That goes to confirm that the minister was right in refusing to issue a certificate to this concern. A royal commission was issued on the 12th January, 1912, to the Honourable Mr. Justice Sir William R. Meredith. The commissioner states that in the method in which they dealt with the notes given in respect of subscriptions, the provi-
Farmers Bank Failure
sional directors and Mr. Travers were "guilty of a breach of trust," and that for the manner in which the money borrowed was applied there was neither justification nor excuse. He referred to the letter of assurance from Mr. Travers to the minister, stating that these statements were in fact untrue, and the language used in his letter to the minister was deliberately chosen by Mr. Travers in order to make it appear that he was giving the assurance for which the minister had asked, while he was in fact not doing so and could not truthfully do so. In the report which I have under my hand from the commissioner-and I repeat it-the commissioner states as to the issue of the certificate, as follows:
My conclusion on this branch of the inquiry is that the Treasury Board was induced to give its certificate by false and fraudulent representations on the part of Travers, and that if the facts I have mentioned as to the way in which the $250,000 was made up had been disclosed, the certificate of the Treasury Board would not have been given.
The commissioner refers to verbal information given to the minister by Mr. Henderson and Sir Edmund Osier, and a letter from Mr. McCarthy, and he adds:
I do not suggest that the minister would have been justified because of the information conveyed to him in recommending that the certificate should not be granted, or that the Treasury Board because of it would not have been justified in refusing to grant it.
The commissioner refers to the letter from the manager of the bank at Milton to the Deputy Minister of Finance informing him that promissory notes given in payment for shares were being discounted at the bank's branches and the proceeds credited to the head office. The department called for a special return in that regard. The commissioner was unable to find that in this there was any neglect of duty on the part of the department, or that anything more than was done could have been done.
Subtopic: MOTION PROPOSING RELIEF FOR THOSE WHO SUFFERED LOSS