Debates of the House of Assembly 1932

This is the only existing copy of the proceedings of the House of Assembly of Newfoundland of the session of the House which opened on February 4, 1932. Although the debates are complete, the Minutes covering the period from February 4th to March 10th as compiled by the Clerk of the House are missing, having been destroyed in a riot which occurred at the House on April 5th when a large number of citizens paraded to the House to present a petition to the House pursuant to a public meeting previously held at the Majestic Theatre at St. John=s. R. C. B. Meaney Supervisor of Debates

February 4, 1932 5 Thursday, February 4, 1932 His Excellency the Governor, having fixed the hour at which he proposed to open the present Session of the Legislature at three o =clock in the afternoon of this, Thursday, the fourth day of February instant, the Members of the House of Assembly met in the Assembly Rooms at a quarter to three in the afternoon, when Mr. Speaker took the Chair. At three of the clock a message from his Excellency the Governor was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, commanding the immediate attendance of Mr. Speaker and the House in the Legislative Chamber. Whereupon Mr.

Speaker and the House attended His Excellency in the Council Chamber; and being returned to the Assembly Room, Mr. Speaker informed the House that, when in attendance upon His Excellency the Governor in the Council Chamber, His Excellency had been pleased to make a Gracious Speech to both branches of the Legislature, a copy of which, for greater accuracy, he had obtained, and then read to the House as follows: Mr. President and Honourable Members of the Legislative Council: Mr.

Speaker and Members of the Honourable House of Assembly: Since I last had the pleasure of addressing you, the page of history has recorded events of grave importance. Questions in connection with international finance and economics have occupied the attention of the world =s legislators and financiers, and we are now entering a period even more momentous which will test the basis of our civilization in the solution of the greater problems that are affecting the well-being of humanity.

Newfoundland, in common with the rest of the world, feels the burden, and I have called you together at an earlier date than is usual in order that you may give consideration to the various matters which in the opinion of my Ministers require attention for the economic upbuilding of this country. The exports of pulp and paper for the last fiscal year show an increase in quantity and value. Our mineral production did not quite equal that of the previous fiscal year, while the value was considerably lower.

Fishery products also show a total lower value, while the results of last season =s catch show still greater depreciation. Our total exports, however, exceeded the imports in value by a sum of over $4,000,000. Adequate returns for our products cannot be expected until the necessary adjustment of the world =s economic condition has been carried out. The low prices received have been further discounted by the loss in exchange.

As my Ministers consider that the fisheries are of paramount importance, they have decided to continue the operations of the Fishery Research Commission in cooperation with the Empire Marketing Board of the United Kingdom. It is absolutely essential to the successful prosecution of this industry that we make use of the assistan ce which science offers, and in the preparation and marketing of the product take advantage of the world =s knowledge and experience. Mr. Speaker and Members of the Honourable House of Assembly: The financial crisis throughout the world has had its reflection on our own Budget position.

The deficit on our account of 1930-31 had to be met by borrowing and, in view of the serious financial situation which was developing, my Ministers deemed it advisable to obtain outside assistance and advice in the rehabilitation of the country =s finances. For this purpose my Prime

February 4, 1932 6 Minister proceeded to England, and, in consultation with the appropriate Financial Departments, selected Sir Percy Thompson, K.B.E., C.B., Deputy Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue, and Mr. J. H. Penson, M.C., an acting Principal in the Treasury, men of high financial standing and experience, recommended by the British Treasury. Prior to their arrival here, steps had already been taken to curtail expenditure, and, under their advice, a more comprehensive system of financial control has been established and considerable further economies have been effected.

In the early Summer my Prime Minister arranged to secure the services of an outstanding business executive from Canada in the person of Mr. R. J. Magor. In September last Mr. Magor commenced the reorganizing of the Railways and other commercial and industrial enterprises with which the Government are concerned. As a result, these services are making a considerably improved financial showing and it is confidently hoped that before long they will entirely cease to be a charge on Public Funds.

The process of financial reform is not yet completed, but substantial progress has already been made, and various bills giving effect, so far as Legislation is necessary, to the reforms which have been introduced, will be laid before you. It is anticipated that there will again be a substantial deficit in the accounts of the current fiscal year. It was necessary once more to resort to borrowing in order to obtain the funds required to pay the interest on the public debt which became due on the 1st January.

It is also expected that the interest due on the 1st July will have to be met in part by borrowing, and a Bill providing for an Internal Loan will be laid before you in due course. The estimates of Expenditure and Revenue for the next fiscal year will be submitted to you, and it is hoped that, as a result of the reduction in expenditure which is taking place, and of measures, which will be laid before you, adequate provision will be made for balancing Revenue and Expenditure, and for the payment out of Revenue of all future interest on the Public Debt as and when it falls due. Mr.

President and Honourable Members of the Legislative Council: Mr. Speaker and Members of the Honourable House of Assembly: A Bill will be laid before you which is intended to bring the currency policy of this Dominion into greater harmony with that of the rest of the Empire. It will provide for the restriction of the right to export gold and for rendering legal tender the notes of certain Banks operating in Newfoundland. A Bill will also be laid before you providing for a system of Treasury Control of expenditure on the lines of that which has been put into for ce since December last.

The Bill will also provide that the Controller of the Treasury and Deputy Minister of Finance will hold office on terms similar to those relating to the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General. The establishment of the new system of financial control will render necessary a considerable alteration of our present audit procedure, and it will be necessary to amend the present Audit Act. In carrying out the policy of economical reform it has been decided to amalgamate the Departments of Agriculture and Mines and of Marine and Fisheries to form a Department of Natural Resources.

The Department of Public Works will include that of the Government Engineer

February 4, 1932 7 and of the Highroads Commission. Bills for legislative sanction to such reorganization will be laid before you. I trust that you may have Divine guidance in your consideration of the important matters which will come before you affecting the welfare of the people of this Dominion. Mr. Winsor: Mr. Speaker, I move that a Select Committee be appointed to draft an Address in Reply to the gracious speech with which His Excellency has been pleased to open this session of the Legislature. Mr. Greene: Mr.

Speaker, I beg to rise for the purpose of seconding the motion that a Select Committee be appointed to draft an Address in Reply to the gracious speech of His Excellency the Governor. Hon. Leader of the Opposition: Mr. Speaker, I hoped that I would have had the opportunity to congratulate the honourable mover and seconder of this motion on the excellence of their speech. Unfortunately the best that I can say for them is that they have been mercifully brief. Another matter which I referred to last year was in connection with the speech itself. I drew the attention of the Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon.

Prime Minister, to the fact that it was the usual courtesy in every part of the Empire to permit the Leader of the Opposition to have a sight of the speech at least an hour before it was delivered, and as this is going to be one of the most important speeches ever uttered by the Governor in the Legislative Council, I think that recognition of my complaint of last year should have been taken for this year. This session, which has just been opened by his Excellency the Governor, probably will be one of the most momentous ever held in the annals of this country.

We are asked – and I have not had a chance to read it; I heard you very indistinctly, and the Governor even more indistinctly; I am going by guesswork – [and] I believe it is our patriotic duty to assist in every possible way in enacting the legislation that should come before us which has for its object first of all the balancing of the budget, and what I set more store upon is the fact that it is going to regulate Government offices with the idea of preventing maladministration and the misuse of public funds.

I look upon that as a much more important item than the balancing of the budget because one is the cause and the other the effect. If we can remove the cause th e effect becomes non-existent, and if we have an economic, patriotic and a constructive government I don =t think that there is any doubt that we [illegible] 1 ... our day of reckoning. I don =t care whether it be individuals, business concerns or Government, if revenue does not exceed or equal expenditure, just as sure as night follows day the inevitability is coming, and that is the day of reckoning.

We are met here to-day, and we will continue to meet for many days trying to solve a way out of this day of reckoning. Is it our intention to meet it resolutely, to make up our minds to meet our liabilities? Are we going to put ourselves in a position that we can look every man straight in the face?

Are we going to act in such a way that we 1 A... it is our patriotic duty to assist in the passing of legislation which has for its object the putting to an end of the extravagance in Government expenditure which has been going on for many years, which reached its culmination at the hands of the present Government and which in its wantonness and total disregard for decency has been sapping the manhood and independence of so many of our people.@ Evening Telegram, February 5, 1932.

February 4, 1932 8 can hold our heads up amongst our sister dominions? If not, if we are going to squirm out of this, then everlastingly we shall hang our heads with shame, and be a by-word not only amongst the Empire but the world at large. We must do, as the old homely expression puts it, we must cut our garment according to our cloth, and the pity of it is, Mr. Speaker, that just the time when this day of reckoning strikes us, we are in a position least able to cope with it.

I have not the figures, and I don=t suppose it would be possible to arrive at them, but never in the history of this country was the per capita earning power lower, that is to say, comparatively lower than it is to-day, and we have to try and balance our budget, try and reduce expenditure. We have to put on increased taxation, and we are going to do it at a time when we are least, in the history of this country, according to my opinion, least able to do it, and that is what I would like to draw to the attention of the Government.

I would like to put this to them, that they must not tax us beyond our ability to pay. In their retrenchment they must not stint us to the extent that our productive efficiency is going to be impaired. If in their excessive zeal they overtax us, then they are going to defeat the very end they have in view. We have been doing our best in many ways to straighten out our [ illegible], but there is one thing – I don=t mean to criticize them for one moment, but I do wish they started with the higher-ups, the men with the large salaries first. I think it is unfair to hit the $600 a year schoolmasters.

It is unfair to take the mite that we give the widows and leave the large-salaried men immune. I think that there should have been some intimation to us, to quell that spirit of discontent that is so much abroad at present, that there is going to be a real drastic cut amongst higher-up officials. It has not come yet, and it would have made those on [lower] salaries more reconciled to their fate if they had known that those higher up were having a proportionate cut.

There is one matter, and it is partly a word of explanation so far as this agreement is concerned, and I take this view in connection with it, that had we been doing our best to meet our financial obligations; had we a government that was absolutely setting its face against all overexpenditure; had we a government putting graft out of the question; had we a government that was maintaining our public service to the highest state of efficiency so far as humanly possible, and at the same time keeping the cost down to the lowest possible limit – I say had all these things been happening to us; and had we been no more than innocent victims of a worldwide depression, I would have given long hesitation before I would have agreed to the terms under which we received the loan to pay the interest.

Unfortunately, we have been making no effort to meet our financial obligations. There has been no effort at constructive government, no effort to keep down extravagance, the consequence of which is that we don =t come into court with clean hands. And if we wanted the money, I believed there was nothing else to do but sign that agreement. Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask you if you will carry your memory back to the Fall of 1928, that is the time, perhaps you will remember the time when the present Government marched into office with the tune of a gramophone record. It was very encouraging.

It was a sort of ALand of Hope and Glory@ sort of tune, but there was very little hope and precious little glory. 2 There was going to be lots of employment, there was going to be no dole, because dole was degradation and labour was independence. The landscape was going to be dotted over with $5,000,000 industries. I 2 AWe led to believe that we were going to have a land of hope and glory, but there has been no glory and precious little hope.@ [Alternative version in transcript] From this point the speech as reported in the transcript follows more closely the version published in the newspapers.

February 4, 1932 9 put it to the whole House, can you point out one constructive effort, one attempt to follow along the lines of that magnificent programme? When we consider our present industries, look where we will, whether it be our fisheries, our mining industries, our paper industries or manufacturing, can one see one constructive effort that has been put forth to enhance the national wealth, or increase the earning power of our people?

It is my firm opinion that if the Government had taken full advantage of all the opportunities that had been offered since 1928, that this country to-day would be enjoying an annual revenue and an earning power which, capitalized at 5 per cent, would not have been far short of $100,000,000. Supposing our national wealth had been increased by a potential $5,000,000 per annum, do you suppose that an $8,000,000 loan would have been turned down last Spring? I imagine that the situation would have been reversed, and that the financiers would have been looking for us.

The whole record of the past administration is one of lost opportunities, and the pity of it is that every man, woman and child in the country to-day has got to pay the price of these lost opportunities. Mr. Speaker, at the last session of the House I was censuring the Government for not taking notice of the impending gale. We are a sea-faring people, and I thought that a nautical metaphor would be appropriate.

I said then that when every businessman was shortening his commercial sails, and battening down his commercial hatches to meet the commercial storm that was coming upon us, at the same time our ship of state was being sailed into the storm with all sails set, resulting in canvas to the tune of a $2,000,000 deficit being carried away. I warned the Minister of Finance and Customs that if he did not give a better exhibition of financial seamanship during the next year, there was every possibility of the spars being ripped out of the good ship Newfoundland.

To-day we are in the hands of the underwriters, that is those who underwrite our loans. But, Mr. Speaker, good can come out of evil. I believe we have at last reached the turning point. I believe we shall get back to sanity and reason. We shall get back to habits of economy. Our people will get back to the paths of industry and self-reliance from which the credulous have for years been cajoled, to their own undoing, by self-seeking politicians. We have a hard road to travel.

The innocent are going to suffer with the guilty, but if we be true to our country [and] to ourselves we shall yet bless the day when this, the present situation, was upon us. Rt. Hon. Prime Minister: First of all I wish to extend to the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply my congratulations for what may be termed their able brevity. This is to be primarily a commercial session, and consequently I am of the opinion that all formal motions [should] be made as brief as possible, and that we should get down to business without delay. I wish also to extend my congratulations to the Hon.

Leader of the Opposition on the public-spirited stand he has taken in the economic crisis. It is worthy of a Newfoundlander. To-day we are face to face with problems of life and death, and I hope we shall take a stand against them in the words of the message I gave to Rotary on New Year=s Eve, of ACooperation, Carry On.@ By this I mean that I hope we shall have the same combination of forces as we had in the Great War, when Englishmen fought as Englishmen, Frenchmen as Frenchmen, Italians as Italians against the common peril.

I am exceeding sorry that the Leader of the Opposition did not get the Speech from the Throne in advance. I understood that he was to receive a copy, and instructions to that effect had been given. Again, I wish to tender my hearty congratulations to the mover and seconder and to the Leader of the Opposition.

February 4, 1932 10 It was ordered accordingly, and that the following gentlemen be such Committee: Mr. Winsor, Mr. Greene, Mr. Strong, Mr. Tobin, Mr. Quinton. Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister gave notice that he would on to-morrow ask leave to introduce the following Bills, entitled: AAn Act to Make Provision for Controlling the Export of Gold and for Regulating the Currency in Periods of Emergency.@ AAn Act to Amend

Chapter 23 of the Consolidated Statutes (Third Series) entitled >Of the Auditing of Public Accounts.=@ AAn Act to Amend the Law Relating to the Carriage of Goods by Sea.@ AAn Act to Amend

Chapter 27 of the Consolidated Statutes (Third Series) entitled >Of Death Duties.=@ AAn Act to Amend

Chapter 22 of the Consolidated Statutes (Third Series) entitled >Of the Customs.=@ AAn Act to Amend

Chapter 10 of the Consolidated Statutes (Third Series) entitled >Of the Department of Finance and Customs.=@ Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister also gave notice that he would on to-morrow move the following: That Supply be granted to His Majesty. The House into Committee of the Whole to consider certain Resolutions in relation to the Amendment of the Loan Acts 1898, 1927, 1928 and 1929. The House into Committee of the Whole to consider certain Resolutions for the Amendment of

Chapter 127 of the Consolidated Statutes (Third Series) entitled AOf Companies.@ The House into Committee of the Whole to consider certain Resolutions for the Amendment of

Chapter 111 of the Consolidated Statutes (Third Series) entitled AOf the Registration of Deeds and other Documents.@ The House into Committee of the Whole on Ways and Means. The House into Committee of the Whole on Supply. Mr. Puddester: I would like to ask what the Hon. Prime Minister means by to-morrow? Rt. Hon. Prime Minister: The intention is that when the House adjourns, notice will be given that it will not meet again until February 16th. This year there will be a deviation from normal practice. In former years it was the practice to introduce Supply first, and Ways and Means afterwards.

This year a reversal of the practice is intended, and Ways and Means will be introduced first. When the House meets again, it is hoped to have full information as at the end of January available, and the staff will also be able to compile the whole information at the one time. It is also hoped to be able to lay on the table of the House bound volumes of the public accounts. It is also proposed to have copies of Bills distributed on first reading, rather than on second reading as formerly.

February 4, 1932 11 Mr. Puddester: It was bright and breezy, but it was not very brief.3 I take it from the remarks of the Prime Minister that the House is to adjourn this evening until February 16th next. Surely this is hardly to be expected. Whilst I agree to an adjournment over the weekend, which is a reasonable period, I submit, Sir, that any longer adjournment of this House would be unnecessary and certainly not in the best interests of the people of Newfoundland.

We surely have enough business to go along with until new legislation is ready to proceed with, because all of us may not be as brief as the proposer and seconder of the Motion for the Address in Reply. It seems, though, as if Newfoundland has been always setting precedents, and we have the sorry spectacle of another precedent set here this afternoon. Never in the history of any Parliament throughout the British Empire did it happen for two members to move and second a motion of this sort, without a single word in defence of the Government.

However, I do not believe that the real reason for such a long adjournment was given by the Prime Minister, and we shall find that out as the session advances. Hon. Leader of the Opposition: I would like to know from the Hon. the Prime Minister if any of these figures in connection with the public accounts are ready to be laid on the table, or if they will be ready at the earliest opportunity, so that we can have until the 16th instant to study them? Rt. Hon.

Prime Minister: My intention is to furnish them as soon as they are received from the printers, just as bills will be available to the Opposition gentlemen on their first reading. Hon. Leader of the Opposition: The reason why I ask to have these figures and reports of the different departments of the Government laid on the table to-day, if at all possible, is in order to expedite the business of the House very considerably. Mr. Puddester: May I ask when we might expect to have here the reports of the experts? Rt. Hon. Prime Minister: In about five minutes. Mr.

Emerson: I would like to know if the Auditor General =s report is to be included among the documents to be tabled at [the] next sitting? Rt. Hon. Prime Minister: Yes. Mr. Emerson: Also, may I ask are we to address questions, which ordinarily are addressed to the Finance Minister, to the Prime Minister? Rt. Hon. Prime Minister: Yes, if it is the Hon. Member=s pleasure to do so. Hon. Leader of the Opposition: Will the Auditor General=s report be in typescript? 3 AMr.

Puddester said that last year the House was informed that the session would be >bright, brief, and breezy.= It was bright and breezy, but had not been so brief as anticipated.@ Daily News, February 5, 1932, p. 5.

February 4, 1932 12 Rt. Hon. Prime Minister: I presume so. Mr. Speaker, I beg to lay upon the table of the House a report covering the following items: the Interim Report of Mr. R. J. Magor, and the printed documents in connection with the loan negotiations, as up to the end of January 1, 1932, and a memorandum of certain other correspondence, which have been sent to the printers and which will be distributed to the honourable gentlemen of the Opposition this evening. Hon. the Minister of Posts gave notice that he would on to-morrow move the House into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain Resolutions for the Amendment of

Chapter 35 of the Consolidated Statutes (Third Series) entitled AOf the Postal and Telegraph Services.@ The Minister of Marine and Fisheries and Acting Minister of Agriculture and Mines gave notice that he would on to-morrow ask leave to introduce AAn Act to R-organize and Continue the Departments of Marine and Fisheries and of Agriculture and Mines.@ The Minister of Public Works gave notice that he would to-morrow ask leave to introduce AAn Act to Reorganize the Department of Public Works.@ Mr. Alderdice gave notice of question. Mr. Byrne gave notice of question. Mr. Bennett gave notice of question. Mr.

Moore gave notice of question. Mr. Abbott gave notice of question. Mr. Tobin gave notice of question. Mr. Quinton gave notice of question. Mr. Emerson gave notice of question. Mr. Puddester gave notice of question. Mr. Winter gave notice of question. Hon. Leader of the Opposition: Mr. Speaker, I think in view of the fact that we are adjourning until the 16th, I think that it might be possible to have replies to all questions asked by that time. Rt. Hon.

Prime Minister: Some of the questions can be answered in a day in the form of accounts etc., but some questions will take a lot of time, but we will speed up the staff and try to have them by that time. Mr. Cashin: It was not my intention to make any explanation to-day covering my reasons for resigning from my post as Minister of Finance and a member of the present Government, but, in order that there be no misunderstanding as to my attitude, I shall read for the House a copy of my written resignation forwarded to the Prime Minister and His Excellency the Governor.

It will be seen from my resignation that I could not agree with the present methods of the administration of the affairs of the country. It is therefore necessary for me to give an explanation as to what I mean by the word Amethods.@ In case there may be any misunderstanding that I disagreed with the methods

February 4, 1932 13 adopted by Sir Percy Thompson and Mr. Penson, I want to make it quite clear that no such misunderstanding existed. What I mean by the word Amethods@ is that, particularly during the last two months, deliberate falsification of the Minutes of Council has taken place, giving individuals large sums of money without the direct or indirect knowledge of the members of the Executive Government. Surely, this is not a method that any decent member of the Legislature can agree with.

I also disagree with methods along the same lines, manipulating monies from one bank to another to the credit of certain accounts. I also disagree with the methods adopted by a certain individual member of the Government who, despite the fact that he supported legislation three years ago introducing the putting into effect of the Income Tax Law, that he persistently and brazenly violated the same law by refusing to conform with the regulations and still persists in not making his legitimate returns.

These are merely two details that may be covered by the word Amethods,@ but I do not purpose at the present juncture to delay the House at any length by going into further details, but merely wish, Mr. Speaker, to disassociate myself with the Government Party, and would therefore request that my seat be moved to the centre of the House. When this House meets again for the conduct of the public business I shall be in a position to explain in concise form the meaning of the word Amethods,@ which are used by some of the present members of the Government.

If the members of this Legislature are prepared to countenance methods of this nature, I cannot stop them, and in view of the fact that I am seriously considering retiring from public life, such matters will have to be dealt with by both present and future members of the House.

I regret that at this particular period I have to take such drastic action, but, it seems to me that in the time of a crisis, such as we are confronted with at the present time, that some bold stand is essential, in order that the country =s affairs and its financial stability be directed in a courageous, honest manner. [Evening Telegram, February 5, 1932] Mr. Puddester asked if in view of the seriousness of the charges made and the fact that the Hon. Member had read them from manuscript, was he going to lay this on the table of the House to be transmitted to His Excellency the Governor for his information. Mr.

Cashin stated he did not intend to do so to-day but later in the session he would be given an opportunity of dealing with them more fully and then he would take whatever action was necessary. Mr. Alderdice said if he was a member of the Government and heard charges such as were made by the Hon. Member, he would not wait until later in the session for the Hon.

Member to deal further with the charges, but as an innocent man would be on his feet now to vindicate himself against the charges made. [Daily News, February 5, 1932] It was moved and seconded that when the House rises it adjourn until Tuesday afternoon, February 16th, at three of the clock. 4 4 AIntensive silence prevailed for some time until the Speaker ruled the adjournment....@ Evening Telegram,

February 4, 1932 14 The House then adjourned accordingly. February 5, 1932.

February 16, 1932 15 Tuesday, February 16, 1932 The House met at three of the clock in the afternoon, pursuant to adjournment. Mr. Cashin: Before any questions are put, I would just like to know, from what I have seen here this afternoon if discrimination is being shown as to who may or may not enter the House. It appears to me that some people are kept out and other people are allowed in. I take it that this is a matter of instruction of the Justice Department. I noticed when coming in the House this afternoon a squadron of cavalry brigade.

I presume some steps have been taken by the Justice Department to shut off certain people and allow others in. If we are going to shut off some people against others, I think it is unfair. It is supposed to be a free country and this is the place where the business of the public is transacted. Hon. the Speaker: I wish at the very beginning to warn strangers in this House that they are to listen to the debates and remarks in absolute silence. If there is any applause or any interference whatsoever with the deliberations of this House, strangers will be promptly ordered to be ejected. Mr.

Cashin: Strangers are being kept out by force at the present time. I want to know why they are being kept out by force. There are police detailed here, some people are being thrown out of the House, others are allowed in. What is the reason? I think I am entitled to an answer from the Minister of Justice. Rt. Hon. Prime Minister: In answer to the Hon. Member, Mr. Speaker, this House has a capacity for so many score or hundred of people; no more will be admitted into the House than there is seating or standing capacity for. Mr.

Puddester: Following on that line, I would suggest to the Speaker that the seating capacity of this House be filled; when seating capacity is filled and standing room, then you can keep others out. I don=t think it is fair to keep anyone out until the seating capacity is filled. Hon. the Speaker: The order is given from the Chair that strangers be admitted. Mr. Emerson: Mr. Speaker, I presume that there is nobody outside interfering with your orders. Mr. Cashin: If the order is to admit strangers, I suggest that the Sergeant at Arms give instructions to the police department to allow people in.

Hon. the Speaker: I must qualify that by ordering the attendant to keep the passageways open, and not to allow so many people within the bar. Rt. Hon. Prime Minister tabled the following Public Documents: The Public Accounts. Office Contingencies, Education Bureau.

February 16, 1932 16 Expenditures of Finance Department. Treasury Statements. Expenditures of Assessor. Current Account Loan Expenditure. Detailed Statement Expenditure, Department of Marine and Fisheries. Detailed Statement Expenditure, Department of Public Works. Detailed Statement Expenditure, Department of Secretary of State. Detailed Statement Expenditure, Department of Posts and Telegraphs. Accounts of the Fiscal Year. Statement Constabulary Department. Expenditure for Tuition of Juvenile Prisoners. Mr. Emerson gave notice of question. Mr. Alderdice gave notice of question. Mr.

Abbott gave notice of question. Mr. Moore gave notice of question. Mr. Tobin gave notice of question. Mr. Byrne gave notice of question. Mr. Winter gave notice of question. Mr. Puddester gave notice of question. Mr. Bennett gave notice of question. Mr. Quinton gave notice of question. Hon. Leader of the Opposition: Mr. Speaker, I must take the opportunity afforded by this motion to draw the attention of the House to certain charges against unnamed members of the Executive made by the Hon. Member for Ferryland at the last session of the House. First of all I should like to read the charges (reads).

I am very sure that all will agree that these charges are of a most serious nature, so serious are they indeed that it is the opinion of colleagues and myself, and I am sure it is that of the other Members opposite also, that the business of the House should not be proceeded with until the truth or falsity of these charges has been proved. The Hon. Member has said either too much or too little; in my opinion he has said too little, and I think he ought [to] take advantage of the first opportunity to name the Member in question and to have his guilt or innocence established.

I think that this matter should be above party politics, it concerns the honour of the whole House, and it behoves the House to see to it that its honesty and integrity is maintained. I think that on an occasion like this the barriers of party politics should be let down and both sides should consider the matter with an open mind. If Members referred to are innocent it is up to them to say so; if guilty, they should be dealt with unequivocally. I honestly hope that these charges are baseless, as it is a reflection not on the Members themselves, but on the people of the country who elected them.

I think it is now incumbent on the Prime Minister to give some explanation of these charges. Rt. Hon. Prime Minister: As to the charge made about the income tax, I can say that it is absolutely without foundation. I am about to proceed to table the returns in order to give details as to the number who have paid their taxes, the number of those who have made arrangements and are paying

February 16, 1932 17 in installments, the number that have been declared insolvent, and the number handed to the solicitors for collection. As appears on the official record, a substantial number have made arrangements to pay in installments. With one exception, I think, five-sixths of the total assessments have been paid, as the reports of the Assessor, which I have now and which will be tabled in due course, will show.

My honourable friend during his term of office as Finance Minister probably did not make himself acquainted with the practice respecting Minutes of Council, and Minutes of Council are not only the responsibility of the Prime Minister, as he should know. There are three things to be considered. There is an Order in Council, a Minute of Council and a Record of Council. Now, when Minutes of Council are made, each page is signed in the record book by a properly authorized Minister. There is an original and duplicate copy of each Minute.

These two copies are sent to Government House by the Secretary of State or his Deputy. One copy is signed by his Excellency the Governor and returned to the Secretary of State for his signature, and is then transcribed into the official book, and then checked over by the responsible clerks of the Department of the Secretary of State. The Governor-in-Council meets on the first Tuesday in each month at 11 a.m. at Government House. It is the business of each member of Council to be at that meeting and meet Sir John Middleton. At that meeting there is a sealed dispatch box produced.

That book contains the Minutes of Council and is laid upon the table to be read. There is no occasion in which His Excellency the Governor has not on his book a duplicate copy of each Minute, from which he can check over all Minutes to make sure that there is no Minute omitted. He then acts in the ordinary course, just as the President of any company would act in the usual form.

That is the procedure so far as the meetings held at Government House is concerned, so that it is absolutely impossible to have any irregularity in this respect, unless it is suggested that there was any irregularity at Government House, or any irregularity in what was signed by the Governor and subsequently signed by the Governor-in- Council. Of course, it is impossible for me to discuss matters of Council with the Hon. Member for Ferryland, as these are matters which members of Council are sworn to keep secret, as that is a matter which can be discussed with His Excellency the Governor and with him alone.

To give you an idea of how absolutely imperative it is for the utmost secrecy to be maintained in such matters, I will read you an attack made upon Lord Snowden in England. After he had resigned from the old government he was reported to have disclosed something during the recent British election in connection with the late government. I would not suggest that the charge is true, but to show the absolute imperativeness of members keeping their oaths of office, I will read to the House the criticism of H. P. Lees-Smith, Minister of Education, against Lord Snowden during his administration in the Cabinet: ( reads).

Now as to whether that is a just or unjust statement is a matter of opinion, but my own personal knowledge is that it was unjust. Very often in the heat of debate certain regrettable things are said, but not by Cabinet members who are sworn to positive secrecy.

As I have already intimated, it is absolutely impossible for anything irregular to have happened [to] any Minutes of Council after they have gone to His Excellency the Governor, but if there is any shadow of doubt that there was, then it is a matter which cannot be introduced for discussion in this Chamber, a matter which involves His Excellency and I shall be glad to submit any definite written statement in that respect to His Excellency the Governor who, no doubt, will be pleased to take the matter up. Hon. Leader of the Opposition: I would like to know if there had been any transfer of funds from

February 16, 1932 18 [the] Exchequer Account to any District Account. Rt. Hon. Prime Minister: There were from Humber District Trust Account to accounts which have been liquidated. When elected for the Humber constituency, things were not on an organized basis there, and I took charge and decided to conduct the affairs of the District on strict business lines, and instead of all moneys going to road boards and such like, the moneys as they came in were deposited to the credit of a Special Trust Account, an interest bearing account, so that the money would be there for some big programme of public works. Mr.

Cashin: Where was that account kept? Rt. Hon. Prime Minister: In the Canadian Bank of Commerce. Mr. Cashin: I rise to a point of order. All interest of trust accounts should go to the credit of the Exchequer Account. Hon. the Speaker: When the Speaker rises, the Hon. Member will take his seat. The Hon. Member will have an opportunity later to speak. Mr. Cashin: I merely rose to say that the Prime Minister is giving incorrect information to the House, and if you don=t believe me, bring the Auditor General to the Bar of the House and find out if your interest is still in the Bank of Commerce, or where did it go.

Rt. Hon. Prime Minister: My honourable friend forgot to tell that when his constituency got a grant for $10,000 last year, my District did not get a dollar. I was going on to say, Mr. Speaker, until interrupted, that my handling the money and the affairs of the Humber constituency in that way made for my constituency $11,000. Instead of handing out the money, I held on to the entire grants for the purpose of carrying out a definite city programme of improvements. I secured the services of a gentleman who had been brought here by the Mayor of St.

John=s to lay out a town site at Corner Brook, and an engineer was secured through the Highroads Commission to lay out roads, and to see generally that the work was properly done. Where we had difficulty in getting through roads we had blasters engaged, and this work cost hundreds of dollars extra. Similar methods of improvement were made in connection with marine works. Cheques for such works were signed by Mr. Lake and Mr. Rogerson for marine works and by Mr. Hall and Mr.

Mews in connection with roads, so that my honourable friend from Ferryland can see for himself if there was a single cheque cancelled or otherwise, or if ever there was a cheque identifying my name, or identifying any other man whose identity is not already known. In answer to the question asked by the Hon. Member from Placentia East, I may say that when persons did not take their moneys immediately, which they could do, the moneys were held in reserve for certain specific work. We had to develop the idea of a public wharf at Corner Brook, as Mr.

Cashin knows, as this was one of the things which had been discussed with Mr. Cashin, to obviate the necessity of landing coal at the Company=s pier. That would cost thousands. There was another operation which I took up with Mr. Skanes, the building of a bridge across Deer Lake, so

February 16, 1932 19 that a way of access could be had from the Railway to Bonne Bay, that did not go through, and consequently the moneys accumulated in reserve for outstanding public works. This bridge did not go through because the expense of the iron and steel was greater than our funds, and I certainly would not undertake a project of this kind if I found that I was not in a position to pay for it. That is the only sane thing to do, and I am sure that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition, as a keen businessman, would agree with me.

I am sure that if my honourable friend were going to install new and modern machinery in his plant, he would first make sure he had the funds to pay for it. Hon. Leader of the Opposition: Might I ask if the Hon. Member has any right to deposit grants and get 3 per cent for them while the country is paying 6 per cent for them? Rt. Hon. Prime Minister: I can take the money and spend it immediately, and with a new District like mine, I don=t see why I can=t take and hold it.

The District is entitled to any interest it can get, and I think I would be derelict in my duty as the representative of a constituency if I did not endeavour to do the very best I could for the constituency I represent. Mr. Puddester: May I ask the Hon. Member for the Humber constituency a question? I am looking at a certain Member who had $4,000 to the credit of his District, he was holding it on, he did not want to spend it right away, he held it in [the] General Exchequer Account, is it there now? 5 Rt. Hon. Prime Minister: No. Mr. Puddester: It went to the same place yours should have gone.

You took your money and placed it in the Canadian Bank of Commerce, and the other poor fellow left his in the General Exchequer Account and he got nothing. There is now $17,000 in another account in [the] Savings Bank, I say that not because you are Prime Minister you can do that, when the other poor fellow, when the crash came, couldn=t get his, you got yours because you put it in the Canadian Bank of Commerce. We=ll see if we can =t get it transferred to Exchequer Account. Your constituency won =t thank you for having the money in the bank when they are bawling for funds.

Coming back to the falsification of accounts. You say that there was no falsification of accounts; can you explain how it got in the Minutes ? Did it ever happen that Minutes which had never passed the Council were entered in the book before it was sent to Government House? Did that ever happen? Can you explain that? Mr. Cashin: Mr. Speaker, I think that it is up to me after opening day to substantiate the statements I made, and I intend to substantiate them. I listened to the Prime Minister make reference to the oath of office and how people can=t betray it.

In this instance there is no necessity to keep it, because the Minutes were never passed by the Executive Council and consequently I can=t break my oath. As regards the Humber constituency, I will start at the beginning and finish it right up and let the House 5 AMr. Puddester pointed out that in the Fall of 1930 a member of the government party had $4,500 left to the credit of his District but ... it had to be turned back into [the] Exchequer as a drop balance. @ Daily News, February 8, 1932, p. 5. The Evening Telegram also states that the amount was $4,500.

February 16, 1932 20 decide. I think that the country should see the true conditions of affairs. I am going to be harsh and I have reason to be, but what I am going to say I am going to say to a man=s face and not behind his back, and I am not playing to the gallery. With your permission, Sir, I will glance at this manuscript which deals more fully with the charges I made on opening day (reads). Mr. Speaker, at the formal opening of the House of Assembly on February 4th, I gave my reasons for resigning my portfolio as Minister of Finance and for severing my connection with the present Administration.

I charged that Minutes of Council had been falsified, bank accounts had been manipulated, and a member of the Executive Government had failed to pay his income tax. These charges were ignored by the men in question. But silence on the part of those who have already wandered within the shadows of the gaol does not convey an expression of innocence. Rather does it smack of guilt, and revive in this Assembly the odour of the police court from which the country thought that the Walker inquiry had purged it. But the incorrigibles are up again, brazen, persistent, wily, crooked and criminal. The Hon. Member for St.

John=s West, Dr. Campbell, persistently failed to conform with the Income Tax law, which he had helped to legislate in 1929. Dr. Campbell did not make any returns for the years 1929 or 1930. So persistent was he in his failures to make returns that the Assessor assessed him under the Act. Even then he did not pay his assessments. So I was forced to stop Dr. Campbell=s salary of $45 per month as Port Doctor, and other moneys coming to him from the Customs Department in connection with quarantine work. The Hon.

Doctor was receiving approximately $2,200 per year from the Customs Department, and on investigation it was discovered that he had not visited a single ship. He was receiving a salary as Port Doctor; receiving such an emolument he forfeits his seat in the Assembly. Under the Act I demand that he be put out, and that he repay to the Exchequer his sessional pay. He visited no ships, yet he was Port Doctor. He has been using his position to obtain moneys, nor has he rendered any services for these moneys.

This colossal bombast, this coiner of catch-words, more fitting in a gutter-boy than in a doctor of medicine; this foreign parasite, unscrupulous, uncouth, unclean, is sitting in a House from which his avarice has debarred him, [and] is again under the shadow of the law. Hon. the Speaker: The Hon. Member is free to make statements of fact. He is not free to draw inferences from them: that is a matter for the House. I don=t wish to restrict you, but I must enforce the rules of the House. Mr. Cashin: I bow to your decision, Mr. Speaker. I am stating facts.

Before proceeding to discussing false Minutes of Council, I would divert one moment to the Department of Justice. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister is, as you are aware, Minister of Justice. Some time ago the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, Mr. Lake, drew the attention of the Justice Department to the fact that the Hon. Member for St. Barbe had forged an individual =s name on a cheque issued from his Department. What action was taken, Mr. Speaker? The Prime Minister, who is also Minister of Justice, endeavoured to have Mr. Lake withdraw his complaint, take back the money, and consider the incident closed. Mr.

Lake, who is an honourable gentleman, naturally refused to do so. Was this the proper attitude for the Department of Justice to adopt? Is this a criterion of its integrity, or is it an indication that justice has become subservient, to be a dreadful weapon, forged by trickery, and wielded by insatiable greed? If not, let justice be done. Let Mr. Skanes be charged, tried, proved

February 16, 1932 21 guilty or acquitted. Until such time it would be more seeming were he to retire from the House and await his verdict. I mention this unfortunate incident that you may better understand and grasp the full significance of the falsified Minutes of Council of which I will now speak. These are the facts which cannot be contradicted. Therefore I am not out of order. At first, I will confine my observations to what is known as the Humber Constituency Account in the Canadian Bank of Commerce.

The Auditor General informed me that this account was opened at the request of the Prime Minister, and that a Minute of Council to that effect was given to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. I state that this Minute was false; that the Council were unaware of it; that it was the beginning of a series of manipulations under guise of Orders of Council, for which there is no precedent in the history of the British Empire, and which can only be classified under the heading of roguery and deception.

Subverting, as they do, the state to private and personal interest, they are clearly akin to treason and worthy of capital punishment. Mr. Speaker, on August 14, 1929, a Minute of Council was passed allocating to various Districts and the Lighthouse Department $250,000 for marine works. This was from the 1929 loan. The Humber Constituency received an allocation of $20,000. Ordinarily this amount would be placed to the credit of this constituency in the Department of Marine and Fisheries= books, the actual money, as always, to the credit of the 1929 loan in the Bank of Montreal. But, what happened?

That did not happen! A Minute of Council, of which the Executive was entirely ignorant – and I defy any one of them to contradict it – and which was included in the official Minutes, was drafted, evidently transferring this $20,000 from the Bank of Montreal to the credit of a new account opened in the Canadian Bank of Commerce. Witness the inception of the Humber Constituency Account No. H233. On November 18, 1929, a further sum of $9,800 was transferred to the same account, from the Department of Marine and Fisheries, by another Minute of Council of which the Council was unaware.

This latter amount was a balance to the credit of the Humber District, in the Lighthouse Department, for the purpose of a fog alarm. The Department of Finance was not officially notified that such transfers had been made. Again, an amount of $11,000 – this is a beaut – which had been specifically earmarked from the 1929 loan to construct a large bridge at Corner Brook. It was thus placed in the Highroads Commission Department.

On May 15, 1930, this $11,000 was transferred by another false Minute of Council from the Bank of Montreal and placed to the credit of the Humber Constituency Account in the Canadian Bank of Commerce. I might further add that during the year 1930, this large bridge was constructed at Corner Brook. Was that $11,000 taken out of the bank to pay for it? No! The necessary money was not taken out of the Humber Constituency Account but was paid from the general grant for highroads and bridge construction at the disposal of the Highroads Commission.

Then again, on May 15, 1930, the sum of $5,100, which was to the credit of the 1926 loan in the Department of Public Works, earmarked for coal boring in St. George=s, was transferred by faked Minute of Council to the Humber Constituency Account in the Canadian Bank of Commerce. Again on September, 8, 1930, a further Minute of Council transferred $5,000, which was to the credit of the Humber District in the Department of Public Works, to the Humber Constituency Account in the Canadian Bank of Commerce. This concludes the deposits to the credit of the Humber Constituency Account. The total is $50,900.

Not one legitimate deposit was made. All deposits were manipulated

February 16, 1932 22 by false Minutes of Council, for which the Prime Minister and Secretary of State must answer. No disbursements were made out of this account from its inception in May, 1929, until June 11, 1931. Last year in this House, we passed $360,000 which we never got – $10,000 a District – every district was put in funds to the tune of $10,000. When we could not get the money later on by loan, those moneys were dropped. Here is what should have happened.

The following day, every Member representing every constituency of this country should have gone down to the Department of Marine and Fisheries or the Department of Public Works, taken his or her $10,000 and put it into another bank in a separate trust account and we would have had our $10,000. We did not get the loan. It was all written off in the books, but the Humber Constituency Account goes on indefinitely. These amounts were cancelled when failure met the attempts to raise the loan in June last.

However, the Humber Constituency Account operated during the past nine months, and on January 12, 1932, there remained to the credit of this account the sum of $17,889.76. The position is this. If, as the Prime Minister states, interest should go into that account, why is it that a separate account for interest was opened in the Canadian Bank of Commerce? At the present time there is a balance of $8,000 or $9,000 to the credit of the Interest Account, which should go, along with the amount in the Bank, into the Exchequer Account. Two of these disbursements are of particular interest in this narration.

So I shall mention them. On November 29, 1931, a false Minute of Council withdrew from the Humber Constituency Account $7,000 from the Humber District Trust Account, and deposited it to another account, called the Humber District Trust Account in the name of the Magistrate at Corner Brook. I fail to see what the Magistrate there has to do with [the] disbursing of public funds of this nature. Perhaps the Minister of Justice may enlighten us. It is greatly to be hoped that he dispenses such funds in a more fitting manner of justice, as reflected in the case of Mr. Skanes.

On December 10, 1931, another false document purporting to be a Minute of Council transferred $5,000 from the Humber Constituency Account to the credit of a new account bearing the same name in the Government Savings Bank. The cunning of this transfer I shall allude to later. Over a year ago, considerable comment was made in the local press in reference to an amount of $100,000 which had been transferred from the Bank of Montreal to the Canadian Bank of Commerce. This is what occurred.

On July 28, 1930, $850,000 from the loan was allocated as follows: Marine and Fisheries $150,000 Chappel=s Arm to Goobie=s Highroad $300,000 Highroads General $300,000 Memorial College $100,000 Practically the full Council were present when this matter was discussed.

Following or previous to the meeting, a new Minute was elaborated, the contents of which were unknown to the Executive Government, and this utterly false Minute, manipulated by the Prime Minister and his Secretary of State, transferred the $100,000 which had been allocated for the Memorial College, and lay to the credit of the 1930 loan in the Bank of Montreal, to an account designated the ASavings Bank Trust Account,@ in the Canadian Bank of Commerce. Cheques drawn on this account were to be signed by the Colonial Secretary or his Deputy and countersigned by the Auditor General or his Deputy. Just imagine, Mr.

Speaker, a man who is cash keeper and who closes his books in the night and his cash is square, and when he goes down in the morning and finds $100,000 short. Would his

February 16, 1932 23 boss say to him I took $100,000 out of that last night and deposited it in another bank? This matter was first brought to my attention by Mr. Gardiner, the then Manager of the Bank of Montreal. On October 4, 1930, I acquainted Council of the affair. I pointed out that I considered the matter a forgery and stated that if the money were not put back to the credit of the 1930 Loan in the Bank of Montreal I would report this matter to the Governor. The money was transferred back to the Bank of Montreal. Was not this a damning admission of guilt and irregularity? Most assuredly it was.

Ulterior motives, which we can only surmise, must lie behind these transfers. The argument will be forwarded that the desirability of making interest on these amounts was the causative factor in their transference. I reply that the interest on trust accounts is always deposited to the credit of [the] Exchequer Account. In a communication, dated November 5, 1930, I instructed the Auditor General that interest accumulating on these trust accounts be credited to [the] Exchequer Account. On that date I also wrote a letter to the Secretary of State pointing out the irregularity of such [a] procedure.

Such was the condition of affairs until December, 1931. On December 22, 1931, there was a meeting of the Executive Government, at which were present: the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State, the Hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, the Hon. P. J. Lewis, the Hon. Sir Tasker Cook and myself. During this meeting, the Prime Minister told the Executive that the Reid case would cost the Government about $15,000, and that Sir Percy Thompson had earmarked this amount. I asked the Prime Minister where he had earmarked it. His reply was that he did not know.

I told him Sir Percy had not earmarked it, for if he had I would have known about it. The Secretary of State asked the Prime Minister to whom that amount would be paid. The Prime Minister replied, ALawyers.@ That ended the discussion of this matter. No individual amounts were named; no individual bills were presented, and no amounts were voted by the Executive.

Following the meeting a false Minute of Council was drafted: AIt is ordered that the amount to be paid from General Contingencies on account of professional services in connection with the ten million dollar Butler-Reid claim against the Newfoundland Government, for which judgement went in favour of the Government, be the sum of $15,000 to be divided as follows: $5,000 to the Senior Counsel, Rt. Hon. Sir R. A. Squires, K.C., His Majesty =s Attorney General. $5,000 to Brian E. S. Dunfield, K.C. $2,000 to Leslie R. Curtis, K.C. $3,000 to Hon.

Albert Walsh.@ These amounts, according to this falsified Minute of Council, were to be paid from the General Contingencies Account, which is kept in the Department of the Secretary of State. The false Minute was sent to Government House and signed by His Excellency the Governor on the following day, no doubt in ignorance of the facts. It was then returned to the Department of the Secretary of State. They did not pay the $15,000, but each individual mentioned in the Minute was paid half the stipulated sum, or in other words, a total of $7,500 was disbursed.

This amount completely depleted the funds in General Contingencies Account. The Department of the Secretary of State then applied to the Finance Department for $15,000 to put General Contingencies in funds. On investigating the reason for this requisition, I was told by Mr. Arthur Mews that the previous day we had voted

February 16, 1932 24 $15,000 for lawyers. He sent me a copy of the Minute which I have read. Realising what had occurred, I instructed the Department not to transfer money from the Finance Department to the Department of the Secretary of State until the return of Sir Percy Thompson and Mr. Penson, who were at the time in Montreal on the country =s business. I also had a short conversation with the Secretary of State, who told me that he knew nothing whatever about the Minute in question. When Mr. Penson returned, I drew his attention to the matter and acquainted him with the facts.

He confirmed my action, and furthermore told me that Sir Percy denied having earmarked any amount for such a purpose. Mr. Penson then drew my attention to another amount of $5,000 paid the Prime Minister, by Minute of Council dated December 5th, which reads as follows: AIt is ordered that out of the German Reparations Fund there be paid to the German Reparations Commissioner, Sir Richard Squires, the sum of $5,000 on account of his work as German Reparations Commissioner which position he holds under Commission dated August 22, 1929.@ This Minute had been sent to the Department of Finance, was received by Mr.

Alex Mews, who handed it over to Mr. Penson. Mr. Penson, thinking that the Minute was legitimately passed by Council, paid $5,000 to the Prime Minister. Mr. Penson then advised the Prime Minister that the withdrawal of $5,000 from the Reparations Account seriously depleted the funds in the Savings Bank. The Prime Minister replied that he would repay the amount.

On December 10th, he framed and passed another false Minute of Council which reads as follows: AIt is ordered that out of the balance to the credit of the Humber District Trust Account in the Canadian Bank of Commerce, the sum of $5,000 be transferred to the credit of the Humber District Account in the Government Saving Bank, said money to be paid out as and for the purposes of the Humber District and cheques signed by the Auditor General and Countersigned by the head or deputy head of the Departments authorizing and responsible for the expenditure.@ It will be seen that this Minute of Council transferred $5,000 from the Humber Constituency Account in the Canadian Bank of Commerce to a similar account in the Government Savings Bank.

While it would appear that the moneys in the Savings Bank had not been touched and in reality was not depleted, it is at once apparent that by this manipulation of Minutes of Council the Prime Minister procured $5,000 from the Reparations Fund. I would like to further inform the House, and the country, that I attended the regular monthly meetings of the Executive Council held at Government House on the first Tuesday in January, presided over by his Excellency the Governor. At such meetings the Minutes of the previous month=s work are read by the Secretary of State and confirmed by Council.

On this particular date, namely, January 5, 1932, the Secretary of State did not attend the meeting. The Prime Minister read the Minutes, and I took particular notice that the Minutes, or rather the false Minutes of Council, which were manipulated on December 5th for $5,000 from Reparations Account, and on December 22nd for $15,000 in connection with the Reid case, were not read. It is to be remembered that last year the Prime Minister and his worthy partner gained no inconsiderable emoluments from the same fund, upon the most trivial excuse.

Those who fought for their country, and the relatives of those who died will, no doubt, feel aggrieved that no mean portion of their small material recompense falls into the hands of slackers, under the pitiful guise of payment for services rendered. In view of the statements which I have made, which are, so help me God, to

February 16, 1932 25 the best of my knowledge true, one is forced to the dreadful conclusion that what we won by honour and in death is falling to dishonour and decay. Fellow comrades of those glorious years, the swords we wielded in honour are rusting in their scabbards, while the cause must be won anew. May the memory of those who died, and the prayers of their bereaved mothers, widows and children, help us to preserve inviolate the heritage which is ours. No heritage was ever more glorious. Let us not sully it now by tolerating forger, tricksters and traitors. Our comrades died for Newfoundland.

If we break faith, they may not sleep. Mr. Speaker, you have heard the facts. We must bow to the judgement of the Honourable House of Assembly, and the will of the enlightened people. Mr. Skanes: I have heard my name mentioned by Mr. Cashin, when he said I was a forger. I notice that we do not know who the Opposition is to-day. I see Mr. Cashin sitting alongside of the men he used to ridicule last year. I see Captain Winsor there, too. I don=t know if he is a member or not; if he is not, I would ask him to move back his seat. I want to challenge the statement made by Mr. Cashin, and tell him he is a damn liar.

I can prove I am no forger, and I want to make it clear that I am no forger. I am not going to sit down here and have Mr. Cashin call me a forger, and when he makes the statement he should prove it in 24 hours. Mr. Cashin: There is no need to wait for the next 24 hours, let us finish the matter once and for all right here. I will ask the Hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries to say what transpired. Did he make a complaint to the Justice Department last September or not, and if so what happened? Let the Minister tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Mr.

Skanes: There were some outstanding returns, returns which were due to come in. I challenge the Opposition to say the returns were not in yet. Ask Mr. Lake if all the returns have been made to the Marine and Fisheries Department. Mr. Cashin: I will ask Mr. Lake whether the statement I made is correct or not. Whether or not he notified the Justice Department about any matter in which Mr. Skanes was concerned? Mr. Lake: I don=t think it quite fair for me to answer this question. The matter is in the hands of the Justice Department. 6 Mr.

Cashin: All I want to know is this: whether or not you wrote the Justice Department. Whether Mr. Skanes cashed a cheque or not, on which he had endorsed the name Kean? Hon. the Speaker: I don=t know if this is a question before the House at the present moment. Mr. Emerson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to associate myself with the attitude taken by the Hon. Leader of the Opposition. I submit that before leave should be granted the Hon. Prime Minister to proceed with the regular business of the House, that the charges made by the Hon.

Member for Ferryland should 6 AThe Minister of Marine and Fisheries admitted the statements of Mr. Cashin were correct.@ Evening Telegram, February 18, 1932, p. 4. The Daily News agrees with the transcript in Mr. Lake=s evasion of the question.

February 16, 1932 26 be dealt with. It is since February 4th, when these charges were first made, they have been in the hands of the Prime Minister and his colleagues. They were aware of every Minute of Council that was passed by the Executive Government during the past two months and to which the charges made by the Hon. Member for Ferryland related.

They are equally and more particularly familiar with every Minute of the Executive Council whereby substantial sums of money were paid to individuals, so that the Prime Minister and his colleagues must have known and cannot deny that they knew what was contained in the Cashin charges. What one would have expected under circumstances such as these from any decent member of an Executive in any decent country would be a refutation and an emphatic denial of the charges made; but the conduct of our governmental affairs the past few years makes it necessary to look elsewhere.

And is it not quite obvious that from February 4th last we would have had a stern and complete denial from the Prime Minister of these charges, but not only was this not done, but the Leader of the Opposition on opening day requested that the charges be denied if they were incorrect, but they sat ignominiously silent. Then a fortnight after, we hear nothing about these charges from the Government until the Leader of the Opposition asks the Prime Minister this afternoon to discuss them, and we get the statement we have received.

If such grave charges were made in any other country by an ex-Minister of Finance, there would be [an] immediate and impartial enquiry held on them, and the matter cleared up. No reputable Prime Minister, no reputable Secretary of State would leave the matter stand as it is to-day. Only a day or two ago, the Prime Minister at Ottawa had a charge levelled against him to the effect that in regard to some matters to come before the Privy Council he had secured work for his brother- in-law. The Prime Minister immediately had appointed a parliamentary committee of enquiry into the matter.

Last year the Beauharnois scandal was brought before the House in Ottawa. A special parliamentary committee of enquiry was appointed to deal with the matter and the Committee reported back in the House in three weeks the resu lt of their findings. In spite of that, we have charges of a serious character made here against responsible Ministers of the Crown, and they are let go unchallenged and without enquiry. The Leader of the Government gave us a kind of half-hearted explanation in his own familiar way, and mainly dealt with the breach of the oath of secrecy.

He knows, and others know, that what he said is mere twaddle. In the first place, what secrecy could there be about Minutes of Council that have been passed and acted upon, and Minutes of Council which are subjects of discussion this afternoon, under which certain individuals have received payments of moneys? The charge is that these moneys have been paid, and there cannot be [any] secrecy to them. It is public property now.

I go further, and I challenge the Prime Minister if it is not a breach of the oath of loyalty for him and every member of his Cabinet to remain as they are, without a single word or attempt of denial of the charges made, and it is further evidence of disloyalty to His Majesty the King, who has employed them, for other members of the government [to] sit silent in the light of these charges. The suggestion of the Prime Minister that this is a matter to be kept secret is utter nonsense.

Now, Sir, I submit that the first duty of the Government is to appoint a Parliamentary Committee of Enquiry, to examine into the facts, take evidence on oath and report back to this House, and until that is done we should not proceed with a single item of business in this House. This is a matter that goes to the very vitals and the very foundation of our system of government. It is the duty of members of the government to clear themselves from suspicion. So long as Ministers

February 16, 1932 27 of the Crown lie under such serious charges there can be no respect for law and order. Charges have been made that funds have been manipulated by forgery and other dishonest methods, and this House and this country is entitled to know what has happened. It has been suggested that His Excellency the Governor has been a victim unknowingly as to what has been done. At all events, I submit that the Prime Minister=s motion do not pass until the motion of the Leader of the Opposition has been enquired into. Mr. Puddester: Mr.

Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister what his position is with regard to the charges made, that Minutes of Council are in the Council book and Minutes that never passed the Executive; also that a member of the Executive Government failed to make any returns of income taxes for the years 1929 and 1930? These are definite and very serious charges, and should be enquired into immediately. The other charge is that moneys were manipulated from one bank to another so as to put funds at the disposal of a certain member.

I think a Parliamentary Committee should be appointed, consisting of members from both sides of the House, to call for persons, records and things and take evidence upon oath. The honour and integrity of the House is at stake. Never before, perhaps, were such serious charges made, and I therefore think that the proper procedure to take would be to appoint a Parliamentary Committee of Enquiry without delay and have the charges dealt with. [Omission in the transcript] Mr. Puddester: He didn=t file his income tax returns. Rt. Hon. Prime Minister: He was assessed. Mr.

Puddester: If he were over on this side, he would be in jail. Hon. Leader of the Opposition: Mr. Speaker, I think we are only wasting time, the honourable gentleman has admitted that Dr. Campbell was assessed. Rt. Hon. Prime Minister: This is the regular practice. Mr. Emerson: Were you assessed? Rt. Hon. Prime Minister: I handed in my memorandum, and was assessed. Mr. Emerson: Why did not Dr. Campbell do so? Rt. Hon. Prime Minister: He did so. Mr.

Cashin: The Prime Minister said a Minister can be assessed under the Act and is subject to a fine of $10 a day, on the other hand the Minister of Finance or the Assessor has the power to assess, but they won=t do it unless they can=t get the legitimate returns. Dr. Campbell never paid any returns, he was assessed by the Assessor and refused to recognize it, and as there were moneys paid him by

February 16, 1932 28 the Customs Department, I had to stop them and pay to the Assessor=s Department Dr. Campbell=s account. These are the facts and I am not going to stand for any more nonsense. Hon. the Speaker: I don =t know what this House has to do with the matter; it is a matter of an individual not paying his Income Tax. There is machinery provided to make a man pay his taxes, and I think that it is a matter for the Minister of Finance. That is my personal view and I wouldn=t say that to guide the House, that is what occurs to me listening to the debate. Mr.

Puddester: That can be cleared up by a Committee of Enquiry. Hon. the Speaker: Is it necessary to have a Committee of Enquiry for this matter? Mr. Puddester: Mr. Speaker, that is not your province. Hon. the Speaker: I may have to rule on this question when the House enquires into it, but I am not ruling on it at present. Rt. Hon. Prime Minister: In this case of Dr. Campbell, he was assessed and has paid practically the whole amount, and there is very little outstanding. Mr. Cashin: How was it paid? Rt. Hon. Prime Minister: That is none of your business. Mr.

Cashin: I said it was not paid until it was forced out of him. Rt. Hon. Prime Minister: Seeing the honourable gentleman is pigheaded and ignorant enough to be continually interrupting, I did not interrupt him ... Mr. Cashin: I was not intended to be a gentleman like the Prime Minister. 7 Rt. Hon. Prime Minister: You can=t be. Hon. the Speaker: You will please take your seats; the rules of the House must be observed. Rt. Hon. Prime Minister: As to whether Dr.

Campbell paid his income tax in any way, I am not concerned; I am only concerned with the fact that he was assessed, and paid five-sixths of the amount and the remainder is sure of collection. I wish some of the other accounts were as satisfactory. With respect to the Minutes of Council, I shall submit it to the Governor, to decide as to 7 A... like the Prime Minister. I did not rob $5,000 out of soldiers = money.@ Evening Telegram, February 18, 1932, p. 4.

February 16, 1932 29 how the matter to be investigated will be proceeded with. It certainly shall be proceeded with, but I am not in a position to say how it will be proceeded with. Mr. Skanes: Mr. Speaker ... Hon. the Speaker: Debate has closed. Hon. Leader of the Opposition: I beg to give notice that I will on to-morrow move that there be appointed a Select Committee of the House, consisting of five, to enquire into by giving evidence on oath and sending for persons, records and things, and report to the House with verbatim copies of the evidence upon certain charges made by the Hon.

Member for Ferryland on the 16th day of February, 1932, and contained in the speech that he delivered and which is now the property of the House. On motion of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, that the Bill entitled AAn Act to Make Provision for Controlling the Export of Gold and for Regulating the Currency in Periods of Emergency@ be introduced and read a first time. Rt. Hon. Prime Minister: I might say that some changes were suggested this morning in the wording of the Bill. It will not be ready for distribution this afternoon, and will stand over.

The House divided, and there appeared in favour of the motion: Hon. the Prime Minister, Hon. the Secretary of State, Hon. the Minister of Posts, Hon. Mr. Bradley, Hon. Dr. Mosdell, Hon. Mr. Lewis, Hon. Mr. Bindon, the Minister of Public Works, the Minister of Fisheries, Mr. Earle, Mr. Starkes, Mr. Fitzgibbon, Mr. Skanes, Lady Squires, Mr. Winsor, Mr. Archibald, Mr. Godden, Mr. Fudge, Mr. Strong, Mr. Greene, Mr. Smith, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Downey, and against it: Mr. Alderdice, Mr. Puddester, Mr. Emerson, Mr. Moore, Mr. Winter, Mr. Quinton, Mr. Tobin, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Abbott, Mr. Byrne, Mr.

Cashin; so it passed in the affirmative and was ordered accordingly. The Bill entitled AAn Act to Make Provision for Controlling the Export of Gold and for Regulating the Currency in Periods of Emergency@ was introduced and read a first time, and it was ordered that the said Bill be read a second time on to-morrow. Pursuant to Notice, and on motion of Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, the Bill entitled AAn Act to Amend

Chapter 23 of the Consolidated Statutes (Third Series) entitled >Of the Auditing of Public Accounts=@ was introduced and read a first time, and was ordered that the said Bill be read a second time on to-morrow. Mr. Puddester: Mr. Speaker, on that motion I would suggest to you, and to the Leader of the House, that as we have so many documents tabled this afternoon, and so many documents also relating to this Bill which he is going to introduce now, the Bill remain over on the Order Paper until next day, when we can have an opportunity of studying the documents and more fully acquaint ourselves with the matter.

February 16, 1932 30 Rt. Hon. Prime Minister: This is the first occasion in which an objection has been taken to the asking of leave to introduce. It has never before occurred in my record of 25 years. The asking of leave to introduce is merely a formal matter. The reading of the Bill is then proceeded with, the Bill is then distributed for the second reading, and the question as to whether it should be proceeded with is under debate. There are a considerable number of Bills that might be moved forward to the stage where we can get the Bills distributed, and into the hands and minds of Hnourable Members.

I don=t think that any friction with Mr. Cashin or any question of argument or debates, or any other consideration should interfere with the imperative necessity of our making progress in connection with the economic legislation, the financial legislation for which this House has been called at this early date. No question as to whether Minutes are twisted or not twisted; no question as to whether income tax is paid or not should take precedence to the reading of Bills relating to Currency, Public Accounts and to the various resolutions forming the basis of our financial structure. Any time that the Hon.

Member wants for the consideration of the Bill will be given. In so far as the Bills and Resolutions which are now ready, I would like to have them formally moved, formally advanced to a stage on the Order Paper and distributed. I don=t see how there could be any constitutional objection. I would like to make progress to the point of answering questions on the Order Paper before we rise. That will give members all the time possible.

A copy of the Marine and Fisheries Bill, and a copy of some of the others, were sent by me in advance to the Leader of the Opposition; a copy of the documents in connection with the loan of December last were forwarded by me; a copy of the interim report of Mr. Magor and others, which have been asked for, were forwarded a week ago. I stated on that occasion that I proposed to have ready a huge volume of stuff for this afternoon, which would answer questions that had been asked, and a thousand intended to be asked.

I think this afternoon I laid on the table of the House a larger volume of information than has ever been tabled before, or ever been asked for. I think I got some of the Departments not only up to the 31st of December, but I got them up to the end of the month of January. Instead of being appreciated for having got through an outstanding volume of work, we are now delayed because of the volume that we have tabled. I do think that we ought to proceed with the Bill. Mr. Puddester: I was asking that you delay this motion. Rt. Hon. Prime Minister: Let us pass these motions. Mr.

Puddester: If you had agreed with our suggestion you would have no trouble whatever. Rt. Hon. Prime Minister: We can=t interfere with the general financial legislation. Mr. Puddester: You had twelve days. Rt. Hon. Prime Minister: If we had been going on with the Address in Reply during recent days, it would not be possible to have this material ready or the Bills ready. Pursuant to Notice, and on motion of Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, the Bill entitled AAn Act to

February 16, 1932 31 Amend the Law Relating to the Carriage of Goods by Sea@ was introduced and read a first time, and it was ordered that the said Bill be read a second time on to-morrow. Pursuant to Notice and leave granted, and on motion of Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, the Bill entitled AAn Act to Amend

Chapter 27 of the Consolidated Statutes (Third Series) entitled >Of Death Duties=@ was introduced and read a first time, and it was ordered that the said Bill be read a second time on to-morrow. Pursuant to Notice and leave granted, and on motion of Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, the Bill entitled AAn Act to Amend

Chapter 10 of the Consolidated Statutes (Third Series) entitled >Of the Departments of Finance and Customs=@ was introduced and read a first time, and it was ordered that the said Bill be read a second time on to-morrow. Pursuant to Notice, and on motion of Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, Supply was granted to His Majesty. Pursuant to Notice, and on motion of Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain resolutions in relation to the amendment of the Loan Acts 1898, 1927, 1928, 1929. Mr. Speaker left the Chair. Mr. Smith took the Chair of Committee. Mr.

Speaker resumed the Chair. The Chairman from the Committee reported that they had considered the matter to them referred, had made some progress, and asked leave to sit again on to-morrow. On motion this report was received and adopted, and it was ordered that the Committee have leave to sit again on to-morrow. Pursuant to Notice, and on motion of Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain Resolutions for the amendment of

Chapter 127 of the Consolidated Statutes (Third Series) entitled “Of Companies. @ Mr. Speaker left the Chair. Mr. Smith took the Chair of Committee. Mr. Speaker resumed the Chair. The Chairman from the Committee reported that they had considered the matter to them referred, had made some progress, and asked leave to sit again on to-morrow. On motion this report was received and adopted, and it was ordered that the Committee have leave to sit again on to-morrow.

February 16, 1932 32 Pursuant to Notice, and on motion of Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider the amendment of

Chapter 111 of the Consolidated Statutes (Third Series) entitled AOf Registration of Deeds and other Documents.@ Mr. Speaker left the Chair. Mr. Smith took the Chair of Committee. Mr. Speaker resumed the Chair. The Chairman from the Committee reported that they had considered the matter to them referred, had made some progress, and asked leave to sit again on to-morrow. On motion this report was received and adopted, and it was ordered that the Committee have leave to sit again on to-morrow. Pursuant to Notice, and on motion of Hon. the Minister of Posts, the House resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain Resolutions for the amendment of

Chapter 35 of the Consolidated Statutes (Third Series) entitled AOf the Postal and Telegraph Services.@ Mr. Speaker left the Chair. Mr. Smith took the Chair of Committee. Mr. Speaker resumed the Chair. The Chairman from the Committee reported that they had considered the matter to them referred, had made some progress, and asked leave to sit again on to-morrow. On motion this report was received and adopted, and it was ordered that the Committee have leave to sit again on to-morrow.

Pursuant to Notice and leave granted, and on motion of Hon. the Minister of Posts, the Bill entitled AAn Act to Amend the Radio-Telegraph Act, 1930,@ was introduced and read a first time, and it was ordered that the said Bill be read a second time on to-morrow. Pursuant to Notice and leave granted, and on motion of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, the Bill entitled AAn Act to Reorganize and Combine the Departments of Marine and Fisheries and of Agriculture and Mines@ was introduced and read a first time, and it was ordered that the said Bill be read a second time on to-morrow.

Pursuant to Notice and leave granted, and on motion of the Minister of Public Works, the Bill entitled AAn Act to Reorganize the Department of Public Works@ was introduced and read a first time and it was ordered that the said Bill be read a second time on to-morrow. In reply to the question of Mr. Alderdice as to the terms of agreement under which Sir Percy Thompson and Mr. Penson are engaged, the Prime Minister stated that Sir Percy Thompson was

February 16, 1932 33 engaged at the rate of 3,750 pounds per year and Mr. Penson at the rate of 2,000 pounds per year. Half of this was to be paid in Canadian dollars and half in pounds sterling. There was no Minute of Council as to the terms of the agreement with Sir Percy Thompson. All there was was a personal letter and he did not intend to table this. Mr. Emerson asked why? The Prime Minister continuing said that the only Minutes of Council were in reference to the manner of payment to these gentlemen.

He read the details of this and persisted in calling dollars when it should be in pounds sterling until reminded on every occasion by Mr. Puddester, who remarked that whilst Sir Percy was being paid at the rate of $18,000 a year, the poor mortals of people in the outports were forced to live on six cents a day. The Prime Minister retorted that it was good they had somebody who could find six cents a day for them. Continuing ... [Daily News, February 18, 1932] Rt. Hon. Prime Minister: Mr. Magor is under no agreement. He will be paid for his services at the end of his term.

He was not supposed to have anything to do with relief. He came here for the purpose of reorganizing the railway, but later it was felt it was necessary for him to visit Montreal with Sir Percy Thompson in connection with the loan matter. On his return, after Mr. Piercey and Mr. Mifflen had been appointed in charge of relief matters and had refused to accept the responsibility, Sir Percy Thompson, Mr. Magor and Mr. Penson stated they would be glad to cooperate in a matter that concerned the whole country, and Mr.

Magor was appointed in charge of relief with specific instructions to keep expenditure to the minimum, but to see that no person in the country suffered hunger. The question of payment to him was not discussed but he will be paid on results. In reply to the question of Mr. Byrne as to the expense account of the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance on the visits to Montreal and New York in May and June 1931, he stated that he did not know what the expenses of the Finance Minister were. He was paid $2,500 as a total. As to the question of Mr.

Bennett relative to the expenses of his visit to London, Paris and Montreal in August, September and October, 1931, he stated he accepted $2,500 on account for personal expenses though they were much larger than that. In reply to Mr. Winter=s question ... [Daily News, February 18, 1932] Rt. Hon. Prime Minister: The interim reports of Mr. Magor and Mr. Penson have been tabled and distributed, there have been no reports since, other than recommendations of the Executive Council which have been dealt with by the Council, for instance the Dole Bill, etc. Mr.

Emerson: Are there any recommendations they made which have not been carried out? Rt. Hon. Prime Minister: I know of none. Mr. Winsor, on behalf of the Select Committee appointed to draft a Reply to His Excellency the Governor =s Speech from the Throne, presented the Report of the Select Committee, which was, on motion, received and read as follows:

February 16, 1932 34 To His Excellency Sir John Middleton, Knight Commander of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, Governor and Commander-in-Chief in and over the Colony of Newfoundland. We, the Commons of Newfoundland in Legislative Session assembled, beg to thank Your Excellency for the Gracious Speech which Your Excellency has addressed to both Branches of the Legislature. On motion this Report was received and it was ordered that Debate on the Address in reply be deferred. Hon. P. J.

Lewis gave notice that on to-morrow he would move a vote of censure against the Compiler of Public Despatches relative to certain despatches dated the 12th and 13th of February, 1932. It was moved and seconded that when the House rises it adjourn until Thursday afternoon 18th instant, at three of the clock. The House then adjourned accordingly.

February 18 1932 35 Thursday, February 18, 1932 The House met at three of the clock in the afternoon, pursuant to adjournment. Mr. Puddester gave notice of question. Mr. Alderdice gave notice of question. Mr. Byrne gave notice of question. Mr. Abbott gave notice of question. Mr. Moore gave notice of question. Mr. Quinton gave notice of question. Mr. Winter gave notice of question. Mr. Tobin gave notice of question. Mr. Cashin gave notice of question. Mr. Emerson gave notice of question. Hon. Leader of the Opposition: Mr.

Speaker, I desire to make the motion, which has just been read, that a Select Committee of the House be appointed to enquire into the charges made by the Hon. Member for Ferryland, and, in doing so I feel that there is not the slightest doubt that every member of the House will agree with it, because it will relieve the stigma cast upon the members concerned, as outlined in the speech of the Hon. Member for Ferryland a few days ago. With your permission, Sir, I will read the details of the charges and the terms of reference for the enquiry: (reads). The Charges 1.

That upon the following dates the Prime Minister (Sir Richard Squires) wrongfully procured to be transferred from the Department of Marine and Fisheries and/or the Department of Public Works, and/or the Highroads Commission, the following amounts, namely: 1929 August 16th $20,000 November 14th 9,800 1930 May 10th 5,100 May 15th 11,000 September 25th 5,000 to be placed to the credit of an account known as Humber Constituency Trust Account, and in so far as the said transfer purports to have been made by virtue of an Order in Council, such Order or Orders and each of them were procured to be signed by His Excellency the Governor without having first been passed by the Committee of Council. 2.

That on or about the 5th day of December, 1931, the Prime Minister (Sir Richard Squires) procured to be signed by His Excellency the Governor what purported to be a Minute of Council ordering to be paid to himself out of the Reparations Account, the sum of $5,000, the said Order not having been passed by the Committee of Council and being obtained from His Excellency the Governor without the knowledge direct or indirect of the members of Council. 3.

That the Prime Minister (Sir Richard Squires) wrongfully received the said sum of $5,000 under and by virtue of the purported Minute of Council referred to in No. 2 above.

February 18 1932 36 4. That the Secretary of State (Hon. A. Barnes) wrongfully caused to be entered in the Minute Book of the Executive Council the purported Minute referred to in No. 2 above, knowing that the same had not been passed by members of the Council. 5. That on or about the 22nd day of December, 1931, the Prime Minister (Sir Richard Squires) procured to be signed by His Excellency the Governor what purported to be a Minute of Council ordering to be paid to himself the sum of $5,000, to Mr. B. E. S. Dunfield, K.C., the sum of $2,000 and to Hon. A. J.

Walsh the sum of $3,000 out of the General Contingencies Fund, the said order not having been passed by the Committee of Council and being obtained from His Excellency the Governor without the knowledge direct or indirect of the members of the Council. 6. That the Prime Minister (Sir Richard Squires) wrongfully received the sum of $2,500 under and by virtue of the purported Minute of Council referred to in No. 5 above. 7. That the Secretary of State (Hon. A.

Barnes) wrongfully caused to be entered in the Minute Book of the Executive Council the purported Minute referred to in No. 5 above, knowing that the same had not been passed by members of the Council. 8. That Hon. Dr. Campbell, a member of the Executive Council, had not complied during the years 1929-30 with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, in regard to making returns of his income for the said years or in regard to the payment of the taxes payable by him thereon. 9.

That the Minister of Justice (Sir Richard Squires) during the year 1931 received from the Department of Marine and Fisheries information that a cheque for $500 had been issued, payable to one Sandy Payne, and that the endorsement of the name by the payee thereof had been forged by the Hon. Member for St. Barbe (Mr.

Skanes) and that he had received the proceeds of the said cheque and that the Minister of Justice had failed to take the usual and necessary steps in connection with charges of this kind, and endeavoured to induce the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to withdraw the complaint, receive the money back, and consider the incident closed. 10. That the Hon. Member for St. Barbe (Mr. Skanes) had during the year 1930 forged the endorsement of a cheque issued by the Department of Marine and Fisheries in favour of one Sandy Payne for $500 and had wrongfully obtained the proceeds thereof. 11. That Hon. Dr.

Campbell, by receiving a salary of $45 per month from the Customs Department, was guilty of a breach of

Chapter 4 of the Consolidated Statutes (Third Series)

Section 3 and thereby had vacated his seat in the House of Assembly and subjected himself otherwise to the penalties set forth in the said Chapter. [Evening Telegram, February 19, 1932, p. 6] Hon. the Speaker: Would the Hon. Member consider that [as] there are charges against four separate Members of the House, would [it] be not more convenient to take these as distinct motions to be dealt with? Hon. Leader of the Opposition: Well, cannot we do it this afternoon without any further waste of time, as I feel sure that the Hon.

Members implicated in the charges would be only too glad to have an early opportunity to vindicate themselves. Hon. the Speaker: With respect to each individual charge, the committee of enquiry may not be the same, and the matter is one that might be the subject matter of each motion.

February 18 1932 37 Rt. Hon. Prime Minister: As we are all intensely desirous of having this matter cleared up, might I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition give the regular notices of motion dealing with each specific individual in the ordinary form of motion this afternoon, and then on to-morrow we could deal with each separate and individual item accordingly. With respect to charge (4) in which the name of the Secretary of State appears, that would mean an entirely separate Notice of Motion; with respect to (8) referring [to] Dr.

Campbell, that would be an entirely different matter; and with respect to the Minister of Justice in which I happen to be identified, that would also be an entirely different matter, so that I would suggest that separate Notices of Motion with respect to each individual item be formally put on the Order Paper so that we could deal with them one by one on to-morrow. Hon. the Speaker: That is why I suggested separate motions.

If there are a number of charges dealing with different persons and covered by the same motion, I think it would be absolutely necessary to have separate motions, in view of the fact that the Chair might have to order individual members to withdraw while the charge is being considered. Mr. Puddester: Do you think we would take advantage of having a snap motion with the four Members charged being absent? Hon. the Speaker: I do not think it fair to impute any such motives. I think it would be unfair for any Member of the House to be denied the right to vote on a matter in which he was not charged. Mr.

Emerson: May I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there is no need for further postponement, the matter has been fully dealt with, the charges have been divided and separate notice given, given in the regular way after the details have been mentioned to the House and debated. There is no object in the matter being postponed now the charges have been taken up and settled to-day. Why postpone it until to-morrow? Hon. the Speaker: The motion is not the property of the House; it has not been entered in the records by Mr. Clerk and the Members under suspicion do not know the exact nature of the charges against them.

I think that it is only the fair thing that they should know the specific charges to be laid against them. Mr. Emerson: May I point out, Sir, that the parties in question are not making any demand for postponement, if the Prime Minister or Dr. Barnes or Dr. Campbell or Mr. Skanes feel that they have not had sufficient notice of the charges to be laid against them, they would lay claim to some further time being granted them to consider in detail the charges against them. I would point out, Sir, that the only mention of postponement has come from yourself.

Hon. the Speaker: The notices are supposed to be in proper form if the House is to deal with it, and it can=t deal with it without sufficient notice. Mr. Emerson: I would like to point out, Sir, that no one suggests that we have not had enough time, you pointed that out.

February 18 1932 38 Hon. the Speaker: I think they are entitled to proper notice. Mr. Emerson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point to Rule 55 (reads).8 That is all that is necessary, if the Member charged feels that he needs further time, he moves adjournment of the debate. Rt. Hon. Prime Minister: Let us start in. This charge against Dr. Campbell evidently refers to the fact that he received fees from the Customs Department, and consequently he is not entitled to a seat in this House.

In my judgement the sensible procedure would be to put the charge on the Order Paper so that every Member has the charge against Dr. Campbell before him, so that it will be the same as the Magistrate=s Court, the definite charge in writing is made and every Member is entitled to have it on the Order Paper. The next charge is one of forgery against Mr. Skanes; this is a very serious felony and we should be very careful in discussing it without knowing the exact words of the charge.

We would be discussing a charge of forgery which if a prima facie case were shown would have to go to a jury, and it might be possible that they might be influenced by what has gone on here. A magisterial enquiry is private, there are no newspaper reporters admitted or any others of the general public admitted. Each individual charge should be made a notice of motion of itself, [and] there are charges which cannot be discussed in this House, certainly not forgery. Mr. Emerson: We are only asking for an enquiry;it is not even suggested that they be discussed here. Rt. Hon.

Prime Minister: My suggestion is [that] the Leader of the Opposition draft a separate motion for each one and every Member will have before him the charge being discussed, I think that is a reasonable practice, if I make a charge against any Member I would put it on the Order Paper so that every Member can see what is going on. Hon. Leader of the Opposition: You=d think that this was a bolt from the blue, that this was never mentioned before. We are not in the least vindictive about this matter but we have to see the whole matter ventilated. Rt. Hon.

Prime Minister: I am not suggesting that there is any vindictiveness about it. Hon. Leader of the Opposition: As far as Mr. Skanes is concerned, I think that we discussed the matter and our decision was that you as Attorney General would take the same course as any gentleman under suspicion would take, and see that the matter is dealt with as promptly as possible. Rt. Hon. Prime Minister: I quite agree with the Hon.

Member, and I think that if he would make a motion for separate charges and they are put on the Order Paper it would be done. 8 AHe pointed out that under Rule 55 of the House after a notice of motion is given the terms may be altered.@ Daily News, February 19, 1932.

February 18 1932 39 Hon. Leader of the Opposition: I think that a committee of five would be enough to enquire into these charges. Hon. the Speaker: You must remember that the one dealing with the Hon. Member for St. John=s West and the one against the Prime Minister are very different. Hon. Leader of the Opposition: I take it, however, that the principle of the thing has your approval and it is just a matter of getting down to details. Hon. the Speaker: As regards some of these charges I doubt whether this House should constitutionally deal with these charges.

These involve the conduct of His Excellency or the personal advisors of His Excellency, and this House can=t enquire into the practices of the advisors of His Excellency. I think that the proper course would be to send an address to His Excellency asking for an enquiry into this matter. This is however only my opinion, this is probably the first time that anything like this has happened before and we have no precedents to guide us, that however is my opinion, that we should send an address to His Excellency asking for an enquiry into the whole matter. This is of course a matter for the House to decide. Mr.

Emerson: I listened, Sir, very carefully to your remarks and I hope that you are not ruling on the matter. May I point out, Sir, that while this House has the right to address His Excellency it also has the right to appoint a Select Committee, and it is a question for you to decide whether or not the Leader of the Opposition is in order, and that is the only question for you to decide.

I have given this matter a lot of thought and Your Honour was good enough to talk the matter over with me, and I came to the conclusion that the matter was very important, and I sought assistance elsewhere and yesterday I sent a cable to Messrs. Parker and Hammond, Solicitors, London, in the following terms: (reads) Minify, London. Prime Minister accused in Commons of obtaining signature of Governor to Minute of Cabinet which never passed Cabinet whereby he obtained money. Notice motion given for select committee to enquire upon oath.

Speaker may indicate motion out of order and should take form of address to Governor requesting enquiry. Please obtain immediately and cable outstanding opinion whether suggested motion in order. In your reply name adviser. REYWAL I am just in receipt of a reply which says: Reywal, St. John=s. Sir Patrick Hastings, former Attorney General of England, advises, subject to anything in the contrary in your standing orders, and on the facts available, that motion for a select committee would be in order in our parliament and assume, therefore, it would be in yours. MINIFY [Daily News, February 19, 1932, p. 6]

February 18 1932 40 I submit, Sir, that in view of the fact that you say that it is only a matter of doubt in your mind, I take it, Sir, that you will rule on the matter when it comes before you to-morrow. When the matter comes before you, as it must come before you to-day or to-morrow, I trust that you will not hold that the motion is out of order. Hon. the Speaker: I wish to thank the Hon. Member for Placentia East for giving this matter such care and attention. I gave no deliberate ruling on it.

I only expressed a doubt with respect to it, a doubt from analogies to similar matters in the c ourse of the books on parliamentary procedure. I would be glad if the Member for Placentia East would be good enough to let me have a copy. In the case of the Prime Minister there are two distinct motions, one in respect of Minutes and one in respect of [the] Attorney General. Hon. Leader of the Opposition: Mr.

Speaker, all things being equal, I think we should appoint a Select Committee, if this thing clears up the atmosphere, and gives them a chance to vindicate themselves, and present an Address to his Excellency the Governor. If a Commission is appointed it may take six weeks before they come to a decision. We can do it here inside a week. 9 Mr.

Lewis: On the motion to adjourn the session of Tuesday, I gave notice that I would on to-day move a vote of censure against the compiler of public dispatches, with particular reference to a dispatch which had been issued by him under date the 12th and 13th of February dealing with a matter which had arisen here in St. John=s recently, which involved a so-called riot between certain members of the unemployed and the Prime Minister, and my reason for moving this vote of censure in this House to-day is because of the position which I hold first, as a Member of this House, and second as a Member of the Government.

I am here in a purely representative capacity. I represent first a Catholic district. I represent secondly, partly at any rate, the whole Catholic

section of this community in the Government, and I consider that if I were to accept this dispatch, condone the idea which is behind this dispatch, without bringing it before the attention of this House and giving this Assembly an opportunity to censure such conduct, and secondly, giving the Government with which I am associated an opportunity to disassociate itself from that dispatch and to reprimand the individual who is responsible for having disseminated this propaganda throughout the country.

I say if I still remained in this House and a Mem ber of this Government without having given them an opportunity to censure this, and if they fail to adopt my motion there would be only one thing left for me to do, and that would be first to resign my seat as a Member of the Executive Government, and secondly to resign my seat as a Member of this House of Assembly, and I wish to say at the outset, Mr. Speaker, that if this resolution of censure is not carried, that is my intention.

You may ask why I do that; why I have made up my mind to take that step, and my reason is this; that it is apparent to each and every individual who had the opportunity of reading the dispatch to which I refer, the motive which underlay it; the facts and the motive behind it; the idea and the principle which underlay it were purposely distorted, purposely and deliberately distorted in order 9 AHe would, however, make the motions separately as suggested by the Speaker and so the matter stands for Tuesday.@ Daily News, February 19, 1932.

February 18 1932 41 that a sectarian complexion may be given to the unfortunate incident which happened in this city a few days ago. I am not here this afternoon to plead the defence of any particular individual who took

part in that affair, Mr. Speaker. It is no concern whatever of mine. Neither am I on my feet for the purpose of endorsing the spirit which was behind that movement. I absolutely disassociate myself from it. I absolutely decry the motive which was behind it. I think it was disreputable; I think it was a disgrace; I think it was a blot upon our civilization as Newfoundlanders, but for a party or an individual who presumably speaks for a government, who undoubtedly is paid by the government to take the facts and to paint that picture in the way in which the whole affair was set up in that public dispatch is nothing short of criminal. It is a diabolical insult at the

section of our people of whom I am one of the representatives, and I cannot sit here silently and accept that insult. I think, Mr. Speaker, that the day has gone when sectarianism in all its shapes and forms should be decried by each and every Member of this honourable House, and by each and every individual constituting the nation of the Newfoundlander. We are as a country in the depths of despondency; we are up against a problem which is going to require the united efforts of every man who takes a pride in calling himself a Newfoundlander.

We have to present a united front politically, socially, religiously and every other way, if we are going to bring this country on her feet again; if we allow such stuff as this, such poisonous propaganda as has emanated from the pen of the public dispatch compiler within the last few days to be disseminated throughout the country, we are going to have sectionalism rampant; we are going to have one denomination at another denomination=s throat. Therefore, Mr.

Speaker, I have much pleasure in moving the following Resolution in the hope that this House, in its wisdom, may make an example of the perpetrator of this crime, and that what has taken place within the last week and has gone forth through this country in black print, will not be repeated in the history of Newfoundland; that the individual in question who is responsible for this may be taught a lesson; that we shall have heard the last and seen the last of sectional and sectarian propaganda throughout the Island of Newfoundland.

I am going to ask in that resolution that the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs be instructed by you, Sir, to advise all his officers, if it please this House to endorse my motion, to advise all his officers throughout Newfoundland as to the stand which this House shall take upon the motion which is now before the Chair, and to give it the same publicity as the nefarious document which emanated from here the other day. I therefore have much pleasure, Mr. Speaker, in moving the following resolution:

WHEREAS on the eleventh and twelfth instants 10 Public Messages were sent out by the Compiler of Public Dispatches concerning certain incidents that were alleged to have occurred between the Prime Minister and a Committee representing the unemployed at St. John=s; AND

WHEREAS the facts stated in such Messages were deliberately and insidiously distorted so as to give a Sectarian tinge to such incidents; AND

WHEREAS this House considers that the various religious convictions of the People of this Country should be held sacred and not subverted to unworthy ends; BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED by this House in Legislative Session convened as follows: 1. The House strongly condemns the action of the Compiler of Public Dispatches in sending the Messages in question. 10 The Daily News, February 19, 1932, says Atwelfth and thirteenth.@

February 18 1932 42 2. The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs is hereby instructed to immediately send by telegraph to all Telegraph Stations to which the Messages in question have already been sent, a resume of the proceedings of this House, and of this Resolution, and to direct that such resume be given the fullest possible publicity. 11 Hon. the Speaker: In connection with this motion, the second paragraph; I doubt if it can be left in that motion; that is, that the Speaker be ordered to summon the Compiler of Dispatches before this House.

I doubt very much whether this House has any authority to summon before the Bar the Compiler of Dispatches. Mr. Puddester: I beg to second the resolution although it is ... Hon. the Speaker: There are two Members on their feet. Hon. Leader of the Opposition: Mr. Puddester was first. Rt. Hon. Prime Minister: If the Hon. Member will permit me, I arranged with Mr. Lewis for the seconding of that motion on the day on which he gave it. Mr. Puddester: He asked nobody to second it. Rt. Hon. Prime Minister: I did not say that Mr. Lewis asked me to second it. Mr.

Lewis: I want to state that in making the motion I did, I did so in a spirit entirely free from party politics. The Prime Minister did mention to me that he would second the motion, and I said I would be glad to have him do so. My attitude throughout was entirely non-partisan. Mr. Puddester: Mr. Speaker, I find it most distasteful to stand in this House and second a resolution dealing with such a vile matter. I do so because I consider it my duty. I consider that public dispatch a blot on the fair name of Newfoundland.

I think it disgusting that a message of this nature should go over the wires and be posted in all the Post Offices throughout the country. We have heard a lot about the public dispatches which were sent abroad during the past few months. Apparently there is one law by the Government for messages sent abroad, and another for messages compiled for the local dispatch. Now, if one is unjust and unfair, so is the other. I hold no brief, Sir, for those who send dispatches abroad which defame our fair name.

I happen to be a correspondent myself for one of the largest news agencies in the British Empire, and for months past I have had to take several raps on the knuckles for not sending abroad messages about our local conditions. I think, Sir, that if I had been the compiler or inspirer of that public dispatch of last week, I wouldn=t be able to walk across Bannerman Park with my head erect, and I say now, Sir, that the compiler of 11 2. His Honour, the Speaker, is hereby instructed to summon the said compiler of dispatches to the Bar of this House and there publicly censure him for his disgraceful conduct.

This clause appears in The Daily News (February 19, 1932), but not in the Journal.

February 18 1932 43 that dispatch was not half as bad as the inspirer. It is up to the Government now to repudiate this message, and the man who inspired it. I would like to ask the Secretary of State, who is the Compiler of Public Dispatches? Hon. Secretary of State: Mr. J. J. St. John. Mr. Puddester: Do you think, Sir, that Mr. J. J. St. John compiled this message? No, Sir, he did not. I am now going to read the dispatch in question. I want it to go in the records of the House, so that future generations may see to what an ebb politics had sunk in the year of grace, 1932 (reads).

The following public dispatches were sent to Postal Telegraph Offices in the Outports on Friday and Saturday: February 12: Yesterday afternoon at St. John=s, a mob led by men named McGrath, Furlong, Dicks, and some others and followed by about five hundred of the unemployed raided the Executive Government chambers where the Government party were calling a meeting dealing with public finance relating to roads, bridges, ferries, etc. The leader of the mob smashed several bannisters from the main stairway.

With these they smashed in the plate glass of the Council Chamber doors, damaging the doors, and doing destruction to other property nearby. The mob rushed into the Council Chamber and began to act disorderly. Several of them jumped upon the Council table and kicked to the floor official documents which were lying on the table and destroyed others. One of the mob struck the Prime Minister a severe blow on the left jaw, another tried to throw him down so that he would fall under the feet of the mob.

One assailant struck, cut and grabbed Sir Richard by the hand badly tearing the flesh as he dug his fingernails into the flesh just by the side of the main artery. The wound bled considerably, two large patches of blood were on Sir Richard=s coat. Another of the mob seized a piece of the plate glass which came from the smashed door and hurled it straight at the Prime Minister=s head who fortunately ducked quick enough to avoid the blow. The glass hit the wall of the Chamber and was broken into four bits. The Prime Minister was struck by different members of the mob at least twelve times.

One of the mob tore the telephone from the desk and threatened to kill Mr. Joe Fitzgibbon, representative for St. John=s West, who is one of the Prime Minister=s most loyal supporters. The mob demanded dole of $3 to $5 per week and made a threat to tear the Prime Minister to pieces if he did not issue orders to that effect. Sir Richard Squires refused to change any decision he had made and told the mob that they could tear him up if they wanted, but he would under no circumstances consider any changes under threat of violence.

The Prime Minister told the mob again that he would not consider any changes under threats of violence and he told the mob also that the policy of the Government was that no person should starve in Newfoundland this Winter. He told the mob they could get orders for food at the Charity Bureau office in the ordinary course. He told them that if any of them were starving it was their own fault, as for some time they had refused to accept food supplies which were available for them. During the evening 670 of the mob went down to the Charity Bureau and did some damage there but no violence was in evidence.

The mob finally received orders for food. The cost per person per dole order ...

February 18 1932 44 In the dispatch sent out Saturday to the outports, further reference was made to Thursday=s incident as follows: While carpenters were there busy repairing the damage done by McGrath, Furlong, Kelly, gangsters of yesterday, this morning, Prime Minister Squires reiterated his intention to face any mob and to take his chances being torn to bits, using the gangsters= own words of threat, before he would swerve from his determination to carry out arrangements with the Banks to curtail expenditure and balance the budget.

No further attempts were made on the Prime Minister=s life between Thursday afternoon and noon to-day. If the regular Compiler of Public Dispatches was responsible for this, how did he know in detail what had happened? Was he there himself? Was Mr. St. John there; if not, how did he know what had happened? Why did he put the most offensive construction on what had happened? I take the same stand as Mr. Lewis did in his address as t