Mr. A. K. MACLEAN.
Yes, I do
very extensive one, it was a very severe one, and as I have said already the crossexamination of witnesses, other than those who were officials of the department, was exceedingly severe and, in manf cases, unfair and resulted in placing upon the records statements that I do not believe were actually correct. The commissioner also, did not consider himself restricted to the terms of the order in council appointing him. He in his wisdom, and I find no fault with that, roamed beyond the powers granted him by the order in council appointing him, and the investigation was sufficient to disclose irregularities and the public interests were amply satisfied by the scope of the inquiry. What was proven? Irregularities on the part of officials were proven. They had been dismised. Incompetency and lack of capacity on the part of certain officials was also amply proven. Some have been dismissed. I think it is quite possible that incompetency has been shown regarding other officials in the service of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and I think the minister might very well take into consideration certain evidence respecting other officials. The findings of the Cassels Commission also disclosed the regrettable fact that the bribery of officials was not an uncommon
thing. Those who were guilty of accepting bribes have been punished or censured in some form or another. I agree with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Doherty) who moved this resolution yesterday, that we should be more inclined to censure the man who gives the bribe than the one who receives it. We should be fair and lenient, I think, in our view respecting the practice of receiving bribes. It is a fact, although the mover of the resolution will probably question it, that in connection with shipping the giving of gratuities, in this case called bribes, is not an uncommon practice and it may be that a great number of the officials who did accept these bribes believed them to be mere gratuities and that they were justified in accepting them because they were simply acting in accordance with a practice common to maritime ports. There should be a uniform standard or code respecting the giving of bribes. It is not an uncommon thing in commercial life. We must not have one code respecting bribes for the guidance of civil servants and another for bank managers, for the managers of trust companies and other people. We must be fair about these matters. I admit thoroughly that these disclosures were most unfortunate and I am sure that members of parliament and Canadians generally will hope that we have seen the last of them. The commissioner's report also disclosed that excessive prices were paid for goods. Now, I think that has been magnified altogether out of its true proportions. For instance, regarding the purchases made at Montreal, I think that, beyond the Merwin purchases, the evidence amply justifies the conclusion formed by Mr. Justice Cassels that on the whole the prices were fair, and they were, in fact, the ordinary prices. He also makes the same remark concerning the purchases made at Sorel. There is no evidence of improper or excessive charges at St. John, New Brunswick. There is very little evidence of excessive charges at the port of Halifax. True there is some, but it does not amount to a great deal. As far as the evidence taken at Quebec is concerned, it certainly amply justifies the finding of Mr. Justice Cassels that the charges there were exorbitant and unfair.
Well ,what is the Department of Marine and Fisheries doing to remedy this matter of excessive charges? Some time ago, and before Mr. Justice Cassels commenced his inquiry, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) appointed Mr. Doutre as the purchasing agent of that department, and Mr. Doutre's duties, so far, have been so well discharged that upon the record we have the commendation of Mr. Justice Cassels. Mr. Doutre himself gave evidence to the effect that a great saving would be Mr. A. K. MACLEAN.
made by reason of his being placed in charge of this portion of the department's business. That is what, the department has done to remedy this difficulty. Now, I admit that many of these practices to which reference has been made were irregular and indispensable. But let us be fair; the carrying on of the details of government is conditioned by circumstances which do not obtain in private business, and on many occasions in the future we shall find disclosures of improper conduct on the part of officials and of those who are selling goods to the departments. This, of course, requires vigilance on the part of the minister and his officials. But I am in the judgment of the House when I say that it can never be expected that any minister, or any official, or body of officials, will be able, at all times and on all occasions, to see that any department's business is so transacted as to be utterly beyond criticism.
Now, the resolution before the House asks that this inquiry be extended to other departments. I say that resolution is illogical; it is not supported by reason, for it is based upon the assumption that if irregularities occur in one department they necessarily must occur in another. If all human conduct and transactions were based upon that reasoning, one can readily see to what ridiculous conclusions we should be led. This resolution should not be supported, because there is no accusation or suggestion of wrong-doing as against any other department. It is true that the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Orothers) said, in a moment of counterfeited wrath last evening: 'When the heads of the government are guilty of grand larceny, how can it be expected but that the members of the Civil Service will be guilty of petty larceny?' But I suppose we can regard this merely as political sound and fury signifying nothing, and not intended to prove anything. Another reason why the resolution should not be affirmed is that the proceedings before the Public Accounts Committee during the last four or five years do not disclose irregularities of the magnitude or number of those in the Marine and Fisheries Department. And nothing that has occurred before this committee justifies anybody in making the assertion that inquiry should be made into other departments. The suggestion is further made that this inquiry should be granted because some of the contractors having dealings with the Marine and Fisheries Department and found guilty of irregular and improper practices have dealings with other departments. Supposing that this is absolutely true, does it follow that any other department must concur in this resolution and submit to an inquiry? What was the purpose
of the inquiry in connection with the Marine and Fisheries Department, if the other departments were not intended to receive some lesson from it? The hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) referred to the fact-which I noticed only a few moments ago in the Montreal 'Gazette' of this morning-that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) has issued a circular urging the officers of his department to observe great care and caution in making purchases on behalf of the government both as regards price and quality. They are also cautioned against the acceptance of gifts or favours of any kind from persons having dealings with the department. I naturally assume that the heads of all the other departments must take cognizance of the evidence disclosed during the Cassels' inquiry, and they must take cognizance of the names of the contractors dealing with the Marine and Fisheries Department and found guilty of improper practices, and must be, to some extent at least, guided by that evidence. Again, I say this resolution should not be confirmed, because, after all, what this country requires is that the irregularities prevailing in the past in the Marine and Fisheries Department should cease, as to that department and all others. The country is more interested as to the future than as to the past; and I submit that no good ground whatever can he given for supporting his resoluion.
Now, there are a few things in connection with the Cassels Commission report, with which I wish to deal, perhaps at some length; and possibly I may weary the House, but there are matters referred to in this report which have been the subject of discussion in this House for many years, which have been discussed frequently and persistently by gentlemen of the opposition, which have been constantly referred to_ in the press, and have found their resting place in the political campaign literature,- matters which relate to the policies of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and which, I believe, should he discussed. In dealing with these matters, I propose to take them up almost in the order in which they appear in the report of Mr. Justice Cassels.
One of the severest strictures made by the Civil Service Commission in its_ report two years ago was in connection with the administration of the Lighthouse Board. I think it was in consequence of this particular branch of the Marine and Fisheries Department that the commission of that day made the remark that some people were serving two masters, Scripture to the contrary notwithstanding. Now, this is a very important feature of the work of the Marine and Fisheries Department, and I think that the little time I shall take in discussing it will be justified. The Lighthouse 120i
Board was constituted a few years ago, and consisted of the deputy minister, Mr. Gour-deau, Mr. W. P. Anderson, Commander Spain, Mr. J. F. Fraser, Mr. Hugh Allan, Montreal, representing the Canadian Federation of Shipping, a id Captain J. W. Troupe, of Vancouver, representing^ the Canadian Pacific Railw ly shipping interests on the Pacific coasl, The Civil Service Commission, in dealin j with the Lighthouse Board, severely wnsured them. They say this :
Between June, 1905, and June, 1907, this hoard approved of and passed applications for new and improved aids to navigation amounting to $1,091,813. With the voting away of this vast amount of money the responsible minister had nothing to do. He was simply asked to initial the minutes of the different meetings of this most powerful but irresponsible board. The effect of this state of things is disastrous. It means practically the removing of all responsibility from those to whom extensive powers of administration and expenditures are granted.
When one realizes the enormous pressure being constantly brought to bear on the government of the day in favour of grants and bounties of all kinds, from one end of the country to the other, it would surely seem to be a most unwise thing to create a board with extensive powers which can be and are used in sympathy with this universal outside pressure, and without being accountable to anybody.
The two outside members of this board simply represent the shipping interest, which is their own. They cannot serve the country and themselves equally well in the same matter. The other members of the board are government officials, who, whatever their standing may be, personally or officially, are not independent of political influence or departmental pressure. They are in no proper sense qualified to fill such a position of trust as a seat on this Lighthouse Board should mean-where the most absolute sense of justice, with complete independence, is called for; with a keen desire to administer the people's money with the utmost economy and good judgment, and with all personal considerations sunk.
Mr. Justice Cassels, in dealing with the findings of the Civil Service Commission, commends the improvements in the aids to navigation on the River St. Lawrence. He finds that an injustice was done to the Lighthouse Board by the Royal Commission; that the Lighthouse Board is merely advisory; that the statement that the minister is not responsible is not in accordance with the facts; that the representatives of the shipping interest on the Lighthouse Board were improperly charged by the Royal Commission with serving their own personal interests. J concur most heartily in the finding of Mr. Justice Cassels in respect to the Lighthouse Board. I say that the Royal Commission exhibited gross and unpardonable carelessness and stupidity in making the finding they did, and neither I nor anybody else in this
House can be too severe in condemning their criticisms regarding that board. Inasmuch as very prominent and eminent citizens of this country, such as the Messrs. Allan of Montreal, have been condemned by this report, I think it is only fair that anything they had to say in answer to those charges should be made a matter of public record, and I ask the House to bear with me while I read some of the evidence given by those gentlemen at Montreal before the Cassels Commission. Here is some of the evidence, given by Mr. Hugh Allan:
Q. The Civil Service Commissioners, so-called, made some inquiries and a report, and in that report passed upon the functions and the performance of the duties bv this hoard of which you are a member, and the usefulness, or rather the uselessness of your board? -A. Yes.
Q. I should like to know from you just in a word, what you deem the chief functions of the board?-A. Well, the object of this board is to discuss the recommendations that are sent in to the board by various bodies; and in some cases recommendations, as far as the river and gulf of St. Lawrence, and the coast from Belle Isle to St. John, New Brunswick, embracing the whole of the Bay of Fundy, are concerned, have been made through the Shipping Federation of Canada, an association of shipping men in Montreal comprising all the regular lines of steamships that come to this port, with the exception of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. These recommendations have to a large extent, if not altogether, been based on an inquiry that was held, I think, in 1900, by the then minister of the department, at which the captains of all the regular lines running through the St. Lawrence were asked to give their views with regard to the improvements required in aids to navigation which had become, to a large extent, obsolete, and not at all suitable to the changed conditions that then prevailed and which have since, of course, grown immensely. These recommendations have all been endorsed bv the Shipping Federation, have been passed upon by them, and after being passed at their meetings, have been forwarded to the Lighthouse Board for their consideration. In like manner the recommendations of the people on the Pacific coast i-I am unable to say exactly what their organization is called, but it is practically the same as ours: that is to say Captain Troupe, I think, is the chairman, and all the interests out there are represented, and he calls them together, and they discuss what is required, and any improvements that commend themselves to this board are forwarded to the Lighthouse Board for their consideration. Sometimes individuals write to the minister or the deputy minister, or some member of the department, and they are put on the docket, and discussed, and if they commend themselves to the board, then they are passed, and if not, they are rejected. That is the mode of procedure at the board, and I may say that at that board a very full discussion is always had as to the advisability of every item before it is passed, but it has always been understood that these were recommendations when passed to the minister.
Q. Then the question has arisen out of the Mr. A. K. MACLEAN,
report of the Civil Service Commissioners as to whether or not the action of the board was independent, whether it was not merely the making of record of the views of the shipping interest including the views of individuals who had personal interests to promote?-A. lhat is absolutely without any foundation in fact.
Q. No foundation for it?-A. No.
Q. How could suoh an idea arise? Ap-iarently it was in their minds and their report is based upon it?-A. From what happened at the board meetings there was no reason why any one should come to such conclusions, and I can only imagine that such a conclusion would be arrived at by people who wanted to find fault and could not give any reason for finding fault. I think it is the most fortunate thing that ever happened for the shipping interests of this oountry that that board should have been established as it was. I think that anybody that knows the first thing about navigation, or shipping interests if he does not know anything about navigation, cannot have gone from Montreal to the sea, or from the sea to Montreal, without having foroed upon his attention, even as a passenger in a steamer, what tremendous strides have been made in navigation and how much good has been done. Take merely the most elementary or the most striking instance; to-day the largest steamers can navigate between Montreal and Quebec by day or by night if the weather is clear, if there is no fog or something to prevent them, and they could not have done that before these lights were established. To talk about this being a thing to be deplored in any way is perfectly ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous; I cannot use wards strong enough to express my surprise that any body of men should ever have said such a thing.
Q. The report says, 'And it certainly has not added to the general efficiency of the Marine and Fisheries Deparment/-A. Well, my experience is that the formation of this board has been the occasion of other organizations in the department being formed whereby the whole service has been systematized in a way that it never was before to my knowledge. There may have been in the internal Department of the Marine and Fisheries a body of men who looked after the thing, but I never heard of it, and now the shipping interests are advised of everything of importance; we keep in touch with the officers of the department in regard to everything. If a light goes out it is reported to our pilots and we report it to them. Not only is the lighting better, but the control of the lights is infinitely superior to what it was before.
Q. That report continues-
' Figuring as an impartial and skilled tribunal, passing upon all demands for government monev under the plea of necessary aids to navigation, they can do so without the slightest sense of responsibility, for they absolutely incur none.'
What do you say to that?-A. Well, I call that a miserable insinuation. If a body of men consisting of the principal officers of the department, that have served their lives in the department, and have shown their work that they have done, and if representatives of two interests, such as the shipping interest of the St. Lawrence, representing an enormous
Dumber of vessels and an immense tonnage and great value, are men that are supposed to stoop to acting without any sense of their responsibility. 1 am very sorry for the people who would think so. I think the business community of this country has not fallen that far. We have always had in this country, we have now, and I hope we always will have a very different moral tone from that.
He is then asked as to the value of recommendations made by the board, and he says:
As I said before it has enabled ships to continue their voyages, and therefore from a shipping noint of view it has made the route more economical. The insurance of cargoes also has been reduced, and will, I hope, continue to be reduced, but, of course, insurance companies, like every other business people, have to recoup themselves for losses in the past and their reductions have been gradual from year to year until they get down to a point where they consider they have gone as far as they can go and that will be gauged by tho results of the steamers navigating the St. Lawrence route. If there are accidents they will have to recoup themselves for the accident, but by guarding against those accidents, we will finally reduce the insurance to the lowest possible point.
Then he is asked:
Q. Then in connection with the functions, the performance of the duties of the board and yourself as a member of the board, did anything ever come to your knowledge as evidence of dishonesty on the part of those officials or of any other officials of the department?-A. I never heard anything of it.
Q. The commission to his lordship calls for a report as to acts of dishonesty on the part of any official?-A. I have no knowledge of any.
In this evidence, which is available for the examination of any hon. gentleman, Mr. Hugh Allan, I think, absolutely justifies the increased expenditures made by the Lighthouse Board. He states, regarding the conduct of officials, that he always found them attentive to their duties, discharging them properly, and that in no instance in his experience did he know of any member of the Lighthouse Board or any official in connection with it doing anything that might be termed improper. The evidence of Mr. Hugh Allan was confirmed by that of Mr. Andrew Allan and another gentleman representing the shipping interest of the port of Montreal. Now, my only reason for referring to this is that a very considerable portion of the increased expenditure of the Marine and Fisheries Department has been in connection with aids to navigation.
I presume that one of the matters which the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Crothers) had in his mind last night, when he charged this department with gross extravagance,
was its expenditure in aids to navigation, but I am sure every good Canadian must feel proud of the fact that the Department of Marine and Fisheries inaugurated a progressive policy in respect of the navigation of the St. Lawrence and elsewhere. This House, I am sure, will justify every dollar of that expenditure as being entirely in the interests of the country. The findings of the Civil Service Commission were grossly and manifestly unfair. They reached conclusions without having called for any testimony or information from the members of the Lighthouse Board, and they presumed to make findings without having put themselves in possession of the facts. It was suggested further by the commission that some of the officials in the department and some members of the Lighthouse Board were given to serving1 two masters, Scripture to the contrary notwithstanding, and they insinuated strongly also that these officials were in receipt of gratuities or something of that character. Well, the findings of the Hon. Mr. Justice Cassels are in direct opposition. There is no portion of the evidence taken by him which would justify any charge of misconduct or irregularity on the part of any of the officials of the Lighthouse Board.
The next matter to which I wish to refer is the question of the Willson gas buoys, to which Mr. Justice Cassels refers on page 12 of his report. I am not referring to this matter because of any findings against the department by Mr. Justice Cassels. On the contrary, his findings are in every respect favourable to the department and to the gentleman who manufactures and sells these buoys. But I am inclined to discuss this matter for another reason, and that is that Mr. Justice Cassels dealt with it in an altogether different way from that in which he dealt with another subject of a kindred nature, namely, the diaphone fog signal. He found that there was no evidence of any improper expenditure by Mr. Willson or his employees to reward any of the officials of the Civil Service and promote the interests of the company. He found that the buoys are unquestionably of great value. He was furnished with a statement showing the cost of production of the buoys, and he found that the reasons given in support of the contention that these costs should not be made public were well founded and he declined to make any further public disclosure. I would like here to read the statement quoted by the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Maddin) last night as a reason for inquiry into the other departments. That hon. gentleman quoted from remarks made by the hon. member for Grenville and Leeds (Mr. J. D. Reid) some two years ago in this House in which he referred to these particular buoys. And the passage he quoted was . the following:
Up to about two or (three years ago, we had the iPintsch gas system by which we had a permanent light on the gas buoys. It was changed then to the acetylene gas system.
I have not the slightest hesitation in saying, as I see from the Auditor General V Report, that the government have spent in the neighbourhood of $1,000,000 in the fiscal year of 1905 in making these changes, that there has been a very considerable rake-off, say from 25 to 50 per cent. Some one is getting that rake-off.
That was the statement made by the hon. member for Grenville and Leeds more than two years ago charging dishonesty on the pprt of departmental officials, and pretending to know sufficient to justify his making use of the term 'rake-off' and stating even the commission given government officials. But the finding of Mr. Justice Cassels completely disposes of that statement. Well, on statements just as ridiculous, the government are asked to consent to the appointment of another commission to make inquiries concerning the operations of other departments. Returning to Mr. Justice Cassels' report in this connection, what I cannot understand is that Mr. Justice Cassels should have adopted a certain procedure in the case of the gas buoys and another procedure in the case of the fog signals. In the case of the Willson buoys, he decided that it was not necessary to make public their cost. But in the case of the fog signal, he made a contrary ruling and obliged the manufacturer to go into the cost. In the case of the Willson buoys, he held it was not a matter of public importance what profit was made by Mr. Willson, but he found that it was matter of importance what profit the Canadian Fog Signal Company makes. In the case of the Willson buoy he did not invoke his interpretation of the patent law as against Mr. Willson, but he does as against the Canadian Fog Signal Company. I cannot understand this diversity in ruling upon two matters of a very kindred nature. I am inclined to think that his rulings in connection with the Willson gas buoy were the proper ones, and that those made in connection with the Canadian fog signals were not. They certainly could not both have been right.
Hon. gentlemen opposite for many years have had a great deal to say respecting the sale of these buoys to the department. It is a matter which we heard of frequently during the last election and which we often heard of in this House, but strange to say hon. gentlemen opposite, though threatening to investigate this matter in the Public Accounts Committee, have never ventured to make the final plunge and demand an inquiry. It was openly stated that Mr. J. F. Fraser, the commissioner of lights, was undoubtedly profiting by the many purchases of the department from Mr. Willson. The commissioner found there was no jus-Mr. A. K. MACLEAN.
tification for this, also that Mr. Willson did not make any expenditure to government officials for the purpose of securing orders for these gas buoys. He also found that there is nothing in the evidence to justify the charge of excessive prices, and his finding with respect to all the purchases made from Mr. Willson, entirely frees the department from any censure in that direction.
Doubtless the purchasing of these buoys involved increased expenditure by the department, but in a word, I say it was a necessary expenditure, it was in the interest of navigation, and all men interested in shipping or marine matters in this country will justify the purchase of these buoys from Mr. Willson. There is no doubt that the cost of equipping the river St. Lawrence and other portions of our coast line with these gas buoys meant that the department would be obliged to pay a higher price than they were paying for the Pintsch buoys which they had been in the habit of purchasing for some years before. But while the cost of the Willson buoys was greater, it was a more efficient buoy, and the department and the country could well stand the increased expenditure. I submit that it is eminently satisfactory to the Department of Marine and Fisheries, to the members of the government and to tbe friends of the government to find that Mr. Justice Cassels, after an exhaustive inquiry into the whole matter, finds that the prices charged were not excessive, that tbe buoys were a great aid to navigation and their use was in the interest of shipping, that there was no improper conduct on the part of any member of the Lighthouse Board, who recommended the purchase of these buoys, and that no official of the department was guilty of any improper conduct in connection therewith. I say, these findings are satisfactory to the government and to the friends of the government, because, for several years, hon. members oppositive have been crying graft, and charging improper and extravagant expenditure in conection with these purchases. The next matter which I wish to take up is the findings of Mr. Justice Cassels concerning the Canadian Fog Signal. The question that he was considering was whether there had been a * lack of conscience ' in connection with this expenditure of the department by dishonesty on the part of the officials. From this point of view, he refused to allow the company, whose business was under consideration, to be represented by counsel. I am instructed that the Canadian Fog Signal Company asked to be heard by counsel. Mr. Cassels refused this. It does strike me that this was somewhat unfair. If Mr. Justice Cassels thought it proper on his part to inquire as to the cost and as to the price of the Diaphone Fog Signal, it was only proper that he should permit tbe owners or manufacturers of this pat-
ented article to be represented by counsel if they -wished. In the case of the Canadian Fog Signal Company Justice Cassels however, comes to the conclusion that there was no ' lack of conscience ' on the part of the officials, and that the whole course of the business of this company with the government had been absolutely regular and honest. Incidentally, he considered the question of manufacturing cost and the price as to which the manufactured product was sold to the government. I submit that, having decided to go into this, he should have gone further and permitted the Canadian Fog Signal Company to give evidence as to the elements of value that went to make up the cost of this manufactured article, and to explain the apparent discrepancy between the actual manufacturing cost and the selling price to the government. And, if that had been done, there would not have been shown the apparent discrepancy which we find to-day upon the records. The Canadian Fog Signal Company are the patentees, owners and manufacturers, of a sound-producing device as an aid to navigation and known as the Diaphone Fog Signal. Mr. Justice Cassels finds that this device is a great aid to navigation. This instrument was highly spoken of by Mr. Hugh Allan, by Mr. Andrew Allan and other gentlemen representing the Montreal shipping interest, in giving their evidence before the commission. Mr. Justice Cassels finds the cost of the device to have been $220, a figure that has been mentioned two or three times by hon. gentleipen opposite without explanation, one would not be surprised at finding hon. gentlemen opposite or people outside of this House criticising-as they might criticise with some degree of fairness-the great discrepancy between the cost and the selling price. Mr. Justice Cassels finds that the royalty paid on this machine was, on the average, $400, and he allows a profit of 100 per cent on the fog signal costing $220. Thus, he finds the total cost to the department should be $840, whereas the department to-day are paying $4,600 for this instrument. Now, I say that that finding is incorrect, it is not justified by the evidence. I say that the inquiry of the commissioner and the counsel representing the department on this occasion did not elicit, and did not attempt to elicit, sufficient facts, and the finding is therefore unfair and unsatisfactory. These instruments must necessarily be purchased from this company in the future, if they are purchased at all. I trust the Department of Marine and Fisheries will not refuse to purchase more of these fog signals-seeing they are such a great aid to navigation- by reason of the finding of Mr. Justice Cassels. I have made the statement that that finding was incorrect, and I think I can prove that in just two or three words.
Let me premise my attempt to prove this by making the statement, that in only one year did the department buy any great number of fog signals from this company. The average number of sales in every year but one, was seven. Putting the profit at the figure named by Mr. Justice Cassels, viz., $220, the total profits for the year would be $1,540. When I tell the House that the evidence discloses the fact that the Canadian Fog Signal Company paid the government alone $500 a year for the use of their testing plant at Toronto, and when I say that the cost .of fuel for operating this testing plant alone was, for some years, over $250, I have shown that more than half the alleged profit was absorbed, even without reference to any other fixed charges of the business. And, in stating these figures, I think, I amply make good my statement that the finding of the commissioner in this respect was absolutely valueless. Certain statements were filed by the Canadian Fog Signal Company as exhibits, during this investigation, and I wish to put on record one or two. One statement showed the receipts and disbursements of the company from October, 1902, to 1908, a statement prepared by Messrs. Barber and Gardner, chartered accountants, and by them certified. This statement shows that the total amount received by the government was $676,000 during all these years. It shows disbursements of $530,000, leaving a balance of $140,000 to be distributed as profits over the same six years, leaving available for dividends, this statement says, $22,600 per annum. This company also filed a statement showing their fixed charges per year, and I wish to put on record a sample statement for the year ending September 30, 1907, showing what were their fixed charges.
Storekeepers' wages $ 624 00Offices and workshop rent
1,925 04Electric light
55 08Telephone rent and long distance.. 259 87Miss Mathews
624 00Mr. Wadsworth
Stationery, printing, typewriting,
128 53Packing boxes, lumber, &c
84 53S. L. Gibson
1,500 00Office furniture Patent fees Cartage Advertising Insurance and taxes Telegraph Patterns Jigs, tools, gauges, &c Development and testing
Salaries: 1 engineer, 1 wheelman,
2 deckhands (6 months) 1,140 00
Expenses for 6 months, 4 men, 30c.
per day each ,
Depreciation, 10 per cent 1,200 00
Power account at eastern gap.. .. 93 76
Travelling expenses-S. L. Gib-
30 00 46 50 118 72 368 90 166 63 136 06 482 34 95 38 2,080 40