Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
I deem it my duty to call attention to an article which appeared yesterday in the Toronto ' Telegram,' in which direct reference was made to me. The article is a long one, and I need not read it all. It will be sufficient to read the matter which has reference to my name. The article proceeds to say that on the 2nd of March this letter was addressed to me:
My Dear Sir Wilfrid,-I see that you are having troubles of your own by the defection of the 'young Napoleon' on the trade question and in other ways. The other ways are the more serious. Only in one instance in the history of Canada has the trade question played a part in making or unmaking a government, and that was in 1878. Even then, as you will know, there was contributory negligence on the part of the government.
Clifford Sifton's defection on the present occasion will not count against your government. He is a squeezed lemon politically, and without patronage, controls no following.
Neither your government nor any other government will fall, except from weakness on the inside. That was what happened to the Tories in 18S6. Ministers of the cabinet had become corrupt and the McGreevy-Lange-vin scandal, aided by the Manitoba School Bill and cabinet crookedness, did the rest. Recently evidence had come to me that one of your colleagues is a grafter and a boodler. I shall be in Ottawa for a few days, and am willing to submit the evidence to you as Tarte was willing to submit his evidence of the Langevin-McGreevy boodling to Sir John Macdonald. Should you see fit to take im-
Haggart (Lanark), Beattie,
Haggart (Winnipeg), Bristol,
Gordon (Nipissing), Jameson,
Sharpe (Ontario), Currie (Simcoe), Boyce,
*mediate action it would go no further. The alternative would he to (place the document, letters and photographs of cheques, &c., in the hands of the opposition.
On the receipt of that letter, I instructed my secretary to send the following communication to the gentleman who wrote it:
Ottawa, March 3, 1911.
Dear iSir,-I am instructed toy the Prime Minister to inform you that he will toe in his office at .10 o'clock to-morrow, Saturday morning, and ready to see you.
Tours very sincerely,
E. J. LEMAIRE, Private (Secretary.
The gentleman in question waited bn me, as stated in the rest of the letter, several times. Without committing my memory as to the number of times, I know it was more than once, but the tenor of each conversation between us on these occasions was of the same nature. The gentleman in question, with whom I had in former years friendly relations, but with whom I have not been in communication for many years, called on me and gave me the name of one of my colleagues and said that he had lost the confidence of the party, particularly in his own province, that he was a boodler and a grafter, and for these reasons should go out of the government. I said that I had no reason to doubt the honesty of my colleague, who was not only a colleague but a personal friend, and that I would not accept the alternative he mentioned, namely, 'should you see fit to take immediate action it would go no further; but the alternative would be, to place the documents, letters and photographs of cheques in the hands of the opposition.' I .stated to my informant that I would not take any such action as he suggested under such terms, that I had the fullest confidence in my colleague, that I believed in his honesty, and that if it were shown that my confidence were misplaced, he would have to take the consequences. My informant was free to take such steps as he pleased, to place the papers and documents in the hands of the opposition and do anything he pleased with them. If my colleague were then proved to be dishonest, he would have to take the consequences, but if not it was my duty to stand loyally by him. This is the gist of any conversation that took place between us. This is the position I take and I leave that position in the hands of parliament and the country.