Hon. G. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals).
If I understand my hon. friend, his chief attack is upon one of his fellow lawyers, Mr. Clarry, for some connection he may have had with some of the men who had claims. As to any connection that Mr. Clarry had with these men, this is the first intimation I have of it. My hon. friend knows well that so long as there are claims to be paid, the men who do not get all they want are convinced that other people got more than they should. They are all inclined to take that view. They think that others get too much and that they do not get enough. That is the foundation of the entire complaints, I am afraid. The department has nothing to fear in this matter. My hon. friend went so far as to say that these settlements were made in a hole and corner manner. He has no ground for any such statement, he insists that the department should have engaged engineers to take levels before making any payments, and he bases his whole argument on the word of one man who never pretended to take a level. What is the method adopted by the department?-a simple business method. A man highly recommended such as Mr. Dickson was asked to make these valu-
ations and he did so under instructions. Here is a quotation from the instructions:
It is necessary for the surveyor to ascertain, first, the area of the property actually submerged, and secondly, the area injuriously affected in consequence of the increased height of water. Claims for land over 3 feet above the level of the water cannot be considered. The valuator should submit a fair price, having regard to special conditions of each case, and he should know or ascertain, the fair value of the lands in the immediate vicinity of the property affected, this being the way that Commissioner Ayles-worth always fixed his valuations. It is not of eoiirse necessary that an actual measurement and traverse should be made in every case, as any land surveyor can approximately arrive at the several areas affected.
Be pleased to inform Mr. Dickson accordingly.
And Mr. Dickson is a surveyor, although my hon. friend would lead us to believe that he was just an ordinary individual who would not make a fair valuation but would be governed by party proclivities. It was according to these instructions that Mr. Dickson went and made his valuations. Mr. Henry Humphries, an old and respected resident, I understand, and Mr. Dickson did not get along harmoniously. Mr. Dickson, as I am informed, contended that he was asked by Mr. Humphries to put a valuation on some property, which did not belong to him at all. My hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) can easily understand how this might affect the valuation; but after Mr. Humphries had cast some reflection on these valuations, another surveyor was sent out to make a valuation on the' same properties, so that no injustice would be done either the public or the department. I have the valuations of most of these properties in the various townships made by Mr._ Fitzgerald, and in nearly every case his valuation was higher than Mr. Didksori's', showing that Mr. Dickson's valuation was within the mark. Mr. Fitzgerald did not know Mr. Dickson's valuations on these properties. The valuations of Mr. Fitzgerald were not taken but the claims were settled on the valuations of Mr. Dickson. As a rule members of parliament come to me to urge that we do not pay enough, but my hon. friend urges that we have paid too much.
Subtopic: HENRY HUMPHRIES.