55 Vict.
Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality
481
ROYAL   COMMISSION.
IN  THE   MATTER   OF   AN   INQUIRY  INTO   THE   CONDUCT   OF   THE
AFFAIRS   OF   THE   MUNICIPAL  COUNCIL  OF   VICTORIA.
25th February, 1892.
Sir :
We beg to enclose for the information of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor our report
in the above matter.
The shorthand writer's notes of the evidence taken before us are, as we understand, already
in your possession.
Some tabulated statements furnished to us by the Municipal Council have already been
handed to the Attorney-General.
We have the honour to be,
Sir,
Yours obediently,
MATT. B. BEGBIE,
Hon. Jno. Robson, M.P.P.,
Provincial Secretary.
M. W. TYRWH1TT DRAKE, j
Co
mmissioners.
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 483
ROYAL   COMMISSION
To enquire into the Affairs of Victoria Corporation.
REPORT  OF  THE  COMMISSIONERS.
By virtue of the Commission to us directed, dated 17th October, 1891, we have caused
an enquiry to be made into the conduct and management of the municipal affairs of the
Corporation of Victoria. A preliminary list of 13 charges, or complaints, afterwards supplemented by further complaints, were fully enquired into by us, and all witnesses who could
throw any light on the subject were examined and cross-examined by counsel for the
petitioners and for the municipal authorities.
The charges and the formal answers will be found in the Appendix, Part 1, and in Part 2
the evidence which was adduced before us.
The Municipal Council admitted most of the complaints made, but only differed as to
details.
Excessive Expendituee.
The first charge, of excessive expenditure beyond the ordinary current revenue, in fact
covers the greater portion of the complaints made. This charge was not only admitted, but, as
we think, established beyond the degree charged.
Section 98 of the " Municipal Act" provides that no municipal council shall have power to
incur any liability beyond the revenue for the current year, and the revenue for the use of the
council shall commence on the first day of the year until the end of the year.
This limitation is, of course, subject to the power to raise by way of loan such sums as may
be deemed necessary for extraordinary purposes in any year. But the ordinary revenue is not
otherwise to be exceeded.
Yet we find that not only has the annual revenue been habitually—it can hardly be said
systematically—exceeded (for no sort of system appears to have been followed), but we find
also that loans raised for special purposes have, in one instance, been misapplied, and often
carried to wrong accounts, and capital funds used as if they were merely income. This confusion has arisen not merely from extravagance and inaccuracy of apprehension, but to a great
extent from the time and mode in which the regular income is raised and received by the
Corporation.
The city revenue is derived chiefly from water rates, real estate tax, licenses and fees.
The real estate tax, the main source of supply, is payable at the end of the year, and
consequently there can be no knowledge, but merely an approximate estimate, of the amount
which the Corporation can expend. But as the expending commences at once, the Corporation
is driven into incurring debt, even from the first days when it comes into office. The
necessary funds are naturally and easily obtained by an over-draft at their bankers, to be
made good . when the rates come in in November. The result of this facile accommodation
shows that the Council for some years past have, at the end of their term of office, left a large
and annually increasing balance due to the bank for the in-coming Council to meet. This
deficit for the year 1891, amounts, according to the auditor's estimate, to $113,000. This is
an indebtedness incurred beyond the year's income, and is, in fact, money borrowed without
the sanction of any by-law or any of the safeguards provided in the "Municipal Act." It would
seem, therefore, to have been illegally incurred, and not recoverable against the Corporation,
 484 Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
No Council has ever had the power to bind the corporate property for the repayment of loans
of this character. Successive Councils appear to have persistently ignored the provisions of the
statute in this respect. But owing to the laxity which has hitherto prevailed in observing the
statutory safeguards, the Commissioners think it would be inexpedient, perhaps harsh, that
the bank should be made the losers of this large sum. The over-draft seems to have been
incurred and the money to have been expended with the full knowledge and acquiescence of
the ratepayers, who have had whatever benefit has been derived from a large part, at all events,
of that expenditure.
When the expenditure of the city for the last few years is examined, it is apparent that
the system of raising money by by-laws for special purposes is gradually exhausting the
revenue by the charges for interest and sinking fund.
In the year 1889 these charges amounted to |31,594
,,    1890 „ „ „     50,284
„     1891 „ „ „     61,340
But this does not disclose the total amount which the city may be called upon to pay.
There are sundry by-laws showing a contingent liability which may any day be converted into
an actual liability.    This subject is referred to later on.
Not only has the annual revenue raised and spent by the Corporation increased with this
alarming rapidity; not only have its future tax-bearing capacities been thus pledged and
anticipated at a constantly increasing ratio, but it is of still deeper interest to note the rate at
which the capital debt has been accumulating.
According to a return furnished to us by the Corporation, the earliest loans amounted to
1150,000—in 1874 and 1875 for water works purposes. These were followed in 1877 and
1878 by $40,000 more for the same purposes; in all, $190,000 raised for this one purpose, which
was admittedly a perfectly legitimate object of a loan. Then followed a period of seven years
during which the Corporation expenses were defrayed by the ordinary annual revenue, and no
loan was made. In 1885 and 1886 $146,000 more was raised, partly for electric light plant
and water works, but, as to $50,000, nominally for " street work ;" a somewhat indefinite
phrase, which does not, however, appear to include anything justifying a loan. After 1886
there was a short pause. But in 1888 there commenced a much more liberal era. Between
August, 1888, and last year, in a little more than three years, no less an aggregate
than $797,500 has been raised by way of loan. And to this there must be added the
very considerable bonus to the Saanich Railway, guaranteeing $20,000 per annum for
twenty-five years, the present worth of which probably exceeds $300,000. It is true
this is only a contingent liability, but the company must be a bond fide company, or no
such guarantee would ever have been given ; and being a bond fide company, the contingency
on which the bonus is payable will certainly arise. Nor is this by any means all the capital
which has been used up in the last three years. Various bonuses include an exemption of the
favoured recipients from all taxation of their stock and real estate, and unlimited grants of
water, free of all price or stint, for manufacturing purposes, &c, the money value of which can
hardly be ascertained. But it is evident that every $1,000 per annum of taxation which the
city thus abandons, is exactly equivalent to raising a capital sum of $20,000 at 5 per cent, and
bestowing it on the privileged individuals. Under such circumstances it seems probable that
the resources qua capital of the Corporation have been diminished or burdened in the last
three and a half years to the extent of at least $1,200,000 (for the reasons above given, it is
impossible to calculate, within a few scores of thousands of dollars, the amount for which the
corporation is or may become liable). This is at least six times as much as in any previous
quadrennial period This enormous increase of capital obligation has been concurrent with an
equally liberal augmentation of annual taxation, whicli again has been overstepped in a
constantly increasing ratio by the ordinary annual expenditure. The ordinary revenue from
taxation of real estate, water rents, fines and fees, and other annual sources, amounted in 1877
to $50,000 or $60,000. In 1888 it amounted to about $133,000 ; in 1889, to about $186,000 ;
in 1890, to about $202,000; and 1891, to about $315,000, while the interest on overdrafts
during the last four years, showing how far even this increasingly augmented income has been
exceeded without the authority of any by-law, has in 1888 amounted to $1,538.67; in 1889,
to $1,780.85 ; in 1890, to $2,970.08, and in 1891 to $8,737.12. And other expenditures
seem to have been advancing in a similar ratio, whicli is neither arithmetical nor geometrical,
but something more progressive than either.
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 485
The expenditure of the city on other heads has been increased from $228,736 in 1888 to
$954,069 in 1891. This enormous increase has by no means been expended on reproductive
works. For instance, the expenditure on streets, a very important portion of the Council's
duty, has only been increased comparatively in a slight degree. In 1888 the amount was
$44,772 ; in 1891, $75,816, of which sum about $13,000, in round numbers, was derived from
the sale of the gravel pits, making the actual amount expended out of revenue $55,816 in 1891,
or an increase of $18,000 only; while on non-reproductive matters, including objects of mere
ornament and luxury—Alderman Lake, two or three wolves and deer and their keepers, the
entertainment of visitors, entertainments in which the members of the Council found it
necessary to take a part—the expenditure amounted to far more than the additional
expenditure on streets.
Misappropriation of Loans.
It is acknowledged that the loans raised from time to time have been paid into general
revenue, instead of being placed to separate accounts, and these amounts have thus become
liable to the general banker's lien in respect of advances made to the Corporation on their
general account.
It is admitted that in 1889 the overdraft due to the bank was repaid by appropriating to
that purpose the balance in hand of certain loans raised for the special purposes of the water
works and fire department, amounting in the aggregate to $62,000 ; the consequence was that
the incoming Council had little or no money in hand, and had to borrow from the bank the
funds necessary to carry out the works for which these loans were ostensibly raised.
Premiums on Loans.
In 1889, five loans were raised, amounting to $215,000, on which premiums amounting to
$4,567 were received. These premiums were expended as part of the current revenue, and not
treated as being, what in fact they were, moneys forming part of the capital fund raised on the
credit of the by-law, and bound to be wholly appropriated, therefore, to the objects for which the
money was raised ; and in at least one instance, that of the moneys produced by the sale of the
gravel pits, which were the property of the Corporation, nearly two-thirds of the whole has
been swept into the year's receipts and expenditure, and so appears in the accounts now published, added on to the produce of real estate tax and water rates and other ordinary revenue.
Temporary Loans.
The Corporation, in the years 1888, 1889, 1890, and 1891, passed by-laws for temporary
loans, without carrying out the formalities required by the money by-law, alleging as an excuse
for this omission that these by-laws contemplated the repayment of the loan within the current
year; but in no one case were these loans repaid within the current year, nor, apparently, was
the least attempt made to repay them, or to convert the temporary into a permanent loan. It
seems to us that these loans have been raised by evasions of the Act.
Since April, 1891, the Council have proceeded to borrow for current expenses moneys to
be repaid within the year; and by-law after by-law has been passed, gradually increasing the
successive amounts, the stipulated amount being continually overstepped, and each successive
by-law being delayed until the amount due to the bank was greatly in excess of the amount
sanctioned by the previous by-law. This shows at least great irregularity and miscalculation
in the manner of conducting the financial operations of the city, and resulted in raising the
amount paid for interest to the bank on overdraft to nearly $9,000.
Sinking Fund.
The sinking fund has not been invested according to the Act, and is lying at the bank
carrying 3 per cent, interest to an amount in excess of $100,000, and, practically, this sum has
been lent to the Corporation at 6 per cent, interest. Thus the Corporation have been paying
3 per cent, for the use of their own funds.
Perhaps, indeed, there never was a case which more distinctly exemplifies the mischiefs
alleged by political economists to be inherent in the whole system of a sinking fund. The
Corporation have never been able to borrow at less than 5 or 6 per cent. They pay that
amount, therefore, for their sinking fund, upon which, when collected and deposited, they never
get more than 3 or 4 per cent,    This operation is now affecting a sum of $138,000,
 486 Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
Sewerage.
The debentures issued by the Corporation for this purpose amounted to $300,000, bearing
4 per cent, interest nominal. It was anticipated, whether well founded or not, that these
debentures could be readily disposed of on favourable terms; but owing to the stringency of the
money market these anticipations were disappointed. The Corporation had in the meantime
entered into a sewerage contract, on which payments became due, which they were called upon
to pay. To meet these, an arrangement was made with Mr. Robert Ward for an advance, and
the debentures were pledged as security. The terms of this arrangement are set out in pages
xxxix and xl of the evidence. The Commissioners, under the circumstances, consider that the
Corporation acted for the best. They have been informed since the enquiry opened that the
debentures have been since sold at 91.    It is possible that if the debentures had been issued at
5 per cent, there would have been little difficulty in disposing of them at par.
With regard to charge 6, sub-section (a), it is admitted that the Sewerage Commissioners
were appointed on the third day of September, 1890, and that their appointment was not
renewed, as required by the Act, section 96, sub-section (96); but we think that their acts
during the time they were acting without authority should, if necessary, be confirmed.
With regard to the contract for pipes : The contract was given to a local company which
had put in the lowest tender; but it is clear that the contractors, at the time they tendered,
had not the necessary plant for carrying out the works, and the larger pipes have been, in fact,
all supplied from San Francisco. We think there is no reason for saying that the pipes supplied were of inferior quality. The engineer of the sewerage works has all the necessary
powers for rejecting inferior pipes, and has apparently exercised that power from time to time.
But it is to be remarked that Mr. Hunter, one of the aldermen, is a large shareholder in and
a director of this local company which obtained the contract, and was a member of the committee on sewerage which allotted the contract. We think that he has thus acted in contravention of section 27 of the Act.
There appears to have been considerable delays in delivering pipes, and the sewerage
contractor may claim compensation from the Corporation for delays. If such is the case, the
Pottery Company may have to make good the damages : but that will depend on the construction of their contract and the pecuniary capacity of the company, on which the Commissioners
express no opinion.
Gravel Pits.
The Corporation sold six acres, called the Gravel Pits, which realized in gross $23,235.29.
The petitioners allege that this was valuable property of the Corporation, and ought not to
have been sold, as future Councils will have to purchase gravel elsewhere. A great deal of
evidence was adduced on this subject, the present members of Council alleging that it was, in
fact, cheaper to contract for gravelling roads than to supply the contractors with gravel. On
the whole of the evidence the Commissioners do not offer any opinion as to the prudence or
imprudence of the sale of this property; but the money realized ought, according to the terms
of the by-law, to have been expended, after realization, on the streets. This has not been
done, or only very partially. The exact expenditure out of the sale moneys cannot be accurately ascertained, though it appears to be $13,151.48. How this was spent we do not know.
The balance of the purchase money, $10,083.52, was paid into the bank as current revenue,
and has, somehow or other, been absorbed. The amount due to that institution has been
reduced pro tanto. In point of fact, the proceeds of the sale ought to have been treated as
capital, and not as forming part of the year's ordinary revenue at all.
The by-law passed 19 th August, 1891, authorizing the sale of these gravel pits, contains a
clause for the appropriation of the proceeds to the improvement of the streets of the city.
This clause probably was a very strong inducement to the ratepayers to pass it; but it has
been, at all events partially, ignored, the Corporation having charged against the amount
realized other moneys expended by them for streets prior to the sale. But it is not clear that
this method of converting capital into income is within the powers of a by-law under the
"Municipal Act."
Illegal Diversion of Loan Moneys.
The evidence shows the balance required for completion of Johnson Street sewer, $7,675,
was not taken from the amount raised under the Sewerage By-law, but was paid out of current
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 487
revenue, and was, in our opinion, correctly so paid. It was pointed out to us that some of the
loan by-laws were for more objects than one. This may operate viciously in two ways : A
voter may be so much in favour of one object, A, that he will vote for the by-law, though he
would, if he could, veto object B ; or he may feel so strongly against object B as to veto the
whole by-law, though he would have approved of A, standing alone. In neither case would
there be a true expression of opinion on the by-law. In some instances the money raised for
several objects has been expended on only one of them. We think that each loan by-law
should be confined to one distinct object.
Reckless Conduct of Municipal Affairs.
This is a general charge of over-expenditure, and appears to be fully borne out by the
evidence.
In February, 1891, the Corporation passed a by-law (No. 132) authorizing an expenditure
of $235,417. What the sum actually expended has been cannot be ascertained, because the
books have not been made up; but the expenditure had already, at one of our early sittings,
exceeded the estimated amount, and the sum due to the bank at the end of the year was by the
Auditor, in his evidence, estimated at not less than $113,000.
The aldermen are divided into committees, and these committees appear to carry on their
duties and authorize expenditures without the least regard to the requirements of the other
committees or to the by-law limiting the total expenditure to the annual income. For instance,
the total amount allotted to be expended on streets for 1891 was $9,000. The amount actually
expended was in excess of $75,000.
The Council seem to consider that as long as they can get credit at the bank they may
expend as ordinary revenue the money thus obtained. They have persistently ignored the Act,
and have expended large sums which the current revenue is entirely unable to meet.
The expenditure on salaries, $75,522, seems a large amount for administering a revenue
(in 1891) of $311,000. From this, however, the police and fire departments, together $35,000,
ought to be excluded; but $40,000 is expended in payments under the head set out in
Schedule A.
The superintendence of streets alone absorbs $8,820, to control an expenditure of what in
the estimate of expenditure amounted to less than $10,000 (page xxxiv., Evidence). These
$8,820 are apparently for permanent salaries, and go on whether there is work to be done or
not.
Among these salaried officers is that of auditor. An auditor ought to be an officer independent of the Council; one who should refuse to sanction any payment not authorized by law.
The present auditor's duties seem to be merely to check the accounts and examine vouchers.
He is not an auditor in the ordinary sense of the word, and his supervision is merely that of a
paid clerk of the Council. In his evidence (p. liii.) he stated that it was the habit of the outgoing Council to make payments after the 31st December ; and in order to be within the
literal wording of the Act, they antedated the cheques so that they appeared as having been
drawn in the month of December, although in fact they were drawn between the 31st December
and the date of the new Council coming into office ; and yet the auditor passed, and perhaps
was bound to pass, these accounts, although they must have shewn on their face, when compared with the cheques, that they were paid before they were due.
We wish it to be fully understood that nothing in these remarks, or in the evidence before
us, impugns in the least either the integrity or the ability of the present so-called auditor.
We only wish to insist that there is not any audit or auditor with proper powers.
Miscellaneous Accounts.
In examining the Accounts for 1890, the following items appear under the head "Miscellaneous " :—
Queen's Birthday Celebration  $775 00
Dominion Publishing Company  150 00
Agricultural  500 00
Entertaining Farmers' Delegates  233 00
Edition (special) of " Times " ,  570 00
Omaha visitors  125 00
 48g Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
And in the year 1891, the following:—
Secret service    $500 00
500 copies of " Colonist"      300 00
Fleet Ball      498 00
Address to Mayor      100 00
Empress of India (presentation of plate)      262 00
Trades and Labour Club      250 00
24th May celebration 1,426 00
" Victoria IUustrated "    2,000 00
" North Western Review"      989 00
The Commissioners fail to discover any legal authority for these expenditures. Not one
of them would have been allowed by an independent auditor, and many of them should be
borne by the councillors who authorized them, and not by the ratepayers.
It also appeared in evidence that McMicking, the Council's electrician, received a commission of 10 per cent, on the purchase of the electric plant, and has not accounted to the
Corporation for it, although he was at the time the paid servant of the Corporation, employed
by them for the purpose of arranging the purchase. It does not appear that his right to such
commission was or could be sanctioned beforehand. It evidently made it for his interest that
the price should be as large as possible.
Any individual ratepayer could probably have obtained redress for the sums misapplied
as mentioned in this and the preceding paragraphs.
Expenditure on Public Market.
On this building and land the sum of $100,000 has been expended, but that amount has
been sanctioned by the rateyayers. Whether the money thus raised has been usefully expended
we do not express any opinion.
It is to be remarked that Mr. Coughlan, an alderman and one of the market committee,
holds the controlling interest in a company called the Pacific Asphalt Co., and is its managing
director. As alderman, he had a voice in deciding that the floor should be of asphalt. As
committeeman, he had a voice in awarding the contract, and approving the execution. This
company had the contract for laying down an asphalt floor. It was further shewn that all
the woodwork for the building, amounting to over $12,000, was executed in the shop of another
alderman, Mr. A. J. Smith. In both cases the statute and their oaths of office have been ignored
by these gentlemen. In neither case, however, was it attempted to be shewn that the Corporation suffered loss, or that the work was imperfect.
Sewerage and Water Works.
There remains two most important matters, both of which were largely discussed before
us, but upon which we feel quite incompetent to give any opinion. However, we think it
proper to say this much :—
As to the Sewerage system, the Corporation appear to have sought the advice and
assistance of the most competent men within their reach ; nor has the system actually adopted
been impeached at all by anybody, we think, as faulty in theory, if duly carried out. Defects
have been alleged, and as hotly denied, in the execution. The methods of working, trenching,
<fec, have been attacked as extravagant, and defended as economical. If there be anything
faulty under either of these heads, the contractor will have to make it good before he receives
payment. The quality of the pipes laid has, we think, not been impeached even by hostile
witnesses ; though this is due to the vigilance of the Engineer, and not to the sagacity of the
Council, in ensuring their supply. Some delay has been caused by the inadequate supply, but
this is all that can be alleged.
The Johnson Street Sewer seems $40,000 thrown away.
Water Works.
By the Victoria Water Works Act, the revenue, after payment of the current expenses,
is appropriated to the general purposes of the City.
The Water Commissioner ought to be an Engineer experienced in this class of work, and
he should have the sole control and sole responsibility of the works, the Council supplying the
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 489
needful funds.    The late Engineer resigned because the control of the hydrants was removed
from him, whilst he was expected to continue responsible for the efficiency of the system.
As to the Water Works, the Corporation seem to have acted on the advice, at least in
the first instance, of a regular scientific Engineer, and to have adhered to his plans with a fatal
tenacity. We have been favoured, by the courtesy of the Mayor, the Honourable Robert
Beaven, M.P P., with a copy of Mr. Bulkley's original report. A large part of the preamble
is occupied by demonstrating the superiority of soft water over hard, for domestic purposes ;
and Elk Lake water, both before and after entering Beaver Lake, is very soft. Chiefly with
the view of securing as large a reservoir as possible, and an extended basin of supply, Mr.
Bulkley recommended that the water should be taken into the pipes at the lower end of Beaver
Lake, where he proposed to place filter beds, to eliminate any impurities, Elk Lake being
pure and limpid, and Beaver Lake being little better than a morass of peaty formation. But
it had been overlooked that his early praises of soft water were chiefly due to its extreme
power as a solvent. By the time the limpid water of Elk Lake has passed over the
three-quarters of a mile of peaty bed it is still quite clear, but it has absorbed extract
of peat so that it is of the colour of tea. And it would be as futile to attempt by
filtering to restore the contents of the teapot to its former condition, as to try to get
pure water by filtering Beaver Lake. We think that it is time that this should at length
be recognized, and that the complaints of the consumer of the strong flavour of morass, which
not even boiling will completely cure, should be attended to. This can only be done we think
by taking the water direct from Elk Lake. This will involve, no doubt, a further considerable
outlay. What is suggested to us is to abandon Beaver Lake altogether ; to have a dam to rise
six or eight feet above the surface of Elk Lake, for which it is said there is a favourable place ;
and a mile of new pipe laying. It is suggested that this dam will provide an additional stratum
of water, beyond the present natural supply, of about 400 acres, six feet deep, or about 640
millions of gallons; a supply of 60 gallons per day for 50,000 people for 200 days without rain.
It is proposed to take this supply midway between the bottom and the surface of the lake ;
self-filtered water, since organic impurities float towards the surface, and inorganic impurities
sink to the floor. It is proposed to have at the lake a tower 50 feet high, and by steam power
to pump it to the summit, so as to serve the highest points of the city by gravitation ; this in
substitution for the present steam pumping apparatus in Victoria, which has to drive the water
150 feet high. It is said that this scheme can be carried out for $100,000. Upon this scheme
we offer no opinion, except that much money has been spent for objects of less immediate or
practical utility.
Cemetery.
From the evidence, it appears that some painful mistakes have been made, but these are
not likely to occur again, as they appear to have arisen more from misconception of duty than
wilful carelessness or neglect. As to the charge that the Corporation are likely to lose the
land purchased, owing to an incumbrance affecting the property, we do not think there is any
cause for alarm.
Bonuses.
We do not think it within our province to offer any opinion as to the general policy of
granting bonuses to individuals or companies in order to induce them to establish industries or
means of communication in the city. Assuming this to be desired, there yet remains much to
be considered as to the form and manner in which they are granted.
It seems the admitted policy of the Legislature that the power of thus pledging the
revenues and corporate property of the city should not be vested in the Council alone, but that
the whole body of taxpayers should have an opportunity of judging of the expediency of the
resolutions to which the Council have arrived. But it seems obvious that, in order to form a
judgment, the- by-law submitted to the popular vote should state, or enable the voters to
calculate, what it is they are voting about. And inasmuch as a large portion of each bonus
hitherto granted—perhaps, in most cases, the larger portion—is quite unknown and incapable
of being estimated, it is clear that the voters must be very much in the dark. We allude to
those provisions in most of the bonus by-laws which undertake to provide gratis all the water
which the grantee may think fit to take, and which exempt all his stock and improvements
from taxation, along, perhaps, with a cash grant of $10,000 or $20,000. Many manufactories
pould, without difficulty, take all the water coming through the pipes,    As a matter of fact,
 490 Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
Mr. Yale and Dr. Peers did establish mills on the stream which included all the water from
Elk and Beaver Lakes, and found it insufficient during a large portion of the year, so that
those mills were abandoned. This was long before the city water works were thought of. But
even since the introduction of water into the city, we have been informed that it has, on more
than one occasion, been used as a source of mechanical power. Now, the supply at present, for
domestic and residential purposes, is no doubt ample, and we believe it might easily and
cheaply be doubled; but so may the population of Victoria, in a very few years, be much more
than doubled. And the unlimited right to use any material or product, without measure and
without price, naturally leads to waste.
But suppose that no inconvenience or restriction results to private inhabitants, (who,
however, have surely the first and preferential right to be accommodated), other considerations
occur to us. The water rate occasionally charged, already, to private individuals is not less than
$10 or $15 per month. It may easily be conceived that a woollen or paper manufactory or a railway station would use ten times that amount: suppose, $1,000 per annum. But that annual sum
would, at five per cent per annum, enable the Corporation to support a loan of $20,000. The
grant of free water, therefore, apart from all other consideration, involves an addition to the
bonus of that amount. Is this fully understood by tho voters when their opinion is asked as
to the expediency of the by-law ? In like manner the stock and improvements of a manufactory or mercantile concern, of the dimensions which the bonus system seeks to attract,
would not be less than $100,000. The taxation upon that would, at the ruling rates, amount
to another $1,000 per annum, the remission of which, in fact amounts to the gift of another
$20,000 bonus in cash. It may by questioned whether the voters have always been aware of
this.
All bonuses ought to be in cash and nothing else. Upon these alone can an intelligent
vote be given. If the petitioner for a bonus knows the value of what he demands, he ought
not to refuse to state it; and if he urge, as he probably may urge with truth, that he cannot
calculate beforehand what the value of the water may be, or what the value of his stock and
manufactory, he surely cannot expect that the voters can know. And it seems useless to
expose the absurdity of two parties agreeing to something when neither of them know the
meaning or effect of the subject matter of the agreement.
We have already remarked upon the Saanich by-law, which has always been treated as a
merely contingent annual obligation. But if the company be a bond fide company, the contingency will surely come to pass; and the obligation to pay a sum of $20,000 for twenty-five
years is equivalent, at five per cent., to rather more than $280,000 cash, and, at four per cent.,
to rather more than $300,000 cash. This, in addition to free water without limit, and
exemption from taxation of all their stock and buildings.
The manner in which by-laws are passed appears to us also to require revision. When
this Saanich Railroad Company Bonus By-law was submitted to the popular vote there were
upwards of 1,800 voters on the list; but there were not 500 in all who voted upon the by-law,
which was carried by a majority of 3. In other words, this enormous liability was fixed upon
the whole body of taxpayers by three voters only.
It is quite possible that even this majority was entirely composed of the seven promoters
and proposed donees of the bonus.
The Legislature evidently contemplates every description of loan, whether for a bonus or
any other object, as something apart from the ordinary business powers of the Council, which
are confined to raising and spending the year's income. When any special or exceptional
operation is proposed in an ordinary joint stock company (and a municipality is in effect
merely a joint stock company, of which the Council are the directors), the general rule is that it
must be carried by a certain proportionate majority of those entitled to vote. We suggest
that instead of its being possible for three men to place a liability in their own favour of
upwards of $300,000 on the city, no loan should be legalized except by the assent of a clear
majority of the voters on the list, voting in proportion of at least three to two at the ballot
boxes.
Collection of Taxes.
The Commissioners have already pointed out that the present system of collecting the
taxes at the end of the year renders it difficult for the Council to ascertain what money they
are entitled to expend. If the Council on entering on their duties could have the taxes in
hand they would be able to control their expenditure, and save the heavy payment  of interest
 55 Vict Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 491
on overdraft, which has already been referred to. And the consciousness of a practically
unlimited power of overdraft tends to improvident expenditure, just as the consciousness of a
limited supply of ready money tends to economy of administration. The evil might be curbed
if the Council were authorized at the beginning of each year to overdraw for the average
amount of property tax during the previous three years, and not more. The inconvenience is,
or should be, limited to the revenue derived from the property tax (were it not from the large
arrears demanding instant attention habitually left by each expiring Council to its successor).
The water rates, fines, dues, &c, come in monthly. We think a limited power of overdraft is
more convenient and economical than changing the time of payment of taxes from the end of
the year (at present in November) to January or February. But under the present system it
is unavoidable that either a debt should be incurred or that the necessary work of the
Council should be prevented from advancing. We have to notice another point, which is of
importance.
Contracts by Outgoing Councils.
It appears that it is the custom of the outgoing Council to let contracts at the end of the
year without any by-law as required by the Act, leaving their successors to pay or reject the
obligation. The successors have hitherto paid and not rejected these contracts. We think
that in this respect both the outgoing and incoming Council have acted contrary to the Act.
By-laws Reducing Rates on Loans.
Our attention was also drawn to a series of by-laws, 91 to 110, inclusive, reducing the
special rates which were to be levied under the original by-laws, and on which rates the
debentures were issued and sold, to the amounts mentioned in the new by-laws (which, however,
require the sanction of the Lieutenant-Governor, which they have not yet received). These
by-laws were passed under section 101 of the Act of 1891. This section is taken from section
350, of the Revised Statutes of Ontario, chap. 174. But on reference to that Act the Council
there can only reduce the rate for the single year next following, and then only in case there
are sufficient funds in hand to pay the interest and instalment of sinking fund, and certain
important recitals are necessary, showing the original special rate, the balance in hand of such
rate, and the surplus income derived in such year from any temporary investment of sinking
fund None of these safeguards are contained in the British Columbia Municipality Act, and
the reduction is to be for all future years. And if the rate be once reduced there is no power
to restore it, even if from circumstances the reduced rate be subsequently found insufficient.
This mode of dealing with municipal securities is calculated to impair the credit of the
Municipality, and, in fact, authorizes the Council to diminish the security of their creditors,
and to that extent to repudiate their solemn obligation, the original rates being specially mentioned and charged in each debenture as part of the creditor's security.
Extension of City Boundaries.
It is very probable that the heavy rate of taxation complained of in the memorial, and
the continued increase of that rate, is due to the large and continual extension of the city
boundaries. When new districts are annexed, the Corporation acquires, it is true, the right to
levy rates on the additional lands, but it becomes liable to correlative obligations. The new
enrolled citizens all expect prospectively to enjoy the advantages- already possessed by the old
citizens, including the use of the works and machinery and experience which the earlier body
have acquired at great expense to themselves. And they all immediately have votes in the
election of delegates to assert and enforce those expectations. The expense on any street,
of police, watering, laying sidewalks, sewerage, lighting, and perhaps some other matters, varies
very nearly in proportion to the length of street accommodated. But an owner on Government
street pays rates on an estimated value of $1,000 or $2,000 per front foot. An owner in one
of the newly annexed districts is rated at $10 or $15 per front foot. He contributes for his
lot perhaps less than one-hundredth part as much as is charged to the Government street lot;
but he expects, or at least asserts a claim to, a larger outlay than is devoted to Government
street. If the City of Victoria had remained within its original limits as when first
incorporated, there is no doubt but that to-day a much lower rate than 1 per cent, would amply
meet all her ordinary requirements. But as to the newly annexed districts the present rate of
1 per cent., or even a rate of  10 per cent, per annum on them alone, would not suffice to
 492 Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
furnish them with conveniences, apparatus, &c, equivalent to those which the original
Corporation has already procured for itself. So long, therefore, as the policy is to provide by
means of the general revenue for the street-laying and sidewalks, water-pipes and lighting,
connection, &c, in the outlying districts, it is necessary to tax the proprietors of the original
townsite thus heavily, so as to provide beyond their own requirements a surplus which can be
applied for the improvement of the newly annexed lots. We submit that as the taxpayers of
the older portions of the city have provided these things for themselves wholly out of their own
resources, so the making of new streets, the laying of proper water-pipes, lighting connections,
&c, if desired by the owners in the annexed districts, should be wholly borne by them, either
by special rate, or in such other manner as may be found expedient, and not out of the general
revenue of the city, nor by a general loan, the weight of which would fall mainly on the owners
of the original townsite, nor perhaps (except as to sidewalks) until the newly annexed citizens
express such desire. They would still obtain great advantages in being admitted as co-owners
in such matters as the water works, police and fire departments, &c, as organized. It would
be difficult or impossible for them to obtain water elsewhere; and separate fire and police
establishments would certainly be more expensive, and probably less efficient, than those already
existing. Ten or fifteen years ago, all sidewalks were paid for, not out of general revenue, but
as here suggested, by the owners of the lots accommodated.
The, municipal accounts for the year 1891 have been published in the newspapers, but not
brought officially to our attention, nor has any evidence been given concerning them, or any
part of their contents. We have thought it, however, within our duty to peruse them, but
without any skilled assistance. There are two or three matters which appear of interest.
1st. It does not appear who made the estimate of the municipal assets, or whether that estimate
had been checked in any way. The signature of the so-called Auditor, of course, merely means
that the items in the accounts correspond with documents or estimates laid before him; not that
he has formed any opinion of his own as to value. Yet the water works are set down as an
asset worth exactly $1,000,000. In December, 1889, they had been valued at $484,116. In
another compartment of the accounts for 1891 the whole construction account is set down at
$513,974. It might be interesting to ascertain the motive of this sudden rise of $516,000
above 1889, representing nearly the entire estimated surplus of the municipal assets over
liabilities ($530,183). There does not appear any authority, even by by-law, to expend $500
on " Secret Service " ; or $300 for 500 copies of a 5-cent paper ; or for several other items
which were nevertheless set out, it must be said, without any attempt at concealment. It is
not clear how the Corporation have received $300,000 from the Sewerage Loan, and also
$239,181 from the British Columbia Corporation Company, Limited. If there be any error
here, or in the sudden and enormous rise in the value of the water works, it may be difficult to
retain the estimate of the value of the city assets above the city liabilities. But these questions,
which probably are capable of immediate explanation, are not necessary to be dealt with in a
report under our present Commission.
MATT. B. BEGBIE, \r
M. W. TRYWHITT DRAKE. } -<   ^ <
 55 Vict.                 Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality.
493
SCHEDULE  A.
LIST  OF   SALARIES.
$2,000 00
Aldermen, nine at $200	
1,800 00
Police.
Superintendent	
Two Sergeants, at $1,080	
1,800 00
1,200 00
2,160 00
6,300 00
5,040 00
3,120 00
840 00
Seven Constables, at $900	
Six Constables, at $840	
Four Constables, at $780	
Magistrate	
90 460 00
2,400 00
Fire.
Chief Engineer   	
1,320 00
360 00
1,920 00
3,360 00
840 00
720 00
3,672 00
Two Engineers, at $960	
Four Drivers, at $840	
One Tillerman   	
Three Foremen, at $240	
Seventeen call men, at $216	
Streets.
Clerk, J. Matthews	
Street Commissioner, W. A. Lynn	
Two Foremen. Matthews and Dewsnap	
Engineer of Jumbo, Martin	
Teamster, Cameron   	
12192 00
1,800 00
1,080 00
1,500 00
1,800 00
960 00
780 00
900 00
Carpenter, Cox	
Park Keeper, Deakin	
8,820 00
900 00
1,800 00
1,350 00
1,080 00
360 00
Electric Light.
Electrician, R. B. McMicking	
Engineer, Shepherd	
Fireman, Roberts	
Board of Health.
Health Officer, Dr. Milne	
Sanitary Officer, B. Bailey	
Carried forward.	
4,590 00
1,800 00
720 00
1,080 00
154,962 00
 494
Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality.
1892
Brought forward $54,962 00
Water Works.
Water Commissioner  1,800 00
Foreman, Preece    1,200 00
Caretaker at Dam, Ede  720 00
Engineer, Pump, Devoe   , 360 00
 —      4,080 00
Sundry.
Treasurer, C. Kent ,  2,000 00
City Clerk, Dowler  1,800 00
Water Collector, Partridge  1,500 00
Auditor, J. L. Raymur  1,000 00
Assessor, Northcott  1,800 00
Assistant Assessor, Scowcroft  1,200 00
Assistant Clerk, E. C. Smith    1,080 00
Assistant Water Collector, A. Borde  900 00
Assistant Clerk (City Clerk), Humphreys  300 00
Type Writer, Wilby  600 00
Librarian, Jas. McGregor  900 00
Assistant Librarian, Miss Noble  420 00
Pound-keeper, A. Shaw  840 00
Cemetery-keeper, J. Thomas  900 00
Janitor, Jno. Creed  720 00
Road Tax Collector, Dearberg  600 00
 16,560 00
April 1st,
May 20th,
May 15th,
October   1st,
August 25th,
August 1st,
August 1st,
Water Works Loans.
1874 $100,000 @ 7 per cent.,
1875  50,000
1877  20,000
1886  75,000
1888  20,000
1889 ,  70,000
1889  60,000
$75,602 00
7 per cent.,
25 years.
7
20     „
8
25     „
5        ,,
30    „
5
40     „
5
30     „
5
30     „
Total $395,000
In 1877, debentures of $100,000 issue of  1874,  amounting to $7,500,  were redeemed,
leaving a total amount current of $387,500.
Water Rents received to 30th November, 1891.
Year   1876 $ 1,300 00
1887  13,137 33
1878  17,543 50
1879  19,366 40
1880  19,7^4 22
1881  19,428 91
1882  22,396 35
1883  25,044 10
1884  29,514 00
1885-86 (2 years)  69,997 95
1887..........  38,663 43
1888  41,785 18
1889  42,054 54
1890  43,603 76
1891 (to 30th November)  46,457 30
$450,036 97
 55 Vict.
Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality.
495
January	
February 21
March 25
April 30
May    26
June   28
July 34
August 17
September 10
October 11
November 17
December 14
Men on Streets—1890.
Average number of men.                      Average rate of wages.
, 14 men $2.25 per day.
2.50
2.50
2.37J
2.37|
2.35
2.30
2.35
2.00
2.121
2.121
2.10
Men on Streets—1891.
Average number of men.
Average rate of wages.
January 16 men $2.15 per day.
February 26
March 29
April 38
May    37
June   44
July 25
August 23
September 26
October 26
November 24
2.30
2.25
2.35
2.30
2.30
2.45
2.40
2,15
2.15
2.30
Appointments by By-Law, 1890-91.
Assessor, Building Inspector, and Superintendent Public Works—By-Law 78; February
19th, 1890.
Water Works Foreman—By-Law 79; February 26th, 1890.
Street Commissioner—By-Law 136; June 5th, 1891.
Police Magistrate—By-Law 141 ; August 12th, 1891.
Salaries of following were increased by Estimates By-Law, 1891 (No. 132), February 14th,
1891:—
Chief Engineer, drivers, engineers, call-men—Fire Department.
Superintendent, No. 1 Sergeant—Police Force.
Assistant surveyor, sanitary officer, librarian, assistant librarian, pound-keeper.
Appointments other than by By-Law, 1891.
Assistant Assessor—Appointment made and salary fixed by the Assessment Committee.
Clerk and type-writer in City Clerk's office—Appointment made and salaries fixed by Hall
Committee.
Park-keeper's salary raised by Park Committee.
Street Commissioner appointed acting Water Commissioner at increased salary of $25 per
month, by resolution of Council,
 496
Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality.
1891
Statement of Bonus By-Laws.
No. 50.—-Street Rai
way Guarantee.
Guarantee of interest on $40,000 @ 5 percent, for 20years.     "
^"ot yet claimed, and in
all probability never will be.
Votes cast-
—ayes, 315; noes, 25.    Majority, 290.
No. 67.—Victoria, S
>aanich and New Westminster Railway Interest Bo
nus.
Bonus of interest on $500,000 @ 4 per  cent,  for  25
years.
Not
yet claimed, and
another by
-law to be introduced repealing it and provid
ing for another bonus.
Votes cast
— ayes, 275; noes, 272.    Majority, 3.
No. 72.—Rice Mill Bonus.
To give Victoria Rice Mills immunity from taxation and free water for 15 years.
Votes cast-
—ayes, 384; noes, 123.    Majority, 261.
No. 73.—Flour Mill Bonus.
To bonus flour mill to the amount of $10,000, and give
immun
itv from taxation and
free water for 15 years.    Bonus of $10,000 paid over to Mount Royal Milling Co.
Votes cast
—ayes, 359; noes, 120.    Majority, 239.
No. 74—Paper Mill Bonus.
To bonus p
aper mill to extent of $15,000, and give immunity
from
taxation   for   10
years.     By
-law lapsed, paper mill not being in operatior
on July 1st
, 1890.
Votes cast
—ayes, 399 ; noes, 123.    Majority, 276.
No. 75.—Sugar Refinery Bonus.
To bonus sugar refinery to amount of $40,000, and give
immunity fi
om taxation and
free water for 15 years.    Promoters  have  until   1st  January
1893
, to take up this
bonus.
Votes cast
-ayes, 396 ; noes. 115.    Majority, 281.
No. 136.—Agricultural Association Bonus.
To give Association  $25,000 to assist  in erecting ex
ribition buildings.    Owing to
defects in
node of taking votes on this by-law, a fresh one is now before  the  people
to take its
place.
Votes cast
—ayes, 215; noes, 151.    Majority, 64.
Statement of Loans.
Amount.
Rate.  Years.
Special Rate.
April 1st, 1874,
Waterworks,                                    $100,000
7%
25
115/1,000 of 1%.
May 20th, 1875,
50,000
7%
20
63/1,000 of 1%
May 15th, 1877,
20,000
8%
25
1/10      of 1%
June 2nd, 1878,
To pay off outstanding liabilities,       20,000
7%
20
1/10      of 1%
Sept. 30th, 1885,
Electric Light Plant,                              16,000
6%
20
1/32      of 1%
11                 ))
Drainage Plans,                                        5,000
6%
20
1/100    ofT%
Oct. 1st, 1886,
Water Works,                                        75,000
5%
30
1/10      of 1%
3.                  53
Street Work,                                           50,000
5%
50
1/18      of 1%
Aug. 25th, 1888,
Water Works,                                      20,000
5%
40
1/40      of 1%
Johnson Street Sewer,                          30,000
5%
40
1/29      of 1%
June"28th,"l889,
Street Work,                                        45,000
5%
30
1/18      of 1%
Aug. 1st, 1889,
Water Works,                                      70,000
5%
30
8/100    of 1%
11                 ? 3
60,000
5%
30
7/100    of 1%
11                 J J
Beacon Hill Park,                                25,000
5%
30
3/100    of 1%
">)                 3)
Fire Department,                                   15,000
5%
30
1/55      of 1%
March 18th, 1890,
City Hall Building,                             35,000
5%
30
1/36      of 1%
Ji                 jl
Cemetery,                                                 12,500
5%
30
10/1,000 of 1%
July 1st, 1891,
Flour Mill Bonus,                                10,000
5%
20
9/1,000 of 1%
Nov. 30th, 1890,
Sewerage,                                            300,000
4%
50
164/1,000 of 1%
Dec. 24th, 1890,
Market Site,                                         45,000
4%
50
24/1,000 of 1%
3)                 11
Market Building,                                 55,000
4%
50
27/1,000 of 1%
33                 3)
Crematory,                                               10,000
5%
30
8/1,000 of 1%
Dec. 9th, 1891,
Agricultural Association,                   25,000
5%
20
21/1,000 of 1%
Sugar Refinery Bonus,                        40,000
5%
20
37/1,000 of 1%.
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 497
COMMISSION.
[Seal.] HUGH NELSON.
Theodore Davie,
Attorney-General.
Victoria, by the Grace of God. of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and
qf the Colonies and Dependencies thereof, Queen, Defender of the Faith, dec, &c, dec.
To the Honourable Sir Matthew Baillie Begbie, Knight, Chief Justice,
and
The Honourable Montague William Tyrwhitt Drake, one of the Justices of the Supreme
Court of British Columbia.
WHEREAS by the "Municipal Act, 1891," it is, among other things, provided that it
shall be lawful for the Lieutenant-Governor in Council at any time to cause an enquiry
to be made into or concerning the good government of any Municipality, or into the conduct
of any part of the public business thereof, or the administration of justice therein, and that
for the purposes of such enquiry the provisions of the "Public Enquiries Act" shall apply;
And Whereas communications have been received by His Honour the Lieutenant"
Governor in Council, signed by several of the ratepayers of the City of Victoria, stating that
they have reason to believe that great extravagance exists in connection with the transactions
of the Municipal Council of the City of Victoria; that the annual expenditure of the said city
is not kept within the annual revenue; that portions of the proceeds of loans raised under the
authority of by-laws for specific objects have been used by the Corporation to pay debts
incurred before the by-laws were approved by the voters of the city; that such loans have not
in every instance been expended as the by-laws authorizing them required; that moneys have
been voted and spent by the Municipal Council for other purposes than those sanctioned by
the Municipal Acts; that in consequence of the Corporation having diverted moneys received
from the sale of cemetery lots to other than cemetery purposes, the sum of $10,000 paid for
cemetery extension is liable to forfeiture, as the Corporation cannot complete the purchase of
the cemetery lands required to make good what has been sold; that the whole case of the
Johnson Street Sewer requires investigation, as another sewer is about being built alongside
of it; that grave irregularities were connected with the letting of the contract for the sewering
of the City of Victoria, and that enquiries should be made as to whether the Mayor or any of
the City Aldermen were in any way interested in any of the tenders for the sewer or any
other contracts, or in matters involving payments by the Corporation; that the taxation of
the city amounts to over $15 per head of the population within its boundary, and is yearly
increasing, besides that from Provincial and Federal, thus discouraging settlement; and that
under the head of "wages" and donations in the accounts of the year 1890, the large sum of
$22,727 appears, exclusive of salaries and water works ;
 498 Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
And Whereas by an Order in Council of His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, it is
directed that an enquiry be made into the matters hereinbefore referred to and into any other
matter touching the government of the City of Victoria, which the persons commissioned to
hold the enquiry may see fit to enquire into and which may be brought before them by any
ratepayer.
NOW KNOW YE that, reposing especial trust in your loyalty, integrity and ability,
We do hereby confer upon you, the said Sir Matthew Baillie Begbie and Montague William
Tyrwhitt Drake, jointly and each of you separately, the power of making enquiry into all and
every of the matters aforesaid, together with the power of summoning before you or either of
you, any party or witnesses, and of requiring them to give evidence on oath, orally or in
writing, or on solemn affirmation (if they be parties entitled to affirm in civil matters), and to
produce such documents and things as you, or either of you, may deem requisite to the full
investigation of the matters aforesaid, and We empower and direct you the said Commissioners,
or either of you, to report the facts found by you, in writing, to Our Lieutenant-Governor of
Our said Province of British Columbia, immediately, or as soon as conveniently may be, after
you shall have concluded such enquiry, together with the views which you, or either of you,
may have formed in relation to the matters aforesaid as a result of the said enquiry, and that
you do and perform all those matters and things in and about the taking of the said enquiry
as by law in that behalf you are authorized to do.
In Testimony Whereof, We have caused these Our Letters to be made Patent and
the Great Seal of the Province of British Columbia to be hereunto affixed :
Witness the Honourable Hugh Nelson, Lieutenant-Governor of Our said
Province of British Columbia, in Our said City of Victoria, this Seventeenth
day of October, in the year of Our Lord One thousand eight hundred and
ninety-one, and in the fifty-fifth year of Our reign.
By Command.
JNO. ROBSON,
Provincial Secretary.
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 499
In the Matter of the " Municipal Act, 1891," Section 265,
 AND	
In the Matter of an Enquiry thereunder into the Good Government and
Conduct of the Public Business of the City of Victoria.
PRELIMINARY LIST OP CHARGES.
The Petitioners, in pursuance of the allegations contained in their petition, submit the
following particular acts of extravagance and misconduct for the consideration of the
Commissioners herein :—
1— EXCESSIVE  EXPENDITURE.
By section 98 of the Municipal Act, it is proviced that no Municipal Council shall have
power to incur any liability beyond the revenue for the current year, and that the revenue for
the use of every Council duly elected shall commence with the legal collections from the first
day of the year in which the said Council was elected until the end of the year.
Nevertheless, the Municipal Council of the City of Victoria have, in violation of this
enactment, for several years past, expended during each year sums largely in excess of the
annual income for such years respectively.
In  the  year   1888,  the  Council  incurred   liabilities beyond  the
municipal revenue for the current year, amounting to about. .   $27,000 00
In the year 1889, about      20,000 00
In the year 1890, about      60,000 00
The expenditure for the present year is not complete, but in the report of the Auditor for
the Municipality for the first nine months of the year, ending the 1st day of October, 1891, it
is estimated that on the 31st day of December there will be a shortage of $92,050.73.
2.—EXCESSIVE USE OF BORROWING POWERS BEYOND ABILITY TO REPAY.
Under the provisions of sub-section (133) of section 96 of the Municipality Act, the
Council may pass by-laws authorizing the borrowing of such sums as may become payable out
of the annual revenue, before the revenue for the year becomes payable by the taxpayers, but
it is also provided in the said sub-section that the money so borrowed shall be repayable and
repaid on or before the 31st December, in the calendar year in which it is so borrowed, and
that the money so borrowed shall be a liability payable out of the municipal revenue for the
then current year.
In order to meet the deficits created by the large excess of expenditure over revenue
referred to in paragraph one hereof, the Municipal Council of the City of Victoria have
improperly used the borrowing powers conferred by said sub-section (133) of section 96 of the
Municipal Act in the following manner :—
During each of the years 1887, 1888, 1889, and 1890, the said Municipal Council passed
by-laws, ostensibly in accordance with, and for the purpose authorized by, the said sub-section,
but the sums so borrowed were not, in any of the years mentioned, repaid, or capable of being
repaid, out of the current revenue, as the by-law required.
At the end of the year 1887, there was due to the Bank of British
North America, on account of moneys borrowed as aforesaid,
and unpaid out of the current revenue, the sum of    $ 7,205 75
At the end of the year 1888, there was due to the Bank, on account
of sums so borrowed and still unpaid out of current revenue,
the sum of      33,691 07
At the end of the year 1889, there would have been due to the
Bank, for sums so borrowed and still unpaid out of current
revenue, the sum of (about)      48,000 00
 500 Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
But, by means of a misapplication of a sum of about $60,000.00 (the unexpended balance
of the proceeds of special loans raised during the said year), this bank debt was liquidated,
and at the end of the year about $12,000.00 stood at the credit of the general revenue account
of the Corporation at the Bank, but the Council were still liable, for some unpaid accounts.
3.—ILLEGAL  DIVERSION  OF LOANS.
Your Petitioners also allege that the Council have, on many occasions, diverted moneys,
voted by the ratepayers for special works, to the liquidation of liabilities which should have
been paid out of the ordinary current annual revenue.
Among the special loans, portions of which were appropriated and expended otherwise
than as provided by the by-laws authorizing the same, are the following, as shewn in the cash
statement of the Corporation of the 31st December, 1889 :—
Bank of B. C, Special Deposit for Water Works  $ 10,000 00
Bank of B. N. A., Water Works Extension Account  10,179  14
Water Works Extension Loan  70,000 00
WTater Works Loan ,  60,000 00
Fire Loan  15,000 00
A total of    $165,179 14
Of which was expended during 1889 :—
Of $70,000 00 loan   $68,756 30
Of $60,000 00 loan      21,665 35
Of $15,000 00 loan      12,654 15
  103,075 81
Leaving a balance of $ 62,103 33
which balance should have been on hand at the beginning of 1890, for the incoming Council
to expend for the special purposes for which the loans were raised; but, instead, all that was
left of this large sum was $0.39, at the Bank of British North America. The sum of
$62,102.94 was diverted from the loan funds, and appropriated by the Council to pay its debt
on current account at the Bank, which, under its by-law, it had agreed, by the 31st December,
to pay out of its current revenue for that year.
(a.) By a by-law, finally passed on the 14th day of June, 1889, the Council was authorized to raise, by way of loan, the sum of $45,000.00, to be expended in street and bridge
improvements, and in enlarging the area of Ross Bay Cemetery. No portion of this amount
was expended for one of the special purposes for which it was raised, viz. : enlarging the area
of Ross Bay Cemetery.
(bj By a by-law, finally passed on the 24th day of July, 1889, the Council obtained
authority to raise $25,000.00 to improve and beautify the public pleasure grounds, Beacon
Hill Park, etc. The money raised under this by-law should have been expended on
permanent improvements, whereas a portion of it was applied to such items as "keep of
animals," and " band," which should have been charged to current expenses.
(cj    During the year 1889, there were five loans floated for specific objects, as follows :—
Streets, bridges, and cemetery $ 45,000 00
Water Works extension  70,000 00
Water Works extension  60,000 00
Pleasure Grounds  25,000 00
Fire Loan  15,000 00
Total $215,000 00
For these loans debentures were issued, and owing to the then good financial credit of
the city each loan was sold at a premium.
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 501
The premiums obtained were as follows : —
On the $45,000 00 Street, etc., loan  $1,575 00
On the $70,000 00 Water Works extension  1,232 00
On the $60,000 00 Water Works extension  1,056 00
On the $25,000 00 Pleasure Grounds  440 00
On the $15,000 00 Fire Loan  264 00
Being a total of $4,567 00
which having been raised under special authority should, as well as the principal, have been
expended on the objects authorized ; but this sum, like all others available, was diverted from
these purposes and appropriated by the Council as current revenue.
4._BORROWING WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF BY-LAW.
In June, 1891, a by-law was passed authorizing an overdraft at the bank of $200,000.00.
The statement of the Auditor of 30th September, 1891, shews that the officers of the Corporation have exceeded the powers conferred upon them by the said by-law, and have, in fact,
obtained from the bank the sum of $226,475.73, being $26,475.73 in excess of the sum so
authorized by the June by-law.
Although a by-law was subsequently passed ratifying this action of the city officials, and
authorizing an increase of the overdraft at the bank, amounting to the sum of $250,000.00 in
all, the Petitioners allege that such proceedings are in direct violation of the spirit and
provisions of the law.
5.—ILLEGAL INVESTMENT OF SINKING FUNDS.
By section 119 of the Municipal Act it is provided that the amount of every sinking
fund in hand shall be invested in Dominion or Provincial Government securities, or otherwise,
as the Lieutenant-Governor in Council may direct. The City Council has habitually allowed
such funds, which at the end of 1890 aggregated the sum of over $113,000.00, to lie on deposit
at the Bank of British North America, although no Order in Council allowing of such a
disposition of the city's sinking funds has been passed.
It is of the greatest importance to the city that the sinking funds should be so invested
as to be absolutely safe from interference.
In view of the heavy overdraft of this year's Council at the Bank of British North
America, amounting at present to nearly a quarter of a million of dollars, and the certainty
that on the 31st December, 1891, the Council will be in default to the bank $125,000 or more,
the Petitioners allege that under such circumstances the said sinking fund is in danger of
being appropriated by the bank to the payment of the large debt owing to it by this year's
Council on the Corporation current account.
It has been the custom of an incoming Council to take over the bank and other debts of
an outgoing Council. The Petitioners submit that a new Council is not responsible for debts
left by an old Council, unless the old Council has left the new Council means to meet them ;
that a Council is limited in its expenditure to the amount of the revenue of the year and of
such loans as it may raise during its term of office, and to the amount of such balances of
loans as may have been handed over to it by the preceding Council.
The Petitioners submit that the Council for 1892 will not be liable to repay the large
amount of overdraft which the Council for the present year will leave unpaid at the Bank of
British North America.
6.—SEWERAGE.
For the purpose of carrying out the scheme of sewering the city a by-law was passed
which authorized the Mayor to dispose of $300,000.00 worth of debentures at par, bearing
interest at the rate of four per cent, per annum. Money has been raised upon them, but
citizens generally, and several of the Aldermen, are in complete ignorance as to whether they
have been sold or pawned.
The Petitioners believe and allege the fact to be that money has been raised upon them,
that a rate of interest double that authorized by the by-law is being paid for such advances,
 502 Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
and that unless redeemed within a limited time the Mayor has agreed  with the persons who
have made such advances to sell them the said debentures at eighty-five cents on the dollar.
The Petitioners submit that the conditions contained in the by-law are such that the
$300,000.00 of debentures cannot be sold for less than $300,000.00, and that a higher rate of
interest than four per cent, can not be paid, and that if the arrangement above mentioned,
which represents a loss of $45,000.00, has been made, it is invalid.
(a.)—The Control of the Sewerage Works to be Vested in Three Commissioners.
The Petitioners allege that the three Commissioners appointed last year have ceased to
be Commissioners, that anything they have lately done, or are now doing, is therefore illegal.
Under sub-section (97) of section 96 of the "Municipal Act, 1891," Sewerage Commissioners,
whether elected by the ratepayers or appointed by the Council, can hold office for one year
only. The term of one year of the three Commissioners having expired, and no appointment
by by-law, or election by the ratepayers having been held, the city is at present without
Commissioners, by whom the Municipal Act contemplates the Sewerage Works should be
controlled.
(6.)—Sewerage Contracts.
The tender for Doulton's first-class pipe was rejected in favour of a local concern, in
which the Petitioners believe and allege the fact to be that several Aldermen are financially
interested.
The Petitioners also allege that a large percentage of the pipes turned out by the local
concern are so defective that they are unfit to be used in the sewers. Delays in the delivery
of the pipes of the quality required have hindered and delayed the contractor, who has claims
for extras in consequence.
The Petitioners allege that a searching enquiry into everything connected with the
sewerage contracts will be of benefit to the city.
7.—GRAVEL PITS.
The Validity of their Sale Questioned.
The Petitioners respectfully call attention to sub-section (72) of section 96 of the " Municipal Act, 1891," which limits the sale of real property by the Corporation to " such real
property as may not be required for corporate purposes."
The gravel pits have supplied the gravel for the streets of the city for many years past,
and the supply is far from exhausted.
(aj—Violations of Condition of Sale.
Section 2 of the " Gravel Pits Sale By-law " authorized the City Assessor to sell by
public auction. The lots were advertised to be sold by the City Assessor, but in consequence
of a proposition to sell from Mr. Joshua Davies, the Council, by resolution, instructed Mr.
Joshua Davies to sell the said lots.
Section 3 of the by-law requires that the consideration for the sale of the said lands shall
be either in money or real property. The said lands were sold partly for money and partly on
long time.
Section 4 of the by-law requires that the money to arise from such sale or sales shall be
wholly devoted to and expended in and about the improvement of the streets of the City of
Victoria.
The Council entered into an agreement with the said Joshua Davies that 5 per cent, of
the proceeds of such sale should be paid to the Provincial Jubilee Hospital.
The Petitioners submit that these violations of the by-law invalidates the sale of the
gravel pits.
(bj—The Proceeds of the Sale mis-applied.
In the City Auditor's report of the 7th October, 1891, in the estimated receipts for
October, November, and December, appears " Sale of Gravel Pits, $20,000.00."
In estimated expenditure for the same ]Deriod this sum of $20,000.00 from the sale of the
gravel pits for street improvements does not appear, and the Petitioners allege that the
Council does not intend to expend the proceeds in the manner defined in the by-law.
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 503
This view of the Council's action is confirmed by its proceedings at a recent meeting since
the sale. As reported in the daily papers, seventeen out of the twenty-seven men employed
upon street work were ordered to be discharged, upon the ground that the Council had no
money for street work, although it has received a portion of the proceeds of the sale of the
gravel pits.
With ten men only employed this expenditure on streets cannot exceed $750 per month,
or, to the end of the year, $1,500.00, whereas the gravel pits sold for over $23,000.00.
From the statement of the Auditor of 7th October it appears that this sum (or his
estimate of it prior to sale, $20,000.00) is being applied in paying off old debts, instead of the
specific purpose defined in the by-law.
8.—ATTEMPT TO ILLEGALLY DIVERT LOAN MONEYS.
The Petitioners believe and allege the fact to be that in several instances the Council
have expended sums of money in anticipation of the authorization of loans for the same, but
it is impossible to trace particular instances in the condensed summary of expenditure
published annually, as no dates are given.
The following circumstance shows the disposition of the Council to act in this improper
manner:—
In the year 1888 a sum of about $30,000.00 was raised for the construction of the
Johnson street sewer. The Auditor's report for the year 1890 shows that in addition to this
a sum of $7,675.22 was taken from the current revenue and also expended in the same work.
To meet this deficit the report states that application has been made to the Sewerage Commissioners for a refund of the amount, "but so far without success." The Petitioners allege that
inasmuch as the funds at the disposal of the Sewerage Commissioners have been raised
especially for the purpose of carrying out the Hering system, which is entirely separate from
the Johnson street scheme, the Council had no right to apply to the Sewerage Commissioners
for such refund.
9.—RECKLESS CONDUCT OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS DURING 1891.
The by-law of the Council, No. 132, (February, 1891,) authorized an expenditure of
$235,417.00, based on an estimated revenue of the same amount, in which the real estate tax
is put at $125,000.00.
The expenditure up to the 31st September, 1891, has amounted to $239,535.62, which is
more than the by-law authorized for the whole year.
The Petitioners allege that much of this expenditure is unauthorized by the estimates.
The Auditor's estimate of revenue and expenditure for October, November, and December, 1891, is:—
Expenditure $337,050 73
Receipts    245,000 00
Estimated shortage on December 31st, 1891 $ 92,050 73
The Petitioners allege that the above estimate of receipts is inaccurate, since  it  includes
a sum of $20,000.00, proceeds of the sale of the Gravel Pits, which sum under the terms of
the by-law, must be devoted exclusively to street improvements.
The Petitioners also allege that in accordance with the  experience of former years,  at
least $25,000.00 of the real estate tax will remain uncollected at the end of the year.
These sums should be added to the Auditor's estimate of shortage, giving the following
result:—
Gravel Pits sale $ 20,000 00
Arrears of real estate tax      25,000 00
Auditor's estimate      92,050 73
Probable shortage, December 31st, 1891 $137,050 73
This shortage would be still greater if the Council had not raised the taxes on real estate
to the highest limit authorized by the Municipal Act. By this means a sum of $65,000.00 in
excess of the estimate of $125,000.00, stated in the said Revenue By-law, has been added to
the revenue of the present year.
 504 Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
10.—EXPENDITURE ON PUBLIC MARKET BUILDING.
The expenditure for the new market has been very great, and the Petitioners request that
enquiry be made into the particulars of the purchase of the land, and the construction of the
building. That the Council be called upon to pi'oduce the different tenders together with the
plans and specifications respectively received for the building, and for the brick and carpenter
work, etc. The expense has been very heavy, and there seems to be a very small prospect of
reimbursement to the taxpayers.
The Petitioners allege that on the Market Building Loan, the Council are paying a higher
rate of interest than the by-law authorizes.
11.—WATER WORKS.
From the meagre accounts published, and the muddled way in which the Water Works
accounts have been kept in past years, exact figures cannot be arrived at, but the Petitioners
allege that the Corporation has taken at least $150,000.00 of Water Works income and applied
the same to revenue purposes.
Had this large sum been applied to needed extension of the Water Works, instead of
year after year going into the Corporation current revenue, loans from time to time raised for
Water Works purposes, on the security of extra rates upon property, would have been unnecessary, and the real estate tax would have been less burdensome than it is at present.
More money has been wastefully spent on the Water Works than on any other Corporation public work. As an instance of this, a costly, but uncompleted reservoir, which absorbed
a large portion of one of the Water Works loans, has recently been obliterated, and turned
into the roadway of Pandora Street Extension.
The discreditable state of the filter beds is apparent to those who, with more courage
than discretion, drink the city water without boiling it. The city water has the reputation of
being the most impure supplied to any city on the Pacific coast.
The City Council has frustrated the efforts of the Water Works Engineers to reform and
improve the affairs of the Water Works. The examination of Mr. Summerfield would throw
a great deal of light on Water W'orks mismanagement.
12.—ILLEGAL SUBSCRIPTION TO CHARITABLE PURPOSES.
The Petitioners allege that on several occasions, portions of the city funds have been
applied to charitable donations, such as the subscription to the sufferers by reason of the
Seattle fire. The Petitioners submit that, however deserving may be the object for which
such moneys were appropriated, the Council, as the custodian of the funds of the taxpayers,
could not legally apply them to any purpose not specified in the Municipal Act. The Petitioners
suggest that in the future the system of private subscription in vogue in other cities, where
the Mayor and Aldermen in their individual capacity head the list, ought to be adopted.
13.—EXTRAVAGANCE AND MISMANAGEMENT GENERALLY.
A comparison of the accounts of 1888, with those of 1891, discloses an astonishing increase this year of expenditure, which returns the smallest benefit to the ratepayers.
In 1888, with receipts from real estate tax of about $56,000.00, and a total revenue of
about $114,000.00, there was expended on streets and sidewal.ks, over $42,000.00. In 1891,
the Revenue By-law of 14th February, shows estimated receipts from real estate, $125,000.00,
and a total revenue of $235,000.00, of which only $8,190.00 is available for street work.
By the Auditor's report of the 7th October last, it is shewn that a great proportion of the
city revenue is used in paying salaries of city officials. It appears that for three months,
$20,000.00 is required for that purpose alone, or in other words, that salaries are an annual
charge of $80,000.00.
The Petitioners submit that the expenditure on salaries should be largely reduced, and,
the expenditure on streets proportionately increased.
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 505
A large sum is annually wasted by mismanagement.    Two instances  of   this  were published in the report of Council meetings on the 15th and 22nd October last.
(a.) Map of cemetery lots presented with bill for $438.00.    Alderman  McKillican expressed surprise.    When he ordered it he  said he expected it  would be  made in
the office, as there were clerks enough.    Council ordered it paid.
(6.) Bill of $415.50 presented  by  tram  line  contractor for loss  through a change by
Council on the line on Pandora Street, given by City Surveyor.    Council ordered
$365.50 paid.
Were it not for the water rents taken into revenue, there would not be a dollar available
for streets and sidewalks.
The Petitioners submit that unless the municipal expenditure is made in the future with
more intelligence and less extravagance than in the past few years, not only will there be no
money available for city improvements, but the taxation of persons and property will  have to
be increased in order to make both ends meet.
Dated the 10th day of November, 1891.
BODWELL & IRVING,
Solicitors for the Petitioners.
To Messrs. Eberts & Taylor,
Solicitors for the City Council.
ANSWERS   TO   CHARGES.
1.—EXCESSIVE EXPENDITURE.
In reply to the charge of "Excessive Expenditure," the Council of 1891 say, as to paragraph 1 :
That section 98 of the "Municipal Act, 1891," is incorrectly quoted by Petitioners ; it
reads as follows :—
" 98. No Municipal Council within the Province, ' save as otherwise provided,' shall
" have power to incur any liability beyond the municipal  revenue  for  the  current year.
" And the revenue for the use of every Council duly  elected shall commence  with  the
" legal collections from the first day of the year in which  the  said  Council  was elected
" until the end of the said year."
The Municipal Councils for the years hereunder written expended sums in excess of
revenue for the amounts set opposite the years, and not the amounts alleged by the Petitioners,
namely :—
For 1888   $25,888  21
„   1889         8,864 22
„   1890       23,524 10
$58,276 53
amounting in all to $58,276.53, and not $107,000.00 as charged by Petitioners.
The report of the Auditor for 1891, shows an estimated excess of expenditure over
revenue for this year, 1891, of about $20,000.00, and not $92,050.73 as alleged ; such sum of
$92,050.73 being the total amounts for previous years added to this year's estimated excess of
expenditure, against which certain valuable properties acquired should be credited as assets.
2.—EXCESSIVE USE OF BORROWING POWERS BEYOND ABILITY TO REPAY.
In reply to the charge of " Excessive use of borrowing powers beyond ability to repay,"
the Council of 1891 say, as to paragraph 2 :
By sub-section (133) of section 96, of the " Municipal Act, 1891," the Council is authorized
to borrow such sum of money " as may be required to meet the current legal expenditure of
the Corporation," which becomes payable out of the annual revenue, before the revenue becomes payable by the taxpayers,
 506 Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
Such money so borrowed is repayable and should be repaid on or before the 31st day of
December in the year in which it may have been borrowed out of the municipal revenue for the
year of such borrowing, but the amounts in excess of the revenve for the years 1887, 1888,
1889 and 1890, were expenditures arising from various contingent expenses for each of such
years, the details of which are in the public accounts for each of such years.
These amounts are as follows :—
For 1887   $ 7,205 75
For 1887 and 1888    33,691 07
For 1887, 1888 and 1889    52,586 56
each of such amounts including all amounts for previous years, and being the total amount
due at the end of each year. There being then a total amount due at the end of 1889 of
$52,586.56, as appears by the public accounts for such years.
In 1889, in order to prevent interest accumulating on such amount, at the overdraft rate
of six per cent., instead of depositing on account current at a much smaller rate, the Council
of 1889 liquidated such debt out of a portion of the proceeds of special loans, namely :—
Water Works $70,000 00
    60,000 00
Fire Department    15,000 00
leaving $11,894.49 still at the credit (of the general revenue account) of the Corporation for
the year 1889. The sums so taken from the proceeds of special loans as aforesaid, and
expended in liquidating such debt as aforesaid, were subsequently, in the year 1890, taken
from the general revenue for such year and expended for the purposes authorized by the said
special loans.
The amounts so taken aggregate $62,103.34.
3.—ILLEGAL DIVERSION OF LOANS.
In reply to the charge of "Illegal Diversion of Loans," the Council for 1891 say, as to
paragraph 3 :—
That the figures set forth in the first part of this charge are the basis of and the details
of the previous charge of " Excessive use of borrowing powers beyond ability to pay."
The special deposit for Water Works account $10,000 00
The Water WTorks Extension account      10,179  14
being the unexpended amounts of such special loans, were placed to a special deposit account
with the Bank, and subsequently expended for the special purposes for which such sums were
borrowed.
As to sub-section (a) :
The moneys raised under by-law passed by the Council of 1889, $45,000, referred to in
clause (a), were insufficient for the purposes for which they were raised, namely, " Enlarging
the area of Ross Bay Cemetery," the same having been exhausted in street and bridge
improvements, as appears by the public accounts of such year.
As to sub-section (b):
The Council of 1889, as appears by the Corporation accounts for that year, expended out
of the moneys realized from the $25,000 Loan By-Law for Park Improvements the following
sums:—
For keep of animals in Beacon Hill Park Gardens $43 21
For Band    8 00
The amount of the estimate for Park General Revenue for the year 1889 having been
expended for general park purposes, the above two items were charged to the Loan Account
As to sub-section (c):
The premiums obtained from the loans referred to in the Petitioners' charge appear by
the Corporation books to have been entered by the Council of 1889 in General Revenue
Account, and paid out thereunder; the amounts thereof aggregating $4,567.
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 507
4._BORROWING WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF BY-LAW.
In reply to the charge of " Borrowing without authority of By-Law," paragraph 4, the
Council of 1891 say :—
That the Bank Overdraft By-Laws of 1891 were passed under the authority of subsection (133) of section 96 of the " Municipal Act, 1891," before the taxes and rates had been
settled for the current year.
5.—ILLEGAL INVESTMENT OF SINKING FUNDS.
In reply to the charge of " Illegal investment of Sinking Funds," paragraph 5, the
Council of 1891 say:—
That previous Councils, as far back as 1874, as appears by the public accounts, have
allowed the Sinking Funds to remain on deposit, bearing interest at 3 per cent., compounded
annually, at the Bank of British North America, but credited to Special Trust Account in
respect of each of the loans.
The Sinking Funds for the year 1891 have not yet been collected.
The Corporation will probably owe the said bank $92,000 at the end of the year 1891,
instead of $125,000, as alleged, of which amount $71,675 is in respect of debts accumulated
prior to 1891, and against which certain valuable assets should be credited.
6.—SEWERAGE.
In reply to the first part of the charge relating to " Sewerage," paragraph 6, the Council
of 1891 say :—
That, owing to the financial crisis occurring at the time the $300,000 worth of debentures
were in the market for purchasers, the best arrangement the Council could make for the sale
thereof, in their opinion, was a conditional offer of 85c. on the dollar therefor, which was
accepted by the Council upon the condition that if, within twelve months from such purchase,
a better offer could be obtained, the purchasers should re-sell the debentures to the Corporation,
receiving the amount they had advanced therefor, with debenture interest for the period
the purchasers had held same, and the rate of 4 per cent, per annum on the amount advanced,
from the time of such advance to the time of redemption.
The Council of 1891 further say that no higher rate than called for by the debentures is
to be paid, but the Council have the privilege and option, upon payment of a 4 per cent,
bonus, as aforesaid, to take advantage of any increased amounts they may obtain for such
debentures -within one year.
The sewerage works being matters of great public necessity, delays in construction would
have been inexpedient, and the Council of 1891 made the best arrangement that, in their
opinion, could be made in the premises, having regard to the necessities of the city and the
state of the financial markets and the low rate of interest provided in the by-law.
As to clause (a) of such charge, the Council of 1891 say:—That it is true that they have
not formally passed a by-law re-appointing the Sewerage Commissioners for this year specially,
but such Commissioners have, nevertheless, exercised a supervision and inspection of all
matters pertaining to sewerage works, and now are acting as such, and the Council, at the
beginning of the municipal year 1891, did pass a resolution re-appointing all corporate officers
for this year.
Sewerage Contract.
In reply to the charge relating to " Sewerage Contracts," clause (b), paragraph 7, the
Council of 1891 say :—
That the Council of 1890 accepted the lowest tender for sewer pipes.
That with regard to the condition of the pipes supplied, the Council of 1891 say that the
question of the acceptance or non-acceptance of same, such question is within the competence
and list of duties of the Sewerage Commissioners, and the Council believe that no pipes of
defective quality have been received or accepted.
 508 Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
That there have been no delays in the delivery of the pipes, so hindering or delaying the
contractor as to entitle the contractor to any claim for extras or otherwise, under the
Sewerage Contract.
So far as the Council of 1891 is aware, no member of the Council of 1890 was interested
in the sewer pipe contract, which was awarded to an incorporated company; but even if any
of the Aldermen of the Council of 1891 were shareholders in the incorporated company to
which such contract was awarded, such action is authorized by virtue of sub-section (2) of
Section 27 of the " Municipal Act, 1891," which reads as follows :—
" That no person shall be held to be disqualified from being elected a member of the
" Council of any Municipal Corporation by reason of his being a shareholder of any
" incorporated company having dealings or contracts with the Council of such Municipal
" Corporation; but no such shareholder shall vote in the Council on any question
" affecting the company."
Such Aldermen, if any, of 1891 were not members of the Council of 1890, when the
contract was awarded, and did not vote upon any matter affecting said contract in 1891.
7.—SALE OF GRAVEL PITS.
In answer to the charges in connection with the sale of the Gravel Pits, paragraph 7,
the Council of 1891 say :—
As to clause (a):—That the Council of 1891, in the due exercise of the discretion vested
in them, considered that the Gravel Pits were not any longer required for Corporation
purposes, and accordingly directed a sale thereof for divers good and sufficient reasons, and the
ratepayers of the city approved and assented thereto, in accordance with the statute in that
behalf—sub-section (72), section 96, Municipal Act.
As to clause (b):—The lots were advertised to be sold by the City Assessor. In consequence of a proposition from Mr. Joshua Davies, the City Assessor was authorized to employ
Mr. Davies in connection with the sale by auction, the City Assessor having no experience as
an auctioneer, and Mr. Davies being a skilled auctioneer of great experience, and offering his
services gratuitously, upon condition that the amount of commission usually paid for such
service and assistance as he rendered should be devoted to the Provincial Royal Jubilee
Hospital. The Council of 1891, conceiving that through Mr. Davies' efforts a sum would be
realized from such sale which, after deducting the five per cent., would still leave the balance
greater than if sold without his assistance, acted as aforesaid. By this means a greater sum
was realized from such sale, and the Council were enabled to grant a certain amount of aid to
a charitable institution, a power expressly granted the Council by sub-section (15) of section 96,
" Municipal Act, 1891."
The Municipal Act, sub-section (72) of section 96, requires the Council to accept as payment for such lands either money or real property.
At the auction referred to, all purchasers paid a cash deposit and signed agreements to
pay the balance in cash on or before the 31st day of December, 1891, with interest in the
interim after the rate of six per cent, per annum. No other arrangements have ever been
entered into with the purchasers, and the whole of such consideration is payable wholly in
money, in accordanoe with the Act in that behalf; and the Council of 1891 believe that a
much larger sum was realized from such sale by reason of the foregoing arrangements than
would have been realized otherwise.
The Proceeds of the Sale Misapplied.
In answer to the chaage that "the proceeds from the sale of gravel pits have been misapplied," the Council of 1891 say :—
That the net proceeds thereof received to date have been expended for street improvements, and the balance will be, as soon as received.
The policy of retrenchment of expenditure adopted in street work being considered
necessary by the Council of 1891, in view of the state of the revenue, it would appear that
any effort to make reduction of expenditure in any direction does not meet with the approval
of the Petitioners, notwithstanding that they charge extravagance generally, there being a
great number of petitions for repairs of sidewalks, a great number for extension of streets, and
 55 Vict Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 509
a great number for new roads or streets in 1891, and a great number for water extensions and
other works, upon some of which petitions the names of some of the Petitioners herein appear.
Clause (c.):—This clause,  being merely an expression of the opinion of Petitioners, not
an allegation of fact, the Council of 1891 do not consider it necessary to reply specially.
8.—ATTEMPT  TO  ILLEGALLY  DIVERT  LOAN  MONEYS.
In answer to the charge of " Attempt to illegally divert loan moneys," paragraph 8, the
Council of 1891 say :—
That the "Johnson Street Sewer By-Law, 1888," assented to by the ratepayers, authorized a loan of $30,000.00 for the purpose of constructing a brick sewer in Johnson Street,
between Blanchard Street and Victoria Harbour, and such other sewers as might be necessary
to construct along such streets as intersect Johnson Street.
The amount raised under such by-law was expended in accordance with the purposes
thereof. But such amount being insufficient for the purpose of completing the works authorized, the Council of 1889, as appears by the public accounts, advanced out of the general
revenue the sum of $7,675.22. During the year 1890, the Sewerage Commissioners paid to
the Council the sum of $4,400.50 for the following items in connection with sewerage works,
independently of the Johnson Street sewer :—
Bonus for Mr. Mohun's plans    $2,000 00
100 contour maps for Mr. Hering         140 00
Advertising for plans, publishing by-laws, etc         260 00
Mr. Hering's expenses      1,500 00
Sinking trial holes         500 00
$4,400 50
The Sewerage Commissioners have not repaid any portion of the said sum of $7,675.22
out of the $300,000.00 Sewerage Loan, or otherwise.
9.—RECKLESS  CONDUCT  OF  MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS  DURING 1891.
In answer to the charge of " Reckless conduct of Municipal affairs during 1891,"
paragraph 9, the Council of 1891 say : —
That the Auditor's estimate includes the real estate tax uncollected at end of year,
estimated at $25,000.00, and the proceeds of sale of Gravel Pits is likewise included, the
expenditure on street improvements being included in the general expenditure account.
The total estimate of shortage being $92,050.00 instead of $137,050.33, and including all
debts left by previous Councils, and also including arrears of real estate taxes and other
charges to date. This is the same charge mentioned in paragraph 1, and repeated in subsequent
paragraphs.
The Council have not raised the taxes on real estate to the highest limit, but have, by
virtue of the Municipal Act, distinguished, under the term " real estate," between " land " and
" improvements upon land," and have taxed land at one and one-half of one per cent., and
improvements upon land at half the limited amount, namely, three-quarters of one per cent.,
against which amount of taxes a rebate of one-sixth thereof is allowed if paid on or before the
31st December.
10.—EXPENDITURE  ON  PUBLIC  MARKET  BUILDING.
In answer to the charge of "Expenditure on Public Market Building," paragraph 10, the
Council of 1891 say :—
That the same arrangement has been made with reference to the Market Building Loan
Debentures as stated in regard to the Sewerage Debentures.
The Council of 1891 are now, and always have been, willing to afford any information as
to the market expenditures, and all other expenditures, to Petitioners, or to any other ratepayers, and are quite willing to produce any data they have, which may be asked for, but, so
far as the Council are aware, no such requests have been made prior to this enquiry.
One by-law authorized a loan of $45,000.00 for the land, and another by-law authorized
a loan of $55,000.00 for the buildings. The sum of $42,000.00 was paid for the land, and the
remainder for expenses incidental to clearing the land, etc., the details of which are as
follows:—
 510 Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1892
Site.
Land .$42,000 00
Clearing land         712 45
Interest      1,675 38
Printing and advertising  127 50
$44,515 33
Of the $55,000.00 for the buildings, $34,435.50 has been paid the contractors on account,
and  the balance  will  be paid so soon as the buildings are completed.    The following are the
details to date :—
Building.
Contractor, on account $34,435 50
Architect's fees      1,450 00
Interest         136 66
Advertising and printing         105 75
$36,125 91
The, remaining portion of this charge is a matter of opinion, upon which the ratepayers
have already passed their assent.
11._WATER WORKS.
In answer to the charge relating to "Water Works," paragraph 11, the Council of
1891 say :—
That a sum, aggregating about $152,000.00, has been received by the Corporation during a
series of years from the water works, and applied to current revenue account. It was the
duty of the Corporation to so supply such sums by virtue of section 34 of the " Water W7orks
Act, 1873," which reads as follows :—
" 34. That, after the construction of the works, all the revenues arising from or out of
" the supplying of water, or from the real and personal property connected with the said water
" works, acquired by the said Corporation or Commissioner under this Act, shall, after
" providing for the expenses attendant upon the maintenance of the said water works, be
" paid over to and deposited monthly with the Clerk of the said Corporation of the City of
" Victoria, as hereinbefore provided, and shall make part o* the general funds of the Corpora-
" tion, and may be applied accordingly."
With regard to the expenditure on the reservoir at the head of Pandora Street, this
expenditure was incurred in the year 1887, by the then Council, of which one of the Petitioners
was a member, and approved of same. While the work was in progress, Peter Summerfield, a
professional engineer, was appointed Water Commissioner. Mr. Summerfield disapproved of
the work as useless, and the Council thereupon declined to spend any further moneys upon
such reservoir. The amount spent prior to such time was $28,080.15 for land, reservoir, etc.
The rest of the charge is merely an expression of the opinion of Petitioners, to which the
Council do not consider it necessary to reply specially.
12.—ILLEGAL SUBSCRIPTIONS FOR CHARITABLE PURPOSES.
In answer to the charge of "Illegal Subscriptions to Charitable Purposes," paragraph 12,
the Council of 1891 say:—
That by sub section (15) of section 96 of the Municipal Act the Council are authorized to
grant aid to charitable institutions, and for the relief of the poor. Such grants of aid as have
been made for charitable objects, outside of the Municipality, have been of small amounts,
and the Council of 1891 have not been called upon, nor have they granted any such aid, with
the exception of the sum of $500.00 granted to the sufferers by the Springfield coal mine
explosion in Nova Scotia, the amount being sent to the Mayor of Halifax. The donation to
the sufferers by the Seattle fire was made in 1889.
13.—EXTRAVAGANCE AND MISMANAGEMENT GENERALLY.
In answer to the charge of " Extravagance and Mismanagement Generally," paragraph
13, the Council of 1891 say :—
That they have spent up to the end of 30th day of September, 1891, on streets the sum
of $56,131.36, the same being a necessary expenditure,
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 511
The salaries of the city officials aggregate as follows :—
Police Department   $20,100 00
Electric Light Department  4,260 00
General Department  18,552 00
Board of Health Department  1,800 00
Water Works Department  4,080 00
Surveyor and Engineer and Streets  14,880 00
Fire Department   11,976 00
Mayor  2,000 00
Aldermen  1,800 00
$79,448 00
Upon examination of the particulars of the above items it will be apparent that no
deduction can be fairly made from the amounts of such salaries and yet have an efficient
public service.
As to the item of $438.00 for a map of cemetery lots, the only map of such lots in the
possession of the city was an old map in bad condition, and which was thought to be inaccurate.
To remedy this it was deemed advisable to have a new and corrected map, and the same was
accordingly ordered. Owing to the duties devolving upon the City Engineer it was impossible
for him personally to prepare such map. The City Engineer had but one clerk in his office,
and such clerk was not a draughtsman. For these reasons the map was prepared by Mr. T.
S. Gore, D. L. S.     The work was well done and worth the amount charged.
As to the item of $415.50, in respect of which $365.50 has been paid, such payment was
made by reason of the following facts :—
The National Electric Tramway and Lighting Company (Limited Liability) had located
their proposed line in Pandora street at a certain distance from the sidewalk on one side
thereof. The City Engineer disapproved of such location and required same to be constructed
at a greater distance from the sidewalk. This change of line was approved of and assented
to by the company and the City Engineer, and the work of construction commenced. Subsequently and during the course of construction, owing to a petition from the residents of
Pandora street to the Council to have the line placed at a still greater distance from the
sidewalk, in order to have greater space for a carriage way between the line and the sidewalk,
the Council decided to change the location, and the sum of $365.50 was paid to the contractor
as compensation for the extra expenses to which he had been put by reason of such change as
aforesaid. The tramway lines have not been located in the centre of other streets, for the
reason that the sewers are to be laid in the centre of the streets in order to equalize the
expenses of those persons making connections from the lots on either side of the street.
The Council of 1891 do not admit any of the allegations contained in the Petitioners'
preliminary list of charges, except such as are herein specially admitted and answered, and
submit that such list of charges consist in great part of mere matters of opinion, the arguments
of the Petitioners founded thereon, together with such conclusions of law as the Petitioners
wish to be deduced therefrom.
CONCLUSION.
The Council of 1891 beg .to represent that the funds available to the city for municipal
purposes, as the law now stands, are not sufficient to answer the requirements of this growing
city. In the Province of Ontario the municipalities receive all the taxes on personal property
and income, in fact all  direct taxes ; whereas in this  Province  the  Provincial Government
take all taxes on personal property and income.    These taxes aggregate about $	
so far as gathered from within the limits of the Municipality of this Corporation. In addition
to these amounts, further charges are now made upon the Municipality of this Corporation in
the nature of school taxes, for salaries, maintenance, etc., aggregating about $15,000.00 per
annum, the only return for which is a return of one-half of the Provincial Revenue Tax to be
received in the future. A large area of territory has been recently included within the limits
of the Municipality. The revenue derived for this year from taxes within such area has
been received by the Government, out of which the Government propose to pay to the city
the sum of $4,000, to be expended upon main trunk roads in such area to the satisfaction of
the Government.
So far as the increased expenditure of this year is concerned, it was to a great extent
caused by reason of such extension of the Municipality in connection with preparing new
 ol2 Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
official maps of the city as enlarged, the construction of streets and sidewalks in such area,
the extension of the water system therein and otherwise, and various and sundry other items
of expense. These expenses would, had the city received the taxes therein for this year, have
been repaid almost wholly, and will ultimately prove a remunerative investment.
The Council of 1891 conceived such expenditures to be judicious in view of the fact that
the property owners within such limits had their property pledged as a security for all city
loans, past, present, and future, and such expenditures were only just and equitable in return
for such proportionate assumption of the city's liability, irrespective of the benefits ultimately
to accrue to the city by way of the increased amount of taxable property, rates, etc., by such
addition.
Delivered this 16th day of November, 1891, by Eberts and Taylor, 30 Langley street,
Victoria, Solicitors for the Corporation of the City of Victoria.
To Messrs. Bodwell & Irving,
Solicitors for the Petitioners.
SUPPLEMENTARY CHARGES.
PURCHASE OF LAND FOR EXTENSION OF CEMETERY.
On the 4th day of March, 1890, a by-law was passed authorizing a loan of $12,500 for
the purpose of procuring additional ground for cemetery purposes. In accordance therewith
$12,000 of the said loan was laid out in purchase of certain lands known as sections 80 and
81, Fairfield Farm Estate. The said lands, were, however, included with other lands in a
mortgage by way of underlease in favour of the late Augustus Frederick Pemberton, and
although the whole of the moneys raised were paid out over a year ago, the city have not yet
obtained a marketable title to the said land. The sum of $500 was spent out of the said loan
moneys in fencing, but the lands fenced were not the said sections and did not belong to the
city.
Grave irregularities have characterized the disposal of lots in the old cemetery, which
have created great scandal and annoyance to many of the citizens.
ELECTRIC   LIGHT.
The Petitioners claim that an investigation should be made into the question of the purchase of the plant for the Ball electric light for the city.
BY-LAWS REDUCING RATE FOR SINKING FUND.
In August, 1890, a number of by-laws were passed reducing the rates for sinking funds
on various loans, but the said by-laws are not in accordance with the statute, and the Petitioners claim that the same are invalid.
LETTING CONTRACTS AT CLOSE OF YEAR.
The Petitioners allege that the practice of letting contracts near the end of the year, for
which funds must be provided by the incoming council, as in the case of the city hall contract
in 1889, the sewerage contract, 1890, and the recent purchase of water pipes, is illegal and
highly prejudicial to the interests of the ratepayers.
CONTRACT WORK FOR CITY EXPENDITURE.
The Petitioners claim that the contract system for the carrying out of city works should
be applied in a much greater extent than the accounts show for several years past.
Dated this 2nd day of December, A.D. 1891.
BODWELL & IRVING,
To Messrs. Eberts £ Taylor, Solicitors for the Petitioners.
Solicitors for the City Council.
VICTORIA, B.C.:
Printed by Richard Wolfenden, Printer to the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty.
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality
MINUTES   OF   PROCEEDINGS   AND   EVIDENCE   TAKEN
UNDER   THE   COMMISSION,
The Royal Commission was opened at the Court House on 2nd November.
The Commission was read by Mr. Moore, the Clerk.
The Petitioners were to deliver by Friday next (6th inst.) the charges they intended to
proceed with. On Monday, the 16th, the City were to deliver their reply; on Wednesday,
the 18th, the Commission was to proceed.
On the 18th November the reply having been insufficient, Mr. Bodwell asked for further
particulars to be sent in by following Monday, and both parties joined in asking for a shorthand reporter.
Evidence began to be taken on Monday, the 23rd November.
Monday, 23rd November, 1891.
7.—GRAVEL PITS.
Mr. Bodwell, for the petitioners, proposed to take up the question of the Gravel Pits
sale, paragraph 7. He said :—The charge with reference to that, as your Lordships will see
by the preliminary list of charges, is that the City Council disposed of the property here
which was of use to the city, and therefore did not fall within the provisions of the statute.
The statute upon the point is the "Municipal Act, 1891," section 96, sub-section (92).
The Court : The charge is one that is very far-reaching. If your contention is sustained
here, then the Corporation had no right to make the title of that property, and thus these lot-
holders have bought nothing.
Mr. Bodwell : Our contention is that if the property is useful for the purposes of the
city, then the Corporation had no right to sell that property. The sale took place on the 12th
October; the by-law for the sale was finally passed on the 19th August, 1891. The fact of
the sale is admitted, my Lords, in the answer of the city.
Mr. Richards : Your Lordships will be good enough to read the answer through. Substantially, we kind of demur to that, without going into any enquiry on this subject. The
by-law authorizing the sale had to be submitted to the people, and they voted upon it. I do
not wish to ask your Lordships to sit in judgment on the vote of the ratepayers.
The Court held that the ratepayers could not make legal any action of the Corporation
that was not legal.
Plans of property, got out for the sale, also terms and conditions of sale, were handed in
and marked "A" and "B."
William Henry Snider was the first witness examined:
By Mr. Bodwell—Your full name ?
A.—William Henry Snider.
Q.—You reside where 1
A.—Victoria City.
Q.—What is your occupation?
A.—Contracting; building streets and roads.
 Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
Q.—How long have you been in that business 1
A.—About twenty years.
Q.—Have you had contracts in the city of Victoria?
A.—Yes, sir.
Q.—Are you familiar with the condition of the streets and roads of the City of Victoria ?
A.—Yes; I'm pretty well familiar with them.
Q.—Can you state whether or not gravel is required for the purposes of the streets and
roads of the City of Victoria ?
A.—Yes ; I think it is.
Q.—For what purpose, and where would it be used ?
A.—It would be used in crossings and for streets where there is not much heavy traffic.
In streets where there is not much heavy traffic it is a great deal cheaper than using metal.
Q.—Are you speaking now theoretically, or from experience ?
A.—I am speaking from experience.
Q.—For how long, to your knowledge, has the city been using gravel for street purposes ?
A.—Well, I think ever since the gravel pit has been opened.
Q.—You are familiar with the location of these gravel pits, are you not ?
A.—Yes ; I live close by them.
Q.—Will you explain to the Court how they are located, and how many there are ?
A.—Yes, sir.
Q.—Looking at this exhibit, marked "A," will you explain to the Court the location of
these gravel pits ?
A.—The old gravel pit lies between Cedar Hill Road and Queen's Avenue, and divides
about half-way between Queen's Avenue and Pembroke Street.
Q.—And the new gravel pit lies, where ?
A.—That lies right in this block, between Princess Avenue and South Road.
Mr. Charles D. Green was called to prove the maps of the pit.
Q.—What is your occupation ?
A.—Draughtsman to the E. & N. Railway and civil engineer.
Q.—Graduate of what association?
A.—I am not a graduate of any association.    I was articled as C. E. in England.
Q.—How long have you been in this country ?
A.—I have been in this country for about three years, and have been assistant engineer
to two railways—the S. & O. and Victoria and Saanich Railway.
Q.—Did you make a plan and survey of the property known as the city gravel pits ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Where did you get your information from as to the location ?
A.—From Mr. Pearse.
Q.—Did you have any document given you ?
A.—Yes; I had that map given to me (copy of exhibit "A").
Q.—In copying the names of the streets, did you make Chatham for Chambers ?
A.—Yes; that is a misprint. I meant that to be Chambers. I took that plan and
made cross-sections from it.
Q.—Do I understand you to say that the profiles in the sections marked "A" and "B"
and "C" and "D" represent the outlines of the gravel as it appears on the face ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Did you make an examination of the quality of the gravel 1
A.—It is a very fair gravel up to where I marked on the plan as ending.
Q.—But where you marked "partly worked out," what do you say to that?
Mr. Richards objected, stating that the Court had nothing to do with the propriety of
the sale, which had been sanctioned by the ratepayers. The evidence now is tending to show
the quantity and quality of gravel there, and we, the defence, contend that the sale having
been sanctioned by the ratepayers	
The Court—We quite understand that.
Mr. Bodwell (continuing): Did you see any gravel in what is known as the old gravel
pits?
A.—No.
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. iii.
Q.—That is where you marked " worked out." Did you make any estimate of the quantity dug?
A.—I estimated about 15,000 yards.
Q.—Can you give us an estimate of the quantity of gravel shown on sections A and B,
assuming there is gravel there ?
A—About 15,000 yards.
Cross-examined by Mr. Richards : That is the estimate you make ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Did you make any test?    Did you sink any holes there?
A.—No.
Q.—You say that north of Queen's Avenue it is all worked out ?
A.—Yes; it appears to be worked out.
Q.—Then north of Princess Avenue ?
A.—Apparently worked out there.
Q.—Then, can there be any more got there?
A.—I suppose so.
Q.—What do you suppose is the reason of going out so far here if gravel can be got so
much easier?
A.—I couldn't say.    Perhaps the quality was not so good here.
Q.—There is a difference in gravel, then ?    Did you test the gravel at all ?
A.—No ; not at all.
Q.—What gravel do you know they like best ?
A.—Gravel that will set well.
Q.—That is red gravel ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—How much is it cut down on the south side of Princess Avenue ?
A.—About five feet.
Q.—Does it show gravel all along ?
A.—No; on lots 27, 26, and 25 it does not show any gravel.
Q.—And what are the signs on the other, the south side ?
A.—Just the same; but there is gravel all along there.
Q.—You are quite sure of that?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Is that gravel fit for street-making ?    Did you make any test to see ?
A.—No.    I kicked at it, and it seemed very fair gravel.
Q.—There is a very deep hole there below the level of the adjoining road. How deep is
that hole 1
A.—About twenty feet, I should say.
Q.—The whole thing is unsightly looking, is it not ?
A.—Yes ; very.    I should think so.
Q.—It would be still worse if this property were dug 20 feet deeper ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—If you were living there, as an owner of property, would you not prefer to have it
all built upon than as it is now ?
A.—I should want it fenced in properly.
Q.—You would not want it there at all. Would it not depreciate the property round
there ?
A.—Yes ; probably.
Q.—Have you any doubt about it ?
A.—No ; I don't think I have.
Q.—Don't you think it is fair to the owners of property round there to sell that, and if
the city wants gravel to get it somewhere else ?
A.—I am hardly competent to give an opinion on that.
Q.—At all events I understand you to say that if you were a property owner there you
would not like, if you lived there, to have these pits open and gravel taken out 1
A.—I think not.
The Court pointed out that there was nothing in the conditions of sale that prevented
the purchasers of the lots from working so many pits.
 v. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
Mr. Snider recalled :
By Mr. Bodwell:   Are there any indications of gravel in the Princess Avenue lot 1
A.—Yes.    It runs right through a bed of gravel.
Q.—As a contractor, what would you say the quality of that gravel is ?
A. —It is first-class gravel.    You can't get any better for road purposes.
Q.—Looking at the face, as shown by exhibit " D," what character of gravel is shown ?
A.—It is very good.
Q.—Does it run all the way round 1
A.—Yes, and the quality is good.
Q.—Is there anything to show that there is no more gravel there 1
A.—I don't think so. That is as far down as they have got, and there is indication of a
still greater depth.
Q.—What are the surface indications of the unworked portion?
A.—I should judge there is gravel down to about lots 36 and 41.
Q.—But in the old portion ; are there no indications of gravel still there—between
Queen's and Princess Avenue?
A.—There is, sir.    On the lots 12, 13, 21, 22, 23, on Princess Avenue, on the north side.
Q.—You have been accustomed to taking gravel from these pits.
A.—Yes.
Q.—Have the Corporation any other gravel pits that amount to anything ?
A.—Not that I know of.    I believe they  have a lot  or two on Beacon Hill;   I  don't
know how much.
Q.—How about gravel generally in Victoria ; is it easily obtained ?
A.—I should judge it is getting a pretty scarce article.
Q.—Can you tell us anything about the price of gravel ?
A.—Charge $1.50 a load.
Q.—What is a load ?
A.—A load is about a yard.
Q.—That is a cubic yard ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—That price is for gravel delivered ?
A—Yes.
Q.—What is it worth excavated at the pit ?
A.—Well; I couldn't say. I believe at the old pit a few years ago, when it was working,
they used to charge two bits a load to people who wanted gravel. It is worth now at least
four bits a yard at the pit's mouth.
Q.—Is this an easy or a difficult pit to work ?
A.—It is a very fine pit to work.
Q.—Is there any trouble getting in or out of it ?
A.—No trouble at all.
Q.—There is considerable cost attending the opening of a new gravel pit; is there not ?
A.—Yes.
By Mr. Richards : There are some gravel pits beside your house ?
A.—Some sand pits, yes.
Q.—It makes it much nicer for you to have a big hole of a sand pit there ?
A.—I don't think it makes it any nicer.
Q.—Would you not like to have the land levelled down there 1
A.—Yes.
Q.—Don't you think it would be much better for the people having property round there
if this pit were not worked any more ?
A.—That depends.
Q.—Would it not be an advantage—is it not a great injury, a nuisance, as it now stands,
to the adjoining property ? If I lived there I would prefer to have that property all built up
than as it is now.    How far down have you got to go before you get gravel ?
A.—There is gravel right to the surface.
Q.—This part of the city is growing, building up quite rapidly, and the tram is going to
within a block of the south road, is it not ?
A.—Just a block.    It stops at the Fernwood Road.
Q.—There is business enough there to warrant the tram being constructed out there ?
A.—I could not say that.
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. v.
Q.—This is a pretty rough looking place here north of Princess Avenue 1
A.—It looks right enough.
Q.—Gravel pit worked out; eh ? How does it look along here between Queen's and
Princess Avenue.    You say there is gravel there ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Is the city using much gravel now ?
A.—I couldn't say.
Q.—How much do you think they have dug out of the gravel pits this year ?
A.—I don't know.
Q.—Don't you know that the principal work of the city now is in stone ; the gravel will
not stand on the main streets?
A.—I have seen them using broken stone a great deal.
Q.—Then you say that gravel can be bought for a quarter of a dollar a load ?
A.—I did not say so. I spoke of some years ago when the old pit was working. The
present price is a dollar and a half a load to private parties.
Q.—Have you drawn any lately ?
A.—No ; not lately.
Q.—It is not your business selling gravel. Your business is working on roads for the
Government; and at election times you are also contracting ?
A.—The same as usual.
Q.—When you are making roads in the country, I suppose you get your gravel for
nothing ?    The law allows you to go into a man's land and take what gravel you want 1
A.—Sometimes I get it for nothing, and sometimes I have to pay for it.
Q,—Is there not plenty of gravel anywhere in this country ?
A.—I am in a position to answer that question if any man is, because I have prospected
for gravel more than any other man in Victoria, between here and Saanich, and I find gravel
a very scarce article.
Q.—You have done work on the road between here and Saanich ; and you find gravel
plenty ?
A.—No ; you do not.
Q.—There is plenty round the Jewish cemetery ?
A.—No ; it is pretty well worked out.
Q.—Then along by the Cadboro Bay Road, is it not gravelly there ?
A.—No, sir ; it is not.
Q.—Going west, along the Esquimalt Road, is it not gravelly there ?
A.—You might get a wheel-barrow full.
Q.—And along the Burnside Road ?
A.—No, there is not.
Q.—How many years have you been employed by this Government ?
A.—I have been working for them a number of years.
Q.—How long for the Robson Government?
A.—Ever since they have been in power.
Q.—How much money have you received from them ?
The Court : I think you are at cross purposes with the witness, Mr. Richards. As far
as I understand the witness is not employed by the Government in the least. He is a contractor under the Government.
Mr. Richards : How much money did you receive from them under contract ?
A.—I could not say.    Probably $5,000.
Q.—Had contracts every year ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Had any this summer ?
A—Yes.
Q.—Under the Smithe Government?
A.—Yes
Q.—Every year 1
A.—I don't know.
Q.—How much money did you receive from the Smithe Government ?
A.—I could not say exactly.
Q.—About election time I suppose you get contracts ?
A.—You are judging me by yourself now.
 vi. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
The Court: There is no politics in this, Mr. Richards.
Q.—You were a candidate this year for alderman ?
A.—Well, I was.
Q.—Did you go to the polls ?
A.—No; there was something wrong in the qualification, and I did not go to the polls.
Q.—Who found that out ?
A.—The man is dead and gone now, and I do not see any use in speaking about it. It was
Abel Beswick. But I don't know that this has anything to do with the case; I have nothing
against the corporation.
Q.—You have not had any work from this Council this year ?
A.—Not that I know of.    I have not applied for any.
Q.—In other years have you done any ?
A.—Yes.    I think I did a job at the Outer Wharf for the city last year.
Q.—Why did you not do any this year ?
A.—I was too busy besides. I believe I did tender with another man for one job; that
out at the Saanich Road. I didn't tender in my own name; my partner tendered for both of
us.
Q.—Why didn't you get that work ?
A.—Because I suppose we were not the lowest tenderers.
The Court : Both the Government and the city employ a great many persons for a great
many different purposes, and I hope they pay thBm honestly ; but that is no reason why the
motives of every person should be impugned.
The Court here adjourned for luncheon.
On re-assembling at 2 o'clock p.m. W. Archibald Robertson was called.
By Mr. Bodwell: Where do you live ?
A.—Spring Ridge.
Q.—What is your occupation ?
A.—Blacksmith.
Q.—How long have you been in Victoria ?
A.—Since the beginning of 1865.
Q.—Have you been at any time a member of the Municipal Council ?
A.—I was a member for three years.
Q.—What years ?
A—The years 1884-85 and 86.
Q.—Were you ever on the Board of Works ?
A.—I was chairman the last year.
Q.—Do the working of the gravel pits and the repairing of the streets and roads come
within the jurisdiction of that committee ?
A.—Yes, certainly.
Q.—Can you tell us then from your experience what uses these gravel pits were put to ?
A.—We put the gravel on the roads to " bind " the macadam, and we gravelled the new
streets and crossings.
Q.—Is that work finished in the City of Victoria ?
A.—No, I should think not.
Q.—Where was the gravel obtained from for this purpose ?
A.—The last year I was there it was obtained from the gravel pits.
Q.—Is that the gravel pit situated near Princess Avenue and the South Road.
A.—Yes ; there is only one corporation gravel pit.
Q.—Can you tell us the quality of gravel in that pit ?
A.—The gravel there is very good, and there is considerable that is not good.
Q.—There is a quantity of gravel there that is first-class ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Have you examined these gravel pits lately ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—About what quantity is there ?
A.—Of the best quality there is probably about ten thousand yards. Of the other
quality probably about five or ten thousand.    It is pretty hard to estimate.
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality.
Q.—Can you tell us anything about the price of gravel ?
A.—As far as I know it is $1.50 a load where they haul it.
Q.—Had the city sold any gravel while you were a member of the Council ?
A.—No.
Q._Why ?
A.—They always calculated to use it themselves.
Q.—As a citizen have not you taken an interest in the proceedings of the Council for
some years ?
A.—Yes ; I take an interest in everything that is public.
Q.—Can you tell us any other places where gravel can be obtained ?
A.—I know of no other gravel, except what belongs to private parties. Mr. Beswick
had some gravel; he sold some to the Corporation in 1885.
Q.—Then they bought gravel from other parties ?
A.—I understood they did so. Mr. Thomas Earle was chairman of the streets committee
at the time.
Q.—You don't know what they bought it for ?
A.—I do not.
Q.—You say gravel costs $1.50 delivered. Can you tell us a fair price for it at the pit's
mouth ?
A.—A dollar is generally charged for hauling it, so that would make it fifty cents at the pit.
Cross-examined by Mr. Richards : Do you know why, owning that property, the Corporation got gravel elsewhere ?
A.—No.
Q.—Do you know how much they paid for it ?
A.—I suppose the regular price.
Q.—What street do you live on ?
A.—Chatham street.
Q.—Is the tram line going to be run on that street ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—I suppose that is a pretty rough looking place (showing the map) ?
A.—Yes, it is rather a rough looking spot.
Q.—They are disgraceful to a city like this?
A.—I don't know that they are disgraceful.
Q.—The people are building up there rapidly ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—This property is a very unsightly looking place ?
A.—It could be made very nice if it was all levelled down after the gravel was worked
and made into a park.
Q.—You signed a petition to have it turned into a park ?
A.—No ; I wrote against their selling it.
Q.—You wanted it turned into a park ?
A.—Eventually, after the gravel was all worked out.
Q.—What would you do with these pits after they had been worked out 1
A.—Fill them up.
Q.—That would cost a good deal ?
A.— Oh, yes ; but it would not cost the Corporation any more than it would private
parties.
Q.—There is a very unsightly hole up there, at Spring Ridge ?
A.—You mean where the gravel was taken out ? Yes ; unsightly to some people, but it
is easily filled up.
Q.—Do you think the people who bought lots there paid enough for them, or did they
get them cheap ?
A.—I reckon some of them thought they could make more out of the gravel than they
paid for the lots.
Q.—Do you know how much gravel the Corporation has been using for some years back ?
A.—I could not exactly say.
Q.—But you see that unsightly hole that has been dug out within the last two or three
years ; how much is there in it ?
A.—There are several thousand yards in it any way.
 viii. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
Q.—Gravel on the top of this macadam makes mud ?
A.—That can't be helped, they have got to bind the macadam.
Q.—You say you wrote an article against selling these gravel pits ?
A.—Yes ; they were very foolish to sell them.
Q.—Is it not plain that they are an injury to the adjoining property ?
A.—Well, the people who bought them took chances of that.
Q.—The people who bought them are going to build, and in a short time the whole of
that place will be built upon ?
A.—I expect so. But I do not think it would be an improvement to have this property
built upon at all. I think it would be a greater improvement if it was turned into a park.
I would rather have it remain as it is until all the gravel is worked out and than have it
levelled and turned into a park.
Q.—Supposing the city of the day concluded to sell that property, you would not have
any park then ?
A.—It would be very foolish of them to do it.
Q.—You don't know what was paid for this property originally ?
A.—-No.
Q.—You say you were a member of the Council during the years 1884-85-86 ?
A.—Yes; I was there in 1886.    I was three years in the Council.
Q.—Can you tell how much gravel was used during your time ?
A.—No; I could not. In 1885 it was said that there was no gravel in the pit. Mr.
Styles and I were on the Street Committee, and we said we would find out if there really was
any gravel in the pit. We sent some men there to sink pits, and we found there was plenty
of gravel.    That gravel was taken out and that large hole has been made since then.
Q.—Did you find any west of that hole—Chatham street ?
A.—We did not look any further. We found what we wanted, and there was no necessity
to look anywhere else.
Q.—Can you tell how many loads were taken out to be used on streets ?
A.—I don't know ; they were hauling all the summer.    I could not give an estimate.
Q.—Do you know how much they have taken out within the last two or three years ?
A.—I haven't paid any attention to it for the last three or four years, but they have
been drawing gravel all the time.
Samuel Thomas Styles, being sworn, was examined by Mr. Bodwell.
Your occupation ?
A.—I am a builder, and have followed the building trade for a number of years.
Q.—Were you ever a member of the City Council ?
A.—Yes, I was a member of the Council in 1886.
Q.—Were you a member of the Board of Works ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Had you anything to do with the gravel pits ?
A.—I opened one of the gravel pits in 1886.
Q.—Which one was that ?
A.—The one marked "deep gravel pit," in Exhibit "D." It was reported to the Council
that there was no more gravel left in it; but I went up there with three or four men, and
finding that there was more gravel in it I instructed the foreman to open it.
Q.—Have you any idea of the amount of gravel that has been taken out of that pit ?
A.—No, I have not.
Q.—What condition are those pits in to-day ?
A.—Very good.
Q.—Having been on the Board of Works Committee I suppose you take an interest in
the condition of the streets? Will you state your opinion as to the necessity of gravel for
these streets ?
A.—I think it is essential to the city that the streets should have gravel. I was one who
voted against the selling of the pits.
Q.—-Is there any reason to believe that the necessity for using gravel on the streets has
been done away with ?
A.—No, I think they require it more than ever now.
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. ix.
Q.rtrt_Why?
A.—Because, principally, of the additions that we have to the city. Gravel makes an
excellent road, but were there is any heavy traffic gravel is no good.
Q.—Have you any idea of the price of gravel ?
A.—The last I bought I paid $1.25 for. I have bought some since from Mr. Beswick,
but I don't know what the price of that is yet, as I haven't paid for it.
Q.—Is gravel likely to advance in price ?
A.—I should think it very likely.    It is very scarce.
Mr. Richards, cross-examining, asked—
Won't you find gravel in these hills round here anywhere ?
A,—I do not think so.
Q.—Take Cadboro Bay Road and the Jubilee Hospital property, don't you think there is
plenty of gravel there ?
A.—I could not say.    I have never prospected there.
Q.—Do you know how much gravel is used now ?
A.—I could not tell you that.    They use a great deal, but I could not say how much.
Q.—You haven't been in the Council since 1889?    Do you know how much was used then?
A.—I could not remember, even if I knew at the time.
Q.—Do you think it is economy to keep $22,000 worth of property there simply to
furnish gravel for the city ?
A.—I don't know about that; I think gravel is of great value to the city. The great
question to my mind is whether the gravel is not a great deal more valuable than the land
itself.
Q.—Queen's Avenue and Cedar Hill Road has been worked out, has it not?
A.—I think not. I would not be afraid to venture that there are eleven or twelve feet
of gravel in the old pit to-day. The reason why I think they abandoned it was simply because
it was down to the level of the road.
Mr. John Kinsman, sworn:
Mr. Bodwell—You are a contractor and builder in Victoria ?
A.—Yes, I have been.
Q.—Can you give us any idea of the value of gravel to the cubic yard?
A.—I don't know that I can give you any information beyond what I have heard
already given—$1.25 to $1.50 a load.
Q.—Do you know anything about the city gravel pits ?
A.—I have seen them, but have not been round there lately. I don't know whether
there is any more gravel there or not, but I suppose there is.
Mr. Bodwell stated that this was all the evidence he proposed to submit on this point.
Mr. Bodwell, on the Court suggesting that he had better give his whole case on this
question, proceeded to call—
Mr. James L.  Raymur:
Q.—Your are the City Auditor ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—And have been so for three years ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—What were the gross proceeds of the sale of the gravel pits ?
A—$23,235.
Q.—That is the gross proceeds ?    How much was spent by the city in grading and preparing the streets in this property prior to the sale ?
A.—$2,184.66.
Q.—Including what ?
A.—Including advertising, grading, and surveying.
Q.—Those were all the expenses prior to the date of sale?
A—Yes.
Q.—Were there any expenses connected with the sale—that is, after the sale?
A.—Yes; there was the commission—$1,161.75.
Q.—And about the conveyances ; were they paid for by the purchasers 1
A.—It was so stipulated.    At any rate we have not paid any so far.
 Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
Q.—What were then the net proceeds of the sale ?
A.—$19,888.29.
Q.—How much of that has been received up to date ?
A.—$10,531.48, up to date in respect of these sales.
Q.—To what account has that money been deposited ?
A.—Where?
Q.—In the Bank or wherever it is usual to deposit money so received ?
A.—It is deposited to the credit of the Corporation in the Bank.
Q.—General account?
A.—General account.
Q.—You made a report to the City Council on the 7th October ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Have you got a copy of that report with you ?
A.—I have a press copy of it in my letter book.
Q.—At that time how much had been spent on streets and bridges out of the general
revenue of the city ?
A.—The total expenditure to the 30th September was $56,111.36.
Q.—Was that spent out of the general revenue account of the city ?
A.—All, after the 3rd September, is chargeable to the gravel pits. The pit had not
been sold then.    That sum had been spent up to the date of that report.
Q.—Can you tell us what has been spent on streets and bridges up to the 12th September?
A.—Not without referring.
Q.—This report gives to the 30th September. What is the total amount that has been
spent up to the present ?
A.—I couldn't say now.
Q.—There was only one account kept on streets and bridges ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Then when was the gravel pits account opened ?
A.—Can't say.    It would have be opened sometime in October.
Q.—You say it was opened before these charges against the city were delivered?
A.—Yes.
Q.—How long?
A.—I could not exactly state.
Q.—You only keep one cash book ?
A.—Yes.
Q. —Where ?
A.—In the Treasurer's Office.
Q.—And you don't keep a separate cash book yourself ?
A.—No.
Q.—How much have you charged since the by-law came into effect ?
A.—We have charged $13,833.69.
Q.—You would not have charged that before the 12th October?
A.—That is charged in October.
The Court—You could not have opened your account until you had the money in hand.
Mr. Bodwell—I think the best thing for Mr. Raymur to do would be to give us the
figures of how much has been spent since the 12th October on streets and bridges.
Mr. Raymur—The November pay rolls have not yet come in. The pay roll in October
amounted to $6,090.89.
Mr. Bodwell—There is in that pay roll an amount for teaming for $1,689. It is reported
that 17 out of 27 men working on street work have been ordered to be discharged; do you
know anything about that ?
A.—No, I don't.
Q.—What is the ordinary rate of wages according to the pay roll ?
A.—The average rate is $2 to $2.50 per day.
Q.—Would the pay roll show where men were working ?
A.—No.
Q.—There have been a great number of teams kept this year hauling water pipe ?
A.—That has got nothing to do with street work.
Q.—You are satisfied that all that is charged here is street work ?
A.—Yes.
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. xi.
Q.—Have you any special instructions to prevent the bank from holding this $20,000 in
payment of the overdraft ?
A—No.
Q.—The bank has a large overdraft, has it not 1
A.—Well, not now; we have given them a note for it.
Q.—What is the amount of the note 1
A—$200,000.
Q.—In your report of the 30th October you estimate the shortage at the end of the
year at $92,000. In that report you estimate among other receipts this $20,000 from the
sale of the gravel pits ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—That report was adopted by the City Council ?
A.—I don't know what was done with it; I think it was referred to the Finance Committee.
Q.—Who is Chairman of that Committee ?
A.—Alderman Renouf.
Q.—Can you make us up a statement which will show the amount expended on streets
and bridges since the 12th October?
A.—I think so. It will be rather hard to divide up the pay-roll on account of men
being paid off in the month, so that the statement may not be correct within a few dollars.
The Court: I understand you to say that the sum mentioned as expended up to the 3rd
September has been actually expended and paid ?
A.—Yes.
Cross-examined by Mr. Richards :—Can you tell how much has been paid since the 3rd
September ?
A.—Not without figuring.
Q.—At the end of the year have you any idea ?
A.—It is very hard to say.    I have no idea at all.
Q.—Work going on all the time 1
A.—I think so. I really can't tell what is going on in the streets until the accounts
come into the office for payment.
Q.—You can't form any idea?
A.—No idea at all.    It depends entirely on the Council what work is done.
Q.—Do you know whether any portion of this has been spent on that portion of the
city recently taken in ?
A.—We have spent nearly $10,000 on the new limits in roads and bridges. The actual
sum is $9,695.11.
The Court: How do you estimate the $92,000 at the end of the year ? Does that
include the $20,000 received from the sale of the gravel pits ?
A.—I estimated the $20,000.
The Court : Was it prior to the sale that you made this estimate ?
A.—It was prior to the sale I made that estimate.
Mr. Bodwell : As a matter of fact the city paid this money into the general account.
There is no getting out of that; and now it is gone.
Mr. Richards: You have roads and bridges in the city—
Mr. Bodwell: But you can't pay for them. It is estimated that there is due at the
bank $92,000 at the end of the year.
Mr. Raymur: There is nothing owing now; they have a note. We paid one note of
$50,000 last Saturday.
The Court: You are not so badly off as you make out. This $92,000 is mere calculation.
It was estimated sometime in September. On the 12th of October there is a sum, according
to the estimate of Mr. Northcott, amounting to $20,000; and then Mr. Raymur says he
estimates a deficit of $92,000.
Mr. Bodwell: $10,000 of this has been received and paid out, and there is $10,600 to
come, which if properly deposited may yet be saved. I don't propose to offer any more
evidence on that point.
Mr. Richards: I understand, Mr. Raymur, that the bank has a note for $200,000 not
yet due ?
A.—Yes.
 xii. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
Q.—Have you your bank book here ?
A.—No.    It is made up to the end of every month.    It is made up to the 31st October.
Mr. Bodwell: That is my case on the gravel pits.
After some argument Mr. Richards promised to take up his side to-morrow morning.
3.—ILLEGAL DIVERSION OF LOANS.
Mr. Bodwell: With reference to this charge the position we take is that the people
voted money to the city for a specific purpose. The City Council as trustee of that fund has
diverted it from that particular object. They are very much in the position of a trustee who
takes money from one trust and appropriates it to another trust account. The first amount
I propose to go into is the 1886 loan for a reservoir for water works purposes.
The Court: This amount is not in the preliminary list of charges.
Mr. Bodwell: No, your Lordships. We ask leave to amend this to include this loan for
$75,000.
Mr. Richards: Here is my learned friend going back to the acts of 1886. I ask your
Lordships to express some opinion as to how far back in antiquity you are going to take this
matter.    You see the men who are in the present Council were not there in 1886 or 1887.
The Court: But, Mr. Richards, we are not going to hold you responsible for what they
did ; but we may hold you responsible for adopting what your ancestors did.
Mr. Richards: We haven't had notice of this new charge.
Mr. Bodwell: That by-law was passed as an appropriation for a reservoir only and
works connected with the water-works. That by-law was passed in 1886. They could spend
the money on the reservoir, or in extending the distribution of the service, or improving the
12-inch main. But I submit they had no right to expend it on the 16-inch main without the
consent of the ratepayers. Having passed this by-law, and having the assent of the ratepayers, they had certainly no right to spend $28,000 on that reservoir and abandon the work
in an incomplete state without referring to the inhabitants of the city, and then spend the
balance on the 16-inch main. The city voted a certain sum of money for the reservoir ; the
Council spent $28,000 on a work which was condemned; they passed another by-law without
referring to the city, and then spent $22,000 on the 16-inch main ; but that money had not been
voted for that purpose. The annual report of 1887 shows that $25,000 of this loan appears
to have been received that year. When the rest of the money came in does not appear from
the reports ; but, I take it, it will be admitted that it has been received. I refer your Lordships to section 6 of the Mayor's Report for 1888, page 7, in which he states that $6,000 of
that $75,000 loan was spent in distribution of the service, $28,000 on the reservoir, and that
$22,477.15 was paid out of the same loan on account of the 16-inch main for material, right-
of-way and excavation. Referring to the Water Commissioner's Report in the same year :—
They raised $20,000 for distribution of the service and spent it. Pages 40-41, report 1888,
shows the balance of this expenditure referred to by the Mayor ; the figures are not quite the
same, but it is the same expenditure ; there is no doubt about that. The estimates made on
behalf of the 16-inch main were down as chargeable to that loan. They paid $28,000 on the
reservoir.
The Court: You have paid into the Bank of British Columbia, on account of the waterworks reservoir, $1,900 ?
Mr. Bodwell: The Annual Report of the year 1887 shows that out of the Water-works
Debentures Loan they had spent $45,000 ; but it does not state where.
The Court: In the answer of the city it is stated that they had spent $28,000 on the
reservoir.
Mr. Bodwell: The exact figures are $28,080.15. Then there is $22,477.15 on the 16-inch
main, and $6,000 for distribution. They say in their answer the balance of that, $36,713.66,
was placed, in 1888, on special deposit, so that at the beginning of the year 1889 they had on
special deposit in the Bank of British Columbia $10,000, and in the Bank of British North
America $10,971.14. Part of these items, or part of both of them, was the remaining portion
of that $75,000 loan.    I hope we are making this clear to your Lordships?
The Court: Have you the particulars of these two sums made out ?
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. xiii-
Mr. Bodwell: I haven't had time. Proceeding : In the year 1889, if you refer to page
147 of that book, the Annual Report, you will find they raised $70,000 for the purpose of
building a new 16-inch main and extending the city water-works. There is no doubt of the
purpose for which that money was obtained. That by-law was passed on the 24th of July,
1889. On the same day the city passed another by-law, that's on page 149, to raise $60,000
for the purpose of extending the general distribution of the water-works of the City of
Victoria—that is, for distribution service. On page 151 you will find, on the same day a bylaw was passed to raise $25,000 for purposes of Beacon Hill Park and its approaches. Then,
on the same day, on page 153, they raised a loan of $15,000 for the purpose of purchasing a
new steam fire engine and other necessary articles in connection therewith. Then, going back
to the previous month, on the 14th of June (referring to page 139) a loan of $45,000 was
raised to be expended in bridge and street improvements inside the city, and enlarging the
area of Ross Bay cemetery. If you will refer to page 78 of the report of 1889 you will find
the city received premiums on these loans, as follows :—
On the $45,000 Street Loan, a premium of $1,575 ; on the $70,000 Water Works Loan,
$1,232; on the $60,000 Water Works Extension, $1,056 ; on the $25,000 Beacon Hill Park,
$440 ; and on the $15,000 Fire Loan, $294, making a total of $4,567. In fact, they are all
set out in detail in the Statement of Claim of the List of Charges. In the cash statement of
the city of that year it is said that all these loaned moneys were received and paid into the
general account of the city; and by referring to page 36 of the balance sheet of that date we
find a credit in the Bank of B. N. A. to the water works account of thirty-nine cents. That
is the state of the account at the end of the year. Looking at the statement of expenditure,
page 83 of the same report, they have spent out of the $60,000 for distribution
the sum of $21,665.35. On water works extension, for which they had the following
snms, $70,000, $10,000, and $10,179, three sums, they spent $68,756.30. Take the Fire Loan.
They spent that year on the fire department $12,702.62. They did not buy any fire engine ;
it does not appear on the fire account at any rate. They did not spend that loan at all. It
went to pay the overdraft at the bank. At any rate it was paid into the general account,
and it does not appear how or where it was spent. The $45,000 loan was paid into the bank
in the same way. On page 85 you will find that the streets and bridges expenditure amounted
to $80,233.40, and in the Mayor's report of that year he says that Ross Bay cemetery has not
yet been enlarged. " This is a matter that should be seen to, as it will be found that some
steps will require to be taken in this direction in the near future." The by-law had been passed
and the money all spent, as you will see, and yet no part of it had been used for enlarging
Ross Bay cemetery.
The Court : There were two purposes in the by-law ; one for street purposes, and one for
enlarging the cemetery.    They may have spent all of it in improving the streets.
Mr. Bodwell : They raised it for two purposes, and I tell you they had no right to use it
for one purpose only.
The Court: But they have done. The by-law does not specify how much they are to
spend on Ross Bay cemetery.    It may be $25 only.
Mr. Bodwell: Here, in the accounts of the fire department, is an expenditure of $12,000
and they had $15,000. They spent $12,000 and the rest went into the general account.
They started that year with an overdraft at the bank, as appears on the annual report of 1888,
page 13, of $33,691.07, and in the cash statement for 1889, page 76, they had a credit of
$11,894.49 on general account. In other words, they took $62,103.34 out of these loan
moneys and placed it to the account of their overdraft at the bank. This is admitted in the
answer of the city. All these amounts were used—they diverted these loans from the purposes
for which they were voted and applied them to different purposes altogether. They admit
that they did it. We say it was illegal for them to do it. They take credit to themselves
that by so doing they saved interest on the overdraft; but we say they had no business to
have an overdraft at all. Their excuse is as good as no excuse at all. Our charge of the
illegal diversions of loans is made out clearly from their own admissions.
J. L. Raymur was re-called. Examined by Mr. Bodwell: Witness said that special
deposit in the Bank of B. C. was $10,000 at the end of 1886.
Q.—Which one is that from ?
A.—That was from the $75,000 loan of 1886. They sold the debentures of that loan,
and not requiring the money immediately it was placed in the bank on special deposit, bearing
 xiv. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
interest at 4 per cent., and drawn out as required. The second $10,000 is an amount which
had already been drawn from the Bank of B. C. and placed to the credit of the water works
account in the Bank of B. N. A.    The interest amounted to $3,681.37.
Q.—That is all of the loan of 1886 ?
A.—Yes. It was drawn out as required from the Bank of B. C. and placed to the credit
of the water works account in the Bank of B. N. A., and that amount of $0.39 was remaining.
Q.—So that money had been actually spent that year ?
A.—In various ways.
Q.—These two amounts of $10,000 and $10,179 were all spent in 1889 on water works?
A.—Yes.
Q.—How do you keep the water works account ?
A.—We keep a separate bank account for it.
Q.—Are those amounts stated in the answer correct ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—The $70,000 loan and the $60,000 loan, were they paid into the general account?
A.—Yes.
Q.— And the $45,000 loan, and the $15,000, and the $25,000 for Park Loan, and the
premiums on them, paid into the general account ?
A.—Yes, all of them.
Q.—Are these amounts stated in the answer correct ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—How do you keep track of these if they are paid into the general account ?
A.—We keep separate accounts in the ledger of the various loans.
Q.—And are the vouchers marked in the same way ?
A.—Yes. The estimated revenue and expenditure is always balanced off by an appro
priation for streets and bridges.
Q.—Was there a Bank Credit By-law passed in 1889 ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Have you looked through those loan by-laws ?
A.—Not lately.
Q.—Ts it the intention to exceed the appropriations every year ?
A.—I have no idea.
Q.—You can't explain how they estimate $18,000 for streets and spend $30,000?
A.—No.
Q.—Do they always make up the full amount estimated ?
A.—Generally.     We balance it off for streets and bridges.
Q.—You can't say why it is they double the estimates for street expenditure ?
A.—I have nothing to do with street work.
Mr. Bodwell : It is a curious fact that they always do.
Cross-examination. Mr. Richards : The money has all been spent in the public interest,
hasn't it ?
A.—I think so.
Q.—And well spent, too ?
A.—I believe so.
Q.—You have read this answer here ? (holding up the City's reply.)
A.—Yes.
Q.—It is stated that a sum was paid into the bank in 1889 in order to prevent interest
accumulating on the overdraft ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—The Council of 1889 liquidated such debt by a portion of the proceeds of special
loans ?
A.—Yes.
Q.-—Leaving $11,000 odd to the credit of the City ?
A.—Yes.
Mr. Bodwell: How much did you owe the bank at the end of the year 1890—$71,000
didn't you?
A.—Yes, I believe we did.
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. xv.
Q.—In the beginning of the year you say that $71,000 was a credit of $11,894.49 ?
A.—Yes.
A.—So that you increased the overdraft the difference between   those two amounts,
somewhere between $40,000 and $50,000 ?
Court adjourned until Monday evening.
Tuesday, 24th November, 1891.
Evidence in re Gravel Pits Sale.—Resumed.
Geo. Stelly.    Examined by Mr. W. J. Taylor.
Q.—Your name is George Stelly ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—You are a contractor living in Victoria ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Have you had much experience in the use of gravel, Mr. Stelly ?
A.—Yes, I sell a good deal of gravel.
Q.—You deal in it ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—For how long?
A.— Ever since I am here, about 30 years ago.
Q.—What is gravel worth a load in Victoria ?
A.—Delivered, $1.25 ; and about two bits a load at the pits.
Q.—Do you haul much gravel ?
A.—Occasionally I haul a good deal.
Q.—Have you ever examined these Corporation gravel pits ?
A.—Not particularly. I have been near them many times ; but didn't examine them
particularly exactly.
Q.—Do you remember the time they were sold ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Did you look over them then ?
A.—I looked over some, because I had a notion to buy ; but didn't see much in it, and
didn't buy.
Q._Why ?
A.—The gravel is hardly worth anything more than two bits a load. If a man pays you
so much for a load, you have then got to haul other stuff to fill the place up again. That
stuff would cost from five bits to a dollar, so I put it down that you get two bits for five bits.
If you take the stuff where they're making excavations for cellars, it may come cheaper ; but
when you got to dig, it won't cost less than a dollar.
Q.—That's the reason why you didn't buy ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—This land is pretty full of holes up there generally ?
A.—Yes; I have done some work in my place, and I know from experience that the cost
of filling up is a good deal.
Q.—What is your idea of the value of these lots ?
A.—They got a big price for them.
Q.—Is it more than you would give ?
A.—I didn't want to give that much.
Q.—Is gravel used as much now in making roads as formerly ?
A.—Well, gravel is good enough for a road where there is not much heavy traffic. No,
it not used as much as formerly.
Q.—What is ?
A.—Broken stone.
 xvi. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
Q.—Which in your opinion is the better ?
A.—The stone, of course.
Q.—As regards cost to the city, about what difference is there?
A.—I don't know exactly.
Q.—How much would stone cost 1
A.—Well, the Corporation owns the crusher, and they could do the blasting themselves.
Q.—Now, in your opinion, about what difference would there be in the cost, taking the
facilities for getting rock and gravel ?
A.—About $2 to $2.50 a yard for rock, and the gravel a dollar and a quarter—I think
rock is worth about three times as much as gravel, because its lasts so much longer.
Q.—In arriving at your opinion about rock, upon what basis do you proceed ?
A.—It will wear longer, of course. If you put gravel on one of the streets down in the
heart of the city, where there is so much traffic, you have got to scrape it off shortly after in
the shape of mud. It is good enough for the outskirts, where there is light traffic ; but not
for the town.
Q.—Do you know anything about the quality of these gravel pits ?
A.—Oh, yes ; it is good enough.
Q.—Do you know anything about the quantity there?
A.—I couldn't tell you how much. I don't say there's a very great quantity—I would
not be able to say.
Q.—Is it a good easy pit ?
A.—Yes, there is some good leads in it, then some worse again, and when that's mixed
up, there is some of middling quality; but it has some first-class quality ; but when they are
digging down, and they let the earth come down and mixes it up, it is not very good.
Q.—Does the gravel lie near or below the surface of the soil ?
A.- The soil is on top.
Q.—Do you know anything about the cost of removing the soil to get at the gravel ?
A.—Generally, the soil goes into it.
Q.—W'hat is the cost of removing this earth per load ? Does it cost the same as the
removal of the gravel ?
A.—Yes, it costs about three or four bits a load.
Cross-examined by Mr. Bodwell.
Q.—Do you sell gravel now 1
A.—No, not much.
Q.—You can find men to buy what gravel you can get ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—You don't find much trouble in selling gravel, you can sell all you want, in fact,
there is plenty of demand for it ?
A.—Oh, not so much.
Q.—How many gravel pits, about, are there in the city now ? Haggerty's is worked out,
isn't it 1
A.—Haggerty's ?    I didn't know he had one.    He had a little sand place.
Q.—But that's been worked out, hasn't it ?
A. —I don't know ;  I haven't been round there.
Q.—Your gravel pit's at Spring Ridge, isn't it ?
A—Yes.
Q.—How much have you got there 1
A.—I don't know.
Q.—Ten thousand yards ?
A.—I guess more than that.
Q.—Did you see the Corporation gravel pits ?
A.—I didn't look particularly at them.
Q.—You are not giving evidence now from anything you have seen lately ? You haven't
been there specially to see what it is like, so as to give evidence at this enquiry ?
A.—No, no.
Q.—You say rock costs $2 a yard, and the amount to blast and crush it?
A—I say $2.50.
Q.—It costs just as much to haul rock as it does gravel, doesn't it ?
A.—Yes; but you've got lots of rock on the streets here where you could blast it out on
the spot.
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality
Q.—But supposing I have to take it a distance from where I blast it, doesn't it cost as
much?
A.—Yes.
Q.—You know some of the new streets that are going to be opened out ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Have you got rock to put. over those streets ?
A.—There's plenty of rock all over.
Q.—But the rock is on private property ?
A.—In a great many places.
Q.—Do you know where Oak Bay Avenue is ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Got any rock there which belongs to the city ?
A.—There's a big bluff right back from Higgins' house.
Q.—That's on private property. Is it not a fact that when you use rock you have got
to haul it, and the cost of hauling is just the same as gravel, so that it is two bits against $2
a load, the relative cost of rock and gravel ?
A.—The city have always been in the habit of putting gravel on the streets where there
is not much traffic, while the rock lasts a great deal longer.
Q.—But it has not been the custom to put gravel over macadam ?
A.—They used to do it.
Q.—Haven't they been doing it this year ?
A.—I don't know what they did this year.
Q.—You would always want gravel for crossings and sidewalks ? You would not advocate using rocks for that ?
A.—You don't want gravel for sidewalks; you make them of wood. Of course, for
crossings it would be good.
The Court: You know Senator Macdonald's place ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—You know that road that goes through his place to Beacon Hill 1
A.—Yes.
Q.—There is a gravel pit up there?
A.—There is a small one there, but I don't think it is much. Besides, it is in the road.
It might go further back into private land; I don't know.
Mr. John Grant, Mayor of the City of Victoria, was the next witness. Examined by
Mr. Richards:
Q.—You are the Mayor of the city this year ?
A.—I am.
Q.—Does the Corporation own any gravel pits near Beacon Hill ?
A.—Yes.
Q.___Where ?
A.—They are just back of what is known as the Caledonian Grounds; somewhere there.
The Court: What is the size of that lot ?
A.—The ordinary sized town lot, your Lordship.
Q.—They are north of Corrig College ?
A.—Yes ; somewhere there.
Mr. Richards : Do you know those lands called the gravel pits at Spring Ridge ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—They were sold this year by the Council ?
A.—A short time ago.
Q.—Do you know to what extent they have been used by the city for gravel purposes ?
A.—Considerable gravel has been taken out of them in times gone by, but not so much
recently.
Q._Why 1
A.—It was found by experience generally that work could be done as cheap, if not
cheaper, by giving the work out by contract and letting contractors find their own gravel.
Q.—Do I understand that the city, in gravelling streets, has had it done by contract ?
A.—Most of it, lately.
Q.—And the contractor furnishes his own gravel ?
 xviii. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
A—Yes.
Q.—In the new roads you use some gravel.
A.—Yes.
Q.—In the most frequented parts of the city what do you use, lately?
A.—Macadam.
Q._Why ?
A.—For very good reasons. Some five or six years ago, when the central parts of the
city were graded, the person then in charge of the work was under the impression that it
would be in the interests of the road to put in two or three inches of gravel. It had not been
there long before we had to haul it away in the shape of mud. That was the experience, and
all parties came to the conclusion that it would be wise not to use it at all. Once in a while,
lately, a little has been put down for the purpose of binding the macadam; but it has been
found that it grinds up the macadam, and the Corporation has found that it would be very
much to the advantage of the roads not to use gravel at all.
Q.—The city limits have been extended lately, and you say there are new roads to be
opened out there ; gravel will be necessary there.    Is it to be found ?
A.—Any amount. Besides, aside from that, I do not approve of gravel pits inside the
city at all.
Q.—It is most objectionable ?
A.—I think, inside a city, a large hole or excavation is not a desirable thing to look at.
I am sure I would not like to have it near my house.
Mr. Richards :  Especially if the hole were constantly enlarging ?
A.—No.
Q.—When you make excavations of that kind it depreciates the value of the property?
A.—Yes.
Q.—And to some extent the property adjoining it ?
A.—Yes ; most certainly.
Q.—If the Corporation makes an excavation in any part of the city, and anyone should
happen to fall into that hole, they would come against the city for damages 1 They have been
known to do that sort of thing ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Do you consider it in the interest and good government of the city that these lots
should be disposed of?
A.—I think so.
Q.—Do you think the lots have been bought by people who will build upon them ?
A.—I think so.
Q.—And not for the purpose of taking out gravel ?
A.—I think not.
Q.—The town is growing out there ?
A.—There is quite a little town growing up there, and I have no doubt in a very few
years it will be built up.
The Court: That is only supposition; that is all anticipation. We want reminiscences
of the past, not prophesies of the future.
Mr. Richards : When was it you came to the conclusion to sell that property?
A.—In the early part of the year.
Q.—You passed your by-law and submitted it to the people ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—That by-law was carried ?
A—Yes.
Q.—You sold the property to the best advantage, did you not ?
A.—I think to the very best advantage.
Q.—You got the services of the most competent auctioneer, did you not 1
A.—The Council came to the conclusion that inasmuch as Mr. Northcott was not a practical auctioneer, to get the assistance of one; and you know what the assistance was.
Q.—What was the result?
A.—The result was that we realized on the sale of that piece of property much more than
any of us anticipated.
Q.—It cost something to grade those streets running through there ? Of course that is a
permanent improvement ?
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. xix.
A.—That is a permanent improvement.
Q.—You were acting in the interest of the city as its Mayor when you sanctioned the
sale of this property?
A.—I did.
Q.—You got a large price ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Have you ever footed up the interest on this price, and the probable taxation the
city will get from the occupiers of this property ?
A. —I have not made any such calculation, but it is very easily done. I think the taxation will realize more than the price of gravel taken from it or sold yearly. However, Mr.
Leech, the City Engineer, will give you fuller details than I can about this matter.
Mr. Bodwell, cross-examining : You were at the meeting of the Council at which this
by-law was introduced ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—You had a report of the Street Committee as to the quantity of gravel that would be
required in future years ?
A.—No, I don't think so.
Q.—You had a relative estimate as to cost of opening the new gravel pit behind the
Caledonian Grounds?
A.—They were already a gravel road, and all you had to do was to dig into it.
Q.—Did you have no estimate of the quantity of gravel there ?
A.—No.
Q. —Do you know how much gravel there is there now ?
A.—No.
Q.—Have you any estimate of the quantity of gravel used in Victoria in the year 1891?
A.—No.
Q._During the year 1890 ?
A.—No.
Q.—Nor before that ?
A.—I think Mr. Leech can give you all that data.
Q.—Is there nothing to show the quantity of gravel that has been used ?
A.—There are reports at the end of each year showing the statements of the different
committees of the city.
Q.—Why were not all these things brought before the Council in the shape of reports at
the time this by-law was introduced ?    Were they produced ?
A.—No ; I can't say they were.
Q.—The quantity that had been used, and the quantity that would be required in the
years to come ?
A.—Nothing that I can remember.
Q.—And no estimate of the quantity of gravel that had been drawn from  Spring Ridge ?
A.—No.
Q.—Or the quantity in the new pits behind the Caledonian Grounds ?
A.—No.
Q.—It is a fact, is it not, that gravel has been used constantly in the streets ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Did you state that it is the intention of the Council not to use much gravel ?
A.—I did.
C.—But the Council has only power to act for one year, and next year the policy of
gravel may again go into effect, and the macadam to a large extent be eliminated.
A.—That is possible, I don't think it is at all probable.
Q.—Is there any probability that the Council will discontinue the use of gravel on the
streets of the city ?
A.—I do not think so, because there are certain things we want a little gravel for.
Q.—Then gravel will always be used ?
A.—I think so.
Q.—You say it has been found cheaper to have the gravel work done by contract, the
contractor finding his own gravel.    How have you found that out ?
A.—By calculating the price of gravel placed on the street, and comparing that with
what it costs the city to haul it and place it on the street.
 xx. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
Q.—Does not that show something wrong in the state of things ? How is it : Here is a
city, owning gravel pits, and can get men as cheap as anyone else, finds it cheaper to give the
work out to contractors 1
A.—It is a well known fact, one that cannot be denied, that a corporation or government
can not get as much work out of men as a contractor can. I have made more miles of waggon
road than any man in British Columbia, and I know this for a fact.
Q.—If that is so, how do you account for the work that is being done in the city by day
work instead of contract 1
A.—There are certain kinds of work in a Corporation that it is not wise, in the public
interest, to put out to contract.
Q.—But, if the Corporation cannot get as much work out of the men as a private individual, how does it get a chance to look after those who are working ? Does the city not
take any penalties from the contractors ?
A.—Yes, it takes the security, and that binds them to the forms of the contract. But
there are many things in the general works that are only discovered after the contract time
has expired.
Q.—You have a Street Commissioner and City Surveyor whose duty it is to look out for
such mistakes, and you hold the penalty of the contractor ; how do you account for the fact
that the contractor is not kept up to his agreement ?
A.—As I said before there are many things that will crop up that will not be discovered
till after the time of the contract has expired. But then there are works that, such as
the water-works and other permanent works, should be done only under the eye of the
men of the Corporation.
Q.—How do you make it out that the Corporation will never get as much work out of
the men as a private individual ?
A.—Men will never work as hard for a corporation as for a private individual. That is
a principle that all know.
Q.—Is it a possibility from which there is no escape?
A.—It is a general rule.
Q.—Can you not make an exception in the city of Victoria ?
A.—I don't think so.
Q.—Do you mean to say that as Mayor of the city of Victoria that this is a state of
things that is bound to exist ?
A.—Yes, I do.
Q.—Do you mean to say this is a state of things that is bound, and must of necessity
exist in this city?
A.—It is.
Q.—And this city is no exception ?    It is not a necessity that they should exist ?
A.—It would appear not; but it is. It is the experience of every corporation or government that they pay at least 25 per cent, more for their work than the private individuals.
Q.—Is it the result of experience as taught that corporations can do better by letting
their work by contract ?
A.—Such work as may be desirable may be let by contract.
Q.—I suppose that is a statement with considerable qualification?
A.—Certainly.
Q.—Then the theory is you can't do as much by day labour as by contract ?
A.—Sometimes. You can't do patching, and there are a great many other things that
you can't let by contract, for the simple reason that the parties who would tender do not care
to go round to see what the work required is, and they would consequently allow for a very
large margin of profit before tendering. That is why I say that you can't let such small
jobs such as patching and other small jobs by contract.
Q._Why is that ?
A.—Because the quantities cannot be exactly estimated.
Q.—Can you tell us how much was expended for street repairs in 1887 ?
A.—Not exactly.
Q._In 1888?
A.—No.
Q.—In 1889 ?
A.—No.
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. xxi.
Q.—In 1890?
A.—No.    If you take any of the annual reports I think you will find that data in them.
Q.—We may take the annual reports on those points as correct ?
A.—I think so.
The Court : Are you not going rather into the question of general extravagance, Mr.
Bodwell?
Mr. Bodwell: You were at the meeting of the City Council of the 22nd October when
this by-law authorizing the City Assessor to make the sale was made ?
A.—I think so.
Q.—You say that the Council without changing the by-law allowed the sale to be made
by Mr. Davies ?
A.—No. It was to be made by the Assessor ; but there was nothing in the by-law that
says he may not have assistance.
Q.—As a citizen reading that by-law you would imagine that it was to be a sale without
cost to the city ?
A.—The by-law provides that it was to be sold under his management.
Q.—And then the auctioneer was afterwards appointed and the commission was paid.
Do you think that was a proper thing to do ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—And as Mayor of the city you thought you had not any other duty to perform than
to allow this thing to be done ?
A.—I think the question came up, and it was the opinion that it was quite competent
for Mr. Northcott to get an assistant.
Q.—Is the City Assessor an executive officer of the city ?
A.—No.
Q.—Then why was he authorized to make this sale ? Does not the by-law state that an
executive officer has to attend the—
A.—Because he was familiar with the taxation of the city property.
Q.—But if he is not an executive officer of the Corporation why was he named as the
person to conduct this sale ?
A.—I think he is just as much an executive officer of the city as Mr. Kent is.
Q.—There was no special reason for naming him as the person to sell the property ?
A.—No ; it was thought that he was the proper person.
Q.—You thought he was competent to do it ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Then why on earth did you get an auctioneer to sell the property ?
A.—For the simple reason that an auctioneer would get a much better price for the
property than an ordinary individual.
Q.—What was Mr. Raymur's estimate of the probable receipts of the sale of the gravel
pits?
A.—It was something about $19,000.
Q.—Were there other estimates of the value of the property ?
A.—Yes, there were several; from $15,000 up to $20,000, $23,000, and $25,000.
Q.—You attended the sale ?
A.—No. I was somewhere else in the building engaged in some other municipal
business.
Q.—You don't know whether it was lively and spirited ?
A.—Only from hearsay.
Q.—You don't know how long it lasted ?
A.—No.
Q.—Was this a very difficult property to sell ?
A.—No, not very.
Q.—It is in a part of the city that is being very rapidly built up ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—And the tram line is expected to reach this place very shortly ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—So that the property required no very great energy to sell 1
A.—Perhaps not; but I think that a good auctioneer always pays for himself.
Q.—Then why did you name Mr. Northcott instead of Mr. Davies ?
 Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
A.—Because I think it is required in the Act somewhere.
Q.—Then why did not you put it in the by-law that he could get a competent auctioneer
to sell the property ?
A.—That was a matter that was not thought of at the time. It has always been the
custom of the Corporation to sell in this way.
Q.—If the auctioneer will always pay for himself, why did not the city order the sale to
be made by the auctioneer ?
A.—He did provide for himself in this case.
Q.—Were you at the Council meeting of the 22nd October?
A.—I think so.    I am generally there.
Q.—Do you remember anything of this kind occurring :—" The residents of Hill street
petitioned in favour of having that thoroughfare graded.
" Aid. Smith.—We have got no funds, and we will do no work. We have not the means,
we are about to discharge six men, leaving just two men for James Bay Ward; two for
Johnson Street Ward ; and two for Yates Street Ward.
" The Mayor said that if they were to do all the work they were asked to do the would
require a great deal more money at their disqosal. There were 121 miles of streets and 200
miles of sidewalks to be kept in repair, and it took a great deal to do this. The Street Committee handed in its report recommending certain improvements in the streets and sidewalks
of the city.    Bills to the amount of $128 were passed for payment.
" Aid. Smith announced that at a very early date it would be necessary to replank James
Bay bridge, and that would be a very expensive undertaking. The report was adopted."
How do you account for that state of things ?    Is that what occurred at that meeting ?
A.—Not exactly as it is mentioned there.
Q.—Was there a petition from the residents of Hill street ? And did Aid. Smith say
that they were going to discharge a large number of men ?    How do you account for that ?
A.—I am not stating that that is correct there.
Q.—Was there a petition ?
A.—I don't know. There are so many petitions that it would be hard to keep track of
them?
Q.—Is it correct, the report about what Aid. Smith said ?
A.—I don't think that is exactly as he said it; he may have said something meaning
something like that.
Q.—The Sanitary Officer reported in favour of having a box drain repaired on View
street, and could not have it done for want of funds. How much work could two men in
each ward do on streets?
A.—Very little.
Q.—At the following week's meeting, the 29th October, Aid. Smith reported that ten
teams and seventeen men had been discharged, and ten men and two teams retained. How
much work could they do ?
A.—Very little.
Q.—Do you know whether any of these men have since been put to work again on the
streets ?
A.—A number of them have been put to work.
Q.—How many ?
A.—I don't know. I think inside of the next week some of the men were employed
again.
Q.—Does the city intend to give us accurate information on this point ?
A.—They will give you a statement of how the money has been expended.
The Court at this stage adjourned for one hour for lunch.
The Court having returned from lunchon, Mr. P. J. Leech, City Surveyor, was called:
Examined by Mr. Richards—You are the City Surveyor?
A.—Yes, sir.
Q.—For how long have you held that position ?
A.—The beginning of 1884.
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. xxiii.
Q.—Have you charge of the streets and sidewalks and the work done in the city in the
engineering line ?
A.—I have.
Q.—Either by contract or day's work ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Do you know the gravel pits ?
A—I do.
Q.—For how long ?
A.—Several years.
Q.—Have you been using gravel lately on the streets ?
A.—More than I would like to use, but not so much as heretofore.
Q.—Still, there has been used more than you approve of as engineer?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Do you approve of gravel being used on these roads for certain purposes ?
A.—For crossings it may be used.
Q.—When you say that there is more gravel being used than you approve of, what do
you mean ?
A.—I do not approve of gravel being used on macadam.
Q._Why ?
A.—Because it is condemned by the best authority. It prevents the macadam becoming
firmly packed, and being of a harder quality than the macadam it grinds it up. For this
reason it is condemned by the best authorities on engineering.
Q.—As an engineer, what is the best way to make a road ?
A.—First to grade it; then to roll it; then to put a layer four inches thick of heavy rock;
lay upon it a thin layer of coarse rock, finishing up with a layer of rock about two inches
thick, and then finally roll it.
Q.—That makes the best road?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Does the city require much gravel?
A.—They should not require any gravel for making a road like that.
Q.—In what way has the city work been done where gravel has been used—I mean by
contract or day's work ?
A.—In some cases we have not macadamized the streets in the outlying portions of the
town, but simply gravelled them.    This work has been done by contract.
Q.—Who furnishes the gravel ?
A.—The contractor.
Q.—Where does he get it ?
A.—I don't know.
Q.—Is there any difficulty in getting gravel ?
A.—I suppose not; I never knew of a contractor having any difficulty in getting any.
Q.—There is no difficulty in getting gravel in this part of Vancouver Island ?
A.—I don't think so.
Q.—Was it found cheaper to let the work by contract than if the city had done it by
day's work and have their own gravel pits ?
A.—I am sure of it.
Q.—In what way could the city use the gravel pits ?
A.—As I said before, simply in making crossings, and the little they use in blinding the
macadam.
Q.—What is the result of its being spread on the macadam ?
A.—It prevents the macadam from binding, and the gravel being of a harder rock it
helps to grind up the macadam quicker and thus forms mud.
Q.—Have you any idea of the quantity of gravel that has been used in the city ?
A.—We never kept an account.    We couldn't tell.
Q._Who could tell?
A.—No one. We never kept an account. Our foreman might be able to tell you, but
it would not be very accurate.    I am sure it would be only very widely approximate.
Q.—Can you not give the Commissioners any information on the subject ?
A.—I am afraid I could not.
Q.—Have you examined these gravel pits ?
 xxiv. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
A.—Yes.
Q.—How is the gravel between Queen's Avenue and Cedar Hill Road ?
A.—There is no gravel there at all.
Q.—In what state are these lots?    Was there ever any gravel there?
A.—There never was any gravel taken out of there.
Q.—Take that part between Queen's and Princess Avenues ?
A.—A little has been worked out there.
Q.—How is it in here ?
A.—This down here is the Pound.
Q.—In lots 17, 15, 14, and 16?
A.—They have been worked out.
Q.—How about 10, 11, 12, and 13 ?
A.—There may be a little gravel, but hardly any. No, there is none there. There may
be a little in 12 or 13.
Q.—Did you work these streets through here ?    Have these been graded ?
A.—Princess Avenue and Queen's Avenue have been lately graded.
The Court : Have you made any profile or particular survey of these lots ?
A.—WTe have surveyed them into lots.
Q.—Now, Mr. Leech, suppose this land were to be worked out as this hole has been
worked out, would it be any expense to fill it up again ?
A.—Of course it would. It would cost more to fill it up than it did to take the gravel
out of it.
Q.—They say that gravel is so much a load there, but they will have to pay haulage, in
addition to that they will have to pay for the earth to fill it up again ?
A.—Certainly.
Q.—Knowing the wants of the city with respect to gravel, if there are any such wants,
do you think the city made a good bargain by selling that property ?
A.—I think they did.
Q.—In getting rid of them ?
A.—In getting rid of them.
Mr. Bodwell, cross-examining : You say it would cost a great deal to fill those places up ;
is there an obligation on the city to fill it up ?
A.—Certainly not.
The Court: The city has not proposed that.
Mr. Bodwell:  But my learned friend has.
Q.—What is the difference in the elevation between Chambers Street aud Spring Road ?
A.—I suppose the difference in the elevation between Spring Road and Chambers Street
would be about 21 or 22 feet.
Q.—That is a distance of what ?
A.—About 500 feet.
Q.—Down to what depth can you take a face as shown on this profile ?
(After some calculation in the matter of grades)—
Q.—Do you think it would pay ?
A.—No ; I don't think it would.
Q.—What do you think would be the expense of getting that gravel out and giving the
place a presentable appearance ?
A.—I could not say.
Q.—You say it is against the best engineering authorities to use gravel for blinding
macadam ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Who is your authority ?
A.—Rankin.
Q.—He speaks of limestone rock ?
A.—He says that some engineers to make a broken stone road have put a sprinkling of
sand and gravel on it called binding. But he says that is bad practice, for the particles of
sand and gravel work their way between the stones, and prevent them making as compact a
mass as they ought to do. The reason, I think, for that is that the gravel and sand are a
disintegrated rock of a very hard character, and the macadam, which is a softer rock, is
ground up to be hauled away as mud.
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. xxv.
Q.—But he is talking more with reference to limestone rock than to this sort of rock
here? Does not your experience tell you that the majority of macadam used in England is
made of limestone rock ?    And Rankin is speaking of England ?
A.—Yes ; and I say the same principle holds good here.
Q.—Have you any authority ?
A.—There is an instance in the rock that is crushed by the crusher. It not only breaks
it into pieces, but the pieces themselves are shaken and easily disintegrated afterwards.
Q,—Do you know the top of Yates Street ?
A.—I do.
Q.—What kind of a road do you call that ?
A.—Between Fernwood Road and Fort Street; is that the part you mean ?
Q.—Yes ; along by the Public School.    Do you call that a good piece of road ?
A.—I don't think there is a good piece of macadam road in the city, except the Dallas
Road ; I think that is the best.
Q. — Speaking relatively, what do you say of that part of Yates Street, comparing it with
other parts of the city ?    Do you say it is a very bad piece of road ?
A.—I do not say it is a bad road.
Q. —When was that made ?
A.—That was done in 1884.
Q.—Was there not a good deal of gravel put on that ?
A.—I don't know.
Q.—Would you be surprised to know that there was a good deal of gravel put in there
for this blinding process ?
A.—It is very likely there was.
Q.—How does that coincide with your theory ?
A.—It would have been a better road without the gravel. There is a piece of road there
on Fort Street, from Douglas. When that was macadamized I believe there was no blinding
put on it, and it is a better road to-day than any in the city.
Q.—As an engineer, you would not put a great deal of gravel on for blinding purposes 1
A. —No; I would not put any at all.
Q.—But supposing you were going to use that process you would not use a great deal ?
A.—As I said before, I would not use any at all ?
Q.—If your theory is correct, that blinding process helps to make mud?
A—Yes.
Q.—But what is going to fill up the crevices ?
A.—There are four inches first of large rock ; then about three inches of smaller rock ;
that is all rolled.
Q.—What is the effect of that ?
A.—The small rock makes a fine surface and fills up the interstices.
Q.—Won't gravel do that as well ?
A.—It will do a great deal more ; it does mischief.
Q.—How much do you think gravel is worth a load?
A.—To give you one case in point: there was a street in the city, a short time ago, that
was gravelled for $1.70 a yard.
Q.—That was the total cost ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Do you consider it economical to macadamize the country roads ?
A.—I would gravel them, and let the work by contract.
Q.—You have a great many of that class of roads to build in the city ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—And a great many more to be built in the new limits. And you will want gravel
for this purpose. Supposing the city owned its own gravel pits, would it not be able to gravel
these roads cheaper than the contractor ?
A.—I am afraid that it would be too far to haul it.
Q.—But how does the contractor haul it and make it pay ?
A.—I don't know; that is his business.
Q.—Is there no good reason why the same profit should be made by the city as is made
by the contractor ?
A.—I do not think I can tell you why; I only know that it is so.
 xxvi. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
Q.—Did you make any tests here to see whether there was much gravel ? Did you make
no critical examination?
A.—I made no critical examination.
Q.—I understand you to say that there is no gravel here between Queen's and Princess
Avenues ?
A.—There may be some, but not much.
Q.—Did you make any critical inspection of the surface ?
A.—It is thoroughly worked out. I have seen it often, but have never sunk any test pit
to ascertain the quality of the gravel.
Q.—Did you sink any test to ascertain the quality of the gravel in the new pit ? Would
you be surprised to find that there are between 10,000 and 15,000 yards of gravel there?
A.—There might be.
Q.—Have you made any sidewalks this year of gravel ?
A.—We made two this year—one of 700 yards on Michigan, and one on Phoenix Place
of 240 feet.
Q.—Can you tell us how many men have been working on the streets since the 12th
October ?
A.—I suppose there were 26 to 30 employed on the gravel pits then.
Q.—Well, then, you were actually working the gravel pits with 26 to 30 men?
A.—No ; those men were grading the streets.
Q.—What did you do with these men when that work was completed ?
A.—They were discharged.
Q.—Then these 26 or 30 men were simply employed in grading the streets for the purpose
of selling this property ?    How many men have you working now ?
A.—In all about 10.
Q.—Then since the 12th October you haven't had more than 12 men working on the
streets ?    The average rate of wages is $2 a day ?
A—Yes.
Q.—What did you do with the gravel you took out of Princess Avenue in grading ?
A.—We put it on Queen's Avenue.
Mr. Richards : Take these new parts brought into the city, if roads were to be made you
would let the work by contract ?
A—Yes.
Q.—Would the contractors be able to get gravel in that locality ?
A.—I suppose they would be able to get gravel.
Q.—Have you any reason to suppose they would not ?
A.— No ; I haven't.
Q.—You said a good deal about making roads, and you said there was one first-class
road.    Which one is that?
A.—Dallas Road.
Q.—Out there by the salt water ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—That is made in the way you think it ought to be made, is it not ?
A.—Not exactly.    There was some gravel put on that, but not a very great deal.
Q.—Plenty of gravel in that neighbourhood ?
A.—I think so.
Q.—Have you any idea as to the quantity of gravel the city will require ?
A.—No ; I have not.
Q.—Could it be got for $1,000 ?—$500 ?
A.—I don't suppose all the gravel that would be wanted in the city in one year would
cost—well, it would cost less than $1,000, hauled and all.
Q.—Outside of contracts, $1,000 would pay for all the gravel the city would require in a
year?
A.—I think so.
Q.—What percentage do you allow at the pit's mouth for hauling? You say it is $1.25
delivered; what percentage of that enters into the hauling ?
A.—I should say about 75 cents or $1.
Mr. Bodwell: You say that it has been the practice to have this street work done by
contract ?
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. xxvii.
A.—Yes.
Q.—How do you account for the fact that out of the $80,233.04 spent on streets and
bridges in 1889, $26,960.93 was paid for wages?    How do you account for that?
A.—We keep a number of men to do odd jobs about the streets.
Q.—And out of $47,000 the sum of $21,442.17 was paid for wages in 1890. Yet you
say that the majority of this work is done by contract. How do you get such a large expenditure for wages ?
A.—It so happened that there was not so much work done by contract with the work
we had.
Q.—But you say that the majority of the work is done by contract ?
A.—I said that when we want to make a street, camber, grade, and gravel it, we have
the work done by contract.
Q.—I understand you to say that one reason for disposing of the gravel pits was that
you could not work them at a profit ?
A.—No ; I didn't say anything of the sort.
Q.—Why have you found that a city owning its gravel pits cannot do work cheaper than
a contractor ? and how is it that you do not carry that principle into all departments of street
work ?
Mr. Richards : How many miles of streets have you to keep in order in the city ?
A.—Within the city limits there are a little over 60 miles of streets graded, macadamized, or gravelled. Of sidewalks there are about 118 miles, many of them sidewalked on both
sides.    There are about eight miles of street that are sidewalked only on one side.
Q.—How many bridges have you ?
A.—We have James Bay Bridge, Rock Bay Bridge, two bridges on the Gorge Road, and
one on the Burnside Road.
Q.-—Have you any wooden drains ?
A—Yes.
Q.—You have to expend money on them ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—You are required to keep the sidewalks in order?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Are there not complaints made frequently by persons who say they fell through holes
in the sidewalks ?
A.—Sometimes.
Mr. Bodwell: How much work can you do with ten men ?
A.—Very little.
The Court: There is a statement in the fixed salaries of the city officials, giving $18,000
a year.    Is that not a lot of bossing for ten men ?
A.—Those ten men are only on the streets. There are all the other departments, such
as the water-works, the city electric light, and other branches.
William Lynn, examined by Mr. Taylor : What position do you hold in this city ?
A.—Street Commissioner of the City of Victoria.
Q.—How long have you held that position ?
A.—Since June 5th, last.
Q.—Have you ever examined those gravel pits ?
A.—No ; I have never examined them.
Q.—Have you had anything to do with the work of grading Princess and Queen's
Avenues ?
A.—I did.
Q.—When was that work done?
A.—Some time last summer.
Q.—Can you form any idea of the value of those pits to the city for gravel purposes ?
A.—No ; I could not.
Q.—Do you know anything with regard to the advantages of the use of gravel in making
roads ?
A.—For my part I would not use any gravel at all.
Q._Why.
 xxviii. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
A.—Because it grinds the macadam up.
Q.—Have you had any experience in making roads ?
A.—Yes ; I have made a good deal of roads both here, at home (in England), and in
Australia.
Q.—Is gravel used there to any extent ?
A.—We don't use any gravel.
Q.—How long has that idea prevailed for not using gravel ?
A.—I remember it for about two years.
Q,—It is a recent idea ?
A—Yes.
Q.—Have you formed any idea of the relative cost to the city of rock and gravel ?
A.—No ; I have not.
Q.—Can you tell us anything about the condition of these gravel pits ?
A.—When I got charge of them they were full of holes until I started to grade.
Q.—That was in June last ?
A.—No; that was in September, when they were offered for sale.
Q.—Did you examine the surface of the land there at all ?
A.—Yes ; but not particularly.
Q.—Was there gravel where this cut is ?
A.—There was a good deal of surface to dig off, and then there was gravel.
Q.—Can you tell us what proportion of it was gravel ?
A.—In some places, of course, there was hardly any ; for instance, you would have to go
about 200 feet up Chambers street before you would strike gravel. Then you would have to
take off two to two and a half feet of soil and boulders.
Q.—Were these stones of sufficient size to interfere with the easy use of these as gravel pits ?
A.—There were a great number of them.
Q.—Can you give us any idea of the quality of gravel there ?
A.—No; I never examined the gravel. I received my instructions from Mr. Leech to
make the road, and I did not bother my head about the gravel.
Q.—Did you examine the big cut there (Exhibit " D ") ?
A.—No.
Q.—You could not say anything about the quality of gravel there, or the quantity ?
A.—No, I never examined it.
Q.—What means of communication had these people of Spring Ridge with this side prior
to the construction of Queen and Princess Avenues ?
A.—They had to go back of that big hill and round to the South road.
Q.—It was a great convenience to the people there, the construction of these roads ?
A.—Certainly.
Q.—What effect will it have with regard to the value of property in that immediate
neighbourhood ?
A.—I think it will increase the value of property there.
By Mr. Bodwell: This gravel was good enough to use on Queen's Avenue ?
A.—I had to fill in with it.
Q.—Did you put anything else upon it ?
A.—I put the boulders.
Q.—Haven't they been able to work the pit on account of those boulders ?
A.—I don't know anything about that; that was before my time.
Q.—There is the fact that the pit has been worked ?
A.—There are the boulders.
Q.—You stated that you did not know anything about the gravel. Does it run to the
surface, did you see ?
A.—It might run to the surface or close to the surface, but it does not run to the surface
on Princess Avenue.
Q.—How many men were you working there ?
A.—I was working at one time twenty-four.
Q.—About how many teams ?
A.—About, well I had eight, and seven on Saanich road.
Q.—What was the idea of having seven on the Saanich road ?
A.—Putting on metal. 	
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. xxix.
1.—EXCESSIVE EXPENDITURE.
Mr. Bodwell: Our contention with regard to this is that the city never had any authority
at any time to expend any money beyond the current revenue of the year. That is the sum
and substance of our contention; and yet they have done so.
The Court: Practically they admit your claim, Mr. Bodwell; but they dispute the
figures.
Mr. Taylor pointed out to the Court a mistake that had occurred in the printing on page
13 of the city's reply with regard to the amount set down for 1889. That should have been
$11,435.78 instead of $8,864.22, thus making the total $60,848.09.
In support of his contention Mr. Bodwell quoted section 36 of the Act of 1867, chapter
172 ; section 11, chapter 94, of the Consolidated Acts; chapter 16, section 2, of the Act of
1881 ; section 3 of the Consolidated Acts of 1888 ; section 99, chapter 18, of the Act of
1889. The clause on which this contention is based is section 98 of the Municipal Act:—
" No municipal council shall have power to incur any liability beyond the revenue for the
current year, and that the revenue for every council duly elected shall commence with the
legal collections of the first day of the year in which the said council was elected until the
end of the year." That was the way in which the law stood with reference to this point
until the year 1891, when the present Municipal Act was brought into force. In sub-section 133
of section 98 of that Act it provides for the first time the power to raise money by borrowing
in anticipation of the revenue of the year. Up to the year 1891 the Council had no authority
to spend the revenue in excess of what came in during that year. We commence with the
year 1887, and we show the expenditure beyond the revenue in each year. I have a
statement here which will show your Lordships exactly how this is arrived at.
Mr. Richards : We have got the record in the list of charges as 1888, 1889, and 1890.
Mr. Bodwell : The only thing I will refer to in 1887 is the annual report, which shows
there was due at the bank at the end of that year the sum of $7,205.75 (page 9 of the
annual report for 1887). In the beginning of the year 1888, if you will take the report for
that year and refer to page 15, you will-find that they had increased that balance to $33,691.07,
an increase of $26,485. When you come to the year 1889 we find they transferred, as you
will see in the answer of the city, page 14, par. 3, loan moneys amounting to $62,103.33 in
payment of the overdraft. But it appears that they transferred not only the loan moneys,
but the premiums on those loans amounting to $4,567. So that the total loans diverted were
$66,670.33. From this must be taken the balance to the credit of the current account, as
shown on page 76 of the reports of 1889, $11,844.49. Coming down to the year 1890 there
is a statement in the annual report showing the overdraft to be $71,750.08. For the present
year we simply have to refer to the auditor's report, which estimates the shortage to be $92,000.
There was some argument as to the authority of the city to pass what is known as the
Bank Credit By-law.
Friday, November 27th, 1891.
Mr. Raymur was called and examined as to the statement showing how the petitioners
arrived at the claim of excessive expenditure.
In answer to Mr. Richards, he said :—The unpaid amounts have been charged to two
Councils; that is, they are charged against the Council that incurred them, and then the next
year they are charged against the Council that pays them. In the same way the unpaid
amounts of 1889 are charged against the Council of 1890.
Mr. Richards : Our statement shows the over-expenditure for 1888 to be $25,488.81, and
these amounts are charged in as part of the over-expenditure of 1889 ?
A.—Yes; they are included in the overdraft of the next year, and charged as over-
expenditure of that year, and not for the year in which they were incurred.
Q.—Is there any other error in this statement ?
A.—Yes, there is a mistake of $50,000 in 1890. There are $2,000 of unpaid amounts
charged against 1889 which will come in again in 1890.    In 1890 they have charged the whole
 Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
overdraft up against that year, whereas there is only $20,000 chargeable against the year 1890-
If that amount had been paid in to the water works account, separate from the current
account, we would have owed the bank $50,000. Deduct that from $71,000, and it leaves
about $20,000, which is really the overdraft of 1890.
The Court: I understand Mr. Bodwell's objection is that the loan moneys ought to have
been paid into the bank with the various accounts, as the moneys came in, to carry out the
work for which the loans were raised. I understand that the Corporation took these moneys
from the proper object to simply pay the overdraft. You borrowed the money on the security
of the water-works and applied it as though it had been out of the ordinary taxation of the
year. If the incoming Council takes the outgoing Council's debts, they ought to have credit
for them.
Mr. Richards: There is do doubt that we have overdrawn; all that we admit. But
what we really want to show is the indebtedness of the city as it really is, and as we show
here, altogether $71,000 at the beginning of this year.
The Court: The petitioners claim $75,000.
Mr. Raymur : The Council of 1890 only incurred $20,000 of that on the current revenue.
Mr. Richards : Are there any outstanding taxes to apply against that ?
A.—Yes; there are about $20,000 at the end of the year.
Q.—Which the last Council left you to collect?
A.—Yes.
Mr. Bodwell: In your estimate to the Council to the 30th September, you estimate a
real estate tax of $190,000 ?
A—Yes.
Q.—How much did you calculate will not be collected out of that ?
A.—I calculated it would all be collected.
Q.—What is the gross amount of the tax ?
A.—About $210,000; and then the arrears from last year besides.
Q.—How much was that ?
A.—There have been about $20,000 to $25,000 every year.
Q.—But didn't this Council incur a liability of $20,000 as one of their first acts ? How
many bank credit by-laws were passed in 1891 ?
A.—Only one 1 think you will find.
Q.—How much did you spend in April ?
A.—$76,576.76.
Q.—And in May ?
A—$112,696.42.
Q.—The second bank credit by-law was passed on the 20th May ?
A.—I don't know when it was.
The Court: I was looking at this section limiting the Council to the current legal expenditure. Surely the payment of the overdraft is not legal current expenditure ? They ought
to have raised the money under the ordinary borrowing powers; and then they could not do
that, for they can only contract a debt for matters in the jurisdiction of the Council; they
could not raise a debt to pay the liabilities of the Council of the preceding year.
Mr. Bodwell: You say, Mr. Raymur, that up to the end of April $76,000 had been spent,
and up to the end of May $112,000, and that the total amount, according to the by-law,
available for expenditure was $78,000. How was the money prior to the passage of the second
bank credit by-law obtained ?
A.—There is revenue coming in all the time.
Q.—Did you receive more revenue than you anticipated ?
A.— -As I told you there is revenue coming in all the time.
Q._Will you say that you received $112,000 at the end of May?
A.—No.
Q.—Will you say that you received $76,000 at the end of April ?
A.—I do not think so.
Q.—How was the money obtained between the time of the expiration of the limit of the
first bank by-law and the passage of the second one ?
A.—The bank advanced the money.
Q.—Who arranged that.
A.—I don't know—that is, not to my knowledge.
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. xxxi.
Q.—What was the total amount of expenditure up to the last time you made an estimate?
A—$272,000.
Q.—Not including any overdraft ?
A.—No.
Q.—You estimate the total revenue at what ?
A.—$317,000.
Q.—That includes the sale of the gravel pits, does it not ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—But what do you estimate the expenditue will be to the end of the year ?
A.-About $337,000.
Q.—That is with putting in the whole of the overdraft ?
A.—$337,000.
Q.—How do you get at that; because $272,000 has been borrowed and spent, and there
was an overdraft of $71,000 from last year, and these two amounts alone would make up over
$340,000 ?    What do you estimate the revenue of real estate would be to the end of the year ?
A.—I estimate about $245,000—that was from the time that this statement was made up.
Q.—Did you expect to receive $245,000 between that time and the end of the year ?
A.—Yes.    That was simply an estimate that I made up to show to the Council.
Q.—Did this estimate include the real estate tax for the whole of the year ?
A.—No, only for that time.
Q.—How much is that of the year's tax.
A.—About 90 per cent.
Q._How is that?
A.—Because the tax is only payable on the first of December.
Q.—Does that statement you furnished the City Council include every source of revenue ?
A.—Yes, payment from all sources.
Q.—If you did not estimate the revenue for the whole of the year, how did you get at the
estimate that there would be a shortage of $92,000 at the end of the year?
A.—I took first of all what the Council had to meet between that date and the end of
the year; the $200,000 note at the bank; the overdraft of $26,475.73; there was general interest
$4,000; there was coupon interest $12,000; accrued interest on the sewerage and market
bonds $16,000; sinking fund $21,625; permanent salaries $20,000; other expenditure $25,000;
there was the school tax $3,450; and there was an appropriation which the Council had made
for the ordinary working of the School Board, $6,000, and the Eberts & Taylor estimate for
legal expenses $2,500.
The Court : That is the smallest amount of the whole statement.
Mr. Raymur : The total amount of that statement is $337,050.73
Mr. Bodwell: And up to the end of May you had paid out $245,000 ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—That is all you say you had to expect from current revenue ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—And you had spent it all and had an overdraft of $20,000 besides? Then there is a
shortage of $92,000?
A.—That would be the bank overdraft at the end of the year.
Q.—Now, if this $20,000, the proceeds from the sale of the gravel pits, had been kept in
a separate account what would the shortage be ?
Mr. Richards: Do you know what was the amount spent outside the old limits ?
A.—There were about $10,000 on streets, $15,000 on water, and $5,000 on laying it
out—surveyors' expenses.
Q.—Any taxes been received from that quarter ?
A.—A few water rents, that's all.
The Court: You estimate the revenue from the 7th October to the end of the year at
$245,000 ; what was the revenue for that portion of the year anterior to that ?
A.—It was $97,842.77 up to the 30th September.    That was purely from taxation.
The Court : That with the revenue estimated for the remaining portion of the year,
$245,000, would bring the revenue for this year up to about $350,000 ?
A.—Yes.
The Court: And you have got over $135,000 more revenue this year than you had last;
and still you have increased your overdraft by about $20,000 ?
 xxxii. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
A.—Yes.
Mr. Richards : Was there not a large expenditure this year for water-works—above the
revenue ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—What did it amount to ?
A—About $45,000.
Mr. Richards : Will your Lordships please note that there has been an unusual expenditure this year of $45,000 on water-works ?
Mr. Bodwell: What was the revenue last year from water-works ?
A.—It is about the same every year.
Q.—What was this expenditure for ?
A.—New pipes and extensions.
Q.—-Where was it done ?
A.—Mostly in the new limits.
2—EXCESSIVE USE OF BORROWING POWERS.
Alderman C. E. Renouf, examined by Mr. Bodwell : You are a member of the City
Council, Mr. Renouf, and Chairman of the Finance Committee 1
A.—I am.
Q.^How long have you been a member of the Council ?
A.—About the 20th of January last.
Q.—This is your first year in the Council ?
A.—My first year.
Q.—When did you undertake the duties of that position ?
A.—I couldn't exactly say.    I think it was after the first meeting of the Council.
Q.—Between the date of your taking office and the date of the passage of the estimate of
expenditure by-law, what charge had you of the city's finances ?    I mean what did you do ?
A.—We examined the vouchers presented to us for payment, to see if the liabilities had
been incurred. In the first month the bills presented were for amounts incurred by the old
Council.
Q.—Where was the money coming from to pay them ?
A.—We had made arrangements with the bank.     Wre passed that by-law.
Q.—You arranged for a credit of $150,000 ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Had you any estimate of the revenue of the year ?
A.—We had the rough drafts of the auditor who had estimated the revenue of the year.
Q.—Just explain the" procedure by which this principle was arrived at ?
A.—There was no procedure that I know of. The City Treasurer simply drew a cheque
on the bank, and the vouchers were paid.
Q.—The. financial condition of the city generally, what did you know about it ?
A.—I did not know anything about it.
Q.—Did you take the trouble to enquire as to the financial affairs of the city ?
A.—I asked how much they had at the bank.
Q.—Did you ask the City Treasurer ?
A—Yes.
Q.—-And then ?
A.—He told me.
Q.—And then ?
A.—I asked him what was the amount of the outstanding taxes.
Q.—And then ?
A.—He told me.
Q.—And about the debt handed you by the preceding Council, what enquiries did you
make about that ?
A.—I got the City Auditor to furnish me with a statement of the debt, and how it came
about.
Q.—What did you do about that ?
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. xxxiii.
A.—It was mentioned at the general meeting.
Q.—What steps did you take to ascertain the liability of the new Council for that debt ?
Did you go into the question at all ? Has the City Council paid it ? Did you make any
report to the Council on the question ?
A.—I stated to them what it was.
Q.—Did you make any recommendation to the Council ?
Q.—Why ?
A.—They had resolved to let it be.
Q.—Did you take any steps to ascertain whether the new Council ought to assume that
debt?
A.—We asked the opinion of the Mayor, and he said it ought to be paid ?
Q.—Did you not take the opinion of your legal advisers ?
A.—We did not think it was necessary.
Q.—Didn't that appear a part of your duty as Chairman of the Finance Committee to
see what steps should be taken about the payment of this debt ?
A—No.
Q.—What is the Finance Committee for ?
A.—To receive the bills from the Council, see if they are correct, and if so order them to
be paid.
Q.—Is that all they have to do ?
A.—That is all I have been accustomed to doing.
Q.—Is that all you have done as Chairman of the Finance Committee, simply to see if
the bills were correct, and if so order them to be paid ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Did you have nothing more to do with the finances than that ?
A.—No.    I reported to the Council if any one branch exceeded its appropriation.
Q.—Had you any duties as Chairman of the Finance Committee with reference to that
$71,000 overdraft left you ?
A.—It was not $71,000. It was only $45,000; the previous Council had left about
$25,000 unpaid taxes to collect.
Q.—What did you do about this ?
A.—We consulted with the Mayor and Board of Aldermen ?
Q.—Did you make any report ?
A.—I made several reports.
Q.—Do you think you will be able to state whether or not you made any report, or
brought in any resolution in the form of a recommendation with reference to these matters ?
The Court: There is no individual responsible ; it is the City Council as a whole.
Mr. Bodwell : The natural source from which you would expect recommendations to the
Council as to the financial affairs of the city is the Finance Committee.
The Court: The Finance Committee have to take the bills and see if they are correct;
then they have to go to the Council for money to pay those bills. The Finance Committee
have no money of their own.
Q.—What are the duties of the Finance Committee with reference to expenditure ?
What check do they hold over the other departments ?
The Court: There are no duties imposed on the Finance Committee that I know of.
Q.—Did you ever have to report to the Council about any department exceeding its
appropriation ?
A.—I think I made one or two such reports with reference to both the water and streets
departments.
Q.—What was done with those reports ?
A.—I don't know.    They may have been received and filed.
Q.—You don't know whether there was any request made to the chairmen of the Water
and Streets Committees to curtail their expenditure ?
A.—I think there was.
Q.—:Was street and water expenditure curtailed accordingly 1
A.—I think it was.
Q.—How much was estimated for streets in your estimate of expenditure ?
A.—We estimated that we would have the balance available for general purposes.
Q.--That was $9,000; and that $9,000 was all you had to spend at that time ?
 Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
A.—$9,000 was all we estimated we had to spend at that time.
Q.—But was it the whole amount available for the general purposes of the Corporation
in the streets 1
A.—Yes. But, on the other hand, we estimated our revenue from real estate at
$125,000, while it brings in $210,000.
Q.—When did you change the rate ?
A.—We never changed the rate; that was made when the assessment roll was revised.
That estimate of Mr. Raymur's of $125,000 was purely one of his own.
Q.—You passed this bank credit by-law; that was brought in by the Finance Committee?
A.—I believe I proposed it.
Q.—And you assumed the overdraft of the preceding year?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Was that discussed in open Council ?
A.—Yes ; it was resolved to assume it.
Q.—Then you had the difference between that overdraft and the $150,000 voted by the
bank credit by-law to spend ?
A.—We had already the difference, between that overdraft and the revenue for the
coming year. That credit by-law is only to tide the Council over till the revenue begins to
come in.
Q.—You ascertained the amount that was coming in?
A.—Yes.
Q.— How soon did you find you had got beyond your limit?
A.—Well, it was early in the season. Some $15,000 has been spent this year in the
further distribution of the water service. That is where most of the money has been spent
this year.
Q.—Is that part of the $56,000 on streets?
A.—No ; the streets are kept separate.
Q.—You estimated $8,000 for streets and bridges; how did you spend $56,000 ?
A.—When we found that we had $210,000 on real estate, we decided to spend more on
streets.
Q.—Do you know how much had been spent on them up to that time ? In all about
$112,000 to the end of May had been spent?
A.—No ; I don't know.
Q.—Did you say that the City Auditor supplies the Council once a quarter with an exact
statement of receipts and expenditure ?    Did you know you were going to overrun the revenue?
A.—No. If the water works had not overrun their revenue we would have not only
come out even, we would have had a surplus.
Q.—How much do you calculate the water works has overrun its revenue ?
A. -About $45,000.
Q.—If it had not been for the water works, you say you would not have overrun your
revenue this year.    You have a shortage of $92,000 ; how is that ?
A.—We have not got it; it is only estimated.
Q.—Mr. Raymur says you have it ?
A.—If he says so he has a better knowledge of what is going- to happen at the end of the
year than I have. I don't know what is going to be till the end of December, and I don't
know if there is going to be one at all.
Q.—Do you think the Auditor's statement is wrong ?
A.—It may be.
Q.—Do you think it is ?
A.—What is to prevent the City Council discharging everyone to-morrow, and having no
liabilities at the end of the year ?
The Court: And sacrifice the city ? Surely the police and fire departments are the most
necessary part of the expenditure.
Q.—Do you think there is any likelihood of that being done ?    Do you think there is ?
A.—I don't know. I don't think the amount of shortage will be $92,000, at any rate.
There will be a shortage this year probably amounting to about $20,000. This added to the
$71,000 of last year makes the $92,000 estimated shortage.
Q.—Then, practically, by that bank by-law you adopt the $71,000 shortage of last year?
A.—I don't think so.
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. xxxv.
Q.—Then why did you not take that position last year?
A.—I don't know.    It is not my fault; it is my misfortune.    I did not know any better.
Q.—Did you ever read the Municipality Act ?
A.—I think I have.
Q.—Did you read that point about expenditure ?
A. —I may have ; I don't know.
The Court here rose for luncheon.
The Court having reassembled, the examination of Alderman Renouf was proceeded with.
Q.—You were going to leave a $20,000 overdraft for your successors, as well as the
$71,000 you found when you came into office ?
A.—I don't know that we were going to leave any at all. Mr. Raymur says it is going
to be $20,000, but because he says so does not make it so.
Q.—You can't dispute his figures 1
The Court: It is not a matter of consequence whether it is $20,000, $15,000, or only
$5,000.
Q.—Have you read this section of the Act governing the expenditure of the year to the
revenue within the same year ? Do you call it a legal expenditure of the year to assume the
debts of a previous year ?
A.—From what I have seen it would be acting illegally not to do so.
Q.—Did you take any pains to ascertain ?
A.—I think it was more a matter of precedence than otherwise. It had been done for
the past few years, and we did not see anything wrong in our doing the same.
Q.—You were taking on yourself a rather important trust ?
A.—I didn't take it upon me; it was given to me.
Q.—It was stated in the rules of order what your duties were to be?
A.—As I said before, the Mayor made the appointments for the year in the several committees.
Q.—Did you not think it was any part of your duty to inform yourself of the financial
state of the city ? Did you move any resolution against assuming this liability, or did you
vote for any resolution against assuming it, or did you vote for any resolution to assume it ?
A.—I don't think there was any such resolution moved.
The Court: Did nothing strike you that the bank would have any difficulty in collecting
their overdraft ?
A.—I looked upon it as their own concern.
The Court: Do you think it was fair to take the bank in in that way ?
A.—I did not take the bank in at all.
Q.—In making up this estimate for the year, what sources of revenue did you count in ?
A.— The City Auditor has furnished you with those particulars.
Q.—Do you consider you were entitled to spend the full amount of real estate tax estimated? Supposing, for instance, you had calculated on $125,000, did you count that as the
whole tax, or did you merely count that as the amount that would be collected ?
A.—I understood that that tax was current revenue. The property is there and is liable
for it.
The Court: Hopes and estimates are not cash.
Q.— As a citizen, you have no doubt followed the corporation accounts for several years ?
A.—Not particularly.
Q.—Don't you know that for several years past there are from $20,000 to $25,000 on
real estate not collected at the end of the year ?
A.—I didn't know.
Q.—You would not be surprised to find that it actually is so ?
A.—I don't know.
Q.—What I want to get at is whether you estimated the probability of some of this
$125,000 real estate tax being uncollected at the end of the year. It was not your intention
to let the expenditure exceed the revenue ?
A.—It was not my intention at all events.
Q.—How did you intend to work the streets and sidewalks ? You haven't provided for
them?
 xxxvi. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
A.—Yes, we have.    General purposes, $9,000.
Q.—Are streets and sidewalks general purposes ?
A.—I understood that that balance was made for anything that might be deemed necessary.
Q.—If it was going into streets why is it not put into streets and sidewalks ? Is it not
a fact that you intended to spend a great deal of money on streets ?
A.—No, it is not a fact.
Q.—When you found that a larger amount than had been intended was spent on streets
did you certify the vouchers ?
A.—I certified to the correctness of the expenditure.
Q.—Did you point out to the council that there was no provision for streets, or at least
the expenditure that was made upon them ?
A.—The matter was pointed out to the City Council.
Q.—Where was that money to come from 1 At a recent meeting of the board a bill was
brought in for a loan of $150,000 for permanent improvements on streets. Was that by-law
ever passed ?
A.—No; it was brought in again to allow Alderman Smith to withdraw it. It was not
passed on account of the depressed state of the money market.
Q.—If it was the intention to spend this special loan on streets and sidewalks, why did
you spend this $56,000 ?
A.—Because the real estate tax was larger.
Q.—You estimate to assess property at its full cash value?
A.—It is not in our power to raise the assessment in value. The assessment is entirely
in the hands of the Assessor.
Q.—You found that the old rate would produce $125,000?
A.—I have told you that it was purely an estimate of the Auditor's, furnished to the
corporation.
Q.—Why don't you answer my question ? We don't want a speech on every point. The
old valuation would produce $125,000?
A.—No, it would produce less than that.
Q.—How do you get that ?
A.—We don't get it at all.
Q.—When you find the increased assessment of property brings in more revenue, why
didn't you reduce the rates to keep it down to the $125,000?
A.—Because we needed the money to spend on streets.
Q.—When you had got so much more, what did you do with it ?
A.—We spent it on streets.
The Court: The actual expenditure on the streets took place long before this. That was
done largely in anticipation.
Q.—As a matter of fact, after getting a greater amount of taxation on increased valuation, you then increased the improvements ?
A.—On realty we did, but we reduced it on improvements.
The Court: The real fact of the matter was that the bank was pressing for this overdraft.
A.—No ; they were not.
Q.—They were getting a little bit anxious about the large amounts that were owing them ?
A.—No; I don't know that they were.
Q.—What brought about the sale of the gravel pits ?
A.—I think it was recommended by the Street Committee that they should be sold.
Q.__Why ?
A.— There was no further use for them.
Q.—All the money you raise this year you consider revenue ?
A.—We try to expend it.
Q.—And you succeed very well. As I understand you to say that the various committees
spent money and sent in the bills to the council ?
A.—No.    No committee expended any money unless by authority of the council.
Q.—Is that the practice ?
A.—So far as I have known, yes.
Q.—Take the Street Committee. When they got beyond the limit, on whose authority
did they spend more money ?
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. xxxvii.
A.—That of the City Council.
Q.—In what shape ?
A.—Petitions were sent in from various parts of the city asking for certain improvements.
They are referred to the Street Committee to be reported upon.
Q.—" With power to act?"
A.—No; they report to the council whether in their opinion the work is necessary, and
the council carry out the recommendation.
Q.—Is it not a fact that work has been done and the bills sent in to the Council for
approval ?
A.—To the best of my knowledge, the Council has vouchers for every dollar that was
spent. There are often expenditures that are unexpected and yet have to be done. Take the
new city boundaries, for instance.    The appropriation for defining them was $1,500.
Q.—How much did that cost ?
A.—About $5,000.
Q.—How did you spend the difference between $1,500 and $5,000 ?
A.—It was surmised at the time that the Government would bear half of the expense,
but after the work was done they repudiated their portion and the city had to bear the whole
cost.
Q.—Did you bring in this bank credit by-law of the 5th October ?
A.—I would not be sure; I think I did.
Q.—Had you made any enquiries to ascertain the state of affairs ?
A.—I made some mental calculations myself from figures given me by the auditor.
Q.—Did you calculate the state of affairs that would be at the end of the year?
A.—I thought we would come out about even.
Q.—You apprehended that you had good reason to believe there would be a shortage at
the end of the year of $92,000 ?
A.—I didn't.
Q.—You didn't believe your auditor ?
A.—As far as he was concerned, he may have been right. It was purely an estimate on
his part. I was informed that the amount overexpended on the water works account would
be refunded out of the water works revenue.
Q.—If that was correct it would be impossible to repay this $200,000 out of current
revenue for the year 1891.
A.—It would not be impossible; it would be reducing expenses to make both ends meet.
Q.—Did you make any recommendation to the Council ?
A.—A recommendation was made, yes.
Q.—Did you make any recommendation which proposed to reduce the expenses by
$92,000?    Why didn't you bring in a by-law repealing this bank credit by-law?
A.—We didn't think it was necessary.
Q.—Have you seen this $200,000 note ?
A.—No.
Q.—Who would have signed that ?
A.—I don't know;  I have never seen it.
Q.—This by-law legalizes certain agreements between the bank and the city ; what agreements were those?
A.—I suppose that means the advances that had been made us. I don't know of any
other agreements than that.
Q.—Does it legalize last year's debt ?
A.—I don't know.    It was my intention when I went there last year to pay it.
Q.—Was it not a fact that at that time you had got $46,000 more than you were entitled
to by the by-law, and that you passed this by-law to meet the case ?
A.—No; I don't think that was so.
Q.—Do you know it is a fact ?
A.-—There is no agreement between the corporation and the bank that I know of. And
there has been no agreement, to my knowledge.
Q.—In case it would be necessary to go to the bank about finances, who would go ?
A.—Alderman Holland, the Mayor, and myself.
The Court: Had you any understanding with the bank by which they would be prevented
from holding any money for the legitimate debt ?
 xxxviii. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
A.—No, sir. There was a verbal agreement as to the six per cent, interest on the overdraft.
Cross-examined by Mr. Richards :
Q.—For streets and bridges this year you say you spent how much ?
A.—I have not the exact figures with me, but it is some $50,000 odd.
Q.—And on water works this year, what did you spend, when the interest and sinking
fund has been paid?
A.—The general revenue this year advanced the water works about $45,000.
Q.—Will revenue be received from that ?
A.— Revenue will be received from it as soon as it is expended.
The Court : The water works is a paying concern. You had contemplated some loans,
had you not, this year, both for water works and street improvements ?
A.—There were four loans. Two moved by Alderman Smith, and two by Alderman
Coughlan.    The latter was for the extension of the water service.
The Court : WTere the amounts raised ?
A.—No; but in anticipation of that the city bought $20,000 worth of water pipe.
The Court : Then you spent that money on a hope.    Where are those pipes ?
A.—They have been used in distributing the service.
Mr. Richards : So far as you know, there never was any money improperly spent on
streets or water works ?
A.—I have never known of any.
Alderman Holland. Examined by Mr. Bodwell : How long have you been a member
of the City Council ?
A.—This is my second year.
Q.— How long of the Finance Committee?
A.—This is my first year.
Q.—Can you tell us anything about this bank credit by-law ?
A.—Know nothing whatever about it.
Q.—Did you read this by-law before it was passed 1
A.—It was read before the Council.
Q.—Did you not get considerable revenue from the bank in excess of the June by-law
before you got the October by-law ?
A.—There may have been.
Q.— Can't you tell us anything about it more than that ?
A.—I don't know anything about it.
Q.—Do you know anything connected with it ?
A.—I had to see, in conjunction with my colleagues, any arrangements necessary were
made with the bank so that the bank would honour our cheques.
Q.—Did you make any arrangements of that kind ?
A.—Occasionally I went to the bank to see the manager, who agreed to advance the
money we sent down for.
Q.—You did make an agreement with him for that.    What authority had you for that ?
A.—I don't know. It was the duty of the Finance Committee to see that all bills were
honoured.
Q.—What limit did the bank allow?
.A.—$150,000 in the first instance.
Q.—Did you know at the time the bank credit by-law for October was passed you had
drawn out $46,000 more than the revenue for the whole year ?
A.—W7e didn't do that.
Q.—How can you tell ?
A.—From the report of the auditor.
Q.—In the auditor's report to the 30th September he says you have obtained from the
bank $26,475.73 more than the amount authorized by the June by-law ?
A.—That is not $46,000.
Q.—How was that money obtained ?
A.—The bank advances it.
Q.—On what ?
A.—Nothing particular that I am aware.
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. xxxix.
Q.—Did you know at the time the by-law was passed that  there  would be a shortage at
the end of the year ?
A.—It was generally understood that we could not recoup the bank.
Q.—Then why did you pass this by-law in which you agreed to recoup the bank?
This closed the case for charge No. 1.
6._SEWERAGE   CONTRACTS.
Mr. Bodwell said the first point arising in this question is the construction of the by-law.
(Copy handed into Court.) What we allege there is practically admitted in the answer of the
city. The by-law is drawn up, as your Lordships will remark, in a rather peculiar way. If
you look at paragraph 1 of the enacting part you will see it states that it shall be lawful for
the Mayor to borrow from any persons who may be willing to advance the amount the sum of
$300,000, for which the Mayor shall issue debentures bearing interest at four per cent, per
annum. The petitioners submit that there is no authority to sell these debentures at a discount
at all.
Mr. Robert Ward was called and sworn.    Examined by Mr. Bodwell:
Q.—You are a director of the British Columbia Corporation, Limited ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—As a director of that company did you ever have any communications with any
member of the City Council with respect to the $300,000 sewerage debentures ?
A.—I have.
Q.—With whom ?
A.—With the Mayor.
Q.—Is it in writing ?
A.—It is. I may state with respect to the $300,000, or £60,000 sterling, sewerage
debentures, that advertisements appeared in the local papers and elsewhere calling for tenders
for the purchase of these debentures. That was over a year ago. I submitted an offer to
the corporation for these debentures in response to the invitation, and it appears that that
was the only tender submitted. That was in November, 1890. At that time the money
market was probably a great deal more depressed than it is at the present time. That offer
was refused. In January, 1891, I cabled from London asking the Council if they would
accept 90 for the debentures, which was the highest possible figure that was named by any of
my friends there.
Mr. Ward read a lot of correspondence that ensued between the Mayor and himself in
this connection. The following, comprising the final offer and acceptance, were handed into
Court:
"28th August, 1891.
" To the Finance Committee, City Council, Victoria :
" Gentlemen,—In accordance with your communications of the 8th and 20th instant, we
are prepared to purchase the debentures issued under the sewerage and market by-laws, viz.:
Sixty-one thousand pounds and $100,000 respectively, with accrued interest, at 85 per 100,
and will agree to hold the debentures for one year, during which period the corporation shall
be at liberty to re-purchase them from us at the same price, plus such sum as shall be equal
to interest at the rate of 8 per cent, per annum from the time of our purchase to the date of
re-purchase. We will take the debentures in such amounts and at such times as the corporation desires, upon the above terms. We would at once do our best to find another buyer
for the debentures to the best advantage in the interest of the city, expecting also that the
corporation would assist as far as possible in the same direction, and, upon a satisfactory price
being made, the corporation would be at liberty to exercise their privilege of re-purchasing
the debentures, and thus obtain the advantage of the difference in the price, paying us only
interest at the rate above-mentioned, plus the brokerage of one per cent. This would give
the corporation one year in which to negotiate, and would secure our hearty efforts in the
same direction. This offer is made on the understanding agreed to in your last communication,
viz.:—Either to accept or reject promptly, and in the event of   rejection we would ask that
 xl. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
our letter be treated privately.    We are, of course, assuming that the by-laws are valid, and
that the corporation will afford satisfactory legal proof accordingly.
" We are, etc.,
"Robert Ward & Co."
The following reply was received :—
" City Clerks's Office, August 29th, 1891.
" To Messrs. Robert Ward de Co., Managers British Columbia Corporation.
"Gentlemen : Referring to your offer for Victoria municipal debentures, viz.: Sewerage,
£61,000, market, $100,000 4 per cent., the same is hereby accepted on behalf of Corporation
in terms of said letter, dated 28th August, 1891. In the event of re-purchase of debentures
by the Corporation, it is understood that in adjusting the interest agreed upon at 8 per cent,
the Corporation-shall have credit for the interest now accrued on the said debentures.
" Yours, faithfully,
"John Grant, Mayor."
The Court: After all, it was perhaps an error of judgment in the Corporation refusing
an offer of 90 when they afterwards had to accept 85. They were perhaps holding out for
something better, and not seeing it come accepted the best they could get.
Mr. Ward : The very best has been done to procure the best possible price for these
securities. But I think the Corporation have made a mistake in issuing a 4 per cent, loan at
the present time. There would be no difficulty in placing the security at four and a half per
cent, at par.
Mr. Bodwell : Can you tell us how much has been advanced on these securities ?
A.—The whole of the market building, and the whole of the market site have been taken
up ; that is $100,000 worth.
Q.—And how much of the sewerage ?
A.—I took twenty-five thousand pounds, and since then I have taken another six
thousand pounds. There are about thirty thousand pounds more to take. The debentures
were handed to us as they were issued, with the coupons attached. I paid the Bank of B.N.A.
the amount required by the Corporation and obtained the debentures.
Q.—Do I understand you to say that the debentures were in the Bank of B. N. A.?
A.—You misunderstand me. I say that when I bought these debentures I took up the
market site and building debentures. I paid the Corporation a cheque for $85,000, and they
handed me an order on the Bank of B. N. A. for them.
Q.—What were they doing there ?
A.—They were for safe keeping, I presume. The city would be very foolish to allow
3,000 worth of bonds lying around loose.
Mr. Bodwell : It is just possible the bank had got a lien on them.
The Court: What ceremony took place when you got possession ?
A.—I handed a cheque to the City Treasurer on my bankers, the Bank of B. C, and then
I got the debentures.
The Court: The debentures were issued in December, 1890 ; consequently if you take
up a number this month you get an advance of four per cent.
Court rose Friday evening.
Saturday, November 28th, 1891.
Continuation of Examination on Sewerage Contracts.
Aid. C. E. Renouf, examined by Mr. Bodwell: Who carried out the arrangements with
Mr. Ward with regard to the sewerage debentures ?
A.—The letters you have just heard Mr. Ward read now were confirmations of conversations I had with him, sometimes together with the Mayor, sometimes with Mr. Holland. We
had them put through the channel of the City Clerk's office to make them official.
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. xli.
Q.—What other negotiations had you, if any; what other efforts did you make as to the
sale of the debentures in other quarters ?
A.—We positively refused to deal with anyone at any time unless they made us a positive
offer.
Q.—Did you have any communication with Mr. Turner while he was in England ?
A.—On this subject ?    No.
Q.—Do you know whether any took place ?
A.—Not that I know of.
Q.—Did you have any communication with Mr. Boscowitz ?
A—No.
Q.—Do you know whether any took place ?
A.—I believe there was some conversation between the Mayor and Mr. Boscowitz. I
understand this conversation was in 1890 ; that was prior to our taking office.
Q.—Why did you make this arrangement of pledging the debentures ? Why didn't you
wait till you could get a good price for them, or make a good sale ?
A.—The reason is this: when we took office we found Mr. McBean with a sewerage
contract of some $200,000 let to him ; we also found a contract to the Pottery Company for pipe,
$50,000 ; an engineer and staff engaged ; some land taken at Clover Point for the right of
way; we found all these things done and the people asking for money. At that time we
tried to sell the bonds, but the financial crisis occurring in London then made it impossible to
sell the bonds at any price. Prior to that I believe the city could have got par for their
bonds.
Q.—Do I understand you to say that all these contracts had been let, and all these
arrangements made, before the money was provided ?
A.—The last Council said there are $300,000 worth of bonds, and there are so many
contracts let.    Go ahead and carry them out.
Q.—Then they let the contracts before they sold the debentures ?
A.—I suppose so.
The Court: It is true they left no money provided, but they provided $300,000 worth
of bonds which they gave you as money.
Mr. Bodwell : That may be so, but it was certainly not in the interest of the city to
raise that money at 8 per cent.; and our contention is that the city should not have entered
into those contracts until they knew that they would get a fair price for their debentures.
The Court : The position of the Sewerage Commissioners and City Council is this : The
superintendent of the work would come to the Council and say, " We want $20,000 or the
contractor will sue."
Witness : That is just it.
The Court : But then you took $20,000 from some other purpose and applied it to that ?
A.—Oh, no.
Q.—Where did you get this $20,000 from ?
A.—We sold the debentures with the right of repurchase.
The Court: You had no authority to spend money on this contract, except that which
you raise on this by-law. You should have refused payment till you could raise the money
for the bonds. You did not do anything successfully with the bonds until September, 1891,
when you negotiated with Mr. Ward. Therefore, you could not have met any demands in
January without considerable irregularity.    You were robbing Peter to pay Paul.
A.—We were not taking money out of current revenue.
The Court : But you must have been.
A.—We were taking it out of special account.
The Court: What right had you to incur liability on this account at the bank ? Borrowing means incurring liability, and incurring liability means borrowing almost.
A.—We were placed in a peculiar position. We had either to meet those liabilities or
render the city liable to all sorts of damages from the contractor.
Mr. Gavin Burns, Manager of the Bank of B. N. A., was called, but claimed the
privilege of not giving evidence in case it might interfere with any claim he might have against
the city in the future.
The Court allowed the matter to stand over till Monday.
 xlii. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
Mr. J. H. Turner was next called; examined by Mr. Bodwell: You were in England
this year on financial business connected with the Government ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—During that time, or before you left, had you any communications with the Mayor
or members of the Finance Committee with reference to these sewerage bonds ?
A.—I sent a telegram out from there, and I am informed that it was delivered to the
Mayor, with respect to an offer for these bonds.
Q.—Have you that telegram with you ?
A.—I know what the telegram contained. It was about the 10th October. I telegraphed
that I believed I could get a definite offer for 86 or 87 for the bonds, subject to the condition
that if sixty or a hundred thousand pounds more were issued they should be placed in the
same hands, but at the fair market price, 88 " R."
Q.—And was that in consequence of any previous communications 1
A.—Yes. Before I left here (I had to leave rather hurriedly) the Mayor spoke to me.
I had no time to hear definitely about it, and he said he would send on the papers in connection with the loan to me in London.
Q.—What answer did you get to this telegram ?
A.—The answer that I got was that the Mayor was able to do better; that he had got
up to 91-|, including accrued interest. I did not know anything about accrued
interest. I was going on the face of the bonds. As soon as I heard about this accrued
interest I telegraphed back to find how much it was. I got no reply to that till I got to N ew
York, when I learned that there was about $16,000 accrued interest.
Q.—Did you have any communications with anyone after that?
A.—Yes ; I spoke to some gentlemen in New York, but I did not do anything about it.
Anyone could see that it was worth much more with the accrued interest. Had I known
that in London I could have sold it.
Mr. Richards : I suppose at this time you knew that these bonds had been handed to
Mr. Ward ?
A.—No, I didn't.
Q.—You are one of the Sewerage Commissioners ?
A.—Yes, I was one of them.
Q.—You didn't hear that Mr. Ward had taken the bonds at 86 ?
A.—No.
Q.—If you will give any more the Council is ready to receive offers from you or any one
else.    Did you offer any more ?
A.—No.
Q.—Have you offered any at all ?
A.—No, not directly.
Q.—WTere you going to put these on the Stock Exchange ?
A.—No; it was too small a loan to be put on the Stock Exchange. I saw private
parties about it, and they required me to telegraph that they would take them on the condition
that if another £100,000 were issued they should have the handling of them.
Q.—If you are going to make an offer for these debentures they are yet for sale. Mr.
WTard merely holds them in pledge.    The city will get them back.
A.—I am not here to make an offer, if I were in London I might be able to make an
offer at once.
Q.—Could they be listed on the Stock Exchange at London or New York without incurring considerable expense ?
A.—I don't think you could get them listed at either place.    It is too small.
Mr. Bodwell, Counsel for the petitioners, took up the question of sewerage tenders next.
The following tenders were received for pipe :—
British Columbia Pottery Co $54,011 41
Robert Wrard & Co    68,000 00
P. McG. Mc Bean    56,549 00
Doulton & Co    68,000 00
Mr. W. H. Bainbridge, examined by Mr. Bodwell:
Q.—Your full name is ?
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. xliii.
A.—William Herbert Bainbridge.
Q.—You are Secretary of the B. C. Pottery and Terra Cotta Company 1
A.—Yes.
Q.—When did that corporation come into existence ?
A.—About the middle of September 1890.
Q.—Where are the works situated ?
A.—Constance Cove road.
Q.—Have you entered into a contract with the city ?
A.—We have.
Q.—When was that contract executed ?
A.—About March last.
Q.—Did you attach the seal of your corporation to it ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—What did you do with the original contract ?
A.—The original is in the hands of the City Clerk, Mr. Dowler.
Q.—Did yo deliver it to him ?
A.—I did.
Q.—Have you a duplicate of it ?
A.—Yes.    (Produced.)
Q.—When did you begin to deliver the pipe ?
A.—I think the first delivery was made in May.
Q.—Have you your stock-book here ?
A.—Yes.    (Produced.)
Q.—Will you state who are the shareholders in this Terra Cotta Company, and the amount
of stock they hold ?
A.—J. H. McLaughlin, 50 shares; Joseph Hunter, 96 shares; J. Nicholles, 72 shares;
and Samuel C. Burris, ill shares.
Q.—What is the value of the shares ?
A.—$60 a share.
Q.—Who are the directors of the company ?
A.—There is only one managing director, Mr. Nicholles.
Q.—Any of these members of the Corporation ?
A.—Yes; Mr. Hunter.
Q.—What firm does Mr. Nicholles belong to ?
A.—Nicholles & Renouf.
Q.—What is the amount of the paid up capital ?
A.—$20,160.    The capital is $60,000, and there are 336 shares issued.
Q.—At the time of your incorporation did you know that tenders were being sent in to
the city for the delivery of sewer pipe ?
A.—There was talk of the probability of the sewer by-law passing about the time the
company was organized; and there was talk some time before that of a sewerage system being
inaugurated.
Q.—The sewerage by-law was passed about the 30th September, 1890?
A.—Ah-ha.
Q.—At that time, what plant and machinery had the B. C. Terra Cotta Co. ?
A.—I don't know what the capacity was, because we commenced altering right away.
We proposed to get a proper plant.
Q.— With that view ?
A.—With a view to supplying all the trade we could get.
Q.—You didn't have in view at that time the city contract for pipe ?
A.—No.
Q.—Nothing had been said about it ?
A.—Nothing.
Q.—Are you speaking now from what you heard at the board of directors, or from your
own knowledge ?
A.—I was chiefly instrumental in floating the company, and I know that that matter was
not taken into consideration as a reason for spending the money we did in putting in new
plant.
Q.—How much money did you spend in putting in your plant ?
 xliv. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
A.—I suppose we put in about $10,000 worth.
Q.—What was your capacity in December, 1890 ?
A.—In December, 1890, we were replacing our machinery entirely.
Q.—You must have had an idea of what your plant was able to do at that time ?
A.—We considered we would have a capacity of turning out 20,000 to 30,000 feet of
pipe a month.
Q.—What kind of pipe ?
A.—Sewer pipe of the average size.
Q.—Did you consider you had at that time a sufficient capacity for fulfilling the contract
for the city for supplying the sewer pipes for the city ?
A.—We had sufficient capacity to do it, providing everything went on all right in the
manufacturing.
Q.—Is it a fact that you have supplied all the pipe for the city out of your own works ?
A.—No ; we have not.
Q.—Where have you obtained the other from ?
A.—From San Francisco.
Q.—Do you know where from ?
A.—From the San Francisco Sewer Pipe Co.
Q.—Do you know whether Mr. P. McG. McBean has anything to do with that company?
A.—I don't know his exact position. There are several firms who go to form that
company.
Q.—Mr. P. McG. McBean is contractor for the sewerage ?
A.—No, sir.
Q.—Who is Mr. P. McG. McBean ?
A.—He is a partner of Glady, McBean & Co. of San Francisco.
Q.—Who is in charge of the sewerage works ?
A.—Mr. Alexander McBean.
Q.—Has Mr. P. McG. McBean ever been up here ?
A.—He was here tendering for the pipe.
Q.—Did you have any understanding or arrangement with Mr. McBean before you put
in your tender for the pipe ?
A.—Well, we made an arrangement with him to the effect that if we wished to get any
assistance from him in the large pipe he would help us, provided he did not get the contract
himself.
Q.—It was a private arrangement ?
A.—It was simply a matter of business.
Q.—Had you no ostensible reason for urging on the Council the acceptation of your
tender ?
A.—I should think the price	
Q.-—Had you no other reason?
A.—No.
Q.—Did you write a letter accepting the contract, but declining to agree to the clause
that the pipe should be all your own manufacture ?
A.—That recalls the fact that we were only commencing business; we had not begun to
make the large pipe yet, and we didn't want to tie ourselves down to those conditions, in case
we might not be able to carry them out.
Q.—As a matter of fact, you never intended to supply anything but the small pipe ?
A.—We did, if we could get through in time.
Q.—Are you making any now ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—What is the name of this large pipe supplied from Frisco ?
A.—I don't know.
Q.—Have these supplies been delivered regularly ?
A.—Well, there have been complaints from the contractor about wanting pipe at times,
but I really could not tell you what the delays have been.
Q.—Have you any knowledge of the rejection by the engineer of large quantities of this
pipe?
A.—There have been, but I could not tell you the exact amount at any time.
Q.—There was quite a large number rejected at one time?
 55 Vict. .     Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. xlv.
A.—I remember one lot; they were not sufficiently burnt, and, of course, they were sent
down again.
Q.—How long do you burn your pipe ?
A.—From 48 to 54 hours, and it takes about three or four days to cool.
Mr. Richards: Yours was the lowest tender?
A.—Yes.
Q.—How many men have you employed ?
A.—About 40.
Q.—Are the works permanent ?
A.—Oh, yes.
Q.—Independent of the city contract ?
A—Yes.
Q.—How much money have you spent on the works up to this time ?
A.—Between $50,000 and $60,000.
Q.—All been spent here ?
A.—With the exception of about $6,000 which we paid for machinery that we could not
get here.
The Court rose at two o'clock, p. m.
Monday, November 30th, 1891.
Continuation of the Examination with Reference to Sewerage Contracts.
Alexander McBean, examined by Mr. Bodwell: You are contractor for the sewerage
works in Victoria ?
A—Yes.
Q.—When did you begin actual work on the ground ?
A.—The first of March.
Q.—How soon after did you begin to lay pipe ?
A.—It was some months after that.
Q.—How much of the work is done now ?
A.—I think there is half of it.
Q.—Do you mean half the territory covered ?
A.—I mean that we have got the largest pipe and the concrete work, the heaviest part
of it, done.
Q.—You haven't made any connections with the houses ?
A.—That has all to be done afterwards.
Q.—What means are taken to see where the connections are to be made with the pipe ?
A.—There are posts put along each side of the street every 45 feet or so.
The Court: When you say that half the work has been done, that does not include the
connections ?
A.—No, sir.    I mean my work.
The Court: They are not touched yet ?
A.—No, sir.
Q.—Have you been delayed at all in your work, Mr. McBean ?
A.—We have been delayed for pipe considerable.
Q.—Which pipe, the large pipe ?
A.—No, the 8-inch pipe.
Q.—Where did you use that principally ?
A.—Well, I would have to explain. The main pipe starts at Clover Point, up Moss
Street to Snowden, across Snowden to Cook, Cook to Southgate, and through McTavish's
property and the Convent, till it comes to that little church (R.E. Church) at Humboldt; from
there the 20-inch pipe starts running down Humboldt to Wharf Street, as far as Johnson, and
 xivi. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality      • 1891
then up Johnson one or two blocks to the 18-inch, then we follow the 18-inch along Store to
Chatham, and then the 15 up Chatham to Douglas, and then at Douglas is the 12-inch. We
have gone along Douglas two blocks. That is the main sewer. The others are 8-inch except
in a few streets where there are 9 and 10-inch. Most of the smaller streets are laid in 8-inch,
except a few that are 9 and 10-inch.
The Court: The main sewer stops where ?
A.—That is the main sewer.
Q.—Where does the 15-inch terminate ?
A.—Douglas Street.    There is another line of 18-inch on Cook Street  from Southgate to
View.    That is the main sewer again.
Q. —You say you have been delayed in getting this 18-inch pipe ?
A.—I have been delayed in this way.    If I had had the pipe I could have worked a good
many more men.
Q.—Have you any claims against the corporation on account of this delay ?
A.—I have not put in any claims at all.
Q.—I suppose you have got a record of all these delays ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Do you know whether or not a considerable amount of pipe has been  tendered  and
rejected by the engineer ?
A.—Only from hearsay.
Q.—Have you any idea whether the amount provided will be  sufficient to  complete the
sewering of the city ?
A —I don't think it.
Q.—Can you form any idea of the amount that will be required to do it ?
A.—I don't think I could do that without figuring.
The Court: You have got a record of the delay ?
Q.—We have.
Mr. Richards : Was the large pipe delivered before the contract called for it ?
A.—It was, I think.
Q.—According to your contract there was no  pipe  asked for  until  August?    Did   they
deliver any pipe before that ?
A.—They did.    Some months before that?
Q.—And did you commence work some months before that ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—They were not obliged to give it to you before August ?
•   A.—That is the contract between the city and the pipe man, but my contract was to
begin on the 1st March.    I was to finish in 18 months.    If I had not the pipe to go on  with
I could not do the work.
The Court: You did commence on the 1st March ?
A.—Yes, sir.
Mr. Gavin Burns, Manager of the Bank of B.N.A., examined by Mr. ,Bodwell: Mr.
Burns, you are the manager of the Bank of British N orth America ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—And the corporation account is kept at your bank ?
A—Yes.
Q,—Eor several years past there has been an overdraft of more or less magnitude at the
bank against the corporation ?
A. - Sometimes there has, sometimes there has not.
Q.—Would you explain the method of business by which the moneys were from time to
time advanced to the Corporation—oh, going back as far as the year 1888, and passing up to
the present ?
A.—In 1888 the Council passed what was called a bank credit by-law, under which they
borrowed by way of overdraft for certain amounts. They simply overdrew on the current
account.
Q.—How were these arrangements made with you as manager of the bank 1 I mean
with whom were they made ?
A.—The Mayor and the Finance Committee.
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. xlvii.
Q.—In the year 1890 what was clone?
A.—Well, in the year 1890 they didn't owe us anything. They didn't owe us anything,
they didn't ask for anything till well on in the year,    i don't know about the time.
Q.—About March, was it not?
A.-  I don't know.
Q.—Can you tell by looking at that book when the overdraft began ?
A.—This book commences with the 31st May, 1890, and there was then a balance of
$15,000 debtor; $15,109.26 on the 31st May, 1890. This book continues from 31st May to
22nd October, 1891.
Q.—You don't know whether that was incurred in April or March ?
A.—I could not tell from this book.
Q.—How was that overdraft arranged for?
A.—By the passing of the bank credit by-law, authorising the city to borrow by overdraft for the current expenditure in advance of the revenue, and then the cheques of the city,
signed by the Mayor and two members of the Finance Committee, were honoured to the extent
of that overdraft.
Q.—The bank credit by-law was passed on the 5th of February, 1890, authorising the
city to arrange for and obtain credit by way of overdraft upon current account in the bank of
B.N.A., to an amount not exceeding $150,000, including the now existing overdraft. What
does that mean ?
A.—At that time there was no overdraft.
Q.—There was no overdraft ? Can you tell us from that book what date they reached
that limit ?
A.—On the 30th June their balance was $49,000, and on the 30th July they owed us
$49,000.
Q.—Can you tell from that book whether from June to July they ran over the $150,000?
A.—No, I cannot.
Q.—How much were they overdrawn at the end of August ?
A.—$67,000.
Q.—How much at the end of September ?
A—$72,000.
Q.—At the end of October ?
A—$105,000.
Q.—And the end of November ?
A—$108,000.
Q.—And at the end of December ?
A—$55,000.
Q.—They reached their limit within a few hundred dollars at the end of June ? Do you
say that money was advanced to them subsequent to that date 1
A.—I presume there was. An additional by-law was passed, but I don't recollect the
date of it.
Q.—It seems to have been passed in September. What did you say was the overdraft at
the end of August?.
A—$67,000.
Q.—If you look at this book (city annual report), page 232, on the 10th September they
passed this amendment making the overdraft $180,000 instead of $150,000. When was that
limit reached ?    At the end of November, was it not ?
A.—At the end of November they owed $105,000.
The Court: What a dark way of making a by-law. Any one reading that by-law by
itself would be at a loss to understand what it meant : " Section 1 of the Bank Credit By-law
of 1890 is hereby amended by striking out in the first line the figure 5 and substituting therefor the figure 8." By-laws are not conundrums. On the 2nd February, I understand, there
was no overdraft; but on the 29th of January there was a by-law, which was finally passed
on the 5th of February, stating that it shall be lawful for the Finance Committee of the City
Council to obtain credit by way of overdraft at the Bank of B. N. A. a sum not exceeding
$150,000, including the now existing overdraft. If there was no overdraft then existing, what
was the meaning of these words ?
Mr. Bodwell: They could have no meaning in accordance with the surrounding circumstances.
 Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
The Court: One would think that they would have taken pains to ascertain what the
state of their account then was, if they didn't know.
Mr. Bodwell : They had an overdraft for so long that they had fallen into the habit of
the expression.
The Court: No; I think they are intelligent men, some of them. They seem to know
their business, and they must have meant something by these words ; though I should like to
know what they did mean. You see this is an exceedingly improper way of drawing up a
by-law—" by striking out the figure 5 and inserting therefor the figure 8." It is absurd.
No mercantile man of any common sense would write like that to his correspondent.
Mr. Bodwell : It is very misleading. Any one reading that would imagine that the
intention was to correct a clerical error in the by-law.
Mr. Richards : I think the best way is for some lawyer to go in for alderman and keep
them straight.
The Court : A chance for you, Mr. Richards.
Mr. Bodwell: At any rate they exceeded this overdraft by $28,000 at the end of November, when this second amendment was passed. Was there any other bank credit by-law passed
that you remember ?
A.—I don't remember.
Q.—At the end of June they have got to their limit; in August they have exceeded it,
and it was not till the 10th September that the second credit by-law was passed. Tell us what
arrangements they had made with you for the advance of money between those dates ? When
you found they had got beyond their limit, what did you do ?
A.—I informed them that they would require to pass another by-law, and they took
steps, I understood, to have this done.
Q.—In the meantime were there any cheques offered for payment ?
Q.— Yes.
A.—Was there any special arrangement about that ?
Q.—Yes.
Q.—What was it; do you remember?
A.—I could not. It was only verbal. It simply was that their cheques were to be
honoured pending the passage of that by-law.
Q.—Just a verbal arrangement ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—With whom did you make it, the Mayor?
A.—I could not tell you.     I don't remember exactly.
Q.—Whom do you usually see with reference to the finances of the city ?
A.—Generally the Mayor and one or two of the members of the Finance Committee.
Q.— And they came in and said they would like to have the cheques honoured in the
meantime.
A.—That is about the way of it.
Mr. Richards : Is he swearing to all this ?
Mr. Bodwell, to witness : You have not any doubt about this ?
A.—I presume it is so ; I can't remember at all; it is more than a year and a half ago,
Q.—Will you tell us when the limit of $150,000 was reached ?
A.—It does not appear to have been reached at all.
Q.—How do you explain that ?
A.—The bank book does not show it.
Q.—How much did they overdraw on the 30th May ?
A.—$135,000.
Q.—How do you account then for their passing the by-law in June allowing them to
overdraw to the extent of $200,000 ? This by-law says it shall be lawful to borrow from the
Bank of B. N. A. such sums as may be required to meet the current legal expenditure ; the
whole not to exceed $200,000, and the rate of interest not to exceed six per cent.; and the
obligation shall be in writing, and shall be in the form of a promissory note bearing the
corporate seal.    They discounted that note ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—When did the proceeds of that note go to their credit ?
A.—On the 27th of June.
Q.—How much had they at the bank before that went in ?
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. xlix.
A.—The book does not show.
The Court : They discounted a note for how much ?
A—$200,000.
Q.—Do you remember whether they were overdrawn this amount ?
A.—I don't know.    I presume they wanted some more money.
The Court : Was the overdraft then due of $130,000 paid out of that note ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—How soon did they get beyond the $200,000 ?
A.—They discounted an additional note. There was a third by-law passed for $50,000,
making it $250,000.
Q.—So they discounted another note ?
A—Yes.
Q.— When?
A.—That was discounted on the 9th October ?
Q.—What was the condition of their account then ?
A.—On the 30th September they were overdrawn $12,000.
Q.—How long after that was it before they had considerably more of an overdraft ?
A.—They never had an overdraft after that, I think.
Q.—They discounted the $50,000 on the 9th October ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—What they did was to discount the $50,000 note ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—They didn't take up the old note and issue a new one for $250,000 ?
A—No.
Q.—The way to carry out this by-law was to give a new note for the whole amount ?
The Court : Whatever is borrowed must be in the form of a note, and the sum they
borrow, according to this amended by-law, is not to exceed $250,000. And then they repeal
the former by-law on which the $200,000 was raised. Now, if you pull out the peg, the
cloak falls to the ground, does it not ?
A.—I don't admit that.    The note for $50,000 was wanted only for a very short time.
Mr. Bodwell: What does it mean by this clause 4 :—"All agreements for advances heretofore made by such bank are hereby confirmed. ?"
The Court: I think I shall give up taking the Illustrated London News, in which I take
great interest on account of its chess problems, and take these by-laws. They are such
conundrums.
Mr. Bodwell: What agreements are those referred to ?
A.—I don't know.
The Court : You didn't have that put in as a protection for yourself ?
A.—No.
Q.—You didn't interfere with the passing of the by-law at all ?
A.—No, no.
Q.—How many separate accounts are kept by the city at the bank ?
A.—There are a good many.    I could not tell the number.
Q.—The sinking funds, are they all one account ?
A.—No ; each loan has a separate account.
Q.—Then there is the general current account. That is the one to which the proceeds of
all these notes went ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—The market site loan account, the market building fund, the sewerage loan funds,
1890, and the sewerage debenture advance account.    Do you know of any others?
A.—I think that is about all.
Q.—Will you explain what this sewerage debenture advance account is ?
A.—It is an advance made on the debentures lodged with us.
Q.—When and how were these debentures lodged with you ?
A—On May 31st, $50,000 and $20,000.
The Court: Were these debentures lodged with you in any shape as security ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—By the Corporation ?
A.—Yes.
 Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
Q.—How many, the whole of the debentures ?
A.—No ; only $70,000.
Q.—They were in pledge to the bank.    Will you explain that $70,000 ?
A.—That is what they wanted to carry on the sewerage works in the meantime.
Q.—Not for general purposes ?
A.—Oh, no.
Q.—Was it before or after the 6th February that Mr. Ward got these debentures from
you on a delivery order ?
A.—It must have been after that.
Q._Has this $70,000 been repaid ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—When was it repaid ?
A.—That would be repaid on the 5th September.
Q.—I see there is an amount of $914.61; is that interest?
A.—I presume so.
Q.—Can you tell was that the total amount of interest paid ?
A.—I think so.
Q.—What rate is that ?
A.—Six per cent.
Q.—Have you any lien on these debentures ?
A.—No ; nor have I any lien on what may be in the bank now ?
Q.—They are there for safe keeping ?
A—Yes.
Q.—What is this sewerage loan fund account ?
A.—That is an account that is set aside for the sewerage works. Funds for these works
are deposited and placed to the credit of this account.
Q.—All the moneys I see were not deposited at one time. There was October 17th (90)
$1,000; November 20th, $1,000; November 2nd, $776, and December 23rd, $15,000. What
was that on December 23rd?
A.—I couldn't say.
Q.—Mr.McBean's cheque ?
A.—I don't know.
Q._At the end of May they deposited $32,622.89 ?
A.—They deposited more than that.
Q.—Is there any way to show how these deposits are made ?
A.—They are received as cash—cheques.
Q.—These cheques were not cheques drawn on the current account and paid into the
credit of the sewerage account ?
A.—I could not say.    They are simply cheques paid in by some of the city officials.
Q.—How does that account stand now ?    Has it a credit balance ?
A—Yes.
Q.—How much ?
A.—$20,893.85.
Q.,—When was that ?
A.—That is on November 5th.
Q.—What is this market loan account ?
A.—That is an advance against the market site debentures. That account is closed. It
began on April 30th, 1891, and was closed on September 5th, 1891.
Q.—And on that account you made advances of what amount ?
A.—$35,000.
Q.—And the rate of interest ?
A.—Six per cent.
Q.—You held the market site debentures for that ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Pledged ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—What account is this market building debentures ?
A.—That is a similar account to the market site.
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. li.
A.—You held the market building debentures for that, didn't you . How much did you
advance on them ?
A—$30,000.
Q.—Is that account closed ?
A.—I think that account is current with a credit balance of $3,000.
Q.—There has been paid into that account $31,324.32 ?
A.—Yes, that is the amount paid in.
Q.—These market bonds are also free from any lien 1
A.—I don't hold them.
Q.—You have delivered them all ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Outside of these accounts do you know of any other accounts in the bank deposited
in a special way ?
A.—I don't know. I think you have recited them all. Without a list I could not tell.
Sometimes they are opened and sometimes they are closed.
Q.—Have you a special account for the proceeds of the gravel pits sales ; or was that
paid into the general account ?
A.—I couldn't say.
Q.—You have no knowledge of a special account on your books for it ?
A—No.
The Court: Have you any account of the sinking funds of the various loans ?
A.—Yes; a special credit account of each of the sinking funds.
Q.—How are the sewerage cheques signed ?
A.—By the Commissioners.
Q.—And by any one else ?
A.—Yes ; by the Treasurer, I think.
Mr. Bodwell pointed out that the Commissioners were not re-appointed by the Council
this year, or they should have been re-appointed by the people.
Mr. Taylor : How much does the city owe the bank ?
A.—There is a note current for $200,000.
Q.—That is the extent of the liability ?
A—Yes.
Q.—What was the date of the note, do you remember ?
The Court: What is the date of the note for $50,000 1
A.—That has been paid.
Q.—That $200,000 note was some time in May, was it not ?
A.—I think it was towards the end of June—27th June.
Q.—At the time the engagement was entered into did you see any estimate of the revenue
of the city for the year.
A.—Yes.
Q.—Who submitted this estimate?
A.—I don't exactly remember. It might have been shown to me or brought down under
cover.
Q.—Do you remember the extent of the revenue estimated ?
Q.—No; I don't remember the exact figures.
Q.—Was it more or less than $200,000 ?
A.—It was a great deal more.    It was well within the revenue ?
Q.—That was on the 27th of June ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—What was the date of the $50,000 note ?
A.—-The 9th October.
Q.—The $50,000 for which that note was given, was that money all taken out of the
bank, or had some been taken out previous to that ?
A.—I think that while the by-law was in course of passing $12,000 had been drawn.
Q.—Were there any arrangements that that should be done ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Then the words in the by-law ratifying previous agreements referred to this agreement ?
A.—I presume so
 Hi Royal Commission-—Victoria Municipality. 1891
Mr. Taylor : That is the meaning of the words referred to, and my learned friend could
have brought that out if he chose.
Q.— The whole extent of the indebtedness is $200,000 ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Is there any money now to the credit of the city, general account?
A.—Yes, there is a considerable sum. I don't know exactly ; there may be about
$50,000.
Q.—What interest do they get in respect to these special trust accounts ?
A.—Three per cent.
Q.—There is the sewerage loan fund ?
A.—I think there is something standing to the credit of that account. $20,000 on the
5th November.
Q.—Are there any advances outstanding against any of the other accounts ?
A.—No.
Q.—Only this $200,000 against which there is $50,000 to the credit of the general
account.     Regarding this second $50,000 note, that has been paid has it not ?
A.—Yes.
Q.--When was that paid ?
A.—In November sometime.     I don't remember the date.    Some time this month.
Q.—Do you pay interest to the Corporation on the sinking funds ?
A.—Yes, we credit up the interest to each account. The total amount is $112,000 or
$113,000.
Q.—You pay three per cent, on those funds, and when you lend the Corporation you
charge six per cent. ?
A.—Yes.
The Court : That is good business.
Mr. Bodwell : You say, Mr. Burns, you had au estimate of the revenue given you at the
time you discounted this $200,000 note ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Did you have any estimate at the time you discounted the $50,000 note ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Did you see the auditor's report?
A.—The estimate was submitted to me early in September.
Q.—Was that before or after this $50,000 note was discounted?
A.—Subsequently.
Q.—Did you understand then that there was to be a shortage of $92,000 at the end of
the year ?
A.—No.
Q.—That was not explained to you.
A.—No.    The estimate showed a surplus that was submitted to me.
Q.—Was not this a surprise to you ?
A.—Yes, I have only seen this since I returned.    It was a surprise.
Q.—Of course, had you known there was going to be a shortage you would not have
allowed this note?
A.—No, certainly not.
Q.—Did you have any communication with the Council on the subject ?
A.—No ; I have not taken any action yet.
The Court: In 1889 your overdraft was paid in out of the proceeds of certain loans?
A.—I don't think there was any overdraft at the end of December, 1889.
The Court: You state there was none on the 2nd February ?
A.—Probably not.
The Court : Do you know anything of the method by which the overdraft was paid in at
the end of the year 1889?
A.—No; the books are not here and I could not state from memory.
The Court : The fire loan for instance ; that was paid into the general account ?
A.—Speaking from memory, I don't think there was a separate account for the fire loan.
I don't remember one.    There may have been one and it may have been closed.
The Court : The Market Site Debenture advance account—what was that ?
A.—That was a debit account.    Then there was another separate  account called " The
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. liii.
Market Building Debenture Account." There was $31,324.62 that has been paid into that
altogether.
Q.—Is there a separate account kept for each of the sinking funds ?
A.—Yes.
Mr. Taylor : I would like their Lordships to ask Mr. Burns what was the actual extent of
the overdraft at the beginning of this year.
Mr. Burns : I don't remember, somewhere about $55,000.
Q.—Was that money actually paid out by the bank ?
A.—Chequed out, yes.
Q.—Actually advanced by the bank ?
A.—$55,000, yes.
Q.—Now be sure about that, the amount that the bank had actually paid out $55,000
beyond what they deposited ?
A.—They had then at the end of the year $25,000 unpaid taxes against that.
Q.—Are you sure it was $55,000 ?    Was it not about $15,000 at the end of the year?
A.—$55,000 is entered here in the book.
Mr. Bodwell : How do you account for the published statement that there was $71,000
overdraft? Is it possible that the city could publish a statement shewing that they owed
your bank $71,000—had they discounted any note then ?
A—No.
Q.—Or had they any special arrangement by which they got the money ?
A.—No.
Q.—Do you know how the cheques are drawn—was it not a practice to draw cheques in
January, and date them as far back as the middle of December ?
A.—I can't tell whether they antedated their cheques or not. Cheques come in sometimes that are antedated ; but any one may have a cheque and not present it for some time.
Mr. Raymur, recalled.    Examined by Mr. Bodwell.
Q.—Will you explain this mystery ; was that amount owing to the bank at the end of
the year—how is it here the bank shows only $55,000 ? Can you explain this matter about the
cheques ?
A.—The pay-rolls for December don't come in till the 2nd or 3rd of January, and the
accounts for December are not passed till the first or second week in January ; we draw
cheques for these and charge them in December, the month to which they belong, that's the
whole thing.
Q.—And how do you account for the difference between $71,000 and $55,000 ?
A.—There were a lot of outstanding- taxes at that time, but our ledger and the bank
ledger are always different, our balances never agree.
Mr. J. H. Turner was called, with reference to the sewerage pipe. Examined by Mr.
Bodwell.
Q.—You had a tender on behalf of Doulton :
A—Yes.
Q.—Explain about that tender?
A.—I am wrong in saying I put in the tender, because Doulton's sent it to she Council direct.
Q.—Now will you tell us about that tender ?
A.—There was a general meeting of the Council, at which the Sewer Commissioners were
present to see the opening of the tenders. I was one of those who opened the tenders, and I
think Doulton's was, perhaps, the first tender that was opened. It was handed over to me,
to take note of it. I casually looked over it, and I at once saw an error in the 3rd or 4th line
of some $13,000 or $14,000. It was made in the carrying out. It was carried out $31,712,
when it ought to have been $19,820. There was also another error of $120 carried out, so
that I called the attention of the Mayor to these at once. He noticed them, and said it was
very desirable that these tenders should be handed over to a Committee for examination and
report, not only in connection with that error, which was apparent on the face of it,
but also to check every line of the tenders. There were a great many lines to go through,
and we wanted to check them to see how they compared all the way through. That was done
the next clay, and then it was found that Doulton's tender came to $56,025. It was less
$12,000; less that sum owing to the errors and 5 per cent. ; roughly, it was $56,000.
 liv. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
Mr. Bodwell: The Terra Cotta Company's was $54,000 odd ?
A.—I don't know. I may say there was a letter put in with the cheque; there was no
cheque sent in accompanying the tender. Doulton's telegraphed me to put in the cheque, and
in a letter about the same time, or shortly after the tender was received here, requested me to
say that they had great difficulty in getting ships, and that it was doubtful if they could be
ready to ship the pipe so as to get here in time.
Q.—Now, can you tell us, is there any particular advantage which would have accrued if
Doulton's tender had been accepted, and which would really make it the cheaper one ?
A.—I looked at it in a different way to what other parties here do. I felt very much
interested in getting Doulton's pipe here, as I knew they were perfectly good and reliable, and
I called attention here during the opening of the tenders to the fact that, in a number of lines,
Doulton's were very much under the other tenderers. That refers to special portions—for
instance, junctions—and where there is special work to be done they were very much lower
than any of the others; but then, again, in certain lines they came a little higher. I may
remark that there was only a small amount of these junctions and bends called for; but had
there been a larger quantity of these wanted, I don't know but what Doulton's tender would
have been the lowest one.
Q.—Won't a large number of these bends and joints be required for making house
connections ?
A.—I couldn't say; that's a question for the engineers. There is a clause for a certain
quantity, and I presume it is sufficient for the amount of work.
Q.—You were appointed under this by-law (it has been put in in evidence)?
A.—I don't remember the time of my appointment at all.
Q.—Tell us what is done by the Commissioners ?
A.—The Sewerage Commissioners examine accounts presented from time to time, endorse
the cheques if the amounts are found to be correct; also to receive reports from the Engineer
and Inspector, with reference to the quality of materials; to test pipes, and so on.
Q.—How are pipes tested ?
A.—There is a provision in the contract for the testing of the pipe. There is the chemical test and the test for strength. Of course, the Commissioners have to take the opinion of
the Inspectors on that.
Q.—There is a branch Sewerage Committee of the Council ?
A.—Yes; composed, I think, of Aldermen Coughlan, Hunter, and McKillican.
Q.—Do they sit with you ?
A.—Sometimes, but not always. There are special occasions ; they meet with us in the
awarding of contracts.
Q.—There are three Commissioners and three on the Sewerage Committee of the Council?
A!—Yes ; three or four.
Q.—Has anyone got a casting vote ?
A.—I think that there were four on the Council.
Q.—You haven't been present at any of the meetings ?
A.—I was present at all of them until the 23rd of July.
Q.—Do you know of any complaint with reference to the pipe supplied ?
A.—I know that there has been a complaint lodged with reference to the report of the
Engineer to the Commissioners with regard to the pipe.
Q.—The company complained that their pipe could stand the test, aud the Engineer said
it could not; that's what it amounts to ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—And they asked for another test to be made ?
A.—I couldn't say that.
Mr. Richards : I think that by-law places in the hands of the Sewer Commissioners the
power to look after the construction of these sewers ; I believe it does. And the Sewerage
Committee of the city has nothing to do with it ?
A.—The Sewerage Committee has met with us to assist us in letting the contract.
Q.—Do you allow them to sit with you and control you by their vote ? Do you allow
them to sit with you and vote?
A.—I believe that is right on this special occasion. As a matter of fact, we met jointly
in connection with awarding of tenders, and to check them up very carefully.
Q,—Did you ever examine the by-law under which you were appointed or elected ?
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality.
A.—I think so.
Q.—Did you find anything in it about the committee of the Council sitting with you,
anywhere ?
A.—I don't remember.
Q.—What do you suppose you were appointed for ? Why, do you suppose, were you
elected to do this work, and paid for it (reading section " Duties of Commissioners ") ? You
were speaking of the tender of these people from England for pipes.   Do you sell their pipe here ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Are you their agent for their pipes here ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Do vou get a commission ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—And how much ?
A.—Ten per cent.
Q.—I suppose you would have got a commission on this if the city had accepted the tender.
A.—Not one cent; not one farthing. As a matter of fact, we might have had a commission, but they didn't know my position as. a Commissioner of the city; but when they did,
they telegraphed to take off another five per cent.
Q.—Whose tender was the lowest ?
A.-—The Terra Cotta Company's.
Q.—Notwithstanding the deductions you had made and the errors you had found in the
Doulton's tender?
A.—There were other tenders lower than Doulton's.
Q.—Still, the local company had the lowest—I mean the Terra Cotta Company ?
A. —Certainly.
Q.—Were there any other reasons for their not awarding the tender to Doulton's ?
.A.—There was the difficulty about not getting the pipe here in time. That was considered a vital objection.
Q.—You say these people didn't send a cheque ?
A.—Yes, they sent a cheque; but not at first.
Q.—Did you hand that in ?
A.—It was my own cheque ; yes.
Q.—The others were enclosed with the tenders ?
- A.—I don't know.
Q.—Was there any condition at all in their tender about their being able to get ships to
bring the pipe out ?
A.—No ; I think not.
Q.—Didn't they say something about their not being able to get vessels?
A.—That was in a letter to me. We knew that the pipes shipped in the manner they
were able to ship them would not be here in time for the contract. The tenders were only
advertised for in December, and we had to send them home and get a reply out here in so
short a time, that it would have been impossible to deliver the pipes in time.
Q.—Suppose their tender had been accepted, how soon could they have got the pipe here ?
A.—We reckoned about five months after June.
Q.—Not until November 1
A.—We calculated we could get them along in October.
Q.—Then the city could not have accepted that tender; if they had, the work could not
have gone on ?
A.—I haven't said they could accept.    I never advanced any such statement.
The Court: Was the $300,000 put in in your name as Commissioners ?
A.—Not the whole amount; there were certain sums set aside from time to time for the
requirements of the Commissioners to their credit as they asked for it. It stands in our
name, but the whole amount has not been placed there.
The Court: You say that Messrs. Doulton did not send their cheque with their tender ?
A.—Yes. In their letter they say : " We do not forward our deposit, as we consider our
name sufficient guarantee to fulfil the conditions of the contract if our tender is accepted."
Mr. Richards : But they did send a cheque afterwards ?
A.—No; they telegraphed to me to deposit the cheque for them, and my cheque was
accepted, and was held for some time,
 Ivi. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1S91
Mr. Bodwell: When was the contract signed by Mr McBean ?
A.—That contract was signed on the last day of the Council of 1890.
Q.—In that contract, they provided for Mr. McBean beginning work in March ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—That was the only thing that necessitated the delivery of the pipe so early 1
A.—Yes.
Mr. Richards : Who was the man who made the offer for the sewerage bonds in London ?
A.—I could not tell you ; that's my own business.
Q.—You decline to name him ?
A.—Yes, I decline to name him.
Q.—Why do you decline ?
A.—It is a matter of my own business; I don't think I am bound to give that name.
Q.—-It is very desirable to know who the party was, to see if there is anything in it, or
if he means business ?
A.—I may say, if the Commissioners require me to give that name, of course I will name
the party, but I decline to answer that question unless I am forced to.
Q.—I suppose, if there was anything in it, the Commissioners would force Mr. Turner to
answer the question. So far as the Council is concerned, Mr. Ward still holds these bonds,
and if your friend can make another bid for them, or offer more for them, they are for sale.
A.—I may yet make an offer for them ; I don't know.
Mr. Bodwell: The City signed the contract, and incurred other liabilities, but made no
provision for the money ; then they had to take people's terms. The Sewerage Commissioners
were applied to for $7,000 out of this fund on account of the Johnson Street sewer ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—And they declined ?
A.—Yes.
Mr. Richards : I suppose you are going to use Johnson Street sewer ; that is part of the
scheme ?    You don't abandon it ?
A.—As far as my knowledge goes, it is abandoned entirely; but we don't have anything
to do with the scheme.
Q.—Who controls that ?
A.-—The City.
Q.—You don't think that Johnson Street sewer will be utilized as part of the scheme ?
A.—I have reason to believe it has been abandoned.
Wellington J.  Dowler was next called.    Examined by Mr. Bodwell : Your full name
it?
A.—Wellington J. Dowler.
Q.—You are Clerk of the Municipal Council of the City of Victoria ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—And you also act as clerk to the Sewerage Commissioners ?
A.—I do.
Q.—Is that a list of the C .mmittees of the Council for the present year ?
A.—Yes    (Exhibit " I").
Q.—On that list, who are the Sewerage Committee ?
A.—Aldermen Hunter, McKillican, and Coughlan.
Q.—Will you produce the contract for the sewer pipe ?
A.—I haven't it in my possession.
Q.—Did you ever have it ?
A.—I am not aware that I ever had it placed in my possession.
Q.—Is there any minute of council authorizing the contract to be let?    Will you produce
Extract from the minutes of the City Council, January 26th, 1891 : "A communication
" was received from the Sewerage Committee and Sewerage Commissioners, recommending
" that the contract for the supply of sewer pipe be awarded to the B. C. Terra Cotta Co.
" All pipes to be home manufactured, unless express permission is given by the Sewerage
" Committee, Sewerage Commissioners, or the Sanitary Engineer to substitute such pipe of
" foreign manufacture, in such quantities as may be deemed desirable"    (Exhibit "J").
Q.—Is there any subsequent minute passed with reference to this same subject ?
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. lvii.
A.—Not that I am aware of.
The Court: Here is the contract that is said to have been entered into, but I don't find
that clause ?
A. — No ; it is not called for in the tenders, nor is it in the contract. (Copy of contract
handed in and marked " K")
Q.—Have you any idea where the original contract is ?
A.—No ; I have not.
Q.—Have you attended the meetings of the Sewerage Commissioners ?
A.—Yes ; I have attended some of them ; others I have not attended.
Q.—Will you state, from looking at your minute book, who are the staff of engineers ?
A.—Ed. Mohun, Wilmot, J. B. Harrison, Creed (janitor), Parker, Chambers, Newling,
Johnson, and Blackwood.
Q.—What is the total amount of salaries there ?
A—$1,630.
Q.—When was that for ?
A.—That was passed on the first day of September for the month of August.
Q.—Can you tell, from your minute, the permanent staff's pay-roll for the month ?
A.—I could not tell.
Q.—Will you turn to your minutes, page 47, of the meeting held on fourth of September.
Do you find any reference there to the delivery of pipe by the Terra Cotta Co. ?
A.—Yes ; I do. It says a report from the Sanitary Engineer was read, with reference to
the small pipe supplied.
Q.—Can you tell us where that report is now ?
A.—I think it is in my office.
Q.—In consequence of the report, did the Commissioners take any action ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—What was done ?
A.—I was instructed to forward a copy of the report to the Council, stating that, in the
opinion of the Commissioners, the non-fulfilment of the contract by the Terra Cotta Co. was
causing serious delay and inconvenience.
Q.—Did you communicate in accordance with that ?
A.—I did.    (Report handed in.)
Q.—Will you look at your minutes for the meeting of the 8th of October, when this
question was again before the Committee ?
A.—It was moved and seconded that the Secretary call the attention of the City Council
to the resolution of the Sewerage Commissioners, dated 4th ult., informing them that the
delivery of the pipe by the Terra Cotta Co. is still insufficient to keep the contractor supplied,
and that the Council be requested to take immediate steps in the matter.
Q.—Did you act in accordance with that resolution ?
A.—I believe I was not in the City at that time, but I am informed the matter was
attended to.
Q.—Was anything done by the City Council on these reports ?
A.—They took them into their consideration.
Q.—What was done?
A.—I could not say positively unless I had the minutes of Council before me.
Q.—Referred the the Sewerage Committee ?
A.—I could not say.
Q.—Has there been any trouble—has anything occurred with reference to the quality of
pipe ?
A.—Well, they have been subjected to several tests.
Q.—And the result of those tests ; what have they been ?
A.—They were not satisfactory; that is to say the tests did not correspond.
Q.—There is nothing a,r-.taring on the minutes to show that ?
A.—It simply appears that the Commissioners had an interview with the Secretary of the
B. C. Terra Cotta Co., who claimed that the pipes had been tested at the works with favourable results, while on more tests on behalf of the Corporation the pipes were unable to stand
the acid test.    It was arranged that a joint test be made.
Q.— Do you know anything about the result of that ?
A.—I don't.
 lviii. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
Q.—Does it appear from your minutes whether the Sewerage Committee of the City and
the Sewerage Commissioners ever sat together ?
A.—Yes; we had three or four meetings.
Q.—Give us an instance.
A.—The meeting of September 21st,
Q.—Did the Sewerage Committee attend that meeting ?
A.—They evidently did.
Q.—Who was chairman ?
A.—Alderman Hunter was the chairman. There were also present Aldermen Coughlan
and McKillican, and Commissioners Earle and Teague. It was not my duty to keep a record
of these meetings, but, of course, at the request of the meeting I did so.
Q.—You don't know anything about the working of the Sewerage Commissioner's office ?
A.—That is all I know; what is written in this book.
Q.—By Mr. Richards: Do you know what action the Council took on these reports
coming before them ?
A.—I cannot remember the precise action.
The Court: I understand the Commissioners held a meeting at which Mr. Turner was
not present. If this was a meeting of the Commissioners, how came Mr. Hunter to be in the
chair if he was not a Commissioner ?
A.—They had a joint meeting of the Sewerage Committee and Sewerage Commissioners,
but the Committee had no executive functions.
Q.—Then how could that meeting appoint a member of the Committee, who was not a
Commissioner, chairman of a meeting of the Commissioners. Yo don't mean to say they
allowed these gentlemen to vote and take part in the discussion?
A.—At the outset of the year they invited the Committee to attend their meetings, as
very important matters would come before the Commissioners, who thought it wise to have the
Committee present.
Q.—They might have called Mr. Mohun to be present at the meeting, but they would not
put Mr. Mohun in the chair, nor would they allow him to vote. Do you mean to say that
they admitted these three gentlemen from the Council—possibly better men than themselves,
but still having nothing to do with the Commissioners—to vote at their meetings; that they
being appointed with full powers in certain matters should deposit three-fifths of that power
in the hands of other men?
Mr. Dowler : I suppose it was a matter of courtesy to allow one of the Committee to
take the chair.
Q.—Do you think it is a matter of courtesy for me to ask anyone up here to take the
chair ? I want to know if you fully understood what took place. Did these three gentlemen,
at a meeting of the Commissioners, assume to act as Commissioners ?
A.—No ; I don't suppose they did.
Q.—Then why did one of them take the chair ?
Mr. Richards : There is one resolution here, moved by Commissioner Earle, seconded by
Alderman McKillican, "That the action of the Sanitary Engineer, rejecting the pipe referred
to in the above report, be confirmed."
The Court : I don't suppose the Committee would do anything but the most intelligent
and upright acts, but they had no right to vote at that meeting.
Mr. Taylor : Perhaps Mr. Dowler can tell us whether this meeting was held in reference
to some report referred to them by the Committee ?
Mr. Dowler: Very often matters affecting this same contract came before the Council,
who referred them to the Sewerage Committee, and they would ask the Sewerage Commissioners to sit with them.    That would probably account for Alderman Hunter being in the chair.
The Court: It is a meeting of the Commissioners, and the Committee may be there—
the Council may be there—but it is a meeting of the Commissioners only.
Mr. Taylor: Can you tell us, Mr. Dowler, by referring to any of your books at the City
Hall, what brought about this particular meeting ?
A.—I really could not say. I think it was a report from Mr. Carmichael, Analyst, on
some sewer pipes submitted to him for examination.
The Court: To whom did Mr. Carmichael report ? He should have reported to the
Sanitary Engineer.
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. lix.
Mr. Taylor : Now, really, was it not sent in to the Council, and they referred it to the
Sewerage Committee ?
Mr. Dowler: Speaking from memory, I think it was sent in to the Council.
Mr. Taylor : I think, my Lords, you will find the real cause of that was these pipes were
rejected by the Sanitary Engineer, and the other party complained to the Council, who referred it to the Sewarage Committee for investigation.
Mr. Richards : My learned friend Mr. Bodwell asked you about the salaries paid these
officers here, amounting to $1,630.    Who appointed them ; do you recollect ?
A.—Mr. Mohun and Mr. Wilmot were appointed by the Council. Mr. Harrison was also
appointed by the Council, on the adoption of a report of the Sewerage Committee. I think
the remainder were appointed by Mr. Mohun.
Mr. Bodwell: Who is J. B. Harrison ? Was he not the Chairman of Streets and Bridges
and Public Works for 1890?
A.—He was Chairman of the Sewerage Committee.
Q.—The year in which this contract was executed ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—What position does he now hold ?
A.—He has the position of Inspector.
Q.—At $150 per month ?
A—Yes.
Q.—When did he assume the duties of that office ?
A.—Some time early in the year.
Thomas Earle, M.P.    Examined by Mr. Bodwell.
Q.—You are one of the Sewerage Commissioners ?
A.—I have been acting as such, and was one, I presume.
Q.—Can you explain how, or under what circumstances, it happened that the Sewerage
Committee of the Council has been attending meetings of the Sewerage Commissioners ?
A.— I don't think they have attended any of the meetings of the Sewerage Commissioners.    I think we were asked to attend meetings of the Sewerage Committee.
Q.—Do you remember this meeting—you seem to have been present—page 48 of this
minute book ? Was that a time when as Sewerage Commissioners you were asked to attend a
meeting of the Sewerage Committee ?
A.—I presume so.
Q.—For what purpose were you asked to attend a meeting of the Sewerage Committee of
the Council?
A.—Well, I could not say, I'm sure.
Q.—Does that first resolution refresh your memory—was it a fact, do you know, that a
report had been sent to the City Council stating that certain sewer pipe ought not to have
been rejected, the Council referred it to the Sewerage Committee to investigate, and the
Sewerage Committee asked you to be present ?
A.—I should judge from the resolution that it was in consequence of something in connection with the pipes being rejected, but I could not say.
Q.—Alderman Hunter was in the chair ?
A.-—Yes.
Q.—And this resolution was adopted ?
A.—So it would seem from the minutes.
Q.—Is it a fact that the Sewerage Commissioners have not actual control of the works ?
A.—No, certainly not.
Q.—Where is the actual control of the works vested ?
A.—In the City Council. They could overrule anything we do. We have power, I
believe by the by-law, to reject material, and to refuse to pay bills for works and material
that do not properly belong to the sewerage works, but as to the conduct of the work, we
have no control.
Q.—How is that ?
A.—We haven't got it.    As I understand the by-law it does not give us full control.
The Court: I think the by-law goes a long way towards giving you full control, not in
the giving of the contract, but in connection with the works done uuder the contract.
(Reading the clause in the by-law with reference to Commissioners' duties.)    Unfortunately
 Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
for your contention, Mr. Earle, that the Council can overrule anything you do, the by-law
says your decision shall be final.
Mr. Bodwell : Is not the matter of the sewer pipes under the direct jurisdiction of the
Commissioners ?
A.—I think so.
Q.—Was a rejection of certain pipes made with their approval ?
A.—As soon as the rejection was made by the engineer In charge, we had another test
of the pipes, and this test proved that the pipes would stand all that was required of them.
Q.—Had that rejection been approved by the Commissioners before ?
A.—I don't remember.
Mr. Taylor : Did not Mr. Mohun communicate his disapproval of these pipes to the
Commissioners prior to this meeting ?
A.—I presume he did.
Q.—Did you not, as Commissioners, empower Mr. Mohun to employ Mr. Carmichael to
make this test ?
A.—He was employed.
Q.—Do you know whether he was employed by the Commissioners or Mr. Mohun ?
A.—I think by the direction of the Commissioners.
Q.—Mr. Carmichael made a report to whom—Mr. Mohun ?
A.—I can't say as a matter of fact.
Q.—That report was sent in to the City Council instead of to you as Commissioners ?
A.—I do not remember as a matter of fact.
The Court: The proper way would have been to have sent it to Mr. Mohun who would
have submitted it to the Commissioners. Mr. Earle has not been able to point out any error in
the by-law. You have got power to do this, and your decision is final. You will report to
the City Council, but your decision is final. I have no doubt the Council, was under the
same error as yourself, and perfectly conscientiously, and you understood that you had not
full powers till pointed out to you not five minutes ago. It is really not an uncommon error
with a great many people to never read the Act of Parliament under which they act, and in
this way often give a great deal of trouble to judges and lawyers in cases of habeas corpus
and certiorari, and so forth.
Q.—Did the City Council take any action on the resolution passed by the Commissioners
in respect to the delay in the delivery of pipes by the Terra Cotta Company 1
A.—Not so far as I know.
Edward Mohun, called.    Examined by Mr. Bodwell.
Q.—You are the Sanitary Enginner of the city 1
A.—I am in charge of the whole of the sewerage works.
Q.—Did you prepare the plans which were accepted for the sewerage ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—And the specifications for the sewer pipe ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Was a time limit for the beginning of the work inserted in the sewerage contract
according to your recommendation or with your concurrence ?
A.—I don't quite understand the question. There is a clause in the contract which says
the contractor shall commence work on receiving a notice to that effect from me.
Q.—When did you give him that notice to commence work ?
A.—I gave him notice to commence on the 1st March this year.
Q.—Then the contractor was not to commence work until receiving notice from you ?
A.—No.
Q.—Did you prepare the specifications for the sewer pipe ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—You know Doulton's pipes ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—It is a first-class article?
A—Yes.
Q.—Has an established reputation?
A.—Yes.    I have known it for a great many years.
Q.—When you prepared the specification for the sewer pipe did you intend that the
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. lxi.
work should be commenced on the 1st March? Did you expect that Doulton's could possibly
tender for pipe if you had to begin then ?
A.—Well, we had about 6,000 or 7,000 feet of sewer for which we did not want any
pipes at all; it was all concrete work.
Q.—You could have completed the whole of that work before you wanted the pipe ?
A.—We could.
Q.—Why did you want the sewer pipe delivered by August ?
A.—Because I was in hopes we could get a good many pipes here during the dry weather
and in that case we could get a good deal of work done.
Q.—Did you think it possible that Doulton's pipe could get here in that time ?
A.—Yes; I consulted with several Wharf Street merchants about the shipping, and they
agreed that it could be done.
Q.—You could have deferred giving notice to the contractor to commence the work ?
A.—Yes; I could have notified him at any time.
Q.—It was your intention that you would have Doulton's pipe if they could get it here
and theirs was the lowest tender?
A.—There was more than one tender? There were two English tenders; one from
California, and one local tender—four altogether.
Q.—Had you made any test of the clay of the Terra Cotta Co. before the tenders were
sent in ?
A.—No.
Q.—After you knew they were tenderers did you visit their works ?
A.—Yes ; I went down there once or twice.
Q.—Were you satisfied they had the plant and material to furnish the pipe ?
A.—I cannot say.    I am not a pipe manufacturer.
Q. —No, but as an engineer, do you know ?
A.—I believe they had the plant, if they had the material. They commenced experiments as soon as they were awarded the contract, testing the different mixtures of clay.
Q.—Do I understand you to say that at the time they entered into that contract they
had not fully satisfied themselves that they could supply the pipe ?
A.—They appeared to be well satisfied, but up to that date I do not think they had made
any sewer pipe.
Q.—After that did they begin to test their different clays ?
A.—I think they made a great many experiments.
Q.—Has there not been a considerable trouble in getting pipe ?
A.—At one time about the beginning of September and the end of August there was
some trouble, not from want of the large pipes, but from the small ones.
Q.—It was the large pipe that came from. California ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—The smaller ones were manufactured here, and those were the ones you wanted ?
A- Yes.
Q.—You made a report to the Sewerage Commissioners on that point ?
A.—I think it was the beginning of September.
Q.—This grievance was not done away with in October?
A.—No ; we had some trouble. On the 8th of October a resolution was passed, asking
the Secretary to take some action on the report of the Commissioners and the shortage of
pipes.
(Resolution read again.)
Q.—What made this delay a serious and inconvenient one ?
A.—It was putting off the opening up of the streets to the bad weather.
Q.—Was it not delaying the contractor in his work ?
A.—I could hardly answer that question. There was a certain delay to the contractor,
but no delay occurred that he could claim any damage from the city.
Q.—Are not the city obliged to furnish him with material as he wants it ?
A.—I do not think so.
Q.—As a matter of fact, is the pipe being furnished now as rapidly as the work calls for
it?
Q.—When they found we were running short they telegraphed to California for a large
shipment of small pipe to enable us to go on with while they were manufacturing their own.
 Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
Q.—Then, as a matter of fact, they have supplied very little pipe ?
A.—Not a very great deal.
Q.—Can you tell us how much they have supplied ?
A.—2,759 feet 8-inch; 752 of 9-inch ; 384 of 6-inch ; and about 7,000 of the channel
pipes.
Q.—What is the proportion of the small pipe already delivered by the Terra Cotta Co.
from their own works to the whole of the pipe required for the sewerage, including the large
pipe ?
A.—I could not say that without figuring it out. There are about 6,000 pieces of the
10, 12, 15, and 18 and 20-inch delivered, and about 4,000 of the 6, 8, and 9-inch, exclusive of
the channel pipes.
Q.—Have you rejected many pipes ?
A.—Among the first pipe that came up we had to reject a large number.
Q.—What do you think of the pipe ?
A.—It is a very good pipe.
Q.—Have you rejected many of them ?
A.—I have, a good many for breakage.
Q.—Did you not reject over 90 per cent, of one shipment?
A.—I think not. I think there was about 50 per cent, of one shipment broken in coming
up. I think there were about 350 pipe, and out of that something like 120 were broken, but
they were all of good quality.
Q.—How thick are the 12-inch pipe ?
A.—About an inch. You require about l-12th of the diameter. Some materials are a
great deal stronger than others, but the American pipe, as a rule, is made thinner than the
English.    They generally run about the same.
Q.—What company is the pipe made by that comes from California ?
A.—Glady, McBean & Co.
Q.—Have they a good reputation ?
A.—Very good, I should say.
A.—You know about the Toronto sewerage question ? You took part in that conference?
Do you know what pipe is referred to there ?
Q.—That would be eastern pipe.
A.—Has that as good a reputation as this ?
Q.—I should say from what I have heard of the eastern pipe that the California is better.
Q.—What tests did you make ?
A.—The water absorption, the crushing, and the acid tests.
Q.—What is the crushing weight ?
A.—1,000 pounds to the lineal foot.
Q.—What test do you make for absorption ?
A.—3 per cent, in 24 hours.
Q.—How do these pipes run?
A.—Considerably less; the average is 2.66.
Q.—That was the American pipe ?
A.—No ; they run still less—about 2 per cent.
Q.—How do you test for acid ?
A.—Take a piece of pipe, thoroughly dry and carefully weigh it; then submit it to the
action of the acid for 24 hours ; take it out, thoroughly remove all traces of the acid, dry it
and weigh it; and if the acid has not reduced the weight in any particular, the pipe has stood
the test.
Q.—Did you make more than one test as a rule ?
A.—Oh, yes ; six or seven.
Q.—Can you tell from the appearance of the pipe whether it is of the proper quality ?
A.—Generally.
Q.—How do you judge ?
A.—By the ring. Sometimes we generally try the ring for cracks, although, of course,
a really good pipe will ring well; the appearance and colour of a pipe will always go a good
way.
Q.—Have you passed any pipes by appearance ?
A.—I have when I have known the pipe, but I would not let an unknown pipe go on
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. lxiii.
appearance.    It would not be necessary to test a great many out of one kiln.
Q.—Is it necessary you should test every kiln ?
A.—No.
Q.—Don't you do it ?
A.—No.
Q.—Does not a great deal depend on the burning ?
A. —Certainly.
Q.—Then why should you not test every kiln ?
A.—A great deal depends upon the maker; if you know the maker pretty well you take
a great deal for granted ?
Q.—How many tests have you made of the pipes delivered by the B. C. Terra Cotta Co.?
A.—I think there must have been about ten chemical tests made.
Q.—Out of ten different kilns ?
A.—I don't know whether there were of different kilns. I have tested two or three out
of different shipments.
Q.—Do I understand you to say you have tested two or three out of each shipment ?
A.—In every shipment where there has been any doubt at all we have tested them.
Q.—How many shipments have you had ?
A.—I can't tell, because they delivered them from the local company by waggon from the
railway station, and I could not tell how many car-loads there are, or how many go to one
burning.
Q.—How many tests for acid have you made ?
A.—I could tell by referring to the reports.
Q.—How many do you think ?
A.—I think Mr. Carmichael has made two; Mr. McAlpin three or four; Mr. Shotbolt
has made one, and there was one made at Langley's. I think there was something wrong
about that.
Q.—How long an interval would elapse between these tests ?
A.—If I had a fresh lot of pipe that looked suspicious, I had a test made.
Q.—Then you don't think it necessary to make a test of every kiln ?
A.—We should have to keep a man constantly employed for that alone, if we did.
Q.—It is not a very difficult operation ?
A.—They charge pretty well for it, when it costs $25 for testing a piece of pipe.
Q.—Why don't you employ a man to do it ?    Can't you do it yourself ?
A.—I am not a chemist, and I don't care to take the responsibility ?
Q.—It is not a very difficult operation ?
A.—It is a matter that requires a very great deal of care. The difficulty is to so thoroughly dry and wash as to get all the acid out; because the acid being heavier than water, if
you leave any in the pipe, it leaves the weight probably the same, and you lose the value of
the test.
Q.—Have you had any complaint about a box-drain in connection with the sewer ?
A.—No one has made any complaint to me.
Q.—Is there anything in that complaint ?    Is it a fact ?
A.—There is a box-drain under a portion of the concrete sewer.
Q.—How far does it run?
A—About 3,000- feet.
Q.—Is that any detriment to the work ?
A.—No; it is down below the watershed, and, therefore, as is known, wood will not rot
under water.
Q.—Is the sewer not likely to collapse ?
A.—I don't think it would, and if it did could do no harm; in fact, it is now unused,
and is nearly filled with sand.
Q.—Are you going to be able to use Johnson Street sewer in your scheme ?
A.—I am rather doubtful of that. '
Q._Why is that ?
A.—In the first place, it is too low. I could not discharge by gravitation out to Clover
Point.
Q.—Do you consider you will have a sufficient amount at your disposal to complete the
main arteries of the sewers ?
 lxiv. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
A.—Certainly; and also a considerable number of the branches. In fact, I am in hopes
of finishing that part bounded by Cook, Pandora, Douglas and Chatham Streets, with the
branches ; but this all depends on the amount of rock we meet with. The moment we strike
rock, there is considerable expense.
Q.— How about the house connections?
A.—The house connections, I suggested to the Council last year, should be made at the
same time the sewers are built; but the difficulty was this: There was a sum of $300,000
voted by the people for sewers, but the people who voted that did not contemplate that any
portion of it would be expended in making connection to private dwellings, and it was therefore impossible to put in the connections, unless the Council saw their way to provide funds.
The matter was referred to the city solicitors, and they could not see how it could be done ;
but posts are put in at about every forty feet, where the connections can be made afterwards.
Q.—What precautions are you taking to have these junctions recorded?
A.—The measurements of these junctions are taken by une Inspector and entered on a
large plan in the office ; they are marked on the ground by a 3^-inch scantling, carried up to
the surface from the main.
Q.—How much of a staff have you working under you ?
A.—There is Mr. Wilmot, the Resident Engineer ; Gordon, the Draughtsman ; Harrison,
Inspector ; then from time to time, as the work requires, we have four or five sub-Inspectors;
but, then, they are only engaged as they are wanted, and are paid by the day.
Q. —What are Mr. Harrison's duties ?
A.-—He is the General Superintendent of all the works ; goes over the works to see that
the contractor fills in all the streets to the surface level enough to prevent danger, and when
the pipes are laid he sees that there is no settlement, and that it is filled up at once. He
looks after the men and keeps the time, and if, as sometimes happens, there are fifteen or
twenty pipes to lay, and I don't want to employ a man, he goes and does it.
Q.—Were your plans accepted by the Council just as you prepared them?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Were there no additions?
A.—How do you mean ?    By me, or anyone else ?
Q.—Any additions made to them after they were sent in to the Council ? Were there
any changes made ?
A.—I believe the Council, on the suggestion of Mr. Herring, made some changes, altering
the outlet a foot or so.
Q.—Was there any writing on your plans when you sent them in to the Council 1
A.—My plans and specifications were signed. There was no statement in the advertisement as to any nom de plume, or anything of that sort, and I signed my plans with my own
name, which I thought at the time was the worst thing I could do if I wanted to get the
contract.
The Court : Why did you think that ?
A.—Because I thought they would not give it to a British Columbian.
Q.—Who was the Consulting Engineer ?
A.—Mr. Herring.
Q.—He was a personal friend of yours ?
A.—I trust he is now.
Q.—Wasn't he then ?
A.—No; I have only seen him once since.
Mr. Richards (cross-examining on pay-roll) : Were all these men necessary ?
A. —Yes; I don't think we could do without any of them.
Q.—Whenever you can get along without any of them you discharge them ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—All these men are paid by the day, aren't they ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—And you can discharge them without giving them a month's notice?
A.—Yes.
Q.—You say the pipe from San Francisco is a good article?
A.—A very good article. I tested it several times when I was laying pipe in Vancouver,
and I always found it satisfactory.
Q.—How much sewerage did you lay in Vancouver ?
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. lxv.
A.—I laid about seven miles of sewers there; about four and a half miles of that was
this pipe.
Q.—And you find the article delivered there a good one ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—I believe you prepared this contract?
A.—Yes.
Q.—And it provides that the contractor shall  commence after receiving notice from you?
A.rt-Yes.
Q.—Has he always had a sufficiency of large pipe to keep him going ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Is there any provision in the contract that if he runs short of pipe and has to stop
the work, he can have any claim for damages ?
A.—Yes ; clause 41 says he shall have an extension of time if he is delayed, in proportion
to the amount of delay, but no other compensation.
Q.—Has the delay been any way serious to the contractor?
A.—It has, in one sense. He would probably have put on a great many more men had
he been kept supplied with pipe, and in that way he could have done a great deal more work.
Q.—He could have done the work quicker?
A.—Yes. There is a considerable portion of this laid in cement; a portion of the arch
is built in brick ; the rest is concrete.
Q.—How much of the sewer is done in that work ?
A.—It is concrete up to Southgate Street.
Q.—Then there they begin to lay pipe ?
A.—Yes.    From there down to the sea he was not delayed in any way.
Q.—Who furnished the material there?
A.—He furnished it himself.
Q.—He could go to work on that at once and there would be no delay.
A.—No.
Q.—How long was he at that work ?
A.—It is not completed yet; still, of course, he could only get a certain number of men
there.
Q.—At the street there where the brick leaves, you begin to lay pipe ?
A.—The main sewer runs as far as the Reformed Church, coming through McTavish's
property to Humboldt Street. From there the 20-inch pipe goes along Humboldt Street to
Wharf Street, along Wharf to Johnson and Store, up Store Street to Chatham and Government,
where it connects with the 18-inch.
Q.—For all that work you have had plenty of pipe ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Then up Cook Street ?
A.—That is the 18-inch pipe.
Q.—You go south to View Street with— ?
A.—Fifteen inch on View Street as far as Quadra.
Q.—Any delay there ?    What size pipe have you there ?
A.—I think it is 10-inch there.
Q.—Then you run north of Cook and come to Yates ?
A.—North of Cook Street we come to View.
Q.—Well, anything done there ?
A.—We have clone a small piece on Yates, but we have got into rock, and are not making
very fast progress.
Q.—Were you present at the opening of the tenders for the pipe ?
A.—I was.
Q.—The Terra Cotta Company was the lowest ?
A.—Yes.
Q.--Did you suppose if the contract had been let to these people in England that the
pipes would not be here in time ?
A.—I think the feeling of the Commissioners and Council was that the contract should
either be let to the local company or to Doulton.
Q.—Was there a letter put in with Doulton's tender ?
A.—I think Mr. Turner stated that owing to some difficulty about obtaining a vessel
 lxvi. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
they doubted whether they could be able to deliver the pipes here before October or November.
They thought they could deliver the whole quantity called for by May, 1892.
Q.—There was a company in San Francisco whose tender was rejected ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—There was a tender from Messrs. Ward & Co. ?
A.—That is the other English tender I mentioned. Then there was the tender from the
local company, I believe.
Q.—With regard to the work here you say the contractor has been delayed because the
pipes— ?
A.— I consider we ought to have had a larger supply of small pipe than we have received.
Q.—But then you don't consider the contractor was delayed a great deal in consequence ?
A.--He would have employed more men, who could have been put to work in several
different places at once had we had sufficient pipe to go on with.
Q.—Do you know whether the matter was referred to the city with a view to taking
proceedings against this company for their delay ?
A.—Mr. Dowler was instructed to forward the resolution to the Council to take action
upon.
Q.—You say you will not be able to use that Johnson Street sewer ?
A.—I don't think so.
Q.—Do you know when that was built ?
A.—I was not here at the time it was built. Of course, it is a portion of another system
altogether.
Q.—The Pickering system ?
A—Yes.
Q.—They subsequently abandoned that system and adopted the one you are working on
now ?
A.—Yes The people would not vote the money for it. I believe the by-law was introduced, but the people rejected it.
Q.—Why ?
A.—I think the people must have come to the conclusion that it was not the right
system.
Q.—What system was it ?
A.—The combined system.
Q.—What is your system ?
A —The separate system, taking in sewerage alone.
Q.—How do you expect the water will run out ?
A.—By gravitation ; we have fall all the way through.
Q.—You do not admit any water into your pipes ?
A.—No, except the rain water, which is quite clean and brings no sediment with it.
Q.—In this other system would the surface water be conducted off?
A.—Yes.
Q.—All the rain that fell in the street ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Is Johnson Street sewer used as a surface drain now ?
A.—I think so.
Mr. Bodwell: The contractor cannot do his work in this weather as in summer ?
A.—No.
Q.—He has not preferred any claims for extras as yet ?
A.—No.
Q.—And your attention has not been officially drawn to the delays in the pipes ?
A.—I have taken notice officially of what I considered delays in the delivery of pipes,
and I have often had conversation with the contractor on the matter. In fact, very few days
pass that I don't have a conversation with him as to where he shall begin next.
Q.—Where does he get his men from ?
A.—I don't know.     His foremen have worked for him for several years
Mr. Richards : Can you tell us how it was that this meeting of the Committee and Commissioners was held ?
The Court : I don't think it is necessary to go into that, Mr. Richards ; there has been a
mistake committed and—
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. lxvii.
Mr. Mohun : The whole thing is that a report which should have been sent to me was
sent to the Council.
The Court : Have you ever been able to find out how much that Johnson street sewer
cost ?
Mr. Bodwell: $30,000 was appropriated for it, and it cost $7,000 beyond that. That
amount was spent out of the general revenue.
The Court : I suppose that $30,000 was negotiated at par ; they had not the cash.
Mr. Bodwell: The amount received was $30,337.50.    There was a premium on it.
Mr. Raymur: It was paid into a special account in the Bank of British North America,
and called the Johnson Street Sewer Account, and paid out separately until the whole was
exhausted, and then the balance was paid out of the general revenue.
Aid. Renouf here took the stand to state that he had  no interest in the Terra Cotta Co.
Tuesday, December 1st, 1891.
Edward Mohun, re-called on the sewerage question, and examined by Mr. Bodwell:
Will you point out the specifications with reference  to excavations for the pipe lines—I mean
with reference to the width of the excavations—what width at the top, bottom and the depth?
A.—There is no such clause. The only one is the item in the bills of quantities. But
the contractor could judge what width he would have to dig a trench to lay a pipe of a
certain size.
Q.—What is the width of a trench for the 18-inch size?
A.—Three feet nine inches at the bottom.
Q.—What is that at the top ?
A.—There is nothing there as to what the top should be, but I think that trench would
be about 4 feet six inches at the top.
Q.—The 20 inch pipe trench is 4 feet at the bottom ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—The 15-inch is 3 feet; the 12-inch is 3 feet 2 inches ; the 10-inch is 2 feet 9 inches;
the 9 inch, 2 feet 9 inches; the 8-inch, 2 feet 6 inches. For all these pipes in the bills of
quantities these figures were put in ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—And the tender was made on the basis of that width ?
A.—I presume so. It was a lump sum contract; everything was under schedule rates all
through, so much a yard for concrete and so much a lineal foot for trenching.
Q.—You don't pay for the actual excavation as taken out by quantities ?
A.—No.
Q.—Have these trenches been dug to these depths—for instance, has the 15-inch pipe
trench been made 3 feet 6 inches at the bottom ?
A.—I could not say positively. It must be close to that in order to have the room for
laying the pipes.
Q.—If the contractor were to lay the pipe at a less width than that he would have more
profit on his contract ?
A.—No ; we should get the profit. I don't think he would, because if you dig the
trench too narrow the men would not have room to work.
Q.—Suppose he could work at a less width than that, would he not have some advantage?
A.—Possibly, if he could lay his pipes.
Q.—Were the tenderers informed before the contract was taken that these trenches must
be taken to that width ?
A.—I should have specified it in the contract if it had been a hard and fast rule.
Q.—WThy did you put it in the bill of quantities, then?
A. —So that every tenderer might have an idea of the width that would be required.
Q.—How do you explain that clause which says that your measurements must be adhered
to in the contract?
 Ixviii. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
A.—There is no such clause in the contract.
Q.—Is there not a clause stating that these widths would have to be adhered to ?
A.—No.
Q,—Why then didn't you put that in if you intended it to be adhered to ?
A.—I might have done so if I had thought of it, but it never entered my head to do so.
A man does not want to dig a trench wider than is necessary for the absolute working, and
yet he must have room enough for his men to get to work.
Q. — Would you be surprised to know that some of these trenches were taken down to a
less width than shown according to the pipe ?
A.— I would not if I found they had  room enough to perform the work of laying the
Q.—In your specifications you have a clause stating that this is a rule not necessarily to
be adhered to ?
A.—No.
Q.—Is there any clause referring to these excavations ?
A.—The trenching excavations ?
Q.—Yes.    What clause is it ?
A.—Clause 58.    (Clause in sewerage specifications read.)
Q.—You have been at the work since the beginning ?
A.— Yes, I have been there nearly every day.
Q.—Can't you tell us whether all these trenches have been taken down to this width or
to a less width ?
A.—I really can't; I never measured them. As long as I found there was enough room
to lay the pipe 1 thought that was all that was necessary.
Q.—Have the trenches been taken in places beyond the depth mentioned in the
specifications ?
A.—These bills of quantities were only a rough estimate. We had not had any survey
at the time beyond the old contour plans, which were made about 1883. These bills of
quantities were a rough estimate as to the quantities required according to that plan, but it
did not matter as to whether they were correct or not, because we have a schedule rate for
the various depths. So that, if we make a ten-foot instead of a nine-foot excavation, we had
to pay for the ten-foot.
Q.—You have, in some instances, made an exception in the working since the contract
was let ?
A.—Originally, under the last Council, in 1890, it was decided to sewer—I think I could
describe it roughly as the section bounded by Blanchard and Chatham to the water, deep
enough for basements. That may be termed the business portion of the city. Beyond that
we proposed to sewer out with a minimum of five feet, in what you would call the residential
part; but the present Council determined, finally, to sewer the whole city to a depth sufficient
for basements. They said it was hardly fair for one man not to be able to put a basement in,
while the other one on the other side of that line was putting one in, and both were paying
for the sewerage.    And, in consequence, these sewers have been deepened.
Q.—How much has that increased the cost of the sewerage beyond the amount estimated
in your bills of quantities ?
A.—I reckon about $50,000 or $60,000 more.
Q.—Do you apprehend you will follow the same plan in other places ?
A.—As I understand the resolution of the Council, it covers the whole city.
Mr. Richards : Is there any condition here that the contractor is to have any damages in
case of delay to him ?
A.—Yes ; It is clause 41.
Q.—It provides that he is to have an extension of time in proportion to that which he
was delayed ?
A.—I think that is it.
Q.—You judge, from that, that the contractor can have no other claim against you for
delay ?
Mr. Bodwell: That's a question of law.
Mr. Richards—to witness: The Council of 1890 thought shallower sewers in certain
places were necessary ?
A—Yes.
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. lxix.
Q.—Then the Council of the present year decided to deepen the sewer all round ?
A—Yes.
Q.—That will add very much to the value and efficiency of the system, won't it ?
A.—It will enable everyone to put in a basement who wishes to do so.
Q. - As the contractor is paid by the piece, it will make no difference to him how it may
increase the work he has to do, if you have money to pay him 1
A.—It simply increases the work he has to do by the quantity taken out.
Q.—With regard to the width of these trenches, it is merely for the purpose of enabling
the contractor to get round to his work ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Any contractor would know that ?
A.—Yes, I suppose so; he ought to, at any rate.
Q.—And the Council have no reason to expect that the work would be any more efficient
if the trench was a foot or more wider ?
A.—Not at all; it would be worse.    There would be more filling and more sinkage.
Q.—You didn't give a greater width than you thought necessary ?
A.—I gave only the extreme width that I thought would be necessary. In cases where
there is any timber required to hold the sides, it would have to be a little wider; but where
the ground is solid, it would not be required so wide. A great deal, though, depends on the
man who is digging the trench. This would make a great deal of difference in rock excavations.    In excavating rock, the contractor always has to take out more than he is paid for.
Q.—When the money was voted by the ratepayers for sewerage purposes, had there been
any plan decided upon as to how deep these pipes were to be placed, or where they were to be
placed, so that the people might know what they were voting for ?
A.—There was a plan, showing the proposed system, hung upon the City Hall for the
people to see. I was requested to furnish a tracing to be framed. I had a tracing made, and
it was hung upon the City Hall, I believe, the whole time the by-law was before the people,
until passed.
Q.—Could they see the depth the pipes were to be laid ?
A.—No; it was merely a survey of the city, showing the system of sewerage. In fact,
the survey I had at the time was not complete, and didn't cover the whole of the ground.
Q.—As matters are going on now, how much of the city will this money sewer ?
A.—It is almost impossible to say, but I think we shall take pretty nearly from Cook
Street, Pandora, and Douglas, to Chatham. I think that would be approximately the
boundary, exclusive of James Bay.
Q.—I suppose, from time to time, as money is voted, other streets could be sewered, and
connections made with the main system ?
A.—Yes; the system covers the whole of the old city limits.
Mr. Bodwell :  Have you made any estimate for the servey of the whole system 1
A.—It is utterly impossible.
Q.—Do you think it will take a million dollars ?
A.—I am rather doubtful that it will.
10.—EXPENDITURE  ON  PUBLIC  MARKET  BUILDING.
Mr. Bodwell, counsel for Petitioners, put in the By-Law for the Public Market Loan.
Alderman Holland, called and examined by Mr. Bodwell: Are you a member of the
Market Committee ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Were you so at the time tenders were called for the erection of the building ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—WTere you present when the tenders were opened ?
A.—I was.
Q,—Will you just tell us how the tenders were called for 1
 lxx. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
A.—By advertisement.
Q.—There were two buildings; were tenders called for the whole ?
A.—There were whole and separate tenders received. The whole of the plans comprised
the entire property purchased by the Corporation. In the event of the cost running beyond
the amount we had at our disposal, we could go on with one portion of the building.
Q.—And so tenders were called for in that way ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—What tenders were received ?
A.—I don't quite remember how many. There was Humber's, $73,381 for the whole
building; for the main building, $53,235; Woodward & Mundy's, full tender, $81,590; and
for the main building, $60,590.
Q.—Is that another tender (handing document to witness) ?
A.—No; that was a separate tender for the plastering. It was not called for by the
Corporation.
Q.—Was it in the specifications ?
A.—We did not call for separate tenders for the different trades.
Q.—Was it treated as a tender ?
A.—No, my Lord.
Q.—What is that ?
A. -That is a tender, of Mr. Cotterall for a two-story building on Cormorant Street,
$55,573, and one-story building on Fisguard Street, 22,025 ; total, $77,598. Elford & Smith,
$57,190 for the main building, and there is another tender for the remaining portion, $16,580,
making a total of $67,770. McGregor & Jeeves, main building, $49,975 ; building on Fisgard
Street, $20,025 ; total, $70,000.
Q.—These were all the tenders received ?
A.—I think so; of course, I don't remember them all.
Q.—What was done by the Committee ?
A.—They accepted the lowest tender for the main building on Cormorant Street.
Q.—Whose tender was that ?
A.—McGregor & Jeeves'.
Q.—-Did the city decide to build only the main building on Cormorant Street ?
A.—The Council  decided so at that time.
Q.—Then the Committee accepted McGregor and Jeeves' tender ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Was the contract subsequently let to them ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Do you know whether that included all the work in the main building ?
A.—It included all the work that was to be done on the main building—all the work
that was to be done to complete it.
Q.—Was the floor included ?
A.—It says so in the tender.
Q.—Was there any asphaltum in connection with that ?
A.—The tender says so.
Q.—McGregor & Jeeves' ?
A—Yes.
Q.—That would be asphaltum over the whole of the building ? Do you know as a matter
of fact why asphaltum is in their tender ?
A.—That is a matter between McGregor & Jeeves and their sub-contractors.
Q.—Had McGregor & Jeeves sub-let the contract ?
A.—I presume so ; I don't know.
Q.—As a member of the Market Committee you have been on the work during its progress ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Do you know as a matter of fact who is carrying out the wood work ?
A.—Mr. Donaldson.
Mr. Richards : The Corporation have let the contract to McGregor & Jeeves, and they
don't know anyone else in the contract but McGregor & Jeeves.
The Court : I don't see that it is a matter of any importance, because every contractor
must sub-let his contract in the different branches.
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. lxxi.
John Teague, examined by Mr. Bodwell : You are the architect for the market building?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Have you the contract ?
A.—Yes, I have it in my pocket.
Q.—And the specifications ?
A.—Yes.
(Both produced, and handed to the Court.)
Q.—Is this the specification for the main building, or the whole work ?
A.—For the whole work.
Q.—Would that include the flooring and all ?
A.—Everything.
Q.—What proportion of the work does this asphaltum floor occupy ?
A.—You mean the part that is executed ?
Q.—No, the part that is called for by the specifications ?
A.—The specifications call for asphaltum in both buildings.
Q.—Can you give us a rough estimate of the proportion it bears to the cost of the rest of
the building ?
A.—Not without measuring it.
Q.—Will it cost $8,000, that is, the part that is erected now ?
A.—I don't think so.
Q.—Is there any more of that work to be done on the other part ?
A.—No, the whole of the work contracted for is executed ; but there is a portion of the
building that has not been contracted for that carries some asphaltum with it.
Q.—Is that greater or less in proportion to the rest of the building ?
A.—I should think it was greater.    I am not sure about that, though.    No contract has
been let for that yet.
Q.—Whom has that been done by ?
A.—The asphalt work has been done by a company.
Q.—The Pacific Asphalt Company ?
A.—I don't know what they are called.
Q.—What price, do you know, has been paid for that work ?
A.—I have no idea.
Q.—Who has done the other work—the wood work, for instance ?
A.—The wood work has been done by Mr. Donaldson.
Q.—Where has the lumber for the wood work been prepared—at any shops ?
A.—I believe the joinery work  has been  prepared at Smith & Clark's  shop ; in fact  I
have seen some of the work brought from there.
Q.—Is that a considerable item in the contract ?
A.—There is a very large amount of wood work in the building.
Q.—Did you know Mr. Donaldson as a contractor before this work 1
A.—Yes, I have known him before for several years.
Q.—As a contractor?
A.—No.    I haven't known him as a contractor.    I have seen him working round various
works.
Mr. Richards : I don't know what all this means.    We have had no intimation of this.
The Court : Let us hope that Mr. Bodwell does.    He is not taking away your breath
with any startling discoveries.
Mr. Bodwell: Well, you look at that tender of McGregor & Jeeves.    Their tender for
the main building is $49,970.    What amount do they put in for asphaltum ?
A—$11,654.
Q.—Is that for the whole building ?
A.—It doesn't say, but I imagine it is for the whole affair.
Q.—You were not present when the tenders were opened ?
A.—I don't recollect now whether I was or not.
Q.—Do you know whether or not separate tenders were put in for the wood work ?
A —I believe not.     I simply asked in the specifications that contractors divide their
tenders, keeping the main building separate from the rest.
Q.—Do I understand, Mr. Teague (not for the purpose of the contract) that you made
separate estimates of the cost of the different items of work generally, such as the wood work ?
 Ixxii. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
A.—No ; I have enough work to do without that.
Mr. Richards : You prepared the specifications for this work, Mr. Teague ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Did you prepare the contract, too ?
A.—No, the city barristers did that.
Q.—The work has been done under your direction ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—And well done ?
A.—Yes.
Mr. Bodwell : Have the specifications been departed from in any way ?
A.—Nothing that I know.
Q.—With reference to the iron work—the girders ?
A.—Nothing materially.
The Court: The work has been done to your satisfaction as architect ?
A.—Yes, my Lord, and a very good job in all the branches.
The Court: Did you give an estimate to the Corporation of what the work would cost
before the tenders were opened, in order that they might ascertain what the costs would be?
A. - I have no recollection of doing it, but I have an idea of what it would cost, in fact
I got within $25 of it for the main building.
Mr. Bodwell: Were there any extras ?
A.—I don't recollect exactly.
The Court: Not that I suspect it for a moment, Mr. Teague, but when you make such
an uncommonly good shot as $25 to the actual cost, you never communicated your opinion to
the successful tenderer?
A.—Oh, no.    I was instructed by the Committee to keep as near $50,000 as possible.
Mr. Bodwell : About these girders, were they specified to be of any one length ?
A.—Very likely, but very frequently we have to make deviations.
Q.—Is it a fact that that occurred in the construction of this building ?
A.—There is a deviation in the construction of the girder from the specifications, but it is
equally as good, and fully as strong, if not stronger, and more expensive to the contractor,
because there is more metal in it.
George Jeeves, examined by Mr. Bodwell : You are one of the firm of McGregor &
Jeeves, who tendered on the market building ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—What portions of the work did you sub-let ?
A.—I don't know. I don't attend to that part at all. Mr. McGregor is the man who
looks after that.
Q.—Oh, then, it is Mr. McGregor we want.    We have got the wrong man.
John E. Crane, examined by Mr. Bodwell: You reside in Victoria ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—And you are the Secretary of the Pacific Asphalt Company?
A.—I am.
Q.—When was that company organized ?
A.—I think it is two years in March next since it was organized.
Q.—How many shareholders are there?
A.—Twelve shareholders.
Q.—Is John Coughlan one of them ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—How many shares has he ?
A.—251.
Q.—What is the value of the share ?
A.—$100.
Q.—What is the capital stock ?
A.—$50,000.
Q.—How much has been issued ?
A.—It has all been issued.
Q.—Who has the controlling interest ?
 ..EGISLA TIVE ASSEMBLY,
55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. lxxiii.
A.—Mr. Coughlan.
Q.—Who are the directors ?
A.—The directors for the company for the present year are Mr. Coughlan, myself, Mr.
W. C. Haywood, and Dr. Milne.
Q.—Who is the managing director ?
A.— Mr. Coughlan is supposed to be—he acts as such.
Q.—Has that company any contract for asphaltum in Victoria ?
A.—They have had during the present summer.
Q.—Have they a contract with McGregor & Jeeves for the market work—I mean the
market building which has just been finished ?
A.—I think so.
Q.—Is that contract in writing ?
A.—No ; it is a verbal contract made with McGregor & Jeeves.
Q.—Who acted for the company ?
A.—Mr. Coughlan.
Q.—What was the amount of the work ?
A.—I don't know.
Q.—You have not received any of the money yet ?
A.—No.
Q.—Have you any entry of the amount ?
A.—I believe there is a charge in the book.
Q.—What is the amount?
A—About $7,000.
Q.—Do you know the price per yard ?
A.—No; it was done in a lump sum, at least I believe so, because I didn't do the figuring
myself.
Q.—Who did ?
A.—Mr. Coughlan.
Q.—He has not reported to you any of these bills ?
A.—No.
The Court: Is the Coughlan you mention an alderman ?
A.—Yes, my Lord.
The Court: I suppose this is a case in which you are subjected to much rivalry?
A.—I don't know, my Lord.
The Court : Asphaltum is called for in the specification. Some one must put the
asphaltum there.    Do you mean to say there is no other asphaltum in British Columbia ?
A.—I have not heard of any, my Lord.
Mr. Bodwell: Is there not a man named Wilson who does that work ?
The Court : Sittest thou at my right hand ? (Mr. William Wilson occupied a chair at
Mr. Bodwell's right.)
Mr. Bodwell: Not exactly, my Lord.
Mr. Richards : Where does this asphaltum come from ?
A.—Ventura, Cal.
Q.—What is there to do with it ?
A.—We import and manufacture it in shape for putting on the street.
After some conversation as to the mode of manufacture—
Q.—How much dividend have you declared?
A.—None at all.
Q.—What is the matter?    Losing concern ?
A.—I can tell you that better at the end of the year; the work that has been done so
far is experimental.    We have done work and lost money by it.
Q.—What contract have you lost money on ?
A.—That work of Mr. Green's on Trounce Alley.
Q.—Any money made out of this market, do you know ?
A.—I don't know what the work has cost us ; it may be a loss there for all I know.
Mr. Mohun asked permission of the Court to correct a statement in his testimony; he
said : I made an error in stating there was no clause in the specification providing for the
width of the trench as well as in the bills  of  quantities.    There is such a clause—clause 58.
 Ixxiv. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
It states there that the width of the trench at the bottom shall be  18 inches wider than
the " haunch."
Alexander Donaldson, examined by Mr. Bodwell: Where do you live ?
A.—57, Superior street,
Q.—What is your occupation ?
A.—Carpenter—contractor to a certain extent.
Q.—What work are you on at the present time ?
A.—Been in connection with the market. Do a little work in Smith & Clark's shop
sometimes.
Q._Who is this Smith of " Smith & Clark?"
A.—A. J. Smith.
Q.—Alderman Smith ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Is he any relation of yours ?
A.—Yes ; brother-in-law ; so my wife tells me.
Q.—You were contractor for the wood work on the market building ?
A—Yes.
Q.—What was your price ?
A.—$12,170.
Q.—Was it a written contract ?
A.—It was.
Q.—Any security given by you for the fulfilment of the contract ?
A.—No ; I gave no security.
Q.—Did you have any large capital at your command that this security was not
necessary ?
A.—I have some property.
Q.—Did this wood work require any work to be done on it in the shop in the way of
preparing and finishing 1
A.—Yes ; there was a good deal of finishing required. The sashes, doors, and window
frames, a great deal of work I could not go into.
Q.—At what shop was all this work done ?
A.—Smith & Clark's shop.
Q.—Did you have any arrangements about the shop with Mr. Smith ?
A.—Yes ; I have done a good deal of work there off and on, and I take work there when
I can.
Q.—Was Mr. Smith running the shop at the time ?
A.—It was running under the foreman. I was there part of the time myself to see the
work done.
Q.—Who is this foreman ?
A.—Mr. Fullerton.
The Court : You were working under the foreman ?
A.—When I was working in the shop.
Q.—How long have you been working for Mr. Smith in the shop ?
A.—A number of years.
Q.—Were you working in the shop at the time before taking this contract ?
A.—I was putting up the city clock for Mr. Redfern.
Q.—Before that, what were you doing?
A.—I was in the shop.
Q.—Before that ?
A.—I was at work for the Government, and before that I was putting up James Bay
bridge.
Q. —Before that ?
A.—I was working in the shop.
Q.—When you had no other work you were " working in the shop ?"
A.—Yes.
Q._-Do you know how much has been paid Mr. Smith for this work that has been done
in the shop of the market building woodwork?
A.—I don't know, but I could ascertain.
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. lxxv.
Q.—What was the arrangement between you and Mr. Smith as to price and payment ?
A.—When he hands in his bill I pay him for the work.
Q. — Before the contract was taken did you not have a conversation with Mr. Smith on
the subject ?
A.—None whatever.
Q.—Did he know that you we going to try for this contract ?
A.—Not that I am aware of.
Q.—He was not very much surprised when you brought the work to his shop ?
A.—I don't know whether he was surprised or not.
Q.—You had the contract for the James Bay Bridge ?
A.—Yes; a sub-contract from Mr. Macdonald.
Q.—Was there any shop work to be done in connection with that ?
A.—Very little.
Q.—But what was done was done at Mr. Smith's shop ?
A.—It was not.
Mr. Richards: You took this contract under McGregor & Jeeves ?
A—I did.
Q.—And you did a good work for them ?
A.—I did a first-class job; I put in good material and workmanship.
Q.—And there were no extras on it?
A.—No, I am sorry to say there was not.
Q.—Watched you too close, eh ?
The Court: Mr. Smith is one of the Committee on Market ?
A.—I don't know ; I don't attend to anything of that kind, I just attend to my own
particular affairs.
Q.—How many of these shops are there ?
A.—There is Muirhead & Mann's, Johnson, Walker & Flett, McKillican & Anderson,
and one or two more I don't exactly remember.
11.—WATER WORKS.
Mr. Bodwell: There is one point which arises with reference to this water works investigation that is of more or less importance. We charge that $150,000 has been received by the
Corporation, and the Corporation have applied such sums to the general revenue account.
They also in their reply quote, in this connection, section 34 of the " Water Works Act,"
which reads:—
" 34. That after the construction of the works, all the revenues arising from or out of the
"supplying of water, or from the real and personal property connected with the said water
" works acquired by the said Corporation or Commissioner under this Act, shall, after pro-
" viding for the expenses attendant upon the maintenance of the said water works, be paid
" over to and deposited monthly with the Clerk of the said Corporation of the City of Victoria,
" as hereinbefore provided, and shall make part of the general funds of the Corporation, and
" may be applied accordingly."
Our contention is twofold on that section:—We say in the first place a great deal of the
money for which special loans have been raised applies to, and is included in, the word construction; and then again a great deal of work that is properly maintenance has not been
provided for at all; for instance, we claim that keeping the filter-beds is really a work of
maintenance, but no money was spent on that at all. I shall call Mr. Summerfield, though,
who will be able to tell your Lordships what has been done with reference to the reservoir.
What we claim upon that is, that the Council ought not to have abandoned that work after
having spent such a large amount of money upon it. It was not a work which was gone into
hastily, but was undertaken upon the report of many engineers; it had been under the consideration of the Council for a long time, and was voted upon by the people as a measure to
be adopted for supplying the increasing wants of the people with reference to the water supply.
Under these circumstances the Corporation, we submit, ought not to have abandoned that
work without consulting the ratepayers on the subject; instead of that, after abandoning the
work, they spent a very large sum upon the 16-inch main, and having thus committed the
 lxxvi. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
people to a very large expenditure, they came forward with their by-law, which, for the first
time, brought to public notice, this different scheme. This is the principle that has been
running through the water works management for some time, and which is exemplified at the
present moment, for here we find at the last meeting of the Council they have agreed to buy a
large amount of pipe though they have no money to pay for it. With reference to the charges
of frustrating the efforts of the Water Engineer, we say generally that that has been done by
neglecting to carry out the suggestion and the measures reported on by him as necessary for
the system. And then there are some smaller matters which show a desire on the part of
certain members of the Corporation to make the Water Works Commissioner's position one of
great annoyance, so much so, that he is unable to keep it and maintain at the same time any
self-respect. We submit that matters of this kind ought not to characterize the public acts
of a public body.
Mr. B. W. Pearse, examined by Mr. Bodwell.
Q.—You were a member of the Municipal Council at one time?
A.—Yes, I was in 1887 and part of 1888.
Q.—Were you on any committee ?
A.—I was Chairman of the Water Committee, among others.
Q.—Will you tell us, in your own way, what you know about the reservoir scheme for
supplying water to the higher levels ?
.A.—There was a certain scheme proposed by the then Engineer, Mr. Hendry, by which
to supply the high level without pumping. The city was then, of course, not so well off as it
is now, and it was considered advantageous to avoid the expense of pumping. I think that
was in 1884. There was a great deal of talk about town on the matter, and a great many
different opinions expressed, as there always will be in matters of public importance. A committee of engineers was invited to the Town Hall to discuss the Hendry scheme, and a copy of
their report will be found among your papers there.
(Report, July 15th, 1884, was handed into Court, also a copy of Mr. Pickering's report.)
Q.—Was Mr. Pickering a competent man 1
A.—I should say so. On the 17 th May we had a report of the Water Committee, signed
by myself and Mr. Grant, who was then a member of that committee, and enclosing a copy of
Mr. Bell's report, dated 4th May, 1887, endorsing Mr. Hendry's scheme very fully.
Q.—On that report what report did you make to the Council ?
A.—Report of Water Committee, 7th May, 1887.    (Read and handed in.)
Q.—What was done on that report ?
A.—On the 27th June the Water Committee submitted a final report from Mr. Bell.
This final report of Mr. Bell's was in substance revoking all that he had said before in favour
of Mr. Hendry's scheme.
Q.—Then Mr. Bell made one report in May in favour of the scheme, and in June he made
another against it ?
A.—He did.
Q.—And this report that the Water Committee sent in on Mr. Bell's second report, was
that a minority report ?
A.—Yes; signed by John Grant and B. W. Pearse.
Q.—What did you point out in that report ?
A.—We went into a little argument on the matter of the two reports, for which, by the
way, we paid $528 (two diametrically opposite reports), greatly against my wish, for I made
strenuous efforts to oppose it.    (Report handed in.)
Q.—What was done then ?
A.—Very shortly after that, by the wish of a certain member of the Council, Mr.
Summerfield was appointed Water Works Commissioner, and he advocated a totally different
system.
Q.—What was done up to this time ?
A.—In the year 1886, a by-law was passed for $75,000, to carry out the Hendry scheme,
and a large expenditure had taken place on the high level reservoir. In fact, there are reports
bearing on the subject.
Q.—Were you in the Council when Mr. Summerfield was appointed ?
A.—I was, part of the time. I think he was appointed late in the year—12th September,
1887. He proposed that the 16-inch main should be diverted into three cast iron distributing
pipes, one of which should be laid to the high levels, and the other two for the lower levels.
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. lxxvii.
Q.—Had that question of the 16-inch main been discussed before then ?
A.—No. The next step in the matter was Mr. Keefer stating that the Hendry scheme
was a great advantage in supplying the lower levels, but was not equal to supply of the higher
levels.
Q.—Then the Council abandoned that scheme ?
A.—Yes, and went on with the other. I felt somewhat staggered when Mr. Keefer
reported that, because he is a man of considerable experience. Of course, my contention while
I was in the Council was that the scheme had been approved by the people. The by-law had
been passed, and the money had been voted for the Hendry scheme and no other, and I said :
" If you want to alter it, go before the people in a manly, straightforward fashion, and get
their approval."
Q.—Was that done ?
A.—No, it was not.
Q.—Were you in the Council in 1888 ?
A.—I was, a short time—two months.
Q.—I see it is stated in the annual report, page 20, 1888, that $22,000 was paid on
account of the 16-inch main. Up to this time, had any by-law in this respect been submitted
to the people ?
A.—No.
Mr. Richards, cross-examining : What time in 1887 were you elected ?
A.—In January.
Q._You sat all 1887, and part of 1888 ?
A.-—Yes.
Q.—What time in 1888 did you resign ?
A.—I think it was in February or March.
Q.—Then you were re-elected in 1888 ?
A.—No. I had the majority of votes in Johnson Street Ward, and the man who held
the greatest number of votes then sat for two years.
Q.—Did you resign in consequence of the Council not going on with your scheme ?
A.—Oh, no.
Q.—There was a reason ?
A.—Oh, it's all past and gone now ; I don't think it is a matter of very great importance.
Q.—Why did you not stay and fight the battles of your constituents ? Why did you not
stay ?    There were no private reasons ?
A.—I really don't think it worth while raking up that old question. It was the want of
courtesy displayed in argument. There was a want of tone in the Council; abandoned
expressions that I had never been accustomed to.
Q.—Why did you not stay and fight it out, like a man ?
A.—If I were to impugn your veracity, Mr. Richards, you, being a man of education,
birth, and position, would resent it.
Mr. Richards : I would fight it out. Now, then, this Hendry scheme : was Hendry an
engineer ?
A.—Well, he was a mechanical engineer; not a civil engineer, no.
Q.—He was taken out of a factory here ?
A.—I don't know.
Q.—He advocated a scheme having a reservoir on Pandora Street somewhere ? He
proposed to use the 12-inch supply pipe from Elk Lake to fill the reservoir, and any water the
city was to have was to run through that pipe ?
A.—That was the only one laid at that time.
Q.—The scheme was to fill it at night ?
A.—Yes.    He had an automatic pumping power.
Q.—So he simply used the water supply to pump water to the higher levels ?
A.—That was the chief consideration, because, in those days, the higher levels had no
water at all.
Q.—According to that scheme, there would be considerable pressure lost in acquiring the
power-?    Well, now, while you were in office, $26,000 or $28,000 of this loan was spent ?
A.—No, no; only $7,000 while I was there. I think the bulk of it was spent the year
before.
Q.—At this time, while this money was being spent, there was no water commissioner
 Ixxviii. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
A.—Mr. Hendry was water commissioner.
Q.—No ; Hendry was only water engineer.
A.—Hendry ran the concern.
Q.—While you were there in the fall, Mr. Summerfield was appointed water commissioner ?
A.—I think it was in the autumn.
Q.—He was appointed water works commissioner, and was a civil engineer, as well, by
profession ?
A.—I don't know; he will tell you that himself.
Q.—Did you vote for him ?
A.—I don't know; I don't remember voting at all in the matter.
Q.—You knew what his ideas were with regard to the water works ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—He disapproved of your scheme—the Hendry scheme ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Did you know Mr. Keefer ?
A.—I did.
Q.—He is a gentleman who stands high in your profession—civil engineer ? Has had a
considerable experience in water works ?    Is considered about the best authority in Canada ?
A.—That I don't know.
Q.—You are an engineer ?
A.—Supposed to be.
Q.—Now, Mr. Keefer approved Mr. Summerfield's scheme, and condemned Hendry's ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—And the Council adopted his view ?
A.—I suppose they did, for they went on with the works.
Q.—After they abandoned Hendry's scheme, they went on with the 16-inch main ?
A.—I don't think they went on with the 16-inch main that year, as far as I can
remember. I know it was discussed, because I remember retiring outside the bar while it
was under discussion.
Q.—They didn't spend any more of the water works vote on the reservoir ?
A.—No.
Q.—They abandoned that, and it has been treated by the public as a dead loss ever since ?
Now, Mr. Pearse, you are one of the petitioners in this case, and you charge the Council with
creating a dead loss on a matter that occurred when you were in the Council. Don't you
think you are responsible for some part of it yourself ?
A.—No.
Q.—Were you consulted, as an engineer, with respect to the advisability of this scheme ?
A.—Yes, I was.
Q._When ?
A.—In 1884.
Q.—In 1884 you approved of it. If you had disapproved of it, the money would not
have been spent ?
A.—Perhaps not.
Q.—Don't you think the Council of the day relied on your judgment ?
A.—Not mine alone; they relied upon the judgment of the people.
Q.—This $28,000 is now lost, and you, as a petitioner here to-day, seek to throw blame on
the Council, who are not engineers at all ?
A.—The work was done by the Council. We don't condemn the Council for that. What
I condemn them for is setting aside the people's decision, and spending money illegally on the
16-inch main.
Q.—Now, Mr. Pearse, did the people have any particular scheme in view when they voted
this money ?    Didn't they vote for water works ?
A.—Everyone knew what it was for.
Q.—Don't you think it was the duty of the Municipal Council, after they came to the
conclusion that your scheme was faulty, to abandon it in favour of a better one ?
A.—We wanted the people to know what was going on, and the Council would not tell
us. Although I was chairman of that committee, I never could get any information from Mr.
Summerfield with regard to his scheme. I had written to him on several occasions to give
us some information, and I could never get it, and the Council backed him not to give it.
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. Ixxix.
Q.—You have read Mr. Keefer's report 1
A.—Yes.
Q.—And his idea has been carried out ?
A.—I suppose so ; I don't know.
Q.—Do you know what fault he found with Hendry's scheme ?
A.—It is a long time since I have read it. It was some defect about the lower zones, I
believe.
Mr. Bodwell: Although you were chairman of the Water Committee, you could not get
any information you asked for?
A.—Absolutely ignored me.
Mr. Richards : What was it you wanted and did not get ?
A.—I wanted information of the cost and details of the scheme, and I was absolutely
prohibited from knowing. Here is one letter I wrote. (Letter read and handed in.) And
William Wilson was the only man in the Council who backed me. That letter was never
answered.
Q.—Don't you have water at your house now by gravitation ?
A.—Not one single drop; it is all done by pumping.
Q.—Is the pipe small up there?
A.—I don't know what it is, but there is no water. When the pipes in town are being
depleted, there is not a drop of water coming to me.
Q.—When the city is supplied, say at night time, haven't you got water up there by
gravitation ?
A.—No; not so far as I know; I don't go out at night. As long as they pump we have
water.
Q.—You know they can't supply these higher levels without pumping ?
A.—That is what I say.
Q.—In this scheme there was to be an upper reservoir.    Mr. Keefer approved of this ?
A.—I believe he did. What I wish to emphasize is that the Council of which I was a
member spent a certain amount of that $75,000, which was voted by the people expressly for
the Hendry scheme. If they had taken my advice, and put Mr. Summerfield's scheme fairly
and squarely before the people, I believe it would have been carried. But they would not do
that.
Q.—What is your complaint ? What has been done wrong ? You complain that the
money has been spent improperly ?
A.—I complain that they took money which the people had voted for one purpose and
spent it upon another.
Q.—That is, instead of going on with the Hendry scheme, they spent it on Mr. Summer-
field's scheme. What would you have them do ? When you say it was voted expressly for
the Hendry scheme, can you point out anything in the by-law which shows that the money
was voted for that alone ?
A.—It was generally understood to be for that.    There was no other.
The Court: The by-law does not refer to any particular scheme. It says for the construction of reservoirs, and for giving a more perfect supply of water for the higher parts of
the city, but it does not bind the city down to any particular scheme. In extending the
water works, I understand Mr. Pearse's objection is that it is an unauthorized expenditure of
the balance of that loan.
Q.—This pipe has been extended out away beyond the Public Hospital ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—What is the size of the pipe in front of your house ?
A.—It is a five-inch pipe, I think ; it used to be a three-inch. I remember when the water
came to my place. I sat up all hours of the night, my wife and I, with a lamp. We saw a
little dribble like that, and I said "Hooray? the water's a-coming!" I paid $30 a year for
that, and I got no water.
Q.—Where did they get water from then—from Elk Lake ?
A-Yes.
Q.—That was with the old twelve-inch main ?
A.—Yes.
 Ixxx. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
Peter Summerfield, examined by Mr. Bodwell: You have acted for the City of Victoria
for some time as Water Commissioner?
A.—Yes.
Q.—When were you appointed ?
A.—Towards the latter end of August, 1887, or the beginning of September.
Q.—In the course of your duties, you have examined the works thoroughly ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Do you consider, as an engineer, that the work of construction is complete 1
A.—Complete for what? They are complete for supplying 5,000 people, and they are not
complete to supply 50,000 people.
Q.—Are they complete to supply 20,000 people?
A.—No ; they are not.
Q.—What would be necessary in order to complete them ?
A.—That is a question requiring a vast amount of study, depending on the localities to
be supplied, the location, and a thousand and one other things enter into the problem.
Q.—Are the filter beds sufficient to filter the water coming down from Elk Lake?
A.—The filter beds are the same filter beds as in 1887.
Q.—How much water was coming down per diem in 1887 ?
A.—I think it is embodied in the reports of that time. I think my report will contain
that information.    About 800,000 gallons.
Q.—What amount is being delivered now during the year 1891 ?
A.—I don't know what is being delivered now.
Q.—During the first part of the year ?
A.—Ranges from a million and a half to a million and three-quarters gallons. In times
of excessive draft it may reach two millions of gallons in the 24 hours.
Q.—But you say that the filter beds are the same as when only 700,000 gallons were run
through ?
The Court: How much are these beds capable of filtering ?
A.—They do not filter at all, my Lord; they simply screen the impurities. But my
report to the Council, 12th of September, 1887, shows my views on this question. They are
the same now as they were then. If the city wants water that shall be wholesome and good,
it can only be supplied by bringing it direct from Elk Lake, instead of bringing it from the
morass which at present supplies the water. I advised a thirty-inch main from the filter beds
to be laid in Elk Lake. This pipe could be laid for three dollars a lineal foot. At a subsequent period to this I found a much better route was feasible for bringing the water from Elk
Lake to the filter beds, by connecting a main through some land and cutting into Elk Lake
further up.    The cost of this would be about $15,000.
Q.—Is that a work of construction, Mr. Summerfield ?
A.—It would have to be constructed.
Q.—No ; but would you consider it a work of maintenance ?
A.—No ; I should consider it a part of construction.
Q.—Was any money appropriated from the water works funds for that purpose while you
were in office ?
A.—No, there has never been.
Q.—What has been the practice with reference to the water works revenue ?
A.—The practice has been to the best of my belief to get as much of the water works
revenue for water works purposes as possible.
Q. —What has been paid as a general rule out of the water works revenue for general
purposes during your term of office ?
A.—The annual reports show.
Q.—Can't you tell?
A.—It is admitted that they appropriated the revenue of the water works for the genera]
purposes of the Corporation.
By Mr. Bodwell: W7hat I want to know is what that money was appropriated to ?
A.—Payment of salaries, permanent staff, interest on sinking fund; beyond that the
whole went into general revenue.
Q.—Any appropriations made for extensions ?
A.—Extensions were always managed by loans as far as practicable.
Q.—You were in favour of the 16-inch main ?
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. lxxxi.
A.—Yes.
Q.—And it was subsequently constructed under your directions ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—After the main was constructed, did anything occur with reference to the testing of
that main ?
A.—Oh, it has been the same old story for the last four years, the reservoir versus the
16-inch main, which ever people got the strongest would carry out their views in the matter.
Those in favour of the reservoir scheme endeavoured to prove that the main scheme was a
failure.
Q. — How was it endeavoured to prove that—in what way?
A.—By proving that the main didn't bring any water to the high levels.
Q.—How was it proved to fail ?
A.—Stopping of the supply in the night time and breaking the column of water by
opening the flush valves.
Q.—That is the test that was made ?
A.—They were not tests. The hydrants down in the lower level were opened pretty
frequently, and every possible way of increasing the draft on the main to the utmost point
was adopted.
Q.—Who can conduct these tests ?
A.—The Water Committee.
Q.—Did you not have charge of it 1
A.—Oh, no ; only so far as their test could result in ridicule, because I was the only one
that possessed any information.
Q.—WTas the active work of the test conducted by the Water Committee ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—They didn't apply to you for any information ?
A.—No.
Q. —Did nothing happen ?
A.—Oh, yes ; the water was shut off from the city for one night. It is in my report of
1890.
Q.—Tell us what occurred on that occasion.
A.—There was an advertised test of the 16-inch main on the following day, when it was
said that the city would be supplied by the 12-inch main only. About eight o'clock at night
I went to the foreman of the water works and told him that a column of water some forty
feet in height had got lost somewhere.
Q.—What do you mean by that?
A.—I mean that the pressure on the guage showed that a column of water forty feet in
height was missing. It showed about 125 instead of 165. I took a man with me and we
tried the 12-inch main. Found it all right. We then went to the 16-inch main and tested
the air pipe. The water rushed up my sleeve, and I knew there was some obstruction. The
matter was righted, and it was found in the test that the 12-inch main was only able to get
water in the city to an elevation not exceeding 125 feet above high water mark.
Q.—Who was on the Water Committee ?
A.—Aldermen Smith, McKillican, and Robertson.
Q.—Were tests made after that ?
A—Yes.
Q.—How were these tests conducted?
A.—The next test was the 12-inch main. I took precautions this time by placing a lock
and chain on the valve at the dam, so that the 12-inch main could only supply all the water it
could bring.
Q.—Were there many breaks in the main that year ?
A.—After every test the 12-inch main would give.
Q.—You were away from the city for some time—when you returned had anything
occurred ?
A.— I found that things had got into good shape while I was away. People without
water for a week on the higher levels.
Q.—Did you make any enquiries as to the cause of this state of things ?
A.—I found that the Street Department, the Sanitary Department, and the Fire Department  had taken charge of the water works.    The Street  Department  were  running  the
 Ixxxii. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
sprinkler, the Sanitary Department were flushing the box drains, and the Fire Department
were putting in their practices at the time of the greatest consumption. I notified the
Sanitary Department it would be necessary to confer with me before opening any hydrants
for flushing drains. I notified the Fire Department to consult with me in opening hydrants,
except in cases of actual fire. The matter came up in Council, and the hydrants were transferred to the Fire Department. A resolution was proposed—I would not be positive that it
passed—instructing the Chief Engineer of the Fire Department to allow the Sanitary Officer
to use the hydrants for flushing purposes.
Q.—What effect would all this have on the evils that you were endeavouring to  remedy ?
A.—It simply gave them control of the water works.
Q.—Did you take any action ?
A.—Tendered my resignation ; that's all.
Mr. Richards, cross-examining : There was a little unpleasantness—a difference of opinion
between you and some members of the Council, and these men were in favour of the Hendry
scheme ?
A.—Precisely, the same old fight; and you see it to-day.
Q.—How much had been spent on the water works this year before you left ?
A.—I have no idea.
Q.—Where have you done work outside of the old corporation limits ?
A.—I could not say from memory.
Q.—You commenced back of Higgins' house, at the old city boundary ?
A.—There was a six-inch pipe down to the junction of Oak Bay Avenue ; a four-inch
pipe down to the Jubilee Hospital, and a four-inch pipe down to Richmond Avenue, on Oak
Bay Avenue.
Q.—Do you know what they cost ?
A.—As a rule four-inch pipe costs a dollar a foot laid.
Q.—Did you do any work inside the old city limits?
A.—Yes ; the old twelve-inch main on the Saanich road was replaced from Market
street to Tolmie Avenue by a twenty-four-inch steel main. There was a four-inch main on
the Burnside road from Douglas street to the trestle bridge.
Q.-—I suppose these all cost a good deal of money ? Have you any idea how much money
was spent on the water works this year ?
A.—I could not give you the figures.
Q.—Is the present scheme not sufficient to supply the higher levels ?
A.—That Fern wood road main is not connected with the sixteen-inch main directly, but
it is indirectly through a number of smaller pipes.
Q.—The two pipes that are down now are sufficient to supply a population of what ?
A.—Referring to my report of 1887 I say that the new sixteen-inch main, together with
the twelve-inch main, will, I believe, supply all wants till the city has attained twice its
present size.    That, I think, it has now.
Q.—There is in last year's report an amount charged to water works, $18,668.14; that
is not all salaries ?
A.—Salaries and maintenance.
Mr. Bodwell : What was the amount of the water rents ?
A.—$43,603.76.
Q.—It would not have cost more than $15,000 of this to have taken the pipe out to Elk
Lake?
A.—I ought to say this : immediately that 16-inch main was laid and the water turned
in the Colquitz people commenced suit, claiming $100,000 damages. That arbitration case
extended throughout the whole of that year and 1890, and was only decided at the beginning
of this year.    The city did nothing in the meantime with this scheme.
Q.—Were no steps taken this year to do this work ?
A.—No, not this year; there was a loan proposed out of which it was intended to do it.
Q.—Was there any proposal to do it out of the general revenue of the water works ?
A—No.
Q.—Do you know what amount is in the bank now to the water Vorks loan sinking
fund—the whole of the loans ?
A.—No.
Q.—What is the amount of the loans for the water works altogether ?
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. lxxxiii.
A.—I think it is getting on well towards $400,000 ; it is about $395,000. That brings
up the question of the Water Works Act. It resolves itself into this : the city gets free
water for fire and municipal purposes. If you are to keep a strict water works account the
city should pay the water works something for that water. The Water Works Act sufficiently
contemplated something of that kind. If this were done the city would now owe the water
works some $150,000 ; if, on the other hand, as at present, the city simply charge the water
works with its interest and sinking fund then the water-works owe the city about $75,000.
Court rose Tuesday evening.
Wednesday, December 2nd, 1891.
Aid. Holland, examined by Mr. Bodwell: Were you at the last meeting of the Council ?
A.—I was.
Q.—Were arrangements made then to purchase a number of water pipes, do you know ?
A.—It was a special meeting called for the consideration of tenders for 600 tons of
water pipe, and the tender of Messrs. Findlay, Durham & Brodie was accepted, and the
contract awarded to them for $39.37 per ton.
Q.—There was no money in hand from the water works revenue to pay that ?
A.—That was also stated in the meeting ?
Q.—Where is the money to come from to pay that ?
A.—It will have to be raised out of the next year's revenue, I presume.
The Court : Isn't that one of the provisions of the Act—that you shan't anticipate the
next year's revenue, and it is one of the charges brought against you here ?
A.—My vote is recorded against it on those grounds. But the Council in awarding the
contract deemed it was a step in the right direction, for the simple fact that they can purchase
the pipe much cheaper now than five or six months hence.
The Court : How do you know that the price of pipes will not go down still further ? It
is hard to say whether it will or not, besides you must not do an illegal action.
Mr. Richards : The Council considered they were making a very good bargain for the
corporation.    How do the pipes come here ?
A.—They are to be shipped from England.
Q.—Are they shipped or to be shipped ?
A.—To be shipped.    They will not be here till next year some time.
Q.—The Council will require them next year ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—You haven't paid anything on them 1
A.—No.
Q.—You intended to apply for a loan for streets as well as water works this year ?
A-Yes.
Q.—You haven't pushed them.
A.—No; they were withdrawn.
Mr. Bodwell : Were you in the Council when the City Hall contract was let ?
A.—No, I was not.
13.—EXTRAVAGANCE AND MISMANAGEMENT GENERALLY.
Mr. Bodwell: What I wish to go into in this matter is the question of salaries. I have
asked for a statement of the salaries which are to be paid this year, and the City Auditor
has given me this statement. I wish to examine him on this, because the Municipal Act says
that officials shall be appointed by by-law, and shall receive the salaries mentioned in the
by-law (section 93). I am informed that a number of officials have been appointed without
any by-law for the purpose at all, and the salaries of a number of others have been raised
without any by-law authorizing it.    And then I wish to  show the increase of salaries  that
 lxxxiv. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
have been taking place from year to year. All these questions I expect can be answered
by Mr. Raymur.
The Court: I suppose the Council was required to pass a by-law saying we must have a
City Clerk, and his duties shall be so and so; a City Treasurer, and his duties shall be so and
so ; but is it necessary that the by-law shall say we appoint Mr. Dowler to be our City Clerk,
Mr. Raymur to be our City Auditor, and so on ? You must appoint every year, but you can
appoint by simple resolution at the first meeting of the Council.
Mr. Bodwell: But the Council cannot by resolution originate an office.
The Court : They must have a by-law for that purpose; but it would be very inconvenient in many respects if every appointment had to be made by by-law. It is important
that the power of displacing and appointing should be, if necessary, sudden.
Mr, Raymur, examined by Mr. Bodwell:
You have made up a list of the amount paid, or that will be paid, for salaries during the
present year ?
A.—I made up a list showing the salaries of the permanent officials.
Q.—Is that the list you made?    (Produced.)
A.—Yes.
Q.—What is the gross total?
A.—$75,522.00. Those given in the answer of the city were only an estimate; this is a
carefully prepared and exact statement.    (List marked Exhibit "T.")
Q.—Under the head of " Fire," there : Are these men to whom thirty days' notice must
be given ?
A.—I think the Chief and Assistant Engineer must; but the call men can be discharged
at will.
The Court: (Referring to the by-law) Chief Engineer, Assistant Engineer, and Firemen.
It looks as if firemen were permanent officers. The Act says they shall be appointed by bylaw.
Q.—Take the streets : Are these permanent appointments ? Do you know which ones
were appointed by by-law ?
A.—Mr. Lynn, the Street Commissioner, I think was. I don't know whether Mr. Leech
was.
Q.—Mr. Matthews ; what is he ?
A.--He is Draughtsman in Mr. Leech's office.
Q.—There is no by-law appointing Mr. Matthews ?
A.—I don't think so.
Q.—Is there any by-law which appoints a clerk to the office of the City Surveyor ?
A.—I could not say.
Q.—Did you ever see one ?
A.—1 don't remember.
(By-law appointing Street Commissioner handed in.)
A.—Mr. Matthews had $50 a month last year, but I think it was raised during the present year.
Q.—Has it been raised by by-law ?
A.—Not that I know of.
Q.—Electric light:   Does the by-law for 1891 provide for the Electrician, $1,800 ?
A.—I think so.
The Court: Does any one know the average number of prisoners in the jail ?
A.—There are more this year than in others. We pay the Government fifty cents a day
for the keep of those in the jail.
The Court: Oh, it doesn't cost anything like that; they cost from 16 to 18 cents a day.
A.—That is what we pay for them.
The Court: They make something out of you.
Q.—There are " Sundry Items " here ?
A.—There are two of those chargeable to water-works—Tax Collector Partridge and his
assistant.
Q.—Has his salary been raised ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Where is the by-law for that ?
A.—I could not say.
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. lxxxv.
Q.—Was there a by-law?
A.—Most of these salaries are raised on the recommendation of a Committee.
Q.—Assessor $1,800?
A.—I think he was appointed by by-law.
Q.—Assistant Assessor ?
A-—He was appointed sometime this year.
Q._Who is this City Clerk, E. C. Smith ?
A.—He is the Assistant City Clerk.    He is in Mr. Kent's office now.
Q.—How long has he been there ; I mean in the city employ ?
A.—Seven or eight years.
Q.—Assistant Clerk Humphreys ?
A.—He is in Mr. Dowler's office.
Q.—How was he appointed ?
A.—I don't know.
Q.—Typewriter ?
A.—That is in Mr. Dowler's office. Some of these—Mr. Kent, Mr. Partridge, and Mr.
Leech—go away back, to I don't know when.
Q.—Can you tell, Mr. Raymur, how the appropriations for salaries this year compare
with last year ?
A.—No, I never compared them.
Q.—Do you know whether they are greater or less ?
A. — Oh ; they're a little more, I think. Several of the salaries have been raised, and
there are one or two offises that didn't exist last year.
Q.—Last year they were more than the year before ?
A.—I couldn't say.
The Court : I think the police are essential; we haven't got enough. And the Fire Department is another essential. We must suppose that the Corporation act reasonably with
regard to those.
Mr. Bodwell : If Mr. Raymur would give us a statement showing the increase in the
streets and sundries—
A.—I think I can give you that right now—$5,820.
Q.—Increase this year?
A—Yes.
The Court : That is a very meagre increase, isn't it ?
A.—The office work is twice as large as it was last year.
Q.—What does this assistant to the surveyor do ?
A.—I don't know exactly what he does, he is Mr. Leech's assistant.
Q.-—How does it come then that this cemetery map had to be prepared outside the office?
A.—I haven't any idea; I don't know anything about that. I suppose it was because
they hadn't time to do it ?
Mr. Richards : Is this the list of amounts that will have been paid in salaries by the city
to the end of the year ?
A.—That is the full rate.
Q.—There is the amount paid the Mayor and Aldermen, that is fixed by statute, Superintendent of Police Sheppard, Sergeant Walker, two other sergeants (Levin and Hawton), 21
constables altogether, excluding the superintendent.
A.—They were increased at the beginning of the year.
Q.—And the people are applying for more ?    The Indian reserve, that is now in the city ?
A.—Yes. One of the reasons given for the increase is the larger area that has to be
covered.
Q.—The Police Magistrate has been increased from $1,800 to $2,400. Then the chief
engineer of the Fire Department has the same as he had last year?
A.—No, that was raised at the beginning of the year. I think the firemen were raised
all round.    There are four drivers ; they get $75 now ; I think they were raised all round.
Q.—The Fire Department has been quite efficient this year ? There have been no great
fires?
A.—No.
Q.—And so has the Police Department ?
A.—So far as I know.
 lxxxvi. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
Q.—While on that point, there is quite a large sum collected in the police court in fines
and penalties that will go far to pay this.    What do they amount to ?
A.—I couldn't say.
Q.—You ought to have here something paid Mr. Dowler as Clerk of the Police Court ?
A.—I included that in the charges.
Q.—It ought to have been in here as part of the expense of the Police Court.
Mr. Raymur : At September the Police Court fines amounted to $1,575.
Q.—Then City Surveyor, I suppose you can't do without him ?
A.—I don't suppose so.
Q.—There is Street Inspector Lynn ; he has something to do with the water works ?
A.—He is acting Water Commissioner until someone is appointed.
Q.—Then there is foremen and men working on the streets. Engineer Jumbo, that is
the rock crusher.    Carpenters ?
A.—Those are the men repairing the sidewalks.
Q.—Park keeper ?
A.—That is at Beacon Hill.
Q.—Electric light; Mr. McMicking's salary $1,800 ?
A.—I might mention that Mr. McMicking provides a lineman out of that to keep the
lines of the city in order.
Q.—Dr. Milne, $720, Medical Health Officer. Then there is this man Mr. Bailey,
Sanitary Officer ?
A.—He looks after the entire working of the health department.
The Court: He is the man with the nose?
A.—He looks out for and abates all nuisances.
Q.—Water Commissioner, $1,800 ?
A.—That is the annual salary ; there is no Water Commissioner now ; Mr. Lynn gets
$25 a month extra for acting.
Q.—Foreman Preece ?    He is that heavy stout man ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—What does he do ?
A.—He is foreman ; he superintends all the work under the Commissioner. He is the
working man of the whole thing.
Q.—So far as you know can any of these men be dispensed with ?
A.—Not that I know of.
Q.—Then " Sundries :" City Clerk Dowler, $1,800 ; that includes the $300 as Police
Court Clerk ?
A.—No; I didn't put it in there.
Q.— Then Partridge, Collector of Water Rates ; you can't dispense with him?
A.—No ; he is about the hardest worked man in the whole concern
Q.—Mr. Raymur, I see you are down for $1,000.    You work cheap ?
A.—I am not there all the time.
Q.—Assessor Northcott, $1,800.    He has had a pretty hard year's work ?
A.—Yes; he works pretty hard. He is on the go all the time. In addition to being
Assessor he is Building Inspector. He is superintendent of all buildings that belong to the
city, and the plans for all new buildings to be erected in the city ; the plans are submitted to
him.
Q.—Was there an assessment roll made last year ?
A.—There is an assessment roll made every year.
Q.—How long has that been the practice ?
A.—Since 1889.    There was none made in 1888.
Q.—You made one in 1889, 1890, and 1891 ?
A.—Yes ; and they're working on 1892 now.
Q.—Do you recollect when the last one was made before 1889 ?
A.—In 1887, I think ; Mr. Russell used to be Assessor as well as Treasurer. It was a
very small job then to what it is now, and this year with the new limits being put in it will
be a very long job.
Q.—What is the calculation of the value of the property being brought in ?
A.—I don't know.
Q.—This assistant of Mr. Northcott's, what does he do.
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. lxxxvii.
A.—He does all the clerical work; sends out the notices and prepares Mr. Northcott's
field-notes when he is out.
Q.—Has he been there all this year ?
A.—He was appointed sometime in the spring.
Q.—Then, Smith ; he is Mr. Dowler's clerk?
A.—He sometimes goes to the Police Court; and he takes Mr. Dowler's place at the
City Council sometimes.    But now he is in Mr. Kent's office.
Q.—Assistant W^ater Tax Collector ?
A.—We simply found that Mr. Partridge couldn't do the work, and we had to get
another man.
Q.—Assistant City Clerk Humphreys 1
A.—He is the boy in Mr. Dowler's office.
Q.—Typewriter Wilby—a new man ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Then Librarian McGregor—takes charge of the free library ?
A—Yes.
Q.—He has an assistant there ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Pound-keeper Shaw—been there a long time—been any increase ?
A.—I think ten dollars a month.
Q.—Cemetery-keeper ?
A.—That is the man who looks after the graves.
Q.—There is some revenue from that ?
A.—Oh, yes ; two or three thousand dollars a year.
Q.—A great deal more than sufficient to pay his salary ?    So does this man Shaw ?
A—The pound doesn't pay its expenses, but the cemetery is self-sustaining.
Q.—Creed, that is the janitor ?
A.—Yes; he takes care of the City Hall.
Q.—Tax Collector ?
A.—That is the Road Tax Collector.
The Court : That doesn't pay expenses either ?
A.—Oh, yes ; he gets $50 a month and commission.
Q.—Do you collect $600 a year ?
Q.—We'll get three or four thousand dollars this year. Next year we'll have to collect
the school tax ; that's hard work.
Q.—Population of the city increasing ?
A.—I think so.
Q.—And expenses are necessarily on the increase ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Mr. Northcott, Assessor ; how much did you raise his salary ?
A.—His salary has been $1,800 always.
The Court: Don't you think that is a very meagre recognition of his services ? He has
placed you in possession of hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, and you don't raise his
salary.    Gratitude is a keen sense of favours to come, is it not ?
THE CITY HALL CONTRACT.
Mr. Raymur, examined by Mr. Bodwell : Can you tell us how the City Hall building
was carried out ?
A.—Which do you mean—the addition to the City Hall that includes the present
Treasurer's office ?
Q.—When was the contract for that addition let ?
A.—I think at the end of 1889.    I would not be certain.
Q.—The Council of 1889 made the contract?
The Court: It is only another instance of infraction of the law, which they with some
show of reason, perhaps, committed. They found that it was absolutely neeessary to increase
the City Hall; they entered into a contract for that purpose, and  left it to their successors
 xxxviii. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
to pay for.    If their successors had not decided to pay for it then the retiring Aldermen would
have had to pay for it.    But the incoming Council  shoulders the responsibility  of the outgoing Council—that is your case, Mr. Taylor ?
Mr. Taylor : That is about the result of it.
The Court : The contract was let in 1889, and the next Council had to raise a by-law of
3,000 to pay for it.
REDUCING RATES.
Mr. Bodwell : The charge we make in this is that in the year 1890 an amendment was
passed to the Municipal Act which permitted the Council to pass by-laws reducing the rates
for raising the sinking fund in cases where it would be deemed necessary or desirable (section
93.)
The Court: But the Lieutenant-Governor in Council is not bound to accept the declaration of the executive officers of the city. That is a very dangerous power, that section. It
shakes the credit of the city, because it can go into the market and say to the debenture-
holders : "I gave you such and such a security, but I reserve to myself the right to take from
that security as much as I choose." That section directly attacks the credit of the debenture-
holders of the city. I think the city should go down on its knees and beg the Legislature to
repeal that section.
Mr. Taylor : The sinking fund thus raised every year is a fund which, with accumulated
interest, at the end of the period of the loan is calculated to be sufficient to wipe out that
debt. Lots of small loans have been made in this city years ago of $15,000 and $20,000 each,
and the special rate levied each year is calculated to be sufficient to wipe out that loan at
the end of the period. They fixed a rate that year ; and say the assessed value was then
$3,000,000, the result was that when the value became ten millions the amount raised was
more than three times that necessary for the sinking fund. Then the Legislature allows the
Council to reduce the rate levied, so that it will be sufficient to raise the sinking fund.
The Court: I suppose what you mean is perfectly honest; but the debenture-holders
hold a certain security. The rate struck originally raises, we will say, $500. In another
year our property, which was before worth one million, is now worth ten millions, and instead
of levying a cent we will levy one-tenth of a cent. The next year the valuation of the city
falls back to its original value; the rate made by the city does not change, and there is no
power here to enable the city to strike a larger rate. The rate once reduced is reduced
altogether. It holds out an opportunity to a dishonest Council to lessen the value to the
debenture-holder of the security he holds. It does this in the most direct manner. No
debenture-holder would like a clause such as that.
Mr. Raymur, examined by Mr. Bodwell: Have these by-laws reducing the rates been
acted on in collecting moneys for the sinking fund this year ?
A.—We collect all in one rate, and put by so much for the sinking fund.
Q.—The original by-law states that a certain amount annually is to be placed to the
credit of the sinking fund.
A.—The way this is done : We add all these special rates together. They are all lumped
together. If we had to levy each of these rates separately we could not have done it. There
are twenty-one different rates there, and if we had to levy each one separately we would
never have got through.    You can't put a large .staff on a work like that.
The Court: Supposing your rate was ten times the amount of the sinking fund, you would
not pay that amount in ?
A.—No, only the amount of the fund.
The Court: A rate is to be levied sufficient to cover interest and sinking fund. They
have levied a rate of one-tenth to meet that fund; that tenth produces five times the amount
of the fund. You were not bound to raise more than was necessary to pay the interest and
sinking fund. Now in reducing the rate you are also reducing the security of the debenture-
holder materially, because the value of the security comes down.
After some discussion on the legality of the by-law, Mr. Richards submitted that no harm
had been done, because the by-law had not received the sanction of the Lieutenant-Governor
in Council.
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. lxxxix.
The Court: No one has said that anything has been done, but here is the section and  it
is a direct attack on the security of the debenture-holders.
THE CEMETERY ADDITION.
In explanation of this, Mr. Taylor said that as a matter of fact the lots originally belonged
to the Douglas estate, who granted a lease, with the option of purchase, to Mr. Pemberton;
Mr. Pemberton transferred that to Mr. Snowden; Mr. Snowden went to the Douglas estate,
got evidence of the fee, and transferred it to the city. But in the interval it turns out that
Mr. Snowden had mortgaged it back to Mr. Pemberton.
Charles Cecil Pemberton, examined by Mr. Bodwell:
Q.—You are a solicitor ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—You have had some business to do with reference to lots 80, 80b, and 81, Fairfield
Farm estate?
A—Yes.
(Witness explained the location on the map.)
Q.—Is that document the title for that land ?
A.—Yes; that is the original lease from the Trustees of the estate to my father, dated
August 31st 1881.
Q.—For what time ?
A.—For thirty years, I think.
Q.—Are there any restrictive covenants in that lease ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Is there anything else ?    Any other restrictions on the property ?
A.—I don't remember anything else particularly.
Q.—Is there a right of way reserved across that property ?
A.—No, but the people have passed up and down .there,
Q.—How long has that been so?
A.—As long as I can remember.
Q.—What else do you know about this title ?    Did your father make any disposition of it ?
A.—Yes, he assigned it to Mr. Snowden.
Q.—Did Mr. Snowden do anything with it ?
A.—He mortgaged it back, by way of underlease, for $13,200.
Q.—Is that still in existence?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Never been cancelled ?
A.—No.
Q.—Do you know anything else about this property ?   Has there been a fence built there ?
A.—Yes; on section 80.
Q.—Is there any fence on section 81 ?
A.—A little old fence.
The Court: They are entitled to do it; it is their property.
A.—I don't know that it is their property.
Q.—Section 81 is the one they have bought; 80b is the one they have entered into an
agreement to purchase, and may never purchase. What I want to prove is that they have
erected a fence on section 80b.
The Court: You know the locality. If you look here you will see that 80 is the part
between the road and Mr. Pemberton's; 80b is the part that used to be occupied by Mr. Woods;
don't you see.
Q.—Do you know who built the fence ?
A.—I think it was built by the Corporation.
Q.—Is there any building on that land occupied by anyone ?
A.—There is an old house there.
Q.—Occupied ?
A.—It was a little while ago.
 xc. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
Mr. Richards : Has Mr. Snowden ever offered to pay you ?
A.—There was some talk about it a little while ago.
Q.—Does the mortgage cover any other property ?
A.—It covers a lot of property.
Q.—Your father had the lease, with the option of purchasing quite a large tract there ?
A.—Sixty-six acres.
Q.—How much did he sell Mr. Snowden ?
A.—About 59, I think.
Q.—He assigned the lease to you and he mortgaged it back for how much ?
A—$13,200.
Q.—Is your security good for the whole of the property ?
A.—I think so.
Q.—You could easily release these few acres ?    How much did you get from him ?
A.—$17,000, with the mortgage; about $4,500 cash.
Q.—You would be perfectly safe if you released  this  piece  from the mortgage ?    Why
don't you release it and let the Corporation have it ?
A.—I don't know.
Q.—Have you refused to take the money ?
A.—I don't think I have absolutely refused.
Q.—How much do you want for it ?
A.—How much do you offer ?
Q.—Don't you think you ought to do this—a young man beginning life ?
A.—I don't know.
Q.—Don't you think your father would have done it had he lived ?
A.—I don't know anything about that.
Mr. Snowden, examined by Mr. Bodwell:
Q.—You sold some land to the city ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—You entered into an agreement for the sale of another section—is that the agreement ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Now this agreement is dated 3rd June, whereby you agree to sell to the city, for
$2,000 per acre, section 80b as it is laid down in the map plan of Fairfield Farm estate, and
said to contain 4 and 37-100 acres, more or less, to be paid for on or before 1st June, 1893 ?
Here is a clause inserted in writing ?
A.—That is a clause I wouldn't agree to, and I ordered it to be struck out. I am pretty
sure that clause was struck out at the signing of the agreement.
Q.—What was it you wouldn't agree to ?
A.—I don't remember now.
Q.—Can you tell by reading that document ?
A.—I fancy we didn't want any burying there—to be used as a cemetery. We didn't
want them to occupy it as a cemetery until it had been paid for.
The Court: They are not in possession yet ?
A.—No.
Mr. Richards: You sold the Corporation section 81 and all that east of this road that
runs down from the Fairfield Road to the water ?
A.—I think that's it.
Q.—Did you sell any west of that road ?
A.—Yes, it is included in 81.
Q.—Paid you for it ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—How much ?
A.—I think it was $12,000.
Q.—Would you be surprised to find there is a prior mortgage on that property ?
A.—I knew all about that, but I presumed it had all been paid off. We made Mr.
Pemberton two payments of $4,000 odd; one at the time, or shortly after, and one this
summer again; that is about $9,000.
Q.—What security has he got ?
A.—He has got the whole of this fifty-nine acres.
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. xci
Q.—Well now here is a charge brought forward by these gentlemen looking after the
city's interest, saying it was a mistake dealing with you, and that they are going to lease that
property ?
A.—But they can't lease it.
Q.—Your covenant is worth something?
A.—Yes, I suppose we could pay it off if we wanted to.
Q.—Here is a covenant by which you are bound to clear off that mortgage ?
A.—I am quite aware of that.
Q.—And you intend to do it ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Why can't you arrange with him to clear it off?
A.—I can clear it off any time he wishes if he will accept the money.
Q.—Won't he accept the money ?
A.—He seems to have an objection to accepting it now, although he admitted lately that
he would have accepted it had he been asked.
Q.—With regard to the other piece, it is merely a contract to sell ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—How much is it ?
A.—I think about four acres.
Q.—How much ?
A.—$2,000 an acre.
Q.—Have they paid you anything on it ?
A.—No.
Q.—Time isn't up yet I suppose ?
A.—No.
Q.—The Corporation commenced building a fence along the south side of Fairfield Road ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—You are in possession yet, receiving rents of the building ?
A.—It is not rented.
Q.—The trustees of the Douglas estate gave you some evidence of absolute deed ?
A.—I think so ; I don't know ; I suppose they did.    Yes.
James Thomas, examined by Mr. Bodwell: Your occupation ?
A.—Caretaker of Ross Bay Cemetery.
Q.—How long have you been in that position ?
A.—Seven years last June.
Q.—Do you know of any trouble that has arisen with reference to the sale of cemetery
lots out there ?
A.—No ; only some lots had been sold twice.
Q.—What do you know about it ?
A.—I know nothing whatever about it.    I don't sell the lots.
Q.—In fact, do you know anything that has happened ?
A.—No, I don't know.
Q.—Do you know of occasions that people have come there and found lots had been sold
before ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—In fact, Mr. Thomas, you have found lots sold, and have found other bodies buried
in them at the time ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Has that happened on more than one occasion ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—On many ?
A.—I should think a dozen or more since I have been there. I don't know how many—
several occasions.
Q.—What have you done?
A.—The bodies have been removed to some other part.
Mr. Richards : When did these difficulties happen ?
A.—There was one mistake about three years ago.
Q.—Was that the last one ?
 xcii. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
A.—No.    There was one not two years ago.
Q.— Anything occur since Mr. Dowler was appointed clerk ?
A—Yes.
Q.—Did you draw his attention to it ?
A.—-Yes.
Mr. Bodwell : What did you say—you have found cases in which bodies have been interred in a lot, and it has subsequently been discovered that that belonged to someone else.
Have you been in the habit of changing these bodies without consulting the friends ?
A.—Oh, no.
Q.—Didn't an instance of that kind occur with Mrs. Cameron ?
A.—Yes.    I was ordered from the city to do that.
The Court : To disinter the body ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—How long had the first body been there when you removed it ?
A.—About two years.
Q.—That you did from orders from the City Clerk ?
A.—Yes, I take all my orders from the City Clerk.
Thomas Storey, examined by Mr. Bodwell: You are an undertaker ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—As part of your duty as undertaker do you have communication with the clerk of
the cemetery as to getting lots for burial ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Have you had any difficulties in that respect ?
A.—I have.
Q.—What are they ?
A.—In the first place the different denominations have their separate grounds, and when
a person dies I have to go to the agent of whatever denomination the parties belong to, and
get an order to bury that party in the ground belonging to his denomination. When I have
taken that order from the parties that gave me permission to bury in that ground, I have to
go to Mr. Dowler and give him that order, and then it would be his duty to look into the
book and see whether those lots are occupied or not. I don't know whether he done so, but
he gives me the order and I send it out to the grave digger to dig the grave, when I find
there is another body. But we don't find that that ground belongs to another party until the
other person wants to be buried, and they have got the lot and paid for it. The ground had
been sold previous to that and this body had been buried in this ground. Then they moved
that body into another lot.
Q.—Were the friends of Mrs. Cameron consulted in reference to this ?
A.—Seemed not.    I can't say.    I think not, because they were very much put out about it.
Q.—They didn't know at the time ?
A.—No.
Q.—Have you known anything happen like that before ?
A.—Oh, yes.    Mr. Rutherford was buried in a lot belonging to Mr. Irving.
Q.—Do you know any other instances ?
A.—I couldn't call to mind.
Q.—Have you been obliged to go back often and get lots changed after you had got
certificates from Mr. Dowler ?
A.—I have had a great deal of trouble and lost a good deal of time.
Q.—What is the trouble—don't the plans at the city hall show the—
Mr. Richards : I think it would have been fair if we had had notice of this so that Mr.
Dowler could have been here.
Q.—The first case you mention was a Mrs. Cameron ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Who buried her ?
A.—I did.
Q.—Who selected the ground ?
A.—I did.
Q.—Was there any grave in the lot that you selected ?
A.—Not at that time.
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. xciii.
Q.—Didn't you go to the City Clerk to buy the lot ?
A.—No. I bought of the Presbyterians, and they gave me an order to bury in that
ground.
Q.—What did you pay ?
A.—$5 a lot.    $15 for the three lots.
Q.—Did you know if he was right—if he gave you the correct lots ? Did you ever go to
look at the ground ?
A.—No, I didn't. When I take this order to Mr. Dowler it is his place to see whether
these lots are occupied or not.
Q.—You had a note of the lots you wanted ?
A.—I pointed them out on the map.
Q.—Did he look in his books to see whether these lots had been sold to any one ?
A.—That I couldn't say.    If he didn't he ought to have done.
Q.—Did you pay the Corporation anything ?
A.—I paid seven and a half for digging the grave.
Q.—You paid him the money.    What did he give you ?
A.—He gave me a receipt.
Q.—Did he give you any directions to bury in this lot ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Did you leave with him the paper you got from the Presbyterians ?
A—Yes.
Q.—You mentioned a case of Mr. Rutherford; when was that ?
A.—About a year and a half ago.
Q.—Did you select that lot ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—How much did you pay ?
A.—$5.
Q.—You only selected ground for one grave ?    How much space is that ?
A.—4x8.
Q.—Did he find to your knowledge that that was not occupied ?
A.—I don't know.
Q.—At all events he took your money, gave you the order, and you buried Mr. Rutherford there?
A.—Yes.
Q.—What happened afterwards ?
A.—There is a dispute about the ground which belongs to a man named Irving.
Q.—How many lots does Irving claim ? Was there any other body buried in the same
place ?    You say that land is so surveyed that a man can own ground enough for six graves ?
A.—Four or six, I don't know exactly.
Q.—Were there any other bodies buried in that place ?
A.—No.
Q.—You don't know how far back Irving places his claim ?
A.—I do not. But they ought to have been in the books of the Council, so that when I
took the order he ought to look back and see whether those lots are occupied or not.
Q.—If there is no one buried in that land how does Irving get a claim to it ?
A.—That don't make any difference.    You can buy a lot just the same.
Q.—Do I understand you to say that where there is no one comes to be buried you can
go to, say Mr. Hett, buy a lot, and then go to Mr. Dowler and get the title?
A.—You could buy your lot, and then when the party wanted to be buried you would go
to the City Clerk and get permission to dig the grave.
Q.—I suppose you know there was considerable irregularity with the city books under
the old officials ?
A.—I never had so much trouble as I have had lately.
Q.—Don't you know that since Grant became Mayor, Kent became Treasurer, and
Dowler, Clerk, that everything has been going on better ?
A.—I couldn't say.
Q.—Don't you think that Dowler is a superior sort of man for City Clerk ?
A.—You think so ?    I don't.    Yet he may make mistakes.
 xciv. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
B. W. Pearse, examined by Mr. Bodwell: Were you one of the Cemetery Commissioners?
A.—I was one of the trustees appointed, I think in '71 or '72.
Q.—Did you hold that position until the cemetery was turned over to the city ?
A.—I held it for some years.    I really could not tell how many.
Q.—Can you tell us anything about what steps were taken to secure plans ?
A.—We had a perfect survey made on a very large scale ; the lots  staked  out  in white
with black numbers on them ; we sold lots for $5, and interment fees $7.50.
Q.—Was a record kept ?
A.—A perfect record.     Mr. Hett was clerk ; a most methodical, business-like man.
Court on rising stood adjourned to Monday, December 7th.
Monday, December 7th, 1891.
Wellington J. Dowler, examined by Mr. Bodwell : You are Secretary of the Cemetery
Committee .
A.—Yes.
Q.—Do you produce the books of the cemetery ?
A.—Yes I do ; and the maps and plans.
Q.—Is there a book kept out at the cemetery ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—By whom ?
A.—The caretaker.
Q.—What does that show ?
A.—That shows the plots in which parties are buried ?
Q.—Who makes the entries in that ?
A.—Mr. Thomas, the caretaker.
Q. —What entries does he make ?
A.—He makes simply the entries of the bodies that have been interred.
Q.—-Will you explain the procedure which is adopted in the ordinary case of interments?
A.—In the first place whether the party is to be buried in one of the plots supposed to
be owned by the churches, or whether the party is to be buried in a plot which the Corporation
has the exclusive right of selling, has first to be ascertained. When this distinction is arrived
at we then issue a permit from the stub-book in our office, and telephone the order to the
caretaker to prepare the grave in accordance with the permit.
Q.—Do you have any communications with the representatives of the different churches
on this point ?
A.—Well, the ordinary communication is that they send to me their permit to bury.
Q.—What do you receive from them in the ordinary course ?
A.—I receive a statement to the effect that certain parties have purchased a plot or plots
in connection with the cemetery, and I am, therefore, authorized to issue a permit for interment in the case of the person whose body is to be buried.
Q.—What course do you adopt ?
A.—I then issue my permit to the caretaker authorizing him to dig the grave.
Q.—What means do you take of ascertaining whether or not that particular plot of
ground has been sold before ?
A.—Well, I don't hold it to be a part of my duty to ascertain ; yet at the same time I
sometimes look at my books for that purpose. I don't say though that my books are a reliable
record in that case.
Q.—Why is that ?
A.—Well, parties go to the agents of the churches and reserve plots frequently though
there is no interment. They simply want it for the future, and the memorandum of such
reservations are never sent to me; at least cases have happened where they are not sent to
me.    Consequently I have no knowledge of those reservations.
Q.—Do you always mark off any lots sold ?
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. xcv.
A.—Yes ; unquestionably.
Q.—Have cases come under your notice where permits have been issued for interment
in certain lots, and it was afterwards found that those lots belonged to some one else ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—What have you done then ?
A.—We send them back to the agents for readjustment.
Q.—Have you done any more than that ?
A.—I didn't hold it to be my duty to do any more.
Q.—Will you produce your books ?    (Books produced.)
A.—This is the caretaker's book.
Q.—What is that supposed to be ?
A.—That is supposed to be a record of the actual interments, and the lots in which the
interments are made.    Then we enter into that book a record of the statements of this.
Q.—What record do you keep?
A.—Ross Bay Cemetery Record, showing the names of the parties buried, the lots in
which they are buried, and other information necessary to be put on record. There is another
book still, the Interment Lot Book, which is an index of the record.
(Map also produced and explained to the Court.)
Q.—Will you turn to Block H, Lot 62, west of Road 22. What do your books show as
to the interments in that lot ?
A.—Frederick Augustus Gray.
Q.—That is all that shows as interred there ?
A.—Well, this is all that is here.    That is what the book says.
Q.—Does not the book show that Catherine Munro, Samuel Nesbitt, and some others are
buried there ?
A.—The names of Catherine Munro and the others were down as originally interred
there, but the names have been erased, and I would venture to say that the body of Frederick
Augustus Gray is the only one that is buried there. But, then, I had nothing to do with
that; it took place before my time. The original name is Catherine Munro. Then it is
entered in here by some person " wrong plot."
Q.—When the name is erased, does that also mean that the body has been taken up ?
A.—I don't know.
Q.—Mr. Dowler, don't you know, as a matter of fact, that bodies have had to be changed
on account of mistakes of that kind in the cemetery ?
A.—Well, yes, I think there have.
Q.—Has that been frequently, or only very occasionally ?
A.—Occasionally.
Q.—How many times ?    Can you give the number of cases from your own recollection ?
A.—I think about once or twice. I don't know of any others at present—only the
Cameron case.
The Court: You have been there for some years ?
A.—Three years, my Lord.
The Court: The average number of burials in the year is 500. That is about the rate of
mortality, I think.    In 1,500 burials there have been only one or two cases, I think.
Mr. Bodwell: There ought not to be any, my Lord.
Q.—Take the Cameron case, for instance ; what was the matter there ?
A.—In that case Mr. Storey brought me a permit from Mr. Finlayson, dated February
1st, 1889, for the interment of Mrs. Cameron in Lot 62.
Q.—What did you do ?
A.—On receipt of that I issued a permit for the interment of Mrs. Cameron in the lot,
in accordance with the permit.
Q.—Did you make any enquiries to ascertain whether anyone else had that lot ?
A.—I don't think I did.
Q._What followed?
A.—She was interred there.
Q.—What happened after that ?
A.—She remained there in that grave until it was ascertained, after the decease of the
daughter of Mr. Steele, who, I believe, owned those lots, that she was interred in the wrong
plot.    Mr. Steele, of course, demanded that plot.
 xcvi. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
Q.—What evidence of title had he ?
A.—He owned the reservation.
Q.—Did he produce evidence of title to you ?
A.—No.
Q.—Did you have any communication with him ?
A.—I did not.
Q.—How do you know he demanded that lot ?
A.—Through the person of his undertaker, Mr. Hayward.
Q.—You had communications with Mr. Hayward?
A.—Upon reference to the book, I found that he owned that plot, so far as the value of
that record went.
Q.—What did you do on ascertaining that fact?
A.—The matter was brought before me by some members of the Council, and I was
instructed to order the removal of the Cameron body.
Q.—Did you do so ?
A.—I did.
Q.—Did any communication take place with Mrs. Cameron's friends on the subject ?
A.—I suppose so.    Of course, I simply carried out the orders of the committee.
Q.—Then Mr. Storey, on behalf of Mrs. Cameron's friends, entered protest ?
A.—I would not say.    I	
Q.—At any rate, there was some objection coming through Mr. Storey ?
Q.—As a matter of fact, where was this body removed ?
A.—The body was removed to a plot adjacent to that in which it was originally, Lot 69,
which according to the permit they were really entitled to, and which they hold now.
Q.—By whose instructions were you acting ?
A.—The chairman of the Cemetery Committee.
Q._When?
A.—I couldn't say the date. It was about the first of November, this year. It was
imperative that some action be taken as promptly as possible. The funeral of Mr. Steele's
daughter was to take place the next day, and it was necessary to have the body that occupied
the grave that was wanted removed at once.    Action had to be prompt.
Q.—Have you any recollection of any other cases of irregularities of that description;
perhaps not so serious as that?
A.—I have; the Rutherford case.
Q._What was that ?
A.—A case similar to this. A permit was brought to me stating that Lot 58 had been
sold for the burial of Mr. Rutherford, and he was interred in that lot.
Q.—In consequence of that, what was done ?
A.—The Irving family, who had previously owned that lot, found that the interment had
taken place.
Q.—And was anything done ?
A.—They, I think, spoke to the undertaker about it. Of course nothing was done ;
nothing has been done.    The body still remains in the Irving plot.
Q.—You say that there is often great difficulty in ascertaining who is the owner of a lot.
You have frequently to send people back to ascertain whether or not the lot they are asking
for does not belong to someone else ?
A.—It has been necessary for them to do so to make further enquiries.
Q.—Has that been, frequently or occasionally ?
A.—Not frequently ; it has been occasionally.
Q.—Is there any way of rectifying that trouble ?
A.—Of course there is. For the parties who keep the records in connection with the
churches to keep an accurate record of what they sell, and never issue a permit without first
ascertaining that the lot was not already sold to someone else.
Q.—Would not the same thing be accomplished if you entered in your books all the lots
for which you issue a permit ?
A.—No.
Q._Why?
A.—For the simple reason that people often go to the agents of the churches and purchase lots without any interment, in which case I would receive no notification.
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. xcyu.
Q.—Will you refer to your record there and see if there is any indication that this lot in
which Mr. Rutherford was buried has already been disposed of ?
A.—Yes.    There is a statement that the lot has been reserved by Mr. Irving.
The Court: If you had referred to your book at the time this was applied for, you would
not have issued the permit ?
A.—No, not until it was satisfactorily ascertained that the lot was properly reserved in
the books of the agent of the church to Mr. Irving.
Q.—You say the old map was inaccurate ?
A.—Yes.
Q.— In what way ?    In what did the inaccuracies consist ?
A. —It consisted in the lines of the roads being inaccurately surveyed ; showing plots that
did not exist, and the amount of the lots and the roads being in excess in some instances, and
insufficient in others.
Q.—Have you had a re-survey ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—And a new map prepared ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—By whom was that work done ?
A.—Done by, I believe, Mr. Gore.    I understand so.
Q.—Under whose directions was it clone ?
A.—These are matters that are entirely out of my knowledge. I am not in a position to
speak accurately on that.
Mr. Richards, cross-examining : I understand you to say that certain portions of this
cemetery have been laid apart for the use of the different religious denominations ?
A.rt-Yes.
Q.—Does the property belong to them ?
A.—They hold it by virtue of moneys they have paid into the corporation ; excuse me—
by virtue of an Act passed by the Legislature.
Q.—They sell the land to parties applying for it for burial purposes ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—In the case of the Church of England, they apply to Mr. Croasdaile ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—He gives a certificate to the party, and if they want to bury they produce that
certificate to you ?
A—Yes.
Q.—You say that parties sometimes purchase lots without wanting to bury at once, and
that in such cases no immediate notice has been given to you ? They may have got these lots
long before they want to bury ?
A.—That may have been so.
Q.—Do you know cases where they have made changes in their sales—these religious
bodies ?
A.—I know cases where they have sent up certificates to me for lots that have been
reserved for other parties.
Q.—Since this matter came up, you remember, I told you to go and look in Mr. Finlay-
son's books with reference to the Cameron case.    Have you seen those books ?
A.—No; I haven't been able to see those books.
Q.—You don't know how he came to issue that certificate ?
A.—The custom is for the undertaker, acting on behalf of the relatives of the deceased,
to see these agents of the churches, buy the plots, and charge it in the account. My version of
this Cameron case is that Mr. Storey went to these parties, never enquired whether these lots
were owned by them or not. He simply got the permit, and brought it to my office. I hold
it was his duty to get that information, but he has endeavoured to right himself by throwing
the blame on my shoulders before the Royal Commission, and tries to cast a reflection on me,
which I repel.
The Court: I don't think parties, Mr. Richards, quite understand their position in this
case. They don't buy a lot, nor do they sell a lot. The right of the soil remains with the
corporation, and that buying or selling is simply a permission to use it on that particular
occasion for interment. And the form of this permit, I observe : " Permission is hereby
given to bury Mr. Rutherford in this plot." They can't give the permission. That means to
say :    " As far as this denomination is concerned, we have no objection."    In consequence of
 xcviii. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
the duality of authority, these mistakes no doubt occur, and I am only surprised that they do
not occur more frequently. You will excuse my giving an account of your conduct, Mr.
Dowler, but don't you think there is something in it ?
A.—I quite appreciate the point you mention, my Lord, and will be guided by it in
future.
Q.—I suppose if Storey had gone and looked over this ground, he would have seen there
was a grave there ?
A.—I suppose so.
The Court: Possibly. I don't think it is his duty. He goes to the family of the
deceased; they speak to the secretary of the denomination they belong to; they get the permit, and Storey takes it to Mr. Dowler. No one says the corporation made the original
blunder in this case; nor that Mr. Dowler; nor perhaps did Mr. Storey make the original
blunder; but, whoever made it, the corporation adopted it.
Mr. Dowler : In order to prevent any such mistakes, about a year ago I was instructed
by the committee to write to the different agents, requesting them to inform me when they
sold lots without interment.
Q.—On application, have the parties to pay something ?
A.—They pay $7.50 for digging the grave of an adult, and $3.75 in the case of a child.
Q.—WThen Rutherford was buried there, did Irving have any body buried there ?
A.—It was a vacant lot. Irving had four or five plots on one side of the road, and it
was one of these that was taken for Mr. Rutherford. I communicated with the agent of the
church, and asked them to adjust the difficulty. Mr. Hayward promised it would be done.
I may say that in cases which Mr. Hayward acts, these mistakes never occur. He always
ascertains if everything is in order, and thus prevents these mistakes arising.
The Court: The fact of the matter is that, if you had referred to your books, you would
have seen that there were other claims on this ground, and you would never have issued the
permit.
Alderman McKillican, examined by Mr. Bodwell: Your full name is 1
A.—William Donald McKillican.
Q.—You are one of the aldermen of the city ?
A.—I am.
Q.—And a member of the Market Committee for the present year ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Member of the Cemetery Committee ?
A.—Its chairman.
Q.—And a member of the Electric Light Committee ?
A.—Yes, sir; chairman.
Q.—With reference to the purchase of the additional land at the cemetery, were you one
of the parties that negotiated that purchase ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—What steps did you take to ascertain the state of the title of that property ?
A.—By authority of the Council, we took steps through our attorneys.
Q.—Under what authority did you enter into the agreement to purchase this additional
land from Mr. Snowdon ?
A.—Well, I don't know that there is any by-law affecting that. It is merely a transaction that we went into to increase the cemetery. It was actually necessary. We had but
$12,500, and that amount was inadequate to buy the land we wanted; consequently, we
purchased lots No. 80 and 80a; paid for 80 the sum of $11,800 or $11,900, I forget just
now exactly the figures, and we entered into an agreement to purchase the balance of it. I
think it is in June, 1893.
Q.—Had you any authority to enter into that agreement ?
A.—Certainly ; by the consent of the Council.
Q.—How is it the Cemetery Committee had power to enter into negotiations with
reference to matters of money ?    You had $12,500 ?
Q.—Yes.
A.—When you entered into this agreement had you the money in hand to pay for this
land?
 55 VicT. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. xcix.
A.—It was intended to frame a by-law to be placed before the people to raise the money
to purchase the land.
The Court : The agreement is nothing more than an option—bonding it.
Mr. McKillican :  It would be useless for cemetery purposes unless we got the whole of it.
Q.—Then why didn't you buy that other piece ?
A.—If we had more money we could have bought it.
Q.—Then you have actually committed the city to the purchase of this property. You
erected a $500 fence, where ?
A.—On the front portion. We thought it was actually necessary, compulsory on the
people to buy this ground.
Q.—Why did you put a fence on 80b.
A.—In order to make it look respectable on the street lines.
Q.—Why didn't you put your fence on the other portion—80 ?
A.—It would then leave all that other part open for every one to enter.
Q.—Did you not write a letter to the " Colonist " stating you put this fence up on 80b,
because if that fence was put there the city would have to buy the land ?
A.—The city would have to buy the whole piece in order to utilize it for cemetery
purposes ?
Q.—You built the fence on the lot you don't own in order to make the city buy that lot ?
A.—Yes.
Q. —That is a candid confession, Mr. McKillican Do you know whether a by-law was
brought in to purchase the balance of that land 1
A.—It was brought in and passed the Council. It went before the ratepayers and was
defeated.
Q._Why ?
Q.—Because the people didn't take interest enough in it to go out and vote for it. There
was, I think, 300 votes cast out of 1,800. That did not give the view of the ratepayers on
that by-law. It is well known that only those who oppose a by-law will take the trouble to
go out and vote, while those in favour of it will not do so. That vote doesn't say that the
ratepayers rejected that by-law.
Q.—You still think you have got them out-generaled, and they will purchase that land
after all?
A.—I do.
The Court : How many ratepayers do you think vote on money by-laws ?
A.—I think it is something over 1,500 who take sufficient interest to come out and cast
their votes for or against in these things.
Q.—I suppose you have opposed spending any money on by-laws that have not been
carried by a majority of this amount ?
A.—If there is no majority the by-law does not pass.
Q.—Do you know the proportion of the vote on the market by-law ?
A.—I don't.
Q.—Did you take any steps to enquire ?
A.—I didn't.
Q.—You don't oppose spending the money of that vote ?
A.—No ; because it had a majority of the votes cast.
Q.—And the other had a minority ?    So your theory is only a theory ?
A.—It is a fact that those who oppose a by-law will take the trouble to come out and
vote against it, while those in favour of it will not. There is another by-law that I wish to
speak about in this respect.
Q.—WThat by-law was that?
A.—The electric light by-law.
Q.—What was that for ?
A.—It was for the extension of the present lighting of the city.
Q.—What was done with that by-law ?
A.—There was nothing done ; it was defeated.
Q.—In what year was the Ball system put in use in the city?
A.—In 1889, I think.
Q.—Under what authority ?    By by-law?
A.—No ; I think it was by resolution of the Council. The new plant was put in in 1888
or 1889.
 Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
Q.—How much was purchased at that time ?
A.—There were two dynamos—one 35 ; in all something about $5,000 worth.
Q.—From whom was that purchase made 1
A.—It was purchased from the Ball Company in Toronto.
Q.—Through whom ?
A.—Mr. McMicking, by contract.
Q.—Mr. McMicking was the City Electrician at the time ?
A.—.He is acting for the city as a contractor, and is working under contract at the
present time.
Q.—Isn't he called the City Electrician at the present time ?
A.—He is paid by contract $150 a month to do certain things.
The Court : Every labourer is a contractor. Am I a contractor. I undertake to
perform the duties of a Judge for so much a month.
Mr. McKillican : Mr. McMicking was working under tender.
Q.—Mr. McMicking was the City Electrician when this arrangement was made ?
A.—It was by contract.
Q.—Was he paid a commission on this purchase ?
A.—That I don't know.
Q.—Do you know whether he received a commission?
A.—I do not.
Q.—Did you take any steps to enquire ?
A.—I did not.
Q.—Do you know whether the city got the list price of the plant they purchased ?
A.—They called for tenders, and got the tenders from the manufacturers. They also got
tenders from the Brush Company at San Francisco. They were presented to the Council, and
the tender of the Ball Lighting Company was accepted.
Q.—Do you know whether that was a discount or list price ?
A.—I couldn't tell you.
Q.—You know there is a list and a discount price ?
Q.— Yes.
A—You don't know which it was in this case ?
Q.—I don't know. It was accepted by the Council, and if there was any discount we
didn't know anything about it.
Q.—You are a member of the Market Committee ?
A.—I am.
Q.—The ashphalt pavement round the new market building, is that included in the
contract for the building ?
A.—No, I believe not.    At least that is left with the architect for him to decide.
Q.—Were you at the meeting of the Council at which the architect reported that that
was not included in this contract ?
A.—I believe so.
Q.—Who laid down that sidewalk ?
A.—It was done by the Ashphalt Company.
Q.—Under what arrangement ?
A.—It was laid down under contract, at so much a yard.
Q.—How much ?
A.—I can't give you the exact amount.
Q.—Was that contract in writing ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Can it be produced ?
A.—Yes ; I presume it can be produced.    Mr. Holland is Chairman of that Committee.
Q.—At any rate there is a contract with the Pacific Ashphalt Company, executed by the
Committee, to do that work at so much a yard ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Do you know how much that work comes to in gross ?
A.—No, I can't give you the exact figures, $500 or $600 I presume, or more.
Q.—Between $500 and $1,000, according to the number of yards done.
Q.—Are you a shareholder in the B.C. Terra Cotta Co. ?
A.—No, I am not.
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. ci.
Q.—Do you know anything about the contract for the wood work of the new market
building ?
A.—Well; I don't know as I can give you any information on that point. That is a
sub-contract under the contractor.    I can't give you any information.
Q.—Has Mr. Donaldson been known as a contractor to any extent ?
A.—Not that I know of.
Q.—Did you ever know of his having any contracts before this ?
A.—I think he has contracted outside during the summer months.
Q.—In fact he is foreman in A. J. Smith's shop ?
A.—That I can't tell you, whether he is foreman or Fullerton is foreman.
Q.—You are in that business ?
A.—Yes.
Q,—And you haven't known Mr. Donaldson as a contractor in this city before this case ?
A.—No, sir.
Q.—Have you any knowledge of his financial standing ?
A.—I haven't.
Mr. Richards, cross-examining : Did the Council come to the conclusion that the cemetery
was too small ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—And had to be enlarged ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—How many acres are there in the old cemetery ?
A.—I can't tell you how many.    There must be ten or twelve acres.
Q.—Did you try to get land on the east side ?
A.—Yes. Bishop Hills, I think, owns some of that land on the east of the old cemetery.
We went beyond that but found there was too much rock. There was also a piece of land
belonging to Mr. McKeon, but the quantity we could get there was not sufficient, consequently
we turned our attention the other way to this piece of ground which we knew was for sale.
In fact we intended to go out somewhere in the country to try and buy 50 or 100 acres, but
it was thought much more convenient for the general public to buy close to the old cemetery.
That was one of the reasons why we gave up the notion of going outside. We thought we
were acting in the interests of the ratepayers in making the purchase as we did, and to come
before the ratepayers for the additional $8,500 for the sale.
Q.—In all probability this by-law will come before the ratepayers next year?
A.—Yes.
Q.—You have until 1893, and it is likely to come before the ratepayers if it is rejected
by ;hem next year ?
A.—Yes.'
Q.—It is absolutely necessary to go somewhere to have more room ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Did you not try some of these land speculators out at Oak Bay ?
A.—No.
Q.—Did you go outside anywhere to try and get a large tract ?
A.—The intention was to go out towards Cedar Hill. It is very difficult to get land
that is fit for graves, because you have to get it as dry as possible. if there is any rock it
won't do.    It must be gravel or dry soil.
Q.—Is there any ground toward Oak Bay ?
A.—There is, but it is rocky; or it is too low so that the water lies in the graves.
Q.—Did they want to sell you any out there ?
A.—No. We didn't apply for any, because we considered the land not suitable for that
purpose.
Q.—You don't know whether they are annoyed at your not having applied to them ?
A.—No, I think some of them are opposed to our buying where we did. They also
offered the Corporation the amount they paid for it if they would deed the land over to them.
Q.—Who are these, do you know ?
A.—Young Pemberton is the one I believe that stated this to me.
Q.—Do you know any others ?
A.—There was none but the young man that spoke to me on this matter, and he has
been to me at different times.
 cii. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
Q.—It seems that these petitioners here are opposed to the step you have made, and
among these petitioners are some who are land speculators out there in real estate. We saw
a gentleman sitting by my learned friend (Mr. Bodwell) off and on during this enquiry. Isn't
he a large speculator there ?
A.—I didn't take notice of the gentleman.
Q.—In fact they didn't want you to buy this land because they wanted the cemetery
moved somewhere else ?
A.—I have no doubt that was a great deal of the ground of the opposition to this by-law.
The Court : Mr. Richards, these are dangerous grounds you are touching on now. No
one has imputed any personal motives to you, and you are beginning an attack on these gentlemen, accusing them of personal motives, and to be acting from pecuniary advantage.
Mr. Richards : I apprehend there must be some motive on the part of these gentlemen
or they would not rake up a matter of this kind, where the Council is trying to get a place to
bury the dead. This is a matter that was sprung upon us the other day, and we have had no
opportunity of enquiring why the Council should receive any opposition.
The Court: The charge is that a sum of $500 was spent on land that did not belong to
the Corporation.
Mr. Richards : At the same time it is a very small matter for these leading men to bring
up.
Q.—I suppose you know nothing about the electric light matter ?
A.—Nothing more than I have stated.
The Court: This fence you put up ; although it was on land that was not your own, yet
it protected land that was your own. You are liable to a charge for improvements in protecting your own land in that way.
Mayor Grant, examined by Mr Bodwell: Is it true that the sewerage bonds have been
sold ?
A.—I believe they are sold.
Q.—At what figure ?
A.—Realized about 90 net.
Q.—What is that gross ?
A.—That would be a fraction over 94.
Q.—You sold at a little over 94. You pay one per cent, bonus for brokerage, and you
pay 8 per cent, for the time you had the money.    What becomes of the accrued interest ?
A.—The coupons would be taken and destroyed, and the city would only begin to pay
interest from this date. It was the best offer we. ever had. Anything that may have accrued
on the coupons now running will also go to the benefit of the city.
Q.—To whom have they been sold ?
A.—To Robert Ward & Co. as agent for some company.
Q.— Is the offer in writing ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Can it be produced ?
A.—Yes. I haven't it with me, but I can very soon get it. There is nothing been done
that can't be produced.
Q.—I don't mean to say that there is anything wrong, Mr. Grant. Will you have a copy
sent in to the Commissioners ?
A.—Yes.
Mr. Richards : Mr. Mayor, there is a charge against this Council for making a contract
for the delivery of pipe next year, the contract having been made towards the end of this
year ?
A.—Yes, sir.
Q.—One member of the Council voted against that. Can you tell why that contract was
entered into ?
A.—It is simply following a practice that has obtained for a number of years past, and
which, to my mind, unfortunately, was not followed for the last two years. We found that
by ordering pipes seven or nine months ahead from England, they are landed out here ten to
fifteen dollars a ton less than we would have to pay if we got them on short notice, by ordering them from Pennsylvania or Hamilton.
Q.—Supposing the incoming Council did not want them, or did not take them ?
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. ciii.
A.—But they will want them; and if they don't, they can make a profit on them.
Q.—Who are the contractors ?
A.—Findlay, Durham & Brodie.
Q.—Then if Findlay, Durham & Brodie do not come up to the terms of the contract and
supply the pipe, the Council of next year must have pipe ?
A.—They must have it.
Q.—And if they get it on short notice they will have to pay more for it ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—What are these pipes to be used for ?
A.—General water extension.
Q.—Is this required ?
A.—Yes; it is required.
Q.—I suppose those people who have been brought into the limits require water ?
A.—Not only this, but inside the old limits there are a number of the old two-inch pipes
down, and the places are being rapidly built up. The two-inch pipe is being taken up in these
places and is being replaced by four-inch pipe, for two reasons : domestic supply, and in case
of fire, when there would be a reasonable supply.
Mr. Bodwell: Do you know about the collection of the real estate tax this year ? Has
any portion of the money which has been coming in lately been deposited to the credit of the
sinking funds account ?
A.—Not yet; no.
Q.—It has all gone into the general revenue ?
A.—It has been the custom to deposit the sinking fund at the end of the year.
Q.—On the 1st December the rebate on taxes is off?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Isn't it your experience that people who don't pay by that time don't pay by the end
of the year ? Then you have deposited all that money to the general account, and there is a
large amount due the bank on a promissory note. Are not your rates levied so much for the
sinking fund ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Don't you think you ought to have paid your proportion on that ?
A.—There are large amounts still to come in by the end of the year, which will go to
that.
Q.—As a matter of fact, it has all gone to the general account so far ?
A.—Yes.
R. B. McMicking, examined by Mr. Bodwell: Your full name is ?
A.—Robert Burns McMicking.
Q.—You are city electrician ?
A.—No ; not exactly.
Q.—How not exactly ?
A.—What I mean is that I am doing the work of electrician under contract. I oversee
the buildings generally. I am called electrician—called everything. I am paid by the city
by monthly contract.
Q.—Any definite time fixed ?
A.—No definite time ; monthly, only.
Q.—Is your contract in writing ?
A.—I believe it was in writing some years ago; it was given in pencil to the Light
Committee. The contract with the Ball Company was for $6,500. In addition to that there
were other items, wire, &c.
Q.—Did you receive a commission on this ?
A.—Received a commission on this sale, discount; yes.
Q. — How much ?
A.—Five to ten per cent, on the different articles on the list prices. I presume ten per
cent, on the average. It's so long since, I don't exactly remember. It was purchased through
me, but the tender was direct.
The Court: Did you inform the city there was a discount ?
A.—I did not do so. I don't consider myself a city official; I am a contractor. It was
a private matter,
 civ. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
The Court: All are more or less contractors. Your Chinaman cook is a contractor; he
contracts to give you your dinner for so much a month. The real estate man contracts to sell
you a piece of land for so much.    They both contract.
Mr. Leech, examined by Mr. Bodwell: Did the city purchase a quantity of rock that
was excavated at the new hotel ?
A.—They did.
Q.—From whom did they purchase it ?
A.—From Mr. Haggerty, the contractor.
Q.—Directly ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Do you know how much there was ?
A.—About sixty thousand yards at sixty-two and a half cents a yard.
Q.—That was this year ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—I suppose the city have not a very great quantity of rock of their own?
A.—I don't know what they have got, exactly. They have the remainder of that sixty
thousand yards.
Q.—If they have such a large quantity of rock in the city, why should they purchase
this quantity from Haggerty ?
A.—Because they got it so cheap. The rock the city owns is in sight, but it would have
to be blasted out, and this was cheaper, of course.
Alderman Smith, examined by Mr. Bodwell: Your full name is ?
A.—Andrew Johnson Smith.
Q.—You are one of the Aldermen?
A.—I am.
Q.—A member of the Market Committee ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—The contract for the wood-work in connection with the new market building was let
to Mr. Donaldson.
A.—I think it was. At least, he told me he had the contract. In fact, I saw the
contract between him and Mr. Jeeves.
Q.—What relations existed between you and Mr. Donaldson prior to that contract ?
A.—Mr. Donaldson and I had no relations at all immediately before the contract.
Q.—What was he doing immediately before that contract ?
A.—Immediately before, I think he was working for Mr. Redfern, putting up the City
Hall clock, for about two months, and Mr. Redfern, I suppose, paid him.
Q.—Prior to the contract for the City Hall clock, where had he been working ?
A.—I think he was working a machine for me.
Q.—Had he occupied that position for any length of time?
A.—Off and on. Sometimes he took contracts of his own outside. When he was not
working I gave him a job, generally.
Q.—What contract do you know of his taking?
A.—He and a man named Woods had the contract for the James Bay Bridge.
Q.—That was built by the Corporation ?
A.—Under contract; I think it was $6,500.
Q.—Were you a member of the Corporation at that time ?
A.—I was.
Q.—Of the Streets and Bridges Committee ?
A.—I don't remember.    I think I was Chairman of the Water Works at the time.
Q.—Besides that contract, what other work has he had ?
A.—He has been working for the Dominion Government on several occasions.
Q.—And beyond that ?
A.— He has been away in Alberni for W. P. Say ward; and he has been away two or three
dozen times up North prospecting, and as he generally came back with very little money in
his pocket, I generally gave him a job.
Q.—And he always worked for you when he came back ?
A.—Not always.
 55 Vict Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. cv>.
Q. —Had you any communication with Mr. Donaldson prior to his taking this contract
with McGregor & Jeeves ?
A.—None whatever. In fact I never figured on the work, and I never looked at the
specifications or plans after they were called to be tendered for.
Q.—Did you know Mr. Donaldson was going to put in a tender ?
A.—I didn't.
Q.—What arrangement did you make with him for doing the machine work ?
A.—When he showed me the document that he had got the contract from McGregor <fe
Jeeves, he asked me if I would do the finishing work for him—the doors, and sashes, and
mouldings. I told him I was not in a position to give him an answer just then. I went to
Drake, Jackson & Helmacken's office, and saw Mr. Helmcken; I explained the case to him
and he said: "You can do all the work you like for Donaldson; in fact McGregor & Jeeves
can engage the Mayor and Aldermen to do the work, and still be within the law." That was
what my lawyers advised, and consequently I took the work.
Q.—There was no previous understanding?
A.—None whatever.
Q.—Were you surprised when you heard that Mr. Donaldson had the contract ?
A.—Not a bit.
Q.—This was a pretty large contract, was it not?
A.—I think it was a little over $12,000.
Q.—What means has Mr. Donaldson of financing a contract of that kind?
A.—He has property.
Q.—How much ?
A.—I don't know.    I believe he has got money in the Savings Bank, too.
Q.—Did you make any advances to him ?
A.—Not a cent.
Q.—Any accommodation at the bank ?
A.—In what way ?
Q.—By endorsing a note ?
A.—No.
Q.—In any other way ?
A. - He never asked me.
Q.—Come now, Mr. Smith, that is not the question ?
A.—No, he didn't ask me. Mr. Donaldson and I had no dealings in connection with the
public market until he showed me the contract from McGregor & Jeeves, and asked me to do
the work, and then I did it only on my lawyer's advice.
Q.—I suppose you charged him the regular trade price ?
A.—I put it down as low as I could. Of course he was at perfect liberty to go elsewhere
if he saw fit.
Mr. Richards : Are you Chairman of the Water Works Committee ?
A.—Yes ;  this is my fourth year.
Q.—You have been in the Council four years ?    When were you first elected ?
A.—In '80 I think it was. When Mr. Turner was elected Mayor I was elected then for
;he first year.    Mr. Turner held the office of Mayor for three years consecutively.
Q.—Which side did you take in the water works matter, the Hendry scheme or Mr.
Summerfield's 16-inch main ?
A.—The Hendry scheme hadn't anything to do with the 16-inch main.
Q.—You know there was money spent on the Hendry scheme?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Was Mr. Pearse in the Council then ?
A.—He was in the Council in '77 or '78, I think.
Q.—Mr. Summerfield complains that the department hadn't been well worked by you ?
A.—Mr. Summerfield made a regular pickle of the water works I consider, from a
aydraulic point of view.
Q.—And finally from the water works being neglected so much, he give notice to quit
and left the employment of the city ?
A.—Of course this is a very long and tedious question to go into, this water works business.
Q.—It is in evidence here that your committee has not been looking after the interests of
the city ?
 cvi. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
A.—He didn't leave last year. I am not Chairman of the Water Works this year.
There was a loan of $75,000 got from the people for the Hendry scheme, and before the bylaw was submitted to the ratepayers, Mr. Pickering, of Pickering & Crompton, Hydraulic
Engineers, gave his opinion on it; and it was in consequence of his opinion that the by-law
was submitted to the people and the work was done at the head of Pandora street.
Q.—That was subsequently abandoned ?
A.—After Mr. Summerfield became Water Commissioner.
Q.—Were you then in the Council ?
A.—I was not.
Q.—I think you are on the water committee this year ?
A.—I am Chairman of the Police and Streets.
Q.—You have spent a good deal of money on the streets this year ?
A.—I would like to lay out about two or three thousand dollars more.
Q.—Do you know how many applications were made to the Council and referred to the
committee for work to be done ?
A.—Thousands.
Q.—Were you able to comply with them ?
A.—No, we had to turn them away. In fact we had to lay off a lot of men with families
in order to give a lot of poor men, who had nothing to eat, a few day's work.
Q.—If you complied with the petitions that are sent in, what would the expense amount to ?
A.—I don't know.
Q.—How much have you laid out this year in the new limits?
A.—We laid out too much. We were led with the belief that the Government would
give us the taxes collected in the outlying limits. They promised us $4,000 to be expended
in what they term the trunk roads, the Saanich Road, the Gorge Road, and some other road.
Prior to that time we had spent on the Oak Bay Avenue something like $9,000, and we have
laid down some sidewalks and made repairs. Since that time we have laid out in the outlying
limits between eight and nine thousand dollars—it might amount to ten thousand.
Q.—Have you laid out on the trunk roads this $4,000 ?
A.—Yes, and more.
Q.—Will it not be. necessary to spend considerable money within these new limits in order
to give the people there good roads ?
A.—Oh, yes ; there are very few streets ; there are only very few roads at the present
time.     The property is being sold very rapidly, and consequently it will require new streets.
Q.—You are Chairman of the Police Committee?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Complaint is made that they employ too many men ?
Mr. Bodwell: Oh, no, we have not stated that at all. Nothing of the sort. There is no
use trying to make a point where we have not alleged anything. We spoke of the general
department.
The Court: The Police and Fire Departments are practically excluded from the matter.
I think we came to the conclusion that these two were absolutely necessary.
Mr. Richards : You pay Mr. Leech $1,800; can you dispense with him ?
A.—I suppose we could; but we should have to engage another man.
Q.—Street Commissioner Lynn, $1,500 ?
A.—Yes ; he looks after the men and sees that they do their work.
Q.—You are obliged to have such a man ?
A.—You must have a man to do that sort of work.
Q.—Clerk J. Matthews ?
A.—Mr. Leech's office.
Q.—Is he necessary ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Two foremen, $1,800 ?
A.—They're necessary. One takes the city from Yates street north, and the other from
Yates street south.    They're the foremen over the men to see that they do their work.
Q.—Are they supposed to go over the streets and see that the sidewalks are in order ?
A.—No, we have a sidewalk carpenter. They look after the streets so far as the grading
and macadamizing.
Q.—Engineer Jumbo ?
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. cvii.
A.—Yes ; and sometimes we have two engineers. When Jumbo is rolling the streets we
have another boiler and engine which we use for the rock crushing.
Q.—Teamster Cameron ?    What does he do ?
A.—We have several teamsters.    They have their own carts.
A.—Carpenter Cox?
A.—That is the man who looks after the sidewalks. That is indispensable. In fact we
have four men at work now and can hardly keep the sidewalks in repair.
Q. — Have you had any actions from people falling into holes in the sidewalks?
A.—We haven't had any actions taken, but we've had some threatened.
Q.—Park-keeper ; that is out at Beacon Hill 1
A.—I believe he has got charge of the park at Beacon Hill.
Q.—You don't know that the public interest would allow you to dispense with any of
these?
A.—Only in this way : If you would combine the position of City Surveyor with that of
W7ater Commissioner you would save money, I think. By having one man fill those two
positions you would save, I suppose, about a thousand dollars a year.
Q.—That might be carried out by the next Council?
A.—It might be.
Q.—Do you think you can get a man for $1,800 a year to act as Water Commissioner as
well as City Engineer?
A.—I say at present we pay Mr. Leech $1,800 per annum ; and also Water Commissioner
$1,800. Mr. Leech is acting now as City Surveyor, and Mr. Lynn, the Street Commissioner,
is acting as Water Commissioner at present with an increase of $25 per month. Now if you
will combine the two by paying Mr. Leech, say $2,000 or $2,500, for doing the work you
would save the difference.
Q.—Speaking about the water works : Mr. Summerfield said that was being neglected ?
A.—During my administration as Chairman of the Water Works the first trouble that
took place was in connection with the filterage of the water. I told him it was not properly
filtered. It was necessary for me to go and inspect the dam. I went out and found that
not a shovel full of sand or a piece of charcoal had been put in these beds for two years.
The biggest horse leech could get through these filter beds, which were nothing but a lot of
cobble stones.
The Court: The Corporation must have been looking very sharply after this important
work. It is not to Mr. Summerfield that the public look in such a case ; it is the Corporation
who take the responsibility of the work.
Aid. Smith : That is the only way I interfered with him. I think Mr. Summerfield has
got 16-inch main on the brain.
Mr. Bodwell: You say Mr. Lynn has received an increase of salary; under what authority
is that ?
A.—Under authority of the Council.
Q.—In what way does the city express it ?
A.—By resolution.
Q.—You have then men working on the streets now ?
A.—No ; I don't think there is any at all.
Q.—Since you finished the work on Princess Avenue you discharged all the men in each
ward ?
A.—Before that we had six men.
Q.—How many have you got working since then ?
A.—I think there are ten men working altogether now.
Q.—How many horses and carts ?
A.—That all depends on the work the rock crusher is doing.
Q.—Then Mr. Lynn has not got much responsibility at present 1
A.—I suppose he has got as much responsibility ; he may not have as much work.
Q.—He hasn't got a great deal of work to look after ?
A.—Not in one sense, perhaps ; but he has in another, because he has to make his regular
rounds.
Q.—I thought that was the City Surveyor's work ?
A.—No; the City Surveyor is supposed to sit in his office to be consulted, to see what is
to be done, to make out estimates and plans, and such.
Q.-—You started this year with no appropriation for streets at all beyond salaries ?
 cviii. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
A.—How are you going to get an appropriation for streets when it is absorbed by everything else ?
Q.—This year you started with all the salaries and no money to work the men for whom
those salaries were provided ?
A.—We never get an appropriation for streets.
Q.—How do you get your money to do the work ?
A.—We take the residue of the other appropriations, if there is any.
Q.—What year has there been any residue ?
A.—Very little this year.    I think it was about $14,000.
Q.—No ; there was not over $9,000 if you look at the estimates. You say you had
$14,000 1
A.—I am speaking from memory.
Q.—Was that $9,000 all you expected to spend on streets ? Did you expect any more
money for this purpose ?
A.—I did in one sense.    I expected to raise a by-law for $100,000 for street purposes.
Q.—You had all these men on the permanent staff, you had arranged for their salaries,
and you expected to raise money to work them with ? Supposing you hadn't been able to
float this loan what would you have done with all these men ? How did you get the money
for the streets ?
A.—We got it the best way we could. There was an increase in the valuation of property ?
Q.—Where did you get the money ?
A.—We got an overdraft at the bank.
Q.—Where did the Street Committee get the money from to do the work ?
A.—We got it from the Council.
Q.—Isn't it a matter of fact that you go on with the work and then go to the Council to
get it paid for ?
A.—Certainly, The Streets Committee are limited to $50 per week, which they can
work with without going to the Council. If there is any work that comes in calling for more,
they leave it over till the next week. The Streets Committee meet every Tuesday and formulate their report to the Council, and if the Council see fit to adopt that report it is all right.
The Committee does not order any work till this report has been adopted by the Council.
Q.—The auditor tells us you have received nearly $13,000 out of that gravel pits sale.
How is it then that you are not working more men on the streets ?
A.—A good deal of money was spent in making those streets through the gravel pits.
Q.—That was prior to the sale ?
A.—We had to work a good many men on the Saanich Road.
Q.—How much money have you spent there since the 12th October?
A.—I couldn't give you the figures.
Q.—You state you haven't been spending any of this money on the streets ?
A.—We have been spending money on the streets all along.
Q.—How is it you have only ten men working on the streets ?
A.—Because we wanted to reduce expenses.
Q.—And you had $13,000 ?
A.—You must remember that independent of that we had the rock crusher going, below
the Custom House there, and teams hauling rock out of the different streets throughout town
since the 12th October.
Q.—How many teams had you working at that ?
A.—I think it was nine teams ; and we had as high as fourteen.
Q.—Where were these teams hauling the rock to ?
A.—All over town.
Q.—How much did you pay a day ?
A.—Four dollars.
Q.—That is about how much a day ?
A.—From fifty to sixty dollars. And then of course we had to have men to spread the
rock.
Q.—That has been going on for how many days i
A.—I couldn't tell you.
Q.—You say that that number of teams has been working since that time ?
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. eix.
A.—Oh, they were working for about four or five weeks. We intended to start the rock
crusher again last Saturday, and that would take six or seven teams to haul the rock away.
Q.—Have you spent four thousand dollars or two thousand dollars since the 12th
October ?
A.—Why, yes.
Q.—Three thousand ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Four thousand ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Five thousand ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Six thousand ?
A—Yes.
Q._Where ?
A.—I told you all over the town.
Q.—How ?
A.—In repairing streets.
Q.—In what way ?
A.—There is this little street in front of your office, for instance. We spent some money
in cleaning that and macadamizing it.
Q.—That is not a very expensive job.
A.—We had some streets to see to in James Bay Ward.
Q.—How many ?
A.—Several. Then we had a lot of work to do in Johnson Street Ward. We did that
work on the DeCosmos property. Then we've been laying down sidewalks, and repairing
others. There is a sidewalk contractor who gets the contract for so much a foot according to
the width of the sidewalk.
Q.—Has he been working steadily ?
A.—Steadily since the beginning of the year.
Q.—These contracts were all let at the beginning of the year ?
A.—Oh, no; from time to time as the work requires them.
Q.—How many since the 12th October?
A.—Couldn't say.
Q.—Have any ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Can you tell us any place that a sidewalk has been let for since the 12th October ?
A.—There has been some in Johnson Street Ward.
Q.—When was the contract let for that ?
A.—Some time ago.
Q.—Before the 12th October?
A.—I think not.
Q.—How much does that amount to ?
A.—I couldn't tell you. If you were Chairman of the Streets Committee, and had
twenty, or thirty, or perhaps forty items to come before you you would fail to remember any
particular one, unless it was of particular importance. If you can give me about the date I
can get the whole thing for you.
Q.—Can you produce a statement here to-morrow showing exactly what work has been
done on streets, outside of contracts, out of the money obtained from the gravel pits ?
A.—I think I can get that from the auditor.
Q.—With reference to the water works, you say you found the filter beds in a bad state.
Why is it you haven't appropriated any money to these filter beds for the last three or four
years ?
A.—When I left the works they were in first-class running order.
Q.—Why was it that the main was not extended to take the water straight from Elk
Lake? Mr. Summerfield reported on that, and said it would not take more than $15,000.
Do you know any reason why the Council didn't do that ?
A.—Yes, and he takes it from a swamp just as bad as Beaver Lake. He was going to
bring the water in by means of a ditch. When I was chairman of the water works, I believe
I was the first person to propose to bring the water from Elk Lake by means of a box pipe
 ex. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
submerged in Beaver Lake and carried out to deep water in Elk Lake. The estimate I made
at the time was $8,000.
Q.—That has never been done ?
A.—No.
Q.—It has been the custom of the Council to make an annual pilgrimage out to "Steve's,"
and make the annual inspection of the source of the water supply ?
A.—Yes.    That is about the month of August.
Q.—Did you go over the filter beds then ?
A—Yes.
Q.—Was not this discovered ?
A.—I don't know. I discovered it. I reported it to the Council. That was in the early
part of the year.
Q.—No steps taken on that ?
A.—We didn't have the money.
Q.—Well, how much revenue do you get from the water works'?
A.—I think about $46,000.
Q.—Why didn't you take that money ?
A.—There's salaries and extending mains.
Q.—What is the use of extending mains for the supply of impure water ? Don't you
think if that small sum you estimate had been spent you would now be drawing water, good
water, from Elk Lake ?
A. —No : you would have to filter the water any way. It will take $75,000 to give the
water proper filterage area for the requirements of the city.
The Court : Could money be more completely thrown away ? It would not take one-fifth
of that sum to carry a pipe out to Elk Lake and have the water pure direct.
Aid. Smith : With reference to the purchasing of pipe : Last year, unfortunately for the
Council, there was no pipe on hand when we took office, and we paid the Hamilton Iron
Works $64 per ton. This year a tender from Findlay, Durham & Brodie for $39.37 per ton
was accepted.
The Court: It was no doubt a very thoughtful thing to do, but it was illegal. I praise
the courage of the present Council for doing that which is against the law, although they
thought they were doing a good thing.    There is not any moral blame in that.
Q.—You say you spent how much money on Oak Bay Avenue ?
A.—About $950.
Q.—There was a large tract of land bought out there this spring ?
A.—I don't know; I have no land out there.
Q.—They gave a bonus to the Street Car Company to run a tramway out there ?
A.—I heard they gave them something.
Q.—The tramway could not go out there without streets ? Did the city make the streets ?
A.—Mr. Bodwell thinks he has got something against me, but he's mistaken. The
tramway put down their track and made their part of the road, and we made the other part
to the city boundary, and the Provincial Government extended it down from the city boundary
to the beach.
Q.—How much did you pay for that part ?
A.—I think it was
Mr. Bodwell: I think that closes the case on the part of the petitioners, my Lords.
The Court: Is there any other ratepayer that would like to say anything ?
Mr. Bodwell: I have brought forward everything that has been produced to me.
The Court then rose and stood adjourned till Wednesday morning, December 16th, 1891.
victoria, b. c. :
Printed by Richard Wolfenden-, Printer to the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty.
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. cxi.
Wednesday, December 31st, 1891.
The Commissioners took their seats at 12 o'clock, noon.
The Court: Well, Mr. Bodwell, were you wishing to address us at all ?
Mr. Bodwell: Yes, my Lords. Since the last adjournment a matter has come under my
notice, which appears to me to be of so much importance, not only to this enquiry, but to the
citizens generally, that I wish, with your Lordships' permission, to call certain witnesses with
reference to the sewerage system. As I am informed, there has been a great defect in the
construction of the main sewer which will endanger the safety and value of the whole of the
work.
The Court: Is that the new sewer ?
Mr. Bodwell: Yes, my Lord. If the statement that has been made to me is incorrect it
is of the greatest importance that the people should know it. Whether it is correct or not
it isimportant that the people should know it.
The Court : Is it in the mode of construction ?
Mr. Bodwell : As I am instructed it is a change from the specifications. But it can be
explained in a few moments by an engineer. I would like to call Mr. Keene, who is familiar
with the whole matter, and who will be able to explain it to your Lordships.
John Keene, sworn :
Mr. Richards :  Who is this gentleman ?    Hasn't he a suit pending against the Corporatio
now ?
The Court:    The Court is aware of all this, Mr. Richards.
Q.—Your full name ?
A.—John Keene.
Q.—Your profession?
A.—Sanitary and civil engineer.
Q.—Where are you engaged at present?
A.—Am chief engineer of the Kaslo and Slocan Railway Company.
Q.—You have been away some time ?
A.—Some two months.
Q.—And you were not here at the time the bulk of this evidence was being taken?-
A.—I was not, sir.
Q.—Did you have anything to do with reference to the contract for sewering the city?
A.—I was consulted by Mr. H. Macdonald.
Q.—In your professional capacity ?
A.—Yes, sir.
Q.—In the course of that did you become familiar with the plans, specifications and
drawings of the work ?
A.—I read them all over.
The original plan of the egg-shaped sewer not then being in Court, and their Lordships
having decided not to accept evidence on a rough draft prepared by Mr. Keene from memory,
Mr. Bodwell : Will you go on and explain, Mr. Keene, without regard to plan at all ?
A.—The original sewer, as contemplated in the specifications and bills of quantities,
showed the trench excavated to a certain depth and width. The bottom was to be brought to
grade, and at a certain elevation a piece of false work or model was to be placed in order that
the grade might be cast in due form so as to leave a perfect egg-shaped sewer when the model
was taken from it. That was to be taken up to the haunches of the egg-shaped sewer, and
above that level half the sewer was to be crowned with specially made bricks with radial
joints. That was the work as described there shortly. What has actually been done is that
trenches have been excavated to a certain grade, and in the centre of that trench an
excavation has been made about twelve inches square, and a wooden box, 8x8 in the clear, of
two-inch lumber has been placed down that central or sub-excavation. On the top of that eight-
inch box there have been a series on two planks placed on the top from end to end. On the top
of that two-inch plank platform there has been put a certain amount of concrete, the thickness
 of which varies from three inches in one place to nine inches in another. That surface has then
evidently been brought to grade, and on the top of that has been placed the eighth part of the
circumference of an eight or ten-inch pipe to form a glazed invert line. The main defects of
that is this, that the main sewer instead of resting upon virgin soil with an imperishable
foundation, is resting upon a springy, perishable and moving base.
Q.—What result will that have ?
The Court: I should think that if the dry rot catches this lumber the concrete will give
way ?
A.—Dry  or  wet rot;    concrete  being a  fragile  material,   and   very   brittle,  fractures
instantly and is irreparable.
Q.—And the result of fracture ?
A.—The liquid portions  of the excrete filters  through  into this box and  saturates the
surrounding soil.    And as a matter of fact there is a leak there now at the present time.
Q.—Does this illustrate what you have been saying (rough draft) ?
A.—That illustrates it exactly.    The crown  of the arch  is  of concrete, it  should have
been of specially made brick.
Q.—What difference does that make in the whole ?
A.—There, is this amount of difference.    It is considerably cheaper, and besides it is one
of the weakest pieces of work that could possible be put in.
The Court: Whereabouts is this ?
A.—Just beyond your house, my Lord.    Down Cook street.
The Court : Owing to the courtesy of the Corporation, which, I hope, won't influence my
mind in this enquiry, I have been allowed to go shooting on certain town lots there, and while
I have been shooting over these town lots my mind has been wandering over other things. I
have looked at the way they were making these sewers. I think this arch was made in brick.
Witness : Are you sure it was not a man-hole your Lordship was looking at ?
The Court: I was close to a man-hole; I believe it was the sewer I was looking at
though.
Q.—Is there any danger in this part of the work ?
A.—There is very great danger.    It is not virgin soil in one instance, it is very soft
material in the other.
Q.—For what purpose does that serve—that box drain ?
A.—It is a cheap method of draining the trenches during the execution of the work.    It
is to save pumping, though pumping is necessary even now.
Q.—And you say there are leakages now ?
A.—There are actual leakages at the present moment.
Q.—Can you mention the place ?
A.—Yes, sir.    If you will give me that plan I will show you.
Mr. Richards : That is where they have finished, is it not ?
A.—I don't know.    I haven't been there since I came back.
Q. (Mr. Bodwell)—What is the effect of leakages ?
A.—It means simply a wash. A wash or scour means a displacement of material, and
that means that the working of the whole system is going to be suspended.
Q. (Drawing No. 9 having been produced)—Is the work being constructed according to
that plan ?
A.—No, sir ; it is not.
Q.—What does that drawing say about draining ?
A.—To drain the trench on either side with eight-inch pipe.
Q.—Won't concrete work rest upon that ?
A.—As it is drawn there each pipe is intended to be a skew back to the arch of the drain.
It would not stand at all, under any circumstances.
The Court: The weight of the whole sewer rests on these two drains ?
A.-—Yes, my Lord.    And it is not built that way.
Q.—And could not be built that way?
A.—It could be built that way, but no man would be such an ass as to build it that way.
It would be simply crushed.
The Court: Whether it be the foundation on which these pipes rest or not, I don't know.
It is not a question for us. An engineer coming here terrifies Commissioners who know
nothing about it and persuades us that the foundations are perfectly good, while another
engineer will swear it is exactly the opposite.
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. cxiii.
A.—An engineer coming here will tell you that the Commissioners are endowed with a
good deal of common sense.
The Court:  In scientific matters you must not trust too much to common sense.
Q. (Mr. Bodwell)—You say that the work is not being constructed according to the
specifications ?
A.—Yes, sir. That (drawing) shows the way it is executed. That curve explains the
amount of depth between the invert pipe, and the top of the two-inch platform is extremely
exaggerated.
Q.—Did you make any measurements of the concrete there ?
A.—I don't think I did.
Q.—From memory, what do you think it is ?
A.—It varies from three to nine inches.
Q.—Now, Mr. Keene, what experience have you had in this sewer work ?
A.—I have had considerable experience in sewerage work. In the U. S.; in Croyden,
(Eng.) ; Brighton, (Eng.) ; and in Southern California (Los Angeles).
Q.—You were on the actual construction works ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—What position did you hold ?
A.—I was engineer.
Q.—In charge ?
A.—No, sir.    I was assistant.
Q.—Were they separate or combined schemes?
A.—Separate.    That system seems to be popular now.
Q.—How long have you been engaged in your profession ?
A.—Twenty-four years.
Q.—What institute were you a member of ?
A.—I was not a member of any institute     I was articled from the office of	
Q.—Did you have anything else to do with reference to sewerage contracts ?
A.—I was asked about the width of the trenches. In making up the estimates my
attention was drawn to the extreme width of the trenches at the top.
Q.—Can you speak with reference to any particular one ?
A.—In the case of the 12-inch pipe the trenches are described as 3 feet 3 inches in width.
Q.—Does that box drain make any difference in the cost of the contract to the contractor ?
A.—It would be a considerable saving to the contractor. It saves the moving of the
pumping station from one section to another, and enables him to pump out longer sections at a
time. As it is, I think they have only one pumping station with which they pump the whole
of these trenches dry at the same time. Otherwise it would require a station at every 800 or
1,000 feet.
Q.—Is this one of the original plans ?
A.—Yes, sir.
Plan No. 14 produced.
Q.—What do you say about that ?    Was this produced, in your opinion, to the tenderers ?
A.—It was, sir.
Mr. Mohun (Drawing No. 9) : That was the one produced to the tenderers.
Q.—Did you see that, Mr. Keene ?
A.—I did not see it.
Q.—You prepared a tender for Mr. Macdonald ?
A.—Yes.
Q. —In the course of that you had access to the plans ?
A.—Inspected them.
Q.—Did you see that plan, No. 9 ?
A.—I did iiot; I never saw that section before.
Q.—Did you see that section of the concrete sewer ?
A.—It was not like that, but was more like that (rough draft made by Keene). There is
no sub-drain there at all, my Lord. It has this defect; it must remain there when it has
served its purpose.
Q.—What does this plan, No. 14, show ?
A.—That was pinned up on the wall.
Q.—It does show the sub-drain ?
A.—No, it does not
 The Court (pointing to the plan): There are no bricks shown here at all in the crown ?
A.—I said that was in concrete, but it is described in brick.
Q.—Is that a plan of the works (No. 12) ?
A.—Yes, sir.
Q.—That one produced to the tenderers ?
A.—That is one I saw on the wall.
Q.—With reference to the trench widths, did that come under your notice in the course
of your work ?
A.—Yes, sir.
Q.—Take the 12-inch pipe, what do you think should be the proper width there ?
A.—It is described as 3 feet 3 inches. Two feet is ample for that at the top. On my
request Mr. Macdonald sent his foreman to the City Hall to make enquiries.
Q.—Before you state that, what effect would that have on the tenderers to have to
excavate these trenches wider than was necessary ?
A.—It would make a considerable difference.
Q.—Can you state whether that is general ?
A.—Generally they are wider than is necessary or requisite.
Q.—Have you made any calculation as to how much difference it would make to the
tenderer if the excavations were taken out according to the bills of quantities, or if the
contractor were allowed to use his own judgment ?
A.—I should think it would make in the cost of the excavations throughout a good third
difference.
Q.—In consequence of what you read in these bills of quantities, did you cause any
enquiries to be made ?
A.—I did.
Q.—Where did you have these enquiries made—at what place ?
A.—I requested Mr. Macdonald to go to the City Hall and make enquiries there in the
Engineer's office.
Q.—In consequence of that what did you do ?
A.— We simply priced the bills of quantities as printed, and did not discount them as we
should have done.
Q.—You have stated that these widths were unnecessarily wide ?
A.—Yes, sir.
Q.—Can you, from your own knowledge, state anything with reference to the manner in
which this work is being carried out ?
A.—In all the trenches I have seen the excavation is less in width than described in the
bills of quantities.
Q.—Have you measured any ?
A.—I have only measured one. That is on Blanchard street, the street I live on. The
trench there is described as 3 feet 3 inches wide ; it is only 2 feet 3 inches.
The Court here rose for lunch.
On re-assembling, Mr. Richards, cross-examining : Did you make any plans of this work
for the city ?
A.—No, sir.
Q.—Did you make no plans at any time ?
A.—I made a set of plans for sewerage of the City of Victoria under competition ?
Q.—Were your plans accepted ?
A.—No, they were not accepted, sir.
Q.—Who else competed with you ?
A.—There were four or five other engineers competed.
Q.—Whose were accepted ?
A.—Mr. Mohun's were accepted after certain alterations and additions were made to
them from my designs.
Q.—You have a suit pending against the city ?
A.—Yes, sir.    I think one coming off next month.
Q.—You spoke of the bottom of the sewer here. I suppose that that is now all
completed ?
A.—That I could not say.
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. cxv.
Q.—Shall any good result from exposing this matter, if exposure it is, because it cannot
be remedied ?
A.—The good in bringing the matter forward now is this. Supposing in five or six years
time (if it runs that length of time) that sewer collapses, or is thrown out of shape by reason
of fractures, that sewer will fail to deliver any sewage that may be delivered into it by the
subsidiary mains.    Then you will be in a horrible mess.
Q.—You don't think the Corporation will go to work and tear up all that work now ?
A.—I don't ask them to do it.
Q.—You originated—this is your charge ?
A.—No, sir.
Q.—You gave the information to my learned friend here which enabled him to bring
forward this fresh charge ?
A.—I gave the information in answer to certain questions that were asked of me. My
opinion was asked about it and I gave it.
Q.—Why didn't you let the matter drop ? "Mr. Mohun and I were rivals in this matter,
and you had better let the matter drop now that no good can result." You didn't answer in
that way ?
A.—No sir.    On the contrary, I answered in another way.
Q.—And in consequence of what you did say you have been brought here as a witness ?
A.—Yes, sir.
Q.—What do you say now, as an engineer, the Corporation should do ?
A.—Tear it all out and put it in properly; cheapest in the end.
Q.—You think that would be cheaper than letting it go on ?
A.—Yes, I do.
Q.— Whereabouts is this leakage that you refer to?
A.—If you will allow me Mr. Mohun's blue print I will be able to show you. I will tell
you this one little incident that happened. One Saturday afternoon Mr. Stamford, of the firm
of Braden & Stamford, and I were taking a walk along the sewerage works; as we walked
along there was a small amount of water in the invert of the sewer.
Q.—Where was this, at what part of the works ?
A.—We were down beyond the flat where Mr. Drake lives.
The Court: Between Cook and Moss streets ?
A.—Yes, my Lord. We stood there, and picking up a few leaves threw them into the
water so as to get some idea as to what velocity the water had. We went on some little
distance chaffing about it, when Mr. Stamford said :—" What is the matter here?" I said :—
" It is a leak." The water was running very gradually indeed towards Clover Point outfall.
There were then four or five yards of the sewer perfectly dry, yet the water was flowing. We
stayed there and watched, and it wandered towards the leak. He said I will put my knife into
it, and he put his knife into that joint there and stuck it into the wood work. As we looked
up we saw your Lordship in the distance, and Mr. Stamford said :—" There is Sir Matthew
Baillie Begbie. I will call him over and show it to him." I said :—" Please don't do anything
of the kind. I have an action coming before His Lordship, and I should not like it to be
thought that I was taking this method of drawing his attention to it."
Mr. Richards : I would like to know exactly where you found this leak ? Was it on Cook
street ?
A.—In that tangent that runs between Moss street and Cook street.
Q.—Have you made any test to see how thick the cement is there ?
A.—I have measured it.
Q.—Where ?
A.—At that tangent.
Q.—How did you get down ?
A.—I got down in the trench as they went along with it. I simply, out of curiosity,
measured it.
Q.—When was this ?
A.—That was some time  past, I think it was in September.
Q.—You immediately came to the conclusion that this was wrong?
A.—I can't say.    I think it was a mistake, an error of judgment,
Q.—You thought it an error of judgment then ?
A-—Certainly, sir.
 cxvi. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
Q.-—Did you write any letters to the newspapers ?
A.--Oh, dear—no, sir.
Q.—Did you call the attention of the Sewerage Commissioners to the fact ?
A.—No, sir.    I was never asked about it, and I had no interest in the matter.
Q.—Yet you say it was an error, a serious error ? And you said nothing about it to
anyone ?
A.—I wasn't interested in giving information.
Q.—I suppose it was necessary to have some kind of a trench there in constructing this
sewer ?
A.—Certainly.
Q.—It could not be done without taking the water out ?
A.—Impossible.
Q.—I suppose now that the sewer is finished this drain is filled up with earth ? Is it not
left hollow ?
A.—I should very much doubt whether they would be able to fill it up.
Q.—You can't say whether it is filled or not ?
A.—No, sir.     I haven't seen it since then.
Q.—You can't tell whether they left it open or filled ?
A.—No, sir.
Q.—What kind of a trench did the plan show that you looked at when you were tendering
for Macdonald ?
A.—I didn't see any provision made in the plans anywhere.    It was in the specifications.
Q.—This plan here (No. 9) shows a pipe on each side ?
A.—Yes, sir.
Q.—Did you think that would answer ?
A.—That plan is full of defects and could not stand.
Q.—How would you get rid of the water in construction ?
A.—By constructing a drain at intervals vertically up the sides of the trench and passing
the water up by that means.
Q.—It would be cheaper to dig a little hole in that way into the clay than constructing
this sub-drain ?
A.—It is not the cost of that. It is the cost of moving your pumping station along the
whole line of your sewer from one point to another. By the sub-drain you can do it all at one
time and by means of one pumping station.
Q.—You have spoken about certain portions being made in cement that should have been
made in brick.    Can you give a statement of the number of feet made in cement ?
A.—No, I cannot, sir.    I didn't measure it.
Q.—One would suppose that, coming here as an engineer, you would be able to furnish
clear and undoubted evidence of what you say, and yet you say you have made no
measurements ?
A.—I have made no measurements, except the inverts. But it is very difficult to make
connections with a concrete sewer, while it is very easy to make connection with a brick
sewer.    You can't alter or handle concrete.    Once it is set it is down for ever till it breaks.
Q.—Where do you make this connection, at the top or the sides ?
A.—On the sides. It would strike the concrete anywhere, because the brick does not
commence until you get half-way up the sides.
Q.—Did you discover a leakage in any other place than the one you mentioned ?
A.—No, sir.    We didn't look for them.
Q.—Was there a fall towards the outlet ?
A.—I didn't see what fall there was.
Q.—Was there enough to carry the water off?
A.—There was enough to carry a leaf along with it a few yards till it came to a dry place.
In one or two instances we found places where instead of the leaves going towards Clover Point
they went towards the city of Victoria.
Q.—What was that due to—the wind ?
A.—A leaf is not likely to be affected by the wind at the bottom of a sewer.
Q.—You say you saw the water running towards the city ?
A.—Yes, sir ; we found two places where leaves ran the other way. It was more for
amusement than anything else that we did it.
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. cxvii.
Q.—The wind might move the leaf ?
A.—No, sir. In sailing, I admit you can sail against the tide, but when you put a leaf
or any such light substance in the water it generally goes with the water—the way it flows.
Q.—A leaf never sinks.    If you put a stick  in,  for instance,  it sinks down and is not
influenced by the wind, but a leaf will rise and will be influenced by the wind independent of
the water altogether.    Can you point out a place ?    Because  this  is  very  damaging evidence
you have been giving regarding Mr. M'ohun's engineering ?
•    A.—Very likely.
Q.—Go down Cook street—was it on Cook street ?
Mr. Bodwell:    If you will produce the ground plan we will point out the place to you.
The Court:   I suppose this place where you found this leak is all covered up now ?
A.—Yes, my Lord.
Q.—Was it near Cook street?
A.—Yes, nearer Cook than Moss street.
Q —What time of the year was this ?
A.—About September.
Q.—Before the rains commenced ?
A.—Yes, sir.
Q.—Was there any water lying at the bottom of the ditch ?
A.—At the bottom of the ditch—no.    In the box drain—yes.
Q.—Was there any water in the sewer itself?
A.—Yes.
Q.—How did that water get in ?
A.—From the upper cuts.
Q.—What do you mean by the upper cuts ?
A.—From the leakage in the sides of the sewer itself.
Q.—Where was this ?
A-—In the same tangent.
Q.—You say the water in there was from the leak in the sides ? Then there was water
from the earth running in ?
A.—That whole district is saturated earth. It may have been that the water was put in
there on purpose. I should not. be at all surprised, because the sewer was dammed across with
sand bags at the invert, and at several other places.
Q.—How near where you saw the water—which way were they working—from the sea
up, or from the city down ?
A.—Do you mean which way were they constructing the sewer ?
Q.—Yes.
A.—They were constructing it all along the line. (Ground plan in question having been
produced.) Now I will show you that tangent. It was just about there that we made our
examination.
Q.—And you saw the leakage—the water running in and running out into the box drain ?
A.—No, sir. It is impossible for a man to see water running out of a sewer into an 8x8
box drain underneath.
Q.—Where did you see the water running out?
A.—At this tangent. Just about here. That is where the water that was in the invert
passed from the sewer into the 8x8 box drain underneath or into the earth beside it.
Q.—You say several of the trenches are being excavated too wide ?
A.—Yes, sir.
Q.—And you say there is a loss there ?
A —Yes, sir.    A distinct loss.
Q. —In what way, now ?
A.—Simply because they described the trench to be 3 feet 3 inches wide when 2 feet were
ample.
The Court: You say that that makes a difference or increase in the amount of the
estimate ?
A.—It does, because the contractor will figure supposing these trenches to be 3 feet 3
inches wide.
Q.—You don't suppose a contractor would make a trench any wider than was necessary
to get the pipe in?
 cxviii. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
A.—If contractors presume that to excavate their trenches two feet wide would be amply
sufficient to put their pipes in, yet if they are informed that they would have a deduction made
from their contract price of the difference between two feet and three feet three, they would
figure on taking out the whole three feet three inches.
Q.—That is in the contract now ?
A.—It is in the contract.
Q.—Is there anything in the contract which says this ?
A.—These men came to me and said, " Is it necessary that these trenches should be three
feet three inches wide ? "    I said no; but go to the City Hall and ask.
Q.—There is no use in saying what the contractors said.
A.—Read the specifications then.    (Clause 12, page 5, Sewer specifications.)
The Court: That is a fair enough stipulation, if it is adhered to. The contractor is to
tender for the full amount called for, and he is liable to a deduction for every diminution in
the course of the execution of that work.
Witness : It is because he will not be required to refund the money that I am here,
my Lord.
Mr. Bodwell : The point that we make on this is that some of the contractors were not
fully informed that they were to tender on that basis, and the result was that they put in
their tenders on the supposition that the whole of this excavation was to be taken out. The
consequence is that their tender was $50,000 or $100,000 more than that of the contractor
who is now carrying on the the work.
The Court : Mr. Mohun gives evidence as an engineer that he is not prepared to make
the trenches any wider than is necessary. The fact of the matter is, it is a hardship on the
persons tendering. It is a hardship on the ratepayers, for they ought to get a return from
the contractor for the work he is not doing.
Q.—How is the contractor paid, in proportion to the width of the ditch ?
A.—How can I tell, sir ?
Q.—Have you seen the contract ?
A.—Yes, sir.
Q.—If it is stated in the specifications that the contractor shall make the ditch three feet,
and he only makes it two and gets the pipe in, is there any loss between the city and the
contractor ?
A.—It is a fraud on the ratepayers.
Q.__Who loses ?
A.—The contractor gains ; the ratepayers lose.
Q.—Do you know if the amount is paid for three feet or two ?
A.—I can only say, if your engineer's evidence is reliable, that the contractor is paid for
the lineal foot, and not by cubical contents.
Mr. Bodwell : You were asked whether or not you put in certain plans for the sewerage
of the city, and whether these plans were adopted or rejected, and I understood you to say
that they were rejected, but that certain alterations were taken from your plans, and	
The Court : Is not that a matter that is a subject of litigation now ? As I understand
it, Mr. Keene has some question in dispute.
Mr. Bodwell : Well, we'll leave that alone now. My learned friend opened the question,
but perhaps we had better leave it.
To witness—Did your plans have any reference to the utilization of the Johnson street
sewer ?
A.—They adopted it and carried it out to Clover Point.
A.—Do you know whether or not the present plans include that ?
A.—It does not, so far as I know.    It did not as accepted by the Corporation.
Mr. Richards : You said your plans utilized the Johnson street sewer. That is very
low, isn't it.    How can you have any elevation so as to get the fall ?
A.—My plans show a good fall, still utilizing that.
Q.—And still have a good fall ?
A.—And still have a good fall down to Clover Point.
Q.—How much above the water level is it there where you take it?
A.—I couldn't tell you from memory now.
Q.—You must have measured it to see ?
A.—Certainly I measured it.
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. cxix.
Q.—And there Was ample fall from there, Wharf street, out there ? How far is it, three
tniles ?
A.—No, sir, I think it is two.
Q.—And you Would have the fall in these two miles necessary for sewerage purposes ?
As they are not using the Johnson street sewer now have they a great deal more outfall.
A.—I say no, sir.    Considerably less.
Q.—What is this Mr. Herring says about there being only four thousand feet from the
wat	
A.—That is like a good many other idiotic things he said in that report.
Q.—Who is this man ?
A.—-He is a Rudolph Herring, of New York.
Q.—A man of any celebrity ?
A.—I don't know.    To read his report I should say not.
Q.—He condemned your scheme?
A.—Yes, sir, and stole my grades.
Q.—You say you have to start the grade pretty low there, and you would be still lower
when you got out to the sea ?
A.—The depths that you are now cutting into are the same as I had in my original designs.
The only difference is that you put in your designs to elevate your mains so as to drain no
one's cellars ; but when the new Council came into power they ordered you to drop your mains
at a cost of $60,000 more. The main objection to my main was the cost. I had my outfall
three feet below low water, embedded in a reservoir which was so regulated as to be automatic,
and prevent the tide coming in anywhere, by means of gates that would shut at low tide—one
thing Mr. Herring seemed to overlook or utterly ignore.
Q.—What do you mean by an automatic reservoir ; the water runs into the sewer at
high tide and remains there ?
A.—Oh,  dear, no.    The sewage runs in there, and when the tide comes in the gates are,.
closed.    When the tide goes out the gates open and the sewage runs out with it.    This reservoir is some 150 feet in length, 6 feet wide and 18 feet high.
Q.—Suppose that was not large enough to hold the sewerage and the tide was high, would
not the sewerage be forced back into the pipes ?
A.—There was ample provision for 150,000 inhabitants.
Q.—According to Mr. Mohun's scheme you can't utilize the Johnson street sewer ?
A.—I don't know.
Q.—He says he can't.
A.—I' don't know the altitudes. He had no fall at all until they stole it from my
drawings. Their grade was one in 2,500, but instead of taking that they took mine, whicli
was one in 1,112, and made it one in 1,111.
Mr.  Adams,  called by Mr. Bodwell.    (Sworn):—
Q.—Your full name is ?
A.—Frederick Adams.
Q.—Your occupation ?
A.—General contractor I was brought up. I have been foreman for Mr. Macdonald
for a long time.
Q.—Mr. Macdonald is a contractor?
A.—Yes, sir.
Q.—Were you foreman for Mr. Macdonald at the time tenders for the sewerage of the
city of Victoria were called for ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Did you assist him to make up his tender ?
A.—Yes, sir.
Q.—Have you had experience in sewerage works?
A.—Yes, sir.
Q.—As a contractor ?
A.—Contracting, inspector, and general workman.
Q.—For how long ?
A.—Off and on about thirty years.
Q.—Did you look over the bills of quantities that were attached to the form of tender ?
A,—Yes.
 cxx. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
Q.—Did you notice the excavation required for the ditches ?
A.—I did.
Q.—Did you form any opinion as a contractor ?
A.—I formed the opinion that it was extremely wide for the trenches.
Q. —In consequence of that did you do anything ?
A.—Yes. I asked the clerk in the City Hall, in the engineer's office, if it was necessary
to carry them out to that width, and he said that the work would have to be carried out
according to the specifications, and if it was not carried out a deduction would have to be
made for the work not done.
Q.—What difference would that make with reference to the tender?
A.—It would make a trifle over one-third.
Q.—Do you know what Mr. Macdonald's tender was ?
A.—I do not, from memory.
Q.—If you hadn't received that information at the'engineer's office, and you had been
told that you could take the trenches to any width you liked, so long as you got the pipes in,
what difference did you say that would make in the amount of the tender ?
A.—Fully one-third.
Q.—So that Mr. Macdonald's contract would have been reduced one-third ?
A—Yes.
Q.—Did you have any conversation with anyone else on this subject ?
A.—No, sir ; only with Mr. Macdonald.
Q.—Have you examined any of this work that has been done ?
A.—No, sir.    I never bothered about it after.    It didn't concern me.
Mr. Macdonald, called by Mr. Bodwell.    (Sworn).
Q.—Your full name is ?
A.—Hugh Macdonald.
Q.—Occupation ?
A. —Contractor.
Q.—Did you tender for the city sewerage ?
A.—I did.
Q.—Did you have, before you tendered, the bills of quantities prepared by the engineer ?
A.—I did.
Q.—Did you form any opinion of the width of the trenches specified ?
A.—I did.
Q.—In consequence of that did you see anyone or have any conversation about it ?
A.—I spoke to one or two parties about it, and went to see the sewerage commissioners.
I had an appointment with Mr. Earle and Mr. Turner. I met them in Mr. Earle's office, and
I drew their attention to these unnecessarily wide trenches, and asked them if I made my
calculations on a less quantity than specified in the bills, would it be deducted off my contract ?
They said I would have to see Mr. Mohun about that, but they thought it would surely be
taken off the contract. I consequently made my calculations on the width called for in the
bottom of the trench.
Q.—What difference did that make in your price ?
A.—On that portion it would make a good third.
Q.—Would that make the whole of your contract price one-third less ?
A.—No. Because there are other portions of the contract that it would have no reference to at all.
Q.—Are you in a position to state what reductions it would make in the lump sum on
the excavations ?
A.—No, I could not.
Q.—Did you have any conversation with Mr. Mohun on the subject ?
A.—No, I didn't.    I was in the office looking at the plans.
Q.—Did you look at the plans and specifications here shown ?
A.—Yes, I did.
Q,—Can you tell us whether or not the egg-shaped sewer was shown on the drawing that
you saw in this shape ?
A.—I have no recollection of that shape.
Q.—Did you see that one?    (Plan 14).
A.—Yes, that is the one.    If I am not mistaken, it was nailed on the wall.
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality.
John Elford, called by Mr. Bodwell.    (Sworn).
Q.—What is your occupation, Mr. Elford ?
A.—Builder and contractor.
Q.—Did you have anything to do with the contract for the sewer works here ?
A.—Yes.    We put in a bid on that.
Q.—Did you see anyone with reference to the width of the trenches ?
A.—We saw Mr. Mohun. In going through the specifications we saw that the trenches
were unusually wide, and we thought we would have a talk with him about it, and see whether
it was to be carried out to the full width. I think we saw Mr. Earle, and he said he could
not tell us anything about it, but that we had better see Mr. Mohun himself. We went to
the City Hall and put the question to Mr. Mohun. He said the trenches would have to be
carried out according to the specifications. We said we thought that was all right; we wanted
to figure accordingly.
Q.—How much reduction would that have made in your tenders?
A.—I couldn't tell you, because we wanted the information before we tendered.
Q.—Did you inform Mr. Mohun that you were about to tender?
A.—No, we did'nt tell him ; but I suppose he had an idea what we were after.
Mr. W. J. Smith.    Examined by Mr. Bodwell :
Q.—Your occupation is ?
A.—Contractor.
Q.—Did you put in a bid on the sewerage works ?
A.—We did.    Mr. Elford and I.
Q.—You are a partner of Mr. Elford.    Well ?
A.—Well, we got a copy of the specifications, and we found that the trenches were a great
deal wider than was necessary. We went to Mr. Mohun and asked him if these widths were
to be carried out. He said the specifications and quantities would have to be carried out, or if
not a deduction would have to be made on the work that was not done.
Mr.  Richards :    How did you tender?
A.—We tendered on the quantities and specifications. We knew that if we didn't take
out what was stated there would be a deduction. That is what I understood from the specifications.
Q.—What harm is done ? You tendered a large sum to take out certain quantities, and
if a narrower ditch would answer there would be so much taken off the tender ?
A.—Yes.
Q._Well ?
A.—We figured so much per foot running, or the width of these trenches as specified in
the specifications.
Q.—You would not lose anything if you did not take out that quantity ?
A.—That all depends. If a man carries these trenches a good deal narrower and the
amount is not deducted he gets a good deal of advantage.
Q.—You understood that there would be a deduction for all the work that was not done ?
Why didn't you tender as low as the man who got the work ?
A.—He may have got some other information.    Has this reduction been made ?
Q.—Do you know that it has not ?
A.—I am just asking has it?
The Court: As a matter of fact, do you know if the trenches have been dug less than the
specifications call for ?
A.—No, I have never measured them.
The Court: As a matter of fact, in the trenches that are covered in is it possible to
measure the deficiency of the cubical contents ?
A.—No, I don't think it is.
Mr. Macdonald.    Recalled by Mr. Bodwell:
Q.—Have you measured any of these ditches to know whether or not they have been
carried out to the width of the specifications ?
A.—I measured two or three in different streets, and I find that the ditch is not at all
what is called for at the bottom.
 cxxii. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
Q.—What trenches did you measure ?
A.—I measured one on Blanchard street,  one on Store street, and one on Chatham street.
Q.—Do you know what size pipe was on Blanchard street ?
A.—I could not tell for sure.
Q.—What did you discover on Blanchard street—what  was  the result  of your measurements ?
A.—Two feet and a half on the surface.
Q.—Did you measure at the bottom ?
A.—No.
Q.—And Store street—what did you find ?
A.—Three and a half at the top.
Q.—What was the other street ?
A.—Chatham street.
Q.—Now, on Chatham street what did you measure ?
A.—Three and a half at the top.
Mr. Bodwell:    Store street calls for a four foot trench, and I think Chatham street is an
18-inch pipe, and calls for a three foot nine at the bottom.
Mr. Richards :    When did you measure these ditches ?
A.—I measured them two or three different times.
Q.—Are you in the employ of the city ?
A.—No, sir.    I only done it to satisfy my own curiosity.
Q.—You felt a little annoyed you didn't get the contract?
A.—No; I am never annoyed if I am beaten on the square.    It was to satisfy myself if
it was taken out to the width that was called for that I measured the trenches.
Q.—When you found this out why didn't you go to Mr. Mohun and tell him ?
A.—It was none of my business.
Q.—It was none of your business to go and measure, was it ?
A.—That was my privilege as a ratepayer.
Q.—You didn't feel sore you didn't get the contract ?
A.—Oh, no.    There was two or three below me ; I wasn't next to the lowest?
Q.—You were up pretty high ?
A—There was only two or three below me.
Q.—You have done a good deal of work contracting ?
A.—Yes.
Q._Where ?
A.—From the Atlantic to the Pacific.
' Q.—Did you have anything to do with the Roman Catholic Church ?
A.—No.
Q.—You are not that Macdonald ?
A.—No, sir.
T.  F. Sinclair, called by Mr. Bodwell :-
Q.—Your full name is-
A.—Temple Frederick Sinclair.
Q.—Occupation ?
A.—Contractor.
Q.—Did you tender on the sewerage works for the city of Victoria ?
A—I did.
Q.—Was your attention called in the bills of quantities to the widths that were specified
for these trenches ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Did you notice anything particular ?
A.—Certainly, I did.
Q.—In consequence of that, did you see anyone, or have any conversation with anyone
about it ?
A.—I looked over the specifications and the pipe that was to be laid in these drains, and
I asked the engineer if that width was necessary. He said the specifications were to be
carried out,
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. cxxiii.
Q.—Did he say anything more ?
A—No.
Q.—Did you inform him that you were a contractor, or did he have any reason to know
that ?
A.—I daresay he had reason to know it.
Mr. Richards: I suppose you knew from the specifications that a certain quantity of work
was to be done, and if that was not done there would be a deduction made ?
A.—Yes, I suppose so.
Q.—How much was your tender ?
A.—My tender was pretty high.
Q.—How much above the others ?
A.—I don't know.
Q.—How much did yours amount to ?
A—$400,000.
Q.—And McBean's tender?
A.—I don't know, but much below that.
Q.—How many thousand?
A.—Something like $150,000 below mine.
Q.—You don't think you have any ground for complaint that you did not get it ?
A.—No, I don't know probably that I had.
Mr. Richards to Mr. Bodwell:    Have you any more disappointed contractors or engineers ?
Mr. Bodwell :    You may have a disappointed engineer before we have done with you yet.
The Court, on rising, stood adjourned till Monday morning, January 4th, 1892.
Monday, January 4th, 1892.
The Commissioners took their seats at 12 o'clock, noon.
Mr. Bass, who had from the commencement been reporting the sittings of the Court, was
unable to attend, and his place was taken by a stranger, who late in the day said he could not
report the witnesses.    The following is a transcript of what was reported :—
J. L. Stamford called.    Examined by Mr. Bodwell:
Q.—What is your full name ?
A.—James Leonard Stamford.
Q.—You live in Victoria ?
A.—Yes, sir.
Q.—Your business,—Plumbing ?
A.—Yes, sir.
Q.—You know the position of the concrete sewer and the present sewerage works being
constructed in the city ?
A.—Part of it.
Q.—Have you at any time made any personal observation as to the state of that sewer?
A.—One Saturday afternoon I was past it.
Q.—Will you tell the Commissioners what you observed ?    Where did you commence ?
A.—At this end of Cook street, and went along Cook as far as Clover Point.
Court.—Then you followed the sewer all along ?    About what Saturday would it be ?
A.—It would be about two months ago.
Q.—Will you state what you saw ?
A.—The only thing that struck me was that there were man-holes left open in the lower
part of Cook street, and I saw water running down. Going a little further, the bottom of the
sewer was dry.
Q.—For what distance was it dry ?    Did this excite your curiosity ?
A.—I naturally wondered where the water was going to, and saw that it was leaking
through ; where it went I do not know.
Q.—Did you make an examination ?
A.—I took my pen-knife and put it into the concrete where the water was leaking through.
(Pen-knife produced.)
 cxxiv. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
Court :    What do you mean by quite a way down ?
A.—About two and a half inches.    That was the only place I tried it.
Q.—Did you see anything else worthy of note ?
A.—I did not try to find fault. When we got a little further on it seemed to me that the
water was running in the wrong direction.    It may have been a sag in the sewer,
Q.—Did you look for any reason for the water running the wrong way ?
A.—I went down and found there was a ditch, as far as I could judge.
The Court:    The sag was the only apparent reason for the water running that way ?
A.—That was all I could see. I did not go out to criticise the sewer. I was out for a
walk.
Q.—Did you come to the conclusion that there was anything wrong 1
A.—The sewer was not filled up then and the earth was not thrown in. Man-holes were
left at certain points all the way down Cook street. These man-holes were pieces of earth left
out, I do not know for what purpose.
Q.—How far apart were these openings?
A.— I should judge about fifty feet; large enough for a man to go in. After I left Cook
street I did not see into the sewer until I got to Clover Point. It was open at the outlet, and
I do not think the sewer was in there.
M r. Richards, cross-examining :
Q.—Was the water you speak of all along Cook street ? At the first hole the water was
running in its proper course. At the third one you saw the water disappearing. When you
put your knife in did you find anything hard ?    Did you come to any wood ?
A.—I suppose that could have been mended when they came to close up this hole, and it
might have happened through the holes being left open while they were going on with the work.
Q.—Did you come back to see what became of the water ?
A.—I was not sufficiently interested to find that out.    This was all on Moss street.
The Court : The sewer was all covered up except at these man-holes, and if you had
wanted to see where the water was running you would have had to go along the sewer, which
you did not want to do ?
A.—Yes.    It was not my business to look into such affairs.
Q.—Are you sure about the holes being fifty feet apart ?
A.—The openings were about four or five feet in width, and at intervals of about fifty feet.
Q.—At what time was this ?
A.—On Saturday afternoon, between three and four.
Q.—In what month ?
A.—I do not remember.     I think it was about two months ago.
Mr. Bodwell: I have no more witnesses to call. There is one thing that strikes me—that
is, that there are two causes of danger to the sewer on the evidence given : the danger of the
box drain giving way, and the danger of the soil from either side giving way. If there is any
doubt upon that question, it appears to me that it would be a proper thing to have the Commissioners make inquiry.
The Court: I do not think the Commissioners' power extends to that. We shall give an
opinion. What we can do is to report what is the result of the evidence before us, and leave
the authorities to take such steps as they think fit.
Mr. Bodwell: I think it would be useful, and I should like to give some evidence on
that point, but I am not in a position to do this at present. The specifications seem to have
been changed and I want to know by whom.
The Court:    I presume the Corporation can explain.
Mr. Mohun called.    Examined by Mr. Richards.
Q.—Have you the plans upon which the tenders were made? This is the plan which was
put up on the wall?
A.—These are the original plans upon which the contractor tendered. I proposed to drain
the swamp and keep that section of the land dry. The Corporation would not consent to that.
There was no use putting them in part of the way. The specification says that the contractor
will have to put this in if he is called upon to do it.
Q.—Would he be paid any more for that ?
A.—Yes.    At schedule rates.
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. cxxv
Q.—Did the plan, which you sanctioned up to the time of the plans going out contain
anything about a box drain ?
A.—I did substitute a box drain. I had power to alter, which it was absolutely necessary
that I have.    There is a clause, No. 12, with reference to the subsoil drain.
Q.—Was the contractor to supply the material ?
A.—Not the pipes. The pipes are supplied specially by the Corporation. They did not
think they could bear the necessary cost of putting it through this subsoil. It would have to be
carried between three and four thousand feet further than this wooden one. The whole of that
piece of ground and every piece of timber is saturated with water from one year's end to another.
Q.—Your theory is that the bottom of the concrete trench is always under water and that
the whole of the timber on the outside is under water?
A.—The greater part of it all the time. This September there was a lot of water in it.
It was built in July and August, and we had to pump to keep the place dry.
Q.—Is there any of this wooden drain on Moss street ?
A.—There is a piece laid to carry the water off, and as a consequenee we have to make
the bottom of the sewer much deeper. 1 do not know the distance; about a couple of hundred
feet.
Q.—Why did you put wood in ?
A.—I did not require pipe ; it would have been a waste to use it. The Council declined
to incur the expense.
Q.—As you read it, the expense of purchasing this pipe had to be paid by the city and not
by the contractor. You say the Council refused to incur the expense, and you did the next
best, sanctioned the wood.
A.—It was necessary that the water should be drained away. It was drained to manholes and pumped out,
(Plan showing section of wooden drain produced.)
Q.—That was put in first, and the water pumped out and the drain made dry.
A.—The box was put in 100 feet in advance of the concrete. Probably 100 feet in
advance.
Q.—Where was one of the pumping stations ?
A.—At the corner of Moss and Snowden streets.
Q.—Did that take the water from all of Moss street ?
A.—-We had to begin to work on Moss street and work across, pumping as we went.
Q.—What is the size of the wooden drain ; that is, inside.
A.—Six inches deep and eight inches wide.    Not 8 x 8 as was stated.
Q.—What is the thickness of the plank ?
A.—Two inches.
Q.—What was the nature of the soil ?
A.—There was some clay, some sand.
Q.—A good deal of sand ; there was more sand than clay ? A dangerous soil ? It had to
be close timbered up ?
A.—It was not safe to leave more than two feet of the soil without timber.
Q.—What excavating was there for this box drain ? Anything more than to admit the
outlet sewer?
A.—Yes, sir.
Q.—What is the inside measure ?
A Three feet ten inches; four inches more for timbers make four feet two inches.
Q.—When was this timber put in 1
A.—When they got the bottom done.    To guard this they laid the box drain in the centre.
Q.—Was there a mould over it ?
A.—The bottom was first laid.
Q.—But there were lumps of concrete laid on the top of the timber ?
A.—On top of the drain.
Q.—Was each of these lumps well rammed as they were put in ?
A.—Yes.    I could not say how many lumps.
The Court:   How deep was that bed of concrete ?
A.—Nine inches.    I rather think it would exceed that.
Q.—What was the specification ?
A.—Nine inches in the bottom. When the channel pipe was being laid the mould was
put in, and then the concrete at the sides, and rammed in.
 cxxvi. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
Q.—What was the concrete made of ?
A.—Five to one. After the concrete was laid a sufficient length of time to settle hard,
the mould was removed and the top covered with grout—a very strong cement. This was to
fill up any cracks and finish off the surface. This was allowed to stand for some time before
we put any earth on it, so that we could be able to detect if there were any cracks on the
outside.
Q.—What was the width of the concrete?
A.—Nine inches. Until the whole thing was finished we had wood in; then it was
removed piecemeal.
Q.—After this was hardened was there any danger of it cracking ? The charge made was
that the wood was giving way and the sewerage was going to run out into the soil. Is there
any danger of that happening?    Suppose the wood in the bottom were to rot ?
A.—It cannot. When the concrete hardens it is almost sufficient to hold up if twenty
feet were taken out and it left suspended. I do not think it would do any harm if the wood
in the bottom were to rot.
Q.—You have heard what was said about leaking ?
A.—I saw the crack on Cook street. We filled it up with concrete. It was vertical from
the top.
Q.—How do you account for the water running in the wrong way?
A.—I can only account for it by saying that the man does not know what he is talking
about. Water was pumped into the sewer to protect it from the sun. If a man came along
then he would see it running in the wrong way.
Q.—Is there much of a fall there ?
A.—About one foot in each 200.
Q.—It is said that your ditches or trenches where you put the pipes are unnecessarily wide ?
A.—It is not the case.
Q.—Did you widen the ditch in any way, and would the ramming of the pipe move and
crack it ?
A.—If I find a cracked pipe the contractor has to take it up and replace it, if he rammed
it a little more on one side than on the other. Every pipe is tested. (Exhibit " 7 " produced.)
I think it was stated that the widths called for were four feet eight inches and two feet ten
inches.    The thickness of the walls was nine inches on both sides.
The Court: That is the main sewer. The only complaint about the trenches was the
pipes.
Mr. Richards :    I think this evidence had reference to laying the pipe through the street.
A.—When I drew out the specifications I had to guess what space would be used.
(Measurements here given which were to be handed in afterwards). In the eight inch pipe we
found the actual width taken out.
Mr. Bodwell: I wish to know if Mr. Mohun is speaking from his own knowledge ?
A.—I am speaking from knowledge. Down on Cook street it requires two platforms on
each side of the trench. Each of these platforms is two feet wide. One man throws the earth
on to one of the platforms and another throws it up to the top. There must have been five
feet taken off in some places instead of four. In a great many cases there were no openings
and a tunnel was made under crossings, which was a great convenience to the City.
Mr. Richards : What was the ditch for a small pipe ?
A.—A nine inch pipe calls for two feet nine inches at the junction ; an eight inch pipe
for two feet six inches. That is, supposing the sides of the trench are exactly parallel with
the street.
The Court: It is absolutely necessary to be observed that the width is as called for, and
that every pipe is tested, and if not right, taken up and relaid.
Mr. Richards : It appears that some of the unsuccessful contractors	
Mr. Bodwell objected : They were not making complaints.
Mr. Richards : Did you hear these men making complaints ?
A.—I have been asked whether the specifications have to be carried out. No one will
receive any other answer than that the specifications must be carried out,
The Court : My impression is that there are cases where the specifications called for a
certain amount of work which was to be subtracted from the contractors' pay.
Mr. Bodwell here read clause 12, and Mr. Mohun read clause 5.
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. cxxvii.
The Court: An alteration does not mean that some of the work is to be omitted. The
specifications call for a ditch three feet wide and ten feet deep. The allegation is that some
have been only two feet wide.
Mr. Richards : On the average I should think that the contractor has received less than
he should have if each ditch had been cut exactly to the width.
The Commission then adjourned for lunch.
Mr. Richards :—Did you hear this gentleman say the other day that it would be difficult,
almost impossible, to make junctions with some of these drains ?
A.—He said it would be difficult where there were curved junctions in the wall at the
time the concrete was being constructed.
Mr. Richards : Can you point out to the Court what these junctions are?
[Plans here handed to the Court by Mr. Mohun].
The Court: Are these laid through the concrete at the time the concrete is applied ?
A.—Yes, sir.
The Court: Then all you have to do is to effect a junction with these pipes ? It would be
a very difficult matter to effect a junction from the houses, but you have made provision for
this by putting in the tubes ?
A.—There is one every 40 feet on each side.
Mr.—Richards : Is there any way in which you can inspect the work before it is taken
off the hands of the contractor ?
A.—Yes, we can inspect the whole system. The work has not been taken off his hands.
On the completion of the work we can inspect it, and at the end of six months we inspect it
again, and the contractor receives the balance of ten per cent, due him. The eight inch sewer
is inspected by lanterns. Through the eighteen inch sewer a man can go. By holding a
lantern at one end you can see from man-hole to man-hole.
Q.—Have you lately discovered any pipes broken.
A.—Yes, a week or two ago, on Store Street. (Clause 33 read.) We ascertained
that some pipes were improperly laid. The contractor is now taking them up and making
them good.
Q.—How did you discover that they were broken.
A.—Examined them. Mr. Wilmot can tell you the details of the work. Owing to the
nature of the ground I have put in side timbers. Without these drains I could not have completed the sewers. The soil was partly sand, partly clay, and partly peat for some thousands
of feet, and very difficult to work, insomuch so that it has to be timbered from the top in
nearly every ease.
Q.—Is not that kind of soil easily disturbed by making a box drain.
A.—The soil was filled in along with sand.
Q.—Do you call that a solid foundation ? Is it not the custom with that kind to put in
some solid soil ?    Why did you lay the two-inch plank ?
A.—Because the concrete has to settle before it can be used.
Court : Was the only object in laying the two-inch plank to make a false work for the
concrete 1    Is is not possible that the concrete will settle irregularly ?
A.—It will not.
Q.—On what do you base that ?
A.— On considerable experience.
Q.—Did you ever build a sewer of that kind before ?
A.—I built a piece of one in Vancouver.
Q.—Did you have any of this class of soil ?
A.—We had some places pretty bad.
Q.—Did you build it in this way 1
A.—I drove piles.
Q.—Why did you do that ?
A.—To rest the pipes on.
Q.—Is there any danger of an irregular settlement of the concrete ?
A.—The sand makes a good foundation when you get the water out of it.
Q.—How do you get the water out of the drain ?
A.—We pump it out.
Q.—How do you get the water out of the earth beside the box drain?
A.—By keeping a steam pump going.
 cxxviii. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
Q.—What do you know about the details of the work in question ?
A.—I was there three or four times a week, and know that if the bottom is clear an inch
or two of water will run at a very good rate.
Q.—Do you know if the bottom is settling?
A.—It did not at the time, and I am confident that it has not.
Q.—What did you do besides put a two-inch plank in the bottom of the peat bog ?
A.—Nothing but put it in the earth.
Q.—You simply put back the earth ?
A.—Yes, sir.
Q.—I am informed there is a danger of the sewer settling irregularly.    Do  you think so ?
A.—No, sir.    I should not object if the plank were removed now.
Q.—Does the contractor pay for the excavation ?
A.—Yes.    We pay for the lumber.
Q.—So you pay the contractor for this timber drain. That is a change in the specitica-
tions.    Did you consult the Sewerage Commissioners ?
A.—I probably did inform them. That is an engineering point on which the Commissioners have to take his opinion.
The Court: I have a recollection of a clause in the specifications about this.
[Clause 58, page 15, read.]
A.—We pay for the timber for this drain.
The Court : Why should you provide him with timber?
A.—For the purpose of keeping the drain dry. It says that he shall do all pumping and
draining.    It does not say that he shall do it with his own pump and use his own timber.
Q.—That was the lumber left in the drain ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—And was that contracted for ?
A.—Yes, there was provision made for this.
Q.—And is the contractor to be paid for this lumber ?
A.—I suppose so, but it can't be much. Clause 76, page 17, provides for it: "In the
event of it being necessary to leave any temporary timber in the trench, to avoid the danger of
setts, the contractor will, upon the written certificate of the engineer, be paid for such timbering
as may have been left in the trench."
Q.—And you think that covers this case ?
A.—Yes, I do.
The Court :     Could it have been removed ?
A.—No, my Lord.     If wTe tried to take it out we would have had the trench falling in.
Mr. Bodwell:    And you think this a good arrangement to make ?
A—I do.
The Court: Any other drain might have been made. Supposing he didn't use the pump,
he would have had to adopt some other means. He used the pump. He might have bailed it
out for instance ?
Witness :    He could not have done that, my Lord.
The Court:    Why not ?
A.—It could not be done.
The Court: You have heard of the man who declared that while there might be a
financial difficulty there was no engineering difficulty.
Witness :    It is practically impossible to bail it out.
The Court : However that may be, he put in this pump for purposes of economy. He
thought it the cheapest way I suppose.    You didn't provide him with the pump ?
A.—No, my Lord.
The Court:    That is not what you would call temporary timber, is it ?
A.—It had to be used, and under certain conditions might have been removed.
The Court: It is not for the purpose of making the trench, seeing that it had been
already made.    After all, this is only a matter of a few hundred dollars ?
Witness :   And we can knock it off next time.
Mr. Bodwell:   What is going to be the cost of this timber ?
A.—It can't be much ; not more than a few hundred dollars.
Q.—But you will have to pay for it ?
A.—We only pay the contractor sums on account. Another drain would have cost more.
The pipes alone would be 6c. per foot.
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. cxxix.
Q.—How far does this drain extend ?
A.—To Snowden street, and part on Cook street.    I don't exactly know.
The Court : You told us that the man-holes were a certain distance apart ; you can
calculate from that ?
Witness :    Mr. Wilmott will be able to tell you that; I think it goes to Southcote street.
Mr. Bodwell:    How is it now ?
A.—It is choked with earth where it is not full of water.
Q.—Choked with earth ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—And full of water?
A.—It is under water.
Q.—Then, as I understand you, you say that it won't be destroyed as it is as lumber
under water ?
A.—It is wet mud—mud in a liquid state, which has the same preserving effect as water.
Q.—But it is choked now ?
A.—Yes.    The water is bound to remain there, from the nature of the place.
(Plan and drawings of pipes submitted.)
Q.—These are connections.    What size are these ?
A.—That is simply a typical plan, representing any pipe.
Q.—Supposing this to be the typical, you say it would have to be taken at a certain width ?
A.—It would require three feet eight inches for the trench itself.
Q.—If that was not done what would have to be ?
A.—They would have to be cut out.
Q.—If that were the 20-inch pipe what size pocket would be required ?
A.—If it were cut through you would either have to cut the trench from the top or undermine.
Q.—If you didn't dig the trench how would you put in that junction ?
A,—We would have to make a hole about a foot longer.
Q.—When a contractor has 20 feet for his excavations does he do that ?
The Court.   He told us all that in his examination in chief.
Witness : For both 18-inch and 20-inch pipes the trenches were taken out. He had two
stages, making 4 feet 4 inches, and we only called for 3 feet 9 inches. A great deal of that
work has been done.
Q.—What have you done with the smaller pipe ?
A.—We use them considerably.
The Court: You have heard it stated by two witnesses that there was a crack in the
concrete, and you say that it is impossible that it could be so ?
A.—I never saw a crack in it.
The Court: Two witnesses proved it. One of them produced the knife he inserted in it.
There can be no mistake.
A.—I never saw that crack.
The Court: Call it a crack, or an aperture, or a hole, or whatever you will, but it has
been proved that it was there. Then it has been stated that the water, instead of flowing out
of the sewer, was flowing back towards the City.
A —I don't think it is. I saw leaves floating up, but I believe they were driven by
the wind. There were a series of dams put in, so that there has not been any outlet from the
sewer for months.    There has been a lot of water standing in the sewer.
The Court : Do you think it was the draught through those man-holes that forced those
leaves back ?
A.—I think so.    There has been a lot of water in that sewer.
Mr. Bodwell :   Now, with regard to that crack which has been spoken of ?
A. —I would like to see it. I would also like to see where there is but three inches of
concrete, and I would make the contractor attend to it.     We call for nine inches.
Q.—How are you going to test whether these joints are water-tight or not?
A.—They must be; they are cast to fit in the moulds,
Q.—Were they tested ?
A.—They were
Q—Where?
A.—In the shop
 cxxx. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
Q.—How were they tested ?
A.—When they fit after grease and tallow we think they are tight.
Q.—Have you tested whether the sewer pipes are ?
A.—Yes, we tested them for absorption.
The Court : About two months ago, it is stated, the water run up on the Chinese farm.
You say it was impregnated with water.    Did it run to the crown of the concrete arch ?
A.—I think it went to the inside of the crown.
The Court: Then the water could not run out ?
A.—It could not.
The Court : If there was a crack in the sewer the water could run out but could not run in.
The Court: It could not run if there was a dam there.
The Court : Do you know that the earth was saturated ?
A.—The bottom of the outlet is higher than the crown of the sewer.
Mr. Bodwell : How did you ascertain what the levels were ?
A.—We took the levels all along. Of course we didn't know what we were going
through until we tried it.
Q.—When the pipes were laid, and before the trench was filled in, did you make any test
as to whether these joints were water-tight or not ?
A.—No.     There is no means of testing until you have the whole sewer complete.
Q.—Could you not block up one end and see if it would stand the test ?
A.—No, but they are supposed to stand a pressure. As a matter of fact, these are the
best pipes made.
Re-examined by Mr. Richards : As a matter of fact the water is all over ground from
Cook to Moss streets ?
A.—It is.
Q.—And the natural consequence is that those pipes are surrounded by water ?
A.—It is.
Q.—Before this work is taken off the hands of the contractor it will be tested ?
A.—Yes. If they stand this under water for five or six months it is all right, but they
will have to stand a year's trial.
Q.—A lot has been said as to who is to pay for this timber, but it will only amount to
$200 or $300.    Is that so ?
A—Yes.
Q.—Do you know where they tried to have this little drain at the side that my friend
speaks of?
A.—No; I would have objected to it.
[Rough sketch by the Chief Justice handed to witness.]
Q.—Your theory is that the water would have to run in that way ?
A.—It would run into the crack and not out of it.
The Court: Is it not a square box and water-tight ?
A.—It is a wooden box.
The Court : May water not be dropping into the sewer on Moss street ? How does the
water run out of the sewer into the box drain ?
A.—I don't know.
Mr. Richards :    If this water was not taken away by this it would have to be carried off?
A.—Yes. The water could not escape, as the bottom of the drain on Moss street is five
feet or six feet above the level of this box.
The Court: This box drain is too small to keep the place dry and the sewer clear.
Witness : We pumped water into the sewer to keep the concrete wet and allow it to set,
Alexander McBean.    Examined by Mr. Taylor :—
Q.—How deep is the average run of concrete in this sewer ?
A.—Nine inches. That is, nine inches all through; you may find a place where the
concrete has " lumped," where it would be a half an inch or so less.
Q.—There is no more than an inch variation, to your knowledge ?
A.—There is not an inch anywhere.
Q.—I don't know whether you heard this statement about the penknife being put in
through the concrete by Mr. Stamford ?
A — Well, I have been putting down concrete for about thirty-five years, and I can say
that you can't lay concrete without having here and there little cracks.    You can't help it;
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. cxxxi.
the sun or hot weather will make little cracks ; but after we are finished then we send a man
along with what we call grout, and he plasters up these little cracks. This is very strong.
Our concrete is five to one, but this stuff we make two to one. It may have been that they
went along there some time before this was clone, and so found one of these little cracks.
Q.—You heard Mr. Keene's reference to a number of places ; he swore it was only two to
three inches thick, and that Mr. Stamford stuck a knife into the sewer below ?
A.—I will give him $50 if he will point out to me a place where there is six inches.
Q.—You say that that could not have occurred?
A.—No, sir; it could not have occurred. He might have found a small crack next a rock
and put his knife in there.
Mr. Bodwell : You have been digging out these trenches to the necessary width specified
in the bills of quantities ?
A.—I have averaged more. I could show you places where there is six feet taken out for
a four feet trench.
Q.—That is occasioned where there is rock blasting to be done ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Do you consider it necessary for a ten inch pipe to have the trench two feet nine at
the bottom 1
A.—Well, I let my foreman attend to the digging of the trenches.
Q.—But would you make it two feet nine ?
A.—I tendered for two feet nine for that. I won't say without I look at it. (Looking
at specifications.) Yes, sir ; two feet nine for ten-inch pipe. I have got my figures right here
in my pocket.    Yes, two feet nine; I figured on that.
Q.—Now, take your 12-inch pipe; what did you figure on that?
A.—I haven't got that down.
Q.—It is three feet three at the bottom ; did you make it that width ?
A.—I have the 18-inch pipe here; three feet nine I have got it.
Q.—When did you make that estimate 1
A.— When I figured on it.
Q.— Speaking as a contractor, would you say that a 12-inch pipe ought to have a trench
three feet three at the bottom ?
A.—The specifications are always made out wider than what the pipe is.
Q —What do you say is the necessary width for a twelve-inch pipe?
A.—Twelve-inch ? Oh, a contractor would lay as near as he could, I suppose, so long as
he lays the pipe. There was an engineer present witnessing the laying of the pipe, and I
suppose he would have told us if we had laid any wrong.
Mr. Keefer, of the engineering firm of Keefer & Smith, called by Mr. Richards :—
Q.—What is your profession, Mr. Keefer ?
A.—Civil Engineer.
Q.—How long have you been practising ?
A.—A little over thirty-five years.
Q.—On what kind of works ?
A.—Railway, canal, water works, sewer, and reclamation works.
Q.—There was an engineer here from New York; Rudolph Hering was his name, I think.
How does he stand in your profession ?
A. — He ranks pretty high, and he is very well known to the members of the profession.
He is at present a director of the American Society of Civil Engineers. That is a pretty high
rating.
Q.—Is he considered an authority in the profession ?
A.—I have always thought so. I have never come in contact with him personally, but I
have known him by reputation for the last twenty-five years.
Q.—Is he a high or low authority ?
A.—High authority.    I have never heard it questioned.
Q.—Do you think he would be a proper man to be consulted by the city with reference to
a sewerage scheme ?
A.—I should place every reliance on Mr. Hering in a matter of this kind.
Q.—You know this place down here at the junction of Cook street, where the sewer runs?
A.—Generally ; I don't know the exact location,
 cxxxii. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
Q.—You know it is covered with water in the winter ?
A.—Yes, sir.
Q.—It seems the sewer has been carried through there. That has been proved to be a
plan of it ?
A.—Yes, sir.
Q.—You see there is a little box drain below, of wood. It is round here. This is cement.
Here is the sewer ?
A.—Yes, sir.
Q.—Well, is it necessary in constructing a sewer of this kind to get rid of the water you
find in the earth ?
A.—Invariably.     It is always an item in the contract.
Q.—You know that is a bog down there?
A.—I know it is very low ground.    I don't know what the soil is.
Q.—You think that is a proper way to drain that; as an engineer, are there any objections
to that ?
A.—None that I can see at all, provided your foundations are secure.
Q.—Well, now, is there any probability of that being covered with water—that low part?
A—That depth would be so saturated that I would consider it practically indestructible.
I have built walls of masonry under very much the same circumstances.
The Court :    Have you ever been in Venice ?
A.—No, my Lord.
The Court told of the age of the famous Cathedral of St. Mark's, which has stood for so
many centuries, and whose foundations are built on timber under water.
Mr. Richards : There has been a good deal said about ditches; you have heard the matter
discussed here ?
A.—Yes, sir.
Q.—What is the practice with reference to excavations ?
A.—It is generally left to the discretion of the engineers; but a contractor must have
room to lay his pipe.    It is the duty of the inspector to see to that, however.
Mr. Bodwell:  In concrete sewers it does not matter if there is a slight crack ?
A.—If there is a crack at all I should say it does matter very materially.
Q.—In making a concrete sewer you would have to prevent any kind of a crack ?
A.—1 should consider a crack in concrete very objectionable.
Q.- -All that you say is based on the qualification that you have a good foundation ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—What would you call a good foundation in work of that kind ?
A.—Any ordinary material would form a good foundation.
Mr. H. B. Smith.    Examined by Mr. Taylor :—
Q.—What is your occupation, Mr. Smith ?
A.—I am a civil engineer.
Q.—Partner of Mr. Keefer's ?
A.—I am.
Q.—Have you had any experience in sewerage and drainage work?
A.—Not with sewerage.    Sewerage has not been a branch of my practice at all.
Q.—What has been your practice ?
A.—Principally railways and water works.
Q.—How many years' experience ?
A.—Twenty-three years.
Q.—You have heard Mr. Keefer's testimony that has been given here with regard to that
sub-drain ; what is your opinion ?
A.—I consider it is necessary to have a drain there.
Q.—What would be the effect of that sub-drain upon the permanency of this sewer afterwards ?
A.—If the soil it is in is constantly wet it is practically indestructible. We have examples
of timber that has been immersed in water that has been there for 1600 years, and is quite as
good as when put in.
Q.—There was some testimony given that in case the sub-drain were to give way there
would be a depression caused in the sewer pipe proper ?
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. cxxxiii.
A.—Well, I made a rough calculation a short time ago, and I think concrete at that
distance is able to stand a pressure of 43 tons.
Q.—Then if that box drain were to rot away, you don't think there would be pressure
enough to cause a subsidence ?
A.—I don't think so.
Q.—Now, with regard to cracking?
A.—If it is subject to irregular settlement there would be cracks. In any case I presume
it is not possible to get a perfectly homogeneous mass of concrete at any time ; there is liable
to be cracks, but I won't say from my own experience.
Q.—You haven't had much experience?
A.—Not in concrete.
Q.—At all events, in your opinion, from that soil as it has been described there is no
danger of that sub-drain rotting ?
A.—I don't think so.
Adamson Parker, called and sworn.    Examined by Mr. Taylor :—
Q.—Have you had any experience in the construction of sewerage, Mr. Parker?
A.—Yes.
Q.—In what capacity ?
A.—Engineer for the contractor and clerk of the works.
Q.—Where was that ?
A.—At Lincoln, England.
Q.—How long were you engaged on that work ?
A.—On that work ?    Probably about two years.
Q.—Have you had much experience in sewerage work?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Well, you had some work in connection with the sewerage work in Victoria ?
A.—Yes, I have been inspector here, yes.
Q.—Employed by whom ?
A.—By the City.
Q.— Under Mr. Mohun ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—What were your principal duties?
• A.—To see that the work was properly carried out.
Q.—Can you say anything now as to the depth of concrete in the main sewer ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—How deep was it ?
A.—About nine inches.
Q.—Did you measure it at all ?
A.—Yes ; but where it was done it was bound to be nine inches.
Q.—As inspector, have you been there during the course of construction ?
A.—Yes, all along.    There was no work done that I was not there to see it was done.
Q.—Now, how much of the sewer proper had been constructed up to September last ?
A.—On Cook Street and Snowden Street, the whole of the invert had been done.
Q.—How far out was that ?
A.—It is as far out as it changes into tho small sewer.
The Court: That is just outside Mr. Drake's house, Southcott Street ?
A.—I think that is the name, yes.
Q.—Well, would it have been possible for anyone to go along there, the top of that, and
ascertain the thickness of the concrete in the invert of the sewer.
A.—They could not.
Q.—Why ?
A.—Because, when it was all open a complete egg shape was made.
Q.—Then you could not tell, going along and looking at it from above, what the thickness
of the concrete was ?
A.—No, of course you could not.
Q.—Can you get to the ends and see ?    You could not tell, except at the ends.
A.—Not unless you break it open and look in.
Q.—Can you tell anything about putting a knife into it?
A.—Could not put a knife into it.
 cxxxiv. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
Q.—Could not?
A.—No, couldn't put a knife through concrete. Here is a sample of the work. (Produced). If you can get a knife through that you'd better try. That is a sample picked up at
the works, and it is about six weeks old, and that is a fair sample of the concrete that went in.
The rest of that where that was taken from has gone in.
Q.—Does not concrete work ever crack ?
A.—Not when it is set, it can't crack.
Q.—But in the setting ?
A.—If it was not set, and anything was to give way, it would crack. Sixteen months it
takes to thoroughly set. That is what Grant, who is one of the experts, and Assistant
Engineer of the Board of Works, London, says; and these are some of his data on concrete.
Q.—Do you know whether any of this cracked or not?
A.—Oh, I don't know, if you like to call it a crack ; now I call to mind, it was in August
and we were going along on Cook Street. During that month there was a lot of heavy rain
and I noticed there was one place where there had been a stream coming through a little
crack there, that they hadn't possibly stopped up at the time. That was on Cook Street,
about two or three inches above the channel pipe.
Q.—Was there any in the bottom of the invert ?
A.—There could not be any there, because the channel pipe forms the bottom of the invert.
Q.--I mean the concrete underneath the pipe before the pipe was laid ?
A.—There could not be, because it is all concrete. The tunnel is split channel pipe, and
it is surrounded with concrete and laid on concrete, and there is no possibility of a crack in it,
because it is all one homogeneous mass of concrete.
The Court: On the top, that is all concrete ?
A.—All beyond that is concrete.
Mr. Bodwell, cross-examining: I understand you to say that if concrete was properly
made, it would be impossible to shove a knife through it ?
A.—When it was set.    Of course, if you look at that piece you can see for yourself.
Q.—And that concrete cannot shrink or expand ?
Q.—I didn't say ;  I was not examined particularly on that.
Q.—There was a crack in the side that you knew of?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Were you in Court to hear what Mr. Keene had to say as to that ?
A.—No.
Q.—It was said here that he had made a false statement. Mr. Keene spoke of this crack
in the sewer, and you admit that it was there.
The Court: It was between Cook Street and Moss Street that this was done.
Mr. Bodwell: Mr. Keene spoke of the crack in the side of the sewer, and it was insinuated that Mr. Keene had made a deliberate misstatement with reference to the sewer. To
witness : Did you know about this crack in the bottom ?
A.—There is no crack in the bottom.
Q.—You never looked for a crack in the bottom ; that was not your business ? It would
be absolutely impossible to put a knife down through the concrete if it was properly constructed ?
A.—Certainly. See if you can get a knife an inch or so through that (pointing to
sample). I suppose if there was a place where a space occurred between two stones that you
might get a knife half an inch or so through it.
Q.—That is between stones you say ?
A.—But not when the work was finished, you could not; because when the work is
finished it is quite a smooth surface.
Q.—You say part of the top half of the arch is not made of bricks but concrete ?
A—Yes.
Q.—How can you make that tight ?    Can you fasten that ?
A.—Yes, it is done over with cement afterwards.
Q.—You think that stops up any holes ?
A.—I know it does.
Q.—If that was not properly joined, what would have been the effect—there would be a
space between—there would be nothing to bind them ?
A.—No,
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. cxxxv.
Q.—And there would be a liability of a spring ?
A.—What do you mean by a spring ?
Q.—There is nothing there to keep it together?
A.—There is the earth there.
Q.—It might fall in from the side ?
A.—No, from the centre.
Q.—That would crack in other parts of the sewer if it did ?
A.—Of course it would if it did.
Q.—Now, it was a fact that the plan that Mr. Hering adopted was for a brick arch.
Isn't it the usual plan in building concrete sewers to make them all concrete, and to build all
at one time ?
A.—Of course it is.
Q.— In the ordinary course of things, you would  not build concrete sewers at all ?
A.;—The fact is, concrete sewer is better than brick in this case because you can't get a
good brick here at all.
Q.—You can't make connections with that sewer, except where you have made apertures?
A.—Not unless you take hammer and chisel.
Q.—Then you ruin the whole work, don't you ?
A.—Then you don't make connections in that way ; you generally put in junction pipes.
Q.—You can take bricks out at any place necessary, and there would be a possibility of
making it all right ?
A.—Of course you can.
Q.—When you knock off a bit of concrete, you have afterwards to cement the place over
again ?
A.—We go all over it with cement.
Q.—It will be a question for time to decide whether that makes a good joint or not,—you
can't swear whether that is a proper joint now ?
A.—Oh, yes, I think it is.
Q.—Have you tested it since it was built ?
A.'—No : how would you test it ?
Mr. Taylor : Were you in the office when Mr. Hering approved of certain plans and
alterations ?
A.—No, sir.
Q.—Then you don't know what was in these plans ?
A.—No, except what was altered by Mr. Mohun. Of course it is in his power under
the specifications to alter anything.
Q.—Would it not be possible, before this cement had set, to run you knife down through
crevices adjoining the channel pipes ?
A.—Yes, you see, when the work was green.
Q.—Would it not be possible (showing witness profile of work) to run a knife down that
at the side of the channel pipe there ?
A.—No, because the channel pipe was laid in two to one cement, that is two of cement
and one of sand in water.
Q.—When the work was green you say you took a trowel and went all over it with this ?
A.—Yes.
Mr. Bodwell : Doesn't Portland cement expand in setting ?
A.—I won't say, because I haven't had very great experience in Portland cement.
Mr. Richards : We don't intend to call any more witnesses, my Lord.
Mr. Bodwell: That is the case for the petitioners, my Lord. I don't intend to call any
evidence in rebuttal.
 cxxxvi. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
Wednesday, February 3rd, 1892.
The Court assembled at two o'clock in the afternoon.
Present : His Lordship the Chief Justice and Hon. Mr. Justice Drake.
Mr. Jordan, examined by Mr. Taylor:
Q.—What is your Christian name, Mr. Jordan ?
A.—Frederick George.
Q.—What is your occupation ?
A.—Draughtsman.
Q.—For the ?
A.—For the City of Victoria.
Q.—In what department?
A.—In the Sewerage Engineer's office.
Q.—Have you had much experience in that capacity, or in connection with public works ?
A.—Yes, in construction principally, for 25 years.
Q.—Where, and in what character ?
A.—In England; principally bridge work and public works, such as bridge building and
railway construction in Africa, where I was district clerk of the works.
Q.—Have you had much experience in the construction of drains or water works ?
A.—That generally comes in with that kind of work.
Q.—You have had experience in that class of work ?
A—Yes.
Q.—Where was that ?
A.—In England.
Q.—You might just shortly go over what your experience was in that kind of work ?
A.—System of drainage for the Grand Stand, Newmarket, which was in fact a system in
itself ; house connections in England; drainage in the precincts of Canterbury Cathedral.
Q.—You had much experience in water works ?
A.—Yes, during the time of my articles, and in Africa I had the construction, principally,
of the Durban water works in Natal.
Q.—Any others in the Transvaal?
A.—In railway construction there is always more or less drainage in putting in culverts,
and building drains to take the water away, and that kind of thing to do.
Q.—You are employed now in connection with the sewerage works of Victoria ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Have you been over the works at all ?
A.—That is not my business; that is not my duty.
Q.—Do you know anything in connection with them ?
A.—Only as a visitor.
Q.—You know the system ?
A.—Yes, of course I know.
Q.—Now, this system of box drain underneath—what have you to say about that; is it
proper or improper ?
A.—I think, under the circumstances, it is the very best possible system that could be
adopted.
Q._Why ?
A.—Simply because it is simple and based on sound engineering.
The Court: You are alluding now to the box drains under the sewer between Cook street
and Moss street ?
A.—Yes, my Lord.
Q —You say it is sound engineering?
A.—Certainly.
Q. —Upon what principle do you say that ?
A.—That the material forms a solid level, and clean base in which to lay your concrete
sewer upon, and makes a solid homogeneous centre, and, being hermetically sealed, it is not
subject to wet rot.
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. cxxxvii.
Q. —You say that is a principle of engineering ?
A.—Certainly.
Q. —You say you haven't been over the works, but they can't be very strange to you ?
A.— I  have drawn all the plans under the  instructions   of  the   chief engineer.    I am
thoroughly acquainted with the system.
Q.—You are not in a position to say whether this is under water ?
A.—Yes, I have seen it; there is water there.
Q.—Do you say there will be water there all the time?
A.—Yes, certainly, unless the Straits run dry.
Q.—Do you know whether this is not the principle upon which works of this kind ought
to be executed ?
A.—Yes ; and it is the principle usually adopted by engineers.
The Court: Do you mean that to build a wooden drain under a concrete sewer is a principle
usually adopted ?
A.—Yes, my Lord.
The Court: To put a wooden sewer underneath ?
A.—Yes, my Lord.
The Court:    Do you mean to say that that is the only method ?
A.—It is really the only practicable position in this instance for the drain. If you under
mine the side of the walls, they are apt to cave upon you, and this is certainly the most feasible
method of carrying away your water.
The Court: You mean to say that in that particular instance that is the principle any
engineer would have adopted ?
A.—Yes; I think nineteen out of twenty engineers would have adopted it.
The Court: In that particular instance ?
A.—Yes, my Lord.
Mr. Taylor : That is why I asked him that question, my Lord. (To witness): That is
what you mean ?
A.—That is what I mean.
The Court : If it was passing through a gravel-bearing strata, not flooded with water,
you would not do it ?
A.—It would not be necessary, my Lord.    There would be no water to carry off.
The Court:    There might be a good deal of water ?
A.—But not at the time of construction, my Lord.
Mr. Taylor : Were you in the office of the Engineer at the time the tenders were called
for this work ?
A—Yes,
Q.—Will you look at these and tell us whether they were the tracings hung in the
Engineer's office at the time tenders were called for ?
A.—Yes, these are they.
Q.—These are the tracings that were hung in the office at the time tenders were made ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Were these the tracings that tenderers could see at the time ?
A.—Yes, these were the tracings tacked upon the walls of the office, where contractors
could see them at any time.
Q.—Are these the duplicates from which contracts were made ?
A—Yes.
Q.—Do you know anything of the width of these trenches required by the contract to be
made?
A —The widths of the trenches were specified by the scale to admit the construction of
the pipe junction.
Q.—Have you the widths of these junctions ?
A.—Yes, I have. 20-inch pipe is 22 from the centre line of the branch ; the 18-inch,
201; the 15-inch, 19; the 12-inch, 16-L; the 10-inch, 15|; the 9-inch, 15|; the 8-inch, 13|
That provides nothing for the thickness of timbers to support the walls of your trench.
Q.—That does not provide for this ?
A.—No.
Q.—These are the actual width of the different trenches right along ?
A.—Yes.
 cxxxviii. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
Q.—Are these the actual measurements all the way through, or are they the mean or
general measurements ?
A.—The pipes vary a little, if you notice. These are what I consider a fair mean, not
taking the widest or the narrowest—a fair working mean.
Mr. Bodwell (cross-examining):   So that a trench 3 ft. 8 in. wide means less the timber ?
A.—Yes.
The Court: Why do you have your junctions at the side; why don't you put them on
the top ?
A.—Because you could not make your house connections if you put it on the top. They
are placed a little on the incline anyway.
Witness illustrated this from samples of pipe in court.
Q.—Where are these pipes chipped ?
A.—In the yard.
Q.—Don't that crack them generally.    There is great danger in that?
A.—Not all.
Q.—When pipes are properly made, you should not have to chip them like this ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—How do you know that ?
A.—Simply because the freshness of the breakage in tho material gives it proper adhesive
qualities.
Q.—And the sewerage works—have you charge of them?
A.—None at all.
Q.—Have you ever had any experience in making joints of this kind ?
A.—No, but these are from the ?
Q.—You are speaking from theory ?
A.—No, practically.
Q.—Where have you seen it done in practice ?
A.—If you take a clean pipe that is not chipped, there is more or less smooth surface.
A joint made when a pipe is in that condition is likely to part sooner than would one that is
chipped and which has an uneven surface.
Q.—Are you not in danger of fracturing your pipe ?
A.—Not at all.
Q.—Did you ever see a pipe scored to make that joint ?
A.—This pipe is scored.
Q.—Then why do you chip them ?
A.—Simply to make a better joint.
Q.—That is to say it is a better plan to take a pipe of that character and chip it by an
inexperienced workman than ?
A.—These are not inexperienced workmen, they are expert at it.
Q.—That is your opinion—in fact you do not know anything at all from practical
experience ?
A—Well-
Q.—You have been a draughtsman ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Been employed as draughtsman principally?
A.—Yes.
Q.—You never had charge of any work of construction ?
A—Yes.
Q.—As engineer-in-chief ?
A.—Not as engineer-in-chief, but as superintendent of bridge construction—of the Durban.
I was also resident engineer of the works for the construction of the Durban water works.
Q.—What did you have to do there ?
A.—Look after the building of the works.
Q.—I am speaking now of sewerage works?
A.—No, no sewerage works.
Q.—Your sewerage experience has been confined to ?
A.—House connections in buildings.
Q.—What have you been employed in ?
A.—I was engaged in the renovation works of Canterbury Cathedral
 55 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. cxxxix.
Q.—You had some experience in making house connections for that work ?
A.—There was always a lot to do there.
Q.—Were you there as engineer in charge ?
A.—No, I was one of the assistants.
Q.—Did you prepare the plans ?
A.—No, I did not.
Q.—Did you prepare the specifications ?
A.—I had to go round the works, take the men's time sometimes, and see generally that
the work was done properly.
Q.—But you were not responsible for any part of that work ?
A.—No.
Q.—And the rest of your experience has been in culverts in railway works ?
A.—And of course to prepare the plans.
Q.—Then upon what authority do you come here and say this is the proper way to construct this sewer ?
A.—I haven't said so.
Q.—I understood you to say that this is a very proper proceeding ?
A.—Certainly, because it is a safe base.
Q.—Upon what part of your experience, or knowledge, or authority, as an engineer, do
you base that opinion ?
A.—General experience in dragging foundations, and knowing the way it is to be done.
Q.—That is the general opinion, but not practical experience ?
A.—It is twenty-five years' practical experience.
Q.—I don't find where your practical experience comes in. Did you ever see a sewer
built under the earth with a box drain underneath it—a concrete sewer ?
A.—No, I did not.
Q.—Did you make any changes in these plans ?
A—No.
Q.—To none of these plans or tracings that were handed in to Mr. Hering ?
A.—I don't know what was handed into Mr. Hering.
Q.—Did you make any change in the plans or tracings ?
A.—I don't know what	
Q.—Oh, you were not employed until afterwards ?
A.—I was employed in October.
The Court: October last year ?
A.—October twelve month.
Q.—Where you employed while Mr. Mohun was preparing his designs ?
A.—No.
Q.—You didn't come in until after the contracts were let 1
A.—Before the contracts were let.
Q.—Before Mr. Hering put in his report had you anything to do with it ?
A.—No.
The Court : Do I understand you to say that you have had twenty-five years' experience
during which time you have had practical experience with sewers ?
A.—Yes, my Lord.    Not with systems of sewerage, but connections with existing sewers.
Q.—You say all your life you never saw one of these box drains used ?
A.—I never saw a similar drain.
Edward Ashley Wilmot sworn.    Examined by Mr. Taylor :
Q.—You are resident engineer of the Victoria works at present ?
A.—Yes, sir.
Q.—How long have you been engaged in that occupation?
A—Since October, 1890.
Q.—There has been a statement made here, Mr. Wilmot, that the water flows the wrong
way in that sewer.    Will you explain to their Lodships regarding the grades ?
A.—I can't explain.
Q.—How are the grades?
A.—The grades are correct.
Q.—How do you mean—correct according to the plans ?
 cxl. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. 1891
A.—According to the profiles.
Q.—Upon what grounds do you state that ?
A.—On the grounds that I have followed out the grades and checked the levels thoroughly. _
[Witness explained from the plans the system of checking the grades.]
Q.—Do you know anything about the width of these trenches ?
A.—The proper width for laying the pipe, do you mean ?    They are the necessary width.
Q.—Are they too great ?
No.—No, I haven't noticed any that they are too great.
Q.—Would it be possible in building a sewer of that kind just to excavate sufficient to
lay the pipe ?
A.—In a great many cases it would entail a great deal more work. For instance, where
it is clayey soil it has to be timbered. After that they would have to cut away every 30 or
40 yards to adjust the junctions.
Q.—It would be some expense then, to confine the work to a straight line ?
A.—I should think it would. Because they can't tell where these junctions will come in
when they are excavating the trench, and they can't provide for them at the time.
Q.—You are familiar with this box drain ?
A.—I have seen it built.
Q.—What have you to say to that as an engineer ?
A.—I think that plank foundation is the proper thing to put there. It is soft material,
not hardly what you would call quicksand, but it is a runny, wet sand, and by planking it it
gives it a uniform bearing ; and as to the danger of going down, I have a little calculation
here which will show that the complete sewer, half filled with water, is lighter than the same
space occupied by the material that was there before. Thus there is now less weight on the
foundation of the sewer than there would be if the excavation were filled in again with earth.
The material of the sewer is rather heavier than the earth, but then being hollow, there is not
so much of it.
Q.—That is a practical explanation of it—those figures ?
A.—Yes.
Q.—Is there any danger after this sewer is constructed of it sinking with this box drain
underneath it ?
A.—No, I can't say that there is, because there is no tendency for it to sink.
Q.—Is there any danger from this box drain of the sewer above cracking ?
A.—No, I can't see how there could be.
Q.—Do you say that as an engineer ?
A.—That is my opinion.
Q.—Is there any danger of this box drain rotting ?
A.—No, I don't see that there is. It is constantly wet, and in that position is practically
imperishable.
Q.—Is there any danger of this box drain sinking at all ?
A.—Why, no ; because the drain itself is lighter than the material it displaces, and there
is no greater pressure in the area of the foundation of the box drain now than there would be
in the same area if the box drain was not there.
Q.—Is there any danger of the area above, of the concrete sewer pressing it down ?
A.—No, not if the sewer is laid evenly.
Q.—Do you know anything about the thickness of the concrete in the sewer ?
A.—It is specified for nine inches.
Q.—Is it executed for that?
A.—It is executed for that as far as I see, and I see it frequently.
Q.—What do you mean by frequently ?
A.—Two or three times a week.
Q.—Do you see it often?
A.—I inspected it several times. I could tell by the grade of the sewer every time I
went there if the water was running all right.
Mr. Bodwell:—Where was the water running ?
A.—In the box drain.
Mr. Taylor : There is a sketch put in here by Mr. Keene, Have you looked at this
sketch at all Mr. Wilmot ?
A.—No, I haven't examined it.
 Vict. Royal Commission—Victoria Municipality. cxli.
Q.—Can't you tell whether it is true to the scale ?    What is the scale ?
Mr. Keene :  Quarter full size.
After explanation form the sketch Q.—Then his  sketch  is  decidedly a fancy sketch,
and does not show the work as actually executed ?
A.—No, it does not in important particulars.
Mr. Bodwell : You say in clayey soil these trenches would have to be timbered ?
A.—In some cases.
Q.—Is that your experience as an engineer?
A.—Yes.
Q.—You are an engineer ?
A.—Yes, my Lord.
The Court :    You are acquainted with the engineers of name and fame on the continent ?
A.—Yes, my Lord, with some of them.
Q.—Did you ever hear of Mr. Rudolph Hering before he was connected with this
scheme ?
A.—Yes, I have heard him spoken of as an engineer.
Q.—Were you acquainted with him ?
A.—No, my Lord, I was not acquainted with him.
Q.—You have been acquainted with his reputation ?
A.—Yes, my Lord, as a sanitary engineer, that's all.
Q.—What is his reputation ?
A.—Well, I think it is a good reputation. He has written works on sanitary engineering
which are considered authorities.
Mr. Bodwell :    What works did he write, Mr. Wilmot?
A.—I haven't read them myself, but I have heard them referred to. In travelling in
Europe he wrote several articles with regard to the different systems of sewerage in the
different cities.
Mr. Taylor : I would just like to put Mr. Keene in the box, my Lord, to see whether he
is a certified engineer or not.
The Court ruled that this was not necessary ; that one of the greatest engineers, Stevenson,
was not a member of any institute.
Counsel not wishing to address the Court on the evidence brought forward at the
Commission, the Court permanently adjourned.
victoria, B. 0.:
Printed by Richard Wolfenden, Printer to the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty.