concerned.

On August 1, 1907, District Engineer Doucet wrote to Mr. Lumsden,
advocating the 0.4 per cent line as located, and his estimate of August 5, shows a
saving of only $10,306.00 to be made by the adoption of Armstrong's line. The
cost of Armstrong's line being increased by the addition of one item of $128,918,
for "cost of portion of Quebec Bridge Company's line used," and another item
for $120,503 being charges for pusher engine.

Mr. MacPherson wrote Mr. Lumsden on August 7th, criticizing Mr. Doucet's
estimate as regards these two items and still advocating a revision in gradient
and alignment.

On August 8, Mr. Lumsden made his report to the Commissioners on this
matter, and having dealt with the costs of the two lines in question remarks: ''I
do not care to recommend it (the 0.6 per cent grade line) especially as you some
time ago determined not to ask for approval of any more so called pusher grades,
other than the two already approved near the Tobique and Lake Pohenagamook
as on a former occasion at La Tuque, where a much greater saving could have
been effected, the management of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway themselves
objected to it."

On August 8, Mr. Ryan, the Secretary of the Commission, advised Mr.
Lumsden that his report had been approved, and on the same date ^Ir. Lumsden
wrote Mr. Woods advising him of the stand he had taken in the matter.

Mr. Woods replied to ^Ir. Lumsden on August 14th, protesting against his
decision in the matter and arraying strong arguments in favor of the cheaper line.

The approval of the Commission having been obtained, the construction of
the 0.4 per cent grade line was proceeded with, with the result that this portion
of the line, some 3.36 miles in length, cost for grading alone $484,103.33, or
over $144,000 per mile.

Chief Engineer Grant's report on this matter, dated October 21, 1912, is as
follows :

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 91

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

"F. P. Gutelius, Esq.,

Investigating Commissioner.

" Dear Sir:—

" Answering yours of the 3rd instant with which you hand me plans
and profiles of several lines from Quebec Bridge East to St. John Chrysos-
tome Yard, together with correspondence on the subject and asking me to
make a study of the plan and profiles and let you have a report on the
economies that might have been effected, had the line shown red on the plan
been constructed, and give you a comparison with the gradient reduced later
to 0.4 per cent in twenty years.

" I have made a study of the plans and profiles and also the corre-
spondence connected with this location and I attach herewith a comparative
estimate I have prepared from which you vnll see that if a 1 per cent
grade had been adopted as per line "A" in red on the accompanying
plan, this line would be 3.67 miles long or 0.31 miles longer than the
present line, 2 miles only of which would be new work, beginning from a
point two miles East of Quebec Bridge on the line built by the Quebec
Bridge Company. The saving in construction cost that would have been
effected would have amounted to $389,000 as compared with the cost of
the constructed line shown in black, marked 'TB" on accompanying plan,
which from Station 60 — Station 240 is 3.36 miles long, from point to
point, included in the comparative estimates. Cost of rail fastenings and
track-laying not included in comparative estimates. If you deduct from
this the operating expenditures that would be incurred by reasoji of
distance, curvature, rise and fall, which are as per Transcontinental Eail-
way locating value :

.31 mUes long at 26,000 per mile .'. . . $ 8,060.00

107 degrees more curvature at 40.00 per degree 4,280.00

71' more rise and fall at 350.00 per foot 24.190.00

Total $37,190.00

"The net saving would be $351,810.00.

" As the Quebec Bridge is a 1 per cent grade I have not included the
cost of a pusher engine, as I am of opinion that the load that can be hauled
over this bridge can be hauled over the alternative line shown in red on
the accompanying plan.

" The interest on $351,810.00 at 4 per cent for 20 years would amount
to, at simple interest, $281,448.00. This shows that had the red line on
plan been adopted, a verv' large saving in first cost would have been
effected and the interest charge would have graded a 0.4 per cent line
twenty years later, six of which have already passed.

"At compound interest the saving would be $770,850.00 in twenty
years.

" Yours trul}',

"GORDON" GRANT,

" Chief Engineer."

The plans referred to in this report will be found on exhibit. (See Exhibit
No. 31).

92 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Beyond poiuting out that the operating company, the Grand Trunk Pacific
Eailway, objected strenuously to the line as constructed, no further comments are
necessary on this avoidable expenditure of $351,810.00.

COAL CREEK FILL.

The Transcontinental Eailway crosses the ravine, through which Coal Creek
flows, at a point 45 miles westerly from Moncton. The embankment at this
point is 6000 feet long from cutting to cutting and the rail level is some 85 feet
above the creek level.

The location of the railway at this point was made by Mr, H. M. Balkam
who reported that he had thoroughly exhausted the ground in that vicinity and
was forced to take this crossing of the gulley as being the most economical, con-
sidering the distance and cost of construction of any alternative line.

The original method suggested for crossijig this gulley was to construct a
steel viaduct, 1000 feet long, over the deepest portion and to build embankments
at either end. The work forms part of contract No. 1, which was awarded to the
Grand Trunk Pacific Eailway who sub-let the entire work to Messrs. Corbett and
rioesch. .Mr. Foss, however, being in favor of an embankment at this point,
having evidently taken the matter up with Messrs. Corbett and Floesch, wrote to
Mr. Guy C. Dunn on January 29, 1908, stating that the contractor would make
the fill regardless of overhaul for 30c per cubic yard, and allowing for the
construction of a 20 foot concrete arch to provide waterway, shows a saving in
favor of the arch and fill of $2,269.15.

After the proposed change in the plans had been discussed at Ottawa, the
matter was referred to the Grand Trunk Pacific Eailway, who approved the
proposal to build an arch and fill the gulley — said approval being contained in
Assistant Engineer Woods' letter of March 28, 1910.

Mr. Lumsden, on March 30, 1908, submitted the matter to the Commissioners
of the Transcontinental Eailway for approval, and Mr. Lumsden was notified of
their approval on March 31, 1908. The work proceeded and the records do not
show that any further reports were made on this matter until December 3, 1909,
when the following report was submitted by District Engineer Foss. The letters
from Mr. Wheaton and Mr. Woods, Assistant Chief Engineer of the Grand Trunk
Pacific, referred to in Mr. Foss' report, are also reproduced herewith:

" The Commissioners of the Transcontinental Eailway,
Office of the District Engineer.
No. 60-A.

"St. John, N.B., December 3, 1909.

" Gordon Grant, Esq.,

Chief Engineer, "N.T.C.E.,'' Ottawa, Ontario.

"Dear Sir:—

" Re Classification at Coal Creek.

"When the special arrangement was made with Messrs. Corbett and
Floesch, through the Grand Trunk Pacific, for the substitution of the
solid embankment in place of the steel viaduct, it was supposed by everyone
who had been on the ground that the material would be earth of a
reasonable character to move and that it would make a stable embankment.
In fact, on the brow of the bank on the west side of Coal Creek there waf

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 93

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

sand showing, but it turned out that this was only two or three feet in
depth over a very small area; and, when the borrow pits were opened,
especially on the east side, the material was found to be of a hard pan
nature, which, when exposed to the air, and wet with heavy rains, became
impossible to hold in heavy embankments, and large quantities of it sluSed
outside of the slope stakes altogether — it became evident that some change
had to be made to secure more stable material. The only train haul
material on the contract was in the gravel hills at the North Eiver ballast,
pit, 45 miles away, and, of course, it was entirely out of the question to
expect contractors to hold up their work until track could be completed for
this 45 miles from Moncton, and then to take, probably, a year and a half
to haul the necessary material this long distance. The only other alterna-
tive was to go down to such depth into the solid rock, as would give a
large percentage of rock, to ensure the stability of the bank; for if we had
attempted to make this fill by stripping the rock, it would have taken, at
least, 20 per cent more material, owing to the much flatter slope at which
this material could have been made to stand, and this, together with the
fact that it would have largely increased the overhaul, the necessary right
of way, clearing, grubbing, and lengthening of the arch under the
embankment, it would have run the cost to, at least, $400,000 for this
embankment. Of course, the material required to take the place of the
viaduct has to be put in by the contractors at 30c per yard, no matter
what it may consist of, but on the basis of rock borrow at $1.10, as allowed
at other points on the district, the total cost of the fill will not exceed
$350,000, and we shall have a first-class embankment, which will neither
slide, sluff off, nor wash dovra. I have withheld any change in the
classification until the work should be so nearly completed that I could be
absolutely sure that the expense, after allowing rock borrow for the solid
rock excavated, would be a good deal less than it would have cost for earth
material stripped off the rock.

" Messrs. Corbett & Floesch have carried on this work vigorously,
under all the discouraging conditions and last month they asked, through
the Grand Trunk Pacific, that they be allowed rock borrow for the solid
rock excavated. Mr. "Woods of the Grand Trunk Pacific came down
personally and looked over the work, and wrote me urging such classifica-
tion and readjustment of classification on Eesidencies No. 1 and 2. I
herewith enclose copy of his letter. I have, therefore, directed that
159,000 yards loose rock and corresponding overhaul be deducted, and in
its place an equal amount of rock borrow be inserted, without overhaul.
Mr. Wheaton has, also, readjusted the classification on Eesidencies No. 1
and 2. I enclose herewith copy of Mr. Wheaton's letter, of which I
thoroughly approve.

60-A. " St. John, N.B., December 3, 1909.

" Gordon Grant.

" I consider that Messrs. Corbett & Floesch are fully entitled to this
and trust that you will approve of same, and take such steps as will be
necessary to have the change confirmed by proper authority.

" Yours very trulv,

" C. 0. POSS,
" District Engineer."
Enclosures.

94 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

'C. 0. Foss, Esq.,

District Engineer "A/
St. John, N.B.

" Moncton, N.B., November 3Q, 1909.

"Dear Sir:—

"Since taking over this division, I have been making an examination
of the classification, and find that Kesidencies No. 1 and 2 are much lower
in this respect than the other Eesidencies of this division, while the line
of demarkation all over the Division is practically the same throughout,
and the material precisely the same. The reason why this classification
existed is accounted for, partly by the fact that Cross Sections were not
fully worked out, and percentages, only, were returned until the actual
quantities were determined, and partly for the fact that previous
classifications had been cancelled. As an example: In one case, a stream
diversion, in the bottom of a borrow pit at the East end of the 11th Mile,
had been returned partly as Common Excavation, and partly as Loose
Eock, whereas it had been excavated in the Solid Rock. The borrow was
necessary, in order to make the North River fill, and, if the pit had not
been sufficiently deepened, three culverts would have been necessary, and
extra Right-of-Way bought, from which to obtain the necessary material.
The amount thus returned as Solid Rock is 2671 yards, whereas about twice
this quantity was actually excavated. I have, however, only returned an
amount of Solid Rock to correspond with the necessary width and depth
to provide sufficient drainage. 1 have made a personal examination of all
the ground with the Resident Engineers, and have restored the classification
to what I consider is proper.

"Residency No. 5 was, I thought, a little low judging from the nature
of the cuts and borrow pits; but, on examining Cross Sections and
Measurement books, can find that little change is necessary, if any.

" I could not quite finish this investigation, and am not prepared to
say just now, but think a small increase may be required in December.

" I also found that on some Residencies no return had been made for
grubbing on borrow pits, except where the pits were less than 4 ft. in depth.
I have gone into this matter and have returned the greater part of this
grubbing in the November Estimate. The balance was not quite fully
worked out, but will be returned in the December Estimate.

" Very truly yours,

"L. H. WHEATON,
" Division Engineer No. 1."

"Montreal, P.Q., November 16, 1909.

"C. 0. Foss, Esq.,

District Engineer N.T.R.,
St. John, N.B.

"Dear Sir:—

" I recently received a letter from the Corbett & Floesch Company,
subcontractors for this company for the work from Moncton westerly for
fifty miles, in which they state that they are dissatisfied with the classifica-
tion as returned on estimates to date, on Residencies No. 1 and 2, and
on the work at Coal Creek, Residency No. 5-.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 95

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

" They state, in connection with the latter, that the greater portion of
the embankment has been made up of solid rock, taken from borrow pits,
located and staked out by your assistants. They further state that when
the borrow pit located on the east side was opened, the material proved to be
of a soft and slippery nature, impossible to hold in the embankment, and
for this reason they were stopped from using this material and ordered to
take material for the embankment from further east, which proved to be
largely solid rock. On this work of which at least 85 per cent has been
completed, there has been estimated one-half the quantity of material
moved as loose rock and the remainder at 30c per yard, which is un-
satisfactory and they request that I take the matter up with your
department for a satisfactory adjustment. Since the receipt of this letter,
I have visited their work and have given special attention to the heavy
embankment at Coal Creek and find ihe statement made by our sub-
contractors substantially correct.

" Under a special arrangement made by Chief Engineer Lumsden, and
approved by this company, an arch culvert and embankment were substituted
for a viaduct about a thousand feet -n length, as first proposed, with
approaching embankments, in which there were about 300,000 cubic yards.
The change in plans required additional embankments of about 335,000
yards. In this agreement, the contractors were to be allowed (see Mr.
Lumsden's letter of April 1, 1908) schedule price for the arch culvert and
earth filling, with an addition of 5c per cubic yard overhaul, regardless
of the length of the overhaul, making the total price of common excavation
in that embankment, 30c per cubic yard.

" It now appears that but little of this material was considered
suitable for the embankment and you were forced to go further east where
the material proved to be largely solid rock. It would appear, however, that
in any event it would have been found necessary to borrow solid rock, to
have built the embankment, had the change not been made and the fact
that solid rock entitles them to certain classification for same. I think,
therefore, that the complaint of our sub-contractors for this part of the
work is well founded. It is not within my province to attempt to dictate
as to how work should be classified and returned, but I think you will
agree with me that the proper allowance for solid rock borrow has not
been allowed on this rock. You have an arrangement with other con-
tractors on your district for rock borrow for heavy embankments, which,
seemingly, might be applied to this instance, and with the data in your
possession regarding quantities, there ought to be no difficulty in arran'gino-
an equitable adjustment.

"With regard to the complaint of our contractors in connection with
classification on Eesidencies No. 1 and 2, I am not so well advised, as to
the character of the work as I should wish. If the classification was
revised by the Division Engineer, there must be some reason why the classi-
fication on Residencies No. 1 and 2 is considerably less than Eesidencies
3 and 4. My own opinion, based upon what I saw when the work was
opened, was that on Eesidency No. 1 the classification should be lighter
than on either 2 to 3. Our District Emgineer, who has examined this work
more carefully than the writer is very much better prepared to say if, in
his judgment, the classification is correct, as returned on Eesidencies No. 1
and 2, If not, I think that both sub-contractors and ourselves will be
willing to abide by the joint decision of }'0urself and Mr. Bouillon.

" Trusting that these matters may be, by your decision settled
satisfactorily to all, I am,

"H. A. WOODS."

96 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE V„ 1914

As will be noted from these reports, the amount of available common locatiou
for the construction of this fill was largely over-estimated and it became necessary
to borrow rock to the extent of 205,876 cubic yards to complete the embankment.
This rock borrow was approved of by the Grand Trunk Pacific (the contractors
for this work) and paid for at the special rate of $1,10 1-4 per cubic yard, this
rate being authorized by an order in council, passed on January 13, 1911.

The size of the concrete arch constructed was increased from 20 to 25 feet
'^in the interest of entire safety" according to Mr, Foss' letter of May 31, 1912.

The total cost of the material borrowed for this fill and the cost of the
culvert is as follows :

Borrow, North and South— Station 2306-2361—

Loose rock 33,439 cu. yds. @ 55c — $18,391.45

Over haul 1,242,025 cu. yds. @ Ic— 12,420.25— $30,811.60

Ditches, North and South in Fill —

Loose rock 2,322 cu. yds. @ 55c— $ 1,277.10—$ 1,277.10

Special Rock Borrow 205,876 cu. yds. ([p $1.101-4— $226,978.89— $226,978.89

Common Excavation Special 282.093 en vHs ^R) 30c— $ 84,627.90— $ 84,627.90

$343,695.58

Cost of 25 ft. Concrete Arch —

Excavation, common 1,424 cu yds. @ 25c — $ 373.50

Excavation, no coffer dams 1,887 cu. yds. @ $1 — 1,887.00

Excavation, with coffer dams 1,855 cu. yds. @ $3 — 5,565.00

Concrete 1-2-4 759.5 cu. yds. @ $12— 9,114.00

Concrete 1-3-6 3,414 cu. yds. @ $11.50 37,554.00

Paving 56 cu. yds. @ $ 3.50 196.00

^54,689.50— $ 54,689.50

Total cost $308,385 . 08

These figures have been supplied by District Engineer Foss.

Mr. Uniacke, Bridge Engineer of the Transcontinental Railway, in a letter
to the Investigation Commission, states, "the cost of a wooden trestle, covering
2,000 feet of the deepest portion of fill at Coal Creek, is $79,667.58. — The cost
of a steel viaduct over this same distance would be $246,110,00,"

The actual cost of the fill and structure for this 2,000 feet is $394,385,05,
which is a reduction of the value of 8,000 cubic yards of material, which was in
excess of the requirements for forming this embankment. That is we have re-
duced the cost of the fill by the value of the amount of the material which had
to be excavated anyway from the cuttings on either side. We find, therefore,
that if a wooden trestle had been constructed here, the cost would have been
$314,717,50 less than the cost of the fill and arch, and if a steel viaduct had been
used, the difference would be $148,275.08.

This particular location is included in the statement of wooden trestles,
from which will be noted that if a trestle had been built and the permanent work
undertaken in 7 years' time (four of which have already passed), the ultimate
saving to the country would have been $239,270.00. (See Exhibit No. 22.)

The evidence given by Mr, Foss goes to show that it was on account of the
unreliable character of the material when deposited in the fill that it became
necessary to resort to rock borrow to complete the embankment, and that when
these conditions confronted him, he took the matter up with Ottawa, (P, 97,)

The records however do not show that any report was made to headquarters
before a large yardage of rock had been blasted out and used, Mr. Foss' letter
of December 3rd was the first intimation received by the Chief Engineer, that
the work was being carried on on a more expensive scale than determined on.

p

w

'"■■■■ •• •

^^Hk *

E|H

^*^'^^-*^j

4?g||j»^l^n^jj|Attd^HH

1

■Lja

IB

IH

^i3r

District F, Mileage 5.8, Residency 19. Very Heavy Blasting. Page 70

District F, Reddit. Freight Shed. Page 86

District F, Reddit. View showing the two Stations. Page 86.

District B, Cap Rouge Viaduct. View showing Concrete Pedestal for River Span. Page 88

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 97

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

The Grand Trunk Pacific officials, occapying, as they did in this case,
the dual positions of contractors, and supervisors and inspectors of the work,
with a view to economical construction, as provided for in clause ? of the Act,
do not appear to have taken any action, beyond approving of the whole transac-
tion and urging the pavment of the rock borrow price. See Mr. Woods' letter
of November 30th, 1908.)

The Commission find that if a wooden trestle had been erected here, the
saving in seven years would have been $413,853.00, and the ultimate saving
when this trestle had been made permanent, $239,270.00, and that this money
is lost to the country through the policy which prohibited such methods of con-
struction.

And, furthermore, they feel that when it was discovered that the cost of this
fill was to be so largely in excess of the estimate, the local officials should have
reported the matter to headquarters, when some means might have been found
of overcoming this extra expense, involved by borrowing 205,876 cubic yards of
rock at $1 . IOI/2 per cubic yard.

CHIPMAN GEADE.

The railway crosses the Salmon Eiver at Chipman, N.B., fifty-seven
miles westerly from Moncton, on a bridge sixiy-five feet high. This bridge and
the embankments forming the approaches to the bridge constitute a crossing of
the Salmon Eiver Valley two miles in length. This bridge is at the foot of an
0.4 per cent gradient, seven miles long, rising eagerly from Mileage 57 to Mile-
age 50, and passing through a cutting two miles long from Mile 52 to Mileage
50 where the jumniit is attained.

An examination of the engineers and an inspection of the country indicates
that the proper location for the line had been secured, but that the 0.4 per cent,
gradient did not fit the country, and its adoption necessitated the two mile cut-
ting at the summit and the two mile embankment at the foot of the grade.

District Engineer Foss, at the request of the Commission, has submitted a
leport showing the saving which might have been made at this location had the
locating engineers been permitted to introduce an 0.5 per cent gradient from
Chipman to the summit of the hill. This saving is made up as follows :

Saving in construction of bank west of river $35,000 . 00

47,532 cubic yards solid rock excavation @ $1.50 71,298.00

76,537 cubic yards loose rock excavation @ .50 38,268.00

26,195 cubic yards common excavation @ .21 5,500.00

$150,066.00

To this saving is to be added the cost of the viaduct approach on east side
of river, which item Mr. Uniacke will be able to give you readily.

Mr. Uniacke, under date of March 18th, gives the cost of the portion of the
viaduct which would be eliminated by the introduction of the 0.5 per cent gra-
dient as $28,158.00 so that the total amount which might have been saved is
$178,224.00.

This piece of railway construction is an excellent example of the excessive
expenditures occasioned by limiting the locating engineers by hard and fast rules.
If they had been permitted to add one-tenth of a foot per hundred feet to the
rate of gradient to which their rigid instructions held them, they could have
eliminated the two mile cutting containing 150,264 cubic yards of material, and
reduced the cost of the Salmon Eiver Bridge by the amount shown.

And we find that in this portion of the line, namely between Quebec and
Moncton, with two pusher grades in existence and their use freely advocated by
123—7

98 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Mr. Butler on account of the paucity of traffic contemplated by all concerned,
the adherence to an actual 0.4 per cent gradient at this and similar locations
was quite unjustifiable.

LITTLE SALMON EIVEE VIADUCT.

186 miles west of Moncton the National Transcontinental Eailway having
traversed some rugged country crosses the valley of the Little Salmon River at
an elevation of some 200 feet above the water line, and at a point where the valley
is over 4,000 feet wide.

The crossing was accomplished by the construction of a steel viaduct 3,920
feet long, containing 13,991,310 pounds of steel and costing, including sub and
superstructure, $815,070.87.

The railway construction on either side of this viaduct is of the most costly
character, and the very heavy rock cuttings and deep fills in this vicinity might
liave been greatly reduced and the cost of the viaduct itself entirely eliminated
by the adoption of a pusher grade line.

We find that in addition to the 0.4 per cent grade line as constructed, two
alternative lines were surveyed in order to find a means of avoiding or reducing
to some extent this costly crossing.

One line was projected up the valley of the Little Salmon, crossing that
river at a height of about 30 feet over the water line and returning on the west
side of the river to the present line. This line, however, proved to be about 6^^
miles longer than the viaduct line and its construction would have cost as much
or more, so that it was abandoned as an alternative. The second Line projected was
a pusher grade line using 1.1 per cent gradients, which is the same rate as used
for the other pusher grades in this portion of the railway.

In connection with the proposition to construct pusher grades at this
location and the sa^ing to be effected thercl),v, we quote, here, extract from
evidence given by District p]ngineer Foss on this subject: —

)
Q. In your evidence, in June last, you stated that if a jack-knife
pusher grade had been constructed across the Little Salmon River valley,
that something like one and a half million dollars could have been saved.
— since that time you have made a further estimate. "Wliat are the
figures of tbat estimate? — A. Had a jack-knife pusher grade been adopted
at the Little Salmon River, there would have been saved $1,644,882.00.
and I think that that would have been somewhat increased if a careful
pusher had been worked out and located.

Q. You think that a still laiger saving than that would have been
effected? — A. Yes, probably a saving of one and three-quarter million
dollars.

Q. Having in mind the character of the railway, its cost, and the
business that could reasonably be expected of it, would you, if left to your
own discretion, have constructed this jack-knife pusher grade instead
of the big trestle? — A. I would have constructed it anyway, left to my
discretion.

Q. Why? — A. Because, caliuhiting tho money at four per cent
interest, the interest on the money that would liave been saved would
probably amount to $75,000.00, and that would certainly pay for
pushing the heaviest traffic that is likely, ever, to go over the road.

Mr. Foss's evidence is clear on the saving in, and reasons for the pusher
grade adoption.

IXTESTIGATING COMMISSION 99

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

In connection with the Pusher Grade at Lake Pohenagamook, Mr. Mac-
Pherson, Asst. to the Chairman, in a letter to Mr. Grant under date of August
12, 1912, writes as follows:

" Mr. Gutelius's remarks, that a pusher grade of about 1.47 per cent
balances a ruling grade of .06 per cent, are, of course indisputable, but
my reasons for not suggesting a steeper pusher grade than the 1.1 per cent
adopted, were that I considered freight traffic between Moncton and
Quebec would be for a long time and perhaps always, so moderate that
most, if not all, of the freight trains and the heaviest passenger trains
would. not require a pusher over it; whereas, had it been evenly balanced
\\ath the .06 ruling grade, both comparatively light freight trains and
heavy passenger trains would require pushing. Time will tell whether
1 was wrong in my judgment of the volume of traffic, but I am still of
the same opinion in the matter."

The question of constructing these pusher grades was first raised by Mr.
Foss in December, 1907, and after the matter had been reported to Ottawa,
Mr. MacPherson wrote to the Chief Engineer, under date of January 8, 1908, as
follows :

"File Xo. 2690.

"H. D. Lumsden, Esq.,

"Chief Engineer, Jan. 8th, 1908.

"Ottawa.

"Dear Sir:—

" I send you herewith copy of estimate made by Ass't District
Engineer Foss, and Mr. Dunn's letter transmitting same, proposing
another pusher grade about 10 miles long at a point about 30 miles
west of the pusher grade near the Tobique River, which has been
approved of. You will see by his estimate, which is not in detail, that
he claims a saving of $1,146,019 on construction, or a net saving of
$650,809, when the cost of operation is considered. There is not suffi-
cient detail in this estimate to check it by, and, as you see, it is based on a
trial location. One object of the pusher is to avoid the very large
Viaduct over the Salmon Piver, and, as we have so many large steel
structures, it might hasten construction if we could throw out such a
large one. One difficulty about changing our line at present is the
fact that it is proposed to let contracts soon, and we only have a trial
location over this proposed pusher grade.

" "Will you kindly have the matter settled and ad.vise what steps should
be taken.

"Yours very truly,

" D. MACPHERSON,

" Ass't Chief Engineer.

" P.S. — The pusher grade line is 0.611 miles the longer and the cur-
vature and rise and fall is greater than on the standard grade line."

A search of the Chief Engineer's record, where this letter is on file, does not
show that anv action was taken on the matter.

100 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Mr. Toss's evidence and Mr. MacPherson's letter indicate the general ex-
pectations as regards the volume of traffic between Quebec and Moncton. The
arguments which present themselves in connection with this subject are, —

In favour of the air line, invohdng the immediate construction of the
viaduct, —

1. This line is on a 0,4 per cent grade.

In favor of the 1,1 per cent pusher grade lines,—

1, An immediate saving of $1,750,000.00.

2, A railway constructed to these grades will be as efficient as the 0.4 per
cent grade line to handle the business for years and years to come.

3. By constructing the pusher grade line, the Commission woidd. have
saved in ten years' time in interest above $35,000.00 more than the entire cost
of the viaduct, the exact figures being $840,000.00.

4. In twenty years' time, the original saving, with interest, would have
amounted to $3,832,500.00, which would have been sufficient to rebuild the
line to suit any volume of traffic and still leave an ultimate saving of
$1,300,000.00.

In view of these facte, the Commission concludes that this extra expenditure
of $1,750,000.00 was ill-advised and made without due regard to the interests
of -the country.

LA TUQUE PUSHER GRADE.

Eitzpatrick Divisional Yard, which was once known as La Tuque Yard, is
the first engine terminal west of Quebec, and is 126 miles distant from the
north abutment of the Quebec Bridge. Approaching this yard from the East,
commencing at about mileage 115, the railway drops on an 0.4 per cent com-
pensated gi'ade to the yard level at mileage 126, through a very rugged and
mountainous country. The curvature on this portion of the line is almost
continuous, the maximum curve of 6 degrees having been used liberally, and
despite this, the cuttings encountered are very heavy, particularly in the vicinity
of the Little Bostonnais River.

The locating engineers projected an alternative line for this location, which
involved 4,8 mOes of a ,65 per cent grade, adverse to east-bound traffic, to be
operated as a '"'pusher grade"' and in June, 1906, District Engineer Doucet
wrote to the Chief Engineer, advocating the adoption of the pusher grade line
and showing a saving in its favor of $485,807.00, after taking into considera-
tion both construction and operating costs (p. 366).

Mr, Lumsden, on June 15, submitted the proposition to the Commission-
ers, recommending that approval be obtained from the Government for the
construction of the road with the pusher grade, as suggested by District
Engineer Doucet. A "pusher grade" is one over which it is necessary to help
a fully loaded train with an extra ensrine.

The Commissioners submitted tbe proposition to the Government with all
the correspondence, showing tlie saving and how it was to be made, who in turn
referred it to Mr. M. J. Butler the then Deputy Minister of Railways and
Canals. That gentleman advised the Govcrnmout not to approve of the pusher
grade "for the reason that it has been stated over and over again by members
of the Government that a four-tenths grade had been secured from "Winnipeg to
Quebec, and it seems to me that no circumstances should be permitted to interfere
with the adoption of this grade between the points named." This appears to
have been such an unnnswernble argument that the Government, while apprec-
iating the fact tbat no advantnge whatever was to be derived from it. insisted
on a four-tenths grade, thereby incurring unnecessars' expenditure of over a
million dollars. The Commission also submitted all the facts to Mr. Hayes,

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 101

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

President of the Ciraiid Trunk Pacific Railway Company, who, while admitting
that the reasons given '"'are all practical reasons which may he very prcp?rly
advanced for the adoption, of the pusher grade," went on to say "In my opinion,
however, the Commission should carefully consider with the Government the
effect . upon the minds, of the public regarding this Transcontinental Eailway,
which has been widely advertised as being the only low grade line from the
Atlantic to the Pacific." It will be seen that neither Mr. Butler nor Mr.
Hayes, the one an engineer and the other an operator of railways, offer any reason
why. from a commercial point of view, this million dollars should not have been
saved.

Mr. Doucet furnished this Commission with a comparative estimate between
the actual cost of the line as constructed, mile 115-122.7' "B" and proposed 0.65
pusher gr^ide line ''C" at La Tuque, which is:

Actual cost of line as constructed, mile 115-122.7 $1,345,251.00

Actual cost of Divisional Yard constructed 569,273.00

Total $1,914,524 . 00

Estimated cost of 0.65 Pusher Grade Line $641,235.00

Estimated cost of Divisional Yard on Upper Level 210,859.00

Total $852,094.00

Increased cost by adoption of present line $1,062,430.00

Mr. Doucet gives the following as the history of this piece of construction (p.
365) : " On making the final survey of the line at La Tuque, we found that by the
actual levels we could not possibly get down to the level of the La Tuque Flats,
using a 4.1 grade, and unless we took a very roundabout way, increasing the length
of the line some three mileSj and at a very excessive cost. The use of a direct
4.10 grade also prevented us from using the Flats at La Tuque for a Divisional
Point. We found that a direct line could be held by starting at Creek Beauce
lo the La Tuque Flats, using a 0.65 grade. I had the engineers look very care-
fully over the ground and run a number of lines to prove that it would be in the
interests of the Commissioners to use this direct line. This 0.65 grade line
could not be considered altogether as a Pusher Grade. It was much shorter, had
less curvature, and would cost much less to build than the 4.10 grade. It would
also have enabled us to use the Flats at La Tuque for a Divisional Yard, whereas
by the adoption of the direct 4.10 grade, we ware forced to move their yards two
miles further to the west at what I might call an excessive cost. By adopting
the 0.65 grade we would have saved $300,000.00 on the construction of the yard
alone.'*

It was not pretended by any person that an advantage would be gained
either in construction or operation by adhering to the 0.4 per cent grade at this
place.

Although Mr. Doucet in his estimate made allowance for the cost of an extra
engine to help trains over the grade, in practice such an engine would be supplied
at small expense by reason of the grade being near a di\'isional vard where tliore
are extra engines available. Even the sentimental reason on which the Govern-
ment based its refusal, and Mr. Hayes, his hesitation to approve that in order
not to disappoint the public in its expectation of possessinsr the only four-tenths
Transcontinental Eailway, did not exist because as was well known the approach
to the Quebec Bridge is over a pusher grade. "We find that there was no justifi-
<-ation v.-hatever for the expenditure of $1,062,430.

For correspondence in connection with the above see Evliibit Xo. 30.

102 XATIOXAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

LAKE POHENAGAMOOK PUSHER GRADE.

Two pusher grades, that is gradients of such a rate that engines pulling the
maximum number of cars which they can haul up the standard rate of gradient
require to be assisted or pushed up these steeper gradients, were constructed
between Moncton and Quebec.

The one between Mileages 146 and 159 is adverse to eastbound traffic and
rises at the rate of 1.10 feet per hundred feet, the other adverse to westbound
traffic rises on the same rate of gradient, namely, 1.10 per cent, from Mileage
174 to Mileage 163 (District "B.")

The peculiar condition apparent here is that both pusher grades are of the
same rate of gradient, while they should be proportional to the eastbound and
westbound grades to which this railway has been constructed, namely, 0.4 per
cent and 0.6 per cent, and the rate of the gradient between Mileages l'i4 and
163 might have been increased to 1.47 per cent., and exactly the same results
in operation attained while the construction saving would have amounted to
$43,500.00.

This amount is based on an estimate submitted by District Engineer Doucet,
who stated in his evidence that had the matter been left to his own judgment
and authority, he would have adopted the steeper gradient, and thereby effected
this saving. Mr. MacPherson, who, as Assistant Chief Engineer, was directly
interested in the gradients and profiles, in a report to Mr. Gordon Grant under
date of August 12th, 1912, explains the matter as follows: —

"Mr. Gutelius' remarks that a pusher grade of about 1.47 per cent balances
a ruling gi*ade of 0.6 per cent are of course indisputable, but my reasons for not
suggesting a steeper grade than the 1.10 per cent adopted were that I considered
freight traffic between Moncton and Quebec would be for a long time, and per-
haps always, iso moderate that most, if not all, of the freight trains and the
heaviest passenger trains, would not require a pusher over it; whereas, had it been
evenly balanced with the 0.6 ruling grade, both comparatively light freight trains
and heavy passenger trains would require pushing. Time will tell whether I was
wrong in my judgment of the volume of traffic, but I am still of the same opinion
in the matter."

Mr. Tye confirms the Commissioners' opinion that any money expended in
obtaining a 1.1 per cent gradient where a steeper grade was permissible was
wasted, and, though the amount shown as having been unnecessarily expended at
this location is based on the profile of the line as constructed, we have no hesit-
ancy in stating that had the locating engineers been properly instructed in this
matter, a far greater sum might have been saved.

The conditions outlined in Mr. MacPherson's report as regards the volume of
traffic east of Quebec appear to be reasonable and well founded, and this item of
$43,500.00 fades to insignificance when contemplating the millions exjiended on
the 460 miles of railway between Moncton and Quebec in obtaining 0.4 and 0.6
per cent gradients as provision for trains of a length and tonnage unknown in
Eastern Canada.

SECOND SIDINGS.

A station track plan was adopted by the National Transcontinental Railway
which provides for two side tracks located side by side on the same side of the main
track at all stations which are located about seven miles apart. Tlicse sidings
have a total capacity of 150 cars, or four average length trains, and are located
regardless of volume of traffic, local business or the expense, as many of them are
located where heavy rock cutting was required, and being outside the grading'

INYESTIOATINO COMMISSION 101

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

required for double track, become an absolute waste unless required for local busi-
ness. This plan was adhered to as regards the grading of the sidings between
Graham and Winnipeg, and at some of the points in Quebec and New Brunswick.
Only after the rails were laid upon several of these sidings was it realized that
the extra siding was a useless expenditure and the plan eventually abandoned. (See
Exhibit No. 24.)

The standard practice in siding construction on new Canadian railways is to
build single side tracks in convenient locations at distances of about ten miles
apart, and to extend this single siding as required for the volume of traffic and
later on to build intermediate similar sidings using them finally as double track.

The practice of building second tracks at stations is only resorted to when
the local business at such stations requires such facility for the loading and un-
loading of cars, or when the operation of the road becomes hampered by the number
of trains or cars to he talc en care of at that point.

A statement has been compiled covering the cost of the building of these
extra side tracks, and is attached herewith, from which it will be noted that had
the construction of these second siding trackg been postponed until traffic war-
ranted it a total saving of $374,410 would have been effected.

NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILV7AY.

Statement showing locations of second sidings and amounts expended thereon.

(Note: — No tracks are laid at points marked thus — x.)

District A. —

Second sidings constructed at Chipman, Cantor x, Sudbury x, McGivney's
Junction x, Maple Grove x, Summit x, Longley, Plaster Eock, Grand Falls, Mileage
195.5, Belief leur, St. Leonards, Quinibis, Green Eiver, Mileages 237.5, 242.5,
and 252.0.

Cost of grading $38,253 . 00

Cost of rails, fastenings, switches, ties, and track laying 16,927.00

Total cost. District A $55,180.00

District B. —

West of Quebec Bridge, second sidings constructed at Mileages 5.2, 65.0,
93.0, 85.0, and 154.5.

Cost of grading $33,867 . 00

Cost of rails, fastenings, switches, ties and track laying 17,925.00

$51,792.00

District CD.—

One second siding constructed at the west crossing of the Mettagami Eiver,
Mileage 134.6.

Cost of grading $3.962 . 00

Cost of rails, fastenings, switches, ties and track laying (approx.) 1,500.00

Total cost District CD $5,462 . 00

104 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

District E. —

One second siding constructed at Stalion 1864.

Cost of grading $3,584 .00

Cost of rails, fastenings, switches, ties and track laying 2,100.00

Total cost. District E $5,684.00

District F. —

Second sidings constructed at Hudson x, Webster x, Taggartx, Sunstrumx,
Hilledge x, Eiclian x, Freda x, Hunter x, Morgan x, Quibell x, Mcintosh x, Can-
yon X, Flavel x, Jones x, Farlane, Brinka x, Edia x, Minaki x, Wade x, Malachi x,
White X, Ophir x, Dott, Brcreton, Ehna, Hazel x, Vivian, Anola x, Dugald.

Cost of grading $235,820 . 00

Cost of rails, fastenings, switches, ties 20,452 .00

$256,272.00

tSummary.

District A $55,180.00

District B 51,792 . 00

District CD 5,462 . 00

District E 5,684.00

District F 256,272 . 00

$374,410.00

HEAVY RAILS IN SIDING.

The commissioners of the Transcontinental Eailway have adopted and used
steel rails weighing 80 lbs to the yard in all main track sidings, yard tracks,
ballast pit tracks, etc. It is the practice on other railways to use second hand
rails of lighter weight in unimportant tracks. 65 lb. rails would have been the
proper weight for the secondary tracks on the Transcontinental Railway, the
main track rails being 80 lbs.

There are 367 miles of new 80 lb. rails and 91:7 new 80 lb. turnouts used in
the secondary tracks on the Transcontinental Railway. A statement supplied
this Commission by Chief Engineer Grant shows that if new 65 lb. rails and turn-
outs had been used in these secondary tracks and the prices paid per ton were
the same as the prices paid for 80 lb. rails, switches, frogs, etc., a saving of $310,500
could have been effected, and if second hand rails (which are usually procurable
at a price of $5.00 per ton less than new rails) had been purchased and used as
is the usual custom, this saving would have been increased to $520,000.

The responsibility for this avoidable expenditure rests primarily with Chief
Engineer Liunsden who wrote the Commissioners, March 25, 1908 (Exhibit 25) :
"Personally I feel that there is a great advantage in having a uniform rail in
use on the entire system but as this proposition will affect the Operators of
the road more than the Constructors, the Operating Company should have their
suggestion considered." Tbe Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company in Mr.
Woods' letters, March 5th, 1906, states it will be satisfactory to the Grand Trunk
Pacific Raihvav Company if the Commission decide to use SO lb. rails throiicrhout.
The Commissioners in their reply of April 15th, 1908, to Mr. Morse's letter of March
20th, 1908, wherein he states "I write to suggest that it would be well to order light
rail for side tracks as it would lessen our capital expenditure," stated "If it now be

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 106

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

desired that a change be made, the Commissioners think that such should be re-
quested by a resolution of your (Grand Trunk Pacific Eailway) Board." Nothing
further was done by the Grand Trunk Pacific Eaihvay Company, but the new Chief
Engineer of the Transcontinental Railway, Mr. Gordon Grant, took the matter
up on April 8th, 1910, with Chief Engineer Kelliher of the Grand Trunk Pacific
Railway Company and in Mr. Kelliher's reply of April 19th, 1910, he says: —

'"Your suggestion to substitute 60 lb. rails for 80 lb. rails in all yards
and sidings for which rails have not been ordered or laid is fully approved
by our Vice President and General Manager and myself and I would be
glad if you would recommend the adoption of the same to the Commission."

whereupon, Mr. Grant recommended the use of light rails in sidings on April
26th, 1910, and in his recommendation suggested that at that date a saving of at
least $150,000 might have been effected. The Commissioners, however, paid no
attention to Mr. Grant's recommendation and purchased sufficient 80 lb. rails
for all purposes, so that the responsibility for the use of those expensive rails in
unimportant tracks subsequent to Mr. Grant's reconmiendation, rests entirely with
the Commissioners.

It should be pointed out that the operating company gains an advantage
by having 80 lb. rails in the sidings in that these rails can be exchanged for de-
fective or worn out main track rails, whereas, if the sidings were laid with lighter
rails, the operating company would be compelled to purchase new 80 lb. rails for
these renewals or replacements at their own expense and cost.

Thus the use of new heavy rails in sidings was equal to loaning the operating
company from $340,000.00 to $520,000.00 for rail maintenance without interest
for seven years and thereafter at the rate of three per cent per annum, and the
saving which the Commissioners might have effected by adopting the lighter rail
would have, at the end of seven years, amounted to from $447,000.00 to $683,-
000.00, according to whether new or second hand rails were purchased.

DOUBLE TRACKING.

At three locations on the Transcontinental Railway the Commissioners
undertook the construction of a double track railway at direct variance to the
wording of the Act which governed their operations.

At Cap Rouge, or rather between the St. Foye yard, which is the Quebec
Freight Terminal, and which lies immediately north of the Quebec Bridge, and
the Cap Rouge viaduct, there has been constructed about one and a quarter miles
of double track at an additional cost over and above the cost of a single track for
this distance of $97,838.02, made up as follows:

Gut Station 81-130.

Extra yardage taken out for double track: —

S. R., 58,472 cubic yards, at $1 . 50 $87,708 . 00

C. E., 2,517 cubic yards at .21 528.57

Extra track material and ballast 9,601.45

$97,838.02

It will be noted that the cost per mile for this second track is inordinately
high, and was caused by the fact that the major part of the work was the ex-
cavating for double track of the great cutting immediately east of the Cap Rouge
viaduct. S. 81-120 (3-4 mile.)

106 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Prior to the Transcontinental Eailway being located at this point, the Can-
adian Northern Eailway, on behalf of the Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova
Scotia Railway, had submitted to the Department of Railways and Canals, plans
for approval of a proposed line of railway which was to occupy practically the
same ground as the Transcontinental Eailway does now, from Cap. Eouge viaduct
to the Quebec Bridge. Authorization for the construction of this line was obtained
by the Canadian Northern Eailway Company under an order of the Board of
Eailway Commissioners, dated August 15th, 1904.

Through the energetic action of Mr. Wade, who was Chairman of the Board
of Commissioners of the Transcontinental Eailway at that date, this order of the
Board of Eailway Commissioners was cancelled by an order of the Governor Gen-
eral in Council, dated June 28th, 1905, so that at that date the Transcontinental
Eailway was in a position to proceed with the construction of their single track
railway without any interference from other interests.

In August, 1905^ Mr. Parent was appointed Chairman of the Transcontin-
ental Eailway, and in September, 1905, Mr. Lumsden issued instructions to build
double track from the Quebec Bridge to Cap Eouge viaduct.

Mr, Lumsden, in his evidence (p. 395), states that tlie double track was con-
structed with the idea of accommodating the Canadian Northern Eailway as well
as the Transcontinental. The Commissioners were consulted in the matter, and
his instructions were issued with their knowledge.

The points that stand out in connection with this matter are:

The Canadian Northern Eailway had their plans covering this location
approved first.

The Transcontinental Eailway wished to occupy the same ground.

There was room for two tracks, as the construction of the double track
proves.

The Commissioners of the Transcontinental Eailway built a double track
to accommodate the Canadian Northern Eailway Company.

There was no necessity for a double track. The Commissioners, before
the work started, should have made an arrangement with the Canadian Northern
Eailwav in connection with running rights over the single track, and a further
agreement relating to the constniction of a second track should the traffic
warrant the expenditure (p. 434).

By the construction of the second track, the cost of the railway has been
increased by $97,838.00 with no benefit accruing.

STURGEON RIVER BRIDGE.

Mile 119.5, District F.

This structure across the Sturgeon Eiver is located on that stretch of
railway bet^veen Graham and a point where the Grand Tnink Pacific brniich
line to Fort William leaves the main line of the Transcontinentid Eailway.
The bridge was constructed to provide for a Bouble track railway at an additional
cost of $106,035.00. as outlined in the following letter from Mr. R. F. Uniacke
to Mr. Grant under date of October 11th, 1913.

"In replv to vour letter of the 5th instant, file 12,188, the cost of con-
struction of the Sturgeon Eivcr Bridge, Mile 119.5, District F.. for double
track over and above the cost of a single track Btructure was—

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 107

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Sub-structure $ 49,557 . 00

Super-structure 56,478 . 00

$106,035.00

" R. F. UMACKE,

" Bridge Engineer/'

Before this work was undertaken the matter was referred to the Grand
Trunk Pacific Railway Company, and Mr. B. B. Kelliher, Chief Engineer of the
G. T. P. Railway, in his reply to Mr. Uniaeke, under date of October 25, 1909,
expressed himself as follows:

"I agree with ^-ou in preference for a double track single bridge, as per
section shown in scheme No. 2 at the present time. I have taken this up
with our Vice-President and he is of the opinion that it will be necessan- for
us to double track the line from Superior Junction to the division yard before
many years."

The letter then deals with the question of the number of spans required
for the crossing, and concludes as follows:

"As far as the Grand Trunk Pacific is concerned they would like to have
a double track bridge built on the original construction, and whether the
bridge should be two or three spans, you will be able to determine."

Mr. Gordon Grant, in his report to this Commission, in connection with
this bridge, says:

"The reason for this bridge having been constructed for double track is
that it was deemed advisable to do so, owing to the fact that this crossing
intervenes between Superior Junction and Graham yard, which are about six
miles apart, the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company maintaining that in
the near future traffic between these two points would necessitate a double
track and that if the bridge was not built for a double track, it would cost a great
deal more money later on than at the time it was first constructed."

We do not agree with Mr. Grant as regards the increased cost of this work if
undertaken at a later date after taking into consideration the ver\'' high existins:
contractors^ prices and the reasonable rates which would have been paid for
concrete, etc., once the railway was in operation, and we find that though this
unauthorized expenditure was made with the concurrence of the operatingr com-
pany, it was a needless extravagance by which the country is again the sufferer,
not only by being mulcted of the first cost involved, namely, $106,035.00, but by
losing forever the interest on this amount for at least seven years.

TRANSCONA TO WINNIPEG.

The subject of the location of the Transcontinental Railway entering the
City of "Winnipeg has already been dealt with. This line from Transeona to
Winnipeg, a distance of about 4.9 miles, has been constructed as a double track
railway at an additional cost over and above what a single track would have cost,
of $475,819.00, made up as follows:

Bridges —

Sub-structure $121,186 . 00

Super-structure 224,633.00

$365,819.00
Grading —

Approximate 100,000 . 00

$475,819.00

108 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

We cannot find any similar instance of a new railway undertaking to
provide for possible future traffic in such a manner.

That the Commissioners of the Transcontinental Railway should, under-
take to double track any portion of the railway seems to be in direct contra-
vention of the terms of the Act and was a most unwise procedure.

In this case the country suffers to the extent of nearly half a million
doUars, while the interest on this amount for the period of seven years is also
lost.

It was so obviously to the advantage of the Commissioners as representing
the financiers of the railway to curtail such inroads on their capital until the
traffic conditions should warrant the expenditure that we can only attribute
this unnecessary outlay to a lack of interest in the economical and efficient
construction of the railway.

TWO PEICES PAID FOE ONE HANDLING OF MATERIAL.

Instances have occurred on the Transcontinental Railway where the contrac-
tors have been paid for excavating material from line cuttings and also paid for
the same material as train hauled filling, under Item 740.

These instances are at locations where the material excavated from the cut-
tings is not required for the construction of embankments in the immediate
vicinity, or rather within a distance which would allow the material to be hauled
there without paying the contractor an extra under his overhaul allowance clause
which would make the cost of the material to the Commissioners in excess of the
contractor's price for train hauled filling.

The argument used to justify this double payment is, that owing to the long
haul from the cutting to the point where this material would be required, under
ordinary conditions, it would be more economical to waste the material excavated
from the cutting by throwing it in the spoil bank and to borrow train fill for the
construction of the distant embankment, rather than to pay the contractor one
cent a cubic yard for every one hundred feet over five hundred feet the material
would be hauled from the cutting to the embankment, and that in paying the
contractor for excavating the material and then paying him train hauled filling
for putting it in the embankment, the Commissioners are not called upon to pay
anything in excess of what this work would cost under any conditions.

It is pointed out, however, that by using temporary grades to surmount these
cuttings or by slightly detouring the line and providing for these changes in the
original profiles given to the contractors, the material in the cuttings for which
a double price was paid might have been removed as train fill, classified, if neces-
sary, and one price only have been paid.

We do not find that the Commission or their engineers took advantage of
-this economy which is the usual practice in construction on other railways, and
we find that their omission to do so involved a waste of approximately $75,284.83.

I

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 109

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Statement showing yardage and cost of material excavated from line cuttings
and paid for at excavation prices, and also paid for at train fill prices.

Contract No. 2. Amount Wasted.

51,242 cubic yards S.R. @ $1.50 $76,863.00

87,496 cubic yards L.R. @ .50 43,748.00

37,863 cubic yards Com- Ex. @ .21 7.142.73

$127,753.73
176,601 cubic yards train fill @ 38c 67,608.38

$194,862.11
If paid for as classified train fill would cost 163,584.40

$31,277.71 $31,277.71

Contract No. 3.

3,417 cubic yards loose R. @ 44c $1,503.48

2,593 cubic yards Com. Ex. @ 29c 751.97

$2,255.45
6,010 cubic yards train fill @ 50c 3,005.00

$5,260.45
If paid for as classified train fill would cost 3,517.55

$2,102.90 $ 2,102.90

Contract No. 4.

24,302 cubic yards S.R- @ $1.45 $35,237.90

11,445 cubic yards L.R. @ .45 5,150.25

7,029 cubic yards Com. Ex. @ .27 1,897.83

$42,285.98
42,77« cubic yards train fill @ 50c 21,388 . 00

$63,673.98
If paid for as classified train fill would cost 48,549.76

$15,124.22 $15,124.22

Contract No. 6.

75,920 cu. yds. com. ex. @ 23c $17,461.60

75,920 cu. yds train fill @ 40c 30,368 . 00

47,829.60
If paid for as train fill would cost 30,368.00

$17,461.60 $17,461.60

Contract No- 8.

6,500 cu. yds. loose rock @ 65c $4,225.00

5,500 cu. yds. com. ex. @ 27c 1,485.00

$5,710.00
12,000 cu. yds. train fill @ 45c. ! 5,400.00

$11,110.00
If paid for as classified train fill would cost 7,870.00

$3,240.00 $3,240.00.

Contract No. 16.

16,000 cu. yds. com. ex. @ 38c $6,080.00

16,000 cu. yds. train fill @ 55c 8,800.00

$14,880.00
If paid for as train fill would cost 8,800.00

$6,080.00 $6,080.00

Total amount wasted $75,284.8$

110 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

HIGH EMBANKMENTS ON PEAIEIE.

When examining tlie railway, this Commission noticed that the embankments
forming the roadbed were five or six feet in height at many places where the
railway traverses level country, and upon inquiry it was ascertained that generally
these embankments were made high to protect against the accumulation of drift-
ing snow.

It was found from the evidence that the consensus of opinion of the engineers
on this railway was that if the base of rail is three feet above the surrounding
level country, or the surface of the roadbed was one and a half feet above the
surface of the surrounding country, proper snow protection would thus be afforded.

To ascertain the amount of excessive grading which was done to make these
excessively high embankments, the Commission caused one of their engineers to
make calculations and estimates as to the amount of this additional expenditure,
keeping the gradient within maximum limits so as to ensure that the efficiency
of these low grades remain unimpaired. The estimate which covers Contracts
Nos. 14, 15 and 16, where this feature was most apparent^, shows that in this
district alone $153,356.00 was so much money wasted.

"We are of the opinion, therefore, that $152,356.00 might have been saved on
this part of the line and the efficiency of the railway be maintamed, if proper
economy had been used in the height of embankments.

PILING FOR FOUNDATIONS.

The following list shows tlie prices submitted by the various contractors under
Items No. 10 and 11 of the general specifications:

Contract. Contractors-

1. Grand Trunk Pacific

2. J. W. McManus

3. Grand Trunk Pacific

4. Grand Trunl< Pacific

- 5. W. Kitchen

6. Lyons & White

7. M. P. & J. T. Davis

8. M. P. Davis

9. M. P. Davis

10. Macdonell & O'Brien

11. Grand Trunk Pacific

12. Macdonell & O'Brien

13. Macdonell & O'Brien

14. Grand Trunk Pacific

15. E. F. & G. E. Fauquier :

16. M. P. Davis

17. M. P. Davis

18. E. F. & G. E. Fauquier

19. O'Brien & McDoupall

20. O'Brien & McDougall

21. J. D. McArthur

The original specifications on which Contracts Nos. 0, ](r and 21 were
awarded, provided for piling for foundations under Clause 153, which reads as
follows:

"Piling will be paid for under the headings of 'Piling Delivered' and 'Piling
Driven.' 'Piling Delivered' will include piling furnisherl by the contractor at
bridge site as ordered by the Engineers, and will be paid for by the linear foot,

Item 10.

Item 11,

20c

20c

20c

20c

22c

22c

20c

20c

20c

30c

25c

15c

15c

15c

30c

16c

20c

40c

20c

40c

20c

20c

25c

25c

2.5c

25c

25c

26c

25c

20c

40c

20c

40c

20c

20c

20c

25c

15c

25c

16c

25c

15c

INYESTIOATING COMMISSION 111

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

but any lengths in excess of those ordered by the Engineer shall not be paid for.

'• -Piling Driven' will be paid for at the specified rate per linear foot in the
finished structure which will include all work of any kind in connection there-
with."

When the specifications were revised in February, 1907, Clause No. 153 was

altered to read as follows:

^Tiling will be paid for under the headings of Tiling Delivered' and Tiling
Driven.' Tiling Delivered' will include piling furnished by the contractor at
bridge site as ordered by the Engineer, and will be paid for by the linear foot,
but any lengths in excess of those ordered by the Engineer will not be paid for.
Tile Deriving' will be paid for at the specified rate per net linear foot in the finished
structure, and will include all work of any kind in connection therewith, but will
not include material in the piles themselves."

Mr. Lumsden's intention as to how the piling should be paid for under the
original specifications is expressed in his letter to District Engineer Doucet, of
September 17th, 1906, in which he says:

"In case of any misunderstanding in regard to items in schedule as Tiling
Delivered' and Tiling Driven,' the intention was, in putting it in this way, was
that the contractor would be paid under Tiling Delivered' for the full length of
all piles as per Engineer's bill, less the length which had been driven at the date
of the estimate, the latter being paid for at the price of Tiles Driven '."

In. November, 1906, the contractors on Contracts 9 and 10, Messrs. M. P.
Davis and Macdonell & O'Brien, objected to the piling being returned in the
estimates in accordance with Mr. Lumsden's ruling, and claimed that they should
receive 20c a foot for the piles delivered, and also 40c a foot for driving them,
making a total uf 60c a foot for pUe in the work.

Although the records do not show how the decision was arrived at, on De-
cember 21st, 1909, Mr. Lumsden advised Mr. Doucet:

"It has been decided that in the monthly progress estimates the rate of 20c
M-ill be continued and apply on all rates under the specifications up to and in-
cluding December 31st, proximo, and that thereafter the rate of 40c will govern
on Item 11 Tiling driven'" and Mr. Lumsden instructs that the alteration in
the estimates on work done in the past, owing to the change in rate, can best be
adjusted by the addition of a bulk sum. In his letter to the Commissioners of
Januarv' 2nd, 1907, reporting the result of the meeting held at Quebec on Decem-
ber 14th, in connection with the train filling prices, he reported on this matter
as follows:

"I a.]so allowed the 20c per linear foot for Tiles Delivered' as well as the 40c
per foot for Tiles Driven' having found in making a comparison of the tenders
that had been so computed except where specially mentioned otherwise."

The basis of the contractors' claim on Contracts 9 and 10 was that they shoidd
be paid 20c per linear foot for providing pile, and 40c per linear foot for driving
the pile, instead of 20c for providing the pile, and 20c for driving this pile, as out-
lined in Mr. Lumsden's letter of September 17th, 1906, in which he gave his in-
terpretation of the clause governing these items. The only contracts awarded at
this date were 9, 10, and 21, and Mr. J. D. McArthur in submitting his price?
of 25c and 15c for these items, specified that the latter price applied to driving
only.

Mr. Lumsden in his evidence states that he considers that all the tenderers
on the McArthur contract contemplated being paid the rate for piling driven and
for piling delivered for the piles in the v\'ork; that is, two prices, though this is at
variance with his original instructions to Mr. Doucet with respect to this matter.
A perusal of the list of prices for items 10 and 11 shows that the two contractors,
Macdonell & O'Brien and M. P. Davis, in their schedule bids, never submitted a

112 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

price for piling driven within 15c of what they claimed they should be paid for
this work on Contracts 9 and lO^, and their 40c price is in excess of any contractor's
figure for this work.

The subcontractors who undertook the piling work for Messrs, Macdonell &
O'Brien were paid at the rates from 16 to 17 l-2c for piling delivered, and from
16 to 171/^c for piling driven, and if Mr. Lumsden's original intention had been
adhered to, the main contractors would have been paid for this work 20c for piling
delivered and 20c for piling driven, instead of which the reversal of liis first rul-
ing handed to the main contractors an additional 20c per linear foot which the
men wlio did the work never got any advantage from. According to the returns
to date, this 20c amounts to, on Contract 9, $11,595.00, and, on Contract 10,
$22,300.00, and we feel that, owing to a wrong interpretation of the specifications,
and also of the contractors' intentions when tendering, they were conceded this
amount of $33,895.00.

DITCHING FOR THE PUEPOSE OF DRAINING BORROW PITS.

There are many locations on the Transcontinental Railway in Northern On-
tario where costly and unnecessary ditches have been dug to drain the borrow
pits adjacent to the railway which have been formed by the excavation of material
for the construction of embankments.

The total amount of money which has been expended on this work is
$166,920.91.

Of this sum $104,859.60 has been spent on- District CD., and $62,061.31 on
District E. Work of this character has been confined to the clay belt of Northern
Ontario through which the railway passes easterly and westerly of Cochrane.

This Commission were so impressed with the extent of this ditching and the
number and length of drainage channels excavated for the purpose of borrow pit
drainage that they requested Mr. Gordon Grant to supply them with the cost of
this work, in the following letter dated June 22nd, 1912 :

"Gordon Grant, Esq.,

Chief Engineer, N. T. Ey.,
Ottawa.

" Dear Sir:—

" Kindly supply the Commission with a statement showing the ditching
done for the sole purpose of draining borrow pits. You need not include
those ditches from which the material was used in making embankments,
simply those that were constructed proper and simply for the drainage of
borrow pits.

" Give the approximate location, yardages and cost.

"Yours truly,

" F. P. GTTTELIUS."

The figures supplied by Mr <^rant in reply to this letter show the total cost
of the work to have been $166,920.91 as given above.

There is no doubt that these ditches, so constructed, achieved their object
and assisted materially in rlraining the borrow pits and in keeping them drained
of any surface water which otherwise might have accumulated.

This matter is referred to in the specifications under clause No. 29, which
reads as follows:

"24. Borrow pit^ shall be located in such places as will be approved
by the Engineer. They shall be regiilar in width, unless otherwise permit-

' II ■ Ii^^^JH^mA

District A, Mileage 145.0. Waste on Top of Rock Cutting. Page 70.

District A, Mileage 178.0. West Portal of Tunnel. Page 100.

IXVESTIOATIXG COMMISSIOX 111

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

ted by the Engineer, and, if required, shall be connected with ditches and
drained to the nearest water course."

In building a railway through a new country, particularly such a country
as that of Xorthern Ontario, the presence of surface water is very noticeable.

In the construction of the railway, the grading operations and the clear-
ing of the right of way has a tendency to drain the portion of the land through
which the road passes, and what appears when first encountered to be wet, marshy
land, dries out in process of time to a very appreciable extent, and to undertake
to drain all these borrow pits to the extent this work has been undertaken was a
waste of time and money, for the reason that time itself would have affected the
same results procured by the construction of these ditches, and at any particularly
wet locations, if the engineers had properly located their borrow pits so that they
would drain themselves to the necessary railway ditch alongside the embank-
ment, no further ditching would have been required. In any event the expendi-
ture of this $166,920.91 for providing drainage in a virgin country before any
;idvantage could be taken from the construction of the railway itself to affect this
drainage was an unwarranted extravagance, the responsibility for which rests with
the Dist. Division and Eesident Engineers.

EXPENSIVE FARM CROSSINGS.

The Transcontinental Railway, about 59 miles west of Quebec, in the County
of Champlain, cuts through a farm of 55 acres owned by Mr. Narcisse Delisle.

In their dealings with Mr. Delisle, the Commissioners have purchased from
him 5.23 acres of right-of-way at $100.00 per acre, have paid him for damages
$277.00, have increased the opening of the culvert, which spans the stream flowing
through his farm, to a size Avhich will permit the passage of carts, etc., at an addi-
tional cost of $26,235.00, have expended $182.06 in the construction of a level
crossing, and have paid Mr. Delisle a further amount of $500 in settlement of hii
claim for damage.

The engineers who located this portion of the railway provided for a six foot
concrete arch culvert to span the stream on Mr. Delisle's farm, at an estimated
cost of $7,978.00.

In April, 1906, when railway construction had reached this point, Mr. Delisle
lodged a complaint with District Engineer Doucet that ''' the construction works
are causing considerable damage. They are completely closing up a passage t«
communicate from one side of my property to the other. I should like to have a
culvert so as to provide for a carriage crossing and also for my cattle in order
that they may have access to waters, otherwise I will have no access to thirty
arpents of my land on account of the dump which is being built at present."

On September 8th, 1906, Mr. J. F. Guay, who was Land Agent for the Com-
missioners on District " B ", reported to Mr. Doucet in connection with this matter
that the "case is similar to that of 'Honore Perron'. There is a possibility of
giving these two parties an •\cceptable crossing by enlarging the concrete culverts
to be built on each of these farms. If this is not done, we will certainly have very
heavy damages to pay. I have taken upon myself to ask Mr. Parrot, E. E., at St.
Stanislas, not to push the building of these two culverts and wait for further
instructions from Mr. McCallum". On the 10th September, 1906, Mr. Gordon
Grant, at that date Assistant District Engineer, instructed Division Engineer
McCallnm to "put in a 14' arch with a 13' clear height inside at stations 3120
and 3147.

"These are to serve as farm crossings."

Station 3120 is on Delisle's fanp, and station 3147 on that owned bv Iionore
Perron.

123— S

114

NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

The records of the Bridge Engineer show that the construction of the 14'
concrete arch culvert at Station 3120 was commenced on June 11th, 1907, the
culvert being completed on July 31st, at a cost of $35,813.00.

In the meantime, however, although Mr. Delisle had obtained the concession
of a 14' culvert, he was still dissatisfied as the following reports from Land
Asrent Guav to Mr. Doucct indicate :

"Quebec. May 10th. 1!»07.

"A. E. Doucet, Esq.,

District Engineer,
Quebec, P.Q.

"Dear Sir:—

" This party, Xarcisse Delisle, has his crossing through a large culvert.
'• He claims that this will not suit and refuses to make arrangements
for any consideration whatever.

"He wants a lawsuit. I will see him a little later.

'• Yours trulv
"J.

F. CVXY."

" Quebec. ^Mav -^Oth. 1907.
"A. E. Doucet, Esq.,

District Engineer,
Quebec.

"Dear Sir:—

"My assistant called on Mr. Delisle again on Friday in view of making
a final effort to arrive at a satisfactory arrangement with him. Mr. Delisle
stated again that for no consideration would he accept an arrangement. He
is, however, willing to sell the whole farm for the sum of $3,500.00, if
agreeable to this, kindly let me know and I will close the bargain.

" Yours truly,

"J. F.

GT'AV."

The suggestion that the farm be purchased for the sum of $3,500.00 was not
entertained, and the construction of the 14' concrete arch culvert was proceeded
fwith on June 11 th, 1907. On June 18th, 1907, Mr. Quay submitted a further
report on this matter to ^Ir. Doucet. The report being as follows: —

Eeport No. 77.

A. E. Doucet, Esq.,

"In regard to Narcisse Delisle, Consecutive No. 565, Parish of St.
Stanislas; I beg to report as follows in reply to the letter of E. Atkinson,
Esq., Law Clerk, dated June 17th.

" The land we take from this party is 651 feet in length by 350 feet
in breadth, the area being 5.23 acres.

IXVEi^TIGATIXi} COilillSSIOX 115

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

" This land is situated in a deep gully with steep sides difficult of
cultivation and for that reason of much less value than the land of his
neighbors who are on the flat.

" On June 27th, 1906, I made an arrangement with him for 2.99 acres
for $59.80. At the time he did not realize, or I either, the inconvenience
he would be put to by the high bank which is being built across the gully.

"' He has been complaining of this all along and when more land was
required he obstinately refused making any arrangement unless an under-
crossing was built exactly where he had his road.

" To trj' and give him satisfaction I obtained from you that a large
culvert be built in the brook, but the man has been protesting all along that
this culvert was an imposition. The distance between the brook and the
spot where he wants the crossing built is about 75 or 100 feet.

" I have repeatedly called upon this man and made him verbal offers,
the last one being for $100.00 per acre and an additional sum of $200.00
for the damages.

"He refused, and I wrote you May 20th, 1907, that there was no
possibility of making an arrangement with him but that he was willing
to sell his farm for the sum of $3,500.00.

" This sum is about $1,500 above the full value of this farm. He has
it mortgaged almost to its full value. The only difficulty in the way is
the crossing which does not suit his fancies,

" The culvert which is being built is 1-i' by 14' and in my estimation
it will be better and more convenient than the level crossings you are build-
ing for the other farms. There will be times, however, such as heavy rain-
storms, when he will not be able to use it unless an elevated board walk
is built near the side of the culvert. Such heavy storms are, however, of
rare occurrence, and for such a short time that the level crossing which you
are giving him in addition will meet this emergency.

" The case of Honore Perron, Consecutive Xo. 569, is exactly the same
and I have experienced no difficulty with him.

" The whole respectfully submitted,

"J. F. GUAY.

"Land Agent,, 'B'."

In 1911, owing to the fact that the material forming the embankment would
not stand at the regular slope of l-J to 1, the culvert was extended at a further cost
of $8,400.00, making the total cost to that date $34,213.00.

This extension, however, would have been necessary whether the culvert was
six feet or fourteen feet in width, but the cost would have been proportionately less,
and taking the figures to hand, we find that the final cost of the six feet arch would
have been $10,578.00.

If the culvert originally projected had been constructed, and Mr. Delisle's farm
purchased at his price, of $3,500.00, the total cost of the whole transaction to the
Commission would have been $14,078.

The records, however, show that Mr. Delisle has been paid $1,300.00, the
culvert has cost $34,213, which includes the extra expense of concrete paving for
roadway, and $182.00 has been spent in grading a level crossing, or a total cost of
$35,695.00.

The difference of $21,617.00 is wliat might have been saved on tliis one trans-
action alone had advantage been taken of Mr. Delisle's offer made in May, 1907,
before the construction of the arch culvert had been commenced.

116 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

At mileage 59.5, a short distance west of Delisle's farm, a similar condition
existed.

Here the location engineers again projected a 6' arch culvert which was
increased in size to 14', at an additional cost of $21^600.00 to serve as an under-
crossing for Honore Perron, on whose farm the culvert was located, and while the
records do not indicate that any offer was made by Mr. Perron to dispose of hia
farm, we cannot but feel that an economical purchase might have been made
which would have saved the heavy expenditures for the undercrossing. The area of
Mr. Perron's farm on the south side of the Transcontinental Railway right-of-way
ifi only seventeen acres, and the amount expended on the enlarging of the culvert
would have permitted the purchase of thes^ seventeen acres at a price anywhere up
to $1,200 per acre and still effect a saving.

The following is a report from Louis Hurtubise, Resident Engineer to Mr.
Doucet in connection with these arches :

"Quebec, 27th November. 1911.
"A. E. Doucet, Esq.,

District Engineer, T.C.R.,
Quebec, P.Q.

"Dear Sir:—

" Re 13' by 14' concrete culverts at St. Stanislas.

" Replying to your inquiries about these arches, I beg to state as follows :
" The first intention of the locating engineers was to show 6 ft. arches
on Narcisse Delisle and Perron's properties ; but afterwards a question arose
to the effect that these arches would not be big enough on account of the
great area of drainage and of the continuous opening up of the contract.
At first sight it seems ridiculous to think of large openings, in fact it looks
as if a 4' X 5' culvert would have been sufficient, as, during the greater
part of the summer, very little water was going through these gullies. But
my recollection is that during the spring time, when I was Resident Engineer
at St. Stanislas, the roadway was flooded by the excess of water caused by the
too small size of the openings under public road. I had myself to travel
over the road and through the water to reach my destination. Kennedy and
McDonald were obliged at one time to make little repairs to the road cross-
ings in order to reach their work situated on the other side of the gullies.
It was then that it was decided to build 8 feet and even ten feet arches at
those two places.

" But Mr. Delisle and Mr. Perron then came into the discussion which
was taking place in regard to the size of the openings on their own properties.
Delisle, especially, wrote and protested again and again. I myself suggested
to Delisle a level crossing by contouring tlie hill situated on the north side
of his property; but he always refused this, pretending that we could not
force him to go round and pass his neighbor's property. Mr. Guay, the
right-of-way agent, had several talks with Mr. Delisle, and never could get
him to accept my arrangement for a level farm crossing. In fact the con-
struction of such crossing would have been very costly, and the damages
claimed by the parties, or the necessary indemnity might have been greater
than the difference in cost between a 10-ft. arch and a 13 x 14. Therefore,
Mr. Guay suggested that big openings, large enough to allow cattle and
carts to go through, be built at these places.

INVESTIGATING COillllSiilOy U7

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

" Mr. Parrot, the former Eesident Engineer, received instructions to
let the matter stand until I received orders from Mr. McCallum, the then
Division Engineer, to build two culverts large enough to provide for an
undercrossing on each property. This was done, but later on, as the passage
through the culvert became impassable during the springtime, Mr. Delisle
was given a level crossing around the h.ill, which crossing he was to use only
in case of emergency. This work, however, proved far more expensive than
originally estimated, due to the clayey nature of the ground, and it wai
therefore abandoned, the intention being to grant a money indemnity.

" Trusting this explanation will prove satisfactory."

" Yours very truly,

'•' LOUIS HURTUBISE,

"Resident Engineer."

The report would indicate that the increase in the size of the culverts was
partly due to the fact that the water way area had been underestimated by the
locating engineers. It vtdll be noted, however, that the instructions to increase the
size of the arches to fourteen feet were issued in the fall of the year, so that the
conditions as regards high water evidently had no bearing upon the change in
design.

FEXCTXG THROUGH UXSETTLED COUNTRY.

During the Commission's inspection of the Transcontinental Railway their
attention was drawn to the many miles of standard railway fencing which had
been built on both sides of the right of way through an unsettled country, much
of which is of a wild and rugged nature and more suited for forest conservation
than for settlement.

The following statement compiled from figures supplied by Mr. Gordon Grant
at the request of the Commission (see letters attached) shows in detail the number
of rods and the cost of the fencing constructed through unsettled country along
the right of way of the Transcontinental : —

Contract No. 1, 16,142 rods at $1.00 $16,142.00

Contract No. 3, 5,627 rods at 1.20 6,752.40

Contract No. 4, 3,470 rods at 1.15 3,990.50

Contract No. 7, 11,520 rods at 1.10 12.672 . 00

Contract No. 8, 14,080 rods at 1.15 16,192 . 00

Contract No. 10, 5,120 rods at 1.10 5,632.00

Total 55,959 rods $61,380.90

and while it is contended that a portion of this fencing was necessary on account
of the proximity of roadways and the fact that settlers were commencing to come
into the country, this Commission has no hesitation in condemning this expen-
diture of $61,380.90 as an unnecessary outlay at the present time.

The fence which has been erected through wood lands, where cultivation is a
matter of conjecture will be depreciating in value and efficiency year by year and
may require complete renewal before a single rod of it will have served its purpose.

118 XATIOXAL TIfAXSCOXTIXEXTAL jniLWAT

4 GEORGE v., 1914

QUEBEC EIGHT OF WAY.
Napoleon Mariineau's Case.

Napoleon Martiueau, Jr., was in the j'ear 1911 a tenant from year to year
at $75.00 per year of a small piece of land 37 by 60 ft., entirely covered by an ice-
house, bnilt by himself on Champlain St., Quebec. He had the right to remove the
icehouse during the currency of his tenancy. He had been given due notice to quit
at the end of the current year, that is on the 30th April, 1912, and if he desired
to remove tlie building he must do so before his tenancy expired, or lose it (p. 551).

In the summer of 1911, a barkeeper in Quebec named O'Neill told Martineau
that the Transcontinental through Mr. Eaoul R. Bergevin, a Quebec merchant,
■would give him $1,500 for his lease but he must keep his mouth shut during
election, referring to the then pending Dominion elections. Shortly afterwards and
before the elections at a meeting with Bergevin and O'Neill he (Martineau) ne-
gotiated for a sale of his interest and eventually he sold the building with a small
stable to Bergevin for $2,000 reserving the right to keep the property until the 1st
May, 1912. (Exhibit No. 32). The transaction was reduced to writing by Notary
Couture who was made aWare of the circumstances that the lease could not be
renewed. Bergevin intimated to Martineau that he was doing him a good turn
and wished him to take no part in the approaching elections against the Liberals
(p. 587). Bergevin was examined and swore that he bought the icehouse and the
small stable next to it to sell to the Transcontinental, which had to pass its road
over the land of which Martineau was tenant. Bergevin afterwards made a bar-
gain with Mr. Parent, the Chairman of the Commission, whereby he was paid
$3,700 for the expense to wliich he would be put for removing the icehouse
(p. 577 and Exhibit No. 33). Mr. Parent was examined and could give no
explanation of this transaction, but asserted that it was entered into in good faith.
We can find no justification for this payment to Bergevin. It is quite clear when
he bought this icehouse he intended to be recouped with a profit by the Commis-
sion, and it is equally clear that the Commission had no use for the icehouse, and
could not be compelled liad they expropriated the land, which they never did.
tliough they intended to do so, to pay Bergevin any amount for the icehouse, that
Bergevin could have no claim against them whatever, certainly not for $3,700.
which was nearly three times the value of the building. In order to fully appre-
ciate the case it should be considered with that of Adolphe Chevalier (see page 588).

QUEBEC EIGHT OF WAY.
Adolphe Chevalier's Case.

Adolphe Chevalier, shipwright, Quebec, had a lease of a piece of land in
Champlain Market, Quebec, described as Cadastral No. 2525, excepting a piece 37
by 60 let to Napoleon Martineau on which he had a movable skidway cradle
sometimes spoken of in the evidence as a " gridiron " or " Bassin de Eadoub ".
His lease was in writing and was for three years ending the 30th April, 1912.
which was made by Mr. A. C. Dobcll to Chevalier and ^Ir. Dobell had notifies!
Chevalier (hat the lease could not be renewed. (See Exhibit No. 31.)

In August, 1911, having learned that Napoleon Martineau had sold his ice-
house to E. E. Bergevin he went to sec one O'Neill, a barkeeper, who had helped
Martineau in his sale and brought him and Bergevin together. Bergevin told him
that he had seen the books of the Transcontinental and that his property was
valued at $4,000, and that he (Bergevin) was working for the Transcontinental
and would give him (Clicvalier) $4,000 on condition that Chevalier should help
them in the election, which Chevalier agreed to do. Chevalier told Bergevin that hi^^

IXVESTIGATIXG COMMISSIOX 119

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

lease expired on the ^JOth April, 1912. Bergevin paid $4,000 to Chevalier for the
remainder of his term, stipulating in the agreement of sale that Chevalier should
have the right without any consideration to occupy the land until the end of the
term. (See Exliibit Xo. 35.)

The skidway or gridiron was not sold to Bergevin, and was removed by Che-
valier in the following August. Bergevin in his evidence (p. 592) says that all
that he bought from Chevalier was the lease to the 1st May, 1912, allowing Che-
r-alier to occupy it until that date. By deed dated the 10th day of October (see
Exhibit Xo. 36) it was agreed between Bergevin and the Transcontinental that
he should be paid, and he was paid $-1,250.00 for the damages which would result
to him from the demolition of the gridiron or Bassin de Eadoub, and the following
in his account of the transaction between him and the Transcontinental Eailway
resulting in its sale : •

Q. You bought from Chevalier, according to the deed, all his rights
and interests? — A. Yes.

Q. All his rights and interests of every description of a certain land
and anse — that is cove — known and designated on the plan and book of
reference for Champlain Ward as number 2525, and all the damages re-
sulting from and caused by the expropriation by the Transcontinental Eail-
way, save and excepting the part of the said lot now occupied by Martineau
for an icehouse. Is that right? That is what you bought? — A. Yes.

Q. It also recites in your deed that the said rights and interests to the
occupation of the land belonging to Adolphe Chevalier is in virtue of a
lease made to him by Alfred Curzon Dobell, advocate, as attorney for the
Duchess of Bassano. " It is understood," you say also, that the vendor will
give possession of the land on the 1st of May next to you, Bergevin, and
that he will pn^-. up to the 1st of May, the taxes and municipal and school
rates, and other public contributions affecting the property and the rent to
that date, and shall occupy the property itntil the 1st of May"? — A. Yes.

Q. That is all you bought, what I have said to you, is it not ? — A.
Yes.

Q. AYhat you sold to the Transcontinental Eailwav was your damages
which would restilt to you from the demolition — that is the destruction —
of the Bassin de Eadoub— that is the slip? — A. Yes, everything that is
required to repair the boats.

Q. You did not buy that at all? — A. Xo. He had to unfix this slip
in the spring.

Q. But you did not buy the slip? — A. Xo.

Q. But why did the Transcontinental give you $4,250 for what you
had no right to sell to them? — A. "Well, I did not sell them any property.

Q. You sold them your damages for removing that Bassin de Eadoub ?
—A. Yes.

Q. You did not own it? — A. But on the 1st of May I had nothing
to do with it no more.

Q. And you had nothing to do with that machinery? — A. The slip?

Q. Yes? — A. Xo, I did not buy the slip.

Q. AVhat did they give you $4,250 for?— A. For what I bought there.

Q. Your deed sa3's that was for damages for removing the slip? — A.
Yes.

Q. So that you got $4,250 for nothing?— A. T\Tiy?

Q. Because you did not own the slip? — A. No, but I bought the right
from the 1st September till the 1st of May; that is what I sold them; I
could not have sold them anything that did not belong to me.

Q. But you did not sell them anything? — A. Xo.

120 KATIOXAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. According to your own deed you sold something which you did
not own? — A. No, I did not sell them anything which did not belong to
me.

Q. Did you own that Bassin de Radoub? — A. No, I owned only the
right, as I explained,

Q. You did not own the Bassin de Radoub? — A. No, only the right
to the 1st of May.

Q. You knew quite well you did not own that Bassin de Radoub? —
A. Yes, I did not buy no property.

Q. Why did you sign a deed, and say in that deed that you owned it?
(Deed shown to witness). Now, be honest about this thing. Did you not
give that man that money, and then find yourself in trouble after the elec-
tion, and come down here and get this money back on his deed? — A. No,
sir.

Q. Yes, you did; you got it on the 16th October? — A. Yes, but that
transaction was made before the election.

Q. The transaction with whom? — A. With the Transcontinental.

Q. With whom did you make it? — A. Mr. Parent.

Q. He is a lawyer? — A. Yes.

Q. And a very distinguished lawyer? — A. I had to pass that before
the Notary Taschereau.

Q. And you made the bargain with Mr. Parent himself? — A. Yes.

Q. And he agreed to give you $4,350 of Transcontinental money for
destroying the Bassin de Radoub ? — A. Yes.

Q. And you knew you did not own it ? — A. For the right I had there.

Q. For the Bassin de Radoub? — A. No, they say for the demolition
of it.

Q. What was your bargain with Mr. Parent? — A. $4,250, the way
the deed says there.

Q. For the demolition of the Bassin de Radoub? — A. No.

Q. Tell me the bargain: what did you say to Mr. Parent? — A. I told
him " I will sell what I have there made with Chevalier, and that is all " ;
I produced my contract with Chevalier, and that was the arrangement, I
would get $4,350 for this thing.

Q. Did he read it? — A. Yes, and the notary too.

Q. Did Mr. Parent go to the Notary with you? — A. No, Mr.
Tremblay went, not before me, but I gave them the papers and they went
to the notary with it.

Q, But Mr. Parent gave Tremblay the instructions? — A, Yes.

Q. In your presence? — A. Yes, to send the papers to Taschereau.

Q. Did Mr. Parent give Tremblay your deed from Chevalier? — A.
Yes, he must have given it to him, because he had it in his hand,

Q, When did you make that bargain with you and Mr, Parent? — A.
I cannot tell you, but it was a week or so before the election.

Q. And he put the transaction through after the election and gave
you this money? — A. No, this was with the notary, just the next day after
I made the transaction with him.

Q. With wliom, Mr. Parent? — A. Yes,

The agreement between Bergevin and the Transcontinental is in part aa
follows: "Considering tliat it is necessary for the Transcontinental Railway to
demolish, for purposes of their line of railway, the graving-dock belonging to the
said Bergevin, situated on Lot 2525, and considering that Bergevin is ready, in
consideration of a certain indemnity, to give up the said graving-dock, tlierefore,
Bergevin accepts $4,250 in full and final discharge of all damages resulting to

INTESTIGATINO COMMISSION 121

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

him from the demolition of the said graving-dock ". It will be seen that the form
of the agreement between the Transcontinental and Bergevin was for the sale of the
graving-dock, but it is clear both from the deed from Chevalier to Bergevin and
from Bergevin's evidence that Bergevin did not own the graving-dock or skidway.
Indeed as Chevalier says he removed it in the summer of 1913 to Saint-Laurent
(p. 592).

Mr. Parent whose evidence on this point appears at p. 639 and following pages
says that he understood that Chevalier could renew his lease; that he thinks the
graving-dock was used by the Commission during the whole summer ; that he him-
self put through the transaction, and although he put through the transaction he
relied on Mr, Tremblay, because Mr. Tremblay, the Secretary to the Trans-
continental land valuators at Quebec, had certified to its correctness. Mr. Tremblay
whom Mr. Parent declared to be a most conscientious man was examined, and he
stated that the agreements were made between the Chairman and the owners, and
that his certifying vouchers correct only meant that the vouchers corresponded with
the amount agreed on as the purchase money. When this transaction was made
Mr. Parent had in his possession the agreement between Bergevin and Chevalier
which clearly showed that Bergevin received no value from Chevalier for the $4,000
which he (Bergevin) paid to Chevalier, and had nothing to sell to the Commission,
and Parent must have known that Bergevin had nothing to sell to the Commission.

We find that the agreement of sale between Bergevin and the Commission, was
designedly drawn in form to make it appear that Bergevin was being paid for the
demolition of the skidway or graving-dock, while all parties were quite aware that
such was not the fact.

The Chairman of the Commission is alone responsible for this misapplication
of $4,250.

CROSSING OF CREEK A'SHEA AND RIVER DU SUD.

At Creek A'Shea, on Residency No. 29, District B, a 30-foot concrete arch has
been constructed, which together with the embankment at this point has cost
$187,478.94.

Mr. R. F. Uniacke, Engineer of Bridges, N.T.R., has supplied the Commission
with figures showing that a steel viaduct, which would take the place of the con-
crete arch and fill, might have been erected for $103,000.00.

At River du Sud, Residency 11, District B, a 40-foot concrete arch and fiU
have been made, at a total cost of $246,551.03, and Mr. Uniacke's figures for a
steel viaduct at this point are $96,910.00.

As will be seen, if these two streams had been crossed by means of steel
viaducts, a saving of $234,000.00 would have been effected. These are mountain
streams which in time of extraordinary flood might exceed the capacity of the
arches, whereas steel viaducts would have given unlimited capacity for large volumes
of water, so that on this account the use of these arches may prove an engineering
failure, and we criticise this method of crossing these streams both on account of
the limiting capacity of the arches, and on account of their excessive cost.

TRANSCONA SHOPS.

Are the shops at Transcona to be regarded as a portion of the Eastern Division
within the intent and meaning of the Agreement of July 29th, 1903, and of
February 18th, 1904, and Acts confirming same?

122 XATIOXAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

A general description of the shops is appended hereto and shows that they are
designed and furnished for building and repairing railway equipment generally
and are of a capacity which suggests that they are expected to construct and repair
for the Western and Eastern Divisions of the railway, and cost, including equip-
ment, about $4,500,000.00.

The Government contracted to build " a line of railway " between Moncton
and Winnipeg, and the company undertook to maintain the railway and the rolling
stock at its, the Company's, own sole cost for fifty years, the term of the lease.

It is submitted that the " line of railway " which the Government had agreed
to supply may be fairly defined as that part of the Company's undertaking on
which the company operates its rolling stock, and would reasonably include
permanent way, siding and railway yards, stations, freight sheds, and roundhouses
along the line.

In this case the "Vme of railway" does not include terminals because they are
spoken of as being apart from the railway. For example, in clause 15 "expenditure
for right of way and other lands required for the purposes of the railway and for
terminal facilities " is spoken of, and it would not include telegraph and telephone
lines, because they are also treated separately.

In other words, the Government is to supply the permanent way, that is the
facilities for using the company's rolling stock, but it is not to supply the facilities
for repairing, maintaining, or replacing that rolling stock or the permanent way,
and clearly the shops and machinery are facilities for repairing or replacing rolling
stock, and are of no use to the Company in the operation of the rolling stock, if
the rolling stock is in good repair, which is the condition which the Company has
agreed at its own cost to keep the rolling stock.

Shops are not part of a line of railway. There are many railways which have
none. For example, lines which were built and leased like this is to be to other
companies.

Machinery is certainly no part of a line of railway. It is not even equipment
of the railway, as is the furniture of a railway station for example. It is the equip-
ment of a building, which the railway company may or may not for economical
reasons deem it good business to acquire or not to acquire, so that neither are
necessary for the operation of the road.

Premising the above conclusions, it is now proposed to point out from the
agreement and statute, the grounds on which they are founded. In this statement
"clauses" refers to the agreements, schedule to the Acts, 1903 and 1904, made
between the Government and Sir Charles Eivers Wilson, et al., acting for the Rail-
way Company.

This Commission asserts:

(a) There are no words in the agreement imposing on the Commission any
liability to build shops or to furnish them with machinery, but, on the contrary,
the Company have agreed to equip the railway with rolling stock and to keep the
railway and rolling stock in repair, and to make all renewals at its own expense;
that agreement involves the supply, by the Company, of shops and machinery for
the building and repair of rolling stock unless the Company contracts that work
out to somebody else.

(b) The Government did not agree to build and fully equip this line of railway
with everything required to operate it, excepting rolling stock.

(c) The Company agreed to equip the railway with rolling stock and to keep
it and the rolling stock in repair at its sole expense. Xot only docs this agreement
impose no liability on the Government in this regard, but it can be gathered from
the contracts with certainty that the Company has undertaken this obligation

IXYESTIGATrXG rO]fM IS.SJOX 123

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

(d) There are words iised in the agreement "which clearly indicate tiiat the
company is to supply these shops and machinery. If it was intended that the
Government should supply these shops and machinery, the agreement by the Com-
pany to repair its rolling stock would have stated that the same was to be repaired
with the machinery to be supplied by the Government.

(e) Shops and machinery may be equipment of the undertaking of a railway
company, but are not equipment of a " line of railway ".

(f) It is a clearly established rule of law that where in an agreement certain
things are enumerated to be done, that all others are excluded from the agreement
unless additional words are used showing that it was intended to include something
else and then only such are included as are of the same class as are enumerated.

We will now deal with each of the above propositions separately:

(a) There are no words in the agreement imposing on the Commission any
Liability to build shops or to furnish them with machinery, but on the contrary the
company having agreed to equip the railway with rolling stock and to keep the
railway and rolling stock in repair and to make all renewals at its own expense,
that agreement involves the supply by the Company of shops and machinery for the
building and repair of rolling stock unless the Company contracts that work out to
somebody else.

Clause 2. That a through " line of railway " of the gauge of 4 feet 8| inches,
comprising two divisions to be built, called the Eastern and the "Western Division,
respectively, shall be constructed in the manner hereinafter mentioned between
the City of Moncton and the Pacific Ocean. The Eastern Division shall comprise
that portion of the railway to be constructed from Moncton to Winnipeg.

This clause proceeds to describe the location of the railway and stops. The
declaration is that a line of railway of the gauge of 4 feet 8i inches, to be called the
Eastern Division, shall be constructed as hereinafter mentioned. So far nothing
more is described than the roadbed and steel.

Clause 5. " The said Eastern Division shall be constructed by and at the
expense of the Government upon such location and according to such plans and
specifications as it shall determine, having due regard to directness, easy gradients,
and favourable curves." In this clause, the Government agree to construct the
Eastern Division ; up to this time we have no wider description than is contained in
Clause 2.

Clause 15. " The expression ' cost of construction ' in the case of the Eastern
Division, shall mean and include all the cost of material, supplies, wages, services,
and transportation required for or entering into the construction of the said East-
ern Division, and all expenditure for right-of-way and other lands required for
the purposes of the railway and for the terminal facilities, accommodation works
and damages and compensation for injuries to lands, and for accidents and
casualties; cost of engineering, maintenance, replacement of works and material
during construction, and superintendence, book-keeping, legal expenses, and general
cost and expenses, occasioned by the construction of the said Division, whether of
the same kind as, or differing in kind, from the classes of expenditure specially
mentioned, including interest upon the money expended; the interest upon such
outlay in each year shall be capitalized at the end of such year, and interest charged
thereon at three per cent per annum, until the completion of the work, and until
the lessees enter into possession under the terms of the said lease, and for the
purposes of this agreement, the amount of such cost of construction including the
principal and all additions for interest, to be ascertained in manner aforesaid, shall
on completion be finally determined and settled by the Government upon the report
of such auditor, accountants, or other officers, as may be appointed by the Govern-
ment for that purpose."

124 XATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

This clause deals with the expenditure to be made by the Government, and in
this must be found all heads of expenditure on which the Government may charge
interest against the Company, and it is quite clear that if the Government made
any expenditure which does not come within the " cost of construction " as defined
by this clause, the Government cannot charge interest thereon against the railway,
because it is agreed that the rents shall be three per cent per annum on the " cost
of construction " as defined by this clause.

Clause 15 covers (1) "material, supplies, wages, and transportation required
for or entering into the construction of the said Eastern Division". So far there
is no wider definition of the Eastern Division than in Clause 2.

(2) "All expenditure for right of way, and other lands, required for the
purposes of the railway, and for terminal facilities ". This deals with land alone,
but throws light on the question because it indicates clearly that the expression
"lands required for right of way and other purposes" does not include lands
required -for terminal facilities, showing that even they were additional lands. So
if tlie Government were bound to find land for shops, it would have been so stated,
as was done in the case of terminal facilities. " Other purposes " covers lands for
stations, freight sheds, sidings, turnouts, etc.

(3) "Accommodation works". This is a legal expression^ well understood to
mean works for the accommodation of landowners. The following quotation from
Sweet's Law Dictionar)^, page 8, shows what it means :

" Where a railway company takes land compulsorily it is bound under
the 68th section of the Railway Clauses Act of 1845 to construct all gates,
bridges, roads, fences, etc., necessary to make good any interruption caused
by the railway passing through the land. These are called accommodation
works."

The words are found in tlie English Eailway Clauses Act, Chapter 20 of the
Statutes of 1845, sections Nos. 68, 71, 72, and 73.

This and the expressions in the remainder of the clause could not in any way
refer to shops and machinery and so they will not be further discussed.

In the above clauses, we have all the contract which imposes liability on the
Government, and there is not one word that even remotely implies that the Govern-
ment is to be put to the cost of shops or machinery or tools of any kind.

Surely it cannot be easily argued that an expenditure of many millions for
shops, machinery and tools was contemplated by either party to be made by the
Government, and no mention made of it.

(b) The Government did not agree to build and fully equip this line of rail-
way with everything required to operate it except rolling stock.

It may be argued that the railway is to be complete in every particular except
as to rolling stock, an error fallen into by not carefully considering the terms of
the contract.

Where the Eastern Division is spoken of as "when completed" (clause 20),
and wlien the words "after completion" (clause 16), and where the words "pend-
ing tlie completion of the Eastern Division" are used in Clause 3 of the second
agreement, Schedule to Chapter 24 of the Statutes of 1904, tlie meaning is that
when the Government has completed the work it has undertaken by the agreement
to perform and no more.

This appears absolutely clear from the fact that the Government is not required
to provide telegraph and telephone lines. No railway is complete without these.
There is quite as much reason for arguing that the Government is bound by the
agreement to provide telegraph and telephone lines as there is that it is to provide
flhops and machinery and tools.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION liS

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

The agreement is clear on this point at least because by section 27 of the
Statutes of 1903, the Commissioners are authorized (but not required) if the
Governor-in-Council consents, to build as part of the Eastern Division telegraph
and telephone lines. This provision would have been unnecessary if the agreement
covered it.

It must not be forgotten that the agreement and statutes were drawn at the
same time, and because it is mentioned in the statutes it follows that the parties
did not consider that the agreement covered telegraph or telephone lines, or, in
other words, a completed railway, but thought that the agreement only covered
what was mentioned, and recognized that unless authorized by the statute the
Government would have no power under that agreement to build these telegraph
and telephone lines, and it is submitted that each party realized that at Winnipeg
the Grand Trunk Pacific would, for its Western Division, naturally have its own
shops, and that there was no necessity to even authorize the Government to build
the Transcona Shops.

(c) The Company agreed to equip the railway with rolling stock and to keep
it and the rolling stock in repair at its sole expense. Xot only does this agreement
impose no liability on the Government in this regard, but it can be gathered from
the contract with certainty that the Company has undertaken this obligation.

Clause 22. " The Company shall equip both divisions of the said line of
railway with modern and complete rolling stock, suitable and amply sufficient for
eflBcient operation and the handling of all classes of traffic to the satisfaction of the
Government, and the first equipment for the completed road shall be of the value
of at least $20,000,000.00, of which not less than $5,000,000.00 worth shall be
supplied for the operation of the Eastern Division of the said railway, and the said
$5,000,000.00 worth of rolling stock together with all renewals thereof, and addi-
tions thereto, shall be marked as assigned to the said Eastern Division, and shall
be held to be and form part of the equipment of the Eastern Division of the railway,
during the said period of fifty years, and shall be used as the equipment appertain-
ing thereto according to the ordinary practice of railways during the said period
of fifty years."'

Here it is clearly provided that the Company shall supply the rolling stock
for the railway.

Clause 23. " The lease of the said Eastern Division shall contain all necessary
and proper provisions required by the Government for securing during the entire
term of the said lease the efficient maintenance and operation of the said division,
including all repairs and renewals and the maintenance and renewals of its rolling
stock and equipment, so as to keep the said division in all respects up to the
standard of modern and efficient railway practice and operation, as the same shall
be advanced and improved from time to time, during the whole term of said lease,
it being the intention of this agreement that the said lease shall provide in all
respects for the upkeeping of the said Eastern Division, and of the equipment
thereof (otherwise than by expenditure upon construction account, under paragraph
16 hereof), to the satisfaction of the Government, at the expense of the Company,
after the same shall be completed and handed over by the Government to the Corn-
pany for operation ". The Company here agree to enter into a lease which shall
provide that it shall repair and renew and maintain rolling stock and all other
equipment of the road, and shall keep up the road at its own expense.

Now if the Government is to provide shops, machinery and tools for the repair
and renewal of rolling stock, it means that the Government must provide not only
repair ^hops but also shops and machinery and tools for building engines and cars,
and because for the first seven years of the lease no interest is to be charged "on
the cost of construction '-\ the Government is actually to pav part of the cost of

126 NATIONAL TRAXSCOXTINENTAL liAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

renewals and repairs which contradicts and nullifies the agreement in that respect.
These shops, costing several millions, that contribution by the Government would
amount in seven years to more than a million dollars.

Clause 6. " The Company agrees to construct, maintain and operate the said
Western Division, and to take a lease of, maintain and operate the said Eastern
Division, upon the terms and conditions and in the manner hereinafter set forth."

By this and Clause 2.3, the Company agrees to maintain and keep in repair the
Eastern Division. Now if the Government is required to provide shops and
machiner}' and tools to repair and build renewals of rolling stock, why is it not
bound to provide all the appliances and machinery to be used by the Railway Com-
pany in keeping up the road, generally? It is as reasonable to infer one as the
other from this agreement. There is as much provision made in the agreement
for one as the other, and that is none.

(d) There are words used in the agreement which clearly indicate that the
Company is to supply these shops and machinery. If it was intended tiiat the
Government should supply these shops and machinery, the agreement by the Com-
pany to repair its rolling stock would have stated that the same was to be repaired
with the machinery to be supplied by the Government.

Clause 14, which defines working expenditure, includes in it " property leased
to or held by the Company in respect of the said Eastern Division." Apart from
the rent of any other leased line " also all rent charges or interest on the purchase
money of lands belonging to the Company, purchased for the use of the said
Eastern Division."

If the Government must furnish the whole undertaking, excepting rolling stock,
why should clause 14 deal with property leased to or lands belonging to the Com-
pany for the Eastern Division? It cannot be successfully contended by the Com-
pany that the lands thus spoken of might be leased, purchased, or used by them for
some collateral business, because clause 11 is limited to property held in respect of
the Eastern Division, and to lands purchased for the use of the Eastern Division,
and if it were not for the Eastern Division, there would be no use for including
them in the agreements.

By Section 11 of the Statute, the Governor-in-Council may set apart for the
purposes of the Eastern Division so much of any public lands of Canada as is
shown in the report of the Chief Engineer to be required for the roadbed thereof,
or for the convenience or necessary sidings, yards, stations, and other purposes for
use in connection therewith. Notice that there is no mention made of shops or
land for shops. These words describe the railway simply as it lies between Monc-
ton and Winnipeg.

Now compare this section with clause 45 of the Agreement, where the Govern-
ment agrees to grant public lands for the right of way of the Western Division, and
for all stations, station grounds, workshops, buildings, yards, and appurtenances
required for the construction and the working thereof. Can it be reasonably argued
that the Government has not agreed in respect of the Western Division to supply
land for more purposes than it does by section 14 of the Act in respect to the
Eastern Division. The railway owned the Wojitorn Division and must work it
and must renew and repair its rolling stock, and will require workshops for that
purpose, and therefore workshops are mentioned in Clause 45. The Company
agrees at its own cost to supply rolling stock for the Eastern Division and to keep
it up and renew it in its own workshops, and therefore the Government by section
14 of the Statute does not agree to supply lands for workshops in the Eastern
Division. The fact that shops are not mentioned, in the Statute or in tbe Agree-
ments, where thev refer to the Eastern Division and are mentioned in connection

INTESTIGATINO COMMISSION 127

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

with the Western Division is very significant of what the intention of the parties
was. The agreement to supi^ly land for workshops or for working the Western
Division means something more than is agreed in Section 14, respecting the Eastern .
Division.

(e) Shops and machinery may be equipment of the undertaking of a railway
company, but arc not equipment of a line of railway.

The word " undertaking " covers the whole of the corporation facilities for all
its. activities, whether those are or are not used for one or more than one business,
for e.xample, the undertaking of the C. P. E. includes all its hotels, but in speaking
of the line of railway one would not be understood to include the hotels, so that the
workshops and machinery, although they are part of the undertaking, once they are
acquired by the Company, are not part of the line of railway. The facilities to be
supplied by the Government must necessarily come under and be legitimately in-
cluded in the line of railway, these being the words used in the statute.

The Government contemplated spending on the construction of this 1,800
miles of railway, less than $60,000,000.00. Mr. Fielding declared that for the
building of this class of railway in adding twenty-five per cent to Mr. Collingwood
Schreiber's estimate, bringing the cost to $31,250.00 per mile from Quebec to
Moncton, and to $35,000.00 per mile from Quebec to Winnipeg, he had received
assurance that his estimate was a liberal one, and that the railway could be con-
structed well within these figures. ^o\v if this were the contemplated expenditure,
how can it be said that the parties ever dreamed of spending the huge amount of
at least $4,000,000.00 on shops. Surely both the Eailway Company and the Gov-
ernment, for this expenditure, would have at least mentioned this in the Statute or
in the agreement.

Again Me refer to the telegraph and telephone. The Government would not
bind itself, unconditionally, to erect this plant, and the leaving of it optional with
the Government to make this very much smaller expenditure for facilities which
were absolutely necessary for working the line should be conclusive evidence in the
absence of any provision in the agreement to the contrary, that the Government was
not bound to make this expenditure on shops.

It may be argued that the fact that the Commissioners built the Transcona
shops, that it was always intended that the Government should undertake this work.

What the Commissioners did afterwards cannot be used as evidence of what the
agreement meant. The Commissioners apparently did not consider the question at
all, and even if they did the fact that the Commissioners built the shops does not
compel the Government to lease them to the Eailway Company as part of the
Eastern Division, and there is no evidence that the Government intended to lease
them as part of the Eastern Division. If the Government had contemplated build-
ing these great shops at Transcona, at the cost to the public of millions of dollars,
would there not have been a clause in the agreement limiting the use which the
Eailway Company might make of these shops to the wants of the Eastern Division,
which has not been done, or would it not have stipulated that if the shops were
used for the benefit of the Western Division an additional rent should be paid.

It is inconceivable that the Government would hand over this great property
to be used by the railway for any purposes which it chose without having made
provision for extra rent if used for any other purposes than those of the Transcon-
tinental.

As has been said, telegraph and telephone lines are not part of a line of rail-
way, but are, like rolling stock, facilities for operating a line of railway, so because
the railway company had undertaken to operate the railway, it would have been to
the expense of providing these facilities had not the Government, by a special clause
in the statute, given the Commissioners power, with the consent of the Governor in
Council, to provide them. In other words, every facility for operating the railway,
and every facility for keeping up the operating facilities, are under tlie contract to
l>e supplied by the railway.

128 XATIOXAL TRAXSCOXTIXEKTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

We think that as this is onr opiTiioii, wc should reproduce the opinion of Mr.
E. L. Newcombe, K.C., Deputy Minister of Justice, in which he disagree? with the
above views and the same is herewith attached.

March 5th, 191-3.
1374—1911.
Sir,—

I have the honour by direction to write to you in reply to the letter of the
4th December last addressed by the Minister of your Department to the Minister
of Justice. Enclosed with that letter was one dated 1st December last from Mr.
R. W. Leonard, the Chairman of the Transcontinental Railway Commission, raising
certain questions with reference to the construction of shops and provision of equip-
ment for the Railway.

Mr. Leonard says in the conclusion of his letter; "I require to have definite
instructions from the Government as to their intention in framing the contract ".
1 do not suppose it is possible to ascertain the intention of the late Government in
framing the contract nor do I think it would be of much use if it could be known.
In cases of doubt the contract has to be interpreted by the parties to it, by agree-
ment if possible and if not by the Courts.

There are several points arising on Mr. Leonard's letter wliich 1 shall have
to discuss but in large part the questions involved are, I think, for the decision
of railway experts rather than lawyers.

The Government contracted to construct the Eastern Division of the National
Transcontinental Railway extending from Moncton to Winnipeg. I should suppose
that it was impossible to complete the construction of a railway of that length
without providing shops of some kind. I will presently consider further the ques-
tion of what shops should be provided but for the moment will suppose that it is
only a question of repair shops. It seems to be a question for railway men to say
whether repair shops are or are not a necessity for such railway.

If they are a necessary part of the luiilway they have to be built either by the
Government or by the Company which is to operate the Railway. If as Mr.
Leonard says there is nothing express in the Act or the Agreement showing that
the Government contemplated constructing shops, there is certainly less to show
that the Company intended to do so.

Let me refer particularly to certain provisions of the Agreement. Clause 2
provides for the construction of a through line of railway between the City of
Moncton and the navigable waters of the Pacific Ocean, and Clauses 5 and 16 that
the Company shall construct, maintain and operate the Western Division, that
the Government shall construct the Eastern Division and the Company shall
maintain and operate it. These three terms construction, maintenance and opera-
tion include the whole of the provisions made for the entire railway. Working
expenditure as applied to the Eastern Division is defined by clause 14 and includes
"all expenses of maintenance"; and, after mentioning many expenses of operation
and special expenses, the clause concludes with " all such charges, if any, not above
otherwise specified as in all eases of English railway companies are usually carried
to the debit of revenue as distinguished from capital account ". The cost of con-
struction as defined in Clause 15 includes "accommodation works". By clause 18
the cost of construction of the Western Division shall include the like classes of
expenditure as in the case of the Eastern Division.

If the construction of shops is not construction of the railway within the
meaning of Clause 5 of the Agreement neither is it within Clause 6. But if this
is not construction it cannot be either maintenance or operation and it does not
fall within any of the expenses detailed as working expenditure, yet as I have said
l)efore, 1 apprehend it is not possible for even one Division and still less the whole
Railway to be complete without repair shops.

District F, Residency 21, Mileage 24.6. Waste. Page 60.

District F, Residency 31. Rock Cutting at Mileage 39.0. Note width of excavation where men are Standing.

Page 70.

District A, Mileage 45.0. Portion of Coal Creek Fill. Page 92.

District B, Residency 11. Mileage 60.7. 40 Foot Concrete Arch over Riviere du Sud. Page 120.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 129

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Clause 20 provides that when completed the Eastern Division shall be leased
to and operated by the Company. I think this must mean that it must be in a
condition to be operated so far as concerns all work of construction reasonably
necessary.

Upon the question of equipment it is to be noticed that there is one important
item of equipment specially mentioned and provided to be furnished by the Com-
pany, the " rolling stock suitable and amply siifficient for efficient operation ".

Again Clause 23 stipulates that the lease shall contain , provisions for main-
tenance of the Eastern Division including all repairs and renewals and the main-
tenance and renewal of its rolling stock and equipment.

That we have the Government undertaking to complete the Eastern Division
and the Company agreeing to operate it, a special provision for the Company to
furnish one particular part of the equipment, and a covenant to be inserted in the
lease for the maintenance of the equipment.

Finally I would call attention to the words in Clause 23 "it being the inten-
tion of this Agreement that the said Lease shall provide in all respects for the up-
keeping of the said Eastern Division and of the equipment thereof otherwise than
etc., at the expense of the Company after the same shall be completed for opera-
tion ". The exception in the above is the cost that may be incurred under Clause
16, after the Company is in possession for the improvement of the Division, the
replacement of structures by others more modern or otherwise upon capital account
for betterments and not being working expenditures.

It is to be noted on the other hand that Section 27 of the Act specially au-
thorized the construction by the Commission of such telegraph lines as are rea-
sonably required for the operation of the Eastern Division. It must have been
assumed therefore that the telegraph lines were not a necessary part of the con-
struction, and possibly they are not essential to the equipment of a railway, but I
should doubt if the latter contention could be maintained.

I have said that the necessity of providing shops at all might be one for the
decision of railway men, though it seemed reasonably clear that some such accom-
modation would be necessary. Again, the question of what shops are necessary
may involve technical knowledge, but there are some sorts which it would seem
cannot be necessary. I cannot understand that it can be necessary for a railway
company, in the words of the General Manager of the Company, " to have capacity
to do a certain amount of building new locomotives, freight cars and passenger
cars." That I would apprehend is no more part of the business of a railway com-
pany than would be the purchase and working of a coal mine to obtain their own
supplies of coal instead of purchasing them.

I point out this particular class of shops which it seems to me cannot be con-
sidered necessary for the completed railway, but I think it will be for the Commis-
sioners to decide what shops are necessary in view of my previous remarks as to
the necessity of the Government completing the Eastern Division of the railway
so that it can be operated by the Company when leased.

As to the location of the shops that so far as the Winnipeg site is concerned
appears to be settled beyond possibility of alteration, but as to the Quebec or any
other site I apprehend it is still open to the Commissioners to determine any and
what shops are required at these places.

With reference to the Winnipeg site, the Company say, and I think not unrea-
sonably, that inasmuch as the Commission decided to buy land for terminals east
of Winnipeg and proceeded without consultation with them and as the shops will
be built on the land of the Eastern Division, they do not contemplate contributing
to their cost. I think they are right in so far as any advantage accrues to them
from the fact of the shops being at the terminus of the Eastern Division, which
h also the terminus of the Western Division. I do not think they are entitled to
have the shops constructed at an increased cost in order to meet the requirements
of the Western Division.

123—9

130 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE V„ 1914

The facts as regards the works carried out at Transcona are not altogether
clear to me. On March 14th, 1908, the Secretary of the Commission ^^^pte to
Mr. Morse : " The Commissioners will arrange for the preparation of plans of
. such shops as will meet the requirements of the Eastern Division and complete the
terminal facilities at Winnipeg. Estimates and plans were prepared and approved
by the Commission and the Company, presumably to fulfil this purpose, the cost
not to exceed $1,500,000. An Order-in-Council was passed on the 27th May, 1908,
authorizing the invitation of tenders for the work.

The sum of $1,500,000 would appear to have been spent without any reference
to the purposes for which the expenditure was authorized, the whole sum, according
to Mr. Leonard (page 7), having been used for locomotive shops. Mr. Leonard
makes no mention of any further authority having been given in connection with
these works, but says (page 10) : " In 1911, apparently as the result of verbal
negotiations, it was decided to increase the plant at Transcona until the

Expenditure to date has been $2,080,949 . 87

The estimated expenditure to complete is 1,727,616.00

Making a total sum of $3,809,565.37

I am, however, informed by the Law Clerk of the Commission that Orders-
in-Council were passed sanctioning the contracts for the work done.

I have no information as to the reasons for the departure from the original
estimates and plans for the greatly increased expenditure. If these are for the
benefit of the Western Division, I do not think they are proper charges to be included
in the cost of the Eastern Division. Mr. "Leonard suggests that the verbal negotia-
tions in 1911 "included a bargain regarding expenditures in the city of Quebec ".
I am unable to see what place there is for any such bargain under the contract.

Mr. Leonard concluding his letter says, " I require to have definite instruc-
tions from the Government as to what items of machinery, if any, shall be sup-
plied by the Commission for the lines east of Winnipeg and for the lines west of
that point ". It follows from what I have before said that so far as the lines east
of Winnipeg are concerned I think such machinery must be supplied, as is necessary
to make the railway ready for operation. I am disposed to think, moreover, that
the construction and completion of the Eastern Division, for which the Govern-
ment is responsible, would not involve expenditures for machinery, works or ser\ices
not included in " cost of construction ", as defined by Clause 15 of the agreement.

There can, I think, be no doubt that no machinery should be supplied for the
lines west of Winnipeg.

I have dealt with this matter at length, not only because of its importance
and the large sums of money involved, but also because ]\Ir. Leonard has set forth
his views very fully and seems to have arrived at conclusions with which I am not
able to entirely agree.

I return Mr. Leonard's letter.

I have the honour to be,

Sir,
Your obedient servant,

E. L. NEWCOMBE.

DESCRIPTION OF THE TRANSCONA SHOPS.

LOCOMOTIVE SHOPS.

The Transcona Shops of the Transcontinental Railway are equipped with 147
machines, and are capable of handling repairs to the extent of three hundred
locomotives per year.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 131

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

This shop also, with its present equipment, could build fifty locomotives per
year. This, however, would decrease the output of repairs from three hundred
locomotives to approximately two hundred and twenty-five, but with an additional
expenditure of about $75,000.00 the output of new engines could be increased to
one hundred and fifty.

Assuming that the requirements of the Eastern Division of the road would be
300 engines, the output of the shops would be 25 engines per month, which would
mean that the entire equipment could go through the shops once a year. The out-
put of the proposed Quebec shops being 150 engines per year, would mean 450
engines could be repaired at these two points in one year. This shows that the
Transcona shops would be capable of doing 100 per cent more than is required
of them for the Eastern portion of the road, and this when the traffic has become
systematized and on the assumption that the business done be 75 per cent of that
done by the C. P. E.

For the next five years the Transcona and Quebec Shops and the Terminal
Machine shops at the roundhouses, including Elvers, Man., on the western section,
could fully take care of repairs for the entire system east and west.

PASSENGEE AJs^D FREIGHT CAE SHOPS.

Practically the same conditions prevail in these Departments as exist in the
Locomotive Department, as these shops are designed to take care of an equipment
proportionate to the locomotive requirements.

GEEY lEON AND BEASS FOTJNDRY.

This Shop is thoroughly equipped and has 26 machines and appliances^ and
is capable of casting any spare part of an engine from a cylinder with saddle com-
plete to the smallest item required on a locomotive or car.

The Brass Foundry in the same building is also equipped for casting anything
required in connection with a locomotive or car.

FOEGE SHOP.

This Shop is thoroughly equipped and has 47 machines and appliances, in-
cluding a 5,000 lb. hammer, which, with the large furnace, is capable of locomotive
frame making, and these are also able to handle scrap and work it up into good
quality blooms from which these frames are made.

BOILEE SHOP.

The Boiler Shop is equipped with 35 machines of the latest and most modern
type, and is practically second to none on the American continent, having larger
and more up-to-date machines than the C. P. E. Angus shops have.

FEOG AND TRACK SHOP.

This Shop contains 25 macbines and with the addition of a setting-out shed
and one more Frog and Switch Planer, would be sufficiently large enough to take
care of all track material, both east and west.

13'2 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

CAEPENTER AND PATTERN SHOP.

There are 25 macliines in this Shop, and it is capable of making all the
patterns required in connection with the building and repairing of locomotives and
cars.

Tliis Bhop is also equipped with machinery for repairs to engine cabs or any
work required on engines.

POWER HOUSE.

The power house is capable of developing 3,400 H.P., which is sufficient for
the Locomotive and Car shops, including lighting for whole plant.

STORES DEPARTMENT.

The stores Department is adequate for the handling and storage of material
for locomotives and cars, and provision has been made for the necessary clerical
staff.

STEEL AND WOODEN FREIGHT SHOPS.

In these Shops there will be approximately 36 machines, and have a capacity
for 75 cars, and in addition to the equipment necessary for the building and re-
pairing of all classes of wooden cars, this shop can take care of the building and
repairing of steel cars.

WHEEL AND MACHINE SHOPS.

There will be approximately 36 machines in this Shop, which will do all the
necessary machine work in connection with the repairs and building of steel or
wooden cars and coaches.

CAR FORGE SHOP.

This shop will contain approximately 20 machines, capable of doing all the
necessary work in connection with Forge Shop details.

SAW MILL AND CARPENTER SHOP.

This shop will have approximately 42 machines equipped for doing all the
necessary sawmill work in connection with the repairs and building of freight and
passenger cars. This shop will also be of sufficient capacity to handle station equip-
ment, and all sorts of woodwork for outside requirements, such as semaphore
posts, platforms, planks, etc.

COACH SHOP.

This shop will contain approximately 24 appliances. It will hold 18 coaches
undergoing repairs, and provides nickel-plating, brass finishing and upholstering
department!: thoroughly equipped for heavy repairs to coaches and the building
of new ones.

COACH PAINT SHOP.

This shop has a capacity of 16 cars and is large enough to handle all coach
painting required.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 138

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

LUMBER STOEAGE.

Lumber storage is also provided for.

DEY KILN.

A Dry Kiln is provided for the drying of timber in connection -with coaches.

OFFICE BUILDINGS.

The Office Buildings for both the Motive Power Department and the Car
Department have accommodation for the officers and staff, and each has, also, a
drawing office and material testing room in the basement.

EESEKVOIE.

There are two water reservoirs at the plant, one of two million gallons
capacity, the other a 100,000 gallon tank.

SEWERAGE SYSTEM.

The Sewerage system is equipped with two rotary motor driven pumps, which
discharge the sewage from the plant at a distance of six miles.

PUMPIXG PLANT.

The St. Vital pumping plant is six miles away, and supplies water from the
Eed Eiver.

COST.

Total Cost of the Locomotive and Car Shop buildings, and equipment, includ-
ing sewage pipe line, water pipe line, land and track-laying in connection with the
shops, $4,535^372.00.

December 14, 1912.

NATIONAL TEANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.

Statement Showing Gross Expenditure to September 30th, 1911,
on Transcona Shops Plant and Estimated Cost of Same.

Contract Gross expenditure Estimated

No. Nature of work. to Sept. 30, 1911. amount.
Buildings (Loco. Shops Plant). —

23. Locomotive Shops $1,088,031.00 $1,167,140.00

23A. Reservoir 81,933.00 83,932.00

27. Red River Pump House 12,861.00 13,031.00

Total for Loco. Shops $1,182,825.00 $1,264,103.00

Buildings (Car Shops Plant). —

23F. Car Shops $ 72,519.00 $ 823,384.00

Total for all buildings $1,255,344.00 $2,087,487.00

1»4

NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Miscell.
21A.
23C.
2 3D.
23E.
28.
30.
69.
25.
26.
26A.
52.
2 ID.
77.

"Work (Loco. Shops Plant). —

Levelling shop site

Air, steam, water, piping, etc

Pipe tunnels and wiring ducts

Miscellaneous equipment

Yard water system

Wiring system

Pipe covering

Water main pipe line (excav. and backfill).
Water main pipe line (laying & distribution)

Sewer line (pump ho. to Seine Riv)

Replacing damaged sewer

Roadway

Sewer connection

Total for Loco. Shops.

Miscell. Work (Car Shops Plant).—

Piping systems

Wiring systems

Levelling shop site

Gravel fill (interior Car Shops)

21A.

Total for Car Shops

Total for all miscell. work.

Machinery and Equipment (Loco. Shops) —

Machine tools equipment

29. Pump house equipment ,

48. Shafting, etc

Total for Loco. Shops.

Machinery and equipment (Car Shops). —

Industrial tracks

Machine tools

Cranes, motors, shafting hangers, transfer

table and miscell. equip

Structural steel Car Shop machinery

Total for Car Shops

Total for all machinery and equipment

2f,826.00
49,820.00
14,594.00
122,266.00
23,138.00
14,760.00

18,689.00
135,713.00

5,296.00

$ 406,102.00

$ 406,102.00

$ 553,825.00
17,064.00
18,891.00

$ 589,780.00

Grand total

589,780.00
$2,251,226.00

5 95,000.00

104,820.00

35,727.00

158,521.00

31,139.00

78,396.00

8,335.00

18,689.00

135,713.00

13,968.00

5,296.00

25,000.00

$ 710,604.00

$ 101,000.00
45,000.00
95,000.00
30,000.00

271,000.00

$ 981,604.00

$ 807,120.00
17,881.00
32,073.00

$ 857,074.00

$ 1,000.00
183,700.00

106.800.00
40,000.00

331,500.00
1,188,574.00

$4,257,665.00

THE HISTORY OF THE WINNIPEG TERMINALS AND ENTRANCE

INTO WINNIPEG.

The Transcontinental Railway and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company
made an agreement with the Canadian Northern Railway Company for joint pass-
enger terminals and city freight terminals, the joint property extending from
Water Street to the Assiniboine River, whereby the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway
Company and the Transcontinental Railway should each pay one per cent interest
on the value of the property, as well as any improvements which the three parties
might decide to make.

To reach these terminals from tlie East required the construction of a bridge
over the Red River as well as an expensive viaduct from the proposed Red River
Bridge to and across Water Street for the operation of both Canadian Northern
and Transcontinental Railway trains approaching the terminal from the East.
The necessity for this expensive construction was known by all of the parties in
connection with the agreement.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 135

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

The lands on -which this Eastern approach to the terminals must be con-
structed were o^nied or controlled by Canadian Northern Railway or MacKenzie
and Mann interests at the time that the agreement was made.

The agreement makes no provision for the joint nse of the Eed Eiver Bridge,
viaduct or the approaches to the bridge, nor do we find that any understanding or
agreement was made with the Canadian iSTorthern Eailway interests for the right
of way between Water Street and the Seine River which was then owned and con-
trolled by them. ^Ye do find, however, that the Transcontinental Railway Commis-
sion undertook the construction of the viaduct and Red River Bridge and that
these structures were 75 per cent completed before the Commission filed its plans or
took legal possession of this property on September 27, 1910.

The agreement did not provide for a track connection between the Transconti-
nental Railway main line and the Canadian Northern Railway main line.

.As early as 1906 the Transcontinental ]-iailway had constructed its main
line from Dundee Junction eastward. Dundee Junction is located on the Dundee
Branch of the Canadian Northern Railway at a point about one-quarter of a mile
from the main line of the Canadian Northern Railway, which runs from ^Yinnipeg
to Port Arthur and distant about two and a half miles east of the Canadian North-
ern Railway Company's Winnipeg passenger station, and it was through this Dundee
Junction that the Transcontinental Railway connected with the Canadian Northern
Railway, the City of Winnipeg and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway during the
years of construction of the Transcontinental Railway, and it would appear that the
original intention was that this connection, or some slight modification of it, was to
be the permanent route for entering Winnipeg, and it could easily have been
arranged had the terminal agreement with the Canadian Northern Railway covered
the territory from Dundee Junction to the Assiniboine River instead of ending
abruptly at Water Street in the City of Winnipeg.

Numerous suggestions were made to connect the Transcontinental Railway at
Dundee Junction with the new Red River Bridge to which they were committed
under the agreement, which included running rights for the Canadian Northern
Railway paralleling a portion of the Canadian Pacific Railway, as well as an
independent line from the Transcona Shops direct to the Red River Bridge. The
latter suggestion was finally adopted and a new line of double track railway, 4.9
miles in length, was constructed.

The principal promoter of this direct line was Chief Engineer Grant, who
proposed that it should cross the Canadian Pacific Railway Emerson Branch and the
streets in the vicinity on the level, and application was made to the Board of Rail-
way Commissioners of Canada for authority to make these crossings. The Board
of Railway Commissioners ordered that the Transcontinental Railway should cross
this Railway and these streets overhead, which involved the construction of a large
quantity of additional embankment, and the Commissioners of the Transcontinental
Railway, without reference to the original promoter, accepted the ruling of the
Board of Railway Commissioners and ordered the construction of the line to be
proceeded with. The estimated cost of this line is $2,500,000, to which should be
added whatever amount the Mackenzie and Mann interests secure for their right
of way over and above the amount offered them in the Exchequer Court proceed-
ings. They are claiming about $2,500,000 more than was offered.

On August 22, 1911, after the construction of the direct line from Transcona
shops to the Red River Bridge was well under way, the Canadian Northern Rail-
way Company, the Grand Trtmk Pacific Railway Company and the Commissioners
of the Transcontinental Railway entered into a tentative agreement covered by an
initialled document known as "Heads of Proposed Agreement", in which the
Transcontinental Railway were given running rights from Dundee Junction to
the Joint Winnipeg Terminals in return for running rights over the tracks of the

196 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Transcontinental Railway from the Canadian Northern Railway main line across
the Red River and into the Winnipeg Terminals, thus giving the Transcontinental
Railway two separate and distinct entrances to the Winnipeg Terminals.

The fact that this later " Heads of Agreement " was prepared and partially
executed indicates that a similar agreement might have been made in the begiiming
which would have provided ample facilities for the entrance into Winnipeg and
saved the expenditure of two and a half to thrae millions of dollars. The failure
to take advantage of this economy rests, first, with tlie Commissioners of the
Transcontinental Railway, who should have arranged that the Winnipeg Terminals
extend east to Dundee Junction before completing any deal with the Canadian
Northern Railway Company, and second, with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway
Company who were parties to these agreements, for not giving the Commissioners
the advantage of their knowledge in affairs of this character and insisting on the
Commissioners securing a reasonable arrangement with the Canadian Northern
Railway, and thirdly, MacKenzie and Mann interests should have dealt openly
with the Commissioners in connection with the right of way which they controlled
at that time. The Board of Railway Commissioners of Canada might have been
applied to to secure running rights from Dundee Junction to the Winnipeg Ter-
minals over the Canadian Northern Railway, instead of authorizing the overhead
construction which cost the country so much money.

DRAINAGE OF ROAD CROSSINGS.

The line of the Transcontinental Railway, westerly from the Quebec Bridge,
passes through an agricultural country, fenced and cultivated, and the number of
farms intersected by the railway necessitates a large number of farm crossings in
addition to the regular road crossings.

In grading a level crossing of a railway, provision has to be made for carrying
the water which drains into the ordinary railway ditch from one side of the road
crossing to the other. This is ordinarily effected by building a small wooden
culvert, or by laying a cheap drainage pipe, of either tile or concrete, in the bed of
the ditch, and under the grading for the crossing.

The Investigation Commission, during their inspection of the portion of the
line immediately west of Quebec, were surprised to note that expensive, licavy cast-
iron pipe was used for this purpose instead of the ordinary tile or concrete pipe, or
small wooden culverts.

We find that the practice of using cast-iron pipe for this purpose was confined
almost entirely to District "B", though small quantities were used on District
"A".

The following statement shows the amount of this pipe used, with the total
cost, and further figures showing that if tile and concrete pipe had been substituted
at the contractor's prices for this material, a saving might have been effected of
$12,072.15.

Statement showing cost of cast-iron pipe used for Drainage of Road and Farm
Crossings.

District "A," Contract 2, 24"- 84 lin. ft. at $5.00 — $420.00
Contract 3, 24"- 48 lin. ft. at 6.00— 288.00

District "B," Contract 9, 18"-2128 lin. ft. at 3.75—15.480.00
24"- 595 lin. ft at 5.00 — 2,975.00
36"- 65 lin. ft at 7.50 — 487.50

708.00

(Note — "None on other districts".)

-$18,942.50
$19,650.50

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 137

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Average cost per lin. ft $4.00

For this cast-iron pipe the following items might have been substituted with
the savings as shown : —

District "A," Contract 2, concrete pipe, 24"- 84' at $2.80 — $235.20
Contract 3, concrete pipe, 24"- 48' at 3.00 — 144.00

$ 379.20

District " B," Contract 9, tile pipe, 18"-4128' at $1.30—5,362.40

Concrete pipe, 24"- 595' at 2.65 — 1,567.75

Concrete, 36"- 65' at 4.00— 260.00

7.199.15

$7,578.35

Average cost per lin. ft $1.54

Total saving $12,072 . 15

District Engineer Foss, in the following letter to the Chief Engineer, explains
how it occnrred that the pipe was nsed for this purpose on District " A " : —

No. 23-F. St. John, N.B., October 7, 1912.

Gordon Grant, Esq.,

Chief Engineer " K T. K."
Ottawa.
Dear Sir, —

" Eeplying to yours of the 4th inst.. File 12,144, I beg to say that the
pipe referred to was purchased for nse under the main line, but, later it was
decided that a larger structure would have to be built, so the contractor was
allowed to use this at Eoad Crossings.

Yours very truly,

C. 0. FOSS,
District Engineer.

and Mr. Doucet's letter, reproduced herewith, confirms our contention that the nse
of this pipe was an unjustifiable expenditure. —

No. 1286. Quebec, 7 October, 1912.

Gordon Grant, Esq.,

Chief Engineer,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir: —

" Eeplying to your letter of October 4, file 12144, the cast iron pipe
ordered for drainage road crossings, was ordered by ex-Division Engineer
Eussell without my knowledge. Cedar culverts, or, better still, open water-
ways should have been used, and the order is to be ascribed to an error of
judgment.

Yours truly,

A. E. DOUCET,
District Engineer."

That the Division Engineer could order the Contractor to supply and install
items as extravagant as these C. I. pipe without authority of the District Engineer
discloses the incapability of the Division Engineer and a laxity of proper organiza-
tion and supervision in the District, to which this $12,000 loss is directly charge-
able.

138 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

WATEE SUPPLIES.

Gravity Supplies.

On the Transcontinental Eailway the engineers were permitted to expend up
to $25,000 in order to obtain gravity supplies for way station tanks. This license
as regards expenditure resulted in four gravity supplies being installed on District
" A " at an excessive cost, and where we find cheaper water could be procured by
the installation of pumping plants and at the same time a construction saving of
$68,200 been effected. At way side stations where the amount of water required
by locomotives is moderate, particularly when water stations are located as close
together as they are on District " A ", a large expenditure to obtain a gravity
supply results in the water used costing per gallon greatly in excess of what it
would cost had a pumping plant been installed.

A statement has been prepared covering all gravity supplies on the railway
which shows the cost of those above referred to and full details in connection with
pumping, etc. (See Exhibit No. 40.)

Pumping Stations.

The standard pumping plant adopted by the Transcontinental Eailway at the
instigation of the Grand Trunk Pacific Eailway is a gasoline pump which is being
supplied by the contractors at an average cost of $1,400 each. From figures which
we have gathered as regards the cost of operating the pumps both from the con-
tractors who are using them in their water service for work trains, and from the
manufacturers who supply them, we find that the cost of pumping water with this
equipment is about five cents a thousand gallons, which may be taken as an average
figure for wbich t]ie work can be done by a steam pump.

The price being paid for the gasoline pumps is about $800 in excess of what
a steam pump and boiler might have been provided for, and we find that the in-
stallation of this expensive equipment has unnecessarily increased the cost of this
feature of the railway by $45,600.

CONSTEUCTION OF THE NATIONAL TEANSCONTIXENTAL EAILWAY

EAST OF LEVIS, QUE.

This Commission does not think that the National Transcontinental Eailway
should have been constructed East of Levis, which was done at a cost of
$35,000,000, first, — because the Government at that time had a railway in operation
between Levis and Moncton, the Intercolonial; second, — because the National
Transcontinental Eailway would only be 33 miles shorter; third, — because the
gradients on the National Transcontinental Eailway are greater than those on
the Intercolonial Eailway; and fourth, — because the grades on the Intercolonial
Eailway can be reduced to four-tenths per cent Eastbound and six-tenths per cent
Westbound, whereas it is practically impossible, according to the construction of
the National Transcontinental Eailway, to reduce the 1 . 10 per cent grade at 146
miles West of Moncton and the 1.10 per cent grade at Lake Pohenagamook.

The traffic on the Intercolonial Eailway is such that it will in a short time be
a business proposition to reduce its gradients which when completed will make it
the low grade line between Levis and Halifax, rather than by way of the National
Transcontinental Eailway, and it is inconceivable that the grade revisions on the
Intercolonial Eailway above referred to will cost more than half of the amount of
money expended in the construction of this portion of the National Transcon-
tinental Eailway.

INTESTIGATINO COMMISSION 139

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

While there may be some reason for the construction of a railway through the
timber districts in the Eastern portion of the Province of Quebec, the construction
of the Eailway from Edmundston to Moncton was not justifiable because of the
lack of local business along this line which two years of operation has already
proved.

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123 A. 1914

EVIDENCE

(N.T.E. INVESTIGATING COMMISSION: EVIDENCE TAKEN ON
TEAIN, NEAE MILEAGE 40, JULY 13th, 1912.)

Waltee Youngmax, sworn:

By the Chairman:

Q. \Yhat is your Eesidency? — A. 1 am on number seven.

Q. Did you make the classification of all those cuttings? — A. I did, in con-
jimction with Mr. Bell.

Q. You were engaged in them? — A. Yes.

Q. You heard what Mr. Bell said about the classification on mile 1625? —
A. Yes.

Q. That you and he had made it during the progress of the work; you con-
eluded that it was 60 per cent solid and the rest loose? — A. Yes.

Q. And that, imder the direction of Mr. Poulin, it was afterwards changed?
— A, That is right.

Q. Had you any reason to change your own judgment, or did you defer to
your superior? — A. Just deferred to my superior.

Q. You agree with Mr. BeU that all the material on this Eesidency is either
stone, gravel or sand? — A. Yes.

Q. There is no clay in this territory? — A. No, there is no day that I know
of.

Q. Was there, in your opinion, more sand in some of these cuts than you
have allowed as common? — A. Not sand. I know about my own section: I do
iiot know about further along.

Q. Is there not more sand, and, perhaps, I shotdd add, stones under a foot
than you have allowed as common? — A. I hardly think so.

Q. This place is out of your territory? — A. Yes.

Q. Does it not present the appearance of having more, to one passing over ? —
A. It does to one passing over, after it is trimmed down.

Q. And you yourself would conclude, from a casual examination of it, that
there was not enough common allowed, would you not — as it now appears? — A.
Yes, as it now appears the sand washes over the stones, and you cannot see the same
as you would when the work was being taken out.

Q. Then you can say definitely that the appearance that we get from a
surface examination is not indicative of the true condition of the excavation? —
A. No, not in most cases.

Q. Will the examination by sinking pits back- from the top of the cutting
disclose the true condition ? — A. Yes, in some cases it would, if you take the pits •
far enough and long enough.

Q. Does it vary ? The appearance on the face of it is that it is pretty uni-
form. Surely one or two pits on the bank would show fairly what it is? — A. WeU,
1 should think probably it would ; in some cases it may not.

Q. Of course that is quite evident, but one may reasonably expect to arrive
at a fair conclusion as to the contents of that bank by sinking one or two pits, but
if it happened that you went down into a pocket of sand, you would have to dig
another pit to get a fair view ? — A. You certainly would.

Q. In all probability it would disclose the condition? — A. Oh, yes, imder
most circumstances.

142 FATIOXAL TI^AXSCOXTIXENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

(N.T.E. INVESTIGATION COMMISSION: EVIDENCE TAKEN ON TEAIN
AT PAEENT STATION, JUNE 15th, 1912.)

William G. Beown, sworn:

By the Chairman : • -

Q. How old are you? — A. I will be twenty-nine in the fall.

Q. Where did you obtain your professional education? — A. McGill
University.

Q. Are you a graduate? — A. I am.

Q. What year?— A. 1907.

Q. Where did you obtain your first job as an engineer ? — A. With the Quebec
Bridge company.

Q. You had not any classification of excavation out on that job, had you?
— A. No, I was not in charge.

Q. When did you first become engaged in classification? — A. On the
Transcontinental Eailway.

Q. What was your office then? — A. I was instrument man.

Q. As an instrument man you would not classify, would you? — A. No, I
would not be really engaged in classification : I would be measuring cuts.

Q. You saw classification going on during that time? — A. Yes, on the
grade.

Q. Whom were you under? — A. The Eesident Engineer, J. 0. Montreuil.

Q. Where? — A. Eesidency 17, Cap Eouge.

Q. Did you get a Eesidency yourself at any time ? — A. Yes.

Q. Did you succeed him? — A. No. I did not succeed him: that was in
1906, and I went back to college that year and finished.

Q. After you graduated did you get a Eesidency? — A. No, I was on level,
and transitman on location.

Q. After you finished being leveller and transitman, what did you do? — A.
Went on Eesidency 33, as Eesident Engineer.

Q. Then you commenced classifying on your own account? — A. Yes.

Q. What did you do when you quit that Eesidency? — A. I came up on
Eesidency 40 as Eesident Engineer.

Q. How long did you remain there? — A. On Eesidency 33 I was from
January, 1909, to November, 1910, and on Eesidency 40 I was from November,
1910, till July, 1912.

Q. And then ? — A. Then I took over Mr. Black's division this year.

Q. As Divisional Engineer? — A. Yes.

Q. That is your experience then? — A. Well, I was working on one railroad
in Gaspe about six months.

Q. What did you do there? — A. Leveller and transitman on location.

Q. You have given me all your experience now? — A. Practically all, except
•that when I was engaged with the Quebec Bridge Company in a minor position, I
was testing cement, but I had nothing to do with classification.

Q. During all the time that you have been classifying and supervising classi-
fication, I suppose you have classified all rock found in ledges as solid rock excava-
tion which required to be removed by blasting? — A. Ledges of more than one
cubic yard.

Q. What do you understand the meaning of the words in paragraph 34 of
tlie general specifications " All rock found in masses of more than one cubic yard,
which, in the judgment of the engineer, may be best removed by blasting? " — A. I
would consider those words '' masses < f rock " as masses of boulders occurring in
quantities of more than one cubic yard.

IXTESTIGATIXG COMMISSION - 143

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Would you not include in that a fragment that was not a boulder, which
was more than one cubic yard? — A. Yes.

Q. Try and give me your interpretation of these words " All rock found in
masses of more than one cubic yard " ? — A. That is boulders, or a single frag-
ment of one cubic yard, measuring one cubic yard or more.

Q. Am I correct in deducing from your answer that it must be rock alone —
the mass ? — A. No, sSx,

Q. Then you have not given me a full definition yet; try again? — A. That
masses of rock might occur with cementing material, making up the total mass,
measuring a yard or more.

Q. Why do you include the cementing material ? — A. Because if it were
not cemented, it could be removed by pick or bar.

Q. A mass of boulders of more than a cubic yard? — A. Well, you take
several boulders piled one on top of the other —

Q. Could a mass of more than a cubic yard be removed by hand, pick or
bar? — A. No, it could not.

Q. At all events, you say that you interpret that to mean a mass of rock
of more than one cubic yard, which may be either a fragment or a boulder, and
also a mass of rocks cemented together, including the matrix? — A. Yes, exactly.

Q. Where do you find that in the paragraph? — A. Well, we had a special
blue print sent up.

Q. I am taking that by itself? — A. Well, it is pretty hard to explain one
clause without referring to the clause regarding loose rock.

Q. When you interpreted it, you took into consideration something wliich
was in the following clause? — A. Yes, exactly.

Q. And after adding the two together, and considering the blue print you
have spoken of, you came to the conclusion that it included the matrix, or
cementing material? — A. Yes, exactly.

Q. Whether you are right or wrong in that, that is the way you interpreted
it? — A. That was my idea.

Q. Did you find in your experience that you were called upon to classify
rock in masses? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. And what did you classify as solid rock excavation which was rock in
masses? — A. I classified as solid rock —

Q. But you classified some cementing material, I inferred, did you not?—
A. Yes.

Q. What kind of cementing material did you find? — A. As a rule, it was
hard clay, indurated clay, between the boulders.

Q. Then if you came on a mass of material which was made up of indurated
clay and rock of one kind or another, did you always put that in as solid rock
excavation ? — A. No.

Q. What did you put in of that description as solid rock excavation? — A.
Well, our usual rule was to have at least above fifty per cent of boulders in the
form before we classified it as solid rock.

Q. Boulders or fragments of rock? — A. Yes.

Q. Were you influenced by the size of the fragments or boulders? — A. Yes.

Q. How big would the fragments or boulders necessarily be in the cementing
material before you would classify the mass as solid rock excavation? — A. They
would have t^ be over a cubic foot.

Q. What per cent of these cubic foot pieces of rock would you require in
that mass? — A. At least half.

Q. So you would not classify a yard mass that only had a cubic foot in it
as solid excavation, would you? — A. No, I do not think I would.

Q. You say it would have fifty per cent of rock in it? — A. Yes.

144 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. And has that been the rule that you have followed from the beginning
to the present time in respect of rock masses? — A. Eeturned as 100 per cent
solid, yes.

Q. Can you tell me of all the rock masses which you have returned as 100
per cent solid, whether there was, as a matter of fact, fifty per cent of rock in it ? —
A. Well, to the best of my knowledge there was.

Q. What would you think the average of rock in all that you have returned
would amoimt to, if you had to separate them now? — A. All the stuff returned
as solid rock.

Q. Massed material as solid rock? — A. You want figures for it?

Q. Would it be about fifty per cent? Of all the massed material you have
returned as 100 per cent solid rock excavation, what do you think the percentage
of rock in those returns amounted to? — A. At least the fifty per cent.

Q. Would you like to swear there was 55 per cent? — A. No, I could not
swear that, because I have to go by my boulder man's measurement.

Q. Taking his measurements to be true? — A. Yes.

Q. We are not including boulders in that over a yard. Leaving out the
boulders of over a yard, and, taking into consideration in this calculation or
estimate the percentage of rock which wordd be left in the massed material, would
it be 59 per cent? — A. Well, there would be no rock left. This cementing
material, as a rule, is clay surrounding the boulders, and the boulders in clay
make up the massed material, so if all the boulders were taken out —

Q. I say all the boulders of a yard or over; what would all the rest amount
to, in all the returns ? Would they amount to 50 per cent ? — A. I could not give
you an answer till I looked at my figures.

Q. What did you find was the percentage of rock in the massed material
that you returned of all kinds, big and little? Would you say there was about
50 per cent? — A. Yes, I would.

Q. Under the heading of massed material, you returned all boulders and
fragments of rock of over a yard, each over a yard, did you not. — A. Yes.

Q. And you returned them in such form that you could separate the boulders
and fragments of over a yard from the other portion of the massed material? —
A, Not on Residency 33; on this one I can.

Q. On Residency 33, how did you do it? — A. I had to keep track of all the
boulders myself. I had no boulder measurer, and I had to approximate them.

Q. You professed to make a separate return of the boulders and fragments
of over a yard to the best of your ability? — A. Yes.

Q. So that there is a return which, if one takes that return to be correct,
will show how many boulders and fragments of rock of over a yard you returned?
— A. Exactly.

Q. You mean you cannot state accurately what that amounted to in the
other Residency? — A. No. I could give a very good idea, though, if I had the
papers.

Q. It is put down there in separate heading, is it not? — A. On that sheet
of mine, yes.

Q. Then the rest of the massed material consisted of smaller boulders than
a yard, which were more than a cubic foot, and smaller fragments than a yard,
which were over a cubic foot, and cementing material ; is that right ? — A. Yes.

Q. Do you really and truly say that you did not make a practice of returning
as solid rock excavation massed material which contained stones which were less
than a cubic foot? — A. By massed material, you mean material classified as 100
per cent solid?

Q. Yes?— A. No.

Q. I have this from your evidence; first of all, the boulders and fragments
of over a yard, which you returned as 100 per cent solid, are sot down separately
in your returns; as to those returned when you were on Residency 33, you would

INTESTIOATING COM MI SSI ON 145

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

not like to voiich for their complete accuracy. As to those returned in Residency
40, you profess to have returned them fairly correctly, and they appear separately
in your sheets? — A. On my office sheets, not on the returns to Quebec.

Q. And you can make up for me a statement showing them in both Eesi-
dencies from your sheets? — A. I can. I have one sheet for Eesidency 40 here.
You want a list of the boulders on Residency 33?

Q. Yes, and fragments of rock of over a yard on both Eesidencies and take
them from your records? — A. Yes.

Q. Give me the cubic contents? — A. All the notes were burned at
Eesidency 40.

Q. Write out a statement, to the best of your knowledge, over the whole
thing, and state the facts in connection with it? — A. Yes.

Q. And I also deduce from your evidence that you returned as 100 per cent
solid rock excavation masses of material made up of stones of one kind or another,
each of which was a cubic foot or more in size, of which 50 per cent was cementing
material ? — A. Yes.

Q. And that you think that, on the whole, it would be fair to say that your
massed material, which was not boulders and fragments of more than a cubic
yard in size, was about 50 per cent cementing material; is that right? — A. In a
great many cases there would be less than 50 per cent.

Q. And in a great many cases perhaps more; it is the average? — A. Well,
there coidd not be more than 50 per cent of cementing material, if you had 50
per cent boulders.

Q. Would you always have 50 per cent boulders? You are only estimating
it. What would the cementing material amount to on the average, in your judg-
ment?— A. I think, from my notes on 40 here, that the cementing material
would run less than 50 per cent.

Q. Well, about what? — A. I should say between 30 and 40.

Q. Will you tell me where I can find a large quantity, where there would
be this large percentage of rocks in the cementing material? — A. The best
example is that cut that you said looked like a pavement.

Q. But I only saw two of those in 200 miles? — A. And that is not classified
at 100 per cent.

Q. But there is no cementing material in that? — A. Not in this end;
there is in the east end.

Q. There is no cementing material in what I pointed out to you that looked
like a pavement at all ? — A. " That was yesterdaj^s work ; yes, there was some
cementing material in that.

Q. But the part I speak about was near the west end; was it not just after
we left the cut and you could see it at this west end? — A. Yes.

Q. And it was a whole mass of boulders lying there? — A, Yes.

Q. Nothing between them? — A. No.

Q. So that you would not call that a cemented mass ? — A. No.

Q. I am talking altogether of a cement mass, and I want you to tell me
where there is a single place where I can find this large percentage of rock in
the cementing material ? — A. Yes, I can give vou a cut up above.

Q. Where is that?— A. Station 3428 to" 3432. I do not claim that that
goes all through the cut? — A. The cut is not classified at 100 per cent; there
are only patches of it.

Q. But I want what is classified at 100 per cent. Don't you think you are
putting it high in sa^ang it would be more than 50 per cent? — A. That cut there?

Q. No, generally? — A. Generally, oh, yes.

Q. Generally would it average more than 50 to 55 per cent of rock in the
cementing material? — A. No.

Q. As I recollect it, Timbrell placed it from 50 to 55 per cent; would you
agree with that? — A. I think that is a very good average.

123—10

146 IsATIOKAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. When you made this first answer you had in mind this pavement that
A\e were speaking of ? — A. Yes; that was an exceptional case.

Q. And am I not correct in saying that that was just a mass of boulders? —
A. Yes.

Q. It was not a cemented material case at all, as I recollect it? — A. Not
Avhere you pointed out; it is not classified 100 per cent solid.

Q. It was just a blaze of white rock that seemed to be all sticking out, like
my two fists, all through the place? — A. Yes. What you have spoken of as
massed material being returned to-day, we have been speaking of it as mixed
material.

Q. Either word will do, I understand. You want to say, then, that it may
appear in your return either as mixed or massed material. The words "massed
material'"' are not always used, but they mean the same thing? — A. I have
returned it as mixed material, classified so much solid, so much loose, and so much
common.

Q. I am only speaking of the solid. I understand you have returned as
100 per cent solid some of the mixed or massed material? — A, Yes, exactly.

Q. I also understand that you have returned as loose rock, and perhaps as
common excavation, quantities of mixed or massed material? — A. Yes.

Q. I do not understand you to testify that all the massed material you
returned was solid rock? — A. No.

Q. AVe will go now to loose rock. What large stones and lx)ulders
measuring more than one cubic foot and less than one cubic yard did you return
as loose rock? I suppose that you returned all large stones and boulders
measuring more than one cubic foot and less than one cubic yard, which were not
cemented together, as loose rock? — A. Yes.

Q. And if you found among that mass of boulders a quantity of uncemented
material which you thought should be returned, then, you returned that as common
excavation? — A. No, I cannot say that I did.

Q. What did you do with it? — A. Well, if these boulders were packed
together, and there was sand in between them, and you could not plough the
material, it was all returned as loose rock.

Q. For instance, if you found in a cut 1,000 yards of such boulders or
fragments as you considered should be classified as loose rock, and in the same
mass 2,000 yards of sand, you would return the whole thing as loose rock, if it
could not be ploughed on account of the boulders ? — A. Yes.

Q. Do you think that is right? — A. I think so. We are dealing with
material in large quantities, not individually between the boulders.

Q. Have you done that in many cases? — A. A great many cases; that is,
the material as a whole, if it could not be ploughed by reason of the boulders
obstructing the plough.

Q. Does that amount to a very large quantity of material? — A. Yes, it
amounts to considerable,

Q. What justification had you for doing that? — A. Well, I considered I
was dealing with the material as a whole.

Q. Then you just returned it the same way as if it cemented the rocks
together? — A. Well, if the material, as a whole, could not be ploughed, it is
bound to be loose rock.

Q. And you did return it as such? — A. Yes, any material like that, that
could not be ploughed.

Q. Don't you, as an engineer, think that the fair interpretation of that
clause is that the material must be too hard to plough? — A. You mean the
material between the boulders?

Q. Yes? — A. Xo, it means taking the whole mass.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 147

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Supposing it was lying on a side hill, and the side of the hill was too
steep for horses to climb up and down, you would put it all in as loose rock? — •
A. No, not in cases like that.

Q. Why would you not? You could not plough it? It is not the ob-
struction you are considering; it is the material? — A. Yes, but the material is
taken as a whole.

Q. Why so? This classification, as I take it, separates the material, and
does not take it as a whole? — A. But how are you going to get a plough in
between the boulders?

Q. How are you going to get a plough up a hill that you cannot drive horses
up? — A. Well, the reasonable interpretation of the specification is that if you
have a cut you are supposed to loosen it up by ploughing for shovelling, for ,
loading.

Q. That is your interpretation? — A. For common excavation.

Q. Supposing the sand was so soft that the horses sank to their bellies? —
A. Weil, they could not, if there were enough boulders in it.

Q. But if there were no boulders in it, and you found the sand so soft they
could not get through it, you would put it in as loose? — A. No, common ex-
cavation.

Q. But they could not plough it. Don't you think you are making a rule
for yourself? — A. No, I do not.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. Supposing you had a sand cut with a bunch of boulders, loose rock size,
that amounted to a tenth of the cut in cubic yards, how would you classify it? —
A. Ten per cent distributed all round?

Q. No, in a bunch? — A. I do not think I would classify it as 100 per cent
loose rock.

Q. Take a 1,000 yard cut, with 100 yards of boulders in the centre, how
would you classify it? — A. I would classify it as ten per cent loose and 90 per
cent conunon.

Q. How would you arrive at it ? — A. You said there was 100 yards ' of
loose rock in the centre.

Q. Supposing there was 1,000 yards in the cut and 100 yards boulders, how
would you classify? — A. I would determine as to the hardness of it; ten per
cent might not be enough to obstruct ploughing.

Q. I do not care whether it obstructs ploughing? — A. If you had free
shovelling it would be common excavation.

By the Chairman:
Q. It is the hardness of the stuff, is it not? If you have been classifying
that way, you have been classifying wrongly, in your opinion? — A. I do not
think I have been classifying wrongly practically. I may misunderstand your
question.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. What is the difference, whether it is in a bunch or scattered, one pile or
forty? (No answer.)

By the Chairman:

Q. Is not the question whether you could shovel it or plough it ? — A. Yes.

Q. Then you should not classify it as loose rock, should you? — A. If you
can plough it?

Q. If the material itself is not too hard to plough or shovel, you should not
classify it as loose rock? — A. No.

Q. When you speak of loose rock in situ, by loose rock do you not mean
small fragments, broken off, perhaps, at the side of a precipice, have dropped down

148 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE V„ 1914

and gathered in a mass, of what you and I would call to-day broken stone? —
A. Well, that is a part of the specification I do not understand. Loose rock
comes under loose rock.

Q. That heading is no part of the paragraph at all. Can you not make
any meaning out of it? — A. I suppose that is what it means, fragments.

Q. You come along beside a cliff, and you see at the bottom of it a whole
lot of broken pieces of real rock which have fallen off the top or along the side;
you constantly meet with that? — A. Yes.

Q. If that loose rock that we have been trying to describe was such that it
might 'be removed by hand, pick or bar, would you not classify it as loose rock,
irrespective of its size? — A. Yes.

Q. I am not speaking now of small boulders or of coarse gravel, but simply
of loose rock, as you and I have defined it in the preceding questions; you under--
stand that? — A. Yes, I understand that.

Q. Would you classify all cemented gravel as loose rock, whether it could be
ploughed or not? — A. If it could be ploughed, I would not classify it as loose
rock.

Q. Would you classify as loose rock indurated clay that could be ploughed? —
A. No.

Q. Would you classify indurated clay that required only occasional blasting
as loose rock? — A. What would be the other means of removal?

Q. Would you classify as loose rock indurated clay that could be ploughed
by occasionally blasting it? — A. Oh, that would be loose rock.

Q. For instance, if you had a cut of 500 feet in length, and you found that
in one or two places you had to put in a shot — A. Yes, necessary to put in a shot.

Q. Before you could plough the whole mass, would you put the whole mass
as loose rock? — A. No, just the central part that you are speaking of.

Q. Why would you put any of it in as loose rock, because it tells you here,
if you find a mass of indurated clay which you can plough after you have put in
a shot or +.wo, it shall not be loose rock? That means that, to make it loose, it
is so hard that it has all to be blasted. You have not so interpreted it ? — A. That
it has to be all blasted?

Q. Yes? — A. I do not quite understand it.

Q. Down here, along the line, we found a big hill of sand, and I do not
know whether it was you — I think it was — at any rate, one of the engineers told
us that the way that was removed was this: the contractor with a shovel made a
bole under it, and just put in a charge of black powder, and he shook up the
whole place and brought it down, just as people do all over the country in sand
pits, would you put that in as loose rock. — A. If the original material could not
have been ploughed before shooting, I would.

Q. Although he just put in a charge of black powder, and perhaps brought
down 1,000 yards of it, you would put that in as loose rock? — A. I think so,
considering the specification and the ploughing clause.

Q. That clause says that you shall include in loose rock all material which
cannot be ploughed without the necessity of blasting, does it not? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. It also says, as I take it, that you shall not include that material in
which blasting is only occasionally resorted to? — A. Oh, an occasional blasting
resorted to — it would be common excavation in that case.

Q. The case I give you is where a man took a shovel and made a long hole
with a shovel: it was so soft he could shovel out the hole, and, for his own con-
venience, and not of necessity, he shoved in some black powder, to bring it all
down; do you think it would be fair to put that in as loose rock? — A. No;
if he could shovel the hole he could shovel the cut.

Q. The cut should be common-, should it not? — A. I do not know what
3'ou are referring to.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 149

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. The cut where that process was gone through should be common? — A.
Yes, that you can shovel.

Q. Where you could shovel the hole? — A. Sometimes these shots are put
in to loosen it.

Q, But where you can shovel the hole, you can shovel the whole? — A. Yes.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. Is it not a fact that, in all your classification, wherever there has been
any shooting you call it loose rock ? — A. No, there are the cases of frost shooting.

Q. We are not talking of frost shooting? — A. Except frost shooting.

Q. As a fact, the shooting has actually told you whether it was loose rock
or not? — ^A. No, not in my case, I do not think so, that the fact of shooting it —

Q. Can you name a case where a cut was shot that you called it common
excavation? — A. No, I do not think so. I usually went by the material, by the
appearance and the hardness, and testing it by a pick. I do not think the fact
of them shooting altered my judgment.

Q. Was there a cut on any of your Eesidencies where blasting occurred that
was classified as common excavation? — A. No.

Q. You never made common of anything that was shot? — A. No.

Q. So that, so far as that end of the specification was concerned, it did not
apply to your work? — A. Yes.

Q. Have you studied this specification very much? — A. Yes, sir, I have
gone over it.

Q. Have you thought of the word '"masses" ; are you a graduate of McGill ? —
A. Yes

Q. " All rock found in masses of more than a cubic yard" ; you notice that
rock is singular? Paragraph 34? — A. Yes, it is singular there.

Q. Do you not have to read that in the plural in oriier to make masses
contain more than one piece? — A. Yes.

Q. So that when you look at it that way, from the grammar of it, there is
some question in your mind as to whether those rock masses are not individual
pieces? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. What do you understand by cemented material? — A. My idea of
cemented material was not exactly a concrete matrix, but a material that would
hold the boulders well together.

Q. What would be ideal cemented material? — A. Indurated clay, I should
say, and that red iron stone.

Q. Get away from rock cuts entirely; what is the idea of cementing material
that you know of in building work; what effect has that cement mortar on the
masses, bricks or stones adjoining it? — A. Binds them together.

Q. If they are bound together, when you lift one the other will come with
it?— A. Yes.

Q. In the work we have been over to-day, was there any of the rock that
you classified as loose rock that one rock would hold to another? — A. By rock,
you mean anything over a cubic foot?

Q. Yes ; supposing there were two pieces, each of a cubic foot, with the
hardest cementing material we saw to-day, could you bring them out without
taking them apart? Could you lift one without the other? — A. I do not think
T could demonstrate a cut like that.

Q. Do you think you could pick out one rock a cubic foot that would hold
another rock as big as your hand? — A. I think I could.

Q. Would that be about the limit? — A. No, there might be a few in-
dividual cases, but, generally speaking, I could not find you a place where I could
bring out two big rocks and they would hold together for any length of time.

Q. Could you bring out one big piece and another just the size of my hand
that would hold on the side while you were carrying it? — A. Yes, I think so.

150 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. In the material we saw? — A. You mean that you examined?

Q. Yes? — A. No. There is one cut you did not examine that I think
would hold.

Q. Where is that one? — A. That little long cut you spoke of being taken
out at rock slopes.

Q. You think they would stick together? — A. Yes.

Q. Are there any more? The one right next to it? — A. The one right
next to it is much the same material, only the boulders are smaller.

Q, Any others? — A. Yes, there are a few down on this end of the work;
there is one I know of, with the matrix of the red stuff.

Q. That makes three? — A. Yes.

Q. Can you think of any more? — A. I consider that cut we went into this
afternoon, in the place where you were speaking of the rock hanging out, that in
that cut, in certain spots, that the boulders would hang together.

Q. Only in a few places? — A. Yes, there are only a few places classified
100 per cent.

Q. Generally speaking, 90 per cent of the massed material today, that we
went over, would not hold up a rock as big as your hand on another ? — A. Ninety
per cent of the material we have examined to-day — you mean between common
excavation and cuts and everything.

Q. I want to get your idea of the percentage of these mixed material cuts
that had cementing material in them that you could say contained a cementing
element, or cementing property, sufficient to hold a piece as big as your hand? Is
there more than ten per cent of them? — A. No.

Q. Who taught you how to classify? — A. My first experience was on
Residency 17.

Q. Who taught you how to classify? — A. Well, he did not exactly teach
me, but I had to get it up for myself by measuring rock cuts and stripping, and
that kind of thing.

Q. What men talked to you in a way that would instruct you in classification ?
^A. Mr. Doucet.

Q. Who else? — A. Mr. Ferguson.

Q. And the specification and the blue print covered your information? —
A. Yes, and I was with Mr. Black.

Q. So that your whole experience as a classifier came from the specifications,
your superior officers, and those instructions? — A. Yes.

Q. These blue print instructions? — A. Yes.

Q. Did you ever see a letter that went with the Lumsden blue print? —
A. Yes.

Q. What did that say, roughly? — A. I remember the beginning of it, 'that
it went into the details of this, and I think at the end it mentioned that in some
cases where it was not practicable for the engineer to measure the stuff, that it
could be estimated.

Q. What was said about percentages in item 5 in the letter? — A. It does
not state anj-thing about percentages here.

Q. But what was said in the letter? — A. The letter, so far as I under-
stood, said that where it was not practicable for the engineer —

Q. Did it say anything about 50 per cent of rocks in the material ? — A. No,
it did not.

Q. You never saw Mr. Doucet's letter? — A. No. I have had it on general
information from my superiors that that was the usual way.

By the Chairman:
Q. Were you ever directed to raise your classification throughout your
experience above what you had put it at? — A. In individual cuts?
Q. Generally? — A. Yes, individually, in a few cases.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 151

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Had you any general instructions to raise your percentages? — A. None
whatever.

Q. Were you ever instructed to lower your classification? — A. Yes.

Q. Were you given general instructions to lower what you had been doing ? — •
A. ^0. Mr. Doucet's instructions were to give fair classification.

Q. I am not speaking of that? — A. But never generally.

Q. Sometimes you were told you had under-classified and sometimes you
were told you had over-classified? — A. Yes.

(N.T.E. INVESTIGATING COMMISSION: EVIDENCE TAKEN AT THE
TEANSCONTINENTAL OFFICES, QUEBEC, AUGUST 17th, 1912.)

Alfeed a. Pahadis^ sworn:

By the Chairman:

Q. How old are you? — A. Thirty-nine.

Q. You are a Civil Engineer? — A. Yes.

Q. Are you a graduate of any college? — A. No.

Q. Educated where? — A. National Business College and private tutor, and
then I followed the course of the International Correspondence School, of
Pennsylvania.

Q. You are employed by the Transcontinental as what? — A. Eesident
Engineer.

Q. For what Residencies? — A. At present 8, 9 and 10.

Q. And, prior to that, Eesident Engineer where? — A. Eesidence No. 9.

Q. What district? — A. East of Quebec.

Q. In whose contract? — A. M. P. and J. T. Davis.

Q. Your Eesidencies are in their contracts? — A. Yes.

Q. Before you became Eesident Engineer, what were you employed at? —
A. Different positions on the Location party of the Transcontinental.

Q. Before you were engaged on the Transcontinental, had you any other
experience as a railway construction engineer? — A. No, sir.

Q. You commenced classifying as Eesident Engineer when? — A. November
or December, 1907.

Q. And you have been at it ever since? — A. Yes.

Q. From whom did you get your instructions as to how to classify
material? — A. Well, from the Division Engineers.

Q. You had not classified before that on any other road? — A. No.

Q. You went in the first morning for the purpose of classifying the material
to make your estimate? — A. Yes.

Q. Did anybody go with you the first time? — A. The first estimate, I be-
lieve so.

Q. Don't say 'Tjelieve" : do you recollect ? — A. Yes, as far as I know, yes.

Q. Do you recall now about it: surely you remember the first time you com-
menced to do this important work? — A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall that any person went with vou? — A. Yes, I can say that.

Q. Who was it?— A. C. Garnet.

Q. Garnet was what? — A. Division Engineer.

Q. Had he been classifying, to your knowledge, material before that on this
read? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. Where is he now? — A. T do not know.

Q. Not in the employment of the Transcontinental? — A. Not that I know of.

Q. Where was it you did your first classifying, about what mileage? — A.
About mileage 85: approximately 85.6,

152 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 QEORGE v., 1914

Q, Have you your notes? — A. What notes?

Q. Your notes taken in the field, showing that classification? — A. No.

Q. Where are they? — A. I have not them here.

Q. Where are they? — A, In camp.

Q. You should have brought them with you? — A. I have these notes here.
(Producing notes.)

Q. That is a compilation, showing the results? — A. Yes.

Q. Can you recall what it was that you examined there? Can you recall
that cut? — A. Yes, I think I can.

Q. Describe it, and see if your memory is any use? — A. That cut up there
was boulders, clay and hardpan, a little common excavation in pockets — very
little.

Q. An}i;hing else? — A. ISTo, not that I remember of.

Q. This is a ledge rock cutting: there was ledge rock in that cutting? — A.
Not in the first cut.

Q. What would it be? — A. 85.21/^ approximately: 85.5 is ledge rock.

Q. That is right. Now, 85.4: do you recall that? — A. Yes.

Q. In that you have 1423 mixed material, classified as solid rock, 721 loose
rock and 245 common. What was the mixed material in that cutting? — A. It
consisted specially of big boulders.

Q. Was it measured boulders? — A. Yes, sir, they were measured boulders,
excepting for the first two months — two or three months.

Q. Then did you return it as mixed material? — A. Yes.

Q. Why did you, if it was boulders ?--A. On a percentage basis.

Q. But I am asking you why you returned bovdders as mixed material? —
A. It was boulders mixed with clay and other material.

, Q. You did not say that before. I asked you before what that 1423 cubic
vards of mixed material consisted of, and you said boulders, did you not? —
A. Yes.

Q. Was it boulders? — A. Yes.

Q. And anything else? — A. I do not think it.

Q. Why on earth did you return it as mixed material? Why did you not
return it as boulders? — A. Did I not return it as solid rock?

Q. No, you returned it as solid rock mixed. What I want to find is this :
when you had boulders pure and simple, did you return them under mixed ma-
terial? This profile I have before me just puts it in as solid 1423. — A. Yes.

Q. But Mr. Gutelius has taken it down S.R.M., and I think it is so on the
blue print, is it not ? Can we get the returns from that — A. Yes. I say "M.M."
— mixed material — in cross-sections. There is approximately 2500 yards, or what-
ever there is, the quantity in this cut. Well, this cut, as a whole, is mixed ma-
terial, out of which there is 1423 yards of solid rock.

Q. Do you swear there was in that boulders a yard or over? — A. Yes.

Q. 1423 yards? — A. I swear I believe so.

Q. You saw it, and I want your definite statement about it? — A. I can-
not give it.

Q. Wliy? — A. I cannot swear there was 1423 yards there of boulders: I
cannot do that, nor any other man.

Q. I want your evidence? — A. I can swear I believe the returns were
right.

Q. You k-now whether they were right or not, don't you? — A. As far as
my knowledge goes.

Q. You made the return? — A. Yes.

Q. And the examination? — A. Yes.

Q. And when you said the boulders were there, people were supposed to
believe it? — A. Yes.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 153

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. What is the necessity of adding "believe" to it ? Can you not say whether
it is 80 or not? — A. I can say I believe, but I cannot say that it is so.

Q. Why not? — A. Because it might vary: it might be a little bit more or
less.

Q. I ask you, approximately: did you put in a boulder which was haK a
yard? — A. No, I did not.

Q. Will you swear that all the boulders that were put in there by you were
about a yard at least? — A. Yes, I can swear that — in my judgment.

Q. You did not knowingly put in boulders that were not, perhaps, 25 or
26 cubic feet? — A. No.

Q. You can swear that? — A. Yes.

Q. Then there is no mixed material returned in that cut as solid rock?
—A. No.

Q. Did you measure, count, or estimate your boulders? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. Which did you do? — A. 1 measured a few of the boulders myself: a few
others were measured by subordinates : the boulders were measured by contrac-
tor's foremen.

Q. By the contractor's foremen? — A. Yes.

Q. Did you take their word for it? — A. No, not always.

Q. Did you ever take their word for it?- — A. Sometimes I did, and some-
times I did not.

Q. Did you take their word for the measurement in manv cases? — A. Yes,
1 did.

Q. Is that part of your duty, to let the contractor do your measuring? —
A. No: as far as doing the measuring all the time myself, I could not do it.

Q. Had you boulder measurers? — A. No, sir, I did not.

Q. Who had you to assist you? — A. I had rodmen and tapemen.

Q. How long was your Eesidency? — A. 11 miles.

Q. Could you not be over that Eesidency every day or so ? — A. No.

Q. Why? — A. Because in making the estimates, returns, or plans, we had
^to do, and things like that, I could not tramp over the work every day.

Q. But every two or three days ? — A. I generally used .to go over the work
about twice a week.

Q. Did you return any mixed material at all as solid rock? That is a
plain question — A. Yes: I am trying to think if I have or not.

Q. Did you return mixed material as solid rock in many cases? It is a
common practice to return mixed material as soUd rock, and I want to know if
}'ou did that, because I have here what I thought was a return showing that you
did, and I want to find out as a fact whether you did or not. Do you know what
mixed material is — A. Yes.

Q. Tell me what it is? — A. Is it not a rock you can mix —

Q. Tell me what it is? — A. Is it not rock mixed with other stuff, or any
other material, such as clay and boulders ? Is that not it ?

Q. I am asking you? — A. That is what I understand it is.

Q. Did you return any mixed material as solid rock? — A. As a whole, no.

Q. Then you did not count anything but rock as solid rock? — A. No.

Q. Then you looked upon solid rock excavation, and so classified the cuts
as to exclude anything but solid rock? — A. Yes.

Q. You did not tell me so when you were out there on the field? — A. I
did not, eh?

Q. No? — A. Well, I think this question of mixed material — you see there
is so much solid rock as mixed material.

Q. You did not so tell me on the field? — A. Probably not.

Q. Would you probably tell me something that was not true? — A. No, sir,
I did not mean to tell you anything which was not true.

154 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. Perhaps you do not appreciate it. I am asking you whether or not you
excluded all other material than solid rock from your estimates, and you say you
did? — A. Do you mean on the whole Eesidency, or on the cuts we are just talking
about ?

Q. No, on the Residency? — A. Yes, sir, I did.

Q. Bid what? — A. I did return some mixed material.

Q. Then in your answers that you have given me, you thought I was refer-
ring to two cuts? — A. Yes.

Q. I was not referring to two cuts, but I was referring generally to your
practice in making out your estimates, and in your practice in making up your
estimates did you include any material excepting solid rock — A. Yes.

Q. What did you include? — A. Eock in masses.

Q. That does not, to my mind, convey nothing more than solid rock. I ask
you what you returned? — A. If you want to take that rock in masses, solid
rock —

Q. I do not want to take anything : I want you to tell me what you returned
as solid rock? — A. I have returned solid rock, sir.

Q. I am going to leave you there, if you will not answer the question? —
A. Is that not answering it?

Q. Do you understand the question? — A. Yes, I do now.

Q. Then you have answered it that you returned as solid rock only solid
rock ? — A. Yes.

Q. You know that is not correct: are you answering these questions at ran-
dom, without any idea of the consequences of them? — A. No, sir.

Q. I tried several times to make you understand what I meant, and if I
am to rely on your evidence, I want you to answer me correctly? — A. That is
what I mean.

Q. Excuse me, you do not mean that, because, in the same breath, you have
already told me you returned other material as solid rock. What did you return
as solid rock excavation? — A. Anything in boulders measuring a yard or more,
ledge rock and assembled rock.

Q. What is assembled rock? — A. Assembled rock in masses cemented to-
gether.

Q. Are the boulders a yard or over, or the masses? — A. The masses.

Q. Then I am wrong and you are right. You mean that that mass, taken
as a whole, is a yard or over? — A. Yes.

Q. How big were the stones in that mass? — A. I do not know, sir: I did
not measure everyone of them.

Q. Were they as big as my fist ? — A. No, as a rule, they were big boulders.

Q. How big? — A. Well, ranging from ihree or four feet up to a yard or
more.

Q. Did you return in every cut boulders which were a yard or more, separ-
ately from the other material ? — A. From the other material which was not solid
rock, yes, sir.

Q. I do not think you appreciate the English language well enough to
see what I mean? — A. I would have no objection if you would sooner question
me in French.

Q. Have you anything which shows the quantity of boulders which meas-
ured more than a yard in your Residency? — A. Yes, approximately.

Q. Let me see that return which you have before you? — A. Here it is.

Q. I notice in your return of quantities and classification in cuts, borrow-
pits and ditches, which you have produced here, you have a heading called "Bould-
ers by measurement"? — A. Yes.

Q. Have you grouped under that heading all the boulders of over a yard? —
A. Yes, sir.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 155

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. So that, either at the time, or since, you have made up the yardage, or
by estimate of all the boulders of a yard or over in your Residency? — A. Yes.

Q. Have you here returns wliich cover all your Eesidencies? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. Will you tell me how much the total yardage of boulders of a yard or
over is in your three Eesidencies? — A. Yes.

Q. What is it? — A. Residency number 10 in cuts, 50,774, Residency num-
ber 9 in cuts 37,239, Residency number 9 again in catchwater ditches, river and
road diversion, 17,156, Residency number 8 in cuts 22,399; Residency number
S again, in catchvater ditches, 10,957.

Q. Now, you have also, under your return of quantities and classification
in cuts, borrow pits and ditches, a heading called "Assembled rock"? — A. Yes.

Q. That is an addition to the boulders by measurement, is it not? — A. Yes.

Q. Will you tell me the amount of assembled rock in each of your Resi-
dencies? That can be got by adding the quantities under those headings in this
document ? — A. Yes.

Q. The boulders by measurement are not included in the assembled rock?
— A. No, sir.

Q. And by measurement you mean all the boulders of a yard or over? —
A. Yes, and some assembled rock in the boulders, too.

Q. Some assembled rock in the boulders? — A. Yes.

Q. Then boulders by measurement includes something else? — A. Yes.

Q. It may include boulders of less than a yard? — A. If they are in masses,
yes.

Q. So that is not reliable as showing only the boulders of a yard or over? —
A. No, sir.

Q. Why did you put it under that heading ? Why did you not. put it under
the Assembled Rock heading, because it is misleading? It is assembled rocl^, is
it not? — A. Yes.

Q. Part of these which are classified as boulders by measurement are not
boulders by measurement? — A. No, sir, for this simple reason, that in measuring
boulders in the cut you may find a place where there is ten or fifteen feet square,
which are boulders in masses cemented together. These boulders were taken by
measurement as boulders.

Q. As a mass of boulders? — A. Yes.

Q. But they were under a yard in a great many cases ? — A. Yes, when mass-
ed together.

Q. So that the return is not illuminating in any way: it is not to be relied
upon as showing the boulders of a yard? — A. No, sir, I cannot say that.

Q. What proportion of what you have classified as boulders by measure-
ment was boulders of a smaller size in masses? — A. I did not separate them in
every case : I do not know.

Q. Can you give me a rough idea? — A. In cases there might be ten to
twenty-five per cent.

Q. Would it average 25 per cent over all your Residencies ? — A. No, I hardly
think so.

Q. What would it average? — A. Approximately 20 per cent.

Q. What did you make a column of assembled rock for? — A. When it was
a distinct line, to say when there was a distinct place that we could show exactly
the situation, the place.

Q. Under assembled rock you have not put in boulders of a yard or over? —
A. No, sir.

Q. Assembled rock is made up of smaller boulders and other material? —
A. Yes.

Q. I am speaking of what appears under the heading "Assembled Rock*':
that is made of smaller boulders and other material? — A. No, in the assembled
rock there misrht be big boTilders as well.

156 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. How could that be? — A. Because in assembled rock you will find small
boulders and big boulders as well : as a rule they are not assorted.

Q. But you have just told me that where you found big boulders in masses
you put them in the boulder measurement? — A. I told you in places where they
were as practically an individual boulder, but where there was a distinct Line, say
right across the cut, or something similar, then they were calculated by showing
the difference by the line — calculation.

Q. Explain by a sketch, so that I will understand it, because I really can-
not understand it at all? — (Witness makes sketch and explains.)

Q. You have shown me a sketch here which shows a cross-section of a cut?
—A. Yes.

Q. And in that cross-section you show a quantity of small stones, and two
or three large stones : I am not speaking of their size now : and some material be-
tween them? — A. Yes.

Q. What size are those stones in that sketch? — A. They might vary from
six inches to five feet in diameter, or ten feet in diameter.

Q. Do you mean to tell me that you would take a great big boulder like
that and not measure it — five or teu feet in diameter? — A. No, sir, if it assem-
bled, I did not.

Q. We will go through that cut which 3'-ou show me the cross-section of. The
contractor first shoots the cut, does he not? — A. Yes.
Q. With powder or with dynamite? — A. Yes.

Q. After he shoots it, what appearance would such a cut as you have pic-
tured here have? — A. Until you come to the face again where it is not shot, it
will be ill broken to pieces.

Q. The big boulders would not be broken up in that case? — A. Not in
every case, no.

Q. Would they in any case? — A. Yes, some of them might be broken up.
• Q. Would the big boulders of eight or ten yards be broken up ? — A. Some
of the times it might, and some not.

Q, Although it had not been drilled? — A. No, sir.
Q. You mean it would not? — A. That it would not be.
Q. After that was done, when the mass was all loosened up, what would the
contractor proceed to do? — A. Put it in cars: if there were any boulders not
broken up, they would finish them, break them in pieces, so that they could handle
them.

Q. He would first take out the material that was small enough to be moved r
— A. No, he would proceed by digging ever}i;hing out as he went along.

Q. Would he stop to break up the big boulders before he took the other ma-
terial out? — A. If he came to a big boulder, yes, he would, as a rule.

Q. Could you see the big boulders, then ? — A. The ones that are broken up,
yes.

Q. I have seen when they wore taking out cuts that they would take out all
the loose material, and then bulldoze the big boulder? — A. I do not know what
that means.

Q. That is putting a shot on top? — A. Yes, they have done that in cases.
Q. How did you know those big boulders were in there? — A. I think that
sketch gives you a pretty good impression of my idea.

Q. No. I can see the boulders Ijofore tbe shot has gone in, and I can
count them as they appear on the face, and there would be no necessity to return
them as mixed material — the big boulders? — A. No.

Q. You can see them and count them and measure them, according to the
sketch ? — A. Yes.

Q. Why did you not put the big boulders in separately? — A. Because
Ihey were in masses.

Q. But thev were bie: boulders? — A. Yes.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 157

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Why did you not put them in separately? — A. Because they were in
masses, what we call assembled rock.

Q. You did that, as a matter of fact, but you could have returned them
separately, could you not? — A. Yes, I could have returned them in any way
at all, I suppose; that is the way I did do it.

Q. And then, to make an end of it, that column of boulders by measure-
ment is not accurate: it shows something else than boulders by measurement? — A.
Yes, it shows boulders in masses.

Q. Xow, is there anything else that you have put in, in this detailed column,
that includes something else than it says it includes? — A. No, sir, not that I
know of.

Q. Then you are right under that "Boulders by measurement and in
masses?" — A. I should say yes.

Q. When you saw a quantity of material in masses which you proposed to
classify as solid rock, how did you make up 3^our mind whether it was to be
classified as solid rock, or as loose rock excavation? — A. When the boulders were
in masses, the masses were over a cubic yard, and they had to be removed by
blasting.

Q. Say that wall in front of us is a cross-section of a cut, and there is one
big boulder on that side and one big boulder over here, and there is one down
in the centre, three big boulders, and it is all, vou think, cemented together? —
A. Yes.

Q. Would that go as solid rock? — A. Yes.

Q. Although the proportion of boulders was only perhaps 15 per cent.? —
A. Ko, sir.

Q. Why did you say yes sir? — A. If the percentage is only 15 per cent,
I hardly think it is solid rock.

Q. Why does the per cent, make the thing solid rock? — A. Because if you
take the boulders and put them too far apart, I hardly think the material between
unless it is a special case, would be called solid rock.

Q. Why not? — A. Because there would not be enough rock in it.

Q. Then the same material in one case would be solid rock and in another
case would be loose rock? — A. Between, yes.

Q. Then the material you put in as solid rock, if it is all by itself, is not
solid rock? — A. If there is no rock amongst it, yes.

Q. Am I right in saying that 50 per cent, of your assembled rock, taken
over all your Residencies, would be the cementing material? — A. Over Eesidency
9, yes.

Q. Over Eesidency 10? — A. I do not know.

Q. Over Eesidency 8? — A. I do not know.

Q. How did you not know as to the classification in the last two Eesidencies ?
— A. Because I was not the engineer in charge when the classification was made.

Q. Had you any cases of overbreak in your Eesidency where you did the
classifying? — A. No, sir; I had outside slopes, but did not have overbreak.

Q. Do you remember mileage 85.5 ? — A. Yes.

Q. I have a note here that you told me at Merchant Puic, or that somebody
told me, that there were 500 yards of avoidable overbreak in that cut? — A. Yes,
sir, I think there is approximately.

Q. That is overbreak? — ^A. Which was not allowed.

Q. But you said you had no overbreak in your place at all; what do you
mean by that? — A. What I meant by having no overbreak is in that particular
place that you mentioned, there was approximately 500 yards which was not
counted, being outside the regular roadbed, which, in my place, was wasted.

Q. Was it overbreak? — A. Overbreak is rock which wa,s broken up more
than necessary.

Q. That is avoidable overbreak? — A. Yes.

158 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. "Well, there was overbreak iu Aoiir Eesidency? — A. Yes, approximately
500 yards.

Q. I asked you if there was any overbreak — I mean avoidable overbreak —
in your Residency? — A. Yes, if I said that I take it back: I made a mistake.

Q. Do you remember 86.1 ? — A. Yes.

Q. The common was wasted? — A. Yes.

Q. And you did not pay for the waste; is that right? — A. Yes.

Q. It was wasted because it was wet? — A. Yes.

Q. In 93.3 the material is wasted at the east end, is it not? — A. I believe
so.

Q. It was required in the fill, because part of that iill was train haul? — A.
Well, I am not very sure of that; I am not positive.

Q. Take a look at it? (Witness refers to book). — A. Yes, as far as I
remember, there was some material wasted there.

Q. Did you allow it ? — A. I was not the Resident Engineer.

Q. Do you know whether it was allowed or not? — A. I think it was.

Q. Where is the mileage of which you were Resident Engineer? — A. I was
always Resident Engineer from mile 79.3 to mile 90, and have been for perhaps
two years, and a year and a half from mile 68 to 103.

Q. Take 79 ; were you at 79 ?— A. 79.2.

Q. Was any wasted at 79? — A. I think so.

Q. Was it allowed ? — A. No, sir, it was allowed, but it is going to be covered
by train haul filling, and deducted from the contractors. 1 have orders to do
that, sir.

Q. 83 ; do you remember we walked over that ? — A. Yes.

Q. My note is that we walked over it, and could see no evidence to satisfy
us that there was half of the amount of solid rock and boulders which is allowed.
It is a very low cut, and we walked through the ditches and could find no evid-
ence to satisfy us that there was tlie quantity of boulders allowed. Fotheringham
saw this and made a complaint. Do you remember what his complaint was? — A.
As far as I know, Mr. Fotheringham never made any complaints.

Q. I do not know where I got that information, but I have it here in my
note. Don't you think you have overclassified that cut? — A. No.

Q. You could not show us in the ditch the boulders, could you? — A. No,
sir.

Q. Apparently wherever tliere was a big boulder it was not taken out? — A. It
was not taken out in every case.

Q. It was not taken out in dozens of cases? — A. Perhaps so.

Q. So apparently they did not take out the big boulders out of the ditches?
— A. In some cases they evidently did not.

Q. "Wliat did they leave them there for? — A. Because they did not take
them away.

Q. It looks to me as if they had left all the big boulders, and taken out all
the little boulders they could move? — A. I do not think it is the case. I think
in many cases they did take them out, and in a few cases they left them in.

Q. Why did you allow them to leave them in? — A. Well, in cases they
should be taken out, and in other cases they do not hurt.

Q. They block the ditch? — A. Yes, in places.

Q. Why did you not make them take them out? Do you remember about
that ditch? Is it not a matter of fact that they did not take the big boulders
out of the ditch? — A. In places they did not.

Q. But in all places? — A. I think they have in places.

Q. Was there any evidence of one boulder along that ditch having been
broken up? — A. I think so, sir.

Q. Did you point that out to us? — A. I think I did.

Q. To whom? To Major Leonard and me? — A. Yes.

IXTESTIGATIXG COMMISSION 159

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Did we not say to you half a dozen times ''Can you not show us where
there were some taken out? — ^A. You did, sir.

Q. Did Major Leonard not say he could not see any? — A. I guess he did.

Q. Do 3'ou swear 5^ou showed us broken boulders in that ditch? — A. I
swear I believe I did down below, just at the beginning of the cut.

Q. In the ditch?— A. In the ditch.

Q. Have you the return of that cut there? — A. Yes, here it is.

Q. This is a very low cut, is it not? — A. For about 1,000 feet, yes.

Q. x\nd a boulder which was a yard in this ditch would come to the top,
would it not? — A, In the ditches, yes.

Q. And in most places they would come to the top in the cut? — A. About
1,000 feet, and at 1,200 in the cut the}^ would not.

Q. About how many feet are there in that cut? — A. About 2,400.

Q. For about half the distance they would come to the top? — A. Yes.

Q. And you only showed 34 in the whole cut? — A. Over the cross-section
lines, yes.

Q. Surface boulders? — A. Yes, above cross-section lines.

Q. Do you say there were 5,170 yards that were measured boulders in that
cut? — A. And assembled rock, yes.

Q. You have not any assembled rock in that cut at all? — A. No, it is this
item.

Q. How much assembled rock was there in that cut? — A. I have not it
separately.

Q. What do you think there was? What proportion? — A. Approximately
25 per cent.

Q. May I say that in all your boulder measurement there is 25 per cent,
of assembled rock? — A. In the average of the whole Eesidency I hardly think it
would go over 20 per cent.

Q. You apparently have only one place in your whole Eesidency where there
is any assembled rock? — A. Distinct, yes.

Q. Where is that ?— A. At mile 83 . 1.

Q. You pointed out the material that you called cementing material at 83.6,
did you not? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. And that was simply a hard clay, was it not? — A. No, sir, I cannot
say that.

Q. What do j'ou swear it was now, because it is there and we can have it
looked at? What do jou say it was, if it was anything more than hard clay? —
A. It was big rocks —

Q. No, I am referring to the cementing material. You pointed out to me
the cementing material at 83.6? — A. I pointed out to you some material, yes.

Q. Which you said was cementing material, did you not? — A. No, sir, you
asked me to find some, and I looked in one special place, and in that special
place I hardly think the material was solid rock.

Q. You told me it was, and now you say you do not think it was. I have
this down, and I did not write this down without, your telling me ; "The cement-
ing material was simply hard clay; Mr. Paradis showed it to me?" — A. Per-
haps in the special place where we dug.

Q. You showed me that, and said that was the cementing material? — A. I
do not remember telling you it was cemented material.

Q. What did you tell me it was? I said cementing material, not cemented
material; you know what I meaii? — A. I know what you mean now; I did not
at first.

Q. The material that held the boulders together? — A. Yes.

Q. You pointed it out to me, did you not? — A. Yes.

Q. That was only clay? — A. Hard pan.

160 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINEXTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. Clay?— A. Clay rmd boulders.

Q. Not boulders: I am asking only about the cementing material. That
material was only clay, was it not, of one kind or another ? — A. Yes, sir.

Q, What other kind of material did you have in your Residency which you
called cementing material, which cemented boulders together? — A. Clay and
small boulders.

Q. No, not the boulders ; what was the stuff that held the boulders together ?
— A. You might call it clay, if you like.

Q. You say it was clay, do you? — A. Yes.

Q. All through your Eesidency? — A. Yes.

Q. At 84.2 my note is that there is a foot of common along here and you
have not allowed any ? — A. Oh, yes, we have.

Q. Is there any common there? — A. Yes, 450 yards.

Q. How much would there be if there was a foot over it all ? — A. I cannot
tell you.

Q. Can you not tell me? — A. If I took a pencil and worked it out, I
could. (Witness makes calculation.) Approximately 1065 yards.

Q. You have 450 yards? — A. Yes, because I think there was not a foot
over the whole thing.

Q. Along the cuts it showed a foot over it all at the least? — A. No, sir,
I do not think it.

Q. Look at the cross-section, what does it show? — A. It shows two quan-
tities.

Q. Of what?— A. Of material.

Q. What does it show in common? — A. 450 yards.

Q. Where is it shown on the section? — A. It is not figured independently
on the section.

Q. Why not? — A. Because it is not.

Q. Why is it not? — A. Because it was not.

Q. Well, why was it not? It was your duty to do it. Because it is not is
no reason: is it because you guessed it: is that not the truth? — A. No.

Q. You did not figure it? — A. Yes.

Q. Where? — A. As we went along in this cut, supposing it was four or
five hundred feet where there was no excavation —

Q. Do not suppose at all: I want the facts? — A. I cannot tell you the
exact fact on this cross-section.

Q. Can you tell me what there was in loose on that section? — A. No: ac-
cording to the sections independently.

Q. Can you tell me what there was of solid? — A. Independently, no.

Q. What is the good of the cross-sections? — A. The cross-sections show
the quantity as a whole.

Q. Only that?— A. Yes.

Q. There is no cross-section to show anything more than the contents of the
section ? — A. No.

Q. Without dividing it in any way at all? — A. No.

Q. Why is that? — A. Because, if I remember, I did not think it necessary
to make it on this section : it was for the office cross-sections.

Q. Show me the other sections? — A. I have no other sections — I mean the
sections in the office: I did not think it was necessary to show the differences for
here.

Q. You mean to say you made a cross-section in your own offices showing
the different materials, but you only returned to this office the outline of the sec-
tion : is that right? — A. Yes, that is right.

Q. That is what you mean? — A. Yes, sir, that is what I mean.

tNTESTJGATINO COMMISSION 161

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Then the last one shows the outline of the section in one place, and next
above it where it rises larger in another place, and next above it larger, and so on,
till you get the whole section ? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. This cross-section is of no use to any person in ascertaining the quantities,
is it?-r-A. Independently?

Q. To ascertain the quantities independently, it is not worth the snap of your
finger? — A. No, sir.

Q. Is that the way they all are ?— A.— Yes.

Q. Did you never return anything at all that gave any more information than
this in cross-sections? — A. Xo, sir.

Q. Has not your Division Engineer gone over the cross-sections? — A. Oh,
yes, he has seen all these things himself.

Q. He has seen your office cross-sections ? — A. Yes, he has seen all that, I
think.

Q. When did he see them ? — A. I do not know,

Q. Then you do not know whether he has or not ? — A. Yes, I think he has^

Q, Why do you think so ? — A. Because I think it is so. ■

Q. That is not an answer? — A. Because I think he has seen them.

Q. What makes you think he has seen them? — A. I cannot say positively
he has seen every one of them.

Q. Have you ever seen him looking at any of your cross-sections in your
office? — A. Yes, I think he has.

Q. You saw him looking at them ? — A. Yes, as far as I remember, he has,

Q. Who is the present Division Engineer? — A. Mr. Dick.

Q. Has he looked over your cross-sections? — A. As far as I remember, he
has.

Q. You remember at one place where you and I took a shovel. You did some
digging, and while you were digging Mr. Gutelius came over and took the shovel
in his hand and took out some material and showed it to you ? — A. Yes.

Q. Where was that? — A. As far as I can remember, it was at mile 100.5.

Q. Was it not 97? — A. It may have been, but as far as I remember, I think
it was 100.5.

Q. What were we doing there? — A. We were ti-ying to find some common
excavation, I think.

Q. What did you think that material was that we dug up there? What did
you say it was?— A. As far as I remember, I said 1 thought it was loose rock.

Q. Did not Mr. Gutelius take a shovel full and say to you "You know that is
not loose rock" and you admitted it was not? You ought to remember: it was only
last week ? — A. Well^ I said

Q. Do not qualify everything; just say what you did? — A. I said "If this
stuff is separate from the boulders, it is common excavation."

Q. But yet you thought that when that was with boulders it made it solid
rock? — A. Xo, loose rock.

Q. Did you not first say that the earth was loose rock? — A. No, sir.

Q. You did not? — A. I did not say that the earth was loose rock.

Q. You did not ? — A. No ; if I did, I made a mistake.

Q. You did not make a mistake about it at all. You showed it to me and
you said it was loose rock, and Mr. Gutelius said " Do you mean to say it is loose
rock*'? and took a shovel full, and you said it was not? — 'A. Well, my meaning
was that if the earth was mixed in with boulders it was loose rock.

Q. It was not with boulders at all : it was up on the bank and it was a post.
hole that we were digging out? — A. Yes, I think there were boulders.

123—11

162 SATIONAL TRAKSCOXTINEXTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

By Mr. Guteliiis:

Q. "What reply did you make to me when I said "'Is not that shovel full com-
mon excavation" ? — A. I think I said yes. I think I said it was common excavation.

Q. You only think ? — A. In the shovel full you gave me.

Q.- Why did you not say right off "I said that was common excavation," and
not convey the idea that I was trying to get you to say something you did not
actually say on the cut? — A. I am trying to say exactly what I did say.

Q. Why don't you answer yes ? — A. Yes^ all right.

Q. And you previously told me it was loose rock? — A. Before Mr. Gutelius
came up, yes, I did.

Q. Do you, as a matter of fact, put in as loose rock material of that descrip-
tion in vour "estimates? — A. Yes, as the material stands there.

(N. T. R. IXVE8TIGATING COMMISSIOX: EVIDEXCE TAKEN AT
QUEBEC. AUG. 19, 1912, AT THE OFFICES OF THE X. T. R.)

N. R. Beaudette, sworn :

Q. What is your position on the Transcontinental? — A. Resident Engineer.
Q. In Residency 16?— A. Yes.

Q. What mileage? — A. 1 to 12 : zero to 12.

Q. On which side of the river ? — A. South side of the river.

Q. How long have you been Resident on that division? — A. Five years:
since 1907 : this will be the sixth year.

Q. Ever since the work commenced ? — A. Yes.

Q. So that you have made all the classification in your Residency? — A. Yes,
sir; of course with the approval of the Divisional Engineer.

Q. What experience had you before you went into this railway? — A. I was
on the location of the work for about two or tiiree years before that, I think, and
I was on land survey before for two years.

Q. Where were you educated? — A. In a college at Rigaud, between Montreal
and Ottawa.

Q. This is your first experience on the Transcontinental? — A. Yes.
'Q. You have gained all your knowledge of classification while in the service
of the Commission ? — A. Yes. I was on construction on the north shore on
another residency.

Q. You have gained all your experience while you were in the employ of the
Cammission ? — A. Yes.

Q. The first place where you have classification on your Residency is just
Jjefore you cros.< the Chaudiere, is it not? — A. Yes

Q. That is a cut?— A. Yes.

Q. A rock cut? — A. Rock and other material.

Q. The first is a big cut. After you cross the Ciiaudiere River, coming away
from the Bridge? — A. Yes.

Q. You classified that as 29,114 ledge, 20,570 of massed material and 216,603
•of loose, and 47,833 common: is that your classification? — A. Yes. But you
remember wlien you came to the cut the classification I gave you of tliat assembled
Tock, and that the assembled rock^ although shown and marked as assembled rock,
mostly would be ledge rock, if you remember my explanations about it, so there
would not be any massed rock or assembled rock in that material.

Q. Yes, I remember you pointed that out. Where is your book ?— A. I have
niv cross-sections here.

IXTESTIGATIXG COMMISSIOX 163

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. I want to see your book? — A. I did not know I was supposed to bring
the book. These cross-sections have been plotted every month.

Q. I want to see the notes you made as you went along about the work? —
A. The only notes were the elevations on top of each of these demarcations of
classification.

Q. I would like to see what you wrote in that book? — A.- I have not the
book here.

Q. Where is it ? — A. It i? at the Chaudiere.

Q. Could j-ou have it for to-morrow morning? — A. Yes.

Q. I want you to produce whatever books, whether you think they are of any
value or not, that you kept, either on the work or in your office, respecting that cut;
you understand? — A. Yes. You want me to produce any books in which there
are notes in reference to this cut?

Q. Yes, no matter wliere they were made? — A. All right.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. We are now looking at cross-section at station 104. What does the top
line represent? — A. Surface of the ground.

Q. What does the line about four feet further down represent? — A. The top
of the loose rock or bottom of common excavation.

Q. So that the material between those two lines is common excavation? —
A. Exactly.

Q. The distance from the line showing the bottom of the common excavation
and the sub grade is practically ten feet? — A. Yes.

Q. What is the material between the sub grade ? — A. It is loose rock.

Q. AVhat are these pencil lines which I see in place of the red line slopes? —
A. It shows the way the cut has been actually taken out.

Q. Was the cut taken out according to these dotted lines upon your instruc-
tions?— A. From the District Office, I think.

Q. So far as the contractor is concerned, he received definite instructions to
remove this extra material? — A. Yes.

Q. Was that extra material wasted? — A. No, sir.

Q. Where was it used? — A. To make the fill — the previous fill.

Q. To make the fill just west of the cutting? — A. Yes.

Q. In classifying the extra material that was taken from the north side,
where an extra width of 15 feet was taken, did the contractor receive classification
for the material below the four foot line? — A. There was no classification at all
in that extra width.

Q. What was the extra width classified as? — A. There was no classification
at all there.

Q. How was it paid for? — A. Train haul material.

Q. At what rat€ was train haul material? — A. 45 cents.

Q. A\liat rate was common excavation ? — A. 27.

Q. What was loose rock? — A. 65.

Q. Did train haul material from this cut carry any overhaul with it?— A. Xo,
sir, none at all.

Q. Eefer now to the cross-section taken at station 124? — A. You tested this
material.

Q. On this section I notice two dotted lines in ink, one located about eight
feet four above sub grade, which is drawn practically level across the cutting; what
does that line represent? — A. Well, it represented the top of my ledge rock here.

Q. What is the dotted line that we see at 12 feet 3 above sub grade? — A. This
would be a line representing the fair average of what would be really the top of the
ledge rock.

164 NATIOyAL TRANSCOVTINEyTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE V^ 1914

Q. The material between these two lines you classified in your return as
assembled rock? — A. Yes.

Q. And now you say that the upper line would be a fair average for the top
of the ledge^ had there been no assembled rock classification ?— A. Exactly.

Q. The material from 12.3 elevation to 31.2 was classified as loose rock? —

A. Yes.

Q. If there was no such term as assembled rock, your classification would be
the same as 5'ou have now put in? — A. Yes.

by the Chairman:

Q. The correctness of your return, tlien, of solid rock depends upon whether
or not you have correctly measured the ledge in that cut? — A. Yes.

Q. Show me the cross-section of the cutting at 7.8 near the farm crossing,
station 415, I believe? — A. Here it is.

Q. By reference to the cross-section at station. 415, which we have before us,
I note the line of demarcation between the common excavation and the loose rock
to be 1.2?— A. Yes.

Q. You remember when we visited this cut we dug into the side of it? —
A. Yes.

Q. Xear the road crossing? — A. Yes.

Q. My memorandum is that there was 3.1 feet of common at the crossing.
We opened the north side and found that the loan extended one foot only from
tlie surface of the ground to clay? — A. Yes.

Q. What I want to question you about now is the degree of hardness of that
clay : could that clay, in your opinion, have been ploughed, broken up by a plough,
hauled by six horses ? — A. By what I know of this clay, which is about the same
as in the next cut also, it could hardly be ploughed that way, unit;? it was all shot
before.

Q. Was this clay shot? — A. Xo, but T mean in order to be ploughed by a
team of six horses, or whatever it is, it v.-ould need to be shot first, broken up by a
shot here and there, and it was tried.

Q. You tried to plougli it? — A. Xot in thi.^ cut. This was taken out by a
steam sliovel, l-ut the second one was tried, and this is what they had to do all the
time.

By the Chairman:

Q. They had to shoot it occasionally? — A. All the time: they had to shoot
all the time before ploiighing it.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. "^Miere did you spend your earlier life before you went to college? —
A. Well, I was in college nearly all my early life.

Q. Were any of your summers spent on tlie farm? — A. Very little. My
college Avas in tlie country.

Q. Wliere you would see ploughing? — A. Yes.

Q. I would like to go into the mechanics of ploughing with you for a minute,
and compare the point of a plough with one of the teeth of a slenm shovel. You
are familiar with the teetli of a shovel? — ^A. Yes.

Q. And you are familiar with plough points? — A. Xot as much. I ha\e
not used them myself.

Q. Never saw a plough point? — A. I have seen them, yes.

Q. Suppose I said to you that it was ten times as hard to force one tooth of
a steam shovel into certain material as it Mould be to force the point of a plough
into that same material, what does your judgment as an engineer tell you? — A-

IX\Li>TIGATING COMIIISSION 165

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

It is not exactly the same thing: one is pushed into it, while the other is drawn
into it; it has some of the edge over it that cuts all the time, while the teeth
ot a steam shovel just dig in and afterwards lift.

Q. Are you familiar with the term "work" in mechanics — resistance over-
come?— A. More or less.

Q. "WTiat I am driving at is the mechanical work forcing one big four by
four steam shovel point, four inches in width, into a material, as compared with
forcing the point of a plough, probably an inch and a quarter, or may be less, with
a less taper, into that same material? What ratio do you say would l>e fair as to
the amount of work — that is, resistance overcome — in the movement of these two
tools through a given material? — A. I should judge it would be harder on the
steam sliovel than it would in the case of the plough. It is not exactly the same
work: it would not be the same work at all.

Q. I am trvnng to get the comparative scale reading in the two cases? — A.
It would be harder on the steam shovel.

Q. How many teeth are in the steam shovel ? — A. Four, I tliink.

Q. So that it is fair for us to say at least that each tooth would be equal to
one plough ? — A. Oh, yes, easily.

Q. Xow, did the lift of the steam shovel appear to you to be as great as the
24 horses would pull, when taking that material? — A. I have not looked at that.
I did not examine it in tliat light : I believe so, the way the steam shovel acted
there, compared to the other work done.

Q. AVhat steam pressure do they use in the steam sho\el? — A. I could
hardly tell you.

Q. Did you ever study much mechanical engineering? — A. Xot very much.

Q. It would be useless, then, to go into the steam engine or the steam
shovel with you? — A. Probably.

Q. Does it not strike you that twenty-four horses pulling on a wire cable
over a slieave at the top of a cut would easily pull up that shovel, assuming that
that sheave above is properly rigged, and we just hook that on the steam shovel to
haul it, to put the bucket up — just to give the bucket a yank? — A. Drag the
bucket through the ground?

Q. Yes, drag it right through and make a shovel full? It i> only power I
am at? — A. Yes, I understand. They would do it ver\' easily, I think.

Q. Then it is fair for me to deduce from that, that one team of sis horses
would pull a single plough throusrh this material? — A. Yes, this argument would
so indicate, but it is not exactly the same point of view for me. Of course, I did
not catch it exactly at the beginning. Xow, I see your point, but to me the teeth
of the steam shovel and the point of the plough is not exactly the same thing. It
would not stand the same resistance in being drawn through or pushed into the
ground. In another ease, you see the tooth of a steam shovel would lift or break
some solid rock sometimes, while I do not think any plough would do it: so that it
would not be the same thing at all. and I never tried to compare and find out how
horses would do it on the line.

Q. Do you feel like backing off from those statements that we have used in
leading up to this? — A. Yes. Well, I said at first it was not, in my opinion,
the same case. It is hard to compare the two.

Q. Would a steam shovel ever lift rock, one tooth in the rock, that 2i horses
would not lift? — A. Well, a? a rule, we have always worked four

Q. I said 24 horses? — A. It is not the same comparison.

Q. One tooth does all the work when they cut in a rock, probably? — A.
Sometimes.

Q. And thev have the whole power of the steam shovel on that one tooth? —
A. Yes.

Q. Supposing we put the 24 horses on one tooth or one plough? — A. Yes,
it would. The one tooth of the steam shovel would lift some rock.

166 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. And so would 24 horses lift it?— A. Yes.

Q. In your own engineering judgment you think that the power of a steam
shovel is not any greater than 24 horses could pull?— A. Oh, yes.

By the Chairman:
Q. It looks bigger? — A. And I believe it is bigger.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. That the steam shovel is bigger? — A. Xo, but I think that the horse
power would be more than that.

Q. But you do not want to divide the steam shovel up and put it back into
the earth and plough it? — A. No.

Q. Tell me about the place you tried ploughing in that character of clay? —
How many horses were on the team ? — A. Well, they had four horses. Sometimes,
when it was well broken, when they could succeed in breaking it well, they only
put in two horses, and, of course, being well broken, tbey succeeded in working it;
but sometimes they could succeed just as well without blasting; as a rule, they
would have to put in four horses, and, as a rule, the four horses would not work.

Q. It is cheaper to use powder than to put on four horses ? — A. Yes, because
they could not work it; besides, owing to the width of the cut, and all that, they
could never take it out.

Q. Supposing we take that clay, and, just for a test, we put six horses on
the plough to tear one furrow through, and we take that one furrow through,
breaking it up, and the contractor said — and you agreed with him — that ploughing
won't pay : " we will have to shoot that cut " : — is that about the way ? — A. No,
no, it was not on account of whether it was paying or not ; they had to do it.

Q. There are clays on your district that six horses would break up with a
plough, that had better be removed by blasting, are tiiere? — A. Well, besides clay,
there is also boulders in that clay.

Q. I am thinking of that clear, clean, sedimentary clay that we encountered
at that crossing? — A. Well, as I said that day, it was not exactly the condition
of the clay as it was at the time it was taken out; the clay was far harder than
it was then.

Q. As a test, could six horses have dragged a plough through it? — A. Xot
successfully.

Q. By successfully, you mean get the plough through? — A. Yes, get the
plough through and remove some of the material.

Q. Not the removal of the material, simply the plough test. Could the
plough have been dragged through and broken up the material with six horses? —
A. It might have taken some material here and there, at odd places.

Q. Do you think you could have gotten a fairly decent furrow some places
half-way through the cut? — A. I do not think so.

Q. One furrow? — A. You see they would not have taken very much material
out of it some places, and they would have to come up on top of it, or the thing
would break ; that part of it was shot very often ; the plough would break.

Q. You were on the work — A. Yes.

Q. And saw all this thing going on? — A. Yes.

Q. You are under oath now? — A. Yes.

Q. And we must assume you are giving us the facts as you think — A. Yes,
from my knowledge and experience.

Q. And that is your idea of that clay? — A. Yes, because, as 1 say, there
were also boulders in it.

By the Chairman :
Q. I want you to describe to me what sort of plough they used? — A. Well,
it is a regular grading plough.

IXTESTIGATIXG COMMISSION .67

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q, I want you to describe it to me : was it a plough you would plough a field
with? — A. No, there is a great difference between the two.

Q. What is the difference? — A. I do not know how to describe it, although,
if I would see it, 1 could tell you exactly which was which. It is not the same.
It is iron. The fore part of it is not the same as in the other case.

Q. It is just a sharp piece coming down? — A. Yes.

Q. Do you know what a share is? — A. jSTo.

Q. It is the thing that turns the furrow over? — A. I believe in the ordinary
field plough they have something round like this, while the other one is straighter.

Q. That is the round plough that turns the furrow all the time? — A, Yes.

Q. That is the share? — A. Yes.

Q. They have no share on this? — A. No.

Q. And it was simply a plough with a piece of steel coming down that entered
the ground and broke it up? — A. Yes.

Q. There were how many horses attached to it? — A. They tried it different
times with four horses.

Q. They never tried it with six ? — A. No.

Q. Then they had not a plough that would stand the pressure that six horses
would put on it, without breaking? — A. No, with four horses it broke several
times.

Q. So the plough was no good ?— A. Well, the plough was good, because-
they always had repairs made and had new ones.

Q. Four horses would break the plough before it would go through the-
material ? — ^A. Yes.

Q. What would six do to it? — Six horses, if the plough were strong enough,
might quite easily draw the plough through the material, if the plough would not.
break, but if you have a plough that will break, you cannot plough any material ? —
A. No.

Q. This was a grading plough fitted for four horses and not for six? — A. I
do not know if it was fit for four or six.

Q. 1 mean designed for four horses; could they have hitched six horses to
that plough? — A. I do not know what you mean.

Q. Did you ever see six horses hitched to a plough — A. Yes.

Q. How are they; put on tandem? — A. No, I have not seen six horses with>
that kind of plough.

Q. Did the horses go four abreast? Or two and two? — A. They were two
and two.

Q. So that two horses were ahead of the plough and two horses were hitched
on in front ? — A. Yes.

Q. What did they do? How did the front horses, the leaders, exert their
force on the plough? A. I do not remember exactly how they were hitched up;
this was five years ago.

Q. You say they were put tandem ? — A. Yes, they were put tandem.

Q. And they may have been hitched up, so that really it was only a two-horse
pull ? — A. No, they had chains.

Q. Was there a chain through from the plough to the leaders? — A. I do-
not remember how they were fixed.

Q. Why were those horses brought on the work at all with that plough?
They brought them there, did they not, because they thought they could plough
the ground? — A. Yes.

Q. They already had the experience of the big cut? — A. No, they never
worked in the big cut.

Q. But the contractor had already taken out part of the big cut? — A. No;
the work was done in that other part by sub-contractors, and just about the timc-
they were starting the big cut —

168 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE V^ 1914

Q. This work was done by a sub-contractor who did not take out the big cut?
—A. No, he did not.

Q. And the sub-contractor went on the ground, and did he try to plough the
isurface ? — A. Yes, they started to plough on the surface.

Q. And did he plough the surface? — A, Yes, that was easy to do; part of
it was two feet —

Q. That country is a farming country ? — A. Yes.

Q. And is fanned all the way along your Residence? — A. Nearly, yes.

Q. It is an old settled country ? — A. ' Yes.

Q. And this right-of-way runs through farms which have been cultivated
for years? — A. Yes.

Q. And the surface, therefore, has probably been ploughed many times? —
A. Yes.

Q. So he had no trouble to plough the surface? — A. No.

Q. How deep would his plough go? — A. Oh, six or seven inches; eight
inches at the most.

Q. How many lifts did he take off of six or seven inches by ploughing? — A.
After they first took out six or seven inches, he had to shoot before he could remove
the material.

Q. You do not want us to believe you cannot plough that ground out there
after you get down six or seven inches in the soil ? — A. But it is not only clay there.

Q. I am speaking of the ground. You do not mean us to understand that
you cannot plough that ground after you get down six or seven inches? — A. I do
not think so.

Q. You do not think you could plough it ? — A. No ; that is, the way it was
there you could not do it.

Q. It was ploughed on the top? — A. All the stones and boulders were
removed from the top.

Q. Is the ground too hard, after you get down six or seven inches, to plough
it?— A. Yes.

Q. You know that at station 124 there is a road crossing? — A. Yes.

Q. And you saw them making excavation for abutments for a new bridge?
—A. Yes.

Q. That excavation was down about ten feet on each side of the railway?
And it had been taken out last fall? — A. Yes.

Q. And the contractors or workmen are now taking out material which had
fallen into the cut last fall? — A. Exactly.

Q. Did you see these holes taken out when it was originally done ? — A. Yes.

Q. How did they do it? — A. Mostly pick and shovel.

.Q. It was a pick and shovel proposition from beginning to end? — A. Pretty
nearly.

Q. They did not use any powder on it? — A. Not all the time.

Q. They did not use any that you saw? — A. I do not recollect it.

Q. I am asking you for your knowledge? So far a? you know they did not
nse any powder on it? — A. No, sir, not that I know of.

Q. And it went down ten feet into the ground ? — A. Yes,

Q. And the ground in that is the same as the ground you are sx)eaking of?
— A. No, sir, it is not.

Q. The ground in that is the same as the ground in the big cut? — A. Yes.

Q. So that they could take out with pick and shovel the ground in the big
cut for ten feet down? — A. Yes.

Q. The place you are speaking of where the plough test was is the cut where?
— A. Oh, it is past the place where you stopped the other day.

Q. I am asking the mileage? — Here it is on the profile. It is ten feet deep
in places.

IXYEBTIOATINQ COMMISSION \M$

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Take it all through, it is not more than four or five feet deep ? — A. About
six feet deep.

Q. We stopped and went into that, did we not ? — A. No.

Q. Did we not stop there? — A. No.

Q. Yon returned this solid rock as part massed rock and part ledge in the
big cut? — A. Yes.

Q. And how long were they taking out the big cut called the Chaudiere cut?
A, They started in 1907 and finished last year.

Q. Did you return it all the time as part ledge and part massed material?
Did your estimates show, during all that time, that it was part ledge and part
massed material? — A. No, sir.

Q. When did you stop returning it as massed material? — A. It was always
returned as solid rock.

Q. You did put it in as massed material? — A. Not in my estimate, only in
my cross-sections. It was just for my own information.

Q. Does this show the Chaudiere cut? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. In the Chaudiere cut you show massed material or assembled rock 20,570
yards ? — A. Yes.

Q. Where did you get that figure ? — A. From my cross-sections here.

Q. You seemed to think it was massed material when you made up this return
m April, 1912, did you not? — A. Yes.

Q. What made you change your mind about it? — A. I just drew those two
lines —

Q. Here you have put this down here this spring as a correct return for this
Commission ? — A. Yes.

Q. And you have called it there massed material? — A. I was always under
that impression. I have worked it on my sheets that way.

Q. You say that in your cross-section you show it as massed material, and
you say that in your estimates you do not show it as massed material. Now, in
your books did you put it down as massed material? — A. No. Everything is
■worked on those forms on these sections.

Q. You have reduced it to an exact number o! yards. Where did you get
the 20,570 yards, when you put it down in this return on the 25th April. 1912?
— A. Well, that was between the two lines.

Q. Do you mean to say you made up this return for us without looking at
anything except the cross-sections? — A. Yes.

Q. What good is it? — A. I just told you at the beginning that I made a
mistake in doing it that way, because it should not be.

Q. As a matter of fact, your returns would not agree exactly with your cross-
sections for all sorts of material, would they? For example, if you had surface
boulders, you would have to go into some other record ? — A. Oh, yes.

Q. Well, then, you would look into those records? — A. Yes.

Q. In those records you show the quantities that you returned from time to
time ? — A. Yes.

Q. Why did you not look into these records to see what quantities you had
when you made up this return ? — A. I do not understand ver}' well your question.

Q. You sat down in your office, or some place, to make out this statement for
this commission, did you not? — A. Yes.

Q. What did you have before you when you made out that statement? — A.
Just my cross section sheets and my estimates.

Q. Your estimates brought to your mind the fact that you had no massed
material in this section? — A. Yes.

Q. Why did you put down massed material in this return? — A. Because
when I made out that statem.ent I also checked my sheets, in order to find if my

170 yATIOXAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

total return was correct, and so forth, and the total of my estimates was made out
of these two amounts, ledge rock ag shown on my sheet as being ledge rock, and
also as shown on my sheet as being assembled rock.

Q. You mean your cross-section sheets? — A. Yes.

Q. You know that was incorrect? — A. Well, at the time I did not pay
special attention to it, because, as it is shown on my section, the upper line repres-
ents the fair average, and that is why, on account of that —

Q. When you sat down and made out your cross-section, you made out the
cross-section in the office, did you not? — A. Yes.

Q. What did you have to make out your cross-section from? What informa-
tion did you have in ^^Titing? — A. Well, I had levels taken by my instrument
man, and also special notes I had.

Q. Your instrument man thought there was assembled rock in there? — A.
No, he just took the elevations of the cut as it was at the time, and from his notes
I figured exactly how much there was of ledge rock.

Q. Why did you place that line or that sheet showing that there was four
feet of massed material in that cut? — A. From my own notes and observations.

Q. Your own notes and observations led a'ou to the conclusion that there
was 20,000 yards of massed material? — A. I would like to refer back to the
explanation I have given.

Q. Is that right? — A. There is no asseml)led rock in the cut: it could not
lead me to believe there was massed material.

Q. Why did you carry that all through those sheets? — A. As I said before,
it was all the way the cut was taken out.

Q. You know what ledge rock is? — A. Yes.

Q. You saw tliat for a mile or two miles there was not any assembled rock,
but you show it in this slieet of yours in 13 places? — A. I said I made a mistake
in returning that.

Q. That was your first experience? — A. Tt was not only done by me: it was
also done by the Divisional Engineer.

Q. You put down on vour cross-section a great quantity of assembled rook?
A. Yes.

Q. You had a superior that went over it? — A. Yes.

Q. Did he examine the cross-sections? — A. Yes.

Q. Did he look at the cut? — A. Yes.

Q. What did he say about that assembled rock? — A. That is just the thing.

Q. What did he say, if anything, about the correctness of the cross-section? —
A. Well, I was supposed to take the levels —

Q. I did not ask what you were supposed to do? — A. I was instructed —

Q. Tell me what your superior said when he saw that you had made a cross-
section showing assembled rock? — A. He approved of it, because it was done
under his advice.

Q. Did he look at the open cut? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did he say there was in that open cut some massed material? — A. No,
sir.

Q. Did you look at the open cut? — A. Yes.

Q. Did you see massed material? — A. Yes.

Q. I mean before you made your cross-section ? — A. No.

Q. How did you find out the depth of the alleged rock in there? — A. By
levels.

Q. You cannot take levels of ledge rock that is buried before it is uncovered,
can you ? — A. Well, no, we take them after it is uncovered.

Q. After it is uncovered you know how much material there is about the
ledge rock? — A. Yes.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 171

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. You are sure of it? — A. Yes,

Q. No mistake about that ? — A. No.

Q. You knew at that time where j^our sub grade came ? — A. Yes.

Q. And you knew that your sub grade came at a given number of feet above
the top ?— A. Yes.

Q. And you had taken all the top off down to solid rock? — A. Yes.

Q. You knew how many feet of solid rock there was under you, if you went to
sub grade? — A. Yes.

Q. Your superior officer was with you? — A. No, he was not with me every
day when I took those lines, or when my men did.

Q. He was on the line when the solid rock was uncovered ? — A. Yes.

Q. How could you and he make any mistake about the depth of the solid rock
when you had the cut open, and knew how much material was above? — A. When
we first struck the top, it was a flat surface from one end to the other : so when we
first struck it, we took it by points, probably a foot or two, probably more: the
steam shovel would make a rock cut, and she would take part of those tops off, and,
in order afterwards to be able to work the steam drills, they had to take out another
two or three feet of a cut, in order to get to the flat surface of solid rock which they
could drill with a steam drill, and, in order to find out exactly how it was standing,
the steam shovel would come and make the rock cut, taking out the juttings, and
we took the level on top of that. There were points of two or three feet that were
taken out at the time, and I took that line, showing the top of my assembled rock,
and after a while the steam shovel would come back, and after she would shoot
two or three feet, she was able to take that out to a depth of two or three feet some-
times, and make another rock cut, all of top of solid rock, no pockets or juttings:
it would be flat surface, and that 'flat surface is shown by my second line, and my
top line shows the average of what could be the ledge rock.

Q. You took out the clay flrst? — A. Yes.

Q. Did they take the clay clean through the cut at first? — A. Well, half
the cut.

Q. And did you make this section showing the solid rock after that took the
clay out? — A. Yes.

Q. How could you make any mistake about it? — A. Well, there is no
mistake.

Q. How could you get that idea in your head if all the ledge rock was taken
out? How could you get it into your head there was any assembled rock? — A.
The first elevation was taken a foot or so, or perhaps three feet.

Q. But you did not make your cross-section until the dirt was all off the
rock? — A. When we took that elevation part of the rock was uncovered, and there
was some clay or boulders, or loose rock, mixed together, lying below that line, but
we wanted to find out exactly where that line should be located, and in the mean-
time we called it assembled rock, because it was juttings of rock and pockets of
loose rock.

Q. You have no boulders returned in this at all ? —A. No.

Q. Were there any boulders in that cut?— A. Yes, but I never could get any
measurements of them.

Q. Why? — A. I liad no rock inspector.

Q. Could you not estimate them? What did you return them as?— A. T did
not return them.

Q. They did not get any money for them ? — A. No.

Q. Any person who goes through and takes the trouble can measure that
ledge ? — A. Yes.

Q. Because it goes across the cut? — A. Yes.

172 KATIOXAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. Has that cut ever been remeasiired ?— A. Well, T may say it was measured
two or three times nearly every spring. It was measured every month, as the steam
shovel would go down deeper.

Q. I understand that in your whole division there is no massed material? —
A. No, sir.

Q. Also that in your Eesidency you have put in as solid rock only ledge? —
A. Ledge and boulders.

Q. There is no boulder measurement here? — A. It is in the other cuts. I
had no line for boulder measurement in that.

Q. You have nothing in as solid that is not either ledge or boulders? — A.
No, sir.

Q. You have no mixed material? — A. Yes, I have some mixed material.

Q. Where is that? — A. In the far cut.

By Mr. Outelius:
Q. Mileage 9?— A. Yes.

Q. 2,564 yards of mixed material? — A. Yes. You remember the place in
the cut where we stopped. You remember there was 12 feet of rock.

By the Chairman:

Q. "Where is this mixed material? — A. Mileage 9.

Q. What depth of common excavation have you given generally over your
whole Residency? — A. Well, in some places I have as much as six or seven feet,
and other places three feet and other places none.

Q. At 6.5 those are boulders, are they not? " This solid rock is all boulders?
—A. Yes.

Q. Where is that shown on your sheet? — A. I have no column for boulders,
and they are all shown together on the same line.

Q. Is it sliown in assembled rock? — A. Yes.

Q. In that column what is not boulders?— A. This would be ledge rock and
this boulders: 013 is boulders, 110 is boulders, 951, 506, 20, 117, and 124 all
boulders. The 2564 is boulders and mixed material. 215, 14, and 411 are boulders.

Q. There is a very small quantity of boulders in your Residency ? — A. Very
small.

Q. Would there be much trouble to measure that quantity in two or three
years? — A. Well, that was all taken out in the one year.

Q. Did you measure none of them? — A. Yes, it was measured by a rock
inspector.

Q. They were all measured? — A. Except in that last cut there, which was
finished only last year and that is returned as mixed material.

Q. What is that?— A. 2564.

Q. Were the boulders measured? — A. Yes.

Q. Did they go a yard or over? — A. Yes, in my judgment, they were all a
yard, or very nearly a yard : according to the notes I have, they are all over a yard.

Q. Were they honestly a yard or over? — A. I think they were all a yard
or over.

Q. Were they approximately a yard or over? — A. Yes.

Q. You have not given in any boulders in that measurement that are loose
rock size? — A. No, sir, not in those measurements.

Q. You say there was 500 yards of mixed material? — A. Yes.

Q. Is this mixed material made up of clay and loose rock size boulders? — A.
Xo, over loose rock size, by the yard.

Q. If they were over loose rock size, why did you put them in as mixed

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 173;

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

material? — A. At that place the boulders were not measured: so we had all the
percentage of them.

Q. Why did you now allow them as boulders? — A. This rock and mixed
material, of this amount of 256-1: there is about 500 yards of boulders and mixed
material.

Q. How much mLxed material without the boulders is there in there? — A.
Of this 500 yards there would be about eight per cent of the mixed material.

Q. Why did you not put it in as boulders then ? — A.- Well, they were boulders,
but I cannot say they are boulder measurement. All the others I have measure-
ments for.

Q. I cannot understand why a man who thought there was only this small
percentage of mixed material should not put them in as boulders, because there
seems to have been very little material in between them? — A. They are all in as
boulders.

Q. No. — A. Those 2,500 yards are all boulders, including the 500 yards I
am speaking of.

Q. According to you, practically there is, in your Eesideney, put in as solid
rock nothing but boulders of approximately a vard or over, and ledge rock? — A.
Yes.

(KT.E. INVESTIGATING COMMISSION: EVIDENCE TAKEN AT TRANS-
CONTINENTAL OFFICES, QUEBEC, AUG. 19th, 1912.)

Stanley Hawkixs, sworn :

Q. How old are you ? — A, Twenty-seven.

Q. Wliere were you educated? — A. Shrewsbury, England.

Q. What experience in engineering work did you have before you came on this
work?— A. Three years pupil at Litchfield, in England, and one year with a
London firm, Griffiths Bros., general contractors.

Q. Your first railway experience was out here ? — A. Steam railway, yes.
Q. What position did you first occupy in the employment of the Trans-
continental ? — A. Topographer.

Q. And you grew from topographer to what ?— A. To Transit man, and from
Transitman to Resident Engineer.

Q. You were Resident Engineer on Residency 7 during its construction?

A. Well, not entirely. I was on Residency 5 for two years, and most of the
grading, excepting the yard, was done when I came there.

Q. Most of the grading, excepting the yard, was done on Residency 7 before
you took charge of it? — A. Yes.

Q. Can you tell me what the 242 yards of solid rock consisted of in the cut
at mileage 102.5? — A. I think of measured boulders. I simply find those cuts
on notes that I took over when I took the Residency.

Q. So that from your actual experience you do not know? — A. No. That
work had been graded a year when I came up there.

Q. What cuts in this list are you familiar with — the work which has been
performed? — A. 105.

Q. Monk yard?— A- Yes, and 107.5. I think that is all the cuts that
were taken out while I was there. These others were all finished.

174 KATIOXAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. 105 refers to the grading at Monk yard?— A. Yes.

Q. It extended from mile 104 to mile 106 ?— A. Yes, almost to mile 106 :

about mile 105.7.

Q. The quantities I find on your profile are for the east end of this excava-
tion?—A. Solid rock ledge 5596, solid rock 27,544, loose rock 30,500.

Q. And at the west end?— A. At the west end solid rock 48,384, loose

rock 45,966. , • j a

Q. The item of 27,544 yards shown as solid rock consisted of what kind of
material ? — A. Boulders by measurement.

Q. Boulders about a cubic yard and over?— A. Yes.

Q. And contained no other material ? — A. Oh, no, solid rock only. How do
you mean contained no other material?

Q. This measurement contained nothing but boulders?— A. No.

Q. The solid rock at the west end of the cut, which consisted of 48,384 yards
was all measured boulders about a yard or over? — A. Yes.

Q. And the solid rock was ledge rock? — A. Yes.

Q. In the cutting at 107.5 we have solid rock— A. 2,525, loose rock 13,200.

Q. What did that solid rock consist of?— A. Boulder measurement.

Q. I have a memorandum here that there should have been a quantity of
common excavation in that cutting. Were there not some pockets of common
excavation ? — A. Well, there was a good deal of earth on the top, but the boulders
protrude all over. I do not think you could take any place extending 50 feet
where you would not find a boulder protruding above the ground, and, of course,
many more within a foot of the ground.

Q. How was that cutting removed? — A. With a steam shovel.

Q. In removing a cut of that character with a steam shovel, would it not be
fair and proper to classify loose material, even in pockets, as common excavation?
— A. Well, I think depending on the size of the pocket. This cut at the most
two feet beloAv the ground would be classified at the least loose rock, apart from
the boulders projecting above.

Q. In the top two feet there was some common excavation, if the boulders
could, by some means, have been removed? — A. Oh, undoubtedly.

Q. Would it not have been fair to show some common excavation in that?
— A. No, sir, I do not think it would.

Q. You told me it was removed by steam shovel, so that the boulders and the
loose material would fill the shovel just in the same way; the shovel would be
filled easier as the quantity of loose material increased? — A. Yes.

Q. Still you think it would not be fair to give him any common for that? —
A. No, I do not think we could have done it.

Q. Would not the boulders that you refer to roll into the shovel? — A. No,
not more than a foot below the surface, because the material down there was pretty
stiff hardpan.

Q. If the stiff hardpan extended to tlie surface, your argument would appear
to be right, but this top two feet — A. I did not say two feet. I say a maximum
of two feet.

Q. Well, the top foot to two feet, where it has been loosened up each year
by the frost, makes easier work? — A. Yes, undoubtedly.

Q. Don't you think that if you had been classifying by the book closely that
you would have been compelled to put some common in that? — A. Well, I cer-
tainly would not have classified, even the top of that, as straight common — I mean
if the whole cut consisted of that — because in many parts it did consist of straight
loose rook.

Q. Tf the whole cutting had consisted of the same material as the top one foot,
how would von have classified it? — A. Without anv boulders.

IXVESTIGATIXG COMillSSIOX 175

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. The same as it is now, supposing it extended down to sub grade? — A.
Well, I would have classified it with a large percentage of common.

Q. Then to be consistent you should classify a small percentage of common
in that one foot? — A. Well, I think in usual practice it would not be done.

Q. But, to how close to the line, you would have to give some common? — A.
Yes. I think if that top foot had been sheered off from the rest of the cut that it
would have been classed as common excavation, to a great extent.

Q. So that in clas-sifying that top as all loose rock, you were liberal to the
contractor? — A. Yes, I am willing to admit that, although I do not think lib-
eral beyond ordinary —

Q. That memorandum shows 500 to 100 yards as my guess, as I went through
there, in a cut of 13,000 yards: one per cent or less. Would that have been unfair?
— A. Xo, I think not.

Q. Would you not like, before you finally decide not to put some common in
there, to look over the ground again? — A. Xo, sir I would not, and I do not
think you would be of the same opinion as you are if you were to note that material
back from the face, where it has not been under the effect of the weather for two
years.

Q. That statement does not coincide with what you have ju.<t told me? —
A. Xo. I was willing to admit there was a certain amount of common excavation
on the top, but I would not like to say exactly.

Q. When I offer you an opportunity to look it over and correct it if you find
necessary, you say no? — A. My feeling is that if I were classifying this cut again
on this specification, either on a Government, or any other road, that I would turn
it in the same method.

Q. In the face of what you told me a moment ago? — A. Yes, I am willing
to admit there is common excavation in pockets, and a very thin layer of common
excavation extending over the whole surface.

Q. And still you do not give any? — A. Well. I think it would be measuring
very very closely, a good deal closer than the general practice.

Q. I conceived a very good idea of you as an engineer on the work, and I do
not want to spoil this by passing judgment in advance. I am going to ask you,
in view of what 3'Ou have said, and what I think is consistent, to go over that cut
again with Mr. Goodwin ? — A. Yes, and I am quite willing to go over it with any
man who has the experience Mr. Goodwin has.

Q. And, between you, come to some conclusion in connection with it. Remem-
ber when you are doing that, tliat you have committed yourself to a principle: that
is all ? — A. Exactly.

By the Chairman :

Q, In the Monk yard you are now excavating, on the north side of the yard
the water tank is situated? — A. Yes.

Q. I went along that ditch? — A. Yes.

Q. Were you with me? — A. Yes.

Q. Did we see any boulders of a yard in size up there in that ditch? — A. Xo.

Q. Have you classified any of that yet? — A. In that ditch, yes.

Q. What have you classified it as? Can you tell me your classification for
that ditch? — A. I have not the figures here.

Q. Is there any solid in it? — A. Yes.

Q. How do you make unj solid ? — A. Boulders.

Q. There were none a yard ? — A. No. we did not see any, but we saw rem-
nants of boulders that had been shot.

Q. I think we saw two? — A. I think we saw more than that.

176 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE V^ 1914

Q. Did you show me more than two ? — A. Well, it is a question I would not
like to answer.

Q. I want you to answer it? — A. I think I did,

Q. How many shots were put into boulders in that ditch? — A. That I could
not say.

Q. How long ago is it since it was done? — A. Within the last six weeks.

Q. Have you a record of the powder used in that ditch ? — A. No.

Q. Will you on your oath say there was more than two boulders that were
blasted in that ditch? — A. Oh, 1 am quite sure of that.

Q. I suppose if they were blasted there are remnants of them there now? —
A. Well, the remainder is embedded in the side of the ditch, but not the rest of
the rock, because that has been crushed.

Q. The ditch is open? — A. Yes.

Q. And a boulder must necessarily extend in that ditch more than across it,
because it is only a foot and a half or two feet? — A. Yes.

Q. So there must be some remnant of boulders there now? — A. Yes.

Q. How much of that ditch did you put in as solid? — A. 15 per cent.

Q. And you arrived at it how? — A. By the classification of the part of
the cut adjoining it.

Q. Did you arrive at it by classifying anything more than boulders as solid?
— A. No, on boulders alone.

Q. It would have been a very easy matter to have made an accurate classifica-
tion of the ditch, would it not, so far as solid was concerned ? — A. It would if one
had a man on the ditch all the time.

Q. You were there all the time? — A. I was on the Residency.

Q. You were there, or there was somebody representing yon all the time that
■ditch was taken out? — A. Not all the time. 1 was down there three or four times
a week.

Q. Did you ask them how many boulders they shot? — A. No.

Q. Why did you not? Was it not their duty?— A. Who could I ask? The
foreman ?

Q. Yes.^ — -A. The foreman's answers are usually not of much consequence.

Q. They are not reliable? — A. No.

Q. Was there anybody else there? — A. Yes, an inspector, the only man I
had representing me at that time was the inspector on the buQdings.

Q. If you had asked that foreman how many boulders of approximately a
yard or more were in that ditch, and he told you, you could check them up by
looking over the remnants of them? — A. Yes, pretty close.

Q. So that you could have had no trouble in finding out, as a matter of
fact, how many boulders there were in that ditch; is that not correct? — A. Yes.

Q. Then we will go to the yard. How long has the face of the north side,
just next to the ditch, been in its present condition? — A. Since last October.

Q. Has no excavation been going on up to that face since last October? —
k. No.

Q. Are there any boulders to be seen there approximately a yard in that face?
— A. Yes. there are several exceeding a vard.

Q. How long is the faQC?— A. About 1100 feet.

Q. Is not all the stone that was taken out there piled in a place there? — A.
Out of the yard, oh, no.

Q. Out of tliat portion of the yard, is there not a large pile of stone there?
— A. There is a pile of stone taken out of excavation; that is the foundation
excavation in the bottom of the yard.

Q. I am not speaking of the foundation excavation ; is there not a pile of
stones there taken out of what was the excavation to make the level of the vard?
—A. No.

INVESTIGATIXG COMMISSION 177

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. What became of that stone? — A. lu the dumps.

Q. It is put in the dumps? — A. Yes.

Q. Is the face a fair example of what the yard was ? — A. At that point, yes,
I think it is; not of the whole yard, but taking it all along, with the adjoining
classification, it is.

Q. What percentage is there there of boulders that are over a yard? — A.
You mean on the face ?

Q. Yes? — A. Not very many on the face; a great many have been removed.

Q. How much on the face? — A. Do you mean how many boulders?

Q. WTiat percentage is there on the face of boulders of upwards of a yard?
— A, I should say not ten per cent,

Q. How much per cent did you classify solid in that yard? — A. Eanging
from 15 up to 45.

Q. Where did you find boulders that would justify you in putting it 45 per
cent? — A. In various parts.

Q. Vrhere, for example? — A. Chiefly on the south side, and from the south
side to the north side.

Q. Did vou classifv anv massed material there?— A. No.

Q. All boulders?— A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember my talking to you along the yard about the massed
material? — A. Yes.

Q. Now, at 105, the Monk yard, I was talking to you, was I not, about a
ditch which was back of the station? — A. Yes.

Q. Did you not tell me, when we were talking of this ditch, that you had
classified as solid rock part of the material of this ditch because it was cemented
material ? — A. No.

Q. You did not tell me that? — A. No.

Q. You swear that? — A. I swear it, yes.

Q. Did you not show me the bank where there was a stratum of stones,
all loose rock size or smaller, which you had classified as assembled rock ? — A. No,
sir.

Q. Or which you had classified as solid rock? — A. No.

Q. You did not say that to me? — A. No.

Q. Then I imagined it when I wrote it down? — A. I certainly did not say
that. I explained to you that that ditch did not come in the same classification
as the yard. There were two classifications.

Q. Did I not ask you, pointing to some stones which were there, about the
classification, and did you not show me the bank, where there was a stratum of
stones of loose rock size which you had classified as assembled rock? — A. No.

Q. You did not do that? — A. No. "We did not have a yard of assembled
rock in that yard.

Q. Weil, as solid rock? — A. No, sir.

Q. Then you will swear that you did not put stones which were loose rock
size in as solid rock? — A. Certainly.

Q. Did you not say that where the stones in assembled rock were small, about
as larq-e as one's head in size, that you would not classify it all as assembled rock,
but would give a greater proportion of assembled rock under the Lumsden instruc-
tions?— A. Yes, sir. T «aifl that.

Q. At 106.2 — A. I think you are getting into a cut I did not classify.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. In the excavation for the foundation of the engine house at Monk, what
classification are you giving there? — A. It is a straight price.

Q. What is that price? — A. 90 cents.

Q. How is the 90 arrived at? — A. Bidding on the estimation. It is a second
contract and tender.

123—12

178 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. Is it not a fact that you, by your experience in a portion of that excava-
tion, concluded that it would be fair and right "Cor all of it, to classify it as 20 per
cent solid on account of the boulders, and 80 per cent loose ? — A. Throughout the
yard ?

Q. Yes? — A. No, sir.

Q. Did you change your classification according to sections that you took
across the yards? Were there variations in the classification in various portions
of the yard, as you have gone along? — A. As shown on the sections, no. We
show in any note we took at the time of any boulder measurements, the positions
and by the color; we have the date and color on the plan of the yard. Our progress
was shown on the plan rather than on the profile.

Q. So that you are perfectly frank when you tell us that you believe that 20
per cent of the solid rock shown in the Monk yard was represented by boulders
about a yard or over ? — A. Yes. The boulders were so thick in some parts that we
discussed seriously putting in massed rock, but it was only in sections, and we
decided to take it by measurement.

By the Chairman :

Q. You did not classify any massed material? — A. Not on that particular
cut.

Q. Did you anywhere on the place? — A. I have, but not on this Residency.

Q. On what Residency did you do it ? — A. Residency 5 ; that is further east
than we went.

Q. Tell us what you did there in classification ? You classified ledge rock as
solid ? — k. Yes.

Q. And you classified some mixed material as solid? — A. Yes.

Q. Was there a large quantity of it? — A. Yes, a fairly considerable amount.

Q. Did you classify any boulders there ? — A. You mean on boulder measure-
ment?

Q. Yes?— A. Yes.

Q. Did you classify under mixed material boulders of a yard and upwards? —
A. In the massed material?

Q. Yes ? — A. No, sometimes less than a yard.

Q. I am not asking you about less. I am asking you about more. Were there
any big boulders in the massed material? — A. Yes, but we did not measure them
individually.

Q. Did you classify them separately from the massed material? — A. Oh, no,
with the massed material.

Q. Where is that?— A. Mile 136.

Q. You have two cuts here at mile 135.3. How much have you in there of
massed material?— A. A line, roughly approximating 7 to 10 feet— oh, well more
than tliat: to 15 feet at the lower part of the cut.

Q. How is it shown on the cross-sections ? — A. By lines.

Q. It is showTi as massed material? — A. Yes.

Q. Is the cut all taken out now ? — A. Yes, it has been taken out three years.

Q. How much massed material is there in there? These are very big cuts?
A. Yes.

By Mr. Gutelius :

Q. About 25 per cent?— A. Something like that.

Q. 20 to 25 per cent?— A. Yes, about that: it is two vears ago: I should
think about that— not of the whole cut, but of the total rock returned about 25 per
rent.

Q. Describe the material?— A. Well, it consisted of boulders from 15 cubic
fnet up to 30 or 40 cubic feet, up to 2^ yards : from half a yard to 2^ yards. Some

INTESTIGATING COMMISSION 17*

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

of them have less than a half a yard, and a pretty stiff binding material, not exactly
blue clay, but a sort of indurated clay. It is rather difficult to describe it.

Q. It is clay? — A. Oh, yes, it is clay. Woods agreed at the time he came
there —

Q. Xever mind Woods; it is clay? — A. Xo, I do not like to say it is clay;
it is material that is clay when it is wet, but friable when it is dry.

Q. When it is dry, what is it ? — A. It is pretty friable.

Q. Sand?— A. Yes.

Q. It is a mixture of sand and clay? — A. Yes.

Q. What proportion of sand in it ? — A. Very small proportion : just enough
to make it friable when it dries out : about 30 per cent.

Q. What proportion of this clay is there in that mass? — A. Xot exceeding
80 per cent.

Q. What proportion of big boulders is there in that? — A. Boulders over a
yard — possibly not more than ten per cent — not more than ten per cent of boulders
exceeding a yard.

Q. Of approximately a yard? — A. I say the boulders were very uniform in
that country, remarkably so.

Q. Boulders that would go 24 feet?— A. Say 20 feet.

Q. We will say 24: what would the percentage be? — A. 20.

Q. And 20 feet, what would there be? — A. 40 or 45.

Q. You say the percentage of boulders of 20 feet and upwards would be about
40 per cent? — A. Of the mass, yes.

Q. And there would be 60 per cent of smaller boulders and cementing
material? — A. Exactly. I think that is as fairly as I can put it. There would
be about 40 per cent of various sizes down to 20, and below 20 feet, and including
binding material, probably 60 per cent.

By Mr. Gutelius:
Q. That is 60 per cent of the mass, if separated^ would be that sandy clay
like material, and boulders of loose rock sizes? — A. Yes.

By the Chairman :
Q. Or less ? — A. Or less, running down even to gravel. Here is a photograph
showing the cut I am talking about. (Exhibit A.)

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. Is that description which you have given us for the material less than
solid rock size fair for the material which you have classified as massed material
or assembled rock? Does that give you a good idea of your assembled rock when
the boulders are taken out? — A, You mean of the percentage remaining?

Q. Yes? — A. Yes, I think that is fair. Of course, I am speaking from
memory.

By the Chairman :

Q. This material was taken out in Eesidency 5 in the winter time ? — A. The
work was begun in Xovember and finished in the following August.

Q. It was taken out in the winter time? — A, A lot of it.

Q. Did you allow anything for frost ? — A. Xo.

Q. Do you know whether any frost was allowed as solid rock ? — A. Yes, not
on this district.

Q. On work you have been on? — A. Yes.

Q. On the Transcontinental? — A. Yes.

180 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. Where was it? — A. Up on District E, north of Nipigon.

Q. Can you locate it? — A. The exact Residency, yes, it was Eesidency 9.

Q. How long were you there? — A. One year.

Q. Did they allow all the frosted material? — A. I am just speaking of
material I turned in myself. We laid one ofE-take to a muskeg.

Q. Off-take? — A. The off-take to a muskeg, and we removed the mass about
two feet, and had to chop the rest out with hatchets down to grade, and we allowed
that by putting a rod in it by actual measurement as loose rock.

Q. Not as solid rock? — A. No.

Q, So you were up there for a year, were you ? — A. Yes.

Q. This material in Eesidency 5 which you have been telling us about, and
the quantity that was taken out in the winter, and you took photographs of it, —
that was in February 1909 ? — A. Yes.

Q. And it shows the men working there with a pick, I think, does it not? — A.
Yes, with picks and bars.

Q. Was that stuff shot on District B? — A. Yes, that was shot with black
powder.

Q. The boulders appear tliere in the cut: apparently the men took out the
materials surrounding the boulders, and then, after they got the material out, they
attended to the boulders? — A. l^'es: they are removing the boulders with a stone
boat and the rest of the material with a car.

Q. What size are the boulders shown in the photograph at station 6'(82?
Are they loose rock or solid rock size? — A. These two boulders in the fore ground
are solid rock size.

Q. Then all the boulders through that cut were treated after they had taken
out the excavation? — A. Yes, tbey were loosened np.

Q. So that they could be counted? — A. Oh, yes.

Q. Did you count them? — A. No, sir.

Q. Why not? — A. How could I possibly do it? I had about 25 places
running that winter. I could not keep a man in every place.

Q. You do not have to do that. On a Government job a boy can do a man's
■vork. A boulder measurer can attend to five miles, can he not? — A. He could
not get all the boulders.

Q. He could attend to five miles and count the boulders? — A. No, not
getting all the boulders.

Q. How many miles could he attend to? — A. And get the boulders ?

Q. If )'ou employ a man as boulder measurer, you employ him to measure
boulders. How much distance Avould it be reasonable to put one man on Residency
5 ? — A. Not more than at the most two miles.

Q. Over the whole Residency? — A. No, on parts of it.

Q. How many miles are there in your Residency? — A. Twelve, well. I am
speaking of the heavy part of the Residency.

Q. Then how many boulder measurers would it take for the whole Residency?
A. Do you mean to measure all the boulders?

Q. Wliat do you suppose? I do not mean to measure something that was
not boulders. I mean to do what he is sent there for, to measure or approximate
the boulders in that Residency that were upwards of a yard? — A. The Residency
might be covered with three men, one man to two or three miles and two men on
the rest.

Q. How many men were there in that winter? — A. My own staff?

Q. Yes? — A. Four or five, excluding the rook.

Q. T mean engineers or assistants? — A. Yes.

0- What were the four or five men doing? — A. Cross-sectioning and doing
a lot of work in the office and laying out culverts, to see the culverts were built.

INYESTIGATIXG COMMISSrOX 181

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. In the field how many men were there? — A. Tliey were in the field the
whole time, excepting myself ; I was not in the field the whole time.

Q. These men could have measured the boulders? — A. It was the time-
keeper who had —

Q. But those men could have measured the boulders: they were spread over
the twelve miles all the time? — A. Xo, sir, they could not measure boulders and
attend to their work.

Q. Why not? — A. They might be working on a curve and be on the cars.

Q. If these men had been doing nothing else but measuring boulders, they
could have measured all the boulders that were there? — A. No.

Q. If they had been doing nothing else? — A. Xo.

Q. "Why not? — A. Xot unless a man stayed in the cut the whole time.

Q. But if they stayed in the cut? — A. Oh, yes, if they stayed in the cut
they could.

Q. How long would it take a day for a man to measure up the boulders that
were exposed in a mile?— A. It would take him the length of time he would take
to walk over the Eesidency and probably ten to twenty minutes in each cut.

Q. How did 3'ou arrive at your boulder measurement as a fact? — A. By
taking them two to three or four times a month, having a man in there in the
morning and in the afternoon, and dividing the day between two cuts.

Q. And what you found in the distance of how much? — A. I do not under-
stand.

Q. You send a man in on a given day into a cut? — A. Yes.

Q. What would he do? — A. Measure the boulders and the amount of cars
going out that day, and the number of cars going over the dump, and the amount
(.ontained in that material, and that material v-'as estimated by the size of the cars,
whatever they contained, and then work out the percentage.

Q. He would only stay there a short time? — A. Xo, he would be there a
morning.

Q. About how much would they take out in the morning? — A. They might
put out a big cut like that one we were looking at possibly 200 yards.

Q. In the morning? — A. Yes, if they were working a big cutting.

Q. In the morning; that is all the time he would stay there, you know? —
A. Yes; I should think they would take out up to 200 yards.

Q. Then he would count the boulders in that section out of which the 200
yards was taken? — A. Exactly.

Q. And then he would say '' Well, 200 yards of material contains so many
boulders, which amounts to, say, 20 yards, and he would put that in as ten per cent
boulders ? — A. Yes.

Q. And he would allow, till the next measurement, ten per cent boulders? —
A. Exactly. I commenced measuring l>oulders without measuring the yardage
going out at the same time, but the results were useless, because it was impossible
to know how much yardage was going out at the same time.

Q. Did you classify on any other Residency on Mr. Doucet's District than
you have told us of? — A. Xo, only on 5 and 7.

Q. Did you classify on any other district on the Transcontinental? — A.
Yes, on E. '

Q. What Residency?— A. 0 and S.

Q. Whose contract was that? — A. O'Brien, McDougall and O'Gonnan,
agents for M. P. and J. T. Davis.

Q. The contract is right above Lake Xipigon? — A. Yes.

Q. Contract 18 ?— A. Xo, contract 17.

Q. What sort of material is there there? — A. Chiefly ledge rock, or sand
or muskeg.

182 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. No clay there? — A. Yes, there is a good deal of white clay, too, not
containing rock.

Q, How did you classify the clay up there? — A. On a percentage of loose
rock and the remainder common, averaging about from 20 to 60 per cent of loose
'ock.

Q. In the winter you classified all the frozen material in what way ? — A. In
the winter we classified frozen, piaterial on its merits, without considering its con-
dition at all. It is only perpetual frost we classify.

Q. In the summer you classified frost which never went out of the ground?
— A. No, I do not think it amounts to more than 2,000 yards.

Q. How long had the right of way been cleared before the excavation was
taken out? — A. In these particular ditches?

Q. In this perpetual frost district? — A. We usually found the frost in the
off-takes in the woods.

Q. Did you allow any frost as loose material on the right of way ? — A. I did
not personally, but I believe it has been allowed in ditches and many places,
opening up ditches in June and early in the year.

By Mr. Outelius :

Q. Is there much perpetual frost back from the right of way ? — A. Uj) tbere
a tremendous amount, not more than a foot from the surface.

Q. As late as September? — A. Yes; that means all the year around, you
know.

By the Chairman:

Q. The fact is that the frost stays in where the forest and moss has not
been removed, that as soon as they remove it the frost disappears? — A. I think it
is the moss.

Q. Eemoving the forest and moss? — A. The moss extends to two feet before
you come to the real muskeg.

Q. But on the clay, does the frost remain the year around, where there is
thick forest and moss? — A. Yes, it does; not so much on the clay as on the
muskeg. As a rule, the clay under the moss is not frozer after the middle or end
of June, but in the muskeg it seems to stay in longer.

(N.T.E. INVESTIGATING COMMISSION, EVIDENCE TAKEN AT TRANS
CONTINENTAL liAILWAY OFFICES, QUEBEC, AUG. 19th, 1912.)

Adelpiiis 0. BouRBONNAis, sworii :

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. How old are you?— A. Tliirty-two.

Q. What railway work did you do before you were employed on the Trans-
continental?— A. I worked on the Chateauguay and Northern Railway.

Q. What were you doing there? — A. Rodman.

Q. When did you first have employment on the Transcontinental? — A. In
1906.

Q. You have been Resident Engineer since when ? — A. Since 1907.

Q. What Residency did you have? — A. Fifteen.

Q. You had been on that all the time? — A. Yes.

INTE8TI0ATING COMMISSION 18S

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. That extends from mileage — A. 12 to 34.

Q. Your whole Eesidency is on a supported four-tenths grade? — A. Yes.

Q. There is a fill from 20 to 24 — A. Yes.

Q. Would it have been possible to have moved the line a little under the hill
and secured a grade without any fill? — A, I do not know, sir; it is quite flat
ground.

Q. It never occurred to you that a change of position of the line would have
reduced the quantities ? — A. I do not think it would reduce it very much, because
it is very flat ground from 12 to 22.

Q. In the cutting at station just west of mileage 32 you had 199 yards of
solid rock material ; what was that stuff ? — A. In the bottom of the cut there were
some boulders and there was some shale.

Q. And the shale added to the boulders made the 199 yards? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. You have three Eesidencies? — A. Yes, I have now, but not since the.
start.

Q. Your Eesidency now extends to where? — A. Up to 47.

Q. You remember the cutting at 29.6? — A. Well, you see it was all done
when I came there. I came there in July, 1910. That cut was finished in July,.
1909.

Q. You noticed the openings that we made in the side of that cutting? — A.
Yes, sir.

Q. What was the character of material that we got out of that hole? — A.
Well, I think that it is assembled rock.

Q. Why? — A. Because it was pretty hard to take out.

Q. Pretty hard material? — A. I tried to take off some stone with my hand,,
and it was pretty hard stuff, pretty sticky together.

Q. Suppose we took that material as it laid in the ditch and classified it,
after it was dug loose, was there anything that you would call soUd rock? — A.
You mean supposing we cleaned the ditches now?

Q. No, the excavated portion, what was lying on the dump there, when it
was pulled out there and laid on the dump ? — A. Then it would be like loose rock.

Q. Loose rock and common excavation ? — A. Yes.

Q. There were only about one or two pieces that you would think of calling
solid rock after it is taken out? — A. Well, yes.

Q. Lepage was ahead of you there? — A. Yes, he was.

Q. Suppose that you had never heard of the term, assembled rock, and take
the specifications and contract as they were handed to you, could you have called
the material excavated from these two holes that we made in the banlc there solid
rock? — A. I think I would have classified it as solid, according to our book
specification.

Q. Why could you do that? — Was it solid rock? — A. Well, because they
could not handle that stuff without blasting all the time.

Q. Does not the specification say " Solid rock that requires blasting " ? It
says it would include rock. — A. Wliicli may be best removed by blasting,

Q. "All rock which may be best removed by blasting? — A. Yes.

Q. Could you call that rock ? — A. Well, it is mostly rock. It is all boulders
and clay.

Q. It is mostly stones? — A. Mostly stones and boulders, and between those
boulders it is that blue clay.

Q. Supposing the specification had read " Solid rock which may be best
removed by blasting", then' what would you call it? Supposing the specification
read " Solid rock excavation will include all solid rock in ledges or masses of more
than one cubic yard ", then could you call that solid rock, in the judgment of tlie
engineer? In other words, it is not solid rock: it is not stone? — A. Well, in that
particular cut there were stones bigger than one cubic yard.

184 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE V^ 1914

Q. But it is not all solid rock, all one lot of stone? — A. Well, no, it is not
all a big lot of stone.

Q. It is made up of a great many small stones? — A. Yes.

Q. And sand and clay ? — A. Yes.

Q. And small stones and a few big stones? — A. Yes.

Q. And because it was hard and had to be blasted you would call 'it solid
rock? — A. Well, that is the only difference.

THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE TRAXSCOXTIXEXTAL RAILWAY.

Harricanaw River, June 7th, 1912.

To The Investigating Commission.

Gentlemen, —

I hereby request that the following figures be substituted for the ones given
you last evening in giving evidence before you.

Total Approx. Quantity classified by me 821,797 Cu. Yds.

Classified as follows : —

Solid Rock Approx. Quantitv 23,341 "

Loose Rock " '' 381,601 "

Common Excavation " " 416,855 " ''

821,797

In order to have same admitted, I herewith attach an Affidavit duly declared.

I have the honor to be,

Witness: Your obedient servant,

James McG. Rutherford. Geo. A. Butler, .

Division Enqineer No. 3-C.

I, Geo. A. Butler, hereby solemnly swear that the foregoing statement is
correct to the best of my knowledge and belief so help me God.

Sworn before me at the Village
of Harricanaw, in the Co. of
Teraiscamingue, June 8th, 1912.

X. :MrCuAio, J.P.

Geo. a. Butler.

IXTESTIGATING COMMISSION 185

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

NATIONAL TRANSCONTIXEXTAL EAILWAY INVESTIGATION

COMMISSION.

Before George H. Lynch-Staunton", K.C, Chairman.
and Me. F. P. Gutelius, C.E., Commissioner.

EVIDENCE TAKEN ON THE TRAIN ON THE N.T.R., BETWEEN STA-
TIONS BEAVER DAM AXD ROBIXSOX'S LAKE. JUXE 6TH, 1912.

George Albert Butler, sworn —

Examined by Mr. Staunton:

Q. What is your age? — A. Thirty-seven.

Q. Where were you educated? — A. Deseronto High School and Queen's
University.

Q. What experience have you had in constructiou work? — A. I was on the
T. & N. 0. in the capacity of instrument man. 1 was leveller on location on the
'T. & N. 0. Railway. I was transit man on location on the Transcontinental.

Q. How long were you on the T. & N. 0. roughly? — A. About three years.

Q. After leaving the T. & X. 0. you came on the Transcontinental as transit
anan? — A. X'o, 1 was chaiinnan and transit man on the Ontario Land Survey
work before I came on the T. & N. 0.

Q. What experience have you had since on this line? — A. I was transit man
on location, and I took charge of the parties, and from the charge of the parties I
was afterwards in charge of division work. 1 was in three different Residencies,
and from that I was moved u}) to Division.

Q. What were your duties on the Residency? — A. Full charge of the work,
practically the same as division, except that, instead of having three or four dif-
ferent men on in the Residency, you have the whole work. You control the work.

Q. What is a Residency ? — A. It covers ten miles of work. You have charge
oi the construction and grading.

Q. And the classification? — A. Subject to the Divisional Engineer.

Q. But you are the first classifier? — A. Yes.

Q. You classify the work in the first place? — A. Yes.

Q. Subject to his endorsation, approval or correction? — A. Yes.

Q. You had three Residencies; where were those? — A. I had two Resi-
liencies; on this road there was Abitibi and South River.

Q. What are the numbers? — A. 9 and 17.

Q. After you got through on those Residencies you did what? — A. I came to
Davey Lake.

Q. Is that where you are now? — A. Ye?.

Q. What is that? — A. It is a Residency and there is a division there.

Q. What division? — A. Number tliree.

Q. Have you the sole charge of that division? — A. Yes.

Q. And your official position now is what? — A. Divisional Engineer.

Q. Have you had sole charge of that division since the work began on it?
— A. Yes, I have, with the exception of about three months.

Q. And what was done in those three months? — A. I do not understand
the question.

Q. Was there any grading done up to the time vou came on it? — A. No,

186 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. Then you have had the supervision of the excavation, filling and grading?
A. Everything in connection with the work.

Q. Since that time? — A. Yes.

Q. And that includes all the excavation, filling and grading that has been
done ? — A. Yes.

Q. You have classified, then, all the work? — A. I have, subject to the
approval of the District Engineer, who was with me.

Q. In classifying that work, had you the contract and specification before
you? — A. Yes. Of course, I had read it over.

Q. You knew what it was? — A. Yes.

Q. The classification of the grading is regulated by sections 33, 34, 35, 36
and 36a of the general specifications; that is correct? — A. Yes.

Q. You classified your work, then, after you had seen these specifications?
—A. Yes.

Q. Solid rock excavation, according to 34, will include all rock found in
ledges or masses of more than one cubic yard, which, in the Judgment of the Engi-
neer, "may be best removed by blasting."' Have you classified as solid rock excava-
tion any rock which could be removed without blasting? — A. No.

Q. . Then all the solid rock excavation classified by you, in your judgment,
required blasting? — A. Yes.

Q. Then, with regard to loose rock : have you classified as loose rock and
stones and boulders measuring less than one cubic foot ? — A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. You did not intend to so classify, if you did? — A. No.

Q. You have, I suppose, classified as loose rock all loose rock, whether in
situ or otherwise, that could be removed by hand, pick or bar? — A. Yes.

Q. Have you found any cemented gravel ? — A. Yes.

Q. What do you mean by cemented gravel ? — A. You take small stones, any
sized stone that is cemented together like a paste — it is just like a conglomerate.

Q. Could you break them with your hands? — A. No, you would have to
use a blast or pick.

Q. They were mortared together? — A. Yes, that is it.

Q. You have not classified anything under the head of cemented gravel
which was not cemented together? — A. No.

Q. "Indurated clay and other materials" is another head of loose rock. Have
you classified any indurated clay as loose rock? — A. It all depends on the inter-
pretation of " indurated ".

0. It says here '' indurated clay ". Have you classified anything which you
called indurated clay as loose rock? — A. Yes, I have.

Q. -What have you classified as indurated clay? — A. I considered indurated
clay was clay tliat was hardened, practically a mass, not soft, wet, or spongy stuff,
but hard, en masse.

Q. Which could not be ploughed behind a team of six good horses? — .\. Not
in my judgment.

Q. You sav llio iiuluratod clay which you have classified as loose rock in your
judgment could not be ploughed behind a team of six good horses, properlvTiandled ?
— A. Tbat is right.

Q. PTave you classified as loose rock any clay which could be plougheB with
a ten-inch grading plough behind a team of six good horses, properly handled ? —
A. Not to my memory.

Q. Did you intentionally do so? — A. No. It was not my intention to ever
classify anything as loose rock that was not loose rock ; that is, I did not inten-
tionally do so.

Q. You classified a certain quantity of clay as loose rock? — A. Yes.

Q. Why did you classifv that clay as loose rock? — A. Because I considered
it hardened material, and what I considered came out of the classification as loose
rock — that is my interpretation of it.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 187

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. What clay comes under the classification of loose rock ? — A. I considered
this hardened clay did.

Q. Why? — A. Under the indurated material.

Q. Did you classify clay as loose rock? — A. Just clay alone?

Q. Any clay? Did you classify anything you would call clay as loose rock?
—A. Yes.

Q. Why did you classify that clay as loose rock? — A. Because 1 considered
it came under clause 35 as indurated clay that could not, in my judgment, be
ploughed v/ith a ten-inch grading plough beliind a team of six good horses, propeiiy
handled.

Q. You did not consider whether or not, after it was ploughed, it would
cost the contractor more or less to move it? — A. It never entered my mind at all
what the cost to the contractor was. I considered it purely from my point of view,
on behalf of the railroad.

Q, And whether or not the contractor could, or could not move it, was no
concern of yours? — A. No.

Q. It was no concern to you in your classification? — A. No.

Q. Did you ever make any experiment with a ten-inch grading plough behind
a team of six good horses to find out whether the clay which you classified as loose
rock could be so ploughed? — A. No.

Q. How did you then form your conclusions that it could not be ploughed?
— A. Well, I have seen horses working with the ploughs, not up in this country,
but I have seen them down at home. That is my only reason.

Q. You have only seen horses working on a farm? — A. Yes.

Q. You never saw six horses working? — A. I think I have seen six; I
would not be positive about that. I have seen ploughing done for scraper work on
most of the jobs on which I have been concerned.

Q. Have you seen it done with six horses attached to a ten-inch grading
plough? — A. 1 am not sure about the ten-inch grading plough, or what sized
plough.

Q. Have you seen six horses on a plough for scraper work ? — A. No, I would
not swear to that. I would not like to say I have ever seen six horses at Avork.
although I have seen four.

Q. Were you ever instructed to make such a test? — A. No, I was not.

Q. Were you ever supplied with appliances to make such a test ? — A. No.

Q. Then I may take it from you that you had no instructions or appliances
with which to make a test, and it was simply left to your judgment, without making
tests, to conclude whether or not it could be so ploughed? — A. Yes, that is right.

Q. If that clay which you classed as loose rock could be ploughed by the
team described in clause 35, your classification is wrong? — A. According to the
specifications it would be.

Q. You are sworn here, and I want to know, have you made your classifica-
tion independently and honestly and to the best of your ability ? — A. I have.

Q. And you have not soug^ht to give this classification any strained interpre-
tation?—A. No.

Q. But you have interpreted it as you have stated to me in your foregoing
evidence? — A. Eepeat that.

Q. You have not given, in your classification, any other interpretation to
clause 35 than that which you have already stated to me? — A. To the best of
my knowledge, that is true.

Q. Have there been any other materials classified by you? — A. Common
excavation.

Q. Any other materials classified by you as loose rock? — A. No, that is the
only two.

Q. Can you tell me how much material you have classified on your division r
— A. Approximately 47 per cent.

188 . NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. But I am asking you the total classification. On your division how much
material have you classified? Give me the total first? — A. Approximately,
257,497 yards.

0. Of that material, how much was solid rock excavation? — A. 5,643 yards.

Q. liow much loose rock? — A. 158,746.

il. How much conmion excavation ? — A. 1)3,109 yards.

Q. What was the price paid for solid rock excavation? — A. $1.75.

Q. And for loose rock? — A. 65 cents.

Q. And common excavation? — A. 34 cents.

Q. When you come into these muskegs filled with roots and vegetable matter,
have you classified any of that as loose rock because of the trouble in cutting through
the roots and so forth? — A. No.

Q. You could call it all common? — A. All common in that case.

Q. Have you classified any soft clay or soft material as loose rock because the
horses could not work through it? — A. I might have; I could not answer that
question fully.

Q. Do you remember of any ? — A. Yes, I think I have ; I believe I have.

Q. Do you recall any instance? — A. 1 could not state the quantity.

Q. Can you state where it was ? — A. A cut at station 3001 to 3034 plus 50 ;
1 would state approximately ten per cent.

Q. On the cut at the place described you classified ten per cent as loose
rock. What was that material? — A. It was what 1 would call like a gumbo. It
is impossible to put teams on it without first corduroying it.

Q. How was it taken out? — A. It was taken out by the car, but you have
to keep working back into it.

Q. How did you take it out? — A. With cars.

Q. How did you take it out? — A. \\'orking against a face, backing cars up
against it.

Q. Pick and shovels? — A. Y'es.

Q. Pick and shovel used to load it on to the car? — A. Yes.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. Did it require to be picked out? — A. Yes, it came out in little chunks
like.

Q. You could not take it out with a shovel? — A. No. In some cases they
did take it out that way, but they- could only take little chunks like that.

By Mr. Sf aunt on :

Q. How nuuh would that amount to in yards? — A. x\pproximately, 1200
yards.

Q. You call that gumbo; is it a clay? — A. \es.

Q. Is it the grey or black clay? — A. It is a greyish color; it is more like
a hardened sponge.

Q. But there were no roots or anything of that kind in it? — A. No, this
was in a cut.

Q. I was asking you whether you had tak-^n anything full of roots, like this
stuff outside the window, and clnssificd nny of that? — A No: I thought you
were back in the cut.

Q. You told me all the m;itcrinl you [.nt in as loose rock? — A. To the best
of my knowledge.

Q. Did you ever classify clay of the kind you have been speaking of, on any
other road than this, as loose rock? — A. "We never had the same classification
on any other road.

Q. You have not worked under a specification like this at anv time l>efore?

—A. No.

INVESTIGATINQ COMMISSION 189

SESSIONAL PAPER No, 123

By Mr. Gutelius :
Q. You never classified clay such as this as loose rock before this job? — A. No.

By Mr. Staunton :

Q, What did you classify it as on other jobs? — A. Hardpan.

Q. What were they paid for hardpan as compared with loose rock? — A. There
was no loose rock: it was common excavation, hardpan and rock; they did not
recognize it at all.

Q. What were they paid for hardpan in what you have in mind ? — A. If my
memory serves me right, 45 cents.

Q. Where was that?— A. On the T. & N. 0. I would not swear to that
figure.

Q. Was it the same material as this? — A. I would say so.

Q. But they made a contract, in that case, to pay for hardpan, as you recol-
lect it, somevrhere about 45 cents? — A. Yes; that is an approximate figure, to
my knowledge. ^

Q. You told me the cost of moving this material did not influence your
classification? — A. That is right.

Q. Was any of your classification raised by any of your superior officers? —
A. In what way ?

Q. Did you ever return any material classified under one head that they put
up to a higher classification ? — A. You mean bv a direct order, ordering me to
do it?

Q. Any way. directly or indirectly? — A. It is a pretty hard question to
answer. By consultation I was advised.

Q. What to do? — A. It was simply brought to my knowledge. My district
engineer went into the material thoroughly with me.

Q. How did you classify it? — A. In some cases there w'as no difference;
in some cases I was a little lower.

Q. Can you tell me a case of that kind? — A. No, because there was only
very little of the work done.

Q. State it your own way ? — A. There was one cla^^sification, if my memory
serves me, in w^hich the classification was raised approximately 20 per cent over
what I classified it.

Q. By whom was it raised? — A. By Mr. Molesworth's authority.

Q. Who was he? — A. District Engineer.

Q. Did he inspect the work? — A. Yes.

Q. With 3^ou? — A. I was with him. He considered that I was too low.

Q. Was that in the beginning of the work? — A. No.

Q. How had you been classifying when he did that? — A. There was over 50
])er cent of the work done — approximately 50 per cent.

Q. Did he raise the common excavation? — A. No.

Q. What did he raise? — A. The cut was in progress. I was classifying on
that basis in progress, and he said that my classification was not high enough,
I'onsidering that material, and after consultation with me — at least after I con-
sulted him — and the cut was taken out I decided he was right. That i= the only
case I know of.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. You changed from common excavation to loose rock, what was equal to
20 per cent of the cut? — A. Yes, approximately.

Q. And you agreed with him, liefore the cut was taken out, for the same
reasons that vou have given us heretofore? — A. Yes.

190 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

By Mr. Staunton:

Q. What did he point out to you that changed your mind? — A. I was pro-
bably a little harder at that time. I thought I should be more strict, and we had
the specifications there; at least, we read the specifications over again, and 1 inter-
preted it that way, according to the way I answered here to-night.

Q. You have given the contractor 20 per cent the best of it ever since, have
you? — A. No, Just this particular cut I have reference to; I remember it was a
small cut.

Q. And the material in it was clay? — A. Yes, clay.

Q. Had you ever been classifying that same clay lower? — A. On progress
work we always classify lower.

Q. Then what did you do? — A. Then on the final we always keep under,
in case we have made any mistake in the calculation.

Q. Then you may raise it? — A. Yes.

Q. Have you your original data that you made at the time? — A. I would
not be positive.

Q. You copied this book from your data? — A. Yes, that is taken from the
office. '

Q. On the work what did you have with you, going out taking classification ?
A. I would go over the work with the resident engineer, and take notes, and
advise him what I considered, and we would consult together.

Q. But when you were out by yourself? — A. I always go with the resident
engineer.

Q. When you made your classification ? — A. Yes.

Q. Before Mr. Molesworth came there, who had been with a'ou before that?
— A. Nobody.

Q. You say you always went with somebody? — A. But nobody superior to me.

Q. Had he always been with you when you classified the fifty per cent that
was classified — A. Mr. ]\Iolesworth is the district engineer. I always go with the
resident engineer.

Q. How do you arrive at your measurements? — A. How do you mean?

Q. The quantities? — A. You mean on the ground?

Q. Yes? — A. By cross-section.

Q. You cross-section ? — A. Yes, every time.

Q. You do not make any guess work? — A. No. everything is measurement,

Q. And you keep your cross-section in writing? — A. Yes. we have them
all on record.

Q. You have them all now? — A. All in book form and also in the original
sheets : they will be sent in to you very shortly.

Q. So that the original sheets show the measurements you took and the cross-
sectioning you did right on the ground? — A. Yes, to the best of my knowledge
they do.

Q. They were intended to show it? — A. Yes. The resident engineer takes
the cross-sections.

Q. He does the work? — A. Yes: 1 am divisional engineer, and 1 do not
take the cross-sections ; the resident engineer does that.

Q. The resident engineer and you together go on a particular piece of work
for the purpose of making the classification? — A. Yes.

Q. Wiien you go on that work for that purpose, do you take any measure-
ments to ascertain tlie quantities? — A. No. except that T simply check his figures
in the office.

Q. Then he is responsible for the quantities? — A. Yes.

Q. And you are responsible only for the classification of the quantities he
gives you? — A. Yes, that is all.

Q. And you do not cross-section or do anything? — A. No.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 191

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Did yoiT ever have occasion to check up any of his measurements? — A.
Not yet, because I have no final estimates yet.

Q. I do not understand that ? — A. There has been no final estimates return-
ed on the Eesidencies under me yet.

Q, Will 3'Ou go over that and check it? — A. If I suspected anything — sup-
posing the cut would show too large a quantity according to my view, I would
remeasure his cut.

Q. So that you will, or you have examined the work and made up your mind
whether, in your opinion, the measurements were correctly made? — A, I would
not say that, because the final estimates are not in yet.

Q. But you will do that ? — A. Yes.

Q. Did you sign the monthly and final estimates? — A. In every case,
except I should happen to be absent, I think that was only once. I always looked
over them myself.

Q. Had the resident engineer anything to do with classification? — A. Well,
he would consult me. I am more in a consulting capacity.

Q. You mean you would consult him. He did not make the classification at
all ? — A. Oh, no, never.

(N.T.E. INVESTIGATING COMMISSION.)

June 7th, 1912.
William D. Eobertson, sworn:

Examined hy The Chairman:

Q. You are an engineer by profession? — A. Yes.

Q. How long have you been an engineer? — A. Well, I am a practical man,
not a graduate, you know, byt I have been practising round, surveying and engi-
neering, since about 1888 actively. I was with ray father before that as a youngster.

Q. Then you are an Ontario land surveyor? — A. No, I am a Nova Scotia
land surveyor.

Q. How long have you practised your profession as an engineer in this pro-
vince?— A. I came on the Transcontinental in March, 1905, I believe was the
time, the first of March. The work started in 1904, and I came in 1905.

Q. Prior to that what were you engaged at? — A. The year before that I
was in Labrador, timber land surveying: the summer before that, and previous to
going to Labrador, from November, 1902, up till, I think it was some time in
December, some time in the fall of 1904, I was on the Mabou and Gulf, both on
location and construction, and previous to that, from July, 1906, till November,
1902, I was assistant city engineer in the city of Everett, Massachusetts.

Q. Since you have been on the Transcontinental what have you been employed
at? — A. I went out the first year with Mr. Goodwin as instrument man. I applied
for a party, but could not get it.

Q. You were a year as instrument man? — A. Yes, or nine months on that
run, and I went to Ottawa, and Mr. Macpherson asked me if I could handle a
party, and I said I thought I could, I had previously, and he said if Goodwin
would recommend me he would send me out in charge of a party on location, and
he did recommend me, and they sent me out in charge of a party up in the east
end on District C.

Q. How long did you continue in that work? — A. Until I started in this
division. May, 1909. They took me out of the bush ; they sent for me up to Grand
Lake Victoria to come down and take this division.

192 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAIL^yAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. What is this division? — A. Division 4c originally, and is yet.

Q. How big is your division ? — A. 43 . S2 miles, something like that.

Q. And what is your position in that division? — A. JJivisional engineer.

Q. And has the construction been under way ever since you took charge ctf
the division? — A. Yes, sir. There was some clearing done when 1 came in here^
but that was all.

Q. A\ hat have your duties been as divisional engineer? — A. General super-
vision and looking over the work, and instructing the resident engineers with
reference to the work, and anything that came up that they wanted to consult
me about.

Q. Under you what engineers are there? — A. In charge of Kesidency 15 is
M. L. Guimont; in chai'ge of 16 is T. C. Eousseau; in charge of 1? and 18, K.
F. Smallian.

Q. Are there any other engineers subordinate to yoti in your division? — A*
No, there are the instrument men who are under —

Q. But engineers? — A. No.

Q. Are there any engineers over you in this division excepting the chief? —
A. Well, of course, 1 am directly under the district engineer, Mr. iialkam.

Q. Are you under any other engineer? — A. Well, I suppose under him and
his assistants.

Q. Who have been the contractors in your division ? — A. Foley, Welch &
Stewart are the agents for the main contractors.

Q. The main contractors being the Grand Trunk Pacific? — A. Yes. They
had all the work in my division, and F'oley, Welch & Stewart were doing the work
as their agents, i believe, and they sublet to others; the grading from the
Okikidosik district to White Fisli, they sublet to Hogan and Tomlinson, and they
did a few miles further on themselves, and they sublet a couple of miles to Johii
Linder & Company, and they did the next section themselves, and they sublet a
couple of miles around Molasses Eiver to Freeman, and they did the section beyond
that themselves, till they came to Residency 15, and they sublet from this end of
]5 to Robinson Lake to a fellow named I)e Sherburin, and a further section they
let to Matt Point, and from there to the end, abotitve mile, they did themselves^
Of course, in the camps on Matt Point's work they had a walking boss, and he
overlooked all this work in the meantime. That is on the grading, of course. They
have other subs on the piledriving and that.

Q. Have you had anything to do with the classification of the .srrading? —
A. Yes.

Q. What were your duties in regard to classification? — A. When I first
undertook to classify here, as I said this morning, the country was new to me, and
the material was new to me. In the first estimate we gave we had not got very-
far into the work and we kept the classification down in our reports.

Q. But describe to me first your duties with regard to classification as divi-
sional engineer? — A. Well, I went over the work with the resident engineers, to
begin with, and the material looked pretty hard —

Q. What were yonr duties simnly? — A. T used to go out and consult with
the resident engineers with reference to classification.

Q. The resident engineers classified the Avork and you supervised it; is that
it? — A. They referred it to me, and I approved or disapproved.

Q. So that the classification work is first done by the resident engineers, and
then they sublet their classification to you for your consideration? — A. Yes.

Q. Are you constantly on the work over yonr division? — A. Well, from time-
to time, yes, mostly, sometimes twice a week and sometimes once, and sometimes
once in two weeks, as the case might be.

Q. And all the estimates that are made by the resident engineers on your
division are submitted to you for your approval ? — A. The estimates come through
mv office monthlv.

INVESTIGATiyG COMMISSION l9f

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. All the classifications are submitted to jou for approval ? — A. Yes, they
all come through my office.

Q. Have you any record available at this moment, to show the amount of
classification in yardage that you have up to this date passed in your division? —
A. I have not it at this moment with me. I have it in my office.

Q. Can you tell me approximately what it would amount to? — -A. Xo, I
would not undertake to.

Q, You could not give me any idea ? — A. No.

Q. Into what divisions did you divide the classifications? — A. In looking at
the material that was taken ouc, as I thought it should be classified.

Q. Under what heads did you classify it? — A, There was solid rock, common
excavation, and item 5, which is loose rock or other material — I classified this
clay as other material.

Q. What are the three classifications? — A. Solid rock, loose rock and com-
mon excavation.

Q. Are those the three heads under which you classified the grading? — A.
Yes.

Q. What did you classify as solid rock excavation ?— A. Large boulders and
ledge.

Q. Large boulders and ledge rock? — A. Yes.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. Where is Mabou located? — A. In Cape Breton; they located a line from
the Harbor to the Strait of Canso.

Q. How long is that line? — A. The road was constructed five miles.

Q. You classified that? — A. No, that was done by day labor; the company
did that themselves.

Q. This is the first specification you ever worked on in railways? — A. Yes.

By Mr. Staunton:

Q. You kTLOw under the general specification classification is covered by
clauses 34, 35, 36 and 36a: that is right? — A. Yes.

Q. You have read those? — A. Yes.

Q. And had read them when you made your classification ? — A. Yes.

Q. What did you classify as solid rock excavation? — A. The ledge rock,
boulders and assembled rock.

Q. What do you mean by that? — A. An aggregation of large boulders
cemented together, as it were, with hard cement gravel.

Q. Do you mean cemented together so that they adhered if you lifted them
up, and that they had to be broken apart? — A. No, sir, not necessarily broken
apart. You might have to pry them out.

Q. Did they adhere to each other? — A. They adhered to the gravel.

Q. There was gravel between them, but the gravel was in a solid mass in
which these boulders were embedded? — A. Sort of cemented together.

Q. What do you mean by that? — A. The particles would adhere to each
other.

Q. Would the rock adhere to the particles? — A. It could be broken apart.

Q. Would it adhere to the particles? — A. Well, I cannot say positively
that they would.

Q. Could I separate them with my hands? — A. I cannot say whether you
could or not.

Q. Am I right in saying that the interstices between these two boulders
might be filled up by loose material? — A. In some cases they might.

123—13

194 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. You would not describe rocks as adhering together that only had loose
material between them, would you? — A, No. The rocks would not adhere
together, but they would be in such a way that they would proably be too heavy
to handle without blowing.

Q. I understand the rock to be all right if it is the size, but what I want
to get at is, when one speaks of a mass of rocks adhering, if you had the power
"to lift it all together, it would not fall apart? — A. No.

Q. It might come out from the other material? — A. It might come out
from the other material.

Q. Then it is a misnomer to use the word adhering? — A. Well, it might be.

Q. It may be embedded? — A. It may be embedded in this cemented gravel.

Q. Is the cemented gravel en masse itself, or is it in disintegrated particles?
— A. Some of it is so solidly packed together that you have got to blow it.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. You mean to shoot it? — A. Yes. Of course it separates. I do not
know whether it is cemented together or not, but it is so hard and solid you cannot
make much impression in it with a pick or bar.

Q. In any of this assembled rock that you speak of, it would be possible to
take it down by means of pick or bar, if you worked out a face against it? —
A. Yes, you might pull it down that way to a face.

Q. It would not be assembled rock unless it was in position so that you
could pry out the rocks if you were working out a face? — A. Naturally you
would pry them out, of course. It is not cemented in. It is cemented gravel,
and to a face you might pry them out, but I think it would be just as cheap to
blow them out — cheaper.

Q. To be assembled rock, as I understand you mean that it is rock masses
pc])arated by other material in such a manner as that you could take each of the
particles or pieces of rocks out, if they were less than a cubic yard, by means of
pick atid bar? — A. You probably could.

By Mr. Staunton :

Q. You have stated, I understand, that large stones and boulders measuring
more than a cubic foot and less than a cubic yard would be loose rock? — A. Yes.

Q. And all loose rock, whether in situ or otherwise, that may be removed
by hand, pick or bar, you would call loose rock? — A. Yes.

Q. Then you have been describing to us cemented gravel, what you consider
cemented gravel? — A. Well, there is cemented gravel in this assembled rock.
There is a little in there that cements the assembled rock together.

Q. Besides that was there any other cemented gravel — any bodies of cemented
gravel? — A. Just on one cut on my work, I think, which was east of Kakamenou,
which was all cemented together.

(^ Then we come on the indurated clay; do you find indurated clay? —
A. Well, there is indurated clay in most of these cuts.

Q. Was it in any large quantities? — A. Well, yes; the cuts were principally
of indurated clay.

Q. Did you classify any clay as loose rock ? — A. Yes, all that indurated clay.

Q. And you say that all these clay cuts are indurated clay? — A. Mostly
all, all but a small percentage.

Q. How did you arrive at the conclusion that they were indurated clav? —
A. Because it was hard and tough.

Q. Could that clay be ploughed behind a team of six horses properly
handled, behind a ton-inch grading plough? — A. I have never seen it tried.

Q. In your opinion, could it be ploughed by such? — A. I do not know
what condition it might have been in, or how it would work with a plough at all.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 195

SESSIONAL PAPER Nd. 123

Q. In the condition in wliich it was before they commenced to remove it,
could it be ploughed by such a team? — A. I cannot say whether it could or not.

Q. Then the question whether or not the clay that you classified as loose
rock could be ploughed by such a team did not enter into consideration with you
when you were arriving at your conclusion as to whether or not it was indurated
(•.]ay ? — A. No, I did not think it would be feasible to plough it. I did not think
you could plough it in any shape you could handle it. You would have to cut
it up after ploughing it. That was my opinion. You would have to cut it in
long strips.

Q. Keep to whether or not it could be turned over in furrows by a ten-inch
grading plough? — A. I doubt whether you could turn it over in furrows. You
might cut it up in strips. I doubt whether it would turn over.

Q. What do you mean by that? — A. You might cut strips in it, but I do
uot know that you could turn it over ; it was so heavy it would fall back, I imagine.

Q. What do you mean by strips? — A. Furrows.

Q. You could turn a furrow — A. Y'ou might cut a furtow, but I do not
know that you could turn it.

Q. How could the plough proceed without turning it? — A. It would fall
back after the plough.

Q. The plough is so constructed it turns it over? — A. It turns it on edge
at the time, and if it is heavy and tough enough it will fall back.

Q. I thought it turned over after the plough passed? — A. Not always.

Q. Does the plough not turn it past the perpendicular? — A. Not always.

Q. Usually does it not? — ^A. In loose ground.

Q. Is the construction of the plough not such that it must do so? — A. It
generally tips over on the other side.

Q. Is the construction of the plough not such that it must turn it past the
perpendicular? — A. Well, the force of the plough turns it generally.

Q. I said the construction? — A. I do not think so.

Q. Do you know whether it does or not? — A. I have ploughed where the
furrow has turned back on me, so that if the construction of the plough was such
that it would have turned more than perpendicularly, I do not see why it should
have turned back,

Q. That was ploughing against a hill side? — A. No; ploughing wliere
there is wire grass the sod will fall down behind you, and you have to turn it
over with a hoe.

Q. Do you say the clay we are speaking of would not turn over? — A. I
question whether it would.

Q. You are not prepared to give an opinion on it? — A. No.

Q. You think a plough might cut through it? — A. I think a plough might
cut through it.

Q. Have you any reason to think that that clay so far ^own as the frost
line is not soft enough for ploughing? — A. I do not think it could be ploughed
to advantage.

Q. That is not what I asked?— A. Y^ou might cut it with a plough; I
think perhaps you could.

Q. Is it not ploughable so far down as the frost line goes? — A. It probably
i> : T never tried it.

Q. Is it not fairly soft, so far down as the frost line goes? — A. Not in dry
w'eather ; it is very hard.

Q. Is it not a fact that the surface does not bake on this ground? — A. It
does bake.

Q. If any person says that the peculiarity of this clay is that it disintegrates,
that portion of it which is exposed to the atmosphere, it is a mistake, is it? — A. I
i\o not know that it is.

196 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. Is it not apparent to our eye when we are going along the railway that
at least the top surface is soft and will crumble up in 3'our hand? — A. That is
when it is taken out and exposed to the air?

Q. Yes, the top? — A. Yes, but you will find this clay on the top of the
cuts, where it has not been touched, bakes.

Q. We are talking about where it has not been touched? — A. That is, on
a slope?

Q. Yes? — A. There is always a moisture running down, a drainage, that
keeps that moist.

Q. We are talking about it where it dries? — A. That is on the dumps; it
will dry up in powder.

Q. It will dry up in powder? — A. Y^es.

Q. The peculiarity of ordinary clay is that it bakes and does not pulverize ? —
A. I have seen this bake and crack on the top of these cuts.

Q. is there anything diilerent in this clay down to the frost line from any
other clay? — A. Well, 1 have never seen clay just like this before. It is not like
the clay I have been used to working. It is not as loose.

Q. In what does it differ? — A. It is more compact and harder.

Q. Did you ever see a clay in any other country that was loose? — A. Yes.

Q. Where? — A. Down in Nova Scotia, in road beds, and in the States, in
sewage and excavation and that.

Q. You would not find it in Old Ontario? — A. I have never been through
Old Ontario.

Q. What were the facts in connection with that clay that induced you to
classify it as loose rock? — A. The fact that it was so hard and tough, 1 could
not consider it common excavation.

Q. Could you not dig it? — A. You could separate it with a hoe, but it
was very hard to separate, very tough and heavy.

Q. Can you not work into any of these banks with a pick? — A. Yes, but
you cannot do much at it.

Q. Have you shown us any place where that is the case? — A. That place
where you were this morning, I think you would get all you wanted to handle of it.

Q. All we saw of it was crumbling, was it not? — A. Yes, it was all on
the surface.

Q. How far would I have to go in to get it? — A. Down below the frost.

Q. Down to the frost line it is crumbling, is it not? — A. It appeared lo
in some cases; it appeared to be this morning.

Q. And the frost goes in here about three or four feet does it not? — A.
About that, I should imagine.

Q. On an average how deep are these cuts? — A. They average from 5 to 25
or 30 feet.

Q. But an average? — A. They average 18 and 20 feet.

Q. You mean that if you averaged all the cuts through this railway, they
would average that?

By Mr. Outelius:

Q. You mean your average maximum is 18 feet? — A. Yes.

By Mr. Staunton :

Q. But wiiat would the average be? — A. About five feet.

Q. Would there not be a great portion of that which was, even in your de-
finition, common excavation ? — A. No ; there does not seem to be much difference
in the handling.

Q. It is not the handling I am speaking of? — A. It is the material and it
is the handling that counts in the material.

INYESTIGATIXG COMMISSION 197

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Is it the cost of the handling that influences you? — A. No, it is the
■difficulty in removing it.

■ Q. It is not whether or not it is ploughable? — A. I do not know whether
it is ploughable; I do not know whether it is advisable to plough it.

Q. You have formed no conclusion as to that? — A. I do not think it would
he. I think the stuff would just fall back in.

Q. I want you to tell me candidly; I want your real sincere statement? —
A. I am trying to give it ; I am on oath.

Q. I am not questioning your oath for a minute, but I want to know
Tv-hether or not you had come to any conclusion as to whether this was ploughable,
when you made that classification? — A. No, I do not think that a plough would
be feasible.

Q. Did that determine you to classify it as loose rock? — A. Not that, no.

Q. You may be right, or you may be wrong; other people have told me
Ihat they considered it ploughable, and yet they did consider it was loose rock.
They said that was not what iniluenced them. I want to know whether you are
in that same category? — A. That did not influence me, it was the material as I
found it.

Q. What did not influence you? — A. The fact that it could or could not
be ploughed.

Q. That seems to be, so far as I have been able to hear, the position which
most of the engineers have taken, that it was not a question whether it was
ploughable or not? — A. No, that did not enter into it; it was the material as
we found it.

Q. And. if I had come along on that material with a six-horse team, and a
ten-inch grading plough, and had managed to turn it over, ploughed it right along,
jou would not have changed your mind as to whether it was loose rock or not? —
A. No.

Q. So that w« may eliminate the question of ploughing from the considera-
tion entirely? — A. I think so.

Q. What were the difficulties of handling which induced you to make it
loose rock ? I would like you to tell me ? — A. Well, the fact that it was so heavy,
sticky and hard to move; when you put it in cars, in dumping you had to shovel
it out of your cars in some cases, as well as shovel it in. If you dumped your
car it would stay there, and you had to go in and shovel it out, and I figured
that material was not common excavation and could not be classed as such.

Q. I imagine you would say that this specification does not supply the proper
test, in your opinion, for ascertaining whether or not it is loose rock? — A. No,
because, you take muskeg, you cannot plough it, but it is common excavation. We
could not return that as loose rock; we did not consider it loose rock, but you
could not plough it.

Q. Did you classify any part of that clay as common excavation? — A. Yes,
we considered a small percentage on the surface, and sometimes at the ends of the
cut there would be a softer clay and easier handled : we watched them working
it, and we found some places where it was rather light and easily moved, and in
those cuts we gave a lighter percentage of loose rock than in others. We classified
it as nearly as we could, according to our Judgment of the material as we saw it
iaken out.

Q. About what percentage of the clay would you allow to be common ex-
cavation?— A. Well, we have allowed from ten to twenty per cent in the different
outs — I think from ten to twenty or thirty per cent — somewhere along there.

Q. With the net result that you did not allow, in the whole, more than
four or five per cent of clay as being common excavation? — A. No. The per-
centage of loose rock is not that hea\'y in my division. I do not think that the
percentage in my division of loose rock on the whole would be over somewhere
Tietween 85 and 90 on the whole division.

198 , NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. How much would there be of solid rock? — A. It would not be that on
the whole division; I am speaking of the cuts only.

By Mr. Gutelius:
Q. You were taking the lower classifications, in your view? — A. Yes,

By Mr. Staunton:

Q. The percentage of the two lower classifications? — A. Yes, on my work.
It would be somewhere about 80 per cent in the cuts; that is not taking into
consideration the muskegs.

Q. What percentage of the clay that has been handled on your division have
you classified as loose rock? — A. I say about 80 or 85 per cent,

Q. Now, you remarked in the beginning of your examination that when
the work commenced the resident engineers were classifying the clay low, did
you not ? — A. Yes ; we went over together, and we decided to keep it low, for this
reason : it was the time all these investigations were going on, and the District
Engineer told us that, to begin with, we would have to keep our classification away
down; we were told that, and we went out and classified very low. We knew we
were classifying low the first estimate, and frojn time to time —

Q. What did you classify this clay as then? — A. We gave them a small
percentage in each cut. Where we give them 80 per cent to-day, we just gave
them about 25, Just enough to keep them quiet. We expected an inspecting
commission to come up and say that we were right in our higher classification.
We submitted to it till then, for their approval, and we held it till then, and
when they did come up, I classified with the resident engineers as we came to
each cut, and in most every case it was approved of.

Q. By whom? — A. The district engineer and the G.T.P. man.

Q. Who was the district engineer? — A. Mr. Molesworth.

Q. And who was the Grand Trunk man? — A. Tomlinson. In some cases
the contractors wanted higher classification. Swenson was on the work and was
representing Foley.

Q. Who ordered you to classify the clay low? — A. Mr. Wetherby said to
keep the classification in the returns down until such time as it was approved of.

Q. Who is Wetherby? — A. Assistant district engineer to Mr. Molesworth.

By Mr. Gutelius:
Q. Was Wetherby with that party when you took the trip — A. Xo.
Wetherby was not on the trip.

By the Chairman:
Q. How much did you classify low in the way you have described it and
afterwards changed? — A. Just on the first two Residencies the work had been
going on, 17 and 18.

By Mr. Gutelius :
Q. How many months' classification? — A. Oh, the thing had been hanging-
for about seven or eight months before we got down to a settlement on the
classification.

By the Chairman:

Q. So that you had a large amount to re-classify? — A. Yes, in some ca.ses:
and in some cases we raised. In the new Residencies I started the classification
up where I thought it ought to be.

Q. How did you justify yourself for departing from the literal directions of
section 35 of the specifications in classifying this clay as loose rock? — A. Well,
it was hard indurated clay, tough clay, stuff that I thought could not be called
common excavation, in my opinion.

IXVESTIGATIXG COMMISSION 199

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. But the only guide given to you in these specifications is the plough-
ability of the land? — A. As I said before, we dispensed with that, and I did
dispense with it; I did not take it into consideration. The way the stufi was
handling I considered it was loose rock, or other material than common excavation,
which was equally as hard as loose rock.

Q. They mentioned indurated clay here? — A. Yes.

Q. So that it would not come under other material when it is mentioned? —
A. No, it probably would not.

Q. And all the stuff was indurated clay in your judgment? — A. Yes the
most of it was indurated clay.

Q. During your classification, did anybody interfere with you in that
classification? — A. No, not other than ask for more.

Q. But anybody in authority over you? — A. Nothing more than hold me
down, to begin with. That was the only interference there was in reference to
my classification. Well, in one case the resident engineer thought he ought to
go a little higher, and I cut him down a little. He figured everything should
be 100 per cent in that clay, and I thought some of it was not, and I cut his
classification down at that time, and it was approved by the district engineer.
The contractors all the time thought this clay should be classified 100 per cent
right through.

Q. How is this clay that you classified as loose rock handled by the con-
tractors?— A. "With shovel and dynamite; in some cases they broke it open with
dynamite; they had to shoot.

Q. Generally how was it handled? — A. Just in that way. They would
come to a section of it, and they would have to blow it up, and take it with picks
and load it into cars.

Q. How many shots would be put in, in a mile? — A. It all depends upon
the cut, the height of it and the hardness of it.

Q. Is there a record kept of the amount of dynamite used and the place
where it was used? — A. Yes.

Q. Cannot you give me any idea of how much was used? — ^A. No, I cannot,
right off hand. Take that cut we saw this morning, they blew an awful lot there.

Q. But there was a lot of solid rock? — A. Yes, and they used a lot in
I he clay too. They used to bore holes right down through it and then break it
up, working from a face like that.

Q. You do not mean to say powder was continuously used? — A. No, but ia
cases they did use powder to break it out. They would break out great chunks
half the size of the end of the car, and then chop it up.

Q. If it could be chopped up out of a piece as big as the end of the car,
could it not be chopped out of its original situation? — A. I do not think as
weM; they could not get at it to handle it as well.

Q. They could not get round it as well? — A. No.

Q. I understood that this clay would not blast? — A. Yes, it blows out all
right.

Q. I understood it Just blew out on the top, and would not break off? —
A. Yes, it breaks off.

Q. Not anything like rock does? — A. No, not like rock. In rock there
are seams, and it breaks off at the seams. You would break off more rock than
probably you would of clay.

Q. How was the material measured in your division ? — A. By engineers
with instruments and rods.

Q. Describe what was done. Was it cross-sectioned ? — A. Yes, and the
slopes and stakes set out, and it was taken out to those stakes.

Q. Was any of it guessed? — A. No, not to my knowledge.

Q. None of it estimated? — A. No, none of it, to my knowledge.

200 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 191 +

Q. Did you return any description of the material when you were locating
the line? — A. Very likely.

Q. What did you return the clay as? — A. Hard clay.

Q. Would you return it so that they would come to the conclusion it was
common excavation? — A. I think perhaps I did, not having had any experience
in the excavation of it. As I said when I came up here, 1 thought, without going
into it, that it was just ordinary clay.

Q. Could you say that the Ijlasting which was done was more than occasional,
so far as the clay was concerned? — A. No, I would not say it was more than
o'ccasional.

Q. What did you classify as common excavation? — A. Well, muskeg and
the softer clay that was there — well, loose and loamy. There are some cuts you
will get some loamy clay in the ends.

Q. Did you classify any soft clay other than as common excavation? — A.
The very soft, this blue clay, we get it in the bottom of those cuts, some of them ;
it is like gumbo. I classified that as loose rock also.

Q. That could be dug out also ? — A. It could be dug out, yes.

Q. You classified that sort blue clay as — A. As loose rock.

Q. What, is there in the specification to justify that? — A. No more than
you cannot plough it. I am positive you cannot plough that to any advantage,
because it is sticky and tough, and you go right down in it. It is like a quick
sand, only it sticks to you, and it is very very heavy. It is certainly not common
excavation.

Q. I understood from you that you had eliminated the question of plough-
ing?— A. Oh, yes.

Q. In all cases? — A. Well, I have, but that stuff is heavy and sticky, and
hard to move, and it is just as difficult to move as the other.

Q. And that is the reason you so classify it? — A. Yes, hard and diiTicuit
to move.

Q. Soft you mean? — A. Soft, yes, and tough, just like rubber.

Q. Why could they not have taken out sufficient excavation here to pat the
tracks in, and then go along with a shovel, and take the portions of the excavation
which was taken out to give the banks a slope, and run them down so that they
would stand? — A. Well, I do not know that you could have handled, before you
got drainage in those cuts, anything but light plant. I do not think you could,
because in most of them you had to have corduroy, even for the horse cars.

Q. But your channels for draining are usually back of the bank? — A. That
is just simply catch water; that catches the water that might be running in, but
in excavating you get a lot of Avatcr in tlie cuts that you have to drain througli
the cuts.

Q. But would that water not drain into tlie cut that I first spoke of? — A.
Into the ditch on the side?

Q. Yes? — A. No. We have these on the side when we are taking out
the cuts.

Q. First you make a passage way through the cut through which vour track
could pass, leaving room on each side for small drains. Then you liave your
banks more or less perpendicular. Now, then, if you put down your trades, nnd
go through with a shovel, you could trim your banks back, could you not? — A.
Yes, you could do that; that is gnlletting the cuts down to grade.

Q. Getting the banks to proper slope? — A. Yes, gnlletting it in the first
place, just to get your track through. That could hove been done.

Q. Then could it not have been taken out with a shovel ? — A. Not to slope.

Q. Well, pretty nearly to slope? — A. You would have to take out more
than you would need.

Q. You could take out a large quantity of that? — A. Yes; you would hnv^^
to take out one-half slope, and then lot it slope itself the other half.

/AVA'^ST/GAI'/iAG COMMISSION 201

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Why is that not practicable ? — A. I do not know but what it might have
been practicable to gullet it at the cuts first, and then take the other out with a
shovel to half slope; that might have been practicable.

Q. Would you not have classified it then as common? — A. Well, I do not
know whether I would or not.

Q. Had you any directions given to you as to how you should direct the
material to be taken out? — A. No.

Q. If you had insisted on gulletting it, had you the power to order it io be
done? — A. I suppose I had.

Q. On pain of not classifying it? — A. No, I do not think classification
^•ould have entered into deciding whether it would be gulletted or taken out to
slope; but we generally took it out to slope, and it is up to the contractor to take
it out.

Q. When you are paying him a high price for. it, of course he would take it
out, but if you had said, " You gullet this cut, and afterwards put your shovel in
there — A. In some cases we would be taking more than we need to. When you
put the shovel in to take out your extra width, you would be taking out a third
more than you would require.

Q. In the majority of cases you would not take out more than you would re-
quire ? — A. Well it would have to be a very high cut, or you would take out more.

Q. How high? — A. 18 or 20 feet; you would not be wasting much by taking
out that slope; in fact, it would require to be more; it would require to be thirty.
A shovel would take out more than half slope in anything under thirty feet.
Anything below that you would be taking out more than you really needed with
a shovel; so that in any cut under, say, 25 feet, I do not think it would be
practicable to gullet it and take it out with a shovel. You would be taking out
more material than you would require.

Q. Supposing you had gulletted such cuts as you could have done in a
practical way, would you have made much saving? — A. No, I do not think so.
There are only a few high cuts on the work, and I do not think we would have
saved very much.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. In the discussion that occurred between the district engineer, yourself,
the representative of the contractors, and the G.T.P. divisional engineer, were
there any reasons given by these gentlemen to you as to why that classification
should be raised? — A. As to why the classification in the estimates as they were
being returned should be raised?

Q. The classification in the estimates that had already been turned in had
been raised? — A. Yes.

Q. What were those reasons? — A. Well, that the material was too hard to
be classified as it was; it was not common excavation; it was hard clay.

Q. Did they refer to any clause in the specification which would help you
out in concurring in their recommendation to raise it? — A. No, I do not re-
member that they referred to any special clause.

Q. Was the plough test discussed at all at that time? — A. No, I do not
think it was.

Q. Go slowly about this? — A. I do not think it was. I do not remember
of the plough test being discussed.

Q. Was the specification discussed at all as printed ? — A. I cannot say that
1 remember of it being discussed.

Q. Do you mean to say that you accepted a recommendation on classification
that did not refer to the specifications? — A. I do not say that I accepted
anything in that case. I say I classified the material. I went over the material
and classified it as I thought it should be classified, and it was a question whether

202 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

they were satisfied. In some cases they were and in some they were not, and I
classified it as I thought it ought to be classified from the condition of the material
and how I found it.

Q. What did their visit have to do with your classification? — A. Nothing
more than the District Engineer approved of my returning the classification as we
thought it should be. It was held back previous to this.

Q. The classification you made at first you were satisfied was not right? —
A. 1 was satisfied it was not, but I did not want to have to change my estimates
afterwards. 1 did not want to return anything 1 would have to take back.

Q. That you would have to lower, you mean? — A. Yes.

Q. This discussion that occurred between you gentlemen was simply to verify
your original idea? — A. Yes, they were looking for more classification — the
contractors were — and there was no inspection made up to that time of the
classification.

Q. Did they want more than you gave them? — A. Yes, in some cases they
did; they wanted 100 per cent in most every one of those clay cuts; they were
looking for it, fighting for it.

Q. Supposing that in a test that should be made in your presence, those
cuttings which you have classified as 80 per cent loose rock, which is called
hard clay, the plough would go through and break it up, and that you were
instructed to classify according to the specification, what would you do in preparing
your estimates now for the final? — A. If I was instructed to classify it —

Q. According to the specification? — A. Yes; after a plough test, if it
should prove, as I think it would, as I say, that it would have to be then handled
with difficulty after the plough, of course I should transfer my classification under
instruction, but I would certainly not change my opinion, and would put myself
on record to that effect.

Q. Do you mean to say that the test provided in these specifications has
anything to do with the moving of the material? — A. Well, generally. The
.stuff that you plough — you would not plough it unless you put it in condition so
Ihat it is convenient to move.

Q. Is that plough item not simply a test? — A. It may be a test; I suppose
it is a test.

Q. I want you to go stronger than that, because the thing is clear? — A.
It is put there as a test ; that is what it is there for.

Q. Is it right for you to use a test as a method of transporting or moving
material? — A. It might have been right.

Q. Is it right for you to use a test? — A. It is right to use a test, if you
fliink that practicable.

By the Chairman :

Q. Is it right for you to use a test other than that set forth in the classi-
fication ? — (No answer).

By Mr. Gufelius :

Q. Supposing the test had been to take a two-inch pipe and drive it down
with a twelve-pound hammer in any material; and any material that the pipe
(ould be driven through with a twelve-pound hammer in the hands of a good man
would be common excavation; if that were the test, where would the relation
between the test and the removing of the material fall ? — A. I would be down
;\nd out.

Q. Therefore there is nothing in the test that indicates how the material
shall be removed? — A. No, not how it shall be removed.

Q. Then you cannot tell, so far as the specifications are concerned? — A.
No, so far as the specifications are concerned, if that stuff proves it can be
ploughed, I am wrong, according to the specifications.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 20S

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. If it can be ploughed — that is, broken up — is it not, under those speci-
fications, common excavation? — A. Under the specifications, with that test.

Q. Then any classification that you made, that will ultimately show that
it can be ploughed, and your instructions have been, and are now, and, we will
eay, will be repeated, that you must follow the specification; your instructions
then are to follow the specification; you will willingly change your classification
because the specification so directs you ?— A. If they are to be rigidly held to, yes.
I say rigidly, according to the specifications, if we are to go by that test, and
that test proves it can be done —

Q. Then you will change your evidence? — A. No.

Q. You will change your classification? — A. No, but my opinion with
reference to that not being common excavation would never change.

By the Chairman:

Q. In your opinion as an engineer it is not common excavation, although
it may be common excavation according to the specification? — A. Yes, that
may be so.

Q. You have already stated that you have not formed any opinion as to
whether it is ploughable or not ; in fact you did not consider that at all ? — A. No.

By Mr. Gutelius:
Q. Can you, with your seemingly fijsed ideas, join in that plough test with
an open mind? — A. Yes, I certainly can.

By the Chairman :

Q. But you would not change your mind? — A. With reference to it being
other than common excavation, no — not that material. I do not think the plough
test is a fair test. As an engineer I would call that loose rock.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. As an engineer, given a specification to work to, you are expected to
work to that specification; is that right? — A. Yes, that is right, if it is reason-
able at all. If it is not reasonable you report to someone else. I reported my
classification to the district engineer.

By the Chairman:

Q. Did you call the attention of the district engineer to the fact that, in
construing the specification literally, this was not loose rock? — A. No, I do not
lemember that 1 did.

Q. Did you say to him that this specification of loose rock was not
applicable to this locality? — A. I may have said that. I do not just remember
what arguments I used, or what reasonings I used. I simply said this material
was certainly not common excavation in my opinion, and he saw the material
and saw them working at it himself, and he had his own opinions.

Q. Apparently all of you ignored the directions of the specifications? — A.
If we did not ignore it, we would be returning muskeg as loose rock.

Q. You all did ignore it, as a matter of fact, did you not? — A. We
certainly did in that case of ploughing, as I say, because, if we did not, we would
be returning muskeg as loose rock.

Q. Does not the specification as to loose rock only apply to hardness? — A.
Well, that is all right.

Q. Does not the specification clearly mean that it is to be Ioopc rock if it is
loo hard to plough? — A. That may be the meaning of it, but there is clay in
the cuts, blue clay and gumbo.

204 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. Reading the specification, could you not come to the conclusion that
the specification meant only that it was too hard to plough, and not too soft to
plough? — A. Well, no, I cannot say that, because, take this gumbo, it is soft
stuff, but you cannot plough it.

Q. Did you classify any frozen material as loose rock? — A. No, sir. I
know that has been done on some work, but it has not been done on ours.

Q. Would you do it simply because it was frozen? — A. It would depend
upon whether they had to take it out when it was frozen or not, if it was really
necessary.

Q. Would you, if you were given a specification, and sent out there, without
any further instructions, classify material as loose rock merely because it was
frozen? — A. If they had to take it out while it was frozen.

Q. Leaving that out? — A. You cannot very well leave it out,

Q. If they chose to take it out? — A. If they chose to take it out, and we
did not require it then, I would classify it as common excavation, but if we
directed them to take it out while it was frozen, I would classify it as loose rock.

Q. But only if you gave directions? — A. Yes.

By Mr. Outelius:

Q. Supposing the plough test shows the clay you have classified as loose
rock is common excavation; and we go to your district engineer, and he says,
" 1 accepted Mr. Robertson's signature on the classification," how are you going
to conduct yourself? What instructions have you that you could refer to? He
puts the classification up to you? A. With his approval.

Q. Have you his approval? — A. No more than he was satisfied to accept it
and considered it was all right.

Q. He has accepted Robertson's recommendation because he knows you to
be an engineer of standing and an honest man. You tell us that you have
classified this irrespective of the specification, the plough test, and if the plough
test is made and happens to prove that it is common excavation, where are you
going to get off? What excuse are you going to give Mr. Staunton and me? —
A. I say I did not change my mind with reference to it not being common
excavation.

Q. In the face of a specification which has been handed to you and which
you have been told to work by; wbat motive have you in ignoring it and standing
pat? — A. Because I do not really think it is feasible to plough it.

Q. I am saying, if it is ploughed and broken up and you see it? — A. Well,
1 make a mistake, certainly.

Q. And you will make your peace by correcting — A. I certainly made a
mistake if it can be handled by a plough. I think now that a plough test would
not change my opinion. I do not think you can prove to me it is common ex-
caration with a plough.

By the Chairman:
Q. I think you are contradicting yourself unintentionally. You said, did
you not, that even if it could be ploughed, it is such material that you would not
classify it as anything but loose rock? — A. In my opinion you might plough it,
but I do not think you would leave it in condition that you could handle it after
ploughing it, feasibly.

By Mr. Gutclius:
Q. You have got away from that, and said the condition has nothing to do
with the test — A. I mean to say I really do not think now the test will prove
that it is ploughable. If you plough, and prove it breaks it up, and puts it in
such a condition that you can handle it easily with shovel and scraper, then I
have made a mistake in classifying it as loose rock, but I do not believe you can,
and I do not believe to-day you can handle it with a plough; I sincerely do ii"t.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 205

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Break up is all that the plough test means? — A, You must break it up
so that you can handle it with shovels. There is not much use breaking it if you
cannot handle it with pick and shovel.

Q. This is a test we are talking about; we cannot think of it in the same
line, unless you think of it as a test? — A. Supposing you can pull that plough
through with a six-horse team, in fact you can pull it through there, whether the
material is thrown up or not, that is the test?

Q, Yes, that is the test, dragging the plough through the material ? — A.
That may be a test, but what good would it do towards breaking it up?

Q. It is only testing it? — A. Not whether it does any good or not?

Q. No (No answer.)

By the Chairman:
Q. Ploughing means turning it over? — A. Yes, so that you can handle it.
Q. If you could turn it over with a plough, would that satisfy that it was
loose material? — A. Yes, if it breaks up.

Q. If you can turn it over? — A. If you can turn it over and it stood in
one ribbon, one strip —

Q. Just turn it over, I do not care what condition it is in, after it is turned
over, would you admit it is loose material, no matter what condition you will have
it in after ir was turned over? — A. I would not like to say I would. I Avould
like to see the condition it was in after it was turned over. I would say if you
could turii il over so that you could handle it —

Q. If you could turn it over in furrows, irrespective of anything that il-
will do, \^ou!d 3'ou classify it as loose rock, or would you classify it as common
excavation ? — A. "Well, it is just as I said before ; if you simply turn it over,
and it has then to be handled again, I would not call it common excavation. If
it hae then got to be broken up by some other means before you can move it,
I would not call it common excavation.

Q. But you would say if you broke it up, and it broke itself after turning
it over, you would consider it common excavation? — A. Yes, if it broke in such
a way as you could handle it.

Q. How would you have to handle it then? — A. With either shovel or
scraper.

Q. Then to summarize, what you say is that, unless the plough will turn it
over and leave it in a broken up condition, you would not class it as — A. To be
handled by shovel and scraper; otherwise I would not consider it common ex-
cavation.

Q. Can you conceive of a plough turning it over and not leaving it broken
up? — A. Yes, I think I can. I said that stuff would fall back.

Q. Can you conceive of a plough turning it over and not breaking it up? —
A. Yes, I think it would break it up if it turned over, because there is no sod
to hold it.

Q. Then if the plough would turn it over, it is common excavation? — A.
It would probably be broken up in a condition that you could handle it.

Q. Then the plough test is all right if it will turn it over? — A. I should
imagine yes, coming back to that, yes, it would; without the sod, it would naturally
break up, if it turns over.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. And the only verification that you have received from higher officers is
that your estimates were not returned to you for revision? — A. Yes.

206 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

By the Chairman:
Q. And your belief that your higher officers knew the condition of the soil?
— A, Yes. Of course they were on the work from time to time and saw it in
operation and knew exactly what we were doing and how we were classifying.

(N.T.K. INVESTIGATING COMMISSION: EVIDENCE TAKEN ON TllAlN
AT COCHRANE, June ?tli, 1912).

H. G. O'Leary, sworn :

Examined by Mr. Gutelius:

Q. You are an engineer by profession? — A. Yes.

Q. Where were you educated? — A. Toronto University.

Q. What construction work were you engaged at before coming to tli(3
Transcontinental? — A. On the Lake Superior Branch.

Q. Of the G.T.P.?— A. Yes.

Q. That was your first engineering work? — A. 1 was on the Transcontin-
ental before that.

Q. In what capacity? — A. I was chainman, leveller and transit man.

Q. When did you have your first Kesidency on construction? — A, Residency
17, Lake Superior Branch.

Q. What year?— A. I think it was the fall of 1906.

tj. And you have been continuously engaged in railway construction since?
—A: Since 1904.

Q. How many Residencies did you have on the N.T.R. ? — A. I was Resi-
dent on one, and 1 was instrument man on 21 before.

Q. And you are now? — A. Division engineer.

Q. You had to do with the construction and classification of Division 2 ? —
A. Division 2.

Q. And you are now in charge of divisions 2 and 3? — A. Yes.

Q. District C.?— A. District D.

Q. Having been resident engineer on the Lake Superior Branch of the
G.T.P., you had to do with classification? — A. Yes.

Q. How did the specifications for classification on the G.T.P. compare with
Ihose of the N.T.R., under which you are now working? — A. Do you mean the
wording of the classification? I think they were very nearly identical; they were
very close. The words were not the same, but I think they were very close to the
same. I do not think we had the wording "Continuous blasting" in ours. We
had the plough test and the boulder measurements exactly the same. I do not
think we had the "^'continuous blasting" or "blasting may be oorasionally
resorted to."

Q. How did the prices paid on the Residency there compare with the prices
on the division here? — A. The main contractor's prices were lower. If I remem-
ber correctly, it was 25 cents, 50 cents and $1.45.

Q. Here it is, 34?— A. 34, 50 and $1.75- n<., not 50 ; the loose rock is 65.
Q. 34, 65 and $1.75?— A. Yes.

Q. Is there any difTerenco in the classification of the material between the
work that you did on the Lake Superior branch and that which you did on this divi-
sion?— A. The material I encountered there was not the same. We were deal-
ing more there with quicksand, boulders and solid rock. Here it is practically all
clav.

IXTESTIGATIXG COMMISSION 207

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. What did they classify quicksand as on the Lake Superior di^'ision? — A.
Classified as loose rock, -with some solid.

Q. You classified the contractors out; that is, you gave them enough classi-
fied material to ensure their men a day's pay? — A. Yes.

Q. Was there a plough test in the G.T.P. specification? — A. Yes.

Q. If you had encountered clay similar to that excavated on your division
here when you were on the G.T.P. , would you have classified it as loose rock in
the same proportion ? — A. • Yes, the way we were classifying, very nearly as high,
I think.

Q. But not quite as high? — A. Well, possibly not.

Q. Why would you classify it higher here? — A. I am saying according to
the way we were classifying there.

Q. Why would you not, under practically the same specification, make the
same classification here as you would have made up there ? — A. Well, that involves
a question as to whether the man in the field is the man who is classifying,
or whether he has to change his judgment in accordance with the Chief Engineer's
instructions.

Q. You are speaking of the Chief Engineer's instructions, then, in connec-
tion with classification on your division here? — A. We received them, not direct
from Mr. Grant, but from our superior officers, and our classification was accept-
ed and passed by the district engineer, the inspecting engineer and the Grand
Trunk engineer, and we based our specifi,cations, to a large extent on that.

Q. On what they would pass? — A. On what they said. In some cases our
classification was raised by them, and in some cases lowered, and we changed — at
least I did — according to that.

Q. Were you ever instructed to increase the classification on this work where,
in your judgment, you would not have done so, if left to yourself? — A. Well, that
is a question that involves the inteipretation of the clauses of the contract, that
our judgment has to be influenced by what the contract calls for in the specifica-
tion, and in these cases I have seen a great many written opinions by lawyers^ stat-
ing what was meant by the different clauses of the contract.

Q. What opinions were those? — A. Alec. McDougall, of McDougall &
O'Gorman, had a whole bunch of them, and I saw them,

Q. Did he offer them to you of his own accord? — A. No, his engineer was
a personal friend of mine; he went through college at the same time as I did.
It was he who showed them to me.

Q. Those were opinions by Mr. Lafleur? — A. And tliere were some Toronto
men, I think E. F. B. Johnston was one, if I remember rightly. I remember there
were quite a number of Toronto lawyers.

Q. See if you can remember some of the names? — A. I could not say; I
could not swear to any of them, but it strikes me E. F. B. Johnston was one. I
would not swear to it.

Q. And you felt, after those opinions were given as to the specification, that
they were probably right, whether yonr judgment agreed with them or not? — A.
I felt that, coming to a case of law, tliat tliey would probably know better what
would be the interpretation placed on tliat by a judge to a certain extent.

Q. Then that was the reason that you coincided with the classification which
your superior officers suggested? — A. Xo; there was a certain classification given
on part of this work: I did not take it at first: there was a classification given and
that classification had been raised.

Q. Tell me how that raising was done? — A. It was done when Macfarlane
took this division over, and I think it was Mr. Sunston who did the reclassifying.

Q. You do not know this of your personal knowledge? — A. Xo, it was before
my time, and that classification, I understood, was the accepted classification.

208 NATIONAL TRANiiCONTINENTAL RAILM'AY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. And you endeavoured in your work to classify in accordance with that?
— A. Where 1 could take that as a standard ; some places I am considerably lower^
and a few places I am higher.

Q. You have classified some of those blue clay cuts as high as 90 per cent,
loose rock? — A. Some of them have gone up, I think, to 98 per cent; that is the
highest on my work.

Q. In so classifying did you take into account the plough test provided in
the specification? — A. VVe were talking of the plough test, whether the plough
test was actually dragging a plough through it.

Q. Better answer the question? — A. I want to explain what I meant by tak-
ing it into account. I took into consideration that the plough test, by ploughing
it, did not put it in shape to be handled by a slusli scraper.

Q. You did not consider the paragraph with reference to ploughing as a test,
but rather as a method of excavation ? — A. Well, I considered the interpretation of
that "cannot be ploughed" to mean that it could not be ploughed and put in shape
to be handled. Of course that was after talking over with a great many men. Mr.
Staunton suggested that this had been talked over. I wish to say it has been. I
have talked it over with neaily all the contractors. I have obtained their opinions
and others.

Q. Contractors' opinions are rather dangerous in classification, are they not?
— A. Oh, yes.

Q. Is the suggestion as to the paragraph in connection with the ploughing
being a test new to you? — A. No, we disregarded that on the branch.
Q. Did you disregard it here? — A. Practically to that extent.
Q. I understand then, that, so far as your work is concerred, having regard
for your superior officers, that you did disregard the plough test? — A. Well, to
the extent as I say, that the plough test —

Q. Having regard to your superior officers? — A. You mean by that, having-
regard to what they considered?

Q. Yes? — A. Well, we disregarded it to that extent also. I had that from
my superior officers, that the ploughing had to put it in shape to be handled by
earth methods.

Q. Who gave you that idea? — A. I think Mr. Mattice and Mr. Balkam both.
I know Mattice has.

Q. When did you last speak to Mattice about classification, including to-day?
— A. You mean in regard to my classification?

Q. Yes? — A, When he was district engineer.

Q. You did not speak to him at all recently? — A. No. I may have passed
a word, but nothing of any account, nothing serious.

Q. Balkam also made it clear to you ? — A. I think so.

Q. That the plough test meant that after the material was ploughed it was
to be in condition to be handled by a slush scraper? — A. I think he said by ap-
proved earth methods: presumably he means slushing and scraping.

Q. If left to your own judgment, with nothing but the specification which
you would be endeavoring to abide by, and a plough test was made which would
loosen the material in some of the cuts, or adjacent to the cuts, and it was broken
up so as to be handled by a slusher. would you change your classification in that
cut? — A. I think it should be changed. May I state that at camp Mile 54 there
is a big clay cut. in which there was some of that very soft blue gumbo. That cut
was ploughed ; they had two teams of horses and they ploughed it and took it out
by carts.

Q. What classification did you give it? — A. Practically loose rock; they
were only able to work at that cut at one time two days in two weeks.

IWVESTIGATINQ COMMISSION 209

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. With carts and plotighs?— A. No, with car and track. They ploughed
it and took it out with car and track.

Q. Did it not occur to you that when they ploughed it and took it out that
way, under the specification it should he common excavation? — A. I would not
say it should be common excavation. I am willing to admit that my classification
is high in my own judgment.

Q. I think you feel your classification is high?— A. Yes, I am willing to
admit my classification is high, but in my judgment there is practically no clay
which should be classified as common excavation.

Q. That is your judgment, irrespective of the specification? — A. Yes.

Q. But if you would hew to the specification, that cut at mileage 54, as far
as they ploughed, would have to be common excavation ? — A. Well, the thing was
when they ploughed, they ploughed it and it turned over in a long ribbon, it did
not break up at all, and then they went along and cut it with their spades and
shovelled it in.

Q. And they handled it fairly nicely? — A. Well, they paid the contractors
54 cents a yard for that, and had to give J;hem free horses and free car and track,
to let them make anything. It took the contractor's full original price for the
station men to handle that cut.

Q. And to have made.it common excavation, they would have lost money?
— A. Oh, yes, everybody.

Q. And you did not feel it would have been a square deal to have let them
lose money, when other clay was being classified as loose rock? — A. Well, that
clay was very much the same as any other clay which we were classifying. My
personal opinion is that there is no clay in this country as clay — or, at least, very
little, there is some — which two teams of horses could not drag a plough through,
except what is too soft for the horses to walk in.

Q. Suppose a contract had been made in. which it was specified that all
clay on District 3 was to be called common excavation, what would you have done
then ? — A. Well there would not have been any question ; it would have been com-
mon excavation.

Q. Then how would your judgment have been? — A. There would be no
question on the thing.

Q. Then it is because the language in the present specification is not suf-
ficiently clear to your mind, rather than on account of the material ? — A. No, no.
The language in the specification is not clear to me, but I also think that the dif-
ficulty of handling that material was greater than the difficulty of handling material
which would come under the specification as loose rock, namely a bunch of boulders
one foot square. There would be the difficulty to the contractors; take a gang of
ten men and work them in the clay, and work them them in what there is no ques-
tion about, in the loose rock, the men would handle a great many more yards of
loose rock than the others.

Q. The cost to the contractor influences you? — A. I think all the specifi-
cations are made up according to the cost of the material, that instead of calling
them solid reck and common excavation, if you labelled those one, two and three,
and gave your definition of them, your definition is fixed by the cost of moving
that particular object. When you get down to what the specifications are, they
are fixed in order to cover the cost of different materials, which are to cover the
difficulty of moving these materials. The price is fixed by the difficulty of moving
the materials. I think myself that the specifications really hardly cover the blue
gumbo. I cannot see where it fits under any particular item.

Q. Had you no compunction of conscience in putting it under one of the
items when you did not think either of them covered it? — A. No, not according
to the way things were going.

123—14

210 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. If you wanted to purchase some wooden pipe, which is not covered in
the specifications or contract, how would you arrange a price for that? — A. You
would arrange with the contractor, and put it up to the district engineer, who
would put it up to the chief.

Q. If material in excavation was encountered which you did consider was
covered by the contract, why do you not use the same method ? — A. We have. The
classification of the blue gumbo has been sanctioned by the district engineer and
inspecting engineer.

Q. Not only sanctioned, but you were advised in discussion that they classi-
fied the material that way ? — A. Yes, when we were asked on a thing, that is what
was done. If my personal opinion differs from the chief engineer my feeling is
that I have to change my mind to suit his.

(N.T.R. INVESTIGATING COMMISSION: EVIDENCE TAKEN ON THE
TRAIN BETWEEN GRANT AND CROW CREEK, JUNE 9th, 1912.)

H. M. Paedee, sworn:

Examined by the Chairman:

Q. You are an engineer by profession? — A. I am not a college man; I put
myself through.

Q. Where were you educated? — A. Upper Canada College.

Q. And then after you left school you went out to make your living? — A.
Yes.

Q. At what? A. I first started in to bank; I worked in that for about six
years, and I worked for Clergue and Company at the Sault.

Q. As what? Banker? — A. No, as clerk in the purchasing department.

Q. Then what? — A. Then I went with Clergue on the Algoma Central.

Q. What position did you occupy there? — A. Rodman.

Q. And you continued to be rodman till when? — A. I was rodman there
for about a year.

Q. Then what did you do ? — A. I stayed there for a year, and then went to
the G.T.P. as axeman, and then I was tapeman, and then I drifted round as topo-
grapher for a couple of years, and I ran instrument, level, and on construction on
location, and then I started in over here. Residency 4, the T.C.R., as resident
engineer.

Q. How long have you been on the T.C.R. ? — A. I would be about three
years and a half.

Q. When did you get your first Residency? — A. That would be about three
years ago.

Q. And when did you commence then actively to act in classification? — A.
Well, I could not say — about two years and a half ago, when I was made divisional
engineer.

Q. Had you any connection with the classification until you were made resi-
dent engineer? — A. No, I had not.

Q. Of course when you became resident engineer you were more or lees
engaged in classification? — A. Yes.

Q. And then you became divisional engineer two years and a half ago? — A.
A. Yes.

Q. Then you took up the classification and became responsible for it? — A.
Yes, in a wav.

IWESTIGATING COMMISSION 211

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. You became responsible for it until it was handed on higher up ? — A. Yes.

Q. Then you were resident engineer where? — A. Eesident engineer on
Eesidency 4, District D, T.C.R.

Q. Whose contract? — A. That was on Foley's — at least, I should say the
G.T.P.— Foley, Welch & Stewart.

Q. Subs for the G.T.P. ?— A. Subs for the G.T.P. Railway Company.

Q. You became Divisional Engineer two years and a half ago? — A. Yes.

Q. What was your division? — A. Di^^sion 7, where I am at present.

Q. Describe what it is ?— A. Division 7, District C, T.C.R. Railway.

Q. Whose contract? — A. That was O'Brien, McDougall and O'Gorman.

Q. Your headquarters are where? — A. At Hearst, mile 233.

Q. Hearst is the place formerly called and commonlv known as Grant? —
A. Yes.

Q. Have you got the total of the classification that you have certified since
you have been there, of all kinds? — A. You mean that I have signed?

Q. That you have turned in ? — A. Yes.

Q. Have you it here ? — A. I have not it with me. I can give you about the
percentage.

Q. That is what I want? — A. About 48 per cent loose rock.

Q. How much per cent of your work was solid rock excavation? — A. Prac-
tically nothing. There was no solid rock to speak of.

Q. Forty-eight per cent, of it was what you classified as loose rock? — A. Yes.

Q. And 52 per cent of what? — A. Common excavation.

By Mr. Gutelius:
Q. With a very small amount of rock? — A. Yes.

By the Chair- man :

Q. You are only giving me approximate figures? — A. Exactly.

Q. Can you give me any approximate figures about the amount of classi-
fication you have made? — A. Made myself?

Q. No, that has been made in yards in your division since you came into
it? — A. Well, I cannot very well.

Q. You could not tell me anything near it?

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. Some 15,000 or 20,000 yards to the mile? — A. Yes, it would be some-
thing like that.

Q. And how many miles are there ? — A. 65 miles.

By the Chairman:

Q. ■ The grading on your division is made up of cuts and fills, and where
there is material in a cut you carry it and deposit it in the fill ? — A. I do.

Q. And you are paid for that work one price? — A. Yes.

Q. When you have not suflBcient to fill up to grade line from cuts on the
line, yon take it next from the side borrow ? — A. Yes.

Q. That is on the railway right of way? — A. Yes.

Q. Then what do you pay for the material taken off the track and from
the side borrow? — A. Well, it is 43 cents for common, and 65, I think it is, for
loose ; that is loose rock.

Q. And you pay the ordinary price for solid; you do not take any solid out
for that, do you? — A. No, not for that.

Q. When you have not sufficient in the side borrow, where do you get your
material? — A. In this case we have always had sufficient.

212 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE V^ 1914

By Mr. Gutelius:
Q. It would be train fill? — A. Yes.

By the Chairman:

Q. Jt is not train fill that is taken from the side borrow? — A. No.

Q. I'iie next thing you use is train fill? — A. Yes.

Q. Do you include the excavated material from the ditches in side borrow?
— ^A. No, I do ]i';t

Q. That is paid for at excavation prices? — A. Yes, as loose rock and
common.

Q. Or whatever it is? — A. Or whatever it is.

Q. Then you resort, after you have exliausted the side borrow and the ditches
and the cuts, to what is called train fill, do you not? — A. Yes.

Q. And the train fill you obtain from borrow pits ? — A. Borrow pits, exactly.

Q. Is there much of that in your division? — A. Yes, there is.

Q. A large quantity? — A. Well, I should say yes.

Q. You could not give me any estimated figures? — A. I suppose there
would be a million yards anyway, or a million and a half,

Q. A million to a million and a half of yards? — A. Yes.

Q. What are they paid for that? — A. 55 cents; that is for train fill.

Q. Does it make any difference where it comes from? — A. Yes; and then
they are paid one cent a yard for over five miles, for overhaul.

By Mr. Gutelius:
Q. One cent a yard per mile? — A. Yes.

By the Chairman:

Q. Train fill is material carried by the contractor on cars from borrow pits,
wherever he may find the most convenient? — A. Yes, or wherever we can find
the pits. We have got to get the suitable material.

Q. Wherever you can find the pits most convenient suitable for the purpose?
—A. Yes.

Q. And this material is preferably gravel ? — A. Yes.

Q. Has it been on your division all gravel? — ^A. No, it has not.

Q. A large or small proportion? — A. Well, a small proportion is gravel,

Q. And the rest is clay? — A. Well, there is some clay, but we are going to
get a good deal of sand.

Q. Clay, sand and gravel is the train fill? — Yes.

Q. Pretty nearly everything excepting this muskeg? — A. Yes.

Q. He is paid a cent a mile o\er five miles? — A. Yes, for train fill material.

Q. In classifying material on this line, you have classified, I believe, a large
quantity of the clay as loose rock? — A. Yes.

Q. Will you give me your reasons for doing that? — A. Well, the reasons
were that it was very wet and hard to handle.

Q. In the first place, you are familiar with the specification? — A, I am.

Q. You know that in the specification there is a definition of loose rock
excavation ? — A. Yes.

Q. And you classify a large amount of clay, in fact most of the clay, as
loose rock, do you not? — A. Yes, I did.

Q. Tel! me by, what process of reasoning you arrive at the conclusion that
you should classify this clay as loose rock? — A, Well, it was very wet and hard
to handle,

Q. Some part of it you classified as loose rock because it was wet and hard
to handle? — A. Wet and hard to handle, and hard material,

Q. Is the wet material hard? — A, No, it is not.

Q, Then keep them separate. First, you classified part of it as loose rock
because it was wet clav and hard to handle? — A. Yc'J.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 213

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. That was not hard, but it was too soft to handle economically; is that
your meaning? — A. Yes, that is the meaning all right,

Q. You mean to say that it cost the contractor ? — A. It was very ex-
pensive stuff to handle.

Q. That is one head. Now, the next heading of clay which you classified
as loose rock was what? — A. It was too hard to plough and had to be blown.

Q, Did you classify the top, the surface clay, as loose rock material ? — A. No,
I did not.

Q. How deep did you classify in your usual cuts as earth excavation? — A.
From a foot to a foot and a half from the top; it was common excavation.

Q. How was that taken off? — A. It was taken off in carts.

Q. How was it moved out of its present position — A. With shovels.

Q. Then you passed through that for a foot or a foot and a half? — A. Yes.

Q. What did you come on then? — A. We came on a more sticky gumbo;
I cannot say in all cases that we did that.

Q. I mean usually? — A. Usually, yes.

Q. I am not pinning you down to all cases. I want you to understand that
unless I ask you with particularity, I am only asking you generally over your
Avork? — A. I understand.

Q. You came on sticky gumbo — A. Yes, soft, sticky gumbo.

Q. And that is the material you first spoke of as being soft and wet? —
A. Yes.

Q. Why did you not class that soft material as common excavation? — A.
This is the second piece you are speaking of?

Q. Yes? — A. Well, because it was too hard to handle.

Q. How did they handle it? — A. They handled it with picks and
shovels; they shot it with dynamite.

Q. You are talking now only of the soft material? — A. Yes.

Q. They did not shoot soft material? — A. They did in some cases; I have
seen it done.

Q. In your work did they generally shoot this soft material? — A. No, they
did not.

Q. Tell me how they handled this soft material you call gumbo? — A. With
picks and shovels.

Q. How would they pick the soft material? — A. The pick kind of loosens
it up. It is a kind of soft, mucky stuff, and they cut it out in chunks and
shovel it in, if they can.

Q. What would they use? One of these mattocks? — A. Yes, a mattock
generally.

Q. A mattock is not usually used in hard material? — A. No, they use
picks.

Q. You say they took it down with mattocks? — A. Yes.

Q. Cut into the face of it? — A. Yes.

Q. Pulled it down with a mattock? — A. Yes.

Q. And threw it in with a shovel? — A. Yes.

Q. That is a fair description of their methods? — A. Yes.

Q. That was usually the way the material was taken out? — A. Yes.

Q. How deep would this material average? — A. It would average right
to the bottom of the cuts.

Q. I am speaking now of the soft material. Was there anything below
the soft material? — A. Not generally, no.

Q. Then in some cases it would be loose, common excavation on top, and
then right to the bottom of the cut gumbo? — A. Yes.

Q. Tell me about what proportion of your work was gumbo? — A. About
48 per cent.

214 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE V^ 1914

Q. But tell me what proportion of your work was gumbo — soft clay that
was classified as loose rock? — A. About 99 per cent of soft stuff.

Q. Then you had no indurated or hard clay on your division? — A. About
one per cent of it.

Q. About one per cent of it was indurated or hard clay in your division?
—A. Yes.

Q. So that, as far as you are concerned, I need not trouble you at all about
indurated clay or hard clay? — A. No.

^y Mr. Gutelius:

Q. To make it clear, were any of these clay cuts of yours excavated by
means of shots and powder? — A. In the winter there was some with shot.

Q. But only in case of frost ? — A. Yes.

Q. Not on account of the material being so hard that it required blasting?
—A. No.

By the Chairman:

Q. Was much of this material, gumbo, taken out in the winter? — A. Quite
a good deal of it.

Q. Have you any notion about what proportion of it? — A. About, we will
say, fifty per cent, I suppose. I cannot very well tell.

By Mr. Gutelius:
Q. Roughly, half of it?— A. Yes.

By the Chairman:

Q. I suppose your returns will show all this? — A. Yes.

Q. I want it put in a summary, and 1 can check it by the returns, so that
YOU need not trouble yourself to be accurate, as long as you get reasonably near
it. It is a convenient way of getting it? — A. Yes.

Q. Did you allow that loose rock because it was frozen? — A. No; well, in
rare cases there was some of it allowed, but very little of it.

Q. Do you show in your returns that it was put in as frozen? — A. ]Nu, 1
do not think so.

Q. About what proportion did you allow because it was frozen? I suppose
that question need not be asked, because you would have allowed that same
material, if it had been taken out in the summer, as loose rock? — A. Yes.

Q. So that it makes no difference? — A. No,

Q. Did you ever classify any of this soft clay at any time as common?
What I mean is, did you ever change your classification, or have you pursued
this course from the beginniing? — A. I have pursued that course, to the best
of my ability.

Q. I am not questioning your integrity, but I want to find what you did.
Have you pursued that course from the beginning? — A. I have.

Q. Did you ever raise your classification? — A. Yes, I have raised it in a
few cases.

Q. What did you raise? — A. I have raised it in cuts.

Q. From what? — A. I have raised it in some borrows.

Q. From what ? — A. From common to loose rock.

Q. Do I understand you to mean that, having classified your material as
common excavation and sent it in, you afterwards classified that same kind of
material as loose rock? — A. Loose rock and vice versa.

Q. Why did you do that? — A. Well, I do not know. I thought my
judgment was not quite right at first.

Q. At first you put it in as common? — A. I put it in as common.

Q. Who talked you into changing your judgment? — A. Nobody.

INVESTIOATINO COMMISSION 216

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Somebody must have protested, or you would not have changed, would
you? — A. Oh, yes.

Q. Did any person protest? — A. No.

Q. Was the contractor satisfied? — A. I do not know. The contractor
never knew anything about it, as far as I know.

Q. He got paid on estimates? — A. I know he did, but he never spoke to
me about it at all. There have been cases where he has spoken to me.

Q. You first began by putting in the soft clay as common excavation? — A.
Yes, I have.

Q. Then, without any persuasion by any person else, you changed that
classification? — A. I have changed it.

Q. And the contractor, so far as you know, made no complaint of the first
classification? — A. I think not.

Q. How much did you classify as common excavation before you changed
your judgment? — A. Oh, it would not be any very large amount.

Q. About how much?

By Mr. Gutelius:
Q. How many months? — A. Well, I suppose about ten or twelve months,
all the time I was up there. The work was going on, and they were moving this
stuff.

By the Chairman:

Q. I want to be fair with you, and your answers may mean what you do not
wish to say, unless you are very careful and understand the question. You told
me that in the beginning you classified this soft clay, which you describe as
gumbo, as common excavation? — A. Yes.

Q. How long did you continue to classify gumbo as common excavation?
— A. I never continued.

Q. How long did you do it? — A. I never did it.

Q. You said you did in the beginning and then you changed your mind?
— A. No: I say I changed parts of things that I thought were gumbo, which I
found had not been working so hard as the others; I changed it back again.

Q. You mean you have rectified what you considered were mistakes you
had made? — A. Exactly.

Q. But you never changed your general method of classification? — A. No,
no.

Q. You see now it gives an entirely different impression? — A. Yes.

Q. Then have you classified all the work that has been classified on this
division? — A. On my division?

Q. Yes, from the beginning? — A. No.

Q. Who preceded you as divisional engineer? — A. I will have to explpain
to you. I started off with thirty miles at first.

Q. On that thirty miles who preceded you? — A. No person.

Q. Then you did all the classifying on that thirty miles? — A. Yes.

Q. Which thirty miles is that?— A. That was from 218 to 248.

Q. Where is that? Grant? — A. Yes, it passes through Grant, mile 218 to
mile 248.

Q. On section D? — A. On section D.

Q. Was there any divisional engineer on the remainder? — A. Yes.

Q. And when did you take charge of that portion? — A. I took charge of
that last September, I think it was — part of it.

Q. Was there much classification made before you took it up? — A. It was
nearly all made.

Q. Who was the man who classified that? — A. Mr. McLellan and Mr.
Sunston had this end of it.

216 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. So that you only had half the division ? — A. I only had half the division.

Q. So that you are not responsible for the classification on the western
half? — ^A. Well, I have had it added on to both ends.

Q. How much did you have added on to the western end? — A. I have 20
miles on the other end.

Q. 20 miles on the west end? — A. Yes.

Q. And how much on the east end? — A. And the balance at this end.

Q. The balance on the east end? — A. Yes,

Q. Your section was in the middle? — A. Yes.

Q. Are you responsible for the classification of either of these ends? — A.
Well, only in places where the work was not quite completed.

Q. Generally speaking, you are not responsible for it? — A. No, generally
fcpeaking I am not.

Q. But over all your work you made the same classification? — A. I did.

Q. And over all your work it was soft clay? — A. It was soft clay, yes.

Q. Do you know what gumbo is? — A. Well, I guess I do.

Q. Where did you learn what gumbo was? — A. I saw it out on Residency
4. Don't you call that gumbo you get around Lake Abitibi — blue clay?

Q. Describe gumbo? What is it as you call it? — A. It is a sticky clay.

Q. Colored what? — A. Oh, kind of the color of the table cloth.

Q. The table cloth is very bilious looking? — A. It is a bilious looking
orange.

Q. What is the color in your judgment? — A. A kind of grey — bluish grey.

By Mr. Gutelius:
Q. Some yellow? — A. Some yellow.

By the Chairman:

Q. At the station in Grant, opposite the freight house, on the 8th of June,
the contractors were digging out a quantity of clay and spreading it to fill the
yard ? — A. Yes.

Q. Is that what you call gumbo? — A. It is when it is softened up,

Q. Is that stuff what you call gumbo? — A. No, not at the present time:
if it was wet it would be.

Q. Gumbo is simply clay more or less in solution? — A. Yes, that is the
way I would put it.

Q. How would you classify that clay at Grant? — A. That which they are
taking out at the present time?

Q. Yes? — A, I would classify it as common excavation.

Q. That was taken out with a mattock and shovel? — A, Yes.

Q. If that clay had been wetter, and still to be taken out with a mattock
and shovel, you might classify it as loose rock excavation? — A. Well, I am
getting a little mixed up in it.

Q. I think you are. You told me if that clay was wetter it would be what
you would call gumbo? — A. Yes.

Q. Do you moan that? — A. Well, it would be, and what I want to explain
to you is that that stuff, when it is wet, is vevy hard to handle; I do not know
whether you would call it gumbo or not. At the time that country was opened up
it was very hard stuff to handle when it was wet,

Q, When you use the word " gumbo " here, you only mean grey or yellowish
clay that is very wet? — A. Yes.

Q. That is what you mean ? — A. Yes.

Q. And if that does not mean gumbo, then you have not been speaking of
gumbo at all ? — A. No.

Q. That is what you mean, is it not? — A. Yes.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 217

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. You do mean now that you have classified what one sees in going along
this line in cuts — that is, a greyish clay — as loose rock when it was so wet that
it was very expensive to handle? — A. Yes, that is exactly what I am trying to
get at.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. The specifications for the N.T.E. are the only specifications you ever
classified material under? — A. Yes, that is so.

-Q. Your whole schooling, then, was on this railway? — A. Yes, as far as
classification is concerned.

Q. Is it not a fact that you did discuss the classification with your higher
officers? — A. Oh, I have discussed it, yes.

Q. Did you not get this classification such as you knew they wovild approve?
—A. Yes.

Q. Did you make any personal study of the specifications with reference
to the plough test? — A. Yes.

Q. Did you consider the plough test at all in classifying? — A. I did.

Q. Did you ever make a test with the plough ? — A. We did, yes ; we tried to
move one cut with a plough.

Q. Could you plough it? — A. We could plough it, yes.

Q. And after showing it could he torn up by the plough, you still called
it loose rock? — A. Loose rock, as the plough did not help it out any.

By the Chairman:

Q. What do you mean by "did not help it out any"? — A. Well, did not
make it any easier to move.

Q. It turned it over, though? — A. It might run through it, and you could
see that a furrow had been there, and you might not be able to in other places;
some places it Avould catch hold of a little chunk of it* and turn it over.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. But it tore the material out? — A. Yes.

Q. The plough went in the stuff? — A. Yes.

Q. In the interpretation of the contract did you not consider that the
clause relative to ploughing was a test, rather than a method of excavation? — A.
Yes, that is the way I should have taken it, I should think.

Q. Then you did test it, and found that it stood the test, namely being
able to plough it? — A. Yes.

Q. And because it could not be handled cheaply after ploughing, you called
it loose rock? — A. Yes. The way I got it was that if you could plough it, and
it was any help by being ploughed, why the plough was to be used, and it was to
be called common excavation, but if your plough did not help it at all, then the
man had to use his own judgment, as far as I have learned.

Q. You know the difference between a test and a method of moving material?
— A. Well, yes, I have seen tests made.

Q. Suppose that, instead of the plough test, it had been a test to drive a
piece of two inch gas pipe through the material with a sixteen pound hammer,
and that you could have driven this through, and found the material as hard
as it is actually, how would^ you have classified it? — A. Well, if I could have
done that, I would classify it as common.

Q. Don't you see a plough tost might have been made on each of these cuts,
the same as the tube test, and after that it could be removed in any way that
they chose, and you woulrl, according to the specification, be compelled to classify
according to the test? — A. Yes.

218 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

By the Chairman:

Q. It could be ploughed? — A. Yes, it could be ploughed.
Q. Just as it could be tested by the tube ? — A. Yes.
Q. And yet you put it in as loose rock? — A. Yes.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. If the price of common excavation on this contract had been 60 cents a
yard, and the price of loose rock 75 cents a yard, would that have influenced your
specification? — A. I hope not.

Q. Make sure about that? — A. I hope not.

By the Chairman:

Q. If the price had been 60 cents for common excavation and 60 cents for
loose rock excavation, and you thought you could plough it, then how would you
have classified it? — A. You mean just changing it around?

Q. No, if the price had been 60 cents for common excavation and 60 cents for
loose rock, and the plough would have gone through it, as you say it would, then
how would you have classified this soft clay — if the price had been the same? — A.
I think I would classify it just about the same, as far as I interpret

Q. But it would not be loose rock? — A. No, that is the trouble: it is not
loose rock. There should be a class in between. There should be something to
cover this material.

Q. If the price had been the same, if there had been no difference in the
price, how would you have classified it when you were told to so classify that stuff
on which you could use the plough test? How would you have classified it then?
— A. It is pretty hard to say.

Q. The price paid for common excavation and loose rock is what influenced
you? — A. Yes.

Q. That is what influenced you? — A. Yes.

Q. And if the price had been as good for common as it was for loose, you
would have made it common ? — A. Yes.

By Mr. Outelius:
Q. Because of the plough test: that would have been the reason? — A. Yes.

By the Chairman:

Q. Is that what you mean ? Here you have a cut, and in your hand you have
a specification, and that specification says that all material, excepting rock,
which is described as solid, which can be ploughed with a ten inch grading plough,
drawn by six good horses properly handled, shall be classified as common excava-
tion. Now, you came along and you saw this material and you said, "While I
believe that six good horses can draw that plough through there, yet it will not
leave it in any better condition for handling : 1 know that the price to be paid
for common excavation is exactly the same as the price to be paid for loose rock:
it will not benefit the contractor one cent for me to call this loose rock any more
than to call it common excavation" ; what would you have called it under thes*
conditions? — A. I would call it loose rock.

Q. You will still call it loose rock? — A. Yes.

Q. Why? — A. Well, because the plough was no good; it did not help things
out.

Q. What is the use of considering whether the plough was any good or not,
when the man was getting the same price for one as the other? I think, Mr,
Pardee, what your evidence amounts to is this : tliat you thought it should be looae
rock excavation unless the ploughing improved it? — A. Yes, that is it exactly.

Q. That is the whole thing?— A. Yes.

INYE8TIGATIN0 COMMISSION 215

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

By Mr. G-utelius:

Q. Then you do not accept the clause about ploughing as the test for classi-
fication?— A. Well, I did not think, from what I saw of the plough test, that
it helped the work any that I saw done.

Q. And that as a test for classification it was no good, and you did not use
it?— A. That is it.

Q. I think that is what you mean? — A. Yes.

Q. You practically abandoned the plough test in your classification? — A.
Yes, that is what I did.

Q. I notice on your division a great many places where the sub grade has
been raised through muskeg country. That appears to me to be too high. When
I suggest lowering these grades from one to three feet, does it appeal to you as a
method that might have been adopted in reducing the cost of grading this rail-
way?— A. It does, certainly.

Q. Can you take your profiles and show a new grade line which will keep the
gradients within the present maximum limits and figure how much saving could
be made in dollars? — A. I could.

Q. That would be all right if it was done in that way? — A. Yes.

Q. And at the same time give them a four-tenths and six-tenths railway? —
A. Yes.

By the Chairman:
Q. Do you think that ought to be done for economical construction? — A. I
think it should.

Q. Do you think there would be much saving made ? — A. Quite a good deal.

Q. It is an important item, is it? — A. Yes.

Q. And the grades are kept unnecessarily high? — A. In places I think so.

By Mr. Outelitis:

Q. Who is responsible for the adoption of the present sub grade line on
your division ? — A. I say the chief engineer.

Q. Why ? — A. Because he is the man that looks after that, as I understand
it — the man who approves of it.

Q. Who presented those grade lines to the chief engineer?- — A. I suppose
the locating engineer.

Q. You received that profile completed and you worked to it ? — A. I worked
to it.

Q. Without any variation? — A. Yes.

Q. Generally ? — A. Yes.

Q. In the location of ditches, what officer says where ditches shall go? —
A. The divisional engineer.

Q. Are you satisfied that all the ditches you dug on your division are neces-
sary ? — A. I had to get proper drainage ; that is, if you want to keep your borrow
pitiB dry, and I believe that was the intention — at least on the Grand Trunk Pacific
— that we were to keep our borrow pits dry out on the prairie.

Q. This excessive ditching was caused by draining the borrow pits? — A.
Yes, and giving a dry roadbed, as I have always learned.

Q. Was there much classified clay in your drainage ditches? — A. No, I
should think it would run about between 20 and 25 per cent.

Q. Of classified material? — A. Of classified clay.

Q. This contract was let first to the G.T.P. ?— A. No, to Davis.

Q. First to Davis? — And then to O'Brien, Macdougall and O'Gorman.

Q. And then sublet? — A. Yes.

Q. In that subletting what was the average length of sub contracts, to the
fellows who actually performed the work? — A. Between eight and ten miles.

Q. Did they sublet many individual contracts to station men? — A. Yes, it
was all pretty much sublet to station men.

220 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. What do we understand by station men? — A. Station men are men who
build two or three stations and do the work on those stations.

Q. A station is 100 feet? — A. Yes.

Q. And they receive a price per yard? — A. A price per yard.

Q. For material as finally classified? — A. Yes, as finally classified — well,
no, I should not say finally classified.

Q. As classified by the engineers? — A. As classified by the engineers; that
is, by the divisional engineers.

Q. Does the divisional engineer always pass upon an estimate for station
men? — A. Yes; as a general rule, yes.

Q. He should always do it? — A. He should always do it.

Q. Why should not the resident engineer make a classification and hand it
direct to the station man ? — A. In this way : that I had a copy of these estimates
sent to my office, and I looked them over, and I was satisfied that they were correct.

Q. You are satisfied that all estimates given to station men conform to the
estimates and classification given to the general contractor? — A. I am.

Q. And to ensure that they do conform, the divisional engineer should join
with the resident to prevent any possible variation ? — A. Yes, that was always my
policy.

Q. In the contracts that have been let to the station men here, what are the
rates given to station men generally? — A. I will have to consider it.

Q. .23, .36 and $1.30 is one that we saw yesterday; how does that look? — A.
I could not tell you as to the station men very well.

Q. .23, .36 and $1.30?— A. I should think that would be about right.

Q. That is about what they got? — A. About what they should get, or what
they did get.

Q. If the station men had received .43, .85 and $1.75, would you still have
classified in the same way ? — A. Yes, I think I would have. You ask, if the station
men would have those prices — the same price as the main contract exactly?

Q. Yes? — A. I suppose I would. It is a pretty hard proposition to run
up against.

By the Chairman:
Q. In other words, did you not classify as you did to give the station men
a chance? — A. No, I do not think so.

Q. You did not do that? — A. No, I do not think so.

By Mr. Gutelius:
Q. What do you think of the price for cement, $16 ? — A. I would not give
any opinion on it, because that is the first cement I ever had anything to do with.

<N. T. R. INVESTIGATING COMMISSION: EVIDENCE TAKEN ON
TRAIN BETWEEN GRANT AND COCHRANE, JUNE 9th, 1912.)

Ralph Holland, sworn :

Examined by the Chairman:
Q. You are an engineer by profession? — A. Yes.

Q. How long have you been in the employ of the N.T.R.? — A. Four years
last April.

Q. Always engaged on construction? — A. On the N.T.R., yes.

Q. And before vou came on the Transcontinental, where were you? — A. I

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 221

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

was with the Kettle Valley lines in British Columbia from 1900 to 1901, and from
1901 to 1908 I was with the Canadian Northern.

Q. "Wliere were you on the Canadian Northern? — A. I was engaged on the
main line to Edmonton and in Quebec and Ontario, the Hawkesbury-Ottawa line.

Q. So that you are pretty familiar with the construction of railroads in
Canada ? — A. Yes.

Q. What is your position now? — A. Divisional engineer.

Q. How long have you been divisional engineer? — A. Three years.

Q. On what division? — A. Division 4, and then when 5 was amalgamated
with 4, I took over division 5, and when division 6 was amalgamated with 4 and
6, I took over the three divisions. That covers 100 miles, all the Fauquier contracts.

Q. Did you become divisional engineer as soon as you came on the road ? — A.
No, I was 11 months as resident engineer.

Q. Where? — A. First Residency west of Cochrane, Residency number 10.

Q. On Fauquier's contract? — A. Yes.

Q. On the present division? — A. On the present division.

Q. We know from other witnesses how this material has been classified on
your division, and we understand that a large quantity of clay has been classified as
loose rock, and you were one of those who classified a large quantity' of clay as
loose rock. Have you practically classified, or revised the classification, of all
Fauquier's clay? — A. No, sir, I only classified the first 40 miles.

Q. You have read the specifications? — A. Yes.

Q. You will remember the specification says that clay which may, in the
opinion of the engineer, be ploughed with a ten-inch grading plough drawn by six
good horses, properly handled, shall be classified as common excavation ? — A. Yes.

Q. Did you classify any clay as loose rock which, in your judgment, could be
so ploughed? — A. We did not have any test. We classified no clay that we
thought could be ploughed to a commercial advantage; that is, by ploughing it,
it could be made more easily handled.

Q. You say you made no tests; do you know whether any tests were made?
— A. Well, there was one test made at the Mettagami. I did not see it myself^
but I saw the result of it.

Q. That was a plough test? — A. That was a plough test.

Q. Where was this plough test? — A. Mileage 134.

Q. Who made it? — The sub-contractors, Videau and Overend.

Q. What did they make it with? — A. Grading plough and four horses.

Q. You saw it after it was ploughed? — A. Yes.

Q. How much did they plough ? — A. They ploughed a strip five or six hun-
dred feet long.

Q. How wide? — A. Twenty feet.

Q. Did they turn it over? — A. Parts of it; the plough would jump out.

Q. But, generally speaking, did they turn it over? — A. Yes, they turned
it over.

Q. What shape was it in when it was turned over? — A. Just one length;
it did not break or crumble.

Q. Do you mean turned over like a piece of rubber ? — A. Yes.

Q. How long afterwards did you see it? — A. Next morning.

Q. How long did it take to fall apart? — A. It was picked apart.

Q. How long would it take to fall apart? — A. A week.

Q. It would crumble all up in a week? — A. Some of it, not all of it, some
never would.

Q. Does not all this crumble when it is exposed to the atmosphere? — A. Not
all; some hardens.

Q. That which does harden will crumble by a blow? — A. Yes, it has a
tendency that way.

2&2 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. How long had this surface been exposed to the atmosphere that was
ploughed ? — A. When I saw it ?

Q. How long had it been exposed before it was ploughed ? — A. They ploughed
it the first thing, as soon as they grubbed it.

Q. Do I understand that this was the original surface of the soil? — A. Yes.

Q. And do you mean to tell me that that stuff turned over and stood like
a ribbon? — A. Yes, not a ribbon for two or three hundred feet, but for fiiteen or
twenty feet it was a ribbon.

By Mr. Outelius:

Q. Were there any pieces longer than a foot or two? — A. Well, they ran
over that.

By the Chairman :

Q. What was the average? — A. Well, they looked to me to be much longer
than the plough, and the plough is eight feet.

Q, What did they do with that stuff when they turned it over? — A. They
picked it and wheeled it in a dump.

Q. Did 3"0u see any of them cross it with a scraper? — A. Yes, we tried to
load the scraper, but could not get the stuff in.

Q. Was it moist? — A. Fairly so.

Q. How far down was it? I am taking the datum line to be the grade line.
How far was it above the datum line? — A. There was four feet depth.

Q. But where you did the turning over? — A. Two or three feet.

Q. Below the grade line? — A. Below ihe ground line.

Q. That is where you ploughed it? — A. Yes.

Q. So that it was in low ground ? — A. No.

Q. Was it in a cut or on the level ? — A. No, on the level, certainly.

Q. Below the grade line of the road ? — A. Below the grade line of the road.

Q. Would it have been fair to have ploughed that in a cut? — A. How do
yon mean fair?

Q. Was this ploughing done on a knoll or in a hollow? — A. Yes, on a slight
knoll.

Q. You say what you saw there, although it could be ploughed, it could not
be ploughed to any advantage to the contractor? — A. No, sir.

Q. The ploughing was of no advantage to him? — A. No advantage.

Q. And he broke it up with picks and mattocks? — A. Yes.

Q. Can you show me any material of that kind near the surface of this
country? — A. I can show you the spot where that was done.

Q. Do you think you could find a place where you could turn over that stuff
now with the same result ? — A. You could not on the right-of-way now,

Q. But outside of that? — A. You could on the drainage area, I feel certain
of that.

Q. Or any part that is not affected by the drainage ? — A. Yes.

Q. What percentage of the clay in your district has been classified as loose
rock ? — A. 70 per cent average ; that is in the cuts — 70 per cent.

Q. In your judgment the plough test doss not make it common excavation,
unless it improvas the material? — A. No.

By Mr. Ontelius:

Q. You do not consider the clause in connection with ploughing to be a test
at all? — A. I considered it in this way, that it has to be a commercial test; it
has to render the material in a condition to be handled commerciallv.

INVESTIGATIXG COMMISSION 223

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

By the Chairman :

Q, Do you know what the sub-contractor is getting for this work? — A. On
Fauquier's contract?

Q. Yes? — A. .32 for common and .55 for loose rock and $1.60 solid rock.

Q. What did the station men get? — A. .23 to .27 for common and .40
to .48 for loose rock, and I do not know what :he solid was.

Q. Was the most of the stuff taken out by station work ? — A. The majority
of it, yes.

Q. So that the actual work on the ground cost not half of what the contract
price was? — A. It cost the station men's price.

Q. And you have given us the general price paid to station men ? — A. Yes.

Q. The station men did a great proportion of this work of grading ? — A. Yes.

Q. Was most of the work let to station men ? — A. Where possible, it was let
to station men, except where they could not handle it in the large cuts.

Q. There would be a good profit in the job, would there not? — A. Well,
from the station men's price to the contractor's price there is a big difference.

Q. From the station men's price to the contractors price is a far call? — A.
Yes.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. \Vhen you first tackled this classification, were you not surprised at the
material which was being called common excavation? — A. Xot surprised at the
material when I first came in.

Q. When you first canie in, and found they were classifying clay as loose
rock, did that not surprise you? — A. It did, until I saw how it worked. When
I saw the actual work my opinion changed.

Q. Supposing the men who were removing the material, whether station men
or sub-contractors, had been receiving the same prices as given to the main con-
tractors, would you not still have felt that the classification which they were making
was too high ? — A. Well, I would have felt that it was on the high side, that it was
good classification.

Q. Very liberal classification? — ^A. Yes.

Q. What convinced you ultimately that it was reasonable classification was
that the men who did the work vrere scarcely able to make wages ? — A. What con-
vinced me was that men working by the day for the contractors could not make
wages at common excavation prices; that is, day wages, not station men's wages.

Q. At sub-contractors' prices? — A. Yes.

Q. And that the classification would have been liberal if the sub-contractors
had received the original contractors' figures. It would have made an easy job at
that classification? — A. Yes.

Q. So that the cost of the work to the party who did it has some influence
with the classifier? — A. What is that?

Q. The cost of the work to the contractor or station men has some influence
with the engineer who makes the classification? Some of our friends have said
no it did not, absolutely? — A. In my opinion it had to have.

Q. It must be so? — A. It must be so.

Q. How can an engineer arrive at a conclusion as to comparison of hardness
unless he takes into account the labor and its cost? — A. The only wav we can
get it.

Q. Did these men, after they learned this clay was going to be classified as
loose rock, work with the same vim and energy as men that you have known on
the Canadian Northern? — A. Yes, I really think they did.

Q. They seemed to do the same amount of work per day? — A. Yes.

Q. This work was very expensive? — A. Yes.

224 " NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

l^ 4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. To what do you attribute, as compared with the Cauadian Northern con-
struction, the reason for this very expensive railway? — A. Is this in regard to
classification or —

Q. Everything; I am going to ask you why this cost so much more money
than so many miles of the Canadian Northern would have cost in the same country ?
— A. The spirit seemed to be that the railway was to be the best built, without
legard to expense; that everything for the betterment of the road was to be done,,
and done at the time of the building.

Q. Now, if the question of expense had been made paramount, the same a*
on the Canadian Northern, what changes would have been made, so far as your
district was concerned? — A. Well, we would have had lighter grades.

Q. Just think of all the things that you would have to change in this railroad
to make it the same type as the Canadian Northern, and tell us in your own
language? — A. Well, first on the openings, the culverts; where we put in concrete
permanent culverts, a cheaper culvert could have been put in, to last for a number
of years.

Q. What would it be ? — A. Either a cedar box culvert or pile trestle, to take
the place of our concrete culverts.

Q. The question of openings would have amounted to a large sum in this
first lay-out? — ^A. Yes.

Q. What next? — A. The next was on the quantities of the grading.

Q. How would you reduce the grade quantities? — A. By using more maxi-
mum grades, more sags.

Q. By preserving the maximum of four-tenths east and six-tenths west, could
you have introduced sags and momentum grades to advantage ? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. Would that have amounted to very much money on your 40 miles? — A.
Considerable.

Q. In the matter of ditching, would the Canadian Northern have constructed
as many ditches as we have built here? — A. In my idea, it was necessary to put
in every drainage ditch we have done.

Q. Would a Canadian Northern divisional engineer allowed you to have dug
so many ditches, if they had built this railroad ? — A. I think they would have.

Q. Would the Canadian Northern Railway have allowed you to have made
the embankments so high across the muskegs? — A. No, sir.

Q. Those embankments could have been lowered and the standard of the
road maintained? — A. I think so.

Q. And that would have created another large saving? — A. Yes.

Q. That is clear; the standard of the N.T.R. could have been maintained
over your 40 miles and considerable money saved by laying the road-bed lower? —
A. Yes, sir, exactly.

Q. You never worked on the C.P.R. ? — A. No, I know nothing of the C.P.R.

Q. Did you ever do any contract work yourself? — A. No, sir.

Q. Never interested in any contracts? — A. No, sir.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 225

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

(N.T.E. INVESTIGATING COMMISSION: EVIDENCE TAKEN ON TKAIN
AT EDMUNDSTON, JUNE 22nd, 1912.)

E. M. Chaelton, sworn :

By the Chairman :
Q. You are an engineer by profession? — A. Yes.

Q. And have been engaged in your profession for how long? — A. Fifteen
years.

Q. You are divisional engineer on this road in what division ? — A. Division

one.

Q. What mileage?— A. 150 to 203.

Q. And where were you engaged in railway construction before you came
on to the Transcontinental ?— A. On the Quebec Central Eailway, Toronto Belt
Line Eailway, Chateauguay and Northern Eailway, and Montreal Terminal
Eailway.

Q. How long have you been in the employment of the Transcontinental? —
A. About May, 1905.

Q. Have you been engaged on this division all the time? — A. I was on
location.

Q. First on location? — A. Yes.
. Q. After the location did you come into this division? — A. No, I came into
division three.

Q. You were there for how long? — A. A part of a season.

Q. How long have you been on the present division ? — A. 1909.

Q. In making your classification what do you classify as solid rock? — A.
Ledge rock and mixed material. Mixed material is boulders in masses.

Q. Divide each of them; what do you mean by boulders? — A. One man
stone up and any size in masses.

Q. What is a one man stone ? — A. A stone that one man will handle.

Q. When you speak of a stone that one man will handle, you mean that he
is able to handle? — A. Yes.

Q. And in masses; what do you mean by that? — A. Well, touching one
another.

Q. You do not mean held firmly together? — A. Well, they might be held
firmly together.

Q. But you do not mean necessarily held firmly together ? — A. No.

Q. If you see a pile of stone which you consider is such a size that one man
can only conveniently handle one stone at a time, that is solid rock in your estima-
tion ? — A. Yes, all the stones could be handled by one man.

Q. I say where each rock could be conveniently handled by one man? — A.
No.

Q. What do you mean ? — A. I mean from the size one man could handle up ;
but if there was only one stone one man could handle I would not classify it as
folid rock.

Q. Do you classify as solid rock a mass of stones that one man can handle?
—A. No.

Q. Why did you say you did? I wish you would give me your definitions
without taking them back, because you said so in the beginning. It is a matter
of indifference which it is, but I want you to be definite about it? — A. Allow me
to say, a stone that one man will handle in size up to three or four yards.

Q. Then my question to you was, if you find a pile of stone touching each
other, each of which one man can conveniently handle, do you classify that as
solid rock? — A. No.

123—15

226 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. What do you class it as? — A. Loose rock.

Q. Then do you adhere to the specification A. Yes,

Q. Wait a moment; do you adhere to the specification which says that all
stones and boulders measuring one cubic foot and less than one cubic yard shall
be considered loose rock? — A. I adhere to that when you get one boulder in one
place — isolated boulders.

Q. Do you adhere to that when there is more than one boulder in one place?
— A. No, I follow instructions issued by Mr. Lumsden.

Q. Do those instructions contradict what i have read to you? — A. No, they
interpret it.

Q. Have you those instructions by Mr. Lumsden? — A. I have not them
with me.

Q. I wish you would explain to me frankly what you mean by that. Tell
me what stones you do class as solid rock ? — A. In a cut where it may be all com-
mon and a few boulders, if the boulders measure one cubic yard they are solid
rock; if they measure three feet they are loose rock, and anything under that is
common.

Q, Then you do not classify boulders of less than a cubic yard as solid rock?
— A. Except where they appear in masses.

Q. And in what condition are they when they appear in masses? — A. A mass
of irregular rock of varying size from half a yard up, or a stone that one man will
handle, up.

Q. \Yhich may or may not adhere together ? — A. Yes.

Q. How big a stone can one man handle? — A. Usually a stone weighing
about 200 pounds.

Q. How big is that? — A. I imagine a stone that would cube a foot and a
half, say.

Q. Is that the instruction given to you by Mr. Lumsden? — (Producing in-
struction.) A. Yes.

Q. Will you show me under that where you get your one man stone? — A.
One man stone right in here. (Pointing.)

Q. Is it number 5? — A. Number 5.

Q. Then number 5 on this blue print is rock in masses of over one cubic
yard, assembled rock which, in the judgment of the engineer, can be best removed
by blasting. Do you allow him any rock in masses which does not require to be
blasted? — A. Nothing except boulders, which are removed by a derrick, or some-
thing of that kind — stone boat.

Q. You do not blast rock which is not joined together, do you? — A. Yes.

Q. Do you blast rocks which are just packed together, without anything
making them adhere to each other? — A. Yes.

Q. That is to say, small boulders ? — A. Yes.

Q. You put a charge in among small boulders? — A. To loosen them up,
yes.

Q. When they do not adhere to each other ; is that right ? — A. That is right.

Q. Will you tell me where you find any of that class of solid rock on your
division? — A. Do you want a number of instances?

Q. Yes, give me specific instances? — A. Station 8726 to 8735.

Q. What mileage is that? — A. Mileage 165.4.

Q. What do you find there? — A. Pockets of rock and mixed material on the
top.

Q. What is the classification in quantities? — A. The percentage of classifica-
tion in that cut works out to 55 and 45.

Q. 55 what? — A. Per cent.

Q. Of what? — A. Solid, and 45 per cent loose.

Q. No common? — A. No common.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 227

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Do you ignore the covering of earth, or do you always take it into con-
sideration?— A. I ignore the first foot of soft stuff on the top, where it is mixed
with roots and stone; that is land that has not been ploughed.

Q. What do you allow that as? — A. Loose rock.

Q. Where do you find that authority in the specification? — ^A. I find
where it says that the land cannot be ploughed.

Q. We will deal with that later. Now, where else is there assembled rock?
—A. At mileage 171.9.

Q. What do you say about that? — A. The former remarks about pockets of
rock apply here also.

Q. Do you say there is no common there? — A. No common.

Q. My note is that there was about a third of that common; you say there
is none whatever? — A. I have not returned any common.

Q. Did you examine it yourself? — A. Yes.

Q. Part of it is assembled rock? — A. Yes.

Q. Will you tell me where else there is assembled rock? — A. Shall I give
you the ten miles from Long Lake? — A. Yes.

Q. Assembled rock occurs in different points, mile 180 to mile 200 — that
includes 20 miles.

Q. Can you give me anything where I will find any large quantity of it?
Give me two or three instances where it is in large quantities? — A. Station 10,071,
mile 190.7, the classification figures out 61 and 39 per cent.

Q. No common? — A. No common.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. Was that 61 per cent assembled rock? — A. I have not the details of that
here. I have just got the gross quantity. I could safely say, though, that if there
were any boulders in the cut, or ledge, it would be included in the 61 per cent. I
am not prepared to state whether there is any ledge in that cut or not. I have
no notes of it here.

Q. Is the information you are giving based on your personal knowledge, or
what you have taken from your books? — A. This information is based on my
inspection of the work at different times during the month, while it was in progress.

Q. Is there assembled rock in the cut at mileage 197.5, and if so, how much?
A. There is ledge rock 743 yards.

Q. How much assembled rock? — A. Assembled rock, 1,000 yards.

Q. And the cut at 191.8, how many yards of assembled rock? — A. I am
taking these notes from a final estimate, and if you will confine yourself to Resi-
dency one, I can give you the details; if you require other Residencies, I have not
the final.

Q. Where does Residency one run? — A. From mileage 193 to 203.4.

Q. What assembled rock was there in the cut at mileage 1904? — A. I will
have to correct that again. I have just got one contract here final, contract from
Long Lake Narrows, and it is from mileage 195.

Q. What assembled rock is there in the cut at 197.5? The cut seems to
contain about 4200 yards all told? — A. I have a cut here of 3900 yards; is that
the one?

Q. It is given here 1,000 yards solid and 2,300 yards loose ? — A. Yes; 4272;
the ledge is 239 yards and the assembled rock material 635.

Q. Is there any other solid? — A. Yes, there is sub-grading 74 yards; there
was ledge in the bottom of that cut and ten yards in the cut ditch; surface boulders
89 yards. I am not giving you the fraction of a yard.

Q. 196.4; what are the various kinds of solid rock? — A. Ledge rock 1725
yards.

228 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. This cut only has 1700 yards in it?— A. This is 196.4; ledge rock 1725
and rock outside the slopes 705 ; that is still ledge.

Q. That is like overbreak? — A. Yes.

Q. Which was allowed? — A. Yes. Sub-grade 373 yards of solid and a cut
ditch 12 yards of solid and 39 of boulders.

By the Chairman:

Q. "Was there any common there at all? — A. No, no common in that cut.

Q. And no assembled rock in that cut? — A. I gave you the assembled rock,
1 think 1096 yards.

Q. No, there is no assembled rock ? — A. Oh, no ; there is no assembled stuff.
If it is not large enough to be classified as solid rock it goes in as loose; there is
1096 yards of it.

Q. Do you classify all the shale in your district as solid rock? — A. Yes.

Q. AU shale?— A. Yes.

Q. Is there any of the shale that could be taken out, or was it taken out with-
out blasting ? — A. No.

Q. Not any on top even? — A. I do not know of any. I would have seen it
if it had been possible to take it out.

Q. Have you any conglomerate in your district? — A. Will you define the
term?

Q. I am taking the instructions, conglomerate rock and plum pudding
stones, number three of this blue print? — A. Is that cemented?

Q. I do not know. Have you found anything that you bring within that
definition? — A. I have seen such material.

Q. Is there any in your district? — A. Yes.

Q. Where? — A. It applies to pockets in these cuts you have already infor-
mation on.

Q. Can you tell me which they are? I want it specifically. I will ask you
to give me a reference to one or two of them? — A. At about mile 171.9.

Q. Is that rock cemented together? — A. I should not like to say that it is
cemented together, but it is pretty solidly packed with material between it, very
hard. It will stand — a face will stand.

Q. But it is not cemented together? — A. It is cemented to a certain extent.

Q. Is it cemented or is it not? You are swearing to this. You know, as an
engineer, what cemented is; is it cemented together? — A. I would like to find you
a good instance.

Q. I should like you to answer the question? — A. I am trying to think
just how that material is there. I know the rock is there in pockets, but it is
very difScult for me to say from memory just if it is cemented or not. I know
that it will stand a face.

Q. Will you class it as conglomerate if it is not cemented together? — A.
Allow me to say that I would classify the rock that is in pockets there under either
three or five of these instructions.

Q. That is not the question I am asking. Will you classify rock as con-
glomerate which is not cemented together? — A. No.

Q. Will you classify rock as masses which is not cemented together ? — A. Yes.

Q. Will you classify rock as solid which lies in masses not cemented together,
but embedded in other material ? — A. Yes.

Q. Will you tell me where you have done that? — A. I have done it in all
instances of those cuts, the notes of which you have taken so far.

Q. Which cuts do you speak of? — A. I have not kept a note of them.

Q. You mean that I have taken so far to-dav? — A. Yes.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 229

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Then you necessarily measured as solid rock the material in which these
stones are lying? — A. Yes. If a stone is isolated, the stone is measured; it would
be a boulder; if it were in masses, the mass is measured.

Q. Including in the measurement the material lying between the stones? —
A. Yes.

Q. And how are those stones taken out? — A. They are, first of all, blasted,
to loosen them. The large ones are bulldozed.

Q. What does that mean? — A. That means exploding powder on the top of
them, or drilled.

Q. And then? — A. Then they are removed in some instances by derrick on
to cars and carried to the dump.

Q. And in others? — A. Put on waggons, dump carts, broken up small
enough for several men to handle; they are put on a stone barrow.

Q. Those are all very large stones you are speaking of ? — A. I am speaking
of the classification such as I have described to you.

Q. Do I misunderstand you when I infer that you mean that you allow as
solid rock stones of any size lying embedded in other material which requires blast-
ing?— A. "Well, I have no instance of that.

Q. The stones you speak of are how large? — A. Prom one and a half cubic
feet up; it might be two or three hundred cubic feet, four or five or six yards.

Q. You told me that you ignore the earth corering when it is full of roots?
A. Yes.

Q. They prevent it from being ploughed ? — A. Yes.

Q. Do you allow grubbing in that material? — A. No; grubbing is allowed
according to the specification; I think it is there feet.

Q. You allow grubbing in that material; does not the grubbing take the
roots out? — A. Yes, the grubbing takes the roots out.

Q. Could you plough the material? — A. If it were grubbed?

Q. Yes? — A. In some instances, if there were not too many surface boul-
ders.

Q. I am not talking about surface boulders; you told me you disallowed it
as common when it was full of roots? — A. Yes.

Q. Now, you pay the man for taking the roots out, do you not? — A. You
pay the man for grubbing up to two feet.

Q. I am speaking of earth which is lying over the top of the rock and may
go two or three feet in depth. I want to know if you ignore that, and you tell me
you do when it is so full of roots that it cannot be ploughed ? — A. Yes.

Q. The man gets paid for taking the roots out, does he not? — A. Yes.

Q. When he takes the root out the material is left there? — A. Yes.

Q. Then the material has to be removed. Do you put that in as common?
—A. No.

Q. What do you put it in as? — A. It goes in possibly with the balance of
the cut, whatever it is classified.

Q. That may make a serious difference in the classification, may it not? — ;A.
It will make a slight difference.

Q. You should not do it, should you? — A. I believe I am doing right.

Q. By what authority do you say that? — A. Because it is impossible for
a man to plough perhaps ten or fifteen feet.

Q. What do you mean by ploughing ten or fifteen feet? — A. Well, he would
run up against boulders he would have to get round; he could not get his plough
in to plough it.

Q. Do you mean to say that, although the material itself is ploughable, that
because a man will encounter the boulders on his way, that you allow that as solid
material? — A. Stripping, yes.

Q. I pointed out to you, did I not, the place where, at about mileage 194,
there was 19,700 yards of solid in that? — A. What information do you desire
in that cut?

230 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. You remember you and I examined that spot together? — A. At mile 194?

Q. Yes?— A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember my asking you at that time whether there was not one
to two feet of common excavation on top of it? — A, I will just give you the
account of it —

Q. Did I not ask you on the ground if there was not one to two feet of com-
mon on top of it? Do you remember my asking you on the ground, when we
were examining it, whether there was not one to two feet of common on top of
that? — A. I do not remember the question particularly.

Q. Don't you remember me asking as to that one place? — A. I remember
}ou asking me at one place ; I do not remember if that was the cut,

Q. Do you remember my asking you at one place at which you said there
was ? — A. No.

Q. You do not? — A. I remember saying at several places that there was;
1 do not remember you asking me the question.

Q. Do you remember my asking you at any place if that was not common
on top of that rock from one to two feet, in which you answered to me that it
was so? I hope you are going to be candid? — A. I desire to be candid.

Q. You know you and I went over that very place, and I went up on top of
it and examined it, and pointed it out to you, and you agreed ; you remember that,
do you not? — A. I do not remember that.

Q. Do you remember my pointing it out to you and your saying that there
was a quantity of common on top of any cut? — A. Yes, I think I remember say-
ing something about that.

Q. I suggest to you that it was at 194: how much common did you allow
there? — A. I think it was 150 yards of common.

Q. If there is a foot of common over that cut how much should you have
allowed? — A. It is a pretty long cut. I should figure it for you. That cut is
just about 1,000 feet long.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. About what would the average width be? — A. It is rather difficult to
say; it is not one you can average very conveniently.

Q. Say that it will average 12 feet high; fifty feet wide on top? — A. "Well,
following out that, it would be two yards to a foot, approximately, or 2,000 yards.

By the Chairman'.

Q. If I am right in saying that there is a foot of common on there, your
classification is entirely wrong, is it not, at that place? — A. If you are right, I
am Avrong.

Q. You are entirely wrong, to a very great extent. "Would you look up and
tell me in your book what the total classification of that cut is? — A. 13,600
yards solid and 150 of common. You might make a note that my quantities do
not correspond with your quantities. There may have been a subsequent estimate.
1 have not a note of it here.

By Mr. Oiitclius:

Q. Both estimates agree in the 150 common? — A. "Well, then, there is a
subsequent estimate, and I am inclined to say that your figures are correct.

\
By the Chairman :

Q. Have you your resident engineer's book on that? — A. No.
Q. Did the resident engineer make that classification? — A. Yes, assisted
by myself.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 231

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Did he keep a record of it? — A. That I cannot tell you; he should have
kept a record.

Q. Is it not his duty to do so? — A. Yes.

Q. Did A'ou go personally over the classification with the resident engineer?
—A. Yes.

Q. Did you govern in the judgment? — A. Assisted by him.

Q. Did you govern? — A. Certainly I governed.

Q. He did not make an estimate himself and return it to you and yon
afterwards go and examine it? — A. I examined it before.

Q. Did he make a classification of anv of this division independently of you?
—A. Yes.

Q. Of this particular part, did he? — A. Yes.

Q. And did he put it in writing? — A. No. I have asked him in walking
over the line, "What is your classification for this material in a certain cut?"

Q. I want to know if the resident engineers made any independent classi-
fication in writing in their residencies? — A. ISTo.

Q. Did they keep any records themselves of classification? — A. Yes, they
kept records.

Q. Were those records dictated to you or made by themselves, without your
intervention? — A. Made by themselves.

Q. Then they did keep records and they did make them independently of
you? — A. Yes.

Q. Who is the resident engineer in this place? — A. There are three.

Q. Who are they? — A. G. Lemesurier, J. H. Laflamme and J. P. Menard.

Q. Where are these men now? — A. I do not know where Lemesurier is. or
where Laflamme is; I understand Laflamme lives in Quebec. He can be reached.
Menard is on the work.

0. Up here?— A. Yes.

Q. What becomes of these men's record when they leave the work? — A. Sup-
posed to turn in their records.

Q. Who has them? — A. They would be turned over to the man who takes
the Eesidencv. You see Laflamm.e would turn them over to his successor.

Q. Are there anv resident engineers on these works now? — A. Yes.

Q. And they are supposed to have them? — A. Yes.

Q. Will you ask the resident engineer on this section to send in the resident
engineer's record of this cut 194? — A.. Yes.

Bij Mr. Gutelius:

Q. Who was resident engineer at the time you made the classification on
this cut 19-1? — A. There were two men at different times. Le Mesurier was
first and then Laflamme.

Q. I understand you to say he would have his own independent record of
this cut? — A. Yes.

Q, Did you correct any of their classification ? — A. Yes.

Q. Did you raise their classification ? — A. In instances.

Q. Can you recall any important instances in which you did? — A. No.
Wherever I thought the classification was not sufficiently high, I instructed the
resident engineer to give them what I thought was proper.

Q. Take 190.9; how did you make up the solid rock there? — A. That is not
final, and I have not the notes of it in detail, such as I have of the other Residency.

Q. What can you give me in that? — A. All I can give you there is the
general classification, which is 61 per cent solid and 39 per cent of loose.

Q. I have got it very much different from that; I have it 14,300 yards of
solid, 2,400 of loose, and 791 of common? — A. Perhaps we are not on the same
cut.

232 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. This is cut 190.9? — A. It is the adjacent cut; instead of 190.09 it

is 191.1.

Q. What have you there?— A. I have 14110 of solid, 1330 of loose, and 791

of common.

Q. Can you tell me what the solid is there? My note is that this should
be all common and loose. It is cleared behind it, and I saw no solid in it at all?
— A. Well, I have not got any further detailed notes of that cut.

Q. You have nothing that you could enlighten me on in that? — A. No, I
have nothing.

Q, When you make up your final what do you do? Go over it again? — A.
No, it is taken from the field notes.

Q. Who has the field notes? — A. The resident engineer.

Q, Those field notes are what we want to see. Are those field notes made up
in consultation with you, or independently of you? — A. By my instructions,
and sometimes independently of me, if it is an important cut.

Q. Why does he not do it himself and then submit it for your revision? —
A. Well, it would entail too much work, possibly, if he had to revise it.

Q. Is there any use of his being there at all ? What use is the resident
engineer? — A. The resident engineer lays out the work and conducts it.

Q. He is no use in regard to the classification at all, is he? — A. Yes, he
consults me about his classification, and I ask him what the material has been
since my last visit, and we decide what is going to be the classification for the
work that has been done so far.

Q. As to overbreak; did you make any deductions for overbreak? — A. Yes.

Q. In many eases? — A. In all instances where the overbreak could have
been avoided.

Q. How did you judge as to whether it could be avoided? — A. Well, where
it was a slide or vein or bed.

Q. Did you see it done yourself? — A. No.

Q. Had you any more opportunity for judging it than anvbody else has? — A.
No.

Q. Then you had to exercise your best judgment, viewing the cut after-
wards ? — A. Yes.

Q. I understand from you that some of your fills are made with rock borrow;
that is right, is it?— A. One fill.

Q. That is the fill along Long Lake? — A. Yes, Long Lake Narrows.

Q. And for that the contractor was paid the price $1.65? — A. $1.85 a yard.

Q. For that borrow ?— A. Yes.

Q. On what authority was he paid that money? — A. An extra work order.

Q. Have you a copy of the extra work order? — A. No, there is a copy
attached to the progress estimate. It was made in duplicate, I believe, and
there is a copy in Ottawa and a copy in Quebec.

Q. By whom was that extra work order made? — A. Mr. Grant, I think.

Q. The engineer in chief? — A. Yes.

Q. But, at all events, wherever you made that allowance, it was made under
the authority of that order?— A. Yes. I am not quite certain, but I think the
number of the order was 196, if that would assist you in hunting it up.

By Mr. Outelius :

Q. Eefer to the profile, 201 to 203. In the interest of economy, could the
grade have been laid lower than it was built? — A. I do not like to criticize thi«
work, Mr. Gutelius. I did not do the location, I have not studied that question.

Q. Would lowering the grade of the profile have reduced the quantity of
material in those fills? — A. If it had been possible to reduce the grade, the

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 233

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

quantities in the fills would have been reduced and the quantities in the cuts
increased.

By the Chairman:

Q. The quantities in the cuts increased? — A. Yes.

By Mr. Guielius :

Q. And the relative amounts of filling are very much greater than the
relative amount of cut?— A. Yes, that is as it appears on the profile.

Q. It would be possible for our engineers at Ottawa to figure in dollars
what the difference would be from the profile and cross-section ?— A. Yes.

Q. You remember the cut in which the photograph was taken^ assembled
rock, 189.42; 4,000 yards of solid, 200 loose and 300 common?— A. Yes, I

Q. You remember the cut at 189.4, where a photograph was taken of some
assembled rock, in which your picture and those of the Commission appear?—
A. Yes.

Q. The boulders embedded in that clay-like material were about what you
would call one man stone? — A. Yes.

Q. Is that a fair sample of assembled rock under your classification? — A.
Yes.

Q. Those individual stones on that hill side could have been taken out with
a pick and bar? — A. Yes.

Q. Was all overbreak in the shale rock cuts on your division turned in as
solid rock, or all loose rock? — A. Would you like an instance?

Q. Better answer me generally, if you can. Could there have been any
ove^btreak in shale that came down that you would call solid rock? — A. Yes,
and there is some came down that I would classify as part loose. You mean
overbreak ?

Q. Yes? — A. From excessive use of powder?

Q. Yes; was there legitimate overbreak classified as solid rock, regardless of
its condition when it fell into the cut? Did you give him it all as solid rock? —
A. Yes.

Q. Where it was legitimate overbreak? — A. Yes.

Q. Eegardless of the condition in which you found it in the cut? — A. Yes.
Of course you could not tell what part of it came off there, because it left it and
dropped. It was not taken out in benches.

Q. After the shale was broken up by powder, was it not frequently easier
to handle than loose rock ? — A. Some of it came down like little laminations, that
you could shovel right into the cart? — A. Yes; some came down in masses,
which required other blasting.

Q. But there was a portion, after the blasting was over, that was small
enough to handle immediately with a shovel? — A. Yes.

Q. You did not take that into account; you gave them solid rock? — A.
Yes, gave them solid rock.

Q. Both for the centre cut and for legitimate overbreak? — A. Yes.

Q. That i% you gave soms legitimate solid rock overbreak which in the cut
was loose rock? — A. I do not quite understand that. Where the form of the
cut is solid, take legitimate overbreak, say on a seam or something of the kind,
coming into the cut on overbreak — that is overbreak, and it is paid for as solid
rock.

Q. And it loosened it up so that it could be taken out with a steam shovel,
and much of it with a hand shovel, still you gave the overbreak as solid rock? —
A. Yes.

234 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. The specification in the matter of overbreak reads A. I think it is

the classification of slides, is it not? I remember it.

Q. Clause 38 of the specification says, "The classification of material from
slides shall be made by the engineer, and will be in accordance with its condition
at the time of the slide, regardless of prior conditions?" Do you understand
that that means its condition after the shot has been fired? — A. Eegardless of
previous conditions, yes; previous conditions means previous to the shot being
fired.

Q. Then you have classified in legitimate overbreak solid rock which, under
this classification, ought to have been called loose rock? — A. Well, a percentage
of it. I can give you the percentage.

Q. You have given some percentages of loose rock? — A. Yes.

Q. In legitimate overbreak? — A. In legitimate overbreak. I can say
generally always 25 per cent.

By the Chairman :

Q. You said distinctly you classified it as solid rock? — A. I understood
Mr. Gutelius to ask me if solid rock had been given.

Q. Stuff that could be moved by shovel? — A, Solid rock that had come
down in a cut in a slide, and some parts of it could be handled with a shovel, and
he asked me if I had given solid rock classification.

Q. You should not have answered the question till you understood it. You
were asked distinctly whether or not you had given solid rock classification for
material which, after a shot, could be moved by shovelling, and you said yes.
What do you say now? — A. I still say yes. I would like to clear it up. Take
legitimate overbreak: take, for instance, a cut; it is not a seam, but it is a foot
or so wider than our diagram classifies; it is a little more than a quarter to one
slope, and where the man has broken that, and say a foot or two feet wider, I
Ihave given solid rock.

Q. Xo matter whether it was pulverized when it fell into the cut? — A. Xo
matter whether it is pulverized when it is in the cut, because I consider the cut
has been taken out as closely as it is possible to work. That would cover the
places where the solid rock has been given in overbreak.

By Mr. Gutelius :

Q. Then in those shale cuts where blasting reduced the material so that it
could be shovelled without picking, you did give legitimate overbreak as solid
rock? — A. I would like to give you one instance.

Q. Answer the question ?^A, I cannot answer it in a general way.

Q. Better try and- answer it? — A. I have allowed solid rock in over-
break where the overbreak has not been excessive and beyond the control of the
contractor, and in small quantities or in small cuts, some solid rock has been
allowed.

Q. Eegardless of its condition after the shots are fired? — A. Yes. Can
I go on, further?

Q. Anything you like? — A. In a number of instances where considerable
overbreak occurred, it has been returned at a percentage of loose rock. You under-
stand what I mean is that some solid and some loose has been given. It has been
classified. Is that clear to you?

By the Chairman:

Q. I think I understand you, that you have not allowed overbreak, excepting
legitimate overbreak, at all: is that right? — A. Yes.

Q. That you have described to us what you consider legitimate overbreak, I
am talking now of shale cuttings? — A. Yes.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 235

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. And that, although that overbreak has come do-wn into the cut after the
shot in such a condition that it may be moved by shovels, you have sometimes
allowed it as solid in small amounts? — Yes.

Q. And in others you have allowed it as loose rock? — A. Yes.

Q. Why did you allow it as loose rock if it could be shovelled like earth? —
A. I should say common practice.

Q. What you have done you have done, and we want you to tell us. Your
judgment may have been wrong and it may have been right. There is a man
above you always to see your classifications are properly supervised, just like you
are above the other men. I am not making any reflections upon you. I am
asking you just to ascertain what you did do. It is your judgment, it is your
classification, and if they do not like it they have a right to revise it, so that there
is no use in not being candid about tliis matter. You say in that case you allowed
it because you considered it is the custom to do so ? — A. Yes.

Q. Do you say that where you allowed that what I consider is a substantial
matter, where you allowed this earth on top of these cuts as solid, where you say
the roots were in it — do you say you were following custom in doing that? — A.
Yes. You might correct that. There is a certain part of that material in all those
cuts which is loose rock.

Q. What I am speaking of is the plain case, that any man can see, that I went
over myself? — A. Soft material overlying the hard rock?

Q. Yes, it is not only soft material, but a light sandy loam, and the fields are
actually ploughed alongside of it, and there is no common allowed there. I want
to know why that is done? — A. Well, I am following common practice.

Q. And if the fields could be ploughed that could be ploughed, could it not ? —
A. It certainly could. You refer still to that big cut?

Q. I refer to half a dozen that I found in that condition? — (No answer.)

By Mr. Gutelius :

Q. Is your classification entirely in accordance with your personal ideas as
an engineer based on these specifications? — A. My classification has been made
according to my best judgment and reading of the specification, and has, in some
instances, been revised and reduced by my superior officer.

Q. Was it ever increased by your superior officers? — A. Yes.

Q. Will you give us an instance? — A. Cut, mile 165.4, my classification
was increased in that cut.

Q. What was done? — A. My classification was increased.

Q. What did it consist of? — A. The overlying stufi: over the rock. There
was ledge in the cut ; it .was mixed with boulders ; pretty hard material.

Q. The solid rock was increased? — A. Yes.

Q. How much? — A. About ten per cent.

Q. Were there many instances of that ? — A. One or two. I think I can give
you another one here, a cut that you noticed particularly, at mile 167.5; that is
that big cut on the east side of the Boucanne Eiver: the overlying material was
classified by the inspection party; my classification was increased slightly.

Q. More loose rock? — A. More solid rock.

Q. This was a shale cut — shale rock? — A. Xo, that is pretty hard rock.

Q. The solid rock was increased? — A. Slightly.

Q. Can you give no idea of the number of yards ? — A. I can give you a better
idea of the percentage. It would make a difference of 1400 yards in the cut.

Q. Increase of 1400 yards possibly of solid? — A. Yes.

Q. You spoke of your superior officers coming along over the cuts. Did they
make a special trip on classification ? — A. l\o. My work was visited.

Q. Who were the people who revised your classification by examining the
ground? — A. I received my instructions direct from Mr. Doucet.

236 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. Who was with him on that trip ? — A. I am speaking generally of several
trips.

Q. Well, usually? — A. Mr. Huestis and the G.T.P. inspecting engineer,
Mr. Fotheringhara.

Q. Did the G.T.P. engineer object to this increased classification which you
have told us of? — A. No.

Q. He concurred? — A. Yes.

Q. If left to yourself, you would not have given that extra classification ? — A.
No, I would like to qualify that. I wanted some instructions on that material,
because I had difficulty in classifying it. I could not make up my mind just what
I should return it as.

Q. You were the engineer in charge of the location of the one per cent pusher
grade? — A. I ran a preliminary line.

Q. Not more than the preliminary? — A. No.

Q. Who ran the final location? — A. E. B. Bartlett.

Q. At mileage 168 to mileage 170; in the interest of economy, could the rail-
way have been built cheaper by laying further south along the hill; just say
generally ? — A. The fills may be reduced by removing the ling up hill.

Q. The amount of yards and money to be saved could be figured from the
data that they have in the office? — A. Yes.

Q. Contours and profiles? — A. Yes.

Q. Did you ever consider in the specification that the clause with respect to
ploughing was merely a test of the hardness of material? — A. No. I consider it
as a method to take out the material.

Q. If you had been instructed that this ploughing clause was a test only,
would it have influenced you in your classification? — A. No.

Q. It would not have influenced you? — A. I do not think so. I followed
the general practice.

Q. You would not adopt a specification whose wording varied from the
general practice? — A. Certainly I would adopt the specification where it varied
from the general practice.

Q. But in this case you paid no attention to the plough test? — A. No, I
considered it impossible to plough it — to take out the cuts by ploughing.

Q. But we read this to be a test of hardness of material, the same as driving
a pipe into material would be a test? — A. Yes.

Q. But you threw it aside? — A. Let me read the clause. (Witness reads
clause).

Q. If it was a test, you did not use it? — A. No, we did not.

Q. In the assembled rock it says *^hich, in the judgment of the engineer,
can best be removed by blasting." You paid no attention to the blasting feature in
connection with your assembled rock? — A. Will you explain what you mean?

Q. You allowed assembled rock where rock was found in masses, whether it
was taken out by blasting or not? — A. The method of the removal of the rock
did not influence my classification.

Q. Mr. Lumsdon in his instructions says "Wliich, in the judgment of the
Engineer, can best be removed by blasting"? — A. Yes.

Q. The blasting feature cut no figure with you? — A. Let me qualify that.
For instance, if there was a rock of twenty cubic yards, a boulder, I classified that
as solid rock. If the contractor desired to take a derrick and take it out, or roll
it into the embankment, or remove it in any way without using powder, it did not
influence me. I classified according to the material.

Q. But give us an instance in assembled rock where it was taken out with a
pick without blasting, and still allowed as assembled rock? — A. There is no
instance of that kind.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 237

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Then the case where the picture was taken is not a typical case of
assembled rock ? — A. Those rocks right on the side there would have to be loosened
and have been loosened by blasting.

By the Chairman:

Q. That sort of stuff?— A. Yes.

Q, I am astonished that you say it would have to be blasted. It is common
earth in between? — A. Well, it would have to be loosened; that is the cheapest
way.

By Mr. Gutelius :

Q. Could that stuff not be worked out of a face, one rock after another,
rolled do"^Ti in there and rolled on to the stone boat, and taken out without any
shooting ? There is always one loose rock in a face that you can get at ? — A. Yes.

Q. And then its neighbour loosens? — A. The stuff surrounding the rock
is so hard that a man would move very little of it in a day picking, if he could
pick: and imagine, before these things are lossened by powder, how tightly they
are packed together. Men cannot get hold of them : some of them we had to blast.

Q. Only some of them had to be blasted? — A. Yes.

Q. The great majority of assembled rock on your district could have been
removed without blasting: is that not so? — A. No.

Q. I say "could have been removed": the great majority of it could have
been picked round and pried out with bars? Be candid with us? — A. A per-
centage of it.

Q. I am not after you: I am after the facts. I will go one step further.
Could not every yard of assembled rock that you passed on your division have
been taken out by picks and bars and derricks, without a stick of powder ? — A. No.

Q. Could you not remove a mass of rock less than a cubic yard without
powder ? — A. Yes.

Q. Was not all assembled rock less than a cubic yard? — A. No.

Q. In the individual pieces? — A. No.

Q. Did you disregard your solid rock specification in rock larger than a
cubic yard? — A. In what way?

Q. By not classifying as solid rock boulders or pieces of rock larger than a
cubic yard? — Are they not all solid rock? — A. I do not quite catch the idea?

Q. You are not following me — apparently unwilling — ^A. Well, I am de-
siring to give you everything that I possibly can.

Q. Every boulder rock larger than a cubic yard is solid rock under the spe-
cification ? — A. Yes.

Q. Then it necessarily follows that it is not assembled rock? — A. WeU,
I am classifying it differently. I am calling it ledge and boulders. It does not
matter to me whether the boulder is as big as the car: if it is a boulder, it is a
boulder.

Q. Ledge and boulders are clearly distinct from assembled rock in your
classification? — A. The assembled rock is boulders, is it not, under a yard size.

Q. If it is over a yard it is solid rock? — A. Yes, if that is the way you
interpret the specification.

Q. I want your impression of it? — A. When I go into a cut, and there
is a mass of boulders there, independent of their size, I classify it as mixed ma-
terial, assembled rock, and if there were two or three boulders measuring a yard
or over a yard, I would pick them out and set them aside as solid rock, to be
counted in with ledge. I would take them all in with my mixed material as as-
sembled rock.

Q. If this term assembled rock had never been created, how would you
classify a mass of boulders and small stones such as you have described? — A.
Boulders.

238 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. You would measure those over a cubic yard? — A. Yes.

Q. And under a cubic yard? — A, I would follow the specification.

Q. And that would be ? — A. Loose roct.

By the Chairman :

Q. Then it comes down to this: that if you have classified that material
described by Mr. Gutelius to you as solid rock, it is because you were so directed
by numbers three and five; and if three and five had not been in the sheet
accompanying Mr. Lumsden's instructions, you would have classified it as loose
i-ock? — A. The proportion under three feet would be loose rock and the other
solid.

By Mr. Gutelius :
Q. Was that Boucanne crossing where the tangent was on the bridge? — A.

Yes.

Q. You are familiar with the bridge and approaches over the Boucanq^
Kiver?— A.Yes.

Q. If curvature had been allowed on that bridge, could a more economical
location have been secured? — ^A. I believe so.

c

By the Chairman:
Q, You do not want to go any further? — A. I do not want to make any
suggestions.

NATIONAL TEANSCONTINENTAL EAILWAY INVESTIGATING

COMMISSION.

Before George Lynch Staunton, K.C., Chairman, and F. P. Gutelius, C.E.,
Commissioner.

(Evidence taken on the train, on the line of the N.T.E., near AUen Siding, at
mile 41. July 13th, 1912.)

Peter Warren Wentworth Bell, sworn

By Mr. Gutelius :

Q. Give us a short resume of your education and experience? — A. I was
three years at the Eoyal Military College. Earlier than that, I was educated at
Port Hope, and I was about three years with the C.P.E. on various works, the
survey from Eenfrew to Parry Sound, and then on construction on the Lake Tem-
iskaming Colonization Eailway.

Q. As resident engineer? — A. No, I was just ordinary leveller. I was
leveller for the Kingston, Smiths Falls and Ottawa under Mr. Nash for a sum-
iiier — four or five months, I do not exactly remember — and I was a year with Mr.
Leonard on the St. La^\Tence and Adirondack as resident engineer, and went
out west, and eight or nine months on railway work with the Home Payne
outfit, private syndicate, of British Columbia, and I was engaged in placer work
for a couple of years as assistant engineer, with a man named Carey, who was
doing some work for an English syndicate. I went out to Africa with the troops,
and was engaged in working under Major Hodgins for a year and a half or two
vcars, I am not sure which, and then was employed as Superintendent of Con-
struction by the Eelief Works of the Orange Eiver Colony Government, going in

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 239

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

lailwav construction. I also worked with the Johannesburg municipality, and for
a contracting tirm called Wills & Lyles; came out here in 1906, and have been
with the X.T.E. ever since, as resident and divisional engineer; resident engineer
since December, 1908.

Q. What Eesidency have you? — A. I have division Number Two.

Q. With reference to the cut between stations 1260 and 12T0, mileage 162-1
— you know the cut ? — A. I know the cut.

Q. That cut was classified as having 90 per cent solid rock? — A. Yes.

Q. From its appearance, it would seem that this solid rock must have con-
sisted of many boulders less than a cubic yard : what have you to say about that —
A. Well, it would appear so, from the appearance of the cut now; but, as I
told you, our classification in that cut was raised, and was raised on the under-
standing that the solid rock occurred in masses. Masses of boulders were treated
as solid rock.

Q. But if those individual boulders less than a cubic yard had been taken
out individually, you would not have allowed as much solid rock as this estimate
shows? — ^A. No, possibly not. When this cut was first classified the resident
engineer and myself thought that sixty per cent solid and forty per cent loose
would be about right. In my judgment, I thought as we did it, that it seemed
fair enough, but then Mr. Poulin was a man of considerable experience, probably
far more experience than I had : also he was my superior, and, naturally, I was
willing to bow to his Judgment, especially, as I say, the Grand Trunk engineer,
I am practically positive, agreed with him to that classification, and I changed
the classification, under the direction of Mr. Poulin, from sixty to ninety per
cent solid.

By the Chairman :

Q. Had you any reason to change your own opinion from what you saw at
any time throughout the work in that cut? — A. Well, there was not a great deal
remaining: there was not much room for change in opinion: there was not at
any time, from that time on, a great mass of material to come out.

Q. Then you simply deferred to your superior's judgment? — A. Yes, pretty
well.

By Mr. Gutelius :

Q. . With reference to the cut at mile 26, was that cut classified in the same
manner as the one you have just described ? — A. Well, no, I should not say so. This
cut in question here was classified, as nearly as possible, the amount of boulders;
first we practically came to the conclusion that it was pretty nearly impossible to
keep track of the boulders, to accurately measure them as they were shot out. In
the coyoting and blasting there were some broken and some blown out, and it was
pretty hard, after that mass was lying in there, to measure up the boulders. The
boulders in a certain portion of it were measured, and two or three times I believe
this was done, and that proportion of rock was taken as going through the cut.

Q. Do you feel that that was the same classification as you would have made
had the cut been taken out by picks and bars, and each individual boulder being
measured? — A. Well, it is pretty hard to say that.

Q. Do you feel that that is about right? — A. My opinion is that that
cut is correctly classified. I do not think that there is too much rock in it.

Q. I refer to 29.1. The impression which I received in looking over that
cut is that the item of loose rock is high. It looks at present like a gravel bank.
What do you say as to the 5800 yards of loose rock? — A. Well, I say that the
M'hole of the west end of that cut consisted of masses of boulders, small boulders,
and, further that in many places those boulders were practically tied together with
what was almost cemented gravel. It was very hard to take out. Possibly many

240 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

of those boulders might measure a foot, but under the interpretations that we
have been accustomed to as regards that loose rock classification, I hold that I
■was perfectly justifiable in returning that as loose rock.

Q. But you think that a trench six feet deep on the high side of that cut
would expose the class of loose rock that you have described ? — A. Down the face
of the cut?

Q. Back from it, on the side? — A. Do you mean from the top of the face
down, and trench up the cut?

Q. Yes. — A. I would prefer to see it tested parallel with the cut.

Q. Answer it in a general way: six feet in? — A. I would prefer the test
to be more thorough than that. Do I understand you that that trench starts at
the top and going down the face of the cut?

Q. Yes, and six feet in. Should that expose this class of material? — A.
I should think that would show up considerable. I further think that a test
parallel to that existing cut would be a fairer test and would tend to show up the
material the cut is composed of better.

Q. It is proposed that you, with Mr. Aldred, make a test of that portion
of the cut, using both of these methods? — A. Those methods only — just con-
fining ourselves to those methods?

Q. I do not care. I want Mr. Aldred to say that he concurs, or that he
does not, as a result of actual working on the job? — A. Yes.

By the Chairman:

Q. I understood that you made the classification of stones which were smaller
than a foot because they were lying in masses. 1 want to see if I understand you
correctly? State it in your own way? — A. If I found, as I said to Mr. Gutelius,
the boulders were, many of them, 18 inches through, and some of them two feet,
and others smaller, from seven and eight to ten inches up, and they were lying
together, it was impracticable to do anything else with them, in my opinion, but
hand them in as loose rock.

Q. Did you do that in your own discretion, or iinder any instructions that
you got? Were you acting on your own judgment, or wore you endeavoring to
follow any instructions that had been given to you outside of the specification ? — A.
Well, I cannot remember any definite instructions. My idea about that was that it
was impossible to plough that material, it was loose rock.

By Mr. Gutelius:
Q. Under the specifications? — A. Yes.

By the Chairman:

Q. If you had a collection of stones which were, half of them, less than a foot,
and half of them more than a foot, would you classify all those as loose rock
because you could not plougli them ? — A. I think so.

Q. What do you make of the specification which says in 35, "All large stones
and boulders measuring more than a cubic foot and less than one cubic yard shall
be classified as loose rock " ? and then, second, '■■' All loose rock, whether in situ or
otherwise, which may be removed by hand, pick or bar": how do you read those
two statements in 35? — A. Well, 1 read it this way: I read it practically there as
it is written, it seems to me.

Q. Take each one by itself? — A. "All large stones measuring more than a
cubic foot and less than one cubic yard" — those are measured stones.

Q. Those are stones that are to be measured? — A. Yes — all loose rock,
whether in situ or otherwise.

Q. What do you call that? — A. I think I would be justified in calling that,
if that came in such shape that it could not be ploughed, I would be justified in
calling material of that description loose rock and classifying it as such.

INVESTIGATIXG COMMISSIOX 241

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Where does it say that it is to be ploughed at all? That is the trouble
I have? — A. Where does it say it is not to be ploughed?

Q. But where does it say it is to be ploughed? Do you read the statement
'"all large stones and boulders that cannot be ploughed" as one? Do you think
the man who drafted tliis meant that ? — A. If he did not he should have altered it.

Q. Do you think he did ? — A. Certainly, by the way he hasi written it.

Q. I understand you, first, that you consider that the plough test applies
to stones? — A. I think I am justified from this specification.

Q. I want to find out? — A. I think I am justified in saying yes.

Q. I want to find out how you were informed when you made your classifi-
cation. Then you think that your first enquiry would be to see whether these
stones and boulders could be ploughed? — A. Xo, not of necessity. For instance,
if they were scattered through there —

Q. Take stones and boulders: the plough test applies to stones and boul-
ders?— A. What is your question?

Q. I ask you if you consider that the plough test applies to stones and
boulders under your construction of section 35? — A, Well, no, but I cannot
imagine —

Q. Do not depart from it: let us stick to that. You do not consider it ap-
plies to stones and boulders? — A. Xot under all circumstances.

Q. Do you think it applies to stones and boulders under any circumstances? — '
A. I think so, yes.

Q. Tell me where it applies ? — A. There is bound to be a certain amount of
material connecting those stones and boulders.

Q. It is not the material we are talking about; it is the stones and boul-
ders?— ^A. I am explaining why I think that the plough test would apply to
stones and boulders, and under these conditions.

Q. I thought the stones and boulders had to be measured and not ploughed? —
A. If these stones and boulders are lying so thickly that it is practically impossible
to measure them, and yet they cannot be ploughed — I took that position, that that
was loose rock.

Q. Would you call a boulder loose rock? — A. Certainly.

Q. You would under the definition, but stones and boulders in a pile, with no
earth in them at all, because they are so thick — A. I have not seen any case like
that.

Q. Is it not the earth that is to be ploughed and not the stones and boulders?
Is it not the most elementary reading of that section that boulders are not to be
measured? — A. 'No, I do not see that.

Q. I take it that I am not stating unfairly that you think the plough test
does, in some circumstances, apply to stones and boulders ? — A. To stoney ground.

Q. I am not talking about stoney ground: I am speaking of stones and
boulders ? — A. I was trying to say I thought it applied to stoney ground.

Q. But you do not think it applies to stones and boulders? — A. I^aturally,
if the boulders were so scattered you could measure them, you would do so.

Q. Why can you not measure them? — A. There are too many of them.

Q. It would take you too long? — A. You could not do it.

Q. It would take you too long? — A. You would have to be stopping the
work : you could not go on with the work : there woiild be nothing done in that
cut.

Q. You mean it would take too long a time? — A. I do not mean it would
take up too much of my time, but it would take up too much of the cut's time.

Q. It would stop the work — A. Yes.

Q. Do you not think that there is a difference between loose rock and
stones and boulders? — A. Certainly.

Q. Spoken of in tliat sentence? — A. Well, it is prett}- hard to say what
the man who wrote that had in his head.

12.1—16

242 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAT

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. In your head, is it not clear he meant ? — A. I am pretty well

trying to go by that clause.

Q, How did you go by that clause? I will not ask you to constrae it, but
did you, in your work, make any distinction between the words "loose rock" in
that paragraph, and "stones and boulders ?" — A. No, I do not think I did.

Q. Then you did put in rock which was made up of stones smaller than a
foot as loose rock? — A. Yes, where they came in conjunction with larger stones,
so that the whole was impracticable to be moved if the plough test had been
applied.

Q. On your whole territory is there any cemented gravel? — A. No, not
that I know of, not what I would call real cemented gravel. The nearest approach
to it was patches of very very hard material in a cut.

Q. Is there any indurated clay? — A. No, not that I know of.

Q. No clay in this country at all? — A. There may be patches; certainly
no indurated clay on this work.

Q. All the material which we see in this right of way is either stone or sand,
is it not? — A. Yes; there is gravel.

Q. Stone, sand or gravel ? — A. I do not know of any clay.

By Mr. Gutelius :

Q. Eeferring to cut at 39.1, which we examined this morning said to
contain 77 yards of solid rock and 820 of loose rock; in examining this cut
with Messrs. Macfarlane and McGillivray, we all practically agreed that there
was some common excavation? — A. Yes.

Q. I would ask you, with Mr. Aldred, to go into that classification again
and, between you, give us a re-classificatidn ? — A. Yes.

(N.T.R. INVESTIGATING COMMISSION: EVIDENCE TAKEN 0N
TRAIN, JULY 13th, 1912.)

H. N. BucKE, sworn:

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. How old are you? — A. Thirty-three.

Q. Where were you educated ? — A. At London and Kingston, Royal Military
College at Kingston.

Q. What experience have you had in construction work, shortly? — A. I was
instrument man and resident engineer on the Cape Breton road for six and three
months; at Sydney on waterworks business for seven months, and I have had about
four years' experience on the Transcontinental.

Q. What position? — A. Construction.

Q. What positions did you fill on the Transcontinental ? — A. I was resident
engineer for a year and division engineer for three years.

Q. Prior to your becoming resident engineer, did you ever have a position
where you interpreted specifications for grading? — A. Yes.

Q. Wliat railway work? — A. On tbe Cape Breton road.

Q. What classifications did thoy use on the Cape Breton road? — A. Solid
rock, loose rock and common excavation.

Q. Was it quite similar to the one you have been working on here? — A.
Yes, it was.

Q. Just in a general way ? — A. Yes. the same on the waterworks.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 243

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

By the Chairman:

Q. What waterworks? — A, Pipe line and construction work.
By Mr. Guteliu^s:

Q. Where does your division begin? — A. At mile 40.

Q. Referring to the first cut at mile 40.1, in looking over that cut, it was
pointed out that^ there was some common excavation in the cut, although none has
appeared on the progress estimates. Do you remember the case ? — A. Yes.

Q. And in discussing it, you thought there was a portion of common excava-
tion there? — A. Yes, small pockets.

Q. And that vou would rectify the classification in that respect; is that right?
A. Yes.

Q. And similar cuts in that vicinity where the same character of material
exists you would treat in the same way? — A. Yes.

Q. On the banks or on top of the cutting at 47.1 a quantity of wasted
material was noticed, and you advised me that you were measuring that up, and
deducting it as waste from the solid rock? — A. Yes.

Q. In the cut at mile 52.5, the record shows that of the 22,600 yards of
solid rock that there was some 6,700 yards of overbreak; can you verify those
figures? — A. Yes, I have it here.

Q. First, take the overbreak at 51.4; the overbreak in that cut amounted to
how much? — A. 54 per cent. The inside quantities are 5918 and the inside 3189.

Q. Where was that material used? — A. It was used in fill 578 to 585.

Q. Was any of it taken west? — A. No, there was none taken west.

Q. So that none of that cut was wasted? — A. There was part of the west
end taken, that yellow on the profile, it was mostly all hauled east; there was a
pmaU portion of it hauled west. There are the two colors in the cut east and west
of that rock fill. It was practically all hauled east.

Q. Was therfe any waste in any of the cuttings mile 51 to mile 53, I mean
dumps along the track of wasted material? — A. Yes, there is a lot of excess
material there. The dumps are very wide. The dump at 578 to 585 is wide.'

By the Chairman :

Q, You mean the grade was very wide ? — A. Yes.
By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. Why was not that extra material used in the big fill at mile 52 ? — A. It
was a Tery long haul. The work was started from both places at once, and it was
a case of time getting Heathcote Lake filled. All that work was going on at once,
and they worked at both ends.

Q. And to gain time you wasted; have you any idea of the material? — A. It
was considered that that bank would go down considerably. I considered that the
bank at 578 to 585 was soft and the lake would go down considerably.

Q. But this did not happen? — A. No.

(^. fSo that you had an excess of material there? — A. We had an excess of
material there.

Q. That excess of material was wasted? — A. Was wasted, yes.

Q. And the same applied to the next three cuts? — A. No, the next three
cuts were taken into the fill.

Q. You got those into the fill? — A. Yes; it was also a case of time as well
as that bank I speak of. , i

Q. If the excavation for the cut at 588 had been delayed until the, other
four cuts were completed, you could have taken all of that material into the fill at
mileage 52? — A. Yes.

Q. That, however, would have delayed the work a couple of weeks? — A. It
would kave delayed it more than that : it would have delayed it five or six montha
— well, saj, four months.

244 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q, So that is the reason Avhy you Avasted that material instead of taking it
down into the fill which was made up largely of rock borrow? — A. Yes.

Q. To waste that material was an unusual thing on the part of the division
engineer. What authority did you have for doing it? — A. Authority from the
district engineer.

Q. The late Mr. Poul in?— A. Yes.

Q. In the matter of location on your division, did you have any discretion
in connection with location? — A. No, I arrived there after the work had been
opened up.

Q. Turn to mile 52 and 53 ; it is suggested that a momentum grade be placed
between these two points, whereby the cut at mile 53 would be reduced to practically
nil. Suppose a one per cent grade had been introduced there instead of six-tenth?,
beginning on the fill below, would a considerable saving have been effected? — A.
Yes, I think it would. I would have to figure it out. You mean by starting the
grade here? (Indicating.)

Q. Yes? — A. Yes, there would have been a saving effected.

Q. But vou were limited to the six-tenths, which was the approved profile?
—A. Yes.

Q. "Were momentum or velocity grades discussed at all, as far as you were
concerned? — A. They were discussed some five years ago, or six years ago, in
location. I wrote asking permission if I could use velocity grades, and it was dis-
cussed at Ottawa, and I got instructions not to use them.

By the Chairman :

Q. From whom? — A. Major Hodgins was district engineer at the time.
Q. Is this the district 'which his examination was about? — A. Yes. this
district.

By Mr. Gutelitis:

Q. You advised me in conversation to-day that where the ovcrbreak was less
{ban 25 per cent on the quantities inside slope stakes, that you pa.^sed it without
any special attention, on account of the fact that the district engineer's office and
the Grand Trunk Pacific engineer would be satisfied, so long as it did not exceed
25 per cent? — A, Yes.

Q. Was there any of this discussion in writing? — A. No.

Q. At mile 64.3 the cutting contains 10,600 yards of solid rock and about
1.200 yards of loose rock. Can you tell me how much overbreak there was in that
cutting?— The station is about 325?— A. Station 317 to 328.

Q. Yes? — A. 22 per cent overbreak.

Q. There was 22 per cent overbreak paid for in your progress estimate as
solid rock excavation? — A. Yes.

Q. Plus overhaul, if any? — A. Yes.

Q. I have a memorandum here, " It would seem that the overbreak should
have been paid for at its equivalent in train fill, on account of its having been used
in a fill where rock borrow was not necessary." Why did you not give them train
fill for it? — A. They cannot take a rock cut to stand at the sections, and T was
given to understand it was all right to allow a certain percentage, as T said, 25 per
rent in a rock cutting.

Q. If that ruling had never been given to you, and you had been working
on this specification, and your general knowledge as an engineer, would you have
made any change in that method of classification? — A, Ye.s, I think I would.

Q. What would you have done with that overbreak ? — A. I would have classi-
fied it as train fill, allowing ten and fifteen per cent, unless the specifications read
that there was no overbreak.

IXVESTIGATIXG COMMISSION 245

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. That is, you would have reduced what you allowed as legitimate overbreak
to ten or fifteen per cent, and called the balance avoidable overbreak and allowed
it as train fill at its equivalent yardage in train fill? — A. Yes.

Q. I was struck with the absence of loose rock in the matter of overbreak,
remembering that the material in overbrealc should be classified as it is found in
the cutting after the shot is fired. Why don't we see some overbreak as loose rock
in your estimates? — x\. This question of overbreak was taken up with the Grand
Trunk engineers and our own engineers, and decided on the way it was. It has
been a debated question ever since the work was started here.

Q. That is the reason for your not having classified any of it as loose rock?
— A. Yes, following the instructions.

Q. Aside from the instructions of these engineers, was there any material
in those cuttings which you classified as solid rock which was broken up small
enough to be loose rock? — A. Apart from that?

Q. Yes, apart from their discussion? — A. It was discussed generally; dif-
ferent cuts were gone over.

Q. If you had followed the specifications which require that material be
classified a5 it is found in the cut after the shot, would you not have found some
loose rock in the overbreak? — A. Certainly.

Q. Then, if you were hewing to the line, you would have been compelled to
give some loose rock in this overbreak? — A. Yes.

Q. And the only reason you did not do it was because of the discussions and
the instructions ? — A. Yes.

Q. Where does your division terminate? — A. At mile 78.

By the Chairman:

Q. At mile 42 . 95 it struck me that there was too much solid rock allowed there.
I asked you if you had measured it, and I think you told me that you had. Did you
mean you had measured it yourself? — A. It had been measured by the boulder
measurer.

Q. Explain what you mean by that? — A. There are boulder measurers put
on the work under each resident engineer, to measure this rock.

Q. And they made the measurement? — A. Yes.

Q. And returned it to you? — A. They returned it to the resident engineer,
but I checked it up and was responsible for such rock as had gone in as such.

Q. Right there, there are two ditches on the north side? — A. That is at
station 95?

Q. I do not know the station, but it is mileage 42.95. There are two excava-
tions which look like ditches ; one is a ditch and the other is a borrow ? — A. Yes.

Q. Why did you not use the waste from the ditch instead of making an extra
borrow there? — A. I did not consider that it was good practice to make muskeg
dumps.

Q. But both the ditch and the borrow are muskeg? — A. But the borrow
was put in later, just before the track was laid, to enable the track to get over it.
There was a small quantity put in over the stumps.

Q. Did you not use muskeg at all ? — A. There was muskeg used in one place
in the division, but it was before my time.

Q. Since you came you have excavated muskeg, and not used it? — A. Yes.

Q. At mileage 44.4 there is a ditch. What did you allow that ditch at?
There is a big stone in the middle of it? — A. That ditch is under construction
now.

Q. It has not been estimated yet; there was a big stone in the middle of it?
A. It is a ditch with a stone sticking up?

Q. Yes. — A. That ditch is under construction.

246 Ji'ATIONAL TRA?s^SCOIs'TINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE V^ 1914

Q. At 45.9 there is a lot of overbreak, and you say it was equalized in the
return ; what did you mean by that ? — A. I do not understand you.

Q. I made a note that you said to Mr. Devenish, " It is equalized in the
return". What did you do at 45.0 there? — A. These cuts are taken out and put
both ways in the muskeg, to make dumps.

Q. Explain that ? — A. There was 2,000 cubic yards taken from, tke over-
break and returned as ^3,000 yards of train fill.

By Mr. Gutelius :

Q. For the reason that the overbreak expands and is equal to that amount
of train fill? — A. Yes.

By the Chairman:

Q. At 46.1 mileage you returned this all as solid, and there is 47 per cent
overbreak? — A. It was considered to be all necessary in the fills; there was soft
muskeg fills on each side of the cut.

Q. I understand that, under those conditions, you should measure it as it
lies in the cut, after the shooting? — A. It was considered in this case that it was
the best material to make those fills, and looked at as rock borrow.

Q. Do you consider that it was necessary to use rock in that place ? — A. Yes,
I think that is the best material to make those fills with.

Q. It did not all go into that fill to the east, did it? — A. No.

Q. Did you not waste some of it? — A. No, it was all put in the bank.

Q. Should it be called solid where it was put? Should it not be measured
as it fell into the cut after the shot? — A. There were soft muskeg fills on each
side of it where this rock went in, and I consider rock would make a much bettei
fill than muskeg or anything else.

Q. Am I correct in my understanding that, following your instructions, that
overbreak used in any fill was measured as solid rock? — A. Not in all cases; there
are some cases where it has been deducted.

Q. No, I say, ''used in any fill"; is it measured as solid rock? — A. It is
measured as solid rock in a great many fills.

Q. Irrespective of wliether it was necessary to use rock in that fill ? — A. No.
The fill was always considered, Avhethcr it was necessary to fill it with rock, or
whether it would be filled with other material.

Q. If you used in a fill where it was not necessary to use rock, how did you
measure it? — A. It was measured as solid rock and in some cases train fill —
deducted and returned as train fill.

Q. It is shown on the return whether it was measured as train fill or mea-
sured as solid rock? — A. Yes.

Q. Do you say that in some cases where it was not necessary to use rock, you
measured it as solid rock ? — A. Yes.

Q. Now at 47.1, I understood you to say that where there was 32,700 solid
rock you treat it as a rock borrow pit because you had instructions before the rock
v;as taken out, that instructions received from the district office advised the con-
tractor that it would be so treated? — A. Yes, the district office.

Q. Have you ever had any experience on other railways where such a practice
was followed? — A. No, I have not had any experience, but I know it to be the
case.

Q. But it is only, is it not, the practice on other railways to allow such rock
as solid borrow where it is arranged with the contractor, before he takes the
material out? — A. I believe it to be the case.

Q. But you personally have not had any actual experience of that? — A. Not
oif this road, no.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 247

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. "Was there any other place in your division where that was done? — A.
Where there was rock borrow used, do yon mean?

Q. Yes ?— A. Yes.

Q. Rock borrow taken out of the cut? — A. Yes; the lake fill at 40.9, there
was rock borrow; there was a considerable quantity borrowed, besides what came
from the cut, and also at Heathcote Lake.

Q. At mileage 47 . 9 the overbreak is all returned as solid rock. "Was it used
where train fill would do? Station 403 to 408? — A. Eock borrow was the best
thing to fill it with.

Q. "Would not train fill have done? — A, Yes.

Q. Rock borrow is always best for fill ? — A. Yes.

Q. It is better than anything? — A. Yes.

Q. But it is not alwavs necessary to use rock borrow where it is expensive?
—A. No.

Q. Is there not a large amount of waste dumped on top of the bank there ? —
A. I do not remember.

Q. Is there a larere dump of rock near by there? — A. Yes, it is cut 8; it is
at 48.7.

Q. There is a large dump there; was there any deduction made for that? — A.
Yes. There is the 400 cubic yards.

Q. Did you allow him anything for that 400 yards? — A. No, that was
deducted.

Q. At 50.2 mileage; just before this cut there is a very wide fill. You
agreed with me that it was too wide. Did yoiT make any deduction for that waste
there? — A. No.

Q. "Why not? — A. It was used for lake fill in this place. It was thought
that it would go down some, and that the width of fill would receive the train fill
sind ballast. It did go down a little.

Q. Did it go down since? — A. No, it has not gone down; it went down a
little on construction, but it has not gone down since.

Q. 51.1 is all returned as solid ; this was put into the waste fill and is very
wide. Are you not over generous there in your allowances? — A. That cut was
hauled both ways.

Q. You have 3,100 hauled the other way; but is it not too much in there? —
A. Yes, it is a very wide bank; that is another case of where it was expected to
go down considerably, another lake fill.

By Mr. Gutelkis :

Q. "Was this extra wide filling at the points just mentioned made with your
knowledge and consent? — A, Not altogether, no.

Q. The contractors made the fill and you thought possibly it would settle and
let it go? — A. No, I did not. It was taken up with the inspecting engineer going
there, and he said it would be advisable to put in wide banks at these places.

Q. You liad them made wide under instructions from superior oSicers? — A.
Yes.

Q. Who were they? — A. Mr. Poulin was district engineer,

Q. And who was the inspecting engineer to whom you refer? — A. Mr.
Balkam, and the Grand Trunk engineers.

Q. Who Avere they? — A. Mr. Heman and Mr. Featherstonehaugh. Mr.
Heman was at one time and Mr. Featherstonehaugh replaced him.

Q. Y''ou are quite sure the Grand Trunk engineers and inspecting engineer
fisked you to make those ])anks as wide as that? — A. Yes, it was agreed upon to
do that.

248 KATIOKAL TRAXSCOyTIXEXTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

By the Chairman :

Q. At 52.50, 6,700 yards all returned; is this not very wide too? — A. Yes.

Q. More than appears to be necessary? — A, Yes. Tlie material was wasted
from this cut in order to get it out in time.

Q. Did you say instructions were given by the Grand Trunk engineers? — A.
They were not instructions from the Grand Trunk engineer; it was instructions
from the district engineer which were agreed upon by the Grand Trunk engineer :
they were all going over the line together.

Q. You did not receive instructions direct from him, although you know he
agreed with the district engineer? — A. Yes, I know he was agreeable. The waste
at this place you speak of is mostly clay. It is considered of no use to fill the
Heathcote Lake fill.

Q. At 65.9 there is about 43 per cent of this in as solid, is there not? — A.
There is 5,677 yards of solid and 458 yards of loose.

Q. It is all allowed as solid, is it not? — A. No, there is 458 yards of loose,

Q. But all the overbreak is allowed as solid, is it not? — A. Yes.

Q. "Why did you do that? — A. It was needed to make the fill.

Q. The fill need not necessarily be rock, need it ? — A. No, not necessarily.

Q. It was just for the same reasons that you gave before? — A. Yes.

Q. You have a place where you have, at 67.50, widened the cut for drainage
purposes ? — A. Yes.

Q. How wide did you make the cut ? — A. An extra two feet, if I remember,
were taken off for drainage.

Q. On both sides? — A. No, on the south side. I could tell you better with
the cross-sections.

Q. There is a ditch on both sides, though ? — A. Yes.

Q. You have put the track in the centre? — A. Yes.

Q. If you did not need to widen it on both sides, why did you widen it on
cither? — A. It is a very wet cut; from station 402 there was the drainage came
in, and it was widened to look after this drainage.

Q. Why did you not turn the drain and have it only on one side? — A.
Because the drainage came in in the middle of the cut at station 492, and it was
to enable us to carry this water, this outside drainage, off, that the ditch was put in.

Q. Why were there two ditches put in the cut? — A. It was necessary to
drain the cut.

Q. Could you not have crossed over and drained in? — A. It would not drain
the cut as well.

Q. You say it was coming in on both sides? — A. No, I say that on one side
the drainage was coming in at station 492. This was extra drainage, apart from
the cut drainage.

Q, You say in any event you would put the drainage on both sides? — A.
Yes, according to specifications.

Q. Then you widened it and made the ditch bigger? — A, Made a larger
ditch on the south side to look after outside drainage; it was a small brook coming
in. It was a long cut, and from the centre of the cut down it was widened for
drainage.

Q. You only widened it about two feet? — A. About two feet.

Q. How much is the overbreak there then? — A. The overbreak is not worked
out. There is 14,450 yards inside slope stakes, and 6,280 outside of slope stakes.

Q. Is there any unnecessarv' overbreak in that cut? — A. Very little.

Q. Did you deduct any? — A. , No. very little, if any.

Q. At mileage 72 you say you widened it for drainage; my note is there
is too much loose here, and there is a great amount wasted on the side dumps. Why
is it widened on both sides? In the first place, how much loose is there — A. 27,442
yards of solid and 11,280 of loose and 11,410 of common.

IXYESTIGAriXG COlIMISSIOy 249

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. I thought there Avas too much loose there and it should have been com-
mon. Did you cross-section that? — A. Yes, the resident engineer did.

Q. Were vou with him? — A. Xo, I was not with him when he cross-sectioned
it.

Q. How did you arrive at your figures? — A. By taking notes and classifica-
tion. I also checked the CToss-sections up afterwards.

Q. The resident engineer did it, and you checked up his cross-section? — A.
Yes.

Q. That is the ordinary practice? — A. Yes.

Q. But he did cross-section it? — A. Yes.

Q. There is a great amount wasted on side dumps? — A. There is a lot of
material wasted there.

Q. Did you make any deductions there? — A. Xo. There is both common,
loose and solid wasted there.

Q. Was there any train haul in that vicinity at all? — A. No.

Q. You had no use for it then, had you? — A. No.

Q. Did you widen it on both sides, or how much? — A. My remembrance is
that it is just widened on the south side.

Q. How much have you widened it? — A. AVe put a ditch in there three or
four feet at the bottom..

Q. And how much is the excavation there outside the stakes? — A. I could
not t^U you that.

Q. You have not a memorandum? — A. No, not here. I could get it for
you off the cjoss-sections.

Q. I have got down here — I may be wrong about it — within two miles I have
got train haul; is that too far away? — A. Yes.

Q. Too far to haul that stuff? — A. Yes.

Q. What would the charge be for train haul there? — A. Well, your material
from the cut would be a cent a yard per 100 feet over 500 feet.

Q. So that it would cost you about 80 cents to haul it down there; it would
cost you nearly a dollar? — A. It would cost $1.01.

*Q. But it would not cost you that if it was taken down there for train haul?
— A. It could not be used as train haul, because they could not work the shovel in
that cut.

Q. That material was wasted. In many cases you carried similar material
out by train and put it into fills, did you not? — A. No.

Q. You took out rock and put it into fill? — A. No, not by train.

Q. How was it taken out? — A. Horses, cars and stone boat.

Q. You did not put any of that on the train ? — A. No.

Q. It is carried out on the donkey cars? — A. Yes, and light rails.

Q. 76.6; what did you do there?— A. In the fill?

Q. No. there is a rock borrow: station 980 my note is that you said there
was 10,000 yards required. I queried that. I do not know whether I am correct
in that or not? — A. I do not remember saying it, but rock was required to fill the
lake fill east of that point.

Q. How much rock borrow did you take out there ? — A. About 10,000 yards ;
9,700, to be exact.

Q. There is a lot of that piled up on the hill on the south side wasted there
that is the place? — A. That is to be measured.

Q. You did not deduct that? — A. No, it was not deducted.

Q. Mileage 77 to 77.05; I have a note, great amount of waste rock piled up
both sides. Perhaps this is what Mr. Gutelius asked you to measure. I understood
from you that you were instructed to waste this, in order to save time? — A. Yes.
II was done to expedite the work, to save time.

Q. You were instructed to waste this? — A. Yes.

250 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE V^ 1914

Q. Otherwise, it could have been used in that fill at 78? — A. Yes, with
a long haul.

Q. It would not have been very long? — A. I am not sure how far they can
make a contract to haul material.

Q. Anybody can make that up from the profile ? — A. They could have firieS
it with a long haul.

Q, Whether or not it would have paid you are not prepared to sar at the
moment ? — A. No.

NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL INVESTIGATING COMMISSION.

George Lynch-Staunton, K.C, Chairman.
F. P. Gutelius, C.E,, Commissioner.

Parent, August 15th, 1912.
(Evidence taken on train.)

Alan Timbrell, sworn:

By the Chairman :

Q. What is your age? — A. I am thirty-five.

Q. You are a practising civil engineer? — A. Yes.

Q. Educated where? — A. At the Blundell School, in England.

Q. What is your position now? — A. I am division engineer on Division 11.

Q. You have been practising your profession for how many years? — A. Well,
I was surveying in the Old Country, and mining engineer.

Q. How long have you been practising your profession as a civil engineer, in
connection with railway work? — A. Since I have been on the Transcontinental.

Q. This is your first? — A. Yes.

Q. Then on the Transcontinental you acquired all your experience in classi-
fication ? — A. Yes.

Q. When were you first engaged on the N.T.E. ? — A. It was March or April,
1905, I am not quite sure.

Q. And in what capacity ? — A. Topographer.

Q. And you continued as topographer for how long? — A. Up to NoTember,
I think. That was the month Mr. Grant was made assistant engineer.

Q. You can say for several months? — A. Yes.

Q. Then you wore advanced, were you? — A. I was made draftsman.

Q. And from that? — A. I was instrument man with another partv.

Q. That was in location? — A. Location on survey.

Q. After that? — A. Then I was instrument man on Residency 26 for about
three months.

Q. In what district? — A. The same district, La Tuque.

Q. So that you have been continuously engaged, in one capacity or another,
upon the part of the line between Qncbec and Parent? — A. No, beyond Parent.

Q. Quebec and Lake Nipigon? — A. Ob, yes. tbat covers it, the north section
of the district.

Q. After you were instrument man, what did you become? — A. Kosident
engineer on 28.

Q, On Residency 28, in what district? — A. District B.

Q. Whose contract? — A. ITogan and Macdonell, I guess it was.

IXVESriGATIXG COMMISSIOX 281

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Contract number what? — A. 10, I think it is.

Q. With headquarters where? — A. At Ludgernoel. That is mile 142 or 141.

Q. How large was your residency ? — A. About nine miles ; it may have been
nine and a quarter, or something aroimd there.

Q. When were you on that residency ? Over what period ? — A. It was either
April or May, 1907, till abo"t. the same month in 1908,

Q. And after that? — A. Then I was moved up to Eesidency 31 in the same
district.

Q. And after that? — A. Then I was moved up to Eesidency 31 in the same
district; it is contract 11.

Q. Whose contract was that? — A. Grand Trunk Pacific,

Q. Did they do the work themselves? — A. Xo, no, Macdonell & O'Brien
were doing it.

Q. At what mileage was your headquarters? — A. 170.

Q. You continued there for how long? — A. I was there for a year — oh,
over a year: from May, 1908, till Christmas, 1909.

Q. You were there until when? — A. It was the Christmas of that rear,
1909, I think.

Q. After that what did you do? — A. I moved up to this residency, Resi-
dency 39.

Q, On what contract? — A. I think it is 12.

Q. Have you, then, been resident engineer on these three residencies during
all the time you have spoken of? — A. I have.

Q. And, as such, your duties were to do what ? — A. To see that the work was
done properly, classifying under the division engineer's orders — not his orders
exactly.

Q. His supervision? — A. Yes.

Q, Did you receive any copy of the contractor's contract for the particular
residency in which you were from time to time? — A. The general specifications,

Q, No, the contract? — A. That includes the contract.

Q. You did receive the book which included the contract and general specifica-
tions ? — A. Exactly.

Q. Did you make yourself familiar with them? — A. I did,

Q. Before you commenced your work on your Residency 28, did you read
the specification for classification? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. Of excavated material? — A, Yes.

Q. And did you consider that you imderstood it? — A. Yes. — well, it took
me some little time to understand it.

Q. Did you consider that you mastered it then to your own satisfaction? —
A. We had some trouble with the meaning of the terms when we first started —
the meaning of the terms in the specification for solid rock.

Q. In the first place, the specification for solid rock excavation is paragraph
No, 34, and is as follows : — " Solid rock excavation will include all rock fonnd in
ledges or masses or more than one cubic yard, which in the Judgment of the engi-
neer, may be best removed by blasting ". Had )'0u any difficulty in understanding
the meaning of that? — A. There was some slight difficulty in the matter of the
masses.

Q. You had difficulty in understanding what the meaning of " all rock found'
in masses or more than one cubic yard'' was? — A. Certainly,

Q. You mean certainly you had? — A, Yes.

Q. What was the difficulty you found there? — A. Well, when we first started
in —

Q. I am speaking of reading them? What did you find difficult about that?
— A. What " masses of rock " meant, whether it was a mass or rock as rock^
or whether it was that other material with that rock made a mass.

252 XATIONAL TRAXSCONTIXENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. What is there to make you conclude it means anything more than rock
in masses? — A. ]t says rock excavation.

Q. Were 3-ou told you ought to read in the caption to that, "solid rock
excavation '"' ? — A. Oh, no, we were not told that we should,

Q, Why should you read it ? — A. It seems plain in there ; it says " rock
excavation ".

Q. It docs not say anything about rock excavation? — A. On the heading it
calls it " solid rock excavation ''.

Q. That Avould not mislead you: that meant the excavation of solid rock, did
it not? — A. It might mean that, l)ut then it says —

Q. Take one thing at a time. I do not want to catch you, but I want you to
explain the meaning, and you say the heading gave you some trouble. Tiie heading
lias the three words, " Solid rock excavation ". To your mind, I should think, as
to any other person's mind, not reading any further, that meant the excavation
of solid rock? — A. Yes.

Q. And nothing more? — A. Nothing more.

Q. So that, so far, it was perfectly clear. — A. Yes.

Q. That would not confuse any engineer, I should think, would it? — i.\. No.

Q. Then we come to the words that you mentioned first, " All rock found in
masses '' — I am leaving out, for the moment, ledges — " All rock found in masses " ;
did you think that meant something else found in masses than rock? If you did,
say so? — A. I certainly did.

Q. You thought it meant what? — A. I thought it meant rocks — I do not
know how to explain it very well.

Q. Explain what impression it left on your mind? — A. Well, it mentions
Tock in ledges and it mentions rock in boulders.

Q. No, excuse me, it does not mention rock in boulders? — A. No; it is
pretty hard to explain what it meant.

Q. You had had no experience before in classification? — A. No.

Q. And you say that that expression left a confused impression on your mind?
A. Yes.

Q. And what did you think you should classify under it? — A. I primarily
thought that it meant just solid rock; 1 primarily thought that.

Q. Did any outside influence — I do not mean improper influence — or argu-
7nent lead you to think it meant anything else? — A. We discussed it "with the
division engineer, and, to the best of my recollection — I may be mistaken on that
— I think he said that it meant masses of rock. I do not know that it was cemented
together, but masses of rock. That is the best of my recollection. I would not be
sure of that.

Q. Who was that gentleman ? — A. That was Mr. Bourgois.

Q. Benjamin Bourgois? — A. Yes,

Q. He did not tell you it meant anything more than rock, so far as you
have informed me at present? — A. It meant masses of boulders; that is what he
instructed me, as far as I recollect; that is, more than one rock.

Q. Is that all the information he gave you? — A. It is so long ago that I
really could not recollect what he did say.

Q. That is the impression vou have, but you would not like to sav definitely? —
A. No.

Q. Then before you got any other instructions, or any other enlightenment,
as to the meaning of this phrase, did you commence to classify it? — A, Yes, I
believe so.

Q. Will you be kind enough to tell me how you commenced classifying under
the heading, " Solid rock excavation "? — A, Well, we measured all the —

Q. Say what you did? — A. Well, I did. I measured the ledge rock and the
big boulders — no, we did not measure the big boulders on that St. Maurice side
hill cutis — we could not do it.

IXVESTIGATIXG COMMIS;SIOX 253

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Tell me -what you did, aud I Avill ask the reasons afterwards? — A. We
measured the ledge rock, and we estimated, as far as we could, stone by stone,
the amount of boulders that were on those St. Maurice side hill cuts.

Q. When you say you estimated the boulders, I understand from that that
you counted the boulders? — A. As near as we could get them, roughly.

Q. And among those boulders did you count any boulders which, in your
judgment, should not pass for a cubic yard or more? — A. We took no boulders
that were, as far as I could judge, less than a cubic yard, or thereabouts.

Q. Less than about a cubic yard? — A. Yes, thereabouts.

Q. So that you professed to only iuc-ludc in those boulders such as you
thought would fairly come within the description of a boulder which measured
one cubic yard — fairly come within that? — A. Yes.

Q. Did you keep a record of those boulders? — A. I think there wa.-? a record
kept.

Q. But did you keep a record of them? — -A. I had a notebook.

Q. In which you A. In which I kept a note of different cuts.

Q. Was that kept fairly accurately? — A. Pretty avcII, 1 tliink, to the best
of my recollection.

Q. You professed to keep a record, at all events, did you? — A. To aid me
in getting out the quantities in the cut: I had to do it. .

Q. It was your duty to do it, was it not? — A. Yes.

Q. And you professed to perform your duty fairly carefully? — A. As well
as we could do it.

Q. As well as you could do it would be to put them, every one, down, but
fairly carefully would mean that you got them nearly all down? — A. Well, that
is it.

Q. Did you follow that practice in each of your three residencies from the
time you first entered on your duties on your first residency up to the present
time? — A. As to measuring of boulders?

Q. And keeping a record of the boulders we have been talking about? — A.
Yes, sir.

Q. Are those records accessible to you now?— A. I do not think they are;
J do not know where they are.

Q. Why are they not accessible ? — A. Because I left any records I had behind
on the different residencies, and where they are now I cannot say.

Q. They should be in the residencies? — A. They may be, I could not say.

Q. Did you give a true report of the number of those boulders or of the
quantity of those boulders? — A. You mean, did I exaggerate?

Q. Did you give a true report ? — A. Yes, certainly, as far as I could.

Q. What became of those reports? What did you do with them? — A. You
mean, to whom did I report?

Q. Yes? — A. Oh, they would ])c in the estimates, in the forms.

Q. You wrote them down on the form supplied to you? — A. Yes.

Q. And for«-arded those forms to whom? — A. To Quebec.

Q. To Mr. Doucet? — A. To the division engineer; I was resident engineer.

Q. Did you keep duplicates of your estimates? — A. Certainly.

Q. Have you them now? — A. No, sir.

Q. What lias become of them? — A. They are left along with the records of
the residencies.

Q. And, in all probability, they are there now? — A. As far as I know.
Q. So that there is in existence a record showing the boulder measurement
of the boulders of a cubic yard or more, unless your reports have been lost or
destroyed? — A. Unless they have been lost or destroyed.

Q. Will those records show, separately from all other material, the quantities
in the boulders we are speaking of? — A. I think they will, as far as Eesidencj
m and 39 are concerned; T would not say anything about 28.

254 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. You are uncertain as to 28? — A, I am.

Q. Why ? — A. Because it is so far back that I do not recollect.

Q. You cannot charge your memory with it? Is that it? — A. That is it.

Q. Then I take it you have classified as solid rock excavation all rock found
in ledges? — A. Yes.

Q. Then you have classified as solid rock excavation all boulders of a cubic
yard or more? — A. Yes.

Q. And, thirdly, you have classified some other rock material under th^^head
of masses of more than one cubic yard? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. Have you pursued the same course in your three residencies in the classi-
fication of the last-mentioned material? — A. Yes.

Q. I notice that in this district the words '* massed material " is used ? — A.
Yes.

Q. Did you always, in your classification, appropriate that term " massed
material " ? — A. I could not say when it first came in. As far as the last two
residencies are concerned — 31 and 39 — yes, but I do not remember when it first
came up.

Q. What did you classify under " massed material " ? — A. We classified all
assembled rock. That was, all rock in boulders, in masses, that could be best
removed by blasting.

Q. You exclude, do you not, from massed material, or do you exclude from
massed material, boulders of a yard or more? — A. We did not exclude boulders
of a yard or more that are in the mass; they are measured in the mass, but if
there are boulders in loose rock adjacent, we exclude that from the massed material.

Q. I have found out from you now that you kept a record of the boulders
of a yard or more, and I understand that to mean that you included in those, those
in the cross-section and above the cross-section? — A. Yes.

Q. Under massed material, though^ you placed the boulders which were of
a yard or more ? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. In a sub-heading? — A. I do not remember about the first one.

Q. Do you happen to have here one of your estimates ? — A. I have not.

Q. Under the heading of massed material you would first put the quantity
« of boulders of a yard or over ? — A. Yes.

Q. And if, in that same estimate, you wished to include other material, such
as fragments of rock and small boulders, which were in your judgment, cemented
together, you would also include those? — A. Yes.

By Mr. Gutelius :

Q. Have you not a record, such as we saw to-day, which actually divides uy
this cutting in this manner? — A. Yes.

Q. Can you produce one of those now? — A. I have one in my pocket. To
make myself clear, I produce my classification book, cross-section book 10 by 10,
District B., Division number 11, Residency number 4-1, in which the following
entry occurs: "' March L. 350, S.G. 70, B. 30, C. 70, total 520, which means ledge
rock 350, sub grade 70, boulders 30, classified assembled rock 70.

By the Chairman:

Q. What you have placed under C, assembled rock, 70, includes what? — A.
Includes small fragments of rock, and any cemented material that is not included
otherwise.

Q. It includes small fragments of rock in cemented material? — A. Yes.

Q. Does it include small boulders in cemented material? — A. Certainly.

Q. And is this characteristic of all the entries under solid rock excavation
throughout vour books? — A. We did not have them down on 28; we had tliera
on 31 and 39.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 255

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. That is a sample entry in the book? — A. Yes, that is the resident engi-
neer's book.

Q. In that 70 is included cemented material? — A, Yes.

Q. What do you call cemented material ? — A. Any material that is cemented
together, with more than 50 per cent of stone in it.

Q. What do you mean by cemented material? — A. Well, the stone is
cemented together.

Q. You, as an engineer, should know better than that; a stone is a stone, and
cemented material is something else? — A. You mean cementing material.

Q. Yes, that is better? — A. Well, it may be clay or lime, or any material
that is cemented, any matrix or sticky substance.

Q. Any matrix that will hold the rocks together? — A. Yes.

Q. You said just now that when you included this body of material made
up of fragments of rocks, small boulders and the matrix or cementing material,
that you only did so when there was at least 50 per cent of rock of either description
jn the mass; is that correct? — A. In most cases, yes.

Q. Then there were some cases in which you had a smaller percentage of rock
in the mass ? — A. Some special cases that were not really rock, and yet was removed
by blasting, and was similar to rock.

Q. It was not rock? — A. It was not exactly rock; you could not call it rock
from a geological point of view.

Q. Then do I understand you that you did include under solid rock excava-
tion a mass of material in which there was no rock? — A. No rock as you may call
a stone.

Q. Can you give me any idea of what per cent that would be over your whole
classification? — A. I cannot.

Q. Would it be large? — A. It would not be large. There were very few
cases over the whole thing.

Q. Can you recall one? — A. There is one down at — I cannot tell the
stations.

Q. State the locality? — A. Somewhere down near Windigo; there is one
on Residency 31. If I had the profile I could show you pretty well. (Profile shown
witness.) To the best of my recollection, that is a side hill cut, and it is right
there at station 1034, mileage 169.5.

Q. Any other places? — A. There were other places, but I do not remember
them.

Q. Then at mile 169.5 is the S.R.M. 6962, the material you are speaking of?
— A. Xot the whole of it; it is included in that.

Q. What else was in it? — A. There must have been boulders in it; I am
speaking from memory.

Q. You are speaking of a place where there were no stones in it? — A. Oh,
that is a big cut.

Q. There is the mass, and you told me that you put in as solid rock excava-
tion a mass without any rock in it? — A. Certainly.

Q. Now, what was it? — A. In that particular mass?

Q. Yes? — A. It is hard stuff to describe.

Q. It was a bluish material? — A. It is like a blue sandstone, to the best
of my recollection.

Q. Is it a sandstone or is it a clay? — A. No, I should not call it clay.
Q. Do you know what it is? — A. I do not; I know how it was classified.
Q. You told me how it was classified, but you do not know what it is? —
A. No.

Q. Did you include under the massed material any material in which there
were stones, but which were less than 50 per cent of the whole? — A, Not to the
best of my recollection.

Q. You did not intend to do so, if you did? — A. No.

256 :S'ATIOyAL TRAXSCOXTIXEXTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

By Mr. Gutelius :

Q, Are you sure that in this cutting you have just described some of these
cubic yards which you classed as assembled or massed material did not have stones
in them? — A. Some of them had stones in them, certainly, but not —

Q. You classified them because of the hardness of this clay, sand-like material,
rather than the stones? — A. Yes.

By the Chairman:

Q. What was the average percentage of rock, in your judgment, in the massed
material, over your whole experience as a classifier ? — A. I could not answer that ;
1 could not tell you that at all.

Q. What was the average experience in the last month that you have been
supervising classification, roughly? — A. I could not say.

Q, Would you say it was as much as between fifty and sixty per cent of rock
in the massed material? — A. Oh, no. You mean that half what they got out
was massed material? ISTo.

Q. Do you know what I am asking? — A. You are asking whether half of
the solid, rock returned was

Q. No. I asked you to direct your mind to your returns of massed material,
and I a^ked. you if you would say that the contents of stone in that massed material
amounted to as much as from 50 to 60 per cent ? — A. I should say not.

Mr. Gutelius:

Q. That is the massed stuff that you classified as massed material, solid rock
price ? — A. Yes.

Q. Was the quantity of stone in those masses as much as 50 per cent of
the mass? — A. Yes, there would be about that.

By the Chairman:

Q. I want you to tell me, keeping all the time now to solid rock excavation,
whether you had any written instructions during your tenure of the office of resi-
dent engineer in any of these residencies, as to hoAv you were to classify solid rock
excavation? — A. We had this blue print.

Q. This is dated January 10th, 1908, signed by Hugh D. Lunidden, chief
engineer; is that right? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you get a letter along with it? — A. I do not remember anything
about that. ] remember the blue print, I do not remember the letter.

Q. Surely you kept your instructions, did you not, when you were continu-
ously at this work? — A. 1 could not tell you.

Q. You got the blue print, and I suppose you kept it, did you not ? — A. Yee.

Q. You got a letter of instructions with it? — A. I do not know anything
about the letter of instruction at all ; I do not remember it.

Q. Did you get any verbal instructions from Mr. Doucet? — A. Yes, over
and over again.

Q. About the time you got the blue print, did you? — A. I do not know when
J got that document. I do not remember when it was.

Q. After you received this blue print did you change your method of classi-
fication?— A. No.

Q. So that the blue print had no influence upon you, or did not convey to
your mind any other information than that which you already had as to classifica-
tion?— A. No.

Q. You have described to me, then, the way you classified this material from
the beginning of your work up to date? — A. Yes.

Q. And if I asked you to-morrow to make me up a record showing the amount
of massed material which you have da^isified. if the records are get-at-able you
(ould do so? — A. Yes.

INYE8TIGATING COMMISSION 2R7

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. And if I asked you to make me up a record of the boidders you had classi-
fied, and the records are obtainable, you could do so? — A. Yes.

Q. Showing, under each of these heads, the quantities separate one from the
other? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you think that that record would show, under the massed material,
that the cementing material would amount to about 50 per cent of the massed
material ? — A. Yes.

Q. Under loose rock, you were told in the specification to classify all large
stones and boulders measuring more than one cubic foot and less than one Qubic
yard; that is correct, is it not? — A. Yes.

Q. And I understand from you that you did not classify such stones and
boulders, where they were found cemented together in masses of more than one
cubic yard A. Yes, sir.

Q. Then did you classify all such stones and boulders, where they were
cemented together in masses of less than one cubic yard as loose rock? — A. Yes.

Q. Then did you classify as loose rock all large stones and boulders which
actually measured more than a cubic foot, which you thought were too small to be
put in as one cubic yard? — A. I did,

Q. I want you to be very careful about this, TMiere you found such
stones and boulders as I have described to you in a sand cutting, that clearly were
in loose sand, did you really and truly classify those as loose rock in all cases? — ■
A. To the best of my recollection, I classified them as loose rock.

Q. You would not classify any such stones, would you, as solid rock in any
of these loose sand hills that we have been going through to-day? — A. Any such
stones, no.

Q. And if you did, it was an error? — A. Yes,

Q, And should be rectified ? — A, Yes,

Q, Because it was unintentional on your part? — A. Yes,

Q. Did you classify as loose rock what is described in 35, "All loose rock,
whether in situ or otherwise, that may be removed by hand, pick or bar "? — A, Yes,

Q, Will you describe the rock that came under that head, if you can ? I
take it that, for instance, if you came under that head, you would classify the
small fragments you found at the foot of a mountain, or at the foot of a rock
hill, which had, in the course of ages or ye^irs, been broken off and tumbled down
and gathered in a mass, or gathered in heaps at the foot of a hill? — A, Yes,
loose rocks,

Q, That is what you understand by that? — A, Yes.

Q. Then you would put those piles of rock, if there were any, under loose
rock? — A. Under loose rock,

Q. Now, then, did you find any cemented gravel? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. Where is that? — A, I cannot recall just now. It is in lots of different
cuts along the line. I do not know of any cut that is absolutely all cemented
gravel. It occurs in chunks and pieces and seams in cuts,

Q. But there were quantities of it? — A, Yes,

Q. And you did classify that cemented gravel as loose rock? — A, Yes,

Q. Or intended to do so? — A, Yes,

Q. Did you find any indurated clay? — A. I think there must have been
eome, but I do not recall any to mind just now.

Q. Do you know- what indurated clay is? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. What is it? — A. It is very hard clay.

Q. It is what it says it is, hard clay? — A. Yes.

Q. Did you havp any other materials that you classified as loose rock? — A.
Yes. We had a sort of iron stone, such as we saw this afternoon.

Q. Do not tell us what we saw? — A, I cannot describe it otherwise very
well.

Q, It is a brownish hard material?— A, Yes, impregnated with iron.

123.— 17

258 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

By Mr. Gutelius :
Q. Sand impregnated with iron? — A. Yes.

By the Chairman:

Q. You classiiy that as loose rock? — A. Yes.

Q. Is that the only other material that you recall? — A. No.

Q. There was no other? — A. No, 1 do not think so.

Q. When you were classifying cemented gravel and indurated clay and other
materials as loose rock, vou did so, 1 imagine, on account of their hardness? — A.
Yes.

Q. And how hard had they to be before you put them under that heading?
— A. Well, they would require picking. They would not be free shovelling; that
is, a man could not go in with a shovel and shovel it out, or knock it out with a
shovel. He would have to take a pick or a bar.

Q. Would you put under loose rock material which a man would pick out,
although, perhaps, one pick man would keep half a dozen shovellers going? — A.
Oh, no.

Q. Did you think about the plough test at all? — A. There were very few
places you could put a plough.

Q. Did you think about it? — A. Yes, always.

Q. You are swearing to it; did you make up your mind, or did you not,
that if there were, for instance, half an acre of that material, it could not be
ploughed ? — A. Yes.

Q. Or did you say to yourself, " Well, I will put that in as loose rock^ because,
by reason of the boulders scattered among it, a man cannot go in with a team and
plough it, although I know he could plough it if the boulders were out " ? — A.
That would certainly influence it.

Q. Then you were not guided by the hardness in all cases? — A. Whether it
would be practicable to plough it.

Q. Whether the material itself could be practically ploughed, or whether

A. The material itself.

Q. We will imagine a case. You have before you half a mile of right-of-
way, and we will imagine that you could go along, like they do with a magnet
in iron, and take out all the boulders, just lift them right out and leave the
material unbroken and unshaken by that process? — A. Yes.

Q. And if, the boulders being lifted out, and the material being left
unchanged by the process, you were certain a man with six horses could plough
that material, would you put that in as common excavation, or as loose rock? —
A. The material that was left, after the boulders were lifted out?

Q. Yes, and, mind you, the material is unshaken and unmoved by taking
out the boulders, and it is just as hard as it was before, if you could plough it,
would you put it in as loose rock? — A. No, I do not think so.

Q. What should it go in as? — A. It should go in as common excavation,
because you could plough it. 'v

Q. And certainly, if you are giving a correct answer to that, if you had such
material that, by occasional blasting, you could shake it up, so that it could be
ploughed, you would have classified it as common excavation? — A. Though you
occasionally blast it?

Q. Yes?— A. No.

Q. Docs it not mean that you shall classify as loose rock all cemented gravel
which cannot be ploughed without continuous blasting, but you shall not classify
as loose rock cemented gravel which requires, in odd places, to be blasted before
the whole mass can be ploughed ? Do you agree with that ? — A. Yes.

Q. Your attention has been drawn to a case where that actually happened
just now? — A. Yes.

IXVESTIGATIXG COMMISSIOX 259

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. And of course that applies to indurated clay and to any otlier material? —
A. That can be ploughed, yes.

Q. All other material than those I have been discussing with you is put in
a3 common? — A. Yes.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. Did you ever see a railroad contract and specification before you saw
that one? — A. No sir.

Q. How did you get your first information as to how to classify? — A. I
think I got it from Mr. Bourgois, but I really cannot remember,

Q. Was there anyone else in the party? — A. Mr. Grant came up when I
was there two or three times, and I asked him and he showed me. Mr. Grant
was then assistant district engineer.

Q. He taught you? — A. Yes.

Q. Did you have any experienced man in your own party on the Eesidency?
—A. No.

Q. You knew more about it than anyone else in the Residency? — A. Yes,
I suppose so.

Q. How did you get your job here in the first place? — A, I went to
Ottawa and was introduced to Mr. Lumsden, and he sent me down — sent a
letter to Mr. Doucet.

Q. When you were resident engineer were any of your classification reports
or estimates corrected by the division engineer and sent back to you? — A. Not
after they had been final ; that is after I had written them out fair.

Q. Did he go over them with you? — A. Sometimes, yes.

Q. Don't you feel that every classification you ever made as a resident
engineer was concurred in by your division engineer? — A. Yes, certainly.

Q. And you depended on him? — A. Yes, certainly.

Q. On account of your lack of experience? — A. Yes.

Q. To see they were right? — A. Yes.

Q. And you depended on him and the other engineers who came to see
you to set you right? — A. Yes, quite so.

(NATIONAL TEANSCONTINENTAL INVESTIGATING COMMISSION,

EVIDENCE TAKEN IN TRANSCONTINENTAL OFFICES,

QUEBEC, AUGUST 17th, 1912.)

Arthur Dick, sworn.

By the Chairman:

Q. What is your position? — A. Division engineer.

Q. You have been division engineer for how long? — A. Since 1st July,
1909.

Q. Your division is from mileage 12 to mileage 102? — A. Yes.

Q. What division? — A. Quebec Bridge easterly.

Q. Who are the Residents under you at present? — A. The Residents are
A. 0. Bourbonnais, from mileage 12 to mileage 47, R. Martin, from mileage 47
to 68, A. A. Paradis from mileage 68 to 102. These are the resident engineers
who are on the work now.

Q. You were formerly Resident west of the river, were you not? — A. Yes.

260 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. For how far? — A. I cannot be sure of the exact mileage, mileage 52
to 163, I think, Eesidency 30.

Q. Were you Resident there? — A. Yes.

Q. And then you were promoted from that to your present position? —
A. Yes.

Q. You accompanied the Commission on their inspection over your own
district lately? — A. Yes.

Q. And also on the inspection west of the river ? — A. Yes.

Q. As far as the end of steel? — A. Yes.

Q. In the classification of the material east of the river, how long had you
been taking part in the classification of the material from the Quebec bridge to
the end of your present division? How long have you been supervising the
classification? — A. From July, 1909, till it was finished — not from mile 12 to
102; I first of all got division 2a, from mileage 68 to 102.

Q. From mileage 68 to 102 east of the Quebec bridge you supervised the
classification for how long? — A. About three months.

Q. Commencing when? — A. July, 1909.

Q. And ending October? — A. In the fall; the grading was done then.

Q. You stopped because the grading was all finished? — A. Yes; there was
some grading of one or two little cuts.

Q. You supervised the grading on the rest of your division for how long?
— A. There was no grading to do, as far as I remember.

Q. After you became divisional engineer there was only three months'
grading done on the whole division, practically speaking? — A. Yes.

Q. Who supervised that classification on your district before you went
there? — A. On division 2a, it was Mr. Garnet; on division 3 it was Mr. Charlton,
then Mr. Hurtubise; then I am not sure whether there was any more done during
D'Abbadie's time or not. Then on division 4 I think it was all done by Mr.
D'Abbadie.

Q. You cannot tell us very much about the classifying of the material on
what is now your district? — A. No, sir.

Q. But the small amount that you did classify you can tell us about? —
A. Yes.

Q. Who were the resident engineers on the part that you supervised the
classification east of the bridge? — A. It was G. H. Parker on Residency 10,
A. A. Paradis on Residency 9, and E. H. Lipue on Residency 8.

Q. What did you think of the ability of these Residents to classify? — A.
Well, the classification I saw done, I thought they did it all right, according to
our instructions.

Q. Then you thought they were competent? — A. Yes.

Q. Were they given any more instructions than a copy of the specification
to go by? — A. They had Mr. Lumsden's blue print.

Q. Each one of these men had Mr. Lumsden's blue print? — A. As far as
I know.

Q. You believe? — A. Yes.

Q. Had they anything else besides that? — A. They had the guidance of
th^

Q. I mean in writing. You think they had the blue print? — A. Yes.

Q. Tell me, if you can, shortly, your practice in clai'sifi cation ; what did
you do? You had to classify the common excavation? — A. Yes.

Q. The loose rock and solid rock excavation? — A. Yes.

Q. Tell me how you handled the whole proposition? — A. Well, I classified
solid Tock in ledges or masses by measurement. You can arrive at the classifica-
tion by measurement if it is in ledges or masses as a rule; sometimes you cannot,
if the masses are isolated in the face of the cut.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 261

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. What did you do about boulders? — A. I estimated them on a percentage
in any work.

Q. You did not measure them? — A. I tried measuring and I gave it up.

Q. You did not do it anyway? — A. No.

Q. And how did you treat loose rock? — A. Anything not classified —

Q. How did you get at the quantities? — A. If it were not defined, I
estimated it on a percentage basis too.

Q. Do you mean to say if it were defined — ? A. Defined means so that
you could see it on the profile; I estimated it on a percentage basis.

Q. And how did you get at the common? — A. All material not classified
as solid.

Q. How did you get at the quantities ? — A. If it were in pockets, I would
measure the pockets, and estimate the size of it as near as possible. It is only
approximate, measuring the pocket, and a well defined line, I would measure it
up, the same as I would measure up any other work.

Q. Do I understand that in all cases you did measure ledge rock? — A.
Where ledge rock was defined, yes.

Q. It is always defined, is it not? — A. It might be detached.

Q. Ledge rock not detacbed you measured in all cases? — A. Yes.

Q. What do you call masses; what do you mean by masses? — A. Well,
boulders cemented together, or ledge rock in masses — masses measuring over one
cubic yard of boulders cemented together, conglomerate.

Q. Have you ever seen a face of ledge rock which, on the top, was shattered,
not by dynamite, but by some force of nature, for, we will say, just for example,
two or three or four or five feet from the top, but remained in its original
position ? — A. Yes. >

Q. You have seen that? — A. Yes.

Q. And then, from that down, 'it was in an unshattered ledge; that is a
common appearance, is it not? — A. I do not know if it is common; I think I
have seen it.

Q. That is a common appearance, is it not, in limestone ranges? — A, That
is common in limestone. I thought you were asking if I had seen it on the work.

Q, I mean generally? — A. Oh, yes.

Q. That is a common appearance in limestone ranges. — A. Yes.

Q. If you were going to build a railroad through a country of that kind,
and you had present in your mind that there were boulders in that country, and
you had also present in your mind that there was ledge rock in that, country, and
that there was shattered ledge, as I have spoken to you of, in that country, or
broken ledge, would that not be a very apt way to describe it, as rock in ledges
and rock in masses and boulders? — A. Yes.

Q. It would be an absolutely correct way to describe it, would it not? —
A. Yes.

Q. Is that specification not to you susceptible of the interpretation that it
does not include anything but rock when you look at it? — ^A. The specification,
yes.

Q. Clause 34 "Solid rock excavation will include all rock found in ledges or
masses of more than one cubic yard whicli, in the judgment of the engineer, may
be best removed by blasting^': Is not the specification exhausted literally when
you have included in it boulders and solid ledges and the broken and the cracked
ledges ? — A. Yes.

Q. Can you conceive of anything else being included in it, if you confine it
to rock? — A. No.

Q. But you did include something else in it, did you not? — A. Yes.

262 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. In your personal opinion, ought there to be anything else included in it?
— A. Well, I have just classified according to my instructions. We got in-
structions supplementary to the specifications, giving the chief engineer's ruling,
and we were guided by those instructions.

Q. That seems to have been the impression that was got by the whole staff,
that the proper interpretation of that clause was that it should include something
besides rock? — That seems to be the impression wliich the whole engineering staff
had, is it not, that something else besides rock might enter into the solid rock
excavation? — A. I think so, yes,

Q. Were you ever told that you should not classify in that way — that you
should not classify material which, was not rock as solid rock excavation? — A.
No.

Q, You were not undertaking to put an interpretation in the specification
at all, were you? You were simply following your instructions? — A. Yes.

Q. And your immediate superior, when you were resident, was whom? —
A. Mr. Darey. When I took over that work, I think probably a month or
thereabouts after I got there, this blue print was first brought out, Mr. Lumsden's
interpretation of 34, 35 and 36.

Q. Were you ever in the work when Mr. Lumsden was there? — A. No.

Q. Never saw him on the work at all? — A. No.

Q. Were you ever present when Mr. Schreiber was there? — A. No, sir.

Q. Describe to me, will you, what you classified, or what you know was class-
ified, as solid rock excavation under the heading of masses? — A. Assembled
rock containing 50 per cent or over of boulders, with the cementing matrix in
between.

Q. When you say assembled rock, you mean rock of what size? — A, It
might be of any size, provided the mass contains more than 50 per cent of rock.

Q. It might be as big as a pea? — A. No, no, assembled rock.

Q. Yes? — A. Beg pardon, rock measuring over a cubic yard cemented
together.

Q. I think yon had better take another run at that? — A. No, sir, boulders
over a cubic foot, when the mass contains 50 per cent or over of rock.

Q. Do you use the word "over" advisedly? — A. Fifty or over.

Q. In your experience would you say that over the whole classification the
average of rock was more than 55 per cent? — A. Yes.

Q. Where can you refer to me that it was? — A. To the profile, mile 160.

Q. It will be sufficient if you tell me that you have in mind one, about
where? — A. About mile 160.

Q. 160 west of the Quebec Bridge?— A. Yes, about 160.

Q. Have you any other in mind? — A. It is hard to say at present. You
see it is four years since I left that work. Here is a place at 16114> at the west
end of the cut: 161.5.

Q. What was the east end? — A. Sand, and this was loose rock, with a
percentage of boulders.

Q. You say that one would be over 50 per cent? — A. Yes, at that point in
that cut.

Q. Take the whole of the assembled rock throughout that cut: what would
3'ou say the percentage of rock in the assembled rock amounted to? — A. I
should say about 60 and 70 per cent of the assembled rock was rock.

Q. Have you any other cut in mind where you think it was over 50 or 56
per cent? — A. No, I cannot say that I have. 1 cannot remember it, anyway.

Q. Will you describe to me the cementing material that you have been
speaking of as being in the assembled rock? — A. It might be that hard blue clay
which had been turned in as solid rock, or — I do not know what the proper name
for the clay is, but it is a yellow clay you often find in conglomerate, cement in the
clay.

I2fTESTIGATING COMMISSION 263

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Where was there any of the yellow clay? Can you tell me one of the
cuts? Can you refer me to where I have seen any of it? — A. No, I do not
know that I can.

Q. But generally speaking, what was the cementing material? — A. That
blue material.

Q. It was always clay, was it? — A. Well, it was of a clayey nature.

Q. It was either clay or sand: it could not be anything else, as far as I can
see? — A.- It could not be sand; sand would not cement; I would say clay.

Q. Clay alone? — A. Yes.

Q. You accompanied the commission during this week over the portion of
the railway that has the steel on it from mile 7 to mile 290 ? — A. Yes.

Q. And part of that was under construction ? — A. Yes.

Q. Part of it was completed? — A. Yes.

Q. I suggest to you that, for nearly the whole of the distance, the material
which is not rock was nearly all sand, or sand and clay mixed; what do you say
as to that? — A. Well, judging from what I saw of it, there is quite a lot of
material there, rock in masses.

Q. I am saying that the material other than rock of every description was
sand, or sand and clay? — A. Well, I cannot sav. I did not go out to examine
it.

Q. From what you saw, I mean ; you saw it from the train and got out where
you got out ? — A. Not very often ; I did not get out any of tener than I had to.

Q. You were not well, but from what you saw, what would you say? —
A. Judging from the slopes, I saw quite a lot of sand in the slopes.

Q. You were not well enough to get out, and did not get out and examine it
on many occasions? — A. 'No.

Q. Would you not like to give a general opinion on it? — A. No, I did not
go out and examine the pits or anything.

Q. In your opinion, I draw from what you said, that sand and clay mixed
would not make cementing material? — A. Oh, it might; I would not say it
would not.

Q. Have you ever seen it where it did? — A. Yes.

Q. Where? — A. In two cuts, one at mile 155 and one at mile about 157,
Quebec Bridge west.

Q. What do you mean by cementing material? Do you mean material
which will fasten the pieces firmly together? — A. Yes.

Q. That if you take up, for example, a piece of rock which weighed ten
pounds, attached by this cementing material to a piece which weighed five, that
the two of them would adliere together? — A. Yes.

Q. Did you see anything this week that would do that. — A. Well, you
would have to have sufficient pressure to make them cemented material.

Q. But if you take two pieces of rock and put them together with cement,
the cement will hold them together? — A. Yes.

Q. And you have to break them apart? — A. Yes.

Q. If you take two pieces of rock put together under any pressure, you may
pull them apart without breaking the clay at all, may you not? — A. Yes.

Q. They are simply held there in the same way as if you drive a knife into
a piece of board, by pressure? — A. Yes. What 1 mean is this, that if you take
a piece of cementing material out of a cut, say of t\vo feet length, that mass would
always be cemented together; you could hold it by the end.

Q. You could not lay bricks in it and make the wall stay up? — A. I do
not know.

Q. You would hate like poison to pay some person for doing it, would you
not? — A. I do not think so.

264 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. Is there any of that material that would take the place of mortar and
cement in a building? — A. Xo, if it were exposed to running water it would
break away.

Q. If it were exposed to air, it would crumble away? — A. I suppose it
would.

Q. If it became dry it would crumble away? — A. No, I do not think so.

Q. Did you see a cut dug out last night? — A. No, sir.

Q. All that material, I suggest to you so far as you have seen, when it was
exposed to the air, became dry and became disintegrated. Did you ever see
cementing material used in buildings that did that? — A. I have seen mortar ex-
posed to the water and frost.

Q. Too much sand in it and not enough mortar, was that not the reason?
— A. I saw one instance in my own house.

Q. You would not have paid for it, if you had known it was there? — A. I
would not like to have paid for it.

Q. It was not mortar? — A. It was not good mortar.

Q. It was not mortar as commonly understood; there was not sufficient lime
in it to make it cement the bricks or stone together ? — A. No.

Q. You did not examine these cuts sufficiently to form your opinion as an
engineer as to whether or not they were very highly classified, did you ? — A. No.

Q. By reason of your not being well? — A. Yes.

Q, Where you made the estimates, or revised the estimates, did you return
the boulders of a yard or over separately? — A. In the monthly estimates?

Q. Yes. — A. In the sum total of all the boidders turned in that month, it
was put in as a lump sum.

Q. When I say separately, I mean separated from the other solid rock? —
A. From ledge rock?

Q. Yes. — A. Yes, sir.

Q. And from assembled rock? — A. I would not be sure about that.

Q. In your returns ledge was one division of solid rock? — A. Yes.

Q. And boulders under a yard and over a foot cemented together, which, in
the mass, made up more than a yard, was another heading, was it not? — A. Yes,
assembled rock.

By Mr. Gutelius'.

Q. Did the character of the material between the rock fragments have any-
thing to do with your classification? — A. Yes,

Q, How would you classify a volume of boulders and rock fragments generally
over a foot in size, which had its interstitial spaces filled with free sand? — A.
Loose rock. Excuse me, I was referring only to the boulders and rock. I classified
that on a percentage basis. I misunderstood your question. I was answering for the
boulders over a cubic foot and under a cubic yard ; that would be loose rock, and
I would classify it on a percentage basis, and estimate on the face of the cut what
percentage of the boulders were loose rock, and wliat percentage of tlie sand made
up the common.

Q. If there were no stones in a cut of that character larger than a cubic
yard, how would you classify? — A. If there were no stones in the cut larger than
a cubic yard — that is, not as large as a cubic yard?

Q. Yes? — A. I would classify it in the same way, percentage.

Q. There would be no assembled rock in a cutting, unless it was cemented
together? — A. No.

Q. If the material was loose rock sizes ? — A. In the same cut, sand and
loose rock?

Q. Yes? — A. On a percentage basi.>, I wouUl return tlie boulders of loose
rock size as loose rock, and the remainder as common excavation.

INYESTIOATING COMMISSION 265

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. If this same mass of loose rocks should have its interstitial spaces filled
with hardpan, how would you classify it? — A. Solid rock.

Q. If the interstitial spaces should be filled with a material that, on account
of its compactness, was difficult to pick, and yet, by working on a vertical face in a
cutting, the rocks dropped out by a little movement with a pick or a bar, what
would you call that ? — A. "Well, it depends how much labor it took to get the rocks
to come out; if, in my opinion, the cut had best be removed by blasting, I would
classify it as solid rock, and if I thought it could be worked just as satisfactorily by
pick or bar, I would classify it as loose rock.

Q. "Would you be influenced by the cost of removing it, either by hand, work-
ing from a face, or by shooting the whole cut ? — A. No, sir.

Q. "What is the basis of practicability? — A. If the contractor told me he
thought the best way to take that cut out was by constant shooting, and I was under
the impression it could be removed just as practicably by hand, pick, or bar, I would
classify it as loose rock, unless I was assured the best way to take it out was by
shooting, because I imagine a contractor might say that shooting was the only way
to take it out, for the sake of the classification.

Q. Is not practicability, when boiled down, what it will cost? The most
practicable thing is the cheapest thing? — A. Yes, sure, but that is a matter of
argument sometimes between the engineer and the contractor.

Q. Did you ever have a case where the contractor shot this material and you
thought he could take it out without shooting? — A. Yes.

Q. "Were there many such cases? — A. Xo.

Q. Don't you think, really, that they put powder into many of these cuts,
not that it was necessary, but that it just loosened up the tiling and made it easier
to take it out, and gave them an opportunity to say it was shot ? Was it the practice
of the contractors to try and lead you on by shooting in many of these cuts? — A.
Not as a rule ; there were one or two cases where it was done.

Q. Have you one such case in mind that you could tell me the storj* of? —
A. In this cut at 160.4.

Q. Just tell me the stor}' about it, shortly ? — A. Well, the contractors claimed
it was a cemented cut, it was all cemented material, and they claimed it was solid
rock, and they kept all the old powder cans to show me how much powder they
had been using in the cut, and wanted classification as solid rock on that account.

Q. Did they kick hard for it? — A. They did for a while.

Q. And what was finally done? — A. I could not tell you what the classi-
fication was without seeing the profile.

Q. Those are sand cuts? — A. Sand here.

Q. But generally it is sand country ? — A. Yes, that portion.

Q. And they wanted solid rock for the boulders in that portion of this
cut ? — A. Yes.

Q. "What do you say as to this classification of that cut; solid rock massed
11,000, loose rock 24,191, common excavation 18,693? — A. That is the final
classification.

Q. What do you say to that 11,000 yards of massed material? — A. That is all
right; that was arbitrated upon; I do not know whether there was a cut made in it.

Q. Do you believe there was 11,000 yards of material in there hard enough
to be classified as solid rock? — A. Yes.

Q. "Why did you tell me you did not allow it? — A. I did not allow it all.
They wanted solid rock all through that cut for shooting; they claimed it was aU
cemented.

Q. I have noticed two separate kinds of cemented material on this district,
one in which two stones twice the size of your hand would adhere together, if broken
up in a large mass, and the other stones the size of an egg or less which would not

266 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

hold together, in what has been classified as assembled rock. Did your experience
over your own district coincide with that suggested ? — A. Not cemented together —
no, sir.

Q. Everything that you have seen classified as assembled rock you think was
cemented together ? — A. Yes.

Q. You recognize from this blue print that the cementing is not an essential?
— A. It does not say so there.

Q. Did you ever work under any other specification than this one? — A. -No,
sir, not in this country.

Q. Does it seem right to you, imder this assembled rock classification, that
the cementing material, which, in itself alone, in masses, would be classified loose
rock, should, when it has stones in it up to 50 per cent, be paid for as solid? —
A. Yes, because I think it could best be removed by blasting.

Q. As an engineer, does it strike you that that interstitial stuff, when it
amounts to 49 per cent of the whole amount, should be paid for at solid rock prices?
— A. I think it is a liberal classification — generous.

I
(N. T.R. INVESTIGATING COMMISSION: EVIDENCE TAKEN IN THE
TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY OFFICES, AT QUEBEC,
AUGUST 19th, 1912.)

J. H. Holiday, sworn :

By Mr. Gutelius.

Q. How old are you? — A. Thirty-three.

Q. What division are you on? — A. Division 2.

Q. Where were you educated, and what was your experience prior to being
employed on the Transcontinental ? — A. Educated in England, and articled with
the Great Northern Railway in England, and then I was contractor's agent after
that. I was with the Great Northern for five years and contractor's agent for three
years after that, and then I came out here, and then on this railway ever since.

Q. What year did you start here? — A. Started here seven years ago, 1905.

Q. This was your first railway work in this country? — A. Yes.

Q. You were resident engineer at Residence 20 while it was being graded ? —
A. Yes.

Q. It extends from mileage 36 to 52? — A. Yes.

Q. West of the Quebec Bridge? — A. Yes.

Q. In travelling over that portion of the line I noticed several road crossings
that were supported by cribs on either side? — A. Yes.

Q. How did you happen to use that method of construction for those road
crossings? — A. They were built after I left; I did the grading and they were built
afterwards.

Q. Did you as resident or divisional engineer build any such crossings? — .
A. No, those are the only ones I saw on the line.

Q. You do not care to venture an opinion as to whether that was good rail-
road construction ? — A. If I were asked, I would.

Q. If you were building them would you have built them that way? — A. I
would have built them with fill.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 267

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q, Looking over Eesidency 20, it occurred to me that considerable saving
might have been effected by throwing the line at mileage 37 further north. Here
is a fill about a mile in length? — A. Yes. I think they might have saved
something there.

Q. You might have saved considerable filling by introducing another curve?
— A. Yes. I think two or three curves.

Q. Did you do any locating on this railroad? — A. No, my first position
was field draughtsman, and I went out as transit man. I never had charge of a
party.

Q. I also noted that between mileages 42 and 43 that sub grade might have
been lowered one to two feet, without interfering with the grade or the line? —
A. Yes. I think that was raised on account of snow, to avoid the snow.

Q. It was not raised on account of water? — A. No, sir.

Q. Did you have anything to do with the establishing of the elevation of
the sub grade there? — A. Nothing: it was all fixed when I went there.

Q. Did you make any recommendation in connection with lowering, or
discuss the matter with your higher officers? — A. Not to my recollection.

Q. Did you know that you were expected to make suggestions in the interests
of economy? — A. Yes.

Q. And you felt that, on account of the difficulties that might be encoimtered
with snow, that it would be all right to leave that bank up that high? — A. Well,
I thought we should have to ditch in any case in that kind of country, and the
material we took from the ditch would just about make the embankment.

Q. Do you remember that that fill was made up of ditches from the side? —
A. Yes.

Q. That would have been necessary in any event? — A. Yes. I had a
great deal of trouble all through there with the farmers about the ditching and
water rights. You cannot get rid of them at all.

Q. There was no train fill then? — A. No.

Q. Nor no borrow? — A. No, all made from the side ditch.

Q. And that reason applies to the whole distance from mileage 42 to 44? —
A. Yes, sir.

Q. The cutting at mileage 41.4 is said to contain 1481 yards of solid rock,
massed or mixed material? — A. That was not done in my time.

Q. Do you know what character of material that was? — A. No. I never
did any work there at all; it was being completed when I left.

Q. You left before the work was started? — A. Before the ciit was started.

Q. Was the cut at mileage 50.5 under construction while you were in
charge ? — A. Yes.

Q. What was the class of material that I see shovrn as 7,344? — A. That
was mostly boulder.

Q. What was the material that was not mostly boulder? — A. Well, there
were some portions that I classified as assembled rock, a portion perhaps 20 feet
by 8, or something of that kind. There was a large mass of material there.

Q. That mass would be made up of small boulders? — A. No, fairly large
boulders cemented together.

Q. A large proportion of the mass would be boulders of sufficient size to
call a yard? — ^A. Yes, about 60 per cent of it would be rock.

Q. And what was the other 40 per cent? — A. Cemented material.

Q. If that 60 per cent were separated into loose rock, what would these two
materials be classified as? — A. If the cemented material could be taken from
the stone?

Q. Yes? — A. As loose rock.

Q. So that that 60 per cent, if separated, would be loose rock? — A. Yes.

268 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. And when they are combined? — A. They would make solid rock under
your assembled rock clause. Probably some of the rock would run over a yard,

Q. Now, if there were no item of assembled rock appearing in your instruc-
tions, and you had classified that material according to the book, could you con-
sistently have made any solid rock of that clay and those small fragments of rock
that were mixed ? — A. A small proportion of it, possibly ten per cent.

Q. Could you consistently have given any? — A. Yes.

Q. Could you consistently have given any solid rock for that material which
was composed of clay and sand, which we call cementing material, and stones less
than a cubic yard? — A. No, sir.

Q. So that the instructions and the assembled rock clause is your authority
for calling this material which is composed of loose rock, clay and sand, solid
rock ? — A. Yes.

By the Chairman:

Q. You have been divisional engineer for how long? — A. Four and a half
years.

Q. And, as such, you have supervised the classification over all the
Residencies? — A. Residencies 4, 5, 6 and 7.

Q. Does what you have said to Mr. Gutelius respecting assembled rock apply
over all those residencies? — A. Yes.

Q. So there is nothing to be gained by my taking you over each one, to get
your view on it? — A. I do not think so.

Q. Taking the mixed material over all your district that was put in as solid
rock — ^you understand what I mean? — A. Yes.

Q. What was that composed of? — A. Well, in some cases

Q. Generally, what was it composed of? — A. Boulders chiefly.

Q. Boulders and cemented material? — A. Yes.

Q. There was no fragmentary rock in it? — A. Generally speaking there
was not.

Q. Was there a boulder measurement kept in your district of the boulders
of a yard or upwards? — A. Yes, sir, in many cases.

Q. Was it the general practice ? — A. We were not taking boulders regularly
every day.

Q. Was there a record kept? I am not asking you now whether you counted
them or estimated them or anything else. Was there a record kept, more or less
accurate, of the boulders of approximately a yard and upwards? — A. Yes.

Q. You professed, then, to show separately the quantities of boulders of ap-
]»roximately about a yard by themselves? — A. In most cases, in many cases.

Q. Did any of those boulders creep into the mixed material measurement?
— A. Oh, no, sir.

Q. Then the material returned as mixed material or massed material —
which did you return it as, mixed or massed material? — A. Assembled rock.

Q. Am I correct, then, in saying that the material returned as assembled
rock consisted generally of boulders of the loose rock size and cementing material?
— A. Yes, sir, fairly large rock.

Q. I say loose rock size generally; I suppose there was a quantity of boulders
of less than loose rock size in that? — A. Possibly in cementing material, yes.

Q. And that would be a large or a small percentage? — A. Small per cent.

Q. And I suppose there were occasional boulders of a yard and upwards? —
A. Yes.

Q. But that would also be a small percentage of boulders of a yard and
upwards in the assembled rock?— A. ' Yes. If I had gone through and taken
out all the stones in the assembled rock which were under foot, I judge I would
take out perhaps 20 per cent.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 269

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. If you had gone through and taken out all the big fellows of a yard and
upwards that crept into the assembled rock, what would they amount to? —
A. Oh, possibly ten per cent.

(N.T.E. INVESTIGATING COMMISSION: EVIDENCE TAKEN AT

TEANSCONTINENTAL EAILWAY OFFICES, QUEBEC,

AUGUST 19th, 1912.)

Alexander Ferguson^ sworn.

By the Chairman: ^

Q. You are a divisional engineer? — A. Yes.

Q. On the N.T.R.?— A. Yes.

Q. Your division extends where? — A. At present from Quebec to mile 91
on the north shore, and from the Chaudiere bridge to mile 13 on the south shore ?

Q. And before you were in your present position what oMce did you occupy?
— A. Divisional engineer on Number 9 division.

Q. What mileage was that division? — A. Mile 181.5 on the north shore
to mile 26.5 on District C.

Q. Before that had you a Residency? — A. No.

Q. You never had a Residency? — A. No.

Q. "Were you employed by the commission? — A. Yes.

Q. As locating engineer? — A. Yes.

Q. You located the line between what points? — A. Between the Quebec
bridge and mile 22 on the south shore on first location, and between La Tuque
and "Weymont^chene on the north shore.

Q. You located all along the St. Maurice River? — A. I ran some parts
of that, but not continuously.

Q. Did not Mr. Grant locate part of that? — A. No.

Q. Did he locate any of this line? — A. He located from Quebec going west
to Hervy Junction.

Q. I thought he was responsible for part of the location along the St. Maurice
River? — A. I believe he was assistant.

Q. When did you have experience in classification before you became
divisional engineer? — A. I did not have any experience as responsible engineer.

Q. Did you have it as an irresponsible engineer? — A. Well, I have seen
classification in the old country.

Q. You were educated in your profession in Scotland? — A. Yes.

Q, And you practised it on the British railways before you came here? —
A. No, sir, not on British railways. I was with a private civil engineer whose
practice consisted of different works, waterworks, sewage works and small railway
work — different works of that description.

Q. In Great Britain they classify all their work before they let their contract,
do they not? — A. To a great extent.

Q. And then they let it on the estimates marie before the work is done, upon
the amount of material as classified? — A. Well, the quantities are more particu-
larly taken out there; the materials are more carefully determined before any
contracts are let.

Q. They are not determined here at all, are they? — A. No. sir, you conlrl
not say they were determined here.

270 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. Over what portions of your divisions bad you any actual supervision of
the classification ; that is to say, what classification was there done after you became
divisonal engineer? — A. On division numbfer 9, practically all of it.

Q. That division lies between what points? — A. 181 to 196.

Q. To what place? — A. Well the name of the place at the beginning of it
is Bonhomme; that is a very local place. I do not think you will find it on the
map at all; it is a Hudson Bay cache.

Q. How much above La Tuque is it? Is it on the Manuan River? — A.
No, it is not as far as that.

Q. The Flaniand river? — A. It is beyond the Flamand Eiver; it is about
six miles beyond the Little Flamand Eiver.

Q. It commences about six miles beyond the Little Flamand and goes
to where? — A. To the second Eibbon crossing.

Q. I will ask you first about the south side; you were divisional engineer over
the Chaudiere cut? — A. Yes.

Q. Was there any assembled rock in that cut? — A. Not as I know of,
assembled rock,

Q. What was the solid rock in that cut? — A. Ledge rock.

Q. There is no doubt about it; it was not, as you know, assembled rock? —
A. No.

Q. It was pure ledge rock all through ? — A. It was ledge rock on the bottom
of the cut; above the ledge rock, up to fi-om one to three feet from the top, was
loose rock.

Q. I am speaking of the solid ; all the solid that has been returned was
what? — A. Was ledge rock, as far as we could measure it, as closely as we could
measure it.

Q. You did not profess to return an}i;hing but ledge rock as solid ? — A. Not
while I was there.

Q. You were there all the time? — A. No.

Q. How long were you there ? — A. I was only there from June of last year.

Q. Had you any reason to believe or understand, from anything you know,
either since you have been divisional engineer, or before that there was any
assembled rock in that cut ? — A. No, sir. I have no reason to believe it.

Q. You believe that all the solid rock was ledge? — A. Yes: that is as closely
as it could be measured.

Q. The resident engineer put in a lot of it as assembled rock? — A. Yes.

Q. Did you revise the classification on the south side? — A. No, sir.

Q. You looked over it; I do not mean you revised it down or up, but you
revised it? — A. Well, I classified the material which came out after I went there.

Q. I am speaking since you have been responsible for it? — A. Exactly.

Q. Did you raise it, or lower it, or leave it as the resident had put it? — A. In
the Chaudiere cut the material was classified after I went there, so far as I know,
similarly to what it was done before.

Q. Did you raise it or lower it? — A, I did not raise it or lower it, because
I could not see how it could be altered.

Q. You were satisfied with it, then? — A. Yes, I was satisfied with that
classification.

Q. Your western division commences at mile 181 ? — A. Yes.

Q. In that division sand predominates, does it not? — A. Yes.

Q. And right at the first cut, 181, it is classified as assembled rock, is it not? —
A. In one portion of the cut

Q. Have you the quantities in that Eesidency ? — A. No, I have not ; I think
there must be a statement somewhere; they are not on my profile.

Q. Your divission commences at what point? — A. 181.32; that is the first
cut on mv division, Residency 33.

lyVESTIGATING COMMISSION 271

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. 181.9 is assembled rock, is it not? — A, Xo, sir, only part of it assembled
rock.

Q. And loose rock and common excavation? — A. And solid rock and mixed
material.

Q. Assembled rock covers all the mixed material, does it not? — A. No.

Q. Well, there is no ledge rock in it? — A. Xo.

Q. Describe that cut to me, how it is made up. In the first place is the matrix
in that sand ? — A. The matrix is a very compact sand, containing a percentage of
clay in it.

Q. Is there one per cent of clay in it? — A. I could not estimate the
percentage of clay.

Q. You know pretty well whether there is large or small amotint of clay?
— A. In the sand, but it is intermixed.

Q. There is a small amount of clay in it ? — A. The clay covers the particles
of sand.

Q. You would call it a sand cut? — A. Xo.

Q. What would you caU it? — A. I would call it more or less of a hardpan
cut, as near as I could get at it.

Q. Is it sand or clay? — A. It is neither.

Q. Could you call it clay? — A. Xo, and you could not call it sand, but I
think, if anyone were looking at it he would say it is sand.

Q. And it is a sort of slaty quarry sand, more like quicksand than anj-thing
else? — A. Not like a quicksand. - ,

Q. It is a very fine sand? — A. Yes.

Q. And how does it differ from the quicksand? — A. That sand, as it is in
the cut, is very hard.

Q. In what does it differ from the quicksand? — A. It does not differ verv'
much from the quicksand.

Q. It does not differ at all, does it? — A. I could not say that it did differ,
under certain circumstances.

Q. Circumstances do not make any difference in the said sand ; it is either one
thing or the other; it is either a coarse sand or a fine sand, or some class of sand,
under all circumstances? — A. I would describe a quicksand as a sand that you
would sink in if you walked in it.

Q. If you had that sand wet enough you would go down over your head
before you knew where you were? — A. Xo, not by any means.

Q. If it were wet enough? — A. I have never seen it in that condition.

Q. What I am trying to find out from you is whether or not that is a very
fine sand? — A. It is.

Q. It would not pack if it was not? — A. Xo, it would not.

Q. And it is of a bluish tint? — A. Yes.

Q. And you can find, if you look at it and examine it, a trace of clay in it?
—A. Yes.

Q. That is a fair description of it? — A. It is a ver}^ fair description.

Q. And is there any rock at all in that cut ? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. What is the rock that is in it like? — A. It consists of boulders.

Q. Of what size? — A. All sizes, varying from the size of a man's head, or
a little smaller, to several yards.

Q. Will you tell me approximately what percentage of the excavated material
from that whole cut is boulders ? — A. About 50 per cent.

Q. Will you tell me approximately what percentage of those boulders are
of solid rock sizes? — A. I should say probably 50 per cent of those.

Q. Did you return any of that cut, or was there any of that cut returned
as boulders? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. Not as mixed material? — A. If I had the cross-section I could tell you.

272 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAIL-^AT

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. Brown said, I think, that 50 to 55 per cent was solid rock; what do you
say? — A. It is impossible to say. The percentage of cementing material in that
cut would not be more than 25 in that cut, in the mixed material. The boulders
were so closely packed together that I do not think there would be any more
than that.

Q. Divide it up on paper and show me how you divide that cut up in your
own way. In the first place you have common excavation about a fourth of the
cut?— A. Yes.

Q. Then loose rock? — A. Yes; that loose rock represents the material in
between the boulders — that is the matrix and the small boulders in the west end
of the cut.

Q. There is no matrix at all where there is loose rock? — A. Oh, yes.

Q. What does this section of the cut show (producing cross-section) ? —
A. This section shows here at the entrance from the east assembled rock.

Q. As you enter the cut? — A. Yes.

Q. And then the next shows assembled rock? — A. Yes.

Q. And the next shows assembled rock? — A. Yes.

Q. How far does that assembled rock extend through the cut? — A. From
1677.93 to 1678.94, or 101 feet. That is all assembled rock, but it stops there.

Q. How long is the cut? — A. 1,500 feet long.

Q. How many feet of common excavation is there? — A. 206 feet.

Q. Then you come to mixed material for the rest of the distance, do you
not ? — A. Yes.

Q. Is all your assembled rock in the first hundred feet of the cut ? — A. Yes,
all in the first 100 feet.

Q. What percentage of that assembled rock is boulders of the solid rock
class? — A. Not more than 50 per cent.

Q. Is there 50 per cent? — A. Oh, yes.

Q. 'Wniy did you not return them by themselves? — A. Because we considered
the material assembled rock as a whole.

Q. Then 50 per cent of those boulders in that are of the loose rock and
common excavation size? — A. Yes.

Q. And the contents of that 100 feet is how much? — A. 2564 cubic yards.

Q. What do you say is the proportion of the matrix in that? — A. I should
say not more than 20 or 25 per cent.

Q. Then you go along after you pass the common and you come to the mixed
material ? — A. Yes.

Q. What is the difference between the mixed material and the assembled
rock? — A. The matrix in the mixed material is not so hard.

Q. What do you classify the mixed material as? — A. I estimate the
percentage of solid rock boulders and return the remainder of it as loose rock.

Q. Then you do not return the matrix in that as solid rock? — A. No.

Q. But you do return the matrix in the cost end as solid rock? — A. Yes.

Q. Do yoii return any of the boulders in the mixed material as loose? — A.
Yes, sir.

Q. Were the boulders estimated in that cut in the mixed material portion?
— A. They were.

Q. What quantity of boulders was there in that mixed material of the solid
rock sizes? — A. In the mixed material I think we estimated about 60 per cent.

Q. Of what?— A. Of the whole mass.

Q. To be big boulders? — A. To be yard boulders.

Q. Yard boulders or over? — A. Yes.

Q. How much of that part of the cut was matrix? — A. I do not think
there would be any more than 15 per cent of it.

Q. And the remainder was what? — A. Small boulders.

INYESTIGATING COMMISSION 273

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. It ought to be pretty nearly a clean rock cut of one kind or another,
excepting the common excavation portion? — A. I do not quite understand you.

Q. There is very little of anything but rock in that? — A. It is nearly all
rock.

Q. And do the sides now show? — A. No, sir, they do not.

Q. Did we make another cut and examination in there? — A. No, sir, we did
not.

Q. That is 181.9?— A. Yes.

Q. Who is B.?— A. Brown.

Q, I have this note, " Brown says he will tell me when the soil differs. We
examined in the culvert some very hard moist clay with a little sandstone; we also
got sandstone from here ". Was that when we went down into the hole? — A. Yes,

Q. Take 183.5; there is no common excavation in that at all? — A. I do
not think so.

Q. How would you describe that cut? — A. That cut I would describe as
being similar to the west end of the previous cut which we just discussed, I think
— similar in materials that it contains.

Q. Is the S.E.M. all solid rock there?— A. Yes.

Q. What is the loose made up of? — A. The loose is made up of the small
boulders and the remainder in between the boulders,

Q, The loose rock in that cut is nearly three times as much as the solid? —
A. Yes, sir.

Q, So that it cannot be anything like the other cut? — ^A. It is very like the
other cut, only that the boulders in it are smaller.

Q, What proportion of that cut was large boulders? — A, I think between
30 and 40 per cent, if I remember correctly.

Q. Not of. the whole cut; that could not be right; you cannot be right on

that, because there is not more than a quarter of the whole thing A. Well, I

may be confusing some of those cuts.

Q. If you do not recollect it, I will not ask you ? — A. I cannot recollect the
classification of all the cuts.

Q. How was that cut taken out? — A. Part of it I think was taken out with
picks and shovels and part of it was blasted.

Q. Which part of it was taken out with picks and shovels ? — A. I could not
tell you that.

Q. Did you put that in as solid rock? — A. No, sir, not in that cut.

Q, Did they put in anywhere material that was taken out with pick and
shovel as solid rock? — A, Never on my work,

Q. Was that which was blasted, blasted with dynamite or black powder? — A,
When it was blasted in the cut it would be black powder principally, and then the
boulders would be blasted with dynamite,

Q. That is what you call bulldozing? — A, Yes.

Q. I am not speaking of that, but I am speaking of the way the cut would
be loosened up? — ^A, It would be loosened up principally with black powder.

Q. Did they not run a hole in under — dig a hole in with a shovel? — A. Yes.

Q, They dug the holes in with a shovel ? — A, In all cuts on that division,

Q, On your division is that not the way it was done usually? — A. Yes.

Q, Taking a long-handled shovel, making a hole in the material, and then
at the bottom of the cut put in your black powder and turn it loose? — A. Yes,
although on some of the cuts they drilled it.

Q, But in the majority of them ? — A, I know only of some four or five cuts
where they used drills to drill the material.

Q. Is that not a common habit in sand pits? — A. Yes,

Q, So that the fact that they put in this black powder in little tunnels, if I
mav call it that, made with a shovel is no proof that it was very hard material?
—A. Not at all,

123—18

274 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. You would uot be surprised to find that practice was adopted in ordinary
sand pits used for building purposes? — A. I know it is the practice.

Q. And they just blasted tiiis with black powder in your district, in the same
way as they would a sand pit ? — A. Yes.

Q. And that would bring out the whole face of the cut as far back as the
powder affected it? — A. Exactly.

Q. You would not call that any more than occasional blasting? — A. I did
not consider it any more than occasional blasting at any time.

Q. Then in your opinion, it was uot necessary to use continuous blasting
generally through your district? — A. On those cuts I do not think it was.

Q. I am speaking now in the material that was returned as solid rock? — A.
1 think there is only one place in my opinion where that material has been returned
as solid rock.

Q. In this cut you returned a lot of solid rock, and the only blasting was in
this cut at 182.5; the only blasting was as we have described it? — A. For the
loosening of the material, yes, sir.

Q. Did you return a lot of that cut as solid rock ? — A. Yes.

Q. Do you consider, then, that that material is sufficiently cemented that
it will not break up with occasional blasting, to justify you in calling it solid rock?
— A. We did not call that material solid rock.

Q. It is marked on your profile, if I understand it correctly, 1630 solid rock :
S.R.M. ? — A. Solid rock in mixed material, 1630.

Q. The blasting that was done in that material was done in the way we have
spoken of just now? — A. The blasting to loosen the solid and the loose.

Q. But do you consider that the rock was cemented in that cut? — A. No,
sir, I do not.

Q. So that it is a misnomer to call it S.R.M. then? — A. Not as we describe
our material.

Q. Did you describe anything as solid rock material where there was no
cementing matrix ? — A. No, sir. That material is not what I consider assembled
rock. I thought you were speaking of assembled rock.

Q. You classified under the heading of solid rock ledge rock? — A. Yes.

Q. And boulders of a solid rock size? — A. Yes.

Q. And cemented boulders? — A. Yes, which we called assembled rock.

Q. You called the cemented boulders assembled rock? — A. Exactly.

Q. Now, we have got rid of three classes; are there any more? — A. Not to
my knowledge.

Q. What does S.R.M. mean? — A. Solid rock in mixed material, which repre-
sents the yard boulders in that material.

Q. Why do you not call it boulders? — A. Well, we have always understood
that that description of solid rock in mixed material means boulders.

Q. But you have a cohiiun for Itouldors by themselves; did you return that as
boulders? — A. We returned it as boulders.

Q. Purely and simply? — A. Purely and simply as boulders.

Q. Where can you find boulders in a section that is not in mixed material ?
— A. We have made a distinction between assembled rock and mixed material.

Q. Where can you find boulders in a section that is not in mixed material ?
— A. I do not know where you can find it, but we used that as a convenient term.

Q. It is a most inconvenient term to use three words where you need only
use one? — (No answer.')

Bij Mr. Guielius:

Q. In arriving at the cubical contents of solid rock in mixed material, did
you measure the large boulders separately or estimate them? — A. Wo estimated
them in the most of cases.

INYESTIGATINO COMMISSION 275

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Then where boulders are covered in mixed material, it is estimated yard-
age of boulders ? — A. Estimated yardage of boulders, exactly.

Q. There is a classification, with which you are familiar, spoken of as solid
rock masses, in which the rock is not solid rock size ? — A. Exactly.

Q. You have in mind this distinction in giving your evidence? — A. I have.

Q. Is there not some solid rock classification on your division composed of
mixed material in which rock masses are all less than solid rock size? — A. There
is material returned on my division in which all the boulders are less than solid
rock size.

Q. And paid for as solid rock ? — A. Paid for as solid rock.

Q. What authority did you have for passing such material as that as solid
rock? — A. We had the authority of the chief engineer's circular, I do not remem-
ber what date it was issued.

Q. The blue print with the five or six classifications? — A. Yes, exactly.

Q. That would come under his diagram number 5? — A. Yes.

Q. Wliich he calls in parenthesis assembled rock? — A. Yes.

By the Chairman:

Q. Then you will commit yourself to this statement that wherever you put
down in an estimate solid rock in mixed material, you mean only boulders? — A.
Exactly.

Q. Of solid rock size? — A. Yes.

Q. Excluding ever}i;hing else? — A. Yes.

By Mr. Gutelius :
Q. Boulders and rock fragments? — A. Yes.

By the Chairman:

Q. So that in reading your estimates, we must bear always in mind that that
is another name for boulders of rock size? — A. Yes.

Q. What do you mean by assembled rock; describe that? — A. Assembled
rock is material which contains boulders which may be of any size, which are
cemented together by some hard cementing material; then the whole mass of that
is called assembled rock.

Q. Do you think that sand can cement anything in your district? — A. I
think so, when it gets sufficiently hard.

Q. I am asking if that sand, or any of that sand, cements anything? — A.
I think it can.

Q. Do you think it does? — A. I think it does.

Q. What do you mean by cementing? — A. Binding materials together — the
other materials that are contained in it together.

Q. Then the boulders will, I take it, in some cases lie on the same plane,
one next to the other, with cementing material between them ? — A. They do.

Q. Supposing we removed all the material on the top and round the outside,
and only leave that in which the bed and the cementing material lie between them,
could we not lift them right out of that bed? — A. I do not understand the
question.

Q. I will illustrate. I have your boulders here, and the blue paper under-
neath is the bed into which they sink, and the material is in contact with the whole
base of those two boulders? — A. Yes.

Q. And the cementing material buried these boulders, and I have stripped
it all away excepting that which is between the two boulders and that on which
they rested, could I not lift that off the bed ? — A. Not if it were cemented.

Q. But in that material. Of course if it were cemented I could not, but could
I not lift it out of any of that material? — A. That material which you describe
in those cuts?

276 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE V^ 1914

Q. In any cut on your division? — A. I think when you get into material
like that up at mile 15 —

Q. But in any cut on your division, could I not lift it out and leave it like a
man leaves his foot-prints in the sand? — A. I never studied that phase of it. I
think practically in all the cuts you could do that.

Q. And just leave an impress like a man's foot would leave in the sand? — A.
Exactly.

Q. And if I could lift up one houlder, and lift it away from the bed in that
way, would the other boulder come with it? — A. Sometimes.

Q. Do you think that there is any sand in your cut which would make one
boulder adhere to the other, so that they would lift up ? — A. Not large boulders,
but small ones.

Q. I am speaking of large boulders? — A. No, not the large boulderg, by
any means.

Q. They would come away from each other, as they would come out of the
bed, would they not? — A. Yes, but in some cases they would come out so that
there would be some of this material sticking to them with small boulders in it.

Q. Like wet sand would stick to anything? — A. No, I mean in its perfectly
dry condition.

Q. Where would you find that? — A. I think you would find that up at
mile 15.

Q. You would not find it generally through your division? — A. There is
only, I think, perhaps one case I have in mind where I would find it.

Q. So that there are not in this cementing material that you speak of, except-
ing in that case, any cementing properties whatever, are there? — A. I am not
describing that material as cementing material.

Q. You have assembled rock in here? — A. I have.

Q. And it must be cementing material according to your evidence? — A. I
think only in two or three instances have I got cementing material.

.Q. In your whole division ? — A. In my whole division.

Q. Then there is no assembled rock in your division, excepting in two or
three instances? — A. If I remember rightly.

Q. Will you tell me where those two or three instances are? — A. There is
this instance that we have just examined at 181.9.

Q. Do you say that at 181.9, the boulder in the example I have already given
to you, could not be lifted out of the bed, just as a man's foot would come out of
the sand? — A. I think that it would lift out as you describe in that material.

Q. So that it is not cemented material? — A. Not in my opinion.

Q. But you have assembled rock in that cut? — A. Yes.

Q. How do you figure out your assembled rock where there is no cementing
material? — A. That cut was classified as assembled rock by the district engineer.

Q. But you did not classify it as that? — A. I was not certain as to what to
classify it.

Q. What would you classify it as now, with all the information you have
now? — A. I think I would still be in doubt.

Q, Then in your division, assuming that assembled rock must be cemented
together by some matrix, is there, in your opinion, any assembled rock? — A.
There is.

Q. Can you tell me where? — A. I can.

Q. How much of it is there? — A. There are only a few yards. I could not
tell you exactly how many yards, probably two or three hundred yards.

Q. In your whole division? — A. In the whole division there is so little of
it that I could not give an opinion as to how much there is.

Q. It is as rare as the dodo? — A. Yes. You can figure it out in hundreds
of vards instead of in the thousands. That is my opinion.

IXTESTIGATINO COMMISSION 277

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. You have seen all the district hetween the river and the west end of your
division ? — A. Yes.

Q. Is there any cementing material from the river up to the end of your
division ? — A. I could not say ; I have not met with it, as far as I have seen.

Q. You have gone over it how many times? — A. I have gone over it a few
times.

Q. Have you ever seen any? — A. I cannot recollect.

Q. Not that you recollect ? — A. No.

By Mr. Gutelius :

Q. Eeferring to that number 5 diagram in the Lumsden instructions, this
diagram is not drawn to scale? — A. No.

Q. It does not say anything about the material between the boulders? — A.
It says nothing about the material between the boulders.

Q. Whether it is cementing material, or air, or water, or what not? — A.
Exactly.

Q. Suppose you had a mass of small gravel, small fragments less than loose
rock size that looked just like that blue print, could you, under this blue print
instruction, classify that as solid rock? — A. You said nothing about the material
in between?

Q. We first said that material in between could be anything, according to
this? — A. I could classify that as solid rock under the blue print diagram, if the
material could be more practically removed by blasting than by any other process.

Q. That is, under the blue print, you could classify as solid rock material
which, under the general specification, is common excavation, provided the material
in question is best removed by blasting ? — A. Yes, I think that is right.

, By the Chairman :

Q. Then if you saw a cut which, without testing it, appeared to be common
excavation, and it resembled in appearance number 5 on this blue print, if you
found on examination that you had to continuously blast that, would you con-
sider under number 5 you could put it in the solid class ; that is, if its appearance
was the same as on the diagram? — A. Yes. Under those instructions I could
classify it as solid rock.

Q. So, then, the instructions are not exact? — A. They are certainly not
exact.

Q. Coyoting is putting powder into a hole such as dug by the prairie wolves?
A. Yes.

By Mr. Guielius :

Q. Have you made a study of the alignment in the vicinity of the Chaudiere
cut? — A. No, sir, I have not done so. I have never had time since I came down
here to do that.

Q. You were asked to pay special attention to excavations in the sides of
cuttings at mileages 120.9 and 162.3 west of the river on our recent trip? — A. Yes.

Q. Will you tell me what you thought that material should be? — A. Well,
at 162.3, that is material which I would classify as mixed material.

Q. And your mixed material is boulders en masse? — A. My mixed boulders
consist of loose rock with the yard boulders returned as solid rock.

Q. And the remaining material yon would return as loose rock? — A. Yes.

Q. And how about 120.9? — A. That was a very much harder cut. The
matrix in it was very hard in the pit which I tested. I would have to describe
that cut similarly to the other. The matrix is very much harder, and I would
classify it as a mixed material cut.

278 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL liAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. In the matter of curvature limitations, will you prepare a statement for
me showing what savings could be effected, roughly, had the curvature been
increased to ten degrees, covering 200 miles west of Quebec bridge ? You will send
this to me? — A. Yes.

(N.T.R. INVESTIGATING COMMISSION: EVIDENCE TAKEN AT N.T.R.
OFFICES, IN QUEBEC, AUGUST 19th, 1912.)

E. A. Black^ sworn :

By Mr. Gutelius :

Q. What is your age? — A. Thirty.

Q. Where were you educated? — A. In Manitoba public schools, Winnipeg,
and Manitoba College.

Q. What experience did you have before you came on the Transcontinental?
— A. I joined the C.P.E. in the spring of 1898, and I worked with them till
October 30, 1909.

Q. How long?— A. 11 years with the C.P.E.

Q. You held positions on the C.P.E. of resident engineer on construction? —
A. Yes. Up to May, 1902, I was rodman, and instrument man, and in May,
1902, I got Eesidency, and I was Eesident after that, in charge of work after that.

Q. You were employed on the N.T.R. in what capacity first? — A. I came
on as locating engineer.

Q. What portions of the line did you locate? — A. I came in and we did
not do any locating. I joined a party, and took a division on construction.

Q. What division was that? — A. Division 10, and I revised their old
division.

Q. And you have been divisional engineer then practically all during your
entire tenure with the N.T.E.? — A. Yes.

Q. Were you on the double track work between Winnipeg and Fort William ?
-^A. Yes, I was there on location, two different times.

Q. What was the limiting degree of curvature on that line? — A. I do not
remember.

Q. What were the sharpest curves you recall? — A. I think a ten degree,
I am not certain.

Q. In any event, there were curves of that character on tliat double track ? —
A. Yes. I was running level, so that I could not say for certain what the curves
were.

Q. What were the limiting grades that you were working on — maximum
grades? — A. I think it was a one per cent; I would not be certain of that either;
it is some years ago.

Q. Did you use momentum grades? — A. Yes. We put them on our profiles,
whether they were built or not.

Q. In the classification on the C.P.E. work did you ever classify sucli material
as is known on the present work as assembled rock as solid rock? — A. No, sir,
not as solid rock.

Q. Did you ever know of any material which was not rock being classified
as solid rock on the C.P.E.? — A. I never had a case.

Q. You never heard of anyone else, either, classifying mixed material as
solid rock? — A. No, sir.

INYESTIOATINO COMMISSION 279

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. How did the prices paid on the C.P.E. contracts that you were engineer
of compare with the prices paid on the your division on the National Transcon-
tinental?— A. They were low; that is all I can remember.

Q. The C.P.E. prices were lower? — A. Yes.

Q. So that, if this railway had been built under C.P.E. specifications and
C.P.E. prices, as you knew them, it would have been constructed cheaper, at least
to the amount of the difference between loose rock and solid rock for the portion
called assembled rock in this contract? — A. Yes, sir, I think it would. Those
prices I refer to were nearer the main line.

Q. It should be pointed out, however, that C.P.E. prices would doubtless
have been increased, on account of the isolated position of the N.T.E. ? — A. Yes.

Q. Did you ever know, in your experience, of location being influenced by a
desire to secure straight track on trestles? — A. No, sir, I do not think so.

Q. Did you ever hear, in your engineering experience, of a rule that all steel
bridges and steel trestles must be built on straight track on tangent? — A. I never
had it in my experience.

Q. This was a new experience to you? — A. Yes.

Q. Did you ever do any locating prior to coming on this railway?— A. I
have done revising.

Q. But in your revisions it would be necessary for you to follow the policy of
the organization for whom you were working? — A. Yes.

Q. Did you ever have instructions that limited the curvature absolutely,
without reference to cost prior to going on this division? — A. No, I had not.

Q. You always were provided with a valuation, sort of sliding scale schedule ?
—A. Yes.

Q. In the location here you were given definite instructions? — A. Yes.

Q. Six degree as an ultimate maximum? — A. Yes.

Q. An iron-clad rule? — A. Yes.

Q. Have you ever found it necessary in your previous experience to make
fills of rock borrow? — A. No.

Q. Were these railways with which you were connected built with wooden
trestles? — A. Yes, all of them.

Q. If wooden trestles have been used on your division, what savings would
have been effected? — A. We would have saved the difference between the
cost of wooden trestles and the cost of the permanent structure, whether it be
bridge or culvert and train fills in cases.

Q. It would be possible for you to secure statements from the district and
divisional engineers to show just what this saving might have been, would it not? —
A. I think so, yes.

(N.T.E. INVESTIGATING COMMISSION: EVIDENCE TAKEN IN
OFFICES OF N.T.E., AT QUEBEC, AUGUST 10th, 1913.)

N. E. Beaudette, recalled:

By the Chairman :

Q. We want the field books from you? Are they in English?— A. Yes.
This is the first book. Page 53 has reference to the big cut.
Q. It is kept according to date? — A. Yes.

280 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE V~ 1914

(N.T.E. INVESTIGATING COMMISSION: EVIDENCE TAKEN ON TRAIN
BETWEEN GRANT AND COCHRANE: JUNE 9tli, 1912.)

G. L. Mattice, sworn :

By the Chairman:

Q. You are an engineer by profession ? — A. Yes.

Q. How long have you been an engineer ? — A. Since 1897 — fifteen years.
Q. And when you graduated as an engineer, what was the first engagement
you had in your professional capacity? — A. I worked for about three years at
electrical work, telephone, electric light and electric railway.

Q. Any construction in electric railways in that? — A. No.
Q. What next? — A. Then I started as rodman on the St. Lawrence and
Adirondack.

Q. And served as rodman for how long? — A. One year.

Q. After- that? — A. Instrument man.

Q. For how long? — A. Possibly two or three years, I cannot tell you
exactly from memory.

Q. When did you first take up construction work? When did you first
become connected with construction work? — A. When I went on as rodman.

Q. When did you first take up any work which required you to have any
interest in or anything to do with classification? — A. In 1899.

Q. What were you doing in 1899 ? — A. I was resident engineer on the
Rutland Railway.

Q. I thought you graduated in 1897? — A. I graduated in 1892, but did
not really start work till 1897. I am wrong in my dates; it must have been 1894.

Q. Had you any experience in classification before you came on this railway?
—A. Yes.

Q. Where?— A. Rutland Railway.

Q. How long? — A. Two years.

Q. And then? — A. Algoma Central Railway.

Q. For how long? — A. Two years,

Q. Do you recall what your specification was when you were on the Rutland
Railway? — A. No, I do not.

Q. Do you recall what it was when you were on the Algoma? — A. Not in
detail.

Q'. Was it similar to the specification on this road? — A. I think we had a
hardpan classification.

Q. Had you the ploughing classification, the ploughing test? — A. I think
that is in nearly every specification.

Q. Had you that classification? — A. Probably.

Q. You do not recollect? — A. I do not recollect.

Q. How long were you on the Algoma Central ? — A. Two years.

Q. In what capacity? — A. Repident engineer.

Q. Then you came from the Algoma Central to this line? — A. No, sir.

Q. Where did you go then?— A. To the C.P.R.

Q. Where were you employed there and in what capacity? — A. Resident
engineer on grade reduction.

Q. Wliere? — A. Between Fort William and Winnipeg.

Q. How Jong did you continue there? — A. One year.

INYE8TIQATIN0 COMMISSIO^ 281

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Where did you go then? — A. Town engineer for Kenora.

Q. How long there? — A. One year.

Q. After that? — A. Locating engineer on this road.

Q. Then you came on this road in what year? — A. 1905, I think in the
spring.

Q. How long did you continue as locating engineer ? — A. A year and a half.

Q. Where did you locate ? — A. From a point west of Lake Nipigon westerly
about 75 miles.

Q. For the Government? — A. Yes.

Q. Did you use the G.T.P. material on that location? — A What kind of
material ?

Q. Their survey plans? — A. Never saw any.

Q. Did not use them in any way? — ^A. No.

Q. Did you locate the line as it was finally adopted? — A. No, I made the
first location.

Q. How close did you come to the present lice? — A. Oh, they used probably
half of my location.

Q. It is in the same country? — A. The coxmtry that I developed was used,
and revised; three men made this location, and in some cases more.

Q. Have they gone any distance from it? — A. No.

Q. After you got done locating what did you do? — A. I was given charge
of a Residency on division 7, district F.

Q. Whose contract? — A. J. D. McArthur.

Q. Where is that division ? — A. From Kenyon Lake to the Winnipeg River.

Q. That is not a country similar to this in which we are now? — A. Not
at all.

Q. What is the general description of that country? — A. Eock.

Q. And after you finished on that, and you left that Residency, where did
you go? — A. I was appointed divisional engineer in charge of that division.

Q. And after that? — A. I took charge of Division 3 on the same district.

Q. When did you come down in this country? — A. In October, 1909.

Q. October, 1909, you were transferred to where? — A. North Bay, as
district engineer.

Q. Between what points? — A. The Ontario boundary and mile 248 west.

Q. That is the boundary between Ontario and Quebec? — A. Yes.

Q. From the Quebec line to mileage 248? — A. Yes.

Q. About where is mileage 248? Is it east or west of Grant? — A. It is
sixteen miles west of Grant; that was the full extent of the district at that time.

Q. And have you continued as district engineer -ever since? — A. No.

Q. How long did you remain district engineer? — A. One year.

Q. Did you get your present position after that? — A. Yes.

Q. What is your present position? — A. Assistant district engineer.

Q. Who is the district engineer? — A. Mr. Balkam.

Q, Does your present work extend over the same territory as it did when
you were appointed district engineer? — A. It has, in a manner.

Q. So that it covers the old district, and has how much more added to it? —
A. About 120 miles on the east end and 60 miles on the west.

Q. You ran into Quebec for 120 miles? — A. Approximately that, yes.

Q. What are your duties? — A. General inspection duties in the office and
in the field.

Q. Have you anything to do with the classification? — A. Yes.

Q. What are your duties in respect to classification? — A. To consult with
the resident and divisional engineers. These are my present duties as assistant
district engineer you are speaking of.

Q. What were your duties as district engineer first? — A. As district
engineer, to approve of the classification or not.

282 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. To revise the classification? — A. To revise the classification; that is the
better way to put it.

Q. Then, as such, during that year there was no classification done in your
district that was not revised by you? — A. No.

Q. And as assistant district engineer, has there been any classification done
that has not been revised by you? — A. Yes.

Q. Passed on by you in any way? — A. Passed on by me, yes, approved of.

Q. Plenty of it that has not been? — A. There has been none that I have
not approved by signing estimates. There has been classification made that I
have not seen personally made.

Q. Did you verify, so far as you thought necessary, to justify you in
approving of it? — A. Yes.

Q. Are you familiar with the classification in your whole district ? — A. Yes,
except for a portion of the east end which was done under the former district
engineer, before it was transferred to District D.

Q. Then are you familiar with the classification on that portion that you
have last spoken of, that took place before you were made district engineer? — A.
Just from seeing the estimates and going through the cuts.

Q. You are familiar with it, then? — A. Yes, I never saw the work done.

Q. Is that work classified the way you would have classified it? — A. Yes,
I think so.

Q. So that I may take it that you approve of the classification from end to
end of what now constitutes the district? — A. I think so.

Q. What did you classify solid rock excavation? — A. Ledge rock occurring
in masses and in place, in situ, as the book says.

Q. I do not think it does? — A. I thought it did — rock occurring in ledges
or masses of more than one cubic yard; is that not it?

Q. "Kock found in ledges or masses of more than one cubic yard, which, in
the judgment of the engineer, may be best removed by blasting" ? — A. Yes.

Q. You will notice that that does not include all rock that is in ledges or
masses of more than one cubic yard, but only such as, in the judgment of the
engineer, may be best removed by blasting? — A. Yes.

Q. What do you mean by rock in masses? — A. Large pieces of rock, and
under Mr. Lumsden's ruling —

Q. Never mind Mr. Lumsden; I am asking you to describe a mass of rock
which you consider solid rock excavation under this specification? — A. Nothing
but what it speaks of.

Q. What does it speak of? — A. Ledge and masses of rock.

Q. What is a mass of rock? How will I know it if I go to see it? — A. It
is either a boulder or large piece of rock which has been detached from its
original place.

Q. Then you consider a mass is that which is — A. Which is geologically a
rock.

Q. And which is one piece, either of boulder or of fragments? — A. That
has always been my idea of rock.

Q, Or masses of rock? — A. Masses of rock I never saw until I saw tliat
specification.

Q. You think a mass of rock is either a fragment or boulder? — A. That
has always been ny idea.

Q. Have you classified anything as solid rock excavation under the word
"masses," other than boulders of more than one cubic yard and fragments of more
than one cubic yard? — A. Yes,

Q. Why did you do so? — A. Under Mr. Lumsden's ruling, assembled rock.

Q. What was assembled rock? Describe such assembled rock as you elasse'l
as a mass? — A. It would be large boulders cemented together, that required
blasting to remove — continual blasting.

IXYESTIGATING COilMIlSSION 283

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. When you say remove, do you mean to separate? — A. To separate.

Q. Do you mean, then, that a mass of boulders means boulders which are
fastened together by cement? — A. Yes.

Q. Not which lie with loose material between them? — A. No.

Q. They must be broken apart? — A. As a rule they are drilled.

Q. If I could lift them up, they would adhere to each other? — A. Yes, if
you could lift them up.

Q. So that you are taking cemented together in the elementary sense? —
A. Yes.

Q. Did you class an}i;hing loose as masses which, in the elementary sense,
were not cemented together? — A. No.

Q. I suppose you classified as loose rock all the large stones and boulders
measuring more than one cubic foot and less than one cubic yard, and all loose
rock, whether in situ or otherwise, that could be removed by hand, pick or bar;
is that right? — A. Yes.

Q. So that we will eliminate that. Did you find any cemented gravel? —
A. Yes, there was some.

Q. Does it occur in large or small quantities? — A. Very little of it on
this district.

Q. Did you classify as loose rock any clay of any description? — A. Yes.

Q. Will you tell me what kind of clay you classified as loose rock? — A.
Indurated clay.

Q. What is indurated clay? — A. Hardened clay.

Q. Did you classify any hardened clay as loose rock which, in your judgment,
could be ploughed with a ten-inch grading plough, behind a team of six good
horses properly handled? — A. No.

Q. What do you understand by "Ploughed by such a team and such a
plough"? — A. It would have to be loosened.

Q. Describe to me what you mean by it? — A. After the plough had passed
through the material it would require to be in better condition for removal by hand
shovelling or scrapers than it was before being ploughed.

Q. Do you find any such statement in the specification? — A. Not under
the heading of loose rock.

Q. Why do you inject that qualification into it? — A. Because under the
heading of solid rock it says "May be best removed by blasting." That is a
qualification of solid rock. I think it possible should have said "May be best
removed by ploughing."

Q. I am not asking you to amend the specification; I am asking you to
construe it? — A. That is the way I construed it.

Q. Do I understand you to say this material could be literally ploughed? —
A. I think a great deal of it could possibly have had a plough dragged through
it by six good horses.

Q. That is not what I asked you. I asked you if it could be literally plough-
ed by such a team? — A. What do you mean by literally?

Q. Well, if it could be ploughed; if you had been sent there to plough it —
if you had been sent there with a team of six good horses and with a ten inch
grading plough ? — A. A lot of it could have been ploughed.

Q. Wait for the question; if you were simply told that some person wanted
you, for curiosity, to plough that material, with that team and that plough, and,
so far as you know, nothing else was going to be done with it, do you think you
could have ploughed it? — A. Yes, a great portion of it.

Q. Then you have classified as loose rock material which, in your judgment,
could be ploughed, if nothing else was going to be done with it after the plough-
ing?— A. Yes.

284 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. Then why do you consider that it could not be ploughed within the
meaning of this specification, if you do consider it could not be ploughed
within the meaning of the specification? — ^A. Will you repeat that question?

Q. Do you consider that that clay could not be ploughed within the meaning
of the specification? — A. Not in my judgment.

Q. Why do you consider so? — A. Because I consider that the meaning of
ploughing is loosening the material and improving its condition for further
handling.

Q. Why is it necessary to consider whether or not the ploughing will improve
it for further handling? — A. There would be no object in ploughing it, if it did
not.

Q. But they never did plough it? — A. On this district?

Q. Yes?— A. Oh, yes.

Q. Did the contractors plough it? — A. In several places.

Q. For what purpose? — A. To try and scrape it.

Q. With what result? — A. Practically no results.

Q. With what result? — A. They ploughed it and scraped it, but they did
not do it commercially to advantage. It cost more than any other method that
you could adopt.

Q. Then you have not looked upon the ploughing merely as a test. You
look upon the ploughing spoken of in this specification as part of the method used
for removing it? — A. Yes.

Q, Do contractors in this district use a plough for material which can be
ploughed to advantage? — A. They would.

Q. But do they, for material which can be ploughed to advantage? — A. No,
they do not. May I say why?

Q. Oh, certainly. I want your answers to be full and complete? — A.
Because there is not enough of that material on the district to make it worth
while bringing ploughs, scrapers and horses into the district. It costs too much
to feed the horses, for one thing.

Q. Do I understand you that wherever material can be ploughed it is? —
A. No, sir.

Q. Wherever material is susceptible of being ploughed, as you say commer-
cially, and there are large enough quantities, do they use ploughing? — A. Not
on this work,

Q. In any work? — A. Yes.

Q. Do I understand that you do not regard the ploughing spoken of in the
specification as merely a test? — A. Not by itself, no.

Q. As merely a test? — A. Or as only a est; do you mean only or merley?

Q. Which ever you choose? — A. No.

Q. For example, if the specification had said that you should consider as
common excavation such material as you could drive a rod with a sixteen pound
hammer into, and you had taken a rod and tried it in this material, and found
you could drive it with a sixteen pound hammer, would you put this in as common
excavation ? — A. I think so.

Q. So that you do not regard the ploughing as a test at all ; you regard it
as part of the mctliod to be adopted in removing the soil? — A. I think so.

Q. Where did you see them use a plough to plough any of the clay which
you classified as loose rock? — A. I did not see it.

Q. Where did you see any of the material which you classified as loose rock
after it had been ploughed? — A. The ploughing I speak of was done before 1
took charge of the district.

Q. So that personally you have never seen a test of that kind made? — A. No.

Q. Have you ever seen anywhere clay which you classified as loose rock
ploughed? — A. I do not think I ever saw clay like this anywhere else.

INTESTIGATIXG COMMISSION 285

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. So that you have never seen it ploughed ? — A. No, apart from the surface
clay.

Q. I am speaking of the clay that jou classified as loose rock? — A. I do
not think I ever saw anything like it anywliere else.

Q. So that, so far as you are concerned, this is your first experience of this
clay which you have classified as loose rock r— A. This particular hrand of clay,
yes.

Q. Did you classify any soft clay on this contract as loose rock? — A. Yes.

Q. Where was that? — A. It was at about <!ix or eight different points, one
in particular was at Mustongo Eiver.

Q. Were there large quantities of it? — A. From memory, about 20,000
yards in one cut.

Q. What would it total over the whole district?— A. From 40,000 to 50,000
yards about.

Q. How do you describe it? — A. As a rubbery, tough material when fairly
dry, say in normal condition

Q. Say when it was excavated? — A. In normal condition, towards the
upper layers of it; as it went down it became very plastic. I think that fairly
well describes the material.

Q. What color was it? — A. Grejdsh blue.

Q. How was it takta out? — A. In different ways, generally by h3nd.

Q. How was the hard clay which you classified as loose rock taken out?
What instruments were used? — A. Picks, shovels and powder.

Q. Is there any part of it where powder was continuously used? — A. I wiU
have to think about that; yes, I think so.

Q. Where? — A. In the cuts close to Cochrane, west of Cochrane, and at
the west end — the work we went over yesterday.

Q. You mean the work referred to by Mr. McBey? — A. Yes, on his resid-
ency I have particularly in mind.

Q. You are referring to what he pointed out to us yesterday? — A. I was
not with you when he pointed it out. I have a knowledge of that myself.

Q He was in charge of it? — A. He was Eesident Engineer.

Q. And west of Cochrane you say there was some? — A. Immediately
west of Cochrane four or five large cuts there.

Q. About how much would be in those cuts of that kind of material? — A.
About 20,000 yards in each one.

Q. And there were in all about how many? — A. About four.

Q. Are they one after the other? — A, Yes.

Q. Starting where? — A. Almost in the town site of Cochrane. *

Q. The rest of it did not need continuous blasting? — A. Not continuous.

Q. Where will I find recorded the information which will show me whether
or not continuous blasting was used on any work in your district? — A. The
Eesident Engineers can furnish it.

Q. Is it recorded anywhere on the fyles of the Commission? — A. I think
there is some correspondence about those four cuts I have mentioned close to
Cochrane with Mr. Lumsden. I might say those cuts were taken out before I took
the district. I have seen the correspondence and the Eesident Engineer's record
of powder consumed.

Q. You were here all the time? — A. Oh, no. This work was open for two
years before I took charge of it. Mr. Macfarlane was in charge, and Mr. Poulin,
who is dead.

Q. Did you take the cost of excavating to the contractor into consideration
when making your classification? — A. Not to my knowledge.

286 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. Why do you say it was more difficult and more expensive, if you do say
so — and I understood you to? — Why do you put that forward at all as a reason
for so classifying it? — A. That is in the soft material.

Q. In the hard material too? — A. The hard material I consider loose
rock under this specification.

Q. And the soft material — did you take into consideration the expense
there? — ^A. I think I must have.

Q. Where did you find in the specification anything to entitle you to classify
soft material as loose rock? — A. I do not believe you can. May I look at it?

Q. Certainly? (Witness examines specification). — A. Probably the only
reason was that it could not be ploughed, in my judgment.

Q. I am asking you, what was your judgment? — A. Well, that was it.

Q. Did you classify muskeg as loose rock? — A. ISTo.

Q. Could it be ploughed ?— A. No.

Q. But muskeg is not clay ? — A. Muskeg is not clay.

By Mr. GuteUns:

Q. If you were to revise the profile, having in mind economy, could 3'ou reduce
the quantities without increasing the maximums? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. Where and how? — A. By using a virtual four-tenths and six-tenths
instead of the actual four-tenths and six-tenths that were used.

Q. What is the difference between an actual and a virtual grade? — A. An
actual four-tenths grade never varies from four-tenths; I do not know whether
I can make that clear; but is compensated for curvatures only. In using virtual
four-tenths grade, the momentmn of the train is allowed to carry it a certain
distance up a grade of a greater rate than four-tenths. This distance is calculated;
then the rate of grade is reduced to four-tenths again, or less, when the same process
is gone through, and may be repeated indefinitely, to reach the summit.

Q. In other words, a locomotive will pull the same train over a virtual
four-tenths that it would pull over an actual four-tenths grade? — A. Yes, barring
accidents.

Q. By the introduction of virtual grades on your division, where would we
look for reduction in cost of its construction ? — A. At what points, do you mean,
or in the schedule of classification?

Q. I want you to say in the fills ? — A. In the fills by reducing yardage, and
in the length of the culverts, making a saving of concrete.

Q. Would it have been possible to have reduced some of the cuttings by
introducing virtual grades? — A. Yes.

Q. Did you give this subject any thought or study in connection with the
location of the grade line over your division? — A. Not in this district; only on
survey.

Q. As district engineer, why did you not take this matter up with the higher
officers and recommend it? — A. It had been turned down by the higher authorities
during the time I was on survey in 1905 or 1906, and I considered the matter had
been dropped.

Q. What knowledge have you personally that the chief engineer, or the
commission, refused to allow the use of virtual grades? — A. I think I must have
had a letter to that effect.

Q. You do not know? — A. I do not remember now. The impression T have
got is that I had, and that the matter was dropped then. Mr. MacPherson took
it up first with us, or with the distriot engineer that I was under at that time.

By the Chairman :

Q. Would there have been any material saving if that policy had been adopted
over your district? — A. I think the saving would have been quite large.

IlSrVESTIQATINO COMMISSION 287

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

By Mr. Gutelivs:

Q. Would you care to make a guess in a percentage way? — A. Perhaps 20
per cent. Is that too high?

vj^. "Well, say 15 to 20 per cent? — A. Yes.

Q, In passing over your division I have noticed that the sub grade on the
level has been raised to what appears to be higher than was necessary to get over
the muskeg, and in some cases grades introduced to get up on these higher banks;
what defence is there for this practice? — A. I think that was a matter of policy,
too

Q. Can you direct the Commission to the source of this poUcy you refer to ? —
A. I know nothing in writing on the point.

Q. What has given you the idea that it is policy? — A. A conversation
with Mr. Woods, assistant chief engineer of the G.T.P., for one thing.

Q. Were any of your profiles amended raising the grades? — A. Yes, all
of them.

Q. By whom? — A. By myself and by Mr. Macfarlane.

Q. After you had passed on them and sent them up for approval, were they
amended, revised? — A. Sent to whom for approval?

Q. The chief engineer's office. First, have these profiles of 3'ours been
approved of by officers higher than the district engineers? — A. Yes.

Q. Who approved them? — A. The inspecting engineer, representing the
chief engineer, Mr. Macfarlane.

Q. Did he revise any of your profiles? — A. Yes.

Q. Did he raise these grades? — A. Yes.

Q. He represented the chief engineer of the Commission in doing this? —
A. I took him to be. He raised these grades in consultation with me. It was not
an arbitrar}'' raising of grades by him.

Q. Have 3'ou a written approval from him of these grades? — A. No, I
think hot: it was all done in my office, he and I together.

Q. He did not sign any of them after you completed them? — A. Xot as
inspecting engineer, no.

Q. Would it not have been advisable, in the interest of economy, to reduce
the height of many of these raised embankments? — A. Do you mean, would it
not have been advisable or would it be advisable now?

Q. Would it not have been advisable, in the interest of economy, to liave
reduced the heights of some of these embankments? — A. Yes.

Q. Would it amount to much of a saving in dollars? — A. Yes, the saving
would be considerable.

Q. You are more familiar with this division than anyone else. Can you
give me a guess, in percentage, as to what saving might be effected in this
manner? — A. There might be one-sixth of the total district.

Q. That would be how many miles? — A. Say, 70 miles.

Q. At 5,000 yards to the mile, it would be 150,000 yards, and it will average
33 cents; it would be a third of that? — A. It will average more than that; it
will average 50 cents.

Q. That would amount to $175,000, then?— A. Yes.

Q. This idea is not a new one? — A. N'o.

Q. Did you do anything yourself towards reaching this economy? — A. Yes,
I have lowered grades and changed the rate of grades.

Q. And you propose now to make such further reduction as can be made,
where those higher dumps have settled ? — A. Yes, we propose to plot a new profile
of existing top of earth levels, and put a new grade line on that.

Q. And save as much of this extravagance as possible ? — A. Excess material.

Q. And save as much extravagance as you can, from now on? — A. Yes.

288 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE V^ 1914

Q. You have been instructed to do that since we were on the work? — A. I
have heard it talked of that we were to be instructed. I have not yet got the
instructions. They will come from the chief engineer, I suppose.

Q. On the Algoma Central and the Eutland Railway momentum grades were
used? — A. The Eutland Railway used a very low grade, which, I think, was
six-tenths, compensated.

Q. Were sags within the gradient limits ruled out? — ^A. The use of sags
was discouraged, what you would call a bag sag — ^two maximum grades meeting —

Q. Short sags? — A. Short sags were discouraged.

Q. But sags of half a mile in length would have been considered good
construction ? — A. Yes,

Q. There are fills on your division of a half a mile or greater in length
where sags could have been introduced, are there not? — A. I think so.

Q. The policy, however, required that you build straight grades? — A. The
policy was not to what I call chop a grade; it does not seem to have been.

Q. Were you ever given any data on which to figure whether a straight grade
or a sag would be used in crossing long fills ? — A. Yes, it was given us in a blue
print form.

Q. Tell me about the Algoma Central on this point? — A. The Algoma
Central used one and a half per cent grades uncompensated, and twelve degree
curves.

Q. Why did you not use twelve degree curves on this railway? — A. I
understood that six degrees was the maximum.

Q. How did you arrive at that understanding? — A. I think there were
instructions to that effect.

Q. Do you know positive that there were? — A. I could not place my hand
on the instructions now. I must have had it in some form or another from
somebody or I would not have adhered to it. Six degree curves, by the way,
were discouraged, too.

Q. Why did you not use one and a half per cent grades on this raili^oad? —
A. The instructions were to use four-tenths eastbound and six-tenths westbound.

Q. From whom did you get these instructions? — A. Probably from the
district engineer, when I was working as engineer in charge of location.

Q. Have you a copy of those instructions? — A. No, I think not, no.

Q. Will 3'ou try to locate a copy of instructions governing curvature and
gradients, and send them to the Commission over your signature? — A. I will.

Q. Write a letter which we can attach to it? — A. Yes. If I cannot find
them I will write a letter to you, anyway.

Q. What was the character of the structures on the Algoma Central? —
A. Wooden trestles, cedar culverts, and, in a very few cases, cast-iron pipes.

Q. Why did you not use cedar culverts and wooden trestles on this railway? —
A. I understood from the time I was resident engineer on District F. that
temporary structures were not to be used.

Q. In the interest of economy, and in accordance with ordinary railway
construction in Canada, would temporary structures have been advisable? —
A. Yes.

Q. If permanent wooden trestles had been erected originally over the
various sink holes on your division, would the sink holes which we have seen been
prevented ? — A. Certainly.

Q. Are there many of them? — A. Yes.

Q. How much money would have been saved at trestle 1,046? — A. 1,040
is the station.

Q. At 1,040, if a permanent wooden trestle had been constructed over that
originally, how much would be saved? I think you said $150,000? — A. Probablv
$125,000.

INYESTIGATING COMMISSION 289

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. "Were there many similar slides on yonr division? — A. Nothing so bad
as 1,040 in the same distance; what I mean is short crossings.

Q. AVhat percentage of saving could have been effected on your division if
wooden permanent trestles had been constructed, the same as you were accustomed
to on the Algoma Central? Just say roughly? — A. That is the percentage you
ask for?

Q. Yes, in dollars, if you can remember Avbat your bridges cost? — A. My
impression is that it would have saved us perhaps a million dollars, but I am
having information prepared which will give it exactly.

Q. Do you know what cement should cost in this country? — A. I have my
own idea.

Q. What should, cement concrete cost in this country per cubic yard ? — A. I
think it could be put in place at an actual cost of about $8 or $10 -a yard.

Q. The prices paid to general contractors, however, are what? — A. From
$10.50 to $16 for the mixture that is most used; that is 1-3-6.

Q. That is what von refer to as being put in place for from $8 to $10? —
A. Yes.

Q. Referring to loose rock specification under classification, you have told
us that you construed the reference to ploughing as being a method to be adopted
in excavation? — A. Yes.

Q. The same as in paragraph 34, under solid rock, which says, " May best
be removed by blasting " ? — A, Yes.

Q. Then you read into the loose rock clause, " May best be removed bj
ploughing"? — A. My idea is that if that word "best" were there, it woiild
explain that clause better.

Q. And that it would make clear what was intended? — A. Yes.

Q. That is, to make clear what you, in your interpretation, would suggest
adding to this clause : " May best be removed by ploughing " ? — A. If ploughing
is kept in as a test, yes.

Q. Then, to arrive at 3^our conclusion, it was necessary for you to assume
something that was not actually printed in this specification? — A. Not actually
printed, yes.

Q. It is a fact, then, that you did not take into consideration as a test
only? — A. Yes; that is my judgment of the specification, and I consider it is
left to my judgment.

Copy.

The Commissioners of the
Transcontinental Eailway.

Ottawa, June 12th, 1912.
File 12,028.
F. P. GuTELius, Esq.,

Investigating Commission,

Dear Sir: — -rw- ■ • j.

Yours of the 8th inst., re height of subgrade above the muskeg on District

" D'\

T have been unable to find any letters between myself and Mr. "Woods, or
between mv predecessor and Mr. Woods, with reference to the raising of grades on
District '•' D ".

]\Iv recollection is that so far as I am personally concerned, there were verbal

requests only.

Yours truly,

(Signed) GOEDON GRANT,

Chief Engineer.

123.— 19

1:90 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Copif.

West of Cochrane, June 8th, 1912.

GoEDON Grant, Esq.,

Chief Engineer, N.T.Ry.,

Ottawa.

Dear Sir: —

In connection with the height of subgrade above muskeg on District " D ".

Your recollection was that it was at request of the G.T.P. through Mr. Woods.
Will you kindly let me see any correspondence you may have in connection
therewith.

Yours truly,

i
Copy. '

Cochrane^ June 14th, 1912.

Gordon Grant, Esq.,

Chief Engineer, - ;

Ottawa, Ont.

Dear Sir: —

During my examination by the Investigating Commission I was asked to look
up and send to them my authority for the use of maximum grades of 0 . 4 per cent
eastbound and 0.6 per cent westbound, also for the use of 6° curves as the
maximum curvature.

The instructions regarding curvature are found on P. 38, Art. 26 of the book
of Instructions, and those regarding grades are found on P. 45 (at the top) of the
same book.

I will be glad if you will transmit this information to the Commission.

Yours truly,

(Sgd.) G. L. MATTICE,

Assistant District Engineer.
" CD."

[yVESTIGATlXG COMMISSION 291

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

(NATIONAL TEANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY ENQUIRY COMMISSION
OTTAWA, OCTOBER 25tli, 1913.)

Present: G. Lynch-Staunton^ K.C, Chairman.

G. L. Mattice, Assistant District Engineer, National Transcontinentil
Railway, examined :

By the Chairman :

Q. You are the assistant district engineer in district D? — A. Yes.

Q. And you have already given evidence to the commission at Cochrane? —
A. Yes.

Q. Do you know Mr. Goodwin? — A. Yes.

Q. He is inspecting engineer of the Transcontinental Railway? — A. Yes.

Q. Did he pay a visit to Cochrane, lately? — A. Yes.

Q. When did he arrive there and when did he leave? — A. I can tell you
when he left. I do not remember the day he arrived. He was there between
September 18th and October 20th.

Q. Were you with him all the time he was there ? — A. J ust during the time
he was out on the line.

Q. Do you recollect when he went out on the line? — A. We started from
Cochrane on the 23rd of September, going east.

Q. And you went east how far? — A. We went east 158 miles, that day.

Q. Who are ''we**? — A. Mr. Goodwin. Mr. Balkam, district engineer, and
myself.

Q. Will you tell me the reason for that trip and what you did on it? — A.
The trip was for Mr. Goodwin to inspect the classification.

Q. What was done on that trip; start at the beginning and tell me in your
own words what was done on that trip? — A. The first day we ran 158 miles and
slept at one of our Residency camps that day. It was the camp of Division En-
gineer Sunstrum, Residency No. 11. We did nothing but travel that day.

Q. On whose contract is that? — A. Contract 15; Maedonell & O'Brien.
That is sublet to O'Brien & Martin who are doing the work.

Q. The next day, September 24th, did you do anything? — A. We went on
the motor car to the end of steel and walked from the end of track to Belle River,
beyond the end of steel, and we stayed at Residency No. 8 that night. We ex-
amined nothing that day. We were travelling to the end of the work to start back.

Q. Was there any work done or any information acquired by Mr. Goodwin
before he left Cochrane? — A. Yes, we had all the classification notes copied out
on sheets, each Residency by itself, ready for him to carry with him.

Q. He took with him the information necessary to familiarize himself with
the classification that had been done over the ground he wa? about to inspect? — A.
Yes sir.

Q. And that was fnriiisherl by you or by Mr. Balkam? — A. Both of us, bv
the office.

Q. We come now to the 25th of September, what was done on that day? — A.
We started at Belle River and examined the classification through to practically the
end of the grading.

Q. That is still going east? — A. Going east.

Q. Did you make any notes of what was done on that day that you have with
you? — A. I noted in my diary that we started. I think we all took notes on the
sheets.

292 NATIO^'AL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. Can you give me any information about what you did that day? — A.
] think the only thing we did was to raise the classilicatiou in one cut.

Q. You examined all the classification for about what distance? — A. About

seven miles.

Q. Did you make any changes or ]3ass any opinion on the classification in that
district? — A. Just at one spot.

Q. The cut you are speaking of, is the cut between stations 835 and 839 ? —
A. Yes, sir.

Q. Tell me what you did there ? — A. We looked over the cut, got a pick and
shovel, and Mr. Goodwin got a pick and shovel, and we talked to the resident and
division engineer who saw the work done.

Q. Who is the division engineer? — A. Sunstruni.

Q. And who is the resident engineer? — A. Howe.

Q. What did you do? — A. After consultation, we considered it should be
changed. The cut was originally classified "83 cubic yards solid rock, 653 cubic
yards loose rock, and 1303 cubic yards common excavation." We decided that
"the mixed material should be classified about 65 per cent loose rock, and Mr. Balkam
on returning to camp, instructed the resident engineer accordingly.

Q. What change did that make in the classification? — A. Apart from the
solid rock excavation, the loose rock and common excavation were about reversed.

Q. Did you do anything more that day ? — A. Xo, we came back to the camp
and stayed the rest of the day there.

Q. Xtxt day did you make any more inspection? — A. Next day, the 26th of
Septemlter, it rained all morning and we walked back to Belle River Residence in
the afternoon and inspected al)out half a mile west of Belle River and stayed in
camp.

Q. Did you make any changes in that half mile ? — A. Xo.

Q. On the 27th of September, what did you do? — A. We started where we
stopped the day before at the half mile west of the Belle River and walked to the
end. Clear Creek, beyond the end of steel. We practically walked to Residency
Xo. 9, about twelve miles west of Belle River; that was just in the morning.

Q. In the afternoon, what did you do? — A. We continued with the motor
car to Residency Xo. 11.

Q. Did you make any changes in the classification on that twelve miles? — A.
Xo.

Q. Did you do anything more that day? — A. Xo.

Q. On the 28th oi' September what did you do? — A. We left Residency Xo.
11 and went over the track in the motor car and ran forty-five miles west to Rob-
ertson Lake.

Q. Did you investigate the classification on that forty-five miles? — A. One
cut at mile 113|. Mr. Goodwin got a pick and shovel and dug some small holes in
the side of the track. That is the first cut west of Peter Brown Creek.

Q. Did he make any changes in the classification there? — A. Xo.

Q. Whose contract was that on ? — A. " That was on contract Xo. 14, the
Grand Trunk Pacific contract.

Q. Who is doing tliat work? — A. Foley, Walsh & Stewart, agents of the
Grand Trunk Pacific.

Q. AVhat else happened? — A. At two or three otlier points Mr. Goodwin did
the same thing : we carried the tools with us.

Q. Were any changes made? — A. Xo sir.

Q. Did you continue along the railway next day? — A. The next day was
Sunday. We stayed at Robertson Lake. Residency Xo. 15.

Q. What happened on Monday, the thirtieth of September? — A. We ran
from Robertson's Lake to the Quebec boundary, approximately forty-one miles.

Q. Did you make any inspection on the way? — A. Xo particular inspection
that I remember now. We watched the cuts as we went along, and "Nfr. Goodwin

INYESTIGATIXG COMillSSIOy 293.

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

made notes of the class of material, whether clay or sand or rock, but did not make
any excavations.

Q. You slept that night where ? — A, South Eiver, Residency No. 17.

Q. On Tuesday morning what did you do? — A. We ran from the Quebec
boundary to Cochrane, about seventy-two miles.

Q. Did Mr. Goodwin make any excavation along the road ? — A. Yes, in one
or two places.

Q. Did you make any changes in the classification? — A. No.

Q. You got back to Cochrane that night ? — A. Yes.

Q. After" you got back to Cochrane did you do anything further? — A. Not
that day.

Q. The next day what did Mr. Goodwin do? — A. We were in Cochrane all
day Wednesday, and Mr. Goodwin said he made arrangements to do some work the
following day.

Q. Wliat was done on Thursday, the 3rd of October? — A. On Thursday, we
were in Cochrane all day, and Mr. Goodwin started his teams working at a cut on
contract No. 14.

Q. Wliat did the teams do that day? — A. Grubbing the stumps off the sur-
face preparatory to making a plough test.

Q. AVliere was that? — A. That was on the Cochrane yard cutting.

Q. On the south side of the Cochrane yard cutting? — A. On the south side,
on the Temiskaming & Northern Ontario property.

Q. What mile was that?— A. About mile 103 1-4.

Q. How far south was that from the edge of the old cutting? — A. About
forty feet.

" Q. And north of it is the Transcontinental line and south of it is the T.
& N. 0. railway ?— A. Yes.

Q. It is between the two cuttings? — A. Yes.

Q. Were there trees on it? — A. No.

Q. It was a cleared piece of land covered with stumps ? — A. Yes.

Q. And you got ready that day to plough it? — A. Yes.

Q. Was it ready to plough for Friday? — A. We went away on Friday, we
went west with the motor car. We travelled seventy miles, going through the same
procedure as the previous days, taking notes of the material in the different cuts
and burrows.

Q. Did you make any changes in the classification ? — A. No.

Q. It was merely an inspection trip? — A. That is all.

Q. What did you do then? — A. We slept at Residency No. 17 that night
and we returned on Saturday to Cochrane.

Q. Then on Sunday, I suppose you did nothing? — A. No.

Q. What did you do on Monday? — A. On Monday morning we started west.
We started west in the morning and ran through to Hearst, one hundred and
thirty miles.

Q. In the meantime, had any ploughing been done ? — A. They were plough-
ing all day Saturday.

Q. bid you see the work on Sunday or Monday? — A. I saw it Saturday
afternoon.

Q. Tell me what you saw? — A. I think there were one or two teams
ploughing material.

Q. Were they two horse or four horse teams ? — A. Two horses and a plough.

Q. What were they ploughing with? — A. A grading plough.

Q. How much ploughing had been done when you saw it? — A. I think
about a foot and a half in depth that day.

Q. From what you saw, can yon tell me to what depth the plough went into
the soil on the surface? — A. I did not see that.

294 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. Describe the condition of the earth that was ploughed when you saw it? —
A. It was clay.

Q. Was it ploughed? — A. Yes.

Q. Ploughed as you would see a field ploughed? — A. Yes.

Q. It was genuine ploughing? — A. Yes.

Q. How much had they done? — A. They ploughed about a foot and a half
in depth.

Q. Had thev done a day's work? — A. Do you mean what a farmer would
consider a day's work?

Q. Yes? — A. I do not know about that.

Q. They set out to plough out an area of about how much? — A. About 100
feet long and 20 feet wide.

Q. Had they ploughed the whole surface when yon saw it Saturday after-
noon?— A. Practically all of it.

Q. Had they removed any of the material ? — A. Yes.

Q. How was it removed? — A. With a scraper.

Q. How many horses on the scraper? — A. Two horses.

Q. Before ploughing the surface was grubbed? — A. Yes.

Q. After they grubbed it they put the plough on it? — A. Yes.

Q. After they ploughed it they put the scraper on it and removed the
ploughed material ? — A. Yes.

Q. Did they do anvthinsr else besides ploughinsf it and scraping it to remove
it?— A. Ko. ■

Q. When they took the surface off, what next did they do? Did they plough
it over again ? — A. Yes.

Q. They took another lift off it with the plough? — A. Yes.

Q. Did you see that ploughing done? — A. T might have been there for ten
or fifteen minutes.

Q. Was it apparently easy or hard ploughing? — A. Easy ploughing.

Q. They turned over the second lift then? — A. Yes, if you may call it a lift.

Q. Was that removed by the scraper? — A. Yes.

Q. Without any outside assistance? — A. Yes.

Q. Did they take another lift off, did they take a third lift off? — A. I did
not stay there.

Q. Anyway, they ploughed the whole area to what depth? — A. On on aver-
age about four and a half or five feet. The deepest place is about six and a half
feet.

Q. You are now looking at the cross-section? — A. Yes.

Q. Is that cross-section correct? — A. As far as I know, yes.

Q. You have no reason to think it is not correct? — A. No.

Q. It is certified by one of your resident engineers? — A. Yes, and by Mr.
Goodwin.

Q. What was the material in this cut? — A. Clay.

Q. Was it clay to the bottom? — A. T think he stopped at sand, he struck
sand in the bottom.

Q. That is where he stopped? — A. Yes.

Q. What was the sand like? — A. Very fine white sand.

Q. That completed all the tests that was made in that cut? — A. Yes.

Q. What else was done? — A. We are now up to Sunday, the 6th of October,
tliat test was in progress all through the next week ; we were away.

Q. Have you described to me everything that was done in that cut? — A. No.

Q. What else was done? — A. Some of that material in that particular spot
was scraped without being ploughed.

Q. Tell me what portion of it? — A. About a foot and a half. The plough
tvas away up in the other cut, and we scraped it out without going after the plough.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 295

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. So that part of the cut was taken out without the assistance of a plough ? —
A. About eighteen inches of it.

Q. Was that taken out at once ; to what depth would the scraper go ?— A. In
thin layers of two or three inches.

Q. Can you tell me anything more about that cut? — A. No; I do not think

80.

Q. That was all the work that was done there ? — A. Yes.

Q. You and Mr. Balkam were away during most of the time this was being
taken out? Inspecting along the line with Mr. Goodwin — A. Yes.

Q. Continue your account of your trip? — A. We made a similar inspection
west of Cochrane as far as the end of the district, 200 miles, as we did east of
Cochrane, and it took us from Monday until Friday to do that, five days.

Q. Did Mr. Goodwin make any other plough tests? — A. Yes.

Q. Where? — A. The first cut was west of Cochrane, on contract No. 15,
mile 104.

Q. About what area did he have ploughed there ? — A. The cross-section shows
about 50 feet by 15 feet.

Q. How far was that from the edge of the cutting on the railway? — A. I did
not see this place.

Q. Do you know the place ? — A. Oh, yes.

Q. Is the clay there similar to the clay in the cut you have already described?
— A. Not quite.

Q. Has any clay, like the clay in the cut you have already described, beeD
classified as loose rock? — A, Yes.

Q. Is the clay in the cut you have first described, similar to the clay through-
out the district? — A. It is the same physical formation.

Q. Is it in the same condition? — A. No.

Q. In what does this differ at the present time from the condition in which
it was when the right of way was cleared and the work was commenced? — A. The
clay is in a much drier state.

Q. Is it harder or softer? — A. It is the same consistency, but it is dry and
brittle instead of being sticky.

Q. What has caused the difference? — A. Clearing the land for four yeara
and draining it with the cuts on each side of it,

Q. In what condition was the clay in the cuts made by Mr. Goodwin, that yov
have first described? — A. Nice friable, dry material

Q. Was it dry down to all that depth ? — A. Yes.

Q. Was the cut alongside of Mr. Goodwin's test cut classified as loose rock ? —
A. Yes.

Q. Did Mr. Goodwin make any tests other than those you have spoken of on
the inspection, and at Station 835? — A. Yes; these two plough tests at Mile 103
(Station 428) and Mile 104, that is 103 miles east of Cochrane and 104 miles west
of Cochrane.

Q. The next plough test is at Mile 104 (Station 500) and that is west of
Cochrane ? — A. Yes.

Q. Mr. Goodwin said he had a plough test made alongside the cut at Station
482-503, and ploughed with two horses and a grading plough to a depth of about
five feet, is that correct ? — A. I believe so ; I did not see it.

Q. You did not see the cut all? — A. Not when he was ploughing it.

Q. Did you see it afterwards?- — A. No, sir.

Q. He did not make any other plough test that you know of ? — A. No.

Q. In his report he says, to summarize it, that he examined the classification
of contracts No. 13, No. 14, No. 15, and No. 16 in District D?— A. He did.

296 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. He says that on contract No. 13, Macdonell & O'Brien, contractors on
that portion of contract No. 13, which is in District D, all clay, muskeg, sand, and
loam, is classified as common excavation ? — A. Yes.

Q. And he says that mixed clay and boulders are classified, a certain per-
centage of loose rock according to the amount of boulders, and that no assembled
rock has been returned on this portion of the contract? — A. That is correct.

Q. He says that on contract No. 14, the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Com-
pany contractors, with the exception of some work done during 1908, practically
all the clay on this contract was classified as loose rock, and that muskeg, sand and
loam only, were returned as common excavation. Is that correct? — A. Yes.

Q. Listen to the way he classified it. He says: the clay on this contract can
be divided into four classes — first, clay which can be ploughed with two or four
horses and which, when ploughed, breaks up into such a way as to make it good
shovelling or scraping? — A. That is his opinion.

Q. He does not say what quantity, but he says there was some clay of that
kind? — A. Yes, that is right.

Q. Do you agree with that? — A. No, sir.

Q. As I say, he doe^- not give the quantity, but he says there was some of that
kind ? — A. Oh, that is perfectly right.

Q. Then he says : second, clay that can be ploughed, but is either too tough
or too soft for the ploughing to be any use as a means of handling. In some cases
this clay is too soft and sticky to allow horses to bo used on it, and in other cases
it is so tough that though it conld be ploughed, it would still have to be cut with
shovels before it could be removed. Do you agree with that? — A. There is such
material.

Q. ^ In the third place he says there is a quicksand clay which can be ploughed,
but which runs together almost immediately. This clay runs together so that it
invariably has to be shovelled out of the cars or carts. Do vou asrree with that? —
A. Yes.

^ Q. In the fourth place he says mixed clay and gravel ; some of this class should
be included in class No. 1, that is. clay which can be ploughed with two or four
horses and which, when ploughed, breaks up into such a way as to make it good
shovelling or scraping, as it can easily be ploughed and scraped or ploughed and
shovelled, while a proportion wonld contain too much stone to allow it to be
ploughed ? — A. Yes ; there is some of that.

Q. He next speaks of the cut at Station 54-.58, Residency 9, will you tell me
where that is?— A. Near the Abitibi River.

Q. He says it is a cut at Residency 9 and was mostly taken nut in 1908 and
1909 with ploughs and scrapers, the scrapers loadinsr through a trap into cars. Is
that right? — A. I do not know anything about it. I was not there. It was before
my time. I have no doubt it is true, because he was there. He was resident
engineer, I think, at that time.

Q. Do you remember the place? — A. I know the place.

Q. Can you describe what the cut consists of? — A. It is a clay cut with
boulders.

Q. Do you k-now the west end of the cut at Station 1063-1081, Mile 75? —
A. I know that cut, it is Residency No. 7.

Q. He says it was taken out with a plough and grading machine in 1908,
do you know aTi>'thinsr of that? — A. No. sir.' The gradin? machine is there,
so, I guess, that fp right.

Q. He says the material was clav and could come under Division No. 1. do
you agree it was clay? — A. It was clay, ye«. with sand in the bottom. We
borrowed in that cut afterward".

INTESTIGATIXG COMMISSION 297

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Yes, he says the east end was sand and vras used for borrows? — A. Yes,
but I would not say it was the east end. The borrow started in the west end of
the cut and went through right to the east end. I think he means the west end
there. It is more the centre of the cut really.

Q. He next refers to the cut at Station 2165-2175, Mile 54, do you laio\«
that ? — A. I do not remember that particular cut, but I know the general countrj
there. It is all a clay country.

Q. He says: I understand from Division Engineer O'Leary that the first
two feet of this cut was good scraper work, while the second two feet was only
fair, and the balance tough clay, which I judge would come under Di^dsion Xo. 2.
He says the cut was ploughed to a depth of six feet, that it was classified as 10,240
cubic yards loose rock, and 960 common excavation, do you know anything about
that? — A. I do not remember that particular spot now.

Q, Then he says : I would Judge that these cuts are typical of the whole
contract, what do you say as to that? — A. I think at the time the classification
was made, that every cut was considered by itself.

Q. But would you say they were typical cuts? — A. I cannot say that they
were.

Q. You would not like to express an opinion on it now, at this date? —
A. N'o, there is a similarity in all that country.

Q. He then says: Contract No. 15, E. F. and G. E. Fauquier, Contractors,
the clay on this contract is very similar to that on Contract Xo. 14, except that
perhaps there is a larger quantity of mixed clay and gravel, do you agree with
that ?— A. Yes, I think that is right.

Q. He says: On Contract 16, 0*Brien and Macdougall, and O'Gorman, the
material on this contract is very similar to that on Contracts No?. 14 and 15; I
would judge that the classification on this contract is not as high as on the other
contracts. "Whiat do you say as to that, is that your opinion? — A. The material
up there is a different material, it is more of a hardpan material.

Q. That is on O'Brien, Macdougall and O'Gorman's contract? — A. Yes.
I speak now of the average.

Q. Would you expect it to be classified higher than the other? — A. The
idea was to have it as uniform as possible.

Q. "Would you expect from your knowledge of material in the two contracts
that O'Brien, Macdougall and O'Gorman's contract would be classified higher than
the other contracts, than No. 14 and No. 15? — A. No, I would not.

The witness was not further exam.ined.

(N. T. R. INVESTIGATING COMMISSION: EVIDENCE TAKEN ON
TEAIN AT BOUNDARY BETWEEN ONTARIO AND QUEBEC,

JUNE 20th, 1913.)

Horace Longlet, sworn :

By the Chairman:

Q. You are a civil engineer? — A. Yes.

Q. Had you any experience before you became connected with this road? —
A. I was with Mackenzie and Mann in Nova Scotia for five years.

Q. On construction work? — A. I was resident engineer on two residencies.
Q. On construction? — A. Yes.

298 NATIOXAL TRAXSCOXTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. And then 3'OU came on the Transcontinental? — A. I was their office
engineer at Bridgewater, JST.S., and then I came to the Transcontinental

Q. What have you been employed at on the N.T.E. ? — A. First of all, in
1905, until construction began in 1907, I was engineer in charge of a party on
preliminary location.

Q. And since 1907, what have you been engaged at? — A. From 1907 to
1908 I was divisional engineer at Edmnndston. and then in 1908 I was appointed
assistant district engineer.

Q. Over what district? — A. I do not know.

Q. With Mr. Foss?— A. Yes.

Q. And you hold that ofifice noAv? — A. Yes. There were two of us at
first, you know.

Q. You were one of them ? — A. Yes.

Q. You have gone over the road from Moncton to the Quebec line with Mr.
Foss and the Commission in the last few days? — A. Yes.

Q. And vou have been present to-night, and heard the evidence given Mr.
Foss?— A. Yes.

Q. I do not wish to take you all over that evidence, but I would like to ask
you whether or not you agree with the evidence given by Mr. Foss, and, if you
do not, in what particulars do you disagree? — A. Well, anything on which I
disagree with him is very trifling detail. There is only one thing that is in my
mind at present. There were little things, but they do not affect the matter
generally. I think that instruction about curves was two thousand feet instead
of one. That is just in my mind now, but there were other little points which da
not amount to anything. Substantially. I agree with what Mr. Foss says.

(N.T.R. INVESTIGATING COMMISSION: EVIDENCE TAKEN AT N.T.R.
OFFICES AT QUEBEC, AUG. 20th, 1912.

J. W, Porter, sworn :

Q. How old are you? — A. Thirty-four.

Q. Where were you educated? — A. Aberdeen. Scotland, Gordon's College.

Q. What engineering experience did you have before you came to this country,
and what year did you come? — A. I served a pupilage of five years articled
to the chief engineer in charge of the (ireat North of Scotland Railway.
I was a year assistant to him, general assistant in the office, and I came to this
country in 1902.

Q. What was your first engineering employment in this country; give me
a short record of it, until you were employed on the N.T.R. ? — A. I got a position
from Mr. Tye, then chief engineer of construction for the C.P.R., as draughtsman
in the office. I was there for nine months, doing general office work, and at the
end of nine months I was -ent out to Winnipeg, on the Winnipeg- Fort William
double tracking. I was there five months as draughtsman, and afterwards I was
leveller for two weeks, I think, and then I was transitman up till about October
of that next year; that is October, 1903. Then T was on the Toronto Sudbury
as transitman on preliminary survey work under Mr. Killally. I was there for
a year and a half, and then I went over to the Walkerton & Lucknow, as assistant
on location. Two parties were bunehe<l together to locate that Walkerton line.
Then I came back to the Toronto Sudbury as resident on residency 5.

IXTESTIGATING COMMISSION 299'

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. What stations were on that line? — A. Black, Midhurst, Utopia. I
finished up tlat residency in about a year or nine months, and I was made respon-
sible engineer of contract work for the erection of timber trestles, etc. I laid
track up to Parry Sound in the capacity of resident engineer on track work, and
afterwards I went over to tlie Georgian Bay and Seaboard branch, and opened
up construction there as assistant engineer.

Q. As assistant engineer you had charge of how many residencies? —
A. There was just one there, from Coldwater up. I was there for two months,
and then I came back to the Toronto- Sudbury on fifty miles, where the ballasting,
etc., was not completed, and the stations, tracks, etc., had to be built, and so forth.

Q. And you practically finished up that road? — A. I had charge till it was
turned over for operation in the year 1909, and after that I took six months'
holiday, after seven years' work, and I went home. After returning, I went with
Mr. Grant- on the Transcontinental.

Q. So you had seven and a half years' actual experience on the C. P. P.
in Eastern Canada, east of Winnipeg? — A. Yes.

Q. And after those holidays, you took employment on the X.T.R., in what
position? — A. Mr. Grant wired me he had a position for me, and I went up to
see him, and he sent me down in the capacity of remeasuring work on District B

Q. And reclassification? — A. No, just remeasurement.

Q. And after that remeasurement work was completed you did what? —
A. I was made divisional engineer after Mr. Bourgois left. The division was
extended and ran from mile 92 to mile 150 at that time.

Q. West of the Quebec Bridge? — A. Yes.

Q. On our recent inspection of your division a great deal of discussion occurred
in connection with a sub classification known as assembled rock? — A. Yes.

Q. We opened up the sides of cutting at mileage 120.9 and 162.3 for
examination, and I asked you to examine the material found in these openings,
with the idea of securing from you your opinion as to how that material should
be classified. What were your conclusions?- — A. My conclusions were that it
did not come under the impression that I have in my mind of cementing material
between the rock. My idea of measuring that would be to measure the rock
and return it as solid rock at mile 120, which you were speaking about just now,
and the balance as loose rock. At mileage 120.9 I think the cut was about three
times as hard and contained a great deal of rock. I did not think the material
in between really was sufficiently hard to be called cemented : too much sand in it.
I would have returned it the same way.

Q. So that both of those cuttings, in your judgment, should have been re-
turned as loose rock, and all the solid rock that was in it? — A. Yes.

Q. Did you approve, as divisional engineer, of such classification as this which
we have just spoken of as assembled rock, for solid rock prices? — A. I did not do
any classifying, and I do not think I would call that assembled rock exactly.

Q. You do not think you called any material similar to that solid rock in
any of your returns? — A. No, not all solid rock. Wliat I mean is that at that
cut mile 120.9, it seemed to me full of rock, and a certain percentage of solid
rock, but I would not call it all solid rock.

Q. What I am after is, does this judgment which you have given me on these
cuts coincide with the classification which you have given of the cuts on your own
division? — A. I never classified any yet. I have never done any classification on
the line at all. I was not there when the work was opened up, and consequently
1 did not have an opportunity of exercising that judgment.

Q. I should like to have you make some comparisons between the character
of this railway and its method of construction, as compared with your experience
on the Toronto Sudbury line of the C P. P. That work was in progress at the
fame time that this work was proceeding? — A. Yes.

300 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. How did the character of country south of Bala compare with the character
of country covered by your division here? — A. It did not compare at all;
different proposition altogether.

Q. Different kind of material? — A. Different kind of geological formation.

Q, There were deep cuttings? — A. Yes.

Q. And some deep ravines to be crossed? — A. Yes, exactly.

Q. How were the deep ravines on the Toronto Sudbury line crossed? A.
Crossed. by square timber trestles known as permanent trestles. We had some 35
of them on the Toronto Sudbury in 226 miles, varying from 15,000 feet board
measure to 750,000 feet — three quarters of a mile. '

Q. The only steel structures that were erected on that line were built where? -
— A. Over running streams, and just like Parry Sound, a town crossing, and
crossing the G.T.R., and places like that.

Q. I would take it, then, that trestles were constructed at all points crossing
fill over 20 to 30 feet in height, where there was not sufficient material in the
adjoining cuttings to make the fill? — A. Trestles were erected, exactly.

Q. Did you have any experience on the Toronto Sudbury line with solid rock
borrow ? — A. ISTone, sir.

Q. In the location of these trestles was there any hard and fast rule against
locating them on curves? — A. None, sir. There were several of them on curves,
some of them on four degree curves.

Q. It was a common thing to construct trestles on curves? — A. Yes.

Q. Do you recall any steel bridge located on curves? — A. I cannot recall
any steel bridges located on curves.

Q. Reverting to wood trestles, were those trestles constructed in a country
that was covered with forest trees? — A. No.

Q. No forest country around the Toronto Sudbury line? — A. In the north
end there was pine limits.

Q. What I desire is, was the question of combustible material in the vicinity
of a proposed trestle of any import as to whether a trestle should be built at that
point ? — A. No.

Q. What did they do to protect these trestles from fire from adjoining tim-
berland or bush ? — A. Sometimes they put a watchman there, and standard water
barrels on a trestle, and they cleared a piece on each side, and took all the scrub and
slash away, so that there would be no chance of fire to run, and sometimes covered
the stumps with sand.

Q. And that special clearing extended far enough from the trestle so that
you engineers believed that the bridge would be safe from a forest fire? — A. Yes.

Q. That was really the condition, was it not? — A. Yes.

By The Chairman :

Q. It is a wild, unsettled country from Sudbury down to where? — A. Down
as far as Severn River, except for a small piece in between at Parry Sound ; that is
fully half the line, you might say, is settled.

Q. You were telling Mr. Gutelius it was not a forest country; you meant a
timberland; you do not mean it was a settled country? — A. No.

By Mr. Gvtelivs:

Q. Was the Toronto Sudbury division as high a class of railway in the
matter of grades and curvature as the X.T.R.? — A. It was a higher class.

Q. What do you mean by that? — A. I mean to say that the maximum
grade, the ruling srrade. was three-tenths, and here it is four-tenths. The maxi-
mum grade in both directions was a virtual three-tenths.

JXYESTIGATING COMMISSION 501

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. What do you mean by a virtual grade? — A. A virtual three-tenths
means a grade over which a train of three-tenths tonnage can be hauled.

Q. What is the difference between a virtual and an actual grade ? — An actual
grade is one in which the grade is uniform, with curvature compensated. A vir-
tual grade is one in which sags or momentum grades are introduced, whereby the-
actual rate of grade is increased.

Q. Is it possible for a locomotive to haul the same weight of train over a
virtual three-tenths that it would haul over an actual three- tenths ? — A. Yes.

Q. What is the object of introducing virtual grades? — A. The sole object
of the introduction of virtual grades is economy in construction.

Q. Were the economies in the matter of virtual grades, which include
momentum grades and sags, practised on the X.T.B.? — A. Xo, sir, not that I
know of. *

Q. Would it be possible for the engineers on the X.T.E. to estimate now the
saving which might have been effected had virtual grades been used? — A. I
think it probably would.

Q. They could, except where the location would have been influenced by the
proposal to utilize these sags and momentum grades? — A. Exactly, yes.

Q. So tliat it would not be possible for us to arrive at a definite figure as to
the saving that might have been effected? — A. Xo.

Q. So that momentum grade information or instructions should have been
dven to the locating engineers in order to have taken advantage of this economy^
—A. Yes.

Q. Were the original instructions such as would have permitted the use of
momentum grades and sags? — A. They were not.

Q. You were given hard and fast instructions to build actual grades? — A.
Yes.

Q. Reverting to timber trestles, is it possible for us to-day to figure the econ-
omies that might have been effected had timber trestles been constructed originally ?
— A. 1 thirJi it is.

Q. I understand 5'ou are working on such information for this commission
now ? — A. Yes.

Q. In the matter of curvature, I understand your instructions were (Read-
ing from general instructions to Civil Engineers, signed by Mr. Lumsden) — "The
maximum curve on a level shall not exceed six degrees. This curve should be used
sparingly, and only when the topographical conditions prohibit an easier radius.
At depots or stopping places curves exceeding three degrees should not be used.
Curves less than 300 feet long are objectionable and should not be used. Reversed
curves must not be used under any circumstances. At least 600 feet between
transition Curves must be had. Broken back curves must not be used. The mini-
mum tangent between curves in the same direction shall be 600 feet clear of transi-
tion curves " ? — A. Yes, that is so.

Q. How do these instructions compare with those under which you worked
on other railways ? — A. Rather more rigid, or confined the locating engineers more
than on other railroads.

Q. Were you given a maximum degree of curve without any latitude on
any other railway that you have ever worked on ? — A. Yes.

Q. What was your maximum? — A. Four degree curves. It was departed
from in one case.

Q. So that there are six degree curves on the Toronto Sudbury? — A. One.

Q. Was there any limitation as to the length of curve on the Toronto Sud-
bury ? — A. Xo.

Q. Were the curves on the Toronto Sudbury spiral? — A. Yes.

Q. Was there any objection to reversing spiral curves? — A. I do not think
so.

:3{)i NATIOXM. Th'AM<('OXTIXi:\TAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. Was there any instruction against compounding curves? — A. By no
means. There were numerous compound curves used on the Toronto Sudbury.

Q. In your experience as an engineer, do you see any advantage in limiting
the length of tangents between curves that are spiral? — A. I do not.

Q. So that you would feel that any additional money expended for tangents
hetween spiral curves would be wasted? — A. I would.

Q. From your knowledge of your division, could any large saving have been
effected if the limit in degree of curves had been extended to eight degrees? — A.
Yes, it could have been.

Q. Would it be good railroading to introduce eight degree curves where
large saving could be effected, even though it would be expected that, under heax}-
traffic, that curvature might, at some later date, be reduced? — A. I think it would
"be practical railroading to do so.

Q. Wliat is a pusher grade for a four-tenths, assuming that the pusher loco-
motive is of the same power as the locomotive pulling tlie train? — A. It is 1.12
per cent.

Q. What is the rate for a pusher grade in a six-tenths line, using the same
•size of engine for pusher as that hauling the train? — A. 1.47.

Q. If a lesser gradient was used, such as I understand is the fact west of
•the St. Francis Eiver, and it cost more money where the rate of gradient was 1 . 1
than a 1.47 grade would have cost, that additional expenditure was unnecessary?
— A. It was.

<N. r. K. ixvKSTi(;A'riX(; commissiox, evidence taken at

OTTAWA, IN THE COMMISSION OFFICE, OCT. 17th, 1912.)

Chilion Longley Hervey. sworn :
By the Chairman :

Q. You are an engineer by profession? — A. Yes.

Q. And are now a contractor on the National Transcontinental? — A. Yes.

Q. Where? — A. I have a small section of work away up above La Tuque,
Tip bevond where the end of steel is at present, and I have some work in New Bruns-
"wick. not on the Transcontinental though.

Q. Were you in the employ of the Transcontinental at one time? — A. Yes.

Q. When did you enter their employment? — A. I think it was 1905; I
won't be exact about that.

Q. In what capacity? — A. As assistant to chief of party.

Q. On an exploration party? — A. On a survey location. They had assis-
iant chiefs of party then, as they called them.

Q. After you finisliod on that job what did you go to next? — A. They
transferred me from New Brunswick up to Lake Ahitihi, on the surveys there.
-and then into District C, and then into District B, and then on the Quebec Bridge
Terminals, and then back up on to District A, do\\Ti where Mr. Foss was, and then
back again up to District B.

Q. You wore finally at District B? — A. Yes, that is wliore I was when I
left the road.

Q. What were you at District B when yon loft the rond?— .\. Assistant
•district engineer.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 303

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. To Mr. Doucet?— A. Yes.

Q. I want to ask you about this Ludger Noel arch? — A. Yes.

Q. The Ludger Noel arch is situated where? — A. If I remember right, it
was about mile 141 west of Quebec.

Q. And it spans a stream? — A. Yes.

Q. It runs through on the north ride? — A. It is on the west side of the
St. Maurice Eiver.

Q. It runs north? — A. Yes.

Q. Is the stream called the Ludger Noel? — A. Yes.

Q. This stream empties into the St. Maurice Eiver? — A. Yes.

Q. And the arch is quite close to the mouth of the stream? A. Yes.

Q. It is a floatable stream used for logs? — A. I have been told they drive
it continually.

Q. Did you see any driving down on it? — A. No, sir.

Q. Did you know what the high water mark was returned by Mr. Ferguson?
— A. Well, may be I can help out by Just making a little explanation. Before I
was assistant district engineer there, I was a divisional engineer some distance below
t^at, and consequently I was dependent for my water levels on my predecessors in
that country. We had several water levels on that area and several on the St.
Maurice Eiver at different places, and that is all the information we had to go on,
and when I got there it was the time this arch was about to start to build, when I
came in charge of it„ and there were several sets of levels given by Ferguson and
Bourgois, and a number of other engineers that had been there before me. That
opening was originally designed for a steel viaduct, and I think it was on a reversg
curve — I am not quite sure about that — and finally we came to the conclusion, on
account of having the pedestals on steep gravel side hills, and the undesirability of
a viaduct at that point was on account of the curves, and that it would be better to
put in an arch, and we decided on a forty-foot arch;* that is how the decision was
arrived at.

Q. Before that it was first decided that a steel viaduct was not desirable? —
A. Yes.

Q. By whom was that decided? — A. Well, I think I am correct in saying
that we had correspondence between Quebec and Ottawa, with Mr. Uniacke, upon
that subject for certain weeks and possibly months.

Q. Eventually the chief engineer, or whoever was the proper officer — A. I
think the bridge engineer Mr. Uniacke.

Q. He consented to doing away with the arch? — A. Yes, that is what I
understand.

Q. A design was prepared, was it not? — A, Yes.

Q. For the culvert?— A. Yes.

Q. And is that not the design? (Showing blue print). — A. I think that is
just about the design, as I remember it : it is about four years ago.

Q. Was there a plan sent to you to work under? — A. We had a standard
plan for a forty-foot arch.

Q. What is the size of the arch as built? — A. Forty foot.

Q. Did you get a plan for a forty-foot arch? — A. We had what we call a
standard plan.

Q. Did you get anything from the office in Ottawa for the building of that
arch? — A. No, sir.

Q. Nothing whatever?— A. No more than the standard plan we had on
fyle for any forty-foot arch : I think I am correct in saying that : I do not remem-
ber of any.

Q. By a forty-foot arch, you mean an arch with a span of forty feet? — A.
Yes, sir, and in this case the ring is a twenty-foot radins.

a04 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. Are the bench walls shown on that at a certain height? — A. Yes, they are.

Q. The bench walls are the walls that support the arch ? — A. Yes, exactly.

Q. And they are shown to be how high on the standard plan? — A. On this
standard plan they are shown to be ten feet.

Q. And that is the general instruction, is it, on which the engineers act when
a forty-foot arch is to be built? — A. Yes, general instruction.

Q. Who authorized you to put in an arch at all? — A. Why, it was agreed
upon in the correspondence we had with Uniacke, the bridge engineer, if we assured
him ourselves down there that a forty-foot arch would hold that strain.

Q. Have you any letter authorizing it? (Letters produced and referred to).

Q. It was apparently on your suggestion that this forty-foot arch was put in :
at least, it originated with you, so far as the correspondence shows? — A. Well,
I certainly was one that originated it : I think I said in my letter that there were
three or four of us there.

Q. Did you not do the correspondence from the office? — A. I did the corre-
spondence from the Quebec office. My office was in Quebec, then, you know.

Q. Did you examine it on the ground ? — A. I did.

Q. And you concluded that a forty-foot arch was right? — A. Yes.

.Q. You stated in your letter that a forty-foot arch was sufficient. You said in
your letter December 21st, " They agreed with me, without one dissent, that a single
forty-foot or a double twenty-five would carry this stream any time " ? — A. Yes.

Q. You knew all the time you were corresponding that a forty-foot arcl\
bridge was the standard forty-foot bridge? — A. Yes.

Q. Did you ever get any authority to raise the bench walls of that culvert? —
A. We have that authority any time.

Q, I did not ask you that: did you ever get any written authority to raise
them? — A. Not that I recall, from anybody.

Q. Did you consult your superior officers about raising the bench walls of
that culvert? — A. Not that I recall, sir.

Q. The bench walls of that culvert were raised ? — A. Yes.

Q. And they were raised so as to. make the culvert how much higher? — A.
Eight feet higher : I think it is eight feet.

Q. At a cost, I am told, to the government of $22,000? — A. That may be
accurate, but I do not think it is that. I did cause the raising of that wall.

Q. But it was a large amount of money? — A. Yes.

Q. Wliat right had you to take it on yourself to do that? — A. I produce a
standard plan of a forty-foot arch (Exhibit A) and I draw your attention to figures
on the side 3070, with a circle round them.

Q. These figures mean what? — A. Those are the height of the liench wall.

Q. And in this case show the height to be ten feet? — A. Yes.

Q. And you add the three and the seven together? — A. Yes.

Q. And opposite there are encircled in the same way the figure 30 and 5f>
and 25 four inches. What do those indicate? — A. The entire height of the arch.

Q. That is to the centre, from the floor? — A. From the top of tlie com-
pleted arch to the floor, and this is the height of the wall at its extremity, and I
point out that on this plan are written the following words " Dimensions marked
thus (with a circle) may be varied if necessary."

Q. And you say that under that authority you raised these bench walls? —
A. Yes.

Q. Wliat was the necessity for raising them? — A. As T told you, we wer^^
going on the data of water marks left us by our predecessors.

Q. What were the data that you had before you ? — A. The high water marks
given by all the locating and constructing engineers that had preceded me on the
works.

INTESTIGATIXG COMMISSION 305

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. So far as the records go, I am instructed the high water mark is shown
on this profile? — A. This is as far as Ferguson's high water mark is concerned,
but we have several.

Q. Do you say that you had any other profile showing any other high water
mark? — A. I cannot say that it varied from that; we had several others.

Q. Did you ever make any record, or can you refer to anything which showed
the high water mark was higher than that ? — A. No^ I cannot state that positively.

Q. Don't you know as a fact it was not higher than that ? — A. No, I do not.
That gives the depth of that water on this plan ten feet on the profile, and it is
practically 75 or 80 feet wide. Now we are congesting that into forty feet.

Q. That is on the lower side ? — A. No, Jt is right in the centre line.

Q. Of the stream ? — A. Crossing the stream, on the centre line of the rail-way
crossing the stream, and if you congest that to forty feet, you would naturally expect
it higher, and if you were going to have a log drive, and did not want it against the
ring of the arch —

Q. Yon know the stream suddenly breaks out at the railway, and is not on
the south side anything like 80 feet wide? — A. It certainly was at this time,
because they have taken the elevations.

Q. It spreads out on the railway ? — A. When it backs up it is high.

Q. But I am speaking of the stream : it is not fair to say that that is an eighty-
foot stream coming down there and crossing? — A. In high water it is.

Q. Do you say that the stream was of that breadth on the south side of the
railway? — A. Eight on the exact centre line of the railway, and we congest that
into forty.

By Mr. Gutelius :

Q. What plan is this we are looking at? — A. That is a plan of Alexander
Ferguson, in charge of a location party to locate the railway, dated September
7th, 1907.

Q. And on this plan high water mark is shown at what elevation? — A. 645.

Q. Andlow water?— A. 636.8.

Q. What is the width of the stream at high water on the plan ? — A. 85 feet.

Q. And what is the width of the stream at low water ? — A. 50 feet.

Q. What is the elevation of the spring line on the arch as constructed? — A.
656.

Q. And the height of low water is what? — A. 636.

Q. What is the elevation of the bottom of the invert of the arch in the centre?
—A. 637.

Q. So that it would require nineteen feet of water to make the surface of
a flood equal to the height of the spring line ? — A. Yes, to the level of the spring
line.

By the Chairman:

Q. Then you ordered the walls to be increased under these circumstances
without consultation with anybody? — A. Yes: I do not remember consulting
anybody about it. I cannot say that I did, positively.

Q. Then were there other engineers on the ground? — A. If I remember
right, the time that I decided to raise those walls was just after we had completed
the piers in the St. Maurice Kiver. This has a bearing on this : and I had com-
pleted them on the previous day in high water levels : and after we had completed
those — we built them in winter before the steel had been put on — I stood there
myself and saw the St. Maurice Eiver and the ice going over the top of the piers
five feet: that is practically the first. opening on the St. Maurice below this; it is
about 13 or 14 miles down.
123.— 20

306 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. A flood in the St. Maurice would not be any more guide to you for the
construction of this than a flood in the St. Lawrence? — A. No, I do not mean
to intimate it would be a positive guide.

Q. It would not be any guide? — A. Well, it did not lead me to believe
these men that were preceding me were underestimating the flood of the river.

Q. That they were not underestimating? — A. Or rather, it led me to
believe they were underestimating.

Q. You came to that conclusion when? — A. WTien the freshet took place
in the St. Maurice.

Q. When was it you began the arch? — A. The same year.

Q. You observed the freshet in the St. Maurice Eiver months before you
began the construction of the arch? — A. Not many; it was the same year.

Q. You made up your mind then that the figures of the engineers as to
observations were not reliable ? — A. I wanted to be on the safe side, because I had
taken the responsibility.

0. Yoii paw Mr. Doucet? — A. Lots of times.

Q. You saw him many times before you commenced the construction of the
Ludger Noel arch? — A. Yes.

Q. And you saw the Inspecting Engineer? — A. I think I saw him too.

Q. And you were in constant communication with the Head Office? — A.
Yes.

Q. And yet you never drew it to their attention? — A. I cannot recall that
I did; I may as well say I did not.

Q. If you did that, was it not undertaking something that you had no
authority whatever to do? — A. Well, I think my authority is on that plan.

Q. I cannot see how it is, because it does not say you may vary those
measurements? — A. What does it say?

Q. It says they may be varied where necessary? — A. It says they may be
varied if necessary; that means by the engineer on the ground.

Q. I should think it means by the engineers. You were only assistant
engineer; you never even spoke to Mr. Doucet about it? — A. No, I do not think
I did.

Q. Did you pursue that policy of spending large sums of money off your
own bat^ without consulting any person else? — A. No, I cannot say that I did,
sir. In the case of the St. Maurice we raised that fifteen feet.

Q. Did you consult Mr. Doucet in that ? — A. Yes, I will tell you why ; that
was a vastly different point —

Q. Never mind that. Here you had present to your mind that this culvert
should be raised, and it cost a large sum of money to raise it. Before you had
adopted that culvert you consulted the engineers on the ground, you consulted
Mr. Doucet, you consulted the Head Offices, and although you had the matter in
your own mind for months, you deliberately p\it in those side arches without con-
sulting anybody — increased the side walls without consulting anybody? — A. I
never considered those side walls to be an absolute fixture.

Q. Wliat do you mean by that? — A. I would consider myself — I may be
wrong — that if 1 were putting in an arch for a certain purpose, and there was
going to be hardly any water, I would consider myself justified in cutting that
down five or six feet, or raising it, if necessary, on the ground; and we referred
the bridge plans to the bridge engineer, because it was eliminating a structure.

Q. Broadly speaking, where increased expenditure was necessary over that
contemplated and contained in the direct instructions, did you not always consult
your superior? — A. No, sir.

Q. You did not? — A. No.

Q. Did anybody else do that, to your knowledge, on the road ? — A. I am
speaking, of course, of ordinary minor expenditure ; I am not talking about change
of location.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 307

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Of course this was a large expenditure; it was increasing the cost of the
whole fill and arch a fifth? — A. I cannot quite figure that out.

Q, Would you not think that improper deductions might be made by people,
from your doing that? — A. I should say not; I do not see why they should.

Q. You have not, so far as we can see, given any data to show the necessity
for it; you never consulted your superior, or a single engineer, and never wrote
a letter, and involved the commission in an expenditure through a whim, so far
as I can see? — A. "Would not this plan you show me be considered a data?

Q. I want to know what the data is? — A. The water is ten feet deep in an
eighty foot opening.

Q. And you knew that when you made that recommendation, and your
recommendation said that a forty foot arch would carry it under any conditions?
— A. But I did not say the arch would have eight or ten foot walls.

Q. You knew you were misleading the Head Office? — A. No.

Q. You knew what the standard arch was? — A. We had several standards.

Q. Had you a standard forty foot arch that differed from that? — A. I do
not know whether we had or not.

Q. It is quite plain from your letter, December 21st, that you vrished to, if
possible, avoid a steel viaduct, and that you were trying to persuade them to built
this culvert, as you use these words : " I have been on the ground with Timbrell
and Grant " — that is the present chief engineer, is it not ? — A. Yes.

Q. *' And have enquired, from Bourgeois and others that have been familiar
with the Ludger Noel in freshet season, and they agree with me, without one
dissent, that a single forty or a double twenty-five will carry the stream any
time ". There is your judgment formed after consultation with most capable
engineers who are familiar with the conditions, and you, without any additional
information, excepting, according to yourself, that you saw the St. Maurice in
flood; you knew, according to yourself, the width of this stream, because you said
you were on the ground — you deliberately increased that without any consultation
with anybody, to the advantage of the contractor? — A. I do not know about the
advantage to the contractor. I spoke to some of them up there, I do not remember
whether it was resident or divisional engineers, in the matter, at the time of the
St. Maurice flood that I refer to, and they told me that there had been a big flood
here in this river.

Q. WTio told you? — A. I have been trying to think ever since I have been
in there, whether it was Timbrell or somebody else. I cannot state positively,
because it is too serious a matter to say, unless I am sure of it, but some of the
men on the ground did tell me, and I was on the St. Maurice Eiver at the time.

Q. But you did not undertake to increase the length on the St. Maurice
Kiver without authority? — A. That was the bridge engineer's direct affair, be-
cause it was a bridge structure.

Q. But this was Mr. Doucet's direct affair: he was responsible for this
expenditure, and you were in his office, in the same building with him ? — A. I
have changed culverts on that railway.

Q. I cannot conceive why you should do this without even telling the man
in the same office? — A. I certainly do not recall telling him anjrthing about it.

Q. And you can give no more explanation than you have given? — A. No
more explanation than that I considered it advisable to raise it.

Q. No person agrees with you that we know of, and subsequent experience
shows, as far as we know, that it was a waste of money, and you have not given
any concrete evidence of why you did it ? — A. If you take the thing theoretically,
there is a plan

Q. But you had that plan before you when you wrote this letter to Mr.
Doucet ? — A. Yes.

Q. Then you did not draw that conclusion at that time? — A. I did not
state in the letter that the walls had to be ten feet high or fifty.

308 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. You said two twenty-five or a forty would take care of it, under all con-
ditions ? — A. Yes.

Q. Do you mean to tell me that if any man wrote that letter to you, that
you would not understand that the standard was what he was referring to? — A.
Those dimensions are all variable.

Q. But you were referring to the standard arch; you were showing them by
that letter that the price would not be any more than the standard arch, because
this is an argumentative letter. You say in effect " I am sure that a standard
arch, or two twenty-fives or one forty, will carry us under all conditions " ? — A.
Yes, this is made deeper on account of excavations for foundation, understand.

Q. I am speaking of the length above the water? — A. That makes a wall
higher.

Q. You said a few moments ago that you did make changes in other work
under your charge? — A. Yes.

Q. Without consultation with anybody else? — A. Yes, I did.

Q. Will you tell me one of them that is of any importance? — A. Off-
handed, I should say that I had changed several culverts; it is a little hard for
me to remember those exactly.

Q. Mr, MacPherson wrote to Mr. Lumsden, January, 1909, drawing his
attention to the fact that the quantities being returned for standard culverts were
largely in excess, not in accordance with the plans, and cited seven locations in
District B where the total yardage called for by the standard plan amounted to
1471, while the total yardage returned by the resident en.dneers was 2,230 yards.
Those are on Eesidencies 22 and 23: are those yours? — A. They were all under
me.

Q. Can you give any reason why you increased the yardage in those? — A. I
did not increase them. It was due to the foundation, or the particular structures.

Q. N'o, it was the thickness of the walls? — A. Wlien vre started the road,
Residency 22 was where the work was started, and they were constantly changing
the plans. If they had one set they had four, and the work was going on all the
time, and we had to get along the best we could.

Q. Do you say you were not supplied with a plan which showed a fixed
thickness for those walls? — A. 1 mean to say they were changing them monthly
or weekly; that is a guess as to time.

Q. Do you repudiate the responsibility, so far as you are responsible, for the
changing of the thickness of the walls of these culverts in these residencies? — A.
I mean to say when we were building the plans kept coming in. in different ways,
and we had to keep on building. We went on the best we could with what we
thought was right. We had a set of standard plans sent to us that we never built
one culvert on: that is the egg-shaped culvert, such as the C.P.B. used.

Q. In February, 1909, Mr. MacPherson wrote a letter and said: — "Assis-
tant district engineer Hervey's statement that the culverts referred to were built
before a standard plan furnished from this office is absolutely incorrect, as none
of them were even standard when the final standard plans for these sizes of
culverts were sent out. On August loth, 1906. final standards were sent out and
acknowledged by the district engineer, 17th August, 1906. The earliest start on
one of the five culverts referred to on Residency 23 was September 5th, 1906, and
the latest October 28th, 1906. This latest one is the worst of the lot in its
departure from standard plans. The thickness of the arch at crown is IS inches
instead of nine inches on standard, and depth of concrete under culvert three fee^
three inches instead of six inches". Is that right? You cannot tell us an^rthing
about the foundation part of it? — A. No.

Q. "With the result that the total concrete in the stmcture is 2.6 times
that called for by the standard plan. Most if not all of the plans of small arch
culverts received from District B to date have thickness of crown and other fea-
tures different from the standard, proving that the men on the ground have taken

IXYESTIGATIXG COUMISSION 309

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

it upon themselves to alter or ignore the standards, the result being always
increased quantities ". What do you say to that ? — A. That was from August to
September, I understand?

Q. Yes? — A. I think that we had been building culverts on the plans that
those culverts are built on prior to receiving — possibly not those particular culverts
but other ones in the same residence prior to receiving those final standard plans,
and that they went on with them; that is my impression about that, because we
had three different sets of standard plans sent us in one summer right at the time
you speak of, and we went on the best we could and designed our own culverts,
because we did not know what we were going to do.

Q. Did you make any protest or send in any letters about it, or put j^ourself
on record? — A. I think there was a certain amount of correspondence about
culverts and standard plans and criticisms of them. I supposed the thing had
been done away with long ago.

Q. If Mr. MacPherson's statement is correct, is there any excuse for having
departed from the standard plans? — A. Any more than we were probably build-
ing on those very plans the culverts were built upon before.

Q. He says they were not commenced, till after? — A. But there were other
culverts there, and the resident engineers were working on those plans at the time,
and they might have received them at that date, or might not have received them
till afterwards.

Q. You mean to say that, although the plans might have got to the district
engineer's office, they might not have got to the resident engineer's office in time,
before the commencement? — ^A. That is very possible, but I do not state that it
did happen, because they sent out a negative, and they all had to be reprinted and
sent out.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. Did you knowingly permit an eighteen inch ring on a six foot arch? — A.
T cannot state positively whether I did or not.

Q. Do you think you did? If you came to a six-foot arch and found them
putting an eighteen-inch ring on, what would you do? — A. I think I would con-
sider it about right. I have forgotten. I was never much on culvert design. I
am not clear on the point. I could not tell you whether I permitted that or in-
structed it or not.

Q. Referring to that three-foot thick invert, if you found it was necessary to
go three feet below the depth of the stream, would you consider it good economical
construction to fill the hole from the bottom up entirely across the bed of the arch
with concrete as deep as three feet or more? — A. We would put in inverts where-
ver we thought there was danger of scouring.

Q. What depth of invert concrete do you think should be a maximum for an
eight-foot arch? — A. I should think about 13 or 18 inches.

Q. Then if you had a hole deeper than that you would have filled it with
what? — A. Eock, I suppose, or other, material.

Q. So that it would not be good engineering to fill up a three-foot hole with
6olid expensive concrete? — A. No.

0. That was done on that work.' Did yoti know of it? — A. I cannot sav
that I did.

Q. Referring to standard plan of forty-foot arch, these variable dimensions
are intended to enable the engineer in the field to fit the arch to the ground as he
finds it? — A. That is what I understand it. yes.

Q. If this standard plan showed high water mark at the line where the
terms " springing line " are printed, what eiTect would that have had on you in
locating the height of the side walls of the Ludger Xoel arch? — A. I should
think that the area ordinarily below the springing line, the cross-section area below
the springing line should be sufficient in that arch or any other to take care of it —
or equal to the water at liigli water level.

310 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. And the area on Mr. Ferguson's plan would be fifty feet on the bottom,
eighty feet on top, ten feet high, which would equal 650 square feet? — A. Yes.

Q. The area of waterway in the Ludger Isoel arch as constructed is what ? —
A. 760 feet.

Q. You provide a margin above your own formula of 110 square feet? — A.
Yes.

Q. Or three feet as least? — A. Three feet in height,

Q. As an engineer^ you figure that that extra height was necessary for a
safe structure? — A. Considering it was a log driving stream I do, with the
information I had at hand.

Q. The amount of money, as brought out heretofore, is large? — A. Yes.

Q. And the fact that you did not take this up with your superior officers is
the one thing which we are rather putting up to your door. If you had known
that this was going to involve anything like that additional expenditure, would you
not have taken it up with your superiors? — A. I did not realize the large expen-
diture.

Q. If you had realized it, you would? — A. Yes.

Q. Now, that it is all over, you are willing to say that unfortunately you
overlooked discussing this matter with your superior officers, although, as an
engineer, you felt tliat that extra height was necessary ? — A. With the information
I had, I do.

(N. T. E. INVESTIGATING COMMISSION, EVIDENCE TAKEN ON THE
TEAIN BETWEEN GEANT AND COCHEANE, JUNE 9th, 1912.)

H. M. Balkam, sworn:

Examined by the Chairman:

Q. You are an engineer by profession? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. How many years' experience have you had as an engineer? — A. About

thirty odd.

Q. Have you had experience in classification in Canada before you came on

this road?— A. Yes. , ^t t^

Q. On what roads?— A. The last one I was on was the New. Brunswick

Coal and Eailway.

Q. How long were vou there? — A. About three years.

Q. And before that where were you?— A. On the Bangor, Aroostock nnd
Maine Eailway.

Q. When did you come on the Transcontinental? — A. In September, 1904.

Q. Where was your first experience on that line ? — A. In New Brunswick.

Q. How long were you there? — A. I was there until the winter of 1905

and 1906. ^ • _x

Q. What was your position there? — A. In charge of surveying party.

Q. You came up to this country when? — A. I stayed in New Brunswick
until the winter of 1905-6.

Q. Then to this country? — A. No, then in the Nipigon country.

Q. How long did you remain there?— A. Stayed there until September,
1906.

Q, When did you come here? — A. I came here about the Ist of September
last vear.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 311

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. In the meantime where were you? — A. On the Transcontinental N.B.

Q. In 1906?— A. Yes.

Q. You went back to New Brunswick? — A. Yes.

Q. What were you engaged at down there ? — A. I was on location, divisional
engineer, assistant district engineer until 1908, I think, and then I was inspecting
engineer.

Q. On what? — A. On the whole road.

Q. From "Winnipeg to Moncton? — A. Moncton to Winnipeg.

Q. Then after that? — A. I came here in September as district engineer.

Q. You are now district engineer where? — A. Headquarters at Cochrane,
district CD.

Q. About how many miles in your district? — A. About 400.

Q. Have vou the control of the classification over that whole district? — A.
No.

Q. Have you control over any part of it? — A. ISTo.

Q. Have you any concern with the classification? — A. Certainly.

Q. What is your position? — A. I control the classification until I am over-
ruled by my superiors.

Q. Then you control all the classification on that 400 miles until you are
overruled by your superiors? — A. Yes.

Q. Who are your superiors? — A. Gordon Grant, chief engineer.

Q. Anybody else? — A. Not that I know of.

0- Then you are next to Mr. Grant? — A. On this piece of ground.

Q. Does your district extend through what is called the clay belt? — A. It
is virtually all in the clay belt.

Q. Is the country about the same as from Peter Brown to Grant? — A. No;
the surface of the country down there is very near the same. Down there we have
that underlying soft blue clay and that does not occur up on the western end.

Q. Have you given any instructions to the resident engineers, the divisional
engineers, or the assistant district engineers with regard to classification since you
came on the road? — A. Yes.

Q. Were those instructions in writing? — A. No; there might be some in the
form of a circular letter.

Q. Have you kept a fyle of written instructions which you gave to vour
engineers ? — A. Yes.

Q. And among those are there circular letters concerning this classification?
—A. Yes.

Q. Where is that fyle? — A. In my office at Cochrane.

Q. Is the classification in your district governed by your instructions? — A.
Yes.

Q. And you are, therefore, responsible to your superior for the classification
in this district? — A. Well, not what was done previous to my connection with
the district.

Q. But since you came here? — A. Yes.

Q. Have you given any different instructions for classification apparently
different from those which were in force when you came here? — A. Only in one
instance that I can remember. •

Q. What was that? — A. That was to classify no clay other than common.

Q. As what? — A. To classify all clay as common excavation, pending a
plough test.

Q. In consequence of what did you give those instructions? — A. Because
I was so instructed by the Chief Engineer.

Q. When was that instruction given? — A. Some time this spring.

Q. Before that had you given any such instructions? — A. I had given in-
structions to cut out a certain classification that had been returned as loose rock
for clay that was too soft to plough.

912 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. Will you tell me where that was? — A. I think that was only on two
contracts.

Q. What contracts were they? — A. 15 and 14.

Q. Whose were they? — A. 14 is the G.T.P. and 15 is Fauquier Brothers.

Q. The G.T.P., or Foley, Welch & Stewart?— A. Yes.

Q. Why did you do that? — A. Because I was so instructed.

Q. To cut out the soft clay?— A. Yes.

Q. And to classify the soft clay as what? — A. Common excavation.

Q. Who instructed you? — A. I think the instructions came through the
chief.

Q. Do you recollect? — A. I cannot say positively whether these instructions
came from Mr. Leonard or the chief.

Q. That was after Mr. Leonard came in? — A. Yes.

Q. Did you change it before Mr. Leonard came in? — A. Yes, I changed the
classification in that pit we saw this morning.

Q. Tell me the number of it? — A. That was at Missinabie, about mile 211.

Q. What classification did you change there? — A. I changed it from train
fill to classified train fill.

Q. What is the number of the pit? — A. Xumber one.

Q. You changed it from train fill to what? — A. Classified train fill.

Q. What is train fill classification? — A. That is something that is not
allowed in the book.

Q. Was train fill more expensive classification or less expensive? — A. My
classification was more expensive.

Q. How was it being classified before you made the change ? — A. Train fill ;
no classification.

Q. What was the commission paying for it then? — A. 55 cents.

Q. Did that include overhaul? — A. No.

Q. 55 cents a cubic yard and overhaul, whatever that amounted to; is that
right? — A. Yes, if there was any.

Q. Was there any overhaul ? — A. Not in that case.

Q. So that it was costing them 55 cents? — A. Yes.

Q, What did your classification make it cost them? — A. 97 I think.

Q. Had there been any complaint made about it? — A. I could not say as
to that.

Q. How long had it been classified as train fill? — A. Well, during that
season.

Q. During what season. — A. Last year, 1911.

Q. When did you change it? — A. I think it was in November or Decem-

ber.

No.

Q. What made you change it? — A. Because I thought it was right.

Q. Was there no other reason? Nobody was making any complaint? — A.

Q. You just of your own motion, without any instructions or complaint,
raised it to 97 cents? — A. That is my remembrance of it now.

Q. AVas that not rather an extraordinary thing to do? — A. I do not think
so.

Q. You were there in the interests of the Transcontinental, were you not? —
A. Certainly.

Q. It was not in its intcre.-t to pay any more money than people were asking?
— A. It was my interest to pay what was right; it was my business to pay what
was right.

Q. What was this material ? — A. It was clay.

Q. How has it been taken out? — A. Pick and sliovel.

Q. And it was just scooped out with a steam shovel, was it? — A. Handled
witli a steam slmvcl. as far as I know.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 313

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Is there very much of it? — A. Yes, there was a good deal of it.
Q. How much did you classify of it? — A. I would have to look it up. I
should say somethiug like 50,0U0 yards.

Q. Did you communicate with the chief engineer before you changed this
classification? — A. I do not remember that I did.

Q, Did you advise him by letter that you had changed it? — A. It showed
on the form.

Q. What entry on the form did you make that would draw any person's
.attention to it? — A. It showed a minus quantity in train fill and a plus quantity
in classified train fill.

Q. I do not follow you ; you have certain forms on which you enter the classi-
fication. Did the classification say ? — A. We change it from one item to another.
Q. Did the classification say, before your time, that material taken from pit
number one, for instance, is paid for as train fill? — A. That shows on the form.

Q. When you came along did you change the figures? — A. I took so much
out of the train fill column and put it into another column.

Q. If the chief engineer had the two documents before him would he know
that the material that the commission had been paying as train fill was raised now
to 97 cents? — A. Certainly.

Q. How could he tell it ? — A. It was self evident on the form.
Q. You did not draw his attention to it more than that? — A. I do not know :
we generally sent in a letter as to any change ; I could not say whether we actually
sent in a letter of that kind.

Q. Had you any discussion with anybody before that? — A. Y^'es, I discussed
it with the divisional engineer, Mr. Pardee.

Q. Anybody else? — A. I do not remember.

Q. Had you any discussion with any of the commissioners or any of the higher
officials before you did that ? — A. I do not remember of any.

Q. Y'ou would remember, would you not? — A. I do not think I did.
Q. Did you see any of the commissioners before you did it? — A. I do not
think I mentioned it to them.

Q. Do you remember the month you made that change in? — A. I think it
was November, but I would not be sure.

Q. Were any of the commissioners up here in November? — A. I could not
just say when they were up; they were not on that part of the work. They were up
here one time and went to Grant in the night, but I could not fix the date.

Q. Did you see them up here before you made tjje change ? — A. No, I do not
think it.

Q. Can you say whether or not you discussed it with any of the commissioners?
— A. I am alm.ost positive that I did not.

Q. Y^'ou do not discuss things with the commissioners every day, and I should
think you would have a recollection whether you did or not. You should be able
to say definitely ? — A. Well, to the best of my recollection, I did not.
Q. Was Mr. Grant with them? — A. I think he was.
Q. Did you discuss it with him? — A. Not previous to making it.
Q. Did you ever discuss it with him? — A. Yes, sir.
Q. When ?— A. Since.
Q. When? — A. In his office at Ottawa.
Q. When? — A. I could not fix the date.

Q. Was it since November 1911? — A. It was since I made the difference in
the classification.

Q. You cannot come any nearer than that to it? — A. No.
Q. How did you come to discuss it with Mr. Grant? — A. Because the classifi-
cation that I made was cut out in the Ottawa office.

914 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. Was there ever any of it paid for under that classification? — A. No:

Q. And whose contract is it in?— A. O'Brien, Macdougall and O'Gorman.

Q. Did you discuss it with any members of that contracting firm before you
made it?— A. Yes, I talked with Mr. O'Brien about it.

Q. Before you made it? — A. I do not remember whether it was before I
made it.

Q. How long had the pit been opened ? — A. Some time that spring.

Q. Is there any correspondence bearing upon the classification? — A. Yes.

Q. In your possession — before you came in? — A. No," not that I know of.

Q. None at all ?— A. No.

Q. Do I understand you to say that, without being moved to do so by any
person, either in authority or not, that you, of your own volition, and on your own
responsibility, changed that classification ? — A. I did, off my own bat.

Q. Did you change any other classification? — A. Yes.

Q. AVhat did you change? — A. I adjusted the classification west of the
Kikamenogany River.

Q. What was that adjustment? — A. I lowered it.

Q. AVhat did you lower? — A. The cuts and the borrows.

Q. The cuts and the borrows? — A. Yes.

Q. What was it before you lowered it? — A. It was a little different.

Q. I would like to know something definite about it? — A. I went over that
work, and the classification which struck me as too high I reduced.

Q. Then you did find some classification in that place too high ? — A. Yes.

Q. For example? — A. I do not think I could mention any special case.

Q. Did you find any material being classified out of its class? — A. In my
judgment, yes.

Q. What material did you find so classified? — A. Clay.

Q. What kind of clay? — A. Indurated clay.

Q. Was it classed too high or low ? — A. The most of my changes were lower.

Q. You lowered some indurated clay from loose rock to common excavation ?
—A. Yes.

Q. Was there a large or small quantity of this? — A. There was about forty
miles of it.

Q. About what quantity would there be, very roughly speaking? — A. In a
rough guess it was going on 15,000 yards to the mile.

Q. That was done when? — A. That was in September.

Q. Who was classifying in that way? — A. The engineer on the ground.

Q. Do you know who it was ? — A. The different resident engineers and divi-
sional engineers.

Q. Can you give me where that occurred, between what points? — A. It was
from the Kikamenogany River, from about mile 5 or 6, up to 60. I said forty
miles; it was more than 40 miles.

Q. This clay you considered common excavation, and you changed it, to
make it common excavation ? — A. Yes.

Q. About what per cent of it? — A. According to the different material.

Q. What I understood from your answer was that you reduced about 15,000
yards a mile? — A. Tlie work averaged about 15,000 yards a mile.

Q. Your action affected about 15,000 yards a mile? — A. More or less.

Q. Approximately 15,000 a mile? — A. Yes.

Q. So that it was a very serious and important reduction in classification? —
A. Yes.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 31a

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. 15,000 per mile, or 15,000 all told?— A. I am taking the average of
15,000 a mile for the graling of the road.

By the Chairman :

Q. You found wh?it you estimate as 15,000 cubic yards per mile of clay in
the locality which you have last named had been classified as loose rock, and you
classified it as common excavation ? — A. No, sir.

Q. What did you say ? — A. I said I estimated the yardage would run 15,000
yards to the mile, and I reduced that in places. It was not all clay. There was a
lot of muskeg.

Q. I am talking about clay? — A. I could not say what proportion of that

would be clay.

Q. How much would you estimate the clay would be? — A. I could not say.
Q. How much would you estimate your deduction affected — A. 1 could not
say that.

Q. Did it affect 500 yards ?— A. Oh, yes.
Q. All told ?— A. Yes, more.

Q. What would it affect? — A. I could not give you any idea.
Q. Can you tell me within 10,000 yards?— A. No.
Q. Can you tell me within 50.000 yards? — A. No. I could not.
Q. Could not tell me at all? It had been classified? It was on the books?
—A. Yes.

Q. And you had the classification changed? — A. Yes, I gave instructions
to classify differently.

Q. And the changes would show on the sheets? — A. No, it would not all
show until the work was completed. Supposing they were given fifty per cent in a
cut, and they had only worked a little bit in it, I would say to the eno-ineer " If
that cut holds as it is, it should not be more than thirty per cent." That would
not show on the returns until the cut was finished.

Q. You cannot give me any definite information as to the saving this reduc-
tion effected? — A. No.

Q. You cannot swear whether it effected any material saving at all or not?
—A. No.

Q. It may have been so small as not to have amounted to anything, for all
you know? — A. Yes; I never worked it out.

Q. Did you raise the classification in that district at all? — A. There may
have been places where I raised it.

Q. Do you remember raising it? — A. I do not remember any place it was
raised.

Q. So far as you are at present able to say, you cannot tell me whether you
changed the classification to the advantage of the commission in any place before
you got the instructions that came after Mr. Leonard came 'n? — A. This rhange
I Just told you about was a reduction.

Q. You have told me you did not know it amounterl to anything? — A. 1
never estimated what it amouiitefl to.

Q. What material have you approved of being classified as solid rock excava-
tion over your whole district? — A. Nothing but solid rock and boulders more
than a yard.

Q. I suppose you approved of all large stones and boulders measuring more
than one cubic foot and less than one cubic yard, and all loose rock, whether in
situ or otherwise, that may be removed by hand, pick or bar, being classified as
loose rock; that is right? — A. Yes.

316 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. Had you any cemented gravel along your district ? — A. I do not think it.

Q. Then we come to clay : did you approve of or instruct any clay to be classi-
fied as loose rock ? — A. Yes.

Q. What clay did you approve of or instruct to be classified as loose rock? —
A. Indurated clay.

Q. All indurated clay ? — A. Indurated clay that, in my judgment, was suffi-
ciently indurated.

Q. Do you consider that an intelligent answer? — A. Yes.

Q. I would like you to try and put it to me in less technical language. What
clay did you instruct or approve of being classified as loose rock ? — A. Clay that I
thought was sufficiently indurated,

Q. To be what? — A. To be entitled to be called loose rock.

Q. What clay did you consider to be sufficiently indurated to be entitled to
be called loose rock? Now, supposing I am the engineer and going out on the job,
and you are going to tell me what clay I will testify as loose rock, what will you
tell me? — A. I will tell you I want to see the clay, and when I see it I will say,
" This is loose rock " or " This is not ".

Q. But if you were going to send me out, what would you tell me? — A. If
I were going to send you out I would give you that specification.

Q. You would wash your hands of any instructions and hand me the specifica-
tion?— A. Then I would go out and see what you were doing.

Q. You would hand me the specification and tell me to go out and pick out
of the specification what it should be myself? — A. I never ask an engineer to
return anything outside of the specification.

Q. If you were sending an engineer out over this work, you being familiar
with the specification as you are, what instructions would you give him about
clay? — A. I would tell him to classify clay in strict accordance with the speci-
fication.

Q. Then would you tell him to classify any clay which could be ploughed
with a ten-inch grading plough behind a team of six good horses, properly handled,
as loose rock? — A. That would depend upon who does the ploughing.

Q. Would you tell him that any clay which, in his judgment, could be
ploughed behind a team of six good horses, properly handled, should be classified as
loose rock? — A. No, if it could be ploughed, in his judgment, he had to classify
it as common.

Q. Is there any clay here which could be ploughed by such a team and such
a plough being classified as loose rock, to your knowledge? — A. No.

Q. Tliero is not? — A. No.

Q. Then j'on consider that it is the duty of the engineer not to classify clay
whicli could he so ploughed as loose rock under tliis specification? — A. Certainly.'

Q. And if it has been so classified, it has been wrongly done? — A. Certainlv.

Q. Is there any excuse for a person under this specification classifying clay
which can be so ploughed as loose rock? — A. Yes, it is a question of judgment.

(}. But if he thinks it can be ploughed? — A. lie certainly would not return
it if he thought it could be ploughed.

Q. Have you made any tests to see whether any clay which has been so
classified could be ploughed? — A. No.

Q. Do you think the clay along this district can be ploughed with such a
team and such a plough? — A. Very little of it.

Q. What portion of it could be ploughed? — A. Oh, I could not say that.

Q. Where will you find that which can be ploughed? — A. Well, each case, as
you come to it. you decide on each case on the <rround.

Q. Is tliero some of it can be plouirhod down two or three or four feet? — A.
Yes.

Q. Five or six feet? — A. No. I do not think there is any can be ploughed
that depth.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 317

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Down as far as four feet? — A. No, I am very doubtful about that.

Q. You say it is only the surface can be ploughed ? — A. Not always that.

Q. But only the surface in any case ? — A. But not always the surface.

Q. But in any case it is only the surface; it never goes below the surface?
— A. No, it might be the other way. I have seen streaks underneath that could
be ploughed.

Q. What do you mean by ploughing? — A. I mean practical ploughing.

Q. Do you think a team of horses could not pull a plough through most of
the clay in this district? — A. I would not consider that ploughing.

Q. But a team of horses could pull a plough through it? — A. I have no
doubt they could, through most of it.

Q. And turn it over? — A. Some places would turn over and others would
fall back.

Q. Are there any large quantities you could turn over? — A. Yes.

Q. And that has been classified as loose rock; is that right? — A. Yes.

Q. What justification is there in the specification for classifying as loose rock
any such clay that could be turned over by such a plough? — A. Because you have
not accomplished the purpose for which you plough ; it is not practical ploughing.

Q. Explain, please; you are doing the explaining? — A. Well, the fact that
you can pull a team through it is no use. You plough for a certain purpose, the
same as you blast a rock for a certain purpose, to break it and handle it.- If plough-
ing made this clay readily handable, I would consider it ploughing; otherwise, I
would not.

Q. You thought it could be turned over, but you classified without seeing it
done? — A. There was never any plough work on this to my knowledge.

Q. You concluded that you would never accomplish your purpose by plough-
ing?— A. You had not accomplished your purpose.

Q. You concluded you had not accomplished your purpose? — A. Yes.

Q. What reason had you for concluding that? — A. My judgment.

Q, How did you arrive at that? Because a man is supposed to exercise his
reason. How did you arrive at that? — A. From the nature of the material.

Q. Had you ever tried it in your life on that kind of material? — A. Not
just exactly on this kind of material.

Q. So that you had no experience in it ; you could do more than guess, could
you? — A. Oh, yes.

Q. How can a man form a judgment without experience? — A. You know it
is a tough, hard material. You can form some idea by the way a pick or shovel
works on it how a plough would work it.

Q. How was it taken out? — A. A great deal of it was blasted.

Q. Was there any continuous blasting in the whole district? — A. Yes, there
has been continuous blasting in my time.

Q. Where?— A. Up on 29.

Q. Mr. McBey's? — A. No, beyond his — it is his division now.

Q. Was there any other place where continuous blasting was used to get out
clay? — A. No. Those cuts were nearly all out before I came here.

Q. Was there any used in your time? — A. I do not know of any.

Q. Do you know if any was used before your time? — A. That would be
only hearsay.

Q. Well, from hearsay? — A. I could not swear to that.

Q. You could not enlighten me on that? — A. No.

0- You could not tell me of any? — A. No.

Q. So far as you know, there was not any? — A. T really do not know any-
thing about it.

Q. Is there anywhere where I can find reliable information in any records
showing where continuous blasting was used? — A. There should be a record of
how much explosive is used in each and every cut on the road.

318 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. In whose possession should that be? — A. It should be in the Ottawa
oflSce.

Q. Had you any written instructions, excepting what are contained in the
specifications, as to how you should classify material? — A. Well, there has been
the Lumsden circular that I recall now.

Q. Did you ever remeasure any of this work at all ? — A. No.

Q. So that from actual measurement you cannot say whether it has been
properly measured or not? — A. No.

By Mr. Gutelivs :

Q. With reference to your interpretation of the specification, I notice that
you are reading into the specification the same idea, under loose rock, that is pre-
sented under solid rock, where it says, "May best be removed by blasting". You
read the loose rock specification to mean, '' May best be removed by ploughing " ? —
A. To a certain extent. Where it would be practicable to plough it, and you
would accomplish the purpose you ploughed for.

Q. You observe the reading of it, " In the judgment of the engineer can be
ploughed " ? — A. Yes.

Q. It does not sav. " In the judcjment of the engineer can be blasted " ? —
A. No.

Q. It says, " May be best removed by blasting " ? — A. Yes.

Q. Would it surprise you to learn that the proper interpretation of thi?
ploughing clause is that it is simply a test? Had you considered that it might
simply be a test ? — A. Well, whose interpretation would that be ?

Q. Have you ever looked at it from that point of view? — A. Yes.

Q. And, after looking at it from that viewpoint, concluded that was the
wrong view to take? — A. Yes.

Q. Was that based on the language of the specifications ? — A. No, I supposed
it was not a catch question : it was actual conditions as they would be on the work.

Q. A test in cement is how many pounds it takes to pull apart, where the
cross-section is a square inch? — A. Yes.

Q. A test for softness at a foundation is driving a pipe? — A. Yes.

Q. Suppose, instead of the specification reading as it does, it read, " Cannot
be penetrated by a two-inch pipe driven by one man, with a sixteen-pound hammer,
without the necessity of blasting", and so on? — A. I understand you.

Q. Did you have that feature in mind in connection with ploughing? — A
Well, I understood that that feature was possible — that that construction of that
language was possible, but I did not put that construction on it. I put it practical
ploughing.

Q. But there is no language that gives you the idea of practical ploughing
for the removal of the material, is there? — A. Yes, I think there is.

Q. You have had this specification before you for three or four years and
studied it more times than once? — A. Yes.

Q. If the price for loose rock and common excavation had been the same,
and you would read this specification literally, would you classify any clay that
could be ploughed as common excavation ? — A. You would not give it a thought ;
you would not be l)othered with keeping any different check on it, measuring or
anything.

Q. But as an engineer, you would be expected to place these things where they
belonged, in accordance with the specification?. — A. You would be very careless
about it.

Q. Because there would be no money involved? — A. There would be no
object in spending any time in keeping them different, under the circumstances
vou state.

INTE8TIGATING COMMISSION 319

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Is it not a fact that the money, the cost of moving, and the price that is
being paid, influences classification by you? — A. It should not.

Q. Does it not? — A. Well, we are all human; it might, but it should not.

Q. When you talk to a resident engineer about the hardness of stuff in a
cut, does he not give you information which is either reduced to dollars, or which
yon can reduce to dollars very quickly? — A. As soon as we know the difference
we can reduce it to dollars. What I understand you to ask me is if I would classify
by cost?

Q. Does the cost influence you in your classification? — A. I should strive
not to allow it to influence me at all. I should certainly say it was wrong. It
is the material only that is to be judged.

Q. You have ignored the plough test? — A. There has never been a plough
test made.

Q. You classified loose clay on this contract knowingly tTiat could have a
plough dragged through, that could be broken up by a plough: you classified and
signed the estimates for that character of material as loose rock? — A. No, sir, I
will not admit that.

Q. You admit that there is clay that has been classified as loose rock, which
could have been ploughed? — A. The plough could have been dragged through it.

Q. You have allowed to be classified as loose rock clay that a plough could
have been dragged through?" — A. Yes.

Q. In the matter of general construction of this division, 1 see fills along
for miles that look to me as if they could have answered every purpose iu the
matter of gradient and curve, and be lowered from one to three feet. Does your
observation concur in that statement? — A. I have asked on several occasions to
be allowed to increase the gradients in places, but I was never allowed to.

Q. If you had been allowed a free hand, you would have changed the gra-
dients, both for rate of grade and for elevation of grade, and saved money on your
district? — A. I have been allowed to change the gradient, the elevation of the
grade, but not allowed to change the rate of grade. I certainly would change the
rate of grade. ■>

Q. Are there not many locations in which you could change the gradients
to the economical advantage of the Commission ? — A. That is what I have wanted
lo do.

Q. I mean these banks that are run along the river three or four feet high?
— A. I understand you mean making a sag, departing from the four-tenths grade
and making a sag and coming up again?

Q. Here is a level piece of muskeg which has a bank three feet high on
which you propose to put 18 inches more on ballast and track. That three_ feet
could be reduced to a foot and a half to advantage ? — A. No, not in a wet country,
or in a country where snow would drift. That additional elevation is worth its
price.

Q. Is it? — A. In my opinion.

Q. How deep does the snow get? — A. It is not the depth of it; it is the
wind.

Q. How deep does it get? — A. I suppose three feet would be as much as^
I have seen.

Q. If the rails were three feet above the surface of the ground out of the
right-of-way, it would be swept clear by the wind, would it 3 — A. Not always.

Q. When would it not be? — A. If there was a heavy snow with no wind,
and the plough went through and threw that up, the snow would fall up to that
top.

Q. It would not throw it up; it would tbrow it out? — A. No, they could not
throw it all out.

920 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 19U

Q. On a fill of that kind, the snow would not make an embankment ? — A. I
would not advocate a ten-foot fill, but I do think it should be three or four feet above
the surrounding country.

Q. You have never operated much with a snow plough? — A. I have been
on a snow plough.

Q. Much? — A. Not very much.

Q. Many winters? — A. No.

Q. Never undertook to keep your mileage open during winter ? — A. No, only-
keeping a piece of construction work open during the winter.

Q. You would make a sub-grade three feet above the surrounding country
through this level muskeg? — A. If it is very wet, so that we would have that much
of dry material.

Q. On which to lay your track ?i — A. Yes.

Q. Why do you say three feet instead of 18 inches? — A. Because that 18
inches is not sufficient height to keep dry, and it saturates with water, and the road
heaves.

Q. And the saturation comes from the water that runs below? — A. Yes,
it is the capillary attraction ; there is more or less moisture in it.

Q. If you constructed ditches, as you have, along here, is not that standing
water removed, and there is nothing for capillary attraction, except the rain fall?
— A. To ensure the road being sufficiently dry, so that it will not heave, is all
that is necessary.

Q. Are you spending money to prevent heaving on this road? — A. "We cer-
tainly should.

Q. Are you? — A. We should have the banks high enough so that they are
dry.

Q. Is that the reason that the many miles that I see here appear to be elevated
too high to prevent heaving and possibility of snow? — A. You are asking me some-
thing I do not know anything about, but we are simply working to the grades we
are given.

Q. You are defending the grades? — A. No, I am against them.

Q. You are not defending the grades, either for height or gradient? — A. 1
am defending them when they go less than three feet.

Q. Less than three feet of finished track? — A. Yes.

Q. If momentum grades within the limits of four-tenths eastbound and
six-tenths westbound had been introduced, you would have saved a lot of money?
—A. Yes.

Q. It would have given you a maximum of one per cent to work on ? — A. Yes.

Q. Have you any idea what you would have saved? — A. Never made any
estimate.

Q. It would be a large amount of money? — A. It would be a large amount
of money, certainly.

Q. Were you ever connected with a railway in which all the structure? were
made permanent while the railway was being built, before this one? — A. No, T
do not think I was.

Q. If you had been permitted to use wooden trestles at all of these points that
you are filling now, would you have saved a large amount of money in original
investment? — A. In some places, not all of them, by any means.

Q. In the net result over the whole di\ision? — A. You could make an
immediate saving by putting in wood in place of fill in places.

Q. And a large expenditure might have been deferred for from six to ten
years? — A. I would not recommend wooden trestles, if that is what you mean.

Q. You would have saved a large amount of money? — A. By using wooden
trestles you could build the road and not pay out so much money at the time.

Q. And your division probably would be finished by now? — A. No, it would
not

IN\ ESTIGATIXG COMMliSiiWX 321

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. It would have shortened the time very much to have constructed wooden
bridges rather than waiting for steel and fills and arches; it would have expedited
the work ? — A. Yes, you could have expedited the work.

Q, And saved a large amount of money at present? — A. Yes.

Q. Take that fill at 1040 that has slid out so, do you think that if a pile
foundation trestle KaH Been built there originally, without touching the water way
at all, that there would have been any slide? — A. Excuse me, that is before my
time.

Q. This is professional. Do you think there would have been, as an engineer ?
— A. I have very little faith in a wooden trestle on that kind of material.

Q. Would the pounding of the piles in there loosen it ? — A. No, but I do not
know whether you could have held piles there.

Q. I thought you would have answered without scrapping? — A. I do not
know anything about that. You ask my opinion, whether I would have advocated —

Q. I ask your opinion whether, if a pile foundation wooden structure had been
built there originally, you believe there would have been any sliding of that material
— no fill at all? — A. I could not answer that.

Q. You are dodging? — A. Xo.

Q. Suppose the railroad had never been built up there, would there have been
any slide there, where that 150,000 went? — A. No, it is not likely it would.

Q. Suppose the engineers walked across there, would there have been any
slide ? — A. No.

Q. Supposing you drove a string of piles across there, would there have been
a slide? — A. We have one case where there was a slide with a string of piles
along.

Q. Had you any reason to expect such a thing to happen in this place? — A.
That is the trouble ; we do not know when to expect these things in this country.

Q. Have you any reason to think so in that case? — A. There was nothing
on the surface to indicate that as far as I know.

Q. Would it probably not have slid? — A. I could not say that.

By the Chairman:

Q. How would the piles make it slide? — A. The mere running through
might make it slide.

By Mr. GuteliiLs:

Q. There is no catch in this. All I want you to say is what any engineer '.vill
say, that virgin country such as that ought not to slide in your opinion, and you
would not expect it to slide if you built a trestle across it? — A. I certainly would
not have expected it to slide, from the indications on the surface.

Q. With all your dodging, it would look as if you were not working witl'. me ?
— A. Oh, no, I am not dodging. I did not understand the fact; I will certainly
admit that right off.

Q. There are other permanent structures which have slid out and require a
large amount of filling, on your division, in which the cost of the extra filling miglit
have been saved for a long time, if they had built wooden trestles over it on pile
foundations ? — A. Correct.

Q. And if that system had been followed, a large amount of money could
have been saved? — A. Present expenditure, yes.

Q. You know from your experience on other railways that your division has
cost a large amount of money? — A. Sure.

Q. Besides the permanency of structures and the low gradients and the liizht
curvature, do you know of any other places where money in considerable quantities
might have been saved in this construction ? — A. You mean in location ?

123—21

322 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. Well, take location if you like; if you have a point where you think, in
location, a certain amount of money might have been saved, either by dodging a
muskeg, or reduction in material — A. No, I think the location is good.

Q. This is the point I want to make ; your division has cost a large amount of
money. You are practically chief engineer so far as the division goes. I want to
give you an opportunity to tell this commission why your division cost such a large
amount of money. Take your own way to do it? — A. Well, the principal thing
is the unreliable bottom that we have struck in the east, and the prices at which the
work was let on account of the difficulty, that the work was removed from civiliza-
tion, and the scarcity and high rate of labor in the country.

Q. Do those prices for labor and men generally run 25 to 35 per cent more
than they would down in civilization? — A. They run something; I would not put
any certain value on it.

Q. So that in the evidence, so far as labor is concerned, 33 per cent, or some-
thing like that — we would have to expect that item would increase that much for
this construction ? — A. Whatever the value is, I would not put any value on it.

Q. The extra cost of cement is simply the transportation? — A. Yes.

Q. Is it not the fact that the price paid to the general contractors, as com-
pared with the prices paid to the subs, represents a larger amount of money than
the difference between prices of labor and material here, as compared with such
prices down in civilization? — A. I do not know. You are talking about something
now I do not know much about.

Q. Do you know anything about the prices the subs are getting ? — A. No.

Q. You do know that this line of railway has cost, or is going to cost, more
than double any railway you were never connected with before ? — A. I know it is
a very expensive railway.

Q. You know it is a cheap country to build in; you never built through as
cheap a country for the inequalities in the surface — A. You mean the yardage
per mile would be low?

Q. Yes; you never built one any lower, except some branch line. The cuttings
were usually greater than on this railway? — A. Yes.

Q. And yet your prices are nearly double. I should think you would be glad
to tell the Commission where that extra cost comes in ? — A. Well, the number of
yards have gone into the road ; they used a great many more yards than necessary.

Q. Where did they go ? — A. They have gone in^o the road.

Q. Why do you say they were unnecessary? — A. Because if we increase the
grades we get the same result.

Q. You were divisional engineer in New Brunswick? — A. Yes.

Q. Who was your district engineer? — A. C. 0. Foss.

Q. Did the classitication you adopted over there coincide with tbat which yon
have adopted here? — A. Very similar. They had not any material like this down
there.

Q. You could take tho plough test into consideration, could you not? — A.
I took it into consideration everywhere.

Q. You only gave them earth there where they removed it by ploughing —
where they used ploughs in the process of its excavation? — A. No, I could not
say that.

Q. You just used your judgment? — A. Yes.

Q. And ignored the plough test, the same as you did here ? — A. T never saw
a plough test.

/?// tlie Chairman:

Q. Did they give you as high classification as they did here? — A. I think it
is pretty uniform.

ITfYESTIGATING COMMISSION 323

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Uniformity appears to be the governing principle ? — A. If it is not, it is
no good. If it is not uniform, something must be wrong.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. Uniformity in work of this character depends on what the first fellow
classifies, does it not? — A. ISTo, I do not think so.

(TRANSCONTINENTAL EAILWAY ENQUIRY COMMISSION: OTTAWA,
FRIDAY, OCT. 25TH, 1912.)

Present: G. Lynch- Stauxton"^ Esq., K.C., Chairman.

H. S. Balkam, District Engineer of District D of the Transcontinental Rail-
way, sworn:

Examined hy the Chairman:

Q. You are the district engineer in District D ? — A. Yes.

Q. How long is your district? — A. About 400 miles,

Q. You have been district engineer ever since when? — A. September, 1911.

Q. Before that, you were where? — A. On different parts of the road.

Q. Do you know Mr. E. P. Goodwin, inspecting engineer? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did he visit your district lately? — A. Yes.

Q. Did you and Mr. Mattice and he "go over a part or the whole of 3'our dis-
trict?— A. We went over all of it.

Q. You made an inspection of the line both east and west of Cochrane? — A.
Yes, sir.

Q. And did you and he classify any portion of the line? — A. We changed
the classification in one cutting.

Q. That is the cut at station 835-839? — A. Yes, on Contract No. 13.

Q. You were present when Mr. Mattice was examined and you heard his evi-
dence and you made the inspection with him and Mr. Goodwin and do you agree
with him in what he has said? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. Mr. Goodwin had two plough tests made? — A. Yes.

Q. The first was at Station 428, Mile 103, Contract 14, at Cochrane?— A.
Yes.

Q. Will you tell me what he did and what you saw? — A. I was there at
the plough test two or three different times. I saw them plough and scrape.

Q. Did it plough easily? — A. It ploughed fairly well.

Q. Did it plough with two horses? — A. Yes.

Q. And taken out with a scraper? — A. Yes.

Q. Tliere was no outside assistance in the way of powder or anything else?
— A. No.

Q. Have you examined the cross-section? — A. Yes.

Q. It is correct is it? — A. I assume it is, our own engineer did it.

Q. And you have no reason to doubt its accuracy? — A. No sir,

Q. Then he made the other plough test at Station 500, Mile 104, Contract
No. 15, did you see that made? — A. I was there at least once.

Q. Did it plough as easily as the first one? — A. No, T do not think it did.

324 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. They ploughed it all right and took it out with a scraper? — A. Yes.

Q. To the depth shown on the cross-section? — A. It was down about three
feet when I saw it.

Q. Mr. Goodwin says : the first foot of this test was muskeg and clay, the next
eighteen inches was a stiff clay, and the balance of that portion ploughed con-
sisted of mixed clay and gravel, is that right? — A. Yes.

Q. He says: the whole was easily ploughed with two horses and the cut
itself consisted of clay, mixed clay and gravel, mixed clay and boulders, and some
mixed clay and sand; do you agree with that? — A. I do not know what the cut
was; the cut was taken out long before my day.

Q. Is his description of the plough test correct? — A. Yes.

Q. He described the result of his inspection and knowledge of the country,
the material, in four classes and he says that the clay which can be ploughed
with two or four horses and which, when ploughed, breaks up into such a way as
to make a good shovelling or scraping, do you agree with that? — A. Well, I
would not agree with the word " good."

Q. There is some that can be done that way? — A. I say it can be shovelled
or scraped, but I would omit the word " good."

Q. Then he says: 2, clay which can be ploughed but is either too tough or
too soft for the plough to be of any use as a means of handling; in some cases the
clay is too soft and sticky to allow horses to be used on it, and in other cases, it
is so tough that although it could be ploughed it would still have to be cut with
shovels before being removed; do you agree with that? — A. Yes.

Q. Then he says: 3, a quicksand clay which can be ploughed, but whicli
runs together again almost immediately; this clay runs together so that it invaria-
bly has to be shovelled out of the cars or carts; do you agree with that? — A. Yes,
there is that material there.

Q. Then he says : 4, mixed clay and gravel, some of this clay can be included
under class 1, which as it can be easily ploughed and scraped or ploughed and
shovelled, when a proportion would contain too much stone to allow it to bf
ploughed, do you agree with that? — A. Yes, with the exception of the word
" easily."

Q. Now, Mr. Balkam, were those tests made by Mr. Goodwin fair tests, under
the conditions which exist there now? — A. Yes.

Q. If you were sent to make the tests, would you make them in the same
way? — A. For now?

Q. Yes, if I sent you up to-morrow? — A. Yes, they were tests in X^e con-
ditions as they are now.

Q. What condition do you say the material was in where he made these
plough tests and when be made them? — A. They are in the same condition as
now?

Q. Can you describe it, was the stuff wet or dry, or hard or soft? — A. The
one at 103 was dry.

Q. The other one? — A. The other was this wet clay that he mentions.

Q. Do T infer from what you have said, that in the cut at Station 438, ilile
103, the ground had been drained and was drier by reason of the building of the
load, than it was at the time when the grading was done? — A. I was not tlicre
when the grading was done.

Q. Would you judge it was? — A. Naturally you would expect it would be.

Q. Am I right in inferring from what you say that at Station HOG, Contract
No. 13, the ground had not drained out there? — A. It has not drained out
entirely dry.

Q. You say it was wet aufl sticln' at that place? — A. A portion of it, along
the line itself, at that place.

[NTESTIGATING COMMISSION 325

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Along the line itself was there any place where he could have better
made the tests than where he did, or did he choose them fairly? — A. I suppose
he did because it was much more convenient, the only place he could get seeing.

Q. Were they fair under the present conditions along the line? — A. Yes,
they are fair tests of tlie conditions there to-day.

The witness was not further examined.

(NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL INVESTIGATING COMMISSION,
OTTAWA, JUNE 14TH, 1912.)

Present: George Lynch-Staunton-, K.C, Chairman;
Mr. p. p. Gutelius, C.E., Commissioner.

Arthur Molesworth, sworn:

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. You are an engineer of many years' experience? — A. About forty.

Q. You were employed on District C, of the N.T.R. from the time of the con-
struction until when? — A. Until 20th August last.

Q. While you were in charge of District C, as district engineer the greater
portion of the grading was performed? — A. Yes.

Q. And during that time you passed upon and arranged for the classifica-
tion?— A. Yes, sir.

Q. So that it is fair to say that you were the responsible officer in connec-
tion with classification? — A. Yes.

Q. Under the chief engineer? — A. Yes.

Q. Were you responsible for the location and gradients? — A. Location; not
for all of C, because part of it was given to me afterwards, but I was for all the
old district C, which was first turned over to me. I went with them in 1904,
before there was any location done at all.

Q. But it was all subject to revision, if you choose to revise? — A, Yes.

Q. What officer superior to you, if any, approved of your location and
grades? — A. Well, the chief engineer.

Q. Did you get the chief engineer's approval to profiles and locations? — A.
I think we always did.

Q. Make sure about this, because there is some question in my mind as to
whether the chief engineer did actually approve of the grades and locations. So
you rejnember of him signing your profiles? — A. Yes, I do.

Q. You think that signed copies are in your old office? — A. I do, or else they
are in my office here. We turned the originals all over to MacPherson to be fyled
here, and they gave us prints of them.

Q. And you think the originals that are fyled away here were approved by
the Chief Engineer or MacPherson? — A. I think they were. MacPherson always
went over them, and changed the grades in a great many instances — ordered us to
change them. Sometimes we disagreed with him and fought it off, but he always
did that.

Q. So that your profiles were criticized by the chief engineer's office? — A.
Yes.

326 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q, I notice that the grade on portions of district C. is raised two or three
feet higher than would be necessary to secure a uniform grade ? — A. Yes.

Q. What was your object in raising the grades? — A. The chief engineer
sent out what lie calls his inspecting engineer, Macfarlane, and made him go over
all my cuts, and he raised those grades. He got instructions from the chief
engineer to go out and go over the grades.

Q. Macfarlane did raise these grades over these low places? — A. All the
places that were raised was his doing. In lots of places I put the grades on care-
fully in my office, and he was sent down, and he came down to Mattawa when I
was there, and went over every one of the profiles, and raised the grades in a great
many instances.

Q. Did the G.T.P. engineer have anything to do with raising those grades as
well as Macfarlane? — A. Not that I know of. Well, let me see — yes, he did; he
was there too, Tomlinson.

Q. And those two between them agreed that many of the grades along those
flat places should come up three or four feet, instead of being down 18 inches? —
A. Yes, instead of where we had them. We had them where I thought they were
right, but Mr. Grant sent him out to go over them with him; whatever he recom-
mended I was to do.

Q. If those people had not revised your grade lines, would you have kept
that roadbed as you had it? — A. I would have kept it as I had the grades on.

Q. Would it have saved very much money, compared with the work that was
actually done? — A. Well, I think it would have saved a good deal.

Q. There are places there a mile long that might have been kept down two
feet? — A. Oh, yes, it might be more; I do not know how much, but it might be
more than two feet some places.

Q. I had our assistant engineer go over one residency, and he found that he
could lower those grades, and keep above the muskeg at least a foot, and save
$22,000 in ten miles. Does that look as though it might be possible? That is
$2,000 a mile?— A. Well I would have to figure a little.

Q. 5,000 yards to the mile? — A. Yes. How many miles did he sav he
could save $22,000?

Q. Ten miles?— A. That would be 50,000 yards.

Q. At 50 cents a yard it would be $2,500 ?— A. Yes.

Q. That looks reasonable to you as an engineer? — A. Yes.

Q. In the matter of wooden trestles, why did you not build some wooden
permanent trestles? — A. I dirl. I built more, I guess, than anybody. I put
them in several places towards White Fish, where I found the ground would not
hold the bank, and 90 feet of muskeg or soft stuff, and I could not find any
bottom, and I put in permnnent trestles there. I put one in two or three miles
west of White Fish, at Moberly Creek, and another little creek was 90 feet, and
we could not get any bottom, and I made a floor of cordurov: and it had not sunk
an inch till tlie day I left, but the ground had gone down on each side of it.

Q. Did you intend to leave that when the road was finished? — A. Yes, and
the other one too. I found the bank began to open out, as if it was going to be a
big sinkhole, and I stopped grading right off, and put in a trestle 600 feet long,
drove piles, and made a permanent trestle. I thought it would last eight or ten
years, and I thought the country would dry out to a certain extent, and we would
know better what to put in.

Q. Where is that? — A. Three miles west of White Fish-Moberly Creek.

Q. "VMiere is that? — A. About 80 miles east of Cochrane. The ground had
sunk down there to a great extent, and they had piled in any amount of gravel
there.

Q. Those were two special cases? — A. Yes.

Q. T want to ask you about the construction of wooden trestles generally on
a railroad of that kijjd in that character of country? — A. Well, we built another
one at another place. When I took charge of that work from Cochrane to White

INTESTlVATiXd CoAIAlJiSiSWN 327

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Fish it was pretty near all graded under ^le supervision of D. and D. was turned
over to me; but the grading was all done and the piers and abutments for the
bridges in, but there was one there that was a very bad one

Q. 1040? — A. Xo, that is not the one, but that is an awful bad one too;
there was another one further east than that, quite a distance further east.

Q. If you had been building this railway on your own responsibility, would
you have built many more wooden trestles to begin with? — A. I would, a great
many.

Q. Why ? — A. Simply because near the top of the ground there was a crust,
and it appeared solid, and, going over that, you would think it was nice and solid,
but as soon as you drove anything down 30 or 40 feet, the material down there
was just like grey paint, and the further you got down the worse it got, and it
pushes out just like paint, and if you build a short bridge over the little waterway,
and then fill that in, it is going to push the crust down into that little mixture
like paint, and it will bulge up and scatter all over the country.

Q. If you would build a trestle all over those places, and not attempt to fill
them until the sun had an opportunity to dry it out, and the drainage got its
work in, and then probably fill in six to ten years — what do you say to that? — A.
1 think so; that was my idea. That was my idea. That is the reason I put them
in. That is the objection they made. " You will have to fill some time " ; and I
said " That is all right. I have had experience of that kind before ". If you put
ditches in and have it draining for some years, the country will dry out, and you
v.'ill have an opportunity, and experience and time to judge what to do.

Q. Besides that, you would have saved a large amount of money on the total
cost of that division? — A. Oh, enormous. Take the one place near Moberly
Creek, and the place near the other little creek nearer White Fish than Moberly,
Calamity Creek — that is the place I put that little short trestle and corduroy
underneath. Well, the whole country went away down for 100 feet on each side
of it; they kept pouring in gravel pits there before I left, and if a trestle had
been put across that 1,000, or 1,500 or 2,000 feet, it is hard to say how much
could be saved.

Q. But a large amount? — A. Yes.

Q. You are familiar with trestle 1040? — A. Yes.

Q. WTiat position was that in when you took charge of the work? — A. It
just looked like it does now. That pile oC earth was away off on the side there.
They had first put in a big arch culvert, and it had broken out and disappeared,
and then they put in a square box 8 or 10 feet square to carry the water, and
when I went there the bank was in there, and the water had raised up in the lake,
and they had a syphon carrying it over the track.

Q. And they cut out a channel ? — A. Yes ; we cut out a channel and put in
a big pipe there to carry the water.

Q. That is the way you left it? — A. Yes; it had only got that far when I
left it.

Q. About how much money did you spend on it ? — A. Very little ; I do not
know how much ; just that corrugated pipe.

Q. What district engineer was in charge of that special structure prior to
your taking hold of it? — A. Mattice was in charge for a while. Macfarlane had
been in charge for a while, and lie was made inspecting engineer, and then Mattice
took charge.

Q. Who could tell us most about that structure? — A. Mattice ought to be
able to. He was there all the time, either as assistant or district engineer.

Q. In the matter of classification, you instructed the divisional engineers in
Ihe matter of classification fairly early in the work? — A. Yes.

Q Were your instructions based upon a literal interpretation of the specifi-
cations— T mean to the letter? — A. No, they were not.

Q. "WTiy did you not follow the specifications literally? — A. Well, there
did not seem to be any specification to cover that material up there.

328 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

By the Chairman:

Q. The classification is covered by sections 33, 34, 35, 36 and 36a of the
general specifications ; you find that at page 39 ? — A. Yes, 1 know all about it.

Q. You had no trouble, of course, in classing solid rock excavation, had you ?
— A. Yes, they did have in some parts of the road, I think.

Q. Did you? — A. I did not, no.

Q. You did not, I suggest, classify anything as solid rock excavation which
was not rock? — A. I did not.

Q. Did anybody else? — A. I understand they did on other parts of the road.

Q. Did you classify any clay as loose rock? — A. I did, yes.

Q. What clay did you classify as loose rock? — A. \VTien I took charge of
D. it had been nearly all graded, and they had been out and gone over it two or
three times and classified it and when my work commenced the Grand Trunk
engineer went over with me

Q. Who was that? — A. Tomlinson, and we had quite a quarrel over the
classification over the whole district. He thought I was not giving enough.

Q. When did you and Tomlinson go over it? — A. Two or three years ago.

Q. Can you fix the date? — A. I cannot remember right now.

By Mr. Gutelius:
Q, Who else was in the party? — A. The representative of Foley.

By the Chairman:

Q. Swanson ? — A. Yes.

Q. Swanson and Tomlinson went over the line? — A. Yes.

Q, There was only one trip of that kind ? — A. Yes, we went over the whole
of my work. At that time I did not have charge of D, you know.

Q. Over what portion did you go? — A. I went from the Quebec line east
about as far as the work was graded, about the Harricanaw river, with Tomlinson
and Swanson.

Q. At that time was the grading all done ? — A. No, but there was a good deal
of it done, and there was a great deal of dissatisfaction, and the men would not stay ;
they could not possibly do the work. When I first commenced I was giving thorn
pretty small estimates, in their estimation.

Q. Where did you first commence to classify? — A. How do you mean?

Q. Wliat district and what part? — A. On C, from Quebec east.

Q. To the Harricanaw Eiver? — A. Yes.

Q. How did you classify the clay at that time? — A. When I first commenced
T just classified it as earth.

Q. You classified all the earth between those two points in the beginning, so
far as you classified it at all, as earth? — A. Yes; in some instances there was a
layer on the bottom, it was like gumbo ; 1 gave thom about twenty per cent, or some-
thing like that, of loose rock. There was no other classification. Tiicre should have
been another classification.

Q. How long did you continue to classify this clay as common excavation? —
A. I do not remember; two or three months; and then we took this trip over the
line.

Q. Did anybody raise objection to your classification ? — A. Yes,

Q. Who? — A. Tomlinson, for one.

Q. And anybody else? — A. The contractors — Swanson.

Q. Then, as a result of that, did the three of you go over the district? — A.
Yes.

Q. When you went over the district, what occurred on that trip? — A. We
looked at each cut and dug into it with shovels and examined it, and we decided
on the percentage that we should give of loose rock.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 329

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. What percentage did you decide on? — A. We did not decide on any
special percentage. We would give one thirty per cent and another one fifty, and
so on, according to how bad the material was. I took the shovel and dug into it
myself, and I had a very heated dispute over every cut with them. They wanted a
great deal more. They said they got a great deal morg on D, and I said I could not
help that, that I was giving more than they were really entitled to, that on a literal
translation of the specification I doubted whether they would be entitled to that.

Q. You thought in the first place they were classifying it correctly as common
excavation ? — A. Yes.

Q. Had you seen it then? — A. No, I walked over the ground before it was
graded. It just looked like any common earth. A person making a survey and
running the line there would put that down in his mind as ordinary common
excavation, but after you see the work you see the difference; in fact some of it is
more costly to do than any loose rock.

Q. Did you take into consideration the cost of excavating in revising your
classification ? You have said just now that they could not make pay out of it ? —
A. Yes.

Q. Did you take into consideration the cost of excavating when you revised
it? — A. Well, ye&, I suppose we did; that was the general expression that every-
body made, that they cannot possibly do that work for the price.

Q. Who was doing the work? Station men? — A. Contractors — ^yes, station
men.

Q. Did you know what they were getting? — A. No, I did not, but we used
to keep force account of all the work done by the contractors.

Q. Wliy did you keep a force account? — A. To know what the work was
costing us.

Q. What was that work costing the contractors to get it out — that clay ? — A.
Well, it was costing over 60 cents in some places.

Q. Not if they were letting it to station men, was it? — A. Oh, yes. Some
of those station men did not come out with anything.

Q. But the stationmen were only getting 23 cents for common ? — A. Yes.

Me. Gutelius. 23, 36 and $1.30.

By the Chairman:

Q. The station men were getting 36 for loose rock? — A. Well, of course I
did not know what they were getting.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. But if they were receiving wages, the amount of labor that they put on
the taking out of this clay would raise it to what you say, as much as 60 cents ? —
A. Yes. In some cuts it was that much and over, and when they came to be
settled up with they had not anything coming to them, and Swanson, in many
instances, would give them a dollar a day apiece for their time.

Q. Because their prices were too low? — A. Because their prices were too
low for that kind of work. The work was more expensive to do than loose rock in
a great many cases, and when they came to settle there was nothing coming to them,
and he would give them a dollar a day. Of course it came from the company. I
know of two or three cases where he gave the Russians a dollar a day for every day
they worked in the cut.

Q. Even though they were in arrears on their contract? — A. Yes, and there
was not a cent coming to them.

330 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914^

Q. Was that not the reason, when he told you these things, that you were
inclined to raise this classification? — A. Well, I raised it more because it had
been done on all the other districts before. At first I would not do it, because I
did not believe that that clay was as bad as it was, until it was opened up. When
I found it had been done on the other work, and accepted by the chief engineer, I
supposed it was right to do it. There was no specification to cover that material.
Common earth does not cover it. It should have been gumbo, or something like
that. There was no specification to cover it, and I thought we were supposed in
that case to use our own judgment as district engineer.

Q. Who told you what other districts were classifying? — A. The divisional
engineers on the other work. I never estimated as high as the rest of them did in.
some places.

By the Chairman :

Q. What made that clay diflBcult to remove? Was it too hard, or soft, or
what? Was it because it was too hard or because it was too soft? — A. It is the
most awful stuff to take out I ever saw. It gets sticky. It is very hard and it i&
like rubber, and the mud is awful, and it slides. It gets into a nasty puddle like
paint.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. Like mortar? — A. Yes, and sometimes, when you put it in the bank it
would run away across the railway right of way. Some of it we could not use iu
the bank ; we had to just waste it.

By the Chairman:

y. You classified it as loose rock, whether it was soft, or whetlier it was hard,
did you not ? — A. Oh, no.

Q. Was it the hard stuff you classified as loose rock, or the soft stuff? — A.
It is the hard stuff.

Q. Did you chissify any soft clay as loose rock? — A. Well, this hard stuff,
when they dig it and begin remonng it out in rainy weather, it would get nasty
and sticky, and soft, like mortar. We only gave a certain percentage in each cut.

Q. How deep did you consider the common excavation went, averaging it? —
A. We would come along to each cut, and spend quite a time looking at it, and
take a shovel and dig into the sides of it, and find where the hard material came
up to, and measure from tlie top, and give them a percentage.

Q. Did you cross-section any of those cuts, or were they cross-sectioned? — A.
They were cross-sectioned before the work was done.

Q. They were cross-sectioned for the purpose of finding the contents? — A.
Well, we just measured down.

Q. They were cross-sectioned to find how much material was to come out of
the cut ? — A. Yes.

Q. Were they cross-sectioned to find how much common excavation was in it
and how much loose rock was in it? — A. No.

Q. Was that ever done anywhere? — A. No, that would be very hard to do.

Q. It was never done? — A. No, I tried to do it on the start. I gave instruc-
tions to all the engineers to do it on the start, because I thought something like
that would come up and we should have those figures, but it seemed almost im-
possible to do it, and we gave a percentage.

Q. It never was done? — A. We would go out and look at a cut and give a
percentage.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 331

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. The way you arrived at the amount you should allow as loose rock was
by estimating a percentage? — A. Yes.

Q. Not by cross-sectioning the cut? — A. No.

Q. So that on the whole district that was the practice followed, to estimate
what percentage should be common excavation and what percentage should be loose
rock? — A. Yes. At first I sent them a circular, and I insisted on having a
clearly-defined line between the two, if possible. But they all declared it was
impossible.

Q. It would have been giving them some more money, would it not?' — A.
Well, it would not be so much work.

Q. When they came to solid rock excavation, did they cross-section the solid
rock ? — A. Yes.

Q. If you found in a cut common excavation, loose rock and solid rock, do
I understand you that the solid rock was really cross-sectioned? — ^A. Yes. It is
more clearly defined than the difference between the two clays. It is highly per-
ceptible.

Q. Was there any solid rock estimated? — A. In what way?

Q. Estimated instead of measured and cross-sectioned? — A. Eepeat that.

Q. Was there any solid rock excavation estimated, or was it all cross-sectioned
and ascertained in that way ? — A. Oh, all cross-sectioned in that way.

Bu Mr. Gutelius:

Q. By actual measurement? — A. Yes.

Q. But you were unable to find a line of demarcation between common excava-
tion and loose rock and for that reason you made a guess at it? — A. Yes.
Q. And called it a percentage ? — A. Yes.

By the Chairman:

Q. Did you allow any muskeg as loose rock? — A. No, indeed.

Q. Do I understand you that you did not allow as loose rock excavation any-
material which, before it was exposed to the atmosphere or to the rain, was soft?
— A. No, any stuff, what we considered common excavation —

Q. No, but there is a lot of that clay, plastic and soft; did you allow any. of
that? — A. It got soft after it got wet sometimes.

Q. You mean you only allowed indurated clay as loose rock? — A. That is
it exactly. I went over every cut with a shovel myself.

Q. I was told you had allowed a quantity of soft clay, not indurated, a? loose
rock? — A. Well, I did not, that I know of.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. Robertson told us that you advised him in the beginning to keep the-
classification away down; is that right? — A. Yes; that is what I told you a little
while ago.

Q. Robertson also advised us that he classified soft clay in the bottom of
those cuts, which is like gumbo, as loose rock; did you know that he did that? —
A. I do not call c^.ay that is like gumbo as being very soft.

Q. Those are his very words, " The very soft, this blue clay we get in the
bottom of those cuts, some of them, is like gumbo; I classify that as loose rock
also"? — A. He was always telling me how hard this rock was that he classified,
and on any cuts I wont over with him he never classified any soft clay : it was-
all very hard to excavate. In the Canadian Pacific vears ago we used to have a
classification for gumbo- — in the Northwest on the C.P.R. in the old days.

332 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

By the Chairman :

Q. You did not classify any material which you considered soft material as
loose rock? — A. No, sir, not to my knowledge.

Q. Give me, if you can, what percentage of the clay you considered generally
throughout that district, should be classified as loose rock? — A. Well, it was dif-
ferent in different cuts. We did not classify any two cuts the same.

Q. Could you give me any idea what percentage you think it would run? —
A. I do not remember. Eobertson would have those figures.

Q. Is it not all the same class of material? — A. Very much the same — no,
the cuts are very different; some of them would be hard up from the bottom for
two or three feet, and some would be hard nearly up to the top — just a couple
of feet on the top.

Q. Would it not be quite easy to remove the soft and cross-section the hard?
— A. It would be a hard job.

Q. Why should it be any harder than to cross-section in solid rock excava-
tion ? — A. Well, it has never been done anywhere, and all D was done when I com-
menced my classifying that material, and I followed the same system they had,
after I found we could not very well do it.

Q. My impression is, from the evidence which has been given — and my
impression may be wrong, because I have not reviewed the evidence yet — that they
gave nearly 90 per cent of that clay as loose rock excavation? — A. They did in
some cuts.

Q. But nearly all over? — A. Oh, no, not on my district. They gave 100
per cent in some of the others — at least, I heard they did — but they did not on mine.

Q. Do you think from what you saw that they could fairly give 100 per cent
anywhere? — A. I did not see any on my district.

Q. Did it not seem to you, roughly speaking, that the clay which could be
affected by the frost — in other words, down to the frost line — should be common
excavation? — A. How do you mean?

Q. The frost goes down into the earth in that country some three or four
feet?— A. Yes.

Q. Would not the frost break up the clay as far as it went down ? — A. No,
it did not seem to.

Q. You do not think so? — A. No.

Q. Because as soon as it is exposed it crumbles all to pieces. How did they
take out that clay ? — A. They would blow a good deal of it, with powder.

Q. Is there any cut in your division they used powder continuously? — A.
In the big cuts they did.

Q. Was it continuously? — A. I have seen it along there.

Q. Do you think you are right about that, or are you only speaking from
recollection?' — A. I may not be right, but I think I am.

Q. The records will show? — A. They ought to. Then of course we do not
always give people loose rock where they use powder. I liave seen them use powder
in lots of cuts to shake them out, so that they could dig them easily. With a forty-
foot cut they would put in black powder, and .shake it up.

Q. In that country could that clay be ploughed? — A. No, it could not.

Q. Did you ever see it tried? — A. My gracious me, you could not put any-
thing in there to plough it.

Q. Why? — A. Because they would stick in the mud and could not move.

Q. They would get mired? — A. Well, they would get mired, and I do not
know whether they could plough it. I do not think they could. It is tough like
gumbo.

Q. The top never was tough ; they could plough the top? — A. I do not think
they could plough it.

INVESTIOATINO COMMISSION 333

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. You did not approach it from that point of view, whether it could be
ploughed or not? — A. Oh, yes, I had many arguments with them about it. I
thought it could at first myself, and I had many an argument with contractors
and engineers about it, and we came to the conclusion it could not.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. Do you think now all of the loose rock classification in those clay cuts
that was given under your charge was too hard to be ploughed? — A. I do not
know whether it was too hard to be ploughed. I think it was impossible to plough
it, or to get the horses in there to plough it.

Q. But supposing that the horses were taken care of on a corduroy, and
they were Just ploughing a single furrow, would all the material that was classi-
fied as loose rock be too hard for them to break up ? — A. Well, I do not know.

Q. Did you try to get the difference between common excavation and loose
rock such that this test would prove out? — A. Well, they never could get in there
t( plough it. Now, take on the top, there was about a foot on the top, a different
line of f^arth altogether, and a foot down it was different; some parts we just gave
them two or three feet at the bottom; in others it went up nearly to the top. I
was very particular in digging into the cuts in every instance where I decided
what we should do, and Tomlinson, the district engineer for the Grand Trunk,
representing them, wanted a great deal more than that allowed, but I would not
give it to them.

Q. Tomlinson really advocated increasing it? — A. Oh, my — why once or
twice he said, "Why if you don't do better than that I am going right home, I
won't go over the line any more " ; and I said, " I cannot help that ; I cannot give
you any more; I think that is plenty."

Q. It has been said that one cubic yard of muskeg put in a fill originally
is worth about half a cubic yard when traffic gets on it? — A. I have no doubt. I
had experience of the worst muskeg that was ever on the C.P.R. I had charge
of that. They thought they would have to pile that first, and I proposed that
big ditch 90 feet from the centre.

Q. But the muskeg does settle? — A. The bottom of the big ditch kept
coming up, and we kept putting that in, and it kept coming up.

Q. What do you think of muskeg material for making fills, where the groimd
under the embankment is reasonably solid? — A. Well, you would have a nice
back; it makes a nice roadbed.

Q. But it is more expensive ? — A. Yes. I believe some of those muskegs you
can squeeze up to less than a third.

Q. To a third of the original amount? — A. Yes.

Q. Are you familiar with momentum grades? — A. Well, we had a lot of
them down south.

Q. What saving could have been effected on your division if you had used
momentum grades in a general way? — A. Do you mean for a permanent thing?

Q. No, in original construction, could you have saved as much as ten per
cent, on the grading of your division if you had used momentum grades? — A. Yes,
I believe we could and do better work. You see in getting the line on a four-tenths
grade, a continuous long grade as they insisted on you had to have su^ch high banks,
a bank nine or ten or twelve feet high for a mile. You put that in there, and it
kept going down —

Q. Which would not have gone down if you had introduced the sag within the
limits of a momentum grade? — A. Yes. We would have saved a lot of trouble
and expenses.

Q. Why did you not introduce momentum grades? — A. Well, I wanted to
introduce them in one or two places, but they said they would rather have —

3'34 NATIONAL TBA.WSiO.M'iXEXTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. Who is they ? — A. Mr. Lumsden ; I am not sure who it was, whether it
was he or the inspecting engineer. I just mentioned it one day, but they would
not hear of it.

Q. But if left to yourself you would have introduced some sags as momentum
grades? — A. Yes; in the roads down south I did that in every case.

Q. There was a rumor passed that indicated to the commission that you
were not on that work often enough io keep in close touch with the grading ; what
do you say to that? — A. I think I was on the work more than any district
engineer that is on the road from one end to the other, and knew every foot of it
better. At one time the commissioner told me I was going out on the road too
much, to send my assistant, that I ought to stay home and look after things, and
not be going out on the road so much. That was Mr. Mclsaac spoke to me.

Q. I wanted you to say that to contradict some information we had to the
contrary? — A. That is a mistake altogther.

Q, I do not want to leave this with a wrong impression in connection with
the action of Mr. Tomlinson on that trip when you increased the classification.
You indicated to us that Tomlinson was clearly anxious — and an advocate — to raise
the classification over what you had made it originally? — A. Yes.

Q. And wanted to make it still higher than you finally made it? — A. Yes.

Q. You are giving me that without any mental reservation at all? — A.
Tes, he was very indignant because I did not raise it higher.

NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY INVESTIGATING

COMMISSION.

J'efore : Mr. George LYNCH-STAUNTOisr, K.C., Chairman, and Mr. F. P, Gutelius,
C.E., Commissioner.

(Evidence taken on the train, at the boundary between Ontario and Quebec,
June 20th, 1912.)

C. 0. Foss, sworn :

By Mr. Gutelius :

Q. How old are you? — A. Sixty.

Q. How many years have you been in charge of responsible railway con-
struction?— A. Most of the time for 25 to 30 years.

Q. What were the largest railway jobs that you had during that time? —
Give four or five? — A. About the first construction work I did was the road
from Dallas to Cleburn, Texas, in 1880.

Q. For what company? — A. The Texas Trunk.

Q. Wliat next? — A. I built a piece of road in Iowa, known as the Dosmoines
Osceolla and Southern, from Desmoincs, Iowa, down to pretty near the Missouri
boundary, to a place called Kingsmore, and T was on the location of the Wisconsin,
Iowa and Nebraska, from JfcGregor southwest to Kansas City. I had malaria
fever shortly after that, and had to leave the west, and went to Nova Scotia in
1883.

Q. What next? — A. I was on the construction of what is known as the Nova
Scotia Central.

Q. On the Nova Scotia Central you were in responsible charge of a portion
of the work, or all of it? — A. All of it.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION . 335

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. As chief engineer? — A. Yes. After it was built I operated it as Sup-
erintendent of Maintenance of Way for a while.

Q. The same road? — A. Yes, and then Mackenzie and Mann bought this
road, and I worked for them, and had more or less to do with the ballasting, ties
and timber. They built from Halifax round the south shore.

Q. That is for Mackenzie and Mann? — A. Yes. I left there in 1904, and
came to the Transcontinetntal as chief of a party on preliminary surveys, in the
fall of 1904.

Q. What portions of the line? — A. I made a preliminary survey of what
is known as the river route from Fredericton, about 40 miles towards Woodstock,
meeting Gard and party 23 miles below Woodstock; and then I came to Edmimds-
ton in the preliminary, from Edmundston to Grand Falls, and I went out near
Boiestov/n, south of Boiestown, and ran practically over the ground that we located
raid built on to Napadogan, and so on, to the southeast of the Miramichi, where
we crossed it now, and traversed up the ice, and made two or three trials to get
over that summit. First I tagued it, and then Mr. Westbrook came upon the line.
About that time I was appointed assistant district engineer, and took charge of
the survey generally under Mr. Dunn.

Q. As assistant district engineer you had charge of the location under Mr
Dunn ? — A. Yes.

Q. And assisted him in starting out the construction parties, and finally
succeeded him as district engineer? — A. In 1908, ^^es.

Q. The specifications for this railway in the matter of classification differed
from other specifications that, you worked under ? — A. Yes, in some particulars.

Q. What is the principal difference ? — A. Well, we had generally only made
two classifications, sometimes three; but solid rock and everything else was used on
the Halifax and Southwestern.

Q. How many classifications did they use on those American roads? — A.
We usually had prairie excavation and sometimes gumbo, a hard mat-erial called
gumbo ; very little rock on any of those western roads I was on ; in fact, there was
none.

Q. So that the first specification that you worked on that had these three
classifications was the N.T.B. specifications? — ^A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember the prices paid on the Halifax and Southwestern for
rock and for other excavation? — A. My recollection is that rock was $1.30 and
everything else 40 or 45.

Q. On this work did your resident engineers keep a force account ? — A. Yes.

Q. Which was reported through to you? — A. Yes, and through to Ottawa.

Q. So that you could figure fairly closely the cost of various cuts ? — A. Yes.

Q. You also received report covering the amount of powder used in each
cut ? — A. Yes.

Q. The matter of classification of your district, I understand, was one of
controversy from time to time? — A. Yes.

Q. Were vour orisrinal ideas of classification the same as you are now clas-
sifying ? — A. Practically.

Q. If you had taken the specifications as they were given to you and classified
the work, without any instructions from superior officers, would your classifica-
tions have been the same as they now stand ? — A. I think so.

Q. What I am trying to reach is whether your personal ideas coincide
exactly with what you are doing now? — A. Well, take this last contract, for in-
stance; in 1907 a considerable amount of this work was done.

Q. Prior to your taking charge as district engineer? — A. Yes. Mr. Dunn
went over the work in the autumn of 1007, while I was temporarily in district
E, and graded up the classification, I think, and it remained on about the same
basis for a while. I may say that in 1908 he had left, and he came back again
as inspecting engineer for the Grand Trunk Pacific, in the summer of 1908; he

ase NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

stayed until the spring of 1909, and they transferred him to the west, and shortly
after sent Mr. Boullion, and he then took exceptions to some places, some fill on
contract 4; quite a good many on contract 5 — all this assembled rock question,
and that, and some of the loose rock classification on contract 6.

Q. Who is the contractor for six? — A, Lyons and White. Then it was
that I said I thought it would be better to refer the whole thing to the Board of
Arbitrators that had been appointed for that purpose, and it was done.

Q. This Board is composed of whom? — A. The chief engineers of the
G.T.P. and the X.T.R., with Mr. Schreiber as umpire.

Q. What did they do? — A. Before the arbitrators came at all, Mr. Grant
and Mr. Woods came down and settled some, perhaps a dozen places, straight give-
and take agreement, and they got into a dispute, they had a misunderstanding in
some way over it. Mr. Grant said Mr. Woods had agreed to a certain thing, and
Mr. Woods said he had not; anyway they got into a dispute, and they quit, and
Mr. Grant went back to Ottawa. That was last September, I should think.

Q. That was to settle the objection raised by the G.T.P.'s inspecting
engineer, Mr. Bouillion? — A. Yes, and then in November the Board of Arbi-
trators came down and went over the balance of these objections.

By the Chairman:

Q. We want to know whether the G.T.P.'s objection was that the classifica-
tion was too low or too high? — A. Too high.

By Mr. Uuielius:

Q. The objections raised by Mr. Boullion that the classification was too high
did not apply to the G.T.P.'s contract? — A. \^'ell, he made no objection on con-
tract one, wliich was theirs, the first fifty miles; nor on contract two which was
McMannus's, nor on contract three, which was also theirs, from Chipman ta
McGibbon ; he did not raise any objection on tliat forty miles, and then on contract
4 he raised objections in ten or a dozen places, 1 suppose, here and there. Then
on contract five he objected to all those places where any assembled rock had been
allowed, and a few places where he thought too much loose rock had been allowed,,
and then on contract six, all the places wliere assembled rock had been returned,.
and a good many places where he claimed too much loose rock has been returned.

Q. Did the arbitrators cover all of those points? — A. All of the objection*
that were standing. I may say between him and Woods, they withdrew their
objections in several places on contract 6.

Q. That was a G.T.P. contract? — A. No, that is Lyons and White; that is
the last contract; it comes right here to the boundary. After Grant and Woods
had this misunderstanding I suggested to Woods that he and I go along down the
line, and see if we could not settle some of these places, and I said " Now, if there
is any of these places that you, on looking this thing over, think are all right, say
so, and we will check them off ". He did. In quite a few places he thought the
objection was not serious, better withdraw it; so they did, and then the residue
of this was summed up in wliat the arbitrators came and went over.

Q. Did the contractors themselves know anything about this arbitration? —
A. Oh, yes.

Q. Were they satisfied with the findings, or have they accepted them? — A.
Woll, they were not satisfied. They have not made any move to test it, that I
know of.

/>// the Chairman :

Q. You might state first, whose were the different contracts on your section ;
start at number 1 ? — A. Number 1 was G.T.P.

INYESTIGATINO COMMISSION 337

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. Extending from where? — A. Moncton to Mile 50; two was J. TV".
McMannus & Company, from 50 to 58. Three was G.T.P., from 58 to 98 — forty
miles; and four, from 98 to 164 was G.T.P,; five, from 164 to 195 1-2 was Kitchen
& Company; and six, from 195 to 256 and a fraction was Lyons and White.

Q. In our examination of Moncton yard excavation, "we noticed that the
hard material on the south side did not extend closer to the surface than 18 to 30
inches, and on the south side, where a steam shovel was working, the soft material
seemed to go down from three to five feet; does that seem about right to you? —
A. Yes, as it showed there.

Q. What do you say about the depth of the soft material over that whole
yard? — A. I should thini it would average perhaps 2 1-2 feet.

Q. Do you think the material as classified in the estimate will bear that out,
and, if it does not, should it? — A. Yes, about 25 to 30 per cent, I think. The
cutting is an average of something like nine feet.

Q. If the plough test were applied to the surface material, you would expect
it to show about 30 inches to three feet? — A. Somewhere about there: two or
three feet.

Q. And that proportion would be common excavation? — A. Yes.

By the Chairman'.

Q. Is there a borrow pit? — A. Not in the yard. There is a borrow pit up
above about a mile.

Q. Was there not an amendment to the common excavation paragraph, 36
and 36a, " No classification other than that of common excavation will be allowed
on material from borrow pits, except by order in writing of the engineer " ? — A.
Yes.

Q. Was there an order in writing given for common excavation out of that
borrow pit near Moncton? — A. I could not say, I am sure, whether the engineer
in charge gave an order — you mean notice to the contractor?

Q. Yes; I understand there is a borrow pit about mile 2? — A. Yes.

Q. Was there any pajTuent made above ordinary train haul for material
taken out of that borrow pit? — A. No, that was not train haul at all; that was
straight into that big fill, and it was classified probably about the same as the yard
there.

Q. Was there an order in writing to classify it? — A. I could not say about
that. It would mean, technically, that, while he required an order in writing, if
he verbally told him he could borrow there, it is usually done.

Q. If he verbally told him, he would get nothing but common for it; do you
see that? Have you considered that? — (No answer).

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. If a written order was given to the contractor for borrowing material
from the pit at mileage 2, where about 66,000 yards of material was removed, you
will send us a copy of that order? — A. If it was given, it would probably be
given by the resident engineer or Mr. Balkam, the divisional engineer.

Q. You will undertake to procure that and send it to us ? — A. Yes.

Q. In this connection, I would like you also to advise us of all classified
borrow that was not ordered in writing by the engineer? — A. All right.

Q. At mileage 16 there is a cutting 4,000 feet in length. (Profile shown
witness). The classification shows loose rock 5186, common excavation 8642.
The material has the appearance of common excavation from the plough test idea,
from two to three feet thick over that cut. Do you remember the material? — A.
Not specially, no.
123.-22

388 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. If you find in a test that there is three feet of loose material on that
cut, would not this classification appear to be too high? — A, Yes, if there was
three feet all the way on that cut it would make a greater difference than what is
shown there.

Q. Eeferring to the profile, mileage 26 to 38, would it have been possible
to have lowered the grade, without interfering with the maximum gradients and
saved some money? — A. Yes; this grade could be lowered for a mile and a half
and some saving could be made.

Q, Can the engineers at Ottawa figure this approximately correctly? — A.
Approximately, yes.

Q. The cross-section is fairly level? — A. Yes.

Q. There is a similar profile between mileage 30 and 31? — A. Yes, I see it.

Q. Say 30.3 to 31; could that receive the same treatment? — A. That
maximum grade would have to be got through the shallow cutting all the way.
Whatever you dropped the grade between mileage 30.3 and mileage 31.3 would
have necessitated additional cutting at the top of the grade at 31.3.

Q. Could not the material taken from this cutting west of mileage 31 have
been used to the east in that cutting? — A. Yes.

Q. So that a net saving might have been secured without increasing the
gradient?— A. Without increasing the gradient, yes.

Q. With your experience as an engineer, and knowing that there are a num-
ber of such places on your district, why did you not lower these grades? — A.
Well, in some cases, I do not know whether that particular case or not, the grades
were put on at Ottawa; sometimes they were changed there, anyway, and the idea
held out was to keep the line up clear of snow and water.

Q. Can you give us a definite reference to any instructions from the Ottawa
oflBce to keep these grades up? — A. Well, I won't answer that; I won't undertake
to say that I can, but when I go into the office and look over the correspondence,
if I can find anything I will produce it.

Q. You are quite sure in your own mind you did have such instructions? —
A^ I know the grades were changed in Ottawa in some cases, but I cannot say
just which they applied to, whether they applied to that particular case or not.

Q. Were profiles generally approved in Ottawa before you started the work ? —
A. Always.

Q. To what height do you consider it is necessary to keep the top of the tie
above the surrounding country, when there is no other influence for protection
against snow ? — A. Oh, say two or two and a half feet. Of course n^ore would be
better in heavy snows, but in ordinary snows that would enable you to clear the line
easily.

Q. That would mean Ihat the grade line shown on your profile should be, at
least, a foot above the surrounding country? — A. Ye?.

By the Chairman:

Q. Is that for snow or water? — A. That is for snow alone.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. What do you say about water? — A. Well, if it was a wet place, where it
was likely to be flooded under very heavy rain conditions, I would like to have it
up two or three feet above the probabilities of water.

By the Chairman :

Q. That last answer applies only to districts that are liable to be flooded ? — A.
Sure.

IXYESTIGATiyO COilMISSIOy 339

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

By Mr. GuteUus:

Q. Referring to the muskeg cut at mileage 36, the information I have shows
that some of this muskeg was classified as loose rock? — A. Yes.

Q. And I understand you are making some change in that ? — A. Yes.

Q. Is this change in harmony with your personal ideas as to classification? —
A. Well, I think that material was really more expensive and difficult for a con-
tractor to handle than many other places that would easily be classified as loose
rock.

Q. Do you feel that you are justified in allowing the cost of moving to
influence you in a classification? — A. I think every engineer in the world is
influenced somewhat by that.

Q. But by adherence to the specification literally — A. If a contractor was
obliged to move that with scrapers or carts or ordinary teams that were used when
that specification was made 30 or 40 years ago, it would be a very difficult matter,
because that Avas a mush of water and mud — black mud. The only way he was
able to get that out was by working under it with a steam shovel. If he had to go
on top of it with teams it would have been practically out of the question. He could
not handle teams on it at all.

By the Chairman :

Q. The specification provides that only such material as cannot be ploughed
— that means that it is too hard to plough — indurated clay and other materials —
shall be classified as loose rock? — A. The inference, of course, is that that means
that the material is too hard to plough ; but if you could not plough it at all, if you
could not get horses on to it to plough it, would it not still be material that could
not be ploughed.

Q. Do you consider if it is too hard to be ploughed or too soft to be ploughed,
that it is loose rock ? — A. If you take the broad view

Q. "Wliich view do you take ? — A. Let me make an explanation. If you take
the broad view that this specification is to cover material, not necessarily because
it is too hard, but because it is difficult to move, then I think it would apply to
muskeg mud — It might apply. If you say strictly that this must be so hard that
you cannot plough it, and that is the meaning of the specification, then muskeg,
mud and quicksand, and all this sort of material that is more expensive to handle
than ordinary loose roclc material,- would have to be classified as common excavation.

By Mr. GuteUus:

Q. To whom do you look for correct information as to how broad or how
narrow the specification should be construed ? — A. Well, if it is a matter of doubt
and opinion, you have got to refer to the chief, of course. You have to be governed
by his direction, no matter what your opinion may be. The chief ordered me to cut
that out — to cut out all the muskeg material in the district.

Q. Some of the muskeg which has been excavated was v>-asted? — A, For the
simple reason that you could not put it in a bank of any size and hold it there.

Q. Why did you take it from beneath the grade line and waste it ? — A. From
beneath the grade line ?

Q. Yes, in that dug out place? — A. You mean over where it was taken out
and refilled?

Q. Yes? — A. Well, the grade had to be kept down low, in order to keep a
length of siding there, and if we had put ballast on top of that muskeg, it would
simply have mushed right down, the ties would have gone right down into it.

Q. Explain why you dug out muskeg below the grade line and filled in again
at tlie several points which we noticed along the line ? — A. Because I believed that
that was good construction.

340 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. Did you ever do it on any other railway? — A. Oh, yes, where there was
only a small amount of muskeg like there was in those cases, two feet or so.

Q. Did you ever do so much as that ? — A. Where there was any considerable
depth of muskeg with a very light fill, I would cross-way it, but that would cost
a great deal more money in a case like this than to remove the little depth of
muskeg.

Q. You wasted this muskeg, and you knew what expense you were under-
taking to make this solid roadbed, and considered that it was good construction? —
A. Yes.

Q. Was it necessary? — A. I think it was.

Q. Would it have been necessary under Mackenzie and Mann's construction?
— A. I have in some cases put a light roadbed on a thin layer of muskeg, and I
always found it coming up through the ties and through the ballast, sooner or later.

Q. Supposing I told you that I have seen 30 and 40 miles of muskeg embank-
ment made, and track laid on it, and operated over nine months ? — A. You would
get tliat up where it would be dry.

Q. On this railway ? — A. You would get that where it would dry out. That
is different from putting it down on the flat where it lays.

Q. Then you do not think this would have dried out ? — A. I do not think so.

Q. Where you see it on the bank there now you can walk over it? — A, Yes,
because it is piled up and exposed to the drying effect of the weather.

Q. Would not the weather have had the same effect on it in banks? — A.
This is not in a bank; it is putting the ballast on it down inside.

Q. It makes a very expensive railroad, does it? — A. If you have any amount
of it to remove. In places we removed it in those roadbeds there was only about
a foot and a half or two feet.

Q. Have you any idea how much muskeg you wasted? — A. On the roadbed.

Q. All waste muskeg not used in fill? — A. Exclusive of mileage 36 cut that
we had to take it out, there was very little wasted.

By the Chairman:

Q. Did you not put in some of this muskeg in some fill somewhere ? — A. If
we did, it ran out.

Q. Did you not put in some? — A. The only place we used any muskeg in a
fill and kept it there, was in a small place along mile 26, 27 or 28. We cut some
ditches on the side and made a small embankment, such as you speak of in the west,
and we covered it with ballast, top and sides, a couple of feet thick.

By Mr. Guteliiis:

Q. Eeferring to the same cut at mileage 36, I notice there is 60,000 yards of
loose rock returned ? — A. Yes.

Q. The muskeg is included in that figure? — A. Yes,

Q. The remainder of the cut struck mo as though it contained a larger per-
centage of common excavation than the 88,000 yards shown. You remember the
material ? — A. Yes.

Q. Don't you think there was a greater quantity of that clay which was
ploughable? — A. Very little, outside of the muskeg.

By the Chairman :

Q. Is there any rock there at all ? — A. Yes.

Q. Whereabouts is it? — A. There was considerable rock in the bottom of
the cut and those big masses you saw in the bank all through it.
Q. There is 4,000 vards of solid roik?— A. Yes.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 341

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Did that consist of boulders? — A. Some solid rock in the very bottom,
and those big boulders, those big masses you sa.vr on the side going up all through
the cut.

Q. What became of them ? — A, They went into the fill.

Q. Do you think that is a fair amount of solid rock? — A. Yes, I should
think so.

Q. Half as much as the common? — A. I should think so.

Q. Refer to mile 59. In the cutting just west of this mile post we find a
reddish clay which had the appearance of being the same material in the matter of
consistency or hardness that we moved by picking in the Moncton yard. The
classification of this cut shows 600 yards solid rock, 6,800 loose rock, and 811 yards
common excavation. The length of the cut indicates that if a two or three foot
blanket of common excavation were allowed that the quantites would be very much
increased ; do you remember the case ? — A. Yes, I remember it.

By the Chairman :

Q. If you find the material in this is similar to that in Moncton yard, do
jou not think that the common should be increased and the loose decreased? — A.
That is, if there was 2l^ feet taken off, do you mean?

Q. Yes? — A. I do not know just how that would work out.

Q. Don't you think that the material is the same? — A. It would be in the
proportion, I think, of about 70 to 30.

Q. What does that mean? — A, 70 per cent loose to 30 per cent common.

Q. Do you speak from recollection that that would be proper? — A. I am
not saying whether it would be proper. I am saying if they found there was
three feet of that that would be it.

Q. Take the fill at 60.6 ; do you know if that fill was made full width origi-
nally from neighbouring cuts? — A. I think it was, yes.

Q. A large amount of train fill, however, was necessary to put it in its present
condition? — A. Well, it sloughed down at the sides there and settled the top.

Q. Did this sloughing amount to very much on your whole district? — A.
Quite a good deal.

Q. And ever}'- yard that sloughed required train fill? — A. For the most
part, yes.

Q. Did that item amount to very much in the total cost of the work? — A.
1 could not undertake to say how much offhand.

Q. Was it a serious item in the amount of train fill yardage? — A. I should
think it would represent altogether probably 50,000 or 60,000 yards.

Q. At mileage 62 there were borrows on the north and south sides ? — A. Yes.

By the Chairman:

Q. Why was there so much loose rock in that, do you remember? — A. It
was scraping right on the solid rock.

Q. But you did not take any of the solid rock out? — A. There was a little
taken out, which I told the officer the other day. I pointed out to him that here
it would have to be cut out.

Q. You have ordered him to take out the solid rock item? — A. Yes, I have
ordered him to.

Q. How much is it? — A. 647 one place and 8 yards in another place. 1
will tell you what they did really. They came on to a thin layer of sand stone,
and they took it out, and then went on and took out some more material that was
not solid rock under that. The whole thing was only about two to three feet and
a half in depth, but they took this all out and classified 647 yards of the thin layer
as solid rock. I called attention to it the other day and said, " We cannot aUow
tliat to go in ; we cannot allow that in the borrow ".

542 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. What do you think of that loose rock there? Is that not overdone? — A.
I would not undertake to say that. They took some on top of this thing and took
some underneath. I did not see it done ; what the nature of it was I do not know.

Q. Is there any appearance there of loose rock to be seen now? — A. I think
they induced the contractor to take this material instead of train-hauling it, which
would have cost as much as the loose rock, plus over-haul.

Q. Does it not look more like common excavation than it does like loose rock ?
— A. Well, in case one did not see it taken out at all, and talking about it here,
and not having examined it any more than having seen it going by, it would be
hardly fair to say it was not loose rock and was common excavation,

Q. Has it not the appearance of common excavation to one looking at it?
— A. He would say that was ploughed, probably.

By Mr. Outelius:

Q. If you refer to mileage 64, you will note in a cut of some 14,000 yards,
231 yards only was classified as common excavation. I pointed this out to you, sug-
gesting that there was 18 inches of loam and loose material. Is 231 yards suffi-
cient for a cut of that size, when the 18 inches is apparent? — A. Eighteen inches
would make more than 231 yards. I will put it that way.

Q. My memorandum says that you thought the same when we were looking
at it?— A. Yes.

Q. Will you take that up and rectify it? — A. Yes.

Q. You remember that cut at 65.5? — A. Yes.

Q. Describe that cut and give the classification shown before you? — A.
That was a cut of shale, with some earth on top; solid rock 2,145, loose rock 10,085,
and common excavation 1,575.

By the Chairman :

Q. The cut consists, does it not, of common earth and shale, more or less;
I am not giving the proportions? — A. Yes.

Q. It consists of common excavation and shale? — A. It consists of earth
material and shale.

Q. As I recollect it, there is from two to three feet of common excavation
over that shale that can be easily handled with a pick and shovel. Am I right
in that? — A. There may be. I did not particularly examine that place.

Q. Now, we come to the shale. To me the shale appeared to be from two
to three feet that you could shovel out in the ordinary way with a shovel? — A.
Well, that was working into the side of it, where the weather had disintegrated
it.

Q. No, from the top, when we cut in ? — A. I did not see that.

Q. Do you not think that is right? — A. I would not undertake to say.

Q. If I am right in that, should it be classed as common, in your opinion?
— A. If it is material that can be taken out with a shovel, yes.

Q. And then the remainder of the material, right to the bottom of the
gradient, is shale, is it not? — A. Yes.

Q. And how was that removed? — A. I think the whole shale part of it was
blasted, but I think that the upper part of it, tliat was considerably softer, was
returned as loose rock, judging from the quantities, and here I think there was
more of that material wc call sliale than is shown in the 3,000 returned as solid
rock. There was only 3,000 solid and 10,000 loose.

Q. Which part is solid rock? — A. Probably the lower part of it is harder
than that on top that you shovelled into.

Q. Do you put no part of the top as common ? — A. I do not know about that.

Q. If we can take it out with an ordinary shovel it should be common? —
A. Yes.

INTE8TIGATINQ COMMISSION 343

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q, If it is taken out by blasting what should it be? — A. Solid rock.

Q. Why did you not put it all in as solid rock? — A. I cannot say. I did
not see the work taken out. I do not know what influenced the man^s mind.

Q. You took the return made by the resident engineer on that? — A. Yes.

Q. If he found it as I say it impressed me that it was, then the percentage
of common is greatly too small, is it not? — A. If it can be shovelled.

Q. The next cut 66.6, solid rock 8,677, loose rock 8,445, and common excava-
tion 3,980, is that not in the same position as the other? — A. No, no shale in
that.

Q. Do you not think that is shale in there? — A. No.

Q. "We thought it was shale; what is it? — A. It is more sandstone.

Q. Where do you find solid rock in that? Is it not all either common or
loose? — A. Well, the solid has probably been returned as assembled rock. I would
have to look that up in the record at home. It comes in under the category of
assembled rock.

Q. It would not come in under the category of ledge? — A. No.

Q. It is either loose or assembled rock? — A. Yes.

Q. What do you classify as assembled rock? — A. All the things I have per-
sonally seen —

Q. You got some special instructions from the late chief engineer about
assembled rock? — A. Yes.

Q. And it is what he describes in that memorandum, as you understand it,
that you have put in as assembled rock? — A. Yes.

Q. So that you were not left to your own discretion as to whether or not
you would classify that as assembled rock? You simply followed the instructions
of your superior officer? — A. So far as I understood them.

Q. And in that cut all the solid rock comes under that head? — A. There
was some assembled rock in that cut and the balance was assembled rock.

Q. Have you had experience with assembled rock classification before this?
— A. Never; never heard of such a thing.

Q. As construction engineer, do you consider the assembled rock classification
under Lumsden's circular as being a practical instruction? — A. No.

Q. If his instruction in connection with assembled rock had never been made,
would any considerable amount of money have been saved on the work? — A. Yes.
I could not give an estimate offhand.

Q. I would like to have an expression from you as to classification of steam
shovel material that does not require blasting, as to whether it could consistently be
called loose rock? — A. Well, if it is material that would be classified as loose
rock under any' other conditions of removal, I consider it should be classified as
loose rock if removed by steam shovel. '

Q. In that connection, is it not a fact that 3^ou are influenced in classifying
certain materials that are moved by hand on account of their cost of removal? — A.
Undoubtedly.

Q. Is it not possible to carry that same argument into steam shovel work
where it is easily removed; the classification then should be right? — A. I do not
think so. I think the contractor has the same rules applied to material as if he
was moving it by pick and shovel, because he has paid a lot of money for the
steam shovel, and gone to a lot of expense to get the men there and operate, and
keep them up; otherwise he would be penalized for putting on plant, if you gave
him any other treatment. ;

By the Chairman :

Q. In other words you say that if it is loose rock, as a matter of fact under
the specification, the fact that by a modem appliance he removes it more cheaply
should not penalize him? — A. Exactly.

344 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE V^ 1914

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. Then, conversely, if he uses an antiquated appliance, and it costs him a
large amount of money, should you not still adhere to the specification, regardless
of cost? — A. Oh, well, strictly speaking, yes, but the question arises whether a
man's mind is not, perhaps, influenced somewhat by what he sees it is costing a
man to get the material out.

Q. Then is it not natural for him, unconsciously, to equalize that high classi-
fication by a lower classification when it is moved by steam shovel ? — A. And he
always does. You can go over the work to-day, and you will find the classification
of the fifty miles that is all done by steam shovel is lower than that same class of
material that you strike on the next contract beyond; and why? Because it was
removed by steam shovel.

By the Chairman:

Q. From what you have said, it is not, then, in the interest of the owner of
the railway to encourage or allow work to be done by stationmen ? — A. No, sir,
never. He had better pay at least ten per cent more to the man with the plant
and know that he is going to get it done twenty per cent cheaper.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. We will take up the question of the possibility of a momentum grade
between mileage 134 and 135. Mileage 134 if. located at the foot of a long
six-tenths maximum westbound grade, which extends for eight or ten miles? — A.
Yes, sir.

Q. My suggestion is that this grade should have been extended level from
mile 134 to 134.8 on a point thirty-five grade, and proceed on a one per cent,
grade to the cutting at 135.3, a distance of about one half mile. What do you
say as to whether that would be practicable? — A. Yes, it would be practicable.
It would probably reduce the fill from 128,000 to about 50,000 yards.

Q. Wliy did you not use momentum grades of this character on your district?
— A. Because I had no information and authority to do so.

Q. Did you endeavour to secure authority for the use of momentum grades?
— A. So far as I remember, the whole thing was settled before I was district
engineer.

Q. And your understanding A. Is that no momentum grades were

allowed.

Q. Could any considerable amount of money have been saved on your district
if momentum grades had been allowed in places of this character? — A. Doubtless
it could. That is probably the most glaring instance in the wliole district.

By the Charman:

Q. From the construction or operation point of view, do you see any serious
objection to momentum grades having been adopted on this railroad under all the
conditions that existed here? — A. Of course the first question is easily answered.
There is no difficulty in the construction. ' Then it becomes a question of operat-
ing; on which I do not consider myself an expert.

Q. Is it a usual practice, in good railroad construction to use momentum
grades? — A. I know it is used on roads of high character in many places, and,
of course, on cheap roads where I have been on construction, we had to use
momentum grades.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. What grades did you follow between mileage 178 and 185? — A. Point
four.

INTESTIGATING COMMISSION 345

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. These seven miles of railway, including Salmon Eiver Viaduct? — A.
Yes.

Q. Can you give me a rough estimate of tiie cost of this seven miles of rail-
way, including the Viaduct at Salmon Eiver, Caton Brook and Graham Brook? —
A. Something over two million, I think. It is more than two million, but,
without the figures before me, I do not want to pin myself to anything. I may
say that this is very easily determined by reference to the estimates.

Q. The exact figures are easily determined by reference to the estimates?
A. Yes.

Q. This is clearly the most expensive seven miles on your district? — A.
Oh, yes.

Q. Did you have to do with the location of this line ? — A. I did.

Q. Wliat preliminary surveys did you make ? — A. We made preliminary sur-
reys all over that part of the country, and later on I had a preliminary survey
made, with a view of getting down with a pusher of 1.10 from each way, a jack-
knife pusher, down as near the level of Salmon Eiver as possible.

Q. How near to the Salmon Eiver did that survey bring you? — A. About
55 feet.

By the Chairman :
Q. What is the height of the viaduct over Salmon Eiver now? — A. Prac-
tically 200 feet.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. Did you find practically a one point one route? — A. Oh, yes, you can
get round there.

Q. Was there much additional distance? — A. I do not think so. I do not
remember the exact amount.

Q. How much money, roughly speaking, would have been saved had that
jack-knife one-point ten-grade been adopted? — A. Oh, something like a million
and a half, I should say.

Q. What did you do toward getting this one-point one grade accepted? — A.
Well, I discussed it with the then district engineer, who I think, discussed it with
the authorities at Ottawa; I do not know whether there is any correspondence in
the oflSce to show; at any rate, I was told at the time that it would not be con-
sidered.

Q. Is this not a country where you would expect a one per cent grade to be
used in railway construction? — A. As a pusher.

Q. Has not the adoption of the four-tenths eastbound and six-tenths west-
bound enormously increased the cost of the railway, not only between the tunnel
and Salmon Eiver viaduct, but over the entire district? — A. Well, I do not think
I would want to say that, because there are sections of it where the point-four
and point-six fit as nicely as anything could, but a great many places the adoption
of these grades, of course, has very largely increased the cost.

Q. If a six-tenths grade had been used between Chipman and the top of the
hill east, you could have lowered the crossing at Chipman and escaped that 9,000-
foot cut at the top of the hill, could you not ? — A. To a considerable extent, yes,
certainly. It would have enabled us to have gone over the summit of this cut —
not exactly over it, because we would have had to take something off this way,
but it would have reduced that 75 per cent, say, just speaking roughly.

Q. The excavation was solid 35,000, loose 96,000 and common 24,000?— A.
We could have cut the rock all out. They could have gone over the top of the rock
and cut the other 60,000 yards down to probably 30 or 40 feet. On the other
hand, going west on the point-six, it would have required some development or
lengthening of the work, which could have been secured.

34G NATIONAL TRAXSCOXTINEXTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. What additional expense would there have been there? — A. Not very
much; perhaps an extra $50,000 on that ten miles.

Q. And you would have saved approximately how much on the line between
Chipman and mile 50? — A. I should say that the whole transaction would have
netted a saving of $150,000, taking into account the development you would have
to make here, charged against part of what you would have saved here.

Q. The net result would be that the Government would have been $150,000
to the good? — A. I think at least that.

Q. In the matter of the use of wooden trestles on a new railway of this
character, Avhat have you to say as an engineer, for or against? — A. Well, I con-
sider it highly practicable to use substantial, say Southern pine trestles, with a
life of ten to twelve years.

0.. Instead of what? — A. Instead of permanent construction at the outset.

Q. Wliat objections do you see, as an engineer, to the construction of perma-
nent heavy fills in a new country such as your district traverses? — A. You are
then confined to the use of such material as lies at your hand much of the way,
which has to be taken for whatever price there may be in the contractor's schedule,
without the opportunity to do this filling subsequently, when the ordinary plant
of the road when being operated, power, and that sort of thing, may be at liberty,
and the work can be done to the best advantage and at the cheapest cost.

Q. Is there any advantage in filling in the future on account of the effect of
clearing of the right of way and drying out of the material ? — A. Yes.

Q. What are the advantages? — A. If you wait until the material has dried
out, it is more likely to stay in place, and, more than that, you are- not obliged
to make that fill all in one year, but you will make a portion of it, such as will
stand, and when you find it is reacliing the point where it is likely to slough and
slip, let it be till it hardens and dries out, and then in another year take the
balance and complete it, but if j'ou are obliged to construct it at the time, and
you find your material slipping on you, then you have to adopt some other alter-
native, which is going to be a great deal more expensive, like the borrowing of
rock, or something of that sort.

Q. It is a fact that you borrowed rock to hold mud fills, at large_ expense,
which might have been saved, if the same material had been subject to drainage
for a number of years? — A. Yes.

Q. I asked you to-day why the Salmon liiver Viaduct was not extended,
ratlier than have the heavy fill at the east made of borrowed rock, and what reply
did you make? — A. That the authorities at Ottawa would not permit of steel
viaducts on curves.

Q. As an engineer do you think that is a sound objection? — A. Xo. We
crossed the High River at Bridgewater on a twelve degree curve on a steel bridge,
but of course I do not think that is good construction, if it can be avoided — so
sharp a curve as that.

Q. But for a three-degree curve? — A. Anything up to a five or six; five
anyway.

Q. Up to a five-degree curve you see no objection to it? — A. No.

Q. In reference to Coal Creek fill, mileage 45, by reference to your letter,
]\Iay 31st, to Chief Engineer Grant, I note that the cost of this fill at present is
$423,000?— A. That is the total.

Q. Did you expect this to cost that much money? — A. No.

Q. Why? — A. Because we expected to fill it with miicli cheaper material.

Q. What did you fill it with? — A. We put in a certain amount of earth, and
found it sloughing' and slipping, and all going to pieces^ and we had to borrow
rock to make it permanent.

Q. How high was the fill of soft material when you discovered it was liable
to slide and slip? — A. Well, when we got in the approach to an elevation of 35
feet, I think — something like that.

IXVESTIGATiyO COMMISSION 347

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. You decided that that material was unfit to raise to the total height? —
A. Yes.

Q. What did you do when you came to that conclusion? — A. I took the
matter up with Ottawa, and of course one of two things had to be done: either
to borrow rock at the side at the price that had been fixed for rock borrow, $1.10,
or train haul material 45 miles, which would have taken a considerable amount
of yardage in addition; it would have cost about 90 cents a yard, with an over-
haul, as against $1.10 for rock, and I recommended the rock.

Q. Did it occur to you at that time to recommend wooden trestles ? — A. Xo,
because the question of wooden trestles had been settled; there were no wooden
trestles to be built.

Q. If that question has not been settled, do you think you would have re-
commended it, knowing the character of the material ? — A. Very likely I would,
yes.

Q. In actual construction where you make these fills, does not the con-
tractor first construct a temporary wooden trestle over the whole distance, to carry
the trains and dump the material? — A. The contractor has to do that.

Q. And the construction of those temporary trestles is a matter of large
expense, is it not? — A. It depends upon whether the contractor is using the
standard or narrow gauge outfit.

Q. Was it not a large expense to them ? — A. They used a narrow gauge out-
fit, with dinkey engines, and they figure that the cost of wooden temporary trestles
is about five cents a yard

By Mr. Gutelius :

Q. For small trestles? — A. Yes.

Q. What do you estimate the cost of large trestles for standard equipment,
per yard? — A. I do not know, for a structure like that.

Q. Twant it generally, if you feel you can give a figure? — A. I think you
would have to double that; ten cents a yard. They say here we are getting 50 cents
a yard ; ten cents of that goes into the temporary trestle, so they actually get forty
cents a yard for train fill.

Q. That is lost, is it not, where the fill is made? — A. Yes, that is the end
of it; it is buried up, so far as having any value, after it is buried up.

Q. You are familiar with this printed book of general instructions to civil
engineers concerning surveys and construction ? — A. Yes.

Q. Paragraph 26, curvature, says that c-urves less than 300 feet long are
objectionable and should not be used. What do you say of that instruction? — A.
I say I would use a curve fifty feet long, if it was all that was required.

Q. Then you do not agree with that instruction? — A. I never could see
where it had any practical force whatever. Whv should a man limit himself to
300 feet?

Q. Wliat do you say to 600 feet of tangent betvveen transition curves? — A. I
cannot see the slightest advantage to be gained by it.

Q. Do you see any disadvantages? — A. There might be serious disadvantages.
It might increase the cost of your work very materially.

Q. Did it affect you on this ? — A. We never adhered to that. It was after-
wards reduced to three, and we have in cases reduced it to two.

Q. That instruction was not followed in all cases in the construction of this
line? — A. Xo.

Q. Broken back curves must not be used. On a railway where curves ter-
minate in transitions, such as this, is there any objection to broken back curves? —
(No answer).

348 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

By the Chairman:-

Q. What do you understand by a broken back curve ? — A. I balk right tliere.
I would say I do not know what was in the mind of the man who made the book
as to what should be considered a broken back curve, and I think it is this ; if you
have had a short tangent in there without the spiral, it would be a broken back.
If there is objection to the broken back, it must be on the ground that it must make
bad riding track or dangerous track. No other ground would be of any value.

Q. The minimum length of tangent between curves in the same direction,
which is limited in this book to 600 feet, has the same objection in your point of
riew as the minimum length of tangent between curves in opposite directions? —
A. Yes.

Q. You afterwards received instructions not to make curves of any greater
length than 1,000 feet? — A. I did, but I found it impossible to follow those
instructions in a great many cases.

Q. You were limited in curvature to six degree? — A. Yes.

Q. And these only in special cases? — A. Yes.

Q. By the original instructions? — A. Yes.

Q, Could you have saved any considerable amount of money on the heavy
work of your district, if you had been given greater latitude in the matter of
curvature ? — A. Well, there are not very many places. We pointed out one or two
places yesterday.

Q. Two or three places on the heavy work? — A. Yes. We did use them
freely on that heavy work from the tunnel down — five and six degree curves.

Q. Eight degree curves in the two or three places would have saved a large
amount of money? — A. Yes.

Q. 106.7, do you remember that place? — A. Yes.

Q. What do you say as to that? — A. Considerable excavation might have
been saved at this point.

Q. I notice a concrete wall at mileage 147.2, deflecting the stream to an
abutment in the bridge at this point. How did you happen to use this character of
construction ? — A. Well, that was a thin concrete t\-all. I do not think it cost any
more than a substantial cedar crib would have cost us.

Q. You consider then that that construction is all right? — A. Yes.

Q. In passing over a number of fills, which were from 20 to 24 feet in width
at the top, you told me that this excess was made generally to please the G.T.P.'fe
Inspecting Engineer? — A. Yes; and at present I have that in my office asking
what I am going to do about narrow fills. I have the letter in answer in my office.

Q. Have you many narrow fills? — A. No.

By the Chairman :

Q. Wliat do they refer to as narrow fills? — A. I do not Imow.

Q. Fills that are 18 feet across the top? — ^A. The specification specifies that
embankments up to 16 feet in height should be 16 feet wide on top, and above 16
feet in height to 18 feet on top.

Q. And you tliink you have complied with the specification? — A, Yes, I
think 1 have substantially complied with the specification. A man might go out
and find a low bank somewhere that was not quite that width for a few feet.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. Who prepares your yard and building plans and specifications? — A. I
should have to answer that those come to me from Ottawa.

Q. In the matter of gravity water supplies, you told me that you were given
instructions to install gravity water supplies, if their cost did not exceed $25,000?

IXTESTIGATIXG COMMISSION U9

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

— A. Yes, and the dumping plant in addition. As I remember it, I wrote to Mr.
MacPherson, the assistant chief engineer, asking him how much capital expendi-
ture, in his judgment, would be allowed on gravity water supplifs, and he replied,
" $25,000, plus the pumping plant ". I do not know if that is just as it is worded,
but that is the gist of it.

By the Chairman:

Q. Did you install gravity supply where it did not exceed the amount specified
by Mr. MacPherson? — A. Yes.

Q. Can you give us what the average cost of your water tanks and gravity
supply amounted to ? — A. I could not give you that, but you have it all here.

Q. What capacity of water supply in gallons did you install? — A. "Well, ©f
course, in a gravity supply we generally planned that we had water enough for
any number of trains, but, as I said a moment ago, if you are going to undertake
to figure whether a gravity supply is cheaper than a pumping plant, you must have
the number of trains and the amount of water that is going to be required. If
you are going to fit up a road for two or thre^ trains each day, that is one pro-
position; if you are going to fit it up for ten trains each way, or twenty trains
daily, that is quite another proposition.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. You think your water supply along the division as installed is equal
now to ten or more trains per day each way? — A. Yes.

By the Chairman:

Q. Prom what I have seen and heard, it appears to me that there was a
general policy to construct at once, quite irrespective of the cost, a railway of the
very highest permanent construction, without taking at all into consideration
the cost? — A. That was practically my understanding.

Q. So that there was not given to the engineers any discretion wherein they
might use their knowledge, experience or ingenuity in saving money by adopting
other principles? — A. I never was given that discretion.

Q. That discretion is surely given in the construction of high class railroads
by people who have to take into consideration the cost of constructing, even thf
vfry highest class of railroads, is it not? — A. I so understand it.

Q. Prudent constructors of high class railroads usually postpone any
avoidable expenditure until after the road is in operation, until after the road is
constructed for some years, when, from time to time, they make additional ex-
penditures, for the purpose of bringing their road up to the highest state of
efficiency? — A. I do not know whether I should answer it this way, but this is
how it is in my mind ; that if that was not so, we would not have had any railways
in this country.

Q. A railroad as a matter of fact is never finished? — A. That is a trite
saying.

Q. It is true that all the very finest roads in the world are being constantly
improved by straightening curves and raising gradients? — A. That is going on
all over this continent to a great extent and has been for a good many years.

Q. Did you ever hear of a policy such as appears to have been adopted in
the case of the building of the Transcontinental having been adopted in the
construction of any other road in America? — A. That is a pretty sweeping
question. I would answer that I never heard of one to any such extent.

Q. Can you tell me one where any such policy was ever adopted, even of a
shorter extent? — A. Well, Mr. Gutelius will correct me if I am wrong, but I
think one of those coal roads going to Pittsburg was built regardless of expense.
It was built to the highest possible standard.

350 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. How long was that road? — A. I would not like to say; I do not re-
member the mileage.

Q. About 200 miles ?— A. Yes.

Q. Do you know why that policy was adopted in that case? — A. I assume
it was adopted because they knew at the outset that they had enormous freight
tonnage to haul over it.

By Mr. (hitelius :
Q. That railroad was owned by the United States Steel Corporation? — A.
Yes.

By the Chairman :

Q. Built how long ago? — A. Ten or twelve years ago.

Q. They contemplated immediate use of it to its utmost capacity? — A. I
think they figured to a certainty before they built it that they had to handle
enormous freight.

(NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL EAILWAY ENQUIRY COMMISSION
MEETING AT OTTAWA, OCTOBER IGth, 11)12.)

Present: G. Lynch-Staunton, K.C, Chairman; F, P. Gutelius, C.E.

Charles C. Foss, District Engineer on District A, National Transcontinental
Railway, sworn :

Examined by Mr. Gutelius:

Q. With reference to the concrete used in the foundation for Little Salmon
river viaduct, in Victoria County, New Brunswick, about mile 183, what mixture
of concrete was used at that time? — A. For the foundation, that is the base
course, 1 by 3 by 5; for the shaft of the pedestal, 1 by 2 by 4.

Q. Generally speaking, what mixture of concrete were pedestals of that
character made of? — A. Most of the shafts of pedestals were 1 by 2 by 4.

Q. The original instructions, in connection with mass concrete of that
character required you to use a mixture of 1 by 3 by 5 and 1 by 3 by 6? — A. I
understand so.

Q. What was the contract price for 1 (cement), 2 (sand), 4 (broken stone)
on Willard & Kitchen's contract, who were the contractors building this bridge? —
A. $15.00 per cubic yard.

Q, What was the price for 1 (cement), 3 (sand), G (broken stone) ? — A.
$10.50.

Q. What was the contract price for 1 by 3 by 5 ? — $11.50.

Q. W^hat was the contract price for 1 by 2 by 5? — A. $12.00 per cubic yard.

Q. From your statement, 1 see that 1,G61 yards of 1 by 2 by 4 concrete was
used in the shafts of these pedestals? — A. Whatever estimate is given there is
right. On referring to my statement I find that that is correct.

Q. So that the class of concrete used when these various items are considered,
is a very important matter? — A. Yes.

Q. Amounting roughly to how many dollars? — A. You mean the difference
between that and 1 by 3 by 6 ?

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 351

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. • Yes? — A. There would be $4:. 50 a yard between that and 1 by 3 by 6.
Q. There would be a difference of between $7,000 and $8,000 between the
use of 1 by 2 by 4 and 1 by 3 by 6?— A. Yes.

Q. In your letter of explauatiou, dated September 3, 1912, you say: —

" I beg to say that the authorization given Mr. Balkam, in the matter
of concrete mixture at the Little Salmon Eiver viaduct, was, in the course
of personal discussion of the matter and not in writing."

Q. Is that the fact ?— A. . Yes.

Q. On September 4, the next day, you wrote him another letter: —

"I beg to say that as the chief engineer had authorized the use of
1 by 2 by 4 mixture in this class of pedestals in viaducts in other parts of
the work, I saw no reason why, if it were necessary or advisable at other
points, it should not be used here, the material being no better than that
found at other points where this mixture had been used."

Q. What other point did you have in mind? — A. Particularly Four Mile
Brook.

Q. In a letter from Mr. Lumsden you received authority to use 1 by 2 by 4
mixture in the pedestals at Four Mile Brook. That letter to which you refer
is dated August 6, 1908. I now show you the letter in which Mr. Lumsden says : —

i
"Owing to the poor sand which you seem to be able to obtain in this
section of New Brunswick for the making of concrete, it may be advisable
to use 1 by 2 by 4 in places, but before doing so the price for such should
be arranged with Messrs. Lyons and ^Vliite, and I would consider $11.50
per cubic yard a fair one."

A. That is right.

Q. You replied to Mr. Lumsden on the 10th of August, advising him that
there were only 60 or 70 5'-ards of concrete involved and that their price for 1 by
2 by 4 mixture is $12.00 and that you hardly think it was worth while to ask
them to change the contract price for a difference of fifty cents? — A. Yes.

Q. Why was it necessary to rebuild these pedestals at Four Mile Brook? — A.
They were injured by the frost.

Q. What was the character of the material used in the original concrete? —
A. Well, slate gravel, slate sand. In the second one they had to bring sand from
away down at MacAdam.

Q. That sand was brought in on cars from near MacAdam Junction on the
O.P.R. ?— A. Yes.

Q. From your letters I learned that you were afraid of the sand and gravel
because of its poor quality? — A. Yes, it was not as good as quartzite sand and
gravel.

Q. It occurred to me, Mr. Foss, that in going to MacAdam Junction for
sand, you remedied the difficulty of poor concrete by securing good sand? — A.
Yes, so far as Four Mile Brook is concerned.

Q. Why then, did you increase the quantity of cement in the mixture as
well as change the kind of sand? — A. To make assurance doubly sure.

Q. Does it not look as fhough, in the interests of economy, you should have
taken advantage of the fact that as you were getting a first class sand you could
have used a cheaper mixture? — A. Perhaps that would have been good enough.

Q. Now, it appears from your letter, that the authority given in Mr.
Lumsden's letter of August 6, was used by you to enrich the mixture in the

362 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE V, 1914

pedestals of the Salmon River viaduct? — A. I do not know whether it weuld
be allowable or fair for me to say that I did discuss personally that matter with
Mr. Lumsden here in Ottawa, generally as to pedestals everywhere.

Q. It is perfectly fair for you to tell us what transpired? — A. Yes, and
he readily agreed to the use of 1 by 2 by 4 mixture in the class of pedestals in
any viaduct. That was subsequent to this correspondence.

Q. Then you say you had verbally authority from the chief engineer ? — A. I
consider I had.

Q. When did this conversation occur? — A. I should think some time in
the same summer that this correspondence took place, but I cannot specify the
date. It was at a later period when I was here.

Q. And the authority that you had received from Mr, Lumsden verbally,
bad back of it the character of the material in that locality? — A. Yes, that
was discussed.

Q. And was not that the real reason? — A. Oh, yes.

Q. You did not consider the 1 by 2 by 4 mixture, necessary on masonry
work in district F, when you were there? — A, I was only there for a month,
and I really never got in touch with that work.

Q. The character of sand and gravel there was first class? — A. Yes.

Q. So that 1 by 3 by 6 would do? — A, 1 by 3 by 6 for base courses, and
1 by 3 by 5 for pedestals, I should think would be ample.

Q. Do you remember that in Mr. Lumsden's letter of August 27, 1908, to
you, he says: —

"In regard to yours of the 11th instant, asking for extra work order,
it is the contractors' business to furnish good, clean, sharp sand, no matter
where he has to get it from, and you should not allow any other to be
used in the work. Such being the case I do not feel prepared to give an
order for the removal of unsatisfactory work, etc."

A. That was with reference to Four Mile Brook.

Q. Does not that indicate to you that the character of the material that is
economically available ought not to influence the mixture. That is, if the
contractor had to send to MacAdam for sand, and to MacAdam for gravel, even,
that was his own affair? — A. Yes.

Q. Now, tell us about your troubles at Four Mile Brook? — A. If you re-
quired the contractor to haul that material on wagons, eight or nine miles from
the cars, that would be rather unreasonable.

Q. Do you feel that the unreasonableness of it would justify you in paying
him a higher price when you had an ironclad contract with him? — A. Well, I
must say I think it would.

Q. It was a question of transportation ? — A. Yes, that would be a question
of transportation.

Q. Suppose he had constructed a temporary wooden bridge to have got the
track over, or waited until the track-laying reached the bridge, you would have
insisted on sand and gravel like that you got from MacAdam, and you would also
have insisted on 1 by 3 by 6 and paid him at 1 by 3 by 6 price, would you not? —
A. If he had a track to deliver it, oh yes.

Q. Am I right in assiiming that one of the principal reasons for using the
rich 1 by 2 by 4 mixture at Little Salmon, was, that the local sand and gravel
was not good enough to be used in the 1 by 3 by 6 mixture? — A. That is the
reason. '

Q. Although it was clear to your mind from the contract and from Mr.
Lumsden's letter to you, of August' 27, 1008, that it was the contractors' affair
as to where they would get good sand and good gravel? — A. Yes, you could
put that construction on it.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 353

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. What other reason is there besides that? — A. Besides the necessity of
making what we thought a safe mixture?

Q. "What other reason do you see for authorizing the 1 by 2 by 4 mixture? —
A. None.

Q. You speak of Mr. Balkam; did he concur in this arrangement? — A. Mr.
Balkam was insisting on it.

Q. He was afraid of 1 by 3 by 6 mixture made of local sand and gravel? —
A. Yes.

Q. In your discussion with the chief engineer, in connection with the
adoption of a richer mixture, was that the only reason you think of that was used
for its adoption? — A. Yes.

Q. Did not Mr. Lumsden, in his talk witli you, refer to its being the con-
tractors' business as to where he should get the material? — A. I do not think he
did in that conversation.

Q. Did you forget about it? — A. He had reached the conclusion that it
would be in the interest of safety to build the shaft of pedestals, as he expressed
it, above ground, of 1 by 2 by. 4 mixture, especially where there was any doubt
about any of the material that could be easily obtained.

Q. Now, Mr. Foss, you are an engineer of large experience, and you have
worked on a great many contracts where you have had to make your own decisions ;
if you had been constructing a railroad on the most economical lines, and it was
left to your own discretion to deal with that contract, would you have paid $4.50
more for concrete than you were required to pay under that contract? — A. If I
was working in the interests of economy, I should probably try to save in other
places than in a structure of that height, weight and importance ; I should consider
that a few thousand dollars spent there might be in the interests of economy.

Q. Between $7,000 and $8,000 is the amount involved at that place, in
connection with the contracts. Now remember, that the size of these pedestals was
calculated by the Bridge Department, so that ordinarily 1 by 3 by 6 concrete,
which was originally prescribed for that point, would be considered enough; the
width of the shoes at the foot of the trestles was made large enough so that the
strain could be properly carried down to it; the concrete would have to be built
iTuder your instructions so that it would come up to the specifications; would you
not have been justified in insisting on the contractor getting such materials as
would give such results ? — A. Under the strict letter of the contract probably yes.

Q. So that it was in the nature of a help out to use the poor sand and lots
of cement? — A. Yes.

Q. Having Mr. Lumsden's letter about the Four Mile Brook pedestals, did
it occur to you that you should have made a special deal with Willard & Kitchen
for any enrichment of concrete that your required? — A. Well, at any rate I did
not.

Q. But, looking at it from that point, it might have been a proper thing to
do ?— A. Yes.

Q. Do you believe that you got a straight 1 by 2 by 4 mixture in these
shafts ? — A. If I can believe the evidence of the resident bridge engineer and the
inspector, I certainly did.

Q. Are they men that you would reasonably believe? — A. Yes.

Q. Did you make any figures as to what difference in cost to the contractors,
there is between 1 by 2 by 4 and 1 by 3 by 6 concrete, on this particular work ? —
A. We have, from time to time.

Q. What is your idea of the difference -n cost between the two? — A. It
depends on how much the contractor is paid for cement and how far he has to
transport it.

Q. What is your idea of the cost per barrel of cement at Salmon Eiver? — A.
The cost per barrel of cement at Salmon Eiver was at least $3.00 or $3.25.

123.— 23

354 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. That was a high price? — A. They had to haul it.

Q. How many luiies did tliey have to team it ou wagons? — A. About ten
miles.

Q. I made a calculation this morning, the result of which was that six-tenths
of a barrel more of cement was used in 1 by 2 by 4 than in 1 by 3 by 6, does that
sound about right to you? — A. I expect so.

Q. So that the extra cement, taking it at three dollars a barrel, would, at
Salmon Eiver, amount to $1.80 a yard? — A. Yes.

Q. With that in mind it would appear that you could at that time have made
a deal with the Willard & Kitchen Company, to construct these pedestals of 1 by
2 by 4 concrete for $1.80 a yard more than their contract price for 1 by 3 by 6,
does that seem about right? — A. Possibly, though 1 do not think they were very
much open to deals.

Q. Did you ever make any contract prices for extras with these people? —
A. No.

Q. Did you ever make any contract prices for extras for work under your
jurisdiction ? — A. No.

Q. You did not consider that it was the duty of the district engineer to
]ook after these special prices as you were going over the work? — A. Well, I

Q. Were any of the Grand Trunk Pacific officers there to look it over? — A.
never had any instructions in regard to determining any changes in price except
possibly that one suggested.

Q. That was the one at Four Mile Brook? — A. Yes.

By the Chairman:

1

Q. The contract provides, does it not, that changes in extra work must have
been first directed in writing by the engineer and notified to the contractor in
writing, as well as the price to be paid for such extra work? — A. That is extra
work that is not covered by any item in the schedule.

Q. Yes, but the contract also provides that no additions or changes shall be
made by anybody? — A. I have always understood that no change could be made
without an Order-in-Council.

Q. That is not the point I am speaking of here you have got a

situation before you in which you think that a change should be made in the
mixture of cement. Now, that change will necessarily materially increase the cost
of construction to the Government And that is one of the changes provided for
under section 11 of the contract? — A. Well, 1 by 2 by 4 mixture is specified,
and the price is named for it.

Q. It is in the contract that any mass concrete in piers, abutments and bank
foundations and turntables, shall be 1 by 3 by 6 ? — A. It is changing the concrete
for a particular structure, but it is not changing the contract.

Q. You are changing the mixture of the concrete in the piers? — A. In the
pedestals.

Q. You are changing it from 1 by 3 by G to 1 by 2 by 4? And it is dis-
tinctly stated in the contract, section 68 of the general specifications, that that
material is only used in copings and in bridge seats, and so you were making a
change there which is not authorized by the contract and specifications, but which
may be done* under section 11 of the contract; and, section 11 of the contract
gives the engineer the power to make such changes, but it provides that such
changes must be authorized in writing ])y the engineer, and that the contractors
shall not be entitled to any increased price for such changes, unless it shall have
first been directed in writing, by the engineer and notified to the contractor in
writing. This is a very serious change and one wliich should have been authorized
by the chief engineer in writing. You said that the necessity for making that
change arose only from the fact that the contractor could not obtain the material

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION i56

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

he agreed to put in the piers, except at an increased price to him — could it
possibly be argued that the contractor should be paid anything more than the extra
expense to which he had been put. I am speaking now of the fairness of the
})roposition alone? — A. It may have been error or a mistake, but it was done.

Q. When you make the returns for these changes, do you indicate them
in your estimates? — A. Yes, we indicate that a certain amount of 1 by 2 by 4
mixture was used.

Q. And that would have been apparent in your first estimates sent to the
Ottawa office. — A. Yes.

Q. When was your attention first called to the use of this concrete being
irregular? — A. I think after the pedestals were all completed, that is my re-
collection.

Q. To what railway station was the cemenf used at the Little Salmon viaduct,
Jiauled by the contractor? — A. Grand Falls.

Q. On the C.P.E.?— A. Yes.

Q. For what structures and extending over what part of the railway, did the
contractor have his cement delivered at Grand Falls? — A. From recollection I
Sihould say, from mile 178 to the Grand Falls connection, about mile 194.

By Mr. Chitelius:

Q. By whom was your attention first called to the fact that the use of
1 by 2 by 4 mixture was questioned? — A. I think in a letter from Mr. Uniacke.

Q. What is the status of the estimates at present in connection with the
payment for that concrete? — A. You mean, are the estimates made based on'
tlie classification returned in that list?

Q. Yes ?— A. They are.

Q. The shafts of these pedestals are returned on these present estimates as

1 by 2 by 4 concrete at $15.00 per yard? — A. Yes.

Q. In view of all the circumstances in this case, would it be a hardship on
the contractor if the commission were now to recommend that he be paid only
for the cost of the extra cement, which he put into the mixture? — A. I do not
believe it would; I should not think it was a hardship on the contractor.

Q. Now, what you have said concerning the pedestals on the Salmon river
viaduct will apply also to all 1 by 2 by 4 concrete used on contract No. 5 in mass
work? — A. I think so.

Q. The conditions in the Salmon Eiver viaduct case are similar to these in
ether cases, with respect to 1 by 2 by 4 mixture? — A. Yes.

Q. From the statement which I have shown you, the total yardage of 1 by

2 by 4 concrete, amounts to 5,136 yards on contract No. 5? — A. Yes.

Q. So that the sum of money involved on that contract, in respect to concrete
will amount to about $22,000? — A. I do not think you could make a comparison
on this specification between 1 by 2 by 4 and 1 by 3 by 6, I think you must
compare it with 1 by 3 by 5.

Q. And the price of 1 by 3 by 5 was $11.50 per yard? — A. Yes.

Q. So that it would be a saving of from $3.50 to $4.50 a yard and would
amount to between $15,000 and $20,000 on that work?— A. Yes.

Q. In your evidence in June last, you stated that if a jackknife pusher
grade had been constructed across the Little Salmon River Valley, that something

like one and a half million dollars could have been saved since that time

you have made a further estimate, what are the figures of that estimate? — A.
Had a jackknife pusher grade been adopt-ed at the Little Salmon River, there
would have been saved $1,644,882, and I think — I do not know whether
you want me to put that in the evidence or not — I think that would have been
somewhat increased if a careful pusher had been worked out and located.

956 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. You think a still larger saving than that would have been effected? — A.
Yes, probably a saving of one and three-quarter million dollars.

Q. Having in mind the character of the railway, its cost, and the business
that could reasonably be expected on it, would you, if left to your own discretion,
have constructed this jackknife pusher grade instead of the big trestle? — A. I
would have constructed it anyway, left to my discretion.

Q. You would have built a pusher grade there if you were left to your own
discretion ? — A. Yes.

Q. Why? — A. Because, calculating the money at four per cent interest, the
interest on the money that would have been saved would probably amount to
$75,000 a year and that would certainly have paid for pushing the heaviest traffic
that is likely ever to go over that road.

Q. I have before me a memorandum in connection with the location of the
divisional yard at Edmundston, New Brunswick, where was the yard finally built?
— A. At Edmundston.

Q. What location was originally suggested by you? — A. At mile 256.

Q. What saving do you consider would have been effected if the yard had
been built at mile 256 ?— A. About $100,000.

Q. Would that location of the yard at mile 256 have been as efficient in
the matter of operating the railway as the present location? — A. Geographically,
I think the yard is better situated at Edmundston, but if you are asking the question
merely as to the local operation of the yard, it would have been as efficient there
as at Edmundston.

Q. What advantage would the location of the yard at Mile 256 have had
over the location of the yard at Edmundston? — A. In addition to the advantage
of the lesser cost, there would have been room for expansion.

Q. Is there any room for expansion at Edmundston ? — A. None.

Q. Referring to the geographical location of the yard, what is the length
of engine district on either side of the Edmundston yard? — A. I understand it is
113 miles east and 125 miles west.

Q. By placing the yard at mile 256, what would have been the length of
engine district? — A. About 139 miles east and 99 miles west.

Q. In the light of your present knowledge of this matter, where would you
have constructed the yard, as an engineer? — A. I would have constructed it at
mile 256.

Q. And saved $100,000?— A. Yes.

Q. Who actually passed upon the location of the yard at Edmundston? — A.
I understand it was done between the commissioners and the Grand Trunk Pacific.

Q. Do you think the Grand Trunk Pacific was interested? — A. I believe
it was a matter of negotiation between the Commissioners and Mr. Woods, chief
engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific.

Q. Were any of the Grand Trunk Pacific officers there to look it over? — A.
I do not know whether Mr. Woods came there especially for that.

Q. He was there and looked it over? — A. Yes.

Q. In the early negotiations did not the city of Edmundston offer free water
if the yard had been moved to Edmundston? — A. My recollection is, that they
offered free right of way; I am not so sure about the water, although I think so.

Q. What was the final result? Did you get either the right of way or the
water free? — A. They made a written agreement that the right of way was not
to cost more than a certain amount, and anything beyond that Edmundston was
to pay, but I do not remember the figures now.

Q. Do you remember whether you kept within that figure? — A. I think we

did.

Q. So that you got nothing from the town of Edmundston? — A. No.

Q. Although they offered free right of way and talked about free water? — A.
Yes.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 357

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. I have information that yon are paying $2,000 a year for water for
terminal purposes at this yard? Is that correct? — A. We are not paying it yet,
but I understand we are to pay it.

Q. In your previous testimony, Mr. Foss, in the matter of gravity water
supply, you said that the supplies provided on your district were ample for any
traffic that might be handled on that railway. I would ask you now if you concur
in the recommendation that $25,000 be expended for gravity water supply at a
station? — A. No, outside of divisional points, no.

Q. What is the outside figure that you think should be expended on a gravity
supply where water can be pumped with a gasoline pump? — ^A. The question
of permissible expenditure to obtain a gravity supply, can only be decided by a
study of conditions at each particular location, but for wayside stations where a
pumping supply can be obtained in proximity to the tank, without an extensive
lift, I consider $12,500 the greatest expenditure justifiable to obtain a gravity
supply.

Q. You made returns under the heading ''solid rock*' of what has been called
"assembled rock"? — A. Yes.

Q. Can you tell us what percentage, if any, of boulders, of a cubic yard and
over in size, was included in assembled rock? — A. No boulder measurement was
kept and as regards boulders contained in assembled rock, I am satisfied on contract
No. 1, from my knowledge of the cuttings from which these returns were made,
fifty per cent of this rock would have filled the specifications for boulders, namely,
one cubic yard. The same, I am satisfied, would hold true of the small amount
of assembled rock returned on contract No. 2. On all the other contracts, I think
an average of five per cent would cover all the boulders that would be measured
by the yard and returned in the assembled rock statement. This would amount
to, on contract No. 1, 3,534; on contract No. 2, 305 yards; on contract No. 3,
1,509 yards; on contract No. 4, 5,175 yards; on contract No. 5, 5,780 yards; on
contract No. 6, 3,110 yards ; showing a total of 19,413 yards of boulders measuring
a cubic yard and upwards in the assembled rock returned in my district.

Q. The remainder of the assembled rock returns are made up of smaller
stones and interstitial material? — A. Yes.

By the Chairman:

Q. Do you know how much assembled rock has been returned in your own
whole district? — A. You have a statement of it there; it is 305,009 yards up to
the first of September, 1911.

Q. Did you adopt any rule in classifying material as assembled rock, as to
the percentage of rocks there must necessarily be in the mass? — A. No. There
is no hard and fast rule that could be applied to that.

Q. You could not tell then what average percentage of rock was in the
material classified as rock in your district? — A. I cannot say.

Q. Assuming you had charge of the building of this railway for a company,
which had ample funds to build a first-class railway, with a four-tenths grade
eastbound and a six-tenths grade westbound, and assuming that your instructions
had been to build a first-class road as cheaply as possible without scamping the
road or impairing its eflKciency, could you have saved any of the money expended
by the commission in your district? — A. To work out the greatest possible
economy, without detracting from the final efficient character of the road, if it
were left to my discretion I could have saved money.

Q. Could you have saved a large amount or a small amount of money? — A.
I could have saved a large amount of money.

Q. Indicate in what particular you could have made this large saving? —
A. The two great items would be the jack-knife pusher grade which I think
should have been constructed at Salmon River, and the general use of timber
trestles.

358 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. Would increasing the curvature to eight degrees have been out of the
question on such a road as you would build? — A. For the most part it would
not be necessary, only on occasions. There are a few places where that might
have been done. By the adoption of moderate momentum grades in certain cases,
money could have been saved. At Coal Creek a timber trestle would have saved
a large amount of money. I would have used lighter rails in sidings and yards.
I would have used a 65-pound rail in the sidings and yards which is just as good
as an eighty-pound rail for that purpose. I would have used wooden culverts in
the moderate banks in a country where you could get cedar.

Q. Could you turn all that into dollars? — A. Oh, bless your heart, no.

Q. Do you think you could figure it out? — A. Oh yes.

Q. Will you make up a statement showing the saving in dollars which you
could have effected in this way? — A. To prepare a statement of that kind would
require a great deal of work. The data is already in this office, and if you will
furnish it to me in convenient form, I shall make such a statement as you ask for.

Q. If these economies were practised in the construction of this road, would
it, for all commercial purposes, be as efficient a road as it is now? — A. Yes.

Q. And could as large loads be hauled over it at the same cost? — A. You
build a line at 0.6 and 0.4 grade, or its equivalent pushing capacity, and with
reasonable curvature and compensation on it, then you can haul just as big a train
over a timber trestle as you can over a solid fill. Then the only question that comes
up is as to whether you have arrived at the broadest basis of economy in the main-
tenance and operation, and that feature is determined by the traffic.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. Then, the advantage in deferring the filling of timber trestles lies in the
fact that in eight or ten or more years you will actually know what the governing
feature is, whereas at present you must guess it; by the governing feature I mean
the traffic? — A. Just so.

The witness was not further examined for the present.

(NATIONAL TEAXSCOXTINEXTAL BALIWAY p]XQUIRY COMMIS-
MISSION. MEETING AT OTTAWA, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 15th, 1912).

Present : G. Lynch-Staunton, K.C, Chairman ; F. P. Gutelius, C.E.

Arthur E. Doucet, District Engineer, National Transcontinental Railway,
sworn :

Examined by Mr. Gutelius:

Q. Mr. Doucct, give us a short description of your experience in responsible
railway engineering work? — A. I started with the Canadian Pacific Railway in
1880. I was engineer on the Algoma Branch of the C.P.R. from 1881 to 1883.
I was then resident Engineer on Lake Superior for the C.P.R. from 1883 to 1885

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 359

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

at Jackfish Bay. During 1886 I was assistant engineer on the Lachine Bridge for
the C.P.E. From 1887 to 1898 I was contractors' chief engineer for E. G. Reid
& Co. From 1898 to 1900 I was chief engineer of the Arrowhead and Kootenay
Railway for the C.P.R., and engineer in charge of reducing grades on the prairie,
and I was also, during that time, in charge of reducing grades between Farnham
and Newport. From 1900 to 1904 I was chief engineer on the Quebec & Lake St.
John Railway and the Great Northern Railway of Canada. Then from 190-4 to
the present time I was district engineer of the Transcontinental Railway. I gave
up the chief engineership of the Quebec & Lake St. John Railway in 1908.

Q. So that you have had about thirty-two years of experience in railway
construction in Canada ? — A. Yes.

Q. With reference to the specifications under which the National Trans-
continental Railway is being constructed — I direct your attention to the clauses
covering the classification — have these classification clauses been changed from
the original in any contract under your charge? — A. So far as the classifica-
tion is concerned, no.

Q. So that it is fair to assume that any interpretation that may be placed
on any one of the contracts would apply to the others? — A. Yes.

Q. You are familiar with the classifioation used on the Canadian Pacific
Railway ? — A. Yes.

Q. In a general way, does the three item classification of the C.P.R. and
the one under which you are now working on the Transcontinental, agree, and if
not what are the special points of difference — I refer particularly to the practical
understanding of them, rather than to the phraseology? — A. Yes, practically they
agree.

Q. Would it be fair for an observer to assume that the three classifications,
solid rock, loose rock and hardpan, and common excavation, would be interpreted
the same as in the case of the C.P.R. classification ? — A. Yes, generally speaking.

Q. Then, Mr. Doucet, a contractor who was in the habit of working under
C.P.R. specifications, would naturally bid with the expectation that he would re-
ceive the same classification as he had been accustomed to receive under C.P.R.
engineers? — A. Yes, with this exception, that perhaps the material might be
different on the portion he was tendering on, to the work he had been doing
previously on the C.P.R.

Q. But, based on the specification itself, the price ought to be practically the
same ? — A. Yes.

Q. How did prices on the contracts on your district compare, generally
speaking, with prices that were given contractors on the last C.P.R. or Great
Northern work that you were on? — A. They were low on the Transcontinental,
in comparison.

Q. How did your classification under this contract compare with the classi-
fication you had experienced with the C.P.R. and Quebec & Lake St. John Railway
in the matter of solid rock? — A. So far as any work I did for the C.P.R. is
concerned, we did not meet the same material; with the Quebec & Lake- St. John
Railway it was the same classification.

Q. Did you have an item on the Quebec & Lake St. John Railway that
compares with what we know in the specification as "assembled rock"? — A. No.

Q. Will you describe "assembled rock" as you understand it, and as it has
been returned? — A. A mass of boulders held together by some cementing
material, clay, hard compact sand; the boulders forming at least fifty per cent of
the mass, and the whole mass requiring constant blasting practically, to be taken
out.

Q. Did the size of the boulders or rock fragments have any influence on the
classification ? — A. Yes.

Q. What, under that interpretation, could be considered the average size
that would be called "assembled rock"? — A. Anything over eight or nine inches.

360 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. If the mass contained rock fragments and boulders over eight inches, in
tlie major diameter, and was held together, as you say, with fifty per cent of the
mass composed of stones of that character and larger, did you call it "solid rock" ?
—A. Yes.

Q. When this was called " solid rock,'^ what was the nature of the interstitial
material? — A. It was very hard clay or very hard sand which must have been
acted upon by the water at some period to make it practically hard like cement.

Q. Now, if you had that material without any stones in it, what would you
classify it as? — ^A. Without any stones, I would classify it as "loose rock."

Q. And if you had the stones separately, vrhat would you classify it as? —
A. It would depend on measurement.

Q. If you had these stones separately, with very loose sand intervening,
what would you classify it? — A. The stone would be measured as loose rock up
to a certain size.

Q. So that when these two materials are found together, they were considered,
under the interpretation which the chief engineer placed on the specification, as
"solid rock"? — A. Yes, when the two are met together in the proportions above
stated of fifty per cent or more of rock.

Q. In the matter of the third classification, namely "common excavation,"
it is stated in paragraph 35 of the specification that all cemented gravel, indurated
clay, and other materials, that cannot in the judgment of the engineer be ploughed
with a ten-inch grading plough, behind a team of six good horses properly handled,
shall be classified as loose rock? — A. Yes.

Q. If such material could be broken up by such a plough and such a team,
what would it be called? — A. Common excavation.

Q. Was that interpretation followed strictly on your district? — A. Well, it
was meant to, that was my intention.

Q. Did you classify any material as loose rock, which was too soft to plough ?
—A. No.

Q. So that this ploughing clause is really a test for hardness? — A. Exactly,
it must be a test for hardness, because if you take a very steep side you cannot
possibly put horses there to plough it; it must be intended as a test of hardness
and nothing else.

Q. And the fact that a team of six horses is specified, rather than four
horses, as is usually specified in grading work, would indicate that it was a plough
test rather than a practical method of removing material? — A. Yes.

Q. Eeferring again to the solid rock specification, of which assembled rock
forms a part, could you, as district engineer, have classified the material which you
described a moment ago as being composed of fragments of loose rock, and
cemented gravel, could you have classified it as solid rock based solely on your
interpretation of the specification? That is, could you have consistently classified
this material as solid rock without instructions or the interpretation from your
superiors? — A. Yes, I did do so.

Q. In doing so, you are cognizant of the fact that the material was composed
of loose rock and cemented gravel which separately would have taken loose rock
classification? — A. Yes, if you look to the encyclopa?dia for the interpretation of
rock, you will find that they give "rock" as a glacial deposit composed of boulders
and clay. They say it is sand, or hard sand and clay, which has been deposited
there by glacial action.

Q. Did you ever work under any other specification, in which the material
that you classified there as solid rock, under assembled rock, was placed in that
classification? — A. Your idea is to ask me if I met with the same thing on the
C.P.R., would I have done the same thing. I would have given a certain pro-
I)ortion of it as solid rock, and I think most engineers would have done so.

Q. Would the proportion be anything near like the proportion you gave in
this case? — A. Yes, practically.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 361

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Did you ever really do that? — A. I did it on the Quebec & Lake St.
John Eailway.

Q. You gave solid rock for that mixed material? — A. A proportion, yes.

Q. And your specification on the Quebec & Lake St. John Eailway was
practically the same as the Canadian Pacific Eailway? — ^A. Yes.

Q. And the same as this specification? — A. No, this was different.

Q. How could you harmonize that with the condition that solid rock must
contain solid rock excavation which includes all rock found in ledges or masses of
more than one cubic yard, when you tell me that these pieces of stone are as small
as eight inches? — A. The cementing material comes in there. The cementing
material holds the boulders and makes up a mass which really renders it necessary
to use constant blasting to get it out.

Q. Is it not possible that all of these rock fragments or boulders could be
removed by picks and bars, working in the face, without the use of powder? — A.
j^ot practically.

Q. My question is, was it not possible to do so? — A. It was possible, in
the sense that you could take out a cut of limestone for instance, without the use
of powder, if you take time enough. To my mind, it was impossible to take these
masses of boulders and cemented stuff, out by pick and shovel; we never could
have got through at all if we did that.

Q. Is it not a fact that in all the exploration digging done on your division,
il was possible to dig around every one of these boulders with a pick, so that it
would fall out of the face of the cutting? — A. That was possible.

Q. Then, your reason for calling this material solid rock is, that it was more
practical to remove it by blasting? — A. Yes.
By the Chairman:

Q. When these specifications were given to you as district engineer, were
you given any interpretation of them by the commission, or were you left to
interpret them yourself? — A. Left to interpret them ourselves.

Q. I speak of yourself, that means you and your assistants? — A. Yes.

Q. In taking section 34 of the specification, did you interpret the word
''mass" to include anything more than rock? — A. When it was brought to my
attention, yes. When I first saw the specification, I took it for granted that the
classification would be the same as on all other railways. It did not catch my
attention until the matter was specially brough to my notice by the engineers on
the ground. ,

Q. Did I understand you to say that at first blush you took solid rock ex-
cavation to include only rock? — A. Yes.

Q. You did not think when you first read section 34, that you should include
any other material than rock in solid rock excavation? — A. Yes, ledge rock and
boulders over a yard.

Q. You afterwards changed your opinion on that? — A. When it was
brought to my attention, yes.

Q. Who brought it to your attention? — A. It was brought to my attention
by my assistant engineer, Mr. Gordon Grant, a very short time after construction
started.

Q. Tell us about that? — A. They were working at La Tuque where most
of this assembled rock was being met with. Mr. Grant came back to my office
and reported that large masses of boulders and cemented material between were
being met with and that the percentage of solid rock was being given for that
material. Mr. Woods, assistant chief engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific,
and Mr. Armstrong, district engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific, went up
to La Tuque, and on the way back they came into my office and said that
though the classification might be a little high still they had nothing to complain
of. Mr. Woods instructed Mr. Armstrong, the district engineer of the Grand
Trunk Pacific, to give me a letter approving of the classification to date. This

3«2 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

was in June, 1907. I went personally over the work at the time, inspecting with
ray assistants and division engineers, and found no reason to change the classi-
fication that was being returned.

Q. This was the occasion on which it was brought to your attention that
more than mere rock was being classified under the head of solid rock excavation?
—A. Yes.

Q. Do I understand you that you then re-considered clause 34 and came to
the conclusion that it included these masses? — A. Yes.

Q. That made a serious difference, did it 7iot, in the classification ? — A. Yes.

Q. Did you bring that to the attention of the chief engineer ? — A. Yes.

Q. Do you know whether it was brought to the attention of the commission
at that time? — A, In August of 1907, Mr. Woods made another visit to the
work with Mr. Armstrong, and on his return I believe he discussed the matter
with our own chief engineer, Mr. Lumsden, complaining that the classification
was too high. Mr. Lumsden had been up there himself in June, 1907, and made
no complaint as to the way in which the classification was being returned, but
on Mr. Woods bringing the matter to his notice, he wrote me in October, 1907, to
say that he intended to go up to La Tuque to inspect the work, that he would
be accompanied by the commissioners, by Mr. Woods and by Mr. Armstrong, and
that he required me to have my assistant, division, and resident engineers on the
ground, so that we could go over the work and discuss the classification between
ourselves. We all got there. Mr. Lumsden and the other engineers walked over
the ground.

Q. Did the commissioners walk over the ground? — A. The commissioners
were there and they did not go over the groimd. Mr. Lumsden did not express
any opinion on the ground, but on our return to Quebec he told me in my office
that he could not approve of the classification. Mr. Lumsden did not, however,
say, what the classification ought to be, and did not give me any orders to reduce the
returns as made. Matters went on in this way, until in December, 1907, and
January, 1908, we received from Mr. Lumsden a blue print and interpretation
of the item "solid rock." This interpretation, it appeared to me, coincided with
the classification we had been returning. The only debatable point being the
amount of rock contained in the mass and the measurement of boulders. The
district engineers met Mr. Lumsden in Ottawa in January, 1908, to discuss the
blue print and then explained to him that it was impossible to measure all the
rocks, instancing the cut at La Tuque where separate measurements were im-
practicable. He then consented to change the measurement clauses to meet our
objections. He wrote me at the end of January, 1908, and also in February,
asking me if the classification returned by us agreed with his interpretation, and
I answered: yes. Mr. Lumsden knew that no deduction had been made and knew
by personal observation the material moved, so that if he still thought the ex-
cavation, as returned by us was too high, he could have ordered us to reduce it.
Estimates were returned monthly and were approved by him until June, 1909. In
the meantime, estimates were given to the contractors and the men were paid off.
When the arbitrators, Messrs. Schreibcr, Kelliher, and Grant, came over the work
in June, 1910, they gave us a practical application of their interpretation of the
item "assembled rock." When they reached mile 23 on contract 8, the furthest
point east at which the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway engineers had made ob-
jicctions to the classification, they stopped, and Mr. Kelliher, on behalf of the
Grand Trunk Pacific, and Mr. Grant, on behalf of the Transcontinental Railway,
with Mr. Schreiber's consent, appointed the district engineer of the Grand Trunk
Pacific, Mr. Fotheringham, and myself, to go over the whole of the remainder of
the work, and they instructed us to classify according to the method we had seen
them pursuing during their arbitration. If we agreed, our decision was to be
final; if not, an appeal was to be made to our respective chief engineers. A
stipulation was made that in case of agreement, we were to sign the notes

INYE8TIGATING COMMISSION 363

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

conjointly, and send one copy to Mr. Kelliher, and the other to Mr. Grant. These
instructions were faithfully and conscientiously carried out and final estimates
were returned which were approved in Ottawa, and the contractors were paid off.

Q. Were the estimates changed to suit the quantities found by the arbitrators,
Messrs. Kelliher, Grant and Schreiber? — A. Yes.

Q. What mileages were covered by them? — A. From mile 132 to mile 115,
and from mile 85 to mile 66 on contract 10, and from mile 1 to mile 23 on
contract No. 8.

Q. Did the arbitrators make many changes in the classification from that
which your engineers made originally ? — A. Yes, they made a good many changes.

By the Chairman:

Q. Did they put it up or put it down? — A. They put in up in one case.

By Mr. GuteliiLs:

Q. Do you remember what case that was ? — A. It was in the case of borrow,
where they raised it to fifty per cent solid and fifty per cent loose.

Q. And prior to that what was it? — A. All loose rock.

Q. Did you and Mr. Fotheringham cover the remaining cuts that were
omitted by the arbitrators? — A. We covered the whole work that was not gone
over by the arbitrators.

Q. So that between the arbitrators and you as their deputies, the whole of
your district was passed upon by the arbitrators? — A. Yes.

By the Chairman:

Q. All interpreting the specification as yoa did? — A. Yes, of course there
may be some of the work not finished, and in connection with that there may be
something to do yet.

j

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. Now Mr. Doucet, suppose the chief engineer, Mr. Lumsden, should have
insisted with reference to your district on the interpretation that solid rock could
only mean solid rock in masses of a cubic yard or larger, what would have been
the effect? — A. The effect would have been to change about one million yards
of solid rock into loose rock.

Q. And if you had received such positive instructions from the chief engineer,
Mr. Lumsden, you would have been guided by them. — A. Had I received such
positive instructions, there would have been nothing left for me to do as district
engineer but to follow out the instructions of the chief engineer.

By the Chairman:

Q. You accompanied the present comimssion, Mr. Gutelius and myself, on
the inspection over part of your district, did you not? — A. Yes.

Q. What part did you go over with this commission? — A. We wen,t over
part of contract No. 8 east of the Quebec bridge, and contracts Nos. 9, 10, 11,
and 12 north of the Quebec bridge.

Q. Did this commission examine everything you wished them to inspect in
order to arrive at a proper conclusion, so far as it was possible fot them to do so?
—A. Yes.

Q. There was nothing, was there, that you wished them to look at that was
not examined by them? — A. No.

964 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. Do you think that so far as the inspection could be made at this date,
that the inspection made by this commission was sufficiently exhaustive? — A. For
a general inspection, yes.

Q. This commission had excavations made at certain points along the line,
had they not? — A. Yes.

Q. Were those made under your supervision? — A. No.

Q. Under whose supervision were they made? — A. We appointed the
division engineers or resident engineers as the case might be, or the contractors'
superintendents, to put in the excavations.

Q. They were made under your direction? — A. Yes.

Q, Assuming that you had had charge of the building of this railway for a
company which had ample funds to construct a first-class railway with a four-
tenths eastboimd grade and a six-tenths westbound grade, and assuming that your
instructions had been to build a first-class road as cheaply as possible without
scamping the road or impairing its efficiency, could you have saved any money
that was expended in the construction of the present Transcontinental road? — A.
Yes.

Q. Will you give instances where, had you such control, and these instruc-
tions, you could have saved money? — A. Well, by the introduction of momentum
grades.

Q. What do you mean by momentum grades? — A. A down grade which
allows you sufficient momentum to climb up on a heavier grade than the standard
grade.

Q. That is to say, if you assume a distance of a mile of four-tenths grade
from one end to the other, instead of illing to a four-tenths grade the whole
distance, you could have allowed the track to dip in certain places and thereby
saved filling? — A. Yes, and saved cutting as well.

Q. So that an engine hauling a train loaded to the limit, to be hauled along
a four-tenths grade, would pass over those dips without any additional assistance?
—A. Yes.

Q. That is commonly called a velocity grade ? — A. A velocity or momentum
grade.

Q. It differs from a pusher grade in that, in the case of a pusher grade you
must use another engine to help the train over the grade? — A. Yes, the same
fully loaded train.

Q. And that is, as you have said, a saving which the commission could
calculate from the material in this office, without your assistance? — A. Yes.

Q. Will you tell me anything else in whi^h you could have made a saving?
— A. I think if we had been allowed to use a little heavier curvature, we would
have effected considerable saving without impairing the grades.

Q. And you say a saving could have been made in that? — A. Yes.

Q. What limit would you put upon that increased curvature? — A. I think
we could have used eight degree curves occasionally at important points.

Q. By that you mean that the curves would have been greater? — A. The
curves would have been sharper and would have enabled us to stick to the contour
of the ground better than by using a lighter curve.

Q. And instead of having to cut into the hillsides as vou have done? —
A. Yes.

Q. Can you give me any other? — A. In places, we might have used some
wooden trestles. Of course, the rule was laid dowTi that these were not to be used.

Q. Is it not the practice of railway companies in construction, to first put
in wooden trestles? — A. On all the roads I have been on, yes.

Q. Have you heard that wooden trestles have been put in on the Grand
Trunk Pacific, west of Winnipeg? — A. I have heard so.

INYESTIQATINQ COMMISSION 365

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Do you know that wooden trestles were put in by the Grand Trunk Pacific
on their line from Fort William to Graham? — A. No.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. In all your experience as an engineer, in other railway constructions, you
have built wooden trestles? — A. Yes.

Q. And where the ordinary excavated material did not fill openings except
in cases where waterways required them? — A. Yes.

Q. And if wooden trestles had been used on your district, you would have
been saved the construction of all the concrete arches? — A. Not all of them,
but the important ones yes.

Q. Most of them?— A. Yes.

Q. You would have saved rock borrow in such hills? — A. Yes.

Q. You are now preparing a statement showing the saving that could have
been effected if the policy of wooden trestles had been adopted? — A. That
statement h.as been prepared already.

Q. That statement will represent the saviug that might have been effected?
— A. Closely, yes.

Q. Now, with regard to using cast iron pipes in farm crossings, if you had
been building this railway economically would you have used these? — A. No.

Q. What would you have used there? — A. I think possibly we would have
used these open culverts, stringers, and planking.

Q. And a verv considerable saving might have been effected there? — A.
Yes.

Q. Are you familiar with the term over-break in rock-cutting? — A. Yes.

Q. Did the over-break which was returned compare favorably with over-
break on works which you have had charge of heretofore? — A. Yes.

Q. It was not any larger? — A. No, not after the changes that were made.

Q. Not after you arbitrated? — A. Not after the changes that were made
during the classification.

Q. At La Tuque, if the matter were left to your own discretion and Judg-
ment in the matter of grade and alignment, what money saving would have resulted ?
— A. I certainly would have used a .65 grade instead of a direct four-tenths
grade.

Q. What saving in distance would have been effected by a .65 grade? — A.
About three miles.

Q. And how much money would have been saved? — A. About one million
dollars.

Q. EJiowing that a saving of one million dollars, as you have stated, could
have been made at La Tuque by adopting a .65 grade, what action did you take?
— A. The chief engineer being away from Ottawa at the time, I immediately
wrote to the Commissioners.

Q. You wrote to the Commissioners direct? — A. Yes.

Q. Is the letter to which you refer a letter dated June 21st, 1906, and
addressed to the Hon. S. N. Parent, Chairman of the Transcontinental Eailway
Commission, Ottawa? — A. Yes.

Q. Tell us the history of that in your own words? — A. On making the
final surveys of the line at la Tuque, we found that by the actual levels -we could not
possibly get down to the level of the La Tuque flats, using a four-tenths grade,
unless we took a very roundabout way, increasing the length of the line some
three miles, and at a very excessive cost. The use of a direct four-tenths grade,
also prevented us from using the Flats at La Tuque for a divisional point. We
found that a direct line could be had by starting from Creek a Beauce to the La
Tuque .Flats using a .65 grade. I had the engineers look very carefully over the
ground, and run a number of lines to prove that it would be in the interests of

366 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

the Commissioners to use this direct line. This .65 grade could not be considered
altogether as a pusher grade. It was much shorter, had less curvature, and would
cost much less to build than the four-tenths grade. It would also have enabled
us to use the Flats at La Tuque for a divisional yard, whereas, by the adoption
of the direct four-tenths grade, we were forced to move our yards two miles further
to the west at what I might call an excessive cost. By adopting the .65 grade,
we would have saved $300,000 on the construction of the yard alone.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. Do you figure that you gave the chief engineer and the Commissioners
sufficient information to have enabled them to have made a proper decision? — A.
Yes, and I know that they were in favor of adopting my suggestion, but for some
reason unknown to me, we were informed that the line on a 0.65 grade could not
be entertained.

Q. You produce as an exhibit, your letter of remonstrance to the Chair-
man of the Commission? — A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember the bridge over the Boucanne River ? — A. Yes.

Q. It is a high trestle bridge on a tangent? — A. Yes.

Q. The contour of the ground at that crossing did not appear to lend itself
to a straight bridge across? — A. No.

Q. Will you explain what would have been the economical way of crossing
that river, and why the economical method was not followed? — A. We were not
allowed to use curve bridges.

Q. And those hea\7 rock cuttings you see at each end of that bridge were
occasioned by the instructions to build the bridge on a tangent? — A. Yes.

Q. With reference to the bridge at Boucanne River, do you see any objection
to building a bridge of that character on a curve ? — A. No.

Q. Is the Boucanne Bridge the only bridge where money was expended to
escape constructing bridges on curves?— -A. No, the Milieu River Bridge is
another.

Q. Have you any gravity water supplies on your district? — A. Yes, we
have three.

Q. Where is the most expensive of these gravity water supplies situated? —
A. At Roberge.

Q. What did that cost?— A. $11,375.00.

Q. Do you not think that $11,375.00 is too much capital expenditure for a
gravity supply at a wayside station? — A. Yes .

Q. What figure would you suggest as being about right for a supply at such
station?— A. The maximum would be from about $7,000 to $8,000.

Q. Had you any instructions as to the limit you should go for obtaining
water supplies? — A. We were instructed to expend as high as $15,000 to secure
gravity supplies.

Q. You are familiar with the pusher grade from the St. Francis River west?
—A. Yes.

Q. What is the grade on that river? — A. 1.1 westbound.

Q. What is the rate of grade that could be used if tlie pusher engines were
of the same size as the leading engine hai],dling a six-tenths train? — A. 1.47.

Q. If a 1.47 had been used instead of a 1.1 grade, what saving might have
been effected?— A. Between $43,000 and $44,000.

Q. Would it have been as good a railroad? — A. Yes.

Q. And if you had been building a railroad, using your own judgment and
authority, would you have used a steeper grade? — A. Yes.

Q. What is the weight of rails you used in your sidings and yards? — ^A.
Eighty pounds, the same as on the main line.

Q. If you were constructing this railroad economically, would you have used

INVESTIGATIXG COMMISSION 367

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

eighty pound rails in sidings and yards? — A. No, we recommended that fifty-six
pound rails should be used on the sidings.

Q. Do you believe that the efficiency of the railroad would have been quite
as good if fifty-six or sixtv pound rails had been used in the sidings and yards?
—A. Yes.

Q. You know the Batiscan Eiver Bridge? — A. Yes.

Q. Suppose you had been permitted to use a momentum grade at that point,
have you any idea of what saving might have been effected? — A. Between $30,000
and $30,000.

Q. Would you have had as good a railway? — A. Yes.

By the Chairman:

Q. If these changes that you speak of, had been made in the construction
of this road, would you have had as good a railway for practical commercial pur-
poses as you h^ve now ? — A. Yes, as far as the present efficiency ol the road is
concerned.

Q. And you could haul the grain of the west just as well over it as you could
over the present road? — A. You could haul the same loads.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. You are familiar with the book of instructions issued by the Commission
to the engineers? — A. Yes.

Q. In these instructions you are limited by article 26 to six degree curves?
—A. Yes.

Q. And no matter what expensive construction would be involved by the
use of six degree curves? — A. Yes.

Q. As an engineer did you consider it safe to issue instructions of that
character before the country had been exploited? — A. No.

Q. You consider it was dangerous to issue such instructions? — A. Yes.

Q. In what locations in your district could you have saved large sums of
money if you had been permitted to use sharper curvatures? — A. Principally
along the Milieu Eiver Valley and along the St, Maurice Valley.

Q. "Without going into definite estimates, could you have saved tens or hun-
dreds of thousands of dollars if the curvature along these two rivers had been in-
creased to between eight degrees and ten degrees? — A. I should say between
$125,000 and $150,000 might have been saved in these two locations.

Q. "Would the efficiency of the railway have been lessened by increasing the
curvature to eight degrees? — A. No.

Q. Do you know of curves of that character being used on main lines of
railway where the railway does not suffer thereby? — A. On the work I was on
for the C.P.R. at Jackfish Bay, on the main line we had an eight degree curve
outside a tunnel which certainly did not impair the efficiency of the line in any
way.

Q. So that the saving which might have been effected along Milieu Eiver
and the St. Maurice Eiver would have been another item in the economical con-
struction of this line, if you had had your own way? — A. Yes.

By Mr. Gutelius :

Q. Eef erring again to momentum grades, describe why the introduction of
momentum grades would have been economical? — A. In a letter which I wrote to
the chief engineer's office, I pointed out that very considerable sums of money could
be fcaved by using momentum or velocity grades, as we would have been enabled, in
many cases, to reduce both hills and cuttings by introducing virtual grades, rather
than uniform actual grades.

3€8 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. What is a momentum or equivalent grade? — A. A momentum grade
moans tliat advantage is taken of the fact that a train, descending a grade accumu-
lates energy which increases the hauling capacity of the locomotive by an amount
(k]"cndent on the length of falling grade and the velocity of the train, and this extra
hauling capacity will protect the introduction of steeper grades than the engine is
theoretically loaded for.

Q. That is, if your ruling grade is four-tenths, and you approach the foot of
a one per cent, hill, at a speed of thirty miles an hour, you would be able to pull
over that 1 per cent, grade your four-tenths load^ provided the grade is no longer
than 1,000 or 1,500 feet ?— A. About 1,500 feet.

Q, So that you could have reduced many heavy cuttings by raising the grade
in these cuttings from ten feet to fifteen feet? — A. Most of our summit cuttings
could have been reduced by one-half.

Q. And in the matt'^r of fills, a momentum grade policy would have enabled
you to introduce many long sags ? — A. Yes.

Q. And save as much as ten feet or fifteen feet of filling? — A. Yes.

Q. Have you any idea, Mr. Doucet, of the percentage of the cost of filling
that might have been saved in your district if a momentum grade policy had been
adopted ? — A. I have looked to that and I think that between seven per cent, and
ten per cent, of the cost of grading could have been saved.

Q. Without impairing the efficiency of the road for all practical purposes? —
A. Yes.

Q. It has been said that the reason for not using wooden trestles was on ac-
count of their excessive cost, as figured by the cost of timber in these tenders? —
A. That is not my understanding. The policy of the Commission that wooden
trestles would not be used, was well known before the tenders were called for, and
it was expected that only a very small amount of timber would be used in this con-
struction.

Q. What was the price per thousand cubic feet, board measure, asked in some
of the tenders? — A. I think $80.00. When contractors see that quantities are
small they generally put a high price opposite, as it does not affect the grand total.

Q. May we conclude from what you have said, that if the policy had been to
build wooden trestles, a tender very much lower than $80.00 per thousand feet,
board measure, would have been put in ? — A. Yes, because any contractor would
know that if he put in a big price for timber on a large quantity, his total might
be affected to such an extent tliat his tender might be run up high.

Q. And no engineer, would under such circumstances, accept a tender for
$80.00 per tliousand, boa-"" measure, for timber? — A. No.

Q. Wliat would be a fair price for the timber on contract No. 8? — A. Be-
tween $40.00 and $45.00 per thousand.

Q. So that in our comparisons, it would be fair for us to use the price of
$45.00 per thousand for frame trestles?— A. Yes, $45.00 or $50.00.

Q. Why did you put in a double track yard between Cap Eouge yard and
Cap Rouge viaduct? — A. At the time I took charge of that portion of the work,
the construction of the double track was already under way, and I understood from
Mr. Hoare, my predecessor on that work, tliat the line was to be a double-tracked
line between the yard and the Cap Rouge viaduct. I may say that about thirty per
cent, of the work had been done at different points when I took the work over from
Mr. Hoare.

By the Chairman:

Q. This cut is on the north side of the river and about one mile from the
Quebec Bridge? — A. Yes.

IXTESTIGATIXG COMMISSIOy 369

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

By Mr. Gutelius :

Q. You are familiar with tlie Ludger Xoel yard ? — A. Yes.

Q. I notice that this yard was constnicted with side walls eleven feet higher
than the standard plan, why was that done and who is responsible for it? — A. My ■
then assistant, Mr. C. L. Hervey, was responsible for the extra height of the walls;
it was done without my sanction or knowledge.

Q. About how much additional money was expended at this point, more than,
would have been expended had you been consulted ? — A. $14,000.

By the Chairman:

Q. Was the question of economy made a cardinal feature in the construction
of this railroad ? — A. I^o ; I do not think it was.

Q. Did the Commission, so far as you know, ever intimate in any way that
it was desirable that the engineers should carefully consider everv^ step in the con-
struction of the road, with a view to spending only the amount of money that was
reasonably necessary? — A. No; we had no communication from the Commis-
sioners to that effect.

Q. Are you familiar with the Feher nutlocks that were supplied to your divi-
sion ? — A. Yes.

Q. Describe that nutlock? — A. It is a piece of tin fitting over the nut with
the ends turned up, which rots away in a year or eighteen months after it has been
put in place.

Q. So that you consider that any money expended on these nutlocks might
have as well been thrown away? — A. I may say that half of them are out of the
tracks now.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. What would you say as to the advisability of using 1x2x4 concrete for
the Riviere du Sud arch. Do you think concrete of that strength was necessary? —
A. Yes, because that is one of the worst river crossings we had in the district.
There are about 300,000 logs driven annually down that river, and tlie fall from
one end of the culvert to the other is about ten feet. The water rises up to the
spring of the arch at flood water. I consulted all my engineers at the time of the
construction, and we all came to the same conclusion, namely, that a stronger mix-
ture than 1x3x6 should be put in at this place.

Q. The extra strength was on account of possible erosion by logs and ice? —
A. Yes.

Q. Don't you think that one foot or eighteen inches of 1 x 2 x 4 concrete
would have answered the purpose quite as well as to use that mixture throughout? — ■
A. Well, we have there the example of the logs striking the solid rock at the outlet
of the culvert and gouging pieces of rock out of the face of the bluff. It seems to
me that these logs would have had the same effect on the side of the culvert as they
had on the solid rock.

Q. What is the difference in price between 1x3x6 and 1 x 2 x 4 oa that
contract? — A. The difference in price was $5.00 per yard.

Q. There was considerable discussion over the concrete used in this arch? —
A. Yes.

Q. Wliat was the ultimate outcome of that discussion? — A. The difficulty
was that the contractors met the chief engineer in Ottawa, and an agreement waa
arrived at that this concrete should be returned as 1 x 3 x 5 mixture at a price of
$12.00 per yard. I may say that this agreement has since been rescinded and the
concrete is returned as 1 x 3 x 6 at $10.00 per yard.

Q. The matter is still in controversy ? — A. Yes.

123.— 24

370 NATIONAL TRAXSCOXTIXENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. Eeferring again to overbreak, in classifying overbreak, did you allow a
percentage of loose rock as provided for in the specification where it says that the
material shall be classified as it falls in the cut after the shot is fired ? — A. Yes.

Q. You arrived at that as closely as it could be estimated? — A. Yes. In
some cases I may say that where loose rock does not show in the returns, it was due
to the fact that the overbreak was really a rock borrow and used as rip-rap or pro-
tection of embankments in adjacent fills in lakes or rivers.

Q. Suppose that in a solid rock cut, twenty-five per cent, of the total quan-
tities were returned as solid rock overbreak, would that classification be in accord-
ance with these speciif cations ? — A. No; under ordinary circumstances a propor-
tion of the overbreak should have been returned as loose rock.

The witness was not further examined for the present.

(NATIONAL TEAlTSCONTINENTAL INVESTIGATING COMMISSION,

OTTAWA, OCT 11th, 1918.)

(EVIDENCE TAKEN IN THE OFFICES OF THE NATIONAL
TEANSCONTINENTAL.)

A. G. Macfarlaxe, sworn.

By Mr. Gutelvus:

Q. Give us, in short form, your experience prior to your going with the
Transcontinental Railway? — A. I began in the year 1882 on the Kingston and
Pembroke Eailwa}^, and 1 worked there as rodman, and was there for four years —
worked as rod man and instrument jnan latterly.

Q. And where else? — A. From there I was on the Bale des Clialeurs for
two years, and I was on the survey of the Eapid Transit road, Cleveland, Boston
and New York — six months there — and I was on a branch line of tlie Canada
Atlantic, was there about a year, and then I was up on the main line of the Ottawa,
Amprior and Parry Sound, eight 3'ears, and then I was down on the Mainland,
Nova Scotia, for two years, and then on the Algoma Central for nearly a year,
and then I went on the Canadian Northern and was there four years, and then
I came on to this road.

Q. So that you have had a ver}' general experience in surveys and construc-
tion of railroads in Canada? — A. Yes.

Q. During the past 30 years? — A. Yes.

Q. Wliat positions, did 'you fill on the N.T.E.?— A. The first position
I was locating engineer: when construction started I was division engineer for
division 7, on District F, and was there for two years, call it as divisional engineer,
and I was about three months assistant district engineer on District F. and then
J was district engineer on B. for one year, and then I was inspecting engineer for
about two years, and then I was on F., and was on F. for about a year.

Q. Put on F. as district engineer? — A. Yes.

Q. Which position you still hold? — A. Yes.

Q. You were actively engaged as divisional engineer wliile the contractors
were excavating Division 7? — A. Yes, or a good portion of it.

Q. Which was the time that the first discussion on classification was in
progress? — A. Yes.

Q. You were at the meeting at Kenora? — A. Yes.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 371

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. "\Mio were present at that meeting of the leading engineers and commis-
sioners?— A. The chief engineer of the work, Mr. Hodgins, Commissioner Young,
John Heaman, and I think B. J. Mcintosh : I tliink that was all.

Q. Was there any Grand Trunk representative? — A. ISTo.

Q. When you left that meeting, what was your understanding in connection
with the handling of material excavated outside of the sections? — A. My under-
standing was that there was a portion of that would be allowed as solid rock, other
than what you could attach to the specification, but as to what it was going to be,
ihere was nothing definite.

Q. You understood that a more liberal classification was going to be given
to overbreak than provided in the specification? — A. Yes.

Q. Did you ever receive any definite written instructions after that meeting?
— A. No. nothing definite.

Q. Up to the time the work was finished, no instructions came from Ottawa
or elsewhere, so far as you know? — A, I think Mr. Lumsden, after I left there,
sent instructions — I know he did, because I have seen them — which appeared to
be founded on the specification "alone.

Q. This meeting was February 8th, 1908? — A. Yes. There were no instruc-
tions came out until after I left, as regards the general interpretation of the speci-
fication by Mr. Lumsden.

Q. In the matter of overbreak? — A. No.

Q. There was nothing in Mr. Lumsden's blue print, or the instructions, in
connection with overbreak, was there ? — A, No, I do not think so ; that is my
remembrance of it : the documents would show.

Q. With reference to the specifications governing classification, do you
understand that these specifications would enable an engineer to classify soft mud
as loose rock? — A. No.

Q. The plough test, then, is a question of hardness, or difficulty in removing
on account of hardness, or the stones it contains? — A. Yes, according to the
specification.

Q. Do 3'ou understand that has been generally lived up to on District F? —
A. I do not think it has been lived up to, right to the dead — I mean the test.

Q. Have you corrected anything that you have discovered in that classifica-
tion, so that it is reasonably wathin this specification? — A. Yes, I have lately,
since the Commission was there, but I ddi not measure the portion on the McAr-
thur contract.

Q. With reference to tlie McArthur contract, you have made no corrections
there, for what reason? — A. This matter has been handled by the arbitration,
and I did not even examine it with the idea of making corrections, because it has
been handled by the arbitration and settled.

Q. With reference to the arbitration, and your general knowledge of , Dis-
trict F., do you consider that the arbitration results are within reasonable limits ? —
A. Yes. I must qualify that, probably, as to the question of assembled rock,
which r never understood, and do not understand yet.

Q. You refer to diagram 5 in Mr. Lumsden's interpretation, in connection
with solid rock? — A. Yes, a diagram without any scale, or without any clue from
which to judge what was meant. ;

Q. Assuming that the stones shown on diagram 5 are all less than a cubic
yard, and that the interstitial spaces are filled with clay and sand, what would
you be compelled to classify that material as, under the specifications and contract,
without reference to Mr. Lumsden's interpretation? — A. And the stones touch-,
ing, then I would call it loose rock : that is all I would do. ' ' ;

Q. Under classification of solid rock, which reads, "Will inqlude , all ! rocfc
■found in ledges or masses of more than one cubic yard", what is your understand-.

372 yATIOXAL TRAXSCOXTIXEXTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

ing of the kind of rock covered by tlie word "yiasses"? — A. M}' opinion would
be lumps of rock.

Q. Lumps of rock over a yard, whether they be in the form of boulders or
large rock fragments? — A. Ye?. Tliat is my opinion, as an engineer, based upon
the specifications, without reference to any instructions.

Q. The overbreak on District F. on the McArthur contract, we noticed in
our recent trip, is a very serious matter. What proportion of the total solid rock
do you think is overbreak? — A. Thirty to forty per cent.

Q. Have you ever, in 3'our experience as an engineer, encountered any rock
excavation that had anything like such a quantity of overbreak? — A. Xo. I never
did.

Q. How, in a general way, do you account for this large amount of over-
break on this contract? — A. In the first place, the cuts are very much larger
than anything I have ever seen before, and the rock is of a very seamy nature, more
60 than any other rock I have ever seen before. Their method of taking it out was
something new to me, the putting down of holes, say anywhere from three-quarters
depth of a hole to the full depth of a hole, back from the face and sprineins: them,
pometimes three and four times, heavily springing them.

Q. Just explain Avhat springing a hole consists of? — A. In the fir-t place,
)'ou have a limited space: you have just got the hole to work on, and you put down
all the dynamite 3'ou can into that : sometimes 3^ou only put two or three sitcks at
first, and have a drop fuse, a small fuse lit and dropped into the hole : they let
that off, and it tears it up in the bottom, and after that cools off they put some
more in; they can probably put five or six times as much the second time, and that
tears out quite a hole below, and they will squib this the third time before they get
it large enough so as to get enough explosive there to take that out. In the course
of this springing, where you have seamy rock, very often it opens up the seams, and
when 3'ou go to load this hole afterwards, a great deal of the power escapes through
the seams. You do not get the result 3'ou probably would expect. Possibly the
next hole you squib the rock will be of a more solid formation, not so many seams,
and you put down your explosive into that, and it tears it all to pieces. That is
what makes it so difficult for an engineer to say to a contractor — in fact, you can-
not say to a contractor — what is necessary to load in a hole, because you do not
know the conditions below.

Q. When you are in that condition of mind, however, you are assuming that
it is impermissible to blast with deep drilling? — A. Yes.

Q. What depth of hole is a reasonably good sized shot? — A. Well. 2'^ feet
ehould be the extreme. I should think.

Q. With a hole 25 feet deep, say 25 feet back from the face — A. T ilo not
think they very often did it that far: say 18 or 20.

Q. Well, say IS or 20 feet back from the face, what quantity of dvnamite
would be used in the final blast, roughly? — A. T think we used to figure on about
three-quarters of a pound to a pound — about three-quarters of a pound of dynamite
to a yard of rock, so as to displace it. It would be about 500 or 600 pounds of
dvnamite.

Q. Did 3'OU ever see rock blasting done before where shots of that size were
Tjsed? — A. No.

Q. How was the blasting of rot^k excavation handled on work with wliich you
were previously connected? — A. We used to put down about three holes, probably
back eight feet from the face. The cuttings were lighter, and we would strip it
very lightly.

Q. About how many pounds of dynamite would bo used in this operation? —
A. Pretty near the same amount per yard, but it shatters much sma^Vr, and it
was-dfstributed better, vou see: it would be in throe holes.

IXTESTTGATIXG COM MISSION 37$

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. And about how many pounds? — A. As near as I can remember, about
three-quarters of a pound to the yard is what we always used to figure on ou roada
I have been working on.

Q. So that a blast six feet in depth, set back four feet would take 15 to 20
pounds of powder. — A. Yes.

Q. If that character of rock drilling and blasting had been used in this work,
would it have been possible for them to make so much overbreak? — A. No, it
would not.

Q. Which of these methods do you think the original specifications contem-
plated.— A. ■ The method of careful blasting.

Q. By careful blasting,- you mean numerous small shots — A. Numerous
small holes and shots, or the old-fashioned method.

Q. What is a reasonable percentage of overbreak — A. From my knowledge,
as an engineer on other works, I should say that 25 to 30 per cent, with the modern
method of blasting, is about right for overbreak.

Q. What percentage of overbreak would you expect if they used the old-
fashioned method of blasting — A. I do not think it would go over twenty per
cent.

Q. Suppose that you could have limited the depths of the shots on those big
cuttings on District F. to twelve feet, what effect would that have had on the over-
break? — A. It would have decreased the overbreak.

Q. Down somewhere to near what the old-fashioned metliod would have given
you ? — A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember tlie big cutting at mile 139 ? — A. Yes.

Q. What was the greatest depth of that cutting at rail level ? — A. I do not
know that : about 40 feet at the widest portion : 35 to 40 feet.

Q. The amount of overbreak in this cut, I see from the records, is over
28,000 yards, which is practically the same as the amount of rock inside of the
section. — A. Yes.

Q. How do you explain this? — A. Mr. Poulin, the district engineer, said
he wanted to get the track out to the Winnipeg river, in order to put the bridge in,
and it was necessary to have all these cuts out as rapidly as we could tear them out.
In talking the situation over we discussed the matter as to what they should be
allowed for that.

Q. You discussed the matter with him? — A. Yes; and on account that we
required all this material for fill and the long distance, there was a scarcity of
filling material, and the long haul would bring the train haul material very nearly
up to the price of solid rock, as far as we could see, and, taking these things into
consideration, he thought the contractor should get solid rock prices.

Q. And the contractors were so advised? — A. Yes.

Q. And you finally paid them for all the rock excavated, which included
this 28,000 yards of overbreak ?— A. Yes.

Q. What rate did the subcontractors receive for removing this solid rock? —
A. About $1.25 a yard.

Q. And the main contractor, McArthur, received how much? — A. $1.70.
He had a sub between him and the other man at $1.50.

Q. But there was a profit between McArthur and the first subcontractor of
45 cents a yard? — A. The man that did the work, yes.

Q. And, as there is practically 60,000 yards in the cut, the profits accruing
to the original contractor and the first sub amounted to about $27,000; is that
right ? — A. Yes ; that is between him and the first sub.

Q. So that the profits are equal to about one dollar a yard for all the over-
break in that? — A. That is the profit on the whole amount.

Q. Did the crowding of the rock cuttings and the heavy shooting actually
help in the completion of the work? — A. No.

374. NATIONAL TRAXSCOXTIXEXTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. If it were to be done over again, you would not have concurred in rushing
the worl<; in that manner? — A. ISTo; I never did, and do not approve of it.

Q. You felt at that time that you were opening a door to the contractor that
was really dangerous? — A. Yes.

Q. And you are not surprised now, when you are faced with this 28,000 yards ?
— A. No. I do not think he really wanted to do it, but thoy were hounding him to
get it done.

Q. Who was hounding him? — A. It came through the chief engineer. As
far as I know, I think the Commissioners were at it, too. The chief engineer sent
out a regular list of cuttings, which you would be surprised at, telling us to tell the
contractor that he must move so many thousand yards per month out of each cut-
ting, and that was done some time in 1907, in order to get that work done there,
and the man that was behind the whole thing was Mr. Morse, of the Grand Trunk
Pacific.

Q. Why was Morse rushing it, do you think? — A. We all thought he was
going to blame the tie-up, so to speak, on the National Transcontinental instead of
the Grand Trunk Pacific, that they would be ready with their piece between Fort
William and Graham, and we would not be done with ours, and the grain would be
held up on account of the road not being finished.

Q. So that it was a race between the Lake Superior branch of the Grand
Trunk Pacific and the N.T.K. between Graham and Winnipeg? — A. Yes, to get
the wheat from the west to Port William.

Q. What was the actual result? — A. The actual result was that in 1909,
when the rock was all ou'^ — it was a year and a half after that before tliey got it
open — something like that. I think the rock was all out in the spring of 1909.

Q. When did the first wheat go over? — A. Some time in 1910; I think it
was something like a few hundred bushels was put over.

Q. Just enough to say that tlicy hauled some in the fall of 1010. whereas
this extra expenditure was made about two years before? — A. Yes.

Q. Referring to overbreak in general, and the partial understanding tliat you
had at Kenora, how did you return overbreak after that meeting? — A. We re-
turned it as overbreak.

Q. As solid rock overbreak? — A. Yes.

Q. That is, you measured every yard that was taken out of the cut, and re-
turned it at solid rock prices? — A. Yes. This was done with the full knowledge
of the district engineer, and I understand the same knowledge of his superiors.

Q. As a divisional engineer on whom the responsibility of classification
rested, did you feel that the placing of this overbreak in the solid rock column set-
tled it and ended it? — A. Xo, I never felt that.

Q. What else could happen? — A. All estimates must be finally referred to
the chief engineer for his signature ; we never knew what he was going to do.

Q. And by his signature, you mean his approval? — A. Yes, liis* final ap-
proval.

Q. Was it given to him in such shape that he knew what part of the solid rock
was overbreak? — A. Yes, I think so.

Q. In any event, you rested your case on the action of liighcr officers,, and
were satisfied in your own mind that they were familiar with vour intentions? —
A. Yes.

Q. You were ready at all times to accept a criticism or instructions in con-
nection with overbreak? — A. Yes.

Q. And you were particularly ready in that, when you refer to the clause that
says that overbreak shall be paid for as it falls in the cut, were you not? — A. Yes.

Q. And you rather expected that the chief engineer's office would ask for, or
demand, a portion of loose rock in the overbreak? — A. Tbat i« at the first, before

INVESTiaATIXG COMMISSION 375

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

they let it drag on so long, I expected that, but when these estimates were coming
in^ and the contractors were being paid for them, it looked as though they were not
going to do anything with it.

Q. Then you assumed that the chief engineer proposed to let it go through,
fully aware of what he was doing, as solid rock? — A. Yes.

Q. Xow, by reference to the specification, Article 38, where it says, "The
classification of material from slides shall be made by the engineer, and will be in
accordance with its condition at the time of the slide, regardless of prior conditions,"
if you were simply given this Article 38 as a guide for slides in rock cuttings, would
you not be compelled, under it, to classify that portion of the overbreak where the
pieces were less than a cubic yard as loose rock? — A. Yes.

Q. How would you arrive at that in a practical way? — A. We could arrive
at it by giving a percentage.

Q. Suppose we had a cut that contained 1,000 yards of overbreak, and you,
in your judgment^ concluded that 500 yards of that overbreak was loose rock, and
suppose the entire cutting including overbreak amounted to 4,000 yards, based upon
cross-section measurement, how would you return that 500 yards of loose rock, and
would your returns increase the total calculated quantity in the cut? — A. I think
t-hat 500 yards of solid rock measurement is to be estimated as loose rock ; give them
the explanation of it, or otherwise give them 750 yards.

Q. Then you would increase the quantities in the cut 250 yards? — A. Yes,
with an explanatory note.

Q. And )'0U would make an explanatory note on your return ? — A. Yes.
Q. The reason for this explanatory note is that that method is not provided
for in the specification? — A. That is right.

Q. Then, if you hewed to the specification closely and measured in excava-
tion onlv, vou would not be justified in giving a yard and a half for a yard? —
A. No."

Q. Without special authority, or this explanatory note? — A. No.
Q. Referring again to overbreak V\'hile this work was in progress, what was
your habit, and that of your engineers, when you discovered contractors shooting
these tremendous blasts? — A. The engineer notified the contractor that there
would be reductions if he did not change his method and did not use more caution,
and they promised to, and they claimed they used all the caution they could, and
the results were not any better. We did deduct quantities from some of the cuttings
on account of heavy blasting.

Q. Ought you not to have reduced the yardage of overbreak for all material
that was wasted? — A. Yes.

Q. As divisional engineer, in looking over your quantities, I find that you
did not grant any loose rock in many cases of overbreak? — A. No.

Q. What protection have you for not doing so? — A. At the Kenora meeting
I got the idea that we would receive some further instructions in connection with
overbreak, and, pending the receipt of such instructions, I returned the whole
amount of overbreak as solid rock, expecting that it would be corrected to conform
with whatever instructions tlie chief engineer might make.

Q. You are familiar with this little book of instructions to civil engineers on
the N.T.R.?— A. Yes.

Q. In the matter of curvature, on page 38, it is laid down "That the maximum
curve on a level shall not exceed six degrees." Do you think that this bald state-
ment or instruction was a wise one? — A. No.

Q. Why? — A. Well, it might run you up into some fearfully heavy work,
where a very slight deviation in the curvature might avoid it.

Q. Then the instruction re curvature should have had some, monetarial limi-
tation ? — A. Yes; something of that description.

376 XATIOXAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. This positive rule gave the locating engineer no discretion when he was
three weeks away from the chief engineer's office, even though he would find a place
where a large saving might have been effected ? — A. Yes ; that would happen when
locating on a ruling grade.

Q. AVhat approval did location plans receive from higher officers? — A. Well,
they were referred from the locating engineer to the district engineer, and he is
supposed to have recommended it to the chief engineer, and he referred it to hia
assistant, I think.

Q. In the line that you located, did you receive any criticism in tlie matter
of reducing the cost of the line from your higher officers? — A. 'No, not that I
know of. I am pretty sure I did not receive any.

Q. What yould you say about the 600 feet of tangent between curves? —
A. That is something that I would insist upon, with monetary limitations.

Q. It is unfortunate that they did not give monetarial limitation to those
tangents? — A. Yes. I think that where you have a particularly rough country,
you can afford to figure on less speed of your trains; therefore you could increase
your curvature, shorten your tangents and introduce compound curves.

Q. Don't you think that broken-back curve provision is a mistake? — A. I do.
Having proper adjustment between curves, I do not see that it makes any difference.

Q. Article 29 says, "Every effort will be required to secure level track at
stations''; is that a practical instruction for a locating engineer? — A. No.

Q. AVhy? — A. I think on the grades we had there we could put a station
almost on our maximum four-tenths, without any very great inconvenience.

Q. And if you followed this instruction you would have had to locate your
stations before you located your line? — A. Yes; you would always have to liave
that in your mind when locating.

Q. Which is an impracticable situation? — A. Yes.

Q. If you were designing this railway, and were given the limiting grades, in
the interest of economy would you not have used wooden trestles, for the first eight
or ten years at least, at certain points? — A. Yes.

Q. If that method liad been adopted, where would the gi'eatest saving have
been effected? — A. We would have saved building the arches, and in some cases
would liave saved a large amount of mone}^ where the filling was made of rock
borrow.

Q. Can tliis commission arrive at a reasonable estimate, tlirough your offices,
as to what saving might have been effected, if the policy of building wooden trestles
had been adopted ? — A. I think so.

Q. If you had been given these limitations in the matter of grade and haulage
capacity, would vou, in the interest of economy, have introduced momentum grades?
—A. Yes.

Q. It is possible to save a considerable amount pf money in cuttings and fills,
and still get the same haulage capacity? — A. Yes.

Q. And still have what are known as short sags or humps? — A. Yes, parti-
cularly going over short summits.

Q. AVould that change amount to very much on the portion of the line which
you located? — A. I guess half of my location was on maximum grades that you
could not have touched very well.

Q. But through level and undulating country, it is a saving proposition? —
A. Yes.

Q. And is not detrimental to the railway generally? — A. No.

Q. Did you make an examination of the C.P.R. engine house and engine ter-
minf.'-: in Ottr.wa today? — A. Yes.

lyrESTiGATiya commission 377

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. How does that class of house compare with the houses which you built? —
A. For efficiency and for the purpose for which it was built, I think it compares
very favorably.

Q. In any event, it is quite as good?— A. It is quite as good; that is, in my
opinion.

Q. Did you notice the coaling plant? — A. Yes.

Q. When I tell you that that coaling plant cost less than $10,000, do j^ou not
consider that it might have been better to have followed that design than to have
built tbe very expensive storage bunks that you have at Graham and Transcona? —
A. Yes, I think something similar to that would have been better.

Q. How much monev would you have saved at each point? — A. About
$18,000.

Q. Suppose you had been given District F to locate and build, with a limita-
tion of a virtual four-tenths grade against eastbound traffic, and a further limi-
tation of $60,000 per mile cost, could you have built such a railroad ? — A. I think
I could have given it a pretty close shave.

Q. What are the things that stand out most prominently in your mind as the
difference between such a railroad and the one that has been built? — A. Well,
having such closely defined instructions about curvature and grade: sometimes by
an additional few hundredths on a momentum grade, I think it would be almost as
serviceable a road, and you could save thousands of yards: by putting in a little
sharper curvature you could save thousands of yards, and by putting in virtual
grades you could save thousands of yards, and have it as efficient as it is today.

Q. You would not have graded second sidings? — A. No.

Q. You would have used wooden trestles liberally? — A. Yes; every place
where we thought there was no danger of being shot out. If we had been allowed
to put in lighter steel in sidings we could have saved a lot of money.

Q. How about the entrance to Winnipeg? — A. If we could have made a
feasible arrangement with the Canadian Northern, for the present, at least, that
would have been the proper way to enter Winnipeg; nor would I have built the
Transcona shops, nor would I have built the double track over the Sturgeon river
between Lake Superior Junction and Graham, nor would I have built the double
track from Transcona shops in to Winnipeg.

Q. And you would have fixed the overbreak feature, too, if you had to stay
within $60,000 a mile? — A. Yes, if they had left it to me there would never
have been more than 25 or 30 per cent at the outside.

rNATIOXAI. TRANSCONTINENTAL INVESTIGATING COMMISSION;

EVIDENCE TAKEN IN TRANSCONTINENTAL OFFICES,

OTTAWA, JANUARY 16th, 1913.)

Erxest p. Goodwin, sworn.

By the Chairman :

Q. You are one of the inspecting engineers of the Transcontinental Railway
are you not and have been inspecting engineer since when? — A. From the begin-
ning of January, 1913.

Q. You were formerly in the employment of this Commission were you not?
— A. Yes.

378 XATIOXAL TRAXSCOXTIXEXTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. In what capacity? — A. As locating engineer and division engineer.

Q. Where were you division engineer? — A. On contract Xo. 14.

Q. Where is that?— A. District " E '' Abitibi Lake.

Q. How long were you division engineer? — A. For about a year.

Q. And during that time did you acquire any experience in classification on
the division? — A. Yes, during that year they were grading and I was classifying
the work.

Q. In October of tlie year 1912 you were instructed to go to what contracts?
—A. Nos. 13, 14 and 15.

Q. To contracts Nos. 13, 14 and 15 to inspect the work and to make plough
test for the purpose of checking the classification which had been made of the
grading on those contracts, were you not ? — A. Yes.

Q. Did you follow 5-01 r instructions? — A. I did.

Q. When did you go to that country? — A. I do not know the exact date.
Some time in the month of October.

Q. How long were you up there? — A. Just a month. Between September
18th and October 20th.

Q. Did 3"0u make any plough test on tlie work? — A. I made two plough
tests, one on contract 14 and one on contract 15.

Q. Did you make a sufficiently extensive plough test to satisfy yourself as to
how the excavation should be classified on those contrasts, 13, 14, 15 and 16? — A.
I consider I did.

Q. And did you make a reclassification of the grading on contracts 13, 14, 15,
and 16? — A. No; I made a report on what I considered, —

Q. Did you make a report on the character of the countrv and classification?
—A. Yes.

Q. Have you a copy of your report? — A. I have and I produce it. It is as
follows : —

" From my plough tests and what ploughing had been done during the progress
of the Avork, I am convinced that there is very little, if any, clay on this district too
hard to plough.

"The following are the estimates as they stand at present:

Contract No. 13 (District "CD".) Macdonell & O'Brien. Contractors.

Solid rock 9,565 cubic yard — 1 per cent

Ijoose rock 65,363 " " — 0 " "

Common excavation 071,108 " "—90 " "

Contract No. 14, Grand Trunk Paciftc Railway, Contractors.

Solid rock 98,131 cubic yard — 2 per cent

Loose rock 2,078,769 " *' — 18 " "

Common excavation 2,197,714 " "—50 " "

Contract No. 15, E. F. & G. E. Fauquier, Contractors.

Solid rock 25,363 cubic vard — 1 per cent

I-K)ose rock 1.253,395 " ' " — i9 " "

Common excavation 1.262,204 " " — 50 " "

Contract No. 16, O'Brien, Macdougall & O'Gorman, Contractors.

Solid rock 11,224 cubic yard — .5 per cent

Loose rock 894,955 " " — 34 " "

Common excavation 1,723,147 " " — 65.5 " "

INTESTIGATIXG COMMISSION 379

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

" Contract No. 13

" The work on that portion of Contract 13 which is in District '"' CD "
was done during the. present season, and the classification was done in strict
accordance with the specifications, i.e., all material that was not too hard to
plough was classified as common excavation, while mixed material was classified
a certain percentage of loose rock according to the amount of stone it contained
and the nature of the material.

" Ledge and boulders over one cubic yard only were returned as solid
rock. No assembled rock was allowed as solid rock. The result of this classifi-
cation is that only 9 per cent of the whole was returned as loose rock.

"Contract No. 14:

" The character of the. country is very much the same on all of these con-
tracts and had the same systems of classification been carried out on contract 14,
as on contract 13, the difference would have been that 1,641,308 cubic yards
would have been returned as common excavation instead of loose rock.

" Making an allowance for any slight difference in the character of the
country and for a liberal classification 20 per cent of loose rock would be
sufficient.

" Instead of 2,078,769 cubic yards of loose rock only 874,822 cubic yards
would have been returned, making a difference of 1,203,847 cubic yards. The
difference in price between loose rock and common excavation is .31c per cubic
yard, making a total of $373,192.57 on the whole contract. The amount of
over-classification in solid rock is only small, — some assembled rock was
allowed but in no great quantities.

"Contract No. lo:

" Applying the same rule to contract 15, i.e., allowing 20 per cent for
loose rock, the difference would be 745,003 cubic yards would have been
returned as common excavation instead of loose rock, making a difference of
$223,500.90. The same remark in regard to solid rock applies to this contract
as well as contract 14.

"Contract No. 16:

" Applying the same rule to this contract, the difference would be 369,090
cubic yards, which would have been returned as common excavation instead of
loose rock, making a difference of $155,017.80. Solid rock on this contract
same as the others.

" This would make a difference of $751,711,137 on the three contractB."

9&0 NATIONAL TRANSCOXTIXEXTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

(NATIONAL TllANSCONTINENTAL EAILWAY INVESTIGATION COM-
MISSION. OTTAWA, SEPTEMBER 5th, 1912.)

Fresent : Gr. Lynch-Staunton, K.C, Chairman; F. P. Gutelius C.E.,
Commissioner.

GoiiDOX Graxt^ chief engiueer National Trauscontiueutal Eailway, sworn:

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. You are chief engineer of the National Transcontinental Kail way and
liave been engaged in engineering work on this railway since when? — A. Since
May, 1905.

Q, You were appointed chief engineer of the National Transcontinental
Bailway when?— A. In July, 1909.

Q. Eefer to the specifications attached to the contract, and under the head-
ing of '' Classification," paragraph 34, you will see the expression "Solid rock
excavation" — the classification of solid rock has been one of the most important
items in railway construction in which you have been engaged during your ex-
perience as an engineer? — A. It has.

Q. Has the term "solid rock" in the various specifications under which you
have worked been interpreted practically in the same way? — A. It has.

Q. What other specifications are you familiar with? — A. I am familiar
with these specifications — I worked on railways in South America, the Inter-
colonial Railway specifications, the specifications of railways in the United States,
and the C.P.P. specifications, and the Transcontinental specifications.

Q. And in your experience in these diiferent specifications you have found
that solid rock generally has been considered the same in all of them? — A. In
all of them, yes.

Q. Generally ? — A. Yes.

Q. A new item, Mr. Grant, under "solid rock" appears in the interpreta-
tion of "solid rock" in the Transcontinental specifications, which is generally
known as '" assembled rock " ? — A. Yes.

Q. Did you ever come across the term "assembled rock" before? — A. I
did not.

Q. In the other specifications with which you are familiar did you have any
trouble to classify all sorts of material without using such a classification aa
"assembled rock?" — A. I never classified anything else as solid rock on any other
road except ledge rock and boulders over a yard.

Q. And you never found it necessary to find any kind of solid rock such as
assembled rock? — A. No, because the specifications of the other roads as a rule
would define anything or would include an item for anything out of the ordinary
such as on the Cape Breton Railway we had a classification for gypsum. On
other roads we would have a special item for shale rock, rock debris, and
such material as that.

Q. Where it occurred in sufficient quantities to justify a special price? — A.
Yes.

Q. Can you, ilr. Grant, give us the historv' of this new item of assembled
rock, and how it became a portion of the Transcontinental specifications, if it
ever did?

Mr. Staunton : It is not a portion of the specification, it is an interpretation.

[NTESTIGATIXG COMMISSION 381

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

By Mr. Guteliit^:

Q. Can you tell us how it became an official interpretation? — A. It came
about in this way. On October 7, 1907, the assistant chief engineer of the Grand
Trunk Pacific Railway, Mr. H. A. Woods, wrote a letter to Mr. Lumsden, the
commissioners' chief engineer, complaining of over classification in district B,
particularly with reference to the Avork in the neighborhood of La Tuque. A
special investigation was held with reference to this complaint on October 25,
3907, by the commissioners' chief engineer, his staff, and the contractor, and Mr,
Woods was also present with his inspecting engineer, Mr. John Armstrong. This
investigation was held Avith the view of ascertaining whether or not the Trans-
continental engineers Avere classifying too high, and Avhether or not Mr. Woods'
complaint Avas aa-cU founded. The chief engineer and the others Avalked over
Bome six miles of the line that aat.s complained of by Mr. Woods. Nothing definite
was agreed on on the ground so far as I knoAv. Mr. Lumsden returned to Ottawa,
and after considering the matter issued his interpretation of the specifications
together with an explanatory letter and an explanatory diagram in which was
included among many others items " assembled rock."

By the Chairman:

Q. Items covering assembled rock? — A. Yes.

Q. And declaring it to be solid rock excaA-ation? — A. And instructing the
engineers to classify assembled rock as solid rock. That is the history of hoAv
assembled rock came to be included in the official classification.

By Mr. Gufelivs:

Q. When you became chief engineer, Mr. Grant, did you perpetuate the
interpretation of assembled rock as being solid rock, and if so Avhy? — A. When
I became chief engineer in Jul}', 1909, the Avork had been proceeding for some
years iinder JMr. Lumsden's interpretation of these specifications Avhich had beeJi
duly approved by the commission, and in discussing this Avith the commission it
was decided that the same interpretation would be adhered to as had been officially
approved of in the past.

By the Chairman :

Q. You produce a letter dated January 4, 1908, Avritten by P. E. Ryan,
secretary of the commission, to Mr. Lumsden, in Avhich he says : — "I beg to advise
you that your letter of the 9th instant giving your interpretation of clauses 35, 34,
35 and 36 of the specifications for construction, modified so as to conform Avith
the opinion expressed by the Deputy Minister ol Justice, Avas considered by the
board on the 10th instant and approAed." — A. Yes.

Q. Has that approval cA'er been recalled? — A. It has not. That inter-
pretation is still acted upon.

Q. A moment or tAvo ago you said that at a conference betAveen you and
the commissioners it Avas decided to adhere to the Lumsden interpretation? — A.
Y'es.

Q. When Avas that conference? — A. It Avas in this Avay : Immediately on
being appointed chief engineer I discovered that Mr, Lumsden had refused to
sign the May and June estimates that were then due for payment. I also refused
to sign those estimates until I had gone out on the line to see Avhat I Avas signincr
for. and as I understood Mr. Lumsden had refused to recognize assembled rock
when he AA-ent over the line Avith the chief engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific
Railway Company. I asked the commissioners whether or not I AA'ould haA-o to
recognize it and T Avas then told I would have to adhere to Mr. Lumsden's inier-
pretation of llie specifications Avhich had been approved bv the board.

S82 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. Mr. Lumsden contended, did he not, that the engineers were not classi-
fying under the head of "assembled rock" material which he intended to be
covered by his definition of assembled rock? — A. That is as I understand it.

Q. Do I understand from you that the commission instructed you that you
were to follow the interpretation that had been given of assembled rock by the
engineers on the work? — A. They instructed me that Mr, Lumsden's interpre-
tation of the specifications and his blue print diagram were in other words the
official interpretation of the classification.

Q. But why did Mr. Lumsden want to go back on his own interpretation ? —
A. Because he contended that there had been a great deal of material classified
as assembled rock which in his opinion was not solid rock.

Q. Then, were you to put the same interpretation upon Mr. Lumsden's blue
print as he contended should be put upon it; was that your instructions? — A. No,
1 got no definite instruction as to what was "assembled rock."

By Mr. Gutelins:

Q. Your instructions were to strictly adhere to the blue print and the printed
instructions that went with it? — A. Yes.

By the Chairman :

I

Q. Was the Board aware at the time you had this conference with them then,
just after your appointment as chief engineer, that the engineers on the work had
given a different interpretation to Mr. Lumsden's blue print than that which he
contended should have been given to it? — A. The Board were well aware that
Mr. Lumsden did not agree with the interpretation put on his blue print by the
engineers.

Q. Then the engineers in the field and the chief engineer in the office dif-
fered as to the interpretation to he put on the blue print ? — A. They did. "

Q. To the knowledge of the Commission? — A. Yes,

Q. Did the Commission know that a classification was being made by the
engineers which did not meet with the approval of the chief engineer. — A. They
did.

Q. Did the Board agree with Mr. Lumsden or with the engineers in the
field? — A, That I cannot say,

Q, Did the Board know that Mr. Lumsden refused to sign estimates which
were made up on the interpretation of the engineers in the field. — A. They did.

Q. Did the Board know what the difference between them was? — A. They
must have known, because Mr, Lumsden had been home for some time in Ottawa
before he resigned.

Q. Was he not at La Tuque with the Commission when they went down to
examine that in October? — A. I believe he was.

Q. Lumsden was at La Tuque? — A. He was.

Q. And the Board was there? — A. They were.

Q. Did he point out at that time where the engineers were going wrong? —
A. He wrote them on his return from La Tuque.

Q. Pointing out where in his opinion tlioy were gt>ing wrong? — .\. Not
definitely.

Q. Did he write them at any time pointing out wliorc lie differed from the
engineers? — A. No, he did not.

Q. Did he bring it to their knowledge? — .\. ^]o brouiibt it to their know-
ledge in a vague way in a letter written shortly after liis visit to La Tuque in Octo-
ber. 1907: that letter can be found on ^Tr. l«van's file.

IXrESTIGATIXG COMMISSIOX 383

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. In his letter of October 30,. 190T. to the Commissioners, Mr. Lumsden
says that he does not agree with the interpretation put npon the specifications by-
Mr. Doncet and the other engineers in the field — that is before he made up the
blue print, is it not? — A. Yes.

Q. After he made his interpretation which was accompanied by the blue
print on the 9th of January, 1908, of the classification clauses in the contract, he
claimed that the engineers did not follow his instructions correctlv, did he not? —
A. He did.

Q. He claimed that the engineers were classifying as assembled rock, material
which was not rock? — A. Yes.

Q. And he said that he intended by the assembled rock clause to only in-
clude A. N"ot to my knowledge.

Q. He claimed that in his evidence before the House of Commons did he
not? — A. So far as I know Mr. Lumsden on his tour of arbitration classified
nothing as assembled rock except ledge rock and boulders over a yard.

Q. But he contended, did he not, that nothing should be classified as assem-
bled rock, excepting rock, did he not? — A. He did.

Q. Xow then, when 3'ou were before the Commission to receive your in-
structions yon knew that he had made that contention, that that was the proper
interpretation of assembled rock, did you not? — A. I did not. I never knew
what Mr. Lusmden's contention was until I heard his evidence a year afterwards
at the investigation.

Q. Then that explains why it is that when you received the instructions
from the Commission to follow the Lumsden interpretation you allowed material
to be classified under the head of assembled rock just as it had been done before
you were appointed? — A. That is wiiy.

By Mr. GuteJiiis:

Q. And you were further left to your own resources in the matter of in-
terpreting the Lumsden interpretation? — A. Quite so.

By {lie Clioirman :

Q. There was a great controversy for years, was there not, over what was
solid rock in the specifications? — A. Yes.

Q. The engineers before they visited La Tuque had been classifying as soKd
rock, under the head of '^rock in masses," what they stated was a mixture of
cemented material and boulders of nearly every size? — A. Yes.

Q. And, "as you have said, this was objected to by Mr. "Woods ? — A. Yes,-

Q. Then it appears that the contractors fortified themselves with the opinion
of several leading counsel in Ontario and Quebec? — A. Yes.

Q. And tliese gentlemen gave opinions to their clients in which they stated
that in their opinion the contractors were entitled to have the solid rock classi-
fication for this material? — A. They did.

Q. Now, that was a very important item, was it not? — A. The most
important on the road.

Q. And it was one which it was desirable that the Commission should
obtain the best advice possible upon? — A. It certainly was.

Q. And the Commission was furnished, I believe, 'with copies of the opinions
got bv the contractors from their own lawyers? — A. Yes.

Q. Did the Commission on their part then obtain an opinion from their
own counsel as to the proper interpretation of these specifications? — A. They did
not; at least not that I ever heard of.

Q. Did they accept the opinions of the contractors' counsel? — A. I do
not know whether thev did or not.

984 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. Mr. Lumsden drew up this interpretation, and in his first draft he stated
that the boulders, in order to come under the head of assembled rock, should
measure a cubic foot and upwards, did he not? — ^A. He did.

Q. I have read the letter of the Deputy Minister of Justice and it does not
appear to me that he has given it as his opinion that it was proper to classify
assembled rock under the solid rock heading; did you understand that he had
given an opinion to that effect; he uses the word "if"? — A. I do not know that
I ever studied his letter.

Q. Here is his letter. The letter here dated Ottawa, Gth January, 1908,
from Mr. Newcombe, Deputy Minister of Justice, to the secretary of the Trans-
continental liailvvay Commission. I find it says:

"Referring to your letter of 20th ultimo with wliich you submit the corre-
spondence with regard to the classification of excavated material and the
interpretation of clauses 33, 34, 35 and 36 of the general specifications for con-
struction of the Eastern Division of the National Transcontinental Railway, I
have the honor to state that upon consideration of tlie papers submitted I see no
reason to differ from the classification stated by the chief engineer in his letter to
the commissioners of IGth ultimo except as to the statement that * rock assembled
(the individual pieces of such assembled rock exceeding one cubic foot in size)

such as in the judgment of the engineer may be best removed by blasting,*

is to be classified as solid rock excavation under clause 34. I do not understand
upon what principle the chief engineer limits the size to pieces exceeding one
cubic foot. The specifications speak of rock found in ledge or masses of more
than one cubic yard which in the judgment of the engineer may be best removed
by blasting. If ' rock assembled ' may be regarded as a mass of rock, and if it
may be best removed by blasting, 1 do not see why under the specification it is
material whether the individual pieces exceed or are less than one cubic foot in
size, and if ' rock assembled ' is not regarded as a mass, the minimum limit of size
which can bo classified as solid rock exceeds one cubic yard.

" It seems to me however, that these questions are largely engineering ques-
tions, the solution of which depends principally upon the judgment of the engineer
and having regard to the terms used in the specifications, I must call your atten-
tion also to clause 15 of the Contract which provides that the engineer (that
this term to be construed as defined in clause 2 of the contract) shall be the sole
judge of work and material, and that his decision on all questions in dispute with
regard to work and material shall be final, thus expressly stipulating that such
questions as these shall be submitted to the decision of the chief engineer.

" I wish to say that it is very difficult for me to advise generalhj upon the
interpretation of these specifications, and a general ruling may not infrequently
overlook the peculiar facts or circumstances of an individual case which if stated
might lead io an exception or modification. I would prefer to advise upon any
special case as it may arise, liaving all the particulars and circumstances stated.

" Papers returned herewith.

" I liave the honour to be,

" Sir,

" Your obedient servant,

E. L. NEWCOMBE.

" Deputy Mini,^ter of Jusii-ce."

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 385

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

You will notice that he does not say in that letter that under any conditions
boulders or stones of less than a yard should be classified as solid rock excavation ?
— A. I notice that he uses the word " if ".

Q. So that, so far as you know, although the Commission adopted this
assembled rock interpretation, and although the Commission knew that the con-
tractors had been fortifying themselves by the opinion of counsel, the Commission
never got a legal interpretation of these specifications for themselves? — A. Nat
to my knowledge.

Q. Don't you think they ought to have done so ? — A. I think it would have
been a wise precaution.

Q. Did you ever suggest it to them? — A. No, I was not in a position in
these days to do so,

Q. When you became chief engineer did you ever ask them for a legal inter-
pretation of that specification ? — A. I did not.

Q. You acted on the instructions the Commission gave you? — A. Yes.

By Mr. GuteUus :

Q. In your letter of December 23rd, 1909, to the district engineers, with
reference to the method of keeping records of the various classes of excavation you
were particularly careful to have the solid rock returned under Mr. Lumsden's
diagram known as assembled rock, kept separate, apparently with the object of
keeping the quantity as low as possible, am I right in that? — A. Yes, you will
see also that my instructions are that the division and district engineers are to be
held responsible for any returns made under assembled rock, so that in case of
a dispute later on they would not be in a position to blame the resident engineer.

Q. You expected disputes in the matter of assembled rock? — A. I expected
that as in the past returns under this heading would be disputed by the Grand
Trunk inspecting engineers or by myself.

Q. If you had been chief engineer at the time Lumsden wrote this interpre-
tation would you have made the " assembled rock " item ? — A. I never would
have written any official interpretation of the specifications as I considered that
was absolutely unnecessary.

Q. That is, in general? — A. I do not think that the specifications require
any written interpretation. They are perfectly plain and to me they are all right.
Q. Then, the result of Mr. Lumsden's interpretation would not make the
specifications any plainer than they were originally printed? — A. Mr. Lumsden's
interpretation had a contrary effect. It mixed up the whole business and resulted
in a great deal of material being returned as assembled rock which is not solid
rock.

Q. And should not be paid for as solid rock? — A. And should not be paid
for as solid rock.

Q. In our recent inspection, Mr. Grant, I think I noticed material classified
as assembled rock, and shown on the estimate as solid rock, which was composed
of loose rock material, with a few large boulders, was I right in that? — A. You
were right.

Q. Now, describe the material which we found on District "B " which has
been classified by the engineers as assembled rock, using as far as you can the
terms of the original specification ? — A. On my recent trip over the line I find
cuttings classified as assembled rock in which the material consisted of sandy loam
mixed into which there were boulders of various sizes, rock fra.gments, and por-
tions of shale rock, which, if " assembled rock " had not been allowed these cuttings
would have been returned as follows: All boulders over a cubic yard would have
been classified as solid rock; boulders over a cubic foot and up to a cubic yard
would have been classified as loose rock, and the balance of the material would
either have been classified as loose rock or common excavation according to its
hardness.

123—25

386 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. Do you know whether your records would enable you to determine the
quantity of boulders in excess of a cubic 5^ard or more? — A. I do not know. For
a long time boulder measurements were not got, that is previous to my being
chief engineer, since which time boulder measurements were kept. But, on ques-
tioning the engineers with reference to these boulder measurements they told me
that they were not satisfactory in many cases or they had not confidence in the
men who were measuring the boulders.

Q. Did you not select these boulder measurers? — A. No.

Q. "^Iio selected the men who measured the boulders in these cuts? — A. All
below the rank of resident engineers were nominated by the different commis-
sioners, each man for his own district.

Q. Can you give the names of the commissioners and the districts over which
they had jurisdiction in this respect? — A. Commissioner Mclsaac had jurisdic-
tion over District "A'' which is the Province of New Brunswick; The Hon. Mr.
Parent, Chairman, had jurisdiction over the Province of Quebec, or District "B";
Mr. Calvert had jurisdiction over Districts " E " and " D " in the Province of
Ontario, and Mr. C. A. Young had jurisdiction over District " F " in Manitoba
and Ontario.

By the Chairman:
Q. Each one of them controlled the patronage in his own district? — A. Yes.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. Do I understand that the employees known as boulder measurers were
appointed without the approval of the chief engineer? — A. Yes,

Q. Were these men usually experienced in classification of railway excava-
tion?— A. Not that I know of.

Q. You understand that they were ordinary A. Fellows looking for a

job.

Q. And probably would have been unable to figure the contents of a boulder
if it were a sphere? — A. Yes.

Q. Are they the kind of men who would know anything about geometry? —
A. No, they would not.

Q. Is a knowledge of geometry necessary for measuring rock masses of this
kind? — A. No, I do not think so, but if a fellow was willing and reasonably clever
he could be made a good boulder measurer in a short time by the resident engineer.

Q. By the resident engineer teaching him? — A. Teaching him, provided
that he was willing to do the work as directed.

Q. What was the deficiency of these men generally that caused the engineers
to state to you that they had not confidence in them? — A. The trouble in some
cases was that the men'^so appointed did not look upon the engineers as their
bosses, and were not very particular whether they obeyed instructions or not.

By the Chairman:

Q. Who had power to dismiss them? — A. Claiming that as they were
appointed by the Commissioners they could not be dismissed except by direction
of the Commissioners.

Q. The measurement of boulders is a very important item in the classifica-
tion?— A. Yes, sir.

Q. There are boulders to be found in nearly every part of the country trav-
ersed by the railway excepting Districts " C '' and " D " ? — A. Yes.

Q. Do you agree with us that it is very important that not only reliable but
competent men should have been chosen to make these measurements? — A. Cer-
tainly.

ITTVESTIGATING COMMISSION 38T

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Instead of picking up all over the country men who were, as you say,
just looking for a job? — A, Yes.

Q. Had these boulder measurers it in their power to afEect the classification
very much? — A. They had.

Q. Tell me how they could do it? — A. They could do it by being careless
and not visiting the cuts at frequent intervals to see what boulders were being
moved and measuring each boulder to see that it was a yard or over, and also
seeing that they did not measure the same boulder more than once, by seeing that
the boulders they had measured were removed and put in the dump and not left
to be remeasured when the fellow came back on another trip.

By Mr. Gutelins:

Q. "Wliat check do the resident or higher engineers have of the accuracy of
the reports of boulder measurers? — A. l^one, except what notes they may take
when going through the cutting themselves and investigating at frequent intervals
the boulder measurers' records to see that they correspond with their own notes.

By the Chairman:

Q. Have you known of cases where there have been any improper measure-
ments— did the division engineers instance to you when they were complaining,
any case where the measurements had been unreliabel? — A, Yes.

Q. Can you give us some of them? — A. Some of the division engineers on
District " B " when questioned by me as to why they did not have boulder meas-
urers in certain cuttings, explained that the boulder measurers had not proved
satisfactory to them, that they got more reliable returns by frequently visiting the
cuts themselves and doing any boulder measuring themselves than trusting to
Tom, Dick or Harry, that was sent to them as a boulder measurer.

Q. Then it must necessarily follow, if the resident engineers had to do this
work themselves, that their returns might be more or less inaccurate? — A. Yes.

Q. Because they could not be on the ground all the time to measure the
boulders and they had to estimate the boulders in the various cuttings in theii'
residencies ? — A. Yes.

Q. Xow, if the commission had appointed efficient and reliable men to do
this work it might have afEected the classification very materially, might it not?
A. It would have affected it. I do not know to what extent but at all events
we would have had reliable classification.

Q. You would have had reliable classification? — A. "We would have had
reliable classification instead of percentages.

Q. In the absence of reliable boulder measurers how do the resident engineers
make their classification? — A. The engineers would take notes of the amount
of boulders on each time thp-'- visited the cut and estimate for the material exca-
vated that they did not see.

By Ml-. Gutelins:
Q. Based on the information gathered in their notes? — A. Yes.

By the Chairman :
Q. How long were the boulder measurers on these various districts? — A.
Boulrler measurers have been on more or less for the last three years; some divi-
=ion engineers would have them and others would not.

By Mr. Gutelins:

Q. "Were the boulder measurers supplied whenever the division engineer
asked for them? — A. Willingly.

SSS NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. Were they ever supplied to your knowledge where the division engineer
did not want them? — A. That I cannot say, because I never knew anj-thing
about these appointments. They were all arranged through the district engineer
and the commissioners.

Q. Considerable difficultv was experienced in securing uniform classification
for clay in Districts "C" and "D"?— A. Yes.

Q. By reference to paragraph 35 in the classification the description of loose
rock provides for material that in the judgment of the engineers cannot be
ploughed with a 10-inch grading plough behind a team of six good horses properly
handled — on your inspection did you find the field engineers classifying material
as loose rock which could be ploughed and if so will you give us a description ?-
A. Yes, I found clay classified as loose rock that was ploughed with a 2 and 4
horse and put into the bank with wheel and slush scraper.

Q. And that was classified as what? — A. Classified from 40 to 80 per cent
loose rock.

Q. What did you do as chief engineer? — A. When I was on my arbitration
trip with the chief engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific Eailway and Mr. Schreiber
this classification was all reduced to what the arbitrators considered would be fair
under the specifications. I may say that the reason the engineers gave for so classi-
f3nDg this material was that it was hard and in their opinion could not be ploughed,
in the sense that it was to the advantage of the contractor to plougli it. Tliere was
no doubt that a considerable amount of this material classified as loose rock by the
engineers could have been ploughed with six horses properly handled as specified,
in which case it was common excavation.

Q. You also reduced from loose rock to common excavation a quantity of
soft clay which the engineers had called loose rock? — A. Yes, a considerable
amount of soft clay in District " D " was reduced from loose rock to common
excavation. This soft clay had been classified by the engineers as loose rock
because in their opinion it could not be ploughed from the fact that horses could
not walk in it without becoming mired.

Q. Did you find any frost classification? — A. Yes.

Q. Tell about that?— A." On both Districts "F" and "D" a considerable
amount of frozen clay was classified as loose rock. On having been appointed as
chief engineer I called the commissioners' attention to this and told them that
in my opinion this could not be allowed and that I intended to have all frozen
clay wliich had been clas.-ified as loose nx-k or solid rock, removed from the
estimates.

Q. And that was done? — A. And that was done; and I would like to ex-
plain that when the engineers classified clay as loose rock or solid rock in the
specifications they did so openly.

Q. Openly? — A. Yes. In the case of the frozen material classified on Dis-
trict " F " it was done under the direction of the chief engineer Mr. Lumsden,
and this had been agreed on at a meeting held in the district engineer's office in
Kenora where the chief engineer, the divisional engineers and Commissioner
Young were present. With reference to the classification for frozen material on
District " D " this was done by the district engineer owing to the pressure on him
from Ottawa to have the work rushed during the winter season.

By the Chairman:

Q. What do you mean by the pressure from Ottawa : do you mean the pres-
sure of the commissioners? — A. Owing to the pressure from headquarters, that
is by the commission and chief engineer to have tlio work rnshod during the win-
te.' season.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 389

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. Did you reduce the classification in these items which you have just
described? — A. I did, and I notified the commission that unless I had written
instructions from them no classification would be allowed for frost.

Q. "Why did you not concur with the engineers who classified soft clay as
loose rock? — A. Because in my opinion the specifications for loose rock are con-
trolled by the hardness of the material and not the softness of it. These specifi-
cations are referring to the hard materials, that is, material must be hard and
not soft to be called loose rock.

Q. What do you say to the reason given for classifying loose material on a
steep hill side because it could not be ploughed in the practical sense of the term?
— A. I look upon that as sheer nonsense.

Q. Then, in your opinion, the plough feature of the specification is a test
for hardness? — A. Yes.

Q. And the fact that a six horse team is named in the specification goes
towards showing that it was prescribed as a test rather than as a practical method
of ploughing? — A. I am of opinion that when six horses were specified it was
done with a view of proving that the material must be very hard before it could
be called loose rock and that this was meant as a test more than a practical method
of removing material.

The witness was not further examined.

(XATIOXAL TEANSCONTINENTAL INVESTIGATING COMMISSION:

EVIDENCE TAKEN IN TEANSCONTINENTAL OFFICES,

OTTAWA, NOVEMBER 21st, 1912.)

Hugh D. Lumsden"^ sworn :

Examined hy Mr. GuteliiLS :

Q. You were chief engineer of the Transcontinental Railway between what
dates?— A. From 1904 to July, 1909.

Q. Who prepared the original specifications for the construction of this rail-
way?— A. Well, there were several connected with it: Mr. Butler, Mr. Woods
and myself.

Q. They made the original drafts, and you made some corrections? — A. Yes,
Mr. Woods and Mr. Butler, I think, made the original draft,

Q. Do you remember of having changed the clauses with respect to classifica-
tion in the original specifications? — A. I have no recollection, at the present
moment, of making any changes.

Q. You did, however, make an interpretation, after a certain number of
contracts had been let on the original specifications ? — A. Yes.

Q. As shown in the blue print and explained in your letter of January 30th,
1908 ?— A. Yes.

Q. Before making that interpretation and sending out the blue print, with
whom did you confer? — A. With the Commissioners.

Q. How did you happen to take the matter up after that with Mr. Schreiber?
Did the Commissioners suggest Mr. Schreiber? — A. Yes, my recollection is they
did; they su.irgestod Mr. Schreiber.

Q. And the interpretation which you made was the result of your conference
with Mr. Schreiber? — A. Yes.

390 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. Who drew the original picture for that item number 5 on the blue print?
■ — A. Mr. Schreiber drew that.

Q. The position you took prior to the issuing of that blue print, and in your
subsequent evidence before the House of Commons Investigating Committee, indi-
cates to me that your personal idea of solid rock was and is that to be solid rock
it must be a piece of stone about a cubic yard or larger, is it not? — A. A cubic
yard or larger, yes.

Q. The issuing, then, of the blue print which showed assembled rock, was
intended to be a compromise between your personal ideas and the conditions that
you were confronting at that time? — A. Yes, it was.

Q. Am I right in assuming that item number 5, as shown in this interpreta-
tion, means that the stones can be smaller than a cubic yard? — A. It did mean
that.

Q. Will you tell us how you happened to be persuaded to make this compro-
mise classification? — A. While at La Tuque with the Commissioners on their car,
they brought up the subject of solid rock, the interpretation of the solid rock, and
1 then stated that my interpretation of it was that it meant rock in ledges, or
boulders over a cubic yard, or masses of detached rock over a cubic yard. They all
disagreed with me; that is, the Commissioners and the contractors; and the only
person who sided with me on that occasion was Mr. Woods, assistant chief engineer
of the Grand Trunk Pacific. Then, after returning here, opinions were handed me
by, T think, the Chairman — I cannot be positive who handed me these opinions, of
different K.C.'s on the interpretation of the specification.

Q. Those were the letters from Messrs. Shepley, Lafleur A. Yes, there

were a number of them.

Q. Ritchie, Lacoste and others? — A. I ilo not remember the names of all
of them; I should think there were four or five.

By the Chairman:

Q. What did the Commissioners contend at La Tuque was the proper inter-
pretation in that conversation? — A. That it meant masses of other material than
rock.

By Mr. Gutelius :

Q. The Commissioners argued with you at La Tuque that solid rock meant
material composer! of rock fragments, earth and clay in the interstices? — A. That
it meant masses of other material than rock, other than what I knew as rock.

Bji the Chairman :

Q. What description of material? — A. Clay or the hardpan, or anything
that was in a mass that was hard, I prosumo. I do not think they ever went into
fny detail of what tlie description would be.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. They really wanted you to call the material in that cutting at La Tuque
solid rock? — A. When you say at La Tuque, It was not at La Tuque; it was in
the neighbourhood of La Tuque ; it was not really at La Tuque, because the cut-
ting at La Tuque was sand, but it was south of La Tuque a little bit where this
fliscussion took place. It was on the track of the Quebec & Lake St. John road
before it comes into La Tuque, and we had been over some of the work in that
neighbourhood.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 391

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Let us try to describe the material in the cutting where this discussion
actually occurred; it contained some occasional boulders over a cubic yard? — A.
Probably ten per cent or less; I cannot begin to go into percentages.

Q. Would you say between ten and fifteen per cent of boulders over a cubic
yard? — A. There was a lot of boulders, but I could not say the percentage.

Q. There was a lot of small stone between these boulders? — A. Yes. My
recollection of it is that there were masses, a great many cubic yards in some and
then down to small stones.

Q. And some clay? — A. Yes.

Q. And sand? — A. Not much sand, principally clay and boulders and
masses of rock ; they were not really boulders ; they were more like detached pieces
of rock than boulders; square ends.

Q. They had corners on them? — A. Yes.

Q. These individual pieces could have been removed from a vertical face
with a pick and shovel, provided they were smaller than half a yard? — A. I
believe they could.

Q. That was your opinion ? — A. I do not remember all those particulars, but
1 believe they could.

Q. Eeturning to Ottawa, you were handed by one of the Commissioners,

presumably the Chairman A. I think so; they handed me, or sent them

in to me.

Q. The opinions of many eminent lawyers which were addressed to the con-
tractors?— A. They were. My recollection is they were all addressed to the con-
tractors.

Q. Did they give you any opinions that were addressed to the Commissioners,
or yourself, from other lawyers? — A. After a time I had some communication
with Mr. Newcombe in connection with it.

Q. But not from any outside legal talent ? — A. No.

By the Chairman:

Q. You submitted this interpretation to Mr. Newcombe? — A. Yes.
Q. You got no opinions from anybody, but you did, after the interpretation
was made, submit it to Mr. Newcombe, the deputy minister ? — A. Yes.

By Mr. Gutelius :

Q. Can you tell us in detail how you were advised to check this matter up
with Mr. Schreiber by the Commissioners ? — A. I cannot give you any detail about
it. My recollection is that Mr. Parent suggested I should go up and see Mr.
Schreiber and talk it over with him. That is my recollection of it; T do not
remember particulars at all.

I
By the Chairman :

Q. Did you see Mr. Schreiber before you drafted your interpretation? — A.
Yes.

Q. And then the blue print and the attached letter are the result of your
joint efforts? — A. Mr. Schreiber actually dr-^iw the original — I won't say the
original of this, because I think we made a new tracing of it.

Q. At any rate, the whole diagram, if I may so describe it, was the work of
Mr. Schreiber? — A. The actual diagram was the work of Mr. Schreiber; I rather
think the shale rock might not have been, but I am not positive: I tbink
it is number 6 : I am not sure that that was on Mr. Schreiber's original.

392 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. Did you tell Mr. Schreiber that the Commissioners contended for the
inclusion of assembled rock in the solid rock classification ? — A. I cannot say that
I did. I explained to Mr. Schreiber the whole situation. I told him about the
meeting at La Tuque — ^at least, I am under the impression that I did. I would
not like to swear I did, for the simple reason that I do not recollect the conversa-
tion, but I am pretty well satisfied I did.

By Mr. Gutelius :

• Q. You made him familiar with the situation as it was at that time? — A.
That is my recollection of it.

Q. Then did Mr. Schreiber have any personal view as to how that clause
sliould be interpreted, or did he only endeavour to put the views of the Commis-
sion ? — A. I won't say he put the views of the Commission ; I did not see him with
the Commissioners.

Q. But I mean the views of the Commission as explained to you? — A. I
cannot say that.

Q. Was that his own A. This was his own sketching. I know that.

Q. You do not recollect what his own opinion was as to how that was to be
interpreted? — A. No, I cannot say that I do, but that is what he drew up.

Q. Was this — as was stated in what was called the Lumsden investigation —
was this assembled rock classification being actually carried out on the Trans-
continental before the blue print came on? — A. Oh, I do not think so; I do not
know. I think there had been a lot of it classified on some sections, but not on
this, certainly not.

Q. But in the same way? — A. I think there had been a lot of stuff classi-
fied as rock which I did not consider rock.

Q. What brought up the controversy, or conversation, or argument at La
Tuque? — A. My going over the cuttings, and seeing material that I did not con-
sider rock being classified as rock.

Q. Then you actually pointed out to the Commission material being classified
as solid rock that, in your judgment, should not have been so classified? — A. Yes.

Q. And you wished that to be reclassified, did you not? — A. Well, I thought
it should have been.

Q. That was what brought up the controversy between you and the Com-
mission?— A. To the best of my recollection.

Q. And the Commission, as I understand you, agreed that the classification
should stand as it was or at least argued that it should stand as it was, and you
disagreed with them? — A. Yes.

Q. Did you make your personal views clear to Mr. Schreiber when he and
you were discussing this interpretation? — A. I believe I did, but I do not recol-
lect the conversations that took place at all. I saw Mr. Schreiber half a dozen
times backwards and forwards.

By the Chairman :

Q. You returned from La Tuque, and Mr. Parent either sent to you, or
handed to you, the opinions of several counsel given to the contractors? — A. Yes.

Q. You read those opinions? — A. Yes.

Q. Did they convince you that you were wrong — A. I cannot say they did
vonvince me I was wrong.

Q. Or did they weaken your conviction ? — A. I thought that, all coinciding,
there must be something in it, though I could not see it.

Q. Did you so express yourself to ]\Ir. Parent? — A. I cannot recollect
distinctly.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 393

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. You must have, because he then told you to go and see Mr. Schreiber?
— A. Yes. I felt doubtful whether there might not be something in their con-
tention.

Q. Then you naturally would have told the whole case to Schreiber? — A. I
presume I did; I believe I did.

Q. But at this length of time you cannot positively recall it? — A. I am
satisfied I did, but I do not remember the occasion of doing it; I would not like
to be positive.

By Mr. Gntelius :

Q. Your relations with Mr. Schreiber have always been most kindly? — A.
Yes.

Q. And in a discussion of that character you would give him the benefit of
all your personal ideas? — A. Oh, I think so.

By the Chairman:

Q. 1 suppose you appreciated, did you not, that if this assembled rock in-
terpretation was given these specification?, it would largely increase the cost of
grading this road? — A. I believe it would.

Q. From your knowledge of the road and what 3^ou saw, it would cover a
great mass of material that would otherwise go in as loose or common, would it
not? — A. Yes.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. We find that in distinguishing between the common excavation and loose
rock that the plough-test clause was interpreted to mean a method of removing
the material, rather than a test of hardness. Did you understand that the six-
horse team clause was a test of hardness ? — A. I did — a test of hardness.

Q. Eeferring to your interpretation in that blue print, did you show this to
the Commissioners before sending it out? — A. Oh, yes, sir.

Q. "Was it what they wanted? — A. I do not remember the details of the
conversation when I showed it to them, but I am satisfied I showed it to them and
they approved of it.

Q. So that the result of the meeting at La Tuque, from the Commissioners'
standpoint, was that they had their way ? — A. Well, I cannot say what their stand-
point was, except that they would not agree with me in the interpretation I made
at La Tuque. They never themselves, that I remember, made any attempt at a
classification of their own, but they simply would not agree with me that that solid
rock meant only rock a yard or over.

Q. You are familiar with the little book of instructions, a reprint of which
was issued over your signature, dated January, 1907? — A. I cannot say that I
am very familiar with it now.

Q. You know that there was such a book? — A. Yes.

(}. When you came on the work you found a book of this character had
already been written by Mr. Butler? — A. I think Mr. Butler wrote it, to the
best of my recollection. I am not positive about that.

Q. You will notice by paragraph 26 of the instructions, the curvature is
limited to six degrees? — A. Yes.

Q. If a large amount of money could have been saved by the introduction
of an eight-degree curve, and that matter had been brought to your attention,
would you have allowed the use of an eight-degree curve? — A. If the Commis-
sioners approved of it.

394 Nj^TIOXAL TJiAXSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE V. 1914

Q. You "would have taken it up with the Commissioners ? — A. Yes.

Q. But personally there is a point in economy in grading that you would
have recommended using an eight-degree curve? — A. I think very possibly I
would. There were no cases came up where any recommendation was made. There
is no doubt these instructions were issued with the idea that the engineers in the
field should not use more than six-degree curves.

Q. And the other instructions contained m the same paragraph apply with
equal force? — A. I believe that is the same.

Q. In the matter of the pusher grade ascending westward from the St.
Francis Eiver, the ruling westbound grade is six-tenths? — A. It was to be, yes.

Q. The pusher grade to hte west of the St. Francis River was built on a one-
point-one grade? — A. I believe so.

Q. If it had been built on a steeper grade, it would have reduced the filling
across the valley next adjoining the bridge, would it not ? — A. Yes, by increasing
the grade you would have reduced the amount of the work,

Q. Did you pass upon the rate of grade on that hill ? — A. I remember having
a profile from Mr. Doucet of that grade.

Q. Did Mr. Doucet give you any comparisons between the one-point-one, as
finally approved, and a steeper grade ? — A. I cannot recollect that he did. I can-
Jiot remember that he did.

Q. You would probably remember if he did? — A. I am not sure. I do not
recollect. He might have and might not.

By the Chairman:

Q. You know that there is a large amount of overbreak allowed to the con-|
tractors on this line? — A. Yes.

Q. Overbreak is not usually allowable at all? — A. We used not to allow it. i

Q. But can you conceive of any conditions which could arise on this line
which would justify the allowance of overbreak or where would you allow it. if
you allowed it at all ? — A. If I could get out of it, I would not allow it at all.

Q. In what case would you be justified in allowing it? — A. When the
material was required to make up embankments where cheaper material could not]
be got.

Q. Then if you had to allow overbreak in such cases as you indicate, accord-]
ing to this specification that overbreak is to be classified after it is shot, and as it
lies in the cut: that is right, is it not? — A. Yes.

Q. So that in shooting this rock would you expect that the pieces would be]
all a yard or larger? — A. No.

Q. That is an impossible condition to arise? — A. Yes.

Q. Did you ever know of overbreak being in a cut all of a greater size than]
a cubic yard? — A. I cannot answer that. I can say that I have seen overbreak]
where it was all over a cubic yard, where it was the whole hill side of a cut.

Q. It slipped off?— A. Yes.

Q. A special case, but generally speaking, the rock, when it is exploded byj
the shots, comes down in large and small pieces, some over and some under a cubic]
yard? — A. Yes. As a rule the small pieces are near where the charges are, and]
tlie big pieces come where the overbreak is, as a rule.

Q. So that vou would expect part of that overbreak would be classed
solid and part as loose rock, following the rule laid down in this specification ?-
A. Yes.

Q. Do you think there was a lot more overbreak allowed on this railway thax
should have been allowed? — A. I think so, I think specially in the case where itj
was deliberately wasted, blown over the sides and wasted at the top, and borrowed]
material at the ends of the cut to make it up.

Q. You saw that yourself? — A. Yes, I cannot give the .place now.

IXVElSTIGATIXG COMlinSIO^' 39»

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. What district was tliat? — A. That was on the west.
Q. District F, McArthur's contract? — A. Yes.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q, Would you care to give us an idea as to what would be a reasonable per-
centage to allow' in the matter of overbreak ? — A. Oh, I could not give you a
percentage. My own idea is that I should want to have nothing to do with over-
break. I had nothing to do with overbreak except in the last ten years. The
Commission declined to pay for anything, unless it was a straight case of a slide.

By the Chairman:

Q. That is what the specifications provide for? — A. That was my intention
originally.

Q. Clause 38 : " Materials in slips, slides and subsidences, extending beyond
slopes in cuttings will not be paid for, unless, in the opinion of the engineer, such
occurrences were beyond the control of the contractor and not preventible by the
use of care and diligence " ? — A. Yes.

Q. Do you take that to be overbreak? — A. That refers to what would be
really unavoidable overbreak, which, in case of taking off a toe of stratified rock,
you take out the toe and the whole thing comes out. That is called legitimate
overbreak.

Q. Is it not material that slides into a cut and not material that is thrown
out? It is material that falls in, and not material that goes out? — A. Yes, that
is what it meant — the material that falls in and not what is thrown out.

(Adjourned for 1^^ hours).

(After adjournment).
By Mr. Gutelius :

Q. On September 13th, 1905, you wrote to Mr. Hoar, then engineer in
charge of Quebec Bridge connections, as follows:— "In reply to yours of the 11th
instant, re providing for double track from Quebec Bridge westerly to near Cap
Kouge Viaduct, you had better provide for such, using 29 feet for width of top of
embankment " and so forth ? — A. Yes.

Q. How did you liappen to authorize the construction of double track between
these two points? — A. My recollection of it is that the Canadian N"orthern were
to join that track a little east of Cap Eouge Viaduct, and it was done with the
idea of accommodating them as well as the Transcontinental; that is my recollec-
tion of it.

Q. Do you remember of any contract or agreement made ^vith the Canadian
Northern? — A. I do not know of any; I do not remember any agreement.

Q. You know that the Act provides for a single track railway — A. Yes.

Q. And that it would require some special arrangement to build double
track? — A. Well, if it was for any distance, I should think it would; that "is
three miles, is it not? With a yard as they proposed to have it at St. Foye, by
the time you come to the end of the yard tracks, there is not very much of a
double track.

Q. Do you think you authorized that on account of a prospective deal with
the Canadian ISTorthern? — A. Whatever I did, I did it after consulting the
Commission, I did not do it off my own bat.

396

NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. So that you are satisfied you did it under ^the authority of the Board? —
A. I am satisfied the Board was aware of it, and I cannot remember now whether
it was not done through their instructions. I cannot recollect the instructions, but
it was done, at any rate, with their knowledge.

Q. Iieading the correspondence might give you some idea? — A. That is my
recollection of it, just as I say; that I understood that the Canadian Northern
were to utilize that line to get across the Quebec Bridge.

Q. And you would not have authorized the construction of double track off
your own bat? — A. I do not think so. I am satisfied I would not do it, except
so far as the siding was concerned, and have it run up to the limits of the St.
Poye yard.

Q. But this being only three miles, you are quite satisfied this order had
the concurrence of the Commissioners? — A. No.

Q. "\¥hat was your idea of the proper method to enter Winnipeg? — A. I
always advocated that we should go in along with the Canadian Northern, crossing
the C.P.r?. alongside of that, practically making one signalman cover the three lines
south of the C.P.E., St. Boniface yards.

Q. How did the location for the shops, which occurred under your jurisdic-
tion, come about? Who suggested that location for shops? — A. I do not know
■who suggested it.

By the Chairman :

Q. They were located in your time, were they? — A. Yes.

Q. Did you personally have anything to do with the location of them? — A.
Not as far as getting the land is concerned. They had an offer of a large block of
land there and they took it.

Q. Did you know they had to bring water all the way from Winnipeg, and
the sewage all the way back ? — A. At that time we did not expect to have to bring
the water from \^'innipeg. They had a flowing well right on that property, but
the water turned out so hard it was no good for engine purposes, and they had
to take it from Winnipeg.

Q. Try and give us something as definite as you can about the suggestion
for that location? — A. I cannot. I simply do not remember who suggested it,
ov whether they had options ; there was a lot of land they had in view.

Q. Did you suggest it? — A. I never suggested it.

Q. The correspondence shows that the first letter written about that location
■of the shops was written by you? — A. Yes.

Q. That is the reason I want you to try and recollect? — A. I did not want
to locate it on those long narrow locks — what they call the river locks; they were
about 600 feet wide.

Q. At any rate, someone else found that location and submitted it to you? —
A. Yes. The yard was the thing that was contemplated in the first instance and
not the shops. I do hot remember whetlier the shops were talked of at the first
start. It was after the thing had been going a while that the question of the shops
came up.

Q. Had you known that the shops were going to be located on that property,
would it have affected your judgment in the location? — A. I do not think it
would at that time. I think it might, if I had known we were going to have so
much trouble getting water, but at that time I imagined we were goin;i to get any
quantity of water, because there was one splendid flowing well on that property,
and I thought when they got one there would be no trouble in getting more, but
the water turned out to be very bad.

Q. Wore there other locations suggested by the parties buying land besides
this one? — A. Yes, there was one I remember; it was somewhere on those long,
narrow locks, nearer St. Boniface, but I think they were owned by Mackenzie, not
William, but TJod ^fackenzie, and T remember something being talked of the
shops goin'jf there. Tlioy wc^re trying to sell that land for shops to the Commission.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION ' 397

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. And this Transcona location was the only other one in addition that came
up? — A. That is the one I recollect now. This other is close to an old
road that ran out there, I cannot remember the name. It was the road that ran •
out about a short distance east of where their first track ran on to the Canadian
Northern. I think that branch ran out to a gravel pit. It is the Dundee branch.
My recollection is that this land they talked of for a station was in here somewhere.

Q. That is about half way between AYinnipeg and the terminal yards? — A.
Yes; I do not know the exact position.

Q. ^\Tio had the purchase of this land in hand? — A. I do not know the
man's name. Do you mean actually doing the negotiating up there?

Q. Yes, which of the Commissioners? — A. Mr. Young.

Q. Is it the modern railway practice, in the construction of new lines, and
reducing the gradients in existing lines, to take advantage of the momentum of
moving trains to climb short grades or inclines whose rate of grade is in excess of
the rate of grade on the long ruling grade ? — A. I believe that is the practice now.

Q. Is the object of introducing these short grades or inclines to reduce the
cost of grading the railway? — A. Yes.

Q. And is it a fact that where they are introduced the efficiency of the road
is maintained ? — A. That I am not prepared to say. I am not an operating man ;;
practically, I am not an operating man.

Q. Is it believed among engineers generally that their efficiency is maintained^
without pledging your own opinion on it ? — A. I have not had anything to do with
operation, and I am not prepared to state.

Q. Is the location of the railway influenced by the introduction of momentum
grades? — A. As I personally have not laid out any roads with momentum grades,.
I am not prepared to answer that question. I quite fancy it would be, but I have
not been in the habit of using them. I think, as far as I can recollect, momentum
grades have all come in within the last eight or ten years.

Q. Momentum grades have come in, as a matter of fact, have they not, since
they have been adopting the lower grades? — A. They have come in, within my
knowledge, in the last eight or ten years.

Q. But before eight or ten years ago, it was the practice to have one per cent,
grades ? — A. Yes.

Q. And so, as a result of reducing the grade, they have introduced the
momentum grade? — A. I think that is correct.

Q. Would you not say, speaking generally, that if you were instructed^ as the
engineer of a Transcontinental railway, to use momentum grades, that it would be
necessary for you to so advise your staff when they were locating the line? — A.
I should think so. If I was going to use momentum grades, I certainly would have
to instruct them to that effect.

Q. Because the location of the road would be influenced by that fact, would
it not? — A. Yes.

Q. Would you agree with the statement that in the building of this railway,
if the policy of introducing momentum grades had been adopted, it would, in all
probability, have made a considerable saving in the cost of the grading of the road ?
— A. I imagine it would make a saving in the cost, but I am not prepared to say
that it would add to the efficiency of the road.

Q. Because you say you are not in a position to give an opinion on that? — A.
No.

Q. You mentioned a few moments ago that you were not an operating man?
— A. No.

Q. There are two classes of engineers, are there not; those whose experience
is entirely confined to the constructing of railways? — A. Yes.

S.'dS NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. And another who have the experience of constructing and operating rail-
ways ? — A. Yes.

Q. Can you tell me whether or not the Commission consulted, or employed, to
advise you and them, any engineer of standing, wlio had that double experience ? —
A. I cannot say that they did. I do not know what they call Mr, Butler.

Q. So far as you know, they did not? — A. No.

Q. Do you not think it would have been a very prudent step for them to take
to have given you the assistance of a man who had a large experience in operating
railways? — A. I do not know; I cannot say that.

Q. On this very question of momentum grades, he might have given you some
very valuable inf ormation,'.might he not ? — A. He might.

Q. During your time, at all events, there was no operating man? — A. Mac-
Pherson was an operating man.

Q. No operating man other than Mr. MacPherson employed on tlie staff by
reason of his having been an operating man? — A. Not that I recollect of.

Q. Did you consult Mr. MacPherson on this question of momentum grades?
— A. I am not sure that I did ; I believe I talked to Mr. MacPherson about it.

Q. Did the Commission consider the question officially at all? — A. Not that
I remember.

By Mr. Gutelius :

Q. In the matter of height of embankment in level prairie country, how
high above the surrounding country would you say the base of rails should be, to
give reasonable protection against snow? — A. Two and a half to three feet.

Q. So that if a profile staying ^nthin four-tenths and six-tenths grades had
been laid down, so as to give 2^ to 3 feet above the surrounding country, that would
be as efficient a railway as if those embankments were raised higher? — A. I think
so, assuming that you are within the gradient limits.

Q. Now, as to wooden bridges ; in the early days of construction, we know,
from the correspondence, that you advocated the construction of wooden bridges?
A. Yes.

Q. You would have built, if that policy had been adopted, wooden trestles
over depressions in the roadbed that could not have been filled with material
removed from adjoining cuttings, or be filled with common excavation that could
have been borrowed within the short haul, would you not? — A. Yes, with the
understanding that there would be no price for extra haul.

Q. Would the construction of such trestles have interfered mth the efficiency
of the railway in the matter of transporting trains — the size of trains? — A. No, I
do not think so.

Q. Is the custom of constructing wooden bridges, as we have just described,
the usual practice on new railroads in Canada? — A. Yes^ in unsettled countries.

Q. It would be reasonable to suppose that these trestles could be filled later
on, if it were so desired, for less money tiian it would cost during original con-
truction? — A. Yes. "We had a bid of 25 cents from the G.T.P., whereas our con-
tract prices for train fills were from 45 to 58. Of course tliat included the temporary
trestles.

Q. In deferring the filling of these trestles, is there any advantage to be
gained in the matter of the size of the openings ? — A. Yes.

Q. Just explain that, will you? — A. Well, in an unsettled country there arc
very few know tlie sizes the streams may get to in the spring, and if they have a
good big open trestle across it, they have a number of years for the section men and
others passing to get an idea of the volume of that stream, and to avoid putting in
a structure that is too big or too small.

IXVESriGATING COMMISSION 399

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. The probability is that if this policy had been adopted on the Trans-
continental that the size of the structures built in eight or ten years would be more
economical than those built now ? — A. That would be the natural result.

Q. Would the cost of the railway have been influenced, if that policy had been
adopted, on account of the further knowledge that the engineers would have had
concerning soft muskegs and foundations for structures? — A. Oh, yes. If the
country was cleared for a number of years it would certainly give the soil a chance
to dry out and give them a chance to know something about it.

Q. So that many of the slips and slides we have had might have been avoided ?
—A. Some of them might have been avoided.

Q. "Who do you consider is responsible for the policy of not building wooden
trestles on this railway? — A. I should say the Commissioners.

Q. The fire risk in connection with trestles on this railway would not have
influenced you in abandoning their use ? — A. N"ot in abandoning their use.

Q. How would you meet that danger ? — A. By clearing away all inflammable
material round the base of the trestles, and clearing the land out a little further
for that purpose.

Q. You would have cleared it so that it would be impossible for them to start
a fire? — A. I would not say impossible; I would say improbable.

Q. In your discussion with the commissioners, did you make it clear to them
as to the large amount of money that might be saved in original construction, if
wooden trestles had been used? — A. Xo, I do not remember any discussions with
them on the actual saving that was going to be effected.

Q. Don't you feel that you put up a proper case? — A. I did; I felt so at
the time, but, talking now, I do not remember the particulars. Mr. Woods and I
were quite in accord in the matter, and wanted to put in timber trestles.

By the Chairman:

Q. Do you think this Commission ever took the question of economy seriously
into consideration at all in the construction of this road? — A. There were lots of
things I thought could be more economically done.

Q. Did they ever, to your knowledge, seriously consider the question of
economy ? — A. I do not recollect any glaring cases of it.

By Mr. Gutelius :

Q. The Commission employed the engineers to do this work? — A. Yes.
Q. And not you ? — A. No.

By the Chairman:

Q. You had not a free hand to choose your staff? — A. No.

Q. You simply approved the men they suggested? — A. Yes. In the first
start, when Mr, Wade was Chairman, I dare say I suggested a number of names;
in the first start, of men I happened to know, and latterly I had to suggest men I
wanted to get, to the Board. If they had any names they would always send them
in to me for approval.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. And they did not always get your approval for appointments in really
important cases ? — A. Yes.

Q. With regard to the wooden bridge proposition, if the wooden bridge policy
had been adopted, how much time do you think might have been saved in the con-
struction of this railway? — A. I think considerable time could have been saved.

Q, Two seasons? — A. They could have gained at least one; they might have
gained two, but I would not like to say.

400 NATIONAL TRANtiCONTINENTAL liAILWAT

4 GEORGE v., 191+

Q. In connection with the letting of the contract for District F. to J. D.
McArthur, the tenders for this work were advertissed for in the regular way; bids-
were taken by the commissioners and opened. Were you present when the bids were
opened? — A. I think not. The reason I say tha^ is that when the first few con-
tracts were let I certainly was not, because I did not know who the contractors were.

Q. You only had the information by numbers of the tenderers? — A. "Yes.

Q. Which would indicate that you were not present when tliose numbers were
allotted? — A. No, I was not present. I did not see the original tenders at that
time.

Q. You were given a form on which the unit prices were shown opposite the
items, and each of those forms was given a number ? — A. Yes.

Q. Now, in the contract for District F., the form that was given to you had
a number of blank places? — A. Yes.

Q. Which were filled in with red ink ? — A. Yes.

Q. Do you know how these prices happened to be filled in tliat way? — A.
They were filled in by me ; to the best of my recollection, I filled them in personally,
myself.

Q. This character of work was unusual, in moneying out tenders, was it not,,
to fill in blank items ? — A. Yes, it was unusual ; I was not in the habit of doing it.

Q. Did you do this off your own bat? — A. No, I was instructed to do it. I
called attention to the fact that one of these tenders had not any prices in for a
number of articles they were bound to use^a lot of.

Q. Do you remember how that instruction was given to you and by whom ? —
A. I cannot remember who gave the instructions directly, whether it was the
Chairman or Mr. Young, or whether it was before the whole Board; I do not
remember the particulars of it.

Q. ^Tien you filled the tenders in, did you have any knowledge that it was-
McArthur's tender you were filling? — A. Not that I am aware of; I may have
suspected whose tenders they were, but I had no direct knowledge. I have no
recollection of knowing ; I did not try to know, in fact.

Q. Did you notice after the bids were moneyed out and comparisons made,,
that the tender in which you put the red figures was the winning tender, the lowest
tender? — A. Oh, I knew afterwards, of course.

Q. Did you not feel a little nervous over fixing up a tender that developed
into the winning tender? — A. I cannot say that I remember feeling nervous about
it. I was doing it under instructions from the men who were letting the contract,,
and I did not think very much about it at the time; at least, that is my recollection.

Q. You felt that you were moneying this out under instructions ? — A. I was.

Q. And that you were relieved of the responsibility in connection with the
■^ork?— A. Yes. My recollection is I put in figures that I was using and had
used for making an estimate of what it should cost. My recollection is I put in
those same figures moneying that out.

Q. Did you have anything to do with discussing witli McArthur whether
he would accept these or new figures that you put in ? — A. I do not recollect
discussing it with McArthur.

Q. You understand it would be necessary for his attention to be called to the
fact? — A. Oh, yes, he had to sign the schedule, I presume, when he signed the
contract.

Q. And someone should have called his attention to the fact that this schedule
was not the one contained in his tender? — A. I presume so; he must have done.

Q. But you do not know about his being advised of it at all? — A. I do not
personally know. I do not recollect having had anything to do with it.

IlfYESTIGATING COMMISSION 401.

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Eeferring to the detail of the tender, we find that in the returns made in
your office that under item 10, " Pile delivered, as per engineer's bill " and item 11,
" piling driven " that each of the figures quoted were moneyed out without refer-
ence to the words shown on McArthur's tender " Driving only " ? Did you know
McArthur's tender showed " Driving only " on it ? — A. I do not see that that
" Driving only " would affect it.

Q. Did it not strike you, in looking over these various tenders, that when
tender number one showed 35 cents for " Piling delivered " and 65 cents for " Piles
driven ", and tender number 2 showed 20 cents for " Piles delivered, and 35 cents
for "Piling driven", tender number 3, 22 cents for "Piling delivered" and 24
cents for " Piling driven ", that when tender number 4, which is McArthur's,
showed 25 cents for " Piling delivered " and 15 cents for " Piling driven ", with
the words " Driving only " attached, that there must have been some misunderstand-
ing between the people who made the tenders? — A. I do not remember noticing
anything of the kind.

By the Chairman :

Q. When they moneyed out McArthur's bid on the piles, they moneyed out
the 15 cents in a column, and beside that, they moneyed out the 40 cents for the
other amount. They did not split other amounts ; McArthur split his ? — A. They
are aD split all the way through.

By Mr. Gutelius : *

Q. Will you answer my former question ;" did it not strike you, in looking
over these various tenders, that when tender number 1 showed 35 cents for piling
delivered and 65 cents for piles driven, and tender number 2 showed 20 cents for
piles delivered and 35 cents for piling driven, tender number 3, 22 cents for piling
delivered and 24 cents for piling driven, that when tender 4, which is McArthur's
showed 25 cents for piling delivered and 15 cents for piling driven, with the words
" driving only " attached, that there must have been some misunderstanding be-
tween the people who made the tenders ? — A. " Driving only " was considered all
the way through; that is under item 11 "Piling driven"; that is mv recollection
of it.

By the Chairman :

Q. That fellow was charging 65 cents for drinng those piles? — A. It
may be a great deal more than it is worth.

Q. It is not what he intended ? — A. It may not be.

By Mr. Gntelius :

Q. In order to sho* that the question we are discussing was not unknown, at
that time, I would refer you to your letter January 2nd, 1907, to the commissioners,
in which you say, " I also allowed the 20 cents per lineal foot for piles delivered, as
well as the 40 cents per foot for piles driven, having found, in making a com-
parison of the tenders, that they had been so computed, except where specially
mentioned otherwise"? — A. I do not remember that.

Q. Don't you mean in that, that this piling driven was this special case
referred to in that letter? You are not sure about that? — A. No. This letter
evidently refers to a new deal made with the contractors in connection with hauling
stuff by train. This letter was written in connection with that deal down in Quebec,
in regard to train haul material and temporary trestle.

12.3— 26

402 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q, Were there any other tenders in which the words " Driving only " were
used ? — A. I do not know ; I do not remember it even in that.

Q. To refresh your memory further that the items 10 and 11 were not clearly
understood, I would ask you, why did you change the reading of the specifications
in flie 1909 reprint, to make the items read " Piles delivered " and " Piling
driven " ? — A. I do not remember why.

Q. This arrangement is clear, is it not? — A. I do not remember. What is
the old one?

Q. " Piling delivered will include piling furnished by the contractor at the
bridge site, as ordered by the engineer, and will be paid for by the lineal foot, but
any lengths in excess of those ordered will not be paid for ". " Piling driven will
be paid for at the specified rate per lineal foot in the finished structure, which will
include all work of any kind in connection therewith " ? — A. " But will not include
the piles themselves " ; that is added.

Q. It has been put in to make it perfectly plain as to what was actually meant,
although your interpretation of the old specification and the new one is the same?
—A. Yes.

Q. In the matter of letting the contract number 18„ from mileage 162.5 to
mileage 237.5, District F, the contract was finally awarded to Fauquier Brothers;
that is north of Lake Nipigon ? — A. Yes.

Q. In making a comparison of the tenders, I notice that tender number 2
shows solid rock $1.75, loose rock 65, common excavation 31? — A. Yes.

Q. Whereas tender number 3, on which tlie contract was finally given shows
solid rock $1.80, loose rock 60, common excavation 38? — A. Yes.

Q. The fact that the contract was given to tender number 3 at $1.80 for solid
rock, which is five cents more than tender number 2, and common excavation 38
cents, whereas the other tender showed 31, suggested that probably some other
item in these tenders influenced the totals; that was natural, was it not? — A. Yes.

Q. By referring to item 74 (e), removal of moss, I notice there was estimated
by the engineers 665^400 cubic yards of moss? — A. Yes.

Q. For whicli tender number 2 bid 35 cents, tender number 4 bid 32 cents,
but tender number 3, which received the contract, bid 12 cents? — A. Yes.

Q. Did you notice those items ? — A, I have no recollection of noticing them.

Q. Now that your attention is called to 665,000 yards of moss on 75 miles of
railway, does it not occur to you that that is an inflamed figure? — A, It looks
very big.

Q. If your attention had been called to the information which we have just
shown you, would you have done anything about it? — A. I could not say whether
I would or would not, because I cannot remember how that was going out, except
it came in from the engineers on the work.

Q. Assuming that it did come in from the engineers on the work, and your
attention had been called to it, and recognizing, as you must have done, that it
would influence these bids something like $200,000, you would have paid attention
to it and looked into the matter? — A. Yes. Tliis is the first I recollect seeing
that.

By ike Chairman:

Q. Could you conceive that tlicre would be that much moss in that country?
— A. We were led to believe in the first start that there was a great deal more
moss in that country than there turned out to be — more soft bottom, I mean. TherQ
was generally moss on top of clav, and only two or three feet of it, and no muskeg
at all.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 403

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. I M-ish you could answer me fairly directly in regard to that, that if you
had known that that large amount was there, that you would have given this
matter attention ? — A. I presume the information I had at the time that we made
up the quantities was that that was the amount. I cannot recollect anything about
it at all.

Q. Here is a letter dated October 14th, 1912, from T, S. Armstrong, which
reads as follows : — " With regard to moss, this is Ihe one item in the schedule that
was never seriously considered. It was never mentioned in the return of quantities
by the locating engineers, and personally I knew nothing of what quantity there
might be, but in my travels to the locating parties, I knew that in some places in
the woods it was a couple of feet deep, and as this item was in schedule form 89,
we took the profile, and on level swamp country I simply add enough moss to
cover, in case it might have to be moved. The moss was only moved and wasted
when found necessary in shallow embankments: also on original estimates the
yardage was not deducted from earth quantities ". It would appear from this
letter that Mr. Armstrong would have .taken that 665,000 yards item into account ?
— A. I forget whether it was on that section or not.

Q. I understand he had charge of the locating parties and made the original
estimates ? — A. I cannot say where the quantities came from : I do not remember.

Q. In the tenders and in the contract is included several items for which
prices were not given. I have in mind engine houses? — A. Yes.

Q. "Was it your understanding that the engine houses really would go with
the grading contracts when these specifications were drawn? — A. I do not recol-
lect that the engine houses were mentioned at all. I do not think at the time those
contracts were let tliere were any plans that they could bid on. That is my
recollection. I do not think they were included, because I do not think there was
a plan of an engine house at that time, and they could not tender. I do not sup-
pose it was intended to cover it.

Q. But the contractors subsequently held to it that they must be contractors
for the en":ine houses on force account, or on some basis that might be agreed
upon? — A. If we were including those tilings we should have had a price in the
schedule for them.

Q. Your opinion is that it was not fair to hold those under the contract ? — A.
Xo, but if the contractor saw fit to do the work, we might let him have it after-
wards, but I do not think that the engine houses or section houses were covered in
this contract, because no prices were given.

Q. "With reference to a proposed point 65 grade west of La Tuque, you
remember making a recommendation to the commissioners that you be allowed to
construct this La Tuque pusher grade? — A. Yes. That was an eastbound grade.

Q. You felt when you made that recommendation that it was a proper,
economical thing to do ? — A. Yes.

Q. Why did you not do it? — A. Because we were not allowed to do it.

(EVIDENCE TAKEN IX X.T.I?. OFFICES).

Ottawa, March 28th, 1911.

Hugh D. Lumsden", recalled : —

By Mr. Guielius:

Q. Were you ever given to understand by the Commissioners that you were
limited to expenditure in connection with the construction of the railway, so far
as your department was concerned? — A. Xot that I recollect of.

404 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q, When you accepted and approved the specitieations, was it not with the
understanding that the interpretation so far as solid rock was concerned, should
be the same as tliat to wliich you had previously been accustomed? — A. I under-
stood it so.

Q. The instructions to engineers contained in the little book, in the matter
of curvature, limited the curvature to six degrees for main tracks ? — A. Yes.

Q. In approving these insf^a-uctions, was it that six degree curves should be
adopted, no matter what the cost of the railway should be, at these points of curva-
ture?— A. The six-degree limit of curvature was given in order to limit the
engineers on the ground from making any alignment, using anything more than
six-degree curves, but had special cases been brought to ray notice, I would have
considered whether the use of somewhat sharper curvature might, owing to the
great saving in expense, have been adopted.

Q. You understood that to increase any single curve on the main line over
six degree would have required the approval of the Commissioners? — A. Yes.

Q. And the Grand Trunk Pacific?— A. Yes.

Q. The reason for that being that the Commissioners and the Grand Trunk
Pacific had approved of these instructions? — A. Yes; well, I don't know about
the instructions; I do not know definitely whether they approved of them or not,
but it was an understood thing we were not to exceed six degrees.

Q. Was it not understood by you that they did approve these instructions
because they did not object to them ? — A. I do not think their signature was ever
obtained to them that I remember of.

Q. But you understood they approved those instructions? — A. Generally,
I believe they did. I have no recollection now whether any objection had been
raised or not.

Q. In the matter of your interpretation of the solid rock specification, in
which you introduced what has been known as assembled rock, item number 5 of
your blue print, in view of the position which you had taken in connection with
solid rock classification in the correspondence and discussion, and in the Lumsden
enquiry, will you tell us why you made this interpretation ? — A. To conciliate the
Commissioners and the contractors, I consented to this interpretation, although 1
never personally agreed with it.

Q. In connection with the purchase of the surveys, plans, profiles and note-
books from the Grand Trunk Pacific, what proportion of those surveys were of any
use to you in locating the National Transcontinental Railway? — A. From
Winnipeg to a point, say sixty to a hundred miles, or thereabouts, east of the north
end of Lake Nipigon.

Q. You did not make any use of the surveys from that point to North Bay ?
—A. No.

Q. Considerable money might have been saved in this railway if virtual or
momentum grades had been used? — A. I say there might have been.

Q. Wliy did you not take advantage of this economy? — A. Because, in my
idea, we would not have had then actual four and six-tenths grades.

Q. And you felt that actual four and six-tenths grades were the character
of a railway that you were expected to build? — ^A. Yes.

Q. In the matter of train fills on contracts 9 and 10, from the corre-
spondence we note that you figured that 36 cents was the proper price to pay for
trail haul filling on these contracts. At a meeting at Quebec between the chair-
man and the contractors, you consented to a price of 55 cents per cubic yard being
paid. In your letter of January 22nd. 1907, you state that you eventually con-
sented to a price of 55 cents per cubic yard, " which, in my opinion, is a very good
one"?— A. Yes.

Q. Bid you mean that 55 cents was a very big price to pay? — A. That was
my opinion.

INViil^IGATING COMMISSION 406

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. How did you happen to consent to this high price? — A. From the
erpressions made by the chairman.

Q. What do you mean by that? — A. I remember distinctly the chairman
coming in at the tail end and saying we should settle it.

Q. And that was the price at which it was settled? — A. Yes.

Q. At the same meeting in Quebec it was also decided that two prices should
be paid for piles, whereby piles delivered would cost 20 cents, and piles in the
work 60 cents, instead of 40, as called for in the contract? — A. I think that 40
cents must be piles driven; I assume that; I am not sure; I do not remember
that settlement, but I have no doubt it must h.e so.

Q. In your letter you state " I also allowed the 20 cents per lineal foot for
piles delivered, as well as 40 cents per foot for piles driven, having found in mak-
ing a comparison of the tenders that it had been so computed ". That is a very
flimsy reason for giving the double price, is it not? — A. As I told you, I do not
remember anvthing about that settlement, but I know there was some trouble
about the difference between what the contractors understood and what I under-
stood. I know there was a dispute between the contractors and myself as to the
interpretation of that, and, for that reason, the subsequent schedule was changed,
making it clear that there was a separate price for the driven piles and the other,
and it was settled that those contractors should receive the two prices, at that
meeting.

Q. In connection with the pusher grade from St. Francis Eiver east, did you
make an endeavour to secure an economical rate for a pusher grade, or did you
simply take the lowest grade that seemed consistent with this character of railway?
— A. I took the lowest grade.

Q. An unwritten understanding among the engineer indicated that, if it
were at all possible, steel bridges and trestles should be on tangents? Was that
intended to be a hard and fast rule ? — A. It was generally, but exceptions might
have been taken which would have been submitted, and I have no recollection of
any being done.

Q. If a considerable .amount of money could have been saved, you would not
have hesitated to put light curvature on some of those structures ? — A. I think not.

Q. What was your intention when you decided to use 80 pound rails on
sidings and in yard tracks? — A, It made a uniform rail on the system, and my
idea was that the rails of the sidings should have been used for repairs on the
main line, as long as it was under government operation.

By the Chairman :

Q. What would you put in the place of those rails when you took them out?
— A. We would then have got in relaying rails.

By Mr. Gutelius'.

Q. You would then have got in second hand rails to take the places of those
which you would transfer to the main line? — A. Yes.

By the Chairman'.

Q. A sixty pound rail is sufficient for a yard, is it not? — ^A. Well, they do
not care about them to-day.
Q. Sixty-five?— A. "^Yes,

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. If you had known that the Grand Trunk Pacific Eailway were going to
take over the railway as the rails were laid, in the interest of economy, would you
not then have used lighter rails in the sidings — if the Grand Trunk Pacific were
agreeable? — A. I think I would have.

406 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

'(CONTINUATION OF EXAMINATION OF HUGH D. LUMSDEN,
; ' FRIDAY, MAECH 29th.)

Examined by Mr. Staunton:

Q. The contractors tendering for the general work and grading of building
the railway, included in the tenders, an offer to build the engine houses and sec-
tion houses. In the contracts for the general work subsequently let these houses
were included? — A. That is so.

Q. In the schedule of price there is no price given at which these section
houses and engine houses are to be built? — A. There was no price given.

Q. So that unless the price is to be governed by Clause 35 of the contract,
the price was a matter of negotiation between the commissioners and the con-
tractors after the' contract was signed? — A. Yes.

Q. As a matter of fact, do you know that these structures were built under
force accounts? — A. I cannot answer that question, I do not recollect.

Q. Why was it that prices were not arranged for the building of these engine
houses and section houses? — A. Because at the time the contracts were let no
plans and specifications for the engine houses and section houses had been pre-
pared.

Q. Was it not improper to ask for tenders on these works until plans and
specifications had been prepared? — A. It would be better if they had not been
asked for.

Q. You mean that it would have been better to have struck out the words
"engine houses and section houses" from the tender and contract? — A. Yes.
If it was in the tender it should have been stricken out in the contract.

Q. With reference to Fauquier, Contract No. 18, we notice an item in your
preliminary estimates of some 600,000 yards of moss? — A. I do not recollect it.

Q. Did you make a comparative study of the various tenders in comparison,
a comparison with each other, for the commissioners before they let the various con-
tracts?— A. I think not; I simply figured out the tenders from the memorandum
given.

Q. So that in the ordinary course it was possible for the 600,000 yard item
to pass by you, and if the Commissioners were not accustomed to making com-
parisons of this character, items like this could pass? — A. I was not in a position
to say. I had never been in that country, I would not know about the 600,000
yards of moss. I might think that it was extravagant, but not being on the ground
I took the figures of the Engineers who were there. That is my recollection of the
thing. In fact I did not remember anything about that moss until it was men-
tioned later.

Q. Yon do not feel that you are called upon to make a study of the various
tenders to ascertain whether there was any trick bids? — A. I do not recollect
making any study of them.

Q. In the matter of the three piers built by the pneumatic caisson process,
I note in your letter of December 6th, 1906, to the commissioners, that you concur
with Mr. Uniacke and Mr. Butler in the use of the pneumatic process for placing
the foundation of these pedestals in the waterway at Cap Rouge River for the
carrying on the viaduct? — A. Yes, I wrote that letter.

Q. It is not the fact that you did not know an}i:hing personally about that?
— A. I knew nothing personally about pneumatic works and I said so.

Q. You simply trusted to what had been done by Mr. Uniacke and Mr.
Butler?— A. Yes.

Q. And the chairman? — A. And the chairman.

Q. Do you know that the Commission was familiar with tlmt imeuniatic
arrangement? — A. I am satisfied they were.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 407

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. I show you a copy of a letter of Mr. McPherson, dated January 8th, 1908,
in which he refers to the construction of the pusher grade at the Little Salmon
Eiver Crossing, instead of building a large viaduct, and whereby a large amount of
money could have been saved ; do you recall why you did not reply to that letter
or take up the matter? — A. I remember that surveys were made at that point for
the purpose of doing away with the large viaduct, which were not satisfactory, as
far as I remember. I have no recollection of ever being on the ground there, and I
do not think I was. I remember on two occasions I asked- to use .6, one at La
Tuque and one east of Quebec Bridge, and I was turned down ; in the first instance
I was turned down by the government, and in the second instance by the Com-
mission, and subseqtfently, as far as I remember, I made no application to allow
an increase in grade.

Q. Do you remember taking into consideration increasing the grade at Chip-
man, to lessen the cost of these seven miles ? — A. I do not.

Q. On our inspection, we counted many miles of embankments through level
country that we thought were excessively high, what is 3'our idea of the height that
the base of grade should be above surrounding level country where the question
of drainage or grade is not a factor ? — A. From two to four feet.

Q. Do you realize on the day that j^ou were persuaded to accept the 55 cents
train filled price on contract 9 and 10 that that was sounding the deathknell of
your wooden bridge scheme? — A. I did not realize it at that time, as far as I
remicmber; that was in September.

Q. On January 19th, 1909, a month after that, you wrote the commissioners
asking for instructions as to whether j^ou should make provision for standard
trestles and accept the Grand Trunk Pacific's offer to build at twenty-five cents
in the future? — A. Yes.

Q. They never ansv/ered this letter of yours? — A. I do not recollect ever
receiving an answer.

Q. There was no reason for them answering it, because you had already de-
cided to build all these places with train fill?— A. We were not bound to
build them. "We could have put in permanent trestles after that if we had elected
to do so, but I could not do it without their sanction.

Q. 1 do not quite understand why you felt that you were compelled to get
their authority for the construction of permanent wooden trestles? — A, That
evidently was my reason for writing to them, because they had been against my
putting in wooden trestles.

Q. They had been speaking against it? — A. I talked over it vrith regard
specially to putting in these trestles in the northern country.

Q. An inspection of the plans of buildings, which the Grand Trunk Pacific
gave to you for use on the Transcontinental, indicate that they were more expen-
sive than buildings usually used, did you accept their plans without any question ?
— A. I cannot recollect what occurred.

Q. You did not put an architect on to modify the Grand Trunk Pacific
plans? — A. I do not recollect having done so.

Q. We do not find that you issued any instructions in connection with the
fTossing of muskegs, soft ground, in which the soundings would indicate the
difficulty in filling either by cross-logging or pile bridges? — A. I talked over the
thing often enough, but whether I had written much about it or not I do not know.

Q. Were there not some very expensive sink-holes encountered? — A. Yes.

Q. Don't you think that those you have in mind could have been crossed if
pile bridges had been used instead of filling? — A. Thoy would be temporary.

Q. By temporary you mean ten or twelve years? — A. During the life of
the piles.

408 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. How did you happen to allow the contracts to cover fencing of the right-
of-way in that wild country; the railway is fenced from one end to the other? — ^A.
1 do not think it is; it may be for all I know.

Q. What was your intention in connection with fencing? — A. Anywhere
there was a chance of cattle being in the neighborhood; I would not fence it any-
where except where the country was inhabited or in the vicinity of habitation; I
never knew the whole line was fenced.

Q. You keep a diary — A. I have kept a diary since 1867. The following
is an extract from my diary and shows where I was on the dates mentioned :

" Feb. 6th. — Left Ottawa during night, delayed 4^/^ hours at North Bay, left
there 4.15, wreck near Verner.

" Feb. 7th. — Treaudeau 9 . 50, on train all day, 6 to 8 hours late.

^' Feb. 8th. — Reached Kenora early in morning, there all day, left for Winni-
peg about midnight.

" Feb. 9th. — Eeached Winnipeg about 7 a.m.

"Feb. 10th.— (Sunday) in Winnipeg.

"Feb. 11th. — l)rove out to Panet Eoad with Ha^lewood and back, in Winni-
peg until 7, then left by No. 2.

" Feb. 12th.— On time at Fort William and Schreiber, 20' late at White River.

"Feb. 13th. — Reached North Bay 1 hour late and Ottawa at 4.55, went home.

"Feb. 14th. — In office all day, at meeting 12.20, Commissioners opening ten-
ders (not present).

" Feb. 15th. — In office all day, had tenders 1 and 3 handed me before 1 p.m.,
and 3, 4 and 2 before 5 . 15, started men on figures.

"Feb. 16th. — Meeting 11.50. The Commissioners decided I was to use the
estimates as returned by the district engineers and not my own, for the various
sections tendered on.

"Feb. 17th.— Sunday.

"Feb. 18th.— In office all day, meeting 11.50.

" Feb. 19th. — Completed moneying out of tenders and handed to Commis-
sioners— meeting 12.00."

Q. On the 14th of February your entry in your diary is that you were in
the office all day; at meeting 12.20 — that means the meeting of Commissioners?
—A. Yes.

Q. Then you say : " Commissioners opening tenders, not present "? — A. Yes.

Q. Why were you not present when the tenders were opened ? — A. I was not
wanted, I was not asked to be present, I was asked to leave.

Q. It was intimated to you that 3four presence was not required? — A. I do
not know it was on that occasion, but it was on a previous occasion.

Q. Why didn't you remain when the tenders were being opened? — A.
Because I was told by the Commissioners I was not wanted. I do not say I was
that day, but on a previous occasion I was told they would open the tenders them-
selves and give me the figures afterwards.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. It was understood you were not to be present when tenders were opened?
A. Yes, that is the long and short of it.

By Mr. Staunton:

Q. What do you mean by your entry on February IGth: "Meeting 11.50.
The Commissioners decided I was to use the estimate as returned by the district
engineers and not my own for the various sections tendered on." ? — A. Some days

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 409

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

before the tenders were expected in, I don't remember the time, I had given Mr.
Parent a copy of the quantities in tlie diiferent sections. Between that time and
the time of the tenders coming in, I did not give this out, the Contractors had no
knowledge of this; I thought we would use a lot of timber and trestles in that
eastern country, and I put in a lot of timber and deducted a certain amount of
earthwork to correspond. It was found out, either on the day of the meetihg or
the day following, that I had changed the quantities from the time I had given
them to the Chairman, and 1 was instructed not to use the quantities that 1 put
in, but to use the same as I had previously given them to the Chairman,

Q. Then, I understand that you first prepared an estimate founded on the
information sent to you by the various district engineers? — A. Yes.

Q. And that you prepared a new statement on these estimates showing that
in detail? — A. Yes.

Q. And afterwards you changed the estimates? — A. Certain items in the
estimates.

Q. And subseqtiently you were directed not to use these changed estimates,
but to use the original ones? — ^A. Yes.

Q. I suppose that when you figured out the tenders you used these original
and not the amended estimates? — A. I used what they told me to use, that was
the estimates as returned by the district engineers.

Q. From whom did you get your instructions as to that? — A. At the board
meeting, from the Chairman, 1 presume.

Q. Why did you put in your diary the entry that you were not present when
the tenders were o]>ened? — ^A. I do not know why I put it in.

Q. Do you think as chief engineer you ought to be present when they were
opened? — A. I cannot tell you what was in my mind; I was perfectly willing
not to be present.

Q. You did make a note of it for future reference that you were not present
at the opening of the tenders? — A. I was not present at the opening of any of
the tenders, that I remember, for general construction.

The witness was not further examined.

(NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL EAILWAY INVESTIGATING COM-
MISSION: AT OTTAWA, OCTOBEE 3rd, 1913.)

Present: — G. Lynch-Stauntox, K.C., Chairman; F. P. Gutelius, C.E.,
Commissioner.

D. MacPhekson, assistant to the Chairman^ sworn :

By Mr. Gutelim:

Q. You were assistant chief engineer of the National Transcontinental Rail-
way, between what dates?— A. 15th July, 1905, and I am not exactly sure of the
date, some time in November last, 1911, I think that is approximately.

Q. And prior to that time? — A. Division engineer on the C.P.R. eastern
division.

Q. Your total engineering experience, then, covers how many years? — A.
Approximately, twenty-five years with the C.P.R., and seven with this, thirty-
two years.

410 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. Were the original specifications for the construction of this railway pre-
pared prior to your assuming the position of assistant chief engineer? — A. Yes.

Q. Who did you understand prepared these specifications? — A. Well, I
understand that Mr. Butler had the most to do with them for the Transcontinental;
I have also understood that Mr, Woods for the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway; I
do not know whether Stephens had previous to that or not. I am only speaking
from hearsay about that anyway.

Q. Did you in your official position have to do with the preparation of the
general instructions to civil engineers on the Transcontinental Eailway? — A. No.

Q. These (showing book) are not the original instructions, Mr. MacPherson?
—A. No.

Q. (Showing book) Kindly refer to clause 26 in which it is stated that the
maximum curve on the railway shall not exceed six degrees — if you had pre-
pared these instructions, Mr. MacPherson, would you have adopted a positive limi-
tation of six degrees for a railway of this character and through a country of this
character? — A. I think I would, on the hypothesis that we were building a high-
class road, I would have limited it to six miles unless there was something very
very special. As a general rule, I would have stopped at six as a maximum.

Q. I notice further that this paragraph requires at least six hundred feet
between transition curves. Would you have required any such distance between
curves if you had prepared these instructions? — A. I would not have made that
hard and fast, no. If it would have saved a lot of money by tracking that out, I
would have allowed the transition curves to run together.

Q. Would you have allowed them to run together where the curvature was
compounding or reverse, if you had full lengths of transition curves? — A. I think
I would have preferred a short bit of a tangent on reverse, I think.

Q. In passing over the railway, we noticed a number of high-trestled bridges
built on tangents with approaches that were very expensive, whereas cheap
approaches could have been provided if these steel trestles had been constructed on
curves. Do you see any objection to building steel trestles on curves? — A. Well,
I would certainly prefer them on the straight, but I would think that every par-
ticular case would have to be gone into on its merits, whether the additional cost
of putting them on the straight was justifiable or not.

Q. In your engineering experience, have you ever formulated any monetary
value to be placed on the diiference between straight or curved bridges? — A. I
do not think I ever went into it in any great detail.

Q. It was simply the general element of safety that a straight track has over
curves? — A. Yes, that and the element of cost.

Q. By reference to the original general specifications, I note that under
instructions to persons proposing to tender, paragraph 4, wherein it is stated :
" Any tendering in which the prices stated for the several items are unbalanced
may be rejected." Do you know why that was eliminated from the revised specifica-
tions?— A. I do not know, I am sure.

Q. Who could tell this Commission? — A. I do not know unless the chief
engineer or the commissioners for the Transcontinental.

Q. Don't you think, Mr. MacPherson, that that clause, or one similar to it,
should have been retained in the subsequent issues of the specifications? — A. A
clause giving power to the chief engineer to deal with unbalanced tenders should
be a portion of every specification.

Q. We have before us, the comparative estimate of tenders for district F,
which bears yoiir signature (showing print) ? — A. Yes.

Q. Kindly refer to the items, " Piling delivered as per engineer's bill and
piling driven ". In tender No. 4, " Piling delivered " is quoted at twenty-five
rents and "piling driven " at fifteen cents? — A. Yes.

Q. Alongside of the fifteen cents, I see the words, " driving only "? — A. Yes.

I^'VESTIGATINO COMMISSION 411

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Whereas these words are not used in either of the other three tenders, how
did they happened to be used in the case of tender No. 4? — A. These words were
used on the extracts from the numbered tenders which were supplied to the engi-
neering commissioners to money out. These words were used on that one tender
only.

Q. Just explain to the Commission what information was given to you when
you prepared this comparative sheet? — A. The items on a blank schedule, the
different numbers, and the prices opposite each item.

Q. And how did you prepare this statement? — A. By multiplying the quan-
tities by the prices of each tender, the prices opposite each tender.

Q. In tender No. 2, "' piling delivered " is quoted at twenty cents, and " piling
driven" at thirty-five cents? — A. Yes.

Q. I notice that you multiplied out the twenty and thirty-five against the
quantities given in tender No. 2, the same as you did in tender No. 4, where the
prices were twenty-five cents for " piling delivered '"' and fifteen cents for " piling
driven " ? — A. Yes.

Q. How do you explain that? — A. Simply that our instructions were to
multiply the quantities by the prices given.

Q. Then, so far as this statement is concerned, it was simply a case of multi-
plication and addition? — A. Yes.

Q. Now, Mr. MacPherson, as an engineer, ought there not to have been some
re-arrangement to get a fair comparison of these tenders, of the prices shown in
tender No. 2 and tender No. 4? — A. If I had been dealing with it, as cliief engi-
neer, I would have asked the tenderer for an explanation of why there was such
a large price for the piles driven as against for the piles themselves.

Q. Surmising, before asking them, that tender No. 2 included the price of

piles and driving in the second tender A. I would suppose that by the figures,

yes.

Q. This is what you would call an unbalanced bid ? — A. Not necessarily, no.

Q. But the character of the bid did not probably convey the intent of the
contract ? — A. I would have asked him what it meant.

Q. Because the prices given were unusual? — A. Unusual.

Q. In your experience, in Transcontinental tenders, were the contractors
ever questioned on account of unusual prices to your knowledge? — A. I could not
answer that offhand.

Q. As far as you know? — So far as my recollection goes, no.

Q. If the clause concerning unbalanced tenders, to which we referred a
niomeut ago, had been continued, it would then have been a natural thing to take
unusual bids up with the contractors, would it not? — A. Either that, or use the
chief engineer's discretion and throw them out, but take them up in some way.

Q. But without the clause concerning unbalanced tenders, it was understood
that tenders should remain exactly as they were given to you? — A. That was my
tmderstanding, that we had to take them just as they were given to us.

Q. To get a fair comparison of tender No. 2 and tender No. 4, what trans-
missions would you have felt at liberty to have made, if left to your own dis-
cretion, to secure a fair comparison? — A. I would have asked the man who ten-
dered No. 2 for an explanation of his figures, what he really thought they meant.
That is the first thing I would have done.

Q. There was no doubt as to what tender No. 4 meant ? — A. No.

Q. Because you made a notation of driving only? — A. Yes.

Q. Is there any doubt as to what tender No. 2 meant when you made such
rotation, having the title and description "piling driven" in mind? — A. I think
there might be some doubt. I think it would have settled that at once. just to have
asked him and got that clear, so that there would be no qualifications. That would
have been my reason for asking for an explanation.

412 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. If there was any doubt as to the meaning of those tenders, there must
have been doubt as to the total amounts? — A. Oh, yes.

Q. So that, these statements, so far as those two items are concerned, although
carried out mathematically correct, conveyed in the grand totals, a doubtful mean-
ing ? — A, The meaning was not certain, that follows from the doubt in connection
v.dth the two items.

Q. (Showing sheets.) "Wliat are these sheets which we are looking at? — A.
To the best of my knowledge they are the original sheets handed to us by the com-
missioners to money out the tenders for District F.

Q. This sheet is the one referred to in your statement as tender No. 4, is it
not?— A. Yes.

Q. I see 40 red ink prices shown on this sheet, what are they? — A. They are
engineers' prices. These are opposite items for which the contractor had not filled
in any prices.

Q. And they were taken from? — A. They were taken from a schedule of
estimated prices made up by the engineers.

By the Chairman :

Q. By whom ? — A. Originally by the district engineers, revised and checked.

Q. Who filled in the red ink figures? — A. Well, I cannot say exactly who
filled them in, but they were filled in, and a note was put on the sheet here that
they were engineers' prices for which no prices had been given by the contractors.
I could not say who filled them in.

Q. Somebody in the engineers' department, was it not? — A. I think so;
they might have been filled in by the secretary, he sent these to us originally. I am
not quite sure, but I think they were filled in by the engineers. The matter was
discussed with Mr. Lumsden. That is my recollection, but I cannot say positively.

By Mr. Gutelius :

Q. And they are the same prices that were used for the same items in your
comparative estimates? — A. They should be.

Q. By reference to Item 61, "concrete 1-3-6, price $15.00"; immediately
under it, Item 62 "concrete 1-3-5, $13.00'"'; is there anything peculiar al)out these
two prices, Mr. MacPherson ? — A. The better concrete should be the higher price,*
and it is the reverse in this.

Q. That is what is known as an unbalanced tender, is it not? — A. Yes.

Q. Item 64, "concrete 1-3-6, $11.00" that is $4.00 cheaper than the ordinary
1-3-6, is it not, and the same class concrete? — A. Yes, $4,00.

By the Chairman :

Q. And the same concrete? — A. The same mixture.

By Mr. Outelius:

Q. The largest item of concrete in the engineers' estimate is this $11.00
mixture, is it not? — A. Yes.

Q. So that the unbalanced bid in that one item would amount to something
like $28,000?— A. Yes.

Q. What are the totals of tender No. 2, and tender No. 4? — A. No. 2 is
$30,028,753.35.

Q. And tender No. 4?— A. $30,010,398.92.

I^vEi<THlATI^(i coiiMii<sioy 413

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. So that the total of tender N"©. 4 was so much lower than the total of
2^0. 2?— A. $18,354.43.

Q. If the piUng prices had been changed, as had been suggested, tender No.
2 would have been reduced how much ? — A. I do not understand you when you say
changed, as suggested.

By the Chairman:

Q. If it had been assumed that the tenderer meant by "piles driven" to
supply and drive the piles for that price, tlie tender would have been so much less.

By Mr. Gutelius :

Q. It would have reduced tender Xo. 2 $51,742.00 ?— A. Yes.

Q. And if the $11.00 concrete had been returned at $15.00 in tender jSTo. 4,
it would have increased tender ISTo. 4 how much? — A, $28,196,00.

Q. So that it required the doubtful moneying out in connection with the
piling and the unbalanced price interpolated on the authority of the chief engineer,
to make tender No. 4 lower than tender No. 2 ? — A. Yes.

Q. Did you know at the time that you made up this statement that these
doubtful conditions existed? — A. Yes, I knew that.

Q. And the chief engineer knew it, because you had discussed the matter
with him? — A, Yes,

Q. Xow, with reference to your letter of August 9tli, 1907, to J. C. Dunn,
concerning water supply (witness shown copy of letter) in which you say that if
you got a certain gravity supply of water at any point you would be justified in
expending $25,000 more than it would cost to install a pumping plant, "as under-
stood on first cost, allowance for depreciation of plant and cost of running the '
most economical gasoline pump, would amount to at least $1,000 per year, when the
pump is installed under the tank," — How did you arrive at the $25,000? —
A, I cannot answer that offhand, I had prices for pumps and things, and assumed
a value for a man to handle the pump and found out it cost about $1,000 a year to
run it.

Q. So that you based your capitalization at an operating cost of $1,000 a
year ? — A. Yes.

Q. You know that on other railways, one pump, man operates two and some-
times three pumps? — A. I know that on the C.P.E. one man sometimes runs two
and three pumps.

Q. If tliat were the case, $1,000 would be high ? — A. Yes.

Q. What number of engines did you expect would take water at each of these
tanks? — A. We figured on twenty daily trains between Moncton and Quebec, and
between Winnipeg and Isorth Bay, that is ten trains each way.

Q. And with ten trains each way, you must have figured that one man's time
would be required continually at each pump? — A. Well, I figured that that would
be the maximum that would be required,

Q. And you provided for the maximum? — A, Yes.

Q. Don't you think now, Mr. MacPherson, that it would have been better to
have made a lower figure for a gravity supply, having in mind that the traflBc will
not, for some years, be equal to twenty trains per day? — A. Well, yes. I doubt
if we did expend $2,500 for a gravity plant on District A. Certainly that would
be an extravagant estimate.

Q. So that, if you had had the construction of the plant at Hamburg, which
cost $21,722.00, you would not have expended so large an amount of money? —
A. Xot for a less number of trains, certainly not. Tt was based on the twenty
trains daily.

414 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. Don't you think that for a new railway, for the first ten years' operation^
]t would have been fair to estimate $40,000 per day for twenty tanks? — A. That is
quite possible and probable, I might say.

Q, Would you like to modify this statement? — A. I am willing to admit
that I overestimated.

Q. I notice that the grade for the westbound pusher grade. District B, west
of the St. Francis Eiver, was made on a 1.1 grade, and also that the pusher grade
near Tobique, which is against east bound traffic, four-tenths maximum, is also a
1,1 grade. How do you harmonize the use of the same degree of pusher grade in
both directions? — A. Well, I do not think they do harmonize. My views of that
were, that for a long time to come the traffic in either djrection would not necessitate
trains too large to haul up either of those grades without pushing.

Q. It will be a long time before they would haul heavier trains with the same
class of engines over the Transcontinental than they would haul on the Intercolonial,
assuming that the maximum on the Intercolonial grade is 1.1 ? — A. On that
particular section, yes.

By the Chairman :

Q. That is between Quebec and Moncton, you mean? — A. There would be
more than one divisional plant. Yes, so far as the engine divisions in which these
particular grades are located.

By Mr. Gutelius :

Q. You are familiar with the character of the structure known as the Ludger
Noel arch, 141, District B, west of Quebec ? — A. I saw it last autunm for the first
' time.

Q. What criticism have you to offer against that arch? — A. My particuhir
objection is that the bench walls were made, abnormally high, higher than shown
on our standard plans.

Q. How much money would have been saved, if the standard plan had been
followed ?— A. It was estimated about $14,000.

Q. And you consider, Mr. MacPherson, that that extra concrete was practically
wasted? — A. Absolutely so.

Q. In the matter of concrete mixture, we have ten different prices for concrete
in our contracts, do you think such a large number of mixtures was necessar}' or
advisable ? — A. No.

Q. What are some of the objections? — A. The fewer number of items you
have to deal with, the fewer sources of trouble there are, certainly.

Q. The mixture 1-2-4 concrete was used in the pedestals fur the Little
Salmon River viaduct, and the Riviere du Sud arch. Do you think that these
structures required a mixture as strong as this? — A. No, I do not.

Q. AVliat mixture do you think should have been adopted? — A. I think a
1-3-5 was goo<^l enough.

Q. And ordinarily 1-3-6, as provided in the specifications, would have been
ample, would it not? — A. 1-3-6 in the body of the walls, and l-.'V') in the arch
work,

Q. In our inspection, we noticed many embankments in prairie country where
the base of rail was six feet above the level of the surrounding prairie. Assuming
that there were no gradient conditions, and that the banks were raised simply for
snow through timbered country, what limitation would you have placed on the
height of those embankments in the interest of economy? — A. Tlirough timbered
country, where the snow was not liable to drift, a two feet embankment would be
ample.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 415

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. If you were on open prairie, would you raise it two feet more ? — A. Yes.
Q. Wliy were trestle bridges not adopted in crossing guUeys and streams
that would not have been made from the excavations in the vicinity of this rail-
way?— A. Do you mean in preference to steel bridges?

Q. In preference to steel bridges, or filled in? — A. Our instructions were
that everything was to be made permanent, I think in accordance with the Act.
Q. Do you know of any instructions? — A. The impression that was con-
veyed to us all was that the railway should be of a permanent construction.

Q. As an engineer, did you join Mr. Lujusden in his suggestion to use
wooden trestles? — A. In some specific cases that came up, yes. I know I
discussed it with the chief engineer, and was in sympathy with it, but whether I
took personal action on it or not I do not remember.

Q. Js it possible to estimate absolutely now, what saving in the construction
of this railway might have been eifected if wooden trestles had been used? — A, I
think it can be estimated very closely.

Q. AVho prepared the plans for the buildings ? — A. The Grand Trunk Paci-
fic engineer.

Q. "What buildings did their plans cover? — A. Station buildings, engine
houses, coaling plants, turn tables, freight sheds, ice-houses, store houses, train-
men's houses, some section houses, and tool houses.

Q. How were those plans transmitte dfrom the Grand Trun kPacific to the
Isational Transcontinental? — A. Sometimes to the chief engineer from Mr.
Woods, the assistant chief; sometimes from Mr. Kelliher, and sometimes they came
to me. They were not always addressed to the same person or from the same
person.

Q. And you accepted those designs and put them into effect? — A. Yes.
Q. In the matter of yard plans, did you confer with the Grand Trunk Pacific
in the preparation of the plans for the Graham yard? — A. Yes.

Q. And they concurred with you in that design? — A. I think there was
some suggestion made by both sides, but Mr. Woods and I agreed on the plan.

Q. I have before me a letter dated November 20th, 1905, addressed to Mr.
Lumsden, chief engineer, which appears to be written by yourself. Did you write
that letter (witness shown letter) ? — A. I did.
Q. It reads as follows :

November 20th, 1905.

" H. D. Lumsden, Esq.,
" Chief Engineer,
" Ottawa.

" Dear Sir, —

" Attached is correspondence 1 have had with our district engineers
" and with the assistant chief engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific Eailway,
" on the subject of virtual grades.

" You will see that some of our engineers are in favor of using same
" in certain ^places, and some are not. Mr. AVoods is not in favor of using
" them. They are degrees only suitable for undulating country and not for
" long stretches of country on maximum grades.

" Engineering has been described as the art of making a dollar earn
"the most money, and a judicious use of virtual grades at points where
" the locomotive engineer has a chance to ' take a run at the grade,' would
"undoubtedly save money in construction and admit of the line being
"'operated with maximum virtual grades of 0.4 and 0.6, though the actual
" grades would appear on the profile as steeper. Of course, if we have actual

416 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

" grades of 0.4 in locations where the engine can get a run at tliera, thej' can
" be operated as virtual grades of less slope, and the haulage capacity of the
"engine will be greater than on a virtual grade of 0.4. Will you kindly let
" me have your ruling early as to whether or not we shall use virtual grades
" where possible. Please return the file.

" Yours very truly,

" (Signed) D. MacPHERSON,

" Assistant Chief Engineer."

This letter expresses your present opinion of momentum grades? — A. Yes.

Q. Is it possible for the Commission, now that the railway is practically
built, to secure from the Engineers' Department, any reliable information as to
what might have been saved had momentum grades been used? — A. I think they
could collect sufficient information to estimate the saving.

Q. The locating engineers should really have had instructions in connection
with momentum grades, should they not? — A. I think they should.

Q. So that any momentum grades which we might project on the profiles
of the line as built, would be comparatively insignificant as compared with what
might have been accomplished by adopting this economy when the line was located?
—A. Yes.

Q. "Why were these suggestions contained in your letter of iN'ovember 20th,
1905, not followed by instructions to build the railway in this manner? — A. Be-
cause the chief engineer instructed me that momentum grades were not to be
used.

The Commission adjourned.

A. T. ToMLiNSOx, sworn:

Examined by Mr. Staunton:

Q. What is your occupation? — A. Civil engineer.

Q. Y'ou have been a civil engineer for how many years? — A. Thirty years.

Q. And where did you gain your experience? — A. Pretty nearly all over
the country.

Q. Y^'ou have been constantly engaged in railway construction of one kind
and another for the past thirty years? — A. Y'es.

Q. When were you first engaged on the Transcontinental? — A. In my pre-
sent capacity I was first engaged

Q. In any capacity? — A. At the first I was engineer on the prairie on the
Grand Trunk Pacific.

Q. But on the Transcontinental? — A. February, 1909.

Q. In February, 1909. you were engaged as what? — A. District engineer.

Q. For whom? — A. The Crand Trunk Pacific Railway Company.

Q. On what district? — A. Districts D. and C.

Q. How long did you continue in that capacity? — A. Ever since.

0. Are you still district engineer now? — A. Yes.

Q. Have you been engaged in any other capacity during that time? — A.
For a short period this work was left without a superintendent.

Q. What work? — A. Contract 14 was left without a superintendent for th'
contractor, and I took his place for a short time last fall and last winter.

INYESTIGATING COMMISSIOA 417

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. The Grand Tnink Pacific took the contract for the work where ? — A. On
contract 14.

Q. And they sublet that contract to some person else? — A. To Poley,
Welch & Stewart.

Q. Did the Grand Trunk Pacific Company do any work on it themselves?
—A. :N"o.

Q. They sublet the whole contract? — A. Yes.

Q. Do you know on what terms it was sublet? — A. Yes.

Q. What were the terms? — A. Foley, Welch & Stewart were to receive five
per cent of the estimates.

Q. That is to say, they were to receive five per cent on the gross cost of the
work? — A. Xo, they were to receive five per cent on the estimates returned.

Q. What do you mean by that? — ^A. Well, the whole work, for example,
might cost four millions : the estimates might be five millions ; they would get five
per cent on the five millions.

Q. These estimates, then, were made before the work was undertaken? — A.
No, this contract was originally let to the Reynolds Construction Company.

Q. Bv the Grand Trunk Pacific?— A. Yes.

Q. They defaulted?— A. They failed.

Q. And (lid not undertake the work? — A. Oh, yes, they came and worked
for a year and failed, and the Grand Trunk Pacific fijially arranged with them
to have them leave the work. They were unable to go ahead without financial
assistance, and we got them to

Q. You were not satisfied with the way they were doing the work and got
them to give up the contract? — A. Yes, and then Foley, Welch & Stewart took
it from them.

Q. Did Foley, Welch & Stewart know, when they took the work, upon what
they were going to get the five per cent ? — A. I presume so.

Q. Had the estimates been made at that time? — A. The estimates were
made from month to month.

Q. Before the work was done? — A. iSTo, made by the Transcontinental
engineers from month to month, and turned in to Ottawa

Q. Before the work is done? — A. After the work is performed.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. Before the whole of the work is completed, and after the portion of the
work which they pay for is completed.

By Mr. Siau7i1on :

Q. I understand an estimate is to be what a man figures a thing will cost? —
A. That is the real meaning of an estimate. It is a guess at what it is going
to cost, but we use the word " estimate " as a return of the quantities done during
a certain period. The monthly estimate covers the engineer's judgment, or his
absolute computations, of what was done during that month.

Q. And that is what they are paid? — A. Yes.

Q. Had they a resident engineer? — A. No.

(}. Who had they? — A. They had just their superintendent.

Q. Did you then become superintendent for Foley, Welch & Stewart when
their superintendent left? — A. I was asked to take charge of the work during the
remainder of last season.

Q. On the leaving of whom? — A. Of Mr. Swenson.

Q. When did he leave? — A. I think some time in July.

Q. Did you become superintendent on that work for Foley, Welch & Stewart
in July last? — A. Yes.

123.— 27

418

[RATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. Were you regularly in their employment? — A. Well, no, I do not sup-
pose you could say I was regularly in their employment.

Q. What I mean by that, were you paid by them? — A. Yes, I received
remuneration from them.

Q. They paid you a salary for acting as superintendent? — A. Yes.

Q. And at the same time did you continue to receive your salary from the
Grand Trunk Pacific? — A. Yes.

Q. Was this arrangement as to engagement and salary made with the
knowledge of the Grand Trunk Pacific? — A. It was.

Q. And with their approval? — A. I presume so, they never objected to it.

Q. Did you have any conversation with any of their officials? — A. Yes,
Mr, Woods, assistant chief engineer of the road, came up to me several times; he
came up to see me several times when I was in charge of the work.

Q. Did he know you were in charge? — A. Yes.

Q. Am I right in saying that with the knowledge and approval of the
Grand Trunk Pacific you were acting as superintendent from July till the 1st of
April under salary from Foley, Welch & Stewart on this contract 14? — A. Yes.

Q. And you were acting in the double capacity? — A. Yes.

Q. Did your salary with the Grand Trunk Pacific continue during that
time ? — A. Yes.

Q. Have you discontinued that dual employment? — A. I have on the 1st
April. When this season's work commenced it was not thought desirable to keep
it up, because there was no logical man last season that could take hold of this
work as well as I could.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. No man who was available? — A. No. The man who should have taken
it unfortunately died; Archie Smith. He unfortunately died a month or two
before.

By Mr. Staunton:

Q. Is this a correct statement of Foley, Welch & Stewart's position, as you
understand it : they are doing the work on an arrangement whereby the Grand
Trunk Pacific supply all the equipment and plant and are getting a percentage
of the estimates for their remuneration? — A. Yes, all the equipment and plant
is charged to the work.

Q. The equipment and plant is supplied by the G.T.P. ? — A. Yes, that is
the equipment and plant that is here now. Foley, Welch & Stewart supplied the
small car equipment and that sort of thing, when they were here, when they were
working at the grading, but not the standard equipment.

Q. Then, in effect, is it not that they are simply managing the work for the
G.T.P. on a percentage? — A. Practically so.

Q. What were your duties as district engineer for the company? — A. I
think the Act pretty nearly covers that, that the Grand Trunk was supposed to
supply district engineers, who conferred, or

Q. What duties did you perform as such? — A. It was to confer with
district engineers here on classification, and to adjust any differences of opinion
as each understood it.

Q. What do you mean? If there was a dispute between whom? — A. We
were supposed to go over this work and watch the classification, and if we thought
there was any wrong classification, to take the matter up with the district
engineer; if it could not be adjusted in that way, I generally referred it to Mont-
real, and it was taken up with tbe chief engineer.

INTESTIGATING commission 41S

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. The object really was to see that the classification was not too high; in
other words, that the work was done economically? — A. I think that was the
idea.

By Mr. Staunton :

Q. That was the understanding ? — A. I looked upon it that we were here t«
see that the contractors were not overpaid, and in some cases questions have come
up as to whether they had not been underpaid.

Q. Did you ever intervene on classification? — A. I have.

Q. Did you ever endeavor to have the classification changed? — A. Yes, I
had it lowered in some cases, after consultation. I have been called by the district
engineer to go over the work with him to see whether I thought the classification
was such as it should be.

Q. Have you kept a record of these instances? — A, I do not know. A great
many of them are settled going over the work, and, as a rule, a tabulation has been
made, and the results arrived at. I think those are on fyle as a rule.

Q. Did you always sign the classification ? — A. I could not say whether that
has been done on this contract; it has been done on other contracts.

Q. "When you speak of this contract? — A. I mean contract 14. On the
other contracts I think it was done for the simple reason that the contractors were
not willing to pay their men, their sub-contractors and station men, until the
district engineer came, and the district engineer of the G.T.P. had arrived at a
conclusion on the classification, so that it should not be altered after they had paid
their men.

Q. Did that occur on 14? — A. On 14 I do not think any agreements as to
the classification were signed. I presume our accepting the estimate was con-
sidered sufficient.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. Did you ever put your name to them? — A. No, not to any monthly
estimates.

By Mr. Staunton :

Q. How did you accept the estimates here? — A. The acceptance by the
G.T.P. of payment for these estimates was to a certain extent an acceptance of the
classification,

Q. Was it an acceptance? — A. The only reason they were signed on the
others was because the contractors would not pay the sub-contractors until an ad-
justment had been made. The question was not raised.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. These were the progress estimates that were given to the contractors for
the sub-contractors' portion of the work?-j-A. No, those were final estimates.

Q. The sub-contractors' final estimates? — A. Yes. On this work, as a rule,
no estimates were paid to the sub-contractors, except the final estimates, as I under-
stand it.

By Mr. Staunton :

Q. Was it to the interest of the G.T.P., as contractors, to have the classifica-
tion as high as possible? — A. I would not say so.

Q. As contractors? — A. It would naturally follow that it was the interest
of any contractor to have as high estimates as would be legitimate.

Q. As he could get? — A. Yes.

420 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. It would be his interest to have his estimates as high as f)ossible, as a
contractor? — A. That would follow, assuming that they are in the contracting
business for the purpose of making money.

Q. These estimates that were made, upon which the percentage for Foley,
Welch & Stewart was fixed, were made by whom? — A. By the engineers of the
Commission.

Q. In consultation with you ? — A. Not as a rule.

Q. Were they ever made in consultation with you? — A. Yes, we have gone
over this work, the same as we have over any of the rest, and agreed as to whether
the classification was right or not.

Q. What do you mean by saying " Not as a rule " ? — A. Because the estimates
were made here by the resident and divisional engineers and turned in.

Q. But they are not turned in till you see them ? — A. Oh, yes. I never see
them until after they are turned in. Generally they are down at Ottawa for
payment before I see them.

Q. Where do you come in? — A. I sometimes wonder myself.

Q. Where do you come in for consultation on classification? — A. Well, for
instance. I think it was a year ago this spring, we went over — it might have been
longer ago — it does not matter when it was — two years ago, I think it was — we
went over one portion of the Avork.

Q. Who are we? — A. The district engineer and myself.

Q. Who was it? — A. I think Mr. Mattice was at that time the district
engineer.

Q. What portion of that work was that? — A. That was fijm Cochrane to

Mk. Mattice — Cochrane to Grant.

Witness — Yes, we went from Cochrane to Grant; we went over that and
signed papers on that. I think the inspecting engineer, Macfarlaue, was along too,
and we took the division engineers with us, and they gave us the classification they
had given on the different portions of the work, and, as we went along, we signified
whether we agreed with them on their classification or not, and, if we did not, it
was in some cases changed, as it might be, and 1 remember in one instance I hn])-
pened to be down in Ottawa a few days afterwards, and it was stated in Parliament —

Q. We want only the evidence now. — A. Well, that is the only way I could
get at it, that it was the district engineer or inspecting engineer advised Ottawa —

Q. Never mind that; just what you did? — A. Well, we approved of the
classification over that portion.

Q. And you went over the classification with Mattice find Macfarlane? — A.
And approved of the classification,

Q. Did you revise it at all? — A. Yes.

Q. Did you raise it ? — A. In most cases on that piece of work we lowered it.

Q. What piece of work was that? — A. I think it was from Cochrane dowB
to Okikidosik.

By Mr. Outelius :

Q. That was the G.T.P. contract?— A. Yes.

By Mr. Staunton:

Q. Where did you lower it ? — A. There were a number of shallow clay cuts
that were classified

Q. As what? — A. As loose rock, and some portions of tbem were wasted, and
we cut out tlie loose rock classification on the basis that shallow cut did not as a
rule eret down into the hard clav.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 421

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. What do you mean by wasted ? — A. There were shallow cuts it was very
diflScult to get plaut into. It is very difficult to get plant into works in this
country. You have to leave it on a work for a whole year sometimes.

Q. What do you mean by wasted? — A, Wheeled out to the sides, instead of
being filled.

Q. The cut was not utilized for fill? — A. No. A portion of it might be
and a portion might not be, and we cut the classification out on those cuts.

Q. Because it had been wasted? — A. Yes, and because of the shallownesa
of the cuts.

Q. In other words, because it was not loose rock? — A. Because we did not
consider that it was. »

Q. Did you raise any classification on that trip? — A. I do not recollect of
any. There was one trip that we made —

. Q. I am speaking of that trip? — A. I do not recollect that there was any
raising of classification done at that time.

Q. Did you make any other trips? — A. Oh, yes, we made dozens.

Q. Very many? — A. Yes.

Q. Over all the work? — A. Yes, we have been over all the work several
times.

Q. And am I right in understanding that it was for the purpose of revising
the classification? — A. No, I would not say for revising it; it was to go over it,
and to see if we agreed that the classification as given was right.

Q. That is revising it; for the purpose of revising it if you found it neces-
sary ? — A. Yes.

Q. How did you revise the classification usually on these trips? — A. As a
rule there were some adjustments made.

Q. Were they important adjustments ? — A. Sometimes they might be called
important adjustments, and other times they were not.

Q. Do you recall any that were important ? — A. The most important adjust-
ment we made was in going over work west of Cochrane. I had taken
exception to the classification there the first year I came here, and at that time —

Q. Leave out the west part, because we will take that up later. Take this
side of Cochrane? — A. This work was in two districts: contract li covered a
portion of two districts, being divided with the Quebec line. We commenced doing
work to the east in Quebec under Mr. Molesworth. Our station men were getting
estimates which, no matter how hard they worked, did not even give them a living,
no matter what we could give them, even at our own prices, and the classification
was markedly different from what it was west, and Mr. Swenson, of Foley, Welch
&. Stewart, brought this to my attention, and said he thought Mr. Molesworth ought
to come do-wn and look over the work himself, and he did, with me, and the classi-
fication was considerably increased; in fact, before that there was practically no
classification.

By Mr. Guidivs :

Q. At your request? — A. I will not say at my request.

Q. As a result of you A. As a result of our going, Mr. Swenson went

with us, and we took the resident engineers, and it appeared they wanted to give
more classification, but the assistant district engineer would not allow them to.

By Mr. Staunton:

Q. Where was that? — A. That was on District 6.

Q. From the Quebec line to where? — A. From the Quebec line east as far
as we were working at that time; I do not know how far we were working.

422 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. About what distance would that be? — A. Probably down about to here
some place.

Q. Where? — A. Beaver Dam, or some place down there.

Q. Who has classified that work before you went on it? — A. I think Mr.
Wetherby.

Q. Who was he ? — A. Assistant district engineer.

Q. When was that, that you went on the work? — A. That we came down
here?

Q. Yes? — A. I suppose in 1910, I should think.

Q. What had he classified low, below what you thought it should be classi-
fied?— A. The clay, of course.

Q. What had he classified the clay as? — A. Common excavation, as a rule.
He had allowed a small percentage of classification, but very small.

Q. Have you any idea about how much the yardage was in that? — A. No.

Q. It was considerable anyway? — A. The work was in progress at the time;
I could not tell you.

By Mr. Gutelius :
Q. Do you know what residency that was on by number? — A. Yes, pro-
bably residencies from 13 or 14 up to 18.

By Mr. Staunton :

Q. Have you told me who went with you then? — A. Mr. Molesworth and
myself.

Q. And the district engineer? — A. Molesworth was district engineer him-
self.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. And Mr, Swenson took an active part in the discussion, as contractors
usually do? — A. Surely.

Q. The same as you would have done if you had been in Swenson's place
at that time? — A. Yes.

By Mr. Staunton:
Q. And Molesworth passed on this work before that? — A. Xo, I do not
think so. I could not bear witness to that.

By Mr. Gutelius:
Q. Mr. Molesworth would have passed on it before it would get to the con-
tractor?— A. He had signed the estimates as they came in, but without any
knowledge of what it was in the field.

By Mr. Staunton:

Q. You could not swear to that? — A. I think I could pretty nearly swear
to it, but it Avould be almost impossible to do it.

Q. Was he on the ground? — A. He had been on the ground before that.

Q. Where was he spending his time? — A. At Mattawa.

Q. Would he periodically go over this district? — A. He very seldom came
up here.

Q. Would he periodically go over it? — A. I do not think he had been over
the work at all.

Q. You do not think he had been over it at all? — A. No; he might have
been over some small portion, but very little. It was \ory difficult to get over,
and he was a very old man.

Q. How old a man was he? — A. I should think he is in the neighborhood
of 69; well, over GO, I should say.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 123

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Had any other of the work, any other of the clay than the clay you have
been telling me about been classified as common excavation? — A. Oh, yes.

Q. I mean clay which you had at that time classified as loose rock? — A.
'No, I do not think there had.

Q. Why did you think that clay should have been classified as loose rock?
— A. Because it was not common excavation.

Q. That was not the reason? — A. That was my reason.

Q. It might be solid rock? — A. It was not solid rock and was not com-
mon excavation.

Q. Wliy was it not common excavation? — A. That is my judgment of it.

Q. Why? How did you arrive at that? — A. Because it could not be
handled as common excavation.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. It cost too much for common excavation? — A. Yes, and all classifica-
tion is based on the cost, I don't care what anybody says.

By Mr. Staunton :

Q. All the estimates you made were based on the cost?— A. On the diffi-
culty of handling the material.

Q. You ignored the specification? — A. I certainly did.

By Mr. Gutelius :

Q. That was the contractor's point of view? — A. We got a specification
which did not cover the country at all, and you know just as well as I do, as an
engineer, that it does not. The first year we were up here we had a chief engineer
who would not say aye, yes, or no, and if we wanted to get this work done we
had to pay for it, it does not make any difference whether it is Grand Trunk
contracts or anybody else; we would have the whole work stripped of men, unless
we could pay them wages.

Q. It was costing too much for the classification that the Transcontinental
engineers were giving? — A. Yes.

Q. And you, as a representative of the G.T.P., assisted Mr. Swenson in get-
ting that classification raised? — A. I do not think you should put it that way.

Q. Perhaps it is a little too strong? — A. Because that is not the fact. The
contractors west had progressed further with their work.

Q. Never mind that A. I do not want to be pinned down as doing some-
thing that was dishonest.

By Mr. Staunton:

Q. Oh, no, no. I would like to get your evidence in a concise way. I am
directing your attention to the fact that the classification says that only such
indurated clay and other material shall be classified as rock as cannot, in the judg-
ment of the engineer, be ploughed with a ten-inch grading plough, behind a team
of six good horses properly handled? — A. And I maintain that the condition of
this clay at that time was that you could not put a team of six horses on
to plough it.

Q. Why not? — A. You would simply mire your horses.

Q. It was too soft? — A. Yes, a good deal of it. We had rain and rain, and
you could not put a team into it.

Q. Would you classify as loose rock material too soft to be ploughed ? — A. I
say the plough test has nothing to do with it, in my judgment, because you have
a condition which does not obtain —

Q. Then in your action in classification, you ignored the plough test? — A.
T certainly did. I hold it does not maintain in this country at all.

424 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. And you valued it by the cost of getting the material out? — A. No, it
was not common excavation, and we could not make it solid rock. There were
some cases I would have been quite willing to classify as solid rock, because it
was just as hard,

Q. You were guided by the cost of getting it out? — A, I would sooner put
it, tlie difficulty of handling the material.

Q. How would it be more difficult than common excavation? — A. It takes
raoi-j time.

Q. And costs more money? — A. Yes.

Q. Is that not the result? — A. Surely.

Q. He would not care about the time, if he was making money on it? — A.
I say on account of the difficulty. It is the same thing; you can call it bread or
cheese.

Q. Does it not all come back to the one place, that you were influenced by
the cost to the contractor of getting out the material? — A. I do not think that
you are right in putting it that way, because if you give us something that is
impossible, your courts will not hold a man who has to do something impossible in
law, and we were up against a condition of material here which was not covered
by any clause of the specification, and is that any reason why we should say *' We
won't give him anything more " or put that down as the lowest ?

Q. Why did you put it in as loose rock if it was not covered by the specifi-
cation?— A. Why should we not put it in?

Q. You might put it in a class by itself? — A. We would have to go to
Ottawa to get legislation.

Q. Why should you not put it in a classification by itself? — A. If the work
had been done by the C.P.E.

Q. Do not argue. Should you not, as an engineer, put it in a class by itself?
—A. We were not allowed to.

Q. If you had been allowed to, would you have put it in a class bv itself? —
A. Yes.

Q. It is not loose rock or common excavation within the meaning of the
specification, in your opinion? — A. No, it is not.

Q. And you say that because there was no other way out of it, you put it in
85 loose rock? — A. Yes; some of it comes under that loose rock specification.
There is a great deal of it you could not put a team on, and if you had put a
team on, it would not have been in any condition that you could benefit in
handling it,

Q. Because it was too soft? — A. Yes; you might plough a furrow of clay
out, and lay it out, and then you have to get to work with your picks and shovels
to break it, before you could handle it. Mr, Gutelius will probably understand
that better than you, because he has been up against the same proportion.

Q. Could you tell me about how much of that material was classified a.^
loose rock which was too soft to plough? — A. Oh, I could not tell you. I could
not even arrive at a conclusion. It has covered three years now, and after our
decision was reached we went on to something else, and it would be almost im-
possible to say.

Q. Could you tell me how much of that material could have been turned over
by a plough ?-^A. I think a plough could have made a furrow through possibly
fifty per cent of what we classified.

Q. As loose rock? — A. Yes, but it would be no advantage to the contractor
or commission or anybody else, to have that furrow made.

By Mr. Gutelius:
Q. What started you on that trip with Mr. Swenson and Mr. Molesworth?
— A. We went down there to look into the complaints that were coming in from
that work.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 425

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Who made these coDiplaints ? — A. Mr. Swenson.

Q. Direct to you? — A, Direct to me, and I fancy to Mr. Molesworth as
well.

Q. Did you have any conference with Mr. Woods in connection with that ? —
A. I do not recollect that I did. It is possible that I did, though; it is possible
that I told him that the standard of classification down there was entirely different
to what it was on the older work.

Q. That the standard of classification was higher than the classification on
vrhich these boys were giving on the G.T.P. contract ? — A. It was on part of the
G.T.P. contract. There is about half of it on each district.

Q. The portion that you have been district engineer on includes more than
the G.T.P. contract? — A. Yes, it includes 45 miles east of our contract and 200
miles west.

Q. Did you have occasion on either of the contracts east or west to increase
the classification? — A. I think it was done in several instances further west.

Q. Do you know definitely? — A. I know it was in several instances, and on
the same inspection trips that we raised it in some places we lowered it in others.

Q. In both the G.T.P. contract and on the neighboring contract? — A. Yes.

Q. Are the G.T.P. and Foley, Welch & Stewart satisfied with the classifica-
tion thev receive now, as far as you know ? — A. As far as I know they are, though
our books do not show any material encouragement for going into the contracting
business.

By the Chairman:

Q. Is there anything you wish to state? — A. I do not know that there is.
In all my consultations with the several district and inspecting engineers who
have been here, I have always endeavored to give all contractors in the district the
same consideration that was given to the Grand Trunk Pacific contract, and I am
not conscious' of ever asking for anything on this contract that was not already
established, with the approval, I think I can say, of the engineers from top to
bottom, including the chief engineer on other contracts.

Q. Has this road been kept at a uniform grade, .04 one way and .06 the
other? — A. As far as my knowledge goes. All my information comes from the
Transcontinental office. I saw their profiles.

(NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL INVESTIGATING COMMISSION,
EVIDENCE TAKEN IN TRANSCONTINENTAL OFFICES,
OTTAWA, NOVEMBER 14th, 1912.)

H. A. Woods, sworn:

Examined hy Mr. Gutelins:

Q. What is your official position with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway? —
A. Assistant chief engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific.

Q. What is your official position in connection with the National Trans-
c-ontinental Railway between Winnipeg and Moncton? — A. Well, I suppose it
might be termed inspecting engineer — no particalar title attached to it.

Q. Do you represent the Grand Trunk Pacific? — A. I represent the Grand
Trunk Pacific in the work being done by the commission between those points.

426 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. As provided in the various agreements and acts? — A. That is right, sir.

Q. When did you first undertake this work? — A. I came to the Grand
Trunk Pacific from the Grand Trunk in January, 1905.

Q. That was prior to the undertaking of any work, or letting of contracts,
on the National Transcontinental? — A. Yes.

Q. Did you have to do with the rates of grade established on the National
Transcontinental by the commission? — A. Not directly.

Q. You are familiar with the book of instructions that was prepared by
the commission, and issued over the signature of Mr. J. Butler? — A. I am.

Q. Were these instructions approved by your company? — A. They were not
approved formally by the company, although the company made no particular
objection, to my knowledge, against the instructions that were issued.

Q. You felt at liberty to criticize the construction of the railway, even
though it was in accordance with these instructions? — A. I did, in several
instances.

Q. In the matter of curvature, which is treated in Article 26 in these in-
structions, it says: "The maximum curve on a level shall not exceed six degrees."
Do you not think that to issue an iron-clad instruction of this character for a
railway that had not yet been surveyed was rather bold? — A. I think it was.

Q. Would you explain the reason why an iron-clad six degree curve is bold?
— A. I think it is bold, for the reason that, in going through a country of such
an extent as the country which this line traverses, there are many points where
a curve with a shorter radius might be used to advantage.

Q. And not interfere with the efficiency of the railway? — A. Not seriously
interfere with the efficiency of the railway; I would rather put it in that way.

Q. Would sharper curvature interfere at all with the haulage capacity of
locomotives hauling freight trains? — A. If carried to an unreasonable extent, it
would, but within reason, while it might detract from the speed of the trains, it
would not detract from the haulage capacity.

Q. You are familiar with the term momentum or velocity grades? — A,
Yes, sir.

Q. Were they used to any extent on the National Transcontinental Eailway ?
— A. Not to any extent, no, sir. I want to say, in explanation of that, that
the maximum grades and curvature were supposed to be fixed, and that engineers
were not allowed to vary, or did" not vary them.

By the Chairman:
Q. You are speaking of the Eastern division? — A. Yes.

By Mr. Outelius:

Q. I notice in paragraph 85 of these instructions that '^Eesident engineers
will not be allowed to make changes in grade or in alignment, but will promptly
call their division engineer's attention to any possible change they consider bene-
ficial." As representing the Grand Trunk Pacific, were you asked by the engineers
Qf the National Transcontinental to pass upon any curvature sharper than six
degrees? — A. I was not.

Q. You are familiar with the railway along the St. Maurice and the Millieu
Elvers, are you not? — A. Yes.

By the Chairman:

Q. Eeferring to the degree of curvature adopted in that territory, it uni-
formly does not exceed six degrees; is that a fact? — A. Yes.

Q. Do you know whether there were any general instructions given by the
commission that a six degree curve shoukl not be exceeded ? — A. I have not any
positive knowledge. It is covered by the rules in the book of instruotions that it
shall not exceed a six degree curve.

INYE8TIGATING COMMISSION 427

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. But that book of instructions was prepared before the railroad was
suTveyied ? — A. Yes.

Q. Were there any modifications, to your knowledge, adopted in those .n-
structions, after the commission became familiar with the country through which
it was going? — A. I think that it is possible that trial surveys had been prepared
before this book of instructions; trial surveys had been made, by which it became
apparent that a low grade line could be established, before the book of instructions
was issued. I think the preliminary surveys were made through this territory
j)rior to this time.

Q. It appears from the first annual report of the Commissioners that the
engineers who were sent out to survey this projected line between Monet on and
Winnipeg were furnished with printed instructions for their guidance, and for
that of the district engineers in charge of parties under them, giving full parti-
culars as to their various duties; they were also instructed to adhere to grades
not exceeding 0.4 per hundred adverse to eastbound, or 0.5 adverse to westbound
traflBc, though in regard to the last mentioned' this has been changed to 0 . 6 per
hundred in one or two exceptional cases. The maximum curvature was limited to
four degrees. This is a quotation from page 4 of the report. You see from that
that these instructions were given before the line was surveyed. In your judgment,
was that a wise instruction to give? — A. I think it was a bold assertion that
grades and curvature of those maximums could be found through a country which
was largely a wilderness, without causing excessive cost.

Q. Without what? — A. Without making excessive cost in construction.

Q. Such instructions as these leave nothing in the discretion of the engineers,
do they? — A. They do not.

Q. They must, if they follow their instructions, regardless of cost and re-
gardless of conditions, find a road which will come up to those instructions ? —
A. They must.

Q. Did you ever know of such instructions being given to engineers, allowing
them no latitude whatever? — A. Not positive instructions. Instructions were
often given to accomplish certain results, if practicable, but not positive.

Q. So that, if they followed those instructions, they would not bring to the
Commission any information upon which they might deem it advisable to change
the grade or the curvature? — A. I would not say that, because the running of a
line through such a country as that, an engineer has to use his judgment as to
the better local conditions, and a line once established would certainly give the
chief engineer information on which he could base or change his instructions, if,
in his judgment, it was deemed best to do so.

Q. I understand you to mean that the line was so long and so expensive that
he would deem it advisable to send out another party to explore another line; is
that what you mean? — A. That is not altogether what I mean. What I mean
is that the information brought in by his engineers as to the topography of the
country might lead him to say '^ith this information we can reduce the cost by
heavier grades and still have a practical road."

Q. Then I understand you, in your opinion, when the Commission obtained
information from the engineers sent out to locate such a line as this, that they
could realize then the enormous expense that this road would entail to build it,
as laid down in the preliminary instructions? — A. Yes; and on the stren.srth of
those reports undoubtedly the change from five-tenths to six-tenths was embodied
in their instructions.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. It is the fact that, as soon as those surveys were made and passed upon
by the chief engineer, that an estimate of the cost of this railway could have
intelligently been made? — A. I think it could, yes, sir.

428 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. Can you give us an idea as to the date, from information placed before
YOU officially, that the Commission might have learned how expensive a railway
their original instructions involved ? — A. I think that, for a part of the line, that
information was known to the chief engineer during 1905, and other parts of the
line it was not known for perhaps a year or two later.

Q. Can you recall a time, roughly, when you first got the idea that this waf
going to be so expensive a railway? — A. Well, I think my attention was called to
it more particularly in 1907, and prior to that time, which was before the final
location was completed.

Q. Do you care, as an engineer, to defend the instructions that steel bridges
and steel viaducts should be constructed on tangents? — A. I do not, in all cases.

Q. Your letter in connection with making the Salmon River viaduct all
tangent was not based on your personal judgment? — A. Not altogether, no, sir.

Q. You are familiar with the specifications? — A. I am.

Q. Were you concerned in their preparation and adoption? — A. I had to
do with the making of those specifications, as one representative of the company,
and they were accepted by our company.

Q. I find that the engineers interpreting these instructions are classifying
as solid rock material composed of loose rock and fragments less than a cubic
yard; is that in conformance with your understanding of this specification? — A.
It is not in conformance with the original specification as made, and as only
made through an addition to these specifications, using the term "assembled rock,"
which was proposed by Chief Engineer Lumsden, and accepted by the Grand
Trunk Pacific after an examination of the blue print proposed by Mr. Lumsden,
and believing that it worked no injury to the Commission or the company by its
adoption, and what we believed to be Mr. Lumsden's and our own interpretation
of the same.

Q. Will you answer my question? — (Question read) — A. It certainly is
not, unless such material is cemented, so as to require blasting.

Q. So as to require blasting to separate one fragment of rock from another?
—A. Yes.

By the Chairman :

Q. You agree, then, that the specification of solid rock excavation, paragraph
.14, which reads: ''Solid rock excavation will include all rock found in ledges, or
masses of more than one cubic yard, which, in the judgment of the engineer,
may be best removed by blasting," will not cover anything which is not rock? —
A. Yes, that specification has particularly to do with solid rock. It defines what
solid rock is. I designed that clause.

Q. If the specification was not modified by the blue print, or by some
subsequent amendment, no material which was not rock could be included under
that clause? — A. I won't say that.

Q. That specification ought to convey to your mind, as an engineer, my
meaning, should it not? — A. It certainly does.

Q. And is it not plain that those words were not intended to cover anything
more than rock? — A. All it covered was solid rock.

Q. If you adhered strictly to that instruction, could you classify anything
that was not rock under that heading? — A. Possibly not, under the strict ac-
ceptation of that specification.

Q. I simply want you to tell me now, if ] gave you that into your hands,
!ind told you to live up to it literally, could you classify anything under it that
was not rock? — A. No, sir.

Q. You say there was a subsequent modification of that specification in the
blue print issued by !Mr. Lumsden — is that right? — A. Yes, sir.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 429

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Do you know, as a matter of fact, that for some time before that blue
print was issued, particularly in District B, they were commonly classifying as
solid rock what is now known as assembled rock? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. And did you, for the Grand Trunk, write a letter of protest against
that?— A. I did.

Q. In your letter to Mr. Lnmsden, dated October 7, 1907, you say: —

"During the past week we passed over portions of the work from Batiscan
River west for fifteen or twenty miles, and, later, from mile 115 to mile 132";
ihat is in District B, west of Quebec, is it not? — A. Yes.

Q. The letter continues: —

'^ith reference to the former portion, the classification was given in distances
of from three to five fliiles, and, as we did not have total quantities of graduation,
and could not judge with reference to any particular cutting, although percentages
ever entire distance seemed excessively hea\7' in both loose and solid rock. With
the latter portion, we had detailed percentages for each cut, and we are greatly
surprised at the allowances made for solid and loose rock. In nearly every case
M'here the cuttings were not entirely all ledge, the estimate given for solid rock
is double, or more than double, what it should be. In fact, the specifications
have been entirely ignored and an excessive allowance made."

Q. Were those statements, in your opinion, fair criticisms of what you saw?
— A. They were at that time; they were my opinion at that time.

Q. You formed that opinion from a personal inspection of the work? — A.
Yes.

Q. Looking at the specification, paragraph 34, to which I have already re-
ferred, you will see they use the word "masses" there. Do you consider that that
word "masses" was intended to cover any material which was not rock? — A. It
was not, when that specification was written.

Q. Do you know, as a matter of fact, at the time you made your inspection
referred to in your letter of October 7th, that great masses of material composed
of sand and clay, and similar fragments of rock, were being classified as solid
rock, and that it was justified by contending that the word "masses" included
more than rock? — A. I do not think it was justified by that.

Q. They justified it by that, did they not? — A. I think that interpretation
was what allowed it to be returned in that way, but I think the interpretation was
entirely false. That particular work to which I had reference there was a very
difficult piece of work, and all kinds of material were found there, and there
were some of the cuts that were simply boulders, with a very little sand inter-
mingled with it, you might say almost wholly boulders, and, under a liberal
interpretation of the specification, those boulders might have been termed solid
rock, although not of a full yard capacity, and I think that is the usual acceptance
of engineers, not to confine themselves to an exact measurement per cubic yard.

By Mr. Gtitelitis:
Q. But they were boulders that would be half a yard or more? — A. Yes.

By the Chairman:

Q. Do you not know that there were great sand hills there which were
classified as solid rock? — A. There was one particular cut, and one of the
largest cuts there, on which I based this letter, which was at that time very, very
largely sand, which afterwards developed, as they went down, into a ven,' much
harder material. The top part of it was sand.

Q. I failed to find personally, in all my inspection from the north bank of
the St. Lavn'ence to Parent, any cementing material; did you find any? — A. Oh,
ves.

430 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. Where? — A. "We found it before we reached La Tuque. The first cut
east of La Tuque I think was a cemented material. I saw what I would consider
cemented material when I was at diiferent places.

Q. Tell me what you mean by cementing material? — A. I mean boulders
and clay, or other material, that are lying in a compact mass, and so that you
cannot separate them without the use of explosives; that is what I mean by
cementing material. I do not care whether they are stones the size of your fist,
or half a yard.

Q. Did you ever see anything like that up there? — (Showing specimen). —
A. That is an extreme case.

Q. You call that cemented together? — A. Yes, without a doubt. You do
not find that in large quantities. I have handled thousands of yards which I
have classified as cemented material.

Q. I am asking you what your cementing material is. Tell me what it is.
Is it sand? — A. When you are working with a fall and face in a cut, and here is
material which clings together, and it won't be separated you have got to blast it,
and probably there will be stones in there half a yard, and others of a very much
smaller dimension, and there may be some more than a yard, but you have to use
explosives to get that apart.

Q. If I stick a pick in, the fire will fly, but it won't come out? — A. I do
not know about the fire, but it won't come out. It was found on that work, be-
cause I saw it repeatedly, but it did not cover all the work by any means.

Q. There are not large quantities of it? — A. There is lots of material you
cannot separate the earth from the rock.

Q. Could you locate any of it? — A. I cannot locate it by the mileage, but
it was in the bottom of the big cut that was taken out by Macdonell, of Macdonell
& O'Brien's work and on which the top of it was sand.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. Yellow sand? — A. Yes; it was worked with scrapers, without ploughing,
and as we went down into that we found ledges of solid rock, and others that
cemented material, a mixed material, with stones the size of that cuspidor to half
a yard.

By the Chairman:

Q. That is what you mean? — A. Yes.

Q. And whatever of that has been taken out on the line you would have
classified as assembled rock? — A. Yes, I would classify it as solid rock.

Q. You would classify it as solid rock, under the heading of solid rock? —
A. Yes.

Q. You would not classify the cemented gravel as solid rock under this
specification? — A. I certainly would, if it was in large quantities. You would
have to classify that material produced as solid rock.

Q. But cemented gravel comes under section 35? — A. Yes, as loose rock.
Well, there are different classes of cemented gravel. Cemented gravel very fre-
quently lies in courses, from one to four feet in thickness, and it can be ploughed
with one of those grading ploughs sometimes, and other times it cannot, but it
cannot be ploughed continuously, as clay can be ploughed.

Q. If it can be ploughed, it is common? — A. No, I want to draw the line,
that a plough test means continuous ploughing; it docs not mean you can plough
the length of the room and stop, and wait, and then go on ; it means continuous
ploughing.

Q. Why did you not say so in the specification? — A. It was not necessary.
I worked imder that same specification a great number of years without any
question between the contractor and the company. Sometimes the contractor asked
for more than he would get.

i

IliTESTIGATING COMMISSION 431

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. You say there was an amendment made to the specification? — A. Yes,
which I think had the approval of the Government.

Q, You think that amendment or blue print issued by Mr. Lumsden, dated
Januarv 7, 1908, widened the definition of solid rock, so as to include material
which had theretofore not been classifiable, if I may use that word, as solid rock?
— A. I think so, yes.

Q. To what part of the blue print do you refer as having that effect? — A.
I refer to where it shows a stone of smaller dimensions. I refer to number 5;
it shows smaller fragments of rock, "^'Eock in masses of more than one cubic yard,
which, in the judgment of the engineer, can be best removed by blasting." I
mean that that is not solid rock in the ordinary acceptance of solid rock, but it
was decided to term it solid rock, because it is as difficult to move as solid rock.

Q. I do not think you have read that carefully, because it does not say ^^rock
in masses'"'*? — A. It does.

Q. Pardon me, it does not; it says "rock in masses," just exactly as the
original specification said. It does not say " rocks in masses " but rock in masses,
and the original specification said rock excavation. I have tried to find out how
this modified the specification, and I have been unable to do so personally? — A.
Well, it probably grew, if you will allow me to say so, out of the interpretation
placed upon Article 35 by the engineers, in which masses, although not solid, not
ledge, might be termed solid rock.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. You only intended, though, to legalize what you would have, in your
judgment, called solid rock occurring in these large boulders? — A. Yes, sir, I
v.ould have called that solid rock under the original specification, with a liberal
interpretation of that specification.

Q. These contracts had already been let prior to the issuance of this blue
print? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. As an engineer, does it not strike you that the blue print gave the con-
tractors an advantage that they did not possess in the original contract? — A.
Under my interpretation of it, it would not. Under a different interpretation,
it might.

Q. Under the interpretation that you found in your official capacity was
based upon this clause, did it not give the contractor an advantage that the original
contract did not anticipate? — A. I think it might have done so.

Q. Can you not say so positively? — A. Well, I would not be willing to
say that, because under my interpretation it made no difference.

Q. But from your experience with the engineers in the field, your knowledge
of the cuts, and your knowledge of the estimates and classification, did they not,
under this modified instruction, give the contractors more solid rock than you
would have given them under your interpretation of the original contract? — A. I
think they did.

Q. The greater part of the discussion in connection with assembled rock
occurred on District 2, on that portion of the line which might have been elim-
inated if the sixty-five hundredths line had been constructed? — A. Yes, the
greater part.

Q. Are you familiar with the proposal to introduce a point sixty-five pusher
grade from La Tuque yard east, instead of four-tenths, which was constructed?
— A. Yes I am, fully. My recommendation avas that it should be in preference
to the four-tenths at this point.

Q. Why? — A. Simply because, with the location, it was particularly
adapted for a pusher grade, although a point sixty-five grade could hardly be
termed a pusher grade, but it was where a divisional terminal might have been.

432 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE V^ 1914

or would have been established, and the engine was already there, ready as a
helper, to be called upon to push trains out of the yard. Local or passenger trains
need no assistance. It was only the eastbound fully loaded trains needed it.

Q. Do you remember how much money might have been saved in construc-
tion?— A. I believe it was estimated at $350,000, but I do not think it was
anything like approaching what the difference was actually found to be.

Q, In any event, if the material on the four-tenths line had developed into
common excavation and loose rock, as was anticipated, it would have been the
economical thing to build that sixty-five hundredths grade ? — A, I think it would.

Q. And the introduction now of assembled rock has made a greater reason
why it should be built? — A. Yes, although I believe, in the first instance, that
two additional tunnels were proposed, which was not afterwards found necessary.

Q. But that is more than equalized by this assembled rock? — A. Yes.

Q. You mentioned a moment ago that a sixty-five hundredths "was not in
reality a pusher grade; why did you make that remark? — A. A pusher grade is
generally considered a one-point one against a four-tenths.

Q. Have you figured what a pusher grade against a six-tenths should be? —
A. I have not. It is about a one point four or five.

Q; We find that a pusher grade was constructed from St. Francis Elver
westbound for ten or twelve miles on a one point one? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you remember the long fill, just after you leave the St. Francis Eiver
bridge ? — A. Yes.

Q. If a steeper grade than the one point one, say a one point three or four,
had been used for those ten miles, would it have aii'ected the cost of that last
mile at the foot of the hill? — A. It would have reduced the cost of that heavy
embankment approaching the river.

Q. And that is the information which we can get from the local engineers?
—A. Yes.

Q. Would the railway, generally speaking, bo as efficient if they had put in
a steeper grade, up to say one point three, on that whole side, using the same
height crossing the river and the same height crossing the divide? — A. That is
a question which I have never considered, but I presume it might have been.

Q. It requires the same amount of power to raise the train up the same
height, whether it goes on a one point one or a one point three? — A. Yes.

Q. So that, theoretically, it would have been as efficient? — A. Yes.

Q. Who designed the engine houses, coal shutes, ice houses and freight
sheds? — A. They were generally designed in the office of the chief engineer of
the Grand Trunk Pacific.

Q. And soiit to the National Transcontinental? — A. Sent to the National
Transcontinental engineers.

Q. Did the Grand Trunk Pacific insist on eighty pound rails being laid in
sidings and yards? — A. I do not think they ever insisted upon its being done.
The proposition was made to them that it might be better to use the same weight
of rails throughout, thus avoiding the difference in the frogs, switches, and so
forth, and it was accepted by the Grand Trunk.

Q. Being a good proposition to the operating company, you accepted it? —
A. Yes.

Q. Did the Grand Trunk Pacific have anything to do, so far as you know,
with the elimination of wooden trestles on the Transcontinental Railway? — A.
They did not.

Q. Your company would not have objected to the construction of wooden
bridges, as is the usual practice on other new railways in Canada and the United
States? — A. They would not; they even recommended it in some instances.

Q. There are advantages in the construction of wooden bridges on a new
railway through a new country, are there not? — A. There are, in my judgment.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 433

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Will you tell us, in your own language, some of the advantages that
occur to you? — A. Well, in many instances, the exact amount of water space is
not as well known as it is after the road has been constructed for a series of years,
and the length of structures can be increased or diminished, when permanent
work is placed in, and in that way a considerable saving is often made. There
are other places — and I speak now particularly with regard to the clay belt —
M'here we practically had no foundation, and where it has been found that a very
considerable saving could have been made by using temporary structures, or what
might be termed permanent trestles.

Q. Permanent wooden trestles? — A. Yes. I think this is generally done
in the construction of lines of any magnitude, aside, possibly, from Government
work here in Canada,

Q. What effect would the construction of wooden bridges have had in the
matter of wash-outs, slides and subsidences ? — A. I think it would have eliminated
many of them.

Q. What do you say to the objection to the construction of wooden trestles
in the matter of the fire risk? — A. There is a very considerable risk in using
v.-ooden trestles through timbered country, but that can be eliminated to a great
extent by proper care in keeping the right of way clear of everything inflammable.
There always will be a certain amount of risk in wooden trestles, unless you go
to the expense of ballast floors, which have been constructed on pile structure in
many places, where permanent work is never considered practicable.

Q. That is, if the vegetable matter had been skinned o£E the right of way to
a distance, varying with the amount of combustible matter there is in the vicinity,
and ballast floors used, there would be little danger of fire? — A. Comparatively.

Q. Would the use of wooden bridges influence the locating engineer in
locating his line through the adjoining cuttings in the matter of balancing cuts
and fills? — A. I think it would probably, in the balancing of his quantities*.

Q. If he knew he did not have to balance quantities, he would reduce his
cuts very materially? — A. Yes.

Q. Do you think the use of wooden trestles would have reduced the time
by one season in the construction of this railway? — A. Well, speaking of the
eastern division, I am hardly able to say, from the fact that the material for the
structures would have to be brought from long distances. On our western division,
where we made use of it, there is no doubt it would have hastened it, but where
we have to get our material from British Columbia, it could not be hauled to the
location of the bridges erected before the track reached there; in other words, we
would have to wait till the track was to a certain point before the material for
the structure could be hauled to the point of erection, and, consequently, it is
diflBcult to say. Of course in many instances, where it was near other railways,
the work could be advanced very considerably by using those structures.

Q. So that it is fair to say that the completion of the railway would have
been expedited to a certain extent? — A. Yes.

Q. You do not feel like making an estimate as to how much? — A. No.

Q. Did you pass officially the various yard plans? — A. Yes. The plans
were presented in conformity with the plans of the Grand Trunk Pacific, modified
to meet the existing conditions of the different yards. Understand, on the prairie
a yard could be laid out without any additional cost, or made very large for future
expansions. In certain locations on the eastern division it was impracticable to
do it, and even to get a reasonable yard you have to go to a very large expense,
I guess they are pretty much all that way.

Q. Was it not unfortunate that the first yards were designed for prairie? —
A. Probably it might have been.

123.— 28

434 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. The criticism that occurred to me was that a large amount of yard
grading might have been saved, if the yard designer had known that these tracks
which ramified the outskirts of the yard had come through heavy cuttings or high
fills?— A. Yes.

Q. Don't you think there is something in that criticism? — A. Yes, that is
probably so. Take the ward at Edmundston; now, we did not intend to make
Edmundston a point at all; it was rather forced upon the Commission against our.
judgment, but it was placed there, and required a very large amount of work, and
I do not see very well how you could modify that yard. You might, of course,
in some particulars, but you would not eliminate much of the work.

Q. I was thinking particularly of Graham? — A. Yes.

Q. If the same yard tracks at Graham had been placed with thirteen foot
centres, without any large area between tracks, a considerable amount of money
might have been saved? — A. Yes.

Q. And you explain that, as I understand, because Graham yard was de-
signed after prairie yards, where grading cut no figure? — A. Yes, that is my
explanation of that.

Q. What do you say about the double track between Lake Superior Junction
and Graham yard, as a matter of economy in railway construction? — A. I never
thought it necessary. It may not have^been such bad economy to construct that,
as that bridge had to be constructed there, and there is a possibility that in the
future that will be a pretty busy line, and a second track leading out of a divi-
sional yard, as you know from your operations as superintendent, is a very
advantageous thing to have.

Q. But in the interests of economy, you would not have built it? — A. Not
at this time.

By the Chairman:
Q. It is a luxury? — A. Yes.

By Mr. GuteliiLs:

Q. And is that not true of the double track from Cap Eouge to St. Foye?
— A. Yes. I think that was made there for a connection with the Canadian
Ifortheni. I do not know what else. That was very expensive work from Cap
Eouge to St. Foye.

Q. And you would not have passed it, if you had the whole thing? — A. No.
That is a very expensive work.

Q. Then across the river, you would have eliminated that St. Chrysostome

cut by running A. Yes; in other words, I would have occupied 1,500 or 1,600

feet of track already constructed by the Quebec Bridge company, and reduced the
cutting, possibly, by the increased grade, probably to one-fourth of what it was.

(TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY ENQUIRY COMMISSION.
MEETING AT OTTAWA, TUESDAY, APRIL 21st, 1913.)

Present'. G. Lynch-Staunton, K.C, Chairman; F. P. Gutelius, C.E.

H. A. Woods, Assistant Chief Engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway
Company, recalled and sworn :

By Mr. Gutelius:
Q. Mr. Woods, were you present at a meeting in Quebec where the price for
train-filled and temporary trestles was agreed upon with the contractors for contract*
9 and 10 ? — A. I was present when that question was discussed.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 435

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. That meeting took place on the 14th December, 1906? — A. So far as I
remember, it did.

Q. Who was present at that meeting ? — A. The chief engineer, Mr. Lumsden,
Chairman Parent, A. R. McDonell, M. J. O'Brien, and M. P. and J. T. Davis and
Mr. Armstrong and myself were there.

Q. At that time, a price of 55 cents was agreed upon for train fill and
temporary trestles? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. What have you to say about that price? — A. I hardly think that that
same price covered all sections.

Q. I said sections 9 and 10? — A. That is right.

Q. What have you to say about 55 cents a yard, as being a proper price? —
A. I thought at that time 55 cents was too high. I first thought 45 cents ought
to cover it, but after taking into consideration the cost of the trestles and the hea^T"
embankment, I thought 50 cents would be a very liberal price.

Q. That is the price you quoted for the Grand Trunk Pacific later? — A. Yes.

Q. Did it occur to you at that time that when this price was being asked,
that it would eliminate the use of standard timber trestles on these contracts? —
A. No, I did not consider that it would. I considered that these temporary
trestles and train filling were not adjacent to streams or covering soft yielding
foundations, but for ordinary grades where it was expected you would either have
permanent works or solid roadbed.

Q. In the light of subsequent events, however, it did sound the death knell
for wooden trestles on these contracts did it not? — A. Well, apparently it did,
but not necessarily. I considered there were many places where a permanent
trestle might have been placed to rather better advantage and more economically
than attempting to build embankments or steel structures and particularly on the
St. Maurice Eiver, where there are washouts in one or two of the long heavy
embankments and where there was soft ground; I thought then it was much better
to built trestles because of the fact that this agreement had been made. The
question was settled for the district engineers I suppose and the contractors.

Q. And you as inspecting engineer were out of it, because you agreed to the
55 cent price? — A. Because our proposition to build these, where we thought it
was necessary, and afterwards to build at the established maximum rate was thrown
out, and not considered by the Commission, do you catch me?

Q. Were you familiar with the original surveys that were made by the Grand
Trunk Pacific for the line from Winnipeg to North Bay? — A. Which surveys?

Q. Surveys made by the Grand Trunk Pacific? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. Was not a portion of these surveys used by the Transcontinental E ail way
itself? — A. Yes, sir, I suppose they were used. The line from North Bay, I
think, had reached the zone which would be covered by the Transcontinental and
it was paid for by the Grand Trunk, and after reaching a point where it might be
made use of by the Transcontinental Eailway Commission, they took over the
surveys and our notes and paid for the same to the Grand Trunk Pacific.

Q. Do you know if any portion of the Transcontinental was built on the
line or within a few hundred feet of the line surveyed by tlie Grand Trunk
Pacific? — A. I cannot say it was, I cannot answer that question, although I assume
it was. Perhaps not a few hundred feet, but within a few miles. The surveys
determined the character of the country.

By Mr. Staunton :
Q. You are not familiar with the location of these surveys? — A. I am not
familiar with the actual location of the first survey. I know the Grand Tnmk
Pacific made surveys in a direction away north of the line; I am speaking now of
Lake Superior Junction; they covered considerable territory both north and south,
but they had an extreme north line which was not used at all. It was not feasible
aa not being a direct line. '

436 XATIOXAL TRAXSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. If I should say to you I had knowledge and there was not a foot of the
Grand Trunk Pacific original surveys used in the construction of the Transcon-
tinental, within a mile, you would not contradict me? — A. Oh, no, I would not.
At that time it was not certain where the Transcontinental would go. It was
uncertain whether it would go north or south of Lake Abitibi, surveys were being
made on both sides.

Q. In the matter of the crossing at Coal Creek and River du Sud, where
various extensive fills and masonry structures were built, did you or your engineers
protest against the extravagant methods used at these two points? — A. I cannot
say that any protest was made. In fact, I am positive there was none made. The
change from the original plan at Coal Creek was made under the representation by
the Transcontinental Commission that under the agreement for filling that and
building an arch culvert, works would cost the Commission no more, and it was
agreed to by our general manager, naturally preferring a solid road to even a steel
structure.

Q. But when it was found that the material in the vicinity was not suitable
to make this fill, at the price of 50 cents, and this fill was being made of solid rock.
did your representatives protest against this large amount of solid rock being
used? — A. They did not, for the reason that representations were made by the
district engineer that that clay material adjacent to that was of such a nature that
the embanlonent would not stand, that it did slump out, that several thousand
yards went away, that there was no material adjacent to the line or no material
other than the old Intercolonial Railway ballast pit, some thirty-five miles away;
the cost of overhauling being such, and under the agreement which had been made
behveen !he district engineer and the chief engineer for rock borrow, on other
sections in which this rock borrow instead of being paid for at $1.50 was paid for
at about fl.lO 1-4, as I remember, and that embankment would be better; that if
the material could not be got at less price no objection would be made.

Q. And for these reasons no objection was made? — A. Yes, that occurred
to one or two sections on District A. That $1.10 1-1 figured out bv Mr. Foss, in
figuring that the cost of the material, the cost of the overhaul of any kind of
material, would altogether amount to an equal sum in price, and the rock for that
purpose was better than the other material.

By Mr. Gutelius :

Q. "What I am criticising you for is, that when you found that the cheaper
material was liot suitable, that you and your inspecting engineers, on account
of your experience, did not suggest the construction of a wooden trestle until such
time as it could be filled by the operating company. In the light of the fact
that this fill has now cost $420,000, would it not have been good engineering to
have erected a wooden trestle? — A. It is a case of backsight. We know very
much better now what could have been done than we did at that time. The point
was this: that the work was commenced, a trestle was put across there, the contractor
commenced working, supposing he had material of a nature which would allow him
to complete the embankment there. He only found three or four feet at most of
clay before he struck rock, and the whole country adjacent is rock underlying three
or four feet of clay. He did not make a clean shovel proposition.

Ihj Mr. Staunton :

Q. Do you mean to say they started to make the fill and did not look before-
hand if they had material more than three feet deep? — A. Yes.

Q. Did they want to put rock in there? — A. They had no idea there was
any rock in that country.

Q. Why did they not think of that beforehand? — A. My dear sir, the
surveys did not show any solid rock on that section. There were not any soundings

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 437

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

taken; there was not any put into the original estimates; these original estimates
"were not worth a continental. I have always claimed that to Mr. Lmnsden from
the first, and Mr. Lumsden said it did not make any difference.

Q. Were there no cuts in that vicinity? — A. There was a cut to the
westward.

Q. Did they see the rock when they made the cut? — A. They did not make
the cut.

Q. Were there any cuts made before? — A. No, we built a temporary line
for them, six miles, to get the machinery out; we paid the contractor $35,000
for that.

Q. You had to get through that other fellow's contract? — A. Yes, that was
the trouble with the country to get through originally; the contractors never went
through that country.

Q. I cannot conceive of contractors or of railway builders of any experience,
or of engineers, going into a country and undertaking to make a fill of clay, and
not discovering until after they had put up the wooden trestles that there was only
three feet of clay in that country, can you? — A. It looks strange now.

Q. Would it not look strange to you in any shape? — A. Look at the
conditions under which all these contracts were taken.

Q. When he got on the ground, if I understand you correctly, the contractor
erected a temporary wooden trestle? — A. For a small engine.

Q. And before he erected that trestle he did not discover that there were
only three feet of soil on the rock? — A. My dear sir, there were acres cleared on
the west end of that bridge, a high bank right west of the structure, and on a part
of it there was no growth, it was a sandy loam on top, and, no rock being estimated,
the contractor did not look for it.

Q. How far would he have to go down to get foundation for his timber trestle,
he would not set it on a sandy soil? — A. Yes, he would; but he probably used
sub-sills.

Q. Could he help coming on rock that was only three or four feet down when
he was building his trestle? — A. If he did he would not make that agreement.

By Mr. Gutelins:

Q. They evidently discovered it in the first steam shovel cut? — A. Yes, I
was there myself before work was done.

Bij Mr. Staunton :

Q. Do you put the blame on the Commission for that proposition"? — A. I
say we agreed to the proposition.

Q. Do you put the blame on the Commission for not having ascertained the
conditions around there before they made this mess of the Coal Creek proposition?
— A. I would not say whether the blame was there or not, the same rule would
apply to all the work, there were no soundings taken.

Q. If you were chief engineer on that road and you had got into this scrape,
would you not think it was because the proper precautions were not taken to ascer-
tain the conditions? — A. Personally, I should have lengthened the steel trestles.
I should not have attempted to make a fill, but when it was brought up to our
manager that that fill could be made, at no greater cost than the original plan for
a steel viaduct 1,100 feet long, which I always considered should have been
lengthened 500 feet at least.

Q. I understand from you that the Commission represented that it could
be filled with ordinary material, clay, is this right ? — A. They assumed the earth
filling in the excavation at $1 .30 a yard.

438 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q, And that the material was at hand for that purpose? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. Before an engineer makes a statement like that is it not his business to
look below the surface of the ground and see what he has to expect there ? —
A. Practically speaking, yes.

Q. Is it not absolutely his business ? — A. It was not in this case or in many
others.

Q. Has a man any .justification to assume that if there is clay on top it will
continue down below in any part of the country ? — A. The assumption was made.

Q. Is it not a reckless assumption? — A. "We know now that it was.

Q. Would you do it tomorrow? — A. Oh no, I have learned considerable
since I have been on the Grand Trunk Pacific and I had been engineering a good
many years before I came there ; in fact all my life I have been on public works.

Q. That is the point, I asked you if with your years of experience you would
not see what the material was before you bid on it? — A. You naturally
would, and the contractor went and looked at that.

Q. The contractor knew what this was? — A. He knew the same as the
engineer knew.

Q. You say the engineers, when they made this report, did not know what
they were talking about. They made a report of which the Grand Trunk Pacific
accepted, and they did not know what they were talking about, is that right? —
A. As later ascertained, yes.

Q. Xot as later ascertained at all? — A. I do not want to throw discredit on
the engineers any more than was necessary, because as was later ascertained they
did not know what they were talking about. I would not throw discredit on the
engineers in that particular instance.

Q. You have to throw the credit or the discredit where it belongs ; somebody
did not know what he was talking about; it was all guess? — A. Had they waited
and taken the necessary borings, which you say could have been done, they would
not have commenced that work for years.

Q. Had they taken the borings for three feet they would have done it in half
a day? — A. They would not take any borings for three feet.

Q. They could have dug it out with a shovel? — A. As afterwards ascer-
tained, yes.

Q. At this Coal Creek there was a contemplated expenditure for fill of
$400,000 or $500,000?— A. No.

Q. What was it?— A. About $200,000.

Q. Well we will put it at $200,000 ; there was a contemplated expenditure of
$200,000, if you wish, for the fill at Coal Creek, the engineers were on the ground,
and the Grand Trunk Pacific was on the ground. Now then you say that none of
them ascertained that there was only a layer of three feet of sand and clay over
the rock, and that they did not ascertain that fact until they had built tlie trestle ;
was it not somebody's duty to ascertain tliat fact? Before they made the contract
or the change ? — A. I have answered that question before ; I say yes, in the light
of subsequent events; they did not know what they were talking about in the light of
subsequent events. There was nothing to indicate rocks in the stream itself in
that creek on either side in the immediate vicinity.

Q. As an engineer if you did not see any indications of rock in the vicinity,
you do not look for it? — A. Ordinarily we do.

Q. But when the Government is paying for it, they do not look for it? —
A. It is not that.

Q. That is what it seems to me, I do not know that I have met anything like
it in my experience before? — A. There was so much money to be expended there
anjrway, and the proposition was, could it be done in any way that would give us
better results, because we all know that a solid road bed is better than a steel
structure, and that is why the change was made.

IJfYESTIGATIXG COMMISSION 43$

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

By Mr. Guielius:
Q. When it was discovered that this railway was costing more than originally
contemplated in the interests of economy, and having in mind the possibility of
improving the gradients and curvature, would you not, Mr. "Woods, as an engineer,
have introduced the velocity grades and sharper curvature, on the more expensive
portions of this railway?— A. Had I been engineer for the company, I would
undoubtedly have made suggestions of that nature, but I may go further. I would
first cut out that line between Quebec and Moncton, which I always thought was
unnecessary^ and a very expensive proposition. I should have considered that a
greater saving that any small reduction which might be made by increased curva-
ture or a larger reduction by momentum grades.

By Mr. Staunton :

Q. You cannot see any commercial use for that portion of the railway east
of Quebec? — A. There will be a certain commercial use by opening up a certain
country, but nothing in comparison with the cost of it. That was a fixed thing
wliich we looked upon as having been fixed politically, and that our company could
not change.

Q. You had nothing to do ^vith that ? — A. Nothing.

Q. You say that was a matter of the policy of the Government ? — A. Yes.

By Mr. GuteUus:

Q. The idea of abandoning the construction of the line east of Quebec, after
you learned how expensive it was going to be, was it ever discussed between the
officers of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company? — A. And the Commission.

Q. I want you to tell me, first, was it discussed between the officers of the
Grand Trunk Pacific Company? — A. I distinctly remember a conversation I
had with President Hays on that subject, in which I laid my views before him.

Q. Wliat were your views? — A. That the cost of that line was entirely out
ot' proportion to any results to be had by the construction and operation of it. Hi*
reply was that it was a point fixed by the Government and that he never was in
favor it, but he saw no way to change it.

By Mr. Staunton:

Q. If the Transcontinental Eailway Commission had endeavored to make ar-
rangements to enter different cities over other railroad tracks and have common
terminals in different cities and towns, that would have saved a great deal of
money? — A. Yes.

Q. Would it not have been the part of common prudence to have joined
terminals with other railways, at least for some years, until they found what sort
of traffic was going to develop on this railway? — A. There was little chance for
joint terminals.

Q. I mean if they were obtainable and practicable. Take Moncton, for in-
stance, would it not have been the part of prudence to have joined terminals with
the Government Intercolonial Eailway at Moncton? — A. It was always expected
there would be a joint terminal there in the beginning.

Q. As a matter of business there should have been? — A. Probably there
should have been.

Q. They would have saved a lot of money and instead of the Government
owning two terminals at l^Ioncton they could quite easily have got along with one
for the Intercolonial and the Transcontinental? — A. • Yes, if the Grand Trunk
Pacific had known that there might not be a change in the Intercolonial ; they had
no assurance of that.

Q. But you could build terminals at any time? — A. Yes.

Q. If the Grand Trunk Pacific had owned the Intercolonial they would never
have thought of constructing another road, to have separate terminals? — A. Surely
not.

440 NATIOXAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. The Government owned the two roads and they should have followed out
that policy, should they not? — A. They possibly should. But when you come to
an established policy of the Government, we had nothing to do with that.

Q. I am not talking about the Government policy, I am talking about the
railroads and as a business proposition? — A. Yes.

Q. And when you come to Quebec, why should not that road come in on the
Intercolonial at Levis and pass on the ferry to Quebec? — A. Because the Quebec
bridge was under construction before this agrement was made and that brought
the line where it was finally located.

Q. Speaking from an engineering point of view, what do you think? — A. I
have told you before that I considered the line from Quebec east should not have
been built.

Q. If you were building this road and you were going to Moncton, would not
the natural thing have been to go into Quebec at the Louise basin? — A. No.

Q. Wait till you hear my question — would not the proper way have been for
you to make an arrangement with the C. P. E. to have entered by the Louise basin,
to cross by ferry, and to have gone out by the I. C. R. from Levis? — A. I want
to answer that question by saying that it would have been, but that was not the
policy of the Government.

Q. I am not asking you as to Government policy, 1 am asking you as an
engineer and railway man? — A. I do not know what bearing that has on the case?

Q. Will you answer it? — A. No, I won't answer that question. I do not feel
like answering that question ; I do not feel that it has any bearing on the question
under discussion between us; it is entirely foreign to the matter. I do not think
it is a pertinent question to ask me. The location of the Transcontinental was
placed where it was, adjacent to Quebec, simply because the Quebec bridge was
under construction at the time this agreement was made. There was not any
question then of crossing below, on the island, there was not any question of cross-
ing above.

Q. Don't you know that before this road was built to either side of the river
the Quebec bridge had fallen down ? — A. Not before construction.

Q. How much was built? — A. We had been at work for two years. The
Cap Rouge Viaduct, which cost $800,000 was built before the Quebec Bridge fell ;
the Chaudiere River Bridge, which cost three-quarters of a million dollars, was built
Ifcfore the Quebec Bridge fell down.

Q. Would you have taken that location if the Quebec Bridge was not there?
— A. I do not know that we would. I think that was a distance of forty-five
miles that should have been examined into, and I think a better point could be
found. I do not know that by actual examination, but I have every reason to
believe it might have been.
By Mr. Gutelius :

Q. River du Sud is east of the Quebec Bridge; it has a forty foot arch and
fill, and the cost of the forty foot arch and fill Avas $246,55L Mr. Uniacke esti-
mated a steel viaduct might have been constructed across that ravine at a cost of
$91,391 or a saving of $155,000 in that one structure. Did you or your engineers
make a study of the methods of crossing this river? — A. We did not.

Q. You simply accepted the design ? — A. Wc accepted the design, supposing
that that design had been worked out by the bridge engineer, Mr. Uniacke, and
I personally did not know anything about it until the foundations of the arch were
in and I visited the works and found a forty foot arch being constructed there, the
foundation of which was considerably advanced at that time. I then asked if a
steel structure might not have been built there more economically, but my recol-
lection is that it was a large sand cut on the east in close proximity and on the west
it was solid rock, and Mr. Doucet's explanation was that with that sand cut for
filling no trestles would be necessary and that the simple price for common ex-
cavation would be paid ; that it was equally as economical as a steel structure.

IXTESTIGATING COMMISSION 441

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Mr. Uniacke, in his estimates, states that 20,000 yards of common ex-
cavation would have been wasted in the event of the steel structure having been
used at this point, which would have reduced the lump saving to $149,000 instead
of $155,000? — A. There was a large cut there that would have been wasted. I
never went into the figures and I merely recall that on the western side a fill would
have to be made.

Q. If you had gone carefully into the figures at that time, don't you think
in the light of what we all know now it would have paid to have abandoned the
work you saw done at that arch? — A. It probably would. It would, however,
require a long span. I presume Mr. Uniacke took that into consideration in his
figures. That was a very rapid, turbulent stream. During construction the water
came up from 15 feet to 20 feet in one night ami washed away forms and caused
some damage. It would require a considerable longer span to protect it.

Q. What have you to say about the crookedness of the stream and the size
of the arch in connection with the possible height of water that may occur in this
river, do you think there is sufficient waterway there now? — A. I think there is,
protected as this is, both above and below by a retaining wall.

Q. And you are satisfied to accept that structure as good engineering, and
if it washes out the expense of replacing it will be a maintenance expense and not
one chargeable to deficiency in construction ? — A. I would not agree to that. — You
are tying me down there. But I have no fear of that washing out. I confess I am
absolutely surprised at the cost of the arch.

By Mr. Staunton :

Q. It is an enormous arch? — A. Yes, but there is another forty foot arch
a few miles from there and it only cost half as much.

By Mr. Gutelius :

Q. This is the arch where the 1 by 2 by 4 concrete was used? — A. Yes.

Q. Where would you construct the right of way fencing on a railway of this
character? — A. Through the settled country; through the unsettled country
where the farmer settlers were coming in, simply covering their farms.

Q. You would only protect against cattle where? — A. In civilization.

Q. Would you expend any considerable amount of money for the sole pur-
pose of draining borrow pits in that north country? — A. Not for draining bor-
row pits but for draining the country, yes.

By Mr. Staunton :

Q. What has the railroad to do with draining the country ?^A. Where you
have the solid road, that is in danger from water all the time, you would drain the
country, I mean draining the country passed over by the railway.

By Mr. Gutelius :

Q. An undertaking was entered into, betv.'een the Commissioners and the
Grand Trunk Pacfic, whereby the Commissioners are utilizing eleven miles at the
west end of the Lake Superior Branch. The Commissioners gave the Grand
Trunk Pacific actual cost for all the work that ]ias been done on these eleven miles.
You are familiar with this contract, are you not? — A. Yes sir.

Q. In deviating the main line so as to obviate the necessity for duplicating
these eleven miles, the Commissioners lengthened the main line of the Transcon-
tinental, one and four-tenths miles, is that right? — A. Probably it is about right,
1 thought it was less than that, but I won't be sure. I know the distance was
about that.

442 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. "VVe find in the estimates that the shorter line could have been constructed
for $197,000 less than was expended on the eleven miles taken over from the Grand
Trunk Pacific, that is, less than the estimated cost of the eleven miles. The point
I wish to make is, that in making this deal the Commissioners should have received
value from the Grand Trunk Pacific for the $197,000, would that have been an
unreasonable demand on the part of the Commissioners? — A. I certainly think
it would be, because you have to know the value or the cost of the eleven and a
half miles, you have as a matter of fact the known cost of that, but you have only
the approximate value of the cost of the shorter line. The approximate values
never come out under the Transcontinental Eailway Commission.

Q. We had the approximate value in both cases at that time? — A. Well no,
the eleven and a half miles was built at that time, and we knew that exact cost of
it. We had nothing but the approximate cost of the other.

Q. What percentage of the grading was done at that time? — A. It was all
done. We had paid so much for that and rendered a statement showing the exact
amount we had paid, Foley, Walsh & Stewart for that to the Commission before it
was taken over by them.

Q. How much money was involved? — A. I made a return to Mr. Lumsden
of the money we had expended there, and he gave us, as I recall it, that amount
less ten per cent. Later on the work was carried 07i by Mullarkey, O'Brien & Fuller,
and we did some of that work and the Commissioners paid for it.

Q. The portion of the work actually done was as $331,000 is to $1,470,000?
— A. Since that time track-laying and ballasting that double-track bridge over
the river have been added to that, and all the work done in the yard at Graham.

Q. Should not the Commissioners have received some return for lengthening
their line one and four-tenths miles to lessen your branch line by eleven miles? — A.
No, I think it would be utter folly to build two lines parallel within a mile of each
other. The railway would not have been as good and we could not have connected
with the Transcontinental as well.

Q. But the Commission actually paid for and built one and four-tenths miles
more railway than it would have required in order to save you people from building
a second track, and you gave nothing for it. Was there not some middle ground
Ihey should have reached in connection with this transaction? — A. I always took
the ground that that was hardly a debatable subject. The additional cost of that
section there, you must remember, takes into consideration the yards at Graham,
the engine house, and all that sort of thing, which would have been built by the
other line, and it is questionable if there was as favorable a point at which it could
have been built.

Q. Assuming it was definitely known that the Commissioners were going to
expend $194,000 more than it was definitely known was necessary, and in expending
that amount of money they paid the Grand Trunk Pacific something like one mil-
lion dollars, ought not the Commission have been recouped for the $195,000? — A.
If that were true, yes, but I think that statement is very far from being true, always
considering that the Commission paid nothing more than they should have paid
there. I have always considered it was folly to build another line parallel to them.

Mr. Staunton : I don't see why they didn't let you continue to own it.

The witness was not further examined.

INYESTIGATINO COMMISSION
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

(NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL INVESTIGATING COMMISSION:

EVIDENCE TAKEN IN TRANSCONTINENTAL OFFICES,

NOV. 28th, 1913.)

COLLINGWOOD SCHREIBER, SWOm : —

By Mr. Gutelius:
. You were consulting engineer to the Government in the year 1905? — A.
Yes.

Q. Did you make an estimate in 1903 ? — A. Yes.

Q. For the construction of the line of railway between Winnipeg and Que-
bec ? — A. Yes.

Q. What was the average price per mile that you estimated? — A. Between
Quebec and Winnipeg, $28,000 per mile.

Q. Did you make an estimate of the probable cost of the railway between
Quebec and Moncton? — A. Yes, $25,000 per mile.

Q. What character of railway did you have in mind in making these esti-
mates?— A. I made an estimate for a line such as is subsidized in Ontario by
the Dominion Government, with grades less than those upon the Intercolonial,
which I based at one per cent — that is 52.80.

Q. And the sharpest curvature would be ten degrees? — A. No, I think it
was six degrees.

Q. You would have used wooden trestles? — A, Yes.

Q. And practised the ordinary economies in such railways, as the Canadian
Northern have built? — A. Yes, very much the same. My view with regard to
that is this: that where the cost of taking in material for permanent structures,
and so forth, is considerable, not to introduce those at the outset, but to wait until
the traffic develops, some years afterwards : in the meantime to build comparatively
what you might call a temporary road: that is to say, with wooden trestles and
wooden culverts.

Q. Do you, in the light of your subsequent knowledge believe that such a
railroad as you have described could have been constructed between Winnipeg and
Quebec for $28,000 per mile? — A. I am still of that impression.

Q. Are you still of the same impression in connection with the line between
Quebec and Moncton? — A. I am.

Q. If the railway as constructed cost more than the figures which you have
named, it was because they used lower grades and more permanent structures? —
A. It was brought about by introducing steel bridges over the large rivers. I
am speaking more of the west than I am of the east.

Q. You are speaking of District F? — A. Yes.

Q. So far as you have examined it? — A. Yes, and I have estimated for 65
pound rails, the same as were on the I.C.R. at that time.

By the Chairman:

Q. By the introduction of steel bridges? — A. By steel bridges and putting
in permanent structures and concrete, and also, I may say, by the increased cost
of labor, although I think I could build one now for that price.

By Mr. Gutelius

Q. To whom did you give these estimates to which you refer? — A. 12th
July, 1903; this is the estimate.

444 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. On the 12th July, 1903, you gave this estimate to Mr. Fielding? — A. Yes.
Understand, I did not give it in writing to Mr. Fielding. There is a letter from
him to Mr. Emmerson subsequently.

Q. From this statement I notice that you advised Mr. Fielding that a rail-
way with maximum grades of one per cent, you could build from Moncton to the
south approach of the Quebec Bridge for $25,000 a mile? — A. That is still my
impression.

Q. And from Quebec to Winnipeg $28,000?— A. Yes.

Q. Did you advise him in connection with adding 25 per cent, to those
figures for reducing these grades to four-tenths? — A. No, I did not.

Q. Did it not strike you that when Mr. Fielding added 25 per cent., and
proposed to construct a four-tenths grade, that he was making a very low estimate
for this additional facility? — A. Yes.

By the Chairman:

Q. You have been in the Government service of Canada for a great many
years? — A. Yes, over forty years.

Q. And you have had a large experience in the construction of railways in
this country? — A. I have been connected with the construction of railways since
1852 in Canada.

Q. Had you any experience in the construction of the C.P.R. ? — A. Yes, I
was chief engineer for the Government during the construction of that.

Q. And had you any experience in connection with the Intercolonial? — A.
Yes, I was deputy chief engineer — that is, assistant chief engineer, I suppose you
c^ll it now, — during the construction of that road part of the time, and was also
Commissioners' agent.

Q. And in connection with your duties as chief engineer for the Government
on the C.P.E. construction^ did you traverse that country? — A. Yes, I did, very
frequently.

Q. So that you had a personal knowledge of tlie topography — not from going
over it on a railway train, but from going over it as an engineer — of the country
lying between this and Winnipeg? — A. Between this and Winnipeg, did you say?

Q. Yes? — A. Yes, along the line of the survey,

Q. Now, when the Government proposed to undertake the construction of
a Transcontinental railway from Moncton to Winnipeg, did they consult you in
the beginning? — A. They consulted me with regard to the cost of the road.

Q. Who consulted you? — A. Mr. Fielding.

Q. Can you recall the interview between you and Mr. Fielding? — A. My
impression is that I informed him that there was no difficulty in building such
road as I described between Moncton and Quebec at the figure I named; that I
was somewhat familiar with that country.

Q. That country was not an unknown land to you? — A. No.

Q. Had you traversed some of the country through which the line was ex-
pected to be built? — A. I cannot say that altogether, although I bad before me
surveys of lines that had been made through there.

Q. Then you had the information which a chief engineer usually has, when
advising a builder of a road concerning that country, at all events? — A. Yes, I
think so.

Q. You had a general knowledge of it? — A. Yes.

Q. Derived from your own personal experience and from surveys made
througli tliat territory? — A. Quite so,

Q. Had you, when giving that advice, information sufficient, to your own
satisfaction, to advise the Government on it? — A. Yes, I had. I am speaking
now between Moncton and Quebec.

IN7ESTIGATIN0 COMMISSION 445

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123 *

Q. I am confining the question to east of the St. Lawrence Kiver ? — A. Yes.

Q. Did Mr. Fielding know that you had that information ? Did you discuss
it with him? — A. I have discussed it with him.

Q. Then Mr. Fielding also consulted you as to the construction of the rail-
way through Northern Quebec and Northern Ontario to "Winnipeg? — A. Yes.

Q. That was an unsurveyed country, was it not? — A. Partially so.

Q. Was the Quebec section unsurveyed? — A. Yes, it was unsurveyed.

Q. Perhaps it would be better if you would tell me what portions of that
country were surveyed that you know of? — A. Well, the Quebec and Lake St.
John road had been surveyed for the portion of it from Quebec. Then there was
a portion from the end of their surveys which I was not familiar with, emd which
I had very little information upon, and I stated to him that if they ran along the
summit I thought it could be built for that, and then again about Cochrane, from
that neighborhood, I based it upon the information I had from surveys and reports
made by Sir Sandford Fleming, then Mr. Fleming. So far as my estimate is
concerned, I assume all responsibility.

Q. I want to show from you exactly what information the Government had
when it asked those estimates to be made; will you tell me how far the exploration
by surveys had been made west of Quebec ? — A. I could not tell you off hand.

Q. Can you tell me approximately how far that St. John railroad had been
surveyed? Was it as far as La Tuque? — A. Oh, yes, I think so, beyond that;
it was not under the name of the Quebec and Lake St. John railway that the sur-
veys were made; it was under some charter that Mr. Scott had for the Transcon-
tinental railway.

Q. Are those surveys in the Government's possession now? — A. Not in the
Government's possession; they were in the possession of the local government, I
presume.

Q. Were they before you at the time? — A. No, they were not; I had seen
them, but they were not before me at the time.

Q. Had you gone over them and examined them? — A. Well, that I would
not be positive about; I could not state positively as to that.

Q. Was it not a fact that you just had a general knowledge of what the
surveys were? — A. I think so.

Q. There was no survey then, or reconnais.sance made of the country from the
end of that St. John survey as far as Cochrane, was there? — A. Not to my
knowledge.

Q. Then from Cochrane do you say there had been a survey made? — A.
Several surveys made in that neighborhood, from that neighborhood to Port
Arthur, and through to Winnipeg.

Q. Had you examined those surveys? — A. I had examined the reports
frequently.

Q. Are the reports in the possession of the Government? — A. They are in
the Department of Railways and Canals.

Q. Whose reports are they? — A. All under Sir Sandford Fleming. I can
give you the printed documents, if you want them.

Q. The road which you have explained to us that you expected to be built —
did you discuss that with Mr. Fielding? — A. No, I think not.

Q. Do you think he appreciated what sort of road you proposed to build ? —
A. Oh, he did, undoubtedly, because he states that, and he would not deny that.

Mr. Gutelius: He states in his letter of May, 1904, to Mr. Emmerson, with
reference to this: "These estimates were made for a road of an ordinary character,
such as constructed elsewhere," etc.

446 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

By the Chairman:

Q. Has this letter ever been published? — A. I could not tell you.

Q. You produce a copy of a letter from Mr. Fielding to Mr, Emmerson,
then Minister of Kailways and Canals, dated 11th May, 1904, in which Mr.
Fielding says that he consulted you, and that your opinion was that a road
could be constructed from Quebec to Moncton for $25,000 a mile and from Quebec
to Winnipeg for $28,000 a mile. "These estimates were made for a road of an
ordinary character, such as is constructed elsewhere. In order to make a suffi-
ciently liberal allowance for a road of better character, I added 25 per cent,
making the estimate $31,250 per mile from Quebec to Moncton, and $35,000 per
mile from Quebec to Winnipeg. I have not spoken to Mr. Schreiber on the
matter of late, but from other experienced railway men I have received assurances
that my estimate was a most liberal one and the road could be constructed well
within these figures." The account there of the interview with you is correct,
is it? — A. Yes.

Q. What sort of a road could Mr. Fielding have expected to build by adding
25 per cent to your estimate in your judgment? — A. Well, that is a little
difficult question to answer, what he had in his mind as to what class of road he
would build.

Q. What class of road do you think you could build for $31,250 from Quebec
to Moncton? — A. I suppose he intended to reduce the grades; no doubt they
could have been reduced, but not to the extent which has now been done.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. That is, if your estimate would call for one per cent grades, his might
be for nine-tenths ? — A. Or something of that kind.

By the Chairman:

Q. Would the same apply in building a road to cost $35,000 a mile from
Quebec to Winnipeg? — A. Quite so.

Q. Before undertaking to build a great railway such as the Transcontin-
ental between Moncton and Winnipeg, should not the Government have had a proper
survey made of it from one • nd of it to the other ? — A. It would have been much
morfe desirable, of course.

Q. Was it not the part of ordinary prudence to have had that done? — A.
Yes, I tliink so, although it is not always done.

Q. But no person, to your knowledge, has ever undertaken to build a railway
of this character and completeness before in America, have they, without doing
that? — A. No, I think not.

Q. And when people undertake to build a railway, without first providing
themselves with full information, tliey usually do not contemplate spending such
great sums of money as was necessary to spend on this road? — A. It all depends
upon the standard established.

Q. You take more risks on a cheap standard than on a high standard, would
you not? — A. Oh, certainly.

Q. Had the Government, so far as you know, taken any pains or any steps
to acquire information as to the character of this country, before it committed
itself to the building of this line ? — A. So far as I am aware, nothing beyond what
I have stated.

Q. Do you know of any other engineer having been consulted by the Govern-
ment than yourself? — A. Not that I am aware of.

Q. Because Mr. Fielding says in his letter to Mr. Emerson, " I have not
spoken to Mr. Schreiber on the matter of late, but from other experienced men I

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 447

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

have received assurances that my estimation — that is, the adding of the 25 per cent
to your estimate — was a most liberal one, and the road could probably be constructed
well within those figures " ? — A. I do not know whom he consulted.

Q. If he had consulted you, you would not have confirmed that estimate,
would you? — A. No, I would not.

Q. You were then in Ottawa, and in the Government service? — A. That
was my headquarters.

Q. Were the specifications for the construction of this road submitted to
you? — A. I think tliey were.

Q. And by whom were they drawn? — A. Personally, I do not know, except-
ing from what I have heard; I have heard by Mr. Butler and by Mr. "Woods.

Q. Mr. Butler was then Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals ? — A. Yes,
Chief Engineer of Railways and Canals and Deputy Minister of Railways and
Canals.

Q. And Woods was what ? — A. He was the Assistant Chief Engineer of the
Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company.

Q. Did you discuss the clauses in the specifications relating to classification
with Mr. Butler? — A. No.

Q. Were you asked specially to pass on these clauses at all before they were
adopted? — A. My impression is that the specification was put before me to examine
and approve or disapprove, but I have no copy in my office, so tliat I cannot speak
of it positively.

Q. You approved o£ them? — A. I think so.

Q. After these specifications had been adopted, you know there arose some
question as to the proper construction? — A. Of the clauses, yes.

Q. Of the clauses relating to classification? — A. Yes.

Q. And you know that the engineers, specially in Quebec, put a construction
upon the first clause — that is, clause 34 — with which Mr. Lumsden did not
agree ? — A. Yes.

Q. Do you know that Mr. Lumsden construed that clause 3-4, which is the
one relating to solid rock excavation, so as to exclude from solid rock excavatioQ
everything which was not rock? — A. Yes.

Q. Would you agree with that? — A. Ever}-thing which was not rock
certainly would be excluded.

Q. And afterwards Mr. Lumsden tells us that he was shown the opinions of
several eminent counsel, obtained by the contractors, to support their contention
respecting the construction of these specifications, and that, as the opinions differed
from him, and as the Commissioners differed from him, that he was brought to
make a modification of his own views of the specifications; did you know that? —
A. I knew that eminent counsel had submitted their views with regard to the
specification, but I did not know that he had modified his views.

Q. He tells us that he did, and I think in the Lumsden enquiry he said
he did ; he is made to modify his views so as to include in the classification material
which was not solid rock, when mixed with solid rock; that is, the matrix in which
the rock lay? — A. Do you refer to what he calls assembled rock?

Q. I do. — A. Yes, I was aware of that assembled rock, but I did not know
he did not agree about it before.

Q. Do you know that he at first contended that even in assembled rock none
of the interstitial material should be classified as solid rock? — A. No, I did not
understand that. What I understood by his assembled rock, that it was fragments
of rock, cemented together in bodies of not less than a cubic yard.

Q. What did you understand him to mean by cemented together? Was it
really cemented together by fused material? — A. No, not that exactly; that could
not be separated with a pick and bar.

Q. Cemented gravel could not be separated in that way? — A. No, but that
is specified under another clause as to what it shall be.

448 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. You do not understand, then, that he excluded from solid rock any .
material which was not rock? — A. In the sense in which I tell you, yes. I made
him a sketch of it. I understood it was solid rock when it was fragments of rock
cemented together.

Q. If those fragments were separate, they would be loose rock, would they
not ? — A. Yes.

Q. And if that material was separate, it would be loose rock? — A. Yes.

Q. So that you take two classes of material, each of which is loose rock, and,.
together, they make solid? — A. It would be the cementing together that would
make it solid rock.

Q. You were over the line, were you not? — A. I was a number of times.

Q. Did you ever see anything on the line, any material which would be
classified as cemented rock? — A. I think in one or two instances; it may have
been only one; I cannot call to mind where it was, but I think there were one or
two places,

Q. Eeal assembled rock would be a very rare bird on this line, would it
not? — A. Yes, very indeed.

Q. And what portion of the line did 3'ou go over? — A. I went over from
"Winnipeg the whole way down to about 20 or 30 miles below Quebec.

Q. And you only say in one or two places any material which you would
classify under assembled rock? — A. That is my recollection.

Q. Then the assembled rock was not a very serious matter in your view, if
the classification was properly applied? — A. No, I think not.

Q. Did you go over the McArthur contract ? — A. Yes.

Q. For what purpose? — A. We went over it in connection with the arbitra-
tion. I was the third arbitrator, I may say. I went over it first by orders of the
Government, to see whether the statements of the engineers were correct that their
line between Winnipeg and Graham would be ready for operation before the branch
from Graham to Fort William.

Q. And you also went over it as the third arbitrator in an arbitration between
the G.T.P. and the Government? — A. I did; I was third arbitrator.

Q. Did you see anything to criticize in the way the work was done? — A. A
good deal.

Q. Will you tell us some of it? — A. With regard to classification and
overbreak.

Q. What did you object to in the classification ? — A. That it was very largely
overestimated; the classification was higher that it should have been, very largely.

Q. And the overbreak? — A. As to the overbreak, I was under the same
impression, especially in the McArthur contract.

Q, Was there any other matter? — A. There was unnecessary overbreak, I
think, in O'Brien and somebody's work. •

Q. But you particularly objected to the classification and overbreak on the
^FcArthur contract? — A. Yes.

Q. You thought they were — A. Excessive.

Q. And did you go over the railroad west of the St. Lawrence River? —
A. Yes.

Q. Through the Province of Quebec?— A. Yes. Well, I did not go over
the whole of it; I went over it from where the work was in operation to Quebec;
fliat is all.

Q. Wliat did you think of the classification between Quebec and La Tuque? —
A. Well, it was ovcrclassified there, but not to the same extent, I think, that it
was on the McArthur contract.

Q. Was there any overbreak? Did you think the overbreak was excessive? — •
A. I did in one or two cases particularly.

IXVESTIGATIXCr COMMISSIOX 445

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Were you through Xew Bruu^wick with the idea of examining the classi-
fication?— A. I was not through the Xew Brunswick line, as far as I rememher.

By Mr. Gufelius:

Q. Did you make a study of the advisability of constructing a new line through
Xew Brunswick paralleling 'the I.C.E. ?— A. Xo, I never had any discussion
with the Ministers about it.

Q. You would not have recommended it, would you? — A. Xo, I would not.

Q. In the matter of classification, the plough test shown under loose rock
■was intended to be in your judgment a test of hardness? — A. Undoubtedly so.

Q. Did 3'ou have" anything to do Avith the preparation of the book of instruc-
tions to engineers on the X. T. R. ? — A. Xo, nothing whatever.

Q. Did Mr. Lumsden make it clear to you, when discussing the assembled
rock feature, that there was a controA'ersy between him and the Commissioners on
that clause? Did he make you feel that it was a very important matter? — A. Oh,
yes, I think he did, but I do not remember any great discussion about it.

Q. You do not recall that he really felt that he was compromising between
his judgment and the judgment of other people when he agreed to that? — A. Xo.
Evidently he must have brought the matter up before me, because I made that
diagram, which I referred to, so that it is pretty clear, although I do not remember
what was said at the time, but it is evident he must have done.

Q. He advises us that this assembled rock feature was really a compromise
between contending parties, himself on one side and the contractors and the Com-
missioners on the other, and that, after they failed to agree, they asked him to go
and see you and arrive at some conclusion in wliich you would concur ? — A. I have
no doubt that sketch originated from that.

Q. Did you discuss this sketch Avith anyone other than ]\Ir. Lumsden at that
time ? — A. I think not.

Q. And if you did discuss it Avith .Mr. Parent, you Avould have remembered
it? — A. Oh. I Avould have rememliered it.

(XATIOXAL TRAXSCOXTIXEXTAL IXVESTIGATIXG COMMISSIOX:

EVIDEXCE TAKEX AT THE TRAXSCOXTIXEXTAL OFFICES,

OTTAWA, XOV. 27TH, 1912.)

W. F. Tte, sworn—

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. Will you tell us, in short form, your experience in raihvay Avork? — A. I
began on railway construction on the Canadian Pacific in 1883, and was employed
on the construction of the main line and some of the branches until the main line
was completed in, I think, the end of 1885, or early in 188G, I forget which. From
there I Avent to what is noAv the Great Xorthern Railway, AA'hich was then known
as the St. Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba, and I Avas employed first on grade
reduction out of Minneapolis : afterwards on the location of Avhat is noAV known
as the Montana Central: that is their line from Havard to Bute, Montana. It is
a little hard to remember exact dates.

Q. Just give them roughly? — A. I Avas v.ith the Great Xorthern for two
years. I then went to Mexico and was employed on the Tampico branch of the
Mexican Central. I was engineer of track-laying and bridging, and acting road-
master of a portion of the road. I left this road after about a A^ear and returned
123—29

450 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

north, and went to the Great Falls and Canada Eaihvay Company as locating en-
gineer and division engineer on construction. This road ran between Great Falls,
Montana, and Lethbridge, Alberta. I had charge of all the location on the Ameri-
can side, and abont half of its construction, and was employed about a 3'ear on
this. I then went back to the Great Northern on the Pacific extension, and located
all the road on the west side of the Cascades, including their long tunnel about
2 1-2 miles. On the completion of the location I was employed as division en-
gineer on the construction of the mountain section. 1 was employed in the neigh-
bourhood of two or three years on this work. I then went to Lethbridge, and was
engineer in changing the gauge of the Alberta Railway and Coal Company's road,
now a part of the C.P.R. between Dunmore and Lethbridge; afterwards made a
location for a projected line between Lethbridge and Macleod. I then went to
Kaslo in the interests of the Great Northern, and was for a time Cliief Engineer
of the Kaslo and Slocan, and afterwards went to Eossland, and was chief engineer
of what was first known as the Trail Creek Tramway, and afterwards as the
Columbian AYestern Railway, between Trail and Eossland and Trail and Eobson.
On the completion of this road I went to the Canadian Pacific. As chief engineer
of the Columbian Western I had charge of the surveys between Eobson and Pentic-
ton, and the construction between Eobson and Midway. On the completion of
this road I was made chief engineer of construction of the Canadian Pacific, and
in 1902 was made assistant chief engineer of the whole system of the Canadian
Pacific, and in 1904 I was made chief engineer of the whole system, where I re-
mained till 1906. Since that time I have been engaged in consulting practice.

Q. In the matter of the various problems which this Commission has placed
before you, your attention was first called to Instructions to Engineers, a book is-
sued under the authoritv of the chief engineer, Mr. Lumsden, dated January, 1907?
—A. Yes.

Q. Your attention is called to section 29 of these instructions, where it says :
"Every effort will be required to secure a level track at stations for 2200 feet each
side, particularly at terminal points, water stations, and so forth." Under no cir-
cumstances will the water tank be placed in a sag"? — A. Yes.

Q. Are you familiar with this? — A. Yes.

Q. Do you believe that 2,000 feet of level on each side of a station is
necessary? — A. At the ordinary stations and water tanks, where freight trains
stop but a few minutes, there is no necessity whatever for 4,000 feet of level, and,
unless on a maximum grade, no particular change in the grade is required, except
that the best available location as to grade should be chosen, provided it is otherwise
suitable. On ruling grades every stop should be compensated for. The amount
of this compensation depends on a variety of things; the importance of the station,
the length of time freight trains will usually stop, the location relative to the
maximum grade, whether near its head or at its foot, stops at or near the foot of
a ruling grade being the worst, the amount of maximum grade on the section.
The compensation is provided not only to take care of the starting resistance,
which may at times be greater than the rolling resistance, but also to permit trains
to rapidly increase their speed.

Q. What is the rule in regard to compensation for stops on ruling grades?
— A. The Canadian Pacific rule regarding compensation for stops on ruling
grades is as follows: —

"Train stops on ruling grades should be compensated according to proportion
of ruling grade to length of section, varying from zero to 10 feet. If ruling grade
one way is 70 per cent, compensate stops at zero."

Q. That is, you will provide no compensation if 70 per cent of an engine
section is on a ruling grade? — A. That is right.

Q. Explain the rule? — A. This means that if the engine section should
be, say 100 miles in length, and if 70 mile? of that is niling grade: that i<:. four-

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 451

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

tenths in case of eastbound trajBfic on the Transcontinental; and the balance less
than four-tenths, then the train must be made so light in order to make time over
the section that they can easily start such trains on the ruling grade. The rule
continues —

"If ruling grade one way is 40 per cent of section, compensate stops at five
feet."

This means that in the length of the side track the grade must be made five
feet flatter in its whole length than the ruling grade would call for.

"If ruling grade one way is 10 per cent of section compensate stops at 10
feet."

By the Chairman:

Q. The siding in which the train runs must be ten feet flatter? — A. Yes.
For instance, we will assume a side track 4,000 feet long : if this were on a straight
line and on the ruling grade, the diflerence in elevation between one end of the
side track and the other would be 16 feet. This rule requires this rise to be re-
duced to six feet.

By Mr. Gidelius :

Q. I imderstand that the rules which you have given for the Canadian Pacific
apply t© that portion of the railway which is built with four-tenths grades? — A.
Yes.

Q. With reference to the instructions of the National Transcontinental, they
■do not refer in any way to ruling grades? — A. No.

Q. Then, if these instructions were followed where grades are less than ruling
grades, the additional cost for following these instructions would not be justified ? —
4- No.

By the Chairman:

Q. When you speak of ruling grade, you mean the general grade of the
railway ? — A. No, you mean that particular grade on the section which limits the
haulage capacity of the locomotives.

By Mr. Gutelius :

Q. With reference to section 26 of these instructions, which says:
"Tke maximum curve on a level shall not exceed six degrees, radius 955 feet.
This curve should be used sparingly, and only when the topographical conditions
prohibit an easier grade."

Do you believe it a wise policy to adhere strictly to such a rule, or, in excep-
tional cases, do you believe sharper curvature might be used? You might state
fully your views on this su^'ect ? — A. I believe that such a general rule is a wise
one, but I also believe it should, in exceptional cases, be departed from, where the
saving in using an eight, or even a ten degree curve, would be large. The questions
to be considered in deciding on the sharpest curve which may be used are: cost of
maintenance and operation: effect on speed: effect on haulage capacity of locomo-
tive: limiting effect in the use of certain equipment; greater danger of sharp cur-
vature. The use of sharper curvature does not increase the cost of maintenance
or operation: that is, a mile of track made up of 100 degrees (or 1,000 feet) of
10 degree curve, the balance tangent, is no more expensive to operate or maintain
thaa one made up of 100 degrees (or 5,000 feet) or 2 degree curve, the balance
tangent. Any difference is probably in favor of the sharper curvature.

452 XATIOyAL TRAysCOXTIXKNTAL h'AILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. AVhat is tlie effect on speed?— A. The effect on speed, on a long line
like the Transcontinental, is of no importance whatever where a few sharp curves
only are used. The safe speed on curves, properly equipped with tie plates pro-
perly lined, surfaced and gauged, and provided with easement curves, depends on
the total allowable elevation of the outer rail. If the maximum be set at six inches,
the safe allowable speeds for different curves would be : Three degrees, 60 miles an
hour; four degrees, 50 miles an hour; five degrees, 45 miles an hour; six degrees,
40 miles an hour; eight degrees, 35 miles an hour; ten degrees, 30 miles an hour;
fifteen degrees, 25 miles an hour. The present Canadian Pacific Imperial Limited
makes the run from Montreal to Winnipeg, a distance of 1,421 miles, in prac-
tically 48 hours, at an average speed, including stops, of a little less than 30 miles
an hour. A speed of 30 miles an hour is quite safe on 10 degrees curves. By
quite safe, I mean it is easy riding and no perceptible shocks to the passenger.
Therefore, there is no objection, with such trains, to 19 degrees curves on account
of speed. The Twentieth Century Limited, between Xew York and Chicago,
makes the run of 980 miles in 20 hours, or at an average speed of 49 miles an
hour, including stops. In the present condition of railroading, it w(»uld not be
safe, and certainly would not be advisable, on such a long run as that between
Quebec and Winnipeg to exceed an average speed, including stops, of 40 miles per
liour. If we assume an average running speed of 45 miles per hour, exclusive of
stops, and a ten degree curve so long that the average speed must be reduced for
a inile — and I may say that such a curve would be very exceptional indeed — the
loss in time in reducing from 45 miles per hour to 30 miles per hour would be
only sixty-seven hundredths of a minute. One hundred such curves would only
mean a reduction in the running time between Quebec and Winnipeg of one hour.
Such a loss of time on such a long journey has no value whatever.

Q. And if- a greater speed were required it could easily be provided for by
cutting out a number of country stops, or introducing quicker methods of taking
wat^r? — A. Yes.

Q. What is the effect on haulage capacity of locomotives if sharper curvature
l)e used ? — A. The standard compensation for curvature on grades on this conti-
nent is 0.04 feet per degree for 100 feet. This is the rate as authorized in section
27 of the " General Instructions " issued by the Commissioners of the Transconti-
nental Railway. It is believed by the great majority of engineers and railroad
men that this rate is too high, but at all events, it is high enough. .\ 10 degree
curve on the level has. therefore, the same limiting effect on the haulage capacity
of a locomotive as has a 0.4 per cent grade on a tangent. All limiting effects on
the haulage capacity of locomotives on 0.4 per cent ruling grades can be eli-
minated by making the grade on the curve level. 10 degree curves are, therefore,
not limiting, as far as haulage capacity of the locomotives are concerned.

Q. Does a 10-degree curve have any limiting effci-t upon modern rolling
stock? — A. All modern locomotives and cars can safely traverse curves as sharp
as 14 degrees, without any extra preea\itions ; with guard and hold-up rails they
will safely traverse curves as sharp as 22 degrees. 10-degree curves are not, there-
fore, limiting as far as equipment is concerned.

Q. What wodd you say as to the relative danger between six-degree and
ten-degree curves? — \. The relative danger in the use of curves on a railway is
wholly one of speed and the condition of the track; and curves as high as 15
degrees, or even 20 degrees, are quite safe, if in proper alignment and surface, and
the speed is reduced to the safe limit.

Q. Wjiat wo\dd you say, generally, then, in connection with the use of
curves sliarpcr than six degrees on the Transcontinental Kailway, where a con-
siderable amount of money might have been saved in original construction? — A.
Curves as sharp as 10 degrees do not add to the cost of maintenance and opera-
tion, and are not more dangerous, at the proper speed, than Hatter curves. They
are not limiting ns to the haulage capacity of locomotives, or to the character of

IXYESTiaAriXG C0M1IIS8I0X 453

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

the equipment. They are not limiting as to the speed of trains of a class equal to
the C.P.R. Imperial Limited, and are only limiting as to time when the maximum
allowable speed will be used, which certainly will not be for years. The limiting
effect at that time will be so small as to have no appreciable effect on the road.
On the other hand, as such a curve — unlike a steep grade — is not limiting in its
effect, the use of one such curve does not justify the use of another. Their free
use would undoubtedly depreciate the character of the road. Each case must be
decided solely on its own merits, and only because the use of the sharper curves
would result in a large saving.

Q. Then would you have recommended a modification in this original
instruction concerning a maximum degree of curvature? — A. The rule is a rea-
sonable one to be included in the General Instructions, but it should have been
modified by a circular to the effect that where the use of curves sharper than 6
degrees would result in a large saving, surveys should be made and detail estimates
submitted, showing the amount of such saving : no curve sharper than six degrees
to be used without the express sanction of the chief engineer in each case.

Q. Would any large saving have been effected had this latitude been given
in the construction of this railway? — A. There cannot be any doubt that in
rough crooked country this rule, rigidly adhered to, especially in connection with
the rule making the minimum length of tangents between the ends of easement
curves 300 feet, must have resulted in tremendous expenditures that have abso-
lutely no value whatever.

By the Chairman:

Q. "What is a tangent? — A. A straight line.

Q. A straight line lying between the curves? — A. Yes.

Q. And so when one speaks of a tangent on a railway, he means a straight
line? — A. Yes.

Q. A circular is 360 degrees? — A. Yes.

Q. And the more degrees there are in that curve, the sharper that curve is?
— A. The more degrees there are in 100 feet of that curve, the sharper the curve
is; that i?. in speaking of a six-degree or eight-degree or ten-degree curve.

Q. When you speak of a six-degree curve, you mean there are six degrees in
100 feet of that curve?— A. Yes.

Q. And when they speak of the number of degrees in a curve, they are
speaking of LOO feet of the curve? — A. Xot quite. ^Vhen they speak of the
degree of a curve, it means the number of degrees in 100 feet.

By Mr. Gutelius:
Q. The numljer of degrees of central angle in 100 feet of a curve ? — A. Yes.

By the Chairman:

Q. When you speak of a six-degree curve being preferable to a ten-degree
curve, you do so because a six-degree curve is flatter than the ten-degree curve,
and a ten-degree is sharper than a six? — A. Yes.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. Are ten-degree curves used on the main lines of important Canadian
railways? — A. Yes.

Q. You have ridden over such curves at rates in excess of those mentioned
in your evidence? — A. Yes, frequently.

Q. And did not feel that you were going in tlie ditch, either? — A. No.

By the Chairman:
Q. Trains often go at a higher speed that laid down in the rule? — A. Yes.
Q. The rule leaves a large margin of safety, does it not? — A. Yes.

454 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. Ten miles an hour is considered reasonable excess speed over a track that
is elevated for a given speed? — A. Yes.

Q. That is, a curve elevated for 45 miles an hour can be traversed by a train
at 55 miles an hour, and, whilst you recognize that you are traversing a curve, it
is not dangerous? — A. No. »•

By the Chairman:
Q. A train may exceed the speed laid down in the rule by ten miles an hour
with safety? — A. Yes.

By Mr. Gutelius:
Q. You referred a moment ago to the length of tangent between curves? —
A. Yes.

Q. You have handed in a copy of a circular letter, dated Ottawa, June 8th,
1906, signed D. MacPherson, assistant chief engineer? — A. Yes.

Q. You have noted the last clause of the letter which says " In special cases,
where it would result in a large saving in cost of construction, tangents may be a
minimum length of 300 feet between ends of easements, but this minimum must
on no account be reduced ". You understand that in the original instructions this
length of tangents between curve easements was given as 600 feet, and MacPher-
son's letter reduces it to 300 feet. Do you believe it is good engineering practice
to insist on even a minimum of 300 feet between the ends of easement curves? —
A. I do not. On the contrary, I believe it j.& very bad engineering. Easement
curves are used for the purpose of preventing shock to the train, caused by the
sudden change in direction in passing from a straight line to a curve, and to
permit of the elevation of the outer rail to be gradually increased. Spiral, or
easement curves, have an infinite radius at their commencement. The radius is
gradually reduced from the point of commencement to the point where the ease-
ment curve coincides with the regular circular curve. Or, in other words, the
curve starts as a straight line, and is generally sharpened until it reaches the point
where it merges with the circular curve, where it is of the same degree. At the
same time the elevation of the outer rail is gradually increased, being zero at the
point of commencement of the easement curve, and the full amount required
where the two curves merge. Witli good alignment there is no perceptible shock
in entering or leaving a curve.

Q. By good alignment, you mean the surface given by the trackmen, and
tlie removal of small kinks, that is in the hands of the trackmen? — A. Yes.

Q. With curves spiralled in this manner, is there any objection to bringing
the points of spiral closer together? — A. No. The objection to ordinary reverse
curves — that is, curves wliich, at a point, change from a curve in one direction to a
curve in the opposite direction — is that there is double the shock tliere would be in
entering or leaving a simple curve. At the point of the reverse, what was the outer
rail of one curve at once becomes the inner rail of the other curve. It is impossible
to at once change the elevation of the outer rail from one rail to the other; this
must, of course, be done gradually; so tliat for a cert^iin distance on each curve
there is an improper elevation. Taken altogether, the double change in direction,
and the lurch in the car changing from an elevation on one side to an elevation on
the otlier, causes a violent shock, even with the most perfect track which it is
possible to maintain

Q. This refers to reverse circular curves? — A. Yes, that is curves without
any easement curves. On the otlier liand, where proper easement curves are used,
the cars pass gradually and imperceptibly from the curve, and gradually and im-
perceptibly obtain their upright position, so that by the time the end of the ease-
ment curve is reached, the tracks are in a perfect straight line, and are perfectly
upright, and therefore in a perfect condition to enter another curve in the reverse

INTESTIGATIKG COMMISSION 455

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

direction, provided this curve in the opposite direction is also approached by means
of a similar easement curve. Theoretically, therefore, there is no objection whatever
for one curve, provided with a proper easement, to at once change to another similar
curve in the opposite direction. Practically, however,, even the best track is never
in perfect condition, either as to alignment or surface, and it is advisable to allow,
say 50 feet of a straight line between easement curves in opposite directions.

Q. This is largely on account of the length of cars? — A. Yes.

Q. The single truck would pass from one easement curve to another without
any shock? — A. Yes.

Q. What ejffect does curve easement have on the speed of trains and tlie com-
fort of passengers? — A. With such alignment, there is nothing whatever to
prevent passenger trains making a speed of 60 miles an hour without perceptible
shock to the passengers.

Q. Around curves of three degrees ? — A. Yes. If sharper curves, they must,
of course, be reduced in proportion, but as far as the reversing is concerned, there is
no perceptible shock. The degree of curve must have its proper speed, as already
referred to, in the question of sharper curves.

Q. In other words, if two curves of a given degree of curvature are reversed
and spiralled, and their points of spiral were fifty feet apart, they would ride as
comfortably, and be as safe as if the tangent between these points of curve were
300 or 600 feet?— A. Yes.

Q. And any greater length than those, which requires large expenditure,
would be a useless refinement? — A. Yes.

Q. Would it have any effect on the tonnage that locomotives can haul? — A.
It would liave no effect wJiatever on the tonnage. It would not permit them to haul
any more tonnage or to make any better time.

Q. So til at these tangents might have been reduced on the Transcontinental^
without affecting the efficiency of the road, or the comfort of the passengers, or
the running time of passenger trains in any particular? — A. Yes.

Q. And any money that might have been saved by reducing these tangents
should have been saved if advantage were taken of the points which 3^ou have raised?
—A. Yes.

Q. What, tlien, do you say of the rule itself? — A. Such a rule is decidedly
expensive on construction in a rough crooked country, such as is much of the
country traversed by the Transcontinental. I have been trying mentally to apply
it to some of the rough country through which I have located railways, and I
confess the thought appalls me. I am certain many many millions must have been
spent in this way to produce results that are absolutely valueless, or, to speak more
correctly, are worse than valueless. The object for which the Transcontinental
must have been built was to give a good rapid passenger and freight service between
the east and west, and above all to secure the most economical means of moving
traffic between the west and east, and vice versa. Or, in other words, to build a
road tliat would permit of freight being handled at the very lowest possible rate.
No railway can for a great length of time move traffic at less than cost. The actual
cost of handling traffic is the cost of operation, plus the fixed charges. A railway
can handle traffic at the least cost when the sum of the operating expenses and the
fixed charges is the least sum. Any increase in fixed charges which does not reduce
the operating expenses by the same or greater sum is an added burden for the road
to carry, and means an added amount to freight rates. This ruling that at least
300 feet must be i;sed between easement curves in opposite directions must add a
very large amount to the cost of the road, without in any way reducing the oper-
ating expenses, and therefore adds to the cost of handling traffic, and it is in this
respect a debasement of the road similar in effect to an increase in the grades.

456 NATIOXAL TRAXSCOXTIXEyTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. Can you give us the rules with regard to spiral or easement curves on
any other roads with which you have been connected? — A. Yes. The Canadian
Pacific Eules regarding spirals or easement curves are as follows: —

" Spirals must be used on all final location. Under ordinary conditions
the length in feet of spiral for main lines will be equal to the degree of curve
multiplied by 100 feet, the maximum length being 400 feet. On branch lines
or rough countr}-, spirals may bo shortened, the length being equal to tlie degree
of curve multiplied by 50 feet, the maximum length being 200 feet. The
minimum length of tangents on main lines between curves in opposite direc-
tions will be at least equal to half the length of the two spirals required for
curves, the minimum in any case being 200 feet.

I might put in an explanation there. "What is meant is the minimum length
of tangents on main lines between simple curves ; that is before the easement curve
was introduced; so that then you permit of the curves being spiralled, without any
tengent between the point of spiral. The rules proceed

" On the same section of line, if sharp curves and short spirals are
necessary to avoid heavy construction, do not use this standard over the whole
section, but try to improve other portions so that fast speed may be made to
compensate for slow speed over first mentioned portion ".

Q. From this rule it appears that the Canadian Pacific not only permit their
engineers to locate a railway without any tangents between spirals but they also
permit of the spiral being shortened, where money can be- saved ? — A. Yes.

Q. So that that feature, if introduced in the rougher country along the Trans-
continental, would doubtless have enabled the engineers to have accomplished even
greater savings than if the tangent between points of spiral had been simply reduced
to 50 feet? — A. Yes, undoubtedly.

Q. Do you think that the practice of the Canadian Pacific Railway would
have been proper for the Transcontinental engineers to have followed? — A. Yes,
I undoubtedly think so.

By the Chairman :

Q. There are two kinds of curves; there is the circle curve? — A. Yes.

Q. You have sj)oken of two kinds of curves; one is the circle curve and the
other the spiral or easement curve; is that correct? — A. Yes.

Q. The circle curve is just part of a circle? — A. Yes.

Q. If vou continue the curve vou will come to the point wlicre vou start? —
A. Yes.

Q. The spiral or casement curve is such a curve that if you continue it you
will never come back to where you started ? — A. No.

Q. That is to say, a spiral curve is one in which the curve keeps changing, or
may keep changing all the time. It is sharper or flatter as you go along?— A. Yes.

Q. You speak of the practice of the C.P.K. in regard to curves. Is that
practice peculiar to the C.P.R.? — A. Xo.

Q. Or is it the general practice of American roads? — A. Yes the general
practice of the best American railways.

Q. Adjusted to fit their particular territory? — A. Yes.

Q. But it is recognized as a standard practice? — A. Yes.

Q. Xot one invented by themselves? — A. Xo.

Q. In a spiral curve the radius changes at cverv point? — A. Yes.

INTESTIGATIXG COlIllIiiSIOX 457

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. That is to say. a line drawn from what was the centre when you started
the curve to different points in the curve will never be the same? — A. Will never
be the same.

Q. To put it in a homely way, if one takes a piece of rope and coils it up on
the floor, he will have a spiral curve if he follows the rope round? — A. Yes.

Q. Referring to your statement that a very large amount of money might
have been saved by reducing the length of tangents between curves, will you please
explain just how that saving could be made? — A. "Well, this saving can be made
because a line with short tangents between reverse curves is more flexible than one
with longer tangents. In many cases it enables the engineer to avoid heavy cuts
and deep fills, more especially in crooked country; that is where the contour is
very crooked.

Q. In other words, the engineer should be allowed to use his discretion, so
that lie mav adjust the line so as to avoid expensive cuttings and deep fills? — A.
Yes.

By 21 r. GuteJius:

Q. So that with a larger margin in the matter of the degree of curve, a larger
margin in the matter of the length of tangents between curves in the same direc-
tion, or curves in opposite directions, the locating engineer would have been able
to have laid out a line of railway which would cost very much less, would he not?
— A. Yes, very much less.

By tlie Chairman :

Q. A note to all these rules, saying that these Avere only for general guid-
ance, and that the engineer was expected to use ordinary discretion, would have
avoided the trouble? — A. It would not have required a note. If the engineers
were told that thev were allowed certain latitude it would have answered.

(Adjourned till 2.30 p.m.)

COERY BUILDIXCt,

Wednesday afternoon, Xovember 27th, 1912.

Continued examination of Mr. W. F. Tye by the Transcontinental Investi-
srating Commission (Messrs. F. P. Gutelius and George Lynch-Staunton).

iieporier sworn.

CIRCULAR XO. lis.

Mr GuieUvs: — With further reference to curvature. Mr. Tve, vou have been
furnished with a copy of Circular Xo. 118, dated Ottawa. August ISth, 1908,
signed D. MacPherson. Assistant Chief Engineer: what have you to say to the
opening sentence which reads as follows : — '' It is desirable to have all bridges
(especially high trestles) on tangents and level grades, if such locations can be
obtained without excessive cost"?

Mr. Tye : — In regard to the desirability of " having all bridges (especially
high trestles) on level grades " I believe a sweeping instruction such as this is
very apt to lead the engineers in the field astray. There are certainly many cases
where it is not advisable to put trestles on level grades even if it could be done with-
out extra cost.

458 XATIOML TRAySCOyTiyENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

On a long grade, whether ruling, pusher or minor, it would certainly be un-
advisable and bad engineering to introduce short stretches of level at every bridge
or trestle. This would introduce the very danger the circular tries to avoid in
the second sentence, namely, a shock to the trestle caused by break in grade.

There is no apparent reason why a short grade should be broken to introduce
a level grade on a trestle; every break in grade is objectionable to some degree and
should only be introduced for economic reasons.

There is no reason why trestles or bridges should be treated any different from
the ordinary road bed as far as grades and alignment are concerned.

It would certainly be desirable to have the whole road on a tangent and level
grade, but this is impossible — any grade or any curve should be introduced solely
for economic reasons. A liberal scale of values has been given for curvature, rise
and fall, etc., etc. If the introduction of a curve or a grade will save more than
the values given, then it should be introduced, otherwise not. If there are special
circumstances surrounding any particular place which makes it undesirable why
a curve or grade should not be introduced such circumstances should be given
due weight. For instance, a trestle on a curve might give unsafe foundations
while on a tangent the foundations might be quite good. It would be advisable in
this case to take the tangent even if the curve were much cheaper.

A circular which says that bridges or trestles should be on tangents and level
grades is wrong; it simply leads the engineers in the field to believe that such
conditions must be met and a better line with curves and grades on the trestles
miglit not even be considered.

j\Ir. GuteJius : — What have you to sny to tlie second sentence — which reads, " It
is particularly objectionable to have such structures located on vertical curves,
at the intersection of two grades " ?

Mr. Tye: — This is objectionable in the same way — it does not put any money
value on a vertical curve on a bridge; it simply tolls the engineer in the field that
such a thing is "particularly objectionable". The circular goes on to say —
" Wherever it is impossible to conform with the above-mentioned requirements
without greatly increasing the cost, detailed comparative estimates should be sub-
mitted showing exactly what it would cost to eliminate the objectionable features".
That is, the circular tells the engineer that if he can a^'oid curves on bridges or
grades or on vertical curves at any reasonable cost he must do so; if the cost is
unreasonable he must send estimates of the cost of elimination of the so called
" objectionable features " and the head office will decide — elsewhere they tell him
$50,000 for taking a curve off one end of a high trestle is considered reasonable.

The circular is simply an open invitation to reckless extravagance without
one standard to guide the engineer. If there were anwhere in tlie world a rail-
road which did not have bridges and trestles on curve? or grades or vertical curves,
there miglit be some excuse for such a circular, but I do not believe such a road
exists or is ever likely to be built.

Mr. Gvtelhis: — It would prove then tliat the basis for this circular i« simply
sentiments?

Mr. Tye:— Yes.

Mr. Lynch-Ftanniou : — And that is all?

Mr. Tye: — Yes.

Mr. Lynch-Staiinfnn : — What do you mean by the expression " Tii^re is a
scale of values for grade and curvature"?

Mr. Tye: — Well, that if they can eliminate any curve they may do so provided
it will not cost more than a sum which has been set. The same way with rise
and fall.

Mr. Lynch-Siaunion: — Then a scale of values means he may make changes
provided these changes will not give an increased cost more than a certain stated
sum. That is what vou moan bv the expression?

IlfTESTIOATING COMMISSION 459

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Mr. Tye:— Yes.

Mr. Lynch-Stauntoji : — And those aEcounts are set down for the different
changes which may be contemplated?

Mr. Tye: — ^Yes.

Mr. GiiteUus : — And they are based on the volume of traffic so that capital
expenditure will have the effect of reducing operating expenses?

Mr. Tye:— Yes.

Mr. Lynch- Staunton: — You have stated Mr. Tye that where a bridge is built
on a curve, the foundation may be unstable whereas if it were put on a tangent
the foundation might be sound. You mean by that, do you not, that on a curve a
foundation will be on one side while on a tangent it would be on another and that
the natural side may in the one case be good and in the other bad?

Mr. Tye:— Yes.

Mr. Lynch-Staunton: — So, therefore, insisting on the rule that no bridge
should be on a curve they may be deliberately taking a worse foundation?

Mr. Tye: — Yes.

Mr. Lynch-Staunton: — So that they must be governed by the local condi-
tions in deciding whether they shall have a curve or a tangent in any bridge?

Mr. Tye : — Yes.

Mr. Lynch-Staunton : — Now what is a vertical curve ?

Mr. Tye : — The grades as drawn on a profile, if produced to an intersection,
would come to a sharp, sudden change just as if two straight horizontal lines were
produced to an intersection.

Mr. Lynch Staunton: — Starting from a given point and going a thousand feet
westerly you are going downward, we will say on a four-tenths grade. Then that
four-tenths stops at a thousand feet and suddenly turns the other way up for four-
tenths. Now where these two meet is of course the lowest point on the two grades.
Now, Mr. Tye, where does the vertical curve come in in that case?

Mr. Tye : — Well at that point there is a sharp angle and you don't want angles
because they cause a lurch in the train, and so the grade is put in to take out that
angle just the same as a curve is put in, in a vertical curve; just the same as a
horizontal would be yai in if the lines were horizontal.

Mr. Lynch-Staunton: — So you make a curve on the roadbed so that one of
these grades can run gentlv into the other?

Mr. Tye :— Yes.

Mr. Lynch-Staunton: — That is there are horizontal and vertical curves as we
understand the words ?

Mr. Tye : — Yes.

CUEYES ON TRESTLES.

Mr. Gutelius: — You have just handed a copy of file No. 305 relating to eurves,
Mr. Tye? "Will you state whether in your opinion curves on trestles are unduly
objectionable?

Mr. Tye: — Curves on trestles are objectionable in the same way as curves are
objectionable on any portion of a railway. The ideal condition is a straight line
and a level grade, but unfortunately it is very r&rely that such conditions can be
realized. The objections to curves are the additional wear on the rails and the
additional danger of derailment. The additional wear of the rail on a curve on a
trestle is no greater than on any other curve. The additional danger of derail-
ment on a curve on a trestle is usuallv less than on anv other curve.

460 NATIOXAL TA'AXSCOXTiyENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Mr. Gutelnis: — "Why do you say it is less?

Mr. Tye : — The track on trestles with proper fomidatioiis, properly constructed
and kept in proper repair, is almost invariably better than the track on ordinary
roadbed. The proper elevation of the outer rail is more easily maintained and
therefore the danger of derailment on a curve on a trestle is less than on a curve
on ordinary roadbed.

Mr. Gutelkis: — Just why is that the case?

Mr. Tye: — Well, the trestle lias a solid foundation. It is carried up in solid
timber, steel, concrete or piles, or whatever it happens to be, and therefore there
is no question as to settlement; whereas an embankment made of earth or rock will
always settle. This is more especially true when the road is new. But even in
old embankments it does hap])en, and they are also more subject to washing by
rains, storms and so forth and therefore there is more chance of settlement and
consequently more danger of derailment.

Mr. Gufeliiis: — On a curve on an embankment rather than a curve on a
trestle or bridge?

Mr. Tye: — ^Yes.

Mr. Gutelius: — Is there any further reason why a curve on a trestle or bridge
is made safer against derailment than on an ordinary embankment.

Mr. Tye : — In case of derailment the chances of a wreck are less on a curve
on a trestle than on a curve on the ordinary roadbed because curves on trgstles
are fitted with safety appliances. Inside guard rails are, or should be, placed on
every trestle to prevent a derailed truck from turning at an angle to the track and
to safely guide the track across the trestle. A familiar form of this safety
appliance is the " Jordan Guard ". One or more outside guard stringers are also
placed on all trestles to further prevent the derailed trucks from turning at an
angle to the track, and to help in safely guiding the truck in a line parallel with
the rails. Ties are spaced much more closely on trestles than on ordinary track
and are firmly bolted to the stringers, thus preventing all bunching and so pre-
venting the wheels dropping into the spaces made by the bunching of the ties. No
such precautions are taken on curves on ordinary track. Hence the danger of a
wreck is less where a derailment occurs on a trestle than on ordinary roadbed.

Mr. Gutelius: — Because on an ordinary rbadbed provisions in the way of guard
rails are not made ?

Mr. Tye: — Exactly.

Mr. GxiieJins: — Is there anything in the statement that a trestle is a weak
ppot in a roadbed?

Mr. Tye: — There is none whatever. The added strain can be easily taken
carQ of in the design of the trestle. The only objection to a curve on a trestle
over and above a curve on the ordinary roadbed is the possibility of more serious
damage should the truck surmount the inside guard rails and the outside guard
stringers and the cars plunge over the side of the trestle. Such a wreck would
undoubtedly bo a bad one. but so would a wreck on a high rock embankment or on
a steep rock side hill — it is questionable which would be the worse — and it is abso-
lutely im]X)Ssible that curves can be avoided in all such places.

Mr. Gutelius: — ^^Vhat would you say about the possibility of bnilding trestles
on a tangent?

Mr. Tye: — It is absolutely impossible that all trestles on curves can be avoided.
It is axiomatic that in economic railroad location that the curve be placed at the
obsta<::le rather than at either side of it. The very nature of a stream requiring a
large trestle is that it lies in a deep valley — or that the general contour of the
country is concave at that point. If the country is to be fitted with an economic
line under such conditions a curve is required at that point. Many valleys are so
wide and deep that it is necessary to run the railway up one side for a certain
distance until a practical crossing is found, and follow back on the other side until

INVESTIGATIXG COMAIISSIOX • 461

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

the general line of the route is again encountered. This condition naturally
requires a curve at the crossing of the valley. The location may be following down
a branch of a stream and where this branch meets the main stream a crossing of
the main stream may be necessary — under such conditions a curve at the inter-
section of the streams is almost sure to be a necessity. Dozens of other instances
might be cited where curves at streams are necessary, and if in any of them the
curve is not placed on the bridge the added expense would be excessive. Such a
ruling applied to a long road like the Transcontinental and rigidly carried out
would entail an appalling expenditure, and I venture to say there must be many
curves on trestles on the Transcontinental. The factors in the problem are these:

The track on trestles is the best on the railway.

Additional safeguards are used on all trestles to prevent derailmenr, or to
fruide the derailed trucks over the trestle.

Wrecks on trestles are but little worse than those on high rock Ijanks or steep,
rocky side hills.

Q. Xo attempt is made to avoid curves on high rock banks or on steep, rocky
side hills.

Q. It is impossible to avoid all or many curves on trestles.

It, therefore, is a waste of good money to attempt to avoid curves on trestles
in isolated cases where the expenditure involved is large.

Mr. Gutelius: — What then is your opinion. Mr. Tye, in connection with the
rock embankment at the east end of the Little Salmon Biver viaduct, Avhere it
was decided to construct a rock borrow embankment rather than to extend the
trestle at an additional expense of $50,000?

Mr. Tije : — In the case mentioned in file 30 J, Salmon liiver viaduct, unless
there are some other grave reasons for the change which are not mentioned in
the correspondence, the expense involved, $50,000, in extending the trestle was
simply so much money thrown away.

Mr. Lynch-Siaunion : — In that case there is a curved rock embankment?

Mr. Tye : — Yes.

Mr. Lynck-Staunton: — That was put in to avoid having a curved brid^re?

Mr. Tye:— Yes.

Mr. Lynch-Staunton : — Your opinion is that a curved bridge should have been
put in?

Mr. Tye: — Yes, if there was a saving of $50,000 l)y so putting it in.

Mr. Lyncli-Staunton: — In a case of a curve on a bridge, the centrifugal force
you speak of is only on the side of the trestle ?

Mr. Tye :— Yes.

Mr. Lynch-Siaunion: — Then Avould there, or would lliere not, l)c a consider-
able increase in the cost of strengthening that bridge?

Mr. Tye : — ISTo, the cost is not very much greater ; it is inconsideral)le.

Mr. Lynch-Staunton: — You have explained that in your opinion more things
jnight happen on a curved embankment than on a curved bridge. Xow I want to
fisk you is there any rule laid down for the guidance of the engineers of tlio Trans-
continental which forbids them to make curved embankments?

Mr. Tye : — Xone whatever.

Mr. Lynch-Staunton: — You do not object to curved embankments any more
than )'ou do to curved bridges ?

Mr. r^/e:— Xo.

Mr. Lynch-Staunton : — But the engineers oF the Transcontinental in allowing
curves on embankments and forbidding them on bridges are illogical. That is what
your statement is meant to convey?

Mr. Ti/e:—Ye^.

462 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

VOLUME OF TKAFFIC.

ifr. Gutelius: — Your attention is directed, Mr. Tye, to blue print No. 59,
which is the " Table of values for Equating Distance, Eise and Fall, Curvature and
so forth," issued August 30th, 1905, signed by D, MacPherson, assistant chief
engineer, and approved by Hugh D. Lumsden, chief engineer. Your special atten-
tion is directed to the note on this blue print which reads as follows: —

" For calculating justifiable expenditure per mile, ten daily trains each
way (equal to twenty trains daily) will be assumed between Moncton and
Quebec, and between Winnipeg and junction of branch to North Bay.
Between other points twelve daily trains will be assumed."

As an engineer, Mr. Tye, who has had to do with the construction of trans-
continental railways, do you believe that the assumption of this large number of
daily trains is justifiable as a foundation for these values? And you might state
to us the date when, from your calculation, this number of trains will actually
be run.

Mr. Tye : — In order to economically locate a railway it is essential to have
a reasonably good idea as to the probable volume of traffic. There is no way in
which this can be ascertained as readily and as correctly as by comparison with
an established road through the same country serving the same traffic. Lying
parallel to the route of the National Transcontinental is the Canadian Pacific Kail-
way, built under very similar conditions and serving the same country and the
same traffic. The amount and growth of traffic on that road furnishes the best
possible guide to the probable future traffic on the National Transcontinental
t7ailway.

i

INVESTIGATIXG COMMISSION
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

463

^i-Hoo-^r— cccc^^iOi— <C5^H'+|>-occ

zz.H GO 0_ r-- O r-^_ I>-_^ LO^ (M^ 00^ C^^ ^^ 0\ 0_ 0_
~S '-f"" ci" — " ^^ — ^ !>l" O" -^^ OO" "+" C-f O" !>." '-''

t2 o cn '^ ^ <M„ ^'v ^^ ^^ 00^ o_ t^ r-H^ a>_ Lo^ Ci^
' ■S .-T .-T (m" c^-f c<r co" CO TjT TtT u:;" io~ t^ oo"

J- S GO

^!2 o"

o

I— I

— xx>

C<» ""^i O 00 CO w LO O <M lO 00 ^ 'f ^
" O O CO (N C^l, O O^ O^ 00__ OD^ C-J^ LO_ CO^

cT lo" ^^ c/T Lo" cT o~ oo' lo" — <~ lo" oo" oT

o<; CO ^ t^ ^^ (M 0_ T-H^ (M_^ 00^ C^__ C5_ TtH^ -rf^^ t^

— " i-T rt" r-T c^' c<r co^ co^ co^ '*" co" '*" irT ltT

-nXOr-iGO-o— 'CO-*:OCli-O000O>-':i
KOOCOO^HoOOC5»OC^O(Mt^'*
-a I (M CO Tfi 00, O '^^ ^„ t^ '^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ "^^ '^^

~ S lo co" c^" 'i^'" 'rf ocT o" --*" '+" ^ Ci" (ji c^ ao
exooOo^t^'^^^t^'^'Tiooos

'="^(N(MCvlc^C<J(M<M(N(MC<>Cq(MCO

o

CO 00 o ^

CO CO Tti "*
CO co^ co_ o_

C5 ^ o r^

00_ r-^ I>._^ C^l^

^ o" iC of

CO "^ ic '^

X GO O 20

t^ ^^ C-l CO O

CO C^ CO Ci C5

oT oo" ^" go" go"

O t^ O LO "*

uo CO_ 00^ I>^ o^
co" o" I>^ i-O" -^^

CO 03 O CO o
O '-' C^ '^ 20

00 c: 'jf CO t-,

(M UO 00 O o
!>. Tti lO G5 .— I

Tt< IC -* '— I t>.

'Tl '^ "Tt^ C^ C3

^ "*_ 05 00^ o

cT "*" o" c<r ^

GO O (M O ^
O £>• t^ C<1 T^

<

Oh

o
o

>
^ 1 =

^ «^

o

1— (

E=H

I— (

o

I— I

Q

<
<

--H Tfi j.^ X tr

o 00 o =2 o

. ^ CO CO ^ c^

' iTi ^ i^ C^ r-t

I>. Tl^ ft Cl t>-^

•> t-^ c<r '^i" <m"

CO CO Tt CO o

O^OG0C;Tt'Oi-0(M

1— iiooo-^ocoio-^oo
i>^ ""i, ""1, ^^ ^^ c^^ ""i, '^^ 05

<MC5COOOrf<COOO
G0_^ O^ t^^ T-H^ <M^ CO (M t^^ i-H

co~ of cT ci" co' od" 1^ c<r i-T

OiOiOOOClQOO'^'— I

C^OoCOcoi>-iMOOtO(NOOrjH(MTf
t^iOcMt^OsOCOOCOOOOiOr-iTtH

o_ '^^ (N "^^ ^^ *^ "*, <^ '^^ •>:, 1^ CO^ 20^ i^
i-H (m" o" ^ r-T cT o" o~ Tt^~ o" co" CO*" gT cT

— ^OoCO(^^'— it>.'-HOO'*00G0O
O <M__ O ^^ Ci^ "-1, <^t 0_ Ci_ Ca_ 00 O^ -^^^ Tti

of co" --tT co^ TjT uo" irT lo" lo" o" irf o" i>^ od"

SoOOO'-HOIcO'^iOOt^OOOiOi— t

"^OJOiOOOOOOOOOO'-i'-t

OOOOOiOiOiOlOSOiOiOiCiOiOlO^

&H

""^

1—1

I— 1

1—1

1— (

'"^

1—1

'"^

oi

(M

1— (

)— (

CO

on

r^

-.o

^1

o

^

o

o

r-

— (

CO

r'*

L"^

^^

S-a

r^

i-H

lo

GO

-^

QO

1— I

o

<M

o

t^

r^

00

CO

03 §

co"

CO^

co"

co"

00__

o"

CO
oo"

oq_

1— (

1—1

1—1

C5

hJ

o

y—t

•^

o

o

1^

o

fN

CO

'f

r^

GO

O

<
P^

o

t^

00

I-H

1— 1

co_^

co_^

1—1

I— I

LO

1—1

co_^

T— 1

CO

1—1

I— i

lO

p:?

O

<

l-H
<

C B

33s
OS d

-Mo

x>

IS .

05 Ol -H 00 Ol CO ■*
r^ (M (M O t^ 00 CO

05^ 0_ lO^ lO^ O0_^ 1>^ 05_

cT cT oo" co' co" ctT o

lO lO (N CO 1^ 00 t^
Tt< lO CO 1— I O 00 1— I

OO lO CO (N t^ 00 00
O lO -^ CO -rt^ iC (M
Ol^ 05^ O^ -^^^ lO^ l>^ CO^

»o od" gT o Ci '— < cd"

(M CO

GO rJH t^ CO C5 00 Tt^
lO 1— I Tt< OO (M O ^
to O CO CO 1— I O CO

r-T c<f TjT co' co" ic" lo"

O to (M lO t^ 00 i-i

t^ O. O CO -^ 1— I CO
t^ i-< Tt^ -^^ to t>^ 1— t

to co" CO ^" ^" of Ci'
GO t-

00 'f to to to CO 1—1 to to
^^nOt^OOCOCOCOlM
I>.t^CO_cOcOCO_(MtO^CO

r— li— ICOtOOSt^t—OiO
,— it^t^t^OOlt^OOr-H
1— li— It— li— Hr— |i— ll— (1— lOl

oooooooo
ooooooooo
o p^ o^ o^ o^ o^ o_ p^ p_
"-^^ t^ tjh" o~ trT o(f cf t^-T T-T

1— ii— ii— (COtOOltO-^Cl
tOtooO'^COTt'COC^I
to ^'-

lO 1— (

GO 1-1

-rt^

.-I 05 CO t^ Tt^ ^
t^ 00 O Tti OS (N
1-1 1-1 <M (M (N CO

tOOOOJQOOOicOiOtO
t^OOCsCOcOCOrt^COCi
t> r-H (M tO_^ C5 CO_^ to O^ <N^

co" to" cT ^ <m" "^"^ ^ co" i>^

(M(M(M^C0'*O5(MC0

OtOC5(N<M'-'t^OC5
1— iOi(MO'^"^l>-'— ICO
1—1 1— ( 00 to i-H^O^^O^O^OS^

i>~ (oT i-T (m" co~ CO co" to" cT

OOOOCitOtO.— itO"*
CO C5 CO r-H 00^ -^^ i-<^ CO^ C<1^

<n" cT oT co" oT c<j tC i>r cT

,—1 1— I r-H (M (M CO -^

Orfi'^a^OOOt^OO'^
03i— i<Ni— lOOiOcOOl
O <M 00 00 tO^ l>^ Cl^ t^ p_

(n" (>f "*" co" ■*" ^ cT oT to"

COGO'-iOO-^CSOOOO'-l
COd-^-^OOOSCO^^t^l^l^

l-H 1—1 (M

CO'^tOOt^OOOiO'-i

ooooooo^^

464 NATIOXAL TliAXSCOXTlXE^'TAL RAILWAY

WINNIPEG TO LAKE SUPERIOE.

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Ml'. Tye : — Taking first the section between Winnipeg and Lake Superior, the
annual reports of the Canadian Pacific give the total amount of the different com-
modities handled by tbat road. This is given for the whole road and not for
divisions or districts. Its grain traffic, however, practically all originates in the
^Yest, and is practically all hauled from Winnipeg to Fort William; so that the
amount of grain handled between Winnipeg and Fort William is a good index of
the amount of traffic on that division; grain and flour probably make up half of the
eastbound business between Winnipeg and the Lakes. Flour is simply manufac-
tured grain, and all fiour handled is made from Western grain so tbat a statement
showing average growth of the amount of grain handled in the past should give
a good index as to the probable growth of traffic in the future.

Tliis statement^ marked (1) taken from the annual reports, shows the differ-
ent commodities handled by the Canadian Pacific for each year ending June 30th,
from 1898 to 1911; and by the Canadian Xorthern for the years ending June 30th
from ] 903 to 1911.

This diagram, marked (2) shows graphically the amount of grain handled
each year by the Canadian Pacific and their mileage west of Fort William. This
chart shows wide fluctuations from year to year, but notwithstanding this, from
1900 to 1911 the average increase is fairly uniform, being at the rate of about eight
million bushels per annum. The Canadian Xorthern increase from 190-4 to 1911
is at the average rate of five million bushels per annum.

In 1905 the Canadian Pacific freight traffic avei'agcd for the whole year about
seven trains each way per day for the full 365 days in the year. On the same
basis, the C.P.E. traffic would have been at the rate of ten trains per day in 1909.
In 1905 the Canadian Pacific began active preparations for the construction of a
second track.

Grain in the West is practically all grown between Winnipeg on the east and
Calgary and Edmonton on the west. It is a fair assumption to say that the grain
liandled by the Grand Trunk Pacific and the National Transcontinental should be
in the same proportion to the C.P.P. as is the mileage in the grain growing district
of the one road to the other. It may be that at the present time the Grand Trunk
Pacific does not haul in the same proportion to its mileage as does the Canadian
Pacific, because the Canadian Pacific is more firmly established in the country; but
it is a safe assumption to say that when the Grand Trunk has its connections with
eastern lines which are at least as extensive as are those of the Canadian Pacific —
that the whole traffic will be in proportion to its grain haul, and its grain haul will
be in proportion to the mileage which it has in the west as compared with the
Canadian Pacific.

If, therefore, we assume that the Grand Trunk grain liaul and its traffic is
proportionate to its mileage between Winnipeg and Edmonton, as compared with
tlie mileage of the C.P.P. betM'een AVinnipeg and Calgary, the results may not be
correct at the present time, but will be reasonably so in the future when tlie Grand
Trunk lias its lines connected. In 1911 the C.P.TJ. total mileage from Winnipeg to
Calgary, including brandies, amounted to 5,308 miles; and the Grand Trunk
Pacific between Winnipeg and Edmonton, including branch lines, to 1,185 miles.
The ('.P.P. handled on the basis of their average haul, 110,000,000 bushels. This
would make the haul of the National Transcontinental 26,000.000 bushels. If.
therefore, tlie average grain haul of the Grand Trunk Pacific be taken as 26,000,000
bushels for the year ending June 30, 1911, and its rate of increase be assumed to
be the same as the Canadian Pacific, the National Transcontinental traffic between

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 465

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Winnipeg and Lake Superior would, as shown on the attached diagram, in 1917
amount to seven trains per day each way, of the same weight as those handled by
the Canadian Pacific in 1905, and to ten such trains each way a day in 1921.

In 1905 the Canadian Pacific had not completed its grade reductions and there-
fore could not haul as large loads as can the National Transcontinental. Its grades,
however, had been partially reduced and its trains were of a fair size. It is quite
safe to assume that ten locomotives on the National Transcontinental will haul as
much as could eleven locomotives on the Canadian Pacific on its 1905 basis. The
National Transcontinental on the basis already assumed would have a traffic of
eleven C.P.E. trains each way per day in 1922. Or in other words by the year 1922
the National Transcontinental between Winnipeg and Fort William will have a
traffic equal to ten of its own trains each way per day. As the actual construction
of the National Transcontinental was begun in 1905, in seventeen years from its
date of commencement it will have reached the standard which has been set between
Winnipeg and Fort William in these instructions. This seems to me to be a reason-
able basis to work on.

LAKE SUPERIOE TO COCHEANE.

Mr. OuteUns : — What do you say, Mr. Tye, about using the same basis for these
calculations on the line between Lake Superior Junction and Cochrane?

3/r. Tye : — It is considerably more difficult to decide on what the traffic between
Lake Superior Junction and Cochrane will be. The cheapest and easiest way to
handle traffic between the east and the west is via the Lakes. It has been proven
that during the period of navigation the traffic will go by this route in preference
to all-rail, and therefore during this period the traffic on the National Trans-
continental will be very light. It is impossible to handle all the grain during the
short period between the close of the harvest and the close of navigation, and during
the winter much grain must undoubtedly go via the all-rail route.

Again comparing with the Canadian Pacific : that company started to double
track its line between Winnipeg and Fort William in 1905. It is now in 1912 com-
mencing to double track between Fort William and Sudbury, or, in other words,
if it started its second track when its requirements were the same as they were
between Winnipeg and Fort William the number of trains east of Fort William
should now be equivalent to the number of trains between Fort William and "Win-
nipeg in 1905; or the traffic requirements west of Fort William are seven years in
advance of those east of Fort William. If the railway east of Fort William were
of the same high grade as that west of Fort William, or as that constructed by the
National Transcontinental^ then it would be a safe assumption to say that the
National Transcontinental would have seven trains each way per day in 1924, or
seven years after it would have that number west of Lake Superior. The roads,
however, are not in any respects of equivalent grades. The Canadian Pacific has,
west of Fort William a railroad equally as good as that constructed by the National
Transcontinental. East of Fort William, however, the road is not so efficient.
West of Fort William it has 0.4 per cent grades. East of Fort William and between
i"i:at point and Su'lbury the ru--ng gradf;s are at least 1 per cent. The haulage
capacity of one locomotive west of Fort William on the C.P.E. , or on any portion
of the Transcontinental is equivalent to the haulage capacity of two similar loco-
motives east of Fort William on the C.P.E. The rate of growth on the C.P.E.
east of the Lakes has been less than one-half as rapid as west of the lakes. Assuming
this rate for the Transcontinental, the number of trains which could be handled by
its locomotives on the class of road which has been built, would amount to six each
way per day in 1935, or thirty years after the commencement of construction.
12.3.— 33

466 NATIOyAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Mr. Gutelius: — Does the twenty trains per day assumption nsed in tJiese
instructions for construction values, not seem to be unnecessarily high?

Mr. Tye: — Yes, very high.

Mr. Gutelius: — What do you consider would have been a fair assumption of
standard for them to use for this portion of the line in making tlieir original calcu-
lations ?

Mr. Tye : — Six trains per day each way in 1935 would be a high standard to set.

Mr. Gutelius : — So that you would consider it fair and proper to use an average
of five trains each way per day, would you not?

Mr. Tye: — Yes.

COCHRANE TO QUEBEC.

Mr. Gutelius: — What would you say, Mr. Tye, about the traffic between
Cochrane and Quebec and the number of trains which they should liave assumed in
making their calculations for that portion ?

., Mr. Tye : — The difference in traffic east of the Junction to Ontario and west
of that point will be the difference between traffic furnished by the eastern portion
of the province of Quebec and that furnished by the country between Montreal and
Windsor; this difference will undoubtedly amount to one or two trains each way a
day, which will reduce the traffic on the eastern end of the Transcontinental to, at
the outside, an average of two and a half trains each way per day in 1924. As any
grain handled by railway east of the Lakes after the close of navigation must be
hauled over this portion of the road, it would hardly be advisable to construct it of
a lower standard than other portions of the road.

The amount of traffic, however, will for many years be very light, and every
effort should have been made east of Lake Superior Junction, and especially east of
Cochrane to keep down the first cost of construction while building a road which
could be improved as the traffic justified.

Mr. Gutelius: — What items under the calculations which you have suggested,
assuming five trains per day, would have been affected in cheapening the cost of
construction and still maintaining the efficiency of the road in the matter of l;rain
haul ?

Mr. Tye : — The use of momentum grades, wooden trestles instead of high em-
bankments, sharper curves, short tangents, and other expedients to keep down the
first cost of construction were surely justified here if on any road. Such expedients
do not decrease the haulage capacit}'' of locomotives, do not increase the running
time of trains, and only slightly increase the cost of maintenance; but do materially
decrease the fixed charges by decreasing the cost of construction, and do permit of
an improvement in standard, when required, without extra cost.

If a tonnage of six trains per day each way will not be attained for about
twenty years after the commencement of construction between Lake Superior
Junction and Coclirane; and about thirty yer.rr-, cast of Cochrane, interest rliarges
on expenditures, which might have been deferred, will have grown enormously. At
4 per cent compound interest one dollar in twenty years nmounts to $2.19 and in
thirty years to $3.24. The total cost of expenditures which might be deferred
would — if made when required — be not more than from one-third to one-half of
what they will be with the methods adopted.

INYE8TI0ATING COMMISSION 467

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

CHANGE IN" GEADES OR ALIGNMENT.

Mr. Gutelius : — Eef erring again to Section 85 of the " Eevised General In-
tructions to Engineers " which reads as follows :

" Resident Engineers will not be allowed to make changes in grades or
alignment but will promptly call their division engineer's attention to any
possible change they consider beneficial."

Do you believe these instructions are such as should be issued to construction
engineers ?

Mr. Tye : — I do not believe these instructions are proper, or at least in proper
form.

Mr. Gutelius: — What is your idea of such instructions?

Mr. Tye : — I believe that all engineers should be ordered and encouraged to
make changes in alignment and grades where such will decrease the cost without
lowering the standard, or raise the standard without increasing the cost. All
changes made by them should, of course, be approved before they become effective.
For various reasons it is not possible for the locating engineer to get the details
of the location exactly right. The location may be an admirable one in a general
way and the details approximately correct but the locating party does not have the
time to make the exact cross-sections necessary to accurately ascertain the quan-
tities in the cuts and fills. Hence the profile may look excellent but the quantities
in the cuttings may not balance the quantities in the fills. If not, and it be
possible to make them so, the most economical location has not been attained.

Mr. Gutelius : — Did you ever know of a residency on which the final location
made by the construction engineers did not improve the line or reduce the cost ? >

Mr. Tye : — The construction engineer, once the right of way has been cleared,
has every opportunity of ascertaining the quantity and should shift the line one
way or the other so that where possible the excavation will just make the embank-
ments. In heavy work, especially on side hill, it is often possible by changing the
line a few feet only to save very large sums. When the work is opened up, cuttings
which were supposed to be rock may turn out to be earth or vice versa, making
a very great alteration in the quantities and necessitating a change of line in order
that there may be neither waste nor borrow. The resident engineers should be
ordered and encouraged to make such changes at once. As soon as a portion of the
line is cleared and cross-sectioned, they should ascertain if the excavations balance
the embankments ; if not, and it is possible to do so, they should at once so change
tlie line that they will. They should be vigilant in this respect until the work is
actually completed. As the work proceeds, unforeseen conditions arise which make
slight changes of line advisable, and the location should not be considered final and
definite until the track is actually laid.

Mr. Gutelius : — Is the location on the part of the construction engineers not- a
fruitful source of economy in railway construction?

Mr. Tye: — There is no possible way in which an engineer can save as much
money. I have frequently seen resident engineers in this way, by reducing the
quantities of grading, do as much work in a day as the contractors could do in a
month, and of course the cost to the railway company would be a mere fraction of
a cent per cubic yard. Every engineer on the work, be he in high position, or
in low, should thus be encouraged to watch for opportunities of changing the line
so as to reduce the cost without lowering the standard. Fixed charges are only
second in importance to operating expenses, and a change which decreases the fixed
charges without increasing operating expenses is only second in importance to an
■improvement in the standard of construction which does not increase the cost.

468 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Mr. GuieJius: — How would you have made these instructions read?

Mr. Tye : — The instructions should therefore have read that resident engineers
should be vigilant and watchful for changes in alignment or grades that would
reduce the cost without decreasing the standard of construction, or of improving
the alignment or grades without increasing the cost. Such changes should, how-
ever, be approved by the divisional or district engineer before becoming effective.

Mr. Gvtelius: — "V\Tiat saving in cost do you think could have been effected if
the construction engineers had been allowed as you suggest to modify the line and
grade, in the rough country traversed by this railway.

Mr. Tye: — Five, ten and fifteen per cent, depending on the character of the
country.

MOMENTUM GKADES.

Mr. Gutelius: — ^You are familiar, Mr. Tye, with momentum grades and their
use on railways of this character? Will you describe what a momentum grade is?

Mr. Tye : — Momentum grades are grades where the use of the momentum
stored in the moving train is utilized to assist the locomotive. The term is usually
apj)lied to grades steeper than the ordinary maximum grade up which the loco-
motive could not otherwise haul a train loaded for the ordinary maximum grade.
This is illustrated by the effect produced in taking " a run at the hills ".

Mr. Gutelius: — Is the momentum stored in the moving train utilized on
many roads?

Mr. Tye : — Yes, on practically all roads. There is no doubt in actual practice
on every road in the continent that the momentum stored in the train is used to
overcome grades, and that the use of such momentum is made to increase the
actual amount hauled by the locomotives. The operating official if he can increase
his train haul by taking " a run at the hills " will do so, and not be governed by
the lines drawn on the construction engineer's profile. A very convincing instance
of this was to be found on the Canadian Pacific between Winnipeg and Dexter, a
point about fifty miles west of Fort William. This portion of the road was built
by the Canadian Government, the location was made under the direction of Sir
Sandford Fleming, the then chief engineer, and was without doubt the finest and
best piece of work on the whole C.P.R. system. The country from Dexter ' to
Winnipeg is undulating and not more difficult to secure a low grade against west-
bound traffic than against eastbound. Owing to the expected heavy grain traffic
it was decided to use 0 . 5 per cent grades against eastbound traffic and 1 per cent
grades westbound. The grades were not compensated for curvature. The result
was long dragging 0.5 per cent grades against eastbound and comparatively short,
steep 1 per cent grades against westbound traffic. The operating officials, after the
road had been opened some years and after much experience and many tests with
dynamometer cars, found that the haulage capacities of their locomotives east-
bound and westbound were practically equal, being exactly the same on two
of the sections, and only one car greater eastbound than westbound on the third
section. This was caused by the fact that against westbound traffic the grades were
long and not compensated for curvature ; against westbound traffic they were short
and could be and were operated by taking a " run at the hills ". Notwithstanding
the fact that the profiles sliowed grades of 0.5 per cent against eastbound and 1
per cent against westbound traffic the actual or de facto grades were demonstrated
in practice to be equivalent to about 0.75 per cent each way. I am sure that at
this time none of the operating officials of tlie Canadian Pacific had ever even
considered the theory of momentum grades, but they got these results in actual
practice and by hard experience. If momentum will be used by the operating

IXTESTIGATING COMMISSION 469

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

officials in any event (and it is undoubtedly used on practically every road in the
continent), it seems silly not to apply the theory in a scientific manner on con-
struction and take advantage of the undoubtedly large saving in construction
expenses.

Mr. Gutelius: — "Will the saving be large?

Mr. Tye: — The saving on a long road such as the Transcontinental "will be
enormous. The motion of a train represents stored energy derived from the
engine or from gravitation. This stored energy or momentum represents power
just as much as the energy derived from the consumption of coal in the locomotive
lepresents power, and it is just as unreasonable not to utilize one as the other,
provided that the utilization of such momentum does not entail any corresponding
drawback. For example: — A train loaded for a 0.4 per cent and travelling at the
rate of 30 miles per hour has enough of this stored energy or momentum, together
with the power derived from the locomotive, to surmount a 1 per cent grade 3,300
feet long before its speed is reduced to 10 miles per hour. If, therefore, the con-
ditions are such that it can be relied on that all trains can always have a speed of
30 miles per hour at the foot of such a grade, it is safe to use a grade of 1 per
cent for 3,300 feet instead of the 0.4 per cent grade, the result being that at the
top of this grade the speed will not be reduced below 10 miles per hour. The
grade from that point on must, however, not exceed 0.4 per cent. A 1 per cent
grade for 3,300 feet surmounts an elevation of 33 feet while an 0.4 per cent grade
surmounts only 13 feet. If, therefore, the foot of the momentum grade is in a
sag the height of the fill may be reduced 20 feet, or if the top of the grade is in
a cutting the cutting may be reduced 20 feet. This is the theoretical result. In
practice a factor of safety should be introduced. A lesser speed should be assumed,
and the full length of the momentum grade not used; or say instead of using a
1 per cent grade 3,300 feet long, 2,500 feet onlv should be used, the actual saving
as above being the reduction of the fill or cutting 15 feet in height. Such grades
must be used with caution, and it must be definitely decided that there will be no
cause to limit the speeds — no train stops, dangerous crossings, or limited curvature
must be allowed within the limit of the velocity operations.

Mr. Gutelius: — These conditions, Mr. Tye, refer only to fully loaded trains?

Mr. Tye: — Yes.

Mr. Gutelitis: — What precautions are necessary in connection with the loca-
tion of momentum grades on a railway of this kind?

Mr. Tye : — In constructing a new line like the Transcontinental it is very
necessary to ascertain in advance that no side tracks will be required for any reason
within the momentum limits. Of course, it is not always possible to do this, and
it is almost certain that within the course of years some of these momentum grades
will have to be eliminated, because of the necessity of introducing new side tracks,
or stations which interfere with their successful working. Even where this occurs
the results are good, because it postpones the expenditure of a certain amount of
money until actually required. As before stated, the cost of train filling can be
very much more cheaply done when the road is in operation than during construc-
tion. The conditions might be such as to necessitate rock being used for filling on
construction, while earth could be used after the road was in operation. Interest
charges at 4 per cent add 48 per cent to the cost in ten years and 80 per cent in
fifteen years.

Mr. Guielius : — Would there be any considerable saving in cost by constructing
the road with momentum grades and at the same time maintaining its efficiency?

Mr. Tye: — Taking everything into consideration, the 'saving in construction
on such a road as the Transcontinental would imdoubtedly amount to millions of
dollars without in the least degrading the high character of the road.

Mr. Gutelius: — "Would the use of momentum grades be a degradation of the
high standard set by the Commissioners?

470 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Mr. Tye: — The use of momentum grades would not in any way degrade the
standard of the road. They would not reduce the haulage capacity of the loco-
motives by one ounce, would not increase the running time of passenger or freight
trains by one minute, and would not increase the operating expenses by one dollar
— on the contrary, they would, by decreasing the cost of construction, reduce the
fixed charges and so improve the commercial effectiveness of the road.

If the result to be arrived at by the construction of the Transcontinental waa
to provide a means of handling traffic between the East and West, and vice versa,
at lowest cost, the use of momentum grades would certainly be a means to this
end, and so would be an improvement in the standard of efficiency of the road.
They would certainly reduce the total cost of handling and so tend to permit of
lower freight rates.

Mr. Lynch-Staunton: — "Will you describe in simple language a momentum
grade ?

Mr. Tye: — A train running down a grade or on a level acquires a certain
momentum — just for instance as a ball rolling down a slope would acquire a
certain momentum. This momentum will carry the train up another grade just aa
the ball would roll up another slope, and the use of this momentum, together with
the power of the locomotive, will carry the train up a steeper grade than the train
could surmount without the use of this stored momentum.

Mr. Gutelius : — The steeper grade which is used in place of the ordinary ruling
grade is called a momentum grade because the train surmounts it by the use of
the stored energv plus the power of the locomotive?

Mr. Tye :— Yes.

Mr. Lynch-Staunton: — A momentum grade is the track made a little steeper
in localities where we can depend upon the stored energy in the train to carry it
over this steeper grade ?

Mr. Tye :— Yes.

HELPEK ENGINE GEADES.

Mr. Gutelius : — In your experience, Mr. Tye, of railway construction and grade
revision on existing railways, you have doubtless found it necessary to provide
liclper engine grades or pusher grades. Please describe an engine helper grade.

Mr. Tye : — A helper engine grade or, as it is usually termed, a " pusher grade."
is one so steep that the use of a helper engine is required to assist the ordinary
road locomotive in surmounting it.

Mr. Gutelius : — Is it advisable that grades of this character be used occasionally
on first-class railways?

Mr. Tye: — Such grades should undoubtedly be used under certain conditions.
Those conditions are where the cost of the ordinary ruling grade for a single engine
would be so excessive as to be prohibitive, or where the elevation to be overcome
is so great that the ordinary ruling grade would require an excessive amount of
distance to overcome the elevation.

Mr. Gutelius: — What are the limits of an economical pusher grade?

Mr. Tye : — The rate of tlie pusher grade should be such as to most economically
fit the country, but should not exceed the rate on which two road locomotives could
haul the same train which one locomotive could handle on the ordinary ruling
grade.

Mr. Giifcliii.'!: — In tlio matter of pnslior grades on the Transcontinental, where
the ruling grades eastbnund are fnnr-tenths and the ruling grades westbound are
six-tonth?, what rate of grade is proper for pushor grades, assuming that the pusher
engines are of the same capacity as the road engines?

INYESTIQATINQ COMMISSION 471

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Mr. Tye: — Taking into consideration the fact that at times it will be neces-
sary to haul empties eastbound and at times westbound, for 0.4 per cent ruling
grades the equivalent pusher grade is 1 per cent, and for 0.6 per cent ruling grades
the equivalent pusher grade is 1.34 per cent.

Mr. Gutelius: — If it should require a considerable excessive cost, would it be
advisable to use flatter grades than those which you have given us ?

Mr. Tye : — There is no advantage to be gained whatever in taking flatter grades
than these, unless of course the conditions of the country show that a lesser grade
would be as cheap to build. The lightest locomotive which it is likely would ever
be used as a pusher is the ordinary road locomotive, that is the pusher will be at
least as powerful as the road engine. This is a very safe assumption to make, as
the pusher engine is always fresh, has a full head of steam, and having a short
distance only to go need not have its full head of steam at the head of the pusher
grade; whereas, the road locomotive must have its full head of steam in order to
continue with the train. If a different class of locomotive were used for a pusher it
would in every case be a heavier locomotive, designed for great tractive power at
low speeds. This adds to the factor of safety in assuming these grades.

Mr. Gutelius: — Under ordinary circumstances, could any advantage be gained
in handling passenger traffic by assuming flatter pusher grades than you have just
given us? '

Mr. Tye : — No advantage whatever would be gained, because an ordinarily
heavy passenger engine can take up either of these grades a train of 14 cars such as
is ordinarily used in Transcontinental passenger trafSc. A 14-car train is cer-
tainly as long as it is advisable to handle in a single unit, and this it is shown
can be hauled on a 1.34 per cent grade by an ordinary heavy passenger engine.
It would, therefore, be inadvisable and unprofitable to spend additional money to
flatten these pusher grades for any advantage which might be gained from passen-
ger traffic.

TRACK LAYING CONTRACT.

Mr. Gutelius: — On the National Transcontinental Railway each chief con-
tractor was required to do the work of track laying and ballasting on his section.
There were twenty-one cliief contractors. Do you believe this was good policy, if
not how should the work have been done?

Mr. Tye : — I do not believe the policy outlined in your question is at all good.

Track laying, ballasting and train filling requires a very extensive and ex-
pensive outfit: locomotives, flat cars, ballast cars, boarding cars, track laying
machine, and equipment for track laying and ballasting must be supplied. All of
this equipment is very expensive.

Track laying, ballasting, heavy train filling and work of similar character is
usually done by the railway companies themselves, or by contractors with the rail-
way company^s equipment. Therefore when the twenty-one chief contractors after
purchasing this equipment have completed their contract they will find but little
work for such equipment, and there will be but little opportunity for them to sell
at a reasonable price. Each one will thus find himself burdened with an expensive
equipment which cannot be sold to advantage, and for which there is little work
to be had. Each contractor knew this before he tendered, so each one had to make
his prices high enough to cover the loss he would suffer on this equipment and
therefore the Commission have practically paid for the depreciation of twenty-one
equipments.

The proper policy would have been to have let each chief contractor do the
grading, trestles, culverts, etc., only; and to have let the track laying, ballasting
and train filling separately. At the most it would have required for track laying.

472 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

ballasting, and train filling one contractor east from Winnipeg, one west from
Cochrane, one east from Cochrane, one east from Quebec, and one west from
Quebec, or five in all, the Commission would thus have had at the most to pay the
depreciation on five outfits instead of twenty-one.

WATER SUPPLY.

Mr. Gutelius: — In the matter of water supply, Mr. Tye, we find that the
Transcontinental Eailway engineers erected water tanks at divisional points
having a capacity of 75,000 gallons and a height of 70 feet — the object being to
afford fire protection. Wliat do you say as to the value of 70 feet head for fire
protection at a divisional point?

Mr. Tye: — The theoretical pressure due to 70 feet head is 30.33 pounds per
square inch. This is reduced by the friction in the pipes, bends, etc., depending
upon the conditions. The effective pressure at the foot of the tank would not
exceed about 28 pounds per square inch.

A fire pump costing a few hundred dollars will give much greater pressure
and therefore be much more efficient in case of fire.

The cost of operation of a fire pump placed in the machine shops and con-
nected with the water system of the yard is in case of fire practically nothing.

With high tanks there is therefore loss in efficiency and a loss in construction
of the difference between the cost of the high tanks, and an ordinary tank and a
fire pump. This difference would depend upon local conditions but would prob-
ably average $2,000.

Mr. Gutelius: — So that $2,000 would have been saved at each of these divi-
sional points had they used ordinary tanks with fire pumps. \Vhat do you say now
as to the efficiency of this fire service with the 70-foot tanks, generally speaking?

Mr. Tye : — There is a grave question whether these hi^h tanks would furnish
efficient fire protection. It is impossible to say without knowing the local condi-
tions such as topography of the ground, the relative heights of buildings and tank ;
the length and diameter of pipes in the water system ; number of hydrants ; length
of hose required to reach from liydrants to buildings, etc. With an effective pres-
sure of only 28 pounds per square inch at the foot of the tower, the fire service
under the best of conditions could not be good.

Mr. Gutelius: — What is considered a reasonably good fire protection pressure
in cities and towns?

Mr. Tye: — From 80 to 100 pounds.

Mr. Gutelius: — So tliat 28 pounds would probably only give you about one-
fourth as good a fire hose stream as you would get in an ordinary town service?

Mr. Tye : — Not more than that.

WOODEN TRESTLES.

Q. On the National Transcontinental permanent wooden trestles were not
used. Do you know whether permanent wooden trestles have been used on other
railroads of like character on the original construction? — A. I believe on every
other railroad on this continent wooden trestles have been used to reduce the cost
of construction.

Q. Can wooden trestles be made amply strong to carry modem locomotives
and cars? — A. Wooden trestles can and are being built to carrj' the heaviest class
of modem locomotives and cars.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 473

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Are -wooden trestles subject to any disabilities that make them unfit for
use on a first class railway? — A. The two objections to wooden trestles for use
on any railway are that they are more subject to decay than steel or concrete
trestles or bridges, and they are more subject to destruction by fire.

In regard to the first, this is simply an economic question. The cost and
repair can be closely estimated, and if the first cost of the trestle together with the
cost of repairs and the cost of permanent roadway put in when the wooden struc-
ture is no longer fit for use, is not materially less than the erection of permanent
construction or an embankment, in the first instance, it should not be used.

If the site of the trestle is properly cleared of all brush, stumps, weeds, chips,
etc., and the trestle properly protected by the best system of water supply available,
the danger from fire is more apparent than real. There are many, many miles of
wooden trestles on this continent. Xearly every road, except the older roads with
heavy trafiic through old settled districts have them, and yet delays from burnt
trestles are not frequent.

Q. Is there any greater danger from washouts where wooden trestles are
used than where permanent construction is put in at once? — A. The danger from
washouts is still more remote. There _ is in this respect a distinct and decided
advantage in the use of wooden trestles on the original construction. In a new
country like that traversed by the Transcontinental there is a dearth of informa-
tion as to the rainfall, flow of water in streams, etc., and it is impossible to know
the correct size for permanent structures. Unless unduly large openings are left
there is grave danger of making some of the permanent waterways too small.
This is especially true in heav}^ embankments where the use of wooden trestles
would be of the most advantage. A washout in such a place is vastly more expen-
sive and causes as much delay as would a fire in a wooden trestle. Before the
wooden trestles decay, and must be replaced, there is ample time to gather inform-
ation regarding the flow of streams, etc., and thus properly designing the size of
the permanent structures. The danger from washouts is thus less where wooden
structures are used on the first construction than where permanent ones are at
once put in.

Q. Does the use of wooden trestles m the first construction materially reduce
the final cost, that is, the cost when the structures have been made permanent? —
A. The use of wooden structures on construction, more especially large fills where
the cuttings are insufficient to make the embankments and earth or common exca-
vation borrow is scarce, undoubtedly reduces the final cost. There are several
things which make this so. It must be remembered, in order to make such an
embankment during construction, a trestle is necessary. Such a trestle must be
made strong enough to carry a train, so that a great part of the timber and the
cost of a permanent trestle must be provided in any event.

There are not many contractors who have the necessary equipment to handle
a large amount of train hauled material ; moreover, this is a class of work which the
large railways usually do themselves, so that after the National Transcontinental
is completed the contractors are not likely to have very much use for such equip-
ment, this means they must pay for such equipment out of the profits on the
Transcontinental, or, in other words, their prices must of necessity be much larger
than the cost to a railroad company.

The life of a wooden trestle is not less than ten years.

With interest at 4 per cent, $1.00 in ten years amounts to $1.48.

I imderstand the average price paid for rock on the Transcontinental was
about $1.75 plus over-haul, or say an average of $1.80, and train hauled filling
55 cents plus over-haul or say 65 cents.

There is no doubt that train fill can be made by a railway company at 25 cents
per cubic yard. Thus, if by the use of a trestle the making of a large embank-
ment, which would otherwise of necessity be made with rock, can be postponed,
the relative cost per cubic yard would at the end of ten years be : —

474 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Original construction, cost per cubic yard $1 . 80

Plus interest at 4 per cent for ten years, $1,80 x .48 .864

Total cost per cubic yard $2 . 664

Train hauled material put in by railway company at end of ten

years, cost per cubic yard .25

3.414

or a saving of $2,414 (or 9 times the final cost) per cubic yard in favor of
deferring the expenditure, out of which would have to come the cost of the
trestle, its repairs and interest on its cost.

If the embankment could be made by train hauled material the relative cost
would be :

Original construction, cost per yard 65

Interest for ten years at 4 per cent=48 per cent 31

Total cost at end of ten years 96

Train hauled material put in by railway company at end of

10 years per cubic yard 25

.71

or a saving of $2,414 (or 9 times the final cost) per (iubic yard in favor of
deferring the expenditure. Out of which would come the cost, repairs, and interest
on cost of the wooden trestles.

Eailway companies have found that it is a source of great economy to construct
large embankments in this manner, and I am sure no long railroad has ever before
been built on this continent without the liberal use of wooden trestles. I understand
the Grand Trunk Pacific on its line from Lake Superior Junction to Fort "William
has so used wooden trestles. This branch is a part of the main line from Winnipeg
to Lake Superior over which the bulk of the grain will be hauled and is, therefore,
just as important as any part of the whole road from Moncton to Prince Eupert

It is a mistaken idea of the value and use of a railway to hold that such use
of wooden trestles is a degradation of the standard of the road. Any increase in
the fixed charges which does not reduce operating expenses by a like amount is a
degradation of the road, just as much as would be a change in the line which
increased operating expenses without decreasing fixed charges. The whole aim of
the Transcontinental Commission seems to have been to build the best possible road
regardless of cost. Their idea evidently being that the most effective road which
could be built was the one where operating expenses were the least. Wliereas, in
reality, the most effective road which could be built was the one where the operating
expenses plus the fixed charges was the least. Fixed charges must be paid just the
same as operating expenses — an extra dollar paid in fixed charges has just the same
effect in holding up freight rates as an extra dollar in operating expenses.

The use of wooden trestles in the first construction undoubtedly decreases the
cost without in any way decreasing the operating expenses, and therefore decreases
the total cost of handling traffic and so aids in reducing freight rates.

This surely is an improvement in the effective standard of the road.

Q. The engineers of the Transcontinental advance as a reason for not using
wooden trestles the fact that the prices submitted for timber were abnormally high,
that they could only take the bids as submitted, and could not have them reduced. Do
you believe this is a valid reason, and that where some of the prices in the lowest

INTESTIGATIXG COMMISSION 475

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

tender were abnormal that such prices could not be changed? — A. It certainly
would not be a valid reason where the railway is in private hands. If an unbalanced
bid were included in an otherwise lowest tender by a railway company, the con-
tractor so tendering would be asked to revise his bid in this respect before the
contract was awarded him. It certainly would not be good business on the part of
the commissioners to reject a tender on accoimt of such abnormal prices. It certainly
would not be good business for them to adopt an uneconomical method of doing the
work because a few of the prices were abnormally high. The only good business
method is to require the contractor to reduce the abnormal prices. Of course, a
contractor should not be asked to change any of his prices unless he were the lowest
tenderer so that no injustice would be done to any other tenderer by such change of
prices.

(N.T.E. INVESTIGATING COMMISSION; EVIDENCE TAKEN AT

OTTAWA, SEPTEMBER 24th, 1912, IN THE OFFICES OF

THE COMMISSION.)

Chaeles N. Monsaeeat, sworn:

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. You were engineer of bridges for the C.P.E. between what years? — A.
First of January, 1903, to 1st May, 1911.

Q. And prior to that time you were engaged in bridge engineering work on
the C.P.E. for about how many years, roughly? — A. Oh, about seven or eight
years, and before that structural draughtsman.

Q. And you are now chairman and chief engineer of the Quebec Bridge
Commission ? — A. Yes.

Q. So that, during the past fifteen years, you have had to do with all kinds
of bridge work on railways, including culverts, trestles, steel bridges, arches, etc?
—A. Yes.

Q. Will you refer to article 153 in the N.T.E. Specifications, which reads:

" Piling will be paid for under the headings of ' piles delivered ' and ' pile
driving'; piles delivered will include piling furnished by the contractor at the
bridge site, as ordered by the engineer, and will be paid for by the lineal foot, but
any lengths in excess of those ordered by the engineer will not be paid for. ' Pile
driving ' will be paid for at the specified rate per net lineal foot in the finished struc-
ture, and will include all work of any kind in connection therewith, but will not
include the material in the piles themselves." What do you understand by that? —
A. I would understand, under the heading of ' piles delivered ' that the con-
tractor would be paid for tlie lineal feet of piles delivered on the ground that
were actually ordered by the engineer.

Q. Whether they were used in the work or not? — A. Yes.

Q. What do you understand by the term ' pile driving ' ? — A. I would
understand by " pile driving " that the contractor would be paid for the net lineal
feet of pile that would be driven and left in the work below the point at which he
was ordered to cut off the top of the pile.

Q. So that all piling left in the work would be paid for as piling delivered,
plus the price of pile driving per net lineal foot? — A. Yes.

476 • NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. The portion of the piles cut off and wasted, then, would only be paid for at
the price of piling delivered ? — A. Yes.

Q. I have before me the sheet moneying out the tenders for District F, duly
certified by the proper officers. (Tender Number 2 exhibited to the vritness.) This
tender shows piling delivered twenty cents per lineal foot and piling driven at 35
cents per lineal foot. Tender Number 4 shows piling delivered 25 cents per lineal
foot, and piling driven (driving only) fifteen cents per lineal foot. By reference
to the original tender, now shown you, sent in by the contractor, which you will
note is initialled by the contractor, the Chairman and members of the Commission,
you will see that opposite the tender for piling driven fifteen cents per lineal foot
is written " driving only " ? — A. Yes.

Q. Now, in the moneying out of these items, you will note that in tender
number 2 the quantity of piling is carried through at 20 cents ? — A. Yes.

Q. Also that piling driven at 35 cents is moneyed out at 35 cents? — A. Yes.

Q. In tender number 4 the same quantities are moneyed out at 25 and 15
cents respectively ? — A. Yes.

Q. Which shows a difference, roughly, between the total cost of piling
delivered and piling driven, on the two tenders of over $37,000? — A. Yes.

Q. Do you notice anything peculiar in connection with the tenders on these
items, and the manner in which they are moneyed out? — A. Yes. It would
appear to me from an inspection of the figures that the contractor who submitted
tender number 2 intended his price of 35 cents per lineal foot to cover the piles
both delivered and driven.

Q. That being the case, to make a fair comparison of the tenders, what would
you have done, had the consideration of the tenders come before you ? — A. I would
have assumed that the tenderer in tender number 2 intended to furnish and drive
the piles for 35 cents, and that the tenderer in tender number 4 intended to furnish
and drive the piles for 40 cents.

Q. What difference do you find between the tenders from your method of
computation? — A. I think that tender number 2 is $12,943 less than number 4,
as regards the item of piling driven.

Q. By reference to the specification, you will note, on page 24, that prices are
asked for ten different classes of concrete ? — A. Yes.

Q. Item 58, concrete facing mixture, one of cement to two of sand. Aa a
practical engineer, would you use such a facing mixture as suggested? — A. No.

Q. Why? — A. I think that you would get sufficiently good results from
using a mixture of concrete, composed of one part of cement, three parts of sand,
and five of broken stone, which is cheaper and makes a better job. The rich facing
of one of cement and two of sand is very apt to crack.

Q. Does this diagram, clause 63, now shown to you make any difference in
your evidence? — A. No, it does not make any difference. I would not use it.

Q. In the matter of prices for concrete, is one of cement, three of sand and
five of broken stone more expensive than one of cement, three of sand, and six of
broken stone? — A. Yes.

Q. In contract 18, what is the price given for one of cement, three of sand
and five of broken stone? — A. $13.00.

Q. What is the price for one of cement, three of sand and six of broken stone ?
—A. $15.00.

Q. The leaner mixture is shown at the higher price? — A. Yes.

Q. If a tender of this character came before you for consideration, what
action, if any, would you take, before recommending that the contract be closed? —
A. I would call in the contractor, and ask him to look over his figures, and see if

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 477

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

he had not made a mistake in his prices for the various mixtures, as it would
strike me that there must be some mistake in his putting in a figure $2.00 a yard
higher for the leaner mixture.

Q. Then you would have questioned all of the contracts where the higher
price was named for the leaner mixture? — A. Yes.

Q. By reference to the statement, this would have required you to question
the following contracts : 18, 19, 20, 20a and 21 ?— A. Yes.

Q. Would it be fair for this Commission to assume that had this question
been raised that the contractors would have reduced the excessive prices for the
leaner mixture to the same price as the richer one? — A. Yes, I am of opinion
that it would.

Q. You note from the statement that on contract 19 a price of $17 per cubic
yard has been paid for 5,305 cubic yards of concrete in the construction of the
engine house at Graham. When you are advised that at the time of this tender the
railway had been constructed to the site of this engine house, what is your opinion
of $17 per cubic yard for such concrete in position which you will note is one of
cement, three of sand and six and a half of broken stone ? — A. I think it is exces-
sively high.

Q. At Graham, with the road then constructed to the site, that concrete in
position should have cost How much ? — A. I should consider that $12 a yard would
be an ample price.

By the Chairman:

Q. What do you think of paying $20 a cubic yard for concrete in buildings,
the ingredients of which concrete were one of cement, four of sand and eight of
broken stone? — A. I think it is an excessively high price.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. You never heard of any such figures before in your life? — A. No, not
for that class of work.

Q. Where would an engineer be justified in using a mixture of concrete com-
posed of one of cement, two of sand, and four of broken stone ? — A. I would con-
sider he would be justified in using that mixture in copings, concrete deposited
imder water, some special arch rings, bridge seats, and in connection with rein-
forced concrete work.

Q. Would you have used this mixture in pedestals for steel trestles, where
they were not in contact with running water? — A. No.

Q. Why? — A. I would consider concrete composed of one of cement, three
of sand and five of broken stone, would be a thoroughly good material to use in
such places.

Q. So that it would be fair for this Commission to assume that any one-two-
four mixture used in mass concrete was extravagant ? — A. Yes, I would say so in
large work, where you use large masses.

Q. And by large masses you mean what? — A. Concrete walls thicker than
four feet.

Q. What mixture did you use for arch rings on the CP.E., where the arch
rings were not reinforced? — A. One part of cement, three parts of sand and five
parts broken stone or gravel.

Q. If the arch rings on the N.T.E. were designed for the same unit of load-
ing as you used on the C.P.R., would not this richer mixture at extra cost be
extravagant? — A. Generally, I would say yes. There might be some cases where
you have an extremely large arch — I have in mind an arch at Estevan where I
used it. There might be cases where you would be justified in using one of cement,
two of sand and four of broken stone.

478 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. But in the circular arches? — A. Generally in circular arches I -v^uld
consider one of cement, three of sand, and five of broken stone, would be good for
the arch ring.

Adjourned.

(NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL INVESTIGATING COMMISSION:

EVIDENCE TAKEN AT OTTAWA, JANUARY 9th, 1913,

IN THE N.T.R. OFFICES.)

\yiLLARD Kitchen^ sworn :
By the Chairman :

Q. You had a contract on the N.T.R. to build 31.7 miles, being mileage
163.80 to mileage 195.58, west of Moncton? — A. I think that is right.

Q. And your work commenced just west of Plaster Rock? — A. Yes.

Q. And ended about Grand Falls? — A. Yes.

Q. The chief engineer estimated the cost of the grading of this mileage to be
4^2,232,891; do you think it came Avithin that? Do you think the work was done
within that estimate? — A. No, I do not think ii, was. We have not got our final
estimates, but I do not think it was done inside of that.

Q. Your estimates to the 31st December are $3,023,784.84. Is the Little
Salmon River Viaduct, in Victoria County, on your contract ? — A- Yes.

Q. Who did the cement work in connection with that? — A. It was sublet
to Messrs. Powers and Brewer.

Q. Do you remember the prices they got for that work? — A. No, I do not
remember. I

Q. You had a copy of the specification? — A. Yes.

Q. The cement used in these pedestals is described in the specification as
body concrete for piers, is it not ? That is massed concrete, is it not ? — A. Yes.

Q. I want to draw your attention to the fact of how it is described here. It
says in the specification, 64, " The concrete will consist (that is for piers) of one
part Portland cement, three parts sand, six parts broken stone, or screened gravel;
Ihe same shall vary in size, the largest piece shall pass through two and a half
inch rim, and the smaller may be the size of a Lima bean. In piers exposed to the
action of running ice or logs, the cut waters, or up-stream corners must, if con-
sidered necessary, and ordered in writing by the engineer, be faced with first-class
stone masonry, up to high-water mark, which actual masonry shall be paid for at
the schedule rate for first-class masonry ". That specification of 1-3-6 you knew
was ordered for those piers at the Little Salmon River Viaduct, did you not? — A.
When you say I know it was ordered, what do you mean by that?

Q. That it was ordered by the specification? — A. I know the specification
]n-ovides for certain mixtures.

Q. You know it provided for that; you had a copy of it? — A. If I had a
copy of it all right.

Q. You knew that fact, did you not ? — A. If the specification states it.

Q. If it is so provided in the specification, you were aware of it? — A. Yes.

Q. You were also aware, were you not, that under your contract, in order to
vary from this specification, you should have an order to so vary from the engineer
in writing; is that not correct? — A. From the engineer?

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 479

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Yes ?— A. Yes.

Q. Now, in the Little Salmon Eiver Viaduct, I am informed that the massed
concrete, or the pedestals, was of a different mixture than that prescribed in the
specification I have read to you; is that correct? — A. I understand that we have
a mixture of 1-2-i.

Q. 1-3-6 under j^our contract was to be paid for at what price? — A, I do
not remember.

Q. At $10.50 per cubic yard?— A. That is 1-3-6.

Q. 1-2-4 was to be $15 per cubic yard? — A. Yes.

Q. That means $4.50 per cubic yard difference in the price? — A. Yes.

Q. So that it cost the Commission to put in 1-2-4 $4 . 50 per cubic yard more
than if the mixture provided in the specification had been used ; is that correct ? —
A. Well, yes, I presume it is so, but I understand any of these mixtures might
be used in the bridge work. >

Q. The consequence of your using that more expensive mixture was that
the concrete in that particular work cost between seven and eight thousand dollars
more to the Commission; do you agree with that? — A. It cost more putting
in 1-2-4 than the other.

Q. What justification was there for that? — A. The work, as I already stated,
was sublet.

Q. To Powers and Brewer? — A. Yes. Of my own personal knowledge I
did not know there was any change being made until the work was well under
way, and then I understood that the 1-2-4 mixture was being used, as it was con-
sidered a very important structure; they did not want to take any chance of any-
thing occurring, and wanted to make it stronger.

Q. You understood this from whom? — A. I do not know. I cannot name
any person who explained it to me; it was generally understood on the work.

Q. You had not anv instructions yourself from anybody to make the change?
—A. No.

Q. You do not recollect having heard from any engineer why the change was
being made? — A. No, nothing official, only just the rumor.

Q. You say your understanding was that the change was made because of
this being an important structure, and they did not want to take any chances? —
A. Yes.

Q. What sort of a river was this over? — A. It was a very small river, but
very big gulch. *

Q. It was n,ot exposed to attacks from ice or water to any extent? — A. I
should say not.

Q. It was simply a big bridge crossing a large valley? — A. Yes.

Q. Where there were no serious dangers to be apprehended from ice or water;
is that not right ? — A. Yes.

Q. You are an old contractor of many years' standing, are^you not? — A.
Yes, I have been contracting for some time.

Q. Could you justify that change yourself ? — A. Well, I am not prepared to
say whether it was justified or not.

Q. I want you to show how it could be justified ? — A. Well, as a contractor,
I always do as I am told by the engineers, and I do not question what they do.

Q. You are like the old soldier in the Bible, I say "Do this" and it is done ? —
A. I always find it is better to do that.

Q. You have a mind of your own, and experience of your own, upon which
you can sometimes draw. It is not a question of obeying somebody or other. I ask
you to draw on that and tell me whether there is any justification in your mind for
making the change in that mixtai'e. You would do it, if you were told to do it, but
is there any justification /or it? — A. T do not know, really, where the change was
made, whether in the tops of the abutments^ or in the pedestals, or in the shaft.

tSO NATIONAL I'RANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. It is in the shaft? — A. I prefer, as a contractor, not to give my opinion
as against the engineers.

Q. You would have to go against the engineers, if you gave it at all ? — A. Xo,
I would feel like taking every precaution that the structure would be all right.

Q. If you were building it, and had to pay for it yourseK, would 3'ou have used
that mixture? — A. Well, if I had had a responsible engineer in charge —

Q. I am not asking that ; if Vou were building that work, and had to pay for
it yourself, would you have changed that mixture? — A. I would have made the
pedestals larger if I had been building it myself.

Q. I am not asking that; we are relying on the expert for that part; I want a
contractor's opinion as to the mixture? — A. I do not think, Mr. Chairman, you
ought to insist on my answering that question.

Q. Tliat it might embarrass you to answer it? — A. I do not know that it
■would, but I think it might place me in a false position.

Q. I infer that you would not have done so, and bo conclude, unless you say
to the contrary? — (No answer.)

By Mr. Gutelius :

Q. Are you familiar with the gravel and stone supplie=^ in that vicinity? — A.
Well, somewhat.

Q. Was there good sand and gravel available within reasonable wagon haul?
— A. Since you have brought that to my mind, I might say that I did understand
that the sand and gravel was not of the very best qualit}'.

Q. Do you remember of their going elsewhere for sand and gravel ultimately ?
— A. Yes. They went to MacAdam to get sand for some structures.

Q. Do j'ou know whether the real object of enriching this mixture was not to
enable your sub-contractors to use local gravel and sand? — A. N"©, I do not know
that of my own personal knowledge, I know they washed the sand and gravel and
did the best they could to make it possible to use it.

Q. And finally gave it up? — A. I understand they used that sand.

Q. You thought they brought it from MacAdam pit? — A. For some other
structures; I do not know whether they used any in that.

By the Chairman:
Q. You saw the sand and gravel there? — A. Yes.

Q. Would you swear that that was not good sand and gravel that was there?
— A, I thought it was all right myself.

By Mr. Gutelius :

Q. The local stuff was all right after it was washed? — A. Yes, that is my
judgment.

By the Chairman'.

Q. And it would make a proper and good mixture ? — A. I felt so.

Q. You have no reason to advance in your experience and knowledge why
that should have been so enriched, excepting the one given, to make a sure thing of
an important structure ? — A. To take no chances on an important structure.

Q. But you cannot tell me what tliose chances were that you were paying the
money against? — A. The structure was very high, and there was very great weight
— the highest on the whole work ; everybody was anxious there should be no chances
taken with it .

Q. You cannot tell me what your subs were paid for that ? — A. No, I cannot.

Q. Did you do any other cement work — concrete work? — A. Oh, yes, a lot
of it.

Q. Did you change the mixture in any other places? — A. I could not
tell you.

INVESTIGATiyG COMMISSION 481

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. You do not recall? — A. Xo.

Q. I want to ask you about the classification. Did you do your own grading?
— A. No, sir.

Q. Did you do any of the work yourselves on this contract? — A. The bal-
lasting and train haul.

Q. You sublet the rest of the work? — A. Yes; we might do some cutting.

Q. What did you sublet your solid rock at? — A. $1.25.

Q. And loose rock? — A. I think it was 30 cents; I think we had 35 cents
for it ourselves.

Q. And your common? — A. 20 ceiits. I believe, and we got 24 cents for it.
TTe had $1.49 'for the solid.

Q. The train haul and ballasting you did yourselves ? — A. Yes.

Q. Did vou do the tracklaying? — A. Yes.

Q. Did you sublet that ?— A. Xo.

Q. You did that yourselves? — A. Yes,

Q. Tracks and ties?— A. Yes.

Q, On our investigation, we find that you have 115,601 yards of solid rock
under the heading "assembled rock" for which you were allowed $1.49 per cubic
yard, amounting in all to $172,245.49, and we consider that you should not have
been allowed this assembled rock as solid rock, but that it should have gone into
the loose rock; and we consider that if we were classifying it in giving you your
final certificate, and had been supervising this work at the beginning, you would
not get that money. I should like you to tell me why you think you ought to get
it? — A. Well, because I have every reason to believe it was in the work and was
returned by the engineers to the sub-contractors and paid for by me.

Q. Before you go on, I am not disputing that it was in the work, but I am say-
ing that assembled rock is not classifiable under solid rock, because it is made up of
stones which are not a yard, and of other material, and there is no justification
under this specification to classify stones which are not a yard as solid rock, and
there is no justification of any kind to classify any material, except the stones, as solid
rock: that is the reason. We say this has been hoisted out of its class. Now,
assuming that it was there, as you say, why should you be paid for it ? — A. Well, I
presume the specification protides for it, if it is there.

Q. Did you expect to be paid under this specification solid rock price for any-
thing that was not rock? — A. I thought the engineers had certain —

Q. Did you think you v/ere, under this specification, to get solid rock prices
for anything that was not solid rock? — A. I understand the specification provides
that solid rock could be paid for that is not really ledge rock.

Q. WTiere do you under.-fanc^ that from? The specification says "Solid rock
excavation will include all rock found in ledges or masses of more than one cubic
yard, which, in the judgment of the engineer, may best be removed by blasting."
That is all you are entitled to under that? You are not entitled to any interstitial
materials? — A. I am not familiar enough with the specification to say just off
hand.

Q. You do not undertake to construe the specifications? — A. No, I never
could.

Q. But I ask you to say, where do you find any ground for claiming solid
rock excavation for anything which is not rock? — A. Well, when the engineers go
on the work and classify the work, I expect to get what they classify.

Q. Did the engineers go on this work and classify it ? — A. They went on th^
work, and I presume they classified it.

Q. Whom did 3"ou have on the work as resident engineers? What sort of
men did you have there? — A. You mean their qualifications?

Q. Were these resident engineers all experienced men? — A. No, none of
them were of very long experience.

Q. Had they any experience ? — A. I do not know, I am sure.
123.— .n

482 NATIONAL TBAXS( OXTJXENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. Did you know of any of them who were, before being resident engineers,
men of any experience? — A. I did not. I knew of some of them being on the
work, but I did not know how much experience they had.

Q. Were they not, as a matter of fact, inexperienced youths? — A. I woul^
not like to say they were, because some of them were fairly good men.

Q. Were they usually inexperienced youths? — A. They were young men,
and some of them I would consider had not had very much experience.

Q, They did the classifying? — A. I understand that they did it, with the
consent of the district engineer and his assistants.

Q. When you got your classification of this assembled rock, giving you
material as solid rock which was not solid rock, you knew it was not right? — A.
No, I did not.

Q. Why did you not? You ought to? — A. 1 did not think I got any more
than we should have got.

Q. They gave you 115,000 yards of assembled rock. Now, assembled rock is
made up of rock and clay and other stiff material. You knew you were not
entitled to get solid rock for clay, did you not?— A. Well, where there is stone
mixed in with it, we were entitled to that classification.

Q. As loose rock? — A. Well, it was solid rock where they gave it.

Q. You never expected to be paid for any kind of clay as solid rock? — A.
Any kind of clay?

Q. Yes? — A. Well, where the specification did not provide for it, of course
we would not expect it.

Q. The specification does not provide for it as solid rock excavation anywhere
that you know of ? — A. I do not just quite understand.

Q. You have a mass of stones, and they are lying in together and there
are spaces, voids, between them; those voids are filled up with clay? — A. Or
cemented gravel.

Q. Yes, and that holds them all together, and there is as much cemented
gravel as there are stones; so, therefore, in 100 yards you yould have fifty yards
of cemented gravel and fifty yards of stone, and where is the justification for
giving you anything above loose rock for that cemented gravel?— ^A. Well, the
engineers, I presume, in charge of the work realized that the specification pro-
vided for it, and they therefore gave it.

Q. You mean the engineers gave it to you, and you do not contest the engi-
neers; you take what they give you? — A. 1 am obliged to.

Q. Do you always do that? — A. Always have to.

Q. Do you say, so far as you are concerned, that you do not know anything
about the specification in that regard ? — A. I do not know anything about the
specification at all. There is no use in me talking about the specification. Every-
body interprets it their own way ; never saw two men who would interpret it the
same way.

Q. You do not know anything about it? — A. No.

Q. Just took what they gave you? — A. Yes.

By Mr. Gutelins:

Q. You did that because, as a contractor, you have been in the habit of
receiving certain figures for solid rock, loose rock and common excavation, and
30U thought you would get the same treatment under this specification as you were
in the habit of getting on previous work; is that right? — A. I did not expect any
other treatment than the specification provided for.

Q. Did you not expect this specification would be interpreted about the same
ns the other specifications under which you had worked, and where you had agreed
to do the work for about the same figures? — A. Yes.

IXVESTIGATIXG COMMISSION 48S

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

By the Chairman:

Q. You told me a lot of other things I cannot get you to tell me now? — A.
1 Just did not know the time to bring them in.

Q. W e say you should not get this money. Assuming the specifications
would be considered against you, is there any other reason why you should get it?
— A. Well, the principal reasons, and the reasons that 1 coimt it as being r most
fair thing, are that the work was all sublet; we paid the sub-contractors upon the
estimates as returned; there was some difference about classifications, but there was
a committee appointed, of Mr. Bouillon for the Grand Trunk Pacific, and Mr.
Balkam for the Commissioners; they went down and went over the work with
jue and other engineers; the district engineer was there at the same time, and we
adjusted all the differences, and 1 accepted, and when I got to Grand Falls that
night I saw Mr. Boullion, and asked him if I would be safe in paying my sub-
contractors, if he intended making any changes m the work, and he said with two
exceptions: one was a cut, and another was a little piece of borrow on Johnson's
work : " With those two exceptions, you would be quite safe in paying your sub-
contractors in full, as far as I am concerned *'. I then called up Balkam, acting
for the Commission, and told him what was said, and he replied, " If Mr. Boullion
is satisfied, I am ; it is my classification, I stand for it. I make no change '*.
After that took place I paid some of my sub-contractors in full and others nearly
up to the limit; and, following that, the Government Board of Arbitrators came
down and went over the work.

Q. Who were they? — A. Mr. Schrciber, Gordon Grant and Mr. Kelliher.
They went out over the work, and looked into some of the cuttings, and heard
what I had to say about it, and went away, as I understood it, feeling there was
nothing further could be done, that everything had been settled.

Q. And did you ever hear complaints from this Board of Arbitrators that
you have spoken of as to the classification of your work ? — A, No.

Q. And is this Commission's criticism of it the first you have heard of?
— A. That is your Commission here?

Q. Yes? — A. Yes. I never knew there was any question about the classi-
fication before your dispute.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. Did you build that dump at the east end of the big viaduct over the Little
Salmon Eiver? — A. That is, going towards Grand Falls, yes.

Q. What did you get for that? — A. $1.49 solid rock, regular schedule
prices.

Q. Was there any special contract for that big rock dump, where you had
to borrow the rock? — A. Yes, we had a special price for rock borrow.

Q. What was that? — A. I just cannot call to mind.

Q. It was $1.1014? — A. Yes: I do not think any material from the east
end of that work was used there; some used on the west.

Q. Was not this dump 100 feet high of borrowed rock? — A. I do not know
the height of it.

Q. About 100 feet?— A. I should think it was.

Q. Did you ever in your experience know of borrowed rock to make a dump
100 feet high at the end of a bridge before? — A. No, not in my experience.

Q. As a contractor, would you not have expected that that bridge would be
extended round there, to where the ordinary dump from the cutting beyond ended '*
— A. I thought it was cheaper to build the dump, perhaps, than put the bridge
round there. I never questioned anybody about it.

4»4 NATIONAL TRAXSCOMJyENTAL BAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q, That would have been a reason, if they built a rock dump of that kind^
because it would be cheaper, would it not? — A. It would be my reason for doing
it, if I did it. There was not any other material available there, except that, at
the time.

Q. Do you know how much you paid Powers and Brewer on that 1-2-4 con-
crete?— A. I do not remember; I am not sure of it.

Q. Do you know what percentage of the amount due them under the esti-
mates has been paid, how much money is still due Powers and Brewer on that
viaduct masonry? — A. I do not know.

Q. Any considerable amount? — A. I could not tell you on that viaduct.
They had the contract for all of the concrete on our section, and there is some
money retained, but I Just do not know what amount.

Q. Coidd not give me any idea of it? — A. I should say about $10,000; I
do not know definitely, but I think about that.

Q. Is there any other evidence or information which you would like to lay
before the Commission, which we have not asked you for? — A. Not that I can
think of now, other than, of course, there are some extras that have not been taken
up yet, some extra accounts that I thought could not be taken up until we got
our final estimate and 1 saw what was returned. They are not very numerous.

Q. But nothing that would interest us as an investigating board that you
want to tell us? — A. No.

By the Chairman :

Q. Your contract began at a railway and ended at a railway, did it not? —
A. Practically.

Q. So that you had good facilities for bringing in your material? — A. Yes>
we had good facilities ; we had to haul it 89 miles.

Q. But you had good facilities at both ends of the thirty miles ? — A. Yes.

Q. And vou had good roads along which to haul your material ? — A. Yes.

WiLLAED Kitchen,
Contractor.

Grand Falls, X.B., Jan. 30th, 1913.

The Transcontinental Ey. Investigating Commission,
Ottawa, Ont.

Dear Sirs, —

In reply to yours of the 16th iust., enclosing copy of evidence given by me
before your Commission, and in which you gave me permission to amend my
evidence or give furtlier information, I wish to say that our contract had been
completed over one year and I had not been looking over specification or corre-
spondence, and as I had no idea when going into your office that I was expected to
give evidence, it appeared that I did not know very much about the work.

I wish to assure you that it is my wish to give you any and all information
that I have. In answer to your question as to what justification was there for
using 1-2-4 ? I reply that of " my own personal knowledge T did not know that
there vyas any change being made until the 'work was well under way.*' I wish to
add to that statement. As soon as convenient after mv return to Grand Falls I

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 485

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

began looking over letters and other office information and have found the follow-
ing bearing on this matter, which had entirely left my mind; on October 30tli,
]908, a letter from District Engineer C. 0. Foss, as follows: —

" Ee material for concrete at Little Eiver and other viaducts east of
''that; I have had samples of the local sand sent to Ottawa for analysis and
" tests, and the reports in every case utterly condemn this sand and forbid
" its use in the important work of building pedestals for these heavj- via-
" ducts. Some provision will have to be made by which suitable sand can
" be procured at whatever cost it may be, I exceedingly regret that the
" local sand proves so unfit, but neither engineers or contractors can aSord
" to take chances in construction of such important structures by using any
" material about the value of which there is the slightest question. Some
" arrangement will have to be made before this work can be continued. I
" have so instructed the division engineer, Mr, Balloch.
Yours very truly,

" Signed, C, 0, FOSS, District Engineer."

On Xovember 5th. 1908, I replied to Mr, Foss as follows : —

""We have your 21 D., dated the 30th ultimo, re concrete material for
"Little Eiver and other viaducts East of that. This certainly is a very
" serious matter for us and we trust that you will be able to arrange it for
" us in some way so that the work can be continued, and woitld respect-
" fully request that you allow us to use the material and make the mixture
" a little stronger, say 1-3-4, We believe this has been done in other cases,
" Will try and get down to see j^ou as soon as possible as we certainly must
"have this matter straightened out to your satisfaction,"

On the 4th Xovember, 1908. a letter from Messrs. Powers & Brewer as
follows : —

"We are advised by the division engineer that all of the sand which
" we planned on using in the concrete work at Salmon Eiver, Graham and
" Caton Brook, lias been condemned as unfit for the work and it has been
" suggested that we bring in sand from Magaguadavic. We are bringing
" in this sand at great expense to use at liittle Eiver, but in the case of the
" other work the cost of this sand would be more than doubled owing to
^' the long haul. At the time we contracted with yott for this work, Mr,
" Mitchell, in company with Mr, Balkam and Mr. Balloch. and in the pre-
" sence of yourself and the writer, examined the sand at Salmon Eiver and
" Little Salmon Eiver and pronounced it O.K,, and it was mainly owing
" to this sand being accepted that we entered into contract for the work.
" We have had a hard season and have spared no expen'Se to get all the
" culverts finished so as not to delay the grading in anticipation of better
"work on the viaducts next season. We have asked to be allowed to use
"" this gravel in a 1-2-4 mixture and were told that we might do so, but we
*' would only be paid for a 1-3-.5 mixture as the price for the 1-2-4 mixture
" was too high. This we consider unjust for other contractors are putting
"in a 1-2-4 mixture and are being paid at their 1-2-4 prices for it. If
" some satisfactory arrangement cannot be made, we would like to cancel
" our contract with you."

I went to Ottawa early in December, 1908, and took this matter up with the
Chief Engineer Lumsden. and he promised to send Mr, Gordon Grant to make a

486 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

report to him direct, am not positive but think Mr. Uniacke was present at this
time. Mr. Grant came down early in January, 1909, went over the work with
Assistant Engineer Balkam, Mr. Powers of Powers & Brewer, and the writer.

As I am not personally familiar with the estimates, I am advised by our book-
keeper that at this time returns were being made under item 59, 1-2-4, and in
April, 1910, change was made to item 59A, 1-2-4 in mass, and noted on blue
prints "as per circular 'No. 116 A" and has been continued in the estimates until
December, 1912, when it was transferred to item 62, 1-3-5, arch culverts.

It now appears that we took it for granted that the Department had approved
of the 1-2-4 mix, as they were returning it in the estimates and paying us monthly,
and we were returning same to our subcontractors.

And in that part of my evidence where you press to know if I had been
paying for the work myself, if I would have used 1-2-4 at the increased cost, and
I asked you not to press for a reply as it might place me in a false position, I wish
if possible to make this a little clearer. I am not an experienced concrete man,
and while I have contracted for considerable in my time I have always endeavored
to get good concrete men to do the work, I do not consider my judgment on a
question of tliis kind much, if any good. And am now of the opinion that if I
had done the work at my own expense and if my engineers or concrete inspector
had advised me that the 1-2-4 mix was necessary, I would have undoubtedly per-
mitted it to be used, the additional expense of a few thousand dollars would not
have influenced me to take any chance on structures such as we had here, there-
fore I do not think it fair to me to give a pronounced opinion that might conflict
with experts.

In the evidence given re classification, I wish to add that Inspecting Engineer
Macfarlane and the present chief engineer, while assistant to Mr. Lumsden or
inspecting engineer, each made trips over our work as I imderstood it, for the
purpose of looking into the classification, and while we have never seen their report,
we believe that they sustained the classification that was being given by the
engineers in charge of the work, as no material changes were made until the last
summer, about two years after this portion of our work had been completed. We
understand that you then sent engineers over the work, and notwithstanding that
they knew really nothing personally about the work during actual construction,
they do not hesitate to reclassify the work over the heads of such men as your
present chief engineer. Inspecting Engineer Macfarlane, District Engineer Foss,
Assistant District Engineer Balkam, and the other engineers on the work, as well
as Inspecting Engineer Bouillon for the G.T.P., all of whom saw the work in actual
construction and all, with the exception of Mr. Grant and Mr. Macfarlane, saw it
many times, and continually during construction.

As we understand it now, our final estimates are returned and a very con-
siderable change has been made in the classification, and we trust that you will
readily see the unfairness of said changes and issue an order to have our final
estimates returned as formerly.

I wish again to thank you for giving me this opportunity of amr^niliiiir my
evidence.

Yours very truly,

WILLARD KITCHEN CO., LTD.

Per WiLLARD Kitchen.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 487

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

(NATIONAL TBANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY ENQUIEY COMMISSION
OTTAWA, JANUARY 17tli, 1913.)

Present: G. Lyxch-Staunton, K.C, Chairman; F. P. Gutelius, C.E.

E. F. Fauquier, sworn:

By Mr. Staunton:

Q. You are a member of the firm of Fauquier Brothers? — A. Yes,

Q. You are the senior partner, are you? — A. We are equal partners.

Q. Your firm have two contracts on the Transcontinental Railway? — A. Yes.

Q. Your first contract was No. 15? — A. Yes.

Q. And commencing at Cochrane it ran for how many miles west of
Cochrane? — A. Practically one hundred miles,

Q, It was through a clay country, was it not? — A. Nearly altogether, yes,

Q. Do you know how many tenders there were put in for that work ? — A. I
think there were only two.

Q, Your tender and the Grand Trunk Pacific? — A. Yes.

Q. Your prices on that work were $1.85 solid rock; loose rock, 70 cents;
common excavation, 40 cents; concrete 1x3x5, $15.00; concrete 1 x 3 x 5 in
arch culverts, $16.00; concrete 1 x 3 x 6 in arch culverts, $15.50; is that correct""
— A. I would have to refer to the contract,

Q, Look at the contract and see if it is correct? — A. It is.

Q. You sublet all that work, did you not ? — A. Do you refer to the mason*-,,
work?

Q. The excavation and concrete work? — A. Some of that work we did our-
selves.

Q. But the excavation and concrete work, grading, except the train filling,
I understood you sublet ? — A. Oh no, some we did,

Q. Did you sublet the solid rock? — A. That would be a hard question to
answer. We did some ourselves, you understand.

Q. Do you remember the price 3'ou sublet the solid rock at? — A. You have
copies, I think, of all my sub-contracts.

Q. I find in the sub-contracts that you sublet solid rock at $1.57, loose rock
52 cents, common excavation 31 cents, concrete 1x3x5 $11.00, concrete 1x3x5
in arch culverts, $11.50, concrete 1 x 3 x 6 in arch culverts, $11.25, is that right?
— A, I cannot say without referring to the contracts, you have copies of our
subletting prices.

Q. These figures are taken from your contract? — A. Probably they are, but
I would like to verify them ; the copies you have will themselves prove it.

Q. Can you verify this — the solid rock returns up to the present at 25,36;>
cubic yards? — A. I understand it is about 35,000 yards.

Q, And the loose^ rock is 1,253,395 cubic yards? — A. I cannot answer that,
I would have to verify.

Q. Is that about right ? — A. I cannot really sa}^, I do not know.

Q, And the common excavation, 1,262,204 cubic yards, can you say as to
whether that is approximately right ? — A. I believe the two are very close to one
another in regard to classification, but as to what quantities I do not know.

Q. That is what I want to know; it appears from your returns that there is
about one per cent solid rock, forty-nine per cent of loose rock, and fifty per cent
of common excavation on your contract? — A. This is what has been returned by
the engineers so far, of course we have not been paid for it yet.

488 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. But these are the returns? — A, I understand it is about that.

Q. 'Now Mr. Fauquier, we have had this work examined by engineers and
tests made on this contract, and our engineers think that twenty per cent for loose
rock is a liberal classification on this contract, what do 3'ou think of that? — A. I
should think your engineers are entirely wrong. In fact, the test that beautiful
engineer you had up there made cost him about $1.10 a yard, we followed him close.

Q. Tell me all you know about it? — A. I do not know an\i;hing about his
tests, except in that way.

Q. I want this to go down in evidence, I want you to tell me ? — A. My brother
has it in the office.

Q. I am only taking your evidence now and not your brother's, and I am tak-
ing your sworn statement and I want you to tell me what reason you have for say-
ing that the engineer who examined this work, and reports, if he does report so, that
twenty per cent of loose rock would be a generous classification on your work ; what
reason have you for reflecting on him ? — A. Well, if you want me to state my
views in regard to the matter, I should say that your engineer must have found, and
would find it, and any engineer would find it impossible to classify that work after
it was so long completed ; he went into that work no doubt with what he considered —

Q. Speak of what you know, ilr. Fauquier, and do not tell anything you are
in doubt about ? — A. Well, I do not know.

Q. You do not know what he did? — A. Yes. I do. I know that his first
test was on a cut that when we took it out it was covered with moss, it was like a
.swamp. The place was so bad we had to remove our camps. A big fire came ovei
that cut and burned all the moss off the top of the cut, and there being a perfect
swamp it was impossible to get there. The drainage of this 16-foot cut all through
the dried up material on each side and made beautiful arable ground, and that is
where he made his test. But that was not a bit the same as when the ground was
taken out.

Q. So that the ground when dried became beautiful arable ground? — A.
Yes, good farming land.

Q. It was clay, was it? — A. On the surface.

Q. Tie ploughed that ground to a depth of five feet? Was it beautiful arable
ground to that depth ? — A. I do not know, I did not see it.

Q.' You profess to know what the ground was? — A. I do on the surface.

Q. What do you know about the cut ? — A. The cut was very hard, that same
cut, and just where he ploughed Mr. Lumsden and one of the engineers, now dead^
were up there on a trip —

Q. Were you with them ? — A. Yes, and they were looking at the material and
I said that is pretty tough, and Lumsden said he didn't think it was so very tough,
and I asked someone to get an axe and I bet Mr. Reid he could not put an axe
through it and he couldn't. It was hard elastic sort of gumbo.

Q. How were they taking that out then? — A. Steam shovels.

Q. Do you mean to tell me that a man could not put an axe into what youi
could take out with a steam shovel ? — A. Oh yes, they could.

Q. Do not exaggerate your statements: you said you took a piece of it up and
you bet him a quarter he could not put an axe into it and he could not do it ? — A.
Well, of course you could get an axe into it 1)ut he could not chop it through.

Q. Your statement was that he could not put an axe into it : do 3'ou tell me he
could not do so? — A. Certainly you could put an axe into it.

Q. And where you were taking that out witli a steam shovel? — A. Yes.

Q. It was, at that, time, you say, a swamp ? — A. My evidence is that it was
covered with moss which held the water like a sponge and made it swampy and
thoroughly wet.

Q. And Mr. Lumsden saw that condition? — A. Oh. yes.

lyVESTIGATIXG COMIIISSIOX 489

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Mr. Goodwin, the engineer we sent up there tells me he ploughed that
land to a depth of five feet without any trouble, with one pair of horses, do you
doubt that? — A. I have not got anything to say about it. I do not know what
he did. I say that at the time we took it out it would have been utterly impossible.

Q. By reason of what, the wet condition of the ground? — A. Yes, and the
material.

Q. He made an examination in other parts of that place -with the same results,
did he not ? — A I do not know anything about any other.

Q. Are you familiar generally with the country up there? — A. Yes, in a
crude way.

Q. There is no difference generally speaking in the material throughout that
clay belt there? — A. Oh yes, there is.

Q. "^Vill vou tell me what difference there is between the line immediately
east of and the line immediately west of Cochrane? — A. There is more muskeg
I think east than there is west.

Q. There is a great quantity of muskeg in your contract, is there not ? — A.
No, there is not. There is a great quantity of surface muskeg that has no depth.

Q. What I mean is; this forty-nine per cent of common excavation is mostly
muskeg in your contract, is it not? — A. I should not think so. The muskeg was
not very deep and then we got into white clay, and in some places the white clay
was filled with small stones underneath the muskeg.

Q. You say that the character of the countr}^ is not very much the same on all
these contracts immediately east and west of Cochrane? — A. No, I should not
think it was. All districts vary, even in our own contract they vary.

Q. Oh, yes, I know they do vary, but the main characteristics of the country
are the same; it is really a clay country, nearly all through there, is it not? — A. I
understand, I do not know whether I am correct or not and I have no reason to
say so, but I understand that east of us they have a great depth of muskeg and
more quantity of muskeg in that way.

Q. Excepting, perhaps, as to the relative depth of muskeg, the country is
about the same, is it not ? — A. It is practically a clay belt mixed up with muskeg,
if that is what you mean; that is about as far as I can describe it.

Q. That is what I mean. Did you acquire any gravel pits or borrow pits
personally along this road ? — A. My brother acquired some which we used.

Q. Why did your brother acquire borrow pits there? — A. We had to get them
to do our work.

Q. Vfhj had you to get them ? — A. Because the engineers of the commission
did not.

Q. Did the engineers ask you to get them? — A. No, we asked them to get
them.

Q. You asked them to get borrow pits for you? — A. Yes.

Q. Whom did you ask? — A. I do not know, I would have to look it up and
386 what correspofndence we had. I cannot say as to that now, it would be in the
head oflBce.

Q. It is all in correspondence, is it? — A. I do not know.

Q. So far as you know, it is? — A. I should Judge there would be some cor-
respondence about it, but I do not know.

Q. At all events the commission did not ask vou to get any borrow pits? — A.
No.

Q. Then your position is that you requested the commission to furnish you
with borrow pits, is that right? — A. Yes.

Q. And that the commission neglected to do so? — A. Yes.
Q. You did not head them off and get these borrow pits before you got your
contracts? — A. No.

490 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. You did not head them off and get these borrow pits before they had a
chance to get them ? — A. They never had a man up there to discover these pits.

Q. You did not take time by the forelock and get in there first? — A. No,
sir, we had a man up there busy all the time scouring that country looking for pits.

Q. Did you just do what the other contractors did, look for the borrow pits? —
A. We are not supposed to.

Q. I know you are not and I am wondering at your generosity? — A. It was
forced on us.

Q. Did not you do just what the other contractors did ? — A. I do not know
what they did.

Q. When did you begin work on that first contract of yours? — A. Well, it
was practically^omewhere about the fall, about September or October, September I
should judge, 1908. I do not knoAv exactly. The contract was signed some time
in 1908.

Q. But by June, 1909, you had not done very much work? — A. Oh, yes.

Q. Had you worked through the winter ? — A. Oh, yes, we worked all winter.
In June, 1909, we were laying tracks and ballasting.

Q. You commenced in the autumn of 1908 and you had done a substantial
quantity of work by 1909 ? — A. Yes, we worked all through the "winter. We were
instructed to by the engineer ; we worked through frost and all.

Q. You say that you only got out these patents and leases for the borrow pits
because the Commission did not furnish you with them? — A. Yes.

Q. How much money did you spend on that work? — A. That is a matter
that is not going into evidence.

Q. It is a matter you are going to tell us, Mr. Fauquier? — A. All right, I
shall not just now without consulting my solicitor.

Q. You had better consult him, because you have to tell me? — A, I do not
feel that I should.

Q. Then we will have to adjourn until you make up your mind and we might
do it as well now as any other time ? — A. All right.

Q. We will adjourn until you make up your mind, because we want that
evidence? — A. I know what you want it for; I suppose there is some catch about
the investigation.

Q. There is no catch about it but we are going to have this evidence? — A.
Well, I do not know anything about it myself.

Mr. Gufelius: — Then T think it would be hotter for you to say that you do not
know? — A. I do not know, but if I did know I would not tell it.

By Mr. Staunton :

Q. Then, if you arc going to put it in that way. you had better find out if
you do not know? — A. The man handling this matter for me is Mr. Xesbitt and T
suppose you do not object to my having a few days to consult with him. I do not
want to give any information that might be brought up against me afterward* if
we had a controversy about that.

Q. I want the information, and that is what we are here for? — A. Then T
would like to have it adjourned.

Q. It is adjourned if you so desire? — A. T do not desire it, except to say
that I don't answer, I do not know.

Q. Then you had better make up your mind whether you will answer or not?
— A. I say I do not know.

Q. It is your business as a witness to furnish yourself with the information,
we want you to furnish yourself with that information? — A. Very well.

INTESTIGATIXG COMMISSION 431

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. On the understanding that we will adjourn the enquiry for that purpose,
I will go on with something further .... you have made a claim or you intend
to make a claim against the Commission for gravel taken from these pits, have you
not? — A. I suppose so. I have got to get paid for it in some way. We have either
got to make a settlement with the Commission or charge so much a yard.

Q. But you made no bargain with the Commission? — A. No.

Q. Wait a moment; you made no bargain with the Commission to pay you for
this material ? — A. Not that I know of.

Q. You got a patent from the Ontario Government for several parcels of land
for which you paid $1.00 per acre, is not that correct? — A. I do not know. I am
conscientious when I tell you that I know nothing about it.

Q. You only paid the ordinary Government fee? — A. Of course, our expense-
were heavy.

Q. I mean, outside of that? — A. I do not know, I cannot say.

Q. Who does know? — A. You can find out of course; my brother would
know, he has the record of it.

Q. There is no use my asking you unless you are prepared to give the facts
about this transaction and can say what negotiations or what communications there
were with the Commission respecting borrow pits ; are you familiar with the facts ?
— A. No, I am not.

Q. Well, we will ask your brother about that? — A. I know this far, that
we had made an application in what form, whether verbal or written, I cannot
remember now.

Q. Your brother is the one who can give the information? — A. I do not
know whether he can give any more on that point than I can.

Q. Can your brother give information about the licenses and patents you
obtained from the Ontario Government? — A. No doubt he could, he would know
more about it than I do. I do not know the cost or anything else.

Q. You do not know whether or not there was any understanding with the
Commission about paying you for it? — A. Paying by the yard? •

Q. Yes, or in any other way? — A. No, that was only very lately put before
them. They asked us to put in our bill for ballast pits and we put that in at so
much a yard. We sent it in to Mr. Balkam,

Q. You had another contract, No. 18, had you not? — A, Yes.

Q. From about nineteen and a half miles west of the crossing of the Mud
River, easterly seventy-five miles, is that right? — A. That is about right, I do not
know exactly,

Q. There were seventy-five miles in District E ? — A. Yes.

Q. Do you know that if the engineers had not made an absurd mistake, as to
the quantity of moss in that country, that your tender would not have been the
lowest? — A. I have been told so.

Q. Moss is easily removed? — A. Yes.

Q. Yet the engineers estimated that there were 655,000 cubic yards of moss
in there, was there any such quantity? — A. I do not know that we were allowed
anything for moss.

Q. You were allowed 13,000 yards? — A. Yes.

Q. And that was about all the moss that was on the right of way? — A. I
think so.

Q. Your price on that contract was 12 cents for moss; do you remember that?
— A. I think it was about 12 cents. On looking at the tender, I find it was 12
cents.

Q. And Chambers tendered at 35 cents for moss? — A. Yes, it was an absurd
price. Chambers told me he tendered at somewhere about that, and that is all I
know about it.

492 KATIOXAL TRAXSCONTIXENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. Your tender was $1.80 for solid rock there? — A. Yes.

Q. And for loose rock, 60 cents? — A. Yes.

Q, And for common excavation, 38 cents? — A. Yes.

Q. And Chambers tendered for $1.75 solid rock, 65 cents for loose rock, and
31 cents for common excavation? — A, I do not know as to that.

Q. And if it had not been for the moss, he would have got the contract? — A.
Possibly.

By Mr. Gutelins:

Q. Had you any knowledge or do you know whether your brother had any
knowledge that there was any sucli large amount of moss being estimated upon? —
A. I think I had, but I cannot tell you how I gathered it, or how I Imew.

Q. Do you mean it is impossible for you to tell us ? — A. It is impossible for
me to trace back how I got it. I got it from some of the junior engineers. I was
enquiring about the whole contract and one thing and another, and I got the
information.

Q. I want you to make your position as clear as you can? — A. I had the
advantage of that knowledge; I do not mind acknowledging it; I do not want to
husband it up in any way.

Q. And the fact that you tendered 12 cents on moss A. I would have

tendered that anyway.

Q. At all events, it gave you the contract? — A. Yes, but I should have
tendered about twelve cents on moss, whether I knew it or not. You know yourself
that it is easy to reroQvg moss.

Q. But you did have knowledge that there was going to be a large amount of
moss figured on that contract and you rather expected it? — A. Yes.

Q, And you knew when your bid was going in that your moss bid was going
to get you the contract? — A. I expected it would be very favorable.

Q. Was much of the clay which was classified as 50 per cent loose rock
excavated by steam shovels on this contract 'N'o. 15? — A. The proportion was very
small, I [should judge.

Q. About what yardage was the steam shovel capable of handling in an
ordinary ten hour shift? — A. I have forgotten; it is one of those automatic sixteen
ton or twenty ton.

Q. What would be a fair day's work average in that material? — A. I cannot
tell you exactly. I should think that in good material it should handle 250 yards.

Q. You in your final estimate have received something like 6,000 to 8,000
yards of solid rock which was classified because of its being small stones closely
assembled, what is called "assembled rock" in the estimates? — A. Do you mean
in our work?

Q. In your work? — A. I do not know; I do not know how they classified it
1 was never with them when they classified. I thought it was all solid rock we were
allowed for, but you say there is a certain amount of assembled rock.

Q. Do you think, as a contractor, that any material composed of stones less
than a cubic yard, and sand and clay mixed in with it, should be called solid rock
under that specification? — A. If it is cemented, I should think it would be hard-
pan, but if it were frozen I should say it was solid.

Q. You would only make solid out of it if it was frozen? — A. If it is
cemented it would be blasted continually and it is the same thing.

Q. If the cemented material did not have any stones in it, and you shot it,
what would you call it? — A. There are a good many different kinds of cemented
material, do you mean cemented sand ?

INTESTIGATING COMMISSIOX 495

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Cemented sand and clay if it did not have any stones in it, what would
you call it? — A. That would be open to quite a lot of argument because you can
get it cemented when it is very easily handled.

Q. Did you ever get solid rock for this stuff they call assembled rock on any
other contract you were ever on? — A. I do not think so.

Q. This is a new proposition ? — A. Yes ; my specifications in the other con-
tracts were for solid rocks or boulders measuring over a cubic yard.

Q. When you made your tender did you expect that solid rock was going ta
be the same solid rock that you as an engineer and contractor had been handling in
previous contracts ? — A. No, because I read the specification and the other specifi-
cations run differently.

Q. That is argument, but it is facts we want. Did not you expect when you
made your tender on these specifications to receive the same treatment in the matter
of interpretation from the engineers that you had been in the habit of receiving on
other contracts ? — A. No, I could not have done so because the specifications were
different and worded differently. The specifications of the different materials were
different.

Q. Did you put in a lower price for rock, than you would have put in on
that account, did you reduce your rock price? — A. No, I got every cent I could
possibly venture to ask without competition knocking me out.

Q. Then the interpretation which you contend for did not influence you in
making your bid ? — A. No, in the first place, on the contract you are referring to
uow, I never expected any very large quantity of rock. Of course, the estimates.
of the rock on that line were something like 250,000 yards or over.

Q. How did you know there was an estimate of that kind ? — A. I got a copy
of the estimate after I got the work. They gave me estimated quantities. I think
I got them from Mr. Lumsden. . Certainly, I got them from one of the engineers ;
any^^ay, I wanted to see what the total would be.

Q. What was your reason for asking Mr. Wallace Nesbitt for an opinion on
this clause of the contract? — A. On account of the frozen material.

Q. Did you lay Mr. Nesbitt's opinion before the Commission or the engi-
neers?— A. I showed it to our particular commissioner; our particular commis-
sioner was Mr. Eeid. I showed it to him and Mr. Mclsaac and Mr. Lumsden, I
think. I showed them the written opinion. In the same way, I had one from
Shepley, Chrysler, and Arnoldi.

Q. You laid all these opinions before the Commissioners or the engineers?
—A. Yes.

By Mr. Statinton:

Q. Why did you go to all the expense and trouble of getting so many opinions
on this? — A. We intended to fight it out, and I have not abandoned the idea yet.

Q. Then the Commission was disputing- your right? — A. The right to frozen
material. In the first place, the Commission or the engineers on the line allowed
it in Mr. Lumsden's reign, and then later Mr. Lumsden cut it more than in half,
anyway he cut it down to $35,000. Durinjr the di-spute I got these opinions in
order to try the influence of laying first-class legal opinions before them to in-
fluence them to reinstate that, and they did not do it.

Q. Did they take all the frozen material from you? — A. Yes, I understand
so.

Q. They did not allow you anything for frozen material? — A. I understand
not.

Q. And you got these opinions to fortify your case before the Commission?
—A. Yes.

494 XATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. Did you get any opinions on any other matters excepting the frozen
materials? — A. I cannot tell you offhand, I do not remember now. Of course,
when they entered into the classification of frozen material, they entered into the
v/hole classification of these three items: solid rock, loose rock, and common
excavation.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. Referring again to that moss contract, was it generally understood between
the contractors and the Commission that the estimate on which they would money-
out the tenders was private information of the Commission ? — A. It was not given
to us for the purpose of tendering and so forth; we were not allowed to see that.

Q. So that if anyone had been given that it might have influenced their
bid? — A. Certainly it would, very materially.

Q. In other words, you would be very glad to have had that private infor-
mation?— A. I think anyone would. You are enough of an engineer to know
ihat yourself.

By Mr. Staunton:
Q. It would be quite improper to give it to one person and not to another?
— A. Certainly.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. You happened to secure this information because you were chasing up
and down the line and heard in a general way what the boys were doing, that is
right, is it? — ^A. Yes.

Q. Is there anything that has occurred to you that you would like to tell
"this Commission ? — A. Excepting that I might tell you about that letter. There
is a letter in existence which in my estimation would make my estimate final as I
have paid the subcontractors on the classification as made, on the estimates which
were marked " final " by the district engineers or division engineers, I am not sure
which. The letter to which I refer and which caused the issue of these final cer-
tificates was one written by Mr. Grant in the spring of 1911 to Mr. Molesworth at
North Bay, instructing him to issue these certificates as there would be no revision
of classification on that work. The letter is every bit as strong as that. On the
•strength of that letter, I paid my subcontractors on these estimates.

By Mr. Staunton :

Q. Your firm is the firm of " Fauquier Brothers " ; you and your brother
constitute the firm? — A. It is not called Fauquier Brothers, it is E. F. & G. E.
Fauquier.

, Q. Was anyone else ever in partnership wi:h you? — A. Do you mean at pre-
rious dates?

Q. Yes? — A. On work we did in 1884 there was Mr. Denwoody.

Q. Have you ever had any person else interested with you in a monetarv
way in the contracts on this Transcontinental Railway? — A. No.

Q. No person else? — A. No.

Q. No person had any direct or indirect interest in your contract? — A. Not
the slightest.

Q. Did the profits go to you and your brother? — A. Equally.

Q. And to nobody else? — A. No, if we ever get them.

The }yitness: — I would suggest in reference to the question as to the borrow
pits that you should ask my brother without recalling me on that question, as T
have no personal knowledge of it.

Mr. Staunton : — Yes, we will agree to that, but tell your brother to come pre-
pared to give us the information.

The witness was not further examined.

INVESTIGATINO COMMISSION 495

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Ottawa, January 22nd, 1918.

E. F. & Cx. E. Fauquier

Statement of Expenditure re Locating Ballast Pits.

Pit No. 1— Mile 104 $ 500.00

Pit No. 2— Mile 112 200 . 00

Pit No. 3— Mile 160 515 . 00

Pit No. 4— Mile 160 1,015 . 00

Pit No. 5 & 6— Mile 160 1,123 . 75

Pit No. 7— Mile 184 2,711.40

Travelling expenses, etc., G. E. Fauquier 2,000 . 00

$8,068.15

(NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY ENQUIRY COMMISSION.
OTTAWA, JANUARY 31st, 1913.)

Present: G. Lyxch-Stauntox, K.C, Chairman; F. P. Gutelius, C.E.

Reid McManus, sworn:

Examined hy Mr. Gutelius :

Q. You had a contract for about eight miles of the construction of the
National Transcontinental Railway between mileages 52 and 58 west of Moncton?
—A. Yes.

Q. Who constitutes your firm? — A. It is two brothers of mine, Edward E.
McManus, and John W. McManus.

Q. And no one else is interested? — A. I have another brother, he is partly
interested, but he is studying for the Church, and he has not been interested in
our workings.

Q. The peculiar features of the portion of the railway which you constructed
seem to be a cutting from mile 50 to mile 52, which cutting is nearly two miles
long; you are familiar with the ground there? — A. Yes.

Q. Did that long cut strike you as being a peculiar bit of location? — A. No.
I never looked at it from that point of view; you are speaking to me now as from
the engineering point of view.

Q. No, as a contractor, from your commonsense knowledge of railway loca-
tion, did you figure that it was necessary to undertake a cut two miles long at
that part? — A. Can I explain that?

Q. Yes, take your time and explain it? — A. I never gave it any considera-
tion when we tendered on the work, and it was a year or so before we started to
operate on that cut. We commenced at the small operations, I do not think we
touched it at all the first year we were working. I never gave that question any
consideration.

Q. Did you ever before take out a cut two miles in length? — A. No.

Q. So that it was very unusual did you utilize all that material for

fills or was much of it wasted? — A. It was practically all used.

Q. What was the greatest haul that you gave any of that material? — A.

496 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE V^ 1914

You can see by the profile. There is a small fill before you go into the cut and
a part of the cut was borrowed and brought to contract No. 1. The balance was
hauled to Chipman to make that fill across the bridge.

Q. So that the material which was taken across the bridge at Chipman was
hauled how many miles? — A. About four and a half miles, I should think.

Q. What did you receive for hauling this material that long distance? — A.
T got train haul price, as over-haul for that portion of the cut, as far as I know.

Q. What was your train haul price? — A. Thirty-eight cents.

Q. And what was your price for common excavation? — A. Twenty-one
cents.

Q. And what was your price for loose rock? — A. Fifty cents.

Q. And your price for solid rock? — A. $1.50.

Q. So that the material in the big fill at Chipman would cost for earth
fifty-nine cents and for loose rock eighty-eight cents? — A. The first part of the
fill put in was put in from the west side from the borrow pit there about mile 59 ;
we borrowed off the Toronto Construction Company's work about 40.000 yards.

Q. What I am referring to is the cost to the Commission of that portion of
this big fill at Chipman which was hauled from the two mile cut at Mile 51 ; what-
ever you hauled down there would cost what ? — A. The excavation price plus the
thirty-eight cents.

Q. Which is common excavation, fifty-nine cents; loose rock, eighty-eight
cents; solid rock, $1.88? — A. Yes.

Q. Wliat proportion roughly was hauled down there from the big cut? — A.
I think there was about 150,000 yards and perhaps more, I cannot say exactly as
I do not remember.

Q. Anvhow you think there were over 100,000 yards? — A. Yes, over
100,000 yards.

Q. Did you grade the Y at Chipman? — A. Yes.

Q. Where did the material for that come from? — A. Some of it was bor-
rowed right in the Y and some of it came from the first cut out from Chipman.

Q. But no considerable quantity of this Y gradincr came from the big cut? —
A. ISTo, the Y was practically completed before we opened that cut at all.

Q. In looking over the Y at Chipman I was surprised to find that you
made such a long Y, do .you know any reason why they should not make a Y
there with an ordinary 10-degree curve? — A. I never gave that any consideration.

Q. The Y now is of such curvature that you could run it at thirty miles an
hour without any trouble? — A. Yes, one leg is nearly straight.

Q. And the other is ordinar}^ curvature that is used on main line track on
many railways? — A. On many railways, yes.

Q. How did they happen to let an eight-mile contract wlien the other con-
tracts were all for greater mileage? — A. Only from what I heard that they let
fifty miles, and when they came to sign the contract. . . .1 understood tliough,
when the contract was asked for, that the work was to extend to Chipman, and
then when the notice said only fifty miles they ended tlieir contract there which
was six miles out of Chipman.

Q. So that it was a remnant that was not covered by tlie larger contracts? —
A. I understood that the Grand Trunk Pacific or the contractors who had the
contract for the fifty miles, asked tlie Commission tliat tliey take eight miles more,
expecting they would get it, and give them access to tlie works from each end.

Q. But for some reason or other they stopped back at the fifty miles? — A.
Yes.

Q. And that left this eight mile piece? — A. Yes.

Q. Did you have much trouble in getting this contract? — A. They asked
for tenders.

IXTESTIGATIXG COMMISSION 497

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Did yon have any trouble about it ? — A. We tendered and found we were
the lowest. Th^-n some of them discouraged us, they thought we were too low and
then Corbett & Floeseh offered to buy us out.

Q. But you concluded to do the work yourselves ? — A. Yes.

Q. I see that the original estimate amounted to $289,000, what did your last
estimate show?— A. $587Xi00.

Q. Do you know Mr. Me^Ianus, why there was such a great difference between
the original estimate and tlie final estimate? Do you know where that difference
occurred? — A. I do not know, I did not see any first estimate, but I understand
that the enginef»^s did not estimate any rock in that eight miles, that is my under-
standing of it.

Q. You have no idea of the quantities the engineers figured in their original
estimates ? — A. No.

Q. Is there any other reason why the contract should have practically doubled
the estimate? — ^A. I do not know unless it was mainly due to classification.

Q, And b]* that you mean that there was more rock discovered when the cuts
were opened than they expected? — A. Yes.

Q. How did the final classification compare with what you expected for your
different prices, did you get all the loose rock that was coming to you ? — A. I do
not think we go1 all the solid rock that was coming to us. Some of that which we
called solid rock they gave as loose rock, but I think our classification was a very
fair one. We were continually fighting for more classification and as we had differ-
ences with our engineer from the start we thought we were not getting sufficient.

Q. Is not that always the case on contract work with the contractors? — A. I
do not know as to that.

Q. The contractors are always trying to get the best classification they possibly
can ? — A. Yes, that is natural.

Q. That is considered good business for a contractor ? — A. Yes.

Q. But there is not anything that stands out particularly in your mind as to
which you got higher classification tlian you thought was coming to you? — A. No.

Q. You said a moment ago that you should have received more solid rock,
what do you mean by that? — A. There was one cut in this work that the ledge
overlaying what they called loose rock, ordinary material; the ledge was over the
top of the cut, they called it indurated clay and gave us loose rock or hardpan.
We claimed that as the rock formation was on the top, we should have rock to the
bottom of the cut.

Q. Eegardless of what material was underneath? — A. The rock was there
first.

Q. But you didn't fight that very hard ? — A. I tried to get it.

Q. I can understand, but you did not have a great deal of heart to try to
make solid rock out of indurated clay? — A. It was kind of marl or fireclay. We
had to blast it to take it out, but the moment you laid it in the air, it slackened
like lime.

Q. Then, they did not make any mistake in classifying it as loose rock, that
was low enough ? — A, Oh, yes, it was low enough.

By Mr. Staunton :

Q. You have a claim, Mr. McManus, for overhaul on bnllast? — A. Yes.

Q. Wlmt grounds do you base that claim on ? — A. According to our contract
as I understand it, the Commission furnished us with ballast pits on the work.
There were no ballast pits within reasonable distance from our eight miles, and so
we hauled ballast from the North Eiver pit, and I had a verbal understanding with
Mr. Foss, the district engineer, that he was going to pay us one '^nt a yard over-
haul beyond the five miles.
l-.>— 32

1

498 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. The same as is done in overhaul for borrows? — A. Train haul overhaul .•
jes.

Q. The clause in the contract is 228 of the specifications, and it reads : —

" 228. The land for ballast pits and approaches thereto will be fur-
nished by the commissioners and approved by the engineer. In selecting
land for this purpose, a preference will always be given to those points where
the best material can be procured within a reasonable distance as determined
by the engineer. During the working of any pit, should the material be
found unfit for ballasting, the engineer shall compel the contractor to close
such pits and open others. The cost of clearing land for ballast pits outside
the right-of-way and grading and laying the main branch track to pits (but
not sidings in same), shall be paid for according to the general schedule
of prices."

Now, clause 225 reads: —

" 225. Ballasting will include the loading, hauling, unloading, along-^
side of track, and transportation of all material hauled by train for the
purpose of ballasting the track, said material to be duly accepted as ballast
by the engineer. Ballast shall consist of broken stone, gravel, or coara
sand, approved by the engineer."

The item in the Schedule is No. 75 : —

" 75. Ballasting — no overhaul allowed."

Now, those are the only clauses that I find in the contract referring to the
subject, and I would like you to explain to me, if you can, how you came to infe^
that tlie Commission was bound to supply you with a ballast pit on the ground ?-
A. It says : " Where the best material can be procured within a reasonable dis
tance as determined by the engineer."

Q. It says " Preference will always be given to these points where the bea
material can be procured within a reasonable distance as determined by th<
engineer," Certainlj^, the preference would be given if there are any such, bu^
where there are no points where you can get ballast within a reasonable distance
you must still get ballast, must you not? — A. Well, I did not talk to Mr. Gran^
very much about it. I understood that he and Mr. Foss had a discussion about
that, and I understood that we were entitled to a certain overhaul for ballast as it
was costing us as much or more than we were getting for the delivery on tlu
ground.

Q. As a fact you say there was no ballast along your contract? — A. Thei
was no ballast along our contract.

Q. And you had perforce to bring that ballast to your contract how man]
miles? — A. Forty-five miles before we entered on our contract.

Q. Forty-five miles to the coiunu'ncciiient of your conti-att? — A. Yes.

Q. So that some of it would be hauled over fifty miles? — A. Yes fifty-thre
miles, tlie average was about forty-nine miles.

Q. Do you know what that ballast cost you ? — A. I cannot tell you.

Q. Did you never make a calculation ? — A. T was figuring it as we went froi
day to day, you have the force accounts, and I tliink it is all there.

Q. But it cost you more than forty cents? — A. ^tore tlian forty cents. You
see we hauled it in the fall of the year and we could not leave the trains loaded
over night. We hauled the most of it in November and December and we were
iifraid it would freeze on the trains if we left it over niffht.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 499

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

By Mr. GuteUus:
Q. How many yards did you haul for the eight miles? — A. I think about
30,000 yards.

By Mr. Staunton :

Q. Have you any written promise from the engineer? — A. No, it was put
in one estimate or two estimates. We got it one month in the estimate, that was
the December or January estimate, and then in the spring of that year it was taken
away from us again ; it was cut out altogether.

Q. How much money do you think you will lose by it if you are not allowed?
— A. I think the estimate is $6,800 for overhaul.

Q. It means $7,000 to j^ou? — A. Yes, but that was only on part of it; we
were allowed $7,000 on the overhaul for one month.

Q. Did you draw any surfacing from there? — A. I do not know, I do not
think so.

Q. There is a clause here which allows you for surfacing: —

•'• 224. Surfacing ' B ' will include the cost of all train hauled mater-
ial under the track, surfacing, lining and all other work incident to the
preparation of the track for running work trains where surfacing is done
with train hauled material other than ballast. The surfacing must be kept
up with the track laying as far as possible. All new tracks must be brought
to surface and tamped up before it is run over. Eails that are dam-
aged by reason of neglect on the part of the contractor will be replaced at
his expense".
A. The contract we were working on we surfaced with sand from Chipman.
Q. You have a small allowance made to you for what was called " assembled
rock ", 600 yards on the eight miles, do you know what assembled rock is ; did you get
an allowance on indurated material, clay and small stones put in as solid rock? —
A. I do not know. In certain of the cuts this sandstone would throw out as bould-
ers but it was in flakes and it would show out on the side of the cut as rock.

Q. Show out on the estimates as rock? — A. No, we made a claim for that
but I do not know how much we got.

Q. Have 3'-ou not heard of this discussion about assembled rock? — A. Is that
in reference to that blue print of Mr. Lumsden's?
Q. Yes ?— A. Yes, I heard of that.

Q. Did not that assembled rock go down to your line at all, did it appear
on your contract, to your knowledge ? — A. Not that I remember.

Q. Did you, or did you not, try to get from the engineers small stones and
cemented material in combination passed as solid rock? — A. No.

Q. Then if you are given stone smaller than a yard and cemented material as
solid rock, it was not through any effort of your own that that was called solid rock ?
— A. The only claim I made was for what we usually call boulder measurement,
that would show up in the cut as ledge.
Q. It is sandstone? — A. Yes.

Q. Why did you try to get that in as boulders? — A. It would show up in the
face of your cut perhaps four or five feet wide and a few feet high, and go along five
or six feet and disappear altogether. There would be nothing to show after the
work is finished that there had been any rock there at all.

By Mr. Guteliits :

Q. These were all pieces of rock larger than a yard that you claimed boulder
measurement for? — A. Yes.

Q. And if the pieces were smaller than a yard you knew they were loose rock?
— A. We made a claim for it.

500 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

By Mr. Staimton: .

Q. You made a claim for big or small? — A. Xo, not for small.

Q. That country down there has no hard boulders in the work; what you see
all through the place was little junks of hard sand? — A. Xo, it was sandstone.

Q. Well, of sandstone through the sand? — A, Xo, it was in hard material,
hard clay material.

Q. But you got allowed as solid rock those pieces of sandstone that were less
than a cubic yard ? — A. I do not know.

Q. AVere they not generally less that a cubic yard, you got 610 yards of as-
sembled rock and 94,000 yards of solid rock — in that solid rock how much of this
sandstone was there? — A. It was practically all sandstone formation there.

Q. I do not remember seeing any stone there that was not sandstone; was
it not all fragmentary sandstone? — A. It was ledge.

Q. It was not ledge as spread out beyond your contract? — A. Do you mean
beyond the sides of the cut?

Q. Yes? — A. Oh yes, it was ledge.

Q. Where did you get the small fragments? — A. There are certain of the
cuts there that were clay and through^ these cuts you would find that sandstone.

Q. Did that wandering sandstone amount to much? — A. Apparently, it was
over 600 yards; there was quite a bit of it.

Q. There was not quite a bit of it that was over a yard? — A. It laid along
in trenches, I can show it to you on the work a good deal easier than I can explain
it to you.

Q. The point I am asking you is, was it in large or small pieces? — A. It
was not in large pieces but I think there were pieces as large as this desk, over a
yard.

Q. You say most of it was over a yard? — A. I cannot say that.

Q. Were the pieces of fragmentary sandstone small pieces, generally, or were
they large pieces over a yard generally ? — A. I cannot answer that, I do not know.

Q. From what you saw, what do you think? — A. I think we are entitled
to all we made claim for.

Q. That is not the way I am asking you, were you entitled to all you were
allowed? — A. I do not know.

Q, You may not have claimed it, they may have put it in under a misappre-
hension or under a misconstruction of the specifications; and Brer Rabbit he say
nothing; may not that have been the result? — A. I do not know.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. You did not get all you claimed? — A. We did not get all our claims.

By Mr. Staunton:

Q. Of the sandstone? — A. Of the ledge as boulders.

Q. Did you ever get a copy of the opinion of the Minister of Justice on
your claim for overhaul of ballast? — A. I don't remember that we did.

Q. Were you informed that he had given an opinion stating that you were
not entitled to it? — A. Yes. I think that is the reason we did not get it.

Q. Had you any understanding, verbal or otherwise, with the engineer before
you hauled this material, that 3'ou would be paid for overhaul? — A. Yes, we had.

Q. What was that understanding and with whom was it? — A. Before I
hired the outfit, that is the engines and cars to haul this ballast, I had a talk with
Mr. Fops and I asked him if he was to pay for overhaul on the work, and he said:
Why certainly, the same as train haul, as I understood it, and as he awarded it to
us on the first estimate.

IXTESTIGATING COMMISSION 501

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. You were paid, you told Mr. Gutelius, for train haul in certain cases

the common excavation price plus the train haul material price, were

you not? — A. Yes, as the train hauled material price was considered as overhaul.

Q. Now when you take out common excavation, your labor in connection
with it is to remove it from its place on your carts and then dump it either on the
way or as waste ? — A. Put it in the dumps or waste, yes.

Q. ISTow in train hauled material, your contract is to remove that from its
place, put it on the train, and haul it and deposit it along the way? — A. To
make up fills, yes.

Q. Your price for train-hauled filling is 38 cents. Now, if it became
necessary to use trained-hauled material, you would have to go to the ground, dig
it up, put it on the train and haul it five miles for 38 cents and there deposit
it on the road, is not that right? — A. Yes.

Q. Now why should you be paid the two prices? — A. You see the fill was
across the river over at Chipmau, To make up that fill they would have to go
on to the west side as the borrow and the material we had to borrow was a hard
kind of material. It woiild cost them more money than to pay us the overhaul
price plus excavation price from the cut.

Q. But the point I make, Mr. McManus, is this: it makes no difference
where you get the train-hauled material, whether it comes out of the line itself or
out of the ballast pit, your labor and expense are the same, that is, if the borrow
pit is a.s close as the place where you take it out of the line cut? — A. Yes.

Q. As a fact you contracted with the Commission for 38 cents, plus mileage
for material carried by train and deposited on the line, did you not? — A. Yes.

Q. And you contracted with the Commission for material which is known
as common excavation moved on the line for 500 feet at 21 cents? — A. Yes.

Q. Now, if you had not train-hauled that common excavation, you would
have had to move it for 21 cents? — A. I ^-ouid have to move it from this cut
in the spoil pit and then I was entitled to a cent a yard for every one hundred
feet beyond the 500 feet haul.

Q. Let us study that out. . . . you have, we will say, 1,000 yards of
common excavation that you have no use for and that you propose to move into the
spoil bank and that spoil bank is within 500 feet of the place where you were
taking it out of the line cutting. Now then, the engineer comes along and says:
Mr. McManus, instead of depositing that in the spoil bank, carry it down the
line on the train forty-six miles and deposit it on the line. You carry it down
the line. The only extra cost you are put to is for hauling it by train that extra
distance, is that right? — A. Yes.

Q. Then they give you 38 cents for material, hauling that on the train five
miles, because all the other expense you were put to an3avay, is common exca-
vation ? — A. Yes.

Q. Now, what justification is there to give 3'ou 38 cents for hauling it that
distance? — A. I do not know. From the understanding of my contract I could
pull it out on to the spoil bank and they could borrow to make a fill on the other
-ide.

Q. But they could come to you and say : Mr. McManus. we want you to
take that out as train haul, we won't allow 3''ou to spoil that? — A. Then I guess
they would have to pay me extra as train-hauled fill.

Q. They would pay you just on the train-hauled fill alone. The material
removed by you is called common excavation when it is taken out and moved
along within the 500 feet and deposited on the track or put in the spoil bank. The
material is called train-hauled when it is put on the train and moved by the train.
That is the only distinction between 'the two? — A. No, as I understand your
contention there would be no classification in any cut, you would not be able to
make nnv classification of loose rock or solid rock in a cutting?

502 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL liAILWAT

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. No, I say that any material that is carried by train is train-hauled and
should come under that heading, but why you should drag in the other heading
and put them both together, I cannot understand. You see the train-hauled
filling, as interpreted by me, in this specification is for any extra filling to bring
your cuts up to grade. You get a price for the train-hauled filling, but your line
cuts have got to be excavated any way as classified. Therefore, if they make you
haul line cuts anywhere, they are supposed to pay you one cent a yard for every
100 feet over 500 feet. When they make your haul five miles from the line cut
they said the overhaul clause would not cover it and they made the other ar-
rangement.

Let me read this, clause 224 X reads : —

" 224 X. Where there is not sufficient material suitable for making
embankments by men and teams within reasonable haul, of which the
engineer shall be judge, and jt becomes necessary to make use of the track
laid at the expense of the commissioners to haul material for such purpose
by train either for the widening of embankments to their full width or
raising them to their full height, or for the purpose of filling temporary
trestles the contractor will have the use of the commissioners' rails, fasten-
ings and necessary switches for such purpose, it being understood that the
track-laying will only be paid for once by the commissioners, and that any
damage to rails, fastenings, or switches while in such service shall be paid
for by such contractor to the commissioners, or the commissioners may de-
duct it from the monthly or final estimate due, or to become due to the
contractor. The price given in the schedule for such train-hauled filling
shall include the cost of all temporary trestles which the contractor may
require, which he shall erect according to his own plans and at his own
cost and risk, and all tools, plant, material and labor necessary for the
loading, hauling, putting in place and trimming, as directed by the engi-
neer. The limit to which the contractor will be called upon to haul such
train-hauled filling at the price stated in this schedule will be five (5)
miles; beyond such distance a price of one cent (.01) per yard per mile
will be paid him, the measurement of such haul being made to the nearest
mile, one-half mile or over counting as a full mile. Measurements of all
train-hauled filling will be allowed on train-hauled filling from borrow
pits."

Now, that applies, without any exception, to all material which you put on
the train and haul, does it not? — A. No.

Q. I would like to know why it does not? — A. You see the line cuts are
taken out with a steam shovel and trained. The stuff you load from those cuts on
the train would not be termed train-hauled filling, but the excess, to make up the
rest of your dump, after you borrow outside of your line cuts, would make your
train-hauled filling.

Q. But all the material which you call train-hauled filling is material that
you take out of its original position, put on the train, and haul to a given point.
Now, you have to bear all that expense for thirty-eight cents, but when you take
it out of the line, you say: now, I will charge for the common excavation price
and I will also charge for the train-hauled filling price. So you are paid for
taking that out of the ground and moving it by your trains twice? — A. No.

Q. Start from the other end of it. . .the line excavation is your classified
material and your common material, you ha^^e to excavate your line cuts. If yon
move that 500 foot you get overhaul, if you move that up to 4,300 feet you get
38 cents in regular overhaul price. In this train-hauled filling you charge for

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 503

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

the train-hauled full price and the common excavation price. Why don't you
also charge the common excavation overhaul price, too? I don't see if you get
one why you should not get the other. You are getting a double-headed charge
for this anyway? — A. No, I am not.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. Is there anything which as a contractor you would like to lay before this
investigating committee that has not been brought out in the questions so far? —
A. Can I add a reference to pipelaying. They made a unit charge at so much a
yard and so much a running foot for laying pipe, and they gave us an extra work
order to do it. Then, since we finished our work they took and changed it all
back into common or line cutting price.

Q. The price you thought you were getting for these ditches was considerably
higher than your line-cutting price? — A. Yes.

Q. Did you get a work order which showed what those ditching prices are to
be?— A. Yes.

Q. And that paper was signed by whom? — A. I do not remember, you have
it here, probably the chief engineer, it came from Mr. Foss.

Q. And in good faith you carried out the work expecting you would receive
a higher price? — A. Yes.

Q. And after the work was finished ? — A. They changed back to line cutting
price.

Q. Do you remember what these ditching prices were? — A. We had, 1
think, 50 cents for common excavation, $1.00 for loose rock, and $8.00 for solid
rock, together with the price of common excavation, 31 cents for back filling.

Q. And you were given that on your progress estimates? — A. Yes, we
were paid, and it has been taken away from us. They have changed it back to
21 cents for common, fifty cents for loose, $1.50 for solid in trench, and back
filling 21 cents. I think that the pipe-laying should be the same as foundation
excavation price if we laid the pipe under the track. If we laid the pipe under
the track, twenty-four inches or any kind of an outlet, with a culvert pipe, we
would be paid foundation excavation price for that. Now they take us off the
main line out into the woods about 800 feet and they expect us to do it for the
ordinary line cut price.

0. This was a waterpipe line? — A. Yes, for the tanks.

Q. At what station? — A. At Chipman.

Q. Did you do this with your own force account or sublet it? — A. We did
it with our own force account.

Q. How much monev roughlv was involved in that reduction? — A. $2,000
or $3,000.

Q. And that is a claim that is now before the Commission? — A. Yes.

Me. Gutelitts : — I think I may say that justice will be done you when the
matter is finally settled.

End of examination of witness.

504 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

(NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY ENQUIRY
COMMISSION.)

OTTAWA, JANUARY 23rd, 1913.

Present: — G. Lynch-Stauntox, K.C, Chainnan; F. P. Gutelil'S, C.E.

John D. McArthur, sworn :

By Mr. Staunton:

Q. You are the J. D. McArthur of J. D. McArthur, Limited, are you not?
— A. Yes.

Q. Who are your associates in that conipauy? — A. There are two or three
boys in my office.

Q. It is just a one-man company? — A. Practically.

Q. Has any person got any substantial interest in the company except your-
self ?— A. No.

Q. What is the capitalization of the company? — A. One million dollars.

Q. Do you own the whole million dollars' worth of stock? — A. Except just
two or three shares.

Q. 1 understand 3'ou to mean that the other members of the company are
mere nominal shareholders? — A. Yes.

Q. You wrote a letter to the late Mr. S. R. Poulin, district engineer of the
Transcontinental Railway, dated at Winnipeg, February 10, 1910, in which you
state that you are in receipt of estimate sheet for the months of January and
February (1910); these sheets show deductions to the amount of about $185,000
from notes and estimate sheets; these deductions are made by the order of the
chief engineer and we presume the reduction is made for overbreak; we consider
this question of overbreak settled at a meeting held in Kenora on February 8,
1907, when Mr. Lumsden, chief engineer, Charles Young, one of the commis-
sioners, and all the divisional engineers were present; the matter was gone into
fully then and Mr. Lumsden agreed to allow overbreak as solid rock. Now, was
that letter written by you, Mr. McArthur? — A. I think that was written by the
engineer.

Q. It is signed, "J. D. McArthur & Company, by R. A. H." — who is he?—
A. R. A. Hazelwood,

Q. He was your engineer? — A. Yes.

Q. You say that letter was written by him? — A. It was written by him,
I believe.

Q. Were you present at Kenora at that meeting? — A. Yes.

Q. Will you tell us from your recollection who were there? — A. The chief
engineer, Mr. Lumsden was there, and Hodgin?, the district engineer, and the
divisional engineers, A. G. Macfarlane, and jMcIntosh, and Reehan, and another;
the divisional engineers were there anyway.

Q. What was the meeting called for? — A. The meeting was called for
when the men that were doing the work were complaining that they were not
getting their estimates for the overbreak.

Q. A complaint had boon made then by the contractors or sub-contractors?
— A. Well, from (he subcontractors to the contractors.

Q. That they were not getting a just allowance for overbreak, is that it? —
A. That they did not get anything in their monthly estimates for overbreak.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 505

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. And this meeting was for that purpose? — A, For what purpose, for the
purpose of discussing that question?

Q. For the purpose of discussing and settling the overbreak? — A. Yes.

Q. That was in February, 1907, how much work had been done at tha^
time? — A, 1 cannot tell you offhand.

Q. I am only asking you approximately, because we have the record? — A.
It was certainly small, compared with the total work.

Q. Only a small amount of work comparatively speaking had been done
then ? — A. Yes.

Q. And you met there for the purpose of discussing and arriving at some
understanding with respect to overbreak. Was that the idea? — A. Yes.

Q. What happened at the meeting? — A. That was discussed and settled.'

Q. I want you to tell me the discussion; I want you to tell me what oc-
curred, we will draw our own conclusions, did you say anything? — A. No, I do
not think I did.

Q. You had no complaint then personally? — A. Not as much as the men
who were doing the work.

Q. Who made any complaint? — A. All the other contractors.

Q. Tell me one? — A. There was Chambers Brothers.

Q. What did Chambers Brothers say? — A. They wanted to pull off the
work.

Q. What for? — A. On account of that they would not get any overbreak.
If that were continued they would have to throw up their job.

Q. At that time, as I understand you, the engineers took the position that
the contractors were not entitled to any overbreak, is that the point? — A. That
they didn't have any instructions.

Q. To allow any overbreak? — A. To allow any.

Q. And none was being allowed? — A. None was allowed.

Q. Then you say there was a general complaint that there was no overbreak
allowed ? — ^A. Yes.

Q. What 3id Mr. Lumsden say? — A. Mr. Lumsden gave instructions to
Major Hodgins to allow overbreak.

Q. Did he give him a standing order to allow overbreak, or what occurred —
A. As I understood, it was left with the resident engineer.

Q. To do what? — A. To use his judgment.

Q. That was not giving him any more discretion than he always had; he
was to use his judgment in any case? — A. Yes, but still he had no authority to
letum any overbreak.

Q. Then you say that Mr. Lumsden gave him instructions to use his judg-
ment, that does not carry us any distance? — A. To pay for overbreak and return
it in the estimates.

Q. Return what overbreak? — A. Whatever he thought was just. The road
could not be built unless it was allowed.

Q. You had a contract yourself with the Government for building a portion
of the road? — A. Yes.

Q. Now, in that contract, your allowances are provided for; what you are
to be paid for is provided for in that contract, is it not? — A. Yes,

Q. And you and the subcontractors were claiming you were entitled to
overbreak ? — A. Yes.

Q. And Mr. Lumsden told the engineer, as I understand you now, to make
you such allowances for overbreak as you were entitled to under the contract? —
A. I do not think it was put in that way.

Q. If you will not tell me what his words were, I will try and suggest to
you what appears to be the natural thing for him to do. I would like you to tell
me what occurred. You make certain statements in this letter and I want you
to tell me what was vour understanding of what occurred at that meetinof? — A.

506 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

I am just trying to tell you that what occurred at that meeting was that they
came to a conclusion they would pay for overbreak and they instructed the
engineers to return it in the estimates and pay for it.

Q, Were you to get all the overbreak you had, no matter under what condi-
tions it was made? — A. That was left for the engineer.

Q. To find out what was proper? — A. Yes.

Q. If you were to put in outrageously large shots and piled up large quanti-
ties of overbreak that were improper and unnecessary, do you think he had
instructions to allow you that? — A. That was some years ago and it was on a
work that I cannot account for at all; I was not there when they were working.

Q. I am not saying the contractors did so, but I want to know whether Mr.
Hodgins had instructions from his chief to alloAv you unnecessary overbreak? —
A. I do not think he put it in them words.

Q. Would the chief engineer's words lead anybody to conclude that that is
what he did? — A, No.

Q. He was to make proper allowances for overbreak, would not that be the
way to put it? — A. As I understand overbreak, that occurs and it cannot be
accounted for till it happens, slides in cuts, you take a shot and there will prob-
ably be fifty yards slide down at the side of the cut.

Q. That is slip and slide?— A. Yes.

Q. That was what he was to allow? — A. That was what he was to allow.

Q. You see the word '^overbreak" is nof used in the contract, that is a term
that contractors and engineers use, but the word itself is not used in the contract.
But in Section 37 of the specifications, it says: —

" 37. Material in slips, slides and subsidences extending beyond
slopes in cuttings will not be paid for unless, in the opinion of the engineer,
such occurrences were beyond the control of the contractor and not pre-
ventable by use of due care and diligence." •
You are familiar with that section? — A. I am.

Q. The contractors were contending that on the contract there was material
which came within that description, not allowed for, and they called it overbreak,
is not that right? — A. Yes.

Q. But it was not contended that the engineer should allow something that
was not authorized by the contract, was it? — A. Well, it was left with the
engineer.

Q. To use his judgment and make such allowances as were proper under
that clause? — A. Yes.

Q. Now if the contractors put in unreasonably large shots and blew out
unnecessary quantities, you would not expect to be allowed for that, would you?
— A. No. I think they tried to protect themselves from anything of that kind.

Q. You would not expect that to be allowed if the shots were unnecessary
and unreasonably large quantities were thrown out? — A. Well, that is a question
that comes under the heavy shots; I do not know whether they were heavy shots
or not.

Q. Wo are not talking about what occurred on the work, T am talking about
what occurred at this meeting; did Mr. Lumsden tell them they were to allow
the contractors where the shots were too heavy and the material was unnecessarily
blown out? — A. I do not recollect that being discussed.

Q. I should not have thought it would have been, but you say the con-
tractors contended they were entitled to be allowed for overbreak under the
contract and they were not getting it? — A. Yes.

Q. And instructions were given by the chief engineer tr> the district engineer
to give them proper allowance? — A. The pay for overbreak was left to the
engineer as the best authority to say what he thought was just.

Q. Ts that all that ocourrerl at the meeting? — A. That is all. that is what
the meeting was for, that was the grievance.

INTE8TIGATING COMMISSION 507

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. You say in this letter that overbreak was to be allowed as solid rock? —
A. Yes.

Q. You know how the overbreak under the contract is to be classified, do
you not ; it is to be classified as in the condition in which it falls into the cut after
the shot, that is right, is it not ? Section 38 of the specifications says : —

^'' 38. The classification of material from slides shall be made bv the
engineer, and will be in accordance with its condition at the time of the
slide, regardless of prior conditions."

A. That is just in slides and slips.

Q. Yes, that is to say that <xheve there is a slide or a slip he is to go and
look at the material after the slide or slip and see whether it comes within the
solid rock or the loose rock class, and allow accordingly, is not that right ? — A.
Yes, of course there might be some loose rock come from the top of the cut you
know, very often there is two or three feet of material or more, like that.

Q. So that he should not allow solid rock for small stones under a yard,
should he? — A. Oh yes, we never expected but what we would get paid for any-
thing that was all rock, even though it broke very small. It was solid rock in
the first place and it was broken up. There might not be a yard in it after it was
broken up.

Q. Why should you be allowed for that, when the contract said you should
not? — A. It cost us more money to handle it than if it was two vards or five
yards.

Q, Why should you be allowed for it when the contract said 3'ou should not?
— ^A. There was only a small percentage of that.

Q. Whatever percentage there was under a yard in size, all these pieces of
rock should be put in as loose rock, should they not? — A. I do not think it
should.

Q. How do you get around the contract? — A. I do not know how you are
going to get around it or anything, of that kind, I am just speaking as a con-
tractor moving rocks which cost me more money to move it.

Q. It may have cost you more money, I do not know anything about that,
but when you make a bargain that states definitely that slips and slides must be
classified in the shape in which they exist after the explosion, you surelv do not
expect it to be classified as it existed before the explosion? — A. I do.

Q. Notwithstanding the contract? — A. Notwithstanding the contract,

Q. You are an old contractor, are you not? — A. That is what they say.

Q. Were you ever on this contract yourself? — A. I must say that I was not.

Q. Did you do any of this rock work yourself? — A. No.

Q. Sublet it all?— A. Yes.

Q. You made contracts with your sub-contractors for this work in writing,
did you? — A, Yes,

Q. Were those contracts similar to the. contracts you made with the Govern-
ment ? — A, Yes.

Q. So that the sub-contractors had only the same rates as vou had? — A.
That is all.

Q. And they were only entitled to have slips and slides classified as against
you in the same way as you were entitled to have it classified as against the
Government? — A. Yes.

Q. I suppose that you have studied this specification ? — A, No, I think not,

Q. Have you submitted it to your lawyer for advice on its meaning? — A. I
have, this last eighteen months, when the work was finished.

Q. You knew though, at the Kenora meeting, that up to that time somebody
thought you ought not to get overbreak? — A. That was the attitude that the
engineers took.

508 KATIOXAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. I thought at that time you submitted it to your Winnipeg lawyers, I
think I saw a letter about it, Mr. Wilson was your lawyer in Winnipeg? — A.
Fisher Wilson, yes.

Q, Did you not submit it to them at that time? — A. I might have done
that, but I cannot tell you offhand.

Q. Fisher & Wilson did write the Commission for you, did they not? — A.
Yes.

Q. Do you remember what they wrote about? — A, I do not.

Q. Who were your sul)-eontraetors who were interested in the overbreak? —
A. Chambers Brothers and McCaffrey, W. A. Dutton, it was Dutton & McArthur,
but Dutton was really the man.

Q. Is McArthur, J. D. McArthur? — A. No, another one. There was Guy
Campbell, Olsen & Larsen, and Wardrope, and James Walsh, and Anderson John-
ston, and then there was what they called the Eastern Construction Company.
That was the bulk of the contractors.

Q. Have you settled with these people? — A. No, there are four or five I
have not settled with.

Q. Have you settled with Chambers? — A. No.

Q. Have you settled with Dutton? — A. No.

0. Have you settled with Campbell? — A. No.

Q. Have you settled with Olsen? — ^A. No.

Q. Have you settled with Wardrope? — A. Yes, I settled with him.

Q. Have you settled with Walsh? — A. Yes, he is settled with.

Q. Have you settled with Anderson & Johnston? — A. No, they are not
settled with.

Q. Have you settled with the Eastern Construction Company? — A. No.
There is a little fellow named Charlie Patterson.

Q. Is Patterson settled with?— A. No. ^

Q. There are eight of them outstanding? — A. Yes.

Q. Have they large claims against you? — A. Yes.

Q. Have you settled with them for this overbreak? — A. T settled with
them all along as we were getting our monthly esHmates.

Q. I know that, but did you settle with them all along, because they would
have only 10 per cent left if you did? — A. That is all they have.

Q. Do you mean to say that these men have got all that is coming to them
except the 10 per cent hold back? — A. Do you mean the estimates witli the arbi.
tratoTs' cut?

Q. No. I asked you if you paid them the estimates to date for the whole
claim? — A. I have.

Q. From these estimates were deducted what you call the arbitrators' over-
break, was it not? — A. No.

Q. Thev didn't allow that to them? — A. Ye?, in the first estimates.

Q. Have they been all paid by 'the Government for that overbreak? — A.
Yes.

O. That is all pnid? — A. Yes.

Q. And what claim they have now is the 10 per cent hold back? — A. Yes.

Q. Thnt is the whole matter? — A. Yes.

Bii Mr. Gutelhts:
Q. And the amount dodnrtorl from them bv the arbitrntors.

By Mr. Siaunton:

Q. Have you paid the amount ( f the arbitrators* deduction ? — A. Yes.
Q. So that the sub-contractors have no claim whatever against the Gov-
ernment except for the final ten per cent? — A. That is all.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 509

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. 1 want to understand this, let me put this question : The arbitrators
were Mr. Grant, now cliief engineer of the Transcontinental, Mr. Kelliher, chief
engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and Mr. Schreiber? — A. Yes.

Q. When did they go over the work? — A. About two years and a half ago.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. Was the work about finished at that time? — A. When they went over
for the last arbitration, the work was just about finished.

Q. The rock excavation was about completed? — A. Oh, yes, that was com-
pleted. I thought you meant the whole line.

By Mr. Siaunton :

Q. That was the second arbitration, thev took about .$-1:00,000 off you? — A.
Yes, more than $500,000'.

Q. Which thev said was not properly allowable under the contract? — A.
Yes.

Q. The arbitrators went over the ground before that? — A. Yes.

Q. "Wlio were they? — A. The same parties.

Q. When did they first go over the ground? — A. I think it was in the
spring of 1909.

Q. What did they do that time? — A. They went over the work but there
was no report and no deduction came in.

Q. Did they direct that deduction should be made? — A. I do not know
that, I never was notified.

Q. Did the engineers act differently after the arbitrators went over the first
time ? — A. Xo.

Q. Was the work all done then? — A, Practically.

Q. You say all this work was completed before 1909? — A. A very great
deal.

Q. The rock excavation? — A. Yes.

Q. Xow, after the second arbitration, the Commission cut your estimates so
as to deduct from you the amount the arbitrators said vou were not entitled to?
—A. Yes.

Q. And that amount has ne^er been paid you?^ — A. They took off a per-
centage.

Q. And an amount equal to their dedtictions is being retained from jon? —
A. Yes, they kept my percentage back and cut this overbreak off it.

Q. What you say is that they went on paying estimates up to that time and
that you got allowed overbreak without any deduction? — A. Yes.

Q. The arbitrators then came along and said, it is not proper to make
allowances for this overbreak and they took off •$■100,000 from you? — A. Yes.

Q. And that is what you are objecting to? — A. Yes.

Q. Xow, the engineers in the field did not deduct anything for overbreak?
— A. Oh yes.

Q. Did they in the beginning? — A. Xo.

Q. They allowed 3"ou all the overbreak that occurred on the line? — A. I
expect they did.

Q. Have you ever seen that work yourself? — A. Xot very much while they
were grading it.

Q. Have you seen it since? — A. Yes, I have been over the lines since the
rails were down.

Q. There are some pretty wide cuts on it? — A. Yes.

Q. There is a lot of waste is there not? — A. Very little waste.

Q. Do you remember District F, Mile 5.8, Residency 19, just near the
junction : here is a picture which shows an enormous piece of rock which stands

510 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

out of the ground about 18 feet and blown out into the side, don't you think it
would take some shooting to do that? — A. Is not that more than five miles
from the junction?

Q. It is over five and a half miles. Do you remember that big monument
there? — A. Is there a ravine running below?

Q. Yes? — A. That was on Swanston's work.

Q. I do not know whose work it is on? — A. There is a cut down there, but
I thought it was further west of the junction.

Q. Don't vou think that would take a lot of shooting to throw that out? —
A. Yes.

Q. Do you think they ought to get allowed for that? — A. If it is the cut
I have reference to, but I thought it was further west on the line than that, if it
is the cut I have reference to, you have seen it, Mr. Gutelius, it is a big cut and
there is a ravine away below it.

Q. Here is the cut with the ravine below it, it is another picture ? — A. That
is the only thing I objected to on the line, was that one.

Q. But this big one here, didn't you object to that? — A. I must gay that
I cannot recollect that.

Q. You can see the size of that stone by comparison with the size of the
persons standing around and the trees, could you think there is any justification
for blowing a great big stone like that from the side of the cut? — A, It depends
on how it was lying, very probably; it might be that it could not be moved or
touched at all without throwing it there.

Q. It is not a boulder though, it is ledge rock? — A. Side work is different.

Q. This is not side work^ it is right out of the cut, you would not expect
that fellow to come out would you? — A. I would suppose they would adjust it
as they were going on with the work.

Q. If by putting in big shots they did throw stuff up like that, do you
think it should be allowed if the material was required in adjoining fills; that is
clean waste of overbreak. I do not mean in the cut, clean waste of the over-
break? — A. That is the way I feel about it.

Q. Do you think that should be allowed? — A. Xo, that should not be
allowed.

Q. And what would you say about that at Mile 24.6? — A. That is tlie
ravine I refer to. I would say that certainly should not be allowed. That was
intentionally done.

Q. Xow, the arbitrators made these deductions because they thought it was
improperly done? — A. I do not know what their intention was, I did not take
any part in it at all.

Q. Do you think that three gentlemen of their standing and experience
would make a deduction of nearly half a million dollars for unnecessary over-
break, if there was not some very good reason for it? — A. I claim that it was
not all unnecessary overbreak, that it went into the work.

Q. But Mr. McArthur you could not go over that work as a fair-minded
man and say that there is not unnecessary overbreak, could you? — A. I think
there is very little overbreak there but what was used.

Q. I am not speaking about whether it was used or not, could you, as an
honest man say, with your knowledge and experience as a contractor, that there
is not a great amount of unnecessary overbreak on that contract? — A. At first
we were pushed witli the work.

Q. \^'e will come to that after, I will give you a chance to sliow excuses for
it. but I ask you a straightforward question as an lionest man, and an experienced
contractor: can you say that there was not a large quantity of unnecessary over-
break on that contract? — A. Well that is a question that creeps in in the answer-
ing of it, riglit with another, and tliat is that a lot of that overbreak was done
because it was wanted in the work.

INYE8TIGATING COMMISSION 511

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. That is a matter for us to discuss afterwards.

Me. Gutelius : — He could answer yes, and then say that they expected to get
paid for it because they were going to use it in the fill.
Me. McAethue : — That is correct.

By Mr. Staunton:

Q. Then, if it was not to be used in the fills, you admit that there was a
lot of unnecessary overbreak? — A. What is that?

Q. Suppose they did not want to use it in the fills, would there be any
justification for the great quantities of overbreak there were in that contract? —
A. Of course that is a matter of engineering and how this rock lay.

Q. It seems to me it was a matter of engineering by the fellows who were
putting in the shots. I am asking you that question and I want you to give a
candid answer. If there had not been any use for that overbreak, would there
have been any justification for the great quantity that is there? — A. You are
talking about shots now, and that is a thing I do not know anything about. I
never saw a shot in my life.

Q. You have great contracts and you are a contractor of great experience?
— A. The men were on the work and the men doing the work had a great deal
more experience than I had.

Q. You have been on work in your time? — A. I was not on this work.

Q. You have seen a lot of work done? — A. Most of my work was dirt
work.

Q. TMs contract shows over 40 per cent and 50 per cent of overbreak. Was
there ever on the American continent such great quantities of overbreak as on
this road? — A. I do not know that.

Q. You cannot point me to any other similar case, can you? — A. I do not
know.

Q. If 3''0u don't know, who would, can you justify this overbreak on any
ground, except that it might have been wanted in fills? — A. That is the point.

Q. What do you say about that point? — A. I say if it was wanted in the
fills, that would justify it so far as the overbreak was concerned, and it would
remove any objection to paying for it, if the rock was wanted.

Q. But if the rock was not wanted and jon had to pay for it, there would
be a strong objection on your part? — A. If the rock was not wanted, there is
room there for an argument.

Q. What do you mean by saying there is room for an argument? — A. If
there was a case of overbreak from heavy shooting, and it was thrown out at the
end of the dump and wasted.

Q. Then it ought not to be paid for? — A. I mean it should not probably
be paid for at the rate per yard that we were getting, unless it was slip and slide.
Q. Oh, yes, of course. What is a reasonable percentage of overbreak ? — A. I
df not know.

Q. You do not know? — A. No, I do not.

Q. I am told that about 12 per cent is a reasonable percentage for overbreak,
what do you think of that? — A. I do not know; I never had that experience.

Q. These three arbitrators ought to Icnow, ought they not? — A. They ought
to know what?

Q. Wliat is the fair allowance? — A. Well, the overbreak was there. Of
course, I do not see how they could come in at that stage of the game and cut down
fio much overbreak.

Q. Why should not they ; they saw the cuts ? — A. Yes.

Q. And they saw the rock that was taken out? — A. Yes.

Q. And they saw the condition in which the cuts were left? — A. Yes.

512

NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 19U

Q. Now, these men know how that kind of rock should be treated, don't they?
— A. Well, it is the men that are on the work; they know the conditions at tiie
tune.

Q. Yes, but conditions don't change in rock you know. People may say they
change in earth exposed to the air, but rock is everlasting and stays the same, does
it not?— A. Yes.

Q. Now then, a man that is going to put a shot in, when he looks at the rock
that he is going to blow out, he ought to know about how much powder to use? —
A. They claim they do.

Q. And if he ought to know before he puts in the shot how much powder he
should use, surely great engineers like these men should know how much powder
should have been used on that amount of rock? — A. I do not know if these men,
even if they had experience, had ever done any of that class of wgrk themselves.

Q. But sliould they not know? Mr. Kelliher is chief engineer of the Grand
Trunk Pacific and has had large experience, has he not had ? — A. I do not know
■what experience he had before he came on the Grand Trunk Pacific, but he has had
a large experience on the Grand Trunk Pacific, there is no question about that.

Q. Mr. Grant has been a railway engineer, for twenty-five years ? — A. Yes.

Q. And he has had large experience? — A. Yes.

Q. And Mr. Schreiber is I suppose one of the oldest and most experienced
engim-ers in America ? — A. He is one of the oldest.

Q. He has had great experience has he not? — A. Yes.

Q. These men are fair-minded men are they not? — A. I do not know.
^ Q. Why should they be prejudiced? — A. One reason why they should be
prejudiced, a man like Mr. Kellilier he wanted to get the road built for less money,
and if he took a thousand yards out of a cut it was so much less.

Q. You say that Mr. Kelliher's business was to get the road built for as little
money as possible, and if that be so, then Mr. Grant's busines was to put all the cost
he could on the Grand Trunk?— A. I do not know about that.

Q. Is not that right; Grant wanted to put all the expense he could on the
road when the Government had to pay for it, and the Grand Trunk make a return
in interest?— A. I do not know that.

Q. ^ Well, if you know one thing you ought to know the other. If Mr. Kelliher
was prejudiced on one hand, there would be the same reason for Mr. Grant being
prejudiced on the other.

By Mr. Gntelius:

Q. If a large amount of money was spent on that work, Grant wanted to make
sui't that tlie Grand Trunk Pacific would pay interest on that money rather than
to leave an opportunity for the Grand Trunk Pacific to say : no, we won't pay on that.
That would be an incentive that would make Grant stand up for practically all the
work that had been done. Grant must have been your friend on that Commission,
I mean in tlie sense that, representing the Government, if the Government had to
pay he did not want to give the Grand Trunk Pacific a chance to slide out? —
A. He is chief engineer of the Government.

Q. You say that Kelliher wanted the work done as cheaply as possible so that
the Grand Trunk Pacific would have to pay interest on as small a sum as possible;
is that right? — A. Yes.

Q. Now then, on the other hand. Grant wanted to make the Grand Trunk
Pacific to pay as much interest on as much of the money spent by the (Government
as he could possibly make them pay; is that right? — A. No; I do not say that
is right.

Q. Why? — A. I suppose it would be his interest to see that the Grand Trunk
should pay interest on all that the road cost.

INTESTlGATiyG COMMISSION 513

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

By Mr. Staunton:

Q. You say they paid for this overbreak at that time, and so Grant wanted
to load off all he could on the Grand Trunk, did he not?— A. I suppose so.

At the afternoon session of the Commission, when the examination of the wit-
ness, Mr. J. D. McArthur, was continued, Mr. McArthur was represented by Mr.
John H. Moss, K.C., of Toronto.

Examination resumed.
\

By Mr. Staunton :

Q. Eeferring to the arbitration that we were speaking of before lunch, thai
arbitration was to settle difficulties between the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Com-
mission ? — A. That is what I claim.

Q, That is what you understood? — A. Yes.

Q. The ':'ontractors were not parties to that arbitration? — A. No.

Q. Under the Transcontinental Eailway Act^ questions in dispute between
the Company and the Commission, which cannot be oth3rwise settled, are to be
referred to an arbitration ? — A. Yes.

Q. You understand that this was the arbitration under the statute? — A. L
do not know anything about the statute.

Q. Under the Transcontinental Eailway Act ? — A. Yes.

Q. I believe you refused to take part in the arbitration ? — A. Yes.

Q. You wrote a letter to the Commissioners that it was not your concern? —
A. Yes.

Q. Did anybody on your behalf accompany the arbitrators ? — A. No.

Q. Was your engineer with them? — A. My engineer was with them part of
the way anyhow, because he was engineer and superintendent of the road; our
engine was pulling their car.

By Mr. Gutelius:
Q. He did not take part in tl:ie discussion ? — A. No.

By Mr. Staunton:

Q. Did you get a copy of the arbitrators' finding? — A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember how much money they took off? — A. In the second
arbitration it was over $500,000 or nearly $600,000.

Q. That was in deductions for what they claimed were unnecessary over-
break ? — A. I do not know what for, but it was put in.

Q. You understood it was on account of the overbreak? — A. It was for
classified material and overbreak.

Q. Do you know what they did on the first arbitration ? — A. No.

Q. You had no information concerning that? — A. No.

Q. Who are the Eastern Construction Company ? — A, It is Alex. McDougall
and Son; it is an incorporated company.

Q. How much work did they have ? — A. They had fifty miles.

Q. I understand you have not settled up with your subcontractors until you
get this question of overbreak settled ? — A. Some of them.

Q. These contractors that you say you have not settled with, you are holding
back from them until this question of overbreak is finally settled ?— A. Yes.

Q. Have you held back from them the whole amount of this $500,000 or
$600,000 ?— A. No, not that much.

123.— 38

514 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. How much have you held back? — A. I held back somewhere I think
about $300,000.

Q. Had you a uniform price with these men? — A. Oh, yes.

Q. What percentage did you get?— A. It varied; I do not know there is
much difference between all of them, but there is a difference.

Q. What percentage do you get on solid rock? — A. I get in some cases fif-
teen per cent and in other cases it runs down to about twelve per cent or ten per
cent,

Q. And loose rock, what percentage do you get? — A. It would be about five
per cent.

Q. And on common excavation^ what percentage do you get? — A. On com-
mon excavation it would not go one per cent.

Q. There was not very much common excavation in this district? — A. There
was quite a bit.

Q, There was not a very large percentage of common excavation? — A. It
was not a large percentage.

Q. About how many yards of solid rock do the estimates show up to date ? —
A. Somewhere about 6,000,000.

Q. And how many yards of loose rock? — A. I cannot tell that; I see from
the statement shown me now that it is 1,900,000 odd.

Q. About how many yards of common excavation? — A. 2,470,000.

Q. With reference to overbreak, suppose that it had been classified strictly
in accordance with the specification in which it says that these slides shall be classi-
fied as they fall in the cuts, what percentage of stones after the shots had been
fired, in an ordinary cutting would be less than one cubic yard in size? — A. I
cannot tell you.

Q. What is your judgment as a contractor about that? — A. I cannot answer
that.

Q. Take an ordinary granite cut in which a proper shot has been placed, and
you and I walk into the cut and see how much is broken and we are going to make
&n ordinary guess, how many pieces of that rock would be less than a cubic yard —
-certainly we would get somewhere between 10 per cent and 80 per cent, would
we not? — A. I cannot say; I never was a foreman in a cut, and I never took out
a cut.

Q. From your knowledge in a general way, such as I have spoken of, do you
not know that they only need to block holes about one-third of the cut, would not
that be a lot of block holing? — A. For the first ^hooting.

Q. You take out the loose stuff and would not one-third of it be pretty badly
shot? — A. Wliat percentage of block holing I would do for heavy shooting, I do
not know.

Q. I have this information from other sources and I would like, if I can get
some kind of idea from you? — A. I cannot answer it, because it would not be
fair to you and to myself if I did, because I have never done any of that.

Q. The reason it is so important to you is that under the specification all
overbreak found in a cutting, the pieces of which are less than a cubic yard ought
to be classified as loose rock; you see the importance of it in connection with this
very case? — A. Yes.

Q. And if you don't feel that you would like to make any kind of an estimate
we will pass on to something else? — A. That is the way I feel about it, I did
not study it.

By Mr. Ontelins:

Q. Now, with reference to the original contract, here are the two original
bids, are they not? — A. Yes.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 515

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. You see both of these original bids? — A. Yes.

Q. Xow take one copy and I will keep the other. Now referring in your
copy to page 6, and particularly to item 58 : Concrete facing 1x2x21-2 inches
thick, including forms, what price did you get for that? — A. $15.00.

Q. You got $15.00 for that on these tenders? — A. Yes.

Q. What'price did you get on Item 59, concrete 1 x 2 x 4? — A. $15.00.

Q. What price did you get on Item 60, concrete 1x3x5 ? — A. $15.00.

Q. AVhat price did you intend to bid for concrete 1x3x5 here, I see the
space is left blank?— A. I intended to bid $15.00.

Q. Then Item 61 : Concrete 1x3x6, what did you bid on that ?— A. $15.00.

Q. "What price did you intend to bid for Item 68; Concrete 1x3x5, arch
culverts, including curves, I notice that is blank? — A. That would be $15.00

Q. On Item 63, Concrete 1 x 3 x 6, in arch culverts, including curving, your
bid calls for $15.00 ?— A. Yes.

Q. On Item 64, Concrete 1 x 3 x 6 in box culverts, including curving, what
did you intend this to be? I note that it is blank? — A. $15.00.

Q. On Item 65, Concrete 1x4x8, ordinary foundations, including curving,
your bid for that is how much? — A. $13.00.

Q. On Item 66, Concrete 1x4x8, walls of buildings, including curving,
I notice this is blank, what price did you intend to bid ? — A. I should think that
would be $13.00.

Q. It would appear that if you had put brackets in here, (indicating in the
book presented to the witness) and taken these different items off, it would have
made clear what you were bidding instead of leaving these items blank, am I right ?
A. Yes, that would be the proper way to do it, I guess.

Q. Or it would have been equally plain if the word "ditto" had been written
in under each of these figures which I showed you? — A. Yes.

Q. Now, Mr. McArthur, I would like to have you .compare the contract
with the original tender in connection with the items I have just enumerated. In
the contract Item 58 is $15.00 per cubic yard? — A. Yes.

Q. This is the contract I am showing you ? — A. Yes.

Q. And Item No. 59, is $15.00 ?— A. Yes.

Q. And Item No. 60, is $12.00?— A. Yes.

Q. You remember then a moment ago that you told me Item No. 60 was
intended to be $15.00, am I right?— A. Yes.

Q. Item 61 is $15.00 in the contract?— A. Yes.

Q. Item 62 is $13.00 in the contract?— A. Yes.

Q. You told me a moment ago that vou intended it to be $15.00? — A. Yes.

Q. Item 63 in the contract is $15.00?— A. Yes.

Q. Item 64 in the contract is $11.00?— A. Yes.

Q. Item 64 you intended to be $15.00 in your bid? — A. Yes.

Q. Item 65 is $13.00 in the contract, which is the same as in the bid? —
A. Yes.

Q. Item 66 in the contract is $10.00 and you intended it to be $13.00 in
the tender? — A. Yes.

Q. Is that information new to you, Mr. McArthur? — A. I would have to
say yes, and I ought to know better all right. It is through not just checking
both up, I guess.

Q. You do not mean to tell us that this is the first information you have had
that in the contract price for concrete they gave you in some cases $1.00, in other
cases $2.00, in other cases $3.00, in other cases $4.00, and in other cases $5.00 a yard
less than your tender called for? — A. "Was there any of tliis done on the work?

Q. You have received on the $13.00 concrete $22,750.70, on the $12.00 con-
crete you have received $188,953 in your estimates. Was there not some informa-

516 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

tion in connection with this given to you, between the time that vou handed in
your tender and the time you signed the contract? — A. N"o, I do not recollect
that there was on the concrete.

Q. There were other items that you overlooked, were there? — A. There
were some small little things, I forget what they were, and we asked for prices
and we did not get them and they did not amount to anything, something about
tracks or connections or something of that kind, that is the only thing I recollect.

Q. I will refresh your memory in connection with twenty-seven items, where
unit prices are given in the contract and not in your tender, and by reference to
the contract and the original tender which I will place before you, you will be
able to answer the question. While you are looking at them, I will call them
off and when I read the items that are shown in the item and not covered in the
tender you will say nothing in the tender. jSTow, Item No. 15, pole drains, 25
cents per lineal foot? — A. Nothing in the tender.

Q. Item 21: piling out reserved stone from rock cuttings, $1.00? — A.
Nothing in the tender.

Q. Item 28 : Cedar timber in culverts, 8-in. x 12-in. 10-in. x 12-in, and
12-in., per M. ft. b. m., $40.00?— A. Nothing in the tender.

Q. Item 32, vitrified pipe culverts — 14-in. diameter, $1.25 a lineal foot? — A.
Nothing in the tender.

Q. Item No. 33, Vitrified pipe culverts — 15-in. in diameter, $1.35 a lineal
foot? — A. Nothing in the tender.

Q. Item No. 35: Reinforced concrete pipe — 12 inches in diameter, $1.20? —
A. Nothing in the tender.

Q. Then Items from 35 down to 50 inclusive have all been interpolated in
the contract and are not shown in the tender? — A. That is correct.

Q. The following are the Items from No. 35 down to No. 50, inclusive: 35
— Reinforced concrete pipe, 12 inches in diameter; Item 36, Reinforced concrete
pipe — 14 inches in diameter; Item 37, Reinforced concrete pipe — 16 inches in
diameter; Item 38, Reinforced concrete pipe — 18 inches in diameter; Item 39,
Reinforced concrete pipe — 20 inches in diameter; Item 40, Reinforced Concre\^e
pipe — 24 inches in diameter; Item 41, Reinforced Concrete pipe — 30 inches in
diameter; Item 42, Reinforced Concrete pipe — 36 inches in diameter; Item 43,
Reinforced Concrete pipe — 42 inches in diameter; Item 44, Reinforced C'oncrete
pipe — 48 inches in diameter; Item 45, Reinforced Concrete pipe — 54 inches in
diameter; Item 46, Reinforced Concrete pipe — 60 inches in diameter: Item 47,
Reinforced Concrete pipe — 4 inch agricultural under tile drains; Item 48, cast
iron pipe culv*>rts — 16 inches in diameter; Item 40, cast iron pipe culverts — 18
inches in diameter; Item 50, cast iron pipe culverts — 20 inches in diameter? — A.
Yes.

Q. These are all interpolated in the contract and are not shown in the tender ?
— A. That is correct.

Q. Items 54 and 55, cast iron pipes? — A. Nothing in the tender.

Q. Item 56, cast iron pipe? — A. Nothing in the tender.

Q. Item 57, cast iron pipe culverts? — A. Nothing in the tender.

Q. Items 60, 62, 64 and 66 are the concrete items the details of which we
have gone over? — A. Yes.

Q. Item 81, Semaphores at stations, complete, $550? — A. Nothing in the
tender.

Q. Item 82, Interlocking appliances, complete, eight levers, including all con-
nections, signals, etc., $6,000? — A. Nothing in the tender.

Q. Item 83, Each additional lever $200?— A. Nothing in the tender.

Q. Item 86, rock sections (unlined) $75.00 per foot? — A. Nothing in the
tender.

Q. Item 87, tunnels (lined), $85.00 per foot?— A. Nothing in the tender.

IXVESTIGATIXG COMMISSION 517

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Item 88, tunnel, concrete lining, per cubic yard, $15.00?— A. Nothing
in the tender.

Q. Item 89, tunnel, masonry lining, $15.00 per cubic yard ?— A. Nothing m
the tender.

Q. Item 90, drainage tunnels, 4 cubic yards, $35.00 per lineal foot?— A.
Nothing in the tender.

Q. Item 93, turntables, $3,000 each ?— A. Nothing in the tender.

Q. Item 94, track scales, $1,000 each?— A. Nothing in the tender.

Q. Item 95, tunnel shafts, $5.00 each ?— A. Ngthing in the tender.

Q. Now, Mr. Mcx^rthur, I wish you to tell us how you permitted those prices
to be put in in the contract which you executed and which were not covered in your
tender ? — A. In the first place, there were a lot of these items there that we never
used in tlie road; there is no estimate for some of them today. There were no
tunnels shown on the first profile.

Q. How about those items that were shown on the profile? — A. There were
none of them shown on the profile as far as quantities or anything of that kind, but
of course it was in the specifications.

Q. I wish you to explain very fully how you undertook a contract of that
character ? — A. In the first place the way we put in our tender, when putting in
those figures, it was figured out that they did not amount to very much, that we
didn't have a price. It was done in a very short time, and then when they were
awarding the contract it was left to the chief engineer.

Q. Do you say it was left to the chief engineer to fill in the prices ? — A. Yes,
with his experience of that kind of work.

Q. How did you leave it to the chief engineer to fill in those prices, was it
by any legal document? — A. No.

Q. Who did you tell to do that or that you would be willing to have that
done? — A. Mr. Lumsden.

Q. Mr. Lumsden personally? — A. Yes. We talked over it and put it up
to him that he had the experience and knowledge of these things.

Q. Be very sure just whom you mentioned it to that it would be all right
for the chief engineer to fill in these figures? — A. As far as I recollect, he was
the man that spoke to me about it.

Q. When he spoke to you about it you knew then that you were the lowest
bidder, he told you that same time that you were the lowest bidder? — A. Yes.

Q. And that it took those prices he put in to get you the contract? — A. I
don't know he put it exactly that way only I did not have the prices in and that
if there was a price put in it would go in with his experience, and I was satis-
fied that it did not matter very much on a large contract whether I was a little
out or not, it was a small amount. It is the way we do on contracts, as you know.

Q. Did you and Mr. Lumsden discuss the fact that the more expensive
concrete there was going to be put in for the lower figure; that is, concrete 1x3x5
was $12.00, and concrete 1x3x6 was $15.00; did you know you were getting such
an unbalanced bid? — A. Yes, it was a small item of arch in the $12.00 con-
tract. The mass was in the other, in the foundations.

Q. ^You would be surprised when you look at your estimates, a copy of
which I have before me, that the $13.00 concrete amounted to' 15,700 yards, and
the $15.00 amounted to 11,000 yards, that is, there is more of the $12.00 than
there is of the $15.00? — A. I do not know that was discussed at the time; we
thought the other was going to be the massive work.

Q. Did you know from your conversation with Mr. Lumsden that unless
vou allowed these interpolated prices to stand, you would not get the contract? —
A. No.

Q. You are sure you did not? — A. No, it was not put in that way, I don't
think.

518 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAJ

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. In your bid for piles, you wrote the pile items No. 10 and ISTo. 11 in
the tender. Item No. iO, piling delivered as per engineer's bill, per lineal foot,
35 cents. Item 11, piling driven, 15 cents. Now, after 15 cents, 3'ou wrote in
the words " driving only." Why did you put the words " driving only " in there ?
— A. I don't remember. These words are not written in by me. It means that
it only includes the driving and not the piles themselves.

Q. You did tliat because the specifications were not entirely clear as to
whether the piles were to be included or not in the tender for Item 11? — A. The
words must have been put in because it was thought the specification was not
clear without them.

By Mr. Staunton:

Q. Did Mr. Lumsden bring these prices to you filled in or suggest that he
would fill them in? — A. He mentioned that there were several items that I did
not fill in.

Q. Did he suggest that he should fill them in? — A. No, I do not think
so. I suggested that he would fill them in. There were some little items and
things that I did not know the price of them and in his experience he could fill
them in.

Q. Did you and he go over these particular items and arrive at the exact
figures for them together? — A. No.

Q. Then he made them up by himself without consultation with you? — A.
Yes, he mentioned to me that he put them in or before he put them in, I cannot
vouch for that.

Q. All you know is that he spoke to vou about that? — A. Yes.

Q. And you cannot recollect any further than that? — A. No.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. From information before us, you appear to have been paid for 408,320
cubic yards of solid rock in your progress estimates for material known as as-
sembled rock, which is composed of pieces of rock smaller than one cubic yard
mixed in ^nth sand and clay and hardpan, what have you to say why this material,
not being solid rock, should not be classified as loose rock? — A. I cannot tell
you.

Mr. Moss : — Surely that is an engineering question.

Mr. Staunton: — It is a contract question.

Mr. Moss: — It is a mixed engineering and legal question. Tliere were
pages and pages of evidence about that in the Lumsden investigation and opinions
of all sorts.

By Mr. Staunton :
Q. You were to be paid for solid rock of a cubic yard and over in size and
you were paid for solid rock which was under a cubic yard? — A. Yes, assembled
rock was something I never heard of except on this job. -

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. And when you made your tender on this job you never heard of as-
sembled rock ? — A. No.

Q. So that any advantage or disadvantage that accrued from the adoption
of assembled rock was a new feature to you? — A. Yes.

By Mr. Staunton :
Q. Did you see any of this assembled rock yourself? — A. No.
Q. Do you know where it occurred mostly? — A. I know it occurred par-
ticularly in the east, end of the contract.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 519

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. Tell me one .thing about rock removal, Mr. Mc Arthur, is it not a fact
that in the last few jea.TS contractors are shooting material, blasting material,
which ten years before was taken out with pick and shovel, only just blasting it
to loosen it? — A. I suppose a great deal of the blasting and shooting on the
contract you are speaking about was probably done in the winter months when
the ground was frozen.

Q. Generally speaking, is there not a change in the method of removing
loose rock as compared with ten or fifteen years ago, don't they shoot stuff now
that they did not shoot then? — A. I guess we do.

Q. I think I recognize a tremendous change between now and the time I
was resident engineer watching work of that kind in the methods they employ,
that is my reason for asking the question? — A. Of course it is changed some
alright, I think. They are using more explosives now to loosen it up where they
used to pick it more.

Q. It has been said that larger shots were^ used on this work on account of
hurrying the works to completion, what have you to say about that? — A. I guess
that is probably right.

Q. Did you receive many communications from the chief engineer yourself
in connection with rushing the work? — A. No, not so very many.

Q. And it did not cut much figure in the way of handling the work? — A.
You mean the letters we got?

Q. Iso, the haste. There were no great amounts of money expended on
your part or on the part of your sub-contractors on account of any haste in com-
pleting that work? — A. Yes, I am sorry to say there was.

Q. I wish you would tell me more about that, if you can ? — A. One of the
things was the conditions of labor we were up against and the work that was
going on in the country at the time and we spent large sums of money trying to
get labor on the work to hurry it along, as the commissioners were urging us to
push the work; we were trying to comply with their wishes.

Q. Who paid for getting the men in ? — A. I paid a great proportion myself,
tlie large proportion I expect, the sub-contractors also.

Q. When you were given this contract, Mr. McArthur, was there any stipula-
tion, verbal or otherwise, as to whom you should buy your powder from? — A.
There were two powder men in the field at the time. They tendered for the supply.

Q. And you gave it to the lowest tenderer? — A. Yes.

By Mr. Staunton:

Q. But were you asked to give it to any particular firm? — A. No, I don't
think I was asked to say you have got to give it to any particular firm. I may
Iiave been told what-you-call-him will be able to supply you, they are a good firm.

Q. Who were you told was a good firm and would be able to supply you ? — A.
These people in Montreal, I think it is the Standard Explosives Company and the
Hamilton Powder Company were the two.

Q. Who gave you that information? — A. 1 cannot tell you oflfhand who it
was, someone around the Russell House, each one had its friends, they were both
strangers to me.

Q. "What we want to know is, did any person in connection with the Com-
mission suggest to you that it would be well to buy your powder from any parti-
cular firm? — A. I do not recollect anyone on the Commission.

Q. Anybody in connection with it? — A. I do not recollect of any of them
going that far.

Q. How far did they go? — A. I cannot say that I ever mentioned it at all,
myself.

«20

NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v.. 1914

By Mr. Gutelius'.

Q. I would like very much to get this cleared, because there is an impression
that has prompted this special enquiry about the powder? — A. I do not see that
I can clear it up more than I am giving you just now. I do not know that
probably if Mr. Moss were around the hotel he would mention somebody.

Mr. Moss : — No, I am not in that business.

By Mr. Outelius:
Q. You can say that there was no pressure brought on you by any member
of the Commission or anyone connected with the Transcontinental Eailway to have
Tou purchase your powder from any one special firm? — A. I can certainly say
that.

By Mr. Staunton:
Q. Do you know of any pressure being brought to bear on any of your sub-
contractors to purchase their powder from any particular firm? — A. No, not that
1 know of. Under my contract with the sub-coutractors, they were supposed to
take their powder from me.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. You undertook to supply your sub-contractors with powder? — A. Yes,
but they bought from other firms.

Q. Why were you interested in supplying the powder to your subs? — A.
Well, because I was trying to make' 10 per cent.

Q. On the supplies? — A. Yes.

Q. Did your sub-contractors buy all their supplies from you? — A. No,
they did not.

Q. Were they supposed to? — A. Oh they were, but I left them off to suit
themselves. There were not very many of then that could buy without coming
to me, they were not strong enough.

Q. I lead from your evidence a moment a^o that if the new classification of
assembled rock had never been born, that you would have expected to have com-
pleted the same as on railroads with similar specifications, by giving solid rock
only for solid rock, the fragments of which are larger than a cubic yard, is that
rijght? — A. That is right.

By Mr. Staunton:
Q. Before you made your tender, what information was furnished by the
Commission to you? — A. All the information tliat was furnished was the profile
and what we were getting from the engineer out in the field, Major Hodgins.

By Mr. Outeliv^:

And the copies of the specification? — A.

Yes.

By Mr. Staunton :

Q. What were you getting from Major Hodgins in the field? — A. I sent
a man down there and gave him a letter for him to get all the information he
could from Major Hodgins.

Q. This Major Hodgins gave you a copy of the engineer's preliminary
estimate? — A. No.

Q. What kind of information did he give you? — A. Oh, it was rough in-
formation, just the direction that the line was going through, and you see that was
not final. They did not have a profile of the whole line at the time that they
asked for bids for this work, and particularly the profile they had the location
was all changed and, as I said a while ago, there were no tunnels sliown in the
first profile or anything like that and the line was changed afterwards as they
considered better for the road.

IXTESTIGATIXG COMMISSIOX 521

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Do I understand you to say that you did not see or get any information
which gave you any knowledge of what the preliminary estimate of the engineers
was as to the cost of this work? — A. No, I did not get it in figures more than
that it was approximately spoken of.

Q. By whom? — A. Well by Major Hodgins.

Q. Do you know whether he had a copy of the preliminary estimates made
in the office by the engineers? — A. No, I do not.

Q. He djd not show you any? — A. No.

Q. Did any of the commissioners show you any? — A. No, not by really
showing it to me. They may have talked over it but I do not recollect them
showing me the figures.

Q. Did any of the commissioners tell you approximately what the estimates
of the engineers were? — A. I think probably they did, just the same as Major
Hodgins did and he was down here at the time.

Q. Who probably told you ? — A. I guess probably Young told me and Eeid.

Q. So that you had a more or less accurate idea of what the Commission ex-
pected this work would cost? — A. These figures were mentioned.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. To clear up that pile-driving note, did anybody know you wrote that in
there except you and your men who wrote it, did anyone connected with the
Commission or their engineers know that you had written in the words "piles
driven"? — A. I do not think so.

Q. You feel that that was your own idea because the specification was not
quite clear? — A. I think that was put in so as to make it clear.

Q, I want you to be very sure on this point, because, as I told you before,
you would not have got the contract if you had not written these words in there;
you can quite understand why ye would want you to tell us very candidly about it.

Mr. Moss: — Its a pity he wrote it in; he would not be here this afternoon if
he had not.

Mr. Mc Arthur : — That is true. I do not know of anybody knowing that was
written in except my own man and myself.

By Mr. Staunton :

Q. Item No. 63 is concrete 1.3.5. in arch culverts, including curving; Item
63 is concrete 1.3.6. in arch culverts, including curving ; you said to Mr. Gutelius
that you thought more of Item 63 would be used than of Item 62; why did you
think that? — A. We figured out, whatever one it comes under, that there was
one of the items there would be more of such as foundations and piers.

Q. But you would not put the more expensive mixture in the massed con-
crete, would you? — A. The other item did not amount to very much.

Q. You would not expect as a contractor to use a richer mixture in mass
concrete? — A. That would be left to the engineers, I suppose.

Q. You said you expected to use more of 1.3.5. than of 1.3.6. because
you said that you expected 1.3.5 would go on largely massed concrete? — A.
Yes.

Q. That is not the usual custom to put the richer mixture in the massed
concrete, is it? — A. No.

Q. So that you would naturally expect that 1.3.6. for which you charged
$15.00 would be more used than 1.3.5. for which you charged $13.00, would
you not? — A. Yes.

Q. And you were going to get a bigger price for the cheaper concrete than
for the more expensive concrete? — A. Yes, there was more of it.

Q. How on earth did you ever arrive at that conclusion ? — A. Oh, that follows
contracting; you cannot expect you are going to win on everything.

522 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q^ You would not expect me to accept a tender from you and to pay you
more money for a cheaper article than for a dearer article? — A. No, but there is
the figures and the other fellow didn't beat it.

Q. Concrete 1.3.5. is more expensive to the contractor than 1.3.6., is it
not? — A. I do not think it is very much more.

Q, Then why did you make a difference of $2.00 per yard between these two
items? — A. As I said before I figured there was more of that.

By Mr. Gittelius:

Q. Lumsden put those prices in for you; he put that cheaper price in for
you; you were going to bid $15.00 all through, except for the foundation stuff? —
A. Yes.

Q. He put these other prices in? — A. Yes.

By Mr. Staunton :

Q. "What I cannot understand is how the two of you could sit down and not
laugh at each other when you put in these figures.

Mr. Moss: — He did not sit down with Lumsden.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. One other question, you signed up that contract, knowing that Lumsden
had made some changes in your figures, some additions and changes in your
figures, and you did that without studying what these changes were? — A. Yes,
it was figured at the time such a small item that we did not consider it one way
or the other.

Q. They must have told you it wasn't so; Mr. Lumsden must have given you
that idea; you could not tell yourself? — A. Perhaps he did when he mentioned
to me this items that were not filled in in the tender.

Q. And you did not feel as if it would make much difference and you let it
go? — A. Yes, the big things are two or three items in the contract, which make
the contract as a rule.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. Before closing this enquiry, is there anything you have in your mind that
you would like to tell the investigating Committee that has not been brought out,
if so let us hear it?

Mr. Moss: — That is a wide question.

Mr. Gutelius: — There may be little things we have not asked about. Xearly
every contractor has some little things he wants to tell us and we give him tliat
opportunity.

Mr. Moss: — I was going to say, before Mr. Mc Arthur answered that question,
that Mr. McArthur has attended here voluntarily and without any notice of the
matters that were to be discussed and of their bearing, and that a number of points
have been touched on to-day which it is obvious he is speaking about off-hand,
after recollection of two or three years, and if it is proposed to make any findings,
which would reflect in any way on Mr. McArthur or his business, he should have
an opportunity of giving further evidence and explaining further if necessary. I
do not know what importance is attached to them at all in tlie mind of the Com-
mission, but I sliould think it would not be proper to make any public finding
based on them on this very informal and unprepared evidence.

Mr. Staunton: — If Mr. McArthur wished to prepare himself to give evidence,
he could have told us so. True, we did not subpa?na him, but we asked him to
come here and give us this evidence. You came yesterday to see us, and I told you
generally what we wanted to ask about, and if Mr. McArthur was not prepared
to give evidence he should state so. Xow, this evidence is taken for the purpose
of the Commission, for the purpose of making our report, and we expect to rely
upon it. We do not regard it as taken informally or in any other way than in

lyVE.^TIGATIXG COMMIlSSIOy 523

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

the ordinary course. We do not exactly understand what you mean by that, Mr.
Moss. We do not desire to get evidence from any person who is not ready and
thoroughly posted on what he testifies to, and if Mr. McArthur desires to give
us any further information in connection with this case, we will be very glad to
hear him. He certainly is not very clear on a good many things, but we are not
responsible for that. Our desire is to get all the information possible. So, if
there is ami;hiiig else

Mr. Moss: — I think, for instance, in reference to what was said about the
assembled rock, I do not think ]\Ir. McArthur's evidence in regard to that was
quite clear or quite of the kind to be brought out in further explanation.

Mr. Siaunton: — What Mr. McArthur told us was, that he knows nothing
about it: I suppose that is correct; and that he never heard of assembled rock
before.

Mr. Moss : — I think what Mr. McArthur meant was that he had not experience
with that class of material before,

Mr. Gutelius: — If you have a private talk with Mr. McArthur you will find,
I think, that everything he told us is just what he believes.

Mr. Staunton: — I wanted Mr. McArthur to tell us as a contractor what he
knows about classifying stones of a smaller size than a cubic yard, when they are
mixed with a matrix composed of clay, sand, or other material.

Mr. Moss : — Cemented together so as not to be removed without blasting, that
was Lumsden's definition.

Mr. Staunton: — He may tell us what he thinks about that, and then he may
qualify it in any way he chooses.

Mr. Moss: — Lumsden's definition of assembled rock, as I remember it, is that
these have to ])e cemented together in such a way as is best removed by blasting.

Mr. Staunton: — That is interjected afterwards. There is nothing at all
about that on the blue print.

Mr. Moss: — It was interjected by him.

Mr. Staunton : — Not in the blue print.

Mr. Moss: — May I have a conversation with Mr. McArthur?

Mr. Staunton : — Certainly. We would like Mr. McArthur to tell us all about
that and if he desires I will take him over it.

This ended the examination.

(NATIONAL TEANSCONTINENTAL EAILWAY ENQUIEY COMMISSION.
MEETING AT OTTAWA, JANUARY 30th, 1913.)

Present : G. Lynch-Staunton, K.C, Chairman; F. P. Gutelius, C.E.

M. J. O'Bkien, sworn : *

Examined by Mr. Gutelius :

Q. You are one of the principals in the following contracts on the National
Transcontinental Railway : Contract No. 10, from Mile 50, west of Quebec Bridge
westerly for 100 miles; Contract No. 11, from La Tuque to We}Tnontachene, 46.4
miles; Contract No. 12, from near Weymontachene, westerly 107 miles; Contract
No. 13, from about 107 miles west of Weymontachene, westerly 115 miles; Contract
No. 16, from west of Contract No. 15 (Fauquiers'), westerly 100 miles; Contract
No. 17, from the west end of Contract No. 16, westerly 100 miles; Contract No.

524 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

19, from the westerly end of Fauquier's contract No. 18 to near Dog Lake, a dis-
tance of about 126 miles; Contract No. 20, from near Dog Lake westerly about
25 miles? — A. Yes.

Q. With reference to Contract No. 10, I find that this contract -was assigned
to McDonald & O'Brien by Hogan & McDonald, to whom the contract was origin-
ally awarded, is that right? — A. Yes.

Q. How did you happen to get this contract? — A. At that time I tendered
with Mr. Mullarkey and Mr. Hogan tendered with Mr. McDonald, being an old
partner of his, and it would appear that Mr. Hogan became ill and was not able,
or did not want to proceed with the contract and they asked me if I would come in
in his place, which I decided to do, after seeing Mr. Mullarkey. I simply came
out of the other firm into this one, taking Mr. Hogan's place in this contract.

Q. Was there any consideration passed between you and Mr. Hogan in con-
nection with that transfer ? — A. None whatever.

Q. Now, contract No. 11 was sublet to McDonald & O'Brien by the Grand
Trunk Pacific Eailway Company? — A. Yes.

Q. How did you happen to get this contract and what was the consideration ?
— A. We were tenderers for that work against the Grand Trunk Pacific, and, of
course, they outbid us by a little. Then, we being on the ground and having the
plant, approached them about taking the work off their hands. We were to give
them 5 per cent, if my memory serves me right ; that is all they got.

Q. 5 per cent of the gross returns on the contract was ^iven to them and
you retained the balance? — A. Yes.

Q. On Contract 12, you were the original successful bidders? — A. Yes.

Q. And you received your contract direct from the Commissioners, in the
name of McDonald & O'Brien? — A. That is correct.

Q. I note that there were only two bids in connection with this contract No.
12, did you know at the time of putting in your figures that there was only one
other competitor? — A. Oh, no, certainly not.

Q. You had no knowledge of how many tenders were being placed on contract
No. 12?— A. No.

Q. You are certain of that? — A. I am, in fact I was under the opinion that
there was more than two tenders on that work.

Q. Then contract No. 16 in which you are interested, I note was originally
awarded to M. P. Davis and J. T. Davis, and subsequently sublet to O'Brien,
McDougall & O'Gorman? — A. Yes.

Q. What were the conditions in connection with that subletting? — A. Well,
we being working up in that section west of these sections, we formed this com-
bination and took these two sections from Mr. Davis, giving him a margin.

Q. What was that margin? — A. 10 per cent.

Q. 10 per cent on the gross estimates? — A. Yes.

Q. Contract No. 17 was taken from M. P. & J. T. Davis by you, on a 10 per
cent basis also? — A. Yes.

Q. On contract No. 10, O'Brien & McDougall Brothers were the successful
bidders and received their contract from the Commissioners direct? — A. Yes,
O'Brien & McDougall Brnthors. T think it was O'Brion. Fowler & McDougall
Brothers. »

Q. Did not Fowlor conio in afterwards? — A. Yes. perhaps he was not here
a1 the time of the tender, T think yon are right.

Q. You tendered as O'Brion S: McDougall Brothers? — A. I think so, I was
not here at the time.

Q. Contract No. 20 von rocoivod direct from the Commissioners of the
National Transcontinental Bailway? — A. Yes.

Q. Did you know that there were only two tenders for contract No. ?0: had
you any knowledge of that fact? — A. No. I was not here at the time. 1 \va> in
the Province of Nova Scotia when these tenders were put in.

IXVESTIGATIXG CO.UMISSIOX 525,

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

By Mr. Staunton :

Q. You are a contractor of very large experience, are you not? — A. Extend-
ijig over a good many years.

Q. In contracting for work of the description to be performed for the National
Transcontinental Eailway, when you have worked for other railway companies, have
you ever been required by these other companies to put up security for the due per-
formance of your contract ? — A. Yes.

Q. Does the C.P.R. require security? — A. Well, let me see, I know in the
case of the Quebec & Saguenay Eailway, I was obliged to put up security, that is
the only case I remember, I wish I had not put it up there.

Q. As a matter of fact, the C.P.E. and the G.T.E. and the Canadian Northern
Eailway Company do not require security ? — A. Not so far as I am aware.

Q. In a contract of this kind, is there the slightest necessity to ask a man
to put up security? — A. If the contractors are responsible, I would say no.

Q. And it is the business of a man who has a contract to let to see that he
gets a responsible contractor? — A. Yes.

Q. And if he goes about the business in the proper way, he can ascertain
whether or not the intending contractor is responsible financially and experienced
sufficiently to perform the contract, is that right? — A. Yes, it appears to me to
be right, looking at it from the contractor's point of view, certainly.

Q. Looking at it from the business point of view, if you had a railway to
build you would want to get all the contractors who are able financiallv and
experienced sufficiently to perform that contract, to tender, would you not? — A,
Yes.

Q. And it would be to your interest not to put any difficulty in the way of
such men if you could avoid it? — A. Quite true.

Q. So that both from the contractor's point of view and from the proprietor's
point of view, the requiring of security is an unnecessary impediment put in the
way? — A. Well, let me tell you that in the shape of cash it is certainly a great
impediment. In the shape of the bonds which perhaps should be exacted in most
cases, it would not be so bad.

Q. Why should a bond be exacted? — A. So that we would carry out the
contract and be sure to carry out the work undertaken.

Q. Why should it. The C.P.E. has spent many millions, and they have not
found it necessary to have bonds taken. Why should a bond be taken from a
responsible contractor who is going to put a large plant on the work? — A. That
is my own view of it, that is what I would say.

Q. My view is that it is a very imprudent thing to ask a contractor to put
up security and I want to find out whether you agree with that or not? — A. So
long as the contracting firm is financially strong and capable in every respect, 1
would say that there would be no need of asking for security, that would be my
answer.

Q. And a person who had a big work to let would be very foolish not to find
out if his contractors were strong before he let them have the work? — A, Yes.

Q. Now, in this Transcontinental Eailway competition, the Commissioner.'^
advertised in the newspapers for tenders? — A. Yes.

Q. And those advertisements advised the contractors of Canada and the
United States that each tender must be signed and sealed by the parties to the
tender and must be accompanied by an accepted cheque on any chartered bank of
Canada, payable to the order of the Commissioners of the Transcontinental Eail-
-oay, in the advertisement I am looking at, ranging from $75,000 up to $100,000,
according to the size of the work. Now, with each of your tenders you had to
enclose a certified cheque on the bank for a large sum of money ? — A. Yes.

Q. And it was necessary for you to furni.'ih that money and to lose its use
while these tenders were being considered? — A. Yes.

526 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. The advertisement goes on to provide further, that any person whose
tender is accepted, shall, within ten days alter the acceptance thereof, furnish such
additional approved security as may be required by the Commissioners. So, you
had to put youT head into the noose, or your cheque into the hands of the Commis-
sioners, and then if they said to you: Mr. O'Brien, your tender is for a million
dollars and we want a million dollars security, you had to put up that million
dollars security or lose your deposit of $100,000? — A. That is the meaning of it,
as I understood at the time.

Q. Did you know though, at that time, that although the commissioners did
not so advise the public, they had made up their minds that the security to be
required in addition to the certified cheque would be limited to 33 per cent of the
estimated. cost of the work? — A. You are asking me if I had knowledge of that?

Q. Yes? — A. No, we did not know exactly where we were on the basis of
that advertisement.

Q. I have heard it said by substantial contractors, men of large experience and
large men, that they did not tender on this work because the security required was
so unreasonable? — A. They said they did not tender on that account?

Q. Yes, they were afraid to put up $100,000 because they did not know what
the commissioners might exact from them afterwards, and they might lose their
money as their money is to be forfeited if they did not sign the tender; you know
that ? — A. Yes, that is the way the advertisement reads.

Q. That the deposit is to be forfeited if they did not sign the contract in the
event of its being awarded to them and put up this security which the commissioners
might demand, whatever it might be ? — A. The commissioners had that power.

Q. Did you make any enquiry from the Commission to find out what securities
they were really going to ask you for? — A. No, we imagined that the accepted
cheque sent in with the tenders would be all that would be asked.

Q. That is what Mr. O'Brien imagined ? — A. Yes.

Q. But it was pure imagination ? — A. That was all it was.

Q. Didn't you take the trouble, Mr. O'Brien 1 do not think there would

be anything improper in your doing so, I think it would be a most prudent thing
to do — to come to the Commission and say; have you made up your mind what
security you will require ? — A. We did not do so. We took the documents as they
were. We accepted the contract, we accepted the specifications as they were.

Q. Did you ever hear of large works being let on such conditions before? —
A. Well^ I have no recollection of any such stipulations and such a large security
being asked; in this case, we had to have 15 per cent.

Q. The Government does not require such a large security in connection with
its works ? — A. No, it is 5 per cent I think.

Q. In the Railway & Canals Department there is a standing order in Council
saying that you shall give security to the amount of 10 per cent if your contract is
$250,000 or less, and if the contract is over $250,000, the security is 5 per cent;
that is the Government practice? — A. That is, as I understand it.

Q. And that is the advertisement put in the newspapers? — A. As to the
amount to be deposited ?

Q. Yes? — A. It was in this case.

Q. But in the Eailways & Canals Department the 5 per cent and the 10 per
cent as stated in the advertisement? — A. I suppose so, I don't remember, but I
thouglit it was 5 per cent all around.

Q. It is 5 per cent up to a certain limit. The difficulty put in the way of
contractors was enormously incrciiscd in tlio ca><> of the Transcontinental? — A.
Yes, and especially in the first tendering.

Q. The total amount of the contracts you have on the Transcontinental
Kailway, according to the estimates of the engineers is about $20.800,000? — A.
Yes.

INTE8TIGATING COMMISSION 527

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Do I understand from you that you were required to furnish cash security
to the extent of 15 per cent on that? — A. No, that is a misunderstanding. The
15 per cent only applied to the first contract of ours, No, 10.

Q. How much cash security were you required to supply in that case ? — A. I
should say in the neighborhood of $1,000,000 more or less.

Q. The total estimates of that contract were about $6,000,000 ? — A. Yes.

Q. And you put up as security $1,169,000 ? — A. That I think is about right.

Q. Now then, Mr. O'Brien, they did not keep that money, did they? — A.
Keep it, oh no.

Q. They gave it to you back again? — A. Yes, as tlie work progressed.

Q. Did you get it all back or nearly all back long before you had finished
your work? — A. They .handed me the draw back, that is customary in contracting
practice.

Q. It is not customary in contracting practice, because it is not usual in con-
tracting practice to make you put up a security at all ? — A. I think in all Govern-
ment contracts they ask for a security of 5 per cent and this being a Government
contract I suppose they thought they would do the same thing and the contract
provides that from time to time they can make advances to us for the purpose of
carrying on the work.

Q. Where is there any right under this contract entitling the commissioners
to give you up the security before the work is completed? — A. I am not so sure
that they say anything in the contract providing for that.

Q. They may if they so choose, being satisfied that the security is suSicient,
pay you any portion of the 10 per cent drawback on your performed work ? That
is what you refer to ? — A. Yes, I was referring to that.

Q. The fact is, that although it appeared in the public newspapers that you
had to deposit a cheque with your tender, and although it appeared that you had
to give security afterwards to the satisfaction of the commissioners, and although it
appeared when you signed your contract that you had to give security up to 33 per
cent of the engineers' estimates on the cost of your work, they eventually did take
10 per cent of the estimates as deposit and then paid it back to you before the work
was completed ?— A. Not before the work was completed.

Q. I think so, I think you personally got all your security back? — A. No.

Q. Not your drawback, but your security? — A. No, we have not. No. 10,
No. 11 and No. 13 are practically finished contracts.

Q. McDougall & O'Brien got back in July, 1910, $150,000 on contract No.
12, and they got on contract No. 19, in May, 1910, $200,000, and on contract No.
20 the same thing; I am not saying there is anything wrong in this? — A. No,
there could not be for the 'simple reason that the security has changed its form;
it has taken the form of plant.

Q. Tliey gave up the cash, that is all I am talking about? — A. To buy plant.

Q. They gave up the cash? — A. Yes.

Q. You did not give them any lien on your plant ? — A. By virtue of the con-
tract ?

Q. They had that lien anyway? — A. Yes.

Q. The security that the commissioners had was a cash deposit, a drawback,
and a lien on the plant. By the contract they had that? — A. We remonstrated
with them.

Q. I know you did ? — A. We said this to them ; you have now the plant, we
have $1,800,000 worth of plant on your works. It was nothing more than reason-
able they should release our security because they had it in the form of plant which
by virtue of the contract became theirs until the work was finished.

528 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. I quite agree with you, I think your statement is perfectly reasonable, but
they would have had that plant as security anyway, even if they never had asked
you to put up any other security ?— A. Quite true.

Q. You do not approach the matter from the point of view I am approaching
it from. I think it was ridiculous to ask for that security, and, as a matter of fact,,
after the Transcontinental commissioners got it, they gave it up, and they only had
the same security for the performance of the work as they would have had if they
never had asked for security at all; they had your plant and your drawback?— A.
They had it in a different form.

Q. But if they kept the $200,000 you would have to get your plant anyway?
—A. Yes.

Q. Then you would have the plant and the $200,000 which I agree with you
would have been quite unreasonable? — A. It would be away up in the millions; it
would be so unreasonable that we could not proceed.

Q. You think I am trying to make you say that they did something improper
in your case in releasing that security, but I am not at present enquiring into that
phase of it at all ; I am trying to get you to say that in the course of the performance
of this contract, the Commission found themselves eventually in no better position
than if they had not asked for security at all in the first place; I think they should
not have asked that security, is not that correct? — A. Well, all I can say is that
it is Government custom.

Q. We will leave the Government out for the present, we are talking about the
Transcontinental Railway Commissioners. Nobody is condemning anybody for that
at the present time, but that was the result — for example, in contract No. 19
you got back that $200,000 and you say the way you got it back was by saying to
the Commission; I need that money to put it into plant? — A. Yes,

Q. But if they had not acceded to your request, you would have had to put
the plant on anyway ? — A. Certainly.

Q. You will agree with me then, tliat in the end the Commission were in the^
same position as if they had given you this contract on the same terms as the C.P.R^
would have given it to you so far as the security is concerned? — A. Yes.

Q. What I am driving at is this : this Commission/ in my view, did not adopt
a businesslike method in encouraging people to bid on the contract, and although
they put impediments in the way of bidders with regard to putting up security, they
had no more security in the end than an ordinary railway would have? — A. Do
you mean for the reason that they made the contracts larger and asked for larger
security ?

Q. Yes? — A. As to that I do not know.
Q. You do not pass any opinion on it? — A. No,

Q. Now I will come to the question of the large contracts. They divided
this railroad, for the purpose of tendering, into very large sections mostlv? — A.
Yes.

Q. So that an ordinary man with a good plant and a good experience could
not come within gunshot of getting a contract on this road ? — A. Well, it tested
the strength and the ability of tlie contractors. It was open to all to come in
and tender.

Q. Oh yes, just the same as it is open to me to buy the Chateau Laurier if
I had the price ? — A. We were not always successful ; we were as often sub-contrac-
tors as chief contractors on the works; they outbid us.

Q. I am only saying that a man had to have very large resources in order
to successfully tender for this work? — A. Quite true, and that is the kind of"
men they wanted.

Q. But the number of such men is ver}' limited in Canada in the contracting;
\)usiness, is it not? — A. They are not very numerous, I am free to admit.

IXVESTIGATIXG COMMISSION 529

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. And the result was, that there was only on most of these works two or
three people who tendered ? — A. It would seem so, I do not know how many ten-
ders were in.

Q. For instance, J. D. McArthur got a $13,000,000 contract and he never
did any of the work himself at all, he sublet it to fifteen or twenty other con-
tractors ? — A. Yes, that is the grading.

Q. Now then, if the Commission had divided J. D. McArthur's Section F
into three or four divisions, they would have had perhaps twenty tenders? — A.
And twenty sets of contractors to deal with and twenty troubles.

Q. They would have had the twenty tenders anyway? — A. Yes.

Q. And where did the trouble come in, because in any case they had to give
estimates to all the sub-contractors; they had to keep track of all these sub-con-
tractors just as if they were chief contractors ? — A. Pardon me, it is hardly that '
way. We have our own engineers, , we get the estimates from the Commission,
they give us the estimate on the whole section in one lot; we then subdivide them
according to our subcontractors and the Commission has nothing to do with that.

Q. Yes, but these Commissioners were public servants, they were being paid
to get this work done in the most economical way they could for this country ; now
then, if Mr. O'Brien were building that work, he would have thought about the
money end of it, would he not? — A. "Well, I should say so.

Q. You seem to think that these Commissioners only should think about the
trouble to themselves. If they could save, for instance, on the M. P. Davis con-
tract $1,000,000 by letting it to Mr. O'Brien in the first place, it would have been
a laudable act on their part to have done so, would it not ? — A. I suppose so. •

Q. You know, as a matter of fact, that M. P. Davis got that contract one
year before he sublet it to you? — A. All of that.

Q. He never did a thing on it? — A. He was unable to reach it.

Q. He knew that when he tendered? — A. I don't know that.

Q. Didn't he? Do you suppose he tendered for a ten or twelve million
dollar contract without knowing where it was, I don't think he would do that? — A.
Contractors do foolish things.

Q. You knew it was inaccessible? — A. At the time?

Q. Yes? — A. Well, we did not give it much attention at the time because
we were not tendering.

Q. Why didn't you tender? — A. We were not close enough to it.

Q. You were not close enough to what? — A. Close enough to it with our
western work.

Q. You mean 3'ou were not close enough to it geographically? — A. Yes.

Q. That work was advertised, why did not you tender on it? — A. Well, I
may say this to you right on that point; we had a very large amount of security
-up at the time and the Bank of England has its limits and we were not inclined
to tender on that at that particular time.

Q. You did not want to put up any more money ? — A. No, we had so much
money in securities and drawback and plant that we did not feel disposed to put up
$300,000 there to carry out that work. We were not close enough to it.

Q. One of the great stumbling blocks in your road was putting up more
security? — A. That is a very great stumbling block in the way of all contractors.

Q. When you took these contracts Nos. 16 and 17 east of Lake Nipigon, off
the hands of Davis & Company, did you go over the work? — A. We sent a man
over it.

Q. And you looked it over? — A. Yes.

Q. And you made a bargain with Mr. Davis to take it off his hands? — A.
Yes.

Q. Were you substituted for him in the contract, or are you sub-contractors
under him? — A. I think if my memory serves me right, that we just stepped
into Mr. Davis' place.
123.— 34

530 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. And his security remained? — A. Yes.

Q. Did you put up any security? — A. Xot in that case, we are paying our
share of the amount.

Q. What do you mean by saying you are paying your share of the amount?
— A. "We would have to pay that money anyway.

Q. Do vou mean to sav that you pay the interest on the deposit? — A. Half
of it.

Q. And you also pay Mr. Davis 10 per cent on the gross? — A. Yes.

Q. How much more did you pay him? — A. That is enough I suppose.

Q. I think so, but I was just wondering how generous you might be? — A.
It is conceded that I am generous.

Q. On that work which you took from Mr. Davis, do you think you will
have a fair profit? — A. Yes, I think we will make a fair profit.

Q. You took the contract after sending a man over the work? — A. Yes sir.

Q. Did you negotiate this bargain with the Davises ? — A. Well, I concluded
it in Montreal.

Q. When you negotiated with the Davises, did they want any more than
10 per cent? — A. Yes.

Q. What did they ask you? — A. 15 per cent I think.

Q. Did they also ask you to pay interest on the deposit? — A. Well you see
it was like this: Mr. Davis' deposit was up. His deposit is there yet. I said to
them; the first thing to do was to leave that undisturbed, the Commission is paying
3 per cent for this deposit, and the money will cost us more. Of course we could
not get it for 3 per cent so I suggested myself paying the other 3 per cent, which
made 6 per cent and it cost Mr. Davis nothing. My suggestion was accepted and
that is the way it stands.

Q. So that you and the Government are paying the interest on the deposit?
— A. Quite true.

Q. And Davis gets clean and clear 10 per cent on the gross cost of the
work ? — A. Yes.

Q. How did you bring him down to 10 per cent and give away half a mil-
lion dollars difference between the 10 per cent and the 15 per cent? — A. We
would not give him more than that and besides there were others who were nego-
tiating as well as us and they were not offering as much, so that I think we went
a little better to get the work.

Q. As compared with the prices on the adjoining contracts, how do the
prices on contracts 16 and 17 compare? — A. I think they compare favorably
with the prices on the adjoining works.

Q. That is to say they are higher? — A. That is what I mean.

Q. You could afford to pay Davis 10 per cent on the gross cost and still
make as well out of it as you did on the adjoining works? — A. That is my recol-
lection of the figures.

Q. That is the way you viewed it? — A. Yes.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. Coming back to the security and what )'0u have told us as a reason for
your not bidding on contracts 16 and 17 originally, 3'ou would have bid on that
work if no special security had been demanded of you? — A. We might have
done so.

Q. Don't you think that in the light of the fact that you did take it up later
on that you might have bid? — A. We might, although we had our hands pretty
full at the time.

Q. Now referring to the newspaper advertisement in connection with these
Transcontinental contracts, which provided that the Commissioners could demand
any security they liked, if that same provision had been made by a railway com-
pany or a railway promotion syndicate such as Mackenzie & Mann, would you

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 531

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

have put your original marked cheque in, knowing that a private concern or a rail-
way company could have demanded from you any securities that they desired;
would you have considered it a business proposition. I refer now to the phrase-:
"Such additional security as the Commissioners may require"? — A. We would
hesitate a good deal.

Q. It would not be a business proposition ? — A. It would occur to us as giv-
ing them powers that we would not like to have in their hands, because they might
ask us, after our tenders were submitted, to put up such security as would be
altogether unreasonable, and it is too much power to have in the hands of any-
body, I think.

Q. If they wanted to, they might defraud you out of the deposit that j'-ou
put up with the tender? — A. Well the powers given there are very great; it
would depend on the men, of course.

Q. Don't you think that many good Canadian contractors, I mean standing
high financially, were deterred from bidding on the National Transcontinental
Railway contract because of that very security clause? — A. I do not know of any
that were deterred. Of course, I am free to admit this : that had the sections been
cut into smaller sections and the security made smaller, that there no doubt would
be more tenders, there is no question about that.

Q. I noticed recently in looking at a report of the royal commission on the
original construction of the C, P. E., that that Commission show in their report
the various tenders given for the different sections, and these tenders average about
twenty tenders to every section. Now, when I -ee nine contracts on the Transcon-
tinental Railway, in each case there being only two bidders, the idea occurred to
me that this additional security which the Transcontinental Eailway Commis-
sioners demanded is a reason for having only two tenders instead of twenty. Does
it not look like that to you? — A. AVliat you say there is right; that open book in
the advertisement there would scare off perhaps a good many contractors and I
have no doubt it did. We had the moral courage to go in.

Q. Did you know when you sent in these tenders that you were absolutely
in the hands of the Commissioners to the amount of security that would be
required? — A. I say their powers were very great. Yes, that is so, especially in
the first two contracts.

Mr. Staunton : — But the provision as to that is the same in all the contracts.

By Mr. Gutelius: — The reason the subsequent contracts were not so alarming
to you, was because in the first two or three you found they did not take advantage
of the whole 33 per cent? — A. Well, I do not know that any percentage was
mentioned; it was only 15 per cent we put up.

By Mr. Staunton:

Q. But you signed an agreement that you would put up to the extent of 33
per cent? — A. Is that in the contract?

Q. Yes. In your tender, in fact, you say so^ you knew it when you signed
your tender. It sa5's : " And we do hereby agree that in case of refusal or failure
to execute the said contract with the Commission and also to furnish an approved
security to an amount not exceeding one-third of the estimated cost of the work,
you shall forfeit your deposit." You knew it at the time? — A. Is this the
original tender?

Q. Yes, they are all the same? — A. They are not exactly all the same.

Q. On that point they are? — A. Oh, yes.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. Eecognizing, as you must have, the tremendous powers of the Commis-
sion in demanding additional security after holding this first big marked cheque,
did you not have some information that led you to believe that they were not
going to hold you up to the whole amount of the 33 per cent ? — A. No. You see, as

532 yATIOXAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

I remarked before, when we tendered first and when O'Brien & Mullarkey were
not the accepted tenderers, and when Mr, Hogan became ill, I came into his place
on th& contract. We then were up against it as to security. We remonstrated
with the Commission at that time and we were here quite a long time getting that
security fixed up.

Q. They wanted a larger security? — A. They wanted 15 per cent but we
were not inclined to put that up and we asked them to accept a cheque. We had
a siege here at that time but were not successful. They exacted 15 per cent
security. I remember myself saying at the time that I had no recollection of any
such security being demanded .by any Government or any company in the country.
15 per cent was wery large and it was no use.

By Mr. Staunton:

Q. Did they offer to let you out of the contract ? — A. Xo.

Q. Did you say: I cannot put up the security; did you put up any bluff at
all? — A. 1 did not say whether we would put up the security or not.

Q. Did you say you would not? — A. We never went that far.

Q. Was it said to you, if you don't put up the security you can drop out? —
A. Not to me.

Q. Did they tell you they would keep your money ? — A. I have no recollec-
tion of their saying that, that was understood.

Q. Did they ever say: now, Mr. O'Brien, put up that security or withdraw,
did you ever have a position like that taken with you? — A. Xo, I have no recol-
lection of that, it never went that far, they would not do that with me, I don't
think.

Q. What did you understand from them would happen if you did not put
up the security? — A. They did not say that.

Q. Did they intimate it to you ? — A. No, I cannot even say that.

Q. What did you expect would happen? — A. Well, if we failed to put up
our security I suppose we would have to step aside.

Q. And lose your deposit? — A. Well, we would come back for that later on
and see what we could do ; you know what contractors do.

Q. From the negotiations that took place between you and the Commission
or the individual members of it, what conclusion did you come to would happen
to you if you failed to put up the security? — A. They did not intimate to me
anything of the kind, they simply asked for the security.

Q. You had no idea that you would get your money back and be allowed to
go if you did not put up the security? — A. No.

Q. . You had no idea of it from any of these Commissioners ? — A. No, they
sat down flat on the 15 per cent and we had an awful siege of it. We tried every
means to get them down to the original cheque and we were not successful, we
could not do it.

Q. Do you know anything yourself about the actual work on any of your
contracts? — A. Not very much.

Q. When you tendered for this work I suppose you took an interest in your
tender? — A. If I was here I did.

Q. You signed it, did you not? — A. I do not know that I did. I do not
think I signed them all. I commissioned someone else to sign for me.

Q. In your contract you signed a tender which contained a unit price list.
No. 4 of that unit price list is called solid rock, and you were to get a price per
cubic yard for item No. 4, what is solid rock ? — A. Is that the specification there ?

Q. Yes, what is solid rock to you as a contractor in that specification? — A.
It depends on the specification under which we were working.

Q. What does solid rock mean to you as a contractor? — A, Solid rock is
that which can best be removed by blasting; anything that is diflBcult and expen-
sive to take out is solid rock, from a contractor's point of view.

IXTESTIGATIXG COMMISSIOX 533

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Forget this contract for the moment, and tell me what does a contractor
understand by solid rock? — A. That which is expensive to move is solid rock
excavation; that which is as expensive to mov^ as solid rock excavation is, should
be classified as solid rock.

Q. If you saw a sand bank that was as hard as you could imagine, do you
say that that could be called solid rock? — A. Yes, if it becomes sandstone.

Q. I did not say sandstone? — A. You said as hard as it could be.

Q. I did not mean that it was in the form of sandstone, I meant in the form
of sand, can you imagine clay being solid rock? — A. I cannot irnagine clay to be
solid rock.

Q. But that would come within your definition when you said that solid rock
was anything that could best be removed bv blasting? — A. Yes, continuous blast-
ing, you asked me what was solid rock, and I say that rock could be mixed with
clay.

Q. Keep along the line you started on : you said anything that could best be
removed by blasting? — A. Continuous blasting.

Q. You have found indurated clay that could best be removed bv blasting?
—A. Yes.

Q. You never had the confidence to ask that that should be put in as solid
rock when there was no stone in it? — A. If we were entitled to it under the
contract.

Q. Have you ever got solid rock prices for that clay when there was no stone
in it? — A. I do not just remember. We struck a lot of that in the Province of
Nova Scotia in the eighties. If it was as expensive to take out as solid rock, it
should be classified as such.

Q. Did you^ever get paid for clay, where you had the three classifications of
solid rock, loose rock, and common excavation ; did jou ever get paid for clay with
these classifications at solid rock price? — A. I have no recollection.

Q. If you signed a contract embodying the three classifications, solid rock,
loose rock, and common excavation, in your most bountiful frame of mind you
would never expect clay to be classified as solid rock? — A. Ordinary clay?

Q. Yes?— A. Oh, no.

Q. You would not have clay, no matter how hard, if it was not mixed with
stones, classified as solid rock? — A. 1 think not.

Q. So therefore when you talk of solid rock you mean rock? — A. Do you
mean rock ledge?

Q. You mean rock, stone? — A. Yes.

Q. And when you talk of indurated clay, you expect that is to be loose rock,
don't you? — A. Well, it depends. As I said before if it is mixed with rocks of all
sizes and kinds, then I think it should be classified as solid rock.

Q. Where did you ever get it before? — A. I never worked on specifications
like that before.

Q. I am not talking about specifications, when, under Heaven, did anyone
every pay you for clay mixed with rock of less size than a cubic yard, as solid rock,
before the Transcontinental Eailway commissioners set the pace? — A. I have no
recollection myself, except as I say in ISTova Scotia in the eighties.

Q. In Xova Scotia, where you had signed a contract for solid rock, loose rock,
and common excavation, did they ever pay you solid rock prices for any kind of
clay intermixed with stones of less than a cubic yard? — A. I have no recollection
of it.

Q. You have no recollection, have you, of anybody or of any railroad ever
paying solid rock prices for clay intermingled with stones of less size than a cubic
yard? — A. Well, where the stones are thickly assembled.

534 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE V^ 1914

Q. Keep outside of the Transcontinental practice now, and give your answer?
— ^A. I said before, so far as the other roads are concerned and under the specifica-
tions Tinder which we were working, I had no recollection that it came that way,
and perhaps we were not properly entitled to it.

Q. Have you worked for the C.P.E. ? — A. Yes.

Q. Have you worked for the Canadian jSTorthern Railway? — A. Yes.

Q. You have worked for these corporations in grading? — A. Yes.

Q. Now then, have you not, as a matter of fact, in the case of the Trans-
continental Railway, been paid for material as solid rock for which you were only
paid as loose rock in these other cases, never mind the specifications now? — A. I
have no doubt as to that.

Q. That is right, is it ?— A. That is right I believe.

Q. To use a familiar phrase, this assembled rock was a new one on you when
you got into the Transcontinental ? — A. Do you mean that assembled rock is a new
phrase ?

Q. Yes?— A. Yes.

Q. It is a new phrase and a mighty good one for you, is it not? — A. It is
• very appropriate.

Q. When did you last have a contract with the C.P.R. or the C.N.R. ? — A.
The Canadian iSTorthern, two or three years ago.

Q. How did the prices compare with the Transcontinental prices? — A. My
memory does not serve me as to that, I cannot recollect what our prices were on the
Canadian Northern.

Q. Well, what would be more favorably impressed on your mind, how did the
profits compare? — A. I do not know that a contractor should be telling what his
profits are.

Q. Did they compare favorably on the Transcontinental ? — A. I do not know
about that. I think on some of our sections, the Canadian Northern was just as
profitable.

Q. But these sections on the Canadian Northern that were just as profitable
as the Transcontinental, were rare birds? — A. Well, they might not be in the
majority,

Q. I suppose, as a matter of fact, your most profitable sections on the Trans-
continental were where assembled rock did most congregate ? — A. Where it existed,
yes.

Q. And assembled rock was very plentiful on section B, in the vicinity of La
Tuque ?— A. Yes.

Q. That was the best section you had, was it not?— A. Well, I do not know
that, I am not prepared to say it was the best, do you mean in so far as rock is con-
cerned ?

Q. So far as profit is concerned? — A. I do not Icnow that, it misrht be.

Q. If you were betting you would pick that out as a dinner, would you not?
— A. Well, I do not know.

Q. That is the banner contract, is it not? — A. I am not so sure about that.

Q. I would like you to think it over ? — A. Pardon me, you see we were chief
contractors you understand on that section.

Q. I know, and you did not get as much fat out of it, you think? — A. Let
me explain that. We have about the same margin of profit on that section that we
have on the others.

Q. As a matter of fact there was more profit on the entire work on that
section than on any others? — A. Our margin of profit would be the same as on
any other section.

Q. But in that case you had such an enormous amount of assembled rock? —
A. We only had a margin of profit.

INTESTIGATIXG COMMISSION 535

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. But the profit to 3'ou and the subcontractor combined would b« larger on
that tiian on any other section ? — A. I cannot say about the subs.

Q. I am not talking about your individual profit, I am talking of the profit on
the work above actual cost, was it greater on that than on any other contract? — A.
On account of the mileage ?

Q. Yes ? — A. And the magnitude of the work ?

Q. Yes? — A, Around La Tuque I happened to be there myself. Around La
Tuque, these cuttings are full of what they call assembled rock.

Q. I am talking about La Tuque now, and I am asking you if on that contract
there was not in your opinion a larger gross profit than on any other contract in
which you were engaged? — A. ISTot to us, I don't think.

Q. N"o, not to you, but the gross profit to everybody ? — A. As to that I cannot
well say,

Q. What is your judgment? — A. My judgment in the matier would not be
worth much ; some of our contractors did not make money.

Q. If you don't know, you need not tell me ; yon were at La Tuque ? — A. Yes.

Q. I was at La Tuque, Mr. Gutelius and I were there, and we went all over
that work, and we took the engineers over it, and I can tell you this ; that we asked
them to point us out where there was any cementing material, and they could find
none, and afterwards in their evidence they said that they did not think there was
any on the whole work. Xow can you tell me where I can find anything of that
extraordinary thing, cementing material, in La Tuque district? — A. I cannot
name a cutting, but the cuttings we went over at that time with the old chief
engineer and the whole outfit, these cuttings were at that time in progress and there
was nothing else but thickly assembled bunches of rock, gravel, and stone of all
kinds, and we had to use blasting.

Q, Mr. Schreiber said that he could find no cementing material? — A. No
cementing material?

Q. Xo cementing material. The assembled rock was there all right, I am not
denying that, but what we have been searching for with great anxiety is this cement-
ing material and it seems always to be like the fish, a little further up ? — A. Well,
we came to the conclusion that day when we saw the work in progress that there
was lots of cementing material in some of those cuttings and that at all events they
were one mass of boulders.

Q. They were a mass of boulders, we will not quarrel about that, but what I
want to get at is this cementing material. If anyone can tell me where it is, I can
send someone there to see it. Mr. Doheny has not pointed it out to us and we tried
him. It looks to me as if this was clay and sand mixed with these stones, am I
wrong? — A. There was no clay in the cutting I have in mind.

Q. It was a fine white sand ? — A. It was not exactly sand.

Q. What was it? — A. It was closer to what you call cementing material.
These rocks laid there as thick as they could be in the cutting. In fact, the cutting
was what is called assembled rock mixed up with this stuff, so much so that we could
not do anything else than blast it.

Q. Don't mind the blasting, you would not build a house with that cementing
material ? — A. Xo.

Q. It would tumble down, it would not cement? — A. If you could put
cement in it it would.

Q. You did not salt these cuts by putting cementing material in them? — A.
Oh, no, we are bad enough without doing that.

Q. Now, Mr. O'Brien, frankly and candidlj^, is there any cementing material,
as an ordinary man would understand it, along there at all, is it not ju^t simply

536 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

that these small stones and large stones are packed tightly in in clay or fine sand, is
not that a fair description? — A. It may not be what you call conglomerate or
cementing material, but it is just as difficult to remove as solid rock.

Q. I am not quarrelling with that? — A. 1 think some of the cuttings were
more expensive' than solid rock.

Q. I am asking you to be fair with me and to say if I am properly describing
these cuts, when I say that they were composed of stones, large and small inter-
mixed, and packed into sand or clay ? — A. It might be that.

Q. Wliat you saw might be that? — A. jSTo, not in that big cut, it was not
that, there was no clay at all in this cut.

Q. It was sand? — A. It was gravel and boulders.

Q. Let us get away from the boulders? — A. I want to get away from the
sand.

Q. Now, I could not find anything but sand or clay, or boulders, or stones
there, did you? — A. I counted that mixture of all kinds in these cuttings as just
as difficult to remove as solid rock, and requiring blasting, I will say positively as
a practical railway man, without fear of successful contradiction, that that could
best be removed by blasting. It is the most economic way and the only way it pould
be done.

Q. I agree with you that it might be most economically done that way and
you may be right, but so will a cutting which might be entirely cemented gravel,
would it not? Take a cutting of this hardpan, or ceniented gravel, you have to
remove that by blasting every inch of it? — A. It is the most economical way of
doing it.

Q. That is loose rock ? — A. It is better to take it out that way than to wear
it out, and there are only two ways of doing it.

Q., Well, that is loose rock and the specifications say so. Section 35 of the
specifications says: —

" 35. All large stones and boulders measuring more than one cubic
foot and less than one cubic yard, and all loose rock whether in situ or
otherwise, that may be removed by hand, pick or bar, all cemented gravel,
indurated clay and other materials, that cannot, in the judgment of the
engineer, be ploughed with a 10-inch grading plough, behind a team of
six good horses, properly handled ; and without the necessity of blasting
although blasting mav be occasionally resorted to, shall be classified as ' loose
rock.' "

A. That says that blasting may be occasionally resorted to, but the other refers
to continuous blasting.

Q. You cannot get away with it as common excavation, it is loose rock? — A.
It is solid rock excavation, according to this specification.

Q. What is? — A. Anything that may best be removed by blasting.

Q. Not at nil, here is what is described as solid rock^ excavation : —

' " Solid rock excavation will include all rock found in ledges or masses
of more than one cubic yard, which, in the judgment of the engineer, may
be best removed by blasting."

A. That word " masses " there, is masses of anything.
Q. No, it reads : —

" Solid rock excavation will include all rock found in ledges or found
in masses."

IXVESTIGATIXG COMMISSIOX 537

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Of course, for the purposes of this contract, you read it as you describe, but when
you saw that first and put your first interpretation upon it, would you ever have
thought of that? — A. Yes, sir, the very first shot out of the box, that was the
interpretation put upon it by A. E. McDonald and. Mr. Barwick and myself. We
did not come to the chief engineer and ask any questions either with reference to
that or train fill, we took the documents as we found them.

Q, Then, what sort of cemented gravel is to be loose rock ? — A. That would
be, I suppose, where you found it occasionally, and where an occasional shot would
be required to take it out. That would probably be classified as loose rock.

Q. Then what kind of indurated clay would be loose rock? — A. The same.

Q. Do you mean to tell me that you thought indurated clay under this speci-
fication would be solid rock? — A. No.

Q. But you did say so just now. You said that all masses of any material
which could he best removed by blasting, was to be solid rock ? — A. It is just like
this: Solid rock excavation includes all rock found in ledges. That is so since
the time of Adam. And then it reads: or masses of more than one cubic yard
which can best be removed by blasting. It does not say solid rock.

Q. Then it means indurated clay ? — A. It might.

Q. Where did you ever, in the whole course of your experience, make the
contention on a contract that you were entitled to be paid solid rock prices for
indurated clay? — A. I never had these specifications before.

Q. You said just now that from the beginning you construed this specifica-
tion in such a way as you thought it entitled you to solid rock prices for indurated
clay, which could best "be removed by blasting? — A. I said an}i;hing in masses.

Q. That brings in indurated clay, does it not? — A. Yes.

Q, Did you ever before put in such a claim as that ? — A. We never had the
opportunity, because we were not entitled to it under our other specifications.

Q. Did you ever, even against the Transcontinental Eailway, set up a claim
to be paid solid rock prices for clay of any kind? — A. Well, we did not specify
the material.

Q. They never allowed it to you ; they have never allowed you solid rock prices
for indurated clay? — A. If they did not, and it could best be removed by blasting,
then they were doing us an injustice.

Q. But you know they did not? — A. I was not close enough in touch with
the work to know.

Q. No person on your works, to your knowedge, has ever claimed until today
that they are entitled to solid rock prices for indurated clay, have they? — A. I
am not aware.

Q. You said you were alive to that fact in the very beginning? — A. Yes.

Q. Then why did you not see that you were getting solid rock prices for it?
— A. The great complaint is that we are over-classified and getting something
wc are not entitled to.

Q. There is not a single claim to be paid on solid rock prices for clay? —
A. If it is stuff that can best be removed by blasting.

Q. Did you ever make any claim for solid rock prices for cemented gravel ? —
A. Personallv?

Q. Yes?— A. I did not.

Q. Did your partners, to your knowledge? — A. I am not aware.

Q. Did they ever claim solid rock prices for any material in which there
were no stones? — A. I cannot say, I am not aware.

Q. It would mean a difference to you of many millions of dollars if you did
or did not get solid rock prices for indurated clay or cemented gravel? — A. Yes,
if we were properly entitled to it and did not get it.

Q. I would have thought that if you were alive to your risrhts from the very
beginninsr. you would have taken sufficient interest to have at least made a claim
durimr the last four or five vears? — A. Let me sav this, that this time I was at

638 XATIO:S'AL TRAXSCONTIi^'EJlfTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

La Tuque it was in the very early stages of the -work, and we had a battle royal on
the ground, and as a result of that meeting there were instructions issued by the
late chief engineer and he issued a blue print.

Q. And that blue print distinctly says that you shall not be paid solid rock
prices for any kind of clay or material in which there is no stone? — A. It may,
I do not know.

Q. You saw the blue print? — A. I just had a glance at it.

Q. And you never protested against them excluding indurated clay and
cemented gravel as solid rock ? — A. We have been protesting all the time from our
office, but I do not know what the nature of it was exactly. I say right here now
that any material in these cuttings that can be economically removed by blasting,
we are practically entitled to solid rock excavation for that.

Q. That is to say, that all stuff that is not free shovelling is solid rock? —
A. No.

Q. You have to blast ever}i;hing that is not free shovelling? — A. Not con-
tinuously.

Q. When you come to a place where you don't blast it, it is free shovelling?
— A. Where we don't require to blast it.

Q. Ever}i:hing that is not free shovelling, has to be blasted, for its economical
removal ? — A. Yes.

Q. And your contention is that everything that has to be blasted is solid
rock? — A. Not at all, the specification provides for that,

Q. What is your contention? — A. Where the cutting is either one thing or
another mixed up, and can best be removed by blasting, I don't care what it is,
jj that cut is a solid mass of indurated earth and we cannot take it out any other
way economically except by blasting, we must resort to blasting, and we are pro-
perly entitled to that as solid rock excavation.

Q. Would you say that all material that is not free shovelling is solid rock?
— A. I did not say that.

Q. Free shovelling is the only thing that you do not class? — A. I do not
know about that.

Q. Be serious, don't you blast everything that does not come under the head
of free shovelling material? — A. Yes, an occasional blast.

Q. Don't you blast everything that is not free shovelling? — A. We might.

Q. And therefore, according to your argument, that is all solid rock; they
have. done you terribly if that is so? — A. That is my claim and my contention.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. Before you signed your first tender did you have the idea that that word
"masses" would be interpreted to cover other than rock larger than a cubic yard?
— A. I do not know as to that.

Q. Did you form your opinion before you signed your first tender? — A.
Yes, that is the only time Mr. McDonald and I were here together. There were
several omissions in the first specification and one of them was "train filled". Mr.
McDonald wanted to come down and discuss the matter with the late Chief Lums-
den, and Mr. Barwick and I were a unit in saying: no, when we come to train fill,
which was omitted altogether, we would deal with it. We dealt with this at the
same time. We read the thing over very carefully. There must be something
more than solid rock to be classified as such from the reading of that clause 34. If
it was only solid rock in ledge that was to be specified as such, they need not put
that in about masses.

Q. If you did not discuss it with the chief engineer and did discuss it be-
tween yourselves, was not that really a joker in the pack when you were making
your first bid ? — A. It might be so, it might be considered so.

Q. That expression is a little strong? — A. Yes, and the train fill was the
eame thing.

I

INTESTIQATING COMMISSION 539

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

By Mr. Staunton :

Q. What do jou mean by the train fill? — A. There was no figure for it.

By Mr. Gutelius :

Q. If you had that idea in mind, that you could get solid rock for anything
that could more economically be done by blasting, did you convey that idea to
your sub-contractors? — A. I do not think we did.

By Mr. Staunton:

Q. I should think you would not like to put your pen to it? — A. "We gave
the sub-contractors whatever we got, you know.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. K there was any advantage to you in connection with that, on account
of your interpretation, you would not get the benefit of that unless you wised up
your subs? — A. Quite true, but it was immaterial to us as chief contractors,
whether we got a margin on loose rock or solid rock ; it would have been the same
per yard.

Q, You were up at La Tuque with the engineers at that time ? — A. Yes.

Q. That discussion at La Tuque was Woods and Lumsden on one side, and
tiie balance of you on the other? — A. That is right.

Q. You were satisfied when you left La Tuque that j'ou had the Commis-
sioners with you? — A. Well, I could not say just then what the result of the
discussion was.

Mr. Staunton : — Lumsden says the Commissioners argued with the contrac-
tors ? — A. Well with regard to that, I may say that I myself read that very clause.
I was the only one that happened to have the specifications in my pocket and I read
the clause in this way : Solid rock excavation will include all rock found in ledges ; I
said there can be no dispute about that, that the chief engineer agreed, and I
said there must be something in the mind of the framer of the subsequent part of
the clause, that something more than solid rock in ledges would be classified as
such.

Mr. Staunton : — Sure, boulders

A. It says: masses of more than one cubic yard which can best be removed
by blasting. It does not say boulders nor anything else. There happened to be
two lavr)'ers among the Commissioners, the chairman, Mr. Parent and Mr. Mclsaac.
They took this thing out of my hands and they commenced reading it, and they
were all tr}dng to interpret it then. We had it interpreted long before that.

Q. What did the two lawvers say?— A. They did not say anything just
then and we did not know where we were when we left.

Q. Did they seem to favor your view or the other view? — A. They were at
sixes as to how it read. I think the legal minds took the view I was right. The
ex-chief was inclined not to express himself.

Mr. Staunton : — ^Lumsden said he said it had to be rock, and the Board
agreed with the contractors? — A. When I asked the late chief engineer what
was solid rock under tlie specification, his words to me were; solid rock is solid
rock, and loose rock is loose rock, and I said it was so since the time of Adam, but
what was it in the specification.

Q. What did he say to that? — A. He repeated that twice, and then, of
course, we had to get into some kind of a discussion. I wanted to know what it
was in the specification and when I read that in the way I did, he seemed to be
a little dumbfounded about it.

540 NATIOXAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. What reduction did you make in your solid rock prices, because you dis-
covered this joker? — A. I cannot say as to that. Our price was low on solid
rock, going to show that we were not building on that very much. I think it was
the lowest in the schedule; $1.50, that is a low price for rock.

Q. You would not like to say how much reduction you made, because you
expected masses to be made up of loose rock material? — A. Xo, we figured it
more closely on that account, but I cannot say that.

Q. Now, separating this assembled rock, stone on one side, if the stone was
less that a cubic 3^ard, it would be called loose rock? — A. Separating them one
by one they might.

Q. And the matrix material, if separated, and had no stones in it would be
loose rock, or common excavation, would it not? — A. It might be.

Q. And the reason you say it is solid rock is because the two are associated
in such a way as that they can be most economically removed by blasting? — A.
That is it, exactly.

Q. And you never knew of that interpretation being placed on it in any
other specification in your career as a contractor? — A. I have no recollection of it.

Q. Do you think that specification was drawn by a person who was inexper-
ienced in framing specifications? — A. I would not like to say that. I tell you
the opinion I would offer on that question would be that I thought whoever framed
the specifications were trying to be fair and to pay for that which would cost as
much as solid rock or could best be removed by blasting.

Q. From the information before us, it appears that in your various contracts
you have 1,000,000 cubic yards of solid rock, that is composed of stones less than
a cubic yard, and a matrix of sand or clay or indurated clay which when combined
formed this material which is known as assembled rock, what reasons can you give
this Commission for not having it classified in its component parts as loose rock,
and your estimates revised accordingly? — A. "What reason can I give?

Q. Yes, why would it not be right and fair for us to recommend that that
reduction be made? — A. I have this reason to give, that inasmuch as we were
chief contractors, as I said before, and we have paid our sub-contractors right
along on the estimates given to us, from time to time by the engineers of the
Commission, and on which we have paid our sub-contractors in the best of good
faith, that we do not think the estimates should be revised. In fact, I think it
would 1)6 the grossest injustice to us. If there was anything wrong we had no
knowledge of it and the estimates should not have been issued and they should not
have been certified to, and we should not have been instructed to pay the sub-con-
tractors on that basis, in fact, we were urged to pay them in many cases.

By Mr. Staunton:

Q. That is what you consider the real meritorious reason for being paid? —
A. That is one reason.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. Is there anything else you would like to tell this investigating Commission
that has not been brought ouit in our discussions to-day? — A. I do not know-
there is anything I could recall at this moment that I would like to tell. I liave
nothing at the moment that I think it would be necessary for me to state. I do
not know what you have in your minds.

Mr. Staunton : — ^Mr. Gutelius does not want, after this Commission is closed,
for a contractor to come and say : if they afforded me an opportunity I could have
explained things and given evidence which would have put another light entirely

IXTESTIGATIXG COMMISSION 541

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

upon the facts which were before them. We have asked all we could think about,
and if you have anything more that you think would help us or would put a dif-
ferent light upon the facts which are before us, you can tell us now, in connec-
tion with anything that you have been interested in, in this work? — A. I repeat
that at the moment I can think of nothing more. If I do at some future time
and think about it, I may.

Mr. Staunton : — If anything occurs to you before we make our report, that
you wish to have added, will you communicate with us.

Mr. O'Brien: — Yes.

The witness was not further examined.

(N'ATIOXAL TEAXSCON^TINENTAL IXVESTIGATI>^G COMMISSIOIT,

OTTAWA, FEB. 4th, 1913. EVIDEXCE TAKEX IX X.T.E. OFFICES,

BEFOEE THE CHAIRMAX AXD MR. GUTELIUS.)

E. F. Powers, sworn :

By the Chairman:

Q. How long have you been engaged in concrete bridge foundation con-
struction?— A. Fifteen years I have been connected with deep water work in
different ways.

Q. Taking all your work together in the fifteen years, what do you think it
would amount to in dollars? — A. I could not give you it. We have been doing
about $200,000 worth of work a season; that is different kinds of work.

Q. So that it might amount to as much as $3,000,000? — A. Yes.

Q. You were a sub-contractor, were you, under Mr. Kitchen ? — A. Yes.

Q. In the name of Powers and Brewer? — A, Yes.

Q. What was your sub-contract? — A. To complete all the concrete masonry
under Kitchen & Company's contract.

Q. You used a mixture of one-two-four, instead of a mixture of one-three-
five, in massed contract in some portions of your work, did you not? — A. I did
not quite catch that.

Q. You used a mixture of one-two-four instead of one-three-five, as specified
in the contract? — A. Yes.

Q. In some of your massed concrete pedestals? — A. Yes.

Q. Why did you do that? — A. We did that through instructions from the
engineers.

Q. Where did you use it? — A. In the pedestal shafts only.

Q. Where? — A. At Salmon Eiver, Caton Brook, and a part of the pedestal
shafts at Graham Brook.

Q. Take the Little Salmon River first : why did you use at the Little Salmon
one-two-four? — A. We were instructed to use it.

Q. By whom? — A. Through chief engineer Grant, and Mr. Balkam.

Q. Did they instruct you personally to use it? — A. Yes.

Q. Why did they instruct you to use it? — A. Owing to the size of the
structure and the great weight to be added on to these concrete blocks.

Q. Are those the only reasons? — A. And probably a question of the
material not being suflBciently good enough to use the leaner mixture.

Q, Are you a professional concrete man? — A. Xo, I do not say that I am.

542 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q, What experience have you had in it? — A. I have been in concrete the
last ten years.

Q. \Yas there anything the matter with the gravel or sand at the Little
Salmon, in your judgment? — A. No.

Q. It was all right, was it? — A. I would think it was.

Q. Was it any different from any other gravel or sand that you used in
other portions of the work ? — A. No, I cannot say that it was, with the exception
of Little River, where we brought in outside sand.

Q. You say that at Little Eiver it was inferior to this? — A. Yes, a portion
of Little Eiver.

Q. What you mean is that the sand at Little River was not as good as
the sand at Little Salmon? — A. No.

Q. So there was no good sand used by you which was better than this sand
at Little Salmon ? — A. Except the sand we brought from Magaguadavic, so called.

Q. Did you use any 1-3-5 mixture at Little Salmon? — A. In the footing
courses.

Q. Is that all you used there? — A. And in the bodies of the abutments, I
think the west abutment.

Q. And in the remainder of your work at Little Salmon you used 1-2-4, did
you ? — A. Yes.

Q. Did you get any instructions in writing to use 1-2-4? — A. Yes.

Q. Who were the instructions in writing from? — A. From concrete inspec-
tor Lowe.

Q. What date?— A. On April 27th, 1909.

Q. ^YhsLt does the inspector say? — A. To put in 1-2-4 in all shafts, under
letter same date from divisional engineer Ballock: —

" George Lowe, concrete inspector, Salmon River, N.B. : Dear Sir : — 1-3-5
concrete is to be used in all pedestals, footings and west buried piers, and both in
footings and pier bodies, the pedestal shafts are to be built of 1-2-4 mixture, with-
out fillers.

" Yours truly,

" GUY R. BALLOCK, Div. Eng."

Q. Is this the original? — A. No, a copy.

Q. Where is the original? — A. It is in our fyles. I did not think it was
necessary.

Q. Was that letter handed to you? — A. Yes.

Q. By the concrete inspector? — A. Yes.

Q. Did you say anything to him about the price at that time? — A. Yes.

Q, What did you say to him? — A. I asked if it was to be paid for at 1-2-4
prices, at our price, and he said it was.

Q. I see in this letter Mr. Kitchen wrote to us, that you wrote on the 4th
November to him: —

" We have asked to be allowed to use this gravel in a 1-2-4 mixture, and we
were told that we might do so, but we would only be paid for 1-3-5 mixture, as
the price for the 1-2-4 mixture was too high. This we consider unjust, for the
other contractors are putting in a 1-2-4 mixture and are being paid at their 1-2-4
prices for it ".

That does not accord with your statement that you have given me? — A. We
never thought for a minute of going on with the work —

Q. Never mind what you thought about it; that is not in accord with what
you have told me just now, that when you were ordered to do it you were promised
a higher price? — A. Well, we would not go —

Q. How do you reconcile these two statements? — A. I do not quite under-
stand you.

IXVESTIGATIXG COMMISSIOy 543

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. You stated to me that you were ordered in writing to use 1-2-4 mixture
in the parts of the structure mentioned in the letter which 3-ou have just read, and
that you were told by the inspector that you would be paid a 1-3-4 price : that is
correct, is it not? — A. Yes.

Q. Xow, in your letter written on November 4th, 1908, to Mr. Kitchen, you
state that you were told you would not be paid a 1-2-4 price. How do you recon-
cile these two statements? — A. I do not see any answer to that. I do not quite
catch the meaning of it.

Q. It should be pretty clear. You wrote a letter, did you not, on the 4th
November, 1908?— A. Yes.

Q. To Mr. Kitchen?— A. Yes.

Q. And you stated in that letter : " We have asked to be allowed to use this
gravel " ; that is the gravel at Little Salmon, is it not ? — A. Yes.

Q. " In a 1-2-4 mixture, and were told that we might do so, but would only
be paid for a 1-3-5 mixture " ? — A. Yes.

Q. Is that statement true? Did you write that letter? — A. Yes.

Q. • And is that statement that you made there true? — A. "Well, I should
say it was.

Q. Then your statement that you were to be paid for a 1-2-4 mixture now is
not true? — A. Well, we were told by someone not in authority. At the time I
wrote that letter, it was not our intention to go on with a 1-2-4 mixture until we
were paid for it.

Q. That letter, April 27th, 1909, is apparently written long after?— A. Yes.

Q. You put in a whole lot of this mixture before you got orders to put it in ?
— A. We put a lot of it in on the rings of arch culverts and were paid for it
1-2-4 the arch culverts, the first concrete work we did on Kitchen & Company's
contract.

Q. Stick to the Salmon Eiver part; you were not putting in arch culverts at
Salmon Eiver? — A. 'No.

Q. You are speaking in this letter of the Salmon Eiver? — A. Yes.

Q. And you told me that you were told you might put it in 1-2-4 with that
gravel, but that you would not be paid for it. Xow, where else did you put it in?
— A. At Graham Brook.

Q. How far is Graham Brook from the Little Salmon? — A. I judge about
three miles.

Q. Why did you not use 1-3-5 at Graham Brook? — A. I do not know; we
had the same instructions.

Q. Had vou another letter about Graham Brook? — A. The concrete inspec-
tor at Graham Brook had a letter the same date.

Q. Have you that letter? — A. No; I think it was the same date.

Q. What was the matter with the gravel at Graham Brook? — A. I am not
prepared to say.

Q. You do not know anything wrong with the gravel there? — A. We were
ordered to put in a mixture and we adhered to it, 1-3-5.

Q. You say in your letter : —

" We are advised by the division engineer that all of the sand which we planned
on using in the concrete work at Sahnon Eiver, Graham and Caton Brook has been
condemned as unfit for the work, and it has been suggested that we bring in sand
from Magaguadavic. We are bringing in this sand at great expense to use at Little
Eiver, but in the case of the other work, the cost of the sand would be more than
doubled, owing to the long haul. At the time we contracted with you for this work,
Mr. Mitchell, in company with Mr. Balkam and Mr. Balloch and in the presence of
yourself and the writer, examined the sand at Salmon Eiver and Little Salmon Eiver,
and pronounced it O.K., and it was mainly owing to this sand being accepted that
we entered into contract for this work. We have had a hard season and have spared

544 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

no expense to get all the culverts finished, so as not to delay the grading in anti-
cipation of better work on the viaducts next season. We have asked to be allowed
to use this gravel in a 1-2-4 mixture and were told that we might do so, but we
would only be paid for a 1-3-5 mixture, as the price for the 1-2-4 mixture was too
high. This we consider unjust for other contractors are putting in 1-2-4 mixtures
and are being paid at their 1-2-4 prices for it. If some satisfactory arrangement
cannot be made, we would like to cancel our contract with you."

Mr. Kitchen goes on to say that Mr. Grant came down in January, 1909, and
went over the work with you. What do you say Mr. Grant did when he came down ?
— A. On January 1st, 1909, Mr. Grant told Mr. Balkam in my presence that he
would allow 1-2-4 in all shafts of pedestals at Salmon River. I asked him if that
meant the entire work of all the concrete, and he said no, the shafts only, and I
remember asking him the yardage ; he told me about 7,000 yards ; that looked a little
larger; and then again I thought it might cover Caton and Graham Brook, where
we put in about that much of 1-2-4.

Q. Did you ask him if it covered Caton and Graham Brook? — A. • No. I
asked him how many yards at 1-2-4.

Q. You did ask him about the Salmon Eiver then ? — A. Yes.
Q. You had no right to think it was in some other place? — A. No.
Q. On that authority, whatever it amounted to, you put it in in the three
places; is that right? — A. Well, we had instructions to put it in — at least, the
concrete inspectors had instructions to see that it was put in at Caton and Graham
Brook.

Q. They told you so? — A. Yes,

Q. Who told you so at Caton and Graham Brook? — A. The inspector.
Q. What was his name ? — A. I cannot recall his name ; I think it is Patter-
son; I would not be positive.

Q. Can you say how much more concrete did you put in, in making a 1-2-4
mixture than you would have put in, in making a 1-3-5 mixture — how much more
cement? — A. Well, it would be pretty hard for me to answer that question.

Q. You can tell it roughly? — A. The engineers made tests of the sand and
gravel from time to time, and they would have to change the quantity of cement —
Q. What does the " 1 " stand for ? — A. One of cement.
Q. And the "2''?— A. It would be sand.

Q. Atid the " 4 " ? — A. It would be crushed stone, or whatever you might u^e.
Q. So that you would use those proportions in a cubic yard, if you used that
mixture? — A. Well, that would not make a cubic yard.

Q. It would, if you had enough of it; 1-2-4 is only a division of a cubic yard?
— A. Yes, that is quite right.

Q. And one seventh, in tbat case, would be cement, would it not, in a 1-2-4
mixture ? — A. . I am not quite clear on that.

Q. There are seven parts and only one of cement; so that one seventh would
be cement? — A. Yes.

Q. In seven yards of concrete there would be one cubic yard of cement, would
there not?— A. Well, it might.

Q. That would be the proportion theoretically? — A. Yes.
Q. If you make it 1-3-5 it would be one-ninth of cement; eight parts of sand
and gravel and one of cement? — A. I am not familiar enough with that to tell.

Q. Why should you be paid any more than for the additional amount of
cement you put in in the richer mixture, when it was done in order to relieve you
from going abroad for gravel? Can you answer that? — A. Xo.

Q. The only difference in cost to you was the additional cement, was it not ? —
A. Well, more than that, Mr. Chairman.

k

:nyestigating COMMISSIOJ^ 545

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. What would he the difference in cost to you ? — A. There "was more waste
in connection with the bags. We have a great number of bags of cement to carry
to our work: more loss in bags, and, generally, mixing 1-2-4, we just mix that
proportion and put it in. We do not mix up a yard. We mix it both by hand, and
it would cost the same to mix a batch of 1-2-4 as 1-2-5, only we do not get the
quantit}' of concrete at each mixture.

Q. You did not mix this stuff by hand ? — A. The greater part of the pedestal
shafts; they were only small.

Q. Do you know what it really cost you ? — A. No.

By Mr. Gutelins:

Q. Don't you know what your cement cost you ? — A. Well, we could hardly
determine that. You understand, hauling cement practically for miles in the coun-
try, there is more or less loss, loss of bags, and it would be hard to determine the
cost.

By the Chairman :

Q. I should think there would be an infinitesimal difference in the loss. How-
ever, that is what you say. That is the difference to you ? — A. Yes.

Q. In your judgment it was not necessary to make the change, anyway, "was
it? — A. I think the sand would make an average concrete, using it in a 1-3-5.

Q. How many thousand dollars' difference does it make in the work ? — A. I
could not tell you off-hand ; I really do not know,

Q. Did you get any cost at all on your work, or any price as to how you were
doing, or did you just do the work and draw the money and take the chances on
whatever profit there was in it? — A. I cannot say that: it is hard to refresh your
memory on work that has been done three years.

Q. Did you make this concrete work larger than the specifications required?
— A. You mean the shafts?

Q. Yes? — A. Xo, we built our shafts as directed.

Q. But you had a specification for them? — A. We had a plan.

Q. Did you exceed the plan? — A. ISTo.

Q. In quantities? — A. I am not so sure about that. The shafts varied in
height.

Q. Did they vary in thickness ?— Not on top.

Q. An}Tvhere? — A. Well, along the shaft, of course, the greater the batter
the greater the base would be.

Q. That would be shown on the plan ?— A. No ; they built the pedestals, as
far as I can understand, to suit the contour of the ground.

Q. Was there any specification showing the size of these pedestals ? — A. Yes.

Q. I am asking you now, did you exceed in the quantities the amount showB
on the plan in these pedestals? — A. I am not familiar with that.

Q. You ought to know something about this business? — A. Well, we were
directed to put in a pedestal a certain height here, and a certain height over there,
as the case might be. There were not any two, I do not think, the same height from
the footing course to where the shoe plate of the steel rested.

Q. The height would be regulated by the contour of the earth ? — A. Yes.

Q. But the size of the pedestals would not be, except as to height? — A. No,
the size on top would not be.

Q. Nor the size at the base? — A. The base increases as it goes down.

Q. Did you build the culverts according to the specification? — A. Most of
them, I think, we were ordered to increase the depth of the footing on account of
requiring a good foundation.

123.— 35

546 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. Were you ordered to increase the depth of the footings in many cases?—
A. I do not remember, Mr. Chairman ; in a few cases, I think.

Q. Was it necessary, in your judgment? — A. Yes.

Q. You say there were only a few cases of that kind; is that correct? — A.
Well, I could not tell you the number of them off-hand; no doubt there would be
several on a contract of that size.

Q. Do you remember how many culverts you put in ? — A. No.

Q, Did you have any claim' for extra work? — A. Yes.

Q. What for? — A. For diverting watercourses with culverts and increasing
the size of foundations.

Q. What did your extras amount to in cash ? — A. I do not remember.

Q. Was it a large or small amount? — A. Not a large amount at all.

Q. $1,000? — A. Yes, there would be more.

Q. You know about what it was, do you not? — A. I cannot recall the exact
amount.

Q. You can recall it approximately? Give me it in round numbers? — A. I
would not like to say just what it was.

Q. What is your recollection? — A. I would think two or three thousand
dollars.

Q. All over your whole contract? — A. Well, it would be — yes, it would be
more than that over all the contract. Some of our work was sublet.

Q. What prices did you get for 1-2-4? — A. Off hand I could not give you
the exact figures.

Q. Surely you remember something about this? — A. I have not seen our
contract for so long.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. I have a copy of your contract before me, and it reads : "concrete, 1-2-4
$10; 1-3-5 $8.50; 1-3-6 $8?— A. Yes.

Q. The difference between 1-3-6 and 1-2-4 then, in your contract with Mr.
Kitchen, was $2 a yard? — A. Yes.

Q. 1-3-5 is $8.50; it was to be 1-3-5 originally in the pedestals and 1-3-6
in the footings; was that the original mixture? — A. I am not sure.

Q. It was understood with you that the price for 1-2-5 of $11.50 was to be
used, was it not? — A. Yes.

Q. And this Little Salmon River viaduct is on your contract? — A. Yes.

Q. So that it would be included? — A. Yes.

Q. Your price for 1-2-5 is $8.75?— A. Yes.

Q. So that the difference, so far as you are concerned, is between $8.75 and
$10 for the concrete in question? — A. Yes.

Q. I know you are a concrete man, and I know you have some general ideas
about the cost of various mixtures, and I want to help you get this cleared by sug-
gesting that the differcjnce in the amount of cement used in 1-2-4 and 1-2-5 is one
bag of cement when you are making batches of a cubic yard. Does that sound about
right to you^ — one bag more of cement in ihe 1-2-4 than in the 1-2-5? Just
roughly? — A. No. I think it would take more.

Q. Did you use one yard batches in your machine?— A. In some of our
machines I did.

Q. Does not an extra bag of cement strike you, as a concrete man, as being
about the difference between 1-2-4 and 1-2-5? About three bags for 1-2-5 and
four bags for 1-2-4 in mixing yard batches? Does that not look about right?— A.
No, I cannot say that it does.

Q. Well, what is right?- A. We used seven bags of cement to a yard,
1-2-4.

INYESTIGATING COMMISSION 547

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. What was the size of the bags ? — How many bags in a barrel ? — A. Four.
Q, You used seven bags to a yard? — A. Yes; no fillers allowed in the work.

By the Chairman :

Q. How many bags in the 1-2-5? — A. I cannot say; there was not very
much 1-2-5 used.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. That is what you used to start with. "Would five bags be about right?
— A. Five would be about right.

Q. The difference, then, betu'een 1-2-5 and 1-2-4 is two bag5 of cement, or
half a barrel ? — A. Yes.

Q. What would that cement cost you at the railway station? — A. I do not
recollect just what it would be, it is so long ago.

Q. Well, you know within ten cents? — A. If I remember right, it was $2.20.

Q. How far did you have to haul it to Salmon Eiver? — A. Some of it nine
miles.

Q. How far did you haul the remainder? — A. Fourteen.

Q. Would the average haul be twelve miles? — A. The average haul would
be about 13 miles.

Q. How many barrels would they haul on one sled? — A. It varied, accord-
ing to the road ronditions.

Q. Did you haul on your own teams ? — A. No.

Q. What did it cost 3'ou to have it hauled ? — A. It cost us 40 cents a barrel
and in some cases sixty.

Q. The average 50 cents a barrel? — A. Yes.

Q. That would make your cement cost you $2.70 a barrel? — A. Yes.

Q. And your difference between 1-2-4 and 1-2-5 being half a barrel, would be
$1.35 a 3'ard ?— A. Yes.

Q. I see that you bid for 1-2-5 $8.75 and for 1-3-5 $8.50; 25 cents a yard
difference between those two mixtures, when the cement difference is practically the
same. According to that statement, you would be losing $1.10 if you had to build
very much 1-3-5, as compared with your price for the 1-2-5? (Xo answer.)

Q. The point I want to make is that the difference in cost to you between
these two mixtures of cement, according to your own figures, which have been
liberal, is $1.35 a yard? — A. Yes.

Q. Referring to the letter which the chairman read to you a few minutes
ago, in which you stated to Mr. Kitchen that other contractors were being paid
1-2-4 price for 1-2-4 mixture, what other contractor do you refer to? — A. I refer
to a bridge at Four Mile Brook on Lyons & White's contract.

Q. Do you happen to know that that was a special arrangement between the
chief engineer's office and Lyons & White? — A. Xo.

Q. Simply hearsay? — A. Xo.

Q. Why did you make the statement? — What authority had you for mak-
ing the statement? — A. From the contractor who was putting in the concrete.

Q. He told you they were getting the 1-2-4 price for that material? — A.
Yes.

Q. Did 3'OU know it was the result of a special arrangement or bargain? —
A. Xo.

Q. If he had told you it was the result of a special bargain, you would have
endeavoured to make a similar bargain? — A. Xo.

Q. You would have tried to have done the same thing as he did? — A. Xo,
I cannot say that.

Q. Did you have any definite understanding with Mr. Balkam or Mr. Foss
that vou were to receive $io a yard for that 1-2-4 concrete? — A. Verbally.

548 TfATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. With either of these gentlemen? — A. Yes.

Q. Did not Balkam simply tell you he would put it in? — A. He and Mr.
Grant would allow 1-2-4 mixture.

Q. You are resting on Mr. Balkam and Mr. Grant telling you personally
that tliey would allow 1-2-4 price for that 1-2-4 mixture? — A. Yes. If they
would allow 1-2-4, we had a price for 1-2-4, the same as any other mixture. If they
had said 1-2-4 I would expect to be paid for it in the same way. They mentioned
1-2-4.

Q. But what they really intended to do, as I read it, is that they agreed to
permit you to use 1-2-4 of that native sand and gravel and would pay you the
schedule of 1-2-5 ? Permit instead of allow ? — A. We had a letter from Mr. Bal-
loch ordering us to discontinue the 1-2-4 at Graham Brook and putting in 1-2-5.

Q. I have a statement before me showing that on your work there was used
1-2-4 concrete in masses, item 59a, 5136 yards, covering work on 37 different
structures; does that look about right? — A. Yes; that is on the 31 miles —

Q. On the whole contract of Mr. Kitchen? — ^A. Yes.

Q. I would like you to be quite clear as to whether Mr. Grant said he would
allow you 1-2-4 for that concrete. Do you remember distinctly that Mr. Grant
said it? — A. I have a note of it here, taken at the time, both Mr. Grant and Mr.
Balkam, in my presence.

Q. You are quite sure about that? — Yes. He told Mr, Balkam in my pres-
ense that he would allow 1-2-4 in the pedestal shafts.

By Mr. Kitchen :

Q. When you were ordered that two would not be paid for the 1-2-4 mix-
ture, did you intend to go on using 1-2-4 and get paid for it at the 1-2-5 price ? —

A. No.

Q, When you were ordered to go on with the 1-2-4 mixture, did you expect to
be paid for that mixture at the 1-2-4 or 1-3-5 price? — A. At the 1-2-4 price.

Q. I thought I heard you say you had a letter from Mr. Mitchell, the chief
inspector of cement, writing to you from Ottawa, saying the sand was all right?
—A. Yes.

Q. You have not that letter ? — A. No, I have a note of it here.

Q. About the payments of your estimates, were you being paid for the 1-2-4
mixture before Mr. Grant came down? — A. Yes.

Q. After Mr. Grant told Mr. Balkam this in your presence, and you after-
wards received word from Mr. Balloch to go on with this work, how long did you
get the 1-2-4 price ? — Did you get it afterwards ? — A. No ; it was returned in the
estimates until some time in December, 1912.

Q. AVas it not 1913? You did not know about it till you got your final
estimate ? — A. No.

Q. You did not know it was cut out ? — A. No.

Q. It was fair for you to assume it was the 1-2-4 price, and you were being
paid for it right along? — A. Yes.

Q. And no talk that you would not get the 1-2-4 price? — A. No.

By Mr. Guielius :

Q. What was the greatest depth you had to go for foundations of the footings
of the Little Salmon Kiver Viaduct?— A. 22 feet.

Q. What method did you use to reach that depth? — A. We built an open
caisson and excavated inside.

Q. To the bottom? — A. Yes, and we put on rails and rocks to weight it
down and have it properly braced.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 549

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. You had no trouble to make it 23 feet with that character of open cais-
son construction? — A. Xo; and vre used the pumps all the time while we were
doing it.

Q. To keep out the water? — A. Yes.

Q. Supposing you had been compelled to go to 40 feet, would you have used
tlie same method of sinking ? — A. The same method of sinking, but with a heavier
style of dam.

Q. That is, you would puddle on the outside? — A. Yes; we used pockets to
make it puncture through.

Q. Filled with concrete? — A. Xo, filled with sand, so as to increase the
weight sufficient to carry down the open caisson with your excavation.

Q. Suppose you had a pier 40 feet long and 16 or 18 feet wide, and 40 feet
to solid foundation, would you have adopted the same method of construction? —
A. Yes. The same method of construction, with a heavier type of cutting edge,
and use concrete for weight instead of sand.

Q. That is, your puddling space would be filled with concrete? — A. Yes,
to make the walls stronger.

Q. To make the walls strong enough to withstand the external pressure? —
A. Yes.

Q. If it were necessary to go through eight or ten feet of water, would you
use the same method? — A. Overlaving the mud?

Q. Yes?— A. Yes.

Q. In such a case as last described to yo'i, would you, under any circimi-
stances, use pneumatic caisson, 40 feet, 18 by 40, ten feet of water? Forty feet
total depth; you have 10 feet of water then 30 feet of mud, then solid foundation;
would you use the same method ? — A. Yes.

Q. Would it be cheaper than the pneumatic caisson? — A. In my experience
it would be.

Q. You might tell us of the deepest of your open caisson pier construction?
— ^A. The deepesf done to date would be 69 feet, in 38 feet of water, at low water,
to begin with.

Q. And at high water?— A. About 62.

Q. And you went into the mud how deep it that place ? — A. About 23 or 24
feet into the mud.

Q. Where was that pier located? — A. At the Bear Eiver bridge on the
Dominion Atlantic Railway.

Q. Do you think of another one deeper than 40 feet from the top of the
water? — A. We have one we are preparing for now 105 feet from low water to
ledge.

Q. To the bottom of the foundation? — A. Yes.

Q. And that is being built in open caisson? — A. Yes.

By the Chairman:

Q. Why did you build it with open caisson? Was it because you could do
it cheaper? — A. Yes.

Q. Could you do it as quickly? — A. Yes, when I consider our excavation
is done by means of orange peel buckets.

Q. The open caisson work is cheaper and more expeditious than the pneu-
matic caisson ? — A. Yes, in my experience.

Q. Is there a marked difference in the price? — A. Well, yes, I would say
there was. I have known cases where there has been as high as $14 a yard paid
for excavations in pneumatic caisson.

550 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914
By Mr. Gutelius :

Q. Whereas in the open caisson yon could do it for A. The average

price would be $5 to $7.

Q. So that the cost of the excavation in the open caisson is about half what
it would be in the pneumatic caisson? — A. Yes.

(EVIDENCE TAKEN IN N.T.R. OFFICES, OTTAWA, APRIL 9th, 1913.)
Alexander Macdougall, sworn:
By Mr. Gutelius :

Q. You are a member of the firm of O'Brien, Fowler and Macdougall? —
A. Yes.

Q. Did your firm have a contract with the Commissioners of the National
Transcontinental Railway for the construction of an engine house at Graham? —
A . Yes.

Q. Was this to be paid for by schedule prices, or by a lump sum? — A.
Schedule prices.

Q. With whom did you arrange these schedule prices? — A. The Chief Engi-
neer Lumsden, and Chief Engineer Grant, and I think some of them with Mae-
Pherson.

Q. But the final effect of whatever arrangement you made was with the
Commissioners? — A. Yes, they approved afterwards.

0. Did you build this ensrine house yourself? — A. Well, we sublet it.

Q. To whom did you sublet? — A. Farlinger and Maodonald.

Q. Among the schedule prices, I notice that you received $17 a cubic yard
for concrete of 1-3-61/2 mixture; is that correct? — A. Yes.

Q. The records show that the total in connection with this concrete was
$90,191? — A. About 5,000 yards, yes. Could I make an explanation there?

Q. Yes. — A. The price of the concrete was taken from the price of con-
crete in the main contract, you know.

Q. Then you received $17 a cubic yard for concrete in bridges and culverts?
— A. Yes, and walls of buildings and foundations; it ran from $16 to $20, and
$17 was arranged as a fair price.

Q. What did you pay these sub-contractors per yard for concrete? — A. $10.

Q. And you paid them on the same yardage basis that your own estimates
were made? — A. Yes.

Q. How did the other items in the schedule of prices with your subcontrac-
tors compare in the matter of profits with the concrete prices? — A. Do you ask
me if the percentage of profit on the other item was the same?

Q. Or something near like it? — A. No, it was not.

Q. Was there a fair margin of profit in each of the items? — A. Not on
each of them, no.

0. Not a fair margin? — A. No.

Q. What is a fair margin? — A. A fair margin ordinarily — oh, fifteen per
cent, I presume.

IXTESTIGATING COMMISSION 551

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Have you any idea what the total profits of that contract with Farlinger
and Macdonald amounted to? — A. In the neighbourhood of $50,000, practically.

Q. Is this the only building you had under your concrete contract ? — A. Xo ;
the Armstrong roundhouse.

Q. How did that compare in prices with the_one at Graham? — A. A little
higher.

Q. Margin of profit a little higher? — A. Xo.

Q. About the same? — A. Xo, a little less.

(NATIOXAL TEAXSCOXTIXEXTAL RAILWAY IXVESTIGATIXG
COMMISSIOX; QUEBEC, MAECH 12th, 1913.)

(EVIDEXCE TAKEX IX THE OFFICES OF THE TEAXSCOXTIXEXTAL

EAILWAY.)

Alfred Curzon Dobell, sworn —

I

By the Chairman :

Q. You are a practising advocate in Quebec? — A. Yes.

Q. And have practised here for severaJ years? — A. Yes; eleven vears, I
think.

Q. I believe you have a power of attorney to act for the Duchess of Bassano
in connection with her business in the Province of Quebec? — A. Xo, it was only
regarding the property she owned up Champlain street in the City of Quebec.

Q: Did you make any lease of any portion of the Duchess of Bassano's pro-
perty?— A. On the 25th February", 1908, I gave a lease, and this lease ran out
on the first of May, 1909, but it was tacitly renewed from year to year. There was
a provision in the lease that I could give the lessee six months' notice to quit.

Q. What you mean is that, after the expiry of the lease by effluxion of time^
the tenant continued in possession of that property as a tenant from year to year,
subject to be put out of possession on six months' notice, ending with any one
year? — A. Six months' notice at any time.

Q. What was the name of that tenant? — A. Xapoleon Martineau, junior.

Q. Where doe(? he live? — A. He lives in Quebec, and he rented this
property at that time for an ice house.

Q. Where is this property? — A. 2525 Champlain Ward.

Q. What do you mean ? — A. It is designated and known upon the Cadastral
plan, and in the book of reference for Champlain Ward in the City of Quebec
under number 2525.

Q. And it is situated where? — A. Xear the west end of the City on the
Eiver front.

Q. Below the citadel ? — A. Below the citadel, further west than the citadel.

Q. But below the cliff?— A. Yes.

Q. What is the size of the property? — A. A piece of land measuring 37
feet by 60 feet.

Q. 37 feet frontage, running from the street to the water? — A. Well, I
could not tell you that.

Q. Look at the plan. Do you know whether it ran to the water edge? — A.
The building, no.

658 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. But the property? — A. No, it does not.

Q. Describe the property that is covered by the lease you speak of? — A.
Well, it is a property running alongside of Champlain Street, with a measurement
of 37 feet.

Q. Does it run back to the water? — A. iS'o, it does not.

Q. What is there between it and the water? — A. If I remember right, part
of the old wharf.

Q. There is land between it and the water? — A. Well, it is made land.

Q. But who owns the water front there? — A. We do.

Q. Did you rent him the water front? — ^A. No, it is just the size of the
building.

Q. You say " I leased to him a piece of property 37 by 60, entirely covered
by a building"? — A. Well, he put up the building.

Q. He put up a building which entirely covered the land leased to him?—
A. Yes.

Q. This building fronts on Champlain street, but does not go down to the
water's edge? — A. iSTo.

Q. You did not lease to him the land between the water's edge and the
building? — A. ISTo; of course, remember, he put up the building.

Q. Napoleon Martineau put a building on this land, did he? — A. Yes.

Q. What was it? — A. An ice house.

Q. And he continued your tenant of this property for how long? — A. Well,
he paid me rent up to the 1st May, 1912.

Q. And what was the rent he paid you? — A. It was $75 a year.

Q. And that lease was in writing? — A. Yes.

Q. And you have a copy of it in your possession? — A. Yes.

Q. Then did you terminate his lease on the 1st of May, 1912? — A. Well, I
told him in the summer of 1911 that we had received — when I say we, my brother
and myself look after my mother's estate, which adjoins the Bassano property, and
we ran the two properties more or less jointly — that we had, I cannot say whether
it was to me or my brother, received notice that we were not to relet any property
after the 1st of May, 1912.

Q. From whom did you say you had received that notice? — A. I cannot say
that I got it myself, but I understood that it came from the Transcontinental
Commission.

Q. Either to you or to your brother a notice was given by the Transcon-
tinental Commission that they intended to take this property? — A. A part of it,
and that we were not to relet.

Q. What did Napoleon Martineau do? — Did he leave the property on the
1st of May? — A. I first of all must tell you that some time in September of 1911,
he came to me and asked me if I would give him a complete discharge of all rent
that he owed me, and I told him that he owed me a certain amount.

Q. How much did you tell him he owed you? — A. He owed me either a
year or a half year's rent, I have forgotten which.

Q. In September, 1911, Napoleon Martineau came to you respecting this
property? — A. Yes.

Q. What did he want? — A. He wanted to settle for the rent for the balance
of the lease.

Q. lie wanted to make a settlement with you for his rent up to the 1st of
May, 1912?— A. Yes.

Q. And then did you make a settlement with him? — A. I took an order
on the Garrison Club.

Q. You did have a settlement with him? — A. Yes.

Q. So that you had no further claim on him personally for rent up to the 1st
of May, 1912, respecting that property. What did he want to make this settlement

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 553

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

with you for ? — A. I understood, either from him or from somebody else, I cannot
recall which, that his desire to make this settlement with me was so that he might
be able to sell tlie icehouse.

Q. To whom did you understand he wished to sell the icehouse? — A. I
subsequently learned it was to Raoul Bergevin.

Q. Who is he? — A. He^is a haberdasher and tailor in the City of Quebec.

Q. How did you subsequently learn this fact? — A. It was when Adolphe
Chevalier, to whom I had rented the balance of the property, showed me a deed,
by which he had sold all his rights to Eaoul Bergevin, and we also learned that
Eaoul Bergevin had bought Chevalier's rights in the property.

• Q. I want you to tell me how you learned that Bergevin bought Martineau's
icehouse? — A. I learned tliis either from Adolphe Chevalier or from Mr. J. P,
Cantin, a Xotary Public, of Quebec.

Bij Mr. GuteJius :

Q. Did you give Martineau any notice that the lease would terminate on the
1st of May, 1912? — A. Yes, I had told liira during the summer I would not be
able to release it.

By the Chairman:

Q. 'VMiy did you tell him that? — A. On account of the notice we had got
from the Transcontinental. I may say that I understood that the Transcontinental
Railway intended to expropriate this property, but whether I had any legal notice
I cannot recollect.

Q. Have you any more personal knowledge from Martineau respecting the
sale which he afterwards made of the icehouse? — A. Xo, sir.

Q. Have you any personal knowledge from Bergevin that he purchased the
icehouse from Martineau? — A. I do not know Mr. Bergevin by sight.

Q. You have had no conversation with him? — A. Xo.

Q. Eespecting this property, is that all the information you can give us? —
A. Yes, regarding that part of it.

Q. Your evidence comes to this : that you were agent for the owner of the
property, that you leased the property to Xapoleon Martineau, $75 a year, that he
put an icehouse on the whole property leased by you to him, and that his lease
terminated by mutual agreement between you and him on the 1st of Mav, 1912?
—A. Yes.

Q. That is correct? — A. Yes.

Q. And that he knew that you could not extend the lease? — A. He knew I
could not renew it.

Q. Did you lease a portion of the property belonging to the Duchess of
Bassano east or west of this? — A. It surrounds that property.

Q. The whole of the property belonging to the Duchess of Bassano on
Champlain street, on which this icehouse, of which you have been telling me,
is situated, had a frontage of how much on Champlain street? It is approximately
450 feet? — A. Yes, approximately.

Q. And did you not lease a portion of that property to a man named Adolphe
Chevalier ? — A. Yes.

Q. What frontage has that property that you leased to Chevalier on
Champlain street? Tell me, roughly speaking? — A. It is the 450 feet, deducting
the frontage occupied by the icehouse. The Chevalier property, therefore entirely
surrounds the icehouse, excepting the street frontage.

Q. It is an irregular piece of land, running to the water's edge ? — A. Going
down to low water mark.

Q. Are there two piers on it? — A. Yes, I believe so.

554 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. And it has two piers running out into the water? — A. Yes.

Q. These are all ruin,ous piers? — A. They are in a fair condition.

Q. You let the land we have been endeavouring to describe to Chevalier? —
A. Yes.

Q. When did you let it to him?— A. On the 1st of October, 1908.

Q. Under a written lease? — A. Before Notary Campbell, of this City.

Q. At what rent? — A. It varies.

Q. Kead the clause about the rent? — A. The sum of $350 for the first year,
expiring on the 30th April, 1910, the sum of $375 for the second year, expiring on
the 30th April, 1911, and the sum of $400, for the third year, expiring on the 30th
May, 1912.

Q. It was a three year lease? — A. Yes.

Q. Any right to renew? — A. No.

Q. Did he occupy the property? — A. Yes.

Q. What with? — A. He had a repairing slip for schooners and barges, and
such like.

Q. What was his business? He was a ship repairer? — A. Ship repairer.

Q. Did he build a slip there? — A. He built a slip there himself.

Q. Was it a moveable structure? — A. Yes, it could be removed.

Q. It was a wooden structure, put in for the purpose of holding vessels while
they were being repaired? — A. It was a moveable cradle, that could be slipped
under a ship, and pull it up on the bank.

Q. On rollers? — A. Yes. The rollers were, if I remember right, wooden
rails.

It was a contrivance for loading a boat into the water and liauling it up
land for repairs? — A. Yes.
It was a moveable structure? — A. Yes.

Had Chevalier any interest in that property, excepting as a tenant for
three years? — A. No, sir.

Had he any right to acquire any interest in the property? — A. No.
Then he was simply a tenant and no more during all the time he occupied
Exactly.

His interest terminated on the 30th April, 1912? — A. Yes.
And he could remove his slip? — A. Oh, yes, as long as he gave me back
my property op the 1st May, 1912, I bad no further interest.

And you had no pretence to claim you owned the cradle or slip ? — A. No.
I have always understood a slip to mean a channel cut out in the water,
with a dock on each side, in which boats floated; this wooden structure you speak
of is not anything of that description? — A. No, none whatsoever; it is a cradle.

Q. It is a carriage, for carrying boats up on the shore? — A. Yes.

Q. Have you any more information about what Chevalier did with this
property, as to whether he tried to sell this property, or did sell it to anybody? —
A. I know personally that he sold all his rights that he had in the property to
liaoul Bergevin, but he had no delivery of it.

Q. You say he undertook to sell some rights in the property to Raoul Berge-
vin?— A. Yes. 1 produce a notarial co])y of deed or instrument, number 15315,
a sale from Adolphe Chevalier to R. R. Bergevin, where he is described as a
carpenter, and by that he undertakes to sell all liis rights and interest of every
description to the occupation of a certain property, more particularly known and
described on a plan or book of reference for the Champlain quarter in the City of
Quebec, under number 2525, which is the property I have been speaking about.

Q. And by that document he agrees to give possession on the 1st of May,
1912, and the consideration for the sale is $4,000. Does he acknowledge he has
received it by this? — A. Yes.

Q. You notice tliat by this deed, e\hil)it 1, Chevalier only undertakes to sell
his right of occupation to the land, whatever that is? — A. Yes.

Q

on the

Q
Q

Q
Q
it?— A

Q
Q

INTESTIGATIXG COMMISSION 555

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. And he undertakes to deliver possession on the 1st of May, 1912? — A.
Yes.

Q. And he refers to the lease which he has from you as the attorney for the
Duchess of Bassano? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. I suppose he had a copy of that lease in his possession? — A. Yes,

Q. "Was that lease on record? — A, I do not think we ever registered it.

Q. But it was in the possession of Mr. Campbell, the notarv^? — A. Yes.

Q. Who, according to this exhibit, prepared this lease? — A. He prepared
the lease.

Q. So that any person dealing with Mr. Chevalier could have seen that lease
with the notary? — A. Yes.

Q. Had he any right to give possession of this property on the 1st of May,
1912? — A. None whatever.

Q. So that, as a matter of fact, for the $4,000 which he received from Raoul
Bergevin, he gave no consideration whatever? — A. So far as I can see, he got no
value for his money at all.

Q. When did you learn about this deed, exhibit 1? — A. About the 1st Oc-
tober, 1911, when I returned from my holidays, Mr. Cantin. Notary Public, of
Quebec, came into my office, and asked me if I would ratify deed of sale between
Raoul Bergevin and Adolphe Chevalier. I said I would have to see it before I would
ratify it, as Chevalier had no rights, except as tenant on the property ; and he pro-
mised to bring me over the deed, to show it to me. I waited some days, and he
did not come over, and I went to his office, and I was told by C. E. Taschereau,
his partner, that they did not want my ratification at all, as they had got round
it in another way.

Q. What is the name of the firm ? — A. They divide offices, but there is really
no firm.

Q. That is about all you know about that transaction? — A. Yes.

By Air. Gutelius:

Q. Did you advise this man that you would not be able to renew his lease on
account of the Transcontinental Railway? — A. Yes; I notified Chevalier during
the summer of 1911 that I could not renew his lease, as I expected it was going to
be taken by the Transcontinental Commission.

By the Chairman :

Q. Up to the 1st of Januar}-, 1912, did the Transcontinental Commission pur-
chase any of the Bassano property from you? — A. No, they did not.

Q. Did they purchase the property' from you up to the 1st January, 1912, that
you had leased to Martineau ? — A. Xo.

Q. Did the Commission, up to the Isf of January. 19]?, negotiate with you
for the purchase of either of these properties? — A. No, sir.

Q. I understand, however, that the Commission, after the 21st September,
and before the 5th October, fyled an information in the Exchequer Court, to expro-
priate these two properties? — A. I am told the Commission did so. but I cannot
vouch for it, as no papers were ever served on me.

Q. Did they do so, as a matter of fact? — A. Cannon asked me to accept the
information. Mr. Cannon, who was the lawyer for the Commission at Quebec,
askeH me to accept service of informations respecting this part of the property leased
to Chevalier, but he did not serve the papers on me, as I declined to accept service.
I understand the expropriation proceedings did not cover the property which had
been leased to Martineau.

556 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. After Major Leonard became the sole commissioner of the Transconti-
nental in the summer of 1912, I believe you sold a strip through the property leased,
which had formerly been leased to Chevalier, for right of way for the Trans-
continental Eailway? — A. I sold the whole property belonging to the Duchess of
Bassano.

Q. And in that was included the property leased to Chevalier and the property
leased to Martineau? — A, Yes.

Q. Then, if the Commission, in the year 1911, paid to Bergevin, or to any-
body else, a sura of money to compensate them for the expenses of moving the ice
house, they were paying damages for removing the ice house from property which
the Commission had not purchased? — A, There is no reason why they should pay
the sum of money, so far as I know.

Q. A tenant who has a right to remove his fixtures or belongings, erected by
him on the leased land^ by the law of Quebec must remove them, must he not, at
his own expense? — A. Yes.

Q. So that if Martineau, as he did, put an icehouse on the property which he
rented from you, and wished to remove that icehouse^ he must do so during the
currency of the lease, or within a reasonable time after its expiry, at his own
expense ? — A. Yes.

Q. So that if the Transcontinental Eailway Commission purchased the free-*
hold that is the land on which the icehouse stood — after the expiry of the lease,
the tenant Martineau would have no claim against the Transcontinental Railway
for the expense of moving his building, or the loss of trade occasioned to him for
removing the building? — A. If he did not remove it he would have to give up his
claim to it — surrender it to the landlord.

(EVIDENCE TAKEN IN N.T.R. OFFICES, AT QUEBEC, March 13th, 1913.)

Mr. Dobell produces notarial copy of lease between the Duchess of Bassano
and Chevalier, through himself. Exhibit 5.

(Evidence of Martineau and Chevalier in French.)
F. M. Stantox, sworn :
By the Chairman :

Q. What is your position? — A. Accountant, District B, Transcontinental
Railway.

Q. You produce what? — A. The register of the cheques received in connec-
tion with the right of way.

Q. Referring to cheque number 557, 1911-12, payable to A. Doucet, in re
right of way, Raoul R. Bergevin? — A. Yes.

Q. Sold bv Raoul Bergevin for $500?— A. Yes.

Q. Read the entry?— A. Cheque 557, 1911-12, to the order of Mr. Doucet,
to be handed to notary

Q. Name of vendor? — A. Raoul R. Bergevin.

Q. And the amount?— A. $500.

Q. Cheque sent to' whom? — A. C. E. Taschereau.

Q. What is this at the top? — A. Receipted voucher sent to Ottawa; there
was no receipted voucher sent to Ottawa.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 557

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. What is written here? — A. Cheque and voucher sent to D. Hoctor, Chief

Accountant, Transcontinental Eailway for cancellation, October 23rd; deed kept
by Mr. Taschereau.

Q. Why was that cheque returned? — A. Because I received instructions —
I do not remember exactly, but Mr. Taschereau informed us that Bergevin would
not accept the cheque; why, I do not know; the land agent might know, and, as
he would not accept the cheque, we notified Mr. Hoctor to that effect, letter, October
23rd, and we enclosed the cheque in question, and asked him to hold it for a while.
In reply dated October 25th, 191], Mr. Hoctor stated that he would hold the
cheque until the end of the month, awaiting further news. He also noted that the
deed had not been returned to him, and he presumed that it was still held by Mr.
Taschereau, whereupon we wrote to Mr. Hoctor on the 26th October, asking him if
he required us to send him the deed in connection with this matter, to which he
replied on October 27th that this was unnecessary, and that Mr. Taschereau might
hold the deed until the matter was adjusted.

Q. That is all you have to do with it? — A. I know of nothing further.

(EVIDENCE TAKEN IN N.T.R. OFFICES, AT QUEBEC, March 13th, 1913.)
Antheod Teemblay, sworn:
By the Chairman :

Q. What is your position? — A. Assistant Land Agent.

Q. In 1911 what position were you in? — A. That is the position I was in
then.

Q. In Quebec? — A. Yes.

Q. Do you know what cheque number 557 refers to? — A. I would sooner
speak French.

(Answer given in French, and translated by Mr. Rivard.) It was to buy a
certain gridiron from Madame Chevalier.

Q. Were there any negotiations for more than one gridiron from her? — A.
No, just the one.

(Adjourned till 2.30 p.m.)

(EVIDENCE TAKEN IN N.T.E. OFFICES, AT QUEBEC, MARCH 14tb, 1913)
Antheod Teemblay, sworn :
By the Chairman :

Q. You were the secretary, were you not, of the valuators who valued the
right of way and other matters between Champlain Market and the Quebec Bridge,

on the St. Lawrence River? — A. Between the Champlain Market and Point au
Piseau.

Q. As well as the right of way agent for the district ? — A. Yes.

Q. You were assistant right of way agent for the district?— A. Yes, land
agent.

558 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. You produce a copy of the plan which was fyled under the statute by the
Transcontinental Eailway Commission, showing the lands which the Transconti-
nental Railway proposed to expropriate for the purposes of the railway between
Champlain Market and Point.au Piseau? — A. Yes.

Q. We have taken the evidence of a man named Martineau who owned an
icehouse on lot 2525, Champlain Ward, and tliat icehouse is shown on this plan as
" Icehouse, R. R. Bergevin, $3,700, September 23rd, 1911 ". Now that icehouse
was not, according to the plan, on any land which the Commission intended to
expropriate, was it? — A. Not according to the plan that we have fyled in the
Registry Office.

Q. And there never was any plan fyled, was there, by the Commission showing

that they intended to expropriate the land on which that icehouse stood ? — A. No,

Q. And if the Commission paid this man Martineau for this icehouse, they

bought it on land which they had never expropriated; is that not right? — A. That

is right.

Q, Now, tell me, has the Commission bought this land yet? — A. Yes, by
private sale.

Q, Do you know whether or not the Commission have any idea of expro-
priating this land between Champlain street and the water — all the land? — A.
I know there were two propositions at the time that we made the valuation, thf
one was to take all the land between Champlain street and a line parallel with th«r
centre line of the railway about fifty feet south of the centre line, and anothej
alternative was that the Transcontinental was to take all the land between Cham-
plain street and the river St. Lawrence.

Q. But before the Commission changed, that scheme was not carried through;
tliere was no plan laid down? — A. There was no plan deposited.

Q. Was there ever a plan drawn? — A. Yes, and the areas calculated.
Q. But it was never fyled? — A. No.

Q. Do you know that Raoul R. Bergevin received $3,700 on the 30th Sep-
tember, 1911, from the Commission? — A. I can refer to my fyle.
Q. Here are your initials on it? — A, Yes.
Q. You certified that the account was correct ? — A. Yes.
Q. Do you know what that was paid for? . It says it is compensation for
removal of ice house cadastral number 2525, Champlain Ward, Province of Quebec,
$3,700; you know wliat that transaction was? — A. I know wo made several
transactions.

Q. Do you know that one transaction? — A. I do not know for which pro-
perty this is.

Q. It says it is for 2525? — A. Yes, it is tlie Martineau ice house.
Q. You know that transaction was for the removal of the Martineau ice-
house?— A. Yes.

Q. What does this mean?— A. That is a certificate of search in the Registry
Office.

Q. From the evidence which we have before us, Bergevin had nothing to sell
to this Commission, and had no right or claim to damages for removing the ice
house, because he had only bought Martineau's claim, whatever that was, and Mar-
tineau, if he wanted to move his ice house, would liave to move it himself before
the 1st of May, 1012. Did you know wliat Bergevin's rights were?— A. No, I
did not.

Q. What did you mean by putting your approval on here, " Correct, 28th
'September, 1911, A. Tremblav,'"' on the voucher?— A. The voucher means that
the statement as written on the voucher is in conformity with what is intended
in the deed.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 559

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. So that you were not familiar with the trausaclion any more than to see
that the man got what the deed provided he should get? — A. Not exactly that,
because the instructions to the notary were given by me; the notary prepared the
deed.

Q. What instructions did you give to the notary? — A. I gave instructions
to prepare that deed — 1 must have written a letter. I must have said something
like that, that the Transcontinental Railway has bought an ice house that belonged
to Mr. Raoul Bergevin and to prepare a deed of sale for the amount.

Q. It is for compensation for the removal of the ice house, and for damages ?
— A. I do not remember exactly what it was.

Q. Would it not be well to see if you could find that? Could you find it? — A.
I suppose so.

(Witness retired and returns with documents.) Here are the letters.

Q. This letter reads as follows: —

"' I desire to have your instructions in these transactions which we
have to make with Monsieur E. Bergevin, who has acquired the following
properties: Adolphe Chevalier, which he will sell to us for $5,500; Alfred
Beauchamp, $1,500; the claim of Adolphe Chevalier was valued at $3,000
by the valuators, Tanguay and Giroux. Mr. Scott differs in opinion. His
valuation is $6,000; Alfred Berthiaume and Jean Lachance are proprie-
tors in virtue of an emphyteutic lease. Ihe first pays an annual rent of
$25 and the other $18.75 to George and Fred Lampson. The lease to
Berthiaume expires in nine years, and that to Lachance in three years.
After the expiration of the lease the buildings become the property of the
• Lampsons. The valuation for the properties made by the Commission are,
Alfred Berthiaume $532, and Jean Lachance $815. The opinion of the
advocate, Taschereau, on the manner to settle these transactions: we are
to pay the price to the tenant, who has the right to enjoy during the whole
time of his lease. At the expiration of that he should agree to pay the
capital over to the proprietor of the freehold."

The tenant might take it and go off. He enjoys the use of the capital instead of
the property in the meantime.

'■' In each case, our valuation for the two properties are $1,438, and
Bergevin asks us $3,000. However that may be, our valuation for the two
properties is $1,348, while Bergevin claims from us $3,000,"

For what does he claim? Berthiaume and Lachance? — A. Yes.

Q. The letter continues: —

" Alfred Miller is a locataire, but the buildings belonged to him. Our
valuation is $1^926 and Berthiaume claims $3,500."

Here are the instructions to the notary : —

" We have bought from Berthiaume one ice house built on lot 2525,
cadastral, in the Champlain quarter, number 96 B, according to the plan
of the Transcontinental. Will you please prepare contract as soon as
possible."

That is not the contract he prepared. He did not prepare a contract for the pur-
chase of that. How do vou follow that out?

560 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Mr. Dobell: — I do not think Mr. Tremblay has to see those instructions were
followed out; it was the lawyer, 1 think.

Q. You produce a copy of a letter dated August 22nd to C. E. Taschereau,
who was a notary public, in which you tell him that you have bought from Raoul
Bergevin an ice house constructed on lot cadastral number 2525, in the Champlain
quarter, and 96 B on the Transcontinental Railway plan, and ask him to prepare
the contract as soon as possible. The contract, which was signed, is a contract
for $3,700, but the $3,700 by the contract is paid to him as indemnity and com-
pensation for the damage which is caused to him by the demolition of the icehouse.
Why did the notary draw the contract in that shape, and not in the shape in which
you told him by your letter? — A. I do not remember.

Q. Who gave you your instructions? — A. The president.

Q. Mr. Parent? — A. Yes.

Q. What did he tell you in respect of this transaction? — A. Of course 1
did quite a lot of things, and I do not remember exactly what was done in respect
of this particular case, but if I remember right, 1 think Mr. Bergevin came in to
see Mr. Parent when he was here, and I was called in the office here and a dis-
cussion took place between Mr. Bergevin and Mr. Parent as to what he should get
for the properties he had to sell to the Transcontinental, and it was agreed — ^we
consulted the valuation that was made by the valuators, and it was agreed that
the transactions should be made at the price as valued by the valuators.

Q. That is that all the properties that Bergevin sold to the Commission
should be at the valuation made by the valuators? — A. Yes; that was for this
transaction, and, further than that, I had instructions from Mr. Doucet to make
all the transactions for the price given by the valuators, with all those landowners
tliat would be ready to settle with the Transcontinental, whose property had been
valued.

Q. In fact, you were told to make all the transactions, if they would accept
the price fixed by the valuators? — A. Yes.

Q. Did Bergevin and Mr. Parent talk over the damage that Bergevin sus-
tained by moving his icehouse? — A. Yes. In all these cases there was always a
discussion between the owner and Mr. Parent, when they came to see him, and
very often I was called in, and I had to give Mr. Parent my opinion of what we
should do.

Q. Did you give Mr. Tarenl^-any opinion on this transaction ? — A. I do not
think so, I do not remember, but I would have no scruples of recommending to
close the transaction at the price that was valued by the valuators, because I thought
the valuators were responsible.

Q. On this transaction would you have paid him $700 if you had known
lie had to move that icehouse at his own expense? — A. I do not think I wouldj
with what I know now.

Q. But you thought the Commission had to pay the expense of moving that
icehouse? — A. Yes. They had acquired the right-of-way, and it was cheaper to
give this man the value of his building and let him do what he liked with it than
to have the Transcontinental clear the right-of-way down.

Q. Do you mean to tell me it would cost $3,700 to tear that building down?
You could burn it up, could you not, if you owned it? What did you understand
he got that $3,700 for?— A. That was the value of the building.

Q. You notice that the agreement does not state that, does it? You say
in your letter, August 22nd, that you have bought the building from him, and
that you are going to pay him that much money for it ? — A. Yes.

Q. Therefore, you understood yf>ii were buying the building? — A. Yes.

Q. But the notary drew up the document as though you were only paying
him damasres for removing the building? — A. Yes; that is an indemnity.

Q. This document is written in French? — A. Yes.

INTESTIGATI2fG COMMISSION 661

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Is this a correct translation of this : — " Considering that the said party
of the one part is ready to accept the indemnity in compensation for tlje damage
which has been caused to him by the demolition of the icehouse " — that is a correct
translation ? — A. Yes.

Q. " In consequence these presents are made by the said party of the one
part, in consideration of a sum of $3,700, which he acknowledges to have received
from the party of the other part at the time of the execution of these presents,
giving to these latter parties a general and final discharge for all damages which
may be caused to him by the demolition of the said icehouse" — is that correct?
A. Yes.

Q. That is not the transaction you told him to put through at all ? — A. Not
exactly.

Q. Did you notice that when you got back the paper? — A, I do not remem-
ber; I do not think I noticed that, although my signature is there.

Q. Your signature is not there; your signature is on the voucher; it is a dif-
ferent proposition. How did the notary get his instructions? He could not get
them from vour letter alone. Your letter did not give him anv instructions? —
A. No.

Q. Did you go and see the notary? — A. I saw him very often; I do not re-
member giving him any instructions about this ; it is possible, of course.

Q. Did anybody else see him? — A. I do not know.

Q. "Were you present when the document was signed? — A. No.

Q. Mr. Parent signed it? — A. Yes.

Q. And so did Bergevin ? — A. Yes, and the notary.

Q. And they all signed it together; did the three of them sign at the same
time ? — A. No, Mr. Parent signed it in Ottawa, and it was sent on here with the
cheque to the notarv;, and the party signs it when he gets the cheque.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. The original deed had your approval and I^Ir. L. A. Taschereau's approval
on it ? — A. Yes.

Q. Did you see Mr. L. A. Taschereau? — A. No, I did not.

By the Chairman:

Q. Do you know whether he saw that paper? — A. Which paper?

Q. The original document ? — A. He must have seen it, because he signed it.

Q. Did you send it to him ? — A. No, it was not my duty to send it to him.

Q. Whose duty was it? — A. The notary's duty. The notary gets the deed
approved by the lawyer.

Q. If the notary does not know what the facts are, will the lawyer know what
the facts are? — A. I do not think they would know anything about it.

By Mr. Gutelius :
Q. He would only get the information from the notar}', and you instructed
the notary ? — A. Yes.

Q. I do not understand why you, then, in turn, if these people had drawn a
document different from your instructions, approved of it? — A. He might get
it from the notary.

Q. He is the man you instruct; you instruct the notary what to do; he does
it, apparently, and it comes back to you and you approve of it; there must have
been something in between j-our instructions and the time you approved this, to
justify you in this approval. There must have been some other letter about this to
that notary, I think? — A. I do not know.

Q. You might look it up and see if you can tell us to-morrow? — A. I will

(Adjourned till to-morrow.)

123.— 36

66I2- NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

(EVIDEXCPJ TAKEX IN X.T.E. OFFICES, AT QLEBEC,
MARCH 14th, 1913.)

Antheod Teemblay, recalled —

By the Chairman:

Q. Referring to the voucher which I produced to you last night, you certi-
fied that Bergevin was entitled to be paid $3,700? — A. Yes.

Q. And your letter of the 22nd August says $3,700? — A. Yes.

Q. Did you know that Bergevin was acting for the Transcontinental in
making that purchase from Martineau? — A. He bought that from Martineau.
When he bought that from Martineau I did not know he was acting for the Trans-
continental.

Q. When did you learn? — A. Well, I never learned it officially that he
was acting for the Transcontinental.

Q. When did you learn unofficially? — A. Well, during the fall of 1911.

Q. Was he paid a salary, or was he paid an}i:hing by the Transcontinental?
— A. I do not know what his arrangements were.

Q. Did you ever know he only paid $2,000 f^ that? — A. I did.

Q. Where did you learn that ? — A. I got the deed and found out.

Q. And the deed from Martineau to him showed that he only paid $2,000?
—A. Yes.

Q. Did you know that before the purchase was closed? — A. I did.

Q. Did you tell anybody about it? — A. I did,

Q. Whom did you tell it to ? — A. When the deed was in my hand for appro-
val, before I approved of it —

Q. When the deed came — A. When the deed came from the notary's
office.

Q. That is the deed from Bergevin to the Transcontinental Railway? — A.
Yes; when this was in my hands I checked it the same as I checked all the deeds,
and I had the information about what Bergevin had paid, namely $2,000, and I
did not like to approve the deed the way it was, because the purchase was made
only recently, and I spoke to Mr. Doucet about it, and he told me we had nothing
to do with that.

Q. You then put it through? — A. I piit it through then; after I had this
answer from Mr. Doucet, I put it through because I was satisfied that the price in
the contract was the same as the one fixed by the valuators. $3,700. Then I said
to myself, to satisfy myself, that whatever Bergevin had paid — he might have get it
for nothing for all I know — whatever Bergevin had paid, if what the Transconti-
nental had paid was justified by the valuation, my conscience was satisfied.

Q. Anyway, it was taken out of your hands; you did not make the transac-
tion; you just put it through? — A. Yes.

Q. Is that a photograph of the place? — A. Yes; there is a front new and
back view.

Q. What is that building worth as a building in your judgment? — A. I
think it is worth tlie valuation put by the valuators.

Q. How do you figure it out? — A. We have all the details in the valuation.

Q. Are they here? — A. Yes. There is one wooden building used as an ice-
house, 101,088 cubic feet, and it was put at three cents; it was in good order;
it was put at three cents a cubic foot; that amounts to $3,032.64, and, besides
that, a wooden stal)le. paper roof, dimensions 36 by 15 by 16; 8,640 cubic feet,
$3,336.84, to which we add ten per cent, $2,703.52.

INTESTIGATI^'Cr COMMISSION 563

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Why do you think it is worth that much money? — A. Not so much
because I know a lot about building myself, but because the valuation was made by
the architect and real estate agent and business man.

Q. Do you know how much lumber there is in it? — A. Yes, there is the
cubic contents.

Q. Do you know whether it would cost anything like that money to repro-
duce that building? — A. I could not tell you that.

Q. Can you describe the building? I mean, do you know the class of mater-
ial that is in it? — A. You can have a good idea by the photograph.

Q. By the photograph, it appears as if it had been tongued and grooved.
Is it tongued and grooved, or is it clap-boarded? — A. It must be tongued and
grooved, because it is as tight as possible.

Q. Is it sheeted on the inside? — A. Yes.

Q. Just one sheeting? — A. Yes.

Q. What is it sheeted with, do you know? — A. No, I do not know; I did
not make the valuation.

Q. Do you know the size of the studding? — A. No.

(Photographs exhibits 13 and 13.)

Q. It is funny that Martineau should take $2,000 for it?— A. That would
be an evidence of what the value would be to him.

Q. Do you know anything about the Miller transaction.? — A. Yes.

Q. What was that? This is another ice house? — A. Yes.

Q. What was that valued at?— A. $2,500, I think.

Q. Have you the papers there? — A. The valuation of the Miller building is
$1,926.32, plus $489.55.

Q. A total of $2,415?— A. Yes.

Q. I want you to tell m.e the size of the building? Have you the cubic
contents?— A. 82,560 at two cents.

Q. It is not as good a building as the other? — A. No.

Q. WTio was that bought from? — A. From Bergevin.

Q. Do you know what he got from the Transcontinental? — A. He get
$2,500.

Q. What did he pay for it? — A. I do not know.

Q. Have you seen his deed? — A. No.

Q. Miller was a tenant too, was he not? — A. He was a tenant after we
bought.

Q. Was he a tenant before you bought? He did not own the land? — A.
No. He was the tenant of the Transcontinental for a certain time after we
became the owner.

Q. The Transcontinental paid $2,500?— A. Yes.

Q. To Bergevin?— A. Yes.

Q. And allowed Bergevin to occupy the place, or allowed Miller to occupy the
place? — A. Miller occupied tlie place, but he paid $25 a month to the Trans-
continental.

By Mr. Gutelius:

0. When did Millers lease expire?— A. Last May.

Q. It was purchased in September, and expired in May following? — A. Yes.

Q. How do you keep your records in connection with the findings of the

valuators the reports in connection with the findings of the valuators? Is that

public property? — A. Oh, no, it is private property.

Q. How could information in connection with these valuations become public ?
— A. They could not become public, unless they were stolen from my oflSce.

564 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. So that, if authentic figures were given out in connection with the details
of these valuations, you think they would have to be stolen? — A. Yes, but I must
say that in a couple of cases I gave Mr. Bergevin the amount that was valued by
the valuators, by instructions from M. Parent.

Q. You gave some valuator's opinion ? — A. Yes.

Q. Did you ever give any to Morency? — A. I never did.

Q. How could Morency get that information? — A. 1 do not see any way he
could get it, but get it from my staff.

Q. Without your knowledge? — A. Witiiout my knowledge.

Q. Mr. Parent, of course, was familiar with these reports as fast as they could
come in? — A. Oh, yes.

Q. You worked closely with him? — A. Yes.

(EVIDENCE TAKEN IN OFFICES OF N.T.R. AT QUEBEC,
MARCH 13th, 1913.)

Omab Moeency, sworn:

By the Chairman :

Q. You are an employee of the Transcontinental Railway? — A. Yes.

Q. District purchasing agent? — A. Yes.

Q. Do you know a man named Adolphe Chevalier? — A. Yes.

Q. Did you write him that letter, exhibit 10? — A. Yes, that is my letter.

Q. Tell me all about that letter? — A. I tell you really what I know about
that, to the best of my memory. Yes, I can tell you now ; he said — let me remember.

Q. You know all about it? — A, I do not want to tell you something that is
not true; that is 1911; that was about some estimate — something like that.

Q. Do not put up any story on me ; I have some more papers lying around ?
— A. I tell you, I think, if I remember rightly, tliat he asked me " Wliat do you
think of the estimate? Do you know anything of an estimate of the property of
the " some Duchess of something.

Q. Duchess of Bassano ? — A. Yes, that is the only thing.

Q. You wrote him " Dear Sir; I sent you a telegram last night, asking you
to call me up by telephone " ? — A. To my private house.

Q. " And that I had something very important to tell you before you saw your
man "; who is " your man "? — A, Wait a minute.

Q. You know right now? — A. That was a little information I gave him; I
do not remember just wliat information I had to give to him.

Q. What was the man's name? He told you it was Monsieur Parent, the
Chairman of the Transcontinental Railway, and you know it was, don't you? — A.
No, really, I won't tell you something that I don't know very much. I have to be
very careful, because I do not remember very much of the things at that time;
that is a year and a half ago, and it was something very

Q. What you were going to speak to him about perhaps I can help your

memory was about how much money he was going to get for selling his right

to the property that he had leased from the Duchess of Bassano. through Mr. Alfred
Dobell?— A. What I know, I know—

INVE8TIGATIX0 COMMISSION 565

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. And he asked you to find out how much Mr. Scott, the valuator, placed
on his property; was that not right?— A. I would tell you straight, I do not
remember very much of that thing.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. For your own protection, you should tell Mr. Staunton just the truth? —
A. Yes, but Mr. Gutelius, as far as I remember, I remember that Chevalier called
me to my office; that was the fact; he said " I have got an offer for $4,000."

By the Chairman :

Q. For what? — A. For what you call his damage to his property.

Q. His lease? — A. Yes. He said "I know that Mr. Scott said before Mr.
Hoar that five or six thousand was about the value of my property there, for the
damage for the lease ", and he asked me " Do you think Mr. Scott put that in his
report? "?

Q. And you told him you would look it up? — A. Yes.

Q. And you said " If you want to find out anything, you had better go and
see Mr. Parent", did you not? — A. What is that?

Q. Did you not tell him he ought to go and see Mr. Parent himself about it? .
— A. Oh, yes, I suppose I told him that.

Q. And then he went up to Ottawa to see Mr. Parent? — A. I think so.

Q. And did you not then try to find out what the damages were? — A. At

that time 1 knew that not for six months, but the day Mr. Scott and Mr.

Hoar went there, I knew that at that time; I knew Scott put in his report that it
was $6,000.

Q. When he went up to Ottawa it was the end of July, 1911? — A. I do not
remember the date.

Q. You telegraphed him " Please call me on phone immediately, Omar
Morency"; and then there is written down there "Scott $7,000, Giroux $3,000".
I understand you told him over the telephone how much it was, and he wrote that
down on the telegram itself? — A, Yes.

Q. He called you up by the telephone before he saw Mr. Parent, to find out
how much it was that Scott valued the property at; he was trying to get all he
could? — A. I suppose so.

Q. You wrote him that you had sent him the telegram ; you gave him that
memorandum too, did you not? — A. I do not know really who made that; it is
not mine.

Q. I produce this to you, but you do not know who wrote the typewritten
words ? — A. iNTo.

Q. But the other is your writing? — A. Yes.

Q. Marquis de Bassano $59,76-1.95 ; Grenier $3,331.36 ; Martineau $3,703.52 ?
—A. Yes.

Q. What did you give him that paper for? — A. Eeally, I do not remember
that; I know that is my writing, but I do not remember that.

Q. You got the information; that information which is on that is correct,
is it? — A. I suppose so.

Q. You did not give him this information secretly, did you? — A. Eeally, I
tell you that appraisement was made.

Q. Did anybody in the office know you were giving out this information ? —
A. I do not remember.

566 NATIO^'AL TRANSCO^TiyENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. You do not want to remember very badly? — A. Certainly I do. Eeally,

if I remember 1 don't care very much — I will give you all the information

possible.

Q. You are pretty slow at it? — A. Certainly, because it is a thing I never
noticed.

Q. You were very careful in that letter, and you pointed out to him you had
something very important to tell him, and you said " Before you see your man " ; if
you did not want to tell him something on the quiet, you would put the name in
there. You were not born yesterday? — A. No, but I will swear that I do not
remember the name of the man that is mentioned there.

By Mr. Gutelius:
Q.' Mr. Chevalier has told the other side of it; you are on your oath? — A.
Yes, and I am a Catholic, but I tell you really I do not remember the name of the
man that is mentioned there. Now you say it is Mr. Parent; you think it is Mr.
Parent. Mr. Chevalier will know that better than me; that is my writing there,
but I do not remember who typewrote that.

By the Chairman :
Q. Do you typewrite yourself? — A. I can typewrite myself, but that is not
mine. I remember a little of that occasion ; I remember Chevalier came to my
office crying, and saying " If I do not receive $8,000 or $10,000 I will be poor "
and so on and so on, and ruined, and something like that, but I remember he said
that in my office, and he had to see somebody about that, and he talked about Mr.
Fraser, something like that, and he said Mr. Scott told before me — and I knew
that — that Mr. Scott told before me that seven or eight thousand is about the right
amount to give to me — something like that.

By Mr. Guielius :

Q. Where did you find out how much Scott estimated it at? Whore did
you get that paper with those figures on? In your office? — A. No, it was not
at my office.

Q. Whose office did you get it at? — A. I don't know; let me remember;
I can get that if I see the report. We can see by the report.

By the Chairman:
Q. It is in the valuator's report? — A. Certainly.

By Mr. Gutelius :

Q. What right did you have to the valuator's report? — A. If 1 saw that, 1
must have been in that office to get it.

Q. As it looks now, you sneaked into somebody's office and got that infor-
mation?— ^A. No, I never sneaked into anybody's office,

Q. Well, make it clear, how did you get it?— A. I won't swear, but if it
is the same typewriting as this, the report has been made in my office.

Q, You remember where you got those figures? — A. That is about a year
and a half ago; it is hard to remember; if it is the same typewriting as this
letter —

By the Chairman :

Q. What you want to see is the report, and then you can tell where you gut
it?_A. Then I can tell where it had been made; I do not remember that at all;
that thing has been handed to me by somebody; by the typewriter; that- i«: not
my typewriter,

Q. You would not swear that it was not Mr. Parent that you memt in that
letter? — A, No, I know nothing; I do not remember.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSIO?i 567

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. It might have been Mr. Parent you meant in that letter when yon said
" Your man " ? — A. Perhaps.

Q. You knew he vras going up there to see him, did you not ? — A. Yes, but
I do not remember about that ; Mr. Chevalier might tell you it was Mr. Parent, but
I won't swear that; because really I won't swear it was Mr. Parent.

Q. When was Chevalier talking to you about it? Was he not talking to you
to-day about that? How long ago? — A. Mr. Chevalier was kicking about Ber-
gevin, that Bergevin was getting something like that; and he said he would get
an enquiry about Bergevin.

Q. How much did Bergevin get? — A. I do not know.

Q. You know Bergevin did get something? — A, Yes. The public knew it;
everybody knew it-^that he was buying land, selling land for the Transcontinental.
That is as far as I know. If I remember well, Chevalier came to my office and
he said he was to receive only a few thousand dollars for his shipyard, and he
said he was poor; he would have to get seven or eight thousand dollars, something
like that; I do not remember the amount, but it was higher than $4,000, and he
said he did not see why — I remember he has to see somebody in Ottawa, I cannot
say it was Mr. Parent.

Q. But you think it was ? — A. No, I cannot say ; I won't say something that
is not true, but really I do not remember, not at all. Mr. Chevalier told me that,
and I suppose they were making — that is my writing — that document; if you see the
report and it is the same writing as this letter it will be in my office, and I suppose it
was made there.

Q. Did you see Martineau? Did he cojne to you? — A. I do not know
Martineau; is that the ice man?

Q. Yes, the ice man? — A. I know him, but I never see him.

Q. You won't tell us anything more ? — A. Mr. Staunton, if I know anything
1 will tell you. I do not know the date that I gave that.

Q. Bergevin said that he was buying Chevalier's land for the Government,
did he not? — A. Yes.

Q. Told you that? — A. No, he never told me that.

Q. Did he not tell you afterwards? — A. I knew that a long time. It was
public that Bergevin was buying a house and all those things for the Transcon-
tinental. He bought the Thibaudeau house for the Transcontinental Eailway, and
he said before me, about one o'clock this afternoon, " I received a subpoena to
appear before the Transcontinental Investigating Commission, but I cannot go, I
have to go to St. Hilaire this afternoon. I will come to-morrow". He said it was
public. He said, " I purchased the house for the Transcontinental Eailway, and I
paid out of my own pocket, and the nest day the contract was signed by the
Transcontinental ".

Q. He purchased the property for the Transcontinental and paid the money
out of his own pocket, and next day he got it back? — A. He said that.

Q. Were you mixed up in buying these lands at all? — A. No.

Q. Nothing to do with it? — A. No, nothing to do with it.

Q. You simply got the information? — A. I do not know the date. I know
nt that time that everything was settled for $4,000 at that time; he told me that.

Q. Chevalier says you are a friend of his, and you just got him the informa-
tion?— A. He came to my office, but I never gave him anything. W^hen I wrote
him that letter, it was because he left Quebec, and I would not go in any other
office, but if he was here and I got the estimate I would let him know. Now, if
he went to see Mr. Parent or Fraser I do not know anything about it. If he told
you it was Mr. Parent, I suppose it was Mr, Parent. That is my writing, but I
do not remember anything about that part.

Q. That is your writing, the memorandum commencing, " Mr. Scott, one of
our valuators " ? — A. Yes.

GGS NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. And you say that typewriting is not yours? — A. No.
Q. But the penmanship below is? — A. I do not know the date of that,
Q. You did not write that " 69 "—it is in French ?— A. No.
Q. 20th October, 1911, is that pencil writing not yours? — A. No.
Q. Better go away and think it over, and see if you cannot remember some-
thing more? — A. Certainly I will think it over.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. What you have given us now is not clear: if you stop right there it will
not look quite right? — A. I would not tell you anything I was not sure of. 1
remember Chevalier came into my office and said he was getting something like
$4,000, and Scott told me seven or eight thousand dollars, something like that, 1
do not remember, and I said, " I do not know if Mr. Scott put that in his report.
I do not know why I put that down, because it has nothing to do with Chevalier.

Q. Did you get that information for Chevalier for nothing? — A. Certainly.

Q. Who paid for that telegram? — A. I paid myself.

Q. Did you ever get that njpney back ? — A. No.

Q. You are out of pocket on it? — A. It is not marked whether it is collect.

Q. Yes, it is marked "Prepaid"? — A. If I paid for it I suppose I got a
receipt for it upstairs. If the report had been in my office I would certainly have
the information there. Sometimes the reports are made in my office.

By the Chairman :

Q. You told him to call you up by telephone? — A. Yes.

Q. " I have something important to tell you ". If it had only been the
$6,000, you would have told him in the letter. You would not have put him to a
$2 telephone message? — A. It only cost five cents.

Q. You told him to call you up by telephone? — A. I suppose he paid the
telephone.

Q. I suppose it cost him a couple of dollars, and you could have told him in
the letter that $6,000 proposition. " Call me up by telephone, I have something
important to tell you before you see your man ". It is ridiculous to say you had
not anything more to tell him than that. Do you mean to tell me you have for-
gotten that? — A. I won't say more; 1 know nothing more.

Q. Think about it till to-morrow; you know what we are after? — A. All
right.

(EVIDENCE TAKEN IN N.T.R. OFFICES AT QUEBEC,
MARCH 13th, 1913).

Camille Lockwell, sworn: —

By the Chairman:

Q. Wliat is your business? — A. Kcal estate and pop business. I am man-
ager of a pop business.

Q. Lockwell and Leclerc? — A. Yes.

Q. Real estate dealers in Quebec? — A. Yes,

Q, You sold a piece of property to the Transcontinental Railway on October
20th, 1911, in Quebec, cadastral 2268? — A, Oh, yes, yes, yes, on Champlain
street.

IXTESTIGATING COMMISSION 569

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. You see the map in front of us here? — A. Yes.

Q. And the property is marked on the map that we show you, Lockwell and
Leclerc, $8,152.65. and then ditto, ditto, $12,214.40, and then coma= J. C. Hearn,
$5,950 and then Lockwell and Leclerc $9,443.52. The three Lockwell and
Leclerc properties are in red ink. What are those properties? What are they used
for? — A. For private houses.

Q. What sort of buildings? — A. There is the corner in stone and the two
others in brick.

Q. How many storeys? — A. One of three storeys, one of five and the last
one is four or five again.

Q. You bought these properties, did you not, from Belanger? — A. Y^es,
Major Belanger.

Q. What did you pay for them? — A. We paid for those $3,500, I think;
well, it is hard for me to swear; I have to see the contract. I was just calling at
Mr. Parent's office, and you called me in, and it is hard to swear, but I do not
remember the exact figures now.

Q. It is not $3,500 : it is $35,000 ?— A. Yes, to the best of my knowledge,
but I would not swear the exact figure; something round that.

Q. Did you sell them to tlie Commission? — A. Yes.

Q. How much did you sell them for? — A. I think I sold them for $30,000.

Q. Did you sell them for less than you gave for them? — A. Yes, because
when the Government took that, we really believed the station would never be
built there, and we had better sell them the lot.

By Mr. Gutelius :

Q. Whose money did you buy them with? — A. Our own money.
Q. Who furnished the money you bought them with? — A. We did.
Q. Y^'ourself and Leclerc? — A, Yes, and then we had two or three friends.
Q. How much money did you and Leclerc put in of your own cash? — A. I
think v/e just made monthly payments.

Q. What proportions did your friends hold? — A. One-fifth or one-sixth.

By the Chairman :

Q. Who put up the money to buy them? Did you pay the people for
the property? — A. We paid the people for it, but Belanger settled with us; he
had a share.

Q. How much did Belanger have in it? — A. Belanger had — I am not sure.

Q. He owned it all? — A. Belanger had the whole thing.

Q. You did not pay Belanger any real money? — A. Yes, we did.

Q. How much? $50 ? — A. Oh, more than that; 1 do not remember. We
make a straight sale; it was a straight sale, Belanger to us.

Q. Did you pay him $100 in all? — A. Oh, more than that.

Q. Take another run at it, and tell me what did you pay on it? — A. We
should have paid Belanger in cash a few thousaiid dollars; I do not remember
well, but if you wait till to-morrow I will bring papers and everything and give
it better. I do not see why I should be here without being advised.

Q. That is fair enough; I thought you knew what we wanted you for? — A.
^0, I did not. At first we thought the station was going to be there, and later
on, after the election of 1911, we saw two or three weeks afterwards that Sir
Rodolphe Forget stated at Ste. Anne de Beaupre, in his own county, that the station
will never be there, and Mr. Parent was Chairman of the Commission, and I tried
to find some of his good friends, and I went to Ottawa, and we had the offer made
before the election of $30,000, and we took it, and 1 said : " We had better get out
of this affair and put our money in other business." Belanger was the sole pro-

570 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

prietor and he was living in Winnipeg or Calgary; he was an old Quebecker; he
came down to our office and he says : " I have a chance to make money with the
Commission; in case the station is built on Champlain market, we will do our
best to make a few thousand dollars on that"; and I says, " Belanger, we will
form a little syndicate of a few friends, three or four of us, and you will stay with
us, and if you take a share of it we will give 3'ou so much ", I do not remember the
amount, but every month we Vv^ere paying to Belanger $100, I think it was $200 a
month we gave him, and if we sold to the Commission we were going to share up
with Belanger.

Q. And if you did not, you were to give back the property? — A. Oh, no.

Q. Were you going to give up your money? — A. Yes, and Belanger would
lose his share, and he will lose one-sixth of the lot, whatever it was.

Q. Did you lose any money on the deal ? — A. Certainly we did.

Q. How much did you lose ? — A. Tliree or four thousand.

Q. Have you paid Belanger yet? — A. He is paid; there is a tax account
of a few hundred dollars.

Q. Will you bring down the cheques, showing what you paid Belanger? —
A. I do not know if I could do that; I will show you the notes we gave him.

Q. Will you try and prove to us that you lost money on this deal? — A.
Yes, I will show you what we have paid Belanger, all the notes we gave him in
settlement of the transaction, if you like.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. Whatever you consider necessaiy to show us the transaction ; you can tell
from what you have what would fit? — A. I do not understand.

By the Cli airman :

Q. We want you to show us a genuine transaction. I am not disputing
ycrur word. I can quite understand how you would go into a transaction of this
kind, and the public think there is a good deal of crooked work about these trans-
actions, and the public say "Why, he never gave Belanger $35,000 and sold for
$30,000." You were going to sell for $30,000 ?— A. I am not quite sure if that
is the amount.

Q. How much did you want to get from it? — A. We asked. I think, $45,000;
I am not sure; I think we asked $45,000.

Q. How much did you intend to take? — A. We were going to split our
profit between us.

Q. You said to the Commission you wanted $45,000? — A. Yes.

Q. But wliat did you intend to take? — A, Our intention was to get $45,000.

Q. And divide how much profit — A. All the profit there would be in it.

Q. How much profit would there be in it? — A. There would be then about
$15,000. We are a syndicate, and we make our profit on our syndicate; it is private
business at our office.

Q. Did you lose money on the transaction? — A. Xot me, but the syndicate
loses.

Q. How much did they lose? — A. The syndicate lost two or tliree thousand;
T would not swear the exact amount, but round that.

Q. You went up and saw Mr. Parent and coaxed him to buy it and take it
ofE your hands at the best price you could get? — A. We took the offer that was
made. We had the Exchequer Court price made to us before tlie election, and then
after the election, after wd had the news that it might happen the station would
never be built there, we will sell it for less and get out.

Q. How did you coax the Commission to give you the money? — A. They
were biiying.

i

INTESTIGATINO COMMISSION 571

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123
By Mr. Guielius:

Q. You were friends? — A. They were not friends; I fought against Parent
in the election.

Q. Had 3'ou any friends in the syndicate that were friends of his? — A. No.

Q. How did you work him? — A. His notary was my notary.

Q. Who was his notary? — A. Taschereau; he was well known to me, and
had been working for me, and I went to Taschereau and I says " Could you give
me a help in that " ; and I says " If you like, we will go to Ottawa and offer the
Commission the same price as they offered us " and Parent says "All right, we
will give you 3'our cheque" and I got my cheque right away.

Q. You were very lucky? — A. I was very lucky, indeed, and to-day I would
not pay $30,000 for that.

Q. How much are the three places worth? — A. $18,000 to $20,000, because
they are good paying houses; there are about thirteen or fourteen tenants there.

Q. I think we have all the information we require, and you need not attend
further? — A. Very well.

(EVIDENCE TAKEN IN N.T.E. OFFICES, AT QUEBEC,
MAECH 14th, 1913.)

Raoul E. Beegevif, sworn :

By til e Chairman :

Q. What is your business ? — A. Dry goods merchant.

Q. You live in Quebec ? — A. Yes.

Q. Were you employed by the Transcontinental Eailway in the year 1911 ? —
A. No, sir.

Q. You were never in their emplo3rment ? — A. No.

Q. Did you make any purchases of property on the right of way through
Quebec for the Transcontinental? — A. No, sir.

Q. Did you buy any lands on tlie right of way for yourself ? — A. Yes.

Q. Which ones did you buy? — A. Well, I bought some in Champlain vrard:
Martineau's — I will have to have a list of them.

Q. What did you buy from Martineau? — A. I bought from Martineau the
building they used to put the ice in.

Q. It was an ice house ? — A. Yes.

Q. This is the deed from Martineau to you ? — A. Yes.

Q. And it says you bought an icehouse constructed and a stable? — A. Yes,
the stable was on the back there.

Q. You agreed to allow Martineau to remain in possession, did you not ? —
A. To remain in possession, I think, until the 1st of May. You know I have to
see the papers, because I cannot remember it all, but all that was done there Avas
correct.

Q. That is your impression, and we will put in the deed and show it from
that?— A. Yes.

Q. You knew, did you not, that his time as lessee of that property was up on
the 30th April, 1912 ?— A. Yes, but he could renew.

Q. You knew the time was up? — A. Yes.

Q. You saw his lease? — A. I did not see it, but he told me it was finislied,
and I applied to Mr. Dobell, the proprietor of the ground.

672 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. He had no right to renew his lease; you knew that, did you not? — A. No,
I did not know that, because all the ones I bought was from persons who had a right
to renew.

Q. You knew his lease was in writing? — A. Yes.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. Did you apply personally to Mr. Dobell? — A. No, I sent Mr. Martineau>
the same as in the case of Chevalier.

Q. Do you know Mr. Dobell? — A. Yes, I know him, but I never spoke to
him myself; I went there a couple of times.

Q Martineau showed you his lease, did he not? — A. I cannot remember if
he did show it to me, but he told me.

Q. Do you swear that you did not know that he could not renew that lease? —
A. No. I do not swear that.

Q. You did know he could not renew the lease? — A. I did not know he could
renew — I did not know that.

Q. You did not know whether he could or not? — A. No.

Q. And what did you want that ice house for? — A . Well, I bought it the same
as I bought the other one.

Q. What did you buy it for? — A. The same as I buy any other property.

Q. Tell me what you intended to do with that ice house when you bought
it? — A. I have no reason to tell you that.

Q. Yes, you will? — A. No, I won't for sure; I cannot tell you my business.

Q. You are bound to answer these questions that are put to you? — A. I
won't do it.

Q. I am going to give you all the opportunity ; if you do not answer the ques-
tions, you are subject to go to jail? — A. Yes, I am ready.

Q. You won't answer me?— A. I won't answer my business.

Q. I am told you had a dishonest purpose in buying the property, and I am
going to give you an opportunity to show you were not dishonest. Do you wish to
avail yourself of it? — A. No, but I do not know whether the question you put to me
— (Witness answers in French).

(Mr. Rivard questions the ivitness in French).

Mr. Rivard: He says he is ready to answer. He did not know what you were
wanting.

Q. What did you buy that for? — A. I bought those properties to sell to the
Transcontinental Eailway.

Q. Mr. Rivard, K.C., is here for the purpose of explaining to you any question
which I may put to you in English, that you do not understand perfectly; so that if
you do not understand the question thoroughly, or have any doubt about it, ask
Mr. Rivard to translate it into French; you understand? — A. \'ery well, I want
you to understand the answer I gave before, I thought you were referring to my
business.

Q. What did the Transcontinental Railway want with an ice house? — A.
Well, you see they wanted to pass the road through there.

Q. They did not want to buy the ice house? — A. This is a thing I do not
know, but they had to pass the road, the same as the other.

Q. Hut this man that owned the ice house would have to take it away, if he
wanted it himself? — A. I do not know; you would have to question himself.

Q. What did you pay Martineau for this projierty? — A. It must be on the
deed.

Q. S2,000, 1 am told?— A. It must be on the deed.

Q. Do you know how much money you paid him? — A. You can see it on
the papers.

Q. I am asking you if you know. — A. I do not remember positively.

Q. What is your recollection? — A. I have some papers in my store, l)ut I
will have to go over and get them.

INYESTKlATIXa COMMISSION 573

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Do you say you cannot recollect without looking at the paper? — A. No,
because I have bought so many that I do not know one from the others.

Q. "This sale is made for the price of $2,000"? — A, I think that is correct.

Q. How much did you sell it to the Transcontinental Railway for? — A. Well,
I cannot tell you ; I know it is two thousand some — you must have the price there.

Q. The receipt that you gave the Transcontinental is for $3,700; is that your
signature? — A. Yes.

Q. So that you bought this and made $17,000 out of it on the transfer? —
A. Yes.

Q. What was the next transfer you had? — A. Miller, I think.

Q. You bought from Miller; what did you buy from him? — A. I think it is
$2,500, if I remember well.

Q. You bought an ice house from him on Champlain ward? — A. Yes.

Q. Cadastral number 2316 and street number 559; Miller sold to you his ice
house, did he? — A. Yes.

Q. And where is the deed? — A. The deed to Mr. Miller, well, it may be at
Allaire's, the notary.

Q. He put it through, did he? — A. Well, when I bought it I put the deed
through there ; I do not know if it was Allaire, because I was at the other notary.

Q. Taschereau? — A. No.

Q. Couture?— A. Yes.

Q. Either Allaire or Couture? — A. Yes, I used to do business with the two;
I am not sure whether it was Couture or Allaire.

Q. Did you see Miller himself? — A. Yes.

Q. Did you take his lease to the notary? — A. Yes.

Q. You knew then that Miller had no right to sell his lease to you? — A. He
did not sell me the lease.

Q. What did he sell?— A. Just the building.

Q. Just the building? — A. That is all.

Q. You knew then his lease ran out? — A. The lease of the ground: I fixed
that up with the proprietor of the ground, Lampson, and I paid the lease for the
balance that was owed to Mr. Lampson.

Q. You saw the lease? — A. Yes.

Q. This is the lease, is it not? — A. Yes, I saw it before. (Exhibit 14).

Q. In that lease it provides that it runs out on the last day of September,
1912, and there w'as no right to renew it? — A. No.

Q. And you only purchased, you say, the building? — ^A. Yes, I purchased
the building, because I had to pay the balance of the lease until the 1st of May.

Q. And you allowed Miller to remain in possession? — A. Until the 1st of
May.

Q. Did you sell that ice house to the Commission? — A. Yes.

Q. How much money? — A. I do not know: I do not remember.

Q. On the second of October you made a deed to the Transcontinental Rail-
way before C. E. Taschereau for $2,500 for the damages for the destruction of the
ice house? — A. Is it not more than $2,500?

Q. That is what it says in the papers? — A. It must be more than that?

Q. That is all you have there, so far as the deed goes? — A. What it says
on Miller's deed : how much did I pay for Miller's?

Q. We have not got that? — A. I can telephone to Allaire and find out.

Q. You bought a gridiron from Madame Chevalier? — A. Oh, yes, from
Mr. Chevalier, not Madam.

Q. From ]\Iadam? — A. No, from the young man.

Q. Did you not buy anything from Madame Chevalier? — A. She gave the
money back to me : she did not want to finish it with me.

Q. You bought from Joseph Chevalier? — A. Yes.

Q. What did you buy? — A. I Hnuqht all his good will and things he had
there on the ground.

B74 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. What did he have on the ground? — A. He had some machinery to re-
pair the boats and all these things.

Q. And you gave him $500 for this? — A. No, that is Mrs. Chevalier.

Q. No, that is Joseph. Did you go before the notary with Madame Chevalier?
—A. Yes.

Q. Did you try to buy from Madame Chevalier in September, 1911? — A.
Yes.

Q. This gridiron, or grize, they call it in French, for putting ships on? — A.
From Mrs. Chevalier I bought only the house.

Q. It is called a slip? — A. I bought the slip from Mr. Chevalier, not Madame
Chevalier.

Q. Did you go with Madame Chevalier before a notary? — A. Yes.

Q. What did you want to buy from her? — A. She had a part of the right to
the slip and the machinery that was there: this son had a share and she had a share.

Q. And you went up to the notary with her and had the deed drawn? —
A. Yes.

Q. And Joseph signed it? — A. The young one; I do not know if it was
Joseph.

Q. And then you gave him the money? — A. Yes.

Q. How much money did you give him? — A. $500 or S550.

Q. That was on the 20th September: when did you give him the money? —
A. As soon as we passed the deed at their house.

Q. Did you give him it at their house or before the notary? — A. Before the
notary.

Q. That was on the 20th September, the deed says? — A. Yes, I think so.

Q. Did you go and get the money back? — A. Yes, I went and got the money
back in a few days after.

Q. What for? — A. Because one of his sons did not want to sign it.

Q. His son did sign it? — A. One, but not the two.

Q. What did you say to Madame Chevalier? — A. I must have the signature
of the two : I want to have it clear.

Q. Did you tell her she got the money by false pretences? — A. No.

Q. By false representations? — A. She told me it belonged to her only, and
the son told me he had a right to this thing.

Q. What son? — A. The one that used to be proprietor of the slip.

Q. Is it Joseph? — A. No, Adolpho.

Q. What did you want to do with that machine? — A. Well, the same as the
other, to sell it to the Transcontinental, to clear up this thing.

Q. You knew that was not on her ground, did you not? — A. Yes.

Q. Because you bought the ground from somebody else? — A. No, I did not.

Q. You bought a lease from somebody else? — A. Yes, from Mr. Lachance.

Q. What did you imagine the Transcontinental wanted that machine for? —
A. For the same reason, because I thought they wanted to buy that, to clear the
line that was going into the Champlain j\larket.

Q. You thought that?— A. Yes.

Q. AnyA\^ay, a couple of days after you went to this woman and got back the
money that you gave for it? — A. Yes, three or four days after.

Q. On the 2Gth August you bought from Adolphe Chevalier for S-i,000 all
the rights spoken of in the deed? — A. Yes.

Q. Is that correct? — A. Yes.

Q. You saw his lease, did you not? — A. I cannot remember if I did see the
lease. I think he produced them to the notary, Allaire.

Q. And you kncAv his time was up on the 30th May, 1912? — A. Yes.

Q. And you were allowing him to keep possession of the property till then? —
A. Till the 1st of May.

Q. What did he have to sell to the Transcontinental? — A. That is the slij^
and the right that he had there.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 575

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. But his right was over on the 30th April, 1912? — A. Yes.

Q. You knew that? — A. Yes, and that was in September.

Q. And he was to keep possession? — A. Until the 1st of May.

Q. Then he would have to get out anyway? — A. Yes.

Q. So that he had nothing to sell to the Transcontinental, and you knew it? —
A. If I knew it —

Q. You are an intelligent man, and you sit there and on your oath want us to
believe that you did not know that the man had nothing to sell? — A. No, I bought
something.

Q. What did you buy? — A. I bought the right.

Q. What right?— A. Until the 1st May.

Q. You were allowing him to stay there until the 1st of May? — A. Yes.

Q. So that the Transcontinental was not going to pull out till the 1st of May?
— A. I do not know what the Transcontinental has to do with this thing. I
allowed them to stay there until the 1st of May.

Q. It is like you coming to me and telling me, if I have rented a house, you
will give me S500 for my right, and then let me stay there? — A. Put it in French.
(Mr. Rivard puts question in French).

Mr. Rivard. He says what he does not understand is because he thinks that
Chevalier had the right to renew the lease and stay after the 30th April.

Q. You think he had the right to stay there after the 1st ]May? — A. "Well,
renew his lease.

Q. You knew that was not true? — A. Why?

Q. Because the lease was produced to the notary? — A. Yes, I have just
told you.

Q. The lease does not give him any right to renew it at all?— A. No, but he
himself could go to Dobell and make a new lease, but I have no right.

Q. But Dobell could not give him a lease? — A. He could not give him a lease
before the 1st of May.

Q. Do you want us to understand that you bought this and gave up S4,000
without knowing whether you could get the lease renewed or not? — A. No, I
had nothing to do with the renewal of the lease myself.

{Witriess answers in French).

Mr. Rivard. He says he did not know himself whether the lease would be
renewed or not; he bought it to sell to the Transcontinental.

Q. You have said to Mr. Rivard that you did not care whether the lease was
renewed or not, and you did not bother yourself about it? — A. No.

Q. Mr. Chevalier says that you asked him to go and see Mr. Dobell, and
ask Mr. Dobell whether he would renew the lease, and that he came back and told
you that IVIr. Dobell would not renew the lease? — A. I sent him to Dobell to have
him sign the papers that I have made up with him. The answer was that Mr.
Dobell did not want to sign it. {Witness retires and telephones) . My bookkeeper
says that everything was given to the Transcontinental, only the one that has re-
mained on my hands just now — the two properties that remain on my hands — I
have the papers.

Q. How mxuch did you pay Adolphe Chevalier for whatever rights you got
from him under the deed number 15315? — A. I think it must be 8-1,000.

Q. That is what the deed says : it is correct? — A. Yes.

Q. You bought from Chevalier, according to the deed, all his rights and
interests? — A. Yes.

Q. All his rights and interests of every description of a certain land and
anse — that is cove — known and designated on the plan and book of reference for
Champlain Ward as number 2525, and all the damages resulting from and caused
by the expropriation by the Transcontinental Railway, save and excepting the
part of the said lot now occupied by Martineau for an ice hotise. Is that right? —
That is what you bought? — A. Yes.

576 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. It also recites in your deed that the said rights and interests to the oc-
cupation of the land belonging to Adolphe Chevalier is in \drtue of a lease made to
him by Alfred Curzon Dobell, advocate, as attorney for the Duchess of Bassano.
"It is understood," you say also, "that the vendor will give possession of the land
on the 1st of May next to you, Bergevin, and that he will pay, up to the 1st of May,
the taxes and municipal and school rates, and other public contributions affecting
the property and the rent to that date, and shall occupy the property until the 1st
of May."?— A. Yes.

Q. That is all you bought, what I have said to you, is it not ? — A. Yes.

Q, What you sold to the Transcontinental Railway was your damages which
would result to you from the demolition — that is the destruction — of the Bassin de
Radoub — that is the slip? — A. Yes, everything that is required to repair the
boats.

Q. You did not buy that at all? — A. No. He had to unfix this slip in the
spring.

Q. But you did not buy the slip? — A. No.

Q. But why did the Transcontinental give you $4,250 for what you had no
right to sell to them? — A. Well, I did not sell them any property.

Q. You sold them your damages for removing that Bassin de Radoub? —
A. Yes.

Q. You did not own it? — A. But on the 1st of May I had nothing to do with
it no more.

Q. And you had nothing to do with that machinery? — A. The slip?

Q. Yes? — A. No, I did not buy the slip.

Q. What did they give you $4,250 for? — A. For what I bought there.

Q. Your deed says that was for damages for removing the slip? — A. Yes.

Q. So that you got $4,250 for nothing?— A. Why?

Q. Because you did not own the slip? — A. No, but I bought the right from
the 1st of September till the 1st of May, that is what I sold them: I could not have
them anything that did not belong to me.

Q. But you did not sell them anything? — A. No.

Q. According to your own deed, you sold something which you did not own? —
A. No, I did not sell them anything which did not belong to me.

Q. Did you own that Bassin de Radoub?— A. No. I owned only the right,
as I explained.

Q. You did not own the Bassin de Radoub? — A. No, only the right to the
1st of May.

Q. You knew quite well you did not own that Bassin de Radoub? —A. Yes:
I did not buy no property.

Q. Why did you sign a deed, and say in that deed that you owned it? (Deed
sho\vn to witness). Now, be honest about this thing. Did you not give that man
that money, and then find yourself in trouble after the election, and come down here
and get this money back on this deed? — A. No, sir.

Q. Yes, you did : you got it on the 16th October? — A. Yes, but that transac-
tion was made before the election.

Q. The transaction ^\^th whom? — A. With the Transcontinental.

Q, With whom did you make it? — A. Mr. Parent.

Q. He is a lawyer? — A. Yes.

Q. And a very distinguished lawyer? — A. I had to pass that before the
notary, Taschereau.

Q. And you made the bargain with ]Mr. Parent himself? — A. Yes.

Q. And he agreed to give you $4,250 of Transcontinental money for destroy-
ing the Bassin de Radoub? — A. Yes,

Q. And you knew you did not own it? — A. For the right I had there.

Q. For the Bassin de Radoub? — A. No, they say for the demolition of it.

Q. What was ymir bargain with Mr. Parent? — A. $4,250, the way the deed
days there.

IJfVESTIGATING COMMISSION 577

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. For the demolition of the Bassin de Radoub? — A. No,

Q. Tell me the bargain : What did you say to Mr. Parent? — A. I told him
"I will sell what I have there made with Chevalier, and that is all". I produced
my contract with Chevalier, and that was the arrangement, I would get S4,2o0 for
this thing.

Q. Did he read it? — A. Yes, and the notary too.

Q. Did Mr. Parent go to the notary with you? — A. No, Mr. Tremblay went,
not before me, but I gave them the papers and they went to the notary with it.

Q. But Mr. Parent gave Tremblay the instructions? — A. Yes.

Q. In your presence? — A. Yes, to send the papers to Taschereau.

Q. Did Mt. Parent give Tremblay your deed from Chevalier? — A. Yes, he
must have given it to him, because he had it in his hand.

Q. When did you make that bargain with you and Mr. Parent? — A. I cannot
tell you, but it was a week or so before the election.

Q. And he put the transaction through after the election and gave you this
money? — A. No, this was ^dth the notary, just the next day after I made the trans-
action vnth. him.

Q. With whom ?— Mr. Parent?— A. Yes.

Q. Did you sell an}i:hing else to the Commission? — A. Yes,

Q. To go back to the Martineau ice house; you bought the ice house from
Martineau for 82,000?— A. Yes.

Q. You did not sell the ice house to the Commission; you only were paid by the
Commission for compensation for removal of the ice house and damages. Cadastral
2525, Champlain Ward, City of Quebec, S3, 700, according to your receipt; that is
correct, is it not? — A. Yes.

Q. So that you could remove that ice house? — A. Yes.

Q. And the Commission was giving you §3,700 for the expense of moving it? —
A. Yes, to take it away from there.

Q. Don't you think it was a pretty tall price for removing the ice house? —
A. I do not know; you are the judge of that.

Q. I am asking you? — A. I sold for what I thought I could; if I could have
sold it for more I would have.

Q. With whom did you make that bargain? — A. With the Transcontinental.

Q. With Parent personally? — A. Yes.

Q. He agreed you should take that ice house away? — A. Yes.

Q. Andthey would pay you 83,700 for taking it away? — A. Yes.

Q. No doubt about that?— A. No.

Q. Did you move that ice house? — A. No, because the Transcontinental
rented it, I think.

Q. They did not pay you rent? — A. They kept it there.

Q. It is belonging to you? — A. No, it is not; I sold everything.

Q. Here is what you sold to them? — A. Yes.

Q. You have a right to go and move that ice house? — A. I do not know; I
was not positively sure that I could or not, because I see the Transcontinental
Railway since that have been renting it; they took possession I think.

Q. You forget about what was in the receipt? — A. Yes, I never saw it.

Q. You were satisfied to let the ice house go when you got the 83,700? —
No, because I thought I had no right.

Q. But you did not sell the ice house? — A. No, but I thought I had no right
on the house after that.

Q. Your deed says differently? — A. Yes, I see that, but if I had known this,
that I could move this thing, because I had been asking Miller, but I thought they
put on the contract the house and moving at the same tine,

Q. You forgot what was in the receipt? — A. Yes, I thought the Transconti-
nental had the house, and I was obliged to take it away from there.

123.— 37

578 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE V.» 1914

Q. Did you forget? — A. I forgot it belonged to me still, because they put on
the deeds, the house and the moving of it, because if I did know the house belonged
to me I would not have let the Transcontinental to rent it.

Q. How could you sell the house and the moving of it? — A. Well, I am
obliged myself to move them on the first of May.

Q. But if you sold it, you were not obliged to move it? — A. If I had sold the
property?

Q, Yes? — A. No, but if they had asked me to move it —

Q. Was it not a pretended transaction altogether?-(question put in French).

Mr. Rivard: He says what he sold was the cost of removing the ice house,
that the material and ice house still belonged to him.

Q. That is right, is it?— A. Yes.

Q. You were bound to clear the ground to take away the material, but the
material belonged to you? — A. Yes,

Q. You owned the materials; that is the wood, the building? — A. That is all.

Q. Because you Ijought it from Martineau? — A. Yes.

Q. Then you could take it away, if you did not sell it to the Transcontinental?
— A. Yes, in the spring.

Q. The Transcontinental gave you $3,700 for the cost, to make good to you
the cost of moving that building? — A. Yes.

Q. Then you could go and take that S3, 700 and use it to pay the expenses of
moving the building? — A. Yes, clear the ground.

Q. Why did you not do it? — Did you not want to do it? — A. Because I did
not remember what was on the lease, that they could oblige me to take it off, but
I was not called for it ; it was not necessary.

(Witness speaks in French).

Mr. Rivard: You say that you were under the impression at spring time on
the 1st of May, if the Transcontinental aske dyou to move the ice house you had
to move it, and if they did not ask you to move it, it remained there? — A. Yes,
until they called for it.

By the Chairman:

Q. And, because they did not call for it, you left it there? — A. Yes, because
I had nothing to pay for it.

Q. It was not worth enough to you to move it? — A. Oh, yes; the wood that is
there is always good.

Q. Now, what was the Miller transaction? — A. It was an ice house too.

Q. You were going into the ice business pretty extensively? — A. No, I did not
care for the business.

Q. You got into this ice business just about election time? — A. No, I
bought a great deal bc^fore that.

Q. When did you buy the Miller ice house? — A. I bought it before that.

Q. How much did you pay ]Miller? — A. I think it is S2,250, I am not posi-
tively sure.

Q. You got then, from the Transcontinental, in the Chevalier matter, S4,250
for compensation for clemolition of the graving dock, and .'?3,700 for compensation
for the removal of the ice house? — A. Martineau, yes, I may have.

Q. So that 'you got S7,950 all told for the two?— A. Yes, you have it there.

Q. Did you get anything from the Transcontinental for the gridiron business,
for the property you l)ought from ]\Irs. Chevalier. — A. No, sir.

Q. Did you sell any other property to the Transcontinental? — A. No, I
bought some more, l)ut I have them on my hands.

Q. What did you buy? — A. I bought Lachance and Berthiaumc.

Q. Have you I-,achance's there? — A. No.

Q. You do not know what you paid Lachance? — A. Perhaps I have it in my
books: I think it is S900 and some odd: one was S875 and the other was S900 .

INTESTIGATIXG COMMISSION 579

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. That is Lachance and Berthiaume? — A. Yes, that is the best of my
memory, but that is about it.

Q, Why did you not get that money from the Transcontinental?— A. Be-
cause they did not want to buy it.

Q. Did you go and see ]\Ir. Parent about it? — A. Yes.

Q. What did he tell you? — A. He said they did not need it then.

Q. Why not?— A. I think it was two or three days before the election: he
says: "We vriW have those things finished, and if we want to buy them, we will buy
them."

Q. Did you go and see him after the election about it? — A. Yes.

Q. What did he say about it? — A. He said he did not want to do any more
transactions, because everjlhing was turned up.

Q. You did do a transaction after the election: he gave you the money
after the election? — A. Yes, but the transaction was made before.

Q. But the money was not paid? — A. I do not know if he had the money
over there, but I got the cheque here.

Q. You did not get the cheque till after the election? — A. No.

Q. You got the cheque after the election? — A. For one only, I think: you
must have the dates there.

Q. Those are both after the election? — A. I know I had one or two: I must
have had some before the election, if you go to the deed there.

Q. Where did you get the 8^,000 that you gave to Chevalier? — A. I got it
from the bank.

Q. Can you produce the cheque from the bank? — A. Chevalier must have it
— oh, well, it must be in the bank.

Q. What bank was it? — A. Union Bank.

Q. Can we go and look at your account in the Union Bank? — A. I can pro-
duce the cheque.

Q. Can you produce the bank book and show it to us? — A. No objection to
that: you what only to check those things?

Q. That is all? — A. You can look over those things, I think I have the
cheque in the house.

Q. Where did vou get the 84,000?— A. From the bank.

Q. Did you have 84,000 Ijdng there?— A. Yes, I had 810,000 margin there.

Q. For how long? — A. As long as F needed it.

Q. For how long? — A. I had 810,000 from the Union Bank as long as I
wanted to buy the properties: as soon as I got back the money I gave them the
money.

Q. Did you give security for it? — A. No. I think my name is good for it.

Q. You got the money from the Union Bank under arrangements you made
with them to advance it for you? — A. Yes, when I was buying some property.

Q. Do you think the Union Bank would lend money on this kind of business?
— A. Yes, and I think if I asked for 810,000 more they would give it to me.

Q. On this kind of stuff? — A. No, on my name.

Q. The only person that you know of that would give $4,000 for this kind of
property is the Transcontinental Railway? — A. I have no answer to give you on
that. You can judge yourself, or I will judge it.

Q. Did you take these papers in these two transactions to a notary yourself,
or did you send them by Mr. Tremblay? — A. By Mr. Tremblay.

Q. And you made no bargain with any person excepting the Chairman, Mr.
Parent?— A. Yes.

Q. He was the man you dealt with entirely? — A. Yes.

Q. Did you take any part in the election? — A. Yes.

Q. You were active in the election canvassing? — A. Yes.

Q. Were you working down on Champlain Street? — A. No, I have been
working down in Montmorency, and the last week I think I did the work here.

680 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. The last week you worked down on Champlain Street? — A. No, I was
not working there : I was working down here.

Q. Who was present with you when you made this bargain with Chevalier?
Was it ChevaHer and O'Neill? — A. O'Neill was not with me.

Q. Who was with you down at the hotel? — A. I did not make the bargain
there.

Q. You saw Chevalier at his house? — A. Yes, and at my store.

Q. And at O'Neill's hotel?— A. Yes.

Q. You talked the transaction over with him at O'Neill's hotel? — A. Perhaps
I was there.

Q. You and Chevalier and O'Neill talked about buying what you bought
from Chevalier in O'Neill's hotel? — A. Perhaps: I do not remember how many
times.

Q. How much money did O'Neill get out of the transaction? — A. Not one
cent.

Q. Not anything from you? — A. No, if he got an5rthing, it was from Cheva-
lier: he never got anything from me.

Q. You remember talking to Chevalier down in O'Neill's hotel? — A. Yes.

Q. What were you doing down there? Just looking up this transaction, or
engineering? — A. I go there every day, because I have some money on interest
there.

Q. You do not have to go there every day to get the interest? — A. No, but
I go there as I go everywhere, because I am in the beer business, and I look all over
the city.

Q. You are in the beer business? — A. Yes, I am in the brewery, and have to
look over the hotels.

Q. And O'Neill is one of your customers? — A. Yes, like everyone in to^n.

Q. When did the Champlain Brewery come into existence? — A. We started
in 1911; we had no beer then, and commenced February, 1912.

Q. You want to make another guess at what you were doing at O'Neill's
tavern? — A. No, because I paid $1,000 to Mr. Boswell for his hotel when he
started — I mean I paid $1,000 on account.

Q. You knew the Transcontinental was going to buy these properties, did
you? — A. Well, I know that the road was passing by there.

Q. And you knew how much money they paid for it? — A. Yes.

Q. You said you made your bargain? — A. Well, I made a bargain after I
bought the property.

Q. The same day? — A. No.

Q. How many days after? — A. Some four or five days after, or a week.

Q. You are a business man, are you not? — A. Yes.

Q. What is your business? — A. Dry goods business.

Q. And you are now president of a brewery company? — A. Yes.

Q. What else are you engaged in? — A. Only those two things: I have two
stores, and I am doing some work myself.

Q. You have been in business a number of years? — A. Twenty-two years.

Q. And you are a man of property? — A. Yes.

Q. Will you tell me how a business man like you would tliink of buying what
you bought from Chevalier, and paying him all the money, $4,000, without know-
ing whether you could soil it or not, to the Transcontinental? — A. Well, I did not
say that I did not know: I was buying thorn to soil to the Transcontinental.

Q. You knew the Transcontinental would pav you that much money for it? —
A. Yes.

Q. And you knew they had valued this property at $0,000? — A. No, I did
not know tliat.

Q. What dill you know? — A. I know that I could sell the property to the
Transcontinental. Tlie way to prove to you what you say is not correct, because
some I sold at $250 profit. I was pretty sure I coul d sell it to the Transcontinental.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 581

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. I would like to know how you could expect the Transcontinental Eailway
Commission, if it was looking after its business properly, to buy t hat from you?— A.
I can answer you on that. I say I did know pretty well that I could sell to it the
Transcontinental. I would not go there if I did not know the road would pass
there.

Q. You were not selling any right of way? — A. No.

Q. You were selling them a lot of old buildings they did not need, and you
knew it? — A. No, I did not know it: at the same time when I bought these two
houses I did not know. If I don't sell those houses I have now to the Trans-
continental they are no good to me, unless I rent them that way.

Q. And they are no good to anybody? — A. Well t,hey are good houses. I
get SI 6 upstairs and S9 do^Mistairs for those houses. It is not a big amount. I
bought them to sell to the Transcontinental, but I would not have bought them if
I had not thought I could sell them to the Transcontinental.

Q. You still say, without ever having made sure you were going to be able to
sell, you gave that S4,000?— A. What?

Q. You still say that, without being sure you could get the money back again,
you paid Chevaher S4,000? — A. Because I was expecting to get more than §4,000
from the Transcontinental Railway.

Q. And you did get more than that by selling something you did not own? —
A. Well, you have the deed there: I think it is S2o0 more.

Q. How long did you know the Chairman of the Commission, Mr. Parent? —
Oh, I know him for ten or twelve years, I suppose, perhaps more, I cannot answer
you that.

Q. Did you know any other members of the Commission? — A. Yes, I saw
them sometime when I used to go to Ottawa: I did not know their names.

Q. You did not do any business with anybody else on the Commission? — A.
No, not with the Conmaission : I saw them many times when they used to sit here
and in Ottawa. I know them by their faces.

Q. Did you ever do any business for the Commission? — A. No.

Q. You never did any business for the Commission? — A. Well, I bought
one house for the Commission .

Q. Which was that? — A. That was the Thibaudeau.

Q. And what did you pay for that? — A. Well, it was by auction I bought it.

Q. What did you get paid for that?— A. I think it was S9,000.

Q. What did you make out of it? — A. I bought it and gave the deed of the
right of way.

Q. You acted for the Transcontinental in purchasing that, but got no money
out of it?— A. No.

Q. Did you get any money from the Transcontinental on any other trans-
action?— A. Never.

(NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY. INVESTIGATING
COMMISSION, QUEBEC, MARCH, 13TH, 1913).

Before : George Lynch-Staunton, Esq., Chairman., F. P. Gutelius, Esq., Com-
missioner.

Napoleon Martineau, of the City of Quebec, manager for the Remington
Typewriter Company, being duly sworn on the Holy Evangelists, doth depose and
say:

582 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Examined hy Mr. Rivard :

Q. Did you have a lease with Mr. Dobell? — A. I had a lease the first year,
at the beginning, with Mr. Dobell, who represented the Duchess of Bassano — a
lease for three years. I have been for five years an ice merchant. My lease had
expired.

Q. What was the date of that lease, about what year? — A. I could give it to
you. Mr. Dobell also could give it to you.

Q. But approximately? — A. In any case it was just the year of the Ter-
centenary— I began in the autumn before — that was in eighteen hundred and
eight — in the fall of nineteen hundred and seven.

Q. In the fall of nineteen hundred and seven, or in the month of August you
had taken a lease from Mr, Dobell, representing the Duchess of Bassano? — A. Yes,
sir.

Q. That lease for three years? — A. Yes sir.

Q. And after that it could be tacitly renewed? — A. Yes sir, naturally if
he was willing.

Q. On condition that he would be willing? — A. Certainly.

Q. And you passed those three years there and you remained under the same
lease afterwards? — A. Yes sir.

Q. By that lease what did you rent? — A. He rented to me the ground where
my ice house was situated.

Q. There was no ice house there at that time? — A. No sir.

Q. It was you who built that ice house? — A. Yes sir.

Q. Was the lease made to you or to Mrs. Martineau? — A. No sir, to
myself, to Napoleon Martineau, junior.

Q. To yourself? — A. Yes sir.

Q. You were a bachelor then? — A. Yes.

Q. You got married since? — A. Yes sir.

Q. After the three years were expired the lease continued without any other
paper, by tacit renewal? — A. Yes sir, certainly.

Q. On the same terms? — A. I wished to renew my lease but Mr. Dobell
told me he could not.

Q. But you continued under the same conditions? — A. Yes sir, except
that he gave me a notice that in case the railway needed my lot, or if he made a
sale, on three months notice, I w^as obliged to go away, to clear what was there and
to go away.

Q. In other words, in ^irtue of the lease that you had from ISIr. Dobell you
continued to occupy the lot after the three years were expired, but on the condition,
which was signified to you by a notice from ]\Ir. Doljell that if the Transcontinental
Railway needed the lot you were to abandon it and to clear the ground within three
months? — A. Yes.

Q. At three months notice? — A. Yes, at three months notice.

Q. Now, this went on in this way up to the month of August nineteen hundred
and eleven? — A. Yes sir.

Q. In the month of August nineteen hundred andel even you saw Mr. O'Neill
who was one of your friends? — A. Yes.

Q. Who had often helped you? — A. Yes.

Q. And with whom you spoke of that matter? — A. Yes sir.

Q. You asked him if it was possible to sell your ice house? — A. Yes.

Q. At that time did you know that the Transcontinental Railway was
going to pass there? — A. I did not know it.

Q. You did not know it at the time? — A. I did not think it would pass
there.

Q. You did not know at that time that the Transcontinental Railway was
going to take some land on the lot number 2525 in question? — A. No, I did not.

INTESTIGATING COMMISSION 583

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Before going any further. — the land in question — I draw your attention
to the plan produced before the Commission and I think I shall describe the thing
correctly in saying that what you had leased was part of the lot of ground described
as cadastral number 2525? — A. Yes.

Q. Being that pa,rt of the plan which is marked as occupied by an ice house
and also that part of the plan which is marked as being occupied by stable? — A.
Yes, the part occupied by the ice house but not the part occupied by the stable
because the ground occupied by the stable I occupied it in virtue of another lease
which I had from ]\Ir. Chevalier.

Q, The stable besides is not marked on plan? — A. No.

Q. To come back to what you were sajdng a few minutes ago, you went and
saw ]\Ir. O'Neill and you spoke to him about your affairs, did you not? — A. Yes.

Q. Your affairs at that time were not in a brilliant state? — A. No sir.

Q. You spoke to Mr. O'Neill about selling the ice house if there was any
possibility of doing so? — A. Yes sir.

Q. And I understand that Mr. O'Neill referred you to Mr. Raoul Berge\'in
of Quebec? — A. Yes sir — ^to begin with the thing was not put into the hands of
Mr. Berge%'in immediately. The matter was discussed during two or three days
before it was referred to Air. Raoul Berge\dn.

Q. Between whom was it discussed? — A. Between O'Neill and myself.

Q. After ha\'ing discussed the matter for a few days with Air. O'Neill, Air.
O'Neill introduced you to Air. Berge\in? — A. Yes sir — I knew him beforehand.

Q. You knew Berge\in? — A. I knew him by sight. I went with him.

Q. He suggested to you to see Air. Bergevin in order to arrive at a sale of
that property? — A. Yes, Berge\'in came at O'Neill's place to meet me.

Q. Did O'Neill tell you why you had to go to Bergevin for that matter? — A.
Because he was a buyer for the Transcontinental.

Q. O'Neill told you so? — A. Yes sir.

Q. O'Neill told you that it was necessary to go to Bergevin because Bergevin
was buyer for the Transcontinental? — A. Yes. There is another important point
also.

Q. What is it? — A. In the first place about the price. I asked four thousand
dollars. O'Neill asked me how much I would ask. I told him: four thousand
dollars. He said: you ask a good deal too much, it may be worth fifteen hundred
dollars. I said: No, it is worth four thousand dollars on account of my trade.
It is not only for the property but it is worth that amount to expropriate me. Upon
that he said: I should see Air. Bergedn about that and we shall discuss the matter
together and after that I shall give you an answer. The next morning I saw O'Neill
again, he told me that they had come to an understanding the day before about the
ice house. He said: we are willing to give fifteen hundred dollars for your ice house.
You are valued at eighteen hundred dollars. I said: did you see the valuation-
He said: no. We shall go and see it together. That day passed and on the next
day I asked him: Is it not possible to go and see that? He said: no, they won't
show the books to any one but Air. Bergevin who is employed for the Trans-
continental, who is buyer for the Transcontinental.

Q. I suppose it was then you saw Air. Bergevin? — A. No, it was on the
the second day.

Q. Did anvihing important occur after what you have just stated and before
you saw Air. Berge\dn? — A. O'Neill told me; Alartineau, you will have to shut
your mouth and to stay quiet, and to mind your o\\ti business — spea,king about the
election.

Q. What is that O'Neill?— A. O'Neill is a bar keeper.

Q. Here in Quebec? — A. Yes, on Finlay Alarket.

Q. Is it a friend of Bergevin?— A. He is a friend of Bergevin's and has received
favors from him.

584 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. Then where did you meet Bergevin in connection wdth that matter for
the first time, was it at O'Neill's or at Bergevin's, or at your own house? — A. It
was at O'Neill's in a room.

Q. In a private room? — A, Yes.

Q. In O'Neill's hotel?— A. Yes, sir.

Q. O'Neill, Bergevin and yourself were there? — A. No, I was alone with
Bergevin.

Q. Did Mr. Bergevin know that you had a lease from Mr. Dobell? — A. It
is the first thing that he inquired about and I told him just as it was.

Q. The first thing that Bergevin told you was to ask you if you had a lease for
the lot in question? — A. Yes.

Q. And then — if I am not stating the facts correctly, you will tell me so,
because we are here to get at the truth — did you tell him how the matter stood
just as you have stated here a moment ago? — A. I told him just what I said here
a moment ago.

Q. Did you have your lease with you? — A. No, sir.

Q. But you told him? — A. But I had my marriage contract any way.

Q. The lease that you had passed with Mr. Dobell is the one which I now
exhibit to you and which is signed by you? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. And also by Mr. Dobell, before a witness, JNIr, Stavely? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. And the original of which is now produced as exhibit number three? —
A. Yes, sir.

Q. You did not have your lease with you when you saw Mr. Bergevin? — A. No
sir.

Q. Did he see that lease? — A. Yes, he saw it.

Q. How do you know that he saw it? — A. I had a copy of it — I have it still
at home.

Q. You had a copy of the lease? — A. Yes, the notary who made the sale
saw it.

Q. You had a copy of the lease and you showed it to the notary? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. Was it the first interview you had \nth him? — A. Not the lease at the
first interview, but when we were a little more

Q. When you had gone a little farther with the transaction? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did Bergevin at that time, during the first interview make any offer to
you? — A. No, sir.

Q. What did he say? — A. He showed himself pretty independant as if he
was not much interested in buying the ice house but rather as it he were
trying to further my owti interests. He said : Martincau, you are in a bad
fix — he touched me to the quick there. I did not let him see that I felt insulted,
he said; Now, listen — when you were speaking about your affairs you told O'Neill
that you would like to sell your ice house? I said : yes, so long as I am paid what it
is worth. He said it goes wathout sa>dng that if you have no lease it is not worth
anything. The building had cost twelve hundred dollars. He said: it is not worth
anything, it costs about one thousand dollars, perhaps only nine hundred dollars,
that building. Upon that I said yes I don't say the contrary. I told him that it
had cost about that, I had built it myself.

Q. What did he say then? — A. I said: yes, but the question is not about the
building, Mr. Bergevan, the question is about my trade which I shall have to abandon
if I sell this, because I am not able to have a ]:)roperty in that part of the city where
I am now, because the Transcontinental Railway is expropriating all those lots.
They are going to build wharves and I won't be able to fill up my ice house.

Q. Then Bergevin on that occasion spoke about the ex])ropriation that
were to be made by the Transcontinental? — A. It was I who asked him. I said:
;Mr. Bergevin, what is your reason for saying that it is worth only fifteen hundred
to eighteen hundred dollars as you offer me? —

Q. What did he answer? — A. I have not finished my answer. I said: Mr.
Bergevin, I know that a land surveyor has passed, thay have measured the land,

INYE8TIGATING COMMISSION 585

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

ets., and they have made a valuation of the land. I know there is a valuation in
the books of the Transcontinental and I would very much like to see what that
valuation is. He said: you cannot see that valuation, I am the only one who can
see it. You are valued at two thousand dollars, or two thousand two hundred
dollars. He told me that after we had been speaking together for about an hour.

Then I said: if I am valued only two thousand two hundred dollars of course

I was in a bad fix, I was in a bad position, the things were advertised and it had
to be sold. I said: I will sell to you for two thousand dollars, and two hundred
dollars will pay your interest. I said this because he wanted to give me only fifteen
hundred dollars and then he raised his ofTer to eighteen hundred dollars.

Q. To make a long story short, I understand that in that first interview you
had with Mr. Bergevin, there was a question of seUing the ice house to him and you
discussed together about the value and his pretention was that it was worth eight or
nine hundred dollars? — A. Yes.

Q. He pretended that it was not worth much and he began by offering you
fifteen hundred dollars and after a great deal of discussion with him you brought
him to admit there was, according to him, in the books of the Transcontinental,
a valuation of two thousand two hundred dollars and it was then that you consented
to sell the property to him for two thousand dollars? — A. Yes.

Q. He making a profit of two hundred dollars? — A. Yes, and after that there
is something else. O'Neil told me that he had gone with Bergevin at the Trans-
continental Railway's office in order to see my valuation and that it was two thou-
sand two hundred dollars.

Q. Is it on that occasion that you showed him a copy of your lease? — A. No,
sir, it was when we went at the notary's to make the sale, to sign the deed of sale.

Q. In the interval between your first interview and the day on which the deed
of sale was signed did you see Bergevin again about the same matter? — A. Not
until we went to sign the deed of sale.

Q. You went to the notary's to have the deed of sale drawn up how many days
after this? — A. The next day we went to sign the deed of sale. I did not lose
much time. The next day after this we went at the notary's.

Q. Which Notary? — A. Notary Couture.

Q. In order to sign the deed of sale in favor of Bergevin? — A. Yes.

Q. And there you had the copy of your lease, the original of which is produced
as exhibit number three? — A. Yes sir.

Q. And you showed your lease to Bergevin? — A. Yes sir.

Q. Did you read it in his presence? — ^A. Yes sir.

Q. Did he hand it over to the notary that he might read it? — A. I think
so ; yes sir.

Q. It is not " I think so " — but do you remember? — A. Yes, I remember
now.

Q. That it was read to the notary? — A. Yes.

Q. Is there any other person, any lawyer or notary, who was aware of the
transaction? — A. At that time, not at all.

Q. What became of the copy of the lease, did you bring it back or did Berge-
vin keep it? — A. I am almost sure I have it at home. If I have it I shall pro-
duce it.

Q. At that time, do you know if Bergevin kept it for sometime? — A. No.

Q. Well you sold to Mr. Bergevin the buildings or the constructions which
in the ground in question and which you used as an ice-house, and also a stable?
— ^A. Yes sir, but the stable was built upon another piece of ground forming part
of the same lot.

Q. The stable does not appear on the plan? — A. No.

Q. And that other piece of ground, you held it in virtue of a lease from Mr.
Chevalier? — A. Yes, but the stable was not on the lease.

Q. Anyhow you sold it? — A. Yes, I sold all the buildings that were there.

586 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. Now, in the deed which you passed with Mr. Raoul Bergevin and which
is produced here as exhibit number two, it appears that it is Madame Laura Tousi-
gnant, your wife, who sold the ice-house? — A. Yes sir, because she was the pro-
prietor.

Q. How did it belong to your wife? — A. Because when I got married I gave
her everything. I am kind-hearted, you know.

Q, When you had the deed of sale dra^\^l up, IVIr. Bergevin and yourself
were there and you had your marriage contract with you? — A. Yes.

Q. You had brought your marriage contract in order to show Bergevin and
the notary that the ice-house belonged to your wife? — A. Yes sir.

Q. And you showed it to the notary and Bergevin? — A. Certainly.

Q. By the same deed exhibit nmnber two it appears that you personally
transferred to Bergevin all your rights as lessee of that part of the lot occupied
by the ice-house that is which you occupied in virtue of your lease exhibit number
three and also the right to the occupation to the piece of ground leased to you by
Chevalier as you have said before? — A. Yes sir, certainly.

Q. At that moment is it not true that Bergevin knew that in virtue of the
agreement you had with Mr. Dobell your right to occupy that piece of ground
ended on the thirtieth of April nineteen hundred and twelve? — A. Yes sir,
and what proves this is that he used this as an argument to offer me only fifteen
hmidred dollars.

Q. Will you take communication of the exhibit now produced as number
four and say whether this is a document to which you have referred when you
said there was a lease between Chevalier and yourself? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. And this document is signed by you and also by Mr. Adolphe Chevalier?
— A. Yes, sir.

Q. And it was signed in the presence of Mr. Alfred Dobell acting as witness?
— A. Exactly.

Q. You have told us a moment ago — and as the matter is of importance I
wish it to be stated clearly so that there be no error — that when this deed of sale
was passed between Bergevin and yourself, Bergevin knew that your right to occupy
that piece of ground expired on the thirtieth of April nineteen hundred and twelve?
— A. Yes, sir.

. Q. And this applies to the land occupied by your ice-house in virtue of the
lease which you had from Mr. Dobell, as well as to the land upon which the stable
was built and which is referred to in exhibit number four? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. All this ended on the thirtieth of April, nineteen hundred and twelve ?
—A. Yes.

Q. And Bergevin knew it? — A. Yes.

Q. Consequently, when he gave two thousand dollars for what you sold him
he gave those two thousand dollars only for the ice-house and the stable? — A. Yes,
only the buildings.

Q. This included only the building? — he knew there was no lease? — A. He
knew that I had asked Mr. Dobell to renew the lease — I had offered him to double
the amount of rent in order to renew the lease for one year more. — I even offered
him two hundred dollars, for one year's renewal, because ]\Ir. Bergevin had asked
me: go and try to renew the lease. ]\Ir. Dobell would not do so. He said: " I
carmot do it."

Q. And you notified Bergevin that he would not renew the lease? — A. Yes,
I told him: 'Sir. Bergevin, it cannot be done.

Q. He knew then that there was no lease? — A. Exactly.

Q. You were to deliver the position with him only from the first of May,
nineteen hundred and twelve? — A. Yes.

Q. And on the fir.st day of May nineteen hundred and twelve you had no
more lease? — A. No.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 587

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Who got those two thousand dollars? — A. I did. He gave me five
hundred dollars cash by a cheek on the Union Bank — not in cash, but by a check
on the Union Bank, on the same day that I settled at the notary's.

Q. That is to say on the nineteenth of August nineteen hundred and eleven? —
A. Yes.

Q. When did he give you the balance? — A. On Monday.

Q. On the folloA^ang Monday? — A. Yes, two or three days after. I think
this was a Friday or a Saturday — I believe I sold on a Saturday — I am not sure
whether it was Friday or Saturday.

Q. Did he give the money directly to your wife or to you for your wife? — A.
He gave it to me, naturally for my wife.

Q. You had settled with Mr. Dobell for the rent up to the thirtieth of April
nineteen hundred and twelve? — A. Yes sir.

Q. Did you tell him at that time that you were going to sell to Bergevin,
when you settled ^\^th Mr. Dobell? — A. I don't think I told him. I did not tell
it to Mr. Dobell. If I told him, I don't remember.

Q. Now, when this transaction was going on did Mr. Bergevin give you any
warning or any ad\ace concerning the election? — -A. Yes, as I have just told you,
he said : You know. Napoleon, you are in a bad fix.

Q. Bergevin told you this? — A. He said: you know you are in a bad fix.
I said : yes. He said : you know we are pulling you up from a hole, you must show
yourself grateful for this. I don't ask you to work on our side, but mind your own
business, keep quiet and don't make a noise. I said: look here Mr. Bergevin if
you will give me four thousand dollars I am going to shut my mouth, I won't say
anything, but if you don't give me four thousand dollars I "will go on as usual, do
as I have always done and I vnW show myself as I am. The same evening I went to
see O'Neill and I said to O'Neill: if you give me three thousand five hundred dollars
I shall mind my own business, but if I sell for two thousand dollars I will act just
as before and do all I can for my party. O'Neill said to me:"listen. Napoleon, don't
make a fool of yourself now, I believe I shall have good news for you tomorrow."
I said: "all right." On the next day I went there he said: "it looks bad," I went
again in the afternoon and he told me : it is not possible to give you more than two
thousand dollars. I said: "well I am very glad. I would not accept three thousand
five hundred dollars because I want to keep my liberty. If you don't give me
three thousand five hundred dollars I shall keep it."

Q. That is to say: Bergevin, and O'Neill probably acting on Bergevin's
instruction, asked you to keep quiet about the elections, and you, in order to do so,
you asked for more, and you said: give me four thousand dollars and I shall keep
quiet, otherwise I shall keep my liberty, and then he told you : we are going to try.
At last he told you that it was not possible to give you more than two thousand
dollars and you answered: well, that is all right, because I had rather be free?
A. Yes sir.

Q. This is in substance what was said? — A. Yes, and ^vith respect to that
I could give you a good plea for Chevalier.

Q. No matter, this is useless. If I have understood you right — and if not
you will tell me so — I gather from what you have just said, and which has not been
taken down in shorthand— I understand that in the course of last summer you
met Mr. Bergevin? — A. Yes sir.

Q. And that Bergevin spoke to you about Chevalier? — A. Yes sir.

Q. Complaining that he had given Chevalier four thoi-sanddolla,rs and that
Chevalier was not acting about politics as he Bergevin would have wished, and he
complained to Chevalier in that respect — A. Yes.

Q. Giving you to understand by this that he had given Chevalier four thousand
dollars in order to obtain the political support or the political opinion of Chevalier
and that Chevalier did not now give him such political support as he expected from
him? — A. Yes sir, he told me so in the cars.

588 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. Do you know anything else which you would consider useful to put
before the Commission — I don't speak of details but facts absolutely relevant to
the matter in question? — A. It is probably all, we have covered every point.

Q. You think you have a copy of the deed of the lease at home? — A.
Certainly.

Q. If you have it and if you find it, can you send it to us this afternoon? —
A. Yes sir.

Q. Now, what did Bergevin do with the ice house you sold him? — A. It
is there still.

Q. He did not take it away? — A. I will tell you something else. It may
interest you. After the elections of the twenty first of September, O'Neill was sick
in bed. O'Neill is one of my friends and I went to see him and tendered my sym-
pathies. He told me: Napoleon, it looks bad, Bergevin has some difficulty in selling
his ice house. I said: how is that? did he not get the Transcontinental to buy it?
He said : no. Parent won't buy any more, Parent won't pay him. He had been to
Ottawa.

Q. O'Neill told you that Bergevin complained that he had difficulty in getting
money for that ice house because Parent would not pay him? — A. Parent would
not pay him because the Government had changed and he did not wish the thing
to appear.

Q. In any. case the ice house is there still? — A. Yes.

Q. It has not been removed? — A. I saw it last summer.

Q. And the stable? — A. The stable is still there also.

Q. The stable is still there also? — A. Yes sir.

And further deponent sayeth not.

Adolphe Chevalier, of the City of Quebec, dock-yard owner, being duly
sworn upon the Holy Evangelists, doth depose and say:

Examined by Mr. Rivard :

Q. You have been engaged since several years in repairing boats, have you
not? — A. Building and repairing.

Q. Building and repairing boats? — A. Yes.

Q. In the usual course of your business I understand that on or about the
first of October nineteen hundred and eight you rented a piece of ground from INIr.
Dobell, representing the Duchess of Bassano, said piece of ground being part of lot
number 2525 of the cadastre for the Champlain Ward in the City of Quebec? — A.
Yes, sir.

Q. The land which you rented by this lease and which I now show you on
the plan before the Commissioners, is the land marked number 2525 and comprises
all the land mentioned under that number with the exception of that part which
lies on the east side of said lot and which is occupied by an ice-house and which
had previously been leased to Mr. Martineau? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. What is marked on the plan as ice-house? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, as there are two ice-houses on the plan is it not true that the ice-
house in question which was excluded from your lease was that wliich is situated
on the west side of the lot? — A. Yes.

Q. Next to the street? — A. Nex-t to the street.

Q. So that the land which you rented from Mr. Dobell encloses on all sides
the piece of ground leased to Martineau except on the street front? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you also rented the beach lot up to deep water? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. All that you required for your business.'' — A. Yes, sir.

Q. The lease which you passed is exhibit number five which I now show to
you? — A. Yes, sir.

INYESTIGATING COMMISSION 689

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. This lease was made for three years from the first of May nineteen hun-
dred and nine? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. Ending on the thirtieth of April nineteen hmidred and twelve? — A. Yes,
sir.

Q. It was mentioned in the lease and agreed between you and IVIr. Dobell,
acting as aforesaid, that Mr. Dobell had the right at any time to end the lease by
gi\-ing you six months notice, and upon such notice you had to abandon the lot
and to clear it? — A. I had to dehver the lot in question.

Q. After the six months had expired? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. What did you do on that lot? — A. I built and repaired boats.

Q. You built and repaired boats? — A. Yes.

Q. You have put upon that ground some kind of blocks, what is called in
English a skidway? — ^A. Yes.

Q. This is the skidway which is quite \'isible on the photograph produced
as exhibit number six? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. .The skidway in question is just what is \dsible on that photograph from
the stern of the schooner down to the water edge on the left side of the photograph?
— A. Yes, sir.

Q. And the schooner itself is lying on the skidway? — ^A. Yes, sir.

Q. You have also built on the same piece of ground what is seen on the left
side of the skidway, what is called a gridiron? — A. Yes, sir, a gridiron.

Q. In the month of August nineteen hundred and eleven you were still in
possession of that piece of ground as lessee as you have just said? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. Meanwhile you had leased to Mr. Napoleon Martineau, junior, a certain
part of the land in question, which is described in the lease sous seing prive pro-
duced as exhibit number four? — A. Yes.

Q. It is the same piece of ground of which Mr. Martineau spoke in his evidence
you have just heard? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. This is the piece of land on which the stable has been built? — A. I beg
your pardon. The stable, I gave it free to Mr. Martineau. The ice-house was
on the other side. I gave this through kindness.

Q. The piece of ground which you leased to Mr. Martineau by exhibit
number four is it this piece of ground? — A. One-half of the piece of ground. It
is di\dded in two. One part is leased by Mr. Dobell and the other part by myself
but the stable was not included in the lease, I gave that as kindness.

Q. In the month of August nineteen hundred and eleven did you see Mr.
Bergevdn? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. Mr. Raoul Bergevin? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. To give him his exact name, Mr. Raoul Rene Berge\in? — A. Yes.

Q. Of the City of Quebec, merchant tailor and dry goods merchant? — ^A.
Yes, sir.

Q. Is it Mr. Bergev-in who asked you to sell him something concerning this
piece of ground or was it you who offered to sell him? — A. I beg your pardon,
if you will just let me tell —

Q. Answer my question first? — A. No, it was not he.

Q. Well, then will you ex-plain how the negotiations began between Berge\in
and yourself? — A. In the month of July nineteen hundred and eleven I went to
Ottawa in order to see Mr. Parent as I had seen surveyors going over the ground
and I thought the land was to be bought that year,

Q. In other words, in the month of July, nineteen hundred and eleven, you
knew there was going to be expropriation ? — A. Yes.

Q. And for that reason you left Quebec and went to Ottawa to see Mr.
Parent? — A. I went to see Honorable ]\Ir. Parent, yes sir.

Q. Who was then Chairman of the Commission? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. To see how you could settle your business? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. While you were in Ottawa, did you get a telegram from Mr. Morency? —
A. Yes.

590 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. Who was Mr. Morency? — A. Mr. Morency was agent for the Department
here.

Q. He told you to wait? — A. He told me to call him up by telephone.

Q. Did you speak to him by telephone? — A. Yes, I spoke to him by telephone.

Q. And he wrote to you? — A. Yes.

Q. And you saw him? — A. Yes.

Q. And he read a note to you to what effect? — A. To the effect that my
valuation, according to Mr. Scott, was six thousand dollars. I received that letter.

Q. Then I understand you went to Mr. Berge^in in order to sell? — A. No,
before that, I had learnt that Martineau had sold his ice house. Then I went and
saw O'Neill.

Q. From whom did you learn that Martineau had sold his ice house? — A.
I was told by some people.

Q. Were you told that it was Bergevin who bought it? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. And knowing this you went and saw Berge\in? — A. I went and saw
O'Neill. I went into his bar as anybody could go and I said to him: "Jimmy, I am
told that Martineau has sold?" He said: "Yes." He said: "Do you wish to sell?"
I said: "If the offer is reasonable I will sell." He said:"How much do you want for
your slip and your damages." I said: "Six thousand dollars." He said: "You
ask too much, you will never get that. If you wish to sell we will fix that.
But then you shall give me something out of that and you must not say a word in
election time." I said: "That is all right." Then he said:" We will go up to Ber-
gevin's to-morrow." On the next day Berge\in and O'Neill came to my house and
they went and visited the ground.

Q. I want to understand this right. After your trip to Ottawa you under-
stood from what you heard from Mr. Morency by telephone or by letter that you
could sell with a good profit? — A. Yes.

Q. At the same time you learned that Martineau had sold? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. Then you went and saw O'Neill? — A. Yes, sir.

Q, Because you knew or you supposed at the time that it was through O'Neill
that Martineau had sold or that it was necessary to see O'Neill in order to reach
Bergevin? — A. Yes, because I knew that politics were mixed up \\ith that matter.

Q. Then O'Neill asked you if you wished to sell? — ^A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you told him that you would sell for six thousand dollars, rehing
upon what Mr. Morency had told you? — A. Yes, sir, on what he had written to me.

Q. O'Neill found the price too high? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. He told you that there was a way to settle the matter, but on condition
that you should stay quiet during the elections, what was the meaning of that? —
A. Not to work against them, because I am a friend of ]\Ir. Price.

Q. Not to work against them? — A. Yes.

Q. Then it was O'Neill who made arrangements to visit the ground and what
was on it a few days later? — A. It was he who saw Bergevin.

Q. Bergevin and O'Neill went there Avith you? — A. No, they came and saw
me at my house.

Q. They came to your house and went with you to sec the land? — A. Yes,
sir.

Q. They examined it? — A. The tide was high and they could not see what
we call the gridiron. They only saw the skidway.

Q. Is it at that moment that Bergevin made an offer to you? — A. No, sir,
he said he would think about it and would settle that later on, saying that we would
see each other again.

Q. In what capacity did Bergevin talk about buying? Was it individually or
as buyer for the Transcontinental? — A. When it was decided to buy my ])r()perty
I went and saw O'Neill. They made me come to O'Neill's i:)lace and Bergevin told
me: "Listen, Chevalier, I am working for the Transcontinental. I liave just seen
the books and your \aluation is four thousand dollars, we will give you four thousand
dollars. You had better take it because you won't get more and later on you may not

IXVESTIGATIXG COMMISSION 591

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

get anj-thing. If you will take four thousand dollars, we will buy your property."
I said: "If I am valued at four thousand dollars, but if my valuation is higher I
would like to get it."

Q. Then Bergevin gave you to understand that he was working for the Trans-
continental?— A. Yes, he told me so directly.

Q. He gave you to miderstand that he was bming or that he "uished to buy
your rights, whatever they might be, for the exact sum which the Transcontinental
was willing to pay you? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did you know at the time or did he give you to understand or to suspect
that he was acting as an intermediary so as to make money out of it for himself? —
A. No, I thought at the time, and I have always thought, that he was employed
by the Department, because he told me so.

Q. He told you that he was employed by the Department? — A. He told me
that he was employed by the Department and that he was the only man who could
see the valuations in the books.

Q. And he told you that you would receive exactly the amount which the
Government was going to pay? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. And not less? — A. Not less. Then O'Neill told me: 'T will cause you to
sell and you shall give me one hundred dollars."

Q. O'Neill was to get one hundred dollars? — A. Yes, and he gave them to
him too.

Q. Did Bergevin speak to you about the election? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. Berge\in also? — A. Yes.

Q. Vrhat did he say? — A. That was in the room — he made me enter into
a room at ISlr. O'Neill's.

Q. In the hotel?— A. In the hotel.

Q. A private room? — A. Yes, and after that he said: "Listen, Chevalier,
now that we are buying you up, that we are pacing you, that we are doing you a
good turn vou must not work against us, vou must help us in the election." I said:
"That is all right."

Q. Do I understand that in this circumstance Berge\in gave you to under-
stand that in gi^'ing you four thousand dollars he was acting for the Transcontinen-
tal?— A. Yes, sir.

Q. Buthe told you that in ginng you four thousand dollars he was doing a
good turn to you so that you would not be against them in the elections? — A. Yes,
that is correct, that is so.

Q. Was it long after that that you passed the deed of sale? — A. No, I saw
Mr. Dobell and two days later they came to my house.

Q. Is it the circumstance to which you have already referred? — A. On the
next day he passed the deed. He asked me to get a copy of my lease and I went and
saw Mr. Dobell.

Q. The lease which you have passed with ^Ir. Dobell as you have stated
before is exhibit number four? — A. No, sir.

Q. I mean exhibit number five? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did ]Mr. Bergevin know that lease? — A. Not at the time.

Q. When did he know it? — A. When I showed it to him.

Q. When did you show it to him? — A. When I went at the notary's. He sent
me to Mr. Dobell's to try and get a copy of the lease and he said; you shall bring to
me at the notary's.

Q. Who said that to you? — A. Mr. Bergevin. I went and saw Mr. Dobell.

Q. Before that, did Bergevin loiow that you occupied that piece of ground in
virtue of the lease from I\Ir. Dobell?— A. I don't know.

Q. You don't know? — A. I don't know.

Q. Did he ask you what you were able to transfer to him? — A. Certainly he
asked me and I told him.

Q. That you had only a lease from ^Ir. Dobell and that this lease expired on
the thirtieth of April?— A. Yes.

592 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. When did he tell you that? — A. While the sale was being discussed and
before we went at the notary's.

Q. You told him that you held a lease from Mr. Dobell and the lease expired
on the thirtieth of April? — A. Yes.

Q. On the thirtieth of April nineteen hundred and twelve, you knew that the
lease expired? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. By the terms of the lease it was to expire on the thirtieth of April, nineteen
hundred and twelve? — ^A. Yes, it expires then.

Q. Had you received a notice that it would not be renewed? — A. Mr. Dobell
had told me so several times; Chevalier, I cannot renew it.

Q. You had on several occasions asked Mr. Dobell to renew the lease
that it might continue after the first of May, nineteen hundred and twelve, and Mr.
Dobell had refused? — A. YeS; sir, he had refused.

Q, Did you tell this to Bergevin? — A. No, he did not speak about that.

Q. He did not speak to you about that? — A. No.

Q. After that you went at the notary's? — A. Yes.

Q. And there Bergevin saw the lease exhibit number five? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. You showed it to him? — A. Yes.

Q. You had taken a copy? — A. Yes, it is Mr. Dobell who procured it for me.

Q. Did Mr. Bergevin then ask you if it was possible to renew the lease? —
A. No, he did not speak about it.

Q. Or to extend it for some time? — A. No, he did not speak about it.

Q. He knew at the time that the lease had expired or would expire on the first
of May, nineteen hundred and twelve ? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. Or rather on the thirtieth of April? — A. On the thirtieth of April, nineteen
hundred and twelve, yes.

Q. Not on the first of May, but on the thirtieth of April, nineteen hundred
and twelve? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. Then it is under those circumstances that you passed the deed which is
produced as exhibit number one? — A. Yes, sir, he bought my lease, nothing more
nor less.

Q. By this document you sold him your rights to occupy the piece of ground
of which you have spoken? — A. Yes.

Q. And which was leased to you? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. That is to say, number 2525 except what had been leased or underleased
to Martineau? — A. Yes.

Q. And moreover, this occupation or right to occupy, whatever it may be,
were sold to be delivered on the first of May nineteen hundred and twelve? —
A. Yes, sir.

Q. He knew at the time that on the first of May, nineteen hundred and twelve,
you had no more lease? — A. He knew it certainly, he read it.

Q. Bergevin knew from what you have sho^ATi him and what you had told
him, that when you would be called upon to put him into possession of the piece
of ground in question on the first day of May, nineteen hundred and twelve, you
you would no more be in possession of the same? — A. Certainly, he had my lease.

Q. Consequently he was buying something which did not exist? — A. He
was buying nothing. So far as I was concerned it suited me very well.

Q. Now the skidway that we have already referred to, is it the same thing
as what has been called the slip in the different documents and deeds which you
have passed? — A. Yes, sir, that is the way we called it.

Q. You used that expression and you knew that in English this thing is called
the skidway? — A. It is called a skidway, yes sir.

Q. Then what is called a slip here is the skidway in question? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. That skidway witli the gridiron that was there, where are they now? —
A. They are at St. Laurent.

Q. They arc at St. Laurent on the St. Laurent dock-yard? — A. Yes, sir.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 599

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. They were removed from lot number 2525, and were put on the ground
belonging to the St. Laurent dock-yard, at St. Laurent, on the Island of Orleans? —
A. Yes, sir.

Q. And they are now the property of that company? — A. Yes sir.

Q. To whom they were transferred by a transaction which does not concern
the present matter at all? — A. Just so.

Q. WTien were they removed from lot number 2525 and brought to St.
Laurent? — A. I believe it was in the month of August, nineteen hundred and twelve.

Q. By whom were they removed? — A. By myself.

Q. By yourself? — A. Yes.

Q. \Yho paid for remo^'ing them? — A. The St. Laurent Company, Limited
I beg your pardon — it is I who paid for removing them and the company paid to
build them up again upon their ground.

Q. Bergevin never worked at the removal of that thing? — A. No, he is much
too lazy for that.

Q. Had he anything to do with the matter at all? — A. Not at all, I never
saw him again after that.

Q. When you had to remove the skidway and the gridiron and all that was
there did you consult with Berge^■in? — A. I have no business to do so.

Q. Did you notify Bergenn? — A. No, because the deed of sale gave me the
right to take away my property and Bergevin had nothing to do with this, he did
not buy those things.

Q. The skidway, the gridiron and all what constituted your dock-yard, I
understand that this was not sold to Berge\"in by that deed? — A. No.

Q. Ls it to your knowledge whether Bergevin did an\i:,hing else in connection
with that skidway — did he have anything to do with Mrs. Chevalier, for instance.
A. Not for that one, but for another one.

Q. Was the skidway in question e\*er sold to BergeAin by anybody in ^^rtue
of some other deed? — ^A. Not at all, not the skidway, it was the gridiron.

Q. But the gridiron that was on the ground in question has also been removed
from St. Laurent? — A. No, I beg your pardon, it is in Levis.

Q. Then this gridiron belongs to you? — A. Not at all, the wood belonged
to my father and when my father died he left it to my mother and I rented the
ground and I fixed the wood on the property, but I was earning my mother's living.
I was the o"^Tier and the business went on under my name.

Q. If I understand you right, this gridiron was made up of pieces of wood which
formerly belonged to your father? — A. Yes.

Q. Mr. Chevalier the father?— A. Yes.

Q. Your father is dead? — ^A. Yes, sir.

Q. And you are his heir? — A. No, he left it to my mother.

Q. You took those pieces of wood and you fixed them on the property and
built them up into a gridiron? — A. Yes, such as they were before.

Q. You built that gridiron yourself? — A. Yes sir.

Q. You built it on the land in question? — A. It was built before that, it
is a thing which is taken asunder every fall. My father had begun it before me and
had left it to my mother.

Q. Was it your father who completed it or was it you? — A. It is a thing
which is taken away every fall and is replaced in the spring.

Q. Those pieces of wood were destined by your father for the gridiron? —
A. Yes, sir.

Q. The gridiron was built by your father? — A. It was built by my father
but I renewed it frequently.

Q. Did you renew the pieces of wood? — A. Certainly.

Q. Then it was almost new? — A. No, because they are soon worn out.
The .ships' keels cut into it.

Q. You have to replace the pieces of wood, then who furnished the wood? —
A. I did. When my father died he left me with eight hundred dollars debts to

123.-38

594 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

pay and I had four hundred dollars to pay to Mr. Dobell and there was not one
cent in the house. I borrowed two hundred dollars to pay Mr. Dobell.

Q. And you went on that way? — A. Yes, and very hard up all the time.

Q. It was you who used the gridiron and you continued using it? — A. Yes.

Q. You were supporting your mother? — -A. Yes, I gave my mother the
revenue I got from the slip.

Q. You say that you gave the revenue that you got from the slip to your
mother, what do you mean by the slip? — A. I mean the gridiron.

Q. The gridiron? — A. Yes sir.

Q. It has been said that what you call the slip was the skidway? — A. Yes,
it can be called a slip.

Q. The revenue from the skidway was your own? — A. Yes.

Q. It did not belong to your mother? — A. No.

Q. And you say that the revenue from the gridiron A. It went to the

mother.

Q. It went to your mother? — A. Yes.

Q. To Mrs. Chevalier?— A. Yes.

Q. What became of that gridiron? — A. Well, the time for the elections
came. The mother was expropriated, the mother's gridiron was expropriated, I
mean to say a valuation was put upon it.

Q. It was not yet expropriated? — A. Well, yes, the notices were given,
people had passed at our place on purpose for that.

Q. By that time you had already sold? — A. I had sold.

Q. To Bergevin?— A. Yes.

Q. By the deed produced as exhibit number one? — A. Yes sir.

Q. Was it before or after the elections that Bergevin had anything to do with
the gridiron? — A. It w^as before. It was on the twentieth of September at three
o'clock in the afternoon, on the day before the election.

Q. On the twentieth of September at three o'clock in the afternoon Bergevin
went to your house? — A. I have a brother who is a conservative like myself —
we have always been conservatives — they fixed the matter up at O'Neill's but that
is all I knew about it. They fixed the matter up at O'Neill's and my brother came and
fetch my mother and brought her down town without consulting her notary, ISIr.
Parent, and they made the bargain and I only knew of it three weeks later.

Q. Was it a written agreement which they entered into? — A. A notarial
agreement.

Q. Have you got that agreement? — A. Yes, here it is. I produce it as exhibit
number seven.

Q. This is an authentic copy which I now show you of the sale by widow
Thomas Chevalier to Raoul Rene Bergevin? — A. Yes sir.

Q. I see by this deed that she has sold a slip and its accessories? Must I
understand that by the word slip on that deed is meant the skidway or the gridiron?
— A. The gridiron. That gridiron does not exist but it was the gridiron.

Q. On exhibit number six you have explained what was the skidway? —
A. Yes sir.

Q. And here the gridiron is shown? — A. Yes, this belongs to me.

Q. The skidway belongs to you? — A. Yes.

Q. The gridiron which is visible on that photograph belongs to you? —
A. Yes.

Q. In the deed produced as exhibit number seven mention is made of a
slip. This slip and its accessories do not include the skidway nor the gridiron which
appear on the photograph? — A. That belonged to me.

Q. It refers to another gridiron which is situated a little more to the left on
the photograph? — A. Yes.

Q. Towards the west? — A. Yes sir.

Q. That gridiron we say was sold by the deed, exhibit number seven? —
A. Yes sir.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 595

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. What became of it? — A. The sale was made without any notice to me.
A couple of weeks after the sale — I was not aware of anything — Bergevin telephoned
to me and asked me to come dowTi to his place. I went there and he told me:
Chevalier, will you sign this? I said what is this? He said: it is the sale by your
mother. I said: you don't need me to sign this. He said: yes, you must sign it.
I said: if I was not able to sign it on the twentieth of September, I am no more
able to-day. Then I went and saw Mr. Dobell and I explained the matter to him.
He even asked Mr. Dobell to sign it. I refused to sign it. One day I came home
and my mother was crying.

Q. About what time was that? — A. It was on the eleventh of October, on
the same day of the retrocession of the sale.

Q. That was some time, about ten days after the elections? — A. Yes, it
was on the eleventh of October. Then my mother told me about it.

Q, Your mother told you she had sold? — A. Yes, I knew it then because
Bergevin had asked me to sign.

Q. What took place then — did Bergevin go to your house? — A. No, Ber-
ge\-in telephoned. Bergevin sent word to the mother that if she did not give
him back his money he would have her put in jail.

Q. Bergevin sent word to your mother Mrs. Chevalier that if she did not
give him back the five hundred dollars which had been given to her as the price
of the deed exhibit number seven he would sent her to jail? — A. Yes.

Q. So that naturally Mrs. Chevalier was in great grief and anxiety ? — A. Yes,
sir, she even died from the shock she received on that occasion.

Q. She died from that shock? — A. Yes.

Q. What took place after that? — A. My sister came to me and told me that
my mother was in great grief, she said:" she has done a foolish thing and now she
is sorry for it." I went to the" other room and said she to me: " Berge\in has sent
word to me to give him back the money or else he is going to send me to jail." Then
she began to sob. She said " if I get into trouble I won't ask you to get me out
of it."

Q. Let us leave all those conversations aside and let us get at the facts. — A. I
told my mother : " I shall never give Berge\in the satisfaction to sign this. If
you wash, I am going to give you four hundred dollars — she had not got the five
hundred dollars. — I am going to give you four hundred dollars and you will transfer
the thing to my name and you will give back the five hundred dollars to Bergevin
and transfer every thing to my name and I will give you the profits so long as I shall
be able to work." She said: " that is all right." We went down to Mr. Parent's
and he made a retrocession, which you have here.

Q. Mrs. Chevalier had passed the deed produced as exhibit number seven
without speaking to you about it? — A. Yes, even without speaking to a notary
about it.

Q. By this deed she had sold to Bergevin the gridiron of which we have just
spoken and which is not the one which is visible on the photograph? — A. She had.

Q. But w^hich was built on the land in question ? — A. Yes, sir, on my property.

Q. That is to say on the property you had leased from the Bassano estate?
—A. Yes.

Q. And this gridiron was precisely the one about which you have spoken,
w^hich you had repaired and put together each year as it used to be done and into
which you had put new pieces? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. You became aware of this deed about the tenth or eleventh of October? —
A. I knew it before that, w^hen he telephoned to me.

Q. You w^ere made aware of it about ten days after the elections!* — A. Yes,
sir.

Q. By a telephone from Mr. Bergevin? — A. Yes.

Q. And about the tenth or eleventh of October you saw that such was the
case because on coming home you found your mother and your family in a state

596 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

of great anxiety, your mother crying and much distressed because Bergevin had
sent word to her saying:" if you do not give back the five hundred dollars which
I paid you for that gridiron I will have you sent to jail"? — A. Yes.

Q. Thereupon, in order to save your mother from the consequences of this
business in which she had been taken in you consented to give her four hundred
dollars? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. And to buy the whole thing? — A. Yes.

Q. To whom did you hand those four hundred dollars? — A. To my mother.

Q. And it was then that this document was drawn up? — A, Yes, sir, before
Mr. Parent, notary.

Q. Before notary Parent, on the eleventh of October, Bergevin re-assigned
to your mother, Mrs. ChevaUer, the right which he had bought by the deed pro-
duced as exhibit number seven? — ^A. Yes, sir.

Q. For the price of five hundred dollars? — A. Yes.

Q. And on the same day your mother sold that to you the same gridiron and
accessories for the sum of four hundred dollars? — A. Yes, to get clear of the whole
business.

Q. Such is the story of the gridiron? — A. Yes.

Q. Did you pay four hundred dollars to Bergevin? — A. I paid them to my
mother.

Q. Is it to your knowledge that your mother handed over to Bergevin the
five hundred dollars? — A. Yes, certainly both deeds were passed in my presence
at Mr. Parent's and it was Mr. Parent who gave him the money.

Q. What became of the gridiron? — A. It is in Levis. When Mr. Parent
came to visit the premises, he estimated that all the wood that was there was
worth about thirty dollars.

Q. W^hich Mr. Parent? — A. The notary.

Q. The gridiron in question which formerly belonged to your father and which
you had repaired as you have said, you removed it to Levis? — A. Yes, sir, some
pieces, part of it.

Q. What you removed to St. Laurent consisted in the skidway and the
gridiron which are visible on the photograph? — A. Yes.

Q. The other gridiron of which we have just spoken and which passed from
your mother's hands into those of Bergevin and which was reconveyed to your
mother was removed and brought to Lens? — A. Yes.

Q. When?— A. Last fall.

Q. During the fall of nineteen hundred and .twelve? — A. Yes.

Q. You told us that it was quite dilapidated? — A. Yes, it was worn out,
it was old, it was made up of all kind of old wood, it was no longer of use, it was
old wharf timber, it is not worth anything now.

Q. Since how long? — A. Since last summer. We were obliged to renew
it this spring.

Q. Since last summer it was not worth an>i:hing? — A. No.

Q. So I suppose that last summer it was not worth much either? — A. No,
ever since three years I had been renewing pieces everj' year — each year it had to
be renewed almost entirely.

Q. Each year a gridiron like this has to be renewed almost entirely? — A. Yes,
almost.

Q. In order to be worth some thing. — A. Yes.

Q. Since three years it had not been renewed to speak of? — A. Just one
piece here and there.

Q. So it was not worth anything? — A. No.

Q. Is it still in Levis? — A. Yes.

Q. It belongs to you? — A. Yes.

Q. So you had inherited this gridiron, or your mother had inherited it when
your father died? — A. Yes.

Q. When did he die? — A. He died five years ago last January.

INTE8TIGATING COMMISSION 597

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Now listen — you got this gridiron from your father and after using it for
one year you renewed a good part of it? — A. I beg your pardon, I did so im-
mediately during the winter. I borrowed money and I bought some wood and in
the spring I began to fix it, I lengthened it.

Q. You have told us that a gridiron of this kind, in order to be worth some-
thing must be renewed almost entirely each year? — A. Yes.

Q. Or partly renewed in any case? — A. Yes.

Q. You have it in j-our possession since five years? — A. Yes.

Q. Did you, each year, renew it so as to make it serviceable? — A. Yes, so
that I could utilize it.

Q. In order to utilize it you had to renew about half of it? — A. Yes, I dare-
say one half, because last year I rebuilt one half of the gridiron at my own expense

Q. Did you do the same thing the first year after you had it? — A. Yes.

Q. And in each subsequent vear you renewed it again? — A. At least half of
it.

Q. At least half of it? — A. Yes, about one half.

Q. And this went on during five years? — A. During four years.

Q. Consequently when the transaction in question was made you might well
claim the gridiron as your own? — A. I would not presume to say that it belonged
to me but I left it to my mother,

Q. You did this for your mother's sake? — A. Yes.

Q. Who removed that gridiron, your mother's gridiron, and who brought it
over to Levis? — A. I did.

Q. Yourself, personally? — A. Yes.

Q. At your own expense? — A. Yes, because they hid themselves from me
when they sold it. They did it so that I should not know it.

Q. Now, this gridiron, together with the skidway and the other gridiron had
to be removed on the thirtieth of April, nineteen hundred and twelve? — A. Yes,
sir.

Q. You were, obliged to remove it then? — A. Yes.

Q. Will you now produce as exhibit number eight the retrocession of which
you have spoken already made by Raoul Rene Bergevin to Mrs. Chevalier, on the
eleventh of October, nineteen hundred and eleven? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. And will you produce as exhibit number nine the sale already referred to
by Mrs. Chevalier to yourself dated eleventh of October, nineteen hundred and
eleven? — A. Yes, she made a retrocession on the eleventh and she died on the
twenty-eighth of the same month.

Q. You said that it was the cause of her death? — A. It was the principal
cause. She was suffering from heart disease and since that time —

Q. Will you produce as exhibit number ten a certain number of documents
in connection with the beginning of your evidence, when you said that you were in
Ottawa and received a telegram, a telephone message and a letter with notes by
Mr. Morency — that is to say, a telegram received by you from Mr. Morency on
the twenty-sixth of July, nineteen hundred and nine, while you were in Ottawa,
also the letter that he wrote to you on the same date in which he refers to his tele-
gram and tells you that he has something very important to communicate to you,
also the typewritten notes which he handed to you when you saw him again? — A.
Yes, sir.

Q. And in which he speaks of the valuation made by Mr. Scott? — A. Yes.

Q. Was it written with the pen at the foot of the document, was it written
by himself? — A. I don't know, he gave it to me as it is there.

Q. With those notes? — ^A. Yes.

Q. Is it Mr. ^lorency's handwriting? — A. No, I know Mr. Morency's
handwriting, and this is not his handwriting.

And further deponent saith not.

598 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

George Vidal, of the City of Quebec, Bailiff of the Superior Court, being
duly sworn upon the Holy Evangelists, doth depose and say :

Examined hy the Commissioner:

Q. You are a Bailiff of the Superior Court? — A. I am.

Q. Do you know Raoul Rene Bergevin? — A. Yes, I do. I know him very
well.

Q. What does he do? — A. He is a merchant, on Notre Dame Street.

Q. Did you serve him with an order of this Commission to-day? — A. Yes, I
did.

Q. Is this a duplicate original of the order? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. What did he tell you? — A. He told me he could not come as he was going
to St. Romuald, where he was called as an expert. I did not ask him what kind of
an expert.

Q. At what time did you serve him? — A. I served him at about five minutes
to one o'clock.

Q. To-day?— A. Yes, sir.

Q. Where did you serve him? — A. On St. Peter Street.

Q. Did you speak to him personally? — A. Yes, I spoke to him.

Q. And you gave him a duplicate of this order? — A. Yes.

Q. Which he retained? — A. Yes, sir, he did.

Q. Which order is filed as exhibit number eleven? — A. Yes. He asked me
for some money and I told him I had none.

Q. He asked you for some money although he told you he did not intend to
come? — A. Yes, he asked me if I had any money for him and I told him that I
had not.

Q. When you subpeona a man in the city to attend in the city do you have to
pay him? — A. I never do.

And further deponent saith not.

CORRY BUILDING, OTTAWA, ONTARIO, 3 P.M., THURSDAY,
, APRIL 24, 1913.

Examination of Mr. C. F. McIsaac, by the Transcontinental Investigating
Commission.

Mr. McIsaac, sworn and examined :

By Mr. Lynch-Staunton :

Q. What is your first name? — A. Colin F.

Q. You are a barrister and solicitor? — A. Yes.

Q. And practise where? — A. Antigonish, N.S.

Q. Had you any railroad experience before you came onto the Transcon-
tinental Railway Commission? — A. No.

Q. You were appointed Commis.sioner on August 1, 1905, I believe? — A.
Yes, sir.

INYESTIGATING COMMISSION 599

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. And you remained on the Commission until the end of 1911? — A. I
think the 31st of March, 1912.

Q. So you were a member of the Commission when the original contracts
for the construction of the road were let? — A. Yes.

Q. And when they were advertised? — A. Yes.

Q. Are you familiar with the advertisement that was put out, or were you
familiar with it at the time? — A. Yes. I was familiar with it at the time.

Q. The advertisement was for the construction of different sections of the
Transcontinental Railway, and in that advertisement was there not a condition
that each tender must be signed and sealed by all parties to it, and be accompanied
by an accepted cheque on a chartered bank of the Dominion of Canada, payable
to the order of the Commissioners of the Transcontinental Railwav, as follows:
for section No. 1, District A, 875,000; for section No. 2, District A^ S90,000; for
section No. 3, District B, 8225,000; for section No. 4, District B, 875,000; for section
No. 5, Districts C. and B, §225,000. (I am quoting from the second advertise-
ment.) Now, I understand that all the advertisements were in the same words
excepting as to the amount of the deposits for the various sections, which differed
in amounts. Is that right? — A. So far as I remember, yes.

Q. Each tender contained the following clause, did it not: "Any person whose
tender is accepted shall, wdthin ten days of the acceptance thereof, furnish such
additional approved security as may be required by the Commissioners, and sign
the contract, specifications and other documents required to be sent to the said
Commissioners; and in any case a refusal or failure on the part of the party whose
tender is accepted, to complete and execute the contract wdth the said Commission-
ers, and to furnish the additional approved security within ten days after the
acceptance of the tender, the said cheque shall be forwarded to the Commissioners
as liquidated damages for such refusal or failure, and all contract rights acquired
by the acceptance of the tender shall be forfeited." That is right, is it not? — A.
Yes.

Q. Now you notice, Mr. Mclsaac, that beyond stating the amount for which
the tenderer must fill in his cheque that accompanies the tender, there is no in-
dication given in the advertisement of what amount of security the Commissioners
may require? — A. No.

Q. So that the person tendering could be required to give any amount of
security which the Commissioners, in their uncontrolled discretion, might require
him to put up before he was allowed to have the contract? — A. Yes. It was put
there for the purpose of giving additional powers to the Commissioners, in case the
lowest tenderer was a man who was not financially or by experience able to carry
out the contract.

Q. Why should that be necessary, when Clause 16 of the National Trans-
continental Railway Act of 1903 provides, "that the Commissioners shall accept
the lowest tender put in by a contractor who, in the judgment of the Commissioners,
is possessed of sufficient skill, experience and resources to carry on the work, or
such portion thereof as he is tendering for?" — A. Well, we did it for that purpose
and that purpose only. In regard to the very first two contracts that were let, the
Quebec one and the McArthur one, both Mr. Lumsden, our Chief Engineer and
Mr. Schreiber, the Government Engineer, reported that the prices were too low
to enable them to carry out the contract, and there was a difference of opinion
among the Commissioners. The Chairman, Mr. Parent, wanted to give the contract
to the Grand Trunk Pacific, who were higher.

Q. I just want the reason^? — A. For just such reasons as I have given.
We considered, at the time, they were necessary conditions.

Q. As a lawyer, do you now think they were necessary? — A. I do. I think
it was a good thing to put in.

Q. Is there any precedent, to your knowledge, for putting such a clause in an
advertisement, either by the Government or by any railway company in Canada? —

eOO NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

A. I cannot recall any one just now, but in the public interest, I think it is a very
safe thing to put in, and we have never had any complaints from tenderers.

Q. But cannot you appreciate this : that it put absolutely out of the running,
in tendering for this work, anybody who was not of very large means? — A. I do
not think so.

• Q. For instance, a man might put up a S100,000 deposit with his tender for
a $5,000,000 contract. You would ask him to put up additional approved security
or forfeit his money? — A. I think it would be absurd to suppose such a case. I
do not think the Commissioners or any officials of the Government or a Minister
would undertake to do anything so outrageous as that. As I said before, we did
it in one case.

Q. As a matter of fact, on the McArthur contract you compelled McArthur
to put up, in addition to his deposit, S900,000 ? — A. We did so for the reason I
told you. Mr. Lumsden and Mr. Schreiber said the prices were low, but the case
never occurred again.

Q. But cannot you see there must necessarily be very few people who would
risk being put in that position? — A. I never heard of any complaints.

Q. No, because there were very few people tendered for this work? — A.
Those who did not tender on account of that would, no doubt, have come to us
or the Government or some other source, I should imagine.

Q. We will just consider it: for all this work on nine contracts — Nos. 3, 4,
12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 20 — totalling 760 miles, where the estimated cost would
be over S25,000,000, there were two or less tenderers for each of these contracts.
That is right, is it not? — A. I do not remember the number.

Q. This document shows you? — A. Yes.

Q. And these men, did they not, when they were awarded the contracts as
successful tenderers, immediately sub-let the work to a great number of sub-
contractors?— A. Yes, in the usual way. I understand that is what is usually
done.

Q. And those successful tenderers did not require any such deposit as this
to be put up by their subs? — A. I do not know anything about that.

Q. If I understand it, you approved of the sub-contractors.'^ — A. Yes, but
they were only agents of the large contractors.

Q. Did you see their contracts!' — A. Xo.

Q. They were filed here with you? — A. I cannot recall any of them.

Q. But they were submitted to the Board .^ — A. I do not think so,

Q. Now I ask you candidly, what possible good could come to the Commission
by putting a clause m the advertisement that would leave the contractor at the
mercy of the Commissioners or lose him his deposit? — A. It was done for that
purpose, so far as I know, and for no other, that is, to secure the public interest.

Q. Was it done under anybody else's advice? — A. Not that I know of.
I think it was generally discussed at the time by Mr. Lumsden and ourselves.

Q. Would not you know that it would discourage tenderers.-' — A. I do not
think so.

Q. Don't you think it was rather extraordinary that so few people tendered
for this great work? — A. I do not know. I think the number of tenderers was
just as many as on the Hudson's Bay and the Halifax, ]\Iusquodoboit & Guysborough
Railway contracts.

Q. Do you know that as a matter of fact? — A. No, just from hearsay.

Q. But don't you think that you would have got more tenderers if you had
divided the work up into shorter stretches? — A. We might.

Q. For instance, McArthur's contract amounted to over $20,000,000 and
extended over 245 miles. Don't you think a huge contract like that might be
advantageously split up into two or three stretches? — A. It is just a question.

Q. Did you personally give any consideration at all to that phase of the
question? — A. Quite a lot, and I think it was my ovnti view at the beginning,
that it should be split up.

INVESTIOATING COMMISSION 601

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. That it should be split up? — A. Yes, that was my idea.

Q. Why did you alter that opinion? — A. I cannot recall all the arguments
that were used. It was argued that by cutting up in small sections one contractor
would likely interfere with or be in the way of the adjoining one and thus create
many difficulties. Again it was stated a contractor vnth a large section would be
in a better position to purchase a large plant and thus do the work cheaper.

Q. But this is a momentous question. One would have to have very strong
reasons for arranging this so that only great milHonaire contractors could tender
for it, should not he? — A. All I can say is that in discussing it \;\-ith our Chief
Engineer, he thought it better to give longer sections than to cut it up into shorter
ones, and thereby get too many contracts.

Q. I might understand that if you had carried out that plan, but you allowed
the work to be split up into small contracts and dealt \^dth the small contractors
yourselves afterwards. — A. I think that is the usual way with all railroads.

Q. Then how would it benefit the Commission, even in avoiding trouble,
to cut it into large sections and then afterwards divide it into small sections for
sub-contractors .'* — A. Of course, experienced contractors and those who are
financially well off, are not so apt to give trouble to the Government or to the Com-
mission, in faihng, and eventually throwing the work into the hands of the Govern-
ment, and perhaps in the end costing more. That was an argument used by Mr.
Lumsden, I think, and a number of the Commissioners too, which probably had
a good deal to do with my coming to that conclusion.

Q. Why did you, then, not require the contractors, excepting Hogan &
Macdonell, and ]McArthur, to put up security greater than the deposit? — A. Why
did we?

Q. Why did you not? You started out •v\dth that plan and you made Mc-
Arthur put up 8900,000, and Hogan & Macdonell put up .S568,000 and then you
did not make anybody else put up am'thing at all. — A. Afterwards?

Q. Yes? — A. The reason was that our Chief Engineer, Mr. Lumsden, and
Mr. Schreiber, who was also consulted, both reported to us that they felt the
prices of these two contractors were too low to enable them to carry out the
contract. And for the sake of protecting the public, we required additional security.
In none of the succeeding contracts was any report given us by the Chief Engineer,
stating the prices were too low, so far as I remember. If you see our report at the
time you will notice that there was a difference between the Chairman and the
Commissioners.

Q. I read that. In the Mc Arthur contract there was only .$746,000 difference
between the tender and the Chief Engineer's estimate of 813,756,000. — A. I
forget the fig-ures, but I have reference particularly to Mr. Lumsden's report on
the tenders. I do not want to speak from memory. I would like to see Mr.
Lumsden's report at the time and our own report in accepting these tenders.

Q. Mr. Lumsden's letter to the Commissioners, of March 14, 1906, says:
" Herewith please find an estimate of the works tendered for in Districts B. & F.,
exclusive of viaduct. This estimate, which was prepared before kno'W'ing any of
the prices given by the tenderers, I believe to be ample for the completion of the
work and leave a fair margin of profit for the contractor; but a variation of say
ten per cent might be a reasonable price for a tenderer to make. If below this
margin of ten per cent, it would, in my opinion, be too low to ensure the com-
pletion of the work." Now, McArthur's tender was not much more than five per
cent below what Mr. Lumsden estimated, and I cannot find any letter from Mr.
Lumsden, in which he says that McArthur's price was not high enough. Mr.
Schreiber says, in his report of the 28th of March, 1906, after setting out the facts:
" The question to be considered is which of these tenders is in the public interest
to accept. No. 4 Tender (that is McArthur's) is 8745,624, and No. 2 Tender is
$727,270 less than the Chief Engineer's estimate. Considering the larger amount
of the tenders, compared with those for the Quebec section, the disparity between
the Chief Engineer's estimate and the lowest tender is not so great. However,

602 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

I consider that either of these tenders, though low, would cover the cost of the
work." And he goes on to say it is a matter for the Commission to settle under
Clause 16 of the Act of 1903, whether they will accept it or not. I have already
given you what Mr. Lumsden said, which is that it is sufficient. So they both
thought McArthur's tender high enough. — A. I do not think they say that,
do they.-^

Q. I think it would be fair to say this: that as the Chairman thought it was
low, and as it was below the amount of the estimate, you, as a matter of perhaps
super-caution, insisted on the additional security. — A. I would not put it that
way.

Q. How would you put it? — A. We did it because it was the first tender
we received, and on account of the engineer's report we felt we should exact it.

Q. But the engineers did not express an opinion that the tender was too
low? — A. I think they did in one of the reports. I thought they did it in both.
The opinion they expressed, even in this, will show it was pretty low — lower than
their estimate, was it not ? —

Q. Yes, five per cent lower than their estimate. — A. And we considered
that as it was lower than the estimate, it would be safer to make McArthur put
up more.

Q. That is your reason? — A. Yes, I have no other reason.

Q. Why did you not follow that out in the tender for Section No. 1 ? There
the tender was $27,000 below the estimate. That was very nearly the same pro-
portion— A. Well, I suppose our Chief Engineer did not raise any question or
doubt about that.

Q. But you had his opinion? — A. We were satisfied from his report.

Q. In No. 2 you had more than ten per cent below the estimate and you did
not exact additional security; in No. 3 it is more than ten per cent below, and you
did not exact it. It was twenty per cent below in that case. The Chief Engineer's
estimate was $933,000 and the tender was for $767,000.— A. Our Chi'ef Engineer
was satisfied in all these cases. I suppose he estimated more generously than in
the other.

Q. I cannot find any such statement by the Chief Engineer. — A. I do not
suppose there is.

Mr. Gutelius: — It would be for the Commission to decide these things.

By Mr. Lynch-Staunton:

Q. I will show you another one, a very large one, from 98 miles west
of Moncton to Tobique River. The estimate was $2,356,000, and the tender
$1,898,000. No additional security was asked to be put up. In fact, generally,
they seemed to be below the estimate. Here is one from Quebec, the M. P. &: J. T.
Davis division from New Brunswick boundary westerly. The estimate was
$3,139,000 and the tender was $2,377,000. The 107 mile contract of McDougall
& O'Brien was below the estimate. The amount of the tender was $4,559,000,
and the estimate was $5,715,000 so you see the tenders were, as a rule, below the
estimates quite an amount, and yet they were not made to put up this money? —
A. The only occasion on which we ever had to consider the question even at the
letting of the first contracts, and it was raised then on account of the difference
between the Commissioners and the report of the engineers, both Mr. Lumsden
and Mr. Schreiber. These contractors were kicking at the time, that we were
too se^•ere with them, and so on. Perhaps we were, but we felt we were doing it
solely in the public interest.

Q. It put McArthur to an expense of $200,000.— A. Probably it did.

Q. And if you thought he was low, you were putting him further in ti\e hole,
were you not? — A. Yes, if he did not undertake it, he might keep out of tlie hole.

Q. You got that security from McArthur in a very peculiar form. You got
from him three deposit receipts from the Traders Bank of Canada, in this form:
" Received from the Commissioners of the Transcontinental Railwav the sum of

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 609

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

five hundred thousand dollars, which amount will be counted over to the said
Commissioners of the said Transcontinental Railway upon the surrender of this
receipt. Thirty days' notice of withdrawal to be given. This receipt is not
negotiable. For the Traders Bank of Canada, H. S. Strathy, Manager." You
did not deposit any money with the Traders Bank? — A. No.

Q. How could you collect that money from them? They did not make any
contract with you to guarantee McArthur? — A. I presume McArthur deposited.

Q. Don't you, as a la^^yer, know that you cannot sue on a contract unless
it is made by yourself or assigned to you? — A. You are speaking of the additional
security?

Q. Yes. Now, after all that trouble, costing McArthur S200,000, you got
a receipt from the bank for a deposit which he did not make? — A. That is a ques-
tion of law.

Q. I am not sajdng you could not collect it, but is it not rather a formidable
question of law? — A. I do not care to give any opinion on that. I think that
security was fairly good security, in addition to what else we had.

Q. You were dealing with a very large sum of money, and did it never dawn
on you that you should have had either the money or a sure contract ^^■ith the
Traders Bank that they would make good if McArthur failed? It looks to me as
if that is a receipt from the bank for money which both you and the bank knew
you did not deposit; if you went to sue on that receipt the bank would say, "We
never received any money from you," and if you went further then and said, "But
McArthur did," they would say, "But you didn't, and we never agreed to guar-
antee his contract, and McArthur never deposited a dollar either." However,
you did not consider that? — A. We considered, at the time, that that was addi-
tional security.

By Mr. Gutelius:
Q. Did you pass on that security as being ample and conforming with your
reconmiendations to the Government, when letting the contract to IMcArthur? —
A. I presume so, but of course, as I have said before, I do not like to be positive
about these things.

By Mr. Lynch-Staunton:

Q. Mr. Fielding objected to that. He said it should not be done. In a
letter written by him to Air. Parent, on June 14, 1906, he objected to the form of
advertisement and to your receiving any such stage money as that, and suggested
that the advertisenemt for tenders should show what security was going to be
required from successful tenderers? — A. Yes, I remember that now.

Q. Mr. Fielding says, in his letter of the 14th June, 1906: "Do you not think
it expedient that whatever conclusion the Government and the Commissioners
arrive at should be, in substance, expressed in the advertisements, so that jjarties
tendering will be in a position to know exactly what class of security and what
amount would be required of the successful bidders ? This would avoid some of
the questions which arose upon the awarding of the recent contracts." You did
not accept the suggestion of the Finance Minister, and the advertisements continued
in the old form? — A. What was the reply to that letter?

Q. On December 17th, Mr. Parent wTote Mr. Fielding, saying that they
were about to let certain contracts and suggesting a conference betAveen themselves
and the Government, so that the matter of securities required might be settled.
Mr. Fielding replied on the 18th of December, 1906, and after referring to a con-
versation he had on that day vath Air. Parent, goes on to say that he thinks it is
desirable "that the commission, in letting contracts, should conform to the prac-
tice of the Department of Railways and Canals, and if, owing to the large sums
involved, full application of the ordinary rule would require too large a deposit,
there might be modification in the percentage, so that the amount deposited,
while substantial as security, would not be such as to unduly embarrass intending
contractors; but it should be distinctly understood in all cases that the cheque so

604 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE V^ 1914

sent in when the tender is accepted shall be converted into cash for the Government."
That is the opinion Mr. Fielding gave to the Commission : that in the first place
they should let the tenderer know what he had to put up as security, and that they
should also, when he had put up that security, convert it into cash? — A. Let me
have a look at those letters?

(Letters handed to witness.)

This letter has reference altogether to depositing deposit receipts to the credit
of the Receiver General.

Q. Yes, but you did not do it? — A. I think we did after we got this notice.

Q. You did not deposit McArthur's. All I am dra-^dng your attention to is
the fact that Mr. Fielding apparently thought that you should require not any
more security from contractors on the Transcontinental Railway than they do in
the Departments of Public Works and Railways and Canals? — A. I do not think
that is just what he meant.

Q. He insisted in two letters, one on February 20, 1906, and another on May
21, 1906, that these deposit receipts should be cashed, and then on May 26th he
wrote to Mr. Parent, "My dear Mr. Parent, I beg to acknowledge receipt of
your letter of the 23rd instant. Without expressing any opinion as to the course
which the Commission have deemed it proper to take, in relation to the securities
required in connection with the construction of the Transcontinental Railway, I
think I should remind you that the general practice of the Government's Depart-
ments, in relation to such matters, as established by Order-in-Council, is to require
all deposit receipts to be sent to the Department of Finance and to be dealt with as
so much cash." That is pretty straight? — A. So far as deposit receipts go.

Q. Now we will see the rest. Then on June 14th he makes the suggestion
I have already quoted, as to the expediency of stating in your advertisements how
much security should be put up, so that contractors could know what they are
doing. Then on December 18th he says: "I think it desirable that the Trans-
continental Railway Commission, in letting these contracts, should conform as far
as possible to the practice of the large constructing Departments of our Govern-
ment, namely, the Railways and Public Works Departments. The practice there
is to require a certified cheque for a certain percentage of the value of the work,
which cheque, on the acceptance of the tender, is sent to the Finance Department
and is at once converted into cash. I would suggest that you adopt this rule."
Then he goes on: "If, owing to the large sums involved, full application of the
ordinary rule would require too large a deposit, there might be a modification of
the percentage, so that the amount to be deposited, while substantial as security,
would not be such as to unduly embarrass intending contractors, and it should in
all cases be distinctly understood that the cheques so sent in when the tender is
accepted are converted into cash by the Government." This suggestion was not
carried out with regard to Hogan <k Macdonell and McArthur? — A. I do not re-
member, but I know we carried it out afterwards.

Q. But you did not carry out his suggestion about naming the security in
the advertisements? — A. I do not know just exactly whether that is what he
meant. I think he had reference altogether to the lump sum that we asked.

Q. But you did not carry out his suggeation, that you follow the practice of
the Public Works and Railways Departments, which never require a man to })ut
up more than five per cent, and that only in contracts under S200,000. It all
comes do\Mi to this: That it seems to me that the conditions of your advertise-
ments were so exacting that they prevented many peopl(> who were quite competent
and were financially able to perform this work, from tendering, and thereby the coun-
try lost the benefit of competition? A. I do not know. We never heard any oi)jec-
tions, as I said before, and we did it for the sole purpose of additional security.
By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. But there was ol)jectiou. Mr. Fielding speaks of it in his letter? — A. I
think his objection was chiefly to the fact that we took a deposit receipt instead of
certified cheques or cash.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 605

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

By Mr. Lynch-Staunton:

Q. You could not have read his letter very carefully. He says m his letter
of June 14th: "Do you not think it expedient that whatever conclu=!ion the Govern-
ment and the Commissioners arrive at should be, in substance, expressed in the
advertisements, so that parties tendering will be in a position to know exactly what
class of security and what amount would be required of the successful bidders.
This would avoid some of the questions which arose upon the awarding of the recent
contracts."

Mr. Giitelius: So that there were questions raised?

By Mr. Lynch-Staunton:

Q. Then Mr. Parent replied on the 16th of June, "After the interview I had
vnih. you this morning, your letter of the 14th, referring again to the inspection of
securities on our contracts, was submitted by me to the other Commissioners.
They concurred in the suggestion which you made, and consequently the next time
tenders have to be invited, for construction on our line, we will see that an under-
standing is reached on those points beforehand." But it never was done. I imagine
it was forgotten, was it not? — A. I am not sure of that, but I do not remember.
My memory of it is that it had reference chiefly to the cashing of certified cheques.

Q. We will go on to something else. In your specifications for the grading
and for the general contracts for the building of this railway, engine houses and
section houses are included in the general grading contract, but no prices are provided
for which this work is to be done. Did you know that? — A. Is that in the first,
or all of them?

Q. In all of them. — A. I really cannot remember about that.

Q. The contract is here, and you know that it pro\-ides for unit prices, and
it also provides that these buildings shall be put up by the grading contractor;
but luckily for the contractor, he was not bound to give the prices for constructing
them. I want to point out to you the consequence of that: it was this, that while
one-three-six, made up of one cement, three of sand and sLx of gravel, was, on other
works, put up for from 810.50 to S16.00, when you came to build these engine houses
the contractors got S17.00 for them because they said: We are going to have the
work, and you will have to pay our price. We have got 3^ou in a cleft stick. Is not
that right? — A. I do not know. The prices were fixed by the Chief Engineer.

Q. Yes, but the law required that they should be fixed by tender. It is an
error. Why was it not discovered after you found the first trouble. Do you know
anything about it? — A. I do not remember.

Q. Now, with regard to bricks. They charged you, for common bricks,
S34.40 to 840.00 a thousand, in place. They charged you, for lumber, 860.00,
870.00 and 875.00 a thousand feet board measure, and I figure it out, that little
mistake cost 8800,000 more than if it had been in the contract. Has your attention
not been drawn to that fact before? — A. I do not remember. The Chief Engineer
in all such cases fixed prices that were fair and reasonable as I understood.

Q. I want to ask you something about Transcona. Why were those shops
built on such an expensive scale? They have cost nearly 84,000,000 to date. I
am told by Mr. Calvert that the original intention of the Commission was to spend
SI ,500,000. That afterwards the Grand Trunk Railway approached the Commission
and the Government and an understanding was arrived at, that the capacity and
extent of the shops should be increased so as to accommodate both the Eastern
and Western divisions, that is, the Transcontinental and the Grand Trunk Pacific,
west of Winnipeg; and he says he understood that the Grand Trunk were to pay
for the use of those shops, in so far as they were used for their Western division.
Now, I am asking if you agree with him, because we cannot find anything about
it, and it is an important matter to know what the Commission's understanding
was.

Q. Would you mind, if you have any recollection, giving just your owti view? —
A. The shops were built for the Eastern Division.

606 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. You can see it is a very important matter, because the Grand Trunk
Railway will use those shops? — A. Yes.

^ Q. And where is their liability to pay for the use of them? Don't you think
there should have been a contract made with them? — A. It was always thought
there would be if they would use the shops.

Q. A contract? — A. Yes.

Q. I would like you, very much, to think that over, because we would like
to have you write us a letter on that. — A. I would not care to do that, because
I might not remember the details accurately enough, but it was always expected
that they would pay for the use of these shops for the Western division.

Q. It was recognized, then, that the shops were made larger than originally
intended, so as to accommodate the Grand Trunk's requirements for the Western
Division? — A. The shops were built for the Eastern Division, but it was considered
that if the Western Division would make use of them, they should be made to pay
for such use.

By Mr. Gutelius:
Q. Was there any written contract? — A. No.

By Mr. Lynch-Staunton:

Q. Can you tell me by what lawful authority either the Commission or the
Government made that expenditure? — A. We felt we had authority to build
them, so far as the Eastern Division is concerned.

Q. And you arrived at the conclusion to spend 81,500,000? — A. That is the
original estimate given by Mr. Lumsden, but after the plans were prepared by the
Grand Trunk Pacific it was found out that that sum would not be at all sufficient
to build the accommodation required.

Q. For both railroads? — A. It was considered that 81,500,000 would not be
sufficient to cover the requirements of the Eastern Division itself.

Q. Is your statement correct, that your recollection is that the shops were
made the size they were to accommodate both divisions? — A. The shops were
built for the Eastern Division but if used by the Western they would have to pay
for such.

Q. Then by what authority did either the Commission or the Government
make shops to accommodate the Western Division? — A. I do not think we had
authority to build for the Western Division.

Q. Yes? — A. We assumed we had the authority and that settlement could
be made later on.

Q. I want to ask you, did you yourself or did any Commissioner, to your
knowledge, receive any sum of money or sums of money from any contractors or
intending contractors on the Grand Trunk Pacific? — A. Never.

Q. Never received any? — A. Never received any.

Q. Will I understand that to be a full denial by you of ever having been a
party to receiving money for any purpose from any persons who had contractorial
relations with this Commission? — A. Yes. I tiiink I can go further, Mr. Staunton,
and say that so far as I am concerned neither any contractor, sub-contractor,
engineer, or anybody else, directly or indirectly connected with the Transcontinental
Railway, ever made a corrupt or what I consider an improper offer or suggestion
to me, and I desire my statement to be recorded.

Q. I am glad to hear you say so. — A. So far as I am concerned, I repeat that
statement and you can put it as wide as the English language can put it.

•Q. Can you say so, so far as your knowledge goes, about others? — A. I
know of nothing.

Q. I want to go back again to the tenders. Before the advertisement was
put in the press, inviting tenders for this work, estimates were made by the engineers
ofjthe Commission, of the probable co.st of the work. Is that not right? — A. Yes.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 60?

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Those estimates, with profiles of the work, were sent in here to the head
office of the Commission by the various district engineers. Is that right? — A. Yes.

Q. Those estimates were not supposed to be sho\Mi to the tenderers? — A. No.

Q. And if any tenderer saw those estimates, was it or was it not improper,
under the practice adopted by the Commission? — A. You mean to show them to
the tenderers?

Q. Yes? — A. I think it is improper.

Q. It would give the tenderer who saw the estimate an advantage over one
who did not see it? — A. They say it would. Other people say it would mislead
them.

Q. But in your opinion, would it not be an advantage to one tenderer if he
got that information and his competitor did not get it? — A. Yes. That is generally
conceded, although it may not always be the case.

Q. You would not, at all events, have been a party to showing those estimates
to one contractor and not to another? — A. No. I took the position, myself, in
the beginning, that those estimates were not of much value any way. They were
guess work, and I thought it proper to give them to the whole public, for all they
were worth.

Q. But it was agreed that the pubhc should not see them? — A. Yes. Mr.
Lumsden thought that should be the custom, and Mr. Simon too.

Q. Mr. Simon TSTote a very strong letter about it? — A. I was very strong
the other way, at first, until I saw all the engineers were against me.

Q. The reason was that they were not reliable and a contractor might after-
wards complain that he had been misled? — A. Yes. That is the reason they were
not to be shoT\'n.

Q. But the tenders were to give unit prices. There were 10-3 items in the
price hst, covering clearing, grubbing, sohd rock, loose rock, and so on, and the
amount was to be put opposite those unit prices, under each of those headings,
by the engineers? — A. That is, in figuring out their private estimates for us?

Q. Yes, the amount ? — A. Yes. They named their own figures and figured
them out upon their own supposed estimate.

Q. I will give you one case. In Fauquier's contract they estimated there
was over 600,000 yards of moss. Fauquier said he knew from information he got
out on the ground that the engineers thought there was an enormous amount of
moss, but he said, "I knew the engineers were wTong. There was a very small
quantity of moss. I therefore put in He a yard for moss; although I knew that was
a cheap price, yet I knew there was not much of it." As a matter of fact, he only
had 16,000 yards, and he expected that his competitors, not knowing this, would
put in a big price for moss. He says he got the contract on this knowledge? — A.
Could not any other contractor have had that knowledge?

Q. No.. He says, "I picked up the knowledge myself ?" — A. I suppose any
other contractor could do the same thing.

Q. I am not sa>ang that they could not, but I am pointing out to you the
advantage of having a knowledge of what was in the estimate. The consequence
in this case was that the engineers, when they looked at their estimate, put down
S63,000 as the amount at which Fauquier said he would remove 600,000 yards of
moss. Other tenderers put down 35c for moss, and so when they moneyed it out,
it was found that these other tenderers agreed to remove the moss for about 8200,000.
So that Fauquier, although for the real work to be done, had in a higher price, yet
on the supposed work to be done, he had a lower price and got the contract. Now
you can see from that the advantage of knowing what those estimates were, if his
fellow-tenderers did not know? — A. Yes. You can say that about all contracts
where there are schedule prices and estimates.

Q. That is right. That is a general rule. Therefore, you will agree with
me that it would be very wrong to show those estimates to one tenderer and not to
another? — A. Yes. I think so.

608 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. And it might result in the lowest tenderer for the actual work not getting
the contract, as did happen in two cases, might it not? — A. Yes.

Q. Now, do you know, personally, of any tenderer having been showTi those
engineers' estimates? — A. No. I do not.

Q. Did you ever hear they were shown?— A. No. Of course you see this,
that and the other thing in the papers. People sometimes say this man got informa-
tion or that man got information, but I never heard of such a case from any person
who would have knowledge.

Q. You have never heard more than the merest street rumour? — A. Exactly.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. Did you know that Fauquiers got their contract on account of that moss? —
A. I never heard it until to-day.

By Mr. Lynck-Staunton:

Q. You undertook *to settle with the right of way people in Aladawaska
County, did you not? — A. You mean personally?

Q. Yes?— A. No. I did not.

Q. Did you personally conduct the negotiations for the land, wath the men
along the right of way? — A. No. I did not. I went down there once or twice
and heard them talk about it, but I did not undertake to settle anything.

Q. Who did the work in your time? — A. There were some appraisers, first,
and they were getting along very well, but some French people objected that they
were all English speaking people and that they could not understand them, so we
got an English and a French appraiser. The English appraiser, Mr. Stoat, was one
of the appraisers in Victoria or Carleton County and did satisfactory work there.
The District and Division Engineers had instructions to watch the work of the
appraisers. After they were to work for some time, Mr. Foss, the District Engineer,
held back a number of the claims and reported to the Commission when the apprais-
ers were dispensed with and Mr. Stevens was appointed.

Q. Now, Stevens reports to Atkinson on November 30, 1911, after the general
election :

"The causes leading up to my appointment may be briefly stated as
follows : —

The first appraisers appointed to appraise lands in Madawaska County
and take options or agreements were inexperienced in such matters and muddled
things badly by seeking to obtain agreements based on land values only and
without taking into consideration or allowing anj-thing for damages caused
by injurious affection such as severance, loss of water, cutting off from the
River St. John, etc., etc., so that it was not long before considerable dissatis-
faction was expressed by the land o%\Tiers, resulting, in many cases, in their
refusing to treat with these men, or, in cases where agreements had been
obtained, not recognizing the validity of such agreements, alleging fraud and
misrepresentation on the part of the appraisers in obtaining them.

New appraisers were then appointed and they, in many cases, went to the
other extreme and made agreements with the land owniers for what appeared
to be excessive amounts, which agreements, on the recommendation of Mr.
C. O. Foss, the District Engineer, -who considered them exorbitant, the
Commis-sioner.s would not approve and the District Engineer gave instructions
to hold up a number of them, which had not then been paid, pending invest-
igation. This action on the part of these new appraisers made matters still worse,
especially among those who, by comparison, had accepted much less, or had
agreed to accept much less, and also among those whose agreements were not
approved by the Commissioners, and such settlements, before they were held
up, had the effect of encouraging all the others to hold out for large amounts

UfFESTIGATINO COMMISSION 609

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

These new appraisers were then discharged and things were at a deadlock

with only about 100 claims paid and about 450 not paid, when I was requested

by the Commissioners, on the recommendation of Mr. Foss, to meet them at

Ottawa (which place was subsequently changed to Quebec) to discuss the

rather grave situation which had arisen lq regard to right of way matters in

]\Iadawaska County."

Q. Is that right?— A. Yes. That is right.

Q. Who picked out these appraisers that Stevens speaks so unfavourably
of? — A. They were recommended, I suppose, bj' some of the members down there.
I think they were as good men as we could get in the localities, but the situation ia
Madavv-aska was very peculiar. A lawj^er, by the name of La Forey, went to most
of these people before the appraisers were appointed at all, and made some sort of
agreement with them, to fight their claims, for a certain percentage or consideration,
and that made it very difficult for the appraisers first appointed to make any settle-
ment at all. The people complained, of course that they were not offered enough,
and that was the trouble our first appraisers had. I think Mr. Stevens mentions,
in that letter, that the first appraisers only took into consideration the exact value
of the land taken, and did not allow an}i;hing for damages. The people would not
settle with them and we had afterv.'ards to get the other appraisers to try and settle.
That letter puts it fairly vrell, I think. We a.lways tried to get the best arrangements
and settlements we could •with, the people.

Q. Now, the average cost of land in Madawaska County was $457.40 per
acre, and in only fom* iostances ai'e buildings included. Did you know that? — A.
How much an acre?

Q. $457.40. In Westmoreland, Queens County, Victoria, York and Sunbury
County (all in New Brunswdck) the cost of land was from $46.00 to $93.00 per acre-
Why did jMadawaska get such enormous prices? In the other comities the road
passes unsettled country as a rule. — A. I would much rather you would get Mr.
Stevens to explain that. I would not undertake to do it. I do not remember any
of these cases in particular, but I remember this: Along the Transcontinental
Railway in Madawaska County the houses are all pretty well in a line, and the
C. P. R. goes pretty near their buildings, so that with the Transcontinental on the
other side of their buildings the road really injures their land very much.

Q. What you say then, to put it fairly, is that conditions were peculiar in this
county? — ^A. Exactly. They were peculiar, and if you ask Stevens or any person
do^-n there who knows the individual cases, I think you would find that fully ex-
plained. At least, we did all v.-e could to fight do'UTi the prices and get them as
reasonable a-s we could.

Q. Will you explain this to me : You first thought of entering Winnipeg from
Transcona, through St. Boniface, alongside of the Canadian Northern Railway.
That was afterwards abandoned, and on the advice of the Chief Engineer you ran
a straight line farther west of the Canadian Northern into Winnipeg, where you
built that great embankment. Is that right? — A. That is what you call the new
entr;.nce into Winnipeg?

Q. Yes. Now will you tell me why you did not treat with the owners and
secure that land either by compulsory proceedings or private contracts, before j^ou
built the railway? — A. Before we built the railway?

Q. Yes. — A. I do not think that has been done anywhere.

Q. But was it not an awfully reckless thing to do? — A. We would have had
to go to the Exchequer Court to settle \vith them.

Q. It has never been settled to this day.^ — A. No.

Q. And Mackenzie & Mann are now claiming $2,500,000 for a piece of
their land. Don't you think it would have been the part of wisdom to have quietly
approached those men before committing yourselves to the building of the railway?
— A. Yes, if you could get it.

123.— 30

610 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. You should make a try, shouldn't you? So far as I can find out, they
never tried to secure it. They simply built over the land and left themselves in
the hands of the land-owners. — A. Or left themselves in the hands of the Ex-
chequer Court.

Q. Is that a prudent way to act? — A. What applies to one place does not
always apply to others.

Q. You agreed on the terminal, you built the bridge across the Red River,
and so made it impossible for you to deviate your track, before you even filed your
plans, and let the owners see you were coming and get ready for you. Do you
think that was prudent? — A. Of course it may have been prudent in some cases
and not in others.

Q. How could it be prudent in any case? — A. I think, as a rule, we tried
to get settlement beforehand, but we had great difficulty in that Winnipeg end of
it, I may say, because everybody wanted a big price.

Q. But was it not the part of prudence to try and settle on the cost before
you went in? — A. Well, I will tell you. No. We bought the land for the shops first
of all, at what we considered very good terms under the circumstances. We were
found fault with a great deal afterwards, for giving excessive prices, and we were
told that we should have gone to the Exchequer Court.

Q. But you know that as a public commission, you are bound to be found
fault with? — A. Yes.

Q. And when you accept the responsibility of a Commissioner, you should
act as a prudent business man, quite irrespective of street criticism. — A. I am
not giving that as a reason, but as an answer to your question that we should,
in all cases, settle beforehand.

Q. Now before it was known that you were going to put the shops where
they are, you bought the land. That was a business proposition? — A. Yes.

Q. Why didn't you buy the land before the people knew you were going into
Winnipeg? — A. I do not know that we could, because the question was under
consideration for a long time, as to the two routes.

Q. On the advice of your engineer, you could make up your mind quietly,
where you were going, and then get busy and buy the land just as you bought
the land for the shops, could you not? — A. I do not remember how much of that
land was not taken. I am just talking now without recollection of the facts.

Q. As I understand it, Mr. Young took umbrage at the criticism that was
levelled against him, for his purchase of these shops, and said, " Oh well, after this
we will let the court decide. We won't decide to buy it ourselves any more. — A. I
have no doubt he did.

Q. He expressed himself in that way, did he not? — A. He was very much
disgusted at the criticism of what he considered a very good bargain, and I have
no doubt he did. We could not settle with Mackenzie & Mann who I think
controlled most of the land, as they strongly opposed this Northern entrance and
we were delayed over a year in bringing suits in the Exchequer Court on account
of Judge Cassel's decision that he had no jurisdiction. The matter had to go to the
Supreme Court of Canada.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. In connection with letting the McArthur contract, we find, in looking
over the moneyed-out statements, that the Chief Engineer filled in some twenty
prices that were left blank in McArthur's tender. Did you know that they were
filled in at this office by the Chief Engineer? Had you any personal knowledge
of it? — A. So far as I can remember, the Chief Engineer after he moneyed out
the tenders and reported the amount of each, informed us that he filled in some
prices that were left blank in McArthur's contract. The Chairman, I think, called
his attention to it and Mr. Lumsden stated that McArthur was the lowest accord-
ing to his quantities, or words to that effect.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 6U

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Do you remember recei\ing or seeing Mr. Lumsden's estimate of S114,-
000,000. Was that given to the Commissioners?— A. $114,000,000 for what?

Q. For the building of the whole railway. — A. I cannot remember.

Q. There was an estimate made, and I just want to know whether you
personally saw it. — A. Do you mean the estimate sent to the Government?

Q. No. It was sent to you, I think. Here is a print of the original. You
will probably recognize it.

(Document handed to witness.)
A. If this was sent to us, I should probably have seen it.

Q. You would not forget, when the 8114,000,000 first came out. And now
in connection with this large security, which you had in your power, as Commis-
sioners, to demand from tenderers or contractors: in the light of subsequent
events, do you not recognize that that advertisement had the effect, or would
have the effect of deterring contractors from figuring, unless they knew about
what you were going to demand? — A. From my experience, I do not think it
has had that effect.

Q. It did have the effect, did it not, of placing the work in the hands of one
or two contractors? A. — I never heard of any person that was prevented.
Possibly a man of small means might have been prevented. The question is,
whether it is desirable and in the public interest that people who are inexperienced
and without financial means should get the work.

Q. If you would have to accept the tenderers, yes; but you had in your hands,
according to the Act, absolute control. It looks,, you know, to us, as though
competition, on account of that advertisement, was throttled, and I do not see
hov.' you can escape agreeing, to a certain extent, that our idea is right. — A. I
do not agree for this reason: it was put in so far as I am concerned, solely in the
public interest. I never saw any reason, in the actual working out of the contracts
and tenders afterwards, for thinking that any person or persons who otherwise
might have tendered, had been deprived from tendering by that advertisement.
That is, so far as any complaint reached us.

Q. Your position is based on the lack of complaint. You would not be
surprised if I showed you a list of contractors who would have tendered under the
ordinary conditions of the Pubhc Works Department. — A. Contractors will say
anything. You are trying to draw me out.

Q. Just as a business man, I wanted to see if I could not get you to agree
with what seems to be right. — A. It might, of course, prevent some people from
tendering, but if there was any contractor who had any fears on that score, he could
make inquiry and ask what the conditions were.

By Mr. Lynch-Staunton:

Q. Do you think it was right to let the Grand Trunk Pacific tender at all? —
A. I would not hke to pass an opinion on that.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. Did the Commission agree to and authorize the construction of a double
track at Winnipeg on that new line? — A. This line we are speaking of?

Q. Yes? — A. I do not remember that.

Q. It is a double track line? — A. Yes.

Q. You think you just accepted Mr. Grant's recommendation? — A. I pre-
sume so. What is the record?

Q. He recommended the construction of that line and it was built double
track. The point is, had you any right, under the Act, to build double track rail-
road?— A. No. I think the Act says single track, does it not?

Q. Yes. — A. Unless the entrance into a city like Winnipeg would be more
like a terminal, and it might be double tracked under that heading, might it not?

612 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. Do you remember whether you have given the Commission any opinion
as to whether they could build double track under the Act, at such a place? — A. I
forget.

Q. There is also a double track from Cap Rouge Bridge down to the yard at
St. Foye, where a large amount of money was required for the hea\y rock cut. Do
you remember how that double track happened to be constructed? — A. No, un-
less it was considered part of the terminals.

Q. • You do not think the proximity of the Canadian Northern had anything
to do with that double track? — A. I do not remember.

Q. You do not remember any discussion as to the Canadian Northern pro-
posing to use double track? — A. No.

Q. Were you down at Quebec the day they settled the price of 55 cents for
train fill on tracks Nos. 9 and 10 (the Davis and O'Brien division)? — A. No, I do
not think so.

Mr. Lynch-Staunton : No. He would not.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. Did you have anjrthing to do, as a Commissioner, with the adoption of
the use of pneumatic caissons in the construction of the foundation of the Cap
Rouge Viaduct Avhere it crossed Cap Rouge River? — A. Our Chief Engineer and
Mr. M. J. Butler reported in its favor and the Commission approved the report
so far as I remember.

Q. But you were personally not a factor in arranging it? — ^A. Except in ap-
proving the engineer's report.

Q. Did you understand the Act to provide for betterment on the part of the
Government, after the railway was completed? — A. Yes.

Q. That the Government would furnish additional capital money, as it was
desirable or necessary? Your understanding of the Act was after the road was turned
over and the lease completed the Government was still under obligation to expend
capital money, where desirable or necessary? Is that right? — A. Yes.

Q. And knowing that, you did not take advantage of it to defer any capital
expenditures, did you? — A. I cannot remember any particular case.

Q. You do not remember one case where a big expenditure was to be made
in the future? — A. No. I do not remember, unless you can call my attention to
some particular case.

Q. Did it occur to you, while you were an active Commissioner, that upon the
cost of this railway would depend the possibility of securing lower rates between the
East and West?— A. Yes.

Q. Did you appreciate that if the railway was made unnecessarily expensive,
the rent which the Grand Trunk Pacific would have to pay for it would be so high
as to prevent their being able to carry freight more cheaply over that road than at
present rates? — A. Of course, the more the road would cost, the higher the rental
would be and the higher the rental, the more they would have to get out of the
traffic to pay for it. But an engine on a road with the grades and permanent
structures of the Transcontinental Railway can haul, so engineers say, nearly
double the freight, and tiie maintenance and operating expenses would be less.

Q. That is right. Was that the idea that the Commission kept before it at
their various decisions? — A. I cannot speak for the others, but speaking for myself,
that was the idea. A\'e all wanted to build it as cheaply as we could, that is, con-
sistent with the grade.

By Mr. Lynch-Staunton:

Q. Is there any place along the whole railway where you took cost into con-
sideration at all? — A. There is a portion of the road which we did not want to con-
struct according to the plans and specifications.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 613

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. You had the control of those plans and specifications and did not you make
them such that it was the very highest priced single track railroad that could be
built? — A. Yes. We could have built it for less money if we had chosen an inferior
standard.

Q. It vras a very expensive class of railroad you undertook, was it not? —
A. Yes.

Q. Do you know any railroad in America as expensive, I mean in its original
construction and subseqeunt development? — A. I do not know. I cannot re-
member just now.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. Was there ever discussion before your board on the subject of economy, in
connection ^ith the size of yards? — A. I think so. I think v.x discussed these
matters with a view of getting everything done as cheaply as possible, consistent
with the plans and specifications.

Q. I am speaking of the criticism of the plans. You may as well be frank
about it. Did you ever see a letter written by the Minister of Railways or by your
Chairman, Secretary, or Chief Engineer, the subject of which was economy in the
execution of this work? — A. Well, I do not know what would call for that. We
certainly had objections from the engineers of the Grand Trunk Pacific as to the
cost, and so on.

Q. Can you point to a letter or a line that was ever written and signed by
anybody, on the subject of economy in connection with the construction of this
railroad? — A. I do not remember anyjetters, but we always endeavoured to honest-
ly carry out the work according to plans and specifications, so far as I know.
Witness discharged.

(CORRY BUILDING, OTTAWA, THURSDAY, APRIL 24th, 1913.)

Examination of Mr. W. S. C.\lvert, by the Transcontinental Investigating
Commission.

Mr. C.\l\'ert, sworn and examined :

By Mr. Lynch-Staunton:

Q. What are your initials? — A. W. S.

Q. Where do you live? — Q. That is pretty hard to say. My home is m
Strathroy, Ont.

Q. And your business? — A. Well, I guess I am a manufacturer. I am in-
terested in two or three different companies.

Q. You have been a manufacturer all your life? — A. For the last twelve or
fourteen years.

Q. Were you ever in the railway business? — A. No, only while I was on here.

Q. You never had any connection with railway building or operating until
you became a Commissioner? — A. No. I have just been a business man all my
life.

Q. When were you appointed a Commissioner? — A. In October, 1909.

Q. Whom did you succeed? — A. Mr. Reid.

Q. Which Reid?— A. Robert Reid, of London.

Q. Will you tell me who were the other members of the Board at the time you
joined it? — A. Mr, Parent was Chairman and the Commissioners were Mr. Young
and Mr. Mclsaac.

614 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. None of the contracts for the construction of the road were advertised for
or awarded after you became a Commissioner? — A. No. I think the last one was
in 1908, a year before I was appointed.

Q. So it would be vain to inquire from you anything in connection with the
advertising or letting of these contracts. You know nothing about it beyond what
we can learn for ourselves from an inspection of the papers. — A. Exactly. All
the contracts were let before I came on.

Q. When you joined this Board, were any particular duties assigned you, in
connection with the business of the road? — A. No, nothing in any particular way.
I was just appointed a member of the Board and we went on in the usual way that
a Board does. We did rather understand that each one would look more particularly
after individual sections : for instance, I was on D and E.

Q. Did you exercise all the patronage in Ontario? — A. You mean appointing
young men to go up on the line?

Q. Yes. — A. Yes, pretty much up there, east and west of Cochrane.

Q. You were a member of the Board at the time of the Hodgins inquiry? —
A. No. I do not think so. I was at the time of the Lumsden inquiry.

Q. When the controversy over the classification Avhich culminated in the
Lumsden inquiry arose, did the Commissioners, so far as you know, take any legal
opinion on the interpretation of the clauses in the specification relating to class-
ification?— A. I do not think I can answer that. I really do not remember. As
I understand it, we engaged Mr. Smith to look after our own interests, also Mr.
Chrysler. The investigation was asked for by us and I was under the impression
that everything necessary was done.

Q. But can you recall whether either Mr. Smith or Mr. Chrysler or any other
counsel gave any opinion as to the meaning of the specification on solid rock? —
A. I must confess that I cannot just recall that. He may have, but I do not recall
it.

Q. You were not a Commissioner at the time that most of the work, the
classification of which was then under consideration, had been done? — A. No.

Q. Were you present at La Tuque at the time the contractors and Mr. Lumsden
were there? — A. No. I never was on the work with Mr. Lumsden.

Q. Was Mr. Lumsden in the employ of the Commission while you were
there? — A. No. Mr. Grant had been chief engineer for some time before I came
on.

Q. So that you can give us very little reliable information about the Lumsden
or Hodgins controversy? — A. I know nothing of them.

iji. All that you know about them is really hearsay? — A. Yes.

Q. You know that the chief engineer was appointed, not by the Commission,
but by the Government? — A. Yes.

Q. By whom, in your time, were the engineers who were appointed,
appointed? — A. Well, I do not know that there were any new engineers, except
resident engineers, appointed during my time. I think that Mr. IMolesworth, Mr.
Balkam, Mr. Doucet, Mr. Eustace, Mr. Foss, Mr. Poulin, Mr. McFarlanc and
Mr. Grant were engaged on the work when I came on. A odd resident engineer
might have been put on afterwards.

Q. What was the date of your appointment, again? — A. October 21, 1909.

Q. Was the question of momentum grades ever raised in your time? — A. No.

Q. Do you understand what a momentum grade is? — A. I understand it
means a kind of toboggan slide down which a train is allowed to run, and then it
runs up the other side. I am not very much in favour of it, but I understand that
is what it is.

Q. You say you are not very much in favour of it. Why not? — A. I do not
know that I can give you any reason further than that, according to my judgment,
the level road is preferable

INYESTIOATING COMMISSION 615

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. You would prefer the level road if you thought the toboggan slide, as you
call it, was cheaper and just as useful? — A. Yes. I certainly think I would prefer
the level road to a road of the other class.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. No matter what it would cost? — A. I would not say that, because, accord-
ing to Mr. Grant, the intention is to fill up grades and level up the road later on.

By Mr. Lynch-Staunton:

Q. You are referring now to Mr. Grant's letter of December 3, 1912. —
A. Yes.

Q. In that letter Mr. Grant says, "Disregarding ordinary sags in long fills
or fills over soft ground, it has been considered inadvisable to bring up to profile
grade, at present, and take contractors' prices for the necessary work. There are,
as you will see, only two places where virtual grades have been adopted, and the
saving effected with this slight change amounts to S27,797. They are both well
within velocity limits, and will not affect the hauling capacity of a locomotive to
the extent of a single pound. The introduction of virtual grades in railroad con-
struction, for the purpose of economy in first cost and subsequent economy in
operation, by reason of reduced interest charges, cannot be considered other than
as a good business proposition." That is Mr. Grant's opinion. Did you ever hear
the question of momentum grades discussed while on the Board? — A. No.

Q. Were you at all familiar, at that time, with the ad\dsability or inadvis-
abihty of adopting them? — A. It never was discussed, to my recollection. The
question for us was to build a four-tenths grade road to the East and a six-tenths
grade road to the West.

Q. And you understood that meant to keep the grade uniform from one end
to the other? — A. With the exception of one or two places where they used pusher
engines, I think they call them.

Q. Don't you know that if you are building a given length of railroad, and
if you have a pusher grade in one spot, that destroys it as a low grade road? — A. I
suppose it does, to a certain extent. It means a little more expenditure to keep a
pusher engine to haul the other train up, but I suppose, if it is a question of saving a
large amount of money, then you must consider whether it is better to use a pusher
engine or to spend an additional amount of money.

Q. I quite agree with that.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. What is the difference between actual and virtual grades on a railroad? —
A. I do not know that I can just answer that properly.

Q. Did you ever hear that matter discussed? — A. No, not if you put it
that way. In fact, I may say I was not very conversant with momentum roads
until this question came up.

By Mr. Lynch-Staunton:

Q. Since you left the Board? — A. Yes.

Q. Do you know anything about curvature in railroads? Did you ever hear
it discussed at the time you were on the Board? — A. Oh, well, sometimes, I suppose,
the question was discussed, but not very much at the Board meetings.

Q. You never became very familiar with it? — A. I would not like to say so.

Q. You could not form any judgment as to curvature? — A. I would not
like to ^ve an opinion on a thing like that.

Q. Did you have anything to do with the Transcona shops? — A. Something.

Q. Were they undertaken before you came on the Board? — A. They were
started in 1908, I believe. The contract was let for about one and a half million

616 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE V^ 1914

dollars, which was supposed to be all that was necessarj', so far as the Transcon-
tmental was concerned, and was what Mr. Lumsden recommended.

Q. Why did you go to the additional expense? — ^A. That question, of course,
was settled later by the Government.

Q. That is just what I want to find out. What was settled by the Govern-
ment, what did they do? — A. I cannot give you the full particulars, further than
this : As I understand it, there was a meeting of the Grand Trunk people with our
Chairman and some members of the Government, in regard to further expenditure
for the building of those shops, and they eventually decided, the Government, that
it was necessary to have additional shops, and on the report of our Chairman,
which, as you know, had to be concurred in by the Government, we went on and
built the rest of the shops. Our intention, of course, was that the Grand Trunk
Pacific would pay rental or a percentage of the cost of what would be more than
one and a half million dollars, as was intended in the first place, when Mr. Lumsden
recommended that figure. But that has not really been settled yet.

Q. In your understanding, they were for the joint use of the Eastern and
Western road? — A. It was supposed that it would do for both portions of the
road, and that the Grand Trunk Pacific should certainly make an allowance to
the Transcontinental for the use of those shops.

Q. Now, we will get into a country with which you are familiar, that is to
say, the purchase of land. Everybody has more or less knowledge of that. — A. I
never purchased any land.

Q. Why did not the Commission make a bargain for and secure the right
of way into Winnipeg before they built the road? — A. Well, of course, I cannot
tell you that, because the road was built into Winnipeg before I came on: that is,
not the last portion, but the road up to Dundee Junction.

Q. Do you know that Mackenzie & Mann put in a claim for about $2,500,000
for the land on the St. Boniface side of the river, and that it has never been settled
in any way? — A. There was no claim put in to us.

Q. Don't you think it was an unwise thing to build a railway through a
m^n's property and then deal with liim afterwards? — A. The fnst intention was
to build alongside the C. N. R., but they objected to having another road built
along their line. Later on, Mr. Grant, IMr. Pouhn and, I think, the council of St.
Boniface, with the concurrence of the Grand Trunk Pacific people, recommended
the route we have now. That question, of course, was debated for a considerable
time, and referred to the ]\Iinister of Railways; but all the interests, and especially
the Grand Trunk people themselves, who were to pay the interest on the money,
wanted the route we have now, and to my mind, although it may have cost more
money, we were building a road which would be there forever, and I think if I
were going to run the G. T. P. I would like to have my line into a city like Winnipeg.

Q. You know, I suppose, that in cities ten times the size of Winnipeg the rail-
roads do not have it? — A. I suppose that is true, and in some places they don't
even allow the engines to go in.

Q. In Chicago and New York they do not have their own entrance. — A. I
think it would have been built alongside the line if Mackenzie and Mann had
agreed to it.

Q. When you came to that conclusion, why did you not settle about the
land before you l:)uilt the railway, instead of making the bargain afterwards? — A.
I do not think we could have settled. It had to be exproj^riated.

Q. Why dithi't \ou exproj^riate it? — A. Was it not ex})ropriated?

Q. You built over another man's land. It was not expropriated and has
not been settled to this day. It is now in the courts. — A. I should think we
would have had to expropriate it.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. The road was practically completed before the plans for expropriation
were tiled. — A. That may be. I could not just say in regard to that point.

INTE8TIGATIN0 COMMISSION 617

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

By Mr. Lynch Staunton :

Q. You had nothing to do with it? — A. I was more particularly interested
in what was considered my own section. Cochrane, and I endeavoured to look
after anj-thing there that I could. Just the same as IVIr. Mclsaac looked after
his eastern portion, and the Chairman his Quebec portion, and Mr. Young the West.
Then, if anything came up, it would be referred to the particular member of the
Commission concerned,- to get all the facts concerning his owti division. So that
I cannot speak about that other portion.

Q. After you became a Commissioner, ]\Ir. Mattice issued a circular to his
staff, which I produce:

COPY OF CIRCULAR NO. 252, DISTRICT '' D."

Office of District Engineer.

Cir. 252. North Bay, February 24, 1910.

To Division Engineers: — <

Mr. Calvert is asking that no appointments be made to the stafT in future
■v^dthout his consent, and these instructions must be carried out, except in so
far as cooks and building gangs are concerned.

Promotions of the staff will also be referred to me before being carried
into effect.

Please acknowledge receipt.

■ Yours truly,

(Sig-ned) C. L. MATTICE,

District Engineer.

Do you recollect that? — A. I do not just recollect in regard to that. I know I
had to call jNIr. Mattice do^n in regard to purchases. I insisted on his buying
very, very small things and what was needed innnediately, through our Purchasing
Agent, and I gave him instructions not to go on buying without consulting our
Purchasing Agent. In regard to these appointments, I do not just remember,
but I suppose I wanted to know what he was doing. I did not want any engineer
to make appointments without at least advising us in regard to the matter, and
perhaps asking us about it before he did anything.

Q. That is what it would amount to? — A. Yes.

Q. But after you came on the Board j^ou made all the appointments for that
district yourself? — A. No engineers, I think, but the linemen, cashmen, time-
keepers, and appointments of that kind.

Q. Just the ordinary run? — A. Yes, and I appointed both Grits and Tories,
I can tell you that, only I wanted to be in touch with ]\Ir. Mattice. I did not
want him to run haphazard, wdthout our knowing what he was doing, and I did
insist on his seeing our Purchasing Agent before buying a large amount of goods.

Q. Did you take any interest in the classification up in that district? —
A. I cannot say I did. That was left in the hands of our engineers; I had no-
thing to do with it; I did not presume to classify.

Q. That is what I understand. All the policies for the construction of the
road were adopted before you came on the Commission ? — A. I think that is
right.

Q. So that it is correct to say that it had got beyond the stage of discussion
when you came on.? — A. That is my impression. We were endeavouring to carry
out the contracts as best we knew, as we went along.

Q. The contracts were based on a preconcei^'ed policy, approved and settled?
—A. Yes.

618 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

By Mr. Gutelius:
Q. Is there anything that you would like to tell this Commission, that has
not been brought out in your evidence? — A. I can only say that all the time I
was on this Commission I was under the impression that everybody tried to do
what was absolutely right, as between the Government and the contractors. We
did not want anybody to have an advantage : we wanted to deal fairly w^th every-
one, and personally, I know of nothing that I can say was wrong. We may have
heard things, but from what our engineers reported to us, I believe everybody tried
to carry out his duty as honestly as he could.

By Mr. Lynch Staunton:

Q. You say that so far as you are concerned you were guilty of no wrong
yourself, nor was anybody else? — A. I am not conscious of being wrong anyway.
Witness discharged.

(NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY ENQUIRY COMMISSION
MEETING AT OTTAWA, FRIDAY, APRIL 25TH, 1913.)

Before G. Lynch-Staunton, K.C, Chairman: F. P. Gutelius, C.E.

S. N. Parent, former Chairman of the Transcontinental Railway Commission,
sworn :

Mr. Staunton : Mr. Parent has written saying that he wishes to take his .
examination in French and I think he is perfectly right. I was suggesting to him
that perhaps it could be taken in Enghsh, but we will see as we get on. Do you
want me to put the questions in French, Mr. Parent?

Mr. Parent: Just as you like.

Mr. Staunton: Is that your desire?

Mr. Parent: Of course, if the question is put in French I will answer that

way.

Mr. Staunton: Well, we will see. I will commence in English.

Q. How long were you Chairman of the Transcontinental Railway XDom-
mission?— A. From, I think, the Istof August, 1905, until the 6th of October, 1911.

Q. You were Chairman during the time that the contracts for the building
of the road were let? — A. Yes, from the first contract until October, 1911.

Q. Before advertising for these contracts, you had estimates made by the
Commission's engineers of the probable cost of the work about to be let? — A. Yes.

Q. The estimates were made by the District Engineers and their assistants,
and then forwarded to the Chief Engineer? — A. Yes.

Q. I see, that under the advice of Mr. Collingwood Schrciber, it was decided
by the Board that the estimates made by these engineers should not be shown to
the tenderers? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. And the reason given for that was, that as the estimates might be inaccurate
the contractors afterwards might complain that they had been misled by the Com-
mission?— A. Yes, one of the reasons.

Q. I want to draw your attention, Mr. Parent, to Contract No. 8, which is
the contract embracing the railway from a point at or near the Quebec Bridge,
running easterly 150 miles; do you recall that contract? — A I think so, that is
the Davis contract.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 619

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Yes, just the 150 miles east of the Quebec Bridge — now the tenders
for that contract were — you can take these to be right:
No. 1. Russell Chambers, Limited, $5,213,542.
No. 2. O'Brien & Mullarkey, $5,196,745.
No. 3. Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, $5,018,554.
No. 4. M. P. & J. T. Da\ns, $5,011,346.
I leave out the cents. These were all the tenders that were taken then? — A. I
presume so, the tenders speak for themselves.

Q. That is correct, I tell you it is correct, I will let you look at them in a
little while. The estimates were made by the engineers at unit prices on a form
which contained 101 printed items; is that right? I will put this in in a moment?
— A. Yes, the form speaks for itself.

Q. The engineers on contract No. 8 originally put in no estimates for items
24, 25, 26 and 27 which are:

24. Framed trestles per 1,000 feet board measure, except stringers.

25. Gaps, walings, and braces for pile trestles, per 1,000 feet board measure.

26. Sawn ties and guard rails for bridges, per thousand feet board measure.

27. Stringers per thousand feet board measure.

Do you remember that there was no estimate put in for timber for trestles,
included in items 25, 26 and 27? — A. You mean quantities?

Q. Yes, for example, they said in the case of common excavation that there
would be 3,091,210 cubic yards estimated? — A. You mean that was the estimate
made before tenders were called?

Q. Yes exactly. Did they estimate they would not require any lumber at
all for trestles? — A. Well, they may have done so.

Q. Do you remember that? — A. Those things were made by the engineers
themselves.

Q. Do you remember that when you first saw the estimates that they had
no allowance for timber for trestles? — A. We told them they should have an
estimate for lumber.

Q. Mr. Lumsden says, I might as well explain it to you, and Mr. MacPherson
says that there was no estimate for lumber for permanent trestles, and afterwards
the engineers changed it and put in an estimate for lumber for trestles ? — A. Well?

Q. That you then came and told them to strike that out, that it should not
be put in? — A. The estimate for lumber?

Q. Yes? — A. I never did that, on the contrary we obliged them to have
them in.

Q. Come over here and examine this, I want you to be sure, he says that
after he put them in you told him to change it back to where it was? — A. He made
a mistake there. The quantities which they prepared before tenders were made
by the engineers and nobody at all interfered with them because they were the
sole judges of what was required, and I could not on my own hook come and dictate
to them what they had to do on these estimated quantities.

Q. Mr. Lumsden and Mr. MacPherson say that the engineers made these
estimates, forwarded them to the head office, and that then he gave you a copy of
this estimate, is that right? — A. If he gave it to me, he gave it to the Board.

Q. He gave it to you for the Board; he says he gave it to Mr. Parent? — A.
He may have given it to me; anything that came to me that way went to the Board.

Q. Then he says that after the advertising was done he changed this estimate
and put in these items : 25, 26 and 27, that you, after he made these changes hap-
pened to see it, and that you said to him: why did you make these changes, and he
explained that he thought they might require some lumber, and that you told him
to put them back the way they were before and that he then changed them back
and left them out, what do you say to that? — A. Well if Mr. Lumsden says that
he must have a very queer memory. Whatever instructions were given to him were
given to him through the Board, and so far as these things are concerned, for my
part personally I had no reason at all to have that changed.

620 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. Did you have it changed? — A. Not that I recollect. I do not believe
I ever did either. I do not see any reason at all why they should have been changed.
It would be an advantage to nobody. Everybody would be on the same footing.
I do not see why I should suggest any change.

Q. I will show you why I am asking you, and you will see the gravity of it
in a minute. They say you got them to sign this estimate after it was changed, and
that this is the one they changed they signed? — A. Was that before tenders were
called?

Q. No, after the tenders were called, after the tenders were in? — A. Well,
I suppose if they signed it it must be correct.

Q. They say you got them to sign it? — A. What do they mean?

Q. I am trying to call your attention to it, do you remember? — A. There is
one thing, Mr. Chairman, that I would be the last man to force the Chief Engineer
or anybody else to do anji^hing they would not like to do, and I suppose if they
signed it it must be according to their o\\ti wall and because it was right.

Q. Well, but you see the position now is this: that in the first place before the
tenders went out the engineers had made an estimate, and that estimate did not
include any estimate for timber on these items? — A. These items never went to
the contractors and never went to the bidders; they are not supposed to go to the
bidders. They never went to the bidders, they would deceive them.

Q. I w\\\ come to that in a minute? — A. All right.

Q. Then they say that you told them that they should change those estimates
after the bids were in or while the contractors were figuring on them? — A. That
I told them?

Q. Yes? — A. That is not so, I never did that.

Q. Then they say they made a fair copy of it so as to bring the estimates
back as they originally were, and that you got them to sign it; that is the only
case in which they signed it? — A. When you say "they" do you mean I was dealing
with MacPherson?

Q. MacPherson and the Chief Engineer? — A. MacPherson was the last man
I was dealing 'with. I dealt with the Chief Engineer; I had only to deal with
MacPherson in a very few cases.

Q. I will show you what he says. He says: that the Chairman on the 21st
of January asked for the statement of the engineers' estimated quantities for each
item of the Schedule, Form 89, covering the five sections for which tenders were
closed on the 14th of February — do you recollect that? — A. I may have to the
Chief Engineer; I do not remember.

Q. And that you got these copied. He says that when the Chief Engineer
after the tenders were called for, altered these items, 24, 26, and 27, and iastead
of estimating nothing for these, he estimated for item 24: 732,190 feet instead of
nothing; for 2G, 166,(500 feet instead of nothing; item 27, 192,780 feet instead of
nothing. He said that when you saw that you told him to strike out these items
and not to estimate for any of these items? — A. When?

Q. Some time between the 15th and 18th of February, 1907.'' — A. Can I
look at that letter?

Q. Yes, I do not know that I want to show you the whole letter, as it is a
private letter, yes I will hand it over to you now? — A. It is a letter from MacPherson.

Q. Yes, there may be something in it of a private nature? — A. Never mind,
if you don't want to show it.

Q. Oh yes, I think you ought to see it — I will show you the letter, do you
understand it now? — A. I do not understand it very much, because I do not
know where he got all that.

Q. What answer do you make to that, he says that when you saw that on
the form you said to strike out these items, and not to estimate for any of these
items, 24, 26, and 27.'* — A. I never did that, because there was no reason in the
public interevst to do so.

INTESTIGATIXG COMMISSION 621

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. He said then tfeat you had him and Mr. Lumsden sign these re\ised
estimates, make a clean copy of it and bring it back to the original shape and
sign that? — A. I do not recollect that.

Q. Come over here till I show you something — the reason I am so particular
about it is this — I will put this in as an exhibit. Hugh D. Lumsden and D.
MacPherson, Assistant Chief Engineer,signed this apparently on thefSth of Februarj',
1907. Now, as a matter of fact, somebody has erased the figure one from that
8. It was really signed on the 18th of February, and somebody has erased the
figure 1 from before the 8, making it to read that it was signed on the 8th of
February? — A. It is the first time I have ever seen that paper.

Q. Mr. Lumsden was not here on the 8th of February at all; he M^as, as he
swears, at Kenora on the 8th of February, and some person has altered his certi-
ficate, so as to make it appear that he signed that document before the tenders
came in for that contract, while, as a matter of fact, he signed it after the tenders
came in. Do you say you know nothing about that? — A. I never knew an^lhing
about that. This is the first time I saw the papers. I would not be surprised
if anything is made up in that way it has been made up since I resigned.

Q. It has been made up by somebody has it not? — A. You say so.

Q. I do not say so? — A. I do not laiow when it was done, I know nothing
about it. For my part I am prepared to swear now that it is the first time I saw-
that document. If the alteration which you suggest there has been done, I am
perfectly well convinced that it has been done since I resigned here, they have
the new administration going on and they try to find fault w^th the last adnunis-
tration.

(The document was filed as Exhibit A in Mr. Parent's evidence.)

Q. You say you do not know anjlihing about that? — A. So far as I am
concerned I do not see anji-hing at all which would affect the public interest as
to these quantities that you are talking about there.

Q. I am going to show you how it could a,ffect the pubhc interest? — A.
Well that is my answer at present.

Q. Now supposing that one of the tenderers had seen the original estimate,
he would know that he would not be required to furnish any of the material covered
by items 24, 26, and 27; if he saw the estimates, he would know that? — A. That
would be a matter of assumption.

Q. That is not assumption at all. If the tenderer had seen it he would
know. I do not say now that the tenderer did see it, but if he had seen it he
would know that he would not be required to furnish any material under these
three items? — A. That would go so far as to say some tenderers may have had
the privilege

Q. Not yet; after a while it will go that far but not yet; I say now, that if
a tenderer saw it,_ you will agree with me that he would know that he would have
no material under these three items to furnish? — A. That may be the case but
at the same time the form of contract would tell the contractors that any quantity
or anything they would have seen would not have been binding on the Commission,
and they would do it at their OAvn rsk and have no claim against the Commission.
Even if they had seen it, I do not know what good it would have been to them.
That is why we refused them the quantities.

Q. You keep your mind on this now: the fact that these three revised estimates
were struck out, gave M. P. & J. T. Davis that contract? — 'A. What do you mean?

Q. M. P. Davis would not have got that contract if that change was not
made in these estimates? — A. I cannot see that. The way the things were made
was this: tenders were coming in, they were put in a box with two keys, one kept
by me and one by the Secretary. The tenders were opened publicly by the Board
and copies made of their contents by the clerks and they were referred, without
any names on them at all, to the Engineers' Department. Then they came to

622 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

the Engineers' Department and they did not know who they were coming from
and they were asked to figure who was the lowest tenderer, and they came back
with a report showing who were the lowest tenderers.

Q. Let me show you where the trouble would be. If M. P. Davis saw that
estimate, or anybody in his firm, I do not mean him particularly and I do not
mean he did see it, but if he saw that estimate he would know that he was not
going to be asked to supply any of that material, and he tendered under these heads;
M. P. Davis and J. T. Davis tendered for item 24, $80 per thousand; item 26,
$80 per thousand; item 27, $85 per thousand — that is a huge price for that material?
— A. I cannot say.

Q. He did so tender; there is the thing signed by you? — A. The tenders
speak for themselves; there is no question about them.

Q. Now then you see the only difference between Davis and the Grand Trunk
Pacific Railway, on the tender for that contract, was $7,200, and if these items
had been left in they would have raised Davis' price by $27,000 and they would have
lost the contract by nearly $22,000; do you agree with that? — A. For my part
it is a hypothetical question; to assume a fact that I do not know anj'thing about.

Q. All I ask you to agree with me in is this A. You suppose things

there, that Davis might have seen something that somebody else might not
have seen?

Q. Yes?— A. I deny that.

Q. So far as you are concerned, I want to ask you A. So far as I am

concerned Davis had no more privilege on the Transcontinental Railway than
anybody else had.

Q. The inference is that the Davis firm, or some of them, might have seen
that estimate, you say you do not know about that ; you say if they did it was not
with your knowledge? — A. If the Davis firm had seen something, I do not think
they did, if they did the Grand Trunk people or somebody else would have the same
chance of seeing it. There was no more preference for Davis than for any other
tenderer. So much so, that for my part from the start I was against all these
contractors, I was in favor of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company accepting the
whole work, because I w£|,s convinced that if we did give them the contract we would
have saved money, delays, and trouble. My opinion was this: they were the com-
pany who were to pay the interest on the capital expenditure and I thought they
would be interested in saving money and building the line at a low cost, and as
they were also obliged to have the Western Di^^sion line finished for 1911, they
would have been anxious to get the line finished in that time, and doing that, if
they had been late in their contract, they could not come against the Government
or the Commission for delays, because they would have been the principal party
and it would have been their ovm. fault. From the very first contract I made a
distinct report to my own colleagues on that. I knew Da\ds for a long time before
but at the same time I made a dissenting report, stating that the work should
be given to the Grand Trunk Pacific at the price of the lowest tenderer. My idea
was to give them the preference of the work at the price of the lowest tenderer.

Q. Then you utterly deny any knowledge of the T)avis firm having had
information with respect to the estimates, that everybody else did not get? — A.
If Davis got some information I am prepared to swear that somebody else who
asked for it got the same information, because nobody would say, on the quantities
like that, even if they had seen them, what the figures would be. You will find
in some of the contracts a difference of two or three million dollars and a figure
of a few dollars hero and there would not make any difference in that.

Q. There is only a difference of $7,000 in this case? — A. In tiiis contract
it happened to be that, but certainly the Grand Trunk Pacific, or anybody else,
if they asked for information which was given to somebody else, would have got
it. There was no preference given at all.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 623

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. As a matter of fact, did the Davises see these estimates to your knowledge?
— A. I cannot say that.

Q. Do you know whether they did or not? — A. I do not think so, for this
reason, that 1 do not recollect at all the changes that MacPherson and Lumsden
speak about.

Q. Did you show the Davises this estimate? — A. I cannot say that. If it
was asked of me, and I thought it was in the public interest to do so, I would have
done so. Da^^s may have seen it, or the Grand Trunk may have seen it, or some-
body else may have seen it, but I gave no preference to Davis over anybody else.

Q. I understand that, but I want to know if you remember whether or not
these estimates were sho"WTi to the Davises? — A. I cannot swear that.

Q. You do not know whether they were or not? — A. I cannot swear that.

Q. You do not know whether you showed them to them or not? — A. If
I did the others must have seen them too.

Q. Do you remember whether you showed Mr. Davis? — A. I cannot say as
to that. There were so many things going on in the Commission that you could not
recollect a special thing like that. We refused to give quantities to any contractor
from the start, because by doing so we might get into trouble.

Q. The chief engineer, ]\Ir. Lumsden, says he was asked not to be present at
the Board meeting when the tenders were opened? — A. Why?

Q. I do not know? — A. Neither do I. If there was anything we were
cautious about it was the opening of tenders. The whole Board was there, the
Secretary was there. I was opening the tenders and handing the cheques to the
Secretaries, I initialled every one of them and handed them over to the Secretaries,
and they were sent afterwards to the engineer upstairs without my name. I do
not see why the chief engineer should not have been present. I do not know why
he was not present and I do not recollect he was asked to retire. It would, of course,
be a matter of no importance to be cautious, if one contractor received the estimates
and another did not? — A. Nothing has been done like that to my knowledge.

Q. Mr. Fauquier said he got his contract because he knew from his own
observation on the ground or from information he got from engineers out on the
ground, that there was no moss on his contract, or very little moss, and he said he
knew that the engineers thought there was a great deal of moss and he put in a
tender at twelve cents for moss, and the other tenderers put in thirty-five cents for
moss, and he got the contract, and instead of there being 655,000 cubic yards of
moss, as was estimated, there was only 13,550 yards. It was a great advantage
to know the estimates you see. Fauquier says he got his information, picked it
up out there. Do you know anything about that? — A. Nothing at all, it is the
first time I heard an>i,hing about it.

Q. Were you in favor of giving out the estimates? — A. I was against it.

Q. Why? — A. Because so far as I knew it, the engineers were not far
enough advanced in their location, and these estimates were supposed to be changed,
and in doing so we would have deceived the tenderers and the contractors if we
gave out these estimates, because they would say we have been in good faith in
tendering on the estimates, and they have afterwards been changed, and we will
have a claim in equity against you. I was against it, and it was referred to Mr.
Schreiber, who gave his opinion on that point also. That is why I say now, speak-
ing about Contract No. 8, that I did not see any difficulty at all about the estimated
quantities, because we put them aside completely, and if it happened that there
was a small difference between the Grand Trunk Pacific tender and Davis' tender,
for my part it makes no difference at all so far as the public interest is concerned,
because Davis was the lowest tenderer, and he was a perfectly good contractor,
and he got the contract.

Q. Listen to what Mr. Lumsden swore on the point of not being present
when the tenders were opened :

624 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

"Q. On the 14th February your entry in the diary is that yoxi were in the

office all day and you say: 'Commissioners opening tenders, not present'? —

A. Yes."

"Q. Why were you not present when the tenders were opened? — A. I

was not wanted. I was not asked to be present. I was asked to leave."

"Q. It was intimated to you that your presence was not required? — A. I

do not know it was on that occasion, but it was on a previous occasion."

"Q. Why didn't you remain when the tenders were being opened? — A.

Because I was told by the Commissioners I was not wanted. I do not say I was

told on that day, but on a pre\'ious occasion I was told they would open the

tenders themselves and give me the figures afterwards."

" Q. It was understood you were not to be present when tenders

were opened? — A. Yes, that is the long and short of it."
You have heard the evidence of Mr. Lumsden given at his examination with
regard to his not being present in the office when the tenders were opened. Would
you like to add anything to what you have already said on this point? — A. I say
this: It may have happened that somebody, somebody on the Board I cannot say
whom, would have made the remark that as the tenderers were to go back to the
chief engineer's staff, and as the staff were not to know the names of the tenderers
when they figured them out, it was better that he should not know the names of the
tenderers, which he would if he were present. We wanted to keep the engineer's
staff completely in ignorance of the names of the tenderers, so as to get an un-
biassed report from the engineers.

Q. That may be the reason, and it seems to me it may have been a very good
reason? — A. Yes, because there was nothing to hide from the chief engineer,
because everything was done on his report and approval all the time, and if he was
asked to withdraw or not to be there it was to protect him in one way or his staff by
not knowing who the tenderers were, and thus to give a completely fair report to the
Board.

Q. Mr. Parent, you are an eminent lawyer in your own province, are you not?
— A. Well I will say I am a la■\^•ye^.

Q. You are a law^^er in your o^^^l province? — A. I was.

Q. You have been connected with large business enterprises most of your
life? — A. Yes, for a good many years. Since 1890 I have been in public life, in
politics and municipal affairs.

Q. You were Premier of the Province of Quebec? — A. I was Premier for
five years, from 1900 to 1005.

Q. And you were ]\Iayor of Quebec? — A. I was Mayor of Quebec from 1894
to 1906, nearly 12 years. I resigned to come to Ottawa for the chairmanship of
the Transcontinental Railway Conmiission.

Q. And you enjoyed a large practice at the Bar for years ? — A. Yes, I made
my living from my practice.

Q. So that you ought to be pretty familiar with contracts ? — A. I know some-
thing about contracts.

Q. I want to ask you some questions about this contract respecting the Cap
Rouge Viaduct. The Cap Rouge Viaduct was a great bridge built across the Cap
Rouge River near the Quebec Bridge and it cost $316,000 to build it, tmd it was
designed to carry the railway from one side of the Cap Rouge Valley across on its
way to the Quebec Bridge, that is right is it? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. In Contract No. 9, District B, which was originally let to HoganMac-
donald, it was afterwards assigned to M. P. & J. T. Davis? — A. No, it was after-
wards assigned to McDougall tfc O'Brien.

Q. Explain that? — A. After that 50 miles of that contract was sublet to
M. P. & J. T. Davis.

Q. And the 50 miles covered the Cap Rouge Viaduct? — A. Yes, sir.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 625

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Under the contract which is dated 15th May, 1906, they agreed to have
the work completed by the 1st of September, 1907? — A. The contract speaks for
itself.

Q. Is that correct? — A. That is correct, if the contract says so.

Q. You agree with me that it is correct? — A. Yes.

Q. And that included the building of the Cap Rouge Viaduct? — A. Yes,
well it included the foundation.

Q. It included the substructure in connection with the Cap Rouge Viaduct? —
A. Yes, and the substructure was to be done by the Dominion Bridge Company.

Q. Now, the concrete price on this contract did not- cover pneumatic caisson
excavations? — A. No.

Q. Did it cover all material which was used in the sub-contracts of the Cap
Rouge Viaduct? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now under their contract the Davis people had to put dovm these founda-
tions for the price mentioned in the contract? — A. You mean pile foundations?

Q. Yes, whatever foundations were necessary, they were to put down for the
price mentioned in the contract? — A. Yes.

Q. And they had to have it completed by the 1st of September, 1907? — A.
Yes, I presume so.

Q. You know that the Board changed this contract and allowed them to use
pneumatic caisson works at an additional cost to the Board of $250,000, do you
know that? — A. Well, when the work was proceeding on the foundations they
discovered that it was too risky to build a viaduct on these pile foundations and it
would require pneumatic foundations. The matter was referred to their own
engineer, to Mr. Lumsden, and I think Mr. Uniacke, one of the bridge engineers
here, was asked to look into it, and the matter was referred to Mr. Butler, then
Deputy Minister of Railways, and to report on, and after looking over the matter
they found that it would be too risky to do the work as the contract was signed,
and they ordered the new work, which was approved, if I remember well, by order
in council.

Q. Here is what Mr. Uniacke says. jMr. E. A. Hoare was in charge of the
construction of the bridge site; is that right? — A. Yes,

Q. The preparations for work for the sub-contractors were begun in May,
1906, that was before the change was made? — A. Yes.

Q. Mr. Lumsden, dealing with the question of river piers, favored a bottom-
less caisson with the addition of piles, and Mr. Uniacke was directed to make plans
on these lines, is that right? — A. Not that I know of. Of course that was the
special work of engineers, and Vv^hat they say there must be correct, but I do not
know anything about it.

Q. You are not familiar with, it? — A. No, in an enterprise like that we have
to rely on the report of the engineers for these works. We were not experts. Some-
times they don't agree amongst themselves either.

Q. Read this letter of May 31st, 1912, to Mr. Gutelius, from Bridge Engmeer
Uniacke, and tell me what you think about it. You see what is stated on page
5 of that letter which is in effect: The Chairman decided these questions himself
and directed what the engineers were to do? — A. Mr. Uniacke is mistaken there.
I would never take on my own shoulders to decide such an important question.
When the engineers are in a bad box, generally speaking they try to put it on some-
body else's shoulders.

Q. Is it true they met you and Mr. Davis in your ojffice. He says in this
letter: while we were discussing it we were summoned to the Chairman's office,
bringing dowm the plan to lay it before him. Mr. Davis was already with the
Chairman. Is that so? — A. That may have happened.

Q. Then he says : the Chairman refused to consider the change decided upon
by Mr. Butler. Is that so? — A. My own recollection is that it was the contrary.
When they found out the thing was wrong, it was referred to Mr. Butler and Mr.
123.— 40

626 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Schreiber, and then Mr. Schreiber referred it to Mr. Butler to act himself, Mr.
Schreiber having no time. He referred it to Mr. Butler to fix the matter. At
that time we did not know what would be done.

Q, He says that you did not follow Butler's advice? — A. We did follow
Butler's advice because the order in council was passed later on on Butler's advice.
Butler and Davis and Uniacke fixed the price for the pneumatic works amongst
themselves.

Q. Was Mr. Butler's design accepted? — A. It was I think Uniacke's design,
but it was fixed between Uniacke and Butler.

Q. Mr. Uniacke says he recommended the design "C" and that was approved
by Mr. Butler? — A. I suppose that was correct.

Q. But that you did not follow that design but changed it? — A. In what
way was it changed?

Q. Here is what he says was done: the Chairman refused to consider such
a change decided upon by Mr. Butler, impressing upon me the fact that time was
the most important consideration and that the object was to have the Cap Rouge
trestle ready by the end of 1907 so as to complete the transport and hea\y structural
section of the Quebec Bridge from Belair Station and Cape Rouge for the Quebec
Bridge, and instructed that the caisson method be follov/ed. I thereupon gave
Mr. Davis the following day blue prints of the pneumatic caissons and a bill of
timber and iron which he took with him to Boston, where I believe he placed
the order for Southern pine. It was Mr. Davis' statement that he could have the
pneumatic caissons finished ready for steel by August, 1907, and he did as promised,
but the lamentable fall of the Quebec Bridge in August rendered further haste
unnecessary and it was finished in 1908. What he says is that that Avas your absolute
direction thnt Davis should be given this job, that it was to be done by pneumatic
caissons and that you took that on your own shoulders? — A. Why should I have
done that, I did not know anything about it. We referred the matter to Mr. Butler.

Q. Did you do it, that is the point? — A. As far as I remember I could not
have done it, because for my part it would have been impossible to do it, not know-
ing the importance of it from an engineering point of view.

Q. You did know it was going to cost a lot more money? — A. I did not
know how much it would cost more. The change was not suggested by me, the
change was made because it was a risky job.

Q. They said it was only made because they wanted the job done in a hurry? —
A. Not at all.

Q. That is not so? — A. No, it is not so at all, because at that time Davis
objected to go on with the work because it was a risky job, the viaduct might have
sunk and gone down with the first foundation and the change was made in the
public interest so as to avoid a collapse of the \iaduct.

Q. Why could he not have put it down with open caissons instead of pneu-
matic caissons? — A. The engineers agreed on that I presume, because it was not
my report, it was the engineers' report that they should be pneumatic.

Q. Under the contract, you had a right to make them put down any form of
foundation you liked; you had a right to change your plan if you wirihed? — A.
I do not know aljout that.

Q. The first contract was given to Hogan & Macdonald? — A. Yes.

Q. Did they make an assignment of that contract to Davis? — A. Yes.

Q. He was bound to put do\Mi whatever kind of foundation you directed? —
A. Certainly.

Q. And he had to put the foundation down at the price of the contract? —
A. Certainly.

Q. Then why should you give them more money? — A. Because the work
that was done afterwards was more expensive work but it was sure work.

Q. But you could make him put down that work without giving him more
money? — A. No, you could not do it. The engineer said pneumatic work was
the best way, and we had to follow it, and the Government followed it all right, and

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 627

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

the order in council was passed on it, and Uniacke and Butler approved of the pneu-
matic work being the best.

Q. Do I understand you to say it was not a question of base but a question
of safety? — A. Certainly, it was a question of safety, it was a question of safety
for my part.

Q. So far as you know it was a question of safety? — A. Certainly, we would
never have changed that work only it was a risky job the way it was at first. I do
not think the contractor will tell you otherwise or the engineer on the spot either.
The work would be dangerous work and would not stand.

Q. Why were M. P. Davis and J. T. Da\is given contract No. 29A without
public competition? — A. Which contract is that?

Q. The Quebec branch line running do^^Tl the river front from St. Foye to
Champlain? — A. They had that contract before on the old Quebec Bridge contract.

Q. Did they get a new contract? — A. They had a new contract because at
that time it was contended that Davis had some rights from the Quebec Bridge.
The Quebec Bridge having assigned their rights to the Government, the Govern-
ment afterwards gave their right to Davis. It was referred to us and there was an
agreement entered into with Davis with the consent of the Grand Trunk Pacific.

Q. But the law says you have to advertise all your contracts? — A. And
so we did.

Q. How could you override the statute? — A. We did not override the statute.

Q. You did not advertise that contract? — A. That contract was agreed be
tween the Government and the Grand Trunk Pacific.

Q. What right had the Government to do that? — A. It was Quebec Bridge
work, not Transcontinental work at all. The Government assumed the obligation
of the Quebec Bridge Company, and that is why Davis continued the work.

Q. Your idea is that this was a Government contract and not a Transcontin-
ental Commission contract? — A. It was a Quebec Bridge contract and the Quebec
Bridge ha^•ing assigned its obligation to the Government, the Government assumed
the obligation and Da\ds was contractor for the Quebec Bridge Company for that
part of the line.

Q. You know what is called the Sillery incline? — A. Yes. r

Q. You built a road there quite off the Transcontinental Railway entirely,
and it cost S40,000?— A. What kind of a road?

Q. A highway road do^Ti from Sillery Church, what right had you to do
that? — A. They made a change there, that replaces an old road ^\nth a new one.

Q. The old road is there yet? — A. The other one, I understand, is in the way
of the yard, and so on, if I remember well.

Q. Is it there yet? — A. It may be there yet but it belongs to the Trans-
continental Railway Company, it is an exchange that was made.

Q. What I can learn about it is this: that a lot of your fellow-citizens down
there came up with a petition and told you that that road was dangerous now By
reason of your ha\ing a railroad down there and they got you to build them a nice
road up the side of the hill for their benefit? — A. I can tell you one thing, Mr.
Chairman, about the cutting of that road. I never saw the road myself. I remember
there was a delegation came to my office in Quebec for that, and the matter was
referred to Mr. Doucet, district engineer, to look into and what has been done
has been done, there through him on his approval, and what he has done, I cannot
say exactly, because when I left the Commission the road was pretty well
advanced,- but I am surprised the road cost S40,000.

Q. You have never gone over it? — A. No, I do not think I ever v/ent over that
road, because when I went there first it was not started. There is no doubt there
is .something in what they were saying about the danger at one spot. The slip
might have given av/ay and caused an accident, and it was a deep road there and
the horses might get frightened. At the time it appeared to me that it was a small
affair to make the change. If the amount comes to S40,000 it never entered into

628 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

my mind that this would be such an expensive imdertaking. Doucet was down at
my office one day and I think he said it would be a small affair. I cannot under-
stand how it would cost that sum of money for the highway alone.

Q. I have not before me the exact figures, but I know it was very nearly
$40,000 or perhaps more than that? — A. If it is, I can hardly believe it and I
do not know why it cost that much.

Q. To pass on to the question of classification, you heard of the Lumsden
Enquiry? — A. I did.

Q. The Lumsden Enquiry grew out of a dispute between Mr. Lumsden, the
chief engineer, and some of his own engineers as to what should be classified as
solid rock? — A, Yes, solid rock, loose rock, and common excavation.

Q. Mr. Lumsden said that his opinion was that only rock should be class-
ified as solid rock, do you recollect that? — A. Yes, you have all the letters on the
file; at first he said that.

Q. And that the rock should be at least a cubic yard, that was his first idea? —
A. Boulders of the size of a cubic yard.

Q. Then he said that Doucet and the other engineers were classifying the
smaller stone, stone less than a cubic yard which they said was cemented together
so that they had to be blasted, they classified that as solid rock, and Mr. Lumsden
objected, is that right? — A. I suppose it was at first.

Q. At first, I am coming to that — then he said that the contractors got
five or six opinions from eminent law>'ers to show that they were right and that
Lumsden was wTong? — A. That the district engineers were right?

Q. Yes, that the district engineers were right and the chief engineer was
wTong? — A. Yes, and also the Deputy Minister of Justice gave an opinion.

Q. I will come to that but I want first to get the history of this. Then he
says that you gave him a copy of these opinions of these lawyers obtained by the
contractors? — A. Everything was brought before the Board and referred to the
chief engineer in due course.

Q. I did not mean you, I mean the Board. The Board gave him a copy of
these opinions and then he said he consulted Mr. CoUingwood Schreiber; you
understood he consulted Mr. Schreiber? — A. Yes, I think his letter says so.

Q. And Mr. Schreiber suggested that he should put in the famous clause
with the blue print, about assembled rock, do you remember that, I will show you
the blue print — rock in masses of over one cubic yard or assembled rock, which in
the judgment of the engineer can best be removed by blasting. He says that was
put in by reason of the lawyers' opinions and by reason of what CoUingwood
Schreiber said? — A. "We had to take for granted that blue print with Lumsden's
signature.

Q. That is right, I only want to know if that is what he said? — A. No, I
do not know.

Q. He signed it all right? — A. He did.

Q. Did you yourself ever ask for any law7er's opinion about that specification
as to what solid rock meant? — A. Our own lawyer for the Commissioners of the
Transcontinental was the Minister of Justice. That is the man to whom we had
to go for an opinion on matters connected with law. We had our law clerk here
but on these important matters we had to go to the Minister, and generally his
Deputy Minister gave us an opinion for the Board.

Q. I cannot find that you ever got an opinion from the Minister of Justice
on that question? — A. We had it from Mr. Newcombe the Deputy Minister of
Justice.

Q. But Mr. Newcombe does not give any opinion as I read it; Mr. Newcombe
was the Deputy Minister of Justice and according to the file, on December 20th,
1907, Mr. Ryan, now Secretary, under instructions from the Board, wrote a letter
to ^Ir. Aylesworth, Minister of Justice, and Mr. Ryan in that letter says: —

"The Commissioners accordingly herewith submit all the correspondence

"with respect to this matter and request that you will favor them with your

INVESTIGATma COMMISSION 629

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

"interpretation of Clauses 33, 34, 35, and 36 of the general specifications for
"construction, a copy of which accompanies this letter."

Then Mr. Newcombe answered that letter on January 6th?— A. Yes.
Q. i And he says in his letter : —

To the Secretary of the National Transcontinental Railway Commission.

"Sir,—

"Referring to your letter of the 20th ultimo, with which you submit the
correspondence vnth. regard to the classification of excavated material and the
interpretation of Clauses 33, 34, 35 and 36 of the general specifications for
construction of the Eastern Di\ision of the National Transcontinental Railway,
I hare the honour to state that upon consideration of the papers submitted
I see no reason to differ from the classification stated by the chief engineer
in his letter to the Commissioners of the 16th ultimo except as to the state-
ment that rock, assembled (the individual pieces of such assembled rock
exceeding one cubic foot in size) .... such as in the judgment of the
engineer may be best removed by blasting, is to be classified as solid rock
excavation under clause 34. I do not understand upon what principle the
chief engineer limits the size to pieces exceeding one cubic foot. The speci-
fication speaks of rock found in ledges or masses of more than one cubic yard
which in the judgment of the engineer may be best removed by blasting. If
'rock assembled' may be regarded as a mass of rock, and if it may be best re-
moved by blasting, I do not see why under the specification it is material
whether the individual pieces exceed or are less than one cubic foot in size,
and if 'rock assembled' is not regarded as a mass, the minimum limit of size
which can be classified as solid rock exceeds one cubic yard.

"It seems to me, however, that these quantities are largely engineering
questions, the solution of which depends principally upon the judgment of
the engineers and, having regard to the terms used in the specifications, I must
call your attention also to clause 15 of the contract which provides that the
engineer (this term to be construed as defined in clause 2 of the contract)
shall be the sole judge of work and material, and that his decision on all ques-
tions in dispute with regard to work and material shall be final, thus expressly
stipulating that such questions as these shall be submitted to the decision of
the chief engineer.

"I wish to say that it is very difficult for me to advise generally upon the
interpretation of these specifications, and a general ruling may not infrequently
overlook the peculiar facts or circumstances of an individual case which if
stated might lead to an exception or modification. I would prefer to advise
upon any special case as it may arise, having all the particulars and circum-
stances stated.

"Papers returned herewith.

"I have the honour to be. Sir,

"Your obedient servant,

"Sgd., E. L. NEWCOMBE,

"Deputy Minister of Justice."
"Ottawa, 6th January, 1908."

He does not give any opinion at all in that letter? — A. I am not here to criticise
Mr. Newcombe. I had to take his opinion as it was.

Q. That is why probably the chief engineer has modified his opinion when
Mr. Newcombe wTites this:

630 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

"To form a judgment as to whether or not it is best to move by blasting
the chief engineer must view the work in process or leave it to be decided by
the engineer in charge, whose duty it is to frequently visit the work during
its operation and be governed thereby and act accordingly."

That meant that the engineers who saw the work done day by day were the
best judges of the classification? I guess that is right, but the question there is as
to being judges of the material; it is not to judge what the specification means? —
A. Well, the specification interpreted by the legal opinion and also by the modifi-
cation brought afterwards by Chief Engineer Lumsden, in his letter of January,
in which he shows that the legal opinions on record were correct, because he had
to follow them, and which also corroborates the opinion given by the district engin-
eers who saw the work going on in their respective districts.

Q. But what I am coming to is this: the first thing to be done was to find
out what the meaning of Clause 36 was, what the meaning of. the language was.
No la\\yer gave an opinion on that on behalf of the Commission that I can find? —
A. Well, so far as wc were concerned, we were satisfied vrith what had been on
record. We had the best lawyers' opinions on record and the Minister of Justice
did not in his letter raise any objection to the opinions given by these gentlemen
which were taken irrespective of party politics, and I am convinced that the inter-
pretation given by these lawyers is perfectly correct.

Q. But, Mr. Parent, you are too old a lawyer to take the opinioli of your oppon-
ent's lawyer? — A. Well, I can test that. A good lawyer, a man of reputation
that would put himself on record on a thing like that, takes the legal point of view
strictly speaking, as to the right interpretation, because it is not a matter of a few
dollars Avith the lawyer to leave his client in error and at the same time try to have
a ease before a court of justice with the result that he would be beaten.

Q. Then why don't we in this world alw'ays take the opinion of the plaintiff's
lawyer and settle it? — A. That is why w^e went to the Department of Justice
which by their opinion does not at all contradict the legal opinions on record given
by the parties intei-ested. Of course our law clej-k also is a lawyer. His opinion
was to the same effect. P'or my part, I may add at once that I am perfectly
convinced there was no error and that there was nothing done on that interpretation
which is against the public interest.

Q. Let me ask you this : we went over the ground at La Tuque and all over that
country, and we asked the engineers to show^ us any cementing material and they
did not do it, and they said under oath they could not show us any in the whole
country? — A. These engineers have been examined in the Lumsden investigation.
There were photographs produced at the time. We went over that place a few-
times ourselves and we found out it was a very hard jiiece of work. It was one
of the worst you could find and now as Chairman of the Transcontinental Com-
mission I have always based myself a good deal upon the interpretation of Clause
7 of the agreement which says that for the economical construction of the work,
specifications and plans should be approved before the work started and inspection
apd supervision of the work was given to the Grand Trunk Pacific because they
were ihe party interested in the construction, they were the party interested in the
payment of the expenditure incurred and any difficulties that arose were to be
settled by arbitration, and when the engineers of the Transcontinental and the
Grand Trunk agreed on the classification, we would naturally suppose everything
was all right. AVlicn tluy disagreed as they did in some cases, arbitrators were
called in to settle the differences, and nothing more could be expected from the
Commissioners. \\'e could not go on the work hundreds of miles away on the
line and follow what was doing from day to day. We had to rely on our own
engineers and also on the supervision of the Grand Trunk Pacific in doing that
work.

IXTESTIGATING COMMISSION 631

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

CORRY BUILDING, OTTAWA, ONTARIO, 2.30 P.:\L, FRIDAY,

APRIL 25, 1913.

Examination of Mr. Parent, by the Transcont'nental Commission. — Continued*
By Mr. Lynch-Staunton:

Q. Before you let any of the contra?ts, you advertised for tenders? — A. Yes.

Q. And the advertisement provided that besides the deposit to be made by
an intending contractor with his tender, the Commission could require him to
furnish such additional approved security as the Commissioners might require?
—A. Yes.

Q. And in the case of District F (the McArthur contract) McArthur had to
furnish an additional security of 8900,000. — A. As I told you this morning, I
did not agree with my colleagues as to AIcArthur's contract. I made a dissenting
report. I you refer to the record, you will find out, I think, that my three col-
leagues made a special report on that work and they asked, I think, fifteen per
cent guarantee.

]\Ir. GuTELirs: Thirteen per cent for Hogan & ]\Iacdonell and ten per cent
for ]\IcArthur.

Mr. Parent: I was not a party to that at all. In McArthur's it was ten
per cent, as you say, but I did not sign the report. I dissented from my colleagues.

By Mr. Lynch-Staunton:

Q. ?.Ir. Fielding said, when it was brought to his attention, that the adver-
ti.sement should not contain a clause like that : that the contractors ought to know
what they were going to be required to put up. In his letter to you on June 14,
1906, he says: "Do you not think it expedient that whatever conclusion the
Government and the Commissioners ariive at should be, in substance, expressed
in the advertisements, so that parties tendering will be in a position to know
exactly what class of security and what amount will be required of the successful
bidders. This would avoid some of the questions which arose upon the awarding
of the recent contracts." And in your letter to Mr. Fielding of the 17th December
you said it would be necessary, in order to avoid the possibility of any misunder-
standing with the contractors or tenderers as regards the nature of the securities
to be required, to have the question settled in the near future. Mr. Fielding, in
reply to that fetter, wrote to you on the 18th of December, and said: "I beg to
acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 17th, on the subject of contracts on the
Transcontinental Railway. I had an opportunity of having a conversation with
you on this subject to-day, in the anteroom of the Privy Council, so that now I
need only write in confirmation of what I then said, I think it desirable that the
Transcontinental Railway Commission, in letting these contracts, should conform
as far as possible to the practice of the large consiructing departments of our
Government, namely the Railways and Public Works Departments. The practice
there is to require a certified cheque for a certain percentage of the value of the
work, which cheque, on the acceptance of the tender, is sent to the Finance Depart-
ment and at once converted into cash. I would suggest that you adopt this rule.
If, ouing to the large sums involved, full application of the rule would require too
large a deposit, there might be a modification of the percentage, so that the amount
to be deposited, while substantial as security, would not be such as- to unduly
embarrass intending contractors, but it should in all cases be distinctly understood
that the cheques so sent in, when the tender is accepted, are to be converted into
cash by the Government." Now, after that, the Board did not change the form

€88 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

of its advertisements at all. You still left the contractors in the dark, as to what
would be required from them as security. How do you explain that? — A. We
kept to the old form, and I do not think there was a change of 5c. between the con-
tractors and the Commission.

Q. Why did you not accept the Finance Minister's suggestion? — A. What
Mr. Fielding wanted was a cheque. He wanted the cash. On McArthur's
contract we took deposit receipts. The amount involved was so large that he
had trouble to get the money from the bank, and to help him, the Commission,
although I dissented in the report, took deposit receipts, and Mr. Fielding did
not like that. He said we should have got the cash, but if we had insisted on the
cash, Mc Arthur could not have taken the work at all, and that is one way of justi-
fying my contention with my colleagues, that the Grand Trunk Pacific had the
lowest figure. I am still of opinion that what Mr. Fielding was suggesting there
could not change our position at all. Under Rule 17, I think, of the law, we were
responsible for the security to be asked, and we took great care to avoid bogus ten-
ders, and if I were Chairman I would do the same thing again to-day.

Q. Don't you think it might frighten off intending contractors? — A. No.
They were all anxious to tender and we had no complaints about it. I have no
knowledge of it doing that.

Q. Very few people tendered, though? — A. There are not very many in
this country who can tender on a contract like that, and in doing that we were
certainly avoiding trouble by having good contractors.

Q. I suggest to you, it might have been better to have had smaller contracts.
— ^A. Smaller contracts would certainly bring trouble. The engineer was of
opinion, and the government also, that in order to have the work done cheaply
big contracts were necessary. A small contractor cannot do the work as cheaply
as a big contractor, he cannot afford to buy the plant. But a big contractor can
recoup himself for the cost of his plant because he has lots of work. The small
contractor who has not the plant certainly cannot compete with the man who has
a big plant.

Q. But these big contractors did not do the work. They sublet it to small
people. — A. You could not prevent that. It is done every day with private
companies. You cannot prevent that. And as long as the Government and the
Commission were secured, that is all we had to do.

Q. Your idea was that a big contractor would have a big plant, but you
knew that a big contractor would not do the work because it was not the practice? —
A. We did not know that at first. Some of the contractors have kept a large stretch
of work for themselves: others sublet. We were not in the confidence of the con-
tractor; we did not know who was going to do the work and consequently we could
not know in advance if they would sublet. For instance Hogan & Macdonell sublet
fifty miles to O'Brien & McDougall. They were good subcontractors. We could not
prevent that. We had sufficient security and we accepted the subcontractors in
their place. Speaking generally, the subcontractors were certainly glad to make
the money. Some lost money and some made money. Some did not have a plant
of their o-svn and they were glad to get the work.

Q. That is your explanation of why you did not follow Mr. Fielding's sug-
gestion?— A. His suggestion was as a niomi^er of the Government. As a member
of the Commission responsible to the people and the Government I was not in-
clined to follow it. I follow my own opinion in a case like that. I am sure of one
thing; if the tenderers at that time had put up cash in.stcad of deposit receipts
Mr. Fielding would not have made any remark. He was looking for the cash.

Q. You received from McArthur three deposit receipts on the Traders' Bank
in Toronto? — A. Yes.

Q. Acknowledging that the Traders Bank had received from the Commission
in all some thirteen hundred thousand dollars. That is right, is it not? — A. I
would like to see the deposit receipt. As far as the Fielding letter goes, I may add

I

INTE8TI0ATIN0 COMMISSION 633

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

this: we agreed with him about getting a certified cheque. We stopped the de-
posit receipt question but we did not amend the form of tender.

Q. Did it strike you that there might be some difficulty, if it ever became
necessary, in collecting that money from the Traders' Bank? — A. In what way?

Q. You did not deposit any money -^ith them? — A. The deposit receipt was
money at the bank. They had at our credit there the sum of so much and the
only thing was that we said they should not be responsible unless the contractors
defaulted.

Q. If your banker were to vnr'ite you a letter to-day, telhng you he had S10,000
at your credit and he had not the money there, you could not get the money out of
him in a lawsuit? — A. That is a matter of law, and I think the way receipts
were made out the bank would have been liable if there had been any default on
the part of the contractor.

Q. The bank did not agree to guarantee the contractor? — A. No, I think
they acknowledged they had money in the bank at our credit.

Q. They knew that that was not true; they would say that you knew that was
not true? — A. In business we could not argue like that.

Q. I think it is very serious? — A. I do not think so.

Q. You did not think anything of it? — A. Not at all, and as the contract
was executed there was no harm done, amn^^ay.

Q. I want to ask you about three contracts, Nos. 16 and 17, about Lake
Nipigon. These two contracts which covered over two hundred miles grading are
located due north of Lake Superior. Do vou know where those are? They were
let to M. P. and J. T. Davis?— A. Yes.

Q. You first advertised this work in July, 1908, and received a tender from the
Grand Trunk Pacific to do it at cost, plus 10 per cent? — A. I refused that.

Q. You refused that. Did you advertise again? — A. We did later on.

Q. On September 12th, 1908. you advertised again? — A. Yes.

Q. You got two tenders : one from M. P. & J. T. Da\ds for S3,308,000 and one
from the Grand Trunk * Pacific for $3,402,000.?— A. Yes. In regard to the
Grand Trunk Pacific, I do not think it vras a plain tender.

Q. The second tender was an ordinary tender in the regular way. You
awarded the contract to M. P. &. J. T. Davis? — A. They were the lowest tenderer.

Q. Yes, they were some S94,000 lower than the Grand Trunk Pacific. Why
did you award that contract then? — A. Because it was the time to give it.

Q. For what reason^did you want them to start work on it? — A. Certainly.
The Grand Trunk Pacific at that time was urging to have that contract given as
soon as possible. It was at their request the tenders were asked.

Q. They wanted the work started as soon as possible? — A. Yes.

Q. The work was to be completed under the contract on December 31st,
1910? — A. I suppose so.

Q. No work was commenced on that until the 16th of January, 1910? — A. I
guess so.

Q. And at the close of that year it was reported that 12.49 per cent was com-
pleted. Do you agree with that? — A. If that is the engineer's report, it speaks
for itself.

Q. Work did not commence on contract No. 17 until March, 1911. So that
one contract was let nearly a year and a half before work was commenced and the
other was let two and half years before work was commenced. Is that right? — A.
A. In what month?

Q. October 29th, 1908. Work commenced on 16th January, 1910, and on
17th of ]March, 1911? — A. Those contractors could not get their supplies on the
spot.

Q. It took two and a half years? — A. I do not know about the time. They
must have started work before that.

Q. Da\is never did anything on the work at all? — A. I understand he sublet
to O'Brien.

634 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. Yes on September 29th, 1909, he sublet to O'Brien, and he has up to date
received a profit on that of approximately $600,000 for doing nothing? — A. That
is his own business. We lost nothing by it.

Q. I do not agree with you on that. I think you did? — A. In what way, I
would like to know?

Q. O'Brien was a big contractor was he not? — A. Yes.

Q. He could take the work himself? — A. Why did he not bid?

Q. He could take the work? — A. O'Brien had the right to bid.

Q. The point is this: you let the work when it was inaccessible, and nobody
started to work on it until the railway got up to the work? — A. Nearly all the
contracts were let at a time when the work was not accessible.

Q. Now Mr. Hayes wrote to you and asked vou to cancel that contract? — A.
He did.

Q. He says in his letter of October 9th, 1909: "Dear Mr. Parent, I have yours
of October 7th in regard to the contracts covering certain sections in Districts "D"
and "E". You do not seem to cover the point to which I made reference. There
is no question as to the regularity of the tenders at the time they were asked. ' The
point I am making is that these tenders — as well as those made by other con-
tractors— were all based on the work having to be taken up at once and com-
pleted Avithin a certain time, thereby making necessary the taking in of the supplies
overland at great expense. Several months have been allowed to pass without
anything having been done by the contractors; in the meantime the work im-
mediately adjoining the sections under discussion has been completed to an extent
that will permit the bringing in of the supplies at a very much lesser price, meaning
thereby a much greater profit to the contractor on the sections named, than if he
had commenced work as was assumed he would be required to do when the contracts
were let.

"What we are asking now is that since we are to pay the interest on the cost of
this work, and the contractors having not been pushed, that new tenders should
be asked and if this is done, the work could be let very much more reasonably than
was the case in the first place at a saving to the Government and eventually to
the Grand Trunk Pacific, which is to pay rental based on the cost.

"May I ask you what were the proAisions in the contracts referred to as to the
commencement of the work, and when was it to be completed, and what was the
penalty for non-completion.

"Since commencing this letter, I have had laid on my desk clipping from the
Montreal Gazette of October 9th, in reference to this very piece of work, and you
will note it states that Fauquier Bros, will have 50 miles of steel laid on the Trans-
continental west of Cochrane before winter sets in, and that 'this will enable
supplies to be taken forward by rail over the T. & N. O. and the Transcontinental,
leaving a "tote" of only 50 miles to the east end of the big M. P. Davis contract.'
Of course, this will very much ciieapen the cost of getting in the supplies, and unless
the contract is revised and lower prices for the work obtained, it uill correspondingly
increase the profit to the contractors."

Why did you not act on that suggestion and cancel the contract? — A. You
have my answer.

Q. Your answer is d.-fi'd flic 1 lili Octobrr. lOOO.

"Dear Mr. Hayes:

"The essential jioiut in your letter of Aug. 2nd to the Honoiu-able the Premier,
regarding certain contracts in districts 'D' and 'K' was a request that they should
be cancelleil. In my answer, I therefore endeavoured to show that, the award
having been quite regular in every respect, — which >()U admit — such a step as was
suggested would be illegal on the face of it.

"I noticed your contention that the prices were too high, l)ut (Ud not think
necessary for the reason just given, to dwell at very great length on that side of the

lyVESTIGATIXG COMMISSION 635

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

question. Even granting the propriety of the ground taken, there is httle doubt
that it would not be sufficient before law to render void actions which were regularly
performed.

"For the purpose of chscussion, however, I am willing to go into particulars.

"Among other proofs that your Company had urged with us that the work
referred to should be let at an early date, I shall quote from a letter written by Mr.
Morse to the Honourable the jMinister of Railways, on IMay 12th, 1908, which says:
'In order to give the Grand Trunk Pacific an outlet to the east through Northern
Ontario, the contracts for the unlet portions of the line between Lake Superior
Junction and the T. & N. 0. Railway to be let without further delay, it being under-
stood that the survey's are sufficiently advanced to permit this being done.'

"We complied with these wishes and contracts were signed on the 26th
December of the same year. At such a late date in the season the contractors were
unable to get their supplies, material and plant in soon enough to begin operations
during the next season.

"Our forms of contract provide, it is true, that work be started at once and
pursued cUligently until completion, which in the present case is to take place on
or before December 31st, 1910. Allowance must be made, as you know, for adverse
conditions. I need only point out the fact that we have done so for more than one
of your sub-contractors, namely the J. H. Re\-nolds Construction Company, who
were so much behind in their work and gave us endless trouble. They were unable
to carry out the undertaking and we had at one time to advance money to pay their
men. Yet your company could not withdraw its contracts, although they were
practically in default. There is surely much less cause and possibility to do so in
the present instance where the facts are altogether different.

"Now we come to your statement that tenders were all based on the work
having to be taken up at once and completed within a certain time. As supplies
had to be taken overland at great expense, prices would naturally be high. Perhaps
the work done on the adjoining section may reduce somewhat the cost to the
contractors in one way, but the difference would not be as large as you claim. There
^xill be still a considerable distance to cover by 'tote' roads, while haulage by rail
through to the point of delivery is no small item, and this remains the same. Labour
conditions, v>"hich j'ou represented as favourable at the time, must have been taken
into account by the tenderers. It is not likely that workingmen can be had to-day
as cheaply as could be expected a year ago during the financial stringency.

"There is no certainty, therefore, that better prices than before could be
obtained now if new tenders vrere to be called for. Any advantage that might be
gained on one hand would be more than counterbalanced by the loss of time on the
other, not to mention the liability incurred. It would take a year or more before
another contractor could get down to work.

"We are told that preparations have been made to proceed actively with the
work, and it can be expected that these two sections will be ready in good time.

"In any event there would be no way of complying vrith your suggestion, as
stated before, unless the contractors would give their consent to the work being
let anew, which, it seems, v^^ould be a mo.st unusual course in business.

That is your answer? — A. Yes.

Q. That was in October, 1909, and Davis & Co. had sold the contract to
O'Brien at that time? — A. They may have done so. Reports will show.

Q. Section 20 of the contract provides that if the contractor shall make default
or delay in diligently continuing to execute or finance the work to the satisfaction
of the engineer, and such default or delay shall continue over six days after notice
in writing shall have been given, you can cancel the contract. You had it absolutely
in your power to cancel the contract.

Q. And you agree, in that letter, that it might be let cheaper, and Davis was
not going to do it. — A. I do not agree to that. I gave ray reason in the letter.
To try to cancel a contract like that would involve litigation.

63« NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAT

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. Why did you not make Davis get busy and go on with the work? — A.
Well, I will tell you. The country has lost nothing by it. To my mind, the country
has gained by the delay. If we had pushed that part or some other part, we should
have had to pay interest on it and taken care of the line pending the operation of
the whole line. For instance if Davis finished ahead of the others we could not use
the line but we would have to pay interest on the money and take care of the line
which would involve a large sum of money. So the country has lost no money.

Q. That being so clear, why on earth did you let the contract so early. — A.
Because we were asked by the Government and the Grand Trunk to do so.

Q. Why did you not compel them to go ahead? — A. We did, but they are
just like contractors for private companies. For instance if you let a contract to
be completed within a certain time, I think you won't find one perhaps who will
do the work in the time specified. They never do it in the time specified.

Q. Don't you think it was a great piece of folly to build the National Trans-
continental end of that line before the West end was completed? — A. That is
a matter of opinion. We were asked by the Grand Trunk Pacific to have the con-
tract let, and as soon as the location was prepared we did so.

Q. You know that work has been completed dowm there for years, and is
no use? — A. It. has been completed.

Q. And it is no use yet? — A. If we had finished the Da^^s contract, which
you were talking about just now, we should have been in the same position with
that. In building that line, contractors had to meet a lot of difficulties. There
was fire, in some cases, and they lost their supplies in others. They could not do
any better. It is very easy to criticise an enterprise when it is over, but when you
are meeting all the difficulties, that is the time to talk about it. It is easy to find
fault with it when it is finished, and very unfair sometimes.

Q. I want to ask you, did you or any of your fellow Commissioners receive
any money from any of the contractors? — A. Not that I know of.

Q. Neither for yourself nor for political purposes? — A. Not that I know
of. Speaking for myself, I have been in public business for many years, and it has
always been my duty to put public interest before private interest, here or else-
where, and in this case, if I were to die to-day, I would say the same thing : that so
far as I am concerned, I have been taking care of the public interest as much as
possible. For my part, I would not give undue preference to anybody, contractor
or otherwise, for money or other consideration.

Q. Did any contractor pay any sum of money to you or to any of your fellow
Commissioners for personal or political purposes.-* — A. I do not know that.

Q. You say they did not. — A. Not to my knowledge.

Q. Did they pay any to you for personal or political purposes? — A. No.

Q. Did any of their friends pay money for them to you? — A. No.

Q. Do you know of their paying any money for personal or political purposes
during the time they had this contract? — A. To me?

Q. To anybody. — A. Not that I know of. Those contracts were let on their
merits, without any compromise or favour whatever.

Q. Did any of the contractors make any contributions for personal or political
reasons, after they got the contracts? — A. Not that I know of. If they did, it
must have been elsewhere.

Q. But not through you or with your knowledge? — A. No.

Q. Nor through you? — A. Certainly not. If it had been through me, I
must have had the money.

Q. Did they pay it to any other person, at your suggestion? — A. Not at all.

Q. Do you know of their paying any money? — A. I cannot say that. I am
speaking from my personal knowledge.

Q. Did they tell you they paid any other, money? — A. I won't tell that.
I do not know that.

Q. Will you say they did not tell you they paid money? — A. I do not re-
member that.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 637

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Try and remember. — A. If they paid money to somebody, it would be
their business.

Q. Did they tell you they had paid any money to anybody during the time
they had these contracts? — A. To anybody outside?

Q. Yes. — A. A fellow talks that way sometimes. He might say, I contri-
bute to both sides of politics, to both parties, but without giving any name parti-
cularly.

Q. Did any of those contractors tell you, during the time they were doing
this work, that they contributed any money for political purposes? — A. I do
not remember that.

Q. You don't remember? — A. No.

Q. Will you try to remember? — A. If I knew, I would tell you. In a thing
like that, I speak for myself. I cannot speak for anybody else, nor will I speak
from hearsay.

Q. You do not remember their telling you so? — A. No. I always avoid
politics.

Q. You say they never told you they put up any money for personal or
political purposes? — A. I do not remember that. You think I know better than
I do. We did not touch those matters. I had a duty to perform and I performed
it.

Q. And you say now, candidly, you do not know of any case where any
contractor put up money while he was contracting with this Commission? — A. I
do not say they did not put up any money.

Q. But so far as you know? — A. So far as I know, they did not, to me.

Q. Do you know of their doing it? — A. To know it, I must have been with
them when they did it.

Q. Oh no. — A. If they did, I was not with them.

Q. This is not the point. Did they tell you they did? — A. I do not remem-
ber that. They may have said so, I do not know. I do not remember it and I
could not swear to it.

Q. Do you remember their telling you they were going to put up money? —
A. That is about the same thing. They may have said so, some of them, but
I could not point out exactly. They may have said so.

Q. Cannot you recall any case? — A. There were no special cases.

Q. Think it over now. Cannot you recall some case? — A. No. What
case?

Q. Never mind just now. — A. Have you a case to point to?

Q. Just see if you cannot think of a case. — A. No. I cannot find a case.

Q. You mean to tell me that you cannot remember a single case during all
the time you were Chairman of that Commission, where a contractor told you he
paid money? — A. You must think of this. I never bothered myself with the
contractors about a money question. My sole duty, as Chairman, was to see that
the work was done in the public interest and according to the specification, and I
would not have dared to speak to contractors about subscriptions or anything else .

Q. Did you ever speak to them? — A. I have had experience enough in
politics not to bother with this question. If these things were done, they were
done by outsiders, but not by those having the responsibility of the work. That is
why I am not in a position to talk about them.

Q. Do you mean to tell me you were never curious to find out whether they
had put up any money? — A. That would not be doing any good at all.

Q. But you never were curious enough to find out? — A. I am not very
curious on those questions.

Q. Did you tried to find out? — A. No. I never tried to find out, because
it would have been against my whole interest and duty to do so.

Q. And do you say you did not find out? — A. I did not look for it. I did
not want to bother with it.

638 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. I knew you did not want to bother with it, but sometimes when these
men become generous they would Ukely want their generosity to be known to the
proper people. — A. That is as old as Adam and Eve. You will find some thing like
that on both sides of politics. We know very well both have their friends at
election time, but this has not been done, so far as I know, by a party contracting
with us. I would take it to be an offense to do it. That is why I would not touch
a thing like that.

Q. Do you say you do not know anything about it? — A. Not personally.

Q. Anybody told you? — A. On that question I would not swear. I do not
remember.

Q. You do not remember? — A. No, because so many things pass in election
times that a fellow may say, well, I have given so much to this person and so much
to that — not on this special question, but generally — and therefore, I would not
take on me to swear on a thing like that.

Q. Was there anybody that you know of that got any money from the con-
tractors for political or other purposes, during the time they had contracts for the
Transcontinental Railway? — A. I answered that. I said no.

Q. Now your answers are without any mental reservation? — A. No mental
reservation on my part.

Q. It is an absolutely frank statement? — A, A frank statement, so far as I
know.

Q. I could not get a 'yes' out of you by putting the question in another form?
—A. Put it any way you like. You will get the game answer.

Q. Now I want you to explain a matter dowai at Quebec. I think it is only
fair that I should draw your attention to this. You know the Chevalier case down
there? — A. In Cap Balcine.

Q. Yes, the ice house case. On the 1st of October, 1908, Alfred C. Dobell
leased for three years, from May 1, 1909, to Adolphe Chevalier, a lot of land known
as cadastral No. 2525 in Champlain Road. That is Cap Baleine, is it not? — A.
Yes.

Q. Now, Chevalier says that a man named Bergevin came to him through a
hotelman named O'Neill, and bought out from him in the summer or autumn, just
before the general election in 1911, his lease for $4,000; and he reserved the right
to occupy that land until the end of the lease. The notarial deed was executed
before Joseph Allaire, notary public for the Province of Quebec, and it provides
that Chevalier is to give him all his rights and interests of occupation, of a certain
piece of land known as cadastral No. 2525. He is not to give up possession until
the 1st of IVIay next, when the lease runs out. — A. (After examining the deed
and lease). Both are the same thing.

Q. Did Bergevin, under those deeds, receive any consideration for his $4,000?
— A. I do not know about that.

Q. You ought to know. You are a lawyer. — A. But I have not studied the
ccmditions enough to answer that.

Q. But under those deeds? — A. They speak for themselves.

Q. I have shown you the deed, and you can see by that deed, can you not,
that Bergevin got nothing at all for his money? — A. I know nothing at all about
that.

Q. I am asking you now to look at the deed from Dobell to Chevalier and the
deed from Chevalier to Bergevin, and tell rae, as a la\\yer, whether Bergevin got
an>i:hing for his $4,000. (handling deeds to witness). Generally they show
Bergevin got nothing for something, and knew it when he took that deed. — A. I
cannot say that.

Q. You know lie did not get anything. The deed says he does not. — A.
The deeds speak for themselves.

Q. Do the deeds say so? — A. I do not want to speak of a lease to which I
am not a party.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 639

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. Am I not correct in stating that the lease from Dobell to Chevalier is
for three years? — A. That will be for you to say in your report, whether correct
or not.

Q. Now, won't you say to me whether I am correct or not: whether that is
not a lease for three years from Dobell? ■ You have read both? — A, It looks like
that. You asked me whether I knew Bergevin had got nothing

Q. Leave that out. Does not the deed to Bergevin provide that Chevalier
shall occupy the land until the end of the lease? — A. It does, according to this,
but there may be som.ething else. This does not show he had very much, but he
may have something else. I do not think a m.an is such a fool as to pay money for
nothing.

Q. Under these tv.'o deeds he had nothing to sell, had he? — A. Not very
much, judging by that alone.

Q. Now here is a deed to which you are a party yourself. In 1911, Bergevin
received S4250 for a gra\dng-dock. The deed I have in my hand is in French, but
I Tsdll translate it. "Considering that it is necessary for the Transcontinental
Railway to demolish, for purposes of their line of railway, the graving-dock belong-
ing to the said Bergevin, situated on Lot 2525, and considering that Bergevin is
ready, in consideration of a certain indemnity, to give up the said graving-dock,
therefore, Bergevin accepts S4250.00 in full and final discharge of all damages
resulting to him from the demolition of the said gra\dng-dock." Now, why did you
give him $4250? Your notary had all the papers before him? — A. That Vv'as built
by Chevalier v.'hen he v»-as a tenant of the property.

Q. Yes, but Chevalier did not sell that graving-dock to Bergevin. What
did you want \vith the graving-dock? — A. The engineer wanted to cross that
property, and we had to remove the graving-dock.

Q. Now, Chevalier's lease was up, and they had to remove their buildings.
That is as plain as a pikestaff. — A. Not so plain as you think, because at that
time I understand Chevalier could have got an extension of his lease, and so would
not have had to remove that dock.

Q. But he could not get the lease if you chose to take the property. Dobell
could not give him the lease. — A. We did not pay for the property itself, but as
a place to build on.

Q. If you chose to expropriate that property, Dobell could not give him another
lease? — A. Certainly not.

Q. You knew that. Now then, he would have to move that graving-dock,
and he would not have any claim against you. You do not mean to tell me that .
you thought for one moment that that man had any claim for damages against the
Transcontinental Railway for that graving-dock? — A. Why did the engineer and
the right of way agent recommend it if it were not w^anted?

Q. I do not care if all the men on earth recommended it. Any lawyer knows
that that man had no claim. — A. You could not remove his house without paying
for it, and moreover, I think it was used by our owai men, who were picking borings
in the river at that time.

Q. What do you say you paid that money for? — A. For what is specified
on the voucher here, and approved correct by the right of way agent and the
engineer. If I remember rightly, our men who were piclcing borings in the River
St. Lawrence used that dock all summer.

Q. But that is not what you paid S4250.00 for. — A. I cannot say exactly,
but if my memory is correct, I think we paid that money to use it.

Q. Chevalier say that everybody knows all about it, and he says that when
he got this from Bergevin, Bergevin knew all about it. Now Bergevin, according
to the law of Quebec, would have to produce the papers to show his title, and his
papers show no title. Is not that true? — A. I cannot say as to that. If I remember
the facts, the graving-dock vv^as bought and used by the Commission during the
whole summer.

640 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. Is that all the explanation you want to make about it? — A. So far as
my memory is concerned, but we would never have bought it if our men had not
thought it was worth that amount. I did nothing to Bergevin or Chevalier, and
they did nothing to me. I have no interest in the property at all.

Q. This transaction was made with you, yourself, and I cannot understand
how any lawyer would put that deal through? — A. The certificate of the right-of-
way agent is there, and the matter was fully discussed with those fellows, and they
agreed to pay that amount of money. I would not have paid that amount of money if
I thought it incorrect.

Q. But the point I am trying to impress on you is this: that this man's
tenancy had expired, that he had no claim whatever against anybody, that he must
remove his things or leave them there, and he had no claim on earth against the
Commission, and I want you to explain tome how he got that money? — A. He
got that money because we bought the thing. It was valued by our right-of-way
agent and engineer at Quebec. We were satisfied it was correct, and we bought it.

Q. You say Bergevin bought this tenancy from Chevalier and never mentioned
anything about the gra\ing-dock in the deed, and he professed to give $4,000.00
for what he knew, if he read his deed," was nothing at all? — A. So far as I am con-
cerned, I had nothing at all to do TNith these matters.

Q. But the notary did? — A. Yes, but it went to our engineer's office.

Q. No. Bergevin and Chevalier say it went through you? — A. Did they
know what was going through me and my ofiice?

Q. They say they came to you personally? — A. They came to me personally,
but it was referred to our engineer's office.

Q. No, no. It was referred to the notary? — A. Not at all. You find, on
the voucher, the certificate of the real estate agent.

Q. That certificate of the real estate agent shows this: Mr. Tremblay says
that the voucher means that the statement is wrong, but the voucher is in con-
formity with what is intended in the deed. He says that voucher only means the
amount that is stated in the deed? — A. It does not mean that to me. When a
real estate agent certifies an account as being correct, he does so because he has
put his valuation on.

Q. Supposing he did put a valuation on. How could that make you respons-
ible? You might send him out and tell him to value anj-thing, but that is no reason
why you should buy it? — A. I do not ask any man to value anjlhing. He has to
notify me. I say if we want something, it is for him to certify the value of what
we want.

Q. What was the duty of the notary? To see that there was a proper title
and to see the deeds? — A. I never studied those deeds. We were discussing the
value of the graving-dock at the time, and if I am not mistaken, we have used that
thing, but I am not sure about it. But surely we would not have bought that if
it had not been valued by our owti men in Quebec.

Q. There was another man named Martineau in exactly the same position.
He had a lease of part of the land from Chevalier, and he had an ice house on it? —
A. Yes.

Q. Martineau sold out to Bergevin his right to occupy the premises under
his lease. It was agreed tiiat IVIartineau could remain in possession until tlie lease'
expired. Bergevin paid him, as appears by the deed dated the 18th of August,
1911, $2,000.00 for nothing. Did he get anjihing for his money? I will show you
the deed. (Deed handed to witness.) — A. This is not our o^\ti deed.

Q. It is the deed to Bergevin. You can see there he did not get anything for
his money? — A. In this case, it was only the sale of an ice house.

Q. The ice house is not sold there, is it? — A. Yes. They were selling the
ice house.

Q. I did not see the sale of an ice house in that. Will you point it out to
me? — A. Here it is (indicating).

Q. Oh yes. Bergevin bought that ice house? — A. The deed shows.

1

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 641

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. And Jie would have to move out at the end of the lease if he wanted it^
would he not? — A. Well, it would be a question between him and the landlord,

Q. If the lease came to an end, he would have to move it if he wanted it? —
A. If there was no renewal.

Q. Yes, If you expropriated the land, he could not get a renewal? — A. Not
a renewal, but he could have remained there a few months more.

Q. But he could not have got any damages out of you? — A. No.

Q. And therefore, when he got 82,500.00 for damages, he got it for nothing?
— A. It might be for damages alone, it might be for the building, also.

Q. It does not say for the building. It seems to me that you ought to pa^
that money back to the Commission. — A. It is a question of ha\dng value for the
money.

Q. I cannot see where they got any. I would like you to explain it, because
it is a transaction that needs explaining? — A. For my part, the transaction was
bona fide. So far as we are concerned, I say frankly we never received anything at
all either directly or indirectly from any of these parties.

Q. They say it is an election transaction. They swore to it. Chevalier
says he did not sell anything, and it was just a cloak to give him money for the
elections? — A. Did he?

Q. He swore to it? — A. If he did swear, I am swearing too, now, that I do
not know am^hing about it, neither from Berge\dn nor Chevalier. This was made
after the election, was it not?

Q. No. It was made before the election? — A. No. It was after the election^

Q, Bergevin is a man of intelligence, is he not? — A. I suppose he is.

Q, A business man? — ^A, Yes,

Q, And he has large property in Quebec? — A, Yes. He has some there.

Q. And he is not a shipwright? — A, I do not think Bergevin got a cent for
election purposes. I \vi\\ be more than surprised if he subscribed to the elections,
and as far as we are concerned, there was no election in the business,

Q, It is my duty to tell you what they say, because there is the e\ddence? —
A, What did Bergevin say?

Q, Oh, he denied it, but he could not make any decent explanation of it? —
A. We never paid any money to Chevalier,

Q, You know everybody in Quebec is talking about it? — A. They can talk
as much as they like.

Q, I would like to see it explained, because it seems to me it needs explaining.
Bergevin said what he bought from Chevalier was bought by him to sell to the Com-
mission. That is his evidence. Listen: —

"A. (Bergevin) Well, I do not say that I do not know. I was buying thenfc

to sell to the Commission.

"Q, You knew the Transcontinental would pay you that money for

it?— A, Yes,

"Q, What did you know? — A. I knew I could sell the property to the

Transcontinental Railway, The way to prove to you that what you say is

not correct — because some I sold at S259 profit. I was pretty sure I coulct

sell it to the Transcontinental Railway."
Now, so far as I can see, "Bergevin got nothing for his money. Chevalier had
no claim for damages, and the Commission got nothing for its money. If you can
explain to me where I am wrong, I will be delighted to hear it? — A, I cannot ex-
plain to you the value put on those properties. I never saw those deeds. They
were supposed to go to the notary, and he handled them in due course. The pro-
perty was valued by our own officers. So far as I am concerned, I never went there
myself. The real estate agent was supposed to satisfy himself that that was correct,

Q. Your notary, then, has to bear the blame of putting through that trans-
action?— A. There is something in that. I cannot say whether the amount is
correct or not. If the graving-dock or the ice house or whatever it is was bought
too high, I am not prepared to admit it. I do not see those things myself, but I

123.— 41

642 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

.4 GEORGE v., 1914

never did a thing unless my right-of-way agents had certified or rec<)mmended it.
I rehed upon this man, who is supposed to be honest and perfectly honourable,
and when such a man certifies a thing to be correct and comes to me like that, from
the Quebec office, it is supposed to be correct.

Q. Did you know yourself — you ought to know, I should think — that that
was something which the Transcontinental ought not to buy at all and did not have
any use for? — A. It was not the way to do it. The Government would never
dare to go on or go through a property because a lease had expired or was on the
eve of expiring, and pay nothing at all for it. I know that although Bergevin's
lease might have expired, he would have got some little time.

Q. Mr. Dobell swears he had given him notice. Chevalier swears he had got
notice. Chevalier says he told Bergevin he had no right to stay on there any more.
— A. When they came to me they said the lease had three more years to rmi.
There was a building on the property and they were asking so much for it, (I have
claims, if I remember right, up to $5,000 and $7,000). The matter was referred
to Mr. Tremblay and to Mr. Doucet. Tremblay, later on, recommended that
amount of money and the thing was put in the notary's hands, but I never saw
anything of those deeds.

Q. Did you think you were bujdng the lease? — A. Certainly. At the time
they came to me there was supposed to be an unexpired time of lease.

Q. The deed shows you did not buy the lease? — A. The deed was not before
me. I suppose the notary was looking after that.

Q. You signed the deed yourself? — A. I signed this, and it was supposed
we were buying something.

Q. It did not show you were bujdng any lease? — A. This one was for an ice
house.

Q. What did you intend to do with the ice house and graving dock? — A. I
do not know.

Q. But you did not buy the ice house? — A. Yes, we did.

Q. You were giving this man $2,500 for moving an ice house which he had
to move himself? — A. But we bought the ice house.

Q. Oh no, you didn't, and you didn't buy the graving dock — the demolition
of them, I think, but you did not buy either of them? — A. The demolition is about
the same thing.

Q. They moved the graving dock over to Orleans Island ? — A. I did not
follow that. We bought the property to get the right to demolish it.

Q. Knowing he was to demolish it himself? — A. We were buying it for that.

Q. You were giving him the money for the expense of demolishing the ice
house? — A. We were buying the ice house because it was to be demolished.

Q. I do not see it in there (indicating)? — A. W^e had to demolish it.

Q. To move it off? — A. Yes, or demolish it.

Q. You had a very eminent Ontario lawyer, Mr. Taschereau? — A. He is
supposed to be.

Q. Then you had a solicitor. You had a lawyer to examine the title and a
notary to put through the deeds, both of the name of Taschereau. The lawyrr is
the Minister of Crown Lands for Quebec, is he not?— A. The Minister of Public
Works.

Q. And did he certify there was a title to that? — A. I did not say that. I
see his brother signed the deed.

Q. Well, his brother had all the papers before him? — A. He was supposed
to have, and it was his duty to have them.

Q. And you signed the deed before the brother? — A. All the deeds in Quebec
are on the minutes.

Q. It is not. I would like to see it explained? — A. I have given you my ex-
planation. It was a bona-fide transaction like the rest, so far as I am concerned.
It went through our office in Quebec and we paid lots of money there. I never

lYVESTIGATIXG COMMIS^'SION 643

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

saw the place myself. I am most surprised to hear you state that too high a price
was paid. I never put a valuation on the building myself. There is no politics
attached to it.

Q. Do you understand the transaction? — A. I understand it as it is now.
I signed, that is all.

Q. Here is what Berge\'in says about it himself: —

"Q. Your deed says that that was for damages for removing the slip? —
A. Yes.

"Q. So that you got S4,250 for nothing?— A. Why?

"Q. Because you did not own the slip. — A. No, but I bought the right
from the 1st of September to the 1st of May. That is what I sold them. I
could not have sold them anything that did not belong to me.

"Q. But you did not sell them anything? — A. No.

"Q. According to your o\\'ii deed, you sold something which you did
not own? — A. No. I did not sell them anything which did not belong to me.

"Q. But did you o^ti the Bassin de Radoub?^A. No. I o-^Tied only
the right, as I explained.

''Q. You did not own the Bassin de Radoub? — A. No, only the right
to the 1st of ]May.

"Q. You knew quite well you did not own the Bassin de Radoub? — A.
I did not buy any property.

Q. Why did you sign the deed and say in that deed that you owTied it?
(Deed sho^ATi to the -udtness) Now, be honest about this. Did you not give
that man that money and then find yourself in trouble after the election and
get your money back at this date? — A. No.

Q. Yes you did. You got it on the 16th of October. — A. Yes, but
that transaction was made before the election.

Q. The transaction with whom? — A. The Transcontinental Railway.

Q. With whom did you make it? — A. Mr. Parent.

Q. He is a law>'er? — A. Yes.

Q. And a very distinguished lawyer? — A. "UTiite puts him before the
Ontario Taschereau.

Q. And you made the bargain with Mr. Parent himself? — A. Yes.

Q. And he agreed to give you §4,250 of Transcontinental money for
destroying the Bassin de Radoub? — A. Yes.

Q. And you knew you did not own it? — A. For the right I had there.

Q. For the Bassin de Radoub? — A. No. That was for the demohtion
of it.

Q. What was your bargain with Parent? — A. 84,250, the way the deed
says there.

Q. For the demolition of the Bassin de Radoub? — A. No.

Q. Tell me the bargain. WTiat did you say to Parent? — A. I told him,
I will sell what I have there made with Chevalier, and that is all. I produced
my contract with Chevalier, and that was the arrangement. I would get
$4,2.50 for the thing.

Q. Did he write it? — A. Yes, and the notary too.

Q. Did Parent go to the notary with you? — A. No. Mr. Tremblay
would not bother me, but I gave them the papers and they went to the notary
with it.

Q. Did Mr. Parent give Tremblay instructions? — A. Yes.

Q. In your presence? — A. Yes, to send the papers to Taschereau.

Q. Did Mr. Parent get the deed from Chevalier? — A. Yes. He must
have given it to him, because he had it in his hand.

Q. When did he make the bargain with you and Parent? — A. I cannot
tell you, but it was a week or so before the election."

Now, there he says very plainly that you knew all about it. — A. I never saw
those deeds. I referred the whole thing to Mr. Tremblay, as I did other things.

644 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

There were no exceptions made in the case of Bergevin or other fellows. Tremblay
was the man to look after those things, and he was satisfied to pay a sum of money,
that was all I knew about it.
Further on he says this:

"Q. To go back to the Martineau ice house. You bought the ice house
from Martineau for $2,000?— A. Yes.

Q. You did not sell the ice house to the Commission, You only were
paid by the Commission compensation for the removal of the ice house, and
damages to cadastral No. 2525, $3,700, according to your receipt. That is
correct, is it not? — A. Yes.

Q. So that you removed the ice house? — A. Yes.

Q. And the Commission was giving you $3,700. for the expense of moving
it? — A. Yes, to take it away from them.

Q. Don't you think that was a pretty tall price for removing the ice
house? — A. I do not know. You can judge of that.

Q. I am asking you? — A. I sold for what I thought I could. If I
could have sold it for more, I would have.

Q. With whom did you make the bargain? — A. With the Transcon-
tinental.

Q. With Mr. Parent personally? — A. Yes.

Q. He agreed that you should take the ice house away? — A. Yes.

Q. And thcv would pay you $3700. for taking it away? — A. Yes.

Q. No doubt about that?— A. No."

Now, they put it right up to you. — A. Well, the facts hre as I told >ou. Our
own men are responsible for the valuation of those things, not myself. I never was
in any of these things. I do not settle a thing like that unless it goes through in
the regular way.

Q. But you must have knoAm that this man had no claim whatever against
the Transcontinental Railway, no matter who ^'alued it? — A. If I had known he
had no claim, do you think I would have signed the deed?

Q. I would not think that you would sign the deed? — A. 1 signed it
because the certificate of our real estate agent was there on the voucher and I
supposed it to be correct. Mr. Tremblay was satisfied the amount was correct,

Q. But Mr. Tremblay would not know whether the Commission was liable
or not? — A. He is supposed to know. If our plans show that the line has to go
through certain property and he finds that property belonging to Bergevin or
somebody else, and he finds out that so much money is required for the removal or
demolition of that property, and says, I will recommend the paNiiient of so much,
I would assume that to be correct. I will say this: that nothing, directly or indi-
rectly, has been paid by Bergevin, Chevalier, or anybody else, on account of this
deal. There was no election business in it. There was not a cent paid, to my
knowledge. I never heard anything about it, and I am pretty sure that Bergevin
had not spent a cent on the election, on account of these cxax'tions. I never had
any. I never expect to get money from any of those fellows. I never deal in that
way with anybody. If that thing is too high, the ice house, the Bassin de Radoub,
or whatever it is — I do not admit it — but if it so, Tremblay and the notary and the
real estate agent are responsible for it becau.se they deceived us by certifying an
amount which is not correct. For my own part, to be perfectly frank, under the
same conditions I would repeat the deal again to-day, having confidence in my
agent. Tremblay was a man of great honesty. He was as good a man as you
could get, a good land surveyor with good judgment, and when I found his certi-
ficate on a docimient I had no doubts about it.

Q. Mr. Tremblay .struck me as an extremely con.scientious, honest man. —
A. He is too. I never put through any deal in Quebec without going to see him.

IXVESTIGATIXG COMMISSIJ\ 645

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

I always referred them to Tremblay and Tremblay would come back and say:
Compromise the thing or pay so much, and we would do it.

Q. But Tremblay says he did not do it? A. For my part, I never did
anything unless Tremblav certified it. There is the voucher showing he certified
it.'

Q. He says that the account showed the amomit mentioned in the deec^
— A. Of course, but the amount was fixed by him.

Q. He says not. — A. I say yes.

Q. Berge\'in says not too? — A. Bergevin was not there when I dealt ^\ith
my real estate agent. The man does not stay there all the time.

Q. Berge\an says he fixed the amount with, you? — A. Of course, I knew how
far Tremblay was prepared to go. but when Berge^•in came back to the office we
did not close the deal in the first instance. I knew how far Tremblay was prepared
to go, and we agreed on it.

Q. I think it is only fair to you to read you this portion of the e^ddence:

'' Q. Who gave you yoiu" instructions? — A. The President.

Q.' Mr. Parent?— A. Yes.

0. What did he tell you in respect to this transaction? — A. Of course,
I did quite a lot of things, and I do not remember exactly what was done in
respect to that particular case, but if I remember right I think Mr. Berge\'in
came in to see Mr. Parent when he was here; and I was called into the office
here and a discussion took place between Mr. Bergevin and Mr. Parent as to
what he should get for the property he had to sell to the Transcontinental,
and it was agreed — we sold at the valuation that was made by the valuators,
and it was agreed that the transaction should be made at the price as made by
the valuators.

Q. That is, that all the properties that Berge\in sold to the Commission
should be at the valuation made by the valuators. — A. Yes. That was for
this transaction, and further than that, I had instructions from Mr. Doucet
to make all the transactions for the price given by the valuators, with all those
landoAMiers that would be ready to settle ^itli the Transcontinental Railway,
whose property had been valued."

I think that is all I want to ask Mr. Parent.

j\Ir. Parent: I never concluded any of these transactions for damages unless
they had been discussed beforehand and agreed to by the agent or the engineer.
Sometimes they would come into my office, discussing matters and then come back
another day, and I would discuss it with the real estate agent or engineer. I
had not the least interest in that matter directly or indirectly. I want to go a step
further. Bergevin says that Tremblay went to the notary with the deed. That
shows that Tremblay was supposed to know all about it.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. This railroad has been a very expensive one, and it is supposed to be a
very high class road. Who designed this railroad? Was it the Commission or was
it the Government? — A. It is an expensive road because the law says we were to
take the outline into consideration, bridging, curves, etc., and because the standard
of the road is high. When I became Chairman, the specification had already been
made by, I think Mr. Butler, who was then second chief engineer, and by the
chief engineer, Mr. Lum^sden. The plans were supposed to be approved by the
engineer and the Board of the Grand Trunk Pacific.

Q. Do I understand you correctly, then, to say that so far as you personally
are concerned, or the Board, after you became Chairman, had no responsibility
for fixing the standard of the road.^ — A. When I came in as Chairman, the standard

646 NATIONAJj TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v.. 1914

of the road had been settled on and the specifications made, and my duty and the
duty of the Board under me was to build the road according to the design and
specifications already made. Standard means the class of road: four tenths one
way and six tenths the other. I do not think there is anything in the specification
which mentions four tenths and six tenths.

Q. Was that settled before you came in? — A. I cannot say whether it was
or not. I know the specifications were.

Q. Although the curvature and the gradients were settled before you took
charge of the Commission, the question of the construction of wooden trestles,
had not been settled. Why did you not use wooden trestles, in the interest of
economy, in the construction of this railway? — A. I am not an engineer, but I
think any engineer will admit that steel bridges are better than wooden trestles,
because, in the first place, they are perm.anent, and in case of fire it would be
disastrous to have wooden trestles on the line. Further, if you take into consider-
ation the cost of lumber, at tender prices, and the cost of filling for wooden trestles,
you would come to the conclusion that steel bridges, in the end, are cheaper.

Q. Did you ever have the engineers make comparative estimates for you to
prove what you have just suggested? — A. We discussed matters more than once,
especially when an offer was made by the Grand Trunk Pacific to build wooden
trestles, and for them to do the filling afterwards at so much per yard. At that
time we discussed the matter thoroughly and came to the conclusion that it would
not be worth while to make a change, in view of the fact that we were building a
first class road, and that besides the Grand Trunk had nothing for the filling and
we should have had to have the consent of the main contractor. We thought it
better to refuse their offer and finish the road at once with steel bridges and make
it permanent.

Q. If you had been advised, in the early stages, of the construction of the
railway, that you could have saved $7,000,000, do you think you would have come
to the same conclusion? — A. In a case of that kind, I would have gone a step
further and submitted it to the Grand Trunk and the Government.

Q. It would have made you perk up your ears? — A. If our chief engineer
had put the question, say, in a special report, as you have put it to-day, that there
would be a big saving in wooden trestles, then it would have been our duty to submit
it to the parties interested. When we thought we could save a few million dollars
in La Tuque, we did it.

Q. I do not find that you were ever advised of the money involved? — A. The
specifications were approved beforehand by the Government and the Grand Trunk
Pacific, that was before I came on. It was modified, perhaps, a few times after-
wards, about twice or something like that, but the si^ecifications could not be
changed by the Chairman or mod fied by our Board, neither by the Government
alone, but only by the common consent of the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Govern-
ment. If we had undertaken, ourselves, to modify the specifications, we should
have been doing something illegal and might perhaps have been thrown out.

Q. The specification did not say anything about wooden trestles or steel
bridges? — A. Oh no. I do not think so.

Q. In the matter of using new eighty pound steel in sidings, if you had known
that by purchasing lighter rails you could have saved 8300,000, ^^'ould you, with
the Grand Trunk Pacific's concurrence, have undertaken that? — A. That matter
was taken up once by Mr. Morse, and he said, I remember well, that perhajis they
would save some money on the sidings, but in order to make it a uniform ro;id, they
would not object to having the 80 lb. rails in the sidings, the same as the main line.

Q. So that you let it go through? — A. So at this point we let it go through.
We had trouble about getting rails. We had to wait sometimes for months and
months after the contract was let.

Q. But if you had kno^\^l you could save that amount, and if it had been
satisfactory to the Grand Trunk, you would have, in the interests of economy,
used lighter rails, would you not.'' — A. If the rails are all of the same standard and

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 647

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

weight, it is very easy to change them. That is one advantage of having a uniform
weight. At that time, Billings seemed to object to 80 lb. rails. About wooden
trestles, I want to be fair on that point. Considering the fact that we asked for
prices for tender from contractors, I have my doubts whether, taking tender prices,
you could save 87,000,000, as compared with steel bridges, but of course, assuming
for a moment that you could get timber at prices lower than we have now, you
might be able to save a large amount. But I have my doubts, when I consider the
tender prices, whether wooden trestles would have made such a difference in the
cost of construction.

Q. That is only your opinion? — A. Certainly. I am not an engineer. The
transportation of timber is a great factor in construction. The distance and the
place it is to be put have all to be considered. To build a railway in some places
would be very cheap, but in building a trestle at a long distance, and where there
is no railway communication, the transportation alone might sometimes cost much
more than the material. That is where the trouble comes in and the expenditure
increases.

Q. $45.00 to S50.00 a thousand was the average, was it not? — A. I do not
think so. I think the average was over $60.00.

Mk. Lynch-Staunton : I do not think so.

Mr. Parent: I did not make any calculations, but that was my impression..
Although I am not an engineer, when I was Chairman of the Board I used to figure
out for myself at night, to help me along. They have tried to get an engineer at
the head of this Commission. It is a matter of opinion whether he would be any
better than a business man. Unless you could get an ideal engineer, his plans might
be often worse.

Q. Was the payment of $350,000.00 to the Grand Trmik Pacific for surveys
made with your approval? — A. It was before my time.

Q. How did you happen to build double track between Cap Rouge and St.
Foye, and between Transcona and Winnipeg, and provide for double track over the
Little Sturgeon River near Graham, when the Act seems to call only for a single
track railroad? — A. They are not double track; they are terminal facilities. At
Cap Rouge there will be more than two tracks. No railway can do without terminal
facilities. You have to have them whether you are going to Winnipeg or Quebec,
and we do not consider them as double track at all, or that we are going against
the law in pro\'iding them, because it was required and approved by the Grand
Trunk Pacific and the Government. What could you do in a city like Winnipeg
or Quebec, with a single track? You have to accomodate the cars coming in and
going out. Take the C. P. R. in Winnipeg, for instance. I think their yards are
over thirty miles long.

Q. They are only building their second track now? — A. But they have lots
of tracks into Winnipeg and in the yards. In regard to Quebec, the Goverrmient
assume the obligation of the Quebec Bridge Company, which called for more than,
one track, and we had to carry out that obligation. When the bridge collapsed,
the Government took it over and assumed all the obligations. The Quebec Bridge
Company was going into Champlain Market in Quebec, and they were to build
four tracks or more and a station there. That is why, I suppose, there is more than
one rail from Cap Rouge to Quebec.

Q. At the Winnipeg terminals, when you made that agreement with the
Canadian Northern, why did you not extend the terminal so as to connect up with
the Transcontinental at Dundee Junction? — A. At that time Winnipeg was sup-
posed to be their terminus. Going further on was a matter for discussion after-
wards. Dundee Junction was on the Canadian Northern, and at that time the
chief engineer never suggested anything else than what we had at first supposed.

648 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

By Mr. Lynch-Staunton:

Q. Why did you not bring the terminal yards at all events down to the banks
of the river? — ^A. We were not asked to do that.

Q. Were you actively engaged, personally, in making the terminal agreement
with the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Canadian Northern in Winnipeg? — A.
Certainly. The Board had a long discussion with the Canadian Northern on that
matter, and the Grand Trunk Pacific people were also often met. I have many
recollections of the first deed they made, before it went to the House for approval.
On one occasion they sent for Mr. Lash, their lawyer, who was in New York, because
they objected to something in the deed, and they wanted to find out if we were
correct. It was approved of and sent to the House for approval.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. It looks as though the Canadian Northern were in a position to extend
the terminal from the passenger station dowTi to Dundee Junction, if the other
parties to the agreement had insisted on it? — A. It was not discussed at that time.

Q. You did not think of it at that time? — A. No. The point was not raised
at that time. The matter came up afterwards when they modified the line in
Winnipeg.

By Mr. Lynch-Staunton:

Q. I want to ask you about the Transcona shops. Your first intention was
to spend SI, 500,000 there. That was the estimate of Mr. Lumsden? — A. Yes.

Q. I am told by Mr. Mclsaac, and I think by Mr. Calvert, that the reason
the shops were made so much bigger and so much more money was spent on them
was because there was an understanding with the Grand Trunk Pacific that those
shops should be used not only for the Eastern but for the Western division as well.
Is that right? — A. No.

Q. It is not so? — A. No.

Q. And that the Grand Trunk should pay a rental for whatever use they
made of those shops for the Western di\asion. — A. I do not think it was so.

Q. Nothing of the kind? — A. Nothing of the kind. We built those shops
for the Eastern division and we had no right to do anything else. We could have
made an agreement for the Western division, but the shops were essential for the
Eastern division. I do not know any railway company of any importance that has
not got its o\\Ti shops, and we started to build shops for repairing locomotives.
Afterwards we were asked to build repairing car shops, coaches, and so on; and we
made provision for that later. At first they were asking us to build more than that.
Morse had very big plans for constructing car building shops, and I said, we cannot
do that, all we can do is to get shops to repair cars and locomotives, you cannot
have shops to build cars, but only to repair them. They were not satisfied with
what we had done. They thought we should have got much larger shops for loco-
motives and also for building cars. Incidentally, I presume that when the Grand
Trunk Pacific has finished the Eastern di\ision, they will take control of and operate
the Western division. Nothing will prevent them repairing their cars in the Trans-
cona shops.

Q. Will you tell me why it is that when they agreed to supply the rolling stock
and keep it in repair at their own expense, the Government supplied them tools
and machinery for doing it? — A. The law says so.

Q. No. — A. If you read Sections 14 and 15 you ^vill find something to that
effect. They are only bound to furnish their rolling stock.

Q. They are bound to maintain the line themselves.'* — A. You will find
out there is a reserve by which the Government has the right to make permanent
improvements, even during the lease, to be charged up to capital account.

Q. Shops are not mentioned once, for the Eastern division. — A. Terminal
facilities includes everything. We had the right, by law.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 649

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. You have not to provide terminal facilities, only land for terminal facilities.
Accommodation only means holes through the 'tracks, and things of that sort. —
A. The general opinion of the law is that you have to build shops. They are only,
bound, themselves, to build rolling stock.

Q. IMy opinion is that you should not have built the shops at all, but you
built shops there that you could make anything in. You will not find any shops
mentioned in that agreement at all? — A. If the Government was operating the
line, they would require shops.

Q. So they would, and they would require cars tOD? — A. Of course, there is
a clause (No. 47 I think it is) modifying the Act. You seem to doubt whether we
could build shops. We discussed it at the time with the Minister of Justice and
members of the Go\ernment, and we came to the conclusion that v/e were bound
to build the shops. That is why we did it. They referred the matter to Sir William
White, but whatever Clause 47 says is binding on everybody.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. With reference to letting the contract. District F, to McArthur. When
the tenders were received, it was found that McArthur's tender contained a great
many blank spaces for prices, which required that they be filled in or that his tender
be throvATi out. Mr. Lumsden tells us that he filled those prices in with the knowl-
edge and consent of yourself. Do you remember that transaction? — A. No,
because at the time I had protested against it.

Q. You had protested against it at that time? — A. Yes, at that period, and
he explained that it was necessary to put in the prices to make it a bona fide tender.
I was, as I said before, against those tenders, against IMc Arthur's and all the others.

Q. Now stay with the red figures. Did you finally agree to let the red fig-ures
that were put there go in? — A. The chief engineer did not ask me to do it. At
that time I was a new man to him, and he was more familiar with, the other Com-
missioners than myself. Mr. Reid and Mr. Young were before me and I was a
comparatively new man. He said it was perfectly regular to do that for everybody.

Q. Did it strike you as though it were not regular? — A. I just asked for an
explanation about it and he satisfied me it was the right thing to do, and I thought,
at the tim.e, that being the lowest, the Government perhaps gave the contract to
the Grand Trunk Pacific at AIcArthur's prices.

Q. Suppose it had been pointed out to you that McArthur was not the lowest
tenderer excepting for those red ink figures. Would you have taken any firmer
stand in connection with putting them in? — A. Then he would not have been the
lowest tenderer.

By Mr. Lynch-Staunton:

Q. You would have got rid of him if you had not put those figures in? — A. I
was against them all the time, but you have to rely on your engineer. MacPherson
made the figures, I think. Lumsden didn't.

Q. He signed the paper, though. — A. But MacPherson is the guilty party.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. But you all knew of it? — A. I did not know of it at all.

Q. You knew they had put those red ink figures in? — A. Afterwards.

Q. But you did not know at that time that the red ink figures gave McArthur
the contract? — A. Oh, certainly not. If what you are telling me now is correct,
that but for those figures McArthur would not have been the lowe.st tenderer, I
would not have accepted him.

Q. Well, it happens that if those red ink figures had not been put in, the con-
tract would have been given to the Pacific Construction Company and the Govern-
ment \\ould have saved 8400,000 on the final estimates? — A. My report was in
favour of the Grand Trunk Pacific.

650 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE "v., 1914

Q. This is the Pacific Construction Company, Fauquier's, I think. You
did not know anji;hing about this at that time? — A. Not at all.

Q. And if you had been advised that the red ink figures filled in here meant
that McArthur was getting the work for which he was the second lowest tenderer,
you would have made a row about it? — A. I was, at that time, making a row,
by objecting to this tender.

Q. That was on general principles, and not on this detail? — A. No, but
I would have taken action to have these contracts rejected. If I had known that
it would have supported me in my position.

Q. You would have taken advantage of that? — A. Yes.

Q. Now in the printed specification, you include on Page 4 engine houses
arid section houses, but you do not show prices for engine houses or section houses-
in the description of the work to be done? — A. No.

Q. Yoiir personal attention was called to that by your secretary, Mr. Ryan,
in a letter dated January 25, 1906, in which he says: "I cannot find, in our schedule
of prices, items calling for prices for buildings such as depots, section houses, shops
and round houses," but you continued to let those words remain in all the sub-
sequent specifications, and as a result paid for those engine houses about twice
as much as, in our judgment, they would have cost if you had let the contract for
engine houses separately. What defence have you to offer for that? — A. I have
no defence, because I think we were right.

Q. You think you were right in letting a contract for buildings that would
have cost over S100,000 and not asking for prices? — A. You could not, at that
time, put an initial price on an engine house, because you could not tell where it
was to be built and what kind of plan it would be built on ; and at the same time we
thought that the contractor who had the main contract could do that work later
on at prices agreed on by our engineers, with the help of the Grand Trunk Pacific
engineer, and thereby get better conditions. I do not think, today, any man can
say we could have built them for less money than we have, unless by calling for
tenders. I think we did right, and if I were there to-day I would do the same thing
again.

Q. You will be surprised then to know that one at least of these engine houses
was sub-let by the original contractor, and in his evidence he told us he made
$50,000 on that building? — A. You might have paid just as much if it had been
otherwise, because your own contractor had the advantage of his line, over which
to transport his material and supplies, and I presume he makes money by furnishing
all these things to the subcontractors, and that is where a big portion of the profit
would come in, but another man coukl not do it. When a man has not the difficulty
of transportation, that helps him to make money; and as I said a minute ago, all
those contracts have been given through IMacPherson, generally speaking, fixing
prices with the contractor and the chief engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and
if they are not good judges of what they have done, it is their fault. Our engineers
were supposed to be good men who knew what they were doing.

Q. But their hands were tied when the contractor knew he had to build the
houses, and that you had to pay such prices as he demanded? — A. We never
consented to agrc^e to the prices they demanded. They have, of course, brought
dovra figures a good deal. On a couj^le of occasions they came to me and I said they
had to agree to the engineers' prices, and they were forced to take them too.

Q. Now, in connection with the La Tuque pusher grade. Your engineers
recommended that 3 J miles of .05 grade, constructed immediately west of La
Tuque, instead of four tenths, would have saved the Commission about S500,000.
You recommended to the CJovernment that you would be permitted to construct
this steeper grade at that point, did you not? — A. We did.

Q. You took the matter up with Mr. Hayes of the Grand Trunk Pacific? —
A. Yes.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION C.3t

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. And he was willing that you build it, was he not? — A. You have his
letter on record. The tenor of his letter left the thing open, and I thought, in a
way, it would be just as well to have a four tenths grade all along, but did not
object. At the same time, he was satisfied to submit to the Government view.

Q. The argmnent that he gave, for building it four tenths, reads as follows:
"In my opinion, however, the Commission should carefully consider the effect
upon the minds of the public, regarding the Transcontinental Railway, which
has been widely advertised as being the only low grade line from the Atlantic to
the Pacific, with the definite statement to the effect that the maximum limited
would be limited to four tenths of one per cent east of the Rocky ^Mountains."
You remember that clause in his letter, do you not? — A. Yes.

Q. That seems to be, to you, the real reason that you have advertised the
line as being a four tenths? — A. Yes.

Q. Then the Government instructed you, did they not, to build four tenths? —
A. Yes. After that I saw Mr. Hayes. He came up to Ottawa and told me he
would prefer to get a uniform line, although it would cost more. It was on that
we made no recommendation.

Q. The Government decided not to approve any pusher grades in the line
between Quebec and Winnipeg? — A. Yes.

Q. And on account of that decision you refused to consider the opportunity
to save S240,000 by introducing a pusher grade east of the Chaudiere. You
remember ]\Ir. Limisden -wTote to you about it and said in his letter that in view of
the La Tuque decision he did not suppose there was any use in taking it up with
the Government? — A. He was right too.

Q. And that had the effect on the minds of the Commissioners and the
engineers? — A. We made up our minds that it would be a four tenths, regardless
of cost.

Q. And that the Grand Trunk Pacific would agree? — A. Yes.

Q. Just one more question, and that is in regard to the selection of engineers
for the manning of the engineering department. We have been told that Mr.
Lumsden's recommendations for engineers were always based upon the selection
of men made by the various members of your Commission. Did you interfere at
all with the persoimel of the men in the field? — A. When I came on, the engineer-
ing staff was all engaged, and working. Very few were chosen afterwards, except
in the case of a man resigning or death, but the bulk of the engineers, those who
were on the line, were appointed before I became Chairman.

Q. So that your answer is that there were very few changes after that, and
in those changes the various members of the Commission did have some influence? —
A. I do not think we had much to sa3' about the appointment of engineers, except
in one case, when we appointed Grant. Other than that, I do not remember any
case where we forced on ]\Ir. Lumsden anybody that he did not like.

Q. He did not make any protest? — A. Not that I remember. He did not
like it when we appointed Grant, but we thought we required an inspector, to report
^■ery often to the Board, in view of the complaints prevailing. ]Mr. Limisden was
an old man and could not get out on the line himself very often, and consequently
we had no accurate information by which to govern ourselves. That is why we
appointed Grant as engineer.

Mr. Gutelius: All right. That will do.
Witness discharged.

^52 NAriOYAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

(E^■IDE^X'E TAKEN IN N.T.R. OFFICES, AT QUEBEC, MARCH

14TH, 1913.)

E. A. Hoar, sworn:
By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. You were Division Engineer of that portion of the railway on which th e
'Cap Rouge Viaduct was being constructed, Avere you not? — A. Yes.

Q. At the time of constructing this bridge the question arose as to the char-
acter of foundations and the kind of structure which would be used over the Cap
Rouge River? — ^A. Yes.

Q. And when you were discussing the various kinds of foiuidations and the
method of building, you secured from Messrs. M. P. and J. T. Davis a preliminary
estimate, based on unit prices, did you not? — A. Yes, they made three estimates
to handle that foundation work three different ways, and not only the estimate of
cost, what they would do it for, but the time it would take to do it.

Q. With reference to the first estimate which you used in preparing your
figures for tlie chief engineer, you recall a letter or memorandum which they'sent
you and you sent to Mr. Uniacke not a bid, simply figures to be ust^d in the estimates.
Do you recall that? I show you a memorandum dated October 27th, 1906, signed
by M. P. and J. T. Davis. Just turn to the letter immediately preceding that,
October 31st, which you wrote to Mr. Lumsden, enclosing this memorandum? —
A. That recalls the whole thing: that is all right.

Q. With that letter and memorandum, you then discussed the matter with
Mr. Uniacke as to how these piers should be constructed, and, on account of the
low price of the pneumatic caissons, were of the opinion that that would be the
proper thing to do? — A. Yes.

Q. Then you asked Mr. M. P. Davis for an official tender, for official prices,
that could be used in the contract? — A. I think they asked him for that, yes.

Q. I show you a copy of his final tender. What is the difference between
the final tender and the original estimate in the matter of excavation. Refer to
the prices under "Pneumatic foundations" in the estimate of October 27th. What
was to be the price per cubic foot for excavation in that estimate? — A. Forty
cents.

Q. What is the price for the same work in the final estimate? — A. 70 cents.

Q. Timber in caissons in the original estimate was at what price per cubic
foot? — A. He has not any price for timber at all.

Q. What is this? — A. 80 by 40 by 25 : that is the price for the timber in the
caissons.

Q. Wliat was the price for timber in the final? — A. That is not the same
thing. You would have to take that money for the timber in the caissons and
divide it by the cubic contents in this estimate to got that

Q. Refer to concrete. What was the price for concrete in iiis original esti-
mate?— A. That is 75 cents.

(.}. Wh:it did they finally put in the timber? — A. Same price.

Q. In the crib what was the original price? — A. I do not know what it is
here: 44.5. That is 443^'2> I suppose.

Q. What was the final price? — A. 55 cents.

Q. Aiul concrete? — A. 45 cents.

Q. And what was the ultimate price? — A. GO cents.

Q. So that the prices were, in the final bid, very much higher than in his
estimate? — A. Yes.

INTESTIGATIXG COMMISSION 653'

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. What effect ditl that higher price have on you when you were considering:
the character of structure? AVere you surprised to receive such a high tender, in
view of the low estimate? — A. It occurred to me first that there had been a mistake
made somewhere: that is all. I thought there was an error some way in figuring.

Q. You thought they must have made some mistake? — A. I thought there
was some mistake in figuring in one estimate or the other at first : I did not know
which.

Q. But after you saw those higher figures you were ready with Uniacke then
to change the design, were you not? — A. Yes.

Q. And while you were figuring on changing the design you were called down
into Mr. Parent's office, and he then took the bit in his mouth and told you it must
be caisson work: is that right?— A. I am not quite sure where it came from,,
exactly who said it, but I know caisson work was decided to be the work by some-
body, I do not know whether it was Mr. Parent, or who it was: it was settled by
Mr. Parent and Butler and Uniacke, between them.

Q. You must remember very vividly that day you were called dowm: M. P.
Davis was there, Mr. Parent was walking up and dowTi the room, and the two of
you came in, and he wanted to know what business you had to talk about changing
this plan, that caissons were to go, and to get out and do it: is that about it? — (No
answer),

Q. Read the fyle and consider it, and see if it is a fair statement of the case,
if you recall it, and if you find anything that you think is not right, mark it, and we
will talk it over. (Witness retires.)

(EVIDENCE TAKEN IN N. T. R. OFFICES, QUEBEC, MARCH

14TH, 1913.)

E. A. Hoar, Recalled: — I have refreshed my memory, and wish to make the^
following statement : —

Statements in Mr. Uniacke's letter, May 31st, 1912, are substantially correct^
to the best of my recollection, except respecting myself, when I was called to Ottawa
December 22nd, 1906, I did not see comparative designs A. B. C, or any estimate
showing cost of a long span to dispense with river piers. Mr. Uniacke showed
me Mr. Davis's figures for foundations and piers before going to Mr. Butler's
office, and I understood him to say that Mr. Butler considered them fair and had
approved them. At a meeting at Mr. Butler's office the question of construction
was discussed for saving time and cost as well. IVIr. Butler favored a single span
as being the most expeditious, but no figures were given, nor had any estimate
been made to my knowledge at the time. Nothing in the conversation conveyed
to me any positive decision to change the river piers, but a suggestion to get rid
of the latter work for one span. Not having any figures at my disposal for com-
parison, I Avas more or less insistent in trying to get one pier cancelled, as appa-
rently being less disturbing to agreements made. After returning to Uniacke's
office to consider proposed changes, the Chairman sent for us to say that no further
changes could be permitted, as it would cause too much loss of time making plans^
going back to council again, and submitting revised plans, and the delay to the
Quebec bridge might be considerable, if such a course were adopted.

654 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

(NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY INVESTIGATION
COMMISSION, OTTAWA, FEBRUARY 5, 1914)

Present: G. Lynch-Staunton, Chairman; F. P. Gutelius.
Mr. M. p. Davis, called, sworn and examined
By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. You took a number of contracts on the Transcontinental Railway during
its construction. Can you give us the larger contracts that you were interested
in as constructor? — A. The first one is knowTi as No. 9. No. 9 was from the
Quebec Bridge westward fifty miles. The next was contract 8 from the Quebec
Bridge eastward 150 miles. The next was contract 7, from the 150th mile to the
New Brunswick boundary, about 52 or 53 miles. The next were contracts 16 and
17 west of Cochrane.

Q. Contract 9 was let originally to Hogan and Macdonell? — A. Yes.

Q. And you afterward took that contract over? — A. No, we took fifty
miles of it.

Q. Were you interested with Hogan and Macdonell in the original tender?
— A. No, sir.

Q. How did you happen to take that 50 miles? — A. Mr. Hogan backed
out of the contract and A. R. IVIacdonell, now dead, came down to my office and
asked me if I would join as partner with him and O'Brien on the whole contract.
I said I never went into partnerships of that kind, but that I would take fifty or
seventy-five miles, or I would go as far as what we call Harvey Junction where we
pass on the C. N. R. There is a road across there.

Q. Yes, the C. P. R. — A. No, it is not the C. P. R. It is a road running
from Montreal to River Pierre.

Q. The Canadian Northern? — A. Yes; it is now called Harvey Junction on
the Transcontinental. So, he agreed to let me have the first fifty miles.

Q. You got the same prices? — A. Exactly the same prices. I signed the
same contract.

Q. So, you actually took over that portion of their contract the same as if
you have been on the original tender? — A. The same as if we had been on the
original tender.

Q. You constructed what is known as the Quebec Branch from the yard at
Ste. Foye dowai in Quebec? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. We did not find that there was any competition in the way of tenders for
that contract. How did you happen to get it? — A. I was the original contractor
for the Quebec Bridge and Railway Company from Quebec to the north ;;butment
of tlie Quebec Bridge, for the Quebec Bridge foundations, for the road from the
south abutment of the Quebec Bridge to a junction with the I. C. R. A\'hen the
Dominion Government took over the Quebec Bridge Company, they assumed my
contract and then they turned the contract over to the Commissioners. That is
all in the contract. The reasons are all given in the fyle of the contract for No.
a In that contract, in all of the original documents held in the Commissioners'
ffice, I signed off all rights and claims under the old contract.

nrVESTIQATING COMMISSION 655

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. The old Bridge Company being released? — A. The Government absolved
the Bridge Company.

Q. Do you know what is known as the Sillery incline? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. That is a roadway constructed from the hill under the old church at
Sillery down to the right- of-way? Under what conditions did you get that job? —
A. Simply ordered to do the work by the engineer as part of Contract 9A.

Q. Was it paid for in unit prices the same as Contract 9A? — A. Under 9A.

Q. As far as you know it was a portion of work under 9A? — A. Yes.

Q. And you were paid for it under your contract basis? — A. Yes.

Q. Did j'ou have any property along there? Do you remember any property
that was used for the construction of this incline? — A. Yes, the whole of it was on
my property. They removed some houses.

Q. Do you remember what you were paid for this property? — A. Never paid
me anything; never even offered me anything.

Q. That matter is still open? — A. (Witness nods assent.)

By the Chairman:

Q. Speaking of what Mr. Gutelius asked you about the Sillery incline, I am
told that it was built by the Commission because a number of influential gentlemen
in Quebec asked that it should be built. Do you know anj^hing about that? —
A. Yes, your information is good.

Q. And that it is not really a part of the railway? — I don't mean to say now
you were one of the gentlemen asking for it ? — A. I certainly was not one of those
gentlemen who asked for it.

Q. I don't want to make that out. It was no part of the railway, was it? —
A. Well, it was a part of the railway, when the same is in diversion of any road.

Q. But they did not divert the road? — A. It was a diversion of the road.

Q. The two roads are there yet? — A. One was abandoned.

Q. Is not this the fact, that on the Sillery hill there was an old kill-horse
road? — A. Yes.

Q. And that when the railway was built a number of influential gentlemen
in Quebec waited upon the Chairman? — A. You are getting beyond my knowledge.

Q. Is it not a fact, that the building of this road was simply to improve the
means of communication from the top to the bottom of the hill? — A. I do not think
so.

Q. What reason was it for? — A. Because the foot of the old road came so
close to the railway that I have heard the argument that it would be dangerous to
drive horses down that hill with a train coming up against them.

Q. Do not the two roads meet at the foot of the hill? — A. No, sir. The
foot of the two hills is quite a distance apart.

Q. How close to the foot do the two roads come together? Where the
man drives down the hill on the old road he comes within how far of the
railway? — A. I would not say how far. possibly a hundred feet.

Q. Where a man drives down to the foot of the hill, how far is the new road? —
A. Nearer three hundred feet.

Q. So that they were 100 feet away on the old road and 300 feet on the new? —
A. Yes.

Q. And the new road is how far from the railway lands? — A. It would be
about 250 feet. They have 100 feet right-of-way.

Q. Have you any claim for the land on which the new road is built? — A.
Most certainly.

Q. \\'hat did you claim? — A. I have not put in my claim yet.

Q. What do you think it is worth? — A. Seven or eight cents a foot.

Q. What does that mean in dollars? — A. I could not tell you just now.

Q. Was it expropriated by the railway company? — A. They took pos-
session and built the railway, and pulled down my houses.

656 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 191+

Q. The position was, that you, under the instructions of the Commission^
built a pubhc road on it? — A. Of the engineers.

Q. Built a public road on it. I think you will have some difficulty in getting
paid for it? — A. I am not afraid of that.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. In connection with the method of constructing deep foundations at Cap
Rouge, where the railway is carried across the Cap Rouge River, it appears from
the evidence we have taken that these foundations were not built in accordance
with the engineer's original scheme, and that after a discussion which you had with
Mr. Parent, a proposition which you had recommended, and method, was adopted^
Is that, in a general way, right? — A. No, sir.

Q. Will you tell us the story of that? — A. The plan set down for these two
piers in the river was first on piles with a bottomless caisson on piles. In the first
place, there were some 30 or 40 feet of almost liquid mud there. This plan was piles
driven in the mud and a bottomless caisson filled with concrete. Now, we have a
tide 15 or 18 feet there, and I said I would not be responsible for putting concrete
in a bottomless caisson with the water flowing through it four times a day. Then
they suggested a bottom in the caisson to land on the piles. I said I would not be
responsible for that, because the current would shoot the mud out between the piles.
We had considerable discussion with Mr. Lumsden. He asked me what method
I would agree to. I said: "Put in a pneumatic foundation." He did not want to
agree to that. After a while, the whole Commission met in Quebec. Lumsden was
there; Woods, for the Grand Trunk; — I don't know whether Kclliher was there or
not. I said. "Gentlemen, I won't be responsible for the structure or its founda-
tion if it is built on either one of these foundations ; but you can take that piece of
work out of our hands and discharge our contract and do it yourselves. I don't
want to do it for you by the day under those conditions, but cut it out, and go ahead
and do it 3'ourself." Then Lumsden was asked: "Now, Mr Lumsden, you give
two propositions there for building those piers. Will you undertake to assure the
Commission and guarantee them that either one of these propositions will l)e a safe
foundation?" But he said: "I will not." I was asked the question: "Certainly, if
you build a pneumatic foundation you will naturally go until you are satisfied
your foundation is good?" And I replied: "If we get a good foundation I will
guarantee our work." Mr. Lumsden said : "We want a safe bridge :" and undertook
to arrange that the contractor should put in a pneumatic foundation. Then the
next point we came to: Mr. Lumsden even then had designed a caisson for the
pneumatic foundation. His design of the caisson was the peak, fore and aft, and
that only gave us a foot on the lap at the shoulder, I said "I won't build that caisson
if we get leaks in that we have on that shoulder no strength ; give me a square caisson.
So he said: "Well, gentlemen, pneumatic work is outside of my line; if Mr. Davis
will submit a plan of caisson he will guarantee to put down there, then we will
agree to take it." Well, I was after building the Quebec Bridge and I submitted
a plan, just the Quebec Bridge, only modified for a load, where we had four or five
feet of a roof on the Quebec I3ridge we had only two feet on that caisson. Our sides
were only 20 inches altogether, and we reduced them all in that way. Then these
plans and designs were submitted to Mr. Lumsden and he took them to Mr. M. J.
Butler, then chief engineer and Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals, and he
made some modifications and actually made the prices we worked on.

Q. There is some criticism of prices.- You first gave the engineers an idea of
detailed prices without a tender, and then later you made a tender? — A. I think
they were not detailed prices.

Q. But the final detailed prices were very much higher than the first prices
that were given to the engineers? — A. The prices, sir, were made by Mr. Lumsden
and Mr. J. M. Butler. I think any prices that were made would have been the
prices per yard, take it all round.

IlfVESTIOATING COMMISSION 657

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

By the Chairman:

Q. Mr. Uniacke says you first put in a price: that was a price which was a
little more than the plain caissons: that, afterwards, you increased that price so
that it brought it up to two hundred thousand dollars more, and that Butler refused
then to act on them, and the matter was then sent to the Chairman, and the Chair-
man and you were in his room in Ottawa, when Uniacke — and this is according to
Uniacke's statement to us — was sent for and he came down and the Chairman told
him he was to build the caissons in that way at those prices. — A. I must contradict
him absolutely and positively.

Mr. GuTELirs: There is no doubt the figures that were finally agreed upon
were passed on by Mr. Butler?

The Witness: Yes.

IVIr. Gutelius : But as to how that was arrived at your side of the story, while
there may be some variance, finally lands at that place, at any rate.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. The special point that we desire to call your attention to, Mr. Davis, is
that you gave a tentative figure on which the engineers estimated. They then agreed
that pneumatic caissons were the proper things to build. You were then asked for
an official tender. This tender was so much higher than the tentative figures that
the engineers decided that they would adopt some other method, as it ran the total
cost too high to make the caisson method the proper and economical one. It
is said that, after the engineers agreed to change the plan, you went to Mr. Parent's
office and had him instruct the engineers to build the caisson and accept your
final prices. What have you to say? — A. I never in any shape or form, made any
request of Mr. Parent to build the foundations of that bridge or to build those
piers in any one way or the other. The only point that I ever raised was, that I
would not be responsible for the work being built either on a pile foundation ■uith
a bottomless caisson or on a pile foundation with a bottom in the caisson, and that
we preferred to have them take that piece of work out of our hands and build it
themselves.

Q. So, we are wrong in the assumption that you used any influence \nth
Mr. Parent to adopt a given plan in connection with it? — A. Positively so.

Q. We are advised that the original plans for the piers and abutments of
the Boucanne River Bridge contained groins and arches, or voids, and that you
explained the matter to Mr. Parent in such a way that he over-ruled the engineers
and it was built in the solid. What is the story of that? — A. The original plans
of the piers were solid. After we started the work, they sent down plans showing
these voids and openings in the abutments and piers and we refused to build them
on the prices of the solid piers.

Q. Because? — A. Because the cost of forms was a great deal more. We
were even ordered to build a solid pier and paid the neat measurement of the one
with the voids. And then we were ordered to go ahead and build it on the original
plan.

Q. And you arranged that through the Chairman? — A. No, sir; with Mr.
Doucet.

Q. Now, with reference to classification. Did you ever know a solid rock
specification in which was included rock fragments less than a yard, and paid for
as solid rock in this manner? — A. No, sir.

Q. Were you aware at the time you tendered on these contracts that the
solid rock specification would be construed to include these small rock fragments? —
A. Yes, sir; we judged so under the specification of cemented material.

Q. It would appear from the evidence that you had access to the engineers'
estimates prior to making up the tender for contract 8. Did you have those quan-
tities?— A. No, sir. No information other than the plans and profiles for which
we paid a dollar a mile. They were issued to everybody.
123—42

658 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., 1914

Q. In connection with any of the contracts which you secured, you did not
have any private information in regard to quantities? — A. No, sir.

By the Chairman:

Q. Why did you put in your tender eighty dollars for timber? — A. As a
fair value. That eighty dollars calls for either Southern pine or British Columbia
fir. I think it calls for it in large sizes, 10 x 16 or 12 x 16 stringers, and that timber
would have to be hauled twenty or thirty miles.

Q. It is the only contract in the whole construction of the Transcontinental
Railway that the tenders for timber went above $55? — A. I am not responsible
for that. But I submit today, Mr. Gutelius, could you take Southern pine 10 x 16
or 12 X 16 and haul it twenty-five or forty miles from a railway, and put it in place
at $55? In the first place you pay about $35 per thousand.

Q. Why didn't you repeat that $80 bid in other contracts? — A. I could not
say.

Mr. Gutelius: This was more difficult of access, possibly.

The Chairman: This was the easiest one of access.

By the Chairman:

Q. The items are :

No. 24. Frame trestles per 1000 feet B.M., except stringers.

No. 26. Caps, wahngs and braces for pile trestles per 1000 feet B.M.

No. 27. Sawn ties and guard rails for bridges per 1000 feet B.M.

Now, these are the items on which you bid $80, and there are no contracts on the
whole line where any price was bid over $55 for the same work. (Consulting
papers). $50, $45 and $60 for stringers in one case. Will you explain on that con-
tract, which was not as inaccessible as many others, how you bid such a price with
any hope of getting the contract? — A. The only thing I can say, when we bid
that price we thought it was a fair price for the work.

Q. I could understand that bid, Mr. Davis, if you were aware of the fact,
as the fact was, that at the time you made that bid the engineers' estimates comprised
no item for that material? — A. I did not know anything about that.

Q. Do you swear you did not know directly or indirectly, that they did not
intend to use that material on that contract? — A. Positively, sir. One thing I
can tell you, that the profiles we got from the engineers' office certified to, did
not show one foot of permanent trestle.

Q. Do you say that you did not know from any source, outside of the legit-
imate material submitted to you, that the engineers did not contemplate the use
of that material? — A. Most positively, no, sir, I did not. I had no information
or no idea of it other than information we got from the profile which did not show
any trestles on the line.

Q. And you inferred or concluded that it was not intended to use that
material? — A. No, sir, we did not. We bid that as a fair price for the work if
' it was required to be done.

Q. Did you ever bid a price approaching that on any other contracts for the
same material? — A. I could not tell you that without having the contracts.

By Mr. Gutelius:

Q. In connection with contracts 16 and 17, there were two contractors
tendering, M. P. and J. T. Davis and the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. Was there
any arrangement between you and the G. T. P. Ry. in connection with these con-
tracts.-*— A. No, sir.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 659

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Q. You sublet these contracts to Mr. M. J. O'Brien and his associates? —
A. Yes.

Q. Was there any arrangement between you and M. J. O'Brien in the tender-
ing for these two contracts? — A. No, sir.

Q. M. J. O'Brien did not know he was going to get that contract if you
secured it? — A. No, sir.

Q. In subletting your various contracts, did you use the same clauses with
your subs that the Commission used with you, in connection with the plant becoming
security for the completion of the contracts? — A. We made our specification with
the Commissioners a part of the contract with every sub. We used the specification
entire.

Q. So that the answer to that is, yes? — A. Yes, that is, in this way, Mr.
Gutelius. We held our subcontractors' plant for the purpose of completing the
work, not as a matter of security, only for the purpose of completing the work.
When the subcontractor's work is completed we do not claim any lien on his pro-
perty: we are only the same as an ordinary creditor.

Q. But the Commission would have the same hold on the subcontractor's
plant? — A. As if it was owned by us.

Q. In connection with that 80 dollar lumber, did you know that the first
moneyed out tenders were sent back from Mr. Parent's office? — A. No. sir.

Q. You had no knowledge of any switching or moneying out at that time?
—A. No.

By the Chairman:

Q. You sublet part of contract 7, did you not? — A. We sublet the whole
of it.

Q. Have you got any sub-contracts? — A. We have contracts with all our
sub-contractors.

Q. Will you produce the sub-contracts for contract 7? — A. Yes, sir.

Q. I want to know whether or not there was ever any pressing by the Com-
mission to you to commence the work on contracts 16 and 17? — A. No, we got
that contract.

Q. Yes, but I am just asking you that. I enquired from Mr. Ryan and he
tells me there was not. I just want to have a confirmation of it on your part. —
A. I do not think so.

Q. Do you know whether or not there was ever any pressing or urging by
the Commission to O'Brien and Co. to speed the work after they obtained assign-
ments of the contract? — A. No, sir.

REPORT
I

OF THE

National Transcontinental Railway

Investigating Commission

VOL. II

EXHIBITS

PRINTED BY ORDER OF PARLIAMENT

OTTAWA
PRINTED BY THE KING'S PRINTER TO HIS MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY.

1914
No. 123—1914.]

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123 A. 1914

TABLE OF CONTENTS

NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY INVESTIGATING COMMISSION.

LIST OF EXHIBITS.

PAGE

No. 1. Copy of "General Instructions to Civil Engineers." 1—40

No. 2. Blue print of drawing No. 59. "Table of values for equating distance, rise

and fall, and curvature, etc." 41—42

No. 3. Correspondence in connection with volume of traffic to be expected on the

railway 43-46

Mr. CoUingwood Schreiber's estimate 48

Copy of letter from Mr. W. S. Fielding giving his estimate of cost 49-50

Estimate of cost prepared by Mr. Lumsden, June 23rd, 1908 51-52

Statement prepared by Investigating Commission showing cost up to Sep-
tember 30th, 1911 53-57

Estimate prepared by Mr. Gordon Grant, April ISth, 1913 59

Map showing contracts, also profile of the railway 61—2

Copy of general specifications and forms of tender and contract 63-145

Correspondence in connection with calling for tenders 147-152

Copy of advertisement for tenders, for general grading contracts 153-154

Copy of Order-in-Council re security on contract 155

Letter from H. A. Woods, dated October 7th, 1907, re classification 157-158

Mr. Lumsden's blue print .showing as.sembled rock 159-160

Statement of over-break 161-163

Correspondence in connection ^\-ith use of momentum grades 165-166

Correspondence in connection vrith. train filling 167-171

Correspondence in connection with the use of wooden trestles 173-182

Statement showing saving which might have been made by use of wooden

trestles 183

Statement of rock borrow 185

Standard siding plan 187-188

Correspondence in connection \\-ith use of light rails in sidings 189-191

Engineer's estimate prepared in connection with contract No. 8 193-194

Letter from Mr. D. MacPherson in connection with Contract No. 8 195-196

Original sheets used in mone^dng out J. D. McArthur's contract 197-201

Correspondence in connection with La Tuque pusher grade 203-209

Map and profile showing railway and projected line "A" around Cliaudiere cut 21 1-212

Deed of Sale. See Quebec right-of-way Martineau and Bergevin 213-215

Deed. Bergevin to Transcontinental Railway, Quebec 217-219

Lease. Dobell to Chevalier. Quebec 221-222

Agreement between Chevalier and Bergevin. Amoimt $4,000. Quebec .... 223
Deed. Bergevin and Transcontinental Railway. Amount $4,250. Quebec 22.5-226
Other deeds, agreements and papers referred to in evidence Quebec right-
of-way 227-241

No. 40. Statement of gravity water supplies 24

No.

4.

No.

5.

No.

6.

No.

7.

No.

8.

No.

9.

No.

10.

No.

11.

No.

12.

No.

13.

No.

15.

No.

16.

No.

18.

No.

19.

No.

20.

No.

21.

No.

22.

No.

23.

No.

24.

No.

25.

No.

27.

No.

28.

No.

29.

No.

30.

No.

31.

No.

32.

No.

33.

No.

34.

No.

35

No.

36

No

37

4

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123 A. 19U

N. T. R.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION

Exhibit 1

General Instructions to Civil Engineers.
(See Page 15 of Report)

1

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123 A. 1914

THE NATIONAL

TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

EASTERN DIVISION

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

TO

CIVIL ENGINEERS

CONCERNING

SURVEYS AND CONSTRUCTION

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123 A. 1914

INDEX

Clause. Page

1-9 Organization 3

10 District Engineer's Duties 1

11 Assistant District Engineer's Duties ". 2-1

12 Engineer in Charge of Party 2

13 Person in Authority during Engineer's Absence 3-4

14 Transitman's Duties 3

15 Levelman's Duties 4-5

16 Topographer's Duties 5-6

17 Field Draughtsman's Duties 6

18 Preliminary Lines 6-7

19 Location Line 7

20 Direction of Line 7

21 Plotting Direction 7

22 Cross-Section Plotting 7

23 Datum 8

24 Reference Hubs 8

25 Tables of Bench Marks and Reference Hubs 8

26 Curvature Directions 8

27 Compensation in Curves ; "... 8

28 Transition Curves 8-1 1

29 Level Track at Stations 11

30 Vertical Curves 11-12

31 Data Required for Bridges 12

32 Water Supply 12

33 Computation of Earthwork 12

34 Computation of Overhaul 12-13

35 Water Powers 13

36 Peat Beds 14

37 Gravel Pits and Quarries 14

38 Equating Values 14

39 Discharge Tickets 14

40 Transfer of Men 14

41 Receipts to be Taken 14

42 Accounts to be Certified 14

43 Pay Rolls 14

44 Outfit and Supplies List 15-21

45 Construction, Resident Engineer's Duties on 21

46 Resident Engineer Reports 21

47 Supplies 22-23

48 Size of Party 23

49 Notices to be Sent by Resident Engineer 23

50 Working Profile to be Made up 23

51 Books Required 23

52 Length of Section 24

53 Bridge Book 24

54 Pile and Trestle Bridges 24-25

55 Record Book of Inspection 25-26

56 Force Returns 26

57 Pay Rolls, Expense Accoimt, Bills, Etc 27

58 Check Alignment. 27

59 Location stations to be Preserved 27

60 Mile Posts 27

61 Progress Profile— How Colored 27-28

62 Super-Elevation of Curves Run Out 28

63 Staking Out Work 28

64 Ditches 28

ii NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

Clause. ' Page

65 Dangerous Trees 29

66 Large Blasts 29

67 Public and Farm Roads Protection 29

68 Clearing— Fire in Bush 29

69 Grubbing • 29

70 Centres in Cuttings 29

71 Backfilling Rock Cuts 29

72 Embankments — Allowance for Subsidence 29

73 Borrow Pits 30

74 Finishing Stakes 30

75 Station Grounds — Plan to be Secured 30

76 Track Centres— How Set 30

77 Switches and Siding Table 31

78 Buildings 31-32

79 Permanent Stakes 32

80 Permanent Bench Marks 32

81 Diary 32

82 Working Limits of Haul 32

83 Monthly Estimates 32

84 Extra Work 33

85 Changes in Grade or Alignment 33

86 Final Profile 33

87 Final Estimate 33-34

88 Estimates not to be Given to Contractor 34

89 Resident Engineer Reports 34

90 District Engineer Reports 34

91 Engineering 35

92 Right of Way and Station Grounds 35

93 Real Estate 35

94 Grading 35-36

95 Tunnels 36

96 Bridges, Trestles, and Culverts 36

97 Ties 36

98 Rails 36-37

99 Track Fastenings 37

00 Frogs and Switches 37

101 Ballast 37

102 Track Laying and Surfacing 37

103 Fencing Right of Way 37

104 Crossings, Cattle Guards, and Signs 37

105 Interlocking or Signal Apparatus 37-38

106 Telegraph Lines 38

107 Station Buildings and Fixtures 38

108 Shops, Roundhouses, and Turntables 38

109 Shop Machinery and Tools 38

110 Water Stations 38-39

111 Fuel Stations 39

112 Grain Elevators 39

1 13 Storage Warehouses 39

1 14 Docks and Wharves 39

115 Electric Light Plants 39

116 Electric-Motive-Power Plants ' 40

117 Gas-Making Plants 40

118 Miscellaneous Structures ' 40

119 Legal Expenses 40

120 Interest and Discount 40

121 General Expenses 40

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123 A. 1914

THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

General Instructions

From the Chief Engineer to the Staff, Explorations and Preliminary Surveys,
Location and Construction.

ORGANIZATION.

The organization of the Engineering Department is as follows: —

1. Chief Engineer, reporting to the Commissioners.

2. Assistant Chief Engineer, reporting to the Chief Engineer, and in his ab-
sence acting in his place.

3. District Engineer, reporting to the Chief Engineer, with jurisdiction over
the parties in his District.

4. Assistant District Engineer, in charge of a number of parties, reporting
to the District Engineer.

5. Divi ion Engineers, reporting to the District Engineer, and on construction
in charge of a number of residencies.

6. Engineers in charge of parties on Exploration, Preliminary and Location
Survej'-s, reporting to Assistant District and District Engineer.

7. Resident Engineer, in charge of a residency on construction, reporting
to the Division or District Engineer.

8. Engineers entrusted with special duties, such as buildings, water service,
bridges, etc., reporting to the District Engineer or Chief Engineer as may be
instructed.

9. The Districts to be designated as A, B, C, D, E, F; the party will be num-
bered 1, 2, 3, etc., and the proper naming will give in every case the letter of the
District and the number of the party.

DISTRICT ENGINEER.

10. The District Engineer is in full charge of all the parties in his District; Duties
he is responsible for the faithful execution of all instructions, general or special,
which may be given from time to time, as well as for the proper maintenance of
discipline in the parties. He will see that the Engineers in charge of parties are
properly instructed, that they are competent men, and that they faithfully perform

the duties entrusted to them; he will instruct the Commissariat Officer from time
to time as to the stores required and will make all requisitions for supplies so as to
give ample time for purchasing and delivering same; he will certify to all accounts,
pay rolls, etc., and send them in to the Chief Engineer on the first ot every month;
he will report to the ( hief Engineer monthly, and oftener when opportunity offers,
on all matters of interest affecting the work in his District.

It will be his duty to know the general character of the country through which Explora-
the line is being run and to see that ample exploration is made in advance of the tio"s
preliminary lines.

District Engineers will send' fortnightly to the Chief Engineer, from" the Reports
reports received by him from his Engineers, as called for in Section 12, a full report
of all the work done in his District.

2 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

On the first of every month, he will summarize to date all matters bearing
upon his operations, giving progress being made, and such other matters as are
of interest and value affecting the work. U -j'.i

He will forward to the Chief Engineer, duly approved, pay-rolls, expense
accounts and bills.

He will take a blue print copy of the plans and profiles received and forward
to the Chief Engineer's office the original tracings.

ASSISTANT DISTRICT ENGINEERS. .J

Duties 11. The Assistant District Engineer has in his charge the number of parties

allotted to him by his District Engineer; he will make his headquarters as near
the centre of his operations as practicable, and will at all times keep in close touch
with all parties under his direction; it will be his duty to guide and direct the En-
gineers in charge of parties, to see that they are competent and that the work is
being efficiently done; he will visit the parties frequently and will remain with
them for such lengths of time as will enable him to reach just conclusions; he will
report by mail to his District Engineer on every avail Me opportunity, but in
every case on the first of every month, on the operations of the preceding month.

ENGINEERS IN CHARGE OF PARTY.

Size of 12. The party in a bush country will usually consist of a transitman, levelman,

^^^^y topographer, field draughtsman, rodman, two chai men, picketman, four axemen,

five packers and a cook. The Engineers in charge wUl be responsible for the

Competency honesty, sobriety, industry and "competency" of the men under their charge,
and they must give ' 'personal attention " to see that transitmen, levelmen and
others understand their work and are conscientious in its performance; they must
give special attention to see that instruments are kept in adjustment; that all
possible checks upon the accuracy of the work are used, and that note books are
neatly and accurately kept; that the plans and profile are plotted up'every day;

Supplies that the party is well supplied with instruments, tents, stationery, provisions,
and that all the tools and outfit for the proper and vigorous prosecution of the work
are on hand in good order.

Cooking, They must see that their camps are neat and orderly, and that the cook

Etc. uses provisions economically, and cooks the food neatly and cleanly.

Engineers in charge of survey parties will make a report fortnightly to their
District Engineer, to the extent of their operations during the preceding two
weeks; sending in tracings of plans and profiles, prepared in accordance with the
sample sheets Plate "C" and "D".

On the first of every month he will summarize the work done to date, by
filling out the blank spaces in form 21; together with any special matter of interest
or information. He will send in his pay-rolls, expense accounts and all bills for
service or materials in quadruplicate. He will certify to the correctness of the
pay-rolls and the bills will be certified to on the following forms: —

Stamp A" "I hereby certify the above personal expense account to be correct and to

have been incurred by me on the business of the Trans-ContinentaJ Railway."

Stamp B" "I certify the above goods have been received."

Stamp C" "I hi Tcby certify the above board bill to be correct and to have been incurred

on the business of the Commissioners of the Trans-Continental Railway, and
that the prices charged are fair and just."

Stamp D" "I certify that the service described in the above account has been performed,

and that the price charged is fair and just."

Stamp E" "I hereby certify that the go^ds mentioned in the above account have been

received, and that the prices charged are fair and just." ,

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 3

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Stamp "A" is to be used in certifying to personal expense accounts when the Stamp A"

regular form stamp is not available.

Stamp "B" is to be used in certifying to the receipt of supplies, etc. Stamp B"

Stamp "C" is to be used in certifying to board bills. Stamp C"

Stamp "D" is to be used in cert&ying to accounts for work performed, such Stamp D"

as teaming, etc.

Stamp "E" is to be used in certifying to accounts for supplies purchased Stamp E'»

by the Engineer in charge.

13. Whenever the Engineer in charge of a party finds it neeessary to leave Engineer
the party, or in the event of sickness, he shall at once notify the Assistant District in Charge
Engineer, who will appoint a person to temporary take charge of such party, and ^^^ or

in case he fails to do so, or during the interval of such appointment, the Transitman ^''^®°*
shall take charge.

TRANSITMAN — DUTIES.

14. The Transitman on beginning his work will first enter in his field book, Field Book
the letter of the District, the number of the party, the name of the Engineer in Entries
charge, his own name and the date on which the work began; each page shall

be Sep rately dated and initialed; he shall make full note as he proceeds of the What to
character of the country, soil, rocks, lakes, creeks, timber, gravel pits, etc., on each
side of the line. All the field notes must be clearly entered in pencil on the spot; How
no additional notes should be entered with the original notes after the day on which entered
the latter are written; field notes must not be inked in or altered in any way — Plotting
copies may be made in ink. All plans and profiles must be plotted so that the end Plan
nearest Winnipeg shall be at the left h' nd of the paper and the end nearest to P^'^^^®
Moncton shall be at the right hand of the paper, regardless of the local l^irection
sinuosities of the line. ^^ ^^"®

Horizontal scale shall be 400 to an inch. Vertical scale shall be 20 feet to ^'^^^^^ .
an inch. Ten miles to the sheet. Profiles

The transit instrument is to be used on all lines, when the progress of the party instru-
will not be retarded thereby; in an open country it is the quicker instrument; mental
in thick bush on preliminary lines use the compass or pickets, taking the angles Work
with the box sextant or by compass bearings, or both. Observe for latitude and
azimuth, noting the magnetic variation of the compass — check your azimuth Observation
frequently so as to insure a close check on your traverse. Measure your deflection for Azimuth
angles carefully, noting whether right or left check by doubling the angle; at the^^*^*^°®
same time note the magnetic bearings, taking all possible checks to insure
accuracy.

Tie your line to all townships and subdivision lines whenever crossed, give the Survey Tie
station number and plus, intersection angle, distance to nearest post; when the
line runs through a village, town or city, take enough measurements and angles
to correct the survey with the map of the place, send a copy of such map to the
Chief Engineer's Office; note carefully all property lines and locate all buildings
that are near to the line.

Test your chain with the 50 foot steel standard supplied. See that it is kept of Chaining
tlie correct length; the chaining must be correctly done and a stake driven at the
end of each hundred feet, and the number of chains from the starting point of the
party marked thereon. The initial stake to be marked with the letter of the dis-
trict and the number of the party.

At every apex a large stake shall be driven, having its proper distance and the Apex, how
deflection angle written thereon. The line is to be sufficiently cleared to enable ^^'^^^
levels to be taken.

The chaining will be noted regularly in the field book from the bottom of the Notes, how
page upward; each hundred foot stake as driven noted on a separate line; the °*®"

4 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

space on each side of the column for distance being used for such note and sketches

in the right and left of the line as may be necessary in order to give the fullest

possible information of the country.
What to Note every stream and river crossed, its size, direction, depth of water, nature

Note qI bottom, flood marks, probable maximum volume, and whenever possible the

deoth to solid foundation; give full particulars of banks.

levellers' duties

15. The Leveller will open his book by entering on the first page thereof the
letter of his District and the number of his party, the name of the Engineer in
charge and his own name with date of commencement, each morning he will date
his notes and sign with his initials.
Rodman He will be careful to fully instruct his rodman as to the duties of his position.

Field Notes All field notes must be clearly and distinctly made in pencil on the spot, no
additional notes should be entered with the original notes after the day on which
the latter are written; field notes should not be inked or changed in any way;
copies of them miy be made in ink and reduced levels entered in ink. Great
care must be taken to preserve the original field notes from obliteration.

In making entries be particular to describe the locality, line, etc., so that

any other Engineer can easily find the place and understand the whole at a glance.

g , Bench marks should be regularly established about every 1,500 feet, and

Marks on "^^^ elevation above datum written thereon thus, viz. : the

Preliminary elevation, letter of the District, and number the party.

Each bench mark must be fully described in the column of

remarks. When two parties meet both shall check on the

same bench mark, noting difference in elevation

B. M.

I2i().3

DISTKICT "A"

PARTY 3.

9° . On location the bench marks should be about every 1,000 feet and always

at the two ends of heavy cuttings, tunnels, deep fills, bridges, viaducts, etc.;
positions should be selected so that they will not be destroyed in the clearing of the
railway lands or be interfered with by the works. They should be numbered
consecutively in each party and their numbers and elevations above datum distinctly
and permanently marked thereon with blue paint, and on timber with a "scribe."
When the line does not pass through timbered land, and other suitable objects
cannot be readily found for bench marks, substantial posts must be sunk in the
ground at least five feet, and be well packed to insure them against being raised
by the frost.

What to Note every stream and river crossed, its size, direction, level of surface of

^°^® water, difference between high and low water, if practicable depth of the water

and any peculiarities it may seem to possess. Note character and constituents of
materials along the line for classification purposes.

of^Work^ Every care must be taken to insure accuracy. Check back on B.M's. when

necessary or possible; particular care will be exacted to insure accurate reductions;
teach your rodman to check reductions; read your rod to hundredths at every
turning point and all B.M's.; on ordinary stations at intermediates on the line,
to the nearest tenth; check the levels at the end of each day's work by adding
back sig its and foresights and ascertaining the differences; any doubtful sections
must be re-levelled. Six hundred feet each way should be considered the max-

Cross imum distance to read the rod.

Section Before fixing the final location cross sections of all side hill work will be made,

and before beginning work of grading cross sections at least at every 100 feet
station whether in excavation or embankment, and also at a sufficient number of
intermediate points, wherever a change in the ground takes place, so as to insure
a perfectly accurate record of the various inequalities of the original surface. These
cross sections will extend on each side of the centre line and at right angles thereto

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 5

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

a suflBcient distance to include all side ditches. The levels on these cross sections Extent of
shall be taken in the same manner as those on the line, always commencing at a g^°^.^
bench mark, using the same datum and checking on a B. M. at the end of the work. ^^ ^°^
The actual rod reading and distance out right or left, as the case may be, as observed set Down
in the field shall be entered in the cross section field book, Form No. 8. The
customary cross section notes according to American practice, which are the result
of a calculation, will not be allowed.

In all cross sections a level should be taken over the edge of the roadbed to Level
facilitate the computation of earthwork. In excavations in earth the width at|®cti9°s
formation will be 22 feet, in rock 20 feet, in embankments 16 feet and under, in ^V^^"
height the formation width will be 16 feet, beyond that height the formation Width
width of embankment will be 18 feet. The side slopes in earth will be U horizontal Slopes
to 1 vertical, in rock excavations the side slope will be \ horizontal to 1 vertical.
Rock embankments 1 horizontal to 1 vertical (see C ause 5 Specifications). Hence
in earth excavations, the levels should be taken 11 feet north and south of the
centre line; in rock excavations 10 feet, in embankments 16 feet and under, 8
feet north and routh of the centre line; over 16 feet high, 9 feet, levels should
also be taken at the precise point of the slope stake and the exact horizontal dis-
tance out from the centre line recorded.

When off-take drains are required, a longitudinal section of them must be made Off-take
in the same manner as for the centre line of the railway, and if necessary, cross
sections also.

All profiles will be plotted on Plate A standard transparent profile paper. Plotting of
400 feet to an inch horizontal, 20 feet to an inch vertical, and must contain aiZ^^^^l®
the information called for by the sample f^heet "Plate C." Stencils will be supplied
for the purpose of saving time in lettering. That end of the line nearest Winnipeg
shall be at the left hand of the paper, and the end nearest Moncton at the right
hand, regardless of the local sinuosities of the line; ten miles to a sheet should
be the ride.

topographer's duties

16. The Topographer will open his book by entering the letter of the District,
the number of the party, the name of the Engineer in charge, his own name and
the date.

He will carry an Abney or other type hand level, a fifty feet tape line, a pocket Instrument
compass, a rod 5 feet long to sight from, a levelling rod graduated to tenths, and
should generally have two men to assist in clearing out brush, make measurements,
etc. He should always have with him the reduced levels of the stations so that
all work will be on the same datum. He must determine the contour lines in
even multiple of 10 feet, locating the position of the round figure contours, in
general contour lines should be taken at 10 feet vertical intervals; he will carefully
fix opposite the stake the true position of the contour line and will sketch in the
connection between stakes; for example, assume that the reduced level at station
12 was found to be 976.2, the elevation of contour line 980 will be at 3.8 feet
higher, etc. Note the distance to this point, 10 feet higher the next contour will
be found, etc., etc.

He will enter in his book in pencil on the ground all the artificial features what to
met with on the line, being particularly careful to secure intersection plus and Note
the angle the line makes with all farm lines, township lines or other boundaries,
the names of the owner and occupant of any land so crossed, proximity of build mgs,
cross fences, etc., being careful to tie the line to village or town surveys, township
and county lines, measuring to the nearest post, marking lots, concessions, ranges
or other local subdivisions in use. All the natural features are to be csketch^d,
as streams, shores, margins of swamps, forests, ravine ridges and bluffs, taking

How

Entered in
Book

General

Stencil to
be Used
Reports to
District
Engineer
To Keep
Work up
Tight

6 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY ^_

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

care to have them correctly intersect the artificial features. It is desirable to know
not only the locality of a hill or slope, but also its shape, steepness and height;
sketch contour lines, do not use hatchings.

The centre line of the Topographer's book is a straight line and for the purpose
of the sketch, the centre line of the survey may be considered a straight line also.
Slight deflections in the course of the preliminary line may be ignored in the sketch,
but if a large angle occurs it is better to terminate the sketch with the course and
begin again, leaving a few blank lines between the two sketches. Fix the distance
from centre line stake both by levels and measurements. Each day's work must
be plotted on the evening of that day.

The Topographer should have a knowledge of geology and should be able to
name the materials he finds, such as limestone, slate, shale, granite, gneiss, trap,
clay, cemented gravel, gravelly loam, etc., etc. He shoula also designate in order
of occurrence the several trees, such as pine, spruce, etc.

He should have an eye for the main essentials to enable him to only select
the important things.

The width of the belt of country examined necessarily depends on the char-
acter of the country through which the line is being run. The reconnoissance
line should have determined in a general way where the preliminary is to be run,
which should be as near to a practicable railway line as possible; hence the width
of the belt should be governed accordingly, the object being to secure such a repre-
sentation of the surface of the ground as will enable the best possible line to be
located on the ground under examination. It will be obvious, therefore, that
when the preliminary line is made up of long straight lines with light angles and
is within reasonably close distance of the grade line that less topography will be
required. If on the contrary, the preliminary is made up of a series of short
lines with great and small angles a wide area of topography should be taken in
order that a careful study may eliminate curvature. On a side hill it is advisable
to cover the whole slope; in a valley it is advisable to include the whole valley.
The meandering of a river or creek should be carefully taken, boundaries of lakes,
etc.

Note specially the presence of springs on side hills.

FIELD DRAUGHTSMEN.

17. The Field Draughtsman will plot up with care the plans and profiles
each day as the notes are received by him. In plotting maps he will do so by lati-
tude and departi.re. Show north point, giving astronomic courses of all lines,
and marking on the map the magnetic variation. He will plot all contours with
care, making every fifth line heavier than the others. He will mark on the lines
the elevations in feet, referring to the datum by name. The left hand side of the
paper will show that portion of the line nearest to Winnipeg. The same care
will be taken to plot up profiles; the grade lines on profile will, however, be fixed
by the Engineer in charge of the party. The map and profile must contain all the
information called for in the sample sheets, Plates C and D.

Use the stencils provided for title and lettering to save time. Tracings of
maps to be sent to the District Engineer on the first of the month. Profiles to
be prepared on tracing profile paper and sent in along with the plan of the line.
The Field Draughtsman must keep his work up tight to the field work, particularly
on location work. The projected location should be made by the Engineer in charge.

PRELIMINARY LINES.

18. When the country along the projected route has been sufficiently explored
to enable a choice to be made, preliminary lines will be run. The first preliminary

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 7

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

will be run as rapidly as possible; use either the transit or compass or a picket First

line for the alignment. Do not waste time backing up; this line is to develop Preliminary

the country; use offsets freely where required; cover as much ground as possible;

be absolutely sure of your levelling, checking with care to avoid errors. The

Topographer should make wide excursions so as to secure all the information

possible.

The second preliminary should be run with more care, seeking to place it Second
as closely as possible to a reasonable line for the railway. In crooked, difficult Preliminary
places, it will be necessary to stake out approximately the curves 'required. Topo-
graphy in such places must be carefully and accurately taken. Enough infor-
mation should be secured to permit of a projected location on the map. Take
out th'> quantities on this projected location and compare different lines on the
basis of total cost.

Run enough preliminary lines to be absolutely sure that you have exhausted
the possibilities of the country under examination.

LOCATION.

19. Once the preliminary lines are all completed and sufficient coutours
have been taken to enable a projected location to be worked out on the map, fit

the first location to the ground shown on such projected location; run in the curves First _
with care; in thick bush it is not necessary to run in spiral curves; cross section ^^'^^^^^^^
all side hills and rough places; take out the quantities accurately, and secure all
needful information to enable an accurate estimate of cost to be made. Full
and careful studies of all large bridges, viaducts, etc., should be made.

The second location will be made by utilising all the information secured. Second
The working profile will have on it the results of the first location, additional Location
contours required, additional cross sections, etc. Study the line in detail station
by station, paying particular attention to sections of heavy work, bridge and
viaduct crossings, having due regard at all times to lines of total cost. It is advis-
able to change the personnel of the Engineer in revision work. A third location
may be found desirable in certain cases; indeed, before considering the final
location as settled, it is necessary to know that no better line is to be had in the
country.

The preliminary locations do not demand that the stakes, reference hubs, etc.,
should be set with that degree of permanence which the final staking out requires;
for obvious reasons it is preferable to wait until the right of way is cleared before
such final staking out. All Bench Marks will be carefully checked, errors elim- Final
inated, curves will be staked out, all easement curves staked out, errors in chainage ^*^?^^°£
eliminated, etc. "

DIRECTION OF LINE.

20. For the purpose of measuring and record, the line of railway will be con-
sidered as running westerly.

PLOTTING.

21. All plans and profiles will be plotted so the westerly end will be at the
left hand of the paper.

CROSS SECTION PLOTTING.

22. All cross sections will be plotted so that the measurement north of the
centre line will be at the right hand, those south of the centre line at the left hand.

2

S XATIOXAL TRAXSCOXTINEXTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914
DATUM.

23. The same general datum should be carried throughout the whole line,
preferably the mean sea level. As this may be found to be impracticable, each
District Engineer wi'l be required to see that a uniform datum is adopted for
the several Divisions of his District. When the levels meet at the end of the
Districts the exact difference will be ascertained and noted. District B has special
facilities to secure the mean level at Quebec, so that all other Districts may be
readily reduced to the mean sea level.

REFERENCE HUBS.

24. Reference hubs should be placed at the beginning and end of each curve
and on tangent at every twenty stations. In placing reference hubs, it is well
to fix the point b ■ intersection lines rather than measurement. The hubs should
preferably be set at an angle of 45° with the line at even distance of say 100 feet
from the centre stake. When a line is near a river or lake or other obstruction,
prohibiting the above descril^ed method, it is advisable to set off a line at right
angles and two other lines making angles of 45° with the line and drive two or more
hubs on each line at ^tated distance of 50, 75, etc., feet from the centre stake.
The reference hub should be 3" diameter and 12" long, and should be driven level
with the ground, the exact centre being marked with a nail or tack. The stake
alongside should be marked with the station and plus, and such other marks as
will indentify the point. For example: R. H., 100' left, Sta. 106+25, B. C. 4° left.

TABLE OF BENCH MARKS AND REFIJRENCE HUBS,

25. Table of bench marks and reference hubs describing exactly their position,
and in case of the former, giving the number and elevation above the datum
of the District, must be made out and copies filed in the District Engineer's office.
The position, number and elevation of bench marks should also be entered on the
working profile, at their proper station and plus.

[ CURVATURE.

26 The maximum curve on a level shall not exceed 6° (Rad. 955')- This
curve should be used sparingly and only when the topographical conditions pro-
hibit an easier radius. At depots or stopping places curves exceeding :>° Pvadi i.
1910°) should not be used. Curves less than 300 feet long are objectionable, and
should not be used. Reversed curves must not be used under any circumstance;
at least 600 feet between transition curves must be had. Broken back curves
must not be used. The minimum tangent between curves in the same direction
shall be 600 feet clear of the transition curves.

COMPENSATION.

27. All curves will be compensated in accordance with tiie following rules:
If at a stopping place, depot, etc., compensate 0.10' per degree in the index of the
curve; at other portions of tlic line compensate 0.04' per degree in the index of
the curve.

TRANSITION CURVE.

28. .'Vll curves of one degree and over will be spiralled at both ends by putting
in an adjusted curve in accordance with the table and explanation which follows:

IX VESTIGA TIXG COMMISSIOX

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

The cubic parabola as developed by the late A. M. Wellington, will be used
in connecting tangents to all circular curves 1° and over. In staking out the
transition curve, you will follow the rules below.

(a) Calculate for an ordinary circular curve as usual and run the tangents
to the "B.C." and "E.C." as usual, (b) Make an offset at the "B.C." towards
the centre of the curve (value of 0) ; this is the distance the circular curve is moved
inwards (note the distance within the limits of the table should be as great as
possible) ; (note also that the length of the transition curve is a function of it) ,
and that it should always be long enough to run out the super-elevation called
for in the table (see Section) 62 (c) Calculate the distance the curve "B.C."
should be moved backwards by formula Tan. 4- Intersection angle x 0. (d)
Run in the main circular curve as usual from the off-set ' 'B.C. " (e) From the tan-
gent and curve as thus run in, make the off-sets shown in the tables for the given
value of "0". These are the same IN from the tangent OUT from the curve
a' the same distance from the ''B.C." and "E.C. " of the transition curve.
At the old "B.C." the transition curve bisects the off -set "0" and is bisected
bv it. The off-sets are calculated for everv 30 feet, one rail lenglh, up to a distance
of 240 feet, (f) To record the curve put in new " B.C. " off-set at old " B.C. "
giving Station and plus as usual, "4.5 R. or 4.5 L.," as the case may be. (g)
The plotting can be done as usual and the new curves drawn in parallel with the
old one showing the spiral at each end thereof, (h) The description for Right of
Way calls for a given width each side of the centre line. In describing land where
spiral curves are used, it will be sufficient to say: Thence by a tangent bearing
"N"-"W", (as the case may be,) from Station. . . .to Station. . . .a distance of. .
feet. Thence along a curve to the right or left, as the case may be, of . . . . degrees,
a distance of . . . .feet; thence on a course of . . . . along a tangent from Station. . . .
to Station .... a distance of ... . feet, there being an off -set at the beginning and
ending of the .... degree curve at ... . feet for a transition curve to connect the
circular curve and tangent, (i) The derivation of the functions of the spirals

DIAGRAM

A=S.TC

B^OId B.C

(e\A/ tD

n^half leyigth. of 5

yn=(hedistaTLce from
oeginninijf of the

Given 0, any offset which bisects the Transition

Curve and is bisected by the Curve. t!ien any
0

other offset 0'

(v)'

/nch

10

NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

will be understood by following the explanation and diagram given below. The
tables which follow obviate the necessity for any calculations, the best judgment
being exercised in selecting the value of ' '0 " and therebv fixing the length of
the spiral.

Again, N. = 1 . 868 v''oy~nearly .

Example for 0' at quarter points of the transition curve, 0' — (i) 2 U = 1/160
where 0 = 10 feet, 0' = 0.625 feet. At ^ point of curve, quarter point of half-
curve, the off-set will be ^ of the off-set at the quarter point) .078; at the f point
(f point of half curve) it will be 3^=27 times this amount or 2.11 feet all for a
total original off-set of ten feet opposite old "B.C."; half length of curve it will
be five feet. In the Diagram, "D " is the old ' 'B.C. " ; P is the new off-set "B.C. "
from which the circular curve is run (see rule "C" for position of point P.) The
transition curve runs from A. to C. and is staked out on the ground from the
off-sets given in the table.

Example: Given 120 + 42, Apex I = A =32° 20' ,-6° curve. Therefore tangent
of circular curve =277 feet "B.C." = 117 + 65 "E.G." =123+03.8. The super-
elevation of the outer rail for the curve will be taken at four inches, to reach this
elevation smoothly requires an approximate distance of at least 240 feet. Hence
half length of transition curve should not be less than 120 feet. The nearest
distance in the table is 130 feet, giving an off-set 0 of 3 feet. The new "B.C."
(Point P., Rule C), (tan. ^ 1 x o) =117+65-0.87 = 117+64. 13. The new "E.C."
will be 123+03.8+0.87 = 123+04.67. The "B.T.C." will be 116+34.13, the
point of junction of transition curve with circular curve "P. J. C. " =118+94. 13
The circular curve will run from this point to 121 +74.67 where the spiral at the
end of the curve starts the ' 'E.T.C. " is at Station 124+34 . 67.

The onlv stakes requiring attention during location are those at 117, off-set
IN 0.15; 118 off-set OUT 0.49. Station 122 off-set OUT .018, 123+00 OUT
1.16; 124 IN 0.18 at the old "B.C." and "E.C." the spiral bisects the off-set,
the hub will, therefore, be 1 .5 feet in from the old "B.C."

TABLE.

Table of off-sets in from tangent out from curves for various values in Central
off-set "0".

Off-sets in Feet

Half Length of Transi-
tion Curve

0.5

130'
.002
.024
.082
0.192

1.0

186'
.003
.016
.054
.028
0.25
0.43

2.0

262
.001

.01
.036
.085
0.17
0.2*
0.51

.75

186
.004
.032
.108
.256
.50
.80

3.0

4.0

30'

60'

r' 90'

§ 1 20'

0 150'

° !80'

210'

240'

Half Length of Transi-
tion Curve

93
.008
.065

130'
.006
.048
.164
.384

227
.003
.026
.081
.192
.375

.74
1.17

262

30'
» 60'
§ 90'
■Z 120'
Ri 150'

.002
.020
.071

.190
.33

180'

.58

210'

1.02

240'

1.51

IVNES TIA TIXGG COMMISSION

11

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123
Table of off-sets in from tangent out from curves for various values of Central off-set "O."

Off-sets in feet. . .
Half Length of
Transition Curve

30'
60'
90'
120'
150'
180'
210'
240'

' ' 30'
60'
90'
120'
150'
180'
210'
240'

' ' 30'
60'
90'
120'
150'
180'
210'
240'

30'
60'
90'
120'
150'!
180'
210'
240'

0.5

74

.016

.13

1.0

107

.01

.087

.296

1 2.0

152
.007
.054
.185

.51

1 3.0

186

.006

.048

.162

.384

.75

; 1.29

j

4.0

214
.005
.043
.148
.351

.68
1.18
1.88

5.0

238
.004
.039
.127
.312

.62
1.05
1.70

6.0

262

.004.

.03

.10

.26

.50

.86

1.54

2.26

227
.006
.053
.162
.384

.86
1.48
2.34

7.0

8.0

3° Curve

Half Length of
Transition Curve.

4° Curve

65
.02

93

.016

.13

130
.012
.097
.328
.779

160
.009
.079
.263
.633
1.20

186
.008
.064
.216
.512

1.0
1.73

206
.007

.06
.198
.487

.93
1.65

245
.006
.048
.163
.386

.79
1.36
2.15

262

.005

.04

.14

.34

.66

1.15

2.05

3.01

8.0

234.

.008

.07

.22

.53

1.05

1.83

2.82

Off-sets in Feet. .
Half Length of
Tran.sition Curve.
5° Curve

0.5

58

.03

1.0

82

.02

.19

2.0

117
.01
.12
.45

3.0

143
.01
.11
.37
.89

4.0

166
.01
.08
.31

.74

5.0

186
.01
.08
.27
.64
1.25
2.26

6.0

203
.009

.08

.25

.61

1.17

2.04

7.0

219

.009
.07

0.24
.58

1.10

1.93

3.0

9.0

249

.007
.06
.20

.49

99

1 70

2 70

Half Length of
Transition Curve.
6° Curve

52
.04

74

.30

.26

96
.03

.24

130

.018

.15

.49

1.16

152
.014
.108

.37
1.02

169
.013
.10
.37
.89
1.70

186
.012
.096
.32
.77
1.50
2.65

201
.009
.095
.29
.71
1.41
2.46

212
.009
.094
.28
.68
1.35
.234

227

.008
.08
27

6° Curve

64

«

1.29

2.22

*

3.50

;;;;;;

The maximum grade rising eastwardly on a tangent will be 0.40% =21.1
feet per mile; rising westerly the maximum grade will be 0.60% =31. 68 feet per
mile. The maximum grade is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of
avoiding heavy work. The best grade to he had in the country must he secured in
every case. On curves the rate of grade will be reduced in accordance with the
rules for curve compensation.

LEVEL AT STATIONS.

29. Every effort will be required to secure a level track at stations and for
2,000 feet each side, particularly at terminal points, water stations, etc. Under
no circumstances wUl a water tank or station be placed in a sag.

VERTICAL CURVES.

30. It is important that all changes in grade be made by a vertical curve
of such length as will allow the longest train to pass from one rate of grade to
another without the cars piling up against each other. With modem equipment,

12 NATIOXAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

the rate should not be greater that 0.1 feet per station, and this rate should be
used- in sags, on summits a gi-eater rate of change may be used, but not to exceed
0.3 feet per station.

BRIDGES.

31. The following data will he required for every important bridge:
1st. Profile of crossing on a scale of 20 feet horizontal.

10 feet vertical per inch. ■

(a) High water mark (extreme flood height). I

(b) Low water mark.

(c) Bottom of river or stream, giving nature of same.

(d) Depth to rock, if any, nature of material, etc., the information must be
carefully and fully taken. Suitable boring and sounding appliances will be pro-
vided when required for this work. A thorough survey must be made and careful
records of same taken.

(e) Alignment near the bridge site and the grade of same, if any; when possible
a bridge should be level.

2nd. (a) Plan of the river on scale of 100 feet to the inch, with contour lines
at 10 feet; vertical intervals for a considerable distance each side of the proposed
crossing, the distance to be proportionate to the importance of _the bridge. Indicate
nature of material composing banks, bottom, etc.; for large important bridges
the traverse should run a mile each way from the bridge site.

(a) Length of span suggested, proposed location of piers.

(b) Clearance required above high water mark.

(c) Shore protection required, if any.

3rd. Is it a navigable river, if so, what clear height is required to accommodate
the traffic?

4th. Is the stream subject to freshets? Give velocity of current at high
water. At low water. Is it subject to scour?

5th. What is the best way to reach the bridge site? Give nearest distance
from railway station, or if only can be reached when the rails are laid on the railway,

6th How far must sand, of quality required, be hauled?

7th. How far must stone of suitable quality be hauled:

For (a) masonry? (b) cement?

State fully kind of stone, size and position of quarry proximity of gravel, etc.

WATER SUPPLY.

32. The importance of an abundance supply of pure soft water cannot be
over-estimated. Hence, location Engineers will be particular to note available
sources. Softness should be tested with soap. Scale forming material by boiling.
Try to find a supply of suitable quality, that will flow by gravity to water tanks
In doubtful cases send a sample securely packed to the Chief Engineer's office.

COMPUTATION' OF EARTH WORK.

33 For comparing preliniinary lines table of level sections may l)e usod:
in comparing location lines, accurate computation of earth work siiould be mad
using Crandall's tables, or plotting up cross section note and computins; from sann

rOMPiriNG OVKHMAl L.

34 Uveihaul will be computed in accordance with tiie method ~h'>\vn !•■
tile sample profile Plate C, and tlic explanation- which follow.

IXVESTIGATIXG COMMISSIOX 18

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

PLOTTING AND COMPUTIXG OF HAUL.

The contract provides that the limit of free haul is to be 500 feet, and that
all materia' s shall be paid for at schedule price per cubic yard per 100 feet overhaul.
See Plate "C" for diagram of overhaul — cuts being shown in red, fills in blue. ^

For purpose of illustrating the method, take the cutting from station 139
to 145 and + 20; the quantities in each station and summation of same right
and left are as shown in the following table:

Summation

Summation

Station.

Cu. Yd.

from ri^ht.

from left.

139

0

8696

140

272

272

8424

141

692

964

7732

142

1253

2217

6479

143

2464

4681

4015

144

2768

7449

1247

145

1229

8678

18

+20

18

8696

0

As the fill from Station 145 + 20 to the bridge must all come from the cut
to the east, there is no object in plotting it otherwise than 'rom the right to the
left. Call each Division on the profile paper 100 cubic yards and plot over each
Station the amounts shown opposite right and left. The curves joining the several
points will cross each other and a perpendicular line from the intersection point
will be centre of mass of the cut or the fill, as the case may be. Xext, take a pair
of dividers and set them to a distance of 500 feet on the profile scale. Find where
the curves between the fill and cut are at this distance, draw a horizontal line,
all below it comes within the 500 feet free haul. Next, take 600 feet in the divisers,
join the points with a horizontal line; the distance between the 500 feet line and
this latter line will give the number of cubic j^ards hauled 600 feet.

A further study of the cutting at Stations 117 to 121 plus 30. and the fill from
121 plus 30 to 130, will bring out clearly the extent of the haul, etc. In the above
illustration as worked out, there stUl remains in the cutting, after the fill to the
bridge is completed, 1,807 cubic yards, which will have to be hauled to the right,
and upon inspection it will be readily seen that it all comes within the free haul
limit.

Note the required shrinkage so as to provide sufficient material to make the
embankment; note the borrow required to complete the embankment; also,
if any waste, the disposition of same. Classification can also be noted on this
diagi'am.

Show by aiTows the direction the material was moved, and the name of the
contractor, the date he began and completed his work, etc.

WATER POWER.

35. Locating Engineers will take pains to secure all information possible
as to the water powers along the line of the railway or within reasonable distance
thereof.

The data required to be the flc)W of the river, in cubic feet per second, the
time of the year, the stage of the river, whether normal or otherwise; the head
in feet, nature of bottom and banks, kind of dam required, with height of same;
nature of river bottom; in general, such information as will enable an intelligent
estimate to be made of the value of the power and the cost of de eloping it.

14 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

PEAT BEDS.

36. The presence of large peat beds along the line is to be noted; give the
approximate area and depth, send in to the Chief Engineer's office samples of
material.

GRAVEL PITS AND QUARRIES.

37. Particular attention is requested to the securing of good gravel pits and
quarries, from time to time report on the quantity and quality of the material
found along the line of the survey.

EQUATING VALUES.

38. Tables will be supplied from the office of the Chief Engineer giving
equating values, viz.: Value of degree of curvature, foot of distance (for minor
savings in length), foot of rise and fall, train mile co-^t, cost of pusher grade, loco-
motive to use for calculations, etc. Price to apply to units, etc.

DISCHARGE TICKET.

39. All men in the service of the Commission have signed contracts for
definite periods of employment, subject to satisfactory service. In discharging
a man, always give him a discharge ticket. Form No. 7, which is printed in triplicate.
Be careful to fill out the reason for such discharge and to make everything clear
and plain.

TRANSFER OF MEN.

40. Should it be necessary to transfer a man from one party to another, he
should be given a discharge ticket for the time due him. As reason for discharge
enter transferred to party No ... . On reaching the party to which the person is
transferred, the Engineer in charge will allow him time for travelling by the shortest
and quickest route and his reasonable travelling expenses while en route.

RECEIPTS TO BE TAKEN.

41. Receipts in triplicate for all expenditure must be taken from the person
to whom the money is paid.

ACCOUNTS TO BE CERTIFIED.

42. Whenever a service is rendered or materials are supplied to any party,
the Engineer in charge of such party wi'l secure accounts in triplicate from the
person supplying such materials or rendering the service, and will stamp the
accounts in triplicate with the proper stamp supplied for the purpose, and. will
promptly cert&y to the same and send them in with his monthly report to the
District Engineer, who will approve same and forward to the Chief Engineer for
approval.

PAY ROLLS.

43. All pay rolls are to be made out in triplicate on the first of every month,
marking up against any particular person the deduction, if any and showing the
balance due. Fo; warding such roll duly certified to the District Engineer, who
will approve same and forward them to the Chief Engineer for his approval, and
to be accompanied by the deduction sheet. Form 59.

I

I

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 15

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

OUTFIT.

44. Camp outfit, supplies, etc., will be supplied to each party as per following
list. For all parties where the outfit, etc., cannot be moved by wagon, a list
for parties in settled country, where camp may be moved by wagon or sleigh, will
be supplied on application.

CAMP OUTFIT FOR 18 MEN — BUSH CAMP.

2 Baking Reflectors.

3 Bake Dishes for same.
2 Frying Pans.

Nest of 6 Cook Pails, 14 qts. to 1 gal.

6 Graniteware Meat Dishes.

2 large Tea or Coffee Pots.

2 large Dish Pans.

2 Dippers, 1 qt.

2 doz. Soup Plates, graniteware.

2 doz. large Plates, graniteware.

2 doz. Tea Basins.

2 doz. Knives, iron handled.

2 doz. Forks, iron handled.

2 doz. Soup Spoons.

2 doz. Tea Spoons.

4 large Gravy Spoons.

2 large Meat Forks.

3 Butcher I^jiives.

6 yards Towell'ng. rough.

2 doz. Common Towels.

3 Pepper Dusters.

6 Wash Basins graniteware.

1 Grindstone, with iron handle (1^ x 12 in.).

1 doz. Chopping Axes (not over 3 lbs.).

1 doz. Axe Handles.

4 Zinc Pails.

2 Bake Kettles (14 in. to 16 in. x 4 in. high, tight lid).

1 Long Handled Shovel.

3 Boys' Axes.

2 Brush Hooks.
1 doz. Small Whetstones.
1 Meat Saw.

6 heavy Wire Pot Hooks.
1 Clock (alarm).

5 yards Oilcloth (table).
1 Drawing Knife.
1 Spokeshave.

1 Jack Plane, with extra chisel.

2 Scribes.

1 Gross l^-in. Screws.
200 feet |-in. Cotton Rope. j

3 balls Twine (coarse).
l|-in. Auger.
1 1-in. Auger.
1 Screw Driver.
1 pair Wire Cutting Pliers.

16 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

■ 1 small bundle Copper Wire (200 feet) .
6 tin Candlesticks.

Fishing Tackle (trolling and pole lines).
1 Letter Book and Portable Press.
1 Hand Hammer.
1 bundle Stove Pipe Wire (45 feet) .

3 Bell Tents, 14' diam., 3' wall and sod-cloth, 10 oz.
1 House Tent, 10 x 16, 5, 5' wall and sod-cloth, 10 oz.
1 House Tent, 12 x 18, 4' wall, and sod-cloth, 10 oz.
1 Shelter Tent, 9 x 9, 10 oz. duck.
18 Canvas covers, 6 x 8, 8 oz, duck,
3 Canvas covers, 8 x 12, 10 oz. duck.

1 Boiler Plate Cook Stove (to be selected).
5 Sheet Iron Heating Stoves.

2 Levelling Rods.
1 Stationery Box,

20 pairs Snow-Shoes (for winter work).
12 Toboggans (for winter work).

INVESTIGA TING COMMISSION

17

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY
Food Supplies per man per Month and for Parties of Eighteen and Twenty-four Men.

Articles

Amount per
Man

Amount per
Men

18

Amount per 24
Men

li cans =
3.' " =

i/9 bottle

1/9

1/9

Apples (evap.)

Apricots

Alspice

Bacon

Beans

Butter

Biscuits

Baking Powder

Beef (corned)

Barley ,

Beef (extract) ,

Corn Meal

Coffee^.

Corn Starch

Candles.

Currants ,

Codfish

Cheese

Cream (condensed) . . ,

Corn (canned

Essence (lemon

Essence (vanilla)

Essence (ginger) ....

lour

Ginger

Ham

Hops

Jam

Lime Juice

Lard

Molasses

Milk

Matches

Macaroni

Mu.'^tard

Marmalade

Nutmegs

Oatmeal

Onions

Pork

Peas

Prunes

Potatoes (dessicated)

Pepper

Pickles

Pea dies (dried)

Rice

Raisins

Sugar (white)

Svrup

.<alt

S(jap (washing)

•Soap (toilet)

Soda :

Soup (condensed). . .

Tea

romatoes

J'obacco (chewing) . .
Tobacco (sjuoking) . .

Tapioca

Vinegar

Vegetables (corapr'd)

Worcester Sauce I . . . . J bottle =

1| lbs. 31 lbs.

U

15

8

6

H

I

1

2
1

If
1*

oz.

lbs.

2/9 oz.

= 2/9
= 2/9
.. 37*

lbs.

10

1/18.

3
2

2/9

i
1

4

5
2
13
3
2
2
If
f
2

^i
1
10
1

pt.
lbs.
pts.
lbs,
bxs
lbs

oz
lbs

oz
lbs

lbs.
oz.

pt.

lbs,

pt.

U lbs.

1| "

1 cake

1/16 lbs

1 can =

2
f
i

Yeast I ^

pt.
lbs.

pt.
bx.

27 cans ==
13 cans =
2 bottles =

2 " =
2 " =-

22

9

270

145

85

110

4*

145

9

9

27

18

18

36

18

27

31

27

13

4

= 4

= 4

675

9

180

1

oz.
lbs.

.42
30

lbs.

36 cans =
18 •'
3 bottles
3
3

lbs.
oz.
lbs.

36 cans

9 pts.

6 lbs.

7 gals.
36 lbs.
4 bxs.
4* lbs.
ox "

9 "

48 cans

. 4i oz.
. 90 lbs.
. 36 "
.216 "
. 54 "
. 36 "
. 36 lbs.
. 2 "
. If gals
. 36. .lbs.

.31 " 1 42

.18 " i 24

.180 "I ..240

. 2i galsl 3

. 27 lbs.
. 27 "
. 18 cake
. U lbs.

360
195
115
145
6
195

12

12

36

24

24

48

24

36

42

36

18
54
54

54
900

3.

240*
U
36
U

48

9

48

54

6

3
12

6
120
48
290
72
48
48

2J gals
48 lbs.

oz.

lbs.

ga.

lbs.
gals.

lbs.
bxs.

lbs.

oz.

lbs.

lbs.

lbs.

18 cans

9 bottles =

9

36

-15

13

27

9

9

9

4i
9

24 cans

ptp.
lbs.
pts.
bxs.

12 bottles:

36

36 "

24 cks.

14 lbs.
12 "
48 "
60 "
18 "
36 "
12 '

H gals

12" lbs.

6 pts.

12 bxs

18 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

The following named articles may be selected by the District Engineer in
quantities varying from the above list but retaining the same relative amount
of meat and vegetable food as given in the list : —

Bacon, Pork, Corned Beef, Ham, Peas, Rice, Oatmeat, Cornmeal, Buckwheat
Flour, Condensed Soup, assorted Jam and Marmalade.

If District Engineers find from further experience that too liberal an allowance
of.' any article is shown on this list, they should reduce their orders accordingly
arid advise Headquarters. Greater prop(irtions than sh(n\n on list should not be
ordered without special authority.

Assistant Chief Engineer's Office,
Ottawa, Dec. 19th, 1905.

THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

Medicine Chest Containing Medical Equipment for Engineers in Charge

OF Parties.

One tin box with lock, key and strap, of neat size, to contain the following:
Bandages, gauze, 2" wide, 6 yards long, ^ doz.
Bandages, gauze, 3" wide, 6 yards long, ^ doz.
Carbolized wool in \ lb. packages, 1 lb.
Carbolized lint, in \ lb. packages 1 lb.

Housewife made of canvas and tied with a tape; the inside of the housewife
to have straps to hold the following:

A. Scissors, straight, with antiseptic lock; length 5".

B. Bistoury, curved, sharp and scalpel with plain spring.

C. Needles, surgeons, in antiseptic oil, six only,

D. Catgut, No. 0, 1 and 2, in antiseptic oil, one bottle.

E. Silk, carbolized. No. 1, 2, and 3, each, one reel.

F. Pins, safety, size 1 ^, one doz.

"• " common, three doz.

Field tourniquet, rubber tube with clasp.

Zinc ointment, | lb. pot.

Blue ointment \ lb. pot.

Poroplastic loll, for splints, one piece the length of the tin containini; box
and ten inches wide.

Surgeons rubber adhesive plaster, 7" wide and one yard long.

Tablets, Bi-chloride of mercury, antiseptic .. 25 labelled "POISON" and
directions on bottle.

Aromatic spirits Ammonia, labelled with dosage 3 oz.

One tin pill box with cover, hinges and clasp, large enough to contain the
following bottles, packed cl's(>ly in compartments to prevent breakage. The
inside cover of the pill box to have the directions for use of the remedies enclosed.
These directions to be piinted or typewritten.

No. 1. Rheumatic pill 100

Sodium Solicylat gr. 7^

Vinum Colchi. min V

Sodium Bicarbonate gr. 2*

Oil of Wintergi een

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 19

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

No. II. Pill, lead and opium, for diarrhoea 100

Acetate of lead gr. 2

Powdered opium gr. ^

No. III. PUl, sulphate of quinine . . . gr. 5 100

No. IV. Pill, strychnia sulph. . .gr. 1/60 100

No. V. Pill, morphia sulph . . . gr. ^ 100

No. VI. Cough Tablets 200

Ammon. carb gr. 1

Pulv. squills gr.f

Pulv. senegae gr, ,•

Tinct. camph. Co M. V.

Terpin hydrate gr. 1

No. VII. Cathartic No. 1 100

Pil. Cath. Co.

No. VIII. Cathartic No. 2 100

Calomel gr. 2^

Sodii bicarb gr. 2|

No. IX. Antifebrile tablet 100

Phenacetine gr. V

Caffeine at gr. II

Antiseptic powder (Jeys) with plain tin shaker oz. I.

Perry Davis' Pain Killer ^ doz.

Minard's Liniment | doz.

Carbolic Acid Ointment { lb. box

Directions for the use of medicines in a pill box to be pasted on inside of tin
cover also on a loose card in inside of box.

RHEUMATISM. Pain and swelling of joints with fever.

Use one pill: >f No. I every three or four hours. Keep warm. Wrap
inflamed joint in wool. Bowels well moved by two pills of No.
VIII.

DIARRHCEA. Take one or two pills of No. VII or VIII in our hours after-
wards take one pill of No. II and repeat in four hours if diarrhoea persists.

CONSTIPATION. One or two pills of No. VII or VIII at night.
COUGH. One pill No. VI every three hours.
FEVER. Ono pill No. IX every four hours.

PAIN. One pill No. V. every four or six hours — not over four pills in twenty-
four hours.

FAINTING and SUNSTROKE. Revive with ammonia. Give one pill
No. IV. every three hours. If fever use No. IX.

DRESSING WOUNDS. Dissolve one-half of one antiseptic tablet in water,
bathe wound, dust in antiseptic powder and apply lint and bandage.

TO STOP HEMORRHAGE. Wind tourniquet around limb above the joint
higher up than the wound. ,

FOR LICE. Wash well with soap and water. Cover surfaces with blue
ointment and change underclothes.

FRACTURES. Soak felt in hot water. Then cut to fit the limb.

Office of the Assistant Chief Engineer.
December 22nd, 1905.

20 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

Contents of Cache Keeper's Case

One Pill Box containing: —

No. 1. Rheumatic pill 100

Sodium Solicylat gr. 1\

Vinum Colchi, min V

Sodium Bicarbonate ^•'^h

Oil of Wintergreen Q.S.

No. II. Pill, lead and opium, for diarrhoea, 100

Acetate of lead gr.2

Powered opium gr. i

No. III. Pill, sulphate of quinine . . . gr. 5 100

No. IV. PUl, strychnia sulph. . .gr. rk 100

No. V. Pill, morphia sulph. . .gr. ^ 100

No. VI. Cough Tablets 200

Ammon. carb gr. 1

Pulv. squills gr. f

Pulv. senegae gr. I

Tinct. Camph. Co M. V.

Terpin. hydrate gr. 1

No. VII. Cathartic No. 1 100

Pil. Cath. Co.

No. VIII. Cathartic No. 2 100

Calomel gr. 2^

Sodii bicarb gr. 2|

No. IX. Antifebrile tablet 100

Phenacetine gr. 5

Caffeine At gr. 2

Absorbent cotton ^ oz.

Bandages, gauze, 3" wide, 6 yards long \ doz.

Lint, absorbent 1 oz.

Adhesive Plaster 1 yd.

Carbolic Acid Ointment 2 oz.

Office of the Assistant Chief Engineer.
December 22nd, 1905.

3 pads Letter Hoad Paper.
6 Penholders.

30 large Envelopes.
12 Pay-Roll Forms.
100 small Envelopes.
1 Requisition Book.
6 Scribbling Pads.
1 Diary, 1906.

4 HHHH Pencils.

1 Canadian Almanac.

12 HH Pencils.

12 Transit Books.

12 HB Pencils.

6 Level Books.

150 feet Tracing Profile Paper

150 feet Tracing Paper.

10 yards Tracing Cloth.

30 feet Drawing Paper.

I

IXVESTIGATING COMMISSION 21

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

24 Thumb Tacks.

1 Stencil for rods.

^-pint mixed Carmine Red Paint.

1 pint White Paint.

1 pint Black Paint.

2 Account Books.

2 sticks India Ink, good quality, water colors (v^^ "^d blue).
1 box Hub Tacks.
12 copies of Form 12,

1 sheet Blotting Paper.

2 lbs. Red Keel

6 blue Oil Chalks.
1 set Contract Forms.
24 Paper Fasteners.

1 package Pins.

3 Ink and Pencil Erasers.
3 Soft Rubber Erasers.

9 Rubber Tops for Pencils.

2 Aneroid Barometers.
1 Hand Level.

1 Compass.

2 set Squares.
1 Protractor.

1 Steel Straight Edge, 30".

2 sets Rod Papers,
^-pint LePage's Glue.
1 pint bottle Sizing.

1 pint bottle Varnish.

1 100' Brazed Link Chain.

3 Square Links.

2 50' Chesterman Tapes, reading to lOths.

3 Brushes for Paint, small and stencil use.

CONSTRUCTION.

45. Ten to twelve miles will usually be allotted to each Resident Engineer.

It will be the duty of the Resident Engineer immediately on reaching his
residency to study carefully the specifications, contract and plans, so as to be pre-
pared to decide promptly all questions that may arise within the scope of his author-
ity, and in order to ensure this end, he will confer with his Distrift Engineer on all
points that seem to him to require explanation. He will inform himself fully of all
the rules and matter contained in these instructions, and conform his work thereto
in every particular. He will do all the instrumental work required on his residency
in order that the contractor may rapidly and satisfactorily carry on the work in
accordance with the plans, specifications and contract. He will make up monthly
and final estimates of all work done in his residency in accordance with Form Nos.
4 and 5.

He will treat contractors with courtesy and will give them the aid necessary
to expedite the work, and see that the conditions called for in the plans, specifica-
tions and contracts are complied with.

RESIDENT ENGINEER REPORTS.

46. The Resident Engineer will report to the Division Engineer, if there is
one, otherwise to the District Engineer.

22 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

SUPPLIES.

47. The Resident Engineer will by requisition through his immediate superior,
obtain the following supplies; and in future requisitions, maintain such list at aP
times while the work is under way:

2 pads Letter Heads.

12 No. 303 Pens.

6 No. 170 Pens.

24 Assorted Pens.

1 bottle Water-Proof (Higgins' Chin-Chin) Ink, black.

1 paper Pins.

50 large Envelopes.

100 small Envelopes.

1 bottle Writing Fluid.

1 bottle Copying Fluid.

1 stick Japanese Ink.

1 box Assorted Rubber Bands.

1 bottle Water-Proof (Higgins' Chin-Chin) Ink, blue.

1 bottle Water-Proof (Higgins* Chin-Chin) Ink, red.

Windsor & Newton's (Colors — 1 cake Blue.

1 cake Carmine.

1 cake Cobalt Blue.

1 cake Vermillion.

1 cake Chrome Yellow.

1 cake Venetian Red.

1 cake White.

1 cake Olive Green.

1 cake VanDyke Brown.

1 cake Chrome Orange.

1 cake Paynes' Gray.

1 cake Scarlet Lake.

1 cake Burnt Sienna.

1 box Paper Clips.

1 copy Instructions.

1 Levelling Rod.

2 Pickets.

2 3i-lb. Axes, with handles.

5 lbs. Red Keel.

6 Blue Oil Crayons.

1 pot, ^-pint. Red Paint, with brush.

1 copy Specification Contract.

5 yds. Plate A Profile Paper.

5 yds. Plate A Tracing Profile Paper.

5 yds. Tracing Cloth.

5 yds. Cross Section Paper, lOths.

5 yds. Tracing Paper.

5 yds. Duplex Manilla Paper.

1 100 Roe Aluminum Plated Steel Band Chain.

2 50' Chesterman Metallic Tapes, with 2 extra Fillers, divided feet and lOths.

3 Sheets Blotting Paper,

2 Transit Books.

1 large Cross Section Book, office record.

6 3H Pencils.

3 Penliolders.
12 Pay Rolls.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 23

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

1 Portable Roll Copying Press.

1 lb. Tinned Tacks.
4 Level Books.

2 Cross Section Books.

3 6H Lead Pencils.
6 No. 3 Pencils.

24 Estimate Sheets.
. 12 Scratch Pads.

SIZE OF PARTY.

48. Resident Engineer will be allowed a rodman, tapeman and one extra
axeman. If more help is required, owing to heavy work, he will ask the District
Engineer to supply same.

NOTICES TO BE SENT.

49. The Resident Enguieer on his arrival at his residency will promptly
notify his Division and District Engineer and the Chief Engineer, stating his
post office, telegraph and telephone address.

WORKING PROFILE.

50. The Resident Engineer will obtain from the District Engineer data
from the location profile to make up a working profile on Plate A profile paper,
similar in every way to the sample working profile herewith. This working profile
will show in pencil the approximate quantities and contemplated overhaul.

BOOKS REQUIRED.

51. The resident Engineer will keep a transit book, level book, field and
office cross section book, Form No. 8, bridge book, pile recorder's book, memoran-
dum book, and office diary.

On the fly leaf of each book wi'ite the title, give the number of the residency,
the letter of the District, name of the Enguieer in charge and address thus:

"Bridge Book."

"Residency No. 6, District A."

"John Jones, Resident Engineer."

"Grand Falls, N.B."

Do not mark the cover, number the pages, date your entries, index your
book, be sure and enter in the book all original measurements, do not transcribe
notes from other sources, only original notes should appear. In the Transit
Book should be entered all notes, reference hubs, land and other lines, etc., so as
to have a complete record of the alignment and land boundaries, names of owners,
occupants, etc. In the Level Book all centre line levels will be entered up, bench
marks, etc.

In the Cross Section Book, Form No. 8, all original entries of all cross sections
will be entered. All original notes must be set down in the book in the field.
The customary way of entering cross section notes usually followed in American
practice wherein the original observations are not entered, but instead the cut
or fill, will not be allowed. Make your entries continuously, leaving enough
blank pages to summarize everything in its proper place. Index each Section
Station by Station, keeping the quantities in each mile separate. Never erase
a line, if an error has been made draw lines across it and write the words "Cancelled
erroneous"; if notes are continued on a succeeding page refer to it and on that
page write the wordSj"forward from'page."
3

24 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914
LENGTH OF SECTION.

52. Sections will usually be one mile in length. Give the name of the con-
tractor on each section, note the beginning and ending stations of their work,
with dates of such beginning and ending of work. Plot all the excavations on cross
section paper, 10 feet to one inch; each day's cross section work to be plotted,
and the quantities computed the same day the measurements are taken, with
the area of the section inked in. On this plotted section as the excavation is made
note accurately the character and classification of the materials found in the cut.
See sample sheet Plate E; the cross section book should also contain the monthly
estimate of grading, with the volume excavated each month. The cross section
sheet should be colored with the proper color for the month showing the area
excavated. So in like manner the progress profile should have the volume colored
with the appropriate color.

BRIDGE BOOK.

53. In the standard bridge book the notes of bridges, culverts and othei
structures, as well as drainage and other special matter, should be entered. On
the left hand page, all bills of timber, piling and quantities should be entered,
and on the right hand page a sketch of the structure, showing a ravine section;
full notes of pile driving as per form below shall be taken, also kind of material
penetrated; in case of masonry or concrete culverts or other structures, sufficient
dimensions must be shown to enable the quantities to be calculated; describe
fully and carefully the exact kind of material the structure is founded upon. Give
the quantities, classification and disposition of the excavated material. Particular
care is required to insure absolutely safe foundations. No chance will be taken;
in case of doubt consult the District Engineer. Under each structure enter the
name of the contractor and the foreman in charge of the work, the date in which
work started and ended. The Bridge Book, properly filled up, will be returned
to the District Engineer as a final estimate on the completion of the works therein
entered.

PILE AND TRESTLE BRIDGES.

54. In the construction of pile and trestle bridges, a competent Inspector
will be supplied, whose duty it will be to watch the driving of piles at all times
and to keep a record of all piles driven. The Inspector shall require piles to be
driven such depth as will make them secure against being washed out by scour,
and in accordance with the clause of the specifications relative to pile-driving.
See Section of Specifications 145.

The record of all pile and trestle bridges shall be kept in a book ruled and
headed as per sample herewith. For convenience in designating any particular
stick of timber, he will call the first bent nearest to Moncton, Panel A; the second
bent and span, Panel B, etc. Piles, posts, stringers, guard rails, will be numbered
from left to right (i. e, south to north) and the bridge ties will be numbered in the
same direction as the letters of the panels. The position of the bridge will be
designated by the station and plus of its beginning and end — and the number of
the same. In accordance with the above plan, it is easy to understand the location
of a timber, as pile B3 — Stringer A3 or bridge tie 38, as the case may be. The
record kept by the Inspector must show the depth to which each pile is driven,
the depth by the last five blows of the hammer and the depth by the last blow.
The form of this record to be as below.

Bridge No. 10 / Weight of hammer, 3,000 lbs. Steam hoist, quick actions.

Stations 160 + GO \ or as the case may be.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 25

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

PANEL A.

PUe

Deep.

Last

Last

Fall of

Wing

5 Blows.

3 Blows.

Hammer.

1

8 ft.

2 ft.

3 in.

28 ft.

2

9 ft.

2i ft.

5 in.

28 ft.

1

14 ft.

1 ft. 3 in.

i in.

. 30 ft.

9

141 ft.

2 ft. 0 in.

H in.

29 ft.

3

13 ft.

1 ft. 6 in.

1 in.'

30 ft.

4

15 ft.

2 ft. 0 in.

2 in.

30 ft

PANEL B.

PANEL C.

REilAUKS.
The soil at this bridge is sandy at a depth of about 13 feet, below grade the piles strike a hard
stratum of material •ndth which pUes cannot be driven more than 2 or 3 feet.
I had the depth to hard material also tested with water jet.

55. This record book of the Inspector will be turned over to the Bridge
Engineer, who will then make up a complete record for each bridge in form as
shown below, in which (a) represents the height of pile from the surface of the
ground to the top of cap timber, and (b) represents the length of the pile below
the surface of the ground. Following the record of the piles there must be a com-
plete bill of piles and other material used in the construction of the bridge, and
a memorandum of any facts of interest or importance connected with the situation
of the bridge or its surroundings. In this record and in their proper place, all
timber culverts and cattle guards must be entered, with description, dimensions
and bill of material; also, all truss bridges, with location, description, and dimen-
sions and bill of material in the floor system.

26

NATION AUJTRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWA Y

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

Bridge No. 10. Station 160 + 60.

PILE.

Panel.
A

1

a=6Ht-
b— 14'

2 3 4

a =7' ' a =8^' a =9'
b— 14^ b— 13' b— 15'

B

Wing
Pile

BILL OF PILES USED.

159

REMARKS.

16
78
20
40

This is a pile bridge. The piles are driven in sandy soil, striking a stratum of hard pan at a
depth of 20 feet, below the Cap timber.

BILL OF MATERIAL.

Pes.

Stringers
Caps

Guard Rails
Sway Braces
Retaining plank
Packing bolts.
G. R. Braces
Drift Bolts
Spools
Washers

Size.

8" X 16" X 26'

12" X 12" X 14'

8" X 9" X 16'

3" X 10" X 20'

—600' B.M.

FORCE RETURNS.

56. The Resident Engineer will secure force returns from the contractor
once a week; this return shall be taken personally by some person in the employ-
ment of the Commissioners, and must be verified with the contractor's time book.
It will show the number of men employed each day, the number of teams, hoist-
ing engines, derricks, etc., all classified as called for in Form 54.

Under remarks note any special information. At the end of each month
summarize the force returns giving daily average and total days' work, average
wages paid for men and teams, all the information called for in Form No. 55.
Send one copy to the District Engineer's office and one copy to the Chief Engineer,
Ottawa, Ontario.

Under remarks briefly state the progress of the work in each mile, the location
of pile driver, steam shovel, etc., and station at end of track, etc.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 27

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

MONTHLY PAY ROLLS.

57. On the first day of every month all pay rolls are to be made out, with
deductions, if any, in triplicate, on Form No. 143.

Personal expenses statements are to be made out on Form No. 22, in Expense
triplicate. Account

., :■ All bills are to be rendered in triplicate, to which certificate of receipt of goods Bill
or service, as the case may be, shall be attached.

Approximate monthly estimates in triplicate will be prepared on Form Nos. Estimate
4 and 5.

Progress profile will be made up in accordance with sample sheet. Progress

All to be certified to and signed by the Engineer in charge and forwarded -^^^^^^
by first mail to ■ he District Engineer who will approve same and forward to the
Chief Engineer.

CHECK ALIGNMENT.

58. The Resident Engineer on taking charge of his residency will as quickly
as po sible check all curves, spirals, tangents, run check levels over the residency,
reporting at once to the District Engineer any errors found. He will reference
all B.C., E.G. or other points, B.M's etc.

LOCATION STATIONS TO BE PRE-ERVED.

59. The final location stations are to be maintained throughout the work,
and all records must conform to them. Should errors or discrepancies be found
note the amount, long or short, giving its correct length, but preserve the station
number. The track chaining must also agree with the location stations.

MILE POSTS.

60. The station for each mile post will be given the Resident Engineer, and
the beginning and ending of mUe thus shown must be maintained throughout the
work in all records. All material excavated from cuts, borrow pits, ditches,
etc., must be estimated on the mile where such material was excavated. The
cost of every item of work on each mile must be kept separate, so that if material
is hauled from one mile to another it must be so designated in the book, showing
such mileage cost. In case a borrow pit is opened on one mile and the material
goes to another, such excavation will be charged against the mile where the earth
is placed in the embankment.

PROGRESS PROFILE — HOW COLORED.

61. A progress profile is to be used as a monthly progress report of work done,
and will be prepared on Plate A profile paper, in every respect similar to the sample
sheet Plate E, and will be forwarded as stated in Section 58. It will be returned to
the Resident Engineer each month in time for him to post up for the month.
Show in colors for the given month, as below, the excavations moved and em-
bankment placed. Show the index of these colors under the title in the profile.
For January, Cobalt blue; February, vermillion; March, chrome yellow; April,
Venetian red; May, white; June, olive green; July, Vandyke brown; August, Ant-
werp blue; September, chrome yellow; October, Payne's grey; November, scarlet
lake; December, burnt Sienna.

Show on the profile the direction the excavation is being hauled by arrows
and by plotted haul. Note above each structure in ink, the date work started

28

NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

and ended, at what bridge the pile driver is working, end of track, etc; give the
contractor's name, and such other data as will plainly indicate the progress of
the work.

SUPER-ELEVATION OF OUTER RAIL ON CURVES.

62. As all curves 1° and over will have their ends eased off with transition
spiral curves, the tangents will be level. The super-elevation will be put in on the
spiral gradually increasing with the increased radius of the spiral, the whole amount
of the super-elevation called for in the table below to be put in on the circular
portion of the curve.

TABLE OF THE SUPER-ELEVATIONS OF THE OUTER RAIL ON CURVES.

Amount of Super-Elevation

Degree of Curve.

of Outer Rail.

Distance to Run Out.

0°— 30'

1"

45 feet

1°— 00'

l,t

60

u

1°— 30'

U"

75

<<

2°— 00'

w

90

u

2°— 30'

w

112^

<(

3°— 00'

2i"

135

u

3°— 30'

21"

157^

u

4°— 00'

3, "

180

u

4°— 30'

3r

202i

ti

• 5°— 00'

31"

225

a

5°— 30'

w

247^

u

6°— 00'

w

270

u

STAKING OUT WORK.

63. As soon as possible the cross sections should be finished up. Plot each
cross section and calculate its area the same day. All work must be staked out,
ditches, creek diversions, right of way, berms, etc.; set stakes for all excavations
and embankments to sub-grade, as shown on the grade line of the profile. Stake
out bridge ends as shown on masonry plans, e': Use good strong stakes, well
driven; mark the proper station and plus on the side from the roadbed and the
cut or fill on the back; mark the centre stake likewise. Cross section curves at
least every fifty feet, unless the surface is practically level.

DITCHES.

64, Catchwater or sui*face ditches shall be staked out and be excavated at
the same time as the cuts are opened ; they should be neatly cut, placing the material
in the embankment if required to make the fill, otherwise on the lower side in a
uniform manner. Ditches should not be less than eighteen (18") inches deep and
two (2') feet wide at the bottom, with side slope of 1^ horizontal to 1 vertical, and
should be at least ten feet away from the edge of a cut. Secure a good grade to
allow the water to run away freely. Keep tiie outlet away from the toe of the
embankment so as not to endanger same. All ditches must be left clean by the
contractors.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 29

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

DANGEROUS TREES.

65. The Resident Engineer will specially mark all leaning trees that are liable
to fall across the telegraph line, or that may fall across the right of way, standing
outside thereof, and will see that they are cut down and removed as called for in
the specifications. Clause 7.

LARGE BLASTS.

66. Under Clause 13 of the specifications large blasts are restricted. On hill
side work the tendency of such large blasts is to throw material to waste. If it is
required in an adjoining bank, the contractor must supply free of cost for every
cubic yard so wasted and one-half cubic yards of other suitable material for the bank.

PUBLIC AND FARM ROADS.

67. The Resident Engineer shall take particular care to insure that, at all
public and farm road crossings at all times, a safe crossing is in good order; that
the contractor takes all reasonable precaution to protect the public from injury
due to his operations, and will hold the contractor to a strict account in this par-
ticular matter.

CLEARING.

68. The specifications must be closely observed; dead or leaning trees within
the limits called for in the specifications must be cut down and removed, the right

of way must be left clear. Great care must he taken in burning brush to see that all Fire in
the Provincial Fire Regulations are observed, and every precaution must be insisted Bush
upon to insure the protection of the forest from fires.

GRUBBING.

69. See that all grubbing is burned up and that the specifications are strictly
adhered to. Grubbing will not be estimated in cuttings over four feet in depth
(see Clause 11 of specifications).

CENTRES.

70. Resident Engineers will give centres in all cuttings from time to time
to ensure the contractor excavating to the required lines and slopes, and will see

that the slopes are left clean and true. Projecting or dangerous rocks on slopes Projecting

must be removed. Slides of rock loose or solid must be carefully guarded against. Rocks

Slide

BACKFILLING ROCK CUTS.

71. Backfilling in rock cuts must not be done until the required excavation one
foot below gTade is finished. The material used shall be broken stone, or coarse,
clean gravel.

EMBANKMENTS.

72. Embankments are to be built of the full width and slope called for in tho
specifications. In setting out formation width, make proper allowance for sub-
sidence as called for under Section 39 of the specifications. Embankments up to
16 feet in height will be 16 feet wide at formation level, beyond this height 18
feet wide, side slope for earth 1^ to 1, for rock 1 to 1.

30 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914
BORROW PITS.

73. Borrow pits will be staked out when and where required; they must be left
clean and neat with slopes of 1 J horizontal to 1 vertical, and must not be excavated
closer to right of way linos than three feet and n^t closer tn the toe of embank-
ments than the distance called for under Section 30 of the specifications. Where
possible they should always be left so that they will drain through the nearest
opening.

FINISHING STAKES.

74. Resident Engineers will set accurately, square strong stakes at each station,
marking the toe of the embankment, correct as to finished levels and line, and will
see that the embankments are graded so that when full settlement takes place they
will conform to such stakes, and that the cuttings are excavated cleanly and neatly
to the full lines.

STATION GROUNDS.

75. Resident Engineers will secure plans of station grounds and will not
allow any borrowing to be done within the limits of the site. Tracks and buildings,
drains, etc., will be accurately located and staked as shown on the plan.

TRACK CENTRES.

76. Track centres will be accurately set. Stations on tangents to be every 100
feet, on curves every 50 feet. Mark the beginning of the adjusted curves centres
at 30 feet intervals on same, also the ending of the spiral; rails must be laid with
broken joints; in passing around curves shorter rails will be provided in order that
the centre of one joint shall, as near as may, be opposite the centre of the opposite
rail. Rails should not be cut. Track must be fully spiked as it is laid and the
spikes must be set vertical, and driven home s > closely as to hold the rail firmly
to the tie, but not so hard as to break the head of the spike. The tracks must be
gauged as spikes are driven at ' 'joints, " ' 'centres ", and ' 'quarters ", and no excuse
will be taken for inaccurate gauging. On straight lines track will be gauged to 4
feet 8^ inches. On curves, in accordance with the following, viz:

P, curve =4 ft. 8f in,; 2°, 4 ft. 8f in,; 3°, 4 ft. SJ in.; 4°, 4 ft. 8f in.; 5°, 4 ft.
8| in.; 6°, 4 ft, 8 J in.; 7°, 4 ft. 8 J in.; 8°, 4 ft. 8 J in.; 9°, 4 ft. 9 in.; 10°, 4 ft. 9 in.

The jomts must be firmly secured in place by the full number of bolts well
drawn up, and special attention should be paid to the adjustment of any nut
lock device which may be used.

Ballast grades will be set and the top of the rails must conform to the level
called for by them. Particular care is demanded in packing the ties; the tamping
must be thorough, the tie thoroughly supported throughout, the space between
the ties packed full and the shoulder at the end of the tie as called lor in specifi-
cations, and cross sections of same. The slopes to be neatly and exactly laid
to that calle 1 for. Particular care will be taken to s.'t the lialiast grade stakes
on curve- to give the proper super-elevation called for, the inner rail being
kept to the true grade. On spiral curves the super-elevation will be gradual and
proportionate to that on the circular curve, the tangents being level.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

31

SWITCHES.

77. Special attention .-hould be given to the laying out of switches, turnouts
and frogs. The frogs, of angles of 6° 22' and those of 9° known as number 9 and
number 6^, only will be used.

All turnout curves are considered as beginning at the fixed end of the slide
raU, and all Engineers must make their calculations for determining the position
of head-block and point of frog on this basis. Sidings at different distances from
the main track will be located, in the absence of special instructions, according
to the following table, the turnouts being from straight lines.

Table Showing Alignment of Sidings.

Distance from
Siding to Main

Turnout Curve

Length . of
Tangent

Curve Returning Parallel
with Main Track

Track, Centre

1

to Centre

Degree

Length

Degree

Length

12 ft.

7°, 30'

95.8 ft.

7° 30'

95.8 ft.

13 ft.

7°, 30'

! 99.7 ft.

7° 30'

99.7 ft.

14 ft.

7° 30'
7°, 30'

1 103.4 ft.
107.1 ft.

7° 30'
7° 30'

103 4 ft

15 ft.

107.1 ft.

16 ft.

7°, 30'

110. 7 ft.

7° 30'

! 110.7 ft.

17 ft.

7°, 30'
7°, 30'

! 114.1 ft.
i 117.4 ft.

7° 30'
7° 30'

1 114 1 ft.

18 ft.

117.4 ft.

19 ft.

7°, 30'

1 120.0 ft.

l.i3 ft.

7° 30'

120.0 ft.

20 ft.

7°, 30'

I 120.0 ft.

7.52 ft.

7° 30'

120.0 ft.

22 ft.

7°. 30'

! 120.0 ft.

20.31 ft.

7° 30'

' 120.0 ft.

24 ft.

7°, 30'

; 120.0 ft.

33.09 ft.

7° 30'

j 120.0 ft.

26 ft.

7°, 30'

j 120.0 ft.

45.88 ft.

7° 30'

! 120.0 ft.

28 ft.

7°, 30'

1 120.0 ft.

58.66 ft.

7° 30'

1 . 120.0 ft.

30 ft.

7°, 30'

1 120.0 ft.

71.45 ft.

7° 30'

120.0 ft.

40 ft.

7°, 30'

1 120.0 ft.

135.38 ft.

7° 30'

i 120.0 ft.

50 ft.

7°, 30'

1 120.0 ft.

199.30 ft.

7° 30'

' 120.0 ft.

60 ft.

7", 30'

j 120.0 ft.

1 1

263.23 ft.

7° 30'

j 120.0 ft.

The ends of switch ties must be laid off to a line parallel with the nearest
rail. Guard rails opposite frogs shall be cut twelve feet long and bent to a standard
pattern upon formers. The gauge of track of all turnout leads shall be 4', 81",
and this width must extend from the fixed end of the slide rails to the heel of the
frog.

BUILDINGS.

78. The location of all buildings will be decided in the office of the Chief
Engineer, and the Bridge and BuUding Engineer will receive instructions in
regard to location. Special care must be taken in the laying out and construction
of foundations, and a full record must be kept of the dimensions of all masonry
built. The following rules will govern the location of all buildmgs and platforms,
as to their distance from tracks, viz.: The tops of all platforms adjacent to the
main track should be 12 inches above the top of the rail (conforming to the grade
of the track) and the nearest edge of the platform 2 feet 9 inches from the gauge
side of the rail. The tops of all freight platforms on side tracks for general use
should be 3 feet 8 inches above the top of rail on side track (conforming to grade
of track), and the edge of platform 3 feet 3 inches from the gauge side of the nearest
rail. No building should be located nearer than 7 feet in the clear from the centre
of the main track.

32 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

No building should be nearer than 6 feet from the centre of any side track,
which is used for meeting and passing trains, or for general purposes.

All buildings or other structures, erected by corporations or other parties,
and all stone, ties or timber piles for Company use, should not be located nearer
than 6 feet from the nearest rail.

PERMANENT STAKES.

79. Resident Engineers will plant permanent stakes at the B. C. and E. C.
of every curve and at the point of commencement of spiral curves, when the track
laying and ballasting is completed; for this purpose they will requisition their
District Engineer for suitable monuments.

PERMANENT BENCH MARKS.

80. Place permanent bench marks reduced to true sea-level datum.

DIARY.

81. The Re-ident Engineer will kn^p a d'ily record of all instrut tions
given to contractors; he will enter the date on which work under each contractor
began and ended; the date of beginning and completion of all openings and
important piece of work; also notes classifying material, the manner in which the
contractor handles his work a d such other notes as will enable a complete
accurate classification to be made; the date of any special notices or instructions
served upon contractors; every item bearing upon the work should be entered
daily. Record in your diary all storms, such as extraordinary high winds, heavy
rainfalls, low temperatures, excessive snowfalls, etc.

LIMIT OF HAUL.

82. It must be understood that all excavation is to be hauled to the limit;
no borrowing will be permitted, unless the overhaul price exceeds the earth work
price. When it is necessary to waste, the material should be used to widen embank-
ments within t'e limit of the free haul, waste to be uniformly and evenly distributed.
No waste will be placed on the sides of cuts nor overiiaul paid on waste unless
first approved by the District Engineer.

The contractor should be told where the excavation is to be hauled, to avoid
waste and borrow.

MONTHLY ESTIMATES.

83. The Resident Engineer will prepare on Form No. 4 approximate monthly
estimates of all the work done and materials delivered on the work section by section,
using a separate sheet for each section. And on Form No. 5 a summary estimate
of all the work done on all the sections under one contractor. This estimate must
show the total amount of work done from the beginning of the work to the end
of the month for which the estimate is made, entering earth works to the nearest
100 cubic yards, timber to the nearest 1 000 feet, masonry to the nearest cubic
yard, etc. Fill all the blanks, or note no work done where such is the case.

The amount due for the current month should be shown in red figures.

Note in remarks column anything affecting result, such as material hauled
from an adjoining mile. Should the mile post come in the centre of a structure
group the two sections together, but in general each section should be shown
complete by itself.

INVESTIGATIXG COMMISSIOX 33

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

EXTRA WORK.

84. The contract provides that all claims for extra work or material must
be presented to the Chief Engineer for allowance at the close of each month in
which it was done, otherwise the Commissioners are not required to allow or pay
for same. Resident Engineers will write to the District Engineer for the Chief
Engineer's approval for the contemplated work, noting the estimated cost. This
approval will be promptly returned to the Resident Engineer and he will attach
same to the contractor's bill and return both with the monthly estimate, adhering
strictly to the contract that no bills will be allowed that are rendered later than
the month in which the work was done. The Resident Engineer will report fully
upon the proposed extra work, the reasons for same, and in general give such
full information as will enable the Chief Engineer to reach a just conclusion.

CHANGES IN GRADE OR ALIGNMENT.

85. Resident Engineers will not be allowed to make changes in grades or
alignment, but will promptly call their District Engineer's attention to any possible
change they consider beneficial. Rates of grade fixed on the location profile will
govern and must be adhered to. Vertical curves will be carefully graded to eleva-
tion called for. Easement curves will be staked as per table and according to the
directions given for same.

FINAL PROFILE.

86. A final profile must be made as per sample Plate C, on a continuous
roll of Plate A profile paper, 400 feet to an inch horizontal, 20 feet to an inch
vertical. Leave 18 inches blank space at each end. Place a neat title at each end
of the roll as shown in sample sheet. On the outside edge at both ends of the

profile write "Final Profile Residency No , District , National

Trans-Continental Railway, Eastern Division. Miles to ,

Station to On this final profile follow the general style of

Plate C. Plot overhaul as shown. Give the stations and plus of the Moncton
end of str'nger on pile and girders and other bridges, centre of all pipes and other
culverts, plus of all roads and cattle guards, names of rivers, brooks, cities, towns,
villages and stations, length of sidings with plus of switch stand, semaphores,
alignment, position of water tank and stand pipe, bench marks and clearing,
width of right of way, fencing for each fence, gate and farm crossings; note quality
and description of ballast; summarize the entire residency mile by mile, giving
totals of all classifications and quantities.

FINAL ESTIMATES.

87. Quantities for final estimates are to be made up promptly and completed
as fast as the work is finished. Particular care is required to secure accurate
computation, and frequent checks will be made to insure accuracy. A copy of
Crandall's table will be supplied and should be used in checking quantities. All
final estimates will be made up in ink, that for all grading, clearing and grubbing
in the sta dard field cross section book and be fully entered in the office cross
section book in ink, fully explaining by notes, the classification and disposition
of all quantities. These notes must be full and sufficient to enable the making
from them of a summary, which summary will be the original of what is to appear
on the final estimate sheet. Clearing and grubbing must be shown on a page
by itself, and the station numbers given between which clearing and grubbing
is estimated, with width of area, also the name of the contractor, the total being

34 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

placed in the summary. The notes for all excavations quantities, not entered
in the cross section book, are to be referred to by notation, giving the book and
page upon which they appear, such as foundation pits or other excavations, the
notes of which belong to the bridge book. A total summary must be made showing
each mile on a separate line for the entire residency at the end of the book, which
must be signed as correct. All cross sections must be inked in, showing fully
the classification lines and the total classification for each cut.

The final estimate in detail for all bridge substructures, box and other culverts,
pipe drains and other structures pertaining to the case of drainage is to be returned
in the bridge book, as instructed in Section 54. Such book must show quantities,
classifications and disposition of all the material handled, and the notes necessary
to check the quantities, together with the name of the contractor. The estimate
will be made out in triplicate, be signed as correct, and forwarded to the District
Engineer, who will check same, approve and forward to the Chief Engineer.

ESTIMATES NOT TO BE GIVEN TO CONTRACTOR.

88. It must be distinctly understood that the Resident Engineer is not to
give any estimates to the contractors. All such information must come direct
from the Chief Engiaeer.

RESIDENT ENGINEER REPORTS.

89. The Resident Engineer will report fortnightly to his District Engineer,
giving a concise summary of the condition of all the work in lus residency.

DISTRICT ENGINEER REPORTS.

90. The District Engineer will send in to the Chief Engineer once a month,
or oftener when opportunity offers, and there is matter of interest, full reports
of all the work in his District.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 35

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

ACCOUNTING.
Classification of Construction Expenses.

ENGINEERING.

91. To this accoimt should be charged all salaries and expenses of Engineers,
Assistants, and Axemen; teams for transportation of Engineers and men to and
from work, or upon trips of inspection of line of work, or incidental thereto; En-
gineer's instruments, rods, chains, axes, hatchets, tape lines, keel or marking chalk,
stakes, profile and drawing paper, tracing linen or paper, cross section paper,
transit and level books, cross section or topographical books, India ink and colors,
drawing boards, stools, map cases, paper racks stati' nery for office or field, fuel,
lights and camp equipage, and other analogous items.

Proportion of Engineers' expenses when engaged on special work should
be charg d to same.

RIGHT-OF-WAY AND STATION GROUNDS.

92. To this account should be charged the cost of land acquired for roadbed
(of necessary width conformably to depth and slopes of excavations and em-
bankments), station and terminal grounds; also the cost of land purchased for
ingress or egress to or from station grounds; salaries and expenses of counsel,
right-of-way Agent, and of Engineers and assistants when especially engaged
upon such matters; stakes used to denote right-of-way limits; expenses of Ap-
praisals, or of Juries, Commissioners or Arbitrators in condemnation cases; cost
of removal of buildings when upon right-of-way, station or terminal grounds,
but not included in property purchased; stationery supplied Right-of-Way Agent,
Engineers, and assistants, engineers' instruments, etc., when used for such pur-
poses; commissions paid outside parties for purchase of properties for these pur-
poses; cost of plats, abstracts, notarial fees, recording deeds, etc.

Note particularly account No. 3, "Real Estate," as regards the cost of pro-
perty purchased but not required for the operation of the road.

REAL ESTATE.

93. To this account should be charged the cost of all land purchased by the
railway company in excess of that actually required for roadbed, station or terminal
grounds, or other specific purpose, including all expenses incurred in connection
with such purpose as enumerated in account No. 2, 'Right-of-Way and Station
Grounds." A portion of the cost of land purchased outside right-of-way for
borrow pits or waste banks should be charged to this account.

NOTE — The amount to be charged to real estate should be an estimate of
the saleable value of said borrow pits or waste banks after completion of the road.

GRADING.

94. To this account should be charged the cost of grading roadbed, whether
excavations or embankments; clearing and grubbing; dressing slopes of cuts and

36 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

fills; reconstructing pikes or roads; ditching roadbeds; berm ditches; cost of material
taken from borrow pits, haul if allowed; amounts paid for privilege of making
waste banks outside of Company's right-of-way or station grounds; ditches for
waterways not specially required by right-of-way agreement, in which case c^st would
be properly chargeable to account No. 2, "Right-of-Way and Station Grounds."
This account includes retaining walls and other masonry or riprap for the pro-
tection of embankments, cuts, and slopes; cribbing or bulkheading built to protect
the tracks or embankments along the seashore or banks of lakes and streams,
including the cost of any cribs, breakwaters, wing dams, or other devices construct-
ed to change the direction of the current of a stream to prevent the washing of the
bank; also freight on material and transportation and subsistence of grading
gangs.

TUNNELS.

95. To this account should be charged the cost of tunneling including such
timber as may be used for centreing, packing, etc.; cost of stone, brick, cement,
sand, lime, salt, piles, timber, spikes, nails, braces, concrete, etc., used m the
construction or lining of the ^ame; cost of labor preparing or securing the same,
transportation, scaffolding, cofferdams, and pneumatic caissons; cost of soundings,
and machinery, pumps, engines, etc.: used for such work. This account does
not include grading or surfacing the roadbed, or cost of the track through the
tunnel.

BRIDGES, TRESTLES AND CULVERTS.

96. To this account should be cliarged the cost of all bridges and trestles
erected to carry tracks over streams, ravines, streets, or other railway's, and cul-
verts, both substructure and superstructure, including transportation. This
account should include abutments, piers, supports, draw and pier protection;
machinery to operate drawbridges; masonry ends and wing walls for culverts;
cost of inspection of bridge material, either at shop or site of structure; cost of
tests; cost of wing dams, cribs, or ice-breakers for the purpose of regulating the
current of a stream or breaking up ice jams before reaching a bridge; also labor
and material used in painting structure.

In case "false work" is furnished by the railway company for erection of
bridge superstructure, the cost of same should be charged to this account, and
when removed, the value of the material removed should be credited to this
account and charged to the account benefitted.

TIES.

97. To this account should be charged the cost of all cross, witch, bridge,
and other ties laid in the main track or tracks, sidings, spurs, gravel, and repair
tracks; in tunnels, depots, shop, and other yards, shops and other buildings, etc.;
on turntables, wharves, piers, track scales, inclines, bridges, trestles and culverts;
to and from coal chutes, coal pockets, fuel, and water stations, etc.; also the cost
of transportation, inspection, loading, unloading, and any process of preservation.

RAILS.

98. To this account should be charged the cost of rails laid in the main track
or tracks, sidings, spurs, gravel, and repair tracks, in tunnels, depots, shops and
other yards, shops, and other buildings, etc.; on turntables, wharves, piers, track

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 37

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

scales, inclines, bridges, trestles, and culverts; to and from coal chutes, coal pockets,
fuel and water stations, etc.; also the cost of transportation, inspection, loading,
and unloading.

TRACK FASTENIJJGS.

99. To this account should be charged the cost of spikes used for laying rails,
and of fish and tie plates, splice or angle bars, chairs, rail braces, bolts, nuts, nut
locks or washers used m connection with same; also the cost of transportation,
inspection, loading, and unloading.

FROGS AND SWITCHES.

100. To this account should be charged the cost of all frogs, switches, and
switch material, including switch stands (throw or lever), frog guard rails, crossing
frogs, and timber, bolts, etc.. used in foundations or base for same, and the cost of
transportation.

BALLAST.

101. To this account should be charged the cost of all ballast, whether of
broken stone, slag, gravel, or other material especially provided for this pur-
pose; also the expense of loading, hauling, unloading alongside of track, and
transportation.

TRACK LAYING AND SURFACING.

102. To this account should be charged the cost of distributing, laying, spacing,
and lining ties; cost of laying, spiking, and jointing rails, surfacing and lining track;
including the adjustment of rail to proper elevation, and labor of placing frogs
and switches; cost of track tools, including shovels, picks, track jacks, crowbars,
levers, spiking mauls, gauges, and wrenches; cost of putting in ballast; service
of engines, cars, and crews distributing track material, and transportation.

FENCING RIGHT-OF-WAY.

103. To this account should be charged the cost of all material and labor used
in constructing board, wire, rail, hedge, stone, or other fences along the right-of-
way or limits of roadbed, and transportation; but no charge should be made to
this account for fences constructed around stock yards, fuel stations, station
gi'ounds, shops, and on other properties outside of right-of-way, which should
be charged to their appropriate accounts. The cost of permanent or portable
fences for protection of tracks from snow should not be charged to this account,
but to account No. 28, ' 'Miscellaneous Structures. "

CROSSINGS, CATTLE GUARDS AND SIGNS.

104. To this account should be charged the cost of all labor and material
used in constructing farm, country-road, or street crossings at grade, overhead
bridges, cattle guards, and wing fences to same, and all track signs, crossing gates,
and watchhouses at crossings, and transportation.

INTERLOCKING OR SIGNAL APPARATUS.

105. To this account should be charged the cost of interlocking or signal
apparatu- complete, when built by contract. If built by the railway company.

38 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

the cost of labor and material, including all levers, racks, wires, pulleys, semaphores,
semaphore signals, ground signals, posts, materials in box troughs, and other
fixtures, tower, foundation for same, and all other work necessary to complete
it, and transportation.

TELEGRAPH LINES.

106. To this account should be charged the cost of newly constructed tele-
graph and telephone lines, including poles, wires, billets, insulators, instruments,
and all other materials used, also labor employed in the construction work, cost
of all tools used, and transportation.

STATION BUILDINGS AND FIXTURES.

107. To this account should be charged the cost of all material and labor
expended on all station buildings, including cost of transportation, platforms,
sidewalks, excavation, foundation, drainage, water, gas, and sewer pipes and
connections, steam heating apparatus, stoves, electric light and power fixtures,
including wiring for same, grading and putting ground in order after building
has been finished; electric bells, elevators, and all other material, furniture, or
fixtures used to complete the building; wells for water supply oi stations; also
salaries and expenses of Engineers and Architects.

Note. — The account should include the cost of similar buildings on docks,
wharves, and piers, when usea for station purposes.

SHOPS, ROUNDHOUSES AND TURNTABLES.

108. To this account should be charged the cost of all buildings to be used
as shops (including transfer tables), or roundhouses (including cinder and drop
pits), and turntables; plants for heating the buildings; platforms, sidewalks,
and outhouses in connection therewith; oil houses, sand houses, storehouses
for company's material, scrap bins, etc. This account should include amounts
paid when erected by contract; labor and material when built by company, pre-
paring grounds before and clearing up same after construction, foundations,
painting, excavation for and lining of turntable pit, and of cinder or drop pits
mside or outside of roundhouses; foundation for turntable, loading, unloading,
and placing turntable in position, leveis and stops for handling turntable; sewerage
system, connection with water supply system, shop wells; architects' fees for
drawing plans, supervision of construction by Engineering Department or others;
transportation and all incidental expenses. This account does not include the
cost of tracks laid in connection with these buildings.

SHOP MACHINERY AND TOOLS.

109. To this account should be charged the cost of all new raachinerj' and
additional tools placed in any of the shops or roundhouses, including foundation
for same; transportation, loading, unloading, and placing machinery in position.
It must not include any machinery or tools purchased to take the place of those
that have been worn out or destroyed.

WATER STATIONS.

!10. To this account should be charged the cost of material and labor ex-
pended m the construction of water stations for the purpose of supplying loco-
motivesjwith water, including cost of windmills, pumps, boilers, pumphouses, tanks,

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 39

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

tubs, tank foundations, track tanks, or troughs, engines and all fixtures and pipes,
standpipes or penstocks and connections; wells, dams, and reservoirs or cisterns;
transportation; also engineering expenses, and tools used in the work. This
account must not include waterworks, wells, etc., exclusively for supply of stations,
hotels, tenements, or section houses, which should be charged to the appropriate
account.

FUEL STATIONS.

' 111. To this account should be charged amounts paid under contract for,

or the cost of all labor and material expended in, the construction of coal plat-
forms, coal sheds, coal pocket chutes, woodsheds, and racks, and all machinery
or appliances necessary to equip them for service. This account includes inclines
at fuel stations (except the cost of track laid thereon) , tipple cars, buckets, cranes
for handling same, elevating machinery, gasoline or other engines for operating
same, dumping machinery, all appliances for weighing coal in pockets and opening
coal pockets, transportation, architects' fees, engineering, etc.

GRAIN ELEVATORS.

112. To this account should be charged the cost of ground on which elevator
is located, cost of foundations, elevator building, conveyors, fixtures, machinery
complete; and all material, labor, transportation, and other charges incidental
to construction. This account does not include the cost of small storage elevators
at way stations, which are considered to be station buildings.

STORAGE WAREHOUSES.

113. To this account should be charged the cost of ground on which storage
warehouses are located, and cost of buildings, machinery, etc., complete, when
built by contract; if built by the railway company, the cost of ground, material,
machinery, fixtures, and labor, transportation, and all other expenditures incident
to construction.

The buildings herein referred to are not the ordinary freight warehouses or
stations where freight is received for shipment, etc., but warehouses 'in which
merchandise is stored, and which the railway company or others operate as ware-
houses.

DOCKS AND WHARVES.

114. To this account should be charged the entire cost of docks, wharves,
ferry or other landings, and inclines to transfer steamers, including grounds and
riparian rights, dredging of slips, piling, filling cribs, pile protection, building
cofferdams, pumping or bailing water, masonry walls or filling, etc., transportation,
and all expenses incurred in the construction of these structures, except the cost
of tracks and buildings thereon.

ELECTRIC LIGHT PLANTS.

115. To this account should be charged the cost of all labor and materials,
including cost of transportation, used to put in operation either arc or incandescent
light planis, such as dynamos, engines for running dynamos, wire constituting
lines, glass globes, carbon or arc lights, carbonized filament for incandescent lights,
poles, hangers for lights, insulators, and every expense incidental to the erection
of the plant. When it is necessary to erect a building for an electric light plant,
the entire cost of the same, including ground, should be charged to this account.

4

40 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914
ELECTRIC MOTIVE POWER PLANTS.

116. To this account should be charged the cost of ground on which electric-
power stations are located, and the cost of erection of power and car sheds, including
all expenditures for labor and material, stationary engines, boilers, and machinery,
pumps, condensers, foundations, and settings for steam plants; generators,
foundations, and settings, switchboard, and lighting apparatus for electric plants;
current conductors, including poles, wires, and labor for overhead work, third
rails, fastenings for same and labor laying same, with cost of inspecting, loading,
and unloading; feed wires, track-bon ling, and grade crossing cut-outs; and ^1
other expenditures connected with the installation of plants intended to generate
and distribute electricity for motive power, including transportation.

GASMAKING PLANTS.

117. To this account should be charged the cost of all labor and material,
including cost of transportation, used to put into operation a gas-making plant
complete. The cost of ground on which the plant is located should also be charged
to this account.

MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES.

118. To this account should be charged the cost of structures of every char-
acter, including cost of material, labor, transportation, and all incidental expenses
connected therewith, which are permanent or a betterment to the property and
enter into the cost of road, and which are not otherwise herein particularly referred
to, and or which no account has been provided; the object being to designate
one general classification, to which may be charged the cost of all minor super-
structures, and in this way av(,)id increasing the number of general accounts.

LEGAL EXPENSES.

119. To this account should be charged the amount of all attornej'^s' salaries,
fees, and expenses, and all other incidental legal expenses incurred during the
process of construction of a road, except when the expense can be charged directly
to the accoimt for which it is incurred.

INTEREST AND DISCOUNT.

120. To this account should be charged discount on securities sold; interest
on loans effected, and on notes issued for construction purposes or overdue pay-
ments to contractors or other creditors, and discount, interest, and exchange on
other commercial paper issued for a similar purpose. Premium realized from sale
of bonds, stock, or other securities should be credited to this account. Discount
or premium realized from sale of bonds, stock, or o'her securities for a specific
work should be applied to such work.

GENERAL EXPENSES.

121. To this account should be charged organization expenses, and expenses
incurred in the disposal of securities; salaries and expenses of general officers of
a road under construction, clerks in general offices engaged on construction accounts
or work, stationery, and office expenses; also all items of a special and incidental
nature which can not be properly located under any other account.

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123 A. 1914

N. T. R.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION

Exhibit 2

Table of values for equating distance rise and fall and curvature.
(See Page I 5 of Report)

4 GEORGE V.

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

A. 1914

" 1

ut not
er of
miles,
umber
-From

umber
!iles.

descend-

•6% and
drop not

scending.
a propor-

Distance,
d Values per Mile to near
$100 and interest 4%.
train each way equals t
daily trains.

.i3 Cf

^jai« a 1

flS

o^ a _ -a
i§M §35-8 2 -S12

M ^^5 O - t> -i

=^^1 111 §.2 §1

o hr Jj -*J . i '-' --^ i-.-i

s

.2 °= ^-o

-art ° a

o

T

3

M a
•S "S

0 rt

rt bo aj "S rt

a a £• J M

0. 0 o m fl

a .^-g -no

« >>

° a

+^73 c

— .^

rt oi_^ a ^

Capitaliz
One dail;

1^

Jg£og||2§S
S 2 !*'^ 2m o cW

^ 1 •

a o rt Sfi,
2 t-^ So

1 of il

1 §t 11.
5f =S° 3.^^

to o c-l m m iZJ ro o >o K 0

S 5 a a

1 is
1 ■§-§

,,

,, ,

1 ^"

« -2S
■2 ibS

Die

re per
ving
ice
lily

um

" 8

S S 8

Justifial

Expenditu

mile of sa

in distai

for 20 Di

Train:

per Ann

s^ c

i 1 1

o" o" •*

O) O 00

a
'3

^1 .If -u

"^ !2 a rt.i: c3 0/
a'a -Q rtQ 3 ooK

_"3i

3 0* -rt .CO)
3 t- -2"" 'i l- 3 O

^1 .s°l|1|

o

'53

0,M

« s

o c

o

_o g.S g^ s

o c

o

IS 3 ^ C'3 to 3

°3 rt - M S-73 g'mT,

Justitia

Expenditi

mile of .sa

in dista

for 12 Di

Train

per Ann

o c
o c

§

0 bC e3 O £ Mg-g

•?£ •'3 ^ ? gl3e

e# c^

o ^

M

lO c

■oe

M_

ecte
Trai
um
. of
ing

u Z

o o o

^-3 5 cS w 3

ti o o o o o
" o o o o o

o c

o

ving eff
Daily
er Ann
r Mile
horten

c c-

00

.J^^°aQ.2 g

o o o o o

e© c

00 -

o

e© (D -)< •* o o

-H C

C<3

IN T)< lO t^

.|aoc«

0.2

35 rt* c3 01 2

S-^H 3

« §

o c

c

u o o o o o
" o o o o o

o c

o

Q

o c

o

-^ d o ooi g<^

1 &^s^ S^ S

to ^ T»< O o

o o o

«© M f <0 O Ci

Capi

Value

per Da

per .;

lO ?5 CI

•*• O Ol

-H M P3 •«<

^a5;a- a

a—

^a

*j a

■a 82 a

u o

w c

lO

T3 §=g S

t, o o o o o

S°H3

" lO

X c

t~

.S^f^Hg

" o o o o o

apital
lue pe
Daily
er Am

s© o

c -

,_,

«© M CJ M lO »0

T-i O (M CC

O « t, 0.

ci'rtrt t. a

>s.

•^ a

•^

hh

- -sa

o Si

n rt

t^

u N 00 00 o o

" -H T}l 00 O ^

o t- g g

" o

o c

o

Value

foot 1

Daily

per An

5© O

o c

o

> S

6© O O O -H -H

t

" «

o c

o

! a2

lO cr

o

3 a

w o

o c

rt

n to ■ « '

"S'S

O 0) 0)

>i;

CO

_2

D

I

S g « fe .2

.2 .2 -3 .2 3

cn

53

s a tf s K

<

— :_

o

ii 3 ^

00:5

ft rt a

2 >>_,

T3 ^ rt

•I "^§

a o'^

P £ rt

■^ o

= Q

.2 2
rt..a

-3 111

3 <D

6 H rt

•* 3-S

2a^

CO-;f
go i»
U.CD ©

^ o a
2 >''S

13 oj a

S,So
rt°°5

rt .^

— . o

ej in

J- o 1)
Moo

•S«2
£.2 ^

3 O P

■dan

is m rt a

^ CO .—

w O o

.g-s c.ti
Sio a &

■^ .-5 .

<y

vS a

H
o >?

S§ 2 S

> a)
^^ 3

rt-a >>3

a x5 "
mHt.2
2 o oj

.S SlO

H e

<u.':;.a

ffl . T- C3"=

ft-3
+^ rt

;g ft

§»*
aa
x--

W.2

«W £<a 3
.2 » of ^ rt

, O ft

rt "^ t-

-...2 m a>
'*'o"oO

o<% 3 2

c 2.2 M
Sh^3

S'^-S'rt

2P

So.

|;.ti rt c rt
^"2 3 2°

o X o § o

^■^ 1 rt rt
» rt I ^' o
Oca •• M o

l^^aW

•* 2

^^<

3 OH
•« CO H

§ H

^%

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123 A. 1914

N. T. R.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION

Exhibit 3

Correspondence in connection with volume of traffic to be expected on the Railway.

(See Page 16 of Report)

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123 A. 1914

Ottawa. July 24th. 1905.
Mr. H. a. Woods, Assistant Chief Engineer,
Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Co.,
Montreal, Canada.

Dear Sir: —

I am preparing instructions for our Locating Engineers as to the equating
value of distance, curvature, rise and fall, and shall be glad if you will kindly let
me know the number of daily trains each way, which you have assumed tor
purposes ot calculation on main line of the G. T. P.

Yours verj' truly,

D. MacPhersox,

Asst. Chief Engineer.

Montreal, Que., July 26th.
Mr. D. MacPherson,

Asst. Chief Engineer, Trans-Continental Railway,
Ottawa, Ont.

Dear Sir : —

Replying to yours of July 24th, stating that you are preparing instructions
for your Locating Engineers as to the equating value of distance, curvature, rise
and fall, and asking the number of daUy trains, each way, we have assumed for
purpose of calculation on the main line. I beg to say that for our Prairie Division
we have assumed ten trains, each way, daily. I think this is not in excess of what
we shall require on that Division, and the Lake Superior Branch.

Yours truly,

(Sgd) H. A. Woods,

Asst. Chief Engineer.

Ottawa, Aug. 3rd, 1905.
Mr. H. a. Woods, Ass't. Chief Engineer,
Grand Trunk Pacific Railway,
Montreal, P. Q.

Dear Sir: —

I would beg leave to thank you for your letter of the 26th July stating that
you have assumed ten daily trains each way on your Prairie Division. Would you
kindly let me know how many trains you have assumed for the Mountain Division,
and how many you think would be reasonable for the main line of the Eastern
Division. It seemed to me that ten daily trains each way was too large an assump-
tion for our end of the line as a go td deal of trafiic wUl go via Lake Superior,
and this large number of trains makes the capitalized value per mile of track
very large. Assuming SI. 17 as the train mile unit cost, then for distances short
enough not to affect train wages the additional cost per train mile would be
37^ cents, which capitalized at 5%, would give S2,745 as the value per mile per
daily trdn per annum, amounting to $54,900 per mile on a ten train basis. For
distances requiring extra side tracks thi^ last value would amount to S101,376.

Yours very truly,

D. MacPherson,

Asst. Chief Engineer.

44 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

Montreal, Que., Aug. 7th 1905

Mr. D. MacPherson,

Asst. Chief Engineer, Trans-Continental Ry.,
Ottawa, Ont. )

Dear Sir: —

Yours of Aug. 3rd, requesting information as to the number of trains we
have assumed for comparison of alternate lines on our Mountain Division, received
on return to office. v ''^'•:ki

Replying to same, I have to say that, as yet, we have'not progressed far enough
with our surveys on this Division to give definite instructions to our Engineers.
There are so many obstacles, in the way of grades and curvature, on this part of
the line, which may make comparison of alternate lines unnecessary. However,
I may say that where conditions are such as to admit of comparison, it will probably
be on the basis of eight daily trains each way. In this connection, I may say that
we expect, within a few years, our westbound business will exceed our eastbound
business, west of Edmonton, and possibly for some considerable distance east of
that point.

I agree with you that the ten daily trains, each way, on the Trans-Continental,
east of the Junction of our Lake Superior Branch, is too large an assumption for
that part of the Line. I should consider six daily trains each way, sufficient for
comparison.

For your information I may say further, that we assume the unit cost per
train as SI .35, which is reported cost on the Canadian Pacific Railway, and that
we capitalize on a basis of 4%, instead of 5%. I am not sure that the Govern-
ment will pay above 3^. The difference between the capitalization at 5% and
3^ makes quite a radical difference, as you will note.

I expect to be in Ottawa within a day or two, and sha'l take pleasure m
calling at your office, and going into this matter a little more in detail, if you so desire.

Yours very truly,

(Sgd.) H. A. Woods,

Asst. Chief Engineer

Ottawa, August 9th 1905.
S. R. PouLiN, Esq.,
District Engineer,
North Bay, Ont.

Dear Sir: —

I am preparing a table of equating values for distance, curvature and rise and
fall, for the purpose of giving our Locating Engineers a basis on which to compare
different lines, and I shall be glad if you will kindly let me have your opinion,
based on your knowledge of the country and of existing lines, as to what would be
a fair number of daily freight trains per annum, each way, to assume as the pro-
bable maximum number over j^our district. Ten daily trains each way have been
suggested, but it seems to me too large, and I shall "be glad to have your views
or any suggestions that will be useful in this connection.

Yours very truly,

D. MacPherson,

Asst. Chief Engineer.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION

45

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Mr. D. MacPherson,
Asst. Chief Engineer,

North Bay, August 11th 1905.

Ottawa.

Dear Sir: —

In answer to yours as to what would be a fair number of daUy freight trains
per annum( ?) o\ier my District, I think that 7 or 8 at the most would be afair average.
My reasons for saying so is: that the C. P. R. here at North Bay, after twenty
years of operation have only that number in the busy time, and that the number
of cars on their trains do not average over 33 cars, that is from 28 to 42 cars
according to the motive power, while over our line with the grades and curvatures
contemplated, 8 trains each way would give nearly double the amount of cars,
that the C P.R. are moving past North Bay, and the freight passing North Bay
is not only from the West but probably one-third or one-half comes from the Soo
Line and the settlements between here and Chapleau and Sault St. Marie. Of
course it can be taken for granted that there will be large settlements also along
the new line and that local traffic will emanate from local points. Still if the
G. T. P. build their projected line from North Bay in a westerly direction to tap
the main line, it would probably take all over the Ontario traffic going and coming
from the west, and would in proportion reduce the number of trains over my
district, so that I think that 8 trains, probably 400 or 450 cars each way is a
good average for the next 25 or 30 years, unless the wheat should find its outlet
over the said line.

Yours truly,

S. R. PouLiN, Dist. Engr.

Ottawa, August 15th, 1905.
H. D. LuMSDEN, Esq., Chief Engineer ,
Trans-Continental Railway,
Ottawa, Ont.

Dear Sir: —

Tables should be issued as soon as possible to Locating Engineers giving
Equating Values for Distance, Curvature and Rise and Fall, in order that they
may have definite values for comparing different routes. The basis for all these
calculations is the assumed number of daily trains and cost per train mile.

Some calculations were made in the interim report based on ten daily trains
each way, or a total of twenty daily trains, but it appears to me that this is entirely
too high, and that probably the number should not be the same for all Districts,
as the traffic between Winnipeg and Junction of Fort William' Branch would be
heavier than on any other part of the line.

As an illustration of my argument that twenty trains is too high; assume
(which is C. P. R. basis of calculation) that total cost per train mile is SI. 00,
then for additional lengths of line great enough to necessitate extra sidings, the
cost for each additional train mile would be about $0.60. In twenty daily trains
this equals 365 x 20 x 60 = S4,380.00, which would be the annual extra cost of add-
ing one mile of track under these conditions. Capitalize this at 4% and it amounts
to $109,500 . 00. In other words, if you assume twenty daily trains you can afford
to spend $109,500.00 for every mile you can shorten the line, in the distances long
enough to lessen the number of sidings. It does not appear to me that we would
be justified in spending that amount, and I should be glad if you will kindly advise

45 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

me the number of daily trains each way which should be used as a basis of cal-
culation on each district, and I will then prepare the necessary table for District
Engineers.

I enclose you copies of correspondence with the Assistant Chief Engineer
of the Grand Trunk Pacific and our District Engineers, on the subject.

Yours very truly,

D. MacPherson.

Auiiust I8th, '05
D. MacPherson, Esq.,

Assistant Chief Engineer.

Dear Sir,

In reply to yours of the 15th. inst., in regard to preparation of tables to be
issued to Locating Engineers, giving equating values for distance, curvature and
rise and fall, for comparison of routes, I think you might assume six daily trains
per day each way.

Yours truly,

H. D. LUMSDF.N.

Ottawa, August 29th 1905.
H. D. LuMSDEN, Esq.,
Chief Engineer,

Ottawa, Ont.

Dear Sir: —

Herewith tracing of Table of Values for Equating Distances, Curvature and
Rise and Fall. If you approve, will you kindly sign same, so that I may hive
copies sent out to the District Engineers,

Yours very truly,

D. MacPherson.
Enclos.

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123 A. 1914

N. T. R.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION

Exhibit 4

Mr. Collingwood Schreiber's Estimate.
(See Page 1 7 of Report)

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123 A. 1914

Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, 1903.

I estimate the cost of construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway as a
road of an ordinary character such as has been built in Canada with maximum
grades of 1% or 52.80 per mile, being less than the maximum grades upon the
Intercolonial Railway, the maximum grades on which road are as follows: —

Bedford grade 1.80% or 95.00 feet per mile.
Folleigh " 1.22% or 64.42
Metis « 1.22% or 64.42

Estimated Cost of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway.

Moncton to South Approach to Quebec Bridge $ 25 ,000 per mile

Quebec to Winnipeg 28,000 "

Prairie Section 17,500 "

Mountain Section 67 ,000 "

Terminals at Pacific Coast 3 ,000,000

COLLINGWOOD SCHREIBER.
Ottawa, 12th July, 1903.

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

A. 1914

N. T. R.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION

Exhibit 5

Copy of Letter from Mr. W. S. Fielding, giving Estimate of Cost.
(See Page 1 7 of Report)

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123 A. 1914

Minister of Finance.

Ottawa, May 11th, 1904.
Dear Mr. Emmerson,

Last summer, while I was Actmg Minister of Railways, and when the Grand
Trunk Pacific scheme came up, I asked Mr. Schreiber's opinion as to the probable
cost of constructing the Eastern Division (Government portion) of the road.
Mr. Schreiber gave me the information, although not in the form of a written
report, and I used it in the House, mentioning his name as my authority. His
opinion was that a road could be constructed from Quebec to Moncton for $25,000
per mile, and from Quebec to Winnipeg for $28,000 per mile.

These estimates were 'made for a road of an ordinary character, such as is con-
structed elsewhere. In order to make a sufficiently liberal allowance for a road of
better character, I added 25%, making the estimate $31,250 per mile from Quebec
to Moncton, and $35,000 per mile from Quebec to Winnipeg. I have not spoken
to Mr. Schreiber on the matter of late, but from other experienced railway men
I have received assurances that my estimate was a most liberal one and that the
road could probably be constructed well within these figures.

As above stated, I did not obtain a written report from Mr. Schreiber. I
think it might be convenient to have a report from him. May I suggest that you
discuss the matter with him and, if there is no objection, ask him to make a short
memorandum, putting in writing the information which he gave me last summer.

Yours faithfully,

(Sgd.) W. S. FIELDING.

The Honourable H. R. Emmerson,
Minister of Rys. and Canals,
Ottawa, Ont.

Ottawa, 17th May, 1904.
Sir,

In compliance with your request that I should put in wi'iting the information
orally given to me by Mr. Fielding last summer, while he was Acting Minister of
this Department, in respect of the estimated cost of constructing the Eastern
Division, between Moncton and Winnipeg, of the proposed Grand Trunk Pacific
Railway, I would state as follows: premising that the character of the railway
I had in view was a substantially built railway, with maximum grades of less
severity, and curves of greater radius than those on the Intercolonial Railway.

As to the section between Moncton and the South approach to the bridge
now in course of construction over the river St. Lawrence at Quebec, I advised

50 NATION AI^TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

Mr. Fielding that from my personal knowledge of the general configuration of the
country and from information gathered from the written reports of various Engin-
eers who have traversed the district, I have arrived at the conclusion that the cost
of construction should not exceed $25,000 per mile.

As to the section between Quebec and Winnipeg, I considered this section
on the assumption that the line would probably follow the height of land from
a point some distance from Quebec to a point North of Sudbury, and thenceto
Winnipeg, passing North of Lake Nepigon, I availed myself of the information
contained in various engineers' reports on surveys made of the country lying
between the neighbourhood of Sudbury and Winnipeg, and the conclusion I reached
was that the cost of construction need not exceed $28,000 per mile, and I so
informed Mr. Fielding.

I would say that I am still of opinion that a road of the standard above
indicated can be constructed at these figures.

I have the honour to be, sir.

Your obedient servant,

(Sgd.) COLLINGWOOD SCHREIBER,
Chief Engineer.
The Honourable H. R. Emmerson,
Minister of Rys. and Canals,
Ottawa.

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

A. 1914

N. T. R.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION

Exhibit 6

Elsrimate of Cost Prepared by Mr. Lumsden, June 23rd, 1 908.
(See Page 1 7 of Report)

4 GEORGE V.

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

A. 1914

National Transcontinental Railway

Statement shewing number of Miles contracted for and Miles unlet to date, with Cost per
Mile of Completed Main Line (including Sidings, &c.) and percentages of total work done on each
Contract to 1st June, 1908.

June 23rd, 1908.

Mileage from
Moncton

From
Mile

To
Mile

Percent-
age of
work done
on original
contracts
to Feb. 29,
'08.

Estimated

cost per

mUeof

completed

main line

000

50 00

58-55

97-60

164 00

195-80

256-68

50-
58'
97 •
164 •
195'
256'
309'

309-74 459-74.

459- 74 i 509-

509-74
609-74

654-74

877-75

1027-75
1334-35

1557-80

656-07

609-
654

656'
1027 •

1127
1409

1804-66

Number of miles under contract is 1227 . 93 as
follows: —

Moncton to near Chipman

At Chipman

Chipman to I.C.R. Crossing

I. C. R. Crossing to Mile 164

Mile 164 to Grand FaUs

Grand Falls to New Brunswick Boimdary. .
N. B. Boundary to 150 miles east of Quebec

Bridge

/ From Quebec Bridge, 150 Miles eastward. . . .
\ Quebec Bridge link (not included in estim'te)

Quebec Bridge, westerly

50 mUes west Quebec Bridge to 150 miles west
150 miles west Quebec Bridge to near Wey-

montachene

To be included in this contract

Near Harricanaw River to Junction with T.

& N. O. Ry

Junction T. & N. O. Ry. for 100 miles west . . .
From 19^ miles west of Mud River easterly 75

miles

Lake Superior Junction to west bank Red

River (.includes Red River Bridge and

double track from Crossing of Dundee

Branch)

877-75

50-001

8-551
39 -051
66-40
31-80
60-881

53 06

148-89

I'll

50-00
100-00

45-00
1-33

150 00
100 00

75 00

246-86

Total 1227-93

1127-75 1171-85

1171-85
1409-35

,1429-76

1334-35
1429-76

1557-80

Number of miles yet to be contracted for is Miles
576-73 as follows: — Unlet

Weymontachene to near Harricanaw River i 221 • 6{

From 100 miles west of June. T. & N. O. Ry.
to west end District "D"

From west end of District "D" westerly

From 19^ miles west of Mud River to west
end of District "E"

From west end of District "E" to Lake Su-
perior Junction

Total.

Average cost per mile=$63,427.

For 1803-55 miles=Total, $114,393,765

4410
162-50

20-41

128-04

$576-73

16-84

8-67

Nil

Nil

Nil

25-11

Nil
\31-19

/
49-39
65-49

8-48

1.0

Nil

Nil

61-52

41,995 00
83,570 00
32,573 00
45,341 00
110,172 00
51,130 00

65,771 00
65,370 00

104,589 00

46,842 00
59,425 00

46,454 00
85,003 00

58,058 00

62,524 00
37,000 00

33,480 00

55,943 00

S2S :^5:5?gi?i NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

This estimate is based on quantities as estimated by District Engineers and contract prices,
so far as contracts have been let, remaining prices estimated by Chief Engineer.

Distances are those of actual survey, and the average cost given is per mile of completed Main
Line Track, and includes, in addition to the road bed, ties, rails and fastenings, trackage of sidings
and yards (326 miles) section houses, stations, engine houses, &c., cost of surveys, right of way
and bridges, and also includes 10% for Engineering and contingencies.

The following items are not included in estimate: —

St. Lawrence River Bridge, Quebec; Terminals in City of Quebec or line thereto; Terminals
in City of Winnipeg, or large machine shops in that vicinity; but $90,000 included for ordinary
Divisional Point at Moncton.

HUGH D. LUMSDEN,

Chief Engineer.

Ottawa, June 23rd, 1908. (455)

J. R. G.

A. M. & S.

4 GEORGE V.

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

A. 1914

N. T. R.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION

Exhibit 7

Statement Prepared by Investigating Commission showing Cost up to September 30th, 191

(See Page 1 7 of Report)

1

<

IX VES TIG A TIXG COMMISSION

53

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

3Q

1
o

Z> O

__ 1

_. o

g

»

o

O O O 1

S o

-3 ^-

-IJ r-^

■o CO

30^

M_

QO"

p

rt^

iO CO

o

5

-*

t^:

O

^ CO

co^
CO

CO

-*
M

CO
CO"

«d

=/&

1

o

o o 1

o

o

o

o

s

m

o

o

=>

o

o

o

o

3 *>

lO

00

iO_

c»

co__

x^

°9,

o

S c

.D

cc

t^

lO

LO

CO

N

z

X

-c

lO

o

'^

J

^

^

^

,

o

o

o

o

o

o

§j s

^

o

o

o

o

o

g

CO
of

co_^

2-

o

go"

CO 1 "^

o

ec

lO

t^

co

^

LO C

s

<N

(N

I-H

(N

®- "3

Q

H

€#

S S

;_,

o

o

o

o

o

o -S

^

o

o

o

o

o

o aj

o

o
oo"

l—i

co"
o

^

CO

>>

i

o.

fcJC

o

o

1

o
o

o
o

CO

o
o o

^

.s

o

CO

cc

CO"

00

^"^

iC CO

<!

o

2

^

iC

^H

Tt«

lO lO

S

1

"3

s i

:^

C3

s

e

s

S5

T!

«#

Q

o

o

o

o

o §"

1

C 33

o

^

c

o

o

o

o

1— 1

2!;

to fl)

o

CO

CO

CO

CO

LO

oo"

00

4J ^

'^

C<1

t>.

a

CO

CO

to

C<1

^ ^„

LO

C 00

CO- jS

o

s

:a

1

2

r^

1

1

^H

z

s

T! «1

Q

o

o

o

o

g T

O

Q

o

o

o

o

o

o '

o

cc

C5

oo^

lO

H

a;

-S^

CO

C5

CO

CO

CD

CO

CO r-l

<

2 =
5- 1

?!

II

|2

e#

m

CO

O

o o

o

o

o

o

R ^

<

bC

o o

o

o

o

o

s «>

10_

i-h"

r-l

o
l>

CO

00

00
CO

t^

-<*<

!»

(N^

IM_^

CD

o

& 1

O

1—1

1 1 1

ci

of

i-T

S 3

^ I

•c

c- 2^

'a

~

-

::

00

= S3

+3 t-

«,9

CO

■*

t^

o

s s

a -S

o

00

05

CO

^

o

CO 1

JU

i-O

CO

CO

CO

CD

o

M O

1 1

: H

"B 1

>.

:

1 g

c

o

t3

ej

,2

o

a

to

3

d

03

to

03

en

►J

c to

■fe G

1 ^

i

(0

o

s

(0

s

>

1

?2

o

-*j

C3

u

1

So
o

-H (N

CO

■^

ic ec

*

O

\

1

54

NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

i

o

o

o

c

o

c

o

g

s

o

o

o

c.

o

o

t-

"*__

c^_

(N

1^

£

-*

00

o

1

00

CO

^

oc

oT

t--

-+

I-^

CO

(N

CD

^

o

c

t^

00

Oi

C«5_

(N

CO

cr

CO

o-

05

00

""1

CO

00

CC

r-T

ec

TjT

t^

««

r-H

CO

o

o

o

c

o

c

o

o

o

o

o

o

c

o

c

o

o

o ,

5s 2

CO

00

t->«

rt^_

c-

CO

CD

•^

Q^ /!\

s&

«o

IM

"f

^

r-f

'.':

f-T

O

CO

t^

t~-

"*

cc

"O

o

(M

^w

««

(N

00

i

o

O

o

c

o

c

o

o

o

.9 «
a

o

O

o

c

o

o

o

o

■*

o

c^

c<:

t^

>o

c^

"^

CO

y-\

■*

c

o"

cc

■*"

co'

in

00

r— 1

1-t

1^

■*

10

CO

■<n

00

»o

CO

CO

ca

c»

(X]

^

tfi'

o

o

Q

c

o

c

o

o

o

^ >»

o

o

^

c

o

c

o

o

o

CD

00

a>

t-^

CjC

co_

^H

CD

lO

CO

CO

h-

t-

c^

oT

o

O

CC

Tl

l~

CC

<N

c^

N

-V

«»

c^

r^

c<;

cn

o

«»

en

c

O

c

Q

o

c

o

o

o

ir.

CD

2

o

t^

"S

«4

> (-

(M

o"

o"

n«

CO

1—1

CD

3

««

PQ

T3

o

o

o

c

o

c

o

o

cj "J;

o

o

o

^

o

c

o

o

w <o

CO

iC

^

x

■*

lO

o

« >

o"

OO

"*

tr

00

oc

CO

C3i

lO

o

1— I

ir

CD

^

t

00

-*!

1-1

o

cr^

ir

lO

00^

•c^

«e

,-^

l/f

CQ

*>

and
ying

o

o

o

c

O

c

o

o

o

o

o

o

c

o

c

o

o

o

''I

lO

CD

c-

c^

o

o

CD

' 00 ^

9^ cd

CD

'f

(N

t-

t^

cz

CD

CO

CD

(M

CO

"-t

(N

cc

r— t

C^l

>o

1<

(N

Tt

00

r^

lO

r*- S

«»

HEh

8

o

o

c

o

c

o

o

bO

c

o

o

c

o

c

o

o

t-

in

CO

o-

oo_

cc

lO

CO

CD

CD

oT

•n

CO'

cc

a>

r-

"5

W

t^

lO

c

CO

-t

lO

CO

OS

OT

CO

cc

Oi

1^

rH

C-.

^

o

U

■<J<~

t>r

(N

CO

(N

**<4 .

o-S

^

o

t^

c

o

c

o

o

1— 1

ja «

o

CO

c

o

■^

o

•«s<

o

*J H

Leng
Cont

CO

o

iC

c:

d

cc

t^

^H

•*

»o

lO

»c

o

TT

o

r^

00

<p-l

l-H

1-4

lO

3-i -

o c «

11 Is

s

W --S «

•a

0

-5 " <w u

Cou

0.

Z
c
t

"S-

o

S 2 3 o

J

f

J

6

o

S •

■<

o!2;

»>•

00

<»

a

o

Cl

CO

•-<

'~<

o

o

1

i«

.a

1

H-l

1-1

.9

o

d

s

:2

<4-l
O

o

CO

o

-4J

a.

1

&

o

a

•tj

o

;

o

«

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION

M

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

2 ^ a

^ s:

.2-s

o
o

o

o

O

o

o

o

O

o

o

o

o

o

o

1

00

CO

»c

rH

o

cT

1^

cc

1^"

o

s2

o

■n<

Tl

-H

CO

eo

00

•o

CO__

1^

C-"

»&

cc~

ec

o

eo"

CO

n

o

o

o

o

o

o

11

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

CO

(M^

»o

;i 3J

oo

■r:<"

co"

C<3

oi~

o

>o

o

03

CO

CO

CO

«©

.—1

t^

o

o

o

O

3

o

u

o

o

o

o

o

o

a> m...

00

CC

00

CO

iC

»o

a «>

o~

t^

d"

of

oT

d"

Tc--

CO

t^

-*

1— (

CO

^^

a

(M

'^

-*

CO

CD

"^.

i::)

a&

of

i/3

5^

d

d

d

d

d

O

:§:::i

o

o

o

o

o

o

00

00

ao

00

C5

1— I

Ch ««

۩

-^^

o

m

73

s

o

o

o

o

' o

o

o

o

o

o

~3

lO

■^

CO

10

CO

^

o"

^

cc'

3

«^

^

CO

c^

m

6^

-c

o

o

o

o

o

C <a

o

o

o

o

o

1 03 -w

Tt<

en

CO

l-^

CD

u

CO a;

r-T

i^"

u-r

CD

t-T

s,>

lO

OD

■iO

fcC^

»o

t>.

CO

t-

-o P

^

■no

'"'

C3

33

o

o

o

o

O

o

o

o

o

o

<N

(N

CO

00

7.^

00

CD

o>

CO

cd"

CV

OO

CJ

c

«

00

t^

CO

b ti^

^

HH

o

o

o

5-,

o

^

o

o

o

o

c

00

^_

»o

CD

CO

•a

00

t-^

r-H

CD

■*'

"O

oo

ec

o

05

1^

2

«

°l

t^

CD

o

(-4

o

r— (

T-H

cf

1—1

X

«#

&%

01?

«o

o

o

o

CD

w

£ S

"3

o

o

o

'^

o

a a

^6

K)

00

N

o

■^

GC.

■>*

t^

t^

o

O

C--

"

1—1

co

2

■«!

H

o

H

*i

o

aj .

o

Q

-£3^

M

'I'

Tt<

U3

CD

a!2;

1-1

1— 1

»-(

■"^

1-1

a

56

NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

I— t

H

H

iJ

m

0)

^

h

05

05

lO

CT>

«n

CT>

w

H

>i

ri

»

0)

»

Jq

01

1

^

0)

W

a

03

(h

r£3

S

O

a

o

H

«4-l

m

o

Q

1

o

H

05

S^

+»

o

CO

l-H

H

a>

<J

^

S;

S

^

a

0)

CO

o

-<j

a

sf"a

bJDOi

CO P

^&

a <A
-oa

o o

C bC'C

a

o

o

!

"3
o
H

o
o
o
o

1—1

o

o

IN

o
o

(N

^'

o
o
co_

lO

co"

o
o

CO

1—1

GO

o
o

(N
(N

o
o

CO

o"

o
o

(N

CO

o
o

I-"

CD
(N

o

o

00

CO

o

o

CO

CO

to

a

3

eq

T-l

O
O

CO

o

o

■*

۩

a> >

bc--<
■O 3
•CO

CO
IM

CO

o

o

cf

O

o
^^
CO

(M

CO

T3 bC

a a

o
o

o"
CO

00^

of

(N

CD

o
o

til
g

sS
u

O

o
o

00
00
CO

o
o

^"

1—1

o
o
t^

CO
(N

o
o

(N

CO

J5

o
o

d
o

05

o

CO

oi

05

-1^

■c

5

<

i
<

<

>

a.
13 a

i 1

■>

o

♦a
U

t^

00

a

8

4

w

rH OQ

SESSIONAL PAPER No.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION

123

57

OS -^

K"

^—

■<

<»

^

hJ

01

^

^

tf

1

:^

o

H

-

o

H

^

1— t

H

c

^

-.«.

O

ri

g

m

c

y;

^

> tx

O <D

J
^

OS

55

fl

O
5

o

^;

J3

r- «

Hj2
O o

•*^ o

.2 1

ai

S5 0L,

.a

o

I

|a

o

73
OS

3

o

8

IN

00

0

CO
0

(N

0
0

CD
CO

1— 1
■<*

u

03 X

i|

o

o

IN

0
0
ao

0

0
0
00

00"

0
0
0

CO
0

m

00"

1— 1

CD

i

C

H

0
0
cc
c-f

CD
CO

0
0

CO

'^

I— 1

0

0

<N

^ ^
-^1

'^'o

O

o

0
0

0

r-i

0

CO

1

8

CO
CD

CO

C

O

o
o

0
0

0
0

0

0
0

CO

C<1

a>

CO
GO
00

"2

CO

a>
CO
10

oT

CO

1—1

u

C3^

CO (-

a; aj

^^

o
o

0
0

i-O

o6~
00

c
0

10

0

CO
co^

CO

CO

CO

1— (

-0 bC

c.S

Wo

0

0
0
CO

-f

0

0
0

00

00

8

0"

CO

0

0

't

CO

0
0
10

0"

00

1.

0
0

c*
CO

CD

CO

0
0

irT

00
.-1
IN
«^

10

i

1

0

•N

1—1

05
CD
(N

bC

m
hi

>

■a

<u

H

_o
en

s

5

3 at Transcona
ng Machinery

-<-3
O

03 .
H O

6

05

i-H

0
<N

<

0

C^

•S =

-a w

1

fa

58

NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

•—1

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o>

<T.

03

o

CO

CO

O

3

00

M

o

•^

CO

CM

CM

«o

C3i

CO

lO

t>-

Id

t^

o

1^

!>■

C33

rH

CO

I— 1

H

CD

t-^

CD

CO

"^

oT

i-H

CO

1—1

CO

o

1—1

«^

'^

M

O

o

O

o

o

o

"2 <u

O

o

o

o

o

o

ra to

II

00

CO

o

CO
o

00

■*

CM

CO

CM

1—1

CO

rt*

00

»o

CM

CO

CO

cm"

«»

e©

6C

^

o

o

o

o

o

o

O

o

o

o

o

C5

Ol

t-l

0)

CO

-*

UO

I— 1

r-l

o

9i

3

O

>n

o

CO

Tt<

C^l

»o

ir3

00

CO

05

U3

lO

CD

U)

O

Oi

■^

CO

i-l

CO

CD

a

W

1—1

1—1

(N

CM

00

^

v»

>.

►^

^

o

o

O

o

^

Q

o

o

o

■^

CO

^

eo

Tt<

<i-i

->,

^

'-

•..

•»

o

(N

o

^

CO

CO

■4J

IN

-*

I— 1

99

^

^

o>

t^

o

M

cm"

S

e©

«©

1

1
1

00

o

o

o

o

05

OS

tc

o

o

o

o

CO

CD

d

CO

r-

CO

f— 1

O

c:

•-B

lO

o"

co~

-*

<^

>o

r^

»c

CO

05

CO

>o

3

T-^

rH

Tt<

cq

®&

CM

CM

TS

o

o

o

o

^

t-(

a CO

o

o

o

o

CO

CO

'^-S

CO

o

CO

r«

Tj<

t^

to S

o >

o

oT

r-T

CO

»o

r-t

«o

00

00

CM

>-(

^

73 3

o

00

h-

CO

t^

t^

•no

eo

lO

(N

CM

■*

m

«f>»

1—1

o

o

O

o

o

o

0 t;

o

o

o

o

o

o

»^^

o

CD

00

CM

o

CD

mj

t^r

co"

co"

oT

sT

CO

"-^

CO

lO

o

lO

ob

■*

lO

»fl

00

OS

OS

c4 S

•^

•s

(N

•*

(N

CO

CO
69

o

o

o

o

o

O

1

2

o

o

o

o

o

o

00

CO

CO

CM

t^

CO

TtT

r-^

^'■

■^

1(5

CD

Ol

CO

r^

Id

Tf

O

o_

C5_

o

CD

00

CO

u

CM

00

cf

CM

j3

_

,_,

CM

cs

c<

«c

to

O

o

i-t

CO

I-H

tc

a

CO

■^

00

o

CO

d

lO

00

05

o>

t^

»— <

hJ

C<l

lO

CO

^H

CO

00

^

1

t>

-o

a

s

_o

a 08

CO

1

■?

OS

s

O _*J

'C 'a

gicu

o

0)

6"

c

o

a

O

5|
O

1

-fc>

Q

is

u

eS O

m

3

<-

n

«

m

*^

3

.2

Q

O

'*

O

I

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123 A. 1914

N. T. R.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION

Exhibit 8

GORDON GRANT'S ESTIMATE.
(See Page 18 of Report)

4 GEORGE V.

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

A. 1914

National Thanscontinental Railway — Eastern' Division.
Statement showing work done to Dec. 31st, 1912, and estimate of cost of completion.

ITEMS

Value of work

done to Dec.

31st, 1912

Value of work

required to

complete

Total estimate

of cost of

work

Grading (See note of detail of items)

Right of Wat and Expenses

Rails and Fastenings (See note)

Buildings (See note)

Steel Superstructure Bridges Including flooring

Surveys and Expenses

Transport (See note)

Engineering

Sundry Items (See note)

Springfield Shops. Locomotive Shops (See note) . .

Car Shops (See note)

Proposed Car Ferry at Quebec

Terminals at Quebec. (See note)

Rental of Joint Terminals at Winnipeg

Headquarters Salaries and Expenses

Proportion of Interest on Expenditure for
Construction of Winnipeg Terminals

TOTALS

88,785,710.
2,362,585.
12,404,573.
2,056,808.
4,996,127.
2,943,000.
1,250,132.
4,206,489.
2,093,123.
2,731,958.

617,108.
nil

917,006.

157,500.
1,607,133.

90,611.

$127,219,863.

SIS, 380, 290.

579,415.

525,427.
2,625,192.
1,057,873.
nil

39,868.
1,400,511.

374,877.

205,042.

683,892.

650,000.
6,362,994.

210,000.

592,867.

399,689.

$107,166,000.
2,942,000.
12,930,000.
4,682,000.
6,054,000.
2,943,000.
1,290,000.
5,607,000.
2,468,000.
2,937,000.
1,301,000.

650,000.
7,280,000.

367,500.
2,200,000.

490,300.

$34,087,937,

$161,307,800.

NOTE:—

Grading includes: — Clearing; excavation; culverts; sub-structure of bridges; tracklaying; ballast-
ing ; ties ; signals ; interlocking appliances ; telegraph lines ; fencing ; water supply ; track scales
temporary trestles ; extra work ; pump houses and pumps ; and ties purchased by commission
on contracts numbers 9, 10 and 21.

Rails and Fastenings includes: — Frogs; switches and diamond crossings.

Buildings includes: — Stations; section and tool houses; divisional point buildings.

Transport: — This item was formerly included (in statements) with "Surveys and Expenses."

Sundry Items: — Formerly combined under heading "Engineering and Expenses" and included
instruments; suppUes; camp outfits; general expenses; freight and express; furniture; legal
Expenses; medical service, etc., etc.

Springfield Shops. — Locomotive Shops: — Item includes plant and equipment; water supply;
sewerage system; and lighting.

Car Shops: — Item includes plant and equipment.

Quebec Terminals: — Includes line from Quebec Bridge to Quebec City; right of way; terminal
facilities; and Quebec shops.

Ottawa, Ont., April 18th, 1913.

GORDON GRANT,

Chief Engineer.

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123 A. 1914

N. T. R.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION

Exhibit 9

Map showing Contracts, also Profile^of^the Railway.
(See Page 19 of Report)

^^ Dls^Kic^ B

! !

1

,

1

'

STRICT

6.6- Mil

,

District t.

/i

c

STRICT

r6.55-MiL

Di

STRICT
)IS-MlLE

;;

37

ES

p

19526-MlLES

2

ES

1 ' 1 13i

s

^

1

MANI

rOBA 1

0NT,«,RIO

ONTARIO

j QUEBEC 1 1 I

j

i

1 j

./^

/

'X

rx

DOUCET ^J

x^

Reooitt /%,

V. ./

r

"^

Superior r-=^

X

—

VVrmstrong

? !

.W5V.

7

\7

€^^

^i

Grant

OBrien

r

p

V.

.;.^--5

~V^_/

Cochrane

->^_

y

if\/

V

N

Hea^j|ST

1

r^r

/v/

WlNNIPK

y\

>

a

^_

-\i^

r\

f

[TvAa

1

• -'if ^TCIANSCONA

1

\

v:^^

-^

■" V

^ ^

yv/

NATIONAL TR.\NSC()NTLNENTAL RAILWAY

EASTKRM ni\'TSIOIV

CONDENSED^ROFILE

SHOWING DIVISIONAL POINTS i HEAVIEST GRADES

00

N

/

00

200

OTTAWA

IvesT- 266)1 reET

MAV 1913

,00

-.. 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

930 900 070 e-tO

CONTINUOUS MILEAGE FROM MONCTON WESTERLY

1

!

RICT
-Mile

District

B"

1

_ District'A"

256.Z9-M1LES"

1

5

*

■

563.64- Mi.es

_,eoo

Parent

QUEBEC 1 NpW BRUNSWICkJ

./\

- ^

V(W. ^

1

DOOCET ^

/

v

\y y

^ \o,

MOMK

Mile 355.?

1

,

V

y,

1

\

1

'

f

/

\/\

1

S

^^

■ — K

\

A

/

?

1

1

I Napaoocan

1

\

A

1

I

1

°l

\ i.

1

1

\

''^Si?S.l

/

r

i

1/

\

f

w\

- M

V

"

LNENTAL H \IIA\ A^

! \(

\

N Edmundston ^y

\?. /

\

^

\y

y

-^^

J

i'/

^^

*y\

PROFILE

5 & HEAVIEST GRADES

V

-"•

"•

-"■'

.»

-

"" — ■

''

A

.„„ 5

,H,„,™«™«C.,»0m.O<.

V

/"^

i/V.

MAY C9I3

i>/^

^^ /

-s...=.

r

V

1/ 5.?/°.irY^«""'"™"

\

1

\ 1,

EET

L 1 1 ! I

„

._ a

L

' 'MONCTON

00

B70

ea-o

610

780

75 0

720

90 e

60

30 e

00 5

70 b

40 5

0 480 4

0 420

390

36

0

530 300 27

0 240 21

lao 150

lao

90

60

30

0 \

flILES

OM MONCTON WESTER

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123 A. 1914

N. T. R.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION

Exhibit 10

Copy of General Specifications and Form of Tender and Contract.
(See Page 19 of Report)

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123 A. 1914

(4532) Form 159. IM.— 22-2-09

THE NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL

RAILWAY

EASTERN DIVISION

I Wa. SpeeificaHo.

\

i

Form of Tender and Contract

1909

General Offices :

THE NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

Corry Building, Ottawa

DISTRICT

FORM OF TENDER.
To

The Commissioners of the Transcontinental Railway,

Ottawa.

Gentlemen: —

(I or we) the undersigned do hereby offer to the Commissioners to furnish
all and every kind of labour, tools, machinery, implements and other plant, ser-
vices and materials whatsoever necessary for the due execution and completion
of, and to fully execute and complete in the most thorough, workmanlike and
substantial manner on or before the

in accordance

with the specifications hereto annexed and the pjans, profiles and drawings pre-
pared and to be prepared for the purposes of the work, and upon the terms and
conditions set out in the printed form of contract furnished by the said Com-
missioners and also attached hereto, and in every respect to the satisfaction and
approval of the Chief Engineer of the Commissioners, all the work of the different
kinds hereinafter mentioned, set out or referred to in the said specifications, so
far as the same are applicable to the classes of work hereby tendered for, and
required in the construction of the following section of the Transcontinental
.Railway, viz: —

District From a point designated on the plans of the said

Commissioners

66

NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

that is to say, clearing, close cutting, grubbing, grading, cross logging, ditching,
stream and road diversions, truss, pile and trestle bridging, masonry and con-
crete culverts, cast iron and other pipe culverts, drains of various kinds, piers^
abutments, road crossings, bridge masonry, retaining walls, embankment pro-
tection, paving, riprap, ties, cattle guards, telegraph line, track laying, surfacing,
ballasting, water service, turntables and substructures, engine houses, section
houses, fences, gates and all the works below sub-grade or formation level, in fact
all work necessary when the bridge superstructures are in place to complete ready
for operation a single track railway, with side tracks, switches, yards, terminal
yards, depot grounds, spurs and other necessary and appurtenant tracks, at and
for the prices set opposite the different items in the following schedule: —

Item

Description of Work

Measure

Quantity

Rate

Amount

1

acre
each
acre
c. yd.

m

lin. ft.

$ cts.

$ cts.

2

Trees cut down outside right of way

3

4

Solid TQck

5

Loose rock and other materials (sec. 35 spec.)
Common excavation

n

6

Excavation in foundations, no coffer dams. .

Excavation of foundation within coffer dams

Overhaul all materials per c. yd. per 100 ft.
over 500 ft haul ...

8

9

0 01

10

11

12

Sheet piling per M ft. b.m

13

Wakefield type "

14

Cross-logging, 1 ft. deep with 18-in." brush-

acre
lin. ft.

m

c. yd.

15

Pole drains

16

French stone drains

17

Paving in culverts (not laid in cement)

Crib filling with stone

18

19

Hand laid rip-rap

20

Pierre Perdu rip-rap

21

Piling out reserved stone from'rockjcuttings

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

67

Item

Description of^Work

Measure

Quantity

Rate

Amount

22

Round logs in cribs

Cedar mud sills, per M. ft. b.m

lin. ft.

$ cts.

S cts.

23

24

Framed trestles per M. ft. b.m. except
stringers

25

Caps, walings and braces for pile trestles, per
M. ft. b.m

26

Sa^vTi ties a.nd guard rails for bridges per M.
ft. b.m

27

Stringers per M. ft. b.m

28
29

Cedar timber in culverts, 8-in. x 12-in., 10 in. x
12-in., and 12-in. x 12-in., per M. ft. b.m.

Plank in highway and private road crossings
per M. ft. b.m

30

Timber, best quality, for culverts, per M. ft.
b.m

(a)

Timber in cofifer dams or ordinary foundations
Timber in caissons

M. ft. B.M.

u

lin. ft.

Vitrified pipe culverts —

33

15-in. diameter

34

36

Reinforced concrete pipe —

14-in. diameter

38

40

24-in. diameter

41

30-in. diameter

42

36-in. diameter

44

48-in. diameter

46

60-in. diameter

47

4-in. agricultural under tile drains

49

Cast iron pipe culverts —

51

24-in. diameter

52

30-in. diameter

68

NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

Item

Description of Work

Measure

Quantity

Rate

Amount

53

36-in. diameter

lin. ft.

$ cts.

$ cts.

55

48-in. diameter

57

60-in. diameter

c. yd.
mile

58

Concrete facing mixture 1-2, 2.V-in. thick, in-
cluding forms

59

Concrete 1-2-4 coping course 6-in. thick, in-
cluding forms

60

Concrete 1-3-5, including forms

61

Concrete 1-3-6, including forms

61a

Concrete 1-2-5, including forms and centres . .

Concrete 1-3-5 in arch culverts, including
forms and centres

62

63

Concrete 1-3-6 in arch culverts, including
forms and centres

64

Concrete 1-3-6 in box culverts including
forms

. .

65

Concrete 1-4-8 ordinary foundations including
forms

66

Concrete 1-4-8 walls of building including

forms

67

First-class masonry . ...

68

Second-class masonry

Tliird-class masonry

69

70

Dry masonry . ....

71

Masonry in arch ring, including centering. . . .

Track-laying in main line with ordinary frogs,
switches, and sidings, including light surfac-
inc *A' . ...

72

73

74

Train hauled surfacing 'B' no overhaul allowed

Train hauled filling, including temporary-
trestle

c. yd.
c. yd.

1
1

(c)

id)

Overhaul on train hauled filling per cubic yard
per mile over five (5) miles

0 01

(e)

Removal of moss per cu. yd., no overhaul al-
lowed

1

75

Ballasting no overhaul allowed

c. yd.

1

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

69

Item

Description of Work

Measure

Quantity

Rate

Amovmt

7fi

Ties, first-class

Ties, second-class

each

$ cts.

$ cts.

77

78

Ties for switches, sa^-n to dimensions per M.
ft. b.m

79

Public road signs

Mile posts, whistle posts, and road signs

Semaphores at stations, complete .". . .

each

',

sn

"

81

rod

each

lin. ft.

c.yd.

lin. ft.
mile

each

c. yd.
lbs.

„

lbs.

3 sections

each

82

Interlocking appliances, complete, eight levers
including all connections, signals, etc

Each additional lever

83

84

Fencing

8.5

Gates

Tunnels, rock sections (unlined)

86

87

Tunnels, lined

88

89

Timnel.s, masonry lining

Telegraph line

90

91

92

Water tanks, 50,000 galls, complete, including
foxmdations

93

Turntables, including everything except foim-
dations

«

94

Track scales, including ever3rt,hing except foun-
• dations

9o

Timnel shafts

96

Iron in drift bolts

97

Iron in screw bolts

\

98

Forged or cut spikes

Cast-iron washers and separators

Cattle-guards (3 sections)

^

99

1

100

:

101

Cast-iron pile shoes

Cast-iron water pipes of any dia. from 4" to 10"
per ton of 2,000 lbs

102

103

Steel imbedded in concrete

lbs.

70 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

It shall be understood that the Commissioners are to furnish to the Contractor
all the rails and fastenings, tie plates, track bolts and spikes, either on board
cars at the nearest accessible point by rail or at steamboat landing, or at a point
along the line of road to be constructed, as may be directed by the Chief Engineer.
All other materials required for the said construction shall be supplied by the
Contractor at the schedxile price for same. Not more than one-fifth of the total
number of ties supplied by the Contractor shall be second-class.

It shall also be understood that the construction of steel bridges, depots,
shops, warehouses, freights and fuel sheds does not form a part of this contract
and is not included in the work tendered for.

The Contractor at his own cost provides all wagon roads to reach and carry
on the work.

The Contractor will be required to handle all material at his own expense
including the unloading and loading of cars and all material must be unloaded
from cars within three days after its arrival, unless special authority to the con-
trary is given by the Engineer. Any violation of this rule will subject the Con-
tractor to the usual demurrage.

I

Accompanying this tender is an accepted cheque on the

Bank for the sum of
dollars, as required by the
advertisement annexed hereto.

And we do hereby declare and agree that in case of refusal or failure to ex-
ecute the said contract with the Commissioners, and also to furnish the approved
security required, to an amount not exceeding one third of the estimated total
consideration of the contract, for the faithful performance of the said contract,
within ten days after the acceptance of this tender the said cheque shall be for-i
feited to the said Commissioners as liquidated damages for such refusal or failure,
and that all contract rights acquired by the acceptance of this tender shall be
forfeited.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION

71

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

The full names and residence of all persons interested in this tender as prin-
cipals are as follows: —

The undersigned further agree to conform in all respects to the terms and
conditions of this tender.

Dated at

the

190

day of

Witness

Actual Signatures op PartiesTendering

Occupation

Residence

72 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

INDEX TO SUBJECTS

Par. Page

Parties 74

General Covenant 74

1 Meaning of word "work" 74

2 "Engineer," "Chief Engineer" defined 74

3 Construction of clause as covenants 75

4 Performance by Contractor 75

Date of completion 75

Description of work 75

5 Time of the essence of the contract 76

6 Manner of performance 76

7 Several clauses of contract to be read together 76

8 Commencement and prosecution of the work 76

9 Agreement not to be assigned 76

10 Control of the work by Engineer 77

11 Changes and extra work 77

12 Clauses of contract to apply to changes and extra work 77

13 No claim for loss of profits ; . . 77

14 Claims for extra work to be presented at end of month 77

15 Engineer sole judge 78

16 Prices in schedule to include all things necessary for execution and com-

pletion of work 78

17 Foreman 78

18 Material objected to must be removed 78

19 Machinery and plant to be the property of Commissioners during con-

struction 79

20 Power to take work out of Contractor's hands 79

21 Abandonment of work by Contractor 79

22 Power to employ additional men, horses, plant, etc 79-80

23 Works at the risk of Contractor until completion 80

24 Damage generally 80

25 Stoppage of work and reduction of force 80-81

26 Extension of time in case of stoppage of work 81

27 Total suspension with consent of the Commissioners 81

28 Delay beyond period fixed shall not avoid the contract 81

29 Contractor to make prompt payment for labour 81-82

30 Damage by fire and insurance 82

3lP^No intoxicating liquors to be sold ; 82

i

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 73
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

P^'^R Page

32 Removal of temporary structures and debris 82

33 Commissioners covenant to pay 83-86

34 Method of payment gj

35 Prices for extra work gj

36 Estimation where work not readily measured 87

37 Engineer's monthly certificates 88

38 Monthly presentation and renewal of claims 88

39 Progress certificates not binding gg

40 Contractor's information gg

41 No claim for delay gg

42 No action to be brought against Commissioners gg

Remedy against Crown by Petition of Right gg

43 Senators and Members excluded from Contract gg

44 Contractors to protect stakes gg

45 Notices upon Contractor gg

46 Machinery and Plant to be made in Canada gg

47 Fair wages clause gg

48 Regulations, by Department of Labor gg

49 Compliance with regulations respecting health gg

50 Contractor to pay Medical and Sanitary expenses gg

51 Fire regulations gQ

52^No implied contract gQ

74 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

CONTRACT

(Railway Construction).

This Agreement made (in triplicate) the
day of 190

Between:

(hereinafter called the "Contractor") of the First Part;

And The Commissioners of the Transcontinental Railway (hereinafter

called "the Commissioners") of the Second Part;

WITNESSETH as foUows: —

general covenant.

In consideration of the covenants and agreements hereinafter contained and
to be performed by the Commissioners and of the prices hereinafter mentioned,
the Contractor hereby Covenants and Agrees with the Commissioners as follows:

MEANING OF WORD WORK.

1. In this agreement the word "work" or "works" shall, unless the context
requires a different meaning, mean the whole of the work and materials, matters
and things required to be done, furnished and performed by the Contractor under
this contract.

ENGINEER, CHIEF ENGINEER, DEFINED.

2. The words "Engineer" or "Chief Engineer" when used in this agreement
or in the specifications hereunto annexed, shall mean the Chief Engine.-r of the
Commissioners, for the time being, acting as such either directly or through the
Assistant Chief Engineer, District Engineer, Division Engineer, Resident Engineer
or Inspector, having immediate charge of a portion of the works limited by the
particular duties entrusted to him. AH instructions and directions or certificates
given, or decisions made, by anyone acting under the authority of the Chief En-
gineer shall be subject to his approval and may be cancelled, altered, modified and
changed as he may see fit. In all cases where the Contractor or the Commissioners
are satisfied with the decision of the Engineer or Inspector in immediate charge
of the work, an appeal to the Chief Engineer may be made.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 76

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

CONSTRUCTION OF CLAUSES AS COVENANTS.

3. Whenever in this agreement it is stipulated that anything shall be done or
performed by either of the parties hereto, it shall have the same effect and be
construed as if the said party had entered into a covenant with the other party to
do or perform the same, and as if any such covenant on the part of the Contractor
had been expressly made not only on his own behalf, but also on behalf of his
executors, administrators and assigns, and that any such covenant on the part of
the Commissioners had been expressly made on behalf of themselves and their
successors. Whenever this agreement is entered into by more than one party
as parties of the first part, the word "Contractor" shall be read "Contractors" and
all pronouns in this Contract or in the specifications hereunto annexed referring
to the Contractor shall be read as plural, and whenever a corporation is the party
of the First Part, the said pronouns shall be read accordingly.

PERFORMANCE BY CONTRACTOR.

4. The Contractor shall, at his own expense, furnish all and every kind of
labour, tools, machinery, implements, and other plant, services and materials
whatsoever necessary for the due execution and completion of, and shall fully
construct, perform, execute and complete in the most thorough, workmanlike
and substantial manner in every respect, to the satisfaction and approval of the
Chief Engineer, in the manner and upon the terms and conditions herein specified
and according to the specifications annexed hereto, which, for the purpose of iden-
tification, have been signed by the Contractor and the Commissioners, and form
part of this agreement, and to the plans, profiles and drawings in the ofiice of the
Chief Engineer, and to any further plans or drawings in addition thereto which
the Chief Engineer may find necessary to provide from time to time for the full
and complete performance of the work; and shall, on or before the

finally complete and deliver to
the Commissioners all the works of the different kinds hereinafter mentioned, set
out or referred to in the said specifications hereto annexed in so far as the same
are applicable to the classes of work hereby contracted for and shown on the
said plans, profiles nad drawings prepared, and those to be prepared, for the
purpose of the work required in the construction of that portion of the Eastern
Division of the Transcontinental Railway being
Distri'-t

that is to say, the
clearing, close-cutting, grubbing, grading, cross-logging, ditching, stream and road
diversions, truss, pile and trestle bridging, masonry and concrete culverts, cast
iron and other pipe culverts, drains of various kinds, piers, abutments, road
crossings, bridge masonry, retaining walls, embankment protection, paving, riprap,
ties, cattle guards, telegraph line, tracklaying, surfacing, ballasting, water service,
turntables and sub-structures, engine houses, section houses, fences, gates, and all
the works below sub-grade or formation level, in fact all work necessary, when
the bridge superstructures are in place, to complete ready for operation a single
track railway with side tracks, switches, yards, terminal yards, depot grounds,
spurs, and other necessarj'' and appurtenant tracks; but it shall be understood
that the Commissioners are to furnish to the Contractor all the rails and fasten-
ings, tie plates, track bolts and spikes, either on board cars at the nearest accessible
point by rail or at steamboat landing, or at a point along the line of road to
be constructed, as may be directed by the Chief Engineer; however, steel bridges,

76 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

depots, shops, warehouses, freight and fuel sheds do not form part of the present
' contract. It is also agreed that not more than one-fifth of the total number of
ties supplied by the Contractor shall be second-class.

TIME OF THE ESSENCE OF THE CONTRACT.

5. Time shall be of the essence of this contract.

In default of the Contractor completing the work by the date mentioned in
clause 4, the Contractor shall, if required by the Commissioners, pay to the Com-
missioners by way of liquidated damages the sum of

for each calendar month which may elapse after the date
mentioned before the work shall be so completed and delivered; it being under-
stood that the Commissioners shall be the sole judges of what constitutes default
on the part of the Contractor.

MANNER OF PERFORMANCE.

6. All of the said works shall be constructed of the best materials of their
several kinds, and finished in the best and most workmanlike manner, in the
manner required by and in strict conformity with the said specifications and the
drawings relating thereto and the working or detail drawings which may, from
time to time, be furnished (which said specifications and drawings and the working
or detail drawings to be hereafter furnished are hereby declared to be part of
this Contract), and to the complete satisfaction of the Chief Engineer.

SEVERAL CLAUSES OF CONTRACT TO BE READ TOGETHER.

7. The several parts of this Contract shall be taken together, to explain each
other, and to make the whole consistent; and if it be found that anything has
been omitted or misstated, which is necessary for the proper peiformance and
completion of any part of the work herein mentioned and described, the Contractor
will, at his own expense, execute the same as though it had Ijeen inserted and
properly described, and the correction of any such erroi or omission shall not be
deemed to be an addition or deviation from the works herei)y contracted for.

COMMENCEMENT AND PROSECUTION OF WoP.K.

8. The said work shall be commenced immediately after the execution of
this Agreement and shall be proceeded with continuously and diligently, and under
the personal supervision of the Contractor, until completed. The work shall be
carried on and prosecuted in all its several paits in such a manner and at such
points and places as the Engineer shall from time to time direct and to his satis-
faction, but always according to the provisions of this agreement, and, if no direc-
tion is given, then in a careful, prompt and workmanlike manner, according to
this Agreement. The Contractor shall make and keep open for use in safe condition,
all crossings and approaches wherever the line of railway traverses any ]niblic or
private road, and shall alter and amend such roatls, crossings and approaches
whenever required by the Engineer m charge of the work, during the construction
of the line.

AGREEMENT NOT TO HE ASSIGNED.

9. This .\greeinent shall not be a.ssigned without the consent of the Commis-
sioners, nor shall the said work or any part thereof be subcontracted, without the
wi it ten consent of the Commissioneis to everv such assi<>ntnent or subcontract.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 77

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

CONTROL OF THE WORK BY EXGIXEER.

10. The Contractor shall in all things conform to and comply ^vith the in-
structions of the Engineer. All work and material shall be subject to the approval
of the Engineer, and any work or material which, in the opinion of the Engineer,
is not of the character, qualit}^, dimensions or design required by the plans or
specifications, or which is in the judgment of the Engineer otherwise in any manner
defective, imperfect, or insufficient, shall be replaced or remedied when pointed
out to the Contractor by the Engineer, and shall be made good and sufficient by
the Contractor, at his own expense, and to the satisfaction of the Engineer, who
shall have the power and whose duty it shall be, to have any defective work or
material taken out and rebuilt, or replaced at the expense of the Contractor. Any
omission by the Engineer to disapprove of or reject any insufficient or imperfect
work at the time of an}- estimate shall not be deemed an acceptance of such work
or material.

CHANGES AND EXTRA WORK.

11. The Engineer shall be at liberty at any time, either before the commence-
ment or during the construction of the works or any portion thereof, to order any
extra work to be done, and to make any change or alteration which he may deem
expedient in the alignment or grade of the railway, or in the dimensions, nature,
location, or position of the works, or of any part or parts thereof, or in any other
thing connected with the works, whether or not, such changes increase or diminish
the work to be done, -or the cost of doing the same, and the Contractor shall im-
mediately comply with all written requisitions of the Engineer in that behalf, but
the Contractor shall not make any change in or addition to, or omission, or de-
viation from the works, and shall not be entitled to any payment for any change,
addition or deviation, or any extra work, unless such changes, addition, omission,
deviation, or extra work, shall have been first directed in writing by the Engineer,
and notified to the Contractor in writing, and the price to be paid for such extra
work shall be previously fixed by the Engineer by agreement with the Contractor,
or in default of such agreement, shall be as provided by Section .35.

CLAUSES OF CONTRACT TO APPLY TO CHANGES AND EXTRA WORK.

12. All the clauses of this contract shall apply to any changes, additions,
omissions, de\'iations, or extra work, in like manner, and to the same extent as
to the works contracted for, and no changes, additions, deviations, omissions,
or extra work shall annul or invalidate this Contract.

NO CLAIM FOR LOSS OF PROFITS.

13. If any change or deviation in, or omission from the works be made by
which the amount of work to be done shall be decreased, no compensation shall
be claimable by the Contractor for any loss of anticipated profits in respect therefor.

CLAIMS FOR EXTRA WORK TO BE PRESENTED AT END OF MONTH.

14. All claims for extra or additional payment must be presented to the
Engineer for allowance at the end of the month in which the work or material in
respect of which the same is claimed shall have been done or furnished, and shall,
if allowed by the Engineer, be included in the estimate for that month, otherwise
all claims therefor shall be deemed to be absolutely waived by the Contractor and
the Commissioners shall not be required to make such or any payment for or in

78 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

respect of such work or matei'ial, unless, in the judgment of the Commissioners
under the circumstances of the case, it is reasonable and proper to do so.

ENGINEER SOLE JUDGE.

15. The Engineer shall be the sole judge of work and material in respect of
both quantity and quality, and his decision on all questions in dispute with regard
to work or material shall be final, and no works or extra or additional works or
changes shall be deemed to have been executed, nor shall the Contractor be en-
titled to payment for the same, unless the same shall have been executed to the
satisfaction of the Engineer, as evidenced by his certificate in writing, which
certificate shall be a condition precedent to the right of the Contractor to be
paid therefor.

PRICES IN SCHEDULE TO INCLUDE ALL THINGS NECESSARY FOR EXECUTION AND

COMPLETION OF WORK.

16. The prices to be paid for the different kinds of work set out or referred
to in the list or schedule of prices are intended to and shall include not merely
the particular kind of work or materials mentioned in the said list or Schedule
but also all and every kind of work, labour, tools and plant, materials, articles and
things whatsoever necessary for the full execution and completion ready for use
of the respective portions of the works, to the satisfaction of the Engineer. And
in case of dispute as to what work, labour, tools and plant, materials, articles and
things, are or are not so included, the decision of the Engineer shall be final and
conclusive.

FOREMAN.

17. A competent foreman shall be kept on the groimd by the Conrtactor
during all the working hours, to receive the orders of the Engineer, and should the
person so appointed be deemed Ijv the Engineer incompetent, or conduct himself
improperly, he may be discharged l^y the Engineer, and another shall be at once
appointed in his stead ; such foreman shall be considered as the lawful representative
of the Contractor, and shall have full power to carry out all requisitions and in-
structions of the Engineer.

MATERIAL OBJECTED TO MUST BE REMOVED.

18. In case anj' materials, or other things in the opinion of the Engineer,
which are not in accordance with the several parts of this Contract or are not suffi-
ciently somul or are otherwise unsuitable for the respective works, shall be used
for or brought to the intended works, or any part thereof, or in case any work
shall be improperly executed, the Engineer may require the Contractor to remove
the same, and to provide proper material or other things, or to properly re-execute
the work, as the case may be; and thereupon the Contractor shall and will imme-
diately comply with the said requisition, and if twenty-four hours shall elapse and
such requisition shall not have been complied with, the Engineer may cause such
materials or other things, or such work, to be removed and, in any such case, the
Contractor shall j)ay the Commissioners all such damages and expense as shall
be incurred in the removal of sucii materials, or other things, or of such work, or
the Commissioneis may, in their discretion, retain and deduct such damages adn
expenses from any amounts payable to the Contractor.

I

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 79

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

MACHINERY AND PLANT TO BE PROPERTY OF COMMISSIONERS
DURING CONSTRUCTION.

19. All machinery and other plant, materials and things whatsoever provided
by the Contractor for the works hereby contracted for, and not rejected under the
provisions of the last preceding clause, shall from the time of their being so provided
become, and, until the final completion of the said work, shall be the property of
the Commissioners for the purpose of the said works, and the same shall on no
account be taken away, or used or disposed of except for the purpose of the said
works, without the consent in writing of the Engineer, and the Commissioners
shall not be answerable for any loss or damage whatsoever which may happen to
such machinery or other plant, materials or things, provided always that upon
the completion of the works and upon payment by the Contractor of all such
moneys, if any, as shall be due from him to the Commissioners, such of the said
machinery and other plant, materials and things as shall not have been used and
converted in the works and shall remain imdisposed of, shall, upon demand, be
delivered up to the Contractor.

POWER TO TAKE WORK OUT OF CONTRACTOR'S HANDS.

20. In case the Contractor shall make default or delay in diligently continuing
to execute or advance the works to the satisfaction of the Engineer, and such
default or delay shall continue for six days after notice in writing shall have been
given by the Engineer to the Contractor requiring him to put an end to such default
or delay, or in case the Contractor shall become insolvent, or make an assignment
for the benefit of creditors, or neglect either personally or by a skilful and com-
petent agent to superintend the works, then in any of such cases the Commissioners
may take the work out of the hands of the Contractor and employ such means as
they may see fit to complete the work, and the Contractor shall have no claim for
any further payment in respect of the works performed, but shall nevertheless
remain liable for all loss or damage which may be suffered by reason of the non-
completion by him of the works; and all materials and things whatsoever, and all
horses, machinery and other plant provided by him for the purposes of the works,
shall remain and be considered as the property of the Commissioners for the purpose
and according to the provisions and conditions contained in paragraph 22 hereof.

ABANDONMENT OF WORK BY CONTRACTOR.

21. If the work to be done under this Agreement shall be abandoned or be
assigned by the Contractor without the consent of the Commissioners, or if the
Contractor shall lose control of the work for anj- cause, excepting the acts of God
or of the public enemy, or if at any time the Chief Engineer shall be of the opinion
and shall so certify in writing to the Commissioners that the Contractor is wil-
fully and persistently violating any of the conditions or covenants of this Contract,
or is not executing said Contract in good faith, the Commissioners may take the
woi'k out of the hands of the Contractor and may employ such means as they may
see fit to complete the work, and all provisions of section 20 of the Agreement
shall thereupon apply and the Commissioners shall have in regard to the said work
all the powers therein provided.

POWER TO EMPLOY ADDITIONAL MEN, HORSES, ETC., AND PLANT.

22. If the Engineer shall at any time consider that the number of workmen,
or horses, or the quantity of machinery, or other plant, or the quantity of proper

80 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

materials, respectively employed, provided or supplied by the Contractor on or
for the said works, is insufficient for the advancement thereof towards completion
within the limited time, or that the works are, or some part thereof is, not being
carried on with due diligence, then and in every such case the Engineer may, by
written notice to the Contractor, require him to employ or provide such additional
workmen, horses, or machinery or such additional or other plant or materials
as the Engineer may think necessary, and, in case the Contractor shall not thereupon
within three days, or such other longer period as may be fixed by any such notice,
in all respects comply with such requisition, then the Engineer may either on behalf
of the Commissioners, or, if he sees fit, may as the agent of and on account of the
Contractor, but in either case at the expense of the Contractor, provide and employ
such additional workmen, horses, or machinery or such additional or other plant,
or material or any portion thereof, respectively, as he may think proper, and may
pay such additional workmen such wages, and for such additional horses, machinery
or such additional or other plant and machinery respectively such prices as he may
think proper, and all such wages and prices respectively shall thereupon at once be
repaid by the Contractor, or the same may be retained and deducted out of any
sum that may then or thereafter be or become due from the Commissioners to the
Contractor, and the Commissioners may use in the execution or advancement
of the said works not only the horses, machinery and other plant and other materials
so in any case provided by am-one on their behalf, but also all such as may have
been or may be provided by or on behalf of the said Contractor.

WORKS AT THE RISK OF COXTRACTOR IXTIL COMPLETION.

23. The Contractor shall be at the risk of, and shall bear, all loss or damage
whatsoever, from whatsoever cause arising, which may occur to the works, or any
of them, until the same shall be fully and finally completed and delivered up to
and accepted by the Commissioners; and, if any such loss or damages shall occui-
before the final completion, delivery and acceptance, the Contractor shall im-
mediately, at his own expense, repair, restore and re-execute the work so damaged.

DAMAGE GENERALLY.

24. The Contractor and his agents, labourers and all employed by him, or
under his control, shall use due care that no person or property is injured or any
rights infringed in the prosecution of the said works, and the Contractor shall be
responsible for all damages claimable by any person or corporation whatsoever
in respect of any injury to persons or property or in respect of any infringement
of any right whatsoever, including damage by fire occasioned in his carrying on
of the said works, or by any neglect or misfeasance or nonfeasance on his part
or on the part of his servants or employees, and shall and will, at his own expense,
make such temporary provisions as may be necessary for the protection of persons,
or of lands, buildings, animals or other property, or to prevent the interruption
of the traffic on any public or private road, or for the imintcrrupted enjoyment
of all rights of persons or corporations in and during the performance of the said
works.

STOPPAGE OF WORK AND REDUCTION OF FORCE.

25. The Commissioners shall have the right to suspend operations from
time to time at any particular point or points or upon the whole of the works,
or to direct that the force employed on the works shall be diminis'icd, and the
Contractor, upon being requested in writing so to do by the Commissioners, shall
stop the -vfork or reduce the force, as the case may be, in accordance with such

IXVESTIGATING COMMISSION 81

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

written request, and the Contractor shall have no claim for damages by reason
thereof. Such writing shall be signed by the Engineer and delivered to the Con-
tractor, or to some person on the work representing the Contractor, at least ten
days previous to such stoppage of work or reduction of force.

EXTENSION OF TIME IN CASE OF STOPPAGE OF WORK.

26. If there be any stoppage of the said work upon the written directions of
the Commissioners or if its progress be materialh' delayed, from want of location,
or staking of the line, or work of securing of the right of way, or by reason of an}"-
act or neglect of any of the Engineers or agents or employees of the Commissioners,
the time herein specified for completing the said work shall be extended for a
period of time equal to the time of such stoppage or delay, and the Contractor
shall have no further or other claim therefor, or for or in respect of anything arising
therefrom or caused thereb5^ The right of the Contractor to such extension
shall be deemed to have been waived unless a claim therefor, stating the occasion
and nature thereof, shall be made by him in wTiting, delivered to the Commis-
sioners at the time of such stoppage or delay. At any time after operations have
been suspended either in whole or in part, such operations may be again resumed
and again suspended and resumed as the Commissioners may deem proper, and
the Contractor, upon receiving written notice on behalf of the Commissioners
that the suspended operations are to be resumed, shall at once resume the pro-
secution of the work under this contract and diligently carry on the same.

TOTAL SUSPENSION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE COMMISSIONERS.

27. In case of a total suspension of all work under this Agreement without
any fault, default, collusion or procurement of the Contractor for a longer period
than days, unless such suspension shall have been
caused by the winter season or protracted rigor of weather, it shall be the duty
of the engineer to make a final estimate of the work done according to the terms
of this Agreement, and to make a return thereof to the Commissioners when the
amount found by the Engineer to be then due for work done, together with all
percentages retained up to that time, except as herein otherwise provided, shall
be paid to the Contractor.

28. No delay within or beyond the period herein specified for completing
the said work shall vitiate or void this Contract, or any part thereof, or the obliga-
tion hereby imposed upon the Contractor, or shall make void or in anywise im-
pau' or effect any current or other bond or security for the performance of this
Contract, and all the Covenants and Agreements in this Contract and in the said
Specifications contained shall apply to this Contract until the said work is finally
completed and accepted, notwithsanding the fact that such work is not com-
pleted within the time specified herein for such completion.

CONTRACTORS TO PAY FOR LABOUR PROMPTLY.

29. The Contractor shall promptly pay for all labour, services and material
in or about the construction of the work and all payments for such purpose shall
be made by the Contractor at least as often as payments are made by the Com-
missioners to the Contractor, and in the event of failure by the Contractor at
any time to do so, the Commissioners may retain from any moneys due or to
become due to the Contractor such amount of money as the Chief Engineer may
deem suffic' nt to make such payments. If the Engineer reports that there is
reason to fear that any such payments will not be promptly made by the Con-
tractor, the Commissioners may pay for such labour, services and material from

82 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

any date to any date and to any amount which may be payable and may charge
the same to the Contractor, and the Contractor covenants with the Commissioners
to repay at once all and every sum so paid. Before final settlement is made be-
tween the parties hereto for work done and materials furnished under this Contract,
the Contractor shall and will produce and furnish evidence satisfactory to the
Commissioners that the said work and any other property of the Commissioners
upon which said work may have been constructed and all structures, are free
and clear from all liens for labour, workmanship, materials or otherwise and
that no claim then exists in respect of which a lien upon the said work or property
of the Commissioners could or might attach. And the Contractor shall protect
and hold harmless the Commissioners and all their porperty from any and all
kinds of liens accruing from labour and services performed and material furnished
or otherwise and any of the same in or about the said work.

DAMAGE BY FIRE.

30. Special precautions must be taken by the Contractor at his own expense
to prevent fire; and the labourers in his employ shall be subject to the direction
of the Engineer in the event of their aid being required by the Engineer to extinguish
forest fires occurring in proximity of the right-of-way.

The Contractor shall conform to the fire regulations adopted by the Co m
missioners and also to the laws and regulations respecting fires in the different
Provinces wherein the work is being performed.

Any damage by fire that may occur to buildings or structures during con-
struction, must be made good by the Contractor, who must keep such structures
fully insured until the same have been completed and accepted by the Commission-
ers. The operation or occupation by the Commissioners of a portion of the work,
before the completion of the whole, is not to be considered as an acceptance of the
same by the Commissioners. The premiums for fire insurance shall be payable
by the Contractor, and the policies are to be made payable to the Commissioners
or in such form as they may direct, the loss being made payable as the interest
of the Contractor and of the Commissioners respectively may appear and the
policy or policies shall be deposited with the Chief Engineer of the Commissioners
until the completion and acceptance of the work.

INTOXICATING LIQUORS.

31. The Contractor shall not bring nor permit to be brought anywhere on or
near the said works any spirituous or intoxicating liquors, and if any foreman,
labourer or other employee or sub-contractor in the opinion of the Engineer, be
intemperate, disorderly, incompetent, wilfully negligent or dishonest in the per-
formance of his duties, he shall, on the direction of the Engineer, be forthwith
discharged and the Contractor shall not permit or employ to remain upon the
work any person who shall have been discharged from the said work for any or
all of the said causes.

32. Upon the completion of the work, the Contractor shall remove all tem-
porary structures, fill up all holes and trenches, level all mounds or heaps of earth
that may have been dug or built by him in the execution of the work or incident
thereto and shall remove and clean away all surplus and waste materials or rubbish
of whatever kind remaining on or about the works, and deposit such refuse material
at such place as the Engineer may designate.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

83

COMMISSIONERS COVENANT TO PAY.

33. In consideration of the faithful performance by the Contractor of all
and singular the covenants and agreements herein contained, the Commissioners
hereby covenant and agree with the Contractor that they will well and truly pay
him on the full completion by him of all the work herein specified within the time
specified and limited for the completion thereof to the satisfaction and subject
to acceptance by their Chief Engineer and subject also as herein provided, the
following sums and prices, namely: —

Item

Description of Work

Measure

Quantity

Rate

Amount

1

Clearing including close cutting

acre
each
acre
c. yd.

lin. ft.

$ cts.

$ cts.

2

Trees cut down outside right of way

Grubbing . .

3

4

Solid rock . .

5

Loose rock and other materials (sec. 35 spec.)
Common excavation . .

6

7

Excavation in foundations, no coffer dams. .

Excavation of foundation within coffer dams

Overhaul all materials per c. yd. per 100 ft.
over 500 ft. haul

8

9

0 01

10

11

Pile driving

12

Sheet piling per M. ft. b.m

13

Wakefield type "

14

Cross-logging, 1 ft. deep with 18-in. brush-
work

acre
lin. ft.

c. yd.
lin. ft.

15

Pole drains

16

Frftnfih Rt.nnp Hrf(,ins

17

Paving in culverts (not laid in cement)

Crib filling with stone . . . . ...

18

IP

Hand laid rip-rap

20

Pierre Perdu rii)-rap

21

Piling out reserved stone from rock cuttings
Round logs in cribs

??

?.S

Cedar mud sills, per M. ft. b.m

84

NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

Item

Description of Work

Measure Quantity

Rate

Amount

24

Framed trestles per M. ft. b.m. except stringer

Caps, walings and braces for pile trestles, per
M. ft. b.m

$ cts.

$ cts.

25

26

Sawn ties and guard rails for bridges per M.
ft. b.m..

27

Stringers per M. ft b.m.

28
29

Cedar timber in culverts, 8-in. x 12-in., 10 in. x
12-in., and 12-in. x 12-in., per M. ft. b.m.

Plank in highway and private road crossings
per M. ft. b.m.

30

Timber, best quality, for culverts, per M. ft.
b.m

(a)

Timber in coffer dams or ordinary foundations.
Timber in caissons

M ft. B.M.
lin. ft.

c. yd.

Vitrified pipe culverts —

33

15-in. diameter

34

18-in. diameter

38

Reinforced concrete pipe —

18-in. diameter

40

24-in. diameter

41

30-in. diameter

4?

36-in. diameter

!

1

44

48-in. diameter

,

46

60-in. diameter . .

1

47

4-in. agricultural under tile drain

4P

Cast iron pipe culverts —
18-in. diameter

51

24-in. diameter

5?

30-in. diameter ...

53

36-in. diameter

55

48-in. diameter

57

60-in. diameter

58

Concrete facing mixture 1-2, 2i-in. thick, in-
cluding forms

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

85

Item

Description of Work

Measure

Quantity

Rate

Amount

59 Concrete 1-2-4 coping course 6-in. thick, in-
cluding forms

60 i Concrete 1-3-5, including forms

61 Concrete 1-3-6, including forms

61a{Concrete 1-2-5, including forms and centres
62

63
64
65

Concrete 1-3-5 in arch culverts, including
forms and centres

Concrete 1-3-6 in arch culverts, including
forms and centres

Concrete 1-3-6 in box culverts including,
forms

Concrete 1-4-8 ordinary foundations including
forms

66 Concrete 1-4-8 walls of building including
forms

67 First-class masonry .

68
69
70
71
72

73
74

(c)

(d)

(e)

75
76

77
78

79

Second-class masonry

Third-class masonry

Dry masonry

Masonry in arch ring, including centering. . . .

Track-laying in main line with ordinary frogs,
switches, and sidings, including light surfac-
ing'A'

Overhaul on train hauled filling per cubic yard
per mile over five (5) miles

Removal of moss per cu. yd., no overhaul al-
lowed

Ballasting, no overhaul allowed.

Ties, first-class

Ties, secomd-class

Ties for switches, sawn to dimensions per M.
ft. b.m

Public road signs .

$ cts.

$ cts.

c. yd.

mile

Track-la jdng in yards at terminals

Train hauled siirfacing 'B' no overhaul allowed! c. yd.

Train hauled filling, including temporary
trestle

c. yd.
each

each

0 01

86

NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

Item

80
81

82

83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92

93

94

94

95
96
97
98
99

100

101

102

103

Description of Work

Measure

Quantity

Rate

Amount

Mile posts, whistle posts, and road signs.
Semaphores at stations, complete

Interlocking appliances, complete, eight levers
including all connections, signals, etc

Each additional lever

Fencing

Gates

Tunnels, rock sections (imlined) . .

Tuimels, lined

Tunnels, concrete lining

Tunnels, masonry lining

Drainage tunnels, 4 c. yds. per ft.
Telegraph line

Water tanks, 50,000 galls, complete, including
foundations

Turntables, including everything except foun-
dations

Track scales, including everything except foun-
dations

Tracks cales, including everything except foun-
dations

Tunnel shafts

Iron in drift bolts ,

Iron in screw bolts

Forged or cut spikes

Cast-iron washers and separators.

Cattle-guards (3 sections)

Cast-iron pile shoes

Cast-iron water pipes of any dia. from 4' to 10*
per ton of 2,000 lbs

each

rod

each

lin. ft.

c. yd.

lin. ft.
mile

each

c. yd.
lbs.

lbs.

3 sections

each

$ cts.

cts.

Steel imbedded in concrete.

lbs.

I

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 87

SESSIONAL PAPER* No. 123

34. Cash payments equal to about ninety per cent, of the value of the work
done, approximately made up from returns of progress measurements and com-
puted at the prices agreed upon, or determined under the provisions of this agree-
ment, will be made to the Contractor monthly, on the WTitten certificate of the
Engineer that the work for, or on account of which, the certificate is granted has
been duly executed to his satisfaction, and stating the value of such work com-
puted as mentioned, and upon approval of such certificate by the Commissioners;
and the said certificate and such approval thereof shall be a condition precedent to
the right of the Contractor to be paid the said ninety per cent., or any part thereof.
The remaining ten per cent, shall be retained until the final completion of the whole
work to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer for the time being having control over
the work; and within two months after such completion the remaining ten per cent,
will be paid ; and the written certificate of the Engineer, certifying to the final com-
pletion of the said works to his satisfaction, shall be a condition precedent to the
right of the contractor to receive or to be paid the said remaining ten per cent., or
any part thereof; provided, however, that if and when it is shewn by the Con-
tractor to the satisfaction of the Commissioners that the application of the said
ten per cent, or any part thereof will enable or hasten the completion of the work,
and that the same will be so applied; and if and when, in the opinion of the Com-
missioners, it appears that the deposit made bj^ the Contractor as security for the
performance of this Contract is ample security for the completion of the work, the
said ten per cent, or any part thereof may be released by the Commissioners in
such instalments as may from time to time be agreed upon. The Commissioners
shall be at liberty from time to time to take over as completed any portion of
the- work certified to by the Engineer as having been completed, and the Con-
tractor shall, thereupon, be entitled to payments in full for the work so completed
in like manner, and subject to the same conditions, as if the said completed portion
comprised the whole work to be done. The Commissioners shall be entitled
from time to time to the use of any portion of the line of railway not theretofore
accepted as completed under the terms thereof for the transportation of all steel
superstructures or other materials, and no such use of any part of the said rail-
way shall be deemed to be any acceptance or taking possession thereof.

PRICE FOR EXTRA WORK.

35. In addition to the foregoing contract price, the Commissioners will pay
to the Contractor for extra work or for work done under written orders of the
Engineer, not covered by this Agreement, but done in the proper execution of
this Contract, and for which prices are not named herein, the actual cost of such
work, with an additional ten per cent, on the cost of labour and material for the
use of tools. Contractor's plant, superintendence and profit, but such actual cost
shall not exceed the reasonable market value of ^uch labour and material as the
case may be.

36. Where, in the opinion of the Chief Engineer, the work done is not, having
regard to the nature and character of the work remaining to be performed, of
r-ufficient value to justify computation at the prices agreed upon and determined
under the provisions of this agreement, it shall be competent for the Chief Engineer,
in- certifying the value of the work done for the purpose of such payment, to dis-
regard the prices so agreed upon or determined, and to compute and certify its
relative and proportionate value having regard to the nature and character of the
work remaining to be performed; in which case the C(Atractor shall only be en-
titled to receive ninety per cent, of the value of the work done as stated in such
certificate, and he shall not be paid the difference between ninety per cent of the
value f)f the w^rk d';ne as so ascertaineed and certified, and ninety per cent of the
value of such work according to the prices stipulated therefor under the provisions

88 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

of this Agreement, until such time as the Chief Engineer, by reason of the per-
formance of additional work of greater relative value, shall certify that the Con-
tractor is entitled to receive the same.

37. It is intended that every allowance to which the Contractor is fairly
entitled will be enbraccd in the Engineer's monthly certificates; but should the
Contractor at any time have claims of any description which^he considers are not
included in the progress certificates, it will be necessary for him to make and repeat
such claims in wi'iting to the Engineer within thirty days after the date of the des-
patch to the Contractor of each and every certificate in which he alleges such
claims to have been omitted.

38. The Contractor in presenting claims of the kind referred to in the last
preceding paragraph must accompany them with satisfactory evidence of their
accuracy, and the reason why he thinks they should be allowed. Unless such
claims are thus made during the progi'ess of the work, within thirty days, as in
the preceding clause, and repeated, in writing every month, until finally adjusted
or rejected, the Contractor shall have no claim upon the Commissioners in respect
thereof.

39. The progress measurements and progress certificates shall not in any
respect be taken as binding upon the Commissioners, or as final measurements
or as fixing final amounts; they are to be subject to the revision of the Engineer
in making up his final certificate, and they shall not in any respect be taken as
an acceptance of the work or release of the Contractor from responsibility in
respect thereof, but he shall at the conclusion of the works deliver over the same
in good order, according to the true intent and meaning of this Agreement.

CONTRACTOR S INFORMATION.

40. This Agreement is made and entered into by the Contractor for the con-
sideration herein expressed, solely on his own knowledge, information and judg-
ment of the character and topography of the country, its streams, water courses
and rainfalls and subject to the same, and upon information derived from other
sources than the Commissioners, its officers or agents, of and respecting the nature
and formation of the property upon which the said work is to be done, or the
character, quantities, or location of the material required to be removed or to be
used in forming the roadbed for the said railway, and the Contractor does not
rely upon the information given or statement or representation made to him in
connection with the said contract by the Commissioners or any of its officers
or agents. The Contractor further declares and agrees that the plans, maps and
profiles of the said work, furnished by the Commissioners are given only for the
purpose of general information.

41. The Contractor shall not have nor make any claim or demand against
the Commissioners or file a petition of right for any damage which he may sustain
by reason of any delay in the progress of the work, arising from the acts of any
of the Commissioners' agents, and it is agreed that, in the event of any such delay,
the Contractor shall have such further time for the completion of the works as
may be fixed in that behalf by the Commissioners.

42. No action shall be brought against the Commissioners upon this Agree-
ment, or for any breach of any covenants herein contained, or for any work done
or claimed to be done or for damages arising out of or by reason of this Agreement,
but the remedy of the Contractor shall only be by way of Petition of Riglit to His
Majesty the King, and it is hereby agreed that all matters of difference arising
between the parties hereto upon any matter connected with or arising out of this
Agreement, the decision whereof is not hereby especially given to the Engineer,
shall be referred to the Exchequer Court of Canada.

I

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION S9

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

43. This Contract is hereby made subject to the express condition that no
Member of the Senate or of the House of Commons of Canada shall be a party
to or concerned or interested in any contract with the Commissioners for the
construction of anj^ part of the Eastern Division of the National Transcontinental
Railway, or shall be a shareholder in any incorporated company having any
such contract.

44. The Contractors will protect and will not remove or destroy, or permit
to be removed or destroyed, the stakes, buoys and other marks placed on or about
the said works by the Engineers of the works, and shall furnish the necessary
assistance to correct or replace any stake or mark which through any cause may
have been removed or destroyed.

45. Any notice or other communication mentioned in this Contract to be
notified or given to the Contractor shall be deemed to be well and sufficiently
notified or given if the same be left at the Contractor's office or mailed in any
Post Office to the Contractor or Foreman, addressed to the address mentioned
in this Contract, or to the Contractor's last kno^m place of business.

46. The Contractor shall, in connection with the whole of the said work, as
far as practicable, use only material, machinery, plant, supplies and rolling stock

_ manufactured or produced in Canada, provided same can be obtained as cheaply
and upon as good terms in Canada as elsewhere, having regard to quality and price.

47. All mechanics, labourers, or other persons who perform labour for the
purposes of the construction of the works hereby contracted for shall be paid

" such wages as are generally accepted as current for competent workmen in the
district in which the work is being performed, and, if there is no current rate in
such district, then a fair and reasonable rate, and, in the event of a dispute arising
as to what is the current or a fair and reasonable rate, it shall be determined by
the Commissioners, whose decision shall be final.

48. This Agreement is subject to the regulations now in force or which may
at any time hereafter be in force during the construction of the works hereby
contracted for, made under the authority of the Department of Labour and which
are or shall be applicable to such work?.

49. All the works carried on under this Agreement shall be subject to the
provisions of the Act respecting the Preservation of Health ^n Public Works
and lo all regulations made or to be hereafter made pursuant to the said Act,
or by any other lawful authority, and applicable to such works, and to any regu-
lations which may be adopted by the Commissioners in reference to sanitation
or the preservation of health on public works.

50. The Contractor shall at his own expense make adequate arrangements
for the medical and sanitary supervision of all his employees, and shall for that
purpose employ the necessary duly qualified medical practitioners, furnish and
provide all necessary medicines, surgical instruments, and hospital accommoda-
tion to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer.

The duties of the medical staff shall include not only the attendance on sick
or injured men, but the inspection of the sanitary arrangements of all camps,
dwellings and works, at least once a month, or oftener, if, in the opinion of the
Engineer, it is necessary.

In order to compensate the Contractor for such supervision he shall deduct
from the wages of every man in his employment in the district or districts in which
this contract is situated

per month, or a proportional rate for a less period.

It shall be optional on the part of the Commissioners, should they see fit
to do so, to take over the medical and sanitary supervision of aU men, camps,
dwellings and works, and should they elect so to do the Contractor shall deduct
from the wages of all employees as before stated the sum of

per month,

90

NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

or a proportional rate for a less period, and shall furnish to the Commissioners
at the end of each month a full and correct statement of all such deductions, and
the Commissioners shall subtract the total amount of such deductions from the
moneys due or to become due to the Contractor on account of estimates for that
month.

51. The Contractor shall observe and comply with all regulations made by
any lawful authority and with all regulations of the Commissioners and instructions
from the Engineer of the said works, from time to time durmg the construction
made or given with reference to the prevention and extinguishing of fires, and
shall pay all wages and other outlay occasioned by such regulations and instructions.

52. It is distinctly declared that no implied contract of any kind whatsoever,
by or on behalf of the Commissioners, shall arise or be implied from anything
in this contract contained, or from any position or situation of the parties at any
time, it being clearly understood and agreed that the express contracts, covenants
and agreements herein contained and made by the Commissioners, are and shall
be the only contracts, covenants and agreements upon which any rights against
them are to be founded.

In Witness Whereof the parties hereto have herewith caused these Presents
to be signed and sealed on the day and year first above written.

Signed, Sealed and Delivered,
by the Contractor in the
presence of:

Signature of Contractor.

Signed, Sealed and Delivered,
by the Commissioners in the
presence of:

IXVESTIGATIXG COMMISSIOX 91

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

INDEX TO SUBJECTS

TO

GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS.

Par. Page

1 to 11a —General 93-94

12 to 17 —Grading 95

Temporary Bridge or Haulway 96

18 to 27 — Excavations and Embankments 96-97

28 to 32 —Side Ditches, Borrow Pits, Etc 97-98

33 to 39 —Classification 98-99

40 to 47 —Foundations 99-100

48 to 56 —Tests 100-101

57 — Specifications for Sand, for Concrete and Masonry 101

58 — Specifications for Stone, for Concrete 102

59 — Specifications for Stcne for Masonry 102

60 — Concrete Culverts and Concrete Pipes 102

61 to 73 — Specifications for concrete 102-105

74 to 83 —Stone Masonry 105-107

84 to 88 —General Description (Second-Class) 107-108

89 to 100 —General Description (Third Class) 108-110

101 to 108 —Cast Iron Culvert Pipe 110-111

109 to 112 —Rip-Rapping 111-112

113 to 116 —Paving 112

117 to 138 —Tunnels 112-115

139 to 144 —Timber Structures 115

145 to 154 —Piling for Foundations 116-117

155 to 157 —Sheet Piling 117

158 to 162 —Frame Trestles 117-118

163 to 170 —Crib Work 118-119

171 to 174 —Specifications for Ties 119

175 to 224x— Track Laying 119-125

225 to 234 —Ballasting 125-126

235 to 239 — Specifications for Fences 127

240 to 243 —Highway Crossings 127-128

244 to 249 —General 128-129

— Specifications for Telegraph Line 130-138

—Turntables 138

—Track Scales 138

—Buildings 138

—Water Stations 138

—Steel Bridges 138

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 93

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

GENERAL SPECIFICATIONS

FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE

NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

EASTERN DIVISION

General.

ALIGNMENT.

1. The centre of the roadbed shall conform in alignment to the centre stakes.

SUB-GRADE.

2. The grade line of the profile denotes sub-grade, and this term indicates
the top of embankments or the bottom of excavations ready to receive the ballast.

CROSS SECTION.

3. The roadbed shall be formed to the section, slopes and dimensions shown
upon the standard drawings, or to such modifications thereof as are required to
meet special conditions, as may be from time to time directed.

WIDTH OF ROADBED.

4. When finished and properly settled the roadbed shall conform to the
finishing stakes and shall be of the following dimensions at sub-grade, for single
track, viz. : —

On embankments less than sixteen feet in height, the width shall be sixteen
feet. On all other heights, the width shall be eighteen feet
Earth excavations, twenty-two feet at formation level.
Rock excavations, twenty feet wide at formation level.

SLOPES.

5. The slopes of embankments and excavations shall be of the following
inclinations, as expressed in the ratio of the horizontal distance to the vertical
rise: —

Embankments: Earth, one and one-half to one; rock, one to one.
Excavations: Earth, one and one-half to one; loose rock, one to one; solid
rock, one quarter to one; unless otherwise ordered in writing by the Engineer.

Clearing and Grubbing.

CLEARING.

6. The whole, or as much of the right-of-way as the Engineer may direct,
shall be entirely cleared of all trees, logs, brush and other perishable matter;
all of which shall be burnt or otherwise disposed of as the Engineer may direct
unless specially reserved to be made into ties, timber or cordwood. All mer-
chantable timber, etc., cut on the right-of-way will belong to the Commissioners,

94 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

who may dispose of same as best seems fit. Unless directed in writing by the
Engineer, trees and brush must not be thrown on adjacent lands, but must be
disposed of on the right-of-way. Trees unavoidably falling outside right-of-way
must be cut up, removed to right-of-way and disposed of.

All trees, stumps, undergrowth and brush within such clearing must be cut
so that the tops of same shall not be over eighteen inches above surface of ground.

No allowance will be made for the cutting and removal of grain, grass, weeds
or other annual plants on the right-of-way, the contract price of grading being
assumed and understood to cover all such items.

DANGEROUS TREES.

7. All trees outside the limit of the right-of-way considered unsafe by the
Engineer shall be cut down and disposed of as "other clearing," but no trees shall
be cut down unless marked for cutting by the Engineer.

HOW PAID FOR.

8. Clearing shall be paid for by the acre where actually performed and dan-
gerous trees cut outside the right-of-way at the specified rate per single tree.

CLOSE CUTTING.

9. On ground to be covered by embankments more than two feet and less
than 5 feet high, all trees and stumps shall be cut off even with the surface of the
ground and removed; the price paid for clearing covers close cutting.

GRUBBING,

10. In all excavations, including borrow pits, on all ground to be covered
by embankments less than two feet high, and from all ditches, drains, new channels
for water ways and other places when required, all stumps and large roots must
be grubbed out and removed.

HOW PAID FOR.

11. Grubbing will be estimated and paid for by the acre, when actually
performed in excavation less than four feet deep, under embankments less than
two feet high, and on borrow pits, ditches drain-, and new channels for water
within the clearing limits, but no grubbing will be allowed on the slopes of any
cutting where the depth at a distance of eleven feet oa e'ther side of the centre
line exceeds four feet.

.;i:moval of moss.

11 A. Where the moss is over six inches deep on the grouna to be covered
by embankments less than two feet high, or any other places where, in the opinion
of the Engineer, it is necessary to remove moss, it shall be removed and wasted.
Such work shall only be done on the written instructions of the Engineers, and
shall be paid for at a schedule rate per cubic yard measured in excavation.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 95

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Grading.

DEFINITION.

12. Under this head -^-ill be included excavations and embankments for
the formation of the roadbed; all diversions of roads and streams; all borrow
pits and ditches, foundation pits for trestles, culverts, buildings and structures,
and all similar work connected with and incident to the construction of the road-
bed.

LARGE BLASTS.

13. The use of powder or other explosives in large blasts is prohibited, unless
on written authority of the Engineer. In the event of wasting of rock through
any such blasting the Contractor shall, if the material is required in the vicinity
for the making up of embankments, of which the Engineer shall be the judge,
furnish at his owti cost an equivalent amount of material for such embankment.
One yard of rock in place being taken to equal 1^ yards of earth.

RESPONSIBILITY FOR DAMAGE.

14. All damage occasioned by blasting of rocks in the progress of the work,
to any person, or any injury done by the Contractor, or those in his employ, to
tracks, rolling stock, crops, fences, buildings or any property of the Commissioners,
or of the adjoining land OTNTiers or occupants, shall be paid by the Contractor,
or may be paid to the Commissioners and charged to the Contractor.

PUBLIC OR PRIVATE ROADS.

15. Whenever the line is intersected by public or private roads, the Con-
Itractor must keep open, at his own expense, convenient passing places. All

dangerous places must be suitably protected by the customary warning signals,
[and fences when necessary.

REMOVAL OF ICE AND SNOW,

16. The Contractor shall, at his own cost, remove snow and ice from any
•portion of the work, whenever deemed necessary b}'' the Engineer.

HAUL.

17. The limit of free haul will be 500 feet. For any haul exceeding 500 feet
[the Contractor shall be paid at one cent per cubic yard per 100 feet. The yardage
[overhauled will always be measured and estimated in excavation.

In all cases the work will be estimated so as to make the least cost; that
is, if necessary, earth from excavations will be estimated as having been hauled
regardless of the fact that the Contractor may have preferred to waste the material
[from the cuts and borrow the materials for the fills, but such waste and borrow
;must be subject to the approval of the Engineer in writing. This clause does
' not apply to material hauled over the rails owned by the Commissioners, or to any
other train-hauled material.

96 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

Temporary Bridge or Haulway.

When the Engineer or the Commissioners so directs, material will be hauled
over or beyond any bridge opening, and the Contractors shall construct such
temporary bridge or haulway over or around such opening, and shall receive
therefor actual cost of such bridge or haulway, including labor and material,
plus (10%) per cent. This clause does not include the construction of roadways
which are to be provided by the Contractor under section 244.

Excavations and Embankments.

FINISHING SLOPES.

18. Slopes of all excavations shall be cut true and straight, and all loose or
projecting stones on the slopes must be removed.

EXCESS AND DEFICIENCIES OF MATERIAL.

19. Excess material in excavation shall be used to widen embankments
within the limit of haul. No wasting will be permitted except on written authority
of the Engineer. When the quantity of excavation is insufficient to make up
embankments within the limit of haul, the deficiency shall be made up by widen-
ing the cuts as directed. No borrowing will be permitted until this manner of
obtaining material has been exhausted.

RESERVATION OF MATERIAL AND PAYMENT THEREFOR.

20. Whenever gravel suitable for ballasting is found in a cutting, the Con-
tractor shall, if required by the Engineer, cut a gullet through large enough to
pass a train, the remainder of the material being reserved for top dressing or
ballasting. The price stipulated in the schedule for common excavation shall
cover the gulleting of gravel cuts, the remainder being treated as ballast. When
stone suitable for special purposes is found in a cutting, it shall, if required by the
Engineer, be reserved for such special purposes, and shall be piled near at hand
so as to permit convenient loading on cars. The price paid for piling and re-
loading such reserve stone shall be the schedule price for same.

CATCH WATER DITCHES.

21. Catchwater ditches, as required, shall be made along the tops of ex-
cavations to prevent water flowing into the cut. The location and cross-section
of such ditches shall be designated by the Engineer, and, if required, shall be
excavated before the cuts are opened.

TILE DRAINS.

22. When required, four (4) inch tile drains shall be used; their location
shall be as directed by the Engineer. The trenches for these tile drains must be
excavated below frost line and to a true grade. The tile shall be laid with ends
butted, and shall be covered with brush, grass, hay or straw, over which shall
be laid gravel or other suitable material approved by the Engineer.

PROVISION FOR SETTLEMENT.

23. Whenever it is necessary to provide for the future settlement of the
embankments, the height and width of the roadlied shall be increased, as directed.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 97

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

PRECAUTIOXS ON HILLSIDE GROUNDS.

24. When the embankment is to be placed on steep sidehill, the surface shall
be deeply plowed, stepped or trenched. If built on wet or spongy ground likely
to be affected by water, the Contractor shall remove all unsuitable material, and,
if required, shall underdrain the same with tile, broken stone, or pole drains as
directed.

CROSS-WAYING.

25. When required, in swamps or muskegs, cross-waj^s shall be put in. They
shall be built of logs, each log as long as the full width of the embankment, if
such timber is available, or of such length as shall be directed by the Engineer,
and not less than six (6) inches in diameter. The depth of the log portion of the
cross-way shall not be less than one foot. Said cross-way to be thatched with
full limbs and brush to a depth of at least eighteen (18) inches. Such cross-way
shall be paid for at the schedule price per acre. (If the cross-logging is two feet
or more in depth, with the eighteen inches of brush on top, the price will be the
schedule price for two or more acres, as the case may be.) No ditches shall be
made on either side of cross-ways, except by direction of the Engineer.

EMBANKMENTS AGAINST MASONRY.

26. Embankments over culverts of masonry or concrete, or iron or vitrified
pipe, shall be built of the best obtainable material. The portion against the sides
of the culvert or pipe shall be thoroughly tamped. The portion over the arch or
crown shall be deposited as loosely as possible, using all necessary care to avoid
injury to the structure or pipe. The price paid for common excavation will cover
the cost of doing such work.

SLOPES WHERE RIPRAP IS USED,

27. When directed, embankments or slopes which are to be riprapped, shall
be flattened to a slope of 2 to 1.

Side Ditches, Borrow Pits, &c.

SIDE DITCHES ON PRAIRIE.

28. On prairie or level country, where embankments are much in excess
of excavation the material to form the embankments will usually be obtained
from parallel side ditches; such ditches must be made continuous, of uniform
cross-section and constructed to a regular grade to facilitate drainage.

LOCATION OF BORROW PITS.

29. Borrow pits shall be located in such places as will be approved by the
Engineer. They shall be regular in width, unless otherwise permitted by the
Engineer, and, if required, shall be connected with ditches and drained to the
nearest water course.

BERMS.

30. Berms of not less than the following widths must, where possible, be left

98 NATIONAL RANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

between the slope stakes and edges of borrow pits or ditches: For banks under
3 feet in height, berms 6 ft. wide; for banks 3 to 10 feet in height, berms 8 feet
wide; for banks over 10 feet in height, berms 10 feet wide.

SLOPES OF BORROW PITS.

31. The side slopes of borrow pits on the right-of-way nearest the embank-
ment, shall not be less than Ih to 1, and those nearest to the outside of the right-
of-way, not less than 1 to 1, always leaving sufficient berm to prevent the right-
of-way fence from caving, but in no case less than four feet.

BORROWING AT STATIONS.

32. Borrowing from the side will not be allowed on either side of the centre
line within eight hundred (800) feet of a station building, or a proposed station
site, except where otherwise directed by the Engineer.

Classification.

CLASSIFICATION.

33. Grading will be commonly classified under the following heads: "Solid
Rock Excavation"; "Loose Rock" and "Common Excavation."

SOLID ROCK EXCAVATION.

34. Solid rock excavation will include all rock found in ledges or masses of
more than one cubic yard, which, in the judgment of the Engineer, may be best
removed by blasting.

LOOSE ROCK,

35. All large stones and boulders measuring more than one cubic foot and
less than one cubic yard, and all loose rock whether in situ or otherwise, that
may be removed by hand, pick or bar, all cemented gravel, indurated clay and
other materials, that cannot, in the judgment of the Engineer, be ploughed with
a 10-inch grading plough, behind a team of six good horses, properly handled;
and without the necessity of blasting, although blasting may be occasionally
resorted to, shall be classified as ' 'Loose Rock. "

COMMON EXCAVATION.

36. Common excavation will include all earth, free gravel or other material
of any character whatever not classified as solid or loose rock.

36a. No classification other than that of common excavation will be allowed
on material from borrow pits, except by order in writing of the Engineer.

SLIDES.

37. Material in slips, slides and subsidences extending beyond slopes in cut-
tings will not be paid for unless, in the opinion of the Engineer, such occurrences
were beyond the control of the Contractor and not preventable by use of due care
and diligence.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 99

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

CLASSIFICATION OF SLIDES.

38. The classification of material from slides shall be made by the Engineer,
and will be in accordance with its condition at the time of the slide, regardless of
prior conditions.

MEASUREMENTS — HOW MADE.

39. Measurements will usually be made in excavation, and will only be made
in embankments when borrow pits of great irregularity only can be had, and
where it is practicable to measure the material in excavation. In such cases
the following percentage will • be deducted from the bank measurements, viz :
When the bank is made up from side casting and shovel work, 10%; wagon and
wheel scraper work, 7%; slush scraper work, 5%.

Foundations.

DIMENSIONS.

40. Foundation pits shall be of such dimensions and excavated to such depths
as are shown on the plans, and, if required, shall be excavated to such further
dimensions and depths as may be necessary to insure stability of the structure to
be erected, according to the instructions of the Engineer, but in no case less than
is shown on plans, except by the order in writing of the Engineer.

MATERIAL WHERE DEPOSITED.

41. Material excavated from foimdation pits shall be deposited in the em-
bankment, unless otherwise directed. Excavation for foundation pits, including
those excavated under water, but not requiring caissons, cofferdams or other
special appliances, shall be paid for at the schedule price per cubic yard excavated,
such excavation to be kept dry, and the schedule price shall include the necessary
bailing or pumping. Solid rock in such foundations will be paid for at a rate of
three times that given in schedule, Item 4.

COFFER DAMS AND PUMPING.

41a. Foundations requiring coffer dams and pumping — excavation shall be
made in the dry, that is, am.ple pumping capacity shall be furnished by the Con-
tractor to insure dry work, and the price per cubic yard of excavation shall include
the cost of said pumping or bailing. Coffer dams or caissons shall be built only
when necessary in the opinion of the Engineer and ordered in ^vriting by him,
and shall be paid for at the schedule rates per thousand feet net timber, and per
pound for iron, bolts or spikes in place in the structure, which prices shall include
all labor and material incidental thereto, including caulking.

BUILT TO STANDARD PLANS.

42. Foundations must be built strictly according to the general or special
plans. Material used in their construction must, in every respect, conform with
the specifications of the Commissioners.

TAMPING.

43. Great care must be used to thoroughly tamp and solidify the ground in

100 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

the bottom of foundation trenches for bridges, trestles, culverts, buildings or
other structures. Where mud sills are used they must be settled to a permanent
bearing by ramming with heav}- rammers.

Specifications for Portland Cement.

BRAND.

44. No cement will be allowed to be used, except established brands of high-
grade Portland cement, which have been successfully used under similar climatic
conditions, and approved by the Engineer.

WEIGHT.

45. A sack of cement shall mean 87-^ lbs., four sacks making a barrel of 350
lbs.

PACKAGE.

47. The package shall be plainly labelled with the name of the brand and of
the manufacturer, and must be put up in good, sound, strong barrels, well lined
with paper, or in case where bags can be advantageously used, in good stout cloth
or canvas, tight sacks.

TESTS.

48. Tests must be made from time to time of the fineness, specific gravity,
soundness, time of setting, tensile strength and chemical composition,

FINENESS.

49. Ninety-four per cent, of the cement must pass through a sieve made of
No. 40 wire Stubbs gauge, having ten thousand (10,000) openings per square inch.

SPECIFIC GRAVITY.

50. The specific gravity of the cement, as determined from a sample, which
has been carefully dried, shall be between 3.10 and 3.25.

SOUNDNESS.

51. To test the soundness of the cement at least two pats of neat cement
mixed for five minutes with 20 per cent, of water by weight shall be made on glass,
each pat about (3) three inches in diameter and one-half {^) inch thick at the
centre, tapering thence to a thin edge. To be well trowelled to work out air
bubbles and surplus moisture. The pats are to be kept under a wet cloth until
finally set, when one is to be placed in fresh water for twenty-eight (28) days.
The second pat will be placed on the rack in "Faija hot bath tank" over the vapour
of water heated to 170° Fahr. and allowed to remain there from 3 to 4 hours,
after which it will be placed in the hot water, temperature 170° Fahr. where it
will remain for the balance of the twenty-four hours, and then be allowed to cool.
In some cases it will be found desirable to raise the temperature of the water
to the boiling point 212° Fahr. Neither sample shoiild show distortion or cracks.

I

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 101

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

TIME OF SETTING.

52. The cement shall not acquire its initial set in less than 45 minutes and
must have acquired its final set in ten hours.

The cement is considered to have acquired its initial set when the pat will
bear, without being appieciabh^ indented, a wire one-twelfth of an inch in dia-
meter loaded with one-fourth of a pound. The final set has been acquired when
the pat will bear, without being appreciably indented, a w^re one twenty-fourth
of an inch in diameter, loaded to weigh one pound.

TENSILE STRENGTH.

53. Briquettes made of neat cement, after being kept in air for twenty-four
hours under a wet cloth, and the balance of the time in water, shall develop ten-
sile strength per square inch, as follows:

After seven days, 450 pounds; after 28 days, 540 pounds.^ Briquettes made
of one part cement and three parts clean sharp sand, by weight, shall develop
tensile strength per square inch, as follows!

After seven days, 140 pounds; after 28 days, 220 pounds.

GOVERNING TEST.

54. The highest result from each set of five briquettes made at any one time,
is to be considered the governing test. Any cement not showing an increase of
strength in the 28 days over the seven days' test, will be rejected.

MAKING BRIQUETTES.

55. When making briquettes, neat cement will be mixed with 20 per cent,
of water by weight, and sand and cement with 12J per cent, of water, by weight.
After being thoroughly mixed and worked for five minutes, the cement or mortar
will be placed in the briquette mould in five equal- layers and each layer rammed
and compressed by 30 blows of a soft brass or copper rammer, three-quarters of
an inch in diameter (or seven-tenths of an inch square, with rounded corners),
weighing one pound. It is to be allowed to drop on the mixture from a height
of about one half-inch. When the ramming is completed, the surplus cement
shall be struck off and the final layer smoothed with a trowel held almost horizon-
tal and drawn back with sufficient pressure to make its edge follow the surface of
the mould. The briquettes will be kept in air under a wet cloth until set, when
they will be placed in clean fresh water where they v^^ill remain until broken.

CHEMICAL ANALYSIS.

56. Manufacturers shall furnish a chemical analysis which will give the aver-
age composition of the cement supplied by them.

Specification for sand for Concrete and Masonry.

SAND.

57. Sand shall be clean, sharp, of variable size of grain, largely silica and
must be free of loam, mica or other deleterious substances.

102 NATION AL\TRANSC0NT1NENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914
Specification for Stone for Concrete.

STONE.

58.^ Stone for concrete shall consist of hard, strong stone, granite, gneiss
and allied rocks, limestone or other approved solid stone, or suitable gravel ap-
proved by the Engineer. Under no circumstances will shale, slate or similar friable
rocks be used.

Specification for Stone Masonry.

FOR MASONRY.

59. Stone used for masonry shall consist of the strongest, hardest and best
description of rock that can be found. Sound, hard limestone, granite, sandstone
(when equal to Wallace stone) or other approved rock. Particular care will be
exercised to exclude rock with "drys" shaky stratification or weak cleavage
planes. All stones shall be laid upon their quarry beds, and shall be well selected
sound stone. Particular care will be taken to exclude all rock shattered by blast-
ing. No stone shall be used for masonry or concrete until it has been anoroved
by the District Engineer.

Concrete Culverts and Concrete Pipes.

MUST BE BUILT TO STANDARD.

60. Concrete culverts must be built in strict accordance with the standard
plans, and the concrete used in their construction must strictly conform to the
standard specification.

Specifications for Concrete.

CONCRETE FOR FOUNDATIONS, ETC.

61. Concrete will be used whenever suitable stone for masonry is not to be
had at reasonable cost; it will always be used in foundations, hearting of piers,
backing of abutments, small culverts, and generally, where in the judgment of
the Chief Engineer, a more satisfactory work can be had than by other methods.
The proportions to be used in making concrete, will vary with the nature of the
work as hereinafter described. Proportions are to be by measure, the barrel
being the unit, being the volume of a 350 pound barrel.

FACE CONCRETE.

62. Face concete will be used hi all cases where the structure is exposed to
the air or water, and when the body of the structure is made of concrete, it will
consist of one part Portland cement, two parts sand, mixed together thoroughly
while dry, when sufficient clean water will be added to bring the mortar to the
consistency of rather stiff plasterer's mortar. (A ball of it taken in the hand will
retain its form and the impress of the fingers.)

MACHINE MIXED CONCRETE,

63. Machine mixed concrete will be acccptalile when a suitable batch mixer
is used.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION

103

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

The face concrete will average 2^ inches in thickness and will be placed as
nearly as possible simultaneously wdth the mass concrete of the body of the pier
or structure. An excellent plan to secure a homogeneous mass, is to deposit the
face material against the form in a triangular piece, some two inches higher than
the regular bed in the body of the pier, then ramming the entire mass together;
see sketch :

BODY COXCRETE FOR PIERS, ABUTMENTS AND LARGE MASSES.

64. The concrete wUl consist of one part Portland cement, three parts sand,
six parts broken stone, or screened gravel, the same shall vary in size, the largest
pieces shall pass a 2^ inch ring, the smaller may be of the size of a lima bean.
In piers exposed to the action of running ice or logs, the cut-waters and up-stream
corners must , if considered necessary, and ordered in writing by the Engineer, be
faced with first-class stone masonry up to high water mark, which actual masonry
shall be paid for at the schedule rate for first-class masonry.

HAND-MIXED.

The sand and cement shall be thoroughly mixed together, dry, when the
stone will be added, the whole then to be well wet down and to be thoroughly
mixed together with shovels. __

MACHINE MIXED.

Co. Machine mixed concrete shall be mixed in approved batch mixers and
the Avhole of the material may be dumped into the mixers at once, providing
the apportionment of material is properly made before being placed in the mixers.
It is intended to secure wet concrete, the whole mass after being as above de-
scribed, thoroughly mixed, will be deposited in place, in the dry. Only in ex-
ceptional cases will any concrete under any circumstances be permitted to be
deposited through water, and only when the approval of the Chief Engineer has
first been obtained, approving of the method to be used, and the proportions
to be used. In all cases when large masses of concrete are being placed, subject
to the approval of the Chief Engineer or Inspectors, large blocks of approved
stone, spaced at least 12 inches apart in every direction and ten inches from the
face — may be used — "plums in the pudding." In fixing the size of the stone to
be so deposited, due regard will be had to the mass of the structure in general,
the proper size will be found by looking at the drawing of the structure.

DEPTH OF LAYERS.

66. As a general rule concrete shall not be deposited in layers of a greater
depth than 12 inches, the whole layer to be well and thoroughly rammed with

9

04 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

^ • 4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

suitable rammers. Great care will be required to insure homogenity in the mass;
in depositing on a layer that has set or partially set, it must be thoroughly cleaned
and wet down. No layer or surface will be rammed smooth. It is desirable to
leave the surface as uneven and rugged as is consistent with proper compacting
of the layer.

CONCRETE FOR ARCH CULVERTS.

t)7. The concrete composing the arch ring will consist of one part cement,
three parts sand, five parts broken stone, mixed and deposited in the manner
heretofore described, except that the ring will be built up from both springing
lines simultaneously. When considered necessary by the Engineer, steel beams,
bars, rods or other approved reinforcement may be imbedded in the concrete, and,
if necessary, secured by clamps, bolts, etc. Such steel beams, bars, rods, clamps,
bolts, etc., to be furnished, placed and secured in the work by the Contractor for
the price mentioned in schedule, Item 103, which price shall include the material
and all labor incidental to securing it in place.

COPING COURSE AND BRIDGE SEATS.

68. The concrete for same shall consist of one part cement, two parts sand,
four parts finely crushed, hard selected stone, or screened gravel, the coarse par-
ticles not to exceed three-quarters of an inch and to vary in size down to that of
pea size. This coping course to be at least six inches thick. Particular care
shall be exacted to insure the thorough mixing and depositing of this layer, which
must be placed before the mass beneath it has set. The whole surface to be
floated ofif even and perfectly level, with a wooden float, so as to insure a perfectly
smooth, even surface.

TANK FOUNDATIONS.

69. Concrete shall consist of the same quality as that provided for piers and
abutments, except that no displacers shall be used in the walls.

TURNTABLE FOUNDATIONS.

70. Concrete shall consist of the same quality as that provided for piers and
abutments.

ORDINARY BUILDING FOUNDATIONS

71. Concrete shall consist of one part cement, four parts sand, eight parts
broken stone or gravel. The broken stone or gravel shall vary in size from two
and one-half inches in diameter to pea size. The methods of mixing and depositing
to be as heretofore described.

FILLING.

72. Filling over and around culverts shall not, in any case, be done before
the concrete is set. The minimum time allowed will be two weeks, but may be
extended if required.

HOW PAID FOR.

73. In all concrete work the schedule price shall cover the cost of all tools,

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 105

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

plant, labor and material incidental to the construction thereof, including forms
and centres, where necessary, but the preparation of foundations will be paid for
at the specified rate per cubic yard.

Stone Masonry.

POINTING.

74. Joints below the ground line shall be thoroughly pointed up with a trowel
as the work progresses, but need not be raked out.

Joints above the ground line shall be carefully raked to a depth of one (1)
inch and pointed up with fresh mortar consisting of one part Portland cement
and two parts of sand.

If the structure is subject to the action of running water, or is unusually
exposed, the pointing mortar shall consist of one (1) part of Portland cement to
one (1) part of sand; and the joints shall be raked out-to a depth of one and one-
half (1^) inches.

Before filling the joints be careful that they are well cleaned by brushing out
all loose matter, and thoroughly wet. Apply the mortar with the trowel and calk
the joints so that tlie}^ will be completely filled.

If pointing is done in very hot weather great care should be taken by wetting
the stones, not to allow the mortar to dry too rapidly. No pointing shall be done
in freezing weather.

LAYING.

75. Ail stone, whether face, coping or backing, shall be laid in full flush beds
of mortar mixed fresh for the work in hand. In no case shall stone be allowed
to touch stone; a good bed of mortar must intervene. Wedging up of stones
with spalls or chips will not be allowed. No mortar shall be spread on any stone
already laid until the latter has been swept ofif cleanly and then thoroughly wet.
All stones must be free from scales. THOROUGHLY CLEANED by washing
or otherwise, from sand and dirt, and thoroughly wet before laying. All rear
joints shall be thoroughly filled with mortar and struck smooth as the wall is
bu 't up.

QUALITY OF STONE.

76. Bridge r eats, coping, arch sheeting, ring stones and ashlar or face stones,
shall be sound and durable, of neat quality, free from any defects, and acceptable
to the Engineer.

The backing shall consist of sound, durable, well shaped stones, free from
defects that will impa'r their durability or strength, and shall consist of large
stones that in general require handling with a derrick.

COPING AND BRIDGE SEATS.

77. The bridge seat course shall include the cut stone course upon which the
superstructure rests. Each stone of the bridge seats shall be set to the?exact
proper height to receive the bridge, sha'l not be less than (20) twenty inches in
thickness, two feet and six inches (2'6") in]!ength,^and of sufficient width to extend
twelve (12) inches into the back or parapet wall. Piers of seven (7) feet, or less,
under bridge seat, shall have bridge seats extend across top of pier in one piece.
They shall be finely bush-hammered on top to true planes, free from hollows or
"winds,'' and shall be laid to joints not exceeding one-half {^) inch in thickness.
They shall be laid in full beds of mortar, as grouting will not be allowed.

106 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

Copings shall include the top course of i\'taining walls. They shall not be
less than twelve (12) inches in thickness, three (3) feet long, and of sufficient
width to extend across the entire width of the wall. Top surfaces shall be bush-
hammered, with edges neatly pitched to straight lines. Joints of copings shall
not exceed one-half (^) inch.

ARCH SHEETING AND RING STONES.

78. Sheeting for arch-culverts shall f*onsist of large sized stone, with radial
beds and joints extending through the whole thickness of the arch, and hammer or
point-dressed, so as to admit of one-half (^) inch joints. The sheeting shall be
laid in continuous courses, care being taken to break joints not less than nine
(9) inches, so that the arch will be thoroughly bonded. No stone shall be less
than eight (8) inches wide on the intrados. Centres shall not be removed until
so ordered by the Engineer.

Ring stones shall be dressed to the size and shape shown on the plans, or
as directed by the Engineer, shall be laid with one-quarter inch joints, and shall
])ond thoroughly with the sheeting. The joints must be on truly radial lines.
Faces shall be left rough and with one and one-half (1^) inch chiseled draft line
on the curved margin.

The top of the third-class rubble masonry spandrel backing and arch shall
have a coat at least one (1) inch thick of Portland cement mortar, one part of cement
to four parts of sand (1:4) on top of which apply a coating of about one-quarter
{\) inch thick of straight run coal tar pitch. In case it is not practicable to secure
the coal tar, then a richer mortar of one part cement to two parts sand (1:2) shall
be used, the cost of which shall be included in the price for arch sheeting and
ring stones.

FIRST-CLASS MASONRY.

79. General Description. — First-class masonry shall be used where
directed by the Engineer for abutments, piers and retaining walls, and shall con-
sist of rock-faced ashlar work, with rough backing. Edges shall be pitched to
straight lines, beds shall be parallel and joints rectangular.

The face stones shall be arranged on their natural beds as headers and stretchers
in regular continouus courses, not less than sixteen (16) inches nor more than
thirty-six (36) inches in thickness, and the thickness of any course shall not exceed
that of the course below it.

SIZE OF STONE.

80. Stretchers must not be less than two and one-half (2^) feet in length,
and not less than one and one-half (1^) feet in width; nor in any case less in width
than one and one-quarter {l}) times their depth. Headers must not be less than
four feet long where the wall is of sufficient thickness, and at least two (2) feet
longer than the width of the adjacent stretchers not less than one and one-half
(1^) feet in width, nor less in width than they are in depth of course. In walls of
five feet or less in thickness, the headers shall extend entirely through the same.

Wing steps shall be of the full lliickness of the course.

curriNG.

81. Every stone must be laid on its natural bed. All face stones must nave
beds Well dressed, parallel and true to proj^cr line and made to extend the full
length and wi<lth of tlie stone. The beds and sides of tlie face .stones must be

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 107

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

cut before being placed in the work, so as to form joints not exceeding one-half
(^) inch in width. No hammering on stone will be allowed after it is set; but
if any inequalities occur, they must be pointed off. The vertical joints must' not
be less than ten (10) inches in from the face and as much more as the stone will
admit. All corners and batter lines shall be run with a neat chisel draft one and
one-half inches (1^) in width on each corner. The projections of the quarry face
beyond the draft line shall not exceed four inches (4). The tops of wing steps
shall be bush-hammered to a uniform surface.

BOND.

82. The masonry shall consist of headers and stretchers alternately arranged
so as to thoroughly bond together the face stone and the backing; and every header
shall be immediately over a stretcher of the underlying stone. The stones of each
course of face stones shall be so aranged so as to form a bond of at least one foot
(1) with the stone of the underlying course. Particular care must be taken that
the stones in the course below the coping course, coming directly under the bridge
seats, are large and well bedded.

BACKING.

83. The backing shall consist of ; large-sized, well-shaped stones, laid so as
to break joints and thoroughly bond the work in all directions, and leave no spaces
between them more than six inches in width, as nearly as possible, which space
shall be filled with concrete. The courses may correspond with the face stones,
but two (2) courses shall fill up one (1) of the face, providing no stone less than
six (6) inches thick be used. The broadest shall be laid undermost, and must
have a good bearing on the stone below. Two-thnds (|) of the upper bed shall
be of the full thickness of the course.

General Description.

SECOND CLASS.

84. Second-class masonry shall consist of rock-faced ashlar work. It shall
be used for such small arch-culverts, cattle passes, abutments, piers and retaining
walls as the Engineer may direct, and shall include the portion of the structure
above the concrete footing courses.

FACE STONES.

85. Face stones shall be of a superior quality, free from defects such as clay
seams, dry-seams, weather cracks, etc., shall be rock-faced, with edges pitched
to straight lines, with no projections exceeding four (4) inches; and shall have
parallel beds and rectangular joints. The beds and end joints for six inches (6)
back from the face line shall be point or hammer dressed to three-quarter (f)
inch joints. No face stone shall be less than eight (8) inches in thickness, nor be
in breadth less than twelve (12) inches, nor less in length than its breadth. The
wing steps shall be of the full thickness of the course and the steps thereof shall
be bush-hammered to a smooth surface. All corners or batter lines are to be
Tun with a neat chisel draft of one and one-half (H) inches on each corner.

108 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

COURSES.

86. The stones need not be arranged in regular courses, but shall be laid
level on their natural beds, arranged as headers and stretchers, with joints well
broken.

BOND.

87. At least one-quarter {\) of the face stones shall be headers not less than
three feet (3) six (6) inches long, except where the thickness of the wall is less
and extending through the wall, where the same is four feet (4) thick or less,
and at least two (2) feet longer than the width of the adjacent stretcher and so
distributed so as to make the best bond. The stone of each course of face stone
shall be so arranged so as to form a bond of at least one (1) foot with the stone
of the underlying course, except in the case of "fillers" in broken range work.

BACKING.

88. The backing shall be well-shaped, sound, durable stone, not less than six
(6) inches thick, at least one-half of which (^) shall measure three (3) cubic feet,
to be laid close in full mortar beds and joints, well bonded with face stones, and
with joints well broken. All spaces between backing and face stone are to be
filled with concrete.

General Description.

THIRD CLASS.

89. Rubble masonry shall be used for such small culverts, depot foundations
and piers, pipe ends, spandrel backing for arches, and other structures as the
Engineer may direct.

GENERAL CONDITIONS.

90. All stones shall be sound and durable, with the face stones free from clay
seams, dry seams, weather cracks, etc. They shall ])e laid on their natural beds,
and shall be sufficiently large to make a good, well bonded, strong job; shall be
laid in the most substantial manner, and with as much neatness as this description
of work will permit.

DIMENSIONS OF STONE.

91. No stone shall be used in the face that has more height than breadth
of bed. No spalls shall be permitted in the bed joints.

BOND.

92. The whole wall shall be bound together with headers occupying one-fifth
(1-5) of the area of the face of the wall, front and rear, extending through walls
three (3) feet or less in thickness.

COURSING.

93. The walls shall be levelled up and coursed longitudinally at least every
four (4) feet in height.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 100

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

STONE TO BE ROUGHLY SQUARED.

94. Stone shall be roughly squared on joints, beds and faces laid so as to
break joints, and in full mortar beds.

VERTICAL SPACES.

95.f All^inside vertical spaces shall be flushed with mortar and then packed
full of spalls. No liquid grouting shall be allowed.

All rear joints shall be thoroughly filled and struck smooth as the wall is
built up.

ANGLES.

96. Selected stone shall be used at all angles, and shall be neatly pitched to
true lines, and laid on hammer-dressed beds.

BOX CULVERTS.

97. All stone box culverts shall have a water way at least 2^ x 3 feet. The
side walls shall not be less than two (2) feet thick, and shall be built of sound,
durable stones, not less than six (6) inches thick, laid in cement mortar (usually
one part Portland cement to three parts sand.) The walls must be laid in true
horizontal courses, but in case the thickness of the course is greater than twelve
(12) inches, occasionally two (2) stones may be used to make up the thickness.
The walls must be laid so as to be throughly bonded, and at least one-fourth (^)
of the area of each course must be headers going entirely through the wall. The
top course must have one-half (^) its area of through stones, and the remainder
of this course must consist of stone going at least one-half of the way across the
wall from the inside face. The face stones of each course must be dressed to a
straight edge, and pitched off a true line. All of the coping stones of head walls
must be troughs, and must have the upper surfaces hammer-dressed to a straight
edge, and the face pitched off to a true line with margin draft.

COVER STONES.

Cover stones shall have a thickness of at least (12) twelve inches for opening
of three feet, and at least fourteen inches for opening of four feet; and must be
carefully selected, and must be of such length as to have a bearing of at least one
(1) foot on either wall.

The beds and vertical joints of the face stones for a distance of six inches (6)
from the face of the wall, shall be so dressed as to require a mortar joint not thicker
than three-fourths of an inch (|). Joints between the covering stones must not
be wider than three-fourths (|) of an inch, and the bearing surface of cover stones
upon side walls must be so dressed as to require not more than one (1) inch mortar
joint.

PAVING STONES.

The paving shall consist of flat stones, set on edge, at right angles with the
line of the culvert, not less than twelve (12) inches deep, and shall be laid hi cement
mortar. This class of paving will be paid for under the schedule rates per cubic
yard for third-class masonry.

no NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v.. A. 1914
TURNTABLE MASONRY.

98. Shall consist of second-class masonry as hereinbefore described.

FOUNDATION AND WALLS FOR WATER TANK WELLS.

99. Shall consist of third-class masonry as hereinbefore described.

100. The circular walls to be parallel and true to line and to consist of third-
class masonry as hereinbefore described.

Cast Iron Culvert Pipe.

QUALITY CAST IRON CULVERTS.

101. They shall be cast vertically in dry sand moulds and dried cores and
shall be coated with Dr. Smith's solution, or some other solution approved by the
Engineer, while hot. and shall be of the highest quality of metal in use for pipe
founding purposes.

DIMENSIONS.

102. The size, length, thickness and weight shall be as in the following table: —

Diameter

Length

Thickness

Weight

18 inches .

24 " .

30 " .

36 " .

36 " .

42 " .

48 " .

60 " .

12

12

12

12

6

8

6

6

1

1800
2400
2900
4100
2100
3200
3000
4850

Salt Glazed Double Strength Vitrified Pipe.

SALT glazed pipe CULVERTS — 15 and 18 inches.

102a. Shall be of well burnt vitrified clay, with a smooth, salt glazed surface,
true to diameter, straight, in three feet (3) lengths, with bell and spigot. The
thickness of shells for 15 inch to be one and one-quarter inches, and for 18 indi
one and one-half inches.

SUB-SOIL DRAINS.

103. Agi'icultural tile four inches (4) in diameter, shall be straight, well burnt,
true in diameter, and free from cracks or checks.

REINFORCED CEMENT PIPE CULVERl'S.

104. Tlio concrete shall consist of one part cement, one and one-half parts

INVESTMATING commission 111

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

sand, three parts one and one-half inch diameter broken stone or screened gravel
of same dimensions. The reinforcing metal to be in accordance with the best
modern practice, and both the mixing of the concrete, the method of reinforcing,
the size of the pipe, length and all other matters in connection therewith, to be
approved b}^ the Engineer.

MASONRY ENDS.

105. All to have concrete or masonry ends for protection walls.

FOUNDATIONS FOR PIPE.

106. Great care must be taken to get a firm and uniform bearing for pipe
culverts, and material for bedding the pipe must be free from'stone.

JOINTS.

107. The joints of all pipe, both ifbn and vitrified, shall be well and 'thoroughly
packed, as shown on standard plans. Cast iron pipe of 30 inches diameter and
over, shall be stayed and crowned by wedging in strutts as shown on standard
plans. The strutts shall not be removed until sufficient settlement has taken
place in the bank. In general, this will not be less than one year from the com-
pletion of the filling. ,

FOUNDATIONS FOR VITRIFIED PIPE.

108. Where vitrified pipe is laid in hard ground the bottom of the bench
in which the pipe is to lay should be rounded to fit the pipe as nearly as possible,
so that the pipe may rest easily and solidly in its bed. If the ground is soft, a
foundation satisfactory to the Engineer shall be made.

Riprapping.

RIPRAP STONE TO BE ANGULAR.

109. When required by the special or general plans as ordered by the Engineer
as protection against the action of water, hand laid or "Pierre Perdu Random"
of angular stones shall be laid or placed on embankments, or about foundations,
or at the ends of culverts or masonry or other places, as directed. Boulders shall
not be used unless ordered in writing by the Engineer.

SIZE.

The largest procurable stones shall be used, and they shall in no case measure
less than one cubic foot. The largest stone shall be placed at the bottom and
where the current is the greatest. They shall be laid as closely together as possible
so as to avoid large openings.

TRENCHES.

110. When required, a trench shall be excavated at the base of the slope to
such a depth as will in-^ure a solid foundation, and all sand or ice or other
perishable matter will be removed.

112 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

GENERAL DIMENSIONS.

111. In general, the depth of the riprapping at the base shall measure three
feet at right angles to the slope and shall gradually taper off to a depth of two feet;
but shall, if ordered by the Engineer, be built of any required thickness.

HOW PAID FOR.

112. Riprapping shall be paid for at the specified rate per cubic yard in place,
for each class.

Paving.

WHERE USED.

113. When required by the general or special plans, as ordered by the Eng-
ineer, the ends of masonry or concrete culverts, vitrified or iron pipe, the bottom
of wooden culverts, and other places, shall be protected by paving.

DESCRIPTION.

114. Paving will be made of flat stones set upon their edges, the longest
dimensions at right angles to the waterway in such manner as to leave the least
possible space between them, and of such size as to reach through the entire depth
of the pavement.

UNDERMINING.

115. Great care must be taken at the ends of any piece of paving to make
it secure, so it cannot be undermined or cut by water flowing underneath it. The
lower end must receive special care to prevent this undermining. A concrete
apron shall be provided when required by the Engineer.

HOW PAID FOR.

116. Paving will be paid for at the specified rate per cubic yard in place, as per
Item 17 in the schedule.

Tunnels.

HOW BUILT.

117. All tunnels must be built in strict accordance with the general or special
plans.

LINING.

118. Tunnels which do not require lining shall be excavated to the section
and dimensions shown on the standard plans for "Tunnels, Rock Section."

TIMBER, CONCRETE OR MASONRY LINING.

119. Tunnels which require lining with timber, masonry or concrete, shall
be excavated to the section and dimensions as shown on the standard plans for

'"Tunnels. Timbered Section."

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 113

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

DANGEROUS ROCK,

120. The Contractor must take outsat his own expense all loose or shattered
rock which is loose or likely to become so.

ROCK TUNNELS.

121. Rock tunnels shall be excavated to one foot below profile grade and
refilled to such grade with rock spalls or other approved material.

EXPLOSIVES.

122. The contractor must limit the use of explosives to avoid unnecessarily-
shattering the roof or sides of the tunnel, or damaging the lining, and the Engineer
shall have the right to restrict the use of such explosives.

SITUATION OF LINING.

123. Where lining is required, such lining must conform to the standard or
special plans.

LINING

124. Lining will be made with timber, concrete or masonry, as ordered.

TIMBER LINING.

125. Where timber is used, it shall be red or yellow fir, cedar, oak, tamarac,
or white or yellow pine, as may be designated, and must be of the best description
of the kind required. It must be hewed or sawed square and to proper dimensions.
It must be free from all loose, large or unsound knots, sap, sun cracks, shakes,
wanes or other imperfections or defects what would lessen its durability.

LAGGING.

126. The lagging shall be in pieces 4 inches thick and 6 inches wide.

HOW PAID FOR.

127. Timber used for lining shall be paid for at the specified rate per thousand
feet B.M. of timber left in completed structure.

TIMBER PRICE INCLUDES IRON REQUIRED.

The price paid per thousand feet will include the cost of the necessary iron
and the total cost of all labor incidental to putting the timber and iron in place.

USE OF CONCRETE OR MASONRY.

128. Where concrete or masonry is used for lining, such concrete or masonry
must be built in strict accordance with the section and dimensions as shown on
the standard plans or special plans, and must conform strictly with the specifi-
cations for concrete or masonry.

114 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

PROTECTION OF LINING FROM BLASTING.

129. The Contractor will be required, at his own expense, to protect the lining
when in place from, the effects of blasting, by covering with slabs or otherwise as
most conveninent.^; He will also be required to replace, at his own expense, any
lining shattered or crushed in any stage of the work by blasting or other operations
of his^own.

CAVITIES BEHIND THE LINING.

130. In lined tunnels the Contractor must, to his own expense, fill in any
cavities behind the lining, resulting from any cause whatever, so that the roof and
sides will in all cases have a firm bearing on the lagging or lining. In timbered
tunnels this packing shall consist of timber or stones. When the lining is con-
structed of concrete or masonry the packing shall consist of stones closely
packed together.

PORTALS.

131. Material in portals will be paid for at the same rate as lining in the tunnel.

NICHES OR RECESSES.

132. Niches or recesses for the protection or convenience of railway employees
shall be constructed when ordered.

DRAINAGE.

133. Drainage shall be carefully executed as shown upon the standard or
special plans or as directed, and all drains or sources of water shall be treated
as directed, the cost of which shall be included in the price per lineal foot of ex-
cavation.

SHAFTS.

134. The number, location and dimensions of all shafts shall be shown as
on the plans, or as directed, and the specified price per cubic yard for shaft ex-
cavation shall cover all material contained between the surfaces of the ground
and the cross section of the tunnel, as shown on the standard or special plans
and the cost of all labor and material incidental to their construction.

' WELLS OR SUMPS.

135. All wells or sumps necessary for the completed tunnel shall be made as
directed and shall be paid for at the same rate per cubic yard as shaft excavation.

TUNNEL EXCAVATION.

13G. Tunnel excavation shall be paid for at the specified rate per lineal fool
under cover for "Tunnels, Rock Section" and "Tunnels, Timber ISection." The
specified rate per lineal foot shall cover the whole cost of labor and material inci-
dental to the excavation of the tunnel and the haul and deposit of the material in
the embankments at the ends of the tunnel, as directed.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 115

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

NET SECTIOX.

137. No allowance shall be made for material taken out beyond the theoretical
section shown on the standard or special plans.

DIMENSIONS,

138. The standard dimensions of the tunnel may be varied if found necessary
or'desired. If the area of the section be not thereby increased no extra allowance
shall be made to the Contractor on account of such change. If the area of the
section be thereby increased or diminished, the specified rate per lineal foot shall
be increased or diminished in proportion.

Timber Structures.

TO BE BUILT TO PLANS.

139. All structures must be built in strict accordance with the general or
special plans.

QUALITY.

140. All timber either sawed or hewed must be of the best description of the
kind required. As directed by the Engineer, it must be sawn or hewn square and
to proper dimensions. It must be free from all loose, large or unsound Icnots
sap, sun cracks, shakes, wanes or other imperfections or defects which would im-
pair its strength or durability.

QUALITY AND DESCRIPTION.

141. The quality and description of timber used for each portion of the struc-
ture must be as specified. Stringers must be of long leaf yellow pine, douglas fir,
white pine, or other timber approved by the Engineer.

CLEARING GROUND.

142. Before commencing work on any wooden structure, the ground must
be entirely cleared of logs, brush and trees for the whole of the width of the right-
of-way, and during the progress of the work all pile or|,timber ends, chips and
brush, shall be cleared from around the structure and burnt, or otherwise dis-
posed of as the Engineer may direct."*^

m i

FRAMING.

. . . S , , .

143. No shimmmg will be permitted. Great care must be taken m frammg
all timber structures, to insure perfect fit at all joints. At the completion of
the work they must be left in perfect line and surface.

ERECTION OF BRIDGES AHEAD OF TRACK.

144. Bridges must be erected ahead of the track in all cases, but the maxi-
mum distance beyond the end of track to which the Contractor shall be required
to haul timber or other material without extra payment, shall not exceed four
miles.

116 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914
Piling for Foundations.

TIMBER.

145. Piles may be of oak, rock elm, douglas fir, tamarac, cedar, hemlock,
jack pine and spruce, to be straight, or reasonably straight-grained, sound, live
timber, free from all bad knots, wind shakes or other defects. All diameters
must be measured inside the bark, which shall be removed before delivery.

DIMENSIONS.

146. Standard dimensions for piling are as follows: — Minimum lengths in
feet 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, over 50; Diameter in inches at small end, 10,
9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 8, 8, over 7^, Butt diameter to be not less than 12 inches or more
than 20 inches at five feet from butt.

LENGTHS.

147. Piles will only be accepted and paid for in lengths which are multiples
of five.

HOW DRIVEN.

148. Unless otherwise directed, all piles shaU be sharpened and driven small
end down, capped with a suitable iron ring, as the Engineer may direct, to prevent
spreading or brooming while driving, and, if required, sha'l be shod with an iron
shoe of approved design.

DRIVING.

149. Piles shall be driven until the fall of a hammer weighing 2,000 pounds,
with a clear fall of 25 feet or an equivalent blow, causes a penetration not to
exceed 10 inches under the last blow, or to such further limit as directed.

BROKEN PILES.

150. Should any piling be broken in the driving, another sound pile shall
be driven alongside to replace it.

BATTER PILES.

151. All piles must be driven vertically unless otherwise shown on the plan.
Batter piles will be driven at the batter shown on the plan.

EXTRA LENGTHS — HOW ATTAINED.

152. When necessary to drive great depth, and piles of adequate length
cannot be obtained, one shall be spliced on top of another. The first pile having
been driven as far as practicable, it shall be cut off square to receive the following
pile, which must also be squared and set on top of the one already driven, using
a dowell pin 1 inch in diameter in the centre, extending 8 inches at least into each
pile. Thf piles shall th 'ii be flatted on four sides and fastened together by
spiking on pieces of scantling.

r

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 117

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

HOW PAID FOR.

153. Piling will be paid for under the headings of " Piles Delivered " and " Pile
Driving. "

engineer's bill of lengths only will be paid for.

"Piles delivered" will include piling furnished by the Contractor at bridge
site, as ordered by the Engineer, and will be paid for by the lineal foot, but any
lengths in excess of those ordered by the Engineer will not be paid for.

"Pile Driving" will be paid for at the specified rate per net lineal foot in the
finished structure, and will include all work of any kind in connection therewith,
but will not include the material in the piles themselves.

rings and shoes — how paid for.

154. Rings shall not be paid for, but shoes will be paid for at the specified
rate per shoe.

Sheet Piling.

points.

155. Sheet piles shall be cut at the end, so as to form a point at one side and
not in the middle, and when driven this point shall be kept next to the pile pre-
viously driven to ensure contact, and when required by the Engineer the Wakefield
t}^e of piling shall be used.

BROKEN joints.

156. Where there are two or more rows of sheet piles, thej'^ shall be driven
wich broken joints.

HOW paid for.

157. Sheet piling will be paid for at the specified price per thousand feet
B. M. left in the work.

Frame Trestles.

CEDAR FOR MUD SILLS.

158. Mud sills not less than ten inches thick, must, in all cases, be made of
sound, live cedar, unless permitted in writing by the Engineer. The use of timber
other than cedar for this purpose is objectionable, and will not be permitted only
in case of necessity.

sills and posts not to BE BURIED.

159. Care must be taken not to bury with earth, any portion of the sills or
posts. All pits for trestle foundations must have free drainage.

adjustments.

160. All adjustments in height of structures, due to settlement or other
causes, must be rectified by jacking up from the bottom to the proper elevation.

k

118 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914
TIMBER CULVERTS.

161. Timber culverts will be made of sound, hewed or sawn timber, and in
accordance with standard plans. They shall be of such dimensions as shall allow
the insertion of cast iron or other approved pipe and in accordance with the direc-
tion of the Engineer. They shall be estimated and paid for at the specified
price per thousand feet B.M.

PAVING.

162. The bottom of timber culverts will be paved to the top of tlic mud sills
with angular rock, when it can be obtained from the adjacent cuttings, otherwise
with large boulders if the Engineer so elects, and will be paid for as per Item 17
of schedule.

Crib-Work.

TIMBER CRIBS.

163. Timber cribs used in support of trusses shall be built of timber in quality
similar to that used in trestles and according to plans furnished by the Engineer
and to his approval, both as to workmanship and material.

HOW PAID FOR.

They will be estimated and paid for by the thousand feet B.M., accordiug
to bills furnished by the Engineer. Iron contained in them will be paid for by the
pound The}' will be filled in with angular stones of a size and character satis-
factory to the Engineer, which shall be placed in the cribs without damage to any
portion of the structure, and as the Engineer may direct.

ROUND TIMBER CRIBS FOR PROTECTION WORK.

164. Round timber cribs shall be built in accordance with general jilans fur-
nished by the Engineer, under his direction and to his entire satisfaction, both
as to size of material, quality and workmanship.

QUALITY.

165. Timber must be good, s()\ind, live red or yellow Hr, cotlar, pine or tamarac,
or other wood approved by the Engineer, free fi'om wind shakes, loose or rotten
knots, and all other kinds of decay.

now PAID FOR.

166. Timber in cribs will be paid for by the lineal foot, all pieces ])eing esti-
mated only as to length, the varying thickness not being taken into consideration,
but only the best available timber nuist be used as directed by the Engineer.

Ht>W FILLED.

167. Timber crib-work recjuired for sustaining or protecting embanknicnts,
or for deflecting or changing the channels of stream will, preferably, be filletl with
angular rock obtained from excavations adjacent, and care must be taken to work
the largest stones to the face. If, however, no suitable material to fill them is
found in the e.xcavation, it will be ol)tained by borrowing.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 119

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

TRENCHES.

168. When required, a trench shall be excavated at the base of the slope to
such a depth as will insure a solid foundation, and all sand or ice or other perish-
able matter shall be removed.

CRIBS TO BE CLOSE-FITTIXG.

169. When cribs are built for protection against the action of the waves
or the impinging of running streams, the Engineer may require the logs to be
flattened on two sides, or he may resort to any other method of making the cribs
tight and close-fitting, that in his judgment may be necessary.

QUALITY OF MATERIALS.

170. The materials for all timber structures must be such_ as are approved
by the Engineer, and the workmanship must be of the best kmd to secure the
full bearing and strength of the materials, and must in all respects be satisfactory
to the Engineer.

Specifications for Ties.

FIRST CLASS TIES.

171. Ties shall be made of the best description of timber tributary to the
line of railway.

QUALITY AND DESCRIPTION OF TIMBER.

172. All timber shall be cut from live, sound trees, free from^ large or loose
knots, wind shakes or other defects which would impair its durability or strength.
The following kinds of timber will be accepted in the order named: oak, cedar,
tamarac, douglas fir, pine, hemlock (black spruce only to be used under the ap-
proval of the District Engineer.)

SIZE.

173. They shall be hewn or sawn with two parallel straight faces, reasonably
straight, exactly eight feet long, full seven inches thick and seven inches face.
Sawn square at the ends.

SECOND-CLASS TIES.

174. They shall be of the same quality and description of timber, but the
size may be as follows: Length, exactly eight feet; thickness, full six inches; face,
six inches. These shall not be used in main tracks.

Track Laying.

TRACK LAYING.

175. Track laying will mclude all work of unloading, loadmg, piling and hand-
ling material; laying the main track, spurs, turnouts, wyes, and other permanent
tracks, frogs, switches, rail braces, tie plates, crossings, etc.; laying and spiking
plank of road crossings, setting all track markers or signs, and such necessary

10

120 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

light surfacing with material from the sides, cutting down or filling up the inequali-
ties of the roadbed as will allow of the passage of trains, without damage to rail
or rolling stock, until the proper ballasting is performed.

SECOND-CLASS TIES.

176. Second-class ties may be used in sidings and spurs if sound and other-
wise fit for use.

BARK.

177. Bark must be removed from all ties before they are placed in the track.

NUMBER OF TIES.

178. Sixteen (16) ties will be used to each 30 foot rail length or eighteen (18)
ties to a 33 foot rail on tangents and two additional ties on curves, as directed by
the Engineer.

HOW SPACED.

179. Ties of full size and uniform standard should be used for joint and shoulder
ties. Shoulder ties shoould be placed not more than 10 inches distant from joint
ties; the remaining ties must be spaced evenly between shoulder ties. All ties
must be laid at right angles to the track.

LINING.

180. The ends of cross ties in single track must be lined true on the south and
east side of the track.

ADZING.

181. Cross ties must never be notched, but if necessary must be adzed, in
order to mamtain a true uniform bearing, for the tie plate or the base of the rail.

TIE PICKS.

182. In moving ties with a pick, the point should be stuck into the side of
the tie and not into the face.

SWITCH TIES.

183. Swan ties must, except under written authority of the Engineer, be used
for all permanent switch turnouts, cross-overs and railway crossings and acute
angles; and placed, spaced and lined in exact conformance with the standard plans.

BOLTING AND DRILLING.

184. All joints must be full bolted and rails drilled, when necessary. Nuts
must be tightened as required until entirely satisfactory to the Engineer.

COMPROMISE SPLICES.

185. When rails of different weights or sections join each other it mu.st be
done with compromise splice bars made to fit the different rail sections and bolts
holes.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 121

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

SPIKING AND SLOTS.

186. A spike must be driven in each slot, inside and outside of rails and angle
bars, except on bridges or trestles where spiking m slots, or against the ends of
angle bars, or in any way anchoring the rails to the bridge, is prohibited.

NUTS.

187. The nuts of all track bolts shall be placed on the outside of the raUs.

BROKEN JOINTS.

188. Track shall be laid with broken joints on the main line and important
branches where the new steel is used; or minor branch lines where re-laying steel
is used.

VARIATION OF JOINTS.

189. ^\^len track is laid w^th broken joints, they must not vary more than
eighteen (18) inches from the middle of the opposite rail.

SHORT RAILS.

190. Short raU shall be used in inside line of rails on curves of large central
angle, in order to maintain position of joints near centre of outer rail.

CROSS SPIKING.

191. Tracks must be fully spiked, using the system commonly known as
"Cross Spiking," with the inside and outside spikes driven on opposite sides of
the centre of the tie. They must be set as far apart as the face and character of
the tie will permit.

VERTICAL SPIKING.

192. Spikes must be set one-half of their own width from edge of rail and
driven vertically to full bearing on base of rail, and they must be kept in this
position. Driving sloping spikes or giving them a final lateral blow to close the
spikes against the rail, is forbidden.

USE OF GAUGE,

193. The track gauge must always be used when spiking.

194. Boat spikes 8 inches x | inch shall be used for spiking frog and switch
blocking to ties.

ELEVATION.

195. The elevation of the outer rail will be ordered and great care must
be used to keep the elevation uniform. The grade line must be maintained along
the inner rail and the elevation obtained by raising the outes rail. The full ele-
vation of the outer rail must be continued beyond the end of the central curve,
but shall decrease uniformly, as the Engineer directs, generally one-half inch in
30 feet, along the easement curve to the tangent point, where both rails should
be level.

122 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914
ELEVATION ON NON-SPIRAL CURVES.

196. For curves not having ends eased the full elevation should be extended
to the end of the curve where it should run out gradually on a tangent to a level
with the inner rail, by reducing the elevation of the outer rail one-half inch to 30
feet length, except in cases where tangents are too short to permit.

LEVEL RAILS

197. On all tangents the tops of the rails must be level with each other, except
the approaches of the curves that are not eased.

TRACK LEVEL.

198. The track level must be used when surfacing either curves or tangents.

GAUGE.

199. Gauge of track must be exactly and uniformly as prescribed.

STANDARD GAUGE.

200. The standard gauge is 4 feet 8^ inches. Extra width of gauge on account
of curvature must be given as follows:

On curves of 3 and 4 deg i inch

" 5 and 6 deg \ inch

EXTRA WIDTH OF GAUGE.

201. The extra width of gauge should be given by the inside rail and uniformly
decreased on the easement curve, from point of central curve to point of tangent.

HANDLING RAILS.

202. Rails must be handled carefully before being put in the track, and must
be uniformly supported after being placed there. Skids will invariably be used
whenever necessary to unload them into piles. In all cases the greatest care
must be used to avoid injury to rails by dropping them on hard substances or
uneven surfaces.

DRILLING.

203. When necessary to make holes in rails for bolts they must be drilled
with proper tools furnished for that purpose.

BRAND.

204. The position of the brand on the rail is immaterial whether right or left,
inside or outside, but its position must bo uniform in the same line of rails. When
new rails are being laid different brands must not be mixed.

CURVING.

205. All rails for curves over 3 deg. must be separately curved by an approved
rail bender before being placed in the track. The sledging or dropping of rail
on ties to curve them is forbidden.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 123

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

CARE IN CURVING.

206. Particular care must be given to insure uniform curvature of the rails
throughout their length, in accordance with the following table:

For 2 deg. curve, 30 ft ^ in. 33 ft | in.

^ i -e-

"§■

r

5 " " 11 " " If

6 " « l| " " If

EXPANSION.

207. Proper allowance must be made for expansion according to temperature
of rail when being laid. When the average thermometer reading on 30 or 33 feet
rails, is:

90 deg. Fall., give 0 in. expansion space

70 to 90 deg. Fah., give 1/16

50 to 70 " " i

30 to 50 " « 3/16

10 to 30 " " 1

10 to 10 " « 5/16

208. Rails must not be bumped together when being laid.

IRON SHIMS.

209. Proper expansion must be secured by using iron shims, according to the
above specifications, except where track is laid on a steep grade, when sawn wooden
shims of proper thickness will be provided. They must be left in place until
track is fully spiked, bolted and anchored, and then removed.

I THE PLATES.

210. Where tie plates are ordered they must be placed in pairs one on each
end of the tie. The end with the widest margin must be placed on the outside
of the rail.

SPIKING ON TIE PLATES.

211. On tangents only two spikes should be used in each plate; on curves
use three or four as required. In general, on curves less than 6 degrees, three
spikes should be used and on sharper curves, four spikes.

HOW PUT ON.

212. Tie plates must be forced into the ties before trains are allowed to run
over them.

RAIL BRACES.

213. RaU braces must be used on guard rails and switches as shown on the
standard plans, and on curves where ordered.

124 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914
SWITCHES.

214. Switches must be put in track in accordance with the standard plans
No stub switches shall be allowed in main line or cross-overs.

STUB SWITCHES.

215. At all stub switches, bridle rods must be confined between two ties,
placed six inches apart.

LEAD RAILS.

216. Lead rails in all turnouts must be curved separately with the rail bender
before being laid. The narrow places between rails at frogs, guard rails and
switches, must be filled with standard wooden blocks.

DIFFERENCE IN WEIGHT OF RAILS.

217. When rail of a heavier pattern is used in the main track than in the
side track, the main track pattern must extend as far up the side track at least^as
far as the switch ties extend.

DERAILING SWITCHES.

218. A standard derailing switch, stop block or safety switch must be placed
at the clearance point of all sidings when ordered.

GUARD lAILS.

219. Guard rails must be placed at frogs, switches, and when ordered, on
sharp curves and bridges.

TRACK MARKERS.

220. All standard track markers and signs must be placed strictly in accord-
ance with the standard plans.

LENGTHS PAID FOR.

221. Only such sidings, spurs, turnouts, wyes, and other track, and such
lengths thereof as ordered, will be estimated and paid for.

SURFACING.

222. The track will be surfaced with material obtained from the side, or
with train hauled material as directed by the Engineer, but in no case shall the
bottom of the ties be raised more than 3 inches above sub-grade.

SURFACING FROM THE SIDE.

223. "Surfacing 'A' " will include all work of procuring surfacing material
from side ditches or other places where allowed, putting under the track, surfacing,
lining and all other work incident to the preparation of the track for runnins:
work trains, where material for surfacing is obtained from the side.

I

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 125

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123.

SURFACING FROM TRAIN HAULED MATERIAL.

224. "Surfacing 'B' " will include the cost of all train hauled material under
the track, surfacing, lining and all other work incident to the preparation of the
track for running work trains where surfacing is done with train hauled material
other than ballast. The surfacing must be kept up with the track laying as far
as possible. All new tracks must be brought to surface and tamped up before it
is run over. RaUs that are damaged by reason of neglect on the part of the Con-
tractor will be replaced at his expense.

TRAIN HAULED FILLING.

224 X. Where there is not suflBcient material suitable for making embank-
ments by men and teams within reasonable haul, of which the Engineer shall be
judge, and it becomes necessary to make use of the track laid at the expense of
the Commissioners to haul material for such purpose by train either for the widening
of embankments to their full width or raising them to their full height, or for the
purpose of filling temporary trestles, the Contractor wUl have the use of the Com-
missioners' rails, fastenings, and necessary switches for such purpose, it being
imderstood that the track laying will only be paid for once by the Commissioners,
and that any damage to rails, fastenings, or switches while in such service shall be
paid for b}' such Contractor to the Commissioners, or the Commissioners may
deduct it from the monthly or final estimate due, or to become due to the Contractor.
The price given in the schedule for such train hauled filling shall include the cost
of all temporary trestles which the Contractor may require, which he shall erect
according to his own plans and at his own cost and risk, and all tools, plant, material
and labor necessary for the loading, hauling, putting in place and trimming, as
directed by the Engineer. The limit to which the contractor will be called upon
to haul such train hauled filling at the price stated in this schedule will be five (5)
miles; beyond such distance a price of one cent (.01) per yard per mile will be paid
him, the measurement of such haul being made to the nearest mile, one-half mile
or over counting as a full mile. Measurements of all train hauled filling will be
made in excavation. No classification other than common excavation will be
allowed on train hauled fiUing from borrow pits.

BALLASTING.

225. Ballasting will include the loading, hauling, unloading alongside of
track, and transportation of all material hauled by train for the purpose of ballast-
ing the track, said material to be duly accepted as ballast by the Engineer. Ballast
shall consist of broken stone, gravel, or coarse sand, approved by the Engineer.

DITCHES.

226. All road and surface ditches will be left clear and free, so open and ex-
tended as to conduct water freely and quickly from the roadbed, and all side ditches
must be left unobstructed.

SLOPES.

227. The side slopes and ditches must be left neat and smooth, and free from
all rubbish, materials and obstructions.

Material for ballasting must not be taken from the slopes of embankments.

126 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914
LAND.

228. The land for ballast pits and approaches thereto will be furnished by
the Commissioners and approved by the Engineer. In selecting land for this
purpose, a preference will always be given to those points where the best material
can be procured within a reasonable distance as determined by the Engineer.
During the working of any pit, should the material be found unfit for ballasting,
the Engineer shall compel the Contractor to close such pits and open others. The
cost of clearing land for ballast pits outside the right-of-way and grading and
laying the main branch track to pits (but not sidings in same), shall be paid for
according to the general schedule of prices.

DISTRIBUTION OF BALLAST FOR EMBANKMENT.

229. The surface of the ballast pits shall be stripped of soil where such exists,
and no material whatever shall be placed on the roadbed but good, clean gravel.
The maximum size of gravel must not be greater in diameter than three (3) inches.

FIRST LIFT.

230. Material sufficient for the first lift of six inches shall be delivered along
the track, the track must then be raised so that there will be an average depth
of six inches below the ties and the ballast must be well packed and tamped under
and around them. As the raising proceeds, the end of the lift shall extend on not
less than three rail lengths, and before trains are allowed to pass over the inclined
portion of the track it must be made solid to prevent bending the rails or twisting
the joints.

SECOND LIFT.

231. Precisely the same method shall be followed in making the second lift,
so as to secure a uniform thickness of twelve (12) inches under the ties. The
ballast shall fill the space between the ties full and shall conform to the section
shown in the standard drawing.

TAMPING.

232. Three feet at each end of each tie shall be thoroughly tamped, the centre
of the tie to be loosely tamped. After this lift, the track shall be centred, lined,
topped, surfaced, and trimmed off to the proper form and width.

BALLASTING TO BE KEPT UP TO TRACK LAYING.

233. The ballasting must be kept up to the track laying in so far as is possible.
All new track must be brought to surface and lamped up before it is run over.
Rails that are damaged by reason of neglect on the part of the Contractor to com-
ply with these requirements will be replaced at his expense.

LINING.

234. When the surfacing and ballasting is completed, the track must be in
perfect line, surface and gauge, and must be so maintained by the Contractor
until it is accepted by the Commissioners for operation. This contemplates a
second adjustment of track to line and grade after it is settled under traffic. The
schedule price for ballasting will include all work mentioned in Clauses 225 to
234 inclusive, no over haul being allowed.

INVESTIGATINGjCOMMISSION 127

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Specifications for Fences.

FENCE.

235. The fence shall consist of an approved wire fencmg at least 4 feet 6
inches high properly fastened to cedar posts as hereinafter specified, with suitable
staples, stretched and built in a workmanlike manner in every respect, and to the
satisfaction of the Engineer. The posts shall be of sound, live cedar, 5 inches in
diameter at the top, 8 feet long, reasonably straight, with limbs and knots dressed
off smoothly, with the bark removed. Such posts shall be spaced sixteen and
one-half feet centre to centre, placed three feet deep in the ground, and thor-
ouglhy tamped. At all road crossings, farm crossings, jogs in the line of the fence
and at intervals not exceeding 20 rods braced panels shall be built, having the
posts spaced eight feet apart and a diagonal brace piece at least five inches in
diameter at the top shall run from a point about one foot below the top of the end
post to a short distance above the ground line of the adjacent post. The diagonal
piece shall be notched into the post and be thoroughly nailed thereto with 6-inch
wire nails. The posts for brace panels shall be carefully selected, not less than
8 inches diameter at the top and ten feet long. They shall be set four feet in the
ground and firmly tamped. After the wire is strung the top of the post shall
be cut true to a line and at an angle of 45 degrees for the purpose of shedding rain.

POSTS IN SHALLOW SOIL.

236. \\Tien the depth of the soil will not admit of the post hole depth called
for above, "T" or "A" frame posts as shown on the standard drawing will be
required. The foot of such posts shall be loaded with stones to prevent over-
turning.

FENCES AT HIGHWAY CROSSINGS.

237. At all highway ciossings the fence shall be turned into the cattle guard
and the posts shall be spaced equally apart to enable a sixteen foot 1 inch x 8 inch
board to be nailed at the end and the centre, to the top of the posts. Such board
being on edge and the line of boards to run from the fence to the cattle guard.

GATES.

238. Gates shall be made of an approved pattern of gas pipe frame and strung
with wire, and to include suitable hinges and fastenings.

CATTLE GUARDS.

239. Cattle guards shall be placed at all highway crossings. They shall
be of an approved pattern, made in sections with provision for removal without
injury to the guard. The form and section to be approved of by the Engineer.

Highway Crossings.

HOW GRADED.

240. The approaches to the rail level shall be graded on a slope not more
than five (5) per cent, with width of roadway, of not less than 20 feet.

128 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914
SIGNALS.

241. At each highway crossing at rail level, there shall be placed a sign-
board with the words "Railway Crossing" on both sides of the board, and in the
Province of Quebec, in French also the words ("Chemin de Fer") in black letters
on white ground, six inches in height. The board is to be framed into a cedar post
firmly bedded at least four feet in the ground and at least 13 feet above the surface
of the road.

PLANKING.

242. The highway at rail level shall be planked with three inch plank, packed
up with 2x3 inches pieces resting on the ties. To have four planks 12 inches
wide between the rails and two outside, one on either side level with the track.
For single track crossing, to be 20 feet in length, at right angles to the direction
of the highway.

FARM CROSSINGS, HOW GRADED.

243. The approaches shall be graded to insure a good roadway. When
practicable, not to exceed a five (5) per cent, approach, the width of the finished
road to be twelve feet. The crossing to be planked with four planks, two inside
and two outside the rails. The interim space between the inner planks to be
thoroughly packed with hard stones or gravel.

General.

CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE WAGON ROADS, ETC.

244. The Contractor, at his own cost, must provide all wagon roads to reach
and carry on the work; he must also provide aU tools of every description and all
supplies required for the prosecution of the work.

PRICES FOR BUILDINGS TO INCLUDE FOUNDATIONS.

. 245. The prices paid for buildings, water tanks, turntables, depots, section
houses, and other standard structures, shall be as per schedule of prices.

MATERIAL TO BE FURNISHED BY THE COMMISSIONERS.

246. Unless otherwise provided, it shall be understood that the Commissioners
are to furnish the Contractor all the rails, fastenings, tie plates, track bolts, spikes
and steel bridges, either on board cars at the nearest accessible point by rail or
at steamer landing, or at points along the line of road to be constructed, as may
be directed by the Chief Engineer.

OTHER MATERIALS.

247. All other materials required for the construction of the Railway shall
be supplied by the Contractor at the schedule price for same.

CONTRACTOR TO HANDLE ALL MATERIAL.

248. The Contractor will be required to handle all material at his own ex-
pense, including unloading and loading in cars, and all material must be unloaded

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 129

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

from cars within three days after its arrival, unless special authority to the con-
trary is given by the Engineer. Any violation of this rule will subject the Con-
tractor to the usual demurrage.

HAULING.

249. Whenever cross-ties, piles, timber or other material is delivered along
the line of the road, the Contractor must do the hauling to put in place, including
the loading in cars when necessary.

130 ^^'JfJ NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

SPECIFICATIONS FOR STANDARD TELEGRAPH LINE.

POLES

All poles shall be of live green cedar, sound, straight, cut square at both
ends, all knots trimmed close, thoroughly peeled to within five feet of the butt
and must not be less than seven (7) inches in diameter at small end, inside the
bark.

POLE-LINE.

Shall be of twenty-five (25) foot poles for body of line and longer lengths
at railway and highway crossings, through railway yards, and so proportioned
to the contour of the country, that the wires may be strung without abrupt changes
of level.

Poles shall be placed generally at six (6) feet inside of the right-of-way limit,
except on such cuttings and embankments that the nature of the formation

renders such position unsuitable, but no pole shall be set at a dis-
tance less than twelve (12) feet from the nearest rail. In wooded country, poles
may be set thirty feet from the nearest rail.

Under no circumstances shall a pole or poles be set in a position that would
interfere with a clear view of railway signals from station windows or engine cabs*
In locating the line on straight sections, poles shall be placed at equal distances
of one himdred and fifty (150) feet, and in curves at one hundred and thirty-five
(135) feet.

Through station yards and at all railway and highway crossings poles not
less than thirty (30) feet in length shall be set. All poles shall be set perpen-
dicularly, except on curves or corners where they can be leaned slightly against
the strain.

Holes shall be dug large enough to admit the poles without hewing, and shall
be full size at the bottom, to permit of the use of iron tampers.

When the pole is placed in position, one shovel only shall be used in filling
the hole, and two tampers used in packing the filling continuously until the hole
is filled. The soil must be piled above the surface and firmly packed around the
pole.

All poles shall be set beneath the surface of the ground as follows: —

25 and 30 foot lengths 5 feet

35 and 40 foot lengths 6 feet

45, 50 ft. and longer lengths 7 feet

Where solid rock is encountered, deduct one foot from the above scale of depths.
L In wet or marshy locations, or where it is necessary to set poles on slopes,
they should be set at a greater depth than previously indicated, to prevent the
possibility of being blown over by wind or lifted by frost.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

131

SIDE VIEW OF POLE WITH FOOT FOR VERY SOFT MARSH. CRIBBING MADE OF PIECES
OF OLD POLES. LENGTHS AS REQUIRED.

In soft or marshy ground, weather braces shall be framed with a foot to
hold the poles from being pushed into the ground. The size of the foot shall be
determined by the strain the brace is designed to hold.

Instead of the foot, it will be permitted, when the ground is so soft as to
prevent proper tamping, to fill in with stone, and brace the pole in four directions.

Poles to be set in quicksand shall be tapered from a point eighteen (18) inches
above the butt to the butt, by the use of an axe, as piling is pointed before being
driven.

FITTING OF POLES.

The top of the pole shall be roofed, and shall have not less than two (2) gains
four and a quarter (4^) inches wide by three-quarters (|) of an inch deep, spaced
twenty-two (22) inches on centres. The centre of the upper gain shall be ten (10)
inches from the apex of the pole roof.

The direction of the apex of the "roof" shall be at right angles with the cross-
axm, or parallel to the wires.

BRACES.

All braces shall be of cedar and set at a uniform distance from the butt of
the pole, at least six (6) feet wherever possible, the top of the pole brace shall be
just below the bottom gain, and shall be fastened with lag bolts.

132 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914
LINE PROPS.

Line props shall be used on every fifteenth (15th) pole, placed parallel to the
line in alternate positions. Props shall be of cedar and not less than fifteen (15)
feet in length, set in the ground from two to three feet, not less than six (6) feet
from the butt of line pole, and shall be fastened with lag bolts.

ANCHORS.

Through station yards, and for one thousand (1,000) feet each side and beyond
stations, braces must not be used; anchors only shall be used.

All excavations for anchor logs shall be five (5) feet deep wherever practic-
able. If impracticable to obtain this depth on account of the nature of the ground,
the excavation may be made not less than three and one-half (3^) feet deep.
Anchor logs must be of cedar.

CURVES.

All poles in curves shall be re-inforced by anchor guys or props.

CROSSINGS.

At all crossings, the poles on each side shall be double armed and of such
height as to allow the arm in the bottom gain to carry the wires at least twenty-
five (25) feet above the surface of the ground or rail level.

ANCHOR 5 FEET LONG, MADE OF CEDAR, DEPTH TO SUIT REQUIREMENTS.

i

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 133

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

CAPACITY OF LINE.

The line shall have an ultimate capacity for two (2) six (6) pin cross-arms
and twelve (12) wires.

GUY WIRES.

Guy wires shall be of seven (7) strands No. thirteen (13) gauge steel rope.
The ends of the guys shall be wrapped twice around the pole immediately under
the lowest gain, and fastened to the guy rod. The ends of the wire shall be fastened
by standard two bolt clamps. Under no circumstances shall guy wire be secured
to the anchor beneath the surface of the ground.

In locating anchor guys, the distance from the butt of the pole shall not be
less than one-fifth (l-5th) the length of the pole. In exposed places, guy wires
must be protected by a guard of wood or iron pipe.

MECHANICAL ANCHORS.

An approved mechanical device may be substituted for the anchor log and
iron guy rod.

OFFICES POLES.

Office poles shall be securely guyed to keep the strain of the wires off the
office fixtures and buildings.

PLACING CROSS ARMS.

When planting poles, the cross-arms must face each other on every alter-
nate span between poles.

Cross arms must be secured by two (2) seven (7) inch lag bolts, and two
(2) iron braces as required by standard specifications. Braces to be fastened
to the back of the cross-arms.

LONG SPANS.

At all crossings with spans of two hundred (200) feet and over, poles on
either side shall be equipped with double arms.

LIGHTNING ARRESTORS.

A lightning rod of number eight (8) iron wire shall be securely attached
to every tenth (10th) pole, with one and one-half (1^) inch staples. The rod
shall project three (3) inches above the top of the pole to within one (1) foot
of the butt, where four (4) spiral turns will be made around the pole, and a hand
coil of about (6) feet fastened to the bottom. All office and cable poles shall
be equipped in the same manner, except that two (2) number eight (8) iron twisted
wires shall be used.

WIRES.

The first wire erected shall be No. eight (8) gauge, iron, weight 400 pounds
per mile. The second wire shall be No, 6 gauge, iron, weight 574 pounds per mile.

134

NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

ERECTION OF WIRES.

String wires so as to avoid kinking and other damage, and remove all tags.
Wires shall be tied on the side of the insulator nearest the pole, except on curves
or corners where it is necessary to place it on the opposite side so that the strain
will be against the insulator. (See sketch).

The ties must have three (3) turns on each side of the insulator, and the
ends bent in and pointed toward the groove in the insulator.

E a^a: ^s ZE is: c3 0^ ::^ ^a^M

STRAIGHT LINE LOCATION OF WIRES ON INSULATOR.

CURVE OR CORNER LOCATION OP WIRE ON INSULATOR.

JOINTS.

When connecting iron wires, first clean the wire, then use pliers and connectors,
giving not less than five^ (5) turns on each side of the joint. All joints must be
soldered.

EQUIPMENT.

The contractor shall furnish all the batteries, instruments, switchboards
and all necessary equipment, in every particular, to secure a first-class installation,
having due regard to the requirements of the service, the whole to be done in a
workmanlike manner, fully guaranteed, and to the satisfaction of the Chief En-
gineer.

COPPER WIRES.

Extraordinary care must be taken to prevent kinking or other damage.
When stringing copper wire, draw out by a rope over the cross-arm the full length
of the coil, then pull up with approved grips. The wire shall then be tied through-
out, the Grips being left on until the next coil is strung, the joint made, wire pulled
up, and Grips attached in the same manner.

No mechanical device except approved Grips shall be used in pulling up copper

wire.

TYING.

Copper wire shall be tied by hand. One side of the tie shall pass over the
line wire, making five (5) complete turns, the other side shall pass under the line
wire, also making five (5) complete turns.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

135

Ties shall be of annealed copper wire of the same gauge as line wire, not less
than twenty (20) inches in length, and must be well stretched before being used.
After making the full number of twists on the line wire, turn the ends back against
the line wire toward the insulator. These ends shall not be cut.

JOINTS.

Copper wire shall be connected by approved sleeves. Each sleeve shall
have three (3) complete twists. Two pairs of approved splicing clamps only shall
be used in making the joints.

After the joint is made, the end of the wire shall be bent at right angles to the
joint '^and cut close to the side of the sleeve.

String all wires so that the sag between the poles shall be as given in the
following table, making the allowance indicated for the temperature and length
of span.

SAG IN ALL LINE WIRE.

• -!:

Sag Expressed in Inches.

Span

Temperature

135 ft.

150 and 165 ft.

200 ft.

30 below

3|
3|

7
11

^

5

5i
61
9

Hi

14

8

10 "

9

10 above

10+

30 "

12

60 "

15f
181
22i

80 "

100 "

11

136 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

SPECIFICATIONS FOR MATERIAL.

SPECIFICATIONS FOR GALVANIZED IRON TELEGRAPH WIRE.

1. The wire to be soft and, pliable, and capable of elongating 15 per cent,
without breaking, after being galvanized.

2. Extreme tensible strength is not required, but the wire must not break
under a less strain than two and one-half times its weight in pounds per mile.
Tests for tensile strength will be made by direct application of weight, or by means
of a lever, at the option of the inspecting Officer.

3. Tests for ductUity will be made as follows: — ^The pieces of wire will be
gripped by two vises, six inches apart, and twisted. The full number of twists
must be distinctly visible between the vises on the six inch piece. The number
of twists in a piece of six inches in length must not be less than 15.

4. The weight per mile for different sizes of wire will be: — For No. 6 gauge,
574 lbs. ; No. 8 gauge, 400 lbs. ; No. 9 gauge, 330 lbs. ; or, as near these figures as
practicable. A variation of not more than two per cent, will be allowed.

5. The electrical resistance of the wire in Ohms per mile at a temperature of
68 degrees Farenheit, must not exceed the quotient arising from dividing the
constant number 5000 by the weight of the wire in pounds per mile. Example : —
The mileage resistance of a wire weighing 400 pounds per mile, should not exceed
5000 -^400 = 12.50 Ohms.

6. The wire must be cylindrical and free from scales, inequalities, flaws,
sand splits and other imperfections and defects. Each coil must be warranted
not to contain any weld, joint or splice whatever in the rod before drawn. All
wire to be ' 'killed " or stretched about two per cent, before delivery.

7. It is desired to obtain the wire in coils, all of one piece. If this cannot be
undertaken, the contractor may tender for a supply of wire with two pieces only
to the coil, joined by the ordinary twist joint and carefully soldered or electrically
welded. It should be stated in the tender whether there will be one or two pieces
in each coil. The length of the wire in each coil shall be as follows : — No. 8 B. W.G. ,
or smaller, one-half mile; No. 6 B.W.G., one-third mile. A variation of not more
than three per cent, from the above will be allowed. The grade of iron wire to
be used is that known as "Extra Best Best."

8. The wire must be well galvanized, and capable of standing the following
tests: — ^The wii-e will be immersed in"a saturated solution off sulphate of copper
at 68 degrees Fahi-enheit, and permitted to remain one minute, and then wiped
clean. This process will be performed four times. If the wire appears black
after the fourth immersion, it shows that the zinc has not all been removed and
that the galvanizing is well done, but if it has a copper color, the iron is exposed,
showing that the zinc is too thin.

I

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 137

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

SPECIFICATIONS FOR HARD-DRAWN COPPER LINE WIRE.

( .,.,.,„..,

K must be cylindrical and free from scales, flaws, meqiialities and other imperfections.
y It must have a tensile strength to sustain three times its weight in pounds per
mile; must withstand, without breaking, thirty twists in six inches, and must
be capable of elongation 1^ per cent, before breaking; must permit of being wrapped
a number of times about its own diameter, and imwi'apped without showing signs
of breaking.

Its electrical resistance per mile in international Ohms, at 68 degrees Fahrenheit,
must not exceed the quotient arising from dividing the constant 912 by its own
weight in pounds per mile.

CROSS-ARMS.

The cross-arms to be perfectly sound, seasoned, straight grained, red pine or
British Columbia Douglas Fir, free from knots or other defects, surfaced on all
sides, rounded off on top edge to produce the full size of seven (7) foot lengths,
four and one quarter (4^) inches by three and one-quarter (3^) inches, bored for
six (6) one-half (^) inch holes to take standard steel pins, spaced as per sketch.
Two (2) central lag screws holes nine-sixteenths (9-16) of an inch in diameter
bored in each cross-arm, staggered vertically three (3) inches.

^"o

15"

0

16"

o

18"

0

15"

o

16"

0^"

O

SIZE WHEN DRESSED 4|" X 3^".
PINS.

To be of approved steel pattern.

INSULATORS.

Double petticoat design, weight twenty-five (25) ounces, to be manufactured
of best glass used for the purpose, free from blow holes and other defects. The
threading shall be neatly and fully formed and the whole shape made uniformly
true throughout.

The initial "T.C.R. " shall be blown on the outside surface of the glass on the
margin below the tie line groove, in block letters one-half an inch in height.

CROSS-ARM LAG SCREWS.

These are to be of wrought iron or steel one-half an inch in diameter, full
seven inches long under head, with full three inches of thread, six (6) threads per
inch, gimlet pointed, with standard square heads with flat circular top, surface
of five-eighths (f ) inch in diameter with remaining surface and corner pressed to the
-tandard rounding surface.

138 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

Washers: one and three-eighths (If) inch by nine-sixteenths (9-16) inch.
No. twelve (12) gauge.

CROSS-ARM BRACES.

To be of wrought iron or steel, one inch wide, twenty-eight (28) inches long,
seven-thirty-second (7-32) inch thick, with a hole punched at each end seven-
sixteenths (7-16) of an inch in diameter, the centre of which shall be three-quarters
(I) of an inch from end of brace.

BRACE BOLTS.

To be one-half (i) by three and one-quarter (3J) inches. Three-eighths
(I) by two and one-quarter (2^) inches. Gimlet pointed, fiat head, standard make.

GUY RODS.

To be of wrought iron or steel, five-eighths, (|) inch diameter, five foot (5)
six inches (6) in length, threaded for four (4) inch plate and nut, top end welded
to form a loop.

Turntables.

Shall be of medium steel, plate girder type, seventy-five feet long, with a
capacity of 200 tons.

Track Scales.

Shall be of 150 tons capacity, 50 feet long and shall be housed from the weather,
and shall consist of the most approved pattern of railroad track scales, with con-
crete or masonry foundations, and all to the satisfaction of the Engineer.

Buildings.

Tool houses, outbuildings, section houses, passenger or combination freight
and passenger station buildings, freight sheds, engine houses, car and locomotive
repair shops and such other buildings as may be required, shall be built in
accordance with the detailed plans and specifications which may be furnished
from time to time by the Chief Engineer.

Water Station,

Water tanks shall be built frost proof. Minimum capacity of 50,000 gallons,
resting on concrete or masonry foundations, in accordance with the detailed
plans and specifications, and to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer.

Steel Bridges.

Shall he designed and built in accordance with the provisions of the general
specifications for railway bridges, issued by the Department of Railways and
Canals, 1905 edition. The class of loading to be used for all bridges is that design-
ated HEAVY.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

139

THE NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.

EASTERN DIVISION.

Drawing No. 1.

Typical Earfh Embankmenr

Tj^pical Zartb Cutting

Drawing No. 2.

Tqpical Sidehlll Cutting and Embonkmenf

Typicol tmbankmenr in Wafer

140

NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

THE NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
EASTERN DIVISION.
Drawing No. 3.

Drawing No. 4.

r

80 Lbs per Yard.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 141

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Approved, ,

Chief Engineer, Eastern Division, Transcontinental Railway.

Approved,

Chief Engineer, Grand Trunk Pacific Railway.

Approved,

Chief Engineer, Department of Railway and Canals, of Canada.

Ottawa, : 190

142

NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAlLWAt

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

(Eastern Division) ^

District Sec.

Contractor.
Estimate of work done and materials furnished for the month of

.190.

Item

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13
14

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Description of Work

Clearing, including close cutting

Trees cut down outside right of way

Grubbing

Solid rock

Loose rock and other materials (sec. 35 spec.)

Common excavation

Excavation in foundations, no coffer dams. .

Excavation of foundation within coffer dams

Overhaul all materials per c. yd. per 100 ft.
over 500 ft. haul

Piles delivered as per engineer's bill.

Pile driving

Sheet piling per M. ft. b.m

Wakefield type "

Cross-logging, 1 ft. deep with 18-in. brush-
work

Pole drains

French stone drains

Paving in culverts (not laid in cement)

Crib filling with stone

Hand laid rip-rap

Pierre Perdu rip-rap

Piling out reserved stone from rock cuttings.

Measure

acre
each
acre
c. yd.

lin. ft.

Quantity

acre

lin. ft.

((

c. yd.

Rate

Amount

$ cts.

cts.

0 01

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION
SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

143

Item

Description of Work Measiire

Quantity

Rate

Amount

??.

Round logs in cribs

lin. ft.

$ cts.

% cts.

?3

Cedar mud sUls, per M. ft. b.m

24

Framed trestles per M. ft. b.m. except stringers

Caps, walings and braces for pile trestles, per
M. ft. b.m

1

25

26

Sawn ties and guard rails for bridges per M.
ft. b.m

■27

Stringers per M. ft. b.m

'

28

Cedar timber in cxilverts, 8-in. x 12-in., 10 in. x
12-in., and 12-in. x 12-in., per M. ft. b.m.. .

29

Plank in highway and private road crossings
per M. ft. b.m

30

Timber, best quality, for culverts, per M. ft.
b.m

(a)

Timber in coffer dams or ordinary foundations
Timber in caissons

M. ft. B.M.

u

lin. ft.

a
a
u
u
u

u

u

33

Vitrified pipe culverts —

34

18-in. diameter

36

Reinforced concrete pipe —

38

18-in. diameter

40

24-in. diameter

41

30-in. diameter

42

36-in. diameter

44

48-in. diameter

46

60-ia. diameter

47

4-in. agricultural imder tile drains

49

18-in. diameter

51

24-in. diameter

52

53

36-in. diameter

144

NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

Item

Description''of Work

Measure

Quantity

Rate

Amount

55

hn. ft.

S cts.

$ cts.

57

c. yd.

58

Concrete facina minture 1-2, 2i-in. thick, in-

i

59

Concrete 1-2-4 coping coxirse 6-in. thick, in-

60

Concrete 1-3-5 including forms

^

g
61

Concrete 1-3-6 including forms

61a

Concrete 1-2-5, including forms and centres . .
Concrete 1-3-5 in arch culverts, including

„

62

II

63

Concrete 1-3-6 in arch culverts, including

64

Concrete 1-3-6 in box culverts, including

u

1

65

forms

f onns 1 "

66

67
68
69
70
71
72

73
74
(c)

(d)

(«)

75
76

Concrete 1-4-8 walls of building including
forms

First-cla^ masonry

Second-class masonry

Thirdnclass masonry

Dry masonry

Masonry in arch ring, including centering. . . .

Track-la3dng in main line with ordinary frogs,
switches, and sidings, including Ught surf ac-
ing'A'

mile

Track-laying in yards at terminals j "

Train hauled siufacing 'B' no overhaul allowed; c. yd.
Train hauled filling, including temporary'

trestle.

Overhaul on train hauled fiUing per cubic yard
per mile over five (5) rtules

c. yd.

Removal of moss per cu. yd., no overhaul al-
lowed

Ballasting, no overhaul allowed c. yd.

Ties, first-class I "

0 01

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

U5

Item

Description of Work

Measure

Quantity

Rate

Amount

t 77

Ties, second-class

each

$ cts. j $ cts.

i 78

Ties for switches, sawn to dimensions per M.
ft. b.m

i

79

Public road signs

Mile posts, whistle posts, and road signs

Semaphores at stations, complete

Interlocking appUances, complete, eight levers
including al connections, signals, etc

Each additionatl lever

each
«

rod

each

lin. ft.

80

81

82

;

83

84

Fencing

85

Gates

86

Tunnels, rock sections (unUned)

87

Tunnels, lined

(I
c. yd.

Un. ft.
mile

88

Tunnels, concrete lining

89

Tunnels, masonry lining

90

Drainage tunnels, 4 c. yds. per ft

Telegraph line

91

92

Water tanks, 50,000 galls, complete, including
foundations

each

93

Turntables, including everything except foun-
dations "

Track scales, including everything except foun-
dations "

94

95

Tunnel shafts

c. yd.
lbs.

96

Iron in drift bolts

97

Iron in screw bolts

■ "

98

Forged or cut spikes "

Cast-iron washers and separators "

99

100

Cattle-guards (3 sections)

3 sections

101

Cast-iron pile shoes

each

102

Cast-iron water pipes of any dia. from 4" to 10*
per ton of 2,000 lbs

103

Steel imbedded in concrete lbs. :

i

1

1

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123 A. 1914

I

N. T. R.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION

Exhibit 1 1

Correspondence in connection with calling for Tenders.
(See* Page 19 of Report)

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123 A. 1914

Ottawa, Jan. 16th, 1906.

The Commissioners of the Transcontinental Railway,
Ottawa, Ont.

Dear Sirs: —

In accordance with your verbal instructions of to-day, I understand we may
defer for a time the preparation of plans and profiles for filing with the Department
in order to rush to completion by the 27th inst. a complete set of tracings from
Winnipeg to Lake Superior Junction and from Quebec to point near La Tuque;
without showing quantities on the profiles. I am putting on extra men and work-
ing the regular staff at night in order to insure this, and, in the meantime, would
ask the Board to kindly instruct me definitely by what sections of the Act we are
to be guided in preparing plans for filing and from whom I shall ask instructions
as to whether plans and profiles have to be made in triplicate tracings or whether
blue prints wiU answer. I have the printed regulations of the Permanent Railway
Board in this regard but imderstand they do not apply.

Yours very truly,

(Sgd.) D. MACPHERSON,

Ass't. Chief Engineer.

Ottawa, Jan. 18th, 1906.
File No. 1193.

The Commissioners of the Transcontinental Railway,
Ottawa, Ont.

Dear Sirs: —

In compliance with your request for a recommendation as to whether quan-
tities and classification of material should be shown on our profiles on which tenders
are based. It seems to me inadvisable to show quantities, as we are calling for
tenders on first location profiles, which are likely to be modified by revision. It
would, however, give tenderers some useful general information to mark on the
different large cuttings the supposed classification, but it should 'distinctly be
understood that this information is only given for what it is worth and cannot,
under the circumstances, be accurate or in any way binding on the Commissioners.

Yours very truly,

(Sgd.) D. MACPHERSON,

Ass't. Chief Engineer.

Ottawa, Jan. 26th, 1906.

The Commissioners of the Transcontinental Railway,
Ottawa, Ont.

Dear Sirs: —

I beg leave to report, for your information, that I have had all the plans and
profiles retraced so as not to show quantities, and that the complete sets of blue
prints, to show tenderers, which I promised to have ready for Saturday, were

148 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

completed Thursday night. I was enabled to do this by the employment of a
few extra men and the hearty co-operation of the staff, who worked Saturday
afternoon and every night since the order was given.

Yours very truly,

(Sgd.) D. MACPHERSON,

Acting Chief Engineer.

Ottawa, Jan. 27th, 1906.

The Commissioners of the Transcontinental Railway,
Ottawa, Ont.

Dear Sirs: —

In compliance with your request for my opinion as to the advisability of
including the masonry substructures of bridges in the general contract and exclud-
ing the steel superstructures; I would beg leave to say that it is not an unusual
thing to let masonry contracts separate from the general contract, when letting
ordinary contracts for railways in settled districts, where the means of transport-
ing material would not be largely under the control of the general contractor;
but in such a large contract as you propose letting, through an unsettled coimtry
with restricted means of communication, any contractor capable of undertaking
the work as a whole would necessarily have better facilities and could do the
masonry work cheaper than anyone else. Having regard to all the circumstances,
it seems therefore advisable to let masonry substructures in the general contract.
Steel superstructures should, as a general rule, be let by separate contract and
I would advise that the same Company or Companies who manufacture the bridges
should erect them, otherwise it is difficult to fix the responsibility in case of any
damage to the bridges during erection. This might make it necessary to modify
clause 246 of the Specifications, in regard to delivery of steel bridges to contractors.

Yours very truly,

(Sgd.) D. MacPherson,

Acting Chief Engineer.

Hon. S. N. Parent,

Chairman of the Commissioneis of the Transcontinental Railway,
Ottawa.

Ottawa, 30th January, 1906.

Dear Sir, —

Our Commission will be soon ready to call for tenders on two sections of
the line. As work of this importance involves many questions which may give
rise to differences of opinion, the Commissioners would like to have your opinion,
as Government Consulting Engineer, on the following points, namely: —

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 149

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

1. Plans and profiles are to be submitted for the information of tenderers.
Would it be advisable to have the quantities appear on the profiles, or on the
contrary should not this source of information be withheld from the contractors.

2. Should tenders be called for the following work as one contract, viz: —
the clearing, grubbing, grading, embankment protection, truss, pile and trestle
bridging, masonry, concrete culverts, pipe culverts, piers, abutments, road crossings,
cattle guards, tracklaying, surfacing, ballasting, water service, stream diversion,
turntables, roundhouses, section houses, gates, telegraph lines, including
such other work to complete and finish, ready for operation, a single track
railway with side tracks, j'^ards, terminal yards, depot grounds, spurs and other
necessary and appurtenant tracks, extending from a point in District "F",
designated on the said plans of the Commissioners, to a distance of about 245
miles, and from a point in District "B", also designated on the said plans of the
Commissioners, to a distance of about 150 miles. The Commissioners furnishing
all the raUs and fastenings, tie plates, track bolts, spikes, and ties.

Depots, shops and steel bridges we think advisable to ask by separate tenders.
Do you consider advisable to take from the main contract fences, telegraph
lines, masonry for steel bridges and ask separate tenders for these works?

Thanking you in advance, I remain.

Yours truly,

(Sgd.) S. N. Parent,

Chairman.

C. SCHREIBER, Esq.,

Gen'l Consulting Engineer, to the Government,
Ottawa.

Office of the General Consulting Engineer to the Government,
Room No. 150, Western Departmental Building,

Ottawa, Canada, January 31st, 1906.
My dear Sir.

I have to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of yesterday's
date, requesting my opinion upon certain points in connection with the calling for
tenders for two sections of the Eastern Division of the National Trans-Continental
Railway.

In reply to your first question as to the advisability of having the quantities
of work to be done appear on the profiles, I would say that, assuming that the
profiles show the cuttings and embankments, and the structures to be buHt at
each point, and that the Specification describes the work to be executed, no further
information is needed by intending contractors on a schedule price contract.
Especially would it be undesirable to exhibit quantities and classification, upon
a location which is liable to be revised or changed. The Department of Railways
and Canals has, for many years, refrained from exhibiting quantities or classifi-
cation, as contractors have, subsequently, put forward claims, upon the ground
that the details so given had misled them. There is no necessity for supplying
such information, and I strongly advise that quantities be not exhibited.

With regard to the question of the extent of the works to be tendered for as one
contract, I would say that I am firmly of opinion it would be in the interest of
12

150 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

the speedy prosecution of the work, and of economy in its cost, and therefore
in the public interest to include in one contract, upon so large and important
piece of work, the telegraph line, clearing, grubbing, road crossings, cattle guards,
track-laying, surfacing, ballasting, water service, stream and road diversions,
turntable sub-structures, engine houses, section houses, fences, gates, and all
works below subgrade or formation level, in fact, all work necessary, when the
bridge superstructures are in place, to complete, ready for operation, a single
track railway, with side tracks, switches, yards, terminal yards, depot grounds,
spurs and other needful appurtenant tracks. In fact, the contract should cover
all materials and works, of every description, except the supply and erection of
the bridge superstructures and steel turntables, and the supply of steel rails and
fastenings, tie plates, track bolts, spikes, ties, which will be furnished by the Com-
missioners. There is no necessity for the inclusion of the passenger stations,
freight houses, warehouses and fuel sheds in the contract, should another course
be deemed desirable, and tenders could, in each case^ be sought for them as separate
and distinct works, apart from the general contract.

As to my reason for advising the inclusion of the telegraph in such general
contract, it is this. The contractors are the parties chiefly interested in having
the telegraph line in use at an early stage of the work, as it would materially
assist them in directing the details of construction and the movement of supplies
along their contract works. Hence it is natural to expect that the erection of the
telegraph line, if in their hands, would follow close upon the work of clearing,
thus ensuring its construction at an early stage.

My reason for recommending the fencing also being so covered, I may say,
is that it is the custom in Government contracts to provide that the contractors
shall be responsible for all damage done on adjoining land by cattle, etc., tres-
passing, and it has, therefore, been considered only reasonable that they should
be able to protect themselves by the erection of fences along the line where such
trespass might be looked for.

Faithfully yours.

(Sgd). Colling WOOD Schreiber,

Government Chief Engineer of the Western
Division of the National Trans-Continental
Railwav.

4 QEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123 A. 1914

N. T. R.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION

Exhibit 12

Copy of Advertisement for Tenders for General Grading Contracts.
(See Page 19 of Report)

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123 A. 1914

NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS.

Sealed Tenders addressed to the undersigned, marked on the envelope 'Tender
for Construction/ will be received at the office of the Commissioners of the Trans-
continental Railway, at Ottawa, until twelve o'clock noon of Thursday, the 20th
day of August, 1908, for the work required for the construction, in accordance
with the plans, profiles and specifications of the Commissioners, of the following
sections of the Transcontinental Railway, viz: —

(1) District 'C — From a point designated on the plans of the Commissioners
near Wej^montachene, in the province of Quebec, 196.38 miles west of the north
abutment of the Quebec bridge (such point being on the boundary between Dis-
tricts 'C and 'D') westerly for a distance of about 107 miles. Date of completion,
31st December, 1910.

(2) District 'C — From a point designated on the plans of the Commissioners,
about 107 miles west of Weymontachene, in the Province of Quebec, westerly to
the end of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company's contract, a distance of
about 114.97 miles. Date of completion, 31st December, 1910.

(3) Districts 'D' and 'E.' — From a point designated on the plans of the
Commissioners, being at the western end of Fauquier Bros.' Abitibi contract,
in the Province of Ontario, in a westerly direction for a distance of about 104.24
miles. Date of completion, 31st Decembei', 1910.

(4) District 'E.' — From a point designated on the plans of the Commissioners,
about sixty miles west of the easterly boundary of District 'E,' in the Province
of Ontario, easterly to the end of Fauquier Bros, contract, north of Lake Nepigon,
a distance of above 100 miles. Date of completion, 31st December, 1910.

(5) Districts 'E' and 'F.' — From a point designated on the plans of the Com-
missioners, at the western end of Fauquier Bros, contract north of Lake Nepigon,
in the Province of Ontario, westerh- to a point at or near Dog Lake, a distance
of about 126 miles. Date of completion, 1st September, 1910.

(6) District 'F.' — From a point designated on the plans of the Commissioners
at or near Dog Lake, in the Province of Ontario, to a point at or about mile 2.6
west of what is known as Peninsula Crossing, by alternative routes as sho^^^^ on
the plans, a distance of about 23.76 miles by the northerly route and 24.13 miles
by the southerly route, the selection of the route to be at the option of the Com-
missioners. Date of completion, 1st September, 1909.

Plans, profiles and specifications may be seen in the office of the Chief Engineer
of the Commissioners at Ottawa; also in the offices of the following District Engin-
eers, viz: — .John Aylen, Acting District Engineer, North Bay, Ont.; T. S. Arm-
strong, Nepigon, Ont.; and S. R. Poulin, St. Boniface, Man.

Persons tendering are notified that tenders will not be considered unless made
in duplicate, and on the printed forms supplied by the Commissioners.

A separate tender must be submitted for each section.

Tenderers shall not be in any way entitled to rely upon the classification, or
any other information given by any person on behalf of the Commissioners; and
before submitting any tender, bidders should make a careful examination of the
plans, profiles, drawings and specifications, and read the forms to be executed,
and fully inform themselves as to the quality of materials, and character of work-
manship required: and are understood to accept, and agree to be bound by, the

154 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v.. A. 1914

terms and conditions in the form of contract, specifications, &c., annexed to the
form of tender.

Each tender must be signed and sealed by all the parties to the tender, and
witnessed, and be accompanied by an accepted cheque on a chartered bank of the
Dominion of Canada, payable to the order of the Commissioners of the Trans-
continental Railway, as follows: —

For Sec. No. 1, District 'C S150,000

" 2, " V 150,000

« " 3, " 'D'&'E' 150,000

" 4, " 'E' 150,000

" 5, " 'E'&T' 200,000

" 6, " 'F' 100,000

Any person whose tender is accepted shall within ten days after the acceptance
thereof furnish such additional approved security as may be required by the Com-
missioners; sign the contract, specifications, and other documents required to be
signed by the said Commissioners; and, in any case of refusal or failure on the
part of the party whose tender is accepted to complete and execute a contract
with the said Commissioners, and to furnish the additional approved security
within ten days after the acceptance of the tender, the said cheque shall be for-
feited to the Commissioners as liquidated damages for such refusal or failure and all
contract rights acquired by the acceptance of the tender shall be forfeited. The
cheques deposited by the parties whose tenders are accepted will be deposited to
the credit of the Receiver General of Canada as part of the security for the due
and faithful performance of the contract according to its terms. Cheques deposited
by parties whose tenders are rejected will be returned within ten days after the
signing of the contract.

Attention is called to the following clauses in the form of contract : —

'All mechanics, labourers, or other persons who perform labour for the purposes
of the construction of the works hereby contracted for, shall be paid such wages
as are generally accepted as current for competent workmen in the district in which
the work is being performed, and if there is no current rate in such district, then
a fair and reasonable rate; and, in the event of a dispute arising as to what is the
current or a fair and reasonable rate, it shall be determined by the Commissioners,
whose decision shall be final.'

'This agreement is subject to the regulations now in force, or which may at
any time hereafter be in force during the construction of the works hereby con-
tracted for, made under the authority of the Department of Labour, and which
are, or shall be, applicable to such works.' (The schedule of minimum wages
determined upon by said Department will form part of the contract).

'The contractor shall in connection with the whole of the said work, as far
as practicable, use only material, machinery, plant, supplies and rolling stock
manufactured or produced inK^anada, provided the same can be obtained as cheaply
and upon as good terms, in^Canada as elsewhere, having regard to quality and price.'

The contractor shall conform to the fire regulations adopted by the Commission-
ers, and also to the laws and regulations respecting fires in the different provinces
wherein the work is being "performed.

The right is reserved to reject any or all tenders.

Bv order,

P. E. RYAN,

Secretary.
The Commissioners of the Transcontinental Railway.

Ottawa, 18th July, 1908.

Newspapers inserting this advertisement without authority from the Commig-
sioners, will not be paid for it.

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123 A. 1914

N. T. R.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION

Exhibit 13

Copy of Order in Gauncil re Security on Contract.
(See Page 20 of Report)

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123 A. 1914

1028

Copy File No. 14-164782.

Extract from a report of the Committee of the Honourable the Privy Council,
approved by His Excellency on the 24th April, 1897.

On a memorandum dated 21st April, 1897, from the Minister of Railways and
Canals, representing that whereas on the 24th of December, 1896, an Order in
Council was passed amending the Order of the 23rd of March, 1880, in the matter
of the amount of security to be required from Contractors for Public Works and
increasing such amount from 5% to 10% of the estimated value of the contract,
it appears, on further consideration, expedient that such increase should not apply
to all contracts alike, but that a distinction should be drawn between those of
minor importance and works of magnitude which involve the locking up of con-
siderable sums of money.

The Minister accordingly recommends that the provisions of the said order of
the 24tli of December, 1896, be so far modified as to make them applicable to
contracts the estimated value of which is under $250,000, and that in cases of
contracts the estimated value of which is over that amount, the security to be taken
thereunder be that contemplated by the previous Order referred to, namely, 5%
of such estimated value.

The Committee submit the above recommendation for your Excellency's
approval.

JOHN J. McGEE,

Clerk of the Privy Council.

The Honourable the Minister of Railways and Canals.

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123 A. 1914

N. T. R.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION

Exhibit 15

Letter from H. A. Woods re Classification.
(See Page 64 of Report)

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123 A. 1914

COPY

Montreal, Que., October 7, 1907.

Mr. Hugh D. Lumsden,

Chief|Engineer, Eastern Division,

National Transcontinental Railway,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir: —

Classification of Material, District "B"

At the request of District Engineer Armstrong he was furnished recently with
a statement of classification for the heavier work on the above section which were,
when given in detail, so different from his expectations that he requested the
writer to visit the work.

. During the past week we passed over portions of the work from the Batiscan
River west for fifteen or twenty miles and later, from Miles 115 to 132.

With reference to the former portion, the classification was given in distances
of from 3 to 5 miles, and, as we did not have total quantities of graduation, could
not judge with reference to any particular cutting, although percentages for entire
distance seemed excessively heavy in both loose and solid rock.

With the latter portion we had detailed percentage for each cut and were
greatly surprised at the allowances made for solid and loose rock. In nearly
every case, where the cutting was not entirely all ledge, the estimate given for solid
rock is double, or more than double, what it should be. In fact, the specifications
had been entirely ignored and an excessive allowance made, not by reason of an
error in judgment, but, as I understand, by special instructions from the Assistant
District Engineer:

Let me give you some illustrations: —

Take the cutting from Stations 5818 to 5826, estimated 71% solid rock and
29% loose rock. Slopes taken out 1^ to 1. Very little ledge in this cut. Some
large boulders but a very large percentage is common excavation.

Station 5842 to 5860. Classified 94% solid rock, 6%loose rock. Slopes taken
out H to 1. Solid rock over classified at least. 100%.

Station 5866 to 5875. Estimated 80% solid rock, 20% loose rock. No rock
in place in this cut. Many large boulders but a large amount of earth.

Station 5882 to 5901. Estimated 78% solid rock, 22% loose rock. A large
amount of this cut wasted with slip scrapers and ploughing being done with two
horses. There are hundreds of yards of earth here without a stone, large or small.

Station 6030 to 6046. Estimated 40% solid rock, 10% loose rock. This is
the large sand cut west of O'Brien's camp. Of the 95,000 yards moved to August
31st in this cut at least 80,000 yards were pure sand.

Station 6071 to 6078. Estimated 99% solid rock, 1% loose rock. Very
little solid rock in place. Slopes taken out H to 1.

West of the St. Maurice River.

Station 6391 to 6394. Estimated 46% solid rock, 33% loose rock. Sand cut
with few boulders and possibly 1,500 yards ledge in bottom of cut not yet taken out.

Station 6493 to 6504. Estimated 20% solid rock, 49% loose rock. No
evidence of any ledge and very few large boulders. Nearly all sand.

158 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

Station 6506 to 6512. Estimated 16% solid rock, 44% loose rock. This is
purely a sand cut, with very few boulders. Upper slope nearly 100' high, material
wasted into river. Certainly not 10% of this should be classified.

Station 6522 to 6548. Estimated 26% solid rock, 49% loose rock. This is
borrowed material from the side. Very little solid rock shown, except what
was used for blind drains, but some large boulders not placed in embankment.

On account ot heavy rains we were not able to go west of station 6600 but we
understand that classification is made about as noted above.

In every case where cuttings are not entirely in ledge we find the material
over-classified very largely. Mr. Armstrong has been able to visit this work at
different times, perhaps quite as often as the Assistant District Engineer. His
estimate and my own are not very different as to the amount of classified material
and until he received detailed quantities he had no intimation that such heavy
classification had been given. In many cases, particularly in sand and gravel cuts,
he had supposed that no classification would be given, except perhaps for a few
boulders as loose rock.

I am informed also that on the work east of the St. Lawrence River heavy classi-
fication is being made in borrowed material where ploughing is done with one team
and material moved in slip scrapers.

As before stated, these over-classifications are not made through error in judg-
ment, nor upon the decision of the Resident or Division Engineers, who are fully
acquainted with the character of the work, but by arbitrary orders from their
superior. To such classification as mentioned above, increasing the cost of the
work to such an alarming extent, we most seriously protest and respectfully
request that either yourself or the Assistant Chief Engineer visit the work and pass
judgment upon the classification as made. Please note that the percentages given
above indicate the work done to August 31st. We are not advised what the
September estimate will show.

Yours truly,

Sgd. H. A. Woods,

Assistant Chief Engineer.

4 GEORGE V.

SESSIONAL PAPER No. T23 A. 1914

N. T. R.

INVESTIGATING COMxMISSION

Exhibit 16

Mr. Lumsden's Blueprint showing Assembled, Rock.
(See Page 65 oi Report)

13

/?ocA /rr /.ec/cfes

_/?ocA //7 Sou/c/ers orer / Cc/6/c Xm/
V

NoZ

DefacA&o/ /.ec/ye /locA /n Afass oyer / Ce/j6/c Jcrra'

A/o4-

^0 / JjaniM^

^^^Offx/^^d*^^^^

Siog-^^

'^^y^ A^

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123 A. 1914

N. T. R.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION

Exhibit 18

Statement of Overbreak.
(See Page 69 of Report)

4 GEORGE V.

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

A. 1014

NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

Statement Showing Cost of Overbreak, as originally returned, all Yardage at Solid

Rock Prices.

District

Contract No.

Cu. Yds.

Rate

Cost

"B"

7

8

9

10

11

12

102,462
71,960
84,845

335,690
80,246

162,027

1.45
1.45
1.50
1.50
1.65
1.60

$148,569
104,342
127,267
503,535
132,405
259,243

90
00
50
00
90
20

Total

$1,275,363

50

"Y"

19
20
21

258,541

14,622

1,415,081

1.48
1.45
1.70

382,640

21,201

2,405,637

68
90

70

Total

$2,809,480

28

Grand Total .

$4,084,843

78

162

NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. IQU

o g

S 3

O K

o I

>-l o

H o

CO S

^ 2

I ^

CO M

is s

. o

J o

12: "^

O a:

< z

^ 5

C3

rge
titles
hale
c on

oo

a
C3

s

cs a »-

j:

-tJ

o

H^ S«- o

d

tf

g.o-

s

lO C) C O O — 1

CO

r-(00

^

■*

00 t^ lO lO "O CO
-t< ^ t^ O CI o

d

00 05 00
CO-H'O

IC

05

(Mt^«0'^ O

05

CIO — <

-t<

CO

^ — ^2

CT ;o -^ IN O ^

o

•CCIt^

Tf

lO

— o t*

C3 O

Ol-^tOOOMtO

•o

-H--<iO

00

CO

*J >

(N 05 C-l "O CJ -H

1<

OCCIt^

t^

Cl

^ <^

■-I ^ T}< ^ (M

CO 05

CO

1.0

Cl

CO

W

«©

^

O IC CI

o

"g

lO t^ c^

CO

tf

^ ^

m

J

O lO X

05

lO

>0

Tf

O CI o

CO

Tf<

■*

oo

3

t^ 1-1 CO

lO

lO

CO

V

^

-H rH

co"

05

o

Cl"

CI

Cl

CO

O

<a

lO lOO

lO CI

03

•n irjio

iCI lO

00

tf

3

to t005

^

CO o

CO

■*

08

d

CO

CO CI

00

00 "305

CI

r^ t-

■*

t^

» t>."o

00

•<!<" Cl"

r^

lO

d

t^-H

05

CO

CO

CO

3

CO

CO

■*

£

1

ousooot-

o

lOOiOOtOiC

CO

tf

>

J4

CO 00 O 00 >o

00

00

00

to

O

2

inOCOCS'OOS

1^

o

o

00

■rJ<K5XCO<00

CI

■^

'P

CO

o

o"o» t^ CI -<

•o"

co"

co'

,h"

o
o

CI o ■*

00

>o

'O

-f

»— ♦

'"'

yA

a

lomooiflo

00>00

a

rJtrtUJlOtOO

••l"-*!^

tf

JJ^

j<f

COC'C:OOC-1<

CO

CICICO

f~

£2

O'l — lOOCl

CI

C5CI^

IC

oc

o

CO O O r- CO o

CO

CO CO CO

05

Cl

bl

diOrfr-^dd

CO*

co"-«or

o"

•^

00 iCl 00 t^ t~ o

cc

■Cr-<CI

o

00

CJ -^

CO

Cl o

CO

C5

o

CQ

(Ot^TfiCM

CO

TjtTfT^

^

o>

a) " u.

o 0) «

o-r-Htliot^

lO

Ui-^Oi

CO

lO

(£«o

CO CO ^ ■* C< CI

CO

CICICO

CO

CO

(U 01

CI o "O o o r^

o

-<CI-H

>*<

•*

to CO -f 0> -* CI

CO

fClOO

•t

t~

Tf O) OO to CI o

CI

"5 coo

Cl

■*

CI -H -t >0 O CI

t-"

oc-^io"

oo"

>o"

Ot^ 00 CO 00 to

CO

LO-H —

^E

Cl

<u •

-^ CO -^

00

Cl ■*

CO

10

>o

-

-

O

Cl

00 05 CO CI l« -H

^

rtiOO

to

1

OOOOICOOCO

•<»<

COOW

o

-1<

lO O CI Of. -f CI

CO

COOOM

t^

o

-Ht^ CO CO -no

cb"

•o"oc"o"

■^

't""

•«1<OCO— iC5

CO

-<1C05

CO

CO

CO CI CI t- CO US

CO
Cl"

O "5

-<" co"

CO
■*"

o

1

c^

go

t^ 00 05 O -^ CI

J3

C50-<

4

•3

^^>

-hCICI

s

2

o

o

o

a

1

H

H

•o

c

^

2

•c

o

00

a

fa

c

■^

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION

163

03

O H

^ P

O H

w g

h <

^ n

_ >

5?

I-H

<

^;
I— t

H

o
o

P5

H

o

I— I

^§

<! O

a CD
>• CO

Oo
o ^

^1

H

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

fe^;^

to J

a <

iz;

^ o o

Q w o

9<

'<C 0 <

^^§

O g ■«!

g

Total Value
of Overbreak

$ 104,999 70

74,873 10

88,293 45

340,561 35

92,639 50

190,050 56

CO

CO

T-l

333,851 29

17,636 90

1,602,759 50

CO

CO

00

s

03

®

O "O lO LO o o
T# Tf lO lO lO -^

lO CO "0

t^ t-- 02 1^ CO o

r-H CO r^ t^ (N 00

<M iO <M ^ O ■*

^ lO CO "-< CO LO

iC ■* CO <r5 (N CO
(N

CO
o

Co"

83,122

4,290

1,066,540

co"

I— 1

lO

CO

1—1

20% Unavoidable returned as

@

OiOOO O t^

lo CO lO lo CO lo

iCiCO

00 lO CO

o
o

(M 05 t^ 00 CO 00

^ ^ Oi-H OCD

t^ t^ C5 CO CO lO

oaoccco 00 CO

CO^ -^ CO (M lO

o
"*

(M

CO

(M

91,407

5,291

323,124

CO
00

CO

CO

CO
CO

®

lO >0 O O lO o
rfi ■* lO iC CO CO

1.48
1.45
1.70

(M r^ >-H o 00 00

(N O coco (N C^»

GO r-l Tt< 03 O CO

t-Toi 00 00 -* CO

■* <M (M 05 -^QO

CO

o
00

CO

CO

142,188

8,233

502,638

C3
LO

o

co"
>o

CD

lO
CO

00
00

05

(M O lO O COt^
CO CO •* Ci •*! <N
T)< OSOOCOINO

Ol ^ rH iC O C^

o t^ 00 CO 00 CO

.-1 CO >-l

o
CO

(N

CO
00

258,541

14,622

1,415,081

00
00

CD

7,034,047 2,525,474

Inside

Slopes

Cu. Yds.

00 Oi CO (M lO -^

00 o 05 CO 00 o

lO CJ (N 00 TJH IM

,-rr>r CO CO -* lO
-rfiOOO^ o
CO (N (N l^ CO "5

CO

CO
CO

1,015,631

58,805

3,590,270

CO

o

CD
CO

i ■

o
O

t^OO 05 O —< <N

oo^

^ (N <M

o

s

a

§H

o

1

T3

C

o

4 GEORGE V, SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123 A. 1914

N. T. R.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION

Exhibit 19

Correspondence in connection with use of Momentum Grades.
(See Page 71 of Report)

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123 A. 1914

August 9th, 1905.
"H. A. Woods, Esq.,

"Asst. Chief Engineer,

"Grand Trunk Pacific Railway,
"Montreal, P. Q.
"Dear Sir:—

"Would you kindly send me a set of your speed and distance diagrams for
"calculating momentum grades, giving details of weights of engines used.

Yours very truly,

(Signed) D. MacPherson.

"Montreal, Que., Aug. 14th., 1905.
"Mr. D. MacPherson,

" Assistant Chief Engmeer,

" Transcontinental Railway,
"Ottawa, Ont.

" Dear Sir,—

"Replying to your letter of Aug. 9th., asking for a set of our speed and dis-
"tance diagrams for calculating momentum grades. I beg to say that we have
"not considered momentum grades, in any way, in our located lines, and I question
" the utility of doing so on grades as low as we are using.

"For details of weight and engines used, I have to say that we propose to
"use the new Government Specifications for Bridges, using the "HesLvy" class
"of engines. This I understand gives the weight of engine and tender 355,440.

Yours truly,

(Signed) H, A. Woods,

Asst. Chief Engineer.

Nov., 20th, 1905.
"H. D. LuMSDEN, Esq.,
" Chief Engineer,
" Ottawa.

" Dear Sir:—

"Attached is correspondence I have had with our District Engineers and
"with the Assistant Chief Engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, on the
"subject of virtual grades.

" You will see that some of our Engineers are in favor of using same in certain
"places and some are not. Mr. Woods is not in favor of using them. They are,
"of course, only suitable for undulating country and not for long stretches of
" country on maximum grades.

" Engineering has been described as the art of making a dollar earn the most
"money and a judicious use of virtual grades at points where the Locomotive
"Engineer has a chance to "take a run at the grade," would undoubtedly save
"money in construction and admit of the line being operated with maximum

166 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

"virtual grades of 0.4 and 0.6 though the actual grades would appear on the
"profile as steeper. Of course if we have actual grades of 0.4 in locations where
"the engine can get a run at them, they can be operated as virtual grades of less
"slope and the haulage capacity of the engine will be greater than on a virtual
"grade of 0.4. Will you kindly let me have your ruling early as to whether or
" not we shall use virtual grades where possible. Please return fyle.

Yours very truly,

(Sgd.) D. MacPherson,

Asst. Chief Engineer.
File 3737.

"D. MacPherson, Esq.,

"Assistant Chief Engineer,

"Dear Sir:—

"In reply to your letter of the 20th inst. re actual and virtual grades. I
"am certainly of the opinion that we must adhere to actual grades so far as our
"construction is concerned, and all District Engineers should be so instructed.
"Should any exceptional cases arise they should be submitted to this office, but
"you must bear in mind they must be approved by the Grand Trunk Pacific
"Railway Company before they can be adopted. I return herewith all corres-
" pondence.

Yours truly,

(Sgd.) Hugh D. Lumsden.
" Enclos.

Ottawa, November 22nd, 1905.
"Guy C. Dunn, Esq.,
A. E. DoucET, Esq.,
A. N. Molesworth, Esq.,
S. R. PouLiN, Esq.,
C. E, Perry, Esq.,
A. E. HoDGiNS, Esq.,

"Dear Sir:—

DISTRICT ENGINEER.

Re VIRTUAL GRADES

" Referring to previous correspondence on the subject of virtual grades I
"have gone into the matter with all the District Engineers, and with the Assistant
"Chief Engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, after which I submitted
"the correspondence to the Chief Engineer, who has given his ruling that we
" must adhere to actual grades. You will please be governed accordingly. Should
"any exceptional case arise where it seems impossible to get the actual grade,
"with reasonable cost, such exceptional cases will be gone into on their merits,
"but, on account of the wording of the Act, it may be necessary to submit such
"cases forthe approval of the Grand Trunk Pacific Company.

Yours truly,

(Sgd.) D. MacPherson,

Asst. Chief Engineer.

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123 A. 1914

N. T. R.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION

Exhibit 20

Correspondence in connection with Train Filling.
(See Page 75 of Report)

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123 A. 1914

Ottawa, March 8th, 1906.

To the Commissioners of the Transcontinental Railway,
Ottawa.

Sirs:—

I beg to suggest to the Commissioners that before the acceptance of any
tender by them, the contractor should understand that his price for common
excavation includes all train hauled material for the making up of ( mbankments,
and if the contractor finds it to his advantage to construct temporary trestles
to enable him to make up such embankments by train hauled material, he may
do so on obtaining the consent in writing of the engineers, but the contractor's
price for common excavation must be understood to cover the cost of such tem-
porary trestles, and the filling in of same by train hauled material, and such
filling shall be completed as soon as practicable. No overhaul will be allowed
for train hauled material.

The contractor must also understand that all temporary trestles erected
for his own convenience in hauling by teams or dump cars (other than as stated
under heading of 'Temporary Bridge or Haulway' in Clause 17 of the General
Specifications) shall be erected at his own expense, and that in the schedule of
prices to be paid for the various items for material and work finished or performed,
the prices given by him in his tender are to be taken and considered to be the
prices for such material in the finished work, except in cases of Items 10 and 21,
and that the ties under 76, 77, and 78 of the said schedule are to be finished by the
Commissioners and that his price for tracklaying is to cover the cost of handling
and putting in all such ties.

Yours obedient servant,

(Sgd.) H. D. LUMSDEN.

(Memo on Mr. Lumsden's file in connection with letter of March 8th, 1906, to

Commissioners.)

This letter is written for the information of the Commissioners and is instigated
by the fact that several supposed intending tenderers have asked the ques-
tion as to payment for temporary trestles and overhaul.

It is a common practice in railway construction through a rough and broken
country where suitable material is scarce and costly to obtain that embankments
might in the first instances be made narrow and low and afterwards filled out or
made up to the full subgrade by train haul made from the best available pits,
and in some cases it is preferable to put in temporary trestle rather than raise
the track as the work progresses.

Contractors tendering, who had not been accustomed to such a country,
may make their price with the idea that they would be paid Ic. per 100 feet, over
the 500 ft. of free haul (provided for in the General Specifications, Clause 17)
for all train hauled material, and also for the erection of temporary trestles. As
for the latter part of the letter it is only to be certain before signing any contract
that the tenderer understands that the prices given by him are for the material
in the work and not for thu material only.

(Sgd.) H. D. LUMSDEN,

Ottawa, March 8th, 1906.

168 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

Kenora, June 9th, 1906.

H. D. LuMSDEN, Esq.,

Dear Sir: —

Mr. McArthur has raised the question who will pay for temporary trestles
if train filling is ordered in heavy fills. He is very anxious to do some train filling
west of the C. P. R. crossing in place of permanent trestles. He has not put in a
price for temporary trestles and claims that his price per cubic yard for train
filling does not include anything but the loading and off loading material for banks
from flat cars.

Yours truly,

(Sgd). A. E. HoDGiNS,
District Engineer.

Ottawa, June 12th, 1906.
A. E. HoDGiNS, Esq.,

District Engineer,
Kenora, Ont.

Dear Sir: —

In reply to yours of the 9th instant re Mr. McArthur' raising the question
as to who should pay for trestles where train filling was ordered in heavy filling,
I may say that owing to the short time for the completion of this work, it was not
the intention that the present contractors should be called upon to make up any
very heavy fills, the material for which had to be hauled by train, but that we should
put in standard trestle in such places. Of course, if the contractor prefers to make
up a fill by train hauled material rather than put in our standard trestle, he can
do so with your approval, but in such cases he must provide the necessary tem-
porary trestle at his own cost (except under Clause 17, headed 'Temporary Bridge
or Haulway'). We have no special price for train hauled material but only
for train hauled surfacing by which is meant that where the track is laid before
ballasted it may be found advisable to haul a few car loads of sand or gravel in
order to save the rails from permanent injury. I may also say that it is not the
intention to use rock borrow except only when an order in writing has been given
from this office.

Yours truly,

(Sgd.) H. D. LUMSDEN.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 169

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

November, 5th, 1906.

H. D. LuMSDEN, Esq.,
Chief Engineer,

Transcontinental Railway.

Dear Sir: —

I have received the following letter from Mr. M. P. Davis.— 'Would you
please instruct your engineers to give us bills of timber for temporary trestles
required for fills at stations 237 to 261, 870 to 890, 1028 to 1033^ 1515 to 1524,
1840 to 1865, 1935 to 1970, 2040 to 2055, 2465 to 2515. It is important that
we get this information at the earliest possible date so that the material may be
delivered during the winter months, and oblige,

(Sgd.) M. P. Davis.'

Now to supply this information opens up the question of temporary trestles,
train hauled material, and you will, of course, recollect that no decision has aa
yet been come to with regard to this matter. A? I pointed out with regard to
this matter before it would have been easy to have included train hauled material
in our specifications, but as matters stand now it seems to me that we are at the
contractors' mercy and that we will have to make the best we can of a bad bargain.
I will await your further order before supplying this information.

Yours truly.

(Sgd,) A. E. DoucET,

District Engineer.

November 12th, 1906.

H. D. LuMSDEN, Esq.,
Chief Engineer,

Transcontinental Railway.

Dear Sir: —

I enclose herewith a letter which I have just received from Messrs. M. P.
and J. T. Davis, concerning the price of train hauled material and for which you
suggested that they should submit a price to the Commissioners.

Yours truly,

(Sgd.) A. E. DoucBT.

14

170 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

File 4134.

December 4th, 1906.
A. E. DoucET, Esq.,

District Engineer,

Quebec, P. Q.

Dear Sir: —

In regard to Mr. Davis' letter to you, dated the 12th ulto. attached, I may
say that Clause 17 of our General Specifications only refers to material under the
heading of grading, which the contractor handles entirely with his own equipment,
appliances and labour, prior to the Commissioner's track being laid, and should
not be interpreted to cover cases where the contractor makes use of the rails,
fastenings and ties furnished by the Commissioners, the latter also paying for the
track la5'^ing. As to points at which suitable material for the making up of embank-
ments is not obtainable within reasonable reach, and they are made up by train
haul, it is found that where borrow pits of sand, gravel, or easily worked material
are to be found, either on the line of railway or within short distances thereof,
and within a few miles of the site of such embankments, that such embankments,
up to say twenty-five feet in height, can be most economically constructed by,
where practicable, dropping the grades at the end of the embankments and raising
them by train to their full width and height, the cost of such raising of grades
by train haul would be amply covered by an addition of 10c per yard to the ordi-
nary earth work price. Where it is impracticable to do this, the additional cost
per yard of material in embankments to cover the cost of the erection of temporary
trestle; in embankments from ten to twenty-five feet in height an addition of 22c,
and in embankments from twenty-five to forty-five feet in height an addition of
10c. per yard to the ordinary earth work price will amply cover this, and for greater
heights, up to say sixty foot, T^c. per yard added to the original earth work price.
I may say that in general it is more profitable to contractors, where borrow of
good sand, gravel, or easily worked material can be obtained within a few miles
that can be loaded on cars by steam shovel, and unloaded by plough or unloaded,
to make up fills in this way (when the track has been found for the contractor)
at their original price, than to do so by men and horses where the haul exceeds
the five hundred foot limit, and especiaUy in this case where the ordinary material
to be moved, by men or teams, is clay or stiff material. Mr. Davis makes an
exception of material hauled from cuts, and asks Ic. per yard per 100 ft. on all
such material. This should not be allowed if it is wasted and our track is used
to take out such material. Mr. Davis also asks 2c, per yard per mile for haul
over seven miles; this is just double what I consider it is worth. My opinion
is that if the present contractors are allowed an addition to their ordinary earth
work price (21c. per yard) of 15c. per yard for all train hauled material to make
up embankments (other than ballast) such addition to cover all cost of lifting
track, putting in temporary trestle and filling same up, to a haul of five miles,
and an addition of Ic. per yard per mile for haul over five miles, such an arrange-
ment would be a fair and equitable one as between the Commissioners and the
contractors, it being understood that this extra price of 15c per yard does not apply
to material wasted from cuttings or to material to make up embankments hauled
by train for a less distance than 2,000 feet.

Yours truly,

(Sgd.) Hugh D. Lumsden.

Enclos.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 171

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123 -

January 22nd, 1907.

To the Commissioners of the Transcontinental Railway,
Ottawa.

Sirs:—

On the 14th December last at a meeting in Quebec with Messrs. Davis Bros,
and Messrs. Macdonell and O'Brien, the contractors for the 150 miles from the
Quebec Bridge westerly, the Chairman, Mr. Doucet and Messrs. Woods and Arm-
strong, the Grand Trunk Pacific Supervising Engineers being also present, the
question of haul over 2,600 feet and temporary trestle was taken up, the contractors
claiming 65c. per cubic yard and to cover such trestle and any length of haul over
2,600 ft. After a long discussion I eventually consented to a price of 5oc. per
cubic yard, which in my opinion is a very good one. I also allowed the 20c. per
lineal foot for piles delivered as well as 40c. per foot for piles driven, having found
in making a comparison of the tenders that had been so computed except where
specially mentioned otherwise. As this arrangement may increase the cost of
construction I beg to call your attention to my letter of March 8th last, and to
strongly recommend that before other contracts are let the specifications may
be so amended as to make a number of the clauses clear, saving future trouble
and tend to the economical construction of the line.

Your obedient servant,

(Sgd.) H. D. LUMSDEN.

March 2l8t, 1907.
A. E. HoDGiNS, Esq.,

District Engineer,
Kenora, Ont.

Dear Sir: —

The many inquiries made by you for permission to use rock borrow in fills
leads me to send you a copy of our revised General Specifications, approved by
the Government, and on which contracts have already been awarded. You will
note in this on page 41, Clause 224x, a specification for train hauled material
including temporary trestle. I may say that out of nine tenders lately received
for such work, the average price was 51f c. varying from a minimum of 45c. to a
maximum of 60c.

I think it would be well for you to interview Mr. McArthur and see at what
rate you could arrange with him for similar work on his contract. This would
enable him to use round timber trestle or piles, in a number of places where under
such present conditions standard timber trestle would be required, but of course
you will have to be the judge as to where he could use such so as not to cause too
great a delay in the completion of the work. I should like you to take this matter
up at once and submit here for approval any offer Mr. McArthur may make as
soon as possible.

(Sgd.) H. D. LUMSDEN.

4 QEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123 A. 1914

N.T. R.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION

Exhibit 21

Correspondence in connection with the use of Wooden Trestles.
(See Page 74 of Report)

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123 A. 1914

Jan. 9th, 1907.
H. A. Woods, Esq.,

Asst. Chief Engineer,

Grand Triink Pacific Railway,
Montreal, P.Q.

Dear Sir, —

I have been endeavouring to settle the question of using standard timber
trestles in a number of large fills as talked over with you, the intention being to
aUow these trestles to stand as long as they are safe, then to put in the permanent
waterway where required and fill by train. I am told, however, that the Grand
Trunk Pacific, who will then be operating the road, could charge anything they
liked for such permanent waterway and filling. Though this seems to me absurd
it would strengthen my position & I could have a letter from Mr. Kelliher and
yourself stating that the maximum price that the G. T. P. would charge for the
construction of the permanent bridge and waterway would not in any case exceed
the price for similar work now, or hereafter, to be paid to the contractors on the
section that such work may be situated, and the maximum price for train filling
such trestles would not exceed say 25c. per cub, yard measured in borrow pits,
or such other rate as you may consider fair.

Yours truly,

(Sgd.) Hugh D. Lumsden.

Montreal, Que., Jan. 11th, 1907.
Mr. Hugh D. Lumsden,

Chief Engineer, Transcontinental Ry.,
Ottawa, Ont.

Dear Sir: —

I have yours of the 9th inst., in which you state that you are endeavouring
to settle the question of using standard timber trestles in a number of large fills,
the intention being to allow these trestles to stand as long as they are safe and
then put in permanent water-ways required and fill by train. In order to make an
intelligent estimate of where this class of work would be economical and good
engineering practice to substitute for steel structures and solid embankments you
requested that Mr. Kelliher and myself would state a maximum price that the
Grand Trunk Pacific would charge for the construction of permanent bridge and
water-ways if the work was turned over by the Commission before it was completed.
In reply to same I have to say that, after a conference with Vice-President Morse
and Chief Engineer Kelliher, they both state that the price you mentioned, 25 cents
per cubic yard, measured in borrow pits, for train hauled filling and that the price
for permanent bridge and water-ways would not exceed the price for similar work
now or hereafter to be paid to the contractors, was eminently fair. Vice-President
Morse desired me to say that, without fixing a price upon this train hauled material,
that the price would not exceed 25 cents per cubic yard. It would seem to me
that the above answers your inquiry fully and I trust it may be of some service

174 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

to you in giving instructions to your staff as to where this class of work should be
placed.

I may say further that the use of standard timber trestles has been allowed by
the Government on the Western Division and we see no reason why we should not
accept the same character of work from the Transcontinental Commission.

Yours truly,

(Sgd.) H. A. WOODS,

Assistant Chief Engineer.

Ft7e-6190 Jan. 12th, 1907.

Dear Sir, —

Re Work Covered bt Tenders Now Being Called for.

In order to insure the economical construction of the line in your
district it may be found advisable to make use of standard timber trestle
in I many places where suitable material is not available in the vicinity for
the |making up of embankments, or where it may be impracticable
during construction to put in the permanent structures required. If you have not
already provided for such, will you please at once furnish me with a memo of
points in your District where standard trestle may be required, giving approximate
quantities in trestle and deductions to be made from common excavation covering
same. Should tenderers enquire tell them that such trestles may be used.

Yours truly,

(Sgd.) Hugh D. Lumsden.
District Engineers: "A", "B," "C" and "D."

No. 10248. Quebec, 15th Jany, 1907.

Hugh D. Lumsden, Esq.,
Chief Engineer,
Ottawa.

Dear Sir : —

Acknowledging your circular of January 12th, file 6190. We will not need
any standard timber trestles in my district, as suitable material can be found in
the vicinity for the making up of embankments.

Yours very truly.

(Sgd.) A. E. Doucet,
District Engineer.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION ' 175

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

No. 9974.

St. John, N. B., January 17th, 1907.

Hugh D. Lumsden, Esq.,

Chief Engineer N. T. C. Ry.,
Ottawa, Ont.

Dear Sir: —

I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 16th inst., re work covered
by tenders now being called for. Since receiving same I have gone carefully over
our profiles and do not consider it would be advisable or economical to make use of
standard timber trestles on either of the contracts. On Contract No. 1 there are
two or three places where it would be advisable to use timber if material was
difiicult to procure, but we can make the fills up from side work to a height' of ten
or twelve feet and I feel confident of getting enough stuff to make up the balance
from the cuts at each end. On Contract No. 2 there are one or two places where
it was questionable if it would not be advisable to use 60 ft. trestles from grade
as per suggestion made by Mr. Uniacke, but although the material in this vicinity
is rock I think we can get sufficient earth to make up these fills, and I cannot
figure out that there is very much economy in putting in sixty feet of timber to
save a small end abutment.

Yours truly,

(Sgd.) Guy C. Dunn,,

District Engineer

FUe 6190.

Jan. 19th, 1907.
Guy C. Dunn, Esq.,

District Engineer,

St. John, N. B.

Dear Sir: —

Yours of the 17th inst. re use of standard timber trestle received. My Object
in writing you was to call your attention to the fact that therer are many cases
in crossings of ravines, say 35 to 70 feet in depth and several hundred feet in
length, whereby putting in standard timber trestle now, and when such becomes
imsafe (say in 8 or 9 years) filling it by train at a cost of say 25c. or less, per yard,
is in the end more economical than putting in expensive water-way, say 20 foot
arch culvert, and filling at contractors' prices now, or putting in steel viaduct on
concrete foundations. It is unquestionably more expensive to build concrete
structures now than when the material can be landed at the site by train, and
large railway corporations with all modern appliances can do trestle filling at their
convenience at a less cost than contractors. As to steel viaducts ; constant renewal
of deck and painting of steel makes a considerable sum when capitalized and added
to the first cost, whereas an embankment and say arch or box culverts may be
said to be permanent. There is also a considerable saving of interest on the
difference between the cost of permanent water-way and filling now, and the
substitution of trestle for say 8 or 9 years.

176 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

I want to provide in our estimates for the work about to be let the use of
timber m such places should we determine to make use of it, deducting an equivalent
amoimt of earth.

Please let me hear from you again on this subject.

Yours truly,

(Sgd.) Hugh D. Lumsden.

File 6190.

Jan. 19th, 1907.
The Commissioners of the Transcontinental Railway,
Ottawa, Ont.

Sirs:—

As I have about completed the estimates for the several sections on which
we are now asking tenders, I should like to have your instructions as to whether
• I am to provide for the erection of standard timber trestle, in such places as I
am satisfied that the final cost of its erection now and after a lapse of eight or
nine years of construction of a permanent water-way and filling such trestle by
train is less than the making up of such permanent water-way and embankment
now. As the question of the subsequent cost of the construction of permanent
water-ways and train filling was an important one and certain to be raised I wrote
to Mr. H. A. Woods, Assistant Chief Engineer of the G. T. P., and attach a copy
of his reply. I am satisfied that at a number of places, especially on the more
inaccessible sections, it will be found that a considerable saving can be effected,
both in time and money, by the use of this mode of construction. The only
objection that I can see is the possibility of some of these trestles being destroyed
by fire before being filled in, but by the use of cars in the clearing and keeping
cleared of the ground at the sites of such trestles, and the maintaining of barrels
of water at intervals on such trestles during the summer months this danger can
be minimized.

No. 9996. St. John, N. B., January 21st, 1907.

Hugh D. Lumsden, Esq.,

Chief Engineer N. T. C. Ry.,
Ottawa, Ont.

Dear Sir: —

I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 19th inst., in regard to
standard timber trestles for temporary purposes. I will go into this question
more carefully, make some comparative estimates, and advise you in regard to
same as soon as possible.

Yours truly,

(Sgd.) Guy C. Dunn,

District Engineer.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 177

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

North Bay, January 22nd, 1907.

Mr. H. D. Lumsden,

Chief Engineer,

Ottawa, Ont.

Dear Sir: —

I beg to enclose a tableau giving an estimate of the cost of Permanent Struc-
tures at the different points at the Eastern Section of my district, together with
the cost of embankment which would be saved by putting a wooden structure
of a certain length 'at each of the respective places. I also give the difference
in cost of Permanent Structures and Wooden Trestle which would amount to about
$416,515.00. I have also a column at 4% interest on the money not expended
for seven years, and the probable cost of the Permanent Structure after seven
years. On the last the difference would be simply in the cost of the concrete
or masonry. There is a column showing the probable total saving and also the
surplus cost by using wooden structures. I would not advice the using of wooden
structures at every one of the points where saving is shown, for instance at the
Circle River, Low Bush River and Mistongo River, I think should have Permanent
Structures at once, as the Mistongo River is a viaduct which is not taken into
consideration in this matter, and probably it will depend on the character of the
material at the end of the viaduct to see whether it would necessitate some 400
or 500 feet of wooden approaches. All structures which are under an embankment
of less than 25 feet would cost less to have a Permanent Structure at once than
to wait until the track is there.

I think that this table will put you in a position to judge very quickly of the
places where we will gain by putting temporary wooden structures. I did not
compound the interest on the amount saved. The compounding of which, amount-
ing to about one-third of the interest, would be offsetted by the necessary repairs
to the wooden structures during the seven years of their existence.

Yours truly,

(Sgd.) S. R. PouLiN,

District Engineer, "D".

File 6190 Feb. 4th, 1907.

Dear Sir : —

Re use of Standard Timber Trestles on the Eastern Division. I received
some time ago a letter from your Assistant Chief Engineer Mr. H. A. Woods,
copy of which I attach, and I should like very much to have this letter confirmed
by yourself and Mr. Kelliher.

Yours truly,
Enclos.

Frank W. Morse, Esq.,

Vice President Grand Trunk Pacific^Ry.
Montreal, P. Q.

178 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

En route Montreal to Ottawa,
February 13th. 1907.
1072
Mr. Hugh D. Lumsden,

Chief Engineer, Trans-Con. Ry. Commission,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir: —

I have yours of the 4th. inst. subject standard timber trestles on the Eastern
Division, and in reply thereto will say that I fully endorse and approve, and will
be^^govemed by Mr. Woods' letter of January 11th to you, on this subject.

Yours truly,

(Sgd.) Frank W. Morse,

Vice President & Gen. Manager.

Ottawa, March Ist, 1907.

Hon. S. N. Parent,
Chairman.

Dear Sir,

In reply to yours of the 26th ult., accompanied with a copy from Mr. H. A.
Woods, Asst. Chief Engineer of the G. T. R. wherein he states that the price for
train hauled material to fill in wooden trestles by the Co., would not exceed
25 cents per cubic yard. To this you ask my opinion if Mr. Wood's letter could
legally be considered binding on their part. In my opinion it would not legally
bind the Company.

To make this proposition binding would require a regular agreement applying
to each particular point where the work ia to be done, the whole to be confirmed
by a resolution of the Board of Directors.

I am, Sir,

Your obedient servant,
{Sgd.) H. Atkinson,

Law Clerk.

Ottawa, March 1st, 1907.

Hugh D. Lumsden, Esq.,
Chief Engineer.

Re Filling in Timber Trestles.

Dear Sir: —

After reading the letter of the 13th ult., to you from F. W. Morse, Esq.,
General Manager of the G. T. P. stating that he fuUy endorsed and approved
of Mr. H. A. Woods letter of Jan'y 11th last on the above subject. I am to say

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 179

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

it does not change my opinion as expressed in my letter to the Hon. Mr. Parent
ot this date.

I am, Sir,

Your obedient servant,

(Sgd.) H. Atkinson,
H. A. /B. Law Clerk.

File 6190.

March 1st. 1907.

H. A. Woods, Esq.,

Assistant Chief Engineer, G. T. R.
Montreal, P. Q.

Dear Sir,

Referring to our correspondence re use of Standard Timber Trestle in con-
struction of the Eastern Division, I beg to hand you herewith copy of two letters
from our Law Clerk in view of which opinions it will be incumbent on your Com-
pany to make formal application for the use of such structures in particular cases,
supported by resolution by the Board of your Directors along the lines indicated
in Mr. Atkinson's letters, such resolutions binding your Company to the maximum
price of the subsequent filling of the structure, and for the construction of any
permanent structure that may be necessitated thereby; and to replace any such
structures as may be destroyed by fire after the road has been taken over by the
Company; and in the event of destruction by fire of any such structures before
the road has been taken over by your Company, agreeing that the cost of replace-
ment will be included in "Cost of Construction."

End OS.

Yours truly,

(Sgd.) Hugh D. Lumsden.

Montreal, Que., March 4, 1907.
Mr. Hugh D. Lumsden,

Chief Engineer, Nat. Transcontinental Ry.,
Ottawa, Ont.

Dear Sir: —

I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your favor of March 1st, together with
copies of two letters from Mr. H. Atkinson, Law Clerk, re use of standard timber
trestles, construction of the Eastern Division. I have forwarded same to our
General Manager for his action in the matter.

I may say, however, that to me it seems singular that an agreement of this
kind should have to be made in each particular case and approved by the Board
of Directors of this Company.

180 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

No action of approval by our Board is necessary in regard to our own work.
The class of structure and kind of work is entirely within the jurisdiction of our
Chief Engineer, if approved by the General Manager.

Yours truly,

(Sgd.) H. A. Woods,

Assistant Chief Engineer.

Ottawa, April 2nd, 1907.
H. Atkinson, Esq.,

Law Clerk, Transcontinental Commission,
Ottawa, Ont.

Dear Sir: —

Standard Timber Trestles for Eastern Division.

Referring to this subject I have seen your several opinions relating thereto
and have to say that I quite endorse the same. In accordance with the view
expressed by you I have drawn a By-Law to be passed by the Directors of the Grand
Trunk Pacifie Railway, in pursuance of which a formal contract may be entered
into along the lines suggested. Kindly say if the draft By-Law meets your ap-
proval, and I will have it passed at once, to be followed by the preparation of the
necessary formal contract.

Yours truly,

D'Arcy Tate,
End. Asst. Solicitor.

BY-LAW No.

Whereas, it is proposed by the Commissioners of the Transcontinental
Railway to erect standard timber trestles in a number of large fills, on the Eastern
Division, the intention being to allow these trestles to stand as long as they are
safe, and afterwards put in permanent waterways, and fill by trains.

And Whereas, the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company are agreeable
to what is proposed in this respect, and are willing to do the filling hereafter re-
quired at 25 cents per cubic yard measured in borrow pits for train hauled filling,
and to construct the necessary permanent bridges and waterways at a price not
exceeding the maximum price now, or hereafter paid by the Commissioners to
Contractors for similar work.

Therefore, it is

Moved by

Seconded by,

That the Vice President be, and he is hereby authorized to execute a lormal
contract with the Commissioners of the Transcontinental Railway in respect
of the erection of standard timber trestles by the said Commissioners, wherever
in the opinion of the Chief Engineer of the Transcontinental Railway Commission
and the Chief Engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company it is con-
sistent with economical and good engineering practice so to do, such timber treaties
to be ultimately filled in by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company for the
Commissioners at the price of 25 cents per cubic yard measured in borrow
pits for train hauled filling, and the permanent bridge and the waterways to be

\

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 181

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

constructed by the Grand Trunk Pacific RaUway Company for the Commissioners
at a price not exceeding the maximum price now, or hereafter paid by the Com-
missioners to Contractors for similar work.

Ottawa, April 3rd, 1907.
Hugh D. Lumsden, Esq.,
Chief Engineer.

Dear Sir: —

STANDARD TIMBER TRESTLES FOR EASTERN DIVISION

Herewith please find copy of a letter received from D'Arcy Tate, Esq., Asst.
Solicitor, G. T. P. Railway, and also a draft By-Law relative tothe above subject.
Would you kindly examine the By-law, and have it submitted to the Board,
and return to me and oblige.

I am, Sir,

Your obedient servant,

(Sgd.) H. Atkinson,
H.A./B. Law Clerk.

Ottawa, April 5th, 1907.
Hugh D. Lumsden, Esq.,
Chief Engineer.

Dear Sir: —

STANDARD TIMBER TRESTLES FOR EASTERN DIVISION

Herewith I beg to hand you the proposed By-Law to be passed by the Directors
of the G. T. P. concerning the above as corrected by you, and which is more in
conformity with the letter from Mr. Woods to you of January 11th last, than
the By-Law which was submitted by Mr. Tate to me.

I am. Sir,

Your obedient servant,

(Sgd.) H. Atkinson,
H.A./B. Law Clerk.

Ottawa, May 14th, 1907.
Hugh D. Lumsden, Esq.,
Chief Engineer.

Dear Sir: —

I beg to hand you herewith copy of a certified copy of resolution of the Execu-
tive Committee of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway relating to the erection of
standard timber trestles on the Eastern Division; also copy of a certified copy
of a resolution of said Executive Committee approving specifications for:

(1) Steel rails, marked "a" — being the specifications according to which
the Dominion Iron & Steel Co., is now manufacturing rails for this
Commission.

182 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

(2) Steel rails, marked "b" — being the specifications in accordance with

which The Algoma Steel Company is now manufacturing rails for
this Commission.

(3) Standard specifications for steel splice bars.

(4) Specifications for track bolts and nuts.

(5) Specifications for track spikes.

Yours truly,
2 enclos. (Sgd.) P. E. Ryan.

Extract from Minutes of a Meeting of the Executive Committee of the Grand
Trunk Pacific Railway Company, held in the President's Room No. 301 of
the General Offices, McGill Street, Montreal, Thursday, May 9th, 1907, at
Eleven o'clock, A.M.

present:

Chas. M. Hays, Esq., Chairman.
Frank W. Morse, Esq.,
Wm. Wainwright, Esq.

Attended by Henry Philips, Secretary.

The following resolution re the erection of standard timber trestles on the
Eastern Division was submitted : —

Whereas it may be found expedient by the Commissioners of the Transcon-
tinental Railway to erect standard timber trestles in a number of large fills, on
the Eastern Division, the intention being to allow these trestles to stand as long
as they are safe and afterwards put in permanent waterways, and fill by train.

And whereas the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company approves of the
erection of such Timber Trestles, and are willing to do the filling hereafter required
at a price not to exceed 25c. per cubic yard measured in borrow pits for train
hauled filling, and to construct the necessary permanent bridges and waterways
at a price not to exceed the price now, or hereafter paid by the Commissioners
to Contractors for similar work on the Section where the work may be required.

Now therefore upon motion of Mr. Frank W. Morse, seconded by Mr. Wm.
Wainwright, it was unanimously

Resolved that the Vice-President be and he is hereby authorized to execute
a formal contract with the Commissioners of the Transcontinental Railway in
respect of the erection of standard timber trestles by the said Commissioners,
wherever in the opinion of the Chief Engineer of the Transcontinental Railway
Commission and the Chief Engineer of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company,
it is consistent with economical and good engineering practice so to do, such
timber trestles to be ultimately filled in by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway
Company for the Commissioners at a price not to exceed 25c. per cubic yard
measured in borrow pits for train hauled filling and the permanent bridge and
the waterways to be constructed by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company
for the Commissioners at a price not exceeding the price now, or hereafter paid
by the Commissioners to Contractors for similar work on the section where such
work may be required.

Carried. Certified a true copy,

(Sgd.) Henry Phillips,
(Seal) Secretary.

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123 A. 1914

N. T. R.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION

Exhibit 22

Statement showing Saving which might have been made by use of Wooden Trestles.

(See Page 78 of Report)

15

4 GEORGE V.

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

A. 1914

>^

<

^

l-I

H

?;

ffi

t^

O

<

^

;?

b

M

O

a;

(H

H

O

<

;?;

H

s

o

t3

s

o

«

u

rn

H

■z

(0

<

O

«

CJ

H

m

►J

X

<!

•z

^

O

H

M

<

^,

^

a

I

CO

,_

-r:

o

■M

t^

1

a; i

X

i

r~

X

X i ^

■*^ M 1

•N

I.T

35

rf

CD 1 M

^ a 1

c- 1

35

CD

a--

1.0

^3 ^-

•= >

rl

X

-f. 2^

+J C3

3^

■M

35 O)

P«

i

O

r-

1<

o

tf>

n t-

(U

00

00

IM

T)f

•* U5

_

M

CD

O

m

X o

>H

3i 1

35

CD

ro

^

cd" i o"

3 1

i»

r>

•M

lO

05

I^

t^

H '

t-

X

n

ro

05

O

■ G

■*

•^

i

«#

ti
o

1

1

ti

1

s]

p

3 a) i

^ u 1

s

^ =

J<J

Oj

s

C3+3

_ o

o

es

H

ts

^5

"*■

CO

lO 1 •*

♦J eS

t^

oc

3:

^^

■>\ X

=5^ *

lO

3

o

O 1 (M

'»

M ?>

o"

o" 1 t~"

t^

-i- 1 CO

t^

K-

•o

35 35

— " 1 cd"

1 ^

Int.
for
ars

o
to

,222
,401
,121

« !

o

CD
CD

^^^\

n CD lO
?0 -t> -N

X
35

+J'''

lO -

C")

o

O

St-

^''

CO

m

1 '^

<n

■M

t^

t^ ^ ■M O

f t^

_o

tn

CO

» ?3 O

TO 1 n

.4-3

o

3S

I n c-i

m

o

"■ 1 ®

m

?3

31

^ 1 ■-'3

L4

"S

:«5

O -

< t~

X IM

Em

m

?3 — ' — '

f^

C^

U)

ta

^

JS

[

s

.fj

p

'3

■

J3

! -t^

, SH)

1 ^3

ffl

1 ^

1

Cost &
,t 4%
Years

M

o

!• r-

o

Tf

»

3 :

j ^

2;

0 :

5j" iC

X
CO

us

1 a

a I

(5 O:

CO

«D

"S .f^

■^

1

■- Q

0 r^

35

o_

i

g3^

:^i

_"

■M

o"

5

3

■!»

e©

<n

T

- X

«t

<5

u

<o

t

T t-

X

1*

ao

3>

f CC

X

t»

M

«■£

o o
HO

O

^3

^

T3

•^

■0 ''

3 C

lO

U}

d

»

-1 I

O CC

ri

va

0!

c^"

t^

^

w

«»

fe

1

•«

a

O ij a)

ID

*^ 3 V.

00 u 3

9

O*'^

£

o^^

_

§E

0-3

n

1 .§

Sots

^

-

•
-r ^

' c> o

.CD "5

a o

z 3

1

Zj

3

c

! "

-

>« ^

H >"• "S

Q

1

"^

E

2 1

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER N«. 123 A. 1914

I

N. T. R.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION

Exhibit 23

Statement of Rock Borrow.
(See Page 79 of Report)

4 GEORGE V.

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

A. 1914

I

Rock Borrow

The follo'^dng figures show the cubic yards of solid rock excavated from solid
rock, borrow pits or from the sides of cuttings which was used to construct em-
bankments for which cheaper material was not available, but which need not
have been used had wooden trestles been installed.

District.

A.
B.
F.

Cubic Yards of Solid Rock.

743,976

256,947
852,881

Total $1,853,804

Cost.

$ 835,077.00

410,867,25

1,397,368.25

$2,643,312.50

701.654 cubic yards of the solid rock borrow used on District "A" was paid for
at a special price of Sl.lOJ per cubic yard under an arrangement with the contractors
and by approval of an Order in Council.

The balance of the yardage on all three districts was paid for at the regular
contract price for solid rock, varying from $1.45 to $1.70 per cubic yard.

\

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123 A. H14

N. T. R."

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION

Exhibit 24

Standard Siding Plan.
(See Page 1 02 of Report)

NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY,

EASTERN DIVISION

— 5tarpc/arc/ Stcitlor} Ycird —

Scale 100' = /."

Ottaix)a. Jfly.fe.i?'!'-

/^/O-

-^ TJ^/j layout iTfoy Av rfi^e/-fea Luffer? fyeccfjary ^y p/ac/'f?^ S/v//a^ 300 fr eaj/- o/ ^^^.
0/7£^ Jf^/Z^^f ^ correfflo/7£/ «je/e^^//^ £^OS/Ujargf /ro/^ S^f/)o/p S'^ou/d /l^ore juitei/f ^roi//7a e.

.^ Tj^i- a',//2,^ees 6f^erc ^'''PtrAs ji'Oiv^ o^ /liif? arf for ^'■^irif CoLfTTry —

PA^f./^^87

eUo F-'

•eejf»ry iy fi/ecinS Sf-of/otf eoOFr e^s^ «/ f^*^b/f< ^oaei

, bufSTQiioni shcvMif en A^orf^ Side vn/esj qooe/a spfc/a/rfas^frfs /cMi^ Cfffr/rorj/ _^

U — I — — Jffo'

.1 I

-o

>} tut (>tsfrorrf^ ertf ifl^eje ai/roiy

I

,r/,s,;fsjuf,/Af

^Vt

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123 A. 1914

N .T. R.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION

Exhibit 25

Correspondence in connection with use of Light Rauls jn[ Sidings.
(See Page 1 04 of Report)

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123 A. 1914

GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY,

Montreal. Que., March 5th, 1906.

Mr. D, MacPhbrson,

Ass't Chief Engineer, Transcontinental Ry.,
Ottawa, Ont.

Dear Sir: —

Replying to your letter of March 2nd, subject use of 80 lb. rails on main
line and sidings. I have to say that we do not expect to use the 80 lb. rail on
either passing tracks or terminal yards. AVe shall probably draw largely from
the Grand Trunk Railway for these purposes, using either a re-rolled rail of about
701b. per yard, or a 67 lb. rail. As the Transcontinental Commission will have
no such opportunity to secure lighter rails, it may be well to use the 80 lb. rail
entirely. This will be a matter for the Commissioners to decide upon. I may
say, however, that it will be satisfactorv to our Manaerer if they decide to use the
80 lb. rail throughout.

Yours truly,

(Sgd.) H. A. Woods,

Ass't Chief Engineer.

At Winnipeg, March 20th, 1908.

Dear Mr. Parent: —

We are in our side tracks west, outside the lead rails to a point beyond the
frog, using 65 to 70 lb. rail. We are doing this for the purpose of reducing cost.
As I have always told you and your colleagues, we would be willing for you to
adopt any practice which we had inaugurated. - '•^'

I write you to suggest that it would be well to order a lighter rail for side
tracks, as it would lessen our capital expenditure.

Yours truly,

(Sgd.) Frank W. Morsb.
Hon. S, N. Parent,

Chairman, Transcontinental Ry. Com.,
Ottawa. Ont.

April 8th, 1910.

B. B. Kelliher, Esq.

Chief Engineer, G. T. P. Ry.,
Winnipeg, Man.

Dear Sir: —

The other day in conversation with your Vice-President'an 1 General Manager,
he suggested that we should use 60 lbs. rails in yards and sidings, instead of 80
lbs. as that was the practice west of Winnipeg. Since then I have had an esti-
mate prepared which shows that about $142,000.00 can be saved by substituting
60 lbs. rails for 80 lbs. in all yards and sidings for which rails have not been ordered

190 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL COMMISSION

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

or laid. I would be glad to have a letter from you stating that, in your opinion,
it would be advisable to use 60 lbs. rails in yards and sidings in future instead of
80 lbs. rails. On receipt of your letter I will recommend to the Commission that
this plan be adopted and the above saving effected thereby.

Yours truly,

(Sgd.) Gordon Grant,

Chief Engineer.

Ottawa, April 15th, 1908.

Frank W. Morse, Esq.,

Vice President and General Manager,
Grand Trunk Pacifie Railway,
Montreal, P. Q.

Dear Sir: —

Your letter of the 20th March ultimo to the Chairman suggesting that a
lighter rail than an 80 lb. rail be used in sidings on the Eastern Division was duly
received and submitted to the Board.

In reply, I am directed to say that our Chief Engineer reports that the question
of using a lighter rail in the sidings than in the main line was taken up in March
1906 with the Assistant Chief Engineer of your Company, who replied under date
of March 5th 1906 that either a re-rolled rail of about 70 lbs. per yard or a 67 lb.
rail would probably be used in sidings on the Western Division, as you would be
in a position to draw largely from the Grand Trunk Railway for this purpose;
but that as the Transcontinental Commission would have no such opportunity to
secure lighter rails, it might be well to use the 80 lb. rail entirely. It would be
satisfactory to you, be stated, if the Commissioners decided to use the 80 lb. rail
throughout. In consequence of this, contracts were awarded for 80 lb. rails for
the main line, sidings and yards of the sections of the Eastern Division under
contract previously to March last.

If it be now desired that a change be made, the Commissioners think that
such should be requested by a resolution of your Board.

Our Chief Engineer thinks it an advantage to have a uniform rail throughout,
and states that the substitution of a 70 lb. for an 80 lb. rail in the sidings would
effect a saving for the whole Eastern Division of only about $120,000.

Yours very truly,

(Sgd.) P. E. Ryan.

April 19th, 1910.

Mr. Gordon Grant,

Chief Engmeer, N. T. Rly.,
Ottawa, Ont.

Dear Sir: —

Referring to your letter of the 8th inst.. File 10,601, relative to use of 60 lb.
rails in yards and sidings instead of 80 lb.

Your suggestion to substitute 60 lb. rails for 80 lb. in all yards and sidings

I

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 191

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

for which rails have not been ordered or laid is fully'approved by our Vice-Presi-
dent and General Manager and myself, and I would be glad if you will recommend
the adoption of same to^the Commission.

Yours truly,

(Sgd.) B. B. Kelliher,

Chief Engineer.
B.

Ottawa, April 25th, 1910.

The Commissioners of the Transcontinental Railway,
Ottawa, Ont.

Sirs —

Re use of 60 lb. rails instead of SO lb. rails in sidings and yards.

I attach herewith a copy of a letter dated the 8th of April which I wrote to
Chief Engineer Kelliher of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, stating that, in
conversation the other day with their General Manager Mr. Chamberlain, he sug-
gested that 60 lb. rails should be used in both yards and sidings.

I may say in regard to this that I have always been of that opinion and discussed
the matter several times with both the ex-Chief Engineer and the Assistant Chief
Engineer, both of whom were opposed to the use of 60 lb. rails in yards and sidings.
Why 80 lb. rails were used in yards and sidings I cannot say, as it is not the practice
on other roads to use the same weight of rails in sidings as they do in the main line.
Therefore, if we can effect a saving of about $150,000.00 by substituting 60 lb. rails
in yards and sidings, I recommend that this be done.

I attach copy of a letter I have received from Mr. Kelliher in answer to mine
of the 8th instant, in wliich he states that the Vice-President and General Manager
as well as himself would be glad if I would recommend the adoption of the 60 lb.
rails to the Commission. I would be glad to have your instructions in the matter.

Your obedient servant,

(Sgd.) Gordon Grant,
Enc. Chief Engineer.

4 GEORGE V. SESSIOfML PAPER No. 123 A. 1914

N. T. R.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION

Exhibit 27

Engineer's Estimate prepared, in connection with Contract No.
(See Page 34 of Report)

16

THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.

'Q'H^.i/yuCjtM GS-^O'yi^x.^x-^

DISTRICT -d _ Jh^/tJoi^ 3 ^
APPROXIMATE ESTIMATE OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION

FROM O MILE TO 'SO MILE «mtm^i

Easf °f (p^o-b'^^Sridso-

1 262

/■
/so

J-o4ffl>

/ 2/

/ g .-J-o

9 IBiSI

■ /

7^

/ ioJ/6 7

J9564i-

7°

zy /^ s-Z

J09/ 21 0

Z'

fi j-j-s f

/426a

7"

f?^'

L

"

?284J-6oo

"'

Zl.gAlS-6

3S3bo

/J-

J-30 t/-

JS3 60

.i-r

S f/o

/ SOOOO

s-o

^ooo

1124

J

7soo

z

1 Sooo

/

I50OO

no

^■r

d,S

^s-

do-

JSSoo 0

«'-r

843000

i^O

iJO

4'J".

^S.

/

/

IZ7S

/

l&Zb

Z

f / Z S'o
J-/ / z

/3.0

1 6O0 ^

968

J87fe9
I'Mo

THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.

DISTRICT B —Scc^^yjS^

APPROXIMATE ESTIMATE OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION

FROM O MILE TO /^O MILE Continued) Eas-t o-f O^e.be.c Bridal

Totals UnOTOiir Fuhwaad

Dry .m.s.„.y

c'-y. ibiS

r.

/,02.ZS'Sf
ij S-3 S

.Mu9..i,..v .u L,r.-l.rmu, iiK-lu.lm^ r..„itcme

' >

Zo.

'^'^'!iil''^^"lll'J\\1^^^^^^^

,„ii,. / so

Cfoa

tioooo

Tmrk-layii>Kmyar.Ua'lom,.ii»l« -. ,

,.„le / fc

^ao.

tivoo

Tmm liaulsJ surlacliiB ^li) i.o overlinijl uUoweO.
{(1) Trnin hauleU filling inclmliii;: u-mporaiy

per mile over five (Sjmilw

te) Removal of inoas per cu, yJ,. m>.>vpr!.uul

.), /So 00
r !■ l-^ISooo

, J -« 9 a o 0 0

•,..'i. J9 8 400

™d, 99 6 0O

/98000

/a

BollMting, noovorliauUllowed,

Tiea lor switchw, sawn to dinu-n's j.cr H Ii. U M
Public Road SigiiB

s-So

Mile posts, whistle posts, nnd road sigun

lii'*rlotkirg iipplinnc™. CPmplpl-, ciglil Jc'i-
iiitliiains all coimectiftM. algnals. eic

J ^

is-oo.
Zoo

79^

/ 3 o oo

rcncioK

.."1 9 6 000

/"

/ / SS.O o

ii>...

«.. 1. 2 0/2

/^J-o V

Tiumrl., rc.1. -eu.oii, (uolim^)

.,.. r,

Tunnd.. coiK-rcle limi.g

' y

/3

Tui.neW. niusoory lining

lil',

/J-

^SS^""""^ J p.... ...... ..»

»..!, ISO
,,.rt, 7

,a..|. /

zzr.

JS-oo

SOOO

JJyJ-O

Zu'j-oo

J-oo o

r,.d ..:.l., ,1.. do

mrh /

zcoo

Loco

. T,.f.r.cl .l,nfU

rj.

J~.

II" 3250 0
ii.» SSoo
""■ 1 (.8 o

'7

S Tofgt^ or cul «pikca

Zo 3a
3/07

2fo.

S-i^tf/fy^

/,

GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123 A. H14

N. T. R.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION

Exhibit 28

Letter from^r. D. MacPherson in connection with Contract No. 8.
(See Page 35 of Report)

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123 A. 1914

The Commission IRS of the Transcontinental Railway

D. MacPherson,

Assistant to the Chairman.

Ottawa, December 26th, 1912.
Geo. Lynch Staunton, Esq.,

Chairman, Investigating Commission Transcontinental, Railway,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir: —

Replying to questions in yours of 20th inst: —

1. What date was the first engineer's estimate of the various quantities of work

and material, necessary for the completion of this contract, drawn up?
Ans. The first engineer's estimate was made up about January 18th, 1907.

2. How many copies of this estimate were made?

Ans. Am unable to say; but it was made out on schedule Form 89, from which
blue print copies could be made.

3. Did any member or officer of the Commission request to be supplied with a

copy of this estimate?
Ans. The Chairman, on 21st January, asked for a statement of the engineers'
estimated quantities for each item on the schedule Form 89, covering the five
sections for which tenders closed on February 14th.

4. If such a request was made, was it complied with, and, if so, to whom and upon

what date were copies of this estimate handed?
Ans. Yes; Chairman was, on 23rd January, handed a copy of above mentioned
schedules, printed and bound in the general specifications and form of tender,
on which the engineers' estimated quantities were filled in.

5. Upon what date was the second engineer's estimate made of the amount of

work involved on the mileage covered by contract No. 8?
Ans. A second estimate was made only in so far as to add some estimated quan-
tities of trestle timber which had been inadvertently omitted. I have no
record of the exact date this was done, but am absolutely positive it was
done before tenders closed on 14th February.

6. Upon what date were you handed the lists of prices contained in the various

tenders for this work so that they might be monied out in accordance with
the quantities contained in the engineers' estimates?
Ans. On the afternoon of loth February.

7. In what items did the second engineer's estimate differ from the first engineer's

estimate ?
Ans. Items 24, 26 and 27 of general contract schedule, Form 89, had zero quan-
tities in first estimate, and in the revised form the following estimated quan-
tities of timber, in board measure, were inserted:

ITEM 42 ITEM 26 ITEM 27

732 190 ^ 166 600 192 780

8. Did you then, having received copies of the various tenders, proceed to money

out these tenders according to the second engineer's estimate, and, if not, why?
Ans. Yes; but before the results were formally submitted to the Board by the
Chief Engineer, the Chairman when he discovered the timber items, 24, 26
and 27, he ordered the quantities changed back to zero; which was done.

9. Was there a new engineer's estimate compiled in your office after you had

received copies of the various tenders, and, if so, under whose instructions
was this done?
Ans. No new estimates made, except to strike out timber quantities, as explained
in answer to question 8.

10. Upon what date was this estimate signed, and upon what dates do your
records show that Mr. Lumsden was absent in Winnipeg?

Ans. Estimate signed by Mr. Lumsden and myself, February 18th. The former
left for Winnipeg on the 5th of February and returned February 13th.

196 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

You will find from the official Minute Book, that neither Mr. Lumsden nor I were
present at the Board Meetings on February 14th and 15th when these tenders
were being opened and dealt with, though we were both in the office, and one
or the other was supposed to attend all Board Meetings. It was officially
intimated to the Chief that he was not to attend the Board Meetings on the
aforesaid dates. At the opening of such important tenders it woula appear
that the Chief Engineer should have been present.

The corrections made in estimated quantities by the Engineering Department
beiore opening of tenders, was merely routine duty, and needs no defence.

The deliberate order to change estimated quantities after tenders were opened
and moneyed out, and it was evident that such change would eliminate the
legitimately lowest tender, seems to call for considerable defence.

Yours truly,

D, MacPherson,

Ass't to the Chairman.

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123 A. 1914

N. T. R.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION

Exhibit 29

Chiglnal Sheets in moneying out T. D. MacArthur's Contract.
(See Page 57 of Report"*

■i .1 '.':.•

N" Z
/Y" .3

THE NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY. ^° '^■

tO' Arthur Conifruction C- /J"
The racit'K' Camfruchon C-
The OranJ Trunk fie i fie Ka/Yi^ay
J- yvrr /Arthur

of Cana<fa.

C<,mi>aral,te £sl-imat, sh^Kin^ cos/ e/ Z4^ /Ijile!, •/ tie VC Rr. /"rom Penninsula Crossini/ /i

District £n^''noei-i ant/ cost o^ Jame niork calculated or prioffh s>abmtttec/ in Tenders

//ote:~.

DISTRICT F
fear tZ/nnipeq Sased open /yrg/ Xoca^/on Qaanh/'/ej and ne^isecf pr/'ces /cr cer/a//

/. 2.3 &^.

.A°X

s<///a//or? fft^ /fc>

Our prites, for Yumf'abfe^ trTtaek. Sca(ei> /nc/ade Super strut^tarvb onfy erec/ed

'''*''" 7?-„.;«/.^„ aC W^^Jc 1

r. ■. .• 1^

ngineer'^ Estimate

Tender /i? I .

Tender

/v°2

Tenc/er n° ^

Tencfer /V"'^

1

C/nif- Qlitintitu IL

Rem

^rf^S.

m

^---'■r-— J

¥?.<,te

Sr^o^nt

RcU 1

/imccnt

■RaU

fii mount

Rate

/Amount

/?<7/'<? Airtount 1

/

CleaririCf

Acre

.TO'.5

so 00

9CS90 c

0 «o

CO

ISCJIK

00

■fS

00

l3S,f»5

CO

6c

»tj

iso,jyo

OC

4.

CO

'20,52

00

Z

Trezs tujf donn ouhidv n^htcf leiav

e^tl.

2 son

SO

l,CO

0 /

00

2 200

j«

0^

J. 100

oc

'

oc

V"

CO

S-O

/,/oo

oc

3

Gruibirt^

acre,

136

/JO 00

2»Slo

0 i-io

0

«, o«

0

100

OS

3J,6oo

cc

,00

oc

23.00

oc

-f^-

00

'7,700

.c

■4-

rS^/'d f^ocK

' >■

3656,336

' SD

CCSi^Ot

0 /

»r

,1'9.,l,

■r

1

ts

6o9irg,s.?

+ 0

1

/«

0579 .,7,

or

1

70

"13.7 7

20

s

Lcea *iock. e> cfhtr mofana/s (>« 26Sp<K.')

c /

733 -f.'J

7"

SiSfJtn

0

««

-4,)! lA,

7a

S'

<05,3,9

!c

s-o

3«6,7S7

00

60

44007s

40

6

Common ^Kca^-aZ-'on

fura^afion m Foundations no confer dami

cy '

,"3,*.,;

ac;

^^<l%^H

"

5r

/ 375

'0

29

7^

63

32

3,5^, 6J9

00

JO

3365'»,'-4

So

J-

£' carat, on <i^ Fty»niiar,ens. n.thtn ccikr J„m<

"^y-

7 TO

/ 6o.

/2.0

0 S

.c

3,73-0

1

St,

</26-

00

,0

cc

7.foo

CO

3

oc

2,250

CO

?

C^trhau/

<: y-

Z697, ltd

^.

2J65;i

V

c.

^-b97C

226 9;j

bo

CI

226.971

60

c/

226,9/2

60

/o

Fiiin<j d^KT^reJ a-> per £ng,n<ieri. Sill

/in Ft

< J« 55-<

«_

.^2,3^3

5

35

9», »f)4

Zf

(

2*

C,)£MV,

OV

22

S5/M

It,

25

7""'

75

I'

■Pihn^ driven Zm ff 1

f 2JS ^bo

£L

6* IIS

i.3^

/o«,25?

CO

35

^C,60<

""

21

62 '26

40

'"""3""

"

Jf.»5s

oc

Shtift ^iilin^ f>t, flfi e m \

.*<^ o«

391,0

00 ^f

cc

-f-S-lo

CO

■tc

oc

2 Ofco

CC

3-r

cc

.3 700

CO

76

CO

33-3-0

CO

'•>

CroS'S ln<rf^,r-^ / f't deep

acre

o,i

/foo <.o>

10, j„

00 .^Oir,

CO

35^, ^™

,^„

00

6 7Sr»0

cc

25Tr

/6oST«

00

3-00

CC

33J,oo

CO

/S

p9/e drain.%

iin n

^^

2S

/225

00

5-0

2->50

cu

-f-gtr.

00

2C

9ro

cc

zs

'223

00 ;i

/6 r^^tich stone dra.r^S

J^in ft

2B35

50

i-t-iy

6-0 1

00

2 lr35

(PC

1

2,*-35

00

33-

9^:

25

/

25-

3343

75

P<i*,a^ tnCo/rerts

^ y-

'o6->

boo

e.iin

00 7

00

J.-l-fe

00

s

oc

ir.si2

CO

.»

co

3 5' 2

CO

75

2 926

00

■^Z'

?J(J

1 SO

1,-fXS

£>0 2

S-o

1 SJS

00

yc

2, 3, -5

oc

'

25

i.'»;

30

2

75

26/2

5-c

1^ Nana laid rip rap

^y

/3.J24

3 00

36,t:71

CO 5

CO

61, ,ic

00

3

.51'

"J./S"

oc

2

5C

3C,565

oc

2

75

33 62'

5»

20 fierr^ fkrdu np-r<jp

c.y

3S«

/ 5-0

^.J?^

00 3

5-0

I3,*7S

00

2

5-C

««25

cc

23

-?S-/2

55

70'

fe.73;

3^>

2' •Piliny Cut reserved ^fone

cy.

STO

ZIT

iso

CO

35

S.tJS

00

30

e-5-O

00

"

.^,

00

"Tc.

5.30

00 K

■^2- Round lo^ in Cnbs

3,/3-c

cc

1 2-^ Framed Tr^tUs V^cept striny^rs

pv^n Ff Bn

>6!5,7J3

*S 00

-Klilo

is- fat

CO

SJS l^-J

SH

^5

cc

3tt/<.0

'i

-►5

CO

*33,t'C

69

35

CO

337 252

73 /l'f4 /„3,Vo,

t.r.l

2S Caps.wi^/ir^i & eracei fcr Pile Trestles

,ec» frff- en

Z2S.5tn.

*S 00

10,,-tJ

51. 60

00

l3.Sic,

CO

3f

.9 569

oc

-»5

CO

/o. '#7

St

32

cc

7,116

OC ri?4 .,

■ir 1 SfrinyerS

te^t^fterl

3302 96g.

feo 00

19s IIS

OS 1"

00

I?',!?'

cy

3:f

OC

'25 5/2

7»

4A OC

/./y,632

S-c

^1

CO

I3S.J24

6(. m4' ■■

e.C.f^ir

^9 1 F/anA. m Mii,hnay Priiate &a(/ Croiiinyi \f,t\ fq.tf 6- /^\

Se.-2So\

/««7

ST, *o

oc

% ISO

00

25

oc

z+ci

15

00

'SOS-

'5

3c

CO

'.M7

51>

3o 1 r/n^b^r b*st<^al,hf . for <Uil<re.rt^ lp« {*! ft R !^\

SO.lt^T. 1

"x:

2,0.0

00 4<,

00

200

00

3c

oc

'. 5-ffc

00

.^0

c^

2 co^

CC

^,^

.:o

1 ^co

CO

J-* \ Vtt^if/^d /"P^ <uj/rerr^ /8-^.\x ^;..ft . Z!Mij

1 s-

5 /,3W

- 2

25

i.o*.

.fc

2

20-

3.c*«

so

eo

35-ir

To

43

iZS-c

90

^* f^Ki'nforoed Ciaarcte Pips' /fdta. X-inft

tr ,, *

',i»«3

00

Z

IS

l.'J*

9.0

/

"|!

/aot

/

5-<3

i.^a»

00 X

■^O .. .. . Z*- aia lin ft

J? 6

1 JC

673

20 J

00

/,/s-s

cc

z

*s

2C

7»J3

20

■ 7c

673

10 « '^'^"

iV«3 - 77,«tff il-vni

r^orkmd 'utf ^

0% '/tftjrti «*«/

^^ Cencr<!U fue.r^ mi'.ture 2^ f^icM C. /-

'.*/tr

/s oc

253SI!

00 25

00

J5. 2ro

cc

Xo

oc

2> 200

CO

CO

2S2O0

00

, j

"To"

2/, /3c

00

or^ /»«.

t ut

«d ,h £ngin«^r'i

ts/,/na/i.

1 S3 Oncr€t« iOfitn^ course fa' '^'cA Cy ■

.^70

I* 0

0 <,f»o

CO /»-

>JO

» JtO

oc

1%

oc

3I.JC

CO

,c

cc

7„„

oc

,j

OC

;.o5-o

00

I Co Cooer<st9 / i S Cy.

' OOd

'1 00

/3.000

00 / +

00

■a

cc

'2,000

CO

oc

// oce

^

/2

/2 COO

00 X

6/ " . ^ fe C-Y

Zb-v

^ /O 0

0 26.#o

00 /3

5"c

3. 5M

CO

,2,

00

5166

00

2.90.*
.W+63

•~

3^60
34.463

1 62 ,. in arzh Cul/erti /-3-S cy .

"^ 265-

^^

^ J<.W3

OC

CO

-f2«/i

00

'2

00

iijn.

~

'3

00

cc

,,

CO

„„ ,

1 65 1 ,, „ otd.nary ioundafioni /-♦-S C /.

7°^9
2700

9 0

7 7."S

:: ;:

z

"2,7*4

27000

1"

;;

T:

ZS-H-

19100

E

/2

jj

2544
27,000

00

ii

00

/C3/35

«" 3 coo

1 6G 1 „ „ wo//t of B^ildin^ /--if Cy-
\ «7 1 Firsh-cfass rnaionry C /-
1 6e 1 Saciond -cla^i nia&onry Cy.
1 70 1 Ory rnasonry cy
1' Mjionry ,'n ^rch rin^ ^.y

,S,i6o

>/ .7 0

0 2/6,*io

°o\ z

0!

25 000

CO

oc

.00

'2

OC

24.000

00

i£

CO

2CCOC

00 >■ '^"^

f

/

j-oo

V '* 0

0 5oo,J12

q ii

OJ

11 ^.^fO

r.

J

CO

J3o W5

lo

3-

To

2J2.6.rc

33^.595

p

'3
6

T:

292,6!ro
4*3 049

oc

C>,ii '^_

%

^xJiirK^i^^^ —

u^^P^^^ <U^

d^

Ti. Track /ayi'n^ in flJain /L/nes f^i/e

^yo

no 0

0 /.fo.ooo

00 /2oO

00

lo

sL

oc

'C.coo

00

.5c

/3:coo

oc

73-

CO

yooo

00

1 73 ... ., yard% of rer,7,mah mih

20

yoo

C Jo fftn

00 /i-OO

C 0

'

^

0 c

'./C, 000

^

3c 0

00

^vooo

00

^tro

00

/*c, 00c

0 0

'

^ CT -^

\ fA Tram hauled Sorfodn^ cy.

9J^ joo

to ,S5if.<c

«

,zF°

CO

S-o

/0/,JCO

CO

300

^0

S,c«o

00

SCO

3o

(,+,slro

00

-

/i

k^lio-^fz

_f_^,t_^

•^^-yf.v ^^

^'fuU^

\ 79 \ Poh/.c Kcad ^.^n^ eJc/,

.«.»t^

10 e

p ^^^

ao

.000

00

Sc

-ISO.oco

oc

J5

^,S5ooo

00

4t?

360,000

00

^

-^

'^^^-r-

t/o \/V'/fff>w.r:i,r^h,:,fUpoirs & roadst^n:. f^ch

/■■ 2V

3 0

^

^*c

CO

<o

OQ

Q.HO

0 0

7

,5^^

430c

00

2.

30

J 013.

00

/ '

»/ J^«-;.W«s a/^A-Aons ^^

J-so

oc

5610

00

3

00

3.!7»

oo_

3

70

3,, 34

CO

45

•'3c

6ff

1 *2 Wnfmr/ozkin^afip/toncni. S /tv«rs

aucfj

c.ooo

0 i^occ

"'^'^

0 0

63CC

oc

.Mo

cc

. 3 fcoo

cc

33-0

o°o1?

oc

£a

00

,,J^^^

00

\ 9i \£.<icA ^ddif.ona/ Uyv

ss c*.u$

eacj)

;r

Zto

<J» 5"o,j

CO

-Ci-oc

CO

■tSoo

00

■f.S-oo

eo

iooo

«^oo

CO

£000

00

<,000

Tdnd^r /y

3, 7^4« //V/j».

marked Ccff *■'("•/,"

/igi^nts usud

red

each

SB,/"

i

0 5-072.C
0 i<ixa

H

2,5cc
76,o»o

ol

S-oo

'5-

2. i-o'o
J-«, 328-

00

Zoo

oojj

i'. 1 52

r

2C0

05"

rf-J236

cc°'

°" *"' "

»a

,„ £nyinevf*i Ei/in

7^*.

9o Orv'.nag* Tunn^h .^e.yp,^ff:
\ 53 TwnfabUs

iin/F
^ach

IS

00 «0oo

Otf 4S-00

7,

1,9^0

22,coo
5>,5oo

CO

5-
25-

2«0

oc

6ZS-0
JS. too

z

7
2S-0

C 0

7r3-oo

""

i
il.

225-

CO

2560
(5^,^0 0

00

94 7?deA Sct3(«s

eoc/.

3«.o

•> ° Sooo

00 ^Sbo

00

'3,3-00

CO

5-000

cc

65 coo
IS, cot,
9oCC

°

25-00

"■=

32300

''"

2200

00

28, too

CO

96 /rort in Drift boiti

eacfi

2

■»?07«

""

06 ,5■3.f^

00 Zrc<

6lF

11

iTooo

;;

.»;S-o«

c!

z

3ZS0
23-00

°ol

973-C

3:000

CO

.;ooo

00

5,000
S,oco

oc X

1 *8 ^orgtd or cuf SpiktS '^

tlt.^i'-

''b 23:60

00

"7

.533,4

00

ofc

i.344

a

OS

443-3

90

oti

^,790

7

,coJ9.»

7.SO,

6f

5-»

c«

2ir,iotl

00

oi

2»;«(j«-

CO

"/

33,374

0 ^.l"' ^ Ir

75/,o'«, /C"*

A

i/-€rvs t><4tkMd ^ui * n* priu <J |

1 %'''^/'. S"'*"*'* (3^e«:io55 ^,,

J/S"

^^

'•- 9*6

yc

CO-

/57»3

CO

ot

/S,9iS

lo

c^

;5-oo

(.3

ck

5/3^ c

4-

cc <;/K./J /oc

/*/

poie of Camper

icn Th^fi^mrts

1

\ ^"^ ^'****

1 <iacty

-^--^

"0

00 J5
00 s

r

'S-*oi,

11

3

+ *oo

/2

3-2 »o

15-0

::

6

Vo

i».9i9 «
7920 0

:

»»' »/-«• /TiciS

used //> £n^,og«ri J5

a/i/nate

«co 00

1

'3 7iic2

3 5-4-

'W»_fA3

75 .._|

1

'J

_02f,753|3i-

'^'■""•■'^

/J,»/o,33!r|s

7

^/iiO

: Ol- WORK Mcu™^^'^^'^-

'■■■■■■ «"' A? .

rigbl-ot-wny .... emcli. J^ ,

'"■ 7-r ■

>..,„. „o«n.,.i™,,.,. ., j-r .

""'""' "' p"""" ,, ^/ .

■-' """" 7^'

,.,»,«. .9 ™-i b,o.h»i„k .t„ the
l.n !• .^'.

;... c. >y!r.

' '- ^-

c... ^^J".

THE NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

DISTRICT .

APPROXIMATE ESTIMATE OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION
PARTY FROM / MILE TO X>'.'^ MILE

Q U A N T I T I !•; S

iT.

.f<^^ J^

^A^/^^^ /S^'iiWrt/ >^7-t-<f^ — .^fe**^ -^^^
-fv .'%J'ri&^^'^^ ^fe-e-c*, JLi^--,^ C'i,i^r)(^

£♦„„/..

/^.

^^r,

£

HFSCRIPTION I

THE NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

DISTRICT - '

APPROXIMATE ESTIMATE OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION

PARTY FROM <^ MILE TO ,-;^,/?' MILE Contmuedj

:*5^e^.4^/

QUANTITIES

6s Concrete l-4-»«diuar.v four,.

/r

~

c.

. /J .'

: i :

.SCO .

1 arch ring, including ei^nt

"A^'- „i

"=■""

,„i..,.„

„

cdSis,,,.

«ppli«iiee». couiplciB. «.Klil li

f'jXc<2^

THE NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

DISTRICT '

APPROXIMATE ESTIMATE OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION
PARTY FROM MILE TO MILE

QUANTITIES

.-.^

JF

Jo

/7^

f^//irfl

/3o

/JC

5

%

J'
/v-

THE

NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

DISTRICT '5

APPROXIMATE ESTIMATE OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION

PARTY FROM O MILE TO ^V' MILE ConUnued i

QUANTITIES

I
f

r

^^

<,4r<f^

ff

3-Sea
/

04'

OS'

I

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123 A. 1914

March 26th, 1906.

The Commissioners of the Transcontinental Railway,
Ottawa, Ont.

Sirs:—

Herewith please find comparative estimate showing cost of 150 miles of the
Transcontinental Railway, from the North end of the Quebec Bridge Westerly
based on quantities derived from the revised location, up to March 10th, 1906,
and revised prices for certain minor items after consultation with the District
Engineer, and also cost of same work calculated at prices submitted in tenders
5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.

Your obedient servant,

Enclos. " (Sgd.) H. D. L.

March 21st, 1906.

The Commissioners of the Transcontinental Railway,
Ottawa, Ont.

Sirs:—

In regard to the attached estimate made by Mr. Doucet, it seems in every
wa}"" to confirm the comparisons made in this office, when the decreases in quan-
tities made by Mr. Doucet's revision are taken into consideration. Our com-
parative estimate included assumed quantities and prices for various items not
given by Mr. Doucet, and were put in in case circumstances might arise necessitating
the use ot any of them, especially so in the case of trees cut outside of right of
way (item No. 2) , and cross logging (item No. 14) . I note that Mr. Doucet has
included sawn ties for bridges (No. 26) and sawn ties for switches (No. 78) with
these tenders. My understanding was that No. 26 was to go with the contract
for the steel bridge superstructure (with the exception of possibly a few ties re-
quired for short timber spans, and No. 78, to go with the contract for ties. Mr.
Doucet's prices for stone filling for cribs (No. 18) seems to me high, and for con-
crete facing (No. 58) too low. I see no objection to these figures being sub-
mitted to the Consulting Engineer to the Government.

Your obedient servant,

(Sgd.) H. D. L.

March 19th, 1906.
P. E. Ryan, Esq.,
Secretary.

Dear Sir: —

I beg to hand you herewith duplicate copies of condensed profiles on a scale
of 4 miles to one inch horizontal, and 400 feet to one inch vertical, to accompany
maps of portions of Districts "B", and "F", which have been submitted to the
Government for approval.

Yours truly,

(Sgd.) H. D. L.

198 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

March 16th. 1906.

The Commissioners of the Transcontinental Railway,
Ottawa, Ont.

DISTRICT " F.''

Sirs: —

Herewith I beg to hand you sheets showing the results of the moneying out
of the quantities estimated by us, by the prices given in the various numbers
designating tenders submitted to us, together with a summary of the same. The
amount of the estimate made by me, using the same quantities, is $13,800,576.29,
so it can been seen at once how the values under the respective numbers compare
with the estimate made by me,

Your obedient servant,

March 16th, 1906.

The Commissioners of the Transcontinental Railway,
Ottawa, Ont,

DISTRICT " B ".

Sirs:—

Herewith I beg to hand you sheets showing the results of the moneying out
of the quantities estimated by us, by the prices given in the various numbers
designating tenders submitted to us, together with a summary of tlie same. The
amount of the estimate made by me, using the same quantities, is 36,842,534.26,
so it can be seen at once how the values under the respective numbers compare
with the estimate made by me.

Your obedient servant,

March 16th, 1906.

The Commissioners of the Transcontinental Railway,
Ottawa, Ont.

VIADUCT.

Sirs:—

Herewith please find quantities and prices for the various tenders made by f

Bridge Companies, for the Cap Rouge Viaduct, together with a summary of the i

same. All the designs submitted comply with our requirements \

Your obedient servant,
Enclos.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 199

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

March 14th, 1906.

The Commissioners of the Transcontinental Railway,
Ottawa, Ont.

Sirs:—

Herewith please find an estimate of the works now tendered on in Districts
"B", and "F", exclusive of viaduct. This estimate, which was prepared before
knowing any of the prices given by tenderers, I believe to be ample for the
completion of the work, and leave a fair margin of profit for the contractor, but
a variation of say 10% might be a reasonable price for a tenderer to make. If
below this margin of 10%, it would, in my opinion, be too low to insure the com-
pletion of the work.

Your obedient servant,

Enclos.

I confircft the above.

(Sgd.) D. MacPherson,

Assistant Chief Engineer.

Maxch 14th, 1906.

The Commissioners of the Transcontiaeutal Railway,
Ottawa, Ont.

Sirs:—

Herewith please find duplicate maps on a scale of 4 miles to 1 inch, of portions
of Districts ' 'B " and ' 'F", showing the route of this railway as now being tendered
on. You have already verbally approved of these, and I am now submitting
these copies for the approval of the Government.

Your obedient servant,

200

NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

Ottawa, March 16th, 1906.

TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.

TENDERS.

DISTRICT F.

Number of Tender.

Total Amount

of

Tender

13,010,399 00

13,l?i '^^73 35
14,069,625 42

17,159,623 12

Difference
between
Tenders.

64,869 21

937,952 07
3,089,997 70

Remarks.

4,092,818 98

In Tender No. 4 no prices
were given for Items 15,21,
28, 32, 33, 35, to 50 inclu-
sive, 54 to 57 inclusive, 60,
62, 64, 66, 81, 82, 83, 90,
93 and 94, and for the sake
of comparison these items
were fixed at prices fixed
by Chief^Engineer.

In Tender No. 3 Items 35 to
46 inclusive, and 81 to 83
inclusive, were bid for at
cost plus 10%, and for
sake of comparison were
figured at prices fixed by
Chief Engineer.

Differeu^e between
Nos. 4 and 1.

enderiJ

D. MacPherson,

Asst. Chief Engineer.

CANCELLED

IN VESTIGA TING COMMISSION

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

201

Ottawa, March 16th, 1906.

TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.

TENDERS.

DISTRICT B.

Number of Tender.

Total Amount
of
Tender

10

5,297,257 00

6,176,570 70
7,196,422 10

Difference
between
Tender

252,737 48

1,019,851 40
206,192 86

7,402,614 96

7,923,465 59

8,791,934 20

Remarks.

In Tender No, 6 Items 35 to
46 inclusive, and 81 to 83
inclusive, were bid for at
cost, plus 10%, and for
sake of comparison were
figured at prices fixed by
Chief Engineer.

In Tender No. 5 the same re-
520,850 63' mark applies to Items 35 to
I 46 inclusive, and 81 to 83
inclusive, as for No. 6.

868,468 61

$2,868,100 98

In Tender No. 10 Item 91,
for Telegraph Line, has
remark: "For 10 Wires."

Difference between 7 and 9.

D. MacPherson,

Asst. Chief Engineer.

CANCELLED

4 GEORGE V, SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123 A. 1914

N. T. R.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION

Exhibit 30

Correspondence in connection witK La Tuque Pusher Grade.
(Seepage 100 of Report)

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123 A. 1S14

Core FSPONDENCE referred to in the foregoing Report re La Tuque Pusher Grade.

File 4866. Ottawa, June 15th, 1906.

The Commissioners of the Transcontinental Railway,
Ottawa, Ont.

Sirs, —

Herewith I beg to hand you a letter from the Assistant Chief Engineer, together
with a sketch plan and profile of the lines run, in regard to the location of our line
in the vicinity of La Tuque, and also as to securing land for a Divisional Yard at
that point. It will be seen by the comparative estimate (also attached) made by
the District Engineer, Mr. Doucet, of the three lines run in that vicinity that there
is a large difference in cost in favour of the blue line, viz : $485,807.00 of a saving
in a distance of say 10 miles; but on line "C" or blue line, it will be necessary to
use a 0.65 grade compensated or curvature adverse to eastbound traffic, but if a
divisional yard is established at this point it would not be a serious objection and
I would beg to recommend that the matter be at once submitted to the Government
for their approval as the contractors are now waiting at that point to start work*-
It would also be advisable in the event of determining to make a divisional point
here to at once get options on the necessary land for such purpose.

Your obedient servant,

(Sgd.) Hugh D, Lumsden.

FiZe-4960. Ottawa, July 4th, 1906.

The Commissioners of the Transcontinental Railway,
Ottawa, Ont.

Sirs, —

Herewith I beg to hand you plans and profiles of the alternative lines run in
the vicinity of La Tuque, together with an estimate of cost of same, for the purpose of
receiving the sanction of the Government to the use of a 0 . 65 compensated grade
at this point, and would beg to recommend the adoption of the shortest line "C"
with a 0.65 compensated grade adverse to east-bound traffic. My reasons for
doing so are that La Tuque is likely to be a divisional point, and this grade will
commence within a half mile of it, and is 4 4-5 miles long, and the cost of the con-
struction of line "C" is S516,113.00 less than the best of the other two lines. When
its operation value is taken into consideration it is still $485,807.00 less than either
of the other lines, and it is also two miles shorter.

As construction has been delayed at this point pending a decision, it is im-
portant that such should be given as soon as possible.

Your obedient servant,

(Sgd.) Hugh D. Lumsden.
17

204 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

The Commissioners referred the whole matter to the Minister of Railways and
Canals.

Ottawa, July 4th, 1906.
Sir —

I have the honour by direction of the Board to hand you herewith plans and
profiles of three alternative lines run in the vicmit}^ of La Tuque, together with
statements showing the estimated cost of each ; also a letter from our Chief Engineer
dated the 4th inst., recommending the adoption of the shortest line marked C
with a 0.65 compensated grade adverse to eastbound traffic.

The Commissioners desire that you will have the kindness to submit the matter
to His Excellency the Governor General in Council, for the approval of the adoption
of Line "C" with a 0.65 compensated grade adverse to eastbound traffic for a
distance of 4 4-5 miles.

You will note that the engineers of the Commission estimate that the saving
in cost of construction of line "C" will be $516,113.00 over the best of the other
two lines, and that the saving in construction and operation will be S485,807.
I have the honour to be, Sir,

Your obedient servant,

(Sgd.) P. E. Ryan,

The Honourable, The Minister of Railways and Canals,

Ottawa.
End.

Secretary.

This letter was referred to the Chief Engineer, M. J. Butler, who reported on
July 8th, 1906, as follows:—

Ottawa, July 5th, 1906.
Sir,—

Under date of the 4th inst. the Commissioners of the Transcontinental Railway
submit a report of the Chief Engineer, Mr. H. D. Lumsden, and of the District
Engineer, Mr. A. E. Doucet, recommending that a pusher grade of 0.65 be adopted
for a distance of four and four-fifths (4 4-5) miles, near La Tuque; and they allege
that the adoption of this grade would save two (a) miles in distance, and four
hundred and eighty-five thousand, eight hundred and seven ($485,807.00) dollars
in money.

I have considered the matter and without attempting to go into the minutiae
of the calculations submitted beg to report that in my judgment, permission
ought not to be granted for any grade in excess of four tenths of one per cent, (0.4) ;
for the reason that it has been stated over and over again by members of the
Government that a four-tenths grade had been secured from Winnipeg to Quebec,
and it seems to me that no circumstances should be permitted to interfere with the
adoption of this grade between the points named.

East of Quebec the conditions are different and pusher grades may well be
adopted between Quebec and Moncton; but that, however, is not now under
discussion.

I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,

(Sgd.) M. J. BUTLER,

Deputy Minister and Chief Engineer.
Hon. H. R. Emmerson, K.C., P.C.,

Minister of Railways and Canals,
Ottawa.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 205

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

The Government having approved Mr. Butler's report, he notified Mr. Parent
of their decision in the following telegram: —

B65MO C G 13 DH Ottawa, Ont., July 14-06.

Hon. S. N. Parent,

Chairman Trans. Ry. ' -

Quebec.

Government will not approve any pusher grades in line between Quebec and
Winnipeg.

M. J. Butler.
2.20 P.M.

and the Engineers in the field were advised that the pusher grade proposition had
been rejected and they proceeded with the work of building the expensive and
costly 0 . 4% grade line

The following letter from District Engineer Doucet, dated June 21st, 1906,
gives his arguments for the 0.65 grade line.

Quebec, 21st June, 1906.
Hon. S. N. Parent
Chairman,
Ottawa,

Dear Sir, —

With reference to the Government's refusal to adopt the short pusher grade
at LaTuque, I am very anxious to place myself on record as dissenting most
emphatically from the decision arrived at of not countenancing pusher grades
between Quebec and Winnipeg, as I am certain that a rigid adherence to such a
ruling will cost the Government many millions of dollars. The Act says that the
Eastern Division shall be constructed by the Government upon such location and
according to such plans and specifications as it shall determine, having due regard
to direction, easy gradients and favourable curves. The objection to the pusher
grade, particularly at Divisional points, of which LaTuque will be one, is reduced
to a minimum when one takes into account the immense sums of money saved at
certain points by their use. It has been stated that the Transcontinental Railway
would be built on a 4-10 grade eastbound, and the use of a few pusher grades at
divisional points will not contradict this statement if provisions are made and
allowances provided for overcoming the extra amount of power required for hauling
trains loaded for a 4-10 grade up the pusher grade, without dividing them into
sections.

The grades at the approaches of the Quebec Bridge aie 1%, whereas what
we intend putting in at La Tuque is but 65/100 of 1%. At Quebec where will
always be spare engines for assisting trains up the 1% grade, and La Tuque
being a divisional point will also have a spare engine or two always on hand.

Again, pusher grades are not contrary to good location, if such a saving in
the cost of construction as will much more than compensate for the cost of pusher

206

NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A, 1914

engines can be made. It is rather the very contrary and I am certain American
engineers will not be at all complimentary to our knowledge of railway location
when the interest of the extra cost of construction in this one case at La Tuque
is taken into account.

From our present knowledge of the ground at La Tuque we are convinced
that there is but one line to build, and that is the line on the 0.65 pusher grade
for the following reasons:

1st. It is the cheapest to construct, on a conservative estimate, by $508,000.

2nd. It is two miles shorter than the line located on a 4/10 grade.

3rd. It has 419° less curvature.

4th, It has 8 curves less.

5th. It has no tunnels, whereas, the 4/10 grade location has two.

6th. The pusher grade is but 4 8 /lO miles long.

7th. It begins at the end of the Divisional Yard.

8th. It has but 0.65% grade, or plus 60% of the main line grade; therefore,
any old yard engine can be used as a pusher.

9th. It is the most direct, has less curvature, two of the conditions required
by the Act, and the increased gradient can be taken care of by the
yard engine.

10th. It is so short and so close to the yard that no telegraph office at the
head of the grade will be required.

11th. It will lessen the 70,000 c. yds. of solid rock at the head of the grade
by one-half and thus save a considerable amount of time in construc-
tion.

12th. It will eliminate two serious difficulties in connection with the line
of the Quebec & Lake St. John Ry.

13th. The use of a 4/10 grade will practically destroy our station ground,
as we will be forced to continue the grade throughout its full length
and for two miles north, thereby very materially increasing the heavy
embankments at the Big Bostonnais River and the Bostonnais Bridge
itself.

The comparative estimate of cost of construction and equating values of
the two lines is as follows: —

Cost of Construction,

4/10 grade

0.65 pusher g.

Cost of constr\R'tion

Distance, Pusher Grade, 2 mis. shorter — 2 x $54,000. .
Curvature, Pusher Grade has 419° less — 419° x 30.00.
Curvature, Pusher Grade has 8 curves — 8 x $1,000. . .
Rise and Fall same on both lines

$1,200,014

108,000

15,084

8,000

$098,192

Pusher engine 4 8/10 miles x 0 . 70 x 305 days @ 4% . .

153,300

$1,. 337,098
851,482

$851,482

Saving by adoption of pusher g

$485,616

It seems to me that if the Engineers responsible for the rejection of our pro-
position to use a pusher grade had taken the opportunity to visit La Tuque, their
decision would have been far different, and I cannot iielp pointing out once again

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 207

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

that a grave error has been committed in laying down an arbitrary ruling that
pusher grades will not be entertained between Quebec and Winnipeg. I hope
it is not too late to revise this decision, but at all events I am most anxious, as
I mentioned at the begiiming of this letter, to place myself on record as strongly
protesting in favour of a 0 . 65 pusher grade at the Divisional Point of La Tuque.

Yours very truly,

(Sgd.) A. E. DoucET,

District Engineer.

Mr. Butlers' telegram of July 14th does not appear to have closed the matter
for on July 25th, 1906, Mr. S. N. Parent wrote to Mr. Hayes as follows: —

Ottaw^i, 25th July, 1906.
Dear Mr. Hayes: —

Herewith I am sending you for the information of your Company, copy of
letters, plans and profiles, regarding the location of our line in the vicinity of
La Tuque, Que.

With our engineers, I am of the opinion that pusher grades are not contrary
to good location, if such a saving in the cost of construction as will much more
than compensate for the cost of pusher engines can be made. It is rather the
very contrary, and I am certain American engineers will not be at all compli-
mentary to our loiowledge of railway location when the interest of the extra cost
of construction in this one case at La Tuque is taken into account, if any other
line should be adopted.

From our present knowledge of the ground at La Tuque, we are convinced
that there is but one line to build, and that is the line on the 0 . 65 pusher grade,
for the following reasons :

1st. It is the cheapest to construct, on a conservative estimate, by S508,000.

2nd. It is two miles shorter than the line located on a 4 /lO grade.

3rd. It has 419° less curvature.

4th. It has 8 curves less.

5th. It has no tunnels, whereas the 4 /lO grade location has two.

6th. The Pusher Grade is but 4 8/10 miles long.

7th. It begins at the end of the Divisional Yard. ,

8th, It is but 0.65% grade, or plus 60% of the main line grade, therefore,

any old yard engine can be used as a pusher.
9th. It is the most direct, has less curvature, two of the conditions required

by the Act, and the increased gradient can be taken care of by the yard

engine.
10th. It is so short and so close to the yard that no telegraph office at the

head of the grade will be required.
11th. It will lessen the 70,000 c. yds. of solid rock at the head of the grade

by one-half and thus save a considerable amount of time in construc-
tion.
12th. It will eliminate two serious difficulties in connection with the line

of the Quebec & Lake St. John Railway.
13th, The use of a 4/10 grade will practically destroy our station ground

throughout its full length and for two miles north, thereby very

materially increasing the heavy embankments at the Big Bostonnais

River and the Bostonnais Bridge itself.

208

NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

The comparative estimate of cost of construction and equating values of the
two lines it as follows : —

Cost of Construction.

4/10 grade

0.65 pusher g.

Cost of construction

81,206,014

108,000

15,084

8,000

S698,192

Distance, Pusher Grade, 2 miles shorter — 2 x §54,000.
Curvature, Pusher Grade has 419° less— 419° x 36.00.
Curvature, Pusher Grade has 8 curves less — ^8 x SI, 000
Rise and Fall same on both lines

Pusher Engine 4 8/10 miles x 0.70 x 365 days @ 4%

153,300

SI, 33 7. 098
851,482

S851,482

Saving by adoption of pusher g

S485.G1G

I must say that the Commissioners entirely agree with these conclusions;
but before taking a decision on the matter the Government would like to have
the opinion of your Company.

Will you kindly give this question your early consideration and advise me,

2 end.
4 plans.

Yours verv truly,

" (Sgd). S. N. Parent.

Which was replied to on August 27th, 1906, as follows:

My dear Mr. Parent :-

Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, Montreal, Canada.

August 27th, 1906.

Your letter of July 25th, with copies of correspondence from your engineers,
plans and profiles, regarding the location of the Transcontinental Railway in the
vicinity of La Tuque, Que., duly received, and earlier reply thereto has been pre-
vented by the absence in the West of Vice-President and General Manager Morse
and his staff. Chief Engineer Kelliher, and Assistant Chief Ensineer Woods.

These gentlemen having now returned and given careful consideration to the
plans and profiles submitted with arguments bearing thereupon, concur with me in
the opinion that under the circumstances set forth in the correspondence, we
would not be justified in insisting at this time on the construction of the line on
a four-tenths per cent grade, but that a 0 . 65 ' 'pusher " grade should be adopted
thereof in lieu thereof, because of the cheaper cost (estimated by your engineers
at S508,000,) the two miles shorter distance, the 410 degrees less curvature, ei.dit
curves less and the absence of tunnels, (whereas the four-tenths grade location
has two tunnels,) location of the pusher grade at the end of proposed Divisional
yard, saving 70,000 cubic yards of solid rock excavation and interference with
proposed station ground.

The foregoing are all practical reasons which may be very properly advanced
for the adoption of a pusher grade.

►

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 209

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

In my opinion, however, the Commission should carefully consider with the
Government the effect upon the minds of the public regarding this Transcontinental
Railway, which has been T\adely advertised as being the only low grade line from
the Atlantic to the Pacific, with definite statements to the effect that the maximum
grade wUl be limited to four-tenths of one per cent east of the Rocky Moun-
tains, If exception is made in this instance, will not the same arguments' be used
for adopting a 0.65 or even higher grade at other points, and would not then our
proposed maximum of four-tenths have disappeared altogether?

Should you, after further consideration of the points I have raised, still feel
that for the reasons given it is desirable to adopt the 0 . 65 pusher grade, you may
consider the assent of this Company having been given thereto, provided it is
understood, when the volume of traffic shall have reached a sufficient magnitude,
to reduce the grade to four-tenths, then the cost of such expenditure shall be as-
sumed by the Government and interest thereon at three per cent shall be paid
by the lessors — the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company.

Yours truly,

(Sgd.) Chas. M. Hayes

President.
Hon. S. N. Parent,

Chairman, National Transcontinental Railway Commission,
Ottawa.

Mr. Parent then \\Tote to Sir Wilfiid Laurier as follows:

Ottawa, 28th August, 1906.
Dear Su- ^yilfrid:—

In connection with the pusher grade question at La Tuque, you no doubt
remember that during the course of our conversation in your office you stated
that the Cabinet would be willing to reconsider the decision arrived at, asking me
to communicate with the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway regarding this matter.
I have "^"ithout delay followed your suggestion, and after a long delay, for which
reasons are given, I am now able to submit to you the answer ot the Company.
As there is no time to lose, I am forwarding you the original in case the Cabinet
would desire to possess it in order to consider the subject. At our last conversa-
tion, Honourable Mr. Emmerson was present, and I would kindly ask you to pass
it over to him before it shall be submitted to the Cabinet.

For our interest it would be desirable that the Government should not post-
pone its decision in the matter in order not to obstruct the progress of our work
done at La Tuque, and if the Cabinet now thinks that the recommended Pusher
Grade, favoured by all engineers, is preferable, we should be very happy to be
informed of same without delay.

Awaiting for a definite decision, believe me.

Yours sincerely and truly,

(Signed) S. N. Parent.
Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier,
Prime Minister.

and a search of the records do not reveal any reply to this communication.

I

i

i

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER N». 123 A. 1914

i N. T. R.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION

Exhibit 31

Map and Profile showing^Railway and Projected Line "A" around Chaudiere Cut.

(See Page 90 of Report)

\^

THE NATIONAL
■^^AN5-C0NTINENTAL RAILWAY

EASTERN DIVISION

DISTRICT "B" Party 4"

(LAN o. PROJECTED LINES ■A'&B"
54&HARVEY5 iOmZD LINES

1 QUEPEC PRIOCf n EV4^ FINAL L0CAT(ON

/ <C/V <V ^ ^ O

><;

JAMOITAl/1 3HT
YAWJIA^i JATH3k1iTk103-ek!A^ iT

"-K YT?iAq "a' TO I a Te I a

"<3"o'A'e3MU a3T33LO?1^ =>o klAJ

23*ij a3TA:>QJ e;Y3vaAh^ Aa

Constructed by Quebec Bridge Co end used by N. Tff -

Cor7sffucfcd by Quebec Br/dOe ^ (^of a^ed &y Nshmgf Jransconfinenfef Qailwsy)

— PROFILE —

Projected LiNE A- l-0°: Grape —

rrom s poinf on fht Quebec 3rrc/p6 Grmpsnys c^nsfracfc(^
lint' h Sfffion ?^n-oo oo /he cons/rucfe</ /mt o/" the

//sfionsl Trsnscorr/inenfsl Ps;fvfSV smfh nf f/Tf

To Hmnipeo

7~-\.

J V^..

SfJOCvryr - So"- 30

T

^^^

^^

9E0RGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123 A. 1914

N. T. R.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION

Exhibit 32

(See Page 1 1 8 of Report)

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123 A. 1914

Transl C.R.D.

In the year one thousand nine hundred and eleven, on the nineteenth day of the
month of August, before the undersigned Joseph G. Couture, Notary Public for
the Province of Quebec, in Canada, residing and practising in the city of Quebec,
has appeared Mrs. Laura Tousignant, wife, separated as to property by the marriage
contract passed before Henri" R. Dufresne, Notary, residing at St. Pierre-les-
Becquets, on the tenth day of January in the year one thousand nine hundred
and nine and registered at Quebec on May 14th of the same year under number
28563, of Mr. Napoleon Martineau, junior, merchant, of the said city of Quebec,
duly authorized by her said husband also a party to the present deed and acting
both to authorize his said wife and to contract for and his own personal name.
And the said Mrs. Laura Tousignant-Martineau has declared to have sold
as by these presents she doth sell with guarantee against all mortgages and all
troubles whatever, to Raoul Rene Bergevin, of the said city of Quebec, merchant,
herewith present and accepting, that is to say:

The wooden buildings or structures used by her as an ice-house anda shed
or stable, on their dependencies, erected on the lot and land loio^Ti and designated
under the number two thousand five hundred and twenty-five (2525) of the official
cadastre for Champlain Ward of the City of Quebec; the said ^Irs. Martineau
declaring that this ice-house belongs to her by virtue of the terms of the marriage
contract above quoted.

By these same presents the said Napoleon Martineau sells, makes over and
transfers to the said Raoul R. Bergevin all the rights he may have as lessee of the
part which he occupies of the said lot of land kno^-n under the number two thousand
five hundred and twenty-five of the official cadastre for Champlain Ward, in virtue
of a lease made in his favor by the Marchioness of Bassano, represented by Alfred
C. Dobell, of Quebec, Advocate, dated at Quebec the twenty-fifth day of February,
in the year one thousand nine hundred and eight, executed in the presence of wit-
nesses, which lease is still of force up to the first day of May next 1912 by implied
continued tenancy, and also in virtue of a lease in his favor by Adolphe Chevalier,
executed in the presence of witnesses on the seventh day of December, in the year
one thousand nine hundred and eight, for three years from the first day of May
one thousand nine hundred and nine, the said Napoleon Martineau renouncing
all his rights as lessee or occupant of the said piece of ground and pledging himself
to give up its free possession and enjoyment to the said vender on or before the
first day of May next. In consequence, the said Mrs. Martineau will he allowed
to use the said ice-house until the first day of May next, without paying rent to
the vender, but she shall pay all the municipal and school taxes imposable by the
City of Quebec upon the said ice-house; in a like manner, the said Napoleon Mar-
tineau also pledges himself to pay the said taxes upon the other buildings erected
on the lot of land which he thus occupies as lessee until the first of May next,
the said Napoleon Martineau also pledging himself to pay to the proper person
the rent for the land up to the first day of May next.

It is moreover agreed that if the said vendee should see fit to rent the said
land after the first day of May next, the said Napoleon Martineau shall have the
preference for renting it at the price which may be offered bona fide to the said
vendee by any other person.

Lastly, this sale is made for the price of two thousand dollars, current money,
which amount the said Napoleon Martineau and his said wife have declared to
have received this day from the purchaser, for which receipt in full.

2J4 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

nnNT? AND PASSED AT QUEBEC under the number Twelve thousand
and ninety of t^.e minutes of the said Notary, and signed by the said parties with
me the said Notary, after the same bemg read.

(Signed) "N. Martineau, Jr."

« "Laura T. Martineau."
" "Raoul R. Bergevin."
"J. G. Couture, N.P."

A true copy of the minute remaining in my office.

J. C. COUTURE.

IWESTIGATIXG COMMISSION 215

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

On the 25th aay of February in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine
hundred and eight.

Before me the undersigned witness came and appeared Alfred C. Dobell,
Advocate, in his capacity of Att.trne}^ for the Duchess of Bassano being so duly
appointed bj^ power of attorney signed before witnesses in the City of Paris in
France on the 28th of March, 1906.

Who acknowledged and confessed to have demised and leased, and by these
presents do hereby demise and lease, for the space of one year and seven months to
be computed from the first day of the month of October, 1907, and which will end
on the first day of May, 1909, unto Napoleon Martineau, Junior, of the City o f
Quebec, ice merchant, hereunto present and accepting thereof, that is to say a certain
lot of land measuring 37 feet by 60 feet being part of that lot of land now known
and designated upon the Cadastral plan and in the book of reference thereto
for Champlain Ward in the City of Quebec under number two thousand five hundred
and twenty-five (2525) no warranty as to exact measurement; whereof the Lessee
is content and satisfied.

During all which time the said Lessor does hereby promise and engage to cause
the said Lessee to enjoy the said premises peaceably and quietly, save and except
by giving a six months' notice at the expiration of which the lease shall expire.

And the said Lessee does hereby promise and engage to submit and conform
to all regulations of Police in regard to the said premises, now in force or which
1 e hereafter established by competent authority, for maintaining the cleanliness
of the City, and of the Streets, Lanes, Yards and Houses therein; not to make over
or sub-let his right to the present lease without the consent in writing of the Lessor,
and to surrender the said premises at the expiration of the present lease without
any previous notice to quit being required, or to quit at the expiration of six
months after receiving notice to that effect.

The present Lease is thus made for and in consideration of the sum of seventy-
five dollars current money of this Province payable by the Lessee to the said Alfred
C. Dobell in two equal paj^ments of the sum of thirty-seven dollars and fifty cents
each current money aforesaid each.

The first instalment of thirty seven dollars and fifty cents shall be paid on
the first day of April, 1908, and the second instalment shall be paid on the first
of September, 1908, or should the Lessor take advantage of her right to terminate
the present lease before that date the said instalment shall be due and payable
three months after the receipt of the notice to quit. The said Lessee binds himself
to pay at the divers periods when the same is payable all taxes, water rates or
other dues which now are or which may hereafter be imposed on the said property
above leased by the City of Quebec.

And for the due execution of these presents, the said parties have made
election of domcile irrevocable to wit: the Lessor at the office of the said Alfred
C. Dobell in the City of Quebec where payment shall be made and the Lessee on
the premises hereby leased.

DONE AND PASSED at the City of Quebec, and signed by the said parties
these presents having been first duly read.

ALFRED DOBELL.
W. MARTINEAU, Jr.
Witness EDW. Z. STANLEY.

I
I

I

I

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123 A. 1914

N. T. R.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION

Exhibit 33

(See Page 1 1 8 of Report)

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123 A. 1914

Transl. C. R. D.

In the year one thousand nine hundred and eleven, on the thirtieth day
of the month of September, before Charles Edward Taschereau, Notary Public
for the Province of Quebec, residing in the City of Quebec,

Did appear: —

Mr. Raoul R. Bergevin, of the city of Quebec, merchant'tailor,

Party of the one part.

And the Commissioners of the Transcontinental Railway, a body
politic and duly incorporated, having its head office in the city of Ottawa, in the
province of Ontario, and h re represented by the Honourable Simon Napoleon
Parent, its President, duly authorized to the purpose of the presents,

Parties of the other part.

And the said parties have made between themselves the following declara-
tions and stipulations, that is to say: —

Whereas the said party of the one part is the owner of an ice-house built upon
the consecutive number 96B and on the top number two thousand five hundred
and twenty-five (2525) upon the official plan and book of reference of the cadastre
for Champlain Ward of the said city of Quebec;

Whereas, further, that, on account of the construction of the Transcontinental
Railway through the said lot, the said ice-house must be removed.

Whereas, lastly, that the said party of the one part is ready to accept an
indemnity as a compensation for the damages which the demolition of the said
ice-house will cause him;

Therefore the presents bear evide ce that the said party of the one part, in
consideration of the sum of three thousand and seven hundred dollars ($3,700.00)
which he acknowledges to have received from the said parties of the other part,
upon the execution of the presents, hereby gives the latter a full and final receipt
for all the damages caused him by the demolition of the said ice-house.

Done and passed at Quebec, in the year and on the day above mentioned,
under the number six thousand one hundred and fifty-five of the minutes of the
said C. E. Taschereau.

In witness whereof the parties have signed with the said Notary after the
same being read.

(Signed) ''S. N. Parent"

"Raoul R. Bergevin"
"C. E. Taschereau, N. P."

A true copy of the minute remaining of record in my office.

(Signed) C. E. Taschereau, N. P.

218 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

Province of Quebec ,-

i
Registration Office, Quebec. ;

The twenty-second day of August, 1911. |

In compliance with the demand now made me by C. E. Taschereau, N. P., I
I, the undersigned, registrar for the registration division of Quebec, do grant, by the
presents, the following certificate of the registrations made in my office since the
second day of October, 1871, date of the coming into force of the cadastre affecting
the lot number two thousand five hundred and twenty five (2525) of the plan and
reference book of the cadastre for Champlain Ward presently in the possession of
J. B. Fradette.

1. — B94-452-42310. — Judiciary sale (par licitation) by the prothonotary of
the District of Quebec to Marie-Anne Claire Symes of certain landed property
situated near the St. Lawrence River, in the city of Quebec, described; subject to
the payment of an annual rent of £57 . 10 to the Hotel-Dieu, and of another annual
rent of £10, to the Harbour Commissioners. Sale price paid. The said sale
dated December 4th, 1871.

Prothonotary's Title, April 9th, 1872.

Registered April 12th, 1872.

2. — Dl-403-252 — Renewal by the above mentioned Marie-Anne Claire Symes
of the registraiton of the real rights resulting from the sale mentioned in the pre-
ceding item, as affecting the said lot and other property,

John Strang, N. P., July 4th, 1872.

Registered August 14th, 1872.

3. — B 236-729-130216. — Guarantee sale (dotion) in payment by Jean-Baptiste
Fradette to "Gagnon & Frere" for an ice-house built on part of the said lot.
The said "dotion" granted as a collateral guarantee for the reimbursement of the
sum of $400, with interest at 8%, which the said Fradette pledges himself to pay
within 3 years from the present date.

Jos. Allaire, N.P., November 2nd, 1909.

Registered November 3rd, 1909.

Remillard & Roy,

Deputy Registrar.

4. — B 251-137123. — Sale by Mrs. Laura Tousignant, wife of Napoleon Mar-
tineau, to Raoul Rene Bergiven, of the buildings erected on the said lot. Sale
by Napoleon Martineau, aforesaid, of his rights as lessee of part of the said lot.
Sale price paid.

J. G. Couture, N. P., August 19th, 1911.

Registered August 22nd, 1911.

Remillard & Roy,

Depu ty-liegistrar.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 219

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

The Commissioners of the Transcontinental Railway

To A. E. Doucet, on account of Right-of-Way, Dr.

Raoul R. Bergevin,

City of Quebec. 1911-12.

Sept. 23, 1911, for compensation for removal of ice-house,
and damages, Cadastral No. 2525, Champlain Ward,
City of Quebec, Province of Quebec $3,700.00 $3,700.00

Correct,

28 Sept. 1911.
A. Tremblay.

Date Sept. 30th, 1911. Received from the Commissioners of the Transcon-
tinental Railway the sum of Three Thousand Seven Hundred Dollars in full
settlement of the above accoimt.

Raoul R. Bergevin.
Correct : Approved by Board :

D. HocTOR, Sept. 26, 1911.

Chief Accountant. P. E. Ryan,

Secretary.

No. 137,511. This Deed of Acte d'accord was entered and registered in the
Registry Office for the Registration Division of Quebec, at ten minutes past two
o'clock P.M., on the third day of October, nineteen hundred and eleven, as number
one hundred and thirty-seven thousand five hundred and eleven, B vol. 253, page
57.

Remillard & Roy,

Dep. -Registrar.

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123 A. 1914

I

N. T. R.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION

Exhibit 34

(See Pages 1 18 and 119 of Report)

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123 A. 1914

1004

On this day the First of October in the year one thousand nine hundred and
eight.

Before me the undersigned William Noble Campbell, Notary Public for the
province of Quebec in Canada, residing and practising in the City of Quebec.

Personally came and appeared Alfred Curzon Dobell of the said City of Quebec ,
Advocate, acting herein in his capacity of the duly appointed Attorney of the
Duchess of Bassano of the City of Paris, in the Republic of France under her power
of Attorney executed before witness at Paris aforesaid on the Twenty-eighth of
March nineteen hundred and six, who in the presence of me the said Notary, did
by these presents both lease and demise for the space and term of three years to
begin and be computed from the first day of May next (1909) and fully to be com-
pleted and ended on the Thirtieth day of April in the year one thousand nine hun-
dred and twelve, unto Adolphe Chevalier, of the said City of Quebec, Ship Car-
penter, also present and accepting hereof for himself, his heirs and assigns, as
follows, that is to say:

That certain lot of land or cove and premises now known and designated upon
the plan and in the book of reference thereto of the Cadastre for Champlain Ward
of the said City of Quebec under the number two thousand five hundred and
twenty-five (2525) together with the buildings thereon circumstances and depend-
encies, save and except that portion of that said lot now occupied by N. Martineau,
for an ice house measuring about thirty-seven feet by sixty feet, without any
warranty as to the exact measurement of the property hereby leased.

All of which the said Lessee doth declare to have a perfect knowledge, having
seen and visited the same, and is content and satisfied therewith.

To have and to hold the said premises hereby leased and demised, or intended
so to be, unto the said Lessee his heirs, executors or curators, without let or hin-
drance for and during the said term, subject to his enjoyment thereof "en bon
pere de famille," and to the maintenance of the house on said lot in all small and
internal repairs for which tenants are by law responsible, the said Lessor being
holden to keep and maintain the house on said lots "clos et converts" and in all
"grosses reparations" according to law, also subject by the said Lessee to the
observance of the "voyerie" and all rules and regulations of the Police, the City
of Quebec, the Board of Health, and other constituted authorities, which may in
any manner concern the said premises; that he shall not sublease or underlet the
said premises or any part thereof without written permission in writing from the
said Lessor; and that he shall and will, on the end and expiration of the present
lease, and without any previous notice to that end, peaceably and quietly surrender
and deliver up the said premises in as good order and repairs as the same may have
been at the commencement of the present lease, reasonable allowance being made
for wear and accidents by fire, and other fortuitous causes and events excepted,
notwithstanding any presumption in law in favour of the Lessor in relation thereto.

The present lease is thus made and granted for and in consideration of the
following rents or annual amounts, that is to say, 1. The sum of Three hundred
and fifty dollars for the first year (expiring on the Thirtieth of April 1910) of the
present lease, one half of which or the sum of One hundred and seventy-five dollars,
the said Lessee doth hereby bind himself to pay unto the said Alfred C. Dobell,
acting as aforesaid or the bearer of these presents on the Second of July next (1909

222 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

and the remaining half or a like sum on the Second of January following (1910),
2. The sum of Three hundred and seventy-five dollars for the second year of the
present lease (expiring on the Thirtieth of April 1911) one half of which or the sum
of one hundred and eighty seven dollars and fifty cents, the said Lessee doth
hereby bind himself to pay unto the said Alfred C. Dobell acting as aforesaid or the
bearer of these presents on the Second of July nineteen hundred and ten, and the
remaining half or a like sum, on the second of January following (1911), 3. The
sum of Four hundred dollars for the third year of the present lease (expiring on
the Thirtieth of April 1912), one half of which or the sum of Two hundred dollars,
the said Lessee doth hereby bind himself to pay unto the said Alfred C. Dobell
acting as aforesaid or the bearer of these presents on the Second of July nineteen
hundred and eleven, and the balance or a like sum, on the Second of January fol-
lowing (1912). The said rents shall include all taxes, dues and assessments in each
ot the current years thereof.

Should the said Lessee fail to pay the rent on any of the above stipulated
dates when it shall become due as aforesaid, then and in that case the said Lessor
shall have the right forthwith of cancelling and resiliating the present lease and oi
entering into and taking possession of the premises hereby leased.

It is further agreed that the said Lessor shall at all times have the right of
cancelling the present lease by giving six months clear notice in writing unto the
said Lessee, of his intention so to do, in which case the said Lessee hereby agrees
to vacate the said premises so soon as the said period of six months shall have
expired.

And it is further and lastly agreed by and between the said parties that the
said Lessor shall and will have the right and liberty of causing to be made any
repairs or ameliorations to the said premises that may be found necessary during
the said term, without being liable to damages or any deduction from the rent
aforesaid. And for any execution of these presents the said Lessee hath made
election of domicile irrevocable at the premises above leased and the said Lessor
at the office in Quebec of her said Attorney.

Thus done and passed at the said City of Quebec, these presents recorded
in the office of me the said Notary, under the number Six thousand nine hundred
and fourteen.

In witness whereof the said parties have signed these presents with me the
said Notary, the same being first duly read according to law.

Signed) Alfred C. Dobell, Attorney
" Adolphe Chevalier

" W. Nobel Campbell, Not. Pub.

A true copy of the orginial remaining of record in my office.

(Signed) W. N. Campbell, Not. Pub.

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123 A. 1914

N. T. R.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION

Exhibit 35

(See Page 119 of Report)

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123 A. 1914

In the year One Thousand nine hundred and eleven, on the twenty-sixth
day of August, before the undersigned Joseph Allaire, Notary Public, for the
Province of Quebec, residing in the City of Quebec, did appear:

Mr. Adolphe Chevalier, ship-carpenter, of the City of Quebec.

Who has, by these presents, sold with guarantee against aU mortgages and all
troubles whatever to Mr. Raoul Rene Bergevin, merchant of the said City ot
Quebec, herewith present and accepting, vendee, that is to say:

All his rights and interests whatsoever in the occupation of a certain lot of
land and cove known and designated upon the official plan and book of reference
for Champlain Ward of the City of Quebec under the number Two thousand five
hundred and twenty-five (2525) and all the damages resulting and caused by the
expropriation by the Transcontinental, save and except that portion of the said
lot now occupied by N. Martineau, junior, for an ice-house, measuring about
thirty-seven feet by sixty feet, without any warranty as to the exact measurement
of the lot above mentioned.^

The said rights and interests in the occupation of the said lot belong to the
vendor in virtue of a lease to him consented by Alfred Curzon Dobell, acting in
his capacity of attorney of the Duchess of Bassano, o" the City of Paris, France
under a power of attorney executed before witness at Paris aforesaid, on the Twenty-
eighth day of March, nineteen hundred and six, and passed, the said lease, before'
W. Noble Campbell, notary, at Quebec, on the first of October, in the year One
Thousand nine hundred and eight.

It is agreed that the said Vendor shall give possession of the said lot the First
of May next to the said vendee, and that he, the said vendor, shall pay until the
said first of May next, the municipal and school taxes and other public contri-
butions affecting the property, as well as the rent to the lessor mentioned in the
aforesaid lease, due and to become due or by reason of his occupation of the pro-
perty up to the First of May next.

This sale is made for the price of four thousand dollars (S4,000.00) which the
vendor has acknowledged to have received from the vendee, upon the execution
of the presents, of which receipt in full.

Done and passed at Quebec, in the office of Joseph Allaire, Notary, on the
day and in the month and year aforesaid, imder the number fifteen thousand three
hundred and fifteen of the minutes of the said Joseph Allaire and, after its reading,
the parties have signed in the presence of the said notary.

{Signed) "Adolphe Chevalier"
"Raoul R. Bkroevin"
"Joseph Allaire, N. P."

A true copy of the minute remaining in my office.

Jos. Allaire, N. P.

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123 A. 1914

N. T. R.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION

Exhibit 36

(See Page 1 19 of Report)

I

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123 A. 1914

In the Year One Thousand Nine Hundred and Eleven, on tenth day of
the month of October.

Before Charles Edmond Taschereau, Notary Public for the Provmce
of Quebec, residing and practising in the City of Quebec.

Appeared: —

Mr. Raoul R. Bergevin, of the City ot Quebec, Merchant Tailor,

Party of the one part, and the Commissioners of the Transcontinental
Railway, a body politic duly incorporated, having its head office in the city of
Ottawa, in the Province of Ontario, and here represented by the Honourable S. N.
Parent, its President, duly authorized,

Parties of the other part.

And the said parties have made between themselves the following stipulations
and declarations, that is to say: —

Whereas the said parties of the other part, for the ends of their railway line,
require the demolition of a Graving Dock belonging to the said party of the one
part situate upon the lot number two thousand five hundred and twenty-five
(2525) on the official plan and book of reference of the cadastre for Champlain
Ward, in the City of Quebec, which is the property of the said R. R. Bergevin,
he having purchased it from Adolphe Chevalier, by deed of the twenty-sixth day
of August, 1911, before Jos. Allaire, N.P.;

Whereas, moreover, that the said party of the one part is ready, in consider-
ation of a certain indemnity to remove the said Graving Dock;

Therefore the presents bear evidence that the said party of the one part in
consideration of the sum of four thousand two hundred and fifty dollars ($4,250 . 00)
which he acknowledges to have received from the said parties of the other part,
upon the execution of the presents, gives the latter a full and final receipt for the
damages caused him by the demolition of the said Graving Dock and by its removal.

DONE AND PASSED at Quebec, on the day and in the year aforesaid, under
the number six thousand one hundred and sixty-two of the minutes of the said
C. E. Taschereau,

In Witness Whereof, the parties have signed with the said Notary, after
the same being read.

(Signed) "S. N. PARENT."

"RAOUL R. BERGEVIN."
" "C. E. TASCHEREAU, N.P."

A true copy of the minute remaining of record in my office.

(Signed) C. E. TASCHEREAU, N.P.

19

226 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
To A. E. DoucET, on % of Right-of-Way, Dr.

Raoul R. Bergevin,
Quebec City.

1911-12.

1911

Oct. 3 For Compensation for demolition of Graving Dock-
Cadastral No. 2525, Champlain Ward, City of

Quebec $4,250.00

$4,250.00

Correct:

5 Oct., 1911.
A. Tremblay.

Date Oct. 6th, 1911.

. RECEIVED from the Commissioners of the Transcontinental Railway the
sum of FOUR THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY DOLLARS, in full
settlement of the above account,

RAOUL R. BERGEVIN.

Correct. Approved by Board.

D. HocTOR, Oct. 4, 1911.

Chief Accountant. P. E. Ryan,

Secretary.

No. 137,693. This deed ot Acte d'Accord was entered and registered in the
Registry Office for the Registration Division of Quebec, at forty minutes past two
o'clock p.m., on the twentieth day of the month of October, nineteen hundred
and eleven, under the number One hundred and thirty-seven thousand six hundred
and ninety -three, B vol. 253, page 68.

R^MiLLARD & Roy,

Dep.-Registrar.

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123 A. 1914

N. T. R.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION

Exhibit 37

(See Pages 551 to 598 of Report)

<

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123 A. 1914

On the 17th of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand nme hundred
and nine.

Before me Alfred C. Dobell the undersigned witness personally appeared,

Adolph Chevalier, of the City of Quebec, laborer; who acknowledged and
confessed to have demised and leased and by these presents do demise and lease
for the space of three years to be computed from 1st January 1909 and which will
end on the 1st day of January 1912 unto J. B. Fradette of the city of Quebec,
ice Merchant, hereto present, that is to say a piece of land m asuring forty five
by ninety-six feet together with a piece of land of thirty feet by sixteen feet on the
property already leased by the said Adolphe Chevalier from Duchess Bassano,
the whole of the land being a part of that lot known on the Cadastral plan and
in the book of reference thereto for Champlain Ward in the City of Quebec under
number two thousand five hundred and twenty five (2525) no warranty as to
exact measurement, whereof the lessee is content and satisfied.

During all which the said lessor does hereby promise and engage to cause
the said lessee to enjoy the said premises peaceably and quietly, save and except
by giving a six months notice at the expiration of which the lease shall expire.

And the said lessee does hereby promise and engage to submit and conform
to all regulations of Police in regard to the said premises, now in force or which be
hereafter established by competent authority, for maintaining the cleanliness
of the City, and of the streets. Lanes, Yards, and Houses built therein, not to
make over or sub-let his right to the present lease without the consent in writing
of the Lessor, and to surrender t'.ie said premises at the expiration of the present
lease without any previous notice to quit being required, or to quit at the expir-
ation of six months after receiving notice to that effect.

The present lease is thus made for and in consideration of the sum of Ten
hundred and twenty five dollars current money of this Province per year making
a total of four hundred and twenty five dollars current money as aforesaid, pay-
able by the Lessee to the said Adolph Chevalier, the first instalment of seventy
five dollars to be paid on the first of May 1909 and similar payments to be made
on the same date of each year during the present lease and another instalment of
fifty dollars current money as aforesaid to be paid on the 1st September 1909
and each subsequent year during the present lease, should the Lessor take ad-
vantage of his rights to terminate the present lease before the end of three years
then the lessee shall pay the balance due within three months from the date of
receiving notice to quit the premises.

And for the due execution of these presents, the said parties have made
election of domicile irrevocable to wit the Lessor at his house in Champlain street
in the City of Quebec where payment shall be made and the lessee on the premises'
hereby leased.

Done and passed at the city of Quebec, and signed by the said Parties, these
presents having been first duly read.

(Signed) Adolphe Chevalikr.
(Signed) J. B. Fradktte,
Witness (Signed) Alfred C. Dobi.ll

228 NAITONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

Lease mentioned in a deed of sale by J. B. Fradette, Esq., to Jules Grenier,
Esq., before the undersigned Notary, on the Second day of the month of October,
in the year One thousand nine hundred and ten, under number four hundred and
fifty of his minutes.

(Signed) "J. B. Fradette,''
" "Jules Grenier,"

" "Adolphe Chevalier,"

" " Alfred C. Dobell, "

" Chas. J. Baillargeon, N. P. "
A true certified copy.

Chas. J. Baillargeon, N. P.

Before Charles Jules Baillargeon, Notary Public, residing and practising
at Quebec,
Appeared: —

Mr. Jean Baptiste Fradet, of the City of Quebec, former Ice Dealer.

Who by these presents has sold with all guarantee of right to Mr. Jules Grenier,
of the Parish of Beauport, Joiner, herewith present and acceptor.

A building erected of wood, covered with tar-paper and used as an ice-house,
forty feet wide by ninety feet long, located on the old Denning Yard.

Champlain Ward, in the City of Quebec, on a part of lot No. Two thousand
five hundred and twenty five (2525) in the Official Cadastre of the said Ward,
with besides all tools to cut ice and others having served the said Fradet for the
operation of said ice-house, as enumerated on the list annexed to the present- as
being part of it after it has been acknowledged and signed by the parties.

In addition to this, the said Fradet gives to the said J. Grenier all his rights as
lessor of the land on which is erected the said ice-house; the said rights are specified
by private deed made between the said Fradet and Mr. Adolphe Chevalier, of the
City of Quebec, Laborer, dated the seventeenth February 1909, signed in presence
of Mr. Alfred C. Dobell; the said Grenier agreeing on his side to all conditions,
restrictions and rent of the said lease. Copy of the said lease is also annexed to
the minutes of the presents after it had been acknowledged and signed by the
parties.

The present sale is made on the following conditions: —
. 1. The said Grenier will pay from date of the presents all taxes and costs
which might be imposed on the said ice-house or to which he might be bound in
consequence of the said lease and also, from the date of the presents, the rent
agreed upon in the lease dated the seventeenth of February 1909.

2. In case that, during the first year of the presents, the said J. Grenier would
abandon ice trade by selling or otherwise, he will be bound to remit to the said
Fradet all the tools bought from him as indicated in the annexed list. After
the first year is passed, whatever happens, the said J. Cirenicr will be released
from this obligation.

The said J. B. Fradet also sells to the said J, Grenier, acceptant, the following
vehicles: — A vehicle called express, two vehicles called ice wagons, and threo
sleighs.

The present sale is made for and in consideration of the price and sum of
eight hundred and five dollars (S805.), six hundred dollars (S600.) for the ice-house,
and two hundred and five dollars (S205) for the said vehicles.

The said selling price is payable as follows: — One hundred and fifty dollars
(SI 50.) cash, receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged; Four hundred doUarSj
(S400.) to be applied to the payment of a note due by the saiil J. B. Fradet tc
Mr. Antoine Gagnon, of Quebec, that the said purchaser promises and acknowledge

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 229

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

to pay when due, and the balance Two hundred and fifty five dollars (S255.) in
four payments; — 1, Fifty dollars ($50.00) on the fifteenth of July nineteen hundred
and ten; 2, Fifty (SoO) on the fifteenth of October nineteen hundred and ten;
3, Fifty ($50) on the fifteenth of January nineteen hundred and eleven; 4, Hun-
dred and five dollars ($105.) on the fifteenth of July 1911. The said purchaser
has signed in favour of the said vendor four notes representing each one of the
payments hereinbefore mentioned, the said notes bearing interest at three per
cent per annum.

Messrs. Alfred C. Dobell, Advocate, and Adolphe Chevalier, Contractor,
both of Quebec have agreed to these presents; both declare after perusal of these
presents, one as owner of the hereinbefore mentioned land and the other as lessor,
that they agree to accept the said J. Grenier as subtenant of the said land in the
stead and place of the said Jean B. Fradet, and bind themselves to continue in
favour of the said J. Grenier on the same conditions, restrictions and rent the
lease dated the 17th February 1909.

Made and passed at Quebec for the said H. B. Fradet the thirty-first day of
December one thousand nine hundred and nine, for the said Jules Grenier the
seventh day of January one thousand nine hundred and ten and for the said Alfred
C. Dobell the twelfth day of October one thousand nine hundred and ten under
number four hundred and fifty of the minutes of said notary.

In testimony whereof, the parties herein concerned have signed with said
Notary after due reading.

(Sgd.) "J. B. Fradette"
" "Jules Grexier"
" "Adolphe Chevalier"
" "Alfred C. Dobell'"
" " Chas. J. Baillargeon "
True copy of the minute deposited of record in my office.

Chas. J. Baillargeon.

In the year One thousand nine hundred and eleven, on the Thirtieth
day of the month of September.

Before Charles Edward Taschereau, Notary Public for the Province of
Quebec, residing and practising in the City of Quebec.

Did appear: —

Mr. Jules Grenier, of the city of Quebec, ice dealer
Party of the one part

And the Commissioners of the Transcontinental Railw^\y, a body
politic duly incorporated, having its head office in the city of Ottawa, in the Pro-
vince of Ontario, and here represented by the Honourable Simon Napoleon Parent,
its president, duly authorized to the purpose of these presents.

Parties of the other part.

And the said parties have made between themselves the following declarations
and stipulations, that is to say: —

Whereas the said party of the one part is the owner of an Ice-House built
upon the lot number Two thousand five hundred and twenty-five (2525) upon
the official plan and book of reference of the cadastre tor Champlain ^^'ard of
the city of Quebec;

Whereas, moreover, that on account of the construction of the Transcon-
tinental railway through the said lot, the said ice-house must be removed;

Whereas, lastlj', that the said party of the one part is ready to accept an in-
demnity as a compensation for the damages caused him by the demolition of the
said ice-house;

230 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

Therefore, the presents bear evidence that the said party of the one part,
in consideration of the sum of Two thousand five huncbed dollars (2,500.00)
which he acknowledges to have received from the said parties of the other part,
upon the execution of the presents, hereby gives the latter a full and final receipt
for all the damages caused him on account of the demolition of the said ice-house,
and the said party of the one part further pledges himself to demolish the said
ice-house at his own expense between now and the firgt day of December next,
and he may keep the materials of the said building.

At these presents have also appeared : —

Mr. Thomas Gagnon, acting at the presents as sole representative of "Gagnon
& Frere,"

Who, after having had communication of the present deed, declared himself
satisfied and consented that it be executed according to its form and purport.

The present ratification is thus agreed by which the said Jules Grenier has
agreed to a guarantee sale (dotiere) in payment to the appearing for the said
ice-house according to the terms of a deed passed before Jos. Allaire, Notary,
on the second day of November, 1909, and registered at Quebec, under number
130216.

DONE AND PASSED at Quebec, on the day and in the year aforesaid, under
number six thousand one hundred and fifty-four of the minutes of the said C. E.
Taschereau.

In Witness WheReof, the parties have signed with the said Notary, after
the same being read.

(Signed) "S. N. Parent."
" "Thos. Gagnon."
"Jules Grenier."
" "C. E. Taschereau, N.P."

A true copy of the minute remaining of record in my office.

(Signed) C. E. Taschereau,

N.P.

I

(Voucher.)

THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.

To A. E. DoucET, on % of Right-of-Way,

Dr.
Jules Grenier,
Quebec.

1911-12.

1911

Sept. 23 For compensation for removal of Ice House, and
damages — Cadastral No. 2525, Champlain
Ward, City of Quebec, Province of Quebec . . . . S2 , 500 . 00 $2 , 500 . 00

Correct,

28 Sept., 1911.

(Sgd.) A. Tremblay.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 231

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Date, Sept. 30th, 1911. RECEIVED FROM The Commissioners of the

Transcontinental Railway the sum of Two Thousand Five Hundred

Dollars, in full settlement of the above account.

(Sgd.) Jules Grenier.
Correct, Approved by Board,

Sept. 26, 1911,
D, HocTOR. P. E. Ryax,

Chief Accountant. Secretary.

No. 137512. This Deed of Acte d' Accord was entered and registered'in the
Registry Office for the Registration Division of Quebec, at ten minutes past two
o'clock p.m., on the third day October, nineteen hundred and eleven, as number
one hundred and thirty thousand five hundred and twelve, in Vol. 253, page 58.

(Sgd). Remillard & Roy,

Dep. Registrar.

In the Year One Thousand Nine Hundred and Eleven, on the second
day of the month of October.

Before Charles Edmund Taschereau, Notary Public for the Province of
Quebec, residing and practising in the City of Quebec,

Appeared: —

Mr, Raoul R. Bergevin, of the City of Quebec, merchant tailor,

Party of the One Part,,

And the Commissioners of the Transcontinental Railway, a body
politic duly incorporated, having its head-office in the City of Ottawa, in the
Province of Ontario, and here represented by the Honourable S. N. Parent, its
President, duly authorized,

Parties of the other Part.

And the said parties have made between themselves the following declarations
and stipulations, that is to say: —

Whereas the said parties of the other part, for the ends of their railway line,
require the demolition of a certain ice-house belonging to the said party of the one
part, and situate on the lot number Two thousand four hundred and sixteen
(2416) on the official plan and book of reference of the cadastre for Champlain
Ward, in the City of Quebec;

Whereas, moreover, that the said party of the one part is ready, in considera-
tion of a certain indemnity, to consent to the demolition of the said ice-house;

Therefore the presents bear evidence that the said party of the one part in
consideration of the sum of Two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500.00) which
he acknowledge-^ to have received from the said parties of the other part, upon
the execution of the presents, gives the latter a full and final receipt for the damages
caused him by the demolition of the said Ice-House.

DONE AND PASSED at Quebec, on the day and in the year aforesaid, under
the number six thousand one hundred and fifty-nine of the minutes of the said
C. E. Taschereau.

In Witness Whereof, the parties have signed with the said Notary, after
the same being read.

(Signed) "S, N. Parent,"

" "Raoul R. Bergevin."

"C. E. Taschereau, N.P."

A true copy of the minute remaining of record in any office.

(Signed) C. E. Taschereau, N.P.

232 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.

To A. E. DoucET, on % of Right-of-way,

Dr.
Raoul R. Bergevin,

Quebec City. 1911-12.

1911

Sept. 28 For compensation for removal of Ice House, and
damages — Cadastral No. 2416, Champlain

Ward, Quebec City $2,500.00 $2,500.00

Correct,

2 Oct., 1911.

A. Tremblay.

Date Oct. 2nd, 1911. RECEIVED from the Commissioners of the Trans-
continental Railway the sum of TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS
in full settlement of the above account.

Raoul R. Bergevin.

Correct, Approved by Board,

Sept. 29, 1911,
D. Hoctor, p. E. Ryan,

Chief Accountant. Secretary.

No. 137,694. This deed of Acte d'Accord was entered and registered in the
Registry Office for the Registration Division of Quebec, at forty minutes past
two o'clock, p.m., on the twentieth day of the month of October, nineteen hundred
and eleven, under the number One hundred and thirty-seven thousand six hundred
and ninety-four, B. vol. 253, page 69.

Remillard & Roy,

Dep. -Registrar

On the seventh day of December in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine
hundred and eight. Before me Alfred C. Dobell the undersigned witness personally
appeared :

Adolph Chevalier of the City of Qucl)ec, labourer:

Who acknowledged and confessed to have demised and leased, and by these
presents do demise and lease for the space of three years, to be computed from the
1st May, 1909, and which will end on the 1st day of May, 1912, unto Napoleon
Martineau, Junior, of the City of (Jueliec, ice merchant, hereto present, that is to
say, a piece of land measuring forty five feet by fifty feet on the east side of the
ice house built on the property already leased by the said Napoleon Martineau
from Duchess Bassano, ihc whole of the land being part of that lot known on the
Cadastral plan and in the book of reference thereto for Champlain Ward in the
City of Quebec under number two thousand five hundred and twenty five (2525)
no warranty as to exact measurement, whereof the Lessee is content and satisfied.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 233

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

During all which the said Lessor does hereby promise and engage to cause the
said Lessee to enjoy the said premises peaceably and quietly, save and except by
giving a six months notice at the expiration of which the lease shall expire.

And the said Lessee does hereby promise and engage to submit and conform
to all regulations of Police in regard to the said premises, now in force or which
be hereafter established by competent authority, for maintaining the cleanliness of
the City, and of the streets, lanes, yards and houses therein; not to make over or
sub-let his r ght to the present lease without the consent in MTiting of the Lessor,
and to surrender the said premises at the expiration of the present lease without
any previous notice to quit being required, or to quit at the expiration of six
months after receiving notice to that effect.

The present lease is thus made for and in consideration of the sum of one
hundred and fifty dollars current money in three equal pajanents, the first payment
to be made on the first of May, 1909, of the sum of fifty dollars, the other two pa}'-
ments to be made on the first of May, 1910 and 1911, of the sum of fifty dollars
each ; should the Lessor take advantage of his right to terminate the present lease
before the end of three years then the Lessee shall pay the balance due within
three months from the date of receiving notice to quit the premises.

And for the due execution of these presents, the said parties have made election
of domicile irrevocable to wit: the Lessor at his house in Champlain Street in the
City of Quebec, where payment shall be made and the Lessee on the premises
hereby leased.

Done and passed at the City of Quebec, and signed by the said parties these
presents having been first duly read.

Adolphe Chevalier,
N. Marttneau, Jr.
Alfred C. Dobell,

Witness.

On this day the first of October in the year one thousand nine hundred and
eight.

Before me the undersigned William Noble Campbell, Notary Public for the
Province of Quebec in Canada, residing and practising in the City of Quebec.

Personally came and appeared Alfred Curzon Dobell, of the said City of
Quebec, Advocate, acting herein in his capacity of the dul}^ appointed Attorney
of the Duchess of Bassano of the City of Paris in the Republic of France under
her Power of Attorney executed before witnesses at Paris aforesaid on the twenty-
eighth of March nineteen hundred and six, who in the presence of me, the said
Notary, did and by these presents doth lease and demise for the space and term
of three years to begin and be computed from the first day of May next (1909) and
fully to be completed and ended on the thirtieth day of April in the year one thou-
sand nine hundred and twelve, unto Adolphe Chevalier, of the said City of Quebec,
ship carpenter, also present and accepting hereof for himself, his heirs and assigns,
as follows, that is to sa}^:

Xhat certain lot of land or cove and premises now known and designated upon
the plan and in the book of reference thereto of the Cadastre for Champlain Ward ■
of the said City of Quebec under the number two thousand five hundred and
twenty-five (252.5) together with the buildings thereon circumstances and depend-
encies, save and except that portion of the said lot now occupied by N. Martineau,
Junior, for an ice-house measuring about thirty-seven feet by sixty feet, without
any warranty as to the exact measurement of the property hereby leased.

And of all which the said Lessee doth declare to have a perfect knowledge,
having seen and visited the same, and is content and satisfied therewith.

234 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

To have and to hold the said premises hereby leased and demised, or intended
so to be, unto the said Lessee his heirs, executors or curators, without let or hin-
drance for and during the said term, subject to his enjoyment thereof "en bon pere
de famille," and to the maintenance of the house on said lot in all small and internal
repairs for which tenants are by law responsible, the said Lessor being holden to
keep and maintain the house on said lot "clos et couverts" and in all ''grosses
reparations" according to law, also subject by the said Lessee to the observance
of the "voyerie" and all rules and regulations o" the Police, the City of Quebec
the Board of Health and other constituted authorities, which may in any manner
concern the said premises; that he shall not sublease or underlet the said premises
or any part thereof without permission in writing from the said Lessor; and that
he shall and will, on the end and expiration of the present lease, and without any
previous notice to that end, peaceably and quietly surrender and deliver up the said
premises in as good order and repair as the same may have been at the commence-
ment of the present lease, reasonable allowance being made for wear and a •( idents
by fire, and other fortuitous causes and events excepted, notwithstanding any
presumption in law in favour of the Lessor in relation thereto.

The present lease is thus made and granted for and in consideration of the
following rents or annual amounts, that is to say, L '1 he sum of three hundred and
fifty dollars for the first year (expiring on the thirtieth of April (1910) of the
present lease, one half of which or the sum of one hundred and seventy-five dollars,
the said Lessee doth hereby bind himself to pay unto the said Alfred C. Dobell
acting as aforesaid or the bearer of these presents on the second of July next
(1909) and the remaining half or a like sum, on the second of January following
(1910), 2. The sum of three hundred and seventy-five dollars for the second year
of the present lease (expiring on the thirtieth of April, 1911) one half of which or
the sum of one hundred and eighty-seven dollars and fifty cents, the said Lessee
doth hereby bind himself to pay unto the said Alfred C. Dobell acting as aforesaid
or the bearer of these presents on the second of July, nineteen hundred and ten,
and the remaining half or a like sum, on the second of January following (1911).
3. The sum of four hundred dollars for the third year of the present lease (expiring
on the thirtieth of April, 1912), one half of which or the sum of two hundred
dollars, the said Lessee doth hereby bind himself to pay unto the said Alfred C.
Dobell, acting as aforesaid or the bearer of these presents on the second of July,
nineteen hundred and eleven, and the balance or a like sum, on the second of
January following (1912). The said rents shall include all taxes, dues and assess-
ments in each of the current years thereof.

Should the said Lessee fail to pay the rent on any of the above stipulated
dates when it shall become due as aforesaid, then and in that case the said Lessor
shall have the right forthwith of cancelling and resiliating the present lease and of
entering into and taking possession of the premises hereby leased.

It is further agreed that the said Lessor shall at all times have the right of
cancelling the present lease by giving six months clear notice in writing unto the
said Lessee of his intention so to do, in which case the said Lessee hereby agrees to
vacate the said premises so soon as the said period of six months shall have expired.

And it is further and lastly agreed by and between the said parties that the
said Lessor shall and will have the right and liberty of causing to be made any
repairs or ameliorations to the said premises that may be found necessary during
the said term, without being liable to damages or any deduction from the rent
aforesaid. And for any execution of these presents the said Lessee hath made
election of domicile irrevocable at the premises above leased and the said Lessor
at the office in Quebec of her said Attorney.

Thus done and passed at the said City of Quebec, these presents recorded in
the office of me, the said Notary, under the number six thousand nine hundred and
fourteen.

IXVESTIGATING COMMISSION 235

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

In witness whereof the said parties have signed these presents with me the said
Notary, the same being first duly read according to law.

(Signed) Alfred C. Dobell, Attorney.
Adolphe Chevalier.
W. Noble Campbell, Not. Pub.

A true copy of the original hereof remaining of record in my office.

W. Noble Campbell,
Not. Pub.

In the tear one thousand nine hundred and eleven, on the Twentieth
day of September, before Joseph Allaire, Notary Public, for the Province of Que-
bec, residing in the city of Quebec, undersigned:
Appeared: —

Mrs. Marguerite Lebel, of the city of Quebec, widow of Thomas Chevalier,
in his life-time, a boat-man.

Who has, by these presents, sold with warranty against all seizures and
claims whatsoever, to Mr. Raoul R. Bergevin, merchant, of the city of Quebec,
here present and ace pting, vendee, that is to say.

All her rights of property, claims and interests she has on a slip and all its
appurtenances presently situated on the lot of land known under the number
Two thousand five hundred and twenty-five (2525) of the official C adastre of Cham-
plain Ward of the city of Quebec.

The said slip and its appurtenances belong to the said Mrs. Chevalier, widow,
as the residuary legatee of the property of the said late Thomas Chevalier, her
husband, by virtue of the latter's will received before Louis Parant, Notary, on
the tenth dsij of January, nineteen hundred and eight.

For the said Raoul R. Bergevin to acquire, en oy do and dispose of the said
slip and its appurtenances in full and entire possession from this day and always
and with immediate possession, the said lady vendor making by these same presents
the real delivery of the said slip and its appurtenances.

The present sale is made for the sum of five hundred dollars (S500 . 00) which
the said vendor acknowledges and confesses to have received from the said vendee
to her full satisfaction, receipt whereof.

Done and passed at Quebec, in the office of the said Jos. Allaire, Notary,
on the day and in the month and year aforesaid, under the number fifteen thousand
three hundred and forth-six of the minutes of the undersigned notary, and after
the same being read, the vendor declared she could not sign in presence of Joseph
Chevalier, carpenter, of this city, witness required and who has signed in presence
of the said notary and of the said vendee.

(Signed) ' 'Joseph Chevalier "
" '"Raoul R. Bergevin"

' 'Jos. Allaire, N. P. "

A true copy of the minute remaining in my office.

Jos. Allaire, N. P.

236 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

In thk year one thousand nine hundred and eleven, on the Eleventh of
October,

Before Louis Parant, Notary Public for the Province of Quebec, residing
and practising in the city of Quebec, undersigned.

-Appeared Mr. Raoul Bergevin, mechant, of the city of Quebec;

Who has, by these presents, reconveyed, with warranty, to Mrs. Marguerite
LeBel, of the said city of Quebec, widow of Thomas Chevalier, in his life time
also of Quebec, boat-man, here present and accepting, transferee, that is to say:

All his rights of propert}^ claims and interests which he has upon a slip and
its appurtenances, presently situate on the lot of land known under the number
Two thousand five hundred and twenty five (2525) of the official Cadastre of
Champlain Ward of the city of Quebec.

The said slip and its appurtenances belong to the said Raoul R. Bergevin
by his having purchased them from the said Mrs. Chevalier as shown by a deed
of sale agreed to by the said Mrs. Chevalier in favour of the said Mr. Bergevin,
before Joseph Allaire, Notary, at Quebec, on the twentieth day of September,
one thousand nine hundred and eleven last.

For the said Mrs. Thomas Chevalier, widow, to enjoy, do and dispose of the
said slip and its appurtenances in full and entire property from this day and always,
just as if she had never sold them to the said Raoul R. Bergevin, and with imme-
diate possession in favour of the said Mrs. Chevalier, the said vendor reconveying to
her by these same presents the real delivery of the said slip and its appurtenances.

The present retrocession is made for the sum of five hundred dollars ($500.00)
which the said Mrs. Bergevin acknowledges and confesses to have received, this
day, from the said vendee to his entire satisfaction, receipt whereof.

Done and passed at Quebec, under the number one thousand two hundred
and eighty-six of the minutes of the said Louis Parant.

In witness whereof, the said Mr. Bergevin has signed with the said Notary,
the said Mrs. Chevalier, being required to do so, declared she could not sign, in the
presence of Arthur Belanger, of Quebec, advocate, who has signed as a witness
with the said Notary, after the same being read.

(Signed) "Arth. Belanger"

' 'Raoul. R. Bergevin "
' 'Louis Parant, N. P. "

A trU3 copy of the minute remaining in my office.

Louis Parant, X. P.

In the year one thousand nine hundred and eleven, on the Elevent
of October.

Before Louis Parant, Notary public for the Province of Quebec, residii
and practising at Quebec, undersigned:

Appeared Mrs. Marguerite LeBel, of the city of Quebec, widow of Thomas
Chevalier, in his life-time also of Quebec, Boatman.

Who has, by these presents, sold with all ordinary guarantees and of right,
to Mr. Adolphe Chevalier, of the said city of Quebec, Contractor, here present
and accepting, vendee, that is to say: —

All her rights of property, claims and interests, which she has on a slip and
its appurtenances, presently si uated on the lot of land known under the number
Two thousand five hundred and twenty-five (2525) of the official Cadastre of Cham-
plain Ward of the City of Quebec.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 237

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

The said slip and its appurtenances belonging to the said Mrs. Chevalier
by virtue of good and legal titles.

For the said Mr. Adolphe Chevalier to enjoy, do and dispose of the said slip
and its appurtenances in full and entire property from this day and always with
immediate possession, the said Mrs. Chevalier transferring to him by these same
presents the real delivery of the said slip and its appurtenances.

The present sale is made for the sum of four hundred dollars (S400.00) which
the said Mrs. Chevalier acknowledges and confesses to have received, this day,
from the said vendee to her full satisfaction, receipt whereof.

Done and passed at Quebec, under the number one thousand two hundred
and eighty-seven of the minutes of the said Louis Parant.

In witness whereof the said Mr, Adolphe Chevalier has signed with the said
notarj% the said Mrs. Chevalier, required to do so, has declared that she could not
sign, in the presence of Arthur Dore, of Quebec, labourer, who has signed as a
witne s, with the said nata y, afte:- the same thini be rg r.ad.

(Signed) ' 'Arthur Dore. "

" ' 'Adolphe Chevalier. "

« ' 'Louis Parant, N. P. "

A true copy of the minutes remaining in my office.

Louis Parent, N. P.

Quebec, July 26th, 1911.
Adolphe Chevalier, Esq.,
Grand Union Hotel,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir: —

I send you to-night a telegram asking you to call me up by telephone; I have
something important to tell you before you see your man. It is preferable to call
me either at my private residence, 3083, or at my office, 1951. When you return
to Quebec, please come and see me as I have a cheque for you and what I have to
tell you is most important.

Yours truly,

0. MOREXCY.

Mr. Scott, one of our valuators, is of opinion that the estimate of $3,000.00
for damages to Chevalier Ship repairing plant is insufficient. Chevalier repairs
a great number of vessels there every year and he says that his profits amount to
$4,500.00 per annum. This may be an exaggeration but he will be deprived of
his business and S6,000.00 would not seem to be an excessive compensation.

La Marquise de Bassano S59,764 . 94

Grenier 3,231 .36

Martineau 3,703 . 52

T.D. Form IB.
Canadian Pacific Railway Company's Telegraph.

Quebec, 20th Julv, 1911.
a267 ra le X 6
Adolphe Chevalier,

Care Grand Union Hotel, Ottawa, Ont. Please call me on phone immediately.

0. Morexcy.
5.46 p.m.

238 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

On the seventh day of December in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine
hundred and eight. Before me, Alfred C. Dobell the undersigned witness person-
ally appeared

Adolph Chevalier of the City of Quebec, laborer.

Who acknowledged and confessed to have demised and leased, and by these
presents do demise and lease for the space of three years may be computed from
the 1st May, 1909, and which will end on the 1st day of May, 1912, until Napoleon
Martineau, Junior, of the City of Quebec, Ice Merchant, hereto present, that is
to say a piece of land measuring forty-five feet by fifty-five feet on the east side
of the ice house built on the property already' leased by the said Napoleon Mar-
tineau from Duchess Bassano, the whole of the land being part of that lot known
on the Cadastral plan and in the book of reference thereto for Champlain Ward
in the City of Quebec under number two thousand five hundred and twenty-
five (2525) no warranty as to exact measurement, whereof the Lessee is con-
tent and satisfied.

During all which the said Lessor does hereby promise and engage to cause
the said Lessee to enjoy the said premises peaceably and quietly, save and ex-
cept by giving a six months notice at the expiration of which the lease shall
expire.

And the said Lessee does hereby promise and engage to submit and conform
to all regulations of Police in regard to the said premises, now in force or which
be hereafter established by competent authority, for maintaining the cleanliness
of the City, and of the streets, lanes yards and houses therein not to make
over or sub-let his right to the present lease without the consent in writing of
the Lessor, and to surrender the said premises at the expiration of the present
lease without any previous noti'e to quit being required, or to quit at the ex-
piration of six months after receiving notice to that effect.

The present lease is thus made for and in consideration of the sum of one
hundred and fifty dollars current money in three equal payments, the first pay-
ment to be made on the first of May, 1909, of the sum of fifty dollars, the other
two paj^ments to be made on the first of May, 1910 and 1911 of the sum of fifty
dollars each, should the Lessor take advantage of his right to terminate the
present lease before the end of three years then the Lessee shall pay the bal-
ance due within three months from the date of receiving notice to quit the
premises.

And for the due execution of these presents, the said parties have made
election of domicile irrevocable, to wit: the Lessor at his house in Champlain
Street, in the City of Quebec, where payment shall be made and the Lessee on
the premises hereby leased.

' Done and Passed at the City of Quebec, and signed by the said parties,
these presents having been first duly read.

Adolphe Chevalier,
w\ m.vrtineau.
Alfred C. Dobell,
Witness.

This agreement witnesseth that Dame Mar}^ Ann Lampson, widow of the late
William Godfrey Wurtele, Esquire, Merchant, now deceased, Miss Caroline Lamp-
son, Spinster, and Frederick Lampson, Esquire, Advocate, all of the City of Quebec,
did and by these presents do demise and lease for the term of four years, to com-
mence and be computed from the first day of Octol^er, one thousand nine lumdred
and eight, and fully to be completed and ended on the last day of September, one
thousand nine hundred and twelve, unto Mr. Alfred Miller of the City of Quebec,

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 239

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

Carter and Stip Laborer hereunto also present and accepting hereof for himself,
his Heirs and Assigns. That is to say: A Lot of Ground situated on, and adjoining
the river side of Champlain Street at the place called Vans. dSs M^res, in the City
of Quebec, being sixty feet, English measure in front on Champlain Street by forty
feet also English measure in depth, said lot to commence from a point on Champlain
Street forty five and a half feet from the south west corner of the house now occupied
by Messrs.*^ James O'Neill and A. P. Fortier {No. 555-57 Champlain Street) and
to run thence in a south westerly direction along Champlain Street aforesaid,
said lot of ground hereby leased forming part of Lot number Two thousand four
hundred and sixteen (No. 2416) of the Cadastre for Champlain Ward of the City
of Quebec, and with all which the said Lessee is content and satisfied, having seen
and visited the same.

To HAVE AND TO HOLD the premises above described and leased w^ith all and
every the rights, privileges and appurtenances thereof unto the said Lessee, his
Heirs and Assigns for and during the aforesaid term thereof, during all which time
the Lessors do hereby promise and bind themselves to cause the said Lessee to
enjoy the premises hereby leased peaceably and quietly, it being specially agreed
that the said Lessors shall not be bound to make or cause to be made, any repairs
whatsoever either grosses or menues reparations to the said premises, nor to keep
the same wind or water tight.

And Qn his part the Lessee doth hereby promise and bind himself to use and
enjoy the said premises hereby leased peaceably and quietly, en ban pire defamille,
to maintain the same in all repairs, to submit and conform to all rules and regula-
tions of police with respect to the said premises, to cause the chimnies in the said
premises to be regularly swept during the said term at cost and expense, not to
assign or make over his rights to the present lease to any person or persons whom-
soever or to sublet the premises hereby leased without the actual consent in writing
of the said Lessors under pain of all costs losses and damages and of nullit}' of the
present lease at the option of the Lessors; And finally to surrender the said premises
at the expiration of the present lease without notice in good order and condition
(reasonable wear and tear always excepted), It is also expressly understood
and agreed that should the said Lessors, their Heirs or Assigns, at any time before
the expiration of the present Lease sell or let the wharf or Yard of which the Lot of
ground hereby leased forms part, they the said Lessors, their Heirs or Assigns shall
have the right to terminate the present Lease, by giving to the said Lessee his
Heirs or Assigns one month's notice in writing to that effect, — ^but without any
indemnity whatever to be paid by the said Lessors, their Heirs or Assigns to the
said'^Lessee his Heirs or Assigns, for any loss, damage or injury caused by such
termination of the present Lease.

The present lease is thus made for and in consideration of the rent or sum of —
sixty-six dollars and sixty-six cents (Assessments and Water Rates to be paid by
the Lessee, including the proprietors' portion thereof which the said Lessee doth
bind and oblige himself to pay to the Lessors or to their order on the first day of
September in each year. Said assessments and taxes, including the proprietors'
portion thereof as aforesaid, to be so paid by the said Lessee either to the City of
Quebec, or to the Lessor, on or before the first day of December in each current
Fiscal Year.

And for the due execution of these presents the said parties made election of
their domiciles irrevocable, to wit, the Lessors at the actual residence of the said
Frederick Lampson where, or at such other place in the City of Quebec as the said
Lessors shall designate, the payments shall be made, and the Lessee on the premises
hereby leased.

THUS DONE AND PASSED, in Duplicate, at the City of Quebce, on the
twelfth day October one thousand nine hundred and eight.
20

240 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

In faith and testimony whereof the said parties have to tliese presents,
first duly read according to Law, set and subscribed their names and signatures.

m. wurtele.
♦ Caroline Lampson

Fredk. Lampson.
Alfred Miller.

An additional piece of ground to enlarge the Ice House being 60 x 24 feet,
was taken from the 1st December, 1909, at the same rent in proportion to size of
ground making forty dollars a j^ear payable on the 1st September each year.

Quebec, 23rd August, 1911.

Fredk. Lampson,

for Heirs Wm. Lampson.
Alfred Miller.

To

of the of .

and to all to whom these presents shall come or to whom the same may in any
wise concern.

WHEREAS the lands shown upon and described in the annexed plan and
description have under the provisions of The National Transcontinental Railway
Act 3, Edward VII, Cap. 71, section 13, been taken by His Majesty the King,
acting through "The Commissioners of the Transcontinental Railway" for the
purposes of a public work known as the National Transcontinental Railway, the
construction of which public work is under the charge and control of the said "The
Commissioners of the Transcontinental Railway" by the depositing of record in

the office of the Registrar of Deeds for the

of in the Province of Qucb'

on the . day of 19 ... .

of a duplicate of the said plan and description of the said lands.

AND WHEREAS no compensation money has yet been paid by or on behalf
of His Majesty for the said lands.

AND WHERI'.AS the said lands have been found to be unnecessary for the
purposes of the said pul)lic work and the imdersigned have decided not to take
the said lands for the purposes of the said Railway.

NOW, THI'^REFORE, pursuant to and bv virtue of the provisions of section
23 of the Expropriation Act R. S. C. 1906, Cap. 143 and of section 207 of the
Railway Act R. S. C. 1906, Cap. 37 and section 15 of the National Transcon-
tinental Railway Act 3, Edward VII, Cap. 71 and in pursuance of any other
authority in this behalf vested in the undersigned, the undersigned do hereby
declare and notify you that the said lands are not required for the purposes of the said
Railway and that the said lands and the proceedings aforesaid are hereby abandoned
by the Crown and by the said "The Commissioners of the Transcontinental
Railway."

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION 241

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Minister of Railways and Canals has hereunto
set his hand and ''The Commissioners of the Transcontinental Railway" have
caused these presents to be executed and the corporate seal of the Commissioners

to be affixed under the hand of the Commissioner and Secretary this

day of.. 1912.

Minister of Railways and Canals.

Exhibit referred to in evidence as No. 6 is large photograph of Skidway — on
fyle with Investigating Commission.

I

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123 A. 1914

i N .T. R.

INVESTIGATING COMMISSION

Exhibit 40

Statement of Gravity Water Supplies.
(See Page 1 38 of Report)

4 GEORGE V.

»

Pk

D

02

PS
H
H
<!

H

I— «

>

<

C5

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 123

A. 1914

S '" 3

M 03

■So S
oS 3

ooo

oco

ooo

ooo
ooo

S (S o
■go S-a

3 C X "n

So

000 t>-# o o u o o
—iClTtir-iOtO'-lOONOC

(Nl-OCO'^'-lOtO-^O^

O « ri -^ 1': — I — — 10 M

cooo

1^ — C-1

c_o o o_^c_o_o o_o_o_

000
000
000
c"o"d"

00
00

CO

dOn-:

OOOQ
0000

OMx;o

%<<o oooooooooc<ii>. 000

- t^ O O C^_^0^0_C)^ oc t

>oo '■'' rt (m"o c)"c-r cf

0. c

H u >

a o 05

^ rn

dooooooooo ooo
T)< CO •* <b ■* ® Ss o CO '* «cbco

3 c3
J3 ~

as 3 °5

-5^-=fe =

c J

O c3

q 3 cj

■^-3

^m OOiCOOOOOcOO OO'O o

■5'S l-Idtodocco'oit^ioc-i^io-H-^ ^05

g» |i-i'>r'caj'^'»"-''t~o>-'3 oo^'O ■-"

1 .H»Hf^^HC-<d ^H^H

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 129 A. 1914

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION

FOR THE

SAFETY OF HUMAN LIVES AT SEA

No. 129— 1<)14

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 129 A. 1914

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE
SAFETY OF HUMAN LIFE AT SEA.

CONVENTION

INTRODUCTION.

His Majesty, the German Emperor, King of Prussia, on behalf of the German
Empire; His Majesty the Emperor of Austria, King of Bohemia and Apostolic
King of Hungary; His Majesty the King of Belgium; His Majesty the King of
Denmark; His Majesty the King of Spain; the President of the United States of
America; the President of the French Republic; His Majesty the King of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and of the British Dominions
beyond the Seas, Emperor of India; His Majesty the King of Italy; His Majesty
the King of Norway; Her Majesty the Queen of Holland; His Majesty the
Emperor of Russia; His Majesty the King of Sweden; having recognized the
necessity for an agreement upon certain uniform rules to protect human life at
sea, have decided to hold a Convention for this purpose, and have appointed the
following parties as their Plenipotentiaries, viz :

His Majesty the Emperor of Germany, King of Prussia, on behalf of the German

Empire:
His Excellency Dr. von Koerner, at present Privy Councillor, Chief of the

Branch of Commerce at the Imperial Department of Foreign Affairs;
Dr. Seeliger, Privy Councillor of the Diplomatic Service, Councillor-Reporter

at the Imperial Department of Foreign Affairs;
Mr. Schiitt, Privy Councillor of the Government, Councillor-Reporter at the

Imperial Department of the Interior;
Dr. Riess, Privy Councillor of the Government, member of the Imperial

Department of Insurance;
Professor Pagel, Director of the Societv of Classification "Germanischer

Lloyd;"
Mr. Schrader, Superior Privy Councillor of the Post Office Department,

Councillor-Reporter at the Imperial Post Office Department;
Mr. Behm, retired Rear Admiral, Editor of the "Deutsche Seewarte."

His Majesty the Emperor of Austria, King of Bohemia, etc., and Apostolic King

of Hungary:
Baron G. de Frankenstein, Councillor of the Diplomatic Service, in charge

of the Commercial Affairs at the Ambassy of Austria and Hungary in

London ;
Mr, Paul Schreckenthal, Doctor at Law, Secretary to the Imperial and

Royal Department of Commerce of Austria;
Mr. Ladislaus Dunay, Councillor of the Royal Hungarian Shipping Service

at Fiume.
129— 1-i

4 ' ■ IXTERXATIONAL CUXVEMIOX

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

His Majesty the King of Belgium:

Mr. E. A. Pierrard, General Director of Shipping, at the Department of

Marine, Post Office and Telegraph;
Mr.'Ch. Le Jeune, President of the International Committee of Shipping;
M. L, Franck, Barrister, Member of the Chamber of Representatives, Mce-

President of the International Committee of Shipping.

His Majesty the King of Denmark:

Mr. A. H. M. Rasmussen, Superintendent of Instruction for the State

Engineers ;
Mr. Emil Krogh, Chief Clerk at the Department of Commerce and Naviga-
tion;
. Mr. Host, Administrator of the "Societe anonyine unifiee des vapeurs,"'
Mr. V. Topsoe-Jensen, Deputy Chief Clerk and Secretary to the Department
of Justice.

His Majesty the King of Spain:

Captain Don Rafael Bausa, R. N. Chief of the Xaval Spanish Commission
in London.

The President of the United States of America :

Mr. J. W. Alexander, member of the Congress;

Mr. T. E. Burton, member of the Senate;

Mr. J. Hamilton Lewis, member of the Senate;

Mr. E. T. Chamberlain, Director of Shipping;

Mr. E. P. Bertolf, Captain-Commander of the Customs Cutters Service;

Rear-Admiral Washington L. Capps, of Naval Engineering;

Captain George F, Cooper, hydrographer of the Marine Department;

Mr. Homer L. Ferguson, Administrator and Manager of the Company of
"Newport News" for the building of shijis and drv docks:

Mr. Alfred Gilbert Smith, Vice-President of the "New York and Cuba IMail
Steamship Compan}-."

Captain W. H. C. Bullard, Superintendent of the Naval Service of Radio-
telegraphy ;

Mr. George Uhler, Inspector General of Steamboats.

The President of the French Republic :

Mr. Guernier, Professor of Political Economy at the University of Lille,
Deputy Vice-President of the Commission on Shipping in the Chamber
of Dc])uti<'s. N'ice-Prcsidcut of the Council Suj^erior of Shi])ping.

His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of (ireat Britain and Ireland, and

of tlie British Dominions Ix'vond the seas, Emperor of India:
Lord Mersey, late President of Marine Affairs in the High Court of Justice.

and President of the Court of Inquirv on the loss of the Steamshij)

"Titanic."
Mr. E. G. Moggridg(>, Assistant Secretary to the Board of Trade for the

Department of Shipping;
Sir Archibald Denny, Bart., President of the Dejiartmental Committee

on bulkiieails and watertight compartments;
Sir Norman Hill, President of the Advisory (\)mmittee on Shipping;
Sir John Biles. LL.D.. D.Sc, late President of the Departmental Committee

on Life-Saving Boats and IDavits;
('aptain Acton Blake, Deputy Mast(T of Trinity H<Hise;
Captain A. H. F. Young, Councillor to the Department of Shipping at the

Board <if Trade;

I

FOR THE i^AFETT OF EUMAX LIFE AT SEA 5

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 129

Mr. C. HipAvood, of the Department of Shipping at the Board of Trade.
:\Ir. W. D. Archer, Chief Inspector of Vessels at the Board of Trade;

For Austraha:

Captain R. Muirhead ColHns, Official Secretary to the Confederation of the
Australian States in London.

For Canada:

Mr. Alexander Johnston, Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries.

For XeAv-Zealand:

Mr. Thomas Mackenzie, High Commissioner of the Government of Xevr
Zealand in London.

His Majesty the King of Italy:

Mr. Carlo Bruno, Director General of Shipping at the Department of

Marine;
Major General Yittorio Ripa di Meana, Naval Engineering;
Mr. Gustavo Tosti, Doctor at Law, Consul General.

His Majesty the King of Norwaj':

Mr. Harald Pedersen, Superintendent of the Office of Shipping.
Dr. Johannes Bruhn, Superintendent of "Norske Veritas;"
Mr. Jens Evang, Secretary to the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Her Majesty the Queen of Holland:

Mr. J. V. Wierdsma, Director and Chairman of the Committee of Director.-;

of the Company Hollando-American;
Mr. H. S. J. Maas, Consul General of Holland in London;
Mr. A. D. Muller, Inspector General of Navigation;
Mr. J. AVilmink, Superintendent of the Royal Lloyd of Holland;
Mr. J. W. G. Coops, Chief Clerk at the Department of Agriculture, Industry

and Commerce.

His Majesty the Emperor of Russia:

Mr. Roman Mikhailovitch Loviaguin, Councillor of State, Inspector of
Shipping and Ports.

His Majesty the King of Sweden:

Viee-Admiral Olsen, late Chief of the Naval Services;

Mr. N. G. Nilsson, Inspector of the life saving apparatus at the Department
of Commerce.

These Plenipotentiaries being duly authorized met in London, and unani-
mously agreed upon the following Convention:

1

I

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 129 A. 1914

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON SAFETY
OF HUMAN LIFE AT SEA

I

CHAPTER I.— SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA.
Article 1.

The High Contracting Parties undertake to give effect to the provisions of
this Convention, for the purpose of securing safety of life at sea, to promulgate
all regulations and to take all steps which may be necessary to render it fully
and completely effective.

The provisions of this Convention are completed by Regulations which
have the same force and take effect at the same time as the Convention. Every
reference to the Convention implies at the same time a reference to the Regula-
tions annexed thereto.

CHAPTER II.— SHIPS TO WHICH THE CONVENTION APPLIES.

Article 2.

Except where otherwise provided by the Convention, the merchant ships
of each of the States of the High Contracting Parties which are mechanically
propelled, which carry more than 12 passengers and which proceed from a port
of one of the said States to a port situated outside that State, or inverselj'', are
subject to the provisions of this Convention. Ports situated in the Colonies,
Possessions or Protectorates of the High Contracting Parties are considered to be
ports outside the States of the High Contracting Parties.

Persons who are on board by reason oi force majeure or in consequence of the
obligation laid upon the master to carry shipwrecked or other persons are not
deemed to be passengers.

Article .3 .

There are excepted from this Convention, save in the cases where the Con-
vention otherwise provides, ships making voyages specified in a schedule to be
communicated by each High Contracting Party to the British Government
at the time of ratifying the Convention.

No schedule may include voj^ages in the course of which the ships go more
than 200 sea miles from the nearest coast.

Each High Contracting Party has the right subsequently to modify its
schedule of voyages in conformity with this article on condition that it notifies
the British Government of such modification.

Each High Contracting Party has the right to claim from another Contract-
ing Party the benefit of the advantages of the Convention for all of its ships which
may be engaged in any one of the voyages mentioned in its own schedule. For
this purpose the Party claiming such benefit shall impose on the said ships the
obligations prescribed by the Convention in so far as, having regard to the nature
of the voyage, these obligations would not be unreasonable or unnecessary.

INTERNA TIONAL CONVENTION

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914
Article 4.

No ship, not subject to the provisions of this Convention at the time of its
departure, can be subjected to it in the course of its voj-age, if stress of weather
or any other cause oi force majeure compels it to take refuge in a port of one of^the
States of the High Contracting Parties.

CHAPTER III.— SAFETY OF NAVIGATION.

Article 5.

When the expression 'every ship' is used in this Chapter and in the corres-
ponding Part of the Regulations, it includes all merchant ships belonging to the
Contracting States whether defined in Article 2 or not.

Article (>.

The High Contracting Parties undertake to take all steps to ensure the
destruction of derelicts in the northern part of the Atlantic Ocean which lies to
the east of a line drawn from Cape Sable to a point situated in latitude 34° north
and longitude 70° west. Further, they will establish in the North Atlantic Ocean
with the least possible delaj- a service for the study and observation of ice con-
ditions and a service of ice patrol. For this ])urpose:— -

Two vessels shall be charged with these three services.

During the whole of the ice season, they shall be employed in ice patrol.

During the rest of the year the two vessels shall be einjiloyed both in the
study and observation of ice conditions and in the destruction of derelicts;
nevertheless the study and observation of ice conditions shall be effectively carried
out, in particular from the beginning of February to the opening of the ice season.

When the tw^o vessels are employed in ice patrol, the High ( 'ontracting Parties
to the extent of their ability and so far as the exigencies of the Naval Service will
permit, will send warships or other vessels to deal with the destruction of danger-
ous derelicts, if this destruction is considered necessary at that time.

Article 7.

The Government of the United States is invited to undertake the manage-
ment of the three services of derelict destruction, study and observation of ice
conditions, and ice patrol. The High Contracting Parties which are specially
interested in these services, and whose names are given below, undertake to con-
tribute to the expense of e.stablishing and maintaining the said services in the
following proportions: —

Pit cent.

Austria-Hungary 2

Belguim . 4

( 'anada . '. 2

Denmark 2

France 15

( lermany 15

(treat Britain 30

Italy 4

Netherlands 4

Norway 3

Russia 2

Sweden 2

Tuited States of America 15

FOR THE SAFETY OF HI MAX LIFE AT SEA 9^

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 129

Each of the High Contracting Parties has the right to discontinue its con-
tribution to the expense of maintaining these services after the 1st September,
1916. Nevertheless the High Contracting Partj- which avails itself of this right
will continue responsible with regard to the expenses of maintenance up to the
1st September following the date of denunciation of the Convention on this
particular point. To take advantage of the said right, it must give notice to the
other Contracting Parties at least six months before the said 1st September; so
that, to be free from its obligations on the 1st September, 1916, it must give notice
on the 1st March, 1916, at the latest, and similarl}" for each subsequent year.

In case the United States Government should not accept the proposal made
to them, or in case one of the High Contracting Parties, for any reason, should
not assume responsibility for the pecuniary contribution defined above, the
High Contracting Parties shall settle the question in accordance with their
mutual interests.

The Government of the High Contracting Party which undertakes the man-
agement of the ser\ace of derelict destruction is invited to devise means of grant-
ing, at the expense of the service, to merchant ships, which have contributed in
an effective manner to the destruction of ocean derelicts, rewards to be fixed by
the Government in accordance with the services rendered.

The High Contracting Parties which contribute to the cost of the three
above-mentioned services shall have the right by common consent to make such
alterations in the provisions of this Article and Article 6 as from time to time
appear to them desirable.

Article 8.

The master of ever}'- ship which meets with dangerous ice or a dangerous
derelict is bound to communicate the information bj^ all means at his disposal
to the ships in the vicinit}', and also to the competent authorities at the first point
of the coast with which he can communicate.

Everj' Administration which receives intelligence of dangerous ice or a
dangerous derelict shall take all steps which it thinks necessary' for distributing
it to those concerned and for communicating it to other Administrations.

The transmission of messages respecting ice and derelicts is free of cost to the
ships concerned.

It is desirable that the said information should be sent in a uniform manner.
For this purpose, a code, the use of which is optional, appears in Article I of the
Regulations annexed hereto.

Article 9.

Every ship fitted with radio-telegraphic installation becoming aware of the
existence of an imminent and serious danger to navigation, shall report it im-
mediately in the form prescribed by Article II of the Regulations annexed hereto.

Article 10.

When ice is reported on, or near, the route, the master of ever}' ship propelled
by machinery is bound to proceed at night at a moderate speed, or to alter his
course so as to go well clear of the danger zone.

Article 11.

The ships defined by Article 2 shall be ])rovided with a Morse signalling lamp
of sufficient range.

10 INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

The use of Morse signals is regulated by the Code appearing in Article II,
1 , as well as by Article 14 of the Regulations annexed hereto.

Article 12.

The use of the international distress signals for any other purpose than that
of signals of distress is prohibited on every ship.

The use of private signals which are liable to be mistaken for the interna-
tional distress signals is prohibited on every ship.

Article 13.

The selection of the routes, both on the eastward and westward passages
across the North Atlantic, is left to the responsibility of the steamship companies.
Nevertheless the High Contracting Parties undertake to impose on these com-
panies the pbligation to give public notice of the regular routes which they propose
for their vessels, and of any changes which they make in them.

The High Contracting Parties undertake further to use their influence to
induce the owners of all vessels crossing the Atlantic, to follow as far as practicable
the routes adopted by the principal companies.

Article 14.

The High Contracting Parties undertake to use all diligence to obtain from
the Governments which are not parties to this Convention, their agreement to
the revision of the International Regulations to Preventing Collisions at Sea
as indicated below: —

(A) The Regulations shall be completed or revi.sed in regard to the following

points : —

(1) The second white light.

(2) The stern light.

(3) A day signal for motor vessels.

(4) A sound signal for a vessel towed.

(5) The prohil)ition of signals similar to distress signals.

(B) Articles 2, 10, 14, 15, 31 of the said Regulations shall be amended in

accordance with the following provisions : —

Article 2. The second white mast head light to be compulsory.

Article 10. A permanent fixed storn light to be compulsory.

Article 14. A special day signal to be compulsory for motor vessels.

Article 15. A special sound signal to be established for use by a vessel in
tow, or if the tow is composed of several vessels, by the last vessel
of the tow.
Article 31. Article 31 to be modified in the following manner : —

Add to the lists of both day and night signals "The international radio-
telegraphic distress signal."

Article 15:

The Governments of the High Contracting Parties undertake to continue
in force, or if it is necessary, to adopt, adequate measures for the purpose of
insuring that, from the point of view of safety of life at sea, the .'^hips defined in
Article 2 shall be sufhcientlv and efficientlv manned.

FOE THE SAFETY OF HUMAN LIFE AT SEA 11

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 129

CHAPTER IV.— CONSTRUCTION.

Article lb.
New Vessels and existing vessels.

For the purpose of the Articles contained in this Chapter and in the corres-
ponding part of the annexed Regulations, the vessels defined in Article 2 are
divided into "new vessels" and "existing vessels."

New vessels are those the keel of which is laid after the 1st July, 1915.
The following Articles 17 to 30 of this Chapter are applicable to them in full.

Other vessels are considered as existing vessels. Existing arrangements on
these vessels shall be considered on their merits by the Administration of the
country to which each vessel belongs, with a view to improvements providing
increased safety where practicable and reasonable.

Article 17.

Subdivision of Vessels.

Vessels shall be as efficiently subdivided as is possible, having regard to the
nature of the services for which they are intended. The minimum requirements
respecting subdivision and arrangements affecting subdivision are given in the
following articles and in the Regulations annexed to this Convention.

The degree of safety provided by these minimum requirements varies in a
regular and continuous manner with the length of the vessel and with a certain
"criterion of service." The requirements of the annexed Regulations are such
that the highest degree of safety corresponds to the vessels of greatest length
primarily engaged in the transportation of passengers.

Articles V to IX of the annexed Regulations state the method to be followed
in order to determine the permissable length of compartments on the basis of
the floodable length; prescribe a limit to the length of compartments; and fix the
conditions governing certain special cases.

When the water-tight sub-division of a vessel is such as to provide a degree
of safety over and above that provided by the sub-division rules prescribed by
this Convention, the Administration of the country to which the vessel belongs
shall, if so requested by the owner, record this fact on the Safety Certificate of
the vessel in the manner and to the extent provided in Article X of the annexed
Regulations.

Article 18.

Peak and Machinery Space Bulkheads.

Vessels shall be fitted with forward and after peak bulkheads and bulkheads
at the extremities of the machinery space in accordance with the requirements
of Article XI of the annexed Regulations.

Article 19.

Fireproof Bulkheads.

With a view to retarding the spread of fire, vessels shall be fitted with fire-
proof bulkheads in accordance with the requirements of Article XII of the
annexed Regulations.

12 INTERN ATIOXAL CONVENTION

4 GEORGE v.. A. 1914

Article 20.

Exits from Watertight Compartments.

The conditions under which means of escape from the various watertight
compartments shall be provided are stated in Article XIII of the annexed Piegu-
lations.

Article 21.

Construction and Tests of Watertight Bulkheads.

In order to ensure their strength and watertightness, watertight bulklieads
shall be constructed and tested in accordance with the requirements of Article
XIV of the annexed Regulations.

Article 22.

Openings in Watertight Bulkheads.

The openings in watertight bulkheads shall be reduced tothesmallest number,
compatible with the design and proper working of the vessel, and satisfactory
means shall be provided for closing them. Articles X^' and XVII of the annexed
Regulations state the requirements governing the number of openings, the
character and use of the means of closing with which these openings shall be pro-
vided, and the tests to which watertight doors shall be subjected.

Article 23.

Openings in Ship's Side.

Side-scuttles and other openings in the side of the vessel, and the inboard
openings of discharges through the shell, shall be provided with means of closing
them, and shall be arranged in such manner as to prevent as far as possible the
accidental admission of water into the vessel. Articles X^'I and XVII of the
annexed Regulati(ms state the conditions under which openings may be made in
the ship's i^ide, the means which shall be provided for closing these openings and
the requirements as to operating the closing ap])liances.

Article 24.

Construction and Test of Watertight Decks, d'c.

In order to ensure their strength and watertightness, watertight d(>cks,
trunks, and ventilators, shall be constructed and tested in accordance witii the
requirements of Article Will of the annexed Regulations.

Article 25. /

Periodical Operation and In.fpection of Wadrlight Doors, t(-r.

The conditions under which inspections of watertight tloors, tfcc, and drills
for their operation, shall be periodically made during a voyage, are stated in
Article XIX of tlie annexed Regulations.

FOR THE SAFETY OF HI MAX LIFE AT SEA 13

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 129

Article 26.

Entries in Official Lay.

A record of the closing and opening of watertight doors, &c., and of all in-
spections and drills, shall be entered in the official log as required by Article XX
of the annexed Regulations.

Article 27.

Double Bottoms.

The conditions under which a double bottom shall be fitted in vessels of
different lengths, and in particular the minimum extent of the double bottom
longitudinally and transversely, are stated in Article XXI of the annexed Regu-
lations.

Article 28.

Backing Power and Auxiliary^ Steering Apparatus.

\'essels shall compl}', as regards backing power and the fitting of auxiliar}'
steering apparatus, with the requirements of Articles XXII and XXIII of the
annexed Regulations.

Article 29.

Initial and Subsequent Surreys of Vessels.

The general jjrinciples which shall govern the survey of the vessels, whether
new or existing, defined in Article 2, as regards hull, boilers, main and auxiliary-
machinery, and equipments, are stated in Articles XXIV and XX^T of the
annexed Regulations. The Government of each of the High Contracting Parties
undertakes (1) to draM- up detailed rules and regulations in accordance with these
general principles, or to bring its existing rules and regulations into agreement
with these principles; (2) to communicate these rules and regulations to each of
the other contracting States: and (3) to secure that these rules and regulations
shall be enforced.

The detailed rules and regulations referred to in the preceding paragraph
shall be such in all respects as to secure, in the interest of safety of life at sea, that
the vessel is fit for the service in which she \\i,\\ be employed.

Article 30.

Que.siion.-< for farther Study and Agreement— Exchange of Information.

The High Contracting Parties undertake to cause the study of the criterion
of service referred to in Article 17 to be pressed forward, and to communicate to
each other the results of that study. His Britannic Majesty's Government is
invited to undertake the duty of circulating this information, and, as soon as a
definite result is attainable, of endeavouring to secure, through the diplomatic
channel, the acceptance by the contracting States of the criterion; and upon its
acceptance })y each of the contracting States, as from a date and subject to the
conditions to be agreed upon, such criterion shall have effect as if it were pre-
scribed in the Convention.

14 INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION

4 GEORGE v., A. i9U

The above procedure shall also be applied to the following items: —
(1. The fitting of longitudinal watertight bulkheads, double skins and
watertight decks and flats, and the question whether there may be
allowed any increase in the length of transverse watertight compart-
ments in way of which such longitudinal sub-division is fitted, and,
if so, to what extent :
(2.) The method of sub-division for obtaining the highest practicable degree
of safety to be applied to vessels of shorter lengths than those covered
by Article VIII of the annexed Regulations; and
(3.) The results of experiments in regrad to the proper margin of resistance
above the pressure which watertight bulkheads are required to be
capable of supporting, as referred to in Article XIV of the annexed
Regulations.
The contracting States undertake to exchange in the freest manner practicable
all information in regard to the application of the rules of this Convention in
matters relating to safetj^ of construction. They shall transmit to each other
the methods or rules which each may adopt; information concerning any new
fittings or appliances which they may sanction; the decisions which each may
make in regard to specific points of principle not covered b}- the foregoing articles
and the corresponding portion of the appended Regulations; and the final results
of their further studies in the matters not definitely determined.

CHAPTER v.— RADI0TELP:GRAPHY.
Article 31.

All merchant ships belonging to each of the C'ontracting States, whether
they are propelled by machinery or by sails, and whether they carry passengers
or not, shall, when engaged on the voyages specified in Article 2, be fitted with
a radiotelegraph installation, if they have on board fifty or more persons in all.

Advantage shall not be taken of the provisions of Articles 2 and 3 of this
Convention to exem]it a ship from the requirements of this Chapter.

Article 32.

Ships on which the number of persons on board is exceptionally and tempor-
arily increased up to or bej'^ond fifty as the result of force majeure, or because the
master is obliged by the illness of certain members of the crew to engage substi-
tutes or is required to carry shipwrecked or other persons, are exempted from the
above obligation.

Moreover, the Governments of each of the Contracting States, if they con-
sider that the route and the conditions of the voyage are such as to render a
radiotelegraph installation unreasonable or unnecessary, may exempt from the
above requirement the following ships —

(1.) Ships which in the course of their voyage do not go more than 150 sea

miles from the nearest coast.
(2.) Ships on which the number of persons on board is exceptionally or
temporarily increased up to or beyond fifty by the carriage of cargo
hands for a part of the voyage, provided that the said ships are not
going from one continent to another, and that, during that part of
their voyage, thev remain Avithin the limits of latitude 30° N. and
30°S. ' '

(3.) Sailing vessels of primitive build such as dhoira, junks, &c., if it is
practically impossible to instal a radiotelegraph apparatus.

FOR THE SAFETY OF HUMA^' LIFE AT SEA 15

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 129

Article 33.

Ships which, in accordance Avith Article 31 above, are required to be fitted
with a radiotelegraph installation are divided, for the purpose of radiotelegraph
service, into three classes, in accordance with the classification established for
ship stations in Article XIII (&) of the Regulations annexed to the Radio-
telegraph Convention, signed in London on the 5th July, 1912, viz. : —

Class I. — Ships having a continuous service.

There shall be placed in the first class ships which are intended to carry
twenty-five or more passengers: —

(1.) if they have an average speed in service of fifteen knots or more;

(2.) if they have average speed in service of more than thirteen knots, but
only subject to the twofold condition that they have on board two
hundred persons or more (passengers and crew) and that, in the course
of their voyage, they go a distance of more than five hundred sea
miles between any two consecutive ports, nevertheless these ships
may be placecT in the Second Class on condition that they have a
continuous watch.

Class II. — Ships having a service of limited duration.

There shall be placed in the Second Class all ships which are intended to
carry twenty-five or more passengers, if they are not, for other reasons, placed
in the First Class.

Ships placed in the Second Class must, during navigation, maintain a
continuous watch for at least seven hours a day, and a watch of ten minutes at
the beginning of every other hour.

Class III. — Ships which have no fixed periods of service.

All ships which are placed neither in the First nor in the Second Class shall
be placed in the Third Class.

The owner of a ship placed in the Second or in the Third Class has the right
to require that, if the ship complied with all the requirements for a superior class,
a statement to the effect that it belongs to that class shall be inserted in its Safety
Certificate.

Article 34.

Ships which are required by Article 31 above to be fitted with a radiotele-
graph installation shall be required, by the Governments of the countries to which
they belong, to maintain a continuous watch during navigation as soon as the
said Governments consider that it will be of service for the purpose of safety of
life at sea.

Meanwhile, the High Contracting Parties undertake to require, from the date
of the ratification of the present Convention, subject to the delays specified below,
a continuous watch on the following ships —

(1.) Ships whose average speed in service exceeds 13 knots, which have on
board 200 persons or more, and which, in the course of their voyage,
go a distance of more than 500 sea miles between two consecutive
ports, when these ships are placed in the Second Class.

(2.) Ships in the Second Class, for the whole of the time during which they
are more than 500 sea miles from the nearest coast.

16 ■ IJ^^TERNATIONAL CONTENTION

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

(3.) Other ships specified in Article 31, when the}' are engaged in the Trans-
Atlantic trade, or when they are engaged in other trades if their route
takes them more than 1,000 sea miles from the nearest coast.

Ships engaged in all kinds of fishing business, including whaling, which are
requirecl to be fitted with a radiotelegraph installation, shall not be required to
maintain a continuous watch.

The continuous watch may be kept by one or more operators, holding certifi-
cates in accordance with Article X of the Regulations annexed to the Interna-
tional Radiotelegraph Convention, 1912, together, if necessary, with one or more
certified watchers. Nevertheless, if an efficient automatic calling apparatus is
invented, the continuous M^atch may be maintained by this means by agreement
between the High Contracting Parties.

By "certified watcher " is meant any person holding a certificate issued under
the authority of the Administration concerned. To obtain this certificate, the
applicant must prove that he is capable of receiving and understanding the radio-
telegraph distress signal and the safety signal described in the Regulations annex-
ed hereto.

The High Contracting Parties undertake to takQ the proper steps to ensure
that the certified watchers observe the secrecy of correspondence.

Article 35.

The radiotelegraph installations required by Article 31 above shall be capable
of transmitting clearl}' perceptible signals from ship to ship over a range of at
least 100 sea miles by day, under normal conditions and circumstances.

Every ship which is required, in conformity with the provisions of Article 31
above, to be fitted with a radiotelegraph installation, shall, whatever be the class
in which it is placed, be provided in accordance with Article XI of the Regula-
tions annexed to the International Radiotelegraph Convention, 1912, with an
emergency installation, every part of which is placed in a position of the greatest
possible safety, to be determined by the Government of the country to which
the ship belongs. In all cases the emergency installation must be placed, in its
entirety, in the upper part of the ship, as high as practically possible.

The emergency installation includes, as provided by Article XI of the Regu-
lations annexed to the International Radiotelegraph Convention, 1912, an in-
dependent source of energy capable of being put into operation rapidly and of
working for at least six hours with a minimum range of eighty sea miles for ships
in the First Class and fifty sea miles for ships in the two other Classes.

If the nonnal installation, which in accordance with thi^s Article has a range
of at least one hundred sea miles, satisfies all the conditions prescribed above, an
emergency installation is not required.

The license jirovided for in Article 9 of the Regulations annexed to the Inter-
national Radiotelegraph Convention, 1912, shall not be issued imless the in-
stallation complies not only with the provisions of that C()nventi(»n. but also with
the provisions of this Convention.

Article 36.

The matters governed by the International Radiotelegraph Convention,
1912, and the Regulations annexed thereto, and in particular the radiotelegraph
installations on shi])s. transmission of messages, and the certificates of the
operators, remain and continue subject to the provisions:

(1) of that Convention and the Regulations annexed thereto, or of any other

instruments which may iiv the future be substituted therefor;

(2) of this C(mvention. in regard to all the ]M»ints in which it sup]ilemeut-

the aforementioned documents.

FOR THE SAFETY OF HUM AX LIFE AT SEA 17

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 129

Article 37.

Everj^ master of a ship, who receives a call for assistance from a shij) in
distress, is bound to proceed to the assistance of the persons in distress.

Every master of a ship in distress has the right to requisition from among
the vessels which answer his call for assistance, the vessel or vessels which he con-
siders best able to render him assistance, but he must exercise this right only
after consultation, so far as may be possible, with the masters of those vessels.
Such vessels are then bound to comply immediately with the requisition and to
proceed with all speed to the assistance of the persons in distress.

The masters of the ships which are required to render assistance are re-
leased from this obligation as soon as the master or masters which have been
requisitioned have made known that thej?^ will comply with the requisition, or as
soon as the master of one of the ships which has reached the scene of the casualty
has made known to them that their assistance is no longer necessary.

If the master of a ship is unable, or considers it unreasonable or unnecessary^
in the special circumstances of the case, to go to the assistance of the ship in dis-
tress, he must immediately inform the master of the ship in distress accordingly.
Moreover he must enter in his log-book the reasons justifying his action.

The above provisions in no way prejudice the International Convention for
the Unification of certain rules with respect to Assistance and Salvage at Sea,
signed at Brussels on the 23rd September, 1910, and, in particular, the obligation
to render assistance laid down in Article 11 of that Convention.

Article 38.

The High Contracting Parties undertake to take all steps necessary for
giving effect to the provisions of this Chapter with the least possible delay.
Nevertheless, they may allow:

A delay not exceeding one year, from the date of the ratification of
this Convention, for the provision and training of operators and for the
installation of the apparatus on ships placed in the First and Second Classes;
A delay not exceeding two years, from the date of the ratification of
this Convention, for the provision and training of the operators and watchers,
on the ships in the Third Class, for the installation of the apparatus on ships
in the Third Class and for the establishment of a continuous watch on'
ships placed in the second and Third Class.

CHAPTER VI.— LIFE-SAVING APPLIANCES AND FIRE PROTECTION.

Article 39.
New Ships and Existing Ships.

For the purpose of applying the articles of this Chapter and of the corres-
ponding Part of the Regulations the ships defined in Article 2 are divided into
neiv ships and existing ships.

New ships are those of which the keel is laid after the 31st December, 1914.

The other ships are considered existing ships.

129—2

18 INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

Article 40.
Fundamental Principle.

At no moment of its voyage may a ship have on board a total number of
persons greater than that for which accommodation is provided in the lifeboats
and the pontoon life-rafts on board.

The number and arrangements of the boats, and (where they are allowed)
of the pontoon rafts on a ship corresponds with the total number of persons
which a ship is intended to carrj^; provided that there shall not be required on
any voyage a total capacity in boats and (where they are allowed) pontoon-rafts
greater than that necessary to provide accommodation for all the persons on
board.

Article 41.

Standard types of boats — Pontoon rafts.

All the life-boats allowed for a ship shall comply with the conditions fixed
by this convention and Articles XXVII to XXXII of the Regulations annexed
hereto; the same articles described the standard types which are divided into
two classes.

The conditions required for the pontoon-r;ifts are given in Article XXXIII
of the same regulations.

Article 42.

Strength of boats.

Each boat must be of sufficient strength to enable it to be safely lowered
when loaded with its full complement of persons and equipment.

Article 48.
Alternate types of boat.s and raft.'<.

Any type of l)oat may be accepted as equivalent to a boat of one of the
prescribed classes and any type of raft as equivalent to an approved pontoon-
raft, if the Administrations concerned are satisfied by suitable trials that it is as
effective as the standard types of the class in question, or as the approved type of
pontoon-raft, as the case may be.

The Government of the High Contracting Party which accepts a new type
of boat or raft will communicate to the Governments of the other Contracting
Parties particulars of the trials. It will also inform tluMn of the class in which
a new type of boat has been ])laced.

Articlk 44.
Embarkation of the ])as.'<enger6 in the boats and rafts.

Suitable arrangements shall be made for embarking the passengers in the
boats.

In ships which carry rafts there shall be a number of rope ladders always
available for use in embarking the i)ersons on to the rafts.

FOR THE SAFETY OF HUMAN LIFE AT SEA Yd

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 129

Article 45.

Capacity of boats and pontoon raftn.

The number of persons that a boat of one of the standard types or an approv-
ed pontoon raft can accommodate, is determined by the methods indicated in
Articles XXXIV to XXXIX inchisive, of the Regulations annexed hereto.

Article 46.
Equipment of boats and pontoon rafts.

Article XL of the annexed Regulations prescribes the equipment for boats
and pontoon-rafts.

All loose equipment must be securely attached to the boat or pontoon-raft
to which it belongs.

Article 47.

Stowage of boats — Niimher of davits.

The arrangement to be made for the stowage of the boats and in particular
the extent to which pontoon rafts may be accepted are specified in Articles XLI,
XLII and XLIII of the annexed Regulations. The minimum number of sets of
davits is fixed in relation to the length of the ship; provided that a number of
sets of davits greater than the number of boats necessary for the accommoda-
tion of all the persons on board may not be required.

Article 48.

Handling of the boats and rafts.

All the boats and rafts must be stowed in such a way that they can be
launched in the shortest possible time and that, even under unfavourable con-
ditions of list and trim from the point of view of the handling of the boats and
rafts, it may be possible to embark in them as large a number of persons as
possible.

The arrangements must be such that it may be possible to launch on either
side of the ship as large a number of boats and rafts as possible.

Supplementary instructions are given in Article XLIV of the annexed
Regulations.

Article 49.

Strength and operation of the davits.

The davits shall be of such strength that the boats can be lowered with
their full complement of persons and equipped when the ship is assumed to have
a list of 15 degrees.

The davits must be fitted with a gear of sufficient power to ensure that
the boat can be turned out against the maximum list under which the lowering
of the boats is possible on the vessel in question.

129— 2i

20 INTERNATIOXAL CONVENTION

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

Article 50.

Other appliances equivalent to davita.

Any appliance or appliances may be accepted in lieu of davits or sets of
davits if the Administration concerned is satisfied, after proper trials, that the
appliance in question is as effective as davits for placing the boats in the water.

The Government of the High Contracting Part}^ which accepts a new
type of appliance or appliances, shall communicate to the other Contracting
Parties particulars of the appliance or appliances, with details of the trials
made.

Article 51.

Life jackets and life buoys.

(1) A life jacket of an approved type, or other appliance of equal buoyancy
and capable of l)eing fitted on the body, must be provided for every person
on board, and, in addition, a sufficient number of life jackets, or other equivalent
appliances, suita])le for children.

(2) Article XL\' of the annexed Regulations fixes, in accordance with
the length of the ship, the number of life buoj's of an approved type to be pro-
vided, and also the conditions with which life jackets and life ])uoys must comply,
and in accordance with which they must be stowed.

Article 52.

Existing ships.

The Government of each of the High Contracting Parties undertakes
to apply to existing ships, not later than the 1st July, 1915, all the provisions
of the preceding articles of the present Chapter, viz., Articles 40 to 51 inclusive,
requiring, in the first place, accommodation for all the persoiis on board in boats
and rafts; provided that, in cases where the strict application of these principles
would not be practicable or reasonable, the Government of each of the High
Contracting Parties has the right to allow the exemptions specified in Article
XLVI of the Regulations annexed hereto.

Article 53.
New or existing ineans of ingress and egress. — Emergency lighting.

(1) Proper arrangements shall be made for ingre.ss to and egress from
the different compartments, decks, &c.

(2) An electric or other system of lighting, sufficient for all requirements
of safety, must be ensured in the different parts of both new and old ships,
and particularly upon the decks on which the life-l)oats are stowed. On new
shi])s there must be a self-contained source capal)le of supplying, when necessary,
this safet}' lighting system, and placed in tlie upper parts of the ship, as high
as practically possible.

(3) The exit from every compartment must always be lighted by an emer-
gency lamp, which shall be k(>i)t locked. ;ind which sliall l)e independent of the
ordinary lighting of the ship.

FOR THE SAFETY OF HUMAX LIFE AT SEA 21

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 129

These emergency lamps may be supplied from the independent install-
ation referred to in the preceding paragraph, if an independent circuit is em-
ployed for this purpose and if this installation works concurrently "^vith the
ordinary lighting of the ship.

Article 54.

Certified Life-boat Me7i- — Manning of the Boats.

There must be for each boat or raft recjuired a minimum number of certified
life-boat men. The minimum total number of certified life-boat men is deter-
mined b}- the provisions of Article XLVII of the annexed Regulations.

The allocation of the certified life-boat men to each boat and raft remains
within the discretion of the master, according to the circumstances.

By "certified life-boat man" is meant any member of the crew who holds
a certificate of efficiency issued under the authority of the Administration
concerned, in accordance with the conditions laid down in the aforementioned
Article of the annexed Regulations.

Article XLYIII of the Regulations deals A\'ith the manning of the boats.

Article 55.
Fire protection.

(1) The carriage, either as cargo, or ballast, of goods, which b}- reason
of their nature, quantity, or mode of stowage, are, either singly or collectively,
likely to endanger the lives of the passengers or the safety of the ship, is for-
bidden.

This provision does not apply to the ship's distress signals, nor to the carriage
of naval or military stores for the public service under authorized conditions.

(2) The Government of each High Contracting Party shall, from time to
time by official notice, determine what goods are to be considered dangerous
goods, and shall indicate the precautions which must be taken in the packing
and stowage thereof.

(3) Article XLIX of the annexed Regulations indicates the arrangements
to be made for the detection and extinction of fire.

Article 56.
Muster Roll and Drills.

Special duties for the event of an emergency shall be allotted to each member
of the crew.

The muster list shows all these special duties, and indicates, in particular,
the station to which each man must go, and the duties that he has to perform.

Before the vessel sails, the muster list shall be drawn up and exhibited,
and the proper authority shall be satisfied that the muster list has been prepared
for the ship. It shall be posted in several parts of the ship, and in particular in
the crew's quarters.

Articles L and LI of the annexed Regulations indicate the conditions under
which musters of the crew and drills- shall take place.

22 INTERNATIOXAL CONVENTION

4 GEORGE v., ^. 19U

CHAPTER VII.— SAFETY CERTIFICATES.

Article 57.

A certificate, called a "Safety Certificate," shall be issued, after survey, to
every ship which complies in an efficient manner with the requirements of the
Convention.

The inspection and survey of ships, so far as regards the enforcement of the
provisions of the present Convention and the annexed Regulations, shall be
carried out by officers of the State to which the ship belongs; provided always
that the Government of each state may entrust the survey of vessels of its own
country either to surveyors nominated b}-- it for this purpose or to organizations
recognized by it. In every case the Government concerned fully guarantees the
completeness and efficiency of the surve3\

The Safetj^ Certificate shall be issued either by the officers of the State to
which the ship belongs, or by anj' other person duly authorized by that State.
In either case the State to which the ship belongs assumes full responsibility
for the certificate.

Article 58.

The Safety Certificate shall be drawTi up in the official language or languages
of the State by which it is issued.

The form of the certificate shall be that of the standard certificate given in
Article 52 of the Regulations annexed hereto. The arrangement of the printed
part of this standard certificate shall be exactly reproduced and the particulars
inserted by hand shall be inserted in Roman characters and Arabic figures.

The High Contracting parties undertake to communicate one to another
a sufficient number of specimens of their Safetj^ Certificates for the information
of their officers. This exchange shall be made, so far as possible, before the 1st
April, 1915.

Article 59.

The Safety Certificate shall not be issued for a period of more than twelve
months.

If the ship is not in a port of the State to which it belongs at the time when
the period of the validity of the Safety Certificate expires, a duly authorized
officer of this State may extend this period; but such an extension shall be granted
only for the purpose of allowing the ship to complete its return voyage to its own
country, and then only in cases in which it appears proper and reasonable so to
do.

The extension cannot have effect for more than five months and the ship
shall not thereby be entitled to leave its own country again without having
obtained a new certificate.

Article CO.

The Safety ('(Ttificate issued under the authority of a Contracting State
shall be accepted by the Governments of the other Contracting States for all
purposes covered by this Convention. It siiall be regarded by the Govern-
ments of the other Contracting States as having the snnx' force as the certificates
issued by them to their own ships.

I

FOR THE SAFETY OF HUMAN LIFE AT SEA 23

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 129

Article 61.

Every ship holding a Safety Certificate issued by the officers of the Contract-
iug State to which it belongs, or by persons duly authorized b}^ that State, is
subject in the ports of the other Contracting States to control by officers duly
authorized by their Governments in so far as this control is directed towards
verifying that there is on board a valid Safety Certificate and, if necessary, that
the conditions of the vessel's seaworthiness correspond substantially with the
particulars of that certificate; that is to say, so that the ship can proceed to sea
without danger to the passengers and the crew.

Article 62,

The privileges of the Convention cannot be claimed in favour of any ship
unless it holds a valid Safety Certificate.

Article 63.

If, in the course of a particular voj^age, the ship has on board a number of
passengers less than the maximum number indicated in the Safetj^ Certificate,
and is, in consequence, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention free
to carry a smaller number of life-boats and other life-saving appliances than that
stated in the aforementioned Certificate, a memorandum may be issued by the
officers or other authorized persons referred to in Articles 57, paragraph 3 and
59 above.

This memorandum shall state that in the circumstances there is no infringe-
ment of the provisions of the Convention. It shall be annexed to the Safety
Certificate and shall be substituted for it in so far as the life-saving appliances
are concerned. It shall be valid only for the particular voyage in regard to
which it is issued.

CHAPTER VIII.— GENERAL.

Article 64.

The Governments of the High Contracting Parties undertake to communi-
cate mutually, in addition to the documents which, in this Convention, are the
subject of special provisions to that effect, all information which they possess
affecting safety of life on those of their ships which are subject to the rules of
this Convention, provided always that such information is not of a confidential
nature.

They will communicate to each other in particular: —

1. The text of Laws, Decrees and Regulations which shall have been

promulgated on the various matters within the scope of the Con-
vention.

2. The description of the characteristics of new appliances approved

in conformity with the rules of the Convention.

3. All official reports, or official summaries of reports, in so far as they

show" the results of the provisions of this Convention.
Until other arrangements may be made, the British Government is invited
to serve as intermediary for collecting all this information and for bringing
it to the knowledge of the Governments of the Contracting Parties.

24 i:S'TERNATIOyAL COyVENTION

4 GEORGE v., A. 19 4

Article 65.

The High Contracting Parties undertake to take, or to propose to their
respective legislatures, the measures necessary for the repression of infractions
of the requirements imposed by this Convention.

The High Contracting Parties will communicate mutually, as soon as
possible, the laws and regulations which are issued for this purpose.

Article 66.

The High Contracting Parties which intend the Convention to apply to
the whole of their Colonies, Possessions and Protectorates, or to one or to some
of these countries, shall declare this intention either at the time of signing these
presents or subsequently. To this effect they shall be able either to make a
general declaration embracing the whole of their Colonies, Possessions, and
Protectorates, or to enumerate by name the countries which they intend to come
within the scope of the law of the Convention, or, alternatively, to enumerate
b}^ name those which they intend to be excepted.

This declaration, unless it be made at the time of signing these presents
shall be made in writing to the Government of Great Britain, and by the latter
Government to all the Governments of the other States parties to the Convention.

The High Contracting Parties may also in the same way, provided that
they complj' Avith the provisions of Article 69 hereafter, denounce this Con-
vention as regards their Colonies, Possessions or Protectorates or one or some
of those countries.

Article 67.

The States which are not Parties to this Convention shall be allowed to
accede thereto at their reciuest. Their accession shall be notified through
the diplomatic channel to the Government of Great Britain, and by the latter
to the Governments of the other States parties to the Convention.

This accession will carry the full acceptance of all the obligations imposed
by this Convention and the full right to all the privileges specified therein.
It will have full and complete effect two months after the date on which notifi-
cation of the accession is sent by the Government of Great Britain to all the
other Governments of the States which are parties to the Convention, unless
a subsequent date had been proposed by the acceding State.

The Governments of the States which shall accede to the'present Convention
shall annex to their declaration of accession the Schedule provided for bj' Article
3 of this Convention. This Schedule shall be added to those already deposited
b}' the other Governments. The British Government shall transmit a copy
thereof to the other Governments.

Article 68.

The treaties, conventions and arrangements concluded prior to this Conven-
tion shall continue to have full and complete effect, as regards: —

(1) ships excepted from the Convention;

(2) ships to which it applies, in respect of subjects for which the Conven-
tion has not expressly provided.

It is understood that, the subject of this Convention being safety of life
at sea, questions relating 1o the well-being and health of passengers, and in par-
ticular of emigrants, as well as other matters relative to their transport, continue
subject to the legislation of th«' different States.

FOR TEE ^AFFA'Y OF HI VAX LIFE AT SEA 25

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 129

Article 69.

This Convention shall come into force on the 1st July, 1915, and shall remain
in force without any prescribed limit of time. Nevertheless, each High Contract-
ing Part}^ may denounce the Convention at any time after an interval of five
3'ears, which shall run'from the date on which the Convention comes into force
in that state.

This denunciation shall be notified through the diplomatic channel to the
Government of Great Britain and by the latter to the Governments of the other
Contracting Parties. It shall take effect twelve months after the day on whicli
the notification is received by the Government of Great Britain.

A denunciation shall only affect the State which makes it, the Convention
remaining full}^ completely operative as regards all the other States which have
ratified it, or which have acceded thereto or which thereafter accede thereto.

Article 70.

This Convention with the Regulations annexed thereto shall be drawn
up in a single copy, which shall be deposited in the archives of the Government of
Great Britain. A true and certified copy shall be delivered b\' the latter to each
of the Governments of the High Contracting Parties.

Article 71.

This Convention shall be ratified and the instruments of ratification, accom-
panied by the Schedules specified in Article 3, shall be deposited at London not
later than the 31st December, 1914. The British Government shall give notice
of the ratifications and shall furnish a copy of each Schedule to the Governments
of the other Contracting Parties.

Not\\athstanding failure to ratify on the part of a High Contracting Party,
the Convention shall continue to have full and complete effect as regards the
Contracting Parties which ratify it.

Article 72.

To render ratification easier for a Contracting State which, prior to the
date of signature of this Convention, has laid down requirements in regard
to any matter ^\-ithin the scope of this Convention, it is agreed that no ship
which has complied with those requirements before the 1st July, 1915, may avail
itself of the periods of grace allowed bj- the Convention, in order to cease to
comply with those requirements.

Article 73.

Where this convention provides that a measure may be taken after agree-
ment between all or some of the Contracting States, the Government of His
Britannic Majesty is invited to approach the said States with a view to ascer-
taining whether they accept the proposals made by one of these States for
effecting such a measure. The Government of His Britannic Majesty will
make known to the Contracting States the result of the enquiries which it thus
makes.

A State from which observations on the proposals in question reach His
Britannic Majesty's Governmxent wdthin six months from the communication
of these proposals, will be presumed to acquiesce therein.

26 ■ INTERNATIONAL CONY EN TI OX

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

Article 74.

This Convention may be modified at subsequent Conferences, of which
the first shall be held, if necessary in 1920. The time and place of these Con-
ferences shall be fixed by common consent bj^ the Governments of the High
Contracting Parties. ' ,

The Governments ma}^, through the diplomatic channel, introduce into
this Convention, by common consent and at any time, improvements which
may be judged useful or necessary.

SAFETY OF NAVIGATION.

Article 1.

REGULATIONS.

CODE FOR REPORTING INFORMATION RELATING TO ICE, DERELICTS, AND
WEATHER BY RADIOTELEGRAPHY.

INSTRUCTIONS.

Reporting. — The reporting of information concerning ice and derelicts
is compulsory. This information may be sent from ship to ship or to the Hydro-
graphic Office, Washington, either in full or by means of Part I of this Code.

The reporting of information relating to weather is voluntary. Part
II of this Code may be used for this purpose. The Code may be modified
at any time by the Meteorological Congresses.

The information required:

Part I. — Ice and Derelicts.

1. The kind of ice or derelict observed.

2. The position of ice or derelict when last determined.

Part II. — Meteorological Information.

1. The direction and force of the wind.

2. The set and velocitj^ of the current.

3. Weather or state of the sky at a fixed hour.

4. Height of barometer and air temperature.

5. Barometric tendencj' and sea-surface temperature.

The time to he adopted:

The time adojjtcd in sending messages relating to ice or derelicts should
be Greenwich mean time.

The Address:

Reports, when sent to the Hydrographic Office, Washington, should be
addressed "Hydrographic"; reports to the Meteorological Office, London,
should be addressed ''Meteorology."

^

FOR TEE SAFETY OF HUMAN LIFE AT SEA 27

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 129
The Message:

1. When sending information about ice or derelicts alone, two groups of
five figures each are used, preceded by the word "ice"; these groups may be
repeated as often as desired.

2. If meteorological information is to be sent in addition, a further four
groups of five figures each are used, preceded by the word ''weather." These
groups are inserted at the end of the message after all the information relating
to ice has been given.

N.B. — If the message contains the word "weather," all the code groups
before that word give im^ormation relating to ice, and those after the word
"weather" give meteorological information. If there is no word "weather"
in the message, it only contains information about ice. See examples of the
two kinds of message given in this Article.

PART I.

Ice and Derelicts.

Information respecting ice and derelicts is given by ten figures divided into
two groups of five figures each. These groups are preceded by the word "ice."
Two figures .... The day of the month (dd), according to Code I.

One figure The time of observation (T), according to Code II.

One figure The kind of ice observed (/), according to Code III.

Three figures. . . The latitude of the ice observed (ppp) correct to tenths

of a degree (see table below).
Three figures. . .The longitude of the ice observed {p' v' v") correct to

tenths of a degree (see table below).
The first group consists of ddTIp.
The Second group consists of ppp' p' p' .

Codes.

Code I. — Day of the Month.

The day of the month is given by two figures, of which the first may be
zero: 01 to 31.

Code II. — Time of Observation.

The time of observation is included between —

Greenwich Mean Time. Code No.

1 a.m. and 4 a.m 1

4 a.m. and 7 a.m 2

7 a. m. and 10 a.m 3

10 a.m. and 1 p.m 4

1 p.m. and 4 p.m 5

4 p.m. and 7 p.m 6

7 p.m. and 10 p.m 7

10 p.m. and 1 a.m ^

28

lyTERNATIOXAL CONVENTION

4 GEORGE v., \. 1SU

Code II I. ^ — Nature of Ice or Derelict observed.

(J. No ice observed.

1. Single iceberg. Huge mass of floating ice.

2. Several icebergs.

3. Numerous icebergs.

4. Floeberg. Thick piece of salt-water ice like a small iceberg.

5. Field ice. Navigable flat ice, extending as far as the eye can reach.

6. Pack ice. Collection of pieces of ice broken from berg or floe, partly
closed together.

7. Land ice. Ice attached to the shore since the Avinter.

8. Derelict.

9. (Not allotted.)

EXAMPLE.

Message sent from Ship

TO Ship.

First

Coded

Second , Coded

Third

Coded

Fourth

L'Oilr'd

Message.

as

Message. as

Message.

as

Message.

as

Date of observa-

tion

15

15

15 15

15

15

16

16

Time of observa-

tion

10-12

4

16-18

6

19-21

7

4-6

■>

Nature of ice or

derelict

Field

5

Numerous
icebergs

3

Derelict

8

Single
iceberg

1

T'osition of ice or

lifTolirt

Latitude

Latitude

Latitude

Latitude

45° 42'

457

46° 5'

461

46° 25'

464

47° 19'

47:i

Longitude

Longitude

Longitude

Longitude

46° 11'

462

44° 40'

447

43° 58'

440

40° 15'

402

The code of the above message would thus be:
S.S. to S.S.

Ice, 15454, .57402: 1.5034, 01447: 1.5784, 04440: 10214, 73402.

PART II.
Meteorological Information.

Information respecting Aveather, iVrc, is given l)y four groups of five figures
each. These groups are preceded bv the Avord "Aveather."

First Group (DDPPP) :

The day of the month: tAvo figures (DD), according to Code I.

The position of the ship Avhen transmitting the message, indicated by three
figures (PPP), representing the 1° squares in Avhich the ship is situated, according
to Code IV and the numbered chart.

Second Group (WWCCX):

Wind direction and force at 8 a.m. at tlie 7oth meridian of Avest longitude:
tAvo figures (ini'), according to Code V.

Set and A^elocity of current: tAA'o figures (CC), according to Code VI.

Weather or state of the skA' at tlic <:niH' hour: one figure (X). according to
Code VII.

FOR THE SAFETY OF HUMAX LIFE AT SEA

29

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 129

Third Group (BBBAA):

Corrected reading of the barometer to tenths of a miUimetre at 8 A.M. at
the 75th meridian of west longitude: three figures (EBB), according to Code
VIII.

Air temperature at the same hour: two figures (AA), according to Code IX.

Fourth Group (hbSSS) :

Barometric tendency at 8 a.]M. at the 75th meridian of west longitude:
two figures (bh), according to Code X.

Sea surface temperature at the same hour: three figures (SSS), according
to Code XI.

Codes.

Code IV. Position of Ship.

The chart annexed to this Article gives the numbers to be assigned to each
degree square in the X^orth Atlantic. The position of the ship, when the meteoro-
logical data given in Part IX were observed, is indicated by the three figures
representing the 1° square in which the ship is situated. For example: — A
position 51° 55' X., 26° 49' W. would be reported as 561.

Code V.

H ind Direction (to 16 points) and Wind Force at S a.m. mean time at the 75th
meridian of west longitude (irH').

Wind

Force,
Beaufort

N

H

m

iA

^

^

^

^

^

Scale.

'A

^

cc

H

rn

m

^

m

.

1^

'A

^

:z

W

H

a

r/}

m

m

m

02

^

^

i^

^

^

iz;

Calm '

0

00

Light breeze

1, 2, or 3

01

07

13

19

25

31

37

43

49

55

61

67

73

V9

85

91

Moderate breeze...

4 or .5

02

08

14

20

26

32

38

44

50

56

62

68

74

SO

86

92

Strong wind

6 or 7

03

09

15

21

27

33

39

45

51

57

63

69

75

81

87

93

Gale force

8 or 9

04

10

16

22

28

34

40

46

52

58

64

70

76

82

88

94

Storm force ' .

10 or 11

0.5

11

17

23

29

35

41

47

53

59

65

71

77

83

89

95

Hurricane

12

06

12

18

24

30

36

42

48

54

60

66

72

78

84

90

96

X.B. — The wind direction is to be referred to true bearings.

Code VI.

Direction (to 16 points) and Velocity of the current (CC).

Nautical Miles per

w

(A

\4

H

^

^

^
^

^

hour.

'4,

W

Z

'JX

'A CO

03

^

-Ji

^

^

w

W

W

02 03

m

03

CQ

^

^

i^'

'Z

•A

'ii

0-25

01

07

13

19

25

31 37

43

49

55

61

67

73

79

85

91

0-5

02"

08

14

20

26

32 38

44

50

56

62

68

74

80

86

92

1

03

09

15

21

27

33 39

45-

51

57

63

69

75

81

87

93

04
05
06
00
99

10
11
12

16
17
18

22
23
24

28
29
30

34 40

35 41

36 42

46
47

48

52
53
54

58
59
60

64
65
66

70
71
72

76
77
78

82
83
84

88
89
90

94

95

4

96

No current.
No observation.

N.B. — The current is to be referred to true bearings.

30 INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

Code VII.

The State of the Sky at 8 a.m. mean time a the 75th meridian of west

longitude:

0. Sky quite clear.

1. Sky quarter clouded.

2. Sky half clouded.

3. Sky three-quarters clouded.

4. Sky entirely overcast.

5. Rain falling.

6. Snow or hail falling.

7. Haze or mist.

8. Fog.

1). Thunderstorm.

Code VIII. — Height of Barometer.

The reading of the mercury barometer is to be corrected for index error,
and reduced to 0° C. and sea level. A table of corrections is given below.

The corrected reading is coded by omitting the first figure of the barometer
reading in tenths of a millimetre: for example 761 . 2 mm. is coded as 612.

A table for converting hundredths of an inch to tenths of a millimetre is
given below.

FOR THE SAFETY OF HUMAN LIFE AT SEA 31

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 129

Code IX.
Air Temperature is coded in two figures according to the following table: —

Degrees
Centigrade.

Degrees
Fahrenheit.

Code No.

Degiees
Centigrade.

Degrees
Fahrenheit

Code No.

— 1.5 0

50

00

100

50-0

50

— 14-5

5-9

01

10-5

50-9

51

— 14 0

6-8

02

110

51-8

52

—1.3-5

7-7

03

11-5

52-7

53

— 1.3 0

8-6

04

12-0

53-6

54

— 12-5

9-5

05

12-5

54-0

55

—120

10-4

06

130

55-4

56

—11-5

11-3

07

13-5

56-3

57

—110

12-2

08

140

57-2

58

— 10-5

131

09

14-5

58-1

59

— 10 0

140

10

150

590

60

— 9-5

14-9

11

15-5

59-9

61

— 90

15-8

12

160

60-8

62

— 8-5

16-7

13

16-5

61-7

63

-8-0

17-6

14

170

62-6

64

— 7-5

18-5

15

17-0

63-5

65

— 70

19-4

16

18-0

64-4

66

— 6-5

20-3

17

18-5

65-3

67

— 60

21-2

18

190

66-2

68

— 5-5

22-1

19

19-5

67-1

69

— 50

230

20

200

68-0

70

— 4-5

23-9

21

20-5

68-9

71

— 4-0

24-8

22

21-0

69-8

72

— 3-5

25-7

23

21-5

70-7

73

— 30

26-6

24

220

71-6

74

— 2-5

27-5

25

22-5

72-5

75

— 20

28-4

26

230

73-4

76

— 1-5

29-3

27

23-5

74-3

77

— 10

30-2

28

240

75-2

78

— 0-5

311

29

24-5

76-1

79

00

320

30

250

77-0

80

0-5

32-9

31

25-5

77-9

81

10

33-8

32

26-0

78-8

82

1-5

34-7

33

26-5

79-7

83

20

35-6

34

270

80-6

84

2-5

36-5

35

27-5

81-5

85

30

37-4

36

28-0

82-4

80

3-5

.38-3

37

28-5

83-3

87

40

39-2

38

290

84-2

88

4-5

40-1

39

29-5

85-1

89

50

410

40

300

86-0

90

5-5

41-9

41

30-5

86-9

91

60

42-8

42

31-0

87-8

92

6-5

43-7

43

31-5

88-7

93

70

44-6

44

320

89-6

94

7-5

45-5

45

32-5

90-5

95

80

46-4

46

330

91-4

96

8-5

47-3

47

33-5

92-3

97

90

48-2

48

340

93-2

98

9-5

49- 1

49

34-5

94- 1

99

Code X. — Barometric Tendency.

By the "barometric tendency at a given hour" is meant the amount by
which the barometer has changed during the. preceding three hours. It is to
be expressed in millimetres. For example, the barometric tendency at 8 a.m.
could be obtained by comparing the reading taken at that hour, say 755.7 mm.,
with a reading taken at 5 a.m., say 759.3 mm. In this case the barometric
tendency would be expressed by a fall of 3 . 6 millimetres. As a general rule the
barometric tendency is to be determined from the trace of the barograph.

32

INTERNATIOXAL COXVEyTIOX

4 GEORGE v., A. 19.4

The barometric tendency is coded in two figures, according to the following

tatle: —

Rise in Barometer.

Fall in Barometer.

Code No.

Code No.

Millimetres.

inches.

Millimetres.

Inches.

0-0—0-4

0-00—0-01

01

0-0—0-4

0-00—0-01

51

0-5— 0-9

0-02-0

03

02

0-5—0

9

0

02—0

03

52

1-0-1-4

0-04—0

05

03

10—1

4

0

04—0

05

53

1-5—1-9

0-06—0

07

04

1-5—1

9

0

06—0

07

54

2-0—2-4

0-08—0

09

05

2-0—2

4

0

08—0

09

55

2-5—2-9

0-10—0

11

06

2-5—2

9

0

10—0

11

56

.3-0— 3-4

0-12-0

13

07

30—3

4

0

12—0

13

57

3-5—3-9

0-14—0

15

08

3-5—3

9

0

14—0

15

58.

4-0-^-4

0-16—0

17

09

4-0—4

4

0

16—0

17

50

4-5-^-9

0-18—0

19

10

4-5—4

9

0

18—0

19

CO

0- 0—5-4

0-20—0

21

11

5 0—5

4

0

20—0

21

61

0-5— 5-9

0-22—0

23

12

5-5—5

9

0

22—0

23

62

(j-0— 6-4

0-24—0

25

13

6-0—6

4

0

24—0

25

63

6-5—6-9

0-26—0

27

14

6-5—6

9

0

20—0

27

64

70—7-4

0-28—0

29

15

7-0—7

4

0

28—0

29

65

7-5-7-9

0-30—0

31

16

7-5—7

9

0

30—0

31

66

8-0—8-4

0-32—0

33

17 •

8-0—8

4

0

32—0

33

67

8-.5— 8-9

0-34-0

35

18

8-5—8

9

0

34—0

35

68

9-0—9-4

0-36—0

37

19

9-0—9

4

0

3&-0

37

60

9-5—9-9

0-38—0

38

20

9-5—9

9

0

38—0

38

70

10-0—10-4

0-39—0

40

21

10-0-10

4

0

39-0

40

71

10-5—10-9

0-41—0

42

22

10-5—10

9

0

41—0

42

72

11-0—11-4

0-43—0

44

23

11-0— 11

4

0

43—0

44

73

11-5—11-9

0-45—0

46

24

11-5—11

9

0

45—0

46

74

120— 12-4

0-47-O

48

25

120— 12

4

0

47-0

48

75

12-5— 12-9

0-49—0

50

26

12-5—12

9

0

49—0

50

70

13-0—13-4

0-51—0

52

27

13-0—13

4

0

51—0

52

77

13-5— 13-9

0-53—0

.54

28

13-5—13

9

0

53—0

54

78

14-0—14-4

0-55—0

56

29

14-0—14

4

0

55—0

56

79

14-5—14-9

0-57—0

58

30

14-5—14

9

0

57-0

58

80

15-0—15-4

0-59—0

60

31

15-0—15

4

0

59—0

60

81

15-5—15-9

0-61—0

62

32

15-5—15

9

0

61—0

62

82

16-0—16-4

0-63—0

64

33

16-0—16

4

0

63—0

64

83

16-5—16-9

0-65—0

66

34

16-5—16

9

0

65—0

66

84

I/O— 17-4

0-67—0

68

35

17-0—17

4

0

67—0

68

85

17-5—17-9

0-69-0

70

36

17-5—17

9

0

69—0

70

86

18-0— 18-4

0-71—0

72

37

18-0—18

4

0

71-0

72

87

18-5— 18-9

0-73—0

74

38

18-5—18

9

0

73-0

74

88

19-0—19-4

0-75—0

76

39

190— 19

4

0

75—0

76

89

19-5—19-9

0-77—0

78

40

19-5—19

9

0

77—0

78

90

20- (^20- 4

0-79—0

80

41

20-0—20

4

0

79—0

80

91

20-5—20-9

0-81—0

82

42

20-5—20

9

0

81—0

82

92

21-0—21-4

0-83—0

84

43

21-0—21

4

0

83—0

84

93

21-5—21-9

0-85—0

86

44

21-5—21

«l

0

85—0

86

94

22-0—22-4

0-87—0

88

45

22-0—22

4

0

87—0

88

95

22-5—22-9

0-89—0

90

46

22-5—22

9

0

89—0

90

96

23-0—23-4

0-91-0

92

47

23-0—23

4

0

91—0

92

97

23-5—23-9

0-93—0

94

48

23-5-23

9

0

93—0

94

98

240— 24-4

0- 9.5-0

96

49

The barometric 1

.endonry cannot be

99

i

reported.

Code XI. — Sea Surface Temperature.

Sea surface temperature to tenths of a degree Centigrade, is coded by three
figures, or, when necessary, by two figures preceded V)y zero. If the temperature
i? negative, the first of these three figures is 5.
For example: —

— 2.2° C. is coded as 522.
+1.0° C. " 010.

+ lo.(i°C •" 15G.

FOR TEE SAFETY OF BUMAX LIFE AT SEA

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 129

33

'Jl

o

'-5

c

pq

s-=

5 £

.0 "W 3

O J3 XI

^ ® .2 .5:

s e s
2 "5 'b
J+ I

O C V

J= X ^
H f-i H

..■

:j

o

•^

fa

d

°S

S

d

?=<■

S

K

d

&^"

o

Jt

i d

r^

"^

fa"

o

Sj-

s •

d

fa

; '-=

^

fa'

d

tc

d

&<■

2

CO

d

^^

fa'

o

%)*

-r

fa'

d

So

^

d

o

CO

d

fa'

ra

o

+

m

d

^

b

m

d

o

ca

oo

d

fa'

1 o

GC

1

6

o

3

o

J3

0

-*^

♦-

^'

o

o

33

O »

H

rccccic-ic^ic^ciM<MciTi— ' — — — — — — — ciii

c

<N

_<

O

»

00

t-

CO

^

„

<M

_

o

c:

00

<o

L-i

•>!<

TO

=M

o

ca

00

^

o

§

M

^^

rc

<M

<M

«

tM

c^

cq

«

^

c^

'"'

""

'^

'"'

^

^^

"^

^^

-

o

o

o

s

O

o

CO

-^

»C

^

„

=■1

_

_

-.

X

o

■.-

-»<

re

ri

_

-,

00

„

..

^

:*0

S

CO

<M

(M

^*

CS

C<1

C^

C-1

-M

■M

"

~

~

"

■^

■"

""

"*

=

"

=

=

=

=

c

r^

O

lO

■*

(M

^

o

C5

00

»

la

•^

m

<M

■F-4

o

O

■XI

O

•J5

^

rs,

.*

•

•

•

■

•

•

■

■

•

•

•

C^O'<*'c<i^-c;cs3C:C

— 3:cct^Oi.';-^rcri— — «ci

C«^^OCSt^<0»O-*C0''^OCS0Gb-=C

oooooocro

^H c^ *0 .^

o o o o

s =

--.

,-

--

^-:

~r

-

_

o

S-.

00 1^

•a

■^ r-r

C-1

_

-

c-j

r;

^

L-

=

X

s 7

~

"

_ —

~

~

X

~

~

~

~

~

~

^7

o

to

•♦

<M

^

o

C5

oo

CO

lO ^

CO

.

1=

^

e^

CO

•*

CO

t^

00

»

o

'"'

*"*

*"*

■"*

'^

^^

o

o

o

o o

c

X

o
-1-

c

c

o

o

~

o

o

"■

S3 «

•*

c«

rt

c

o

oo

53

«

•*

CO CI

-

— CO

CO

-«<

o

t.

oo

o

o

<M

CO

^ 7

"^

'"'

"

"

o

c

~

o

~

o c

o

o o

+

o

o

o

o

o

o

"^

'"

'^

C CO

_

o

S;

■00

o

lO

-5-

«

C^l

o

^

CO

CO ■*

o

t~

00

c:

c

M

J„

•V

us

^7

^

~

~

o

-

—

r

—

-

o

o

~

c =

~

o

-

c

~

■"

""

"

"^

S7

o

t_

o

IS

•*

M

_

_

_

CO re

LO

CC t~

oo

Ci

_

C-J

CO

■*

«

b-

00

~

o

o

c

c

o

~

—

+

c o

-

- -

~

-

"^

**^

■^

'~

'^

*^

"

S5

t^

^

r-:

^

-

__

C-l

„

o tc

t^

OC C-.

_

CO

CO

■^

o

^

OC

32

^

~

=

C:

~

o

o

o

-

^

= =

~

~ -

■"

'^

"

"^

"■

"

""

""

CO

a"?

•*

ec

_

3

^

«

CO

lO

<o

t~ 00

o

« <^

^

o

CO

t~

o

_

^

CO

•*

o

o

c

=

+

o

o

o

o

o o

~

.-1 .-H

'^

"

"^

^^

•"^

CO

CO

M

CO

s 5^

_

c

_

C<)

^

o

o

t^

oo

c —

(M

„ L-

CO

f^

_

_

^

CO

-«"

«-o

CO

s =

~

—

+

o

~

-

o

-

~

" —

""

— ""

""

•~

..

CO

CO

c->

C^l

C-1

S9

^

-

rr

to

,^

oo

<Si

o

«

CO -«

»A

•t~ oo

o

o

^

CO

•^

lO

CO

00

o

o

+

o

^

o

o

c

o

""

«^

^

eo

c«

CO

CO

CO

ca

CO

C4

cc'j«u30ooc50C'ire'-*<!or-socsoc^co-^»ooQOO>o*^

C O O O — O — — — — — — — — — C^ C-i Tl M r'j ?•') Ti CI r* ro

»O«D00CiOC<cC'*i0t>-00CSOC^C0**».'5^XC;O-^r0Tr

^+ + + + + + + + 4- + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Osot^O'^»-'3c<cocc:so — '*:<s— rctcct — -ri-- — c-i<o

•— — '-t ?^ c^

o ^^ CI r-3 ^ »r5 tc I- v: n c^ — ri r-r

— — CI ro

'I^Adf 9ds dAOqs uj^sio jaiauiojcq }o iqSidfj

129—3

34

INTERNATIOyAL CONVEyriOX

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914
Table for convortiiie baromotric readings in inches into millimetres.

Hlndreths

OF AN Inch.

Inches
and Tenths.

0.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Mm.

Mm.

Mm.

Mm.

Mm.

Mm.

Mm.

Mm.

Mm.

Mm.

27 0

685-8

686-0

686-3

686-6

686-8

687-1

687-3

687-6

687-8

688-1

•1

688-3

688-6

688-8

689-1

689-3

689-6

689-9

690 1

690-4

690-6

r2

690-9

691-1

691-4

691-6

691-9

692-1

692-4

692-7

692-9

693-2

•3

693-4

693-7

693-9

694-2

694-4

694-7

694-9

695-2

695-4

695-7

■4

696-0

696-2

696-5

697-7

697-0

697-2

697-5

697-7

697-9

698-2

5

698-5

698-7

699-0

699-3

699-5

699-8

700-1

700-3

700-5

700-9

•6

701-0

701-3

701-5

701-8

702-0

702-3

702-6

702-8

703-1

703-8

■7

703-6

703-8

704-1

704-3

704-6

704-8

705-1

705-4

705-6

705-3

■8

706-1

706-4

706-6

706-9

707-1

707-4

707-6

707-9

708-1

708-4

•9

708-7

708-9

709-2

709-4

709-7

709-9

710-2

710-4

710-7

710-9

280

711-2

711-4

711-7

712-0

712-2

712-5

712-7

713-0

713-2

713-5

•1

713-7

714-0

714-2

714-5

714-7

715-0

715-3

715-5

715-8

716-0

■2

716-3

716-5

716-8

717-1

717-3

717-5

717-8

718-0

718-3

71S-6

■3

718-8

719-1

719-3

719-6

719-8

720-1

720-3

720-6

720-8

721-1

•4

721-4

721-6

721-9

722-1

722-4

722-6

722-9

723-1

723-4

723-6

•5

723-9

724-1

724-4

724-7

724-9

725-2

725-4

725-7

725-9

726-2

•6

726-4

726-7

726-9

727-2

727-4

727-7

728-0

728-2

728-5

728-7

•7

729 0

729-2

729-5

729-7

729-9

730-2

730-5

730-7

731-0

731-3

•8

731-5

731-8

732-0

732-3

732-5

732-8

733 0

733-3

733-5

733-8

•9

734-1

734-3

734-6

734-8

735-1

735-3

735-6

735-8

736- 1

736-3

290

736-^

736-8

737-1

737-4

737-6

737-9

738-1

738-4

738-6

738-9

•1

739 1

739-4

7.39-6

739-9

740-1

740-4

740 7

740-9

741-2

741-4

.2

741-7

741-9

742-2

742-4

742-7

742-9

743-2

743-4

743-7

744-0

•3

744-2

744-5

744-7

745-0

745-2

745-5

745-7

745-9

746-2

746-5

•4

746-8

747-0

747-3

747-5

747-7

748-1

748-3

748-5

748-8

749-0

■5

749-3

749 -.5

749-8

750- 1

750-3

750-6

750-8

751-1

751-3

751-6

•0

751-8

752- 1

752-3

752-6

752-8

753-1

753-4

753-6

753-9

754-1

•7

754-4

754-6

754-8

755-1

755-4

755-6

755-9

756-1

756-4

756-7

•8

756-9

757-2

7.57-4

757-7

757-9

758-2

758-4

758-7

758-9

759-2

•!)

759-5

759-7

760 0

760-2

760-5

760-7

7610

761-2

761-5

761-7

300

762 0

762-2

762-5

762-8

763-0

763-3

763-5

763-8

764-0

764-3

•1

764-5

764-8

765-0

765-3

765-5

765-8

766- 1

766-3

766-6

766-8

.2

767-1

767-3

767-6

767-8

768-1

768-3

768-6

768-8

769-1

769-4

•3

769-6

769-9

770-1

770-4

770-6

770-9

771 1

771-4

771-6

771-0

4

772-2

772-4

772-7

772-9

773-2

773-4

773-7

773-9

774-2

774-4

•5

774-7

774-9

775-2

775-5

775-7

776 0

776-2

776-5

776-7

777 0

•6

777-2

777-5

777-7

778-0

778-2

778-5

778-8

779-0

779-3

779 5

•7

779-8

780-8

780-3

780-5

780-8

7810

781-3

781-5

781-8

782-1

■8

782-3

782-6

782-8

783 1

783-3

783-6

783-8

784-1

784-3

784-6

•9

784-9

785-1

785-4

785-6

785-9

786-2

786-4

786-6

786-9

787-1

.11 0

787-4

787-6

787-9

788-2

788-4

788-7

788-9

789-2

789- »

789 7

1

789-9

790-2

790-4

790-7

790-9

791-2

791-5

791-7

792 0

792 2

.o

792-5

792-7

793-0

793-2

793-5

793-7

794-0

794-2

794-5

794-8

3

795 1

795-3

795-5

795-8

796-0

796-3

796-5

796-8

797-0

797-3

1

707 -(i

7V7-V

7PS-1

7rs.3

7os.r.

7P<?.«;

700-1

700-3

700 6

700 -S

FOR THE SAFETY OF n(.UA\ LIFE AT SEA

35

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 129

Table for converting Minutes to Tenths of a Degr

ee.

Tenths of

Minutes. degree.

0-3 0

4-9 1

lO-lo 2

16-21 3

22-27 4

28-33 5

34-39 6

40-45 7

46-51 8

52-57 :... 9

58-59 10

Example.

Message containing Meteorological Information. Ice:

First
Message.

Coded
as

Second
Message.

Coded
as

_

21

1.3-15

Single

iceberg

Latitude

44° 35'

Longitude

43° 15'

21
5
1

446

432

22

3-*6

Field ice

Latitude

42° 58'

Longitude

47° 3'

22

2

Nature of ice or derelict.

5

Position of ice or derelict

430

470

Weather :

First
Message .

Coded

Second
Message.

eroded

Date of observation.
Position of ship

Direction and force of wind.
Set and velocity of current.

21
I.Atitude

45° 13'
Longitude

42° 5'

E.S.E. 5

N.W.

2 ni-h

Sky i-lciir

7()5-3 11)111.

Weather

Barcinieter

Air temperature ; 15 ;3' (

Baroinetri tendency i Rise -8

.■^ea-surface teiupcrature.

.1 1-4° C.

21
825

20

82

0

053

01

02

014

22
Latitude

43° 47'

Longitude

40° 33'

S.W. 2

S.S.E.

.1 m-h.

Fog

7ij3-2 mm.

9-8° C.

Fall 2-7

— ^"C.

803

55
39

H

.■>:«
50
56

507

The Code of the above message sent to the Meteorological Office would
thus be: —

Meteorologv: Ice; 21514, 46432, 222.')4. 30470: Weather; 21825. 26820,
65361, 02014: 22863, 55398, 53250, 56507.

129-3i

36 INTEh'XATWXAL COXYEyTIOX

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

Article II.

SAFETY SIGNAL.

The radiotelegraph stations which have to transmit to ships information
involving safety of navigation and being of an urgent character (icebergs,
derelicts, cj^clones, typhoons, sudden changes in the position or form of fixed
obstructions or of landing marks) shall make use of the following signal, called
the safety signal, repeated at short intervals ten times at full power:

(T T T)

In principle, all wireless stations receiving the safety signal, shall, if the
transmission of messages by them woukl interfere with the receipt by any other
station of the safety signal and the following safety message, keep silence, in
order to allow all interested stati(ms to receive that message. This does not apply
to cases of distress.

The safety message shall be transmitted one minute after the safety signal
has been sent out, and shall l)e repeated thereafter three times at intervals
of ten minutes.

The Governments of the Contracting States will select the stations which
are to send out to mariners safety information of an urgent character.

When the information in question has been sent out by stations performing
the time service, it shall be again sent out after the transmission of the time
signal and the weather report.

Article III.

MORSE CODE.

INTERNATIONAL SIGNALS. '

These signals nuiy be made at night or in thick weather, either by long and

short flashes of light, or by long and short sounds on a steam whistle, siren,
fog-horn, &c., or during the day by flag waving.

L— URGENT AND IMPORTANT SIGNALS.

You are standing into danger

I want assistance; remain by me

Have encountered ice --::

Your lights are out (or, want trimming)

The way is off my shij); you may feel your way past me

Stop (or, heave to) ; I have something important to communicate.

Am disabled; communicate witli me

FOR THE SAFETY OF HUM AX LIFE AT SEA

37

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 129

2.— GENERAL SIGNALS.

Meaning.

Signal.

Equivalent Letters \ How answered,
and How Made. |

1

&c.

A succession of E's By the general an-
in one group | swer T.

Answer . . . ■

T (singly). ,

i

Spelling

F F in one group

By the general an-
swer T.

Use International Code
Signals

M M M in one group

By the general
answer T.

International Code Flag
Sign

M M in one group

Break sign

I I as separate let-
ters.

Stop

I I I as separate let-
ters.

Finish of a message

V E as one group ^ -^-" ■■ R.

As separate letters.

Erase sign

_&c.

A succession of E's
as separate letters

By a succession of
E's as separate
letters.

Annul

w w

W W as one group

Bv W W as one

group.

Repeat word after
(when a single word
is required)

I M I ^1

Followed by the word preceding
the one required. J

I M I as one groupl

W A as separate \

letters J

By the general
answer T.

Repeat all after —

(if more than one word
is required)

• I M I 1

A A J

I M I as one group \

A A as separate f

letters J

By the general
answer T.

Repeat ail — ]
(if the whole message |-
is to be repeated) J

I M I 1
A L 1^ j

I M I as one group 1
A L L as separate \ By the general
letters. J. answer T.

38

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

3.— NATIONALITY SIGNALS.

Meaning

American

Argentine.

Austro-Hungarian .

Belgian

Brazilian

liritish

Bulgarian

Chilian

(Chinese

(.'olombian

Danish , .

Hutch

French

German

Greek

Italian

•lapanose

Mexican

Norwegian

Peruvian.

Portuguese

l{ussian.

Siameso

Spanish

.Swedish

'I'urkiah

Uruguyan

Venezuelan

Equivalent Letters and How
Made.

C D as separate letters.

C G

C F

D C

D E

F.

D F as separate letter.i.

DG

EC

E D

E F

E G

E.

G.

M M in one group followed by D.

C E as .separate lett<>rs.

C.

F C as separate letters.

M M in one group followed by C.

F D as separate letters.

FE

D.

F G as separate letters.

G C

M M in one group followed by E.

G D as spcarate letters.

G E

G F

FOR THE SAFETY OF HUMAN LIFE AT SEA 39

SESSIONAL PAPER Mo. 129

4.— INSTRUCTIONS.

1. THE URGENT AND IMPORTANT SIGNALS may be made without
the Preparative Signal being answered if it is supposed that the person addressed
cannot reply, or in other special circumstances; but in this case a pause should
be made between the Preparative Signal and the message.

2. THE SIGNAL , (FF) is used previous to any letters

which are intended to spell words.

3. THE SIGNAL (MMM) is used previous

to any message sent bj- means of the International Code of Signals.

4. THE SIGNAL . (MM) means the Code Flag of

the International Code of Signals, and is used as indicated in the Code Book.

5. THE BREAK SIGN is used between the address of the receiver and
the text of the message, and after the message if the name of the sender is to
be signalled.

6. THE STOP is used, where necessary, in the text of the signal.

7. THE ERASE is used to erase the last word or signal group, sent by
mistake.

8. THE ANNL^L is used to negative all the message.

9. METHOD OF ANSWERING. Each word or signal group, when
understood, is to be answered by one long flash _^ (T).

If a word or signal group is not answered, the sender is to repeat it until
answered by a long flash.

At the end of the message, if understood, the receiver will make
- (RD).

The Erase and Annul signs are to be answered b}- their own signs.

10. THE NATIONALITY SIGNAL is made immediately after the
answer to the Preparatory Signal has been received, to indicate the nationality
of the vessel making the signal. It is answered by the nationality signal of
the vessel receiving the message.

Article l\ .

A printed copy of the code of urgent and important signals shall be placed
in a prominent position in the chart room of every ship.

CONSTRUCTION.

Article V.

Defiiiitiotis.

The meaning of the Principal technical and other expressions contained
in this Convention under the Title of Construction, and in these Regulations
which are appended thereto, is as follows:

(L) The load water line is that used in determining the sub-division of

the vessel.
(2.) The length of the vessel is the extreme length at the load water line.
(3.) The breadth of the vessel is the extreme width from outside of frame
to outside of frame at or below the load water line.

40 IXTEKXATIOXAL CO.W'EyTIOX

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

(4.) The hulkliead deck is tlic iippermo.st continuous deck to which all

transverse water-tight bulkheads are carried.
(5.) The margin line is a line drawn parallel to the bulkhead deck at

side line, and 76 millimetres (equivalent to three inches) below the

upper surface of that deck at side.
(6.) The draught is the vertical distance from the top of keel amidships

to the load water line.
(7.) The freeboard is the vertical distance from the load water line to the

margin line amidships.
(8.) The depth of the vessel is the sum of the draught and freeboard as

above defined.
(9.) The sheer of the l)ulkhcad deck at any })oint is the vertical distance

between the beam at side line at that point and a line drawn parallel

to the load Avater line at the height of the beam at side line amidships.
(10.) If block coefficient of fineness of displacement to load water line is used,

this coefficient shall be determined as follows: —

Volume of displacement to moulded lines.
Length X Breadth X Draugiit.

(11.) The permeability of a space is th<> i)ercentage of that space Avhich
can be occupied by water.

The volume of a com])artment which extends above the margin line shall
be measured only to the height of that line. Volumes shall be under-
stood as volumes to moulded lines.

(12.) The machinery space is to be taken as extending in length bet 'een
the extreme main transverse watertight bulkheads l)ounding the spaces
devoted to the main and auxiliary propelling machin<'ry, including
l)oilers when installed.

Artk'Lk VI.

Flood able Length.

The fioodable length at any point of the length of a vessel shall be ileter-
mined taking into consideration form, draught, and other limiting character-
istics of the vessel in question. This fioodable length for a given point in a
vessel with a continuous bulkhead deck is the maximum percentage of the length
of the vessel (having its centre at the point in (luestion) which can be flooded
under the definite assumptions hereafter set forth in article VII without the
sliip being submerged beyond the margin line. In the case of vessels not having
a continuous l)ulkhead deck, the floodable length must be such as to secure
to the vessel in (luestion, for each portion of its length, and for all conditions
of trim after damage, a measure of safety at least equal in (>tTectiveness to that
laid down for tlic vessel with continuous bulkhead deck.

AUTK LK VII.

Prrmrobilitif.

The definite assumptions referred to in article \ I relate to the permeabilities
of the spaces in question below the margin line. In determining the floodable
length a uniform average permeability shall be used throughout the whole length
of each of the three following jiortions of the vessel: —

(1.) The machinery s]>ace;

(2.) The portion forward of the machinery 8])ace: and

(3.) The i^ortion abaft the machinery s))ace.

FOR TEE SAFETY OF Hl^JAy LIFE AT SEA 41

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 129

For steam vessels the permeability of the machinery space, including the
double bottom in wake thereof, shall be taken as eighty per cent. For vessels
fitted with internal combustion engines the corresponding permeability shall
be taken as eighty-five per cent, unless it is proved by actual calculation that
a lower figure may be adopted, provided that in no case shall that figure be less
than eighty per cent.

The permeabilities for space forward and aft of the machinery space shall
be as follows : —

(a.) Sixty per cent in cargo spaces, bunkers (permanent or reserve),
store-rooms, baggage and mail rooms, chain-lockers, water-tight
shaft or pipe tunnels, and fresh-water tanks above the double
bottom. It must be proved that the spaces just enumerated are
practicable for the purpose intended and that they are to be so used.
Other .spaces shall not be allowed to come under this section unless
with the approval of the Administration.
(6.) Ninety-five per cent in passenger and crew spaces, peaks, trimming-
tanks exclusively so used, double bottoms, and all other spaces
not specifically appropriated to one of the purposes indicated in
the foregoing section. If in a 'tween deck space enclosed by complete
transverse permanent steel bulkheads any portion thereof is appro-
priated to passengers, the whole of that space shall be regarded
as passenger space; and, similarly, 'tween deck spaces appropriated
for the carriage of either passengers or cargo shall be regarded as
passenger spaces.
Where the spaces before or abaft the machinery space below the margin
line consist partly of spaces mentioned in section (a) and partly of spaces mention-
ed in section (6), the average percentage of permeabihty shall be determined
separately for each end from the formula 95 — 35 r, where ;• is the ratio between
the volume of the spaces mentioned in section (a) and the total volume of the
space in the portion of the ship under con-'ideration.

Article VIII.

Permissible Length of Compartments.

(l.j The maximum permissible length of one compartment having its centre
at any point in the vessel's length is obtained from the floodable length (article
VI) by multipljdng that length by an appropriate factor, called the factor
of sub-division.

(2.) This factor of sub-division depends on the length of the ship, and.
for a given length, varies according to the nature of the service for which the
ship is intended. This factor decreases in a regular and continuous manner —
(a.) As the length of vessel increases; and

(6.) As, for a given length, the vessel departs from the type of vessel
engaged in a mixed cargo and passenger service, and approaches
to the type of vessel primarily engaged in the ^transportation
of passengers.
(3.) For each of the two types of vessels referred to in the previous para-
graph (2) (6) the variation of the factor of sub-division may be expressed by a
curve, of which the co-ordinates represent the length of the vessel and the value
of the factor. The following table gives certain points on two curves the higher
of which corresponds to the minimum requirements for the ''mixed '' type,
and the lower to the minimum requirements for the ''passenger" type.

42

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

Table.

A.

100..

0-90..

0-84.

0-6.5..

0-50.

0-39..

0-34.

Metre.s.

Feet.

Metres.

Feet.

90

295

79

259

114

374

87

285

123

404

93

305

149

489

116

380

174

571

149

489

213

699

209

085

274

899

274

899

Column (A) gives the maximum permissible values of the factor of sub-
division for the length of vessels given in Columns (B) and (C).

Column (B) is applicable to vessels engaged in a mixed cargo and passenger
service.

Column (C) is applicable to vessels primarily engaged in the transportation
of passengers.

(4.) For a given length, the value of the factor of subdivision appropriate
to a vessel between the two extreme limits will be lietween the values of the
factors determined by the two curves before mentioned, and will be automatically
fixed by a " criterion of service " Avhich is to form the subject of further study.

Article IX.

(1.) When the factor of subdivision is equal to or less than .5. it may be
doubled in order to give at any point of the vessel's length the total length of two
adjacent compartments; but, in that case, the length of the shorter compartment
of any pair shall not be less than one-quarter of tlie total length so obtained.
If one of the two adjacent compartments is situated inside the machinery space
and the second is situated outside the machinery space, and the average per-
meability of the portion of the ship in whicli the second is situated differs from
eighty per cent, the length of tlie pair of compartments shall be adjusted to the
proper value by applying a suital)le correction.

(2.) In no case whatever shall the length of any watertight compartment
exceed 28 metres (ecpiivalent to 92 feet).

(3.) When the factor of subdivision ap])licable to any vessel is less than
•84, but more than .5, the combined length of the two foremost com])artments
shall not exceed the flooda])le h^igth at tlie extreme forward end, provided also
that the length of the second c(mi])artment is not greater than that i)ermissii)le
by Article ^'III and not less tiian 3 metres (equivalent to 10 feet).

(4.) When tlie length of the vessel is more than 213 metres (etiuivalent to
(i99 feet) but less than 251 metres (equivalent to 823 feet) the floodable length
at the forward end of the vessel shall be at least 20 per cent of the vessel's length ;
and the vessel, forward of a Inilkhead placed cither at the distance of the actual
Hoodable length abaft the stem or not nearer to the stem than 20 per cent of the
vessel's length, shall be dividetl into at least three comiiartments.

(5.) When the length of the vessel is equal to or greater than 2ol metres
(equivalent to 823 feet) the same method shall l)e adoi)ted, but the Hoodable
length shall be at least 28 per cent and tlie number of compartments at least
four.

(6.) A bulkhead may be recessed transversely, provided the sides of the recess
are at a sufficient distance from the sides f>f the vessel. Vertical steps are

FOR THE SAFETY OF HUMAN LIFE AT SEA 43

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 129

inadmissible in the main transverse watertight bulkheads of vessels to which
the sub-division rules of Article VIII apply where the factor of subdivision is
greater than . 5, unless such arrangements are made by additional sub-division
as shall maintain the same measure of safety as that secured by bulkheads without
steps. The total length of the steps in any bulkhead shall not exceed 2 per cent
of the vessel's length, plus 3 metres (equivalent to 10 feet).

(7.) The existence of recesses or steps in a bulkhead shall in no case affect
the permissible volumes of the compartments adjacent to such bulkhead, as
determined by this and the preceding article.

Article X.

If the degree of safety of a vessel is greater than that prescribed bj' articles
VIII and IX above, and if the owner requests that this fact be recorded on the
Safety Certificate, in accordance with clause 4 of Article 17 of the Convention,
this request shall be accompanied with all the data necessary to justif j^ this claim.

In such case, the record shall state the fact that the subdivision is equal or
superior to that provided for a vessel of equal length in Column (C) of the Table
in article VIII, with an additional statement givingthe length of the vessel in
Column (C) whose factor of subdivision according to the rules would be exactlj'
equal to that employed in determining the subdivision of the vessel in question.

Values of length and factors for lengths not specifically stated in Columns
(C) and (A) respectively of the Ta])le in Article VIII shall be obtained bjdnter-
polation.

Article XI.

Peak and Machinery Space Bulkheads.

A forepeak bulkhead shall be fitted in all vessels to extend to the bulkhead
deck, and to the weather deck in ships having continuous super-structures. This
bulkhead shall be placed at a distance of not less than 5 per cent of the vessel's
length from the stem at the load water-line. An afterpeak bulkhead and bulk-
heads dividing the machinery space from the cargo and passenger spaces shall
also be fitted and carried up to the bulkhead deck. The afterpeak bulkhead
may, however, be stopped below the bulkhead deck, provided that it shall at least
be carried to the first deck above the load water-line, and a watertight flat shall
be fitted from the afterpeak bulkhead to the stern on the level of the deck at
which it stops, and also provided that the degree of safety of the vessel as regards
sub-division is maintained.

Article XII.

Fireproof Bulkheads.

In portions of a vessel above the margin line there shall be fitted fireproof
bulkheads which will serve to retard the spread of fire. The mean distance be-
tween any two consecutive bulkheads of this description shall not be greater
than 40 metres (equivalent to 131 feet). Recesses in these bulkheads shall be
made fireproof, and the openings in these bulkheads shall be closed ])y fireproof
doors.

Article XIII.

Exits from Watertight Compartvients.

(1.) In passenger and crew spaces a practicable means of escape for the
occupants shall be provided from each watertight compartment.

(2.) There shall be a means of escape for the crew from each engine room,
shaft tunnel and stokehold compartment independent of the watertight doors.

44 IXTERXATIOXAL COXTEXTIOX

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

Article XIV.

Construction and Initial TeHting of Watertight Bulkheads.

(1.) Watertig'ht bulkheads shall be constructed in such a manner tiuit they
shall be capable of supporting, with a proper margin of resistance, the pressure
due to a head of water up to the margin line.

(2.) Steps and recesses in bulkheads shall be as watertight and as strong as
the bulkhead at the place whore each occurs. Where frames or ])eams pass
through a watertight deck or bulkhead, the watortightness shall be obtained ))y
caulked angle chocks, or cast iron or steekchocks efficiently secured and rust-
jointed, and not by wood or cement.

(3.) Testing main compartments l)y filling them with water is not com-
pulsory. A complete examination of all bulkheads shall be made by a surveyor;
and, in addition, a hose test shall be made in all cases.

(4.) The. foremost and aftermost compartments shall be tested with water
to a head up to the margin line. Doulile bottoms, deep tanks, and all compart-
ments intended to hold liquids shall be tested with water at least to a head 2.44
metres (eight feet) above the top of the tank or to the load water line. Avhichevi-r
is the greater.

(5.) No change shall be made in the structure of the bulkheads after the
completion of the survej' unless with the permission of the Administration.

(6.) All regulations made for main transverse watertight bulkheads shall
ai)])ly to longitudinal bulkheads, so far as is practicable.

Ahticlk X^^
Openings in Watertight Bulkheads.

(1.) The openings in watertight bulkheads siiall be reduced to the snuillest
number compatible with the design and proper working of the vessel, and satis-
factory means shall l)e provided for closing them.

(2.) No doors, sluice valves, manholes, or access openings are permitted —

(a.) In the collision bulkhead below the margin line.

(b.) In watertight transverse bulkheads separating two cargo spaces from
one another, or a cargo s])ace from a reserve bunker, exce])t as provided
in paragrai)h ((3) of this articl(\

(3.) In the machinery space and apart from bunker and shaft-tunnel doors,
not more than one door may l)c fitted in each main transverse bulkhead within the
machinery space for intercommunication, but where more than one se])arate
shaft tunnel is fitted a door may i)e cut for each tunnel. If a tunnel is fitted
forward either for tli<> purpose of ])ipes or as a communication i)assage it must be
fitted with a watertight (loor.

(4.) The only types of watertight doors ]iermissible are iiinged doors, sliding
doors, and doors of any other e(piivalent i)attern, excluding ])late doors secured
only by bolts. A hinged door shall be fitted with lever-operated catches workalile
from each side of the bulkhead. A sliding door may have a horizontal or vertical
motion. If hand-operated only, it shall be fitted for o])eration at the door itself
and also from an accessible ])osition ab()V(> the margin line. If operated ))y power
it shall be fitted for operation by jiower from the l)ri(lge, and by hand at tiiedoor
itself and from an accessible ])osition al)()ve the margin line. A door dropi)ing by
its own weight, and fitted with a cataract cylinder or equivalent arrangement,
may be considered as lacing ()]M*rated by jiowcr. if c;i]ial)lc of being released from
the bridge.

FOE THE SAFETY OF HUMAN LIFE AT SEA 45

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 129

(5.) In the case of watertight bunker doors, satisfactor}- arrangements shall
be made by means of screens or otherwise, to prevent the coal from int erf erring
with the closing of the doors.

(6.) Hinged watertight doors in passenger, crew, and Avorking spaces are
only permitted above a deck, the under side of which, at its lowest point at side,
is at least 2. 13 metres (7 feet) above the load water line, and they are not per-
mitted in such spaces below that deck. Hinged watertight doors of especially
heavy design may be fitted above the load water line in bulkheads between cargo
'tween-deck spaces, provided they are closed before the voyage commences, and
are kept closed while at sea by efficient closing gear. None of these doors shall
be fitted, even at the ends of the vessel, in a cargo 'tween-deck space in the amid-
ship region of which 'tween-deck space it is not permissible to fit such doors.

(7.) All other watertight doors shall be sliding doors.

(8.) — (a.) When the number of watertight doors in the main transverse
watertight bulkheads at or about the stokehold level in the machinery space ex-
ceeds five, excluding the watertight doors at the entrances of tunnels, all water-
tight doors situated below the load water line shall be capable of being simul-
taneously closed from a station situated on the bridge, and their opening and
closing shall ])e indicated at that station. The simultaneous closing of these
doors shall be preceded by a warning sound signal.

(6.) If watertight doors which have sometimes to be open at sea for the
purpose of trimming coal are fitted between bunkers in the 'tween decks below
the bulkhead deck, these shall be operated by power. The opening and closing
of these doors shall be recorded in the official log.

(c.) When trunkways in connection with refrigerated cargo are carried
through more than one main transverse watertight bulkhead, and the sills of the
openings are less than 2. 13 metres (7 feet) above the load water line, the water-
tight doors at such openings shall be operated by power.

(9.) Portable plates on bulkheads shall not be permitted except in machinery
spaces. Suc'i plates shall always be in place before the vessel proceeds to sea,
and shall not be removed at sea except in case of urgent necessity. The greatest
care shall be taken in replacing them to ensure that the joint shall be perfectly
watertight.

(10.) All watertight doors shall be kept closed at sea except when necessarily
opened for the working of the vessel, and shall always be ready to be immediately
closed.

(11.) If trunkwaj's for forced draught, for access from crew's accommodation
to the stokehold or for any other purpose, are carried through the main transverse
watertight bulkheads, the integrity of the Avatertight bulkheads shall be main-
tained by watertight doors or other equally effective means

(12.) AVhere electric-light cables, pipes, &c., are carried through transverse
watertight bulkheads below the margin line, arrangements shall be made to
ensure the integrity of the watertightness of the bulkheads.

(13.) Sluice valves in watertight bulkheads shall be reduced to the smallest
number possible, and shall not be allowed except in positions where they are
sufficiently accessible at all times to allow of its being ascertained that they are in
good order. They shall be strongly constructed, efficiently fitted, and regularly
inspected. Satisfactory provision shall be made for operating them from an
accessible position above the margin line. Means shall be provided for indicating
when they are open or shut.

46 INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

Article XVI.
Openings in Ship's Side.

(1.) (a.) Subject to clause (6) below, when side scuttles are fitted below a
deck the under side of which at its lowest point at side is less than 2. 13 metres
(7 feet) above the load water line, they shall be permanently fixed.

(6.) Side scuttles w'hich are capable of being opened may be fitted in the
positions defined in clause (a), provided that —

they shall be closed watertight and locked before the vessel proceeds to sea;

they shall not be opened while the vessel is at sea;

the time of opening such scuttles in port and of closing and locking them
before the vessel proceeds to sea shall be entered in the official log;

the construction of such scuttles shall be such as to effectually prevent any
person opening them without the consent of the master.

(c.) Glass lights in scuttles, when fitted in the positions defined in clause (a),
shall be provided with efficient metal shutters.

(2.) In 'tween decks above the deck mentioned in paragraph (1) (a) of this
article, opening side scuttles may be fitted except in spaces exclusively devoted to
the carriage of cargo or coal.

(3.) No side scuttles shall be fitted in any spaces which are exclusively
devoted to the carriage of cargo or coal.

(4.) All side scuttles which are not accessible while at sea shall be fitted with
efficient metal covers and both the glass and the cover shall be kept closed while
at sea

(5.) No automatic ventilating scuttles shall be permitted in the ship's side
below the margin line.

(6. ' All inlets and discharges in the side shall be arranged so as to prevent
the accidental admission of water into the ship.

(7 ) The number of scuppers, sanitary discharges, and other similar open-
ings in the side shall be reduced to the smallest number possible, either bj' making
each discharge serve for as many as ])ossible of the sanitary and other pipes or in
any other satisfactory manner.

(8.) Discharges led through the ship's skin from spaces below the margin
line shall be fitted with efficient and accessible moans to i)revent water from
passing inwards. It is permissible to have either one valve, fitted with a means
of working it at a distance, or two valves without such gear, one of them being
alwaj^s accessible. In either case, the accessibility of the valves or of the means
of working shall be assured by their being situated not low^er than the deck referred
to paragraph (1) (a) of this article.

(9.) Gangway, cargo, and coaling ports shall not 1)C fitted Ix-low the load
water line. None of these ])orts shall be fitted, even towards the ends of the
vessel, in a space below the lowest 'tween deck space in the amidship region of
which it is ])ermissible to fit such i)()rts.

(10.) (Gangway, cargo, and coaling ))orts in the vessel's side below the margin
line shall l)e effectively closed and made secure i)efore the vessel jiuts to sea.
and kept closed during the navigation of the ship.

(11.) The inboard openings of ash-shoots, rubbish-shoots, «fec., shall not In-
lower than the deck referred to in paragraph (1) (a) of this article. They may be
permitted above this level if fitted, to the satisfaction of the Administration,
with efficient covers, which shall be watertight if below the margin line. Sucii
covers shall be so arranged as to prevent their being clogged in any way, and sluill
be at least as easily and effectively dosed as watertight doors antl side scuttles.

FOB THE SAFETY OF HUAfAX LIFE AT S'EA 47

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 129

Article XVII.
Construction and Tests of Watertight Doors, Side Scuttles, d'c.

(1.) The design and the materials used in the construction of watertight
doors, side scuttles, coaling, cargo, and gangway ports, valves, pipes, ash and
rubbish shoots shall be to the satisfaction of the Administration.

(2. Watertight doors shall l)e tested by a water pressure corresponding
to the head prescribed for the bulkhead where the doors are located. The test
shall be made before the vessel is put in service, and either before or after the
door is fitted.

Article XVIII.

Construction and Initial Tests of Watertight Decks, Trunks, d'c.

(1.) Watertight decks, trunks, and ventilators shall be of the same strength
as the bulkhead at the place where they occur. The means used for making them
watertight and the arrangements adopted for closing the various openings in
them shall be satisfactory- to the Administration. If watertight covers are used
for closing these openings, they shall be fitted before the vessel goes to sea, and
kept closed while the vessel is at sea.

(2.) A hose or flooding test shall be applied to watertight decks and a hose
test to watertight trunks after completion. Watertight ventilators and trunks
shall be carried to at least the margin line.

(3.) No change shall be made in the structure of watertight decks, trunks
and ventilators after the completion of the survey unless with the permission of
the Administration.

Article XIX.

Periodical Operation and Inspection of Watertight Doors, dc.

In all vessels defined in Article 2 of the Convention, drills for the operating
of watertight doors, side scuttles, valves, and closing mechanisms of scuppers,
ash-shoots and rubbish-shoots, shall take place periodically during the voyage.
A complete drill shall take place before leaving port, a second as soon as prac-
ticable after leaving port, and others thereafter at least once a week during the
voyage. Provided that all watertight power doors and hinged doors in main
transverse bulkheads in use at sea shall be operated daily.

The watertight door system and all mechanisms and indicators connected
therewith, and all valves the closing of which is necessary to maintain the water-
tightness of the compartment, shall be periodically inspected at sea at least once-
a week.

Article XX.

Entries in Official Log.

In all vessels defined in Article 2 of the Convention, hinged doors, portable
plates, coaling, cargo and gangway ports, side scuttles, and other openings,
which are required by the preceding rules to be kept closed while at sea, shall be
closed before the vessel puts to sea. The time for closing, and time of opening
(if permissible under these Regulations), shall be recorded in the official log.

A record of all drills and inspections required by Article XIX shall be
entered in the official log, with an explicit record of any defects.

48 lATERXATIOXAL CONTENTION

4 GEORGE v., A. 19U
Article XXI.

Double Bottoms.

(1.) In vessels 61 metres (equivalent to 200 feet) and under 76 metres
(equivalent to 249 feet) in length, a double bottom shall be fitted at least from the
machinerj' space to the forepeak bulkhead, or as near thereto as practicable.

(2.) In vessels 76 metres (equivalent to 249 feet) and under 91.5 metres
(equivalent to 300 feet) in length, a double bottom shall be fitted at least outside
of the machinery space and shall extend to the fore and after peak bulkheads
respectiveh', or as near thereto as practical)le.

(3.) In vessels 91.5 metres (equivalent to 300 feet) and over in length, a
double bottom shall be fitted amidship and shall extend to the fore and after peak
bulkheads respectively, or as near thereto as practicable.

(4.) In vessels over 91 . 5 metres (equivalent to 300 feet) in length, the inner
Ijottom shall be continued out to the ship's side in such manner as to protect the
bilges.

(5.) In vessels over 213 metres (ccjuivalent to 699 feet) in length, the double
bottom, for at least half the vessel's length amidships and forward to the forepeak
l>ulkhead, shall extend up the vessel's sides to a height iil)ove the top of the keel
not less than 10 per cent of the vessel's moulded breadth.

(6.) Wells constructed in the double bottom in connection with drainage
arrangements shall not be extended downwards from the inner bottom more than
half the depth of the double bottom at that point. A well extending to the outer
skin is, however, permitted at the after end of the shaft tunnels of screw vessels.

Article XXII.

Bachiuii Power.

Vessels shall have sufficient backing power in order to secure ])roper control
of the vessel under all conditions of navigability.

Article XXIII.

Auxiliary Steeriiuj A pjHirotiis.

Vessels shall be provided with an auxiliary steering a})paratus, which, how-
tjver, may be of less power than the main apparatus, and need not be worked by
steam or other mechanical poAver.

Article XXI \'.

Initial and Subsequent Siirveys of Vessels.

All vessels defined in Article 2 of the Convention shall Ix- subjected at least
to the following surveys, as specified in detail in Article XX\' below:

(A) Before the vessel is put in service:

(B) Once each year; and

((') l-5etween the annual surveys, if rcciuired.

FOR THE SAFETY OF HIUAX LIFE AT SEA 49

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 129

Article XXA'.

The surveys referred to in the previous article shall be carried out as follows —

(A) The survey before the vessel is put in service shall include a complete in-
spection of the hull, machinery, and equipments, including the outside of the
vessel's bottom, and the inside and outside of the boilers. The survey shall be
such as to ensure that the arrangements, material, and scantlings of the hull,
boilers, and their appurtenances, main and auxiliary machinery, life-sa\'ing
appliances and other equipments, fully comply with the requirements of this
Convention and of the detailed rules and regulations promulgated by the Gov-
ernment of the country to which the vessel belongs for vessels of the service
in which she will be employed. The survey shall also be such as to ensure that
the workmanship of all parts of the vessel and her equipments is in all respects
satisfactory.

(B) The amnial survey shall include an inspection of the whole of the hull,
boilers, machinery, and equipments, including the outside of the vessel's bottom.
The survey shall be such as to ensure that the vessel, as regards the hull, boilers,
and their appurtenances, main and auxiliary machinery, life-saving appliances,
and other equipments, is in satisfactory condition for the service in which she
will be employed, and that she complies in all respects with the requirements
of this Convention, and of the detailed rules and regulations promulgated as a
result thereof by the Government of the country to which the vessel belongs.

(C) A survey or inspection, either general or partial, according to the circum-
stances, shall be made when any accident occurs or defect arises which affects
the safety of the vessel or the efficiency or completeness of her life-saving
appliances or other equipment, or when any important repairs or renewals are
made; and the surve}' or inspection shall be such as to secure that the necessary
repairs or renewals have been effectively made, that the material and workman-
ship of such repairs or renewals are in all respects satisfactory, and that the vessel
complies in all respects with the requirements of this Convention and of the
detailed rules and regulations promulgated as a result thereof by the Government
of the country to which the vessel belongs.

Article XXVI.

The detailed rules and regulations referred to in Article XXV shall prescribe
the requirements to be observed as to the initial and subsequent hydraulic tests
to which the main and auxiliary boilers, connections, steam-pipes, reservoirs
which are subjected to high pressure, and fuel tanks for oil motors are to be
submitted, as regards the test pressure to be applied, and the intervals between
the tests.

Main and auxiliary boilers, connections, tanks, reservoirs, and steam-piping
more than 102 millimetres (four inches) in diameter shall be satisfactorily tested
by hydraulic pressure when new and thereafter at fixed intervals.

The initial and subsequent test pressures of the boilers shall not be less
than one-and-a-half times the working pressure, or five atmospheres above the
working pressure, whichever is the less. If the initial test pressure does not
exceed five atmospheres above the working pressure, the interval between the
subsequent tests shall not exceed two years. With a higher initial test pressure,
the interval may be increased, and if the initial test pressure is doul)le the working
pressure, the interval nuiy be six years, but it shall in no case exceed that period.

129—4

50 INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

LIFE SAVING APPLIANCES AND FIRE PROTECTION:

Article XXVII.
Standard Types of Boats.
The standard types of boats are classified as follows :

rifis?.

Section.

Type.

I [

(Entirely rigid sides). [
II
(Partially collapsible sides). •!

A
B
C

A
B

C

Open. Internal buoyancy only.

Open. Internal and external buoyancy.

Pontoon. Well deck; fixed watertight bulwarks.

Open. Upper part of sides collapsible.

Pontoon. Well deck; collapsible watertight bul-
warks.

Pontoon. Flush tlock. collapsible watertight bul-
warks.

Motor boats may be accepted if they comply with the requirements laid
down for boats of the first class, but only to a limited number, which number
shall be determined b}'^ each Government in its own regulations.

No boat may be approved the buoyancy of which depends upon the previous
adjustment of one of the principal parts of the hull, or which has not a cubic
capacity of at least 3.5 cubic metres (equivalent to 125 cubic feet).

Article XVIII.

Boats of the First Class.

The standard types of l)oats of the first class must satisfy the following
conditions :—

lA. Open boats with internal buoyancy only.

The buoyancy of a wooden boat of this type shall be ])rovided in the form
of watertight air-cases, the total volume of which shall be at least equal to one-
tenth of the cubic capacity of the boat.

The buoyancy of a metal boat of this type shall not be less than that required
above for a wooden boat of the same cubic capacity, the volume of watertigh t
air-cases being increased accordingly.

IB. Open boats }rith internal and external buoyancy.

The internal buoyancy of a wooden l)()at of this type shall be provided by
watertight air-cases, the total volume of which is at least equal to seven and a half
per cent, of the cubic capacity of the boat.

The external buoyancy may be of cork or of any other ecpially efficient
material, but such buoyancy shall not be secured l)y the use of rushes, cork
shavings, loose granulated cork or any other granulated substance, or by any
means dependent ui)()n inflation by air.

If the buoyancy is of cork, its volume, for a wooden boat, shall not be les.s
than thirty-three thousjindths of the cubic capacity of the boat ; if of any matt^rial

FOR THE SAFETY OF HUMAX LIFE AT SEA 51

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 129

other than cork, its volume and distribution shall be such that the buoyancy and
stability of the boat are not less than that of a similar boat provided with buoy-
ancy of cork.

The buoyancy of a metal boat shall be not less than that reciuired above for
a wooden boat of the same cubic capacity, the volume of air-cases and external
buoyancy being increased accordingh'.

IC Pontoon boats, in which persons cannot be accommodated below the deck,
having a well deck and fixed watertight bulwai-ks.

The area of the well deck of a boat of this type shall be at least 30 per cent
of the total deck area. The height of the well deck above the water line at all
points shall be at least equal to one-half per cent of the length of the boat, this
height being increased to one and a half per cent of the length of the boat at the
ends of the well.

The freeboard of a boat of this type shall be such as to give a reserve buoy-
ancy of at least thirty-five per cent.

Article XXIX.

Boats of Second Class.

The standard types of boats of the second class must satisfy the following
conditions : —

2A. Open boats having the upper part of the sides collapsible.

A boat of this type shall be fitted with watertight air-cases and external
buoyancy, the volume of which, for each person which the boat is able to accom-
modate, shall be at least equal to the following amounts: —

Cubic Square

Decimeters. feet.

Air cases 43 1.5

External Buoyancy (if of cork) 6 0.2

The minimum freeboard of boats of this ty})e varies in accordance with
their length; it is measured vertically to the top of the solid hull at the side
amidships, from the water level when the boat is loaded.

The freeboard in fresh water shall not be less than the following amounts: —

Length of the

B

Xil.

Miniinuiii

Frei

•ho

anl.

Metres. !

i

Eqiiivalcnt

in

feet to

Millimetre ••.

i
i

Equivalent

in

inches to

1

7-90
8-50
9- 15

26
28

:}0

2(M)
225
250

1

8
9

10

The freeboard of tiic boats of intermediate lengths is to l)e found by inter-
polation.

129— 4i

52 INTEh'NATIOXAL COyVEyTIOX

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914
2B. Potiloon boats having a well deck and collapsible bulwarks.

All the conditions laid down for boats of type IC are to be applied to boats
of this type, which differ from those of type IC only in regard to the bulwarks.

2C. Pontoon boats, in which the persons cannot be accommodated belou- deck,
having a flush deck and collapsible bidwarks.

The minimum freeboard of boats of this tj'pe is independent of their lengths
and depends only upon their depth. The depth of the boat is to be measured
vertically from the underside of the garboard-strake to the top of the deck on the
side amidships and the freeboard is to be measured from the top of the deck at the
side amidships to the water line when the boat is loaded.

The freeboard in fresh water shall not be less than that given in the following
table, which shall l)e applied without correction to boats having a mean sheer
equal to three per cent of their length: —

Dopili of Boat.

Minimum Frcebo:ird.

Equivalent
MilHinetics. in inches,

to

Equivalent
Milliinetrns. in incho.«,
to

.310

12

70

<>*

460

IS

9.")

33

610

20

130

51

760

;}0

16.5

61

For intermediate depths the freeboard is obtained by interpolation.

If the sheer is less than the standard sheer defined above, the minimum free-
board is obtained by adding to the figures in the tal)le one-seventh of the difference
between the standard sheer and the actual mean sheer measured at the stem and
stern post ; no deduction is to lie made from the fieeboard on account of the sheer
l)eing greater than the standard sheer or on account of the camber of the deck.

AUTRLE XXX.

Motor Boats.

When motor l)oats arc accepted, the volume of internal l)U()yancy and,
when fitted, the external buoyancy, must be increastnl in accordance with the
difference between the weight of the machinery and the weight of the additional
jKM-sons which the boat could accomniodate if tiie machinery were removed.

Artklk X.X.XI.

Arr(tngetnenlf< far clearing Poiitomt Lifeboats of Water.

\\\ i)ontoon lifeboats .shall i)e fitted with efficient means for (juickly clearing
the deck of water. The orifices for this purpose shall be such that the water
cannot enter the boat through them when tiiey are intermittently submerged.
The number and size of the orifices shall l)e determined for each type of boat
by a special test.

FOR THE SAFETY OF HUMAX LIFE AT SEA 53

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 129

For the purpose of this test the pontoon boat shall be loaded with iron
weights equal to all the persons the boat is deemed fit to carry and the weight'of
the equipment. ^^P

In the case of a boat 8 . 5 metres in length (ecjuivalent to 28 feet) two tons of
water shall be cleared from the boat in a time not exceeding the following : —

Type IC 60 seconds.

" 2B 60

" 2C 20 "

In the case of a boat having a length greater or less than 8 . 5 metres (equiva-
lent to 28 feet) the weight of water to be cleared in the same time shall be, for
each type, directly proportional to the length of the boat.

Article XXXII.

Co)i.struction of Boats.

Open lifeboats cf the first class (types lA and IB) must have a mean sheer
at least equal to four per cent of their length.

The air-cases of open boats of the first class shall be placed along the sides
of the boat; they may also be placed at the ends of the boat, but not in the
liottom of the boat.

Pontoon lifeboats may be built of wood or metal. If constructed of wood,
they shall have the bottom and deck made of two thicknesses with textile material
between; if of metal, they shall be divided into watertight compartments with
means of access to each compartment.

All boats shall be fitted for the use of a steering oar.

Article XXXIII.

Pontoon Rafts.

No tj'pe of pontoon raft may be approved unless it satisfies the following
conditions : —

1. It should be reversible and fitted with bulv/arks of wood, canvas or other

suitable material on both sides. These bulwarks may be collapsible.

2. It should be of such size, strength and weight that it can be handled

without mechanical appliances, and, if necessary, be thrown from the
vessel's deck.
3 It should have not less than 85 cubic decimetres (equivalent to three
cubic feet) of air-cases or equivalent buoyancy for each person whom
it can accommodate.

4. It should have a deck area of not less than 3,720 square centimetres (equi-

valent to four square feet) for each person which it can accommodate
and the platform should not be less than 15 centimetres (equivalent to
six inches) above the water level when the r;xft is loaded.

5. The air-cases or equivalent buoyancy should be placed as near as possible

to the sides of the raft.

Article XXXIV.

Capacity of Boats and Pontoon Rafts.

1. The number of persons which a boat of one of the standard types or a
pontoon raft can accommodate is equal to the greatest whole number obtained

54

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

by dividing the capacity in cubic metres (or cubic feet), or the surface in square
metres (or square feet), of the boat or of the raft by the standard unit cf capacity,
or unit of surface (according to circumstances), defined below for each tj'pe.

2. The cul)ic capacity in metres of a boat in which the number of persons
is determined by the surface shall be assumed to be 0.283 time the nmnber of
persons which it is authorized to carry.

3. The standard units of capacity and surface are as follows : —

Unit of Capacity.

Open boats, Type lA.
Open boats, Type IB.

Equivalent in
Cubic feet.

Unit of Surface.

Open boats. Type 2 A..
Pontoon boats, Type 2 C
" Type IC.
Type 2B.

Equivalent in
Squaie Feet.

4. Tht; Government of each High Contracting Party has the right to accept
in place of the figure 0.302 (3j), a smaller figure, if it is satisfied after trial that
the number of persons for whom there is seating accommodation in the pontoon
boat in question is greater than the number obtained by applying the above
figure, provided alwavs that the figure adopted in place of 0.302 mav never be
less than 0.279 (3).'

The Government which accepts a lower figure in this way should communi-
cate to the Governments of the other Contracting Parties particulars of the trial
and drawings of the pontoon-boat in question.

AUTKLE ,\XX\ .

Pontoon boats and pontoon rafts shall never be marked with a number of
{)ersons greater than that ol)tained in the manner sjiecified in the ])resent regu-
lations.

This number shall be reduced:- —

(1) When it is greater than the number of persons for which there is proper

seating accommodation, this number being determined in such a way
that the persons when seated do not interf<'re in any way with the use
of the oars.

(2) When, in the case of boats other than those of the first two sections of the

first class, the freeboard when the boat is loaded is less than the free-
l)oard laid down for each type respectively. In such circumstances
the numi)er shall l>e reduced until the freeboard when the boat is
loaded is at least equal to the standard freei)oard laid down above.

Inboatsfor types IC and 2B the raised part of the deck at the sides of the
wt'll may be regarded as affording seating accommodation.

FOR THE SAFF.TY OF HU.UAX LIFE AT SEA 55

F5ESSI0NAL PAPER No. 129

Article XXXVI.
Equivalents for and Weight of the Persons.

In the tests for determining the number of persons which a boat or pontoon
raft can accommodate each person shall be an adult person wearing a life-jacket.

In the verifications of the freeboard the pontoon-boats shall be loaded with
a weight of at least 75 kilogrammes (165) lbs. for each adult person that the boat
or pontoon raft is allowed to carr3^

In all cases two children under 12 years of age shall be reckoned as one person.

Article XXXVII.

Cubic capacity of Boats of the First Section of the First Class.

1. The cubic capacity of an open boat of type lA or IB shall be determined
by Stirling's (Simpson's) Rule or by any other method giving the same degree
of accuracy. The capacity of a square-sterned boat shall be calculated as if the
boat has a pointed stern.

2. For example, the capacity- in cubic metres (or cubic feet) of a boat,
calculated by the aid of Stirling's Rule may be considered as given by the follow-
ing formula : —

/
Capacit V = — (4A + 2i? +4C)
12

/ being the length of the boat in metres (or feet) from the inside of the planking or
plating at the stem to the corresponding point at the stern post ; in the case of a
l)oat with square stern the length is measured to the inside of the transom. A,
B, C equal respectiveh' the areas of the cross-sections at the quarter length for-
ward, amidships, and the cjuarter length aft, which correspond to the three points
obtained by dividing / into four equal parts. (The areas corresponding to the
two ends of the boat are considered negligible.)

The areas A, B, C shall be deemed to be given in square metres (or square
feet) by the successive application of the following formula to each of the three
cro.ss-sections : —

h •
Area = — (a + 46 + 2c+4rf-f-e)
12

h being the depth measured in metres (or in feet) inside the planking or plating
from the keel to the level of the gunwhale, or, in certain cases, to a lower level as
determined hereafter.

a, b, c, d, e equal the horizontal breadths of the boat measured in metres (or
in feet) at the upper and lower points of the depth and at the three points obtained
by dividing h into four equal parts (a and e being the extreme points, and c the
middle point, of h.)

3. If the sheer of the gunwhale, measured at the two points situated at a
quarter of the length of the boat from the ends, exceeds 1 per cent of the length
of the boat, the depth employed in calculating the area of the cross-sections A or
C shall be deemed to be the depth amidships plus 1 per cent of the length of the
boat.

•4. If the depth of the boat amidship exceeds 45 per cent, of the breadth,
the depth employed in calculating the area of the amidship cross-section B shall
be deemed to be equal to the latter figure, and the depth employed in calculating
the areas of the quarter length sections A and C is obtained by increasing this

56 lyTERNATIOXAL COXYEXTION'

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

last figure l)y an amount equal to 1 per cent of the length of the boat, provided
that in no case shall the depth employed in the calculation exceed the actual
depths at these points.

0. If the depth of the boat is greater than 122 centimetres (equivalent to 4
feet) the number of persons given by the application of this rule shall be reduced
in proportion to the ratio of that limit to the actual depth, until the boat has been
tested afloat with that number of persons on board all wearing their life jackets.

6. Each Administration shall impose, by suitable formula, a limit for the
number of persons allowed' in boats with very fine ends and in ])oats very full in
form.

7. Each Administration reserves the right to assign to a boat a capacity
equal to the product of the length, the breadth and the depth multiplied to 0.6
(if it is satisfied that this formulae does not give a greater capacity than that ob-
tained by the above method.) The dimension^ shall then be measured in the
folloAving manner: —

Length: From the inter-section of the outside of the planking or plating
with the stem to the corresponding point at the stern post or, in the case of
a square sterned boat, to the after side of the transom.

Breadth: From the outside of the planking at the point where the
width of the boat is greatest.

Depth: Amidships inside the planking from the keel to the level of the
gunwhale. But the depth used in calculating the cubic capacity may not
in any case exceed 45 per cent of the breadth.

In all cases the ship owner has the right to require that the cubic capacity
of the boat shall be determined by exact measurement.

8. The cubic capacity of a motor-boat is obtained from the gross capacity
by deducting a volume equal to that occupied by the machinery.

Article XXXVIII.

The area of the deck of pontoon boats and open boats of the Second Class.

1. The area of the deck of a pontoon boat of type It", 2b, or 2c shall be
determined by the method indicated below or by any other method giving the
same degree of accuracy. The same rule is to be applied in determining the area
within the fixed bulwarks of a boat of type 2a.

2. For example, the surface in square metres (or square feet) of a boat may
l)e deemed to be given by the following formula : —

Area = — (2fl + 1.5fe+4c-M.5ry + 2e).

/ being the length in metres [or in feet) from the intersection of the outside of the
planking or plating with the stem to the corresponding point at the stern post.

a, b, c, d, e equal the horizontal breadths in metres (or in feet) outside the
])lanking at the points obtained by dividing / into four equal parts and sub-
dividing the foremost and aftermost parts into two equal parts (a and e correspond
to the extreme sub-divi.sions, c to the middle point of the length, and b and d to
the intermediate points).

FOR THE SAFETY OF HFMAX LIFE AT SEA 57

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 129

Article XXXIX.
Marking of Boats and Pontoon Rafts.

The dimensions of the boat, together with the number of persons which it is.
allowed to carr\-, shall be marked on it in clear permanent characters. These,
marks shall be specifically approved by the officers appointed to inspect the ship.

Pontoon raft shall be marked with the number of persons in the same manner.

Article XL.
Equipment of Boats and Pontoon Rafts.

1 . The normal equipment of every boat consists of : —

(a) A single banked complement of oars and two spare oars; one set and a
half of thole pins or crutches; a boat hook.

(h) Two plugs for each plug-hole (plugs are not required when proper auto-
matic valves are fitted) ; a bailer and a galvanised iron bucket.

(c) A tiller or yoke and yoke lines.

{d) Two hatchets.

(c) A lamp filled AAdth oil and trimmed.

(/) A mast or masts with at least one good sail, and proper gear for each.
(This does not apply to motor lifeboats.)

{(j) An efficient compass.

Pontoon lifeboats should have no plug-liole, but should be provided with at
least two bilge-pumps.

In the case of a ship defined in Article 2 of the Convention, which carries
passengers in the North Atlantic all the boats need not be equipped with masts,
sails, and compasses, if the ship is provided with a radio-telegraph installation.

2. The normal equipment of every approved pontoon-raft consists of: —
(a) Four oars.

(6) Five rowlocks.

(c) A self-igniting lifebuoy light.

3. In addition every boat and pontoon-raft shall be equipped with: —
(a) A life-line secureh' becketted round the outside.

(6) A sea-anchor.

(c) A painter.

{d) A vessel containing five litres (eciuivalent to one gallon) of vegetable or

animal oil. The vessel shall be so constructed that the oil can be

easily distriljuted on the water, so arranged that it can be attached

to the sea-anchor.
(e) A watertight receptacle containing one kilogram (equivalent to two

pounds avoirdupoids) of provisions for each person.
{/) A watertight receptacle containing one litre (equivalent to one quart)

for each person.
{g) A number of self-igniting "red lights" and a watertight box of matches.

Article XLI.

Davits.

Each set of davits shall have a boat of the first class attached to it, pro-
vided that the number of open boats of the first class attached to davits shall not
be less than the minimum number fixed by the Table which follows.

If it is neither practicable nor reasonable to place on a ship the minimum
number of sets of davits required, the Government of the country to which the

58 INTERNATIOXAL COKVEXTIoy

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

ship belongs maj'^ authorise a smaller number of sots of davits to be fitted, pro-
vided always that this number shall never be less than the minimum number of
open boats of the first class required by the rules.

If a large proportion of the persons on board are accommodated in boats whose
length is greater than 15 metres (equivalent to 50 feet) a further reduction in
the number of sets of davits maj' be allowed as a special concession, if the Admin-
istration concerned is satisfied that the arrangements are in all respects satis-
factory.

In all cases in which a reduction on the minimum" numljer of sets of davits
required by the rules is allowed, the owner of the ship in question shall be re-
quired to prove, by a test made in the presence of a surveyor appointed by the
Government, that all the boats can be efficiently launched in a minimum time.

The conditions of this test shall be as follows: —

1. The ship is to be upright and in smooth water;

2. The time is the time required from the beginning of the removal of the

boat covers, or any other operation necessary to prepare the boats
for lowering, until the last boat or pontoon raft is afloat;
^. The number of men employed in the whole operation must not exceed the
total number of boat hands that will be carried on the vessel under
normal service conditions;
4. Each boat when l^eing lowered must have on board at least two men and

its full equipment as required by the rules.
The time allowed for putting all the boats into the water shall be fixed by a
formula to be determined by the Government of each High Contracting Party,
each Government undertaking to communicate its decision to the Governments of
the other Contracting Parties.

Akticle XLII.

Additional Boats and Pontoon Rafts.

If the lifeboats attached to davits do not provide sufficient accommodation
for all the persons on board, additional lifeboats of one of the standard types
shall be provided. This addition shall bring the total capacity of the boats on
the ship at least up to the greater of the two following amounts: —

(a) The minimum" capacity required by the present Regulations;

(b) A capacity sufficient to accommodate seventy-five per cent of the per-

sons on board.
The remainder of the a«ccommodation reciuircd shall be provided either in
boats of Class 1 or 2, or in pontoon rafts of an approved type.

Article XTJII.

Minimum Number of Davits and of Open Boats of the First Class. —
Minimum Boat Capacity.

The following table fixes, according to the length of the ship: —

(a) The 7ninimum number of sets of davits to be provided, to each of which

must be attached a boat of the first class in accordance with Chapter

VI, Life Saving Appliances, Article 47 of the Convention, and

Article XLI above.
(6) The yninimum total number of open boats of the first class, which must be

attached to davits, in accordance with Article XLI above.

hOli THi: SAFKT) OF HIMAX LIFK AT SEA

59

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 129

(c) The minimum boat capacity required, including the boats attached to
davits, and the additional boats, in accordance with Article XLII
above.

(B.)

(C.)

Rcgistererl length of the Ship

. (A-)

Minimum

Minimum capacity

Minimum

number

of Life-boats.

number

of

nf «sPt<? of

open boats
of the

da\ats.

1

Metres.

Feet.

First Class.

Cubic Cubii-
metres. | feet.

31 et

au-dessous de 37

lOOetau-dessou?

del20

2

2

28

980

37

43

120

140

2

2

35

1-220

43

49

140

160

2

2

44 1

550

49

53

160

175

3

3

5:i 1

880

53

58

175

190

3

3

68 2

390

58

63

190

205

4

4

78 2

740

63

67

205

220

4

4

94 . 3

330

67

70

220 "

230

5

4

110 3

900

70

75

230

245

5

4

129 i 4

560

75

78

245

255

6

5

144 , 5

100

78

82

255

270

6

5

160 i 5

640

82

87

270

285

7

5

175 : 6

190

87

91

285

300

7

5

196 ' 6

930

91

96

300

315

8

6

254 7

550

96

101

315

330

8

6

235 ; 8

290

101

107

330

350

9

7

255 i 9

000

107

113

350

370

9

7

273 j 9

630

113

119

370

390

10

7

301 ! 10

650

119

125

390

410

10

7

331 i 11

700

125

133

410

435

12

9

370 j 13

060

133

140

435

460

12

9

408 14

430

140

149

460

490

14

10

451 i 15

920

149

159

490

520

14

10

490

17

310

159

168

.520

550

16

12

530

18

720

168

177

550

580

16

12

576

20

350

177

186

580

610

18

13

620

21

900

186

195

610

640

18

13

671

23

700

195

204

640

670

20

14

717 25

350

204

213

670

700

20

14

766 27

050

213

223

700

■7.S0

22

15

808 28

560

223

232

730

760

22

15

854 ' 30

180

232

241

760

790

24 •

17

908 32

100

241

250

790

820

24

17

972 34

350

250

261

820

8.55

26

18

1031 .36

4.50

261

271

8.55

890

26

18

1-097 ; 38

750

271

282

890

925

28

19

M60 41

000

282

293

925

960

28

19

1-242 : 43

880

293

303

960

995

30

20

1-312 46

350

303

314

995

1030

30

20

1-380 1 48-750

When the length of the ship exceeds 314 metres (equivalent to 1,030 feet)
the Government of the country to which the ship belongs shall determine the
minimum number of sets of davits and of open boats of the fir.st class of that ship;
full particulars of its decision shall be communicated to the Governments of the
other Contracting Parties.

Article XLIV.

Launching of Boats and Rafts.

The arrangements for launching boats on either side of the ship may be
made either V)y means of appliances for transferring the boats or rafts from one
side of the deck to the other, or by stowing some of the boats not under davits,
or rafts, in rows across the deck or by any other equally efficient means.

60

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION

4 GEORGE v., A. 19U

The davits and other appliances for lowering the boats shall be placed on one
or more decks in such positions that the handling of the boats can be efficiently
carried out. They shall not be placed in the bows of the ships or in places where
the close proximity of the propellers might constitute a danger to the boats at the
time of launching. Boats may be stowed on one or more decks provided that
proper measures are taken to prevent boats on an upper deck damaging those
stowed below them.

If more than one boat is served by the same set of davits arrangements shal i
be made to prevent the falls folding when the}' are recovered.

Article XLY.
Life-JacketH and Life-Buoy.s.

1. A life-jacket shall satisfy the following conditions: —
(a) It shall be of approved material and construction ;

(h) It shall be capable of supporting in fresh water for 24 hours 6 . 8 kilo-
grammes of iron (ecjuivalent to 15 pounds). Life-jackets the buoy-
ancy of which depends on air compartments are not allowed.

2. A life-buoy shall satisfy the following conditions : —

(a) It shall be of solid cork or any other equivalent material ;

(b) It shall be capable of supporting in fresh water for 24 hours at least

14 kilogrammes (equivalent to 31 pounds) of iron.
Life-buo3's filled with rushes, cork shavings or granulated cork, or any other
loose granulated material, or whose buoj'ancy depends upon air compartments
which require to be inflated, are prohibited.

3. The minimum number of life-lnioys to lie provided is fixed l\v the follow-
ing table : —

Length

of the

Ship.

XuiuIjc,-

Metres.

Eciuivalint in

1'

oet.

'

Buoys.

Unlcr 122

Undei 400

400 and under GOO

600 and under 800
800 and over

12

P'' and under 183

IS

183 !inf! under 244

24

''14 and over

■V)

4. All the buoys shall be fitted with beckets securely seized. At least one
buoy on each side shall be fitted with a life-line of at least 27 . 5 metres (15 fathoms)
in length. The number of luminous buoys shall not be less than one-half of the
total number of lifelnioys carried, and in no case less than six. The lights shall
be efficient self-igniting lights which cannot l)e extinguished in tlu> water, and
they shall be kept near the l)Uoys to which they belong with the necessary means
of attachment. The life-buoys must always be ready to be cast loose, and must
not be permanently secured in any way.

5. All the life-buoys and life-jackets shall be so placed as to be reailily accessi-
ble to all the persons on board; their position shall be plainly indicated so as to
be known to the persons concerned.

The life-buoys shall always be capable of being cast loose, and shall not be
permanently secured in any way.

FOR THE SAFETY OF HUMAX LIFE AT SEA 61

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 129

Article XL VI.

Exemptions for Existiyig Ships.

The exemptions allowed in the case of existing ships, as provided by Article
52 of the Convention are as follows : —

(a) Until the 1st January, 1920, boats and rafts which have been accepted
b}' the Administration of a Contracting State on board an existing
ship may be accepted, respectively, in lieu of the lifeboats and life-
crafts prescribed by the present Convention.

(6) Until the 1st January, 1920, the requirements that pontoon lifeboats
should have the bottom and deck made in two thicknesses with textile
material between, and that they should have the minimum freeboard
specified need not be insisted upon in the case of pontoon boats accepted
in accordance with the preceding paragraph (a).

(c) In the case of ships between 75 metres (245 feet) and 140 metres (460
feet) in length, the minimum number of sets of davits may be reduced
by one, and in the case of ships of more than 140 metres (460 feet)
in length, the minimum number of sets of davits may l)e reduced by one
set on each side of the ship, below the figure given in Column B of
the Table in Article XLIII above. These reductions shall only be
allowed if ample provision is made for launching the boats:

(fl) The provisions of Articles 42 and 49 of the Convention, respecting
the launching of boats, shall not be applied to existing ships.

Article XL VII.

Certified Life-hoatmen.

In order to obtain the special certificate provided for in Chapter VI Life
Saving Appliances, Article 54 of the Convention, the applicant must prove
that he has been trained in all the operations connected with launching life-
boats, the use of oars; that he is acquainted with the practical handling of the
boats themselves; and, further, that he is capable of understanding and answering
the orders relative to life-boat service.

There shall be for each boat or pontoon raft a number of certified life-boat-
men at least equal to that specified in the following table: —

If tho Vjoat or raft carries: The niiniinuiii number of certified llfe-boat-

nien siiall be —

Lest; than 61 persons

From 61 to 85 persons. .
From SG to 110 persons. .
From 111 to 160 persons.
From 161 to 210 persons.

and, thereafter, one additional certified life-boatman for each additional 50
persons.

62 INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

Article XLVIII.
Manning of Boats.

An officer, ])etty officer, or seaman sliall be placed in charge of each boat
or pontoon raft; he shall have a list of its crew, and shall see that the men placed
under his orders are acquainted with their respective duties and stations.

A man capable of working the machinery shall be assigned to each motor
boat.

One or more officers shall be told off for seeing that the boats, pontoon-rafts,
and other life-saving a])pliances are at all times ready for use.

Article XLIX.
Fire Detection and Extinction.

1. A continuous patrol system shall be organized so that an outbreak of
fire may be promptly detected.

2. Every ship shall be provided with powerful steam or equivalent pumps.
On ships of less than 4,000 tons gross there shall be two, and on ships of 4,000
tons and over, three of these pumps. The pumps shall be capable of delivering
a sufficient quantity of water in two powerful jets simultaneously in any part
of the vessel, and shall he available for immediate use prior to leaving port.

3. The service pipes shall permit of two powerful jets of water being simul-
taneously directed on any part of a deck occupied by passengers and crew,
when the atertight and fire doors are closed. The service ])ipes and hoses
shall be of ample size and made of suitable material. The branches of the
pipes shall be so placed on ('ach deck that the fire hose can be easily coupled
to them.

4. Provision shall be made whereby at least two powerful jets of water
and an ample supply of steam may be simultaneously conveyed to every space
filled with cargo. Provision for the sui)ply of steam is noi required in ships
of less than 1,000 tons gross.

5. A sufficient number of i)ortable fluid fire extinguishers shall be ])r()vi(l<Hl.
at least two being carried in each machinery spa<'e.

The Governments of the High Contracting Parties may accept other type.--
of extinguishers provided that the Government concerned is satisfied by actual
trial that such extinguishers are as effective as the type referred to above. A
Government which accepts a new type of extinguisher will send particulars of
the apparatus and details of the trial to the Governments of the other Contracting
Parties.

6. Two equipments consisting of a smoke helmet and a safety lamp shall
be carried on board and kept in two different places.

7. The fire-extinguishing ajiplianccs shall be thoroughly examini'd at least
once each year ])y a surveyor apjiointcd by tlic rioverniiiciit .

AurK i.i; 1..

Mu.'itcr />/.v7.

The muster list shall assign duties to the different inenil)ei> of the wrw
in connection with: —

(a) The closing of the watertight doors, valves, Arc.

(6) The equipment of the boats and pontoon rafts generally.

(c) The launching of the boats attached to davits.

FOR THE SAFKri OF HUMAN LIFE AT SEA 63

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 129

(d) The general preparation of the other boats and the pontoon rafts.

(e) The muster of the passengers.
(/) The extinction of fire.

The muster list shall assign to the members of the Stewards' Department
their several duties in relation to the passengers at a time of emergency. These
duties shall include: —

(a) Warning the passengers.

(b) Seeing that they are dressed and have put on their life-jackets in a,

proper manner.

(c) Assembling the passengers.

(d) Keeping order in the passages and on the stairways, and, generally
controlling the movements of the passengers.

The muster list shall specify definite alarm signals for calling all the crew
to their boat and fire stations and shall give full particulars of these signals.

Article LI.

Muster and Drills.

Musters of the crew at their beat and fire stations followed by boat and
fire drills respectively, shall be held at least once a fortnight, either in port
or at sea. An entry shall be made in the log book in respect of each drill, or
of the reasons why thej^ could not be held.

DilTerent groups of boats shall be used in turn at each successive boat
drill. The drills and inspections shall be so arranged that the crew thoroughly
understand and are practised in the duties they have to perform, and that all
the boats and pontoon-rafts on the ship with the gear appertaining to them
are always ready for immediate use.

SAFETY CERTIFICATES.
Article LII.
Standard Safety Certificate.
(Official Seal) (Country)

SAFETY CERTIFICATE.
Issued under the provisions of the
INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA.
Signed at London, 20th January, 1914-

Name of Vessel .

Signal Letters.

International t*ort of Registry.
Code.

(Jross Tonnag( .

!

64

IN TERN A T I ON A L C ON TEN TI ON

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

(Name)
I, the undersigned certify:

I. that the above mentioned vessel has been duly surveyed in accordance

with the provisions of the International Convention referred to
above ;

II. that the survey showed that the vessel complied with the require-

ments of the said Convention as regards :

(1) the hull, watertight subdivision, main and auxiliary boilers and
machinery :

Convention, Art. 17, and annexed Regulations, Art. X.

(To be filled up only
on the request
of the owner.)

Lengths.

Meti-es.

Equivalent

in

feet to.

(1) of the vessel for which this certificate is is.siied

(2) of the standard vessel (Column C of the Table in Art. VIII of the Regula-
tions) whose factor of sub-division has been employed in the case of the vessel
for which this certificate is issued

J

(2) the boats and life-saving appliances:

boats capable of afcornmodatinc; persons.

rafts " " "

lifc-l)uoys.

life-jackets.

(3) Radiotelegraphy installation: —

Class of Ship:
Nunil)er of (Operators of the 1st Cla^ss
" 2nd "
I Certified Watchers

Class and number!
required by

Articles 33 and 34 ,
of the said |
Convention. i

.\ctuai
class and
numbers.

III. That in all other respects the vessel complies with the rcciuircinent.s
of the said Convention, so far as those requirements apply.

Tliis certificate is issued under the authority of the
< lovernment. It will remain in force until

The undersigned declares that he is duly autlioriscd by the said Covern-
mont to issue this certificate.

Issuiid at

(Signature
the (lav (tf

FOR TEE SAFETY OF HUM AX LIFE AT SEA 65

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 129

FINAL PROTOCOL.

The undersigned Plenipotentiaries at the moment of signing the Con-
vention for the safety of human life at sea, concluded under this date, have
agreed as follows: —

I.

The voyages referred to in Article 2 of this Convention are those made
from a port of a Colony, Dominion or Protectorate, where the Convention
is in force to a port outside of the said country and vice versa.

II.

A special extension of time for the ratification of the Convention has been
granted to the Danish Governm.ent, namely: to the first day of April, 1915.

III.

This Convention does not applj^ to vessels registered in a Colony, Dominion
or^Protectorate where the Convention is not in force.

In witness whereof the Plenipotentiaries have drawn this final Protocol,
which will have the same force and effect as if its proA'isions were embodied
in the text itself of the Convention it refers to, and they have signed a copy
of it to be deposited in the archives of the British Government, a copj' of which
will be given to each one of the respective parties.

Drawn up at London, January-, 1914.

The Conference expresses the wish:

As to what concerns the safety of ships at sea:

1.

That recommiendation be made to the Government of the United States
and to the Directors of the Suez Canal Company, that every four hours they
publish notices in Colon, Panama and Suez, giving the barometric pressure
with the necessary corrections as to the temperature and the height above
sea level;

That the attention of the Governments which have adopted the regulations
enacted to pre^•cnt collisions at sea, be called to the necessity of revising the
same, especiall}' in reference to: —

1. Lights of sailing vessels.

2. Signals for indicating direction of vessel in fog.
.3. Regulations for men-of-war without lights.

4. Navigation of vessels in neighbourhood of formation of men-of-war.
. .5. Rules relating to submarine vessels.

6. The adaptation of lights and fog signals to the size and the speed of

modern ships.
129—5

66 IJTERXATIOyAL COXTEXTION

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

That the Governments interested in this matter continue to see that 'the
power of lights and fog signals used on board ships, comply fully with there-
quirements of the International regulations to prevent collisions at sea.

4.

That in view of the various practices followed, and opinions held in the
different countries in respect to the words of command used at the wheel, a
uniform system of command be devised concurrently with the modifications
of the rules laid doAvn to avoid collisions at sea.

That in those latitudes where thick weather is common, all the lightships
anchored at important points off the coasts be provided with submarine bells.

6.

That any large vessel referred to in Article 2 of this Convention, be pro-
vided with search-lights for life-saving or any other emergencj-.

7.

That no binoculars be given to the lookout men.

That the usual tests made to ascertain if the officers and lookout men
have sharp sight and are in possession of the faculty of distinguishing colours,
be generalized.

9.

That the question of making the port and tide signals more uniform be
taken into consideration by tlie different Governments.

10.

That the Governments of the High Contracting Parties consider the advisa-
abiity of approaching the shipping companies and the ship owners, in view
of preventing their vessels, in crossing the northern parts of the Atlantic Ocean,
from passing over the Newfoundland Banks, when fishing operations are most
active.

11.

That the International services referred to in Articles G and 7 of this Con-
vention, be, if possible, established in proper time to be useful during the season
1914 and 1915.

12.

That the International Conference re frce-hoard , which the British Govern-
ment intends to call as soon as the preparatory studies will be com])lete, may
at the same time, deal, if possible, with the deck loads of lumber or timber.

WIRELESS METEOROLOGICAL INFORMATION

The chssificalion of squares corresponding to 1 degree indicale the posilion of ihe ship at Ike moment of observation.

RENSEIGNEMENTS METEOROLOGIQUE PAR TELEGRAPHIE SANS FIL.

Classification dcs carrcs corr,cspondan(s a 1 dcgrue por iudiqucr la ■position du navire a Vinskint dc Vobservation.
5|0' 4|Q^ 30° 20"

66

That the G(
power of lights 2
quirements of th

That in vie
different countri
uniform system
of the rules laid

That in the
anchored at imj:

That any 1;
vided with searc

That no bir

That the i:
have sharp sigh
be generalized.

That the c
taken into consi

That the Goa
ablity of appro
of preventing tl
from passing o>
active.

That the I
vention, be, if \
1914 and 1915.

That the I
ment intends t
at the same tii

FOR THE SAFETY OF HUMAX LIFE AT SEA 67

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 129

As to what concerns Radiotelegraphy. %

13.

That the Governments of the Contracting Parties take the necessary steps
with the International Meteorological Commission to have it consider the
question of increasing the number of stations capable of sending meteorological
notices to vessels at sea, and of locating these stations in the most suitable
places.

14.

That in compliance with the wishes of the International Conference relating
to standard time, held at Paris in 1912: —

1. A meteorological service of radiotelegraphy be organized according

to the provisions of Article 45 of the Regulation annexed to the London
Convention on radiotelegraphy.

2. Foreign-going steamers and sailing ships be provided with apparatus

enabling them to receive horary and meteorological signals. f^

15. ^-

k
That the attention of the Governments of the Contracting States be called
to the advantage that would result from their efforts to reduce the loss of time
referred to in Article 38 of this Convention, regarding the installation of radio-
telegraphic apparatus and the recruiting of operators for vessels of the first
and second classes, as well as those referred to in the same Article for the install-
ation of the said apparatus, the recruiting of operators and the appointment
of a permanent man to listen to radiotelegraphic calls on board each vessel
of the second and third classes.

As to what concerns Life-saving Apparatus.
16.

That the attention of each one of the Governments of the Contracting
States be called to the advantage that Avould accrue from insuring as soon as
possible the application of the provisions of this Convention, concerning the
life-boat drills and fire drills, as well as the means to prevent, discover and distin-
guish fires on board ships.

In witness whereof the Plenipotentiaries have decided that the wishes
here above expressed be annexed to the final Protocol, in order that they may
be properly considered.

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 190 A. 1914

REPORT

OF

THE COMMISSION

TO INVESTIGATE THE MATTER OF THE

TRENT VALLEY CANAL

PRINTED BY ORDER OF PARLIAMENT.

OTTAWA

PRINTED BY J. dk L. TACHH, PRINTER TO THE KING'S MOST

EXCELLENT MAJESTY

1914

[No. 190—1914]

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 190 A. 1914

Honourable Frank Cochrane,

Minister of Railways and Canals,
Ottawa, Ont.

Uuder authority of the Commission issued to me in that behalf, I proceeded to
investigate the general administration of the Trent Valley Canal and the conduct of
the employees and now beg to report as follows : —

Alexander J. Grant is styled Superintending Engineer and has under his juris-
diction all new construction work on the Canal.

Joseph H. McClellan is known as Superintendent and is in charge of the main-
tenance of the Canal.

I found it convenient to deal with the two branches separately and first proceeded
to investigate the complaints referred to me in connection with Mr. McClellan's branch.
It is charged that grave irregularities occurred during the season of 1912 in con-
nection with the purchase of certain explosives for use on the Canal.

For some years previous to 1912 Superintendent McClellan had purchased the
explosives he required from the Kingan Hardware Company of Peterboro. In 1912
he shifted his patronage to Daniel Cinnamon, a hardware merchant of Lindsay. The
particular explosive in question here, is known as 'Blasters Friend' and is manufactured
by Dominion Explosives, Limited. This is put up in sticks or cartridges of different
strengths, li and 1^ inches thick and 8 and 12 inches in length. A case of the eight
inch sticks weights fifty pounds, which from the evidence appears to be the usual weight
of a box of explosives. The same sized, case of twelve inch goods seems to average
only about 35 to 37 pounds.

Robert G. Kingan, the President and Manager of the Kingan Hardware Company,
who seems to be a very close friend of McClellan's, persuaded the latter to use a special
make of Blasters Friend, known as 'Submarine Special', which is put up in sizes li
X 12.

During 1912 three purchases were made as follows : —

May, 1912 1 ton

July, 1912 2 tons

September, 1912 1 ton

In the May shipment only forty cases went forward, the balance of the ton being
retained in Kingan's magazine at Peterboro.

In the July order 112 cases should have been delivered, but only eighty cases
were sent the Department. The remaining thirty two cases were taken to the Hard-
ware Company's magazine.

All these explosives were for use at Lindsay and were checked on arriving there
by Robert Hamilton, the foreman who had charge of the storehouse. Hamilton had
weighed some sticks from a box of the May shipment and by counting the sticks had
satisfied himself that there was a shortage in the order. He reported this to Overseer
Samuel Clegg who was his superior ofiicer, but the latter apparently did nothing
about it.

When the eighty cases reached him on August 5, he weighed some of the boxes and
checked up the weights and found a shortage of upwards of one thousand pounds. He
reported this to Overseer Clegg and to Cinnamon and the following Saturday, August
10, told Accountant Bartlett about it.

The result of this discovery was that the Kingan Hardware Company delivered
up forty two cases more to cover the ten cases short in May and thirty two cases
short in July. All dealings with the Kingan people were conducted in a remarkable
manner and are shrouded in a most suspicious atmosphere.
190— li

4 REPORT OF TEE COMMISSION

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

Kingan accounts for the shortage in both lots by saying he believed there was
fifty pounds in each case. His evidence is that every time anything was added to or
taken from the stock in the magazine it is noted in the magazine stock book, so that
the stock book constantly shows a complete inventory of all explosives on hand. I
file with this report this stock book marked exhibit '20. The entry of May 6th, 1912,
shows that he had just put in stock fifty cases (presumably a ton) of special submarine.
He knew that was all he had purchased. He purchased it purposely to sell to the
Canal office because he says they were his only customers for it. Notwithstanding
this, when a ton is ordered he ships out only forty cases and the ten cases improperly
retained appear in his book at each stock taking thereafter.

Moreover, when the forty two cases are turned over to the Canal authorities the
stock book shows that Kingan did not follow his rule of taking stock of the balance on
that date, but, simply crosses out the entry of forty two cases where it appears under
date of August 8th. He gave no reason for adopting this unusual method. The only
reason I can conceive of is a desire to conceal the date of delivery.

Kingan secured an order from McClellan in the latter part of July for two tons
of Submarine Special. It was shipped from the factory at Sand Point on July 29th
as a part of a car lot. On August 1st Kingan wrote Cinnamon enclosing invoice,
dated July 30 for 4,018 pounds and requested Cinnamon to bill the Department at once,
dating his invoice 30th July and he intimates that an arrangement had been made to
have the account certified and put through in the ofiice at Peterboro. The bill dated
July 30 is certified by Hamilton and Clegg and by McClellan, and sent to Ottawa
by the latter with his monthly return. As a fact the goods were not shipped from
Peterboro until August 2nd and were received by Hamilton on August 5th.

When the car of explosives reached Peterboro, Kingan gave his man orders to
unload everything but eighty cases of Special Submarine which were to go to Lind-
say and that was done. Thirty two cases belonging to the two ton lot ordered by
McClellan were put into Kingan's magazine and remained there until August 28.
when as a result of Hamilton's report of the shortage, McClellan spoke to Kingan and
the latter turned these thirtj'-two casc^ along with the ten cases short in May over to
Farein the Department storeman', and the Government subsequently paid seventeen
dollars ($17.00) to have it hauled to Lindsay where the vendor should have delivered it.
A cheque for 4,018 pounds, the full amount of the purchase, was delivered Cinna-
mon, but, at the instance of Hamilton and Bartlett he refused to pay Kingan until the
matter of shortage was straightened oait. Cinnamon was absent from home for a time
but on his return he took the matter up with Kingan. On August 2Gth the latter
wrote Cinnamon stating that the shortage on the order was in the Government store-
house. This statement he knew to be untrue as it was only turned over to Farein on
August 28th. He further states in that letter that the officials at Peterboro knew all
about the storage before they certified to the invoice for the full amount. Despite
this assurance Cinnamon refused to pay until he knew the proper quantity had been
delivered and my finding is that it was only on account of this refusal that the balance
of the explosive was delivered. McClellan writes Cinnamon under date of 29th
Axjgust advising him that "the balance of Blasters Friend was received here and placed
in our magazine." The letter is purposely worded to give the impression that the
shortage had been' made good immediately it was discovered. Kingan's letter of 30th
August to Cinnamon stating that the departmental officials purposely retained the
balance of the order in Peterboro is contradicted by his own evidence under oath and
is \mdoubtedly false. It was obviously written with the purpose of allaying suspicion
'against himself and heading off any investigation that might be serious in its conse-
quences to him. McClellan's statement under oath that a part of the explosive had
been taken off at Peterboro to be used at Balsover is in the same category. There was
no work being done at Balsover and none in contemplation.

TREXT TALLET CAT^AL 5

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 190

On September 13, Cinnamon called upon the Superintendent and solicited a
further order for Blasters Friend. McClellan refused him the order upon the ground
that he didn't need any more. My conclusion is that at this very time he had an under-
standing with Kingan to take another ton which was afterwards delivered and billed
through Cinnamon.

From a careful perusal of the correspondence filed herewith, the evidence taken
under oath and the demeanor of the witnesses, I am forced to the conclusion that
there was collusion between McClellan and Kingan. I am convinced that the explo-
sive withheld by Kingan in May and in July was purposely retained. I am satisfied
that if McClellan was not actively a party to it he at least knew of it and acquiesced
in it. There can be no question but that an attempt was made to defraud the Govern-
ment which would have succeeded except for the discovery made by Hamilton.

One is at a loss to understand why the Department should pay such a high price
for explosives. Kingan buys it for nineteen cents F. 0. B. at the mill. The freight
rate is eighty-eight cents. He sells to Cinnamon for twenty-two cents and he in
turn charges the Department twenty-seven cents. Either some ulterior motive or
gross incompetency is responsible for such business methods.

Moreover, Cinnamon avers the goods were ordered and sent forward as a rule
without his knowledge. His part in the transaction merely consisted of making out
an invoice; adding five cents per pound to Kingan's price and taking this rake off
as a profit for himself.

When undertaking to widen my field of enquiry into the general affairs of the
maintenance department, I found on every hand insurmountable difficulties due to
lack of complete records and confusion of those in existence. Until the present
accountant, Mr. E. H. Bartlett took charge, there was absolutely no offce system in
existence; practically no pretense made of scrutinizing accounts, time slips, or pay
sheets ; no proper cash account and a woeful lack of records of any kind in connection
with the business of the office.

This chaotic condition rendered it impossible to make anything like a full and
complete examination of the affairs of the department.

This report sets forth a comparatively few of the irregularities and fraudiilent
practices in vogue in the office under Superintendent McClellan's supervision. He
has not only practiced deception and dishonesty himself, but, has condoned it and
winked at others and has proven himself hopelessly incompetent for the position he
holds.

At the ooitset of the enquiry he expresses surprise when I point out to him that
W. F. Nelson, who conducts a typewriting office in Peterboro, has been carried on the
pay roll as a laborer and he says that it is an exceptional case and he knew of no
others.

As the enquiry proceeds and these deceptions are unearthed and it ia shown
that bankers, lawyers, doctors, dentists, undertakers, barbers, merchants and almost
every class of business and profession is represented on his pay sheets in a similar
way, he confessed to such methods being an ordinary practice in the office over which
he nominally presides. So far as superintending the Canal and safeguarding the
public interests is concerned it is amply proven that there has been no serious attempt
to do so. McClellan seems to have engaged himself largely with matters of political
patronage and pleasure seeking jaunts at the public expense, and the bills for liquor
and other refreshments and meals on the boat eloquently testify to his popularity as
an entertainer. The evidence shows that these entertainments have ceased since the
fall of 1911. The last bill for liquors and cigars to regale the guests of the Superin-
tendent aboard the Bessie Butler is paid in October, 1911. The confectioners and
grocers accounts have ceased since that date. The carnival of corrupt padding of
pay-lists came to an end. But so far as control and management is concerned there
is no improvement and cannot be under the present incumbent.

6 REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

Mr. E. H. Bartlett, the present accountant, has done a great deal to systematise
the business of the office during the short time he has been there. He has inaugurated
many reforms and evidently has a high sense of his responsibility as an officer of the
department, and, had he more latitude could do much more to improve the efficiency
of the work of the office.

It is impossible in this report to give a resume of all the eight hundred pages of
evidence. The following, however, are a few cases of the deception contimually prac-
ticed upon the Government and these are charatcristic of the business methods fol-
lowed and the reckless disregard of public interests displayed by the officials of this
Department, and, particularly by Overseer Gordon and Accountant Clarry, former
officials of the Department, and Superintendent McClellan and Overseer Clegg.

W. BuRGOYNE who is a grocer at Fenelon Falls had his accounts for goods sup-
plied the cookeries paid by being put on the time sheet as a laborer.

B, Young, a grocer at Young's Point appears as a laborer on the time sheet for
the amount of his grocery bill.

D. McKerciier, a veterinary surgeon and liveryman of Peterboro figures on liie
pay sheet several times as a laborer.

A. B. Spillman drew a number of cheqmes as a laborer for work in and about
Peterboro. Mr. Spillman is a hotel keeper at Hastings and never did a day's work
on the canal. He was put on the pay roll to secure payment of board bills.

A. G. Lawless, the proprietor of hotel at Lakefield and Bobcaygeon, received
cheques in a similar way as a laborer to meet his accounts for board against the
Department.

W. W. Darcy, a Burleigh hotelkeeper figures on the pay roll for a team and
teamster to meet the amount of his board bill. ,

Hector Campbell, a hotelman of Kirkfield had a bill paid in a similar way.

Mr. Blade, a florist of Peterboro, furnished flowers for decorative purposes about
the locks. He furnished a wreath for the funeral of a deceased employee, and he
furnished also a rather expensive bouquet pi'esented to the Superintendent's daughter
at the christening of the Bessie Butler. To pay for these flowers Mr. Blade is put on
the pay roll as a laborer.

W. H. Hajiilton, a Peterboro grocer, had an account which was paid by putting
him down as a laborer on Gull River.

T. Lane, the Superintendent, bought some pillows for one of the boats from Mr.
T. Lane, a furniture dealer of Peterboro in 1910. These were paid for by putting
Mr, Lane down on the pay roll as a laborer.

C. R. Nlxon, boarded Mr. Charles Calcutt, the captain of a Government tug
during part of 1910. The accounts are sent in to the Department and Mr. Xixon is
put down as a laborer on the pay roll for sufficient time to cover the amount of the
account.

A. Gibson, a jeweller in Peterboro, figures as a laborer. The Superintendent
says that this was to pay for badges for the lockmen, alarm clocks on the boats and
svich things as that.

William F. Nelson, who styles himself as a broker and runs a typewriting office
in Peterboro, figures almost monthly on the pay roll for years back as a laborer. He
admits never having worked as a laborer. The clieques received by him were really
to pay for typewriter supplies and typewriting in connection with an illustrated
booklet on the subject of the canal published by Clarry, the former accountant.

E. A. Fitzgerald, a coal merchant of Peterboro, gets a cheque for team work in
June, 1911. This was really to pay an account for oil and paint and included no
labor.

Geoffrey O'Brien, who runs a grocery and fruit store in Peterboro for the past
five or six years says he has been selling supplies to the 'Trent Valley Canal ordered
by Overseer Gordon, Superintendent !NrcClellan or Farein, the storekeeper. Most of

TRE'ST Y ALLEY CANAL

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 190

the goods went to the Bessie Butler to supply parties going up on her. O'Brien's
account runs from fifteen to fifty dollars a month. Orders given by Farein were upon
McClellan's instructions.

G. N. Graham, proprietor of the Oriental Hotel, Peterboro, according to the pay
sheet for October, 1907, is paid $9.50 for six days labor.

This was to pay for meals at the hotel.

W. H. Robinson, the proprietor of The Times newspaper, Peterboro, had an
account of $3.60 in March, 1909. He is put on the pay sheet as a laborer and his
account paid in that way.

E. Singer. A pay sheet for August, 1910, shows E. Singer, laborer, 17 days at
$1.50, $25.60.

Singer runs a second hand store in Peterboro and never worked on the Canal.
The entry is put through to pay sundry small accounts, — $2.50 to Gus Hay, an ern--
ployee in Hall's Law Office; $3.00 to John Gibson, an occasional canal employee; $2.00
to Superintendent McClellan and the balance for parcels.

D. Denham. The pay sheet for July, 1911, shows U. Denham, laborer, 63 days,
$10.00.

This young man was a student at Cornell University. In taking his summer
holidays up the Canal he took some photographs and the Superintendent agreed to
pay him ten dollars for some of them. It was paid under the guise of labor.

VmCENT Eastwood, manager of the Royal Bank at Peterboro, appears on the
pay roll as a laborer at $1.50 a day. There is no explanation forthcoming for this.

E. Sandy got a Government cheque for $28.00 for alleged services as a carpenter
in August, 1908.

Mr. Sandy is the Grand Trimk Station Agent at Peterboro and the account of
$28.00 was for a special train to Fenelon. Falls to a meeting that was held there on
August 22, by the Hon. Geo. P. Graham.

A. HoLLiNGSHEAD. Nov., 1907, pay sheet A. HoUingshead is paid for 15 days labor
at $1.50 $22.50

Mr. HoUingshead was Manager of The Bank of Ottawa at Peterboro at that time
and of course was not an employee of the Government.

Ozus Laplante, a lawyer of Peterboro, figures a number of times on the pay sheet
ae a laborer.

H. S. McDonald is a druggist. He apparently sold hair brushes and combs to
the value of $4,00 for use on the Bessie Butler. His account was paid by putting him
down as a laborer on the pay sheet.

L. Deyman, a furniture dealer, got a cheque for a day's labor in July, 1909, at
$1.75 to pay for a feather pillow.

S. Oke is a fruit merchant and grocer. He supplied goods to the Bessie Butiler
on occasions and was put on the pay sheet to cover his account. Eor instance in July,
1909, he is paid for a team and teamster for three and a half days at $3.50 making a
total of $12.25.

J. H. Staunton appears on the pay sheet as a laborer in 1909 and 1910. He is a
photographer at Fenelon Falls and never worked on the Canal.

Harry Long who used to keep a confectionery store in Peterboro and supplied
sandwiches and other refreshments for some excursion parties up the canal, instead
of having his account sent in the regular way is put on the pay sheet as working at
the removal of stumps at Kirkfield and is paid as a laborer.

H. Gainey was paid for work as a laborer on a number of occasions during the
year 1907. Mr. Gainey is a barber in Peterboro and never worked in the Government
service.

W. J. O'Brien^ a grocer of Peterboro, appears as a laborer.

8 REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

M. Hoover is a cabinet maker and picture framer in Peterboro. Throughout the
years 1908, 1909, 1910 and 1911 he has been paid a considerable sum of money as a
laborer on the canal works. This was to pay accounts for picture framing, etc.

F. W. DoAN. In October, 1907, thirty nine dollars ($39.00) rental due The Bell
Telephone Company for telephone at Superintendent McClellan's residence was paid
by cheque to F. W. Doan an employee of the Bell Telephone Company and charged
against repairs to booms, slides and dams. A similar account was paid in the same
way in October, 1907, and again in June, 1908. There is no explanation of this. If,
as McClellan says, the Government was to pay for a telephone in his house one can
conceive of no reason for putting the accounts through in this way.

R. M. Roy. Charged against improving and clearing drowned lands on Balsam
Lake in November, 1908, is one dollar paid to E. M. Eoy, a photographer of Peter-
boro for photographs. In December there is a similar item of two dollars. In fact,
Mr. Roy appears frequently for several years on the pay roll. In 1009, Mr. Roy was
paid $15.65 as a laborer which was really for photographs.

A. Carr is undoubtedly an assumed named for some one who drew pay regularly
as a laborer during 1906, 1907, 1908 and 1909. After exhaustive inquiry I was unable
to find any one of that name who had ever been in Peterboro. The Superintendent
himself admitted that he could not see where the Government ever got value for some
three hundred dollars paid to A. Carr in this way. It is certainlj^ a most glaring piece
of fraud practised upon the Government.

The Peterboro Examiner appears to have had frequent accounts put through as
labor in the name of some of the Company's employees.

In Jan., 1907, J. Clark is paid for 6 days work as a laborer

at $1.50 $ 900

In March, 1907, 7 days as laborer at Gull River at $1.50. ... 10 50
In May, 1907, J. Clark, 6 days at $1.75, repair booms, slides

and dams 10 50

In June, 1907, 7 days at $1.50 10 50

In August, 1908, J. Clark, 10 days, laborer at $1.75 17 50

In September, 1908, J. Clark, laborer, 10 days at $1.75. ... 17 50

Clark was an employee of the Examiner Office and never did any work on the
Canal. The Superintendent swears that Clark did not labor for this money, nor, did
the Department owe these accounts to the Examiner.

Pat. Hogan. In the years 1905 and 1906 Pat. Hogan was paid as a laborer on
several occasions. Ilogan is a hotelkeeper in Peterboro and never worked on the
Canal. Presumably this was to pay board bills, but there is no record to show this.

Mrs. Kearney. It is shown in evidence that McClellan built a verandah for Mrs.
Kearney and the Government paid and boarded the men while doing it. He says that
she still owes for this work, but, there is no record in the office and he admits that
she has never been billed with any account. (Page 168).

George "Wilson (Page 670) who is called a walking boss, does work that the Su-
perintendent says is a part of Overseer Clegg's duties, and should be done by Clegg
himself. He draws $75.00 a month although McClellan says he is unnecessary and
his services should be disipensed with.

Jackson's Meal Account, July, 1908. Pay sheet shows there were 146i days at
three meals a day, making 439 meals Jackson gave for the month of July at 14 cents,
making $61.46 due him for that month. He was paid $120.54, althoaigh McClellan
certified for this, he admits that he has no explanation. (Page 469 and 470).

In the month of ^fay Jackson served 643 meals at 14 cents which would amount
to $90.02. He was paid for 929 meals totalling $130.06. There is no explanation for
this. These accounts with many similar ones were made out in the Superintendent's
office and certified by him and sent to Ottawa for payment.

TRSyr TALLET CANAL 9

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 190

WiLLUM Hewitt is caretaker of some small dams at Hawke Lake. He is paid
$1.75 a day and board and the free use of a house and fuel owned by the Department
at Hawke Lake. He has been permitted to buy provisions and furnish his house.
For June, 1910, his grocery bill at one store was $10.26; July $31.40; August $73.54;
September and October $27.02. It is obvious that no attempt was made to control
this expenditure and from the nature of the goods purchased. Mr. Hewitt lived both
luxuriously and extravagantly. It is costing the Government at least twelve hundred
dollars a year to maintain Mr. Hewitt at a job that should not cost half that. As a
result of the disclosures elicited in my investigation McClellan cancelled this im-
provident arrangement with Hewitt and engaged him at $60.00 per month, and even
this rate of wages is in my view excessive.

B. A. Rose, a Grand Trunk Ticket Agent at Peterboro, appears constantly
throughout the pay rolls for several years until 1911 as a laborer. In many cases this
is for tickets purchased by employees outside of the regular monthly tickets given
for proper transportation on Government business. In some cases Mr. Rose denies
receipt of the money put through in his name. It was impossible to trace the parties
who got either these tickets or the money.

Patrick J. Kenny, who conducts a liquor store in Peterboro, is almost constantly
on the pay roll as a carpenter from December, 1908, to the fall of, 1911. I have filed
with this report a verified copy of Kenny's account showing that he was paid nearly
six hundred dollars ($600) for liquors and cigars in about three years. As far as I
can trace it, practically all of these refreshments were to equip the Bessie Butler for
numerous pleasure parties, some of which were conducted under the guise of official
inspections. McClellan denies that any of these goods went to his house, although
Kenny says that a substantial order was delivered there for Xmas 1908. The evidence
shows that some twenty-five or thirty dollars worth of liquors was purchased and paid
for each winter when the boats were out of commission. I was unable to trace the
delivery of the winter supply. Kenny testified that all these goods were ordered by
McClellan and Farein. The latter says that he ordered only upon instructions from
the Superintenent and McClellan acknowledges this and admits his full responsibility
in the matter.

J. Young. Time sheet September, 1905, shows J. Young, laborer 26 days

at $1.50 $39.00

Time sheet November, 1905, shows J. Young, laborer 24 days work at $1.50. . 36.00

The evidence shows that J. Young was not a laborer and never worked on the
Canal. He is a steamboat man at Young's Point. Superintendent McClellan engaged
the boat for an excursion to Fenelon Falls at $125.00 and says that it was for the use
of departmental officials and their friends. Young says the party was largely made
up of Peterboro people.

If there was nothing to conceal one cannot understand why Young's account
should not be paid regularly as an account instead of his name being falsely entered
on the pay roll as a laborer.

In December, 1908, fire did some small amount of damage to the kitchen on the
Bessie Butler. McClellan reported to the Department that it would take some two or
three hundred dollars to put her in repair. Apparently without authority from any-
body, except that he says he spoke to Mr. Butler about it, he expended upwards of
$2,200 in rebuilding the boat on an extravagant scale entirely unnecessary and un-
warranted,

Robert Pinett has been employed as a cook on one of the Government boats for
a number of years. In 1909 he was paid a monthly salary and twenty cents a meal
for the crew and workmen, and thirty five cents a meal for officials' guests, etc. He
kept track of the number of meals and sent a statement to the office monthly. The
account for meals run into very large figures. There had been a great many excur-
sion parties up the canal. When the season closed there was seventy dollars due

10 REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

Pinett, much of which was for McClellan's family, relatives and guests. Pinett worked
for the Department until the middle of January, 1911, but was idle from that until
the 10th of March. He was kept on the pay roll, however, at $1.50 per day throughout
January until the seventy dollars was paid. In March, 1911, McClellan hired Pinett
at sixty dollars a month to cook for a grnig of men at Lakefield. Pinett was directed
to keep track of the number of meals and send in a statement to the office. He did
this and this statement was sent to Ottawa and a cheque for the amount at fifteen
cents a meal was forwarded to the Peterboro Office in Pinett's name. Pinett was
required to endorse this and the Peterboro Office paid the accounts and somebody,
not entitled to it, retained the balance. For instance, in April, 1911, the account for
meals sent to Ottawa and paid was $156.00. Out of this Pinett was paid fifteen dollars
to make up the difi'erence between his regular salary of $45.00 and the amount pro-
mised him by McClellan. The account for supplies was $101.00 so that there was
forty dollars rake off in that month's business for somebody. In other words some one
stole forty dollars from the Government.

This arrangment with Pinett was made by the Superintendent himself and he
must have been cognizant of the facts.

In the year 1912 a small boat called the Manita was rented by McClellan from
William Robinson for use on the canal at $8.00 a day; McClellan agreeing to do
whatever repairs were necessary for this purpose. Rent was paid for her from 26th
of May to the 12th of June while she was being repaired. Rent was paid for her
also for six days while she was being laid up in the fall. The spring repairs cost
$259.12. She worked twenty-six days for the Engineer's Department for which they
paid McClellan's Department $208.00. She worked for McClellan's Department
twenty-seven days during that season. The balance of the time she worked for Sir
William Mackenzie who paid Robinson $8.00 a day for her. McClellan sent the
whole outfit on to Mackenzie's work and Mackenzie paid rental, wages and mainten-
ance while actually on the work. McClellan's Department paid for delivering her
at Mackenzie's work and paid for her while returning from the work. Robinson com-
plained that the boat had been badly used and seriously damaged and McClellan in
the spring of 1913 spent $331.00 on repairs. The result of operations with this boat
is that she cost in repairs 1912,— $259.00; 1913,— $331.00 ; rent,— $504.00 ; total.
$1,094.00, received from the Engineers $208.00. The net cost of the boat to the Govern-
ment was $886.00 for twenty-seven days work or about $33.00 a day. (Page 451.)

C. C. HuYCKE. The name of C. C. Huycke appears regularly on the pay roll in
McClellan's office for the past seven or eight years at $25.00 a month as caretaker at
Healey's Dam. He lives two or three miles out of Hastings and eight miles from the
dam he is supposed to have had charge of. When requ-ired to do work at the dam it
was necessary to telephone to Hastings and send a message with a liveryman out to
his house. Then he drove the eight miles to fulfill his orders. The Government paid
the telephone and the livery. In November, 1909, Deputy Minister Butler instructed
McClellan that Mr. Grant would have control of the waters between Healey's Falls
and Hastings during the construction work there. McClellan wrote Grant enclosing
a copy of Butler's letter and told him that he had notified Huycke that instructions
would be given him from the Engineer's Department thereafter. Mr. Grant did not
even acknowledge McClellan's letter. He gives as his reason for ignoring the letter
that he did not consider he was in any way under McClellan's direction. He admits
that there is a bitter feeling between the two offices and went so far as to forbid his
men having anything to do with Huycke. He knew that Huycke was a Government
employee and must have known that he would continue to draw a salary for doing
nothing. In my opinion his duty was to have written McClellan telling him that he
did not require Iluycke's services and the country would have been saved $300.00 a
year. In his actions Grant appears to be actuated more by enmit.v towards McClellan
and hie own vanity than the safeguarding of the public funds. The result was that

TRENT y ALLEY CANAL 11

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 190

Huycke remained on the Government pay roll and was paid through McClellan's
office. Grant paid no attention to him; McClellan gave him no instructions. He has
been drawing $300.00 a year for which he has done nothing but sent to Peterboro
weekly reports of water levels taken from a stake placed in the water at the foot of
his farm. His position is a sinecure and he should be discharged.

Rentals. — While under examination in September 18th, McClellan admitted
having in his possession $15,000 belonging to the Department which he had received
by registered letter on April 25 previous from one Grylls as rent. Written demand
was twice made upon Grylls while McClellan had the money.

On another occasion he admitted having received ten dollars from the Provin-
cial Treasurer for the storage of a patrol boat. This never reached the public Treasury
although the cheque is endorsed by McClellan. Nor are these the only instances of
this kind as a perusal of the evidence will show.

There is a large amount of rentals for power and lands paid into the Superin-
tendent's office each year. No attempt was ever made to keep a separate account of
these. The Superintendent deposited everything to his private credit and chequed
money out on his personal cheque. When public moneys were received by him instead
of remitting direct to Ottawa he deposited the money to his own credit and had the
use of it for months sometimes, before he remitted to the Receiver General. Exami-
nation of his various bank accounts shows that had it not been for the deposit of
Government funds he would have had almost constant overdrafts and would have
been unable to issue cheques against his own account. In other words he impro-
perly diverted to his own use the public funds.

McClellan never had any official or office account but carried private accounts at
different times with the Ontario Bank, the Bank of Montreal, the Royal Bank, the
Bank of Ottawa and the Bank of Commerce. All these accounts appear to have been
conducted on the same principle. (Page 427).

In 1910 his deposits in the Bank of Commerce amounted to $12,452.00. Had he
deposited his whole salary, which he did not do, it would only account for $2,000.00
of this deposit. The balance of his deposit amounting to $10,452.00 is made up of at
least $3,349.71 of Government funds and moneys received by him in connection with
the winding up of some companies in which he and his son were interested. A large
part of the amount he admits was money belonging to the Government.

W. H. DuNSFORD, manager of the Bank of Commerce (Page 472) says McClellan
would not have been able to issue cheques against his own account if it had not been
that he was depositing public funds to his own credit.

In the summer of 1910 McClellan sent a dredge to Lindsay to do work for John
Ritchie & Company for which they paid to McClellan $550. This money was never
paid to the Government and McClellan is unable to account for it. His statement is
that he may have drawn the cash for it and left it with Clarry the accountant to hand
over to one Davidson for the Liberal Campaign Fund. (Evidence page 393, 394,
469 and 470). He admits that large sums of money that should have been remitted
to Ottawa were contributed to the Liberal Election Fund. In a short investigation
in the hopelessly muddled account I was able to trace about $2,000 which he says
went in that way made up as follows : —

Three cheques of $514.00, $480.00 and $482.00 respectively received for empty
cement sacks, and a cheque of $550.00 received from John Ritchie for dredging. He
says when he went on the canal he was told by Hon. J. R. Stratton that there should
be an election fund of from five to seven thousand dollars a year from the canal
office and that he proceeded on that basis.

George A. Mothersill. Auditing Engineer, and Superintendent McClellan
appear to be- very close friends and considerable correspondence concerning official
matters but marked " private " have passed between them. Some of these are in my
view highly improper, even if they are not to be characterized more seriously. For

12 REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

instance a pay sheet reaches Mothersill for audit in December, 1909. Amongst the
accounts is one from Wm. Jackson, a cook, for 444 meals at fifteen cents, making a
total of $66.16 to be charged to a wharf at Juniper Island. Mothersill writes a
" private " letter to McClellan returning the account, pointing out that the Juniqer
Island appropriation " will not stand " that amount and tells him there is only a
balance of $30.59 in that account " or about 219 meals ". A new account dated the
same is immediately returned for 219 meals and was put through.

Again in October 18th, 1912, Mothersill writes privately to McClellan returning
some irregular voucher and warns him that there may be persons on the lookout for
any such irregularity. To my mind these are most remarkable letters to go from an
auditor to the man whose accounts he audits. They throw some light on the reprehen-
sible departmental methods that have obtained.

Sam. Clegg. An overseer on McClellan's staff signs time slips and pay sheets
including the name of persons who have never worked on the Canal, but some of whom
have accounts of various kinds. He admits that this was a very general practice and
that it was entirely wrong to do it.

Mrs. BuRRKTT is the wife of the Lockmaster at number three lock. She was paid
several sums as a laborer on the canal during the years 1905 and 1906. The Superin-
tendent thinks some of these payments were to pay accounts for boarding canal
employees when working in the vicinity during the summer. There are a number of
payments made to her as a laborer during the winter. McClellan suggests that this
was probably to cover work done by her husband who is a lockmaster, so that he could be
paid not only his regular salary as lockmaster, but draw double pay in this way. 1
find this same Mrs. Burrett on the March, 1910, pay roll in the engineer's department.

L. McFarlaxd is a daughter of the Lockmaster at Lovesick. During the years
1906 and 1907 she was paid substantial sums as a laborer. Her time being certified
to by her father Wm. McFarland the lockmaster at Lovesick.

After delving into the affair^ of the maintenance department sufficiently to
satisfy myself as to the necessity of a complete reorganization and the elimination
of a number of the present staff, I visited the office of the Superintendent Engineer.
The resailt of my enquiry there is as follows: —

George H. Giroux, of the Superintending Engineer's office is styled clerk of
works. His duties, according to his own statement, consist of checking over accounts
pertaining to the staff, looking after the letters coming through the office and taking
care of office plans and making blue prints. There are some eight or nine branch
offices along the canal each in charge of a district engineer and all under the Engineer's
Department. Pay sheets are made up at each branch and certified by the engineer
in charge and sent in once a montli to Grant's office. Giroux takes these along with
the Peterboro office pay roll and sends them to Ottawa and when the cheques come
back he sees that they are sent out. This embodies all his duties as accountant. The
plans for the different works are taken care of by him; he makes whatever blue prints
are required. Information was given me that in August, 1912, Mr. Giroux had impro-
perly charged to the Department some items of expense that were purely personal.
On the 22nd August, 1912, he drove his family to Chamong Lake to a regatta. The
livery was four dollars and he put it through and had it paid for by the Government
A few days afterwards he made a trip to Campbellford. As ho puts it, it was purely
a pleasure trip to see the work there and the expense of this trip was put through on
Government account. Mr. Giroux says that the Superintending Engineer knew of
these things and approved of them and Mr. Grant admits this. Of course, such
charges, however trilling in amount, are entirely irregular and improper. Mr. Giroux
admits that he made and sold during the past seven or eight years blue prints for
every one who brought him plans and asked him to do such work. The paper used
for the purpose belonged to the Government and they were made on Government
machine and Giroux's time belonged to the Government. Mr. Grant knew of this and
permitted it.

TRENT VALLEY CANAL 13

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 190

Albert James Raddox, who styles himself Cement Test Clerk and Photographer,
has been in the employ of the Department since August, 1896. His duty is to make
tests of the cement used on the works. He not only tests the cement for the Govern-
ment, but made a business of testing cement for others. He admits having done this
and says it was with Mr. Grant's permission he did it. In the years 1907, 1908 and
1909 he tested in the Government office with the Government apparatus, one hundred
and sixteen cars for outside parties, for which he charged for his own use three and
four dollars a car. Even as late as November last year he made tests for outside
parties and was paid for them. That sort of thing is highly reprehensible and should
not be permitted.

Egbert Frank Eaddon was a sort of handy man around the premises. He was
originally taken on as a helper to his brother, A. J. Raddon, in the cement room.
He says, and his brother corroborates him, and Mr. Grant admits, that he worked a
great deal about Grant's house. In fact my conclusion from the evidence is that his
duties about the office were very light ; a good deal of his time was spent looking
after Mr. Grant's private requirements. He was discharged by Grant as a result of
a quarrel with Mr-i. Grant and it has not been found necessary to replace him. This
fact alone would lead one to the conclusion that he was retained largely for Mr.
Grant's private service. Mr. Grant says that at the req\>est of Hon. J. R. Stratton
he found him a different position at Healey's Falls after dispensing with him at the
Peterboro office.

James Andrew Hadcock has been in the employ of the Government under Mr.
Grant since 1909. He says that he has not any regular engagement but is paid five
dollars a day when -working. His salary was fixed by Mr. Grant. In the summer of
1913 he was employed at dredge work until the 15th of November. From the 15th to
the 24th he was idle. On the 24th he went to Trenton as inspector of lockgate con-
struction. He was paid for the week he was idle on Mr. Grant's instructions. Had-
cock acted as timekeeper on the dredge work. He made up his time book showing
that all the men ceased work on November 15. He was totaled up and certified to
by Mr. Cameron the engineer in charge of that work. Hadcock afterwards altered
his time book to make it appear that he had worked that week, although as a matter
of fact, he was not working. This alteration cost the Government thirty dollars
($30.00). Mr. Grant takes the responsibility for this and approves of it upon the
grooind that he has the right to give a man a few days when he sees fit.

Roger, Miller and Company, the contractors who are building the lock gates at
Trenton, shut do^Ti their work on December 20. Hadcock says they were shut down
for eight days during which time he was at his home in Peterboro.

Mr. J. B. Brophy, who is the engineer in charge of the division where Hadcock
was working, had to certify to his time. In making out his December pay sheet he
left Hadcock's time and salary blank as he had no instructions from Mr. Grant in the
matter. When he brought his pay roll to head office Grant instructed him to give
Hadcock full time. In January, 1913, Mr. Hadcock took a trip to Buffalo to buy a
motorcycle for himself and was gone, accordingly to his own story, not less than
three days. He signed his own time sheet certifying that he was on the works during
that three days and was paid his regular wage. He says Mr. Grant knew of this and
approved of it. Hadcock, according to his time book certified by himself, spent from
November 14, 1912, to February 15, 1913, in all 81 days at five dollars a day, building
three ordinary flat bottom punts worth, at his own estimate, thirty five or forty dol-
lars a piece. These punts cost in labor four hundred and five dollars ($405) besides
the material used. Hadcock says he did this under Grant's instructions and in fact
Mr. Grant assumes full responsibility and says that he was simply finding something
for Hadcock to do so that he would not leave Peterboro and would be available for
the spring's work. Mr. Hadcock admits that every other winter he was idle for some
months and still he has always been available at the opening of the season. And even
doiring 1913 he was idle from February 15 until June according to his own statement.

^4 REPORT OF TEE COMMISSION

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

Alexander Joseph Grant has been Superintending Engineer of the Trent Canal
Bince the first of April, 1906.

Although not a civil engineer Mr. Grant lays claim to long experience in en-
gineering work. One of his first works on the Trent was the designing and con-
struction of the dam at Buckhom which was built in 1907 and 1908 at a very large
cost. In 1913 alteratioas to the amount of $4,229.00 were necessary to make the dam
conform to the requirements for which it was originally constructed.

I discussed with Mr. Grant at considerable length the organization of his office
and the staff. Although in my view there is a lamentable lack of system he appears
to think it satisfactory.

Although there is a very large amount of valuable plant belonging to the Gov-
ernment in the hands of this Department there never has been any inventory of it
made or maintained. There is a dredge, a couple of houseboats, gasoline boats, row
boats, canoes, stoves and tents and all varied equipment, amounting to a very large
sum in value, necessary to carry on the work along the whole length of the Canal.
No record of this is kept and nobody seems to be responsible for its care. Some few
articles are kept in a storehouse. The storehouse man says that he has no instructions
to keep track of things. When anything is brought to him he puts it in the store-
house; when any one asks for anything he hands it out. This seems to me to be a
serious defect in management and must inevitably result in loss and waste.

There is no office organization of any kind in existence; absolutely no books are
kept and there is no attempt at accounting of any kind. The only records in existence
are copies of the accounts and pay sheets that are sent to Ottawa. One would expect
to be able to turn to some book or record and find a summary of the cost of any parti-
cular work, or, the year's accounts with any particular firm. To get such information
at present the individual accounts and pay sheets have to be gone over and the facts
gleaned from them.

Mr. Grant should have closer supervision over the office and his staff and the
reprehensible practices permitted should never have been allowed. He is aware and
has permitted Eaddon to make a profit from his position by testing cement for out-
side parties. He has been aware and approved of Giroux making a business of fur-
nishing blue prints to the public for his private gain. He kept no man about his
own residence, but made use of the services of Robert Frank Raddon, an employee of
the Department, as a man of all work about his own premises. He certified to expen-
ditures made by Giroux on his private account and had them paid by the Department.
He has certified to Hadcock's time on a number of occasions when Hadcock was not
working and he takes the ground that he has the right to do that.

It is little short of scandalous that without any justification whatever an
employee should be retained at five dollars a day for eighty one days building three
rough board punts which, as a matter of commooi knowledge we all know, can be
bought for from fifteen to twenty dollars each.

A large item of expense in connection with the engineer's office is livery account.
This office expends in this way from four to five hundred dollars a year. My attention
was directed from complaint I had received, to an investigation of the account of
Jones' Bros. This account shows an expenditure as follows: —

1910 $171 25

1911 235 25

1912 152 50

191.3 83 25

The substantial falling off in 1913 is due to the use of automobiles instead of
horses.

This account is exclusively Mr. Grant's. The evidence shows, and Mr. Grant
admits, that a considerable part of this expenditure was incurred by Mrs. Grant. He
attempts to justify it in many cases by explaining if he were going away she had a

TRENT T ALLEY CANAL 15

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 190

livery go for her an' hour or two before the train and she drove about until train time
and then drove him to the train. If he were coming home the livery came early for
her and she used it until time to meet him at the train. He apparently does not
regard seriously the fact that the extra driving by Mrs. Grant costs the country just the
difference between a fifty cent hack which would take him to or from the train, and a
charge of from two to five dollars according to the length of the time Mrs. Grant used
the rig. Moreover, if it were only an occasional occurrence one might overlook it. But
it has been the common practice and runs into a very substantial amount of money.
But even this explanation does not apply to all the livery rigs made use of by Mrs.
Grant. There are on his own statement a number of occasions when Mrs. Grant
made use of the livery that was charged to and paid for by the Department when Mr.
Grant was away from home entirely.

In the year 1911 the dredge Holland was purchased by the Department on the
recommendation of the engineer at the cost of upwards of $16,000.00. She is a com-
bination of orange peel and suction dredge. She originally belonged to a firm of
contractors who were working on the construction of the Newmarket Canal. The
contractors made default in their work and the dredge might have been confiscated
by the Governement at that time. She was transferred by the owners to the Standard
Bank from whom the Government purchased her. Mr. Grant informs me that the
original purpose was to use her on the Holland River where the excavation consisted
of loose earth and silt. She was brought to Peterboro and tied i>p on the bank of the
canal where she still lies. Mr. Grant says that she was never made use of because
the Newmarket canal was abandoned subsequently to the purchase. The evidence of
every one whom I questioned upon the subject is that her machinery is a splendid
type and in excellent condition.

In the storehouse in connection with the maintenance department there is almost
a complete outfit of dredging machinery-, bought some years ago with the alleged
purpose of constructing a dredge.

Notwithstanding the fact that these two dredge outfits were available and could
surely have been utilized, a new dredge called the Auhvrn was built by Mr. Grant in
1912. His original estimate was about $19,000.00 while the cost amounted up to
$26,000.00. The engineers seem to have taken upon themselves to build this dredge
v>'ithout any appropriation being made therefor. The Auburn is what is known as a
clam shell dredge and the material that she is best adapted to handle is much the
same as the class of work for which the Holland was intended.

What strikes one as most remarkable is that the Government should have locked
up not less than $25,000.00 or $30,000.00 in two dredge outfits and a third dredge
is built without any attempt at utilizing any of the splendid machinery or parts
already on hand. In other words the Government has invested from fifty to fifty-
five thousand dollars in dredge plant and have but one operating dredge costing
$26,000.00.

My observation together with the strongly expressed opinion of all the ofiicials,
convinces me that the system of administration of the affairs of the Trent Valley
Canal is entirely wrong. There should be one supreme head in control of everything
connected with the Canal. Under this central authority it might be well to maintain
a construction department and a maintenance department, but the control of affairs
should be vested in one official. Experience has amply demonstrated the failure and
folly of the present system. With the offices divided, as they are to-day, with a separate
official at the head of each branch, there is constant conflict of juridiction, overlap-
ping of authority, frequent disputes and continuous friction. This has been pro-
ductive of such marked enmity between the two offices that the official heads make
no attempt to conceal their ill will towards each other. Such a condition, of course,
is subversive of all discipline and inevitably militates against efficiency.

16

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

By putting the whole Canal service under one capable man (and if possible
houseing the staff in one premises) a very substantial reduction of rentals could be
made; the number of the staff could be largely reduced; much duplication of plant
would be avoided and more economical, efficient and businesslike administration would
result.

Appended to this report is the notes of evidence and the exhibits referred to
therein.

All of whicli is respectfully submitted.

(Signed) G. HOWARD FERGUSON",

Commissioner.

Dated at Kemptville, Ont.,
February 18, 1914.

4-5 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 246 A. 1914

RETURN

[246]

To an Order of the House of Commons, dated March 2, 1914, giving the following
information, as far as may be available, respecting the constitution of Upper
Chambers or Senates within the British Empire and in foreign countries,
and especially such information in respect of the self-governing Dominions
and of foreign countries possessing a federal system of government: —

1. As to the method of appointment, whether by executive authority or by elec-
tion by the people, or otherwise.

2. As to the term of appointment, whether for life or for a term of years, or
otherwise.

3. As to a reappointment or i-e-eleetion, and generally as to the filling of
vacancies occasioned by death or otherwise.

4. As to qualifications, whether by age, residence, possession of real or personal
property or otherwise.

5. As to limitation of the membership, and as to the numerical relation of the
membership to that of the Lower House.

6. As to provisions for dissolution, appeal to the electorate, conferences or addi-
tional appointments in case of disagreement between the Upper and Lower Houses.

7. As to the operation of the various systems in the several Dominions and coun-
tries mentioned, and in what respect defects or difficulties have made themselves
manifest.

8. All other relevant information respecting the constitution and status and such

Upper Chambers.

LOUIS CODEKRE,

Secretary of State.
April 7, 1914.

246—1

^ CONSTITUTION OF UPPER CHAMBERS

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914

REPORTS FROM HIS MAJESTY'S REPRESENTATIVES ABROAD RESPECTING
THE COMPOSITION AND FUNCTIONS OF THE SECOND OR UPPER
CHAMBER IN FOREIGN STATES.

LIST OF PAPERS.

Circular addressed to His Majesty's Representatives at Berne, Brussels,
Christiania, Copenhagen. Lisbon, Madrid, Paris, Rome, Darmstadt, Dres-
den, Stockholm, The Hague, Vienna, and Washington! July 10,1907

Replies to preceding circular.

Austria —

1. Sir E. Goschen to Sir Edward Grey August 7,1907

One Inclosure.
Bavaria and Wurtemberg —

2. Mr. Cartwright to Sir Edward Grey August 30, 1907

One Inclosure.

^ f.'^^r A Hardinge to Sir Edward Grey September 12, 1907

One Inclosure.

Denmark — ^ . ^ .,„ ,„„..

4. Sir A. Johnstone to Sir Edward Grey October 17,190.

One Inclosure.
France —

5. Sir F. Bertie to Sir Edward Grey August 5, 1907

One Inclosure.
Hesse Darmstadt and Baden —

6. Mr. Harford to Sir Edward Grey October 20,1907

One Inclosure.

Hungary — „„ ,„„,

7. Consul-General Clarke to Sir E. Goschen August 27,1907

One Inclosure.

8. Mr. des Graz to Sir Edward Grey August 6, 1907

One Inclosure.
Netherlands —

9. Sir H. Howard to Sir Edward Grey July 29, 1907

One Inclosure.
Norway —

10. Sir A. Herbert to Sir Edward Grey July 31, 1907

One Inclosure.
Portugal —

11. Mr. Beaumont to Sir Edward Grey August 9, 1907

One Inclosure.
Prussia —

12. Count de Salis to Sir Edward Grey July 31,1907

One Inclosure.
Saxony —

13. Mr. Findlay to Sir Edward Grey August 21, 1907

One Inclosure.
Spain —

14. Sir M. de Bunsen to Sir Edward Grey August 2, 1907

One Inclosure.
Sweden —

15. Sir R. Rodd to Sir Edward Grey August 6, 1907

One Inclosure.
Switzerland —

16. Sir G. Bonham to Sir Edward Grey July 20,1007

One Inclosure.
United States —

17. Mr. Bryce to Sir Ed\...rd Grey October 5, 1907

One Inclosure.

lAlso to Berlin for information as to Prussia, and to Munich for Bavaria and Wurtemberg.

COySTITVTIO^f OF UPPER CHAMBERS 3

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 246

RETURN

To an Address of the Honourable the House of Commons, dated July 8, 1907, for " A
Copenhagen, Lisbon, Madrid, Paris, Rome, Darmstadt, Dresden, Stochholm, The
their functions."

Circular addressed to His Majesty's Representatives at Berne, Brv..ssels, Christiania,
Copenhagen, Lisbon, Madrid, Paris, Rome, Darmstadt, Dresden Stochholm, The
Hague, Vienna, and Washington.^

Foreign Office, July 10, 1907.
Sir, — I have to request that you will furnish me with a report, in a form suitable
for presentation to Parliament, on the composition and functions of the Second or
Upper Chamber in the country to which you are accredited.

Your report should also contain a short account of any constitutional disputes
which may have arisen during the last ten years between the Upper and Lower Houses,
and of the means by which these have been adjusted.

T am, etc.,

E. GREY.

REPLIES TO PRECEDING CIRCULAR.

AUSTRIA.

No. 1

Sir E. Goschen to Sir Edward Grey. — (Received August 12.)

Vienna^ August 7, 1907.
Sir, — With reference to your Circular despatch of the 10th ultimo, I have the
honour to transmit herewith a memorandum which has been drawn up by Mr. Crack-
anthorpe upon the composition and functions of the Upper House of the Austrian
Reichsrath.

I have, etc.,

W. E. GOSCHEN.

Inclosure in No. 1.

Memorandum by Mr. Crackanthorpe on the Upper Chamber or " Herrenhaus '^ of

THE Austrian Reichsrath.

Composition.

The Upper House of the Austrian Reichsrath consists of from 248 to 268 mem-
bers, their number varying according to the number of life members.
It is composed of: —

1. The Princes of the Imperial family who are of age.

2. A number of nobles possessing large landed property, in whose families
the dignity is hereditary.

3. Ten archbishops and seven bishops.

4. A number of life members nominated by the Emperor who have distin-
guished themselves in politics, art, or science, or rendered any signal service
to Church or State. A law passed in January, 1907, lays down that the number
of life members shall not be less than 150 or exceed 170,

'Also to Berlin for information as to Prussia, and to Munich for Bavaria and Wiirtemberg
246— li

4 CONSTITUTION' OF UPPER CHAMBERS

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 19l4
Functions.

Government Bills and motions can be introduced in the Upper House, with the
exception of Money Bills and the Recruiting Bill, which must originate in the Lower
House. Government Bills have precedence of all other Orders of the Day, with the
exception of motions which are recognized by the House as urgent. Every member
of the Upper House has the right to introduce private motions, which mvist be pre-
sented to the President in writing, and signed by ten members, including the mover.
Motions duly seconded are placed among the Orders of the Day for a first reading.
All Bills are subjected to three readings. When a Bill is down for its first reading,
the mover may open the debate and explain its general princijiles. Government Bills
are referred to a committee after the first reading. When the Bill is read for the second
time, the general debate is opened by the reporter of the committee. This is followed
by a special debate, in which the different clauses of the measure are considered and
voted upon. Amendments may be referred to the committee, and the debate can
be suspended until a report has been received upon them. After the Bill
has passed the second reading, the third reading is usually taken at the next sitting.
A vote is then taken on the whole Bill without debate. If passed, it is then sent to
the Lower House, and, if it passes the Lower House without amendment, it is for-
warded for the Imperial sanction. If amended, it returns to the Upper House, and,
if the two Houijo are unable to agree, a joint committee is formed.

At the sitting of the Upper House, held on the 2-lth July last, the President,
Prince Windischgraetz, made an important announcement as to the result of the
discussions which had recently taken place between the Prime Minister, Baron von
Beck, and himself, with a view to increasing the field of usefulness of the Upper
House. From his statement, and from the speech afterwards made by Baron von
Beck, it appears that an arrangement has been come to whereby a greater proportion
of legislative measures than formerly will henceforward be initiated in the Upper
House. Among such Bills indicated for early introduction are Bills relating to the
reform of the Penal Code, the revision of the Civil Code, the Sanitation Regulations,
and Lunacy System. It has also been arranged that the sittings of the Upper House
shall be held as far as possible consecutively, at stated periods, instead of, as formerly,
at irregular intervals. It is thereby intended to facilitate the attendance of a greater
proportion of peers who do not wish to reside permanently in Vienna. Efforts will
also be made to send up Bills from the Lower to the Upper House in good time, so
that the deliberations of the latter Assembly may not be unduly hurried. By these
means it is hoped to draw additional advantages from the ripe e.xpcrience and technical
knowledge possessed by many members of the House of Peers, and to give greater
scope to their activity in furthering the interests of the country.

Conflicts hctivopn {wo Houses.

Legislation in the Austrian Parliament has been impeded by continued conflicts
between the various racial parties, and practically no friction had arisen between the
two Houses prior to the passing of the Electoral Reform Bill at the beginning of this
year. The attitude of the Upper House towards this Bill threatened at one time to
produce a complete deadlock. The Bill in its final stage had been referred to the
Electoral Reform Committee of the Upper House. The result of its deliberations was
that it threatened to delay and indeed to practically wreck the Bill by recommending
that two clauses should be added to it, one providing for " plural voting," i.e., for the
granting of two votes to every voter on his reaching the age of 35, and the other
establishing the " n}imenis claiisus" in the Upper House, i.e. providing that the
number of life members should not be less than 150 nor more than 170- The object
aimed at by the establishment of the " Humerus clau-sus" was to prevent the Govern-

COXSTirUTIOX OF UPPER CHAMBERS 5

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 246

ment from allowing the number of life members of the Upper House to be reduced to
a low point, and then creating- a pliable majority through the appointment of a large
number of new life peers, most of whom, as civil servants, would be subservient to
the wishes of the Governnicnt. As the result, however, of pressure brought to bear
by the Prime Minister on the leaders of the three parties in the Upper House, 'a com-
promise was arrived at whereby the plural voting clause was rejected in return for
the assurance that the Lower Chamber should pass the measure known as the
"' numeivs clausus," recommended by the Electoral Reform Conunittee. Thus the
subsequent passing of the Bill in the Upper House was practically assured, in spite of
the continued opposition of certain peers coimected with the German Constitutional
party.

It may be here mentioned that an interesting feature of the Universal Suffrage
law is the creation of an option for members of the Herrenhaus to seek election to
the Lower Chamber, their functions in the Upper House being, in case of election,
temporarily suspended for the whole duration of their mandates as deputies. Under
the system in force, membership of the Upper House is automatically revived on
resignation of his seat in Ihe lower Chamber bj' a life member. A provision of the
Electoral Reform law, however, precludes the possibility of any member of the Upper
House, who may have obtained a se?.t in the Lower Chamber, recording his vote in
the Upper Chamber iipon any measure on which he may already have voted in the
Lower House.

Control over Puhlic Finances.

Money Bills must, as has already be^n seen, originate in the Lower House, and
the estimates must receive the assent of the Upper House. Beyond this consitutional
division of functions, the control of the two Houses of the Austrian Reichsrath over
public finances may be said to be absolutely equal. Clause (c) of article ii of the
constitution lays down the following as among the attributes of the Reichsrath as a
whole, i.e., of both Herren- and Abgeordnetenhaus : —

" The fixing of the Budgetary Estimates, and, in particular, the annual authoriza-
tion of the collection of taxes, duties, and revenues; the examination and adoption of
the closed returns of the State, and of the results of the financial year; the issue of
new loans, conversion of existing public debts, the sale, transf orma ;. '. , or mortgaging
of State property (real estate) ; legislation concerning monopolies and State enterprises
("regies"), and, in general, concerning all financial matters which are common to
the kingdoms and lands represented in the Reichsrath."

In order to appreciate correctly the degree of control exercised by the Upper
House, in conjunction with the Lower, over public finances, it is necessary to give a
brief account of the important part played in recent years by paragraph 14 of the
constitution in connection with parliamentary obstruction. Paragraph 14 lays down
that when there is urgent need of some legislative measure being passed at a time
when Parliament is not sitting, such measure may be enacted by way of Imperial
Decree, so long as it does not involve a change in the constitution, impose a per-
manent charge on the State revenues, or alienate State property.

The original object aimed, at, when paragraph 14 was framed, was to meet cases
of sudden emergency, and it was not at the time contemplated that it would be mainly
employed in order to overcome the systematic obstruction of racial parties. Its
employment for this object was the consequence of Count Badeni's Language Ordi-
nance of 1897, placing Czech and German on an equal footing throughout Bohemia.
V\^ith the object of securing the withdrawal of this ordinance, obstructionist methods
were adopted by the Germans, and it became impossible to pass the annual Budget.
Count Badeni fell, his Language Ordinance was withdrawn, with the only result that
German was converted into Czech obstruction- From this date, until Dr. von
Koerber's accession to office in 1900, it became necessary to apply paragraph 14 i»

€ CONSTITUTION OF UPPER CHAMBERS

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914

order to meet the financial needs of the country. Dr. Von Koerber succeeded in
obtaining the assent of Parliament to his first Budget by means of promises of large
public works in various parts of the country, the expenditure of as much as 80,000,0001.
being contemplated for this purpose. In 1902, however, Czech obstruction, taking the
form of a constant flow of urgency motions, again impeded the passing of the annual
Budget, and both in 1903 and 1904 recourse was had to paragraph 14.

This period of obstruction was closed, and the fall of Dr. von Koerber occasioned,
by the necessity of issuing a loan for military purposes. The Austrian banks were,
however, unwilling to advance money upon the security of article 14, even upon
advantageous terms, on the ground that paragraph 14, while expressly contemplating
emergencies, lays down that no permanent charge is thereby to be made on the public
revenues. Thus while the paragraph would cover the contraction of a temporary float-
ing debt, it can provide no sanction for any addition to the permanent indebtedness
of the State, and is the less valid a'^ ser-iirity in that decrees promulgated under para-
graph 14 are liable to subsequent revocation by either House of Parliament.

It results from the foregoing that, under stress of unforeseen contingencies during
the era of racial obstruction in Parliament, paragraph 14 of the Austrian constitution
received an interpretation such as practically to deprive the two Chambers of the
Eeichsrath of their control of the Budget; and that in Austria this interpretation may
prevail for an indefinite period, provided no permanent loan has to be issued, no old
loan to be converted, and no State property to be sold. When these latter contin-
gencies become imperative the Government has to choose between the alternatives of
resignation, compliance with the demands of the obstructive elements in Parliament
(a matter often difficult since, as in the years 1897-1900, compliance with the demands
of one racial group may engender fresh obstruction on the part of a hostile group), or
of recommending the Crown to suspend motu proprio the constitution, and modify it
in such a manner as to meet the peculiar exigencies of Austrian parliamentary life.

DAYRELL CRACKANTHORPE.
August 6. 1907

BAVARIA AND WURTEJitBURG.

No. 2.

Mr. Cariwright to Sir Edward Grey. — (Received September 2.)

Munich, August 30, 1907.
Sir, — With reference to jour Circular of the 10th ultimo, I have the honour to
inclose herein short reports on the constitution and powers of the Upper Chambers
of the kingdoms of Bavaria and Wiirtemburg,

I have, etc.,

FAIRFAX L. CARTWRIGHT.

Inclosure in No. 2.

Report on the Bavarian Parlument,

Constitution of iW, Upper Chamhor.

The Bavarian Parliament, created in 1818, and then called " Standeversamni-
lung," was reorganized in 1848, after the revolutionary movement of that year, and
since then it has been called the " Landtag." This " Landtag " consist of two Cham-
bers, the Upper Chaml>er (" Kammer der Reichsriite") and the Lower Chamber
(" Kammer der Abgeordneten.")

CONSTITUTION OF UPPER CHAMBERS 7

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 246

The Upper Chamber is composed of: —

1. The Eoyal Princes who are of age.

2. The Princes of Ottingen-Ottingen and Thnrn and Taxis, as holders of

hereditary Offices of State.

3. The two Bavarian Archbishops.

4. The representatives of certain great noble families who still possess
within the kingdom certain manorial estates. If they lose these they lose
their seat in the Chamber. At present they number forty-six.

5. A Bavarian Bishop nominated by the King.

6. The President of the Protestant Upper Consistory.

7. Persons called to a seat in the Upper Chamber by the Crown. This
honour may be either hereditary or conferred only for life. At present there
are seventeen of such Members.

In 1907 the Bavarian Upper Chamber consisted of eighty members.

The Royal Princes are allowed to vote at the age of 21, other hereditary members
of the Chamber at the age of 25.

The number of hereditary members which the Crown can create is unlimited, but
the number of life members is limited to one-third of the total number of members of
the Upper Chamber, excluding the Royal Princes and the Princes of Ottingen-
Ottingen and Thurn and Taxis.

Persons who aspire to be called to the Tapper Chamber for life must either have
rendered great services to the State, or they must be of noble birth or be persons of
great private means.

Persons who aspire to enter the ranks of the nobility who possess hereditary
seats in the Upper Chamber must have held Bavarian nationality for six years, or
belong to the Bavarian nobility and have acquired entailed estates (" Pideicom-
miss "X

The President of the Upper Chamber is named by the King for the period of
one session.

The Chamber is divided into seven Standing Committees, to which all Bills are
referred for a report. One of these committees deals with financial questions.

Constitution of the Lower Chamber.

The Bavarian Lower Chamber is composed of 163 members, that is, one deputy
for about 38,000 of the population. Candidates must be Germans possessed of
Bavarian nationality for at least one year, and be 25 years of age.

The Lower Chamber is divided into five Standing Committees to report on Bills.

Finances.

The Government introduce the Budget into the Lower Chamber, and it lasts for
a period of two years. It becomes law when it has been sanctioned by the two
Chambers. If disputes arise with regard to certain points between the two Chambers,
the disputed matter is sent backwards and forwards till finally settled. No increase
m the national debt can be made without the approval of the two Chambers.

Disputes between the two Chamhers.

In 1902 a slight friction arose between the two Chambers. The President of the
Lower Chamber, Dr. von Orterer, took public exception to the language used by
Count Torring, member of the Upper Chamber, who had asserted in a speech that the
Lower Chamber was wasting its time in idle discussions and not getting on with its
work. President von Orterer declared that language of this kind was intended to
discredit the Lower Chamber, and would lead to friction between the two Chambers.

At the time of the introduction of the new Bavarian Electoral Reform Bill
(1904), a good deal of friction arose between the represntatives of the various poll-

8 CONSTITUTION OF UPPER CHAilBERS

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914

tical parties, and Count Lerchenfeld, President of the Tipper Chamber, advised that
members of the two Ciianibers should avoid, as far as possible, criticizing the pro-
ceedings of the other Chamber. The Prime Minister, Baron von Podewils, expressed
his regret at the attacks made by one Chamber upon the other, as they contributed
to disturb the harmonious working of the two Chambers, a harmony which was so
necessary if they were to accomplish good work.

The dispute over the amendments made by the Upper Chamber in the proposed
electoral law led to considerable friction with the Lower Chamber, and, finally, to
adjust matters, the Presidents of the two Chambers met, and, after conferences
restored harmony, and the Bill in its present form was finally passed.

Report ox the WuRTE^rBURO Parliament.

Composition of the Chambers.

The law altering the constitution of Wiirtemburg passed both Chambers on the
16th July, 190G, and became effective on the 1st December of that year.

The reasons why a new law altering the constitution had become necessary was
owing to the fact that the number of hereditary members of the Upper Chamber
had been gradually diminishing in consequence of the extinction of noble families
possessing hereditary rights. The Upper Chamber required strengthening in num-
bers, and a law for that purpose was, after much discussion, eventually passed.

At present the Upper Chamber consists of: —

1. The Princes of the lloyal House who are of age.

2. The nineteen heads of certain great tioble houses who are in possession
of landed estates within the kingdom enjoying feudal rights.

3 Six life members appointed by the King.

4 Eight representatives of the lower nobility.

5. Six ecclesiastical representatives — two Catholic and four Protestant.

6. Two representatives of the universities.

7. Five representatives of industrial interests — two chosen by traders, two
by agriculturists, and one by the artisan (" Gewerbe ") class.

The Wurtemburg Upper Chamber at i^rcsent consists of fifty members.

The Upper Chamber is limited in nimibers, except as regards the Princes of the
Royal House. In the event of the extinction of any of the great hereditary noble
families, the King can in their place appoint a life member to the Upper Chamber

Constitution of the Lower Chamber.

The lower Chamber consists of: —

1. Sixty-three deputies from provincial districts.

2. Six deputies from six other towns.

4. Xiiie depntios from tlio Xoknr and Jagst districts.

5. Eight deputies from the Black Forest district and that of the Danube.

6. One deputy from the University of Tiibingen.

Tho Lower Chamber consists of ninety-three members.

Finances.

All Bills have to be agreed to by both Chambers before they can become law-
The Budget is introduced into the Lower Chamber, and when voted in its entirety
it is sent to the Upper Chamber, which has the power either of rejecting it or of mak-

CONSTITUTION OF UPPER CHAMBERS 9

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 246

ing amendments. The Budget then returns to the Lower Chamber, which discusses it
anew, and the decision it comes to with regard to details is final. The Upper Cham-
ber then has only the power of rejecting the Budget in its entirety. In the event of
its becoming impossible for the two Chambers to agree as to the Budget, the votes east
in both Chambers for or against it are added together, and the resulting majority
decides the issue. Should the votes be equal, the President of the Lower Chamber
has the casting vote.

Disputes hetivecn the hvo Chamhers.

In the year 1904 an Elementary School Bill was introduced, clause 4 of which
gave the control of the schools to the teaching board and taking it away from eccles-
iastical control. The Bill was passed by the Lower Chamber by a substantial majority,
but met with much opposition in the Upper Chamber, which eventually rejected clause
4.

This gave rise to a storm of indignation against the Upper Chamber throughout
the country, and on the 16th June the Lower Cham.ber passed a resolution by 62 to
17 calling upon the Government to introduce a Bill for altering the constitution of
1810. Meetings were held throughout the kingdom threatening the LTpper Chamber
with extinction. In the autumn of 1904 the Speech from the Throne promised the
introduction of a Bill revising the constitution of the Upper Chamber, and on the
15th June, 1905, it was laid before the Lower Chamber, and, after long debates, it
was approved by the Upper Chamber, and became law on the 16th July, 1906.

By the alteration introduced into the constitution of the Upper Chamber its
influence in the country has been increased.

BELGIUM.

No. 8

Sir A. Hardinge to Sir Edward Grey. — -(Received September 16.)

Brussels, September 12, 1907-
Sir, — I have the honour to transmit herewith, as desired in your Circular despatch
of the 10th July last, a report by Mr. Wyndham, First Secretary of this Legation,
on the Senate or Second Chamber of the Ivingdom of Belgium.

I have, etc.,

AETHUR H. HARDINGE.

Inclosure in No. 3.

IiEPoKT BY Mr. Wyxduam (jx the Senate or Secoxd Chamber of the Kixcno^r of

Belgium.

Constitution of 1831.

When Belgium separated from Holland, and when the constitution of 1831, which,
with certain modifications, still remains in force to-day, was framed, there was con-
siderable hesitation as to the nature and position of the Second Chamber. The doubts
which existed in the minds of those who drew up the constitution can be traced in the
altered draft of particular clauses and in the slightly anomalous position, which will
afterwards be touched upon, finally given to the Second Chamber. Some members
of the Constituent Assembly were in favour of only one single Chamber, while others
wished that there should be a Second Chamber with members appointed by the King.

10 CONSTITUTION OF UPPER CHAMBERS

4^5 GEORGE V., A. 1914

As is usually the case in Belgian history, a compromise was effected, and a middle
course was steered between these extreme views. The Parliament as finally established,
consisted of two elective Chambers. This solution was all the more natural since the
French rule under the Revolution and the Empire had so completely swept away the
ancient orders or estates of the realm that a revival of the old representative Assem-
blies based upon them was impossible, whilst the traditional Belgian jealousy of the
authority of the Crown, intensified by the recent experience of Dutch rule, militated
against the creation of a House of Peers as that of the French Restoration or even
of the July Monarchy.

Two Elective Chambers.

The two Chambers being elective, it will be necessary to consider briefly the
condition under which they were originally chosen and to examine the more important
modifications which have regulated the franchise since the constitution was originally
established.

The franchise under which the House of Representatives was elected was for
eighteen years a very restricted one, and the electorate consisted of about 45,000 electors
out of a population of 4,000,000- The constituencies were, and still remain, the
" arrondissements " or administrative subdivisions of the nine provinces into which
Belgium is divided. These " arrondissements " may for electoral purposes be redistri-
buted, and at present out of the thirty-one electoral divisions six are formed by the
union of two, and two by that of three " arrondissements." There is no distinction
between urban and rural constituencies, but the number of members is based on popu-
lation in the ratio of one member to every 40.000 electors, whether possessing one or
several votes. It follows that some electoral divisions return many more members
than others; thus the Brussels division returns twenty-one, the Antwerp division
fourteen, and the Liege division twelve, while the thinly-populated Luxembourg divi-
sion of Ncufchateau-Viron is only represented bj' two. There is a decennial redistribu-
tion of seats, new ones having to be created to meet the increase of population shown
by each decennial census. The same constituencies elected the Senate, but as every
senator required, under the Electoral law of 1831, to pay taxes equal to 1,000 florins a
year, the choice of the electorate was confined to the wealthy classes. It has been
calculated that before the reforms of 1892 and 1893 less than 500 persons for the whole
of Belgium were actually eligible for the Senate.

Electoral Reform.

Under the new Electoral law, passed in April, 1893, which, although its effects
were subsequently modified by proportional representation, still remains in force, the
votf wns given aft<'r a vcar's rc-idenee to every citizen 25 years old, and not disquali-
fied either permanently or temporarily by conviction of crime or the receipt of public
charity. Every citizen over 35 years of age, and married or a widower with legitimate
issue, paying at least 5 fr. a year in housa tax, or owning real property worth 801..
or having derived for two years previously 41. a year from Begian funds, became en-
titled to a supplementary vote. Two supplementary votes were bestowed on electors
who had received a diploma of higher or secondary education, or who filled, or had
jtreviously filled, an,v appointment implying a superior education. No person could
have more than three votes, or vote in more than one constituency, and the exercise
Iff tlie frniicliiiio wn<; rendered obligatory under penalty of a fine.

Proportional Ecpirsentation

Succeeding elections conducted under this law made it more and more evident
that its effect, given the growth of Socialism and the rise of a third party in addition

CONSTITUTION OF UPPER CHAMBERS 11

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 246

to the Catholic and Liberal parties which had hitherto practically occupied the whole
of the political area, was to make Parliament a very inaccurate reflection of the
national opinion or of the real relative strength of opposing views, and many moderate
men became convinced that the maintenance of the electoral system established in 1893
might be fraught with grave dangers to the future working of parliamentary institu-
tions. Of these dangers the most serious was the prospect of the eventual dis-
appearance of the old Liberal party, which was being crushed out of parliamentary
existence between the Clerical and the Socialist organizations. To remedy these
dangers the systems of proportional representation was introduced and finally carried,
after various vicissitudes, in 1899. Inasmuch as the mode of election to the Cham-
bers is not explicitly laid down by the articles in the constitution which deal with
the qualifications of electors, the measure did not, like the introduction of universal
suffrage and of plural voting, require the two-thirds majority in both Houses
necessary for carrying a change in the constitution and it can therefore be repealed
or modified without them. Sir Arthur Hardinge has fully reported upon the system
and the political results of proportional representation in his despatch of the 28th
June, 1906, which was published in the same year as a parliamentary paper, and it
is thus hardly necessary to enter into details upon the subject.

Present Constitution of the Senaie.

The Senate as at present constituted consists of 110 members, elected for eight
years, one half of these members being subject to re-election every four years, instead
of every two, as is the case with the members of the Lower House. Of these members
eig;hty-three are chosen by direct elections by the votes of the same electors as elect
the House of Representatives, with this single difference, that electors for the Senate
must be 30 instead of 2'5 years of age. The same system of representation according
to population holds good with regard to the Senate as with the Lower House, but in
the case of the Senate, every 80,000 persons are represented by one senator, whereas
in the Chamber a Deputy represents 40,000 electors. According to the electoral
lists of 1901-2 there were 701,003 persons qualified to vote for the Senate having
one vote, 317,669 persons with two votes, and 236,627 with three votes, a total of
1,255,899 electors with 2,046,822 votes. The remaining twenty-seven senators
are elected by the County Councils (" Conseils Provinciaux ") which are them-
selves elected by all citizens qualified to vote directly for the Senate, the electoral
division in the case of these Councils being, however, not the " arrondissement,"
but a division of it called the " canton," and standing in the same relation to the
'' arrondissement " as the latter does to the province. The electoral divisions
returning senators by direct election are, as has been already shown, the same as
those returning members for the House of representatives; but two or three such
divisions are more frequently fused into one for the purposes of senatorial elections,
the number of electors being a good deal smaller on account of the difference of the
age limit. The Senate is thus the product of almost universal suffrage tempered by
the plural vote, and, in the case of twenty-seven of its members, to whom the system
of proportional representation is not applied, by the substitution of indirect for direct
election. Its otherwise democratic character is qualified by the provision in the
Constitutiori of 1831, which the Reform Acts have preserved in an altered form, and
which obliges every candidate for the Senate, besides being at lea.st 40 years of age,
to be the owner or occupier of real estate valued at 12,000 fr. (£480) a year, or to pay
1,200 fr. (£48) a year in direct taxes. The Senators directly elected by the demo-
cracy must, therefore, be middle-aged men, with a substantial stake in the country.
Those elected by the Provincial Councils are not required to possess this property
qualification, and this circumstance, joined to the fact that these local bodies are
occasionally very radical in complexion, accounts for the presence among the provin-
cial senators of several ultra-democratic politicians.

12 CONSTITUTION OF UPPER CHAMBERS

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914
Its gen&ral character.

The Senate as at present constituted, and excluding the Heir Apparent to the
Throne, who, by an exception in the constitution, has an ex officio seat in it, but is
)iot of course identified with any political party, contains sixty Catholic members,
forty-two Liberals, one Independent, and seven Socialists. It is not easy to classify
with accuracy the professions or occupations of the various members, as the divisions
would necessitate a large number of cross classifications. There is but one
ecclesiastic, some forty-three members are lawyers and persons representing Liberal
profession?, and about the same number are drawn from the business and commercial
classes, from bankers, owners of or partners in large industrial works, and merchants.
There is a considerable sprinkling of the representatives of the aristocratic families,
more so than in the Lower House, where the large majority consists of lawyers, while
the landed interests are represented by all the categories above mentioned. On the
whole, the Senate represents not so much the aristocracy as the business classes of
the country. The position of senator hardly appeals to a young and ambitious man;
there is not within the walls of the Senate the same scope as in the Lower House
or in the low courts, nor doc? its membership carry with it the same prestige as
that of belonging to an hereditary House. But the position of senator is one of
dignity, and, compared with the duties of membership of the Lower House of
comparative ease. Both Houses being elective, there is no social or class distinction
between the two, and a senator will occasionally, on leaving the L^pper House, seek
election in the Lower. The property qualification insures that the members of the
Senate should be drawn from classes of a certain financial position — or, at all events,
in easy circumstances — while the age qualifications of the electors and of the candi-
dates, together with the system of the plural vote and proportional representation,
insure the existence of a stable and conservative element, counterbalancing; the elec-
tive character of the Senate and the low franchise under which it is chosen. These
qualifications have so far kept from the Second Chamber any Socialist or Labour
element sufficient to affect its general character; its debates are usually conducted
with greater calm than those of the Lower House, and, if anything, attain a higher
order of merit. N'o popular feeling exists in the country against the Senate, and no
party, Jiot excluding the Socialists, are in favour of entirely doing away with a
Second Chamber, though the more extreme members of the Left advocate the aboli-
tion of the property qualification and the plural vote.

Limitations to Powers of Senate. — Money Bills.

As has been pointed out at the beginning of this report, there existed consider-
able doubt in the minds of the framers of the constitution as to the position of the
Second Chamber. In the original draft article xxvii ran as follows: —

" L'initiative appartient aux trois branches du pouvoir Icgislatif. Ncan-
moins toute loi relative aux recettes on aux depenses de I'Etat ou au contin-
gent de I'armee doit d'abord etre voice par la Chambre elective."

This limitation was evidently inserted in imitation of the privileges enjoyed by
the House of Commons under the British constitution, and though it was ultimatel.V
decided that the two Chambers should be elective the limitation was preserved. In
the constitution, as finally adopted. Article xxvii, after declaring that the right of
initiating legislation belongs to each of the three branches of the legislative power.
states that " ucaunioin? toute loi relative aux recettes et aux dc'iiciises de I'Etat on
au contingent de rarmee doit d'abord etre votce par la Chambre des Bejircsentants."
Thus the original clause, though altered in wording, remained suKstantially the same.
It was apparently adopted without discussion, and continues an anomal.v in a con-
stitution where both Chambers are elective. In 1002 the Senate proposed to repeal
tliis clause, but the siiggesti<in was thrown out in the Chamber.

CONSTITUTION OF UPPER CHAMBERS 13

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 246

Disputes between the two Chambers.

As was inevitable, various questions have from time to time arisen betv?een the
two Chambers as to the interpretation of Article xxvii, but the disputes have never
assumed the proportions of a serious struggle, and have either been allowed to drop or
iiave ended in an amicable compromise. Thus, in 1834, the Senate proposed to
create a Council of State, and the question arose as to the payment of the councillors.
It was decided that the Senate was not deprived of the right of voting expenditure,
but that it could not make any definite stipulation as how the funds should be pro-
vided. Again, in 1841 a motion was introduced in the Senate making definite pro-
vision for additional expenditure on the improvement of country roads. A point of
order was raised and the motion was withdrawn, and another motion couched in
more general terms substituted, to the effect that the additional expense should be
borne partly by the State and partly by the various communes. In 1845 the ques-
tion of increasing duties on agricultural produce was raised in the Senate, but it was
particularly pointed out that this increase was not for revenue but purely for protec-
tion. On the Bill being sent down to the Chamber of Representatives a fresh Bill
was substituted, and the new Bill, after be'ng passed in the Chamber, was accepted
by the Senate.

The most serious question that has arisen regarding Money Bills was in 1869,
when the Senate threw out by a catch vote the Budget of the Ministry of Justice,
and returned it without discussion to the Chamber of Representatives. A vigorous
protest was made by the Prime Minister, M. Frere-Orban who was also Minister of
Finance, and the Budget was voted again by the House of Representatives by a
majority of 62 to 42. The incident was not, however, so much a constitutional dilfer-
enee between the two Houses as a vote of confidence in the Government, and especi-
ally in the Minister of Justice, M. Bara. The question did not assume an acute
form as between the two Chambers, and dropped with the fall of the Liberal Ministry
in the following summer.

Spirit of Compromise.

From the above examples it will be seen that neither House has in the course of
Belgian history ever attempted to i^ush its claims to extremes, and the temporary
disputes have been settled by compromise and the exercise of common sense. Any
permanent estrangement would, moreover, be rendered impossible through the con-
stant renewal of the Chambers by the electorate, one-half of the Senate being sub-
ject to re-election every four years, and the wliole body in the event of a parliament-
ary dissolution.

The general opinion of constitutional writers, so far as I can gather, is to the
effect that, the restriction with regard to the initiation of Money Bills being an
anomaly, its interpretation should be liberal, and that the Senate not only has the
right to accept or reject a Money Bill, but also to amend it.

Gradual Diminutio7i of Control of the Senate over the Budgets.

As a matter of fact, the control of the House of Representatives over the Budget
has become practically greater than was contemplated under the theory of the
constitution. Of recent years, and especially since the introduction of universal
suffrage, the debates on the various Budgets — and it should be remarked that the
ordinary Budget in Belgium is made up of fifteen distinct Bills — have been extended
to an inordinate length, and the Budgets have been only sent up to the Senate
towards the close of the parliamentary session. The time necessary for the full
discussion of these various Bills has been thus of necessity curtailed, and the Senate

14 CONSTITUTION OF UPPER CHAMBERS

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914

has by the force of circumstances been obliged to restrict its right of amendment, and
even to limit its duty of criticism and control. This condition, the result of the
prolonged debates in the Lower House, has been the cause of frequent, though hitherto
of ineffectual protest.

General Spirit of Harmony hetween ilie two Ghamhers. — Possibility of approaching

Gonflict.

The right of the Senate to amend or reject measures other than Money Bills has
never been called in question, but as both Chambers are elected by similar constitu-
encies, their political complexion and the balance of parties within them are so
similar that its exercise has been infrequent. It must further be remarked that the
Catholic or Conservative party has for twenty-three years had a majority in both
Houses of Parliament, and that its legislation has rarely been of a character to pro-
voke a conflict between the popular and revising Chambers. It appears, however,
likely that the Mining Bill, which was carried last spring by a coalition between the
Extreme Left and the Young or Democratic Catholics, and which brought about the
fall of the De Smet de Naeyer Cabinet, will be amended if not rejected in the Senate,
and that though the Government and the majority of the House of Representatives
will acquiesce in the decision of the Second Chamber, or accept some compromise on
the subject, the Labour party will violently denounce it, and demand, not indeed its
abolition, but its reform on more democratic lines.

PERCY C. WYNDHAM.

September 12, 1907.

DENMARK.
No. 4.

Sir A. Johnstone to Sir Edward Grey. — {Received October 21.)

Copenhagen, October 17, 1907.

SiK, — In accordance with the instructions contained in your Circular despatch
of the 10th July last, I have the honour to transmit a report by Mr. Vaughan on the
composition and functions of the Danish Upper House, as well as an account of the
disputes which have arisen of late years between the two Houses and the means by
which these have been adju>-ted.

The efforts of the party of reform are more directed towards obtaining an Upper
Chamber of increased Liberal tendency than towards curtailing its powers; and none
but a few Extremists have shown any wish to do away with the double Chamber
system, which all the leading men in this country appear to consider the wisest form
of parliamentary Covernment.

I have, etc.,

ALAN JOHNSTONE.

Inclosure in No. Jf.

Report by Mr. V.^ugiian on the Daxu^ii " Landsting." or Upper House.

The Danish Kigsdag, or Parliament, is composed of two Chambers: the Lower
House, known as the Folketing, and the Upper House, known as the Landsting.
The Landsting is invariably composed of sixty-six members, of whom twelve are

CONSTITUTION OF UPPER CHAMBERS 15

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 246

nominated by the King for life and the remaining fifty-four are elected |or eight
years, seven representing the town of Copenhagen, forty-five the other districts, town
and county, and one each the islands of Bornholm and the Faroes. Half of the num-
ber of elected members retire by rotation every four years. A member of the Land-
sting may only be elected for a constituency in which he resides, whereas a member
of the Folketing may be elected for any constituency.

The preliminary process of election, which in its final stage is conducted in
accordance with the rules for proportional representation, is somewhat complicated.

By section 49 of Law No. 16 of the Tth February, 1901, the Danish representa-
tive area is divided into twelve electoral circles, each with a specially determined
number of rej)resentatives.

These electoral circles, or districts, are subdivided into " parishes," whose smaller
individuality is retained for certain purposes, while for others it is merged in the
larger division of the '*' circle."

In each circle there are two classes of electors : —

Firstly, those who are direct electors and themselves vote for the candi-
date; and

Secondly, those who are chosen as deputy electors by a majority vote of
such persons as enjoy the franchise for elections to the Folketing.

But this does not apply in the case of Copenhagen, where the system of election
differs from that in the rest of the country, the fijaal elections in that city being made
entirely by deputy electors, who are chosen as follows : —

All those who enjoy the franchise for elections to the Folketing vote also for a
certain number of these deputy electors. Voters who are taxed on a yearly income
of 4,000 kroner (£222 4s. 6d.) also choose an equal number of them, and the deputy
electors in turn choose seven members for the Landsting.

In places other than Copenhagen the final elections are made by electors, half
of whom are deputy electors having been chosen by a majority vote of those who
enjoy the franchise for elections to the Folketing, and the other half of whom are
direct electors in virtue of their being the most highly assessed taxpayers in the
respective circles.

The former haK are chosen, one for each parish, but in the case of the latter
half (or direct voter in virtue of assessment) the parishes in the respective circles are
" pooled " as it were, and the circle as a whole furnishes such a number of direct
voters as corresponds to the number of parishes in that circle, these voters being the
most highly assessed taxpayers in the circle as a whole, irrespective of the parishes,
except in so far that their numbers correspond, as already explained.

The " commercial towns " in a circle, and also the towns of Frederiksberg and
Marstal, furnish half the number of final electors corresponding to the number of
parishes in the circle, these final electors consisting of the two classes above men-
tioned (half direct and half deputy), the assessment qualification in these cases,
however, is based on a yearly income of 2,000 kroner (£111 2s. 3d.), or an annual pay-
ment to the State in direct taxation of 150 kroner (£8 6s. 8d.)

The Landsting enjoys exactly the same privileges in regard to legislation,
including finance, as the Folketing, although the latter exercises a predominant influ-
ence on the Budget in virtue of section 48 of the constitution, which enacts that this
must be first dealt with by the Lower House. As the Budget, which is presented
in October, must be passed by both Chambers before the end of the financial year on
the 31st March, if most of the time available for its discussion is monopolized by the
Folketing, the Landsting, although in theory equally entitled to discuss details, is in
practice precluded from doing so owing to lack of opportunity.

In case of either Chamber not accepting the amendments of the other to any
measure, provision is made by section 53 of the constitution for the appointment of a

16x CONSTITUTION OF UPPER CHAMBERS

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914

Joint Committee, consisting of an equal number of members from each Ting, who
are to meet together with a view to elfecting an agreement.
The section reads as follows: —

(Translation.)

Section 53. '' When a Bill has been passed in one Ting it must, in the
form in which it has been passed, be submitted to the other Ting; if it is
altered there, it goes back to the first; if it again undergoes alterations here,
the Bill goes back once more to the other Ting. If no agreement is reached,
each Ting shall, if one of them demands it, appoint an equal number of mem-
bers to form a committee, which studies the points of disagreement and fur-
nishes a report to the Tings. A final decision with reference to the Commit-
tee's report is taken in each Ting separately."

It need scarcely be stated that, in endeavouring to describe the recent rolat'.o: s
between the two Chambers, strict impartiality has been one of the chief objects in
view.

An expression of thanks is due to Dr. (Juris) Knud Berlin, author of '' Oplos-
ningsretten overfor Lovgivende Forsamlinger " (" The Right of Dissolution with
regard to Legislative Assemblies" Copenhagen, IDOti, for much vahiable assistance
in the attempt to elucidate the rather delicate problem.

During the last teen years no serious constitutional disputes between the Lands-
ting and the Folketing have taken plac€, at least none that can compare with the
great constitutional conflict of the years 1873-94.

Latterly, however, the relations between the two Chambers have been of a nature
which threatens to entail a fresh conflict, or, what is perhaps more probable, a fresh
political compromise.

It would be next to impossible to enumerate the points of difference which stand
out pre-eniiiKMitly from the rest, as the disagreement would appear to be rather
of a general than of a special character, owing to the conflicting interests of the
largely democratic Folketing and the necessarily conservative Landsting.

On the conclusion of the great political compromise in 1894, which terminated
the long and keenly-waged war between the two Houses, the Landsting and the
Conservative Government C'Hojre"), which it supported, may, on essential ix)ints,
claim to have emerged as victors. The Government, which be it remembered had a
minority in the Folketing, did not, it is true, succeed in obtaining legislative recog-
nition of the fortification of Copenhagen by land, which had been etTected on the
strength of "provisional " Budgets and without legal supplies, nor in securing indem-
nity in repect of the nimierous " provisional " laws promulgated during the years of
conflict. The " provisional " land fortification, however, received a tacit acknowl-
edgement in that supplies were granted for their upkeep, and, while the Folketing
reserved their right of impeaching the Ministers before the " Rigsret " (a special
political co\irt provided for in sections 14, 08 and 01) of tlie constitution, and com-
posed of members of the Supreme Court and an equal number of members of the
Landsting), such a step was never considered practicable nor seriously entertained.
This victory once achieved, the power of the Landsting commenced to decline. At
the compromise the Government had been obliged to agree, either directly or tacitly,
not to issue any more " provisional " Budgets, and consequently when they were
again forced to obtain the consent of the Folketing to fresh supplies and new laws
the Second (Lower) Chamber necessarily became the dominant partner.

The new Moderate Liberal party ("Venstre Reform parti ") under the leader-
ship of Herr J. C. Christensen, knew how to make the most of their opportunities.
They (the Opposition) apparently showed themselves very ready to negotiate with
the Government, and a few of the more important laws of a non-political nature
were passed, e.g., the law concerning workmen's compensation, 1898; the law regulat-

COXSTITl'TIOX OF UPPER CHAMBERS 17

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 246

ing economic conditions of marriage, April, 1899 ; and the law respecting allotments
for farm labourers, 1899, but they managed to block all the important measures,
especially those effecting reforms in taxation and in the tariif, and those relating to
the payment of officials, while laying the blame at the door of the Government, whom
they reproached with retaining their portfolios year by year, although they could
not carry any of the great reforms desired by the country.

The successive Conservative ("Hojre") Cabinets gradually lost the confidenGe
of the electorate, who dernanded that government by the Landsting should be replaced
by government by the Folketing.

Owing to the predominant advantage enjoyed by the Lower House through the
right to discuss the Budget first, as already explained, with the consequent power of
restricting its discussion by the Upper House to a few weeks just before the close of
the financial year, the Folketing was virtually possessed of the key of the Exchequer.
The Financial Committee of the Folketing, in which the Liberals (" Venstre ")
formed the majority, thus in reality proved more powerful in all matters relating to
supply than the actual Government, and when the Sehested Cabinet had come to the
end of their resources, much of the money having been expended in the fortification
of Copenhagen, and were obliged to ask the Folketing for a public loan, their request
was refused. They thereupon resigned, and a Liberal (" Venstre ") Cabinet under
Herr Deuntzer took ofiice on the 24th July, 1901. The appointment of the Deuntzer
Cabinet marked an epoch in Danish constitutional history, in that it was an
acknowledgment of the parliamentary system, and this change of Government is
consequently known as the " change of system."

At first the new government met with no small measure of success, and managed
to pass many of the Bills which they had resisted wtien in Opposition, but when they
endeavoured to give effect to the programme to which they were pledged, the
Landsting once more proved that it was a power to be reckoned with, and the
Government had to shai^e their measures accordingly, if these were to stand any
chance of being carried through the Upper House.

Many of the items in the original programme of the Liberals (" Venstre ") have
from time to time met with disaster at the hands of the Landsting. For instance,
between the years 1902 and 1906 the Bill presented by the Government in regard to
obligatory civil marriage was rejected three times in succession by the Landsting
(which desired that it should not be obligatory hut ^optional), although in 1902-3
it was unanimously agreed to by the Folketing. This measure has now been
abandoned.

In like manner the Bill relating to reform in criminal and civil procedure, aim-
ing at the introduction of public and oral proceedings and the prosecution, and jury
svstems in the law courts, has for manv years (1901-2 to 1906-T) been wandering
backwards and forwards between the two Chambers without any compromise being
effected. The bone of contention in this case being the class from which jurymen are
to be drawn.

But perhaps the main source of conflict has been the Communal Voting Reform
Bill, by which it is proposed to introduce equal and universal suffrage at communal
elections. This Bill has been under discussion since 190."', and the Landsting has, so
far, offcTred strong opposition to it.

The Bill deals with elections for the " Amtsraad " (Communal or County Coun-
cil), the "Byraad" (Town Council), and the "Sogneraad" (Parish Council).

By the present system, members, exclusive of the " Amtmand," or Chief Magis-
trate, who is Chairman of the Council, are elected to the Communal Council,
(" Amtsraad ") — the number composing which is always uneven — partly, i.e., the
larger " half," by deputy electors, chosen one by each Parish Council (" Sogneraad),
and partly, i.e., the lesser "half," by the most highly assessed taxpayers in the commune
who vote direct, and to the Parish Council, the number of whose members is also

246—2

18 CONSTITrriOX OF IPPER CHAMBERS

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914

uneven, partly, i.e., the larger " half," by the highest taxed fifth of the inhabitants,
and partly, i.e., the lesseer " half," by all the ta:^payers over 25 years of age, both
parties being direct voters in this case.

The same system applies to the Town Council (" Byraad ") as to the Parish
Council, except that for the Town Council the lesser "half" of the deputy electors
are chosen by the highest taxed fifth of the inhabitants. For all three councils
elections are at present decided by a majority of votes.

Before reviewing the Bill it is necessary to explain that the balance of power in
the Landsting is virtually in the hands of a party which practically does not exist in
the Folketing, viz., the Free Conservatives, consisting of nine members under the
leadership of Count Frijs, as their nine votes are at present sufficient to decide the
fate of any measure. It was consequently between this party and the Government
that negotiations took place in regard to the Bill.

In the new measure the Government's, or, in other words, the Folketing's
lirincipal proposals were roughly as follows: —

1. For the Parish and Town Councils, one man one vote among the tax-
payers, including servants and women, with a residential qualification of one
year.

2. Abolition of the assessment qualification for the Communal Council
C'Amtsraad").

3. The system of proportional representation to be applied to all three
Councils.

4. iilembers of the Communal Council to be elected by deputy electors,
who (two from each Parish Council) must be elected by and from amongst
members of the Parish Council.

The counter-proposals put forward by the Landsting were: —
(a') By the old Conservative Right C Hojre ") : —

1. For the Parish and Town Councils the principle of one man one vote,
etc., including women, but not servants (though, finally, this point was ceded),
to be accepted, but only as regards " half " of the Council, and with a two
years' residential qualification, while the other "half must be chosen by
voters over 40 years of age.

2. The assessment qualification for electors of deputy electors to the Com-
munal Council to entail a higher number of votes than at present, viz., three
from each Parish Council, and as many from the most highly assessed tax-
payers, instead of one and one respectively.

3. Proportional representation to be adopted.

4. Voting to be compulsory.

(h.) By the Free Conservatives, and these proposals were more important as the
negotiations turned on them: —

1. For the Parish and Town Councils, the principle of one man one vote,
etc., including women and servants, to be accepted, but with a residential
qualification of two years. (It was stated, however, that the Bill would not be
sacrificed on this point.)

2. The assessment qualification for the electors of deputy electors to the
Communal Council to entail two votes, i.e., two from each Parish Council and
two from the most highly assessed taxpayers.

3. For the Parish and Town Councils every voter over 40 j'ears of age to
have two votes — half of the members of the Councils to be elected by those

co:s'STiTUTioy of lpper chambers 19

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 246

voters over 40 years, and the other half by those over 40 years and the rest of
the voters conjointly.

4. Proportional representation to be adopted.

5. The Parish Council to be restricted from raising the existing taxation
beyond specified limits.

This last condition of the Free Conservatives was answered by a proposal of the
Government that previous to the imposition of higher taxation a referendum to all the
voters i.e., taxpayers should be necessary.

6. Municipal trading to be limited to certain specified undertakings, such
as tramways, telephones, etc. Information as to how far this point was
insisted on is not forthcoming.

Protracted negotiations took place in regard to the Bill between a member of the
Government and Count Frijs during the session 1906-7, with a view to effecting a
compromise, but unfortunately they led to no definite results, and the Rigsdag
adjourned, both Houses maintaining their original ground.

The results of the negotiations, so far as they went, were roughly that: —

1. The principle of proportional representation was accepted by both
parties.

2. Womens" suffrage was acc-opted by both partio.s for the two Lower
Councils.

3. Both parties also agreed that there should be no assessment qualification
for the two Lower Councils, while there were to be restrictions as regards
increased taxation. On the point of restrictions the Government would only
grant a referendum, while the Free Conservatives insiste<l that any increased
taxation proposed by the Parish Council must have the previo.i.s approval of
the Communal Council, and by the Town Council of the Mii-istry of the
Interior.

They also insisted on an age qualification for both the Lower Councils.

4. The Government are believed to have agreed that an assessment quali-
fication should be maintained for the Communal Council, but it is not known
what view the Folketing would take of such a concession to the Landsting.

Other measures of political interest have also been proposed by the Folketing
and rejected by the Landsting, such as the enlargement of the Folketing constituencies
and the revision of section 32 of the constitution, which enacts that the Folketing
shall consist of approximately one member for every 16,000 inhabitants. This has
always been a dead letter, as the present Chamber consists of 114 members, while
for compliance with the section about 160 would be necessary. The Government
proposal was to increase the present number to a fixed total of not less than 124 nad
not more that 132.

Again, a Bill relative to Ministerial responsibility has been under discussion since
1904-5. Section 12 of the constitution merely states that the Ministers are responsible,
and that their responsibility is to be more closely defined by law.

On the other hand, Bills which have originated in the Landsting have been
rejected by the Folketing, as, for instance, that proposing an increase in the excise
duty on alcohol in 1S99. This proposal the Folketing dismissed in March, 1900, it
being considered that such an impost would weigh heavily on the working classes,
who, in Denmark, consume a large quantity of alcohol in the form of " Akvavit."

It is commonly supposed that the Landsting and Folketing are not altogether at
one on the subject of tariff matters, tlie Landsting being credited with protectionist,

246— 2 i

20 CONSTITUTION OF UPPER CHAMBERS

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914

and the Folketiug with free trade, proclivities. It is believed that the Ui)per House
would not be averse to a duty on corn.

The apparent impotence of the Folketing to enforce its will in the Landsting
has naturally given rise to much bitter comment from the Social-Democratic and
Radical parties, and many strong- threats have been used both at political gatherings
and in the press of waging war against the Landsting, but the responsible Ministers
have so far always counselled patience, especially as the means at the disposal of any
Government for such a campaign are necessarily limited.

It is true that the Crown can at any time dissolve the Landsting, but it is a much-
debated question whether such a dissolution would embrace the whole Landsting, or
only the elected members. As already stated, of the sixty-six members of the Lands-
ting, twelve are appointed by the King for life, while fifty-four are popularly elected
for eight years and the question in dispute, which is peculiar to Denmark, is whether
the twelve members appointed for life must vacate their seats at a dissolution — which
would enable the Crown to appoint twelve new ones to fill their places — or not.

The Liberals (" Venstre ") maintain that they must, relying on the fact that by
the former constitutions of 1855 and 1863, they were appointed for twelve years only,
while the Conservatives (" Hojre") maintain the opposite view, and interpret appoint-
ment " for life " as exempting them from the effects of a dissolution.

Section 22 of the present constitution, on which the Liberals further rely, merely
states that the King has the right to dissolve either Chamber, and contains no reserva-
tions.

Section 39, on which the Conservatives again rely, states that the appointment of
the nominated members is for life, and, in specifying the cases in which such members
may, or must, vacate their seats, makes no mention of a dissolution.

Unless the Government can dissolve the whole Landsting, including the twelve
nominated members, most of whom were appointed whilst a Conservative ("Hojre")
Government were in office, they cannot embark on a campaign against that Chamber
with any certainty of success, in view of the peculiar conditions attending its compo-
sition. The fact that a large number of votes are allotted to the highest taxpayers in
the country, and consequently to the large landed proprietors, renders it very unlikely
that an election, consetiuent on a dissolution, would result in nuicli change among
the parties returned, unless the present system of suffrage were radically altered.

While many persons, no doubt, are of opinion that, if no other means can be
found to enforce the will of the Folketing, then the twelve life members must at any
cost be deprived of their seats at a dissolution, yet there would appear to be no general
desire among the masses to raise a new constitutional conflict, if such can be avoided;
and it is intelligible that a Government should shrink from applying to the constitu-
tion an interpretation which many people refuse to accept, especially as the issue of a
dissolution itself cannot be otherwise than doubtful. Moreover, a precedent created
by one Government may be applied by another.

The fact that most of the Conservative nominated members are well advanced in
years no doubt exercises a moderating influence with those who would lead a
campaign against the Upper House, as in the natural course of events their places
will be filled by Liberal nominees — always provided the present Government remain
in office — with the ultimate result that the Liberals will obtain the necessary majority.
This is also adduced as an argument why the Landsting, as at present constituted,
should be anxious to effect a compromise with the Folketing in regard to matters of
high political importance, before it loses the majority in the Upper House. Four
Lil>eral life members have already been nominated by the Crown since the present
party came into power.

Prophecy with regard to the fate of the twelve nominated members of the
Landsting would be idle at this juncture, but the advent of a fresh political com-
promise of a general nature would undoubtedly be welcomed by many as the most
efficacious means of preventing a more acute development of existing disagreements.

coygTircTioy of upper chambers 21

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 246

The nature of the relations between the two Chambers during the last ten years
will be more readily appreciated if the events which lal to the great political com-
promise of April, 1S94, are briefly passed in review, and if the main points of the
compromise itself are explained.

In 1864, on the conclusion of the war, and after the loss of the Duchies,
Denmark was faced by the problem as to which of her two constitutions should be
definitely adopted. That of lb49 had in 1855 been specially restricted to Denmark
alone, whilst that of 1863 applied to Denmark and Schleswig jointly. The Left
demanded that the country should revert to that of 1849, but the Right considered
that under it Conservative interests, especially as regards the Landsting, were not
sufficiently safeguarded, and the National Liberal party supported them, as they
considered the provisions of the constitution in question too democratic.

An alternative proposal was finally agreed upon between Count Frijs (the father
of the present leader of the Free Conservative party), representing the Landsting,
and Herr Hansen, the leader of the Left, which resulted in the present constitution of
the 28th July, 1866. This understanding between Count Frijs and^the Left (which is
generally known as the " understanding between the great and the small farmers '")
lasted till his retirement from the Presidency of the Council in 1870, when the ne^v
Cabinet, under Count Holstein-Holsteinborg, effected a compromise between the landed
interests of the Landsting and the official and business interests of the National
Liberal party. This led to a new party, known as the L^nited Left, being formed in
opposition to the Government, with the maintenance of the parliamentary system as
the chief item in its programme. In 1872 the L'nited Left obtained a majority in
the Folketing, and that Chamber agreed to petition the King with a view to the
formation of a Left Cabinet, representative of the majority in the Folketing, but
without result. The Folketing next threw out the Budget (1873), and the Govern-
ment replied by dissolving the Ting. The long war between the Landsting, which
formed the Government, and maintained that according to the constitution it had
equal rights with the Folketing, and that the King could act independently of this
Chamber had now begun.

In 1875 Herr Estrup formed a new Government, who retained their portfolios
until 1894. The chief items in their programme were the fortification of Copen- -
hagen and the equal rights of the Landsting. The Left and the Folketing were
willing to vote 30,000,000 kroner (1,G66,666Z.) for defence purposes, but not for the
f'-^rtifiraticn of Copenhagen, and thf-y desired that the necessary funds shinld be rnised
by an income and property tax. This question of defence led to the Folketing being
dissolved in 1876. Subsequently, when the Tings could not come to an understanding
about the Budget, the first " provisional " Budget was issued in April, 1877, on the
strength of section 25 of the constitution of 1866, which enacts that, " in extremely
urgent cases the King can, when the Rigsdag is not in session, issue provisional
laws, which must not, however, conflict with the constitution, and must always bv-^
submitted to the following Rigsdag."

For the next few years the Folketing voted such extremely limited Budgets
(known as the "shorn poodles") that the Govemmeiit again resorted to *he sv^tein
of provisional Budgets from 18S5 to 1894, and imde'r them money was devcd to
services which the Folketing had expressly vetoed, especially the fortificalu:) f
Copenhagen.

Feeling in the country ran very high, but people were weary of a confli.'t which
prevented the necessary laws being passed, and in April, 1894, the Moderate Left and
the Right in the Folketing made the famous " compromise," to which the Landsting
agreed.

Allusion has already been made in the body of this report to the results emanating
from the compromise, the main object of which was to prevent, in the future, political
conflicts such as existed at the moment, and to put an end to the system of "provisional"

22 CONSTITir/OX OF J PI'Eli CHAMBERS

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914

Budgets. The Eigsdag passed a resolution amongst others to the effect that, in future,
if the discussion of the Budget for the ensuing financial year had not been completed
by the end of the current financial year, the Government ought to propose, and the
Rigsdag ought to agree, to an " interim " Budget, framed on lines which they indi'^'ated!
and for a period not exceeding two months.

This arrangement, which it must be borne in mind was neither part of the
constitution nor even a law, and could be denounced by either Ting at any time,
received important recognition in 1902, in that the Liberal Keform party, who were
then in office, but who had been the opponents of the compromise in 1894, availefl
themselves of this form of " interim " Budget, the two Chambers not having com-
pleted the discussion of Estimates by the end of the then financial year.

J. C. T. YAUGIIAN.

CoPENHAGKK, October 10, 1907.

FRANCE.

No. 5.
Sir F. Berti to Sir Edward Grey. — (Received August 9.)

Paris, August, 5, 1907.

Sir, — I have the hcnour to transmit to you herewith a report drawn up by
Mr. George Grahame, Second Secretary at His Majesty's Embassy, on the Senate in
France, in accordance with the instructions conveyed to me in your Circular despatch
of the 10th ultimo.

I have, etc.,

FRANCIS BERTIE.

Inclosnre in No. 5.

Rei'okt by Mr. Grahajik.

Part 1. — Composition and Functions of the French Senate.

The French Senate is the creation of the National Assembly, which body,
elected in 1871, voted in 1875 a series of laws which form the basis of the present
constitution. The law organizing the Senate bears the date of the 24th February.
1875, It provided for the creation of a Chamber to consist of 300 members, of whom
seventy-five were to be nominated by the National Assembly for life. The remaining
225 were to be elected by the departments and certain colonies, the number of
senators to be allotted to each being exactly laid down; seven seats wore given to
Algeria and the colonies.

2. The members of the Senate are elected for nine years, " au scutin de lisle"
(the system by which each elector in the department is entitled to vote for as many
candidates as there are seats to fill); a third part of the Senate has to be renewed
every three years. A candidate for election must be 40 years of age, and in full enjoy-
ment of civil and political riglits.

3. Senators are elected by an Electoral College, meeting in the chief town of
the department or colony, and composed of (a) the parliamentary deputies; {h) the
members of the Dopirtmental Council (** Conseil General"); (r) members of tho
District Councils (" Conseils d'Arrondissement ") ; {d) delegates elected from among
the electors of the Commune by each Municipal Council.

COXSTITiTIOX OF IFPER CHAMBERS 23

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 246

4. The Electoral College is thus composed of '' electors by right " and "■ elected
electors." The term " municipal council " in France applies equally to rural and to
urban districts, the whole country being mapped out into communes each with its
municipal council.

5. A modification in the iwsition of the Senate was effected in ISSi, after
considerable agitation and discussion between political parties on the question of a
reform of the Second chamber. By the constitution the Chamber of Deputies had
no means of obliging the Senate to join it in congj-ess, and so to form a x\ational
Assembly by which alone a change could constitutionally be effected. The constitu-
tion establishes that : '' The Chambers have the right by separate deliberations,
passed in each House bj' an absolute majority of votes, either on their own initiative
or on that of the President of the Republic, to declare the necessity of revising the
'onstitutional laws. After each chamber shall have passed this resolution, they
shall meet as a National Assembly to proceed to this revision."

6. The reform of the Senate, undertaken in 1884 by the Ministry of !M. Jules
Ferry, had thus to be accomplished with the consent of that body. After consider-
able negotiations the Senate finally agreed to meet the Chamber in congress in order
to discuss the question of reform, but on the understanding that its rights over finan-
cial questions should not be subjected to discussion. The Chamber, at the instance
of the Prime Minister, accepted this arrangement, and the two Houses met as a
National Assembly. The result was certain changes in the constitutional law respect-
ing the composition and election of the Senate, the most important of which was the
abandonment of the system of nominated life senators. According to the original
constitution, the vacancies which occurred among the seventy-five senators nomin-
ated by the National Assembly in 1875 were to be filled by the Senate itself. It was
decided in 1884 that henceforth the entire Senate should be an elected body; the
existing life senators retained their seats, but at their death they were to be given by
lot to certain departments to which it was agreed to assign extra seats. The Electoral
Colleges were constituted in the same manner as before, except that the number of
the delegates of the municipal councils was increased in proportion to the population
of the communes. Hitherto each municipal council named one delegate to the
Electoral College; it was provided that henceforward municipal councils composed
of ten members should elect one delegate, those of twelve members two delegates,
those of sixteen members three delegates, those of twenty-one members six delegates,
up to councils of thirty-six members and over, which would elect twenty-four
delegates. The Paris Municipal Council with its eight members was, however,
l)'aced on a special footing, and given thirty delegates to the Electoral College.

7. The 300 senatorial seats were dL^tributed in the following manner (article 2,
law of the iJth December, IS'34) : 10 seats v.'ere given to one department (Seine), 8
seats to one department (Nord), 5 seats to ten departments, 4 seats to twelve depart-
ments, 3 seats to fifty-two departments, 2 seats to ten departments. The territory
of Belfort (Haut-Rhin), the three departments of Algeria, and the four colonies
of Martinique, Guadeloupe, Reunion, and French India were each given one seat.

8. The legislative power is exercised equally by the Senate and the Chamber of
Deputies; the former has, however, certain special attributes which will be mentioned
later on. The Executive and the Legislative have both the right of introducing
Bills; those emanating from the Executive are styled " Projets do loi," and those
from- either Chamber " Propositions de loi." Bills can be voted first by the Senate
or the Chamber indifferently, except in the case of financial measures, with regard to
which it is laid down in the constitution that " all financial legislation shall be in
the first instance submitted to the Chamber of Deputies and voted by it." There is
apparently nothing in the constitution which prescribes for the Senate a position of
legislative inferiority to the Chamber, iniless the above stipulation be so rega-rded.

9. In the absence of any precise means of settling constitutionally any dis-
agreement between the Senate and the Chamber, Rules of Procedure bearing on the

24 CONSTITUTIOX OF UPPER CHAMBERS

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914

matter liave been drawn np by each House. There is a slight difference in the-e
rules, which are here given: —

"(A.) Senate.— Rides of Procedure {" Reglement").

" Article 130. When a Bill voted by the Senate has been modified by the
Chamber of Deputies, the Senate may either deliberate again on the Bill or
submit it to the ' bureaux ' of the House, or send it back to the committee
which has already considered it. The Senate may also, on the propos'al of one
of its members, determine that a committee be appointed to confer with a
committee of the Chamber of Deputies with the object of agreeing on a text.

"Article 131. If the two committees come to an agreement, the Senate
committee reports to that body, which takes the new text into consideration.

" If the Senate refuses to accept the proposal for a conference, the Bill
may not be again placed on the order of the day mitil two months have elapsed,
except on the initiative of the Government.

" The same will occur in cases where the committee of the two chambers
fail to agree, or if the Senate persists in its original resolution."

" (B.) Chamher of Deputies. — Rules of Procedure.

" Article 144. When a Bill voted by the Chamber of Deputies has been
modified by the Senate, the Chamber of Deputies may determine, on the
approval of one of its members, that a committee be apiwinted to meet a com-
mittee from the Senate with the object of agreeing upon a text.

" The Chamber shall decide if powers to this effect shall be conferred on
the committee which has already reported on the Bill, or on a new committee
elected from among the ' bureaux ' of the House.

"Article 145. If the two committees agree on a text, the committee named
by the Chamber of Deputies reports to that Assembly, which thereupon delib-
erates again on the matter.

" Article 146. If the Chamber of Deputies refuses to agree to the proposal
for a conference, the Bill may not be again placed on the order of the day until
two months have elapsed, except on the initiative of the Government. The
same will occur in cases where the two committees fail to agree on a text, or
if the Chamber persist in its original resolution."

10. The Senate cannot be dissolved, whereas the Chamber of Deputies may be
before the legal expiration of its mandate by the President of the Republic, but only
with the previous consent of the Senate. It thus happens that, in a case of confiict
between the two chambers and a deadlock resulting, an appeal to the country as a
Avay out of it cannot be made unless the Senate gives its consent.

11. The Senate possesses also judicial functions. It may be constituted as .h
High Court of Justice to try the President of the Kepublic or the ^linisters; to take
cognizance of attempts or conspiracies against the safety of tlie State, and to try the
persons implicated.

12. The sessions of both Chambers must begin and end at the same time, except
that tlie Senate may meet —

(a.) If the Chamber of Deputies is dissolvi'd at a moment when the Pn-si-
dency of the Kepublic becomes vacant;

(h.) When tlie Senate is constituted as a High Court of Justice.

13. The Senate and the Chamber of Deputies must give their consent before the
President of the Republic may declare war. The same applies, with crtain reserva-
tions, to a declaration of a state of siege.

coysTiTUTioy of upper chambers 25

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 246

l-t. The following passage from the Constitutional Law of 1S75 applies to the
treaty-making power in France: —

" The President of the Eepnblic negotiates and ratifies treaties, but he
must inform the Chambers of such treaties as soon as the interest and safety
of the State permits. Treaties of peace and commerce, those engaging the
finances of the State, or relating to the personal status or rights of property of
French citizens abroad, are not definitive until they have been passed by the
two Chambers. Xo cession, exchange or increase of territory can take place
except by virtue of a law."

15, While the President of the Eepublic may grant individual pardons by decree,
he may not proclaim an amnesty unless the Senate and Chamber approve.

Part II. — Control of the Senate over Public Finances.

1. Article 8 of the Constitutional Law of the 24th February, 1875, states: "The
Senate has, equally with the Chamber of Deputies, the right of proposing and making
laws. But financial measures must in the first instance be submitted to, and voted by,
the Chamber of Deputies."

2. The interpretation of this article has occasioned numerous disagreements
between the two Chambers, which have only been settled by the exercise of modera-
tion and a spirit of conciliation. The question arose immediately after the new regime
was established in connection with the first Budget presented to Parliament. It was
then seen that the rights of the Senate might become a subject of controversy with
the other House. Questions were raised as to how the Senate's right of introducing
legislation was to be harmonized with the stipulation as regards finance made in favour
of the Chamber by the Constitutional Law. Was there merely a right of priority?
Had the Senate the right of replacing in the Budget credits disallowed by the other
Chamber? If such a course were perm:ssible, and if the Chamber of Deputies
persisted in its original resolution, how was the difference of opinion to be settled?
If a financial law were promulgated after the amendments made in it by the Senate
had been definitively rejected by the Chamber, the Senate might riglitly protest that
the constitution had been violated, seeing that it was therein laid down that both
Chambers must vote a law before it was promulgated.

3. It may be said that in theory the exact rights of the Senate have never been
settled. It has been asserted that the question is settled in practice by what has been
called " the system of the last word," which must rest with the Chamber of Deputies.
But is, perhaps, more accurate to say that disagreements between the two Houses
on financial matters have usually been arranged by a compromise on the actual questions
at issue, without the principle being made the subject of conflict, and that when the
Senate has yielded it has been under the express understanding that its full rights in
financial matters are reserved.

4. The manner in which this important question of constitutional right is regarded
in France may possibly be best shown by some quotations from the speeches of leading-
public men at different times when the rights of the Senate in financial matters have
been challenged.

5. In 1876, the Senate having voted an increase of credit over and above that
sanctioned by the Chamber, M. Gambetta, president of the Budget Committee of the
latter Assembly, made the following declaration: "It is our view that, in accordance
with article 8" (of the Constitutional Law), "when the Government has submitted
to you a financial proposal, and if this proposal is rejected by you, nothing remains of
it when the Budget is sent to the Senate. To hold another view is tantamount to
suggesting that the Senate has an initiative of its own. A financial proposal made by

26 COy^riTUTIOX OF rPPEIi CHAMBERS

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914

the Minister of Finance to the Chamber only receives a legal existence when you have
approved it. If it be not broug'ht into legal existence by your action, it is nothing
more than a piece of paper. Tf the Upper Chamber has no right of initiative in such
matters, it follows that it may only examine and vote a credit after such credit has
been voted by the Chamber of Deputies. Whence can the Senate derive its right of
initiative? Neither from article 8 nor from precedent. It can only be found in its
own will."

6. The Prime Minister, M. Jules Simon, answered M. Gambetta in these words:
" The question is this : Has the Senate the right of examining credits voted by the
Chamber — to reject some and to replace others? It is the meaning and not the
validity of article 8 which is at issue. I find this article perfectly clear. It states
that financial laws must in the first instance be submitted to, and voted by, the Chamber
of Deputies. It follows that in the second place they must be submitted to, and voted
by the Senate. Where is the difiiculty ? You may say it lies in the word 'voted,' But
this expression is clear. The Senate must vote as the Chamber votes. ... I have
heard it said that this means that the Senate will thus have the initiative in matters of
expenditure, and that it can therefore dispose of the taxpayers' money. No; that is not
so. The Senate has the right of replacing credits in the Budget, but in so doing it
does not oblige an expenditure to be made. When the Senate has passed a vote, what
have you before you? A proposal on the part of the Senate; it is not a law \mtil you
have approved it."

7. In 1881 the Cabinet of M. Gambetta expressed the following views with regard
to the control of the Senate over financial matters in the preface to its proposal for
constitutional revision: "It must be clearly laid down, beyond all possibility of dis-
cussion, that when the Chamber of Deputies has shown its intentions with regard to the
Budget, the Senate has the right of making remonstrances to the Chamber, to point
out that this or that tax, this or that credit or suppression of credit, is unjust or inop-
portune, or to suggest a modification of the whole of the Budget. But the right of the
Senate ends there. The Chamber of Deputies must have the last word, and its decision
must be final.

8. The proposal made in 1881 for constitutional revision was not carried into
effect, and the two Chambers found themselves again in disagreement respecting the
Budget of 1883. The Senate voted considerably increased credits on some heads, and
reduced them on others. The Chamber accepted the reductions and rejected the
increases, and the Senate thereupon voted the Budget; but the reporter of the Budget
Committee, in recommending its adoption, read a declaration protesting against any
attempts on the part of the other Chamber to interfere with the rights of the Senate,
and recording again the prerogatives of the latter in financial matters.

l». The question was raised once more in connection with the Budget of 1885, in
which the Senate had introduced a large increase of credit. M. Jules Roche, the
reporter of the Budget Committee of the Chamber of Deputies, made a speech at the
sitting of the 7th March, 1885, showing that the last word in financial measures must
remain with hte Chamber. lie states that the Senate had the constitutional right of
(iiscussing. approving or di-^approving the decisions of tin- Chamber, and consequently
of provoking a second consideration of the matter on the part of that Assembly. The
Senate, however, had in no way the right of initiative, nor the last word in the case
of the suppression or diminution of credits, which were the essential attributes of the
Chamber of Deputies directly elected by universal suffrage. It was essential, if the
national sovereignty were to be properly exercised, that, when it was a question of an
increase of credit, the. last word should rest with the Chamber, seeing that such a
course was the natural and necessary consequence of the i>riority given to it in voting
financial measures, and of the absence of any right of initiative on the part of the
Senate.

10. The following is an extract from a speech by M. Rihot in favour of concilia-
tion made during the debate which ensued: "The two Chambers should be allowed to

COKSTITUTIOy OF UPPER CHAMBERS 27

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 246

pursue their negotiations, which may frequently be h^borious, but which are the
necessary conditions of a parliamentary regime. An agreement will be tbe more easily
found seeing that the constitution has rendered conciliation an every-day political
necessity. It is, indeed, the basis of a parliamentary regime, and one of the inevitable
conditions of the existence of two Chambers."

11. In the ease of this dispute, as of previous ones, a compromise was found, and
a conflict between the two Chambers on the question of principle averted.

12. A speech, made in the Senate on the 9th April, 1895, by M. Loubet, when
president of the Budget Conunittee of that House, may also be noticed as bearing on
the question. He said : " The Chamber of Deputies has, by the terms of the constitu-
tion, the initiative of financial laws. We, like you, are concerned in preserving for
the Senate all its prerogatives, but the very fact of this should make us scrupulous in
respecting the special prerogative of the Chamber of Deputies. . . . We have the
right of examining the Budget law, and we do each year with scrupulous attention.
We can introduce amendments in it — ^now is not the moment for discussing the con-
ditions under which this right may be exercised — but it is impossible to entertain a
complete new set of Budget proposals; they must first be passed by the Chamber of
Deputies before they are submitted to the Senate.''

13. Xo disagreement respecting finance has occurred of recent years between the
two Chambers of such a kind as to give rise to anything amounting to a conflict between
them.

Part III. — Becent Constitntioiial Disputes hefween tJic two Houses.

1. There cannot be said to have been any constitutional conflict during the last
ten years between the Senate and Chamber. Just before this period, however, in
1896, a serious conflict took place between the Senate and the Ministry of M. Bour-
geois, which brought about the retirement of the Cabinet, in spite of the fact that it
retained the confidence of the Chamber of Deputies. In this way there may be said
to have been incidentally a conflict between the two Houses, but on M. Bourgeois'
resignation the grounds of dispute were removed, and the matter soon dropped.

2. An account of the relations between the Senate and M. Bourgeois' Ministry
may be of interest, as showing the very real power possessed by the Second Chamber
when it is determined to make its will effective.

3. M. Bourgeois formed his Cabinet at the beginning of November, 1895. For
the first time since the establishment of the Third Republic, a Ministry came into
power which could claim to be exclusively Radical The ministerial declaration
mentioned various measures which had formed part of the programme of the Radical
party, among others a graduated income tax and succession duties, and workmen's
l)ensions, while a general determination was evinced to recast the whole financial
system in a more democratic spirit. Xo mention was made of a refonn of the Senate,
though a curtailment of its powers had long formed one of the measures demanded
by the Radicals, as being a necessary preliminary to the full accomplishment of
democratic reforms.

4. Speculation was rife from the outset as to the attitude which the Senate would
take up towards the Ministry, and especially towards the financial proposals, and early
in 1S96 a certain hostility to the Ministry began to be apparent. The Senate persisted,
in the face of the Prime ^Minister's expressed wishes, in adopting a proposal aff'ecting
the right of strike on the part of railway employees. This action was soon followed
by an adverse vote respecting the action taken by the Minister of Justice in removing
an evaminino- magistrate ("juge d'instruction "). who was conducting an investi-
gation into alleged scandals connected with the Southern Railway Administration.
On the 11th February the Senate passed an Order of the Day, objected to by the Prime
Minister, by a majority of ninety-four. The Ministry thereupon (13th February)
made the question into one of confidence in the Chamber of Deputies, and obtained
an approval of its general policy by 320 votes to 42. On the 15th February the

28 COXSTITUTIOX OF UPPER CHAMBERS

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914

Senate replied by adopting a resolution confirming its vote of the 11th February,
although M. Bourgeois had stated that the Government was absolutely opposed to it.
A fresh debate took place in the Chamber of Deputies a few days later, and the
Ministry again obtained a majority, this time of only forty-five votes.

5. From this moment the conflict was definitely opened, but the Senate did not
yet push matters to extremities. M. Demole read a declaration on behalf of the three
Republican groups of the Senate, protesting against the attempt on the part of the
Ministry to govern without taking the Senate into account. The declaration
continued: "The Ministry has considered that it could appeal from one Chainher to
the other. It pretends that ministerial responsibility cannot be made a question in
the Senate. . . . We afilrm anew our right of control, and the responsibility of
Ministers to both Chambers. One answer to the words and acts of the Cabinet might
have been an absolute refusal to co-operate; but the Sonnte does not desire to suspend
the legislative life of the country or to renounce its duties, in spite of the attitude of
the Ministry. It is determined to maintain all its rights and independence without
other preoccupation than the interests of the country, and it intends that the Ministry
shall give an account to the Senate of its proceedings. The country will decide the
issue between Ministers who have not hesitated to raise so grave a crisis and an
Assembly which, in the interests of the public peace, does not wish to aggravate
further a constitutional conflict."

6. This declaration was approved by 1T5 votes to 50. The Radical organs
declared that the Senate had, in fact, given in to the Cabinet, and that Assembly was
charged with raising difficulties for the Government on account of its dislike of their
financial proposals, which were by this time under consideration by the Chamber of
Deputies.

7. On the 29th February the Prime Minister accompanied the President of the
Republic on a tour in the south of France, and on several occasions manifestations in
favour of M. Bourgeois took place, to which the conflict with tlie Senate gave
especial significance. The presidential cortege was at various times greeted with cries
of '' A bas le Sonat !" and utterances which were held to have an oflFensive character
towards that Chamber. Considerable indignation was shown in the Senate that such
manifestations should have been tolerated under the eyes of the President of the
Republic and Prime Minister, and an intention was expressed of interpellating the
Government on the subject. The Minister of Commerce, however, gave some
exjdanations as to what had occurred, and no interpellation took place. A senator
reinarktHl, "We accept your excuses," to which the. Minister replit^l : "It is not a
question of excuses, but of facts." These incidents were obviously not of a nature to
improve the relations between the Senate and the Cabinet.

8. At the beginning of April the Chamber of Deputies voted supplies in
connection with the military expedition in Madagascar, and adopted the uniisiial
course of adjourning till the lnth ^fay without previous agreement with the Senate.

Tbc latter had only voted supplies up till the -'JOth April, sind tlie Chajnlier had arisen
without waiting for the Senate to pass further ones after tliat date. The circumstances
of the adjournment of the House were the more marked as it had taken place on the
iiiiti:t'v^^ of tbe supporters of the ^linistry, and the Ministers who were deputies had
voted for it. The proceeding was interpreted as a further manifestation of disregard
for the other House.

9. In the meantime an interpellation had been announced in the Senate
respecting foreign policy. !^^. Bourgeois, having failed to obtain an a<ljournment of
the discussion, stated that he had nothing to aild to his former de<dnrations. and that
the Government could not reply to the interpellation. The Senate thereupon passed
by 155 votes to 85 the following resolution: "Tlie Senate, taking note of the
declaration of the Government, and judging the explanation insuflicient. cannot ac-
cord them its confidence, and passes to tlie Order of the Day.

COXSTITLTIUy OF IPPER CHAMBERS 29

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 246

10. The Senate then adjourned till the 21st April without having voted the Mada-
gascar supplies. A Cabinet Council was held, and the Government decided not to
resign in consequence of the attitude of the Senate. Everything, however, pointed to
the imminence of a crisis.

11. An event occurred at this juncture outside Parliament, which was universally
recognized to be of great importance. The Departmental Councils (" Conseils
Generaux ") had been solicited to express their views on the question of the proposal
of the Government for an income tax. The significance of an expression of the views
held by these Assemblies, elected by universal suffrage, and themselves forming a con-
siderable part of the electorate of the Senate, was obvious at a moment when that
House and the Ministry were involved in so grave a dispute, and one which, it was
freely asserted, had its predisposing cause in the antagonism felt in the Senate to the

financial policy of M. Bourgeois' Cabinet.

12. Sixty Departmental Councils pronounced against the principle of the income
tax; eleven accepted the principle, but with reservations which amounted to a con-
demnation of the Government plan; some others abstained from expressing an opinion,
and only about sixteen could be said to favour it entirely.

13. On the 21st April the Senate met again. Three courses appeared to be open
to it. It could either vote the sujjplies as they stood, or vote them with a reduction
on some heading, which would have rendered it necessary to convoke the Chamber, or
refuse them altogether. In the last case the Ministry would be placed in the position
of being unable to carry on legally the government of the country as the expenditure
concerned could not be incurred without special sanction. As soon as the Senate met,
M. Demole read a declaration in the name of the three Republican groups, to the
effect that the Government had remained in power in violation of the constitutional
law after the Senate had on three occasions by considerable majorities withdrawn from
them its confidence. The groups in whose name he spoke did not, he said, refuse the
Madagascar supplies, but they would not vote them while M. Bourgeois' Cabinet
remained in power, and they accordingly proposed that the vote should be adjourned
till the Senate had before it " a constitutional Ministry having the confidence of the
two Chambers."

14. This declaratiojp was approved by 168 votes against 91. The Cabinet then
determined to resign, bvit declared that it wished the Chamber to be first convoked.
The Chamber was immediately summoned, and met on the 2oYd "April, when the
Prime Minister made a statement of the circumstances which, in the opinion of the
Cabinet, rendered its resignation inevitable. The action of the Senate had, he said,
rendered it impossible for the Government to obtain supplies for the French troops
in Madagascar, and they resigned on the patriotic ground that no action of theirs
should delay the voting of the expenditure required for the defence of French interests
in Madagascar.

15. The members of the Government then withdrew from the Chamber, and the
Prime Minister placed the resignation of the Cabinet in the hands of the President of
the Republic. The Chamber continued a discussion amidst considerable agitation
and finally voted a resolution affiiming the "preponderance of universal suffra"-e
and the determination to pursue democratic reforms." Only 257 ]\fembers recorded
their votes in favour of this resolution; 324 either abstained from voting or were
absent.

IG. The Senate at once voted the Madagascar supplies on learning of the
resignation of the Ministry, and before a new one was constituted. The supporters of
the late ^linistry inside and outside of Parliament made use of threatening language
respecting the Senate's proceedings, and some slight disturbance of order took p^ace
in connection with a public manifestation in Paris against the action of that Assem-
bly.

17. A Moderate Republican Ministry, under the presidency of M. Meline, was
quickly formed, and presented itself on the 30th April, to the Chamber, which then

30 CONSTITUTION OF UPPER CHAMBERS

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914

passed a resolution by a majority of 34 affirming the sovereignty of universal suff-
rage, and approving the declaration of the new Government. In the debate which
took place on this occasion M. Bourgeois intervened, and explained in full the course
of events which had forced his Cabinet to resign. He pointed out that when a Gov-
ernment and the Senate were united against a majority in the Chamber, they had
always the possibility of bringing about a dissolution. But this was not the ca>e
when a Government and the Chamber found themselves in opposition to the
Senate. In the latter case, he asked, what resource had the Chamber? He denied
that the Senate had a right to overthrow a Ministry supported by a majority in the
Chamber. The Senate had only the right of examination and appeal; it could not
have the right of substituting its policy for that of the Chamber by overthrowii;g
the ]\Iinistry which represented that policy. The recent struggle was not merely one
between the Senate and a Ministry; it was a conflict on a fundamental question
between the two Chambers, and lie declared that the question of the rights and attri-
butes of the Senate was now definitely raised.

18. After, however, the crisis above described was ended by the appointment of a
new Ministry, the question of the constitutional rights of the Senate was not pressed
to an issue, and since that date no similar conflict involving the relations of the
two Chambers has arisen. The reason usually ascribed to the absence of disputes
between them is that the political composition of the Senate has. tended during-
recent years to become more and more similar to that of the Chamber of Deputies.

GEOEGE GEAHAME.

HESSE DAEMSTADT AND BADEN.

No. 6.
Mr. Harford to Sir Edward Ure'y. — {Received Ocfoh^r 28.)

D.\RMSTADT, October 20, 1907.

Sni, — With reference to the Foreign Office Circular of the 10th July, I have tho
honour to inclose reports, as requested, on the composition and functions of tht
Upper Chamber in the Grand Duchies of Hesse and Baden.

In both these States, the Upper Chamber is styled the First Chamber in the
constitution on which each is respectively based.

As the constitutional struggles which have taken place in South Germany during
recent years for electoral reforms are so closely connected with the revision of the
powers and composition of the Upper Chambers in those States, some allusion to this
subject was hardly to be avoided. Everywhere, except in Hesse, more Liberal ideas
have triumphed, and the system of election to the Diet or Landtag is now, with that
one exception, everywhere closely assimilated to the system for election to the
Eeichstag.

Tlie three Bills naw before the H<'s>ian (Hiambers form the third attempt in
recent years to revise the constitution on the lines of the reft>nns already adopted by
Baden, Bavaria and Wiirtoniburg.

I have, etc.,

FEEDEETC D. HAEFOED.

COXSTITUTIOX OF UPPER CHAMBERS 31

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 246

Inclosuve in Xo. 6.
Eeport ox tiik Grand Duchy of Hesse Darmstadt. '

Upper Ch-amher based on the Constitution of 1820.

The present composition and functions of the Upper or First Chamber in the
Grand Duchy of Hesse are defined by the constitution of the Grand Duchy of Hcs^e
promulgated on the ITth December, 1820, and by the Hessian Electoral law of the
8th Xovember, 1872, and the law of the 17th June, 1875, governing the procedure
of the Hessian diet, but, speaking generally, the British parliamentary system is the
basis of the relations of the Upper and Lower Chambers.

Bill to revise Constitution before the Diet.

A Bill was introduced by the Government into the Hessian Diet on the 29th
April, 1907, to alter the electoral system in conjunction with an alteration of certain
prescriptions of the Constitution. On two former occasions, as, for example, in 1905
Bills have been ^introduced for a reform of the electoral system, but were not
adopted owing to divergencies of opinion between both Chambers as to their existing
constitutional rights in enacting laws and in fixing the Budget. Otherwise no
important differences of opinion, especially as regards constitutional questions, have
so far arisen between the two chambers.

Bill propo,ses to increase Bowers of L'pper Chamber.

The Government proposals of the 29th April, 1907, alluded to above, compri;e the
follo\ving three Bills: Bill (1) proposes alterations in articles 67 and 75 of the
constitution, with a view, firstly, to allowing the Upper Chamber to discuss the
Budget independently, and to accept or reject it en bloc, or in detail; and secondly.
that if one of the Chambers rejects a Bill, the Bill shall remain adjourned, and then
if it is submitted by the Government to the next Diet, and is again rejected by one
of the Chambers, but is adopted by one of the Chambers, the Government cnn
summon both Chambers to discuss the measure jointly under the presidency of the
Pre-ident of the Upper Chamber, and if a two-thirds majority is obtained the Bill
becomes law. In the case of a disagreement between the two Chanibers on some
single item included in the Budget law, the lower amount voted by either of the
Chambers is considered as adopted. In case of a dispute over the whole Budget,
the Government could convene a meeting of the two Chambers, and the absolute
majority would decide.

Netv Elective^ Members proposed to be added to Upper Chamber.

Bill (2) proposes to add to the Upper House a representative of the Technical
High School at Darmstadt, to be summoned by the Grand Duke on the proposal of
the Council of that institution, and also two representatives of trade and industry,
two representatives of agriculture, and one of handicraft, to be summoned by the
Grand Duke on the projjosal of the legally constituted bodies connected with those
professions. These six new members would thus be added to the Upper Chamber by
special elective process. (The existing Upper Chamber consists of thirty -four
members.)

It is further proposed that if one of the mediatized families dies out the Grand
Duke shall, on the recommendation of the heads of the existing mediatized families,
appoint for life a member of one of those families, so that the vote may not be lost.

32 CONSTITUTION OF UPPER CHAMBERS

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914

Electoral Reform: Basis of Compromise for conceding New Powers to Upper

Chamher.

In the same Bill is found the compromise offered in return for the larger powers
proposed to be given to the Upper Chamber, namely, that in place of the present
system of indirect election to the Lower Chamber, by means of electing delegates
who again elect the deputies, the system of direct election is to be substituted. The
system of voting by secret ballot already exists.

Lower Chamher to he increased hy eight Memhers.

Bill (3) is namely a Eedistribution Bill, and proposes to add eight members to the
Lower Chamber, which now consists of fifty members. Of the eight new members five
would be members for town constituencies, and three for country constituencies.

These three Bills are being studied by committees of the two Chambers, and as a
large part of next year's spring session will be taken \vp in discussing the Budget, the
time available during the spring and autumn sessions of 1908, for adequate discussion
of so important and thorny a subject, is barely sufficient to allow of an agreement
between the two Chambers being reached by the latter part of 190'3, that i^ to s\v,
before the close of the present Diet, unless some mutual concessions are made. The
result would be that the attempted revision of the Hessian constitution would once
again have proved abortive.

Present Composition of Upper Chamher.

In the Grand Duchy of Hesse the Upper or First Chamber, as it is called, is at
present composed: —

1. Of tlio Princes of the Grand Ducal House.

2. Of the heads of mediatized families who own one or more entailed estates
in the Grand Duchy.

3. Of the head of the Baron von Riedesel family.

4. Of the Catholic Bishop of the State, or, in case of impediment, of a
Catholic priest named by the bishop with the consent of the Grand Duke for the
duration of the Diet.

5. Of a Protestant clergyman, named by the Grand Duke for life with the
rank of a prelate. In case of a vacancy or of any impediment, the Grand Duke
can name another Protestant clergyman in his place for the duration of tlie Diet.

6. Of the Chancellor of the University of Giessen, or, if his place is vacant
or in case of impediment, a member of the Academical Senate of the University
named by the Grand Duke for the duration of the Diet.

7. Of two members of the nobility elected by members of the domiciled
nobility who own sufficient real estate to be entitled to vote. They are elected
for six years.

8. Of distinguished Burgers of the State, who may be summoned for life by
the (iraiid Duke, not exceeding twelve.

Memhers cannot Vote in Flections.

Members of the Upper Chamber cannot exercise the suffrage, and nmst have com-
pleted their 2.')th year before thoy can exercise their jirivileges, and then only if no
rights of the State stand in the way, and thoy cannot be elected to the Lower or
Second Chamber, as it is styled in Hesse, nor can they vote in elections for tlic Lower
Chnniber.

President appointed hy the Grand Duke.

The President of the Upper Chamber is appointed by the Grand Duke for the
duration of the Diet; the Upper Chamber then elects its second and third presidents and
two secretaries.

<

co^^sTITlTIoy of upper chambers 33

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 246

Number ivhich constitutes quorum.

At least twelve members must vote in the Upper Chamber to validate a vote, but if
this quorum is not present the vote is considered as carried; but this is not allowed in
the case of a proposal to revise the constitution.

Majority needed to revise Constitution.

Alterations and additions to the constitution can only take place with the consent
of both Chambers, and for this purpose at least twelve of the Upper Chamber must vote
in favour of any such change; but if the number of members taking part in the voting-
is so large that two-thirds of this niimlv-^r cxcpods twelve, then two-thirds majority
is necessary.

Budget proposals first submitted to Lower Chamber.

Article 67 of the constitution lays down that the Budget law must be first sub-
mitted to the Lower Chamber, which arrives at its decision after a previous confidential
discussion with the Upper Chamber by means of the Finance Committees. The Upper
Chamber can only accept or reject the financial proposals of the Lower Chamber en bloc.
If the Upper Chamber rejects the proposals the Budget Bill is discussed in a sitting of
both Chambers together, under the presidency of the President of the Upper Chamber,
and a decision is taken by the absolute majority.

Introduction of Bills.

Government Bills are submitted to the Chambers or to that which lias to deliberate
on them, either by members of the Ministries or by special Commissioners of the Diet,
or in writing; but every member of the Diet, and therefore of the Upper Chamber, has
the right to bring forward motions or interpellations in the Chamber to which he
belongs. Bills must be presented by at least ten members.

Rejected Bills.

Proposals which have been rejected by either Chamber, whether emanating from
the other Chamber or from a member of the Chamber itself, cannot be reintroduced
during the duration of the same Diet.

Appointment of Committees.

Each Chamber elects four permanent committees, one of which deals with the
budget, the public debt, and other financial proposals, but other special committees can
be appointed by either Chamber.

Eeport ox the Grand Duchy of Baden.
Upper Chamber based on Constitution of 1818, as revised in 190^.

The constitution of the Grand Duchy of Baden promulgated on the 22nd August,
1S18, was considerably modified by the Baden law of the 24th August, 1904, on which
date a new electoral law was promulgated, which also defines the manner in which the
elective members of the Upper Chamber (called the First Chamber) are to be elected,
as well as those of the Lower or Second Chamber. These measures marked the ter-
mination of a long struggle for the direct as opposed to the indirect system of voting,
which still obtains in the Grand Duchy of Hesse. Similar measures of electoral reform
have also been adopted in Bavaria and Wiirtemberg in recent years. No constitutional
disputes have, however, arisen between the two Chambers of the Baden Diet dxiring the
past ten years.

246—3

34 CONSTITUTION OF UPPER CHAMBERS

4-5 GEORGE V., A. ""QH
Composition of Upper Chamber.
Under tlie revised Baden constitution the Upper Chamber consists of : —

1. The Princes of the Grand Ducal House.

2. The heads of the mediatized families who own estates in Baden on attain-
ing the age of 21.

3. The Catholic Bishop and Evangelical Prelate,
•i. Eight members elected by the landed nobility.

5. A representative for each of the Universities of Heidelberg and Freiburg,
and for the Karlsruhe Technical High School.

6. Six representatives elected by legally organized corporations, namely,
three by the Chambers of Commerce, two by the Chamber of Agriculture, and
one by the Chambers of Handicraftsmen.

7. Two mayors of the larger cities, a mayor of one of the smaller towns, but
exceeding 3,000 inhabitants, and a member of a District Council.

8. Members appointed by the Grand Duke. Of those two must be high judicial
authorities, while for the others (not exceeding six) there is no restriction
as regards profession or birth.

At the time of the revision of 1904 there were forty members of the Upper
Chamber, of whom twenty-one were elected.

Grand Duke can create neio Hereditary Members.

The Grand Duke can create as hereditary members of the Upper Chamber the
heads of noble families who owi* real estates and a family seat in Baden of tbe net
value of 5O,0OOZ., but if the qualification ceases to exist, the right to the hereditary
seat in the Upper Chamber ceases also.

Giiardiati or Relative can Vote on behalf of Minors or Absentees.

The guardian of a minor or lunatic mediatized member of the Chamber can, if he
is a relative, sit in his place in the Chamber, and if the head of a mediatized family is
unable for other reasons than the above to attend a session he can nominate a relative
in his place for that period.

Ditraliun of Appointment of Elective Members.

The two high judicial authorities are appointed for the duration of their office, the
other members appointed by the Grand Duke, and the other tlcctivo moinbrTs hold
office for the duration of the Diet, that is, for four years.

A Member cannot sit in both Chambers.

A member of the Lower Chamber cannot enter the Upper ("hanibcr, and it" a
inomber of the Upper Chamber accepts election to the Lower Chamber he ceases to
l)clong to the L^pper Chamber.

Validity of Elections decided by the Chamber concerned.
Each Chamber decides as to the validity of its own elections.

Appointment of President.
The Grand Duke appoints the President of the Tapper Chamber.

CONSTITUTION OF UPPER CHAMBERS 35

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 246

Measures which must first he suhmitted to Lower Chamber.

Article 60 of tlie constitution, as amended by the law of the 24th August, 1904,
thus defines the Bills or measures which must fii'st be submitted to the Lower Chamber
in Baden : —

The following Bills are presented first to the Lower Chamber: —

" 1. Reports as to Budget revenue or expenditure, and comparative state-
ments showing Budget Estimates and actual receipts.

" 2. Bills which deal with permanent arrangements respecting the adminis-
tration of the State revenue and expenditure, or with direct or indirect taxation.

" 3. The Finance Bill, together with the Budget Estimates, as well as other
Bills fixing taxation for a Budget period, or for the sale, mortgage, or applica-
tion of the State property or domains, the contracting of loans, the acceptance
of State citizenship, or other State obligations of a similar nature."

Pi'ocedure followed in dealing with Finance BilU, etc.

The procedure to be followed in the case of the above three categories is thus laid
down in article 61 of the constitution, as amended by the law of the 24th August,
1904:—

" 1. The measures described in section 1 of article 60 are discussed in the
Upper Chamber after the Lower Chamber has voted them.

" 2. The Bills described in sections 2 and 3 of article 60 are only voted on
in the Upper Chamber after they have been adopted by the Lower Chamber,
without prejudice to the right of the Upper Chamber to vote on the different
items of the Budget proposals separately, as soon as they have been voted by the
Lower Chamber.

" 3. If the votes of the Upper Chamber with respect to the various items
of the Budget Estimates differ from those of the Lower Chamber, and if after
the repeated votes of both Chambers, and a previous attempt to arrive at an
understanding in accordance with article 75, section 2, a compromise of the dif-
ferences cannot be arrived at, these items will be inserted in the Budget pro-
posals annexed to the Finance Bill in the form decided on by the Lower
Chamber at its final vote.

" 4. If the Upper Chamber rejects altogether a Bill of the nature described
in article 60, section 3 which has been adopted by the Lower Chamber, then,
at the request of the Government or of the Lower Chamber, a vote will be taken
in the matter on account of the total votes given in both Chambers, whether the
Bill is to be adopted in the form proposed by the Lower Chamber."

Quorum needed for passing Finance Bills, &c.

In subsequent articles 71, 72, and 74 of the constitution, it is explained that a
quorum of both Chambers must vote in such cases, and that if the number of votes
for and against are equal, the President of the Lower Chamber has a casting vote, in
other words, his vote counts twice.

Majority needed to change Constituiion.

Article 64 of the constitution declares that no law amplifying, defining, or
altering the constitution can be adopted except by a majority of two-thirds of the
inemb^^rs of the Diet who may be present at each of the two Chambers. In article 73
it is added that three-quarters of the members of both Chambers must take part in tbe
vote.

246— 3i

36 COySTITT'TION OF I I'I'KR (11 AM BHIiS

4-5 GEORGE V., A. :914
And in cases affecting freedom of Persons.

Article 65 declares that the vote of the absolute majority of each of the two
Chambers is necessary in all new laws of the country which affect the freedom of the
person or the property of subjects of the State generally, or niter or define existing
laws of that nature.

Bight to initiate Legislation.

Article 65a declares that either Chamber, as well as the Grand Duke, has the
right to initiate legislation.

Power to Appeal to the Grand Duke.

Article 67 empowers the Upper Chamber to address a complaint to the Grand
Duke in case of any prejudice to its constitutional rights, but complaints respecting
©ther constitutional rights can only be dealt with by the Lower . Chamber. Kepre-
sentations to the Grand Duke on other matters may be made by either Chamber,
jointly or separately. A request for the introduction of a Bill may be only addressed
to the Grand Duke by a Chamber, if the request has been previously conmiunicated
to the other Chamber, and the latter has had an opportunity of expressing an opinion
thereon.

Rejection of Bills.

Bills can be accepted or rejected by either Chamber, and a Bill or proposal intro-
duced from one Chamber to the other can be returned to the other Chaml?er with
amendments.

Quorum needed in Upper Chamber.

Tlie Upper Chamber requires fifteen members i)resent to constitute a quorum.

Committees of hoth Chambers can confer together in case of Disagreement.

Article 75, section 2, stipulates that if the votes of both Chambers differ from
one another, a meeting of the committees of both Chambers may take place with a
view to arriving at an understanding on the initiative of either Chamber by the
intermediary of the president. Each Chamber restricts itself in its relation to the
other to the mutual communication of their votes.

Ministers can attend all 8i>ttings.

The ^Ministers and certain other officials have access to all public and privati-
sittings of the Cliambers, and must bo heard when they desire it.

HTTNGARY.

No. T.
Confuil-denerol Clarlv to Sir E. (losrhen. — (Received at Foreign Office, Augiust SI.)

Buda-Pesth, August 27, 1907.

Sir, — 1 have the hunoiir lui inclose herewith a report which I have drawn up on
the composition, functions, etc., of the TTvingarian Second or T'''pper Chamber
( TTnuso nf AFagnates).

1 Innt', etc.,

F. S. CLARKE.

COXSTITUTION OF UPPER CHAMBERS 37

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 246

I)} closure in Xo. 7.

Eeport ox the Huxgariax Secoxd or Upper Chamber (House of Magnates).

The Hungarian Upper Chamber or House of Magnates, was reorganized in tlie
year 1885. It is now composed: —

(a.) Of hereditary members;

(6.) Of members who sit by right of office or dignity;
(c) Of those who sit by right of Eoyal appointment; and
(d.) Of those who sit by virtue of election.

The hereditary members are the Archdukes of the reigning House (who have
attained their majority) ; the male members of Hungarian families having the title of
Prince, Count, or Baron who are 24 years old, who enjoy the rights of majority, and
who are the usufructuary possessors (by themselves, or in conjunction with their
wives or their legitimate children living under their roof) of landed property within
the territory of the Hungarian state, paying, in accordance with the cadastral survey
of 1885, an annual tax of at least 6,000 crowns (£250), such tax including that levied
on dwelling-houses, farm buildings, etc.

Persons on whom new titles are conferred only have the right to sit in the Upper
House if the King specially grants them such privilege. The members who sit by
right of office or dignity are: —

1. The Bannerets of the Crown (" Regui Barones"), the Count of Press-
burg,^ the two custodians of the Crown, the Governor of Fiume, the Presi-
dents and Vice-Pi-esidents of the High Court of Justice and of the High
Court of Administrative Matters respectively, and the President of the Buda-
Pesth Court of Appeal.

2. The Hungarian Prelates of the Roman Catholic Church (Latin and
Greek rites), that is, the Primate, the Archbishops, the Diocesan Bishops, the
two consecrated Bishops of Xaudor-Fejerar and Tinnin (appointexl by the
King), the Grand Abbott of Pannonhalma, the Provost of Taszo, and the Prior
of Aurania.

3. The Prelates of the Greek Orthodox Church — that is, the Servian
Patriarch and the Eoxmianian Metropolitan, as well as their Suffragan
Bishops.

4. The three Bishops (who have held office longest) and three lay digni-
taries of the two Protestant Evangelical Churches, and the senior Head,
Bishop, or layman of the Unitarian Church.

The members who sit by right of Royal appointment are the life members,
whose number cannot exceed fifty, and more than five of whom cannot be appointed
by the King in one and the same year. The members who sit by virtue of election
are the representatives of former members of the House of Magnates excluded in
consequence of the reorganization effected in 1885. The number of these repn-
sentatives, which was originally fifty, is gradually decreasing, the vacancies as they
occur not being filled up. The Diet of Croatia-Slavonia also sends three delegate-
to the House of Magnates.

The right to sit in the Upper Chamber is not affected by the fact that a nieu!-
ber thereof is serving in the army or is fulfilling ecclesiastical or civil duties. Excep-
tions to this rule are, however, made in the cases of the president and of the func-
tionaries of the Court of Accounts. Naturalized Hungarian citizens can only bccome
members of the House of Magnates ten years after naturalization. The members of
the Upper House lose their right to sit: —

' A digrnity hereditary in the Pilffy f;iinil>-.

38 CO^^'STITUTIOX^ OF UPPEh' CHAMBERS

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914

1. If, sitting tliere in virtue of office or dignity, they cease to fill such office
or such dignity.

2. If, having been appointed, or elected, they resign.

3. If, being the delegates of Croatia-Salvonia, their mandates have
expired.

4. If they have been condemned by a regular tribunal to prison or banish-
ment for a crime or for an offence committed for " lucre."

5. If they lose their Hungarian nationality.

The right to sit may, in some instances, be not altogether lost, but only tem-
porarily suspended. Such is the case in condemnations involving suspension of
political rights, in cases of bankruptcy, and in those of being placed under guardian-
ship ("sous cura telle."). In this last cose, however, exception is made when
''spendthrift habits" or "absence abroad" has led to the restrictive measure in
question. Hereditary members, again, who cannot comply with the necessary con-
ditions as to payment of taxes have their rights suspended from the time of the
exjjiration of the session during which the non-compliance took place. A magnate
may be elected as a deputy, losing, while representing an electorate, his right to sit
in the Upper House.

Cabinet Ministers have seats in both Houses of Parliament, and may therefore
make declarations in either Chamber. They can,, however, only vote in the Umior
Chamber if they are members thereof and are not deputies. Cabinet Ministers may
bo represented at sittings of the House of Magnates by proxies (usually by their
Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State) if notice thereof is given beforehand to
the President of the House.

The two Houses of Parliament hold their sittings separately, conmivmicating to
each other in writing the resolutions come to. The members of the House of
Magnates (like the deputies) have the right of immunity. The resolutions come to
in the Upper House are only valid if at least fifty members have been present. (In
the Lower Chamber the number of deputies must be at least 100.) The initiative
with regard to legislation belongs to both Houses, but by the Law of Reorganization
(1885) the custom by which Bills are always first introduced into the Chamber of
Deputies remains in force for the present. Bills rejected by the Lower Chamber
cannot be again discussed by that Chamber during the same session, but Bills thrown
out by the Upper Chamber can again form the subject of debate in the Lower
Chamber, and can again be sent up to the House of ^Magnates. Although the
members of the two chambers do not meet together for the adoption of legislative
measures, they do so for the election of a Palatine or of a Custodian of the Crown
("■ Kronhiiter "), and it is before such common assembly and in the presence of His
^rajesty the King that the dignitaries elected have to take the oath of fealty. The
opening and closing of Parliament, as Avell as the act of coronation itself, have all
to take place in the presence of the members of both Houses.

Functions of the House of Magnates.

The functions of this House are of a legislative character. All Bills, including
those referring to financial matters, such as budgets, loans, etc, must, after passing
the Lower Chamber, be submitted to the Upper Chamber. Wlien voted, the Bill-
are laid before the King for the Royal sanction.

The functions of the House of stagnates are also f>f a judicial character, and
extend over certain disciplinai-y matters with regard to higher judicial functionaries,
.such as the Presidents and Vice-Presidents of the Courts of Appeal, the President.
Vice-President, and Judges of the High Court of Justice, and the Crown Attorney-
(rcneral ('' Kronanwalt '"). The tribnnal before whi<-h these functionaries ari' tried

COySTITUTION OF UPPER CHAMBERS 39

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 246

consists of thirty-six members, half of whom are elected by the House of Magnates
(from amongst its members) and half of whom are composed of the Vice-Presidents
and Judges of the High Court of Justice. Only twelve (exclusive of the president)
of these members form the tribunal.

A law passed in 1896 for the formation of a High Court for administrative Affairs
(" Verwaltungsgerichtshof ") prescribes that, in cases of disciplinary matters (in which
the judges of that court are concerned), the tribunal before which the trial takes place
has to be composed of twenty-four members, haK of whom are magnates and half are
judges of the Court of Administrative Affairs. Eight members of this tribunal
(exclusive of the president) have to sit at the hearing of a case.

Although the impeachment of Cabinet Ministers has to be voted by the Chamber
of Deputies, yet the tribunal before which such Ministers must appear is composed
solely of members of the Upper House. This latter House elects for the purpose (by
secret ballot) thirty-six magnates, twelve of whom can be challenged by the Commis-
sioners (charged by the Chamber of Deputies with the conduct of the proceedings) and
twelve by the Ministers impeached. The remaining twelve then constitute the
Tribunal.

The control of the public finances is vested in the Chief Accountant's Office
(" Staatsrechnungshof ")> which has almost complete independence of action. The
different departments of State have annually to submit to it their accounts accompanied
by vouchers. In the event of there being objections to any items of expenditure, the
Office sends an inquiry paper to the Minister concerned. The final accounts are every
year laid before both Houses of Parliament, and Ministers can be asked for explana-
tions, and can be made responsible in either Chamber for defraudation or for illegal
use of moneys. (The impeachment of Ministers can, however, as already stated, on'y
be voted by the Chamber of Deputies).

During the last ten years no constitutional disputes have arisen in Hungary
between the two Houses of Parliament.

F S. CLAPtK£.

Buda-Pesth, August 27, 1907.

ITALY

No. 8.

Mr. des Graz to Sir Edward Grey. — (Received August 9).

EoME, August 6, 1907.
SiR^ — In accordance with the instructions contained in your Circular despatch of
the 10th ultimo, I have the honour to transmit herewith a report on the composition
and functions of the Italian Senate.

I have, etc.,

C. DES GRAZ.

Inclosure in No. 8.
Report on the Composition and Fixctions of the Italian Senate.

The Constitution.

The '' Statuto," or constitution, granted by King Charles Albert of Sardinia
to his subjects in 1848 was gradually extended to the other parts of Italy, and is now
the constitution of the whole kingdom.

40 CONSTITUTION OF UPPER CHAMBERS

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914
Composition of the Senate.

The Senate is composed of members appointed for life by the King on the pro-
position of his Ministers. The number of Senators is not limited. They must be over
40 years of age, and must belong to one or other of twenty-one categories enumerated
in the " statiio '' : —

1. Archbishops and Bishops. No Senators have been appointed under this
category since 1866.

2. The President of the Chamber of Deputies.

3. Deputies after three Parliaments or six years discharge of their duties.
Parliament is elected for a period of five years.

4. Persons having the rank of Minister of State.

5. Ministers-Secretaries of State.

6. Ambassadors.

7. Envoys Extraordinary after three years' service.

8. The President of the Supreme Court of Justice and the presidents of its
several divisions.

The President of the Court of Audit of State Accounts (" Camera dei
Conti") and the Presidents of its various sections.

The President of the Council of State and the presidents of its several
Departments are now also included in this category.

9. The Presidents of the Courts of Appeal.

10. The Advocate-General and the Crown Prosecutor of the Supreme Court
of Justice after five years' service.

11. The Presidents of the divisions of the Courts of Appeal after three
years' service.

12. Councillors of the Supreme Court of Justice and of the Court of
Audit after five years' service.

13. The Advocates-General and Prosecutors-General of the Courts of
Appeal after five years' service.

14. General officers of the army and navy. !Major-Generals and Rear-
Admirals must have had five years' active service in that rank.

15. Councillors of State of five years' standing.

16. Members of the Councils of the Provinces after their third election as
President of their Council.

17. Intendants-General. This is now interpreted to mean prefects and
ox-prefects.

18. Members of the Royal Academy of Sciences after seven years' member-
ship. This qualification now applies equally to seven other distinguished scien-
tific and literary societies throughout the kingdom.

19. Ordinary members of the Superior Council of Education after seven
years' service.

20. Persons who by their eminent services or merits have added to the
country's fame.

21. Persons who have for the last three years paid a sum equivalent to £120
in direct taxes in respect of their property or in income tax.

Princes of the Royal Family are senators by right, they enter the Senate at 21
and have the right to vote at 25 years of age.

The Presidents and four Vice-Presidents of the Senate are nominated by the Xing
on the recommendation of his !A[inisters.

The number of Senators in ^farch, 1907, was 341.

By the Constitution the Senate has the sole right of judging the validity of the
qualifications for admission to that body. The nominations are referred to a special
permanent committee of the Senate. There have been several cases in which the
Senate has rejected a decree of nomination, which in consequence became inoperative.

coysTiTLTioy or t ppei; chahbers 4i

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 246

Legislative Functions of the Senate.

According to article 3 of the constitution, the legislative power shall be collec-
tively exercised by the King (represented by his Ministers) and the two Chambers —
the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies.^

The two Chambers have an equal right to approve, amend, or reject Bills. When
a Bill, introduced in one Chamber, is amended by the other, the Bill with the amend-
ments is submitted afresh to the Chamber in which it was originally presented. It
then returns to the amending Chamber, and this procedure is repeated when there are
differences of opinion between the two houses until an agreement is reached.

There have been differences of opinion between the two Chambers, but they
have never yet resulted in a conflict.

There is no provision in the " statutes " for the settlement of disputes between
the Chambers.

Control of the Senate over PiihJic Finances.

The pre-eminence of the Chamber of Deputies in the control of the public
finances is recognized in article 10 of the constitution, whidi reads as follows: —

" The right of proposing laws shall belong to the King or to either Chamber,
but any law for the imposition of taxation or the approval of the Budgets and
State accounts shall be presented first in the Chamber of Deputies."

The exact interpretation of this article, and the precise nature of the Senate's
rights in dealing with financial Bills, has given rise at different times to numerous
discussions, and to the expression of widely differing views in both Houses.

Whilst maintaining, subject to the limitations of article 10, its constitutional
rights to amend or reject the above measures, the Senate has in practice shown great
tact and moderation by making the most sparing use of those rights.

Jndicial Functions of the Senate.

The Senate is invested with judicial functions in the three following cases, when
it constitutes itself into a High Court of Justice: —

Firstly, to judge of crimes and offences of which its members are accused.
Senators as Supreme Judges of the State not being subject to the ordinary
courts ;

Secondly, to judge Ministers accused by the Chamber of Deputies and
brought before the Senate for trial; and

Thirdly, to judge persons accused of acts of high treason and of attempts
against the safety of the State.

When exercising its judicial functions, the Senate cannot concurrently exercise
its legislative functions.
Rome, August 5, 1907.

I To become law, every Bill has to pass both Houses, and then to obtain the Royal
sanction.

42 CONSTITUTION OF UPPER CHAMBERS

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914
NETHEKLANDS. /

No. 9.

Sir H. Howard to Sir Edward Grrii.—f Received August 6.)

The Hague, July 29, 1907.

Sir, — In obedience to the instructions conveyed in your Circular despatch of the
10th instant, I have the honour to transmit herewith a report by Lord Acton upon
the composition, powers, and functions of the Upper or Eirst Chamber of the Nether-
land States-General, and upon its relations with the Lower or Second Chamber.

I have, &c.,

HENEY HOWiVED.

Inclosure in No. 9.

Eeport by Lord Actox ox the Compositiox axd Elxctioxs of the Netherland

EiRST Cha:mhkr.

General Bemarls.

The Netherland Upper House or Eirst Chamber, in accordance, perhaps, with
tlie spirit of Netherland histoiy, is modelled on lines republican rather than
inonarchieal, and bears a strong: outward resemblance to the senatorial bodies of th<
great democracies. It is fonned by process of indirect election, none of its member^,
with the exception of the President (vide infra) ^ being appointed by the Crown.
Its powers are more limited than those of the House of Lords, in that it possesses no
power of amendment, nor any initiative faculty in respect of Bills proper. The pre-
vailing tendency, however, as explained below, is to increase the powers of the Upper
House by granting to it the right of amendment, and to democratize its comi^osition
by abolishing the present restrictive qualifications.

Parliamentary procedure.

According to the terms of the constitution the Legislature or States-General
represent the entire Dutch nation. They are composed of a Eirst and a Second
Chamber. The legislative power is exercised jointly by the Queen and the States-
General. Parliamentary procedure and the distribution of legislative power are a-
follows : —

The Queen submits Bills to the States-General, and also any other proposals
which she may consider necessary. She has the right either to approve or to reject
measures which have -been adopted by the States-General. The Sovereign, on the
advice of the Ministers of the Crown, sends all legislative projects to the Second
(Lower) Chamber. If the latter decide to approve the measure, whether amended or
unaltered, they send it up to the First Chamber. If, on the other hand, the Second
Chamber decide against the adoption of the Bill, they address a request to the Queen
that she should again give the matter her earnest consideration.

Powers of First Chamber.

The First Chamber deliberate upon measures in the form in which they are
passed by the Second Chamber, and they communicate their decisions both to the

» The President is arpointed from among th«- Members.

COXSTITUTIOy OF UPPER CHAMBEPS 43

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 246

Queen and to the Second Chamber. Pending the decision of the First Chamber in
regard to a Bill, the Sovereign retains the power to withdraw the Bill submitted by
her. The States-General have the right to submit Bills to the Queen; the right of
initiative can, however, alone be exercised by the Second Chamber, which sends the
Bill when passed to the First Chamber, and has the power to intrust one or more of
its members with" the duty of defending the Bill, either verbally or in writing, in the
First Chamber. If the First Chamber approve the measure, they apply for the
Sovereign's sanction and inform the Second Chamber accordingly; if they fail to pass
the Bill, they return it to the Second Chamber with an intimation that they have not
found sufficient reason for applying for the Sovereign's assent. Proposals other than
Bills proper may be submitted independently to the Crown by either Chamber. Both
Chambers, whether sitting in separate or united session, possess the right of " enquete "
and of appointing commissions of members, with power to take evidence. The
Second Chamber has the power to amend, as have also the States-General, when
sitting as one Chamber.

< Provisions common to hoth Chambers.

A member of one Chamber cannot also be a member of the other Chamber. The
heads of ministerial departments (Mmisters) have the right to sit in both
Chambers, but they only possess advisory powers, unless they have been elected private
members of the Assembly in which they sit. Members of the Chambers cannot be
prosecuted for anything said by them in debate or for any written communication
made by them in the Chamber.

The Sovereign has the right to dissolve the Chambers of the States-General either
separately or simultaneously.

Constitution of First Chamber.

The First Chamber consists of fifty members elected by the Provincial States
(vide infra). The qualifications for eligibility for the First Chamber are that the
candidate should be of Dutch nationality and of thirty years complete; that he shall
not have lost control or possession of his property, nor have been otherwise disqualified
for election by sentence of a Court of Justice; and, further, that he either is included
in the category of those who are assessed the highest for direct taxation, or that he
holds or has held one or more of the high public offices specified in the law of the
12tli August, 1890 (see Appendix). Members are elected for nine years, one-third
retiring every three years, and the retiring members being eligible for immediate
re-election. (When this rule was first adopted one-third of the House were elected for
three years, one-third for six years, and one-third for nine years. This procedure is
also obsen-ed after a dissolution).' In the event of a vacancy occurring by death or
otherwise, the new member is only elected for the period still unexhausted by the late
member. Joint sittings of both Houses take place at the commencement and close of
the session and on the demise of the Crown.

Mode of Election to First Chamber.

la L-\ery province of the kingdom there sits an Assembly termed Provincial
States, which is elected on the same franchise as the Second Chamber of the States
General, and the members of which elect the members of the First Chamber.

Constitutional and Dynastic changes.

Any proposal for a change in the constitution is embodied in a Bill, upon the
l»assage of which both Chambers are dissolved. The newly-elected Chambers proceed
to examine the modifications proposed, but the measure cannot become law unless it

1 The Second Ch.qmber is elected for four years.

44 CONSTITVTIOy OF UPPER CHAMBERS

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914

lias been passed by a majority of two-tbirds of tbe newly-elected members. In tbe
ease of a proposal for a revision of the constitution in regard to the dynasty a
dissolution takes place, the new Chambers, elected ad hoc, being composed of double
the normal number of members, i.e., each constituency or electoral college electing
two members to every one elected under ordinary conditions.

/State of Parties.

The present (Liberal) Government have a majority of two votes in the Second
Chamber, while in the First Chamber they are in a minority of twelve (July, 1907.)

Disagreement hetioeen two Chambers.

Several examples have occurred in recent years of ^linisterial crises brciight about
by the action of the Upper Chamber in rejecting Government measures after their
passage through the Lower House. In February last the Army Estimates were
rejected by the First Chamber. The Government thereupon proffered their resigna-
tions, and after several months' negotiation these were withdrawn, the Minister of
War alone retiring. The Army Estimates, subject to certain alterations, were sub-
sequently reintroduced and adopted by both Chambers, but the reduction proposals,
which had caused their former rejection by the First Chaml)er, were reserved for
embodiment in a special Bill to be brouglrt in by the new Minister of War in the
coming autumn session. This incident, which is still pending, while illustrative of
the procedure adopted by the Government in a given case when confronted by defeat
in the Tipper Chamber, can scarcely be cited as an example of disagreement or conflict
between the two Houses, since in the present instance, according to statements in the
l>ress, the original Government majority in the Lower (^hamber was only consequent
upon a Ministerial assurance that further explanations of the proposed reduction
would be given at an early date.

A different solution of a similar crisis was resorted to by the former (Clerical;
Premier, Dr. KujT)er, in July, 1904, upon the rejection of his University Bill by the
First Chamber. On that occasion Dr. Kuyper advised the Queen to dissolve the Upper
Chamber, and the ensuing elections resulted in a majority for the Right, and there-
fore in the desired victory for the then Government.

Proposals for increasing Efficiency of First Cliamher.

As stated above, the First Chamber does not possess the right of iimendnifiit. A
)nodificalion of the constitution in regard to this question was, however, included
among thi- recommendations of a Royal Commission appointed in the autumn of 1905
t) cxunine certain articles of the Fundamental Liw (constitution) of the Netherlands
with a view to their revision, and which issued its report at the commencomont of the
present year. The report observes that the denial of the riglit of amenlnient to
the Fii-st Chamber places the latter in a dilemma, since it can only acct^pf or rejoct a
measure, and cannot pronounce itself in respect of any modifications which it may
deem desirable to introduce into it. By the concession of the right of amendment, on
the other hand, the danger is averted of the inclusion by the Goverinnent of sev(>ral
separate measures in one Bill, with the object of ensuring the passage of the whole
through the Upper House. No doubt, proreods the report, the acquisition by the First
Chamber of the said right would result in an increase of its direct influence upon
legislation; but, on the other hand, the very exercise of the new right may pave the
Avay for ,iii imdi'v-rMUflin.-- Iumwiwh tb.' two Cliambers. According to tin- ii'd.HDiinnd-

CONSTITUTION OF LPPER CHAMBEh'S 45

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 246

ations of the commission, the procedure would be as follows: The First Chamber
having amended a Bill, the President sends it back to the Second Chamber, which may
only deliberate upon the amended clauses, but is unable to propose fresh amendments.
In the event of the Scond Chamber approving the amendments, the Bill would be sent
direct from that Chamber to the Sovereign to receive the Royal assent. Should the
amendments be rejected, the Second Chamber will return the Bill to the First Chamber
with whom the final decision will rest. The First Chamber will, however, not be
granted the right of amendment in regard to Bills originating in the Second Chamber
(vide supra) nor in respect of Money Bills (c/. England, and Prussia). The report
further recommends that the President of the First Chamber should be elected by the
;Chamber itself, as in the case of the President of the Second Chamber; and it proposes
to abolish the qualifications required of candidates for election to the First Chamber,
placing them on an equal footing with candidates for the Second Chamber in this
respect.

Although the recommendations of this commission have not jet been submitted
to the Legislature, and their adoption or rejection are therefore not qviestions of
immediate constitutional interest, its proposals in regard to the First Chamber are
nevertheless worthy of notice, as indicative of the trend of Dutch parliamentary
opinion on this subject.

The Hague, July 29, 1907.

Appendix.

Puhlic offices specified in the Law of August 12, 1890.

President or member of one of the Chambers of the States-General.

Vice-President or member of the Council of State.

State-Counsellor in extraordinary service.

President or member of the General Audit-Chamber.

Director of the Cabinet of the Queen.

Cabinet Minister.

Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiarj'.

Minister-Resident.

Consul-General in Dutch service.

President, Vice-President, or member of the Supreme Council.

Solicitor-General and Attorney-General at the Supreme Court of Justice.

President, Vice-President, or member of a Court of Justice.

Solicitor-General or Attorney-General at a Court of Justice.

President or member of the Supreme Military Court of Justice.

Attorney-Fiscal for the Queen's army and navy.

Queen's Commissioner in a Province.

-Member of the Provincial Governments.

Burgomaster of a commune which consists of more than 20,000 inhabitants,
according to the last public census.

Curator of a State University.

Curator of the Municipal University of Amsterdam.

Professor at a State University or Professor at the ^lunicipal University of
Amsterdam.

Professor-Director or Professor at the Poly technical School.

President and member of the Royal Academy of Sciences.

Lieutenant-Admiral, Vice-Admiral, Rear-Admiral, Naval Captain, General of
Infantry, Lieutenant-General, Major-General, Colonel in the Nethcrland or Nether-
land East India army.

46 CONSTITUTION OF UPPER CHAMBEliS

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 191-»

President of the Board of Mintage.

Chief Eng-ineer- Adviser or Chief Engineer of Shipbuilding.

Chief Inspector, Inspector, or Chief Engineer of State Waterways, &c.

President of the Council of Supervision of Railway Services.

President of the Board Sea Fishery.

President of the Chamber of Commerce in a comnume, or in a group of com-
munes, which consists of more than 20,000 inhabitants, ticoovdj}ig to the last public
census.

Governor-General of the Netherland East Indies.

Lieutenant-Governor-General of the Netherland East Indies.

Vice-President or member of the Council of the Netherland East Indies.

President or member of the General Audit-Chamber of the Netherland East Indies.

General Secretary to the Government in the Netherland East Indies .

Head of a Department of General Administration in the Netherland East Indies.

President, Vice-President or member of the Supreme Court of Justice of the
Netherland East Indies.

Solicitor-General at the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nethei-land East Indies.

President, Vice-President, or member of the Suprem^ Military Court of Justice
of the Netherland East Indies.

Attorney-Fiscal for the Army and Navy of the Netherland East Indies.

Governor of Celebes and Dependencies, of the West Coast of Sumatra or of Atjeh
and Dependencies.

Resident of Batavia, Surabaya, Djokjokarta, Surakarta, or Samarang.

Governor of Surinam.

Governor of Curacao.

President of or Solicitor-General at the Court of Justice in Surinam.

NORWAY.

No. 10.
Sir A. Herbert to Sir Edward Grey. — (Received August 6.)

Ckristiania, July 31, 1907.

Sir, — I have received your Circular despatch of the 10th instant, instructing me to
forward a report on the composition and functions of the Second or Upper Chamber
of the Norwegian Parliament.

Strictly speaking, there is no Second Chamber in Norway, though in some respects
the Lagthing fulfils the functions of such a Chamber in the Norwegian Storthing.
I would rather apply the term of " revising committee " to the Lagthing. No special
qualifications are required in order to sit in the Lagthing, the members of which arc
merely selected from among and by, the members of the Storthing, and do not sit in
virtue of any independent right conferred cither by the electorate, or by official
appointment, or by hereditary privilege.

It would perhaps have been sufficient to say that there was no Upper Chaml)er
in the Norwegian Parliament, but as the Lagthing acts as a revisory body in the
Storthing, though its powers even as such are very limited, its decisions being liable
to reversal when they are submitted to the whole Storthing, I have asked Mr. Dick,
translator to ITis ^fajesty's Legation, to draw up a short report on the working of the
Lagthing, which I now have the honour to inclose.

I have, etc.

(For Sir A. Herbert),

W. G. MAX MtfLLER.

CO-Y.ST/rfTiO.Y OF UPPER CHAMBERS 47

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 246

Lnclosure in JS'o. 10.
Beport On the Norwegian Upper Chamber.

In tlie jSTorwegian Parliament there is, strictly speaking, no Upper House, the
entire legislative power is vested in a body of 123 representatives elected triennially
to form the Storthing. The electors are, subject to certain very limited income
qualifications, all Xorwegians, both male and female, over 25 years of age. The
suffrage was extended to women by a law passed last month, and will be exercised at
the next election two years hence.

As soon as a newly-elected Storthing meets, the members proceed to elect one
quarter of their number to form the Lagthing, the remaining three-quarters con-
stituting the Odelsthing. A list of names is proposed by a " selection committee,''
but it is open to any member to suggest alterations in the same, the election being
practically a party question.

The Lagthing, as thus constituted, remains unchanged during all the ordinary
and extraordinary sessions of the same Storthing, except that vacancies are filled, by
special elections, from among the members of the Storthing.

The Lagthing together with the Supreme Court of Justice, constitutes the Eigsret,
the court before which members of the Government (" Statsraad ") can be im-
peached.

Members of the Government cannot be elected to the Storthing; they may attend
and take part in debates in either of its divisions, or when it sits as a whole, but have
not the right of votmg.

Every Bill, except such as regard finance, is discussed by the two divisions
('- Things ") separately. It must be introduced into the Odelsthing first, either by one
of its membersor by the Government, and if acepted, either with or without amend-
ment of the original proposal, it is sent on to the Lagthing. This latter body either
accepts it — in which case the Bill is laid before the King for sanction and becomes
law — or returns it to the Odelsthing with suggestions for amendments. There
proposed amendments are then considered by the Odelsthing. If accepted, the Bill is
considered passed; if, on the contrary, the Odelsthing considers the suggestions of
the Lagthing inadmissible, the Bill can be dropped, or it can again be sent to the
Lagthing, with or without further alterations. Should the Lagthing again refuse
to accept the Bill as sent to it from the Odelsthing, the whole Storthing sits as one
House to vote on the proposed measure, and in this case it requires a two-thirds
majority of all the members of the Storthing to enable the Bill to become law.

All Bills involving questions of finance, motions criticizing Government action,
the naturalization of foreigners, concessions for works of public utility, come straight
before the whole Storthing, and are decided by a bare majority of votes.

It will be seen from the above that the danger of " constitutional disputes "
between the two divisions of the Norwegian Parliament does not exist, the constitution
expressly providing a remedy in cases of disagreement.

PORTUGAL.

No. 11.
.Mr. Beaumont to Sir Edward Grey. — (Received August 19.)

LISBON', August 9, 1907.
Sir, — With reference to your Circular despatch of the 10th ultimo, I have the
honour to transmit herewith a report, prepared by Sir Somerville Head, on the com-
position and functions of the Upper Chamber in Portugal.

I have, etc.,

H. D. BEAUMONT.

43 COXSTITLTIOX OF (TPER VTIAMBERS

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914

Inclosure in No. 11.

Report by Sir S. Head on the Portuguese Chamber of Peers.

The constitutional charter of the Kingdom of Portugal, as granted in 1826 and
re-establised in 1842, made provision for the composition and functions of the House
of Peers. Modifications have since been introduced by various acts of the Cortes.

The Chamber is now composed: — ^

1. Of peers appointed by the King, the number of whom may not exceed
ninety.

2. Of peers in their own right. These are: —

(a) The Princes of the blood Royal on attaining the age of 25;
(&) The Patriarch of Lisbon and the Archbishops and Bishops of
the continental kingdom.

3. Hereditary Peers. The hereditary principle, which for some time pre-
vailed, was restricted by laws passed in 1S4.5 and in 1878, and provision wa-
made for its gradual abolition by the law of the 24th July, 1885. Hereditary
Peers now consist only of those who were already peers in July, 1885, and
their immediate successors, if born before that date. On the death of the last
of these hereditary peers the Chamber will consist entirely of life peers nomin-
ated by the Crown, and of the peers in their own right referred to above. The
present King has consistently nominated iJeers recommended by the ministry
in power at the time of a vacancy occurring, but there is nothing in the con-
stitution to prevent the King from filling up vacancies in the Upper House
without consulation with his ministers.

No person may be nominated a peer until he has reached the age of 40,
and unless he has received a secondary education or is in possession of an
annual income of 400,000 reis (£90).
'^rhe 'following functions pertain exclusively to the Chamber of Peers: —

1. Trial of offences committed bj' members of the Royal Family, Secre-
taries of State, Peers, and by Deputies while the Cortes is in session.

2. Investigation into the responsibility of Secretaries of State and certain
other functionaries.

.3. Convocation of the Cortes on the death of the Sovereign f-T the
appointment, if necessary, of a Regent.

The peers, as well as the deputies, are required to take an oath of allegiance
to the King, Prince Royal, or Regent.

All purely legislative functions are common to both Chambers, including the
control over the public finances, but the initiative of financial measures and of Bills
for the recruitment of the army and navy rests solely with the Chamber of Deputies.

The duration of each Parliament is fixed at three years. The legal period for
sessions is three months in each year, but provision is made for prolonging ordinary
sessions and for calling extraordinary sessions.

The sittings of the Upper Chamber are public, except when reasons of State
require that they should be secret; all questions are decided by an absolute majority
of votes. The President and Vice-President of the Chamber are appointed by Royal
decree.

Peers are inviolable for the opinions they express in the performance of their

functions.

No person may be at tlie same time a member of the Upper and Lower Chamber,
members of the Upper Chamber may be appointed Secretary of State or Councillor,

' Up to 1896 the Chamber Included fifty Peers elected by Electoral Colleges, forty-flve
of whom represented administrative districts nnd flvf of whom were returned by scientific es-
tablishments.

coysriTCTioy or ipper chambers 49

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 246

and may hold appointments as diplomatic representative, high commissioner of anj
colony, or court official. Ministers of the Crown sit and take part in the debates in
both Chambers, but only vote in that Chamber of which they are members.

The Act of April, 1896, on which the present composition and functions of the
Upper Chamber are principally based, also provides for the appointment of high
Government officials as special delegates to take part in the Legislative Chambers in
the discussion of particular Bills. The same Act further lays down that when one of
the Legislative Chambers does not approve in whole or in part any Bill issuing from
the other Chamber, or does not approve the amendments or additions made by the
other Chamber to any Bill, a Committee of an equal number of peers and deputie>
shall be appointed, and, in accordance with the decision of the majority of the
committee, the Bill shall either become law or shall be rejected. If there be an
equality of votes on the Bill or on any of its articles, or on any amendments or addi-
tions, or if the committee can come to no agreement on the question submitted to
them, either of the Chambers may petition the Crown for the reassembly of the
Cortes with a special mandate to deal finally with the matter.

No constitutional disputes have arisen during the last ten years between the
Upper and Lower Chambers.

PKUSSIA.

No. 12.
Count de Sails to Sir Edward Grey. — (Received August 6.)

Berlin^ July 31, 1907.
Sir, — In obedience to the instructions conveyed to me in your circular despatck
of the 10th instant, I requested Lord Cranley to draw up a memorandum regarding
the constitution and functions of the Upper House of Parliament in Prussia, copy of
which I have the honour to inclose herewith.

I have, etc.,

, J. DE SALia

Inclosure in No. 12.

Memorandum by Lord Cranley on the Composition and Functions of the Prussian

Upper Houses of Parliament.

Short Historical Sketch of Events leading to the grant of a Constitution and the

estahlishment of a Parliament.

The Prussian Herrenhaus is largely based on the constitution of the former
provincial estates, and in order therefore to fully comprehend the complicated nature
of its construction it is necessary to give a short sketch of the constitutional history
of the country which lead to the grant of the constitution of 1850.

Until the year 1848 Prussia was an absolute monarchy governed in conjunction
with the estates of the realm. The deveUipment of tho estates was regulated by the
conditions of the time prevailing in the Empire. Their power gradually increased.
Under Joachim II scarcely anything could be done without their consent, and with-
out them no tax could be levied or altered. The Great Elector curtailed their influ-
ence, and gathered gradually all power into his own hands. In this policy he vfos
foDowed by his successor, and in 1727 Frederick William I was able to declare that
the privileges of the estates were " antiquated and long-forgotten." Prussia thus

246—4

50 COXSTITI TIOX OF I PrEW c II .\ M iit:i:s

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914

became au absolute monarchy. During the Xapoleonic wars ideas of freedom and
constitutional representation permeated into Germany from France. The first
oflScial pronouncement regarding national representation in Prussia was the edict of
Frederick William III of the 27th October, ISIO, in which the King declared himseU'
willing to grant a system of rei)re>ontatio}i both for the proA'inces and for the whcle
country.

At the Congress of Vienna, 22ud May, 1S15, the King announced liis intention
of granting a constitution to Prussia, and a scheme for a Parliament was laid down.
This scheme for national representation, which was based on a united Assembly drawn
from representatives of the provincial estates, came to nothing, and during the whole
of the remainder of the reign of Frederick William III the tendency of the poli<-y of
the Government was much more towards reaction than towards constitutional freedom.
In 1840 Frederick William III died, and was succeeded by his son Frederick William
IV. At the outset of the reign a more liberal regime was confidently expected,
but it soon became clear that, although the King wished to rule in a more enlight-
ened fashion than his father, he did not intend to abate any of his claims to govern
by divine right, or to divest himself of his father's absolute power. The agitation
for constitutional reform grew in strength during the first seven years of the reign,
and iji 1847 the King summoned a Diet, composed of representatives of the pro-
vincial estates, consisting of two Houses. The Upper House was formed of the princes,
counts, and lords who possessed votes in the provincial Diets, and numbered eighty
members. This concession, however, did not suffice to allay the agitation. Dis-
turbances took place in Berlin on the 18th and 19th March, 1848, and it became clear
to the King that it was no longer possible to combat the popular demand. Frederick
William therefore gave way completely. He declared that he would place himself
at the head of the popular movement, changed his Ministry, and oommanded the
Diet to pass an electoral law to enable a constituent assembly to be chosen. The
Diet was then abolisluHl, and the constituent Assembly began to discuss the new
constitution. The Assembly met in May, 1848, but their debates came to nothing.
On the 5th December the King dissolved the Assembly and published a constitution
which had not been laid before the Chamber. This constitution provided for two
Houses, the membei;s of the Upper House being elected by all Prussians over 30 years
of age who paid at least 8 thalers in direct taxation yearly, or who possessed real
property to the amount of 5,000 thalers. This is the first measure which really
admitted Prussia to the rank of a constitutional State, since thereby the King by his
own prerogative abrogated his absolute power, and was only enabled to make or repeal
laws in accordance with the limits of the constitution. The 1848 constitution
provided for its revision by the Chambers, and in a Message, dated the 31st January,
1850, the King published a new constitution with the approval of both Houses.

It is this constitution that has become the fundamental law of the Prussian
State. By the original draft the Upper House, called in German " Herrenhaus," or
" House of Lords," consisted of 240 members of five classes : —

(a) Princes of the Koyal House of Prussia of the age of In aii<l upwards.

C&) Mediatized princes and the heads of families appointed by Royal
Ordinance to seats in the House according to the rights of primogeniture and
lineal descent.

The ^Members comprised in classes (a) and {h) might not exceed 120.
-(c) Ninety deputies directly elected by electoral district* comprised of
electors paying the highest taxes to the State.

(d) Thirty members elected by the ^Municipal Councils of the large towns.

The composition of the "House of Lunls" w;is largely t-hauL'ed by a law. dated
the 12th October, 1854, which regulates —

CO-YSr/TTT/OV OF UPPER CHAMBERS 51

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 246

The present Composition of the " Herrenhaus."^
Members of the House may be divided into three classes: —

I. Territorial nobility: —

(a) Hereditaiy representatives.

(&) Representatives of the lesser landowners and ecclesiastical chapters
elected by them, and presented to the King for nomination as life members.

II. Representatives of the universities and larger towns, selected by the
Senates or To^\^l Council, and presented to the King for nomination as life
members or for a term of years in case of the representatives of the towDS.^

III. Life peers nominated by the King.

I. The territorial representatives are divided into nine classes, four of which are
composed of hereditary members and five selected by the King: —

1. The head of the House of Hohenzollern Sigmaringen.

2. The twenty-two princes mediatized at the Congress of Vienna who are
Prussian subjects.-

3. The representatives of the nobility summoned to the Upper House by
the Diet of 1847, i.e., the Princes and Lords of Silesia, and those princes,
counts, and lords who are hereditary members of the eight provincial Diets.
There are at present fifty-two such families.

4. Representatives of families to whom a hereditary seat has been grant.e4
by patent, of which there are at present thirty-two.

Selected members representing the land-owning class.

5. The four great territorial officers of Prussia : —

The Landhofmeister.
The Chancellor.
The Obermarschall.
The Oberburggraf.

6. Representatives of the three Cathedral chaijters. Members of the
chapters elected by their colleagues for presentation to the King for selection.

7. Representatives of the " L^nions of the Counts of the eight provinces.''
In each of the eight provinces the assembly of Counts holding Knights' estates
have the right to elect one representative for presentation to the King for
selection.^

8. The fifty-six " Unions of ancient and assured landed properties." These
Unions together present ninety members for selection.''

A Knight's estate, in order to be able to send an elector to the Union, mufct
have been in the same family for at least fifty years, and must be entailed in
the direct line.

9. Representatives of families holding large estates which hii^'c been
granted the right to present one of their members for selection by the ]\ing.
There lire at present sixteen such families.

II. Selected members representing the towns and universities: —

1. The Senate of each of the Prussian Universities chooses a member of
their body to present to the King for selection.

f.'. Forty-eight towns have been accorded the right to choose a membei* of
the town magistracy to present to the King for selection, either as life meniliers
or for a fi-xed period.

1 See Annex 2.

2 By a law of March 23, 1872, members of tb*> Audit Department cannot be elected to the
Landtag.

3 See Annex .3.
* See Annex 4.

246— 4i

52 CONSTirVTIO^i OF UPPER CHAMBElii^

4-5 GEORGE V., A 1914
III. Life members: —

1. Princes of the House of Prussia summoned to attend by the "King. No
prince has, however, received a summons to attend since the constitution was
granted.

2. Persons specially selected by the King on account of their services to the
country. At present the life peers number sixty-two persons, and consist of
landowners, civil officials, diplomatists, clerics, military and naval officers,
university professors, merchants, mineowners, manufacturers, and bankers.

Qualifications for Memhersliip of the " Herrenhaus."

1. No person can be a member of the Upper and Lower House at the same time.

2. All members of the Ilerrenhaus must be Prussian subjects domiciled in
Prussia. They must be in full exercise of their civil rights, and not in the active
service of a foreiVn State.

Princes of the Royal House must be at least 18 years of age; representatives of
the " Unions of Counts " and the " Unions of ancient and assured landed properties "
must be at least 25 years of age, and all other members at least 30 years of age.

3. The qualification of the members is to be proved by the House.

Disqualifications of Members of the House and the Methods hy which the place of a
Member who has been unseated is refilled.'

Should a member be considered by the King, with the consent of the House, to
have forfeited his honour, or to be living or behaving in a manner derogatory to the
House, he may be deprived of his scat. The same penalty is inflicted on him if he
loses his honour in accordance with 33 or 34 of the Penal Code.^

Should a member be charged with a crime, or should there be any other weighty
ground for suspending him temporarily from his seat, the House may bo suspend him
with the Royal consent.

Should an hereditary member of the Chamber be deprived of his seat, his family
must obtain the Royal consent to the election of a person to be presented for Royal
selection in liis place.

Should a life member be deprived of his seat the Sovereign will decree a fresh
presentation.

/
Rights, Duties, and Privileges of the " Ilerrenhaus," as laid down by the Constitution*

1. The Landtag must be regularly convoked during the month of November.

2. The Ilerrenhaus must be convoked, adjourned, and prorogued at the same
time as the Lower House.

3. The Ilerrenhaus possesses an equal right to propose legislation with the King
and the " Abgeordnetenhaus," but Money Rills must be introduced in the Lower
House, and they must be accepted or rejected en bloc by the Herrenhaus. No Bill can
become law without the consent of the Crown and of both Houses.

4. The proceedings of the Herrenhaus are public, but a secret debate may be
ordered on the proposition of the President or of ten members.

5. No resolution is valid unless a quorum (sixty) of the House be present.

1 See Ann->x 1.

2 See Annex 1.
8 See Anrr^x 4.
* Se • Annex 1.

CONSTITUTION OF UPPER CHAMBERS 53

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 246

6. The Herrenhaus can 'iemand the presence of Ministers to give explanations or
to reply to questions. Ministers or their representatives have the right to speak in
the House, but not to vote unless they are regular members thereof.

7. The Herrenhaus has the right to present addresses to the King.

8. No one may deliyer a petition or address to the House in person.

9. The Herrenhaus may appoint Commissions of Investigation, which present
their reports to it.

10. The Herrenhaus settles its own procedure and elects its own officers.

11. The Herrenhaus may impeach Ministers for breach of the constitution,
corruption, or treason, and the matter is then tried by the highest court in the realm.

12. The decisions of the House are by a majority.

Rights, Duties, and Privileges of Members, as laid down by t/ie Constitution.'

1. All members must take the oath of loyalty to King and constitution in the
prescribed form.

2. The members of the House are considered to be representatives of the whole
nation. They are to vote according to their convictions, and are not bound by previous'
instructions. They cannot be called to account either for votes or opinions given by
them in the House.

3. No member of the Herrenhaus can be arrested without the consent of the
House, unless the arrest be effected in flagrante delicto or within twenty-four hour-^
of the committal of the crime. This also applies to arrest for debt.

4. Should the Chamber demand it, all criminal proceedings against one of its
members, and all judicial examination or civil arrest must be suspended during the
session.

5. Civil officials do not require leave of absence from their duties to attend the
sittings of the House.

6. No member can have two votes or vote by proxy. In the case of a member
becoming entitled to two votes, one of them lapses (e.g., the present " Oberburggraf"'
and "Oberrnarschall" were already qualified members of the House when they were
appointed to these offices, and their votes in the latter capacity consequently lapped.)

CRANLEY.

Annex 1.

Berlin, July 17, 1907.

Exti*acts from tJie Provisions of the Constitution of 1850 regulating the Constitution

and Functions of the Upper House.

XLVm. The King has the right of declaring war and concluding peace, as also
of entering into other treaties with foreign Governments. The latter, in order to be
valid, require the concurrence of the Chambers, if they are commercial treaties, or if
burthens are thereby imposed upon the State or obligations upon individual citizens
of the State.

XLIX. The King has the right of granting pardons and mitigating punishmenti^.

This right can only be exercised in favour of a Minister who is condemned in
consequence of his official acts on the motion of the Chamber from which the
accusation proceeded.

The King can only quash an inquiry already commenced by virtue of a spf^Val
law.

1 See Annex 1.

54 rjONSTITlTION OF VPPEli CHAMBERS

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 191-)

LI. The King convokes the Chambers and closes their sittings. He can either
fligsolve both at once or only one. But in such a case the electors must be assembled
within a period of sixty days after the dissolution, and the Chambers within a period
of ninety days after the dissolution.

LII. The King can prorogue the Chambers. Without their consent this proroga-
tion cannot exceed the term of thirty days, and cannot be repeated during the same
session,

LVIT. If there be no agnate of age, and if this case have not already been legally
provided for, the Ministry of State has to convoke the Chambers, which are to elect :>
Regent in a united sitting. Until this entry upon the Regency, the Ministry of Stat*'
conducts the Government.

LX. The ^Ministers, as well as the officers of the State appointed to represent
them, have access to each Chamber, and must at all times be heard at their desire.
Each Chamber can desire the presence of the Ministers. The Ministers have only a
right of voting in the Chamber in which they are members.

LXI. The Ministers may be impeached by the resolution of a Chamber for the
crime of violating the constitution, of corruption, and of treason. The Supremo
Court of Judicature of the Monarchy decides upon such an impeachment in united
debates. So long as two Supreme Courts of Judicature still exist, they assemble
together for the above object.

LXII. The l<\gi>lativo power is exercised in common by the King and the two
r" . '

*_ iitllUlJfcAO,

The agreement of the King and both Chambers is requisite for every law.

Projects of financial laws and Budgets will first be submitted to the Second
Chamber, The latter will be wholly adopted or rejected by the First Chamber,

LXIV, To the King, as well as to each Chamber, belongs the right of proposing
laws.

Proposed laws which have been rejected by one of the Chambers or by the King
cannot be brought forward again during the same session.

LXXVIII, paragraph 1. Each Chamber examines and decides upon the legltinui-
tion of its members. Each regulates the course of its proceedings and its discipline
by an Order of Proceeding, and elects its president, vice-presidents, and secretaries.

Paragraph 2. Government officials require no leave of absence in order to attend
the Chambers.

LXXIX. The sittings of the Chambers are public. Each Chamber may proceed,
on the motion of its president or of ten members, to a secret sitting, in which the first
thing to be decided upon is this motion.

LXXX. Neither of the two Chambers can pass a resolution, if the majority of
the legal number of its members be not present.

Each chamber passes its resolutions according to the absolute majority of vot» s,
with a reservation of any exceptions which may be decided upon for elections, by the
regulations for the Order of Proceedings.

LXXXI. Each Chamber has the right of sending addresses to the King.

Xobody shall jiroscnt in person a petition or an address to the Chamber, it t"
either of them.

Each Chamber can refer to the Ministers the papers addressed to it. and ask them
for information relative to the complaints received.

LXXXII. Each Chamber has the power of appointing connnittfcs in order to
inquire into facts for its information.

LXXXIII. The members of both Chambers are representatives of the whol
people. They vote according to their free conviction, and are not bound by corami'J-
sions or instructions.

LXXXIV. They can never be called to account for their votes in the Chamber,
and for the opinions expressed in it. only within the Chamber by reason of the regu-
lations foi the Order of Proceedings (article Ixxviii).

COSiSTITUTWy OF VI'l'ER CHAMBERS 55

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 246

No member can be proceeded agaiust or arrested for a peual act without the
consent of the Chamber to which he belongs during the period of a session, except
when he is taken in the act, or in the course of the day following its commission.

A similar consent is necessarj' in case of an arrest for debt.

Every penal proceeding against a member of the Chambers, and every preliminary
or civil arrest is removed for the period of the stitting, if the Chamber concerned
demands it,

CYII. The constitution may be altered by the usual way of legislative proceeding,
in which case the ordinary absolute majority of votes in each Chamber, on two
divisions between a period of at least twenty-one days must iiatervene, is siifficient.

CVIII. The members of both Chambers and all functionaries of the State take
the oath of allegiance and obedience to the King, and swear the conscientious observ-
ance of the constitution. The army is not sworn to the constitution.

CXIX, paragraph 1. The oath of the King, mentioned in article liv, as well as
the oath prescribed to be taken by both Chambers and by all functionaries of the
State, are to be taken immediately after the present revision of this Constitution has
been completed by legislative proceeding (articles Ixii and cviiiV

Annex 2.

Lojv of October 12, ISoJf, regarding the Constiiuthn of the Upper Home of the

Frussian Parliament.

I. The Upper House consists of : —

1. Princes of the Royal House of full age, as established by the Prussian
Royal Family law, who are sunmioned to attend by the King.

2. Hereditary members.

3. Life members.

II. Hereditary members are as follows : —

*,»

1. The head of the Princely House of Hohenzollern Siguiaringen.

2. The head of those mediatized families recognized by the Congress of
Vienna who are Prussian subjects.

3. Those princes, counts, and lords who were summoned to the Upper
House of the United Landtag of 184".

N.B.— The princes and lords of Silesia, and those princes, counts, and
lords who are members of the eight provincial Landtags.

Besides the above-mentioned persons, those having a hereditary right to a
seat and vote in the Upper Chamber comprise persons who have been sum-
moned to a seat in the Herrenhaus by a Special Royal Ordinance or Patent.
The manner in which the succession to the seat is determined on the death of
the holder is laid down in each individual Patent.

III. Life members are selected from the following categories: —

1. The holders of the four great offices of Prussia.

2. Persons specially chosen by the King for selection.

IV. The right of presentation for selection belongs to: —

1. The chapters who are represented in the LTpper House of the United
Landtag of 1847.

2. A representative of the nobles possessing Knight's estates in each of the
eight provinces.

56 CONSTITUTION OF UPPER CHAMBERS

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914

3. A representative of those families who possess large landed estates to
whom the right to present a member to the King for selection has been granted.

4. The Unions of ancient and assured properties.

5. A member of the Universities.

6. A member of each of the towns to whom the right has been conceded.

V. The representatives presented by the chapters must be chosen by each chapter
from among its members. Those presented by the universities must be chosen from
among the professors of the university by the academic Senate, and those chosen by
the towns by the town council, or, in defavilt of a collegiate assembly, by the constitu-
tional representatives of the town from among the members of the magistracy.

VI. The rules as to the constitution of Unions of ancient landed properties, and
those as to the exercise of the right of presentation, are laid down by the Crown.

VII. Only Prussian subjects 30 years old, in full exercise of their civil rights,
domiciled in Prussia, and not in the active service of a non-German State, can be
members of the Herrenhaus.

VIII. Members of the Upper House chosen under paragraphs 4, 5 and 6, lose
their seats should they lose their qualification for presentation to the King for
selection.

IX. If a Royal decision is communicated to the House to the effect that one ot
the members has lost his honour, or that he is living or behaving in a manner deroga-
tory to the House, he may, with the consent of the House, be deprived of his seat.

X. With the Koyal consent a member of the House may be suspended from his
functions while an investigation as to his proceedings is in process, or for any other
important cause.

XI. If a member be deprived of his seat, the Royal consent must be obtained,
in the ease of an hereditary member, to select another member of the same family
to fill his seat ; and in the case of a member selected for presentation, as provided in
paragraphs 4, 5 and 6, a Royal command will be issued for another presentation to
be made for selection.

Annex 3.

Decree for the Begulation of the Constitution of Unions of Ancirnt and Assured
Landed Properties, and for the liegidatian of the Election of persons to he pre-
sented for selection as Menibers of the Ilerreyihaus both by the Unions and hit
the frovincinl Unions of Counts.

1. Representatives of the Unions of ancient landed properties ai-e chosen in the
following proportions: —

Province of Prussia 18

'' Brandenburg 15

" Pomerania 13

Silesia IS

Posen 7

" Saxony 10

" Westphalia 4

Rhine 5

2. A Knight's estate, in order to be considurod '' an ancient landed property,"
must have been in the same family for at least fifty years. (The family changes, if
the daughter being an heiress marries a man owning real property.)

3. To be considered '' an assured lnndi>d prnpi^rty " the puceession must be
entailed in the male lino.

CONSTITUTION OF UPPER CHAMBERS ■ 57

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 246

4. Persons presented for selection either by the " Unions of ancient and assured
landed properties " or by the provincial Unions of nobility, must be Prussian sub-
jects 25 years of age, in full possession of civil rights, not in the active service of a
•on-German State, and must be domiciled in Prussia.

6. Hereditary members of the Herrenhaus cannot take part in the election, either
•f persons to be presented for selection by the " Unions of ancient and assured landed
properties/' or of persons to be presented for selection by the provincial Unions of
nobility; but members of the latter Unions, who are qualified by their Knights'
estates as members of the " Unions of ancient and assured landed properties," are
entitled to vote in both categories.

6. If a Knight's estate is in possession of several persons, only one is entitled to
Tote, though that vote may be exercised by any one of the proprietors.

7. A land owner possessing property in several Unions can exercise his vote in
each.

8. The elections of persons to be selected for presentation must be arranged by
the members of the Union.

9. The process of election is governed by the regulation for the election of the
estates of the 22nd June, 1842, but no election is valid unless at least ten electors
tixercise their votes.

10. The register of voters and the appointment of a polling day is in the hands of
the chief Government official of the district.

11. Should there be less than ten qualified voters in one Union, they must vote
together with the nearest Union, which numbers at least ten qualified voters.

Annex 4.

Extracts from Sections 32, SS and SJf, of the German Penal Code, May 15, 1871.

32. The penalty of death, and penal servitude entails loss of honourable civil
rights; in the case of condemnation to prison, only for sentences exceeding three
months.

33. The rights formerly enjoyed by a i>erson who loses his honourable civil rights
lapse altogether, and he thus loses the right to take part in public elections or to fill
any public office or dignity.

34. During the course of his sentence any person who lia.s lost his; honourable
civil rights is unable: —

(1) To be nominated to any office or dignity;

(2) To take part in public affairs, to elect representatives, or to be elected
as a representative, or to exercise any other political right.

SAXONY.

No. 13.
Air. b'indlaii to Sir' Edward Gn\i/. — (Received Au<jasi :^'f.l

Dresden, August 21, 1907.

Sill, — In reply to your Circular of the 10th ultimo, I have the lionour to inclose
herewith a report on the composition and functions of the First or Upper Chamber
of the Saxon Landtag, together with a short account of two diff"erences of opinion
which have arisen betwooii the First and Second Chambers during the last six years.

I have, etc.,

M. DE C. FINDLAY.

68 COysTlTiTIoy OF iPPKht (UAMIiFJis

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914
IxcLosuuE i\ No. 13.

Report on the Composition and Functions of the First or Upper Chamber of the
Saxon Landtag, and respecting recent disputes between the two Chambers.

The Upper Chamber comprises princes nf the Royal Family who are of age, one
deputy of the Lutheran Archbishopric of Meissen, one deputy of the Herrschaft of
Wildenfels, one of the proprietors of the mediatized domains (which are now held
by five owners);, one dejiuty of the University of Leipzig-, the two proprietors of
'" Standesherrschaften," the Lutheran " Oberhofpredigcr " in Dresden, the Roman
Catholic Dean of Bautzen, the Superintendent at Leipzig, one deputy of the Collegiate
Institution of Durzen, one of the owners of four estates in fee, twelve deputies elected
by the owners of other nobiliar estates for life, ten proprietors and five other members
elected by the King for life and the mayors of eight towns

The qualification for a seat in the Upper House is the possession of a landed estate
worth at least 4,000 marks a year, and for the right to elect a member to the ipame
the possession of a landed estate valued at least at 3,00'J marks a year.

Each member (except the hereditary members) receives 12 marks per diem, or
6 marks if he usually resides in Dresden, and travelling expenses.

The Upper House may propose new laws, even of a financial nature, and may
amend financial Bills passed by the Second Chamber; but no taxes can be levied, nor
laws passed, except by the common consent of both Chambers.

The parliamentary system in Saxony is very different from ours. The Chambers
are only convoked once every two years, and it is not necessary or even customary
for Ministers to resign because they have been defeated in Parliament. Ministers are,
in fact, responsible to the King, and not to the Chambers, though it would probably
bo impossible for a Minister who had lost the confidence of the Chambers to maintain
his position for any length of time unless supported by the public opinion of the
country at large.

In case of a dift'erence between the two Chambers, i.e., tbe rejection by tlie one
of a Bill passed by the other, the matter is referred to deputations of both Chambers,
who meet and endeavour to arrive at an agreement.

Of recent years there have been two differences of opinion between the First and
Second Chambers of the Landtag: —

1. In 1901 the Second Chamber passed a Bill subjecting agricultural stoc1<
and plant, (machinery, buildings, draught horses, and cattle) to taxation on
their estimated value, from which they had hitherto been exempted. This Bill
was rejected by the First Chamber, in which the landed and agricultural
interests arc strongly represented. The Bill was discussed in every Kcssion
up till 190(3, when it was finally accepted by the First Chamber.

2. In 1905. ^linister von Metzseh introduced a Bill altering the constitu-
tion of the First Chamber by the introduction of various university, muni-
cipal, and connnercial representatives appointed by the King, but chosen, at
any rate indirectly, by election. The First Chamber rejectetl this Bill.
Deputations of both Chambers were appointed, and discussed the propised
reform at length, but without result, and finally separat«l "■ in a friendly
manner." Minister von "Metzseh resigned not long after the rejection of hi^
proposed reforms.

M. De C. FINDLAY.
Drksdk.v, August 21. 1007.

GOKSTITUTION OP UPPER CHAMBERS 59

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 246

SPAIN.

No. 14.
Sir M. de Bunsen to Sir Edward Grey. — (Received August 6.)

Sax Ildefonso, August 2, 1907.

SiR^ — ^lu obedience to the iustructions contained in your Circular of the 10th
ultimo, I have the honour to forward herewith a report which T have drawn \ip on the
Spanish .Senate.

I have, etc.,

MAURICE DE BUNSEN.

Inclosure in No. Ik-

Report ox the Spanish Senate.

In its present form the Senate dates from the constitution drawn up in 187G, a
year after the Bourbon restoration in the person of King Alfonso XII. Article li^
declares that the power to make laws resides in the Cortes with the Iving. The Cortes
are described in article 19 as two " co-legislative " bodies of equal power, namely,
the Senate and the " Congreso," of Chamber of Deputies. Article 20 gives in outline
the composition of the Senate, namely: —

1. Senators in their own right.

2. Life senators named by the Crown.

3. Senators elected, in the manner to he determined by law, by the '* Corporations
of the State, and the highest taxpayers.*'

Non-elected senators not to exceed in number the ISO elected senators.
The constitution itself gives in articles 21 and 22 the qualifications for the above
three categories of senators.

The following are senators in their own right:—

Sons, being of full age, of the King and heir to the Crown.

Grandees in their own right, being Spaniards, and having an income of
60,000 pesetas (2,400^. at par) a year derived from real property, or from such
as is held to be legally equivalent.

Captains-General of the Army (i.e.. Field Marshals) and the admiral of the
Fleet. There are at present two Captains-General out of a possible four. The
office of Admiral of the Fleet, vacant by the recent death of Admiral Beranger,
has not been filled up.

Patriarch of the Indies (an extinct dignity) and Archbishops.

Presidents of Council of State, Supreme Court, Court of Accounts,
Supreme Council of War and Marine after two years' office.

The following, being Spaniards, may be nominated or elected senators : —

1. Presidents of Senate and Chamber of Deputies.

2. Deputies who have sat in three different Parliaments, or in eight parlia-
mentary sessions.

3. Ministers of the Crown.
• 4. Bishops.

5. Grandees of Spain.

6. Lieutenant- Generals and Vice-Admirals after two years' employment.

60 CONSTITUTION OP UPPER CHAMBERS

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914

7. Ambassadors after two, and Ministers Plentipotentiaries after three
years' active service.

8. Members of Council of State, Supreme Council of War and Marine, and
various other officers of the law and military orders.

9. Presidents of the six Academies, viz., Eoyal Academy of Spain, and
Academies of History, l^ine Arts, Exact Sciences, Moral and Political Sciences,
and Medicine.

10. Senior members of the above Academies, Inspectors-General of Civil
Engineers, University Professors of four years' seniority. They must have an
income of 7,500 pesetas (BOOl. at par) a year.

11. All persons of title, ex-deputies to Cortes or provincial Assemblies, ex-
mayors of provincial capitals and towns of over 20,000 inhabitants. These must
iiave an income of 20,000 pesetas (800?.) a year, or pay 4.000 pesetas (160/.)
in direct taxes.

12. Ex-senators under former constitutions.

Royal decrees nominating life senators must specify which of the above twt-lv.t
categories is the one to which the nominee belongs.

It is further required (article 26) that senators be over 35 years of age, that no
criminal actioxi be pending against them, that they be in full enjoyment of their
political rights and that there be no embargo on their property. Senators may accept
no office (except that of Minister of the Crown), promotion, title, or decoration while
tho Cf)rtes are sitting (article 25).

The eleetion of senators is regulated by the law of the 8th February, 1877. It
enumerates in the fii-st place the " Corporations of the State," who elect senators
under article 20 of the constitution, viz: — *

1. Archbishop. Bishops, and Chapter of Archieplscopal Sees of Toledo,
Seville, Granada, Santiago, Zaragoza, Terragona, Valencia, Burgos, Valladolid.
Total, 9 Senators.

2. Tho six academies enumerated above. Total, 0.

3. Universities of Madrid, Barcelona, Granada, Oviedo. Salamanca, San-
tiago, Seville, Valencia, Valladolid, Zaragoza. Total, 10.

4. The so-called '* Economic Societies of Friends of the Country " elect one
senator for each of the five districts which centre in ^NFadrid, Barcelona, Leon,
Seville, and Valencia. Total, 5.

Thus the " coriiorations " elect in all ?>0 out of the entire body of 180 elt'cte<l
senators.

The remaining 150 are elected by the 49 provincas, each returning 3 senaturs,
except Madrid, Barcelona, and Seville, which return 4 each.

The electoral body in each province consists of: —

1. The provincial deputies (con-esponding to "Conseillers-Qfneraiix " in
France, and, roughly, to County Councillors in England) ; and

2. Representatives of the Town Councils and Iiighest taxpayers of the j>ro-
vince.

The law of the 8th February, 1877. also lays down in detail the procedure to be
followed by the "corporations" and provinces in electing their representative senators,
and tlio manner in wliich the representatives of the town councillors and highe»it tax-
payers are selected for the purpose of taking part in the senatorial elections at the
I'rovincial capital.

By article 32 of the constitution the King is invested with authority to summon
■tilt' Cortes, which must meet every year, to suspend or close their sittings, and to
dissolve, either simultaneously or separately, the elective portion of the Senate and
the Chamber of Deputies.' After dissolution, the new Chamber (or Chambers, a'- the
ra>e may be) must meet within a period of Xhroo m<inths.

roysTiTUTiox or ippeu chambers 61

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 246

In the event of the King dissolving only the Chamber of Deputies, the elected
portion of the Senate is automatically renewable as to half of its members every five
years (article 24 of the constitution). In practice, however, the foregoing provision
is absolute, dissolutions including always the elected portion of the Senate, as well as
the Chamber of Deputies.

The Senate draws up its own internal regulations, and pronounces on the qualifi-
cation of its members and the validity of their elections (article 34). The King
appoints the President and Vice-Presdent of the Senate from amongst its members
(article 36). Except when the Senate exercises judicial functions, one Chamber of
the Cortes may not sit without the other being also in session (article 38). Laws
initiate with the King, and with either of the two Chambers composing the Cortes
(article 41), but laws relating to taxes and the public credit must be first presented
in the Chamber of Deputies (article 42). The power of the Senate to reject or
modify Money Bills is unquestioned. In practice, however, they exercise this right
sparingly, and the amendments introduced into the Money Bills sent up from the
Chamber of Deputies are such as* the mixed committees described below always find
it possible to cast into a form which will make them acceptable to both Chambers, and
so secure the passage of the Bill. At the present moment the Senat-e is engaged in
amending an important Government Bill relating to the taxation of sugar. But it is
confidently predicted that there will be eventual agreement with the other Chamber.
as indeed always happens in Money Bills as well as others.

Such agreement is secured by the operation of the law of relations between the
two Chambers of the 12th July, 1837 (article 10), of which prescribes that '' if one of
|he Chambers modify or disapprove in any of its parts a Bill already passed in the other
Chamber, a committee shall be formed, composed in equal numbers of senators and
deputies for the purpose of conferring on the mode of conciliating the conflicting
opinions. The report of this committee shall be discussed without any altera tioi. by
the Senate and the Chamber; and, if accepted by both, the Bill shall be held as passed."

Thus no amendment may be introduced into the Bill as finally submitted tc the
Chamber, by the mixed conunittee.

These mixed committees consist of the committees in either Chamber which
examined the Bill in question, and which consist usually of seven members, elected by
the seven sections into which both Houses are respectively divided for the purpose of
considering Bills. Should the deputies appointed by the Chamber to take part in the
mixed committee fall short of or exceed seven in number, the Senate Committee is
reduced by lot, or increased by additional committeemen appointed by the sections, in
such a manner as to secure numerical equality with the representatives of the other
Chamber. (Article 89 of the Senate regulations.)

It may here be explained that, both in the Senate and Chamber of Deputies,
Government Bills and Bills which have passed the other House are at once referred
to the seven sections, which proceed to appoint the committee whose report is the
foundation of the ensuing discussion. Bills originating with a private member (Senate
or deputy, as the case may be) are also referred to the sections, but before a com-
mittee is appointed to consider them at least one section, and in the case of a proposed
constitutional charge a majority of the seven sections must first decide by majority,
that the BiU may be read, and it is only after such first reading in open session that,
the Chanilier approving, the sections are called upon to appoint the requisite com-
mittee.

In the Senate (as in the Chamber of Deputies) decisions are taken by majority of
votes, but to pass a law half the full number of Senators plus one must be present.
This point, however, is not as a rule enforced, except on the demand of one or more
senators. (Constitution, article 43.)

62 coxsrrn TK>\ of ipi'kh chaubers

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 191 +

Apart from their legislative powers, the Cortes are re<iuire(] by article 45 of the
coii^^titntion : —

1. To receive the eniistitutional oath from the King, from the Heir A])part'ut,
and from the Regent;

2. To elect the Eegent or Regency when the constitution directs, that is, in
the absence of near relatives qualified under the constitution to take over the
Regency automatically; and

3. To hear impeachments brought against ^linisters of the Crown by the
Chanil)er of Deputies.

The Law of Relations between the two Houses of the Cortes, already referre-;! to,
lays down the procedure to be followed when the two Houses meet as a single body,
that is to say: —

1. To witness the opening or closing of the session b.y King or Regent in
person ;

2. To receive the King's oath to the constitution, or that of tlic IFtiv
Apparent or Regent; and

3. To appoint a Regent or the guardian to a King in his minority.

The latter function seems, however, to be now reserved to the Senate alone, under
tlic above-quoted article 45 of the constitution.

The functions of the Senate as a Court of Justice are defined in a law of the
nth May, 1849. The Senate sits as a Court of Justice, in virtue of a Royal decree
liased on a decision of the Council of Ministers, for the three following purposes; —

1. To hear impeachments brought against ^linisters by the Chamber of
Deputies.

2. To hear actions in respect of grave offences ('' delitos graves'") against
the person or dignity of the Crown, or against the internal or external security
of the State.

3. To hear cases of misdemeanour ("delitos ") committed b,v Senators.

But actions brought against senators are now governed by the^ constitution of
1876, which lays down (article 47) that, except when caught in flagranti, no Senator
1 lay be itroceeded against or arrested without the previous permission of the Senate,
and that the Supreme Tribunal is the Court having jurisdiction over senators accused
of criminal offences.

In point of fact, there has been no instance of the Senate sitting as a Court of
Justice since the impeachment of Scnor Esteban Collantes half a century .ago.

The present party aspect of tlic Senate, as a whole, is approximately as follows;-—

Ministerialists (Conservatives) !'.>')

T.iiberals (followers of Senor Moret) (iO

Democrats (followers of Senor Canah-jas) 25

Republicans 7

Ecclesiastics 17

Carlists 7

Religionists .".

Tntegrists 1

Independent.'^ 22

Catholic Leayuf 4

Royal Houseliohi 0

Total :\:,:,

Five seats vacant .".

Total of Senate 36<)

cox^rirrTTos' or vppeh chambkR!^ 63

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 246

It cannot be said tliat any constitutional disputes htu-e arisen witliiu the last
t«n years, or indeed, previously, between the two Chambers of the Cortes. The
provision made by the Law of Eelations between the Chambers, as quoted a'oovc,
and which provides the machinery for adjusting differences between them, is found in
most cases to be capable of bringing about an agreement. When it is obvious that
the two Chambers are irreconcilably opposed to each other on a point of importance,
the practice is for the Government to procure from the Crowi a dissolution. In the
new Chambers resulting from the consequent general election the majority in the
two Houses may or may not permit the Bill to be reintroduced and carried, and
the Government takes its measures accordingly. It is not customary to press contro-
versial questions to an issue between the two Houses. Such questions are ei flier
quietly dropped or taken up again when the parliamentary situation permits.

It may be mentioned that in July, 1906, Sefior Moret, being then Liberal Prime
Minister, pressed for a dissolution on the ground that the state of parties in the
Chambers would not permit him to pass the Liberal measures which he held to be
necessary. These measures were aimed at the modification of two articles of the
constitution of 1876, viz., article 2, which pRices certain disabilities in the way of
religious services* not being those of the State Church, and article 20, which prescribes
the composition of the Senate, and as to which latter article Seiior Moret desired to
introduce a reform increasing the existing proportion of the elected members of the
Senate in relation to the non-elected portion. His object was to bring the Senate into
greater harmony with the Chamber of Deputies, as regards more especially the
religious question, in which it was not certain that the Senate, even after a general
election, would be willing to follow the Chamber of Deputies if the latter should adopt
the anti-Clnirch legislation advocated by the extreme sections of the Liberal party.

Failing, however, to secure the support of the other Liberal leaders, who declared
themselves ready to carry on the JGrOvernment with the existing Chambers, Sefior Moret
resigned office, and it was in consequence of the vain endeavours of his Radical suc-
cessors, who were divided among themselves, to carry their Bills that the present
Conservative Administration took office in January last. The legislation which Senor
Moret desired to pass found no support in public opinion, and the conflict to which he
looked forward between the Chambers, and which he hoped to avert by a constitutional
change, has, in point of fact, never come to a head.

It is, of cour.se, constitutionally quite possible that the institution of the mixed
committee might fail to secure agreement, and that a conflict might arise on a vital
point. This is, however, rendered improbable by the differential treatment which is
habitually extended by one House to the other; by the constitutional description of
the two Houses as being co-equal in power; and by the absence hitherto in Spain of
^ powerful public opinion, rendering imperative the passage of a particular measure,
even if it should be uncompromisingly opposed by the Senate, which is in itself an
unlikely contingency in view of the manner in which the Senate is composed. The
elected portion tends in the long run to coincide in opiiiion with the majority of the
popular Chamber, and this tendency is encouraged by the prevailing practice which
requires members of the Royal household (some six of whom are at present sitting in
the Senate) to vote with the Government of the day, which they regard as the King's
Government, and therefore commanding their support. It is, further, customary for
the ecclesiastical senators to support the Government, or to abstain altogether from
voting if they are not able to do so.

64 CONS'MTUTION OF UPPER CHAMBERS

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914
SWEDEN

No. 15.

Sir R. Rodd io Sir Edward Grey. — (Received August 10.)

Stockholm^ August 6, 1907.

Sir, — Witli reference to your Circular despatch of the 10th ultimo, I have the
honour to transmit herewith in execution of your instructions, a report on the composi-
tion and functions of the Upper Chamber in Sweden. I observe that in this circular I
am directed to report on the Second or Upper Chamber. The Upper House of the
Swedish Diet is the First Chamber, and the popularly-elected House is known as the
Second Chamber. To avoid confusion I have therefore spoken of the Chamber which
forms the subject of my report throughout as the " Upper Chamber," though it would
have been more correct to use the appellation " First Chamber."

I have, etc.,

RENNELL RODD.

Inclosure in No. 15.

Report ox the Composition and Functions of the. Upper Chamber in Sweden.

The Swedish Upper or First Chamher.

The Upper Chamber in Sweden is generally- known as the " First Chamber."
The popularly-elected House with a triennial legislative period is called the " Second
Chamber." To avoid confusion it will therefore be safest to speak throughout of
the Chamber, as to whose composition and functions a report is required, as the Upper
Chamber.

Constitution and Mode of Election hitherto.

The Upper Chamber consists of 150 members, contrasted with 230 members in
the second or popularly-elected Chamber. These 150 members are elected by the
county councils^ and the municipal councils of the city of Stockholm, of
Gothenburg, Melmo, Norrkoping, and Gefle, which are not represented on the county
councils. The distribution of members depends on the population in electoral
districts, which is reviewed by census every tenth year. To be eligible to the Upper
Chamber candidates must be 35 years of age, and must for three years have been
rated for income tax on at least 4,000 crowus (£220). As, however, members of th'e
Upper Chamber have hitherto received no salary, they have in practice always been
selected from candidates enjoying a far more considerable income. They sit in each
individual case for nine years from the day of their election, and they are replaced,
as vacancies occur through resignation, death, or extinction of the mandate, by
others who again sit for a term of nine years. The Upper Chamber has thus in
practice a permanent character. It can be dissolved, but such a step has never been
taken since the Organic Law of 1866 came into operation.

Election of County and Municipal Councillors.

The mode of election of county and municipal councillors who return the
members of the Upper Chamber will now be briefly described. Cities or towns which
have more than one one-hundred and fiftieth of the total population are not repre-

1 The term * County Council ' must not be assumtd to be the equivalent of County Coun-
cil in England. The Swedish Landsting might also be rendered by Pro\nncial Assembly, but
a province in Sweden is distinct from a liin, which comes nearer to our country.

COXSTITUTlOy OF UPPER CHAMBERS 65

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 246

sented on the county councils, but have their own municipal representation perform-
ing corresponding functions. Such cities or towns are, as has been mentioned,
Stockholm, Gothenburg, Malmo, Xorrkoping and Gefle.

Every town and every parish practically in Sweden constitutes a commune, but
the larger towns are divided into more than one. The right to vote in the commune
is enjoyed by both men and women of full age owning or renting certain real
property, or contributing by direct taxation to the State. The apparently demo-
cratic basis is modified by the fact that the suffrage is a graduated one, additional
votes being accumulated in proportion to the total amount paid in taxes on real
property and income up to a maximum limit of 5,000 votes or one-tenth of the total
voting power accruing to any one individual in the county communes, and 100 votes,
or one-fifth of the total voting power, in the towns. The city of Stockholm has 100
municipal councillors. Xo other town has more than sixty, elected for four years,
half of them retiring every second year.

In urban communes returning members to a county council, the latter are
elected by the communal assembly, one for every complete total of 2,500 inhabitants.
In the country communes members of the county councils are returned by indirect
election, the electors being chosen by the communal assemblies, and one representa-
tive elected for every 5,000 inhabitants. County councillors must be 25 years of
age, domiciled in the county, and must themselves possess the suffrage. They are
elected for two years.

The return of members to the Upper Chamber thus rests fundamentally on the
graduated property suffrage which determines the election of county and municipal
councillors.

Reform in Constitution of Upper Chamber, and method of Election theretp passed by
present Diet, but awaiting confirmation by a new Diet after General Election.

A proposal for the reform of methods of election to both Chambers is now before
the country, and was carried through both Chambers of the Legislature in the session
of the current year. As, however, any modification of the constitutional law of
Sweden must be passed by two successive Diets, this reform cannot become law until
it has also been approved by a new Diet, after the next general election for the popu-
lar or Second Chamber. The new measure, besides establishing universal suffrage
and the proportional method for elections to the popular Chamber, also provides that
members of the Upper Chamber shall be elected as before by the county and muni-
cipal councils, but subject to the proportional system, which is also adopted for the
elections to the Second or popular Chamber. The mandate of members of the
Upper House is to run in future for six years instead of for nine as hitherto. The
county and municipal councils returning the members are divided into six groups.
One of these groups in prescribed order will each successive year elect representa-
tives to sit for the ensuing perior of six years. The Upper Chamber will thus remain
permanent in character, one-sixth of its members only being subject to re-election
every year. The county councillors will be returned by proportional election in
constituencies distinct in town and country. A " political district " containing
population amounting to 30,000 or upwards, will be divided into constituencies
returning each at least three, at most six councillors. Boroughs will return one
councillor for every 3,000 inhabitants, and where their population amounts to
at least 6,000 they are to compose independent constituencies. Where the population
falls below 6,000 they are to be grouped with other boroughs, so as to compose a single
constituency with not less than 6,000 and not more than 12,000 inhabitants. In
the communal suffrage a sweeping reform is contemplated, reducing the prepon-
derating influence now attaching to the larger taxpayers, and giving the smaller
contributors a much greater influence in the return of the Councillors who consti-
tute the electors of the Upper Chamber. The property qualificntion established

246—5

66 CONSTITUTION OF UPPER CHAMBERS

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914

by the Reform Bill for the indirect electors of the Upper Chamber is real estate of a
value of 50,000 crowns (about £2,800), or an annual income of 3,000 crowns (about
£105). In the country conununes the electors are to have ten votes for every
1,000 crowns of rateable income, and an additional vote for every complete total of
500 crowns in excess of 1,000. Real estate is rated as producing 6 per cent on
the estimated value. In the boroughs the electors are to record one vote for every
100 crowns of income up to a total of 2,000, after which total has been reached they
are accorded one additional vote for each additional total of 500' crowns. In no case
can the total of accumulated votes exceed forty, or one-tenth of the total voting
jiuvver. The mlaximum income conferring votes will thus be 16,000 crowns in the
countiy districts and 12,000 in the urban.

The proportional system is henceforth to be applied to all elections, both to those
of the Upper and Second Chambers and those of the county and borough councils.
The measure also contemplates the payment of members of the Upper Chamber on
the same scale as prevails for members of the Second Chamber (12,000 crowns
i.e., £66, or 10 crowns a day), which is not increased if the session is prolonged
beyond the statutory four months.

Equal Competence for hoih Cliainhi'is under Constitution.

The Swedish constitution accords perfectly equal competence both in financial
and other questions to both (Ihambors, which share the legislative authority with the
King. Legislation requires the assent of both Chambers, voting independently,
except in financial questions, where, under certain circumstances, a common vote is
taken, but parliamentary practice allows, when the decision of the Houses shows only
a slight divergence, arising from the adoption in one Chamber of an amendment
not accepted by the other, that the matter in hand should be referred back to com-
mittee, with a view to effecting a compromise acceptable to both.

Financial In.sues vhen Conflict ari.ses decided hy Joint Vote.

Financial questions on which the decisions of the two Chambers are in conflict
are submitted to a common vote of both Houses voting as one body, when the absolute
majority is decisive. As the Upper Chamber consists of only 150 members, whereas
there are 230 in the popular Chamber, it is clear that the latter has numerically the
stronger voice, but in practice, inasmuch as the Upper Chamber has generally been
found homogeneous in character, v.liile in the popular Chandler parties are more
evenly balanced, the influence of the former has been somewhat preponderating.

The principle of common voting on financial questions has uudoulbtedly contri-
buted to counteract constitutional conflicts between the two Houses. But in ques-
tions of internal legislation such conflicts have of late years tended to increase owing
to the essentially conservative character which its composition has given to the
Upper Chamber and the rapid development of progressive ideas in the country.

Conflict between the two Chambers.

In illustration of such conflicts may be mentioned the process of legislation with
regard to the insurance of workmen. The first Bills introduced to deal with a portion
of this problem were rejected by the Diet in 1890 and 1891. A liill submitto<l by the
Government in 1885 for compulsory insurance against any permanent incapat-itation
from work, from whatever cause, age, accident, etc., was also rejected, and further
investigation demanded. A new Bill for insurance against invalidity was introduced
in 1898, and here a conflict of opinion arose between the two Houses, the measure being
accepted in principle, with certain provisoes, in the popular Chamber, but rejected

COXSTITUTIOy OF UPPER CHAMBERS 67

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 246

by the Upper Chamber, which apprehended the heavy burden with which it threat-
ened to saddle the State. The problem of old age insurance was accordingly for
the time abandoned, and in 1901 both Chambers united in approving a measure
dealing with the insurance of workmen against accident only.

In contrast with its action in thus retarding legislation, the Upper Chamber in
1905 showed itself zealous to promote legislation which the popular Chamber
hesitated to consent to. It had been proposed to organize an universal strike as a
protest against the restrictions of the Reform Bill then before the Diet. A Bill was
introduced by the Government, and modified in Committee, proposing certain
modifications in the Criminal Code, by which severe penalties were to be imposed on
workmen who, by breaking their contracts of engagement and going on strike, caused
actual injuiy to life, health, or property, as well as on employees in the public service
who without reasonable cause abstained from the execution of their duties, and
assimilating to public servants persons employed by municipalities, railway men, and
others. The Bill was carried by acclamation in the Upper Chamber, while in the
popular Chamber the first part of the proposal was rejected by a majority of two, and
the second by a majority of nineteen.

These eases are referred to rather as typical of the different tendencies of the-
two Houses than because the conflict of opinion led to any grave result. Many more
instances might no doubt be offered in illustration of the charge so frequently brought
against the Upper Chamber of obstructiveness to popular legislation, but all other
conflicts between the two Houses have been completely thrown into the shade by the
battle which arose over the larger issue of electoral reform, especially since the
general election of 1905, when a Liberal majority was returned to the popi;lar
Chamber with a significant increase in Socialist representation.

The popular voice in Sweden has long demanded an extension of the suff"rage
tantamount to universal suifrage,' and the demand has gathered strength each time a
settlement has been deferred. For the purposes of the present report, however, it
will not be necessary to take the history of the movement further back than the
Reform Bill of 1905, by which date the necessity for an extension of the suffrage had,
it may be .said, been universally recognized, though a large party in the country
adhered to the view that with its extension the adequate representation of minorities
should be safeguarded by the introduction of the proportional method in elections.

Beform BUI of 1905.

A measure uniting these two objects was introduced by the late M. Bostrom's
Government during the session of 1905. The suffrage proposed in this Bill was
practically a manhood one, but restricted to Swedish subjects who had reached the
age of 25 years, and the method of applying the proportional system was in many ways
open to criticism. It was carried through the Upper Chamber, where many Conserva-
tives who might have been opposed to the extension of the suffrage in principle
recognized that it was inevitable, and held that proportional elections would serve to
return to their party a group numerically sufficient to enable them to dominate in
joint votes on financial questions. It was rejected in the Lower Chamber, where the
Conservatives were divided on the merits of the proportional system, while the Liberal
groups were opposed to a measure which seemed to imperil the future action of the
party, and the Extreme Left protested energetically against the raising of the age of
electors to 25.

In the autumn of 1905 a general election took place, and in the new elective
Chamber the Liberals secured a slight majority, which was forfeited by a largely
increased return of Socialist members. A Liberal Government was formed and a
new Reform Bill framed in accordance with the views of their supporters.

1 The property qualification which it was sought to abolish was income to the amount d
800 kronor (44?.), or real property valued at least 1,000 kronor (55?.), or a lease of an
agricultural estate of a value of at least 6,000 kronor.

246— 5i

58 CONSTITUTION OF IPPER CHAMBERS

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914
Reform Bill of 1906.

The Bill submitted to the Diet in 1006 made no reference to the proportional
method, and proposed representation by single-member constituencies with extension
of the suffrage to all male Swedes who had completed their 24th year. It did not
' satisfy the partisans of the Extreme Left, but it was evidently hoped that the raising
of the age from 21 to 24 would capture the support of moderate politicians. The Bill
was entirely remodelled by a majority in the Standing Constitutional committee to
which it was referred. The condition of proportional representation was restored,
and the age of electors was once more fixed at 25. The majority in the committee
of twenty-four, twelve from either House, consisted of all the members of the Upper
Chamber and only one from the other. The Government Bill was rejected in the
Upper Chamber by 126 to 18 votes, and the recommendations of the committee were
adopted, with a supplementary resolution proposing to limit the mandate of members
of that House to six years instead of nine. It was, however, carried in the popular
Chamber by 134 votes to 94. The Prime Minister, who had addressed a solemn warn-
ing to the Upper Chamber not to oppose the national will, and had sustained in that
Assembly that in political issues the two Chambers could not be considered of equal
authority, recommended an innnediato dissolution, in order to afford the country an
opportunity of expressing its opinion on the attitude of the Upper Chamber. The
Crown, however, dissented, on the strictly constitutional grounds that it would not be
correct to dissolve a Chamber which had given its assent to a Royal Bill, i.e., a Govern-
ment Bill, which has been approved by the Sovereign.

The Liberal Ministry then resigned, with the exception of the Minister for War
and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who had previously tendered their resignations
in consequence of the attitude adopted towards the Upper Chamber by the Prime
Minister and their colleagues, and those two wore included in a new Administration
of moderate politicians formed by the present Prime ^linister. Commodore Lindman,
who accepted office with a mandate from the Crown to frame a fresh Reform Bill
on broad and popular lines, which should, however, not only apply the principle of
proportional representation to the popular Chamber, but should also extejid it to the
Upper Chamber, the mode of election to which was to be completely revised with a
view to giving it a more elastic character.

Reform Bill of 1907.

The reforms proposed by tliis ]>ill in the composition and constitution of the
Upper Chamber itself have already been described in the earlier part of this report.
As regards the popular Chamber, the proposals submitted were practically the same
as those in the Bill of the Liberal Administration put forward in 1906, with the
addition of proportional representation on linos which wore gonornlly admitted to be
an improvement on those submitted in 1905.

The Government Bill underwent some modifications in committee, one of which
had reference to the application of the proportional system, which was now amended
so as to prevent the exclusion of party leaders by disloyal voting on the part of their
opponents, and the other two were concerned with the communal and municipal
Administrations, and thus with the basis for the electorate of the Ui)per Chamber.
The first involved a small reduction in the property qualification of the voters, and
the second threw open to women the candidature for conmunud appointments, but
not for membership of the county councils. The committee rejected an amendment
proposing a substantial reduction of the property qualification of electors to the
county councils, fixed at 4,000 kronor (2201.) of income, or 80,000 kroner (444Z.) of

COXSTlTi'TIOX OF UPPER CHAMBtRS 69

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 246

real property, and another in favour of assigning a stipend to members of the Upper
Chamber. The Government accepted without reserve the amendments adopted by
the committee, and went a step further by acknowledging their readiness to adopt
the amendment of the minority group in committee in favour of payment of members
of the Upper Chamber.

This last concession on the part of the Government to the views of the Liberal
Opposition was not popular in the Upper Chamber, but, after hearing the able and
cogent exposition of the Government's policy made by the Prime Minister, the Bill,
as thus modified, was adopted by 93 votes to 53 registered against it. The decision of
so large a majority of the Upper Chamber, which had in a sense initiated the policy of
its own reform, was a refutation of the charges of invincible obstinacy so frequently
directed against that Assembly, and was probably not without its effect on. the result
in the popular Chamber, which divided subsequently. The Bill as amended by
committee was rejected there without ballot. The Bill as amended by . committee,
with an addition of an amendment reducing the property qualification of the indirect
electors of the Upper Chamber from 4,000 kronor (220/.) to 2,000 (llOZ.) of income,
or real property to a value of 40,000 kronor, and assigning to members of that House
a pajanent during session similar to that accorded to members of the other House,
was carried by 122 to 105.

By this decision the views of the two Houses were brought so nearly into harmony
that there was good reason to hope that a compromise would be found acceptable to
both parties on the one issue, that of the property qualification, on which they were
not in agreement.

The majority of the committee, to which the question was referred back, pro-
posed to fix the property qualification at 3,000 kronor (165Z.) of income, or real
property at a value of 50,000 kronor.

The Upper Chamber then once more belied its untractable reputation, and
adopted the proposal of the committee by 110 to 29 voices, while the popular Chamber
recorded a larger majority in its favour, namely, 128 votes to 98, that had been secured
by the amended Bill in the first ballot.

The Bill, which involves an alteration in the fundamental constitutional law,
must now stand over until it has been confirmed or rejected in the first session of a
new Diet after a general election. But the battle would seem to have been practically
won, and there is good hope that the long-standing conflict has been thus disposed of.

By a curious irony the first Reform Bill of 1905 was carried through the Upper
Chamber, but rejected by the Chamber whose electorate it was purposed to reform;
while the Bill which was eventually adopted, and which included a far-reaching
constitutional reform of the Upper Chamber itself, was introduced by a Conservative,
though in no respects a partisan, Government, and succesfully carried through an
elective Chamber with a well-defined Liberal majority.

SWITZERLAND.

No. 16.
Sir G. Bonham to Sir Edward Grey. — (Received July 2Jf.)

Berne, July 20, 1907.

Sir, — In compliance with the instructions contained in your circular of the lOth
instant, I have the honour to transmit herewith a report on the relations between the
two Chambers of the Swiss Legislature.

70 COIS'STITUTION OF UPPER CHAMBERS

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914

It ;s\U. be seen that, according to the constitution and a law specially passed to
define their relations to each other, they are absolutely equal, and 1 am informed
positively that there has not been any constitutional dispute between them during the
last ten years.

I Lave, etc.,

G. F. BONHAM.

Inclosure in No. 16.
Report on the Relations between the two Chambers of the Swiss Legislature.

The Swiss constitution does not admit of the existence of an Upper or Second
Chamber in the sense in which the expression is generally used, namely, one for
revising or remodelling or on occasion rejecting the decisions of the Lower. There are
however, two Chambers, the relations between which are carefully defined (1) by the
constitution of 1S74; (2) by the law of the 9th October, 1902, revising a previous
one of 1849 respecting the relations between the National Council, the Council of
States, and the Federal Council, which, it may be here stated, is the Executive
Government composed of seven members, the president, elected from among its
members for one year, being also president of the Confederation.

The two other Councils, which for the purpose of this report it will be
convenient to allude to as Chambers, constitute the Federal Assembly when they sit
together, and their absolute equality is very carefully laid down.

By article 72 of the constitution, the Xational Council or Chamber, is elected
directly by the people in the proportion of one deputy for every 20,000 electors, any
fraction above 10,000 bein'^- counted as 20,000, and therefore represents the people.
It consists of 167 members.

The members of the Council or Chamber of States are elected by the cantons,
two members for each canton, and therefore consists of fourty-four members.

By article 89 of the constitution all federal laws and decrees must be voted by
both Chambers, although they have still to be subjected to the popular vote, or
ypferendum, should oO.OOO voters desire it. It is further enacted that the Chambers
sit separately, except on certain occasions when they sit together, as for the election
of the Federal Council, or Executive Government, the Federal Tribunal, and the
Chief of the Federal Army.

At the commencement of each session the Presidents of the two Chambers meet
and make arrangements for the distribution of the work of the session between the
two Chambers. This work, it may be observed, having been decided on by the
Federal Council.

At the first or second sitting each President lays before the Chamber over which
he presides the apportionment of the work agreed upon. When, before the two
Chambers meet, the Federal Council declares a particular question to be of extreme
urgency, the Presidents of the two Chambers, without consulting the Chambers,
decide as to priority being given to it, in which case the Presidents are authorized to
ajipoint committees (which is done by ineans of "bureaux," special parlinicntary
officials) and to start them on their work.

The absolute equality of the two Chambers is shown by the next article (3),
which provides that if the Chambers or if their Presidents, as in the case mentioned
in the previous paragraph, cannot agree on the question of priority the Presidents
fliall-docide by drawing lots.

Article 4. When a law or a decree has been discussed by one of the two Cliambers,
the decision arrived at, signed by the President and Secretary, is communicated to
the other Chamber in writing.

If either Cbaml^er at its first meeting decides not to discuss a proposal submitted
by the Federal Council, or transmitted by the other Chamber, it must inform the latter
of its decision.

i

CONSTITUTION OF UPPER CHAMBERS 71

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 246

If one of the Chambers decides not to take into consideration any Bill or decree
submitted to it in the form of a motion, or if after discussion it rejects it, no further
action is taken, and the decision is not communicated to the other Chamber.

Article 5. If the decisions of one Chamber do not correspond with those already
taken by the other, they are returned to the latter in order that the points at isssue
may be discussed.

The fresh discussion is confined to these points, unless, as a result of amendments
adopted, another discussion becomes necessary, or unless the representatives of the
two Chambers mutually propose one.

The two Chambers follow this course until an agreement is established between
them, or until each Chamber decides to abide by its resolutions.

Article 6. When ' this occurs the differences between them are submitted to a
conference at which the united committees of the two Chambers must endeavour to
arrive at an understanding. Should the committee of one Chamber be smaller than
that of the other, it must be made up to the same number of members.

The conference is presided over by the president of the committee, representing
the Chamber which had the priority in the discussion of the measure.

Article T. The proposal formulated by this conference with the object of
elimiuatin»' the divergences of opinion is communicated in the first instance to the
Chamber which has had the priority with regard to the measure in question.

If the conference does not succeed in formulating a proposal, or if an agreement
cannot be come to in the Chambers on the proposal, the project is considered to be
thrown out, and can only be considered again by having recourse to the forms laid
down by statute for further legislation.

Article 8. When the deliberations are concluded in the two Chambers, laws and
decrees of general interest are referred to a revising committee to be drawn up in
their final form, and to make any purely formal corrections in accordance with the
existing law, the . primary object being to secure conformity in the French and
German texts. The committee has no power to modify the decisions of the Chambers.

The amended text is returned to the Chambers, and, if approved by them, each
Chamber proceeds to the final vote.

This final Tote is indispensable even if the project has not been submitted to the
revising committee.

Tf on' this final vote the project is rejected by the two Chambers, or by one of
them, it is considered abortive, and can only be reconsidered if brought forward in the
-manner prescribed by statute for further legislation.

It is therefore clear that, both according to the Swiss constitution and the law
regulating the position of the two Chambers, there is no Upper Chamber in the sense
employed in other countries, and their footing of absolute equality apparently works
well, as there is no record of constitutional disputes within the last ten years. The
consent of both Chambers is indespensable for the passing of a measure, and in case of
disagreement ample opportunity is given for arriving at an understanding. If they
nevertheless disagree, the measure has to be abandoned.

The same procedure as that described above is applied to the Budget, which is
prepared by the members of the Federal Council in charge of the Finance Depart-
ment, and is then submitted to both Chambers. Although there is no written rule to
that effect, priority is given to each Chamber in alternate sessions, absolute equality
between both Chambers being thus maintained. A Budget, however, is never thrown
out entirely, as an agreement between the two Chambers is either arrived at or the
figures in the Budget are accepted.

72 COySTITUTION OF UPPER CHAMBERS

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914
UNITED STATES.

No. 17.

Mr. Bryce to Sir Edward Grey. — (Received October 19.)

Intervale, New Hampshire, October, 5, 1907.

Sir, — I have the honour to transmit to you herewith a report on the United
States' Senate, which has been compiled by Mr. Seeds, Third Secretary in His
Majesty's Embassy, in accordance with the instructions contained in your circular of
the 10th July last.

I have, etc.,

JAMES BEYCE.

Inclosure in No. 17.

Report by Mr. Seeds on the United States' Senate.

In creating a Senate, or Upper Chamber, the framers of the United States', con-
stitution had two main objects in view. It was felt that in a federation of states
theretofore sovereign it was necessary to provide a means by which each state could
exert its influence as a separate Commonwealth in the National Legislature and enjoy
equal representation with any other state, without discrimination in favour of area,
wealth, or population. Secondly, the leaders of the convention of 1787 realized the
need for creating a legislative body which would be less affected by sudden, and per-
haps unreasonable, changes of public opinion than might be a House of Represen-
tatives elected directly by the people.

The former of these objects was attained by providing that every state, irrespec-
tive of size or population, should send two representatives to the Senate, each of whom
was to possess one vote.

In the second place, the constitution laid down that the term of office of senators
should be six years (as opposed to the two years' term of members of the House of
Representatives), and that the Sections for the Second House should be indirect — or,
rather, that they should be in the hands of the Legislatures as representing the State
Governments.

There being at present forty-five states in the Union, the Senate consists of ninety
persons, and is presided over by the Vice-President of the Unites States. This official
is not chosen by the Senate, but is elected at the general presidential election. He
does jiot participate in the debates, but directs the order of business, and casts a vote
only when the Senate is equally divided.

The Senate, unlike the House of Representatives, all the members of which are
elected at the same time every two years, is a permanent body, and has existed con-
tinuously since its first creation, one-third of it only being renewed every two years.
This was effected by the division of tlie whole body of senators into three classes in
the first Congress. The term of those in the first class, beginning in 1780, expired
in 1791, and the term of their successors expired six years afterwards. The term of
the second class beginning in 1789, expired in 1793, and that of their successors six
years later. The members of the original third class were appointed for six years.
This classification is still kept up. At present there are thirty senators in each class,
the term of those in the first class expiring on the 3rd ^farch. 1900; in the second,
on the 3rd March, 1911; and in the third, who will make their first appearance in
the Senate at tlie opening of the Sixtieth Congre>>s in December of this year, on the
4th March, 1913. When a new state is added to the Union, senators first appointed
by it cannot be sure of a full term of six years, as they must be assigned by two of

COXSTITUTIOy OF UPPER CHAMBERS 73

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 246

the three classes, in order to keep them as nearly equal as possible, the class to which
each of such senators shall belong being settled by ballot ; but after the first assign-
ment the full term of six years is granted to senators coming from a new state.

It is worth nothing- that the biennial renewal of a third of the Senate coincides
with the meeting of a newly-eleced House of Representatives.

Senators' Qualifications.

The qualifications required by the constitution from a candidate for the post of
senator are that he has attained the age of 30, has been a citizen of the United States
for nine years, and, at the time of election, is an inhabitant of that state for which
he is standing.

Election of Senators.

As regards the election of senators, the constitution lays down that the senators
from each state shall be " chosen by the Legislature thereof." The actual method of
such elections is formulated in the Revised Statutes (Title II, chapter I, section 15)
as follows : —

" Each, House shall openly, by a viiyi voce vote of each member present,
name a person for senator in Congress, and the name of the person so voted
for who receives a majority of the whole number of votes cast shall be entered
on the Journal of that House. . . On the day following . . . the mem-
bers of the two Houses shall convene in Joint Assembly, and the Journal of
each House shall then be read, and if the same person has received a majority
of all the votes in each House, he shall be declared duly elected senator ; but
if the same person has not received a majority of the votes in each House . . .
the Joint Assembly shall then proceed to choose, by viva voce vote of each
member present, a person for senator, and the person, who receives a majority
of all the votes. . . shall be declared duly elected. If no person receives such
majority on the first day, the Joint Assembly shall meet . . . each succeed-
ing day during the session of the Legislature, and shall take at least one vote
initil a senator is elected.

Should a vacancy occur at any time when the State Legislature is not in session,
the Governor of the state has the power to fill it up until the next meeting of the
Legislature.

The aim of the framers of the constitution in providing that the Legislatures,
and not the people, should choose the members of the Senate was not only to create a
Chamber less directly dependent on the popular vote than the House of Represen-
tatives, but also to ensure that the Senate should represent the various State Govern-
ments. The plan adopted used to excite the admiration of foreign observers. It is
doubtful, however, whether the object aimed at has been perfectly attained, and much
criticism has been directed of late years against the mode of senatorial elections.
Certainly in some states this method of indirect election has become almost as much a
formality as the provisions of the constitution regarding the presidential election.
So much so is this the case that there has existed for some time a movement, which
would seem to be'growing in strength of late, that has for its object the amending of
the constitution so as to provide for the direct election of senators by the people.
Whether this movement will become strong enough to bring about a change, it is, of
course, impossible to foretell. Amendments to the federal constitution for this pur-
pose have, it is true, at various times been submitted to one or other of the Houses
of Congress, but the difficulties of carrying any constitutional amendment are

74 CONSTITUTION^ OF UPPER CHAMBERS

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914

recognized to be almost insuperable. It should be noted, however, that petitions
have been addressed to Congress from thirty-one, if not more, states — more than the
two-thirds required by the constitution for the sanctioning of an amendment — asking
for the submission of an amendment to secure the election of senators by direct vote
of the people.

There are, or have been, two different systems by which it has been attempted to
render the power of the States Legislatures to elect senators merely nominal. In
earlier years the will of the people was often expressed by party state conventions.
A notable instance was in 1858, when the Illinois State Democratic convention
endorsed Mr. Douglas, and the Republican convention endorsed Abraham Lincoln,
for the position of United States' senator. The more modern system is that of prim-
ary elections, in which the opinion of the voters of each political party is directly
expressed in favour of aspirants previously nominated by party meetings, the State
Legislatures simply registering the result of the elections. This system is now in
vogue in at least eighteen states, Nevada having been the pioneer, by the enactment,
in 1899, of an Act entitled " An Act to secure the election of United States' senators.
in accordance with the will of the people . . .". In some states, particularly in the
Southern States, where one political party is in almost complete control, the system
has been put into force through the state committees of the party; in others, recourse
has been had to legislation, as in Oregon, the two Dakotas, Missoouri, Illinois and
others where primary elections are provided for by statute. Mississippi, by an Act of
1903, abolished all nominating conventions, and provided for the nomination of all
elective officials, including United States' senators, by direct primaries. In some
states. South Carolina and North Dakota for instance, legislators are subjected by
statute to a pledge to abide by the primary elections. By the Oregon law of 1904
candidates for the Legislature are required to sign a pledge that they will, or will not,
vote for the senatorial candidate who receives the highest popular vote in the prim-
ary. That this system is the most favoured at present is shown by the fact that
the last House of Representativss of Pennsylvania passed a Bill to that effect by
unanimous vote (though this Bill has not been adopted by the Senate of that state),
and by the inclusion of a provision for primary elections in the as yet unratified
constitution of the proposed new state of Oklahoma.

In all these cases, of course, candidates are the official selections of the political
parties. The state of Nebraska, by its constitution of 1875, endeavoured to put the
initiative directly into the hands of the electors, by providing that " the electors may,
by ballot, express their preference for some person for the office of United Statis'
senator."' This system has, however, not proved satisfactory in the working, and has
not been followed by any other state. It may be that the electors, while ready to
vote for candidates put forward by their respective parties, and whose names appear
on the ballot papers, are reluctant to take upon themselves the responsibility of
writing on the ballot paper their own personal selection for the post of senator.

In those states, where the method above described is not in vogue, the '' caucus "
system prevails. Under this system, which accords more with the provisions of the
constitution than does that of primary elections, the political party controlling a
majority of the two Houses of the State Legislature meets in joint caucus and selects
a candidate whom the whole party is pledged to support.

The necessity for a senatorial candidate to obtain a majority of all the votes in
the State Legislatiire has, it should be added, led to many a delay in eases where
there have been several aspirants, none of whom commandefl the necessary number
of votes. It is not unusual for a state to remain unrepresented for a very consider-
able time, until the deadlock is removed by the partisans of one or more of the candi-
dates finally throwing in their lot with one of the other parties.

CONSTITUTIOy OF LPPER CHAMBERS 75

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 246

Salaries, etc.

The salary paid to senators has varied from time to time, and stands now at
7,500 dollars (£1,500 approximately) a year. They receive in addition a compensa-
tion for travelling expenses to and from their constituencies, calculated on the mile-
age covered.

Xo senator may hold any public office under the United States during his term
in the Chamber. Under this provision the Administration is not represented in the
Senate by Cabinet Ministers or other responsible officials; there .-ire, however, gener-
ally one or more senators, standing in intimate though unofficial relations with
the Executive, through whom the x\dministration can express its views.

Powers of the Senate.
The powers of the Senate fall under three heads : —

1. Executive.

2. Judicial.

3. Legislative.

1. The constitution lays down that the President may conclude treaties with
other nations only " by and with the advice and consent of the Senate," a majority of
two-thirds being necessary. The advice and consent of the Senate are also required as
regards appointments of ambassadors, consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and the
higher officials of the United States.

The powers of the Senate in respect to the ratification of all treaties proposed by
the Chief Executive have always been important, and have increased in importance
since the United States has to a certain extent abandoned its former policy of com-
plete abstention from international politics in other continents but America, and they
constitute an effective check on the actions of the Executive Department of the
Government, which is concerned with the management of foreign affairs. It is no
light task to insure that, in a House divided into two strong parties, and in which
the majority is not necessarily on the side of the Executive the principle of any treaty
may so recommend itself generally as to obtain ratification by a majority of two-
thirds. The determined opposition of but a few senators is all that is required for
the formation of a group whose action will lead either to the complete wrecking of a
projoscd treaty or to the addition of such emendatory articles as may materially alter
the scope of the agreement, and render it unacceptable to the other Contracting
Power, The chief factor in the situation is the Committee on Foreign Eelations,
before which all measures relating to foreign affairs must first come up for dis-
cussion, and that body, Avhich generally includes some of the ablest members of the
Senate, may almost be considered a sort of Second Department of State, or Foreign
Office.

The control of the foreign policy of the United States is therefore effectively in
the hands of the Senate, which is, it may be added, not less jealous than heretofore of
anything which it regards as an attempted curtailment of its rights by the Executive.
As an instance of thi:-. one may quote the attitude taken up by the Senate in regard
to the proposed Arbitration Treaties during the closing decade of last century;
opposition to those measures was defended on the ground that the Senate could not
abnegate a power given it by the constitution, and may have been largely prompted
by the idea that, by consenting to such treaties, the Senate would cede a certain
portion of its rights to the Executive.

The right of approving appointments, vested in the Senate by the constitution is
highly valued by that body, which now exerts an effective control over the action of
the Executive in selecting persons for the higher federal offices, and not infrequently
prevents the President from choosing those whom he may personally prefer.

76 CONSTITCTIOy OF UPPER CHAMBERS

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914

All discussions respecting treaties and appointments are carried on in secret,
so-called executive sessions.

2. " The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments " (section 3 of
the constitution). In such cases the accusing party is the House of Representatives,
in whom is invested the sole power of impeachment, and for the conviction of the
accused a vote of two-thirds of the senators present is necesary. "When sitting for
such a purpose, they are "on oath of affirmation," and should the impeached person
be the President of the United States, the Chamber is under the presidency of the
Chief Justice. Judgment in such cases does not extend further than to removal from,
and disqualification to hold, office under the United States, but the convicted person
is liable to indictment before a legal tribunal.

Resort has but rarely been had to this method of proceeding, the most notable
case being that of the imi>eachment of President Andrew Johnson, which resulted in
an acquittal, less than two-thirds having voted to convict.

3. In respect of their legislative functions, the Senate and the House of Repre-
sentatives are inter-dependent and possess equal powers. Bills may originate in
either Chamber, but acquire the force of the law only upon obtaining the assent of
the other House, and the approval of the President.

Where each chamber has equal legislative powers, and may either reject in its
entirety a Bill proposed by the other, or add to it amendment-; which may not be
acceptable to the House where the measure originated, frequent disagTcements must
be expected. No provision is laid down in the constitution to govern such cases, but
the practice of Congress is to settle differences by conferences between members
representing each House. The system adopted is, briefly, the following: —

The House of Representatives has, for instance, passed up to the Senate a Bill.
which is returned by the latter Chamber with amendments attached. The House
may then either approve the Bill in its amended state, or else send it back to the
Senate, disagreeing with the proposed amendments, and adhering to its own view.
Should the Senate not alter its decision and accept the view of the House, the former
will proceed to insist upon its amendments and propose a conference. Each House
then ai>points three of its members, and these six constitute a conference committee.
Should the committee fail to agree, another conference is usually asked for and
arranged; should it, however, reach an agreement, a report is drawn up, which is
presented by the conference to their respective Houses. The committee's report,
which, as might be expected, generally takes the form of a compromise, is then dis-
■ cussed by each House, and may be either approved or rejected, but not amended.

Continued disagreement leads to the extinction of the measure at the end of the
Congress.

It may safely be said that this has so worked in practice as not to involve the
loss of any large percentage of Bills, the two Houses usually sinking their minor
differences when an important measure is at stake. The criticism is, however, often
made that the numerous debates, unavoidable under this system, are apt to entail
annoying delays. On the other hand, it would be hard to find a plan which could
more effectively safeguard the rights of both Houses and obviate the dangers of
deadlocks, so often an unfortunate feature of the bi-cameral system.

It should be noted that constitutional disputes between the two Houses of Congress
are avoided by the fact that all questions relating to the interpretation of the Con-
stitution are, whenever they arise in legal proceedings, determined by the national
courts of law, with the Supreme Court of the United. States as the final Court of
Appeal, and that neither House of Congress would think of contesting the soundness
of a judgment pronounced by the courts. The powers of Congress are strictly defined
by the constitution, an instrument in virtue of which alone Congress exists, and whose
provisions may not be contested or exceeded by the Legislature. That body has not,
therefore, the right to claim to determine the interpretation of the Constitution, which
is a matter for the judicial tribunals of the land to decide. One House may, of course,

rOXi^TITUTIOy OF UPPER CHAMBERS 77

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 246

propose a measure which, in the opinion of the other Chamber, in unconstitutional;
the ensuing disagreement is then referred to a conference between the two Houses
in the manner above described, when the question at issue may either be amicably set-
tled or dropped entirely. Should the measure be passed by Congress and approved by
the President, it is yet liable to be declared unconstitutional by a federal court on any
particular case arising imder the Act being brought up for legal adjudication.

Financial Powers.

It has been stated above that Bills may originate in either House of Congress.
One exception is, however, made in the constitution, namely, that " all Bills for raising
revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose
or concur with amendments as on other Bills."

In considering the question as to what control the Senate is able, under this
provision, to exert over the national finances, the general powers of Congress in this
respect, as opposed to those of the Executive Departments, must not be forgotten.
The Secretary of the Treasury does, it is true, furnish Congress annually with a
statement of the national revenue and expenditure, and he also lays before the
" Legislature estimates for the coming year. The great power of Congress, however,
arises from the fact that the Cabinet Minister's estimates are not necessarily taken as
a guide in fixing the sums to be raised and to be allotted to the different Government
Departments. Congress, or rather its Finance Committees, can summon the Secretary
of the Treasury to give evidence, but the Legislature is unfettered by the presence in
its Assembly of a Cabinet Minister armed by the Government with definite financial
proposals. The national finances being thus under the sole control of Congress, and,
of the two Chambers, which compose that body, the House of Representatives having
the privilege of originating all Bills for raising revenue, the actual powers of the
Senate in this connection remain to be considered.

Of the right to propose amendments to financial Bills received from the House,
the Senate avails itseK freely. The procedure followed with regard to such Bills is
that adopted in respect to all other measures; as soon as they are received by the
Senate they are immediately referred to the Finance Committees for consideration,
whence they emerge with the addition of amendments, and come up for general
discussion. The committees' amendments may be accepted or not; in any event,
further amendments may be added, and the Bills are returned to the House of Repre-
sentatives bearing effectively the imprint of the Senate. Then follow generally dis-
agreement on the part of the House, a conference, and the final passing of a com-
promise measure.

The following tables are interesting in this connection, as showing, with regard
to each of the regular Appropriation Bills passed by the last two Congresses, the
amount of each Bill as it passed the House of Representatives, the amount as it passed
the Senate, and the amount as it became a law.

78

CONSTITUTIOX OF IPI'EI! CHAMBERS

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914
58th Congress, 1st Session.

Title of Bill.

Passed House.

Agriculture

Army

Diplomatic and Consular.

District of Columbia

Fortification

Indian .

Legislative, etc 2H.

Military .\cadeniy

Navy 97

Pension

Post Office

River and Harbour

Sundry, Civil

Total '. ■.

Urgent Deficiency

Defi(;iency

Total .

138,

170

.3,

56:

711,
089,
995,
101,
131,
(J42,
288,
955,
524,
1.50,
376,
000,
248,

cts.

240 00
957 88
800 69
477 00
192 00
192 35
655 22
579 26
540 94
100 00
088 75
000 00
306 11

602,308,130 20

11,026,195 17
10,401,620 76

623,735,946 13

Passed Senate.

S

6,072

77,819,

2,073.

11,382

8, 163,

10,511

28,7.34,

975.

99,039

138,360

173,550,

3,100

58,906

cts.

380 00
131 76
100 69
,904 00
292 00
,405 73
533 22
966 84
4:U 59
700 00
398 75
000 00
,400 15

618,689,647 73

16,390,458 24
11,491,541 72

616,571,647 69

Law 1904-1905.

s

5,902,

77,070,

2,020,

11,018,

7,518,

9,417,

28,558,

973,

97,505,

1:^8,360,

172,54.5,

3,000,

57,840,

cts.

040 00
.300 88
100 69
540 00
192 00
961 40
258 22
947 26
140 94
700 00
998 75
000 00
211 34

611,761,391 48

16,102,157 64
10,669,7:^2 54

6.38,5.33,281 66

58th Congress, 2nd Session.

Title of Bill.

Agriculture

Army

Diplomatic and Consular

District of Columbia

Fortification

Indian v- • •

Legislative, etc

Military Academy

Navy

Pension

Post Office

Kiver and Harbour

Sundry, Civil

Total.

Urgent Deficiency
Deficiency

Total.

Passed House.

Passed Senate.

Law, 1005-190(>.

$ cts.

$ cts.

.? cts.

6,769,710 00

7.027,590 00

6,882,690 00

69,310,821 64

70.749,681 64

70,.396,63l 64

2,107,047 72

2,15(;,017 72

2,12.3.047 72

9,456,474 00

9,941,765 62

9,801,197 62

6,747,893 00

6,747,893 00

6,747,893 00

7,397,446 02

10,309,578 29

7.923,814 34

28,758,189 84

29.19.3,01.2 06

29,1.36,752 06

669,233 38

678,158 38

67.3,713 38

99,914,:i59 94

100,339,079 94

100,336,679 94

138,2.50,100 00

138,250,100 00

138,250,100 00

180,717,413 76

181,047,093 75

1»1,022,093 75

17,021,875 41

19,803,156 41

18,181,875 41

6i:,292,(t80 (;6

67,739,350 66

66,813,450 66

632.412,635 36

643,982.527 47

638,289,939 62

247,000 00

262, .500 00

262.500 00

31.236.0.S2 04

29,784,460 82

31,420,788 72

663,895,717 40

674,029,4;)4 29

669,973,22S 24

coysTiTUTioy of upper chambers

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 246

59th Congress^ 1st Session.

79

Title of Bill.

Passed House, i Passed Senate. Law, 1906-1907.

S

Agriculture 7,481,

Army 68,664,

Diplomatic and Consular 2,731,

District of Columbia [ 8,883,

Fortification i 4,838,

Indian 8,109,

Legislative, etc ! 29,310,

Military Academy I 1,603,

Navv 100,e09,

Pension , 140,245,

PostOdice 191,487,

River and Harbour :

Sundry, Civil ' 94,587,

cts.

440 00
480 38
969 17
173 15
993 00
369 63
193 30
115 17
6.33 27
500 00
568 75

070 32

Total 658,612,506 14

Isthmian Canal Deficiency 11,000,000 00

Urgent Deficiency 15,211,737 44

L^rgeut Deficiency, additional 136,646 42

Deficiency 10,864,9.59 95

Total i 695,825,849 95

7,847,

73,042,

3.156,

9,00i(,

.5,278,

10,376,

29,815,

1,669,

103,117,

140,245,

192,485,

cts,

700 00
306 37
094 17
961 16
993 00
542 64
559 30
427 67
670 27
500 00
868 75

102,591,184 32

678,636,807 65

11,000,000 00

16,459,799 99

317,125 51

11,597,498 68

718,011,531 83

S

9,9m

71,817,

3,091,

10.13f<,

5,053,

9,260,

29,681.

1,664,

102,091,

140,245.

191,695,

cts.

440 GO
165 08
094 17
672 16
993 00
599 98
919 30
707 67
670 27
500 00
99S 75

98,539,770 82

673,210,530 70

11,000,000 00

16,270,332 09

274,925 51

11,583,777 85

712,339,566 i^

59th Congress, 2nd Session.

Title of Bill.

Passed House. Passed Senate.

Law, 1907-1908

Agriculture

A nny

Diplomatic and Consular .

Di.-.triut of Columbia

Fortification

Indian

Legislative, etc

Military Academy

Navy

Pension

Post Office

River and Harbour.
Sundry, Civil

Total

Urgent Deficiency

Urg'-nt Deficiency, additional.
Deficiency

72.

3.

10.

5,

8.

30,

1,

95.

137.

209.

35.

104.

108,
291,
,0&5,
037,
411,

23;^,

630,
,913,
,027,
,734.

,716:

,396,
,531,

cts.

010 00
876 89
477 72
234 63
8-3 80
476 33
383 80
983 42 '
481 .50
000 00
802 00
612 to
314 13

722,118,535 42

581,500 00

264,650 00

9,918,698 74

9,4.57,

81,787,

3,071

10,766

7,4.53,

12,876,

.30,847,

l,94r,

101,108,

146,143,

212,234,

40,12.3,

115,416,

cts.

810 00
610 5^
Til 72
562 03
589 00
110 76
533 80
383 42
007 50
liOO 00
393 00
908 00
161 30

9,447,

78,634.

3,092,

10,440,

6,8!)8,

10,125,

32,126,

1,92S»,

98,953,

140,143,

212,091,

37,108,

ll'i,769.

ct^

290 00
.582 75
333 72
598 63
Oil 00
076 15
333 80
703 42
507 50
000 00
193 00
083 00
211 30

773,233,347 67 j 757,763,924 27

I

581,.500 00 I 581,.500 00

1,329.650 0!) 1,329.6.50 00

11,262.375 36 10,497,848 91

Total

732,883,384 16 ! 786,406,873 03 i 770,172,923 18

80 COXSTITUTIOX OF rPPER CHAilBERS

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914

A glance at these tables will show that nearly every Appropriation Bill was
returned to the House of Kepresentatives Math considerable amendments by the
Senate, the amount proposed by the House remaining unaltered in only five cases.

Secondly, it will be seen that the Senate amendments in the overwhelming
majority of cases were directed towards increasing the amount of appropriations.

Thirdly, a comparison of the amounts finally approved and those originally voted
by the two Houses is distinctly in favour of the Senate, the amount voted by compro-
mise measure being in most cases nearer to the figure proposed by the Senate than' to
that fixed by the House.

Lastly, the many Deficiency Bills which were found to be necessary might seem
to prove the wisdom of the higher appropriations proposed by the Senate, but it may
be presumed that, in some cases at least, the deficiency was due to expenditure which
could not be foreseen.

It is clear, therefore, that the advantage resting with the House of Representa-
tives, in virtue of its privilege of originating financial Bills, is effectively counter-
balanced by the free exercise of the Senate's right to amend such measures. That the
two Houses of Congress jointly have supreme control over the national finances, and
are less fettered in that respect by the policy of the Administration than most Euro-
pean Legislatures, is certain. The question as to which House of the two has the
greater power is not so easily decided, and "must be considered in connection with the
larger question as to the relations between the two Houses generally.

Relations hctireen the two Houses of Congress.

The constitution undoubtedly aimed at the creation of a bi-cameral Legislature,
which the two Houses, except for the executive and judicial rights vested in the
Senate, and for the privilege of initiating financial measures given to the House of
Tlepresentatives, should enjoy equal powers in every respect, and the question
naturally arises how far this aim has been attained in practice. Granted that the
constitutional powers of the two Houses are equal, it remains to be considered
Whether either Chamber possesses advantages over the other such as are conferred by
a longer term of office, a more convenient size, or the presence in its ranks of more
experienced and influential legislatore.

On examining the constitution and actual composition of the two Houses it will
he seen tliat all these three advantages rest with the Senate: —

Firstly, the House of Representatives, with its short life of two years, is at a
disadvantage when opposed to a comparatively permanent body like the Senate. The
effect produced by this disparity in length of term is particularly noticeable towards
the end of a session, when Congress stands face to face with disagreements between
the two Houses in respect of contentious measures, including, perhaps, Appropriation
Bills, the passage of which is necessary for the due carrying on of Government.
Persistence in disagreement would lead to the extinction of the measures at the close
of the Congress. This eventuality is, however, not contemplated by senators and
members of the House of Representatives from the same point of view. The Senate
as a body can face with comparative equanimity the temporary failure of a Bill,
knowing that it will shortly have to deal with a newly elected House of Representa-
tives, which may prove more amenable; also, the great majority of senators, whose
terms of office have yet two or four more years to run after the close of the actual
Congress, are not affected, as are the members of the House at the end of the first
session of a Congress, by the prospect of facing new elections. In this connection,
therefore, the Senate i)ossesses a distinct advantage over the House, and even were
all other conditions equal, the former body would, in the vory nature of things, he
generally able to wear out the latter.

In the second place, the difference in numbers between the two Houses — 90
senators ns against 386 representatives — is a factor in favour of the Senate, the

CONSTITUTION OF I'PPER CHAMBERS 81

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 246

House of Representatives being a more weakly-organized" body as compared with the
other Chamber whose smaller size gives it a certain compactness and solidarity,
Senators have greater opportunities of debate, and are able to devote more attention,
both individually and as a body, to the measures coming before them, as compared
with the representatives, in whose Chamber most of the work is done by the
numerous committees and not by the House as a whole. The gain to the Senate in
this respect is, perhaps, not so much practical as moral, but it is none the less real,
and lends a certain weight to its decisions.

Lastly, the Senate does largely attract into its ranks the best political* talent that
the nation produces. The leading members of the State Legislatures, State Gover-
nors, and prominent politicians generally, all look to a seat in the United States Senate
as their ultimate goal. Nor does the Senate exercise any less attraction on members
of the House of Representatives, nearly forty of those composing the Senate in
the recently expired firty-ninth Congress having once been members of the other
Chamber. A glance at the biographical notices of senators in the " Congressional
Directory" is sufficient to show the great range of experience in public affairs
possessed by the members of that body, the number of those who have neither sat in
State Legislatures nor held state or federal office being exceedingly small.

That the office of senator should be greatly sought after is the natural conse-
quence of the more extensive constitutional powers of that Chamber, and the personal
prestige which the longer term of office and the greater opportunities of individual
distinction confer, as compared with the House of Representatives. The House does
not enjoy the executive rights so highly prized by senators; the assent of representa-
tives is not necessary to the ratification of a treaty, nor are their powers of
patronage as great as those exercised by members of the other House. Secondly,
personal pre-eminence, both in Congress and in the eyes of the nation, is not easily
attained in a House of nearly 400, especially under a system by which the individual
members are fully occupied by their work in the committees, whose proceedings, besides
being limited to one particular branch of business, are private and are not published in
the press. A senator, on the other hand, is only one among ninety; he is better able to
know and to be known by his colleagues. If a novice, he has at the very least six years
before him in which to gain parliamentai'y experience and to make his mark, as against
the two years of the representative; his committee work, though considerable, yet leaves
him time to avail himself of the greater opportunities of distinguishing himself in
debate, afforded by the smaller size of the House and the absence of the time restriction
on speeches which has necessarily to be imposed on the more numerous representatives.
The greater personal distinction that the senator enjoys, as compared with the repre-
sentative, makes it generally easier for him to secure re-election at the end of his term.
More than half of the senators who sat in the fifty-ninth Congress were, according to
the " Directory," serving their second term of office, and even allowing for those whose
first term did not extend to the full six years, owing to their having been primarily
elected to fill vacancies, it may be said that On an average nearly half of the senators
serve at least two terms, that is, twelve years. A representative's term, being two years,
it would be necessary for him to be elected six times in order to attain to the same
length of seiwice; only sixty-three representatives, however, out of the 386 composing
the last House, had succeeded in doing so. The parliamentary experience which
senators bring with them on joining th?t Chamber is shown by the fact that, out of the
forty senators who were serving their first term in the last Congress, nineteen had been
formerly members of the House of Representatives, and had sat in that House for
periods varying from one to nine Congresses.

For these reasons, then, the Senate may be considered to be a more powerful body
than the House of Representatives, its comparative permanence enabling it to hold out
by its opinions longer than the more ephemeral House, and the recognized political
experience of- its members lending it superior prestige with the people at large. This

246—6

82 CONSTITUTION OF UPPER CHAMBERS

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914

superiority does not, however, by any means allow the Senate entirely to override the
other Chamber, nor is it so marked as to have made the House at any time undertake
what may be called a political campaign to have the powers of the other House reduced.
The present system under which senators are elected being ultimately, though indirectly,
popular, makes it difficult to accuse them of being a non-representative body, much of
their strength lying in the fact that they are so elected and have the weight of great
communities behind them.

Such attacks as are made upon that body — and these have of late years been
numerous — come from outside, and are prompted by a feeling of dislike to the position
it holds, and a distrust of the motives by which many of its members are alleged to be
actuated. To express an opinion, however, upon the merits of the changes proposed, to
discuss the question whether the Senate has, or has not, encroached upon the powers of
the Executive, to examine the charges now frequently brought against the Senate of
being affected by plutocratic tendencies, all of these matters are of a nature too contro-
versial and too much involved with current politics to be proper for a report of this
nature.

WILLIAM SEEDS.

October 5, 1907.

BRITISH COLONIES (LEGISLATURE).

Return showing for each Legislature in the Self-governing Dominions : —

(1) The composition of the Second Chamber and the method of nomin-
ation or election; (2) to powers or disabilities with regard to: —

(a) Finance, and

(h) General legislation.

(3) The provisions, if any, for the adjustment of the differences which may
arise between the two Chambers with regard to: —

(a) Finance, and

(6) General legislation.

THE DOMINION OF CANADA.

Under the British North America Act, 1867, and amending legislation, the Senate
of the Dominion of Canada consists of 87 members, of whom 24 represent Ontario,
24 represent Quebec, 10 represent Nova Scotia, 10 represent Now Brunswick.
4 represent Prince Edward Island, 3 represent British Columbia, 4 represent
Manitoba, 4 represent Saskatchewan, and 4 represent Alberta.

The senators are summoned by the Governor-General in the Kint''s name by
instrument uiulor the Great Seal of Canada and liohl thoir places for life.

The qualifications of a senator are as follows: —

(1) He shall be of the full age of 30 years ;

(2) He shall be either a natural-l)orn subject of the King or a subject of
the King naturalized by an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain, or of the
Parliament of the Fnited Kin.'idom of Groat Britain and Ireland, or of the
Legislature of one of the provinces of Upper Canada, Lower Canada. Canada,
Nova Scotia, or New Brunswick, before the Union, or of the Parliament of
Caanada after the Union ;

COXSTITUTION OF UPPER CHAMBERS 83

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 246

(3) He shall be legally or equitably seized as of freehold for his owu use
and benefit of lands or tenements held in free and common socage, or seized
or possessed for his own use and benefit of lands or tenements held in Franc-
alleu or in Roture, within the province for which he is appointed, of the
value of four thousand dollars over and above all rents, dues, debts, charges,
mortgages, and incumbrances due or payable out of or charged on or affecting
the same;

(4) His real and personal property shall be together worth four thousand
dollars over and above his debts and liabilities;

(5) He shall be resident in the province for which he is appointed;

(6) In the case of Quebec he shall have his real property qualification in
the electoral division for which he is appointed, or shall be resident in that
division.

A senator may, however, resign; and his place shall be become vacant in any of
the following cases : —

(1) If for two consecutive sessions of the Parliament he fails to give his
attendance in the Senate;

(2) If he takes an oath or makes a declaration or acknowledgment of
allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign Power or does an act whereby
he becomes a subject or citizen, or entitled to the rights or privileges of a
subject or citizen, of a foreign Power;

(3) If he is adjudged bankrupt or insolvent, or applies for the benefit
of any law relating to insolvent debtors, or becomes a public defaulter;

(4) If he is attainted of treason or convicted of felony or of any infamous
crime ;

(5) If he ceases to be qualified in respect of property or of residence;
provided, that a senator shall not be deemed to have ceased to be qualified in
respect of residence by reason only of his residing at the seat of the Govern-
ment of Canada while holding an office under that Government requiring his
presence there.

2. It is provided by section 53 of the British North America Act that " Bills for
appropriating any part of the public revenue, or for imposing any tax or impost, shall
originate in the House of Commons." There is no other provision limiting the power
of the Senate with regard either to finance or to general legislation.

3. The British North America Act does not contain any provision expressly stated
to be intended to be for the adjustment of differences between the Senate and the
House of Commons whether with regard to finance or to general legislation. But it is
provided by section 26 that " if at any time, on the recommendation of the Governor
General, the King thinks fit to direct that three or six members to be added to the
Senate, the Governor General may, by summons to three or six qualified persons, as
the case may be, representing equally the three divisions of Canada, add to the
Senate accordingly." The three divisions referred to are Ontario; Quebec; the
Maritime Provinces, viz.. Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island.
Section 27 provides that " in the case of such addition being at any time made, the
Governor General shall not summon any person to the Senate except on a further
like direction by the King on the like recommendation, until each of the three
divisions of Canada is represented by twenty-four senators and no more."

246— 6J

84 CONSTITUTION OF UPPER CHAMBERS

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914
QUEBEC.

Under the Provincial Constitution Acts the Legislative Council of Quebec consists
of 24 members who hold their seats for life, and who are appointed by the Lieutenant-
Governor by instrument under the Great Seal of the province, one for each of the 24
divisions of the province.

No person can be a Legislative Councillor who holds an office of profit under the
Crown in the province, except a ministerial office, or who undertakes or executes or
has directly or indirectly any contract with the Provincial Government under which
money is to be paid. This does not apply to a man who is merely a shareholder in an
incorporated company, with the exception of a company having the execution of any
public works.

2. The only provision affecting the powers of the Legislative Council is that
contained in section 53 of the British North America Act, which is applied by section
90 to the provinces, and which provided that " Bills for appropriating any part of the
public revenue or for imposing any tax or impost shall oi'iginate " in the Lower House.

3. No provision exists for the adjustment of differences between the two Cham-
bers of the Legislature of Quebec.

NOVA SCOTIA.

Under the Provincial Constitution Acts the Legislative Council of Nova Scotia
consists of 21 members nominated for life by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.
No person can be appointed who is a member of the Federal Parliament, or holds certain
specified offices under the Provincial Government, or is declared by the judgment of a
court of competent jurisdiction to be disqualified from being elected to or sitting in
the House of Commons of Canada by reason of any violation of the law of Canada
relating to elections or to the trial of controverted elections, so long as such disqualifi-
cation lasts. A seat is vacated by two sessions' consecutive absence from the Council
without the consent of the Lieiitenant-Govornor in Council.

2. The cnly provision aflecting the powers of the Legislative Council is that con-
tained in section 53 of the British North America Act, which is applied by sectioii 90
to the provinces, and whicii provides that Bills for appropriating any part of the public
revenue or for imposing any tux oi impost shall originate in the Lower House.

3. No provision exists for the adjustment of differences betvveen the two Chambers
of the Legislature of Nova Scotia.^

I

NEWFOUNDLAND.

Tlie Legislative Council of Newfoundland consists of members nominated and
appointed by the King under the Sign Manual and Signet, or provisionally appointed
by the Governor and afterwards oonfirined by His Majesty. The total number of the
said Legislative Council for the time being resident within Newfoundland shall not
at any time by such provisional appointments be raised to a greater number on the
whole than 15. The luimber of momberi. who can be appointed by His ^Majesty is not
limited in any way, and at present the Council contains 21 members. Every member
holds his place during the King's pleasure and may be removed by any instruction or
warrant issued by His Majesty under the Sign Martual and Signet, and with the
advice of the Privy Council.

> Note. — There are no second Chambers in the other Canadian Provinces.

CONSTITUTION OF UPPER CHAMBERS 85

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 246

2. By No. 249 of the Rules of tlie House of Assembly adopted at the first session
of the 16th Assembly and amended in the fifth session of the said Assembly, it is
provided that " all aids and supplies and aids to His Excellency in Legislature are
the sole gifts of the Assembly; and all Bills for the granting of any such aids and
supplies ought to begin with the Assembly ; and it is the undoubted and sole right of the
Assembly to direct, limit, and appoint in such Bills the ends, purposes, considerations,
conditions, limitations, and qualifications of such grants ; which ought not to be
changed or altered by the Legislative Council." But the House will not insist on its
privileges in the following cases of Bills brought to the House from the Legislative
Council, or returned to the House by the Legislative Council \vith amendments,
whereby any pecuniary penalty, forfeiture, or fee shall be authorized, imposed, appro-
priated, regulated, varied, or extinguished : —

(1) When the object of such pecuniary penalty or forfeiture is to secure
the execution of the Act, or the punishment or prevention of offences;

(2) Where such fees are imposed in respect of benefit taken or service
rendered under the Act, and in order to the execution of the Act, and are not
made payable into the treasury or exchequer, or in aid of the public revenue,
and do not form a ground of public accounting by the parties receiving the same,
either in respect of deficit or surplus; or

(3) When such a Bill shall be a private Bill. Nor will the House insist on
its privileges with regard to any clauses in Private Bills sent down from the
Legislative Council which relate to tolls or charges for services performed and
are not in the nature of a tax.

3. There is no legislative provision for the settlement of disagreements between
the two Houses, whether with regard to matters of finance or other questions. But
there is no limitation on the power of the Crown to add to the numbers of the Upper
House.

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA.

Under the constitution of the Commonwealth the Senate of the Commonwealth of
Australia is composed of senators for each state directly chosen by the people of the
state voting as one electorate.

Until the Parliament otherwise provides, there shall be six senators for each
original state. The Parliament may make laws increasing or diminishing the number
of senators for each state, but so that equal representation of the several original
states shall be maintained, and that no original state shall have less than six senators.
The senators are chosen for a term of six years.

The senator must be of the full age of 21 years, and must be an elector entitled to
vote at the election of members of the House of Representatives, or a person qualified
to become such elector, and must have been for three years at least a resident within
the limits of the Commonwealth as existing at the time that he is chosen. He must be
a subject of the King, either natural-born or for at least five years naturalized under a
law of the United Kingdom, or of a colony which has become or becomes a State, or of
the Commonwealth, or of a State.

" Any person who —

(i) Is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence
to a foreign Power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or
privileged of a subject or a citizen of a foreign Power; or

" (ii) Is attainted of treason, or has been convicted and is under sentence,
or subject to be sentenced, for any offence punishable under the law of the
Commonwealth or of a State by imprisonment for one year or longer; or

86 CONSTITUTION OF UPPER CHAMBERS

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914

" (iii) Is an undischarged bankrupt or insolvent; or

" (iv) Holds any office of profit under the Crown, or any pension payable
during the pleasure of the Crown out of any of the revenues of the Common-
weaalth; or

*' (v) Has any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement
with the public service of the Commonwealth otherwise than as a member and
in common with the other members of an incorporated company consisting of
more than 25 persons;
*' shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator."

"But subsection iv does not apply to the office of any of the King's
Ministers of State for the Commonwealth, or of any of the King's Ministers
for a State, or to the receipt of pay, half-pay, or a pension by any person as
an officer or member of the King's navy or army, or to the receipt of pay as an
officer or member of the naval or military forces of the Commonwealth by any
person whose services are not wholly employed by the Commonwealth."

The qualification of electors is extended to adult British subjects of either sex
who have lived in Australia for six months continuously. Aboriginal natives of Aus-
tralia, Asia, Africa, or the islands of the Pacific except New Zealand, cannot vote
at Federal elections unless they have acquired a right to vote at elections for the
Lower House of a State Parliament. Each elector has only one vote.

2. The powers of the Senate with regard to finance are restricted by section 53
of the constitution as follows : —

" Proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys, or imposing taxation,
shall not originate in the Senate, but a proposed law shall not be taken to
appropriate revenue or moneys, or to impose taxation, by reason only of its
containing provisions for the imposition or appropriation of fines or other
pecuniary penalties, or for the demand or payment or appropriation of fees
for licences, or fees for services under the proposed law.

" The Senate may not amend proposed laws imposing taxation, or proposed
laws appropriating revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the
Government.

" The Senate may not amend any propose law so as to increase any
proposed charge or burden on the people.

" The Senate may at any stage return to the House of Representatives any
proposed law which the Senate may not amend, requesting, by message, the
omission or amendment of any items or provisions therein; and the House
of Representatives may, if it thinks fit, make any of such omissions or amend-
ments, with or without modifications.

It is also provided that laws which aijpropriate revenue or moneys for the
ordinary annual services of the Covernment shall deal only with such appropriation;
that laws imjjosing taxation shall deal only with the imposition of taxation, and any
provision therein dealing with any other matter shall be of no effect.

Laws imposing taxation, except laws imposing duties of Customs or of Excise,
shall deal with one subject of taxation only; but laws imposing duties of Customs
shall deal with duties of Customs only, and laws imposing duties of Excise shall deal
with duties of Excise only.

In all other matters except those mentioned in section 53 of the constitution, the
Senate has equal power with the House of Representatives.

3. There are no special provisions for the adjustment of differences which may
arise between the Senate and the House of Representatives with regard to Finance.
In any case of difference, the procedure laid <lown in section ."^T of the constitution
applies.

CONSTITUTION OF UPPER CHAMBERS 87

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 246

" If the House of Representatives passes any proposed law, and tlie Senate rejects
or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the House of Representatives
will not agree, and if after an interval of three months the House of Representatives,
in the same or the next session, again passes the proposed law with or without any
amendments which have been made, suggested, or agreed to by the Senate, and the
Senate rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the House of
Representatives will not agree, the Governor General may dissolve the Senate and the
House of Representatives simultaneously. But such dissolution shall not take place
within six months before the date of the expiry of the House of Representatives by
effluxion of time.

'' If after such dissolution the House of Representatives again passes the proposed
law, with or without any amendments which have been made, suggested, or agreed to
by the Senate, and the Senate rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments
to whicii the House of Representatives will not agree, the Governor General may
y convene a joint sitting of the members of the Senate and of the House of Represen-
tatives.^

" The members present at the joint sitting may deliberate and shall vote together
upon the proposed law as last proposed by the House of Representatives, and upon
amendments, if any, which have been made therein by one House and not agreed to
by the other, and any such amendments which are affirmed by an absolute majority of
the total number of the members of the Senate and House of Representatives shall be
taken to have been carried ; and if the proposed law, with the amendments, if any, so
carried is affirmed by an absolute majority of the total number of the members of the
Senate and House of Representatives, it shall be taken to have been duly passed by
both Houses of the Parliament, and shall be presented to the Governor General for
the King's assent."

Special provision is made for the case of differences between the two Houses,
with regard to the amendment of the Constitution, by section 128 of the Constitution,
which is as follows: —

" This Constitution shall not be altered except in the following manner :---

" The proposed law for the alteration thereof must be passed by an abso-
lute majority of each House of the Parliament, and not less than two nor
more than six months after its passage through both Houses, the proposed law
shall be submitted in each state to the electors qualified to vote for the election
of members of the House of Representatives.

'' But if either House passes any such proposed law by an absolute major-
ity, and the other House rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with any amend-
ment to which the first-mentioned House will not agree, and if after an interval
of three months the first-mentioned House in the same or the next session
again passes the proposed law by an absolute majority with or without any
amendment which has been made or agreed to by the other House, and such
other House rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with any amendment to
which the first-mentioned House will not agree, the Governor General may
submit the proposed law as last proposed by the first-mentioned House, and,
either with or without any amendments subsequently agreed to by both
Houses, to the electors in each State qu aliped to vote for the election of the
House of Represntatives.^

" When a proposed law is submited to the electors the vote shall be taken in
such manner as the Parliament prescribes. But until the qualification of

* Under the constitution, the number of members of the House of Representatives, must be
as nearly as possible, double that of the Senate. At present the Senate has 36, the House of
Representatives 75 members.

^ At present the electorate for the Senate and the House of Representatives is the same ; but
if there is any difference, the electorate for the Lower House will be that to which the law is
referred.

88 CONSTITUTJO^ OF UPPER CHAMBERS

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914

electors of members of the House of Representatives becomes uniform
throughout the Commonwealths only one-half the electors voting for and
against the proposed law shall be counted in any state in which adult
suffrage prevails.

" And if in a majority of the states a majority of the electors voting
approve the proposed law, and if a majority of all the electors voting' also
approve the proposed law, it shall be presented to the Governor General for the
Queen's assent.

" No alteration diminishing the proportionate representation of any state
in either House of the Parliament, or of the minimum number of representatives
of a state in the House of Representatives, or. increasing, diminishing, or other-*
wise altering the limits of the state, or in any manner affecting the provisions
of the constitution in relation thereto, shall become law, unless the majority of
the electors voting in that state approve the proposed law,"

NEW SOUTH WALES.

Under the Constitution Act of 1855, and amending Acts, the Legislative Council
of New South Wales consists of persons unlimited in number — at present under 60 —
summoned by the Governor by instrument under the Great Seal of the State.

A legislative councillor must be of the full age of 21, and a natural-born subject
of His Majesty, or naturalized in Great Britain or in New South Wales, and must not
be a public contractor except as member of a company exceeding twenty persons in
number, or a member of either House of the Federal Parliament. No less than four-
fifths of the members so summoned shall consist of persons not holding any office of
emolument under the Crown; but officers of His Majesty's sea and land forces on full
or half-pay, and retired officers on pensions, shall not be deemed to be persons holding
an office of emolument under the Crown within the meaning of this section.

Members of the Legislative Council hold their seats for the term of their natural
lives, but they may resign their seats, and their seats become vacant in the following
cases : —

" If any Legislative Councillor : —

(a) Fails for two successive sessions of the Legislature to give his attend-
ance in the Legislative Council, unless excused in that behalf by the permission
of His Majesty or of the Governor, signified by the Governor to the Legislative
Council; or

(h) Takes any oath or makes any declaration or acknowledgment of allegi-
ance, obedience, or adherence to any foreign prince or Power; or

(c) Does, concurs in, or adopts any act whereby he may become a subject or
citizen of any foreign State or Power, or whereby he may become entitled to the
rights, privileges, or immunities of a subject or citizen of any foreign State or
Power; or'

(d) Becomes bankrupt, or takes the benefit of any law relating to insolvent
debtors; or

(e) Becomes a public contractor or defaulter; or

(/) Is attainted of treason, or convicted of felony or infamous crime."

2. The only provision restricting the power of the Legislative Council with regard
to legislation is the proviso contained in section 5 of the New South Wales Act,
No. 32 of 1902, under which all Bills " for appropriating any part of the public revenue,

1 This is now the case.

CONSTITUTIOX OF UPPER CHAMBERS • 89

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 246

or for imposing any new rate, tax, or impost shall originate in tlie Legislative
Assembly."

3. There are no legal provisions for the adjustment of differences which may
arise between the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly, whether with
regard to matters of finance or to general legislation, but the number of the Upper
House is not limited, and the Governor has power to add members to such extent as
he thinks fit.

VICTORIA.

The Legislative Council of Victoria consists of 34 members who are elected for
17 provinces, two for each province. Members hold oifice for six years, but one
member for each province retires every third year, unless there is a dissolution of the
Council, in which case one-half of the members hold their seats for three years only,

A member must be of the full age of 30 years and a natural-born subject of His
Majesty, or who has naturalized for ten years previous to election, and has resided
during that period in Victoria. He must also for one year previous to the election have
been legally or equitably seized of or entitled to an estate of freehold in possession for
his own use and benefit of lands and tenements in Victoria of the annual value of 501.
above all charges and incumbrances affecting the same, other than any public or
parliamentary tax, or municipal, or other rate or assessment. No pei-son can become a
member who is —

(1) A judge of any court of Victoria;

(2) A minister of religion;

(3) Attainted of any treason, or convicted of any felony or infamous
offence within any part of His Majesty's dominions;

(4) An uncertificated bankrupt or insolvent ;

(5) A public contractor, except in a partnership of more than twenty
persons ;

(6) A member of the Legislative Assembly; or

(7) Of the Commonwealth Parliament ; or

(8) Who is insane; or

(9) A Government officer other than a Minister.

A member may resign his seat, and his seat becomes vacant if he —

(1) Ceases to be possessed of the property qualification; or

(2) Is absent for one entire session without the leave of the Council;

(3) Takes an oath of allegiance to any foreign Power;

(4) Becomes insolvent, attainted of treason, or a public defaulter, or
commits a felony;

(5) Becomes insane;

(6) Becomes concerned in a public contract, except as a member of a partner-
ship of more than twenty persons ; or

(7) Accepts an office of profit under the Crown, except as Minister or as
President of the Council, or Chairman of Committees.

Electors are qualified —

(1) By owning the freehold or being mortgagor or mortgagee in possession,
or in the receipt of the rents or profits of property situate in one and the same
province rated at not less than 10?. a year;

90 CONSTITUTION OF UPPER CHAMBERS

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914

(2) Being lessee or assignee for the unexpired residue of any term originally
created for a period of not less than five years, or occupier of property, in one
and the same province rated at not less than 151. a year.

(3) Being joint owner, lessee, assignee, or occupier of property sufficient to
give each the foregoing qualification;

(4) Being resident in Victoria and a graduate of any university in the
British dominions, a matriculated student of Melbourne University, a qualified
legal or medical practitioner, a minister of religion, a certificated school-master,
or a naval or military officer.

All voters not being natural-born subjects of His Majesty, must have resided in
the state for twelve months previous to the 1st of January or the 1st of July in any
year, and shall have been naturalized at least three years previously.

The suffrage is possessed h;y both men and women, but no person is entitled to
more than one vote in the same province.

2. It is provided by section 56 of the Bill scheduled to the Imperial Act 18 and 19
Vict., c. 55, that all Bills for appropriating any part of the revenue of Victoria, and for
imposing any rate, tax, duty, rent, return, or impost, shall originate in the Assembly,
and may be rejected but not altered by the Legislative Council. By section 30 of the
amending Victorian Act, No. 1864: of 1903, it is provided as follows : —

(1) A Bill shall not be taken to be a Bill for appropriating any part of the
revenue of Victoria or for imposing any duty, rate, tax, rent, return, or impost,
by reason only of its containing provisions for the imposition or appropriation of
fines or other pecuniary penalties, or for the demand, or payment, or appropria-
tion of fees for licences, or fees for services under such Bill.

(2) The Council may once at each of the imdermentioned stages, of a Bill
which the Council cannot alter, return such Bills to the Assembly suggesting
by message the omission or amendment of any items or provisions therein.
And the Assembly may, if it thinks fit, make any of such omissions or amend-
ments with or without modifications. Provided that the Council may not
suggest any omission or amendment the effect of which will be to increase any
proposed charge or burden on the people.

(3) The stages of a Bill at which the Council may return the Bill with
a message as aforesaid shall be —

(a) The consideration of the Bill in committee;

(h) The consideration of the report of the committtce; and

(c) The consideration of the question that the Bill be read a third time.''

3. The following provision is made for disagreements between the two Houses
with regard to matters of finance or general legislation by section 31 of the Act,
1864, of 1903:—

" (1) If the Assembly passes any Bill and the Council rejects or fails to
pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the Assembly will not agree,
and, if not later than six months before the date of the expiry of the Assembly
by effluxion of time, the Assembly is dissolved by the Governor by a proclama-
tion declaring such dissolution to be granted in consequence of the disagree-
ment between the two Houses as to such Bill, and the Assembly again passes
the Bill with or without any amendments which have been made, suggested,
or agreed to by the Council, and the Council rejects or fails to pass it or
passes it with amendments to which the Assembly will not agree, the Governor
at any time, not being less than nine months nor more than twelve months
after the said dissolution, may, notwithstanding anything contained in the
Constitution Act, dissolve the Council and the Assembly simultaneously.

CO^'STITVTION OF UPPER CHAMBERS 91

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 246

" (2) The Council shall be deemed to have failed to pass a Bill if the
Bill is not returned to the Assembly within three months after its transmis-
sion to the Council and the session continue during such period.

" (3) Any Bill by which an alteration may be made in the constitutiop
of the Council or Assembly or in Schedule D to the Constitution Act (other
than such alterations as are referred to in section 61 of the said Act) shall not
be within the operation of the foregoing provisions of this section.

" (4) In section 61 of the Constitution Act, after the words ' or increase '
there shall be inserted the words 'or decrease.'"

QUEENSLAND.

The Legislative Council of Queensland consists of members unlimited in number
— usually between 40 and 50 — summoned by the Governor in His Majesty's name
by an instrument under the Great Seal of the State.

No person can be summoned who is not of the full age of 21 years and a natural-
born subject of His Majesty, or naturalized by an Act of the Imperial Parliament
or by an Act of the Legislature of New South Wales before 1859, or by an Act of
Queensland. Not less than four-fifths of the members so summoned to the Legis-
lative Council shall consist of persons not holding any office of emolument under the
Crown, except officers of His Majesty's sea and land forces on full or half pay or
retired officers on pensions. No person who shall directly or indirectly himself, or by
any person whatsoever in trust for him or for his use or benefit or on his account,
undertake, execute, hold and enjoy in the whole or in part any contract or agreement
for or on account of the public service shall be capable of being summoned to the
Legislative Council. This does not extend to any contract or agreement made by
an incorporated company or trading company consisting of more than twenty
members.

Members of Council hold office for life, but a legislative councillor may resign
his seat by letter to the Governor, and his seat is vacated if he (1) shall fail for ten
successive sessions of the Council to give his attendance without the permission of
His Majesty or the Governor; or (2) shall take any oath, or make any declaration or
acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to any foreign prince or
Power, or shall do, concur in, or adopt any act whereby he may become a subject
or citizen of any foreign State or Power, or whereby he may become entitled to
the rights, privileges, or immunities or a subject or citizen of any foreign State or
Power; or (3) shall become bankrupt or take the benefit of any law relating to insolvent
debtors; or (4) become a public contractor or defaulter; or (5) be attainted of
treason or convicted of felony or of any infamous crime.

" 2. It is provided by section 2 of the Constitution Act, 1867, that all Bills for
appropriating any part of the public revenue or for imposing any new rate, tax, or
impost shall originate in the Legislative Assembly." The exact force of this clause
has formed the subject of a report of the Privy Council on reference from the two
Houses in 1886." ^

3. By an Act, No. 16 of 1908, provision is made for the submission of certain
Bills to the electors in the case of differences between the two Houses: —

" 3. — (1) For the purposes of this Act a Bill shall be deemed to have been
rejected a first time whenever such Bill has, during a session of Parliament,
not less than one month before the close of the session been passed by the
Legislative Assembly and transmitted to the Legislative Council for its con-
currence therein, and the Legislative Council before the close of the session
has either —

iSee (C. 4794). '■ ~

92 COySTITDTION OF UPPER CHAMBERS

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914

" (a) Eejected or failed to pass such Bill; or

(&) Passed such Bill with any amendment or amendments in
which the Legislative Assembly does not concur;

and by reason thereof the Bill has been lost.

" (2) For the purposes of this Act such Bill shall be deemed to have been
rejected a second time when the Legislative Assembly in the next session of
Parliament has, after an interval of not less than three months from the first
rejection of the Bill as defined .by the last preceding subsection, again passed
such Bill (or a Bill substantially the same) and transmitted it to the Legis-
lative Council for its concurrence therein, not less than one week before the
close of the session, and the Legislative Council before the close of the session
has either —

" (c) Rejected or failed to pass such Bill ; or

" (d) Passed such Bill with any amendment or amendments in
which the Legislative Assembly does not concur;

and by reason thereof the Bill has again been lost.

" 4. — (1) Whenever a Bill has been twice rejected by the Legislative
Council, the Governor in Council may, by proclamation published in the
Gazette after the close of the session in which the Bill was rejected a second
time, direct that the Bill so rejected shall be submitted by referendum to the
electors; and a referendum poll shall accordingly be taken thereon under this
Act at the time appointed in that behalf. The publication in the Gazette of
such proclamation shall be conclusive evidence that the Bill as last rejected is
the same Bill or substantially the same Bill as the Bill rejected in the session
last but one preceding, and has been twice rejected by the Legislative
Council.

"2. When a Bill is so directed to be submitte<i to a referendum, a copy of
the Bill, in the form in which it was finally agreed to by the Legislative
Assembly, certified as correct by the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly,
shall, within twenty-one days after the issue of the said proclamation, be
transmitted by the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly to the Home Secretary.
Forthwith upon receipt of such copy the Home Secretary shall cause the same
to be published in the Gazette, together with such amendments as have been
made by the Legislative Council and which the Legislative Council may by
resolution request to be annexed thereto.

"5. The persons entitled to vote at the taking of the referendum poll
shall be the electors and no other persons.

" 6. — (1) The Governor in Council may appoint, by commission under
his hand and seal, a fit person to be the returning officer for taking the refer-
endum poll under this Act.

"In case of sickness or other cause preventing the returning officer from
acting, the Governor in Council may in like manner appoint some other person
to act as returning officer in his stead. Notification of the appointment of the
returning officer shall be published in the Gazette.

" (2) The returning officer, in addition to the powers and duties vested in
and imposed upon him by this Act, shall have such of the powers and shall
perform such of the duties of a returning officer appointed under the Elections
Act as are necessary for carrying this Act into effect.

" (3) Ever>' returning officer appointed under the Elections Act shall be an
assistant returning officer for the purposes of this Act, and. in addition to the
powers and duties vested in and imposed upon him by this Act, shall have such
of the powers and shall perform such of the duties vested in and imposed upon

COXSTITUTION OF UPPER CHAMBERS 93

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 246 - -

a returning officer under tlie Elections Act as are necessary for carrying this
Act into effect.

" (4) The writ for the referendum poll shall be directed by the Governor in
Council to the returning officer.

" A copy of the writ shall be published in the Gazette.

" 7. — (1) The mode of exercising the right to vote at a referendum poll
and of ascertaining such right shall be the same as at elections of members of the
Legislative Assembly.

" And generally (except as may otherwise be provided in this Act, or any
regulation made thereunder) every enactment contained in the Elections Act
regulating and making provision for the holding and conduct of elections, the
proceedings before and at and subsequent to such elections, and all incidental
r^atters shall, so far as applicable thereto, apply mutatis mutandis to the
referendum poll to be taken under this Act : Provided that the provisions (if
any) of the Elections Act for securing the absolute majority of votes shall not
apply.

(2) Every act or omission which would be punishable by law, if the same
had occurred in connection with the holding of an election, shall be held to
constitute the like offence, cognizable in the like manner, and punishable by
the like punishment, if the same occurs in connection with a referendum poll.

" 8. Every assistant returning officer shall, in manner provided by the
Elections Act, ascertain the number of votes respectively recorded at the
referendum poll in favour of and in opposition to the Bill at the various polling
places within the electoral district for which he is the returning officer, for
which purpose the presiding officer at each such polling place shall make a return
(certified by him to be correct) to the assistant returning officer of the number of
votes so given respectively at such polling place; and the assistant returning
officer shall thereupon forthwith make out and furnish a return for such district
(certified by him to be correct) to the returning officer appointed under this
Act.

" Every return to be made under this section may be transmitted by tele-
graphic message or messages under " The Telegraphic ^Messages Act of 1S72.'''

" 9. The total number of votes respectively recorded at the referendum poll
in favour of and in opposition to the Bill shall be endorsed upon the writ by
the returning officer, who shall forthwith return the writ so endorsed to the
Governor.

" The result of the referendum poll so endorsed shall be published by the
Home Secretary in the Gazette within twenty-eight days from the return of the
writ.

" Such publication shall be conclusive evidence of the result of the refer-
endum poll.

" 10. If the referendum poll is decided in favour of the Bill, the Bill shall
be presented to the Governor for His Majesty's assent, and upon receiving such
assent the Bill shall become an Act of Parliament in the same manner as if it
had been passed by both Houses of Parliament, and notwithstanding any law to
the contrary."

94 CONSTITUTION OF UPPER CHAMBERS

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914
SOUTH AUSTKALIA.

The Legislative Council of South Australia consists of eighteen elected members.
The State is divided into four Council Districts, of which one returns six members and
the other three return four members each to the Legislative Council. The period of
their service is regulated by sections 10, 11, and 12 of the South Australian Constitu-
tion Amendment Act, No. 959, 1908, which are as follows: —

" 10. Subject to the provisions hereinafter contained as to the dissolution of
the Legislative Council, every member of the said Council, except a member
elected to fill a casual vacancy, shall occupy his seat for the term of six years at
least, calculated as from the first day of March of the year in which he was last
elected, and for such further period as is provided for in the next succeeding
section. Provided nevertheless, if the seat of any member of the Legislative
Council becomes vacant by death, resignation, or otherwise before the expiration
of his term of service, and a member is returned from the electoral district in
which the vacancy occurred, he shall hold office only for the unexpired term of
the member whose seat has been vacated as aforesaid, and shall, for the purpose
of retirement, be deemed to have been elected at the time when such last-
mentioned member was or was deemed to be elected : Provided also that where
two or more members are so returned at the same time to fill vacated seats of
unequal terms, such terms shall be deemed to be held by the said members
according to their position on the poll at their election, and that he who receives
the greatest number of votes shall hold the seat which has the longest term to
run, and in the event of a tie the matter shall be determined by lot.

"11. Whenever the House of Assembly is dissolved by the . Governor, or
expires by effluxion of time, so many members of the Legislative Council, not
exceeding three for the Central District and two for each of the other districts,
as have completed the minimum term of service provided by section 10 shall
retire and vacate their seats, and, subject to section 21, an election to supply
the vacancies so created shall take nlace on the day of the next general election
of the House of Assembly.

" 12. The periodical retirement of members of the Legislative Council under
the provisions of the last preceding section shall be determined as follows: —

" (i) The members retiring in each Council District shall be those
who have represented such district for the longest time, calculated from
the date of their last election;

" (ii) If two or more members have represented the same Council
District for an equal time, calculated as aforesaid, the order of retire-
ment as between them shall be determined by their position on the poll at
their election, and he or they who had the least number of votes shall
retire first. K their position is equal in this respect, or if no poll was
taken, the order of retirement between them shall be determined by lot;

" (iii) The Legislative Council shall keep a roll of its members,
containing all particulars necessary for the application of the foregoing
rules as to their periodical retirement."

A Legislative Councillor must be a man of the full acre of 30 years, and a natural-
born or a naturalized subject of His Majesty, who has resided within the State for the
full period of three years. No person can be elected a member if he owes allegiance
to a foreign Power, is a Government contractor, is insane, or has been attainted of
treason or convicted of felony or an infamous crime, is an uncertified bankrupt, or is
a member of the Federal Parliament.

CONSTITVTIOX OF UPPER CHAMBERS 95

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 246

A seat may be resis'iied, and the seat is vacated by absence without leave for one
month, by bankruptcy, or conviction for treason or felony, and by lunacy.

The franchise for elections to the Legislative Council is possessed by adult British
subjects of either sex who are —

(a) Owners of freehold of the clear value of 50?.

(b) Owners of leasehold of the clear annual value of 20L with at least three
years to run or containing a right to purchase;

(c) Occupiers of a dwelling-house of a clear annual value of 111

(d) Registered proprietory of a Crown lease on which there are improve-
ments to the value of at least 50Z. Postmasters and postmistresses, police officers
in charge of a police station, railway stationmasters, head school teachers who
reside in official premises, and officiating ministers of religion are also qualified.

Voters must have been residents for six months prior to being placed on the rolls
of the Council.

2. The only provision limiting the power of the Legislative Council with regard
to legislation is that contained in the first section of the South Australian Constitution
Act, i^o. 2 of 1855-56, which provides that all Bills for " appropriating any part of the
revenue of the said province, or for imposing, altering, or repealing any rate, tax, duty,
or impost, shall originate in the House of Assembly."

3. The following- provision is made by Act No. 959 of 1908 for the settlement of
differences between the two Houses : —

(1) Whenever any Bill for an Act has been passed by the House of Assem-
bly during any session of Parliament, and the same Bill, or a similar Bill
with substantially the same objects and having the same title, has been passed
by the House of Assembly during the next ensuing Parliament, a general
election of the House of Assembly having taken place between such two
Parliaments, and the second and third readings of such Bill having been
passed in the second instance by an absolute majority of the whole number
of members of the said House of Assembly, and both such Bills have been
rejected by or fail to become law in consequence of any amendments made
therein by the Legislative Council, it shall be lawful for but not obligatory
upon the Governor of the said State, within six months after the last
rejection or failure , by proclamation to be published in the Government
Gazette, to dissolve the Legislative Council and House of Assembly, and
thereupon all the members of both Houses of Parliament shall vacate their
seats, and members shall be elected to supply the vacancies so created; or
for the Governor, within six months after such rejection or failure, to issue
writs for the election of three additional members for the Central District
and of two additional members fpr each of the other districts of the Legislative
Council.

" (2) After the issue of such writs no vacancy, whether arising before or
after the issue thereof, shall be filled, except as may be necessary to bring the
representation of the district in which such vacancy occurs to its proper
number as set forth in First Schedule hereto. Whenever there are more
seats vacated by members returned for the same district than are to be
filled, and such members' seats were of unequal tenure, the seats of those
members the unexpired portions of whose terms are the shorter shall be
first filled.

" (3) Upon every such dissolution of the Legislative Council the order of
retirement, as between the members elected after such dissolution, shall be as
provided in section 12 of this A.ct; and one half of such members shall retire-
after three years' service, calculated from the first day of March of the year of
their election, or after such further period as is provided for in section 11."

96 CONSTITUTION OF UPl'ER CHAMBERS

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914
WESTEKN AUSTRALIA.

The Legislative Council of Western Australia consists of 30 elected members,
who are elected for six years. They are returned for 10 electorates, each returning
three members. At the expiration of two years from the date of election, and every
two years thereafter, the senior member for the time being retires. Seniority is deter-
mined—

(a) By date of election;

(b) If two or more members are elected on the same day, then the senior
is the one who polled the greatest number of votes;

(c) If the election be uncontested or in the case of an equality of votes,
then the seniority is determined by the alphabetical precedence of surnames
and, if necessary, of Christian names.

A legislative councillor must be a male natural-bom or naturalized British
esubject of the age of 30 years or upwards, and —

(a) In the case of a natural-born subject, resident in the State for two
years; and

(h) In the case of naturalized subjects, if naturalized for five ■ years
previous to the election and resident in the State during that period. He must
not be a Judge of the Supreme Court, Sheriff of Western Australia, a clergy-
man, an undischarged bankrupt, under attainder of treason or conviction of
felony in any part of His Majesty's dominions, or directly or indirectly
concerned in any public contracts, save as a member of an incorporated
trading society.

Seats in the Legislative Council are vacated in the following instances: —

" If any member of the Legislative Council after his election —

(1) Ceases to be qualified or becomes disqualified as aforesaid; or

(2) Takes the benefit, whether by assignment, composition, or other-
wise, of any law relating to bankrupt or insolvent debtors; or

(3) Becomes of unsound mind; or

(4) Takes any oath or makes any declaration or acknowledgment of
allegiance, obedience, or adherence to any foreign prince or Power, or
does, concurs in, or adopts any act whereby he may become a subject or
citizen of any foreign State or Power, or whereby he may become
entitled to the rights, privileges, or immunities of a subject or citizen
of any foreign State or Power; or

(5) Fails to give his attendance in the Legislative Council for two
consecutive months of any session thereof without the permission of
the Council entered upon its journals ; or

(6) Accepts any pension during pleasure or for term of years other
than an allowance under section 71 of " The Constitution Act, 1S89,"
or any office of profit from the Crown, other than that of an officer of
Ilis !^[ajesty's sea or land forces on full, half, or retired pay;

his seat shall thereupon become vacant: Provided that members accepting
offices liable to be vacated on political grounds shall be eligible for re-election."

CONSTITUTION OF UPPER CHAMBERS 97

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 246

The franchise is held by adult British subjects of either sex who have resided in
the State for six months, and who either —

(a) Own a freehold estate to the value of 100^.;

(b) Occupy a house or own leasehold property rated at 25Z. ;

(c) Hold Crown leases or licenses to the value of not less than 10/. per
annum; or

(d) Are on the electoral list of any municipality or road board district
in respect of property of the annual ratealle value of 251.

2. It is provided by the Constitution Act of 1890 that all Bills for appropriating
any part of the consolidated revenue fund or for imposing, altering, or repealing any
rate, tax, duty, or impost shall originate in the Legislative Assembly. In the amending
Act of 1899 the following provision is made: —

" In the case of a proposed Bill, which, according to law, must have origin-
ated in the Legislative Assembly, the Legislative Council may at any stage
return it to the Legislative Assembly with a message requesting the omission
or amendment of any items or provisions therein; and the Legislative Assem-
bly may, if it thinks fit, make such omissions or amendments, or any of them,
with or without modifications."

3. There is no legal provision for the case of differences between the two
Houses, whether in matters of finance or of general legislation.

TASMANIA.

The Legislative Council of Tasmania consists of 18 members returned from
15 districts, Hobart returning 3, Launceston 2, and the remaining 13 districts
sending 1 member each. Each member of the Council holds his seat for six years from
the date of his election. Three members retire the first Monday in May every year,
except in 1905, and every sixth year thereafter, when four retire.

Members of Council must be male natural-born or five years naturalized British
subjects of the age of 30 years or upwards, and must have resided continuously for
five years in Tasmania or for at least two years immediately preceding the election.
No person is qualified to be a member who has a pension payable during pleasure
or holds any office of profit under the Government, except that of a Minister, or who
is a Government contractor, unless as a member of an incorporated company of more
than six persons, or who owes allegiance to any foreign Power, holds the office of
Judge of the Supreme Court, is insane, attainted or convicted of treason, felony, or
other infamous offence, or is a member of the Commonwealth Parliament. The
following are not deemed offices of profit or emolument : Wardens of Marine Boards,
returning officers under the Electoral Act, officers of the Defence Forces of the
Commonwealth ^whose services are entirely employed by the Commonwealth Govern-
ment, and members of the Board of Land Purchase Commissioners.

A member may resign his seat, and his seat is vacated if he becomes a subject
of a foreign Power, is bankrupt or insolvent, becomes a public defaulter, is attainted
of treason, or convicted of felony, or of any infamous crime, becomes insane, is absent
without leave for an entire session, accepts any office or profit from the Government
except a Ministerial office or pension, or contracts for the public service unless a
member of an incorporated company of more than six persons.

The electors of the Legislative Council are qualified by being adult subjects,
natural born or naturalized of either sex of 21 years of age and upwards, having
freehold estate in the electoral district of £10 a year or being the occupier of property
of the value of £30 a year, or being a graduate of any university in the British
Dominions, a qualified legal or medical practitioner, an officiating minister of religion,

246—7

98 CONSTITUTION OF UPPER CHAMBERS

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914

an officer or retired officer of His Majesty's Army or Navy on actual service, or a
retired officer of the Volunteer Force of Tasmania.

2. It is provided by section 33 of the Constitution Act, 1855, that all Bills for
appropriating any part of the revenue or for imposing any tax, rate, duty, or impost
shall originate in the House of Assembly.

3. There is no legal provision for removing differences which may arise between
the two Houses of Parliament in Tasmania, whether with regard to financial matters
or to general legislation.

NEW ZEALAND.

Under the Legislature Act, 1908, the Legislative Council of New Zealand consists
of members unlimited in number summoned for life in the case of persons sum-
moned before 1891, . or for seven years, in other cases, by the Governor from time to
time in His Majesty's name by instrument under the Public Seal of New Zealand.

No person shall be summoned or shall hold a seat in the Council who is not
a malej —

(a) of the full age of 21 years and either a natural-born subject of His
Majesty or a subject of His Majesty naturalized by or under any Act of the
Imperial Parliament, or by an Act of the General Assembly of New Zealand, or

" (&) Who at any time theretofore has been bankrupt and has not received
his discharge, or who has been attainted or convicted of any treason, any
crime formerly known as felony, or any infamous offence within any part of
His Majesty's Dominions, or as a public defaulter in New Zealand, unless he
received a free pardon, or has undergone the sentence or punishment to which
he was adjudged in respect thereof, or

" (c) Is a member of Parliament, or

"(d) Who is a contractor, or

"(e) Who is, or within the next preceding six months was, a Civil Servant.
This term does not include the persons who are members of the Executive
Council, provided that such members do not e-xcecd ten in all, two of which
members must be Maories or half-castes), nor the Speaker or Chairman of
Committees of the Council, nor officers of His Majesty's Army or Navy, or
Militia or Volunteers, except officers of the Militia and Volunteers receiving
annual or permanent salaries, nor any persons as members only of any Senate
or Council or any University, nor members of a Commission issued by the
Governor or Governor in Council.

"'Contractor' is a person who either by himself or directly or indirectly
by or with others, but not as a member of a registered or incorporated com-
pany or any incorporate.l b >dy. is interostod in the execution or enjoyment
of any contract or agreement entered into with His Majesty or with any
officer or department of the Government of New Zealand, or with any person
for or on account of the public service of New Zealand under which any public
money above the sum of £50 is payable directly or indirectly to such person
in any one financial year, but does not extend to persons on whom the com-
pletion of any contract or agreement devolves by marriage, or as devisee,
legatee, executor or administrator until twelve months after he has been in
possession of the same; any sale, purchase, or agreement for taking of land
or of or for any interest, estate, or easement therein under any law or statute
empowering the King or the Governor or any person on his behalf to take,
purchase or acquire any lands, or any estate, interest, or easement therein
for any public works or for any other public purposes whatsoever; contracts

CONSTITUTION OF UPPER CHAMBERS 99

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 246

for the loan of money or securities given for the payment of money only;
contracts for advertising by which a snm of over £50 is payable, if the con-
tract is entered into after public tender.

" A ' public defaulter' means a person convicted of wrongfully spending,
taking, or using any moneys the property of the Crown or of any local
authority or of any corporation represented by a local authority."

Members of the Council appointed since the passing of the Act of 1891 hold office
for seven years only, to be reckoned from the date of the instrument of appointment,
but they may be reappointed. In the case of any member of the Council, his seat
shall ipso facto be vacated —

'' (a) If he takes any oath or makes any declaration or acknowledgment
of allegiance, obedience, or adherence, to any foreign Prince or Power; or

"(5) If he does, or concurs in, or adopts any act whereby he may become
a subject or citizen of any foreign State or Power, or entitled to the rights,
privileges or immunities of a subject of any foreign State or Power; or

"(c) If he is bankrupt, or compounds with his creditors under any Act
for the time being in force; or

^'(d) If he is a public defaulter, or is convicted of any crime punishable
by death or by imprisonment with hard labour for a term of three years or
upwards; or

" (e) If he resigns his seat by writing under his hand addressed to and
accepted by the Governor; or

"(/) If for more than one whole session of the General Assembly he fails,
without permission of the Governor notified to the Council, to give his attend-
ance in the Council."

2. It is provided by section ai of ihe Imperial Act (15 and 16 Vict., c. 72) that
it shall not be lawful for the House of Ilepresentatives or the Legislative Council to
pass, or for the Governor to assent to, any Bill appiopriating to the public service
any sum of money from or out of His Majesty's revenue within New Zealand unless
the Governor, on His Majesty's behalf, shall first have recommended the House of
Representatives to make provision for the specifie public purpose towards which such
money is to be appropriated. The provisions of this section render it necessary for
any Appropriation Bill to be initiated in the Lower House.

3. There is no legal provision for a settlement of differences between the two
Houses. The question of the relations between the two Houses with regard to Money
Bills was submitted in 1872 to the law officers of the Crown, who gave an opinion
on the question on the 18th of June, 1872, to the effect that the Legislative Council
was not entitled to amend a Money Bill which the House of Lords in England would
not have amended. (See Appendix to Journals of Legislative Council of New
Zealand for 1872, No. 3.)

The question of the relations of the two Houses in general legislation was dis-
cussed in 1892, and papers were laid before Parliament. (See House of Commons
Paper 198, 1893-4.)

CAPE OF GOOD HOPE.

The Legislative Council of the Cape of Good Hope consists of twenty-six
elected members, presided over ex officio by the Chief Justice. The members are
elected four for the Western, the South-eastern and the Eastern provinces, three for
the North-western. South-western, Midland and North-eastern provinces, and
one each for British Bechuanaland and Griqn aland West. They keep their seats
for seven years unless the Council is sooner dissolved.

100 CONSTITUTION OF VPFER CHAMBERS

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914

No person is qualified to be elected a member of the Council who is incapacitated
to be registered as a voter, is under the age of 30 years, is not the owner for his own
use and benefit of immovable property situate within the colony of the value of 2,000Z.
over and above all special conventional mortgages afl^ecting the same or who is not,
being the owner of such property to such value but under mortgage, at the same time
possessed of property movable and immovable in the Colony to the value of not less
than 4,000Z. over and above his just debts. A married man for the purposes of this
provision is deemed and taken to own or occupy the whole of the property belonging
to his wife. But no person holding an office of profit under the Crown within the colony,
and no uncertificated insolvent, and no alien who shall be registered as a voter by
virtue merely of having obtained a deed of burghership shall be eligible to be elected a
member of the Council. From this proviso are excepted the offices of Colonial Secretary,
Treasurer, Attorney-General, Commissioner of Public Works, and Secretary for Agri-
culture, and of Prime Minister even if not holding one of these offices.

A member of the Legislative Council can resign his seat by writing under his
hand or by telegraph message addressed to the president of the Council, and his seat
is vacated if for one whole session of the Parliament he fails to give his attendance in
the Council without the permission of the Council, or shall take any oath or make any
declaration or acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to any foreign
Prince or Power, or shall do, concur in, or adopt any act whereby he may become a
subject or citizen of any foreign State or Power, or if his estate shall be sequestrated
as insolvent. A seat is also vacated if the member shall accept or be the holder of
any office of profit under the Crown save and except the office of Colonial Secretary
and other offices specified above.

The qualifications for electors are the age of 21 years or upwards, possession of
property worth 75?., or receipt of salary or wages of not less than 50Z. a year, but no
person can be newly registered as a voter since the Ballot and Franchise Act of 1892
unless he can sign his name and write his address )and occupation. Vfoters for the
Legislative Coui^cil have as many votes as there are seats to be filled, and they may give
two or three votes to one candidate or divide them between two or more candidates.

2. The following provision is made by section 88 of the Constitution Ordinance
approved by Order in Council of the 11th March, 1853: —

" And be it enacted, that in regard to all Bills relative to the granting of
supplies to Her Majesty, or the imposition of any impost, rate, or pecuniary
burden upon the inhabitants, and which Bills shall be of such a nature that if
Bills similar to them should be proposed to the Imperial Parliament of Great
Britain and Ireland, such Bills would, by the law and custom of Parliament,
be required to originate in the House of Commons, that all such Bills shall
originate in, or be by the Governor of the Cape of Good Hope introduced into,
the House of Assembly of the said Colony: Provided that the Legislative
Council of the said Colony and the Governor thereof shall, respectively, have
full power and authority to make, in all such Bills, such amendments as the said
Council and the said Governor shall, respectively, regard as needful or expedient;
and the said Council and the said Governor may, respectively.' return such Bills,
so amended, to the House of Assembly or the Legislative Council."

3. Xo special provision is made by law for the settlement of differences between
the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly, but by section 74 of the Constitu-
tion Ordinance it is provided that the Governor may whenever he shall see fit so to do.
either hy speech or proclamation dissolve the Legislative Council and the House of
Assembly, or dissolve the House of Assembly without dissolving the Legislative
Council,

COySTITl'TION OF UPPER CHAMBERS 101

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 246

:ntatal.

The Legislative Council of Xatal consists of thirteen members summoned by the
Governor in Council in the name of His Majesty by instrument under the Public Seal
of the Colony.

Each person so summoned holds his seat for ten years from the date of his
summons, but five of the members of the Legislative Council first summoned vacate
their seats at the end of five years, the particular members who are so to vacate their
seats being decided by lot within the first week of the first session of the Legislative
Council. The members are summoned from the following districts of the colony:
Five from within the counties of Durban, Victoria, Alexandria, and Alfred; three
from within the counties of Pietersmaritzburg and ITmvoti, and three from within
the counties of Weenen and Klip River, one from the Province of Zululand, and one
from the new territory (Utrecht) ; but not more than two members may be chosen
within any one county.

A legislative councillor must be of the age of 30 years or upwards, must not be
subject to any disqualification which would vacate his seat if it occurred after his
appointment, have resided in the colony for ten years, and be the registered proprietor
of immovable property within the-Colony of the value of 500?. in net value, after
deduction of the amount of all registered mortgages.

A seat in the Legislative Council is vacated if any member of the Council shall
fail for a whole ordinary annual session to give his attendance in the House, or shall
cease to hold his qualification, or shall take any oath or make any declaration or
acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to any foreign State or Power,
or shall do, concur in, or adopt any act whereby he may become the subject or citizen
of any such State or Power, or shall become an insolvent, or take advantage of any
Act for the relief of insolvent debtors, or shall become a public defaulter, or shall be
attainted of treason, or be sentenced to imprisonment for any infamous crime, or shall
become of unsound mind, or shall accept any office of profit under the Crown other
than a political office, or that of an officer of His Majesty's sea or land forces on full,
retired, or half pay. The disqualification does not apply in the case of persons in
receipt of pensions from the Colonial Government, or who were granted pensions
under the Constitution Act of 1893 on their retirement on political grounds. A seat
is also vacated if any member of the Legislative Council shall for the period of one
month remain a party to any contract with the Government; but this does not apply to
a purchaser of land at public auction from the Government, or to any lessee of
Government land. A member of the Council may also resign his seat by writing
under his hand addressed to the Governor. A member is eligible for re-appointment
by the Governor.

2. It is provided by section 4S of the Constitution Act of 1893 that all Bills for
appropriating any part of the consolidated revenue fund, or for imposing, altering, or
repealing any rate, tax. duty, or impost, shall originate in the Legislative Assembly.
By section 49 it is provided that '• The Legislative Council may either accept or reject
any Money Bill passed by the Legislative Assembly, but may not alter it."

3. There is no express provision for the settlement of differences between the two
Houses of Parliament, whether with regard to finance or to general legislation.

TRANSVAAL.

By section 2 of the Letters Patent of the 6th of December 1906 it is provided
that the Legislative Council shall consist of fifteen members, who shall be summoned
in the case of the first Council by the Governor, and if any vacancy shall occur in the
first or in any subsequent Council a member shall be appointed to fill the said vacancy

102 CONSTITUTIOX OF UPPER CHAMBERS

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914

by the Governor in Council until the completion of the period for which the person
in whose place he is appointed would have held office. Members of the Council are
appointed in the name of His Majesty by instrument under the Public Seal of the
Colony.

A member of the Council must be of the age of 30 years or upwards, have resided
in the colony for three years, and be qualified to be registered as a voter for
some electoral division of the colony. Members of the first Council hold office for
five years, but at any time after four years of the date of the first meeting of the
Council the Legislature may pass a law providing for the election of members of the
Legislative Council, whereupon, subject to the provisions of any such law, the then
existing Legislative Council shall be dissolved and all members of the Legislative
Council shall thereafter be elected as prescribed in the law.

Any member of the Legislative Council may resign his seat by writing under his
-hand addressed to the Governor, and a seat is vacated if any member of the Legislative
Council shall —

" (1) Fail for a whole ordinary annual session to give his attendance in
the Legislative Council; or

" (2) Shall take any oath, or make any declaration or acknowledgment of
allegiance, obedience, or adherence to any foreign State or Power; or

" (3) Shall do, concur in, or adopt any act whereby he may become the
subject or citizen of any such State or Power; or

" (4) Shall become an insolvent or take advantage hi any law for the
relief of insolvent debtors ; or

" (5) Shall be a public defaulter, or be attainted of treason, or be sentenced
to imprisonment for any infamous crime; or

" (6) Shall become of unsound mind; or

" (7) Shall accept any office of profit under the Crown other tlian that of
a Minister or that of an officer of our naval and military forces on retired or
half-pay."

Provided that a person in receipt of pension from the Crown shall not be deemed
to hold an office of profit under the Crown within the meaning of this section.

2. It is provided by sections 55 and 56 of the Letters Patent that all Bills for
appropriating any part of the consolidated revenue fund or for imposing, altering, or
repealing any rate, tax, duty, or impost, shall originate in the Legislative Assembly,
and that " The Legislative Council may either accept or reject any Money Bill passed
by the Legislative Assembly, but may not alter it."

3. The following provision is made by section 37 for the case of disagreement
between the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly: —

" (1) If the Legislative Assembly passes anj' proposed law and the Legis-
lative Council rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to
which the Legislative Asi^embly will not agree, and if the l^ogislative Assem-
bly, in the next session, again passes the proposed law with or without anj*
amendments which liave been made, suggested, or agreed to by the Legislative
Council, and the 'Legislative Council rejects, or fails to pass it, or passes it
with amendments to which tlie Legislative Assembly will not agree, the Gover-
nor may during that session convene a joint sitting of the members of the
Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly in the manner hereinafter pro-
vided, or may dissolve the Legislative Assembly, and may simultaneously dis-
solve both the Legislative Council and Le:jislative Assembly if the Legislative
Council shall then be an elected Council. But such dissolution shall not take
place within six months before the date of the expiry of the Legislative Assem-
bly by effluxion of time.

CJOifSTITUTIO^f OF UPPER CHAMBERS 163

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 246

" (2) If after such dissolution the Legislative Assembly again passes the
proposed law, with or without any amendments which have been made, sug-
gested, or agreed to by the Legislative Council, and the Legislative Council
rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it v,-ith amendments to which the Legis-
lative Assembly will not agree, the Governor may convene a joint sitting of
the members of the Legislative Council and of the Legislative Assembly, at
which the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly shall preside.

" (3) The members present at any joint sitting convened under either of
the preceding subsections, may deliberate and shall vote together upon the
proposed law, as last proposed by the Legislative Assembly, and upon amend-
ments, if any, which have been made therein by the one House of the Legis-
lature and not agreed to by the other, and any such amendments which are
affirmed by an absolute majority of the total number of the members of the
'Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly shall be taken to have been
carried, and if the proposed law, with the amendments, if any, so carried, is
affirmed by an absolute majority of the total number of the members of the
Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly, it shall be taken to have been
duly passed by the Legislature."

ORANGE RIVER COLONY.

1. The Legislative Council of the Orange River Colony as constituted by the
Letters Patent of the 5th of June, 1907, consists of eleven members, to be summoned
by the Governor by an Instrument under the Public Seal of the Colony in the name
of His Majesty.

It is provided by the Letters Patent that three of the members of the Legislative
Council, as first constituted, should vacate their seats at the expiration of the third
year from the date of the issue of the first summons of any members thereto; four
at the end of the fifth year and four at the end of the seventh year ; the members who
retire at the end of the third, fifth, and seventh years to be decided by lot, and fresh
members to be appointed in their place by the Governor in Council; such members
to hold office for five years from the date of their summons. But members can be
reappointed by the Governor in Council.

Power was given in the Letters Patent for the Legislature, at any time after four
years from the date of the first Order of the Council, to pass a law providing for the
election of members of the Legislative Council, and thereupon, subject to the provi-
sions of such law, the then existing Legislative Council would be dissolved and the
new Council would be elected on such conditions as were laid down in the law.

.Xo person can be summoned unless he is of the age of 30 years or upwards, has
resided in the colony for three years, and is qualified to be registered as a voter for
some electoral division of the colony.

Any member of the Legislative Council may resign his seat by writing under his
hand addressed to the Governor.

A member of the Legislative Council vacates his scat if he —

" (1) Shall fail for a whole ordinary annual session to give his attend-
ance in the Legislative Council; or

" (2) Shall take any oath, or make any declaration or acknowledgment of
allegiance, obedience, or adherence to any foreign State or Power; or

" (3) Shall do, concur in, or adopt any act whereby he may become the
subject or citizen of any such State or Power; or

" (4) Shall become an insolvent or take advantage of any law for the
relief of insolvent debtors; or

704 COl^^^TlfVTION OF UPPER CHAMBERS

■ ' 4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914

" (5) Shall be a public defaulter, or be attainted of treason, or be sentenced
to imprisonment for any infamous crime; or

" (6) Shall become of unsound mind; or

" (7) Shall accept any office of profit under the Crown other than that of a
Minister, that of a member of the Inter-Colonial Council, of the Liquor Licens-
ing Court, or of any Commission appointed by the Governer in Council, or
under any law to make any public inquiry, or that of an officer of Our naval
and military forces on retired or half-pay,"

Provided that a person in receipt of pension from the Crown shall not be deemed
to hold an office of profit under the Crown within the meaning of this section.

2. By section 56 of the Letters Patent, all Bills for appropriating any part of
the consolidated revenue fund, or for imposing, altering or repealing any rate, tax,
duty or impost were to originate in the Legislative Assembly. And by section 57,
" The Legislative Council may either accept or reject any Money Bill passed by the
Legislative Assembly, but may not alter it."

3. The following provision is made by section 39 for the case of disagreements
between the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly: —

" (1) If the Legislative Assembly passes any proposed law and the Legis-
lative Council rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which
the Legislative Assembly will not agree, and if the Legislative Assembly,
in the next session, again passes the proposed law with or without any amend-
ments which have been made, suggested, or agreed to by the Legislative
Council, and the Legislative Council reject, or fails to pass it, or passes it
with amendments to which the Legislative Assembly will not agree, the
Governor may during that session convene a joint sitting of the members of
the Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly, and may simultaneously
provided, or may dissolve the Legislative Assembly, and may simultaneously
dissolve both the Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly if the Legis-
lative Council shall then be an elected Council. But such dissolution shall
not take place within six months before the date of the expiry of the Legislative
Assembly by effluxion of time.

" (2) If after such dissolution the Legislative Assembly again passes the
proposed law, Avith or without any amendments, which have been made, sug-
gested, or agreed to by the Legislative Council, and the Legislative Council
rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments to which the Legis-
lative Assembly will not agree, the Governor may convene a joint sitting of
the Members of the Legislative Council and of the Legislative Assembly, at
which the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly shall preside.

'• (3) Tlie memliers present at any joint sitting convent^] under cither of
the preceding subsections may deliberate and shall voto together upon the pro-
posed law, as last proposed by the Legislative Assembly, and upon amendments,
if any, which have been made therein by the one House of the Legislature
and not agreed to by the other, and any such amendments which are affirmed
by an absolute majority of the total number of the Members of the Legislative
Council and Legislative Assembly shall be taken to have been carried, and if
the proposed law, with the amendments, if any, so carried, is affirmed by an
absolute majority of the total number of the members of the Legislative
Council and Legislative Assembly, it shall be taken to have been duly passed
by the Legislature."

rOXSTlTITlOX OF ll'I'Ell (llAMBEUs 105

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 246

T'MOA' OF SOUTH AFIilCA.

The Senate of Si.uth Africa under the South Africa Act. 1909, which will take
effect from the Slst of May, 1910. is eoiistituted as follows : —

24. For ten years tifter the establishment of the I'nion, the constitution of
the Senate shall, in respect of the original provinces, be as follows: —

" {1} Eight senators shall be nominated by the Governor General
in Council and for each original province eight senators shall be elected
in the manner hereinafter provided;

" (2) The senators to be nominated by the Governor General in
Council shall hold their seats for ten years. One-half of their number
shall be selected on the ground mainly of their thorough acquaintance,
by reason of their official experience or otherwise, with the reasonable
wants and wishes of the coloured races in South Africa. If the seat
of a senator so nominated shall become vacant, the Governor-General
in Council shall nominate another person to be a senator, who shall
hold his seat for ten years;

''(3) After the passing of this Act, and before the day appointed
for the establishment of the Union, the Governor of each of the Colonies
shall summon a special sitting of both Houses of tbe Legislature, and
the two Houses sitting together as one body, and presided over by the
Speaker. of the Legislative Assembly, shall elect eight i^ersons to be
senators for the province. Such senators shall hold their seats for ten
year>. If the seat of a senator so elected shall become vacant, the
pruvincial council of the province for which such senator has been
selected shall choose a person to hold the seat uiitil the completion
of the period for whifli the persnn in whose stead he is elected would
have held his seat.

25. Parliament may provide for the manner in which the Senate shall be consti-
tuted after the expiration of ten years, and unless and until such provision shall have
been made: —

" (1) The provisions of the last preceding section with regard to-
nominated senators shall continue to have effect:

"(2) Eight senators for each province shall be elected by the mem-
bers of the provincial council of such province together with the mem-
bers of the House of Assembly elected for such province. Such senatoi'S
shall hold their seats for ten years unless the Senate be sooner dis-
solved. If the seat of an elected senator shall become vacant, the
members of the provincial council of the province, together with the
members of the House of Assembly elected for such province, shall choose
a person to hold the seat until the completion of the period for which
the person in whose stead he is elected would have held his seat. The
Governor-General in Council shall make regulations for the joint elec-
tion of senators prescribed in this section.

26. The qualifications of a senator shall be as follows: —

He must —

(a) Be not less than 30 years of age;

(b) Be qualified to be registered as a voter for the election of
members of the House of Assembly in one of the provinces;

(c) Have resided for five years within the limits of the Union as
existing at the time when he is elected or nominated, as the case may be;

{d) Be a British subject of European descent;
246—8

106

roxsriri ri()\ of i ppeh luambhus

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914

(e) In the case of an elected senator, be the registered owner of

immovable property within the Union of the value of not less than £500

over and aboi'e any special mortgages thereon.

'•'For the purposes of this section, residence in, and property situated

within, a colony before its incorporation in the Union shall be treated as

residence in and property situated within the LTnion.

''Xo person shall be capable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator
who —

'•(a) Has been at any time convicted of any crime or oflence for
which lie shall have been sentenced to imprisonment without the option
of a fine for a term of not less than twelve months, unless he shall have
received a grant of amnesty or a free pardon, or unless such imprison-
ment shall have expired at least five years before the date of his elec-
tion; or

"(i!>) Is an unrehabilitated insolvent; or

" (c) Is of unsound mind, and has been so declaic;d by a competent
court; or

" (c?) Holds any office oi proiit under ihe Crown within the Uijion:
Provided that the following per3ong sliall noc bo deemed to hold an
office of profit under the Crown for the purposes of this subsection :
" (1) A Minister of State f >r ihe Union;
'' (2) A person in receipt of a i)ension from the Crown ;
" (3) An officer or member of His -Majesty's naval or military
forces on retired or half pay, or an officer or member of the naval i-r
military forces of the T"^nion whose services are not wholly employed
by the Union.
" If a senator —

" (o) Becomes subject to any of the disabilities mentioned in the
last preceding section; or

" (&) Ceases to be qualified as required by law; or
" (c) Fails for a whole ordinary seBsiou to attend without the
special leave of the Senate,
'' his seat thereupon becomes vacant.

2. The provisions of the South Africa Act as to the powers of the S« iiato are as
follows : —

"60. — (1) Bills appropriating rcveuuo uv monoys or imposing taxation
shall originate only in the 'House of Assembly. But a liill 5-hall not be taken
to appropriate revenue or moneys or to impose taxation by reason only of its
containing provisions for the imposition or appropriation ot tinos or Dther
pecuniary penalties.

" (2) The Senate may not amend any Bills ao far as they impose t:;xation
or appropriate revenue or moneys for the services of the Government.

" CO) The Senate may not amend any Bill so a^ to increase any ) roioscd
charges or burden on the peofde.

"61. Any Bill which appropriates revenue or moneys for the ordinary
annual services of the Government shall deal only with such appropriation."
3. The following provision is made in section 63 of the South Africa Act for the
cases of disagreement between the two Houses: —

'' 63. If the House of Assembly passes any Bill and the Senate rejects or
fails to pass it or passes it with amendments to which the House of Assembly
will not agree, and if the House of Assembly in the next session again passes

coysTiTUTioy of liter chambers 107

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 246

the Bill with or without auj' amendments which have been made or agreed to
by the Senate and the Senate rejects or fails to pass it or passes it with amend-
ments to which the House of Assembly will not agree, the Governor General
may during that session convene a joint sitting of the members of the Senate and
House of Assembly. The members present at any such joint sitting may
deliberate and shall vote together upon the Bill as last proposed by the House
of Assembly and upon amendments, if any, which have been made therein by
one House of Parliament and not agreed to by the other; and any such amend-
ments which are affirmed by a majority of the total number of members of the
Senate and House of Assembly present at ^uch sitting shall be taken to have
been carried, and if the Bill with the amendments, if any, is affirmed by a
majority of the members of the Senate and House of Assembly present at such
sitting, it shall be taken to have been duly passed by both Houses of Parlia-
ment: Provided that, if the Senate shall reject or fail to pass any Bill dealing
with the appropriation of revenue or moneys for the public service, such joint
sitting may be convened during the same session in which the Senate so rejects
or fails to pass such Bill."

4-5 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 246a A. 1914

SUPPLEMENTARY RETURN

[246a]

To an Order of the House of Conunons, dated 2nd Marcli, 1914, giving the following
information, as far as may be available, respecting the constitution of Upper
Chambers or Senates within the British' Empire and in foreign countries, and
especially such information in respect of the self-governing Dominions and of
foreign countries possessing a federal system of Government : —

1. As to the method of appointment, whether by Executive authority or by election by

the people, or otherwise.

2. As to the term of appointment, whether for life or for a term of years, or otherwisa

3. As to a re-appointment or re-election, and generally as to the filling of vacancies

occasioned by death or otherwise.

4. As to qualifications, whether by age, residence, possession of real or personal pro-

perty or otherwise.

5. As to limitation of the membership, and as to the numerical relation of the member-

ship to that of the Lower House.

6. As to provisions for dissolution, appeal to the electorate, conferences or additional

appointments in ease of disagreement between the Upper and Lower Houses.

7. As to the operation of the various systems in the several Dominions and countries

mentioned, and in what respect defects or difficulties have made themselves
manifest.

8. All other relevant information respecting the constitution and status of such Upper

Chambers.

LOUIS P. PELLETIEE,

for Secretary of State.
June 10, 1914.

THE SECOND CHAMBER.

An Abstract showing certain aspects of the constitution of various Upper Houses of
the Legislature in the British Empire and foreign countries.

GREAT BRITAIN.

(Authorities consulted: Lowell, The Government of England, new edition, 1912;
Anson, Law and Custom of the Constitution, 4th edition, 1911; Ogg, The
Government of Europe; The Parliament Act, 1911, statutes 1-2 Geo. V, c. 13.)

Number. — The number of the House of Lords is not limited by law. To-day it
numbers about 650.

Method of Appointment and Election — Tenure — Qualifications. — The House of
Lords comprises at least five distinct groups : —
246a— 1

COXSTITLTIOy OF UPPER CHAMBERS

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914

(1) Peers ivith hereditary seats. — These are the peers of England created
before the union with Scotland in 1707; the peers of Great Britain created
between that date and the union with Ireland in 1801 ; and the peers of the
United Kingdom created since. The Crown, that is, the Ministry of the day,
has unlimited power to create hereditary peerages, and this is now the only
channel for an increase in the membership of the House.

(2) The Representative Peers of Scotland. — Under the Act of Union of
1707, when a new Parliament is summoned, the whole body of Scottish peers
elect sixteen of their number to sit as their representatives in the House of
Lords. Their tenure expires with the termination of a Parliament.

(3) The Representative Peers of Ireland. — Under the Act of Union of 1800
twenty-eight of the Irish peerage are elected by the whole body as representatives
and each representative peer enjoys his right as a Lord of Parliament for the
term of his life.

(J).) The Lords Spiritual. — The number of these is restricted under statu-
tory regulation to twenty-six. Five English ecclesiastics arc entitled by statute
invariably to seats — the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and the Bishops of
London, Durham and Winchester. Among the remaining bishops, seats are
allowed to twenty-one in the order of seniority. The Lords Spiritual retain
their seats in virtue of, and only during, tenure of their several Sees.

Appointment to the ecclesiastical office is controlled by the Crown, that is,
by the Ministry of the day. There are no Scottish or Irish Lords Spiritual.

(5) The Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. — These number four and are created
by virtue of high legal qualification, primarily to assist in the judicial function
of the House of Lords. They are also entitled to the dignity of Baron for life
and to a writ of summons to attend and vote as other peers. This right lasts
for life although the discharge of judicial duties may have ceased.

Infants, aliens, bankrupts, and persons under sentence for grave offences,
are incapable of sitting in the House of Lords. On tjie other hand, a peer cannot
renounce his inheritance of rank.

Adjustment of Disagreements hetween the Houses — The Parliament Act, J91-1 : —
(a) As to Money Bills. — The Act (1-2 Geo. V, c. 13) provides in substance
that if a Money Bill, having been passed by the House of Commons and sent to
the House of Lords at least a month before the end of the session, is not passed
by that House without amendment within one month it shall become an Act on
the Royal Assent being signified. A Money Bill is defined as a public Bill which
in the opinion of the Speaker deals only with the imposition, repeal or regulation
of taxation; with the imposition or repeal of charges on the Consolidated Fund
or on money provided by Parliament; with supply; with the appropriation,
receipt, issue or audit of public money; with the raising, guarantee or payment
of a loan; or with matters incidental to these subjects. Provisions dealing with
the taxation, money or loans of local autlioritics for local purposes are expressly
excluded.

(h) As to Other Bills. — In regard to other bills the Act provides that if any
public Bill (other than a Money Bill or one to extend the term of Parliament
beyond five years) is passed by the House of Commons in three successive
sessions (whether of the same Parliament or not) and is not passed by the
House of Lords without amendment or with such amendments only as the
Commons accept, it shall become an Act on the Royal assent being signified;
provided two years have elapsed between the second reading in the House of

COySTITUTlOX OF UPPER CH AMBERS 3

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 246a

Commons at the first session and the final passage hy that House in the third
session. The Bill must be passed by the Commons each time in identical form,
save for the alterations made necessary by the lapse of time, and for amendments
agreed to by both Houses. The certificate of the Speaker that the provisions of
the Act have been complied with is made conclusive. The Acr does not affect
legislation by private Bill or provisional order. It provides special words of
enactment for legislation passed under its provisions.

(c) This Act does not purport to represent a final scheme for the reform of
the relations between the two Houses ; for its preamble recites that " it is
intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second
Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but such substitu-
tion cannot be immediately brought into operation," and further that " provision
will require hereafter to be made by Parliament, in a measure affecting such
substitution, for limiting and defining the powers of the new Second Chamber,
but it is expedient to make such provision as in this Act appears for restricting
the existing powers of the House of Lords." In other words, the Parliament Act
touches only the powers of the Second Chamber; it does not affect the composi-
tion or method of appointment, and it recognizes that when a newly-constituted
Second Chamber has been provided, other rules than are now provided may be
necessary to defijie the powers of the new House and the relations between tno
two Houses. And the Government responsible for the Act expressly emphasizea
its temporary character throughout the debate. Mr. Asquith, on February 28,
1910, in a careful statement respecting the preliminary resolutions then about
to be introduced, said : " They will affirm the necessity for excluding the House
of Lords altogether from the domain of finance. They will ask this House to
declare that in the sphere of legislation the power of veto, at present possessed
by the House of Lords, should be so limited in its exercise as to secure the pre-
dominance of the deliberate and considered will of this House within the life-
time of a single Parliament. Further, it wiU be made plain that these constitu-
tional changes are without prejudice to, and contemplate in a subsequent year,
the suhstituticn in our Second Chamber of a democratic for an hereditary
basis." (Hansard, 1910, vol. 14, p. 595.)

This was later repeated both in exact terms (Hansard, 1910, vol. 15, p. 959)
and in substance : " "We put them forward to deal with the emergency which
confronts us, not as purporting to be a full or adequate solution of the whole
problem, or as exhausting the policy of the Government." (Hansard, 1910, vol.
15, p. 1180.) See also Hansard, 1911, vol. 21, p. 1752. As to what was
conceived as the proper character or attributes of a Second Chamber should be,
Mr. Asquith merely indicated his views. (Hansard, 1910, vol. 15, pp. 1165-6.)

QUEBEC.

(See Bourinot, Manual of Constitutional History of Canada, p. 65; British North
America Act, sees. 23, 72-79).

Number. — The Legislative Council numbers twenty-four members.

Method^of appointment. — Members are appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in
the King's name, and represent the same electoral districts from which senators
are chosen.

Term of office. — The term is for life.

Qualifications.— ^The qualifications are the same as those of the senators from
the province and vacancies arise for the same reasons as in the case of seuatvTs,
246a— li

4 COysTlTUT/OX OF VPPEli CHAMBERS

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914

Other provisions^ — The Governor appoints a Speaker from among the members.
Ten constitute a quorum. The Council has legislative functions co-ordinate with
those of the Assembly except with regard to Money Bills. Its constitution may be
amended by the Legislature of the province. There is no provision for the adjust-
jnent of differences between the two Houses.

NOVA SCOTIA.

(Authorities: Bourinot, Manual of Constitutional History of Canada, p. 69; and
" Tlie Constitution of the Legislative Council of Nova Scotia" ; Transactions
of the Royal Society of Canada, new series. Vol. 2; Revised Statutes of Nova
Scotia, 1900, c. 2: British North America Act).

Numher. — The Legislative Council numbers twenty-one ordinarily, though it
varies to eighteen.

Method of appointment. — Members are appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor
in the name of the Crown.

Term of office: — The term is for life.

Qualifications. — There is a property qualification. Scats are vacated for bank-
ruptcy or insolvency, conviction of crime, or for absence for two sessions without
the consent of the Governor in Council.

The Legislative Coiuicil has legislative functions co-ordinate with those of the
Assembly except with regard to Money Bills.

The constitution of Nova Scotia, and therefore of the Council, is considered " as
derived from terms of the Royal Commissions to the Governors and Lieutenant
Governors, and from the instructions accompanying the same, moulded from time
to time by despatches from Secretaries of State, conveying the will of the
Sovereign, and by Acts of the Local Legislature, assented to by the Crown; the whole
to some extent interpreted by uniform usage and custom in the colony" (memo-
randum by Governor Archibald in answer to an address of Parliament, Can. Sesa.
p. 1883, No. 70, pp. 8, 39) After 1867 the Council remained constituted as before,
but subject to the power of amendment ve-ted by the British North America Act
in the Legislature of the province.

There is no provision for the adjustment of differences between the two Houses;
and it would seem that the number of the Legislative Council is limited and that
therefore disagreements cannot be overcome by appointments to the Council. (See
Transactions of Royal Society of Canada, new series, vol. 2, article on "The Consti-
tution of the Legislative Council of Nova Scotia.")

NEWFOUNDLAND.

(See Letters Patent of March 28, 1876, to the Governor of Newfoundland; Instruc-
tions of same date; to be foimd in Consolidated Statutes of Newfoundland,
2nd series, 1892, pp. 1107 et seq.)

Number. — The number of the Legislative Council is not fixed, though the total
number for the time being resident within the colony may not be raised by means
of appointments hi/ the Governor (see below) to more than fifteen. The number now
stands at twenty-four.

Method of appointment. — Members are nominated and appointed from time to
time by the Kin-r under the Sign Manual and Signet, or provisionally by the Governor
subject to the pleasure of the Crown and to the restriction above noted.

COySTITUTION OF UPPER CHAMBERS 5

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 246a

Term of office. — Members liold office during the King's pleasure and are remov-
able by warrant issued by the King on advice of the Privy Council. This is now
understood to mean that members hold office at the will of the Government of New-
foundland.

Other- provisions. — The Governor appoints from time to time a President of the
Council from amon^ the members. Five constitute a quorum. There is by rule of
the House of Assembly the usual distinction of powers between the two Houses with
respect to Money Bills.

Adjustment of disagreements between the Houses.— There is no provision of
law for the adjustment of disagreements between the two Houses; but as seen there
is no limitation on the power of the Crown to add to the number of the Legislative
Council.

NEW ZEALAND.

♦

(See New Zealand Constitution Act, 1S52, 15 and 16 Vict., e. 72; Legislative Council
Act, 1891; Legislative Council Act, 1908.)

Xumher. — The number of the Legislative Council may not be less than 10; other-
wise it is unlimited. At present the number is 42. (See New Zealand Year Book,
1913.) It is said by one authority that the members represent certain provincial
districts (Analysis of the System of Government throughout the British Empire,
Macmillan & Co., p. 90). There seems to be no provision of law to this eiiect.

Method of appointment. — Members are appointed by the Governor froiu time to
time.

Terin of office. — The term is seven years, but a member may be reappointed.
There are a few remaining life members appointed before the tenn of office was
changed by the Act of 1891. (See Douglas, The Dominion of New Zealand.) It is
interesting to note that that Act, in order to induce life members to resign, made a
standing offer of a free railway pass throughout the Dominion and the use of the
Parliamentary Library, both for life.

Other provisions. — As to qualification, a member must be 21 years old, a British
subject, free from taint of bankruptcy, treason, infamous offence and public defal-
cation, and may not be the holder of certain named public offices. There is the usual
distinction of powers between the two Houses with respect to Money Bills.

Adjxistment of disagreements between the Houses. — While there is no legislative
provision for the adjustment of disagreements between the two Houses, there is no
limitation as seen, on the'power of appointment to the Legislative Council.

Proposed reform. — Tlie present Government proposes to reform the Legislative
Council. A Bill to that end has already been put forward. Up till now the majority
in the Council itself have been against it and it has twice been rejected.

The scheme generally is a division of the Dominion into four large electorates
to choose members under the Tasmanian system of proportional representation. Two
of the electorates are to choose eleven members each, and the other two nine
members each. The suffrage will be universal and the elected Councillors will sit
for six years. The scheme cannot be in full operation for five or six years, as time is
allowed for the gradual disappearailce of the present nominee members. The Bill
contains the English provision for passing Money Bills over the Upper Chamber's
head if necessary, and the Australian provision for "suggested" amendments and
for dealing with deadlocks.

6 aox,sT/Ti rfo\ of rri'EU cji.\Miii:Rf<

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 19U
AUSTRALIA.

References are to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, Julv 0, 1!)00,
63 and 64 Vict., c. 12.)

Number. — There are six senators from each orig-inal state (sec. 7).

Method of Election. — "Senators are directly chosen by the people of the
State ... as one electorate" (except that Queensland is entitled to divide itself
into senatorial districts), sec. 7.

Tcryn of Office. — ^^Senators are elected lor six years. One-half retire every three
years. (Sec. 7; sec. 13, as amended by the Constitution Alteration, Senate Elections,
1906, Law 1 of 1907.)

Qualifications. — These are the same as for members of the House of Representa-
tives (sec. IG) ; that is, a member must be a British subject, 21 years old, an elector,
and a lesident for three years within the Commonwealth (sec. 34).

Qualifications of Electors. — These are the same as in the case of the Lower House
/sec. 8).

Vacancies. — Vacancies arc filled by the Houses of Parliament of the State sitting
together, the person so chosen holding office till. the end of the term, unless a regular
p'eneral election (either for the House or Senate) occurs in the meantime, in which
event a successor is chosen in the usual manner to hold till the end of the term. If the
State Parliament is not in session the Governor in Council of the State may choose a
successor to hold untH the expiration of fourteen days after the beginning of the next
session or until the election of a successor as above, whichever happens first (sec. 15).

Regulation of method. — The method of election and number may be changed by the
Federal Parliament; but no original state may be deprived of equality nor have less
than six senators; and subject to the foregoing, the states may regulate the method,
time and place (sees. 7, 9).

Powers. — There is the usual distinction of powers between the two Houses with
i»i?peet to Money Bills (sec. 53).

Adjustment of Disagreements between the Houses. — Section 57 provides for the
adjustment of disagreements between the two Houses. If the House of Representatives
passes any Bill and the Senate rejects it or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments
to which the House will not agree, and if after three months the House
in the same or next session again passes it, with or without amendments made
or suggested by the Senate, and the Senate rejects or fails to pass it or passes it with
amendments unacceptable to the House, the Governor General may dissolve the Senate
and House simultaneously. If after such dissolution the House again passes the
Bill with or without any amendments made or s\iggested by the Senate, and the Senate
rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with amendments unacceptable to the House, the
Governor General may convene a joint sitting of the members of the Senate and House.
The members at the joint sitting may deliberate upon the Bill as last proposed by the
House and upon any amendments which have been the cause of difference, and the Bill,
with or without amendments, may be carried by an absoluto majority of the total
number of members of the Senate and House, and shall then be taken to have passed
both Houses.

There is special provision for amendments to the constitution. Amendments
proposed ty an absolute majority of each House shall be submitted to the electors, or
those twice proposed by one House with an inter^'al of three months, though disagreed
to by the other House, may be submitted to the electors by the Governor General.
It must be approved by a majority of the electors in each of a majority of the states,
snd by a majority of all the electors voting (sec. 128).

COXSTITUTIOX OF I'PPEIi CHAMBERS 7

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 246a

SOUTH AFRICA.

(References are to the South Africa Act, 1909, 9 Ed. VII, c. 9).

Number. — There are eight senators at large and eight from each original pro-
vince. (Sec. 24.)

Method of appointment and election. — The senators at large are nominated by
the Governor General in Council; the others were elected for each province before
the establishment of the Union by the two Houses of the Colony sitting together
(sec. 24). After ten years from the establishment of the Union, if Parliament does
not make other provision, the method as to nominated senators is to remain
unchanged, while the eight senators from each province are to be elected by the Pro-
vincial Council and House of Assembly sitting together and are to hold their seats
for ten years unless the Senate is sooner dissolved. (Sec. 25.)

Term of office. — The term is ten years. (Sec. 24.)

Qualification. — A senator must he 30 years old, an elector, a resident for five
years within the limits of the Union, a British subject of European descent, and in
addition an elected senator must own immovable property within the Union to the
value of £500 (sec. 26), One-half of the nominated senators must be selected on the
ground mainly of their thorough acquaintance, by reason of their official experience,
with the reasonable wants and wishes of the coloured races in South Africa. ((Sec. 24.)

Vacanvies. — In the case of a nominated senator the Governor General in Council
nominates a successor who holds for ten years. In the case of an elected senator the
vacancy is filled by the Provincial Council, though after ten years from the establish-
ment of the Union, by the Provincial Council and House of Assembly sitting together,
and the successor holds simply for the balance of the term. (Sees. 24, 25.)

Regidation of Method of Election. — After ten years from the establishment of the
Union, Parliament may provide for the manner in which the Senate may be con-
stituted, (sec. 35.)

Dissolution. — The Governor General may dissolve the Senate and House of
Assembly or the House alone, though the Senate may not be dissolved within ten years
of the establishment of the Union and dissolution cannot affect nominated Senators.
(see. 20.)

Adjustment of Disagreement between the Houses. — The provision for the con-
tingency of disagreement between the House of Assembly and Senate is section 63,
and it roads as follows —

" If the House of Assembly iiasses any Bill and the Senate rejects or fails
to pass it or passes it with amendments to which the House of Assembly will
not agree, and if the House of Assembly in the next session again passes the
Bill with or without any amendments which have been made or agreed to by
the Senate and the Senate rejects or fails to pass it or passes it with amend-
ments to which the House of Assembly will not agree, the Governor General
may during that session convene a joint sitting of the members of the Senate and
House of Assembly. The members present at any such joint sitting may delib-
erate and shall vote together upon the Bill as last proposed by the House of
Assembly and upon amendments, if any, which have been made therein by one
House of Parliament and not agreed to by the other; and any such amendments
which are affirmed by a majority of the total number of members of the Senate
and House of Assembly present at such sitting shall be taken to have been car-
ried, and if the Bill with the amendments, if any, is affirmed by a majority of the

8 CONSTITUTION OF UPPER CHAMBERS

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914

members of the Senate and House of Assembly present at such sitting, it shall
be taken to have been duly passed by both Houses of Parliament; Provided
that, if the Senate shall reject or fail to pass any Bill dealing with the appro-
priation of revenue or moneys for the public service, such joint sitting may be
convened during the same session in which the Senate so rejects or fails to
pass such Bill."

UNITED STATES.

(References are to the Constitution of the United States).

Number. — Two senators are chosen from each state. (Art. 1, sec. 3, par. 1 ; 17th
amendment.)

Method of Election. — Formerly chosen by the State Legislatures, senators are now
elected directly by the people of their respective states. (17th amendment, ratified
May, 1913.)

Term of Office. — The term is six years. One-third of the senators are retired and
their successors chosen every two years. (Art. 1, sec. 3, par. 1-2 ; l7th amendment.)

Qualification. — A senator must be 30 years old, a citizen of the United States for
nine years, and an inhabitant, when elected, of the state for which he is chosen. (Art.
1, sec. 3, par. 3.)

Qualification of electors. — The electors of senators in each state must have the
qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legis-
lature. (17th amendment.)

Vacancies. — These are filled by popular election, though the legislature of any
state may empower its executive to make a temporary appointment until the people
fill the vacancy by election as the legislature may direct. (17th amendment.)

Regulation. — The times, places and manner of election are prescribed by the various
State Legislatures, but Congress may at any time alter such regulations except as to the
places of election. (Art. 1, sec. 4, par. 1.)

Adjustment of Disagreements hetiveen the Houses. — There is no provision of law
for the adjustment of disagreements between the House of Representatives and the
Senate. In practice, however, such disagreements are referred by each House to a
conference committee, appointed specially for the Bill in hand from among its own
members. The two committees meet informally on the Bill. While in theory each is
usually supposed to act under instructions from its own House, yet in practice they
frequently report back what amounts to a new Bill, and this compromise is often passed
by both Houses. It slrould be borne in mind that if the Senate disagrees with the
House it is merely a disagreement between two Legislative Chambers and does not
concern the P^xecutive directly or at all necessarily, whereas under the parliamentary
system a deadlock is in reality a matter between the Upper House and the Government
of the day.

FRANCE.

(References are to the Law of Dec. 9, 1S8-1— to be found in Dodd, Modern Constitu-
tions, vol. 1, p. 310 et scq.)

Number. — The Senate consists of 300 members (art. 1); the number from each
department or colony varying from ten to one (art. 2).

Method of Election. — Senators are elected by an electoral college meeting at the
capital of the department or coloiu' com;erned and compo«<><l of (1) the deputies from

COXSTITUTIOX OF UPPER CHAMBERS 9

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 246a

the department, (2) the general councillors of the department, (3) the councillors
of the arrondissemeut (a subdivision of the department), and (4) delegates elected
by each municipal council from among the voters of the commune (a smaller sub-
division of the arrondissemeut). The number of delegates from each municipal council
is according to the number of the council, varying from a council of teu electing one
delegate to a council of thirty-six electing twenty- four, while the city of Paris elects
thirty (art. 6.). The mode of election is that of scrutin de liste, that is, each elector
has as many votes as there are senators to be elected, but can give only one vote to any
candidate.

Term of Office. — Senators are chosen for nine years. One-third are retired and
their successors chosen every three years. (Art. 7.)

Qualifications. — A senator must be a French citizen, 40 years of age, enjoy civil
and political rights, and have complied with the law regarding militarj' service. (Art.
4; See also law of July 20, 1895.)

One writer has the following to say of the French Senate: —

" Few of the life members survive to-day. When they have disappeared the
French Senate will be a compact body of three hundred men apportioned among
the departments in approximate accordance with population, and chosen in all
cases by bodies of electors all of whom have themselves been elected directly
by the people. . . . From having long been viewed by republicans with
suspicion, the Senate has become to be regarded by Frenchmen generally as
perhaps the most perfect work of the Eepublic (citing J. C. Bracq, France under
the Eepublic, Xew York, 1910, p. 8.). In these days its membership is recruited
very largely from the deputies, so that it includes not only many men of dis-
tinction in letters and science but an unusual proportion of experienced debaters
and parliamentarians. A leading American authority has said that it is
composed of as impressive a body of men as can be found in any l^islative
chamber the world over " (citing Lowell, Governments and Parties, vol. 1, p. 22) ;
from Ogg, The Governments of Europe, pp. 316-317).

Adiustment of Disagreemenis hetween the Houses. — There is no constitutional
provision for the case of disagreements between the two Houses of Parliament. By
their respective regulations a mixed committee of both Houses may be appointed in
such cases to propose terms of agreement or compromise.

GERMANY.

Nurnber. — The number of delegates to the Bundesrath varies. By the Imperial
constitution the fifty-eight votes to which the twenty-five states of the federation are
entitled are apportioned among the states. This is not completely according to popu-
lation, wealth, etc., but is rather arbitrary. Thus, Prussia, with two-thirds of the
population has a scant one-third of the votes (Ogg Governments of Europe, pp. 217-18;
art. 6 of Imperial constitution; Dodd, Modern Constitutions, p. 328). Each state is
authorized, though not required, to send to the Bundesrath a number of delegates
equal to the number of votes to which the state is entitled. (Art. 6.)

Method of Appointment. — The delegates are appointed by the princes of the
monarchical states and by the Senates of the free cities. (Art. Ck)

Term of Office. — Delegates are appointed fresh for each session, and they may be
recalled or replaced at anj' time.

Ogg, in his book on the Governments of Europe, points out that the German
Bundesrath " is not ' au Upper House ' nov even in the ordinary sense a deliber-

10 COySTITUTIOX OF UPPER CHAMBERS

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914

ative chamber at all. On the contrary it is the central institution of the whole
Imperial system and as such it is possessed of a broad combination of functions which
are not only legislative but administrative, consultative, judicial, and diplomatic."

" Legally, and to a large extent, practically, the status of a delegate is that not of
a senator but of a diplomat. They are very commonly officials, frequently ministers,
of the states which they represent."

The members speak and act and vote regularly not at their own discretion but
under specific instructions of the governing authorities by whom they are accredited.
Only rarely do their instructions allow them any considerable measure of indepen-
dence.

The A'otes cast are not votes of the individual members but of the states, and they
are cast indivisible blocks \>\ the delegation of the state regardless of the number of
members in attendance. A single delegate may cast the entire quota of votes to which
his state is entitled.

The Bundesrath may be conveued Ijy the Emperor at auy time aiul there must be
at least one session per year.

The work of the Bundesratli consists largely in the preparation of business for
the Reichstag. Usually all bills originate in the Bundesrath and, strictly speaking,
it is that body which nuikes the law, with merely the assent of the Reichstag.

The Bundesrath has (1) Executive functions : it takes action on administrative
provisions for carrying out laws; issues ordinances; exercises control with the
Emperor over the declaration of war and making of treaties; with the-consent of the
Emperor it may dissolve the Reichstag and its members may be heard on the floor of
the Reichstag; it prepares the annual budget and participates in appointment of
oflicials; (2) Judicial powers: it sits as a Supreme Court of Appeal in certain cases
from state tribunals; is the court of last resort for disputes between the Imperial
riovernnient and the states, or between two states in certain cases. (Ogg, pp. 217-223.)

ALSACE-LORRAINE.

(References are to the constitution of Alsace-Lorraine of May 31, 1911 — in Revue
du Droit Public. 1911, vol. 2S, pp. 4(i5-47l ; to Annual Register, 1911; and to
Ogg, The Governments of Europe.)

A umhei: — There are thirty-six members.

Method of Election and Appointment. — One-half are appointed ex-officio or as
the nominees of public bodies; the other half are nominated by the Emperor. The
first-mentioned class is constituted as follows: The Roman Catholic Bishops of
Strassburg and ^fetz; the Presidents of the controlling bodies of the two branches of
the Evangelical Church; the President of the highest provincial court; a professor
of the University of Strassburg, chosen by the professors of the University; a repre-
sentative of the Jewish faith, chosen by their body; four members elected by the
municipal councils of Strassburg, Metz, Colmar and Mulhausen from among their
number; three by Chambers of Commerce; three by the Agricultural Council; and
one by the Strassburg Handwerkskammer, or League of Guilds. The second class,
who are not to exceed in number the first, are nominated by the Emperor upon the
advice of the (Imperial) Federal Council. (Const., sec. (> ; Annual Register, 1911,
p. 329.)

Term of Office. — Membership in the Upper House of the Diet expires in five
years, or upon a dissolution of the Upper House. (Const., sec. 6; Annual Register.
1911, p. 329.)

(Jualitiratioiis. — In addition to thr (iiialiHcation^ indii-al(d ;ib ivr. all nicinber-
nuist reside in ^Isace-Lorraine and be not less than 30 years of ago. (Const., sec. 6;
Annual Register, 1011, p. 329.)

coysTiTUTioy of ippej: chambers ii

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 246a

All laws require the assent of the Emijeror and the two Chambers of the Diet, and
the biidget of the year must be laid first before the Lower Chamber and must be
accepted or rejected in its entirety by the upper one. (Const., see. 5.) The Tmperor
has the right to summon, to adjourn, and to dissolve, the chambers simultaneously.
(Const., sec. 11; Ogg, p. 286.)

SWITZEELAXD.

(References are to the constitution of the Swiss Federation of May 29, 1874; Dodd,
Modern Constitutions; Ogg, The Governments of Europe.)

Number The Council of States consists of forty-four members. Each canton
appoints two representatives; each half-canton in the case of divided cantons choosing
one . (Const., art. 80; Dodd, vol. 2, p. 278.)

Method of Election; Term of Office; Qualifi cations; Qualification of Electors;
Vacancies; Regulation of Method. — For these matters as well as for the remuneration
of members of the Council of the States there is no provision either in the constitution
or in federal law. They are left wholly to the determination of the individual cantons.
There is, in fact, no uniformity of law in these respects ; in some cantons members are
elected by popular vote; in others by the legislative assembly; in some they are chosen
for one year; in others for two; in still others for three.

Adjustment of Disagreements hetween the Houses. — ^Cases of disagreement are
referred to a joint committee of both Houses, but if the conference does not agree, or
if either House does not accept the proposal made, the measure has to be abandoned.

It should also be noted that the two Houses, representing respectively the federal
and national principles, are nominally co-ordinate in power; that Switzerland does not
have the parliamentary system; and that the " initiative " and " referendum" are part
of the constitutional system, possibly affecting the relations between the Houses.

AUSTRIA-HUXGARY.

For the combined empire-kingdom there is a joint ministry dealing simply with
foreign affairs, war, and finance and a joint meeting in one body of two " delegations,"
one from the Parliament of Austria; the other from that of Hungary. Thus for
Austria-Hungaiy there is no bicameral legislature nor in reality a legislature at all.
But each member of the dual monarchy has its own legislative system.

AUSTRIA.

Number. — The Herrenhaus, or House of Lords, is variable in number. At the
<;lose of 1910 there were 266 (Ogg, The Governments of Europe, p. 465).

Method of Appointment. — The members hold office in part by ex-officio right, in
part by hereditary status, and in part by special Imperial appointment. (Law of
December 21, 1867; see Dodd, Modern Constitutions, vol. 1, p. 75.) The various
elements, with their respective numbers in 1910 (from Ogg, p. 465), are as follows —

(1) Princes of the Imperial family who are of age, 15. (Sec. 2) ;

(2) Nobles of high rank qualified by the possession of large estates and
nominated to an hereditary seat by the Emperor, 74. (Sec. 3) ;

(3) Ecclesiastics of princely title inherent in their episcopal seats, 10
archbishops and 8 bishops. (Sec. 4) ; and

12 CONSTITUTION OF UPPER CH AMBERS

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914

(4) Persons nominated by the Emperor for life in recognition of special
service rendered to the State or Church or unusual distinction attained in
literature or science, 159. (Sec. 5.)

By the law of January 26, 1907, the number of members in the last-
mentioned group may not exceed 170 nor be less than 150. Within these limits
the power of the Emperor to create life peers is absolute. The prerogative has
been used several times to facilitate the passage of measures the Government
was bent on. (Ogg, p. 466.)

The privileges and powers of the Herrenhaus are co-ordinate with those of the
Abgeordnetenhaus, save that Money Bills and Bills fixing the number of military
recruits must be presented first in the Lower Chamber. (Ogg, p. 465.)

HUNGARY.

Number. — The Table of Magnates (Forendihaz) is variable in number. At the
session of 1910-11 it had 387 members. (Ogg, The Governments of Europe, p. 492.)

Method of Appointment. — The membership is exceedingly complex, resting on the
various principles of hereditary right, ex-officio qualification, royal nomination, and
election. It is essentially a perpetuation of the ancient Table of Magnates which in
the 16th century began to sit separately as an aristocratic body. Law VII of 1885,
altering the organization of the Table of Magnates (see Dodd, Modern Constitutions,
vol. 1, pp. 100-104), embodies with slight modifications the traditional composition of
the Chamber. (Ogg, p. 492.) Under this law the members (witli their respective
numbers in 1910-11 as given by Ogg) are those who sit by virtiu»:

(1) Of hereditary right; archdukes of the royal family of full age, 16; and
male members of the Hungarian nobility of 24 years of age with property
qualification, that is, paying a land tax of 6,000 cro%vns annually, 236 (sees. 1, 2) ;

(2) Of their rank or office; curators of the Crown, standard bearers of the
Kingdom, 15; presidents of the Supreme Court, 2; dignitaries of the Roman
Catholic and Oriental Greek Churches, 42; representatives of the Protestant
Churches, 13 (sees. 1, 4);

(3) Of their appointment for life by the King, made on the proposal of the
Council of Ministers in recognition of merit, 60. The number appointed for life
hereafter is not to exceed 30 (sees. 1, 5) ;

(4) Of election by the Diet of Croatia-Slavonia. 3 (sec. 1).

Hungary has what amounts to the parliamentary system, with responsible govern-
ment. Its constitution like the English is embodied in a maze of ancient statutes and
customs and is the distinctive creation of a people posse-^sed of a rare genius for
politics and government.

In practice the Upper House is distinctly subordinate to tlie Lower, to which
alone the Ministers are responsible. Any member may acquire by due process of
election a seat in the Lower Chamber and the privilege is one of which many peers are
not reluctant to avail themselves. Upon election to the Lower House a peer's right to
sit in the Upper Chamber is of course suspended, but when the term of service in the
popular branch has expired the prior rank is revived automatically. '^Ogg. 489-493.)

COXSTITUTION OF UPPER CHAMBERS 13

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 246a

ITALY.

(References are to the constitution, or statuto fondamentale del Regno, granted
March 4, 1848, by King Charles Albert to his Piedmontese subjects and con-
tinued through the Italian union and down to the present without change;
Dodd, Modern Constitutions; Ogg, The Governments of Europe.)

Numher. — There is no limit to the number of members who may be appointed to
the Senate (Senato). In 1910 there were 383.

Term of Oijice. — The term is for life. (Const., art. 33.)

Method of Appomtrnent; Qu-alification. — Senators are appointed by the King.
He is restricted by the necessity of taking all appointees from twenty-one stipulated
classes of citizens, which may be reduced broadly to three

(1) High officials of Church and State;

(2) Persons of fame. in science or literature, or who by any kind of services
or merit have brought distinction to the country ; and

(3) Persons who for at least three years have paid direct property or
business taxes to the amount of $600.

Adjustment of Disagreements hetween the Houses. — There is no provision for

the settlement of disputes between the Chambers. But, as seen, there is no limitation
on the number who may be appointed to the Senate, and it said that on several
occasions the prerogative of appointment has been exercised for the specific purpose
of influencing the political complexion of the upper chamber. (Ogg, p. 369.)

The same writer observes that Italy has the Parliamentary system — perhaps
nearer to the English than any other European country.

Proposed Reform of the Senate. — A commission appointed to study reform of
the Senate reported in 1910. It proposed a carefully-considered scheme for the popu-
larizing and strengthening of the senatorial body. The substance of the plan was in
brief : —

(1) That the chamber should henceforth be composed of 350 members ;

(2) That the membership should be divided into three categories, desig-
nated respectively as officials, men of science and education, and men of politi-
cal or economic status ; and

(3) That members of the first category, not to exceed 120, should be
appointed, as are all members at present, by the Crown; but members of the
other two should be elected by fifteen special colleges so constituted that their
membership would represent actual and varied groups of interests throughout
the nation. The professors of the universities, for example, organized for the
purpose as an electoral college, should be authorized to choose a contingent of
thirty representatives. Other elements to be admitted to a definite partici-
pation in the elections should include former deputies, large taxpayers, pro-
vincial and communal assemblies, chambers of commerce, agricultural societies

and workingmen's associations. The primary idea of those who proposed the
scheme was that through its adoption there would be established a vital con-
tact between the Senate and the varied forces that contribute to the life of
the nation.

The Senate voted not to approve the commission's report. It is said to be not
improbable, however, that some such plan of modernization as was prepared by the
Commission of 1910 eventually will be reached. (Ogg, pp. 373-4.)

14 CONSTITUTION OF UPPER CHAMBEIiS

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914
NORWAY.

(References are to the Eidsvold Constitution of Xov. 4, 1814, wliicli iiiaj' Ijc found in
Dodd, Modern Constitutions, vol. 2, p. 123; and to Ogg, tlio Governments of
Europe.)

Number. — The Lagthing, or Upper House, consists of one-fourth of the total
number of members elected to the Storthing (i.e.. Parliament as a whole). The whole
number is 123; the number of the Lagthing therefore 31. (Const., art. 73 ; Ogg, p. 581.)

Method of Election. — Members are chosen simply to the Storthing, or Parliament,
as a whole. There are forty-one urban and eighty-two rural districts and each district
returns one member. (Art. 57-59.) At its first regular session following a general
election the Storthing divides itself into two chambers. A fourth of its membership
is selected by the Storthing to constitute the Lagthing (the remaining three-fourths
compromise the Odelsthing). This division holds until the succeeding election.
(Const., art. 73; Ogg, p. 581-3.)

Elections to the Storthing are direct. Each political unit having a municipal
government of its own comprises a voting precinct. If at the first ballot no candidate
in the district receives a majority of all the votes cast, a second ballot is taken, when a
simple plurality is decisive. (Art. 59 ; Ogg, 582.)

Term of Office. — Elections take place every third year. (Art. 54.)

Qualifications. — A representative must be 30 years old, a resident within the
kingdom for ten years, and, unless he has been a Minister or Councillor of State, a
qualified voter in the election district for which he is chosen. (Art. 61.)

Qualifications of Electors. — There is universal manhood suffrage and a large
measure of female suffrage. (Art. 50; Ogg, p. 581.)

Adjustment of Disagreements hetiveen the Houses. — The structure of this legis-
lature, comprising essentially a single body, which, however, for purely legislative
purposes is divided into two chambers or sections, is unique and it represents a curious
cross between the principles of unicameral and bicameral organization. All Bills are
presented first in the Odelsthing. Only in the event that a measure passes the Odels-
thing is it presented at all in the Lagthing, the sole function of the latter being to
act as a check upon the larger chamber. The Lagthing may either approve or reject
but may not amend Bills. A measure rejected is returned with reasons for rejection.
Three courses are then open to the Odelsthing: to drop the measure, to submit it in
amended form, or to re-submit it unchanged. When a Bill has been twice presented
to the Lagthing and twice rejected the two chambers are convened in joint session and
in this consolidated body proposals are carried by a two-thirds vote.

Norway has the parliamentary system.

SWEDEN.

Number. — The Upper House of the Riksdag consists of 150 members. (Ogg, p. 59;
Dodd, vol. 2, p. 232.)

Method of Election. — The members are chosen by ballot after the principle of
proportional representation, by the twenty-five Landsthings or provincial assemblies,
and by the corporations of five of the largest towns. These electoral bodies are
arranged in six groups, in one of which an election takes place in September of every
year. Their own election to office is direct, and on the proportional system. (Ogg, p.
591-592; Dodd, vol. 2, p. 232.)

COySTITl'TIOX OF UPPER CHAMBERS 15

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 246a

Term of Office. — The term is six years, part of the Chamber being elected every
year as shown above. (Ogg, p. 591.)

Qualifications. — A member must be of Swedish birth, 35 years old, and during the
three years prior to his election must have owned taxable property valued at 50,000
kroner or paid taxes on an annual income of at least 3,000 kroner.

Adjustment of Disagreements between the Houses. — Both Houses have an equal
competence in legislation and finance, but financial disputes are submitted to a common
vote of both Houses sitting together, and in this joint sitting the 230 members of the
Lower Chamber have the majority.

It is said that the responsibility of ministers lies so much more directly to the
King than to the legislature that what is commonly understood as the parliamentary
system can hardly be said to exist in Sweden. (Ogg, p. 501.)

THE SECOXD CHAMBER PROBLEM IN GE]\^ERAL.

A more exhaustive survey of the constitution and practice of Second Chambers
than is within the scope of this paper may be had by reference to the appended biblio-
graphy. This list of authorities will be found also to com^irehend the best critical
consideration of the general Second Chamber problem, showing the operation of the
various systems and in what respects defects and difficulties have made themselves
manifest.

" The most striking general fact," one observer says, " is that practically every-
where there is a recognized Second Chamber problem, and nowhere has that problem
been solved. Everywhere there is dissatisfaction and irritation, a feeling that the
secret of combining constitutional stability with legislative efficiency has not yet been
discovered. A large number of experiments have been and are being tried, bvit the
most that can be said for the best of them is that they give a little less general
dissatisfaction than the rest." But to undertake to state the defects and difficulties
that have manifested themselves is in reality to go about an inquiry into what
constitutes the ideal Second Chamber. This is to enter a field that is peculiarly one of
opinion, and one moreover in which political temper and theories of the social union
play a large part, l^or is opinion on the subject susceptible of statement or summariza-
tion in general, universal propositions ; for each system, for each country, the question
is conditioned by its own setting of tradition, of habit, of political thinking and so on.
For these reasons it would seem of extremely doubtful value to attempt to recapitulate
here what has been written on the subject. Reference is therefore made to the following
works as affording opportunity for an independent and thorough survey of the
question : —

Select Bibliography of Second Chamber Theory a.xd Practice.

(See " The New Statesman," Second Chamber Supplement, February 7, 1914, Vol. 2,
No. 44.)

Works on the Theory of Second Chambers and Hereditary Legislation.

Eotvos, Baron Joseph. Die Herrschenden Ideen des Lctzten Jahrhunderts auf den

Staat. Vol. n, bk. Ill, c. xiii. Leipzig, 1854.
Galton, Sir Francis. Hereditary Genius. Macmillan, 1S92.
Lecky, "W. E. H. Democracy and Liberty, 1899. Cheap edition, Longmans.
MacDonald, J. Ramsay. Socialism and Government. National Labour Press, 1909.

2 vols.
Maine, Sir H. S. Popular Government, 1885. Cheap edition. Routledge.
Mill. J. S. Representative Government, 1861. In Dent's " Everyman Series."
Muir, Ramsay. Peers and Bureaucrats: two problems. Constahle, 1910.

16 COXSTITUTlOy OF IFPER CHAMBERS

4-5 GEORGE V.. A. 1914
Works dealing with particular Second Chambers.

Lowell, A. L. The Government of England. Second edition. Maemillan, 1912.

McKechnie, W. S. Eeform of the House of Lords. Maclehose, 1909.

Morgan, J. II. The House of Lords and the Constitution. Methuen, 1910.

Pike, L. O. A Constitutional History of the House of Lords. Maemillan, 1894.

Eoseberry, Lord. The Reform of the House of Lords. Humphreys, 1910.

Selborne, Lord. The State and the Citizen. Warne, 1913.

Weinstein, E. Les Conflits des Cliambres en Angleterre et en France. 1910.

Wontner, Adrian. The Lords: their History and Po^A■crs, with special reference to
Money Bills and Veto. 1910.

Wylie, J. The House of Lords. Fisher Unwin, 1909.

Report of the Committee on the House of Lords. Wyman, 190S.

Resolutions relating to the Reconstitution of the House of Lords. Wyman, 1908.

Brand, Hon. H. R. The Union of South Africa. Oxford University Press, 1909.

Bryce, James (Lord). The American Commonwealth. New edition. 2 vols. Mae-
millan, 1911.

Works dealing with Second CiiAiiBERs in General.

Alston, Leonard. Modern Constitutions in Outline, Longmans, 1905.

Bourgeaud, C. Adoption and Amendment of Constitutions in Europe and America.

Maemillan, 1895.
Dareste, F. R. and P. Les Constitutions Modernes. Recueil des constitutions en

vigueur dans les divers Etats d'Europe, d'Amerique, et du monde civilise. 3rd

edition. 2 vols. Paris: Challamel, 1910.
Dodd, W. F. (Editor). Modern Constitutions. 2 vols. Cambridge University Press,

1909.
Egerton, H. E. Origin and Growth of the English Colonies and of their System of

Government. Oxford University Press, 1903.
Flandin, E. Institutions Politiques d'Europe Contemporaine. 1906-9. 4 vols. Paris.
Jenkyns, Sir II. British Rule and Jurisdiction beyond the Seas. Oxford University

Press, 1902,
Lowell, A. L. Governments and Parties in Continental Europe. 2 vols. Longmans,

1900.
Ogg, F. A. The Governments of Europe. Maemillan, 1913.
Rainbow Circle. Second Chambers in Practice. King, 1911.
Temperley, H. W. V. Senates and Upper Chambers. Chapman & Hall, 1910.
Thibault, C. Morizot. Des Droits des Chambrcs Hautes ou Senats en Maticre des Lois

de Finance. 1891.
Reports respecting the Composition and Functions of Second or Upper Chambers in

Foreign States. 1908. Cd. 3824.
Return respecting Second Chambers in the Legislatures of the Self-governing

Dominions. 1910. 81.
" The New Statesman," Second Chamber Supplement, February 7, 1914, vol. 2, No. 44.

4 GEORGE V.

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 252

A. 1914

REPORT

OF

THE ROYAL COMMISSION

ON

PENITENTIARIES

PRINTED BY ORDER OF PARLIAMENT.

OTTAWA

PRINTED BY J. he L. TACHE, PRINTER TO THE KING'S MOST

EXCELLENT MAJESTY

1914

252—1

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No, 252 A. 1914

CONTENTS.

I — Introduction.

Terms of Commission, etc.

Purpose of Penitentiary.

Buildings.

Convict's Experience.

Women's Department.

School.

Hospital and Insane Ward.

Punitive Features.

Punishments.

II — Conduct of Officers and Employees.

Ill — Punishment or Reform.
Origin of Prison Eeform.
Classification.
First Offenders.
Industries.
State Use System.
Payment of Prisoners.
Indeterminate Sentence.
Parole.

Management of Penitentiaries.
Recommendations.

252— li

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 252 A. 1914

REPORT OF ROYAL COMMISSION ON PENITENTIARIES.

HONOUHABLE C. J. DOHERTY,

Minister of Justice,
Ottawa, Out.

SiRj, — Your Commissioners, appointed by Order in Council, August 25, 1913,
to investigate the state and management of the Kingston Penitentiary, &c., have the
honour to present their report.

The terms of the commission, as set forth in the report of the Committee of the
Privy Council, are as follows : —

The Committee of the Privy Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of
Justice, advise that GEORGE MILNES MACDONNELL, K.C., of Kingston;
FREDERICK ETHERINGTON, M.D., of Kingston, and JOSEPH PATRICK
DOWNEY, of Orillia, be appointed Commissioners under the provisions of Part 11
of the Inquiries Act, to investigate and report upon the following matter: —

(a) The state and management of the Kingston Penitentiary;

(6) The conduct of the officers and employees of said penitentiary, so far
as the same relates to their official duties, and

(c) Generally, the subject of the conduct and administration of peniten-
tiaries, including such methods as may conduce to the permanent reformation
of the convicts, and, without prejudice to the punishment which convicts should
properly undergo and without undue burden upon the public funds, tend to
mitigate as far as may be found possible the sufferings entailed by their con-
finement upon those dependent upon them.

Provided that the inquiries under paragraphs (a) and (b) shall not extend
back over a longer period than five years, except insofar as the commissioners
may deem it desirable, in the public interest, to inquire into any particular
matter or matters antecedent to such period.

Pursuant to the foregoing instructions, we began our sittings at Kingston on
September 19, 1913, and continued them at intervals until March 27, 1914. The wit-
nessses examined included the Inspectors of Penitentiaries, officers and guards and
ex-employees of the Kingston Penitentiary and several inmates of the prison. Ses-
sions were also held at Toronto, where evidence on the general question of prison
management was adduced.

To acquaint themselves with the methods employed in other prisons, your Com-
missioners visited some of the leading penal institutions of the United States. These
included the State Prison at Stillwater, Minnesota; Farm Colony, Cleveland, Ohio;
State Reformatory, Mansfield, Ohio; House of Correction, Detroit, Michigan; State
Reformatory, Concord, Mass.; State Prison, Charlestown, Mass.; Women's Reform-
atory, Framingham, Mass.; State Prison, Auburn, N.Y.; and State Reformatory,
Elmira, N.Y. We also had the privilege of inspecting the Provincial Reformatory
at Guelph. At all these institutions, your Commissioners were treated by the war-
dens and other officials with the greatest kindness and courtesy and every facility
was cheerfully afforded them for prosecuting their investigation. Profitable inter-
views were also had with leading authorities not actually engaged in prison adminis-
tration. Among these, we may mention Dr. Charles R. Henderson, Esq., American

6

6 REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSIOX ON PEXITENTIARIES

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

Representative at the International Prison Congress; Dr. Healy of the Juvenile Psy-
chicatric Clinic, Chicago; Hon. Harris B. Cooley, Commissioner of Public Welfare,
Cleveland; Frank M. Randall, Chairman of Prison Commission, T. M. Osborne,
Chairman of New York Prison Commission, Dr. E. Stagg Whitin, Secretary New
York Prison Commission; Hon. W. J. Hanna, Provincial Secretary, Ontario; S. A.
Armstrong, Esq., Assistant Provincial Secretary; Dr. Bruce Smith, Inspector of
Prisons and Hospitals; Dr. C. K. Clarke, Superintendent, Toronto General Hospital;
Major Eraser of the Prisoners' Aid Department of the Salvation Army, and Colonel
Irvine, Warden of the Kingston Penitentiary.

The views of organized labour on the industrial phase of the question were ably
presented by J. C. Watters, Esq., President of the Dominion Trades and Labour Con-
gress; James Watt, Esq., President, and R. J. Stephenson, Esq., delegate of the
Trades and Labour Council of Toronto. To all these gentlemen, your Commissioners
desire to return sincere thanks for their valued information and assistance.

THE PURPOSE OF KINGSTON' PENITENTIARY.

On the 6th of March, 1834, the Parliament of Upper Canada passed an Act "for
the maintenance and government of the Provincial Penitentiary opened near King-
ston." An extract from the preamble of this Act reads as follows : —

" Whereas, if many offenders convicted of crimes were ordered to solitary
imprisonment, accompanied by well-regulated labour and religious instruction,
it might be a means, under Providence, not only of deterring others from the
commission of like crimes but also of reforming the individual and inuring
them to habits of industry, etc., etc."

The institution remained under the control of the old Provincial Parliament until
Confederation, when it was assumed by the Federal Government and became a prison
for long-term offenders. From the date of its establishment down to the present time,
the terms of the Act, as far as the treatment of the inmates is concerned, appear to have
been fairly well carried out. Solitary imprisonment, labour and religious instructions
have been the only agencies employed for the reclamation of the unfortunates. The
first of these three has always been a prominent feature of the discipline. Probably in
no prison on the continent do the working population spend as many hours alone in
their cells as they do in our Dominion penitentiaries. They leave their cells to work
and they return to them to eat and meditate and sleep. On Sundays the single break
in the monotony of life in the cell is the hour of Divine service, and when a holiday
falls on Monday that hour is the only relief enjoyed for two whole days and two nights.
We feel, therefore, we are justified in saying that the theory of " solitary imprison-
ment " as a deterrent and a reformative agency has been given a thorough trial in our
penitentiaries.

Labour, the second corrective influence stipulated in the Act, has also been rigidly
insisted upon. Years ago, when there was a system of productive industries in the
penitentiaries, the intention of the Act to provide "well-regulated labour" was, no
doubt, fairly carried out. The abandonment of these industries has made it physically
impossible to employ the population at " well-regulated labour." The only excuse for
the stone pile, for the product of which there is no pressing need, is that there is no
otlier way of keeping the men at work. The idea that the prisoners must work at hard
lalxnir all the time they are outside their cells, even if the product of their labour is
of no value, has been carried to the extreme. It was urge*! by one of the inspectors,
as an excuse for not giving a reasonable period to the education of the illiterate during
the day time, that the school would interfere with the labour of the prison. If an hour

REPORT OF THE ROYAL "COMMISSIOX OX PEXITEXTIARIES 7

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 252

or two every day were given up to school for some and exercise in the yard for others,
less stones would be broken, 'tis true. But some men, whose spirits are being crushed,
and whose manhood is being debased, might be saved to future good citizenship if a
civilizing help in the way of a school or a breath of the open air each day could be
introduced to brighten their lives.

The religious instruction contemplated by the Act has been faithfully given by a
Protestant and a Eoman Catholic chaplain. Worthy and devoted men have been and
now are in charge of this work, and insofar as spiritual ministrations can have a good
effect amid conditions calculated largely to develop moroseness and resentment, they
are doing good work.

THE BUILDINGS.

The buildings of the Kingston Penitentiary are of limestone, taken from the insti-
tutional quarries. The main building, which is situated in the centre of the plot, has
three cell blocks — east, west, and south wings — completed. The north wing, now
occupied as officers' quarters, is to be reconstructed for a cell block. The east and west
blocks have 152 cells each; the south, 144. Attached to the east wing is an hospital
with 36 cells. On the extremity of the west wing are the kitchen and bake-room, and
above the latter the Protestant and Roman Catholic chapels. The female prison is in
an enclosure west of the main entrance, and is well isolated from the other building's.
South of the main building are the workshops, built in the form of a cross. These
comprise, in the west wing, a stone-cutting shop on ground floor, tailorshop and shoe
shop above. In the east wing is the blacksmith shop with the carpenters, tinsmiths
and painters on the second' floor. The boiler-house and dynamo rooms occupy the
north wing; and the laundry and change rooms the south. On the west of the rectangle
separating the cell houses from the shops is the hospital of the insane, with 46 cells;
while the prison of isolation, with a capacity of 114, is on the opposite side of the yard.
Behind the prison of isolation the stone-breaking shed is situated.

In the interior construction, what is known as the Auburn system has been closely
followed. The cell blocks are in the centre, with the corridors on the outside. The
chief argument in favour of the inside cell is the added security which two walls, or
sets of bars, afford. From the hygienic standpoint, outside cells are to be preferred,
as they are more easily ventilated and have direct sunlight instead of being lighted
from the corridor. The only example of the outside cell construction that your Com-
missioners were privileged to observe was at the Provincial Reformatory at Guelph,
which promises to become the model prison of this continent.

The cells throughout the institution have, under the direction of Inspector Stewart,
been enlarged, proper sanitary equipment installed, and the lighting and ventilation
improved. With the exception of the hospital and asylum divisions, which are dealt
with elsewhere, the cells blocks are as good as the structural character of the building
will permit. All the cells were clean and the bedding ijroperly looked after. The cells
in the prison of isolation are superior to those in the central cell house.

The conditions in the workshops were found to be fairly satisfacto^5^ Like the
rest of the buildings they are old style structure and their lighting and ventilation
could be improved. The ceilings are high and there was no evidence of congestion of
workers in any particular shop. To this statement, exception must be made in the
case of the stone-breaking shop. Every feature of that department was bad. The
atmosphere was charged with stone dust and there was apparently no adequate provi-
sion for carrj'ing it away. The closets, situated at one end of the buildings, were
poorly constructed and foul-smelling. Over seventy prisoners, some of them mere
boys, were at work in this department when the Commissioners made their visits.
They were arranged in rows, facing each other, and the stone to be broken was piled
in a long heap between them. As the raw material was reduced to the required size,
fresh supplies were wheeled in by tenders from the yard. There was perfect order

8 REPORT OF TEE ROYAL COMMISSION ON PENITENTIARIES

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

among the men. Not a word was spoken. But the monotonous raps of the hammers,
the sullen, whitened faces of the forms, half crouching over their imhealthy, unprofit-
able, degrading tasks, were a mute but powerful denunciation of the system that per-
mitted, or rendered necessary, such an outrage. Nothing has been said, nothing can
be said, in defence of this twentieth century reproduction of the unceasing moil of the
galley-slave.

A convict's experience.

To give an idea of the regulations of a Canadian penitentiary, it might be well to
follow a convict through some phases of his experience. When he arrives at the
prison, he is taken before the warden for an interview and then handed over to the chief
keeper. That officer records his measurements and other physical characteristics in a
book kept for the purpose. The personal belongings, jewelery, money, etc., of the pri-
soner are inventoried. Then he is put in charge of the chief keeper's officer for a bath,
hair crop and shave. Finally he is dressed in the prison garb with his number on the
back of his coat.

Assigned his cell, the convict takes his place in the routine of the prison. He rises
at six-thirty in the morning, washes himself, makes his bed, and at seven marches out
for breakfast. This he receives in a tin vessel as he moves with the line past the serv-
ing boards in the kitchen. Returning to the cell, he eats his meal with a spoon. Knives
and forks are not allowed. As he goes out to work, he deposits his dish and spoon in the
kitchen. At noon he takes up his dinner as he passes to his cell. There he pulls the
meat apart with his fingers, eats it, and carries back the empty vessel to the kitchen as
he goes to work. When he quits his labours at night, the performance is repeated.
He snatches his supper on his way to the cell and there remains until the following
morning. Silence is the rule throughout the day. He must not speak to an officer or
fellow convict while at work " except from necessity or with respect to the work." He
must not speak nor look around while in line and of course he has no one to speak to
in his cell. Thus the man's life in prison is divided between the cell and work shop or
stone pile, with not even a break in the monotony at meal time. In his cell he is not
allowed pictures or photographs of his relatives; he is not allowed to have or read a
newspaper, but he is furnished books from the prison library. K he is unable to read,
he must put in fourteen hours of each day alone, sleeping or meditating. On Sunday,
the whole day — with the exception of one hour for Divine service — is spent in the cell,
and when a holiday falls on Monday, he celebrates it with an additional twenty-four
hours of solitary confinement.

A convict whose conduct is satisfactory may receive visits from members of his
family once in three months and may write to members of his family once in two
months. He may " receive letters from relatives or friends, but such letters must be
short and devoted exclusively to family or business matters." No enclosure such as
newspaper clippings, pictures, cards, stamps, etc., are delivered. Christmas boxes,
hampers or packages of fruit, food, or confectionei-y are not permitted to be sent to
the prison."

Thus it will be seen the daily round of the penitentiary offers little to stimulate or
encourage the well-disposed convict. On the contrary, its silence and solitude must
breed moroseuess and resentfulness. One convict said to us (page ) : "If a man

is battered down until he feels that he is nothing much more above the beast, how can
you expect him to go out feeling better? It requires a very strong will to keep you
from feeling that you arc fijiished."

The remission of sentence for good conduct offers some encouragement. This is
determined by the warden, and is not allowed until after the expiry of the first six
months of imprisonment. A report for any infringement of the regulations may lose
the prisoner his remission.

THE DEPARTMENT FOR WOMEN.

The dozen women prisoners are housed in a new and suitable building, separate
and distinct from all other buildings. It appears that this department is conducted

REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION O'S PENITENTIARIES 9

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 252

in a satisfactory roanner. Yet it should be stated that the interests of all concerned
would be best served if these few inmates were transferred to an institution for women.
It may be possible that, as has been suggested elsewhere in this report, in connection
with certain other classes, arrangements might be made with the provincial authorities
for the custody of all female offenders.

THE SCHOOL.

The indifferent attempt to improve the illiterate at Kingston Penitentiary can
scarcely be dignified by the name of school. On four days in the week, the convicts
who are disposed to attend class are lined up, when they have finished their dinner at
12.15, and marched to the school. They have to be back in their cells at one o'clock,
so that half an hour, or at most not more than forty minutes, is available for their
instruction each day. The reasons given why the time for school is taken from the noon
rest hour are: (1) That the judge who commits a man to the penitentiary 'condemns
him to hard labour and sentences him not to go to school,' and (2) that it woidd be
discrimination to send some convicts to school during working hours and leave the
others at their regular labour (Inspector Stewart, page ). This view is supported
on the theory that it is not the duty of the State to give education to the illiterate
who find their way into prison; they are sent to prison to labour and they must put
in the regular hours of work, whether there is any value in the product of their labour
or not. From this view your Commissioners emphatically dissent. The lack of
elementary education may have been a contributing factor to the downfall of many
prisoners. At any rate, it is a serious handicap in life and must be felt with particular
severity by the man who, quitting prison and weighted with the burden that incar-
ceration has left upon him, is anxious to make an honest living. What we have said
elsewhere must be repeated here : The State's duty to the prisoner does not end with
his punishment; it should employ all reasonable means to reform him and make him
an honest contributor to the wealth of the nation, instead of continuing a charge upon
its financial resources. On no higher ground than the material interests of the State,
the education of illiterate young prisoners is, therefore, desirable. But the humani-
tarian side of the question cannot be ignored. If we are to maintain our penitentiaries
as schools of crime, all education — intellectual and industrial — should be barred.
Ignorance and inefficiency and a penitentiary experience must broaden the way that
leads to a confirmed criminal career. On the other hand, the school in prison has
opened the door of hope to many a convict. When he learns to read and write he is
laying the foundation of a self dependence that, strengthened by honest resolves, wiU
be a strong inspiration to him to live a better life. Fail he may, and fail many of them
do, but it is our duty to give him a fair chance in the hard struggle for rehabilitation.

There does not appear to be much force in the objection that a school during
working hours means discrimination against those who do not require education.
The prejudice against special treatment for any prisoner or class of prisoners has
existed since the days of the treadmill. Then all went through the same monotonous
daily grind. The inauguration of diversified prison industries began the era of dis-
crimination, for it became necessary that some men should do disagreable work
while others were engaged at attractive occupations. There is discrimination in
every one of our penitentiaries to-day, and this discrimination becomes more pro-
nounced if we are to offer any encouragement to the man who is anxious to improve
himself and adjust his future life to the requirements of law and order.

A school during the afternoon, taking two classes each day, would meet the situa-
tion. The teacher's time might be occupied with other duties during the morning.
These are details, however, that can be easily worked out, once it is decided to establish
a proper school in each penitentiary.

10 REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION OX PENITENTIARIES

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914
THE DEPARTMENT FOR THE INSANE.

On the occasion of their first visit to the Insane Ward, your Commissioners were
surprised to find, on a beautiful September afternoon, some forty patients congre-
gated in one room. When the guards were asked why these men were not taken out
for exercise, no satisfactory reply was forthcoming. This and subsequent evidence
seemed to indicate that in relation to the care of the insane, the course followed was
the one which gave the least amount of trouble to those in charge. Indeed, a cursory
inspection and inquiry were sufficient to show that in regard to accommodation,
medical oversight and general care and treatment, a thorough investigation was
needed. In order to obtain an expert opinion upon these matters. Dr. E. H. Young,
Assistant Superintendent of Rockwood Hospital for the Insane, was engaged to make
a special report. From this report, we quote :

" Condition of Insane Ward.

" The building in which the insane are at present housed is, in my opinion,
entirely unsuited to the purpose for which it is used. It is defective in struc-
tural arrangement, lacking in nursing and medical facilities and devoid of
means of providing occupation. The physical condition of the patients shows
the effect of improper diet, insufficient exercise and fresh air. Each patient is
locked in his cell, without proper sanitary conveniences from 4 p.m. to 7 a.m. ;
the door of each cell is simply a grating, and there is no provision for the isola-
tion and care of noisy and filthy patients. There is no provision
for the proper classification of patients, all of whom are gathered together in
'a large day room, the acute with the chronic, the old and helpless with the
impulsive and violent, the lucid with the demented."

As long ago as 1886, a British alienist, Dr. Hack Tuke, made the observation
that " for criminals of the worst class this building is no doubt admirably suited, but
it is astonishing that it should have been constructed for lunatics in recent times."

The Warden, in his annual report for 1908, described the conditions in these
words: "To this miserable abode, the most antiquated of our prison structures, are
consigned the irresponsible unfortunates whose crimes led to insanity or whose insanity
led to crime. The cells remain as thej' were originally constructed, while every other
cell-block has been demolished and rebuilt with compartments twice the size of the old
one and equipped according to modern ideas of sanitation and comfort. This ward
for the insane runs parallel with the prison wall between which and the buildings runs
the exercise yard allotted to the inmates. Stone wall to the right of them, stone wall
to the left of them, stone wall in any direction they may look unless they look upward
to the sky. In winter and during inclement weather, the few hours they are released
from their cells they spend in one large, dingy, unsanitars- room where they mingle
promiscuously, with no entertainment except reading and jilaying checkers. They have
no hospital oversight, no trained attendants, nothing in fact but prison police who
lock and unlock the doors and follow them into the yard and back again to their cells
in endless, monotonous routine. The medical superintendent, who is prison surgeon,
makes a hurried call once a day (Sundays excepted), this constituting the whole care
and treatment of the criminal insane."

There was no attempt made in any quarter to question the truth of these state-
ments.

From Dr. Phelan's examination re Dr. Young's report. Page :

" Q. To the substance of this report you have no objection? — A. To the
main substance I have no objection."

REPORT OF TEE ROYAL COMMISSIOX OX PEyiTEXTIARIES 11

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 252

And iu a communication to the Commission the surgeon states : —

'"' I also agree with the remarks in reference to the unsuitable character of
the present building and its surroundings and the impossibility it presents to
the proper housing, segregation and treatment of the insane convicts."
Further, he says : —

" It must be admitted that the system and conditions at present existing in
the Kingston Pentientiary generally are in a great measure behind the times,
and that such reformation must necessarily be made as will be in consonance
with improved methods."
Inspector Stewart tacitly admits the correctness of these views: —

" Q. The building in which the insane are housed is entirely imsuited for
the purpose for which it is used? — A. I did not think it was suitable and I
believe suitable provision cannot be made within the walls of the penitentiary.

'" Q. Don't you think you should have urged more strongly the improvement
of these conditions? — A. I do not think insane men should be kept in there."
And again he says : —

" I admit they (i.e., the conditions) are not right, but I do not believe the
men (i.e.^ insane should be here at all."

There is admittedly a close relationship between mental deficiency and insanity
and crime. The proportion of defectives shown by an investigation reported by the
Eussell Sage Foundation in the Reformatories of Xew York, New Jersey and Illinois,
is thirty per cent. In the Bedford Eeformatory for women, the Industrial Schools
of Lancaster, etc., and Baltimore, one-half the number of inmates is found to be defec-
tive. In our country, this aspect of the question of crime has received no considera-
tion. No care is taken to ensure the detection of defectives and no provision is made
for their custody or training. They are not understood by the court or prison ofiicers.
They are sentenced, discharged and resentenced, at great expense to the country.
When free they reproduce their kind, often in large numbers — in prison they prove
a source of constant worry and render the maintenance of prison discipline difficult
or impossible.

As a result of the findings of a Royal Commission, the British Parliament has
enacted legislation which provides for the custody of this class. See Mental Deficiency
Act, 1913, sections 8 and 9, which provide: —

" that in the case a convicted criminal is found, on medical evidence, to be
a defective within the meaning of the Act, the Court may order him to be
detained in an institution for defectives, and in the case of criminals undergoing
penal servitude, who are found on medical evidence to be defective, they may
be placed in an institution for defectives."

These questions press for consideration and the first step should be the employ-
ment of a physician trained in psychiatry, who could advise the Government in regard
to these and associated questions.

Your Commissioners unreservedly condemn the provisions made for the care and
treatment of the insane at this institution, the only one in the country which is sup-
posed to be especially equipped for such a class. The conditions are primitive, indeed.
" It is defective in structural arrangements, lacking in nursing and medical facilities,
and devoid of any means of providing occupation." This is a bald statement of fact,
and many an unfortunate must have been deprived of a fair chance of recovery by
reason of the State's unpardonable neglect.

Further, we find that the insane inmates have not received the attention which
their state demanded, and, in some instances, they have been subjected to unjustifi-
able punishments.

Proof of the first particular is given by the warden in his report of 1908, quoted
above, and in the evidence of the surgeon (page ) : —

12 REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON PENITENTIARIES

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

" Q. What special treatment are the insane convicts in the prison receiv-
ing?— A. They are not receiving any special treatment.

" Q. Are they receiving any different treatment from other convicts ? —
A. They are receiving just about the same treatment.

" Q. And any different treatment they receive would be from a disciplin-
ary, rather than from a medical standpoint? — A. Yes."
Page : —

" Q. Do you only see those who report for the sick parade ? — A. I ask for
the others, and ask about their symptoms and anything to inform me.

" Q. What is the average number a day that you see ? — A. I could not
tell you.

"Q. We could tell from the book?— A. Yes.

" Q. Two or three a day seems to be the average? — A. Yes.

" Q. How often do you see every man ? — A. I do not see them very often.

" Q. How do you keep in touch with the progress of the disease? — A. I
inquire regarding their symptoms.

" Q. From whom ? — A. The keeper.

" Q. What does he know? — A. He knows their conduct and it is by conduct
that we judge the insane condition of any man, and only by conduct."

From this evidence, it is obvious that the forty odd insane patients have not been
receiving the care and attention which their condition demanded. In this connection
it must be noted that for the added duty of treating the insane the surgeon receives the
sum of $1,000 yearly. On the other hand, it may be said in extenuation that this
system has been in operation many years, and throughout the whole period had been
accepted, with apparent approval, by the Department of Justice and its inspectors.

There was evidence to show that insane patients had been punished by tubbing.
'^Tubbing" consists of forcibly placing a convict in a bath filled with cold water, and
holding him there at the discretion of the operators. An attempt was made to explain
away the tubbing as a necessity, where the victims were in a filthy condition and
refused to bathe; also as a substitute for the continuous bath used in hospitals for the
insane to quiet excited cases. It was made abundantly clear to your Commissioners
that the tubbing at Kingston was resorted to neither for sanitary nor therapeutic
reasons, but as a punishment. There was no evidence to show that the tubbing had
official sanction. The guards said they acted without instruction and on their own
responsibility. The only official act pertaining to the practice appears to have been
a notice from the surgeon, prohibiting it. Explaining this, the surgeon stated that he
had heard rumours of tubbing and had thought well to issue the warning.

Apart from the inhumanity of the punishment, this tubbing performance reveals
the management of the department for the insane in an unenviable light. Poor crea-
tures, bereft of their reason, are surely entitled, even if they are criminals, to be left
to the guardianship of men with some instincts of humanity.

It being generally agreed that the condition of the insane is and has been for
years altogether unsatisfactory, the question "Who are responsible?" demands an
answer. The responsibility falls primarily \ipon two men, the surgeon and the
inspector. The former, in his annual reports, should have given expression to views
such as he presented in his evidence before the commission. This was clearly his duty
and would have relieved him of responsibility, but unfortunately a perusal of his
reports leaves one with the impression that the state of the insane left nothing to be
desired.

Year after year, Inspector Stewart accepted, without adverse comment, the
existing conditions. When questioned upon tliis matter his answer is unsatisfactory.
(Page ) :—

" If it were in my report it would not receive any attention. If you show
me any report they paid attention to, then I will take the blame."

REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON PENITENTIARIES 13

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 252

It may be fairly said that the manner of dealing- with the insane is a striking
criticism, not only of the individuals concerned, but also of the system of administra-
tion which has permitted such abuses to go unchallenged all these years.

The Government should employ forthwith a competent alienist, in order that he
may undertake the immediate amelioration of the conditions at Kingston Penitentiary
and that he may advise the Government in regard to these technical matters.

Steps should be taken to make suitable and permanent arrangements for the care
and treatment of the insane, according to modern practice.

Two plans are available: It is possible that arrangements may be made with the
Provincial Governments for the care of the criminal insane. This is already done in
Western Canada. The practicability of such a plan does not come within the scope
of our investigation. In favour of this scheme, it may be pointed out that the provinces
have the entire equipment necessary for the care of the insane. Transportation diiE-
culties would be eliminated if this plan were adopted. On the other hand, the heads
of the provincial institutions would probably oppose this suggestion. In recent years,
the public has come to regard the institutions for the insane as hospitals and there
would be a decided sentimental objection to the admittance of those who had been
convicted of crime. In reality there is no valid objection. In practice the mentally
unbalanced citizen, who commits a crime, is sent to the provincial hospital if his
derangement happens to be detected before he is sentenced — and to the insane ward at
Kingston if his disease be not recognized until he has been for a time incarcerated.

The alternative plan which has been followed in other countries and which we
think must be adopted here, is for the Dominion to build, equip, and man an institu-
tion exclusively for the criminal insane, separate from a general prison both in site and
administration. It may be thought that there is not a sufficient number of criminal
insane, coming under the purview of the Federal authorities, to warrant such a ^^ ^mder-
taking, but there is not the least doubt that scattered through the prison population,
is a large number whose mental state warrants their removal to an institution such
as is proposed. That this is the case at Kingston, we have ample proof.

THE HOSPITAL AXD MEDICAL MATTERS GEXERALLY.

The examination of the newcomer, both on the mental and physical sides, is con-
ducted in a most superficial manner. There are practically no records. An individual
who is to be incarcerated for a term of years should receive a thorough examination,
the details of which must be carefully recorded if the labour is not to be lost. This is
necessary for two reasons : First, in order that the present or subsequent illness may be
treated intelligently; and, second, that the general prison population be protected
against communicable disease.

For many reasons, the examination of the prisoners mentally, should be a search-
ing one. If this had been the practice, a deal of trouble would have been avoided.
As an example of what is meant, the following case may be cited : —

Convict No. P. 108. Age, 30 years.

First sentence in 1906 for rape — i years and 25 lashes.

Discharged in 1910 and was recommitted for a similar offence within three months,
with a sentence of 20 years and lashes.

Between November, 1910, and September, 1913, there were made against this
man no less than sixty-seven reports for breaches of regulations. Many of these
offences were visited with severe punishment, even to hosing with cold water at 60
pounds pressure. A good deal of his time has been spent in the punishment cells
and in the prison of isolation.

An examination by one competent would have disclosed the fact that this was
an unfortunate imbecile (page ) and as such not responsible for his actions, and

that any endeavour to make him conform to ordinary prison discipline by the inflic-

14 REPORT OF TEE ROYAL COMMISSION ON PENITENTIARIES

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

tion of punishment was futile — and much worse. It may be added that this is by
no means an isolated case.

Further, we find that the medical service has not been sufficient. If the health
of 500 inmates is to receive adequate consideration more than one or two hours' daily
attendance is necessary.

HOSPITAL.

It is difficult to conceive what characteristics of the building set apart for the
care of the sick at the Kingston Penitentiary warrant it being designated "hospital."
There is nothing in the building or equipment which justifies the name. Some 36
inside cells, inferior in their arrangements to the cells occupied by the healthy
prisoners, house those whose illness is serious enough to make necessary their admis-
sion. In theise cells there is not effective ventilation, and save for an obsolete bucket
for the excreta, sanitary appliances are absent. The two baths and water-closets are
hopelessly out of date. Under no conditions are the patients permitted to have exercise
in the fresh air, nor indeed to leave their cells for any purpose.

The operating room (so-called), where serious cases have been, and must be
dealt with as they arise, has an old wooden table but no other equipment. When
your Commissioners visited this room, many old books lay about the floor and the
place was not clean. In all, there was a condition of affairs which should not have
been tolerated. Again, there is to be noted an all but complete absence of satisfactory
records. Inspector Stewart's commendation of the existing conditions can only mean
that he is not competent to express an opinion upon this aspect of prison manage-
ment. Although his annual reports give a different impression, the surgeon in his
evidence before the Commission stated that many changes were necessary to make
the hospital what it should be.

The personnel of the hospital staff does not meet with approval. There are two
dispensers (called hospital overseers) who are responsible to the surgeon for the
management of this department. These men do little or no nursing, this very impor-
tant work being left to the convict orderlies, a practice to be entirely condemned.

We have no hesitation in reaching the following conclusions : —

The hospital, in building, equipment, and sanitation is inadequate and
out of date, and the personnel is not adapted to proper hospital administration.

There should be provided a new hospital, modern in plan and equipment,
and the hospital staff should be reorganized, the members to consist of: A
visiting surgeon, a resident physician, two trained male nurses, and convict
orderlies.

There are many reasons for such changes. It is manifestly impossible to obtain
the services of a competent physician on full time, at the salary fixed by the regulations.
It is taken for granted that tbe insane will be otherwise provided for, so that the
present salary would be considerably reduced. Further, a physician in active
practice will the more likely be abreast of modern methods and will be disposed to
treat the prisoner inside and the patient outside with the same care and consider-
ation. The enervating effects of a purely institutional practice are well known. The
visiting surgeon would be responsible for the sick. He 'should visit the prirson daily
and attend the members of the staff at their homes.

For the office of resident physician, there shoiild bo employeil a recent graduate
who has a psychiatric training. His duties may be outlined thus: He should carry
out the directions of the visiting surgeon; conduct and keep records of thorough
mental and physical examinations of all prisoners; do laboratory work and deal with
emergencies and minor ailments.

REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION OX PEyiTENTIARIES 15

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 252

There is absolutely no need of two qualified dispensers, as at present, but there
is real need of men to do the actual nursing. The nurses under the direction of the
resident surgeon could do all the necessary compounding of medicines. The convict
orderlies should have no part in the actual treatment of the sick. Their duties should
be confined to the pei'formance of menial work.

PUXITIVE FEATURES OF PENITENTIAKY REGULATIONS.

Eeference has already been made to -some of the regulations of Canadian peni-
tentiaries that stamp them as purely punitive. A more detailed analysis of this
feature of the system may be in order. The cellular system of feeding is defended
on two grounds: (1) To remove the danger of organized revolt; and (2) it is pre-
ferred by the majority of the prisoners.

Of all the prisons that your Commissioners visited, in only one did they find the
cellular system of feeding in operation. That was the old State prison at Charles-
town, Mass. In no prison where the congregate system is in vogue, was the danger
of mutiny considered a serious possibility. And this too in face of the fact that in
some of those prisons the proportion of guards to population was one to ten, while
at Kingston it is about one to six. The fact is, that the more closely the treatment
of the prisoner approximates the treatment of the free man, the less likelihood is
there of individual or organized outbreaks of violence. WTien men are allowed to
sit down to a table and eat with knife and fork like civilized beings, they are in a
more equable frame of mind than if they are made to carry their food to their cells
and tear it to pieces with their fingers.

The second argument in favour of the cellular system would seem to have more
justification. One or two convicts, testifying before the Commission, said they
preferred eating in their cells to sitting down with the others at a table. The
reason they gave was the possibly disgusting conduct of a prisoner seated beside
them. Here again comes the question of classification. It has not been urged that
in a dining room the prisoners should be arranged without regard to their conduct.
The privilege of a dining room should be denied men who are under the ban for bad
conduct or who will not comiwrt themselves with reasonable propriety at the table.
In other words, a place in the dining room should be made a reward for good
behaviour.

A weak feature of the cellvdar system of feeding is its wastefulness. The portions
of food allotted are too generous for some men and possibly not sufficient for others.
We saw a great deal of food brought back in the pans from the cells after dinner. A
convict who had worked in the kitchen said that it looked to him " as though about
half of everythiiTg came back on certain days." He placed the average waste at from
25 to 30 per cent. This view was concurred in by Dr. Piatt, though he did not offer
any estimate as to the proportion of waste.

The close cropping of prisoners' hair is a regulation as old as the oldest prison.
Originally, it was designed as a mark of disgrace. Now it is defended for sanitary
reasons. Undeniably, in some cases, it is necessary to crop prisoners' hair on admis-
sion and keep it cropped probably during the whole period of confinement. Such cases,
we are inclined to believe, form a small minority of any of our prison populations.
The cleanly, well-ordered prisoner should surely not be subjected to the indignity of
hair-cropping, just because there are some fellows in prison who must be so treated for
sanitary reasons. In prisons where close cropping of the hair as a regulation has been
abandoned, the personal cleanliness of the prisoners is as efficiently maintained as it is
in our penitentiaries. One convict was asked (Page ) what was the greatest

humiliation that he suffered since he entered the prison and his reply was: "I think
cropping my hair was the worst."

16 REPORT OF TEE ROYAL COMMISSION ON PENITENTIARIES

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

The prison garb is made of a red checked material as distinctive and almost as
conspicuous as the stripes formerly worn. Though it has been represented to us that
women had "expressed the wish on the street that they could get a golf suit
made like it" (page ) and that it is " no more degrading than the costume of any
huntsman or football player or oarsman (page ), your Commissioners are of the
opinion that the present uniform is unnecessarily conspicuous. The colours in it may
be as pronounced as in a football uniform, but the humiliation lies in the fact that
these colours are not the insignia of membership in an athletic organization, but are
the brand of the convict's shame. The one costume represents honour; the other,
dishonour. "I think the uniform is terrible" said one of the convicts to your Com-
missioners. Any prison uniform must be terrible to the man who appreciate his
position, but the question is : Is it necessary to lay it on in flaring colours ? A one tone
material, grey or blue, such as is being used in all the prisons we visited in the United
States and at the Provincial Eeformatory at Guelph, should meet the disciplinary
requirements of our penitentiaries. Stripes or checks are not considered necessary
there to aid in identification and recapture. Why should they be necessary in our
Federal prisons?

The regulation that no newspaper shall be allowed within the prison walls has been
adopted, we are told, to prevent convicts getting information about the movements of
their pals outside. This rule is in harmony with the avowed policy of the administra-
tion that the regulations of the penitentiaries are designed solely for the confirmed
criminal. Because there are some men in prison who are determined to resume a life
of lawlessness, and because these men might obtain from a newspaper information
that would aid them in their evil designs, the entire population is debarred from read-
ing any news of the doings of the outside world. That this deprivation heavily handi-
caps a man when he tries to resume the ordinary activities of life, is beyond question.
The world into which he is thrown has been a sealed book to him for years. He knows
nothing of its political changes, of the progress that has been made in social, indus-
trial, or scientific development. He has been " as a deaf man who heard not, as a
dumb man not opening his mouth." His very ignorance must intensify his fear of
exposure and the ostracism that inevitably follows. Had he been allowed, while in
prison, an occasional glance at a weekly newspaper, he would not now be such an utter
stranger to world events. He could move among and converse with his fellows, with
some confidence and intelligence.

The danger of allowing a weekly newspaper into the penitentiary appears to have
been greatly exaggerated in the ofiicial mind. It should be possible, without much
trouble, to censor the criminal news which occupies a very insignificant space in the
family newspaper. But if there is danger of valuable news to the professional criminal
leaking in, there is a more than compensating benefit to the man who is longing for
another chance to make good in the world. What a comfort the newspaper would be
to many an unfortunate fellow in the solitude of his cell, can scarcely be comprehended.
It would break the gloom of his isolation, keep him in healthful relations with the life,
that through his weakness or wilfulness he has forfeited, and, no doubt, strengthen
his desire to restore to good standing in society.

The prohibition of tobacco is, to many prisoners, a severe punishment. Those who
have been life-long users of the weed would, it is said, preferably undergo almost any
other privation. Certainly the absolute prohibition of tobacco is likely to make them
morose and resentful, and more difiicult to manage than they otherwise would be.
Apart from the effects of a moderate issue of tobacco in producing a better spirit
among the prisoners who use it, your Commissioners are convinced the illicit traffic is
a greater evil than the one it displaced. One convict testified that he had received
from friends, through a guard, $160 in tobacco money in two years ; that the guard had
retained for his own use half the money and had charged 20 per cent commission for
purchasing tobacco with the balance. In only two instances were your Commissioners

REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON PENITENTIARIES 17

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 252

enabled to bring home to the dishonest guards proof of their guilt. These cases were
reported to the warden to deal with. That other guards have been extensively en-
gaging in the tobacco graft, is beyond question, but it was impossible to get direct
evidence of their guilt. Much may be said in support of the prohibition of tobacco to
prisoners, but your Commissioners believe a moderate allowance to those who are
already addicted to the habit and who observe the regulations, would result in condi-
tions more wholesome than exist at present.

PUNISHMENTS.

According to rule 179 the following punishments may be inflicted upon male con-
victs : —

(a) Diet of bread and water not exceeding twenty-one consecutive meals.
(&) Hard bed with blankets according to the season, not exceeding one
month.

(c) Ball and chain, Oregon boot.

(d) Confinement in the isolated cells with such diet as the surgeon shall
pronounce sufficient.

(e) Flogging with a leather paddle, under the restrictions set forth in the
Penitentiary Act regarding corporal punishment.

(/) Shackled to the cell gate during working hours.

(g) The application of water from the hose, in the presence of Warden.

(h) Forfeiture of remission of sentence.

In addition to the foregoing, flogging, imposed as part of the court sentence, has
to be inflicted. Usually the flogging is ordered to be given a short time after the
prisoner is admitted and again before his release. With much reason, ex-Warden Piatt
urged that the flogging of a prisoner near the expiry of his term was calculated to
nullify the good effects of any reformative treatment by the officials, and send the fellow
out vengeful and embittered. The flogging, if it must be administered, should be
given at the place of sentence and the prison authorities would then have some chance
of consistently dealing with the criminal. To*try to reform a man and then, whether
he responds or not, lash his bare back before he leaves the prison, would appear to be
an unscientific course of treatment.

The dark cell or dungeon is not mentioned in rule 179. It is used in some, if not
all of our penitentiaries. At St. Vincent de Paul your Commissioners found a man in
a dark cell shackled by a chain. There was little ventilation in the place, and the
food, drink, and bucket of the unfortunate were all placed in the circle of his tether.
The dark cell is a cruel means of punishment. The most degraded human being, if he
is to be allowed to live, is entitled to light and air.

The Oregon boot and flogging with a leather paddle are no longer used as punish-
ment. Evidence tended to show that the leather paddle was more humiliating than
severe. There are on record several cases of application of water from the hose. One
was nine years ago when Dr. Piatt was Warden. In his evidence the doctor said he
did not like the hosing and he never ordered it again. Mr. Douglas Stewart, when he
was acting Warden in 1912, used the hose pretty freely. The convicts who were hosed
described the punishment as terrible. The officials and guards seemed to consider it
effective and not cruel. Inspector Douglas Stewart expressed himself strongly in
favour of the hosing. His evidence on the point, page is as follows : —

" Q. Do I understand that you are responsible for recommending this method
of punishment, the hosing? — A. I am responsible for the regulations. I intro-
duced it after consultation with Sir Oliver Mowat, who was not a cruel man, as
a substitute for the cat.

" Q. You described it nicely to Sir Oliver? — A. Yes, as it really is.

" Q. And you think it is a good thing? — A. As a substitute for the cat it is

a remarkable improvement, both in effectiveness

252—2

18 REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMlIISSIOy OX PENITENTIARIES

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

" Q. The cat is the triangle ? — A. Yes, the lashes ; that is the previous one ;
the one was substituted for the other.

" Q. You find this more efficient ? — A. More effective.

" Q. What is it that makes it so effective with these convicts ? — A. It
takes the defiance out of them.

" Q. How ? — A. If you got the hose you would know.

" Q. What is it? — A. I suppose it is the imiiact of the hose against the
body, knocks the wind out of them.

" Q. And it seems to succeed where nothing else will? — A. Yes, it never
failed yet.

" Q. To beat an incorrigible convict into submission? — A. Yes.

" Q. And therefore you rush for it in all cases? — A. Not in all cases.

" Q. How many times did you administer it yourself? — A. My recollection
is seven times on six convicts.

" Q. How long was the longest? — A. Three minutes. It made a record.
It is usually thirty seconds to a minute. Very few men who will not give in
in that time. They can give up whenever they like; they can make it ten
seconds if they like.

" Q. Men will surrender under this who will not under any other punish-
ment?— A. Yes.

" Q. Is that the most severe punishment ? — A. No, I think shooting is
more severe.

" Q. You mean killing a man outright ? — A. Yes.

" Q. That is the only thing more severe? — A. No, I think the cat is more
severe and dangerous.

" Q. Why do you not use it ? — A. Because I think it is not effective. This
is the quickest and most effective method."

Your Commissioners had a practical demonstration of the hosing in the cell
assigned for that purpose. The front corners of the cell have beeen rounded out to
prevent the prisoner from getting out of range of the stream. A circular opening
in the bars permits of the entrance and ready manipulation of the nozzle. When the
water was fully turned on, the stream through the three-quarter inch nozzle struck
the opposite wall almost unbroken. From what your Commissioners have seen and
heard they readily agree that hosing as a punishment is effective. The victim nmst
cry out for mercy or suffer physical collapse. But as a disciplinary agency, it should
be ranked with the rack and the thumb-screw, cruel and inhuman.

IMMORALITY AMONG PRISONERS.

The charge has been made that the crime of sodomy is prevalent in Kingston
Penitentiary. Three convicts gave sensational and disgusting evidence in support
of the charge. In two or three instances the circumstances were described in detail.
Other evidence was given of a more or less circumstantial character, and some of it
was based on hearsay or conversations overheard on the stone pile. The officials
and guards, without exception, either denied the existence of the practice or declared
they knew nothing about it.

Your Commissioners believe that while some of the statements made by convicts
were greatly exaggerated the evidence indicated the occasional commission of the
offence. It is scarcely necessary to urge greater vigilance on the part of officials and
guards wherever it is possible for such offences to occur.

THE CONDUCT OK OFFICERS AND EMTLOYEES.

The Five Year Limit. — The terms of our commission called for the investiga-
tion of: —

" (a) The state and management of the Kingston Penitentiary;

REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMillSSIOX ON PENITENTIARIES 19

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 252

" (&) The conduct of the officers and employees of the said penitentiary
so far as the same relates to their official duties —

" Provided that the inquiries should not extend back for a longer period
than five years except in so far as the commission may deem it desirable in
the public interest to inquire into any particular matter or matters ante-
cedent to such period."

The construction to be placed upon this limitation of the inquiry came up for
discussion at the beginning of our investigations and is dealt with by the Commis-
sioners at page in the report of the evidence, in the following terms: —

" The intention of the Commission is to have an investigation of present
conditions in the prison. The charges that were made refer to the present
state and management of the penitentiary, and that, primarily, is the subject
to be investigated. That goes witliout saying. The Commission is Inot
charged with investigating what was a past condition of things, five or ten
or twenty years ago ; we are to investigate the condition of things to-day, it
may be necessary to go beyond the time limit of five years, and that the Com-
mission has power to do. The terms of the Commission express that quite
clearly, and I do not think it could be better expressed, that where, in any
particular matter, the Commission deem it in the public interest to pursue the
inquiry beyond the five year limit they are to do so."

The matter came up several times in the course of our proceedings, see pages
A charge was made against the Deputy Warden of " testifying falsely at investi-
gations held at the prison;" the matter referred to occurred in the year 1898.
.Objection was taken by counsel for the Deputy Warden, page : " How could

we answer a charge fifteen years old with witnesses dead and hard to find? Surely
the provisions of the Commission were intended to protect us from that." The
Commission considered that if they proceeded to investigate this matter it would be
in substance a trial upon a charge of perjury alleged to have been committed fifteen
years ago and necessarily depending on the present recollection of the surviving
witnesses as to statements made so long ago. The matter had been the subject of
investigation at the time it occurred and we did not deem it desirable in the public
interest to inquire into it again. For similar reasons we declined to entertain
charge (d) " With consorting with ex-convicts." This matter is dealt with by
rule 142:—

" No officer shall without authority recognize any convict after his dis-
charge or make him known to others, to his injury."

The matter is discussed at page : —

The five-year limit came up again in connection with a charge against Dr.
Phelan of: —

" Conniving at the absence of a giiard at an election trial where said
guard was wanted as a material witness."

The occurrence involved took place in the year 1898. Saunders, the guard in
question, got a certificate of sick leave from the doctor, it is said improperly. The
certificate bears date September 2, 1898. Saunders, the principal witness, is long
since dead. At this date, and considering that the matter was not one bearing upon
or affecting the present condition of things, we declined to entertain this charge.

A number of matters were dealt with, extending back much beyond five years
when it was deemed desirable in the public interest to do so, and the only instances
in which evidence was excluded have been referred to above. The matter was fully
discussed at the final sitting of the Commission, see pages

252— 2i

20 REPORT OF TEE ROYAL COMMISSION ON PENITENTIARIES

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914
THE EDWARDS CHARGES.

The charges made by Dr. Edwards against Deputy Warden O'Leary, are as
follows : : —

I charge Deputy Warden O'Leary :

(a) With petty and persistent persecution of guards and keepers;

(b) With political partisanship;

(c) With testifying falsely at investigation held at the prison;

(d) With consorting with ex-convicts;

(e) With gross neglect of his duty resulting in attempts at escape.

The charges, as Dr. Edwards himself says, were based mainly upon information
furnished him by Major Hughes (page ) : "I took the action I did in regard to
this matter principally because of what was said to me by Major Hughes himself in
regard to every one of the charges which I have placed on the paper, that the informa-
tion came primarily from him, and it was added to by complaints made from time to
time in writing and verbally by different guards and ex-guards of the institution."
Mr. Stewart, Govenmient counsel, at page , also mentions Major Hughes, as the
chief witness.

Major Hughes himself (page ) : "In my day as Chief Keeper I did not think
the men had an awful lot to complain of in that kind of thing, but latterly there has
been a great deal of gossip. I cannot give you that, but the rosters will show."

Of the guards and ex-guards referred to by Major Hughes in his evidence, the
following were called, and a summary of their evidence on the charge of petty and
persistent persecution of guards is given below: —

Name.

Clyde

Curtis

Crier

Redden

Rutherford

Godkin

James Doyle. .

Derrj'

Holland

Powell .;._..
Robert Aikins

Paynter

Madden

Marsh

Fe^K

Wilson

McCuade ....

Montgomery.
Smith

George Aikins
Bannister

Bryant. . .
Mills . .
Cau^hey .

Davis

Johnston .
Ingledew

Cook

Patterson

323-4

921

417-18

419-424

4.31-2

591^11

899

868-872

927
1002-4

898
1140-1
1192-1202

058

889-892
1121-2

434-456

313-4
324-364

385-416

425-430

786-791
792-796
1112-5
893-7
289-299
300-11 ; 570-80

901
978-1002

Summary of Evidence.

Not asked re treatment of guards.

There was no favouritism.

There are really no favourite po.its.

"I have nothing against hnn," meaning tlu' Deputy

Warden.

Complains his \K>st was not changed as often as others.
Conii)lains he was improjierly dismissed but Deputy

Warden not rp.'<|X)n-<ible.
Complains of Deinity Warden "spjnng" on him and

reprimanding him before convicts.
Complained of being rejirimanded before guards and

convicts.
Evidence re complaints of no vjilue.

Complaints childish.

Kept notf-lKX)k— willing witness against Deputy Warden
—not asktd n favouritiem.

Nothing.

Blames Deputy Warden for hit. dismissal but can't estab-
lish it.

REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON PENITENTIARIES 21

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 252

We are referred by counsel quite properly on this charge to the evidence of Major
Hughes, page , to the rosters prepared by the Deputy, as " the best evidence in

support of this charge " ; also to the evidence of Dr. Piatt.

The evidence of Major Hughes, thus cited, deals almost entirely with what was
called " favouritism." To quote the argument of the Government counsel, " the
Deputy either consciously or unconsciously has preferred guards of the same religious
persuasion as himseK — in giving the preference to Roman Catholics over Protestants,
in assigning officers to the different posts in the prison."

After a careful examination of the roster, we cannot Snd that this charge is
sustained.

The evidence is conflicting as to whether there are any favourits posts and what
they are — Guard Fegg is the first witness named by Major Hughes, who would testify
as to " favouritism." Fegg's evidence is at page and is read to Major Hughes

at page : —

" Q. You do not know that he showed any favouritism to any particular
guard? — A. I could not say that any man was persecuted or that any man was
shown favouritism. I cannot say that he is really shown favours."

Major Hughes says, referring to Pegg, " this man thought he was the most imposed
upon man in the world."

Other guards, whom Major Hughes expected to testify to favouritism, gave evi-
dence similar to Fegg's. For some reason, they had talked to Major Hughes in a way
they could not support on the witness stand.

The evidence of Dr. Piatt on this subject should have more weight than that of
any other witness, as he was in a position to know the facts. His evidence shows that
he himself was determined to know nothing about a guard's religion in the assignment
of duties, and that he believed that his deputy was equally conscientious in the con-
duct of his office.

Dr. Piatt was warden from 1899 to 1913. (He had ample experience to speak
with authority upon this charge.) It is scarcely conceivable that he should not have
discovered it, if any favouritism had been practised.

We make the following extracts from his evidence bearing upon this charge: —

"For the assignment of positions" he says (page ), "the deputy is re-
sponsible, under the Warden."

" Q. And if complaints were made it would come up to you and you would
deal with matters? — A. If we thought it was advisable we asked the Deputy to
reconsider."
Page 638 :—

" Whenever the Deputy thought a change could be made to advantage he
wovJd mention it to me during the month previous, or if I noticed where I
thought a man would be better in some position I would mention it to the
Deputy.

" Q. So that both you and he were trying to do what you thought best in the
interests of the Institution? — A. I was and I thought he was.

" Q. Then when the roster was made out towards the end of the month it
was submitted for your consideration? — A. Yes, I may say invariably my
signature is on every roster."
Page : —

" Q. Were there complaints of this character? — A. I do not think I could
dignify it by the name of complaints.

" Q. How many times? — A. I don't know, if it occurred three or four times
in my thirteen years it would be all."
Page : —

" If I heard a complaint of that kind, even heard it casually, I would speak
' to the Deputy about it and advise him whenever it was practicable to avoid even

22 REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION OX PENITENTIARIES

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

the appearance of anything' of that kind, and I do not think he ever made any
change. I do not think a change was ever suggested. He would simply reply
by saying : ' "Well, what am I to do ? — Place a man according as 1 think he ought
to be on the roll.' I said : ' Your duty is to the prison and not to the church,
pay no attention to it.'
The rule governing this matter is in these words : —

"42. Subject to the Garden's concurrence, he (the Deputy "Warden) shall
assign to every police officer the duty to be performed by him during the day, a
record of which shall be kept in the roster."

Dr. Piatt says there were three of four complaints on this subject in his thirteen
years of office, and he refused to interfere. The Warden considered these complaints
unfounded, and there is nothing in the evidence heard by us to warrant us in saying
that his judgment was erroneous.

The unfriendly relations existing between Major Hughes and the Deputy Warden
were a matter of common knowledge in the prison, and some officials appear to have
used this kiiowledge mischievously.

Major Hughes seems to have been misled by the gossip of the guards — he was
recalled at the close of the investigation, and at page he says: —

" I have read in the papers, I do not know whether it is true or not, the
evidence of officers that they had no complaints to make; and there is only one
expression to describe it, and that is for months here they simply pawed the air
with regard to complaints of the indignities that were heaped upon them and the
discrimination in favour of others to their detriment, and they came up,
according to the newspapers I have read in the west, and said there was no dis-
crimination."

The charges made seem in great part the outcome of the unhappy spirit of distrust
and suspicion which seems to pervade the institution, resulting apparently from the
system of administration, especially in regard to appointments, political influence,
religious antagonisms, and political jealousies.

Some g-uards have alleged grievances, imagining that they are not dealt justly
with in the distribution of posts, whilst other guards say that there are no good posts,
that men differ as to what posts are to be preferred. One guard complains of the
Deputy "spying" upon him, when the Deputy was watching him to see if he was doing
his duty. A guard, who was discharged, makes a charge of perjury arising out of a
dispute in the year 1898. The evidence adduced to sustain this charge was this wit-
ness's uncorroborated recollection of a verbal statement made by the Deputy in the
course of a prison investigation conducted by the W^arden fifteen years ago.

Charge (h) Political Partisanship.

In support of this charge, the only contention of the counsel for the Crown was
that Guard Aikins testified that " the Deputy spoke disrespectfully of Dr. Edwards,
a candidate at the last Dominion election." The Deputy emphatically states that
he never interfered in politics and we find that he has not been guilty of political
partisanship.

Charges (c) and (d) were excluded under the five-year limit, as we have else-
where explained.

Charge (e): That the Deputy was guilty of gross neglect of duty resulting in attempts

to escape.

The particular case cited was that of Chartrand, a convict, who cut through the
bars of his cell and got into the yard of the prison, and the charge is that an inex-

REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSIOX OX PENITENTIARIES 23

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 252

perienced guard and inefficient guard had been placed in supervision of this convict.
This case was fully investigated at the time hj the Minister, and Guards Smith and
McConville were suspended for their conduct in the matter. There is nothing in
the record of that investigation to indicate that the Deputy Warden was to blame
and nothing was adduced before us to warrant our arriving at a diiferent conclusion.

On April 10, 1912, Dr. Piatt says, in referring to this escape, after the matter
had been investigated: "A convict designated as dangerous and marked for special
care escaped under circumstances which force one to the conclusion that well-known,
important and imperative duties were either neglected or performed in a culpably
perfunctory manner." Dr. Piatt also reports the suspension of McConville and
Smith in this connection, but throughout his report there is not any hint or reflection
touching the conduct of the Deputy Warden in the affair.

The record of the case contains thirty pages of reports and testimony on this
escape, of the warden, deputy warden, guards and keepers, etc.

The inspector's report, dated April 12, 1912, does not mention the Deputy War-
den or reflect on him personally.

The Minister's judgment reflects on "the insufficiency of the right surveillance
provided" and "concurs in the suggestion" that the Warden and Deputy Warden
be censured for neglect to profit by the attempted escape from an adjoining cell last
year," etc., etc. There is no suggestion of such censure in the inspector's report, it
does not appear in the record, so that we are unable to attach to it the correct signi-
ficance, but considering that this whole matter was fully dealt with and adjudicated
on by the Minister at the time of this occurrence, it should not again be made the
subject of a charge before this Commission. In any case, the whole record is on file
and can be referred to, if, in the opinion of the Minister, the matter should be
reopened.

The Grier Charge.

Comment is made by the Crown counsel on an incident mentioned in the evidence
of Ex-Guard Grier, (page ) who says he was on duty in the Asylum in 1906 and

found Convict Bishop "trying to hang himself" and cut him down. He was then
asked by the Deputy Warden why he was late in winding his clock. He explained,
he says, and the Deputy Warden told him: "If I came across a convict hanging, to
let him hang and attend to my clock first." Ex-Guard Marsh testifies, (page )

to a similar expression from the Deputy Warden in reference to the attempted hang-
ing of the same convict. Bishop; he (the Deputy Warden) said: "I did right to
wind my clock first, it would clear me." Marsh gives no date for this occurrence,
but the records show that he cut down Bishop on March 22, 1899.

These statements might indicate a callous disregard of human life on the part
of the Deputy Warden — that he set discipline on high and subordinated the instincts
of himianity. The statements, however, stand alone; they are not consistent with
the conduct of the charged official, as shown by the evidence before us. In support
of the charges against the Deputy Warden, with which we have already dealt, twenty
or more guards and ex-guards gave evidence and no instance was disclosed of cruelty or
inhumanity towards prisoners. The evidence of Grier is not corroborated by the prison
records. The records show that Bishop attempted to hang himself on two occasions; on
July 9, 1898, and March 22, 1899. On the former occasion he was cut down by
Guard Davis; on the latter, by Guard Marsh. Grier does not appear .in either case.
There is no record of any other attempt at suicide by Bishop. If any occurred it
should be in the record. Grier says he " cut down " Bishop in 1906. The records
show that Bishop died of tuberculosis in 1904. Whatever the actual incident was,
it must have occurred fifteen years ago, and the memory of witnesses as to the date
or the actual words used is liable to be at fault. What we ourselves have seen and
heard must guide us as to the value that should be attached to the alleged state-

24 REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON PENITENTIARIES

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

ment of the Deputy Warden; lie was for three months in this inquiry subjected to
the closest scrutiny and in the light of that scrutiny, no act of his revealed that
indicated he was either cruel or inhuman.

Other Charges.
The charges made by Dr. Edwards against Overseer Wilson, are as follows: —

" I hereby charge E. W. Wilson, druggist at Portsmouth Penitentiary,
with wilful and repeated neglect of duty. In connection with the aforesaid
charge, I ask that the following persons be called to give evidence, viz. : —

"H. S. Begg, Assistant Hospital Overseer.

" D. Godkin, Night Watchman.

'•' F. Ingledew."

The charges against Overseer Wilson are of the same indefinite character as
the others, and have to be gathered from the evidence and the argument. He is, in
substance, accused of not getting up at night to attend to dying patients, in several
instances. Guard Ingledew testifies to this effect at pages . Guard Godkin at
pages . Wilson's evidence in defence is found at pages.

Wilson was called for patients Bunyan, Lottridge, Eastlake and Huckle;
Doctor Phelan says Huckle was a maligner, and Colonel Irvine says he is one
of the worst men in the prison, entirely unreliable; the other patients are dead.
Dr. Phelan's evidence exonerates Wilson from this charge, pages

Your Commissioners are of the opinion that these patients were practically
beyond human aid and that in their cases no hardship was inflicted by Wilson's failure
to get up to see them^ yet we feel that the physician or his representative should be
present on such occasions, and that there should be a regulation to this effect.

Charges were made by Overseer Wilson against Ingledew, page :

That he repeatedly failed to make his rounds of the ward, and that he slept
or rested during loug periods of the niglit, while the convicts' night-orderly
was pei*mitted the use of the watchman's keys and continued the periodica]
winding of the electric clock, so that it might show the proper marking when
inspected by the Deputy Warden.

That he repeatedly brought into the hospital outside articles and special
food, which were given to and used by convicts, and that he also supplied pipes
and tobacco to convicts.

There is evidence to support the first charge given by Convicts Watson, Dichn and
Mitchell, but it is denied by Ingledew, and we do not feel warranted in giving effect
to the evidence of the convicts under the circumstances disclosed. The same remarks
apply to the second charge.

Dr. Edwards' charges against Dr. Phelan are as follows : —

" I charge the surgeon. Dr. Phelan

"(a) With gross political partisanship.

''C^) With using violent and indecent language to a guard in the presence
of others.

"(c) With conniving at the absence of a guard at an election trial where
said guard was wanted as a material witness.

" (d) With grafting, by asking for and receiving money from guards, to
which he had no just or honest claim."

The counsel for the Government properly says : " I do not propose to argue that
the evidence adduced supports the charge of political partisanship." Vide discussion
on fivo-year limit.

REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON PENITENTIARIES 25

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 252

Charge (l). — The charge of "using violent and indecent language to a guard in
the presence of others " is established, but it is claimed that it was used in jest ; the
evidence leaves this uncertain. In any case, the surgeon entirely forgot the dignity
of his position and the discipline of the prison in making use of the language in
question; and the incident discloses an unhealthy state of things. Vide evidence pages

Charge (c). — The Commission did not consider this chaise to be within the limits
of their commission. It occurred thirteen years ago. Some of the parties are dead.
It has no bearing on the present state of the prison.

Charge (d). — With grafting, by asking for and receiving money from guards, to
which he had no just or honest claim.

Dr. Phelan admits that in four cases he asked and received a small fee from an
applicant for a guard's position as to his physical fitness, and this is a contravention
of the statute, as he is not to practice his profession. He says he has not done so for
several years. The amount wrongfully taken by him was $4.

The foregoing are the only charges made against Dr. Phelan by Dr. Edwards
See pages

Counsel for the Government commented on the evidence of convicts that the
surgeon had been careless and unkind in his treatment of them. No charge of this
tenor was made against Dr. Phelan and he was not called on to meet it. The evidence
of the convicts was conflicting. Some testified that he had treated them well, others
directly the reverse. The matter was left in an unsatisfactory position, and we are not
able to come to any finding upon it.

The charges against H. S. Begg are: —

1. Gross carelessness in making and compounding preparations and more
especially in connection with an ointment containing opium.

2. Neglect of duty in omitting to carry out orders and especially in failing
to give special supplies to a convict named Lawrence on the night of his death;
in contravenisg the orders on the diet sheet in the case of a convict named
Laird; and in refusing and neglecting to give out supplies ordered to be kept
under key.

3. Neglect of duty in failing to leave out food for patients called for by the
diet sheet, and in leaving the building with the keys while the supplies were
locked up and inaccessible until other keys were procured.

4. Insolence and insubordination with reference to the overseer, both in
language and bearing to him, and to others with reference to him, and in refus-
ing and neglecting to carry out his instructions.

5. Falsifying the records contained in the sick-officers' book.

The evidence shows that from the time of Wilson's appointment there was friction
between Begg and Wilson. Begg was guilty of several minor acts of insubordination
and neglect of duty.

Alterations were made in the sick-officers' book in several places, which had the
effect of lessening the record of Begg's absences on account of illness. He denies
having made them, and it was not shown that any advantage could accrue to him from
making them. No experts in handwriting were called to testify to the handwriting
of these alterations, (page ). Mr. Begg had been suspended by the Department

once and reprimanded several times. He did not get along very well with Mr. Gunn.
His attitude towards Wilson was improper and subversive of discipline.

The antagonism between Wilson and Begg is partly an expression of personal
animosity and partly an expression of the general internal dissensions. The result
is a state of affairs entirely prejudicial to the best interests of the Institution. The
most satisfactory solution of these difficulties will be found in the reorganization of
the hospital staff, which is recommended.

26 REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON PENITENTIARIES

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914
PUNISHMENT OR REFORM.

If the punishment of the offender is the only object society should have in view,
the Penitentiaries of Canada fully meet the requirements. They are old-time prisons
dominated by the idea that, not only should the offender be punished by being
deprived of his liberty and confined by iron bars and stone walls, but that the avenging
hand of the law he has violated should continue to bear heavily upon him in his place
of incarceration. This policy is defended on the ground that the treatment of the
prisoner in prison should be so ordered as to be a constant deterrent against his
relapsing into crime, when he regains his liberty. It is a policy founded upon
revenge, mistrust and fear.

Undeniably, the trend of prison administration the world over is away from the
purely punitive and towards the reformative. It is realized that justice to society
does not involve injustice to its moral delinquents; that while society must protect
itself by imprisoning misdemeanants and felons, it is not necessary to inflict humil-
iation and torture upon them, while they are in prison. This policy recognizes that
the prisoner has certain rights which it is the duty of society to respect. He is
entitled to productive work under proper sanitary conditions, to a reasonable measure
of education, if he requires it, to moral training and discipline; in fine, to every
rational assistance towards his restoration to good relations with society. Viewed
from the economic standpoint, the reformation of the convict is a matter of prime
importance to the State. The prison of punishment is the most expensive prison
to maintain. It keeps the inmates in idleness or employs them at work neither help-
ful to them nor profitable to the State.

The population of the six penitentiaries of the Dominion at the present time is
about 2,000, and the maintenance of these institutions involves a net annual cost of
$632,000. It should be possible, by the inauguration of a proper industrial system,
to reduce very materially this heaA^y burden and ultimately make the prisons self-sus-
taining. But on higher grounds, it is surely the duty of society to adopt human-
itarian methods within its prisons and give every possible encouragement to the man
who is disposed lo reform. The contrary attitude is out of harmony with the basic
principles of Christianity and civilization. The church and its manifold agencies
are bending all their energies to the reclamation of the moral offender who is enjoying
his liberty. Why should the probably equally desei-ving delinquent, who has the
misfortune to get into prison, be left to discover the light of the divine message to
fallen man in his cropped hair and striped suit; through the solitude and darkness
of his cell, in labour that demeans, discourages and brutalizes? Some justification
may be found for the purely punitive system in the theory that the prisoner is a
creature apart, differing from other human beings, not amenable to the same influen-
ces, hardened by kindness, discouraged and made restful by cruelty. That this
theory is recognized in the present administration of our penitentiaries, there is
reason to believe. The following is an extract from the evidence of Inspector
Stewart : (pages ) : —

" Q. Getting back to the congregate dining-room, one reason was the
danger of nmtiny, and the other was the objection the higher class convicts
had to eating with the others? — A. Yes.

" Q. Would the latter objection not be removable by a classification? — A.
No, the classification would be making a distinguishing class, which would
be looked upon with distrust and jealousy.

" Q. No such thing a;? emulation among them, to follow in the foot-
steps of those who are rewarded for gocxl conduct^ — A. The emulation amongst
convicts — nine-tenths of those who do behave do so because it pays them.

" Q. Are they different from other men? — A. They are very different or
thev would not be here.

REPORT OF TEE ROTAL COMMISSION ON PENITENTIARIES 27

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 252

" Q. My dear sir, I disagree with you? — A. Well, the judge must be
wrong.

" Q. It is idle to say that humanity is divided into two classes and that
all the bad men are in prison and all the good fellows are out of it? — A. I do
not believe that. There are a great many outside who ought to be in.

" Q. I say there are men here amenable to the same influences as if
they were enjoying their liberty and appreciative of fair treatment? — A. I
am afraid it is because you do not understand their character that you say
that."

Further on ("page ) the question of occasional entertainments for the con-

victs was being discussed with Inspector Stewart. He was asked : — -

" Q. What is the objection to the entertainment? — A. In the first place,
it causes quarreling and jealousy as to who shall be the chief men and who
shall be the performers.

" Q. I would not say entertainments given by themselves, but supposing
you had some people in Kingston kind enough to come out and give some
entertainments? — A. I think they would be more bored than they would
appreciate it.

" Q. Life in this institution must have a mighty depressing efi^ect on the
human mind? — A. It may possibly. Generally they prefer their own com-
pany rather than being crowded together. If they are crowded together there
is the trouble of their passing notes and complaining of irregularities.

" Q. To what do you ascribe the attitude of these men towards things
the men outside enjoy? — A. The real criminal is usually the worst kind of
egotist. He has a contempt for the clergyman who preaches, and the warden,
and a contempt for anybody else's opinion but his own.

" Q. And your policy is designed and carried through with regard to the
treatment of the real criminal and the real criminal only?— A. Yes.

" Q. And without reference to the fellow who is not a criminal and never
will be? — A. That is his misfortune to be in here, but we have to adapt our
rules and regulations to the po'ssibilities of the worsl; criminals in here. We
have to do it, because we cannot read human nature when a man comes
through the gate and tell what class he is."

In the Deputy Warden's evidence (page ) it is stated that only twenty-five
per cent of the five hundred prisoners have reports against them; that many of the
men reported are not punished but merely admonished; and many others subjected
to trivial punishment. The number of serious offenders against the regulations
"difficult men to get on with", the Deputy Warden placed at thirty-five to forty, or
about eight per cent. It wull be urged that there are hardened criminals, who for
their own comfort conform strictly to the regulations of the prison. No doubt
there are cases of that character, but the general experience of prison adminis-
trators is that the hopelessly bad man cannot act the good man in prison, and that
he who obeys the prison regulations can be made obey the regulations outside the
prison. Again, it must not be concluded that a prisoner who has reports against
him is devoid of the elements of good citizenship and impossible of reclamation.
Where any departure from a monotonous daily round may be set down as an offence,
it is certain that many good fellows must occasionally fall foul of the regulations.
Allowing, then, the make-believe good to balance the well-disposed convict who now
and then violates the rules, we are justified in assuming that at least seventy-five
per cent of the population at Portsmouth offer some hope for reformation. That
being the case, is it a wise' policy to maintain for all a system designed, as Inspector
Stewart puts it, solely for " the worst criminals."

28 REPORT OF TEE ROYAL COMMISSION ON PENITENTIARIES

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914
ORIGIN OF PRISON REFORM.

The opinion obtains in some quarters that prison reform is a fad, pro-
moted by well meaning but impracticable people, out of mistaken sympathy
for the criminal class. Also, that it is a modem innovation originated and
developed in the Republic to the South, and attended there with indifferent
results. A cursory glance at the history of prison administration the world over, shows
that the reformative system is very old and is the product of no particular people.
Nearly every nation in western and southern Europe can lay claim to some contribu-
tion to the store of practical experience on the question. Howard, the Englishman,
and Beccaria, the Italian, in the latter part of the eighteenth century, aroused public
opinion to an appreciation of the cruelties of the penal system. About the same time,
Vilain was giving a practical demonstration of the then new penology in the prison of
Ghent. This prison, we are told, had for its avowed aim the reformation of those com-
mitted to it. It made labour the foundation of its system — not the crank or the tread-
mill, or picking oakum, or breaking stones, but purposeful, productive employment.
Dr. F. H. Wines' description of what Yilain did in his prison at Ghent, nearly a
century and a half ago, may be read with profit to-day: —

" Vilain believed in industry as the primary agency for the reformation of
the criminal character. He recognized and insisted upon the importance of
trade instruction with a view to putting the prisoner in condition to earn an
honest living, when discharged. He appreciated the importance, in the selec-
tion of prison industries, of choosing, as far as_ practicable, such as would come
least into competition with free labour on the outside. He sought to find trades
not followed in Flanders, but which, if adopted, might prove profitable to the
Flemish people. In fact, there was a great diversity of avocations follo"wed in
the prison, among which may be mentioned : Carding, spinning, weaving, shoe-
making, tailoring, carpenter-work, and the manufacture of wool and cotton
cords. To encourage prisoners to work, he allowed them a percentage of their
earnings, and the opportunity to do overwork. Part of their earnings was there
own, to spend in the prison ; part was retained, to be given to them at their
discharge, so that they might not be penniless and on that account relapse into
crime. Every prisoner had a cell to himself at night ; the workshops were in
common, and meals were served at a common table. He provided a resident
physician and a resident chaplain. Proper attention was paid to the classifica-
tion of prisoners. Felons were separated from misdemeanants and vagabonds,,
there was a distinct quarter for women, and he designed to make special provi-
sion for children also."

But the prison at Ghent was not permitted to continue its works. A " few inter-
ested parties " got the ear of the Emperor, and the industries were abandoned.
Howard, who visited the institution in 1783, says : " I found groat alterations for the
worse; the flourishing and useful manufactory destroyed and the looms and utensils
all sold. That which ought to be the leading view in all such houses is now lost in
this house."

So we find that the problem with which we are attempting to deal is a very old and a
very practical one. The principles underlying it have not changed with the yeara;
nor have the influences which make for its success or failure. Its advocates are still
heartened Tjy the faith in their fellowmen that Vilain had, still hampered by the belief
of many that all those behind prison bars are hopeless criminals. The successors of
" the few interested parties " who got the ear of the Emperor and closed the industries
at Ghent are still crying out that they are willing that convicts shall work, so long as
they do not make anything.

REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSIOy ON PENITENTIARIES 29

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 252

CLASSIFICATION.

The segregation or classification of our penitentiary population is a problem of
considerable difficulty. That population is made up of all classes and conditions of
offenders — the first offender and the recidivist; the accidental and the hardened crim-
inal; boys and old men; the physically rugged and the invalid; the highly intellectual
and the imbecile. The present division of responsibility between the Federal and
Provincial authorities for the custody of criminals is unscientific. The province
looks after all those sentenced to a term less than two years. Those committed for
two years or over pass into the control of the Federal Government. Hence we have
at Kingston boys from sixteen to twenty-one, who are serving their first term in
prison, under conditions that cannot possibly make for their betterment, while in
the Provincial Reformatory at Guelph, there are men doing life imprisonment by
installments. This feature of the situation was dealt with by a Special Committee
of the Ontario Legislature in 1908. The conclusions arrived at by that committee
apply with still greater force to-day. It says : —

" The returns for last year show that seventy per cent of those committed
to the Central Prison were first offenders, whilst fifty-seven per cent were
under thirty years of age. The indiscriminate association of these first offend-
ers and the hardened and dissolute type is a deplorable feature of our present
system. To put it mildly, the State is not giving a fair chance to the erring
boy when it herds him with those who have decided on pursuing a life of crime.

" At present time there are between thirty and forty young men, seventeen
to twenty-two years of age, in the Kingston Penitentiary, from Ontario, who
might be successfully dealt with in a modern reformatory. The officials of
the penitentiary in their last report stated that the prospects for these yonths
being reformed were not more than one in a thousand.

" Instead of having the two-year sentence arbitrarily fixed as the boundary
line between the Central Prison and the Penitentiary, it would be much better
were the provincial institution devoted solely to first offenders, regardless of
the length of the term for which they are committed."

It woiild appear to your Commissioners that a readjustment of the present arrange-
ment on the basis suggested would not involve a serious shifting of the burden of
maintenance as between the Provincial and Federal authorities. However that may
be, there can scarcely be two opinions as to the wisdom of a classified prison system.
England, France, Switzerland, and Germany long since abandoned the plan of herding
all criminals, great and small, in one house. The Reformatory and the State Prison
represent the practical working of the more scientific system in the Republic to the
south. The reformatory population is confined: (1) to men under thirty years of age;
and (2) to first offenders. To the State Prison go all the older and more hardened
offenders.

The necessity of providing a separate prison for young offenders was recognized
by the late Sir John Thompson, who, as Minister of Justice, purchased' land and had
plans partially prepared for a new reformatory at Alexandria. Why that project
was not carried through, no explanation is forthcoming, but your Commissioners are
of the opinion that it offered substantial improvement of a situation that has gone
on through the years from bad to worse.

But granted that it is impossible to have segregation through separate prisons,
it should be possible to have some measure of classification within each prison. It is
solely with the object of classifying prisoners that separate prisons are advocated. It
has been urged that to make any attempt at classification is to discriminate and dis-
crimination is an evil tbat must at all cost be barred from our penitentiaries. Why

30 REPORT OF TEE ROYAL COMMISSION ON PENITENTIARIES

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

should the natural law of discrimination between the good and the bad not be oper-
ative in a prison ? The scientific treatment of moral delinquents means differentiation
and discrimination at every turn. Possibly some day there may be a prison in which
each inmate will have his particular case analyzed by experts, with a view to special
treatment, aiming at his readjustment to the proper standard of living. Such a
development may seem visionary and impracticable. But surely we can, with reason
and justice, move a little in advance of our present policy, which may be expressed
in the words: "All is grist that comes to our punishment mill" — the old and the
young, the bad and the well-disposed, the hopeless and the hopeful, all treated as so
much human waste in a common heap.

There is discrimination under existing conditions. The stone pile at Kingston
is, by long odds, the worst department in the institution, while the carpenter shop and
blacksmith shop are probably the best. But there are some good conduct men on the
stone pile, placed there, we are told, because there is no other work for them. Com-
pared with their fellows in the carpenter shop and blacksmith shop, these men are
being discriminated against; and there is no logical basis for the discrimination. If
there were classification in the prison the operations of the stone pile might be confined
exclusively to prisoners of the third or lowest grade. This classification would mean
discrimination for cause — reward for good conduct, punishment for bad — instead of
the present discrimination which sometimes assigns the decent fellow to the most
brutalizing labour.

Admittedly there are obstacles in the way of scientific classification, in any of our
penitentiaries. The buildings were not planned with that object in view. But even
with conditions as they are, it should be possible to devise a simple grading that would
be just to all and encouraging to the well disposed. In some prisons, much like our
penitentiaries, the three grade system has worked well. A prisoner on arrival is placed
in the second grade. On his conduct depends promotion to the first grade, his remain-
ing in the second grade, or reduction to the third. First grade men get the best
positions; third grade men are assigned to the most disagreeable labour. Remission
is credited to first and second grade men only, and a prisoner must be in the first grade
for a certain period before he is eligible for parole. Third grade men may earn pro-
motion to second grade, and from second to first, by good conduct and industry. If
the honour system is established, the trusties are selected solely from the first grade.
On this basis a modified or elaborate system of classification may be established accord-
ing to the character of the population and the success of the experiment. There may
be weaknesses in such a system of classification, but its basic virtue is that it offers
some encouragement to the prisoner who desires to conform to the regulations of the
prison and fit himst^lf for a decent life when his term of incarceration ends.

A true classification requires careful and scientific study of the individual. As
things are, this can only be done in prison by obtaining a complete history of the
prisoner. The study of the individual prisoner is also necessary to find out his aptitude
for some particular trade and in the classification of prisoners regard should be had for
their proper training for life outside.

A resolution was moved by the Hon. Mr. Monk in tlie Dominion Parliament in
1909, and unanimously carried. That resolution read as follows: —

'To ascertain what means could be adopted in Canada to insure a

judicious classification and segregation of the convicts in our penal institutions
and reformatories.'

In response to this resolution the wardens and chaplains of all tlie penitentiaries
of the Dominion sent in reports which are to be found in tlie annual report of 1909-10,
pages 280-330. These ofiicials with one exception urged on the Govenimcut the
necessity of classification of prisoners.

The inspectors who had called for these reports, in pursuance of Mr. ^Monk's reso-
lution, made no recommendation to the ilinister of Justice to take any action regarding

REPORT OF THE ROTAL COMMISSION ON PENITENTIARIES 31

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 252

them. They dismissed the proposal to classify prisons and segregate first offenders in
a separate prison or reformatory on the ground of expense, and they reported that the
classification of prisoners should be left to the ' judicial criminologist.'

THE FJRST OFFENDER.

From sixteen to twenty-one the man is in the making. These years are peculiarly
liable to criminal temptations, " the crucial years in the formation of the character."

The virile animal propensities are asserting themselves without the self-control,
balance, and mature judgment of adult years. The adolescent period is recognized
by psychologists as the most critical time of human life, and the State has no adequate
means of dealing with it. When this youth falls into the hands of the law for some
offence, he should be placed under proper treatment of a corrective kind, with such
opportunities of education and industrial training as may enable him to become a
useful citizen.

The thief, the murderer, the burglar, have their own fixed standards of life, which
are those of their associates; to reform such persons, you must persuade them to drop
their own standards and accept yours, a difficult thing to do.

]n the case of the youth, his standards are not fixed and he is much more likely
to be responsive to the right influence. To say that he cannot be reformed, is to
despair of human nature. If he can be reformed, a grave responsibility rests some-
where.

Placing him in association with old criminals and offering no help to reform ' is
sure to hasten his downfall.' For want of proper treatment ' large nvimbers of these
young men develop into thugs, burglars, gamblers, etc.

It has come to be realized by penologists that to fulfil the obligations of society
to this class of prisoners, personal, individual treatment is needful, the scientific study
of the individual, otherwise you allow officials, well meaning but ignorant, to handle
him as they please.

What to do about it is the problem. Chicago has its Juvenile Protection Society,
for the purpose of grappling with this question. Dr. Healy spends his time studying
defective boys and girls who have got into trouble in the Juvenile Court or otherwise,
and finding out what treatment they require. It means the study of each individual
case, but Dr. Healy truly says its costs less to take it up at that end than to take care
of the same ease when it has become a fully developed criminal. ' The public would
find its reward in later years in a reduced crime rate.'

It may be that children and youth should not be sent to prison or dealt with under
the forms of criminal procedure, but as delinquents, luitil their sense of moral
responsibility has been fully developed.

' The absolute exclusion of young persons from the prisons, the Borstal
system for dealing with juvenile adults, the elimination of weak-minded persons,
are essential to a satisfactory reform of penal systems. They constitute a new
sifting out process, whereby persons who have hitherto flocked to our prisons in
thousands will in future be excluded and dealt with according to their needs.'
(Dr. Quinton, late Governor of IloUoway Prison.)

INDUSTRIES IN PRISON.

The character of a prison may be judged from its industries. If the industries are
of the right kind and rightly managed, the tone and discipline of the institution are
certain to be satisfactory. Busy shops, healthful, purposeful, profitable work, make
abuses almost impossible. The prisoner who is engaged in interesting, improving work,
is not hard to manage. He has not the time nor the inclination to conjure up " treasons,
stratagems and spoils." Idle and dissolute he may have been when he enjoyed his

32 REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON PENITENTIARIES

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

liberty, and now for the first time in his life, probably, he is made to appreciate the
blessedness of labour. Increasing efficiency brings him fresh encouragement. He finds
himseK moving steadily towards a position of economic independence. When he goes
out, he will face the world with a new heart, for his mind has become attuned to the
habit of industry and he has discovered that he can do things and that in the doing of
them there is satisfaction. If, in addition to all this, a wage allowance, based upon
efficiency, be given the prisoner, every incentive is present to make him work faithfully,
• and pave the way for a new and a better start in the outside world.

The industrial conditions in the penitentiaries of Canada are a disgrace to the
Dominion. An honest attempt is made by the officials to keep all the prisoners
employed at something, but it is only an attempt. As far as your Commissioners could
learn, there is not a single well-equipped, well-managed, continuously busy shop in the
whole circle of prisons. The reason is not far to seek: There are no goods to make
and if goods were made there is no place to market them. The blacksmith shop at
Kingston was running nicely when the Commission made its visits. Steel gates for a
new prison in the West were being turned out. When that order is completed the man-
agement will be hard put to find employment for the men in the blacksmith shop. The
tailor shop, carpenter shop, painters and tinsmith's shops are operated merely to meet
the requirements of the institution.

There is unanimity of opinion as to the necessity of labour in prisons. No one has
had the cruelty to suggest that the prisoners should be sentenced to enforced idleness ;
that, deprived of his liberty for society's protection, the prisoner should also be deprived
of the right to work. Not only •should the prisoner be given work but all prison admin-
istrators agree that it should be purposeful, productive work — work calculated to make
him a more efficient citizen when he regains his liberty.

The agitation against the competition of convict labour with free labour has been
generally successful on this continent. That agitation was justified on both economic
and moral grounds. The contract system of prison labour proved not only oppressively
competitive in some of the states of the Union, but was the cause of abuses that barred
the way to the betterment of convicts. But in removing this evil no thought seems to
have been given in some instances to the possibly greater evil that might succeed it.
To abolish the system of contract labour in prisons was justifiable; to leave unfortunate
prisoners to hammer out their term on a stone pile, or become mental and physical
wrecks in the solitary idleness of their cells, was a crime against humanity.

The possible solution of the labour difficulty in the penitentiaries naturally groups
itself under two headings : —

(a) Outside work — General farming operations, clearing land, quarrying
stone, making brick, building roads, etc.
, (h) Inside work — Employment in the various departments for the proper

upkeep and management of the prison. Employment in the making of goods
for the State.

As far as the natural resources and facilities of the prison will permit, any or all
of these activities may be profitably entered into. Outside employment has come to be
regarded as a powerful reclamatory agency. Men who have lived their lives in narrowly
circumscribed areas and have fallen into crime are likely to receive needed moral and
physical stimulus from the open air and sunshine. Old mother nature is a
kind nurse to the fellow who is at all disposed to get back to his better
self. Hence, farming operations of any kind make ideal work for improvable
prisoners. Quarrying stone and making brick, while not so attractive, as farm work,
are healthful and interesting occupations. The Provincial Reformatory quarries at
Guelph and the brickmaking plant of the same institution at IMimico have been remark-
ably successful from the productive standpoint. Better still, the men like the work and
go from it to their regained freedom, rugged and hopeful.

REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON PENITENTIARIES 33

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 252

Eoadmaking has been urged as an ideal employment for prisoners, for two reasons :
(1) because there is such a ciying need for good roads, and (2) because work of that
character affects very slightly the interests of organized labour. Of all outside work,
roadniaking is the least desirable for prisoners. In the first place, the constant exposure
to the public that such work inevitably involves is scarcely fair to the prisoner. Cer-
tainly it is not an aid to his rehabilitation. The convicts in the penal settlements of
Botany Bay, Tasmania and Western Australia, working in chain gangs, built long
stretches of stone roads that remain good to this day. But society's attitude towards
its delinquents has surely become more humane since Port Arthur furnished Marcus
Clarke with the material for his gruesome story. No prison management would now
be allowed to march convicts out to work on the roads in chains. The physical diffi-
culties to successful road operations are not easily surmountable. To work within
nightly reach of the prison would mean a rather narrow area of operation. For a
movable camp only well-conducted, trustworthy fellows could be selected, and these
trusties could probably be employed more advantageously to themselves and the State
on the institutional farm.

At Kingston, the farms should afford a means for the employment in summer of
a great deal more of the surplus prison labour than it now uses. From twenty to
twenty-four is the masinium number engaged on the farm, even in the busy season. It
is idle to say that from fifty to one hundred men could not be profitably engaged ou the
land. There are market gardens all around the prison farm and all kinds of vegetables,
with the exception of potatoes, can be grown in abundance. It might be even possible
to treat the land as to make it produce a good yield of potatoes. The difficulty on the
farm appears to be not in the land but in the prison management. More men are not
at work on the farm because of the officials' fear of escape and the trouble of looking
after the workers. At Ohio State reformatory, where they have many long term prison-
ers, even lifers, twelve hundred acres are being farmed and the net profit runs as high
as $20,000 per year. In ten years, 2,600 prisoners have been trusted outside of the walls
of the Ohio prison without armed guard, and only seventeen attempted to escape.

There is such a thing as emphasizing too much the necessity of keeping a loaded
rifle within easy range of every prisoner. There are some men at Kingston to-day
who would not run away if they had a chance. There are others who, under present
conditions, would make an escape, if they saw a favourable opportunity. But repose
a little confidence in these same men, put them on their honour, and they might prove
faithful to their trust. The success of prison management should not be measured in
inverse ratio to the number of yearly escapes. It is possible to have absolute security
and a horrible prison. No escapes from the prison at the further end of the Bridge of
Sighs are recorded, nor did many get away from the Bastile, until that memorable day
in July.

The trusty system is essential to the success of outside operations. The continual
menace of an armed guard stifles the development of co-operative interest in the convict,
hampers him in his labour, and makes that labour costly to the State. Nor is it
necessary to run great risks of escapes in developing the system. A trusty gang can
be recruited from almost any prison. It must be very carefully selected at first: (1)
From men whose terms of incarceration have nearly expired and whose self interest
makes it unwise to run away; (2) From those whose antecedents and conduct give
strong assurance that they will not violate the confidence reposed in them. Of course,
there will be occasional escapes, but if from a wisely selected trusty gang one does get
away, the safety of the community is not necessarily imperiled. The chances are the
defaulter will be recaptured and his added punishment will impart the wholesome lesson
to his fellows that it pays to play fair with the prison management.

Let us turn now to a consideration of the other branch of prison labour — Inside
industries. On these, as we have already urged, depends in a large measure the success
of prison management. Where outside operations are limited in scope and where the
climatic conditions make it impossible to work men in the open for a considerable

252—3

34 J?EPOI?T OF THE ROYAL f'OMMTf^S^lOy OX PENITEyTIARIES

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

period of the year, workshops within the walls arc an absolute necessity. Given a free
hand in the establishment and manaprement of industries and the sale of their products,
the progressive administrator can make an ideal prison. The greatest industrial prison
on the continent is situated at Stillwater, Minnesota. A glance at the operations of that
institution may be interesting. It has two basic industries : binder twine and agricul-
tural implements. The prisoners are paid according to merit or cificiency, some of thcni
receiving as high as $20 per month. In addition, a fund is set apart from the prison
earnings to relieve special cases of distress in the homes of prisoners. Last year the
net revenue — over and above the maintenance of the prison and the wages of the
inmates — was $362,000. This sum was handed over to the State for the general service.
Giving full credit to the unique genius of Mr. Heniy Wolfer as a business man and a
prison administrator, the result must still appear astounding unless the peculiar
situation in Minnesota is explained. Within the borders of that state there are no
binder twine factories or agricultural implement works, and it has become the settled
policy of the State that the farmers purchase all their requirements in those lines from
the Stillwater prison. If outside firms invade the Minnesota market the price of the
prison product is lowered sufficiently to crowd them out. It is not necessary to make
any comment upon the principle underlying the operation of IVIinnesota's penal indus-
tries. We merely state the facts. May we add that it is a far cry from the prosperous
monopoly in two lines of manufacture that the Minnesota prison enjoys, to the
strangled industrial conditions that one meets in a Canadian penitentiary — from the
net revenue of $362,000 at Stillwater to a net cost of $300 per year for maintaining each
convict in this Dominion.

THE STATE-rSE SYSTE;Nr.

The State-use system has beeii generally accepted as the most satisfactory solution
of the prison labour system. True, objection is olVered to it in some quarters because
of the fact that under its operation, while the element of competition is removed, the
product of prison labour displaces what free labour would otherwise supply. This
objection is unreasonable. Its acceptance can only mean one thing: the enforced idle-
ness of prisoners, which, as we have already pointed out, is a crime against the prisoner
and society as well. Since prisoners must be given productive employment, surely it
is only just that, in as much as they must be maintained by the State, the State should
receive the product of their labour. In this view, the leaders of the labour movement
on this continent heartily concur, ^[r. John Mitchell, Vice-president of tlie American
Federation of Labour, in a recent article says: —

" Organized labour is the strongest and most persistent advocate of the
employment of convicts in the prisons upon those conmioditics which are needed
by the state and its subdivisions for consumption in its several institutions and
departments. The charge that the labour iinions are opposed to convict labour
is a malicious attempt to prejudice the p\iblic against unionism by shifting upon
the unions the responsibility for the evil conditions existing in the ])enal insti-
tutions"

Further on, ^Ir. ^litchell ajtprovingly (juotcs an t-xlract from the report of the pro-
ceedings of the National ("omiuiltee on Prison La1)our, as follows: —

" After one year of study the National Committee on Prison Labour found
the preponderance of evidence to be in favour of the State-use system; after a
second year of study and further investigation, the Committee is in a i)osition to
declare as prejudicial to the welfare of the i)risoner, the ])risoners family and
the pul)lic. the contract system of jirison labour. The Committee therefore
declares \tMAi opposed to the contract system of prison lal)our and to every other
system which exploits his labour to the detriment of the prisoner."

REPORT OF TEE ROYAL COMMISSION ON PENITENTIARIES 35

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 252

In a contribution to the Annals of the American Academy, Mr. John P. Frey,
editor of the International Moulders' Journal, defines the position of organized labour
on the question in these words : —

" It is not the A\-ork of the convicts as producers which meets with trade
union opposition, nor is it that by working: they may keep some free men idle.
It is, instead, the methods by which prison labour, when performed for the benefit
of private contractors, places the product of the convicts' labour on the market
and thereby forces reductions in wa^es iipon large numbers of free workmen,
thereby lowering their standard of living."

Proceeding, ^Ir. Frey gives an illustration of the attitude of labour. If the State
decide to " build an addition to one of its prisons or erect a new public building by
convict labour " there could be no objection. But if the State " allowed building con-
tractors the privileges of contracting for convict labour and these convicts were placed
to work erecting buildings for pi'ivate individuals in competition with contractors em-
ploying free la1)our — to this form of competition the trade unions object." Further on,
Mr. Frey advocates the doing in prison of all work necessary for the maintenance of
State and eleemosynary institutions, building highways, raising farm produce, etc.,
" and the convict can work on all of these with a minimum of competition with free
labour and with no injury to the farmer." More emphatic still is the pronouncement
of Mr. Collis Lovely, General Vice-president of the Boot 'and Shoe Workers' Union,
Boston, in favour of the State-use system. lie. says: —

" The system has proved an unqualified succesb and merits extension to all
penal institutions in the state and country. No institution suj)ported wholly or
partially by the State should be allowed to purchase a single article in the open
market that can be siipplied in prisons. This would give employment to diver-
sified prison industries and occupations and fit the prisoners to procure and per-
form lucrative labour at the expiration of their prison terms. Hence the value
of diversified prison industries and occupations conducted under the most
improved methods and with up-to-date machinery."

Your Commissioners htid the privilege of hearing statements from representatives
of organized labour in Canada. With the views already quoted from United States
Labour leaders these statements generally agree. Mr. James Watt, president of the
Toronto Trades and Labour Council, did not see any serious objection to prisoners
being employed on work for the State, but urged strongly that the State should pay
them wages. The president of the Dominion Trades and Labour Congress, Mr. J. C.
Watters. said it did not matter what class of work prisoners are engaged in, there is
competition to a greater or less degree. But the State-use system offers least competi-
tion to outside labour, and he was most emphatically in favour of it.

It is needless to quote the opinion of prison administrators on the State-use system.
They all favour it. Wherever it has been adopted it has settled the perplexing question
of productive emi>Ioyment iu prisons. Let it be remembered, however, that the field for
the operation of such a system in any of the States of the Union is much wider than it
is in Canada. " State Institution " there covers nearly every institution within the
borders of the State, educational, charitable, and corrective. In other respects, what
with us is a strictly municipal servir? is with them under State control. Dr. E. Stagg
Whitin, secretarj' of the New York Prison Board, told your Commissioners that the
entire population of the penal institutions of the State could not possibly manufacture
all the goods required for its various institutions. A similar situation is said to exist
in Ohio, Massachu.setts, and other states.

Wherever the State-use pystem has been successfully inaugurated it has been
found necessary to pass an Act making it compulsory for the State's institutions and
cervices to iMirduisc their supplies from the penal institutions. If the purchase of

36 REPORT OF THE ROTAL COMMISSION ON PENITENTIARIES

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

goods from prison industries is left optional, it is found that private interests exer-
cise a sufficiently powerful influence to hold the trade or the major portion of it.
There does not appear to be any doubt that a full application of the State-use system
in Canada would mean a welcome revival of the industries of the penitentiaries. More,
it would mean the development of industries admirably adapted to the needs of the
prisoners. On this point, there is a hearty agreement among the penitentiary
officials who have been before us. Ex-Warden Piatt tells us on pages of _ the

abandonment of the one-time thriving industries at Kingston; how the conditions
that followed have "seriously operated against the reformation of the convicts;" the
efforts that have been put forth to fill orders for supplies for the Post Office and
Military services of the Government, and his own conviction that the public use plan
would give the penitentiaries " all the work they would require." Equally confident
is Inspector Douglas Stewart that the Government has within its own hands the
means of reviving on a sound basis the penal industries. On page he says:—

Speaking about the better employment of prisoners in penitentiaries, Inspector
William Hughes (page ) declared that : —

" What I have recommended, and what I think is absolutely suited, from
every point of view, is that the Government should utilize the labour of its
wards to meet its own requirements as far as possible. I think it (the State-use
system) would give employment to every man in the prisons of Canada."

"Those men (those on the stone pile), not only those men, but all the men
in the institution that we cannot employ on the farm and works, which are
necessary for ourselves and the maintenance of the place, should lie employed
on State work. We are at the present time prosecuting operations here that
will enable us to obtain possession of two shops in addition to the binder twine
shops. With these shops at our disposal the prosecution of some industry for
the manufacture of State goods could be taken up immediately. Let the Gov-
ernment give us an idea of what they want done and we can make it for them
immediately."

From what your Commissioners have seen and heard during their investigations,
they are forced to the conclusio!i that the State has been grossly negligent in not pro-
viding proper work for its prisoners in the penitentiaries. Public opinion forced the
abandonment of the contract system and the closing down of the shops operated under
it; but public opinion did not bar the way to the employment of prisoners in work
for the State. The lack of proper employment at Kingston has been the cause, we
believe, of the institution's chief troubles.

Under the State-use system many lines of industry might be profitably entered
into. One of the most suitable for the prisoners and the most profitable to the State
would be a furniture factory, for the making of all kinds of office furniture, filing
cabinets, desks, tables, chairs, etc. The efficiency that can be developed, even among
short term prisoners, in this line of work is remarkiiMo. In one reformatory in the
United States, your Commissioners were shown a magnificent line of furniture for
the Governor's residence, made entirely by the inmates.

Other industries will naturally suggest themselves: clothing, boots and shoes,
blankets, tents, etc., for the Mounted Police; tents, blankets, uniforms and harness
for the Militia; tinware utensils for all services requiring them: mail-bags and
repairing same, rural mail boxes, etc., hospital beds and tables.

As the industries grow, it will be found that other lines of manufacture for the
Government can be successfully carried out. The system should be given not a stinted
but a generous application. ]?rivate interests have made it impossible for the Gov-
ernement to allow its prisoners to labour for the open market. Private interest should
pot be allowed to interfere with the Government setting apart for prison industries

REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON PENITENTIARIES 37

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 252

eveiy dollar's worth of those lines of goods that it reciuires and that prison shops can
turn out.

That course marks the only sure way to the reform of the penitentiary system in
Canada. Once a diversified circle of industries is established, abuses will disappear.
A kindlier attitude and a better spirit will develop amongst the prisoners; officials nnd
guards will realize more fully that their duty is to help as well as to hold the convict ;
and that to make men better is one of the prime purposes of the Prison System.

PAYIMENT OF PRISONERS.

It has been strongly urged iipon your Commissioners that prisoners should be paid
wages or that a portion of their earnings be devoted to the maintenance of their
families. At the present time, the prison population of Canada, far from earning
anything for the State, costs the Government for maintenance over $300 per head per
year. Even if a well-selected circle of State-use industries were established and
successfully operated, it is not likely they will ever make our prisons self-sustaining.
They should, however, very materially reduce the annual burden on the country and at
the same time provide a fund for the remuneration of prisoners or assistance to
prisoners' families.

Any wages' system must include all prisoners in its operations. If married men,
or men with relatives dependent upon them, alone were paid, other prisoners, equally
skilled and equally industrious, would justly complain. Even the fact that the earnings
were given, not to the prisoner, but to his family, would not lessen the discrimination.
The only prisoners who can fairly be left off the wages or reward sheet, are those under
the ban for bad conduct.

The system of rewards or payments to prisoners, according to their efficiency and
industry, has been adopted in many of the Institutions of the United States and in a
few houses in Europe. As an incentive to labour and good conduct, it is invaluable.
Men work with much more heart when they know they will be sharers, even to a small
degree, in the product of their labour. In fact, their increased output under such a
stimulus, it has been shown, goes a long way towards covering the wages fund. An idea
of the outlay which the wages or reward system involves, may be gleaned from a survey
of the pay sheet at Stillwater, Minn. Stillwater, as we have already seen, returned to
the State, $362,000 profit on its industries last year. The money paid the prisoners
at Stillwater is termed 'over-work allowance.' In the month of October, 1913, 24
hands working full time, 27 days, received an ' over-work allowance ' of $282.57, or an
average of $11.77. There was quite a disparity in the amounts received- ijy the men.
One bench hand got $22.89 for his month's work. The earnings of four others were
between $15 and $20, and seven were under $10.

The pajanent of prisoners, under the industrial conditions that at present obtain
in our penitentiaries, would be a question of charity rather than administration. The
question is: Should the distress that exists in the homes of many of these men and the
sufferings entailed upon their innocent families, be left as at present to the care of
local charities, or should their relief be made an additional charge upon the peniten-
tiary appropriation?

The family, as a rule, is not to blame for the offence of its bread-winner, yet wife
and children, crushed under the disgrace of the crime, have physical privation addcfl
to their mental tortures. The prisoner must bear the burden of his crime, but he is
not responsible for the fact that he does not earn anything in prison. He would, no
doubt, welcome the opportunity to engage in profitable labour, especially if he knew
that part of his earnings would be devoted to the sustenance of his dependent ones.
But the State will not let him earn anything. He is a non-producer and society has
to support him as well as his family. The Government is to blame for this condition
of affairs, and we believe until it places its prison population in the way of engaging

38 REPORT OF THE ROYAL C0J7Ji/.S.s7OA OX PEX IT EXT I ARIES

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

ill productive labour, it sliouki set aside a fund for the relief of distress in prisoners'
liomcs.

Tin-: I.XDETEKMLNATE SEXTKNC'E.

The indeterminate sentence is reg-arded by penolog-ists as essential to tlie etfe(.'tive
operation of any reformative system. It is at once a scientific and a connnon-sciise
proposal. It presupposes the necessity of the cure or reclamation of the man as well as
his punishment. The definite sentence, on the other hand, is punitive in its purpose. The
prisoner must remain in prison for a stated number of years, no matter how well fitted
he may be, before the expiry of his sentence, to take his place in the outside world.
And he must be discharged, when his time is up even if he is still an unrepentant
criminal and determined to resume his war upon society.

The chief objections to the indeterminate sentence are: (1) the judse who tries a
man is in the best ])osition to fix justly his sentence; (2) the trained criminal may so
conduct himself in jjrison as to deceive the officials and thus earn good reports and
early liberty.

To the first of these objections there is only one answer: If the sole object of the
judge's sentence is to punish, and make the punishment fit the crime, the judge is
certainly the best qualified to measure out the law's revenge. But, if the other side of
the question is to receive consideration; if society desires to reform as well as punish
the convicted felon, then the judge is no more in a position to fix definitely the period
of incarceration than the doctor is to say beforehand how long a patient should remain
under treatment.

The second objection, based upon the fear tliat clever, designing criminals, by good
conduct, may work a short course thr<iugh prison, has not revealed itself in the prac-
tical operations of the system. Under the indeterminate sentence law, the average tenn
of detention in prison is invariably longer than it was under the fixwl sentence.

After years of experience with the operations of the system in the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts, Mr. Fred. G. Pettigrove, of Boston, gives this as his matured opinion :

" The indeterminate form of sentence is an indispensable adjunct to every
reform.atory scheme, because it is the only one that affords an opportunity to
adjust the term of detention to the varying needs and capacities of the prisoner.
When a prisoner is inider the necessity of making a constant effort at self-
improvement in order to secure release, he must in some cases be deriving a
benefit from the discipline. The deterrent effect of penalties depends upon
certainty more than upon severity; and the certainty of a commitment on an
in(lirt(^*niinate sentence is quite as useful as if the court should fix the term."

The view that in corresponding to the efforts for his rehabilitation within the
l)rison, even if his sole object is early freedom, a prisoner is developing the good that
is in him, is also well expressed by another experienced penologist: —

" The prisoner's government resolves itself into a mutual or co-operative
relation between himself and keeper or guard. Both are anxious to win — the
prisoner for his earlier freedom — his keeper because it is easier to manage liim
under the stimulating inlhience or reward. The general character of the prisoner
is improved by his own discipline of self control, and I say it advisedly, the
prison officer is also impro\ed by the response in his wartl. The rigours of
prison commands are softened, infractions are adjusted witli better spirit and
penalties are imposed n)orc thouglitfully. Tliey feel tlie heart beats of each
other more easily and readily, and 1 firmly believe that by this form of sentence
we are more likely to reco/nize that wliich is too often unrecognized, that
whether we wear oilicial robe or jirison garb, both are children of one living God."

The late Chief Justice ^Ic^Iahou Avas a strong advocate of the indefinite sentence.
As indicating the position of an eminent Cunadian Jurist on the question, a quarti-i- of

REPORT OF THE ROYAL ('OMMTsS^TOX OX PEXITEXTIARIES 39

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 252

a century ago, we may quote from Justice ^IcMnhon's charge to the Grand Jury at
Toronto Assizes in June, 18S9 : —

" Were the law changed and the judge's duty made simply to commit the
prisoner to a named prison, the prisoner's duration therein would depend on
himself, from the evidouce afforded hy his daily life and conduct as evincing
his fitness for a return to liberty.

" A convict is imprisoned because it is not safe for the community that he
should be at large. His imprisonment is demanded for the same reasons that
require that a Ivinatic should be detained in an asylum. It follows that the
imprisonment should continue as long as the danger lasts. A lunatic is not dis-
charged from an asylvun until in the opinion of those intrusted with his keeping
he has recovered his mental balance. So it is urged to discharge a convict
while he remains unchanged in character and purpose is to precipitate upon
the public a terror which it is the duty of the state to hold in leash.

"As it is the aim of* the indeterminate sentence to retain the convict in
prison until he is fitted for freedom, making such fitness tho condition precedent
to his release, the sentence therefore presupposes a system of prison discipline
that shall tend to fit the convict for freedom. Mere imprisonment does not have
such effect; on the contrary the punitive system has the opposite tendency."

Dr. Bruce Smith, Inspector of Prisons for Ontario, has made an exhaustive study
of tlie indeterminate sentence as an essential feature of any system of prison reform,
Doctor Smith speaks not only from many years practical experience, but also from a
wide knowledge gained through a personal investigation and study of the prison systems
of the United States and European countries. He puts the case very concisely when
he says : —

" The indeterminate sentence embodies as one of its basic principles that the
individual offender, and not the crime, shall finally determine the length of con-
finement or detention that is necessary to reform him, and to secure the greatest
protection to society. This means a careful analysis of his physical, mental and
moral status in order to determine how long it is necessary for him to remain in
prison, rather than the measuring out so much punislmient for a given amount
of crime. The indeterminate sentence seeks to regenerate the criminal and read-
just him to the requirements of society's laws and customs, so that he may be
safely released on probation. It affirms that the crime shall not be considered
except for the purpose of determining the cidprit's natural depravity. Emphasis
is placed upon the saving qualities of the individual — the man, or what is left
of him. The scientific application of the principles of the indeterminate sen-
tence means or implies that the ofi'ender shall some day be released on probation
or parole, and that such tentative release shall come to him gradually, and only
after he has given reasonable evidence of his desire and purpose to live honestly
and obey the law. It means that his treatment in prison shall tend to break
down and eradicate the vicious and criminal traits of his character and build
up and strengthen the best elements of his nature. The principles involved in
the indeterminate sentence and tho probation or parole system are one and the
same, and are inseparable."

Carried to its logical development, the in.determinate sentence should have neither
minimum or maximum limits. It should mean liberty for' the reformed prisoner to
take his place in society and bear his share of its burdens, but it also should secure
the continued incarceration of the incurable criminal. Any system that shortens the
term of imprisonm.ent of the man who becomes an honest contributor to the wealth
of the community, and holds in leash for a longer period the habitual criminal, is in
the economic interest of the State. Society is the gainer by the earlier freedom of
the one and the longer confinement of the other. This principle is recognized in the

40 REPORT OF TEE ROYAL C0MMISSI02f OiV PENITENTIARIES

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

Borstal system in England where a separate institution has been established for cases
that offer little or no hope of reform. New South Wales has a law that places a
criminal, three times convicted, on what is known as the " habitual list." The
habitual is kept in custody until he has given substantial evidence of a desire to live
an honest and orderly life. Then he is allowed out on probation on condition that he
report regularly to the probation ofBcer and if he again violates the law he is returned
to prison for an indefinite period. Switzerland has a special institution for the reci-
divist called the House of Seclusion. The minimum term is ten years; the maximum
twenty.

The indeterminate sentence is now in operation in the province of Ontario. The
Ontario Reformatory Act provides that every person sentenced directly to the
Reformatory shall be sentenced to imprisonment there for a period of not less than
three months and for an indeterminate period thereafter of not more than two years,
loss one day. An application of the same principle to the treatment of inebriates is
to be found in the Ontario Municipal Act, 1912, a section of which reads as follows : —

"Where a person is convicted of being found drunk or disorderly in a
public place, contrary to a municipal by-law, within three months after a prior
conviction for a like offence, he may be committed by the Police Magistrate or
Justice of the Peace, before whom he is convicted, to an Industrial Farm, of
the locality, in which the order for committal is made for an indeterminate
period, not exceeding two years."

Not the least of the merits of the indeterminate sentence is that it would place
ail prisoners on an equal footing. The disparity in judges' sentences is very pro-
nounced-. One judge appears to have a particular aversion for a certain class of
offence. Another judge is notoriously lenient in some cases. Hence we. have men
meeting in prison, found guilty of a similar offence, with one undergoing a penalty
much more severe than the other. The long termer, already smarting under a feeling
of resentfulness, is likely to grow more morose and vindictive when he meets other
prisoners who are getting off much lighter than he. If a minimum and maximum
])eriod of imprisonment were fixed in each case and each convict allowed to work out
his own salvation between those limits, there would be an end to all feeling of judi-
cial wrong and a friendlier attitude by the prisoner, from the beginning, towards tlie
agencies that are working for his rehabilitation.

PAROLE.

A natural corrollary of the indeterminate sentence is a properly organized and
efficiently administered system of parole. To one officer is assigned the duty with the
assistance of the police of looking after the men during their probation. The physical
impossibility of any one man — no nuitter how efficient and zealous he may be — discharg-
ing these duties for the whole Dominion, is obvious. True, invaluable service is
voluntarily rendered the Department by the Prison Gate Branch of the Salvation Army,
and manj' a paroled prisoner owes his thanks to this worthy organization, for the assist-
ance and encouragement that gave him a new start in life. If the administration of
a parole system is one of the duties of the State, then the proper working out of that
system should not be dependent upon the efforts of any church or charitable society.
It should be organized and officered to promote and protect adequately the interests of
every paroled convict. That would still leave a large field for the independent exercise
of Christian sympathy and helpfulness. '

According to the present regulations, the paroled niou report to a police officer in
the district. This is a very bad feature of the system. The average policeman is
neither temperamentally n(n' by tniiniiig fitted to be the guide and guardian of an ex-
cunvict. Not infrecjuently, i)olice persecution has driven the honestly working convict
away from his employnuMit ^.u\^] Imck aLrain lo a life of frimc The parole system should

REPORT OF THE ROYIL COMMISSION OX PEXITENTIARIES 41

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 252

be absolutely independent of the police. It should be administered by strict but sympa-
thetic men, who will see to it that the paroled convict gets a fair chance. Employment
is the first requisite to a new start in life. It is not fair to the prisoner to set him at
liberty in a world which has been a closed book to him for a number of years, without
anything to do. If the man is weak at all, he will surely go down under the continuous
pressure of enforced idleness. It is not desirable in the vast majority of cases to send
the man back to his former home. The prospects of his success are generally much
better if a position is secured for him in a strange place. Only his employer and the
local parole ofiicer need know of his prison experience. This secret between employer
and employee often develops a feeling of fellowship and gives the paroled man a surer
grip of himself.

Tour Commissioners have been impressed with the idea that a parole system can
best be administered with the assistance of a small board ai^pointed at each institution.
That board could meet monthly and consider the application for parole, see and inter-
rogate the applicants, hear the reports from the warden and other officials, and advise
the Minister of Justice on each case. Membership on the board would be of a purely
honorary character, as public spirited men may be found at every prison willing to give
their time to the work.

MANAGEMENT OF PENITENTIARIES.

The unsatisfactory conditions at Kingston Penitentiary are the outcome of the
system of administration. The place is pervaded by a spirit of distrust and suspicion
amongst the subordinate officers. Political jealousies and religious animosities pre-
vail to such an extent that they have seriously affected the welfare of the inmates.
It is difficult to see how any reformatory work can be carried on where such a spirit
prevails. When officers are quarreling, nursing personal grievances and imaginary
wrongs, and making them the subject of prison gossip from day to day, their influence
on the prisoners cannot be good.

Many of the guards are not qualified by education or character for the positions
they fill. Guards who obtain their appointments by misrepresenting their age and
other sinister means, are not men whose influence will tend to uplift those in their
charge. When they carry on illicit traffic in tobacco and rob the convicts in doing
so, they cannot help to make the prisoners honest men. Their influence must have
an evil effect which nothing can overcome. The possible effects of the petty tyranny
over prisoners of ignorant and brutal guards are painful to think of. The moral
standards pervading the prison are to be estimated from these facts.

These conditions result in great measure from: (1) The present mode of appoint-
ing guards through political influence; and (2) from the Warden's hands being tied,
so that he is practically impotent to control or dismiss an official who has political
influence, no matter what his offence may be. Formerly, it appears the Warden was
invested with full authority to employ and dismiss guards. Some fifteen years ago,
this power was taken from him, and the result has been the lessening of his influence
as an administrator; the employment of men utterly unsuitable for the work, and
the consequent demoralization of the penitentiary service. As to the conditions we
are dealing with and the causes that produce them, there is a concurrence of opinion
among prison officials. Warden Piatt was questioned on this point (page ) : —

'' Q. How does the present system affect discipline in so far as the author-
ity of the warden is concerned? — A. Inimically; that is the whole tendency —
to lessen the authority of the warden and lead the officials to think that the
warden has less to do with them than he used to have — and that they are de-
pendent on their friends in the city or friends in Ottawa more than they are
on the warden.

" Q. That must undermine discipline? — A. It undermines the authority
of the warden."
95-2—4.

42 REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON PENITENTIARIES

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

Inspector Hughes (page ) condemned the system of placing a man who is
inferior in every way to the convict who is under him, in charge of that convict.
"Where you get men shut in from the outer world and the only person from the outer
world they are meeting is the man who instructs and controls thera practically, body
and soul, that man's example before them is much more than you can appreciate,
unless you have been there to see it.

Equally emphatic was Inspector Stewart in his denunciation of the method of
appointing guards. Speaking of a convict who had been using dope, he was asked,
(page ) : " Where would he get the dope ?" and the answer was : " From officers

appointed by political parties outside, without an examination." Further on. (page

) Mr. Stewart deals more fully with the question. He says : —

" The mode of selection is such that tlie Warden is absolutely relieved of
the responsibility or the influence a man so selected has over the convicts.
The process of selection is and has been for the last fifteen or twenty years,
fifteen years at least, that when a vacancj' occurs a man is taken from those
recommended by prominent politicians and members of Parliament, and the
Warden is notified to employ him. The Warden, it is true, has then three
months before the appointment is made permanent, if he sees fit to report
against that man's permanent appointment, but it is very, very rarely that the
Warden has backbone enough to do it, because he antagonizes the politician
who recommends him."

Your Commissioners believe that no lasting improvement in the condition of our
penitentiaries can be looked for, so long as the present system of management is
adhered to. It is impossible, apparently, to fix the responsibility for many of the
evils complained of. The Warden disclaims responsibility and the Inspectors say
that they are not res^ponsible, in many cases. What is needed is a management,
imhampered by political influence, vested with full power to reorganize the system and
held strictly responsible for the conduct of all our penitentiaries. The importance of
the work can scarcely be overestimated. At the very outset a line of industries must
be established. To place each of these industries in the most suitable institution and
fully equip and officer them are important undertakings. More important still is the
better adjustment of the routine and discipline of the prisons to the moral and intellec-
tual improvement of the prisoners. Responsibility there must be and in the final
analysis that responsibility must rest on the Department and the Government. But in
the working out of a reorganization and the subsequent management of each prison
those charged with the duty should be given a free hand. To no other department of
the public service is the Commission system so well adapted. Wherever it has been
tried the results have been gratifying. A penitentiary Commission of three members
would meet every requirement of the situation. To that Commission should be
given full power to reorganize the prisons, industrially and otherwise, make regula-
tions for their management, select men for the administrative officers and then hold
these men responsible for results. As a body, the Commission would control the whole
circle of penitentiaries. Individually, they would perform the duties of an inspecto-
rate. The Department of Justice, while exercising supreme authority over the Com-
mission, would be relieved of the details of management and the pressure for political
appointments.

RECOMM EXDATIOXS.

Your Commissioners beg to make the following recommendations : —

Managetnent.

(1) That the control of the penitentiaries be placed in the hands of a permanent
Commission of three members, with power to appoint staff officers and heads of depart-

REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSIOX O.Y PENITENTIARIES 43

SESSIONAL PAPER No. 252

ments, make regulations for the government of the institutions and generally direct
their management.

(2) That under such commission the "Warden of each prison be given full author-
ity to employ and dismiss keepers, guards, etc., in addition to the powers he now enjoys.

(3) That a Parole Board of not less than three members be appointed for each
penitentiary, to sit once a month and to hear and consider applications for parole, and
make recommendations on the same to the Minister of Justice.

(4) That the field staff of the parole organization be increased to three officers to
be directly under the charge of the Department of Justice and work in conjunction
with the local parole boards.

Classification.

(5) That an arrangement be entered into with the provinces of the Dominion to
take over the custody of first offenders and prisoners under twenty-five years of age.

(6) That should it be found impracticable to carry out recommendation No. 5.
two reformatories for yoiing prisoners and first offenders be established — one in the
East and the other in the West.

(7) That within the present penitentiaries a system of classification be inaugurated,
based upon the conduct of the prisoners, and operated with a view to encourage them to
habits of order, industry, and a better appreciation of the duties of citenzenship.

Industrial Employment.

(S) That what is known as the State-use or Public-use system of prison labour
be adopted throughout the penitentiaries and that industries be established to supply
the requirements of the Government, its institutions and services, with all goods that
can be made in prison.

(9) That outside labour be developed to the fullest possible extent at each prison,
in farming operations and, where raw material can be conveniently obtained, in quarry-
ing stone, making brick, etc.

Treatment of Prisoners.

(10) That a through physical and mental examination be made of each prisoner
on his admission, and as far as possible his antecedents and family history be obtained
and put on record ; and

That a proper fyling system be installed at each penitentiary, so that the history,
physical and mental condition of the prisoner on admission and his record in prison
may be kept in one envelope.

(11) That the close cropping of prisoners' hair be abolished, except in cases where
it is necessary to preserve cleanliness.

(12) That in place of the present prison luiiform a suit and cap of one tone
material, blue or grey, be adopted.

{1?>) That a few copies of a carefully censored weekly newspaper he provided in
each prison for the use of good-conduct prisoner.-.

(14) That a moderate issue of tobacco be made to good conduct prisoners whr>
had contracted the habit before entering prison.

(15) That as soon as space can be provided n dining-room equipped with proper
service be established at each prison for all goixl conduct prisoners, and that mean-
while the tinware utensils in use be discarded and enamel-ware subtituted.

(16) That hosing of convicts and confining them in a dark cell or dungeon and
shackling with ball and chain be abolished.

The Hospital and Insane Ward.

(17) That a hospital, modern in plan and equipment, be provided.

(18) That the hospital staff be reorganized so that it comprise a visiting surgeon,
a resident physician, and two trained male nurses.

44 REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMilISt>IO\ ON PENITENTIARIES

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

(19) That a separate institution for the criminal insane be established or that
-arrangements be made with the provincial Oovernments for taking over this class.

The School.

(20) That a school of letters be established at each prison, and for three hours at
least each day instruction be given by a head teacher and inmate monitors.

(21) That drill exercises be held every Saturday afternoon when the weather is
*^uitable, and on the afternoon of every holiday; and that an occasional entertainment
he given.

Disciplinary Officers.

(22) That in the employment of guards more regard be had to the character and
education of the applicant, with a view that the official should exercise the best possible
influence over the prisoner.

Indeterminate Sentence.

(215) That the criminal cede be so amended as to empower judges to impose a
maximum and minimum term of sentence on all persons committed to a penitentiary,
the period of detention to be fixed by the Parole Board.

G. M. MACDONXELL.
FREDERICK ETIIERIXGTON.
J. P. DOWNEY.

4-5 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPERS Nos. 269b, j, j, I, m. A. 1914

DOCUMENTS

RELATIVE TO THE

GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE

BONDS OF THE CANADIAN NORTHERN

RAILWAY

PRINTED BY ORDER OF PARLIAMENT

OTTAWA

PRINTED BY J. de L. TACHfi, PRINTER TO THE KING'S MOST
EXCELLENT MAJESTY

1914
No.'269b, i. 'j,l, m— 1914]

4-5 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPERS Nos. 269b, i, j, I, m. A. 1914

Canadian Northern Railway System.

1. — Correspondence, including official application.

2. — Detailed statements showing particulars of capitalization, earnings, cost
to complete, &c.

269b, i, j, I, m.— 11

4-5 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPERS Nos. 269b, i, j, I, m. A. 1914

Ottawa, March 5th, 1914.
To][the Right Honourable

R. L. Borden,

Premier of Canada.

Dear Sir^ — For the reasons mentioned in the memoranda and statements
respecting the Canachan Northern Railway System, submitted, it is essential
that the Company should receive further Government aid. The amount
required is Forty-two :\Iillion Dollars ($42,000,000).

Recognizing the difficulties in the way of a cash loan, I beg to apply for a
guarantee of securities to the extent of Fortj^-five INIillion Dollars ($45,000,000),
par value. The discount on the disposal of these securities would probably
reduce the proceeds below the Forty-two Million Dollars (842,000,000).

I have the honour to be.

Your obedient servant,

Wm. Mackenzie,

President.

Ottawa, March 6th, 1914.
To the Right Honourable R. L. Borden,

Premier of Canada,

Ottawa, Out.

Dear Sir, — It has been suggested that an agreement .should be made between
the Canadian Northern Railway and the Government in connection with the
Company's application for assistance, providing for an exchange of traffic
between the Company's lines of railway and the Intercolonial Railway at Quebec.
To an arrangement of this kind, the Company is agreeable, and it is suggested
that the arrangement should be of such nature that the Intercolonial would
secure all the benefits, from traffic originating on the Company's lines and con-
signed to points on the Intercolonial Railwa}', that it would have were it the
eastern part of the Canadian Northern Railway System. Naturally, the Cana-
dian Northern would expect the same benefits from traffic originating on the lines
of the Intercolonial Railway.

I am convinced that an arrrangement of this kind is practical and would
result in benefit to the two railway systems affected, and if the members of your
Government are of the same opinion, I would suggest that provision be made in
such legislation as may be passed in connection with the Comipany's application
for aid, empowering the interested parties to enter into the necessary agreements.

Yours very truly,

Wm. jMackenzie,

President.

4-5 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPERS Nos. 269b, j, j, I, m. A. 1314

INFORMATION REQUIRED FROM THE CANADIAN NORTHERN

RAILWAY.

Required — A Tabular Statement Showing:

1. The Charters of the various Companies constituting the C. N. R. System,

with dates and appropriate references.

2. The length of each line and the Provinces within which it is situate and its

termini.

3. Its present or proposed connection with the whole system.

4. Its capitalization showing both authorized and issued capital.

5. Its cost up to the present time.

6. The amount, if any, required to complete.

7. The aid received therefor in (o) cash, or (6) lands, from (a) the Federal

Government, (6) any Provincial Government or Governments, and
(c) any municipality.

8. The aid received therefor in guarantee of securities by (a) the Federal

Government, or (6) any Provincial Government.

9. The fixed charges thereon with particulars of the date when (a) the principal

and (6) the interest is due.

10. The present earnings both (a) gross and (6) net.

11. The estimated earnings both (a) gross and (6) net, during the years 1914-

15-16-17-18 respectively.

4-5 GEORGE V.

SESSIONAL PAPERS Nos. 269b, i, j, I, m.

A. 1914

CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY SYSTEM.
Length of each Line and the Provinces within which it is situate, and its Termini.

Canadian Northern Railway

Lines in Provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan
Manitoba and Ontario.
Termini^Edmonton & Port Arthur.

Canadian Northern Alberta Ry

Lines in Province of Alberta.

Termini — Edmonton and Yellowhead Pass.

In
operation.

4931-98

22 00

Track

laid

not in

operation.

Canadian Northern Western Ry

Lines in Province of Alberta.
Termini^ — Various Branch Lines.

Canadian Northern Saskatchewan Ry. . .
Lines in Province of Saskatchewan.
Termini — Various Branch Lines.

Canadian Northern Pacific Ry

Lines in Province of British Columbia.
Termini — Vancouver, Yellowhead Pass.
Vancouver Island — Victoria and Alberni.

Duluth, Winnipeg & Pacific Ry

Lines in State of Minnesota.
Termini — Duluth and Fort Francis.

Canadian Northern Ontario Ry.

Lines in Provinces of Ontario and Quebec.
Termini — Port Arthur, Montreal, Toronto.

Canadian Northern Quebec Ry

Lines in Province of Quebec.

Termini — Quebec, Montreal, Hawkesbury.

171-6

Quebec & Lake St. John Ry

Lines in Province of Quebec.
Termini — Quebec and Roberval.

Halifax & South W. Ry

Province of Nova Scotia.
Termini — Halifax and Yarmouth.

Central Ontario Railway

Lines in Province of Ontario.
Termini — Picton and Rathbum.

Bay of Quite Railway

Lines in Province of Ontario.

Termini — Bannockburn and Deseronto.

Irondale, Bancroft & Ottawa Ry

Lines in Province of Ontario.

Termini — Bancroft Jet., Kinmount Jet.

Marmora Railway & Mining Co.. . . .
Lines in Province of Ontario.
Termini— Marmora, Wariston.

Brockville, Westport & N. W. Ry

Lines in Province of Ontario.
Termini — Brockville, Westport.

Niagara, St. Catharines & Toronto Ry

Lines in Province of Ontario.

Termini— Niagara Falls, Pt. Colbome, Pt.

Dalhousie.

362-23

285-4

370-5

155-4

55-0

54-7

9-6

44-3

75-00

164-33

229-18

188-80

Grade

completed.

No track

laid.

250-85

154-62

32-72

Grade not
complete
but under
contract.

260-05 264-33

698-8 I 699-9

128-00

162-35.

58-a&

7,236-51 1,542-26

850-52

230-

^° DOMINION GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE

4-5 GEORGH V., A. 1914

CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY SYSTEM.
Requirements to Complete.

1. Canadian Northern Pacific Ry.

British Columbia Section $ 23 , 647 492

2. Canadian Northern Railway.

Main line and branches already un-
der construction 15,042,896

3. Canadian Northern Ontario Ry.

Montreal-Port Arthur and Toronto-
Ottawa 18,251,891

4. Canadian Northern Tunnel & Terminal Co.

Montreal Terminals 5,995 734

5. Rolling Stock.

Equipment for Transcontinental and

maturing Equipment Notes 27 , 441 , 086

6. Betterments.

Ballasting, Permanent Improvements
including heavy rails on balance

Mainline 10,000,000

S 100,379,099

Proceeds of Securities which will be
Issued in respect to above ex-
penditures and Cash in Trust
accounts, for construction.

Canadian Northern Pacific Ry.

C.N.P. Ry. 43^% Deb. Stock and Sub-

,, ^]^y--:: S 6,704,097

New Securities 4,854,500

Canadian Northern Railway.

Proceeds of Securities in hand and to be

earned against above 7 634 497

Canadian Northern Ontario Railway.

Proceeds of Securities in hand and subsidy

to be earned 16,788,822

Canadian Northern Tunnel & Terminal Co.

Proceeds of Terminal Securities 5 , 995 ^ 734

Rolling Stock.

43^% Equipment Bonds 16,496,332 58,473,982

Balance to be provided § 41 905 117

Certified correct:
A. J. Mitchell, D. B. Hanna.

CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY CO. 11

SESSIONAL PAPERS Nos. 269b, j, j, I, m.

CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY SYSTEM.

Aid received from Dominion and Provincial Governments (a) Cash —

(b) Lands.

(a) CASH — DOMINION GOVERNMENT.

Canadian Northern Railway , S 2,000,332

Swan River Section $ 374 , 606

O. & R. R. Rv 1,534,526

E. Y. & P. Ry 91,200

Canadian Northern Alberta Ry 2,832,024

Canadian Northern Ontario Rv 10,124,470

Hutton Branch ^ 176,832

Toronto-Sudbury 1 ,696, 128

Toronto-Ottawa 1,363,122

Hawkesburv-Ottawa 369 ,872

Ottawa-Port Arthur 6,518,516

Canadian Northern Quebec Ry 707,568

Garneau-Quebec 523 ,820

St. Jerome Branch 97,280

Rawdon Branch 86 ,468

Canadian Northern Pacific Ry.

Vancouver-Yellowhead , 4,349,930

Halifax & South Western Ry 1,364,210

$ 21,378,534

(b) LANDS — DOMINION GOVERNMENT.

No land was granted direct to Canadian Northern Railway, but this Com-
pany has received fron the Contractors who constructed the Lake Manitoba
Railway & Canal Company, the Winnipeg & Hudson's Bay Railway and the
Manitoba & South Eastern Railway, 4,002,848 acres.

Aid RECEIVED FROM DOMINION AND PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS:

(a) Cash, (b) Lands.

(a) CASH — PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS.

Canadian Northern Railway:

0. & R.R. Ry $1,072,800

Hklifax & South Western Ry 2,804,450

12 DOMINION GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE

4-5 GEORGtl v., A. 19^4

CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY SYSTEM— Continued.

(b) LANDS — PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS.

Canadian Northern Ontario Hy.

The Government of Ontario granted — Sudbury-Port
Arthur 4,000 acres per mile for 500 miles.

Note. — These lands have not yet been selected, and no
money has been raised on them.

Canadian Northern Quebec Hy.

The Government of Quebec granted: Mileage.

Garneau and Quebec 77 . 4

Limoilou 7 . 62

Main line to Bridge 5 . 16

St. Jerome Branch 15.2

St. Jacques to Rawdon 15.96

Montreal— Grenville 65 . 00

> 360,760 acres.

Note: — These lands have not yet been selected, and no
money has been raised on them.

Quebec & Lake St. John Ry.

The Government of Quebec granted:

Valcartier 3 . 8 \ o^ nnn

Gosford 4 5)24,900 acres.

Aid received from Dominion and Provincial Governments.
(a) — Cash — Municipality.

Canadian Northern Railway:

City of Port Arthur $ 50,000

Canadian Northern Ontario Ry:

James Bay Railway — Town of Parry Sound 20,000

Aid received by Guarantee of Securities.

(a) — federal government.

Canadian Northern Railway: . S 17 ,256,584

Main hne, (3%) S 9,359,996

Prince Albert Branch {S%), Branch lines

(3>^%) 7,896,588

Canadian Northern Ontario Railway S 34,060,666

Montreal -Port Arthur (33^%). Total

guaranteed $ 35,770,000

CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY CO. 13

SESSIONAL PAPERS Nos. 269b, i, j, I, m.

CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY SYSTEM— Continued.

Canadian Northern Alberta Railway $ 6,719, 998

Edmonton— Yellowhead (3^2%)

1st Section $ 3,149,998

2nd Section • 3,570,000

$58,043,248

Note. — Issue of Canadian Northern Alberta Ry.
= 3,570,000 not yet sold.

(b) PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS.

Canadian Northern Railway:
Alberta Government, —

Branch Lines in Alberta $ 6 , 560 , 000

Saskatchewan Government, —

Branch lines in Saskatchewan 8,030,000

Manitoba Government, —

Branch lines in Manitoba 23 , 849 , 630

Canadian Northern Ontario Railway:

Ontario Government 7 , 860 , 000

Canadian Northern Pacific Railway:

British Columbia Government —

Main lines and branches 1 oa Toa pctq

rr • 1 } z4,lZD,573

lerminals J

Canadian Northern Western Railway:
Alberta Government, —

Branch lines in Alberta 6,424,000

$76,850,203

Note. — The figure above represent securities issued and sold.

CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY SYSTEM.
Summary of Fixed Charges for the Year.

Amount
Outstanding.

Annual
Interest.

Canadian Northern Railway

Equipment Securities

Affiliated Companies .,

Leased Lines —

Minnesota and Manitoba Railway

Northern Pacific Rental

Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan Railway.

Less-

Interest on income Charge Convertible Bonds.

$ cts.

165,483,693 57

23,746,000 00

116,995,665 02

5,051,463 73

311,276.822 32

$ cts.
7,096,651 14
1,034,316 25
4,544,041 55

13,960 00
225.000 00
202,056 02

13,116,024 96

1.2.50.000 00

11,866.024 96

14 DOMINION GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1314

CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY SYSTEM— Continued.

Statement of Gross Earnings, Operating Expenses and Net Earnings of all lines embraced under the general
title of Canadian Northern Railway System, for the fiscal year ended 30th June, 1913.

Gross
Earnings.

Operating
Expenses.

Net
Earnings.

Canadian Northern Railway

Canadian Northern Ontario Ry

Canadian Northern Quebec Ry

Quebec & Lake St. John Ry

Central Ontario Ry

Bay of Quinte Ry

Irondale, Bancroft & Ottawa Ry

Niagara, St. Catharines & Toronto Ry.

Halifax & South Western Ry

Brockville, Westport & N. W. Ry

Duluth, Winnipeg & Pacific Ry. (es.)...

24,527,478

1,280,524

1,599,546

959,380

375,048

257,271

30,384

475,360

531,338

76,447

1,700,000

17,503,610

1,230,213

1,313,585

823,847

243,024

221,051

23,967

326,905

528,217

51,149

1,086,110

31,812,776

23,351,678

Deduct fixed charges on Outstanding Securities.
Surplus

7,023,868

50,311

285,961

135.533

132,024

36,220

6,417

148.455

3,121

25,298

613,890

8,461,098
6,950.380

1,510,718

Note. — Surplus available to pay interest on 5% Income Charge Convertible Stock amounting to
$1,250,000 00.

As to the traffic future of the Canadian Northern Railway Company, it. is
difficult to forecast the earning power of the completed line with certainty, but
Mr. D. B. Hanna, the Company's third Vice-President, who has had long ex-
perience in the operation of railways in Western and Eastern Canada, submits
the following statement as an estimate of the results during the first three years
after the System has been operating in accordance wnth present plans.

The estimate of gross earnings is on the very conservative basis of the
percentage increases for the past five years of the lines of the System in actual
operation and inasmuch as a part of the mileage has been disconnected and
confined to a local short haul business, operation as a united trunk system should
result in much greater per mile revenue.

For the year ending 30rH June

1916

1917

1918

Gross earnings

Operating Expenses.

Net earnings

Fixed charges, including Interest on securities at present
applied for

Surplus

Less — Interest on 5''i Income Debenture Stock.

54,000,000
38,880.000

61,000.000
43.300,000

15,120,000
12,607.115

17.700.000
14.019,615

2.512,885
1,2.50.000
1,262,885

3,680.385
1,250.000

2.430.385

67.000.000
46,900,000

20,100,000
14,807,115

5.292,885
1,250,000

4.042.885

Note. — Under tlie terms of the British Columbia guaranlce, if during the first three years after begin-
ning operation, the Net Earnings of the Company arc not sufficient to meet the interest on the Guiwanteed
Bonds, the Government is to advance the Interest.

Similar provisions arc made respecting the Dominion Guarantee of the Bonds on the Canadian North-
ern Ontario Railway between Montreal and Port Arthur.

CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY CO.

15

SESSIONAL PAPERS Nos. 269b, j, j, I, m.

< B

pJ 02

S I

z <

c 0

c

occ

0

c c

ceo

0

00

0

coo

c

o3

tni^

0

o~»s »s

^

■a>o

CC

t~t~t^

O

«»

0

t.

00

0

•0

0

0

c

c.S

c

0

1-^

0

<o

»s

,° 3

00

00

t-fc.

'^

cc

(^

CO

g

e»

0

IS

0
0

CO

00

s

QD

■0

cs

«o

H

fS.I"

CO

CO

QO

z

J3

s

0

"cs

0 ■

Q

p:

^

0

0

i:

0
0

0

»s

0

H

a»

CO

CO

K

P3

ft)

1= S~

fci

0

CM

cm'

o

e3

c.

0

0

0

S

b£

0

c

0

o

C

0

0

0

O

■5

«»

•<»•

c"

o

0

CM

CO

'3

CO

<

ea

S

0 0

H

c3 ■

0

(0

(^

I.I

o«

c

«»

>a

•n

U3

CO

•5^

-^

•s ^

<

0

0

00 c

0

000

0

•

0

0

coo

c

—

«»

Q

0"

CO 10

0

aOtO'^

0

CM-H

■«<

-

co"

TlT

"00

0

0

0

*^

0 0

CO

5

0

§

6%

WCM

tc

LO

CM

0

c3

QO

P3

-

NSSOOC^ t-

5 — -§ ^ ='

C3 U5 00^-b-0

CO

■^ CSO t^-^ -^

IS

»» -..^„- -* -

M-ri — c t-T^

00

: w = 5 '.3

to iC re •<>•>--; =c

0

<:

M •o"*' -^

„"

■^ '-'

^s*

,

_ ^ ;_

•a mcoco

*-i

CO

•0

0 — »c

CO

c

; cj: o

o

■^^-cc 00

c

0

-*i ji

CO

10 4-CCC CM

CM

IS

3 O^

CI

— CM —

00

■

;-5.i;d

c

-eg"

c -

OCSCS-O-

0

ca

•- e

to CM 000

0

•*

Jl!*i o

tNN — -H

t~

•0

PI

-"

^11

. C-l ■ C-J

Ci «"

c c

C5 ■--

to L'3 -.^ IS 0 r^ t^

CO

■".2

Ci

tc

— CO C-1 CO —

•""

■^

f,r

^ a

S a

o

«

^

■3

S

«

S:

c3

ja

>>

!C

ci

c3

:>

0

z

B
J3

■5

>

^>

0 —

■■ c

0

03"

'5

0

>

c

0

c

r. Pacifi
r. Alber
r. VVeste
n North
r. Sask
r. Ontar
, Bancri

IP

■■- But

;

d

0 C S 5 C C 0 .

."'■C?'- c - .->

z

Can. N
Can. N
Can. N
Canadii
Can. N
Can. N
Irondnl

7. Central

8. Hay of

9. Brock V

ern

0. Can. N

1. Quebec

2. Halifax

!

^ c-i cc -^ c.; »fi 0

'"'

*"■ ^^ '^

6 6 6 6 6 6 6

odd 666

2

Z

?

z

2

:2

z

2

,k

z

Z

?

2

00

^

OCO

C

0 00

C "5

■"J"

•»

•»

=3 o

E-.M
u

O 3

*^^ c!

O-^
OCM
CI -^

00 CD
•fl'O
COCO

000

d i; es

o—t-- ^ - u e a

c =£ c c
=! §SO<

o .

.2Q

j,f5 .C;

w o —

PiSQ

d, PQ

•3 1^

hs

16

DOMINION GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914

(C

bt

. 1

b:

e to

■s-S— 0)

H

CO

o

Ik.

Pi m

m - -^

£

S MO m

»

•^ Oj-O g-^

SH-gfeg

E-

oifX,

g

CQ

2a

O

•3.S

m

m 1

<

M-w_;

S

K<°

_2

<

'S

«

C3

B.

<

"5

03

23 ® -

; 22!

oi ■£ 5

5 OC5

o ja

i§ 1
OO c

P C500

2

-.J c o 6

3 — '<»

o>

"i

c

n -wiM

-*

= 13 -s i3 c

!^ ^C^

o- a-^ o

• MCO

-«a*

Hii"^

_^

0 t^_t~

to

o2 -S

CD
CO

"

0 ^ IC

r i

in

•= «i fc S

^ c c c
g 5 ^A
CO '^

•a ^

1

: K :

s

i2 """ ■

M

•rj o jj~

21i:-5

O E =-

OB

(3

10-*

-1 • ■

s

(M

CO

^^g|.

o

a

.Co

S g

r^ C)

^C^

-a ■

■ >.

t5 m

: eS

-2|

C -22

o

2 .2^

^ : .i

ui

t-

E
2

3 ■§

!^

o c ca «
2: SZ

E 1'
>

. 2

c

c
'a

B .

c

E
n

IJi

>. ■ ■

>.

a

a

o

cc

ic

rT^

5 » ~

» 3

(2

£ "

,^

^

0

o

o

z . ,

*

E

■- ■•

■ ~

3)

c

Z

C3

^ —■_

-4-;

d d c

d d

2

Z2

ZZ

CANADIAN 1^'ORTHERN RAILWAY CO.

17

SESSIONAL PAPERS Nos. 269b, i, j, I, m.

M cj- C ffl

^ <s o a

"S fci 5) o

3- 9-T<

"5 ® ci

OO -TJ*

""o ^~~^ ^ '■ '■ '■ '■ ~
o ••••■■■ •
o" • •

C5

CO

""o '^ ~ '■ ~'':~~- ^
o -o

O -O ;

O* • i^ • • ■ • • •
u^ -C^

: TS '■ '■ '■ •~ ~

■ -o

• o

• --^

: TS '■ '■ '■ '■ '■ ^

• -o

• -o

• "O

~o '■ '■ '■ '■ '■ '■ '■ ~

8 ::::::: :

o •■•■■•• -

""o '• ^ '■ ^~~- ^~^ ^

o

o

o

■v>s< ~ '■ '■ '■ '■ '■ ~
OSOI •■•••• •

g^ ; ; : ; i : ;

Q^ :::::: :

TJICO

e<>Tj<

co*-<

t^oo

00 lO

cocs

c^ '■ '■ '• '• '• '■ '■ ~
in

CA

o '■ '■ '■ '■ '■ '■ '■ ^^

o

c*

r,^ o t-Si 2 o •:

■go or" - - => -

=a5

§g gE

5-^

ffi

CJ ^ T* ^f ^

^ J3. 3 J ;

o

1^-. ^ J : : : : s

d

"c 2 =»

O u S

a :

Z

*3

.*j

o"!?

^t

•s i*

■"8

■"^

&5

pa

269b, i, j, 1, m.— 2

18:

DOMINION GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914

m

a

CO

K
o

10

z

a
S
K
a

a

n

o

H

■<
S

. i

1

i

■3
0

§8

■=5.0

f2o"

0

0
0"

0

0

8

00

c 0

8

0

88

c c

>n c:

c

oc 0

888

c

?■

g
0

0 0

8

0

0

8

0

g

0

e«

- is

0
0

■O ID
3 C

P5-

§

0

8
10

U5

8 :
0 •

CO <*

0

-1

CO

§2

0

8

■3

0"

0

0
10

"3

pa

00

8
0

10

"5

00
88

8

U5

00

8_8
00

0

8
0

00

0

8

U5

0 •

8 :

0" '•

d
^ o

Si

-*

8
Q

S
Q

0

Q

-*

Amount

req'd to

complete

construct'n.

«»

0

1

■^

00
00

'

t-.<MO(NO

CO-^OIM 00

0 'O »0 00 OS
«■«• COOS

>

Grade

notcom-
pleto,
but
under

contract

M

■^

Grade

comp'd.

Notract

laid.

w5

CO

0

OS

CO

Track
laid,
not in
oper-
ation.

TO

S

OS

Miles

in
Oper-
ation.

§Rt2

Sg"g

CO ^^ «-» CO

Termini.

E
0

2.S e
0 c £

■aO E c

.■•; 3 c

■.— ' : T

lilt

WCCkC

i 0 c e.
2'c c'c

3 <L

6"'

0

a ■
■v ■
"s :

^ :«

0 :;t:
05-3 r

i|i

1

t

Ml

as C
C<

1

c

c: c

c 5-

Hi

c: >

■§.2|

«"j3
.£ M-

Gccc

£ C3 3

OScc

c
c

c

>

c
■J

iBlUil

0 I. cji g 0 c 0
'^ « 2 .^"« S P

~ ^ -^ ^ r^ i 3 C

Hi

i.gj

lit

ill

Ml

c c

J
c

c

£

e
Si

>

C

c
eg

6

=

■^

.

=

-

=

--

=

=

-

•<r

=

=

=

=

.

:

:

.

=

=

I

=

=

=

=

:

:

=

:

-

-

=

=

=

-.

CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY CO.

19

o
5

c

SESSIONAL

PAPERS

o o
o c

Nos

. 269b

1

00

> i> J

>

o

c

,

m.

§

O

o

00

00

o

s

s .

O 1

W2

o

o

o
o

o
o

o

i

o
o

o
o

g

i

TO

c

o

§

o"

S

§

o

§

o

o"

o
o

<M

c:

s

Q

§

Q

ci

Q

0'

O

Q

a;
Q

o

Q

•*

CO

C! CO

o —

r^ %^ — X

c

2 g

00

o
: 2"r : : :

oo t^

00 T)<

o oo
o r^

i

«o

g

"

2

sss "--^

§

CO t^ -HIM ICCO

•^ cr>

OO

•*

1-1 (>)

t^

c^

00

— i-O

s s =^S

TJ4

o

c
c

X

c
a

c

1-
c

<

t-
p.

s

j:
c
c

o

> ^

ay

o
£ i

M

c
2

c
>

s i Isl

^ '> ~ 5 -

&1 1 il

•3 otitic
QZ e >C

^- 1

- ^:r

II
c c

S 2
£ c
■wo

§ =

C 1-

o c
§C

s

s

>
J

t

&

o

a

■S. c

c

>

c

c
c
c

'S
J:
a

>
||

oc

1
e

£

'a

t-

4

-c
PC

C

c

s

c

c

'S

s

© ©

a a

j3. , , . - ja
o o

t §

)

«■<

:

« -^

" --ji

■^

Tj

■^

■^

=

"^

M

•^

>

•<

)

C

c^

C'

c

c^

=

e

C

S 2

269b, i,

m.— 2^

20

DOMIKIOX GOYERNMENT GUARANTEE

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914

ti ^

s

a
><
=o

a
g

n

H

Z
a

g

<

s

05

w

o

e:

<

"3
1

o

o

O
"5

- o

«5

i

«:

o

8

o

o

8
i

a* ■

«§.£f|:«

*•

o

«.

g : : : : :

o ■ • - • •

o" 1 1 : ; ;

§

i : ! °' :^' : :

s

"^ 0)

Is

- 1 : :

8

o
o

II

1

1

"5

S : : : : :

*o

S ; :

o • •

g

1

"3
a

«* .,- : :

CO ■ •

UO

oa • •

C«

a
•^ o

lil

Amount

req'd to

complete

construct'n.

«•

-^

■ '■'■'■ -m

o
o

Grade
not com-
plete,
but
under
contract

n H r

'

; '.CO '■ '■

Grade

comp'd

No

track

laid.

: : : : :g

§

Track
laid,
not in
oper-
ation.

Miles

in
Oper-
ation.

CO

g=o-5o« :

i

g

i

u
H

E
1

^$oO T.^So'a "'o'*'„.i' o'G
Kgf-S>, o>.'2cr.D> o^SSSS wSS

= -1:5? Is »lg^ll -2 £-•■>;? I o .2 .-7

.Main Line,

Section or

Branch Lrno.

. c . c

II II s

.' • ■ • ■ : o '
5 :sa

3

it

1

o
E

C3

(
6

/2

S5 5 : I

^ : : : : : >. : : : : : : :

^ a

NCMNNM

— — — — e> o d o d a s^

.a

B
H

m

CAXADIAX XORTHERX HAILMAY CO.

21

SESSIONAL PAPERS Nos. 269b, j, j, I, m.

CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY SYSTEM.
Capital Stock authorized and issued, of the Companies set out ix the First Schedule.

Company,

Issued.

Bay of Quinte Railway Companj-

Canadian Northern Railway Company

Canadian Northern Pat-ific Railway Company

Canadian Northern Alberta Railway Company

Canadian Northern Western Railway Company

Canadian Northern Saskatchewan Railway Company

*Canadian Northern Manitoba Railway Company

Canadian Northern Ont ario Railway Company

Canadian Northern Quebec Railway Company

Canadian Northern Railway Express Company Limited

**Canadian Northern Transfer Company

Canadian Northern Telegraph Company

Canadian Northern Steamships Limited

Canadian Northern System Terminals Limited

Central Ontario Railway Company

Duluth, Winnipeg & Pacific Railway Company

Halifax & South Western Railway Company

Irondale, Bancroft & Ottawa Railway Company :

Lake Superior Terminals Company Limited

Minnesota & Ontario Bridge Company

Minnesotti & Manitoba Railroad Company

Marmora Railway & Mining Company

***Mount Royal Tunnel & Terminal Company Limited

Niagara, St. Catharines & Toronto Railway Company

Quebec & Lake St. John Railway Companj'

Qu'Appelle, Long Lake & Saskatchewan Railroad & Steamboat

Company

St. Boniface & Western Land Company

Winnipeg Land Company, Ltd

Northern Con.solidated Holding Company

1,500,

92,900,

25,000,

3,000,

6,000.

5,000,

1,000,

50,000,

12,500,

1,000,

500,

5,000,

2,000,

2,000,

3,340,

6,000,

1,000,

100,

1,000,

100,

1,000.

100,

5,000,

1,000,

6,000,

000 00
000 00
000 00
000 00
000 00
000 00
000 00
000' 00
000 00
000 00
000 00
000 00
000 00
000 00
000 00
000 00
000 00
000 00
000 00
000 00
000 00
000 00
000 00
000 00
000 00

200,000 00

250,000 00

100,000 00

8,000,000 00

1,395,000 00

77,000,000 00

25,000,000 00

3,000,000 00

-2,000,000 00

1,000,000 00

Nil*

10,000,000 00

9,550,000 00

1,000,000 00

**500,000 00

500,000 00

2,000,000 00

2,000,000 00

3,331,000 00

6,000,000 00

1,000,000 00

53,500 00

500,000 00

100,000 00

400,000 00

100,000 00

Nil***

925,000 00
4,524,000 00

201,000 00

250,000 00

100,000 00

6,181,500 00

1158,611,000 00

*When issued will be issued to Canadian Northern Railway Company.
**Owned by the Canadian Northern Railway Express Company, Ltd.
***None issued at present; — when issued will be issued to the Canadian Nortliern Railway Company.

t

4-5 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPEflS Nos. 269b, j, j, 1, m. A. 1914

Ottawa, March 31st, 1914.

Sir, — The undersigned have the honour to transmit you herewith certain
statemeats as of December 31st, 1913, bearing on the financing of the Canadian
Northern Railway System; namely: —

(Partially printed.)

1. Grouping and Mileage Statement.

2. Statement sho-^nng total receipts and expenditure on Construction, Better-

ments and Equipments.

3. Statement showing expenditure on Construction and Equipment through

the Contractors, ^Messrs. ^Mackenzie, Mann & Company.

4. Statement showing expenditure on Betterments and Equipment, charge-

able to Capital.

5. Statement of Capital Stock, authorized and issued.

6. Statement of Securities issued, showing: —

(a) Line.

(b) Class of Security, and rate of interest carried.

(c) Par value.

(d) Fixed charges.

(e) Proceeds.

(f) Bank interest on balances.

(g) Rate of interest on balances,
(h) Total proceeds.

(i) Withdrawals through Messrs. Mackenzie, Mann & Company on

Construction Account,
(j) Withdrawals through Canadian Northern Railway Co.
(k) Total withdrawals.
(1) Balances on hand in bank.
Also supporting statements as follov/s: —

(al) Statement showing amount of securities deposited as collateral.
(a2) Statement showing authority for various issues.
(a3) Statement showing charters of various Companies.
(a4) Memorandum re Bonding Powers.

(a5) Statement showing reconciliation of expenditure through Con-
tractors, Messrs. Mackenzie, Mann & Company.
(a6) Statement showing due dates of principal and interest.

7. Statement showing Cash Subsidies from all sources.

8. Land Statement.

9. Equipment Summary.

10. Due Dates of Principal and interest of Equipment Securities.

The undersigned have verified these statements from the entries in the
ledgers of the Head Office of the Company at Toronto, and of the Contractors,
Messrs. ^Mackenzie, Mann & Company of the same place.

r^ViWith regard to the lines west of Port Arthur, the books of the construction
of the lines in British Columbia are kept in Vancouver, and the books of the
construction of the lines between Port Arthur and Yellowhead Pass are kept in
Winnipeg. From these offices, monthly statements are forwarded to the Head
Office in Toronto, and from these statements, we have verified the expenditure
on construction relative to that portion of the System.

23

24 DOMINION GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914

We would direct attention to the fact that the Railway Company have
received any benefits accruing from such subsidiary Companies, as the Express
and Telegraph Companies, Steamship Companies, and certain benefits from the
Townsite Companies.

Our work in Toronto was greatly facilitated by the evident desire on the part
of the officials of the Canadian Northern Railway and of the Contractors, Messrs.
Mackenzie, Mann & Company to place in our hands all the books, memoranda,
etc. pertaining to our work.

We have the honour to be.
Sir,

Your obedient servants,
G. A. Bell,
Financial Comptroller, Department of Railways and Canals.

S. L. Shannon,
Comptroller & Treasurer, Canadian Government Railways.

J. C. Saunders,
Chief Accountant & Dominion Bookkeeper, Department of Finance.

The Right Honourable

R. L. Borden, M.P.,

Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Ont.

CANADIAN XOnXHERX RAILWAY CO. 25

SESSIONAL PAPERS Nos. 269b, j, j, I, m.

The Canadian Northern Railway System dealt with in the statements submitted,

including the following lines: —

In
operation.

Track laid

not in
operation.

Grade

completed.

No track

laid.

Grade

not complete

under

contract.

Canadian Northern Pacific Ry

Lines in Province of British Columbia.
Termini — Vancouver, Yellowhead Pass
couver Island: — Victoria, Albemi.

\'an-

Canadian Northern Alberta Ry

Lines in Province of Alberta.

Termini — Edmonton and Yellowhead Pass.

Canadian Northern Railway

Lines in Province of Alberta, Saskatchewan,

Manitoba and Ontario.

Termini — Edmonton and Port Arthur.

Canadian Northern Western Ry

Lines in Province of Alberta.
Termini — Various Branch Lines.

22 00

4,931-98

Canadian Northern Saskatchewan Ry. .
Lines in Province of Saskatchewan.
Termini — Various Branch Lines.

Duluth, Winnipeg & Pacific Ry

Lines in State of Minnesota.
Termini — Duluth and Ft. Frances.

Canadian Northern Ontario Ry

Lines in Provinces of Ontario and Quebec.
Termini — Port Arthur, Montreal, Toronto.

Central Ontario Railway

Lines in Province of Ontario.
Termini — Picton and Rathburn.

Bay of Quinte Railway

Lines in Province of Ontario.

Termini — Bannockbum and Deseronto.

Irondale, Bancroft & Ottawa Ry

Linos in Province of Ontario .

Termini — Bancroft .Jet., Kinmount .Jet.

Marmora Railway & Mining Cor. . . .
Lines in Province of Ontario.
Termini — Marmora, Wariston.

Brockville, Westport & N. W. Ry. . . .
Lines in Province of Ontario.
Termini — Brockville, Westport .

Canadian Northern Quebec Ry

Lines in Province of Quebec.

Termini — Quebec, Montreal, Hawkesbur>-.

Quebec & Lake St. John Ry

Lines in Province of Quebec.
Termini — Quebec and Roberval.

Halifax & South Western Ry

Province of Nova Scotia.
Termini — Halifax and Yarmouth.

260 05

229 10

164-33

188-80

264-33

162-35

171-6

698-8

155-4

55-0

54-7

9-6

44-3

362-23

285-4

370-5

7,161-51

699-9

250-35

154-82

32-72

128-0

1,542-26

850-52

58-2i

230-8

26 DOMINION GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914

CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY SYSTEM.

Statement of Receipts available for construction, Betterments, Equipments,
etc.

Total proceeds as per statement S 246,768,389. 16

Less Bank Balance for construction purpose

held by Trustees 29,729,078.81

Total receipts from Securities $ 217,039,310.35

Cash Subsidies 25,323,780.22

Net receipts from Land Sales 7,842,466.83

Receipts from Equipment Mortgages 32,811,467.87

Halifax & South Western Ry. Land AC 175,090 11

Halifax & Yarmouth Bonds 675,000 00

Sundry Accounts 724 , 189 42

Total Receipts, $ 284,591,304 80

Due on construction 21,262,527 26

$ 305,853,832 06

Expenditure.

Construction as per statement $ 244 , 670 , 169 24

Payments in reduction of Equipment

Trusts 14,090,456 67

Direct purchase of Equipment 1 ,500,596 19

Direct purchase of Equipment, allied lines.. 794,699 33

Expenditure on Betterments 22 ,834 ,390 00

Acquired Securities, paid direct 5,435,612 52

Advances to Railway Companies allied to

Canadian Northern Railway 12,726,418 46

Expenditure, Winnipeg Terminals, from

proceeds of Guaranteed Securities. . . . 3,801,489 65

$ 305,853,832 06

MACKENZIE, MANN & COMPANY, LIMITED.

Statement showing amounts derived from Cash Subsidies received from
Dominion Government, Provincial Goverijments, Municipalities and Guaranteed
and other Securities.

Cash Subsidies —

Dominion Government S 21 ,376,530 22

Provincial Governments 3 ,877 ,250 00

Municipalities 70,000 00

Securities —

Guaranteed Securities 108 ,407 ,501 10

Other Securities 89,676,360 66

S 223,407,641 98

CAXADIAX XORTHERN RAILWAT CO. 27

SESSIONAL PAPERS Nos. 269b, j, j, I, m.

Expenditure.
Construction and Equipment S 244,670,169 24

Due to Messrs. Mackenzie, Mann & Co S 21,262,527 26

CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY SYSTEM.

Expenditure on Construction through Contractors, Messrs Mackenzie,
Mann & Co., to December 31st, 1913.

Expenditure.

Hahfax & South Western Ry. $ 5,663,972 42

Canadian Northern Quebec 4,222,889 62

Canadian Northern Ontario 52,815,623 10

Canadian Northern-Lines (between Port

Arthur and Yellowhead Pass) S 109,095,627 25

Port Arthur & Yellowhead Pass, Equipment

Trusts 32,811,467 87

141,907,095 12

Canadian Northern Pacific 34,760,907 76

Duluth, Winnipeg and Pacific 5,299,681 22

$ 244,670,169 24
Receipts,

Halifax & South Western.

Dom. of Canada-Cash Sub-
sidy $ 1,364,210 00

Prov. of Nova Scotia Subsidy 2,804,450 00

Halifax & Yarmouth Ry.

Bonds 675,000 00

Lands $ 300,000 00

Less Mtge.
S100,000 00

Int.

$24,909 89

$124,909 89 S 175,090 11 $5,018,750 11

Canadian Northern Quebec.

Dom. of Canada Cash sub-
sidy $ 707,563 83

4% Perpt. Guaranteed Deb.

Stk 2,421,164 82 $3,128,728 65

Canadian Northern Ontario.
James Bay —

Dom. of Canada Cash sub-
sidy $ 1,872,960 00

Town of Parry Sound

Bonus 20,000 00

28 DOMINION GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE

\ 4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914

3H% Deb. Stk. Guaran-
teed by Ontario Govern-
ment $ 5,591,977 96

Terminal Deb. Stk. Gua-
ranteed by Ontario Gov-
ernment 965 ,000 00

Toronto to Ottawa.

Dom. of Canada Cash Sub-
sidy 1,363,122 39

Montreal-Port Arthur.

Dom. of Canada Cash Sub-
sidy 6,886,388 00

33^% D. Stock guaran-
teed by Dominion of
Canada 20,149,256 53

4% D. Stock guaranteed by

Can. Nor. Ont. Ry 6,882,713 13$43,731 ,418 01

$51,878,896 77 $244,670,169 24

Canadian Northern — Lines between Port
Arthur and Yellowhead Pass.

Dom. of Canada Cash Sub-
sidy, Can. Nor. Railway.. .$ 2,000,332 00

Dom. of Canada Cash Sub-
sidy, Can. Nor. Alberta... . 2,832,024 00

Ontario Government 1 ,072 ,800 00

C. N. Ry. 3% D. Stock gua-
ranteed by Dom . of Can ... . 8,523,59743

Can. Nor. Ry. ^% D. Stk.

guaranteed by Dom. of Can. 6 , 873 , 890 93

Can. Nor. Alberta, 3^% D.
Stock, guaranteed bv Dom.
of Canada ."^ 4 ,391 ,077 30

Can. Nor. Ry. 4% Del). Stk.

guaranteed by Alberta Govt 7 , 866 , 929 64

C. N. Western 4^% D. Stk.
guaranteed by Alberta Govt 2,407,230 70

C. N. Western 4|% Deb.
Stock guaranteed by Alta.

Govt 2,563,474 54

C. N. Ry. 4% Deb. Stock
guaranteed by Saskatche-
wan Govt ! 8 ,695 ,043 96

C. N. Ry. 4% Deb. Stock
guaranteed by Manitoba
Government 12 ,437 .344 33

C. N. Ry. 4% Deb. Stock
guaranteed by Manitoba
Government 2 ,987 , 173 33

Municipal Bonus, Citv of

Port Arthur ". 50,000 00

CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY CO. 29

SESSIONAL PAPERS Nos. 269b, j, j, I, m.

Can. Nor. Ry., 4% Deb. Stk.
" 4% " "terminal

Accts.. .$17,602,398 05
Can. Nor. Ry., 4% Land

Grant Bonds 3,679,125 30

Can. Nor. Ry., 5% Income

Bonds 12,875,175 99

Can. Nor. Ry., Land Mort-
gage Deb. Stock 6,200,000 00

Can. Nor. Ry . , 5% Notes 1 , 650 , 000 00

Can. Nor. Ry., 4% D. S. gua-
ranteed by Prov. of Mani-
toba 4,001,734 33

$ 108,709,351 83

Canadian Northern Pacific.

Dom. of Can. Cash Subsidy. . . $ 4 , 349 , 930 00
C. N. Pacific 4% Deb. Stock

guaranteed by B. C. Gov't. . 19,500,598 65
C. N. Pacific 4i% Deb.

Stock guaranteed by B. C.

Government 1 ,453 , 171 47

$25,303,700 12

Duluth, Winnipeg and Pacific.

D.W. &P. Ry..4%Deb.Stk $ 4,704,225 39

Imperial RoUing Stock Co 32,811,467 87 $223,407,641 98

Balance $ 21,262,527 26

Canadian Northern Railway.

Statement showing amount derived from guaranteed Securities, Unguar-
anteed Securities and Land, other than that handled through Messrs Mac-
kenzie, Mann & Co.

Unguaranteed Securities $ 48,815,516 92

Guaranteed Securities 3 ,801 ,489 65

Land Funds 7 ,842 ,466 83

Sundry Accounts 724 , 189 42

$ 61,183,662 82
Expenditure against above.

Payment in reduction of Equipment Trusts . $ 14 , 090 , 456 67

Direct purchase of Equipment. 1 ,500 ,596 19

Direct purchase of Equipment, Allied Lines . 794 , 699 33

Betterments 22,834,390 00

Acquired Securities 5,435,612 52

Advance to Railway Companies Allied to

Canadian Northern Ry 12,726,418 46

Winnipeg Terminals, etc 3,801,489 65

$ 61,183,662 82

30

DOMINION GOYERNMENT GUARANTEE

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914

CANADIAN NORTHERN

31sT December,

Line.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.

Canadian Northern Railway.

3 % Debenture Stock (Dom.)

3§% Debenture Stock (Dom.)

4 % Debenture Stock (Sask)

4 % Debenture Stock (Alta.)

4 % Debenture Stock (Man.)

4 % Debenture Bond (Man.)

4 % Terminals (Man.)

4|% O. Division

4 % O. Division (Man.)

4 % Land

4 % Debenture Stock

5 % Income

5 % Land

6 % Notes

5 % Notes

5 % Notes

Equipment

Qu'Appelle L.L.S. 4%

Canadian Northern Alberta Ry

19. (3| D. S.) (Dom.).

20. (3| D. S.) (Dom.).

Canadian Northern Western Ry.

21. 4J% Debenture Stock (Alta.)

32. 4 % Bonds

Canadian Northern Pacific Ry.

23. 4 % Debenture Stock (B.C.)

24. 4^% Debenture Stock (B.C.)

Canadian Northern Ontario Ry.

25. 31% Debenture Stock (Dom.) . . . .

26. Zh% Debenture Stock (Ont.) J.B.

27. 4 % Debenture Stock

Central Ontario Ry. Co.

28. 5 % Bonds

Bay of Quinte Railway Co.

29. 5% Bonds

30.
31.

32.

33.

Marmora Railway & Mining Co.

The Brockville Westport & N.W

Ry. Co

The Irondale Bancroft & Ottawa
Ry. Co

Canadian- Northern Quebec.
4% Debenture Stock

Securities
Issued.

ih)

9,359,

7,896,

8,030,

6,776,

2,859,

12,4.37,

3,000,

164,

5,580,

3,196,

49,134,

25,000,

16,274,

3,500,

9,7.33,

2,190,

23,746,

5,051,

996.72
590.00
000.00
541.33
998.86
496.66
000.00
980.00
606.66
426.00
382.00
000.00
668.66
000.00
333.33
000.00
000.00
463.73

3,149,998.66

6,424,000.00
2,800,000 00

16,412,001.13
8,273,335.33

34,066,666.66
6,664,379.26
1,195,618.33

11,438,637.66

973,333.33

830,000.00

450,000.00

5,250,369.26

Fixed

Charges.

280,

276,

321,

271,

114,

489,

120,

7,

223,

127,

1,965,

1,250,

813,

210,

486,

109,

1,034,

202,

Proceeds.

Interest

on
Proceeds.

S

779.86

380.52

200.00

149.25

399.94

761.86

000.00

424.10

224.26

857.00

375.28

000.00

733.43

000.00

666.66

500.00

316.25

056.02

8,385,683.07
7,514,054.12
9,703,668.98;
8,860,048.09,
3,975,345.46
12,437,344.33'
2,880,000.00,

\ 5,458,307.33

3,679,125.30
45,895,707.571
24,038,447.951
14,092,245.94!

137,914.36
208,399.04
204,211.13
175,298.11
25,942.43

61,660!33

32,906.00
11,398.45
3,769.03

2,791,394.83
647,003.13

3,763.79

110,249.94

289,080.00
112,420.00

656,480,00
372,299.99

2,899,001.77
2,890,179.08

2,541,997.91
2,430,208.33
2,537,613.69

19,500,598.65
7,570,759.54

1,192,333.33 31,914,973.38

233,253.26 1 /, qq- j^^ -,,

41,846.64/ ".-'•''.i-ia-

457,445.48 8.659,256.12

48,666.66

41,500.00

22.500.00

210,014.76

2,496,366.68

31,046.54
72,018.15

4.712.48
59.487.80
25,860.85

235,735.11
45,837.36

1,001,0.38.67
174,557.50
208,127.07

CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY CO.

31

SESSIONAL PAPERS Nos. 269b, j, j, I, m.
RAILWAY SYSTEM.
1913.

Rate

of

Interest.

Total
Proceeds.

Withdrawals

on
Construction.

Other
Withdrawals.

Total
Withdrawals.

Balance
on Hand.

3%

$
8,523,597.43
7,723,053.16
9,907,880.11
9,035,346.20
4,001,287.79
12,437,344.33
2,941,660.33
4,001,734.33

3,679,125.30
45,928,613.57
24,049,846.40
14,096,014.97

S
8,523,597.43
6,873,890.93
8,695,043.96
7,866,939.64
2,987,173.33
12,437,344.33

$

$
8,523,597.43
6,872,890.93
8,893,883.48
7,866,929.64
2,987,173.33
12,437,344.33
2,941,660.33
4,001,734.33

3,679,125.30
45,617,160.07
24,049,846.40
14,051,824.69

S

3%

849,i62.23
1,013,996.63
1,168,416.56
1,014,114.56

3%
3%

198,839.52

3%

3%

2,941,660.33

4,001,734.33

3,679,125.30
17,602,398 05
12,875,175.99

6,200,000.00

Wpg. & Hudson Bay
Ry. Bonds
retired $1,456,573

3%
3%

28,014,762.02

11,174,670.41

7,851,824.69

311,453.50

3%

44,190.28

3%

2,795,158.62
647,003.13

1,650,000.00

1,127,256.67
647,003.13

2,777,256.67
647,003.13

17,901.95
NU.

3%

2,930,048.31
2,962,197.13

2,546,710.39
2,489,696.13
2,563,474.54

19,736,333.76
7,616,596.90

32,916,012.05
7,171,679.02

8,867,383.19

1,767,150.00
2,623,927.30

2,407,230.70

1 4,391,007.30
2,407,230.70

/ 1,162,898.31
\ 338,269.83

139,479.69
2,489,696.13

Lien bds. 1st Mtge.
Income and Hotel.

3%

3%

3%

3%

2,563,474.54

19,500,598.65
1,453,171.47

20,149,256.53
6,556,977.96

6,882,713 13

2,563,474.54

19,736,333.76
1.499,008.83

20,528,673.86
6,556,977.96

6,882,713.13

3%

235,735.11
45,837.36

379,417.33

3%

3%
3%

6,117,588.07

12,387,338.19
614,701.06

1,984,670.06

3%

Outstanding Securi-

ties on acquired
line.

Outstanding Securi-

ties on acquired
line.
Acquired line.

Acquired line.

Outstanding Securi-

2,496,366.58

2,421,164.82

2,421,164.82

ties on acquired
line.

Retired —

C. & N.—

$1,440,000
Q.N. B. & N.S.—
2,000,000
G.N.R. of C—

1,514,500

32

DOMINION GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914
CANADIAN NORTHERN

31sT December,

Line.

Proceeds.

Interest

on
Proceeds.

Canadian Nokthekn Quebec — Con

34. 4%G.N.R

35. 4% Q. L. & St. J

DuLUTH, Winnipeg & Pacific.

36. 4% Debenture Stock

37. 5%D.R.L.&W

Halifax & South-Western Ry.

38. 3§% Bonds

3, 505, 750. 00' 140,230.00
4,359,014.93; 174,360.58

6,646,323.92; 265,852.96 4,650,919.94
2,000,000.00 100,000.00

4,447,000.00; 155,625.00

8312,818,910.42 $12,927,983.03

53,305.45

CAXADIAN XORTIIERX RAILWAY CO.

33

SESSIONAL PAPERS Nos. 269b, j, j, I, m.
RMLWAY SYSTEM.
1913.

Rate

of

Interest.

Total
Proceeds.

Withdrawals

on
Construction.

Other

Withdrawals.

Total Balance
Withdrawals. on Hand.

$ $

1

$ $
1

Retired G.N.R. 5%
Bonds.

i

1

3%

4.704.22.=; ."^9 4.7n4.22.T .^9

4,704,225 39

(a) 1st. Mortgage
Bonds.

(b) Prior Liens.

(c) Income Bonds
2nd Mtge. Bond—

$1,525,000
Outstanding Securi-
ties on acquired
line.

1

1

$246,768,389 16

$164,422,303 78|$52,617,006 57

$217,729,310 35

$29,729,078 81

269 b, i, j, 1, m, — 3

34

DOMINION GOYERNMENT GUARANTEE

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914
CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY SYSTEM.
Capital Stock — Authorized axd Issued.

Line.

Authorized

Lssucd.

Held by

or in
trust for
Can. Nor.

Ry.

Held bv
M. M. &
Co. and
Asso-
ciates.

Held by
Govern-
ment. ■

Held bv
Others.

No.

1

2

3

4

5

fi

7

"X'

8

9

10

XX'

11

XX'

12

XX'

13

XX'

14

"O'

15

16

Can. Nor. Ry

Can. Nor. Alta. Ry. . .
Can. Nor. West. Ry....
Can. Nor. Sask. Ry.. . .

Can. Nor. Pac. Ry

Dul., Wpg. &Pac. Ry..

Can. Nor. Ont. Ry

Can. Nor. Que. Ry

Que. &L. St. J. Ry:...

Halifax* S.W. Ry

Central Ont. Ry

Bav of Quinte Ry

I. B. &0. Ry

Marmora Rv. & M. Co

Brockville, W. Rv

N. St. C. &Tor. Ry...

92,900,
3,000,
6, 000,
5,000,

25,000,
6,000,

50,000,

12,500,
6,000,
1,000,
3,340,
1,500,
100,
100,
2,000,
1,000,

s

000,000

000,000; 3,000,000

000,000] 2,000,000
000,000! 1,000,000
000,000 25,000,000
000,000 3,060,000
000,000 10,000,000
550,000

70,000,000

7,000,000

2,940,000

524,000;
000,000
331,000
.395,000
53,. 500
100,000
900,000
925,000

1,000,000

2,000,000
4,002,800

7,550,000
521,200

922,000

3,000

$215,440,000 $145, 778, 500

"X" Of $7,550,000 Can. Nor. Que. Ry. Stock, $5,144,600 is owTied by the Northern Consolidated
Holding Co., of whose stock Mackenzie, Mann & Co. own l\-^7c-

"XX" Stock ofBranch Lines No. 11-14 inclusive held for Can. Nor. Ry. for delivery on payment of
cost price.

"O" The Brockville, Westport & N.W. Ry. was secured at Court Sale, and will be turned over to
the Railway Co. on payment of cost.

CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY CO.

35

SESSIONAL PAPERS Nos. 269b, j, j, I, m.

(a)

(c)
id)
(e)

-see 15-

C.N.R. Sask. Gt.— £500,000 deposited as security 5% notes-
balance £1,650,000 shown issued here.
C.N.R. Alta. Gt. — £450,000 deposited as security 5% notes — see 15 —

£44,495 deposited as collateral to loan of £33,082 balance £1,192,440
C.N.R. Man. Gt.— £300,000, deposited as security o% notes— see 15—

balance £587,671.
C.N.R. 4% Con. Deb. Stk. — Securities deposited as collateral to 5% notes

Nos. 15 and £16,927,261 not included here.
C.N.R. 6% Secured Notes. — Securities deposited as collateral to this issue

£733,561, C.N.R. Alta 33^^- see 19 and £293,837. C.N.O. 3H%

Dominion Guar. Stock — see 25.
(/) C.N.R. 5% Secured Notes. — Securities deposited as collateral to this issue

as follows:— £450,000 C.N.R. Alta. Gt. Stock, £500,000 4% Sask. Gt.

£300.000 C.N.R. 4% Man. Gt. Stock £550,000 C.N.Pac. 4% B.C. Gt,

Deb. Stock, £750,000, C.N.R. 4% Perpetiial Consohdated Deb. Stk.
C.N.R. 5% Secured Notes. — Securities deposited as collateral to the issue

as follows:— £392,739, C. N.P. 4% B.C. Gt. D.S., £177,261, C.N.R.

4% Con. Per D.S.— see Nos. 23 and 11.
C.N.A. 33^% Dom. Guar. D.S.— Securities deposited as collateral to C.N.R.

6% notes, £733,561— see 14.
C.N.P. 4% B.C. Gt. D.S.— £550,000 and £392,739 deposited security to

5% notes — see Nos. 15 and 16.
C.N.O. 3y2% Dom. Gt. D.S.— £293,837 deposited as part security to 6%

notes — see 14.
C.N.O. 4% Deb. Stock.— £525,000 of this amount deposited as collateral to

loan.
C.N.R. 5% Land Debentures. — £44,110 securities deposited as collateral to

loan of £33,000— see 13.

(/O
(i)
(j)

a-)

(I)

CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY SYSTEM.

Construction Accounts.
31st December 1913.

RECONCILIATION.

Total Receipts on Construction $ 223 ,407 ,641 98

Equipment 32,811,467 87

H. &S. W. Land 175,090 11

H. & Y. Bonds 675 ,000 00

Subsidies 25,323,780 22 58,985,338 20

Receipts from Securities as per statement

S 164,422,303 78

Statement of Cash Subsidies received from Dominion of Canada, Pro-
vincial Governments, and Municipalities, in aid of construction of lines.

Dominion of Canada.

Canadian Northern Rv 2,000,332 00

Canadian Northern Alberta 2,832,024 00

Canadian Northern Pacific. 4,349,930 00

Canadian Northern Ontario ... 10 , 122 , 470 39

Canadian Northern Quebec... , 707,563 83

Halifax (S: South Western 1,364,210 00

269b, i, j, 1, m-3i

21,376,530 22

36 DOMINION GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914

Provincial Governments.

Province of Ontario, Canadian

Northern $ 1 ,072,800 00

Province of Nova Scotia, H. & S. W.

Ry 2,804,450 00

$ 3,877,250 00

Municipalities.

Town of Port Arthur 50,000 00

Town of Parry Sound 20 ,000 00

70,000 00
$ 25,323,780 22

CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY SYSTEM.
Memorandum re Land Grants on 31st December, 1913.

Acres. Acres.

Canadian Northern Ry. Co . . . . 4 , 102 , 848

Less retained by Mackenzie,

Mann & Co 100 ,000 4 ,002 ,848

Total sales 3,145,312

Balance unsold 857 , 536

Cash realized from sales of land $16,524,805 42

Cash realized from rents, etc 255,447 58

16,780,253 00

Less, handed over to the Trustees 4 ,429 ,433 06

Retained by Dom. Government on Transport

agreement 353 ,048 87

Expenses of Sales, Taxes, Surveys, etc 4,155,304 24

8,937,786 17

Amount used from Land account by the C.N.R. for general

purposes $ 7,842,466 83

Canadian Northern Railway acquired from the Dominion Government
11,457 acres of land for Right of Way, and for To\viisite purposes 16,517 acres.
For the latter the Railway paid 83.00 per acre.

Upon taking over the Qu'Appellc, Long Lake & Saskatchewan Railway, the
land grant applicable thereto was retained by the vendors.

Canadian Northern Ontario Railway —

The Ontario Government granted the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway
4,000 acres per mile for 500 miles, between Sudl)ury and Port Arthur. This
land has not yet been selected and no financial assistance has been received
from it.

CAXADIAy NORTHERX RAILWAY CO. 37

SESSIONAL PAPERS Nos. 269b, i, j, I, m.

Canadian Northern Quebec Railway —

The Quebec Government granted the following acreages on the Lines
mentioned : —

Gameau and Quebec, Limoilou Branch 152 , 150 acres.

Main Line to Bridge 10 . 320

St. Jerome Branch 30 ,400

St. Jacques to Rawdon 47 , 880

Valcartier 11 ,400

Gosford 13,500

Montreal-Grenville 120,000

Roberval (J. B. & E.) 120,000

This land has not yet been selected and no financial assistance has been
received from it.

Halifax & South Western Ry.—

Lands .? 300 .000 00

Mortgages S 100,000 00

Interest 24,909 89

124,909 89

S 175,090 11

CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY SYSTEM.

Equipment Summary, December 31st, 1913.

To Purchase under Equipment Trusts S51 ,597 ,111 75

To Purchases bv Canadian Northern Rv., direct 1 .500 ,596 19

To Purchases by Allied Lines .' 794,699 33

$53,892,407 27

By Cash Payments at time of creation of Equip-
ment Trusts .S13 ,760,655 08

By Payments in reduction of Equipment trusts 14,090,456 67

Bv Payments direct bv Canadian Northern

Railway T 1 ,500,596 19

By Pavments bv Allied Lines 794 .699 33

30,146,407 27

Balance due on Equipment Tru.sts .S23 ,746 ,000 00

38 DOMINION GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914

CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
Equipment Scurities.
December 31st, 1913.

SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST PAYMENTS.

Principal. Interest.

1914 % 3,493,000 00 S 1,034,316 25

1915 3,497,000 00 875,416 25

1916 3,256,000 00 719,091 25

1917 3,023,000 00 576,771 25

1918 2 ,653 ,000 00 456 ,523 75

1919 2,488,000 00 330,451 25

1920 2.188,000 00 210.341 25

1921 1,708,000 00 121,39125

1922 1 ,095 ,000 00 50 ,037 50

1923 345,000 00 8,687 50

% 23,746,000 00 $ 4,383,027 50

Office of the Solicitor General of Canada.

Ottawa, April 4th, 1914.

Dear Sir, — Referring to the audit made by yourself and Messrs Shannon
and Saunders, relative to the. expenditure for construction of the Canadian
Northern Railway and its allied lines by the Canadian Northern Railway and
the Mackenzie & Mann Company, Limited, the Government would like to
have certain further information relative thereto.

Statement 3 sul)mitted with your report shows a balance due on construc-
tion and equipment account of $21,262,527.26 and since the receipt of your report
the officials of the Mackenzie & Mann Company, Limited, have submitted
a statement showing how this is made up; a certain portion being due contrac-
tors and others and the balance, some $10,000,000.00 being shown as presu-
mably due banks.

The Government would like to investigate and report upon this statement
with the object of obtaining your certificate that it is correct and would parti-
cularly instruct that you investigate the amount owing to the banks with the
object of ascertaining yourself that the Canadian Northern Railway are in no
way liable by way of endorsement of the use of any of their assets as collateral
to the loans.

I would further like you to make an audit of the Canadian Northern Railway
bank account and to submit a certified statement of their standing.

My desire is to obtain from you an independent certificate of direct and
indirect and contingent liabilities of the Canadian Northern Railway Company
and of all allied lines.

You are hereby authorized to call in such experts as may be thought neces-
sary to assist you in obtaining the necessary information.

Mr. Graham A. Bell

Financial Comptroller,

Department of Railwavs and Canals
Ottawa.

Yours very truly,

Arthur Meighen.

CAXADIAX XORTHERX RAILWAY CO. 39

SESSIONAL PAPERS Nos. 269b, i, j, I, m.

Office of the Solicitor General of Canada.

Ottawa, April 6th, 1914.

Mr. Graham A. Bell,

Financial Comptroller.
Ottawa. Ont.

Dear Sir. — Supplementary to my letter of the 4th inst.. I would like you
further to investigate and report on the following: —

1. Re capital stock issues of the following companies lodged with the Nation-
nal Trust Company Limited as trustees and if so what is the nature of the trust
and did they automatically revert back to the Canadian Northern Railway
upon discharge of certain obligations, and if so, what obligations.

(a) Canadian Northern Railway Express Co., Limited.
(6) Canadian Northern Transfer Company.

(c) Canadian Northern Telegraph Company.

(d) Canadian Northern Steamships Limited.

(e) Lake Superior Terminals Co., Limited.
(/) Minnesota & Ontario Bridge Com.pany.

(g) Marmora Railway & IMining Companv. ,

(h) St. Boniface & AVestern Land Co.
(^) Winnipeg Land Company, Limited.

2. Report upon Canadian Northern System.s Terminals, Limited, Canadian
Northern Manitoba Railway, and Qu'Appelle, Long Lake & Saskatchewan
Railway, such particulars as would have been given in your report of March 31st
last had these Companies appeared in Statement 1 and such subsequent state-
ments as referred to the Companies named in Statement 1.

3. Are the Manitoba leased lines taken by the Canadian Northern from
the Manitoba Government by assignment of lease still the property of the C. N.
R. in same way as they were after such assignment was taken.

4. Give tabular statement showing,

(a) Securities pledged as collateral only, not directly realized on.
(6) Balance of securities not yet issued but issued without further
legislation of Governmental authority.

5. Give further particulars as to the item of S4, 429, 433. 00 mentioned in
statement eight (8) as handed over to trustees giving the obligation thus reduced.

You are authorized to employ in respect of any legal work which is included
in the above, Mr. C. A. Masten, Barrister, of Toronto.

Very truly yours,

Arthur Meighen.

40 DOMIMOK GOVERXMEyT GUARAXTEE

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914
Ottawa, April 22nd, 1914.

Sir: — Pursuant to instructions contained in your letter of the 4th instant, and
of your letter of the 6th instant in respect to further information required as to
the financing of the Canadian Northern Railway System, the undersigned have
the honour to report that they have obtained the information asked for, which
is set out in the following statements, viz:

(Partially printed.)

I. — Particulars of accounts and loans of the Contractors on Construc-
tion, outstanding 31st December 1913, amounting to $21,262,527.26
11. — Declaration by Alfred James ]\Iitchell, Comptroller of Mackenzie,

Mann & Company, Limited.
III. — "A" Statement of the floating liabilities of the Railway Companies
embraced in the General Title of the Canadian Northern Railway
System.

"B" Statement of balances due by Station Agents, etc, as of
December 31st, 1913.
IV. — Declaration of D. B. Hanna, third Vice-President of the Canadian
Northern Railway Company, as to the correctness of No. 3 "A".
V. — Memorandum bearing on certain acquired securities deposited with the
Trustees under Trust Deed.
VI. — "A" Certified copy of Trust Deed to secure first Mortgage 4 per
cent consolidated debenture stock and bonds, dated June 30th, 1903.
"B" Letter from National Trust Company, Limited, Toronto,
re Canadian Northern Railway Companj' 4 per cent perpetual con-
solidated debenture Mortgage.
VII. — Memorandum relating to Marmora Railway and Mining Company,
Brockville, Westport & Western Railway Central Ontario Railway,
Bay of Quinte Railway, Irondale, Bancroft «fe Ottawa Railway, Cana-
dian Northern Manitoba Railway, Qu'Appelle, Long Lake &
Saskatchewan Railway, and the Canadian Northern System Terminals
Limited.
VIII. — Certified copy of Trust Deed to secure an issue of first Mortgage
99 — year debenture stock and / or bonds.
IX. — Memorandum by Mr. Ruel re lines in Manitoba leased from the

Northern Pacific Railway Company.
X. — Statutory declaration by Mr. L. W. Mitchell re Manitoba leased
lines.
XL — Statement marked Schedule "A" showing securities pledged as

collateral only, not directly realized on.
XII. — Statement marked Schedule "B" showing securities pledged as

collateral to temporary' loans.
XIII. — Certificate re Canadian Northern Railway four per cent con-
solidated debenture stock.
XIV. — Certificate re Canadian Northern Ontario Railway 4 per cent per-
petual consolidated debenture stock.
XV. — Certificate re Duluth, Winnipeg, Pacific Railway Company, four
per cent first Mortgage debenture stock.
XVI. — Certificate re certain securities held pending sale.
XVII. — Certificate re certain securities issuable.

XVIIL— Memorandum from Mr. L. W. Mitchell dat('<l April Sth, 1914, re
Canadian Northern Land Department.

CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY CO. 41

SESSIONAL PAPERS Nos. 269b, j, j, I, m.

XIX. — Letter of National Trust Company confirming No. 18, dated

April nth, 1914.
XX. — Certified copies of; —

"A" Trust Deed of February 1st, 1899.
"B" Trust Deed of February 15th, 1909.
"C" Trust Deed of November 19th, 1913.
XXI. — Declaration by R. P. Ormsby, Assistant Secretary, Canadian.
Northern Railway, as to Capital Stock of certain subsidiary Companies.

Certain of the above statements have been further verified bj' sworn decla-
rations, and by certificates from the National Trust Company as Trustees, the
Canadian Bank of Commerce as to the bank accounts and Mr. C. A. Masten,
K.C., Barrister, etc.

We would particularly draw attention to statement No. 2 being a decla-
ration from the Comptroller of the Contractors. Messrs Mackenzie, Mann &
Company, Limited, that the Contractors have made no profit on their work for
the Canadian Northern Railway, other than certain fulty paid Common Stock,
which is set out in a statement in our previous report. This declaration is
borne out to our satisfaction, from our investigation of the books of said Con-
tractors, and also of those of the Company.

We have the honour to be. Sir,

Your obedient servants,

G. A. Bell.
Financial Comptroller, Department of Railways
- and Canals.

J. C. Saunders.
Chief Accountant and Dominion Book-keeper
Department of Finance.

Arthur Meighen, Esq., K.C.,

Solicitor General of Canada, Ottawa, Ont.

42 DOMI^^ION GOYERNMEyT GUARANTEE

4-5 GEORGE V.. A. 1914

CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY SYSTEM.

Particulars of Accounts Outstanding on Construction.

31st December, 1913.

summary.

British Columl)ia.

Contractors' estimates and material account 81.108,400 00

Contractors' drawback 2,077,448 71

Western lines.

Contractors' estimates and drawback 892,275 41

Pay rolls and material accounts 1,071,799 31

Eastern lines.

Contractors' drawback 1,537,797 07

Contractors' estimates 014,841 17

Construction material accounts 225,483 79

Equipment.

•General 1,539,803 87

Amines.

Construction loans 12,194,551 33

$21,202,527 20

CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY SYSTEM.

Construction, Equipment, Terminals, Branch Lines, etc.

December 3 1st, 1913.
Expenditur(\

Can. Nor. Ry.— Construction, etc.. .. ..$109,095,027 25

Equipment trusts. .". .. 32,811,407 87

$141,907,095 12

Canadian Northern Pacific Rv 34,700,907 70

Canadian Northern Ontario Ry 52,815,023 10

Canadian Northern Quebec Rv 4,222,889 02

Duluth, Winnipeg & Pacific Rv 5,299,081 22

Halifax c^- South Western Rv 5,063,972 42

Receipts.

Cash subsidies — Dominion.

C.N. R $ 2,000,332 00

C.N. A 2,832,024 00

C.N. P 4,349,930 00

C.N.O 1.303,122 39

C.N.O (>,880,388 00

C. N.O.(J.B.) 1,872,900 00

C. N.Q 707,503 83

H. A:S. W 1,304,210 00

Provincial.

H. & S. W 2,804,4.50 00

C. N. U 1,072,800 00

$244,670,109 24

CAXADIAy yORTHERX RAILWAY CO. 43

SESSIONAL PAPERS Nos. 269b, j, j, I, m.

^Municipal.

C. N. R 50.000 00

C. X. 0 20,000 00

S25,323,780 22
Guaranteed securities.

(Dom.) C.N.R. 3% 8,523,597 43

C.N.R. 31^%.. . 6,873,890 93

C.N.A. 33/^%... 4,391,077 30

(Alta) C.N.R. 4%..... 7,866,929 64

C.N.W. 41^%... 2,407,230 70

C.N.W. 41/^% . . . 2,563,474 54

(Sask.) C.N.R. 4% 8,695,043 96

(Man.) C.N.R. 4% 12.437,344 33

(Man.) C.N.R. 4% •- 4.001,734 33

" C.N.R. 4%. .. . . 2,987,173 33

(B.C.) C.N.P. 4% 19,500,598 65

C.N.^P. 43^%.... 1,453,17147

(Ont.) C.N.O. 33^%.... 5.591,977 96

C.N.O. 31^%.... ' 965,000 00

(Dom.) C.N.O. 33^%.. . . 20,149,256 53

Other securities. §108,407,501 10

C.N.R. 4% . 17,602,398 05

4% land 3,679.125 30

" 5% income 12,875,175 99

5% land 6,200,000 00

5% notes... 1,650,000 00

C.N.O. 4% 6,882,713 13

C.N.Q. 4% 2,421,164 82

D.W.P. 4% 4,704.225 39

H.&Y Bonds 675,000 00

H. & S. W. land 175.090 11

I. Rolling Stock Co 32,811,467 87

S223,407,641 98

Balance S 21,262,527 26

CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY SYSTEM.

Floating LIABILITIES, as under, of the Railway Companies, Embraced in
THE General Title of The Canadian Northern Railway System.

Canadian Northern Railway Co S6 ,565 ,652 61

Canadian Northern Ontario Railway 767,059 21

Canadian Northern Quebec Railway 1 ,250,490 67

Quebec & Lake St. John Raihvay (583,466 88

Duluth, Winnipeg & Pacific Railway 522,293 99

Halifax & South W(;>tern Railway 191 ,261 16

Central Ontario Railway 190,291 11

Bay of Qiiinte Railway 173 , 114 08

Irondale, Bancroft & ()ttawa Railway 7 ,949 00

Brockyill(>, Westport & North Western Railway 56,549 09

$ 10,408,128 30

44 DOMINION GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914

. CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY SYSTEM.
Schedule "A"

SECURITIES PLEDGED AS COLLATERAL ONLY — NOT DIRECTLY REALIZED UPON.

Date

Mtge. Collateral To

C. N. Alta. Ry. 3^% Dom.

Gt. Deb. Stock Mar., 1911 £733,561 C. N. Ry. 6% Gold

Notes., $3,500,000."
C.N. Ont. Ry. 3^% Dom.

Gt. Deb. Stock Oct., 1911 293,837 C. N. Ry. 6% Gold

Notes, $3,500,000.
C.N. Ry. 4% Deb. Stock

Guart. by Alta June, 1909 450,000 C. N. Ry. Secured

Notes £2,000,000
C.N. Ry. 4% Deb. Stock

Guart. by Sask'n Mav, 1910 500,000 C. N. Ry. Secured

Notes £2,000.000.
(\N. Ry. 4% Deb. Stock

Guart. bv Man Mar. 1910 300 .000 C. N. Ry. Secured

Notes £2.000,000
C.N. Ry. 4% Deb. Stock

Guart. by B.C April, 1910 550,000 C. N. Ry. Secured

Notes, £2,000,000.
C.N. Ry. 4% Perp. Cons.

Deb. Stock June, 1903 750,000 C. N. Ry. Secured

Notes, £2,000,000.
C.N. Ry. 4% Perp. Cons.

Deb. Stock June. 1903 177,261 C. N. Ry. 5% Secured

Notes, £450,000.
C\N.P. 4% Deb. Stock Guart.

by B. C April, 1910 392 , 739 C. N. Ry. 5% Secured

Notes, £450,000
C.N. Ont. Ry. 4% Perp. Deb.

Stock June, 1909 532 , 192 C. N. Ont. 3|% Dom.

Gt. Del). Stock.

£4,679,590

Certified Correct,

D. B. Hanna,
Third Vice-President.

CANADIAX NORTHERN RAILWAY CO.

45

SESSIONAL PAPERS Nos. 269b, j, j, I, m.

CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY SYSTEM.

Schedule "B."

securities pledged as collateral to temporary loans.

—

Date Mortgage.

•

Market
Value,

Dec.

1913

.-. i. y.

Currency.

ex. Ont. Ry. 4% Cons. Deb. Stock

C.N.Rv.4% Perp. Cons. Deb. Stock

C.N.Ry. 4% Perp. Cons. Deb.

Stock

June 1909 £ 525,000
June 1903 155,000

June 1903 46,590

June 1903 175,000

June 1903 400.000

75|

84

88

£ 396,375
652,335

$ 1,929,025 00
3,174,697 00

C.N.Ry. 4% Perp. Cons. Deb.
Stock

C.N.Ry. 4% Perp. Cons. Deb.
Stock

C.N.Ry. 4% Deb. Stock Quart, by

Alberta June 1909 44,495

C.N.Ry. i% Deb. Stock Quart, by;

Alberta I June 1909 200, 000

215,155

1,047,087 66

C.N.Ry. 5% Land Mtge. Deb.

Stock Nov. 1913 44,110

C.N.Ry. 5% Land Mtge. Deb.

Stock i Nov. 1913 960,000

95

1,751,904

8,525,932 78

C.N.Rv. 5% Land Mtge. Dcb.|

Stock ! Nov. 1913 840,000

93
95

National Trust Company 4% Land i

Certs « 1.fi.57..'iOn

1,500,000 00

C.N.Western Ry. 4|% Deb. Stock
Quart, by Alberta

.June 1912 £ 1,320,000

July 1913 345,000

125,000

1,227,600
446, 500

5,974,320 00

C.N. P. 4| Term. Deb. Stock Quart.

bv British Columbia

C.N. P. 4|% Term. Deb. Stock

"Quart, bv British Columbia

2,172,966 66

Amountof Loans outstanding against
siecurities

£ 4,254,219

At Par...

24,324,029 10
20,703,865 00

Eauitv ... 1

3,620,164 10

Certified correct,

D. B. Hanna,

Third Vice-President.

45 DOMINION GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE

4-5 GEORGE V., A. 1914

CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY.

4% PERPETUAL CONSOLIDATED DEBENTURE STOCK.

£ 10.297,544 Amount Stock issued as per statement filed.
927,261 Held as collateral security to 5% note issues.
900,000 Held by Canadian Bank of Commerce for safe keeping — .See
Certificate.

26,590 Balance of amount issued and £ 175,000

held as collateral security 155,000

to temporary loans in London 46,590

as per statement already submitted. 400,000

£ 12,151,395 £ 776,590

£ 12,187,544 Amount created and authorized to be issued by Trustees.
Certificate attached herewith.

£ 26,149 Balance unissued.

Certified correct,

D. B. Hanna,

Third Vice-President.

CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY SYSTEM.

Schedule "D."

securities issuable.

Canadian Northern Railway —
4% Consolidated Perpetual "

Debenture Stock in Bank £ 900,000

Balance Issuable:

On Milcas^e £ 334,934

On Terminals 300,000 634,934

£ 1,534,934 S; 7.470.012 lo

Canadian Northern Ky. —

f>% Land Mortgage Debenture Stock... £ 155,890 758,664 66

S 8,228,676 79

Note: — -There is an (-(juity in securities held as coUateiai to

temporary loans as pvv statement !> 3,620,164 Of

Certified correct,

D. B. Hanna,
Third \'ice-President.

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 277 A. 1914

RETUKN

[-277]

Report in the matter of a Formal luvestigatiou into the Causes which led to the
British Steamer Saturnia touching the ground in the Lower Traverse, River
St. Lawrence, on Tuesday, April 2», 1914, held in the Wreck Commissioner's
Court, Montreal, on the 4th and 5th days of May, 1014, before Commander
Henry St. George Lindsay, R.D., R.X.R., Dominion Wreck Commissioner,
assisted by Captain Francis Xash and Captain Joseph Ostens Grey, acting as
Assessors.

The British steamship Saturnia, official Xo. 129,489; gross tonnage, 8,611; and
owned by the Saturnia Steamship Company, Limited, of Glasgow, and engaged in
trading between Glasgow and Canadian ports, appears to have been well found and
equipped in every respect, and sailed from Glasgow on April 18, 1914, with 300 pas-
sengers and a general cargo, and a crew of about 148 all told, and arrived at Father
Point, in the gulf of St. Lawrence, on Monday, April 27, about 9.08 p.m., the vessel
drawing 18 feet forward and 23 feet 6 inches aft. At 9.24 p.m. the vessel was boarded
by Jules Lachance, a special Quebec pilot, and proceeded towards Quebec.

Everything seems to have gone well during the night, the weather being fine and
clear, and the ship apparently making good the courses steered, which courses were
given by the pilot from time to time. The master was informed by the pilot on his
coming on board, that, as the Lower Traverse light vessel was not on her station, he
intended to wait for daylight before taking the ship through that channel, to which
the master agreed, and shortly after this the latter appears to have left the deck, leav-
ing the pilot in charge. The weather continued fine, and the wind light from south-
west, and at 4 a.m. the speed of the ship was reduced, Cape Goose being abeam at
4.08 a.m., and a S. 45 W. course, by compass, was then set. At 4.18 a.m. the engines
were ordered full speed ahead by the pilot, and the vessel proceeded towards the
Lower Traverse, the tide being flood, and running strong to the south and west, the
vessel's speed must have been approximately from 18 to 19 knots over the ground.
At 4.40 a.m. the vessel touched the ground, but did not stop, and it was found shortly
after the stranding that Xos. G and 7 ballast tanks were leaking.

The vessel continued her voyage to Montreal via Quebec, without further incident,
and after being discharged, was placed on the floating dock at Montreal, where it was
found necessary to make temporary repairs to her bottom plates; the port propeller
blades were also found to be bent, and also one blade on starboard propeller.

FIXDIXG.

After carefully considering and reviewing the evidence adduced, the court is of
opinion that the stranding of the Steamship Saturnia, in the Lower Traverse, river
St. Lawrence, on the morning of the 28th of April, was caused by the action of Jules
Lachance, the pilot, inasmuch as he appears to have had no confidence in himself as
to the manner of navigating the vessel through this channel, and ai^parently did not
make proper use of the usual day marks for safe navigation, and it is the unanimous
opinion of the court that the vessel touched the ground on the south side of the
channel, and close to the old Lower Traverse block, and this probably accounts for the
pilot not seeing the buoy moored off the block, as the vessel must have passed almost
over it just before or after striking the ground.

277

2 ' REPORT OF THE WRECK COMMISSIONER

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

The court also considers that when in doubt as to his position, and lacking confi-
dence in his ability as a pilot, he should have sent for the master to assist him in the
navigation of the vessel.

The court therefore considers that the pilot did not show either ordinary skill or
good judgment, in attempting to pass through the Lower Traverse channel under the
existing conditions, and therefore suspends the license of Jules Lachance, tlie pilot,
for a period of three months from this date.

In view of the master, David Taylor, knowing that the Lower Traverse lightship
was not on her station, and the risks attending the navigating of these narrow channels
with a strong flood tide, the court is of opinion that the master ought to have been
on deck after passing Cape Goose, and censures him for this negligence.

The fact of the Lower Traverse light vessel not being on her station at the time
of the casualty, does not appear to the court to have any bearing on the matter, as the
Satuniia had passed the position where the light vessel would have been moored, some
minutes before the accident, and, had the light vessel been considered necessary for
safe navigation, both the master and the pilot were taking undue risks in trying to
navigate the Lower Traverse with the full knowledge tliat the light vessel was not there.

Dated at Ottawa this ninth day of May, 1914.

N. ST. G. LINDSAY,
Dominion Wrecl- Commissioner.

Concurred in:

FRANCIS NASH,
J. O. GREY,

Assessors.

Read in open court, at Montreal, Quebec, this 11th day of May, 1014.

N. ST. G. LINDSAY,
Dominion Wrech Commissioner.

4 GEORGE V. SESSIONAL PAPER No. 278 A, 1914

[278]

RETIJRN

Report in the matter of a Formal Investigation' into the Causes which led to the
Stranding of the British Steamship Mont fort, on Beaupox't Bank, River St.
Lawrence, on Tuesday, April 28, 1914, held in the Wreck Commissioner's Court,
Montreal, on Tuesday, May 5, 1914, before Commander Henry St. George
Lindsay, R.D., R.X.R., Dominion Wreck. Commissioner, assisted Ly Captain
Francis Nash and Captain Joseph Ostens Grey, acting as Assessors.

The British steamship Montfort, official Xo. 110,5(i8 ; gross tonnage, 6,578; owned
by the Canadian Pacifie Railway Company, Montreal, Canada, and engaged in the
Canadian service, sailed from iVntwerp, bound for Quebec and Montreal, on April 15,
1914. with 162 passengers and a general cargo, having on board a crew of 95 all told,
and was apparently well found and equipped in every respect, and ari'ived at Father
Point, in the gulf of St. Lawrence, on Monday, April 27, at 5.19 p.m., the ship drawing
about 21 feet 7 inches forward and 21 feet 10 inches aft, and after embarking Francois
Gaudreau, a special pilot for the Pilotage District of Quebec, proceeded on her voyage
towards Quebec.

Everything appears to have gone well during the run up the Lower St. Lawrence,
the vessel passing Quarantine at about 6.55 a.m., Tuesday, April, 28, the usual courses
being steered, and the weather appears to have been fine and clear throughout the night
and early morning. At 8.16, according to the company's regulations, all hands came
on stations, and standby was ordered on the engine room telegraph. At 8.18 west end
of Orleans island was abeam one-quarter of a mile off. and a course (W. by N. I N.)
was ordered by the pilot. At 8.19 the speed was reduced to half speed, and at 8.22 a.m.
to slow. Shortly after this the vessel ran into a dense fog, and thinking that the
vessel was too near to the Levis shore, on account of his hearing the noise of a hydrau-
lic rivetting machine on the port side, the pilot gave orders to port the helm, which
was done, and the vessel's head swung off to N.W. by compass. About this time the
leadsman reported four and a half fathoms, and before the next sounding could be
taken the vessel took the ground on Beauport bank, about two and a half miles below
Quebec, and one and one-quarter miles to the westward of the west point of the Isle
of Orleans, where she remained vmtil assisted off at 8 a.m. on the 29th. No apparent
damage was reported after examination by divers at ^Montreal.

It would appear that about the time the vessel stranded the master superseded the
pilot in the management of the ship, as he saw that the latter had apparently become
bewildered as to the ship's position.

FINDING.

The court, after considering the evidence adduced in this case, is unanimous in
its opinion that the stranding of the steamship Montfort was caused entirely by the
want of skill and poor judgment displayed by Pilot Francois Gaudreau, inasmuch as
he appears to have lost all knowledge of the position of his vessel after entering the
fog, and the court considers that his local knowledge, and his knowledge of the tides
and the ice movement, should have prompted him to do the only ])roper thing possible
under the circumstances, and to anchor, until he found out his actual position.

The court therefore suspends the license of Fr;nK'oi« Gaurlreau, the pilot, for a
period of three calendar months from this date.
' 278—1

2 REPORT OF TBE WRECK COMMlSSlONEM

4 GEORGE v., A. 1914

Ko blame, iu the opiniou of the court, cau be attached to the master and officers
of the ship, as everything appears to have been done by them to assist in the proper
navigation of the vessel, and the court considers that the master was perfectly justi-
fied in taking the ship out of the pilot's hands, although unfortunately not in time
to prevent the stranding, and commends him for his action.

The fact that all the aids to navigation were not in place on April -21, in the
opinion of the court, has no material bearing on this stranding.

Dated at Ottawa this ninth day of May, 191-i.

II. ST. G. LINDSAY,
Dominion Wreck (Jominissioner.

Concurred in :

FRANCIS NASII,
J. O. GRAY,

Assessors.

Kead in open court at Montreal, Quebec, this 11th day of May, 1014.

II. ST. G. LINDSAY.
Dominion ^yreck Commissioner'

636

Ajii